这一决定影响了其他一些开创性的案件由欧洲法院进行，一些最重要的来自英国和德国。这种判例法的中心最具争议的问题之一是根据《欧共体条约》的设立自由。根据条约第43条和第48条，设立权也适用于公司和企业，这意味着从一个成员国的公司必须在所有其他成员国确认。然而，有一个例外，上述规则，这是“座位理论”，这允许一个成员国否认承认一个公司或公司的另一个成员国时，中央管理和控制的公司的地方不同于成员国，它成立。这样的规则造成了如此多的争议，因为欧盟没有对这一问题进行严格的规定，因此有几起案件已经向欧洲法院提出。第一宗出庭案件来自英国，并涉及英国报纸每日邮报。[ 8 ]在建立法院裁定的问题设立权不包括一个成员国转让其中央管理和控制的另一个成员国的立法在公司的权利。[ 9 ]然而法院，走一步，这表明在未来的座理论问题应通过立法或公约，将直接解决问题的决定。这个决定似乎水泥座位的地方作为理论的适应过程，但没过多久，法院改变主意的时候，先涛公司（1999）[ 10 ]的情况下被带到这。个案涉及一名在英国注册的有限公司，谁都没有权利登记在丹麦的一个分支，由丹麦当局。丹麦当局认为，虽然先涛公司在英国注册，他们并没有真的交易，并试图建立自己的原则，在丹麦经营权设立的幌子，为了规避国内法律环境建立企业税收等，欧洲法院的决定，丹麦实际上已经侵犯了在建立正确的；法院认为这个适应过程所导致的房座悬吊理论从而不再适用。
This decision influenced several other groundbreaking cases undertaken by the European Court of Justice, some of the most important emanating from the United Kingdom and Germany. One of the most controversial issues at the centre of such case law was the freedom of establishment under the EC treaty. Under Article 43 and 48 of the treaty the right of establishment also ranges to companies and businesses, meaning that companies from one member state have to be recognised in all other member states. There is however an exception to the above rule, that is the ‘seat theory’ this allows a member state to deny the recognition of a company or firm of another Member State when the place of the central management and control of the corporation differs from the Member State where it was founded. Such a rule has created so much controversy as there are no overriding EU rules on the issue, thus several cases have made their way to the European Court of Justice. The first case to appear before the court came from the UK and involved the British newspaper the Daily Mail.  On the issue of establishment the Court ruled that the right of establishment does not include the right of a company incorporated under the legislation of a Member State to transfer its central management and control to another Member State. The Court however, went one step further by suggesting that in the near future the issue of the seat theory should be decided by legislation or conventions that would directly tackle the issue. This decision seemed to cement the place of the seat theory as part of the harmonisation process, however, it did not take long for the Court to change its mind when the Centros (1999) case was brought before it. The case involved a limited company registered in the United Kingdom, who were denied the right to register a branch in Denmark by the Danish authorities. The Danish authorities believed that although Centros were registered in the UK, they didn’t actually trade their, and were looking to establish their principle operation in Denmark under the guise of the right to establishment, in order to circumvent domestic laws surrounding the establishment of business, tax etc. The European Court decided that the Denmark had in fact infringed upon the right of establishment; the Court suggested that the Harmonisation process had lead to a suspension of the real seat theory and thus it could no longer be applied.