Istanbul Law Review

SUBMITINFORMATION
EnglishTürkçe

Research Article


DOI :10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.2.0001   IUP :10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.2.0001    Full Text (PDF)

Limitation of the General Assembly’s Authority to Dismiss the Members of the Board of Directors

Veliye Yanlı, Cem Veziroğlu

Provisions that restrict the dismissal of board members can serve to protect the interests of a company’s legal personality, minority shareholders, and board members in various contexts. It also enables control to be shared between majority and minority shareholders in legal systems where the block shareholding structure is the prevailing model, such as in Türkiye. However, these types of provisions limit the absolute and inalienable power of the general assembly to dismiss members from the board of directors. Thus, in cases where the trust has been broken between a board member and the company, these provisions limit the ability to dismiss the relevant member from duty. Nevertheless, an uncertainty exists within Turkish Law regarding whether the arrangements limiting the dismissal of board members are valid within the corporate structure. This study seeks answers to the following two questions about the possibility of limiting the general assembly’s authority to dismiss board members through a regulation in the articles of association: Can such a decision be tied to a certain period or to the presence of justified reasons or of certain conditions, and can special quorums be called for in a general assembly meeting regarding such a decision. While the answer to the first question in the existing doctrine is generally negative, the answer to the second question is positive. In accordance with the opinion adopted in this study, limiting the dismissal of members of the board of directors should not be possible through regulations such as just cause, conditions, time, or sanctions. Similarly, increasing the meeting and/or decision quorums should also not be possible regarding the dismissal of members from a board of directors.

Keywords: Joint stock company, Board of directors, Board member, Removal, Dismissal, Articles of association
DOI :10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.2.0001   IUP :10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.2.0001    Full Text (PDF)

Genel Kurulun Yönetim Kurulu Üyelerini Azil Yetkisinin Sınırlandırılması

Veliye Yanlı, Cem Veziroğlu

Yönetim kurulu üyelerinin azlini zorlaştıran düzenlemeler, bir taraftan farklı bağlamlarda şirket tüzel kişiliğinin, azınlık pay sahiplerinin ve yönetim kurulu üyelerinin menfaatlerinin korunmasına hizmet edebilmekte; ayrıca ülkemizdeki gibi blok pay sahipliği yapısının yaygın olduğu hukuk sistemlerinde, çoğunluk ve azınlık pay sahipleri arasında kontrol paylaşımını da mümkün kılmaktadır. Diğer taraftan ise, genel kurulun yönetim kurulu üyelerini görevden alma konusundaki mutlak ve devredilemez yetkisini sınırlandırmakta; böylelikle yönetim kurulu üyesi ve şirket arasındaki güvenin sarsıldığı durumlarda ilgili üyenin görevine son verilebilmesi imkânını daraltmaktadır. Öte yandan Türk Hukukunda, genel kurulun yönetim kurulu üyelerini azil yetkisini sınırlandıran düzenlemelerin ortaklık düzeninde geçerli olup olmadığı hususunda bir belirsizlik vardır. Bu çalışmada esas sözleşmedeki bir düzenlemeyle, genel kurulun yönetim kurulu üyelerini görevden alma yetkisinin sınırlandırılmasının mümkün olup olmadığı konusunda iki soruya cevap aranmıştır: Bunlardan biri, böyle bir kararın alınmasının belirli bir süreye yahut haklı sebeplerin veya bazı şartların varlığına bağlanıp bağlanamayacağı; diğeri ise, genel kurul toplantısı ve kararı açısından, özel yetersayılar aranıp aranmayacağıdır. İlk soruya öğretide genellikle olumsuz cevap verilmesine karşılık, ikinci soruya verilen cevap ise olumlu yöndedir. Çalışmada savunduğumuz görüş çerçevesinde, yönetim kurulu üyelerinin azli imkânının haklı sebep, koşul, süre veya yaptırım gibi düzenlemelerle sınırlandırılması mümkün olmamalıdır. Benzer şekilde yönetim kurulu üyelerinin görevden alınması hususunda toplantı ve/veya karar yetersayılarının da kanuna göre ağırlaştırılması imkân dahilinde olmamalıdır. Anılan türdeki düzenlemelerin esas sözleşmeye eklenmesi hâlinde ise, bunların bâtıl olacağının kabulü gerekir.

Keywords: Anonim şirket, Yönetim kurulu üyesi, Azil, Görevden alma, Esas sözleşme

EXTENDED ABSTRACT


Restricting the general assembly’s power to dismiss members from the board of directors may have considerable functions, especially for the company itself. However, these regulations also have effects that may damage the absolute and inalienable nature of such power, block the decision-making process in a company, and limit the ability to terminate the trust-based legal relationship between the company and a board member, thus resulting in negative consequences. Under Turkish Law, the validity of provisions in the articles of association limiting the dismissal of board members is unclear. This paper seeks to answer to the questions of (i) whether the removal of board members can be tied to a certain period or the presence of justified reasons or certain conditions, and (ii) whether special quorums can be sought regarding a general assembly meeting and this type of decision. While the answer to the first question is generally negative in existing doctrine, the answer to the second question is positive.

The paper first conducts a comparative study using a functional perspective. Hence, the research provides the responses and alternative solutions found in various legal systems to the questions at hand. In comparative law, the authority of the general assembly to dismiss members from the board of directors directly or indirectly (e.g., through a supervisory board as in German law) is understood to not be able to be limited as a rule. In this context, the authority of the general assembly to dismiss members from the supervisory board cannot be limited in German Law. However, the ability to aggravate quorums or to anticipate certain conditions regarding the decision-making procedure is accepted. In US law, the State of Delaware has the mandatory rule that, with two exceptions, board members can be removed from office without cause. In French law, the general assembly’s power to dismiss members from the board of directors is absolute: the use of this authority cannot be conditional, and the existence of any reason cannot be sought. Even though not as strict as French law, the United Kingdom regulates shareholders’ authority to dismiss members from a board of directors as a mandate. However, the procedural rules that are to be followed in terms of the general assembly’s decision to dismiss board members and the contractual rights granted to the members constitute the limits of their freedom in this matter.

The purpose as well as the wording of Article 408/2(b) of the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC) No. 6102) and TCC 364 do not allow provisions to articles of association that limit the general assembly’s authority to dismiss members from a board of directors. Therefore, such regulations are concluded to constitute a legal deviation and are not explicitly allowed within the meaning of TCC 340. Provisions to the articles of association that limit the general assembly’s authority to dismiss board members, such as for just cause, additional conditions, time, or sanctions, would infringe upon shareholders’ right to supervise [TCC 447/1(b)], deter the basic structure of the company [TCC 447/1(c)], and violate TCC 364. Thus, these types of provisions should be accepted as null and void. A heavier quorum should not be included in the articles of association with regard to dismissing members from the board of directors. The articles of association that require a quorum higher than what is legally stipulated for dismissing board members should be deemed invalid. This conclusion is not generally applicable to all general assembly resolutions; due to its importance, however, it does apply to decisions about dismissing members from the board of directors. 


PDF View

References

  • Akdağ Güney N, Anonim Şirket Yönetim Kurulu (2. Baskı, Vedat 2016). google scholar
  • Altay A, ‘Paysahibi Olmayan Kamu Tüzel Kişisini Temsil Eden Yönetim Kurulu Üyesinin Azlinde Yetki Sorunu’ iç Ercüment Erdem et al. (edr), Prof. Dr. Hamdi Yasaman’a Armağan (On İki Levha 2017), 1-27. google scholar
  • Ansay T, Anonim Şirketler Hukuku (6. Bası, Olgaç 1982). google scholar
  • Armour J, Hansmann H, Kraakman R ve Pargendler M, The Anatomy of Corporate Law (3. Bası, OUP 2017). google scholar
  • Arslanlı H, Anonim Şirketler, II-III Anonim Şirketin Organizasyonu ve Tahviller (Fakülteler Matbaası 1960). google scholar
  • Baltalı C, Anonim Şirketlerde Yönetim Kurulunda Temsil Edilme İmtiyazı (On İki Levha 2019). google scholar
  • Bebchuk LA, ‘Limiting Contractual Freedom in Corporate Law: The Desirable Constraints on Charter Amendments’ (1989) 102(8) Harvard Law Review 1820-1860. google scholar
  • Bebchuk LA, Coates IV JC ve Subramanian G, ‘The Powerful Antitakeover Force of Staggered Boards: Theory, Evidence & Policy’ (2002) 54 Stanford Law Review 887-951. google scholar
  • Bebchuk LA, Kohen A ve Ferrell A, ‘What Matters in Corporate Governance?’ (2009) 22(2) Review of Financial Studies 783-827. google scholar
  • Birds J, Boyle & Birds’ Company Law (9. Bası, Jordan 2014). google scholar
  • Böckli P, Schweizer Aktienrecht (4. Bası, Schultess 2009). google scholar
  • Böckli P ve Bühler CB, ‘Rechtliche Grenzen einer Selbstbehinderung der Aktiengesellschaft durch ihre Statuten’ iç Nedim P Vogt, Rolf Watter ve Max D Amstutz (edr), Liber Amicorum für Rolf Watter zum 50. Geburtstag (Dike 2008) 38-47. google scholar
  • von Büren R, Stoffel W ve Weber RH, Grundriss des Aktienrechts (3. Bası, Schultess 2011). google scholar
  • Bürgi WF, Zürcher Kommentar, V. Band: Obligationenrecht, Die Aktiengesellschaft (Schultess 1969). google scholar
  • Coştan H, ‘Özel Hukuk Tüzel Kişilerinin ve Kamu Tüzel Kişilerinin Yönetim Kurulu Üyeliği’ (2013) 29(1) BATİDER 117-137. google scholar
  • Cozian M, Viandier A ve Deboissy F, Droit des Societes (32. Bası, Lexis Nexis 2019). google scholar
  • Çamoğlu E, Anonim Ortaklık Yönetim Kurulu Üyelerinin Hukuki Sorumluluğu (3. Bası, Vedat 2010). google scholar
  • Dauner-Lieb B, Henssler/Strohn Gesellschaftsrecht (5. Bası, C.H. Beck 2021). google scholar
  • Davies P ve Worthington S, Gower’s Principles of Modern Company Law (10. Bası, Sweet & Maxwell 2016). google scholar
  • Develioğlu F and Kılıçkını N, Osmanlıca-Türkçe Okul Sözlüğü (Rafet Zaimler 1976). google scholar
  • Dondero B, Droit des Societes (7. Bası, Dalloz 2021) N. 836; google scholar
  • Druey JN, Druey EJ ve Glanzmann L, Gesellschafts- und Handelsrecht (12. Bası, Schultess 2021). google scholar
  • Dubs D ve Truffer R, Basler Kommentar, Obligationenrecht II (5. Bası, Schultess 2016). google scholar
  • Eckardt U, Gessler E, Hefermehl W and Bungeroth E, Aktiengesetz, C: I §§ 1-75 (Franz Vahlen 1984). google scholar
  • Erdem N, ‘Anonim Ortaklık Genel Kurul Toplantılarında Gündeme Bağlılık İlkesi Çerçevesinde Yönetim Kurulu Üyesinin Azli’ (2018) 76(2) İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası 503-528. google scholar
  • Fleischer H, beck-online.Grosskommentar, Aktienrecht, Band 1 (5. Bası, CH Beck 2022). google scholar
  • Forstmoser P, Meier-Hayoz A ve Nobel P, Schweizerisches Aktienrecht (Stâmpfli 1996). google scholar
  • Frick B ve Staheli T, Aktienrecht Kommentar (Orell Füssli 2016). google scholar
  • Gerner-Beuerle C ve Schillig MA, Comparative Company Law (OUP 2019). google scholar
  • Goshen Z ve Squire R, ‘Principal Costs, A New Theory for Corporate Law and Governance’ (2017) 117 Colum L Rev 767-829. google scholar
  • Grigoleit HC, Grigoleit, Aktiengesetz (2. Bası, CH Beck 2020). google scholar
  • Guyon Y, Les Societes: Amenagements Statutaires et Conventions Entre Associes (5. Bası, LGDJ 2002). google scholar
  • Guyon Y, ‘Liberte Contractuelle et Droit des Societes’ (2003) 1 Revue de Jurisprudence Commercial, Conference Association de Droit et Commerce - Tribunal de Commerce de Paris - 27 Janvier 2003 1-12. google scholar
  • Habersack M, Münchener Kommentar zum Aktiengesetz (5. Bası, CH Beck 2019). google scholar
  • Hannigan B, Company Law (4. Bası, OUP 2012). google scholar
  • Hoffmann-Becking M, Münchener Handbuch des Gesellschaftsrechts, 4. Cilt (5. Bası, CH Beck 2020). google scholar
  • İmregün O, Anonim Ortaklıklar (4. Bası, Yasa 1989). google scholar
  • İzmirli Y, Anonim Şirketlerde Yönetim Kurulunun Organ Niteliğini Kaybetmesi ve Hukuki Sonuçları (Nobel 2001). google scholar
  • Karaege Ö, ‘Anonim Şirketlerde Genel Kurulun Yönetim Kurulu Üyelerini Görevden Alma (Azil) Yetkisi (TTK m. 364)’ (2014) 1 Ankara Barosu Dergisi 69-110. google scholar
  • Karasu R, Anonim Şirketlerde Emredici Hükümler İlkesi (2. Bası, Yetkin 2015). google scholar
  • Kaşak E, Anonim Şirketlerde Genel Kurul ile Yönetim Kurulu Arasındaki Yetki Dağılımına İlişkin Temel Esaslar (On İki Levha 2019). google scholar
  • Kayıklık A, ‘Kamu Tüzel Kişilerinin Anonim Şirket Yönetim Kurulunda Temsili (TK m. 334)’ (2020) 2 GSÜHFD 1587-1620. google scholar
  • Kershaw D, Company Law in Context (2. Bası, OUP 2012). google scholar
  • Kırca İ, Anonim Şirket Genel Kurul Kararlarının Hükümsüzlüğü (3. Bası, On İki Levha 2022). google scholar
  • Kırca İ, Şehirali Çelik FH ve Manavgat Ç, Anonim Şirketler Hukuku, Cilt 1 (BTHAE 2013). google scholar
  • Koch J, Gesellschaftsrecht (12. Bası, CH Beck 2021). google scholar
  • Koch J, Aktiengesetz (16. Bası, CH Beck 2022). google scholar
  • Korkut Ö, Anonim Şirketlerde Genel Kurul Kararlarının Butlanı (Karahan 2012). google scholar
  • Krneta G, Praxiskommentar Verwaltungsrat (2. Bası, Stâmpfli 2005). google scholar
  • Lipton M, ‘Pills, Polls, and Professors Redux’ 2002 69(3) The University of Chicago Law Review 1037-1065. google scholar
  • Manavgat Ç, Alenî Pay Alım Teklifi (Tender Ofer - Takeover Bid) (SPK 1997). google scholar
  • Manne H, ‘Mergers and the Market for Corporate Control’ 1965 73(2) The Journal of Political Economy 110-120. google scholar
  • Meier-Schatz CJ, ‘Rechtliche Betrachtungen zu neueren Entwicklungen in der schweizerischen “Takeover-Szene”’ (1991) 87 SJZ 57-68. google scholar
  • Merle P ve Fauchon A, Droit Commercial: Societes Commerciales (22. Bası, Dalloz 2018). google scholar
  • Mertens H ve Cahn A, Kölner Kommentar zum Akiengesetz, Band 2/2, §§ 95-117 (3. Bası, Carl Heymanns 2013). google scholar
  • Moroğlu E ve Kendigelen A, İçtihatlı-Notlu Türk Ticaret Kanunu ve İlgili Mevzuat (9. Bası, On İki Levha 2010). google scholar
  • Moroğlu E, Anonim Ortaklıkta Genel Kurul Kararlarının Hükümsüzlüğü (9. Bası, On İki Levha 2020). google scholar
  • Müller R, Lipp L ve Plüss A, Der Verwaltungsrat, Ein Handbuch für Theorie und Praxis, Band I (5. Bası, Schultess 2021). google scholar
  • Okutan Nilsson G, Anonim Ortaklıklarda Paysahipleri Sözleşmeleri (Çağa Hukuk Vakfı 2004). google scholar
  • Ölmez F, Belirli Grupların Anonim Şirket Yönetim Kurulunda Temsili (On İki Levha 2021). google scholar
  • Paslı A ve Seyis Z, ‘Anonim Ortaklık Yönetim Kurulu Üyelerinin Azli’ iç İstanbul Üniversitesi Ticaret Hukuku Anabilim Dalı (ed), Ticaret Kürsüsü Tartışıyor: Kürsü Seminerleri -I- (Tebliğler - Tartışmalar) (On İki Levha 2022) 1-94. google scholar
  • Petel P et al., Code de Commerce 2014 (26. Bası, Dalloz 2014). google scholar
  • Poroy R, Çamoğlu E ve Tekinalp Ü, Ortaklıklar Hukuku I (15. Bası, Vedat 2021). google scholar
  • Pulaşlı H, Şirketler Hukuku Şerhi, C II (4. Bası, Adalet 2022). google scholar
  • Schiller S, Les Limites de la Liberte Contractuelle en Droit des Societes: Les Connexions Radicales (LGDJ 2002). google scholar
  • Seçer Ö, ‘Vekâlet Sözleşmesinin Vekâlete Özgü Sebeplerle Sona Ermesi’ (2015) 2 İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 877-944. google scholar
  • Simons C, Hölters/Weber, Aktiengesetz (4. Bası, CH Beck 2022). google scholar
  • Sommer P, OR Kommentar Schweizerisches Obligationenrecht, (3. Bası, Orell Füssli 2016). google scholar
  • Spindler G, Münchener Kommentar zum Aktiengesetz (5. Bası, CH Beck 2019). google scholar
  • Spindler G, beck-online.Grosskommentar, Aktienrecht, Band 1 (5. Bası, CH Beck 2022). google scholar
  • Şehirali Çelik FH, Anonim Şirketlerde Çıkar Çatışmaları Ekseninde Şirket Ele Geçirmelerine Karşı Önlemler (BTHAE 2008). google scholar
  • Şener OH, Yeni TTK Döneminde Anonim ve Limited Ortaklıklara İlişkin Verilen Yargıtay Emsal Kararlarının Değerlendirilmesi (Seçkin 2018). google scholar
  • Şener OH, Teorik ve Uygulamalı Ortaklıklar Hukuku Ders Kitabı (5. Bası, Seçkin 2022). google scholar
  • Tanner B, Personengesellschaften und Aktiengesellschaft -Vergütungsverordnung, CHK -Handkommentar zum Schweizer Privatrecht (3. Bası, Schultess 2016). google scholar
  • Tanner B, Zürcher Kommentar (3. Bası, Schultess 2018). google scholar
  • Tekil F, Şirketler Hukuku, ikinci Cilt, Anonim Şirketler (2. Bası, Otağ 1978). google scholar
  • Tekil F, Anonim Şirketler Hukuku (2. Bası, Alkım 1998). google scholar
  • Tekinalp Ü, Anonim Ortaklıklarda Tüzel Kişilerin Temsili (BTHAE 1965). google scholar
  • Tekinalp Ü, Sermaye Ortaklıklarının Yeni Hukuku (5. Bası, Vedat 2020). google scholar
  • Teoman Ö, ‘Anonim Ortaklıkta Yönetim Kurulu Üyelerinin Seçim ve Azillerinin Gündeme Bağlılık İlkesi İle İlişkisi -Yargıtay 11. Hukuk Dairesi’nin Bir Kararı Nedeniyle-’ Otuz Yıl Ticaret Hukuku -Tüm Makalelerim-, Cilt I, 1971 - 1982 (Beta 2000) 473-487. google scholar
  • Thüsing G, Fleischer Handbuch des Vorstandsrechts (CH Beck 2006). google scholar
  • Uçar S, Anonim Şirket Yönetim Kurulu Üyelerinin Azli, Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi (Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü 2022). google scholar
  • Veziroğlu C, Anonim Ortaklıklar Hukukunda Esas Sözleşme Özgürlüğü ve Sınırları (On İki Levha 2021). google scholar
  • Weber M, Hölters/Weber, Aktiengesetz (4. Bası, CH Beck 2022). google scholar
  • Weil R, ‘Declassifying The Classified’ (2006) 31 Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 891-932. google scholar
  • Wentrup C, Münchener Handbuch des Gesellschaftsrechts, 4. Cilt (5. Bası, CH Beck 2020). google scholar
  • Windbichler C, Gesellschaftsrecht (24. Bası, CH Beck 2017). google scholar
  • Worthington S, Sealy & Worthington’s Text, Cases, and Materials in Company Law (11. Bası, OUP 2016). google scholar
  • Yağcıoğlu KM, Anonim Ortaklıkta Yönetim Kurulu Üyeliğinin Sona Ermesi (Adalet 2018). google scholar
  • Zengin İÇ, Türk Ticaret Kanunu’na Göre Anonim Ortaklık Genel Kurulunda Yeter Sayılar (On İki Levha 2020). google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format


EXPORT



APA

Yanlı, V., & Veziroğlu, C. (2023). Limitation of the General Assembly’s Authority to Dismiss the Members of the Board of Directors. Istanbul Law Review, 81(2), 301-347. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.2.0001


AMA

Yanlı V, Veziroğlu C. Limitation of the General Assembly’s Authority to Dismiss the Members of the Board of Directors. Istanbul Law Review. 2023;81(2):301-347. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.2.0001


ABNT

Yanlı, V.; Veziroğlu, C. Limitation of the General Assembly’s Authority to Dismiss the Members of the Board of Directors. Istanbul Law Review, [Publisher Location], v. 81, n. 2, p. 301-347, 2023.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Yanlı, Veliye, and Cem Veziroğlu. 2023. “Limitation of the General Assembly’s Authority to Dismiss the Members of the Board of Directors.” Istanbul Law Review 81, no. 2: 301-347. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.2.0001


Chicago: Humanities Style

Yanlı, Veliye, and Cem Veziroğlu. “Limitation of the General Assembly’s Authority to Dismiss the Members of the Board of Directors.” Istanbul Law Review 81, no. 2 (May. 2024): 301-347. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.2.0001


Harvard: Australian Style

Yanlı, V & Veziroğlu, C 2023, 'Limitation of the General Assembly’s Authority to Dismiss the Members of the Board of Directors', Istanbul Law Review, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 301-347, viewed 12 May. 2024, https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.2.0001


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Yanlı, V. and Veziroğlu, C. (2023) ‘Limitation of the General Assembly’s Authority to Dismiss the Members of the Board of Directors’, Istanbul Law Review, 81(2), pp. 301-347. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.2.0001 (12 May. 2024).


MLA

Yanlı, Veliye, and Cem Veziroğlu. “Limitation of the General Assembly’s Authority to Dismiss the Members of the Board of Directors.” Istanbul Law Review, vol. 81, no. 2, 2023, pp. 301-347. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.2.0001


Vancouver

Yanlı V, Veziroğlu C. Limitation of the General Assembly’s Authority to Dismiss the Members of the Board of Directors. Istanbul Law Review [Internet]. 12 May. 2024 [cited 12 May. 2024];81(2):301-347. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.2.0001 doi: 10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.2.0001


ISNAD

Yanlı, Veliye - Veziroğlu, Cem. “Limitation of the General Assembly’s Authority to Dismiss the Members of the Board of Directors”. Istanbul Law Review 81/2 (May. 2024): 301-347. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.2.0001



TIMELINE


Submitted12.12.2022
Accepted02.10.2023
Published Online17.10.2023

LICENCE


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


SHARE




Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.