L’Application des textes de l’OHADA aux entreprises publiques: l ‘exemple de l’AUSC et GIE

Without a precise definition either legally or on the judicial basis, public company owes its name through the participation of public power in its capital. Also, one has to make it clear that the concept of public power is not itself very clear. It is estimated that the state which became a shareholder and guarantor of social interest. The public company is regarded as the one which belongs wholly to the state and at the same time enjoying autonomy, cannot have its "survival" thanks to a law adapted to its nature and a good organization bodies that comprise it. Thus, it can only work function if the tasks to be performed by the corporate bodies are distributed accurately and if the roles in the public company are clearly defined by law. OHADA legislators did not hesitate to submit to the public company the Uniform Act related to commercial enterprises (AUSC) and Economical interest groups (GIE). But public behind it is, ever so slightly, an obstacle to its strict submission of AUSC and Economical interest group. Hence, a necessary approximation of national and community by coordinating legal systems. This implies interdependence between the provisions of the Uniform Act related to commercial enterprises and the Economical interest groups and those from national laws. The two national legal systems remain autonomous and do not influence each other. The results are in OHADA space textual duality to meet the demands of commercial enterprise, with the base and mark of the Uniform Act related to commercial enterprises and the Economical interest group; national texts playing a complementary and subsidiary role