Napierała, Jacek2013-07-152013-07-152004Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny 66, 2004, z. 2, s. 57-75.0035-9629http://hdl.handle.net/10593/6717The subject of this paper is the Court of Justice’s decision in the Inspire Art case on 30th September 2003, in which the Court took position in three fundamental issues. First, the freedom of establishing a company benefits only those companies, which were established in one o f the Community countries only with a view to establish a division in another Community country. Second, in the Court’s view, the protection standard set by a relevant provision of a directive should be defined through the provision’s interpretation, not by following the rule of minimal standard; imposing more duties on a foreign company than intended by the 11th directive was treated by the Court as an infringement of the freedom of establishing companies per se. Third, limitation of the freedom of establishing a company can be justified by urgent needs of public interest, such as: protection of the interests of minority shareholders, employees, inland revenues and, what is particularly important in Inspire Art case analysis - protection of creditors’ interests. Measures taken by the Community to protect these interests are justified as long as they are not discriminatory, are adequate and proportional. The rules demanding from foreign companies a minimal venture capital equal to that of domestic companies do not meet these criteria.plArtykuł