Social enterprises in the EU
Einde inhoudsopgave
Social enterprises in the EU (IVOR nr. 111) 2018/2.3.4:2.3.4 The selection of countries
Social enterprises in the EU (IVOR nr. 111) 2018/2.3.4
2.3.4 The selection of countries
Documentgegevens:
mr. A. Argyrou, datum 01-02-2018
- Datum
01-02-2018
- Auteur
mr. A. Argyrou
- JCDI
JCDI:ADS585750:1
- Vakgebied(en)
Ondernemingsrecht / Rechtspersonenrecht
Toon alle voetnoten
Voetnoten
Voetnoten
Oderkerk reviews the work done by major legal comparatists such as Zweigert and Kotz, Sacoo and Constantinesco to name but a few, thereby developing and suggesting a systemic method that is applicable to comparative law studies. See Oderkerk (n 52) 293 and 295-296.
ibid at 297.
ibid at 305-307, regarding the selection of jurisdictions on the basis of the researchers’ legal and linguistic knowledge and experience.
Deze functie is alleen te gebruiken als je bent ingelogd.
The application of the comparative legal method requires the examination of every EU legal system, which has regulated the social enterprise concept.1 Accordingly, it entails a comparison of legal rules in 19 of the 28 EU countries, as 19 countries have introduced tailor-made legislation for social enterprises into their national legal systems, or are developing new legislation on this topic. Obviously, due to constraints and limitations, primarily in terms of space and subsequently in terms of personal linguistic competence, it was impossible for us to cover all of the laws of these 19 jurisdictions. Consequently, the research in this article is channelled in such a way that only pre-selected legal systems are evaluated, namely the Belgian, the Greek and the UK jurisdictions, each one being a representative of the three prevalent sub-groups and corresponding legal forms for social enterprises referred to above in Sub-section 2.1.
Additionally, an important criterion that we considered in terms of the selection and eligibility of the legal systems to be compared is whether the concept of social enterprises has reached a certain level of maturity in the legal system, i.e. introduced in a special law.2 Hence, jurisdictions, which are in the process of developing new legislation and legal forms for social enterprises were not selected for the comparative examination, as was the case for Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta and Poland (see Figure 2.1). Finally, the decisive criterion for the selection of the legal systems was our personal competences. In particular, the choice of legal systems to be compared was shaped by our legal and linguistic knowledge and experience.3 Our linguistic knowledge is limited to English, Greek and Dutch/Flemish law and our legal knowledge and experience is mainly limited to Dutch law and Greek law. This means that we were able to appraise the legal provisions and literature regarding the legal systems of Belgium, Greece and the UK, effectively and with confidence.