股东会决议瑕疵的法律规制

发布时间：2018-01-10 19:01

本文关键词：股东会决议瑕疵的法律规制　出处：《武汉大学》2017年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：股东会决议是公司意思自主形成及全体股东权益民主行使的重要载体。股东会决议作为实现公司自治的重要工具,仍以意思表示为核心,具有私法性、目的性和设权性,是法律行为。但股东会决议具有团体性、商事性和程序性的特点,其行为主体、意思形成机制以及效力范围、价值取向等均具有不同于合同行为和共同行为的特点,是特殊类型的法律行为。相应地,法律行为的效力瑕疵规则不能完全适用于股东会决议瑕疵类型的判断及其瑕疵事由的认定。我国《公司法》第22条规定了决议无效和可撤销这两种瑕疵类型,有悖于法学理论与法律逻辑,不能有效适应司法实务的需求。决议不成立是对决议客观上不存在所作的事实上的判断,与决议无效、决议可撤销的法律属性、价值取向、瑕疵表征以及法律效果等均不相同,应当作为独立的瑕疵类型,即成立瑕疵。股东会决议成立要件包括决议因具备召集主体、议决主体和待决事项而被认定为确有举行,以及股东作出表决并达到定足数而被认定为客观形成,欠缺成立要件的决议应被认定为决议不成立,实践中常见的事由包括股东会未实际召开或由无召集权人召集、股东会召开前未通知全体股东、股东会作出的决议是伪造的或未达到法定的表决数。对股东会决议效力的判断集中于考查其程序是否严谨公正,内容是否合法合章。股东会决议可撤销的事由表现为股东会会议召集程序瑕疵、股东会决议方法瑕疵以及决议内容违反章程,建议在适用《公司法》第22条第2款时结合立法目的进行限缩解释,即只有股东会决议程序上的瑕疵有妨害或有妨害异议股东实体权利之虞时才具备可撤销事由,从而保障公司自治与决策效率,防止股东滥用撤销权。就股东会决议的无效认定,主要表现为股东会的决议事项超越了职权,决议减损了债权人利益或严重侵犯了其他股东的法定权利,或者存在滥用资本多数决的情形。建议遵循司法的谦抑性,将无效事由限缩解释为内容违反"法律、行政法规效力性强制性规定"的无效,在识别强制性规范时,综合运用语义识别、类型化思维和个案分析等方法,以达致国家强制与公司自治的动态平衡,舒缓公平与效率的紧张关系。
[Abstract]:Shareholders' meeting resolution is an important carrier for the formation of autonomy and the democratic exercise of the rights and interests of all shareholders. As an important tool to realize corporate autonomy, the resolution of shareholders' meeting still takes the expression of intention as the core and has the nature of private law. The purpose and the establishment of power are legal acts. However, the resolution of shareholders' meeting has the characteristics of group, commercial and procedural, its subject, the mechanism of will formation and the scope of its validity. The value orientation and so on all have the characteristic which is different from the contract behavior and the common behavior, is the special type legal behavior. The defect rule of legal act can not be fully applied to the judgment of the defect type of the shareholders' meeting resolution and the determination of the cause of the defect. Article 22 of the Company Law of our country stipulates that the resolution is invalid and revocable. Contrary to the legal theory and legal logic, can not effectively adapt to the needs of judicial practice. The resolution is not established objectively does not exist for the resolution of the fact of judgment, and the resolution is invalid, the resolution can be revoked legal attributes. The value orientation, defect representation and legal effect are all different, and should be regarded as the independent defect type, that is, the founding defect. The resolution subject and the pending matter are recognized as holding, and the shareholders vote and reach the fixed number and are determined to be objectively formed, and the resolution lacking the elements of establishment should be considered as the resolution not to be established. The common events in practice include that the shareholders' meeting has not actually been convened or convened by the person without convening authority, and the shareholders' meeting has not been notified to all shareholders before the meeting is held. The resolution made by the shareholders' meeting is forged or has not reached the legal voting number. The judgment on the validity of the resolution of the shareholders' meeting focuses on the examination of whether its procedure is rigorous and fair. Whether the content is legal or not. The resolution of shareholders' meeting can be revoked by the shareholders' meeting convening procedure defects, shareholders' meeting resolution method defects and the content of the resolution violation of the articles of association. It is suggested that the article 22 (2) of the Company Law should be interpreted in conjunction with the legislative purpose. That is, only if the defects in the resolution procedure of shareholders' meeting are prejudiced or the substantive rights of dissenting shareholders are threatened, can there be revocable reasons, so as to ensure the autonomy of the company and the efficiency of decision-making. To prevent shareholders from abusing the rescission right. The main manifestation of the invalidation of shareholders' meeting resolution is that the resolution of shareholders' meeting exceeds its authority, and the resolution derogates from the interests of creditors or seriously infringes the legal rights of other shareholders. Or there exists the situation of abusing capital majority decision. It is suggested that the judicial modesty be followed, and the limitation of invalidity be interpreted as invalid if the content violates the mandatory provisions on the validity of the law and administrative regulations. In order to achieve the dynamic balance between national compulsion and corporate autonomy and ease the tension between fairness and efficiency, the methods of semantic identification, typological thinking and case analysis are used in the identification of mandatory norms.
【学位授予单位】：武汉大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D922.291.91

【参考文献】