Evropska kompanija ( So cietas Euopaear i njena primena u ... srb.pdf · ranja EU važi u najvećoj meri za kompanijsko pravo osiguranja, dok u oblasti ugovornog prava osiguranja

3/2017

4

Apstrakt

U ovom radu istražuje se kako se koristi Evropska kompanija (dalje u tekstu: EK) u delatnosti osiguranja i diskutuje o razlozima zbog kojih se velike međuna-rodne osiguravajuće korporacije odlučuju za ovaj oblik organizovanja. Studija je obavljena analizom već osno-vanih EK u sektoru osiguranja i njom je utvrđeno koje prednosti donosi ovaj oblik organizovanja privrednog društva. U radu se analiziraju propisi koji regulišu EK zajedno sa empirijskim podacima prikupljenim iz broj-nih izveštaja, biltena, intervjua i drugih oblika lične komunikacije autora sa predstavnicima EK u sektoru osiguranja i stručnjacima iz ove oblasti.

Ključne reči: pravo osiguranja EU, Uredba o osigura-nju, evropska kompanija, Societas Europaea

1. UVOD

Internacionalizacija fi nansijskih usluga je stalno u porastu, te ni sektor osiguranja u tom smislu nije izuze-tak. Priroda delatnosti osiguranja, gde pružalac usluge i klijent ne moraju obavezno da se sastanu da bi zaključili pravni posao, omogućava brojnim društvima za osigu-ranje koja posluju na prekograničnom nivou da pru-žaju usluge osiguranja u brojnim državama. Međutim, neometano poslovanje tih osiguravača često otežavaju različiti nacionalni propisi kojima su regulisana nacio-nalna tržišta osiguranja. Čini se da bi stanje u Evropskoj uniji (dalje u tekstu: EU), zbog tendencije postepenog ujednačavanja pravila radi stvaranja jedinstvenog trži-šta, trebalo da se razlikuje, jer je na teritoriji cele EU olakšano poslovanje tako što su uklonjene brojne regu-latorne i proceduralne prepreke. Tako se može primetiti dejstvo tzv. jedinstvenog pasoša EU koji je regulisan u

važećim direktivama o osiguranju (Directive 2002/83/EC, 2002, preambula br. 8).

Sledstveno prethodno rečenom, može se pomisliti da poslovanje na teritoriji EU nije otežano društvima za osiguranje koje su dobila dozvolu u nekoj od država članica. Međutim, stvarno stanje je potpuno drugačije. Često se ističe da defi nicija usklađenog prava osigu-ranja EU važi u najvećoj meri za kompanijsko pravo osiguranja, dok u oblasti ugovornog prava osiguranja pravila koja štite „javni interes” u državama gde nastaje ugovorna obaveza predstavljaju određena ograničenja za pružanje usluga društva za osiguranje.1 Pored toga, izvesne oblasti kompanijskog prava osiguranja EU su izuzetno rascepkane. Razmatrana tema dobila je još više na važnosti sa stupanjem na snagu novih pravila o nadzoru osiguranja 2016. godine, sadržanih u Direktivi o osnivanju i poslovanju u oblasti osiguranja i reosigu-ranja , poznatoj pod nazivom Direktiva o solventnosti II (Directive 2009/138/EC, 2009). Direktiva povećava ka-pitalne zahteve za većinu osiguravača, posebno za one osiguravače koji imaju visokorizične portfelje. Zbog toga ta društva za osiguranje traže načine kako da op-timizuju svoje poslovanje i oslobode se neprofi tabilnih vrsta osiguranja, često se koristeći prenosom portfelja. To stvara potrebu uspostavljanja mehanizma koji omo-gućava smanjenje razlika u nacionalnim propisima i usmeravanje prekograničnih postupaka, posebno kada se radi o portfeljima osiguranja. Zbog toga je neophod-no razmotriti primenu EK.

Kada je EK uvedena 2001 . godine, njena primena postala je moguća posle tri godine od dana stupanja na snagu relevantnog propisa (Council Regulation /EC/ No 2157/2001, 2001). Ovim propisom omogućeno je društvima za osiguranje da se osnivaju po pravu EU i da posluju na celoj teritoriji EU kao jedinstveno pri-vredno društvo. Glavna prednost EK je prekogranična mobilnost. Sa druge strane, ovaj organizaciono-prav-

1 Norio-Timonen J, Legal Coherence as a Prerequisite for a Single European Insurance Market, u: Smits, Letto-Vanamo, 2012.

ČLANCI /ARTICLES

Mr Oleksandr KHOMENKO

Evropska kompanija (So cietas Europaea) i njena primena u delatnosti osiguranja

UDK: 338(4-672EU)Primljeno: 22. 5. 2017.Prihvaćeno: 31. 7. 2017.Originalni naučni rad

Doktorand na Hanken School of Economics, Helsinki, Finska, e-mail: [email protected] . Istraživanje je sprovedeno uz podršku Th e Foundation for Economic Education (Liikesivistysrahasto).

3/2017

5

Evropsk а kompanija (Societas Europaea) i njena primena u delatnosti osiguranja

ni oblik ima neka ozbiljna ograničenja zbog kojih nije tako široko prihvaćen. 2

Ovaj oblik privrednog društva detaljno je analiziran u pravnoj teoriji (Gold, 2009; Malke, 2010; Kirshner, 2010a; Stollt M, Kluge, 2011, 181). Međutim, nijedan od radova nije se detaljnije bavio njegovom praktičnom primenom u delatnosti osiguranja i njegovim mogućim dobrim stranama. Ove teme dotakao se detaljni izveštaj o poslovanju EK kao jednoj od prihvatljivih mogućno-sti za banke i društva za osiguranje za sprovođenje reo-granizacije grupe i povećanje efi kasnosti kapitala (Ernst & Young, 2009, 225–226).

Dalja istraživanja ove teme mogu da ukažu i na dru-ge prednosti EK za delatnost osiguranja, koje nisu obu-hvaćene ovim radom. Rezultati tog istraživanja mogli bi da budu važni za velike međunarodne kompanije koje traže načine kako da uravnoteže svoje portfelje osigura-nja i usmere poslovanje grupe.

U ovom radu vrši se analiza propisa koji regulišu EK zajedno sa empirijskim podacima prikupljenim iz broj-nih izveštaja, biltena, intervjua i drugih oblika lične ko-munikacije sa predstavnicima EK u sektoru osiguranja i stručnjacima iz ove oblasti.

Rad je podeljen na sledeće celine: U odeljku 2 daje se kratak pregled glavnih osobina EK i propisa koji se primenjuju na nju, kao i najnoviji statistički podaci. U odeljku 3 diskutuje se o pozitivnim i negativnim osobi-nama EK. U odeljku 4 razmatra se primena EK u sek-toru osiguranja, njene dobre i loše strane. U odeljku 5 daju se zaključci.

2. EVROPSKA KOMPANIJA: REGULISANJE I GLAVNE OSOBINE

2.1. Zakonske odredbeEvropska kompanija je akcionarsko društvo, sa ka-

pitalom i pravnim subjektivitetom koji mu omogućava poslovanje na teritoriji EU i Evropskog ekonomskog prostora (dalje u tekstu: EEP). Njena namena je da po-mogne privrednim društvima da prošire svoje poslo-vanje na teritoriji EEP. Ovaj oblik privrednog društva regulisan je Statutom Evropske kompanije (dalje u tek-stu: Statut), koji se sastoji od dva akta: Uredbe Saveta o Statutu Evropske kompanije (dalje u tekstu: Uredba o Statutu) i Direktive kojom se dopunjuje odredbama o učešću zaposlenih (Direktiva o Statutu) (Statute for a European Company, 2001, n. 4). U pitanjima koja nisu regulisana Statutom, primenjuju se nacionalni propisi

2 Na dan 17. 5. 2017. godine bilo je osnovano samo 2.797 EK (ETUI (2017), European Company (SE) Database, http://ecdb.worker-participation.eu.

države u kojoj je ono osnovano. Pored toga, na EK se primenjuju odredbe njihovih statuta (Statute for a Eu-ropean Company, 2001, čl. 9).

Usvajanje Statuta bio je proces obeležen oštrim ne-slaganjima između zainteresovanih strana. Od trenut-ka kada je dat njegov predlog, trebalo je oko 30 godina da bi se postigla saglasnost za njegovo usvajanje (Gold, 2009, n. 6, 19). Glavne prepreke u nacionalnim propi-sima država članica su bile razlike u pravnim sistemi-ma u pogledu učešća radnika i njihova nespremnost da odustanu od njihove samostalnosti i kontrole osnovnih oblasti kompanijskog prava. Na kraju su sva pitanja re-šena donošenjem Direktive koja je regulisala aspekte učešća radnika u upravljanju društvom kroz sisteme jednodomne ili dvodomne organizacije uprave, ostav-ljajući državama članicama slobodu da svojim propisi-ma regulišu veliki broj pitanja. To je dovelo do preve-like fragmentacije propisa o EK, što je umanjilo njenu atraktivnost.

Na početku pregovora kada je prvi predlog EK usta-novljen, predloženi model organizacije novog privred-nog društva je imao istinsku evropsku prirodu sa je-dinstvenim poreskim pravilima, registrom privrednih društava i jednoobraznim propisom EU (Lenoir, 2008, 13). Međutim, zbog velikih razlika u nacionalnim pro-pisima država članica i političkih interesa ovi napredni ciljevi nisu se ostvarili. Zbog toga je Statut izričito is-ključio primenu pravila o oporezivanju, konkurenciji, intelektualnoj svojini ili nesolventnosti (Council Re-gulation /EC/ No 2157/2001, 2001, preambula br. 20). Pored toga, „prinudna ili dobrovoljna likvidacija, stečaj, prekid plaćanja i slične procedure” regulisane su naci-onalnim pravom države u kojoj je osnovana evropska kompanija: (Council Regulation /EC/ No 2157/2001, 2001, čl. 63). Ova inherentna fragmentacija stvorila je veliki broj pitanja i problema privrednim društvima koja su želela da se osnuju u formi EK. Na primer, zbog nepostojanja jednoobraznog poreskog sistema kada društvo premešta svoje sedište u drugu državu, ono može biti izloženo dvostrukom oporezivanju (Malke, 2010, 25).

2.2. Glavne osobinePrema čl. 1 Uredbe o statutu, evropska kompanija

ima status akcionarskog društva sa kapitalom i prav-nim subjektivitetom za poslovanje na teritoriji EU i EEP. Njen kapital je podeljen na akcije.3 Pored toga, ovo

3 Osnivači evropske kompanije mogu biti: akcionarska društva, društva sa ograničenom odgovornošću, kao i kompanije koje tu formu imaju prema nacionalnim propisima u skladu sa Ugovorom o osnivanju EU i ako imaju svoje registrovano ili statutarno sedište i glavnu upravu u EU (Vasiljević, M.,

3/2017

6 OLEKSANDR KHOMENKO

društvo ima pravni subjektivitet koji mu omogućava da stiče imovinu, da se pojavljuje kao tužilac ili tuženi u sudskom postupku. Statutom je propisano da se iznos osnovnog kapitala EK izražava u evrima. Iznos osnov-nog kapitala ne može da bude manji od 120.000 evra. Nacionalnim propisima država članica može se predvi-deti veći iznos osnovnog kapitala (Council Regulation /EC/ No. 2157/2001, 2001, čl. 4).

EK može da premesti svoje sedište u drugu državu članicu, što ne može da dovede do njene likvidacije ili stvaranja novog pravnog lica (Council Regulation /EC/ No 2157/2001, 2001, čl. 8). To omogućava društvu da slobodno premešta svoje sedište na teritoriji država EEP.

Statut, takođe, posvećuje pažnju pitanjima učešća radnika u upravljanju društvom. Na primer, on za-branjuje da se EK registruje pre zaključenja ugovora o radu sa zaposlenima (Council Regulation /EC/ No 2157/2001, 2001, čl. 12, st. 2).

EK, kao i svako drugo privredno društvo, mora da ima poslovno ime kao deo svog identiteta. Po pravilu, korporativni identitet se sastoji od poslovnog imena pravnog lica, sedišta, matičnog broja i naznake organi-zaciono-pravne forme.

Mesto registrovanog sedišta EK mora da se nalazi u istoj državi kao i njegovo sedište iz kojeg se upravlja poslovanjem. Kada EK više nema registrovano sedište u istoj državi, kao i sedište gde se nalazi uprava, drža-va članica u kojoj se nalazi registrovano sedište mora da „preduzme odgovarajuće mere” kako bi društvo registrovalo sedište u državi u kojoj se nalazi njegova uprava ili prenelo svoje registrovano sedište u državu članicu gde se nalazi uprava (Council Regulation /EC/ No 2157/2001, 2001, čl. 64).

2.3. Osnivanje i organizacija EKPrema Statutu, EK se može osnovati na četiri načina.

Osnivanje spajanjem moguće je za najmanje dva akcio-narska društva iz različith država članica EU, i to ili pri-pajanjem jednog akcionarskog društva drugom ili osni-vanjem novog društava pošto dva društva prenesu svu imovinu i obaveze na novo društvo koje će osnovati (Co-uncil Regulation /EC/ No 2157/2001, 2001, Odeljak 2).

EK se, takođe, može osnovati formiranjem holdinga od strane najmanje dva akcionarska društva iz različitih država članica EU, pri čemu akcionari ovih akcionar-skih društava postaju akcionari holdinga, do sa druge strane hlding postaje akcionar u tim društvima pa se tako vrši zamena akcija. U tom slučaju privredna druš-tva koja osnivaju holding EK nastavljaju da postoje, dok Kompanijsko pravo – Pravo privrednih društava, Beograd, 2013, 590; prim. prev.).

novoosnovana EK funkcioniše kao samostalno društvo sa svojom imovinom i obavezama (Council Regulation /EC/ No 2157/2001, 2001, Odeljak 3).

Pored navedenog, EK se može osnovati kao društvo kćerka prema pravu države sedišta osnovanog društva (Council Regulation /EC/ No 2157/2001, 2001, Odeljak 4). U tom smislu, EK osnivaju najmanje dva društva kao društvo kćerku, pri čemu ne moraju da budu ak-cionarska društva. Međutim, najmanje dve kompanije koje osnivaju evropsku kompaniju moraju imati druš-tvo kćerku najmanje dve godine (Council Regulation /EC/ No 2157/2001, 2001, čl. 2, st. 3).

Konačno, postojeće akcionarsko društvo, sa regi-strovanim sedištem i mestom uprave na teritoriji EU može se pretvoriti u EK (Council Regulation /EC/ No 2157/2001, 2001, Odeljak 5, čl. 2, st. 4).

Statutom je predviđena i mogućnost izbora izme-đu jednodomne i dvodomne uprave društva (Council Regulation /EC/ No 2157/2001, 2001, Glava 3). Jedno-domna organizacija uprave preovlađuje u državama common law i podrazumeva postojanje jednog admi-nistrativnog organa koji upravlja i nadzire poslovanje društva. Dvodomna organizacija uprave sastoji se od izvršnog organa koji rukovodi poslovanjem privrednog društva i nadzornog organa, nadležnog za nadzor rada izvršnog organa i zaštitu prava akcionara. Skupština ak-cionara imenuje članove nadzornog organa, koji ime-nuje članove izvršnog organa.

3. STATISTIČKI PODACI O EK

3.1. Opšta statistikaZbog nepostojanja centralnog registra EK, dobijanje

preciznih i najnovijih podataka o postojećim evropskim društvima je prilično zahtevno. Društva se registruju u nacionalnim privrednim registrima prema sedištu regi-stracije. Zbog toga, radi dobijanja podataka o EK mora-ju se pretražiti privredni registri svih država članica. Da bi se ovaj postupak olakšao, Evropski institut sindikata formirao je Evropsku kompanijsku bazu podataka (Eu-ropean Company Database–ECDB, dalje u tekstu: EKBP) uz fi nansijsku podršku EU (ETUI, 2017). Iako su infor-macije iz EKBP često nepotpune, to je trenutno najbolji izvor za prikupljanje statističkih podataka o EK.

Prema EKBP, 17. maja 2017. godine postojalo je 2.797 registrovanih EK na teritoriji EEP. Imajući u vidu mogućnost da je osnivanje EK moguće od sredine 2004. godine, njihov broj je veoma mali. Osim toga, distribu-cija EK na države EEP je veoma neujednačena, kao što

3/2017

7

se može videti iz Slike br. 1.4 Prema toj Slici, više od 70% svih EK osnovano je u Češkoj. Međutim, daljim istraži-vanjem utvrdili smo da od ukupno 1.965 EK, samo 86 ima više od pet zaposlenih, dok za 1.642 nema nikakvih podataka o broju zaposlenih. Razlog velike popularno-sti EK u Češkoj analizirali su H. Eidenmueller i J. Lasak. Oni su zaključili da veliku većinu EK predstavljaju fa-sadna privredna društva, osnovana samo radi kasnije

4 Svi brojevi se zasnivaju na statističkim podacima dobijenim od ECDB, http://ecdb.worker-participation.eu.

preprodaje potencijalnim klijentima, dok je njihov veli-ki broj posledica preteranog očekivanja tražnje za EK u Češkoj (Eidenmüller, Lasák, 2011).

Osim Češke, veći broj EK utvrđen je u Nemačkoj, Slovačkoj, Velikoj Britaniji, Holandiji, Luksemburgu, Francuskoj, Austriji i Kipru. U prvih deset država na-lazi se oko 97% svih registrovanih EK. Nijedna EK nije do sada registrovana na Islandu, u Hrvatskoj, Rumuniji i Sloveniji.


Slika br. 1. Ukupan broj osnovanih EK po državama članicama EU.

Slika br. 2. Broj osnovanih EK po godinama.

3/2017

8 Slika br. 2 predstavlja presek registrovnih EK tokom svake godine, bez uzimanja u obzir EK koja su prestale da postoje.

Podaci su prikazani odvojeno za Češku i ostale dr-žave EEP zbog nesrazmerno velikog broja EK u Češkoj. Podaci pokazuju da je tokom nekoliko proteklih godina godišnja distribucija novoosnovanih EK u drugim dr-žavama EEP manje-više bila stabilna, dok se u Češkoj broj novoosnovanih EK, uglavnom, smanjivao počev od 2013. godine. Ovaj trend mogao bi se pripisati po-stepenom saznanju da EK nije tako popularna kao što se prvobitno očekivalo.

Obe slike pokazuju da je popularnost EK još i manja nego što je prvobitno predviđano, uzimajući u obzir da je većina njih osnovana u Češkoj i da nije aktivna. Me-đutim, treba imati u vidu da je EK osmišljena kao kor-porativna forma za velike multinacionalne kompanije koje posluju u dve ili više država EEP. Osim toga, iako je informacija dobijena preko Evropskog instituta sin-dikata trgovine (European Trade Union Institut – ETUI) prilično detaljna, ona ne daje kompletnu sliku trenut-nog stanja EK. Ovo pitanje treba da se rešava uvođe-njem centralizovanog registra EK, koji nažalost još nije formiran.

3.2. EK u sektoru osiguranjaImajući u vidu slabu popularnost EK, teško je zami-

sliti da ovaj korporativni oblik može da donese bilo ka-kve prednosti društvima za osiguranje. Međutim, kako podaci pokazuju, neka najveća društva za osiguranje, kao što su Allianz, Hannover RE, Swiss RE i SCOR, od-lučila su da se pretvore u EK. Zbog toga se prednosti EK za društva za osiguranje ne mogu olako zanemariti.

Prema EKBP, postoji 31 EK koje posluju u sektorima osiguranja i reosiguranja. Slika br. 3 pokazuje distribu-ciju EK u oblasti osiguranja na teritoriji EEP. Slika br. 3 pokazuje da su EK koje posluju u sektoru osiguranja prisutne u deset od trideset jedne države EEP. Većina tih EK su osnovana u Nemačkoj, zatim u Velikoj Bri-taniji, Francuskoj i Estoniji, od kojih su prve tri države najveća tržišta osiguranja u EU. Ipak, treba imati u vidu da neka društva pripadaju istoj korporativnoj grupi.5

Slika br. 4 prikazuje broj EK koje posluju u sekto-rima životnog, neživotnog osiguranja i reosiguranja. Neka od društava posluju u više od jednog sektora. Pre-ma ovoj slici, većina društava pruža usluge neživotnog osiguranja uz životno osiguranje i reosiguranje.

Iako je broj EK u sektorima osiguranja i reosiguranja mali, čak i u poređenju sa ukupnim brojem EK, neka najveća društva su prihvatila ovaj oblik organizacije. To ukazuje da prednosti EK postoje za društva sa velikim prekograničnim portfeljem koja žele da povećaju svoju

5 Na primer, SCOR ima 3 EK koje pripadaju SCOR Group.

Slika br. 3. EK koja posluju u sektorima osiguranja / reosiguranja prema državi registracije

OLEKSANDR KHOMENKO

3/2017

9

efi kasnost i organizaciju. Dublja analiza njihovih moti-va za pretvaranje u EK i studija kako su ona unapredila svoje poslovanje otkriće efi kasnost EK u slučaju društa-va u sektorima osiguranja i reosiguranja.

4. MOTIVI I RAZLOZI ZA PRIMENU EK U OSIGURANJU

Da bi se bolje razumela primena i prednosti EK za privredna društva važno je da se analiziraju razlozi zbog kojih se neko odlučuje za ovaj oblik organizova-nja. Za potrebe efi kasne analize, motive i razloge ćemo podeliti na one koji su specifi čni za osiguranje i druge koji nisu povezani sa osiguranjem.

4.1. Motivi koji nisu povezani sa osiguranjemPosle analize izvoda iz kompanijskih biltena za

štampu i obavljene direktne komunikacije autora ovog rada sa predstavnicima kompanija, moguće je odrediti koji su bili njihovi glavni razlozi zbog kojih su se odlu-čili za pretvaranje u EK. Za neke EK u sektoru osigu-ranja glavni razlozi nisu bili u vezi sa osiguranjem, već nametnuti potrebom novog brendiranja, reorganizacije poslovanja ili povećanjem broja radnika iz drugih dr-žava.

4.1.1. Evropski identitetNije tajna da se privredna društva ponekad odlučuju

na određeni korporativni oblik ne samo zbog upravlja-nja ili drugih praktičnih razloga, već zbog same reputa-cije (Eidenmüller, 2009a, 17).

Brojna privredna društva su oblik EK, kao prvi su-pranacionalni korporativni oblik u EU, prihvatila kao efi kasno sredstvo za marketing i brendiranje uprkos

činjenici da se na taj oblik privrednog društva i dalje u velikoj meri primenjuju nacionalni propisi. Statut EK pomaže da ova društva uspostave takav karakter pro-pisivanjem da „se ispred ili posle poslovnog imena EK obavezno stavlja skraćenica SE” i da „samo EK mogu da u svom poslovnom imenu koriste skraćenicu SE” (Council Regulation /EC/ No 2157/2001, 2001, čl. 11). Procenjuje se da će se značaj EK povećati sa širom pri-menom ove pravne forme (Eidenmüller, 2009a, n. 30).

Empirijski podaci pokazuju da su neke EK u sektoru osiguranja, takođe, imala u vidu poseban značaj „evrop-ske” reputacije prilikom odluke o njihovom korporativ-nom obliku organizovanja. Jedan od učesnika u anketi pomenuo je da možda oblik EK ima vrednost u smislu publiciteta, jer u prvi plan ističe klijentima i poslovnim partnerima da je reč o „stvarnom evropskom privred-nom društvu”, što će imati pozitivan uticaj na reputaciju privrednog društva.6 U svom biltenu za štampu Hanno-ver Re je naveo da korporativni oblik EK naglašava „međunarodno poslovanje društva i da služi kao vid-ljiv spoljni izraz […] korporativnog identiteta evropske grupe koju karakteriše poslovanje širom sveta.”7 ARAG SE, drugo nemačko društvo za osiguranje, kao jedan od razloga za pretvaranje u EK, navelo je nadu da će time unaprediti reputaciju međunarodno aktivnog osigura-vača i povećati dopadljivost evropskim klijentima. Oni su takođe rekli da se „prethodno poslovno ime društva – ARAG Allgemeine Rechtssschutz-Versicherungs-Akti-engesellschaft smatralo preterano komplikovanim i nea-dekvatno prilagođenim za navedene namene.”8 Odluk a

6 Intervju sa predstavnikom Estonian SE № 1, transkript razgovora se nalazi kod autora.

7 Hannover Re press release https://www.hannover-re.com/45299/press-releases#/overlay/46725.

8 ARAG SE press release https://www.arag.com/press/pressreleases/group/1009/.

Slika br. 4. Broj EK u sektorima životnog, neživotnog osiguranja i reosiguranja.


3/2017

10 letonskog osiguravača BTA Insurance Company da pro-meni oblik u EK, bila je podstaknuta očekivanjem da će to unaprediti prepoznatljivost društva na teritoriji EU.9 SCOR SE, veliko francusko društvo za osiguranje, tako-đe je posebnu pažnju posvetilo mogućnosti pojačanja međunarodnog i evropskog identiteta kada su donosili odluku da se osnuju u obliku EK.10

4.1.2. Učešće radnikaNeslaganja u vezi sa učešćem radnika bila su samo

jedan od glavnih razloga zbog kojih je trebalo da prote-kne gotovo trideset godina do postizanja kompromisa u vezi sa Statutom EK. Zato je Uredba o EK izmenjena Direktivom koja reguliše učešće radnika, što je država-ma članicama pružilo više fl eksibilnosti u primeni nje-nih odredbi (Council Regulation /EC/ No 2157/2001, 2001, n. 4). Ipak, upešnost njenih pravila je i danas pod znakom sumnje. Iako je ona nesumnjivo doprinela ra-zvoju učešća radnika u upravljanju društvom u država-ma gde ono pre donošenja Uredbe o EK nije postojalo (van het Kaar, 2011, 195), društva u državama sa snaž-nom kulturom učešća radnika u upravljanju ponekad koriste odredbe Statuta za ograničavanje tog učešća (Kirshner, 2010a, 1335).

Međutim, mogućnost da se uravnoteži uticaj rad-nika u upravljanju društvom i dalje je moćan motiv za odluku o primeni oblika EK. Radničko upravljanje naj-više je izraženo u nemačkim EK. Na primer, pretvaranje nemačkog društva Allianz u EK, omogućilo je stranim radnicima da postanu članovi nadzornog odbora. Osim toga, ovo društvo je primenilo novu organizaciju da bi izbeglo imperativne nemačke propise i smanji broj članova njegovog nadzornog odbora (Kirshner, 2010a, 1333).

U slučaju društva ARAG, jedan od razloga za pre-tvaranje u EK bila je mogućnost da time ukažu na međunarodno širenje svog poslovanja, imajući u vidu činjenicu da skoro polovina njegovih zaposlenih čine radnici van Nemačke. Zbog toga se EK koristio da omogući zaposlenima u tom društvu da efi kasnije uče-stvuju u organima uprave društva.11

4.1.3. Podsticanje prekograničnog spajanjaU trenutku usvajanja, Statut EK je u osnovi pred-

stavljao jedino sredstvo koje je podsticalo prekogranič-no spajanje privrednih društava, što je takođe snažno

9 BTA SE Financial statement 2011 http://www.bta.eu.com/fi les/fi nreports/BTA_Annual_report_2011_EN.pdf.

10 SCOR SE press release https://www.scor.com/images/stories/pdf/CP-2006/CP_2006_13_EN.pdf.

11 ARAG SE press release (n 35).

uticalo na usvajanje oblika EK. Istorijski podaci uka-zuju da je najmanje 20% EK formirano kroz preko-granična spajanja u prve tri godine posle stupanja na snagu Statuta EK (Ernst & Young, 2009, 216). Jedno od tih društava bilo je Allianz SE, koje je 2006. godine koristilo ovaj oblik radi integrisanja njegovog italijan-skog društva Riunione Adriatica di Sicurtà S.p.A. (RAS) u Allianz AG. Društvo je navelo da je taj postupak, iz pravnog ugla, gledano bio jedino moguć pretvaranjem društva Allianz AG u EK.12

Okolnosti su se promenile posle donošenja Di-rektive o prekograničnim spajanjima i njene potpune primene u pravnim sistemima većine država članica (Directive 2005/56/EC, 2005). Pošto se ona primenjuje na širok krug privrednih društava i pruža veliku fl eksi-bilnost, ova direktiva je brzo postala glavno rešenje za društva koja su planirala prekogranično spajanje, zbog čega je Statut EK izgubio konkurentnost. To potvrđuju i podaci prema kojima je posle isteka roka za sprovođe-nje ove direktive, broj EK osnovanih prekograničnim spajanjem značajno smanjen (Ernst & Young, 2009, 216).

Ipak, postoje privredna društva, takođe i u sektoru osiguranja, koja i dalje koriste prednosti prekogranič-nih procedura koje omogućuje EK. Estonska grupa za osiguranje ERGO spojila je svoja društva u baltičkim državama i tako osnovala dva društva: ERGO Insurance SE i ERGO Life Insurance SE, optimizujući svoje poslo-vanje u sektorima životnog i neživotnog osiguranja.13 Drugo društvo iz Estonije imalo je društvo za životno osiguranje u Estoniji, ogranak u Letoniji i društvo za osiguranje u Litvaniji. Pomenuta dva društva su 2009. godine spojena u jednu EK. To je omogućilo društvu da sjedini organizaciju upravljanja i drugih funkcija na celom Baltiku.14

Sledstveno rečenom, korišćenje EK kao sredstva za prekogranična spajanja, može da smanji obim nad-zornih aktivnosti organa zvaničnog nadzora tokom reogranizacije društva. To je posledica činjenice da se pretvaranje u EK često smatra signalom za „legitimnu reorganizaciju na nivou EU”, što nije slučaj sa preko-graničnim spajanjem na osnovu Direktive o prekogra-ničnom spajanju privrednih društava (Kirshner, 2010a, 1301).

12 Allianz history https://www.allianz.com/en/about_us/who_we_are/history/. See also Ernst & Young (n 7), p. 217.

13 ERGO Group release https://www.ergo.ee/ergo-en/news/the-second-european-company-established-by-ergo.

14 Intervju sa predstavnikom Estonian SE № 2, transkript kod autora.

OLEKSANDR KHOMENKO

3/2017

11 4.1.4. Mogućnost primene arbitražeMogućnost slobodnog preseljenja registrovanog

sedišta, predviđenog čl. 8 Statuta EK, Komisija EU je proglasila jednom od glavnih prednosti za privredna društva.15 Pre usvajanja Statuta EK takva mogućnost bila je ozbiljno ograničena na teritoriji EU. Ova odred-ba pokrenula je raspravu da li privredna društva sa te-ritorije EU mogu da koriste oblik EK radi arbitražnog rešavanja sporova i tako izbegnu primenu nepovoljnih nacionalnih korporativnih propisa (McCahery, Verme-ulen, 2005;Eidenmüller, 2009b).

Praksa je, sa druge strane, pokazala da zbog ozbilj-nih ograničenja mobilnosti EK veoma mali broj društa-va je primenio ovaj oblik organizovanja. Ipak, jedan od učesnika u anketi istakao je da je mogućnost premešta-nja sedišta društva na teritoriji EU bio jedan od važnih razloga za primenu tog oblika. U slučaju da društvo ne planira da primeni taj oblik u bliskoj budućnosti, ako dođe do promene nekih važnih okolnosti, na primer, nacionalni propisi postanu previše komplikovani, druš-tvo može da izabere drugu državu u koju će premestiti svoje sedište.16

4.2. Motivi u vezi sa osiguranjemZbog specifi čne prirode delatnosti osiguranja, po-

sebno u vezi sa izdavanjem dozvola za rad i nadzorom društava za osiguranje, neki od motiva za primenu EK direktno su bili u vezi sa delatnošću osiguranja, dok u nekim slučajevima priroda delatnosti nije imala veći uticaj na društva van fi nansijskog sektora. Sa druge strane, deo razloga takođe je bitan za društva iz drugih delatnosti, iako je posebnu primenu EK našla u delat-nosti osiguranja.

4.2.1. Optimizacija organizacije grupe za osiguranjeOptimizacija organizacije grupe je jedan od važ-

nijih motiva za primenu EPD bez obzira na delatnost privrednog društva, ali je posebnu primenu pronašao u fi nansijskom sektoru, naročito u delatnosti osiguranja.

Neka društva za osiguranje iskoristila su EPD za re-ogranizaciju grupe u skladu sa vrstom osiguranja. Na primer, SCOR je putem spajanja svojih zavisnih dru-štava formirao holding društvo SCOR SE i dva društva: SCOR Global Life SE i SCOR Global P&C SE u sektorima životnog i neživotnog osiguranja (Ernst & Young, 2009, 221–223). Druga grupa za osiguranje ERGO, primenila

15 European Commission, press release: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-04-235_en.htm.

16 Intervju sa predstavnikom Maltese SE, transkript kod autora.

je EPD prvo da objedini svoja društva za osiguranje u baltičkim državama u društvo ERGO Life SE 2011. go-dine, a zatim, dve godine kasnije, izvršila je spajanje tri društva za neživotno osiguranje u društvo ERGO Insu-rance SE.17 Osim postizanja poslovne sinergije, spajanje u obliku EPD je grupi omogućilo da posluje na celoj te-ritoriji EU na osnovu jedinstvenog sistema izveštavanja i upravljanja.18

Druga privredna društva iskoristila su EPD za spajanje njihovih društava u pojedinim regionima. Ogranak Sampo Group, društvo Mandatum Life (pre-thodno poznato kao Sampo Life), takođe je odlučilo da pojednostavi svoju organizaciju i spojilo je svoja društva koja su poslovala u baltičkim državama u jed-no EPD: Mandatum Life Insurance Baltic SE. U ovom slučaju društva koja su poslovala u Letoniji i Litvaniji zamenjena su ograncima novoosnovanog EPD (Com-piler Trade Portal, 2005). Drugo društvo koje je posto-jalo u baltičkim državama, takođe, je osnovano u obliku EPD sa jednim portfeljem za ceo Baltik, što je mnogo lakše nego da postoje odvojeni portfelji posebno za svaku državu.19

4.2.2. Povećanje kapitalnih rezerviPostoje izvesni fi nansijski aspekti kod društava za

osiguranje prilikom zamene društava za osiguranje sa ograncima. Prema Direktivi o solventnosti II, kapital zavisnih društava za osiguranje smatra se njegovim, dok sredstva ogranaka predstavljaju deo imovine druš-tva holdinga (Directive 2009/138/EC, 2009, preambula br. 120). Zbog toga su neka društva zamenila svoja zavi-sna društva ograncima kako bi povećala osnovni kapi-tal tokom usklađivanja sa novim pravilima.

ERGO Group je u svom biltenu za štampu istakla da je jedan od razloga za spajanje baltičkih društava za neživotno osiguranje bio postizanje kapitalne optimi-zacije pre stupanja na snagu Direktive o solventnosti II. Pored toga, prethodno spajanje društava za životno osi-guranje u baltičkim državama i njihova zamena ogran-cima omogućila je društvu da poveća dobit.20

Mandatum Life je imala slične razloge za spajanje svojih baltičkih društava za životno osiguranje i prela-zak na organizaciju putem ogranka. Kapital društava za osiguranje tako je postao deo ukupnih rezervi EK i pozitivno utiče na prilagođavanje kapitalnim zahtevi-

17 ERGO Group press release (n 47). 18 Intervju sa predstavnikom Estonian SE № 1, transkript kod

autora.19 Intervju sa predstavnikom Estonian SE № 2, transkript kod

autora.20 ERGO Group press release (n. 47).


3/2017

12 ma Direktive o solventnosti II (Kirshner, 2010a, 1301; Compiler, 2005).

Smanjenje broja društava za osiguranje u grupi i nji-hova zamena ograncima, takođe, omogućavaju druš-tvima da ostvare manje kapitalne zahteve zbog diver-zifi kacije kroz različite vrste osiguranja, uz istovremeno održavanje prisustva na lokalnim tržištima. Pored toga, manji broj pravnih lica unutar grupe pozitivno utiče na zamenljivost kapitala (Linklaters, 2011). Organiza cija SCOR SE omogućila je postizanje efi kasne organizaci-je ogranka u EU, maksimizaciju lokalne solventnosti i prednosti uzajamne diverzifi kacije prema Direktivi o solventnosti II (SCOR SE, 2015, 88).

4.2.3. Nadzorni aspektiPrilikom odlučivanja o pretvaranju u EK, ne iznena-

đuje da društva za osiguranje posebnu pažnju posveću-ju nadzornim aspektima. Stupanjem na snagu Direktive o solventnosti II i uvođenjem velikog broja izmena, po-sebno u pogledu nadzora, veliki broj društava za osigu-ranje traži način da ograniči svoje obaveze. Kao što je rečeno u prethodnom pasusu, neka od velikih društava za osiguranje i reosiguranje izvršila su reorganizaciju koja im je omogućila da zamene društva za osiguranje ograncima i time povećaju svoje rezerve kapitala. Me-đutim, to nije prednost samo organizacije ogranka.

Primenom principa uzajamnog priznavanja dozvo-la, Direktiva o solventnosti II uvela je pravo društva za (re)osiguranje da obavlja svoju delatnost na terito-riji EU osnivanjem ogranaka (Directive 2009/138/EC, 2009, preambula br. 11). Kada se radi o nadzoru dru-štava za osiguranje i njihovim ograncima, čl. 30 izričito navodi: „Finansijski nadzor društava za osiguranje ili društava za reosiguranje, uključujući i ona koja posluju preko ogranaka ili na osnovu slobode pružanja usluga, u isključivoj su nadležnosti domicilne države članice” (prim. aut.) (Directive 2009/138/EC, 2009, čl. 30, st. 1). Važno dejstvo ove odredbe je u tome što kada druš-tvo usvoji organizaciju putem ogranaka, svi ogranci su u nadležnosti jednog istog nadzornog organa, i to

nadzornog organa domicilne države članice. Iako lo-kalni nadzorni organ države članice ogranka može da „na licu mesta proverava informacije neophodne za sprovođenje fi nansijskog nadzora društva” (Directive 2009/138/EC, 2009, čl. 33), stvarni nadzor ogranka vrše organi domicilne države članice društva osnivača.

Neka društva koriste prednosti ove odredbe kroz smanjenje broja nadzornih organa prema kojima ima-ju obavezu izveštavanja tako što su zamenili društva za osiguranje ograncima. Prema SCOR SE, posledica for-miranja organizacije putem ogranaka EK je da je „nad-zor integrisan na nivou društva osnivača. SCOR je u kontaktu sa manjim brojem nadzornih organa, sa koji-ma može da deli svoju globalnu strategiju na privilego-van način […]” (SCOR SE, 2015, 62). Neki autori tvrde da je smanjenje broja nadzornih organa doprinelo zna-čajnom smanjenju administrativnih i drugih troškova društava (Kirshner, 2010b, 454).

Takođe, treba imati u vidu da EK ne donosi iste prednosti u drugim sektorima jer su propisi o nadzo-ru drugačiji za svaku delatnost (Kirshner, 2010a, 1300). Pored toga, kada je reč o pravima potrošača, društva ne mogu da primenjuju jedinstveni sistem nadzora jer se pitanja prava potrošača štite putem nacionalnih propisa o nadzoru. Iz tog razloga Mandatum Life SE nije mogao da ostvari centralizovan nadzor u baltičkim državama (Kirshner, 2010a, 1302).

Druga važna prednost društava za osiguranje kroz oblik EK je da im on omogućava sprovođenje reorga-nizacije bez gubitka dozvole za obavljanje poslova osi-guranja. To je bio slučaj sa društvom Swiss Re koje je iskoristila EK radi objedinjavanja njegovih društava za osiguranje u British SE, a zatim da premesti svoje sedi-šte u Luksemburg. Pretvaranjem u EK, ovo društvo nije moralo da likvidira svako od društava za osiguranje i osnuje nova za koja bi moralo da traži nove dozvole (Kirshner, 2010b, 458).

Preveo: prof. dr Slobodan Jovanović,e-mail: [email protected]

OLEKSANDR KHOMENKO

3/2017

13

Th e European Company (Societas Europaea) and its application in the insurance industry

SUMMARY

Th is paper provided the discussion of the ways the European Company is used in insurance industry and what benefi ts it brings specifi cally to the insurance fi rms.

As was shown above, the SE, despite being a general form of enterprise, has found a special application in the fi nancial sector and insurance industry in particu-lar. One of the popular use cases was insurance group restructuring conducted through cross-border mergers and substituting subsidiaries with branches.

If judged by the statistical data alone, the story of the European Company and its adoption is far from succe-ssful. During more than 12 years since the corporate form became available, only 2797 European companies have been established (ECDB, n.26).

However, upon a closer examination there is com-pelling evidence that despite the low popularity, SE has found its use in certain industries, bringing about the advantages to the fi rms that converted to this new cor-porate form. Naturally, the shortcomings of the SE re-gulation and their negative impact on the overall adop-tion of the European Company cannot be dismissed, however there are other, less obvious factors, which determine how widely the SE is used. Th e low level of adoption can be attributed, among other things, to the fact that SE was specifi cally devised for large multina-tional companies operating in several states of the EU. Consequently, the capital and other requirements for the SE are substantially higher than the ones for the na-tional companies.

Th e data presented in this paper points out that SE has found a particular application in the insurance in-dustry where some of the major players have used the form to optimize their group structure, increase the amount of capital reserves in the advent of new Sol-vency II regulation and decrease the number of super-visory authorities to report to. Additionally European Company allows insurance companies to conduct cross-border restructurings and transfer of registered offi ces without losing their insurance specifi c licences, since such restructurings can be conducted without the company’s winding up or liquidation. As a result the

insurance companies were able to achieve substantial capital savings and increase the effi ciency of their busi-ness operations, which is especially important with the entering into force of the Solvency II and its increased pressure on the ways insurance companies’ capital and other reserves are managed. Moreover the SE makes a positive, albeit limited, impact on the decreasing oft he fragmentation of the EU Insurance Company Law by providing a unifi ed framework of norms for the regu-lation of corporate activities. Particularly, it has intro-duced a number of standard corporate governance ru-les establishing a uniform base for governing a group structure in diff erent Member States (Ernst & Young, 2009, 224). Th is positive impact is unfortunately not applicable to the EU Insurance Contract Law due to the consumer protection norms and the principle of ‘gene-ral good’, discussed previously.

Even though the current research has not found any direct empirical evidence confi rming the fact that SE is actively used to simplify insurance portfolio transacti-ons, there is nevertheless a strong theoretical indication that it can streamline such processes, in particular thro-ugh cross-border reorganisations. Further research the-refore should concentrate on following up this subject with more recent empirical data, since the situation can drastically change aft er more time have passed since the adoption of the Solvency II. Additionally, although this paper does outline a number of benefi ts that SE pro-vides to the insurance companies, a subsequent inve-stigation may reveal some previously undocumented advantages.

Keywords: EU Insurance Law, Insurance Regulation, European Company, Societas Europaea

LITERATURA (REFERENCES)

Compiler Trade Portal. (December 21, 2005). Sampo Life to combine all its subsidaries operating in the Baltic countri-es under one legal company, accessed at: http://www.com-piler.fi/tradestation/finland/bizfinland/pressreleases/2005/December/12.2005-pr05.html, May 17, 2017.

Oleksandr KHOMENKO, LLM


UDC: 338(4-672EU)Original scientifi c work

3/2017

14 Council Regulation (EC) No 2157/2001 of 8 October 2001 on the Statute for a European company, Offi cial Journal of the European Communities, 10.11.2001, L 294.

Directive 2002/83/EC of The European Parliament and of The Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance (Life Directive), Offi cial Journal of the European Communi-ties, 19.12.2002, L 345.

Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies, Offi cial Journal of the European Union, 25.11.2005, L 310.

Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Sol-vency II), Offi cial Journal of the European Union, L 335.

Eidenmüller, H. (2009a).The Societas Europaea: Good News for European Firms, ECGI - Law Working Paper No. 127/2009.

Eidenmüller, H. (2009b). Incorporating under European Law: The Societas Europaea as a Vehicle for Legal Arbitrage, European Business Organization Law Review, 10 (1), 1–33.

Eidenmüller, H., Lasák, J. (2011). The Czech Societas Europaea Puzzle, Working Paper N°.183/2011, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1969215, accessed May 17 2017.

Ernst & Young. (2009). Study on the operation and the impacts of the Statute for a European Company (SE) - 2008/S 144-192482, Final report.

ETUI http://ecdb.worker-participation.eu, accessed May 17, 2017.

Gold, M., Nikolopoulos, A., Kluge, N. (2009). The Euro-pean Company Statute: A New Approach to Corporate Go-vernance. Bern: Peter Lang AG.

Kirshner, J. (2010a). An Ever Closer Union in Corporate Identity: A Transatlantic Perspective on Regional Dynamics

and the Societas Europaea, St. John‘s Law Review, 84 (4), 1273–1345.

Kirshner, J. (2010b). A Third Way: Regional Restructu-ring and the Societas Europaea, European Company and Fi-nancial Law Review, 7 (3), 444–478.

Lenoir, N. (2008). The Societas Europaea (SE) in Euro-pe - A promising start and an option with good prospects, Utrecht Law Review, 4 (1), 13–21.

Linklaters. (2011). European Legal Entity Consolidation and Societas Europaea, http://www.linklaters.com/Insights/Publication1386Newsletter/March2011/Pages/European_Legal_Entity_Consolidation_Societas_Europaea.aspx, acce-ssed May 17 2017.

Malke, C. (2010). Taxation of European Companies at the Time of Establishment and Restructuring. Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag | Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH.

McCahery, J., Vermeulen, E. (2005). Does the European Company Prevent the “Delaware Effect”?, European Law Journal, 11 (6), 785–801.

SCOR SE. (2015). Gaining a strategic edge through capi-tal management, Focus.

Smits, J. M., Letto-Vanamo, P. (eds). (2012). Coherence and Fragmentation in European Private Law. Munich: Se-llier European Law Publishers GmbH.

Stollt M., Kluge N. (2011). The potential of employee in-volvement in the SE to foster the Europeanization of labour relations, Transfer: European Review of Labour and Resear-ch, 17 (2), 181–191.

Van het Kaar, R. (2011). The European Company (SE) Sta-tute: up against increasing competition?, Transfer:European Review of Labour and Research, 17 (2), 193–201.

OLEKSANDR KHOMENKO

3/2017

15

Abstract

Th is paper investigates how the European Company (SE) is used in the insurance industry and discusses the reasons for choosing the corporate form by large multinational insurance corporations. Th e study is carried out by analysing already established SEs in the insurance sector and what benefi ts this corporate form brings them. Th e article utilizes doctrinal analyses of the legal acts regulating the SE together with the empirical data collected from various reports, press releases, interviews and other forms of personal communications with the representatives of the SEs in the insurance sector and experts in the fi eld.

Keywords: EU Insurance Law, Insurance Regulation, European Company, Societas Europaea

1. INTRODUCTION

Th e internationalisation of fi nancial services is constantly increasing. Insurance sector is no exception. Th e nature of insurance business, where the service provider and the customer do not necessarily need to meet each other in order to execute a transaction, allows many large multinational companies to provide certain insurance services across various countries. However, the smooth operation of such insurers can and oft en is impaired by diff erent national norms regulating insurance market in each country. It may seem that the situation should be diff erent in the EU with its tendency to gradual harmonisation of rules aiming for creation of a single market. Th is market would make the operation of companies across the Union easier by

eliminating the number of regulatory and procedural obstacles. And indeed one can observe the eff ect of the so-called ‘single EU passport’ provided for in the current Insurance Directives (Directive 2002/83/EC, 2002, Recital 8).

Consequently it may be assumed that operating across the EU does not present any obstacles for an insurance undertaking authorised in one of its states. However the actual state of aff airs is quite diff erent. It has been pointed out that the notion of harmonised EU Insurance Law is applicable mostly to the Insurance Company Law whereas in Insurance Contract Law the norms protecting ‘general good’ in the country of commitment create certain restrictions for the fi rms which to provide their services.21 Moreover, certain areas of the EU Insurance Company Law are strongly fragmented as well. Th e relevance of the issue increased with the entering into force in 2016 of new EU-wide prudential rules, introduced by the Directive on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance, also known as Solvency II (Directive 2009/138/EC, 2009). Th e Directive increases capital requirements for majority of insurers, especially those with a high risk profi le. Consequently they are looking into ways to optimize their business and dispose of the unprofi table lines, oft en resorting to the insurance portfolio transfers. Th is creates a need for a mechanism that allows to mitigate jurisdictional differences and streamline cross-border processes, insurance transactions in particular. Th erefore the use of the European Company (SE) could be considered.

The SE was introduced in 2001 and became available three years later with the entering into force of the relevant legislation (Council Regulation /EC/ No 2157/2001, 2001). It allows companies to be established under the EU law and operate throughout the Union as a single entity. Th e main advantages of the SE are cross-

21 See Norio-Timonen J, ‘Legal Coherence as a Prerequisite for a Single European Insurance Market’ in: Smits, Letto-Vanamo, 2012.

Master of International and Comparative Law, Doctoral student at the Department of Accounting and Commercial Law, Hanken School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland, e-mail: [email protected]. The research has been conducted with a support from Th e Foundation for Economic Education (Liikesivistysrahasto).

ČLANCI /ARTICLES

Oleksandr KHOMENKO, LLM*


UDC: 338(4-672EU)Received: 22. 5. 2017.Accepted: 31. 7. 2017.Original scientifi c work

3/2017

16 border mobility and reorganizations. On the other hand it has some serious limitations and as a result has not gained wide popularity.22

Th e European Company has been studied at length in the academic literature (Gold, 2009; Malke, 2010; Kirshner, 2010a; Stollt M, Kluge, 2011, 181). However none of the works investigate in depth the use of the Company in the insurance industry and its possible advantages. Th e issue was briefl y mentioned in the comprehensive report on the operation of SE as one of the viable options for banks and insurance companies to conduct group restructuring and enhance their capital effi ciency (Ernst & Young, 2009, 225–226).

Further investigation of the topic may reveal other benefi ts of the SE for insurance sector, which have not been considered before. Th e results of such investigation would be potentially important for the large multinational companies looking into ways to optimise their insurance business and streamline group operations.

Th is paper utilizes doctrinal analyses of the legal acts regulating the SE together with the empirical data collected from various reports, press releases, interviews and other forms of personal communications with the representatives of the SEs in the insurance sector and experts in the fi eld.

Th e paper is organised as follows. Section 2 off ers a brief overview of the main features of the SE and its regulation as well as its recent statistical data. Section 3 discusses the general positive and negative sides of the Company. Section 4 considers the use of the SE in the insurance sector together with its issues and benefi ts. Section 5 presents the conclusions.

2. THE EUROPEAN COMPANY: REGULATION AND MAIN FEATURES

2.1. Legal provisionsTh e European Company is a public limited company

with share capital and legal personality which can conduct its activity throughout European Union and European Economic Area (EEA). It is intended to facilitate operations of the companies wishing to expand their business across EEA. It is regulated by the Statute for a European Company (ECS or the Statute), which consists of two acts: Council Regulation on the Statute for a European Company (SE Regulation) and Directive supplementing it with regard to the

22 As of May 17th 2017 only 2797 SEs have been established (ETUI (2017), European Company (SE) Database, http://ecdb.worker-participation.eu).

involvement of employees (SE Directive) (Statute for a European Company, 2001, n 4). In matters not regulated by the ECS the national legislation applicable to public limited liability companies of the country in which SE is incorporated applies. Additionally the Company is governed by the provisions of its statutes (Statute for a European Company, 2001, art. 9).

Th e adoption of the ESC was a process marked by stark controversies between its parties. It took around 30 years to agree on since it was proposed (Gold, 2009, n. 6, 19).Th e main obstacles were diff erent systems of worker participation in the Member States and their unwillingness to give up their autonomy and control over the fundamental areas of Company Law. Ultimately the issues were resolved through regulating worker related aspects by a Directive which provided an option of choosing between one and two-tier board structure systems and leaving a large portion of issues to beregulated by national laws of the Member States. Th is introduced a high level of fragmentation into the SE regulation substantially decreasing the Company’s attractiveness.

At the beginning of the negotiations when the fi rst proposal for the European Company was submitted the suggested new company structure had truly European nature with single tax rules, companies’ register and uniform EU legislation (Lenoir, 2008, 13). However, due to the large diff erences in the Member States’ national legal systems and political interests these progressive aims were left unachieved. As a result the Statute explicitly excludes taxation, competition, intellectual property or insolvency (Council Regulation /EC/ No 2157/2001, 2001, Recital 20). Moreover ‘winding up, liquidation, insolvency, cessation of payments and similar procedures’ are governed by the national law of the SE’s country of incorporation’ (Council Regulation /EC/ No 2157/2001, article 63). Th is inherent fragmentation creates a lot of issues and complications for the fi rms wishing to incorporate as SEs. For example, due to the absence of unifi ed tax treatment when a company wants to transfer its registered offi ce to another country, it may become a subject for double taxation (Malke, 2010, 25).

2.2. Main featuresAccording to the article 1 of the SE Regulation, a

European Company is a public limited company with share capital and legal personality which can conduct its activity throughout European Union and EEA. Its capital is divided into shares and each shareholder is liable only for the amount of shares he or she has subscribed to (limited liability). Additionally it has

OLEKSANDR KHOMENKO

3/2017

17 legal personality meaning that it can acquire its own property, participate as a claimant or respondent in court proceedings, etc. Th e Statute sets up the requirement for the capital of an SE to be expressed in euro. Th e amount of the subscribed capital cannot be less than 120 000 euro. A higher requirement may be prescribed by the national laws of Member States (Council Regulation /EC/ No 2157/2001, 2001, art. 4).

Th e SE can transfer its registered offi ce to another Member State, which cannot result in its winding up or creation of a new legal person (Council Regulation /EC/ No 2157/2001, 2001, art. 8). Th is allows the company to freely move its registered offi ce throughout the EEA countries.

Th e Statute pays a considerable amount of attention to the questions of workers participation. For instance, it prohibits an SE to be registered before the conclusion of an agreement on arrangements for employee involvement (Council Regulation /EC/ No 2157/2001, 2001, art. 12/2).

SE, as any other company, shall have its name as a part of its identity. Usually corporate identity consists of the legal entity’s name, registered offi ce, registration number and corporate form.

Th e location of the SE’s registered offi ce shall be inside the EU, in the same state as its head offi ce. When an SE no longer has its registered offi ce in the same country as its head offi ce, the Member State where its registered offi ce is located, must ‘take appropriate measures’ in order to make the Company either to re-establish its offi ce in the state of head offi ce’s location or transfer its registered offi ce to the Member State where its head offi ce is located (Council Regulation /EC/ No 2157/2001, 2001, art.64).

2.3. Formation and structure of the SEAccording to the Statute a European Company can

be formed in four diff erent ways. Formation by merger is available only to public limited-liability companies from at least two diff erent Member States and can be accomplished either by merger by acquisition or by formation of a new companies when two fi rms transfer all their assets and liabilities into a new company set up by them (Council Regulation /EC/ No 2157/2001, 2001, Section 2).

An SE can also be created by formation of a holding SE where two or more public or private limited companies from at least two diff erent Member States exchange more than half of their shares for the shares of the SE which is being set up. In this case the companies promoting the formation of holding SE shall continue to exist and the created SE will function as a separate

entity with its assets and liabilities (Council Regulation /EC/ No 2157/2001, 2001, Section 3).

Additionally an SE can be set up by a formation of a subsidiary SE (Council Regulation /EC/ No 2157/2001, 2001, Section 4). For this each of at least two companies promoting the formation of subsidiary SE shall be governed by the law of a diff erent Member State or have at least for two years a subsidiary governed by the law of another Member State or a branch situated in another Member State (Council Regulation /EC/ No 2157/2001, 2001, art. 2/3).

Finally, an existing public limited-liability company, which has its registered and head offi ce inside the EU and has had for at least two years a subsidiary governed by the law of another Member State, may be transformed into an SE (Council Regulation /EC/ No 2157/2001, 2001, art. Section 5, art. 2/4).

Th e Statute provides an option of choosing between one-tier and two-tier board structure of a company (Council Regulation /EC/ No 2157/2001, 2001, Title 3). One-tier structure is prevalent in Common law countries and provides for a single administrative organ exercising management along with a supervision of company’s activities. Two-tier structure consists of a management organ controlling company’s operations and a supervisory organ, responsible for overseeing the work of the management organ and protection of the shareholders’ rights. Th e general meeting of the shareholders appoints the members of the supervisory organ which in turn appoints the members of the management organ.

3. STATISTICAL DATA OF THE SE

3.1. General statisticsIn the absence of a central SE register obtaining

accurate and up to date information about the existing European companies is quite challenging. Th e company is registered in the national register of the state of its registered offi ce. Th erefore in order to obtain data about the SEs one has to look through all the national company registers of the Member States. In order to facilitate this process the European Trade Union Institute created a European Company Database (ECDB) with a fi nancial support from the EU (ETUI, 2017). Although the information provided by the ECDB is oft en incomplete, it is currently the best source available to collect statistical data about SEs.

According to the ECDB as of May 17 2017 there are 2797 registered European companies throughout the EEA. Considering the option to incorporate as an SE has been available since mid-2004 this number


3/2017

18

is very low. Additionally the distribution of the SE’s across EEA states is very uneven, as can be seen in the Figure 1.23 According to the Figure more than 70% of all existing SEs are incorporated in Czech Republic. However, further investigation reveals that out of total 1965 SEs there only 86 have fi ve or more employees while 1642 do not have any data at all about their numbers of employees. Th e subject of large popularity of European Companies in Czech Republic was studied by H. Eidenmueller and J. Lasak. Th ey conclude that large majority of SEs there are shell companies, created

23 All the fi gures are made based on statistical data retrieved from ECDBhttp://ecdb.worker-participation.eu.

in order to be subsequently sold to potential clients, and their high numbers are a result of overestimated demand for SE companies in Czech Republic (Eidenmüller, Lasák, 2011).

Apart from Czech Republic signifi cant presence of the SEs can be observed in Germany, Slovakia, the UK, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, France, Austria and Cyprus. Th e top 10 countries host around 97% of all registered companies. No European Companies have yet been established in Iceland, Croatia, Romania and Slovenia.

Figure 1. Total number of established SEs in each country.

Figure 2. Number of registered SEs during each year.

OLEKSANDR KHOMENKO

3/2017

19 Figure 2 presents a breakdown of registered SEs during each year not taking into account companies that have since deregistered.

The numbers are shown separately for Czech Republic and the rest of EEA states due to disproportionately high number of SE in the former. Th e fi gure demonstrates that while during the past several years the yearly distribution of newly created SEs in other EEA states was more or less steady, in Czech Republic the number has been mostly declining since 2013. Th is trend could take place due to the market’s realisation that the European Company is not as popular as was initially expected.

Both fi gures demonstrate that the popularity of the SEs is even less than initially seen considering most of them are established in Czech Republic and are not economically active. However it should be noted that SE is devised as a corporate form for large multinational companies conducting their business across two or more EEA states. Additionally even though the information collected by ETUI is quite comprehensive, it still does not give a complete picture of the current state of the SEs. Th is issue should be solved through an introduction of the centralised register of the SEs, which unfortunately has not been established yet.

3.2. SEs in the insurance sectorConsidering general low popularity of European

Companies it might be diffi cult to imagine that this corporate form will bring any advantages to insurance

fi rms. However, as the data shows, some of the largest insurance companies decided to transform to SE, such

as Allianz, Hannover RE, Swiss RE and SCOR, among others. Th erefore the benefi ts of SE for insurance fi rms cannot be easily dismissed.

According to ECDB there are 31 SEs operating in insurance or reinsurance sector.24 Figure 3 shows the distribution of insurance SEs across EEA. Accordingly SEs operating in insurance sector are present in 10 of 31 EEA states. Majority of them are incorporated in Germany followed by the UK, France and Estonia, the fi rst three countries being among the biggest insurance markets in the EU. It should be noted, however, that some of the companies belong to the same group.25

Figure 4 demonstrates the number of SEs operating in life, non-life or reinsurance sectors respectively. Some of the fi rms operate in more than one of the sectors. According to the chart majority of the undertakings provide services of non-life insurance followed by life insurance and reinsurance.

Consequently, even though the number of SEs in insurance and reinsurance sectors is low even compared to the total number of SEs, some of the biggest companies have adopted the form. Th is shows that ultimately there are advantages of the European Company for the firms with large cross border operations that want to increase their effi ciency and structure. A deeper analysis of their motives to convert to SE and study of how it facilitates their operations will reveal the effi ciency of the European Company for the undertakings in insurance and reinsurance sectors.

24 ECDB (n 26). 25 For example, SCOR has 3 SEs which all belong to SCOR

Group.

Figure 3. SEs operating in insurance/reinsurance sector according to a country of registration.


3/2017

20

4. MOTIVES AND INCENTIVES FOR USING SE IN INSURANCE

It is important to analyse the drivers for choosing SE form in order to better understand its usage and benefi ts for the companies. For eff ective analysis they will be divided into insurance specifi c drivers and the ones that are not directly related to insurance.

4.1. Motives not directly related to insuranceAfter analysing companies’ press-releases and

conducting personal communications with their representatives it is possible to establish their main reasons for converting to SE. For some of the SEs in the insurance sector the main drivers for conversion were not directly related to insurance but dictated by the need to achieve re-branding, restructuring of business or increase the worker participation from other states, among others.

4.1.1. European identityIt is not a secret that companies sometimes choose

a certain corporate structure not because of the governance or other practical reasons, but due to the reputation concerns (Eidenmüller, 2009a, 17).

The European Company, being among the first supranational corporate vehicles in the EU was perceived by various businesses as an eff ective marketing and branding tool despite the fact that it still is regulated

largely by national legislation. Th e SE Statute helps to establish such identity, stipulating that ‘the name of an SE shall be preceded or followed by the abbreviation SE’ and that ‘only SEs may include the abbreviation SE in their name’ (Council Regulation /EC/ No 2157/2001, 2001, art. 11). It was estimated that the role of the image of the SE will increase with the growth of usage of this legal form (Eidenmüller, 2009a, 30).

Th e empirical data shows that some of the SEs in the insurance sector also paid a particular importance to the European image when choosing their corporate form. One of the respondents mentioned that there might be a value of SE in terms of publicity as it signals to the customers and counterparts that company is a ‘real European undertaking’, which will have a positive impact on the company’s image.26 Hannover Re in their press release stated that the choice of SE corporate form underscores ‘the company’s international business operations and serves as a visible external expression of […] corporate self-image as a European group with worldwide activities’.27 ARAG SE, another German insurance company, named as one of the reasons for transformation into SE a hope to improve its reputation as internationally active insurer and increase its appeal among the European customers. Th ey also add that ‘Th e former name of the enterprise – ARAG Allgemeine Rechtssschutz-Versicherungs-Aktiengesellschaft was

26 Interview with a representative of Estonian SE № 1, transcript on fi le with the author.

27 Hannover Re press release https://www.hannover-re.com/45299/press-releases#/overlay/46725.

Figure 4. Number of SEs operating in Life, Non-life or Reinsurance sectors.

OLEKSANDR KHOMENKO

3/2017

21 regarded as overly cumbersome and poorly suited for those purposes’.28 Latvian insurer, BTA Insurance Company, motivated its decision to transfer to SE form by expecting this move to improve company’s recognition on the EU level.29SCOR SE, a major French insurance company, also paid particular attention to the possibility of strengthening company’s multinational and European identity while choosing to incorporate as an SE.30

4.1.2. Worker participationDebates over worker participation were one of the

main reasons why it took almost 30 years to reach the compromise on the SE Statute. As a result the SE Regulation was supplemented by a Directive regulating worker involvement which gave Member States more leeway in the implementation of its provisions (Council Regulation /EC/ No 2157/2001, 2001, n. 4). The success of the rules is dubious up to this day. Whereas it has undoubtedly contributed to the development of employee participation in countries where it did not exist before (van het Kaar, 2011, 195), the companies in countries with strong worker participation culture sometimes use Statute’s provisions to limit such participation (Kirshner, 2010a, 1335).

Nevertheless, an opportunity to optimize worker participation at company level is still a powerful driver for choosing SE form. It has been used the most by German SEs. For example, for Allianz conversion to SE allowed to include workers coming outside of Germany to the supervisory board. Additionally the company used the new structure to circumvent the mandatory German rules and decrease the size of its supervisory board (Kirshner, 2010a, 1333).

For ARAG one of the reasons for converting to SE was the opportunity to refl ect its international expansion, considering the fact that almost half of its employees work outside of Germany. Th erefore the SE was used to enable company’s employees to participate more eff ectively in its management organs.31

4.1.3. Facilitation of cross-border mergerAt the time of its adoption the Statute was basically

the only tool which facilitated cross-border mergers of 28 ARAG SE press release https://www.arag.com/press/

pressreleases/group/1009/.29 BTA SE Financial statement 2011 http://www.bta.eu.com/

fi les/fi nreports/BTA_Annual_report_2011_EN.pdf.30 SCOR SE press release https://www.scor.com/images/

stories/pdf/CP-2006/CP_2006_13_EN.pdf.31 ARAG SE press release (n 35).

companies which was a strong incentive for adoption of the European Company form. As the historical data indicates, at least 20% of SEs were established through cross-border mergers in the fi rst three years aft er the Statute’s ratifi cation (Ernst & Young, 2009, 216). One of such companies was Allianz SE which in 2006 used SE to complete integration of its Italian subsidiary Riunione Adriatica di Sicurtà S.p.A. (RAS) into Allianz AG. Th e company states that from a legal point of view it was possible only if Allianz AG converted into a European Company.32

Th e situation has changed aft er the Directive on cross-border mergers (Merger Directive) has been fully transposed into the legislation of the majority of the Member States (Directive 2005/56/EC, 2005). Being available to a wider array of fi rms and providing more fl exibility the Merger Directive quickly became the go-to solution for the companies willing to accomplish a cross-border merger thus depriving the SE Statute of its competitive edge. And indeed the data shows that aft er the deadline for transposing the Merger Directive has passed, the number of SEs established through cross-border merger has decreased signifi cantly (Ernst & Young, 2009, 216).

Nevertheless, there are companies, also in the insurance sector, which still take the advantage of cross-border procedure provided by SE. Estonian insurance group ERGO merged its companies in the Baltic States, establishing as a result two entities – ERGO Insurance SE and ERGO Life Insurance SE, optimizing its operation in non-life and life sectors respectively.33 Another Estonian-based company, used to have a life insurance company in Estonia with a branch in Latvia and a separate insurance company in Lithuania. In 2009 the two entities have been combined into a single SE. Th is allowed the company to unify the management and functional structure across the Baltics.34

Additionally, employingSE as a tool for cross-border mergers can mitigate scrutiny from supervisory organs and clients during company’s restructurings. Th is is due to the fact that conversion to SE is oft en regarded as a signal of a ‘legitimate, European-level restructuring’ which is not the case with cross-border mergers using the Merger Directive (Kirshner, 2010a, 1301).

32 Allianz history https://www.allianz.com/en/about_us/who_we_are/history/. See also Ernst & Young (n 7), p.217.

33 ERGO Group release https://www.ergo.ee/ergo-en/news/the-second-european-company-established-by-ergo.

34 Interview with a representative of Estonian SE № 2, transcript on fi le with the author.


3/2017

22 4.1.4. Possibility of jurisdictional arbitrageThe ability to freely move its registered office,

provided by Article 8 of the SE Statute, was declared by the Commission to be one of the Company’s main advantages.35 Before the adoption of the Statute such possibility was seriously restricted in the EU. Th is provision generated a discussion whether the companies in the EU will be able to use the SE form to engage in jurisdictional arbitrage and avoid unfavourable national company law rules (McCahery, Vermeulen, 2005; Eidenmüller, 2009b).

As the practice shows, however, due to the serious restrictions to the mobility of SE not many fi rms have employed the form as a tool for jurisdictional forum-shopping. Nevertheless one of the respondents noted that possibility to move company’s offi ce across the EU was one of the important factors for choosing the form. Even though the company does not intend to use it in the near future, in case some important factors would change, for example the national regulation would become too complex, the company would consider other jurisdictions as options for relocation.36

4.2. Motives related to insuranceDue to a specifi c nature of insurance business, in

particular authorisation and regulatory aspects of fi rms, some of the drivers for choosing SE form were directly related to the insurance activities of the companies and in some cases did not have high applicability to the fi rms outside of fi nancial sector. On the other hand, part of the incentives is also relevant to other companies, although it has found a particular application within the insurance industry.

4.2.1. Optimization of insurance group structureOptimization of the group structure is one of the

important drivers for choosing SE regardless of the industry, however it has found a special application in the fi nancial sector and insurance in particular.

Some of the insurance companies used SE to restructure a group according to the lines of business. For example SCOR through merger of its subsidiaries has established a parent company SCOR SE and two branches – SCOR Global Life SE and SCOR Global P&C SE, in life and non-life sectors respectively (Ernst & Young, 2009, 221–223). Another insurance group,

35 European Commission, press release: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-04-235_en.htm.

36 Interview with a representative of a Maltese SE, transcript on fi le with the author.

ERGO, used SE to fi rst unify its insurance companies in the Baltic States into ERGO Life SE in 2011, and then, two years later, merged its three non-life insurance companies into ERGO Insurance SE.37 Apart from achieving operational synergies it has allowed the group to operate across EU based on the unifi ed reporting and management system.38

Other fi rms took advantage of the SE to unify their subsidiaries across a geographical region. A subsidiary of Sampo Group, Mandatum Life (formerly known as Sampo Life) also decided to simplify its structure and combined its subsidiaries operating in Baltic Countries into one company – Mandatum Life Insurance Baltic SE. In this case the subsidiaries operating in Latvia and Lithuania were replaced by branches of the newly formed SE (Compiler Trade Portal, 2005). Another company operating in Baltic States also added that converting to SE allowed it to have one portfolio across Baltics, which is easier than having a separate portfolio per each state.39

4.2.2. Increase of capital reservesThere are also some financial considerations

for insurance fi rms in replacing subsidiaries with branches. According to Solvency II the capital held by subsidiaries is considered their own whereas the funds held by branches are a part of the parent company funds (Directive 2009/138/EC, 2009, Recital 120). Th erefore some of the companies replaced their subsidiaries with branches in order to increase their regulatory capital in preparation for the new rules.

ERGO Group noted in their press release that one of the reasons for merging its Baltic non-life insurance subsidiaries was to achieve capital optimization before Solvency II entered into force. Moreover, the previous merger of the group’s Baltic life insurance subsidiaries and replacing them with branches allowed the company to achieve a rise in profi t.40

Mandatum Life had similar reasons for merging its Baltic subsidiaries in life insurance sector and switching to a branch structure. Th e capital held by subsidiaries thus became part of the SE’s total reserves making a positive impact on the company’s compliance with Solvency II capital requirements (Kirshner, 2010a, 1301; Compiler, 2005).

37 ERGO Group press release (n 47). 38 Interview with a representative of Estonian SE № 1,

transcript on fi le with the author.39 Interview with a representative of Estonian SE № 2,

transcript on fi le with the author.40 ERGO Group press release (n 47).

OLEKSANDR KHOMENKO

3/2017

23 Reducing the number of subsidiaries in a group and replacing them with branches also allows companies to achieve lower capital requirements as a result of diversifi cation by having varied books of business at the same time maintaining their presence on the local markets. Additionally smaller number of legal entities inside a group has a positive impact on capital fungibility (Linklaters, 2011). For SCOR the SE structure allowed to achieve an effi cient branch setup in the EU maximizing local solvency and mutualizing diversifi cation benefi ts under Solvency II (SCOR SE, 2015, 88).

4.2.3. Regulatory reasonsIt is not surprising that insurance companies paid

particular attention to regulatory considerations when deciding to incorporate as an SE. With Solvency II coming into force and bringing about a large array of changes, especially in supervisory aspects, a lot of companies are looking for the way to limit their supervisory exposure. As was mentioned in the previous section, some of the major insurance and reinsurance companies made restructurings which allowed them to replace subsidiaries with branches thus increasing their capital reserves. However, that is not the only advantage of the branch structure.

Solvency II recognises the right of (re)insurance companies to conduct their activity throughout the Community by establishing branches providing the principle of mutual recognition of authorisation (Directive 2009/138/EC, 2009, Recital 11). Regarding supervision of the companies and their branches Article 30 explicitly states: ‘Th e fi nancial supervision of insurance and reinsurance undertakings, including that of the business they pursue either through branches or under the freedom to provide services, shall be the sole responsibility of the home Member State’ (emphasis added) (Directive 2009/138/EC, 2009, art. 30/1). Th e important implication of this provision is that when a company adopts a branch structure, all of the branches will have the same supervisor – the one of the company’s home Member State. Even though the local supervisory authority of the Member State of the branch may participate in the ‘on-site verifi cations of the information necessary to ensure the fi nancial supervision of the undertaking’(Directive 2009/138/EC, 2009, art. 33) the actual supervision of the branch will be conducted by the authorities of the home Member State of the parent company.

Some of the fi rms took advantage of this provision and decreased the number of supervisors they have to report to by replacing their subsidiaries with branches.

According to SCOR SE, as a result of setting up a branch structure by means of the European Company ‘supervision has been integrated at the parent company level. SCOR communicates with a limited number of regulators, with whom it can share its global strategy in a privileged manner […]’ (SCOR SE, 2015, 62). Some authors report that reducing the number of supervisors has signifi cantly decreased companies’ administrative and compliance costs (Kirshner, 2010b, 454).

It should be also noted that SE does not have the same benefi ts in other sectors as regulatory norms are specifi c to each industry (Kirshner, 2010a, 1300). Moreover, in case consumer rights are involved, companies cannot take advantage of unifi ed supervision system since those issues fall under national supervision. For this reason Mandatum Life SE was unable to achieve centralized supervision in the Baltic States (Kirshner, 2010a, 1302).

Another important advantage for insurance companies off ered by SE is that it allows them to make restructurings without losing the license to conduct insurance business. Th is was the case for Swiss Re which used SE to combine its subsidiaries into a British SE and then transfer its headquarters to Luxembourg. By using SE the company did not have to liquidate each of the subsidiaries and establish new ones, which would require new licenses for each of them (Kirshner, 2010b, 458).

SUMMARY

Th is paper provided the discussion of the ways the European Company is used in insurance industry and what benefi ts it brings specifi cally to the insurance fi rms.

As was shown above, the SE, despite being a general form of enterprise, has found a special application in the financial sector and insurance industry in particular. One of the popular use cases was insurance group restructuring conducted through cross-border mergers and substituting subsidiaries with branches.

If judged by the statistical data alone, the story of the European Company and its adoption is far from successful. During more than 12 years since the corporate form became available, only 2797 European companies have been established (ECDB, n.26).

However, upon a closer examination there is compelling evidence that despite the low popularity, SE has found its use in certain industries, bringing about the advantages to the fi rms that converted to this new corporate form. Naturally, the shortcomings of the SE regulation and their negative impact on the


3/2017

24 overall adoption of the European Company cannot be dismissed, however there are other, less obvious factors, which determine how widely the SE is used. Th e low level of adoption can be attributed, among other things, to the fact that SE was specifi cally devised for large multinational companies operating in several states of the EU. Consequently, the capital and other requirements for the SE are substantially higher than the ones for the national companies.

Th e data presented in this paper points out that SE has found a particular application in the insurance industry where some of the major players have used the form to optimize their group structure, increase the amount of capital reserves in the advent of new Solvency II regulation and decrease the number of supervisory authorities to report to. Additionally European Company allows insurance companies to conduct cross-border restructurings and transfer of registered offi ces without losing their insurance specifi c licences, since such restructurings can be conducted without the company‘s winding up or liquidation. As a result the insurance companies were able to achieve substantial capital savings and increase the effi ciency of their business operations, which is especially important with the entering into force of the Solvency II and its increased pressure on the ways insurance companies‘ capital and other reserves are managed. Moreover the SE makes a positive, albeit limited, impact on the decreasing oft he fragmentation of the EU Insurance Company Law by providing a unified framework of norms for the regulation of corporate activities. Particularly, it has introduced a number of standard corporate governance rules establishing a uniform base for governing a group structure in diff erent Member States (Ernst & Young, 2009, 224). Th is positive impact is unfortunately not applicable to the EU Insurance Contract Law due to the consumer protection norms and the principle of ‚general good‘, discussed previously.

Even though the current research has not found any direct empirical evidence confi rming the fact that SE is actively used to simplify insurance portfolio transactions, there is nevertheless a strong theoretical indication that it can streamline such processes, in particular through cross-border reorganisations. Further research therefore should concentrate on following up this subject with more recent empirical data, since the situation can drastically change aft er more time have passed since the adoption of the Solvency II. Additionally, although this paper does outline a number of benefi ts that SE provides to the insurance companies, a subsequent investigation may reveal some previously undocumented advantages.

REFERENCES

Compiler Trade Portal. (December 21, 2005). Sampo Life to combine all its subsidaries operating in the Baltic countries under one legal company’, accessed at: http://www.compiler.fi/tradestation/finland/bizfinland/pressreleases/2005/December/12.2005-pr05.html, May 17, 2017.

Council Regulation (EC) No 2157/2001 of 8 October 2001 on the Statute for a European company, Offi cial Journal of the European Communities, 10.11.2001, L 294.

Directive 2002/83/EC of Th e European Parliament and of Th e Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance (Life Directive), Offi cial Journal of the European Communities, 19.12.2002, L 345.

Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies, Offi cial Journal of the European Union, 25.11.2005, L 310.

Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II), Offi cial Journal of the European Union, L 335.

Eidenmüller, H. (2009a). Th e Societas Europaea: Good News for European Firms, ECGI - Law Working Paper No. 127/2009.

Eidenmüller, H. (2009b). Incorporating under European Law: Th e Societas Europaea as a Vehicle for Legal Arbitrage, European Business Organization Law Review, 10 (1), 1–33.

Eidenmüller, H., Lasák J. (2011). Th e Czech Societas Europaea Puzzle, Working Paper N°.183/2011, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1969215, accessed May 17 2017.

Ernst & Young. (2009). Study on the operation and the impacts of the Statute for a European Company (SE) - 2008/S 144-192482, Final report.

ETUI http://ecdb.worker-participation.eu, accessed May 17, 2017.

Gold M., Nikolopoulos, A., Kluge, N. (2009). The European Company Statute: A New Approach to Corporate Governance. Bern: Peter Lang AG.

Kirshner, J. (2010a). An Ever Closer Union in Corporate Identity: A Transatlantic Perspective on Regional Dynamics and the Societas Europaea, St. John‘s Law Review, 84 (4), 1273–1345.

Kirshner, J. (2010b). A Th ird Way: Regional Restructuring and the Societas Europaea, European Company and Financial Law Review, 7 (3), 444–478.

Lenoir, N. (2008). Th e Societas Europaea (SE) in Europe - A promising start and an option with good prospects, Utrecht Law Review, 4 (1), 13–21.

Linklaters. (2011). European Legal Entity Consolidation and Societas Europaea, http://www.linklaters.com/Insights/Publication1386Newsletter/March2011/Pages/European_Legal_Entity_Consolidation_Societas_Europaea.aspx, accessed May 17 2017.

OLEKSANDR KHOMENKO

3/2017

25 Malke, C. (2010). Taxation of European Companies at the Time of Establishment and Restructuring. Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag | Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH.

McCahery, J., Vermeulen, E. (2005). Does the European Company Prevent the “Delaware Eff ect”?, European Law Journal, 11 (6), 785–801.

SCOR SE. (2015). Gaining a strategic edge through capital management, Focus.

Smits, J. M., Letto-Vanamo, P. (eds). (2012). Coherence and Fragmentation in European Private Law. Munich: Sellier European Law Publishers GmbH.

Stollt, M., Kluge, N. (2011). Th e potential of employee involvement in the SE to foster the Europeanization of labour relations, Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 17 (2), 181–191.

Van het Kaar, R. (2011). Th e European Company (SE) Statute: up against increasing competition?, Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 17 (2), 193–201.


Documents

Evropska kompanija ( So cietas Euopaear i njena primena u ... srb.pdf · ranja EU važi u najvećoj meri za kompanijsko pravo osiguranja, dok u oblasti ugovornog prava osiguranja