World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam v Inspire Art Ltd

Article Id: WHEBN0021109572
Reproduction Date:

Title: Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam v Inspire Art Ltd  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Court of Justice of the European Union, European Court of Justice, United Kingdom company law, Second Company Law Directive, European corporate law
Collection:
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Publication
Date:
 

Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam v Inspire Art Ltd

Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam v Inspire Art Ltd
Decided 30 December 2003
Full case name Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam v Inspire Art Ltd
Case number C-167/01
ECLI ECLI:EU:C:2003:512
Keywords
Right of establishment

Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam v Inspire Art Ltd (2003) C-167/01 is a leading corporate law case, concerning the EU law of freedom of establishment for companies.

Facts

The art company Inspire Art Ltd was incorporated in the United Kingdom, which accords to the "incorporation theory" rather than the "real seat theory" of establishing a business in conflict of laws. It wished to carry out business in the Netherlands, which also follows incorporation theory. Dutch law, however, applied to "pseudo foreign" companies to impose minimum capital requirements on businesses operating within the country. The question was whether this disproportionately interfered with Inspire Art Ltd's right to freedom of establishment.

Judgment

The ECJ held that creditor protection did not justify imposing additional requirements to those of the United Kingdom, where Inspire Art Ltd was incorporated. In this case, creditors were sufficiently protected by the fact that the company did not hold itself out as a Dutch company, but one subject to UK law.

It held that national laws which restrict freedom of establishment must be:

  1. non-discriminatory
  2. necessary in order to protect a public interest objective
  3. appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective
  4. proportionate

See also

ECJ cases
US cases

References

  • M Andenas, 'Free Movement of Companies' (2003) 119 LQR 221
  • P Dyrberg, 'Full Free Movement of Companies in the European Community At Last' [2003] ELR 528
  • WF Ebke, 'Centros - Some Realities and Some Mysteries' (2000) 48 American Journal of Comparative Law 623

External links

  • Inspire Art Ltd
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 



Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from World Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.