Türk Ticaret Kanunu'na göre anonim şirket yönetim kurulu üyelerinin hukukî sorumluluğunda farklılaştırılmış teselsül ilkesi
Küçük Resim Yok
Tarih
2023
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
Anonim şirketin yönetimi ve temsilini gerçekleştiren ve bu bağlamda şirketin iradesinin oluşumuna katılan yönetim kurulu üyeleri organ sıfatını haizdir. Yetki ve sorumlulukta koşutluk ilkesi gereğince, üyelerin, organa özgü görevlerini ihlal etmeleri halinde sorumlulukları gündeme gelir. 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m. 553/1 hükmü, yönetim kurulu üyelerinin organa özgü görevlerini kusurlarıyla ihlal etmeleri halinde, şirket, pay sahipleri veya alacaklılar nezdinde oluşan zarardan kaynaklanan sorumluluklarını düzenlemektedir. Bu yönüyle yönetim kurulu üyelerinin sorumluluğu bir kusur sorumluluğu olup, kusurlu fiilin neden olmadığı hiçbir zarar sorumluluğa sebebiyet vermemektedir. Yönetim kurulu üyelerinin hukukî sorumluluğuna ilişkin yukarıda belirtilmiş olan prensipleri benimseyen 6762 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu, birden fazla yönetim kurulu üyesinin zararın meydana gelmesinden sorumlu olduğu durumlarda üye aleyhine işleyen bir sistem öngörmüştür. Bu bağlamda 6762 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu, üyelerin, sorumluluğu daraltan kişisel sebepleri zarar görene karşı ileri süremediği mutlak teselsül ilkesini benimsemiştir. 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m. 557/1 hükmünde öngörülmüş olan farklılaştırılmış teselsül ilkesi, esasen bu mağduriyeti engellemektedir. Hüküm uyarınca yönetim kurulu üyelerinin her biri, dış ilişkideki sorumluluklarını, kusurları oranında ve zarar şahsen kendilerine yükletilebildiği ölçüde sınırlandırabilmektedir. Dolayısıyla dış ilişkide "mutlak" sorumluluğun öngörüldüğü mutlak teselsül sisteminin aksine, mevcut sistemde sorumluluk, zarara katkıda bulunulduğu ölçüde gerçekleşmektedir. İsviçre Hukuku'nda otuz yılı aşkın bir süredir uygulanan, ancak Türk Hukuku'nda on bir yıllık uygulama geçmişine sahip olan farklılaştırılmış teselsül ilkesi, mutlak teselsül ilkesinden pek çok noktada ayrışmaktadır. Bu bağlamda çalışmamız kapsamında farklılaştırılmış teselsül ilkesinin amacı, kapsamı ve özellikleri incelenmiş olup, ilkenin dış ve iç ilişki bakımından doğurduğu hüküm ve sonuçları irdelenmiştir.
The members of the board of directors, who carry out the management and representation of the joint stock company and thus, who participate in the formation of the will of the company, shall have the title of organ. In accordance with the principle of parallelism in authority and responsibility, board members are held liable in case they breach their organ-specific duties. Article 553/1 of the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102, regulates the liability of the members of the board of directors for the losses caused to the company, shareholders or creditors, in case they breach their organ-specific duties for fault. In this respect, the responsibility of the board members is a responsibility based on fault, and any losses caused without fault shall not cause any liability. Turkish Commercial Code No. 6762, which adopts the above-mentioned principles regarding the legal responsibility of the members of the board of directors, envisages a system that works against the member in cases where more than one member of the board of directors is responsible for the loss. In this context, the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6762 has adopted the principle of absolute solidarity, where the members cannot bring forward personal reasons narrowing the liability against the injured party. Differentiated liability principle regulated under Art. 557/1 of the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 essentially prevents this victimization. Pursuant to the provision, each member of the board of directors can limit his/her responsibilities in external relations to the extent that the loss can personally be inflicted on him/her and based on his/her degree of fault. Therefore, unlike the absolute solidarity system, where "absolute" responsibility is envisaged in external relations, in the current system, responsibility incurs to the extent that the loss is contributed. Differentiated liability principle, which has been in practice in Swiss Law for more than thirty years and in Turkish Law only for eleven years, differs from the absolute solidarity liability principle in many respects. In this context, within the scope of our study, the purpose, scope and characteristics of the differentiated liability principle have been examined and the provisions and results of this principle in terms of external and internal relations have been studied.
The members of the board of directors, who carry out the management and representation of the joint stock company and thus, who participate in the formation of the will of the company, shall have the title of organ. In accordance with the principle of parallelism in authority and responsibility, board members are held liable in case they breach their organ-specific duties. Article 553/1 of the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102, regulates the liability of the members of the board of directors for the losses caused to the company, shareholders or creditors, in case they breach their organ-specific duties for fault. In this respect, the responsibility of the board members is a responsibility based on fault, and any losses caused without fault shall not cause any liability. Turkish Commercial Code No. 6762, which adopts the above-mentioned principles regarding the legal responsibility of the members of the board of directors, envisages a system that works against the member in cases where more than one member of the board of directors is responsible for the loss. In this context, the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6762 has adopted the principle of absolute solidarity, where the members cannot bring forward personal reasons narrowing the liability against the injured party. Differentiated liability principle regulated under Art. 557/1 of the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 essentially prevents this victimization. Pursuant to the provision, each member of the board of directors can limit his/her responsibilities in external relations to the extent that the loss can personally be inflicted on him/her and based on his/her degree of fault. Therefore, unlike the absolute solidarity system, where "absolute" responsibility is envisaged in external relations, in the current system, responsibility incurs to the extent that the loss is contributed. Differentiated liability principle, which has been in practice in Swiss Law for more than thirty years and in Turkish Law only for eleven years, differs from the absolute solidarity liability principle in many respects. In this context, within the scope of our study, the purpose, scope and characteristics of the differentiated liability principle have been examined and the provisions and results of this principle in terms of external and internal relations have been studied.
Açıklama
Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Özel Hukuk Ana Bilim Dalı
Anahtar Kelimeler
Hukuk, Law
