2019 | 2 | 45-50
Article title

The seat of a commercial company incorporated under Polish law versus cross-border transmission of the company to another EU Member State

Title variants
Languages of publication
In the paper the author makes an attempt at defining and interpreting the notion of the seat of a commercial company. The issue is vital especially when the shareholders of a company decide to transfer its the seat to another country. The doctrine and judicature are not uniform in the way they define the notion of a company’s seat what gives rise to qualification problems with respect to the fact whether the seat is transferred as subject to discretion or maybe the seat of the company is understood as its corporate (business) office where the actual business activity is being conducted, or perhaps it is its registered office. The problem in a direct way impacts the principle of freedom of business activity. The aim of the paper is to develop a uniform standing on when it is possible to proceed with cross-border transmission of a company’s seat. The author conducts linguistic and functional analysis of Polish and European regulations, doctrinal views as well as judicature of Polish courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The author of the paper suggests that it should be assumed that the seat of a commercial company is, in fact, its registered office, what in consequence will cause fewer problems in the process of its transfer to another country. The paper tries to confirm this assumption through the analysis of relevant domestic and EU regulations, the judicature of Polish courts and of CJEU.
Physical description
  • Department of Administrative Law, Jagiellonian University Gołębia 24, 31-007 Kraków - Poland ,
  • Act of 4 March 2005 on the European Economic Interest Grouping and the European Company, Journal of laws of 2015, item 2142 as amended.
  • Act of 6 April 1984 on Foundations; consolidated text: Journal of laws of 1991 No 46, item 203 as amended.
  • Allerhand, M. (1935). Kodeks handlowy. Komentarz. Lwów, p.485.
  • Bagdan-Kurluta, K. (2011). Prawo prywatne międzynarodowe. Warszawa, pp.192-194.
  • Decision of CJEU in the Cartesio case, item 110.
  • Decision of CJEU in the Überseering case, item 80.
  • Decision of CJEU of 15 December in the case C-191/10, Rastelli Davide e C. snc v. J.C. Hidoux.
  • Frąckowiak, J. (2003). Instytucje prawa handlowego w kodeksie cywilnym. Rejent, 6.
  • Kidyba, A. (2009). Spółka z o.o. Komentarz. Warszawa, pp.80-82.
  • Kidyba, A. (2012). Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz. Tom I. Część ogólna. 2nd ed. WKP.
  • Klyta, W. (2001). Siedziba osoby prawnej. 3rd ed. KPP.
  • Kruczalak, K. (2001). Kodeks spółek handlowych. Warszawa, p.306.
  • Oplustil, K. (2011). Łącznik siedziby spółki w prawie prywatnym międzynarodowym. Uwagi na tle prawa europejskiego. 3rd ed. KPP, pp.668–675.
  • Popiołek, W. and Szajkowski, A. (2008). System Prawa Prywatnego. Prawo spółek handlowych, 16, p.447.
  • Resolution of the Minister of Justice of 30 November 2011 on a detailed manner of keeping registers included in the National Court Register and detailed contents of registry entries, Journal of laws No 273, item 1616 as amended.
  • Skibińska, E., Mróz, T. and Stec, M. (2012). Instytucje prawa handlowego w przyszłym kodeksie cywilnym. [online] Available at:
  • Sołtysiński, S., Szajkowski, A., Szumański, A. and Szwaja, J. (2006). Kodeks spółek handlowych. Komentarz. vol 1. Warszawa, p.364.
  • Sołtysiński, S., Szajkowski, A., Szumański, A. and Szwaja, J. (2008). Kodeks spółek handlowych. Komentarz. vol 3. Warszawa, pp. 81-82.
  • Świderski, Z. (2014). Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz. Część ogólna. 2nd ed. LEX, p.41.
Document Type
Publication order reference
YADDA identifier
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.