acknowledged recognition of foreign companies in the original six member states. It extended recognition to non-commercial companies, and to public entities with economic activity This 1968 treaty has been considered as adhering to the seat theory. After the accession of the three further member states in 1971, the discussion was not taken up again. Today, it is generally considered abandoned The reason for mentioning this treaty here is double. Although it never entered into force has not remained without effect: in states which have ratified the treaty, national case law has drawn arguments from the treaty and from its national ratification act, to give effect to certain of its rules in national law. So has the Belgian Cour de cassation allowed a foreign one man company-in fact a Liechtenstein Anstalt- to appear before the Belgian court, although being a one man company, its existence was considered contrary to Belgian public order as the latter was then conceived. Indeed until a change of the law in 1978, Belgian law, like that of several other systems in the Latin tradition, analysed a company as a"contract"and therefore refused to recognize the validity of one-man company. The Court admitted this plaintiff on the basis that the belgian legislator by ratifying the Treaty, had admitted that foreign one-man companies should not be barred access on the sole reason that they had only one shareholder More striking however is the factual finding that over the last thirty years no difficulties have been encountered in any of the now fifteen member states with respect to the recognition of legal entities originating from other member states, provided that according to their applicable law, they were beneficiaries of rights and duties, and have legal personality. The question of recognition of foreign companies was therefore widely considered as obsolete. And with this goes the justification for the 1968 treaty In 1999, the matter came up again with the Centros case, which is not directly a case of recognition, but of freedom of establishment: as far as freedom of establishment is concerned member states would have to recognise each others companies, provided they meet the criteria of art 48(ex 58). The rule only extends to said freedom: it is open to debate whether it includes the right to move across the border without adapting to the entrys state regulations, or even without seeing the company dissolved by the exit state, at least in the hypothesis that both jurisdictions adhere to the siege reel doctrine This observation leads to a more general insight, that is that company law in Europe develops not only along the lines of EU guided harmonisation, but also under the factual pressures of developments in the Union and its internal market, including the competitive pressures to which companies and jurisdictions are increasingly exposed. The law in action, although an ancillary force in the overall economic developments that it sustains, is often stronger than the law in the books 7 See art. I and 2of the Treaty of 29 February 1968, the text of which is printed in LUTTER, fn. 1, at 69 The UK and Ireland adopt the incorporation doctrine The same applies to Finland and Sweden, while situation in Denmark is not very clear: see ANDERSEN, P. K. and SORENSEN, K.E., 'Free movement of companies from a Nordic perspective(1999)6 Maastricht ournal of European and Comparative lawv, at p 58 See Cour de Cassation, " Del Sol"case, 13 January 1978, R w, 1977-1978, 1942, nt. VAN BRUYSTEGEM; A.C., 1978, 568; R CJB, 1979, 41, note L. F. GANSHOF See lutter, nt. 1, at 43 and at 696 I1 ECJ. 9 March 1999. C-212/97 ECR 1999.1 -1459 for comments see fn. 105 e Financial Law institute. Universiteit Gent 2001© Financial Law Institute, Universiteit Gent, 2001 4 acknowledged recognition of foreign companies in the original six member states. It extended recognition to non-commercial companies, and to public entities with economic activity7 . This 1968 treaty has been considered as adhering to the seat theory. After the accession of the three further member states in 1971, the discussion was not taken up again8 . Today, it is generally considered abandoned. The reason for mentioning this treaty here is double. Although it never entered into force, it has not remained without effect: in states which have ratified the treaty, national case law has drawn arguments from the treaty and from its national ratification act, to give effect to certain of its rules in national law. So has the Belgian Cour de cassation allowed a foreign one man company - in fact a Liechtenstein Anstalt - to appear before the Belgian court, although being a one man company, its existence was considered contrary to Belgian public order as the latter was then conceived. Indeed, until a change of the law in 1978, Belgian law, like that of several other systems in the Latin tradition, analysed a company as a “contract” and therefore refused to recognize the validity of a one-man company. The Court admitted this plaintiff on the basis that the Belgian legislator by ratifying the Treaty, had admitted that foreign one-man companies should not be barred access on the sole reason that they had only one shareholder 9 . More striking however is the factual finding that over the last thirty years no difficulties have been encountered in any of the now fifteen member states with respect to the recognition of legal entities originating from other member states, provided that according to their applicable law, they were beneficiaries of rights and duties, and have legal personality. The question of recognition of foreign companies was therefore widely considered as obsolete10. And with this goes the justification for the 1968 treaty. In 1999, the matter came up again with the Centros case11, which is not directly a case of recognition, but of freedom of establishment: as far as freedom of establishment is concerned, member states would have to recognise each others companies, provided they meet the criteria of art. 48 (ex 58). The rule only extends to said freedom: it is open to debate whether it includes the right to move across the border without adapting to the entry’s state regulations, or even without seeing the company dissolved by the exit state, at least in the hypothesis that both jurisdictions adhere to the siège réel doctrine. This observation leads to a more general insight, that is that company law in Europe develops not only along the lines of EU guided harmonisation, but also under the factual pressures of developments in the Union and its internal market, including the competitive pressures to which companies and jurisdictions are increasingly exposed. The law in action, although an ancillary force in the overall economic developments that it sustains, is often stronger than the law in the books. 7 See art. 1 and 2of the Treaty of 29 February 1968, the text of which is printed in LUTTER, fn.1, at 69. 8 The UK and Ireland adopt the incorporation doctrine The same applies to Finland and Sweden, while the situation in Denmark is not very clear: see ANDERSEN, P. K. and SÖRENSEN, K.E., ‘Free movement of companies from a Nordic perspective’ (1999) 6 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative law, at p. 58. 9 See Cour de Cassation, "Del Sol" case, 13 January 1978, R.W., 1977-1978, 1942, nt. VAN BRUYSTEGEM; A.C., 1978, 568; R.C.J.B., 1979, 41, note L. F. GANSHOF. 10 See LUTTER, nt. 1, at 43 and at 696. 11 ECJ, 9 March 1999, C-212/97, ECR 1999, I-1459, for comments see fn. 105