Syria’s Ministry of Internal Trade amends property conditions for “flexible office” companies
The Ministry of Internal Trade and Consumer Protection of the Syrian regime government has amended property conditions for the establishment of companies specialized in “flexible office” services.
The Minister of Internal Trade and Consumer Protection, Talal al-Barazi, issued on 12 November, decision No. “3139” amending paragraph “1” of Article “4” of resolution No. “527” on 11 February, which contains executive instructions for establishing companies providing “flexible office” services.
Based on the amendment, the property must be “commercial” within the regulatory plan, owned by the company, or provided by a partner as a loan.
The property must not be returned to its owner for the entire duration of the company’s business, under the penalty of the company’s dissolution and liquidation, under the provisions of the Company Law issued by Legislative Decree No. “29” of 2011.
The “flexible office” services
According to the ministry’s website, the Directorate of Companies in the Syrian Ministry of Internal Trade and Consumer Protection allows the establishment of companies to provide “flexible office” services.
A “flexible office” is a permanent space for previously established individual companies and institutions that do not have an office, or that have a problem at their headquarters, or that will be established later and have no place.
A “flexible office” is a permanent and legal home and address for companies and traders, enabling them to manage their business and communicate with other companies on an ongoing basis and according to a legal mechanism.
if you think the article contain wrong information or you have additional details Send Correction
- Bombing US garrison at al-Tanf is a Russian warning, not only a “message”
- Lebanon’s Syrian refugees trapped by deportation plan and hatred speech, no protection
- The truth about 60,000 Russian troops in Syria
- Syrian customers and merchants find benefit in Istanbul’s second-hand market
- What possible judicial contexts to try “Abu Amsha” in Turkey?