Sloboda usadiť sa vo vzťahu k právu obchodných spoločností

1. Sloboda usadiť sa vo vzťahu k právu obchodných spoločností 5. 5. 2010 Matúš Petrík

2. Sloboda usadiť sa • Článok 43 ES: „V rámci nasledujúcich ustanovení sa zakazujú obmedzenia slobody usadiť sa štátnych príslušníkov jedného členského štátu na území iného členského štátu. Zakazujú sa obmedzenia, ktoré sa týkajú zakladania obchodných zastúpení, organizačných zložiek a dcérskych spoločností štátnymi príslušníkmi jedného členského štátu na území iného členského štátu. Sloboda usadiť sa zahŕňa aj právo začať vykonávať samostatnú zárobkovú činnosť, založiť a viesť podniky, najmä spoločnosti v zmysle druhého pododseku článku 48, za podmienok stanovených pre vlastných štátnych príslušníkov právom štátu, v ktorom dochádza k usadeniu sa, pokiaľ kapitoly o pohybe kapitálu nestanovujú inak.“ Článok 48 ES: „So spoločnosťami založenými podľa zákonov členského štátu a ktoré majú svoje sídlo, ústredie alebo hlavné miesto podnikateľskej činnosti v Únii, sa pre účely tejto kapitoly zaobchádza rovnako ako s fyzickými osobami, ktoré sú štátnymi príslušníkmi členských štátov.“

3. Slobodausadiťsa Primárna sloboda usadiť sa: - právo vykonávať samostatnú zárobkovú činnosť, zakladať a viesť podniky (vzťahuje sa aj na spoločnosti?) Rozsudok ESD, C-81/87, „Daily Mail“ - nie: „Under those circumstances, Articles 52 and 58 of the Treaty cannot be interpreted as conferring oncompanies incorporated under the law of a Member State a right to transfer their centralmanagement and control and their central administration to another Member State while retaining their status as companies incorporated under the legislation of the first Member State.“ „ In that regard it should be borne in mind that, unlike natural persons, companies are creatures of the law and, in the present state of Community law, creatures of national law.They exist only by virtue of the varying national legislation which determines their incorporation and functioning.“ Ale: rozsudok C-208/00, „Überseering“: „ A necessary precondition for the exercise of the freedom ofestablishment is the recognition of those companies by any Member State in which they wish to establish themselves. Accordingly, it is not necessary for the Member States to adopt a convention on the mutual recognitionof companies in order for companies meeting the conditions set out in Article 48 EC to exercise the freedom of establishment conferred on them by Articles 43 EC and 48 EC, which have been directly applicable since the transitional period came to an end. It follows that no argument that might justify limiting the full effect of those articles can be derived from the fact that no convention on the mutual recognition of companies has as yet been adopted on the basis of Article 293 EC.“

4. Slobodausadiťsa (pokr. Überseering) • „By contrast, the Court did not rule on the question whether where, as here, a company incorporated under the law of a Member State (`A') is found, under the law of another Member State (`B'), to have moved its actual centre of administration to Member State B, that State is entitled to refuse to recognise the legal personality which the company enjoys under the law of its State of incorporation (`A'). Thus, despite the general terms in which paragraph 23 of Daily Mail and General Trust is cast, the Court did not intend to recognise a Member State as having the power, vis-à-vis companies validly incorporated in other Member States and found by it to have transferred their seat to its territory, to subject those companies' effective exercise in its territory of the freedom of establishment to compliance with its domestic company law. There are, therefore, no grounds for concluding from Daily Mail and General Trust that, where a company formed in accordance with the law of one Member State and with legal personality in that State exercises its freedom of establishment in another Member State, the question of recognition of its legal capacity and its capacity to be a party to legal proceedings in the Member State of establishment falls outside the scope of the Treaty provisions on freedom of establishment, even when the company is found, under the law of the Member State of establishment, to have moved its actual centre of administration to that State.

5. Sloboda usadiť sa (pokr.) „Indeed, its very existence is inseparable from its status as a company incorporated underNetherlands law since, as the Court has observed, a company exists only by virtue of the national legislation which determines its incorporation and functioning (see, to that effect, Daily Mail and General Trust, paragraph 19). The requirement of reincorporation of the same company in Germany is therefore tantamount to outright negation of freedom of establishment. In those circumstances, the refusal by a host Member State (`B') to recognise the legal capacity of a company formed in accordance with the law of another Member State (`A') in which it has its registered office on the ground, in particular, that the company moved its actual centre of administration to Member State B following the acquisition of all its shares by nationals of that State residing there, with the result that the company cannot, in Member State B, bring legal proceedings to defend rights under a contract unless it is reincorporated under the law of Member State B, constitutes a restriction on freedom of establishment which is, in principle, incompatible with Articles 43 EC and 48 EC.“

6. Sloboda usadiť sa Sekundárna sloboda usadiť sa: - právo zakladať obchodné zastúpenia, organizačné zložky a dcérske spoločnosti na území iného členského štátu: „Article 58 requires only that the companies be formed in accordance with the law of a member state and have their registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the Community. Provided that those requirements are satisfied, the fact that the company conducts its business through an agency, branch or subisidiary solely in another member state is immaterial.“ (rozsudok ESD 79/85, Segers) „it should be noted that a situation in which a company formed in accordance with the law of a Member State in which it has its registered office desires to set up a branch in another Member State falls within the scope of Community law. In that regard, it is immaterial that the company was formed in the first Member State only for the purpose of establishing itself in the second, where its main, or indeed entire, business is to be conducted...“ „the fact that a national of a Member State who wishes to set up a company chooses to form it in the Member State whose rules of company law seem to him the least restrictive and to set up branches in other Member States cannot, in itself, constitute an abuse of the right of establishment. The right to form a company in accordance with the law of a Member State and to set up branches in other Member States is inherent in the exercise, in a single market, of the freedom of establishment guaranteed by the Treaty. In this connection, the fact that company law is not completely harmonised in the Community is of little consequence.“ (rozsudok ESD C-212/97, Centros)

7. Sloboda usadiť sa • Osobný štatút spoločností: Obchodné spoločnosti sú právnou fikciou, produktom právneho poriadku – preto je viazanosť ku konkrétnemu právnemu poriadku silnejšia ako v bežných zmluvných vzťahoch Rozsah? • Hraničné kritéria: Inkorporačná teória vs. teória skutočného sídla (britská vs. nemecká koncepcia práva obchodných spoločností) • Inkorporačná teória naväzuje osobný štatút spoločnosti na právny poriadok štátu, podľa ktorého bola založená, teória sídla na právny poriadok miesta, kde spoločnosť reálne vyvíja svoju činnosť • Sloboda usadiť sa obmedzuje možnosť členských štátov odmietať „prijatie“ spoločností z iných členských štátov so zachovaním ich pôvodného štatútu, nie však možnosť odmietnuť ich „odchod“ so zachovaním pôvodného štatútu

8. Sloboda usadiť sa Právo štátu brániť v „odchode“ spoločností (línia Daily Mail): „As Community law now stands, Articles 43 EC and 48 EC are to be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State under which a company incorporated under the law of that Member State may not transfer its seat to another Member State whilst retaining its status as a company governed by the law of the Member State of incorporation.“ Ale: „ Nevertheless, the situation where the seat of a company incorporated under the law of one Member State is transferred to another Member State with no change as regards the law which governs that company falls to be distinguished from the situation where a company governed by the law of one Member State moves to another Member State with an attendant change as regards the national law applicable, since in the latter situation the company is converted into a form of company which is governed by the law of the Member State to which it has moved. In fact, in that latter case, the power referred to in paragraph 110 above, far from implying that national legislation on the incorporation and winding-up of companies enjoys any form of immunity from the rules of the EC Treaty on freedom of establishment, cannot, in particular, justify the Member State of incorporation, by requiring the winding-up or liquidation of the company, in preventing that company from converting itself into a company governed by the law of the other Member State, to the extent that it is permitted under that law to do so.“ (C-210/06, Cartesio)

9. Sloboda usadiť sa Daňové implikácie: „The principle of freedom of establishment laid down by Article 52 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from establishing, in order to prevent a risk of tax avoidance, a mechanism for taxing latent, i.e. not yet realised, increases in value of company shares, where a taxpayer transfers his tax residence outside that State. A taxpayer wishing to transfer his tax residence in exercise of the right guaranteed to him by that provision is subjected to disadvantageous treatment in comparison with a person who maintains his residence in that State where he becomes liable, simply by reason of such a transfer, to tax on income which has not yet been realised and which he therefore does not have, whereas, if he remained in that State, increases in value would become taxable only when, and to the extent that, they were actually realised. That difference in treatment cannot be justified by the aim of preventing tax avoidance, since tax avoidance or evasion cannot be inferred generally from the fact that the tax residence of a physical person has been transferred to another Member State.“ Rozsudok ESD, C-9/02, Hughes de Lasteyrie du Saillant

10. Sloboda usadiť sa Vývoj: Od zákazu diskriminácie k všeobecnému zákazu obmedzení Diskriminácia: „Acceptance of the proposition that the Member State in which a company seeks to establish itself may freely apply to it a different treatment solely by reason of the fact that its registered office is situated in another Member State would thus deprive Article 52 of all meaning .“ (C-397/98 a C-410/98, Metallgesellschaft, Hoechst) Všeobecné obmedzenie: „Consequently, Articles 48 and 52 preclude any national measure governing the conditions under which an academic title obtained in another Member State may be used, where that measure, even though it is applicable without discrimination on grounds of nationality, is liable to hamper or to render less attractive the exercise by Community nationals, including those of the Member State which enacted the measure, of fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty. The situation would be different only if such a measure pursued a legitimate objective compatible with the Treaty and was justified by pressing reasons of public interest .“ (C-19/92, Kraus)

11. Sloboda usadiť sa • Gebhardov test: „...national measures liable to hinder or make less attractive the exercise of fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty must fulfil four conditions: they must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner; they must be justified by imperative requirements in the general interest; they must be suitable for securing the attainment of the objective which they pursue; and they must not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it.“ (rozsudok ESD C-55/94, Gebhard, bod 37)

12. Sloboda usadiť sa Obmedzenia slobody usadiť sa: • Článok 46 ods. 1 ZES: „1. Ustanovenia tejto kapitoly a opatrenia z nich vyplývajúce rešpektujú ustanovenia stanovené zákonom, iným právnym predpisom alebo správnym aktom osobitne upravujúce postavenie cudzích štátnych príslušníkov z dôvodov verejného poriadku, verejnej bezpečnosti a verejného zdravia.“ „ALL TRADING RULES ENACTED BY MEMBER STATES WHICH ARE CAPABLE OF HINDERING, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ACTUALLY OR POTENTIALLY, INTRA-COMMUNITY TRADE ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AS MEASURES HAVING AN EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS .“ (Dassonville) „By contrast, contrary to what has previously been decided, the application to products from other Member States of national provisions restricting or prohibiting certain selling arrangements is not such as to hinder directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, trade between Member States within the meaning of the Dassonville judgment (Case 8/74 [1974] ECR 837), so long as those provisions apply to all relevant traders operating within the national territory and so long as they affect in the same manner, in law and in fact, the marketing of domestic products and of those from other Member States.“ (Keck)

13. Dane ako obmedzenie slobody usadiť saSekundárne právo • Smernica Rady z 23. júla 1990 o spoločnom systéme zdaňovania pri zlúčeniach, rozdeleniach, prevodoch majetku a výmene akcií týkajúcich sa spoločností rôznych členských štátov (Merger Directive) • Smernica Rady 2003/49/ES z 3. júna 2003 o spoločnom systéme zdaňovania uplatňovanom na výplaty úrokov a licenčných poplatkov medzi združenými spoločnosťami rôznych členských štátov (Interests and Royalties Directive) • Smernica Rady 2003/123/ES z 22. decembra 2003, ktorou sa mení a dopĺňa smernica 90/435/EHS o spoločnom systéme zdanenia uplatniteľnom v prípade materských a dcérskych spoločností rôznych členských štátov (Parent and Subsidiary Directive) • Smernica Rady 2003/48/ESz 3. júna 2003 o zdaňovaní príjmu z úspor v podobe výplaty úrokov (Savings Directive)

14. Dane ako obmedzenie slobody usadiť sa • Directive 90/434, on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States, must be interpreted as meaning that the common rules which it lays down, which cover different tax advantages, apply without distinction to all mergers, divisions, transfers of assets or exchanges of shares, irrespective of the reasons, whether financial, commercial or simply fiscal, for those operations. • It follows that Article 2(d) of the directive, which defines a merger by exchange of shares, does not require the acquiring company, within the meaning of Article 2(h), to carry on business itself or there to be a permanent merger, from the financial and economic point of view, of the business of two companies into a single unit. Similarly, the fact that the same natural person who was the sole shareholder and director of the acquired companies becomes the sole shareholder and director of the acquiring company does not prevent the operation in question from being treated as a merger by exchange of shares. • Article 11 of Directive 90/434 is to be interpreted as meaning that, in determining whether the planned operation has as its principal objective or as one of its principal objectives tax evasion or tax avoidance, the competent national authorities must carry out a general examination of the operation in each particular case. Such an examination must be open to judicial review. Rozsudok ESD, C-28/95, Leur-Bloem

15. Dane ako obmedzenie slobody usadiť sa • „Article 43 EC is to be interpreted as precluding tax legislation of a Member State, which provides that repayments in respect of loan capital which a company has obtained from a shareholder, such as its parent company, with a substantial holding in its capital must, in certain cases, be regarded as a covert distribution of profits, and which applies only to repayments in respect of capital obtained from a shareholder not entitled to tax credit, where, in the large majority of cases, resident parent companies received a tax credit, whereas, as a general rule, non-resident parent companies do not.Such a difference in treatment between resident subsidiary companies according to the seat of their parent company makes it less attractive for companies established in other Member States to exercise freedom of establishment and they may, in consequence, refrain from acquiring, creating or maintaining a subsidiary in the State which adopts that measure and constitutes an obstacle to freedom of establishment which is, in principle, prohibited by Article 43 EC.That legislation cannot be justified by reasons linked to the risk of tax evasion, where it does not have the specific purpose of preventing wholly artificial arrangements, designed to circumvent national tax legislation, but applies generally to any situation in which the parent company has its seat, for whatever reason, outside the Member State, since such a situation does not, of itself, entail a risk of tax evasion; nor can it be justified by the need to ensure the coherence of a tax system, there being no direct link between the less favourable tax treatment suffered by the subsidiary of a non-resident parent company and any tax advantage to offset such treatment.“ Rozsudok ESD, C-324/00, Lankhorst

16. Dane ako obmedzenie slobody usadiť sa „As Community law now stands, Articles 43 EC and 48 EC do not preclude provisions of a Member State which generally prevent a resident parent company from deducting from its taxable profits losses incurred in another Member State by a subsidiary established in that Member State although they allow it to deduct losses incurred by a resident subsidiary. However, it is contrary to Articles 43 EC and 48 EC to prevent the resident parent company from doing so where the non-resident subsidiary has exhausted the possibilities available in its State of residence of having the losses taken into account for the accounting period concerned by the claim for relief and also for previous accounting periods and where there are no possibilities for those losses to be taken into account in its State of residence for future periods either by the subsidiary itself or by a third party, in particular where the subsidiary has been sold to that third party.“ Rozsudok ESD, C-446/03, Marks and Spencer

17. Literatúra • Dědič-Čech: Evropské právo společností, 2004 • Hodál – Alexander: Evrópske právo obchodních společností, 2005 • Pala: Sloboda usadzovania spoločností vo svetle novej judikatúry ESD: Inspire Art.Potenciálny dopad na európske a slovenské právo obchodných spoločností, Právny obzor 2004, č.4 • Mason: Primer on Direct Taxation in the European Union, 2005 • Farmer-Lyal: EC Tax Law, 2003

19. Akvizičné štruktúry • V praxi majú najväčší význam zlučovania materských a dcérskych spoločností v rámci vytvárania a následného zjednodušovania (optimalizácie) akvizičných štruktúr (uplatnia sa zjednodušené pravidlá pre postupy zlučovania) • up-stream a down stream merger • dôvody: najmä daňové – náklady financovania nadobudnutej akvizície sa nachádzajú na úrovni materskej spoločnosti, príjmy však dosahuje dcérska (nadobúdaná) spoločnosť – riešenie: zlúčenie • Účtovné aspekty: § 27 ods. 1 písm. d) ZoÚ: „ Ku dňu ocenenia podľa § 24 ods. 1 písm. b) alebo písm. c) sa jednotlivé zložky majetku a záväzkov oceňujú takto: ... v obchodných spoločnostiach alebo v družstvách zanikajúcich bez likvidácie 38) trhovou cenou, kvalifikovaným odhadom alebo posudkom znalca alebo v iných prípadoch podľa osobitného predpisu