Bibliographie sélective OHADA

This thesis examines how multimodal transport can play a role in achieving the objectives of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). The thesis argues that multimodal transport is cheaper compared with unimodal transportation. While there are a number of issues affecting the operationalisation of multimodal transport in Africa, this study considers, at its core, the legal regimes and other fragmented institutional and governance frameworks of multimodal transport in West Africa. The fragmentation of the legal framework governing multimodal transport leads to uncertainty and unforeseeability of the liability of parties involved in multimodal transport, consequently leading to increased legal costs. There is an undisputed view that for effective regional integration, which Africa is seeking to achieve through the establishment of the African Continental Free Trade Area, there is a need to eliminate all trade barriers. Trade barriers (tariff or non-tariff barriers) should be removed to improve competitiveness and reduce trade friction costs. In other words, to achieve the objectives of the African Continental Free Trade Area, it is essential that all unnecessary costs associated with trade are eliminated or reduced to the barest minimum. The process of doing this is called trade facilitation. This thesis looks at the impact of trade facilitation on regional integration and trade. This thesis’ original contribution to knowledge is that Africa’s regional integration process needs cost-effective transportation in order to achieve smooth market access, and multimodal transportation can provide the most cost-effective solution. However, the legal uncertainty and complexities that could potentially ensue from the use of multimodal transport make it unattractive to prospective users. Accordingly, actions must be taken to reduce legal ambiguity and create a system in which liability is foreseeable and predictable. This study reveals that the current legal framework is incomplete, unsatisfactory and, ultimately, leads to uncertainty. The thesis further contends that neither the option of freedom of contract nor improving the current system of various Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS )member-states’ view of multimodal transport, can significantly improve the current fragmented system or deliver the needed certainty. Accordingly, the thesis proposes that a modified uniform system would help achieve the legal certainty needed for multimodal transport. The thesis finally submits that the ECOWAS should establish a legally binding, regional governance regime on multimodal transport and a majority of its member-states should ratify the instrument.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the trends of legal regulation in the business activity under the conditions of new coronavirus infection. The dialectical method of research in conjunction with a retrospective and comparative analysis made it possible to identify three main trends in the legal regulation of entrepreneurial activity in the framework of new socio-economic realities. The increasing role of state regulation of entrepreneurial activity, based on the use of public and legal means, due to the need to increase state intervention in the activities of entrepreneurs is shown. The state support of business for the subsequent development of the economy and compliance with the social balance is also increasing. Accordingly, the social importance of entrepreneurial activity is growing. The pandemic has also intensified the digitalization of entrepreneurial activity, of transport companies, since many traditional forms of doing business are limited by the forced isolation of society. Individual means of digitalization, including the industrial Internet of Things, e-commerce, and smart contracts, have become most prevalent. Consequently, the pandemic cannot be viewed only as a negative factor, its impact on entrepreneurial activity also has a positive effect.

Purpose This study aims to examine whether the impact of international financial reporting standards (IFRS) on audit fees differs between early and late adopters. Design/methodology/approach The authors use robust econometric estimation on a sample of 314 firms from both early and late IFRS adopting countries. Findings The authors find that IFRS is positively and significantly associated with an increase in audit fees for early adopters, but the impact is very weak for late adopters and insignificant in some cases. The results on auditing time suggest that increase in audit fees around IFRS adoption is due to an increase in audit reporting lags. After accounting for pre- and post-years, the authors find that the relationship between IFRS and audit fees, as well as audit time for late adopters, is significant only in the adoption year. However, early adopters experience a significant increase in audit fees and audit time in the transition year to one-year post-adoption. Practical implications The findings imply that countries that are yet to adopt IFRS are less likely to experience a significant increase in audit fees audit time. Hence, is probable that the benefit of IFRS will outweigh the cost. Originality/value The results, therefore, suggest that early adopters paid a premium for been the first users of IFRS, which is consistent with any innovation. The study provides new insights by demonstrating that the consequences of IFRS differ between early and late adopters.

Si les meubles ont toujours pu faire l’objet d’actes de commerce, tel n’a pas toujours été le cas de l’immeuble, en raison de son exclusion du droit commercial du fait de son rattachement au droit civil par la loi. Mais, ce dernier a néanmoins finalement été atteint par les vagues de la commercialité. Ce qui n’a manqué de susciter un vif conflit de qualification en matière immobilière, mettant ce bien en exergue comme une illustration parfaite du duel entre ces deux grandes branches du droit privé. Cette situation révèle la nature imprécise du statut de l’immeuble en droit commercial dont le présent article a pour objet de clarifier. A présent, le caractère commercial des actes relatifs à l’immeuble a été expressément consacré et ne fait plus l’ombre d’aucun doute en droit OHADA. Toutefois, on constate néanmoins toujours le maintien de certaines opérations immobilières dans le giron du droit civil. Cette commercialité appliquée de façon singulière à ce bien comparativement à son analogue mobilier rend donc ainsi compte de celui-ci comme un critère d’application du droit commercial qui, à ce titre, témoigne de la remarquable évolution de cette branche du droit dans son rapport de force avec le droit civil. Ainsi, si à travers l’extension de son champ d’application à l’immeuble, le droit commercial fait effectivement figure d’un droit conquérant au détriment du droit civil, il subit cependant de plus en plus un certain rapprochement avec ce dernier tendant plutôt à relativiser les mérites de cette laborieuse conquête.

This work sets out to evaluate the OHADA Uniform Act’s laws on accountability in Private and Public Limited Companies. Normally, laws which provide for effective accountability, guarantee the smooth functioning and stability of companies since its rules work at averting all forms of mismanagements. The inspiration of this work stems from the realization that, levels of accountability in these companies are still wanting. Hitherto, companies are plagued with vices of obscured activities, fake transactions, non-transparent reporting and acute dishonesty by its organs. It is therefore baffling that, these are still prevalent despite the existence of the Uniform Act’s laws which contains accountability mechanism aimed at dispelling all these forms of corporate transgressions. From this arose lingering doubts as to how these laws are.

Article-by-article commentary

Multimodal taşıma; multimodal taşıma sözleşmesine binaen multimodal taşıma operatörünün eşyaların bir yerden farklı yerdeki teslimat için belirlenmiş bir noktaya taşınmasını en az iki farklı taşıma türü ile gerçekleştirmeyi taahhüt ettiği bir taşımadır. Konteyner kullanımının yaygınlaşması, günümüzde uluslararası eşya taşımalarının birden fazla taşıma türü kullanılarak kapıdan kapıya şeklinde yapılmasına olanak sağlamıştır. Bu sayede multimodal taşıma tüm dünyada yaygın hale gelmiştir. Taşıma sektöründe sıklıkla kullanılan bu taşıma türünün hukuki açıdan izahı önem arz etmektedir. Bu sebeple, multimodal taşımanın tanımı ve unsurları ele alınmıştır. Bu taşımanın diğer taşıma türleri ile benzerlik ve farklıkları değerlendirilmiştir. Her bir taşıma türüne ilişkin konvansiyonlar, ülkelerin ulusal hukuk düzenlemeleri ve multimodal taşımaya ilişkin yeknesak kurallar oluşturma amacıyla getirilen düzenleme çalışmaları ve düzenlemeler göz önüne alındığında multimodal taşımaya hangi hukuk düzenlemelerinin uygulanacağını öngörmek zordur. Multimodal taşımalarda sorumluluğu yeknesaklaştırmak adına en önemli düzenlemeler 1975 ve 1992 tarihli Milletlerarası Ticaret Odası (ICC) Kuralları ve halen yürürlüğe girmemiş olan 1980 Tarihli Multimodal Taşıma Konvansiyonu (MTC), 2009 tarihinde imzaya açılan Eşyaların Tamamen veya Kısmen Deniz Yoluyla Uluslararası Taşınmasına İlişkin Konvansiyondur (Rotterdam Kuralları-RK). Bu düzenlemelerden esinlenilerek ortaya çıkmış çeşitli bölgesel düzenlemeler söz konusudur. Bunun yanı sıra multimodal taşımanın ülke sınırları içerisinde gerçekleşebilmesi sebebiyle bazı ülkeler bu konuyu düzenleyen kanunlar yapmışlardır. Türk Hukunda ise multimodal taşımaya ilk kez 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu'nda (TTK), 'Değişik Tür Araçlar İle Taşıma' başlığı altında yer verilmiştir. MTO'nun zıya, hasar ve geç teslime dayalı sözleşme kaynaklı sorumluluğu zarar yerinin belirlenebilir olup olmamasına göre farklı kurallara tabidir. Zarar yerinin belirlenmesi ve multimodal taşıma sözleşmesinin taraflarından birinin zararın hangi taşıma türünde oluştuğunu ispatlaması durumunda, multimodal taşıma birden fazla taşıma türünü içerdiğinden denizyolu, havayolu, karayolu, demiryolu ve ülke iç suyolu gibi her bir taşıma türünü ayrı ayrı düzenleyen ve her biri kendi sorumluluk rejimini içeren uluslararası unimodal (tekil) taşıma konvansiyonlarından usulüne göre yürürlüğe girmiş olanları öncelikli olmak üzere, ilgili taşıma türünü özel olarak düzenleyen kurallar uygulanacaktır. Zararın gerçekleştiği taşıma türünün tespit edilememesi durumunda genel hüküm olarak adlandırabileceğimiz TTK hükümleri uygulama alanı bulacaktır. Çalışmada, Türk Hukukunda MTO'nun sorumluluğu ilgili konvansiyonlar ve TTK ışığında ele alınmış, uygulanacak hükümler ortaya konmaya çalışılmıştır. Anahtar Kelimeler: Multimodal Taşıma, Multimodal Taşıma Sözleşmesi, Multimodal Taşıma Operatörü, Multimodal Taşıma Operatörünün Sorumluluğu. Multimodal transport is a carriage in which multimodal transport operator, who assumes the responsibility of performing the carriage under the multimodal transport contract, undertakes to perform the carriage of goods by at least two modes of transport from one place to another place designated for delivery. Widespread use of containers today allows international transport of goods to be in the form of door-to-door transport using more than one mode of transport. Thus, multimodal transport becomes more widespread all over the world. Explaining this mode of transport, which is frequently used in the transport industry, from the legal perspective is of high importance. Hence, in this study, the definition and elements of multimodal transport are studied. The similarities and differences of this mode of transport with other modes of transport are evaluated. Considering different conventions regulating each mode of transport, national transport legislations and regulations aimed at setting forth uniform provisions, it is clearly difficult to determine rules that are applicable for the multimodal transport contract. Major regulations to uniform the liability in multimodal carriages are the 1975 and 1992 International Chamber of Commerce Rules, the 1980 Multimodal Transport Convention (MTC) and the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea (Rotterdam Rules-RT), which was open for signature in 2009. There are also regional regulations inspired by these instruments. In addition, a number of countries enact laws regulating multimodal transport, as multimodal transport may be performed within national boundaries, and there are no uniform rules regulating it. In Turkish law, certain rules on multimodal transport in the Turkish Commercial Law (TTK) No.6102 under the heading of 'Carriage by Various Modes of Transport (Multimodal Transport)' were introduced. The MTO's contractual liability for loss of or damage to goods or delay in delivery is subject to different rules depending on whether the place of loss can be located. If the place of loss is located, and the leg of transport in which the loss occurs is proved by any party of the multimodal transport contract, as the transport involves more than one mode of transport, rules specifically regulating that mode of transport, in particular unimodal conventions, which duly entered into effect, individually governing each mode of transport such as sea, air, road, rail and inland waterway transports and having its own liability regime, will be applicable. If the mode of transport in which the loss occurs cannot be ascertained, TTK provisions, which we may call general rules, will be applicable. In the present study, we analyse the liability of MTO within the framework of relevant conventions and TTK and seek to reveal applicable provisions. Keywords: Multimodal Transport, Multimodal Transport Contract Multimodal Transport Operator, Liability of Multimodal Transport Operator

Le franchissement des frontières dans le territoire douanier de la CEMAC (Communauté Economique et Monétaire de l’Afrique Centrale) peut se faire de manière régulière, c'est-à-dire en respect de la procédure prescrite à cet effet, ou alors de manière irrégulière en violation de cette dernière. La violation des lois et règlements douaniers donne naissance à des litiges opposant l’administration des douanes aux usagers auteurs des infractions douanières. Il s’agit donc là du contentieux douanier, un contentieux encadré par les règles propres au droit du contentieux douanier, lesquelles dans la zone CEMAC donnent compétence aux juridictions nationales des Etats membres ainsi qu’à la Cour de Justice de la CEMAC de réprimer sévèrement les infractions douanières.

Africa is often depicted in the literature as the ‘patron late to the party’ on account of her low uptake of corporate governance codes. Notwithstanding, countries that have an existing corporate governance code continue to exhibit weak corporate accountability and governance practices. This prompted a critical analysis based on a detailed review of published articles and existing codes in the African multiple-contexts. Our findings reveal that the efficacy of many codes remains very limited in terms of pragmatic outcomes whilst firms in countries that have adopted codes continue to face uneven performance and poor accountability. We conclude by urging for an understanding of the reasons underlying such results. We recommend an African led re-think (independence, ownership, board processes) of existing codes to make them more aligned with the governance needs of African firms and their complex sociocultural background. We call for further research to illuminate Africa’s actual governance experiences and necessities.

Deniz ticaret hukukunda, varma limanında yükün teslimini talep eden kişi, gönderilen olarak tanımlanmaktadır. Gönderilen, navlun sözleşmesinin tarafı olan taşıtan olabileceği gibi sözleşme ilişkisi dışında üçüncü bir kişi de olabilir. Gönderilenin üçüncü kişi olması hâlinde navlun sözleşmesi üçüncü kişi yararına sözleşme olarak nitelendirilmektedir. Kanun koyucu, sözleşme ilişkisine taraf olmayan bu üçüncü kişi için de bir takım hak ve sorumluluklar getirmiştir. İşte bu çalışmanın konusunu üçüncü kişi sıfatını haiz gönderilenin navlun sözleşmesinden kaynaklanan sorumluluğu oluşturmaktadır. Sözleşmelerin nispiliği prensibi gereği kural olarak tarafların anlaşarak üçüncü kişiyi borç altına sokmaları mümkün değildir. Bununla birlikte üçüncü kişi gönderilenin hangi hallerde sorumlu olacağı TTK m. 1203'te düzenlenmiştir. Buna göre gönderilenin navlun sözleşmesi kapsamında sorumlu olması için ilk olarak eşyanın teslimini talep etmesi gerekmektedir. Eşyanın teslimini talep, üçüncü kişi lehine sözleşme teorisi açısından edimin kabulü olarak değerlendirilmekte ve haliyle gönderilenin borç altına girmesi tarafların kararlaştırması ile değil öncelikle kendi iradesi ile olmaktadır. Gönderilenin sorumlu tutulmasının diğer şartını, teslim talebinin dayandığı taşıma sözleşmesinde ya da deniz taşıma senetlerinde bu borçların gönderilen üzerine bırakılması oluşturmaktadır. Dolayısıyla gönderilenin yükün teslimi sözleşmeden ya da deniz taşıma senetlerinden kaynaklanan bu alacakların ödenmesi şartına bağlanmaktadır. Gönderilenin hangi alacaklardan sorumlu olduğu sözleşme şartlarına göre tespit edilmektedir. Bu kapsamda sözleşme kayıtlarının incelenmesi gerekir. Navlun sözleşmesinde gönderilen uygulamada genellikle denizaşırı alıcı olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Dolayısıyla Incoterms uyarınca tarafların kararlaştırdığı teslim şekillerinin ve FIO/FIOST/FILO/LIFO gibi gönderilenin sorumluluğunu genişleten kayıtların incelenmesi önemlidir. Bu kapsamda gönderilenin navlun sözleşmesinden kaynaklanan hangi borç kalemlerinden sorumlu olduğu sözleşme hükümleri ve mevzuat ile ayrıntılı bir şekilde açıklanmıştır. [...] The consignee is defined as a person who requesting the delivery of the cargo at the discharge port by the maritime commercial law. The consignee might be the shipper, as a party of contract of affreightment, or might be a third party of the contract. In the case of the consignee is a third party, the contract of affreightment is characterized as a third-party beneficiary contract in which determined rights and responsibilities are given to this third party by the law makers. This thesis aims to determine the responsibilities of the third-party consignee that arising from the contract of affreightment. With regard to privity of the contract principle, as a rule, parties of a contract do not have right to bind a third party with obligations. On the other hand, the conditions of responsibilities of the third party consignee is regulated in the article 1203 of TCC. With regard to the article, in order for the consignee to be liable under the freight contract, the consignee must first request the delivery of the goods. The demand for the delivery of the goods is considered as the acceptance of the performance in terms of the theory of third party beneficiary contract and as a matter of fact, the consignee do not incur a debt with the parties' decision, but primarily with his own will. The other condition of holding the consignee responsible is the transfer of these debts to the consignee in the contract of affreightment or other transport documents on which the delivery request is based. Therefore, the delivery of the cargo is subject to the payment of these debts arising from the contract or transport documents. The debts of the consignee are determined according to the terms of the contract. In this context, it is necessary to review of the terms of the contract. In practice, the consignee in the contract of affreightment usually appears as a overseas receiver of the sale contract. Therefore, it is important to examine both the delivery methods agreed by the parties with regard to INCOTERMS and clauses that expand the responsibility of the sender, such as FIO/FIOST/FILO/LIFO. In this framework, this study explains in detail the responsibilities of consignee with regard to freight contract provisions and legislations.

This study traces the evolution of the CCJA case law on the principle of exemption from enforcement for public companies. It aims in particular to highlight the direction in which this case law is moving. It appears that the CCJA has so far not succeeded in elaborating its own definition of the concept of 'public companies'; yet it is there that, in our view, the mystery of the immunity from execution that it has long recognized to these companies hides; even when they were incorporated in the form of a corporation. However, over time, the Court has rightly reversed its previous decisions by moving from an extensive to a restrictive interpretation of exemption from enforcement. In any case, the involvement of the lawmaker is more than welcome in order to put an end to the situation of inequality, which has existed for a long time in terms of enforcement under OHADA law, between corporations having the State or its branches (public companies) as shareholders and those whose shareholders have no State participation.