後疫情時代下臺德股東會視訊會議的法制發展與比較

A Comparative Study of the Development of the Laws and Regulations of Shareholders' Meetings with Video Conferencing in Taiwan and Germany under the Post- Pandemic Era

由於資訊科技的進步及COVID-19疫情的影響，對於股東會以視訊會議方式進行，越來越有其必要性與需求性，從而不論我國或德國均於近期全面開放股東會的視訊會議方式，本文即是針對此議題，對台灣與德國相關規範進行介紹與比較。
在比較過程中發覺，兩國法制存在較大差異之處在於，我國就公開發行公司之股東會視訊會議有特別規定，但德國股份法之規定，原則上係一併適用於上市及未上市公司；我國法對公開發行公司召開視訊會議，有較嚴格的限制，並要求委外辦理；我國法對公開發行公司視訊出席股東會之股東、代理人，要求應事先登記視訊出席，德國法對此無特別規定；德國法就股東在股東會開會前之資訊請求權、議案評論權，有相當詳細規定，但我國法無此相關規定；我國法對視訊出席者之發言，規定用文字輸入方式行使，但德國法依其發言性質，有僅能以視頻雙向溝通方式行使，抑或亦可以文字輸入方式；視訊障礙狀況對會議的進行及計票的影響，我國法有深入的規定，而德國法主要係從股東會決議之撤銷來進行規範等。藉由兩國法制之比較，本文於結論提出修法方向，供各界參考。

Due to the progress of information technology and the impact of the COVID-19 epidemic, it gets increasingly necessary and demanding for shareholders’meetings with video conferencing. Therefore, both Taiwan and Germany have recently lifted the ban on holding meetings of shareholders virtually. This article is aimed at the pertinent issues to introduce and compare the relevant laws and regulations in Taiwan and Germany.
After the comparison, it is found that the following differences exist between the two countries. Taiwanese law has promulgated special provisions for public companies, but the provisions of German law apply to both listed and unlisted companies. Taiwanese law has stricter restrictions on shareholders’meetings with video conferencing held by public companies and require them to outsource the related matters, and if a shareholder or a proxy holder intends to take part in the meeting by video conferencing, he shall register with the company by 2 days prior to the scheduled meeting date of the shareholders' meeting, and there is no such requirement in Germany. German law has quite detailed provisions about shareholders’rights to request information and submit statements regarding the items of business set out in the agenda prior to the meeting, and there is no such provision in Taiwan. In addition, Taiwanese law requires attending shareholders or proxyholders can only express viewpoints via typing, and German law allows attending shareholders and proxyholders can express viewpoints either vocally via two-way communication or via typing depending on the nature of viewpoints expressed. Taiwanese law has detailed provisions on the impact on the conduct of the meeting and the counting of votes when technical failure occurs, but German law regulates the impact of technical failure from the annulment of shareholders' meeting resolutions. By comparing the legal systems of the two countries, this article proposes some suggestions at the conclusion as a reference.