I.- 導入
最高裁判所民商部の第一セクションは2011年1月10日、ある株式会社の定款の一規定の有効性を否定していたサンタンデール商業登記所に同意する形で、判決第889/2010号を言い渡した。
当該規定は、法人株主が法人株主同士の行為によって株主構成に変更を及ぼすことにより、特定の者または（株主構成変更の）原因を招くような者について、
その議決権の少なくとも3分の2の過半数の行使を失わせることができる可能性を考慮し、会社の個人株主及び会社自身に法人株主が保有する株式を取り戻す権利を与える旨定めるものであった。
しかしながら、本判決について担当裁判官の一人は、スペイン法においては当該定款の規定は定款の裁量の範囲内であると考える旨の個別意見を述べている。
II.- THE HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT.
In its judgement, the High Court concluded that the disqualification by the Companies Registrar was in line with the law because the establishment of an absolute redemption right, without being subject to deadlines or destined to guarantee the control of the shares of certain persons, or their family relations, means that “personal background ends up imposing itself upon the by-laws to such an extent that the capitalist, open and anonymous character of the recurrent company is practically eliminated.”
The above, upheld by the High Court, amounts to an infringement of article 10 of the former Joint Stock Companies Act (equivalent to article 28 of the current Capital Companies Act), which stipulated that the company by-laws may include all pacts and conditions deemed appropriate by the shareholders, provided that they do not oppose laws or contradict the structuring principles of the chosen legal form of the company.
III.- THE DISSENTING VOTE ON THE HIGH COURT SENTENCE.
The dissenting vote formulated by the dissident judge disagrees with the sentence considering that it introduces an unnecessary rigidity in company legal forms, substitutes the principle of free by-laws with that of free typological option and unnecessarily restricts the general principal of free will.
In his opinion, the appeal filed by the recurrent Joint Stock company should be allowed, deeming to be lawful the statutory regulations which impose positive restrictions directed at demanding, as an accessory feature for remaining in the company, that the conditions which allowed the shareholder to enter the company should be maintained. All of which is regardless of whether or not the chosen legal form adjusts to the ideal structure of a strictly capitalist joint stock company or not, which is open and governed by “intuitus pecuniae” and which does not infringe upon the imperative provisions of the former Joint Stock companies Act or the current Capital Companies Act.
IV.- CONCLUSION.
Although the opinion of the majority of the judges opposed the acceptation of this kind of stipulations in the by-laws of a Joint Stock company, the dissenting vote suggests the possible evolution, which the legal form of companies shall undergo in Spain. It is very possible that, as envisaged in the preliminary recitals of the Capital Companies act, in the future “being more than a rigid comparison arising from the chosen legal form, the essential distinction shall lie in whether or not the company is quoted on the Stock Exchange.”
より詳細な情報につきましては、下記までご連絡ください。
2012年10月7日
