Bibliographie sélective OHADA

This subject matter of this work is the prohibition of competition with the company of members of board of directors in joint stock companies under art. 396 of the Turkish Commercial Code. The prohibition of competition is a limitation on the commercial activities and the freedom of competition of a restricted party who has access to information, means or resources due to the legal relationship between parties which grant the restricted party a leverage in competition with the other. The core idea underlying the prohibition of competition is the necessity to protect the party benefiting from this prohibition against competitive activities of the restricted party. The prohibition of competition bans the restricted party from establishing competition with the party benefiting from the prohibition through competitive actions, ultimately from becoming the competitor of the beneficiary. The said competition relationship will occur in the event the services or products serving the same or similar needs are provided to the entirety or part of the same customers or customer group. Board members in joint stock company, having the prevailing right of access to all information and resources of the company leads to the risk that it may use this power for its own or other parties' benefit instead of that of the company. Hence, the prohibition of competition on board members regulated under article 396 of the Turkish Commercial Code is one of the concrete examples of the duty of loyalty of a board member towards the company aiming to prevent such usages prioritizing the benefit of the member or of a third person over that of the company. The focal point of this work is the determination of the scope of application and conditions of this prohibition as a whole. The first chapter of this thesis aims to convey the conceptual basis of the prohibition of competition. In this scope, we first assessed the economic and legal basis of competition. Economic competition is the race/competition of two or more market actors in a specific market in order to engage in a transaction with its counterparty in the market through offering better prices, conditions, goods or services in order to be superior from its competitors. However, the intention to supersede its competitors and the efforts for this purpose may result in the misuse of the right to compete or in an act limiting or eliminating the competitive environment. The Republic of Turkey provides for a constitutional protection over a person's right to engage in commercial activities and, although not expressly regulated, right to compete. However, as is the case for all rights and liberties, the right and liberty to compete cannot be exercised without any limitation. Second, the scope of the prohibition of competition is assessed. In this regard, we tried to determine the elements of the prohibition of competition, its definition, and its legal categorization. Moreover, a comparison of the prohibition of competition with the provisions governing unjust competition aiming to establish honest and undisrupted competition as well as with the rules of Competition Law aiming to prevent disruption of competition through restrictive actions is provided in order to specify the prominent characteristics of the prohibition of competition. Third, the attributes of the provisions governing the prohibition of competition are assessed. Provisions governing prohibition of competition which do not relate to the public order but to the internal relations of parties, and which serve the personal benefit of the beneficiary, are not of a peremptory nature. The prohibition of competition, which materially limits the liberty of engaging in commercial activities protected under the constitutional law, is of an exceptional nature and hence the provisions governing the prohibition of competition need to be construed in a limited manner. Fourth, the prohibition of competition can be regulated in the letter of a contract through mutual agreement thereon by its parties, or the legislator occasionally provides for a legal provision governing the prohibition of competition by attributing a special importance to this prohibition with respect to a specific relationship between the parties. Last, in this first chapter, we identify the reflections of this prohibition of competition within the scope of the Law of Obligations, and the Law of Corporations. The second chapter of this work takes into consideration the reasons of regulating a prohibition of competition on board members, and its scope of application regarding the persons concerned. In this context we first broadly assessed the position of the board of directors, board members and affiliated commercial auxiliaries in a company. Then, the legislative provisions respectively of German Law, Swiss Law and Turkish Law governing the board members' prohibition of competition are specified. While in German Law, just as is the case in Turkish law, the prohibition of competition of board members is stipulated in § 88 of the German Stock Corporation Act, the Swiss Law does not regulate this prohibition of competition of board members with a statutory provision, nonetheless, this prohibition is accepted by the scholars. Thereafter, the reason for regulating the prohibition of competition of board members is assessed. In this scope, the duty of loyalty of a board member arises from the legal relationship between the member and the corporation being based on the principle of trust. The member must refrain from conflicting its interests with the interests of the corporation, in other words, from conflict of interests, due to its duty of loyalty. When the member engages in competition with the company, the interests of the company and the board member conflict with each other. The member is in a considerably advantageous position in this conflict compared to the company, due to the information and resources to which it has access thanks to its position within the company. For this reason, the duty of loyalty aiming to prevent the conflict of interest between the company and the member lies at the basis of the board member's prohibition of competition. Lastly, in this chapter, the persons subject to the prohibition of competition pursuant to article 396 of the Turkish Commercial Code are identified. In this respect, the members of the board of directors as well as persons to whom management authorities are delegated fall within the scope of the ratione personae of article 396 of the Turkish Commercial Code. The commercial representatives and commercial proxies of a company are prohibited from competition pursuant to the prohibition of competition regarding commercial auxiliaries pursuant to article 553 of the Turkish Code of Obligations. Whereas a shareholder is not subject to the prohibition of competition with the company; this prohibition may only be regulated by a contract subject to the Law of Obligations. Furthermore, when evaluating the prohibition of competition of shareholders, whether the shareholder has a duty of loyalty to the company has been assessed under German Law, Swiss Law and Turkish Law. The third chapter of this work sets forth the scope of application of the prohibition of competition of board members with respect to its subject matter, place, and time. In order for a board member to violate the prohibition of competition with the company, the member must engage in an activity competing with the company. Pursuant to the first paragraph of article 396 of the Turkish Commercial Code, two types of competitive actions of board members are banned. The first type is the member engaging in an action which is a commercial transaction that falls within the scope of the field of activity of the company, on behalf of itself or a third party. Accordingly, all kinds of acts and actions of the member realized on behalf of itself or third parties which fall within the scope of activity of the corporation would constitute the breach of the prohibition. The scope of this prohibition also encompasses joining the managing body of another corporation. Furthermore, depending on the specifics of a concrete case, the same member being an employee of a competitor corporation under a service contract, or providing consultancy services or extending facilities to a competitor, or benefiting from a job opportunity which belonged to the company may also be construed to be within the scope of the prohibition of competition. The second type is the member being engaged as a partner with unlimited liability in a corporation engaging in the same types of commercial activities. In this regard, if a member becomes a partner of an ordinary partnership or a collective corporation, or a partner with unlimited liability of a commandite corporation, which engages in activities that fall within the scope of activities of the joint stock company, the prohibition will be breached. The prohibition of competition of the board member with the company may be lifted by an authorization granted by the general assembly pursuant to article 396 of the Turkish Commercial Code. This permission to compete to be granted to a board member may be in the form of a prior approval or a later acknowledgement (ratification), in an expressed or implied manner. As a result of the member being permitted to compete, article 396 of the Turkish Commercial Code will no longer apply even if the member engages in activities in competition with the company. The prohibition to compete of the board member lasts for the duration of the board membership. Once the membership ends, the parties must conclude an agreement in order to continue the prohibition of competition. The said agreement regarding the prohibition of competition will be subject to form requirements to be valid. Pursuant to the liberty of contract inherent in the Law of Obligations, the parties may freely execute an agreement regarding the prohibition of competition, provided they comply with the provisions in paragraph 2 of article 23 of the Civil Code or article 26 and first paragraph of article 27 of the Turkish Commercial Code. The prohibition to compete of board members is valid as long as they execute the activities of the company, and within the geography where the clientele of the corporation is located. The fourth and last chapter of this work is devoted to the consequences of breach of the prohibition to compete by a board member. If a member of the board of directors violates this prohibition, the consequence of this breach is regulated in the first paragraph of art. 396 of the Turkish Commercial Code. Accordingly, the joint stock company is granted with certain elective rights. Such that, primarily the company may request compensation from the member in breach of the prohibition of competition. Second, it may be requested that the transaction is deemed concluded on behalf of the joint stock company, third, that the benefits arising from the agreement the member concludes on behalf of third parties belong to the joint stock company. In its request for compensation, the joint stock company must prove the action of the board member violating the prohibition of competition, that the corporation suffered losses from this activity, and the causal link between this activity and the loss of the company. In its request for the transaction to be deemed concluded on its behalf, the company requests for the economic consequences of the transactions the member concluded in violation of the prohibition of competition on its behalf. In its request for the benefits arising from the agreement, the company requests that benefits arising from the agreement the member concluded on behalf of third parties are left to itself. At this point, we materially benefited from the German doctrine and jurisprudence in explaining the claims requesting that a transaction is deemed concluded on behalf of the company and that the benefits from the transactions are left to the company. These rights granted in the first paragraph of article 396 of the Turkish Commercial Code are not cumulative but elective. Pursuant to the second paragraph of article 396 of the Turkish Commercial Code, the authority to chose one of the elective rights granted to the company belongs to the members of the board of directors, excluding the member having violated the prohibition of competition. The third paragraph of article 396 of the Turkish Commercial Code regulates a dual prescription period of three months and one year. These periods are with respect to the exercise by the company of its elective right to make a claim. The first is the period of three months whose commencement will be determined based on the knowledge by other members that an action subject to the prohibition of competition is realized or that a board member joined another corporation. The second period is the period of one year commencing from the realization of the action violating the prohibition to compete. This one-year period is independent from other members' knowledge that the prohibition to compete has been breached. The corporation may raise other claims against the member violating the prohibition of competition which are not stipulated under article 396 of the Turkish Commercial Code. Accordingly, the corporation may request that the member violating the prohibition of competition through joining a competing corporation as a partner with unlimited liability or joining the managing body of a competitive corporation resigns from this corporation or managing body. Further, the company may dismiss the member violating the prohibition of competition from board membership. Again, the company may initiate a lawsuit to cease the ongoing violation of the prohibition of competition by a board member, or a lawsuit of preclusion prior to probable breaches which have not yet occurred. In this chapter, lastly, the fourth paragraph of article 396 of the Turkish Commercial Code is assessed. This paragraph regulates that provisions governing liability of the members of the board of directors are reserved. This is a new provision which was not present in the abrogated Turkish Commercial Code no. 6762, newly introduced under the Turkish Commercial Code. In this context, we tried to determine the purpose and characteristics of this provision and concluded this work.