The first elected committee has been sitting for more than a year, but did not file compensation, did not set up appointed pigs, did not issue a share certificate, did not withdraw sink funds, did not deduct repair funds, violated all mandatory provisions of the Law on Associations and the Articles of Association, and continues to be a member of the Committee. The president is co-owner of his apartment, which was sold by Mhada, but has not fulfilled the legal formalities of an associate member, but still claims that everything is in order. Pls. indicate if it is legal to be the president and everything is fine despite all the veil. 4 See . The Committee is composed of a Chair and two legal experts from each ICA region (Africa, Asia-Pacific, Europe, Americas). The author of this article was named after the European Region. The achievement of the common objective includes, as already mentioned, transactions between the cooperative and its members for the exchange of goods or services or for the performance of work, depending on the type of co-operative, whether it is a cooperative of consumers, suppliers or workers. These transactions play a special role among all the transactions necessary for a cooperative to function as a business in the market. It is precisely the transactions by which cooperatives fulfill their typical purpose and the members of the cooperative satisfy their individual interests: the raison d`être of a cooperative for those who choose to create it. For this reason, in cooperative legal theory, these transactions must be separated from all others by first giving them a unique name, as some cooperative laws reasonably do, using formulas such as “cooperative acts” or “mutual relations”.59x “cooperative act” is a common term and concept in the Latin American legal environment.
although it can also be found in the Spanish jurisdiction, where it is more precisely called “cooperative activity” (actividad cooperativizada) (cf. Fajardo 2013). These transactions are called in the Italian legal system “mutual relations” (rapporti mutualistici). In German case law, the term “ad hoc transactions” is referred to as opposed to “netting operations”, i.e. “operations which are necessary to enable special purpose operations, for example: in the case of consumer cooperatives, the purchase of goods from wholesalers or producers with a view to selling them to members and, in the case of marketing cooperatives, the sale of members` products to wholesalers. Such countervailing transactions are, by their very nature, transactions with non-members in the broad sense and are not relevant to the discussion of whether transactions with non-members are permitted or not” (in this sense, Münkner 2013). In what follows, they are referred to in this article as “cooperative operations”, which is consistent with the former term “cooperative enterprises” for economic activity with and in the interest of members, which is the main element of the cooperative objective. Because of their particular function within a cooperative, cooperative transactions require specific regulation. One question that needs to be carefully weighed is, for example, whether and to what extent a co-operative and its members are (or should) be obliged to do business with each other. It is clear that a cooperative that does not do business with its members would not fulfill its institutional purpose and would not satisfy the interests of its members. Similarly, a member who does not participate in cooperative transactions would not allow a cooperative to fulfill its purpose (and indirectly to other members to satisfy their interests). Consequently, freedom of action is incompatible with the concept of cooperative, in particular where such freedom is granted to the cooperative.
On the other hand, it is difficult for the law to specify the exact extent of the obligation to carry out transactions, which implies that a reasonable solution to this problem would in principle be to leave the articles of association of the cooperative free to regulate the matter, but by obliging them to provide for the minimum extent to which the members of the cooperative are obliged to do business with the cooperative, or at least how they are obliged. in which it is to be liquidated. TBD. This is roughly in line with cooperative practice, particularly in agricultural cooperatives, where the problem of inactive members is probably perceived more strongly than in other types of cooperatives (e.g. large consumer cooperatives such as cooperative banks), and the solution adopted by some cooperative laws.60xSee for example Article 15, Section 2 lit. f GDPR. (b) the Spanish Law on Cooperatives, which requires members to do business with the cooperative to the minimum extent provided for in its statutes. Gide 1921, p. 63, warns, however: “Member loyalty is a matter of education, not coercion.” Binding and uniform agreements between an agricultural cooperative and its members, which give the cooperative the power to define quantity, quality and other conditions of exchange relations, are one of the attributes of the so-called cooperative model of the new generation (cf.
Chaddad & Cook 2004, p. 355; more recently Chaddad 2012, p. 456). This problem can also be solved by giving co-operatives the right to exclude inactive members and members the right to withdraw from the co-operative if the co-operative refuses to do business with them without good reason. The obligation of the cooperative to treat its members in the same way as in Italian cooperative law, for example, in the conclusion and conduct of cooperative transactions61xSee Article 2516 of the Italian Civil Code. is an important provision not only in general terms, but also in the specific treatment of the previous question. This obligation indirectly protects a member`s right to do business with his or her co-operative, since the co-operative cannot be excused for not doing business with that member when the impossibility of transactions is due to an excessive and therefore unequal number of transactions with other members (or, worse, with non-members). Another fundamental legal issue raised by cooperative transactions is the possible application by legal entities governing the types of market transactions to which they resemble and to which they would undoubtedly be subject if they were carried out outside a cooperative. Is contract law (in particular consumer contract law) applicable to the exchange of goods and services between a consumer or producer cooperative and its members? And is labour law applicable to relations between an associated worker cooperative and its salaried members? Or does the law of cooperative organizations regulate them exclusively? Obviously, this point is even more sensitive when account is taken of mandatory provisions of contract or labour law, such as the protection of consumers against defective products or the granting of the right to strike to workers. If, on the one hand, cooperative operations were subject to general contract or labour law, without taking into account their specificity vis-à-vis market transactions, on the other hand, there may be rights of the members of the cooperative which must be protected in all cases. The issue is complex and treated differently by courts and lawyers.
