All posts by Brenda Villa

THE SHAREHOLDER OF AT LEAST ONE THIRD OF THE SHARE CAPITAL OF A PRIVATE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY HAS THE POWER TO CALL A SHAREHOLDERS MEETING

21/10/2016

In relation to limited liability companies, the right to call a shareholders meeting, in case of inactivity of the management body and in absence of regulation by legal provisions and bylaws, must be accorded to the shareholders representing one third of the corporate capital (Supreme Court, decision no. 10821/2016).


 

 The First Civil Section of the Supreme Court has ruled that, in case of inactivity of the management body, where legal norms and company bylaws do not deal with the matter, the right to call a shareholders meeting must be accorded to the shareholder holding at least one third of the corporate capital.

Preliminarily, it must be noted that the Italian Civil Code does not regulate limited liability companies (S.r.l.) in the same way as public limited companies (S.p.A.) for which in respect of the latter art. 2367 of the Civil Code allows the summoning of the shareholders meeting upon the shareholders’ request.

Art. 2367, applicable to the S.p.A., provides as follows: “The directors or the management body must call without delay the shareholders meeting, in case of request raised by the shareholders representing 1/20 of the corporate capital of companies listed on the stock exchange market or 1/10 of the corporate capital of other companies or the lesser percentage provided by the bylaws, and the request shall contain the items of the agenda”.

The Supreme Court is of the opinion that – following the 2003 corporate law reform – in general the purpose of the reform has been to identify the S.r.l. as a flexible model, and one designed to enhance the personal elements existing in small and medium-sized companies; the above must be combined with a system of law provisions allowing organizational solutions set forth in the bylaws, as provided for partnerships. The role of the shareholder has become a central issue of the system governing limited liability companies: now the shareholder has been given powers that previously were exclusively reserved to the directors.

In particular, the Court – with reference to the case at issue – drew a marked distinction between the regime governing the S.r.l. from that applicable to the S.p.A., and also eliminated the reference technique. The autonomy and potential comprehensiveness of the legislation governing the S.r.l. must therefore exclude the analogical extension of the procedure for the summoning of the shareholders meeting provided by art. 2367, applicable to the S.p.A., to the case of the S.r.l. (moreover, such an extension would be in conflict with the inflexibility of the different corporate models).

The decision of the Court must be seen as the result of a constant effort by professionals aimed at eliminating the risks of deadlock within companies in case of inactivity and obstructionism on part of the directors. Such risks arise, on the one side, from the inapplicability of art. 2367 of the Italian Civil Code to private limited liability companies, due to the strong diversity of these corporate models; and, on the other side, from the irrelevance in the present context of art. 2487 of Italian Civil Code, relating exclusively to the appointment and revocation of the official receivers (subsequent to the Court’s decision).

In conclusion, it is evident that the decision at issue represents a considerable innovation in the corporate scenario and, in particular, with regard to limited liability companies which have finally identified, in case of silence of the law and bylaws, an alternative procedure, represented by the right of the shareholders – holding at least one third of the corporate capital – to call the shareholders meeting in case of inactivity of the management body.


TANKRED THIEM ELETTO VICE PRESIDENTE DELLA DAV ITALIA

18/10/2016

A grande maggioranza Tankred Thiem, avvocato ammesso in Italia ed in Germania, ha conquistato la carica di vice presidente della sezione italiana dell’associazione tedesca degli avvocati. Nel corso del suo mandato Tankred intende rafforzare i legami tra la sezione in Italia e le sezioni locali in Germania , nonché consolidare ed ampliare l’offerta nell’ambito della formazione forense, con specifico riguardo al mondo delle relazioni italo-tedesche.


 

All’assemblea annuale tenutasi lunedì 17 ottobre 2016 presso l’Hotel Straf di Milano Tankred Thiem è stato eletto vice-presidente della DAV ITALIA, sezione italiana di Deutscher Anwaltsverein (DAV). Con più di 67.000 membri la DAV è l’associazione forense privata più grande al mondo. Nata nell’anno 1871 l’associazione dispone di un’organizzazione capillare in tutto il territorio tedesco, oltre a 10 sezioni collocate all’estero. Le attività della DAV comprendono la difesa degli interessi degli avvocati, la redazione di position papers relativi a proposte di legge, la partecipazione attiva nel processo legislativo in Germania e nell’UE, la presa di posizione su argomenti di attualità rilevanti per la professione degli avvocati, la formazione dei suoi membri.

Fondata nell’anno 2007 la DAV ITALIA è una delle organizzazioni estere con il più alto numero di membri. In cooperazione con le altre istituzioni tedesche in Italia, quale la camera di commercio Italo Germanica ed il consolato tedesco a Milano, essa si offre come contatto per aziende e privati tedeschi in cerca di informazioni di carattere generale. Ai propri membri ed ai professionisti interessati l’associazione offre regolarmente eventi formativi su argomenti di rilevanza per le relazioni italo-tedesche in tutti gli ambiti del diritto.


TANKRED THIEM ELECTED VICE PRESIDENT OF DAV ITALIA

18/10/2016

On the basis of a vast majority, German-Italian attorney Mr. Tankred Thiem has assumed the position of Vice President of the Italian section of the Association of German Attorneys. As part of his mandate he intends to strengthen the ties between the section in Italy and those located in Germany. He also plans on consolidating and widening the offer of legal education with specific reference to German-Italian relations.


 

In the course of the annual assembly held on Monday 17 October 2016 at the Straf Hotel in Milan, Mr. Tankred Thiem was elected Vice-President of DAV ITALIA, the Italian section of the Deutscher Anwaltsverein (DAV) (i.e. the Association of German Attorneys). With over 67.000 members, DAV is the biggest private legal association in the world. Founded in 1871, the association relies on a widespread organization throughout the entire German territory, in addition to 10 sections abroad. The activities of DAV include protection of the interests of its attorneys, the redaction of position papers concerning law proposals, active participation in the German and EU legislative process, as well as taking the stand on current issues that are relevant to the work undertaken by attorneys and, finally, education of its members.

DAV ITALIA, founded in 2007, is one of the foreign organizations with the highest number of members. It collaborates with other German institutions operating in Italy, such as the Italian-German Chamber of Commerce and the German consulate in Milan, and presents itself as a point of reference for German private individuals and companies who require general information. DAV Italia regularly provides its members and interested professionals the possibility of attending educational events on topics that are of relevance to Italian-German relations in all areas of law.

 


COMPUTER PROGRAMS AND (RE) SALE OF COPIES VIA NON ORIGINAL SUPPORTS

14/10/2016

With recent decision of 12 October 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union has once again dealt with the issue of exhaustion of the right of distribution for the sale of used computer program copies. The matter reached the European Court following referral for a preliminary ruling by the Regional Court of Right, Special Panel for criminal matters, in Latvia, where criminal proceedings were pending against Messrs. Aleksandrs Ranks and Jurijs Vasiļevičs. The defendants were accused of the sale of several online copies of software produced by Microsoft and protected by copyright.


 

The national judge asked the Court whether articles 4, letters a) and c), and 5, paragraphs 1 and 2, of Directive 91/250/EEC of the Council, should be interpreted in the sense that the purchaser of a “used” copy of a computer program, registered on a non original physical support, could, following application of the rule governing exhaustion of the right of distribution of the rightholder, sell to third parties such copy if (i) the original physical support for such program, delivered to the first purchaser, has deteriorated and (ii) the first purchaser has cancelled the copy of the software installed on his own PC or has ceased using it.

The Court of Justice initially observed that it is a well known principle pursuant to which the right of distribution of a copy of a computer program must be considered exhausted if the rightholder has (i) authorized the first sale of the copy itself and (ii), upon gaining an economic benefit, has assigned the right of use without temporal limitations (as stated by the Court of Justice in the known UsedSoft ./. Oracle judgment of 3 July 2012, case C-128/11).

The above mentioned rule of exhaustion of the right of distribution applies to copies of licensed software both in the case where such copies have been registered on analog support as well as downloaded from the website of the right holder in so far as, according to the Court, the directive makes no distinction between the tangible or intangible form of the copy. However, the first purchaser, if he intends to resell the copy of the purchased software, must render it unusuable or remove it from his or her PC.

The case under scrutiny concerns resale to third parties by Messrs. Aleksandrs Ranks and Jurijs Vasiļevičs of copies of Microsoft software registered on non original supports in so far as, according to the defendants, the original support had deteriorated or been destroyed. No evidence was brought forth in the course of the proceedings such as to prove that the copies of the Microsoft software, the object of the resale, had been legitimately purchased by Messrs. Aleksandrs Ranks and Jurijs Vasiļevičs.

Faced with these arguments, the Court excluded that the reserve copy of a computer program, albeit legitimate pursuant to art. 5, para. 2 of the above mentioned Directive, could constitute object of sale to third parties without the consent of the rightholder. However, the Court also observed that if the support on which the licensed program deteriorates or is destroyed, then the legitimate purchaser of an unlimited license for a copy of the computer program must be left in a position to download the aforesaid copy via the web site of the right holder for his own exclusive use.

In conclusion, the Court of Justice clarified that the first purchaser of an unlimited license for software has the right to resell to third parties the copy installed on his own PC without, however, being able to assign the reserve copy of said software if the origina support on which the copy has been registered deteriorates or is destroyed. In any case, it falls upon those who invoke the application of the principle of exhaustion of the right of distribution to prove, by any evidence, that they have legitimately purchased an unlimited license for the individual resold copy (and that they have rendered unusuale / have cancelled the copy originally installed on their PC).

I PROGRAMMI PER COMPUTER E LA (RI) VENDITA DI COPIE TRAMITE SUPPORTE NON ORIGINALI

14/10/2016

La Corte di Giustizia con la recente decisione del 12 ottobre 2016 si è nuovamente occupata dell’esaurimento del diritto di distribuzione per la vendita di copie usate di programmi per elaboratore. La questione è giunta alla corte europea a seguito della domanda di pronuncia pregiudiziale proposta dalla Corte Regionale di Riga, Collegio speciale degli affari penali, Lettonia, nel procedimento penale a carico dei signori Aleksandrs Ranks e Jurijs Vasiļevičs per aver venduto on-line diverse copie di software editi da Microsoft e tutelati dal diritto d’autore.


 

Il giudice del rinvio ha dunque chiesto alla Corte se gli articoli 4, lettere a) e c), e 5, paragrafi 1 e 2, della direttiva 91/250/CEE del Consiglio, debbano essere interpretati nel senso che l’acquirente di una copia “usata” di un programma per elaboratore, registrata su un supporto fisico non originale, possa, in applicazione della regola dell’esaurimento del diritto di distribuzione del titolare del diritto, vendere a terzi tale copia qualora (i) il supporto fisico originale di tale programma, consegnato al primo acquirente, sia stato deteriorato e (ii) quest’ultimo abbia cancellato la copia del software installata sul proprio PC o abbia cessato di utilizzarlo.

La Corte in prima battura ha precisato che è noto il principio per cui il diritto di distribuzione di una copia di un programma per elaboratore si considera esaurito qualora il titolare del diritto abbia (i) autorizzato la prima vendita della copia stessa e (ii), a fronte di un corrispettivo economico, ne abbia conferito il diritto di utilizzo senza limitazioni di durata (come affermato dalla stessa Corte di Giustizia nella nota sentenza UsedSoft./.Oracle del 3 luglio 2012, causa C-128/11).

La citata regola dell’esaurimento del diritto di distribuzione si applica alle copie del software licenziato sia che queste siano registrate su un supporto analogico che siano state scaricate tramite download dal sito internet del titolare del diritto in quanto, sempre secondo la Corte, la direttiva non opera alcuna distinzione tra la forma tangibile o intangibile della copia stessa. Tuttavia il primo acquirente, se intende rivendere la copia del software acquistata, deve renderla inutilizzabile ovvero rimuoverla dal proprio PC.

Il caso in esame concerne proprio la rivendita a terzi da parte dei signori Aleksandrs Ranks e Jurijs Vasiļevičs di copie dei software Microsoft registrate su supporti non originali in quanto, a detta di quest’ultimi, il supporto originale si sarebbe deteriorato o distrutto. Nel procedimento non vi erano evidenze idonee a dimostrare che le copie dei software Microsoft oggetto di rivendita fossero state legittimamente acquisite da parte dei signori Aleksandrs Ranks e Jurijs Vasiļevičs.

A fronte di tali argomentazioni la Corte ha escluso che la copia di riserva di un programma per elaboratore, sebbene legittima ai sensi dell’art. 5, paragrafo 2 della citata direttiva, possa essere oggetto di vendita a terzi senza il consenso del titolare del diritto. Tuttavia la Corte ha precisato che l’acquirente legittimo di una licenza d’uso illimitata di una copia del programma per elaboratore deve essere in grado, qualora il supporto su cui originariamente la copia licenziata è andato distrutto o deteriorato, di scaricare nuovamente la suddetta copia tramite il sito internet del titolare del diritto per il proprio esclusivo uso.

In conclusione la Corte ha chiarito che l’acquirente iniziale di una licenza d’uso illimitata di un software ha il diritto a rivendere a terzi la copia installata sul proprio PC non potendo, tuttavia, questi cedere la copia di riserva di tale software qualora il supporto originale su cui tale copia era stata registrata si sia deteriorato e/o distrutto. In ogni caso è onere di chi invoca l’applicazione del principio dell’esaurimento del diritto di distribuzione dimostrare, con ogni mezzo di prova, di aver legittimamente acquisito una licenza d’uso illimitata della singola copia rivenduta (oltre che di aver reso inutilizzabile/cancellato la copia originariamente installata sul proprio PC).