Committee on Legal Affairs Ordinary Meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Replay
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
JURI European Parliament
Follow its sittingsDainius Žalimas
Yes, sorry, that's not the. This report is about making sure that EU law works in practice. And of course, I would like to thank also all the shadows. But first of all, like last year, our report will focus on the Commission's annual progress report on simplification, implementation and enforcement, which will be presented in the autumn. We will examine the implementation and enforcement of EU law, infringement procedures and simplification.
A new element this year will be the review of the Commission's rulebook initiative, which I believe deserves close parliamentary scrutiny. I would also like to build on the approach we introduced in last year's reports by continuing our close cooperation within the JURI network and with colleagues from other committees. The sector-specific contributions significantly strengthened our previous report, and I hope we can build on that experience again this year. As rapporteur, I would like to focus on a few key priorities. First, on simplification.
The Commission continues to present new omnibus initiatives, and we will need to assess whether they deliver tangible results. At the same time, simplification must not become an objective in itself. It should make EU law clearer, more predictable and easier to implement while ensuring that we continue to achieve our policy objectives. Second, I welcome the idea of a regulatory deep cleaning through the rulebook initiative. This approach should also be reflected in legislation that is still being prepared.
This means that impact assessments should become more robust, not lighter, helping to prevent unnecessary regulatory burdens before they arise and contributing to the EU's broader competitiveness objectives. The EU should also make better use of its extensive data infrastructure to monitor the impact of legislation on an ongoing basis. Moving towards more continuous and agile evaluation would better support evidence-based policymaking. Public consultations together with ex-ante and ex-post impact assessments remain essential for effective legislation. As the EU increasingly relies on regulations, the Commission will need to continue adapting its monitoring practices by providing stronger support to national authorities, issuing practical guidance and promoting the exchange of best practices.
We should also consider whether the Commission's monitoring and reporting on enforcement activities could be further strengthened through greater transparency and continued improvements to monitoring and case management tools. Effective enforcement is equally important. Timely and consistent infringement procedures remain indispensable to ensure the uniform application of EU law across all the Member States.
They should also continue to be used consistently in cases of clear and persistent breaches of Union law, including where the rule of law is concerned. At the same time, we should also ensure that the Commission has the resources necessary to fulfill its enforcement responsibilities effectively. The transposition deficit has also been increasing in recent years. We should therefore explore how to strengthen structured cooperation between the Commission and the member states, improve early warning mechanisms, and support timely and high-quality transposition before infringement procedures become necessary. We should also reflect on delegated and implementing acts.
Given their technical nature, proportionate assessment of compliance costs may often be as important as full impact assessments. At the same time, we should ensure that implementing acts and Commission guidelines remain within the limits set by the co-legislators and do not introduce additional obligations or requirements that go beyond the original legislative act. Finally, we should also consider how artificial intelligence can support better implementation. AI-based regulatory intelligence tools could help monitor the practical impact of legislation, identify implementation challenges at an early stage, analyze legislative developments, and support more timely and evidence-based updates of the EU law. I look forward to hearing your views today.
They will be invaluable in preparing the report and reaching a balanced compromise. Thank you in advance.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you very much for your presentation. I'm looking to the colleagues if they wish to speak on this matter. Mr. Voss.
Axel Voss
So, on behalf of Mr. Mandl, he would like to say thank you to the rapporteur and he's very happy also that they are starting the work on this yearly report. The report is supposed to address the core aspect of the European Union's functioning, monitoring whether legislation adopted at EU level is implemented and enforced consistently across all member states. Effective application of EU law is essential to maintaining citizens' confidence, providing legal certainty for businesses, and safeguarding the Union's credibility. Our priorities should be to improve the implementation of EU legislation, increase transparency, and reinforce the Commission's role as a guardian of the treaties. Our objective is to promote practical, balanced, and legal robust solutions rather than creating additional administrative burdens while ensuring that the report remains within the limits of JURI's remit.
Lukas Mandl is looking forward to the work ahead and would like to thank the rapporteur and the fellow shadow rapporteurs already for their constructive cooperation throughout the process.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you, Mr. Voss. And I'm now turning once again to the colleagues if they wish to speak on this matter. No, that is not the case and I would like to give the floor to the representative of the European Commission and we have Ms. Isabelle Bürgy, head of unit of the implementation and enforcement of EU law. So I give you the floor, ma'am.
Isabelle Bürgy
Merci, Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés. Comme la Commission l'a rappelé dans sa communication du 28 avril dernier sur un corpus réglementaire de l'UE plus simple, plus clair et mieux mis en œuvre, une législation n'a de valeur que si elle est effectivement respectée.
Simplifier les règles et mieux les appliquer vont de pair. Depuis le début de l'année, la Commission a déjà adopté un nombre important de décisions dans les procédures d'infraction. À titre d'exemple, le paquet de décisions adopté la semaine dernière, le 8 juillet, comprend une soixantaine de lettres de mise en demeure, 45 avis motivés, 10 saisines de la Cour, dont 5 accompagnées de demandes de sanctions financières. Enfin, une cinquantaine de cas ont pu être classés. Ces chiffres illustrent une approche orientée vers les résultats.
Notre objectif n'est pas d'engager des procédures pour elles-mêmes, mais d'obtenir une mise en conformité avec le droit de l'Union. Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, nous savons que vous attachez une importance particulière à une application rigoureuse du droit de l'Union, et je confirme que cette exigence est pleinement partagée par la Commission. Merci.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Merci, Madame Burgue. The floor goes back to the rapporteur, Mr. Žalimas.
Dainius Žalimas
Thank you very much. Thank you very much for the exchange of views and constructive contributions. Indeed, I fully agree, and there is nothing here to disagree, that effective application of the EU law is essential for people's trust in EU and EU law, as well as effective activities of the Commission and results-oriented approach is also very important for people to trust in the European Union and the European Union law with all its values. I will carefully reflect on the points raised today as I prepare the report and will do my best to find a balanced approach that reflects the perspectives expressed in this discussion. I also can assure you that the report should, of course, remain within the limits of JURI competence, and I also look forward to continuing our cooperation after the summer break as we work towards a strong report and broad compromise.
Thank you very much.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you, Mr. Žalimas. The presentation of the draft report is planned for our JURI meeting of 14th-15th of November. Now we will move on to the consideration of draft report on the 28th regime, Corporate Legal Framework, EU Inc. First, I would like to give the floor to the rapporteur, Mr. René Repasi. René.
René Repasi
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Indeed, consideration of draft report in a rather tight schedule. We have started working roughly about a month ago, and in order to quote the famous German poet Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, he said, "My dear friend, I had no time to write you a short letter, so it has become a long one." And in that sense, the draft report with its 150 pages shows the massive creative energy that my office, my team, myself have put forward here. But it also shows that this is not the version that will be published in the Official Journal, and therefore we are looking forward for amendments, be it from myself, be it also from other shadow rapporteurs or other interested parties.
On what we have nevertheless on the table shows politically where in my eyes the European Parliament should go to. Namely, as a starting point, seeing that EU Inc is an opportunity. It is first an opportunity to finally, in this mandate since the European elections 2024, to establish and create new uniform EU rules rather than deconstructing already existing European rules with so-called omnibuses.
Second, it is an opportunity to create a seal of quality for startups, for employees of EU Incs and for investors. It is not only that we give an EU Inc the name Inc, which is US-American origin, but we also give it the abbreviation EU, and therefore EU should also be in a company form that has its name. Let's therefore also be clear that we have to create a highway, a highway for innovative startups and scale-ups, a highway for innovators. And what they need is that all is done digitally, in the creation of a company form, in its existence and when it's time to die. That there is a once-only principle followed, submitted once and afterwards it's for the other authorities to gather the information where it was already submitted.
That a registration is finalized within two working days and that it costs us no more than 100 euros. That is the highway that we need to establish. But when we're looking at a highway, a highway, except for my country of origin, needs speed limits and it needs guardrails, because otherwise we have riots on the highways and we have rowdies disturbing those who only want to be quick and fast at home or at the place where they are traveling to. And those limits and those guardrails, they are missing, and they are now in the draft report as presented. We need to protect the EU way of doing things, and the EU way of doing things is that we invest into proper preventive controls so that we do not have to be sorry later.
The American Western type of way: shoot and then talk. Therefore, let's not underestimate our preventive controls, let's not open the doors to anti-money launderers in order to later take them off the market. Harm is done already in the first second of existence of a money launderer. Let's strengthen preventive control. Second, in order to have full free movement in the internal market, which is essential for an EU Inc, we need to have a stable connecting factor, which is only the place of the registration.
Yet that invites, that can lead to a situation where the legal place of a company is different than its economic activity, so that protection standards connected to the economic activity could be undermined. If this is a seal of quality, let's close those doors where they do not undermine our highway. And that is the protection of labor law, it's the protection of workers' standards and employee conditions. Let's protect collective agreements and the very fact of how they are negotiated. Let's also look at employee participation, which is a matter of corporate law, because participation of employees in a company is corporate law, mostly known as codetermination under the German system, but many member states know it, the Netherlands, Denmark and other countries know forms of employee participation.
Here it is crucial that it is the place of the employment that matters for the determination of the applicable law for codetermination in order to ensure that high standards of employee participation are respected. And this is also a lesson learned from the past. Whilst I was a young student when it happened, previous attempts to have European pan-European limited liability companies always failed because the question of employee participation was either not addressed or not properly addressed. Let's not risk this great opportunity because of that matter that can be properly solved by working, by protecting employee participation.
ways of attracting talent, such as employee stock options or stock ownership programs. But let's not open it as a tool to working poor. Let's make clear that ESOPs cannot be used in order to replace ordinary pay, but is rather a bonus, and that is something that our amendments were introducing. But let's also make use of new ways of how founders are founding companies. There is a broad variety of how founders want to organize their company, including ways in which they want to introduce elements of steward ownership.
Very innovative ones want to protect their innovation against killer acquisitions, but then lack fundamental freedom and free movement within the internal market. Therefore, we included a way of how an EU Inc can be optionally and voluntarily transformed into a steward-owned EU Inc. This is only strengthening and expanding the freedom of founders and not limiting them. And let's also learn our lessons that we actually have to learn from Delaware. It is not that we have an Inc incorporated in Europe, but it is fast and high-quality decision-making.
That was not addressed by the Commission. We therefore propose an alternative dispute resolution mechanism and a digital platform with decisions made public on EU Inc questions for business-to-business decisions. I believe this is crucial in order to actually have an attractive way of how disputes with EU Incs are later settled. Let me conclude on substance with some words on insolvency. I'm also a member of the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee, and here we hear finance ministers, my own one, notably not only from the Social Democrats, but previous from the Christian Democratic Party as well.
On Sunday, they say we need the completion of the Capital Market Union. And once you touch one essential stone of this, which is insolvency law, everybody knows why you cannot touch it. So if we want to give better access to venture capital, then obviously insolvency law is something to be addressed. Having something like insolvency law in the EU Inc proposal does make sense to me if it is indeed limited to those who are exposed to the highest risks, so startups with a limited amount of creditors. Therefore, let's not be uncreative and simply delete what we don't understand, but let's try to transform this insolvency chapter in something that can finally meet our Sunday speeches that we need a Capital Market Union.
A last word on legal base. The Council is very much discussing the question of the legal base. As you know, Parliament's own-initiative report has suggested a maximum harmonization directive based on 50 and 114. And there's something to be said that there are elements on corporate law in this proposal that fall under this particular legal base. And in that sense, I have my doubts about the accuracy of this legal base, but we are entering new territories, so that this legal base can also be argued.
I'm following closely what the Council is discussing on the matter, and Parliament will be ready if the Council wants to adjust the EU Inc proposal to an appropriate legal base, which in my eyes would be a combination of 50 and 114 and then having a directive. Yet this report is built on the assumption that EU Inc will be adopted as a regulation based on Article 114(1) TFEU. I'm now looking forward to the exchange with shadow rapporteurs and other interested parties and will come back to any remarks later in my reply. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you very much, Mr. Repasi. And now we go immediately to the shadows, starting with EPP shadow, Mr. Axel Voss.
Axel Voss
Thank you, Chair. And first of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur for his work on this important file. The EU Inc is one of the most important competitiveness proposals of this mandate, and it is our chance also to finally give European companies one simple, one modern, one digital company law framework to scale across the single market. So for the EPP, the Commission proposal is the right starting point. We want to preserve its core principles.
It must remain a regulation. It must be digital by default, fast and open to everyone who wants to use it. That is what makes the EU-inc attractive. I'm therefore concerned that the draft report moves away from this ambition. Excluding entire sectors from the scope risks creating a fragmented company form before it has even been established.
If we start deciding which sectors deserve access to the EU-inc and which do not, we undermine the simplicity and legal certainty that business are asking for. The same applies to the growing number of references back to national law. The more exceptions and national deviations we introduce, the less European EU-inc becomes. So we should also avoid reopening debates that could endanger the entire proposal. And the Commission has found a balanced approach on employee participation by preserving existing national rules while keeping this company law instrument.
We should not lose sight of that balance. Europe needs fewer barriers to scaling up and not more. So the EPP therefore will work constructively throughout these negotiations, but our objective is clear: to preserve the Commission's ambition and deliver a company form that is genuinely European, simple, competitive and attractive for entrepreneurs and investors alike. Thanks a lot.
Ton Diepeveen
Thank you Mr. Voss. Mr. Diepeveen on behalf of Madame Piera.
Dank u voorzitter. Beste René, verslag van je dat bevat een aantal belangrijke verbeteringen ten opzichte van het commissievoorstel. Maar dat neemt niet weg dat wij toch amendementen gaan indienen met betrekking tot de volgende onderdelen. Je hebt er zelf net ook al een aantal genoemd: de rechtsgrondslag, het toepassingsgebied, het insolventierecht, de fast-track procedure, het taalregime en de bescherming van werknemers en de verspreiding van witwaspraktijken. Ik zal ze niet allemaal langs lopen, maar ik ga de drie kernpunten toch even benoemen.
Ten eerste de rechtsgrondslag. Nou, voor ons is het overduidelijk dat 28ste regime concrete uitwerkingen vormt van de vrijheid van vestiging zoals verankerd in artikel 50 van het Verdrag betreffende de werking van de Europese Unie. En dat ontkennen is de evidente werkelijkheid ontkennen. Ten tweede toepassingsgebied. Het 28ste regime moet beperkt blijven wat ons betreft tot het doel waarvoor het is ontworpen, namelijk innovatieve startups.
Grote gevestigde ondernemingen zoals ook bedrijven in niet-innovatieve sectoren en sectoren die bijzonder gevoelig zijn voor fiscale en sociale fraude horen wat ons betreft niet onder deze regeling te vallen. Ten derde het insolventierecht. De versnelde insolventieprocedure uit hoofdstuk 10 werd enkele maanden geleden nog verworpen door deze commissie tijdens de herziening van de insolventierichtlijn en haalde ook in de trilog geen meerderheid. En toch probeert de commissie diezelfde bepalingen nu via het 28ste regime opnieuw in de Europese wetgeving op te nemen. En dat wekt de indruk dat voorstellen die geen democratische meerderheid halen eenvoudig via een andere weg opnieuw op tafel worden gelegd.
We hebben dat vorige week ook gezien helaas bij de chat control. We hebben zo onze bedenkingen bij dit soort van politiek bedrijven. Voorzitter, gelet op mijn spreektijd laat ik het voorlopig even hierbij. Dank u wel. Succes.
Mario Mantovani
Thank you, Mr. Diepeveen. And for ECR group it will be Mario Mantovani. Prego, Mario.
Sì, grazie presidente. Beh, ringrazio anch'io il relatore per il lavoro svolto, anche perché siamo tutti convinti che EU Inc debba garantire competitività delle nostre imprese almeno per i prossimi dieci anni in Europa. Però dobbiamo andare oltre ai codici del passato, cancellare la burocrazia che frena la crescita, eliminando barriere interne per cui ogni anno circa 300 miliardi di investimenti europei vanno ad arricchire gli altri paesi. Però al relatore vorrei dire, se posso, EU Inc deve essere aperta a tutte le imprese, non solo ad alcune, come peraltro affermava anche l'onorevole Voss. Se apporta un miglioramento, questo miglioramento deve essere per tutti, senza limitazioni di dimensione o di settore, senza rigidità.
Io cercherò anche di mettere le piccole imprese tradizionali, le startup al centro delle mie proposte, come noto: semplificazioni ulteriori, più flessibilità nella governance, formulari ad hoc, apertura diretta ai mercati e strumenti per facilitare anche l'accesso al credito bancario che, come sappiamo, è crollato del 37% per troppa burocrazia. Auspico che questi temi, su questi temi sia possibile trovare un'intesa, collega Repasi. Io temo che la sua relazione aggiunga alla proposta originaria condizionalità, complessità, rigidità di cui forse non c'è bisogno. Lei li chiama i guardrail, però se non è ben posizionato può anche portarci un po' fuori strada. Ad esempio, la codeterminazione, la rappresentanza sindacale, il diritto al lavoro hanno una base giuridica diversa, secondo noi, che fa salve le prerogative nazionali.
Discuterla qui io credo che complichi l'accordo. Sulle steward-owned companies io ho bisogno ancora di riflettere. Sono un modello societario non molto diffuso, non prevedono l'uscita, sono conservatrici e non attrattive per il venture capital. Entrambi questi modelli sono applicati in Germania e da buon conservatore capisco che lei li voglia conservare e mantenere, ma anche in Germania soffrono: si licenzia, si delocalizza. Cioè, non sono sicuro che siano le ricette giuste per la crescita e per la competitività.
Quindi io invito ad uno sforzo comune per favorire investimenti e occupazione, garantendo certezza del diritto e serietà del modello europeo. Comunque grazie.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Grazie, Mario. And the next one is Dainius Žalimas on behalf of Pascal Canfin, the shadow for Renew.
Dainius Žalimas
Thank you, chair. Indeed, I will read the remarks on behalf of Pascal Canfin. First of all, of course, we expressed our gratitude for the work already done. We welcome the draft report, which is the first step of a fast procedure which will be finished at the end of the year.
And Pascal will submit his amendments by this Friday and they will be available probably next week, which he will later explain on the next committee meeting on 7th of September. We welcome the rapporteur's care on ensuring that the EU Inc. doesn't end up being a company form that only benefits throughout and letterbox companies. EU Inc. should be the proof that in Europe strong and resilient startups can scale, not that they disrespect our rules. For instance, the chapter on dispute resolutions on the EU Inc. digital platforms are welcomed. While we agree on some of the problem identified with the rapporteur, we do disagree with some of the solutions that were found.
On co-determination, applying national measures to other member states where these rules do not apply goes too far and could create a real disincentive for companies to choose the EU Inc. form. Likewise, the exclusion of some sectors might pose a risk to innovative startups in these fields, and there are many in the transport of the construction sectors. Finally, excluding EU Inc. companies from listing markets would be detrimental from the objective of covering the entire life cycle of companies. If they respect the rules applied to listed companies, they should have this possibility. Those are remarks by Pascal Canfin and we are looking forward to further constructive dialogue.
Thank you.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you, Mr. Žalimas. The next one is Kira Marie Peter-Hansen for the Greens.
Kira Marie Peter-Hansen
Thank you very much and let me start by thanking the rapporteur for the draft report. From the Greens' side, we share the aim of making it easier for companies to operate across borders and here harmonization can of course reduce unnecessary burdens and also help European businesses grow. So we are very much welcome this idea. However, for us it's also important that harmonization doesn't come at the expense of workers' rights or social standards or democratic safeguards. So in this regard, we appreciate a lot the efforts by the rapporteur.
We believe you made a genuine effort to try and ensure that the 28 regime addresses these concerns, especially on labor rights and protections, and we look forward to discussing how we can further strengthen the safeguards in the coming negotiations. When it comes to the scope, it's quite interesting to hear already that we are a little bit far away from each other. From our side, we would agree with the Parliament's INI or INL report, so we do not believe that publicly listed companies should operate during the 28 regime. They operate under completely different regulatory framework and face different governance requirements and also have a different investor base than non-listed companies. So for us, we would exclude them from the scope of the 28 regime.
Finally, we believe it will be important to also include a review clause that is quite comprehensive, so that the Commission after some years can assess and evaluate whether the framework is actually achieving its objectives and whether it's genuinely helping companies scale across borders or if there are only signs of misuse and unintended consequences. But with this being said, we look forward to the... I will unfortunately not be part of the Parliament negotiations very much, but I look forward to seeing what you conclude with Sergey who will take over from the Greens' side and to join you in the trilogues when we get to that point. Thank you.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you also for your intervention.
For the Left group, Monsieur Aras Saidi.
Arash Saeidi
Merci Monsieur le Président. Permettez-moi d'abord une remarque puisque nous avons un fin connaisseur du règlement intérieur du Parlement parmi nous. Monsieur Sippel, libre à vous de confondre cette salle avec une salle de restaurant, mais dans ce cas-là, au moins ayez la décence d'inviter vos collègues. Moi quand je vais au resto avec des collègues, je les invite et je leur propose de manger également. Ceci dit, article 10, je suis sûr que vous le connaissez par cœur.
Je voulais vous remercier Monsieur Repasi pour l'inclusion de garde-fous, pour le travail effectué d'abord, vous l'avez dit, et pour l'inclusion de garde-fous pour protéger notamment les droits des travailleurs. Cette inclusion souligne d'abord le fait qu'au moins nous sommes tous conscients que ce texte comporte énormément de risques. Et ensuite le bilan coût-avantage à tirer, c'est est-ce que les risques courus, les avantages attendus justifient les risques que nous courons. Je me suis évertué à lire l'étude d'impact présentée par la DG JUST le 11 mai. Au bout de 20 ans, le bénéfice attendu de ce texte est 2,1 milliards d'euros de PIB supplémentaire.
Je mets ces 2 milliards d'euros de PIB supplémentaire face aux risques courus pour les droits sociaux, je n'y reviens pas, ce serait trop long et les syndicats se sont largement exprimés et vous aurez l'occasion de voir dans les plus de 100 amendements que je vais déposer tous les risques que j'attends de ce texte pour les droits sociaux. Mais parlons juste économie. 2 milliards de bénéfices attendus en termes de PIB, je mets ça face aux risques de fraude d'abord sur la TVA par exemple. Entre 2008 et 2009, la fraude à la TVA, la fraude sur les quotas carbone a coûté plus 6 milliards pour l'un, 1,6 milliard juste pour l'État français pour la fraude à la TVA juste sur une année. Sur les quotas carbone, je n'ai même pas le chiffre puisque par définition la fraude des fois on n'arrive pas à estimer, les chiffres sont trop divergents d'une source à l'autre.
Je vous passe le chiffre d'Europol sur les 50 milliards de fraudes de carrousel TVA. Le Parquet européen lui-même s'est rendu compte qu'il sous-estimait les risques de fraude puisqu'on est passé en un an d'une estimation de 25 milliards à 50 puis à 67 milliards. Bref, les chiffres sont énormes et je les mets en balance face au bénéfice attendu de ce texte. Nous allons créer un dispositif qui va faciliter la fraude alors même qu'aujourd'hui avec le droit existant nous n'arrivons pas à lutter contre la fraude. Ce texte contient tous les outils pour les fraudeurs.
Création en 48 heures d'une société, procédure d'insolvabilité simplifiée, non-vérification de l'identité des dirigeants, absence de déclaration du nombre de salariés, etc., etc., etc. C'est Noël avant l'heure pour les fraudeurs. Je sais la bonne foi qui préside à vouloir faciliter la vie des entreprises, mais quand nous créons un dispositif, vous avez parlé de feu rouge Monsieur Repasi, il faut aussi faire attention, est-ce qu'on est en capacité d'arrêter les voitures qui vont être tentées de brûler les feux rouges. Aujourd'hui je pense que non. Deuxième risque et pas des moindres, c'est la philosophie même qui va présider à l'application de ce texte.
Moi j'ai une grande crainte et qui est accentuée par les nouveaux plans pluriannuels régionaux et nationaux qui vont être mis en place dans le futur budget, c'est qu'on crée une concurrence accrue entre États. Ce dispositif va permettre aux entreprises, qu'on le veuille ou non, de choisir l'État d'implantation en fonction de sa fiscalité, de mettre la pression sur les États sur leur fiscalité et de les mettre en concurrence les uns avec les autres.
Donc il y a l'aspect fraude qui va faire perdre énormément d'argent aux finances publiques européennes, mais même sans frauder, le dispositif lui-même va permettre de mettre la pression sur les finances publiques européennes en disant aux États : si vous ne baissez pas votre fiscalité, je vais déménager ailleurs, ou je vais créer une entreprise ailleurs. Ce faisant, et j'en finis là, le risque final, concurrence accrue entre États, fiscalité dégradée, le risque final, et je mets ça en parallèle avec les plans pluriannuels nationaux, c'est que les États se disent, certains États pourraient se dire, certains électeurs européens pourraient se dire : qu'est-ce que j'ai à faire encore au sein de cette Union européenne ? On me met en concurrence avec les États hors Union européenne en signant des accords de libre-échange à tout-va, notamment avec le Mercosur. On me met en concurrence avec les autres États européens parce que le budget, le futur budget européen va favoriser cette concurrence entre États. On me met en concurrence sur la création de sociétés avec ce 28ème régime.
Eh bien écoutez, moi je vais me mettre tout seul dans mon coin, et la tentation de quitter l'Union européenne avec ce genre de pression va être de plus en plus grande. Merci Monsieur le Président.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Merci Monsieur Sahidi. That was the last of shadow rapporteurs or people speaking on their behalf, and now I go to Angelika Niebler.
Angelika Niebler
Vielen Dank Herr Vorsitzender, zunächst auch von mir ein herzliches Dankeschön an die Berichterstatter und die Schattenberichterstatter. Ich finde, das ist ein super spannender Bericht, der jetzt da liegt, und ich würde gerne auch ein paar Anmerkungen dazu machen. Ich bin auch wie viele Kollegen der Meinung, also diese Rechtsform, die EU-Inc muss einfach attraktiv sein, das heißt, es muss unbürokratisch gehen bei der Gründung und bei der Vergrößerung, bei Akquise von Kapital. Die Rechtsform muss schlank und schnell sein und digital. Also da sind wir glaube ich alle einer Meinung.
Ich teile die Auffassung vom Kollegen Voss, dass wir den Anwendungsbereich nicht einschränken sollten, dass wir also keine Sektoren ausnehmen sollten und dass diese Rechtsform, Herr Mantovani hat es ja auch angesprochen, allen Unternehmen offen sein sollte. Das finde ich ist ganz wichtig. Ich finde in dem Bericht sind wahnsinnig spannende Sachen drinnen. Ich finde die Vorschläge zur präventiven Kontrolle sehr, sehr gut. Ich glaube, das muss sein, dass wir da noch nachschärfen, weil wenn diese Rechtsform, sage ich mal, also die muss ja akzeptiert werden.
Und wenn der Verdacht besteht, dass das ein Instrument ist, eine Form ist, über die ich dann Geld waschen kann und so, dann wird das eine Totgeburt. Also ich glaube, da müssen wir genau hinschauen und da finde ich die Vorschläge sehr, sehr gut. Ich finde es auch total spannend, das Thema freiwilliges Stewardship, finde ich toll. Also ist ja freiwillig, es muss ja keiner machen, aber ich weiß nicht, ob man es noch mal anschauen muss, aber ich finde den Vorschlag erst mal gut. Und genauso finde ich den Vorschlag mit den Employee Share Ownership Plan finde ich auch mal einen guten Vorschlag, mal was Neues.
Also ich finde, dass da muss man offen sein dafür. Insolvenzverfahren, Herr Berichterstatter, habe zugehört, ja. Ich meine, der Vorschlag ist ja jetzt von dir, das einzuschränken im Verhältnis zu dem Vergleich zu dem, was die Kommission gemacht hat. Also auch da finde ich mal einen Schritt weiter gehen als bisher. Also ich finde, wir müssen da auch als Abgeordnete ein bisschen offen sein.
Keine Meinung habe ich mir gebildet bislang zu dem Thema Mitbestimmung, weil das irgendwie schwierig ist. Wir haben es auch schon diskutiert. Die Kommission schlägt ja dieses Sitzlandprinzip vor. Das ist das einfachste, das unbürokratischste. Also wenn man die Maxime hat, dass es schnell, zügig, ohne Komplikationen national zu machen, muss man den Weg gehen.
Ich erkenne aber, dass das mit unserer deutschen Mitbestimmung einfach schwierig sein wird. Und ich bin der Meinung, man muss noch mal überlegen, ob es nicht doch einen vernünftigen Mittelweg gibt, ja, dass man vielleicht also der dann nicht zu bürokratisch ist, ja. Also ist auch wieder, wenn man es dann differenzierter macht, ja, und vielleicht irgendwie dran denkt, so eine auch eine sage ich mal Teilbestimmung zu machen, wenn jetzt in einem Land die Mitbestimmungsvoraussetzungen erfüllt sind, dass man sagt, dann muss da eine eigenständige Rechtsform noch mal gegründet werden, die aber der Inc untergeordnet ist. Das ist kompliziert, aber ich denke, da sollten wir alle zusammen noch mal überlegen, wie wir da einfach ein schönes Modell entwickeln können.
Und das Gleiche gilt beim Thema Börsengang. Also da bin ich nicht so im Thema drinnen, ob unsere Umwandlungsregeln, die ja europaweit harmonisiert sind, reichen die aus? Jetzt gehe ich aus von Deutschland aus, also die EU Inc ist ja wie eine GmbH, das heißt, eine GmbH könnte nicht könnte nicht an die Börse gehen, müsste in eine AG umgewandelt werden. Reichen da unsere Bestimmungen, die wir haben, oder müssen wir da was reinschreiben, so wie es ja im Kommissionsvorschlag auch vorgesehen ist? Also da habe ich mir auch noch keine Meinung gebildet.
Will nur sagen, vielen Dank für den Berichtsentwurf. Ich glaube, dass wir da im Herbst auch noch mal drüber gehen müssen, aber ich finde es erst mal einen spannenden Vorschlag, der jetzt auch durch den Berichterstatter auf dem Tisch liegt. Und ich denke, wir sollten uns alle noch mal zusammensetzen, dass wir was Gutes hinkriegen, dass diese Rechtsform, also ich schätze, das ist schon und für mich ist das ganz wichtig, dass wir da auch einen Meilenstein noch mal etablieren mit dieser neuen Rechtsform, dass das ein Erfolg wird. Ich glaube, das brauchen wir auch für unseren gemeinsamen Binnenmarkt. Danke schön.
Lukas Sieper
Vielen Dank, Herr Vorsitzender. Ich habe den Kollegen Repasi schon das letzte Mal mit Lob überschüttet, deswegen halte ich es diesmal kurz. Ich glaube, das Gesetzgebungsvorhaben, was hier vor uns liegt, ist nichts weiter als eine logische Konsequenz der Unionsbürgerschaft, die allen Bürgern dieser Union zusteht laut den Verträgen. Ich hätte wohl eine Frage an den Kollegen von den Patrioten. Herr Kollege, wenn Sie wenn ich Sie richtig verstanden habe, dann haben Sie gesagt, dass mit diesem Gesetzgebungsvorhaben ein Eingriff in die Niederlassungsfreiheit verbunden wäre.
Das finde ich einen sehr kreativen Gedanken und da würde ich Sie bitten, das etwas auszuführen. Danke schön.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Okay, thank you very much. Mr. Voss? Mr. Voss? You want to say something more? No?
Okay. Thank you. And now I would like to invite the representative of the European Commission, Mr. Dan Dionisie. You have the floor, sir.
Dan Dionisie
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning to everyone. The Commission greatly appreciated the constructive cooperation with the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs and the JURI committee in general during the parallel preparation of the Parliament's own initiative legislative resolution and the Commission proposal, and we wish to continue in the same constructive spirit during the inter-institutional negotiations. We share the same objective to strengthen the internal market and the competitiveness of the EU. Close cooperation between all EU institutions is essential on this proposal, given the ambition also expressed in the joint declaration of the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission, One Europe, One Market roadmap, to reach agreement by the end of the year.
The Commission stands ready to support the co-legislators and to ensure that all issues are addressed constructively and efficiently. We welcome very much that overall the draft report supports the Commission proposal and shares the same approach on many issues. This is the case in particular as regards enabling the fully digital procedures throughout the life cycle of EU Inc companies, facilitating investment and access to capital, and importance of having rules on insolvency. I would like to start with clarifying some important issues from our perspective.
The EU Inc proposal puts forward a comprehensive corporate legal framework, simple, flexible, and digital. It does not cover other issues, such as labor law and tax law. Those are outside the scope of this proposal. Article 4, therefore, is limited to those corporate matters which are in the scope of the proposal. This article sets out the hierarchy of rules in the proposal and aims to achieve the objective of common corporate rules, while allowing flexibility to EU Inc companies in their articles of association, within the limits set by the regulation.
This article is not introducing an unlimited country of origin principle. We are fully open to making this clear during the negotiations. I would also like to note that the EU Inc proposal takes a horizontal approach and is sector agnostic, aiming to provide a corporate vehicle which can be used by founders and companies across sectors. The proposal is also very clear that sectoral legislation would apply to EU Inc companies as to any other company. We would therefore be concerned that excluding some sectors could limit what the future EU Inc companies can do.
The Commission fully agrees that the EU Inc legal form should not be misused for circumvention, fraud, or abuse. At the same time, it is important to distinguish between legitimate business activity across the single market, in line with the treaty freedoms, and abuse for circumvention purposes, which needs to be prevented. We agree that safeguards are important and this is why strong safeguards were included in the proposal to ensure EU Inc is a legally certain, reliable, and balanced framework. During the negotiations, it will be important to keep the right balance between providing the necessary safeguards and not making the new framework overly complex and unduly burdensome. As to employee participation, we acknowledge that this is an important issue which needs to be discussed.
As the rules in this respect are very different across member states, it is not easy to find a solution that can work across the board. The Commission proposal aims to reach a balanced approach and ensure that EU Inc companies are treated as other companies. The Commission proposal also applies to EU Inc companies the existing strong safeguards in case an EU Inc company is created through or carries out a cross-border restructuring. As to the approach proposed in the draft report, the Commission has concerns which were outlined in its formal reply to the own-initiative resolution. We believe it could lead to legal uncertainty, as the place of employment is susceptible to multiple interpretations, it would impose stricter requirements on EU Inc companies than on other companies, and it would potentially subject EU Inc companies with employees in different member states to multiple employee participation regimes.
We agree that EU Inc companies should be able to protect themselves against hostile takeovers. Therefore, the proposal allows for EU Inc companies to have classes of shares with different economic or voting rights. The concept of a steward-owned company has also clear merits in itself, but we believe that it doesn't fit the proposal's objectives to attract investment and provide credible exit options for investors. The permanent nature of the suggested steward-owned legal form, with its distinct, more rigid governance framework, is also fundamentally different from the simple and flexible governance rules for EU Inc. One of the essential elements of the EU Inc proposal is its modern financing framework.
This is of key importance to allow EU Inc companies to attract investment and grow, and we welcome that the draft report recognizes this as well.
and investment union agenda to enhance access to broad and secure financing options. Therefore, we are concerned that the draft report does not allow EU inc companies to access multilateral trading facilities such as SME growth markets or regulated markets, but requires a conversion into a public limited liability company first. We believe that the Commission proposal provides for an appropriate solution because it requires that EU inc companies accessing multilateral trading facilities and regulated markets must always comply with all relevant EU and national regulatory requirements related to such markets. We are open to further discussing the different suggestions on dispute resolution and on making more information about the rules on EU inc companies and the related case law more accessible. The Commission overall agrees that those are important issues, which is why the proposal encourages Member States to designate specialized judicial chambers, stresses the importance of specialized training for judges and aims to make step-by-step information and guidance and templates available to founders through the EU central interface and the central digital register.
As to the specific suggestion about the Commission guidance on judicial dispute settlement, we are open to discussing further, but we should be careful not to impinge on judicial independence, procedural autonomy of Member States or the principle of effective judicial protection and fair trial. Thank you for allowing me to share these preliminary thoughts. The Commission will analyze the draft report in detail and is open to further constructive discussions. We count on both the Parliament and the Council to maintain focus on the shared objectives during the negotiations so that the proposal remains ambitious but simple and user-friendly for companies. In this context, the implications of any possible amendments should be carefully weighed up in terms of overall impact.
Thank you.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Junisje. Mr. Repasi, the floor goes back to you.
René Repasi
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thanks a lot for the discussion that we had here, which basically outlines already the challenge that is ahead of me as a rapporteur, as we of course intend to have a vote in the plenary by October at the latest. Nevertheless, we are doing politics in order to overcome the impossible and let's therefore give it a try. And I do believe if we look at the policy direction, I do see sufficient common ground to actually come to this to this successful conclusion of finding a parliamentary position. Because it is clear, as it was also said by others, this company form, this EU inc, must be attractive.
The whole point of a 28th regime is that it is more attractive than the 27 national other ones. The whole point of high-letter invented it was to say, let's not do harmonization, let's do something that in the end is going to replace, if successful, all the other ones by being the most attractive one. Hence we have to answer, we have to ask ourselves, what makes an EU inc attractive? What sort of competition do we want to have? Do we honor a competition down to the lowest common denominator and the lowest working and protection standard, or is it competition based on merit, even if it may require higher protection standard in others in other jurisdictions?
I personally am very clear in this in all my time as a as a politician. I'm for competition based on merit. And if I'm for competition based on merit, I have to exclude those factors that are not merit-based, but only lead to cheap products where the price is paid by workers, consumers or the environment.
Because this means EU Inc is only attractive if it have the least, the least standards to comply with of all 27 member states. This cannot be our ambition and this can also not be what what the European legislation should look for. No. It should legislate properly so that we have a push for the internal market, which means yes, we need more liberalization. But this push towards more liberalization may not mean that the protection standards for the weaker party are remaining national and therefore are put into a downward spiral.
We have a responsibility as lawmakers not to enable and to engage into harmful competition, but into competition based on merit. And therefore a good rule is designed so that it distracts those that consider compliance with it a burden, whilst it opens the path for those who actually want to make use of the highway that is created. A company that is created in a member state that doesn't know employee participation and has zero employees, but employs 1,000 or 2,000 in another member state with employee participation, does such company deserve the protection of not meeting the standards of their competitors in this particular country? And here I do say no, because then the competition is made on the on is here made on the protection of the workers and employees in this in this particular country. So if we want to have the internal market, yes, we need to have a stable connecting factor and the only one we have is the country of registration.
I take it. But if this is the case, we must understand, we must understand that artificial constructions are simply possible. You can have even more letterbox companies, especially when it is that easy, like walking from here to the metro station in Maelbeek, to create an EU Inc on your phone and have to wait two working days in order to have it created. Then we do not create a level playing field with those who actually do competition based on merit. If we however have the guardrails and if we have the safeguards, then the good ones will not be hindered, but the bad ones have no incentive to go into that direction.
Therefore, dear shadow from the EPP, I have difficulties to understand your fundamental opposition to any sort of employee participation, because that is the consequence if you delete even Article 12. If you come to a conclusion that everything should follow the registered seat, because this only means that any sort of participation of workers in management decisions is going to die out. And the success of any startup is not the brain, not only the brain of its founders, but the talents and the skill of its workers. Any startup wants to be a good employer. They are not interested in undermining employee participation standards.
On the contrary, they want to showcase that they are good employers. But what they don't need is to have EU Incs that have the same name as they have, but only do working poor, undermining labor conditions and undermining employee participation. Therefore we must build something that basically forecloses the access to EU Inc for those who should not deserve this seal of quality. And that makes it that also we have to look when we are legislating, who do we want to protect next to the employees that I was just mentioning. Is it the founder of the incorporation or is it the investor?
If we can do both, fine. If both are in conflict, I say it is the founder. We create here a company form for the innovative ideas, for the founders to unlock the potential of the internal market. In the end, we are having something extremely ambitious ahead of us.
We need to conclude by October if we want to keep up with the schedule to have trilogues finished by December. And there are many other legislative files who have to do this. There is interpretation capacity needed for many other files in order to get this properly done. People will do overwork and have already done so. Therefore I'm grateful for the services of this committee, for the legal service to have already done their additional work in order to get this draft report done and what is going to be ahead of us.
This is going to be a strain on our capacities and I therefore already want to say now thanks to all who want to engage in this ambition and to get it done. And that requires a spirit of compromise on the political level to come together and acknowledgement and the respect for all the labor force that is going to be put in getting this whole thing done. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you, Mr. Repasi. I think your message is well heard and the deadline for amendments is 17th of July at noon time. So noon is 12 o'clock. Thank you very much and we see each other at 3 o'clock for an exchange of views with Commissioner Albuquerque.