state, the Court has held states civilly liable for not implementing a directive in time. finally even between private parties, national statutes have to be interpreted in a sense that is in conformity with 8. It has often been claimed that the harmonisation of company law in Europe has suffered from too many rigidities. These are due to the long process of preparation of the directives-often 10 to 15 years-which makes it unworkable to change the directive's wording once it has been adopted."Petrification"is, according to Vanessa Edwards, less bad than one could fear: she points to the amendments that have been introduced in the second, fourth and the listing particulars directive. She further points to art. 202(ex 145) whereby the Council can confer implementing powers to the Commission. More recently, the comitology"technique has been further refined allowing the appointment of specialised committees to whom regulatory powers can be delegated In the securities field, the recent Lamfalussy Report proposed to draw on the comitolo technique to ensure that the principles that have been adopted by the Council, are adequately and swiftly translated in workable provisions for further implementation by the member states. There are good arguments to follow a similar approach in some of the more technical company law matters 9. There have been several generations of directives and proposals for directives in the field of company law and capital market law. The following list aims at giving an overview of the Community s efforts in this field therefore both adopted directives and proposals for directives or other instruments are included Company Law 1 First Council Directive of 9 March 1968 on co-ordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within th meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community(68/151/EEC) 2 Second Council Directive of 13 December 1976 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies ECR 723), see also Case C-91/ 92 Faccini dori v Recreb ECR 1-3325 and Case C-192/94 El Corte Ingles v blacque rivero(1996) ECR l-1281 But this po is being increasingly weakened: see ECJ, C 443-98, of 26 September 2000, Unilever Italia SpA v Central Food SpA, EuZW, 2001, 153, with comments by GUNDEL 31 Joined Cases C 46 and 48/93 Brasserie du Pecheur and Factortame(1996)ECR 1-1029 and Case C-392/93 The 32 Queen v HM Treasury, ex p British Telecommunications(1996)ECR1-1631 The Marleasing case C-106/89 Marleasing v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion(1990)ECR I-4135 33 See HoPt. in 4. 235es 243. 265 EDWARDS. fn. 1. at 11 35 See Council Decision, 28 June 1999, OJEC, L. 184 of 17 July 1999, 23-26; compare the proposal made in the Lamfalussy report"Initial Report of the Committee of Wise Men on the Regulation of the European SecuritiesMarkets,http://europa.eu.int/comm/internalmarket/en/finances/general/lamfalussy.htm The technical rules on electronic voting in the general meeting, or on proxy solicitation could be mentioned as an example, see WYMEERSCH, "The use of ICT in Company law, in FERRARINI, (ed) Europe in the age of the Euro, to be published 37OJL65.14.3.1968.8-12 e Financial Law institute. Universiteit Gent 2001© Financial Law Institute, Universiteit Gent, 2001 9 state, the Court has held states civilly liable for not implementing a directive in time31. Finally even between private parties, national statutes have to be interpreted in a sense that is in conformity with the purpose of the directive.32 8. It has often been claimed that the harmonisation of company law in Europe has suffered from too many rigidities. These are due to the long process of preparation of the directives - often 10 to 15 years - which makes it unworkable to change the directive's wording once it has been adopted33. "Petrification" is, according to Vanessa Edwards34, less bad than one could fear: she points to the amendments that have been introduced in the second, fourth and the listing particulars directive. She further points to art. 202 (ex 145) whereby the Council can confer implementing powers to the Commission. More recently, the “comitology” technique has been further refined, allowing the appointment of specialised committees to whom regulatory powers can be delegated35. In the securities field, the recent Lamfalussy Report proposed to draw on the comitology technique to ensure that the principles that have been adopted by the Council, are adequately and swiftly translated in workable provisions for further implementation by the member states. There are good arguments to follow a similar approach in some of the more technical company law matters36. 9. There have been several generations of directives and proposals for directives in the field of company law and capital market law. The following list aims at giving an overview of the Community's efforts in this field: therefore both adopted directives and proposals for directives or other instruments are included. Company Law 1° First Council Directive of 9 March 1968 on co-ordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community (68/151/EEC)37 2° Second Council Directive of 13 December 1976 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies ECR 723), see also Case C-91/92 Faccini dori v Recreb (1994) ECR I-3325 and Case C-192/94 El Corte Inglés v Blàzquez Rivero (1996) ECR I-1281. But this position is being increasingly weakened: see ECJ, C 443-98, of 26 September 2000, Unilever Italia SpA v.Central Food SpA, EuZW, 2001, 153, with comments by GUNDEL. 31 Joined Cases C 46 and 48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame (1996) ECR I-1029 and Case C-392/93 The Queen v HM Treasury, ex p British Telecommunications (1996) ECR I-1631. 32 The Marleasing case C-106/89 Marleasing v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentaciòn (1990) ECR I-4135. 33 See HOPT, fn.4, 235 e.s. 243, 265 34 EDWARDS, fn. 1, at 11 35 See Council Decision, 28 June 1999, OJEC, L. 184 of 17 July 1999, 23- 26; compare the proposal made in the Lamfalussy report “Initial Report of the Committee of Wise Men on the Regulation of the European Securities Markets’, http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/finances/general/lamfalussy.htm . 36 The technical rules on electronic voting in the general meeting, or on proxy solicitation could be mentioned as an example, see WYMEERSCH, ‘The use of ICT in Company law’, in FERRARINI, (ed) Europe in the age of the Euro, to be published. 37 OJ L 65, 14.3.1968, 8-12