jur1997_j0212en01

8/13/2019 jur1997_J0212en01

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jur1997j0212en01 1/15

JUDGM ENT OF 9. 3. 1999 — CASE C-212/97

J U D G M E N T O F T H E C O U R T

9 Marck 1999*

In Case C-212/97 ,

REFERENCE t o t he Cour t unde r Ar t i c l e 177 o f t he EC Trea t y by t he Hø j e s t e r e t(Den m ark) for a pre l imina ry ru l ing in the proceeding s pen ding before tha t cou r tbe tween

C e n t r o s L t d

and

Erhve rvs -og Se l skabs s t y r e l s en ,

on the interpretation of Articles 52, 56 and 58 of the EC Treaty,

* Language of the case: Danish.

I - 1484

8/13/2019 jur1997_J0212en01


CENTROS v ERHVERVS-OG SELSKABSSTYRELSEN

T H E C O U R T ,

composed of : G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, Pre siden t, P. J . G . K apte yn , J .-P. Puissochet

G. Hi r sch and P. Jan n (Presidents of Cha m be rs) , G . F. M ancini , J . C. M oit in ho deAl me i da , C . G u l m ann , J . L . M ur ray , D . A . O . Edw ard , H . R a g n e m a l m , L . Sevon,M . Wathelet (Rappor teur ) , R. Schin tgen and K. M. I o a n n o u , Judges ,

Advoca te Genera l : A. La Pergola ,

Regis t ra r : H . vo n H ols te in , D ep uty Regis tra r,

af ter consider ing the wri t ten observat ions submit ted on behalf of :

— Erhv ervs-og Se l skabss tyre lsen , by K am m eradv okaten , represented by Kars ten

Hage l -Sørensen , Ad voka t , C openhag en ,

— the Da nish Go vern m ent , by Pe te r Bier ing , H ead of Div i s ion in the Minis t ryof Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent,

— t he F rench Gove rnm en t , by Kareen Rispal-Bellangcr Deputy Di rec tor in theLegal Affai rs Directorate of the Minis t ry of Foreign Affai rs , and Gaut ierMignot , Secretary for Foreign Affai rs in that Directorate , act ing as Agents ,

I -1485

8/13/2019 jur1997_J0212en01


JUDGMENT OF 9. 3. 1999 — CASE C-212/97

— the N ethe r land s Gov ernm ent , by A dr iaan Bos , Lega l Adv iser in the Min is t ryof Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent,

— the U ni ted K ingd om G ov ernm ent , by Stephanie Rid ley , o f the Treasury Solici to r s De par tm ent , ac t ing as Ag ent , and Der r ick Wyatt Q C ,

— t he Co mm i ss i on o f t he Eu ropea n Com m uni t i e s , by A n t on i o Cae i ro , Lega lAdviser, and Hans Støvlbæk, of i ts Legal Service, acting as Agents,

having regard to the Repor t for the Hear ing ,

af ter hear ing the oral observat ions of Erhvervs-og Selskabsstyrelsen, represented byKars ten Hagel -Sørensen; the French Government , r epresented by Gaut ie r Mignot ;the Nether lands Government , r epresented by Marc Fies t ra , Lega l Adviser in theMinis t ry of Foreign Affai rs , act ing as Agent ; the Swedish Government , representedby Erik Brat tgård, Depar tementsråd in the Legal Service of the Minis t ry of ForeignAffa ir s, ac ting as A gent ; the U ni te d K ing do m G ov ern m en t , r epresen ted byDer r i ck Wya t t ; and t he Commi ss i on , r ep re sen t ed by An t on i o Cae i ro and HansStøvlbæk, a t the hear ing on 19 May 1998,

af ter hear ing the Opinion of the Advocate General a t the s i t t ing on 16 July1998,

I-1486

8/13/2019 jur1997_J0212en01


CEN TRO S v ERHVERVS-OG SELSKABSSTYRELSEN

gives the following

J u d g m e n t

i B y orde r of 3 Ju ne 1997, received at the C o u rt on 5 Ju ne 1997 the H øjes teretreferred to the C o u rt for a prel im inary rul ing un de r Art ic le 177 of the EC Treaty

a quest ion on the interpretat ion of Art ic les 52, 56 and 58 of the Treaty.

2 T ha t ques t ion was ra ised in proceed ings be tw een Ce nt ro s Ltd , a pr iva te l imi tedco m pa ny regis tered on 18 M ay 1992 in En gland and Wales , and Erhv ervs-o g Selskabss tyre l sen ( the Trade and Companies Board , the B oa rd ) wh i ch com es unde rthe Dan ish D ep ar t m en t of Trad e, con cernin g that auth or i ty s refusal to regis ter a

b r anch o f Cen t ros i n Denmark .

3 I t i s c lear f rom th e do cu m en ts in the m ain proc eed ings that C en tros has nevert raded s ince i t s format ion. Since Uni ted Kingdom law imposes no requirement o nl imited l iabi l i ty companies as to the provis ion for and the paying-up of a minimumshare capi ta l , C en tro s s share capi ta l, w hic h am ou nts to G B P 100, has been nei the r

paid up nor made avai lable to the company. I t i s divided into two shares held byMr and Mrs Bryde , Danish na t iona l s res id ing in Denmark . Mrs Bryde i s thedirector of Centros , whose regis tered off ice is s i tuated in the Uni ted Kingdom, atthe home of a f r iend of Mr Bryde.

4 U n d e r D an ish law, C en tro s , as a p r ivate l imi ted co m pa ny , is regarded as a foreign

limited l iabil ity com pan y. Th e rules govern ing the registra t ion of branc hes ( f i lialer )of such companies are la id down by the Anpar tsselskabslov (Law on pr ivate l imi tedcompanies ) .

I - 1487

8/13/2019 jur1997_J0212en01


JUDG ME NT OF 9. 3. 1999 — CASE C-212/97

5 In par t icular, Art ic le 117 of the Law provides:

1 Private l imi ted companies and foreign companies having a s imilar legal formwhich a re es tab l i shed in one Member Sta te of the European Communi t i es maydo bus i nes s i n Denmark t h rough a b r anch .

6 D ur in g the sum m er of 1992, M rs Bry de reques ted the Bo ard to reg i ste r a bran chof Cent ros in Denmark .

7 Th e Bo ard re fused tha t reg i s t ra t ion on the gro und s , inter alia, t h a t Cen t ros , wh i chdoes not t rade in the Uni ted Kingdom, was in fact seeking to es tabl ish in Denmark,no t a bran ch , bu t a pr inc ipa l es tab l i shment , by c i rcum vent ing th e na t iona l ru lesconcerning, in par t icular , the paying-up of minimum capi ta l f ixed at DKK 200 000by L aw N o 886 of 21 De cem ber 1991.

s C en tro s br ou gh t an act ion before the Ø str e La nd sret against the refusal of theBoard to effect that registrat ion.

9 T h e Ø s t r e Landsret.upheld t he a rgum ents of the Board in a judg m ent of 8 Septem ber 1995, w he reu po n C ent ro s appea led to the Hø jes te re t .

io In tho se proc eedin gs, C en tros maintains tha t i t sat isfies the con di t ion s im pos ed b ythe law on pr ivate l imi ted companies re la t ing to the regis t ra t ion of a branch of a

foreign company. Since i t was lawful ly formed in the Uni ted Kingdom, i t i s ent i t ledto se t up a branch in Denmark pursuant to Ar t ic le 52 , read in conjunc t ion wi thArticle 58, of the Treaty.

I - 1488

8/13/2019 jur1997_J0212en01



1 1 A ccord ing to Cen t ros the fact tha t i t has never traded s ince i ts formation in theUni ted Kingdom has no bear ing on i ts r ight to f reedom of es tabl ishment . In i t sjudgment in Case 79/85 Segers v Bedrijfsvereniging voor Bank- en Verzekering-

swegen, Groothandel en Vrije Beroepen [1986] ECR 2375 , the Co ur t ru led tha t

Art ic les 52 and 58 of the Treaty prohibi ted the competent author i t ies of a MemberState f rom excluding the di rector of a company from a nat ional s ickness insurancescheme solely on the ground that the company had i ts regis tered off ice in anotherMember State , even though i t did not conduct any business there .

12 T he Boa rd subm its that it s refusal to grant regis t ra t ion is no t con trary to A rt ic les

52 and 58 of the Treaty s ince the es tabl ishment of a branch in Denmark would seemto be a way of avoiding the nat ional rules on the provis ion for and the paying-up

of minimum share capital . Furthermore, i ts refusal to register is just if ied by the need

to protect pr ivate or publ ic credi tors and other contract ing par t ies and also by theneed to endeavour to prevent f raudulent insolvencies .

i3 In thos e c i rcum stances , the H øjeste ret has decided to s tay proce eding s and to referthe fol lowing q uest io n to the Co u rt for a prel im inary rul ing:

Is i t compat ible wi th Art ic le 52 of the EC Treaty, in conjunct ion wi th Art ic les 56and 58 thereof to refuse regis t ra t ion of a branch of a company which has i t s regis tered off ice in another Member State and has been lawful ly founded with com

pa ny capi ta l of G B P 100 (app roxim ately D K K 1 000) and exis ts in con form ity w i ththe legis la t ion of that Member State , where the company does not i t se l f carry onany business but i t i s desi red to set up the branch in order to carry on the entirebusiness in the country in which the branch is es tabl ished, and where, ins tead ofincorpora t ing a company in the l a t t e r Member Sta te , tha t p rocedure mus t beregarded as having been employed in order to avoid paying up company capi ta l ofnot less than DKK 200 000 (at present DKR 125 000)?

u By it s que st ion, the nat ion al co ur t is in substanc e asking w he the r i t is co ntrar y toArticles 52 and 58 of the Treaty for a Member State to refuse to register a branch

I-1489

8/13/2019 jur1997_J0212en01


8/13/2019 jur1997_J0212en01



is Th a t M rs and M rs Bry de formed the com pan y Ce nt ro s in the United K i ngdom fo rthe purpose of avoid ing Danish l eg i s la t ion requi r ing tha t a min imum amount ofshare capi ta l be paid up has not been denied ei ther in the wri t ten observat ions or a tthe hear ing. That does not , however , mean that the format ion by that Bri t i sh com

pa ny of a bra nc h in D en m ar k is no t covered by f reedom of es tabl ishm ent for thepurposes of Article 52 and 58 of the Treaty. The question of the application of thosear t ic les of the Treaty is di f ferent f rom the quest ion whether or not a Member Statemay adopt measures in order to prevent a t tempts by cer ta in of i t s nat ionals to evadedomestic legislat ion by having recourse to the possibil i t ies offered by the Treaty.

i9 As to the qu est ion wh ether , as M r and M rs Brydc claim, the refusal to register inDenmark a branch of the i r company formed in accordance wi th the l aw of anotherMember State in which i ts has i ts registered office consti tutes an obstacle to freedomof es tabl ishment , i t must be borne in mind that that f reedom, conferred by Art ic le52 of the Treaty on Community nat ionals , includes the r ight for them to take upand pursue act ivi t ies as sel f -employed persons and to set up and manage under tak

ings under the same condi t ions as are la id down by the law of the Member State ofes tab l i shment for i t s own na t iona l s . Fur thermore , under Ar t ic le 58 of the Treaty

companies or f i rms formed in accordance wi th the law of a Member State andhaving their registered office, central administrat ion or principal place of businesswi th in the Communi ty a re to be t rea ted in the same way as na tura l persons whoare nat ionals of Member States .

20 T he im m ediate conseq uen ce of this is that thos e com panies are ent i t led to carry o ntheir business in another Member State through an agency, branch or subsidiary.The location of their registered office, central administrat ion or principal place ofbus iness serves as the co nn ectin g factor w ith th e legal system of a par t icula r Statein the same way as does nationali ty in the case of a natural person (see, to thateffect, Segers, pa ragraph 13 , Case 270/83 Commission v France [1986] ECR 273 ,paragrap h 18 , Case C-330/91 Commerzbank [ 1993] E C R 1-4017 paragraph 13, andCase C-264/96 IC I [1998] 1-4695 paragraph 20) .

I -1491

8/13/2019 jur1997_J0212en01


JUDGMENT OF 9. 3. 1999 — CASE C-212/97

2i W he re i t is the pract ice of a M em be r State , in cer ta in c i rcum stances , to refuse toregis ter a branch of a company having i ts regis tered off ice in another Member State ,the resul t i s that companies formed in accordance wi th the law of that otherM em be r State are prev ented f rom exercis ing the f reedom of es tabl ishment conferred

on them by Articles 52 and 58 of the Treaty.

2 2 C ons equ ent ly , tha t pract ice con st i tutes an obstacle to the exercise of the f reedomsguaranteed by those provis ions .

2 3 A ccord ing to the D anish au thor i t ies , however , M r and M rs Br yde cann ot re ly onthose provis ions , s ince the so le pur pos e of the com pan y form at ion wh ich they havein mind is to c i rcumvent the appl icat ion of the nat ional law governing format ionof pr ivate l imi ted companies and therefore const i tutes abuse of the f reedom ofes tab l i shment . In the i r submiss ion , the Kingdom of Denmark i s there fore entitled

to take s teps to prevent such abuse by refusing to regis ter the branch.

2 4 I t is t ru e tha t accord ing to the case-law of the Co u rt a M em be r State is ent i t led totake measures designed to prevent cer ta in of i t s nat ionals f rom at tempting, undercover of the r ights created by the Treaty, improper ly to c i rcumvent thei r nat ionallegis la t ion or to prevent individuals f rom improper ly or f raudulent ly taking advantage of provis ions of Communi ty l aw ( see , in par t i cu la r , r egard ing f reedom tosupply services , Case 33/74 Van Binsbergen v Bedrijfsvereniging Metaalnijverheid

[1974] ECR 1299, paragraph 13, Case C-148/91 Veronica Omroep Organisatie v

Com missariaat voor de Media [ 1993] E C R 1-487 parag raph 12 , and Case C -23/93TV 10 v Com missariaat voor de Media [ 1994] E C R 1-4795 pa rag raph 21 ; regardingfreedom of es tabl ishment , Case 115/78 Knoors [ 1979] E C R 399, parag raph 25 , andCase C-61/89 Bouchoucha [1990] E C R 1-3551, pa rag rap h 14; rega rding the f reem ove m ent of goods , Case 229/83 Leclerc and Others v Au Blé Vert and Others

[1985] ECR 1, paragraph 27; regarding social secur i ty , Case C-206/94 Brennet vPaletta [ 1996] E C R 1-2357 Paletta IF , pa rag raph 24; regard ing f reedom of m ove ment for workers , Case 39/86 Lair v Universität Hannover [ 1988] E C R 3161, p a r a graph 43 ; regard ing the co m m on agr icu l tura l po l icy , Case C-8 /92 General Milk

Products v Hauptzollamt Ham burg-Jonas [ 1993] E C R 1-779 pa rag raph 21 , andregard ing company law, Case C-3 67/96 Refalas and Others v Greece [ 1998] ECR1-2843 paragraph 20) .

I -1492

8/13/2019 jur1997_J0212en01



25 H ow ev er , a l thou gh, in such ci rcum stances , the nat ional cou r ts may, case by case,take account — on the basis of objective evidence — of abuse or fraudulent conducton the par t of the persons concerned in order , where appropr ia te , to deny them the

benef i t of the provis ions of Community law on which they seek to re ly, they must

never theless assess such conduct in the l ight of the object ives pursued by thoseprovis ions (Paletta II, pa ragraph 25) .

2 6 In the pres ent case , the prov is ions of nat ional law, appl icat ion of w hich the par t ies

concerned have sought to avoid, are rules governing the format ion of companiesand not rules concerning the carrying on of certain trades, professions or businesses.The provis ions of the Treaty on f reedom of es tabl ishment are intended specif ical lyto enable com pan ies formed in accord ance wi th the law of a M em be r State andhaving their registered office, central administrat ion or principal place of businesswi th in the Communi ty to pursue ac t iv i t i es in o ther Member Sta tes th rough anagency, branch or subsidiary.

2 7 T ha t being so, the fact that a nat io nal of a M em be r State w h o wishes to set up acompany chooses to form i t in the Member State whose rules of company law seemto him the least res t r ic t ive and to set up branches in other Member States cannot ,in itself const i tute an abuse of the r ight of es tabl ishment . The r ight to form a company in accordance wi th the law of a Member State and to set up branches in other

Member States is inherent in the exercise , in a s ingle market , of the f reedom ofestabl ishment guaranteed by the Treaty.

2 8 In this con nect io n, the fact tha t co m pa ny law is no t com pletely harm onise d in theCommunity i s of l i t t le consequence. Moreover , i t i s a lways open to the Counci l ,o n the basis of the powers conferred upon i t by Article 54(3)(g) of the EC Treaty,to ach ieve comple te harmonisa t ion .

I - 1493

8/13/2019 jur1997_J0212en01


JUDGM ENT OF 9. 3. 1999 — CASE C-2I2/97

2 9 In ad dit ion , it is clear from paragraph 16 of Segers that the fact that a company doesnot conduct any business in the Member State in which i t has i t s regis tered off iceand pursues i t s act ivi t ies only in the Member State where i t s branch is es tabl ishedis not suff ic ient to prove the exis tence of abuse or f raudulent conduct which would

ent i t le the la t ter Member State to deny that company the benef i t of the provis ionsof Community law rela t ing to the r ight of es tabl ishment .

3 0 A ccord ingly, the refusal of a M em be r State to regis ter a br an ch of a co m pa ny

formed in accordance wi th the law of another Member State in which i t has i t sregis tered off ice on the grounds that the branch is intended to enable the companyto carry on al l i t s economic act ivi ty in the host State , wi th the resul t that the secondary es tabl ishment escapes nat ional rules on the provis ion for and the paying-upof a minimum capi ta l , i s incompat ible wi th Art ic les 52 and 58 of the Treaty, in sofar as i t prevents any exercise of the right freely to set up a secondary establishment which Art ic les 52 and 58 are specif ical ly intended to guarantee.

3i Th e f ina l que s t ion to be cons idered is w heth er the na t iona l prac t i ce in que s t ionmight not be jus t i f ied for the reasons put forward by the Danish author i t ies .

32 Referr ing b o th to Art ic le 56 of the Tre aty and to the case- law of the Co u rt onimperat ive requirements in the general interes t , the Board argues that the requirement tha t p r iva te l imi ted companies provide for and pay up a min imum sharecapital pursues a dual objective: f irst , to reinforce the financial soundness of thosecompanies in order to protect publ ic credi tors against the r isk of seeing the publ icdebts owing to them become i r recoverable s ince , un l ike pr iva te c red i tors , theycannot secure those debts by means of guarantees and, second, and more general ly ,

to pro tec t a ll credi tors , w heth er pub l ic or pr ivate , by ant ic ipat ing the r isk of f raudu lent bankruptcy due to the insolvency of companies whose ini t ia l capi ta l isat ion wasinadequa te .

I - 1494

8/13/2019 jur1997_J0212en01


CENTROS v ERHVERVS-OG SELSKABSSTYRELSEN

33 T h e B o a r d a d d s t h a t there i s n o l e s s r e s t r i c t i v e m e a n s o f a t t a i n i n g t h i s d u a l o b j e c

t iv e . T h e o t h e r w a y o f p r o t e c t i n g c r e d i t o r s , n a m e l y b y i n t r o d u c i n g r u l e s m a k i n g i t

p o s s i b l e f o r s h a r e h o l d e r s t o i n c u r p e r s o n a l l i a b i l i t y , u n d e r c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s , w o u l d

b e m o r e r e s t r i c t i v e t h a n t h e r e q u i r e m e n t t o p r o v i d e f o r a n d p a y u p a m i n i m u m

s h a r e c a p i t a l .

3 4 I t sho uld be observ ed, first , tha t the reasons p u t forw ard d o no t fa ll w i thin th eambit of Art ic le 56 of the Treaty. Next , i t should be borne in mind that , accordingto th e C o ur t s case- law, nat ional m easures l iable to hind er o r mak e less a t t ract ivethe exercise of fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty must fulfi l four

cond i t ions : they m us t be appl ied in a non -d i sc r im ina tory m anner ; they m us t bejust i f ied by imperat ive requirements in the general interes t ; they must be sui tablefor secur ing the a t ta inment of the object ive which they pursue; and they must notgo beyond what i s necessary in order to a t ta in i t (see Case C-19/92 Kraus v Land

Baden-Württemberg [ 1993] E C R 1-1 66 3, paragra ph 32 , and Case C-55/94 Gebhard

v Consiglio d ell Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano [1995] E C R 1-4165

paragraph 37) .

3 5 T ho se cond i t ions are no t ful fi lled in the case in the main proc eed ings. Fi rs t , thepract ice in quest ion is not such as to a t ta in the object ive of protect ing credi torswhich i t purpor t s to pursue s ince , i f the company concerned had conducted bus i ness in the Uni ted Kingdom, i t s b ranch would have been reg i s te red in Denmark ,even though Danish credi tors might have been equal ly exposed to r isk.

3 6 S ince the com pa ny concern ed in the main procee dings holds itself ou t as a co m pan ygove rned by t he l aw of Eng land and W ales and no t as a com pa ny governed byDanish law, i ts creditors are on notice that i t is covered by laws different from thosew h i c h govern t he forma t ion of pr iva te l imi ted compan ies in D en m ark and they canrefe r to cer ta in ru les of Communi ty l aw which pro tec t them, such as the Four thC ou nc i l D irect ive 7 8/6 60 /E E C of 25 Ju ly 1978 based on A rt ic le 54(3)(g) of theTreaty on the annual accounts of cer ta in types of companies (OJ 1978 L 222,p . 11), and the Eleventh C oun ci l Di rec tive 89/6 66 /EE C of 21 D ecem ber 1989 concerning disclosure requirements in respect of branches opened in a Member Stateby cer ta in types of company governed by the law of another State (OT 1989 L 395,p . 36).

I - 1495

8/13/2019 jur1997_J0212en01


JUDGM ENT OF 9. 3. 1999 — CASE C-212/97

3 7 Second, co ntra ry to th e argu m ents of the D anis h autho r i t ies , i t i s possible to a do ptmeasures which are less res t r ic t ive , or which interfere less wi th fundamental f reed o m s , by, for example, making i t possible in law for publ ic credi tors to obtain thenecessary guarantees .

3 8 Last ly , the fact tha t a M em be r State m ay no t refuse to regis ter a bra nc h of a com pany formed in accordance wi th the l aw of another Member Sta te in which i t has

its registered office does not preclude that f irst State from adopting any appropriatemeasure for prevent ing or penal is ing f raud, e i ther in re la t ion to the company itself

i f need be in cooperat ion wi th the Member State in which i t was formed, or in re lat ion to i t s members , where i t has been es tabl ished that they are in fact a t tempt ing,by means of the format ion of the company, to evade thei r obl igat ions towards pr i vate or publ ic credi tors es tabl ished on the terr i tory of a Member State concerned.In an y event , co m ba t ing f raud c an no t jus t ify a pract ice of refusing t o regis ter abranch of a company which has i t s regis tered off ice in another Member State .

3 9 T he answer to the qu est io n referred mu st therefore be tha t i t i s co ntra ry to Art ic les52 and 58 of the Treaty for a Member State to refuse to register a branch of acompany formed in accordance wi th the l aw of another Member Sta te in which i t

has i t s regis tered off ice but in which i t conducts no business where the branch isintended to enable the company in quest ion to carry on i t s ent i re business in theState in which that branch is to be created, whi le avoiding the need to form a company there , thus evading appl icat ion of the rules governing the format ion of companies which, in that State , are more res t r ic t ive as regards the paying up of aminimum share capi ta l . Tha t in te rpre ta t ion does not , however , p revent the au thor i t i es of the Member Sta te concerned f rom adopt ing any appropr ia te measure forprevent ing or penal is ing f raud, e i ther in re la t ion to the company itself i f need bein cooperat ion wi th the Member State in which i t was formed, or in re la t ion to i t s

members , where i t has been es tabl ished that they are in fact a t tempt ing, by meansof the format ion of a company, to evade thei r obl igat ions towards pr ivate or publ iccredi tors es tabl ished in the terr i tory of the Member State concerned.

I -1496

8/13/2019 jur1997_J0212en01



C o s t s

The cos t s incur red by the Danish , French , Nether lands , Swedish and Uni tedKi ngdom Gove rnmen t s and by t he Commi ss i on , wh i ch have submi t ted observat ions to the Court , are not recoverable . Since these proceedings are , for the par t iesto the main proceedings, a s tep in the act ion pending before the nat ional cour t , thedecision on costs is a matter for that court .

On t hose g rounds ,

T H E C O U R T ,

in answ er to the quest ion referred to i t by th e H øjes teret by o rde r of 3 Ju ne 1997,

hereby rules :

I t is co n t r a ry t o Ar t ic l e s 52 an d 58 o f t h e EC T rea t y fo r a M em be r S t a t e t or e fuse t o r eg i s t e r a b r anch o f a company fo rmed i n acco rdance wi t h the law ofanother Member Sta te in which i t has i t s reg i s te red of f ice bu t in which i t condu c t s no bus i nes s w he re t he b r an ch is i n t en ded t o enab l e t he com pa ny i n ques t ion to car ry on i t s en t i re bus iness in the Sta te in which tha t b ranch i s to bec r ea t ed , wh i l e avo i d i ng t he need t o fo rm a company t he r e , t hus evad i ng app l i ca t i on o f t he ru l e s gove rn i ng t he fo rma t i on o f compan i e s wh i ch , i n t ha t S t a t e , a r cm o r e r e s t r i c t i v e a s r e g a r d s t h e p a y i n g u p o f a m i n i m u m s h a r e c a p i t a l . T h a t

I -1497

8/13/2019 jur1997_J0212en01


JUDG ME NT OF 9. 3. 1999 — CASE C-212/97

interpretat ion does no t how ever preven t the author it ies o f the M emb er State

concerned from adopting any appropriate measure for preventing or penal is ing

fraud e i ther in re lat ion to the com pan y itself i f need be in cooperat ion with

the Mem ber State in wh ich i t was formed or in re lat ion to its m emb ers wh ere

it has been establ ished tha t they are in fact a ttem pting by mean s of the form a-tio n of a com pany to evade their obligation s toward s private or public credi-

tors established in the territory of the Member State concerned.

Rodriguez Iglesias Kapteyn Pu i ssoche t

Hi r sch J ann Manc i n i

M o i t in h o d e A l m e i d a G u l m a n n M u r r a y

Edward Ragnema l m Sevón

Wathelet Sch in tgen Ioannou

Del ivered in open cour t in Luxembourg on 9 March 1999.

R. Grass

Registrar

G. C . Rodriguez Iglesias

Pres ident

I -1498

jur1997_j0212en01

Documents