Anonim şirketlerde pay sahiplerinin bilgi alma hakkının ihlalinden dolayı yönetim kurulu üyelerinin sorumluluğu
[ X ]
Tarih
2019
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
Özet
Pay sahiplerinin şirkete karşı sahip olduğu önemli haklarından biri olan bilgi alma hakkı, Türk Hukuku’nda uzun yıllardır varlığını sürdürmektedir. 6762 Sayılı Ticaret Kanunu döneminde “Malumat Alma Hakkı” olarak karşımıza çıkan ve sadece pasif bilgi alma hakkını kapsayan bu düzenlemeyle, pay sahipleri yalnızca geriye dönük bilgi alma hakkını kullanabilmekteydi.(*1) 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu’nun yürürlüğe girmesiyle birlikte, pay sahipleri için aktif bilgi alma hakkı imkanının da kapıları aralandı. 6762 Sayılı Ticaret Kanunu döneminde “malumat alma hakkı”nın hiçbir haklı sebep gösterilmeksizin reddedilmesi durumunda, pay sahibinin bu hakkını mahkeme aracılığıyla dahi kullanması mümkün değildi.(*2) Bu nedenle pay sahiplerinin kanuni haklarından biri olan bilgi alma hakkı, keyfi uygulamalarla kısıtlanabiliyor hatta tamamen ortadan kaldırılabiliyordu. Yeni düzenlemeyle birlikte, pay sahiplerinin bilgi alma hakkının, şirketin korunmaya değer ortaklık menfaatleri ile şirket sırları haricinde kısıtlanması olanağı ortadan kaldırıldı. Bilgi alma hakkının kısıtlanması, cevapsız bırakılması ya da yeterli cevabın verilmemesi durumunda, pay sahiplerinin bu haklarını mahkeme kanalıyla kullanmaları mümkün kılındı. Yeni düzenlemeyle birlikte bilgi alma hakkının önemine varılıp, bu hakkın gerekli durumlarda mahkemeler aracılığıyla kullanılabilmesinin önünün açılması elbette önemli bir adımdır; ancak kanımızca problemin çözümü için tek başına yeterli değildir. Genel kurulda cevaplanmayan bir sorunun daha sonra mahkeme kararıyla cevaplandırılması, özelde pay sahibinin ihtiyacına cevap verse de genelde şirket menfaatlerine ve diğer paydaşların haklarına halel getirmektedir. Şöyle ki, özellikle geniş katılımlı genel kurullarda, pay sahiplerinden birinin soracağı tek bir soru ve bu soruya şirket tarafından verilecek cevap, diğer paydaşların ilgisini cezbedebilir ve belki de genel kurulda kullanacakları oyun rengini değiştirebilir. Dahası, şirkete yöneltilen soruya verilecek cevabın, paydaşların verecekleri oylardaki eğilimi değiştireceğini fark eden yöneticilerin, şirketin aleyhine dahi olsa sırf genel kurulda istedikleri yönde karar çıkmasını sağlamak amacıyla, yöneltilen soruları cevapsız bırakması da ihtimal dahilindedir. Bilgi alma hakkı kapsamında soruların yöneltildiği yöneticiler, bu hakkın hiç veya gereği gibi yerine getirilmemesi halinde, kanuna ve/veya şirketin esas sözleşmesine aykırı hareket ettikleri gerekçesiyle sorumludurlar. Bahse konu sorumluluk, Türk Hukuku bakımından, yalnızca özel hukuk hükümleri çerçevesinde “tazminat sorumluluğu”nu kapsamaktadır. Alman Kanun Koyucu ise konuya farklı bir pencereden bakmış ve bilgi alma hakkının ihlali durumunda yöneticilerin tazminat sorumluluğunun yanı sıra cezai sorumluluklarını da hüküm altına almıştır. Çalışmamız boyunca yöneticilerin pay sahibinin bilgi alma hakkının ihlalinden doğan sorumluluğu, Türk Ticaret Kanunu’nun başta 437 ve 553 vd maddeleri olmak üzere, sorumluluğa ilişkin
The right to demand information, which is one of the important rights of shareholders against the company, has been in Turkish law for many years. With this arrangement, which includes the right to demand information only passively, as the “right to demand information” in the period of the Commercial Code numbered 6762, shareholders were only able to use the right to obtain retrospective information.(*3) With the entry into force of the Turkish Commercial Code numbered 6102, the doors for the right to demand active information for shareholders were opened. In the period of Commercial Code numbered 6762, if the right to demand information was rejected without any justifiable reason, it was not possible for the shareholder to use this right even through court.(*4) For this reason, the right to demand information, which is one of the legal rights of shareholders, could be restricted by arbitrary practices and even removed altogether. Along with the new arrangement, the right of shareholders to obtain information has been removed, with the exception of the company’s protected partnership interests and corporate secrets. In the event that the right to demand information is restricted, unanswered or inadequately answered, it is possible for shareholders to exercise these rights through the court. It is of course an important step to make it clear that the right to demand information with the new regulation is important and that this right can be used through courts when necessary; but it alone is not enough to solve the problem. Responding to an unanswered question later on in the general meeting, in particular, responds to the shareholder’s needs, but generally prejudices the interests of the company and other stakeholders. That is, a single question to be asked by one of the shareholders and a response given by the company to this question, especially in the broader general meetings, may attract other stakeholders’ interests and perhaps change the votes decision to be used in the general meeting. Moreover, it is also possible that managers who realize that the answer to the question directed at the company will change the tendency of the stakeholders will be left unanswered, with the aim of ensuring that the decisions taken against the company, even if only in the general meeting. Administrators to whom inquiries are directed within the scope of the right to demand information shall be liable on the grounds that they act contrary to the law and / or the company’s original contract, if this right is not fulfilled at all. The responsibility of the subject matter covers “liability for compensation” in the context of Turkish law, only in the context of private law provisions. The German Legislator has taken a different view of the subject matter liability and has been subject to criminal liability as well as the managers’ liability for breach of the right to demand information. The responsibility arising out of violations of the
The right to demand information, which is one of the important rights of shareholders against the company, has been in Turkish law for many years. With this arrangement, which includes the right to demand information only passively, as the “right to demand information” in the period of the Commercial Code numbered 6762, shareholders were only able to use the right to obtain retrospective information.(*3) With the entry into force of the Turkish Commercial Code numbered 6102, the doors for the right to demand active information for shareholders were opened. In the period of Commercial Code numbered 6762, if the right to demand information was rejected without any justifiable reason, it was not possible for the shareholder to use this right even through court.(*4) For this reason, the right to demand information, which is one of the legal rights of shareholders, could be restricted by arbitrary practices and even removed altogether. Along with the new arrangement, the right of shareholders to obtain information has been removed, with the exception of the company’s protected partnership interests and corporate secrets. In the event that the right to demand information is restricted, unanswered or inadequately answered, it is possible for shareholders to exercise these rights through the court. It is of course an important step to make it clear that the right to demand information with the new regulation is important and that this right can be used through courts when necessary; but it alone is not enough to solve the problem. Responding to an unanswered question later on in the general meeting, in particular, responds to the shareholder’s needs, but generally prejudices the interests of the company and other stakeholders. That is, a single question to be asked by one of the shareholders and a response given by the company to this question, especially in the broader general meetings, may attract other stakeholders’ interests and perhaps change the votes decision to be used in the general meeting. Moreover, it is also possible that managers who realize that the answer to the question directed at the company will change the tendency of the stakeholders will be left unanswered, with the aim of ensuring that the decisions taken against the company, even if only in the general meeting. Administrators to whom inquiries are directed within the scope of the right to demand information shall be liable on the grounds that they act contrary to the law and / or the company’s original contract, if this right is not fulfilled at all. The responsibility of the subject matter covers “liability for compensation” in the context of Turkish law, only in the context of private law provisions. The German Legislator has taken a different view of the subject matter liability and has been subject to criminal liability as well as the managers’ liability for breach of the right to demand information. The responsibility arising out of violations of the
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Kaynak
Terazi Hukuk Dergisi
WoS Q Değeri
Scopus Q Değeri
Cilt
14
Sayı
151
Künye
Atakan, Murat Can. (2019). Anonim şirketlerde pay sahiplerinin bilgi alma hakkının ihlalinden dolayı yönetim kurulu üyelerinin sorumluluğu. Terazi Hukuk Dergisi, 14,(151), 16-92.
