Bibliographie sélective OHADA

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

Illegal workers have been and continue to be the most vulnerable category of employees in the labour market, the reason for this is the invalidity of their employment contract due to illegality. For the longest time, the Labour Relations Act (hereinafter the LRA) has not been able to afford these workers protection because they did not fall within the ambit of the legal definition of ‘employee’ and the Act only recognises employees as holders of the rights provided for under the LRA. As a result of the Act not being able to protect these workers, they have become victims of exploitation and vicious abuse in the hands of their employers, making them vulnerable in their employment relationship. The law concerning illegal workers has since changed. Courts have found that these workers are in fact employees for the purposes of the LRA, and that, for an employment relationship to exist there need not be a valid employment contract in existence. An employment relationship may take various forms and the goal that the Labour Relations Act seeks to achieve is to protect those employees who find themselves vulnerable as a result of the illegality of their employment contract. It has also been argued that the law aims mostly at penalising the employer rather than the employee who is economically and socially weaker than the employer, therefore, courts have found that the Labour Relations Act should be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (hereinafter the Constitution) which requires a wider interpretation of who may be afforded the right to fair labour practices.

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

No abstract provided.

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)

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.

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)

"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."

[Resumen] El arbitraje entre Estados y particulares extranjeros es un mecanismo de resolución de litigios a caballo entre el Derecho internacional público y el Derecho privado, que desde finales de la década de 1990 ha vivido un sorprendente auge a nivel mundial. Una modalidad de arbitraje institucional de inversiones es la del CIADI -Centro Internacional para el arreglo de Disputas sobre inversiones-, organismo dependiente del Grupo del Banco Mundial. El propósito de la tesis es llevar a cabo una investigación sobre la configuración de la independencia e imparcialidad de los árbitros del CIADI, sus derechos y deberes en tanto que tales y sus facultades procesales. La investigación se valdrá del Derecho comparado, tanto nacional como internacional, realizando una análisis de la doctrina, la práctica y la legislación que regula el sistema CIADI. A arbitraxe entre Estados e particulares estranxeiros é un mecanismo de resolución de controversias a cabalo entre o Dereito internacional público e o Dereito privado, que dende finais da década de 1990 viviu un sorprendente auxe a nivel mundial. Unha modalidade de arbitraxe institucional de investimentos é a do CIADI -Centro Internacional para o Arranxo de Desputas sobre Investimentos-, organismo dependente do Grupo do Banco Mundial. O propósito da tese é facer unha investigación sobre a independencia e imparcialidade dos árbitros do CIADI, os seus dereitos e deberes como tales e as súas facultades procesuais. A investigación valerase do Dereito Comparado, tanto nacional como internacional, realizando unha análise da doutrina, a práctica e a lexislación que regula o sistema CIADI. Arbitration between States and foreign investors is a dispute-resolution mechanism halfway between international public Law and private Law, which had surprisingly rised during the 1990's at the world level. In this work the following issues will be tackled: the legal nature of the aforementioned arbitrators. ICSID -International Centre for the Settlement of Investments Disputes- is a modality of institutional arbitration for investments. This institution is incarditated into the World Bank Group. The aim of this dissertation is to carry out a research on the configuration of the independence and impartiality of ICSID arbitrators, as well as their duties and rights as such and their procedural faculties. The research will be based on both national and international comparative Law, focusing in legal doctrine, in praxis and in the law governing the ICSIS system.