《公司法》规制董事自我交易的规范之类型——以强制性规定区分效力性和管理性规范为视角  

On the Category of Regulations on the Director Self-dealing in the Company Law——From the Perspective of Distinguishing Effectiveness Mandatory Provision and Regulatory Mandatory Provision

作　　者：冷铁勋 

机构地区：[1]澳门理工学院一国两制研究中心,中国澳门999078

出　　处：《暨南学报（哲学社会科学版）》2014年第3期35-41,共7页Jinan Journal(Philosophy and Social Sciences)

摘　　要：强制性规定区分为效力性规范与管理性规范的观点与实践虽然仍有争议,但在我国现行法律框架下对于妥善处理违反法律、行政法规强制性规定的合同的效力不但必要而且必须。《公司法》规制董事自我交易的第149条第一款第(四)项规定,从其防止董事违法自我交易的立法目的、所禁止的行为有损公序良俗、所保护的公司利益具有优先性等因素看,应理解为效力性强制性规定。《公司法》第149条第二款关于董事违法自我交易所得的收入应当归公司所有的规定也反证了该条第一款第(四)项的规定为效力性强制性规定。Although the dispute over the viewpointof categorizing mandatory provisions into effectiveness provisions and regulatory ones still exists,it is necessary to handle the legal effect of contract violating the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations under the existing legal framework in China appropriately. Judging from the factors of the legislation purpose of preventing director from illegal self-dealing, harm for the public order and good moral by the prohibited behavior,and the priority of the protected company interests,the item 4 of the Provision 1 of Article149 in the Company Law which regulates the director self-dealing should be construed as effectiveness mandatory provision. The Provision 2 of Article 149 in the Company Law which stipulates that the income accrued from the illegal self-dealing by the director shall belong to the company further proves that the item 4 of the Provision 1 of Article 149 in the Company Law is effectiveness mandatory provision.

关 键 词：董事 自我交易 效力性强制性规定 公司法 

分 类 号：D922[政治法律—法学]