Bibliographie sélective OHADA

En fonction de la gravité des difficultés rencontrées, le tiers ainsi désigné doit rechercher et obtenir discrètement ou publiquement un accord amiable capable de mettre fin aux difficultés. La confidentialité dans la recherche des solutions ne peut être qu'un facteur de succès des techniques de prévention par son effet incitatif au dialogue. Seulement, en face de difficultés économiques et financières avérées, la discrétion pourrait au contraire être préjudiciable au sauvetage de l'entreprise de même qu'aux intérêts de ses partenaires. Le voile du secret doit ainsi être ôté au profit d'une gestion transparente de la défaillance de l'entité économique.

Please refer to full text to view abstract. <br>LL.M. (International Commercial Law)

Article 6.8 of the Antidumping Agreement (AD) allows domestic investigating authorities to make determinations on the basis of the best information available (BIA) when any interested party does not cooperate during an antidumping investigation under the discipline of Annex II of the AD. Since its introduction, this provision has been the source of extensive and neverending litigation in front of both domestic investigating authorities and the Dispute Settlement Body. In this thesis, we research to what extent the findings of the Panels and the Appellate Body regarding Article 6.8 AD are consistent with the mandate set out in Articles 3.2, 11 DSU and 17.6 AD and to what extent they are reasonable from an economic perspective. To answer the first question, we first discuss Articles 3.2, 11 DSU and 17.6 AD to establish what is the mandate of the Panels and the Appellate Body under the Dispute Settlement Body. We then examine the findings of the Panels and the Appellate Body in the interpretation of the seven terms of Article 6.8 AD under the previously established mandate. To answer the second question, we summarize the latest developments in the economic theory of adjudication and litigation. We then discuss the findings of the Panels and the Appellate Body using this economic standard. In the conclusion, we compare the results of our analysis with current negotiations on Article 6.8 AD in the Doha Round framework and further discuss the opportunity to create a single united international investigating authority.

Please refer to full text to view abstract. <br>LL.M. (Commercial Law)

Desire for quick and affordable justice is universal. Right to speedy trial is a right to life and personal liberty of every citizen guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, which ensures just, fair and reasonable procedure. Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms have become more crucial for businesses operating in India as well as those doing businesses with Indian firms. There are various reasons for which ADR is preferred over the conventional way of resolving the disputes. India being a developing country, going through major economic reforms within the framework of the rule of law, for expeditious resolution of disputes and lessening the burden on the courts, alternative mechanisms for resolution (ADR) are the only alternative through arbitration, conciliation, mediation and negotiation.

Please refer to full text to view abstract. <br>LL.M. (Commercial Law)

Şirket birleşmelerinde ortakların korunması, belirlediği ilkeler ve tanıdığı dava hakları nazara alındığında, kanun koyucunun özel önem atfettiği hususlardan biridir. Devrolunan şirketin ortaklarının, mevcut pay ve haklarını karşılayacak değerde, devralan şirket pay ve haklarını iktisap etmesi esastır. Birleşmenin ortakların malvarlığı cephesinde yarattığı olumsuz sonuçlar, ortaklığın devamlılığı ilkesi çerçevesinde, denkleştirme davası ile denetlenmektedir (TTK m. 191). Bu davada ortaklar, pay ve haklarının gereğince korunmamış veya ayrılma akçesinin uygun belirlenmemiş olması gerekçesiyle, uygun bir denkleştirme isteyebilirler. Öte yandan, Kanun'un birleşmeye ilişkin hükümlerinin ihlali, yine ortakların açabileceği, özel iptal davası ile denetlenmektedir (TTK m. 192). Kanun koyucu, ilgili hükümlerin ihlaline iptal sonucunu bağlamakta; ancak eksikliklerin giderilmesi mekanizması ile bu ağır yaptırımla karşılaşılmaması için devralan şirkete olanak tanımaktadır. Son olarak, birleşme işlemlerine katılan bütün kişilerin, ortaklara karşı kusurları ile vermiş oldukları zararlardan sorumlu oldukları düzenlenerek, ortakların zararlarını tazmin edecek bir özel sorumluluk davası öngörülmektedir (TTK m. 193). Böylece birleşme karşısında ortaklar, üç farklı mekanizma ile koruma altına alınmış olmaktadır. Regarding the principles determined and the right to sue recognized, the protection of the shareholders in the mergers is one of the issues that the legislator attaches special importance to. It is essential that the shareholders of company being acquired attain the shares and rights in the acquiring company equivalent to those in the company being acquired. The negative results of merger on the assets of the shareholders are reviewed by an examination case within the framework of the continuity of the partnership principle (TCC Art. 191). In the present case, the shareholders may demand an appropriate compensation on the grounds that their share and rights are not properly protected or the amount of any cash payment is not determined appropriately. On the other hand, the violation of the provisions of the Law relating to the merger is controlled by a special nullification case, which could be filed by the shareholders (TCC Art. 192). The legislator has concluded the nullification of the violation of the relevant provisions; however, the elimination of deficiencies mechanism allows the acquiring company to avoid it. Finally, it is foreseen a liability case to compensate shareholders' damages that allows all persons participating in the merger transactions are liable for the damages they incurred against the them (TCC Art. 193). Thus, the partners are protected by three different mechanisms against the merger.

The thesis contributes to the debate on the EU’s approach to the business practice of resale price maintenance (RPM), which is widely criticized as too strict and in conflict with what is considered to be the consensus in the economic literature. The thesis critically dissects the economic consensus, on which the critique against the EU’s approach is based, by analyzing the empirical evidence that is cited to support the claim that RPM can frequently be explained by the service-based RPM models and shows that there is no convincing evidence that would support the significance of these positive RPM models that predict positive effects on welfare. To support this finding the thesis collects new evidence by surveying the marketing literature and shows that not only is there no convincing evidence that the positive RPM models frequently apply, but to the contrary there is evidence that these models are inconsistent with the real world phenomenon of RPM. Having refuted the service-based models the thesis takes up the scientific challenge that “it takes a theory to beat a theory” and proposes to fill the gap with three price-based models. The thesis offers an analysis of the three price-based RPM models, first from the perspective of welfare effects and then from a broader economic perspective in an attempt to ultimately show that the EU approach to RPM can be justified based on these economic models. All three models explain the situation in which RPM is used by a branded good manufacturer to create the perception of high quality, which is used either as a credible quality signal, becomes a component of the product or is used to bias the consumer decision; they thus enter the difficult terrain of consumer preference formation and of markets for the intangible components of a product.

Afin qu’une entreprise puisse évoluer positivement, elle doit disposer d’une direction de qualité qui travaille et collabore avec l’ensemble des associés dont l’objectif est d’assurer son bon fonctionnement. Or, assez souvent dans les sociétés et plus particulièrement dans la société anonyme, les dirigeants qui sont généralement majoritaires abusent de leur pouvoir en favorisant leur intérêt propre au détriment de celui de la société et en portant par conséquent préjudice aux actionnaires minoritaires. Cet abus de pouvoir dont profitent les actionnaires majoritaires est désormais limité par un certain nombre de droits et de contrôle exercé par certains organes dans la société. In order for a company to evolve positively, it must have quality management that works and collaborates with all associates which objective is to ensure its proper functioning. While, often in companiesand specially in corporation, leaders who are usually in the majorityabuse their power of authority by favoring their own interest to the detriment of the companyin which leads to prejudice of minority shareholders. This abuse of power that benefits the majority shareholders is limited by some rights and controlexercised by certain organsin the compagny.

Bu çalışmada anonim şirket yönetim kurulu üyelerinin Rekabet Hukukundan kaynaklanan sorumluluğu incelenmiştir. Anonim şirket kural olarak yönetim kurulu tarafından alınan kararlar ile faaliyetini sürdürür. Anonim şirkette yönetim kurulu üyesi olarak görev yapan kişiler birtakım haklara sahip oldukları gibi yükümlülük altına da girerler. Yönetim kurulu üyeleri kanunda kendileri için getirilen yükümlülüklerini ihlal ettikleri takdirde halinde yönetim kurulu üyelerinin hukuki ve cezai sorumluluğuna gidilir. Anonim şirket yönetim kurulunun hukuki sorumluluk sebepleri ve sorumluluğun şartları Türk Ticaret Kanunu'nda ayrıntılı olarak düzenlenmiştir. Yönetim kuruluna yaptırım uygulanabilecek düzenlemeler Türk Ticaret Kanunu'nda düzenleniyor olmakla birlikte, yönetim kurulu üyelerine yaptırım uygulanmasına imkan veren düzenlemeler mevcuttur. Bu düzenlemelerden biri de Rekabetin Korunması Hakkında Kanun'da yer almaktadır. Rekabetin Korunması Hakkında Kanun'un 16'ıncı maddesinde hem teşebbüs yahut teşebbüs birliklerine hem de teşebbüs ve teşebbüs birliğinin yönetici yahut çalışanına yaptırım uygulanmasına imkan veren düzenleme yer almaktadır. Söz konusu düzenleme uyarınca, , anonim şirket rekabeti sınırlayıcı anlaşma, uyumlu eylem ve kararlar, hakim durumun kötüye kullanılması yahut birleşme veya devralma sebebi ile idari para cezasına hükmedilmesi mümkündür. Maddede aynı zamanda Rekabet Kanunu'nun 16'ıncı maddesinin üçüncü fıkrası gereğince teşebbüs veya teşebbüs birliklerine üçüncü fıkrada belirtilen idarî para cezaları verilmesi halinde, ihlalde belirleyici etkisi saptanan teşebbüs veya teşebbüs birliği yöneticilerine ya da çalışanlarına teşebbüs veya teşebbüs birliğine verilen cezanın yüzde beşine kadar idarî para cezası verilebileceğine ilişkin düzenleme yer almaktadır. Çalışmanın birinci kısmında genel olarak Rekabet Hukukuna değinilecektir. İkinci kısmında ise Rekabet Kanunu'nun 16'ıncı maddesinin üçüncü fıkrası uyarınca teşebbüs ve teşebbüs birliklerine uygulanacak yaptırımın şartları ve yaptırımın uygulanması usulü incelenecektir. Çalışmanın son kısmında ise anonim şirket yönetici ve çalışanlarına uygulanacak yaptırımın koşulları ile yaptırımın uygulanması usulü ayrıntılı olacak incelenecektir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Anonim Şirket, Yönetim Kurulu, Rekabet Hukuku, Yönetim Kurulu Üyelerinin Sorumluluğu, Ticaret Hukuku, Rekabetin Korunması Hakkında Kanun. Liabilities of the members of board of directors in joint stock company under competition law is analysed in this study. As a rule, the joint stock company operates with the decisions taken by the board of directors. Persons who are members of the board of directors of a joint stock company have certain rights as well as obligations. If the members of the board of directors violate the obligations imposed on them by law, the members of the board of directors shall be subject to civil and criminal liability. The reasons for the legal responsibility of the joint stock company's board of directors and the conditions of the liability are regulated in detail in the Turkish Commercial Code. Although the regulations that may impose sanctions on the board of directors are regulated in the Turkish Commercial Code, there are regulations allowing sanctions to be imposed on the members of the board of directors. One of these regulations is included in The Act On The Protection Of Competition. Article 16 of The Act On The Protection Of Competition includes the regulation that allows sanctions to be applied to both the undertakings or associations of undertakings and the manager or employee of the association of undertakings and undertakings. According to article it is possible to impose an administrative fine on the basis of an agreement, concerted practices and decisions restricting competition, abuse of dominant position or merger or acquisition. According to article 16/3, in case administrative fines mentioned in paragraph three are imposed on undertakings or associations of undertakings, an administrative fine up to five percent of the penalty imposed on the undertaking or association of undertakings shall be imposed on managers or employees of the undertaking or association of undertakings who are found to have a decisive influence in the infringement. In the first part of the study, Competition Law will be discussed in general. In the second part, the conditions of the sanction to be applied to the undertakings and associations of undertakings and the method of enforcement of sanctions in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 16 of the Act On The Protection Of Competition will be examined. In the last part of the study, the conditions of sanction to be applied to the managers and employees of joint stock companies and the procedure of sanction will be examined in detail. Keywords: Joint Stock Company, Board Of Directors, Competition Law, Liabilities Of The Members Of Board Of Directors, Commercial Law, The Act On The Protection Of Competition.

The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) is one of the most prominent legal bodies in international commerce. In 1980, the final draft of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG or the Convention) was approved by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly and came into operation on 1 January 1988. Generally, the diversity of laws is an impediment to international and regional trade. Traders are discouraged from entering into international sales contracts due to the dissimilarities of legal systems. However, the CISG seeks to unify laws relating to the international sale of goods, whilst codifying the existing rules of international trade. The main objectives of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) are to achieve development and economic growth through regional integration.1 The legal integration and unification of sales law has a significant role to play in regional integration. Hence, SADC would do away with difficulties that affect interregional and intra-regional trade by impeding economic growth by making use of widely accepted trade laws, such as the Convention. International trade promotes both economic development and social upliftment. Moreover, democracy, political stability and human rights must be respected to foster sustainable economic growth and development in Southern Africa. 2 With advantages such as accessibility, flexibility, indorsing party autonomy, simplicity, and uniform interpretation, the paper revisits the call for the unification of laws on the sale of goods in SADC and considers the role and significance of the CISG in the region. <br>LL.M. (Commercial Law)

Cette contribution constitue un exposé critique des solutions technologiques adoptées par la Cour pénale internationale dans la conduite de ses procédures. La recherche révèle qu’à l’opposé des États, cette institution judiciaire internationale fait montre d’une ouverture remarquable à l’égard des technologies de l’information et de la communication. Définissant la cyberjustice comme l’application de ces technologies à l’administration de la justice, l’étude se subdivise en quatre parties, qui recouvrent les diverses facettes de l’application des moyens technologiques à la conduite des procès complexes. Elle conclut que bien qu’il faille se féliciter du virage de la modernité empruntée par la Cour pénale internationale, l’utilisation que cette dernière fait de la technologie gagnerait à être amplifiée dans l’intérêt de l’effectivité, de l’efficacité et de l’économie du temps et des ressources compte tenu de la spécificité de sa finalité.

By the time the founding fathers of the Organization for the Harmonization of Business Law in Africa (OHADA) signed the Treaty of Port Louis, the financial markets in Western and Central Africa were embryonic. Nowadays the situation has changed and it seems appropriate to reconsider relationship between OHADA law and securities exchange markets. Indeed, OHADA's Community legislation has to deal with the securities markets covered and serve both the proper functioning of the market and the protection of investors. The uniform Act on Commercial Companies and Economic Interest Groupings contains provisions referring to specific financial rules. However, is this sufficient to earn the public trust? Financial market law is a complex discipline. If we supplement this the effort required for investors to find their way between the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU) or the Economic and Monetary Community of Central Africa (CEMAC) stock exchange law and national constraints throughout OHADA, the following question must be asked: How is the investor's interest protected in this legal jungle? This paper tries to analyse the legal mechanisms of investor protection in the WAEMU Regional Stock Exchange and the Central African Stock Exchange, combining them with the uniform law for commercial companies of OHADA.

"Anonim şirkette önemli miktarda malvarlığı üzerinde işlemler, anonim şirketin yapısı ve faaliyetlerini ve ayrıca pay sahiplerinin çıkarlarını etkileyen ciddi sonuçlar doğurur. Bu söz konusu işlemler, yabancı hukuk sistemlerinde uzun zamandır pay sahiplerinin korunması amacıyla genel kurulun yetkili olduğu özel usule tabidir. Türk hukukunda 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu öncesinde sadece tasfiye halindeki anonim şirket için düzenlenen genel kurulun bu yetkisi, Yargıtay kararlarında ve öğretide faaliyeti devam eden şirket için de kabul edilmekteydi. Bugün ise Yargıtay içtihatları ve yabancı hukuk sistemlerine uygun olarak önemli miktarda malvarlığı üzerindeki işlemler, faaliyeti devam eden şirketler açısından özel olarak düzenlenerek genel kurulun devredilemez görev ve yetkileri arasında sayılmış ve ayrıca halka açık şirketler için önemli nitelikte işlemlere özgü özel usule tabi kılınmıştır (TTK md. 408/2-f; SPK md. 23/1-b). Ancak Türk Ticaret Kanunu'na Adalet Komisyonu tarafından sonradan eklenen hüküm birçok yönden yoruma ve tartışmaya açıktır. Zira hükmün kapsamı ve uygulama alanı konusunda Türk Ticaret Kanunu bakımından usul ve esaslar yönünden söz konusu olan belirsizlikler, genel kurul ile yönetim kurulu arasında yetki çatışması yaratabileceği gibi, işlemin akıbeti ve dolayısıyla tarafların işlemle bağlılık durumu açısından da sorun doğurabilecek niteliktedir. Öte yandan halka açık şirketler bakımından Sermaye Piyasası mevzuatında önemli nitelikte işlemler için öngörülen usulün de önemli miktarda malvarlığı üzerindeki işlemler özelinde değerlendirilmesi gerekmektedir. Çalışmamızda yoruma ve tartışmaya muhtaç hususlara açıklık getirilmesi amacıyla, önemli miktarda malvarlığı üzerindeki işlemlerin gerçekleştirilmesine ilişkin hukuki bir çerçeve oluşturularak, bu işlemler düzenlenişi, kapsamı, tabi olduğu usul ve nihayet hüküm ve sonuçları yönünden incelenmiştir. […] From the legal and economic perspective, transactions regarding the substantial amount of assets of a joint stock company have serious consequences on its structure and activities, specifically affecting the interests of shareholders. That's why, in comparative law, within the scope of the protection of shareholders, such transactions are subjected to a special process in which the general assembly plays a crucial role in authorization of the aforementioned transactions. In Turkish law, before the enactment of Turkish Commercial Code nr. 6102, the general assembly had this authorization, but only in the liquidation process of a company. However, in various decisions of the Turkish High Court of Appeal and the legal scholarly work, in accordance with the comparative law, it was pointed out that the general assembly should have this authorization, even if the company is not in a liquidation process. Currently, such transactions of active companies are specifically regulated and are considered among the non-delegable authorizations of the general assembly. In addition, such transactions of publicly-held corporations are subjected to a special process (Art. 408/2-f of TCC; Art. 23/1-b of CML). However, the relevant article added by the Commission of Justice to the Turkish Commercial Code needs to be scrutinized and interpreted. There are many uncertainties regarding rules and procedures within the scope of this provision. This ambiguity might lead to authorization conflicts between the general assembly and the administrative board. Moreover, certain legal problems might arise from these transactions. Last, the special regulation in the Capital Market Law regarding the transactions embodying the substantial amount of assets needs detailed examination. This thesis aims to resolve the ambiguities of the aforementioned provisions and create a special legal basis for the regulations of these types of transactions."