La tesi affronta il tema della responsabilità dei membri del consiglio di amministrazione di s.p.a verso la società per gli inadempimenti dei doveri gestori insiti negli atti o nelle omissioni collegiali. L'accertamento dei presupposti della responsabilità degli amministratori deve avvenire su base individuale con conseguente possibilità di imputazione del danno da risarcire ad alcuni consiglieri e non ad altri, che pure abbiano compartecipato al medesimo inadempimento: il singolo amministratore può infatti essere esonerato da responsabilità mediante la prova della personale immunità da colpa (dimostrando di essere stato diligente alla luce della natura del suo incarico e delle sue specifiche competenze) anche a prescindere dalla manifestazione formale del dissenso ex art. 2392 cc., ult. comma. La solidarietà rappresenta la regola di attuazione dell'obbligazione risarcitoria tra gli amministratori ritenuti corresponsabili in relazione al medesimo fatto dannoso. È possibile tuttavia pervenire ad una graduazione della condanna risarcitoria in virtù dell'eventuale connotazione dolosa dell'inadempimento di un singolo consigliere e dell'applicazione del regime risarcitorio differenziato di cui all'art. 1307 c.c.. La società può inoltre rinunziare alla solidarietà anche ex ante con adozione in via statutaria di un regime di responsabilità parziaria per tutti o alcuni degli amministratori, purchè nei soli rapporti tra società e amministratori e nei limiti di cui all'art. 1229 cc. / This thesis provides an analysis of the pertinent aspects of the liability of corporate directors for breach of their fiduciary duties in case of collegial functioning of an Italian s.p.a.'s board of directors. The liability of the directors must be determined on an individual basis and whether they are exculpated from liability for a breach of their duties can vary for each director based on his specialized skills and on the role he plays in the board (independent director, president, member of a committee), regardless of the entering of the dissent from the board's action into the corporate records. The liability is joint and several where two or more directors jointly participate in the same breach of a fiduciary duty with a right of contribution inter se. The corporation ( S.P.A. ) may waive to the protection secured by the joint and several liability rule either (i) by opting for a proportional liability regime with respect to the directors' liability vis-a-vis the corporation and except for the cases of directors' fraud or gross negligence or (ii) by entering into partial settlements with one director (or more directors) for the portion of the damage attributable to his (or their) personal fault.

Le contexte particulier du dopage suscite de nombreuses questions à l'égard des obligations et de la responsabilité des médecins. Suivant le Code médical du Mouvement olympique (2005), les médecins doivent respecter les principes de l'éthique médicale et ceux de l'éthique sportive, comme le fairplay. Il arrive parfois que l'éthique sportive entre en conflit avec l'éthique médicale. Les médecins sont alors confrontés à d'importants dilemmes qui peuvent engager leur responsabilité professionnelle et civile. Ces dilemmes se situent notamment au niveau de l'obligation de soins et du secret professionnel. Par exemple, les médecins peuvent-ils prescrire des médicaments pour contrer les effets néfastes du dopage afin de préserver la santé des athlètes ? La question de la recherche sur l'amélioration de la performance est également préoccupante. En raison du caractère clandestin de cette recherche, il y a lieu de se demander si les médecins qui y participent respectent leurs obligations professionnelles. L'analyse des principaux instruments normatifs applicables en l'espèce démontre que les médecins ne doivent pas être placés dans une situation telle qu'ils doivent refuser de suivre des athlètes de crainte d'être accusés de dopage. De plus, le secret professionnel devrait être maintenu lorsqu'un médecin suit un athlète dopé afin de préserver la relation de confiance. Finalement, l'analyse du contexte de la recherche portant sur l'amélioration de la performance révèle que les médecins ne respectent pas toujours leurs obligations. Les médecins fautifs risquent donc d'engager leur responsabilité professionnelle et civile et de faire face à des sanctions sévères. / The particular context of doping raises many questions regarding the obligations and the liability of physicians. According to the Medical Code of the Olympic Movement (2005), physicians must respect the principles of medical ethics as well as those of sport ethics, such as fair play. Sometimes, sport ethics conflicts with medical ethics. Therefore, physicians are confronted with important dilemmas, which could engage their professional and civil liability. These dilemmas concern, in particular, the duty of care and professional secrecy. For example, could physicians prescribe drugs to counter the side effects of doping in order to preserve the health of the athletes? Issues surrounding research on the improvement of performance is also of interest. Because of the often clandestine nature of this research, it should be asked whether physicians who participate respect their professional obligations. An analysis of the principal normative documents applicable demonstrates that physicians should not be placed in a situation where they would refuse to treat athletes because of fear of accusations of doping. Moreover, professional secrecy should be maintained when a physician follows an athlete in order to preserve the relation of trust. Finally, the analysis of the context of the research on the improvement of performance reveals that physicians don't always respect their obligations. These physicians might engage their professional and civil liability and face severe sanctions.

判斷目標公司董事出售公司或控制權的決策是否符合受任人義務是一個困難且重要的問題，因為此種類型的決策董事有可能是出於自身利益也可能是為全體股東利益而為，在此種利益衝突屬於晦暗不明的情況，法院應該要採取怎樣的審查態度一方面可以尊重董事決策的空間，另一方面又可以確保股東的利益被保全，成為本論文最關心的問題。 以我國為例，近年公股銀行民營化或是私募基金收購案例屢見不鮮，共同引發的擔憂就是目標公司董事同意此項併購案到底是因為併購條件有利於全體股東，還是嘉惠特定合作對象而決定？我國企業併購法第5條及第6條要求目標公司董事為併購決議時應盡其注意義務及忠實義務，然董事到底是為「公司」還是「股東」盡其義務似乎仍有疑義；再者，法院似乎亦尚未發展出在個案中判斷董事具體行為是否符合受任人義務的標準，因此本文擬參考美國法上的相關規範，以期解決我國現狀的困境。 德拉瓦州法院在1980年代提出一項標準，當目標公司董事決定要出售公司或控制權時，董事有義務要為股東爭取最好的價格，又稱為「露華濃義務(Revlon Duty)」或「標售公司義務」，有兩個重點值得關注：第一，目標公司董事同意何種併購交易會觸發露華濃義務？此即露華濃適用範圍的討論；第二，目標公司董事一旦觸發露華濃義務，董事應該要採取何種具體措施以符合要求？此即露華濃義務內涵的討論。對應到我國現況，應不應該在特定的併購交易中限縮董事的裁量空間？或提出可供法院參考之指標？

The concept duty of care is defined as heedful, careful guarding, supervision of a minor, and/or overseeing. An obligation rests on teachers to scrupulously see to the safety (and also the well-being) of all learners entrusted to them. Hence teachers are responsible for the physical safety of learners and for creating a safe haven for them. The Civil Technology workshop teacher has an increased caring duty towards his learners due to the potential life-threatening circumstances and conditions that can prevail in his workshop compared to, for instance, the ordinary classroom environment. Furthermore, a specific legal duty rests on a person when he is placed in control of dangerous objects or machinery, seeing that he has to see to it that he ensures the safety of others through positive action. Internationally, the circular saw is statistically speaking seen to be the most dangerous woodwork machine in the Civil Technology workshop. Circular saws are responsible for more accidents than any other machine, and the most claims for damages against teachers and school managements also arise from it. Due to the underlying dangers inherent to circular saws and the presence thereof in Civil Technology workshops, it increases the risks attached to the caring supervision duty of the Civil Technology teacher to a great extent. Civil Technology workshop teachers are therefore confronted by unique challenges in their workshops. Hence it is essential that they be equipped with sufficient knowledge pertaining to educational law so as to make head against these challenges. Civil Technology workshop teachers should therefore not only be aware of all common law principles, relevant legislation and case law as applicable to workshops, but also be able to apply it in practice in the workshop environment. This practical application furthermore requires workshop teachers to be knowledgeable to be able to maintain workshop machinery in a safe working condition through regular upkeep and maintenance. An empirical investigation (n=38) was launched, based on a questionnaire filled in by all Civil Technology teachers and their heads of department North West where Civil Technology is presented as a choice subject at high schools. The aim of the empirical investigation was to determine: * what the level of Civil Technology workshop teachers‘ expertise and knowledge is regarding legal key issues concerning their caring supervising duty, and * to what extent effective safety management of woodwork machinery in Civil Technology workshops is applied. The empirical investigation found, amongst others, that: * The respondents do not have sufficient knowledge of the principles pertaining to educational law to apply it in the Civil Technology workshops of the study population practically. * Civil Technology workshop teachers and heads of department should have a high degree of expertise with a view to execute their duty of care. Poor educational law training can possibly be proffered as reason why their level of expertise cannot be seen to be sufficient in a case where an increased level of duty of car is required in potentially dangerous workshops. Following on above-mentioned findings, specific recommendations were made to all role-players involved that are involved in learner safety in Civil Technology workshops. These recommendations may possibly contribute to increased and more effective caring supervision in promoting learner safety. / Thesis (MEd (Education Law))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2012

The concept duty of care is defined as heedful, careful guarding, supervision of a minor, and/or overseeing. An obligation rests on teachers to scrupulously see to the safety (and also the well-being) of all learners entrusted to them. Hence teachers are responsible for the physical safety of learners and for creating a safe haven for them. The Civil Technology workshop teacher has an increased caring duty towards his learners due to the potential life-threatening circumstances and conditions that can prevail in his workshop compared to, for instance, the ordinary classroom environment. Furthermore, a specific legal duty rests on a person when he is placed in control of dangerous objects or machinery, seeing that he has to see to it that he ensures the safety of others through positive action. Internationally, the circular saw is statistically speaking seen to be the most dangerous woodwork machine in the Civil Technology workshop. Circular saws are responsible for more accidents than any other machine, and the most claims for damages against teachers and school managements also arise from it. Due to the underlying dangers inherent to circular saws and the presence thereof in Civil Technology workshops, it increases the risks attached to the caring supervision duty of the Civil Technology teacher to a great extent. Civil Technology workshop teachers are therefore confronted by unique challenges in their workshops. Hence it is essential that they be equipped with sufficient knowledge pertaining to educational law so as to make head against these challenges. Civil Technology workshop teachers should therefore not only be aware of all common law principles, relevant legislation and case law as applicable to workshops, but also be able to apply it in practice in the workshop environment. This practical application furthermore requires workshop teachers to be knowledgeable to be able to maintain workshop machinery in a safe working condition through regular upkeep and maintenance. An empirical investigation (n=38) was launched, based on a questionnaire filled in by all Civil Technology teachers and their heads of department North West where Civil Technology is presented as a choice subject at high schools. The aim of the empirical investigation was to determine: * what the level of Civil Technology workshop teachers‘ expertise and knowledge is regarding legal key issues concerning their caring supervising duty, and * to what extent effective safety management of woodwork machinery in Civil Technology workshops is applied. The empirical investigation found, amongst others, that: * The respondents do not have sufficient knowledge of the principles pertaining to educational law to apply it in the Civil Technology workshops of the study population practically. * Civil Technology workshop teachers and heads of department should have a high degree of expertise with a view to execute their duty of care. Poor educational law training can possibly be proffered as reason why their level of expertise cannot be seen to be sufficient in a case where an increased level of duty of car is required in potentially dangerous workshops. Following on above-mentioned findings, specific recommendations were made to all role-players involved that are involved in learner safety in Civil Technology workshops. These recommendations may possibly contribute to increased and more effective caring supervision in promoting learner safety. / Thesis (MEd (Education Law))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2012

A presente pesquisa tem por objetivo analisar o uso do método da proporcionalidade para decidir questões acerca de direitos sociais. Nesse sentido, antes relacionada somente à proibição do excesso (Übermaßverbot), a proporcionalidade passa a ter reconhecida sua outra face, denominada proibição da proteção insuficiente ou deficiente (Untermaßverbot). O legislador e o administrador passam a ter suas ações balizadas pela proibição do excesso de intervenção e pela imposição da intervenção para proteção de direitos. O termo pouco usual se refere ao controle judicial das omissões do legislador e administrador, na medida em que orienta a atividade deles quando da conformação e implementação dos direitos sociais. Os escassos estudos na doutrina não permitiram o desenvolvimento do método em relação aos direitos sociais no Brasil, em que pese a jurisprudência do Supremo Tribunal Federal se utilizar da proporcionalidade como proibição da proteção insuficiente ou deficiente em alguns de seus julgados, especialmente em época recente. Mas se a utilização de tal método na argumentação judicial passa a ser vista de forma recorrente, o Tribunal deve primeiro ter clareza de seus elementos quando pretende invocá-lo em suas decisões e até mesmo firmeza da utilidade de seu uso quanto a esses direitos. Ainda, tem-se que o transplante de métodos de revisão judicial dos direitos de defesa para os direitos sociais merece estudo específico, tanto em relação à concepção desses direitos quanto à possível aplicabilidade da proporcionalidade, pois as diferenças entre eles apontam que nem sempre ambos os direitos comportarão argumentações idênticas para os problemas que enfrentam. / This research aims to analyze the use of the proportionality method for deciding social rights questions. Thus, the proportionality was related before only to prohibition of excessive state actions (Übermaßverbot), begins to have its other face recognized, called prohibition of lacking or insufficient state actions (Untermaßverbot). The legislator and administrator now have their actions bounded by the prohibition of \"excessive intervention\" and by the imposing of \"intervention to protection\" rights. The unusual term refers to the judicial control of the omissions of the legislator and administrator, in so far as guides their activity of conformation and implementation of social rights. The few studies on the doctrine did not allowed the development of the method regarding the social rights in Brazil, notwithstanding the fact that the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court uses proportionality as prohibition of lacking or insufficient state actions in some of its decisions, especially recently. But if the use of such a method in the judicial argumentation starts to be seen recurrently, the Court must first get clear of its elements when intends to invoke it in their decisions and even firmness of utility of its use regarding such rights. Also, the transplantation of judicial review methods of defense rights for social rights deserves a specific study, both in relation to the understanding of these rights and in relation to the possible applicability of proportionality, cause the differences between them suggest that not always both rights shall include arguments identical to the problems they face.

近年來，國際經濟危機層出不窮，產生各式各樣之公司治理問題；全球化之企業經營模式的崛起與迅速發展，企業之經營從國內走向國際，使得公司治理成為國際性之重要議題，美國之公司治理模式的移植亦於世界各國蔚為風潮。 公司治理之架構下，鑑於所有權與經營權分離原則，掌握公司經營權限之董事係公司核心，為避免擴大董事之經營權限的同時，會損及公司與股東之利益，美國法對於董事乃課以受託義務，其內涵包含忠實義務、注意義務與善意義務。然基於商業環境詭譎多變且有限司法審查能力，如董事必須為做出失誤經營決策負擔法律責任，將造成具有能力之人不願意擔任董事而不利於經濟社會之發展，故美國法院判決乃發展出經營判斷法則。經營判斷法則係推定董事係立於充分資訊、出於善意且誠實確信其係為公司之最佳利益，當原告主張董事違反受託義務時，應負有先行舉證證明董事行為不符合經營判斷法則之構成要件。 我國公司法第23條係忠實義務與注意義務之規定，惟對於經營判斷法則尚無明文規範，學說見解對於我國是否應引進經營判斷法則仍有爭議，法院實務雖早已援用經營判斷法則作為公司經營者之責任標準，卻存在諸多誤解導致誤將該法則視為行為標準。因此，似有必要重新審視經營判斷法則之定位，故本文嘗試提出對於經營判斷法則於我國之應用的見解與省思。然經營判斷法則與我國現有法制應如何相互融合仍有待立法配合與後續觀察。 / In recent years, the world has been engulfed by international economic crises, resulting in a wide range of corporate governance matters. The rise and rapid development of the global business model has made the management of enterprises go from a single country toward the whole world, making corporate governance an important international issue. The transplantation of corporate governance of America legal model has emerged as a global trend. Under the framework of corporate governance and in view of the principle of separation of ownership and control, the directors empowered decision-making authority are the core of the company. To avoid the expanding of directors’ decision-making authority and protect the interests of both the corporation and its shareholders, the directors has fiduciary duty which includes duty of loyalty, duty of care and duty of good faith. However, based on the complexity of the business environment and the limit of the capability of the judicial review, if the directors burden the responsibility for making wrong decisions will make capable people unwell to be directors and affect the development of the economy. The business judgment rule is the presumption that in making decisions not involving self-interest and self-dealing, corporate directors act on an informed basis, in good faith, and in the honest belief that their actions are in the corporation’s best interest. Article 23 of Taiwan Company Act is the regulation of duty of loyalty and duty of care. However, the business judgment rule is not regulated in Taiwan Company Act. The opinion of whether the business judgment rule should be introduced to Taiwan is still controversial. Therefore, it is necessary to reexamine the position of the business judgment rule in Taiwan legal structure and this article attempts to provide points of view in the issue. Last but not least, the interaction of business judgment rule and Taiwan legal structure still needs the cooperation of the legislation and following observation.

The subject matter of this Master's thesis is to describe and to analyze the legislation of the fiduciary duties as well as the related questions such as the business judgment rule and the request on the management decisions. The fiduciary duties represent the standard of acting which must be respected by the member of the elected body during the exercise of the managerial power. The business judgment rule, however, protects the members of the elected bodies from unjustified accusations of the violation of the standard of the acting while in the final consequence represents the protection of the authority to undertake the decisions. The request on the management decision represents an exception from the common rule, solely entrusting the management of the business into the hands of the statutory body. The main aim of this thesis is to describe and to analyze the listed legislations including the crucial questions arising from these issues together with the suggestion of the solutions. The diploma thesis consists of four chapters. First chapter presents the introductory treatise on the implementation of the legal establishment of the corporate governance together with the emphasis on the economical output. The second chapter is dedicated to the very merit. The legislation of the fiduciary duties,...

This thesis deals with civil liability of the Supervisory Board and its members for breaching his duties. Emphasis is placed on responsibility and legal relationship, whose content is obligation to pay damages, between Supervisory Board and its member and business companies (in the new terminology "business corporation"). This thesis is dealing at first with the legal anchoring of the Supervisory Board as such, the creation and termination of the Supervisory Board and the definition of its living space not only in the relation to corporation, but also to individual shareholders, General Assembly and of course to the Board - including their mutual rights and responsibilities. Thesis is crossed by author's intention to evaluate the active legislation, whose legislative life is coming to an end, and on the basis of that to comment upcoming legislation that at least brings a fresh wind to the corporate life. Shortly is discussed upon by the factual impossibility to prosecute members of the Supervisory Board for crimes associated with their performance.

自2008年5月起，國內發生了向銀行購買號稱保本或條件式保本的結構型債券的投資人，因所購買之結構債觸及下限，導致本金大賠，而這些投資人無法承受損失，組成自救會要向銀行討回投資本金的事件；同年9月美國雷曼兄弟公司倒閉，購買連結該公司股票，或購買由該公司及其子公司發行或保證之結構債之受害投資人要求銀行全額買回不當銷售之結構債，另外投資人亦多向銀行主管機關行政院金融監督管理委員會、民意代表等提出陳情，指稱銀行在販售結構債時，並沒有善盡事前告知的義務，加上用詐欺或誘導等方式進行不當行銷勸誘，並對應告知投資人的重要事項僅為選擇性的說明，且更有理專在簽約書面文件中偽造其已告知投資人相關風險及資訊，因此造成銀行不當銷售結構債等金融商品的議題受到重視及討論。 我國傳統上面對金融商品係針對個別商品之架構（例如有價證券或期貨）而採不同的監理規範，惟此種立法係以商品得以明確定性為前提，然在財務工程技術不斷推陳出新，金融創新成為趨勢的現在，混合傳統商品所推出的新型態金融商品就應如何定性及適用法律，即為監理及投資人保護法制上的新課題。 此外，從民眾經由銀行推介而投資結構型債券而生的糾紛可發現，銀行在向民眾推介購買金融商品時，常發生糾紛的類型多可歸類為未推薦符合客戶風險屬性商品的商品適合性（suitability）不符，以及銷售時未確實對於該項商品可能產生的風險完整告知。故有關商品適合性及告知義務在我國法上的規範及內容，及對於違反商品適合性及告知義務時，受害投資人若要提起相關訴訟時，應該如何主張自身的權益，亦為本文研究的重心。 本文於第壹章提出本文研究動機及研究方法，第貳章則介紹結構型債券的種類及風險，並嘗試替結構債進行法律定性，第參章分析銀行辦理財富管理業務時，應遵守之法規範，同時介紹國內銀行受投資人委託投資結構債之規定，並附論主管機關因結構債銷售爭議事件發生，而對結構型商品所增訂的管制規範，以及我國統一管理金融服務業銷售行為規範的金融服務業法。第肆章為分析國內銀行不當銷售結構債予一般投資人之法律爭議，並介紹國外實務案例，以及國外有關違反忠實義務及注意義務的判斷標準；另從我國現行法制下檢討受到銀行不當銷售之投資人可能得主張銀行損害賠償之請求權基礎，並觀察與分析我國目前利用銀行公會評議機制處理投資人申訴之情形；第伍章介紹英國2000年金融服務暨市場法中，關於消費者遇到金融商品服務相關糾紛時得採用的申訴機制，並介紹日本金融商品販賣法及金融商品交易法中對銷售行為管制相關規定；另附論該國實務界對於金融機構不當銷售時，對投資人應負的責任，以及該國實務界調節損害賠償責任的方式；第陸章為結論及建議，將提出我國目前法制對不當銷售之問題面臨的挑戰，尤其是於金融商品交易資訊不對稱的情形下，投資人提起商品適合性與金融機構未盡告知義務訴訟時產生的難題，並提供相關建議。