公司董事的义务和责任——中德法律之比较（下篇 · 中英双语）

公司治理的重要组成部分是围绕公司董事责任及其责任的法律框架。中国和德国都建立了全面的法律框架，并遵循类似的原则，然而，中国和德国各自有不同的方式，特别是鉴于2024年7月1日生效的新修订的《中华人民共和国公司法》（“《公司法》”）。本文探讨并比较了中国和德国法律下公司董事责任的基本规定。
A significant component of corporate governance is the legal framework surrounding the responsibilities and with them the liabilities of company directors. Both China and Germany have established comprehensive legal frameworks for that and follow similar principles; however, each in their own approach. Especially in light of the newly revised Company Law of the People’s Republic of China (CL PRC) having taken effect on July 1, 2024, this essay explores and compares the basic provisions of company directors’ liabilities under Chinese and German law.
德国有限责任公司的责任和义务
Responsibility and liability of a German LLC
德国公司一般都强调其高管人员要承担高标准的责任和义务。有限责任公司德国股东的职责范围在《有限责任公司法》第46条中有法律规定，包括批准财务报表和监督管理层等，但对董事总经理却没有这样的规定。因此，他的责任需要在合同中明确规定，并从他必须遵守的原则中衍生出来。
German companies generally emphasize a high standard of responsibilities and liability for their executive officers. While the scope of duties for the German shareholders of an LLC is legally outlined in § 46 GmbHG, including the approval of financial statements and the oversight of management etc., there is no such definition for the managing director. Thus, his responsibilities will need to be specified in his contract and will be derived from the principles that he has to adhere to.
主要原则是《有限责任公司法》第43条第1款规定的注意义务，其次是忠诚义务，尽管后者没有编入法典，但通过一般法律实践得到广泛认可。这些原则包括遵守法律的责任和信托责任，如以公司的最大利益为重，避免任何可能损害公司的行为，如利益冲突或利用公司资产。此外，董事总经理有义务规划和管理公司，监控流动性和财务状况，尤其是风险管理；持续了解公司的所有重大事项；监督其他总经理、下属员工和第三方。
The main principle is the duty of care outlined in § 43 paragraph 1 GmbHG, followed by the duty of loyalty, although the latter is not codified but widely recognized by means of general legal practice. These principles include the duty to comply with the law and fiduciary duties such as acting in the best interests of the company and refraining from any actions that could harm the company like conflicting interests or exploiting the company's assets. Additionally, the managing director is obliged to plan and manage the company, to monitor liquidity and financial status – especially regarding risk management; to stay continuously informed about all significant matters of the company; and to supervise other managing directors, subordinate employees, and third parties.
在评估董事总经理是否涉嫌违反职责时，商业判断规则起着重要作用。这条不成文的规则规定，董事总经理在商业决策中拥有自由裁量权，也就是说，如果他们能够根据充分的信息，合理地认为自己的决定符合公司的最佳利益，那么就没有违反职责。但是，如果违反了其职责，那么根据《有限责任公司法》第43条第2 款的规定，董事总经理可能要对由此造成的损失承担责任。
When evaluating the performance of the managing director in suspicion of a breach of their duties, the business judgment rule plays an important role. This unwritten rule dictates that managing directors have discretionary power in business decisions meaning if they could reasonably assume, based on sufficient information, that their decision was in the best interests of the company, there is no breach of duty. However, if it constitutes a breach of his duties, then the managing director can be held liable for incurred damages according to § 43 paragraph 2 GmbHG.
德国股份有限公司的责任和义务
Responsibility and liability of a German JSC
有限责任公司行政部门的职责大多是不成文的，相比之下，德国股份有限公司的《股份有限公司法》则采用了更为严格的法律手段。虽然行使职责的一些指导原则也只是模糊地写在纸上，但某些职责是具体成文的。
In contrast to the mostly unwritten responsibilities of the executive branch in an LLC, the AktG for German JSCs follows a stricter legal approach. While some guiding principles for exercising duties are only vaguely written as well, certain duties are specifically codified.
源自《股份有限公司法》第76条的原则，如合法性原则或以实现股东利益为形式的受托服从原则，即使没有明确提及，也同样适用于股份有限公司。然而，当涉及到具体的执行人员时，《股份有限公司法》则显示了明确的指导方针，例如《股份有限公司法》第53a条规定的中立原则，该条规定执行董事会必须平等对待所有股东。
Principles derived from § 76 AktG like the legality principle or fiduciary obedience in the form of realizing the shareholders’ interests are also valid for JSCs even if not explicitly mentioned. However, when it comes to the specific executives, the Aktiengesetz displays explicit guidelines, such as the principle of neutrality according to § 53a AktG which codifies that the executive board has to treat all shareholders equally.
执行董事会必须遵守的另一项主要原则是注意义务，与《有限责任公司法》不同，《股份有限公司法》第93条对此有详细规定。其中规定，执行董事会必须适用一般谨慎标准，该标准将根据同类型、同规模公司的勤勉尽责经理人的行为来确定。与商业判断规则的应用类似，如果执行董事会能够根据充分的信息合理地认为其决定符合公司的最佳利益，则不会违反义务。
Another main principle that the executive board has to adhere to is the duty of care, which in contrast to the GmbHG is written in detail in § 93 AktG. There, it says that the executive board has to apply a general standard of care which will be determined by how a diligent and conscientious manager of a company of the same type and size would act. Similar to the application of the business judgment rule, the executive board would not commit a breach of duty if they could reasonably assume, based on sufficient information, that their decision was in the best interest of the company.
一般来说，《股份有限公司法》第77条概述了执行董事会 "业务管理 "的广泛任务，其中包括为公司采取的所有事实或法律行动。在《股份有限公司法》第83、88、90-92条中还规定了一些具体职责，如执行股东大会决定的合法措施（《股份有限公司法》第83 条）、向监事会报告（《股份有限公司法》第90 条）、保存业务记录并及时发现危及公司生存的事态发展（《股份有限公司法》第91 条）、报告损失并在损失一半股本时召开股东大会（《股份有限公司法》第92 条）。根据《股份有限公司法》第88条，执行董事会成员不得经营商业企业、在股份公司的业务部门开展业务或担任其他商业公司的管理机构。
Generally, the broad task of “business management” of the executive board is outlined in § 77 AktG which encompasses every factual or legal action taken for the sake of the company. Some specified duties can be found in §§ 83, 88, 90-92 AktG, such as implementing the lawful measure decided by the general meeting (§ 83 AktG), reporting to the supervisory board (§ 90 AktG), maintaining business records and recognizing developments that endanger the existence of the company in a timely manner (§ 91 AktG), and reporting losses and convene the general meeting in the event of a loss of half of the share capital (§ 92 AktG). According to § 88, board members are prohibited from operating a commercial enterprise, conducting business in the business sector of the stock corporation, or acting as a management body of another commercial company.
根据《股份有限公司法》第93条的规定，如果执行董事会故意或严重疏忽地违反了这些职责，则应共同承担由此造成的损失和损害赔偿责任。不过，如果执行董事会根据《股份有限公司法》第83条执行措施，则可免除责任（《股份有限公司法》第93 条第4款第1句）。
In case of an intentional or grossly negligent breach of these duties, the executive board can be held jointly liable for any incurred losses and damages in accordance with § 93 AktG. However, if the board is executing measures according to § 83 AktG, it is exempt from liability (§ 93 paragraph 4 sentence 1 AktG).
对于监事会成员违反职责的行为，适用《股份有限公司法》第93条，参见《股份有限公司法》第116条。执行董事会成员必须履行勤勉尽责的管理者的职责（见上文），而监事会成员则应履行勤勉尽责的监督者和顾问的职责。他们的监督和咨询活动必须符合公司的利益，尤其有义务对收到的报告和咨询意见保密。
For breaches of duties of the supervisory board members, § 93 AktG applies accordingly, see § 116 AktG. While the executive board members must exercise the care of a diligent and conscientious manager (see above), supervisory board members owe the care of a diligent and conscientious overseer and advisor. They must align their supervisory and advisory activities with the interests of the company and are particularly obliged to maintain confidentiality about received reports and consultations.
对执行董事会的日常业务进行持续监督并非监事会的职责；相反，监事会应重点关注董事会行为的合法性、正当性、适当性和效率。因此，监事会职责的一个重要部分是防止执行董事会的不当行为，同时还包括积极参与监事会的工作、为执行董事会制定适当的薪酬（《股份有限公司法》第87条第1款）、保持组织的功能性以及对最重要的商业交易进行监督（《股份有限公司法》第116条框架内的法律实践也承认了这一点）。
The ongoing supervision of the day-to-day businesses of the executive board is not the responsibility of the supervisory board; instead, they shall focus on the legality, propriety, appropriateness, and efficiency of the board’s actions. An essential part of the board’s duties is therefore the prevention of misconduct by the executive board, and also spans the duty to actively participate in the board, to set an appropriate remuneration for the executive board (§ 87 paragraph 1 AktG), and to maintain a functional organization as well as an overview of the most important business transactions, as recognized through legal practice within the framework of § 116 AktG.
执行会和监事会都是执行公司事务的主要机构，而股东大会则是股东表达和讨论其关切的平台，是执行部门的基础。特别是在监事会成员和审计师的任命、利润分配、监事会成员薪酬制度的批准以及监事会成员的正式解职等方面，股东大会都能做出最终决定。此外，监事会还负责监督公司章程的修订，管理与资本相关的措施，并有权决定公司的解散。由于它是股东行使权利的平台，因此股东不承担任何责任。
Both the executive and supervisory boards are the main bodies for the execution of company matters, whereas the general meeting is the platform given to the shareholders to articulate and discuss their concerns as the foundation of the executive branch. The general meeting makes ultimate decisions specifically on cases concerning the appointment of supervisory board members and auditors, the allocation of profits, approval of the remuneration system for supervisory board members, and their formal discharge. Additionally, it oversees amendments to the articles of association, manages capital-related measures, and has the authority to decide on the dissolution of the company. Since it is a platform for shareholders to exercise their rights, they don’t hold responsibilities that they can be held liable for.
根据欧盟指令
Under the EU directive
必须简要指出的是，德国是欧洲联盟（欧盟）的成员国，因此属于欧洲指令的管辖范围。这些指令对所要达到的结果具有约束力，但由国家当局在本国法律体系内实施（参见《欧盟运作条约》第288条）。
It briefly has to be noted that Germany is a member state of the European Union (EU) and therefore falls under the European directive. These directives are binding as to the result to be achieved but leave national authorities the form of implementation within their own legal system (refer to Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU).
最近的一项指令（2024/1760）自 2024 年 7 月 25 日起生效，具有重要意义，因为它明确将可持续性纳入了公司治理。它要求企业在运营和价值链中识别并减轻对人权和环境的影响，因此包括了一些责任，如气候适应性投资；在执行任务时采用基于风险的方法，这意味着行政部门必须根据环境影响的严重性和可能性确定行动的优先次序，并采取适当措施来解决这些问题；以及实施一些实际措施，如制定预防和纠正行动计划、投资基础设施以及调整业务战略，以促进更可持续的企业行为。该指令涵盖全球价值链，包括上游和下游活动。
One of the most recent directives (2024/1760), effective from 25 July 2024, holds great importance as it explicitly embeds sustainability into corporate governance. It requires companies to identify and mitigate human rights and environmental impacts in their operations and value chains, and therefore includes responsibilities such as climate-resilient investments; a risk-based approach when executing their tasks, meaning that executive branches have to prioritize actions based on the severity and likelihood of environmental impacts and taking appropriate measures to address them; as well as an implementation of practical measures like the development of preventive and corrective action plans, investment in infrastructure as well as adapting business strategies to foster a more sustainable corporate behavior. The directive covers global value chains, including upstream and downstream activities.
根据该指令第27条的规定，违规行为将受到处罚，如最高可达公司上一财政年度净营业额5%的罚款、因未开展适当尽职调查而造成损失的赔偿责任以及其他制裁。指定机构将监督和执行这些规则，"董事"必须定期报告其尽职调查活动，并公开披露其政策和活动结果，以确保公司履行其可持续发展责任。
According to Article 27 of the directive, non-compliance can result in penalties such as fines of up to 5% of the company’s net turnover from the preceding financial year, liability for damages caused by failure to conduct adequate due diligence, and other sanctions. A designated authority will supervise and enforce these rules, and “directors” are required to regularly report on their due diligence activities, as well as publicly disclose their policies and results of their activities, so that it is ensured that companies adhere to their sustainability responsibilities.
主要区别和结论
Key differences and conclusion
中国和德国的法律制度都是围绕着董事或同等执行机构的职责和责任而制定的，都以勤勉尽责、诚信义务和忠诚原则为基础，要求其广泛的职责范围始终以公司及其股东的最佳利益为出发点。
The Chinese and German legal systems revolving around the responsibilities and with it also the liability of directors or equivalent executive branches are both based on principles of due diligence, fiduciary duty and loyalty, requiring their broad scope of duties to always be executed in the best interest of the company and its shareholders.
随着中国《中华人民共和国公司法》的修订，这些职责的书面规范现在也与德国的勤勉尽责要求非常相似，都是基于已有的商业判断规则概念。对于违反职责的行为，这两种制度都会以损害赔偿的形式对造成的损失进行处罚，这使得它们的整体方法在根本上非常相似。
With the revised Chinese Company Law, the written specifications for these duties are now also very similar to the German due diligence requirements, both based on the already existing concept of the business judgment rule. For breaches of duties, both systems impose penalties in forms of damage compensation for incurred losses, making their overall approach very similar in their fundament.
其中一个主要区别在于中国的集中式规制和德国更为复杂的公司结构所造成的法律结构上的差异：不仅中国董事的职责主要由一部《中华人民共和国公司法》规定，而德国对有限责任公司和股份有限公司分别规定了两部法典；而且中国公司通常有一个董事会，而德国公司则没有。德国的股份有限公司通常采用双董事会制度，由执行董事会和监事会组成，而德国有限责任公司中与中国董事会相关的角色和责任则由董事总经理和股东共同承担。在德国，由于对每个行为者的职责和责任都有明确的规定，因此这种制度更加正规化。不过，这两种制度都为公司的执行机构规定了类似的严格责任，并确保遵守公司治理标准，但需要注意的是，由于欧盟的指令，德国的法律限制范围更广，从而进一步加强了其正规化方法。
One of the main differences only lies within the legal structure due to China’s centralized approach and German more complex companies’ structures: Not only are the responsibilities of directors mainly governed by one Company Law, whereas in Germany imposes two separate codifications for LLCs and JSCs; Chinese companies typically have a single board of directors while Germans do not. German JSCs often have a dual-board system instead, made up of an executive board and a supervisory board, while the equivalent of the roles and responsibilities associated with a Chinese board of directors in a German LLC is the combination of the managing director and the shareholders. This system creates a more formalized approach in Germany due to the explicit guidelines for the duties and liabilities for every actor. However, both systems establish similar stringent responsibilities for the executive branch of a company and ensure compliance with corporate governance standards, whereby it is to note that Germany lies under a broader restrictive legal context due to the directives of the EU, thus additionally enhancing their formalized approach.
因此，综上所述，虽然中德两国关于公司董事责任的法律框架在结构方式、法律背景和具体法律规定上存在差异，但它们仍具有共同的原则和目标，可以概括为确保董事坚持高标准的公司治理，保护公司及其股东的利益。
Therefore, in conclusion, while both Chinese and German legal frameworks for company directors’ responsibilities differ in their structural approaches, legal contexts and specific legal provisions, they still share common principles and goals which can be summarized as an ensurance that directors uphold high standards of corporate governance, protecting the interests of the company and its shareholders.