The Court of Milan asks the Supreme Court of Cassation to rule, in the interests of the law, on the correct interpretation of the art. 2429, 3rd paragraph, of the civil code. asking whether this rule should be interpreted in the sense that the sharehold er’s right to examine the financial statement file deposited at the company head quarters in the fifteen days before the meeting implicitly also includes the right to be actively informed of the deposit, in addition to being able take a look, offering two possible interpretations. The author first addresses the issue of the systematic scope of the issue, believing that it arises uniquely in the different models of capitalist com panies, by virtue of the unity of the budget discipline, although the rules on conven ing meetings are different between S.p.A. ed SRL. It then goes on to examine the is sue of control of non-director shareholders pursuant to art. 2476, 6th paragraph, c.c. evaluating whether the possibility of its exercise could constitute a system equivalent to the pre-meeting information and therefore absorb the latter, reaching a negative solution. Finally, he concludes by adhering to the “evolutionary” thesis, according to which technological development, combined with the principle of good faith, make it mandatory, in living law, to send such documents within 15 days prior to the meeting to allow its effective knowledge, provided that members’ email addresses or other easy-to-use communication systems are known or easily accessible.
Il Tribunale di Milano chiede alla Suprema Corte di Cassazione di pronunciarsi, nell’interesse della legge, sulla corretta interpretazione dell’art. 2429, 3° comma, c.c. domandando se tale norma debba essere interpretata nel senso che il diritto del socio di esaminare il fascicolo di bilancio depositato nella sede sociale nei quindici giorni prima dell’assemblea includa implicitamente anche il diritto di essere informa to in modo attivo dell’avvenuto deposito, oltre a poterne prendere visione, prospettando due possibili interpretazioni. L’autore affronta dapprima il tema della portata sistematica della questione, ritenendo che essa si ponga in maniera univoca nei di versi modelli di società capitalistiche, in forza dell’unitarietà della disciplina del bi lancio, per quanto le regole sulla convocazione assembleare siano diverse tra S.p.A. ed SRL. Successivamente passa ad esaminare il tema del controllo dei soci non amministratori di cui all’art. 2476, 6° comma, c.c. valutando se la possibilità del suo esercizio possa costituire sistema equipollente all’informativa preassembleare e per tanto assorbire quest’ultima, giungendo ad una soluzione negativa. Infine e conclude aderendo alla tesi “evolutiva”, secondo cui lo sviluppo tecnologico, in uno al princi pio della buona fede, rendono esigibile, nel diritto vivente, l’invio di tali documenti entro i 15 giorni antecedenti l’assemblea per consentirne l’effettiva conoscenza, a condizione che siano noti, o facilmente accessibili, indirizzi di posta elettronica dei soci o altri sistemi di comunicazione di semplice utilizzo.
L’omessa notizia di deposito del fascicolo di bilancio nei 15 giorni antecedenti l’assemblea e le conseguenze in punto di validità della delibera: due possibili interpretazioni
percoco giuseppe
2024-01-01
Abstract
The Court of Milan asks the Supreme Court of Cassation to rule, in the interests of the law, on the correct interpretation of the art. 2429, 3rd paragraph, of the civil code. asking whether this rule should be interpreted in the sense that the sharehold er’s right to examine the financial statement file deposited at the company head quarters in the fifteen days before the meeting implicitly also includes the right to be actively informed of the deposit, in addition to being able take a look, offering two possible interpretations. The author first addresses the issue of the systematic scope of the issue, believing that it arises uniquely in the different models of capitalist com panies, by virtue of the unity of the budget discipline, although the rules on conven ing meetings are different between S.p.A. ed SRL. It then goes on to examine the is sue of control of non-director shareholders pursuant to art. 2476, 6th paragraph, c.c. evaluating whether the possibility of its exercise could constitute a system equivalent to the pre-meeting information and therefore absorb the latter, reaching a negative solution. Finally, he concludes by adhering to the “evolutionary” thesis, according to which technological development, combined with the principle of good faith, make it mandatory, in living law, to send such documents within 15 days prior to the meeting to allow its effective knowledge, provided that members’ email addresses or other easy-to-use communication systems are known or easily accessible.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
