Criminal Liability of Directors of a Private Limited Company Seated in Germany

During the last decade, a great number of German businesses formed private limited companies by shares in England and transferred the company’s real seat to Germany in order to avoid the minimum capital rules for the German limited liability company. The discrepancy between the place of registration and the real seat leads to questions about the criminal liability of company directors under English and German law. This article shows that English courts have jurisdiction over certain offences regardless of the place the director acted. In particular, he may be convicted for failing to comply with statutory duties under the Companies Act 2006 as well as false accounting or false statements under Theft Act 1968 ss. 17, 19. With respect to German law, the company law reform of 2008 explicitly imposed the duty to file for insolvency on directors of foreign corporations. Also, the criminal offence for failing to file for insolvency in § 15a (4) of the Insolvency Code is compatible with the freedom of establishment under European law. If the director causes a financial loss to the company by breaching his director’s duties, he may be convicted for breach of trust under § 266 of the Criminal Code regardless of the fact that the relevant duties are regulated by English law. The German Federal Supreme Court recently held that recourse to English company law in order to establish a criminal breach of trust does not violate the principle of legal certainty in Article 103 (2) of the Basic Law. Furthermore, German bankruptcy offences may apply if the director violates the authoritative English accounting standards.     

注册会计师的过失责任:连带责任抑或比例责任

对于注册会计师的过失责任应适用连带责任还是比例责任,目前理论界存在争议,而这一问题对于注册会计师的法律风险具有相当大的影响。从西方来看,更多地采用连带责任,但近年来,以美国为代表,正表现出逐渐从连带责任向比例责任的转变的趋势。我国目前有关法律亦采用连带责任,但从我国注册会计师的执业环境来看,连带责任将使注册会计师承担过高的法律风险,因此,对于注册会计师的过失责任采用比例责任可能更为合适。     

中德履责之诉适当性研究进路之比较

学界与实务界就履责之诉的适当性长期未能形成根本性共识。我国的履责之诉适当性的研究是从界定行为类型入手,而这一研究进路是导致我国关于履责之诉适当性争议不休的根源。从履责之诉的适当性的研究进路入手,分析德国关于履责之诉适当性的研究思路,借鉴德国的诉讼目标模式,将是解决争议的新思路。     

Enterprise Liability: Justifying Vicarious Liability

In Lister v Hesley Hall [2002] 1 AC 215 the House of Lords reformedthe law on vicarious liability, in the context of a claim arisingover the intentional infliction of harm, by introducing the‘close connection’ test. The immediate catalystwas the desire to facilitate recovery of damages on the partof victims of child abuse. The precise form the revision assumedwas derived from two Canadian Supreme Court cases: Bazley vCurry [1999] 174 DLR (4th) 45 and Jacobi v Griffiths [1999]174 DLR (4th) 7. The Canadian jurisprudence contains a detailedreview of the policy factors underpinning the law of vicariousliability and expresses the view that the most significant ofthese is ‘enterprise liability’. This article attemptsto establish whether enterprise liability holds the same significancein the UK. And, on the assumption that it does, the articlegoes on to consider any difficulties that may ensue and anyfurther common law reforms that may result. In particular itconsiders whether the law on vicarious liability for independentcontractors is likely to change.     

德国表见证明理论在医疗诉讼证明责任分配中的运用

医疗纠纷诉讼中医患双方处于"武器"不对等状态。因此,如何从诉讼上对此加以救济首当其冲。我国《最高人民法院关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》从证明责任倒置的角度加以平衡。然而此规定既与《民法通则》相关规定相左,又和他国立法经验有别。德国在医疗诉讼中所采用的表见证明理论可供我国未来立法所借鉴。     

知行合一经世致用——德国法学教育再述

在德国,当一个握有完全中学(Gymnasium)毕业证书的人选择研习法律专业时,除了像其他大学候补生一样,为着要去享受一下人生旅程中那一段自在逍遥的大学时光和对未来神圣而又富足的职业的愉快憧憬外,那摆在她/他面前德国现行的约5000个法律,约90万个条例,〔1〕使她/他感到,不仅在     

特殊普通合伙企业:游走于无限与有限责任之间

特殊普通合伙企业制度设计虽然对无辜的合伙人以提供有限责任保护方式,使之具有了促进专业服务业发展的优势,但是,同时也加大了交易相对人的风险和司法成本。它的责任二元化构造中,所确立的二元责任在合伙人之间具有不确定性、交替互换性。二元责任既有纵向又有横向配置,其立足点是执业合伙人有无过错。     

过错原则的批判与坚守

在构建中国的侵权责任法及其理论体系的时候,必须对立法文本中的规范进行理论阐述,并形成一个圆满自足的体系,首要的工作便是确立必须信守的价值,进而以价值倡导体系,围绕核心价值进行体系构建。过错责任的归责原则虽然遭遇了前所未有的挑战,但其在侵权责任法中仍然是居于核心地位的价值判断。     

论违约责任和侵权责任的竞合

违约责任与侵权责任的竞合是因为行为人实施的一个违法行为具备违约行为和侵权行为的双重性质,从而引发了两种责任的共同产生。各国对违约责任与侵权责任的竞合有不同处理原则,我国合同法明确规定了该两种责任的竞合,受害人有选择的权利。     

争议与困惑:经济法中的法律责任研究述评

经济法学界对法律责任已有20多年的研究,在法律责任的一般理论基础上形成了多种学说。在这些研究中,经济法中的法律责任的称谓、独立性问题争议尚存;对经济法中的法律责任的特点形成了一定程度的共识;在具体责任形态方面,经济法通过直接和间接方式承继了传统法律责任,同时又以企业社会责任、缺陷产品召回、惩罚性赔偿、纠正性广告等形式展现了经济法中法律责任的特色。相关研究的争议和困惑反映了经济法学理论研究中较为普遍存在的概念术语范畴体系的矛盾冲突,这主要是经济法学非传统的新兴交叉学科特征所决定的,用"经济"一词在传统术语上贴标签式的研究进路值得反思。     

责任保险中的连带责任承担问题——以机动车商业三责险条款为分析样本

当责任保险中的被保险人与共同致害人一起对受害第三人承担连带责任时,保险合同格式条款能否将该连带责任从保险责任中加以排除,这是司法实践中存在较大争议的问题。争议的焦点在于,机动车商业三责险等一般责任保险中的按责赔付条款能否在司法判决中得到承认并加以适用。通过对责任保险的责任内涵及责任保险独特的摆脱不利等保障功能的分析,从责任保险格式条款内容控制的角度,主张连带责任的免除条款构成格式条款的意外免责条款,其免责效力不应得到承认而应受到限制。     

评《侵权责任法》中的医疗损害责任

分析医疗损害责任纳入《侵权责任法》积极和消极意义的基础上,阐述了医疗纠纷的法律适用,并从解构医患法律关系入手,提出了坚持医疗纠纷中对医方宽容与对患者救济并行。构建医患法律关系的立法趋势。     

教唆人、帮助人责任与监护人责任

教唆人、帮助人教唆、帮助无民事行为能力人或者限制民事行为能力人实施侵权行为,其责任与教唆、帮助完全民事行为能力人实施侵权行为不同,原因在于多数教唆人或者帮助人与监护人的未尽监护责任行为构成共同侵权行为,其责任形态为单向连带责任。在法律适用中,规定教唆人、帮助人责任与监护人责任的《侵权责任法》第9条第2款和该法第32条是特殊规则与一般规则的关系。