¹ See, eg, Ebke, WF, ‘Centros—Some Realities and Some Mysteries’ (2001) AJ Comp Law 48 623CrossRefGoogle Scholar; von Halen, CC, Das Gesellschaftsstatut nach der Centros-Entscheidung des EuGH (Heidelberg: Verlag Recht und Wirtschaft, 2001)Google Scholar; Roth, W.-H., ‘“Centros”: Viel Lärm um Nichts?’ (2000) ZGR 311Google Scholar; Wymeersch, E, ‘Centros: A Landmark Decision in European Company Law’, in Baums, T, Hopt, KJ, and Horn, N (eds), Corporations, Capital Markets and Business in the Law—Liber Amicorum, RM Buxbaum (London/The Hague/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 2000), 629Google Scholar; Zimmer, D, ‘Mysterium “Centros”’ (2000) ZHR 164Google Scholar, 23—all with further references.

² ECJ 9 Mar 1999—Case C-212/97—Centros Ltd v Erhvervs-og Selskabsstyrelsen, 1999 ECR I–1459.

³ ECJ 30 Nov 1995—Case C-55/94—Gebhard v Consiglio dell'Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano, 1995 ECR1–4165, 4197–8, para 37.

⁴ In the words of the Court: ‘the practice in question is not such as to attain the objective of protecting creditors which it purports to pursue since, if the company concerned had conducted business in the United Kingdom, its branch would have been registered in Denmark, even though Danish creditors might have been equally exposed to risk.’

⁵ For a comment on Centros in this journal see Looijestijn-Clearie, A, ‘Centros Ltd—A Complete U-Turn in the Right of Establishment for Companies?’ (2000) 49 ICLQ 621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ Cf. part XXIII—Oversea Companies (ss 690A–703R) in the Companies Act of 1985.

⁷ eg BayObLG 26 Aug 1998, NJW-RR (1999), 401.

⁸ ECJ 9 Mar 1999 (n 2) 1–1487 para 4: ‘Under Danish law, Centros, as a “private limited company”, is regarded as a foreign limited liability company.’ For the somewhat uncertain state of Danish international company law see Andersen, PK and Soerensen, KE, ‘Free Movement of Companies from a Nordic Perspective’ (1999) 6 MJ (1999) 47.Google Scholar

⁹ BGH 21 Mar 1986, ZIP (1986), 643, at 644. Some courts have applied the presumption that the main centre of administration will coincide with the seat fixed by the charter; eg OLG München 6 May 1986, NJW (1986), 2197, at 2198; OLG Oldenburg 4 Apr 1989, NJW (1990), 1422, at 1422; cf also OLG Frankfurt/Main 23 June 1999, ZIP 1999, 1710, at 1710 (offshore company with no seat of administration).

¹⁰ Wymeersch, above n 1, at 652; Kieninger, E-H, ‘Niederlassungsfreiheit als Rechtswahlfreiheit’ (1999), ZGR, 724, at 746Google Scholar; Behrens, P, ‘Das Internationale Gesellschaftsrecht nach dem Centros-Urteil des EuGH’ (1999) IPRax 323.Google Scholar

¹¹ ECJ 9 Mar 1999 (above n 2), 1–1494, para 30.

¹² See also Advocate General Colomer in his Opinion in C-208/00—Überseering BV, para 36.

¹³ Kieninger, above n 7, at 728, Freitag, R, ‘Der Wettbewerb der Rechtsordnungen im Internationalen Gesellschaftsrecht’ (1999) EuZW 261, at 268.Google Scholar

¹⁴ The German statute (Bundesgesetzblatt 1972 II, 370) ratifying the Brussels EEC-Convention on the Mutual Recognition of Companies of 29 Feb 1968 (which has never been put into effect) excludes in its Art 2 s 1 those companies from the application of the Convention that have their siège réel outside the Community. This explicit reference to the siège réel has to be taken as an indication that the legislator sticks to the siège réel as the decisive connecting factor of German conflicts law.

¹⁵ BGH 11 July 1957, BGHZ 25, 134, at 144; 30 Jan 1970, BGHZ 53, 181, at 183; 5 Nov 1980, BGHZ 78, 318, at 334; 21 Mar 1986, BGHZ 97, 269, at 271; 30 Mar 2000, 1114, at 1115; BayObLG 7 May 1992, 842; 26 Aug 1998, NJW-RR 1999, 401.

¹⁶ LG München I 22 July 1999, ZIP 1999, 1680; OLG München 25 June 1999, ZIP 1999, 1558, at 1559.

¹⁷ eg Roth, WH, ‘Der Einfluß des Europäischen Gemeinschaftsrechts auf das Internationale Privatrecht’ (1991) RabelsZ 55, 623, at 647–51.Google Scholar

¹⁸ This point is forcefully advanced by Halbhuber, H, Limited Company statt GmbH? Europarechtlicher Rahmen und deutscher Widerstand (Baden-Baden: Nomos-Verl.-Gesellschaft, 2001)Google Scholar; Halbhuber, H, ‘National Doctrinal Structures and European Company Law’ (2001) 38 CML Rev 1385, at 1390–5.Google Scholar

¹⁹ For references, see Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch (P Kindler), 3rd edn, vol 11 (1999)—IntGesR, para 264 n 344, 345, para 288 n 422, para 292 n 436.

²⁰ See references in n 9. For a description of the ‘seat theory’, see Drury, RR, ‘The Regulation and Recognition of Foreign Corporations: Responses to the “Delaware Syndrome”’ (1998) Cambridge Law Journal 165, at 174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²¹ BGH 21 Mar 1986, BGHZ 97, 269, at 272.

²² The issue is discussed by Zimmer, ‘Von Debraco bis DaimlerChrysler: Alte und neue Schwierigkeiten bei der internationalgesellschaftsrechtlichen Sitzbestimmung’, in Baums et al. (eds) (above n 1), 655.

²³ Cf. OLG München 6 May 1986, NJW (1986), 2197, at 2198; OLG Oldenburg 4 Apr 1989, NJW (1990), 1422, at 1422.

²⁴ BayObLG 7 May 1992, ZIP 1992, 842, has stressed the point that it is the economic and social environment at the centre of administration that is affected most by the activities of the company.

²⁵ Roth, , ‘“Centros”: Viel Lärm um Nichts?’ (2000) ZGR 311, at 333–4.Google Scholar

²⁶ Leflar, RA, American Conflicts Law, 3rd edn (Indianapolis/New York/Charlottesville: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1977), s 91 (pp 182).Google Scholar

²⁷ Ibid; Scoles, EF, Hay, P, Borchers, PJ, and Symeonides, SC, Conflict of Laws, 3rd edn (St Paul, Minn.: West Group, 2000), s 2.14Google Scholar, discussing s 6 of the 2d Restatement; the most significant relationship test appears in Art 4 s 1 of the Rome Convention and in s 1, subsection 1 of the Austrian Law on Private International Law of 15 June 1978.

²⁸ OLG Hamburg 21 Jan 1987, RIW (1988), 816, at 816; OLG Frankfurt/Main 24 Apr 1990, DB (1990), 1224, at 1224.

²⁹ See Dicey & Morris on The Conflict of Laws, 13th edn (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2000), vol 2, rule 152 (2), at 1101; Cheshire, GC and North, PH, Private International Law, 13th edn (London: Butterworths, 1999), at 173.Google Scholar

³⁰ The problems that German conflicts law encounters with regard to the exact definition and location of the centre of control—may there be also two centres? (see text at n 22)—seem to reappear in English tax law.

³¹ Cheshire and North (above n. 29), at 175; see also Dicey & Morris (above n 29), at 1101, rule 152–1. If it is a corporation, it can be so only by virtue of the law by which it is incorporated (Dicey & Morris, at 1102).

³² See n 6.

³³ OLG Frankfurt/M. 4 Dec 2001, NJW-RR (2002), 605, at 606. German partnership law does, however, not provide for a one-member-partnership. As a consequence, a one-man-company, registered in another State, will be treated simply as a natural person (Einzelkaufmann); see BGH 30 Jan 1970, BGHZ 53, 181, at 184.

³⁴ In contrast to English company law (see eg Charlesworth, J and Morse, G, Company Law, 15th edn (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1995), at 96)Google Scholar, the pre-incorporation company is accepted as a legal entity of its own in German company law.

³⁵ For references see JV Staudinger (Großfeld, B), Kommentar zum Bülrgerlichen Gesetzbuch mit Einfuhrungsgesetz und Nebengesetzen,—Internationales Gesellschaftsrecht, Neubearbeitung 1998 (Berlin: Sellier-de Gruyter, 1998), paras 440–8.Google Scholar

³⁶ See the reaction of Advocate General Colomer in his Opinion (n 12), para 46.

³⁷ For references see Staudinger (Großfeld) (n 35), para 427–30.

³⁸ Behrens, P, ‘Identitätswahrende Sitzverlegung einer Kapitalgesellschaft von Luxemburg in die Bundesrepublik Deutschland’ (1986) RTW 590Google Scholar; Roth, , ‘Die Freiheiten des EG-Vertrages und das nationale Privatrecht’ (1994) ZEuP, 5, at 18–22Google Scholar; Schmidt, K, ‘Sitzverlegungsrichtlinie, Freizügigkeit und Gesellschaftspraxis’ (2000) ZGR, 20, at 23.Google Scholar

³⁹ eg WF Ebke (1999) JZ 204 (case note); but see Kruse, V, Sitzverlegung von Kapitalgesellschaften innerhalb der EG (Köln/Berlin/Bonn/München: Heymann, 1997), at 37–40.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ In accord with Wouters, J, ‘Private International Law and Companies' Freedom of Establishment’ (2001) EBORev 2 101, at 107.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Münchner Kommentar zum BGB (Kindler) (above n 19), para 393.

⁴² Ibid, with references to authorities in n 856.

⁴³ Ibid, para 400.

⁴⁴ See Cheshire and North (above n 28), at 175 (domicile cannot be changed).

⁴⁵ This statement, however, has to be qualified in case the foreign law provides for a winding up of the company.

⁴⁶ The German Umwandlungsgesetz of 1995 provides for a reorganisation of companies (transformation into a partnership and vice versa), thereby upholding legal personality, however restricts its scope of application to companies with their seat of administration in Germany (s 1 sub-section 1). The present author has argued for an application of the Umwandlungsgesetz by analogy, see Roth, , ‘Recognition of Foreign Companies in Siège Réel Countries: A German Perspective’, in Wouters, J and Schneider, H (eds), Current Issues ofCross-Border Establishment of Companies in the European Union (London: Blackstone, 1995), 29, at 40Google Scholar. The issues discussed in the text will, nevertheless, arise as long as the transfer has not been accompanied by a transformation procedure according to the Umwandlungsgesetz.

⁴⁷ OLG Nürnberg 7 June 1984, RIW 1985, 494; OLG Hamburg 20 Feb 1986, NJW (1986), 2199; Kammergericht 13 June 1989, NJW (1989), 3100, at 3101 (analogy to s 11 sub-section 2 GmbH-Gesetz).

⁴⁸ See OLG München 6 May 1986, NJW (1986), 2197, at 2198 (discussing nullity).

⁴⁹ The reason for that seems to be quite simple: admitting that a partnership exists could lead to liabilities on the side of the partners; therefore lawyers for plaintiff may have been anxious to bring the claim in the name of the foreign company.

⁵⁰ OLG Düsseldorf 10 Sept 1998, JZ (1999), 203.

⁵¹ Staudinger (Großfeld) (above n 35), para 427–30.

⁵² BGH 30 Mar 2000, DB (2000), 1114, at 1115.

⁵³ The BGH (above n 52), at 1115, did not decide the question whether the German regulations concerning the transformation of companies could have been applied, as the parties had not taken the appropriate steps to start such a procedure.

^53a BGH 1 July 2002, ZIP (2002), 1763 (2nd Senate).

⁵⁴ U Forsthoff, Rechts- und Parteifähigkeit ausländischer Gesellschaften mit Verwaltungssitz in Deutschland?—Die Sitztheorie vor dem EuGH, DB 2000, 1109; Kindler, , ‘Internationales Gesellschaftsrecht am Scheideweg’ (2000) RIW 649, at 650, 652Google Scholar; Roth, , ‘Die Sitzverlegung vor dem EuGH’ (2000) ZIP 1597, at 1600Google Scholar; Zimmer, , ‘Internationales Gesellschaftsrecht und Niederlassungsfreiheit: Das Rätsel vor der Losung?’ (2000) BB 1361, at 1365.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ To be more precise: that the formerly foreign company has been transformed into a partnership governed by German law. BGH 21 Mar 1986, BGHZ 97, 269, at 271–2, has held that a transformation from a foreign company into a partnership under German law may take place.

⁵⁶ Which is only the case if the former foreign company has not been wound up according to the formerly applicable law.

⁵⁷ (Above n 12), at para 47 and 55.

⁵⁸ In the light of Centros, the Austrian Oberster Gerichtshof (OGH) 15 July 1999, EuZW (1999), 156, has held that the seat doctrine, as formulated in s 10 IPRG, runs counter Arts 43, 48 EC; for a comment, see Höfling, B, ‘Die Sitztheorie, Centros und der österreichische OGH’ (2000) EuZW 145Google Scholar; Zehetner, J, Niederlassungsfreiheit und Sitztheorie, Ecolex (Wien: HANZ, 1999), 771.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ This is not to say that Danish conflicts law in fact follows the incorporation theory (which is put into question, eg, by Halbhuber (above n 18), at 69–71).

⁶⁰ Para 4.

⁶¹ ECJ 27 Sept 1988—Case 81/87—The Queen v HM Treasury and Commissioners of Inland Revenue, ex parte Daily Mail and General Trust PLC, 1988 ECR 5483.

⁶² ECR 27 Sept 1988 (above n 61), at 5511, para 20.

⁶³ Ibid, at 5512, para 23.

⁶⁴ This obiter dictum in Daily Mail has given rise to quite diverging interpretations and conclusions drawn therefrom; Brödermann in Brodermann, and Iversen, , Europäisches Gemeinschaftsrecht und Internationales Privatrecht (Tübingen: Hohr, 1994), 119–44Google Scholar; Halbhuber (above n 18), 27–56 (strongly criticising the prevailing reception of Daily Mail in German academic quarters).

⁶⁵ In accord, eg, Schwarz, , Europäisches Gesellschaftsrecht (Baden-Baden: Nomos-Verl-Geselleschaft, 2000), para 177–9.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Eg Steindorff, E, ‘Centros und das Recht auf die günstigste Rechtsordnung’ (1999) JZ 1140, at 1141.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Schön, W, ‘Die Niederlassungsfreiheit von Kapitalgesellschaften im System der Grundfreiheiten’, in Gedächtnisschrift für Brigitte Knobbe-Keuk (Köln: Verlag Dr Otto Schmidt, 1997), 685, at 702.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Eg Behrens (above n 1), at 330.

⁶⁹ In accord: Advocate General Colomer (above n 12), para 26.

⁷⁰ Paras 20, 23.

⁷¹ The Court could restrict the meaning of the connecting factors to circumscribe the personal scope of Article 43 EC, with no relevance for conflicts law whatsoever.

⁷² OJ (1990) C 189/2. The text appears in the UK as the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982.

⁷³ OJ (2001) L 12/1.

⁷⁴ The same holds true with respect to the determination of the domicile of a company, being of importance for the general jurisdiction of a court. Art 60 (1) repeats the connecting factors of Art 48 EC as alternative criteria for domicilee among which the Member States may choose.

⁷⁵ OJ (1985) L 199/1.

⁷⁶ OJ (2001) L 294/1.

⁷⁷ Art 7 reads: ‘The registered office of an SE shall be located within the Community, in the same Member State as its head.’

⁷⁸ Which is provided for in Art 12.

⁷⁹ Published, eg, in ZIP (1997), 1721; for comments of the proposal see eg Drury, RR, ‘Migrating companies’ (1999) Eu L Rev 24, 354, 362–8Google Scholar; Meilicke, W, ‘Zum Vorschlag der Europäischen Kommission für die 14. EU-Richtlinie zur Koordinierung des Gesellschaftsrechts-Sitzverlegungs-Richtlinie’ (1998) GmbHRdsch 1053Google Scholar; Hoffmann, J, ‘Neue Möglichkeiten zur identitätswahrenden Sitzverlegung in Europa?’ (2000) ZHR 164, 43.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ For a general discussion of the issue whether secondary Community law has to be in accordance with the basic freedoms, see eg Scheffer, UTM, Die Marktfreiheiten des EG-Vertrages als Ermessensgrenze des Gemeinschaftsgesetzgebers (Frankfurt aM: Lang, 1997)Google ScholarSchwemer, RO, Die Bindung des Gemeinschaftsgesetzgebers an die Grundfreiheiten (Frankfurt aM: Lang, 1995)Google Scholar; see also Roth, , ‘Einlagensicherung im Binnenmarkt’ (1997) ZBB 373, at 379Google Scholar; from the case law of the Court of Justice concerning Art 28 ECT, see, eg, ECJ 9 Aug—Case C-51/93-Meyhui NV v Schott Zwiesel Glaswerke AG, 1994 ECR1–3879, at 3898 para 11 (‘It is settled law that the prohibition of quantitative restrictions and of all measures having equivalent effect applies not only to national measures but also to measures adopted by the Community institutions …’); ECJ 25 June 1997—Case C-l 14/96—R Kieffer and RThill, (1997) ECR1–3629, at 3655 para 27, 3656, para 33; dealing with Art 43 ECT, see ECJ 22 Jan 2002—Case C-31/00—Conseil national de I'ordre des architects v Nicals Dreessen, para 26.

⁸¹ BGH 30.3.2000, DB (2000), 1114, at 1115, the Court states that for the ability to bring a claim it is of importance whether the company is being wound up according to its former law, or not, and whether, on the basis of the applicable German law, it has acquired legal personality (as a prerequisite for the capacity to bring a claim—Parteifähigkeit).

^81a BGH 1 July 2002, ZIP (2002), 1763.

⁸² Para 55 and 46 of the Opinion.

⁸³ Para 46 of the Opinion.

⁸⁴ Para 42 of the Opinion.

⁸⁵ Para 51–5 of the Opinion.

⁸⁶ Para 57–61 of the Opinion.

⁸⁷ Para 69 of the Opinion.

⁸⁸ Ibid.

⁸⁹ Insofar, the Advocate General seems to be in accord with the interpretation of para 24 of Daily Mail as put forward above.

^89a In this sense, see also BGH 1 July 2002, ZIP (2002), 1763.

⁹⁰ Provided that the former company is not being wound up according to the former law applicable to the company.

⁹¹ The present author has argued to this end before; see Roth (above n 46), at 38; id (above n 38), at 20. In accord: Wouters (above n 40), at 135.

⁹² Umwandlungsgesetz (UmwG), 28 Oct 1994, Bundesgesetzblatt (1994), I, 3210.

⁹³ Section 1, para 1 UmwG.

⁹⁴ OLG Zweibrücken 27 June 1990, DB (1990), 1660 (the judgment concerned the pre-1995 conversion regulations contained in the Aktiengesetz).

⁹⁵ Roth (above n 46), at 38.

⁹⁶ ECJ 27 Sept 1988 (above n 61) 1–5511, para 19.

⁹⁷ This protection goes also to the issue of jurisdiction of the courts for claims to be brought against the company.

⁹⁸ Moreover, it shall give the State the chance to collect taxes on hidden reserves.

⁹⁹ As mentioned above, in Daily Mail the Court held that companies do not have ‘a right to transfer their central management and control and their central administration to another Member State while retaining their status as companies incorporated under the legislation of the first Member State’ (at para 24). This statement does not exclude an obligation of the Member States to make a transfer possible without the company being wound up.

¹⁰⁰ In accord: Wouters (above n 40), at 135. In this sense now BGH 1 July 2002, ZIP (2002), 1763.

¹⁰¹ Sections 76 and 77 Law of 11 Oct 1952 (Betriebsverfassungsgesetz), Bundesgesetzblatt (1952), I, 681.

¹⁰² Section 1 Law of 4 May 1976 (Mitbestimmungsgesetz), Bundesgesetzblatt (1976), I, 1153.

¹⁰³ The social protection of the work force has been accepted as a general good justification: ECJ 27 Mar 1990—Case C-l 13/89—Rush Portuguesa (1990) ECR1–1417, at 1445 para 18 (without explicit reference to the ‘public interest’); ECJ 23 Nov 1999—Joined Cases C-369/96 and C-376/96–Jean-Claude Arblade (1999) ECR 1–8453, at 8514, para 36 (with explicit reference to the ‘mandatory requirements of the public interest’). For workers' codetermination as part of the German ‘identity’: Steindorff (above n 66), at 1142; Kieninger (above n 13), at 745, rightly points to the case law of the Court with regard to regulations that ‘reflect certain political and economic choices’, citing ECJ 23 Nov 1989—Case C-145/88—Torfaen, ECR (1989), 3851, at 3889, para 14; contra: H Hammen, Zweigniederlassungsfreiheit europäischer Gesellschaften und Mitbestimmung der Arbeitnehmer auf Unternehmensebene, WM (1999), 2487, at 2493–2495; Zimmer (above n 54), at 1365–6.

¹⁰⁴ See Roth (above n 46), at 42.

¹⁰⁵ Terlau, M, Das Internationale Privatrecht der Gesellschaft bürgerlichen Rechts (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1999), at 181.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ For an overview see Zimmer, , Internationales Gesellschaftsrecht (1996), 273.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Sections 30, 31 GmbH-Gesetz.

¹⁰⁸ See Zimmer (above n 106), at 275.

¹⁰⁹ AB1. (1977) L 26/1

¹¹⁰ But see the Opinion of Advocate General LaPergola in the Centros proceedings, 1–1481, para 21.

¹¹¹ In case that the applicable company law does not provide for an equivalent degree of protection.

¹¹² ECJ 9 Mar 1999 (n. 2), at 1496, para 37, 1492, para 24.

¹¹³ See text at n 119.

¹¹⁴ For a short discussion of this aspect related to insurance contract law, see Roth, , Internationales Versicherungsvertragsrecht (Tübingen: Mohr, 1985), at 383–4.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ See text at n 24.

¹¹⁶ Cf Steindorff, EG-Vertrag und Privatrecht (1996) 250.

¹¹⁷ The Centros judgment has dealt with the issue of the information burden concerning a foreign company. In para 36 the Court states: ‘Since the company concerned in the main proceedings holds itself out as a company governed by the law of England and Wales and not as a company governed by Danish law, its creditors are on notice that it is covered by laws different from those which govern the formation of private limited companies in Denmark ’. However, we should be aware of the context of this argument: Denmark applies some variant of the incorporation doctrine. Thereby this State has opted for the policy choice to impose the burden of information concerning an unknown legal order on the business partners of the company. Given this fundamental policy choice, it is indeed enough to require the company ‘to hold itself out as a company governed by the law of England and Wales’.

¹¹⁸ eg, ECJ 20 Feb 1979—Case 120/78—Rewe-Zentral-AG (1979) ECR, 649 (‘Cassis-de-Dijon’ ).

¹¹⁹ This argument is forcefully advanced by Zimmer (above n 106), at 158, with regard to workers' codetermination.

¹²⁰ For a discussion of conflict-of-policies in general, see Brilmayer, L, ‘The Role of Substantive and Choice of Law Policies in the Formation and Application of Choice of Law Rules’ (1995) Recueil des Corns 252, 9Google Scholar; Kegel, G and Schurig, K, Internationles Privatrecht, 8th edn (München: CH Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 2000), 114–32Google Scholar; Roth (above n 114), at 110–24, at 151–60.

¹²¹ Art 12 EGBGB (Art 11 Rome Convention of 1980) when applied by analogy may lead to additional protection to business partners when a localised contract has been concluded; see BGH 23 Apr 1998, NJW (1998), 2452 (2453); Zimmer (above n 106), 251.

¹²² See Steindorff (above n 116), 250, who makes the point.

¹²³ ECJ 9 Mar 1999 (above n 2).

¹²⁴ It is to be noted that Community law itself distinguishes between domestic secondary establishments and domestic companies in insurance and banking supervision: whereas secondary establishments located in the host country are governed by the principle of home country control, host country law is applied to undertakings with their (real) seat in the respective host State.