Legal issue: the constitutionality of the contested provision, as soon as it enables one or several members of the company, who disagree with the decision of the general meeting of company’s shareholders to increase its charter capital, to obstruct this decision by way of refusal from or delay in contributing their part of additional capital.
Ratio decidendi: the Court deemed the contested rule not to be contradictory to the Constitution; rather, the problem was created by its wrongful interpretation by commercial courts. According to its proper meaning, the rule does not enable a minority shareholder to obstruct such decision of the general meeting; otherwise there would be a violation of the principle of stability of civil turnover, as well as that of constitutionally significant principles of inadmissibility of anyone’s intrusion into private affairs and of inadmissibility of exercising the rights and freedoms of man and the citizen by violating of rights and freedoms of other persons.
