The shareholder, who cannot participate the general meeting of the joint stock company due to an irregular convocation, may request the annulment of the decisions taken in her/his absence. According to the jurisprudence of the Court of Appeal, in order for an action for annulment resulted in success solely on the grounds that the convocation is irregular, the shareholder’s share of votes must be effective in taking the decision of the general meeting. Likewise, if the decision taken in her/his absence is legal contentwise, the action for annulment filed by the shareholder who could not participate the meeting should be rejected. As a result of this attitude of the Court of Appeal, the shareholder is deprived of inalienable rights such as the right to participate in the general meeting, to express opinions and suggestions on the issues discussed in the general assembly, and to vote, and the position of being shareholder loses its function considerably. The subject of this article is whether the aforementioned jurisprudence of the Court of Appeal result in a violation of the shareholder’s property right, which is protected by the provisions of art. 35 of the Constitution and art. 1 of Additional Protocol (1) to the European Convention on Human Rights.