—

having regard to Articles 49, 54 and 153 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

—

having regard to the sixth Council Directive 82/891/EEC of 17 December 1982 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty, concerning the division of public limited liability companies (1),

—

having regard to Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies (2),

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2157/2001 of 8 October 2001 on the Statute for a European company (SE) (3),

—

having regard to Council Directive 2001/86/EC of 8 October 2001 supplementing the Statute for a European company with regard to the involvement of employees (4),

—

having regard to Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community (5),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 12 December 2012 entitled ‘Action Plan: European company law and corporate governance — a modern legal framework for more engaged shareholders and sustainable companies’ (COM(2012)0740),

—

having regard to its resolution of 14 June 2012 on the future of European company law (6),

—

having regard to its resolution of 10 March 2009 with recommendations to the Commission on the cross-border transfer of the registered office of a company (7),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 25 October 2016 entilted ‘Building a fair, competitive and stable corporate tax system for the EU’ (COM(2016)0682),

—

having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on freedom of establishment, in particular in the cases SEVIC Systems AG (8), Cadbury Schweppes plc & Cadbury Schweppes Overseas Ltd v Commissioners of Inland Revenue (9) , CARTESIO Oktató és Szolgáltató bt. (10), VALE Építési kft. (11), KA Finanz AG v Sparkassen Versicherung AG Vienna Insurance Group (12), Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam v Inspire Art Ltd. (13), Überseering BV v Nordic Construction Company Baumanagement GmbH (NCC) (14), Centros Ltd v Erhvervs- og Selskabsstyrelsen (15), and The Queen v H. M. Treasury and Commissioners of Inland Revenue, ex parte Daily Mail and General Trust plc. (16),

—

having regard to the Commission feedback statement of October 2015 containing a summary of responses to the public consultation on cross-border mergers and divisions conducted between 8 September 2014 and 2 February 2015 (17),

—

having regard to the European Parliament Policy Department C: Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional AffairsSstudy of June 2016 entitled ‘Cross-border mergers and divisions, transfers of seat: is there a need to legislate?’ (18),

—

having regard to the European Parliamentary Research Service study of December 2016 entitled ‘Ex-post analysis of the EU framework in the area of Cross-border mergers and divisions’ (19),

—

having regard to the Commission’s ‘Work Programme 2017 — Delivering a Europe that protects, empowers and defends’, and Chapter II, Point 4 thereof (COM(2016)0710),

—

having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure, as well as Article 1(1)(e) of, and Annex 3 to the decision of the Conference of Presidents of 12 December 2002 on the procedure for granting authorisation to draw up own-initiative reports,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A8-0190/2017),

A.

having regard to the significant effect on European competitiveness of a comprehensive reform of company law and the obstacles to full implementation of the Directive on cross-border mergers;

B.

whereas to date there is no European Union law on cross-border divisions of undertakings; whereas the current situation entails manifest procedural, administrative and financial difficulties for the businesses concerned, as well as the risk of abuses and dumping;

C.

whereas Parliament has strongly and continuously called for the introduction of a European law on cross-border transfers of the registered office or head office of undertakings; whereas the majority of stakeholders are broadly supportive of Parliament’s requests;

D.

whereas for the sake of improving companies’ mobility within the EU, it is important that there is a common legal framework on companies’ mergers, divisions and transfers operations;

E.

whereas not all Member States in which cross-border mergers and divisions or transfers of registered office or head office have occurred have rules which assign workers’ rights to be consulted and informed and to engage in co-determination;

F.

whereas the transfer of a registered office should not circumvent legal, social and fiscal requirements laid down in the law of the European Union and of the Member States of origin but should rather have the aim of establishing a uniform legal framework which ensures the maximum transparency and simplification of procedures and which fights tax fraud;

G.

whereas the relevant EU acquis provides for a wide range of information, consultation and participation rights for workers; whereas Directive 2009/38/EC (20) and Directive 2005/56/EC guarantee cross-border workers’ participation and lay down the principle of pre-existing rights; whereas it is considered that those workers’ rights should also be protected in case of transfer of seat;

H.

whereas all new initiatives in European company law should be based on an in-depth evaluation and assessment of existing forms of company law, the relevant judgments of the CJEU on the cross-border mobility of companies, and on impact assessments reflecting the interests of all stakeholders, including shareholders, creditors, investors and workers, ensuring the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.