【作者】 矫立辉；

【导师】 任以顺；

【作者基本信息】 中国海洋大学 ， 经济法学， 2009， 硕士

【摘要】 我国《公司法》原来仅规定了不完整的股东直接诉讼制度,2005年12月17日,十届全国人大常委会第十八次会议对《公司法》作了大幅度的修订,这次修订除进一步完善了股东直接诉讼外,还首次正式引入了股东派生诉讼制度,这堪称本次修订的一大亮点。股东派生诉讼的重要意义在于:当公司的合法权益受到侵害,而公司又因故未能提起诉讼时,法律授权公司股东代位行使公司的诉权,以期通过股东的诉讼达到维护公司及其股东的利益、追究侵权人责任的目的。股东派生诉讼制度在国外已有一百多年的发展历程,法律规范日趋合理、完善,在维护中小股东权益、保护公司利益方面发挥了积极的作用,日益显示出蓬勃的生命力。我国《公司法》引入该制度,使我国的公司立法更加科学合理,权利救济体系更加完整,顺应了公司法律实践的世界潮流。研究股东行使派生诉权的阻却因素及其法律救济,可以为进一步健全我国的股东派生诉讼制度提供有益的思路。然而,我国《公司法》第152条仅仅是股东派生诉讼制度的基础性规定,构建了该制度的框架,但却存在过于原则、可操作性差的缺点。股东派生诉讼制度在我国尚不能发挥其应有的作用,股东行使派生诉权会遇到诸多阻却因素的影响。这些阻却因素主要包括:首先,《公司法》的规定过于粗疏,远未达到周延的状态。关于派生诉讼的一系列实体性和程序性规定尚处于空白状态,《民事诉讼法》也未针对派生诉讼的特点作出立法上的回应,按照现行规定,司法审判中不可避免地会遇到一些难题。立法上的不完善是阻却股东行使派生诉权的法律原因。其次,从股东自身来看,受传统厌讼法律文化的影响,加之“搭便车”心理的流行,在比较保护自身利益不同方式的成本后,我国公司股东可能会弃派生诉讼而求其它救济途径。最后,股东派生诉讼的对象一般是较大的公司,这些公司往往与行政权力存在千丝万缕的联系。在派生诉讼中,为了避免诉讼给公司带来声誉及其它负面影响,行政权力有可能干预司法审判,使审判结果发生扭曲。一些腐败行为更可能使中小股东的努力付诸东流。美、英、德、日等国的股东派生诉讼既有共通的法理,在制度内容上又各具特色,在公司法律实践中取得了良好的社会效果。这些国家成熟的立法例为我国股东派生诉讼制度的进一步完善提供了有益的借鉴。要真正使股东派生诉讼制度起到应有的作用,就应当在立法、司法方面作出必要的改进。一方面,在立法上,通过比较研究成熟立法例,进一步健全股东派生诉讼制度,明确各种实体性的规定,完善相应的程序性配套措施。既要认真考量、取舍成熟立法例的法理和具体内容,又要重视我国公司实践的本土环境,使引进的派生诉讼制度能够契合我国市场经济的现状和未来的发展,避免制度和现实发生脱节。另一方面,应当净化法治环境,彻底消除政企之间不符合市场经济要求的牵连,使派生诉讼能够固守民商事案件的性质,确保法院能够独立、公正的审判。同时,在坚持法院中立裁判的前提下,应当适当发挥法院在调查取证、协调原告股东行动方面的积极作用,平衡双方当事人的诉讼能力。更多还原

【Abstract】 Our company law just prescribed the shareholder direct action incompletelly before its modifying. The 18th meeting of Tenth National People’s Congress Standing Committee modified the”company law”greatly on December 17, 2005. In addition to further perfecting the shareholder direct action, but also firstly official constracted the shareholder derivative action, which can be a highlight of this revision.The shareholder derivative action has important significance. When the legitimate rights and interests are infringed, and the company is unable to initiate lawsuits, authorized by law,shareholders can take the subrogate right of action.,in order to safeguard the interests of the company and its shareholders ,and investigate the infringers’responsibility. The shareholder derivative action has developed more than one hundred years abroad,and legal regulations become more and more perfected,and plays a positive role in safeguarding the company’s and small shareholders’rights and interests. Our "Company Law" introduce the system,can afford a complete system of rights protection for shareholders. Study on this topic is good for perfecting our relative law.But,the article 152 of our "Company Law" just construct the framework of the system,still too principled to operating in practice.When shareholders exercise their rights ,there will be a lot of obstacles . These obstacles include:firstly,the regulation about shareholder derivative action is too simplistic,and "Civil Procedure Law"is also not involved in,so administration of justice will inevitably face many troubles.Imperfect legislation is the reason which will prevent shareholders exercising the right to take derivative action..Secondly,from the aspect of shareholders, impacted by the traditional legal culture of tired of disgusting suits,and the prevalence of "free-rider" psychological,after comparing the cost of the different ways to protect their own interests,shareholders of our country maybe abandon the shareholders derivative action and seek other means of relief. Finally, the targets of shareholder derivative action generally are big companies, which are often associated with executive powers.In order to protect the company’s reputation, administrative power maybe interfere with the justice,and resulted in a miscarriage of justice.The shareholder derivative action of the United States, Britain, Germany, Japan and other countries don’t only have common principle,but alao have special system separately. In practice, their shareholder derivative action achieve good social effects.These countries’legislation provide us with a useful reference to further perfect our shareholder derivative action.If we want shareholder derivative action to play its role fully,the legislation and justice must be necessary improved.In one hand,by studying representative legislations, shareholder derivative action should be perfected from substantive aspect and procedural aspect. We should seriously consider and choose different legislations’principle and specific content, but also emphasize the native environment of our country’s companies,in order to enable shareholder derivative action to match with China’s market economy status and future development,and avoid that legal system is disjointed with status.In the other hand,government and company should be seperate with each other thoroughly,to ensure that the courts can make independence and fair adjudgements.Meanwhile,the court should play a positive role in investigation of evidence and coordinating shareholders’cooperation,based on its neutral standpoint,to balance the parties’capacity of the proceedings.更多还原