Görüntüleme
88
İndirme
29
Amaç- Bu çalışmanın amacı, halka kapalı anonim şirketlerde yönetim kurulu üyelerinin Türk Ticaret Kanunu (TTK) M. 553’de düzenlenen genel hukuki sorumluluğuna çalışmanın elverdiği ölçüde yer vermektir. Çalışmada yönetim kurulu üyeleri için TTK’da düzenlenmiş özel sorumluluk hallerine yer verilmeyecektir. Anonim şirketlerde yönetim kurulu kanunen bulunması gereken zorunlu organlardan biridir. Anonim şirketin yönetim ve temsili yönetim kurulunun asli görevidir. Yönetim kurulu üyeleri görevlerini ifa ederken “tedbirli bir yöneticinin özeniyle” hareket etmeleri gerekmektedir. Buna aksi davranış yönetim kurulu üyelerinin hukuki sorumluluğuna neden olacaktır. Yöntem- Yönetim kurulu üyelerinin sorumluluğunda kusur ilkesi gereğince yönetim kurulu üyelerinin hukuki sorumluluklarının doğabilmesi için kusurun ispat edilmesi gerekmektedir. Buradaki kusurun dayanağı yönetim kurulu üyesi ile anonim şirket arasındaki hukuki ilişki olabileceği gibi yönetim kurulu üyelerinin haksız eylemleri de olabilecektir. Kanun koyucu, 6335 sayılı Kanun ile yönetim kurulu üyelerine karşı açılacak sorumluluk davalarında yönetim kurulu aleyhine olan kusur karinesini kaldırdığından kusurun ispatı genel hükümlere göre belirlenmektedir. Yönetim kurulu üyelerinde aranan kusur sübjektif kusur değil objektif kusurdur. Objektif kusur ilkesine göre, bir yönetim kurulu üyesi aynı sosyal çevrede bulunan bilinçli, makul ve mantıklı bir kişinin göstermesi gereken dikkat ve özeni göstermekle yükümlüdür. Bir diğer ifadeyle, yönetim kurulu üyeleri hukuki sorumluluğuna sebep olacak eylem ve işlemlerinde aynı sosyal çevrede bulunan bilinçli, makul ve mantıklı bir kişinin göstermesi gereken dikkat ve özeni göstermiş ise tedbirli bir yönetici gibi davranmış olacaktır. Bu hallerin varlığında yönetim kurulu üyelerine kusurlu bir eylemin isnadı mümkün olmayacağından hukuki sorumlulukları da doğmayacaktır. 6102 sayılı TTK m. 557’deki düzenlemesi ile yönetim kurulu üyelerinin sorumluluğunda önemli bir değişikliğe gitmiştir. Bu değişiklik ile kusur sorumluluğunda mutlak teselsül ilkesi terk edilerek yerine farklılaştırılmış teselsül ilkesi benimsenmiştir. Farklılaştırılmış teselsül anlam olarak birden fazla tarafın tazmin etmek zorunda olduğu bir zararda tarafların her biri somut olayın özelliğine göre kendilerine yüklenebileceği ölçüde zarardan sorumlu tutulmasıdır. Bulgular- Yönetim Kurulu üyeleri, TTK m. 553 uyarınca kanundan veya esas sözleşmeden doğan yükümlülüklerini kusurlarıyla ihlal ettikleri takdirde hem şirkete hem pay sahiplerine hem de şirket alacaklılarına karşı verdikleri zarardan kusurları oranında hukuken sorumlu tutulmuşlardır. Sorumluluk davasının açılabilmesi için şirket yönetim kurulu üyelerinin esas sözleşmeye ve kanuna kusurlu olarak aykırı davranmış ve bu davranışından dolayı da şirketin zarar görmüş olması gerekmektedir. TTK m. 555’e göre anonim şirketin zararı nedeniyle şirket ve ortaklar aktif dava ehliyetine sahiptirler. Anılan hüküm uyarınca, yönetim kurulu üyeleri kusurları sebebiyle şirketin uğradığı zararı m. 553 hükümlerine göre anonim şirkete ödemekle yükümlüdür. Ancak, yönetim kurulu üyelerinin esasen şirketi temsil yetkisine sahip olmaları sebebiyle kendi aleyhlerine dava açmamaları ihtimaline karşılık pay sahiplerine de yönetim kurulu üyelerine karşı dava açma hakkı verilmiştir. Sonuç- 6102 sayılı TTK yönetim kurulu üyelerinin genel hukuki sorumluluğunu m. 553’de mülga Ticaret Kanunundan farklı olarak özel olarak düzenlemiştir. Yönetim kurulu üyelerinin hukuki sorumluluğunun dayanağı kusur prensibidir. Yani, kusuru bulunmayan hiçbir yönetim kurulu üyesi m. 553’e dayanarak sorumlu tutulamayacaktır. 6335 Sayılı Kanun ile yapılan düzenleme sonucunda kusurun ispatında yönetim kurulu aleyhine olan kusur karinesi ilkesinden vazgeçilerek yönetim kurulu üyeleri, kusursuzluğunu ispat etme külfetinden kurtulmuşlardır. Ayrıca m. 557 ile farklılaştırılmış teselsül ilkesi kabul edilerek her yönetim kurulu üyesini dış ilişkide sadece kusurları oranında sorumlu tutan anlayış getirilmiştir. Bu düzenleme sonucunda hiçbir yönetim kurulu üyesi kontrolü dışında kalan zararlardan sorumlu tutulamayacaktır
The purpose of this study is to place the general legal responsibility of the members of the board of directors in public-open anonymous companies in the extent that the work provides for the general legal responsibility of the members of the board of directors in the Turkish Trade Act (TTK) M. 553. The work will not include special responsibilities for the members of the board of directors in the TTK. In anonymous companies, the board of directors is one of the mandatory bodies that law requires. Anonymous company’s management and representative board is the original task of the management board. Members of the Board of Directors must act "with the care of a prudent manager" while performing their duties. This will result in the legal responsibility of the members of the board. Method - The members of the Board of Directors must be proof of defects in the responsibility of the members of the Board of Directors in accordance with the principle of defects in order to produce legal responsibilities. Here the defect may be based on the legal relationship between the member of the board and anonymous company, as well as the wrong actions of the members of the board may be. The lawmaker has removed the defect charges against the board of directors in the cases of liability to be opened against the members of the board of directors of Law No. 6335 and the proof of defect is determined according to the general provisions. The objective defect is not the subjective defect, but the objective defect. According to the objective defect principle, a member of the board of directors is obliged to show the attention and compassion that a conscious, reasonable and reasonable person in the same social environment should show. In other words, the board of directors will act as a cautious managers if they have shown the attention and consciousness of a conscious, reasonable and reasonable person in the same social environment in their actions and processes that will lead to their legal responsibility. In the presence of these circumstances, legal responsibilities will not arise because the members of the board of directors will not be able to submit a defective action. With the regulation of the TTK No. 6102 m. 557, a significant change has been made in the responsibility of the board of directors. This change has adopted a differentiated consciousness principle instead of abandoning the principle of absolute comfort in defective responsibility. Differentiated comfort means that each party is liable for the damage to which more than one party is required to compensate, to the extent that each party may be liable for the damage according to the character of the concrete event. The members of the Board of Directors have been held liable by law in the proportion of the defects of the damage they suffer to both the shareholders and the recipients of the company, if they violate their obligations arising from law or basic contract by defects. In order to open the liability case, the company’s board members have defectively acted in violation of the basic contract and the law, and the company must have been damaged due to this behavior. According to TTK m. 555, due to the damages of an anonymous company, the company and partners have an active lawsuit license. In accordance with the aforementioned provisions, the members of the board of directors are obliged to pay the damage caused by the company due to defects to the anonymous company in accordance with the provisions of M. 553. However, the members of the board of directors have the right to appeal against the members of the board of directors as a result of the possibility that they do not appeal against themselves because they have the power to represent the company. The legal responsibility of the members of the Board of Directors of the TTK No. 6102 In 553 the property was specially regulated unlike the Trade Act. The legal responsibility of the board members is a defect principle. Therefore, no member of the Board of Directors without a defect shall be held liable on the basis of M. 553. According to the Law No. 6335 the members of the board of directors, withdrawing from the principle of defect carnage against the board of directors in the proof of defect, dismissed from the proof of perfection. In addition, the principle of comfort adopted by m.557 has brought the understanding that every member of the board of directors is responsible for external relations only in proportion to defects. As a result of this Regulation, no Board of Directors shall be liable for damages left beyond control.
Purpose- The purpose of this study is to include the general legal liabilities of the members of the board of directors in closed joint stock companies as regulated in the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC) Art. 553 within the scope of the study. The special liability circumstances in TCC regarding the members of the board of directors will be held out of the scope of this study. In joint stock companies, the board of directors is one of the legally mandatory bodies that must be present. According to this provision, the legal liability of board members is based on the principle of fault. However, unlike the abolished Commercial Code, this regulation has adopted the principle of differentiated solidarity regarding the responsibility of the board members abandoning the principle of joint liability. This study covers basic acknowledgements about the principle of fault, differentiated solidarity, liability lawsuit in terms of legal liabilities of the members of the board of directors in joint stock companies. Methodology- In accordance with the principle of fault regarding the liabilities of the members of the board of directors, the fault must be proven for the members to be held legally responsible. The basis for the wrongdoing here may be the legal relationship between the board member and the joint stock company, or the unfair actions of the board members. Since the law maker has removed the presumption of negligence against the board of directors in liability lawsuits to be filed against the members of the board of directors with law No. 6335, the proof of the fault is determined according to the general provisions. The kind of fault that should be existent in the members is objective fault, not subjective fault. According to the principle of objective fault, a board member is obliged to adopt the consideration and care shown by a conscious, sensible and reasonable person in the same social environment. In the presence of these traits and circumstances, members do not bear liability since no kind of faulty act can be attributed. TCC No. 6102 Art. 557 has brought a significant change to the members of the board of directors. With this change, in terms of fault liability instead of joint liability, differentiated solidarity concept has been adopted. Differentiated solidarity means that if more than one party is obliged to indemnify the same damage, each is held liable to the extent that the damage can be charged to each party based on its wilful misconduct and on a case-by-case basis.In order to be able to speak of joint liability principle, to begin with, more than one person should be held responsible for the damage. When the incurred damage is caused by more than one person, there is joint liability among the actors. Findings- In accordance with TCC Art. 553, members of the board of directors shall be held legally liable for the damage they cause to the company, shareholders and company creditors in case they fail to fulfill their obligations arising from the law and articles of association at the extent of their fault. To file a liability lawsuit, the members must act in defiance of the articles of association and the regulations regarding and these acts must lead to a loss of the company. Art. 555 of TCC states that the company and the shareholders have the right to file a suit due to the loses of the joint stock company. Pursuant to the aforementioned provision, the provisions of Art. 553 set forth that members of the board of directors are obliged to pay the losses of the company resulting from their faults to the joint stock company. Conclusion- Unlike the former Commercial Code, TCC numbered 6102 has brought novel changes to the regulations regarding the general liability conditions of members of board of directors in Art. 553. No member without a fault shall be held responsible based on Art. 553. As a result of the amendment made by the law No. 6335, thanks to removal of the principle of the presumption of negligence, the members of the board of directors are relieved of the burden of proving their innocence. In addition, introducing the principle of differentiated solidarity with the Art. 557 an understanding that holds each member of the board of directors responsible only in proportion to their faults in the external relations has been adopted. With this regulation, no member will be held liable for any kind of loss and corruption beyond their control
Alan : Sosyal, Beşeri ve İdari Bilimler
Dergi Türü : Ulusal
Makale Detay 
Benzer Makaleler
PDF Görüntüle
Dergi Bilgisi
Eseri Dinleyin
Alıntı Yap
Bu Sayfayı Yazdırın
Paylaş
Mendeley
