The consequence of the unlawful general assembly decisions: An analysis specific to meeting and decision quorums
[ X ]
Tarih
2022
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
Özet
Kanuna aykırı genel kurul kararları -hiçbir tereddütte mahal
vermeksizin- geçersiz kabul edilmektedir. Kanunun kurucu nitelikteki
mutlak emredici kurallarına aykırılık yokluk yaptırımına tabiyken,
kararın konusu bakımından emredici hükümlere aykırılık batıl olarak
kabul edilmiştir (TTK 447. md, TBK 26-27. md). Kanuna aykırılık
kavramı, genel kurul kararlarının iptalini düzenleyen TTK 445. maddede de kendisine yer bulmuştur. Bir başka deyişle genel kurul kararlarının “kanuna aykırı” olduğundan bahisle geçersizliğini talep etmek,
yokluk, butlan ve iptal edilebilirlik seçeneklerinin tamamına başvurulabileceği gibi bir sonucu da beraberinde getirmektedir.
Doktrinde kanuna aykırılık kavramı, bu kavramdan kastedilenin
ne olduğu yönünden tartışılmıştır. Nitekim kanuna aykırılık kavramının kapsamına sadece kanunların girdiğini savunanlar olduğu gibi, bu kavramı daha geniş yorumlayıp, kanun dışında tüzük, yönetmelik,
kararname gibi düzenlemelerin de bu kapsamda olduğunu kabul eden
yazarlar da bulunmaktadır. Bu geniş yorumun bir adım ötesinde TTK
m. 445’de yer alan “kanuna aykırılık” kavramının örf ve âdete, eşit
işlem ilkesine, hukukun genel prensiplerine aykırılık halini de içine
aldığını savunanlar mevcuttur.
Doktrinde kanuna aykırılık kavramının tartışma konusu olduğu
bir diğer husus ise hangi nitelikteki kanun hükümlerine aykırılığın
hangi yaptırıma tabi olduğudur. Bir başka deyişle kanun hükümleri
niteliklerine göre ayrımlara tabi tutulmuş ve geçersizlik hali bu ayrımlar kapsamında değerlendirilmiştir. Doktrinde bir kısım yazarlar böyle
bir ayrımın yapılmaması gerektiğini, her emredici kanun hükmüne
aykırılığın butlan sonucunu doğurduğunu savunmuştur. Bu noktada
bir tartışma konusu daha gündeme gelmiş ve anonim şirketlere ilişkin
kanun hükümlerinin emredici kabul edilmesini hükme bağlayan “Emredici Hükümler” başlıklı TTK 340. madde kapsamında da konunun
değerlendirilmesi gerekmiştir. Bu değerlendirme kapsamında uygulamada sıklıkla karşılaşılan nisaplara aykırı genel kurul kararlarına uygulanacak yaptırımın ne olduğu konusunda inceleme yapılmıştır. Nitekim anonim ortaklıklara ilişkin kanun hükümlerinin mutlak veya
nispi olduğunun kabul edilmesi karşısında uygulamaya yansıyan en
büyük problem genel kurul nisaplarına ilişkin kendini göstermiştir.
Unlawful general assembly resolutions are deemed invalid beyond question. While compulsory legal rules are subject to the sanction of absence, violation of the mandatory provisions in terms of the subject of the decision is considered invalid. The term “unlawfulness” has also found its place in Article 445 of the TCC, which regulates the annulment of general assembly resolutions. In other words, claiming the invalidity of the general assembly resolutions by stating that they are “unlawful” brings a result and applies to all of the options of absence, nullity, and annulment. The term “unlawfulness” in the doctrine has been discussed in terms of what is meant by this concept. As a matter of fact, while there are those who argue that only the code is within the scope of the concept of illegality, there are also writers who interpret this concept more broadly and accept that regulations such as by-laws, regulations, and decrees are also within this scope. One step further from this broad interpretation, some argue that the concept of “unlawfulness” in TCC article 445 includes the state of violating customs, equal treatment principle, and general principles of law. Another issue in which the concept of “unlawfulness” is the subject of discussion in the doctrine is which type of violation of the provisions of the law is subject to which sanction. In other words, the provisions of the law were subjected to distinctions according to their qualifications and the invalidity was evaluated within the scope of these distinctions. Some writers argued that such a distinction should not be made in the doctrine and that any violation of the mandatory law results in nullity. At this point, another discussion issue came to the fore and the subject had to be evaluated within the scope of Article 340 of the TCC, titled "Compulsory Legal Rules", which stipulates that the provisions of the law regarding joint-stock companies are to be considered mandatory. In this evaluation, the sanctions to be applied to the general assembly resolutions which are contrary to the quorums, are examined. As a matter of fact, the biggest problem reflected in practice in the face of accepting that the provisions of the law are absolute or relative has manifested itself about the quorums of the general assembly.
Unlawful general assembly resolutions are deemed invalid beyond question. While compulsory legal rules are subject to the sanction of absence, violation of the mandatory provisions in terms of the subject of the decision is considered invalid. The term “unlawfulness” has also found its place in Article 445 of the TCC, which regulates the annulment of general assembly resolutions. In other words, claiming the invalidity of the general assembly resolutions by stating that they are “unlawful” brings a result and applies to all of the options of absence, nullity, and annulment. The term “unlawfulness” in the doctrine has been discussed in terms of what is meant by this concept. As a matter of fact, while there are those who argue that only the code is within the scope of the concept of illegality, there are also writers who interpret this concept more broadly and accept that regulations such as by-laws, regulations, and decrees are also within this scope. One step further from this broad interpretation, some argue that the concept of “unlawfulness” in TCC article 445 includes the state of violating customs, equal treatment principle, and general principles of law. Another issue in which the concept of “unlawfulness” is the subject of discussion in the doctrine is which type of violation of the provisions of the law is subject to which sanction. In other words, the provisions of the law were subjected to distinctions according to their qualifications and the invalidity was evaluated within the scope of these distinctions. Some writers argued that such a distinction should not be made in the doctrine and that any violation of the mandatory law results in nullity. At this point, another discussion issue came to the fore and the subject had to be evaluated within the scope of Article 340 of the TCC, titled "Compulsory Legal Rules", which stipulates that the provisions of the law regarding joint-stock companies are to be considered mandatory. In this evaluation, the sanctions to be applied to the general assembly resolutions which are contrary to the quorums, are examined. As a matter of fact, the biggest problem reflected in practice in the face of accepting that the provisions of the law are absolute or relative has manifested itself about the quorums of the general assembly.
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Genel Kurul Kararlarının Kanuna Aykırılığı, Genel Kurul Kararlarının Yokluğu, Genel Kurul Kararlarının Butlanı, Genel Kurul Kararlarının İptali, Emredici Hükümlere Aykırı Genel Kurul Kararları, Unlawful General Assembly Decisions, Absence of General Assembly Decisions, Nullity of General Assembly Decisions, Annulment of General Assembly Decisions, General Assembly Decisions Contrary to Compulsory Legal Rules
Kaynak
Yargıtay Dergisi
WoS Q Değeri
Scopus Q Değeri
Cilt
48
Sayı
2
Künye
Atakan, M. C., A. Birsen, G. (2022). The consequence of the unlawful general assembly decisions: An analysis specific to meeting and decision quorums. Yargıtay Dergisi, 48(2), 321 - 379.
