Towards a Norwegian codification of

choice of law rules (Oslo, 3-4 May 2018)

The place of central administration

and the need for predictability
Diego P. Fernández Arroyo
Central administration: a notion of EU Law,
not only of EU PrIL
Article 54 TFEU
Companies or firms formed in accordance with the law of a Member State and having 
their registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the 
Union shall, for the purposes of this Chapter, be treated in the same way as natural 
persons who are nationals of Member States.

"Companies or firms" means companies or firms constituted under civil or 
commercial law, including cooperative societies, and other legal persons governed by 
public or private law, save for those which are non‐profit‐making.
Which consistency in EU PrIL instruments?

=
Article 23 Rome II   Article 19 Rome I
ONLY the place of central administration
is important for the determination of the 
≠ Art. 63 Brussels I Recast

3 criteria may determine domicile of a 

habitual residence of legal persons legal person: 
• Statutory seat
• Central administration
• Principal place of business
Need of certainty

Recital 39 of Rome I: 
“For the sake of legal certainty there should be a clear definition of habitual 
residence, in particular for companies and other bodies, corporate or 
unincorporated.

 A single criterion is imposed “otherwise, the parties would be unable to 
foresee the law applicable to their situation.”
Need of certainty
Within the EU context, the interpretation of the notion has been particularly 
significant in relation with insolvency cases (application of the Regulation on 
Insolvency proceedings).

The ECJ has connected the notion of the “centre of a debtor’s main 
interests” with the “place of company’s central administration” (see 
Eurofood, Interedil, Mediasucre…).

Even if the context is quite particular for insolvency proceedings, two 
elements should be taken into consideration: 
• the need for a complex appreciation (for instance, the mere presence of 
assets is not sufficient), and
• the fact that the situation must be ascertainable for third parties. 
EU Member States’ case law
Young v Anglo American South Africa Ltd and Others (No 2) (2014)

“The correct interpretation of “central administration” in article 60(1)(b)

(Brussels I Regulation) was the place where the company concerned, through its
relevant organs according to its own constitutional provisions, took the decisions
that were essential for that company’s operations.

That was the same thing as saying it was the place where the company, through
its relevant organs, conducted its entrepreneurial management; for that
management had to involve making decisions that were essential for the
company’s operations. The focus ought to be on the decisions of the company
itself, not on other companies in the group or the group as a whole”.
How to assess the “central administration” of complex
structured company? Holding?

Structure: tax oriented

D1 (…)
C1 United 
But where is the “central 
B1 (Guernsey) administration”? 
Kingdom)
D2
A (Cayman 
Island) Is there only one? 
C’2 
D’1
(Luxembourg)
B2 
(Netherlands) What is the link with 
C’3 
(Switzerland) nationality, if any?
Thank you!