| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DM_JoaoCorreia_MSOL_2019 | 1.57 MB | Adobe PDF |
Authors
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
O processo de formação de uma decisão por pessoas coletivas concretiza-se através da deliberação.
O art. 21º n.º 1, al. b) do Código das Sociedades Comerciais estabelece que um dos direitos que os sócios possuem é a participação nas deliberações sociais, sem prejuízo das restrições existentes na lei.
O regime das invalidades das deliberações dos sócios distingue dois tipos de vícios, os vícios de procedimento, que ocorrem no processo deliberativo e os vícios de conteúdo, que se encontram relacionados com o conteúdo da deliberação. As consequências jurídicas destes vícios resultam na existência de deliberações aparentes, deliberações nulas, deliberações anuláveis e deliberações ineficazes stricto sensu.
As deliberações sociais abusivas, enquanto deliberações anuláveis, surgem no nosso ordenamento jurídico no art. 58º n.º1, al. b) do Código das Sociedades Comerciais, que as define como aquelas que sejam apropriadas para satisfazer o propósito de um dos sócios de conseguir, através do exercício do direito de voto, vantagens especiais para si ou para terceiros, em prejuízo da sociedade ou de outros sócios ou simplesmente de prejudicar aquela ou estes. Esta norma estabelece, ainda, uma exceção, que permite que uma deliberação considerada abusiva continue válida desde que se comprove que a mesma seria tomada sem os votos abusivos.
A aplicação deste tipo de deliberações ditas abusivas tem causado grande discussão na doutrina e na jurisprudência, já que consistem numa perturbação no normal funcionamento de uma sociedade, uma vez que não visam a prossecução do interesse social, mas, ao invés, procuram satisfazer o propósito do(s) sócio(s) que, através do voto, retiram para si, ou para terceiros, vantagens prejudiciais à sociedade e aos outros sócios. Dentro destas é possível encontrar dois tipos de modalidades. Uma que visa a satisfação do propósito do sócio de conseguir vantagens para si ou para terceiros e outra que visa o prejuízo dos outros sócios e/ou da sociedade.
A jurisprudência, relativamente à aplicação do instituto do abuso do direito no âmbito das deliberações abusivas, tem-se dividido por duas teses confrontantes entre si. Enquanto a primeira defende que o facto do art. 58º nº1, al.b) não realizar qualquer menção à boa-fé, aos bons costumes ou ao fim social ou económico do direito, bem como a falta de sanções para a ilegitimidade do seu exercício, impede a aplicação do instituto do abuso do direito neste âmbito, a segunda, pelo contrário, defende a sua aplicabilidade, pelo que se deve conjugar o art. 58º n.º1, al. b) com o art. 334º Código Civil, aplicando-se este último a todos os casos que não se enquadrem no âmbito do primeiro.
Para as deliberações sociais serem consideradas abusivas é necessário que preencham determinados requisitos. O requisito objetivo centra-se nas condições que uma deliberação tenha para materializar uma intenção de obtenção de vantagens especiais em prejuízo da sociedade ou de outros sócios ou, simplesmente, visar o prejuízo daquela ou destes. O outro requisito, subjetivo por sua vez, centra-se no propósito dos sócios.
A prova de resistência surge no nosso Código das Sociedades Comerciais, na parte final do art. 58º n.º1 b), e permite que uma deliberação social, que normalmente seria abusiva, mantenha a sua validade pelo simples facto de se provar que seria igualmente tomada sem os votos abusivos.
O regime do abuso de direito previsto no Código das Sociedades Comerciais, ao contrário do que se encontra previsto no art. 280º do Código Civil, em que a regra é a de considerar nulos os atos que violem a lei, tem como regra a anulabilidade, sendo que a ação de anulação pode ser requerida pelo órgão de fiscalização e por qualquer sócio que não tenha votado no sentido do vencimento nem, posteriormente, tenha aprovado a deliberação, expressa ou tacitamente, sendo que o prazo para a proposição da ação de anulação é de 30 dias, que são contados a partir da data em que for encerrada a assembleia geral; do 3º dia subsequente à data do envio da ata da deliberação por voto escrito; da data em que o sócio teve conhecimento da deliberação, se esta incidir sobre assunto que não constava da convocatória. Relativamente aos sujeitos da relação processual, no que à legitimidade diz respeito, podemos verificar a existência de legitimidade ativa e legitimidade passiva. Quanto à legitimidade ativa, esta pertence ao órgão de fiscalização ou a qualquer sócio que não tenha votado no sentido que fez vencimento nem posteriormente tenha aprovado a deliberação, expressa ou tacitamente. Já a legitimidade passiva cabe à própria sociedade. A ação de anulação surge no nosso Código das Sociedades Comerciais, no art. 59º, que indica a forma como deve ser requerida. Segundo o art. 59º do Código das Sociedades Comerciais, a anulabilidade pode ser requerida pelo órgão de fiscalização e por qualquer sócio que não tenha votado no sentido do vencimento nem, posteriormente, tenha aprovado a deliberação, expressa ou tacitamente.
The decision-making process by a collective of people is found through deliberation. The article 21st, paragraph 1, b) of the Commercial Companies Code establishes that one of the rights that the partners have is the contribution in the social deliberations, without prejudice to the existent law restrictions. The disability regime of the members' deliberations differentiates two types of defects, procedural defects that occur in the deliberative process and content defects, which are correlated to the content of the deliberation. The lawful consequences of these defects result in seeming deliberations, null deliberations, annullable deliberations and ineffective deliberations stricto sensu. Unmannerly social deliberations, as annullable deliberations, arise in our legal system in article 58th paragraph 1, b) of the Companies Code, which defines them as those which are appropriate to fulfil the purpose of one of the partners to obtain, by exercising the right to vote, special advantages for themselves or others, in detriment of the company or other partners or simply to harm that or these. This norm also establishes an exception that allows a deliberation considered abusive continues valid as long as it is proved that the same would be taken without abusive votes. The application of this type of so-called abusive deliberations has caused a huge discussion in doctrine and jurisprudence, as they are a disruption to the normal functioning of a society, as they are not intended to pursue the social interest, but rather seek to accomplish the purpose of the partner(s) who, through voting, withdraw to themselves, or to third parties, advantages detrimental to the company and other partners. Within these it is possible to find two types of modalities. One aimed at satisfying the partner's purpose of obtaining advantages for themselves or others, and another aimed at harming other partners and / or the company. The jurisprudence concerning the application of the institute of abuse of the right in the context of abusive deliberations has been divided between two opposing theses. While the first argues that the fact of article 58th (1), (b) fails to make any reference of good faith, good morals or the social or economic purpose of the law, as well as the lack of sanctions for the illegitimacy of its exercise, prevents the application of the institute of abuse of the law. In this context, the second, on the contrary, defends its applicability, and therefore the article 58th paragraph 1, b) with article 334th Civil Code, applying the latter to all cases that do not fall within the scope of the first. In order for social deliberations to be considered abusive, they must meet certain requirements. The objective requirement focuses on the conditions under which a resolution has to materialize an intention to obtain special advantages to the detriment of the company or other shareholders or simply to the detriment of that company or themselves. The other requirement, subjective in turn, focuses on the partners' purpose. The proof of resistance appears in our Commercial Companies Code, at the end of article 58 (1) (b), and allows a social discussion which would normally be abusive to remain valid simply by proving that it would also be taken without abusive votes. The regime of abuse of rights provided for in the Commercial Companies Code, contrary to what is provided for in article 280 of the Civil Code, in which the regulation is to nullify acts that violate the law, has as a rule the annullability, and the action for termination may be requested by the supervisory body and by any partner who has not voted towards the maturity nor subsequently approved the resolution, expressly or tacitly, and the deadline for filing the action for annulment is 30 days, which are counted from the date on which the general meeting is closed; the 3rd day following the date of submission of the minutes of the written voting deliberation; the date on which the partner became aware of the pondering, if it relates to a matter that was not included in the summon. Regarding the subjects of the procedural relationship, as far as legitimacy is concerned, we can confirm the existence of active legitimacy and passive legitimacy. As for active legitimacy, it belongs to the supervisory body or to any member who has not voted in the sense that he has matured or subsequently approved the resolution, either expressly or tacitly. Passive legitimacy on the other hand, is up to society itself. The action of annulment arises in our Code of Commercial Companies, in article 59, which indicates how it should be requested. According to article 59 of the Code of Commercial Companies, the cancellation may be requested by the supervisory body and by any member who has not voted towards the maturity or subsequently approved the resolution, expressly or tacitly.
The decision-making process by a collective of people is found through deliberation. The article 21st, paragraph 1, b) of the Commercial Companies Code establishes that one of the rights that the partners have is the contribution in the social deliberations, without prejudice to the existent law restrictions. The disability regime of the members' deliberations differentiates two types of defects, procedural defects that occur in the deliberative process and content defects, which are correlated to the content of the deliberation. The lawful consequences of these defects result in seeming deliberations, null deliberations, annullable deliberations and ineffective deliberations stricto sensu. Unmannerly social deliberations, as annullable deliberations, arise in our legal system in article 58th paragraph 1, b) of the Companies Code, which defines them as those which are appropriate to fulfil the purpose of one of the partners to obtain, by exercising the right to vote, special advantages for themselves or others, in detriment of the company or other partners or simply to harm that or these. This norm also establishes an exception that allows a deliberation considered abusive continues valid as long as it is proved that the same would be taken without abusive votes. The application of this type of so-called abusive deliberations has caused a huge discussion in doctrine and jurisprudence, as they are a disruption to the normal functioning of a society, as they are not intended to pursue the social interest, but rather seek to accomplish the purpose of the partner(s) who, through voting, withdraw to themselves, or to third parties, advantages detrimental to the company and other partners. Within these it is possible to find two types of modalities. One aimed at satisfying the partner's purpose of obtaining advantages for themselves or others, and another aimed at harming other partners and / or the company. The jurisprudence concerning the application of the institute of abuse of the right in the context of abusive deliberations has been divided between two opposing theses. While the first argues that the fact of article 58th (1), (b) fails to make any reference of good faith, good morals or the social or economic purpose of the law, as well as the lack of sanctions for the illegitimacy of its exercise, prevents the application of the institute of abuse of the law. In this context, the second, on the contrary, defends its applicability, and therefore the article 58th paragraph 1, b) with article 334th Civil Code, applying the latter to all cases that do not fall within the scope of the first. In order for social deliberations to be considered abusive, they must meet certain requirements. The objective requirement focuses on the conditions under which a resolution has to materialize an intention to obtain special advantages to the detriment of the company or other shareholders or simply to the detriment of that company or themselves. The other requirement, subjective in turn, focuses on the partners' purpose. The proof of resistance appears in our Commercial Companies Code, at the end of article 58 (1) (b), and allows a social discussion which would normally be abusive to remain valid simply by proving that it would also be taken without abusive votes. The regime of abuse of rights provided for in the Commercial Companies Code, contrary to what is provided for in article 280 of the Civil Code, in which the regulation is to nullify acts that violate the law, has as a rule the annullability, and the action for termination may be requested by the supervisory body and by any partner who has not voted towards the maturity nor subsequently approved the resolution, expressly or tacitly, and the deadline for filing the action for annulment is 30 days, which are counted from the date on which the general meeting is closed; the 3rd day following the date of submission of the minutes of the written voting deliberation; the date on which the partner became aware of the pondering, if it relates to a matter that was not included in the summon. Regarding the subjects of the procedural relationship, as far as legitimacy is concerned, we can confirm the existence of active legitimacy and passive legitimacy. As for active legitimacy, it belongs to the supervisory body or to any member who has not voted in the sense that he has matured or subsequently approved the resolution, either expressly or tacitly. Passive legitimacy on the other hand, is up to society itself. The action of annulment arises in our Code of Commercial Companies, in article 59, which indicates how it should be requested. According to article 59 of the Code of Commercial Companies, the cancellation may be requested by the supervisory body and by any member who has not voted towards the maturity or subsequently approved the resolution, expressly or tacitly.
Description
Keywords
Abuso Anulabilidade Deliberações Prejuízo Vantagens