美国俄克拉何马论文代写:案件被提交

Keywords:美国俄克拉何马论文代写

又是来自德国的另一个重要案件被提交法院审理。Uberseering案（2002）[ 11 ]。该案涉及uberseering BV公司，在荷兰，是由德国两个人和NCC买了注册一家荷兰公司（德国公司）签订施工合同的人随后。后来Uberseering BV起诉NCC违约赔偿。由于这样的事实，uberseering公司已经搬到了德国真正的座椅，德国法院已经否认了uberseering BV的法律能力。欧洲法院认为，权利能力的公司，形成了按照其中一个成员国的法律有其注册办事处及行使其自由建立在另一个成员国都必须由该成员国认可。Deakin认为，“随着Uberseering法院的判决，一个立法的竞争环境已经发生了根本性的变化。由于法院的显示，更广泛的了解设立权，公司现在可以从一个成员国的中央管理和控制，而无需进一步诉讼。实际上，欧洲法院有权建立一个全新的、更广泛的解释。一个公司现在可以在一个成员国被发现，而不再与它有任何进一步的关系，这一直是过去立法竞争的中心障碍。
美国俄克拉何马论文代写:案件被提交
It was again from Germany that another important case was referred to the Court. The Uberseering case (2002)[11]. The case involved Uberseering BV, a Dutch company registered in the Netherlands that was bought by two German individuals and NCC (a German corporation) who subsequently concluded a construction contract. Later Uberseering BV sued the NCC for damages for breach of contract. Due to the fact that the real seat of Uberseering BV had been moved to Germany, the German courts had denied the legal capacity of the Uberseering BV. The ECJ held that the legal capacity of a company that was formed in accordance with the law of a Member State in which it has its registered office and which exercises its freedom of establishment in another Member State has to be recognised by this Member State. Deakin suggests “With the judgement of the ECJ in Uberseering, the circumstances of an legislative competition have fundamentally changed. Due to the Court's displayed, wider understanding of the right of establishment, companies can now move their central management and control from one Member State without the need for further proceedings. In effect, the ECJ has given the right of establishment a radically new, wider interpretation. A company can now be found in a Member State without having later any further relations to it, this having been a central obstacle to legislative competition in the past”