Karella v. Organismos Anasygkrotiseos Epicheiriseon AE

[1993] 2 CMLR 865 (1991)

From our private database of 46,400+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Karella v. Organismos Anasygkrotiseos Epicheiriseon AE

European Court of Justice
[1993] 2 CMLR 865 (1991)

Facts

The Organismos Anasygkrotiseos Epicheiriseon AE (OAE) (defendant) was established by Greek Law 1386/1983. The OAE was empowered to assume the administration and daily operations of troubled undertakings. Section 8(8) of the law allowed the OAE, with the approval of the government, to increase the capital of a company under the OAE’s provisional administration, notwithstanding the otherwise applicable requirements for increasing capital. In December 1983, the Greek government subjected Klostiria Velka AE (Klostiria) to the OAE’s administration. The OAE decided to increase Klostiria’s capital. Klostiria’s existing shareholders were given one month to exercise an unlimited preemptive right. Klostiria shareholders Marina Karella and Nikolaos Karellas (shareholders) (plaintiffs) sued the OAE, seeking annulment of the OAE’s capital-increase decree on the ground that the decree violated the Greek constitution and Article 25(1) of the European Council’s Second Directive 77/91 (directive), which required shareholder approval of corporate-capital increases. The Greek court rejected the shareholders’ constitutional challenge but referred their arguments regarding the directive to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for a preliminary ruling. Specifically, the Greek court asked the ECJ whether (1) individuals could rely on Article 25(1) in national courts and (2) Article 25(1) prohibited European Economic Community (EEC) member states from permitting exceptions to the shareholder-approval requirement for capital increases for financially troubled undertakings of special economic and social importance. The OAE argued that the directive was inapplicable to companies in rejuvenation proceedings and that directive Article 41(1), which encouraged stock ownership by employees, permitted the OAE to require Klostiria to increase its capital. The advocate general opined that individuals could rely on Article 25(1) in national courts and that Article 25(1) barred the OAE from requiring Klostiria to increase its capital without shareholder approval.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning ()

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,400 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership