Tüzel Kişilerde Fiili Organ Kavramı ve Fiili Organın Hukuka Aykırı Fiilleri İle Hukuki İşlemlerinin Doğurduğu Sonuçlar
Pınar Altınok OrmancıTüzel kişiler fiil ehliyetlerini organları aracılığıyla kullanırlar. Nitekim Türk Medeni Kanunu md 50/2, organların, hukuki işlemleri ve diğer bütün fiilleriyle tüzel kişiyi borç altına sokacağını düzenlemiştir. Tüzel kişinin organlarından kanun tarafından ya da tüzel kişinin kuruluş belgesi ile öngörülenler, şekli (biçimsel) organ olarak adlandırılmaktadır. Buna karşılık organ olarak seçilmiş veya atanmış olmamakla birlikte, fiilen organ görevi icra eden kişi(ler) fiili organ olarak değerlendirilmektedir. Tüzel kişinin iradesinin oluşmasında belirgin bir rol oynayan; tipik bir organ işlevi gören, bu çerçevede günlük işlerin dışına çıkarak şirketin bilançosuna etkili olacak şekilde karar alma yetkisine sahip olan veya tüzel kişinin yönetiminde rol oynayan, yani şekli bir organın gerçekleştireceği işlevleri yerine getiren; organ yetkilerine sahip olan; bu yetkileri bağımsız olarak, tâbi olmaksızın, kendi sorumluluğu altında ve kendisi inisiyatif alarak kullanan ve organ yetkilerini münferit birkaç eylem olarak değil, sürekli bir şekilde kullanan kişiler fiili organ olarak ortaya çıkmaktadır.
Bu değerlendirme büyük önem taşımaktadır; zira fiili organ olarak nitelendirilen kişilerin fiilleri (özellikle hukuka aykırı fiilleri) de, -şekli organın fiilleri gibi- tüzel kişinin sorumluluğunun doğmasına yol açacaktır. Bir kişi fiili organ olarak değerlendirildiğinde, bu kişinin hukuka aykırı fiilinden tüzel kişi (TMK md 50/2) ve organın kendisi (TMK md 50/3) sorumlu olacaktır. Buna karşılık fiili organın gerçekleştirdiği hukuki işlemlerin tüzel kişiyi bağlaması, kural olarak kabul edilemez. Zira fiili organ tüzel kişiyi temsil yetkisini haiz değildir ve yetkisiz temsilci tarafından yapılan işlemin temsil olunanı bağlaması ancak bazı şartların gerçekleşmesiyle mümkündür. İsviçre Federal Mahkemesi de 09.10.2019 tarihli ATF 146 III 37 kararında açıkça fiili organın hukuki işlemlerinin tüzel kişiyi bağlamayacağına hükmetmiştir. Çalışmamızda öncelikle fiili organ kavramı üzerinde durulacak; daha sonra fiili organın hukuki fiillerinin ve hukuki işlemlerinin tüzel kişi üzerinde doğurduğu sonuçlar ayrıntılı olarak ele alınacaktır.
“De Facto Organs” of Legal Persons and the Consequences of Their Wrongful Actions and Legal Acts
Pınar Altınok OrmancıLegal persons exercise their capacity to act through their organs. Turkish Civil Code Article 50/2 provides that organs may put a legal person under obligation by virtue of legal transactions and all other acts. The organs of legal persons stipulated by the law or by their status are called formal organs. On the contrary, the person who performs the task of the governing body is considered a “de facto organ” because he/she is not elected or appointed as an organ but simply acts as one as a matter of fact, not law. De facto organs include those who play a prominent role in the formation of the will of the legal entity or who function as a formal organ, having the power to make decisions that will affect the company’s balance sheet by going beyond the daily work. This group also includes those playing a role in the management of the legal entity, i.e., performing the functions that a formal body would perform. Persons who exercise these powers independently, without subordination, under their own responsibility, and on their own initiative and who exercise this authority on a continuous basis also emerge as de facto organs.
This assessment is of great importance because the acts (especially the wrongful acts) of the persons considered “de facto organs” can lead to the liability of the legal person, as they are deemed to be the acts of the formal organs. However, it cannot be considered, in principle, that legal transactions carried out by de facto organs should bind the legal person, because the de facto organ does not have the actual authority to represent the legal person, and the transaction made by such unauthorized representatives can only bind the principal if certain additional conditions are fulfilled.
Our study will primarily focus on the concept of the “de facto organ.” The consequences of the wrongful and legal acts of de facto organs will then be discussed in detail.
The “de facto organ” plays an important role in the implementation of the will of the legal person. A de facto organ is an individual who has the authority to make decisions independently in matters related to the management of the organ and who continuously uses these powers apart from for daily affairs. The de facto organ fulfills the functions that an organ will traditionally perform, even though it is not a formal organ.
Turkish Civil Code Article 50/2 requires that organs designate the legal person or persons under obligation in their legal transactions and all other acts. In this context, the legal transactions of the organs are binding on the legal person, and the legal person will be responsible for the illegal acts of the organs. However, it is necessary to make a distinction between legal transactions and illegal acts of organs: Within the framework of the legal person’s responsibility for the illegal acts by the organ, it is necessary to consider the organ in a broad sense and to evaluate de facto organs as well as the formal organs within the scope of the organ. This consideration is necessary because the definition of “de facto organ” has been developed precisely to hold the legal person liable for the illegal acts of the person/persons acting as an organ.
This assessment is based on a just and reasonable belief that would be held by an honest and reasonable person. Indeed, individuals who do not constitute an organ according to the law or the status of the legal person but act as an organ and continuously play a significant role in the formation of the legal person’s will can be reasonably viewed as organs by third parties. In order to protect third parties, the legal person must be held responsible for the illegal acts of de facto organs.
However, a different assessment must be made regarding the legal transactions carried out by de facto organs. It is unacceptable that legal transactions made by a person acting on behalf of the legal person as a de facto organ should bind the legal person. As the de facto organ does not have the authority to represent the legal person, there would be an unauthorized representation regulated in Article 46 of the Turkish Code of Obligations. Unauthorized representation does not bind the principal, unless there is a rare exception where the transaction of the unauthorized representative will bind the legal person.
The first of these exceptions is where, in accordance with Article 46/1 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, the principal ratifies the transaction. The other exception appears when a notification or representation has been made to third parties by the principal regarding the existence of the de facto organ’s authority to represent the legal person. This notice creates external representation authority. The notification to third parties gives such third parties confidence in the de facto organ’s authority in this regard. Due to this trust given to third parties, their good faith reliance on the existence of the declared authority to represent is preserved.
Even if the principal has not given the representative such authority in the internal relationship (or a narrower authority has been given or even revoked in the internal relationship), the authority declared to the third party replaces the lack of power, provided that he relies on it in good faith. Consequently, the contract concluded by the unauthorized representative still binds the principal. Except for in the specific circumstances mentioned here, however, a transaction performed by the unauthorized representative will not bind the principal.
As a matter of fact, the Swiss Federal Court made a clear decision in this direction in its ATF 146 III 37 decision dated 09.10.2019, wherein it ruled that the legal acts of de facto organs (except for the exceptions listed above) do not and will not bind the legal person. Therefore, it is necessary to interpret the concept of an organ narrowly in terms of the rule that the legal transactions of the organ bind the legal person. It must be accepted that only formal organs can act on behalf of the legal person, as only they have the authority to represent them.
