TFL Vsebine / Revija Pravnik

1

V prispevku avtorica obravnava vprašanje dopustnosti čezmejnega prenosa dejanskega sedeža slovenske družbe. V ta namen predstavi tezo, da lakonične zakonske določbe o sedežu ne napeljujejo na sklep, da se zahteva teritorialna skladnost statutarnega in dejanskega sedeža za domače družbe. Avtorica poda izvirno razlago veljavnih pravil in sodne prakse, na podlagi katere je mogoče sklepati, da je čezmejni prenos dejanskega sedeža slovenske družbe (že) dopusten in ne vodi do izgube pravne subjektivitete družbe. Ker je zahteva po teritorialni skladnosti statutarnega in dejanskega sedeža v svojem bistvu prepovedna določba, saj prepoveduje njihovo razdružitev, bi morala biti izrecno določena, če bi jo zakonodajalec v resnici želel uzakoniti. Menim, da sklepanje na tako prepoved na podlagi ohlapnih členov o sedežu, ki jih najdemo v 29. in 30. členu ZGD-1, presega meje teleološke razlage. Družbe, ki so ustanovljene v državah članicah, ki tudi v praksi sprejemajo teorijo dejanskega sedeža, pa se bodo morale tudi v prihodnje odločati za alternativne možnosti za čezmejno mobilnost. To je lahko priložnost za razvoj nacionalnih ureditev, ki bodo privlačne za ustanovitve družb, s tem pa tudi za zakonodajno konkurenco na področju prava družb. To vprašanje bo še zlasti aktualno v primeru morebitnega »Brexita«, izstopa Združenega kraljestva iz EU, ki ga je napovedal referendum junija lani. V tem primeru bodo številne družbe, ustanovljene v Združenem kraljestvu, iskale alternativne pravne rede za svojo reinkorporacijo.

The paper addresses the issue of the admissibility of the cross-border transfer of a real seat of a Slovenian company. It argues that laconic statutory provisions governing the seat of a company do not require that a company’s statutory seat and real seat coincide, i.e. that the principle of coincidence between the statutory seat and the real seat is not applicable to domestic companies. This paper offers an original interpretation of the existing rules and case law that points to a conclusion that the cross-border transfer of the real seat of a Slovenian company is (already) admissible and does not lead to the loss of legal personality of the company. Such prohibition should be explicitly provided by the Companies Act. Reaching such a conclusion on the basis of the laconic statutory provisions governing the seat of a company, in my opinion, exceeds the limits of a teleological interpretation. However, companies that are established in Member States which in practice accept the real seat theory still need to consider the alternative options for cross-border mobility. This could be seen as an opportunity for the development of national laws to attract companies’ (re)incorporations, and thus also for regulatory competition between company laws. The latter will be especially relevant in case of ‘Brexit’ (the United Kingdom leaving the EU), which has been upheld by the referendum in June 2016. Arguably, a number of companies established in the UK would sought alternative legal systems for their (re)incorporation.

An Essay on the Cross-border Transfer of a Company’s Real Seat