The decision of the Court of Milan deals with a fairly new issue, relating to the replacement of the auditor of a limited liability company in the event of the resignation of the auditor and inertia on the part of the shareholders’ meeting in replacing him. The Court, in rejecting the appeal brought by a resigning auditor, considers that in the proposed case, a surrogate intervention of the judicial authority cannot take place with respect to the inactivity of the shareholders’ meeting, and this due to the fact that the provision of art. 2477, penultimate paragraph, of the Italian Civil Code derogates from the general rule that attributes exclusively to the shareholders’ meeting the task of appointing the auditors, and therefore, by virtue of the principle established by art. 14 of the Preliminary Provisions of the Italian Civil Code, it cannot be applied outside the cases expressly provided for. The paper reviews the issues raised by the ruling, highlighting the only partial correctness of the interpretative conclusions it reached. It is not unreasonable to consider, in fact, that the undoubtedly exceptional nature of art. 2477, paragraph 5, Civil Code, if, on the one hand, it denies the surrogate power of the judicial authority in the cases contemplated by letters a) and b) of the same provision, does not, however, preclude an extensive interpretation that allows such vicarious intervention not only in the event that for the first time the shareholders’ meeting ascertains that the size limits of the company set by letter c) have been exceeded, but also when the size profiles of the company that had previously imposed the appointment of an auditor already existed.
Il provvedimento del tribunale di Milano affronta una questione esegetica abbastanza nuova, relativa alla sostituzione del sindaco o revisore di s.r.l. in caso di dimissioni di questi e di inerzia da parte dell’assemblea. Il Tribunale, nel respingere il ricorso promosso dallo stesso sindaco, ritiene che nella fattispecie proposta non possa tener luogo un intervento surrogatorio dell’autorità giudiziaria rispetto all’inattività dell’organo sovrano, e ciò in ragione del fatto che la previsione dell’art. 2477, penultimo comma, c.c. deroga alla regola generale che attribuisce all’assemblea il compito di nominare i sindaci, e che pertanto, in forza del principio fissato dall’art. 14 preleggi, non può trovare applicazione al di fuori delle ipotesi espressamente previste. La nota di commento ripercorre i profili sollevati dalla pronuncia, evidenziando la correttezza solo parziale delle conclusioni interpretative raggiunte, sebbene il carattere sintetico dell’ordinanza lasci margini sulla effettiva portata del principio affermato. Non è azzardato ritenere, infatti, che l’indubbio carattere di norma eccezionale dell’art. 2477, quinto comma, c.c., se da un lato nega il potere surrogatorio dell’autorità giudiziaria nei casi contemplati dalle lettere a) e b) della stessa norma, non osta tuttavia a una interpretazione estensiva che permetta tale intervento vicario non solo nel caso in cui per la prima volta l’assemblea accerti il superamento dei limiti dimensionali previsti dalla lettera c), ma anche quando il sindaco o il revisore vengano meno già sussistendo in precedenza i profili dimensionali che ne avevano imposto la nomina.
La sostituzione nella S.r.l. del sindaco dimissionario in caso di inerzia dell’assemblea
Zamperetti, Giorgio
2021-01-01
Abstract
The decision of the Court of Milan deals with a fairly new issue, relating to the replacement of the auditor of a limited liability company in the event of the resignation of the auditor and inertia on the part of the shareholders’ meeting in replacing him. The Court, in rejecting the appeal brought by a resigning auditor, considers that in the proposed case, a surrogate intervention of the judicial authority cannot take place with respect to the inactivity of the shareholders’ meeting, and this due to the fact that the provision of art. 2477, penultimate paragraph, of the Italian Civil Code derogates from the general rule that attributes exclusively to the shareholders’ meeting the task of appointing the auditors, and therefore, by virtue of the principle established by art. 14 of the Preliminary Provisions of the Italian Civil Code, it cannot be applied outside the cases expressly provided for. The paper reviews the issues raised by the ruling, highlighting the only partial correctness of the interpretative conclusions it reached. It is not unreasonable to consider, in fact, that the undoubtedly exceptional nature of art. 2477, paragraph 5, Civil Code, if, on the one hand, it denies the surrogate power of the judicial authority in the cases contemplated by letters a) and b) of the same provision, does not, however, preclude an extensive interpretation that allows such vicarious intervention not only in the event that for the first time the shareholders’ meeting ascertains that the size limits of the company set by letter c) have been exceeded, but also when the size profiles of the company that had previously imposed the appointment of an auditor already existed.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
sindaci.pdf
non disponibili
Tipologia:
Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza:
Copyright dell'editore
Dimensione
87.27 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
87.27 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri Richiedi una copia |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.