A recent IAMTN survey of money service businesses shows a serious lack of preparedness for the implementation of the European Payment Services Directive which comes into force in November 2009 - just 16 months away. Despite the fact that the Payment Services Directive which will impact on all those financial services providing money transfer facilities, IAMTN survey shows that companies have not got to grips with the changes which will impact on their business. The IAMTN response is similar to a survey put out by PSE Consulting exclusively to banks.
Addressing a conference organized by Sidley Austin on the European Payments Services Directive, Lady Olga Maitland, CEO, IAMTN said "Our findings are worrying for the money service sector. Most companies we found have chosen to ignore the changes or make any preparation at all - despite being only 16 months away from the deadline. Bearing in mind that the PSD will have a beneficial effect on the money service sector; giving them a level playing field with banks in Europe - and a great opportunity for both themselves and their customers, it is interesting to note how little attention has been paid to changes which will undoubtedly change the way they operate. "Indeed we found, as indeed did PSE in their survey, that the vast majority of businesses and banks are light years away from preparedness. This will cause massive last minute problems for them."
The Payment Services Directive was approved by the European Parliament in December 2007. Charlie McCreevy, the European Commissioner for Internal Markets and Services, described its objectives as 'generating more competition' providing a simple, harmonized set of rule and ensuring a high level of consumer protection." The PSD will have a revolutionary effect on the legal framework between banks and their customers setting stringent rules for information disclosure, conduct of business rules and service provision. It addition it introduces a new lightly regulated licensed entity called a 'Payments Institution' which may allow non-banks ie. Money service businesses etc to join the bankers' payment schemes and associations across the European Union. It could be said that the money service sector and banks are into new territory. They are unused to implementing prescriptive legislation from the EU. As a consequence smaller institutions appear to be unaware of the potential impact of the PSD on their customers and operations.
While the major international institutions expect to be ready by November 1st, 2009, substantial concerns have appeared for the lack of readiness by smaller banks - let alone the money service businesses. "What was interesting in our survey were those who did NOT respond when it was in their interests for their businesses to take advantage of the new opportunities. Lack of awareness of the changes ahead, like it or not, have not hit them. Among those who did respond, they had a moderate understanding of the changes. Most felt that the impact would be modest. Interestingly it was the small and medium sized businesses who felt that the PSD would be implemented on time. The major institutions did not."
The Majority of respondents to our questionnaire who are more aware than most, admitted they have not yet made any effort to prepare for the changes. Others are keeping their heads down and waiting for the implementation by national governments. Only 11% had made an impact assessment and of that only 7% had agreed a budget for implementation. The others had not got started. As a result they had not consulted with third party providers who would also be involved, ie. The software companies, agency banks, agents and so on. For those who had given some thought, they felt that the greatest effort will fall on adjusting the IT, and updating the terms and conditions. Interestingly we should recall the Capgemini World Payments Report 2007 who also lamented lack of preparedness. But in addition they pointed out that the greatest beneficiaries would be the card sector. They anticipated that by 2012 44% of all non-cash transactions in Europe will be via cards - to the point that Europe needs a 'any card at any terminal solution. Costs. Most believe it will not be that bad.
Banks though are fearful. According to PSE Consulting over 40% of banks surveyed believe that implementation will cost them more than 10m Euros and almost 25% believe it will cost over 50mEuros. Significantly nearly 60% of the banks surveyed do not believe there will be any benefits. Broadly though there is a positive feel about the opportunities. Indeed 61% in the IAMTN survey said there would be a revenue benefit. If there is a wind of change, it will affect the banks the most, who face highly competitive, agile and innovative money service business competition."
Showing posts with label European Union. Show all posts
Showing posts with label European Union. Show all posts
Thursday, 17 July 2008
Tuesday, 6 May 2008
CE takes steps against Bulgaria, Spain, Portugal and Romania relating to taxation on dividends
The European Commission has sent reasoned opinions (the second step of the infringement procedure of Article 226 of the EC Treaty) to Spain and Portugal about their rules under which dividends paid to foreign pension funds are taxed more heavily than dividends paid to domestic pension funds. It has also sent requests for information in the form of letters of formal notice (the first step of the infringement procedure) to Bulgaria about its rules under which inbound dividends paid to companies may be taxed more heavily than domestic dividends and to Romania and Bulgaria about their rules under which outbound dividends paid to companies may be taxed more heavily than domestic dividends. The four Member States are asked to reply within two months. At the same time the Commission has closed the case against Luxembourg on the higher taxation of outbound dividends paid to companies, as Luxembourg has eliminated the discriminatory taxation.
Outbound dividends are dividends paid by domestic companies to shareholders resident in other States. Domestic dividends are dividends paid by domestic companies to domestic shareholders. Inbound dividends are dividends paid by companies resident in other States to domestic shareholders.
Outbound dividends to pension funds
Pension funds are usually subject to different tax rules than companies. The tax rules on dividends paid to pension funds and those for dividends paid to companies are therefore assessed separately.
Spain exempts pension funds from tax on their income, and they can claim back any Spanish withholding tax on the dividends that they receive. The domestic dividends that they receive are thus effectively tax free. In contrast, Spain levies a withholding tax of 18% on dividends paid to pension funds established elsewhere in the EU or in the EEA/EFTA countries (Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein). These result in the higher taxation of dividends paid to foreign pension funds. Bilateral tax treaties may provide for a lower withholding tax rate.
Similarly, Portugal exempts the dividends received by domestic pension funds and levies a withholding tax of 25% on dividends paid to pension funds established elsewhere in the EU or in the EEA/EFTA countries.
The higher tax on dividends paid to foreign pension funds may dissuade these funds from investing in the Member State levying the higher tax. Equally, companies established in that Member States may face difficulties in attracting capital from foreign pension funds. The higher taxation of foreign pension funds thus results in a restriction of the free movement of capital as protected by Article 56 EC and Article 40 EEA. In the case of controlling participation by the foreign pension funds, it may also result in a restriction of the freedom of establishment, protected by Article 43 EC and Article 34 EEA. The Commission is not aware of any justification for such restrictions.
Concerning the higher taxation of dividends paid to foreign pension funds, the Commission has already sent letters of formal notice to the Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden, Italy, Finland, Germany, Estonia and Austria.
Following up on the complaints it received, the Commission is still examining the situation in other Member States. This may result in the opening of further infringement procedures.
Outbound dividends to companies
The letter of formal notice to Romania concerns the taxation of dividends which are paid to companies, resident elsewhere in the EU or in the EEA/EFTA countries.
Domestic dividends on participations of up to 15% of the shares are subject to a final withholding tax of 10%. On similar outbound dividends, Romania levies a withholding tax of 16%. Bilateral tax treaties may reduce that rate.
Domestic dividends on participations of 15% or more are tax exempt. In contrast, Romania levies a final withholding tax of 10% on dividends paid to companies resident in Norway and of 16% on similar outbound dividends paid to companies resident in the other EEA/EFTA countries.
The first letter of formal notice to Bulgaria also concerns the taxation of dividends paid to companies which are resident elsewhere in the EU or in the EEA/EFTA countries. Bulgaria exempts domestic dividends from withholding tax or corporation tax. However, outbound dividends paid to companies resident in the EU with a shareholding of less than 15% are subject to a withholding tax of 5% (if shareholding is of 15% or more they are exempt from withholding tax.). Outbound dividends paid to companies in the other EEA/EFTA countries are also subject to a withholding tax of 5%, regardless of the size of their shareholding.
Higher taxation of outbound dividends paid to companies may result in a restriction of the free movement of capital as protected by Article 56 EC and Article 40 EEA. Similarly, in the case of controlling participations by the foreign companies, it may result in a restriction of the freedom of establishment, protected by Article 43 EC and Article 34 EEA. The Commission is not aware of any justification for such restrictions.
Concerning the higher taxation of dividends paid to companies the Commission has already decided to refer Belgium, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands and Portugal to the European Court of Justice on 22 January 2007. The Commission is now closing the case against Luxembourg (which concerned only the three EEA/EFTA countries), since Luxembourg eliminated the discrimination through its law of 27 December 2007.
Inbound dividends to companies
The second letter of formal notice to Bulgaria concerns the taxation of dividends paid by companies, resident elsewhere in the EU or in the EEA/EFTA countries to companies resident in Bulgaria. Domestic dividends received by companies resident in Bulgaria are tax exempt. Inbound dividends on participations of less than 15% in companies of other EU Member States are taxed at 10%, just like all dividends received from companies of the EFTA/EEA countries.
The higher taxation of inbound dividends than of domestic dividends is likely to restrict the free movement of capital as protected by Article 56 EC and Article 40 EEA. The Commission is not aware of any justification for such restrictions.
Outbound dividends are dividends paid by domestic companies to shareholders resident in other States. Domestic dividends are dividends paid by domestic companies to domestic shareholders. Inbound dividends are dividends paid by companies resident in other States to domestic shareholders.
Outbound dividends to pension funds
Pension funds are usually subject to different tax rules than companies. The tax rules on dividends paid to pension funds and those for dividends paid to companies are therefore assessed separately.
Spain exempts pension funds from tax on their income, and they can claim back any Spanish withholding tax on the dividends that they receive. The domestic dividends that they receive are thus effectively tax free. In contrast, Spain levies a withholding tax of 18% on dividends paid to pension funds established elsewhere in the EU or in the EEA/EFTA countries (Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein). These result in the higher taxation of dividends paid to foreign pension funds. Bilateral tax treaties may provide for a lower withholding tax rate.
Similarly, Portugal exempts the dividends received by domestic pension funds and levies a withholding tax of 25% on dividends paid to pension funds established elsewhere in the EU or in the EEA/EFTA countries.
The higher tax on dividends paid to foreign pension funds may dissuade these funds from investing in the Member State levying the higher tax. Equally, companies established in that Member States may face difficulties in attracting capital from foreign pension funds. The higher taxation of foreign pension funds thus results in a restriction of the free movement of capital as protected by Article 56 EC and Article 40 EEA. In the case of controlling participation by the foreign pension funds, it may also result in a restriction of the freedom of establishment, protected by Article 43 EC and Article 34 EEA. The Commission is not aware of any justification for such restrictions.
Concerning the higher taxation of dividends paid to foreign pension funds, the Commission has already sent letters of formal notice to the Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden, Italy, Finland, Germany, Estonia and Austria.
Following up on the complaints it received, the Commission is still examining the situation in other Member States. This may result in the opening of further infringement procedures.
Outbound dividends to companies
The letter of formal notice to Romania concerns the taxation of dividends which are paid to companies, resident elsewhere in the EU or in the EEA/EFTA countries.
Domestic dividends on participations of up to 15% of the shares are subject to a final withholding tax of 10%. On similar outbound dividends, Romania levies a withholding tax of 16%. Bilateral tax treaties may reduce that rate.
Domestic dividends on participations of 15% or more are tax exempt. In contrast, Romania levies a final withholding tax of 10% on dividends paid to companies resident in Norway and of 16% on similar outbound dividends paid to companies resident in the other EEA/EFTA countries.
The first letter of formal notice to Bulgaria also concerns the taxation of dividends paid to companies which are resident elsewhere in the EU or in the EEA/EFTA countries. Bulgaria exempts domestic dividends from withholding tax or corporation tax. However, outbound dividends paid to companies resident in the EU with a shareholding of less than 15% are subject to a withholding tax of 5% (if shareholding is of 15% or more they are exempt from withholding tax.). Outbound dividends paid to companies in the other EEA/EFTA countries are also subject to a withholding tax of 5%, regardless of the size of their shareholding.
Higher taxation of outbound dividends paid to companies may result in a restriction of the free movement of capital as protected by Article 56 EC and Article 40 EEA. Similarly, in the case of controlling participations by the foreign companies, it may result in a restriction of the freedom of establishment, protected by Article 43 EC and Article 34 EEA. The Commission is not aware of any justification for such restrictions.
Concerning the higher taxation of dividends paid to companies the Commission has already decided to refer Belgium, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands and Portugal to the European Court of Justice on 22 January 2007. The Commission is now closing the case against Luxembourg (which concerned only the three EEA/EFTA countries), since Luxembourg eliminated the discrimination through its law of 27 December 2007.
Inbound dividends to companies
The second letter of formal notice to Bulgaria concerns the taxation of dividends paid by companies, resident elsewhere in the EU or in the EEA/EFTA countries to companies resident in Bulgaria. Domestic dividends received by companies resident in Bulgaria are tax exempt. Inbound dividends on participations of less than 15% in companies of other EU Member States are taxed at 10%, just like all dividends received from companies of the EFTA/EEA countries.
The higher taxation of inbound dividends than of domestic dividends is likely to restrict the free movement of capital as protected by Article 56 EC and Article 40 EEA. The Commission is not aware of any justification for such restrictions.
Sunday, 4 May 2008
CE requests Hungary to end discriminative tax incentives for R&D
The European Commission has formally requested Hungary to change its tax law provisions which limit the granting of a tax incentive to taxpayers who engage in research or development activities performed on premises located in Hungary. The provisions are incompatible with the freedom to provide services as guaranteed by Article 49 of the EC Treaty and Article 36 of the EEA Agreement. The request takes the form of a reasoned opinion (second step of the infringement procedure provided for in Article 226 of the EC Treaty). If there is no satisfactory reaction to the Reasoned Opinion within two months, the Commission may decide to refer the matter to the European Court of Justice.
Under Hungarian Law, basic research, applied research or experimental development services performed on premises managed by a research institution (research facility) founded by a Hungarian institution of higher education or the Hungarian Academy of Sciences are treated more favourably than similar R&D activities performed on similar premises located in other EU Member States or EEA/EFTA countries.
As a result, these provisions discourage Hungarian companies and entrepreneurs from carrying out their R&D activities in other EU Member States or EEA/EFTA countries and therefore impede the free provision of services as guaranteed by Article 49 of the EC Treaty and Article 36 of the EEA Agreement.
Under Hungarian Law, basic research, applied research or experimental development services performed on premises managed by a research institution (research facility) founded by a Hungarian institution of higher education or the Hungarian Academy of Sciences are treated more favourably than similar R&D activities performed on similar premises located in other EU Member States or EEA/EFTA countries.
As a result, these provisions discourage Hungarian companies and entrepreneurs from carrying out their R&D activities in other EU Member States or EEA/EFTA countries and therefore impede the free provision of services as guaranteed by Article 49 of the EC Treaty and Article 36 of the EEA Agreement.
Wednesday, 19 March 2008
The EC proposes measures to tackle VAT fraud effectively
The European Commission on 17th March this year adopted proposals for the amendment of the VAT Directive and the VAT Administrative Cooperation Regulation to speed up the collection and exchange of information on intra-Community transactions from 2010 onwards. This will enable the Member States to detect carousel fraud very quickly. The proposals follow on from the Communication on the improvement of administrative cooperation between Member States to improve the fight against VAT fraud. They are part of a range of legislative and administrative measures which have been, or are about to be, agreed in order to combat VAT fraud more effectively.
Intra-Community carousel VAT fraud occurs where a person liable for VAT who has acquired goods or services within the Community on which no VAT has been paid supplies these goods or services within the Community with VAT imposed but then ‘disappears’ without paying the VAT into the Exchequer.
Faster information exchanges
When an intra-Community transaction takes place, it currently takes between three and six months for information about that transaction to be sent to the Member State in which the VAT is due. Under the proposals for a Directive and a Regulation, this period will be reduced to between one and two months, thus enabling any fraud to be detected much faster.
With this in mind, the Commission proposes:
- harmonising and reducing to one month the period which persons liable to VAT have for declaring intra-Community transactions involving the supply of goods or services within the Community;
- reducing from three months to one month the period for transmission of this information between Member States;
- collecting information monthly on intra-Community purchases of goods or services where the buyer or customer is liable for VAT to make it easier to cross-check the data with that provided by suppliers. For this purpose, buyers or customers making transactions to a value of more than EUR 200 000 per calendar year will be obliged to submit their VAT declarations monthly. The threshold has been set at this level to avoid imposing extra obligations on undertakings which make intra-Community acquisitions only occasionally or only for small amounts, while having regard to the significant amounts which fraud represents;
- simplifying the procedures for submitting declarations on intra-Community transactions in Member States in which these procedures are abnormally complex to reduce the burden which the procedures may impose on undertakings.
According to the various consultations carried out within the private sector, these measures will not impose an additional administrative burden on economic operators.
Other conventional measures under discussion
In addition to the proposals for a Directive and a Regulation, the Commission recently submitted several other conventional measures to the Member States’ tax authorities for consideration and for a decision. Some of these measures do not require any changes to EU legislation and can therefore be implemented quickly by the national authorities.
With effect from 2009, the department which checks the data on registration for VAT purposes on the Europa website will enable confirmation to be obtained of the name and address of trading partners established in other Member States and will issue personal consultation certificates.
This measure is intended to increase the legal certainty of operators acting in good faith and to enable the tax authorities to carry out more effective controls.
Considerable progress has also been made in discussions with the national authorities on the following points:
- automated access by all other Member States to certain non-sensitive data held by Member States on their own taxable persons (business sector, certain data concerning turnover, etc.),
- harmonisation of the procedures for the registration and de-registration of persons liable for VAT to ensure the swift detection and de-registration of fake taxable persons. The Expert Group is considering the introduction of minimum standards.
Intra-Community carousel VAT fraud occurs where a person liable for VAT who has acquired goods or services within the Community on which no VAT has been paid supplies these goods or services within the Community with VAT imposed but then ‘disappears’ without paying the VAT into the Exchequer.
Faster information exchanges
When an intra-Community transaction takes place, it currently takes between three and six months for information about that transaction to be sent to the Member State in which the VAT is due. Under the proposals for a Directive and a Regulation, this period will be reduced to between one and two months, thus enabling any fraud to be detected much faster.
With this in mind, the Commission proposes:
- harmonising and reducing to one month the period which persons liable to VAT have for declaring intra-Community transactions involving the supply of goods or services within the Community;
- reducing from three months to one month the period for transmission of this information between Member States;
- collecting information monthly on intra-Community purchases of goods or services where the buyer or customer is liable for VAT to make it easier to cross-check the data with that provided by suppliers. For this purpose, buyers or customers making transactions to a value of more than EUR 200 000 per calendar year will be obliged to submit their VAT declarations monthly. The threshold has been set at this level to avoid imposing extra obligations on undertakings which make intra-Community acquisitions only occasionally or only for small amounts, while having regard to the significant amounts which fraud represents;
- simplifying the procedures for submitting declarations on intra-Community transactions in Member States in which these procedures are abnormally complex to reduce the burden which the procedures may impose on undertakings.
According to the various consultations carried out within the private sector, these measures will not impose an additional administrative burden on economic operators.
Other conventional measures under discussion
In addition to the proposals for a Directive and a Regulation, the Commission recently submitted several other conventional measures to the Member States’ tax authorities for consideration and for a decision. Some of these measures do not require any changes to EU legislation and can therefore be implemented quickly by the national authorities.
With effect from 2009, the department which checks the data on registration for VAT purposes on the Europa website will enable confirmation to be obtained of the name and address of trading partners established in other Member States and will issue personal consultation certificates.
This measure is intended to increase the legal certainty of operators acting in good faith and to enable the tax authorities to carry out more effective controls.
Considerable progress has also been made in discussions with the national authorities on the following points:
- automated access by all other Member States to certain non-sensitive data held by Member States on their own taxable persons (business sector, certain data concerning turnover, etc.),
- harmonisation of the procedures for the registration and de-registration of persons liable for VAT to ensure the swift detection and de-registration of fake taxable persons. The Expert Group is considering the introduction of minimum standards.
Wednesday, 2 January 2008
US and EU: Mutual Recognition in Securities Markets
SEC and European Commission had a wide-ranging discussion on topics of mutual interest, including the current market volatility, accounting standards, sovereign wealth funds, credit rating agencies, XBRL developments and mutual recognition of securities regulation. With regard to the recent market movements, they discussed national and international efforts to analyze the circumstances resulting in the loss of market liquidity and mitigate its recurrence.
On mutual recognition, they agreed that the goals of a mutual recognition arrangement would be to increase transatlantic market efficiency and liquidity while enhancing investor protection. An EU-US mutual recognition arrangement for securities would have the potential to facilitate access of EU and U.S. investors to a broader and deeper transatlantic market, increase the availability of information about foreign investment opportunities, promote greater diversification of securities portfolios, significantly reduce transatlantic trading and transaction costs, and increase oversight coordination among regulators.
As a first step, SEC and European Commission staff, assisted by the Committee of European Securities Regulators, would need to develop a framework for mutual recognition discussions. The mutual recognition process will also require consideration of a fair and orderly methodology for initiating discussions with the EU and interested Member States, taking into account limitations on resources available for carrying out the relevant assessments. Without prejudice to their respective domestic processes, Chairman Cox and Commissioner McCreevy jointly mandated their respective staffs to intensify work on a possible framework for EU-US mutual recognition for securities in 2008.
They jointly declared, "The U.S. and EU, which comprise 70% of the world's capital markets have a common interest in developing a cooperative approach to reducing regulatory friction and increasing investor access to investment diversification opportunities and enhancing investor protections. The concept of mutual recognition offers significant promise as a means of better protecting investors, fostering capital formation and maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient transatlantic securities markets. As we consider implementation of this concept, we encourage input from market participants."
Commissioner McCreevy and Chairman Cox agreed to work closely together during the year to review overall progress. In addition, SEC and European Commission officials and CESR staff plan to hold regular technical meetings over the year to begin to develop a mutual recognition framework.
On mutual recognition, they agreed that the goals of a mutual recognition arrangement would be to increase transatlantic market efficiency and liquidity while enhancing investor protection. An EU-US mutual recognition arrangement for securities would have the potential to facilitate access of EU and U.S. investors to a broader and deeper transatlantic market, increase the availability of information about foreign investment opportunities, promote greater diversification of securities portfolios, significantly reduce transatlantic trading and transaction costs, and increase oversight coordination among regulators.
As a first step, SEC and European Commission staff, assisted by the Committee of European Securities Regulators, would need to develop a framework for mutual recognition discussions. The mutual recognition process will also require consideration of a fair and orderly methodology for initiating discussions with the EU and interested Member States, taking into account limitations on resources available for carrying out the relevant assessments. Without prejudice to their respective domestic processes, Chairman Cox and Commissioner McCreevy jointly mandated their respective staffs to intensify work on a possible framework for EU-US mutual recognition for securities in 2008.
They jointly declared, "The U.S. and EU, which comprise 70% of the world's capital markets have a common interest in developing a cooperative approach to reducing regulatory friction and increasing investor access to investment diversification opportunities and enhancing investor protections. The concept of mutual recognition offers significant promise as a means of better protecting investors, fostering capital formation and maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient transatlantic securities markets. As we consider implementation of this concept, we encourage input from market participants."
Commissioner McCreevy and Chairman Cox agreed to work closely together during the year to review overall progress. In addition, SEC and European Commission officials and CESR staff plan to hold regular technical meetings over the year to begin to develop a mutual recognition framework.
Monday, 11 October 2004
Le statut de la société européene es entré en vigueur
Le statut de la société européenne peut en principe être utilisé à partir du 8 octobre 2004, c’est-à-dire plus de trente après qu’il a été proposé pour la première fois par la Commission. Une directive connexe concernant la participation des travailleurs des sociétés européennes est entrée en vigueur simultanément. Toutefois, seuls six des vingt-huit États membres de l’UE et de l’EEE ont adopté les réglementations nationales nécessaires pour permettre la constitution de sociétés européennes sur leur territoire. Jusqu’à ce que les autres aient fait de même, de nombreuses sociétés opérant dans plus d’un État membre n’auront pas la possibilité de se constituer en société de droit communautaire et d'évoluer comme un opérateur unique dans toute l’UE en appliquant un jeu unique de règles, une direction unique et des règles publicité uniques.
M. Frits Bolkestein, commissaire chargé du marché intérieur, a déclaré ce qui suit: "Le statut de la société européenne permettra à ces entreprises de développer et de restructurer leurs activités transfrontalières sans passer par les formalités administratives interminables et coûteuses qu'implique l'établissement d'un réseau de filiales. Non seulement cela va encourager les sociétés à utiliser cette structure efficace pour leurs opérations à l'échelle européenne, mais la réduction des coûts devrait en fin de compte entraîner une pression à la baisse sur les prix et améliorer la compétitivité européenne dans son ensemble. Mais ce sont des promesses en l’air si les États membres ne tiennent pas leurs engagements et ne mettent pas en place le cadre nécessaire pour permettre la constitution de sociétés européennes. En attendant, ils brident leurs propres entreprises et l’économie européenne. C’est inacceptable."
Seuls l’Autriche, la Belgique, la Finlande, le Danemark, l’Islande et la Suède ont jusqu’à présent pris les mesures nécessaires pour permettre la constitution de sociétés européennes sur leur territoire, alors que le statut de la société européenne a été adopté au niveau de l’UE en 2001 (voir IP/01/1376 ).
En vertu de ce statut, une société européenne peut être constituée par la création d'un holding ou d'une filiale commune, par la fusion de sociétés situées dans au moins deux États membres ou par la transformation d'une société existante constituée conformément au droit interne d'un État membre.
La directive connexe concernant la participation des travailleurs prévoit que la création d'une société européenne implique une négociation sur la participation des salariés avec un organe unique représentant tous les salariés des sociétés concernées.
S'il s'avère impossible d'aboutir à un arrangement satisfaisant pour les deux parties, un jeu de principes standard s'applique, dont la nature exacte dépend de la forme de la participation des travailleurs dans les sociétés avant la constitution de la société européenne.
Le texte intégral du règlement sur le statut de la société européenne et de la directive connexe sur la participation des travailleurs est disponible à l’adresse suivante:
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/fr/company/company/official/index.htm
M. Frits Bolkestein, commissaire chargé du marché intérieur, a déclaré ce qui suit: "Le statut de la société européenne permettra à ces entreprises de développer et de restructurer leurs activités transfrontalières sans passer par les formalités administratives interminables et coûteuses qu'implique l'établissement d'un réseau de filiales. Non seulement cela va encourager les sociétés à utiliser cette structure efficace pour leurs opérations à l'échelle européenne, mais la réduction des coûts devrait en fin de compte entraîner une pression à la baisse sur les prix et améliorer la compétitivité européenne dans son ensemble. Mais ce sont des promesses en l’air si les États membres ne tiennent pas leurs engagements et ne mettent pas en place le cadre nécessaire pour permettre la constitution de sociétés européennes. En attendant, ils brident leurs propres entreprises et l’économie européenne. C’est inacceptable."
Seuls l’Autriche, la Belgique, la Finlande, le Danemark, l’Islande et la Suède ont jusqu’à présent pris les mesures nécessaires pour permettre la constitution de sociétés européennes sur leur territoire, alors que le statut de la société européenne a été adopté au niveau de l’UE en 2001 (voir IP/01/1376 ).
En vertu de ce statut, une société européenne peut être constituée par la création d'un holding ou d'une filiale commune, par la fusion de sociétés situées dans au moins deux États membres ou par la transformation d'une société existante constituée conformément au droit interne d'un État membre.
La directive connexe concernant la participation des travailleurs prévoit que la création d'une société européenne implique une négociation sur la participation des salariés avec un organe unique représentant tous les salariés des sociétés concernées.
S'il s'avère impossible d'aboutir à un arrangement satisfaisant pour les deux parties, un jeu de principes standard s'applique, dont la nature exacte dépend de la forme de la participation des travailleurs dans les sociétés avant la constitution de la société européenne.
Le texte intégral du règlement sur le statut de la société européenne et de la directive connexe sur la participation des travailleurs est disponible à l’adresse suivante:
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/fr/company/company/official/index.htm
Sunday, 10 October 2004
European Company Statute in force
The European Company Statute in theory became available for use on 8 October 2004, over thirty years after it was first proposed by the Commission. A related Directive concerning worker involvement in European Companies entered into force at the same time. However, only six of the 28 EU and EEA Member States have implemented the regulations at national level necessary to allow European Companies to be set up on their territory. Until the rest do so, many companies operating in more than one Member State will be denied the option of being established as a single company under Community law and thus of being able to operate throughout the EU with one set of rules and a unified management and reporting system.
Internal Market Commissioner Frits Bolkestein said: "The European Company Statute makes it easier and cheaper for companies to expand and to manage cross-border operations without the red tape of having to set up a network of subsidiaries. Not only will that encourage more companies to exploit cross-border opportunities, the reduced costs should ultimately lead to downward pressure on prices and boost Europe's overall competitiveness. But this is pie in the sky unless Member States live up to their commitments and put the framework in place to allow European companies to be set up. Until they do that, they are holding their own businesses and the European economy back. That is unacceptable."
Only Belgium, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Iceland have so far taken the necessary measures to allow European Companies to be founded on their territory, despite the fact that the European Company Statute was adopted at EU level in 2001 (see IP/01/1376 ).
Under the European Company Statute, a European Company can be set up by the creation of a holding company or a joint subsidiary or by the merger of companies located in at least two Member States or by the conversion of an existing company set up under national law.
Under the accompanying Directive on employee involvement, the creation of a European Company requires negotiations on the involvement of employees with a body representing all employees of the companies concerned. If it proves impossible to negotiate a mutually-satisfactory arrangement then a set of standard principles applies, the exact nature of which depends on the format for worker participation in the companies concerned before the European Company was set up.
For the full texts of the Regulation on the European Company Statute and of the accompanying Directive on employee involvement, see:
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/company/company/official/index.htm
Internal Market Commissioner Frits Bolkestein said: "The European Company Statute makes it easier and cheaper for companies to expand and to manage cross-border operations without the red tape of having to set up a network of subsidiaries. Not only will that encourage more companies to exploit cross-border opportunities, the reduced costs should ultimately lead to downward pressure on prices and boost Europe's overall competitiveness. But this is pie in the sky unless Member States live up to their commitments and put the framework in place to allow European companies to be set up. Until they do that, they are holding their own businesses and the European economy back. That is unacceptable."
Only Belgium, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Iceland have so far taken the necessary measures to allow European Companies to be founded on their territory, despite the fact that the European Company Statute was adopted at EU level in 2001 (see IP/01/1376 ).
Under the European Company Statute, a European Company can be set up by the creation of a holding company or a joint subsidiary or by the merger of companies located in at least two Member States or by the conversion of an existing company set up under national law.
Under the accompanying Directive on employee involvement, the creation of a European Company requires negotiations on the involvement of employees with a body representing all employees of the companies concerned. If it proves impossible to negotiate a mutually-satisfactory arrangement then a set of standard principles applies, the exact nature of which depends on the format for worker participation in the companies concerned before the European Company was set up.
For the full texts of the Regulation on the European Company Statute and of the accompanying Directive on employee involvement, see:
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/company/company/official/index.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
