Bibliographie sélective OHADA

Anonim şirketlerde pay ve oy çoğunluğunu elinde bulunduranlar bir araya geldikleri zaman, hâkimiyeti elinde bulundurdukları için şirket yönetimini etkileyecek kararları alarak, kendi kararları doğrultusunda şirketi yönlendirebilirler. Çoğunluğu elinde tutanların gücü karşısında azlık ve münferit pay sahiplerinin korunması, onlara bazı bireysel haklar tanınması ile sağlanmaya çalışılmıştır. Çalışmamızın konusu Anonim Ortaklıklar Hukuku'nda Özel Denetim'dir. TTK'nin "pay sahibinin kişisel haklarıˮ ana başlığı ve V. numaralı özel denetim isteme hakkı alt başlığı altında TTK m.438 ve 444' da düzenlenen özel denetim isteme hakkı, anonim ortaklıkta önemli bir bireysel ortaklık ve azlık haklarından birisini oluşturmaktadır. Aydınlatıcı haklar olarak adlandırılan bilgi alma ve inceleme hakkı ile özel denetim isteme hakları; şirketin faaliyetleri, işlemleri, ekonomik durumu hakkında yeterli bilgiye sahip olmayan pay sahiplerinin, bu haklarını kullanarak daha bilinçli olmalarını sağlarlar. Bu iki hak, hem önleyici hem de telafi edici niteliktedir. According to Article 438, CO Art.697a, any shareholder may introduce a motion at the general meeting of shareholders calling for certain facts to be subject to a special examination by a special and independent searcher. The special examination has to be necessary for the exercising of the shareholders' rights. If the shareholders' meeting approves the motion, the judge (called upon by the Company or by shareholder) appoints the special searcher. If the general meeting does not approve the motion calling for the appointment of the appointment of the special searcher, shareholders who represent at least ten percent of the share capital or who represent shares with par value of one million Turkish Lira may request the judge to appoint a special searcher. The shareholders are legally entitled to the appointment of a special searcher if they credibly establish that corporate bodies have violated the law or the articles of incorporation and have thereby damaged company or shareholders. Special examination has a pre-condition for requesting, as per article TTK m.438, in order for a shareholder to request a special examination, that shareholder or any shareholder of the company should have duly consumed its right to information and examination. This is pre- condition for requesting the special examination

Lorsqu’un débiteur non commerçant ne peut faire face à ses engagements, il est dans l’état de déconfiture, alors que s’il est commerçant, sont applicable des procédures collectives prévues par le droit commercial. Les difficultés de l’entreprise peuvent être traitées soit par la prévention et le traitement non judiciaire, comme la prévention par l’information économique et la prévention par l’information comptable et la prévention par l’alerte des dirigeants et le traitement administratif et conventionnel, soit par le traitement judiciaire, qui englobe la procédure de sauvegarde et le règlement et redressement judiciaires d’une part, et la faillite et la liquidation judiciaire d’autre part. When a non-trading debtor can not meet his obligations, he is in a state of collapse, whereas if he is a merchant, collective procedures provided for by commercial law are applicable. The difficulties of the company can be treated either by the prevention and the non-judicial treatment, as the prevention by the economic information and the prevention by the accounting information and the prevention by the alert of the leaders and the administrative and conventional treatment or by judicial treatment, which includes the procedure of safeguard and settlement and judicial reorganization on one hand, and bankruptcy and judicial liquidation on the other hand. عندما يتعذر على المدين الغير تاجر الوفاء بتعهداته، يكون في حالة إعسار في حين أنه إذا كان تاجرا، فتطبق الإجراءات الجماعية المنصوص عليها في القانون التجاري. ويمكن معالجة الصعوبات التي تواجهها الشركة إما بالوقاية والمعالجة غير القضائية، مثل الوقاية عن طريق المعلومات الاقتصادية والوقاية بواسطة المعلومات المحاسبية والوقاية عن طريق تنبيه المسيرين والمعالجة الإدارية والاتااقية أو المعالجة القضائية، التي تشمل إجراءات الانقاذ والتسوية والتقويم القضائي من جهة، والإفلاس والتصاية القضائية من جهة أخرى

This doctoral thesis examines liability for discrimination under Swedish private law. According to chapter 5, section 1 of the Swedish Discrimination Act (diskrimineringslagen) compensation shall be paid by natural or legal persons who violate the prohibitions of discrimination that are established in the act. The purpose of the compensation is not only to compensate the person discriminated against for the violation of the right to equal treatment, but also to prevent further discrimination. The thesis examines two main questions: (i) what preconditions need to be fulfilled in order to establish liability for discrimination? and (ii) what circumstances affect the amount of compensation? An overarching aim of the thesis is to create an understanding of the characteristic problems and questions that occur when handling discrimination-related questions in a private law context. Consideration is taken to the EU law background and the aim, articulated in EU directives, to achieve effective, proportionate and dissuasive remedies for breaches of the principle of equal treatment. The research focuses on the prohibitions applicable in the working life and regarding goods, services and housing. It includes detailed analyses of the prohibitions against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, inadequate accessibility, harassment and sexual harassment. The analyses deal with questions concerning the subjective motives of the discriminating party, problematic aspects considering the burden of proof as well as the exceptions from the prohibitions. Circumstances affecting the amount of compensation are analysed considering the character of the discriminating behaviour and its effects. Certain aspects attributable to the preventive function of the damages are examined, as well as how they have been decisive in the court judgements.

Insurance fraud is a major issue in the insurance industry. Insurance companies around the world are all facing significant losses due to the prevalence of fraudulent claims. These fraudulent claims and subsequent losses suffered by insurers inevitably lead to a dilution of the insurance pool and result in other policyholders bearing the brunt of these losses. The inevitable solution for insurers is to hike the premiums for all other policyholders in order to compensate for their losses caused by fraudulent claims. Insurance fraud is an international problem and it is common for insurers in most jurisdictions to use forfeiture clauses. These clauses aim to protect the insurer by stating that if the policyholder should submit any type pf fraudulent claim, the policyholder will forfeit the entire claim. There has been much controversy around the validity and fairness of these clauses. This thesis seeks to provide an overview of the prevalence of fraudulent insurance claims in South Africa, England, Australia and New Zealand. Moreover, it will consider the fairness of forfeiture clauses in light of the fundamental movement towards policyholder protection in recent years both in South Africa and in those jurisdictions that form part of the comparative study. The thesis concludes that forfeiture clauses form an indispensable part of short-term insurance contracts and are justifiable and therefore lawful. It is, however, submitted that insurance companies have a duty to disclose the nature and extent of forfeiture clauses at the inception of the policy and again at claim stage. By using so-called staggered disclosure, insurers provide policyholders with the opportunity to consider their claim and the means with which to prove it in order to avoid instituting a fraudulent claim. The thesis recommends that these rules pertaining to staggered disclosure should form part of the 2018 Policyholder Protection Rules, together with a statutory definition of insurance fraud.

The use of conduit company treaty shopping structures is often regarded as an impermissible erosion of a country’s tax base. For a developing country, such as South Africa, the protection of its tax base is an important policy consideration. Arguably, one way of combatting conduit company treaty shopping structures is by including in a country’s double taxation agreements the beneficial ownership requirement set out in Article 10(2) of the OECD MTC. The study examines how a South African court would interpret this requirement in provisions in South African double taxation agreements in the context of conduit company treaty shopping involving conduit companies receiving dividends. The study firstly considers whether the beneficial ownership requirement can be regarded as an anti-avoidance rule aimed at combatting conduit company treaty shopping falling outside agents and nominee scenarios. It further considers whether the term “beneficial owner” should have a legal or economic meaning. It explores the meanings given to this term by scholars and foreign courts and the OECD in its Commentaries to the OECD MTC. The study also considers the application of the rules of interpretation contained in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties when giving meaning to this term. Lastly, the study considers whether the term should have the meaning assigned to it under the domestic law of a treaty country, or under international tax law. As part of this enquiry, the meanings of the expression “beneficial owner” in South African case law and legislation are explored.

Abstract available in PDF.