Dans cette enquête passionnante, Philippe Jaenada plonge au cœur d’une histoire tout aussi sordide qu’elle est curieuse : le triple meurtre du château d’Escoire, intervenu dans la nuit du 24 au 25 octobre 1941. Henri Girard, dont le célèbre Salaire de la peur sera par la suite adapté au cinéma par Clouzot, en fut accusé et ressortit acquitté du procès qui s’ensuivit, notamment grâce au talent de Maurice Garçon. Soixante-dix ans après, à partir d’une étude minutieuse des investigations et du procès, Philippe Jaenada formule de nouvelles hypothèses fascinantes.
La Commission européenne publie un guide pratique portant sur le mandat d’arrêt européen.
When I reviewed Kokott AG’s Opinion in C-106/16 Polbud, I flagged that Ms Kokott concluded that the freedom of establishment provided for in Articles 49 and 54 TFEU only applies to an operation whereby a company incorporated under the law of one Member State transfers its statutory seat to another Member State with the aim of converting itself into a company governed by the law of the latter Member State, in so far as that company actually establishes itself in the other Member State, or intends to do so, for the purpose of pursuing genuine economic activity there. In other words she proposed a test along the lines suggested by Darmon AG in Daily Mail, but rejected by La Pergola AG in Centros.
The CJEU today held along La Pergola lines. It thus indeed facilitates forum /applicable (lex societatis) shopping for companies. The writing was very clearly on the wall when the Court (in Grand Chamber nota bene) started citing the old chestnuts of Daily Mail, Centros and Inspire Art. That no business is actually being conducted by Polbud in the host Member State is viewed by the court as irrelevant (at 37 ff). In the absence of harmonisation of EU law, the definition of the connecting factor that determines the national law applicable to a company or firm falls, in accordance with Article 54 TFEU, within the powers of each Member State (at 34).
Freedom of establishment is applicable (third question); that freedom has been restricted (first question); and that restriction (transfer of the registered office of a company incorporated under the law of one Member State to the territory of another Member State, for the purposes of its conversion into a company incorporated under the law of the latter Member State, in accordance with the conditions imposed by the legislation of that Member State, is subject to the liquidation of the first company) is not justifiable (second question).
Geert.
(Handbook of) EU Private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 7.
Entreprise en difficulté (Loi du 26 juillet 2005) - Liquidation judiciaire - Inventaire
Entreprise en difficulté (loi du 26 juillet 2005) - Créance fiscale
Banque - Carte de paiement
Entreprise en difficulté (loi du 26 juillet 2005) - Créance - Organisme de sécurité sociale
Banque - Rupture brutale d'une relation commerciale établie
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer