Suchergebnisse

Mit dem Zwischenentwurf ist nach mehrjährigen Beratungen von der japanischen Schuldrechtsreformkommission im Februar 2013 ein erster Entwurf für eine große Reform des Schuldrechts vorgestellt worden. Dieser wurde von der interessierten Öffentlichkeit intensiv diskutiert. Unter anderem fand im Februar 2014 in Tōkyō ein vom Institut für Rechtsvergleichung in Japan der Chūō Universität und von der Deutsch-Japanischen Juristenvereinigung (DJJV) veranstaltetes Symposium statt. Im März 2015 ist ein auf diesem Zwischenentwurf basierender, aber umfangreich überarbeiteter Gesetzentwurf zur Reform des Schuldrechts ins japanische Parlament eingebracht worden. Der vorliegende Beitrag beruht auf einem auf dem Symposium gehaltenen Vortrag, berücksichtigt aber zudem die nachfolgenden Änderungen und bewertet den aktuellen Reformentwurf insgesamt. Dazu gibt er einen Überblick über die einzelnen Reformvorschläge und erläutert anhand zahlreicher Beispiele, ob und inwieweit der Reformentwurf die Ziele der Reform, eine größere Bürgerfreundlichkeit sowie eine Modernisierung des Zivilgesetzes herbeizuführen, verwirklicht. Hinsichtlich des Ziels der gesteigerten Bürgerfreundlichkeit kommt der Autor zu dem Ergebnis, dass das Zivilgesetz durchaus verständlicher werden würde, wenn auch in erster Linie für den juristischen Fachmann. Dies sei aber positiv zu bewerten. Hinsichtlich des Ziels der Modernisierung wird darauf hingewiesen, dass der Reformentwurf für eine Reihe von praktisch bedeutsamen Rechtsfragen (z.B. Kaufgewährleistung, Forderungsabtretung, Kontrolle von AGB) sinnvolle und häufig auch gelungene Neuregelungen vorsehe. Allerdings betreffe der überwiegende Teil der Reformvorschläge nur geringfügige Änderungen ohne große Auswirkungen auf die geltende Rechtslage. Kritisch wird angemerkt, dass der Reformentwurf wichtige Punkte nicht berücksichtige. So sei es bedauerlich, dass weder eine Integration noch eine bessere Abstimmung der zahlreichen Sondergesetze, die insbesondere im Bereich des Verbraucherschutzes, des Privatanlegerschutzes und der Immobilienmiete existierten, mit den Regelungen des Zivilgesetzes vorgesehen sei. Nicht angetastet würden auch die zahlreichen verwaltungsrechtlichen und strafrechtlichen Regelungen der Vertragskontrolle in Sondergesetzen. Zusammen genommen führe die Parallelregulierung durch privatrechtliche und öffentlich-rechtliche Sondergesetze neben den zivilgesetzlichen Regelungen zu einem inkohärenten und überregulierten Vertragsrecht. Zudem würden auch wichtige Regelungen innerhalb des Zivilgesetzes nicht hinreichend aufeinander abgestimmt. Schließlich würden auch einige Neuregelungen im Zivilgesetz zu kurz greifen und einige zivilrechtliche Bereiche nur unzureichend geregelt. Insgesamt betrachtet stelle der Reformentwurf für Japan dennoch einen Fortschritt dar. Aus rechtsvergleichender und europäischer Sicht betrachtet allerdings enthielte er nicht viel Neues und nur weniges, das sich als Modell für Reformen in Europa anbiete. ; In February 2013, after many years of debate, the Japanese Commission for the Reform of the Law of Obligations presented with its Intermediate Draft a first draft with a proposal for a comprehensive reform of the law of obligations. This draft was intensively discussed in public. Among others, in February 2014, a conference was hosted in Tōkyō by the Institute of Comparative Law in Japan of Chūō University and the German-Japanese Association of Jurists (DJJV). In March 2015, a bill proposing a reform of the law of obligations was introduced to Parliament which is based on the Intermediate Draft, but was subsequently extensively revised. This paper is based on a lecture delivered at that conference, but also takes into account these later revisions, and evaluates the current reform proposal on the whole. For this purpose, it provides an overview on the particular reforms proposed therein and illustrates, by making use of numerous examples if and to which extent the reform proposal realizes its objectives of legislating a more citizen-friendly and modern Civil Code. Regarding its objective to create a citizen-friendly Civil Code, the author draws the conclusion that the Japanese Civil Code would indeed become easier to understand, but first and foremost for the legal professional. This, however, should be welcomed. In respect of the objective to modernize the Civil Code, it is being pointed out that the reform proposal foresaw numerous meaningful and often well-drafted new regulations (e.g. concerning the seller's warranty, the assignment of receivables, and the regulation of general terms and conditions of business). On the other hand, the author notes that the predominant number of reforms constituted only minor amendments with no substantial effect on the legal situation. Moreover, the author criticizes that the reform proposal did not address some clearly important issues. It was regrettable that the reform proposal neither foresaw the integration of the many special laws concerning in particular consumer protection, small investor protection, and real property tenancy into the Civil Code, nor a better coordination of those special laws with the regulations of the Civil Code. Also fully untouched remained the numerous provisions from administrative- and penal law contained in special laws that also regulated contracts. This combined parallel regulation by special private law and special public law in addition to the regulations in the Civil Code would as a result create an incoherent and overregulated contract law system. Moreover, there were also regulations in the Civil Code that lacked a sufficient coordination. In addition, the author holds that there were also some reforms proposed that fell short of what was actually required. Nonetheless, looking at the reform proposal on the whole, its implementation would be an improvement for Japan. Looking at it from Europe and from the viewpoint of comparative law, however, one would have to say that it contained not much that was new or suitable for serving as a model for future reforms in Europe.

I. EinleitungII. Abschaffung der GmbH und Einführung neuer Gesellschaftstypen1. Wegfall der GmbH als Gesellschaftstypus2. Die Limited Liability Company (gôdô kaisha, LLC) japanischen Rechtsals eine Form einer Anteilsgesellschaft3. Die Limited Liability Partnership (yûgen sekinin jigyô kumiai, LLP) japanischen Rechts als Sonderform einer Gesellschaft des ZivilgesetzesIII. Neuregelungen und Änderungen bei den bestehenden Formen der Handelsgesellschaften1. Änderungen im Recht der Aktiengesellschaften2. Änderungen und Besonderheiten im Recht der OHG und der KG3. Änderung der Dauer der Nachhaftung bei den AnteilsgesellschaftenIV. Sonstige ÄnderungenV. Fazit / Resümee ; The Company Law Reform 2005/2006, which will probably come into effect on 1 April or 1 May 2006, will once again bring about major changes in the field of company law in Japan. As a result of this reform and other reforms in recent years, Japan will soon have a very modern and well-structured company law. This will be by no means a slavish copy of U.S. company law, although as a model the U.S. company law has had a great impact on many parts of the various reforms.First of all, the reform entails the emergence of a Japanese Company Act. The Company Act will unite all the legal provisions concerning companies that were formerly to be found scattered in various laws such as the Commercial Code, the Law for Special Commercial Law Provisions concerning the Audit of Joint Stock Companies, and the Law concerning the yûgen kaisha. One formal change will be that in contrast to the old Commercial Code, the new Company Act will be written in modern Japanese. Furthermore, the Law concerning the yûgen kaisha will be abrogated and the yûgen kaisha system will be abolished. The existing yûgen kaisha will continue to exist, but it will become impossible to establish new companies of that kind. The former yûgen kaisha will be legally treated as stock companies to the extent that there are no particular provisions in the Law Regarding the Execution of the Company Act, which will come into effect on the same day as the Company Act.Moreover, two new types of legal entities will be introduced into Japanese law: the so-called limited liability company (gôdô kaisha, LLC) and the limited liability partnership (yûgen sekinin jigyô kumiai, LLP). Both forms are based on homonymous types of legal entities in U.S. law, but they show several differences compared to the U.S. models. While all forms of companies are now regulated by the Company Act, the rules for the LLP are set by a different and particular law governing specifically the limited liability partnership because the limited liability partnership is not regarded as a company in its narrow meaning. This law has already been in effect since 1 August 2005.Another important aspect of the upcoming company law reform concerns many changes in the law of Japanese joint stock companies, including the rules for corporate governance structures. In general, one can say that the reform provides for a much greater flexibility for designing corporate governance structures. Henceforth, the joint stock companies can be divided into two groups: large-sized companies, which correlate to the large companies that were formerly regarded as such and particularly regulated by the Law for Special Commercial Law Provisions concerning the Audit of Joint Stock Companies; and small-sized companies, which do not meet the specific requirements set for the definition of large companies. Furthermore, both groups of companies can be established as publicly held companies or as closely held companies. Depending on the size of a company and its character as a closely held or publicly held company, the Company Act sets minimum requirements for the establishment of a corporate government structure. Henceforth, a joint stock company is at least required to have a shareholders' meeting and one director. This is a significant change as formerly all stock companies were required to set up a board with at least three directors. Generally speaking, the Company Act requires large and publicly held companies to set up a more complex structure of corporate governance than small-sized and closely held companies. Accordingly, small-sized and closely held companies can be henceforth established with a very basic and plain governance structure. Besides, for large-sized companies it is still possible to set up a company structure with committees within the board of directors.With the reform coming into effect, joint stock companies are permitted to have an optional accounting consultant who shall assist the director(s) in preparing the financial statements of the company. Like the accounting auditor of the company, the Company Act regards this governing body as an organ (kikan) of the company, although by definition both organs have to preserve a sufficient independent stance within the company which differs from that of other company organs.Furthermore, the rules for the power of attorney of the representative directors and the representative executive officers of stock companies have been changed slightly. There are also new rules for the appointment and dismissal of directors, and in closely held companies it is no longer necessary to treat all shareholders equally if certain requirements are met by the company. The Company Act now provides for a somewhat altered, specific legal liability regime for all organs and other bodies of the company, toward the company itself as well as toward third parties.A further very important alteration regarding the law of stock companies is that henceforth the requirement of setting up a minimum stated capital when establishing a company has been abolished. Theoretically, it is now possible to found a stock company with only one yen of stated company capital. Hitherto this was only possible by the application of a specific procedure and only for a limited period of five years.In closely held stock companies, the power of corporate auditors can be limited to audit only the financial statements of the company, whereas in other companies the corporate auditor is in principle authorized to audit the business operations of the directors also.In addition, in closely held stock companies the term of office of directors, corporate auditors, and accounting consultants can be extended and set for a period of up to ten years.The structure of corporate governance of each company has to be described in the business report, which is part of the financial statements that stock companies have to prepare once a year. Moreover, stock companies become free to distribute their profit to the shareholders whenever they like, not only twice a year as was formerly limited.Important changes will also be brought about in regard to the rules set for restructuring stock companies, particularly for mergers. It will become possible to conduct a merger between three companies. The absorbing company in a merger will soon be allowed to pay a compensation in cash or to distribute other assets to the shareholders of the extinguishing company rather than emitting new shares of the new company as the results of the merger. For instance, such assets can be stocks of the parent company of the absorbing company. This corresponds to a facilitation of hostile takeovers, about which there has been an increasing controversial public debate in Japan. As a result, it is not yet clear whether this part of the reform will come into force at the same time as the other parts, or instead later in a slightly altered form, probably along with new defense mechanisms for hostile takeovers, which are also currently under discussion. Another important change is the introduction of the opportunity to emit so-called golden shares as one kind of company stocks. In general, these are heavily disputed in many countries, particularly within the European Union.The above-mentioned limited liability company (LLC), which will be introduced by this company law reform, will be regarded along with the partnership company (gômei kaisha) and the limited partnership company (gôshi kaisha) as a new category of company in contrast to the joint stock company. In this context, many changes will also take place in regard to the law for the partnership companies and the limited partnership companies. For instance, the Company Act provides for a new legal liability regime for all representative members of the company toward the company itself as well as toward third parties, which is similar to that of the joint stock companies, including a set of rules for a new type of lawsuit similar to the shareholders' representative lawsuit. Moreover, from the date the reform comes into effect, it will be possible for companies to become a non-limited liability partner in a partnership company as well as in a limited partnership company; the former Art. 55 Commercial Code will be abolished.Finally, it also has to be mentioned that, as the result of the upcoming reform, the hitherto existing obligatory ex ante check by Japanese authorities of the company name to be registered in the context of founding a company will be abolished.

I. EinleitungII. "Abfallbeseitigung" als Aufgabe (1970-1990)1. Die Struktur des Abfallbeseitigungsgesetzes2. Grenzen des AbfallbeseitigungsgesetzesIII. Beginn der Förderung des Recycling durch die Reform des AbfBG und Schaffung zahlreicher Einzelgesetze (1991-1999)1. Die Novelle des AbfBG2. Das Rohstoff-Recyclinggesetz (RRG)3. Das Umweltrahmengesetz (URG)4. Das Verpackungs-Recyclinggesetz (VRG)5. Das Gesetz über das Recycling von Haushaltselektrogeräten (Haushaltsgeräte-Recyclinggesetz, HRG)IV. Die Aufgabe des 21. Jahrhunderts in der Abfall- und Entsorgungspolitik: Recycling als vorrangige Aufgabe in einer auf Kreislaufwirtschaft gründenden Gesellschaft1. Grundlagengesetz zur Förderung einer kreislauforientierten Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft (Kreislaufgesetz, KLG)2. Die Reform des Rohstoff-Recyclinggesetzes und seine Umbenennung in Gesetz zur Förderung der effizienten Nutzung von Ressourcen (Ressourcennutzungsgesetz, RNG)3. Das Baurecyclinggesetz (BRG)4. Das Nahrungsmittel-Recyclinggesetz (NRG)5. Das Gesetz zur Förderung der Verwendung von umweltfreundlichen Produkten durch den Staat6. Das Automobil-Recyclinggesetz (AutoRG)V. ZusammenfassungVI. Übersicht über die derzeit zu beachtenden Gesetze zum japanischen Abfall- und RecyclingrechtVII. Literatur ; The recycling of waste materials has gained more and more importance during recent years in Japan and many other countries as a new form of eco-friendly waste manage-ment and as a means to prevent and reduce the amount of industrial and household waste to be disposed of conventionally. This paper describes the current policy of recycling in Japan and the various laws that have to be observed in this regard. Particularly since the 1990s, Japan has remarkably changed its policy of refuse dis-posal toward the promotion of recycling, and since then many recycling-related laws have been enacted. Although this policy also aims at the protection of the environment and the promotion of a more efficient use of valuable materials, the primary reason for the promotion of recycling in Japan is the growing difficulty of getting rid of the waste by way of conventional measures. There are a lack of space for dumping refuse in the country and too few facilities capable of handling the waste properly. The paper also reviews a book on the Japanese "Material Recycling Act" that contains, for instance, a German translation of the act and related ordinances.