DOI 10.18690/978-961-286-004-2 ISBN 978-961-286-004-2
© 2016 University of Maribor Press
Available at: http://press.um.si.
© University of Maribor Press
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any
electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and
recording, or in any information storage or retriveal system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Title: 24th Conference Corporate Entities at the Market and European Dimensions (May
19th – 21st 2016, Portorož, Slovenia) (conference papers)
Editor: Prof. Dr. Vesna Rijavec (University of Maribor, Faculty of Law)
Review: dr. Andrej Ekart (Ministry of Justice RS), doc. dr. Tjaša Ivanc (University of
Maribor, Faculty of Law)
Proofreading: Katja Drnovšek
CIP - Kataložni zapis o publikaciji
Univerzitetna knjižnica Maribor
347.7(4)(082)
CONFERENCE Corporate Entities at the Market and European Dimensions (24 ;
2016 ; Portorož)
(Conference Proceedings) / 24. Conference Corporate Entities at the
Market and European Dimensions (May 19th – 21st, Portorož, Slovenia) ;
editor Vesna Rijavec. - Maribor : University of Maribor Press, 2016
ISBN 978-961-286-004-2
1. Rijavec, Vesna
COBISS.SI-ID 90086913
First published in 2016 by
University of Maribor Press
Slomškov trg 15, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia
tel. +386 2 250 42 42, fax +386 2 252 32 45
http://.press.um.si, zalozba@um.si
Co-published by
University of Maribor, Faculty of Law
Mladinska ulica 9, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia
tel. +386 2 250 42 00, fax +386 2 252 32 45
http://www.pf.um.si, info.pf@um.si
Price: free copy
For publisher:
prof. dr. Igor Tičar, rector (University of Maribor)
This publication has been produced with the financial support of the Civil Justice Programme of the European
Union. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of project coordinator and can in no way be
taken to reflect the views of the European Commission.
24th
Conference Corporate Entities at the Market and
European Dimensions
(May 19th
– 21st
2016, Portorož, Slovenia)
(Conference Proceedings)
Editor:
dr. Vesna Rijavec
December 2016
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND
EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
V. Rijavec
Table of Contents
CONFERENCE PAPERS
A General Overview of Enforcement in Commercial and Civil
Matters in Austria
Philipp Anzenberger
1
A General Overview of Enforcement in Commercial and Civil
Matters in Lithuania
Darius Bolzanas & Egidija Tamošiūnienė & Dalia Vasarienė
13
Changed Circumstances in Slovene Case Law
Klemen Drnovšek
29
A General Overview of Enforcement in Commercial and Civil
Matters in Italy
Andrea Giussani
41
Law Aspects of Servitization
Janja Hojnik
51
Removal of Exequatur in England and Wales
Wendy Kennett
73
Cross Border Service of Documents – Partical Aspects and Case Law
Urška Kežmah
85
Diputes regarding the use of distributable profits and ensuring a
minimum dividend and balance shee-financial aspects of canceled
resolutions d.d.
Marijan Kocbek & Saša Prelič
97
Subscribers Liabilities to Subcontractor Under Directive
2014/24/EU and ZJN-3
Vesna Kranjc
115
Certan Open Issues Regarding the Refusal of Enforcement Under
the Brussels I Regulation in Slovenia
Jerca Kramberger Škerl
131
ii 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
Table of Contents
Owerview of the Croatian Enforcement System With Focus on the
Remedies
Ivana Kunda
145
Selected Issues of Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign
Judgments from the Prespective of EU Member States
Jiři Valdhans & Tereza Kyselovská
157
Editing Working Relationships of Companies Directors (Managerial
Staff)
Darja Senčur Peček
173
The Order Problem of the Acquisition of Derivative rights in the
Event of Realestate Owner Bankruptcy
Renato Vrenčur
189
The Brussel Regulation Recast – Abolishing the Exequatur
Maintaining the Exequatur Function?
Christian Wolf
201
Cross-border Legal Representation as Seen in a Case Study
SaschaVerovnik
217
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND
EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
V. Rijavec
A General Overview of Enforcement in Commercial and
Civil Matters in Austria
PHILIPP ANZENBERGER1
Abstract Although created 120 years ago, the Austrian Execution Code
has not yet been consigned to the scrap heap. Quite the contrary: After
passing through some serious refurbishment throughout the last 25 years,
Austria nowadays disposes over a quite well-functioning enforcement law
that at most needs some little beauty treatment here and there. This paper
will provide a rough overview of the history and process of reform of
Austrian enforcement law, point out some of the relevant ideas of its
dogmatic framework, sketch the most important aspects of the procedures
for enforcement and for security measures in Austrian Civil Procedure law,
and finally give some suggestions for possible improvement.
Keywords: • enforcement law • procedural principles • security measures
• foreign enforceable instruments • conduct of enforcement
CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS: Philipp Anzenberger, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, University of Graz,
Institute for Civil Procedure and Insolvency Law, Universitätsstraße 15/B4, A-8010 Graz, Austria,
e-mail: philipp.anzenberger@uni-graz.at.
DOI 10.18690/978-961-286-004-2.1 ISBN 978-961-286-004-2
© 2016 University of Maribor Press
Available at: http://press.um.si.
2 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
P. Anzenberger: A General Overview of Enforcement in Commercial and Civil Matters
in Austria
1 Legal sources and reform process
In Austrian law, enforcement in civil and commercial matters is mainly regulated in the
Austrian Execution Code (Exekutionsordnung – EO). Subsidiarily, the rules of the
Austrian Civil Procedure Code (Zivilprozessordnung – ZPO) apply in relation to
several parts of the enforcement procedure (e.g. the taking of evidence, the rules for the
parties or the court’s resolutions and the means of legal recourse; cf. § 78 EO). Also,
some relevant provisions can be found in other legal acts, such as the Jurisdiction Act
(Jurisdiktionsnorm – JN), the Court Organization Act (Gerichtsorganisationsgesetz –
GOG), the Act on Judicial Officers (Rechtspflegergesetz – RPflG) or the Act on Land
Valuation (Liegenschaftsbewertungsgesetz – LBG).
The Austrian Execution Code dates back to the year 1896 and has remained in force in
large parts up until today. Over the last 25 years, however, the Execution code has been
reformed in several (individual) steps (cf. Konecny, 1998: 107): Starting with a large
rework of the enforcement of claims in 19911
, the legislator most importantly launched a
reform of the enforcement out of tangible movables as well as the introduction of a
simplified procedure for issue of an enforcement order in 19952
, followed by a vast
redraft of the enforcement out of immovable property in 20003
and another rather large
rework of forced administration of immovable property in 20084
. The next big reform
will come into force in 20175
, mainly containing several adaptations and implementations
necessary due to the Brussels Ia-Regulation and the European Account Preservation
Order-Regulation.
2 Dogmatic framework of the Austrian system of enforcement
2.1 Competence of the courts and distribution of tasks
The Austrian enforcement procedure is initiated at and carried out by the courts. Despite
the existence of deviating models in other European countries, this was explicitly desired
by the legislator of the ZPO and the EO (cf. Rechberger, 1988: 120-121): “Whenever
state authority is in service of civil law, as with enforcement law, it is appropriate, that
this is done by state officials, so that everyone can see, that it is not private persons that
act as empowered representatives”6
(Materialien II 2). Because: “Enforcement is never
a purely private affair and just a matter of the parties; instead each individual
enforcement procedure – even if its dimensions were utterly insignificant – always
touches the general interest, in fact in a very meaningful way”7
(Materialien I 458; also
c.f. Rechberger, 1988: 121). The underlying idea is of course the general purpose of civil
procedure (established by Franz Klein) as a means of social welfare that solves conflicts
in a fast and efficient way (cf. Fasching, 1990: p 45; Konecny, 2013: Einleitung p 12).
However, more recent voices in the literature have criticized this structure as “out-dated”
(Rechberger and Oberhammer, 2009: p 19).
The individual steps of enforcement are distributed amongst various court members:
Several – rather standardized – types of enforcement procedures (for example large parts
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
P. Anzenberger: A General Overview of Enforcement in Commercial and Civil Matters
in Austria
3
of the process of enforcement out of tangible movables and claims, which represent the
vast majority of enforcement proceedings) are nowadays in the hands of judicial officers
(Neumayr and Nunner-Krautgasser, 2011: 4 and 7). Judges are competent for the more
complicated matters, such as the forced sale of immovable property, the execution to
effectuate a conduct, toleration or omission of an action as well as the declaration and
confirmation of enforceability of foreign decisions (§ 17 para 3 nr 1 RPflG). Finally,
court bailiffs are competent for several (factual) enforcement acts, such as the seizure
and sale of tangible movables or the eviction (Neumayr and Nunner-Krautgasser, 2011:
4-5).
2.2 Procedural principles in Austrian enforcement law
As far as the conduct of the proceeding goes, the Austrian enforcement law is largely
characterized by the principles of free disposition of parties (Heller, Berger and Stix,
1969: 3), the weakened inquisitorial principle (Rassi, 2014: § 55 EO p 25-27;
Rechberger and Simotta, 1992: p 111) and the principle of ex officio conduct of the
proceedings (Heller, Berger and Stix, 1969: 3). Any enforcement procedure is started by
an application; the applying party there decides what method of enforcement he or she
wants to use and may stop the enforcement at any time on application (§ 39 para 1 nr 6
EO; cf. Neumayr and Nunner-Krautgasser, 2011: 27-28). The court may collect all
evidence necessary for its decision (§ 55 para 3 EO); however, there is no obligation to
investigate facts that were not brought forward by the parties (Rassi, 2014: § 55 EO p 27).
Also, in the proceedings for the issue of an enforcement order, the court is not allowed to
ask the parties to provide further evidence (§ 55 para 2 EO; Rassi, 2014: § 55 EO p 27).
Once started, the enforcement procedure is generally carried out ex officio (Rechberger
and Simotta, 1992: p 117); however, in some situations the applying party needs to
participate in the procedure (for example by providing the necessary manpower and
means of transport for an eviction; cf. § 349 para 1 EO) or file further applications (for
example the application to set a new auction date in relation to enforcement out of
immovable property, if the bids have not met the reserve price; cf. § 151 para 3 EO;
Neumayr and Nunner-Krautgasser, 2011: 29-30). In order to speed up the enforcement
procedure, applications are usually ex parte; especially in the procedure on the approval
of enforcement (§ 3 para 2 EO; Neumayr and Nunner-Krautgasser, 2011: 31). Also a
recourse (the legal remedy against court resolutions) is generally inter partes in
enforcement proceedings (Neumayr and Nunner-Krautgasser, 2011: 31). There is no
strict principle of written proceedings in Austrian execution law; instead there are
flexible rules that mainly promote the efficient conduct of the proceedings: Applications,
for example, can also be filed orally at the court and parties and third persons can be
examined by the court if necessary (Neumayr and Nunner-Krautgasser, 2011: 31-32).
Enforcement proceedings are (with the exception of auctions) not public (Rechberger
and Simotta, 1992: p 130-131).
The enforcement procedure shall be carried out in a fast and economic way (Heller,
Berger and Stix, 1969: 4) in order to enable an efficient satisfaction of creditors (if the
matter in dispute was a money claim: according to the priority principle; cf. Neumayr
4 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
P. Anzenberger: A General Overview of Enforcement in Commercial and Civil Matters
in Austria
and Nunner-Krautgasser, 2011: 32). However, numerous provisions on the protection of
the debtor (for example on items and claims immune from seizure [§§ 250-251, 290 EO]
or on restrictions regarding the seizure of claims [§§ 290a-293 EO]) ensure, that the
debtor’s livelihood is secured and that the debtor’s assets are not diminished more than
necessary (Heller, Berger and Stix, 1969: 3).
3 Conduct of enforcement
3.1 General aspects
Any enforcement according to the Austrian Enforcement Code requires a previous
authorization by the court; therefore the enforcement procedure is split up into two parts:
The “proceedings to obtain an order for enforcement” and the “enforcement
proceedings” as such (Rechberger and Oberhammer, 2009: p 74), the latter of which are
(generally) divided into the three subphases seizure, realisation of the value of the asset
and satisfaction of the creditors, whenever the enforcement of money claims is involved
(Rechberger and Oberhammer, 2009: p 141-143). In order for the court to grant an
enforcement order, the creditor needs to produce an enforceable instrument;
enforceability usually needs to be confirmed by the authority that issued the enforceable
instrument (Jakusch, 2015: § 7 EO p 98-100/1). Foreign enforceable instruments
generally need to be declared enforceable; however, many European enforceable
instruments are now to be enforced without a previous declaration of enforcement (cf.
Art 39 Brussels Ia-Regulation).
3.2 Enforceable instruments
§ 1 EO contains a definitive (Rechberger and Oberhammer, 2009: p 77) list of all the
“acts and documents” that serve as a ground for the issue of an enforcement order
(“enforceable instruments”). Those enforceable instruments can be issued by a court
(such as judgements and resolutions from civil courts [nr 1]; payment orders [nr 3]; court
settlements [nr 5] or criminal court´s findings on the procedural costs or on private claims
[nr 8]), by an administrative authority (such as decisions by administrative authorities
on civil claims [nr 10]; decisions by public insurance institutions, granting or refusing
services [nr 11]; or the fiscal authorities’ payment orders or confirmations of payment
default [nr 13]), or by unofficial bodies (such as an arbitral award or an arbitral
settlement [nr 16]).
3.3 Confirmation of enforceability
The confirmation of enforceability serves as a certification that the enforcement title is
(formally) enforceable. This means, that the enforceable instrument has come into effect
(which is for example the case, when it was served on the defendant) and that no legal
remedy with a suspensory effect is available (Höllwerth, 2009: § 7 EO p 150; Jakusch,
2015: § 7 EO p 95). According to case law, the confirmation of enforceability also
provides proof of the fact that the time limit for complying with the instrument (which
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
P. Anzenberger: A General Overview of Enforcement in Commercial and Civil Matters
in Austria
5
is usually set in the instrument) has expired8
. The issuing of the confirmation of
enforcement is still part of the procedure in the main case and therefore performed by the
court or authority that issued the enforceable instrument (Jakusch, 2015: § 7 EO p 98-
100/1).
3.4 Foreign enforceable instruments: Declaration of enforceability
Foreign enforceable instruments (generally) need to be recognized and declared
enforceable according to European law, bi- or multilateral treaties, or (subsidiarily)
§ 406-416 EO. This (again generally) requires the enforceability in the state of origin as
well as the reciprocity of enforceability (cf. Garber, 2015: § 79 EO p 16-19). However,
after the abolition of the exequatur procedure in Brussels I-recast, most enforceable
instruments (cf. Art 1 Brussels Ia-Regulation) stemming from European Member States
do not require the previous declaration of enforceability any more (Art 39 Brussel IaRegulation).
Nevertheless, upon application of any interested party, recognition (Art 45
Brussels Ia-Regulation) and enforcement (Art 46 Brussels Ia-Regulation) may be refused
under the grounds named in Art 45 Brussels Ia-Regulation. According to Art 47 Brussels
Ia-Regulation, the procedure for refusal of enforcement shall be governed by national
law; in Austria this shall be done with an application for the cessation of enforcement
(§ 418 para 1 EO).
3.5 Order for enforcement
The proceedings to obtain an order for enforcement starts with the application by one
party. Such an application shall contain (according to § 54 para 1 EO): The names of the
applying party and the party against whom enforcement is sought (nr 1), any
circumstances that are relevant for determining the court’s jurisdiction (nr 1), a
description of the claim to be enforced and of the relevant enforceable instrument
(nr 2), a specification of the method of enforcement desired as well as (in the case of a
money claim) of the objects that shall be subject to enforcement proceedings (nr 3).
Additionally, the party filing the application needs to produce the enforceable instrument,
including the confirmation of enforceability and (if it is a foreign title) the declaration of
enforceability (§ 54 para 2 EO).
The court then has to investigate, whether the procedural requisites for enforcement
(such as jurisdiction, the capacity to be a party, the existence of an enforceable instrument
with the conformation of enforceability, the existence of an application that includes the
necessary content, etc.; for an extensive list cf. Neumayr and Nunner-Krautgasser, 2011:
101) are met and if the application is “objectively founded” (which – according to the
prevailing opinion – means that there is an identity between the parties named in the
enforceable instrument and in the application and that the enforceable instrument contains
a well-determined order to pay or to act or refrain from acting; cf. Jakusch, 2015: § 7 EO
p 12-73; Neumayr and Nunner-Krautgasser, 2011: 102-103). The court usually does so
merely on the basis of the court file; however, in some circumstances the debtor may be
heard prior to the issue of an enforcement order (for example when authorising
6 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
P. Anzenberger: A General Overview of Enforcement in Commercial and Civil Matters
in Austria
enforcement of a prohibitory or mandatory injunction; cf. § 358 EO). A failure to satisfy
the procedural requisites leads to a dismissal of the application as inadmissible, a lack of
the objective foundation leads to dismissal of the application on the merits. However,
according to § 54 para 3 EO, the court has to give the party a chance to make corrections,
if the application is incomplete or the necessary documents are not attached. The legal
remedy against a decision on an application for an enforcement order is the recourse
(§ 65 para 1 EO).
If the creditor seeks satisfaction for a money claim below 50.000 Euro, he or she has to
apply for enforcement in the simplified procedure for grant of an enforcement order,
unless (§ 54b para 1 EO):
 The creditor applies for enforcement out of immovable property (nr 1).
 The creditor needs to produce documents other than the enforceable instrument
(nr 3).
 The instrument is a foreign enforceable instrument that still needs to be declared
enforceable (nr 4).
 The applying creditor can give evidence that the item sought to be seized would
be hidden or withdrawn if the debtor was served with the enforcement order
prior to seizure (nr 5).
The simplification consists in the fact, that the creditor does not need to produce the
enforceable instrument (§ 54b para 2 nr 2 EO); instead he or she only has to name the
day of issue of the confirmation of enforcement (§ 54b para 2 nr 1 EO). The idea behind
this simplified procedure is to enable and facilitate the use of the electronic
communication in enforcement procedures (Neumayr and Nunner-Krautgasser, 2011:
104). Since the formal requirements for obtaining the issue of an enforcement order are
significantly lowered, the debtor is granted an additional legal remedy, called
“objection” (“Einspruch”; § 54c EO). Through this (additional) legal remedy, the debtor
may assert that the applying creditor does not hold the enforceable instrument that was
named in the application or that the asserted data in the application does not match the
enforceable instrument (§ 54c para 1 EO).
3.6 Carrying out of the enforcement
Depending on whether the debtor has a money or a non-money claim, the Austrian
Execution Code offers various types of enforcement procedures: Money claims can be
enforced by the means of enforcement out of immovable property (§§ 87-247 EO),
enforcement out of tangible movables (§§ 249-289 EO), enforcement out of claims
(§§ 290-324 EO), orders (§§ 325-329 EO), or execution out of other assets (such as
companies, intellectual property rights, shareholder rights, etc.; §§ 330-345
EO). Regarding non-money claims the Austrian Execution Code contains very diverse
provisions; for example for the distribution of moveable assets (§§ 346-348 EO), for
eviction (§ 349 EO), for granting or rescinding rights laid down in the land register (§ 350
EO), or for enforcing mandatory (§§ 353-354 EO) or prohibitory injunctions (§ 355 EO).
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
P. Anzenberger: A General Overview of Enforcement in Commercial and Civil Matters
in Austria
7
The following three sections shall give a rough overview of enforcement out of
immovable property, enforcement out of tangible movables and enforcement out of
claims.
3.6.1 Enforcement out of immovable property
The Austrian Execution Code knows three subtypes of enforcement out of immovable
property: The registration of a charge on the property, forced administration and
forced sale of the property. Notice of the enforcement order in each of those three
subtypes needs to be entered into the land register (§ 88 para 1, §§ 98 and 137 EO). As
far as forced administration goes, the court has then to appoint an administrator (§ 99
para 1 EO) that shall take over and manage (§ 108 EO) the property; at the end of every
year he or she has to render account (§ 115 EO). The enforcment court has to approve the
accounting (§ 116 EO) and distribute the surpluses to the creditors (§§ 122-128 EO).
Regarding an order for sale, the court will appoint an expert to appraise the value of the
property (§ 140-145 EO). Then the auction conditions (including a date for the auction)
shall be set and made public by edict (Neumayr and Nunner-Krautgasser, 2011: 208).
The auction itself is open to the public and held by the judge; the lowest valid bid equals
half the estimated value of the real estate (§ 151 para 1 EO). Whoever bids most during
the auction and can immediately deposit a security worth 10% of the appraised value
(§§ 147 and 148 EO) wins the auction; the buyer then has two months to pay the bid
amount (§ 152 EO). While the passing of risks happens on the “fall of the hammer” (§ 156
para 1 EO), the property is only handed over after all the requirements (especially the full
payment of the bid amount) are met (§ 156 para 2 EO; Rechberger and Oberhammer,
2009: p 308-312). Thereupon, the court schedules a hearing with the creditors and decides
on the distribution of the highest bid. Once the decision on the distribution becomes res
judicata, the creditors can be satisfied and the land register is adjusted (Neumayr and
Nunner-Krautgasser, 2011: 209).
3.6.2 Enforcement out of tangible movables
Authorisation of enforcement out of tangible movables lies within the competence of the
judicial officers (§ 17 para 2 nr 1 lit b EO); the seizure and realization of those assets,
however, is conducted by the court bailiffs (Neumayr and Nunner-Krautgasser, 2011:
227-228). After the authorisation of enforcement, the court instructs the bailiff where
(§ 25b EO) to attempt seizure (Neumayr and Nunner-Krautgasser, 2011: 229). The
seizure is accomplished by registering the assets in the seizure report (§ 253 EO); this
grants the creditor a form of lien for the purposes of enforcement (Neumayr and NunnerKrautgasser,
2011: 231). On the application of the creditor, the assets have to be taken
into custody (§ 259 para 1 EO; Rechberger and Oberhammer, 2009: p 355). The
realisation of the assets happens in an open sale (§§ 268 and 271a EO) or in an auction
(§ 270 EO); the distribution of the revenues largely follows the relevant rules in the
context of enforcement out of immovable property (§ 286 EO).
8 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
P. Anzenberger: A General Overview of Enforcement in Commercial and Civil Matters
in Austria
3.6.3 Enforcement out of claims
The enforcment of claims is carried out by the judicial officers as well (§ 17 para 2 nr 1
lit b EO). While there are some special provisions for negotiable instruments (such as
passbooks; cf. § 296 EO) or claims documented in the land register (§§ 320-324 EO), the
vast majority of claims are executed according to the rules in §§ 290-319 EO on “ordinary
claims” (Rechberger and Oberhammer, 2009: p 373). After the issue of the enforcement
order, the court issues a double order: The third-party debtor is served with an order
prohibiting payment (this also effects the seizure of the claim; cf. § 294 para 1 EO),
while the debtor is served with a freezing order (§ 294 EO). If the creditor doesn’t know
the third-party debtor, he or she instead may provide the debtor’s date of birth in the
application to obaint an enforcement order; in this case the court requests the main
association of social security providers to find out, whether the debtor is employed
somewhere (§ 294a para 1 EO; Oberhammer, 2015: § 294a EO p 4). If the creditor does
not dispose of the debtor’s date of birth either, the register office has to provide that
information, if the creditor produces the enforceable instrument there (§ 294a para 3 EO;
Oberhammer, 2015: § 294a EO p 4). Upon receiving the order prohibiting payment, the
third-party debtor shall give a declaration on all facts of interest regarding the existence
and the extent of the claim as well as the probability of actual satisfaction of the creditor
(so-called “third-party declaration”; § 301 EO). There are several ways of realizing the
claims; the practically most relevant way is the assignment for the purposes of
enforcement according to § 308 EO (Oberhammer, 2015: § 308 EO p 1): In this case,
the creditor may demand the claim from the third-party debtor as if it was his or her own
claim; however, the claim against the debtor is paid off only in accordance with the actual
payment the third party debtor makes (§ 312 EO; Neumayr and Nunner-Krautgasser,
2011: 246).
4 Security measures
There are two very distinct security measures in Austrian Civil Procedure Law, both of
which are (despite of some criticism on that systematic positioning; cf. Holzhammer,
1993: 442) laid down in the Austrian Execution Code: Asset freezing (or forced
administration) as a stage in the enforcement process (§§ 370-377 EO) and interim
measures (§§ 378-402 EO).
Any creditor that has obtained an instrument relating to a money claim may apply for
freezing measures (§ 370 EO) before the title has become res judicata (Neumayr and
Nunner-Krautgasser, 2011: 275). However, there is the requirement of an objective
endangerment of the creditor’s satisfaction (Neumayr and Nunner-Krautgasser, 2011:
277-279): Depending on the instrument (for the exceptions cf. §§ 371-373 EO), the
creditor therefore has to prove, that the enforcement of his claim would otherwise be
significantly more difficult or even rendered impossible or would have to be enforced in
a country, where enforcement is not assured by European or international law (§ 370 EO).
Nevertheless, the creditor cannot obtain full satisfaction by the means of asset freezing
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
P. Anzenberger: A General Overview of Enforcement in Commercial and Civil Matters
in Austria
9
as a stage in the enforcement process: security enforcement can (generally) not go further
than the “seizure phase” (cf. § 374 para 1 EO; cf. Rechberger and Oberhammer, 2009:
p 450 and 463). As soon as the instrument becomes enforceable, the asset freezing
measure automatically transforms into enforcement that serves the satisfaction of the
creditor (Sailer, 1999: § 375 EO p 18); any further steps to realise the value of the frozen
asset, however, still require an application of the creditor (Sailer, 1999: § 375 EO p 19).
If asset freezing as a stage in the enforcement process is admissible, the creditor cannot
apply for an interim measure (§ 379 para 1 EO).
Interim measures are issued in a summary procedure and shall secure the success of
the main procedure (Neumayr and Nunner-Krautgasser, 2011: 287). They can be issued
and enforced during and even before the commencement of the main procedure (Neumayr
and Nunner-Krautgasser, 2011: 287). While the dogmatic framework of interim measures
is quite controversial (Konecny, 1992: 7-52), it is undisputed that there are three
“archetypes” of interim measures:
1. Measures to secure a money claim (§ 379 EO).
2. Measures to secure a non-money claim (§ 381 nr 1 EO).
3. Measures to secure a right or a legal relation (§ 381 nr 2 EO).
Generally, for all three types, the applying party (called “the endangered party”) needs to
assert and to prove the existence of the claim or of a right or legal relation that needs
to be clarified (Neumayr and Nunner-Krautgasser, 2011: 292, 295 and 297) as well as an
interest in issuing an interim measure (which consists either in the danger of not being
satisfied [§ 379 para 2 EO; § 381 nr 1 EO] or in the necessity to prevent imminent
violence or an irretrievable damage [§ 381 nr 2 EO]). There is a vast range of possible
security measures, such as custody of moveable tangible assets (§ 379 para 3 nr 1 EO;
§ 382 para 1 nr 1 EO), prohibitions towards the opposite party to set some defined actions
(§ 379 para 3 nr 2 EO; § 382 para 1 nr 4 EO) or third party prohibitions (§ 379 para 3 nr 3
EO; § 382 para 1 nr 7 EO). The standard of proof in a proceeding on an interim measure
is lowered to predominant likelihood (Neumayr and Nunner-Krautgasser, 2011: 292,
295 and 297). If the interim measure is issued before the due-date of the claim or before
initiating the procedure, the endangered party has to be given a time limit to initiate the
main procedure (§ 391 para 2 EO).
5 Suggestions for an improvement
Due to the constant reform process that started in the 1980’s,9
Austria currently disposes
of a rather modern and well-functioning enforcement law. Nevertheless, there is room for
improvement in various aspects: For example, roughly one third of all executions of
moveable tangible assets does not yield any income; however, the debtor is only obliged
to compile a list of assets after an unsuccessful execution of moveable tangible assets or
an unsuccessful execution of claims (§ 47 para 1 EO). Obliging the debtor to deliver a
list of assets beforehand (or providing other means of detecting assets10
) could result in
a higher success rate of enforcement procedures (partly because assets could be detected
10 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
P. Anzenberger: A General Overview of Enforcement in Commercial and Civil Matters
in Austria
more easily, partly because many unpromising enforcement procedures would not even
be initiated).
Another – a little more technical – point of criticism is the lack of rules on enforcement
out of companies: According to § 341 EO, companies can be subject to forced
administration and forced rental, but there are no provisions on selling the debtor’s
company, which is why the prevailing opinion is opposed to such a possibility under
current law (cf. Frauenberger, 2014: § 341 EO p 3). For systematic reasons (especially at
the interface between property law and enforcement law; cf. Oberhammer, 2015: § 331
EO p 79-84) this is understandable; from an economic point of view, however, it is
curious that a company can be sold according to civil law and can be transferred in an
insolvency procedure, but cannot subject to seizure in an enforcement procedure (which
means that instead the creditor needs to enforce out of all the company’s assets –
obviously for far less revenue).
Another point of criticism to mention is that there could be a better “interconnectivity”
between enforcement law and insolvency law. In the absence of an application for the
opening of an insolvency procedure (or in default of sufficient money to carry it out), an
insolvency procedure will not be opened, meaning that enforcement procedures are piling
up, creating more and more debts for the debtor (and possibly even for the creditors, if
they are unable to recover that money). One possible measure there could be to allow the
ex officio-opening of an insolvency procedure if many execution proceedings have been
unsuccessful.
Acknowledgment
I would like to express my sincere thanks to Dr. Wendy Kennett (Cardiff University) for providing
very helpful advice regarding English terminology in enforcement law.
Opombe / Notes
1
Bundesgesetzblatt 628/1991 (available at www.ris.bka.gv.at -> Bundesrecht).
2
Bundesgesetzblatt 519/1995.
3
Bundesgesetzblatt I 59/2000.
4
Bundesgesetzblatt I 37/2008.
5
Bundesgesetzblatt I 100/2016.
6
In German: „Wenn die Staatsgewalt in die Dienste des Privatrechts tritt, wie es bei der Execution
der Fall ist, so ist es entsprechend, daß dies durch die Staatsbeamten geschieht, damit man es sehe,
daß nicht Private als Bevollmächtigte der Staatsgewalt auftreten…“.
7
In German: „Die Execution ist niemals reine Privatsache und bloße Parteienangelegenheit; jedes
einzelne Executionsverfahren – und wären seine Dimensionen noch so unscheinbar – berührt
immer auch das Gesammtinteresse, und zwar ganz nahe“.
8
OGH 3 Ob 289/04b; 2 Ob 232/08v; 4 Ob 16/10x; RIS-Justiz RS0000188 (available at
www.ris.bka.gv.at -> Judikatur -> Justiz).
9
See above chapter 2.
10
One will be implemented in the course of the national implementation of the Regulation
establishing a European Account Preservation Order: According to the new § 424 para 2 EO, the
debtor will have to reveal the bank account he owns in Austria.
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
P. Anzenberger: A General Overview of Enforcement in Commercial and Civil Matters
in Austria
11
References
Fasching, H. W. Lehrbuch des österreichischen Zivilprozeßrechts. 2nd ed., Vienna: Manz
1990.
Frauenberger, A. ‘§§ 325-345 EO’. In Exekutionsordnung – Kommentar, edited by A.
Burgstaller & A. Deixler-Hübner. Vienna: LexisNexis, 2014.
Garber, T. ‘Vor § 79 EO (p 1-530), §§ 79-81 EO’. In Kommentar zur Exekutionsordnung,
3rd ed., edited by P. Angst & P. Oberhammer. Vienna: Manz, 2015.
Heller, L. V., F. Berger & L. Stix. Kommentar zur Exekutionsordnung. 4th ed., Vol I.
Vienna: Manz, 1969.
Höllwerth, J. ‘§ 7 EO’. In Exekutionsordnung – Kommentar, edited by A. Burgstaller &
A. Deixler-Hübner. Vienna: LexisNexis, 2009.
Holzhammer, R. Österreichisches Zwangsvollstreckungsrecht. 4th ed. Vienna: Springer
1993.
Jakusch, W. ‘§§ 1-78 EO’. In Kommentar zur Exekutionsordnung, 3rd ed., edited by
P. Angst & P. Oberhammer. Vienna: Manz, 2015.
Kodek, G. ‘Artikel 36-60 EuGVVO’. In Europäisches Gerichtsstands- und
Vollstreckungsrecht – Brüssel Ia-Verordnung (EuGVVO 2012) und
Übereinkommen von Lugano 2007, 4th ed., edited by D. Czernich, G. Kodek &
P. G. Mayr. Vienna: LexisNexis, 2015.
Köllensperger, B. ‘Die neue Brüssel Ia-Verordnung: Änderungen bei Anerkennung und
Vollstreckung’. In Europäisches Zivilverfahrensrecht in Österreich IV – Die neue
Brüssel Ia-Verordnung und weitere Reformen, edited by B. König & P. G. Mayr.
Vienna: Manz, 2015, 37-59.
Konecny, A. Der Anwendungsbereich der einstweiligen Verfügung. Vienna: Manz 1992.
Konecny, A. ‘Die Exekutionsordnung nach 100 Jahren’. In 100 Jahre österreichische
Zivilprozeßgesetze, edited by P. G. Mayr, Vienna: Verlag Österreich, 1998, 95-122.
Konecny, A. ‘Einleitung’. In Kommentar zu den Zivilprozessgesetzen, Vol I, 3rd ed.,
edited by H. W. Fasching & A. Konecny. Vienna: Manz, 2013.
Materialien zu den österreichischen Civilproceßgesetzen. Vol I and II, edited by k. k.
Justizministerium. Vienna: Manz, 1897.
Neumayr, M. & B. Nunner-Krautgasser. Exekutionsrecht, 3rd ed. Vienna: Manz, 2011.
Oberhammer, P. ‘§§ 290-340, 342-345 EO’. In Kommentar zur Exekutionsordnung, 3rd
ed., edited by P. Angst & P. Oberhammer. Vienna: Manz, 2015.
Rassi, J. ‘§§ 55-73a EO’. In Exekutionsordnung – Kommentar, edited by A. Burgstaller
& A. Deixler-Hübner. Vienna: LexisNexis, 2014.
Rechberger, W. H. ‘Franz Klein und das Exekutionsrecht’. In Forschungsband Franz
Klein, edited by H. Hofmeister. Vienna: Manz, 1988, 119-131.
Rechberger, W. H. & P. Oberhammer. Exekutionsrecht, 5th ed. Vienna: facultas.wuv,
2009.
Rechberger, W. H. & D.-A. Simotta. Exekutionsverfahren, 2nd ed. Vienna: WUVUniversitätsverlag,
1992.
Sailer, J. ‘§§ 370-377 EO’. In Exekutionsordnung – Kommentar, edited by A. Burgstaller
& A. Deixler-Hübner. Vienna: LexisNexis, 1999.
12 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND
EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
V. Rijavec
A General Overview of Enforcement in Commercial and
Civil Matters in Lithuania
DARIUS BOLZANAS, EGIDIJA TAMOŠIŪNIENĖ & DALIA VASARIENĖ2
Abstract: The article analyses different aspects of enforcement procedure
in Lithuania and gives general overview of the recent situation. Legal
regulation of the enforcement, enforcement titles, means of enforcement,
order of proceedings, division between enforcement and security measures
– those questions are explored jointly with others in the light of experience
of the Republic of Lithuanian. Authors show several moments of recent
reforms that took place in Lithuania. One co-author professor E.
Tamošiūnienė (previously E. Stauskienė) is one of the well-known
researches who formed the doctrinal framework for the enforcement
regulation.
Keywords: • judicial officers (bailiffs) • enforcement procedure •
enforceable instruments • the warning to execute • executing recovery
CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS: Darius Bolzaas, Ph.D., Mykolas Romeris University, Faculty of Law
Institute of Private Law, Ateities g. 20, Vnilnius 08303, Lithuania, e-mail: bolzanas@mruni.eu.
Egidija Tamošiūnienė, Ph.D., Mykolas Romeris University, Faculty of Law Institute of Private
Law, Ateities g. 20, Vnilnius 08303, Lithuania, e-mail: egidija.tamosiuniene@mruni.eu. Dalia
Vasarienė, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Mykolas Romeris University, Faculty of Law Institute of
Private Law, Ateities g. 20, Vnilnius 08303, Lithuania, e-mail: dalia.vasariene@mruni.eu.
DOI 10.18690/978-961-286-004-2.2 ISBN 978-961-286-004-2
© 2016 University of Maribor Press
Available at: http://press.um.si.
14 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
D. Bolzanas, E. Tomošiūnienė & D. Vasarienė: A General Overview of Enforcement in
Commercial and Civil Matters in Lithuania
1 Legal sources regulating the enforcement
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and international legislation establish a person's
right to judicial protection1
. In some cases we can speak about a complete exercise of the
right to judicial protection only when court not only makes a court judgement, but also
the judgement is implemented. The implementation of court judgement is recognised
according to Article 6(1) of the integral part of the Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 (Baltutytė, 2007) and Constitutions
of most countries establish the right to judicial protection. The country that has accepted
the duty to ensure the protection of rights of material subjects, shall implement it by
ensuring to every legal subject the protection of its violated rights and interests and a
forced execution of a court judgement made during the civil process. The mechanism of
this coercion is in the hands of the government. The process of enforcing court
judgements determines the implementation of the constitutional right to judicial
protection and an effective protection of subjective rights or interests protected by law of
injured or disputed persons. Otherwise, both the right to judicial protection and the court
judgement would be declaratory, and that at the same time reduces society's confidence
in courts and their authority.
Upon recognising the enforcement of court judgements as an integral part of the right to
judicial protection, it is important to ensure that the process of enforcement went in
compliance with all rules established by law and legal principles. Norms regulating the
enforcement process in Lithuania, as in many other European countries, are incorporated
in to code of civil procedures. The procedure for applying the provisions of the
enforcement procedure established in Part VI of CPC of the Republic of Lithuania
(Article 583(1) of CPC of the Republic of Lithuania) shall be prescribed by the Judgement
Enforcement Instruction2
. The source of enforcement process is the Law on Bailiffs of
the Republic of Lithuania. Separate issues of the enforcement process are also regulated
by other legislation: Registry Law on Acts of Property Arrest3
; provisions of the Bailiffs'
Information System4
; Provisions of Information Systems of Cash Restrictions5
and other
legislation, mostly intended to regulate the bailiff's and assistant bailiff's activity.
2 The reform of the enforcement procedure
The section of CPC of the Republic of Lithuania of 1964 (was valid until 31 December
2002) that regulated the enforcement process was amended a lot of times after the
restoration of the Lithuanian Independence on 11 March 1990. These amendments were
made because public relations were changing fundamentally, market tendencies were
starting to be applied to them, and the legal norms of that CPC were not applicable. Legal
norms regulating the enforcement process did not comply with the needs of that time,
therefore, together with the reform of an entire legal system, the reform of enforcement
of court judgements had to also take place. New legal forms regulating the enforcement
process were implemented in 2002 in the CPC of the Republic of Lithuania, and the
institutional reform of bailiffs was carried out according to the outline of this reform 6
.
The following main goals were established to the institutional reform of bailiffs: 1)
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
D. Bolzanas, E. Tomošiūnienė & D. Vasarienė: A General Overview of Enforcement in
Commercial and Civil Matters in Lithuania
15
establish to bailiffs a status of persons providing professional services; 2) create a modern
and effective procedure of enforcing decisions made by courts and other institutions; 3)
legally confirm the principal provision that the costs of enforcing the decisions made with
regard to the dispute of individual persons shall be covered not by the government, but
by the parties of the dispute.
Until 01 January 2003 there was a system of governmental offices of court bailiffs in
Lithuania. Each district court had a bailiff office that had 2-36 bailiffs. In total, before the
reform there were around 300 governmental court bailiffs in Lithuania. On 01 January
2003 the bailiff reform was implemented, the goal of which was to create an effective
system of enforcing decisions made by court and other institutions and ensure the
prevention of failure to pay debts. The reform was implemented upon establishing the
Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Bailiffs in 2002 and the Code of Civil Procedures
of the Republic of Lithuania in 2002. The functions of enforcing court judgements after
the reform are performed by private persons providing professional services – bailiffs.
Prior to the reform, around 3 million EUR out of state budget were spent annually to
support governmental court bailiffs but the system of enforcing decisions was ineffective:
court bailiffs would recover only around 9 percent to the creditors out of the recovered
debt. The system with the main function to make decisions performed this function
episodically, operated at loss and basically deteriorated the work of other law
enforcement authorities. Such in effectiveness of the system is related to insufficient
qualifications of court bailiffs (around 70 percent did not have a legal education); court
bailiffs were not concerned financially (they basically did not receive (they received 5 off
the actually recovered amount but such system was effective only upon recovering higher
amounts) a payment for a successful enforcement of court judgement).
After reforming the system of governmental offices of court bailiffs to a private system,
from 1 January 2003, instead of 338 court bailiffs started working 126 private bailiffs
who were granted a status of persons providing professional services, by leaving certain
obligations of the Minister of Justice to control the bailiffs' activities. Legally a principal
provision was established which declared that the costs of enforcing the decisions made
with regard to the dispute of individual persons shall be covered not by the government,
but by the parties of the dispute7
.
In 2015 Lithuanian authorities have implemented changes of legal regulation and
organizational reformation, according to which function of service of judicial and
extrajudicial documents since 2016 is delegated from cities and districts courts to the
court bailiffs. The Chamber of Judicial Officers of Lithuania is appointed as competent
authority accepting documents, sent from other EU states according to the European
Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of 13 November 2007 on the
service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or
commercial matters and Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on the service abroad
of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters.
In 2015 there was implemented a new electronic enforcement tool. From mid-September
of 2015 the Judicial Officers Information System was supplemented by a new electronic
16 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
D. Bolzanas, E. Tomošiūnienė & D. Vasarienė: A General Overview of Enforcement in
Commercial and Civil Matters in Lithuania
debt management tool – Information System of Constraints of Financial Resources. In
the system there is integrated data of 18 different institutions and all data, which the
bailiffs have on debts and their recovery progress. Debtors’ funds from accounts in banks
and other credit institutions are debited electronically. Orders of write-off via Internet are
provided by the bailiffs, the State Tax Inspectorate, the Customs of the Republic of
Lithuania and the State Social Insurance Fund Board. The system provides not only
completely automatic but as well proportional distribution of recovered funds to all the
bailiffs according to the size of their requirements.
Since the beginning of 2013, when the e-auction service was introduced, already 3000
auctions, published by the bailiffs, have been held, during which the property for 94
million EUR was sold, the average of selling price 2.5 times bigger than the initial price
of the objects, presented to the auctions. Since November of 2015 auctions, published
by the bailiffs, are carried out in a joint portal www.evarzytynes.lt, where bankruptcy
administrators‘ auctions, auctions of municipalities are carried out as well as auctions of
Turto bankas (Bank of Property) and auctions of other institutions, executed by Turto
bankas (Bank of Property). The new electronic platform creates preconditions for
improving of pledged and unencumbered property auctions, which are executed by the
bailiffs and which are still held by the meeting. The Chamber of Judicial Officers of
Lithuania seeks that auctions, published by the bailiffs, would be transferred to the
electronic space and would be executed together with other auctions and e-biddings8
.
3 The doctrinal approach to the recent development of the enforcement
procedures
Systematic research of the enforcement process since 1988 basically concentrated at the
Institute of Civil Procedure (now Institute of Private Law) of the Faculty of Law of
Mykolas Romeris University. The interest in this topic was firstly taken by V. Višinskis,
later he was joined by E. Tamošiūnienė. Both before the reform and after it, the issues of
the enforcement process was rather widely discussed in dissertations and academic
publications (Višinskis, 2000; Stauskienė, 2006a; Stauskienė & Višinskis, 2008;
Stauskienė, 2005; 2006; Stauskienė, 2006a, Stauskienė, 2006b, Vėlyvis, Višinskis &
Žalėnienė, 2007; Vėlyvis, Stauskienė & Višinskis, 2007; V. & Žalėnienė, Ambrasienė &
Višinskis, 2008; Višinskis & Ambrasienė, 2008; Višinskis; 2006a; Višinskis, 2008;
Višinskis, 2008a; Višinskis, 2006; Višinskis, 2005; Stauskienė & Žalėnienė, 2010;
Stauskienė & Višinskis, 2010; Višinskis & Stauskienė, 2010). These authors contributed
greatly to reforming the system of enforcing court judgements in Lithuania: they took
part in preparing amendments and supplements to CPC, Law on Bailiffs, Judgement
Enforcement Instruction, currently they are included in the CPC supervision committee
compiled by the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania. V. Višinskis was the
first founder of the project of part VI of CPC regulating the enforcement process.
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
D. Bolzanas, E. Tomošiūnienė & D. Vasarienė: A General Overview of Enforcement in
Commercial and Civil Matters in Lithuania
17
4 Judicial officers (court bailiffs)
A lot of actions in the enforcement process in Lithuania are taken by the subject enforcing
court judgements – the bailiff. The main bailiff's objective is to execute by force the order
formulated in the execution document. The latter are not deemed jurisdiction because
disputed material legal issues are not settled here, related evidence is not investigated and
the material law is not resolved.
The bailiff gains a right to perform its rights and provide services in presence of all terms
and conditions established in Article 8 of the Law on Bailiffs of the Republic of Lithuania
that grant the right to operate as bailiff: the person seeking to become a bailiff must have
won a public procurement, insured his/her civil liability, must be assigned by the minster
as bailiff, and given an oath under the procedures of the Law on Bailiffs of the Republic
of Lithuania. The person recognised as bailiff, after giving an oath under the established
procedures, is included in the list of Lithuanian bailiffs, he/she is provided with a
certificate confirming the right to operate as bailiff and the bailiff's certificate and badge.
The main participant of the enforcement processes is the bailiff. He/she is empowered by
the State to carry out the enforcement of writs of execution, to make material
ascertainments on the factual circumstances, to serve written proceedings, and any other
functions provided by law. The main acts regulating the bailiff's legal status are the Law
on Bailiffs of the Republic of Lithuania9
and CPC of the Republic of Lithuania. Separate
issues related to the bailiffs' activities are also regulated by other legislation. According
to Article 585 (1) of the CPC of the Republic of Lithuania, the bailiff's requirements are
to implement the decisions, provide available information about the debtor's financial
situation, access the documents necessary to enforce judgements or to refrain from action
that would interfere with the enforcement of judgements, except for cases prescribed by
law, binding on all parties and should be met through the time limit set by bailiff. The
bailiff's authorisations are provided only to perform functions, the bailiff's requirements
are not related to the enforcement of judgements, e.g. while providing intermediary and
other services, to other persons are mandatory as much as it is established by law. In all
cases during the bailiff's activities, the priority should be given to the performance of
functions. He/she may provide services only if they do not contradict the performance of
other functions. Overbearing powers to ensure jurisdiction are granted to the bailiff only
when performing functions that are performed in a process form. When providing
services, the bailiff has not got such overbearing powers and acts only as a person
providing free professional services.
Upon performing enforcement actions, the bailiff may not exceed his/her powers. The
bailiff must act in such a way that enforcement actions are legitimate and carried out not
only complying with the law, but actually ensuring the protection of the enforcement
parties' rights and legitimate interests (Article 3 of the Law on Bailiffs of the Republic
of Lithuania). It is marked in the practice of the Supreme Court of the Republic of
Lithuania that the rules of enforcing court judgements require from a bailiff, as from a
subject of public law, to act only in accordance with his/her powers (competence) (intra
vires), and any action ultra vires is deemed a breach of the principle of legality (refer to
18 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
D. Bolzanas, E. Tomošiūnienė & D. Vasarienė: A General Overview of Enforcement in
Commercial and Civil Matters in Lithuania
the Ruling of the Extended Panel of Judges of the Civil Case Division of the Supreme
Court of Lithuania of 11 June 2008 made in the civil case No. 3K-7-277/2008; ruling
made on 08 February 2010 in the civil case of bailiff No. 3K-3-40/2010; ruling made on
25 May 2012 made in the civil case No. 3K-3-157/2012; etc.). The provisions above and
their explanation in the practice of the Court of Cassation pose a conclusion that the
bailiff's duty to seek a faster and real enforcement of judgement must be carried out with
the consideration that the requirements of law and the enforcement parties' rights and
legitimate interests must not be violated. A person who fails to comply with the demand
of the bailiff or otherwise hinders the bailiff from executing enforceable instruments, may
be imposed a fine in the amount of up to two hundred eighty nine EUR by the court for
every day of failure to perform obligations or impediment. If a bailiff is hindered from
executing enforceable instruments, the bailiff may call the police to eliminate the
hindrance (Article 585 (2) of CPC of the Republic of Lithuania). The hindering of the
bailiff's activities to enforce the court judgement is sanctioned under criminal law.
According to Article 231 of CC of the Republic of Lithuania, like the liability for other
crimes and criminal offences, hindering the activities of a judge, prosecutor, pre-trial
investigation officer, lawyer, or bailiff is sanctioned under criminal law. For such acts the
following punishments may be applied: public works, fine, arrest, restriction of freedom,
and imprisonment.
Bailiffs, upon performing their functions, must comply with the principles of legality of
activities, cooperation and democracy and civil process. The bailiff must perform
professional functions in fairness, refrain from disclosing circumstances of a personal life
that became available to him/her during professional activities, keep commercial secrets
and other secrets protected by law. Upon executing enforcement documents, the bailiff
must take all legal measures to properly protect the judgement creditor's interests, without
violating rights and interests of other parties of the enforcement process. In compliance
with Article 3(2) of the Law on Bailiffs of the Republic of Lithuania, bailiffs are
independent and their activities are regulated by the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania, international treaties of the Republic of Lithuania, Law on Bailiffs of the
Republic of Lithuania, other legislation Code of Ethics for Bailiffs.
In the enforcement process of bailiffs there is a series of procedural rights and duties
established. A bailiff must on his own initiative undertake every legal measure to ensure
that a judgement is satisfied as quickly and realistically as possible and actively help the
parties to defend their rights and legally protected interests (Article 634(2) of CPC of the
Republic of Lithuania). The bailiff performs his/her functions for a reward. According to
Article 610 of CPC of the Republic of Lithuania, all enforcement costs shall be covered
by the judgement creditor. After the judgement has been enforced, such costs shall be
recovered from the debtor. Exceptions to the payment of enforcement costs may be
specified in the Judgement Enforcement Instructions (Article 609(2) of CPC of the
Republic of Lithuania).
Certain procedural enforcement actions may be carried out by the assistant bailiff.
According to Article 30 of the Law on Bailiffs of the Republic of Lithuania, an assistant
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
D. Bolzanas, E. Tomošiūnienė & D. Vasarienė: A General Overview of Enforcement in
Commercial and Civil Matters in Lithuania
19
bailiff shall have a right to serve written proceedings on behalf of the bailiff and under
his written authorisation, to conduct proceedings other than making material
ascertainments, instituting or staying execution proceedings, returning of a writ of
execution, sale of property, collocation and distribution of pecuniary assets to the
plaintiffs, computation of enforcement expenses. Upon carrying out enforcement actions,
the assistant bailiff must indicate that he/she is acting on behalf of the bailiff and indicate
that he/she has got a written authorisation issued by the bailiff to carry out such actions.
Some functions that were previously performed by courts have been transferred to
bailiffs. Besides, the field of services provided by judicial officers is also widened.
Since 1st
October 2011, the institution of preliminary investigation of complaints/petitions
concerning procedural actions performed by a bailiff (established in Article 510 of the
Code of Civil Procedure) has been successfully functioning. At first, a complaint/petition
concerning procedural actions of a judicial officer is submitted to him directly. The bailiff
examines the complaint/petition within 5 working days after the date of receipt thereof,
and adopts the respective bailiff's order. If the judicial officer rejects the
complaint/petition completely or in part, the complaint/petition, the bailiff's order and the
file of enforcement proceedings are transferred to the district court. After this amendment
has entered into effect, courts receive less complaints/petitions concerning procedural
actions of bailiffs, as this ensures communication between the parties of the procedure
and the bailiff's office, consequently, the judicial officer is able to resolve many questions
independently.
Since 1st October 2011, the act of saled property is no longer sent to the court for approval
(amendments of Article 602 of the Code of Civil Procedure). This act signed by a bailiff
is the property ownership document.
Since 11th
November 2011, the procedure for recovery of enforcement costs from a debtor
has become more flexible. A bailiff does not need to address the court concerning
enforcement costs not paid – the bailiff recovers the enforcement costs in the same
enforcement proceedings in the performance of which they are calculated (amendments
if Article 611 of the Code of Civil Procedure). The bailiff adopts a procedural order in
accordance with the set form and under this order the enforcement costs are transferred
into the bailiff's deposit account. If the debtor disagree with the calculation of the
enforcement costs, he/she can submit a complaint/petition concerning the bailiff's actions
in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 510 of the Code of Civil
Procedure10
.
5 Enforcement titles
Enforceable instruments shall be the following: enforcement orders issued on the basis
of court judgements, sentences, decisions, rulings, court orders, resolutions of institutions
and officials in the proceedings regarding administrative law violations to the extent they
relate to the exaction of possessions, other decisions of institutions and officials the
execution of which is regulated by law under the procedures of the civil procedures.
20 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
D. Bolzanas, E. Tomošiūnienė & D. Vasarienė: A General Overview of Enforcement in
Commercial and Civil Matters in Lithuania
Court judgements do not become enforcement documents by themselves that are enforced
by bailiffs. Exceptions – court order regarding the application of provisional safeguards
and court orders that may be provided by the judgement creditor to the bailiff for
execution. In all other cases, on the basis of judgements made, court issues a separate
enforcement note to the judgement creditor.
The judgement creditor is entitled to to provide such enforcement document to the bailiff
of his/her choice, acting in the territory of the judgement creditor's property, residential
or work area. Enforcement actions are carried out on the basis of the enforcement
documents. According to Article 586(2) of CPC of the Republic of Lithuania, it is
prohibited to carry out execution actions without an enforceable instrument.
The procedures of the enforcement are applied not only to court judgements or other
procedural documents, but also to enforcement documents issued by other institutions
(e.g. arbitrage judgements, prosecutor sanctions regarding eviction of physical persons
of residential buildings and other prosecutor's rulings as far as they are related to the
recoveries of property type; notary's enforcement notes according to protested or nonprotested
bills or cheques and notary's executive orders regarding compiling a description
of inherited property (supplement of the description of inherited property); decisions of
the labour disputes committee). It is one of the exclusive features of the enforcement
process as the final stage of civil procedures. Enforcement procedures may begin not only
after the court makes a judgements, i.e. after the process finishes the preceding stages:
after bringing the civil proceedings, preparation and legal investigations and maybe case
investigation under the appeal and cassation, but also after no investigation of the case in
court, e.g. enforcement of rulings of institutions and officers in the cases of administrative
law violations as far as they are related to o the recoveries of property type (Article 587(3)
of CPC of the Republic of Lithuania). These documents are executed under the civil
proceedings because there are no special proceedings created to execute the documents
issued both in the administrative process, the arbitrage, and other institutions that would
help to enforce the decisions made by these institutions. The list of documents subject to
enforcement is provided in Article 584 of CPC of the Republic of Lithuania that
establishes that the documents subject to enforcement are the following:
Enforcement notes issued on the basis of court judgements may be submitted for
execution within 5 years after the court decision became effective. However, in some
cases shorter terms are established. For instance, if the enforcement documents are issued
because of the administrative fines that are not paid, if they are issued not by courts but
by other institutions on the basis of decisions made not under the dispute procedures. The
terms for submitting the rulings of officers or institutions for execution are established
by respective laws.
6 Means of enforcement
The bailiff notifies the debtor by a warning that the enforcement instrument is submitted
and, if the actions listed in this document are not performed during the term established
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
D. Bolzanas, E. Tomošiūnienė & D. Vasarienė: A General Overview of Enforcement in
Commercial and Civil Matters in Lithuania
21
by the bailiff, enforcement procedures shall begin. In case the debtor does not execute
the court judgement in good will, enforcement measures are used against him/her. Such
measures are started to apply no later than within ten days from the day the term to
execute the ruling ended. Coercive enforcement measures that are applied in case the
debtor does not execute the court judgement within the term indicated in the warning, are
established in Article 624 of CPC of the Republic of Lithuania: 1) exaction from the
debtor’s funds and property or from his property rights; 2) exaction from the debtor’s
property and pecuniary amounts placed with other persons; 3) prohibiting other persons
from handing over to the debtor money, property or perform any other obligations for the
debtor; 4) taking of the documents proving the debtor’s rights; 5) exaction from the
debtor’s wage, pension, scholarship or other income; 6) taking of particular property
items indicated in the court judgement from the debtor and conveyance thereof to the
judgement creditor; 7) administration of the debtor’s property and using the proceeds
received therefrom to cover the debt; 8) obligating the debtor to carry out or refrain from
specific actions; 9) set-off of the recoverable amounts in counter-claims; 10) other
measures provided for by law. Several coercive enforcement measures may be applied
concurrently.
There are also rules established that regulate the order of recovery from the property of a
debtor who is a natural person (Article 664 of CPC) and the order of recovery from the
property of a debtor who is a legal person (Article 665 of CPC). A judgement creditor,
pursuant to the order established in Articles 664 and 665 of this Code, prior to the
beginning of the compulsory execution may indicate in writing from which of the
debtor’s property or income recovery shall be made first. This instruction is mandatory
for the bailiff. If the judgement creditor fails to indicate from which property to make the
recovery, a bailiff, pursuant to the procedures established, shall himself/herself establish
from which of the debtor’s property or income to make the recovery. Recovery can be
made from property further down in the order only if the bailiff is unaware of the
existence of any property prior to it in the order, this property may be insufficient to cover
the amount to be recovered and the execution expenses, this property has been liquidated,
or if the debtor so requests in writing. The requirements concerning the order of recovery
shall not be applicable if recovery is being made from mortgaged property.
The Code of Civil Procedures separately regulates the recovery from the debtor's
property, i.e. possessed by the debtor at the start of the recovery (its main rules are
established in Chapter XLVII ), from wage and other income (Chapter LI of CPC).
According to the Article 668(1) of CPC regulating recovery from the debtor's property,
in performing a recovery from a natural person, the recovery cannot be directed to any
household items, economic, work and learning tools and other property that are necessary
for the debtor or his/her family to make a living, necessary to use for work according to
his/her profession or studying, all necessary items of children and disabled people. The
list of this property is established in the Judgement Enforcement Instruction. Moreover,
the recovery may not be directed at an amount of money not exceeding the minimum
wage for one month (MMW) established by the Government (since 01 January 2016 –
350 EUR). It is possible to recover from a dwelling belonging to a debtor, in which he
22 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
D. Bolzanas, E. Tomošiūnienė & D. Vasarienė: A General Overview of Enforcement in
Commercial and Civil Matters in Lithuania
lives, only if the amount being recovered exceeds two thousand thirty EUR (Article
663(3) of CPC). According to part 4 of the same article, a court on the petition of the
debtor or his family members, after a flat or residential home has been attached when
recovering amounts outstanding for energy resources consumed, utilities, and other
services, may establish that recovery should not be made from the last flat, residential
home, or a part thereof, which is necessary for these persons to live. A court may establish
this by taking into consideration the material situation and interests of the children,
disabled persons, and welfare beneficiaries. The restrictions established in this Article
shall not be applicable when recovering from pledged property.
7 Order of proceedings
According to a general rule, enforcement shall start at the time the warning to execute a
judgement has been sent to the debtor. A warning to satisfy a judgement shall mean a
document, by which a bailiff notifies a debtor about the fact that an enforceable
instrument has been served on him for execution and that if the actions referred to in this
document are not accomplished within the term established by the bailiff, compulsory
enforcement proceeding shall be begun (Article 655 (1) of CPC). That way a debtor is
notified about the enforcement procedures in effect together providing him/her with a
chance to execute the requirement during a term specified and avoid enforcement
measures and consequential additional costs. Execution of the requirement of this norm
is one of the debtor's rights and guarantee forms of interests because the debtor, even
though aware of the judgement made to him/her,, having the elements of type of
obligation of prohibition, is informed that an enforcement document has been submitted
for execution and, in case the debtor does not perform the actions listed in this document
during the term established by the bailiff, enforcement procedures shall take place (the
ruling of the Panel of Judges of Civil Case Division of the Supreme Court of Lithuania
of 16 March 2005nutartismade in the civil case No. 3K-3-192/2005; ruling of 05
December 2012, made in the civil case No. 3K-3-541/2012; ruling of 13 January 2015,
made in the civil case No. 3K-3-71/2015). However, there are a few exceptions
established in the law. According to Article 661 of the Code of Civil Procedures, a
warning to satisfy a judgement shall not be sent out if the satisfaction terms are indicated
in the laws or enforceable instrument. No warning shall be sent in expeditious
enforcement proceedings, cases concerning the confiscation of property and cases of
recovery of debts under fifty seven EUR.
Upon executing recovery of small amounts (under 57 EUR), simplified proceedings are
applicable. Clause 5 of the Judgement Enforcement Instruction establishes that the sum
of the debt and recovery costs is firstly directed at the funds contained in the debtor's
bank account. In case the debt and recovery costs are not recovered from the funds in the
bank account within 30 days, the bailiff may begin recovery under general procedures.
In cases when there are no possibilities to deliver the warning to the debtor by post
services, it is delivered in the manner of public announcement – posted in the official
website www.anstoliai.lt. The day of announcing a warning is deemed the day of
delivering the warning.
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
D. Bolzanas, E. Tomošiūnienė & D. Vasarienė: A General Overview of Enforcement in
Commercial and Civil Matters in Lithuania
23
In case the debtor does not satisfy the obligation during the term established, the bailiff
starts the search of his/her property. The extent of these actions depends on the size of
the debt, the specificity of the debtor's activities and knowledge about the debtor. All
credit institutions with the measures of electronic connections are provided with the
bailiff's instructions to limit the dispose monetary funds or deduct the debtor's monetary
funds by force. Necessary restrictions are imposed on the person's bank accounts.
Information on the debtor's property is searched in the state registers. It is checked in the
Real Property Register what immovable property is owned by the debtor. In case the
debtor is a physical person, data about his workplace and income are checked; it is
investigated through the State Enterprise Regitra, whether the debtor has any vehicles
registered under his/her name. In case it is found that the physical person has no property,
his/her spouse's material status may be inspected because debts may be recovered from
the debtor's property share in the spouse's assets. Depending on the individual debtor's
qualities, more information may be searched in other registers (e.g. the Register of
Seagoing Ships, the Register of Inland Waterways Craft, etc.).
In case it is found during the investigation that the debtor has no assets, nor money, the
bailiff usually carries out repeated inspection of financial state. When the property that
may be subject to recovery is found, an auction of that property is announced. The debtor
may avoid them if he/she finds a buyer of the property arrested and offers him/her to the
bailiff before the auction. In that case, the property is sold to the person offered by the
debtor and the debt is covered without an auction. After selling the property to the buyer
offered by the debtor or after realising it at an auction, the funds received for it are divided
for the judgement creditors. In case more than one debt needs to be recovered, all
judgement creditors' demands are satisfied in order that is established in Article 754 of
the Code of Civil Procedures.
All costs related to the enforcement are established in the Judgement Enforcement
Instruction approved by the minister of justice. Structurally, enforcement costs are
divided into two parts: 1) administrative fee, that consists of general expenses and
additional expenses paid for particular operations performed by bailiff; 2) - remuneration
to a bailiff for enforcement of enforcement of writs of execution or part of them.
Necessary execution fees must be covered to the bailiff by the judgement creditor upon
submitting the enforcement document to be executed. However, if agreed with the bailiff,
the bailiff may postpone remuneration for the necessary costs and execute the
enforcement document by covering these enforcement costs from turnover funds. After
the funds are recovered, firstly all judgement creditor's execution costs are covered. The
bailiff's remuneration share is also covered that is proportional to the amount of debt
recovered. Then the debt itself is covered.
8 Division between enforcement and security measures
A great importance with regard to ensuring the execution of a future court judgement is
given to the institute of provisional safeguards. As court applies provisional safeguards,
the relationship between the contradictory procedure and the enforcement process and
24 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
D. Bolzanas, E. Tomošiūnienė & D. Vasarienė: A General Overview of Enforcement in
Commercial and Civil Matters in Lithuania
the mutual dependency of the two institutes is revealed. Even though the terms for case
investigation in Lithuania are recognised as some of the shortest terms in Europe11
, quite
a long time may pass from going to court to court judgement becoming effective. Hence,
because of various reasons, may arise for the execution of the court judgement. In order
to ensure that the enforcement of the court judgement favourable to the plaintiff did not
become worse or impossible, the provisions of CPC of the Republic of Lithuania establish
the institute of provisional safeguards. The provisional safeguards may be applicable in
any stage of the process, except for the final stage of the civil process. According to
Article 144(3) of CPC of the Republic of Lithuania, provisional safeguards may be
applied even before filing of a claim. It confirms that the application of provisional
safeguards regardless of whether they are applied before filing of a claim or after that in
other stages of the process, is an effective guarantee for enforcing a real court judgement.
This institute ensures the effectiveness of enforcement procedures. Intention of
provisional safeguards is to prevent impediment of enforcement of a court judgement or
making it impossible (Article 144(1) of CPC of the Republic of Lithuania). The final
judgement is a procedural court document that solves the dispute finally and grants the
claim and/or counter-claim of claimed material legal demands in full or in part, or to
dismiss the claim and/or counter-claim (Article 260(1) and 270(5.1) of CPC). Hence, the
possible content of the future court judgement should be evaluated according to the legal
requirements stated in the case. Since the future court judgement grants the claimed
requirements in the claim (counter-claim), in establishing, whether there is a reason to
apply provisional safeguards, it should be assessed if, after the court judgement
favourable to the plaintiff is made, i.e. after his/her claims are satisfied, execution of such
judgement may become worse or impossible. Due to this reason, it is rightfully
acknowledged in court practice that court may apply only those provisional safeguards
that are related to the claims made and can ensure the enforcement of the future court
judgement if these requirements are satisfied12
.
The goals of both enforcement of court judgements and provisional safeguards actually
coincide, though the difference between these two institutes is preserved. Provisional
safeguards have to do with the procedural legal and not material legal nature. Even though
these safeguards are intended to ensure the requirements of material legal manner, they
are not material legal civil remedies, i.e. persons' right restrictions of the material legal
nature are applied for the procedural purposes13
. Procedural legal nature of provisional
safeguards determine the following: 1) provisional safeguards are always interim
restrictions14
, their application is limited with respect to time and they are valid only until
the final dispute resolution; 2) such measures are applied for prevention15
, in attempt to
avoid the impossibility or worsening of the enforcement of the future court judgement;
3) provisional safeguards have no preliminary or res judicata power16
. Upon making a
judgement, court may also apply the measures of ensuring enforcement of the judgement
that differ from provisional safeguards, even though they both may be (with certain
exceptions, e.g. entry in one register regarding prohibition to transfer property rights, as
per Article 145(1.2) of CPC of the Republic of Lithuania) executed under the procedures
of enforcement. The defendant may request the court to substitute a provisional safeguard
or eliminate it. Debtor has no such right, but he/she has a right to appeal the bailiff's
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
D. Bolzanas, E. Tomošiūnienė & D. Vasarienė: A General Overview of Enforcement in
Commercial and Civil Matters in Lithuania
25
actions if he/she it considers the provisional safeguards to be applied illegally. The
defendant also is entitled to appeal the bailiff's actions to arrest property that cannot have
recovery directed at it. In case of the application of provisional safeguards, the defendant's
interests are also protected, by establishing the security of possible defendant's loss
regarding the security of provisional safeguards. In the enforcement process, this institute
is not applied because the validity of the judgement creditor's requirements is already
established by the court judgement in effect. In our opinion, with the application of
provisional safeguards and measures to ensure the enforcement of judgement, security
for the enforcement of a possible court judgement is created. These measures are used to
seek the enforcement itself. They are different stages of execution of one goal: remedy
of the rights that are possibly violated by ensuring the security for the enforcement of
future judgement if the rights are acknowledged and the rights defended under judicial
proceedings. The last stage of executing this goal is the actual enforcement of court
judgement.
Notes:
1
European Convention of 4 November 1950 for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms // State Gazette. 1995. No. 40 987; Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania // State
Gazette. 1992. No. 33 1014; Code of the Civil Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania // State
Gazette. 2002. No. 36 1340; Law on Courts of the Republic of Lithuania // State Gazette. 2002.
No. 17 649.
2
Order by the Minister of Justice of 07 August 2015 No. 1R-222 “Regarding the Amendment of
the Order by Minister of Justice of 27 October 2005 No. 1R-352 “Regarding the Confirmation of
the Judgement Enforcement Instruction” (TAR, 2015-08-10, No. 2015-12177)
3
Registry Law on Acts of Property Arrest of the Republic of Lithuania (Gazette 1999, No. 101-
2897; 2012, No. 6-182).
4
Order by the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania of 30 December 2002 No. 400
“Regarding the Provisions of Public Procurement of Bailiffs, Policy of Public Procurement of
Bailiffs, Policy of Inspecting Bailiffs' Activities, Provisions of Bailiffs' Information System,
Committee Provisions of Bailiffs' Assessment, and Confirmation of Bailiffs' Assessment Rules”
(Gazette 2003, No. 2-75).
5
Order by the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania of 19 April 2012 No. 1R-126
“Regarding the Confirmation of Provisions of the Information System of Cash Restrictions”
(Gazette 2012, No. 48-2359).
6
Decisions of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania of 27/12/1999 No. 1484 “Regarding
the Confirmation of Outline of the Institutional Reform of Court Bailiffs” // State Gazette. 1999.
No. 114.
7
Information provided by the Lithuanian Chamber of Bailiffs, www.antstoliurumai.lt.
8
Stauskiene. D. Report for EuroDanube meeting. 2016
9
Law on Bailiffs of the Republic of Lithuania // State gazette, 2002, No. 53-2042.
10
D. Satkauskienė. Report for the international forum the 10th anniversary of the private
enforcement in Bulgaria
11 http://www.teismai.lt/data/public/uploads/2016/04/2016-eu-justice-scoreboard.pdf
12
Supreme Court of the Republic of Lithuania, Review of General Questions Regarding the
Application of Provisional Safeguards, Court Practice No. 34
13
Ruling of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania of 12 May 2016 made in the civil case No. 2-1021-
241/2016.
26 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
D. Bolzanas, E. Tomošiūnienė & D. Vasarienė: A General Overview of Enforcement in
Commercial and Civil Matters in Lithuania
14
Ruling of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania of 14 January 2016 made in the civil case No. 2-25-
407/2016.
15
Ruling of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania of 20 November 2014 made in the civil case No. 2-
1857/2014.
16
Ruling of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania of 28 January 2015 made in the civil case No. 2-90-
241/2015.
References
Ambrasienė, D. & Višinskis, V. (2008) Vykdymo proceso šaltiniai, Šiuolaikinės civilinio proceso
teisės paskirtis, pp. 44–60 (Vilnius: Centre of Registers).
Baltutytė, E. (2007) Application aspect of Article 6 of European Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Lietuvos CPK įgyvendinimo problemos:
nacionaliniai ir tarptautiniai aspektai, pp. 38-45 (Vilnius: Legal Information Centre).
Stauskienė, E. & Višinskis, V. (2008) Teismo sprendimų vykdymas (Vilnius: Saulelė).
Stauskienė, E. & Višinskis, V. (2010) Problems of forced execution of resolution to impose fine in
the republic of Lithuania, // Visuomenės saugumas ir viešoji tvarka (4) : mokslinių straipsnių
rinkinys = Security of society and public order : proceedings of scientific articles (4), pp. 202-
215, available at
http://www.mruni.eu/kpf_dokumentai/fakultetas/Leidiniai/visuomenes_saugumas_ir_viesoji
%20tvarka_4.pdf (July 15, 2016) (Mykolas Romeris University).
Stauskienė, E. & Žalėnienė, I. (2010) The distinctive features of representation in enforcement
proceedings, Jurisprudencija, 2(120), pp- 273-287.
Stauskienė, E. (2005) Skubiai vykdytinų teismo sprendimų instituto taikymo problemos,
Jurisprudencija, 2005, 69(61), pp. 90–98.
Stauskienė, E. (2006) Teismas – teisinių santykių vykdymo procese subjektas,. Mokslinės praktinės
konferencijos „Teisė į teisminę gynybą bei jos realizavimo praktiniai aspektai“, vykusios 2006
09 14–15, Vilniuje, mokslinių pranešimų rinkinys (Vilnius: Mykolas Romeris University).
Stauskienė, E. (2006a) Teismo sprendimų įvykdymo atgręžimas,. Jurisprudencija, 2006, 4 (82),
pp. 76–82.
Stauskienė, E. (2006b) Teismo vaidmuo vykdymo procese. Doctoral Dissertation, social science,
law (01 S). (Vilnius: Mykolas Romeris University).
Vėlyvis, S., Stauskienė, E. & Višinskis, V. (2007) Pagrindinės teismo sprendimų vykdymo
taisyklės romėnų teisėje, Jurisprudencija, 2007, 2(92), pp. 10–20.
Vėlyvis, S., Višinskis, V. & Žalėnienė, I. (2007) Antstolio veiksmų apskundimas,. Jurisprudencija.
2007, 1(91), pp. 21–27.
Višinskis, V. & Stauskienė, E. (2010) Resolution to impose an administrative fine as executive
document, // Visuomenės saugumas ir viešoji tvarka (4) : mokslinių straipsnių rinkinys =
Security of society and public order : proceedings of scientific articles, available at
http://www.mruni.eu/kpf_dokumentai/fakultetas/Leidiniai/visuomenes_saugumas_ir_viesoji
%20tvarka_4.pdf (July 15, 2016) (4) (Mykolas Romeris University).
Višinskis, V. & Ambrasienė, D. (2008) Teismo vykdomųjų dokumentų išdavimo tvarka.
Jurisprudencija, 2008, 2(104), pp. 39–47.
Višinskis, V. (2000) Teismo sprendimų vykdymo procesinės problemos. Doctoral Dissertation,
social science, law (01 S). (Vilnius: Lithuanian Academy of Law, 200).
Višinskis, V. (2005) Kai kurios turto realizavimo vykdymo procese problemos, Jurisprudencija,
2005, 77(69), pp. 108–114.
Višinskis, V. (2006) Skolininko turto paieška vykdymo procese, Jurisprudencija, 2006, 3(81), pp.
99–105.
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
D. Bolzanas, E. Tomošiūnienė & D. Vasarienė: A General Overview of Enforcement in
Commercial and Civil Matters in Lithuania
27
Višinskis, V. (2006a) Teismo sprendimo vykdymo vieta, Jurisprudencija, 2006, 1(79), pp. 128–
137.
Višinskis, V. (2008) Ne teismo išduodami vykdomieji dokumentai, Jurisprudencija, 2008, 7(109),
pp. 47–55.
Višinskis, V. (2008a) Raginimas įvykdyti sprendimą, Jurisprudencija, 2008, 1(103), pp. 22–29.
28 24.TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND
EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
V. Rijavec
Changed Circumstances in Slovene Case Law
KLEMEN DRNOVŠEKxvii
Abstract The aim of this paper is to introduce an overview of Slovene case
law relating to usage of the change of circumstances institution. It is the
institution which enables the rescission of a contract if, after the contract is
concluded, circumstances arise that render the performance of obligations
by one party more difficult or owing to which the purpose of the contract
cannot be achieved. Firstly, the author analyses case law in relation to
substantive issues of the changed circumstances institution and defines his
position towards the question of which are the changed circumstances that
allow the rescission of a contract. In the second part, he uses the newest
case law examples to analyse the appropriate manners of exercising the
recession of a contract and the most common mistakes by parties, which
have consequences in refuting of claims without consideration of their
substantive justification. With regard to the fact that the parties may waive
any reference to specific changed circumstances in advance, the author
concludes his contribution with an overview of limitations and discusses
the permission of this type of contract termination.
Keywords: • changed circumstances • rebus sic stantibus • pacta sunt
servanda • real estate market breakdown • economic crisis • financial crisis
• termination of the contract • rescission of the contract.
CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS: Klemen Drnovšek, Assistant, University of Maribor, Faculty of Law,
Mladinska ulica 9, SI-2000 Maribor, Slovenia, e-mail: klemen.drnovsek@um.si.
DOI 10.18690/978-961-286-004-2.3 ISBN 978-961-286-004-2
© 2016 University of Maribor Press
Available at: http://press.um.si.
30 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
K. Drnovšek: Changed Circumstances in Slovene Case Law
1 Introduction
In the area of contract law, autonomy of contracting parties’ intentions is considered of
high importance. As a rule, a party has the right to decide as to whether he/she will enter
and with whom he/she will enter a specific contractual relationship. In addition, parties
are enabled to regulate the contents of relationships freely but may not act in
contravention of the Constitution, compulsory regulations, or moral principles. However,
autonomy of contracting parties’ intentions ends when the contract is concluded. In that
moment, a party no longer has the option to withdraw from the concluded agreement
(one-sidedly) and has to fulfil the obligations deriving from the agreement respectively.
The cited rule follows the principle of pacta sunt servanda (meaning; “agreements must
be observed”), which is the basic principle of contract law as well as the basis for
organizing this area of the law (Driesen, 2011: 310). Nevertheless, the principle is not
absolute. Sometimes, strict application of this principle may lead to infringements on
justice, reasonableness, and good faith (Baranauskas and Zapolskis, 2009: 198).
In Slovene legal order, the aforementioned principle is regulated by Article 9 of the
Obligation Code1
(hereinafter referred to as “OZ”2
), which determines that participants
in an obligational relationship shall be obliged to perform their obligations and shall be
liable for the performance thereof. Nevertheless, in certain cases such circumstances arise
that a strict usage of the stated rule would not be logical and just. Based on Article 116
of the OZ, obligation of a party expires if performance of obligations becomes
impossible. It is a logical exception from the principle of pacta sunt servanda, as we
cannot demand the party to perform something that objectively is no longer possible to
perform.3
And sometimes, after the conclusion of a contract, specific circumstances arise where for
one party it is still possible to perform an obligation, but because of the changed
circumstances, it becomes more difficult or without meaning. The most common causes
that render the performance of obligations and make the contract lose its purpose are
natural disasters, prohibition or restriction of import or export, armed conflicts, monetary
devaluation (Rösler, 2008: 47), and more recently, crash of the real estate market, high
fluctuation of energy products prices, and the economic crisis.
If in the case of changed circumstances parties consent with the termination of
obligations, then the obligation expires.4
Nevertheless, the question that arises is whether
one party can one-sidedly achieve the obligation to expire even if the other party opposes,
for example, in the case of changed circumstances. The exposed question was developed
as a part of the theory on the rebus sic stantibus clause, which determines that a legal
relationship shall remain valid only if the circumstances, under which the contract was
concluded, do not change significantly (Cigoj, 2003: 334). This rule means a deviation
from the basic principle stating that a contract must be performed as agreed upon and
derives mostly from the assumption that a party would not conclude a contract if he/she
would, at the time of conclusion, know that the circumstances will change significantly.
The deviation from the basic principle of contract law is justified on the basis of the
equivalence principle, principle of conscientiousness and fairness, and principle of
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
K. Drnovšek: Changed Circumstances in Slovene Case Law
31
justice.5
Content of the rebus sic stantibus clause is regulated in various ways in different
legal orders.6
In Slovene legal order, the clause is regulated in provisions from Article
112 to Article 115 of the OZ, under the title “Rescission or Amendment of Contract
Owing to Change of Circumstances”.
2 Change of circumstances institution in Slovene legal order
On the basis of Article 112 of the OZ, a party may request for rescission of a contract if,
after the conclusion of a contract, circumstances arise that render the performance of
obligations of one party more difficult or owing to which the purpose of the contract
cannot be achieved and in both cases to such an extent that the contract clearly no longer
complies with the expectations of the contracting parties and in the general opinion it
would be unjust retain it in force as it is.
Therefore, a party may request for the rescission of a contract in two cases. Firstly, if after
the conclusion of a contract circumstances change to such an extent that the party still
has the possibility to perform an obligation but this becomes more difficult. Secondly, if
changed circumstances cause situations where performance of obligations is not “more
difficult”, however, the purpose of the contract cannot be achieved. In both cases, a
certain amount of influence by changed circumstances is still demanded as a party may
request the rescission of a contract only when the contract clearly no longer complies
with his/her expectations and if it is the general opinion that it would be unjust to retain
it in force as it is. When ruling on a request to rescind a contract for reason of changed
circumstances, the court primarily considers the purpose of the contract, the risks
customary for contracting parties in commercial transactions during the performance of
contracts of the same type, and the balance of interests of the two contracting parties.7
Irrespective of the aforementioned, a party may not request the rescission of a contract if
changed circumstances arise after the deadline stipulated for the performance of such
party’s obligations, or if the party should have considered such circumstances when the
contract was concluded, or could have avoided them or could have averted the
consequences thereof.8
Furthermore, the law stipulates that a contract (regardless of the existing changed
circumstances) shall not be rescinded if the other party offers to have the relevant contract
conditions justly amended or allows such. But failing to do so and the court rescinding a
contract owing to changed circumstances, the court can instruct the party, who requested
the rescission, to reimburse the other party for an appropriate part of the damage incurred
for the reason of rescinding the contract.9
However, the appropriate part of the damage
does not cover the damage deriving from lost profit.10
3 Substantive issues in Slovene case law
A party may request the rescission of a contract if, after the conclusion of a contract,
circumstances arise which render the performance of obligations more difficult and to
such an extent that the contract clearly no longer complies with the party’s expectations
and in the general opinion, it would be unjust to retain it in force. Considering the fact
32 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
K. Drnovšek: Changed Circumstances in Slovene Case Law
that the OZ only descriptively defines circumstances, the question then arises: which are
the circumstances that allow a party to request the rescission of a contract?
Development of Slovene case law relating to usage of the change of circumstances
institution was influenced mostly by events from the past years, which were marked by
major economic shocks. December 2007 marked the beginning of credit freezes and
mortgage crises, sparkling the Great Recession in the U.S., which led to a worldwide
economic crisis (Bush, 2013: 1189). In Slovenia, radical alterations began in the
beginning of 2008 with the real estate market breakdown and continued with the
economic crisis that strongly affected most of country’s economic sectors.
3.1 Market price movement causes disproportion of mutual obligations
Market price movement that occurs after the conclusion of a contract can cause
disproportion of mutual obligations between contracting parties. On the one hand, price
movement can cause one party to pay significantly more than what is the (present)
estimated value of the subject to contract, and on the other hand price movement can also
cause a party to sell the subject to contract at a price that became significantly lower than
what is the (present) estimated value.
More recent Slovene case law adopted the position that it is also possible to rescind a
contract in cases of difficulties with fulfilment of party’s monetary obligations. In a
judgement with reference number I Cp 1507/2010, Ljubljana Higher Court has granted
the claim for rescission of a sales contract on the grounds of changed circumstances on
the market. The party referred to the crash of the real estate market that supposedly
disturbed the equivalence between the agreed purchase money and the estimated value of
the real estate.11
In the time between the phase of conclusion and the phase of
performance of the contract, such a quick and significant fall in housing prices occurred
that fulfilment of the equal value of performance principle was made impossible.
Furthermore, performance would no longer comply with the purpose of the contract, as
the party, considering the changed circumstances, would definitely not conclude the
contract with the same content again.
However, a significant fall or increase in prices (e.g. of real estate) does not necessarily
mean the fulfilment of presumptions that allow the rescission of a contract on the grounds
of changed circumstances. If the increase in prices occurs because of the long-term
upward trend (e.g. because of real estate price growth trend in the economic sector), this
does not constitute as an unforeseen development. Therefore, a party may not refer to
changed circumstances even though this means a 100% or more in price increase.12
In
this particular case, the two parties concluded a precontract by which they bounded
themselves to conclude a sales contract after the finished denationalisation procedure.
The court reinforced its decision to reject the request for rescission with indications that
in the time of the conclusion of the precontract, an obvious trend of real estate price
growth was evident in the Republic of Slovenia. For that reason, the party that requested
the rescission of a contract on the grounds of significant increase in prices should have
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
K. Drnovšek: Changed Circumstances in Slovene Case Law
33
considered the possibility of price growth, particularly because of the long-term
denationalisation procedures.
When assessing the disturbance of equivalence of mutual obligations, only the difference
between the expected and the unexpected price increase is considered and not its absolute
increase in a specific time period. In fact, only such increase that exceeds the increase,
which a party should expect with regard to the current trend, is considered as a changed
circumstance.13
Even though a trend of increase or decrease in prices cannot be detected at the time of the
conclusion of the contract, a party should always consider the possibility of price
changing to some extent. If the market price movement is not significant than this is a
matter of a customary business risk, which excludes the possibility of rescission of a
contract on grounds of changed circumstances.14
Therefore a usual rise (or fall) in prices
has to be considered and it is possible to demand the rescission of a contract only in the
case of a significant rise (or fall) in prices that causes a clear disproportion in value of
mutual contractual performance.15
For illustration purposes, we may take the example where the parties concluded a contract
with which one party committed to pay a fixed price for the supply of electrical energy
and the other party committed to supply the electrical energy at the agreed price for the
duration of the contract. As the other electrical energy suppliers lowered their prices, the
fixed price from the aforementioned contract became 30% higher than what the rest of
suppliers offered. The court rejected the party’s claim to rescind the contract for reason
that “the change in electrical energy prices in the time period of three years represents a
business risk that the plaintiff should be aware of” as in a way, the contract was
speculative for both parties.16
3.2 Change of circumstances that affects the party's financial position
In Slovene law theory and case law there is a far more open question regarding the
possibility of rescinding a contract when performance of obligations by one party
becomes significantly more difficult as a result of a deteriorating financial position but
the proportion between mutual obligations stays the same.
Cigoj takes the position that financial solvency represents a business risk and that the
debtor is obliged to consider his/her potential insolvency even though it can emerge
suddenly and is not a result of his culpability (Cigoj, 1984: 443). Dolenc takes a similar
standpoint when saying that a debtor cannot reference to his/her financial difficulties (e.g.
illiquidity) or state that he/she did not receive a promised credit (Dolenc, 2003: 601). The
mentioned conclusions are based on the argument that financial solvency belongs under
the operating risk which a party must consider at all time. Nevertheless, more recent case
law in a way departs from the abovementioned positions as it allows that, in certain cases,
a party may also indirectly reference his/her financial difficulties.
34 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
K. Drnovšek: Changed Circumstances in Slovene Case Law
However, the financial position of a party by itself cannot represent what is legally
considered as the changed circumstances institution. Otherwise, all of the commercial
entities without assets to repay their obligations would be able to rescind contracts
referring to changed circumstances. “Operating loss or illiquidity of a commercial entity
can only be seen as a consequence of changed circumstances that made performance of
obligations by one party more difficult and not as a changed circumstance by itself.”17
What this means is that poor financial position can emerge because of other changed
circumstances (e.g. low production because of a natural disaster) which by themselves,
however, are a relevant basis for rescission of a contract. In such cases, the court has to
assess the influence of the changed circumstances on business, therefore also on the
financial solvency of the party, and the party has to provide the court with concrete
contents, as only general and flat rate reference to changed circumstances cannot be
sufficient.
3.3 Economic crisis as a changed circumstance
Recently, a question arose if the preceding economic crisis can also be considered as a
changed circumstance based on Article 112 of the OZ. Grilc dealt with the mentioned
question in more detail and emphasised that the main problem of exercising the economic
crisis as a changed circumstance is in determining the presumption if the crisis may be
considered unexpected or not.18
He finished his research with a conclusion that “referring
the economic crisis is not prima facia a changed circumstance; however, exercising this
reference could be successful under the condition that the claim is supported by facts and
evidence” (Grilc, 2001: 40). Furthermore, he listed some proposals about the contents
that a party should reveal and explain if he/she wishes to request the rescission of a
contract on the grounds of the economic crisis. Case law almost entirely adopted his
preposition which is evident from the Ljubljana Higher Court ruling with reference
number I Cpg 772/2013. In the mentioned matter, the party requested the rescission of a
contract based on Article 112 of the OZ, referring to the economic crisis which caused
smaller production volume and consequently, plummeting of natural gas consumption.
Subsequently, the party wanted to reduce the agreed quantities of daily gas offtake but
the other party opposed. The court rejected the request for rescission of a contract for
reasons of economic crisis and justified its decision mainly with the explanation that
“exercising the economic crisis as a changed circumstance can only be successful if the
claim is supported by facts and evidence whereby the plaintiff should reveal and explain:
(1) change in revenue and expenditure caused by the crisis; (2) his/her reaction to changed
circumstances so far and how are the circumstances unexpected or external; (3) how do
changed circumstances influence the contract and the general position of the plaintiff; (4)
how did he/she evaluate the risk; (5) how did he/she act so that he/she cannot be blamed
for the lack of necessary diligence and what did he/she do in order to fulfil the basic
principle of pacta sunt servanda.« 19
On the other hand, the party’s definition was
completely general, flat rate, and without content as it only cited that the worldwide
economic crisis caused smaller production volume and consequently, plummeting of
natural gas consumption.
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
K. Drnovšek: Changed Circumstances in Slovene Case Law
35
4 Exercising rescission or amendment of a contract referring to changed
circumstances
After inspecting case law, it is possible to determine that only a minority of cases relate
to content assessment of the change of circumstances institution as mostly, cases are
being assessed according to the relevancy of the way that the institution is exercised. As
a result, courts often do not deal with the question of fulfilling substantive presumptions
at all, but rather reject the party’s claim solely on the grounds of inadequacy in exercising
the claim. This finding is even more surprising as the legal norms seem to be perfectly
clear and beyond reasonable doubt.
To the extent that the circumstances change after the conclusion of a contract, a question
arises of what, if anything, must a party do if he/she no longer wishes to be bound by the
contract. What derives from Article 113 of the OZ is that a party, who intends to request
the rescission of a contract, must notify the other party of the changed circumstances as
soon as he/she learns that such circumstances have arisen. Omission of the obligation to
notify, however, does not mean that the party loses the right to request the rescission of
a contract. The notification is important only to avoid potential liability for damage.20
On the other hand, there is also the question regarding the actual exercising of a claim.
Based on the first paragraph of Article 112 of the OZ, in case of changed circumstances,
a party may request the rescission of a contract. Therefore, a party is expected to be active,
as the rescission of a contract does not occur only because of law but it is necessary for a
party to exercise the rescission at court.21
The rescission of a contract can thus occur only
based on the court’s judgement.22
A good example of inadequate exercising of the changed circumstances institution is
evident from the Ljubljana Higher Court ruling with reference number VSL ruling I Cpg
803/2013. In the stated matter, the parties concluded a contract on sale of electrical energy
for two measuring stations at two separate addresses. After some time, the agreed price
of electrical energy became 30% higher than what the rest of the suppliers offered. For
this reason, one party sent the other a declaration on withdrawal from the contract. The
other party did not consent with the withdrawal and demanded payment of compensation
deriving from lost profit or contractual penalty owing to unentitled withdrawal from the
contract on the sale of electrical energy. In the proceedings, the defendant claimed that
the withdrawal from the contract was a reaction to the fact that the plaintiffs’ price of
electrical energy was 30% higher than with the rest of the suppliers. The court rejected
the defendant’s objection stating inadequacy in exercising the claim and it never
addressed the question whether the cited difference in price could in fact represent a
changed circumstance in terms of Article 112 of the OZ.
From the ruling of the referral, different ways of inadequate exercising of a claim may be
established that also repeat in other judicial cases. If one party (merely) notifies the other
about the withdrawal from the contract and the other party does not consent, the
notification is not sufficient in order to exercise changed circumstances based on Article
112 of the OZ.23
The contract also remains valid in cases where the opposing party does
36 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
K. Drnovšek: Changed Circumstances in Slovene Case Law
not expressly oppose the withdrawal but does not respond to the notification on
withdrawal either. In fact, silence does not state for consent, therefore, the contract
remains valid and both parties have to perform the obligations deriving from the contract.
24
If the other party does not consent with the withdrawal, the party who wishes to exercise
the claim can only do that at court with a lawsuit. The same conclusion is evident from
other rulings of higher courts and the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia.25
In case law, parties often refer to changed circumstances in a form of objection to the
opposing party’s performance claim. In the past, some law theoreticians argued that
alongside a lawsuit to rescind a contract and a counterclaim, the party is also entitled to
an objection (Dolenc, 2003: 605). Case law, including the Supreme Court of the Republic
of Slovenia, adopted a clear position stating that exercising the rescission of a contract
with an objection is not sufficient.26
Consequently, in such a case, a party must issue a
counterclaim in order to demand the rescission of a contract.
Regardless of the fact that from Article 112 of the OZ, it clearly derives that in the case
of changed circumstances a party may (only) request for the rescission of a contract, in
case law there are also many cases where parties sue for amendment of contracts. By
doing that, they wish the contract to remain valid and at the same time force the opposing
party to accept the changed circumstances.
If changed circumstances make the performance of obligations by one party more
difficult, he/she may propose an amendment of the contract to the other party (which is
also advisable) but cannot demand it or force it in court.27
Therefore, when a party
requests for amendment of the contract by issuing a lawsuit claim, the claim is not
substantively justifiable and has to be rejected. However, the option to amend the contract
is given to the opposing party if he/she wishes to retain the contract as valid. In this way,
the other party may offer or allow having the relevant contract conditions justly
amended.28
In case law, another question arisen regarding the time limitation of a claim to rescind a
contract. In a way, time limitation derives from substantive presumptions stated in
Article 112 of the OZ, as a party may only refer to the change of circumstances that arose
after the conclusion of the contract and before the deadline stipulated for the performance
of obligations.29
Nevertheless, the possibility of exercising the claim is not time limited,
as the law does not prescribe a deadline for issuing a claim.30
Furthermore, there is one more interesting question which relates to the party’s possibility
to request the rescission of a contract even after the obligation is already (partially)
performed. It refers to the fact that legislative provisions on rescission of a contract do
not expressly regulate the question on how the performance of contractual obligations
influences the court’s decision on a claim to rescind a contract for reasons of changed
circumstances.
Even though Ljubljana Higher Court31
adopted a position that in such cases the rescission
of a contract is no longer possible, as the purpose of the changed circumstances provision
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
K. Drnovšek: Changed Circumstances in Slovene Case Law
37
should only be intended to regulate the risks that arise between the conclusion and the
performance of a contract, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia only partially
agreed to that conclusion. According to the opinion of the Supreme Court of the Republic
of Slovenia, “the rescission of a contract for reasons of changed circumstances should
normally not be possible if parties already fully performed the contractual obligations,
but exceptionally, it could happen”. This mostly applies to cases when certain
expectations, relating to the contract, refer to the time after the performance of contractual
obligations and due to changed circumstances, one party cannot achieve the contract’s
purpose.32
Nevertheless, in order to possibly exercise the rescission of a contract, all
presumptions must be met; those that relate to the significance of the changed
circumstances, as well as those that relate to the changed circumstances being unexpected
and inevitable.
5 Optional nature of rules regarding the change of circumstances institution
Even though the OZ regulates the institution of changed circumstances in detail, the
provisions are optional by nature. Based on Article 115 of the OZ, through a contract, the
parties may waive any reference to specific changed circumstances in advance unless this
opposes the principle of conscientiousness and fairness.
According to the legal formulation, mostly two elements are important. Firstly, the law
stipulates that the parties may waive reference to “specific” changed circumstances. The
aforementioned means that the contractual parties by themselves determine when and
under which conditions are the circumstances regarded as changed and which are the
consequences of those circumstances.33
However, at the same time, the parties may not
waive the option to rescind a contract owing to changed circumstances in general or waive
every possible circumstance for that matter (Dolenc, 2003: 610).34
In the concrete case,
the parties agreed for a fixed price that also included a possible increase of taxes.
Therefore, the party could not request for a rescission of the contract even though the tax
rate increased from 3% to 19%.35
Agreement of the parties must not be in opposition to the principle of conscientiousness
and fairness though. Regardless of the fact that in practice parties do make use of waiving
the reference to specific changed circumstances, there is practically no case law
discussing its permitted usage. Furthermore, among the published case law of higher
courts and the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia, there are no cases where a
court would decide (or at least asses) if a certain waiving of reference to specific changed
circumstances opposes the principle of conscientiousness and fairness. Nevertheless, we
can conclude that courts could regard the waiving of reference to specific changed
circumstances as impermissible mostly in the following cases: (a) where the waiving of
reference would be to general; (b) in cases where an obvious exploitation of one party by
the other party because of the first party’s stronger position on the market would be
evident; (c) in cases where one party knows that the circumstances will shortly change
significantly and does not share this information with the other party when concluding
the contract.
38 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
K. Drnovšek: Changed Circumstances in Slovene Case Law
6 Conclusion
Nevertheless the parties can freely regulate the change of circumstances with a
contractual clause, legal regulation of the rebus sic stantibus clause is still of great
importance. The fact is that the parties often do not think about the possible change of
circumstances and even if they do, it is not possible to foresee all the possible changes
that make the performance of a contract more difficult or that prevent achieving the
purpose of a contract. After inspecting Slovene case law regarding the usage of the
change of circumstances institution that derives from Article 112 of the OZ, we can
conclude that the courts address both, procedural and substantive issues. Change of
circumstances allows the party to request for the rescission of a contract but not its
amendment. A party cannot simply withdraw from the contract. Moreover, under
established case law, it is not sufficient to exercise the change of circumstances institution
with an objection to the plaintiff’s claim. A party has to exercise the rescission of the
contract with a lawsuit.
Relating to the assessment of substantive presumptions, we can conclude that it is
practically impossible to generally determine the circumstances that are considered
justifiable by law and therefore enable the rescission of a contract. Consequently, we also
cannot a priori exclude any change of circumstances but rather assess each specific case
from the perspective if a certain circumstance makes the performance of a contract more
difficult or if it prevents the achievement of the contract’s purpose. Alongside the
aforementioned, we also have to assess if a circumstance can be considered as such, that
when concluding the contract, the party could not consider, avoid, or advert its
consequences. In respect to the stated, this means that with fulfilling the listed
presumptions, we can request the rescission of a contract also when referring to the real
estate market breakdown, economic or financial crisis, and in any case of other significant
and unexpected changes.
Notes
1
Obligation code (OZ), (Official Gazette of the RS, Nos. 83/2001, 32/2004, 28/2006 – Decision of
the Constitutional Court, 40/07).
2
OZ is an official acronym of the Obligations Code in Slovene language.
3
Decision of the Higher Court of Ljubljana, No. VSL I Cpg 1382/2012 from 11 February 2014.
4
See Article 9, paragraph 2, of the OZ.
5
For a more detailed discussion of the deviation from the basic principle of contract law and
clarification of the role of the listed principles, see Cigoj, 1984: 433 – 438.
6
For more details on regulations in German and international law, see Rösler, 2008: 47-57.
7
See Article 114 of the OZ.
8
See Article 112, paragraph 2 and paragraph 3, of the OZ.
9
See Article 112, paragraph 4 and paragraph 5, of the OZ.
10
Decision of the Higher Court of Ljubljana, No. VSL I Cpg 696/2009 from 23 June 2010.
11
Decision of the Higher Court of Ljubljana, No. VSL I Cp 1507/2010 from 15 September 2010.
12
Decision of the Higher Court of Ljubljana, No. VSL I Cpg 573/2015 from 8 July 2015.
13
Decision of the Higher Court of Ljubljana, No. VSL II Cp 829/2012 from 16 May 2012.
14
Decision of the Higher Court of Maribor, No. VSM I Cp 581/2015 from 13 October 2015.
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
K. Drnovšek: Changed Circumstances in Slovene Case Law
39
15
Decision of the Higher Court of Ljubljana, No. VSL II Cp 3916/2009 from 7 April 2010.
16
Decision of the Higher Court of Ljubljana, No. VSL I Cpg 803/2013 from 7 January 2015.
17
Decision of the Higher Court of Ljubljana, No. VSL I Cpg 606/2010 from 7 September 2010.
18
For more details on the ability to anticipate the financial crisis, see (Adebambo et al., 2015: 647-
669).
19
Decision of the Higher Court of Ljubljana, No. VSL I Cpg 772/2013 from 11 February 2015.
20
Decision of the Higher Court of Ljubljana, No. VSL I Cpg 599/2011 from 11 January 2011.
21
Decision of the Higher Court of Ljubljana, No. VSL I Cpg 599/2011 from 11 January 2011.
22
Decision of the Higher Court of Ljubljana, No. VSL II Cp 152/2009 from 6 May 2009.
23
Decision of the Higher Court of Ljubljana, No. VSL I Cpg 803/2013 from 7 January 2015.
24
Decision of the Higher Labour and Social Court of the Republic of Slovenia, no. VDSS Pdp
1063/2008 from 26 February 2009.
25
See decisions of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia, Nos. II Ips 735/2007, II Ips
897/2007, II Ips 1034/2007, II Ips 94/2008, III Ips 36/2012 and decisions of the Higher Court of
Ljubljana Nos. VSL II Cp 152/2009, VSL II Cp 3849/2010, VSL I Cpg 599/2011, VSL I Cpg
241/2013.
26
Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia, No. II Ips 74/2011 from 19 June
2014; similarly also in decisions Nos. II Ips 153/2011, III Ips 17/2012, and decision of the Higher
Court of Ljubljana No. VSL II Cp 3849/2010.
27
Decision of the Higher Court of Ljubljana, No. VSL II Cp 1820/2014 from 12 November 2014.
28
See Article 112, paragraph 4, of the OZ.
29
See Article 112, paragraph 1 and paragraph 3 of the OZ.
30
Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia, No. II Ips 1034/2007 from 11
December 2007; similarly also in decisions Nos. II Ips 735/2007 and II Ips 897/2007.
31
Decision of the Higher Court of Ljubljana, No. VSL I Cpg 212/2011 from 25 May 2011.
32
Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia, No. III Ips 40/2012 from 25 March
2014.
33
Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia, No. II Ips 153/2011 from 15
September 2011.
34
Decision of the Higher Court of Ljubljana, No. VSL II Cp 3000/2011 from 29 February 2012.
35
Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia, No. III Ips 224/2008 from 15
November 2011.
References
Adebambo B., Brockman P., Yan (Sterling) X. (2015) Anticipating the 2007-2008 Financial Crisis:
Who Knew What and When Did They Know It?, Journal of financial and quantitative analysis,
50(4), pp. 647-669, doi: 10.1017/S0022109015000381.
Baranauskas E. & Zapolskis P. (2009) The Effect of Change in Circumstances on the Performance
of Contract, Jurisprudence, 4(118), pp. 197-215.
Bush, M. (2013) From the Great Depression to the Great recession: (Non-)Lawyers Practicing
Deregulated Law, West Virginia Law Review, 115(3), pp. 1185-1220.
Cigoj S. (2003) Teorija obligacij: splošni del obligacijskega prava (Ljubljana: Uradni list
Republike Slovenije).
Cigoj S. (1984) Komentar obligacijskih razmerij, Veliki komentar Zakona o obligacijskih razmerjih
(Ljubljana: Časopisni zavod Uradni list SR Slovenije).
Dolenc, M. (2003), in: Juhart, M., Plavšak N. (eds.) (2003), Obligacijski zakonik s komentarjem,
1. knjiga (Ljubljana: GV Založba).
Driesen, M. D. (2011) Contract Law's Inefficiency, Virginia Law & Business Review, 6(2), pp. 301-
340.
40 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
K. Drnovšek: Changed Circumstances in Slovene Case Law
Grilc P. (2011) Gospodarska/finančna kriza kot spremenjena okoliščina, In: Pravni letopis 2011,
pp. 33 - 46 (Ljubljana: GV Založba).
Rösler H. (2008) Changed and Unforeseen Circumstances in German and International Contract
Law, Slovenian law review, 5(1/2), pp. 47-57.
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND
EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
V. Rijavec
A General Overview of Enforcement in Commercial and
Civil Matters in Italy
ANDREA GIUSSANIliii
Abstract The following essay deals with the basic features of Italian law
governing enforcement proceedings in civil and commercial litigation.
Special attention is given to aspects relevant for comparative analysis. Most
recent developments, aimed at fostering efficiency, are also highlighted.
Firstly, the main sources of law are listed, with a subsequent analysis of the
actual status of traditional principles like par condicio creditorum and nemo
precise ad factum cogi potest. A distinction between different forms of
applicable proceedings, depending on the kind of credit to enforce, is then
offered to the reader, together with an explanation of the allocation of roles
within the various enforcement authorities. Enforcement titles are also
defined and listed, and different means of enforcement descripted, with an
outline of the order of proceedings. Illustration of special rules for
enforcement of provisional measures precedes final considerations on
perspectives of further reforms in the near future.
Keywords: • comparative law • civil procedure • enforcement proceedings
• jurisdiction • court system • seizure • assignment • sale of assets • specific
performance • provisional remedies
CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS: Andrea Giussani, Ph. D., Professor, University of Urbino, Via Aurelio
Staffi 2, IT-61029 Urbino, Italy, e-mail: andrea.giussani@uniurb.it.
DOI 10.18690/978-961-286-004-2.4 ISBN 978-961-286-004-2
© 2016 University of Maribor Press
Available at: http://press.um.si.
42 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
A. Giussani: A General Overview of Enforcement in Commercial and Civil Matters in
Italy
1 Legal sources regulating enforcement
The highest source of law with respect to enforcement in civil and commercial litigation
in Italy is Art. 24 of the Constitution, granting effectiveness to judicial protection of
rights.
The most relevant statutory law provisions are Book III of the Code of Civil Procedure
(Artt. 474-632), and the 2nd
Chapter of Title IV of Book VI of the Civil Code (Artt. 2910-
2933). Many other rules of the Code of civil Procedure, however, do frequently apply
(such as, e.,g., rules on venue for enforcement proceedings in Artt. 26 ff., and rules on
enforceability of appealed judgments in Artt. 282 f.). Several special provisions help
public entities both as creditors (e.g., Art. 52, § 1, of Presidential decree no. 602 of 1973,
exempting from judicial approval of sale of assets) and as debtors (e.g., Art. 42, § 7 novies
of law no. 207 of 30 December 2008, excluding attachment of public entities’ credits
against tax collection agents). Special provisions may also apply to various situations
(e.g., Art. 137 of the Code of Industrial Property provides special rules for seizure,
attachment, and sale of patents).
With respect to transnational enforcement, nationality and domicile of creditor and debtor
are in principle irrelevant, insofar as an asset located in Italy may be attached, and
provided that no sovereign immunity applies. Recent amendment of art. 26 bis of the
Code of Civil Procedure (introduced by law no. 162 of 10 November 2014), may imply,
according to some scholars, that attachment of credits is available only if the debtor is
domiciled in Italy (1
), but no case law followed this path so far (the Court of Cassation,
however, has not yet settled the issue).
Enforcement of foreign judgments, court settlements, and authentic instruments,
whenever no Union law nor special international convention applies, is governed by Artt.
64 ff. of law no. 218 of 31 May 1995.
2 Recent reforms and ongoing reform in progress
In recent years Italian government gave high priority to improvement of effectiveness of
enforcement procedures, enacting several reforms: the latest are law no. 132 of 6 August
2015, confirming law decree no. 83 of 27 June 2015, and now law decree no. 59 of 3 May
2016 (waiting to be confirmed by the Parliament within sixty days).
3 Underlying dogmatic framework
Some of the traditional general principles of enforcement proceedings still apply, while
other ones have lost most of their cogency.
It is still true that self-enforcement is allowed only in strictly exceptional cases, and that
enforcement proceedings are governed by courts and not by administrative agencies
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
A. Giussani: A General Overview of Enforcement in Commercial and Civil Matters in
Italy
43
(albeit public entities may be partly dispensed by court control in the enforcement of their
credits, pursuant to special provisions (2
)). It is also still true that the debtor cannot plead
that the credit does not exist within the enforcement proceedings: to that end, the debtor
must file an action on the merits. It is also still true that the creditor may file several
enforcement proceedings at the same time against the same debtor until the credit is fully
satisfied: it is up to debtor to plead that attachments are excessive or abusive. It is also
still true that in principle only specific assets may be attached and sold: attachment and
sale of all the debtor’s assets is available, however, is the debtor is an insolvent
entrepreneur.
A most important development concerned the traditional principle “nemo precise ad
factum cogi potest”: according to this principle, injunctions were enforceable only if no
personal specific performance by the debtor was required. After introduction of Art. 614
bis of the Code of Civil Procedure by law no. 69 of 18 June 2009 this is no longer true:
in principle, a debtor violating an injunction requiring personal specific performance
incurs in monetary sanctions, proportionate to the depth and length of the violation, to be
paid to the creditor. Amendment of Art. 614 bis by law no. 132 of 2015 expanded its
scope, allowing sanctions for violation of injunctions regardless of the kind of
performance required. However, Art. 614 bis still does not apply to labor disputes.
Another traditional principle was that every creditor of the same debtor had a full right to
participate to the proceedings and to the distribution of the revenues of the sale of assets
on an equal footing (par condicio creditorum), unless a special protection of the credit
applies (such as a mortgage, or a legal preference in the distribution of the revenues, e.g.
for wages). After law no. 80 of 14 May 2005, however, this participation is allowed only
to enforce credits assisted by a special protection with respect to the attached asset (such
as a mortgage, or a previous seizure), or autonomously enforceable (however, all credits
still concur in insolvency proceedings).
The same reform, however, also expanded (through amendment of art. 474 of the Code
of Civil Procedure) the scope of autonomously enforceable credits: not only those
affirmed by a judgment or a notary act, or by a bank check or a promissory note, but also
money credits affirmed in private documents whenever a public officer certified the
authenticity of their signatures.
4 Different types of enforcement procedures
A main subdivision may be traced between direct and indirect enforcement, the latter
consisting in sanctions for noncompliance to injunctive remedies: sanctions, in fact, do
not actually satisfy the credit, but force the debtor to comply spontaneously. Note,
however, that no special proceeding is contemplated to determine the amount due for
noncompliance: the injunctive order must set the sum due for any violation, and the
creditor may file a direct enforcement proceeding for the total as an autonomously
44 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
A. Giussani: A General Overview of Enforcement in Commercial and Civil Matters in
Italy
enforceable money credit (being up the debtor to plead that there was no violation, or that
the total is wrong).
Another subdivision is traced by the Code of Civil Procedure between generic and
specific enforcement, the former consisting in enforcement of money credits through
attachment and sale, or assignment, of debtor’s specific assets (Artt. 483-604 of the
Code). Amongst generic enforcement proceedings, the Code of Civil Procedure also
distinguishes depending on the kind of asset involved: different rules apply to attachment
and sale of immovable and movable assets (respectively Artt. 555-598 and 413-542 of
the Code), and special provisions regulate attachment and assignment of debtor’s credits
(Artt. 543-554 of the Code). Amongst specific enforcement proceedings, different rules
apply respectively to delivery of movable assets or release of immovable ones (Artt. 605-
611 of the Code) and to other instances of specific performance (Artt. 612-614 of the
Code).
Enforcement of the State’s tax credits is governed by so many special rules that it may
also qualify as a different procedure (3
).
5 Decentralized system
In every Italian Tribunal there is an enforcement division competent to govern
enforcement proceedings concerning assets located in the territory of the court. Hence
the Italian system qualifies as decentralized one.
Obviously, this does not help the creditor, especially with respect to attachment of credits:
for this reason law no. 162 of 2014 provided that the competent court in these cases
should locate in the debtor’s domicile, instead of the debtor’s debtor’s one, derogating to
the general rule referred to the location of the asset involved; in fact, the new rule allows
the creditor to attach several debtor’s credits in the same enforcement proceedings, even
if the debtor’s debtors are located far away.
This solution, however, relies on dematerialization of money credits: whenever movable
or immovable assets are involved, location of the asset is still dispositive.
6 Authorities/bodies and agents
The Tribunal’s enforcement division is the court of enforcement proceedings: the number
of judges assigned to the division depends on the court’s workload. The judge, however,
is entrusted mainly with supervision of the proceedings and resolution of satellite
disputes: several tasks (such as the research of movable property available for attachment)
are performed by lower officers of the court (ufficiali giudiziari), and other ones (such as
the sales of assets) may be delegated to notaries, lawyers, or accountants.
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
A. Giussani: A General Overview of Enforcement in Commercial and Civil Matters in
Italy
45
7 Enforcement titles
An enforcement title allows a credit to be autonomously enforceable: as already seen
above, bank checks, promissory notes, and also private documents, insofar as a public
officer certified the authenticity of their signatures, may be enforcement titles, alongside
judgments. Moreover, judicial titles may comprise not only judgments on the merits
following a full-fledged trial, but also many so-called “anticipatory” orders following a
summary fact-findig (provided that the law expressly gives them this effect: the most
important one in the practice is the decreto ingiuntivo, that is an ex parte order granted,
e.g., when there is documentary evidence of the credit, regulated by Artt. 633-656 of the
Code of Civil Procedure). Note, however, that provisional measures, albeit included in
the definition of “judgment” by Art. 2 of EU Regulation 1215/2012, are not proper
enforcement titles according to Italian procedural law: their enforcement, hence, is
subject to special rules (pursuant to Art. 669 duodecies of the Code of Civil Procedure).
It is worth noting that only judicial titles allow direct enforcement of specific performance
obligations other than delivery of movable assets or release of immovable ones.
In the perspective of transnational litigation, however, the most important topic is the
status of foreign enforcement titles. Judgments, court settlements, and authentic
instruments within the meaning of Art. 2 of EU Regulation no. 1215/2015, are
enforcement titles as such, provided they are certified, according to the provisions of the
same, by the competent authority of court of the Member State of origin, and the same
holds for ex parte orders to pay uncontested credits pursuant to EU Regulation no.
805/2004. Judgments and authentic instruments coming from other States, by contrast, as
well as arbitral awards, are still subject to exequatur procedures.
8 Means of enforcement
Enforcement through attachment of assets, sale thereof, and distribution of revenues
among the creditors (the first one and the intervening ones) is the general and residual
means of enforcement: in fact, whenever a debtor does not comply to an injunctive
remedy, and does not even pay the consequent sanctions, the creditor can only revert to
generic enforcement of that money credit.
Attachment of movable property is performed by an officer of the court through its
material apprehension, while attachment of immovable property is performed through
inscription in public registries, and attachment of credits through legal notice to the debtor
and the debtor’s debtor. Recent legislation allows the officer and the creditor to access
public databases for the research of attachable property.
In all these cases, pursuant to Art. 492 of the Code of Civil Procedure, there must be a
legal proof (that is, a documentary certification by a competent public officer) that the
debtor received a written prohibition (ingiunzione) to dispose of the asset in prejudice of
46 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
A. Giussani: A General Overview of Enforcement in Commercial and Civil Matters in
Italy
the creditor (attached assets may still be validly transferred, but remain nonetheless
subject to judicial sale), alongside various warnings concerning the subsequent
procedural steps. Italian courts adopt a very strictly formalistic approach to this issue:
whenever any part of the magic spell is missing, the enforcement procedure is incurably
null and void (4
).
Procedures for specific enforcement of obligations to release immovable assets are
especially cumbersome for the creditor, especially when the immovable is located in a
city: the public officer must previously notify to the debtor a warning grossly
corresponding to the ingiunzione, and only after ten days may enter the premise and give
the keys to the creditor, but very often the help of a blacksmith, or even of the police, is
necessary, and there may be a long queue to obtain it.
Moreover, direct enforcement of specific performance (other than delivery of movable
assets or release of immovable ones) requires the creditor to file a motion for a summary
proceeding in the enforcement division of the Tribunal, aimed at determining how the
credit may be satisfied without the active cooperation of the debtor.
In the long run, hence, indirect enforcement through Art. 614 bis of the Code will
probably often take the place of direct specific enforcement (unless the debtor appears
devoid of any prospect of future earnings).
9 Order of proceedings
Pursuant to Art. 479 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a creditor must notify to the debtor
the enforcement title, together with a warning (precetto) that judicial enforcement will
start if the obligation is not complied within ten days: only if the debtor does not pay
within this deadline the ingiunzione may be notified. However, the enforcement division
of the Tribunal may discretionally accord immediate enforcement pursuant to art. 482 of
the Code, upon an ex parte motion from the creditor.
A hearing with the participation of the debtor is also required to provide for the sale of
assets, for the assignment of credits, and for the direct enforcement of specific
performance other than delivery of movable assets or release of immovable ones (as seen
above).
Other hearings may be required by the debtor, generally in order to ask a stay of the
proceedings whenever the existence of the credit is denied, or the enforcement
proceedings are affected by a nullity that the enforcement division did not declare sua
sponte. These complaints, however, are decided in a full trial: the judge entrusted with
the supervision of the proceedings may grant a stay only as an interim measure subject to
appeal to a panel of the same enforcement division (without the participation of the judge
entrusted with the proceedings), pursuant to Art. 624 of the Code: complaints alleging
nullity of the proceedings are decided by a different judge of the same enforcement
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
A. Giussani: A General Overview of Enforcement in Commercial and Civil Matters in
Italy
47
division, while complaints alleging that there is no credit are decided by the court
competent for the merits.
Enforcement may also be stayed by the judge supervising the proceedings when a third
party claims property over an attached asset, pursuant to Art. 619 of the Code, and when
litigation ensues between participants to the distribution of revenues from the sale of
assets, pursuant to Art. 512 of the Code. Pursuant to Art. 623 of the Code, apart from
these cases, stay of enforcement may be granted only by special statutory provisions (e.g.
in case of a public calamity), or by a judge entrusted with a challenge of the enforcement
title (such as an appeal against the judgment, an opposition to the decreto ingiuntivo, a
nullity action of the arbitral award, etc.). When enforcement titles coming from EU
Member States are challenged in the State of origin, the enforcement court may also grant
a stay pursuant to Art. 51 of EU Regulation 1215/2012, and to Art. 23 of EU Regulation
805/2004.
10 Division between enforcement and security measures
As seen above, enforcement of provisional measures is so much sui generis that it does
not even qualify as enforcement stricto sensu: rather than an “esecuzione” is an
“attuazione”. Art. 669 duodecies of the Code, in fact, provides that no preliminary
warning (precetto) is required, and distinguishes between three categories of cases:
seizures, money orders, and other remedies.
Enforcement of seizures aimed at protecting effectiveness of general enforcement are
performed like attachments: the sale, or the assignment of credit, is set only after the
formation of a proper enforcement title. Seizures concerning evidence, or movable or
immovable property to deliver or release, are performed like corresponding specific
performance proceedings, but a guardian chosen by the court is entrusted with their
custody.
Provisional measures ordering to pay money are enforced like enforcement titles: the
creditor must ask the officer of the court attachment of assets, ask a hearing from the
competent enforcement division to set their sale, and share the revenues with concurring
creditors.
Other provisional remedies, by contrast, are enforced under the supervision of the same
judge that issued them, and not of the enforcement division of the court. Decisions
concerning satellite litigation over enforcement of these remedies may be appealed to a
panel, always of the same division (and not of the enforcement division), without the
participation of the judge that issued the remedy.
Obviously, this does not apply to provisional measures coming from a different EU
Member State: these “judgments” are treated like proper judgments whenever they were
previously notified to the debtor (insofar as the court that issued them had also jurisdiction
48 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
A. Giussani: A General Overview of Enforcement in Commercial and Civil Matters in
Italy
on the merits of the claim, pursuant to the new provisions of art. 2 of EU Regulation no.
1215/2015).
Moreover, since sanctions provided by Art. 614 bis of the Code may also apply to
violation of interim injunctions, in the actual practice direct general enforcement of the
corresponding money debt will probably take the place of their “attuazione” by the judge
that issued the remedy.
11 Comments and critical approach
For several decades of the past century scholars advocated reforms of enforcement
proceedings to foster effectiveness of judicial protection of rights, especially with respect
to specific performance, but also with respect to generic enforcement, lamenting an
excess of procedural guarantees for the debtor and for the creditors without enforcement
titles (5
). These ideas were supported by prolonged dissatisfying experiences with the
traditional rules and principles.
In the current century the government took the charge perhaps even too much seriously,
providing not only for the reforms advocated by procedural law scholars, but also for the
introduction of online enforcement proceedings, and for further reductions of the
enforcement courts’ workload (allowing most satellite litigation to be decided with
interim orders). Hence, an evaluation of the actual effectiveness of enforcement
proceedings in Italy is now impossible, because practice on the applicable rules is mostly
missing.
Many scholars are now asking the legislator to stay this apparently endless stream of
reforms, and allow courts and lawyers to learn to cope with the new system emerging
thereof (6
).
Notes
1
See, e.g., D'Alessandro, “L'espropriazione presso terzi”, in (Luiso, 2014: 58); Tedoldi, 2014: 390;
Bove, 2015: 4).
2
See, e.g., art. 72 bis of legislative decree n. 602 of 29 September 1973, governing attachment of
credits for the enforcement of tax credits.
3
Compare note 2.
4
See, e.g., the judgment of the Italian Court of Cassation no. 2473 of 30 January 2009, and its order
no. 8408 of 12 April 2011.
5
Compare, e.g., the essays collected in (Associazione italiana fra gli studiosi del processo civile,
1992; Centro nazionale di prevenzione e difesa sociale, 1993; Associazione italiana fra gli studiosi
del processo civile (Milano: Giuffrè, 2001; Associazione italiana fra gli studiosi del processo civile,
2005).
6
See esp. (Associazione italiana fra gli studiosi del processo civile, 2015: 743).
24TH
CONFERENCE BUSINESS SUBJECTS ON MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
A. Giussani: A General Overview of Enforcement in Commercial and Civil Matters in Italy
49
References
Associazione italiana fra gli studiosi del processo civile (ed.) (1992) L’effettività della tutela del
creditore nell’espropriazione forzata (Milano: Giuffrè).
Associazione italiana fra gli studiosi del processo civile (ed.) (2001) Tecniche di attuazione dei
provvedimenti del giudice (Milano: Giuffrè).
Associazione italiana fra gli studiosi del processo civile (2015) Il documento dell’Associazione
italiana fra gli studiosi del processo civile sul disegno di legge delega per la riforma del c.p.c.,
Rivista trimestrale di diritto e procedura civile, 69(2), pp. 747-748.
Bove M. (2015) La nuova disciplina in materia di espropriazione del credito, Le nuove leggi civili
commentate, 1, CEDAM, p. 1.
Centro nazionale di prevenzione e difesa sociale (ed.) (1993) La legge di riforma del codice di
procedura civile e la tutela del credito (Milano: Giuffrè).
Luiso F.P. (ed.) (2014) Processo civile efficiente e riduzione arretrato. Commento al d.l. n.
132/2014, convertito in l. n. 162/2014 (Torino: Giappichelli).
50 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND
EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
V. Rijavec
Legal Aspects of Servitization
JANJA HOJNIKlx
Abstract The objective of the article is to demonstrate the many
dimensions of servitization and its impact on future development of EU
law. Servitization is one of the economic megatrends in modern society, a
process creating value by adding services to products, ranging from renting
and maintaining expensive capital goods and sharing economy to
producing smart objects and rapid prototyping. Considering its
multifaceted character, servitization inherently touches upon the full
spectrum of legal fields. The article first makes an overview of the legal
challenges of servitization from the competition and consumer law
perspective, corresponding to the two main motives behind the servitization
strategy, i.e. locking out competitors and locking in consumers. It then
considers servitization in cross-border trade, highlighting the tight
connection between servitization and globalisation. Finally, some other
important legal aspects of servitization are considered in a nutshell – such
as implications for B2B and B2G contracts, environmental and intellectual
property law and fundamental rights concerns. It may be observed that law
on the one hand promotes the positive aspects of servitization, while
simultaneously restraining its negative implications for the European
economy and society.
Keywords: • servitization • internet of things • digitising industry • sharing
economy • big data • cloud manufacturing • 3D printing • EU law •
competition • bundling • consumer protection
CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS: Janja Hojnik, Ph.D., Associate Professor, University of Maribor,
Faculty of Law, Mladinska ulica 9, SI-2000 Maribor, Slovenia, e-mail: janja.hojnik@um.si.
DOI 10.18690/978-961-286-004-2.5 ISBN 978-961-286-004-2
© 2016 University of Maribor Press
Available at: http://press.um.si.
24. KONFERENCA: GOSPODARSKI SUBJEKTI NA TRGU IN EVROPSKE
DIMENZIJE
V. Rijavec
Pravni vidiki servitizacije
JANJA HOJNIKlxi
Povzetek Namen članka je prikazati mnoge dimenzije servitizacije in njen
vpliv na nadaljnji razvoj prava EU. Servitizacija je eden od velikih trendov
moderne družbe, proces ustvarjanja vrednosti z dodajanjem storitev
izdelkom, ki zajemajo vse od najema in vzdrževanja dragih kapitalskih
dobrin, deljenja produktov, do izdelovanja pametnih stvari in hitrih
prototipov. Upoštevajoč njen večplasten značaj, se servitizacija dotika vseh
pravnih področij. Članek najprej predstavi pravne probleme servitizacije z
vidika konkurenčnega in potrošniškega prava, ki ustrezajo dvema glavnima
motivoma za strategijo servitizacije, tj. izključitev konkurentov in
zadrževanje potrošnikov. V nadaljevanju se opredeli do servitizacije v
čezmejnem trgovanju, s poudarkom na tesni povezavi med servitizacijo in
globalizacijo. Nazadnje so na kratko predstavljeni še nekateri drugi
pomembni pravni vidiki servitizacije – kot so vplivi na B2B in B2G
pogodbe, okoljsko pravo, pravo intelektualne lastnine in temeljne pravice.
Opaziti je mogoče, da pravo na eni strani spodbuja pozitivne vidike
servitizacije, hkrati pa omejuje njene negativne vplive na evropsko
gospodarstvo in družbo.
Ključne besede: • servitizacija • internet stvari • digitalna industrija •
model poslovanja z deljenjem • veliko podatkovje • proizvodnja v oblaku •
3D tiskanje • EU pravo • konkurenca • vezana prodaja • varstvo potrošnikov
NASLOV AVTORICE: dr. Janja Hojnik, izredna profesorica, Univerza v Mariboru, Pravna fakulteta,
Mladinska ulica 9, 2000 Maribor, Slovenija, epošta: janja.hojnik@um.si.
DOI 10.18690/978-961-286-004-2.5 ISBN 978-961-286-004-2
© 2016 Univerzitetna zalozba Univerze v Mariboru
Dostopno na: http://press.um.si.
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
J. Hojnik: Legal Aspects of Servitization
53
1 Uvod – servitizacijsko orientirana industrijska renesansa v Evropi
Skoraj nesporno je, da je proizvodnja v razvitih gospodarstvih pod ogromnim pritiskom
(Neely, 2007; Johansson, 2010). Zgodba deindustrializacije razvitih gospodarstev se je
pričela v letu 1950 in dodana vrednost proizvodnje je trenutno pod 15 odstotki BDP v
večini OECD držav (Crozet; Kemekliene, Connolly, Keune, & Watt; Schettkat &
Yocarini, 2006). Ne glede na to pa je finančna kriza iz leta 2008 in sledeča recesija
številne posameznike in podjetja spodbudila k iskanju alternativnih virov prihodka ter v
razvitih gospodarstvih privedla do spoznanja nevarnosti pretiranega zanašanja na
finančne storitve. Poleg tega se je gospodarsko okrevanje izkazalo za težavnejše v
državah s šibkim industrijskim sektorjem. Dejstvo je, da Evropa potrebuje »ponovno
vzpostavitev ravnotežja« v svojem gospodarstvu, s posebnim poudarkom na proizvodnji
(Brennan et al., 2015; Howard Lightfoot, Tim Baines, & Palie Smart, 2013; Livesey,
2012; Tether & Bascavusoglu-Moreau, 2012).1
Verjetno je, da lahko »industrijska
renesansa« ali »reindustrializacija« prinese zaposlitvene možnosti in rast nazaj v Evropo
(Elżbieta Bieńkowska, 2015; Karl Aiginger, 2016). Kljub temu pa za to, da bodo razvita
gospodarstva preživela, zgolj zagotavljanje proizvodov ne bo zadostovalo. Prav zato se
predlaga, da se morajo proizvodna podjetja vzpeti po vrednostni lestvici z inovacijami in
ustvarjanjem še bolj prefinjenih proizvodov in storitev, da ne bodo tekmovala zgolj na
podlagi cene (Neely, 2009; Porter & Ketels, 2003). Navkljub tradicionalnemu ločevanju
proizvodnje in storitev je vedno bolj realistično, da proizvajalci ponujajo tudi storitve;
pravzaprav postopoma gradijo svojo celotno konkurenčno strategijo na inovaciji storitev
(T. Baines, 2015). Poleg tega s tem, ko kompleksnost in raznovrstnost gospodarskih
dejavnosti naraščata in s tem, ko se širi tudi digitalizacija, meje med storitvami in
proizvodnjo postajajo vse bolj nedoločljive (Crozet, 2015; Goldhar, & Berg, 2010).
Zaradi potrebe po opisu teh postopkov se je pojavil pojem »servitizacije,« ki dokazuje,
da smo sredi novega opredeljevanja koncepta proizvodnje.
Gospodarske raziskave2
kažejo, da je servitizacija skupaj z globalizacijo ena od
velikanskih trendov v gospodarstvu moderne družbe ter zajema širok spekter poslovnih
modelov, ki so trenutno na trgu. Poleg tega je kompleksen interdisciplinaren koncept, ki
je vse bolj popularen med priznanimi strokovnjaki z različnimi perspektivami
(Chesbrough & Spohrer, 2006; Howard Lightfoot et al., 2013). To dejstvo skupaj s hitrim
razvojem informacijske in komunikacijske tehnologije (IKT), ki imata pomemben vpliv
na servitizacijo (Kryvinska, Kaczor, Strauss, & Greguš, 2014), pomeni, da je ukvarjanje
s to tematiko posebej problematično za pravne raziskovalce in ustvarjalce prava. Vseeno
pa se morajo, upoštevajoč naraščajočo pomembnost, pravni strokovnjaki in uporabniki
odzvati na servitizacijo s preučitvijo pravnih problemov, ki so z njo povezani. Pravni
postopki evropskih razsežnosti zoper Uberja, ki so nedavno rezultirali tudi v dveh
zadevah za predhodno odločanje pred Sodiščem Evropske Unije (v nadaljevanju: Sodišče
EU),3
so dokaz, da to drži. Poleg tega pa se tudi več drugih institucij EU, sredi tega
večdimenzionalnega odziva na trend servitizacije, ukvarja z množico vidikov, kot so
infrastrukturni, vodstveni, spretnostni, pa tudi upravljavski.
54 24. KONFERENCA: GOSPODARSKI SUBJEKTI NA TRGU IN EVROPSKE DIMENZIJE
J. Hojnik: Pravni vidiki servitizacije
2 Servitizacija – »nova paradigma poslovnih operacij« (Toffel, 2008)
Pojem sta prvič leta 1988 uporabila Vandermerwe in Rada, dva strokovnjaka s področja
managementa, ki sta pisala o »naraščajoči ponudbi bolj izpopolnjenih tržnih paketov ali
»paketov« kombinacij proizvodov, storitev, podpore, samostoritev in znanja,
osredotočenih na potrošnika, z namenom, da bi dodale vrednost ključnim gospodarskim
ponudbam.« (Vandermerwe & Rada, 1988)4
Poznejše definicije servitizacije slednjo
pojasnjujejo kot »pojav na produktu zasnovanih storitev, ki zabrišejo tradicionalno
razliko med proizvodnjo in tradicionalno storitvijo« (White, Stoughton & Feng, 1999),
kot tudi »trend, pri katerem proizvodna podjetja posvajajo vse več storitvenih komponent
v svojih ponudbah« (Looy, Gemmel, & Dierdonck, 2003; tudi Ren & Gregory, 2007).
Dandanes je servitizacija široko prepoznana kot proces ustvarjanja vrednosti z
dodajanjem storitev produktom (Baines, Lightfoot, Benedettini, & Kay, 2009; Oliva &
Kallenberg, 2003) in se smatra za vseprisotno v proizvodnih družbah in razvitih
gospodarstvih (Opresnik & Taisch, 2015: 174). Skladno s tem je večina pogosto
zagotovljenih storitev v praksi še vedno dostava izdelkov, ki ji sledi zagotovitev rezervnih
delov in potrošnega materiala ter pomoč uporabnikom s tako imenovanimi info kotički
(Tether & Bascavusoglu-Moreau, 2012; 17). Nadalje lahko s servitizacijo povezane
transakcije vključujejo tudi izposojo avtomobilov namesto njihovega nakupa, pogodbene
storitve namakanja namesto pridobitve namakalnih sistemov, ali pa zagotovitev
kapacitete strežnikov namesto naročanja računalnikov.5
Eden najbolj zgodovinskih
primerov uspešnega fiksiranja dobave dobrin in storitev je Rolls-Roycev model izposoje
letal (imenovan Power-by-the-Hour). Z uporabo senzorjev, ki lahko neprestano
nadzorujejo stanje letalskega motorja (TotalCare Programme), je Rolls-Royce občutno
poenostavil postopek vzdrževanja (Ardolino, Saccani, & Perona, 2015). Podobno je tudi
Xerox razvil model cene na natisnjeno stran za svoje fotokopirne naprave (T. Baines,
2015: 9). Tudi Volvo, ki je v bistvu avtomobilski proizvajalec, je dandanes vključen v
širok spekter aktivnosti, povezanih z avtomobilskim prevozom, kot so zavarovanje,
bencinske črpalke in avtomobilska asistenca, trenutno pa celo razvija vozilo, ki bi preko
pametnega telefona opozorilo mobilnega dobavitelja goriva, o tem, da naj dotoči gorivo
medtem ko je avto parkiran in je voznik odsoten (Steiner, 2015; Vandermerwe & Rada,
1988: 318). Vse te družbe so tako uspele s preobrazbo iz navadnih proizvajalcev v
ponudnike celovitih rešitev (Brady, Davies, & Gann, 2005; Windahl & Lakemond, 2010).
3 Servitizacija v digitalni dobi: digitaliziranje industrije
Pomik proti servitizaciji sovpada z naraščajočim trendom digitalizacije (Lerch & Gotsch,
2015), zaradi česar se trdi da sta »revolucija storitev in informatike dve plati istega
kovanca« (Rust, 2004: 24), ter da »informatizacija« postaja nujna komponenta
servitizacije (Opresnik, Hirsch, Zanetti, & Taisch, 2013). Pojav hitre in zmogljive
informacijske in komunikacijske tehnologije (v nadaljevanju: IKT) kot je Internet,
predstavlja vodilno vlogo pri izboljševanju obstoječih poslovnih modelov (Kalakota &
Robinson, 2001; Lightfoot, Baines, & Smart, 2012: 211–226) in se smatra za pomemben
pogoj, ki omogoča (inovativno) servitizacijo (Ardolino et al., 2015; Kowalkowski,
Kindström & Gebauer, 2013, p. 3; Kryvinska et al., 2014: 3; Penttinen & Palmer, 2007)
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
J. Hojnik: Legal Aspects of Servitization
55
V tem obziru sta Lerch in Gotsch razvila model štirih generičninih faz, v katerih
proizvajalci vključujejo IKT rešitve v svoje določbe o storitvah - (Lerch & Gotsch, 2015:
47). V tem smislu je Internet stvari (IS) že sprejet kot eden izmed najbolj pomembnih
sredstev, ki bo omogočal servitizacijo v prihodnosti. Orodja za podatkovne
komunikacijske storitve z vgrajevanjem senzorjev, ki podpirajo brezžično komunikacijo
z Internetom, spreminjajo »označene stvari« v »pametne stvari.«6
IS na primer pomaga
proizvajalcem večjih dobrin, da hkrati s ponudbo pogodb o vzdrževanju nudijo še opremo
za oddaljeno nadziranje stanja opreme in si prizadevajo za razvoj indikatorjev, ki bi
nakazovali na možnost nastanka okvare izven običajnih okvirov (npr. tresljaji,
temperatura in pritisk). To pomeni, da lahko proizvajalec opravi manj obiskov
namenjenih pregledu in s tem zmanjša svoje stroške, hkrati pa kupcu zagotovi manj
motenj in s tem večje zadovoljstvo.7
IKT je prav tako podlaga za vse večjo uporabo oblakov in proizvodnje, pri kateri so
podatki posredovani tretjim osebam (ponudnikom oblakov) in do katerih je mogoč
oddaljen dostop preko Interneta (Mell & Grance, 2009) Glej tudi (Wen & Zhou, 2014;
Xu, 2012; Zhang et al., 2014). Posledično računalništvo v oblaku predstavlja servitizacijo
na področju informacijske tehnologije (Sultan, 2014). Poleg tega IKT omogoča tudi t.i.
deljenje oz. model poslovanja s sodelovanjem, ki ga podpirata Uber in Airbnb in pri
katerem aplikacije pametnih telefonov omogočajo dostop do platform, ki povezujejo
kupce s prodajalci (Felländer, Ingram, & Teigland, 2015). Nazadnje pa se odvija še
revolucija v bolj običajnih aplikacijah za 3D tiskanje (imenovano tudi dodatno
proizvajanje ali hitro izdelovanje protitipov) – tehnologija, ki ustvarja fizične objekte
neposredno preko računalniško podprtega načrtovanja in plast za plastjo dodaja različne
materiale s pomočjo 3D tiskalnika. Ta nova tehnologija ima nepredstavljiv potencial za
revolucionaliziranje neštetih panog kot so medicina, farmacija in arhitektura.
Hiter razvoj IKT torej predstavlja poseben izziv za proizvajalce in njihove poskuse
pridobivanja konkurenčne prednosti preko storitev. V Nemčiji so tovrstno proizvodnjo,
pri kateri proizvajalci opremljajo svoje izdelke in stroje s pametno tehnologijo,
poimenovali »Industrie 4.0« (Baines & Lightfoot, 2014: 0; Bauernhansl, 2013; Blanchet,
Rinn, Thaden, & Thieulloy, 2014; Lerch & Gotsch, 2015; Dujin, Geissler, & Horstkötter,
2014: 0; Ferber, 2012: 0; Wahlster, 2012). Francoski izraz za isti pojav je »Industrie du
Futur«, na Nizozemskem strategi govorijo o »Smart Industry«, v Španiji o »Industria
Conectada 4.0«, v Italiji o »Fabbrica Intelligente«, Evropska Komisija (v nadaljevanju:
Komisija) pa je nedavno prevzela izraz »digitalizirana industrija«.8
Vsi ti koncepti se
osredotočajo na ustvarjanje pametnih produktov v pametnih tovarnah, ki bi morale v
bližnji prihodnosti voditi v četrto industrijsko revolucijo (Abramovici, Göbel, & Neges,
2015) Glej tudi (H. Kagermann, Helbig, Hellinger, & Wahlster, 2013). Z digitalno
proizvodnjo, ki proizvajalcem omogoča, da nudijo pozamezni produkt po ceni masovne
proizvodnje, bi si po besedah predsednika nemške inženirske zveze (VDMA), Reinholda
Festega, lahko »nazaj izborili proizvodnjo, ki jo je Evropa zgubila zaradi Azije pred
mnogimi leti« (Reinhold Festge, 2015) See also (P. D. H. Kagermann, 2015). Komisarka
Elżbieta Bieńkowska pa poudarja, da »digitalne tehnologije nudijo ključ za zavarovanje
robustne industrijske baze za Evropo tudi v prihodnosti« (Bieńkowska, 2015). Po drugi
56 24. KONFERENCA: GOSPODARSKI SUBJEKTI NA TRGU IN EVROPSKE DIMENZIJE
J. Hojnik: Pravni vidiki servitizacije
strani pa je model deljenja kritiziran, ker zagovarja manjšo potrošnjo in zato potencialno
ogroža gospodarstvo (Felländer et al., 2015: 12). Navkljub mnogim zgodbam uspeha se
torej servitizacija še vedno ne more smatrati za rešitev vseh težav EU.
4 Pravni izzivi servitizacije – EU vidik
Upoštevajoč gospodarsko rast in potencial za ustvarjanje novih delovnih mest,9
je
Komisija popolnoma sprejela proces servitizacije, zatrjujoč da sta »proizvodnja in
storitve dve plati istega kovanca« ter da »v sodobni ekonomiji ne moreš izbirati med eno
in drugo (...). Imeti moraš obe« (Bieńkowska, 2015). Vseeno pa mora modernemu
poslovanju in tehnološkemu razvoju slediti primerna ureditev, ki bo kontrolirala s tem
povezane nevarnosti in omgočila razcvet industrije. Glede na to, da tako industrija kot
tudi potrošniki postajajo pametnejši, morajo temu slediti tudi pametne regulatorne rešitve
(Oettinger, 2015), ki bodo ustvarile ravnotežje med varnostjo, odgovornostjo in
konkurenco na eni strani ter inovativnost in prilagodljivost na drugi. Potrebe po regulaciji
bodo po eni strani omejile servitizacijo, kot na primer pravila o bančništvu v senci, ki
omejujejo aktivnost leasinga pri avtomobilskih prodajalcih,10
po drugi strani pa jo bodo
spodbudile, s tem ko bo, na primer servitizacija postala odziv na okoljsko ali potrošniško
ureditev. Čeprav bo ureditev na nivoju EU na večini nivojev ključna za preprečevanje
mnogih različnih pristopov držav članic, ki ustvarjajo kaos in patriotstvo na notranjem
trgu, se bodo pristojni organi na nacionalnem in lokalnem nivoju morali vključiti skladno
z načeloma subsidiarnosti in proporcionalnosti. Poleg tega pa bodo v regulatornem
procesu morale biti spoštovane tudi druge ustavne in institucionalne ureditve, vključno z
industrijskim sodelovanjem in samoregulacijo v skladu z »novim pristopom«, tako da bo
trg sam določal tehnične rešitve, medtem ko bo javna oblast postavljala zgolj splošne
regulatorne zahteve.11
Servitizacija se s svojim večplastnim značajem dotika vseh pravnih področij. Sledeče
poglavje predstavlja pravne probleme servitizacije z vidikov konkurenčnega in
potrošniškega prava, ki ustrezajo dvema glavnima motivoma za strategijo servitizacije,
tj. izključitev konkurentov in zadrževanje potrošnikov. Tretja sekcija se opredeli do
servitizacije v čezmejnem trgovanju, s poudarkom na tesni povezavi med servitizacijo in
globalizacijo. Nazadnje so na kratko predstavljeni še nekateri drugi pomembni pravni
vidiki servitizacije – kot so javna naročila, okoljsko pravo ter pravo intelektualne lastnine.
Poleg tega pomembni vidiki servitizacije zadevajo tudi delovno12
in kazensko pravo
(Bräutigam & Klindt, 2015: 187–195), forenzične postopke (Hegarty, Lamb, & Attwood,
2014), pa tudi telekomunikacije (Bräutigam & Klindt, 2015: 179–186), medicinsko pravo
(Bräutigam & Klindt, 2015: 196–214) in še mnoga druga pravna področja, vendar pa ti
zaradi prostorske omejitve članka niso predstavljeni.
5 Servitizacija kot strategija za izključevanje konkurentov
Kar zadeva strateške motive servitizacije, se zatrjuje, da lahko proizvodna podjetja, ki
razširjajo svojo proizvodnjo tudi v zagotavljanje storitev, obučtno izboljšajo svoj strateški
položaj, pridobijo konkurenčno prednost in postavijo ovire svojim konkurentom
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
J. Hojnik: Legal Aspects of Servitization
57
(Bustinza, Bigdeli, Baines, & Elliot, 2015; Bustinza et al., 2015; Mathieu, 2001), s čimer
upoštevajo dejstvo, da je pakete izdelkov in storitev načeloma težje imitirati kot gole
izdelk (Gebauer & Friedli, 2005; Oliva & Kallenberg, 2003). Servitizacija zatorej
omogoča »izključitev« konkurentov, tj. preprečuje ali zavira konkurente pri povečevanju
njihovega tržnega deleža na podlagi razvoja novih izdelkov, saj so potrošniki povezani s
svojimi dobavitelji zaradi pogodb o storitvah. Medtem ko konkurenčno pravo
prepoveduje določene servitizacijske modele, slednji hkrati nalagajo nove izzive
konkurenčnemu pravu.13
Primarno servitizacija kot strategija, ki podpira združevanje produktov in storitev, zelo
očitno in direktno sovpada s konkurenčnimi pravili, ki smatrajo prakso združene prodaje
dveh ali več izdelkov in/ali storitev (tj. vezana prodaja in združevanje) za nasprotujočo
pravilom konkurenčnega prava.14
Za tako prakso gre na primer takrat, ko proizvajalec
večjih naprav, ki ima na trgu prevladujoči položaj, svojim strankam, ki od njega kupujejo
stroje, vsili še najem svojih storitev vzdrževanja in popravil, namesto da bi strankam
omogočil izbiro cenejšega, neodvisnega ponudnika storitev. Med mnogimi razlogi za
nudenje združenih produktov in storitev je cenovna diskriminacija, odvračanje od vstopa
na trg in prihranek stroškov (Salinger, 1995). Obratna servitizacija Xeroxa se je zgodila
prav zaradi družbine kršitve konkurenčnih pravil ZDA, s tem ko je združevala leasing
fotokopirnih naprav, visokocenovne tonerje (ki so se takrat imenovali »črno zlato«) in
storitve vzdrževanja (Blackstone, 1972; Finne, Brax, & Holmström, 2013) Glej tudi
(Kearns, Mauler, & Kleinfield, 1992: 64–65). Konkurenčno pravo pa še zdaleč ne
prepoveduje vsakršnega združevanja produktov in storitev (Whish & Bailey, 2015: 730).
Carlton in Waldman pojasnjujeta, da je »ključni vidik vezane prodaje s perspektive
konkurenčnega prava ta, da je na resničnem trgu veliko vezane prodaje, ki deluje na
podlagi učinkovitosti« (Carlton & Waldman, 2008: 1859). Zagovorniki vezane prodaje
trdijo, da podjetja in družba na splošno pogosto žanjejo koristi takega združevanja. Očitna
razlaga za veliko število vezanih prodaj je, da lahko družbe bolje vključujejo svoje
izdelke, kot bi to lahko storili kupci (Nalebuff, 2004). Poleg tega se vezana prodaja lahko
uporabi tudi za ohranjanje učinkovitosti vezanega produkta ali vodi do nižjih cen (Evans
& Salinger, 2005; Peitz, 2008: 41–42; Rennhoff & Serfes, 2009: 547; Whish & Bailey,
2015: 730–731). Pretirano stroga zakonodaja na tem področju bi zato lahko preprečila
učinkovito vključevanje produktov (Faull & Nikpay, 2014: 457; See also Weinstein,
2002).
Še en vidik konkurenčnega prava, ki se tesno povezuje s servitizacijo, zadeva podatke.
Zbiranje in analiza podatkov je bila do sedaj v domeni podjetij s programsko opremo. To
področje pa se vse bolj širi tudi na proizvodna podjetja, ki so pričela izkoriščati možnosti,
ki jih ponujajo zbiranje in uporaba potencialnih podatkov, zato da bi ustvarili večjo
vrednost (Bessis & Dobre, 2014; Opresnik et al., 2013; Opresnik & Taisch, 2015). V tem
smislu so podatki postali proizvodna surovina (Polonetsky & Tene, 2012: 63; Opresnik
& Taisch, 2015: 175). Informacije, ki se pridobijo od kupcev, se lahko uporabijo za razvoj
novih sistemov, ki izboljšujejo delovanje produkta in s tem položaj podjetja v vrednostni
verigi, hkrati pa tudi zvišujejo njegove inovacijske zmožnosti (Sundin, 2009; Tukker &
Tischner, 2006).
58 24. KONFERENCA: GOSPODARSKI SUBJEKTI NA TRGU IN EVROPSKE DIMENZIJE
J. Hojnik: Pravni vidiki servitizacije
Tovrstni podatki ustvarjajo konkurenčno prednost napram manjšim ali novim
konkurentom, ki si ne morejo privoščiti takšnih informacijskih sistemov. To je še posebej
poudarjeno v situacijah ko servitizacijo omogoča IKT, pri katerih senzorji na produktih
avtomatsko zbirajo podatke. Z ozirom na avtomatsko zbiranje podatkov se je razvil
koncept »Veliko podatkovje«, nanaša pa se na zbirko podatkov, ki je tako velika ali
kompleksna, da so tradicionalne aplikacije za obdelavo podatkov nezadostne (Bessis &
Dobre, 2014; Kagermann et al., 2013; Miller, 2015: 37; Opresnik & Taisch, 2015; Shah,
2015). IS skupaj s tehnologijo Velikega podatkovja ponuja proizvajalcem priložnost
preobrazbe svojih ponudb v storitve, kar za stranke pomeni dodano vrednost. V tem
smislu postaja Veliko podatkovje »velik« problem za konkurenčno pravo EU. Problemi
lahko nastanejo v situacijah, ko Veliko podatkovje predstavlja veliko in dolgotrajno oviro
za vstop na trg. Zaradi tega se smatra, da bi morala velika podjetja sprejeti odgovornost,
kadar zavračajo nudenje podatkov uporabnikov, s katerimi razpolagajo, svojim
konkurentom ali za zbiranje dodatnih podatkov s širitvijo v nove proizvodnje linije. Kljub
odločnim nasprotnikom tovrstnega izvrševanja konkurenčnega prava, ki trdijo, da ima
Veliko podatkovje redko opraviti z definicijo trga ali konkurenčnimi učinki (Tucker &
Wellford, 2014), podporniki zatrjujejo, da upoštevaje pomembnost podatkov v
digitalizirani industriji, kot tudi težnjo h konentraciji podatkov, konkurenčno pravo ne
sme ignorirati s tem povezanih problemov (Bräutigam & Klindt, 2015: 169).
6 Sodelovalna ekonomija kot grožnja pošteni konkurenci
Pravna analiza servitizacije se ne more izogniti izzivom, ki jih prinaša model poslovanja
z deljenjem. Z vidika konkurenčnega prava je model deljenja lahko v prid konkurenci,
spodbuja rast, olajšuje učinkovitejšo rabo virov, ustvarja nova delovna mesta in znižuje
stroške potrošnikov. Ne glede na to pa so arhetipi modela deljenja, kot sta Uber in Airbnb
pod nadzorom zaradi učinkov, ki jih ima njihovo poslovanje na določene konkurente, ki
jih obtožujejo nepoštene konkurence (Malhotra & Van Alstyne, 2014). V taki situaciji se
na konkurenčno pravo sklicujejo tako ponudniki storitev, ki delujejo s pomočjo digitalne
platforme, tako kot Uber in Airbnb, kot tudi tradicionalni ponudniki storitev. Prvi
zatrjujejo, da obstoječa ureditev ovira učinkovito konkurenco, slednji pa, da je taka
konkurenca nepoštena, saj novi modeli poslovanja niso podvrženi istim pravilom, v
skladu s katerimi morajo biti tradicionalne storitve. Kot kaže, pa je z obeh gledišč
problematična prav »ureditev« (Laschena, 2015; See also Posen, 2015).
Tradicionalni ponudniki storitev trdijo, da se Uber in Airbnb izogibata določenim
davkom, strokovnim in varnostnim predpisom ter da prelagata breme tveganja s trgovca
na potrošnika (Rogers, 2015). Hotelske verige in vlade po vsem svetu obsojajo do Aribnb,
ker se je izogibal turističnim taksam, ki so običajno vključene v strošek najema sobe v
hotelu, in lokalnim varnostnim predpisom (Baker, 2014). V zvezi z Uberjem velja
omeniti, da je svoje storitve najprej nudil voznikom taksijev izven njihovega delovnega
časa, ki so imeli dovoljenje za opravljanje storitev v zvezi s taksi prevozi, preden je
ponudbo razširil na posameznike, ki niso imeli v lasti dovoljenja za taksiste, so pa imeli
v lasti avtomobil. To je Uberju pomagalo pri cenovni diskriminaciji. Običajni vozniki
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
J. Hojnik: Legal Aspects of Servitization
59
taksijev so sedaj protestno glavni nasprotniki Uberjevega organiziranja upora po Evropi
(Arthur, 2015; eub2, 2015; Stan Schroeder, 2015). Odzivi držav članic se v tej zadevi
razlikujejo. V Franciji so UberPop prepovedali julija 2017, čemur so sledili protesti
francoskih taksistov. Francoski Conseil constitutionnel je septembra 2015 potrdil
odločitev, da je treba UperPop prepovedati na podlagi francoskega prava, ki prepoveduje
storitve, ki izkoriščajo lastnike avtomobilov brez uradnega dovoljenja ali urjenja.15
Nemčija, Španija in Belgija zastopajo podobno stališče, medtem ko se Uber pritožuje
pred Komisijo, zatrjujoč da zastarela nacionalna pravila kršijo pravo EU (Fairless, 2015).
Uber se zanaša na koncept, po katerem se razširjen »ridesharing« model tako razlikuje
od običajnih taksi storitev, da so postali predpisi, ki urejajo taksi storitve, neuporabni.
Uber sebe zatorej dojema bolj kot tehnološko podjetje kot pa prevozno podjetje, saj
temelji na »enostavnem« vmesniku in naprednem internetnem sistemu, ki anlizira
podatke Velikega podatkovja (Felländer et al., 2015: 23). Uberjevo pojasnilo je bilo
nedavno podprto s strani High Court of Justice v Londonu, ki je razsodilo, da voznikov
pametni telefon z aplikacijo za voznika ni naprava za računanje voznin, zaradi česar se
predpisi za taksije ne morejo uporabiti.16
Poleg tega sta se tudi dve nacionalni sodišči
obrnili na Sodišče EU z vprašanji za predhodno odločanje, ki bosta pomembno vplivali
na odločitev o tem, ali je Uber prevozno podjetje ali ponudnik digitalnih storitev.17
Glede na to, da je Sodišče EU v preteklosti pokazalo svojo podporo možnosti
potrošnikov, da se ti lahko sami odločijo ali želijo koristiti določeno storitev, v kolikor je
seveda zagotovljena njihova varnost, bi lahko Sodišče EU podprlo rešitev, ki Uberja ne
bi prisilila v spoštovanje zastarelih predpisov. V povezavi s tem bi bilo koristno, da bi se
Sodišče EU poučilo o rezultatih nedavnega javnega posvetovanja, ki ga je izvedla
Komisija. Z njim je je bilo ugotoljeno, da večina potrošnikov zastopa stališče, da »model
poslovanja s sodelovanjem nudi zadostno obveščenost o ponudnikih storitev, pravicah
potrošnikov, značaju in oblikah ponudbe in pravicah« (European Commission, 2016). V
skladu s temi ugotovitvami, se lahko nedavni izjavi Komisije, da je treba »novim
poslovnim modelom dati možnost« ter da Evropa postaja »edini kontinent, ki zavrača
nove poslovne modele«, 18
razumeta kot znamenje, da Evropska izvršilna veja nudi večjo
podporo poslovnemu modelu deljenja kot vlade držav članic. Poleg tega tudi komisarka
za industrijo, Elżbieta Bieńkowska, podpira blag ureditveni pristop, ter zagovarja »jasne
smernice, povezane z obstoječimi predpisi«, s čimer izloča konkretno zakonodajo EU na
področju poslovanja z deljenjem (Valero, 2016).
Dokler bo trend servitizacije prinašal na trg nove modele poslovanja, ima konkurenčno
pravo pomembno vlogo pri varovanju poštenih odnosov med velikimi in majhnimi
udeleženci na trgu ter med uveljavljenimi podjetji in novinci. Navkljub mnogim izzivom
servitizacije v digitalni dobi je mogoče priti do zaključka, da je trenutno konkurenčno
pravo dovolj fleksibilno, da lahko zajame večino izzivov, ki jih prinaša nova tehnologija
izdelkov in storitev. Vseeno se morajo tudi konkurenčni organi ter sodišča zavedati
nevarnosti, ki jo predstavljajo argumenti o neuravnoteženosti in ekonometrične analize,
hkrati pa ohraniti možnost za vpeljavo novih sredstev dokazovanja konkurenčne škode
60 24. KONFERENCA: GOSPODARSKI SUBJEKTI NA TRGU IN EVROPSKE DIMENZIJE
J. Hojnik: Pravni vidiki servitizacije
(Au, 2012: 228). »Pameten« odziv je zatorej primerna uravnoteženost nasprotujočih si
interesov.
7 Servitizacija kot strategija za zadrževanje kupcev
Poleg izključevanja konkurentov pri proizvajanju izdelkov in storitev, lahko proizvodna
podjetja pričakujejo tudi dodatno tržno prednost, saj servitizacija omogoča »zadrževanje«
kupcev. Z vključevanjem različnih storitev, ki sledijo nakupu, bodo potrošniki postali
zvestejši kot če bi lahko zgolj kupili neko dobrino, istočasno pa proizvajalcu to omogoča
vpogled v potrebe potrošnikov (Aurich, Mannweiler, & Schweitzer, 2010; Baines et al.,
2009, p. 558; Vandermerwe & Rada, 1988). Servitizacija tako pomaga graditi
dolgotrajnejša razmerja s strankami, kar lahko privede celo do točke, ko postanejo
potrošniki odvisni od svojega dobavitelja (Baines et al., 2009; Manzini, Vezzoli, & Clark,
2001). Posledično je potrošniško pravo naslednje področje prava, ki je tesno povezano s
servitizacijo.
Večplasten značaj servitizacije primarno prinaša izzive na področje regulacije
odgovornosti v sistemih združevanja produktov in storitev. V tej zvezi je sprejem
direktive o odgovornosti ponudnikov storitev, kot je že bila predlagana s strani Komisije
leta 1990, ponovno potrebna presoje. Čeprav je bil predlagan osnutek iz 1990 utemeljen
na krivdni odgovornosti (namesto na objektivni odgovornosti), v tistem času ni bilo
nobenega političnega interesa za sprejem te ureditve.19
Vseeno pa bo prenovljen pogled
EU in držav članic na proizvodnjo in servitizacijo mogoče vodil do novega zagona v tem
pogledu. Nasprotno je bil evropski zakonodajni postopek bolj uspešen z Direktivo o
odgovornosti za proizvode,20
ki pa se ne nanaša na neopredmetene dobrine –
pomanjkljive storitve, malomarni nasveti, napačna diagnostika ter napačne informacije
zato niso vključene v to direktivo. Vseeno pa je pomembno omeniti, da bo, kadar se škoda
povzroči s proizvodom z napako, uporabljenim med storitvijo, to škodo mogoče povrniti
na podlagi Direktive o odgovornosti za proizvode (Grubb & Howells, 2007: 292–297).21
Veliko servitizacijskih poslov zato spada v okvir te Direktive, vključno s programsko
opremo z napako, 3D natisnjenih predmetov z napako in skupni prevoz s pokvarjenim
avtomobilom.22
To pomeni, da lahko potrošnik, čigar avto povzroči nesrečo zaradi
nepravilnega delovanja programske opreme, ali potrošnik ki kupi hišo, natisnjeno s 3D
tehnologijo, ki se kasneje podre, poda zahtevek na podlagi Direktive o odgovornosti za
proizvode (Wuyts, 2014: 5). V primerih, ko programsko opremo zagotavlja Internet (t.i.
nevgrajena programska oprema) ali ko so datoteke za digitalni načrt za 3D natisnjene
predmete prodani kupcem, ki nato te predmete natisnejo sami, potencialne napake ne
spadajo v okvir te direktive.
Situacija na področju varnostnih predpisov je primerljiva s situacijo na področju
odgovornosti za proizvode. Čeprav člen 2(1) Direktive 2001/95 o splošni varnosti
proizvodov23
določa, da varnostni režim proizvodov zajema katerikoli proizvod, ki je
namenjen potrošniški rabi oz. ga bodo potrošniki verjetno uporabljali, četudi jim ni
namenjen, »vključno v okviru zagotavljanja storitev«, pa ni nobene primerljive ureditve
na področju varnosti storitev (Weatherill, 2013: 282). Države članice bi morale zato same
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
J. Hojnik: Legal Aspects of Servitization
61
sprejeti zakonodajo, ki bo zastavila varnostne standarde za storitve, kar pa ni najboljša
rešitev v času rasti servitizacije (ki jo omogoča IKT), ki zahteva trg brez meja.
Posebne težave za pravila v zvezi z odgovornostjo in varnostjo izvirajo iz dejstva, da
lahko servitizacija spremeni vloge v proizvodnem ciklu. Tradicionalna proizvodna
zakonodaja domneva, da so dobrine izdelane in sestavljene v proizvodnem obratu, dane
na trg in prodane distributorjem in potrošnikom. Razvoj v proizvodni tehnologiji bo imel
potencial spremeniti to sliko v bližnji prihodnosti. Z združevanjem digitalnih storitev, kot
so spletne oblikovalne storitve z napredno proizvodnjo kot je 3D tiskanje, bo možen velik
preobrat z masovne v popolnoma prilagojeno produkcijo.24
Pri 3D tiskanju je meja med
proizvodnjo in storitvijo zabrisana zaradi negotovosti glede tega, koga je treba smatrati
za proizvajalca proizvoda, še posebej kadar je 3D tiskalnik uporabljen nekje v vrednostni
verigi (Kommerskollegium, 2015: 23). Zaradi široke dostopnosti 3D tiskalnikov je
posamezniki (predvsem ljubiteljskim izumiteljem) precej lažje postanejo proizvajalci.25
Ker slednji niso seznanjeni s pravili o odgovornosti za proizvode, bo pravni okvir
odgovornosti za proizvode morda prisiljen v to da se spremeni, da se prilagodi takšni novi
tehnologiji (Berkowitz, 2014; Engstrom, 2013). Brez te spremembe ureditve se bodo
proizvajalci verjetno skušali izogniti odgovornosti z zatrjevanjem, da so zgolj »ponudniki
storitev« (Nielson, 2015: 616), ki oddajajo 3D tiskalnike v najem strankam med
postopkom tiskanja (tiskalnik pa medtem ostane v prostorih proizvajalca) in prodajajo
surovine strankam vnaprej, s čemer se rešijo odgovornosti za proizvod.
8 Pogodbe za prodajo sistemov proizvod-storitev potrošnikom
Z vidika razmerja podjetij do potrošnikov so servitizacijski modeli lahko razvrščeni v dve
skupini. Prvo sestavljajo servitizacijske transakcije, kjer je lastništvo na proizvodu
preneseno na potrošnika (tj. proizvod je prodan) z nekaj dodanimi storitvami, ki
povečujejo vrednost proizvoda. Te storitve so lahko tradicionalne (kot sta vzdrževanje in
popravilo) ali pa digitalne, vgrajene v pametne proizvode, ki so povezani z Internetom
(tj. pametne naprave, ki proizvajalcu omogočajo oddaljen dostop). Nasprotno pa drugo
skupino servitizacijskih modelov sestavljajo transakcije, kjer lastništvo na proizvodu
ostaja pri prodajalcu, na kupca pa je prenesena zgolj storitev (kadar je na primer naprava
oddana, avto izposojen ali si ga deli več uporabnikov itd.).
Uvrščanje te klasifikacije servitizacijskih transakcij pod pogodbene obrazce, ki jih
zagotavlja Direktiva o pravicah potrošnikov, vodi do zaključka, da prva skupina
transakcij spada med prodajne pogodbe.26
Glede na definicijo iz člena 2(5) te Direktive
je kriterij za uvrstitev pogodbe med prodajne pogodbe prenos lastništva nad blagom na
potrošnika proti plačilu cene blaga. Zadnji del definicije is istega člena, pa dodaja, da
prodajna pogodba vključuje tudi »kakršno koli pogodbo, katere predmet so blago ali
storitve.« Če je glavni namen prenos lastništva določenega blaga, bi posledično pogodba
morala biti uvrščena med prodajne pogodbe, četudi zajema pripadajoče storitve, ki jih
zagotavlja prodajalec, kot so instalacija, vzdrževanje ali kaj drugega, ne glede na
relativno vrednost blaga in storitev. 27
S tega vidika je moč pričakovati, da bo proizvodnja
edinstvenega izdelka skladno s potrošnikovimi izrecnimi zahtevami – četudi je tak
62 24. KONFERENCA: GOSPODARSKI SUBJEKTI NA TRGU IN EVROPSKE DIMENZIJE
J. Hojnik: Pravni vidiki servitizacije
proizvod izdelan s pomočjo pametnih naprav kot standardiziran proizvod (proizvod v
veliki proizvodnji) – prav tako spadala pod prodajno pogodbo, navkljub dejstvu, da ne
gre za čisto prodajno transakcijo, temveč za kombinacijo slednje z določbami o storitvah,
podobno kot v primeru izdelovanja oblačil po meri (Bräutigam & Klindt, 2015: 148).28
Prodajna pogodba se bo lahko uporabila tudi v primeru transakcij kot jo je razvil Volvo,
ki ponuja dolivanje bencina v odsotnosti voznika. Ta oblika pogodbe izrecno velja tudi
za digitalne vsebine, dobavljene na oprijemljivem mediju.29
Če pa je posebna pogodba
sklenjena za storitve, ki so del paketa proizvoda in storitev (na primer pogodba za
popravilo), pa mora biti zaradi svojega glavnega namena uvrščena med pogodbe o
storitvah.30
Pogodbe o storitvah so definirane kot tiste, na podlagi katere trgovec opravi
storitev za potrošnika ali se temu zaveže, potrošnik pa za to plača (člen 2(6)). Iz tega
sledi, da druga skupina servitizacijskih transakcij spada pod pogodbe o storitvah, saj
lastništvo izdelkov ostane trgovcu, prenesena pa je zgolj njihova raba.
9 Zaključek: človeški delež pri servitizaciji
Čeprav je svet morda nov, servitizacija in z njo povezani koncepti, ki podpirajo idejo, da
ni treba kupovati proizvodov, zato da bi uživali koristi, niso novi. Wilson podaja primer
ananasov, ki so bili prvič v Evropo pripeljani v 17. stoletju in so bili tako dragi, da so jih
revnejše, srednjerazredne družine občasno najele, ko so ob posebnih priložnostih gostile
družbo, ki so jo želele navdušiti, hkrati pa upale, da jih nihče ne bo dejansko poskusil
razrezati (Wilson, 2005).
Od takrat je Evropa prehodila že dolgo pot. Skupina na visoki ravni za poslovne storitve
je pojasnila, da servitizacija »ponuja priložnosti za revolucijo proizvodnega sektorja,«31
medtem ko iz SPREE projekta, financiranega s strani EU, izhaja zaključek, da ima
servitizacija »potencial brez primere radikalno spremeniti proizvodnjo in potrošniške
vzorce in doseči ločevanje gospodarstva, ekologije in družbenih sprememb« (“SPREE
Project,” n.d.). Komisija se je na ta poslovni trend večdimenzionalno odzvala s
sprejemom ali objavo o sprejemu vrste akcijskih načrtov, smernic ali zakonodajnih
predlogov povezanih s servitizacijo.32
Nekateri komentatorji trdijo, da zato, ker še ni
znano kako točno se bo servitizacija razvijala, EU še ne bo kmalu sprejela zakonodaje, ki
zadeva digitaliziranje industrije, drugi opozarjajo na potrebo po nemudnem odzivu, da se
prepreči zakonodajna aktivnost držav članic, ki bi EU postavila v slabši položaj nasproti
ostalim globalnim velesilam kot sta ZDA in Kitajska, ki sta prav tako razvili svoje
proizvodne strategije. V mnogih pogledih je servitizacija smiselna in zato je smiselno
tudi, da se ji posveti regulatorna podpora, ki jo potrebuje, da postane redna oblika
poslovanja. To pa vseeno ne pomeni, da mora biti nova ureditev sprejeta v naglici, sploh
ker bi zadostovala že sprememba obstoječe zakonodaje (WDMA European Office, 2016:
10; See also Braucher, 2002). Mnoga obstoječa pravila v zvezi z blagom so povsem
uporabna tudi za pametno blago in veliko obstoječih pravil v zvezi s storitvami je
uporabnih tudi za servitizacijske transakcije. Poleg tega je treba priznati da zakonodaja
ne more zajeti vseh možnih problemov, ki se lahko pojavijo v praksi – osrednja
regulatorna vloga bo zato na plečih sodišč, ki bo moralo biti dovolj fleksibilno, da bo
prepoznalo potrebo po ravnotežju med različnimi interesi.
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
J. Hojnik: Legal Aspects of Servitization
63
Industrija in tehnologija se očitno naglo spreminjata; tudi zakoni se lahko temu razvoju
hitro prilagodijo. Vendar pa se bodo vsi vpleteni morali globoko zamisliti, ali se temu
lahko enako hitro prilagodi tudi družba33
– ali se bodo ljudje lahko naučili potrebnih
veščin; ali bomo v tem »tehnološkem tsunamiju« varni? 34
Ob primerih kot je Uber se
postavljajo vprašanja o uporabnosti delovne zakonodaje v situacijah, kjer je meja med
delavcem in samostojnim izvajalcem nejasna. 35
S širšo uporabo avtomatiziranih sistemov
(robotov) v delovnem procesu bodo morala biti popravljena tudi pravila o varnosti pri
delu. Seveda digitalizirana industrija ne bo nadomestila ljudi v proizvodnji, bo pa
dovoljevala drugačno delitev dela med ljudmi in napravami, kjer bodo rutinske fizične in
mentalne naloge v vse več primerih zamenjane s koordinacijo in kontrolnimi nalogami
(van Est et al., 2015; WDMA European Office, 2016, p. 4). Komisija je že izrazila
potrebo po digitalnih veščinah in novem izobraževanju delovne sile kot enega glavnih
izzivov digitaliziranja industrije v EU, ob čemer zatrjuje, da se »bodo vse službe
spremenile in mnoge izginile.« 36
Servitizacija bo zato imela neposredni učinek ne le na
evropska podjetja in Evropejce kot potrošnike, temveč tudi na večji del evropskih
študentov in delavcev.
Zaključiti je mogoče, da smo se znašli v sredi »servitizacijsko-digitalizacijskoglobalizacijskega«
hurikana. Čeprav se ga nekateri bojijo in ga skušajo ustaviti, pa je
malo verjetno da bi taki poskusi vodili do vidnih rezultatov. Zato se zdi mnogo bolj
kontruktivno preprosto poskusiti in to karseda izkoristiti ter sprejeti razvoj, ki deluje nam
v prid. Premišljen regulatorni odziv, ki bi zajemal vse vpletene, bi lahko v tem oziru
ponudil ključni prispevek k omejevanju negativnih vplivov novega industrijskega vala na
evropsko gospodarstvo in družbo.
Notes
1
Glej tudi Komisija, Towards Knowledge Driven Reindustrialisation, Poročilo Evropske Komisije
2013, SWD (2013) 347 končno: 3k
2
Npr. (Parametric Technology Corporation (PTC), 2013)
3
Zadeva C-434/15, Asociación Profesional Élite Taxi proti Uber Systems Spain, S.L., vloženo dne
7. avgusta 2015 in zadeva C-526/15, Uber Belgium BVBA proti Taxi Radio Bruxellois NV,
vloženo dne 5. oktobra 2015.
4
V zadnjih letih se ta pojem hitro širi iz angleškega v druge jezike, tako da je mogoče najti izraze
‘la servitization’ v italijanščini in francoščini, ‘Servitization’ v nemščini ‘serwicyzacja’ v poljščini
itd.
5
Sporočilo Komisije (Commission Communication, n.d.)
6
Najprej predmeti, opremljeni z RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) tehnologijo (elektronska
ID oznaka) – Več o tem (Chabanne, Urien, & Susini, 2013; Gubbi, Buyya, Marusic & Palaniswami,
2013; Ngai, Moon, Riggins, & Yi, 2008; Weber, 2009)
7
‘State of the Internet of Things Market Report 2015’ (Verizon Enterprise Solutions) 13. Glej tudi
(Saara A. Brax & Katrin Jonsson, 2009; Tonci Grubic & Joe Peppard, 2016)
8
Glej Komisija, DG Connect, An Action Plan for Digitising European Industry, Osnutek, 23.
december 2015. Glej tudi (UK Government, 2013).
9
Crozet in Milet, ki sta raziskovala servitizacijo v francoskih podjetjih, sta ugotovila, da so v
primerjavi z ostalimi podjetji ki proizvajajo zgolj blago, podjetja, ki so pričela s prodajo storitev,
64 24. KONFERENCA: GOSPODARSKI SUBJEKTI NA TRGU IN EVROPSKE DIMENZIJE
J. Hojnik: Pravni vidiki servitizacije
povečala svoj profit za 3,7 do 5,3 odstotkov, povečala število zaposlenih za 30 odstotkov in
izboljšala prodajo svojega blaga za 3,6 odstotke - (Crozet & Milet, 2015: 25)
10
Glej sporočilo Komisije, Bančni sistem v senci – obravnavanje novih virov tveganja v finančnem
sektorju, COM (2013) 614 final, tudi Zelena knjiga – Bančni sistem v senci, COM(2012) 102 final
in odziv Leaseurope, Komentarji na Zeleno knjigo o bančnem sistemu v senci, Bruselj, dostopno
na: http://www.leaseurope.org/. Več o bančnem sistemu v senci (Garcia, 2012; Greene &
Broomfield, 2013)
11
Glej sporočilo Komisije, Vizija za notranji trg z industrijskimi proizvodi, COM (2014) 25 final:
5. Glej tudi Klindt v (Bräutigam & Klindt, 2015: 100–106; Weber & Weber, 2010: 23)
12
Glej npr. (Rogers, 2015)
13
Več o industrijski politiki v konkurenčnem pravu Gifford & Kudrle, 2015; Sokol, 2015.
14
Za razliko med vezano prodajo in združevanjem glej npr. (Rousseva, 2010: 219; Diaz & Garcia,
2007; Hylton & Salinger, 2001; Jones & Sufrin, 2014: 485)
15
Conseil constitutionnel, Société UBER France SAS et autre, Décision n° 2015-484 QPC du 22
septembre 2015. Glej tudi (Jacquin, 2015)
16
Transport for London proti Uber London Ltd, št. zadeve: CO/1449/2015, sodba z dne 16. oktober
2015, [2015] EWHC 2918 (Admin), para 17.
17
Zadeva C-434/15, Asociación Profesional Élite Taxi proti Uber Systems Spain, S.L., in zadeva
C-526/15, Uber Belgium BVBA proti Taxi Radio Bruxellois NV, obe v teku.
18
(“Brussels wants to share,” 2015, “Europe should embrace sharing economy, says EU,” 2015)
19
Predlog Direktive o odgovornosti ponudnikov storitev, COM (90) 482 final, 20. december 1990.
Več o tem (Weatherill, 2013: 186–187)
20
Direktiva Sveta o približevanju zakonov in drugih predpisov držav članic v zvezi z odgovornostjo
za proizvode z napako, UL L 210, 7.8.1985: 29-33.
21
Glej zadevo C-203/99, Veedfald proti Arhus Amtskommune, EU:C:2001:258 in zadevo C-
495/10, Dutrueux, EU:C:2011:869.
22
Pisno vprašanje št. 706/88 s strani Gijs de Vries Komisiji: Product liability for computer
programs, UL C 114, 8.5.1989, 42.
23
UL L 11, 15.1.2002: 4-17.
24
Komisija, Business Innovation Observatory – Design for Innovation, ‘Web-based design services
as a new business model in the design world’, 2014.
25
Uredba (ES) št. 765/2008 o določitvi zahtev za akreditacijo in nadzor trga v zvezi s trženjem
proizvodov, UL L 218, 13.8.2008: 30-47.
26
Direktiva 2011/83/EU o pravicah potrošnikov, UL L 304, 22.11.2011: 64-88.
27
GD za pravosodje, Usmeritveni dokument glede Direktive o pravicah potrošnikov, junij 2014: 6.
28
Cf Burrer se sprašuje, ali bi to situacijo lahko zajela prodajna pogodba, pogodba o storitvah ali
kakšna nova, netipična oblika pogodbe.
29
Direktiva o varstvu potrošnikov, recital 19.
30
Prav tam, recital 26.
31
High-Level Group on Business Services, Final Report, april 2014: 28.
32
Npr. DSM strategija je bila sprožena maja 2015, Smernice o modelu deljenja v poslovanju bi
morale biti objavljene do marca 2016, akcijski načrt za digitaliziranje industrije do aprila 2016,
načrt za IS do poletja 2016, zakonodaja o povezanih avtomobilih do 2018, itd.
33
Glej npr. Indeks digitalnega gospodarstva in družbe (DESI), ki nadzira digitalni razvoj
evropske družbe.
34
C.F. (Chappell, 2016)
35
Glej npr. (Musil, 2015)
36
Glej Komisija, DG Connect, Akcijski načrt za digitalizacijo evropske industrije, Osnutek, 23.
december 2015: 11. Ustrezno, 90 odstotkov služb v digitalizirani industriji zahteva določeno
stopnjo digitalnih veščin, 40 odstotkov podjetij, ki skušajo zaposliti IKT strokovnjake ima s tem
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
J. Hojnik: Legal Aspects of Servitization
65
težave. Ocenjuje se, da bo do leta 2020 v EU 800.000 delovnih mest za IKT strokovnjake. Glej tudi
Skupina na visoki ravni za poslovne storitve, končno poročilo, april 2014: 63-75.
Refernces
Abramovici, M., Göbel, J. C. & Neges, M. (2015) Smart Engineering as Enabler for the 4th
Industrial Revolution, In: Fathi, M. (Ed.) Integrated Systems: Innovations and Applications,
pp. 163–170 (Springer International Publishing), available at:
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-15898-3_10 (July 18, 2016). Aiginger, K.
(2016, January 26). The high road: Europe must seize the potential of advanced manufacturing
[Text], available at: http://www.euractiv.com/sections/innovation-industry/high-road-europemust-seize-potential-advanced-manufacturing-321309
(July 18, 2016).
Ardolino, M., Saccani, N. & Perona, M. (2015) The Impact of Digital Technologies and
Ecosystems on the Servitization of Companies: A Preliminary Analysis, pp. 51–58. Presented
at the Spring Servitization Conference, Aston Business School, available at:
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marco_Ardolino/publication/277017752_NS_Ardolino_e
t_al_SSC2015_review/links/555f23eb08ae6f4dcc8ff52b.pdf (July 18, 2016).
Arthur, C. (2015, June 26) Uber backlash: taxi drivers’ protests in Paris part of global revolt, The
Guardian, available at: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/26/uber-backlashtaxi-drivers-protests-paris-global-revolt
(July 18, 2016).
Au, T. H. (2012) Anticompetitive Tying and Bundling Arrangements in the Smartphone Industry,
Stanford Technology Law Review, pp. 188–228.
Aurich, J. C., Mannweiler, C. & Schweitzer, E. (2010). How to design and offer services
successfully, CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, 2(3), pp. 136–143, doi:
10.1016/j.cirpj.2010.03.002.
Baines, T. (2015) Exploring Service Innovation and the Servitization of the Manufacturing Firm,
Research Technology Management, 58(5), pp. 9–11, doi: 10.5437/08956308X5805002.
Baines, T. S., Lightfoot, H. W., Benedettini, O. & Kay, J. M. (2009) The servitization of
manufacturing: A review of literature and reflection on future challenges, Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, 20(5), pp. 547–567, doi:
10.1108/17410380910960984.
Baines, T. & Lightfoot, H. (2014) Servitization in the Aircraft Industry: Understanding Advanced
Services and the Implications of Their Delivery, In: Lay, G. (ed.) Servitization in Industry, pp.
45–54 (Springer International Publishing), available at:
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-06935-7_3 (July 18, 2016).
Baker, D. (2014, May 27) Don’t buy the “sharing economy” hype: Airbnb and Uber are facilitating
rip-offs, The Guardian, available at:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/27/airbnb-uber-taxes-regulation (July
18, 2016).
Bauernhansl, T. (2013) Industry 4.0: Challenges and limitations in the production. Keynote.
ATKearney, Factory of the Year.
Berkowitz, N. D. (2014) Strict Liability for Individuals - The Impact of 3-D Printing on Products
Liability Law [notes], Washington University Law Review, (4), pp. 1019.
Bessis, N. & Dobre, C. (2014) Big Data and Internet of Things: A Roadmap for Smart
Environments (Springer).
Bieńkowska, E. (2015) Reindustrialisation of Europe: Industry 4.0 - Innovation, growth and jobs,
Speech, In: European Commission, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-
2019/bienkowska/announcements/reindustrialisation-europe-industry-40-innovation-growthand-jobs-forum-europe-conference_en
(July 18, 2016).
66 24. KONFERENCA: GOSPODARSKI SUBJEKTI NA TRGU IN EVROPSKE DIMENZIJE
J. Hojnik: Pravni vidiki servitizacije
Blackstone, E. A. (1972) Copying-Machine Industry: Innovations, Patents, and Pricing, Antitrust
Law & Economics Review, 6, pp. 105.
Blanchet, M., Rinn, T., Thaden, G. & Thieulloy, G. (2014) Industry 4.0: The new industrial
revolution-How Europe will succeed. Hg. v. Roland Berger Strategy Consultants GmbH.
München, available at:
http://www.Rolandberger.com/media/pdf/Roland_Berger_TAB_Industry_4_0_2014 0403.Pdf
(July 18, 2016).
Brady, T., Davies, A. & Gann, D. M. (2005) Creating value by delivering integrated solutions,
International Journal of Project Management, 23(5), pp. 360–365.
Braucher, J. (2002) When Your Refrigerator Orders Groceries Online and Your Car Dials 911 after
an Accident: Do We Really Need New Law for the World of Smart Goods?, Washington
University Journal of Law & Policy, 8(241), pp. 241–259.
Bräutigam, P. & Klindt, T (2015) Digitalisierte Wirtschaft/Industrie 4.0.
Brax, S. A. & Jonsson, K. (2009) Developing integrated solution offerings for remote diagnostics:
A comparative case study of two manufacturers, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 29(5), pp. 539–560, doi: 10.1108/01443570910953621
Brennan, L., Ferdows, K., Godsell, J., Golini, R., Keegan, R., Kinkel, S., … Taylor, M.
(2015) Manufacturing in the world: where next?, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 35(9), 1253, doi: 10.1108/IJOPM-03-2015-0135.
Brussels wants to share (2015, November 2), available at: http://brand-e.biz/europeancommission-looks-to-bolster-the-sharing-economy_36359.html
(July 18, 2016).
Bustinza, O. F., Bigdeli, A. Z., Baines, T. & Elliot, C. (2015) Servitization and competitive
advantage: the importance of organizational structure and value chain position, ResearchTechnology
Management, 58(5), 53–60, doi:10.5437/08956308X5805354.
Carlton, D. W. & Waldman, M. (2008) Tying (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 1529843)
Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, available at:
http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1529843 (July 18, 2016).
Chabanne, H., Urien, P. & Susini, J.-F. (2013) RFID and the Internet of Things (John Wiley &
Sons).
Chappell, S. (2016, January 20) Tech transformation – 4th Industrial Revolution “tsunami” warning
in Davos, Euronews, available at: http://’www.euronews.com/2016/01/20/fourth-industrialrevolution-tsunami-warning-in-davos/
(July 18, 2016).
Chesbrough, H. & Spohrer, J. (2006) A Research Manifesto for Services Science, Communications
of the ACM, 49(7), pp. 35–40, doi: 10.1145/1139922.1139945.
Commission Communication. (n.d.) Innovation for a sustainable Future - The Eco-innovation
Action Plan (Eco-AP) COM (2011) 899 final, available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecoap/about-eco-innovation/good-practices/project-proposespolicy-packages-servitisation_en
(July 18, 2016). Crozet, M. & Milet, E. (2015) Should
everybody be in services? The effect of servitization on manufacturing firm performance (No.
CEPII Working Paper 2015/19), available at:
http://www.cepii.fr/PDF_PUB/wp/2015/wp2015-19.pdf (July 18, 2016).
Crozet, M. & Millet E. (2014) The servitization of French manufacturing firms, CEPII Working
Paper, (10), available at: http://www.cepii.fr/PDF_PUB/wp/2014/wp2014-10.pdf (July 18,
2016).
Diaz, F. E. G. & Garcia, A. L. (2007) Tying and Bundling under EU Competition Law: Future
Prospects, Competition Law International, (1), pp. 13.
Dujin, A., Geissler, C. & Horstkötter, D. (2014) INDUSTRy 4.0: The new industrial revolution
(Munich: Roland Berger Strategy Consultants).
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
J. Hojnik: Legal Aspects of Servitization
67
Engstrom, N. F. (2013) 3-D Printing and Product Liability: Identifying the Obstacles, University
of Pennsylvania Law Review Online, 162(35), available at:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2347757 (July 18, 2016).
eub2 (2015, September 16) European taxi drivers block Brussels over Uber, EuBusiness.com,
available at: http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/belgium-transport.14c9/ (July 18, 2016).
Europe should embrace sharing economy, says EU (2015, October 28), available at:
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/europe-should-embrace-sharing-economysays-eu-1.2408872
(July 18, 2016).
European Commission (2016, January 29) First brief results of the public consultation on the
regulatory environment for platforms, online intermediaries, data and cloud computing and the
collaborative economy, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/first-briefresults-public-consultation-regulatory-environment-platforms-online-intermediaries
(July 18,
2016).
Evans, D. S. & Salinger, M. (2005) Why do firms bundle and tie? Evidence from competitive
markets and implications for tying law, Yale Journal on Regulation, 22(1), pp. 37-89.
Fairless, T. (2015, April 1) Uber Files Complaints Against European Governments Over Bans.
Wall Street Journal, available at: http://www.wsj.com/articles/uber-files-complaints-againsteuropean-governments-over-bans-1427885946
(July 18, 2016).
Faull, J. & Nikpay, A. (2014) Faull and Nikpay: The EU Law of Competition (Oxford: OUP
Oxford).
Felländer, A., Ingram, C. & Teigland, R. (2015) Sharing Economy–Embracing Change with
Caution. In Näringspolitiskt Forum rapport.
Ferber, S. (2012) Industry 4.0–Germany takes first steps toward the next industrial revolution,
available at: http://blog.bosch-si.com/categories/manufacturing/2012/10/industry-4-0germany-takes-first-steps-toward-the-next-industrial-revolution/
(July 18, 2016).
Festge, R. (2015, April 7) “Industry 4.0”: How European companies can really benefit, EurActiv,
available at: http://www.euractiv.com/sections/innovation-industry/industrie-40-howeuropean-companies-can-really-benefit-313385
(July 18, 2016).
Finne, M., Brax, S. & Holmström, J. (2013) Reversed servitization paths: a case analysis of two
manufacturers, Service Business, 7(4), pp. 513–537, doi: 10.1007/s11628-013-0182-1.
Garcia, J. A. (2012) Who’s Afraid of the Shadows?–EU Moves to Curb Emerging Threats from
Shadow Banking, EU Moves to Curb Emerging Threats from Shadow Banking (June 14, 2012),
Financial Regulation International, Forthcoming, available at:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2080116 (July 18, 2016).
Gebauer, H. & Friedli, T. (2005) Behavioral implications of the transition process from products
to services, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 20(2), pp. 70–78, doi:
10.1108/08858620510583669.
Gifford, D. J. & Kudrle, R. T. (2015) The Atlantic Divide in Antitrust: An Examination of US and
EU Competition Policy (University of Chicago Press).
Goldhar, J. & Berg, D. (2010) Blurring the boundary: convergence of factory and service processes,
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 21(3), 341–354, doi:
10.1108/17410381011024322.
Greene, E. F. & Broomfield, E. L. (2013) Promoting risk mitigation, not migration: a comparative
analysis of shadow banking reforms by the FSB, USA and EU, Capital Markets Law Journal,
8(1), 6–53.
Grubb, A. & Howells, G. G. (2007) The Law of Product Liability (Butterworths).
Grubic, T. & Peppard, J. (2016) Servitized manufacturing firms competing through remote
monitoring technology: an exploratory research, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, 27(2), pp. 154-184, doi: 10.1108/JMTM-05-2014-0061.
68 24. KONFERENCA: GOSPODARSKI SUBJEKTI NA TRGU IN EVROPSKE DIMENZIJE
J. Hojnik: Pravni vidiki servitizacije
Gubbi, J., Buyya, R., Marusic, S. & Palaniswami, M. (2013) Internet of Things (IoT): A vision,
architectural elements, and future directions, Future Generation Computer Systems, 29(7),
1645–1660, doi: 10.1016/j.future.2013.01.010.
Günther Oettinger. (2015, April 15) Europe’s future is digital, Speech at Hannover Messe. Speech
15-4772, available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-15-4772_en.htm (July 18,
2016).
Hegarty, R. C., Lamb, D. J. & Attwood, A. (2014) Digital Evidence Challenges in the Internet of
Things, In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Network Conference (INC 2014), p. 163,
Lulu. com, available at:
https://www.google.com/books?hl=sl&lr=&id=Tl7qBgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA163&dq=h
egarty+lamb+digital+evidence&ots=LyUIpBXu1i&sig=t5enwpS78bQH95kpAV6KG3nDL4
Q (July 18, 2016).
Hylton, K. N. & Salinger, M. A. (2001) Tying Law and Policy: A Decision Theoretic Approach
(SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 267170) (Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network),
available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=267170 (July 18, 2016).
Jacquin, J.-B. (2015, September 22) Le Conseil constitutionnel confirme l’illégalité du service
Uberpop en France, Le Monde.fr, available at:
http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2015/09/22/web-eco-uberpop-decision-conseilconstitutionnel_4767302_3234.html
(July 18, 2016).
Johansson, L. (2010) Servicification of Swedish manufacturing, pp. 33 (Stockholm, Sweden: The
National Board of Trade, Stockholm), available at:
http://www.kommers.se/Documents/dokumentarkiv/publikationer/2010/skriftserien/report-
2010-1-servicification-of-swedish-manufacturing.pdf (July 18, 2016).
Jones, A. & Sufrin, B. (2014) EU Competition Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (Oxford: Oxford
University Press).
Kagermann, H., Helbig, J., Hellinger, A. & Wahlster, W. (2013) Recommendations for
Implementing the Strategic Initiative INDUSTRIE 4.0: Securing the Future of German
Manufacturing Industry; Final Report of the Industrie 4.0 Working Group (Forschungsunion).
Kagermann, P. D. H. (2015) Change Through Digitization—Value Creation in the Age of Industry
4.0, In: Albach, H. Meffert, H., Pinkwart, A. & Reichwald, R. (eds.) Management of Permanent
Change, pp. 23–45 (Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden), available at:
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-658-05014-6_2 (July 18, 2016).
Kalakota, R. & Robinson, M. (2001) E-business 2.0: Roadmap for Success (Addison-Wesley
Professional).
Kearns, D. T., Mauler, D. & Kleinfield, S. (1992) Xerox-Prophets in the Dark: How Xerox
Reinvented Itself and Beat Back the Japanese (Harper Business), available at:
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=573594 (July 18, 2016).
Kemekliene, G., Connolly, H., Keune, M. & Watt, A. (2007) Services employment in Europe, Now
and in the Future, In: ETUI-REHS, Background Paper for UNI-Europa Conference, available
at:
https://www.etui.org/content/download/2540/27784/file/07+Service+employment+in+Europe
+EN+R104.pdf (July 18, 2016).
Kommerskollegium. (2015) Servicification on the Internal Market – a regulatory perspective: The
case of customisation by 3D printing, pp. 28 (Stockholm, Sweden: National Board of Trade,
Stockholm), available at: http://www.kommers.se/Documents/In_English/Report-
Servicification%20on%20the%20Internal%20Market%20%E2%80%93%20a%20regulatory
%20perspective.pdf (July 18, 2016).
Kowalkowski, C., Kindström, D. & Gebauer, H. (2013) ICT as a catalyst for service business
orientation, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 28(6), pp. 506–513, doi:
10.1108/JBIM-04-2013-0096.
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
J. Hojnik: Legal Aspects of Servitization
69
Kryvinska, N., Kaczor, S., Strauss, C. & Greguš, M. (2014) Servitization - Its Raise through
Information and Communication Technologies, In: Snene, M. & Leonard, M. (eds.), Exploring
Services Science, pp. 72–81 (Springer International Publishing), available at:
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-04810-9_6 (July 18, 2016).
Laschena, A. (2015, November 16) Competition and the sharing economy: the challenges of a new
business model, available at: http://www.kreab.com/brussels/2015/11/16/competition-and-thesharing-economy-the-challenges-of-a-new-business-model/
(July 18, 2016).
Lerch, C. & Gotsch, M. (2015) Digitalized Product-Service Systems in Manufacturing Firms.
Research Technology Management, 58(5), pp. 45-52, doi: 10.5437/08956308X5805357
Lerch, C. & Gotsch, M. (2015) How Digitalisation can Accelerate the Transformation Process from
the Manufacturer to Service Provider (Vol. 2015) Presented at the Servitization: the theory and
impact, Spring Servitization Conference, Aston Business School.
Lightfoot, H. W., Baines, T. S. & Smart, P. (2012) Emerging Technology and the Service Delivery
Supply Chain, In: Chan, H. K., Lettice, F. & Durowoju, O. A. (eds.) Decision-Making for
Supply Chain Integration, pp. 211–226 (London: Springer), available at:
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4471-4033-7_11 (July 18, 2016).
Lightfoot, H., Baines, T. & Smart, P. (2013) The servitization of manufacturing: A systematic
literature review of interdependent trends, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 33(11/12), 1408–1434, doi: 10.1108/IJOPM-07-2010-0196.
Livesey, F. (2012) The Need for a New Understanding of Manufacturing and Industrial Policy in
Leading Economies, Innovations (15582477), 7(3), pp. 193-202, doi:10.1162/INOV_a_00146.
Looy, B. van, Gemmel, P. & Dierdonck, R. (2003) Services Management: An Integrated Approach
(Pearson Education).
Malhotra, A. & Van Alstyne, M. (2014) The Dark Side of the Sharing Economy ... and How to
Lighten It, Communications of the ACM, 57(11), pp. 24–27.
Manzini, E., Vezzoli, C. & Clark, G. (2001) Product-Service Systems. Using an Existing Concept
as a New Approach to Sustainability, Journal of Design Research, 1(2), doi:
10.1504/JDR.2001.009811.
Mathieu, V. (2001) Product services: from a service supporting the product to a service supporting
the client, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 16(1), pp. 39–61, doi:
10.1108/08858620110364873.
Mell, P. & Grance, T. (2009) Perspectives on cloud computing and standards. USA, NIST,
available at:
http://www.bhcloudcomputing.org/down/whitepaper/%E4%BA%91%E8%AE%A1%E7%AE
%97%E6%84%BF%E6%99%AF%E4%B8%8E%E6%A0%87%E5%87%86.pdf (July 18,
2016).
Miller, M. (2015) The Internet of Things: How Smart TVs, Smart Cars, Smart Homes, and Smart
Cities are Changing the World. Que.
Musil, S. (2015, July 13) Hillary Clinton takes aim at Uber during speech on “gig economy”,
CNET, available at: http://www.cnet.com/news/hillary-clinton-takes-aim-at-uber-duringspeech-gig-economy/
(July 18, 2016).
Nalebuff, B. (2004) Bundling as an Entry Barrier, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(1), pp.
159–187, doi: 10.1162/003355304772839551.
Neely, A. (2007) The Servitization of Manufacturing: An Analysis of Global Trends (Vol. 2007,
p. 10) Presented at the 14th European Operations Management Association Conference,
Ankara, Turkey: 14th European Operations Management Association Conference, available at:
http://202.120.224.199/picture/article/110/00e3fddc-df0b-4e8b-96b6-
89db9d41a29d/8eb0e8f8-9868-479d-a425-cde8d5ca218d.pdf (July 18, 2016).
Neely, A. (2009) Exploring the financial consequences of the servitization of manufacturing,
Operations Management Research, 1(2), pp. 103–118, doi: 10.1007/s12063-009-0015-5.
70 24. KONFERENCA: GOSPODARSKI SUBJEKTI NA TRGU IN EVROPSKE DIMENZIJE
J. Hojnik: Pravni vidiki servitizacije
Ngai, E. W. T., Moon, K. K. L., Riggins, F. J. & Yi, C. Y. (2008) RFID research: An academic
literature review (1995–2005) and future research directions, International Journal of
Production Economics, 112(2), pp. 510–520, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2007.05.004
Nielson, H. (2015) Manufacturing Consumer Protection for 3-D Printed Products. Arizona Law
Review, 57(2), pp. 609–622.
Oliva, R. & Kallenberg, R. (2003) Managing the transition from products to service. International
Journal of Service Industry Management, 14(2), pp. 160–172, doi:
10.1108/09564230310474138.
Opresnik, D. & Taisch, M. (2015) The value of Big Data in servitization, International Journal of
Production Economics, 165, pp. 174–184, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.12.036
Opresnik, D., Hirsch, M., Zanetti, C. & Taisch, M. (2013) Information – The Hidden Value of
Servitization, In: Prabhu, V., Taisch, M. & Kiritsis, D. (eds.) Advances in Production
Management Systems. Sustainable Production and Service Supply Chains, pp. 49–56 (Berlin,
Heidelberg: Springer), available at: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-
41263-9_7 (July 18, 2016).
Parametric Technology Corporation (PTC) (2013) Manufacturing Transformation, Achieving
competitive advantage in a changing global marketplace (J2171-Oxford_Economics_ebookEN-0513)
(Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford Economics).
Peitz, M. (2008) Bundling may blockade entry, International Journal of Industrial Organization,
26, pp. 41–58, doi: 10.1016/j.ijindorg.2006.09.005.
Penttinen, E. & Palmer, J. (2007) Improving firm positioning through enhanced offerings and
buyer–seller relationships, Industrial Marketing Management, 36(5), pp. 552–564.
Polonetsky, J. & Tene, O. (2012) Privacy in the Age of Big Data: A Time for Big Decisions,
Stanford Law Review Online, 64, pp. 63.
Porter, M. E. & Ketels, C. H. M. (2003) UK Competitiveness: Moving to the Next Stage (DTI
Economics Paper, May 2003) (Harvard Business School), available at:
http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=15397 (July 18, 2016).
Posen, H. A. (2015) Ridesharing in the Sharing Economy: Should Regulators Impose Uber
Regulations on Uber. Iowa Law Review, 101, pp. 405-433.
Ren, G. & Gregory, M. J. (2007) Servitization in manufacturing companies: a conceptualization,
critical review, and research agenda, In: Frontiers in Service Conference, San Francisco (San
Francisco, CA, US).
Rennhoff, A. D. & Serfes, K. (2009) The Role of Upstream-Downstream Competition on Bundling
Decisions: Should Regulators Force Firms to Unbundle?, Journal of Economics & Management
Strategy, 18(2), pp. 547–588, doi: 10.1111/j.1530-9134.2009.00222.x.
Rogers, B. (2015) Social Costs of Uber, University of Chicago Law Review Dialogue, 82, pp. 85–
102.
Rousseva, E. (2010) Rethinking exclusionary abuses in EU competition law (Hart Publishing),
available at: http://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/13498 (July 18, 2016).
Rust, R. T. (2004) If everything is service, why is this happening now, and what difference does it
make, Journal of Marketing, 68(1), pp. 23–24.
Salinger, M. A. (1995) A Graphical Analysis of Bundling. The Journal of Business, 68(1), pp. 85–
98.
Schettkat, R. & Yocarini, L. (2006) The shift to services employment: A review of the literature.
Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 17(2), pp. 127–147, doi:
10.1016/j.strueco.2005.04.002.
Schroeder, S. (2015, October 22) Uber arrives in Croatia despite taxi drivers’ vow to revolt,
available at http://mashable.com/2015/10/22/uber-arrives-in-croatia/ (January 21, 2016).
Shah, M. (2015) Big Data and the Internet of Things, arXiv Preprint arXiv:1503.07092, available
at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.07092 (July 18, 2016).
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
J. Hojnik: Legal Aspects of Servitization
71
Sokol, D. D. (2015) Tensions Between Antitrust and Industrial Policy, George Mason Law Review,
22(5), pp. 1247–1268.
SPREE Project. (n.d.), available at: http://www.spreeproject.com/ (July 18, 2016).
State of the Internet of Things Market Report 2015 (n.d.), available at:
http://www.verizonenterprise.com/state-of-the-market-internet-of-things/ (July 18, 2016).
Steiner, R. (2015, February 1) Self-filling cars that never run out of fuel, Daily Mail, available at:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2935700/Self-filling-cars-never-run-fuelVolvo-develops-vehicle-alert-mobile-suppliers-tank-car-parked-driver-elsewhere.html
(July
18, 2016).
Sultan, N. (2014) Servitization of the IT Industry: The Cloud Phenomenon, Strategic Change, 23(5-
6), pp. 375–388, doi: 10.1002/jsc.1983.
Sundin, E. (2009) Life-Cycle Perspectives of Product/Service-Systems: In Design Theory, In:
Sakao, T. & Lindahl, M. (eds.) Introduction to Product/Service-System Design, pp. 31–49
(London: Springer), available at: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-84882-909-
1_2 (July 18, 2016).
Tether, B. & Bascavusoglu-Moreau, E. (2012) Servitization: The Extent and Motivations for
Service Provision amongst UK Manufacturers. Presented at the DRUID 2012, CBS,
Copenhagen, Denmark, available at:
http://druid8.sit.aau.dk/druid/acc_papers/f3ybhree2dhmgsgldxgfg4t028bs.pdf (July 18, 2016).
Toffel, M. W. (2008) Contracting for Servicizing, Harvard Business School Technology &
Operations Mgt. Unit Research Paper, 08-063, available at:
http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1090237 (July 18, 2016).
Tucker, D. S. & Wellford, H. B. (2014) Big Mistakes Regarding Big Data, Antitrust Source, 14(2),
pp. 1.
Tukker, A. & Tischner, U. (eds.) (2006) New Business for Old Europe: Product-Service
Development, Competitiveness and Sustainability (Sheffield: Greenleaf).
UK Government (2013, October 30) Future of manufacturing: a new era of opportunity and
challenge for the UK, available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/future-of-
manufacturing/future-of-manufacturing-a-new-era-of-opportunity-and-challenge-for-the-uksummary-report
(July 18, 2016).
Valero, J. (2016, January 28) Brussels to issue sharing economy “guidelines” in March, EurActiv,
available at: http://www.euractiv.com/sections/digital/brussels-issue-new-guidelines-sharingeconomy-321368
(July 18, 2016).
van Est, R., Kool, L., Timmer, J., Pel, B., Brom, F., van Keulen, I., . others. (2015) Working on the
robot society: visions and insights from science concerning the relationship between
technology and employment (The Hague: Rathenau Instituut), available at:
https://pure.knaw.nl/ws/files/1584863/RATH_Working_on_the_Robot_Society_DEF_WEB.
pdf (July 18, 2016).
Vandermerwe, S. & Rada, J. (1988) Servitization of Business: Adding Value by Adding Services,
European Management Journal, 6(4), pp. 314–324, doi: 10.1016/0263-2373(88)90033-3
Wahlster, W. (2012) From Industry 1.0 to Industry 4.0: Towards the 4th Industrial Revolution. In:
Forum Business meets Research.
WDMA European Office (2016) “Industrie 4.0: Mastering the Transition”, 10 Key
Recommendations for a European Framework for the Successful Digital Transition in Industry
(Brussels).
Weatherill, S. (2013) EU Consumer Law and Policy (Edward Elgar Publishing).
Weber, R. H. (2009) Internet of things – Need for a new legal environment?, Computer Law &
Security Review, 25(6), pp. 522–527, doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2009.09.002
Weber, R. H. & Weber, R. (2010) Internet of Things: Legal Perspectives (Springer Science &
Business Media).
72 24. KONFERENCA: GOSPODARSKI SUBJEKTI NA TRGU IN EVROPSKE DIMENZIJE
J. Hojnik: Pravni vidiki servitizacije
Weinstein, S. N. (2002) Bundles of trouble: the possibilities for a new separate-product test in
technology tying case, California Law Review, pp. 903–957.
Wen, X. & Zhou, X. (2014) Servitization of manufacturing industries based on cloud-based
business model and the down-to-earth implementary path, The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology, pp. 1–18, doi: 10.1007/s00170-014-6348-8
Whish, R. & Bailey, D. (2015) Competition Law. (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
White, A. L. Stoughton, M. & Feng, L. (1999) Servicizing: The Quiet Transition to Extended
Product Responsibilit (Boston: Tellus Institute), available at:
http://www.tellus.org/tellus/publication/servicizing-the-quiet-transition-to-extended-productresponsibility#sthash.h8BRbwl6.dpuf
(July 18, 2016).
Wilson, B. (2005) Canned truth, Times Literary Supplement, TLS, 5357, pp. 36.
Windahl, C. & Lakemond, N. (2010) Integrated solutions from a service-centered perspective:
Applicability and limitations in the capital goods industry, Industrial Marketing Management,
39(8), pp. 1278–1290.
Wuyts, D. (2014) The Product Liability Directive – More than two Decades of Defective Products
in Europe, Journal of European Tort Law, 5(1), pp. 1–34, doi: 10.1515/jetl-2014-0001.
Xu, X. (2012) From cloud computing to cloud manufacturing, Robotics and Computer-Integrated
Manufacturing, 28(1), pp. 75–86, doi: 10.1016/j.rcim.2011.07.002.
Zhang, L., Luo, Y., Tao, F., Li, B. H., Ren, L., Zhang, X., … Liu, Y. (2014) Cloud manufacturing:
a new manufacturing paradigm, Enterprise Information Systems, 8(2), pp. 167–187, doi:
10.1080/17517575.2012.683812.
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND
EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
V. Rijavec
Removal of Exequatur in England and Wales
WENDY KENNETTxcviii
Abstract The law relating to the enforcement of judgments in England and
Wales is complex: a complexity deriving from the lack of any overall
supervision of the procedure. Enforcement tasks are divided between
solicitors, judges and other court officers, and independent enforcement
agents, and are moreover allocated to two different court systems: the High
Court and the County Court. For the creditor who is not experienced in
English enforcement law, it may be difficult to know where to get good
advice. In addition, information about debtors’ assets is not easy to obtain.
In the light of these considerations, the amendments to English law that
have been introduced to implement the Brussels I Regulation (recast) –
removing the previously centralised procedure for registration of foreign
judgments and directing creditors to choose among these diffuse
enforcement procedures – do not seem to be an unalloyed improvement in
the system of cross-border enforcement.
Keywords: • cross-border enforcement • enforcement agents • access to
information • choice of procedures • protective measures
CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS: Wendy Kennett, Ph. D., Lecturer, Cardiff University, School of Law
and Politics, Museum Avenue, Cardiff CF10 3AX, United Kingdom, e-mail:
kennettw@cardiff.ac.uk.
DOI 10.18690/978-961-286-004-2.6 ISBN 978-961-286-004-2
© 2016 University of Maribor Press
Available at: http://press.um.si.
74 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
W. Kennett: Removal of Exequatur and Wales
1 The system for enforcement: what authority or authorities are competent
in relation to enforcement in England and Wales?
The three basic types of system to be found in Europe are administrative (e.g. Sweden,
Finland), independent liberal professional (e.g. France), and court-based (e.g. Germany,
Spain, Italy). These are not neat categories, however. Systems that are primarily courtbased
may employ independent or semi-independent agents to undertake tasks that
involve activities outside the court – such as visits to the premises of the debtor for service
of documents or seizure of assets. The English system is just such a hybrid. Enforcement
of judgments is in principle through the court and its officers, but many of the relevant
officers of the court are independent professionals such as solicitors and High Court
Enforcement Officers (HCEOs). Much of the practice of enforcement is undertaken by
HCEOs who, in addition to their licensed activities as court officers, offer a range of
services related to debt collection and so share some characteristics with the liberal
professional enforcement agent (‘huissier de justice’) found in a number of European
jurisdictions.
The law on enforcement is complicated by the existence of two court systems: the High
Court and the County Court. The High Court is one of the Senior Courts of England and
Wales.1
It deals at first instance with all high value and high importance cases.2
Although
its central office is in London, almost any High Court case can be commenced in a District
Registry – which is usually to be found in the same building as the local County Court
centre. In enforcement matters, the High Court has sole responsibility for enforcing
judgments for more than £5000 (including interest).
The County Court is the successor to county courts that were established by statute in
1846, replacing the earlier heterogeneous and ineffective local court structures. It is now
a single, centrally organised and administered court system, sitting in County Court
centres. The County Court deals with civil cases where the amount in dispute is relatively
small, as well as having various special competencies. It has the exclusive responsibility
for enforcement of claims arising under a regulated consumer credit agreement, and is
also the only court in which an application for an attachment of earnings order (AEO)
can be made.3
In minor civil and commercial disputes, the County Court is solely responsible for
enforcing judgments for less than £600 (including interest). Judgments for amounts
falling £600 and £5000 may be enforced in the High Court or the County Court. These
thresholds are currently subject to review. HCEOs are arguing for competence in relation
to the enforcement of debts of any size.
In principle the Civil Procedure Rules apply in both the High Court and the County Court
– but specific provisions may be limited to one court or the other, as in the case of AEOs.
In cross-border cases, applications are most likely to be made to the High Court because
the amounts involved are likely to be above the High Court threshold. Applications to
the High Court are also the default position in relation to applications for a refusal of
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
W. Kennett: Removal of Exequatur and Wales
75
recognition or enforcement, or for applications for relief against enforcement. Thus for
example CPR rule 74.7A(1)(b) states that an application under article 45 or 46 of Brussels
I (recast) must be made “to the court in which the judgment is being enforced or, if the
judgment debtor is not aware of any proceedings relating to enforcement, the High
Court.”
In addition to deciding which court to approach, the onus is on the creditor to decide
which method of enforcement to pursue from those available, as is commonly the case in
court-centred enforcement systems. These methods include:
i) execution against goods (seizure and sale of movable property)
ii) charging orders (registration of a security right against immovable
property)
iii) attachment of earnings
iv) third party debt order (seizure of a debt – typically money standing to the
judgment debtor’s credit in a bank)
In high value cases the appointment of a receiver by way of equitable execution may be
an enforcement option, and an application for insolvency, or the threat thereof, is also a
common tool for dealing with commercial debtors and acquiring access to information.
The lack of an obvious point of entry to the system makes it immediately somewhat
opaque for those seeking to access it from a different jurisdiction. Legal advice may be
sought, but the majority of solicitors do very little enforcement work and so are likely to
be inefficient and expensive. Finding appropriate legal advice is the first challenge!
2 Getting advice: the choice of solicitor and/or enforcement agent
For those without good prior information and advice, a disincentive to enforcement is the
expense of enforcement proceedings. Since the system is not transparent a creditor may
need, or want, to employ a lawyer to advise them. A number of debt recovery solicitors
advertise fees of about £400 for any application for a method of enforcement. Court fees
are in addition to this: for example, the fee for applying for a third party debt order or an
attachment of earnings order is currently £100. While additional fees and charges may
be paid out of any proceeds of enforcement, these initial fees may prove irrecoverable.
Applications that arise in relation to enforcement, such as an application by the judgment
debtor for refusal of recognition or enforcement, will proceed under the standard
application procedure in CPR 23. The standard fee for an application on notice is £255 in
addition to the fees of any legal representative. For work going beyond standard
applications, solicitors will normally charge an hourly rate – but some firms offer no win
no fee enforcement of judgments, on the basis that they will retain a high proportion of
any money collected.4
However, unless creditors are aware of details about the debtor that make a specific
method of enforcement attractive, the default position is to apply for execution against
goods via a writ or warrant of control: a writ in the High Court, a warrant in the County
76 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
W. Kennett: Removal of Exequatur and Wales
Court. And a specialised service provider – with varying levels of professionalism – has
evolved to perform this function: the bailiff, or enforcement agent. Historically they have
had a variety of origins and titles, and have been responsible for the enforcement of
different types of judgments and other debts, but recent legislation, in the form of the
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, has led to greater standardisation and
integration within the industry.5
In relation to the enforcement of civil judgments, two
types of agents can be identified: High Court Enforcement Officers (HCEOs) and County
Court bailiffs.6
The predecessors of HCEOs were sheriff’s officers – a title with a long history, since
sheriffs were bearers of judicial power in England before the Norman conquest in 1066.
High Sheriff is now a largely titular and ceremonial role since the law and order functions
of the sheriff have long been delegated to others. Until recently, civil enforcement
functions in the form of the execution of High Court writs were delegated to an Under
Sheriff, usually a solicitor, and performed in practice by sheriff’s officers. Like the High
Sheriff, their jurisdiction was limited to a single county. The Courts Act 2003 shortcircuited
this complex process of delegation by recreating sheriff’s officers as HCEOs
and giving them direct authority to enforce writs (in the context of seizure of goods).7
It
also allowed HCEOs to be appointed to more than one district,8
so that many now in
effect have nationwide jurisdiction. In practice, this has led to new businesses being
established which group together several HCEOs who work together.9
New
qualifications and training have been brought in to improve training and professionalism.
County Court bailiffs are employees of the court service and trained within that service.
As well as service of documents, seizure of goods and evictions, they deal with the
committal to prison of those in contempt of court and transport from prison to court.
Views differ as to whether they are effective. HCEOs have campaigned vigorously for
the power to enforce all County Court judgments, and encourage judgment creditors to
transfer judgment debts over £600, and repossession orders,10
up to the High Court for
enforcement.
A very large proportion of enforcement proceedings involve writs and warrants of
control, rather than the wider range of enforcement measures which often prove most
useful in other jurisdictions. The table below shows the comparative use of various
methods of enforcement in the County Court in the period 2002-2011 by way of
indication of this,11
and more recent statistics show warrants of control in the County
Court continuing to be issued at nearly double the rate of other the other methods of
enforcement added together. The contrast between methods of enforcement is much
more marked in the High Court. In 2014, the latest date for which data is available, 41,267
writs of fieri facias (now writs of control) were issued, but only 445 charging orders were
granted, and 201 third party debt orders.12
Attractions for the judgment creditor are the
lower costs of initiating these proceedings directly with an HCEO, and the fact that it is
this method of enforcement that is likely to lead quickly to direct contact with the
judgment debtor and the pressure to achieve a payment arrangement.
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
W. Kennett: Removal of Exequatur and Wales
77
3 Problems of access to information
Lack of information about the debtor’s assets is an obstacle to enforcement in England
and Wales. It is notable that the trend elsewhere in Europe is towards ensuring that
enforcement agents have access to information about the debtor from e.g. tax, social
security and/or local authority records. Banks may also be required to provide
information. Granting access to information is perceived as problematic in the UK for a
number of reasons. In part there is a cultural concern for privacy and resistance to
authority. But more specifically, there is a considerable distrust of enforcement agents.
In some Member States enforcement is undertaken by an administrative agency who can
access other administrative records. Alternatively access to information may be within
the control of the enforcement court. In a number of EU Member States competence to
enforce judgments has been granted to independent enforcement agents who claim, or
aspire to, a high level of professional training and regulation. In these states it is felt that
there are sufficient guarantees for the protection of the debtor, that access to information
about debtor assets is justified. In England and Wales, however, despite several reviews,
the law has proved resistant to change, and in particular there is a reluctance to identify
enforcement agents as professionals and to give them significant powers.13
A
combination of unclear legal rules and the privatisation of many enforcement operations
without the proper training and regulation of the agents involved has historically led to
abuses, which have been vigorously condemned by a strong debt advice community. The
adversarial relationship between these two sides of the industry has damaged the
prospects for the emergence of a trusted profession. The most serious problems exist in
relation to the collection of public debts by certificated enforcement agents, but all
enforcement agents are affected by the resulting public perceptions.
78 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
W. Kennett: Removal of Exequatur and Wales
Nevertheless, the new framework created by the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act
2007, the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 201314
and the Taking Control of Goods
(Fees) Regulations 201415
clarifies the rights and obligations of enforcement agents,
simplifying the law and trying to make it fairer, while improving the incentives for
enforcement agents to act correctly and charge the appropriate fees. Early indications are
that this new framework is making a difference. The Ministry of Justice is currently in
the process of review of its operation, and certainly there has been a reduction in the
number of complaints. But whether this is the first stage on a journey to a professional
status is doubtful. The view within the industry and outside is that high levels of
education are not required for the work – but rather it is about personal skills, in terms of
e.g. organisational, negotiating and conflict-resolution abilities and commercial sense. In
discussions concerning a regulator for enforcement agents in the lead up to the 2007 Act,
the expectation was that the Security Industry Authority – which deals with security
guards and surveillance - would be given this responsibility. This has not happened, and
so enforcement of regulation remains diffused between local authority complaints
procedures, the Local Government Ombudsman and weak professional associations, with
the removal of the agent’s certificate by the County Court as an ultimate sanction.
Lawyers who specialise in debt collection may nevertheless maintain close links with
particular enforcement agents, and the possibility of multidisciplinary practices licensed
as Alternative Business Structures has led to the creation of at least one such practice in
the debt enforcement field,16
bringing together solicitors and HCEOs and allowing an
integrated approach to enforcement that puts them in a comparable position to the French
huissier de justice in terms of their range of competencies17
(but not their independence
of the court).
The new regulations, and market adaptations, may in time change attitudes towards
access to information from tax and other authorities for the purposes of enforcement, but
this does not seem imminent.18
In the absence of such access to third party information,
the current procedure for obtaining information is via an Order to Obtain Information.
The debtor is required to attend court, bringing relevant financial documents, so that they
can be questioned as to their assets. Applications in the High Court for debtors to attend
for questioning have ranged between about 50 and 100 per annum over the last five years,
but in the County Court, the annual number ranges from about 20-30,000 per annum –
still a small number compared to applications for warrants. The procedure is seen as
potentially helpful for the pressure that it places on the judgment debtor to provide the
desired information, since the sanction for non-attendance is imprisonment for contempt
of court, but the time involved and doubts as to whether the information given by the
judgment debtor will be complete and accurate are disincentives to its use, particularly
since the courts are reluctant to order imprisonment except in egregious cases.
Like their domestic counterparts, therefore, a judgment creditor from another EU
Member State must rely to a large extent on the information they have already gleaned
about the judgment debtor from their business dealings with them. Information can
nevertheless be obtained more readily in the commercial sector. For example, an HCEO
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
W. Kennett: Removal of Exequatur and Wales
79
can force entry to commercial premises without notice, and is therefore in a position to
access financial records and glean further information.
At an initial stage, therefore, a judgment creditor has a number of hurdles to overcome in
terms of obtaining good legal advice and assistance, choosing whether to seek High Court
or County Court enforcement, and – in particular in non-commercial cases – making sure
they are in possession of adequate information about the judgment debtor to avoid costly
errors devising an enforcement strategy.
4 Against this background, how does the removal of exequatur work?
Under the Brussels I Regulation as originally formulated, an application for a declaration
of enforceability is directed to the High Court in London. As a result of the procedure
the foreign judgment is registered and thereafter treated as a judgment of the English
Court. This channelling of applications through the High Court has the great merit of
concentration of expertise.
Amendments to the CPR to implement Brussels I Regulation (recast) were effected in
November 2014 by the Civil Procedure (Amendment No.7) Rules 2014.19
CPR 74,
entitled Enforcement of Judgments in Different Jurisdictions, is the principal provision
affected by these changes. The rules as amended omit any reference to registration of a
judgment enforceable under Brussels I (recast), and previous reference to ‘registration’
are altered to read ‘enforcement’. Thus CPR rule 74.4A states that “a person seeking the
enforcement of a judgment which is enforceable under the [Brussels I] Regulation
[(recast)] must, except in a case falling within article 43(3) of the Regulation (protective
measures), provide the documents required by article 42 of the Regulation”.
The effect of this seems to be that a judgment creditor should provide the documents
required by article 42 of the Regulation on each occasion that an enforcement measure is
sought.
The removal of any requirement of registration is particularly noteworthy when it remains
the case that the enforcement of judgments from Scotland or Northern Ireland involves a
process of registration,20
but Franzina, Kramer and Fitchen take the view that it is
necessitated by the removal of exequatur:
“Recital (8) of that Regulation [European Enforcement Order] records that in relation to
this principle of equality, arrangements for the enforcement of judgments should continue
to be governed by national law. It provides the example of the legal systems of the UK,
where the judgment rendered in another Member State should follow the same rules as
the registration of a judgment from another part of the UK. This example, however,
appears misplaced, as the applicable UK legislation imposes additional requirements of
certification and registration for judgments from other UK legal systems, which do not
apply to judgments delivered in the UK legal system in which enforcement is sought.
This is out of line with the principle of equality and, whatever interpretation of the
80 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
W. Kennett: Removal of Exequatur and Wales
European Enforcement Order Regulation may be supportable by reference to its Recital
(8), cannot be extended to the Recast Regulation.”21
But it is possible to challenge this view. In my opinion it does insufficient justice to the
role of the court as the enforcement authority. Just as with a huissier de justice, or with
an administrative authority such as the Swedish kronofogdemyndighet the judgment to
be enforced needs to be submitted to the legal institution and recorded or registered in
some way to facilitate effective processing by the enforcement authority. There needs to
be a central point of reference to ensure that any measures adopted, or disputes or
problems relating to enforcement can be filed in one place. In relation to judgments from
other parts of the UK, Sch.622
of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 states:
A certificate registered under this Schedule shall, for the purposes of its enforcement, be
of the same force and effect, the registering court shall have in relation to its enforcement
the same powers, and proceedings for or with respect to its enforcement may be taken, as
if the certificate had been a judgment originally given in the registering court and had
(where relevant) been entered.
Domestic judgments are recorded on the Register of Judgments, Orders and Fines
maintained by Registry Trust Ltd,23
which also maintains records for judgments in
Scotland, Northern Ireland and other jurisdictions in the British Isles. In the light of the
limited information available to creditors about debtors’ assets, it seems inappropriate if
the latter’s liabilities arising as a result of the judgment of another Member State become
less transparent following the amendment of the Brussels I Regulation.
There has also been an amendment to the law in relation to challenges to the recognition
and enforcement of judgments under the Judgments Regulation. Part 23 of the CPR
permits a great variety of procedural applications to be made, and is identified as the
provision under which applications to refuse recognition or enforcement are to be made.
The same provision is also to be used in the case of applications for suspension of
proceedings under article 38 of the Regulation, and in the case of applications for an
adaptation order pursuant to article 54 of the Regulation (or challenges to such an order).
In so far as national grounds for refusal of enforcement are relevant to a judgment from
another Member State,24
these will also be raised in a Part 23 application. Franzina,
Kramer and Fitchen note that:
Domestic enforcement rules relating to, for example, lapse of time, disproportionality of
enforcement means, abuse of rights, prohibitions to seize certain (primary) goods, setoff,
or other specific procedural or material (temporary) obstacles to enforcement may be
invoked in relation to a judgment originating from another Member State—as they may
in relation to a domestic judgment. If, on the other hand, such grounds would, for
example, run counter to or overlap with Art 45(1)(b) on default of appearance and
defective service or with Art 45(1)(c) and (d) on irreconcilability with another judgment,
or involve an assessment of the jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of origin
other than on the basis set out in Art 45(1)(e) and (2), they are not permitted to be applied
under the Regulation, even if available for an equivalent domestic judgment.
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
W. Kennett: Removal of Exequatur and Wales
81
Part 23 applications can be made in the High Court or the County Court. According to
CPR rule 74.7A, an application under article 45 or 46 of the Judgments Regulation that
the court should refuse to recognise or enforce a judgment must be made “to the court in
which the judgment is being enforced or, if the judgment debtor is not aware of any
proceedings relating to enforcement, the High Court.” The court may require the
judgment creditor to disclose to the judgment debtor the court or courts in which any
proceedings relating to enforcement of the judgment are pending in England and Wales
(CPR rule 74.7A(5)).
5 The availability of provisional enforcement
Article 40 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) states: “An enforceable judgment shall
carry with it by operation of law the power to proceed to any protective measures which
exist under the law of the Member State addressed”.
The role of protective measures in the enforcement process is one that may vary
considerably from one Member State to another, and an appreciation of the differences
in approach to enforcement between Member States may promote reflection on whether
and how the law of the State addressed may need to be adapted to take account of these
differences.
A judgment may become final as soon as it has been handed down. This is essentially the
position in England and Wales. CPR 40.7(1) states that “[a] judgment or order takes effect
from the day when it is given or made, or such later date as the court may specify” –
although under CPR 40.11 a judgment debtor has 14 days within which to comply with
a money judgment before enforcement becomes due. There is no ‘ordinary appeal’
against the judgment of a County Court or the High Court. On the rare occasions when
an appeal is lodged, or an application is made to set aside a default judgment, a stay of
enforcement can be sought.25
The way that enforcement of judgments is conceptualised
in other European jurisdictions is different. Since appeals from a first instance judgment
are much more common than in England and Wales, such judgments enjoy only
‘provisional’ enforceability. They do not become final until the time has elapsed for
lodging an appeal, or, if an appeal is lodged, until the appeal has been decided.
Nevertheless, the meaning of provisional enforcement, and the conditions under which it
may be permitted, vary significantly between jurisdictions.26
In some Member States, the practical situation result is not dissimilar to the position in
England and Wales – provisional execution is the norm, and there is no need for the
judgment creditor to provide security against the risk of the judgment being overturned
on appeal.27
In others, provisional execution may be dependent on the provision of
security.28
In yet others,29
provisional enforcement of a judgment means only that
protective measures can be adopted to secure the debtor’s assets against future execution.
Moreover, in the latter case, in principle it has to be plausibly demonstrated to the
enforcement court that without such measures there is a risk that enforcement will be
unsuccessful or significantly more difficult, although there are a number of exceptions to
82 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
W. Kennett: Removal of Exequatur and Wales
this principle.30
If an appeal is lodged, in any of these cases, the law of the relevant
Member State may allow a stay of enforcement or a rescission of the order for provisional
enforcement.
As a result of these differences, lawyers and enforcement agents in other Member States
may be more familiar than those in England with the idea that a particular measure – such
as a seizure of goods, or of a bank account – may have a purely protective purposes in
some contexts, while being a step in the process of execution of a judgment in others.
This has consequences for the form of any application for such measures, and the
institution to which they should be addressed. Rather than seeking a protective order from
a court, it may be possible to approach an enforcement agent directly with a request for
provisional measures. In France, for example, a titre exécutoire creates an automatic
right to protective measures (saisies conservatoires), entitling the holder of the title to
approach a huissier de justice, and the latter to undertake such measures without the
intervention of a court. But judgments that are not yet enforceable, accepted bills of
exchange, and an unpaid cheque or rental payment also provide grounds for a creditor to
approach a huissier de justice directly. And, as a matter purely of French law, a judgment
of a foreign court is a ‘décision de justice’ for the purposes of Article L511-2 of the Code
des procédures civiles d’exécution, with the result that it provides grounds for a huissier
to proceed to protective measures.31
This potential for enforcement measures to have a function which is both protective and
also a preliminary to execution is less apparent in England and Wales. An application for
a protective measure is more readily envisaged as a pre-judgment action, to obtain the
grant of an asset freezing injunction, or a mandatory or prohibitory injunction relating to
the potential infringement of a substantive right (CPR Part 20). The well-known assetfreezing
orders issued by English courts (formerly Mareva injunctions) – which can be
obtained pre-or post-judgment – are flexible and effective, but also expensive to obtain.
The existence of a two stage process for enforcement measures – one which freezes the
assets in question, and a second that realises those assets – is as much a feature of English
law as it is of the law in other European jurisdictions: goods are made subject to control
by an enforcement agent before they are removed and sold; a bank account may be frozen
as part of the procedure for a third party debt order before notice of the procedure is
served on the judgment debtor (CPR Part 72.3); a charge may be granted over immovable
property rights before notice is given to the debtor (CPR Part 73.3 and 4). An application
for the appointment of a receiver can also be made without notice to the debtor (CPR Part
69.3). A question for the English courts to address is therefore whether these measures
are ‘protective’ measures within article 40 of the Judgments Regulation (recast), which
can be used by the judgment creditor where appropriate, or whether an interim measure
within the meaning of CPR Part 20 must be sought. If the latter is the case, there is
certainly a difference in treatment of judgments between England and Wales and other
jurisdictions with a broader view of the operation of protective measures.
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
W. Kennett: Removal of Exequatur and Wales
83
6 Conclusion
The provisions implementing the Brussels I Regulation (recast) into English law are few
in number and leave significant issues unregulated. It is to be expected that further
legislation will be introduced in due course to clarify some of the areas of uncertainty.
Be that as it may, the new procedure leads to a much more diffuse approach to crossborder
enforcement that will be less accessible to creditors who are not repeat players.
When compared with the original Brussels I Regulation (recast) it does not appear to be
an improvement in the procedures for enforcement.
Notes
1
Together with the Court of Appeal and the Crown Court.
2
It also has a supervisory jurisdiction over all subordinate courts and tribunals, with a few statutory
exceptions.
3
There is a centralised procedure for attachment of earnings that operates from Northampton
Business Centre (NBC). NBC has streamlined, secure computer systems used for various
centralised procedures, and notably debt claims.
4
E.g. Helpland Ltd (www.helpland.co.uk) offer this service on the basis that they retain 60% of
any money collected.
5
Note that industry, rather than profession, is the term typically used.
6
A further type of bailiff involved mainly in the collection of public debts has become regulated
under the title of certificated enforcement agents: see the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act
2007, ss.63 and 64.
7
Courts Act 2003, Sch.7(4).
8
Schedule 7(2).
9
The nationwide jurisdiction that HCEOs now enjoy has led to the merger or takeover of firms of
HCEOs and other parties involved in the debt collection process, so that an integrated service can
be offered.
10
The majority of repossession claims have to be brought in the County Court under s.8 or s.21 of
the Housing Act 1988 or the Rent Act 1977 (tenants), or CPR Part 55 (trespassers).
11
Taken from the Ministry of Justice, Judicial and Court Statistics 2011 – full report (June 2012),
available at
<https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/217494/judicialcourt-stats-2011.pdf>
accessed 4 June 2016.
12
In fact the numbers of charging orders and third party debt orders are quite high compared with
previous years: see Ministry of Justice, Civil justice statistics quarterly: January to March 2015 and
the Appellate Courts 2014 (June 2015), Appellate Court Tables: 2014, available at
<https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/civil-justice-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-
2015> accessed 4 June 2016.
13
Similar resistance to change can be seen in other jurisdictions where enforcement is court
supervised and limited functions are given to the enforcement agents responsible for service of
documents and seizure of goods, such as Germany and Spain.
14
S.I. 2013/1894.
15 S.I. 2014/1
16
Burlingtons, which is regulated by the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority, the Financial Conduct
Authority and the Ministry of Justice.
17
Seizure of goods, other methods of enforcement, pre-litigation debt collection, and also summary
court procedures for debt collection cf. injonction de payer.
84 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
W. Kennett: Removal of Exequatur and Wales
18
Part 4 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 provides for the making of regulations
to allow specified information to be obtained from Government Departments or other sources, but
no implementing regulations have been adopted.
19
SI 2014/2948
20
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, s.18 and Sch.6 and 7.
21
In Ch. 13 “The Recognition and Enforcement of Member State Judgments” of (Dickinson and
Lein, 2015: 419), and see Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, s 18 and Sch 6–7 for the UK
legislation governing registration of a judgment from another part of the UK.
22
Schedule 6 relates to money judgments. Schedule 7, which relates to non-money judgments, is
in very similar terms.
23
Under contract with the Ministry of Justice (http://registry-trust.org.uk/). Judgments from other
parts of the UK should also be recorded with judgments from England and Wales after they have
been registered with the High Court under Sched.6 or 7 to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act
1982.
24
Brussels I Regulation recast, 420
25
CPR 40.8A and 83.7 set out the range of grounds on which a stay may be sought.
26
Further variations between states exist in relation to the types of enforceable instruments (titres
exécutoires) that exist – some recognise a much wider range than others – and the availability of
summary procedures for debt collection in relation to which an application to set aside a payment
order may be the appropriate remedy for the debtor.
27
E.g. the Netherlands: see arts 233-235 Rv. Provisional execution is nearly always ordered and
without security. Security may be required in the case of summary judgments seeking provisional
payment [kort geding], where it is more likely that the original decision will be overturned).
28
This is, for example, the situation in Germany. A judgment debtor can prevent execution of a
judgment by providing security (e.g. §§ 711-12 ZPO)
29
Including Austria and Slovenia.
30
See for Austria those in §§ 371, 371a EO.
31
Société Same Deutz-Farh, Civ 2e 12 October 2006, no.04-29.062, Bull.civ. II no.270. See (
Cuniberti, Cornette and Normand, 2011: 306-307).
Reference
Cuniberti, G., Cornette, F. & Normand, C. (2011) Droit international de l'exécution : recouvrement
des créances civiles et commerciales, (Collection droit des affaires), (Paris: L.G.D.J. Lextenso
éditions).
Dickinson, A. & Lein, E. (2015) The Brussels I Regulation recast (Oxford: Oxford University
Press).
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND
EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
V. Rijavec
Cross Border Service of Documents – Partical Aspects and
Case Law
URŠKA KEŽMAHcxxx
Abstract General globalization is necessary followed by the court
proceedings. Number of disputes with an international element are
increasing, which also affects the need for cross-border service of
documents in those cases. Consequently, this paper discusses various
systems in place for cross-border service. It also attempts to identify the
problems which may arise in cross-border service and analyze relevant case
law of the Court of Justice of the European Comunities. It also highlights
the importance of rules of national law in the interpretation of the legal
consequences of service and highlights areas that should be harmonized in
the Union law de lege ferenda.
Keywords: • service of documents • cross-border service • systems of
service • language clause in cross-border service • unknown address •
methods of service • electronic service • direct service • service by post •
personal and substituted service
CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS: Urška Kežmah, M.Sc., Maribor District Court, Sodna ulica 14, SI-
2000 Maribor, Slovenia, e-mail: urska.kezmah@sodisce.si.
DOI 10.18690/978-961-286-004-2.7 ISBN 978-961-286-004-2
© 2016 University of Maribor Press
Available at: http://press.um.si.
86 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
U. Kežmah: Cross Border Service of Documents – Partical Aspects and Case Law
1 Introduction
The general globalization has undoubtedly affected the litigation, because the number of
disputes with cross-border element are rising every year. Therefore in this context, it is
necessary to highlight some practical aspects of service of documents abroad.
According to Slovenian Civil Procedure Act (hereinafter: CPA)1
, in following cases the
rules of cross-border service of documents come into consideration:
 Upon the first service of process to the defendant abroad (par. 2 article 146 CPA).
 If process is to be served on a person or institution based in a foreign state or on
foreign citizen enjoying immunity, the service shall be effected through
diplomatic channels, unless otherwise provided by an international agreement
or the present Act (par. 1 article 135 CPA).2
 If process is to be served on a citizen of the Republic of Slovenia residing in a
foreign state, the service shall be effected through intermediary of a consular or
diplomatic representative of the Republic of Slovenia dealing with consular
matters in the concerned foreign state. Such service shall be valid only if the
person to be served is willing to accept the process thus served. Otherwise the
rules of international conventions regarding legal aid (assistance) will be
applied.
The common denominator of service abroad is that the addressee is located abroad. The
fact that the addressee is located abroad brings new dimension of problems regarding
service of documents. In cross-border service of documents contact between different
legal regimes occurs, which could mean language problems (affecting the need for
translation), sometimes it requires the use of special methods of service, but undoubtedly
such service also arises the question of the time and cost components.3
Regarding service of documents, parties usually have different expectations. Plaintiff
expect quick and efficient service on one hand. On the other hand, the defendant needs
adequate information about what kind of procedure is pending against him in some
foreign country (abroad). But this can only be ensured if he understands the documents
that are served. That obviously rise the question of the translation of the documents that
are being served. The defendant also needs an appropriate time to decide whether to
engage in a procedure (e.g. respond to the claim) or not.4
It should also be noted, that regulation of service of documents reflects the national
sovereignty of States. Therefore there are always some conceptual differencies.
Given the particular importance of service in cross-border disputes, service of documents
is always dealt in context of judicial cooperation.
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
U. Kežmah: Cross Border Service of Documents – Partical Aspects and Case Law
87
Considering this theoretical background we will discuss some aspects of different
systems that can be used in cross-border service.
2 Different systems of cross-border service
When we think about cross-border service it is essential to use the correct system of
service to ensure effective service. In the case of cross-border service to an even greater
extent there are differences between continental and Anglo-Saxon (Common law) legal
system. In countries with a continental legal system, service is the act of state authorities,
as well as an expression of state sovereignty (Galič, 2010: 51). Therefore, service is acta
iure imperii and the principle of state sovereignty forbids that service is performed on the
territory of a foreign country (Sladič, 2005: 1131).
As the oldest method of cross-border service service thrue diplomatic chanell should be
mentioned. But in this case we are dealing with very complex system of service.
In order to simplify service in cross-border disputes various multilateral and bilateral
agreements were adopted.
A significant shift towards the simplification of cross-border service represents the
adoption of the Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on the service Abroad of
Judicial and Extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters.5
The regulation of The Hague Convention still applies if the documents are served in a
State which is not a member of the European Union.
An updated list of Contracting States to Hague Convention is available on the website of
The Hague Conference on Private International Law.6
For the EU Member States (except Denmark), the Hague Convention was replaced by
Regulation (EC) No 1348/20007
of 29 May 2000 on the service of judicial and
extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters in the Member States, which was
later repealed by Regulation (EC) 1393/20078
on the service of judicial and extrajudicial
documents in civil and commercial matters in the Member States (hereinafter: EU Service
Regulation). Service Regulation apllies also for the Denmark, which has acceded to the
Sevice Regulation by special parallel agreement with the European Community.
EU Service Regulation applies to all EU member states, in accordance with point 23 of
the Preamble to the Regulation. However, EU Service Regulation does not prevent
Member States to maintain existing agreements or conclude new agreements to expedite
or simplify the service of documents, in so far as they are compatible with the EU Sevice
Regulation.9
Therefore, there are still various bilateral agreements existing between Member States
and non-EU countries.10
88 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
U. Kežmah: Cross Border Service of Documents – Partical Aspects and Case Law
It should also be mentioned that EU Service Regulation does not affect the application of
Article 23 of the Convention on Civil Procedure of 17 July 1905, Article 24 of the
Convention on civil procedure of 1 March 1954 or Article 13 of the Convention on
International Access to Justice of 25 October 1980 between the Member States which are
contracting parties to these conventions (Article 21 of the EU Service Regulation).11
3 Issues with cross-border service of documents
Without a doubt the EU Service Regulation has to some extent, speed up the cross-border
service of documents. In comparison with the previous regulation (no. 1348/2000), it has
particularly highlighted demand that the service is carried out as soon as possible and in
any event within one month of receipt. This rule applies only in the case when the service
should be carried out by the transmitting and /or receiving agency (2nd para. article 7 of
the EU Service Regulation). On the other hand, for another method of service (direct
service, by post or by diplomatic and consular channels) deadline for the service is not
provided.
In terms of speed of delivery, in our opinion, the greatest potential for optimization
presents in particular introduction of electronic service.
Under EU Service Regulation cross-border service is no longer "act of sovereignty" but
"an act of information" because it follows the fundamental objective to provide
adversarial proceedings (Hess, 2010: 448; Galič, 2010: 52).
Nevertheless, it is necessary to highlight some of the issues that are either not regulated
or not regulated effectively by the EU Service Regulation.
3.1 Use of the language clause
EU Service Regulation expressly provides, that the language of the document, that needs
to be served, could be reason for refusal to accept such document (article 8). The
addressee may refuse to accept the document if it is not written in the official language
of the place where service is to be effected or in a language which the addressee
understands.
In relation to the translation of documents the case Ingenieurbüro Michael Weiss und
Partner GbR v Industrie- und Handelskammer Berlin12
should be mentioned. The Court
of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that the right to refuse to accept a
document under par. 1 article 8 of the EU Service Regulation is to be interpreted as
meaning that the addressee of a document instituting the proceedings which is to be
served does not have the right to refuse to accept that document, provided that it enables
the addressee to assert his rights in legal proceedings in the Member State of transmission,
where annexes are attached to that document consisting of documentary evidence which
is not in the language of the Member State addressed or in a language of the Member
State of transmission which the addressee understands, but which has a purely evidential
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
U. Kežmah: Cross Border Service of Documents – Partical Aspects and Case Law
89
function and is not necessary for understanding the subject‑matter of the claim and the
cause of action.
It is for the national court to determine whether the content of the document instituting
the proceedings is sufficient to enable the defendant to assert his rights or whether it is
necessary for the party instituting the proceedings to remedy the fact that a necessary
annex has not been translated.
While in relation to language clause the rule under par. 1 article 8 of the EU Service
Regulation should be interpreted as the meaning that the fact that the addressee of a
document served has agreed in a contract concluded with the applicant in the course of
his business that correspondence is to be conducted in the language of the Member State
of transmission does not give rise to a presumption of knowledge of that language, but is
evidence which the court may take into account in determining whether that addressee
understands the language of the Member State of transmission.
Therefore the addressee of a document served may not in any event rely on that provision
in order to refuse acceptance of annexes to the document which are not in the language
of the Member State addressed or in a language of the Member State of transmission
which the addressee understands where the addressee concluded a contract in the course
of his business in which he agreed that correspondence was to be conducted in the
language of the Member State of transmission and the annexes concern that
correspondence and are written in the agreed language.
3.2 Service of documents to the addresse abroad with unknown address
In accordance with the provision of paragraph 2. Article 1 of the EU Service Regulation
the regulation does not apply where the address of the person to be served with the
document is not known.
In this regard, the EU Service Regulation fails to have an instrument that would provide
an investigation of the address for service abroad. In practice, the EU Regulation No.
1206/200113
on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of
evidence in civil or commercial matters, should be used, which further complicates the
matter, because for one service two different instruments are used.
That this is an important issue is seen also from BU-I Regulation14
and EU Regulation
(EC) No. 2201/200315
concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of
judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility. In both cases,
it is envisaged that the proceedings should be suspended for as long as it is not shown
that the defendant has been able to receive the document instituting the proceedings or an
equivalent document in sufficient time to enable him to arrange for his defense, or that
have been taken all the necessary steps in this direction (BU-26 Article I and Article 18
of Regulation no. 2201/2003).
90 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
U. Kežmah: Cross Border Service of Documents – Partical Aspects and Case Law
In this context, the CJEU in Case Hypoteční banka a.s. v Udo Mike Lindner16
ruled that
BU-I Regulation must be interpreted as a meaning that in a situation in which a consumer
who is a party to a long-term mortgage loan contract, which includes the obligation to
inform the other party to the contract of any change of address, renounces his domicile
before proceedings against him for breach of his contractual obligations are brought, the
courts of the Member State in which the consumer had his last known domicile have
jurisdiction, pursuant to Article 16(2) of that regulation, to deal with proceedings in the
case where they have been unable to determine, pursuant to Article 59 of that regulation,
the defendant’s current domicile and also have no firm evidence allowing them to
conclude that the defendant is in fact domiciled outside the European Union.
The BU-I Regulation does not preclude the application of a provision of national
procedural law of a Member State which, with a view to avoiding situations of denial of
justice, enables proceedings to be brought against, and in the absence of, a person whose
domicile is unknown, if the court seised of the matter is satisfied, before giving a ruling
in those proceedings, that all investigations required by the principles of diligence and
good faith have been undertaken with a view to tracing the defendant.
Even in the case of G v Cornelius de Visser17
CJEU pointed out that the European Union
law must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the issue of judgment by
default against a defendant on whom, given that it is impossible to locate him, the
document instituting proceedings has been served by public notice under national law,
provided that the court seised of the matter has first satisfied itself that all investigations
required by the principles of diligence and good faith have been undertaken to trace the
defendant.
In this cases the CJEU also ruled, that the European Union law must be interpreted as
precluding certification as a European Enforcement Order, within the meaning of
Regulation (EC) No 805/200418
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21
April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims, of a judgment
by default issued against a defendant whose address is unknown.
Considering this decisions it is unclear what steps must be taken by court or other
competent authority, that a party whose address is unknown, could actually be found.
So it would make sense for the EU Service Regulation to anticipate a procedure for
central authorities in such cases (where the parties address is unknown or known, but it
is incorrect (even in this case it is not possible to carry out effective service).
3.3 Electronic service
Within the national legislation, the EU Member States usually regulates the new method
of serving documents (so-called electronic service). EU Service Regulation does not
expressly regulate electronic service. On the other hand, the individual Member States
govern the electronic service in different ways (usually via special system for electronic
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
U. Kežmah: Cross Border Service of Documents – Partical Aspects and Case Law
91
delivery). The national legal systems as a rule opt for a closed system of electronic service
(to use it, it is necessary to execute a special registration procedure). This rises the
question whether the foreigners (especially e.g. Legal entities) could registered in this
system and whether this means that such registration bypasses the use of the EU Service
regulation, because within this system they are served under rules of national procedural
law.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, at least Slovenia has an open systems for electronic
service that without no major technical requirements enables secure electronic service.19
At EU level, there are currently conducted several pilot projects dealing with the issue of
electronic service. Nevertheless, the EU Service Regulation in that regard has not yet
been amended.
3.4 Direct service by postal services – issues with personal and substituted
service
Among the methods of direct service the EU Service Regulation in article 14 governs the
service by postal services. From the wording of the cited article follows that each Member
State has the option to effect service of judicial documents directly by postal services on
persons residing in another Member State by registered letter with acknowledgement of
receipt or equivalent.
Taking a narrow interpretation of that provision we can come to the conclusion that the
parties (when they are themselves responsible for service) may not used this method of
service.
Some Member States follows this narrow interpretation and interprete this provision
literally (eg. France20
). So it is to revise the text of the regulation regarding this issue and
eliminate ambiguities in the interpretation. 21
Another problem with the service by postal services represent the rules about to whom
the documents could be served. Some Member States are in fact familiar with substitute
service (eg. Slovenia), but the procedural law of another Member State may not permitted
it and the document must be served personally. That means that we can come to a situation
where the service was effected by substituted service under the law of the requesting
Member State but the service is in fact not consistent with the methods of service
permitted by the law of the requested Member State.
In this context the decision of the CJEU in case Scania Finance France SA v Rockinger
Spezialfabrik für Anhängerkupplungen GmbH & Co.22
should be mentioned. The court
ruled that Article 27(2) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the
Accession Conventions of 1978, 1982, 1989 and 1996, and the first paragraph of Article
IV of the Protocol annexed to that convention, must be interpreted as meaning that, where
92 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
U. Kežmah: Cross Border Service of Documents – Partical Aspects and Case Law
a relevant international convention, such as the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad
of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, is applicable
between the State in which the judgment is given and the State in which recognition is
sought, the question whether the document instituting the proceedings was duly served
on a defendant in default of appearance must be determined in the light of the provisions
of that convention, without prejudice to the use of direct transmission between public
officers, where the State in which recognition is sought has not officially objected, in
accordance with the second paragraph of Article IV of the Protocol.
The two methods of transmitting documents provided for by Article IV of the Protocol
annexed to the Convention are exhaustive, in the sense that it is solely where neither of
those two options is usable that transmission may be effected in accordance with the law
applicable in the court in the State in which the judgment was given.
Regarding service by postal services it should be highlighted that Post (public or private)
effect the service by its own rules.23
Each Member State regulate postal service
autonomously. However, in practice all Posts effect the service in accordance with the
rules of the Universal Postal Union.
In the Report24
EC recognizes a practical problem with acknowledgments of receipt
which are filled in improperly or incompletely, because they are not able to provide
appropriate evidence on the relevant facts of the performed or attempted service.25
Courts
in the requesting Member States often are unable to determine from the return receipt to
whom the delivery was performed or when.
Therefore EC is considering the introduction of a standard international
acknowledgments of receipt that would be used by all postal operators.
3.5 Relationship between the EU Service Regulation and other EU Regulations
We have already pointed out that the EU Service Regulation was an important step
towards the simplification of cross-border service. Notwithstanding this, other EU
regulations (particularly EU Brussels-Ia Regulation, EC Regulation creating a European
Enforcement Order for uncontested claims) governs service of documents as well.
The abolition of exequatur raises the question on the need of a higher degree of
harmonisation concerning national civil procedural rules, in general, and concerning rules
on service of documents, in particular. Regarding service of documents the rules of the
Member States differ substantially on fundamental questions such as26
- Which documents are served on the parties in legal proceedings?
(While documents introducing proceedings are generally served in all Member States,
there is wide variation on the service of judgments, convocations for hearings, etc.
Judgments, for instance, are served in some Member States, sometimes even as a
condition for enforceability of the judgment in the forum State, while in other Member
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
U. Kežmah: Cross Border Service of Documents – Partical Aspects and Case Law
93
States judgments are not generally served but are to be picked up from the court by the
parties themselves.),
- In which circumstances documents are served?
(in some Member States judgments are not served when the parties were present or
represented in the proceedings, while in other Member States the judgment is mandatorily
served),
- By whom documents are served?
(In some Member States, service is generally the responsibility of the parties, while in
other Member States the court takes care of the service of documents. In several Member
States, the responsibilities vary depending on which type of document needs to be served
(document introducing proceedings, convocation for hearings, judgment, etc.),
- Who are subjects of service?
(Eg. in some Member States documents are served on the parties themselves (mandatory
personal service) while in other Member States documents or certain types of documents
may or even must be served on their legal representative in the forum State. While the
delimitiation whether documents should be served according to national rules or rules for
cross-border service is assessed under national law of each Member State – lex fori rule
applies (Hess, 2010: 459).
- Legal consequences of service
(There are differences between Member States, concerning for example starting the
running of time limits for appeal, the calculation of interest, etc.). Also, Member States
are not uniform on the consequences of lack of service (eg. opening the recourse to special
remedies).
As a result of these disparities, it is uncertain currently in which circumstances the
protection ensured by the EU Service Regulation actually applies (eg. rules on the right
to refuse to accept a document, the date of service, and the rights of the defence in the
event of default.
EC is therefore considering the need to address this legal uncertainty, in particular by way
of common minimum standards on which documents should be served on foreign parties,
on whom such service may take place, and at which moment in time service should take
place. In this way, a more uniform protection of defendants across the Union would be
ensured and would without any doubt enhance legal certainty and the protection of the
rights of the defence.27
On the other hand, has EC Regulation on European enforcement order (hereinafter: EEO
Regulation) and EC Regulation on European order for payment procedure (hereinafter:
EOP Regulation) established minimum procedural standards for service of documents.
Further more, the EC Regulation on Small Claims Procedure (hereinafter: SCP
Regulation) directly governs service of documents to be used in proceedings under this
94 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
U. Kežmah: Cross Border Service of Documents – Partical Aspects and Case Law
Regulation (Article 13). The issues regarding service by fiction, which is usually rejected
as insufficient, should also be mentioned. Regulations does not foresee, that individual
Member State should change its national regulation on service of documents. The only
sanction for non-compliance with the prescribed service by Regulation therefore is its
inefficiency.28
EU Service Regulation is in relation to the EEO Regulation and EOP Regulation
somewhat less stringent, because the two regulations (EEO and EOP) requires that the
debtor actually learns about documents that are being served. This can result in judgment
by default by the application of the EU Service Regulation (2nd para. article 19 of the Eu
Service Regulation), even if the defendant, without any fault on his part, did not have
knowledge of the document in sufficient time to defend, or knowledge of the judgment
in sufficient time to appeal. Considering the EEO Regulation such a default judgment can
not be certified as European enforcement order (Rauscher, 2004: 152).
4. Conclusion
It should be highlighted that EU Service Regulation actually governs only a small part of
cross-border service. With specific scope (Article 1), the Eu Service Regulation is limited
to the service of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil and commercial matters
from one Member State to another. That can only means that the EU Service Regulation
may require clarification regarding the scope of the instrument at Union level. In addition,
the legal uncertainty resulting from the disparities in national procedural laws may need
to be addressed.
EU Service Regulation does not affect the national legislation of the Member States (eg.
The question of the place and time of service, address for service, etc.). Even
convalescence of errors in service are determined under the law of the Member States.
EU Service Regulation also does not regulate the time limits that apply to the service of
documents. Even the question when the rules for cross-border service applies are assessed
under national law.
Highlighted questions regarding service of documents under EU Service Regulation
should be assessed under lex fori.29
In this context, it should be clarified that the national
procedural law is applied whenever the EU Service Regulation does not have special
provisions on service of documents.
Notes
1
Civil procedure Act (Uradni list RS, 26/99 and changes).
2
In such case, as a rule, service of documents is effected trough the diplomatic channel, unles a
treaty or CPA provide otherwise.
3
See (Geimer, 1999: 5).
4
See case Ingenieurbüro Michael Weiss und Partner GbR v Industrie- und Handelskammer Berlin,
C-14/07 (ECLI:EU:C:2008:264).
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
U. Kežmah: Cross Border Service of Documents – Partical Aspects and Case Law
95
5
Uradni list RS - MP, št. 19/2000.
6
https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/?cid=17 (last accessed 9.6.2016).
Hague Convention has been signed by 71 contracting states.
7
OJ L 160, 30.6.2000.
8
OJ L 324/79, 10.12.2007.
9
In accordance with article 20 of the EU Service Regulation all Member States must send to to the
Commission a copy of the agreements or arrangements concluded between the Member States as
well as drafts of such agreements or arrangements which they intend to adopt and any denunciation
of, or amendments to, these agreements or arrangements.
10
For example, bilateral agreements concluded by the Republic of Slovenia or its legal predecessor
former Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia are published on the website of the Ministry of Justice:
http://www.mp.gov.si/si/zakonodaja_in_dokumenti/mednarodne_pogodbe_s_podrocja_pravosodj
a/bilateralni_sporazumi/(last accessed 9.6.2016).
11
This is the so-called legal assistance.
12
C-14/07.
13
OJ L 174, 27. 6. 2001.
14
OJ L 12, 16. 1. 2001.
15
OJ L 338, 23. 12. 2003.
16
C-327/10 (ECLI:EU:C:2011:745), judgement from 17. 11. 2011.
17
C-292/10 (ECLI:EU:C:2012:142), judgement from 15. 3. 2012.
18
OJ L 143, 30. 4. 2004.
19
Eg. Post of Slovenia has developed system PoštAR - https://www.postar.eu/si/Home/Index (last
access 9.6.2016).
20
Eg. This follows from the circular of the Minister of Justice No. 11-08 D3 of November 10 2008
(„Bulletin officiel du Ministère de la Justice“, No. 2009-01 from 28. February 2009). Text available
at: http://www.textes.justice.gouv.fr/art_pix/1_boj_20090001_0000_p000.pdf (last accessed 9. 6.
2016).
21
Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European
Economic and Social Committee, on the application of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the
European Parliament and of the Council on the service in the Member States of judicial and
extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), COM(2013) 858
final, 13.
22
C-522/03 (ECLI:EU:C:2005:606), judgement from 13. 10. 2005.
23
Majority have certain terms and conditions. But for cross-border service, as a rule, the rules of
the Universal Postal Union applies.
24
Report, 13-14.
25
EC in the evaluation study finds, the most common problems are that the acknowledgement of
receipt is not completely filled (41,1%) or not returned (40,6%) or the signature cannot be read
(34%). - MainStrat, Study on the application on the application of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007
on the service of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil and commercial matters, final report
July 2012, 182.
26
Report, 6.
27
Report, 5-7.
28
Heiderhoff in (Rauscher, 2015: 770).
29
Geimer in (Geimer, Greger, and Zӧller, 2007: 698); Heiderhoff in (Rauscher, ???: 773).
96 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
U. Kežmah: Cross Border Service of Documents – Partical Aspects and Case Law
Reference
Galič, A. (2010) Vročanje sodnih pisanj v tujino v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah, In: Pravni
letopis, pp. 51-72 (Ljubljana: GV Založba, Ljubljana). 51-72.
Geimer, G. (1999) Neuordnung des internationalen Zustellungsrechts. Vorschläge für eine neue
Zustellungskonvention. (Schriften zum Prozessrecht; PR 145) (Duncker & Humblot GmbH).
Geimer, R., Greger, R. & Zӧller, R. (2007) Zivilprozessordnung mit Gerichtverfassungsgesetz und
den Einführungsgesetzen, mit Internationalem Zivilprozessrecht, EG-Verordnungen,
Kostenanmerkungen, Kommentar, 26. ed. (Köln: Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt).
Hess, B. (2010) Europäisches Zivilprozessrecht, Ius Communitatis (Heidelberg: C.F. Müller
Verlag, Heidelberg).
MainStrat, Study on the application on the application of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 on the
service of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil and commercial matters, final report
July 2012.
Rauscher, T. (2004) Der Europäische Vollstreckungstitel für unbestrittene Forderungen,
(München; Sellier;, Heidelberg: European Law Publisher, München, Verlag Recht und
Wirtschaft, Heidelberg).
Rauscher, T. (2015) Europäisches Zivillprozess- und Kollisionsrecht, Kommentar, vol. 2, 4.
ed.Edition (Kӧln: Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt, Kӧln).
Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic
and Social Committee, on the application of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European
Parliament and of the Council on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial
documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), COM(2013) 858 final.
Sladič, J. (2005) Vročanje v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah, Podjetje in delo, 6-7, pp. 1131-1159.
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND
EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
V. Rijavec
Disputes over the Use of Distributable Profit and Provision
of a Minimum Dividend and On-balance –Accounting
Aspects of Repealed Decisions of the General Meeting in
Public Limited Company (d.d.)
MARIJAN KOCBEK & SAŠA PRELIČclx
Abstract Article deals with one of the most important shareholder’s rights,
right to dividend. Authors present this shareholder’s right from the
theoretical view, elaborate its origins and possibilities for impugnment of
the shareholders resolution not to distribute at least minimal dividend to
shareholders. Article deals also with typical dilemmas with respect to
deciding on the distribution of profits at the shareholders meeting.
Keywords: • profit • shareholders resolution on distribution of profit •
impugnment of the shareholders resolution on distribution of profit •
minimal dividend
CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS: Marijan Kocbek, Ph.D., Professor, Univrsity of Maribor, Faculty of
Law, Mladinska ulica 9, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia, e-mail: marijan.kocbek@um.si. Saša Prelič,
Ph.D., Associate Professor, Univrsity of Maribor, Faculty of Law, Mladinska ulica 9, 2000
Maribor, Slovenia, e-mail: sasa.prelic@um.si
DOI 10.18690/978-961-286-004-2.8 ISBN 978-961-286-004-2
© 2016 University of Maribor Press
Available at: http://press.um.si.
24. KONFERENCA: GOSPODARSKI SUBJEKTI NA TRGU IN EVROSPKE
DIMENZIJE
V. Rijavec
Spori glede uporabe bilančnega dobička in zagotavljanja
minimalne dividende ter bilančno-računovodski vidiki
razveljavljenih skupščinskih sklepov v d.d..
MARIJAN KOCBEK & SAŠA PRELIČclxi
Povzetek V članku je obravnavana ena izmed najpomembnejših
premoženjskih pravic delničarja, to je pravica do dela dobička. Avtorja jo
obravnavata s pravno-dogmatičnega stališča, opredeljujeta predpostavke za
njen nastanek, vključno z možnostjo izpodbijanja sklepa skupščine, če ne
odloči o delitvi vsaj minimalne dividende ter opozarjata na najbolj tipične
praktične dileme pri odločanju o uporabi bilančnega dobička.
Ključne besede: • bilančni dobiček • sklep o uporabi bilančnega dobička •
izpodbijanje sklepa o uporabi bilančnega dobička • minimalna dividend
NASLOV AVTORJEV: dr. Marijan Kocbek, redni profesor, Univerza v Mariboru, Pravna Fakulteta,
Mladinska ulica 9, SI-2000 Maribor, Slovenija, e-mail: marijan.kocbek@um.si. dr. Saša Prelič,
izredni profesor, Univerza v Mariboru, Pravna Fakulteta, Mladinska ulica 9, SI-2000 Maribor,
Slovenija, e-mail: sasa.prelic@um.si.
DOI 10.18690/978-961-286-004-2.8 ISBN 978-961-286-004-2
© 2016 Univerzitetna zalozba Univerze v Mariboru
Dostopno na: http://press.um.si.
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
M. Kocbek & S. Prelič: Disputes over the Use of Distributable Profit and Provision of a
Minimum Dividend and On-balance –Accounting Aspects of Repealed Decisions of the
General Meeting in Public Limited Company (d.d.)
99
1 Udeležba v dobičku kot temeljna članska premoženjska pravica iz delnice
Pravica do dela dobička je temeljna premoženjska pravica, ki pripada imetniku deleža v
gospodarski družbi, ne glede na njeno pravno organizacijsko obliko. Zato pripada ta
pravica tudi delničarjem delniških družb.
Pravico do udeležbe na dobičku imajo delničarji ne glede na vrsto delnic, ki jim pravno
pripadajo. Zagotavljajo jo tako navadne delnice kot tudi prednostne delnice. Naše
delniško pravo ne dopušča delnic, ki bi izključevale pravico do udeležbe v dobičku, tako
kot je na primer mogoče izključiti glasovalno pravico (314. člen Zakona o gospodarskih
družbah – ZGD-11).
Ko razpravljamo o fenomenu udeležbe v dobičku, moramo razlikovati dve vrsti
upravičenj, in sicer:
pravico do dela dobička (dividende), kot eno izmed abstraktnih premoženjskih upravičenj
iz skupka siceršnjih delničarjevih korporacijskih pravic, in
pravico do izplačila dividende, ki jo je določila skupščina s sklepom o uporabi bilančnega
dobička (peti odstavek 230. člena ZGD-1).
Pravica do dela dobička (dividende) ne predstavlja obligacijskopravnega upravičenja,
ampak le korporacijskopravno upravičenje iz siceršnjega skupka (premoženjskih) pravic
delničarja. Zgolj na podlagi statusa delničarstva delničar še nima nikakršnega
obligacijskopravnega zahtevka do družbe, da mu izplača dobiček (dividendo), četudi
družba v poslovnem letu izkaže čisti dobiček. Podlaga za nastanek take obligacijske
pravice – terjatve delničarja je šele sklep skupščine o uporabi bilančnega dobička. S
sprejemom tega sklepa, pod pogojem, da je z njim odločeno o delitvi, se namreč iz
korporacijskopravnega upravičenja do dela dobička izloči samostojna obligacijska
premoženjska pravica, to je terjatev delničarja do izplačila dobička – dividende. Ta se
lahko, kot vsaka obligacijskopravna pravica, tudi sodno uveljavlja in je predmet
samostojnih pravnih razpolag.2
Skupščina lahko s sklepom o uporabi bilančnega dobička tega uporabi tudi za druge
namene, na primer za oblikovanje rezerv in drugo, lahko pa pusti bilančni dobiček tudi
nerazporejen, kot preneseni dobiček. Delničar nima obligacijskopravnega zahtevka za
izplačilo dividende, če skupščina ni odločila o uporabi bilančnega dobička za namen
izplačila v obliki dividende. Lahko pa delničarji uveljavljajo izpodbijanje sklepa
skupščine o uporabi bilančnega dobička, če se ne deli minimalna skupna zakonsko
določena dividenda v višini 4. odstotkov osnovnega kapitala (prvi odstavek 399. člena
ZGD-1).
100 24. KONFERENCA: GOSPODARSKI SUBJEKTI NA TRGU IN EVROSPKE DIMENZIJE
M. Kocbek & S. Prelič:: Spori glede uporabe bilančnega dobička in zagotavljanja
minimalne dividende ter bilančno-računovodski vidiki razveljavljenih skupščinskih
sklepov v d.d..
Šele pravica do izplačila dividende, ki jo je določila skupščina s sklepom o uporabi
bilančnega dobička, je torej obligacijska terjatev delničarja, ki tudi zastara, tako kot
zastarajo ostale terjatve.
2 Sklep o uporabi bilančnega dobička
Sklep o uporabi bilančnega dobička je eden izmed najpomembnejših sklepov skupščine
delniške družbe,3
zaradi česar zakon poleg splošnega, določa še specialni izpodbojni
razlog (399. člen ZGD-1).
Skupščina ne odloča o delitvi dobička, ampak o uporabi bilančnega dobička (druga
alineja prvega odstavka 293. člena ZGD-1). Odločitev se sprejema s sklepom. ZGD-1
posebej opredeljuje vsebino sklepa o uporabi bilančnega dobička (četrti odstavek
293. člena ZGD-1). O tem odloča skupščina vsako leto, najkasneje do konca meseca
avgusta, v tistih družbah, kjer je poslovno leto enako koledarskemu letu, sicer pa do konca
osmega meseca po koncu poslovnega leta (tretji odstavek 294. člena ZGD-1). Na
skupščini se obravnavajo rezultati poslovanja na podlagi poslovnega poročila, ki sta ga
sprejela uprava in nadzorni svet oziroma upravni odbor; hkrati se odloča o uporabi
bilančnega dobička ter o podelitvi razrešnice organom vodenja in nadzora (prvi odstavek
294. člena ZGD-1). Predlog o uporabi bilančnega dobička podajo organi vodenja ali
nadzora, to je uprava in nadzorni svet ali upravni odbor (prvi stavek četrtega odstavka
293. člena ZGD-1). Skupščina pri odločanju o uporabi bilančnega dobička ni vezana na
predlog organov vodenja ali nadzora. Skupščina lahko odloči drugače, kot sta predlagala
uprava in nadzorni svet oziroma kot je predlagal upravni odbor.4
Če skupščina odloči
drugače, kot so predlagali organi vodenja ali nadzora, to ne predstavlja niti ničnostnega
niti izpodbojnega razloga pri letnem poročilu in sklepu o uporabi letnega dobička. V
družbah z dvotirnim sistemom upravljanja naj bi predlog sklepa o uporabi bilančnega
dobička podala uprava in nadzorni svet skupaj, vendar ni nujno, da bosta pri tem enotna
in da bosta podala enak predlog. Po navadi bosta v primeru neenotnosti tudi sicer
neenotna pri sprejemu letnega poročila, kar pomeni, da bo skupščina odločala sama, in
sicer ne le o uporabi bilančnega dobička, temveč tudi o sprejemu letnega poročila. Če
nadzorni svet potrdi letno poročilo, nato pa ni enotnega predloga z upravo glede uporabe
bilančnega dobička, to skupščini ne onemogoča, da bi odločila o uporabi bilančnega
dobička. Predlog lahko dá vsak delničar. Takšen predlog se ne šteje za predlog o uvrstitvi
točke dnevnega reda na zasedanje skupščine, ampak le za predlog delničarja o tem, kako
naj se bilančni dobiček, ki je ugotovljen v letnem poročilu, uporabi. Morebitna pasivnost
nadzornega sveta kot sopredlagatelja predloga sklepa o uporabi bilančnega dobička ni
procesna predpostavka, ki bi bila nujna za sprejem skupščinskega sklepa. Sklep skupščine
ne bi bil niti ničen niti izpodbojen zgolj zaradi razloga, ker nadzorni svet ni podal
predloga o uporabi bilančnega dobička. Enako velja glede predloga uprave.
Skupščina ni vezana na predlog organov vodenja ali nadzora, vezana pa je na sprejeto
letno poročilo, ki ga sprejmeta uprava in nadzorni svet oziroma v enotirnem sistemu
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
M. Kocbek & S. Prelič: Disputes over the Use of Distributable Profit and Provision of a
Minimum Dividend and On-balance –Accounting Aspects of Repealed Decisions of the
General Meeting in Public Limited Company (d.d.)
101
upravljanja upravni odbor, ali pa skupščina sama, če je za to pristojna. Skupščina ne more
razdeliti med delničarje več letnega čistega dobička, kot ga prikazuje kategorija
bilančnega dobička, ugotovljena v sprejetem letnem poročilu.5
Hkrati ne more spremeniti
letnega poročila, tako da bi ugotovila večji letni čisti dobiček, ga prerazporedila v
kategorijo bilančnega dobička in nato odločala o razdelitvi med delničarje. Prav tako
skupščina ne more posegati v posamezne kategorije kapitala in v druge rezerve iz dobička
ter jih prerazporediti v kategorijo bilančnega dobička, ki ga bi nato razdelila med
delničarje. O vseh teh vprašanjih se že predhodno odloča pri sprejemu letnega poročila.
Skupščina lahko odloča o teh zadevah le, ko sama sprejema letno poročilo, če tega dela
niso opravili organi vodenja ali nadzora. Skupščina pri tem ni nadrejen organ upravi in
nadzornemu svetu ali upravnemu odboru in ne more spremeniti odločitve teh organov.
Mogoča pa je obratna situacija, da namreč organi vodenja ali nadzora odločitev o tem
prepustijo skupščini.
3 Obvezna (relativno) minimalna 4-odstotna dividenda
Praviloma je treba pri uporabi bilančnega dobička del tega dobička uporabiti tudi za
razdelitev med delničarje, in sicer najmanj v višini 4. odstotkov osnovnega kapitala.6
Skupščina lahko pri sklepanju o uporabi bilančnega dobička odloči, da se dobiček ne
razdeli med delničarje kot dividenda, temveč da se ves bilančni dobiček prerazporedi v
druge rezerve iz dobička. V praksi utegne nastati položaj, da se celotni letni čisti dobiček
razporedi v druge rezerve iz dobička, če organi vodenja ali nadzora pri sestavi letnega
poročila oblikujejo druge rezerve iz dobička v višini 50 odstotkov letnega čistega
dobička, preostalo polovico pa odvede v druge rezerve iz dobička skupščina. Takšna
odločitev skupščine pomeni, da nadaljnja usoda tega bilančnega dobička, ki pridobi status
drugih rezerv iz dobička, ni več odvisna od njene odločitve. O drugih rezervah iz dobička
se namreč odloča pri sestavi letnega poročila. Druge rezerve iz dobička se lahko uporabijo
za katerikoli namen (deveti odstavek 64. člena ZGD-1). Od uprave in nadzornega sveta
oziroma upravnega odbora je odvisno, ali bodo v naslednjih letih druge rezerve iz dobička
morebiti ponovno uporabili za oblikovanje bilančnega dobička, o katerem bo odločala
skupščina. Pri dodatnem odvajanju bilančnega dobička v druge rezerve iz dobička
skupščina ni zakonsko omejena, niti ne more biti statutarno omejena. V druge rezerve iz
dobička lahko odvede tudi ves bilančni dobiček, pri čemer je treba upoštevati zakonske
določbe o možnostih izpodbijanja sklepa o uporabi bilančnega dobička s strani manjšine
delničarjev (399. člen ZGD-1).7
Sklepa o uporabi bilančnega dobička, s katerim se
dividende najmanj v višini minimalne zakonske dividende delničarjem ne delijo, ni
mogoče izpodbijati, če je bilo to po presoji dobrega gospodarstvenika nujno, glede na
okoliščine, v katerih družba posluje.8
Pri tem ne gre za diskrecijsko odločanje o možnosti
delitve bilančnega dobička za dividende v takšni višini niti za vprašanje gospodarske
primernosti politike dividend oziroma uporabe bilančnega dobička, temveč za vprašanje
nujnosti drugačne uporabe bilančnega dobička, upoštevajoč okoliščine, v katerih družba
posluje, s presojo dobrega gospodarstvenika. To predstavlja pravni standard, ki se rešuje
kot pravno vprašanje.
102 24. KONFERENCA: GOSPODARSKI SUBJEKTI NA TRGU IN EVROSPKE DIMENZIJE
M. Kocbek & S. Prelič:: Spori glede uporabe bilančnega dobička in zagotavljanja
minimalne dividende ter bilančno-računovodski vidiki razveljavljenih skupščinskih
sklepov v d.d..
Če družba razdeli dividende delničarjem najmanj v višini 4. odstotkov osnovnega
kapitala, potem ni druge možnosti izpodbijanja sklepa o uporabi bilančnega dobička
(razen zaradi formalnih napak pri delu skupščine), čeprav se ves preostanek razporedi v
druge rezerve ali pa uporabi za druge zakonsko dovoljene namene.9
4 Uporaba bilančnega dobička za delavce in druge namene
Na podlagi zakona in skupščinskega sklepa je mogoče bilančni dobiček uporabiti le za
dva namena, za razdelitev med delničarje in za oblikovanje drugih rezerv iz dobička. Na
podlagi posebne statutarne ureditve se lahko bilančni dobiček poleg zakonsko določenih
namenov uporabi tudi za druge namene, na primer za izplačila delavcem in poslovodstvu,
kar primeroma opredeljuje tudi zakonska določba (šesti odstavek 230. člena ZGD-1). Po
uveljavitvi novele ZGD-1C (2009) člani nadzornega sveta ne morejo biti več udeleženi
pri dobičku. Drugi takšni nameni so lahko uporaba bilančnega dobička za podeljene
delniške opcije, za donacije tretjim osebam in podobno. Drugi nameni so v celoti
prepuščeni statutarni ureditvi. Statut je lahko splošen, lahko pa natančno določi in
kvantificira, koliko bilančnega dobička bodisi v odstotku bodisi v absolutnem znesku ter
pod kakšnimi drugimi pogoji je mogoče uporabiti za druge namene. Pri udeležbi delavcev
in članov organov vodenja ali nadzora v dobičku ni predpogoj, da se odstotek dobička v
statutu natančno opredeli. V statutu se lahko določi le zgornja meja dobička, ki se lahko
razdeli, in drugi pogoji. Zadostuje zgolj splošna opredelitev namena uporabe dobička.
ZGD-1 torej dopušča, da so pri udeležbi v dobičku delniške družbe udeleženi tudi delavci.
Delovnopravnih vidikov takšne udeležbe ne opredeljuje, saj jo opredeljujejo
delovnopravni predpisi.10
ZGD-1 obravnava statusne vidike, pri čemer je v ospredju
vprašanje odločanja o uporabi dobička, opredeljevanje načina razdelitve dobička v statutu
ter možnost povečanja osnovnega kapitala delniške družbe v okviru instituta pogojnega
povečanja osnovnega kapitala. Ta se realizira s pretvorbo terjatev delavcev, ki jih imajo
na podlagi udeležbe v dobičku, ki jim jo družba zagotavlja.11
Podrobneje ureja udeležbo
delavcev v dobičku specialni zakon,12
pri čemer so še posebej pomembni davčni vidiki,
ki naj bi to udeležbo spodbujali.
Družba lahko zagotovi delavcem udeležbo v dobičku, kar ne pomeni plačila dela, torej
plače, ampak neposredno udeležbo v dobičku. Takšna odločitev mora biti sprejeta na
skupščini delniške družbe, za kar pa mora obstajati podlaga bodisi v zakonu bodisi v
statutu. Trenutno ni v Sloveniji nobene druge neposredne zakonske podlage za takšno
odločitev skupščine, zato je potrebna statutarna opredelitev. Statutarna opredelitev mora
biti dovolj konkretizirana, na primer z merili ali pogoji izplačila, ni pa nujno, da je v
statutu natančno določena višina izplačila dobička med delavce. Na isti skupščini je
možno s spremembo statuta določiti udeležbo delavcev v dobičku in že takoj pri naslednji
točki dnevnega reda odločiti tudi o konkretni udeležbi.13
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
M. Kocbek & S. Prelič: Disputes over the Use of Distributable Profit and Provision of a
Minimum Dividend and On-balance –Accounting Aspects of Repealed Decisions of the
General Meeting in Public Limited Company (d.d.)
103
Tudi pri uporabi dobička za te druge namene je treba upoštevati osnovno izhodišče
prvenstvene delitve dobička med delničarje vsaj v višini 4. odstotkov osnovnega kapitala.
Sicer je treba dokazati nujnost drugačne delitve z vidika dobrega gospodarstvenika, ob
upoštevanju okoliščin, v katerih družba posluje.
5 Bilančni vidiki neuporabe oziroma prenosa bilančnega dobička
Skupščina lahko s sklepom o uporabi bilančnega dobička tega uporabi bodisi za delitev
med delničarje bodisi za oblikovanje drugih rezerv iz dobička bodisi za druge namene.
Skupščina ima tudi možnost odločiti, da se del ali celotni bilančni dobiček ne uporabi za
nobenega od omenjenih namenov in tudi ne za razdelitev med delničarje, temveč da se
bilančni dobiček opredeli kot preneseni dobiček. Takšna opredelitev bilančnega dobička
v preneseni dobiček pa pomeni, da se bo pri odločanju o bilančnem dobičku naslednje
leto ponovno odločalo o tem delu bilančnega dobička. Preneseni dobiček se avtomatično
v celoti izkaže v bilančnem dobičku. O njem ne morejo odločati organi vodenja ali
nadzora pri sestavi letnega poročila. Vendar ni nujno, da se bo naslednje leto v bilančnem
dobičku prikazal kot bilančni dobiček v enaki višini, kot bi ustrezala prenesenemu
dobičku, če se pri oblikovanju bilančnega dobička pojavijo tudi kategorije, ki njegovo
višino zmanjšujejo, in sicer nepokrita izguba, v konkretnem primeru nepokrita izguba
tekočega leta. V bilančni dobiček se po določbi petega odstavka 66. člena ZGD-1
odvedeta tako poslovni izid poslovnega leta kot tudi preneseni dobiček. Če je poslovni
izid poslovnega leta negativen, torej je ustvarjena izguba, se bo preneseni dobiček v celoti
uporabil za »pokritje« te izgube. Višina bilančnega dobička se zmanjša za čisto izgubo
poslovnega leta. O tem se posebej ne odloča, temveč gre samo za računski prikaz
bilančnega dobička v letnem poročilu (peti, šesti in sedmi odstavek 66. člena ZGD-1).
Na prvi pogled ni bistvene razlike, če skupščina s sklepom o uporabi bilančnega dobička
tega v celoti ali v delu odvede v druge rezerve iz dobička ali če odloči, da se bilančni
dobiček ne razdeli med delničarje in se oblikuje kategorija prenesenega dobička. V obeh
primerih je konkreten rezultat ta, da se dividenda delničarjem ne deli, pa tudi dobiček se
ne uporabi za druge namene. V obeh primerih je mogoče ta del bilančnega dobička
razdeliti med delničarje v prihodnosti. Vendar obstajajo razlike glede možnosti takšnih
postopkov, predvsem pa glede pristojnosti. Če skupščina odloči, da se bilančni dobiček
uporabi za dodatno odvajanje v druge rezerve iz dobička, to pomeni, da bo odločanje o
njihovi nadaljnji usodi prvenstveno v pristojnosti uprave in nadzornega sveta oziroma
upravnega odbora pri sestavi naslednjih letnih poročil. Takrat lahko organi vodenja ali
nadzora v bilančni dobiček odvedejo tudi del sredstev iz teh drugih rezerv iz dobička.
Druge rezerve iz dobička lahko uporabijo za druge namene, bodisi za oblikovanje rezerv
za lastne delnice bodisi za pokrivanje izgube in druge namene. Pri oblikovanju
prenesenega dobička pa skupščina ne prenese pristojnosti o odločanju glede tega dobička
na organe vodenja ali nadzora, temveč gre le za odloženo odločanje o dobičku. Skupščina
bo o tem prenesenem dobičku ponovno odločala že naslednje leto, ker se bo preneseni
dobiček praviloma prikazal v bilanci kot bilančni dobiček,14
razen v izjemnem primeru,
104 24. KONFERENCA: GOSPODARSKI SUBJEKTI NA TRGU IN EVROSPKE DIMENZIJE
M. Kocbek & S. Prelič:: Spori glede uporabe bilančnega dobička in zagotavljanja
minimalne dividende ter bilančno-računovodski vidiki razveljavljenih skupščinskih
sklepov v d.d..
če bi družba poslovala z izgubo, ko preneseni dobiček avtomatično zmanjša sicer
potencialni bilančni dobiček.
6 Izpodbojnost sklepa o uporabi bilančnega dobička
Specialni izpodbojni razlog glede sklepa o uporabi bilančnega dobička, ki ga določa
ZGD-1 v 399. členu, je sestavljen iz dveh delov. Sklep je izpodbojen:
 če je v nasprotju z zakonom ali statutom, ali
 če je skupščina odločila, da se delničarjem dobiček ne deli najmanj v višini 4.
odstotkov osnovnega kapitala, če to po presoji dobrega gospodarstvenika ni bilo
nujno glede na okoliščine, v katerih družba posluje.15
Iz tako opredeljenega izpodbojnega razloga izhaja dolžnost družbe, da načeloma deli tako
imenovano skupno16
dividendo v višini 4. odstotkov osnovnega kapitala.17
Pri tem
obveznosti delitve tega odstotka ne gre zamenjevati niti z odstotkom donosa na tržno ali
knjigovodsko vrednost delnice, niti z odstotkom od ustvarjenega čistega dobička oziroma
ugotovljenega bilančnega dobička. Če družba ustvari dobiček in se ugotovi bilančni
dobiček, se mora za razdelitev med delničarje uporabiti toliko bilančnega dobička, da
skupna dividenda delničarjev znaša 4 odstotke od osnovnega kapitala.18
Če družba
izplača 4-odstotno dividendo, sklepa o uporabi bilančnega dobička ni dopustno
izpodbijati, če je sprejet v skladu z zakonom in statutom.19
Pri tem je treba opozoriti na
določbe ZGD-1 glede uporabe čistega in bilančnega dobička, kjer se natančno določa
vrstni red delitve, ter predvsem dolžnost oblikovanja najrazličnejših kategorij rezerv. Če
predpisana dividenda ni izplačana, izpodbijanje ni utemeljeno, če je bilo neizplačilo
dividende nujno glede na okoliščine, v katerih družba posluje.20
To je pravno vprašanje,
ki ga sodišče rešuje sámo (po načelu iura novit curia), ne pa dejansko vprašanje, ki bi se
morebiti razčiščevalo s finančnimi izvedenci. Ne gre za presojo, koliko dividende bi bilo
dobro oziroma primerno, da bi jo družba delila, temveč gre za pravno vprašanje21
, ali
družba ni mogla deliti dividende v višini 4. odstotkov osnovnega kapitala glede na to, da
je morala oblikovati ustrezne rezerve, pokriti izgubo in drugo. 22
Tožbo za izpodbijanje sklepov skupščine o uporabi bilančnega dobička lahko vložijo le
manjšinski delničarji, in sicer delničarji, katerih skupni deleži dosegajo dvajsetino
osnovnega kapitala ali katerih skupni najmanjši emisijski znesek dosega 400.000 evrov.23
Na zahtevo delničarjev lahko sodišče spremeni sklep skupščine o uporabi bilančnega
dobička, če ugotovi obstoj okoliščin, ki upravičujejo delitev bilančnega dobička (drugi
odstavek 399. člena ZGD-1).
Dosedanja sodna praksa je bila sicer neenotna glede vprašanja, kakšen zahtevek lahko
stranka postavi, če na temelju 399. člena ZGD-1 izpodbija sklep skupščine delniške
družbe. Nekatere odločbe menijo, da lahko stranka na temelju 399. člena ZGD-1 zahteva
le spremembo skupščinskega sklepa.24
Druge odločbe25
pa ne vidijo nič napačnega v tem,
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
M. Kocbek & S. Prelič: Disputes over the Use of Distributable Profit and Provision of a
Minimum Dividend and On-balance –Accounting Aspects of Repealed Decisions of the
General Meeting in Public Limited Company (d.d.)
105
če delničar zahteva razveljavitev sklepa in postavi še dajatveni zahtevek na plačilo
dividende 26
7 Spori glede uporabe bilančnega dobička – aktualne dileme
V poslovni praksi prihaja v zadnjem času do porasta števila sporov27
v zvezi z uporabo
bilančnega dobička. 28
Kompleksnost vprašanj, ki se pri tem pojavljajo, ilustrirajmo na primeru neke delniške
družbe, ki je v poslovnem letu 2008 izkazala bilančni dobiček v določeni višini. Na
skupščini so delničarji sprejeli sklep, da se ta dobiček razdeli med delničarje, ti pa ga
takoj vrnejo družbi tako, da ga ta razporedi v kapital oziroma v njegovo zvišanje.
Manjšinski delničar se je zoper ta sklep skupščine pritožil, sodišče pa je (sicer šele leta
2013) dokončno odločilo, da pripada delničarjem bilančni dobiček v višini najmanj 4
odstotke osnovnega kapitala. Manjšinski delničar je z izvršbo dosegel plačilo
pripadajočega mu deleža dobička, drugi delničarji pa pripadajočega deleža niso dobili
izplačanega.
Tak položaj je izpostavil številne pravne dileme, kot na primer:
1. ali je sklep skupščine od trenutka vložitve izpodbojne tožbe dalje »viseč« in se
njegovi učinki ne smejo odražati v izkazih, ali pa ima od trenutka sprejetja na
skupščini, ne glede na morebitne izpodbojne tožbe, popolno veljavo ter mora uprava
(vsaj v računovodskem pomenu) upoštevati takšne sklepe do trenutka, ko sodišče
pravnomočno (ali dokončno) odloči v sporu?
2. v času od vložitve izpodbojne tožbe do odločitve sodišča je družba izkazala izgubo
in ne sme izplačati dobička, dokler je ne pokrije. Kako je treba upoštevati dejstvo,
da je v času od trenutka sprejetja izpodbitega sklepa do pravnomočnosti sodbe
bilančni dobiček, ki ga je potrebno po 399. členu ZGD-1 izplačati, nižji? Ali je treba
najprej pokrivati izgubo in šele nato izplačati dobiček? Kakšno bi bilo pravilno
postopanje, če bi bila izguba tako velika, da zahtevanega dobička po
pravnomočnosti ne bi bilo mogoče izplačati (izguba presega bilančni dobiček iz leta
2008)? Ali imajo tudi v tem primeru delničarji zahtevek zoper družbo na podlagi
ugotovljenega dobička le za leto 2008 (ki pa ga dejansko ni več)?
3. v času od sprejema sklepa za poslovno leto 2008 je družba sprejemala več (istih)
sklepov o delitvi ter reinvestiranju dobička v osnovni kapital. Vsi izkazi so vsebovali
tudi ugotovljen (bilančni) dobiček za leto 2008 (ugotovljen in še nerazdeljen) ter del
tekočega dobička poslovnega leta. Kakšna je pravilna obravnava bilančnega dobička
ter določbe 399. člena ZGD-1? Ali se z izplačilom 4. odstotkov na podlagi sodbe
participacija na bilančnem dobičku, ugotovljenem v letu 2008, izčrpa, ali pa je
(obvezna) participacija tudi na bilančnem dobičku v naslednjem letu, kot na primer:
106 24. KONFERENCA: GOSPODARSKI SUBJEKTI NA TRGU IN EVROSPKE DIMENZIJE
M. Kocbek & S. Prelič:: Spori glede uporabe bilančnega dobička in zagotavljanja
minimalne dividende ter bilančno-računovodski vidiki razveljavljenih skupščinskih
sklepov v d.d..
 v letu 2008 je bil bilančni dobiček 2.000.000 €; na podlagi 399. člena ZGD-1 je
bila delničarjem izplačana dividenda v višini 300.000 €, ostanek bilančnega
dobička znaša 1,700.000 €. Ker je družba v poslovnem letu 2009 poslovala brez
dobička, izkazuje za to poslovno leto bilančni dobiček v višini 1.700.000 €. Ali
delničarjem tudi v tem primeru »pripada« dividenda po 399. členu ZGD-1 (ob
predpostavki, da je uprava »previdna« in dividend noče izplačati)?
4. Nadalje pa je po sprejemu sklepa o uporabi bilančnega dobička, izkazanega za
poslovno leto 2008, ki ga je eden od delničarjev izpodbijal, družba sprejemala vsako
leto praktično identične sklepe o delitvi in reinvestiranju dobička, ki pa jih je
manjšinski delničar izpodbijal. Na podlagi sklepa skupščine je bilo predlagano, da
sodišče v registrskem postopku vpiše spremembo osnovnega kapitala družbe.
Sodišče je spremembo vpisalo, potem pa je pritožbeno sodišče sklep o povečanju
osnovnega kapitala po pritožbi manjšinskega delničarja razveljavilo, pri čemer ni
presojalo sklepa skupščine, pač pa je razveljavitev obrazložilo s pomanjkanjem
revizorjevih pojasnil. To pa odpre vprašanje učinkovanja sklepa skupščine in
posledic na izkaze, v smislu ali so sklepi skupščine za upravo relevantni ter s tem, ne
glede na izpodbijanje, podlaga za knjiženje, ali pa je to v primeru izpodbijanja
dopustno izvršiti šele po pravnomočnosti odločbe sodišča?
Pri iskanju odgovorov na te praktične dileme je treba izhajati iz zgoraj opredeljenih
teoretičnih izhodišč.
7.1 Pravna narava sklepa
Sklep skupščine delniške družbe, s katerim je ta v okviru svojih pristojnosti odločila o
uporabi bilančnega dobička (sklep o uporabi bilančnega dobička, peti odstavek 230. člena
ZGD-1), je tudi v primeru izpodbojne tožbe, ki bi jo kateri od upravičencev vložil zoper
ta sklep in s katero bi uveljavljal njegovo neveljavnost, treba računovodsko obravnavati
enako kot v primerih, če tožba sploh ne bi bila vložena. (Zgolj) Vložena tožba torej na
obravnavo (oziroma pravno usodo) sklepa ne vpliva. Na podlagi sklepa skupščine o
uporabi bilančnega dobička, s katerim skupščina odloči o delitvi bilančnega dobička v
obliki dividend, pridobijo delničarji namreč terjatev (obligacijski zahtevek) za izplačilo
njim pripadajočega dela bilančnega dobička, družba pa to hkrati izkaže kot svojo
obveznost (v dolgovanem kapitalu). 29
Drugače pa je v nasprotnem položaju: če skupščina s sklepom o uporabi bilančnega
dobička odloči, da se bilančni dobiček ne uporabi (za izplačilo dividend), delničarji
seveda ne pridobijo terjatve, niti za družbo ne nastane obveznost, da karkoli izplača.
Neuporabljeni bilančni dobiček je treba v računovodskem izkazu – bilanci stanja (za
naslednje leto) – izkazati kot posebno kategorijo, namreč kot »preneseni dobiček«.
Takšna obravnava v računovodskih izkazih traja ves čas trajanja sodnega postopka, v
katerem sodišče odloča o (ne)veljavnosti sklepa o uporabi bilančnega dobička, traja torej
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
M. Kocbek & S. Prelič: Disputes over the Use of Distributable Profit and Provision of a
Minimum Dividend and On-balance –Accounting Aspects of Repealed Decisions of the
General Meeting in Public Limited Company (d.d.)
107
do pravnomočnega zaključka pravde. Šele z dnem pravnomočnosti sodbe, s katero je
sodišče ugodilo oziroma zavrnilo zahtevek (in torej potrdilo oziroma razveljavilo sklep o
uporabi bilančnega dobička), je treba pravnomočno odločitev ustrezno poočititi tudi v
računovodskih izkazih družbe. To pomeni, da za računovodsko obravnavo ni merodajno
dejstvo (časovna točka) vložitve izpodbojne tožbe, temveč je merodajno dejstvo, da je
bilo o zahtevku pravnomočno odločeno in je bila torej sporna pravdna zadeva
pravnomočno zaključena.
Vendar pa se niti s pravnomočno sodno odločbo, s katero sodišče morebiti razveljavi
sklep o uporabi bilančnega dobička oziroma družbi naloži izplačilo 4-odstotne dividende,
še manj pa z vloženo izpodbojno tožbo zoper sklep o uporabi bilančnega dobička, letno
poročilo ne spremeni (peti odstavek 293. člena ZGD-1). Ne spremeni se niti za leto, v
katerem je bil ugotovljen bilančni dobiček, niti za leto, v katerem se odloča o njegovi
uporabi. Bistveno torej je, da se v tej zvezi letno poročilo ne spreminja oziroma se ne
popravlja za nazaj, tudi če je sodišče sklep o uporabi bilančnega dobička razveljavilo. To
bi namreč terjalo spremembe v vseh letih do dneva pravnomočnosti sodbe. Ker se letno
poročilo za nazaj ne spreminja, se končni rezultat (morebitne ugodilne pravnomočne)
sodbe izkaže v letnem poročilu in v računovodskih izkazih šele glede na datum
pravnomočnosti sodbe; v konkretnem primeru torej šele v letnem poročilu v letu 2015. V
časovni točki pravnomočnosti sodbe se torej šele vzpostavi obveznost za izplačilo
dividende, hkrati pa se v tej višini zmanjšajo razpoložljive proste sestavine lastnega
kapitala, ki ga v konkretnem primeru predstavlja preneseni dobiček.
Peti odstavek 293. člena ZGD-1 namreč izrecno določa, da se s sklepom o uporabi
bilančnega dobička sprejeto letno poročilo ne spremeni. Bilančni dobiček je torej
kategorija letnega poročila in se izkaže v ustreznem računovodskem izkazu. Letno
poročilo sprejmejo pristojni organi, na način in pod predpisanimi pogoji. Sklep o uporabi
bilančnega dobička, kot je ta ugotovljen v sprejetem letnem poročilu (in kot »sledi iz
letnega poročila«), pa se sprejema po posebnem postopku (peti do sedmi odstavek 230.
člena ZGD-1). ZGD-1 natančno določa tudi vse njegove obligatorne sestavine (četrti
odstavek 293. člena ZGD-1). Zakonska opredelitev pokaže, da ni podlag za odločanje o
uporabi bilančnega dobička za povečanje osnovnega kapitala, ampak zgolj za uporabo za
zakonsko dopustne namene, med katere pa povečanje osnovnega kapitala ne sodi. O
povečanju osnovnega kapitala odloča skupščina posebej, s posebnim sklepom o
povečanju osnovnega kapitala, nikakor pa ne v povezavi z odločanjem o uporabi
bilančnega dobička.
S sklepom o uporabi bilančnega dobička se letno poročilo torej ne spremeni. Rezultat
tega sklepa se izkaže v naslednjem letnem poročilu, ki ima presečni datum naslednjega
poslovnega leta. Seveda se tudi v primeru, če sodišče razveljavi sklep o uporabi
bilančnega dobička, po enakem sklepanju ne spremeni letno poročilo. Če se s sklepom o
uporabi bilančnega dobička torej letno poročilo ne spremeni, to seveda hkrati pomeni, da
sklep o uporabi bilančnega dobička ne vpliva na letno poročilo, ki torej ostane táko, kot
108 24. KONFERENCA: GOSPODARSKI SUBJEKTI NA TRGU IN EVROSPKE DIMENZIJE
M. Kocbek & S. Prelič:: Spori glede uporabe bilančnega dobička in zagotavljanja
minimalne dividende ter bilančno-računovodski vidiki razveljavljenih skupščinskih
sklepov v d.d..
je bilo sprejeto s strani organov, pristojnih za njegovo sprejemanje. Enako pa na letno
poročilo tudi ne učinkuje dejstvo morebitne razveljavitve sklepa o uporabi bilančnega
dobička s strani sodišča. Zato tudi v takem primeru (torej v primeru sodne odločbe, s
katero je sodišče ugodilo zahtevku na razveljavitev sklepa) letno poročilo ostane
nespremenjeno, kar pomeni, da ga ni dopustno popravljati oziroma spreminjati, kar velja
tako za tekoče letno poročilo, kot tudi za pretekla letna poročila in njihove računovodske
izkaze.
Te položaje lahko ilustriramo s hipotetičnim primerom, ko bi se naknadno ugotovila neka
obveznost družbe, ki je sporna in o kateri je tekla pravda, v kateri se s pravnomočno sodbo
taka obveznost ugotovi šele čez nekaj obdobij, čeprav po temelju izvira iz nekega
spornega pravnega posla iz preteklosti. Družba – dolžnica mora v takem primeru
pripoznati obveznost v računovodskem izkazu in v letnem poročilu seveda šele na
podlagi pravnomočne sodbe. Družba tudi v tem primeru seveda ne popravlja letnega
poročila za nazaj, denimo na datum sklenitve (spornega) pravnega posla, niti posledično
z nekakšnim »domino efektom« ne popravlja oziroma prilagaja vseh ostalih letnih poročil
iz naknadnih poslovnih let. V računovodstvu namreč veljajo pravila, da se letna poročila,
ki so sprejeta, nikoli ne spreminjajo, niti se ne popravljajo. Edina izjema od tega pravila
je v primeru odpravljanja tako imenovanih računovodskih napak, kar pa je seveda drugo
vprašanje in se nanaša zgolj na tehnične popravke v letnem poročilu.
7.2 Kasnejša izguba
Tudi kasnejše izgube ne vplivajo na obveznosti družbe do izplačila dividende, nastale na
podlagi sklepa o uporabi bilančnega dobička iz preteklosti ali sodbe, ki se nanaša na
obveznost uporabe bilančnega dobička iz preteklosti za delitev dividend.
Tudi odgovor na to vprašanje je najbolje razumljiv, če ga ilustriramo s primerom: če je
skupščina v letu 2009 sprejela sklep o uporabi bilančnega dobička in odločila o uporabi
le-tega za dividende, v tem trenutku nastane obveznost (dolg) družbe, da dividende
izplača, kar na strani delničarjev pomeni, da so pridobili terjatev, da se jim dividenda tudi
izplača. Sklep o uporabi bilančnega dobička, s katerim skupščina odloči o delitvi le-tega
za dividende, je torej pravno relevantno dejstvo, na podlagi katerega nastane: obveznost
(dolg) družbe dividendo izplačati in terjatev (obligacijski zahtevek) delničarjev za
izplačilo njim pripadajočega zneska dividende. Nastane torej obligacijsko razmerje z
delničarjem kot upnikom (terjatev) in družbo kot dolžnico (obveznost, dolg).
Obveznosti iz tega naslova mora družba v prihodnje izpolniti, ne glede na dejstvo, ali
kasneje, v prihodnjih letih, pri poslovanju ustvari izgubo, saj je to njena obveznost, kot
vsaka druga. To velja tudi v primeru, če ustvari tekočo izgubo, na primer v letu 2009.
Delničarji, ki so pridobili terjatev za izplačilo dividende na podlagi letnega poročila 2008,
imajo iz tega naslova namreč položaj upnika, enako kot ostali upniki družbe, ki pridobijo
terjatev na pravno poslovni podlagi. Zato je te obligacijske vidike treba razlikovati od
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
M. Kocbek & S. Prelič: Disputes over the Use of Distributable Profit and Provision of a
Minimum Dividend and On-balance –Accounting Aspects of Repealed Decisions of the
General Meeting in Public Limited Company (d.d.)
109
korporacijskih. Če pa je družba v letnem poročilu 2008 ugotovila bilančni dobiček, ga pa
po sklepu skupščine o uporabi bilančnega dobička v letu 2009 ni (raz)delila, ampak ga je
opredelila kot nerazporejen dobiček ali ga morebiti razporedila v druge rezerve iz
dobička, tedaj seveda v letnem poročilu 2009 ni nastala obveznost družbe za delitev
dividende, niti delničarji niso pridobili terjatve za izplačilo dividende.
Zato je treba razlikovati različno »usodo« bilančnega dobička glede na sprejeto odločitev
v sklepu o uporabi bilančnega dobička. Če se je kasneje, morebiti tudi čez več let, v
sodnem sporu dokončno ugotovilo, da je bil sklep o uporabi bilančnega dobička
nepravilen in ga je sodišče razveljavilo ter družbi naložilo (dosodilo) obveznost izplačila
dividende, je treba v letnem poročilu družbe za to leto – torej za leto dokončnega oziroma
pravnomočnega zaključka spora – opredeliti obveznost družbe za izplačilo dividende.
Hkrati pa je treba za to takoj porabiti potrebni vir, to pa je preneseni dobiček ali pa druge
rezerve iz dobička, če jih družba ima. Ta »poračun« pa se opravi zgolj v bilanci stanja.
Tako »poračunavanje« torej ne učinkuje na izkaz poslovnega izida, ker se pravna
razmerja v družbi med delničarji, kot lastniki, poračunavajo zgolj po kapitalu, torej v
bilanci stanja, ne pa v izkazu poslovnega izida. Kolikor pa je družba ta preneseni dobiček
oziroma druge rezerve iz dobička v preteklih letih že »porabila« za pokrivanje morebitne
izgubo in v letu pravnomočnosti sodbe teh kategorij ni več, obveznost za izplačilo
dividende delničarjem vseeno obstaja. Odrazi se v tem primeru in v tem trenutku seveda
kot nepokrita izguba družbe.30
7.3 Učinki sodbe
Na podlagi pravnomočne sodbe se obveznost izplačila 4-odstotne minimalne dividende
nanaša zgolj na tisto leto, na katerega letno poročilo se nanaša in na katerega sklep o
uporabi bilančnega dobička se nanaša. 31
To avtomatično ne učinkuje na bilančni dobiček
v naslednjem letu in na uporabo bilančnega dobička v naslednjem letu.
V zvezi s primerom za leto 2008 glede bilančnega dobička 2008 torej velja: za leto 2008
bi v primeru pravnomočne ugodilne sodbe, upoštevaje ureditev v ZGD-1, delničarjem
bilo treba izplačati 4-odstotno dividendo. Obveznost izplačati 4-odstotno dividendo pa
ne pomeni obveznost izplačila 4. odstotkov od zneska ugotovljenega bilančnega dobička,
temveč predpostavlja uporabo tolikega dela bilančnega dobička, da bo izplačani znesek
predstavljal 4-odstotno dividendo, torej 4 odstotke od osnovnega kapitala, oziroma 4
odstotni donos na delnico. 32
Če je v konkretnem primeru to znesek 300.000 €, je preostanek bilančnega dobička v
višini 1.700.000 € kategorija, ki jo je v naslednjem letnem poročilu treba izkazati kot
preneseni dobiček. Ta preneseni dobiček pa se lahko prihodnje leto sprosti v novi bilančni
dobiček tega poslovnega leta. Če torej predpostavimo, da znaša bilančni dobiček v
naslednjem letu 1.700.000 €, to avtomatično ne pomeni, da delničarjem pripada zgolj
zaradi pravnomočne sodbe (ki se sicer nanaša le na bilančni dobiček za leto 2008) za
110 24. KONFERENCA: GOSPODARSKI SUBJEKTI NA TRGU IN EVROSPKE DIMENZIJE
M. Kocbek & S. Prelič:: Spori glede uporabe bilančnega dobička in zagotavljanja
minimalne dividende ter bilančno-računovodski vidiki razveljavljenih skupščinskih
sklepov v d.d..
prejšnje leto kakršnakoli dividenda. Načeloma res velja, da naj bi se med delničarje delila
4-odstotna dividenda, seveda pa navedeno velja le, če so za to podani zakonski pogoji.
Ta delitev ni absolutno nujna, ker se lahko družba te obveznosti oprosti, če dokaže, da to
po presoji dobrega gospodarstvenika ni bilo nujno glede na okoliščine, v katerih družba
posluje (prvi odstavek 399. člena ZGD-1). Če družba teh razlogov, ki upravičujejo nedelitev
vsaj minimalne dividende, nima, potem mora seveda spoštovati zakonske določbe
glede odločanja pri sklepanju o uporabi bilančnega dobička.
7.4 Povečanje osnovnega kapitala
ZGD-1 med ukrepi za povečanje osnovnega kapitala ne pozna povečanja osnovnega
kapitala na način, da bi se kot vir povečanja uporabil bilančni dobiček, glede katerega je
bilo odločeno, da se uporabi za izplačilo delničarjem v obliki dividend.
Med ukrepi za povečanje osnovnega kapitala razlikuje ZGD-1 namreč:
 realno (= efektivno) povečanje, ki ga imenuje redno povečanje osnovnega kapitala
oziroma povečanje z novimi vložki (to pa ima še nekakšne podvrste v obliki
odobrenega kapitala in tudi pogojnega povečanja), ter
 poenostavljeno (= nominalno) povečanje osnovnega kapitala iz sredstev družbe.
Glede osnovnega kapitala veljajo stroga formalna načela, zlasti načelo konstitutivnosti
vpisa v sodni register. Osnovni kapital je pri rednem povečanju povečan šele, ko je
povečanje (ki implicira vpis in vplačilo novih delnic) vpisano v sodni register (340. člen
ZGD-1), oziroma pri nominalnem povečanju tedaj, ko je v sodni register vpisan sklep o
povečanju (362. člen ZGD-1). Predpostavka pri tem seveda je, da so sklepi, na podlagi
katerih je registrsko sodišče opravilo vpise, pravnomočni, kar posledično pomeni, da
kolikor pride (v pravdnem postopku) do ugotovitve neveljavnosti sklepov (njihove
razveljavitve), osnovni kapital konstitutivno ni mogel biti povečan.
Osnovni kapital torej v primeru poenostavljenega povečanja osnovnega kapitala zgolj na
podlagi sklepa skupščine (o povečanju osnovnega kapitala iz sredstev družbe, na način
in pod pogoji iz 358.-370. člena ZGD-1) še ni povečan, ker je povečan šele z vpisom
sklepa v sodni register (362. člen ZGD-1). Povsem jasno tudi je, da bi mogel biti osnovni
kapital še toliko manj povečan na podlagi sklepa skupščine v primeru nezakonitega
sklepa, če naj bi se osnovni kapital povečeval s terjatvami iz naslova dividende, torej po
postopku rednega povečanja, saj je pri tej obliki povečanja konstitutivno šele dejstvo
vpisa povečanja. Upoštevati je torej treba nekakšno »dvofaznost« registrskega postopka,
ki predpostavlja najprej ustrezen sklep skupščine o povečanju osnovnega kapitala, na
temelju katerega sledi nato še sama izvedba povečanja. V tem primeru bi morali torej vsi
delničarji individualno še sodelovati v povečanju osnovnega kapitala, vsak s svojim
vložkom, ki ga predstavlja terjatev, ki bi jo bilo treba na družbo prenesti s cesijo kot
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
M. Kocbek & S. Prelič: Disputes over the Use of Distributable Profit and Provision of a
Minimum Dividend and On-balance –Accounting Aspects of Repealed Decisions of the
General Meeting in Public Limited Company (d.d.)
111
prenosnim poslom v postopku rednega povečanja osnovnega kapitala, kar pa ni bilo
opravljeno.
Po drugi strani pa je uprava seveda odgovorna, da sklepe skupščine uresniči (tretja alineja
267. člena ZGD-1). To bi torej pomenilo, da mora uprava sklep skupščine o povečanju
osnovnega kapitala priglasiti za vpis v sodni register. Vendar pa bi morala, če oceni, da
bi bili sklepi nezakoniti, že v proceduri njihovega sprejemanja na to okoliščino skupščino
določno opozoriti. Še posebej pa je jasno, da osnovni kapital ni povečan, če upravi v
registrskem postopku sklepov sploh ne uspe registrirati.
To pa pokaže, da se tudi računovodsko obravnavanje obravnava le v skladu z zakonskimi
pogoji in da je torej tudi računovodsko izkazovanje lahko posledica zgolj veljavnega
materialnega pravno relevantnega dejstva (in ne obratno). Če se na primer osnovni kapital
poveča nominalno, torej iz sredstev družbe, s pretvorbo oziroma uporabo kategorij
lastnega kapitala, ki jih je dopustno uporabiti za to obliko povečanja osnovnega kapitala,
se povečanje seveda ne izkaže že na dan sklepa skupščine, ampak šele z dnem
pravnomočnosti vpisa sklepa v sodni register, ker je to tisto pravno relevantno dejstvo,
na uresničitev katerega zakon veže posledico povečanja. Pri tem pa je treba opozoriti, da
pri povečanju osnovnega kapitala iz sredstev družbe nikoli ne gre za to, da se bilančni
dobiček uporabi za povečanje osnovnega kapitala, ampak da se kot vir za povečanje
osnovnega kapitala smejo uporabiti le tiste posamezne kategorije dobičkov, pri katerih je
to izrecno dopustno: torej kategorije, ki so v bilanci stanja. Bilančni dobiček pa je zgolj
kategorija, ki je končna rezultanta skupka določenih kategorij (virov) iz bilance stanja in
tudi drugih kategorij (virov) in pogojev. Viri lastnega kapitala, ki so potencialno lahko
uporabljeni za povečanje osnovnega kapitala iz sredstev družbe, pa se pretvorijo v
osnovni kapital šele z dnem pravnomočnosti sklepa sodišča o povečanju osnovnega
kapitala, ki je bilo izvedeno na podlagi priglašenega sklepa o povečanju. Šele, če bi
kasneje prišlo do razveljavitve tega sklepa na podlagi izrednih pravnih sredstev, pa bi se
seveda »kolo zgodovine« smelo zavrteti nazaj, kar bi pomenilo ponovno vzpostavitev
tistih kategorij lastnega kapitala, ki so bile uporabljene kot vir za povečanje osnovnega
kapitala.
Notes
1
Zakon o gospodarskih družbah (ZGD-1); Ur. l. RS, št. 42/06, s kasnejšimi spremembami in
dopolnitvami.
2
Podrobneje Kocbek, v (Kocbek, 2014: 664).
3
Enako pa velja tudi v pravu družb z omejeno odgovornostjo.
4
Če je na primer uprava predlagala nadaljnje odvajanje čistega dobička v druge rezerve iz
dobička,lahko skupščina odloči o delitvi dividend in obratno.
5
Bilančni dobiček, ki se prikaže v letnem poročilu, se sicer »izračuna«, vendar predstavlja
kombinacijo zakonsko določenih postopkov uporabe posameznih virov in avtonomnega odvajanja
(dotiranja) v rezerve na eni strani ter sproščanja posameznih rezerv na drugi strani. V nemškem
zakonu o delnicah (AktG) je ugotovitev bilančnega dobička podobno kogentno določena in sicer v
112 24. KONFERENCA: GOSPODARSKI SUBJEKTI NA TRGU IN EVROSPKE DIMENZIJE
M. Kocbek & S. Prelič:: Spori glede uporabe bilančnega dobička in zagotavljanja
minimalne dividende ter bilančno-računovodski vidiki razveljavljenih skupščinskih
sklepov v d.d..
prvem odstavku § 158.
6
Smisel tega pravila je v varstvu manjšinskih delničarjev pred politiko »izstradanja« s strani večine
(Aushungerungspolitik); podrobneje Hüffer, v (Hüffer, 2016: 1729).
7
399. člen ZGD-1 po zgledu § 254 AktG.
8
V nemškem pravu je posebej določena še ničnost sklepa o uporabi bilančnega dobička zaradi
ničnega letnega poročila (§ 253 AktG), česar ZGD-1 posebej ne opredeljuje. Prvi odstavek § 253
AktG določa:
»Nichtigkeit des Beschlusses über die Verwendung des Bilanzgewinns
Der Beschluß über die Verwendung des Bilanzgewinns ist außer in den Fällen des § 173 Abs. 3,
des § 217 Abs. 2 und des § 241 nur dann nichtig, wenn die Feststellung des Jahresabschlusses, auf
dem er beruht, nichtig ist. Die Nichtigkeit des Beschlusses aus diesem Grunde kann nicht mehr
geltend gemacht werden, wenn die Nichtigkeit der Feststellung des Jahresabschlusses nicht mehr
geltend gemacht werden kann.«.
9
V ureditvi pred novelo ZGD-F (2001) določba o 4-odstotni dividendi ni bila vključena med
izpodbojne razloge, ampak le dejstvo, »če se dobiček ne deli«, kar je v praksi povzročalo precej
nejasnosti in sodnih sporov; podrobneje o tem (Kocbek, 1996: 332–337).
10
Zakon o delovnih razmerjih (ZDR-1); Ur. l. RS, št. 21/13, posebej pa tudi kolektivne pogodbe in
pogodbe o zaposlitvi.
11
Skupščina ne more sama svobodno odločiti, da se dobiček ne deli med delničarje oziroma da se
dobiček deli za druge namene. Takšna odločitev je mogoča, če je dana izrecna podlaga v zakonu
ali v statutu. V sodnem sporu je sodišče pravno utemeljilo, da je za takšen sklep skupščine o delitvi
dobička delavcem, če ni statutarne opredelitve, lahko pravno relevantna podlaga le tisti zakon, ki
določa obveznost udeležbe zaposlenih v dobičku, ne pa tisti zakon, ki daje le možnost takšne
udeležbe, zaradi česar je sklep skupščine zaradi pomanjkljive statutarne ureditve izpodbojen (sodba
Okrožnega sodišča v Ljubljani, opr. št. VIII Pg 416/95).
12
Zakon o udeležbi delavcev pri dobičku (ZUDDob); Ur. l. RS, št. 25/08.
13
Sodba Vrhovnega sodišča Republike Slovenije, opr. št. III Ips 43/2001.
14
Prenos dobička (Gewinnvortrag) se tudi v nemškem pravu avtomatično vključi v bilančni dobiček
(Bilanzgewinn, § 158 AktG); gre zgolj za izračun; podrobneje (Hüffer, 2014: 1080 in naslednje).
15
Primerjaj prvi odstavek § 254. AktG: »Der Beschluß über die Verwendung des Bilanzgewinns
kann außer nach § 243 auch angefochten werden, wenn die Hauptversammlung aus dem
Bilanzgewinn Beträge in Gewinnrücklagen einstellt oder als Gewinn vorträgt, die nicht nach Gesetz
oder Satzung von der Verteilung unter die Aktionäre ausgeschlossen sind, obwohl die Einstellung
oder der Gewinnvortrag bei vernünftiger kaufmännischer Beurteilung nicht notwendig ist, um die
Lebens- und Widerstandsfähigkeit der Gesellschaft für einen hinsichtlich der wirtschaftlichen und
finanziellen Notwendigkeiten übersehbaren Zeitraum zu sichern und dadurch unter die Aktionäre
kein Gewinn in Höhe von mindestens vier vom Hundert des Grundkapitals abzüglich von noch
nicht eingeforderten Einlagen verteilt werden kann«
16
V nemški literaturi je sporno ali gre za skupno ali za individualno minimalno dividendo tudi v
primeru prednostnih delnic; podrobneje Ehmann, v (Grigoleit, 2013: 1761).
17
Varujejo se manjšinski delničarji, kadar eden ali več večinskih delničarjev dajo prednost
zadrževanju dobička (»Thesaurierung des Gewinns«) tudi tedaj, kadar zaradi položaja družbe in
njenega podjetja glede na okoliščine, v katerih družba posluje, to ni upravičeno, donosnim
interesom (»Renditeinteresse«) manjšinskih delničarjev pa ni zadoščeno niti s kakšnim drugim
kapitalskim ukrepom (»Kapitalmaßnahme«); podrobneje Hüffer, v (Goette, Habersack & Kalss,
2016: 1679).
18
Sklep o uporabi bilančnega dobička po AktG ni izpodbojen, čeprav minimalno izplačilo zaradi
oblikovanja rezerv ali prenosa dobička ne bo dosegalo 4. odstotkov osnovnega kapitala, če so bili
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
M. Kocbek & S. Prelič: Disputes over the Use of Distributable Profit and Provision of a
Minimum Dividend and On-balance –Accounting Aspects of Repealed Decisions of the
General Meeting in Public Limited Company (d.d.)
113
zneski bilančnega dobička do razdelitve med delničarje izključeni po zakonu ali statutu, podrobneje
Hüffer, v (Goette, Habersack & Kalss, 2016: 1682).
19
To velja tudi, če družba sploh nima dovolj bilančnega dobička; tako v sodbi Višjega sodišča v
Ljubljani, opr. št. I Cpg 311/2014: »Ker je med delničarje dovoljeno deliti le bilančni dobiček, ga
v primeru, ko ta ne dosega višine 4 % osnovnega kapitala, ni mogoče izplačati v vsaj taki višini,
temveč le v delu, ki ga je mogoče deliti med delničarje, torej v višini bilančnega dobička samega.«.
20
Novejša judikatura v tej zvezi poudarja: »Zgolj z naštevanjem stroškov in načrtovanih investicij
v prihodnosti tožena stranka ni izkazala, da za družbo potrebnih ciljev kot dober gospodarstvenik
ne bi mogla doseči na noben drug način, kot s posegom v zakonsko določen najmanjši delež na
dobičku.«; sodba Višjega sodišča v Ljubljani, opr. št. I Cpg 129/2014.
21
Koch, v (Goette, Habersack & Kalss, 2016: 1746); zadržanje dobička mora ščititi nadaljnji obstoj
ter delovanje družbe (»Lebens- und Wiederstandfähigkeit der Gesellschaft«). Enako tudi Schmidt,
v (Hopt & Wiedemann, 1996: komentar § 254, stran 253).
22
Tako tudi sodba Vrhovnega sodišča Republike Slovenije, opr. št. III Ips 14/2009: »Nujnost (po
presoji dobrega gospodarstvenika nujno glede na okoliščine, v katerih družba posluje) je nedoločen
pravni pojem. Kdaj je nek ukrep nujen – v tolikšni meri, da opravičuje poseg v pravico do deleža
na dobičku – je stvar materialnopravne presoje sodišča. Ne zadošča, da bo zadržani dobiček
uporabljen za ukrepe, ki so po presoji skrbnega gospodarstvenika nujni. Tudi nujni ukrepi se
načelno lahko opravijo brez posega v pravico do delitve (dela) dobička. Nujen mora biti torej poseg
v pravico do udeležbe na dobičku.«.
23
ZGD-1 v drugem odstavku 399. člena določa le natančne pogoje, pod katerimi lahko delničarji
izpodbijajo sklep o uporabi bilančnega dobička, pri čemer ne oži kroga aktivno legitimiranih
upravičencev za izpodbijanje sklepa po drugi in tretji alineji sedmega odstavka 395. člena ZGD-1.
24
Odločbi Višjega sodišča v Ljubljani, opr. št. I Cpg 656/2010 in I Cpg 1207/2010; glejte tudi
odločbo Višjega sodišča v Kopru, opr. št. Cpg 39/2013; v tej zadevi je bil postavljen le zahtevek
na spremembo.
25
Odločbe Višjega sodišča v Ljubljani, opr. št. I Cpg 1083/2012, ter Višjega sodišča v Kopru, opr.
št. Cpg 121/2011 in Cpg 34/2010.
26
Povzeto iz relevantne sodbe Višjega sodišča v Ljubljani, opr. št. I Cpg 1129/2012: »Glede na
besedilo 2. stavka 2. odstavka 399. člena ZGD-1 lahko delničar zahteva le spremembo
izpodbijanega sklepa. Glede vsega preostalega veljajo določbe o izpodbijanju sklepov skupščine
delniške družbe.«.
27
V pravni literaturi na primer (Strojin Štampar in Vahčič, 2003: 8-9) ter (Novak-Krajšek, 2005:
704).
28
Na to kaže tudi podatek, da je na spletnih straneh PISRS v zvezi s 399. členom ZGD-1 objavljenih
kar 18 sodb Vrhovnega oziroma višjih sodišč, medtem ko je vseh sodb o izpodbijanju nasploh
(splošno po 395. členu ZGD-1) le 43. Od novejših sodb na primer sodba Višjega sodišča v Kopru,
opr. št. Cpg 414/2014: »Možnost izpodbijanja sklepa skupščine, ker za dividende ni bil uporabljen
bilančni dobiček v višini najmanj 4 % osnovnega kapitala, spada med tako imenovane manjšinske
pravice. Pravica do udeležbe v dobičku je namreč temeljna premoženjska pravica, ki jo ima delničar
in tudi najpomembnejši razlog, da delničar sploh je delničar. Zakon je zato določil minimalni
znesek, ki ga skupščina praviloma mora uporabiti za dividende. Če ta višina ni dosežena, lahko
delničarji izpodbijajo sklep skupščine, družba pa se lahko brani, da po presoji dobrega
gospodarstvenika okoliščine ne omogočajo delitve dobička med delničarje. V predmetni zadevi ne
gre za tak primer. Tožeča stranka (uprava družbe) želi doseči ravno nasprotno od upravičenja, ki
ga daje 399. člen ZGD-1 (želi, da se med delničarje dobiček sploh ne deli), zato zahtevka na
izpodbijanje sklepa skupščine, s katerim je bil v okviru zakona in statuta bilančni dobiček
114 24. KONFERENCA: GOSPODARSKI SUBJEKTI NA TRGU IN EVROSPKE DIMENZIJE
M. Kocbek & S. Prelič:: Spori glede uporabe bilančnega dobička in zagotavljanja
minimalne dividende ter bilančno-računovodski vidiki razveljavljenih skupščinskih
sklepov v d.d..
uporabljen za dividende, iz razloga, ker konkretne okoliščine delitve dobička med delničarje ne
omogočajo, po določbi 339. člena ZGD-1 nima.«.
29
S sprejetjem skupščinskega sklepa, katerega vsebina je v nasprotju z zakonom ali statutom
delniške družbe, nastane konkretno upravičenje delničarja, da začne postopek izpodbijanja sklepa
skupščine; Plavšak, v (Kocbek, 2007: 106- 107).
30
Le v enem, »mejnem« in izjemnem primeru, bi bil položaj lahko specifičen, in sicer, če bi ta isti
preneseni dobiček družba uporabila v prejšnjih letih za izplačilo dividende delničarjem. To bi pa v
končni posledici lahko pomenilo, da bi delničarji prejeli izplačane dividende dvakrat. Enkrat na
podlagi izkazanega bilančnega dobička v prejšnjih letih, enkrat pa na podlagi pravnomočne sodne
odločbe. Tedaj pa bi moralo poslovodstvo družbe opozoriti delničarje na morebitno njihovo
odgovornost po vračilu dividende, če bi bilo mogoče ugotoviti njihovo nedobrovernost (če bi se
torej zavedali tveganja dvakratne delitve dividende, da torej ni pravilen izračun bilančnega dobička,
ob predpostavki, če bi šlo za iste delničarje kot prejemnike dividend).
31
O učinkih sodbe tudi Višje sodišče v Ljubljani, v sodbi in sklepu I Cpg 778/2013: »Sodba o
razveljavitvi sklepa skupščine učinkuje proti vsem delničarjem ter članom organov vodenja ali
nadzora (398. člen ZGD-1), kar v konkretnem primeru pravnomočne sodbe o razveljavitvi sklepa
o uporabi bilančnega dobička pomeni, da bo morala skupščina ponovno odločati o uporabi
bilančnega dobička. Ker je sodišče prve stopnje sicer pravilno ugotovilo, da obstajajo okoliščine,
ki upravičujejo delitev bilančnega dobička, vendar je skupščinski sklep pravilno razveljavilo, ker
je tudi v nasprotju z zakonom, bi moralo posledično zavreči tožbo v delu, v katerem tožeča stranka
zahteva odločitev, da se nameni del bilančnega dobička za izplačilo dividend delničarjem in o
izplačilu dividend.«.
32
Na primer sodba Višjega sodišča v Kopru, opr. št. Cpg 34/2010: »Sodišče ne more s spremembo
skupščinskega sklepa odločiti o delitvi več kot 4% skupne dividende (drugi odstavek 399. člena
ZGD-1).«.
Reference
Goette, W., Habersack, M. & Kalss, S. (2016) Münchener Kommentar zum Aktiengesetz; 4. knjiga,
4. ed., (München: Beck, Vahlen).
Grigoleit, H. C (ed.) (2013) Aktiengesetz: Kommentar (München: Beck).
Hopt, K. J. & Wiedemann H. (eds.) (1996) AktG: Grosskomentar (Berlin, New York: de Gruyter).
Hüffer, U. (2016) Aktiengesetz (Beck'sche Kurz-Kommentare, Band 53), 12. Aufl. (München:
Beck).
Kocbek, M. (1996) Odločanje o rezervah in dobičku delniške družbe in možnosti izpodbijanja
sklepov skupščine; Podjetje in delo, 22(3), pp. 332–337.
Kocbek, M. (red.) (2007) Veliki komentar Zakona o gospodarskih družbah (Ljubljana: GV
Založba).
Kocbek, M. (red.) (2014) Veliki komentar Zakona o gospodarskih družbah, 1. knjiga (Ljubljana:
IUS Software, GV Založba).
Novak Krajšek, D. (2005) Pravica do 4-odstotne dividende in načini realizacije članske pravice do
deleža bilančnega dobička; Podjetje in delo, 31(5), 704-716.
Strojin Štampar, A., Vahčič, A. (2003) Izpodbijanje skupščinskega sklepa o uporabi bilančnega
dobička, Pravna praksa, 22(41), pp. 8-9.
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND
EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
V. Rijavec
Obligations of Contracting Authorities to Manufacturers
Under Directive 2014/24/EU and ZJN-3
VESNA KRANJCcxciv
Abstract Slovenia is one of the few countries that under rules on
obligations provide the right of a subcontractor to claim payment directly
from the investor. For many years, the provision of Article 631 of OZ (the
content is the same as the provision of Article 612 of ZOR) never raised
issues in case law and business practice, because subcontractors had not
actually exercised the right to direct payment. Because of the economic
crisis and late payments, the provision became popular. ZJN-2 attempted
to provide additional protection of subcontractors in transactions with
public law entities. Its provisions are unclear, they raise a number of
questions in theory and business practice to which the case law has not yet
offered conclusive answers. Reform of public procurement in the EU and
in Slovenia also affected the status of subcontractors. In this context, the
main purpose of Directive 2014/24/EU is to provide conditions in which
small and medium-sized enterprises can compete with larger companies in
obtaining public contracts, and also that in cases where they act as
subcontractors, their claims against main contractors are secured. ZJN-3
partially follows the provisions of Directive 2014/24/EU and at the same
time brings changes to the currently valid contracting authorities to
subcontractors. The author presents the regulation, provides arguments
against opposing views and offers her opinion on the obligations of
contracting authorities to subcontractors under ZJN-2 and ZJN-3.
Keywords: • public procurement • work contract • building contract •
subcontractor • subcontractor’s direct claim against contracting authority •
obligation to pay the subcontractor • subcontractor’s capabilities
CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS: Vesna Kranjc, Ph. D., Professor, University of Maribor, Faculty of
Law, Mladinska ulica 9, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia, e-mail: vesna.krajnc@um.si.
DOI 10.18690/978-961-286-004-2.7 ISBN 978-961-286-004-2
© 2016 University of Maribor Press
Available at: http://press.um.si.
24. KONFERENCA: GOSPODARSKI SUBJEKTI NA TRGU IN EVROPSKE
DIMENZIJE
V. Rijavec
Obveznosti naročnikov do podizvajalcev po direktivi
2014/24/EU in ZJN-3
VESNA KRANJCcxcv
Povzetek Slovenija je med redkimi državami, ki v obligacijskih pravilih
zagotavljajo pravico podizvajalca do uveljavitve plačila neposredno od
investitorja, je tudi Slovenija. Vrsto let določba 631. člena OZ (vsebinsko
enaka kot določba 612. člena ZOR) ni odpirala vprašanj v sodni in poslovni
praksi, saj podizvajalci dejansko niso uveljavljali pravice do neposrednega
plačila. Zaradi gospodarske krize in plačilne nediscipline je določba postala
aktualna. Dodatno varstvo podizvajalcev v poslih z osebami javnega prava
je poskušal zagotoviti ZJN-2. Njegove določbe so nejasne, v teoriji in
poslovni praksi odpirajo vrsto vprašanj, na katere v sodni praksi še niso
oblikovani ustaljeni odgovori. Reforma javnega naročanja na ravni EU in
v Sloveniji je posegla tudi v položaj podizvajalcev. V tej zvezi je poglavitni
namen Direktive 2014/24/EU zagotoviti malim in srednje velikim
podjetjem pogoje, da lahko konkurirajo večjim gospodarskim družbam pri
pridobivanju javnih naročil, ob tem pa tudi, da so v primerih, ko nastopajo
kot podizvajalci, zavarovane njihove terjatve do glavnih izvajalcev. ZJN-3
delno sledi pravilom Direktive 2014/24/EU, obenem pa spreminja do sedaj
veljavne obveznosti naročnikov do podizvajalcev. Avtorica predstavi
ureditev, polemizira z nasprotnimi stališči in podaja svoja stališča o
obveznostih naročnikov do podizvajalcev po ZJN-2 in ZJN-3.
Ključne besede: • javno naročilo • pogodba o delu • gradbena pogodba •
podizvajalec • neposredni zahtevek podizvajalca do naročnika • obveznost
plačila podizvajalcu • sposobnost podizvajalca
NASLOV AVTORICE: dr. Vesna Kranjc, redna profesorica, Univerza v Mariboru, Pravna Fakulteta,
Mladinska ulica 9, 2000 Maribor, Slovenija, e-mail: vesna.krajnc@um.si.
DOI 10.18690/978-961-286-004-2.9 ISBN 978-961-286-004-2
© 2016 Univerzitetna zalozba Univerze v Mariboru
Dostopno na: http://press.um.si.
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
V. Kranjc: Obligations of Contracting Authorities to Manufacturers Under Directive
2014/24/EU and ZJN-3
117
1 Odprta vprašanja OZ in ZJN-2 o plačilih podizvajalcem
Pravila javnega naročanja določajo postopek in pogoje za izbiro pogodbenih strank
naročnikov. Po sklenitvi pogodbe o javnem naročilu pa je le-ta, vsaj načelno, podrejena
obligacijskim pravilom, v Sloveniji Obligacijskemu zakoniku (OZ).1
Načeloma zato, ker
vse določbe OZ ne veljajo za pogodbe o javnem naročanju, na primer pravila OZ o
spremembi sklenjene pogodbe.
Pravila OZ določajo pogoje za neposredna plačila podizvajalcem v 631. členu.2
Po 631.
členu OZ morajo biti kumulativno izpolnjeni naslednji pogoji za nastanek naročnikove
obveznosti, da plača podizvajalcu:
- pripoznanje izvajalca o obstoju podizvajalčeve terjatve do izvajalca,
- podizvajalčeva terjatev do izvajalca mora biti dospela,
- izvajalčeva terjatev do naročnika mora biti dospela,
- obe terjatvi se morata nanašati na ista dela (morata biti koneksni),
- podizvajalec mora zahtevati plačilo od naročnika.
Glede vsakega od pogojev se postavljajo vprašanja, odgovori nanje niso vedno enotni.
Vrsta odprtih vprašanj se nanaša na pripoznanje izvajalca o obstoju podizvajalčeve
terjatve in zahtevo podizvajalca za plačilo od naročnika, predvsem zato, ker je
izpolnjevanje obeh pogojev v praksi povezano z uporabo dokumentov, ki po svoji
osnovni naravi služijo drugačnemu namenu.
Kadar izvajalec izjavi, da priznava obstoj terjatve v določenem znesku in navede posel iz
katerega ta terjatev izvira, je takšna izjava nesporno pripoznanje podizvajalčeve terjatve
po 631. členu OZ.3
Tudi izjave, ki sicer ne navajajo, da so dane v zvezi s 631. členom
OZ, ampak so dane v zvezi z izpolnjevanjem drugačnih pravic in obveznosti, lahko
pomenijo pripoznanje po 631. členu OZ, a ne vedno (Vukmir, 2009: 96).
Pri izvajanju gradbenih del in tudi del, ki nimajo narave gradbe, izstavljajo izvajalci
situacije. V poslovni praksi so običajni dogovori, da se plačilo ne izvede šele po
dokončanju pogodbenih del, ampak se izvedena dela plačujejo sproti, včasih celo vnaprej.
Če je dogovorjeno, da se izvedena dela plačujejo sproti, izstavlja izvajalec po določenih
časovnih obdobjih (mesečno, kvartalno, polletno) začasne situacije. V začasni situaciji
izvajalec navede, katera dela, v kakšni količini in vrednosti je izvedel v določenem
obdobju. Izvajalčev obračun izvedenih del iz začasne situacije potrdi nadzorni inženir.
Nadzorni inženir je oseba, ki na strani naročnika nadzira izvajanje del. Če ni posebej
določeno drugače, nadzorni inženir ni pooblaščenec naročnika. Kljub temu, da nadzorni
inženir potrdi izvajalčevo začasno situacijo, lahko naročnik ugovarja plačilu začasne
situacije. Če naročnik ne ugovarja začasni situaciji in plača v situaciji obračunana dela,
to ne pomeni, da je potrdil kakovost izvedenih del. Tudi iz Posebnih gradbenih uzanc4
je
razvidna razlaga, da je namen začasnih situacij le ta, da se evidentirajo in obračunajo
izvedene vrste del in njihove količine (61. do 65. uzanca). Namen končne situacije je
118 24. KONFERENCA: GOSPODARSKI SUBJEKTI NA TRGU IN EVROPSKE DIMENZIJE
V. Kranjc: Obveznosti naročnikov do podizvajalcev po direktivi 2014/24/EU in ZJN-3
enak, le da se izstavi po dokončanju del. Izstavi jo izvajalec, potrdi pa nadzorni inženir.
Po dokončanju del sestavita naročnik in izvajalec dokončni obračun.
V Sloveniji se gradbene pogodbe vedno pogosteje sklepajo po pravilih FIDIC,5
med
drugim po Rdeči knjigi FIDIC.6
Prednost pravil je, da podrobneje kot zakonska pravila
urejajo pravice in obveznosti strank gradbene pogodbe. Po Rdeči knjigi FIDIC izvajalec
nadzornemu inženirju predloži vsak mesec podroben obračun del (situacijo, člen 14.3),
po pregledu obračuna inženir izda potrdilo o vmesnem plačilu (14.6) in le tega dostavi
naročniku. Rdeča knjiga FIDIC izrecno pojasnjuje, da inženirjeva izdaja potrdila o
vmesnem plačilu ne pomeni tudi sprejema, odobritve, privolitve ali zadovoljstva inženirja
(četrti odstavek člena 14.6). Naročnik mora znesek iz inženirjevega potrdila o vmesnem
plačilu plačati v roku iz člena 14.7. Rdeča knjiga FIDIC določa, da po dokončanju del
(po prejetju potrdila o izvedbi) predloži izvajalec inženirju osnutek končnega obračuna,
katerega inženir preveri, nakar izda izvajalec končni obračun (v primeru spora med
izvajalcem in inženirjem je treba ravnati po tretjem odstavku člena 14.11). Izvajalec
posreduje inženirju končni obračun in posebno izjavo o tem, da končni obračun
predstavlja popoln in končni obračun vseh denarnih obveznosti, ki jih po pogodbi
naročnik dolguje izvajalcu.7
Na tej podlagi izstavi inženir naročniku potrdilo o končnem
plačilu, ki določa končni dolgovani znesek. Izvajalec lahko uveljavlja le plačilo zneska,
ki je naveden v potrdilu o končnem plačilu, kakršnakoli dodatna plačila pa le izjemoma
(člen 14.14 v povezavi s členom 14.10). Znesek iz potrdila o končnem plačilu zavezuje
naročnika k plačilu (člen 14.7).8
Seveda pa so lahko v pogodbi določeni posebni pogoji
za naročnikovo obveznost plačila tega zneska, na primer predložitev določenega
zavarovanja s strani izvajalca (bančne garancije za odpravo napak). V takem primeru
nastane izvajalčeva terjatev do naročnika šele po izpolnitvi pogoja.
Poudariti želim, da je tako po OZ in Posebnih gradbenih uzancah kot tudi po Rdeči knjigi
FIDIC vloga situacij, začasnih obračunov, končnih obračunov in izdaja potrdil povezana
s posebno naravo gradbenih pogodb in posebnim načinom določitve končnega plačila. V
gradbenih poslih je običajno (v primeru dogovora cena po enoti mere), da končno plačilo
ni enako pogodbeno dogovorjenem znesku, ampak je odvisno od vrste in količine
dejansko izvedenih del. Zato je potrebno izvedena dela kontrolirati in meriti. Situacije in
obračuni ugotavljajo, katere vrste del oziroma enote so bile dejansko izvedeno. To
ugotavljata izvajalec in nadzorni inženir, saj naročnik običajno za takšen nadzor nima
ustreznega strokovnega znanja. Namen situacij in obračunov ni identificirati terjatev
izvajalca do naročnika.9
Njihov namen je le določiti znesek glede na izvedena dela in
določbe o ceni v pogodbi. Ta znesek je seveda bistven za konkretizacijo terjatve izvajalca
do naročnika, a ni njen edini pogoj.
Če je torej naročniku predložena situacija ali potrdilo o plačilu, oba dokumenta izda
izvajalec in potrdi inženir (velja tudi za končno situacijo in potrdilo o končnem plačilu),
sama po sebi ne izkazujeta pripoznanja izvajalca o obstoju podizvajalčeve terjatve do
izvajalca. Mišljen je primer, ko bi glavni izvajalec v situacijo ali potrdilo o plačilu vključil
tudi dela, ki jih je izvedel podizvajalec.10
Tudi v primeru, da bi izvajalec naročniku
izstavil situacijo in tej situaciji priložil situacijo svojega podizvajalca, ni mogoče sklepati,
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
V. Kranjc: Obligations of Contracting Authorities to Manufacturers Under Directive
2014/24/EU and ZJN-3
119
da je pripoznal terjatev podizvajalca po 631. členu OZ. Ker predstavljajo neposredna
plačila podizvajalcem po 631. členu OZ izjemo, morajo biti pogoji, ki so določeni za
realizacijo te izjeme, nesporno izpolnjeni. Zato mora biti volja izvajalca za pripoznanje
podizvajalčeve terjatve nesporno izkazana, domnevana volja za pripoznanje po moji
oceni ne zadošča. Volja izvajalca za pripoznanje je nesporno izkazana, če izvajalec svoji
situaciji ali svojemu potrdilu o plačilu doda izjavo, da pripoznava terjatev podizvajalca v
enakem ali nižjem znesku. Enako je volja izvajalca za pripoznanje nesporno izkazana, če
podizvajalčevi situaciji ali podizvajalčevemu računu naslovljenemu nanj in katero
posreduje naročniku doda izjavo, da pripoznava to terjatev podizvajalca.
Vprašanje pripoznanja podizvajalčeve terjatve po 631. členu OZ se postavlja tudi v zvezi
z IOP obrazcem (obrazec o izpisku odprtih postavk) in sicer v primeru, ko podizvajalec
posreduje obrazec izvajalcu ter mu ga le-ta podpisanega vrne. Z IOP obrazcem se
evidentira odprta postavka za posamezno stranko (terjatev izdajatelja obrazca do te
stranke) in se nato posreduje tej stranki v podpis. Če stranka (zakoniti zastopnik ali
pooblaščena oseba) podpiše obrazec, s tem potrdi ali se strinja z odprto postavko.
Strinjanje z odprto postavko oziroma podpis IOP obrazca s strani pooblaščene osebe
dolžnika ima naravo pripoznave dolga po 364. členu OZ. Po pripoznavi dolga po 364.
členu OZ se zastaranje pretrga in začne teči znova. Pripoznava dolga po 364. členu OZ
je akcesorne narave. Čeprav dolžnik podpiše IOP obrazec, lahko kasneje ugovarja obstoj
ali višino dolga. Potrditve IOP obrazca s strani izvajalca, ki ga je izvajalcu posredoval
podizvajalec, ni mogoče šteti za pripoznanje terjatve po 631. členu OZ.
Obe terjatvi (terjatev podizvajalca do izvajalca in terjatev izvajalca do naročnika) morata
biti dospeli. Če rok za plačilo podizvajalčeve terjatve še ni potekel, pogoji niso
izpolnjeni. Tudi če je naročnik že plačal izvajalcu, izvajalec pa obveznosti do
podizvajalca še ni poravnal, pogoji niso izpolnjeni, saj je terjatev izvajalca do naročnika
prenehala.
Obe terjatvi se morata nanašati na ista dela. Če izvajalec dolguje podizvajalcu plačilo za
dela, katera je naročnik njemu (izvajalcu) že plačal, a ima sam terjatev do naročnika za
druga dela, terjatvi nista koneksni. Četudi izvajalec terja plačilo od naročnika za večji
obseg del in se terjatev podizvajalca nanaša le na del te storitve, je koneksnost podana.
Vprašanje je, kako obravnavati terjatvi, pri katerih identiteta del ni omogočena.
Iz podizvajalčeve izjave naslovljene naročniku mora biti razvidno, da terja plačilo od
njega – naročnika. Izjava podizvajalca naročniku, da izvajalec še ni plačal ali da zamuja
s plačilom, sama po sebi ni zahtevek za plačilo.
Potem ko podizvajalec poda naročniku zahtevek za plačilo in so izpolnjeni pogoji iz 631.
člena OZ, mora naročnik plačati podizvajalcu, ne pa svoji pogodbeni stranki, sicer
glavnemu izvajalcu. Podizvajalec pa ima pravico terjati plačilo od izvajalca (svoje
pogodbene stranke) ali od naročnika. Izvajalec neupravičeno odkloni plačilo, če
podizvajalca napoti, da naj zahteva plačilo od naročnika.
120 24. KONFERENCA: GOSPODARSKI SUBJEKTI NA TRGU IN EVROPSKE DIMENZIJE
V. Kranjc: Obveznosti naročnikov do podizvajalcev po direktivi 2014/24/EU in ZJN-3
Obveznost naročnika, da ob izpolnjevanju posebnih pogojev plača pogodbeni stranki
svojega izvajalca, je v OZ določena le za podjemno pogodbo in pogodbene tipe, pri
katerih se ureditev sklicuje na podjemno pogodbo (na primer za gradbeno pogodbo). Tudi
za vrsto drugih pogodb je lahko v praksi značilno, da pogodbena stranka v izvedbo posla
vključuje tretje osebe, a OZ tretjim ne priznava enakih pravic.
Pravila OZ, ki le do določene mere varujejo interese podizvajalcev, veljajo tudi za
pogodbe o javnem naročanju. Zaradi številnih primerov iz prakse, ko podizvajalci niso
prejeli plačila, tudi podizvajalci iz pogodb o javnem naročanju, je ZJN-2 poskušal
podizvajalce iz pogodb o javnem naročanju zaščititi bolj kot OZ.
Od sprejema ZJN-2 leta 2006 so se spreminjale določbe o plačilih podizvajalcem. V ta
pravila je najbolj korenito posegla novela ZJN-2B iz leta 2010.11
Po uveljavitvi novele
ZJN-2B so morali naročniki že tekom postopka oddaje javnega naročila, predvsem pa ob
sklenitvi pogodbe o javnem naročilu, izpolniti vrsto obveznosti, ki bi naj zagotovile
plačilo podizvajalcem (71. člen ZJN-2). Določbe ZJN-2 o obveznostih do podizvajalcev
so nejasne in nomotehnično pomanjkljive. Največji problem je ta, da je nejasno ali mora
naročnik (potem, ko sta naročnik in izbrani ponudnik izpolnila obveznosti iz ZJN-2)
plačati podizvajalcu ali pa mora plačati svoji pogodbeni stranki, to je izbranemu
ponudniku. V praksi so naročniki pri pogodbah o javnem naročanju gradenj večinoma
plačevali neposredno podizvajalcem, pri pogodbah o javnem naročanju storitev in blaga
pa so se temu izogibali.
Avtorica sem zagovarjala stališče, da zgolj na podlagi določb 71. člena ZJN-2 ne izhaja
naročnikova obveznost plačila neposredno podizvajalcem. Stališče teorije o tem
vprašanju ni enotno.12
Del sodne prakse je tem stališčem pritrdil,13
' 14
del stališča zanika
in razlaga, da že izpolnitev pogojev iz ZJN-2 ustvarja obveznost neposrednih plačil,15
a
vrsta zahtevkov še čaka na odločitev sodišč.16
Na podlagi ZJN-2 iz 2006 je bil sprejet izvedbeni predpis o neposrednih plačilih
podizvajalcem – Uredba o neposrednih plačilih podizvajalcu pri nastopanju ponudnika s
podizvajalcem pri javnem naročanju,17
ki pa je le odpirala nova vprašanja. Z uveljavitvijo
novele ZJN-2B iz 2010 je uredba prenehala veljati, a se je uporabljala še naprej.
Uporabljala bi se naj do izdaje novega izvedbenega predpisa, a ta ni bil sprejet.
2 Pravila EU o podizvajalcih
V primerjavi s ponudniki so podizvajalci običajno manjše gospodarske družbe. Mala in
srednja podjetja nastopajo kot podizvajalci, saj ne izpolnjujejo vseh naročnikovih
pogojev ali enostavno niso sposobna prevzeti vseh obveznosti iz kompleksnih javnih
naročil. Sodelovanje teh družb kot podizvajalcev (ali celo članov skupine) Direktiva
2014/24/EU18
spodbuja tako, da omogoča, da se določene okoliščine na strani
podizvajalcev štejejo kot da pogoj izpolnjuje ponudnik (63. člen). Manjše družbe so
zaščitene tudi s pravili o oblikovanju sklopov (46. člen Direktive 2014/24/EU).
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
V. Kranjc: Obligations of Contracting Authorities to Manufacturers Under Directive
2014/24/EU and ZJN-3
121
Direktiva 2014/24/EU zahteva, da so določeni osebni pogoji izpolnjeni tudi na strani
podizvajalcev (prvi odstavek 71. člena).
Direktiva 2004/18/ES ni imela določb o neposrednih plačilih podizvajalcem. Toda
Sodišče je v zadevi C-47/07 na podlagi načel, ki so skupna vsem pravnim redom držav
članic, odločalo o zahtevku podizvajalca, a mu ni ugodilo.19
Tudi zato je Direktiva
2014/24/EU posegla v ta vprašanja, a z neobvezujočimi pravili.
Določitev neposrednih plačil podizvajalcem Direktiva 2014/24/EU prepušča
nacionalnim ureditvam. Države lahko določijo, da morajo ponudniki navesti dele naročil,
ki jih bodo oddali podizvajalcem (drugi odstavek 71. člena) in lahko določijo, da morajo
naročniki na zahtevo podizvajalca plačati neposredno podizvajalcu (tretji odstavek 71.
člena).
Razumeti je, da že določbe 631. člena OZ o neposrednih plačilih podizvajalcev
izpolnjujejo cilj iz tretjega odstavka 71. člena Direktive 2014/24/EU. Večina držav članic
EU v svojih obligacijskih predpisih nima določbe, ki na enak način kot OZ zagotavlja
neposredna plačila podizvajalcem.20
3 Obveznosti naročnikov do podizvajalcev po ZJN-3
3.1 Podizvajalci pri javnih naročilih blaga, storitev in gradenj
Opredelitev podizvajalca podaja prvi odstavek 94. člena Zakona o javnem naročanju
(ZJN-3).21
Pojem podizvajalca je vsebinsko enak kot po ZJN-2. Obligacijska pravila za
isto osebo uporabljajo izraz sodelavec, podjemnikov sodelavec, spolnitveni pomočnik. V
pravni teoriji in praksi pa se tudi za vprašanja povezana z obligacijskimi pravili uporablja
izraz podizvajalec.
Po ZJN-3 je lahko podizvajalec vsaka fizična ali pravna oseba, ki dobavlja blago, izvaja
storitve ali gradnje (Po OZ veljajo pravila o podizvajalcih le za storitve in gradnje).
Vsakdo, ki je s ponudnikom v pogodbenem razmerju še ni podizvajalec po ZJN-3. Na
primer računovodski servis izbranega ponudnika ni podizvajalec, prav tako ne njegov
dobavitelj elektrike. Po ZJN-3 je podizvajalec vsakdo, ki je stopil v pogodbeno razmerje
z izbranim ponudnikom zaradi izvedbe konkretnega javnega naročila. Zato je v prvem
odstavku 94. člena ZJN-3 navedeno, da mora biti podizvajalec neposredno povezan z
javnim naročilom. Izvajalec elektroinštalacijskih del, ki je z izbranim ponudnikom sklenil
pogodbo za izvajanja del na določenem objektu, je neposredno povezan z javnim
naročilom. Tudi če podizvajalec ne ve, da je vključen v neposredno izvedbo naročila (če
torej ne ve, da je posel namenjen naročniku po ZJN-3), je podizvajalec po ZJN-3.
ZJN-2 (15. a točka prvega odstavka 2. člena) ni razlikoval med podizvajalci pri javnem
naročanju blaga, storitev ali gradenj. ZJN-3 naročnikom določa obveznosti glede
podizvajalcev le pri javnem naročanju gradenj in storitev (drugi odstavek 94. člena ZJN-
122 24. KONFERENCA: GOSPODARSKI SUBJEKTI NA TRGU IN EVROPSKE DIMENZIJE
V. Kranjc: Obveznosti naročnikov do podizvajalcev po direktivi 2014/24/EU in ZJN-3
3). Dodaja pa, da lahko naročniki ravnajo na enak način tudi pri javnem naročanju blaga
(prva alineja osmega odstavka 94. člena ZJN-3).
Podizvajalci so osebe, ki na strani ponudnika sodelujejo pri izvedbi javnega naročila. To
pomeni, da so podizvajalci v pogodbenem razmerju s ponudnikom (ZJN-3 v 94. členu
uporablja za ponudnika tudi izraz glavni izvajalec). Učinki podizvajalčevega dela pa se
kažejo pri izvajanju javnega naročila, torej pogodbe, ki je sklenjena med naročnikom in
izbranim ponudnikom. K izvedbi javnega naročila lahko pripevajo poleg ponudnika in
njegovih podizvajalcev tudi osebe, ki sodelujejo s podizvajalcem. Teorija in tudi ZJN-3
jih imenuje podizvajalci podizvajalcev ali podizvajalska veriga. Že po ZJN-2 se je
postavljalo vprašanje, ali je treba zavarovati tudi podizvajalce podizvajalcev. Enako
varstvo podizvajalčevih podizvajalcev bi terjalo od naročnika, da plačuje vsem, ki so
prispevali k izvedbi javnega naročila. OZ v 631. členu ne daje enakega varstva
podizvajalčevim podizvajalcem. V obligacijskem pravu velja načelo relativnosti.
Pogodba ustvarja pravice in obveznosti med strankama pogodbe. Cigoj pojasnjuje, da je
za tretje osebe tuje obligacijsko razmerje (pogodba med dvema strankama) le neko
pravno dejstvo, v katerega pa nimajo pravice posegati (Cigoj, 1976: 5). Že 631. člen OZ
je izjema od načelne ureditve. Poleg tega zagotavljanje enakega varstva celotne
podizvajalske verige otežuje poslovanje naročnikov in tudi neposrednih podizvajalcev.
ZJN-3 v drugi alineji osmega odstavka 94. člena pojasnjuje, da lahko naročniki
zagotavljajo enako varstvo celotni podizvajalski verigi in ne le neposrednim
podizvajalcem, a morajo to predvideti v razpisni dokumentaciji.
Tudi povezana družba ponudnika je lahko podizvajalec. Povezane družbe so formalno
pravno samostojne osebe, ekonomsko pa niso samostojne. Ob ureditvi varstva
podizvajalcev po ZJN-2 je zakonodajalec ocenil, da bi se lahko ponudniki preko svoji
povezanih oseb izognili obveznostim iz ZJN-2 do dejanskih podizvajalcev, saj ZJN-2 ni
zagotavljal varstva podizvajalski verigi. Zato je šesti odstavek 71. člena ZJN-2 določal,
da se za podizvajalca po ZJN-2 ne šteje povezana družba ponudnika (četudi je
podizvajalec z njo sklenil pogodbo), ampak podizvajalec povezane družbe. ZJN-3 nima
enake določbe. Torej veljajo obveznosti naročnikov iz ZJN-3 tudi za podizvajalce, ki so
sicer povezane osebe ponudnika, in ne za podizvajalce povezanih oseb.
3.2 Pogoji na strani podizvajalcev
Čeprav podizvajalec ni pogodbena stranka naročnika, morajo biti tudi na strani
podizvajalcev izpolnjeni določeni osebni pogoji.
Vsak podizvajalec mora izpolnjevati pogoje iz prvega, drugega in četrtega odstavka 75.
člena ZJN-3 (četrti odstavek 94. člena ZJN-3). To pomeni, da mora izpolnjevati
izključitvene pogoje o nekaznovanosti za določena kazniva dejanja, o izpolnjevanju
obveznosti za poravnavanje davčnih in drugih obveznosti do države, da ni uvrščen v
evidenco z negativnimi referencami (110. člen ZJN-3) in da mu ni bila izrečena globa
zaradi prekrška v zvezi s plačilom za delo. Podizvajalci morajo izpolnjevati pogoje iz
prvega, drugega in četrtega odstavka 75. člena ZJN-3 že na podlagi ZJN-3, tudi če
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
V. Kranjc: Obligations of Contracting Authorities to Manufacturers Under Directive
2014/24/EU and ZJN-3
123
naročnik v razpisni dokumentaciji teh pogojev izrecno ne navede. Tudi za podizvajalce
je enako kot za ponudnike možen spregled glede izpolnjevanja obveznih pogojev, če je
izkazan javni interes, da se vključi določenega podizvajalca (četrti odstavek 94. člena v
povezavi s tretjim odstavkom 75. člena ZJN-3).
V četrtem odstavku 94. člena ZJN-3 je navedeno, da naročnik lahko zavrne podizvajalca,
če le-ta ne izpolnjuje izključitvenih pogojev iz šestega odstavka 75. člena ZJN-3 (kršitev
konkurenčnih pravil, nasprotje interesov, zavajajoče informacije, neupravičeno
pridobivanje prednosti). Tudi če teh pogojev naročnik ni opredelil v razpisni
dokumentaciji, je na podlagi ZJN-3 upravičen, da zavrne podizvajalca.
Poleg tega lahko naročnik določi druge pogoje za podizvajalce. Pogoje za podizvajalce
mora določiti vnaprej v razpisni dokumentaciji. Tudi če ne določi posebnih pogojev za
podizvajalce, se v določenih posebnih okoliščinah domneva, da mora podizvajalec
izpolnjevati posebne pogoje. Na primer, takrat, kadar razpisna dokumentacija določa
pogoje za tistega, ki določena dela dejansko izvaja in je iz ponudbe razvidno, da bo
določena dela dejansko izvajal ponudnikov podizvajalec. Če naročnik vnaprej določi
pogoje za podizvajalce, jih podizvajalci morajo izpolnjevati.
Če ponudnik že v ponudbi navede, da bo dela izvajal s podizvajalci in tudi navede s
katerimi podizvajalci, naročnik preveri izpolnjevanje pogojev na strani podizvajalcev
takrat, ko preverja izpolnjevanje pogojev na strani izbranega ponudnika. Ponudniki lahko
podizvajalce določijo pozneje, na primer po oddaji ponudbe in tudi po sklenitvi pogodbe
o javnem naročilu. Če naročnik ob izbiri ali sklenitvi pogodbe še ni obveščen, da bo na
strani ponudnika sodeloval podizvajalec, pogoje preveri takrat, ko ga izbrani ponudnik
obvesti o podizvajalcu.
Če ponudnik obvesti naročnika, da bo javno naročilo izvajal s podizvajalcem in naročnik
ugotovi, da podizvajalec ne izpolnjuje pogojev (obveznih ali pogojev, ki jih je naročnik
določil v razpisni dokumentaciji) naročnik zavrne takšnega podizvajalca. V četrtem
odstavku 94. člena ZJN-3 je izrecno navedeno, da naročnik zavrne podizvajalca. To
pomeni, da naročnik ne zavrne ponudnika in njegove ponudbe, kot to velja za
neizpolnjevanje ostalih pogojev. Ponudnik lahko podizvajalca, ki ne izpolnjuje pogojev,
nadomesti z novim podizvajalcem. ZJN-3 v četrtem odstavku 94. člena določa, da mora
naročnik o zavrnitvi podizvajalca obvestiti ponudnika (glavnega izvajalca) v desetih dneh
od prejema predloga.
V četrtem odstavku 94. člena ZJN-3 je navedeno, da lahko naročnik zavrne ponudnikov
predlog o podizvajalcu tudi, če bi to lahko vplivalo na nemoteno izvajanje ali dokončanje
del. Razumeti je, da lahko zavrne ponudnikov predlog o podizvajalcu tudi takrat, ko
podizvajalec izpolnjuje obvezne zakonske pogoje in pogoje, ki jih je določil naročnik.
Čeprav je v pogodbah izven javnega naročanja pogosto določeno, da mora izvajalec
pridobiti soglasje investitorja, če bo dela namesto izbranega izvajalca izvajal
124 24. KONFERENCA: GOSPODARSKI SUBJEKTI NA TRGU IN EVROPSKE DIMENZIJE
V. Kranjc: Obveznosti naročnikov do podizvajalcev po direktivi 2014/24/EU in ZJN-3
podizvajalec, odpira določba vrsto vprašanj. Na njeni podlagi lahko pride tudi do
neupravičene diskriminacije ponudnikov.
3.3 Obveščanje naročnika o podizvajalcih
Ponudnik lahko že ob oddaji ponudbe navede podizvajalce. ZJN-3 od ponudnikov ne
zahteva, da podizvajalce navedejo že v ponudbi. So primeri, ko ob oddaji ponudbe
ponudniki še ne vedo ali bodo javno naročilo izvedli sami ali pa bodo v izvedbo vključili
podizvajalce. Tudi če vedo, da bodo pritegnili podizvajalce, ob oddaji ponudbe vedno ne
vedo, kdo so konkretni podizvajalci.
V posameznih primerih ponudniki izkazujejo izpolnjevanje pogojev in meril s skupnimi
ponudbami ali pa z okoliščinami na strani podizvajalcev (10. člen, 81. člen ZJN-3). V
takšnih primerih že v ponudbi navedejo konkretne podizvajalce.
Če ponudnik ne navede podizvajalcev v ponudbi, jih lahko naročniku sporoči pozneje.
Izbrani ponudnik mora o vsaki spremembi podizvajalca (spremembi glede na navedbe iz
ponudbe) ali o novih podizvajalcih obvestiti naročnika v 5 dneh po spremembi (tretji
odstavek 94. člena ZJN-3). Razumeti je, da sprememba pomeni sklenitev pogodbe z
novim podizvajalcem. Takrat mora naročniku tudi posredovati podatke in dokumente o
podizvajalcih.
V ponudbi ali po sklenitvi pogodbe s podizvajalcem mora ponudnik posredovati
naročniku (drugi odstavek 94. člena ZJN-3):
- kontaktne podatke o podizvajalcu (vsaj firmo in naslov) in njegovem zakonitem
zastopniku,
- opis dela javnega naročila, ki ga bo izvajal določeni podizvajalec,
- enotni evropski dokument v zvezi z oddajo javnega naročila (ESPD) iz 79. člena
ZJN-3 za podizvajalca,
- zahtevo podizvajalca za neposredno plačilo, a le, če podizvajalec to zahteva
(glejte 6. točko komentarja tega člena).
V kolikor ponudnik (glavni izvajalec) krši obveznost obveščanja o podizvajalcih ali
katero od ostalih obveznosti iz 94. člena ZJN-3 mora naročnik podati predlog za uvedbo
postopka o prekršku (sedmi odstavek 94. člena ZJN-3).
3.4 Obveznost naročnika, da plača podizvajalcu
V prvem poglavju prispevka je navedeno, da so v teoriji podani različni odgovori na
vprašanje ali je ZJN-2 določil takšne obveznosti naročnikov in ponudnikov, da ob
izpolnitvi teh obveznosti nastopi naročnikova obveznost neposrednih plačil
podizvajalcem. Po ZJN-2 je bilo torej odprto vprašanje ali mora naročnik namesto
izbranemu ponudniku, plačati podizvajalcu.
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
V. Kranjc: Obligations of Contracting Authorities to Manufacturers Under Directive
2014/24/EU and ZJN-3
125
V primerjavi z ZJN-2 je ZJN-3 v 94. členu spremenil ureditev o neposrednih plačilih
podizvajalcem pri pogodbah o javnem naročanju. Nesporno je, da ZJN-3 ne vzpostavlja
sistema, po katerem bi v pogodbah o javnem naročanju avtomatično veljalo, da naročniki
plačujejo podizvajalcem, namesto svojim pogodbenim strankam – izbranim ponudnikom.
V drugem in petem odstavku 94. člena ZJN-3 je določeno, da mora naročnik plačati
podizvajalcu le, če podizvajalec to zahteva in če podizvajalec to zahteva na način iz ZJN-
3. V zakonodajnem gradivu za sprejem ZJN-3 je glede podizvajalcev navedeno, da zakon
zagotavlja večjo transparentnost v podizvajalski verigi, obveščanje o tem, kdo je na
gradbišču in odgovornost glavnega izvajalca za posredovanje informacij.22
Podizvajalec, tudi podizvajalec iz pogodb o javnem naročanju, lahko zahteva neposredno
plačilo od glavnega izvajalca (izbranega ponudnika po pravilih javnega naročanja) tudi
po pogojih iz 631. člen OZ. Če podizvajalec zahteva plačilo od naročnika, če je
podizvajalčeva terjatev do glavnega izvajalca/ponudnika dospela, če je terjatev glavnega
izvajalca/ponudnika do naročnika dospela, če se obe terjatvi nanašata na ista dela in če je
podizvajalčeva terjatev do glavnega izvajalca/ponudnika s strani le-tega pripoznana,
naročnik mora plačati podizvajalcu in ne svoji pogodbeni stranki – glavnemu
izvajalcu/ponudniku.
Po spremenjenih pravilih o plačilih podizvajalcem iz ZJN-3 mora podizvajalec zahtevati
neposredno plačilo. Po 631. členu OZ zahteva plačilo od naročnika, ZJN-3 pa ne pojasni
od koga zahteva podizvajalec plačilo. Razumeti je, da bi naj ponudnik svojega
morebitnega podizvajalca vprašal, ali bo zahteval neposredno plačilo od naročnika po
ZJN-3. Če podizvajalec to zanika, ponudnik nima obveznosti iz petega odstavka 94. člena
ZJN-3. Ponudnik obvesti naročnika, da del naročila izvaja s podizvajalcem, navede le
kontaktne podatke o podizvajalcu in pošlje obrazec ESPD za podizvajalca. Podizvajalec
bo lahko kasneje zahteval neposredno plačilo od naročnika po pogojih 631. člena OZ.
Predvidevati je mogoče, da se bodo v vrsti primerov ponudniki raje odločali za
podizvajalce, ki ne bodo zahtevali od ponudnikov, da le-ti izpolnijo obveznosti iz ZJN-3
glede plačil podizvajalcem.
V petem odstavku 94. člena ZJN-3 je določeno, da posebne obveznosti naročnika in
glavnega izvajalca (ponudnika) nastopijo le, če podizvajalec zahteva plačilo v skladu in
na način, določen v drugem in tretjem odstavku 94. člena ZJN-3. Drugi in tretji odstavek
94. člena ZJN-3 o tem ne govorita (o načinu, kako bi naj podizvajalec zahteval
neposredno plačilo).
Razumeti je, da bi naj podizvajalec najprej izjavil ponudniku (glavnemu izvajalcu), da bo
zahteval neposredna plačila od naročnika. V takšnem primeru mora ponudnik (glavni
izvajalec) zagotoviti sledeče:
1. Ponudnik/glavni izvajalec mora v pogodbi o javnem naročilu pooblastiti
naročnika, da na podlagi potrjenega računa oziroma situacije (potrjenega s strani
ponudnika) neposredno plačuje podizvajalcu.
126 24. KONFERENCA: GOSPODARSKI SUBJEKTI NA TRGU IN EVROPSKE DIMENZIJE
V. Kranjc: Obveznosti naročnikov do podizvajalcev po direktivi 2014/24/EU in ZJN-3
2. Podizvajalčevo soglasje, da naročnik namesto ponudnika/glavnega izvajalca
plača podizvajalcu.
3. Ponudnik/glavni izvajalec mora svojemu računu ali situaciji priložiti račun ali
situacijo podizvajalca, ki ga je predhodno potrdil.
Prvo in drugo obveznost lahko ponudnik zagotovi ob sklenitvi pogodbe o javnem
naročilu, seveda le, če takrat že ima podizvajalca, ki zahteva plačilo od naročnika.
Svojemu računu bo ponudnik priložil potrjen račun podizvajalca tekom izvajanja
pogodbe o javnem naročilu. Račun podizvajalca bi naj potrdil, če bo zahtevek
podizvajalca iz računa utemeljen, torej če bo podizvajalec pravilno izpolnil svojo
obveznost.
ZJN-3 ne določa plačilnih rokov, kar pomeni, da so lahko plačilni roki za terjatve
podizvajalca daljši kot plačilni roki za terjatve ponudnika. Prav tako ne predvideva
primerov, ko naročnik ne potrdi računa podizvajalca. Zavrnitev je lahko utemeljena ali
neutemeljena. Vse opisane okoliščine so za zagotovitev neposrednih plačil
podizvajalcem pomembne.
Vse tri ponudnikove obveznosti iz ZJN-3 so enake, kot so bile določene v ZJN-2 (ZJN-2
ni določal, da se podizvajalec izreče ali zahteva neposredno plačilo). Vprašanje ostaja
zato enako: ali mora naročnik po izpolnitvi vseh treh pogojev plačati neposredno
podizvajalcu?
Tisti, ki zagovarjajo stališče, da mora naročnik po izpolnitvi vseh treh pogojev plačati
neposredno podizvajalcu, obveznost argumentirajo s pravili o asignaciji (Hrastnik, 2011:
1142 in 1143). Gospodarski pomen asignacije je ta, da se s plačilom enega dolga
poplačata dva dolga. Pri asignaciji dolžnik (asignant) pooblasti svojega upnika (asignata),
da le-ta namesto njemu, izpolni določeni tretji osebi (asignatarju). Ta tretja oseba je s
strani asignanta izbrana zato, ker je asignantov upnik oziroma bi naj bila asignantov
upnik. Enake ekonomske cilje kot asignacija (z enim poslom doseči prenehanje več
obveznosti) zagotavljajo tudi drugi pravni posli (cesija, odpust dolga, prevzem
izpolnitve). Pravni učinki so seveda različni. Potem, ko so vzpostavljene pravice in
obveznosti iz asignacije, pridobi asignatar direktni zahtevek do asignata (asignantov
upnik pridobi zahtevek do asignantovega dolžnika). V primerjavi z ostalimi posli je
asignatarjev položaj ugodnejši zato, ker je njegova terjatev abstraktna glede na temeljni
posel med asignantom in asignatom. Četudi asignat ne bi dolgoval asignantu ali asignat
ne bi dolgoval asignantu zneska v določeni višini, lahko asignatar od asignata terja znesek
iz asignacije in mu ga je asignat dolžan plačati. Abstraktna narava asignatove obveznosti
je torej poglavitna prednost asignacije za upnika – asignatarja.
Za nastanek pravic in obveznosti iz asignacije (za terjatev asignatarja do asignata) morajo
torej biti izpolnjeni pogoji iz 1035. in 1036. člena OZ:
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
V. Kranjc: Obligations of Contracting Authorities to Manufacturers Under Directive
2014/24/EU and ZJN-3
127
- ena oseba (asignant) mora pooblastiti drugo osebo (asignata), da naj na njen
račun plača določeni tretji osebi (asignatarju),
- asignatar mora biti s strani asignanta pooblaščen za sprejem te izpolnitve,
- asignat mora asignatarju izjaviti, da sprejema asignacijo.
Izpolnjene obveznosti po ZJN-3 ne izpolnjujejo pogojev iz 1035. do 1049. člena OZ o
asignaciji (nakazilu).23
Ni izpolnjen pogoj o dvojni pooblastitvi iz 1035. člena OZ, prav
tako z izpolnitvijo teh obveznosti še ni podana asignatova izjava o sprejemu nakazila iz
1036. člen OZ. Predvsem pa je morebitna vzpostavitev pravnih razmerij iz asignacije
neprimerna. Če bi bila vzpostavljena razmerja iz asignacije, bi to med drugim pomenilo,
da bi moral naročnik plačati podizvajalce, morebitnih napak ali drugačnih kršitev
pogodbe pa od podizvajalcev ne bi mogel uveljavljati. Podizvajalce bi moral plačati,
četudi bi ob dospelosti te obveznosti bilo nesporno, da je bila pogodba o javnem naročilu
kršena.
ZJN-3 v prehodnih in končnih določbah, v 116. členu, določa izvedbene predpise ZJN-
2, ki prenehajo veljati z uveljavitvijo ZJN-3. Uredbe o neposrednih plačilih podizvajalcu
pri nastopanju ponudnika s podizvajalcem pri javnem naročanju iz leta 2007 (ko še ni
veljala ureditev, ki je delno povzeta v ZJN-3 in je bila podlaga za sprejem uredbe bistveno
drugačna) ne navaja. Uredba je prenehala veljati že 2010 z uveljavitvijo novele ZJN-2B,
a se je uporabljala še naprej. ZJN-3 tudi ne določa, da bi naj bil sprejet poseben izvedbeni
predpis glede neposrednih plačili podizvajalcem.
4 Izjava ponudnika o poravnavi obveznosti do podizvajalcev
Šesti odstavek 94. člena ZJN-3 nalaga obveznosti ponudnikom po izvedbi javnega
naročila. Navedeno je, da obveznosti veljajo le za primer, ko ne velja neposredno plačilo
podizvajalcem po 94. členu ZJN-3. V 60 dneh po prejemu plačila (torej končnega plačila)
mora ponudnik/glavni izvajalec javnega naročila poslati naročniku izjavo, da je plačal
podizvajalce. Tej izjavi mora priložiti izjavo podizvajalca oziroma podizvajalcev, da so
prejeli plačilo za njihovo del izvedbe javnega naročila. Obveznost je sankcionirana v
kazenskih določbah ZJN-3 (112. člen).
5 Sklep
Pogodbe o javnem naročanju imajo, skorajda brez izjeme, civilnopravno naravo.
Naročnikom omogočajo pridobivanje blaga, storitev in oddajo gradenj, torej vsega kar
potrebujejo za izvajanje oblastnih in drugih javnih funkcij. Naročniki izvajajo dejavnosti
v javnem interesu. Posamezni nakupi blaga, oddaje storitev in gradenj pa naj ne bi
izkazovali javnega interesa naročnikov. Pravila o javnem naročanju naj bi zagotovila, da
naročniki pri oddaji javnih naročil uveljavljajo enake interese oziroma izbirajo svoje
pogodbene stranke po enakih merilih kot gospodarski subjekti.
128 24. KONFERENCA: GOSPODARSKI SUBJEKTI NA TRGU IN EVROPSKE DIMENZIJE
V. Kranjc: Obveznosti naročnikov do podizvajalcev po direktivi 2014/24/EU in ZJN-3
Zadnja reforma javnega naročanja na ravni EU v primerjavi s starejšimi stališči omogoča
tudi v javnem naročanju uveljavljanje javnih interesov, seveda pod omejenimi pogoji
(Arrowsmith, 2014: 631). S tega vidika so spremenjena pravila o dovoljenih pogojih in
merilih za izbiro pogodbenih stran naročnikov, saj izrecno dovoljujejo tudi tako
imenovane socialne in okoljske pogoje oziroma merila. Tudi zaščita malih in srednjih
podjetij ter podizvajalcev je pogojena z uveljavitvijo javnega interesa. V tej zvezi so
smiselne zahteve po ureditvi, ki bi onemogočala konkuriranje za javna naročila tistim
gospodarskim subjektom, ki ne izpolnjujejo svojih pogodbenih obveznosti, torej
obveznosti do naročnikov in tudi do svojih pogodbenih strank oziroma podizvajalcev.
Zavezati osebe javnega prava oziroma naročnike k obveznostim, ki so tuje splošnim
pravilom pogodbenega prava, pa ima lahko vrsto negativnih posledic, tudi takšnih, ki
izničijo svoj namen. To velja tudi za obveznosti naročnikov do podizvajalcev.24
Notes
1
Obligacijski zakonik, OZ, Uradni list RS, št. 83/2001, 28/2006 – odl. US, 32/2004, 40/2007.
2
Določbe 631. člena OZ o neposrednih plačilih podizvajalcem so po vsebini enake kot prej veljavne
določbe 612. člena Zakona o obligacijskih razmerjih, ZOR, Uradni list SFRJ, št. 29/1978, 39/1985
in 57/1989.
3
Višje sodišče v Ljubljani, I Cpg 1261/2015, z dne 9. 2. 2016, je pojasnilo, da se za izjavo o
pripoznanju zahteva strožja, to je pisna oblika.
4
Posebne gradbene uzance, Uradni list SFRJ, št. 18/1977.
5
FIDIC – kratica za Fédération Internationale des Ingénieurs-Conseils oziroma Mednarodno zvezo
svetovalnih inženirjev, s sedežem v Lozani, Švica.
6
Rdeča knjiga FIDIC (po barvi platnic tiskane izdaje) je skrajšano ime za Pogoji gradbenih pogodb
za gradbena in inženirska dela, ki jih načrtuje naročnik (Conditions of Contract for Construction.
For Building and Engineering Works designed by the Employer. CONS).
7
Rdeča knjiga FIDIC v členu 14.12 določa: When submitting the Final Statement, the Contractor
shall submit a written discharge which confirms that the total of the Final statement represents full
anf final settlement of all moneys due to the Contractor under or in connection with the Contract.
8
Enako o plačilih Bunni, 2013: 547.
9
Po Rdeči knjigi FIDIC se potrdilo o končnem plačilu izda po zaključku del, po OZ in Posebnih
gradbenih uzancah se končna situacija izda ob izpolnitvi pogodbe.
10
Tako je odločilo tudi hrvaško sodišče na podlagi enakega pravila, kot je 631. člen OZ. Navedlo
je, da ni mogoče domnevati konkludentnega pripoznanja s tem, ko naročnik izstavi situacijo in v
tej situaciji obračuna tudi dela, ki jih je izvedel podizvajalec. Pojasnilo je, da mora biti pripoznanje
v zvezi z neposrednimi zahtevki podizvajalcev do naročnikov nedvomno in nesporno. VSRH Rev
1362/1996-2, 21. 2. 2011.
11
Zakon o spremembah in dopolnitvah Zakona o javnem naročanju, ZJN-2B, Uradni list RS, št.
19/2010.
12
Podrobno o pravilih ZJN-2 (ZJN-2, noveli ZJN-2B) o plačilih podizvajalcem, tudi o različnih
stališčih v pravni teoriji (Kranjc, 2014: 95-).
13
Višje sodišče v Celju, Cpg 150/2014, z dne 8. oktobra 2014.
14
Višje sodišče v Ljubljani, I Cpg 509/2015, z dne 2. 12. 2015, je pojasnilo, da mora biti razlaga,
ali je asignat nakazilo sprejel, stroga in restriktivna.
15
Višje sodišče v Ljubljani, II Cp 2304/2014, z dne 11. 2. 2015, Višje sodišče v Kopru, I Pg
1752/2013, z dne 2. 12. 2015.
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
V. Kranjc: Obligations of Contracting Authorities to Manufacturers Under Directive
2014/24/EU and ZJN-3
129
16
Glede vprašanja o obveznosti neposrednih plačil po ZJN-2 je bila s sklepom Vrhovnega sodišča
dopuščena revizija, VSRS sklep III DoR 10/2015, z dne 5.5.2015.
17
Uradni list RS, št. 66/2007.
18
Direktiva 2014/24/EU Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 26. februarja 2014 o javnem
naročanju in razveljavitvi Direktive 2004/18/ES, UL L št. 94 z dne 28. 3. 2014, str. 65.
19
Sodba Sodišča (veliki senat), C-47/07 P, Masdar (UK) Ltd proti Komisiji Evropskih skupnosti,
z dne 16. decembra 2008. Naročnik storitev je bila Evropska komisija, podizvajalec pa družba
Masdar, katera ni dobila plačila od glavnega izvajalca oziroma pogodbene stranke naročnika.
Sodišče je pri odločanju uporabilo pravila oziroma načela, ki so skupna vsem pravnim redom držav
članic. Sodišče ni odločalo na podlagi pravila, kot je 631. člena OZ, ki podizvajalcu ob
izpolnjevanju določenih pogojev priznava pravico zahtevati plačilo neposredno od naročnika.
Sodišče je odločilo, da v primeru, ko pogodbena stranka oziroma izvajalec ne plača podizvajalcu,
le-ta nima zahtevka do naročnika. Tega zahtevka nima na podlagi instituta neupravičene
obogatitve, saj niso izpolnjeni pogoji (ni izpolnjen pogoj o neobstoju pogodbenega temelja).
Zahtevek podizvajalca je zavrnilo tudi na podlagi načela varstva legitimnega interesa.
Podrobneje o odločitvi (Williams, 2010: 555-; Prostor, 2011: 823-).
20
Podrobno o primerjalno pravni ureditvi neposrednih plačil podizvajalcem (Hrastnik, 2014).
21
Zakon o javnem naročanju, ZJN-3, Uradni list RS, št. 91/2015.
22
EVA: 2015-3130-0001, predlog Zakona o javnem naročanju, točka 2.2. Socialni vidiki novih
pravil.
23
Podrobno o asignaciji Vrenčur v (Juhart & Plavšak, 2004: 1077-).
24
UNCITRAL Legal Guide on Drawing Up International Contracts fort he Construction of
Industrial Works, 1988, stran 138 opozarja, sicer v zvezi s pogodbenimi dogovori o neposrednih
plačilih podizvajalcem, da lahko imajo takšna razmerja negativen vpliv tako na razmerje med
naročnikom in izvajalcem kot tudi na razmerje med izvajalcem in podizvajalcem.
Reference
Arrowsmith, S. (2014) The Law of Public and Utilities Procurement: Regulation in the EU and UK
(London: Sweet & Maxwell, Thomson Reuters).
Bunni, N. G. (2013) The FIDIC Forms of Contract, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing).
Cigoj S (1976) Obligacije, sistem splošnega obligacijskega prava v teoriji, sodstvu in primerjalnem
pravu (Ljubljana: Časopisni zavod Uradni list SR Slovenije).
Hrastnik, B. (2011) Ureditev neposrednih plačil podizvajalcem, Podjetje in delo, 37(6/7), 2011, pp.
1135-1145. Dnevi slovenskih pravnikov 2011 od 13. do 15. oktobra, Portorož
Hrastnik, B. (2014) Neposredni zahtevki podizvajalcev ob stečaju glavnega izvajalca, doktorska
disertacija (Ljubljana: Pravna fakulteta Ljubljana).
Juhart, M. & Plavšak, N. (2004) Obligacijski zakonik s komentarjem, posebni del, 4. knjiga (ur),
(Ljubljana: GV Založba).
Kranjc, V. (2014) Neposredna zahteva podizvajalcev do naročnika pri razmerjih, ki izhajajo iz
javnih naročil, Pravosodni bilten, 35(1), pp. 95-118.
Prostor, J. (2011) Zahtevek podizvajalca do naročnika posla, Podjetje in delo, 37(5), pp- 823-835.
Vukmir, R. (2009) Ugovori o građenju i uslugama savjetodavnih inženjera (Zagreb: RRiF-plus)
Williams, R. (2010) Case C-47/07, Masdar (UK) Ltd v. Commission, Judgement of the Grand
Chamber of 16 Decembe 2008, and Case C-446/04, Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation
v. Commissiomers of Inland Revenue, Judgement of the Grand Chamber of 12 December 2006,
Common Market Law Review, 47(2), pp. 555-573.
UNCITRAL Legal Guide on Drawing Up International Contracts fort he Construction of Industrial
Works, (1988), (New York: United Nations.
130 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND
EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
V. Rijavec
Certan Open Issues Regarding the Refusal of Enforcement
Under the Brussels I Regulation in Slovenia
JERCA KRAMBERGER ŠKERLccxx
Abstract The article focuses on some of the open issues that come to light when
combining the Slovenian national law and the recast Brussels I Regulation, especially
regarding the first instance procedure for deciding on an application for refusal of
enforcement under Article 46 of the Regulation, and the manner of adapting a measure or
an order that is not known in the law of the Member State addressed under Article 54 of
the Regulation.The author draws attention to the inappropriate notifications of the
Slovenian authorities regarding the jurisdiction of the national courts concerning different
stages of procedure for refusal of enforcement under the recast Regulation. On the basis
of the comparison with other EU Member States, she proposes that Slovenia modifies
these notifications, so as to determine the jurisdiction of the district court to deal with the
application for refusal of enforcement, and the jurisdiction of appellate courts and the
Supreme Court for further appeals. The author further suggests the omission of the second
appeal, which is not obligatory under the Regulation, and the jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court for the (first) appeal, so as to preserve the coherence of the Slovenian system of
recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.Regarding the adaptation of foreign
measures, the author proposes that a specialized national authority be entrusted with this
task, so as to ensure uniform solutions and facilitate the work of the enforcement
authorities. The procedure of adaptation should be commenced by the enforcement
authority dealing with enforcement in the case at hand, as it would be too big of a burden
for the creditors to realize that adaptation is needed, to demand it and maybe even propose
the appropriate way of adapting the foreign measure. The Slovenian legislator will have
to define the place of the adaptation proceedings within the enforcement proceedings and
determine whether an appeal is possible only when adaptation was carried out or also
when it was refused.
Keywords: • exequatur • enforcement of judgments • adaptation of measures • Brussels
I regulation • recast Brussels I regulation • Brussels I bis regulation • abolition of
exequatur • refusal of enforcement • application for refusal of enforcement • Slovenia
CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS: Jerca Kramberger Škerl, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, University of
Ljubljana, Faculty of Law, Poljanski nasip 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia, e-mail:
jerca.kramberger@pf.uni-lj.si.
DOI 10.18690/978-961-286-004-2.10 ISBN 978-961-286-004-2
© 2016 University of Maribor Press
Available at: http://press.um.si.
132 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
J. Kramberger Škerl: Certan Open Issues Regarding the Refusal of Enforcement Under
the Brussels I Regulation in Slovenia
1 Introduction
In December 2012 the legislatures of the European Union (hereinafter: the EU) adopted
the recast Brussels I Regulation.1
The main reason for the recast of the Regulation was
the wish to abolish the obstacles to the “free circulation of judgments”2
between the
Member States, which had been articulated many times since the end of the 1990s in the
gatherings of the highest political representatives of the EU.
At the time of the recasting of the Brussels I Regulation, several regulations (the co-called
“second generation regulations”)3
were already in force in the EU that abolished the
verifications of judgments from other Member States and provided for the equal
treatment of such judgments and domestic judgments (except in the case of irreconcilable
judgments). The leap to the abolition of exequatur in all civil and commercial matters
was therefore not self-evident, but was expected (at some time in the future).
In 2010, only eight years after the entry into force of the Brussels I Regulation of 2000,4
the Commission presented the proposal for the recast of the Regulation5
, in which a
similar system of the cross-border effect of judgments was foreseen as in the
aforementioned Regulations, complemented by the limited possibility of asserting the
most serious procedural infringements also in the state of enforcement. However, the
consultation process on the basis of the mentioned proposal showed that the Commission
acted (at least) too quickly. The stakeholders deemed that it was not (yet) time for such a
radical step and that the state of enforcement should maintain a broader possibility of
control of the possible grounds for refusal of recognition or enforcement.
We could say that the text that was finally adopted in 2012 is a compromise between the
political wishes (the Commission’s proposal) and the legal reality, or, with the words of
Marta Requejo Isidro, it is “somewhere between renewal and continuity” (Requejo Isidro,
2014: 2). And, as often happens, the compromises, especially in the procedural field,
which demands a great degree of precision and a coherent system, open new questions
and new problems, despite numerous positive novelties. Above all, the Brussels I Recast,
although being a regulation and thus directly applicable, it often cannot be applied in
practice without the implementing provisions of the national law that it requires either
expressly or indirectly (i.e. by not regulating a certain issue).6
Combining the Regulation
with 28 national legal systems will sometimes be hard work; it will inevitably require
modifications and amendments of the national legislations, and, most probably, some
unacceptable differences in application will occur that will have to be remedied by the
Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter the CJEU).
This article focuses on some of the open issues that come to light when we try to combine
the Slovenian national law and the recast Regulation, especially regarding the first
instance procedure for deciding on an application for refusal of enforcement under Article
46 of the Regulation, and the manner of adapting a measure or an order that is not known
in the law of the Member State addressed (i.e. the state of enforcement) under Article 54
of the Regulation. Hopefully, the Slovenian legislature will soon devote more attention
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
J. Kramberger Škerl: Certan Open Issues Regarding the Refusal of Enforcement Under
the Brussels I Regulation in Slovenia
133
to these (and other open) issues, since it is clear that much larger implementation in the
national law will be necessary than that which Slovenia undertook regarding the
Regulation of 2000.
At time of writing of this article (June 2016), Slovenia notified the Commission with the
jurisdiction of courts regarding the remedies under the recast Regulation. However, no
adaptations of the Slovenian legislation have yet been made. It is true that the new
provisions on the recognition and enforcement of judgments did not start to apply at the
very moment of the entry into application of the recast Regulation on 10 January 2015,
since they only apply to judgments issued in proceedings started after that date (it does
not suffice for the judgment to be issued after that date) (Article 66),7
but there is no more
time for hesitation.
2 Procedure for deciding on an application for refusal of enforcement
2.1 The original manner of abolishing exequatur in the Brussels I Recast
The crucial changes in the recast Regulation can be found regarding the enforcement of
judgments from other Member States. Under the Regulation of 2000, the creditor had to
start a special procedure at the district court (Sl. okrožno sodišče) in view of obtaining a
declaration of the enforceability of the judgment (exequatur), which was a prerequisite
for the enforcement of such judgment (Article 38/1). This procedure was unilateral (ex
parte) (Article 41) and the defendant was only notified of its result (i.e. the granting of
exequatur) (Article 42). The defendant then could file an appeal (Sl. ugovor)8
against the
declaration of enforceability, which was again decided upon by the district court (Article
43) and discussed inter partes. Another appeal (Sl. pritožba)9
was possible against such
decision of the district court and could be filed at the Supreme Court of the Republic of
Slovenia (hereinafter: the Supreme Court) (Article 44). An application for the
enforcement of the judgment (Sl. predlog za izvršbo)10
could only be filed once the
decision in the described proceedings became final (Article 38).
The recast Regulation abolished the declaration of enforceability. However, exequatur
was not abolished in the same way as in the so-called “second generation” regulations
(e.g. in the European Enforcement Order Regulation). Contrary to those regulations,
which determine (almost) all possibilities for objecting to the cross-border enforceability
of the judgment in the state of origin of the judgment, under the Brussels I Recast the
debtor can assert grounds for the refusal of enforcement in the state of enforcement
(Article 45 and 46).11
It is thus of utmost importance to distinguish between the “abolition
of exequatur” in the “second generation” regulations and the “abolition of exequatur”
under the Brussels I Recast. We could say that under the latter, exequatur was abolished
in the narrow sense of the word, i.e. only the granting of the declaration of enforceability12
was abolished. The possibility of verification of the grounds for refusal of enforcement
in the state of enforcement remains, however, under different procedural rules.
134 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
J. Kramberger Škerl: Certan Open Issues Regarding the Refusal of Enforcement Under
the Brussels I Regulation in Slovenia
Under the recast Regulation, the debtor can assert, in the state of enforcement, all grounds
for refusal of enforcement (or recognition) that could be asserted under the Regulation of
2000, with one additional ground being a violation of the protective jurisdiction in
employment matters. These grounds are: a manifest contradiction with the substantive
and procedural public policy13
of the state of enforcement, inadequate service of the
introductory document in the proceedings, the irreconcilability of judgments, and a
violation of the most important rules on the regulation of international jurisdiction (i.e.
exclusive jurisdictions and protective jurisdictions when the defendant is the weaker
party) (Article 45).
2.2 Verification of the grounds for refusal of enforcement in separate
proceedings or (also) together with the grounds for refusal of enforcement
under national legislation?
Under Recital 30 of the Regulation, the debtor “should, to the extent possible and in
accordance with the legal system of the Member State addressed, be able to invoke, in
the same procedure, in addition to the grounds for refusal provided for in this Regulation,
the grounds for refusal available under national law”. The national grounds for refusal of
enforcement should thus be available to the debtor at the stage where he/she will be able
to assert grounds from the Regulation.14
It seems that a special procedure for invoking
the grounds from the Regulation should be necessary,15
but it should be possible to invoke
the grounds for refusal under national legislation (also) in that procedure. An important
argument for the requirement of a special procedure is also that the same procedure
should be available regarding an application for refusal of recognition (Article 45/4).16
The recital is, however, not a binding provision of the Regulation. Thus, GascónInchausti
deems that, under Article 47/2, three options are open for Member States as to
the manner in which the courts verify the existence of grounds for refusal under the
Regulation: first, as a so-called incidental question in the enforcement proceedings,
second, as a question decided on together with the objections to enforcement under
national law, or third, as a separate procedure independent of the enforcement procedure
(Gascón-Inchausti, 2014: 243, also 223). In Mankowski’s opinion it would be contrary
to procedural economy if the debtor were forced to start two proceedings if he/she wanted
to assert grounds for refusal of different origin, i.e. from the Regulation and from the
national law.17
The same author argues that the fact that the court cannot verify the
existence of grounds for refusal on its own motion does not exclude the possibility of
Member States regulating the procedure for the refusal of enforcement as preliminary
verification in enforcement proceedings and that no obligation ensues from the
Regulation for States to create a specific remedy only for the refusal of enforcement.18
Slovenia determined that the district courts have jurisdiction for deciding on an
application for refusal of enforcement under the Regulation, whereas the local courts (Sl.
okrajna sodišča) have jurisdiction as to enforcement stricto sensu. Thus, the grounds for
refusal of enforcement from the recast Regulation cannot be asserted otherwise than in a
separate procedure, independently from the grounds for refusal of enforcement under the
national law. This solution seems reasonable, since enforcement proceedings, as currently
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
J. Kramberger Škerl: Certan Open Issues Regarding the Refusal of Enforcement Under
the Brussels I Regulation in Slovenia
135
regulated in the Slovenian legislation, are not appropriate for resolving the complex legal
issues common in the verification of foreign judgments,19
even though, contrary to the
majority of EU Member States, enforcement is entrusted to courts and not to non-judicial
authorities.20
This is also consistent with the Slovenian legal tradition of district courts
having competence to deal with foreign judgments. Unified case law can also probably
be better ensured by the 11 Slovenian district courts with, in principle, more experienced
judges than by the 22 local courts.21
Furthermore, the procedure for deciding on an application for refusal of enforcement
under the Regulation has a non-suspensive nature, i.e. the enforcement proceedings
should, in principle, be conducted without regard to the filing of an application for refusal
under the Regulation. This ensues22
from Recital 31 and from Article 44, which provides
that the court may, when an application for refusal of enforcement is filed, limit
enforcement to protective measures; it may condition the enforcement by the payment of
a security, or fully or partially suspend the enforcement. The debtor thus may demand
any of these measures; however, the court is not obliged to follow such requests and can
pursue enforcement despite the parallel procedure regarding the application for refusal of
enforcement. Hovaguimian warns of the possibility that the (non)suspensive nature of the
application and appeals will be regulated very differently by the Member States so that
in some States the creditor will be satisfied within “mere days after the service of the
certificate […] and only at the end of a third-instance appeal in others.” (Hovaguimian,
2015: 236). In our opinion, the wording of the regulation prevents the Member States
from excluding the possibility of suspension, as well as from providing for automatic
suspension triggered by the procedure for the refusal of enforcement under the
Regulation; however, within these limits, different regulations are obviously possible.
As to the possibility of raising the refusal of enforcement as an incidental question in
enforcement proceedings, contrary to recognition (Article 36/3), no binding article of the
Regulation speaks of such a possibility. Furthermore, if a negative conclusion to
proceedings for the refusal of enforcement is not a prerequisite for enforcement (given
the abolition of exequatur and the non-suspensive nature of the procedure for the refusal
of enforcement), we can hardly speak of an incidental question, i.e. a question upon which
the decision of the court in the principal matter depends. Recognition as an incidental
question in enforcement proceedings is currently possible under the Slovenian national
legislation (the PILPA),23
since no enforcement is possible without a decision on
recognition. Therefore, this solution cannot be transferred to verification of the grounds
for refusal under the recast Regulation. It is interesting to note that even under the
Regulation of 2000, the verification of the grounds for refusal of enforcement as an
incidental question in enforcement proceedings was not possible,24
even though
enforcement was not possible without a declaration of enforceability.
136 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
J. Kramberger Škerl: Certan Open Issues Regarding the Refusal of Enforcement Under
the Brussels I Regulation in Slovenia
2.3 Procedure for deciding on an application for refusal of enforcement: ex
parte (unilateral) or inter partes (adversarial)?
The recast Regulation does not provide an answer to the question of whether procedure
for deciding on an application for refusal of enforcement is a unilateral (ex parte)
procedure or an adversarial procedure, i.e. to the question of whether the opposing party,
the creditor, can participate at that stage of the proceedings. Under Article 47/3, the court
can, in certain cases, require the other party to provide a copy of the judgment and, where
necessary, a translation or transliteration thereof. This could indicate the participation of
the creditor at this stage of the proceedings. However, under Article 49, both parties can
file an appeal against the decision on the application for refusal of recognition and,
according to the notifications Slovenia made to the Commission, district courts have
jurisdiction for such appeal. The same court thus has jurisdiction to decide first on an
application for refusal of jurisdiction, and second, on an appeal against the decision on
the application for refusal of jurisdiction. Further appeal under Article 50 can be filed in
Slovenia at the Supreme Court. Thus it seems the intention was to preserve the system
with a first ex parte stage, a second adversarial stage before the same court, and a third
(adversarial) stage at the Supreme Court, first adopted in the Slovenian PILPA and then
mirrored in the Brussels I Regulation of 2000.
Such solution was appropriate under the Regulation of 2000, where the first stage of the
proceedings for the declaration of enforceability was unilateral and where the court
verified the existence of the grounds for refusal only in the second stage of the
proceedings (when deciding on the debtor’s appeal). In the first stage, the court only
controlled some formal requirements and the participation of the debtor was not
necessary. In the second stage, when the court would verify the grounds for refusal
asserted by the debtor, both parties participated, so the court could decide on the basis of
the allegations and proofs provided by both of them.
However, under the recast Regulation, wherein the first stage under the Regulation of
2000 is abolished, the proceedings actually start at the former second stage (the second
stage under the Regulation of 2000 became, to a substantial degree, the first stage under
the recast Regulation). Contrary to the Regulation of 2000, procedure possibly leading to
the refusal of enforcement is started by the debtor (by an application for refusal) and no
longer by the creditor. The court will thus right away, on the basis of the debtor’s
application, verify the existence of the grounds for refusal. It does not seem sensible from
the point of view of either time or costs (not to mention the burdening of the courts) that
the same court does so first only with the participation of the debtor, and later once more
with the participation of both parties. The only advantage we can see in such a system
would be the possibility of the court rejecting the manifestly ill-founded applications
without the participation of the creditor; however, the debtor can also file an appeal, so
even such advantage is questionable. On the other hand, it seems equally not sensible
(this would also be quite strange to the Slovenian procedural system) if the same court
decided twice in adversarial proceedings in two stages of proceedings on the same subject
matter.
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
J. Kramberger Škerl: Certan Open Issues Regarding the Refusal of Enforcement Under
the Brussels I Regulation in Slovenia
137
According to the information on the E-Justice Portal of the EU,25
only Lithuania, the
United Kingdom (with the exception of Gibraltar), and Slovenia determined that the same
court decides on the application for refusal and on the (first) appeal. The vast majority of
the Member States notified the Commission of the jurisdiction of first instance national
courts for the application for refusal, the jurisdiction of the second instance national
courts for the first appeal, and the jurisdiction of the third instance court for the second
appeal, if provided. These States most probably all provided for an adversarial procedure
from the first stage onwards.26
Briggs wrote that “the first occasion on which the grounds
[for refusal] […] are debated is the inter partes application by the judgment debtor for a
refusal of enforcement” and that “Regulation 1215/2012 provides more opportunities for
genuine inter partes argument about the recognition or enforcement of the judgment than
the Regulation 44/2001 did, which is perhaps surprising.”27
2.4 Possible solutions de lege ferenda
The current Slovenian determination of jurisdiction for the different stages of the
proceedings under the recast Regulation seems inappropriate. It would be better to follow
the example of the vast majority of Member States and notify the Commission of the
jurisdiction of the district courts for the (adversarial) proceedings for deciding on an
application for refusal of enforcement, and the jurisdiction of the courts of higher
instances for the appeals.
Regarding the appeals, the best solution, in our view, would be to leave the appellate
courts out of the procedure, as this is the case in the recognition procedure under the
Slovenian PILPA and in the procedure for the declaration of enforceability under the
Regulation of 2000, and just provide one appeal (Sl. pritožba) before the Supreme Court
(Sl. Vrhovno sodišče). Namely, the recast Regulation in fact provides for one extra appeal
in comparison with the previous version of the Regulation. The previous procedure,
which was actually a two-stage procedure, with the first stage divided in two, is now a
three-stage procedure, and this is probably the reason why the states must not necessarily
provide a second appeal (Article 50). Being that this verification happens at the stage
where the judgment is enforceable (and mostly final) in the Member State of origin, it is
difficult to find reasons for such extensive possibility of review in the state of
enforcement. This is especially true since the court deciding on the second appeal will
also be able to suspend or limit the enforcement (Article 51) and thus delay the
satisfaction of the creditor until the end of such three-stage proceedings (whereas the
Regulation does not set any time limits for the appellate stages to be finished and only
states that the first stage must be conducted without delay (Article 48)).28
The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court for deciding on the appeal under Article 49 and
the renouncing of the second appeal also brings together the advantages of a shorter
procedure (only one appeal) and of the unification of the case law through the highest
court in the country.29
138 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
J. Kramberger Škerl: Certan Open Issues Regarding the Refusal of Enforcement Under
the Brussels I Regulation in Slovenia
3 The adaptation of a measure or order unknown in the state of enforcement
3.1 The first instance proceedings regarding adaptation
Article 54/1 provides that “if a judgment contains a measure or an order which is not
known in the law of the Member State addressed, that measure or order shall, to the extent
possible, be adapted to a measure or an order known in the law of that Member State
which has equivalent effects attached to it and which pursues similar aims and
interests.”30
Recital 28 to the Regulation provides: “[w]here a judgment contains a
measure or order which is not known in the law of the Member State addressed, that
measure or order, including any right indicated therein, should, to the extent possible, be
adapted to one which, under the law of that Member State, has equivalent effects attached
to it and pursues similar aims. How, and by whom, the adaptation is to be carried out
should be determined by each Member State.”31
Article 54/1 also provides that the
adaptation shall not result in effects going beyond those provided for in the law of the
Member State of origin. The doctrine speaks of the requirement of a “functional
equivalence” (Requejo Isidro, 2014: 9).
First, the doctrine emphasises that if the States are free to regulate the manner of adapting
foreign measures, they cannot simply refuse to proceed to carry out such adaptation if
necessary (and possible).32
Various authors are especially worried about the very loose
regulation of such adaptation in the Regulation.33
The adaptation of a foreign measure to
one existing in the national legal order can namely be a very complex legal question
demanding a good knowledge of comparative law and often of a foreign language.
Being that neither the Regulation nor the Slovenian national legislation provide for a
different option, the courts with jurisdiction for enforcement proceedings, i.e. the local
courts, will, for the time being, have to carry out this task.34
Timmer mentions the option
of establishing a special authority charged with adaptation when needed, which would
facilitate the work of the enforcement courts (Timmer, 2013: 138). On the other hand,
such a solution could, in the view of that author, put the creditor in the awkward position
of having to assess him/herself whether the foreign measure needs adaptation in the state
of enforcement and thus the specialised authority should be seised of the matter first
(Timmer, 2013: 138). Gascón-Inchausti even argues that the party demanding the
enforcement, should, in principle, propose the adaptation; furthermore, such party should
also, if necessary, provide the expertise regarding the substance and the effects of the
foreign measure in order to justify the proposed adaptation (Gascón-Inchausti, 2014:
229).
We would suggest the adoption in Slovenia of the idea of a specialised authority (e.g. one
of the district courts) for two reasons: first, this would facilitate the work of the
enforcement courts, which would not have to deal with the adaptation, and second, this
would ensure unified case law, which is of crucial importance, as it would be
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
J. Kramberger Škerl: Certan Open Issues Regarding the Refusal of Enforcement Under
the Brussels I Regulation in Slovenia
139
unacceptable for different courts to transform the same foreign measure into different
measures under Slovenian law.
We fully agree with Timmer that it could be very difficult for the creditor to recognise
whether adaptation is needed or not. This could, however, be solved in that it would be
the enforcing court that would have to start adaptation proceedings before the specialised
organ in the event it realised the need for adaptation (without the creditor necessarily
losing the possibility of requesting the adaptation him/herself).35
For example, in England
and Wales, Civil Procedure Rule No. 74.11A provides that “[t]he court may make an
adaptation order on its own initiative or on an application by any party.” The case law of
such an adaptation authority would subsequently, naturally, be followed by the
enforcement courts, without further referring the same foreign measures to such
authority.
Not only the initiative for adaptation, but also the finding of a corresponding national
measure should, in our view, be in the hands of the competent national authorities.36
The
idea of the creditor proposing the solution and justifying it seems too harsh on the
creditor, but also not in line with the goal of a uniform case law on adaptation of foreign
measures and of the reducing of obstacles to the free circulation of judgments in the EU.
3.2 Appeals against a decision on adaptation
Article 54/2 further provides that any party may challenge the adaptation of the measure
or order before a court. The doctrine mentions the need for a reasoned decision on
adaptation, in order to make the appeal under Article 54/2 possible and efficient.37
The
same as for the commonly accepted rule on the impossibility of the exequatur of a
decision on (the refusal of) exequatur,38
a decision on the adaptation of a foreign measure
should not be considered to be a decision capable of producing cross-border effects under
the Regulation.39
The provision of Article 54/2 on appeals against a decision on adaptation is also very
general and Member States will have to not only designate the competent court (at this
point, the authority in question must necessarily be a court), but also the scope of such
appeal and the procedure for such appeal. Since the question of adaptation is a question
of law, the parties will probably be able to assert the erroneous application of substantive
law and, naturally, procedural violations at the first instance proceedings on adaptation.
The erroneous application of substantive law will consist of either an erroneous
understanding of the effects, aims, and interests of the foreign measure or order, or in an
erroneous choice of the national measure to replace the foreign one. The national law will
also have to determine who is “any party” who can appeal and within what time limits.40
Fitchen points out that the Regulation is silent on the question of whether an appeal must
be possible only in the event a positive decision on adaptation has been taken, or also in
cases where adaptation was refused; various authors suggest that a wider interpretation
140 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
J. Kramberger Škerl: Certan Open Issues Regarding the Refusal of Enforcement Under
the Brussels I Regulation in Slovenia
would be better,41
and we agree. National law will also have to regulate the interplay
between the adaptation proceedings and the enforcement proceedings.42
3.3 The need for regulation in national law
The cases where adaption will be needed are not very common, but they will be
complicated. It is clear that adaptation proceedings will have to be regulated in the
Slovenian national legislation. Although it could be argued that systems where courts are
entrusted with the enforcement of civil judgments and the enforcement is divided into the
“permission of enforcement” and “actual enforcement”43
are more suited to incorporating
the adaptation into the “permission stage” of the enforcement proceedings,44
the current
organisation and division of tasks at the local courts, as well as the normal course of
enforcement proceedings are not suited to coping with such questions. For the time being,
there are also no provisions on the jurisdiction for appellate proceedings regarding
adaptation, on the time limits for the appeal, or on certain other procedural issues.
Given that the provision of Article 54 allows so much free room for the interpretation of
the Member States, there is a great possibility that the CJEU will be called on to set limits
to the differences among the national legislations, so as to ensure that the goals of the
Regulation are still attained.
4 Conclusion
The recast of the Brussels I Regulation started with great ambition. From the preparatory
process, it is evident that the main goal was the abolition of exequatur. The legal doctrine
and legal practitioners have, on the whole, doubted the need for such reform, since the
system under the Regulation of 2000, even though it was not ideal, worked well and was
improving through the case law of the national courts and the CJEU. Since the adoption
of the recast Regulation, the legal profession has been unanimous in the opinion that the
reform opens at least as many questions as it solves, and that the compromise between
the political endeavour of ensuring the “free circulation of judgments” and the protection
of fundamental rights in the cross-border movement of judgments in the EU did not fully
succeed.45
Domestic judgment and judgments from other Member States are still not treated equally.
Nevertheless, these differences will, in most cases, not come to light, since the debtor
will not always apply for refusal of enforcement (according to the data gathered under
the old Regulation, the debtor will do so in a very small percentage of cases).46
In such
cases, the parties will save time and money that otherwise had to be invested in the
procedure for the declaration of enforceability under the old version of the Regulation.
Another difference between the old Regulation and the recast Regulation seems important
to emphasise: somewhat contradictorily, the recast version leaves national legislatures
more free space than the old version, at least regarding the procedure for refusal of
enforcement, even though it should be a new step towards the cohesion and unification
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
J. Kramberger Škerl: Certan Open Issues Regarding the Refusal of Enforcement Under
the Brussels I Regulation in Slovenia
141
of EU private international law. The delegation of the regulation of important procedural
questions to national laws could mean a step back from the mentioned goals, since states
will inevitably regulate such questions differently.47
Additionally, this limits the
possibility of intervention by the CJEU. Procedural rules must be clear and unequivocal,
as well as very precise, and we could question whether the determination of such rules
via directive-like provisions in the recast Regulation is the best possibility. We can only
agree with the warning of Gascón-Inchausti that, being that so much freedom is given to
the national legislatures, these have to be very careful to make sure that the
“implementation” of the Regulation into the national legislation ensures and supports the
progress towards easier cross-border enforcement (Gascón-Inchausti , 2014: 248).
In any case, it is high time for appropriate intervention by the Slovenian legislature, since
the provisions of the Regulation on recognition and enforcement are starting to apply.
Due to the application of the Regulation only to proceedings started after 10 January
2015, there was some additional time to adapt the national legislations to the Regulation
in the field of recognition and enforcement, but also that additional time is running out
and the courts and parties need clear procedural solutions.
Notes
1
Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December
2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial
matters (recast), OJ L 351 of 20 December 2012.
2
Recital 27 of the Recast Regulation.
3
For example, the European Enforcement Order Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order
for uncontested claims, OJ L 143 of 30 April 2004).
4 Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition
and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 12 of 16 January 2001.
5
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the
recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Recast) of 16
December 2010, COM (2010) 748 final.
6
The phenomenon of regulations demanding implementation is not new to EU law: see, e.g., (Craig
& De Burca, 2008: 278), and the CJEU judgment, C-403/98, Azienda Agricola Monte Arcosu, 11
January 2001.
7
Gascón-Inchausti deems that since the court of the state of origin of the judgment will issue the
certificate from the Annex I, such court will apply its national law regarding the determination of
the starting point of the proceedings: (Gascón-Inchausti, 2014: 215). For the application of the
national law of the state of origin of the judgment already for the determination of the time of the
starting of the procedure under the Regulation of 2000, see (Kramberger Škerl, 2014).
8
See, e.g., judgment of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia, No. Cpg 8/2015 of 28
October 2015.
9 Ibid.
10
Article 40 of Zakon o izvršbi in zavarovanju [Claim Enforcement and Security Act], Official
Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 3/2007 (consolidated version), with subsequent
amendments.
142 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
J. Kramberger Škerl: Certan Open Issues Regarding the Refusal of Enforcement Under
the Brussels I Regulation in Slovenia
11
E.g., the certification as a European Enforcement Order requires the court in the state of origin
of the judgment to verify a number of conditions (Article 6 of the EEO Regulation), however,
further control in the state of enforcement is not possible. On the other hand, the certificate of
Annex I to the Brussels I Recast is issued without verifications as to the jurisdiction of the court of
origin or the minimal procedural guarantees; the debtor has the possibility to invoke the grounds
for refusal of enforcement in the state of enforcement. Cf. (Gascón-Inchausti, 2014: 214).
12
I.e. the first (ex parte) stage of exequatur proceedings under the Regulation of 2000.
13
CJEU, Krombach v. Bamberski, C-7/98 of 28 March 2000, and, e.g., (Kramberger Škerl, 2011:
469-472).
14
Cf. (Domej, 2014: 515).
15
See e.g. Francq in (Magnus & Mankowski, 2016: 953): “A new procedure is established by the
Regulation. It is not mandatory, but conditional upon an application of the person against who
enforcement is sought.”
16
Cf. (Requejo Isidro, 2014: 8).
17
Mankowski in (Rauscher, 2016: 1119).
18
Mankowski in (Rauscher, 2016: 1117).
19
It must be noted that in cases where no application for refusal of enforcement is filed, the
enforcement court will have to determine if the judgment falls within the scope of the Regulation,
which can already be a difficult issue to solve. The majority of the doctrine is namely of the opinion
that the fact that the certificate from Annex I was issued in the Member State of origin does not
bind the Member State of enforcement regarding the applicability of the Regulation: (Hovaguimian,
2015: 224-226).
20
Cf. (Hovaguimian, 2015: 221).
21
Cf. (Kramberger Škerl, 2012).
22
For such interpretation, see also Mankowski in (Rauscher, 2016: 1117).
23
Zakon o mednarodnem zasebnem pravu in postopku [Private International Law and Procedure
Act], Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, Nos. 56/1999, 45/2008.
24
See Article 38/1 of the Regulation of 2000 and, a contrario, Article 33/3 on the automatic
recognition of judgments.
25
The information on the courts that have jurisdiction to decide on an application for refusal of
enforcement and the legal remedies against the decision on such application are accessible on the
European E-Justice Portal: https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_brussels_i_regulation_recast-350en.do?clang=en
(accessed on 31 May 2016).
26
For Germany, see Mankowski in (Rauscher, 2016: 1127) (the author cites Begründung der
Bundesregierung zum Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Durchführung der Verordnung (EU) Nr
1215/2012 sowie zur Änderung sonstiger Vorschriften, BT-Drs 18/823, 22 Zu § 1115 ZPO-E). The
obligation to hear the party opposing the application for refusal is regulated in Article 1115/4 (3rd
sentence) of the German ZPO. See also (Domej, 2014: 513).
27
(Briggs, 2015: 687). See also (Hovaguimian, 2015: 238), who speaks about the possibility of
limitations of enforcement until the end of the second appellate proceedings, “a limitation that may
even stretch for the length of three contradictory proceedings.”
28
Cf. (Hovaguimian, 2015: 217).
29
Cf. (Domej, 2014: 513, 514).
30
Gascón-Inchausti argues that Article 54/1 probably originates in the CJEU judgment DHL
Express France v. Chronopost SA, C-235/09, 12 April 2011, on the recognition and enforcement
of coercive measures (Fr. astreinte) under the Regulation No. 40/1994 (Gascón-Inchausti, 2014:
229). Cf. Kramer in Magnus, Mankowski, p. 970.
31
As examples where adaptation would be necessary, Hovaguimian cites specific search orders
and measures to gather evidence for expert reports: Hovaguimian, p. 230. Gascón-Inchausti
mentions the coercive measures (Fr. astreinte) which do not exist in all legal systems or have
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
J. Kramberger Škerl: Certan Open Issues Regarding the Refusal of Enforcement Under
the Brussels I Regulation in Slovenia
143
different effects in other legal systems and the orders in personam from the British and Irish legal
systems: (Gascón-Inchausti, 2014: 229).
32
Fitchen in (Dickinson & Lein, 2015: 506).
33
See, e.g., (Timmer, 2013: 137-139); Fitchen in (Dickinson & Lein, 2015: 506).
34
Cf. Fitchen in (Dickinson & Lein, 2015: 507), Kramer in (Magnus & Mankowski, 2016: 973,
974).
35
Cf. Fitchen in (Dickinson & Lein, 2015: 507).
36
Cf. Kramer in (Magnus & Mankowski, 2016: 972).
37
Fitchen in (Dickinson & Lein, 2015: 507).
38
Mankowski suggests that the finding of other grounds for refusal except public policy (which
can be interpreted differently in each Member State) should actually be recognised in other Member
States, so as to ensure that they are interpreted in the same way throughout the EU: Mankowski in
(Rauscher, 2016: 1122).
39
Cf. Fitchen in (Dickinson & Lein, 2015: 508). Mankowski in (Rauscher, 2016: 1120).
40
Cf. Fitchen in (Dickinson & Lein, 2015: 510).
41
Authors cited by Fitchen in (Dickinson & Lein, 2015: 510).
42
Ibid.
43
E.g. those of Slovenia and Austria. In Germany, on the other hand, the court simply issues an
“enforceable judgment”, i.e. a copy of the judgment followed by a declaration of enforceability
(Vollstreckungsklausel) (Article 724 of the German Zivilprozessordnung [Civil Procedure Act]).
The enforcement can be opposed to by an autonomous legal remedy called “opposition to
enforcement” (Vollstreckungsgegenklage).
44
On (the difficulties in) combining the national rules on enforcement and the ones from the
Brussels I Regulation, see, e.g., (Ekart & Rijavec, 2010: 142-146). Hovaguimian, on the other hand,
argues that also non-judicial authorities entrusted with enforcement are, in most Member States
(with the notable exception of Germany) highly qualified lawyers who can also deal with such
adaptation, if necessary: (Hovaguimian, 2015: 231).
45
For more on the non-existence of the relevant arguments for the reform and on the downsides of
the new regulation, see, e.g., (Timmer, 2013: 129-147).
46
Heidelberg Report, No. 52. The study showed that an appeal is lodged in only 1–5% of
procedures for the declaration of enforceability.
47
Hess speaks about a “renationalisation” of the verification of the judgment: (Hess, 2011: 129).
Cf. also Mankowski in (Rauscher, 2016: 1125; Hovaguimian, 2015: 242); Cuniberti, Rueda in
(Magnus & Mankowski, 2016: 955).
References
Briggs, A. (2015) Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments, 6th ed. (Abingdon (Oxon), New York (NY):
Informa law from Routledge).
Craig, P. P. & De Búrca, G. (2008) EU Law, Text, Cases and Materials, 4th ed. (Oxford: Oxford
University Press).
Dickinson, A. & Lein, E. (eds.) (2015) The Brussels I Regulation Recast, (Oxford: Oxford
University Press).
Domej, T. (2014) Die Neufassung der EuGVVO, Quantensprünge im europäischen
Zivilprozessrecht, Rabels Zeitschrift für auslaendisches und internationales Privatrecht, 78(3),
pp. 508-550, doi: 10.1628/003372514X682685.
Ekart, A. & Rijavec, V. (2010) Čezmejna izvršba v EU, osrednja tema evropskega civilnega
procesnega prava, (Ljubljana: GV Založba).
144 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
J. Kramberger Škerl: Certan Open Issues Regarding the Refusal of Enforcement Under
the Brussels I Regulation in Slovenia
Gascón-Inchausti, F. (2014) La reconnaissance et l’exécution des décisions dans le règlement
Bruxelles I bis, In: Guinchard, E. (ed.) Le nouveau règlement Bruxelles I bis, pp. 205-248
(Bruylant).
Hess, B. (2011) Die Reform der EuGVVO und die Zukunft des Europäischen Zivilprozessrechts,
IPrax, 31(2), pp. 125-130.
Hovaguimian, P. (2015) The enforcement of foreign judgments under Brussels I bis: false alarms
and real concerns, Journal of Private International Law, 11(2), pp. 212-251, doi:
10.1080/17441048.2015.1068001.
Jenard, P., Report on the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and
commercial matters, OJ EC No. C-59/79.
Kramberger Škerl, J. (2011) European public policy (with an emphasis on exequatur proceedings),
Journal of Private International Law, 7(3), pp. 461-490, doi: 10.5235/jpil.v7n3.461 .
Kramberger Škerl, J. (2012) The Abolition of Exequatur in the Proposal for the Review of Brussels
I Regulation, In: Rijavec, V. & Ivanc, T. (eds.). Cross-border civil proceedings in the EU:
(conference papers), pp. 127-151 (Maribor: Faculty of Law).
Kramberger Škerl, J. (2014) Uporaba uredbe Bruselj I ratione temporis, Podjetje in delo, 40(3/4),
pp. 528-543.
Magnus, U. & Mankowski, P. (2016) Brussels Ibis Regulation, Commentary (European
Commentaries on Private International Law) (Köln: Sellier, Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt)
Rauscher, T. (ed.) (2016) EuZPR – EuIPR, Europäisches Zivilprozess- und Kollisionsrecht,
Kommentar, Brüssel Ia-VO, 4th ed. (Köln: Sellier, Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt).
Requejo Isidro, M. (2014) Recognition and Enforcement in the new Brussels I Regulation
(Regulation 1215/2012, Brussels I recast): The Abolition of Exequatur, available at:
http://www.ejtn.eu/PageFiles/6333/Requejo_Doc.pdf (June 5, 2016).
Hess, B., Pfeiffer, T & Schlosser, P. (2007) Report on the Application of the Brussels I Regulation
in the Member States (“The Heidelberg Report”): study JLS/C4/2005/03 (Ruprecht-Karls
Universität Heidelberg, Institut für ausländisches und internationales Privat- und
Wirtschaftsrecht), available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/news/docs/study_application_brussels_1_en.pdf (May 31,
2016).
Timmer, L. J. E. (2013) Abolition of Exequatur under the Brussels I Regulation: Ill Conceived and
Premature?, Journal of Private International Law, 9(1), pp. 129-147, doi:
10.5235/17441048.9.1.129.
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND
EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
V. Rijavec
Overview of the Croatian enforcement system with focus
on the remedies
IVANA KUNDAcclxviii
Abstract This chapter is intended to serve as a summary of the most
important features related to remedies available in the course of
enforcement proceedings before Croatian authorities. It should provide
basis for the purpose of comparative study of different EU systems. Main
characteristics and legal sources of Croatian enforcement law are identified
in the initial section, while the central sections deal with various remedies
available throughout the enforcement proceedings.
Keywords: • Croatian law • means of enforcement • remedies against
enforcement • territorial jurisdiction • enforcement title • competent bodies
• executory debenture • enforceability certification
CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS: Ivana Kunda, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, University of Rijeka,
Faculty of Law, Hahlić 6, HR-51000 Rijeka, Croatia, e-mail: ikunda@pravri.hr.
DOI 10.18690/978-961-286-004-2.11 ISBN 978-961-286-004-2
© 2016 University of Maribor Press
Available at: http://press.um.si.
146 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
I. Kunda: Oweview of the Croatian Enforcement System With Focus on the Remedies
1 Outline of the Croatian enforcement system
1.1 Legal sources
The sedes materiae of the Croatian enforcement law is the Enforcement Act (hereinafter:
the EA).1
It is regularly amended, the most recent amendment being currently at the stage
of the public consultations on the Draft Proposal.2
This Act is complemented by several
other acts, including the Conducting Enforcement over the Pecuniary Means Act3
as well
as for specific domains the Family Act,4
the Maritime Code5
and the Tax General Act6
which subsidiary refer to the EA as lex generalis. The EA is also subsidiary relying on
the rules established in the Civil Procedure Act (hereinafter: the CPA).7
The rules
essentially govern procedural issues related to organisation and structure, competence
and functional aspects, as well as substantive issues such as the existence of the claim,
the object of enforcement, effects of enforcement of the rights of third parties, priority
etc. (Dika, 2007: 6-7). The proceedings for securing claims are also regulated under the
EA, but they do not fall within the scope of this chapter.
1.2 Essential features of the system
Civil enforcement is understood as the proceedings in which the coercion, ordered by the
Court or the Public Notary, is used against the respondent for the purpose of realisation
of the applicant’s right.8
Thus, the sovereignty element in the exercise of the enforcement
seems to dominate the conceptual basis of the system. If one were to qualify the Croatian
enforcement system under the categories proposed by Hess,9
it would fall under the
broader category of the court-oriented systems, often called by the name of the famous
Austrian jurist – the Franz Klein systems. It is also traditionally a centralised system.
However, a past decade is witnessing a slight shift away from the strict court-orientation
and centralised structure. The three stages were the introduction of the function of Public
Notaries into the enforcement procedures in 2005, the introduction of the role of the
Financial Agency (the Croatian acronym is FINA),10
acting along with the Croatian
National Bank and banks, in the enforcement of the pecuniary-claims, available since the
beginning of 2011, and further advanced of the FINA’s competences in the form of the
direct collecting (izravna naplata) thought the FINA, without the need for the
involvement of either the court of the Notary Public as of October 2012.
1.3 Means of enforcement and territorial jurisdiction
Under the principle nulla executio sine lege enshrined in the EA, the means of
enforcement are enumerated in the closed list. As a rule, enforcement may be ordered and
conducted by any means of enforcement using any object of enforcement for that purpose
which is identified by the applicant, irrespective of the nature of the enforced claim.11
Yet, owning to the nature of the claims, the law differentiates between means of
enforcement measures to carry out the involuntary collection of the pecuniary claim and
those available to coerce realisation of non-pecuniary claims. Examples of the former are:
enforcement against an immoveable, enforcement against a moveable, enforcement
against debtor’s pecuniary receivables, enforcement against the debtor’s claim to have an
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
I. Kunda: Oweview of the Croatian Enforcement System With Focus on the Remedies
147
immoveable or a moveable handed over, enforcement against the stocks or shares in the
company, enforcement against other property such as patents, ususfructus etc.12
Examples of the latter are: enforcement to hand over and deliver a moveable, enforcement
to vacate and hand over an immoveable, enforcement to receive performance, endurance
or omission, enforcement to return an employee back to work, enforcement to divide an
immoveable or a moveable, enforcement to obtain a statement of will.13
Territorial jurisdiction of the courts and Public Notaries is established for each of the
means of enforcement depending on the nature of such means. For instance, to decide
and carry out enforcement against an immoveable, the immoveable has to be within the
territorial scope of the enforcement court.14
The same rule applied for enforcement
against a moveable, and in case the moveable is of unknown location, competence leis
with the court for the place of the respondent’s domicile or seat.15
In situations in which
enforcement is against respondent’s pecuniary receivables the competence belongs to the
court for the place of the respondent’s domicile/seat, in the absence of such domicile in
Croatia, the respondent’s residence, and in the absence of such residence in Croatia, the
domicile/seat of the respondent’s debtor, and in the absence of such domicile, the
residence of the respondent’s debtor.16
1.4 Enforcement titles and conditions for enforcement
Enforcement may be ordered on the basis of either of the two sorts of documents: 1) the
enforcement tile document having the titulus executionis (ovršna isprava) such as an
enforceable judgment, a court settlement, an arbitration award, or a document containing
the clausula exequendi (a notarial deed), and 2) the authentic document (vjerodostojna
isprava) which does not have the credibility of an enforcement tile document but merely
indicates the existence of the claim, such as public document, invoice, excerpt from the
company’s financial books or bill of exchange accompanied with the protest. The
difference between two categories of documents reflects in the (non-)conditionality of
the enforcement ordered on the basis of each: While the enforcement of the former
document category is ordered unconditionally, the enforcement of the latter is ordered
under condition that the respondent does not object to the enforcement.
One peculiarity of the Croatian system is the executory debenture (zadužnica) introduced
in 1996. Executory debenture serves the purpose of securing a claim. If confirmed by the
Public Notary and entered into the Register of executory debentures and bianco executory
debentures is enforced directly by the FINA as if this is enforceable enforcement decision.
If merely confirmed by the Notary Public without being registered, the FINA will proceed
as if this is a request for direct collecting.17
As such, the executory debenture is “a
Croatian product” (Vukmir, 2010: 5-7) and quite unknown in the comparative law.18
The enforcement court will proceed based on an enforcement title document provided it
is enforceable, which is proven by the enforceability certification (potvrda ovršnosti).19
Such certification (known as clause exécutoire or Vollstreckbarkeitsklausel) is issued by
the court which rendered the decision whose enforceability is being confirmed.20
148 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
I. Kunda: Oweview of the Croatian Enforcement System With Focus on the Remedies
Actually, the original or the authenticated copy of the decision in question is often
stamped, the stamp stating that the decision has acquired the enforceability character as
of certain date. Alternatively, the court may issue such certification on a separate sheet.
In addition to enforceability certification, the enforcement title document need to be
suitable for enforcement. Suitability derives from the content of the document, essentially
it has to be explicit enough to identify the creditor, the debtor, the type, extent and time
for performance of the obligation. In case of decision which orders certain performance,
it has to contain the period of time for voluntary performance; which if missing is
provided by the enforcement court.21
It is important to note that Art. 19 of the EA particularly states that enforcement of the
foreign court or administrative decision or decision of another foreign authority or
enforcement of the foreign public instruments may be ordered and carried out in Croatia
provided that such decision or instrument fulfils the enforcement requirements or if so
prescribed by an act, international agreement or directly applicable EU legal instrument.
1.5 The role of the court and other competent bodies
Either the court of the Public Notary may order civil enforcement. The courts are
competent to order enforcement based on the document bearing the titulus executionis,
while the Public Notaries are competent to order enforcement based on trustworthy
documents. Yet, the Public Notaries’ authority is limited to situations where there is no
objection by the defendant. In case of an objection raised against the enforcement decree,
the courts resume the enforcement proceedings. The activities related to realisation of the
enforcement ordered by the court (in cases concerned with the enforcement title
documents) or the Notaries Public (in cases ssoncerned with thrustworthy documents) are
carried out by the enforcement administrators22
or the FINA, along with the Croatian
National Bank and banks in general, as the case may be. Thus, as a rule where the basis
for enforcement is the enforcement title document, the enforcement activities are carried
out by the court – the judge and the court employees, and the progress of the enforcement
proceedings is ultimately controlled by the court. In situation in which a basis for
enforcement is a trustworthy document, the Public Notaries, as a profession of public
credibility, are competent to act, so that ordering of the enforcement and carrying out of
the activities related to enforcement lay within them. However, the situation in which an
objection is raised by the respondent results in the competence being exercised by the
courts again.23
The situations falling within the FINA’s competences are twofold: where
FINA is acting merely as the one carrying out the enforcement against pecuniary means
ordered in the enforcement proceedings by the court or the Notary Public, it is the FINA’s
responsibility to carry out the activities related to enforcement, such as keeping the
records, blocking the accounts, transferring the monies. The proceedings remain under
the ultimate control of the courts or the Notary Public as the case may be. However, a
special feature of the Croatian enforcement system is the abovementioned direct
collecting – a function of the FINA which enables creditors to obtain enforcement of
certain pecuniary claims without the need to involve either the court or a Notary Public.
This route is available for the certain subcategories of the enforcement title documents
(enforceable court decisions and settlements, enforceable administrative and employer’s
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
I. Kunda: Oweview of the Croatian Enforcement System With Focus on the Remedies
149
calculation of matured wage and other employment-related payments) which became
enforceable as of 15 October 2012.24
2 Main remedies against enforcement decision
The most important legal remedies available against the decisions on the application for
enforcement are appeal and objection depending on the type of document, which is the
basis for rendering the challenged decision.
2.1 Appeal
2.1.1 Grounds and effects
Where the enforcement decision is rendered based on the enforcement title document, the
remedy available to the respondent is the appeal. Ground for the appeal are enumerated
in the closed list which should be interpreted restrictively (Mihelčić, 2015: 235): 1. lack
of enforcement title; 2. lack of enforceability; 3. enforcement title document was
repealed, annulled, altered or otherwise put out of force; 4. if the parties have agreed in
an official document or a document legalised by a notary public that the creditor shall not
seek enforcement; 5. if the period for enforcement has expired; 6. object exempted from
enforcement, or on which enforcement is limited; 7. creditor is not authorised to seek
enforcement on the basis of an enforcement title document or against the debtor; 8.
condition in the enforcement title document is not fulfilled; 9. the claim has ceased; 10.
the realisation of the claim is prevented due to the later fact; 11. the claim from the
enforcement title document is time barred.25
Deadline to appeal is 8 days from the day of
delivery to the defendant. After the deadline for appeal has expired but not later than by
the end of the enforcement proceedings, the reposndent’s appeal is admissible based on
grounds under 7, 9-11, provided that the ground could not have been justifiably raised
within the deadline for appeal.26
When deciding on the appeal the court’s assessment ex
officio involves the grounds under 1, 3, 5 and 6 (for res extra commercio and claims
arising out of taxes and other levies), as well as erroneous application of substantive law
and substantial violations of the enforcement procedure.27
The appeal is also available to the applicant where the court exceeded the claim stated in
the application or because of the decision on the costs of the proceedings.28
Unlike the
applicant’s appeal, the respondent’s appeal in principle has no suspensive effect over the
ordered enforcement.29
2.1.2 Deciding on the appeal
Two courts are involved in the adjudicating on the debtor’s appeal: the first instance court
which rendered the appealed enforcement decision and the second instance court. Where
the first instance court holds the appeal founded, it may: 1) uphold the appeal and alter
the decision fully or partially and reject the application for enforcement, or 2) repeal the
enforcement decision and dismiss the application for enforcement, 3) or declare that it
150 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
I. Kunda: Oweview of the Croatian Enforcement System With Focus on the Remedies
has no subject-matter or territorial jurisdiction and assign the case to the competent court,
within 30 days.30
Where the respondent’s appeal is based on grounds under 7 or 9-11, the
first instance court has to service the appeal to the applicant, so that he could respond
within 8 days, and then decide on it. If the creditor acknowledges the reasons for the
appeal, the enforcement is terminated. If the applicant disputes the reasons or fails to
respond, the first instance court will instruct the debtor to initiate, within 15 days, a
litigation seeking a ruling that the enforcement is impermissible. If the respondent proves
the appeal grounds by a public document or by the facts which are generally known or
may be established by applying the rules on legal presumptions, the first instance court
will uphold the appeal and terminate the enforcement. Where the first instance court holds
the appeal is unfounded, it has to forward the case to the second instance court within 30
days.31
Prior to making a decision on the appeal, the second instance awaits 8 days for
the applicant to submit the response to the appeal and rules within further 60 days taking
into account the situation at the time when the ruling is issued.32
2.2 Objection
2.2.1 Grounds and effects
Respondent may challenge the enforcement decision rendered on the basis of a
trustworthy document by an objection. Legal grounds for an objection are explicitly
provided in the closed list which is the same as in case of respondent’s appeal if objection
is raised only against the part ordering enforcement.33
Where the deadline for an objection
has expired, the objection is still available based on grounds under 7, 9-11 above, where
the fact has occurred after the enforcement decision has been issued.34
Deadline to submit
an objection is 8 days (except for the enforcement based on a bill of exchange or a cheque,
in which case the deadline is 3 days) and there is in principle no suspensive effect over
enforcement. If the decision on enforcement based on a trustworthy document is
challenged only in part regarding the coasts of the proceedings, instead of the rules on
the objection, the rules on the appeal apply accordingly.35
There is no provision explicitly stating that the applicant has the right to submit an
objection, but the scholarship believes this right should be derived by analogy to the
applicant’s right to appeal against the enforcement decision based on enforcement title
document based on the same grounds (Mihelčić, 2015: 268).
2.2.2 Deciding on the objection
Given the fact that trustworthy documents do not have an enforcement title, the
enforcement decision based on the trustworthy document has two main sections: the
section in which the payment is ordered and the section in which the enforcement is
ordered. An objection may concern either of the two section or the entire decision. Where
the enforcement decision is objected to in its entirety or in part ordering the payment, the
court will declare the enforcement to be out of force and the proceedings will continue as
in case of an objection against the payment order under the CPA.36
Where the objection
concerns only the part of the enforcement decision in which the enforcement is ordered,
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
I. Kunda: Oweview of the Croatian Enforcement System With Focus on the Remedies
151
the proceedings will continue as in case of respondent’s appeal against the enforcement
decision based on enforcement title document explained above.37
In situations where the
objection concerns only a vertically divisible part of the payment order, the other part
becomes final and the enforcement is carried out.38
In all these situation, the decision on the appeal is made by the court. The Notary Public
who rendered the challenged enforcement decision is obliged to forwarded to the court
the appeal along with the entire file for the purpose of deciding upon it (Mihelčić, 2015:
268).
2.3 Third party’s objection
2.3.1 Grounds and effects
Third party’s objection on impermissibility may be submitted against the enforcement
decision rendered based on an enforcement title document or a trustworthy document.
Legal ground for such an objection is that third party is an owner of a holder of a right
regarding the object of enforcement, which right is an obstacle to enforcement on that
object (exception is co-ownership over moveable).39
Such objection has to be submitted
before the enforcement has been completed. It has no suspensive effect.
2.3.2 Deciding on the objection
Third party’s objection is delivered to applicant and responded who have 8 days to submit
their responses. If the objection is proven by means of a final decision, a public document,
or the facts which are generally known or may be established by applying the rules on
legal presumptions, the first instance court decides on the objection in the enforcement
proceedings.40
If the applicant fails to respond or any party to the proceedings challenges
the objection, the first instance court will instruct the third party to commence, within 15
days, litigation against the parties to the enforcement proceedings seeking declaration on
impermissibility of enforcement. This will,. However, not happen where the objection is
proven by means of a final decision, a public document, or the facts which are generally
known or may be established by applying the rules on legal presumptions, as already
explained above.41
3 Other remedies in the enforcement proceedings
3.1 Motion for suspension
3.1.1 Grounds
Motion for suspension of an enforcement decision is available irrespective of whether the
decision is rendered based on an enforcement title document or a trustworthy document.
Conditions for the respondent’s motion for suspension are twofold: first set of conditions
depend on the probability of certain undesirable factual effect (A) and the second is
152 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
I. Kunda: Oweview of the Croatian Enforcement System With Focus on the Remedies
related to legal situation related to the enforcement (B). One of each under A and B has
to be cumulatively fulfilled in order for the enforcement to be suspended. There are two
alternative conditions under A: 1. probability that enforcement would cause him
irreparable damage or nearly irreparable damage or 2. probability that suspension of the
enforcement is necessary to prevent violence. There are ten alternative conditions under
B: 1. legal remedy is filed against the decision which is being enforced; 2. motion for
restitutio in integrum or a motion for retrial concerning enforced decision is filed; 3. an
action is filed to set aside an arbitration award which is being enforced; 4. an action is
filed to repeal or annul a settlement or a notarial deed which is being enforced; 5. the
debtor appealed against the enforcement decision or commenced the litigation; 6. the
debtor appealed against a ruling confirming enforceability of the enforcement title
document or filed a motion for retrial; 7. the debtor or a party in the proceedings seeks
rectification of irregularities occurred in the course of enforcement; 8. enforcement, under
the enforcement title document, depends on simultaneous fulfilment of an obligation by
the applicant, and the respondent refuses to fulfil his or her obligation because the
applicant has not fulfilled his or her obligation or shown any willingness to do so
simultaneously with the respondent; 9. the Croatian Government declared a state of
disaster and on that day the debtor was resident or seated on the respective territory; 10.
there is ongoing ex officio criminal proceedings concerning the claim which is being
enforced.42
Besides the respondent, the applicant also has the possibility to submit the motion for
suspension. The applicant may do so only once and provided that the enforcement has
not commenced. The duration of the suspension is ordered at the court’s discretion.43
Finally, the motion for suspension may be raised by a third party where that party sought
declaration that enforcement on an object is impermissible. The court will grant that
motion provided that the following three conditions are cumulatively met: 1. It is probable
that the third party owns or holds a certain right; 2: should the enforcement be carried
out, the third party would probably suffer irreparable or nearly irreparable harm, and 3.
the third party commenced the proceedings for the purpose of declaring the enforcement
impermissible against the object or enforcement.44
3.1.2 Deciding on the motion to suspend
In the process of deciding on the motion, the court has to determine the above conditions
and either grant or dismiss the motion. The suspension sought by the respondent or a third
party may be conditioned by providing security if so requested by the applicant.45
The
court shall dismiss the motion for suspension if the applicant, provides security for the
damage which the respondent or the third party might suffer as a result of the
enforcement.46
If the applicant accepts suspension or both of the parties agree with a third
party, the court orders suspension without deciding whether conditions are meet.47
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
I. Kunda: Oweview of the Croatian Enforcement System With Focus on the Remedies
153
3.2 Debtor’s motion for counter-enforcement
3.2.1 Grounds
After the enforcement has been completed, the respondent may in the same enforcement
proceedings request the court to order the applicant to return which the latter received as
a result of the enforcement.48
The court will order such return provided that any of the
following conditions is met: 1. the enforcement title document is repealed, altered,
annulled, set out of force or otherwise without effect; 2. the creditor’s claim was settled
by the debtor outside the court and during the enforcement proceedings, thus it was settled
twice; 3. the enforcement decision was repealed and the application for enforcement is
dismissed or rejected, or if the enforcement decision was altered by a final decision; 4.
the enforcement against an object was declared impermissible.49
Deadline for counterenforcement
is 3 months from the moment the respondent become aware of the respective
fact, but not later than 1 year after completing the enforcement.50
3.2.2 Deciding on the counter-enforcement
The respondent’s motion is delivered to the applicant who has 8 days to submit the
response. If the applicant objects to the motion, the court hearing will be scheduled and
decision made. If the applicant fails to respond, the court will decide whether to hold the
hearing or render the decision without one. In the court decision upholding the motion,
the court will order the return of the received within 15 days.51
Such final and enforceable
decision may be counter-enforced under the EA.52
4 Concluding remarks
The focus of this report being on the remedies, it is important to note that the Croatian
enforcement system shows general similarities with some other continental European
systems, primarily Germanic ones, as it is traditionally court-oriented. However, certain
developments and specific socio-economic factors have resulted in new features
muddling the clear water of the formerly very strictly court-oriented approach, including
the involvement of Public Notaries and the FINA. Likewise, there is a special instrument,
which seem not to have obvious counterparts in the comparative law, such as the
executory debenture.
Respondent has several means to challenge the decision on enforcement. The nature of
remedy (appeal and objection) depends on the nature of the enforcement decision, which
in turn depends on the nature of the document that serves as basis for it (enforcement title
document and trustworthy document). In all situations the grounds are numerus clausus
and as a rule do not suspend enforcement.
154 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
I. Kunda: Oweview of the Croatian Enforcement System With Focus on the Remedies
Notes
1
Ovršni zakon, Narodne novine 112/2012, 25/2013 and 93/2014.
2
The public consultation on the Draft Proposal on Amendments to the Enforcement Act was
opened on 25 May 2016 to be closed on 9 June 2016, while the report on the public consultation is
expected on 16 June 2016. See https://esavjetovanja.gov.hr/ECon/MainScreen?entityId=3365 (last
visited on 31 May 2016).
3
Zakon o provedbi ovrhe na novčanim sredstvima, Narodne novine 91/2010 and 112/2012.
4
Obiteljski zakon, Narodne novine 103/2015.
5
Pomorski zakonik, Narodne novine 181/2004, 76/2007, 146/2008, 61/2011, 56/2013 and 26/2015.
6
Opći porezni zakon, Narodne novine 147/2008, 18/2011, 78/2012, 136/2012, 73/2013, 26/2015
and 44/2016.
7
Zakon o parničnom postupku, Službeni list SFRJ 4/1977, 36/1977, 36/1980, 6/1980, 69/1982,
43/1982, 58/1984, 74/1987, 57/1989, 20/1990, 27/1990 and 35/1991, Narodne novine 53/1991,
91/1992, 112/1999, 129/2000, 88/2001, 117/2003, 88/2005, 2/2007, 96/2008, 84/2008, 123/2008,
57/2011, 25/2013 and 89/2014.
8
See generally (Dika, 2007: 1-5).
9
Hess proposes four categories based on the enforcement organs: 1) bailiff-oriented systems
(known also by the French terminology as huissier de justice), 2) court-oriented systems, 3) mixed
systems, and 4) administrative systems (Hess, 2005: 33-36).
10
The FINA was established by the Republic of Croatia by the Financial Agency Act. Zakon o
Financijskoj agenciji, Narodne novine 117/2001, 60/2004 and 42/2005.
11
There are only minor exceptions. See (Mihelčić, 2015: 31).
12
See Arts. 74-245 of the EA.
13
See Arts. 246-277 of the EA.
14
Art. 79 of the EA.
15
Arts. 133 and 134 of the EA.
16
Art. 171 of the EA.
17
Art. 208 of the EA.
18
See further (Marković, Matić and Karačić, 2007; Šafranko, 2010).
19
Art. 25 of the EA.
20
Art. 36 para 2 of the EA.
21
Art. 29 of the EA.
22
The execution administrator is the employee of the court who directly undertakes actions in the
enforcement proceedings (Art. 2, para. 10 of the EA).
23
See infra section 2.2.
24
Art. 209 of the EA.
25
Art. 50, para 1 of the EA.
26
Art. 53 of the EA.
27
Art. 50, para. 5 of the EA.
28
Art. 50, para. 6 of the EA.
29
Art. 50, para 7 pf the EA.
30
Art. 51, para. 2 of the EA.
31
Art. 51, para. 4 of the EA.
32
Art. 51, para. 7 of the EA.
33
Art. 57, para. 2 of the EA.
34
Art. 57, para. 3 of the EA.
35
See Art. 57, para. 1 of the EA. (Mihelčić, 2015: 268).
36
Art. 58, para. 3 of the EA.
37
Art. 58, para. 4 of the EA.
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
I. Kunda: Oweview of the Croatian Enforcement System With Focus on the Remedies
155
38
Art. 58, para. 6 of the EA.
39
Art. 59 of the EA. Thre are certain exceptions where such objection is not permitted, such as in
case o co-ownership. See Art. 61 of the EA.
40
Art. 60, para2 of the EA.
41
Art. 60, para. 1 of the EA.
42
Art. 65, para 1 of the EA.
43
Art. 66 of the EA.
44
Art. 67 of the EA.
45
Art. 65, para 3. and Art. 97, para. 2 of the EA.
46
Art. 68 of the EA.
47
Art. 69 of the EA.
48
This remedy is not available where the enforcment was conducted ex officio.
49
Art. 62, para. 1 of the EA.
50
Art. 62, para. 5 of the EA.
51
Art. 63 of the EA.
52
Art. 64 of the EA.
References
Dika, M. (2007) Građansko ovršno pravo, I. knjiga (Zagreb: Narodne novine).
Hess, B. (2005) Comparative Analysis of National Reports, In: Andenas, M., Hess B. &
Oberhammer, P. (eds.) Enforcement Agency Practice in Europe - JAI/02/FPC/19/UK (London:
BIICL), available at
http://www.biicl.org/files/5001_enforcement_agency_practice_in_europe.pdf (May 31, 2016).
Marković, B., Matić, B. & Karačić, D. (2007) Promissory note as payment security instrument in
the Republic of Croatia, MPRA Paper (Munich Personal RePEc Archive) No. 6325, posted 6.
February 2008 05:49 UTC, available at: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/6325/ (July 14, 2016).
Mihelčić, G. (2015) Komentar Ovršnog zakona (Zagreb: Organizator).
Šafranko, Z. (2010) Zadužnica i njezino novo pravno uređenje, Pravo u gospodarstvu, 49(6), pp.
1487-1527.
Vukmir, B. (2010) Kritički osvrt na zadužnicu, Pravo i porezi, 4, pp. 5-7.
156 24.TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND
EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
V. Rijavec
Selected Issues of Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign
Judgments from the Prespective of EU Member
JIŘI VALDHANS & TEREZA KYSELOVSKÁcccxxi
Abstract The issue of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments
is one of three key areas dealt with by private international law.
Nevertheless, this issue falls not only within the scope of this legal
discipline. For the actual enforcement of a foreign judgment, national
procedural laws play an essential role. The interconnection between private
international law and national procedural law makes this area of law very
interesting issue for further legal research. In this article, we will outline
the fundamental principles and concepts behind recognition and
enforcement, historical development of national approaches to this issue,
and the mechanism through which States take into account foreign
judgments. Consequently, we will present, from the point of view of the
EU Member States, sources of law for recognition and enforcement,
including examples of relevant legal instruments; and resolution of possible
conflicts between legal sources and their application.
Keywords: • recognition • enforcement • foreign • judgments • private
international law • procedural law • national • European Union, Brussels
Convention • Brussels I Regulation • Brussels Ibis Regulation • legal
sources • decision • court • universalism • territoriality • state sovereignty •
reciprocity • exequatur • lex fori • international convention • regulation
CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS: Jiři Valdhans, Ph. D., Assistant Professor, Masaryk University,
Faculty of Law, Department of International and European Law, Veveří 70, CZ-61180 Brno, Czech
Republic, e-mail: jiri.valdhans@law.muni.cz. Tereza Kyselovská, Ph. D., Assistant Professor,
Masaryk University, Faculty of Law, Department of International and European Law , Veveří 70,
CZ-61180 Brno, Czech Republic, e-mail: Tereza.kyselovska@law.muni.cz
DOI 10.18690/978-961-286-004-2.12 ISBN 978-961-286-004-2
© 2016 University of Maribor Press
Available at: http://press.um.si.
158 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
J. Valdhans & T. Kyselovská : Seleted Issues of Recognition and Enforcement of
Foreign Judgments from the Prespective of EU Member States
1 Prologue
The issue of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is one of three key areas
dealt with by private international law. Nevertheless, this issue falls not only within the
scope of this legal discipline. For the actual enforcement of a foreign judgment, national
procedural laws play an essential role. The interconnection between private international
law and national procedural law makes this area of law very interesting issue for further
legal research. This article, however, has no ambition to analyze in depth the interface
between private international law and national procedural law. Such analysis is possible
only on the background of a specific legal instrument governing recognition and
enforcement of foreign judgments, which sets basic parameters of this connection. In this
article, we will outline the fundamental principles and concepts behind recognition and
enforcement, historical development of national approaches to this issue, and the
mechanism through which States take into account foreign judgments. Consequently, we
will present, from the point of view of the EU Member States, sources of law for
recognition and enforcement, including examples of relevant legal instruments; and
resolution of possible conflicts between legal sources and their application.
Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. Why are these two legal institutes so
important, both for the theory of private international law and legal practice? The answer
lies back in the theory of private international law. Decision of a court represents an act
of official authority endowed by a state power which provides protection to rights and
duties of subjects of law. It demonstrates the sovereignty of an issuing state and also
represents the combination1
of both substantive and procedural rules (Steiner, 1970: 244).
As such, it can hold its effects only on the territory of an issuing state (Basedow, Hopt
Zimmermann and Stier, 2012: 1424; Fawcett and Carruthers, 2008: 611; Steiner, 1970:
241; Heyer , 1963: 112) which means that it effects are territorially limited. In layman's
terms - to obtain a favorable judgment is one thing. To be able to enforce it in place
(country) where debtor´s assets are is a completely different issue.2
2 Historical Development
The approach to foreign judgments has changed and evolved during the history. Antique
Rome held the idea of non-recognition and enforcement of judgment issued out of the
Roman Empire (Michaels, 2009: 1). In the following period the concept of universalism
developed mainly in the area of Italy and the Holy Roman Empire based on the idea of
universal power of the pope and the emperor – “supremi principi qui simul omnia
possunt”. Because of the idea of the universally effective Roman law the distinction
between domestic and foreign judgment lost its meaning (Steiner, 1970: 24). Theory of
universalism, which was in the history the most favorable towards foreign judgments,
was overcome by completely opposite tendencies.
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
J. Valdhans & T. Kyselovská : Seleted Issues of Recognition and Enforcement of
Foreign Judgments from the Prespective of EU Member States
159
As a consequence of debilitating power of emperor in the 14th
century and the emergence
of independent states, the universal theory was replaced by the territorial concepts3
built
in the idea that law and all its manifestations have territorially limited effects only. Centre
of these concepts were France (in 1629 by the Code Michaud the effects of foreign
judgments were denied; other European states followed soon (Michaels, 2009: 2)) and
the Netherlands (Steiner, 1970: 240). Further development is based on the conflict of
these two concepts where territoriality is built mainly on the idea of state sovereignty and,
on the other hand, universality built on the idea of the existence of rational rules common
to all legal orders (Ibid, s. 241).4
Despite various efforts it is the territorial approach which
prevails. (Heyer , 1963: 112) Boundaries which prevented the handling of foreign
judgments were built and the only way to get over them was to raise another additional
theory(ies). It was the economic reality together with intensity of cross-border relations
and the need to solve legal problems arising from it which was reflected in need to deal
with foreign judgments even in the states holding the territorial theory. As aptly pointed
by Cheshire, one the essential objects of private international law, which is the protection
of rights acquired under a foreign law, would not be fully attained without permitting the
enforcement of a foreign judgment. (Fawcett and Carruthers, 2008: 610-611) Therefore
different ways how to deal with foreign judgments have been developed in different
states.
Dutch theorists Paul and Johannes Voet and Ulrich Huber had seen the duty to grant
foreign judgment with legal effects in other states as a matter of courtesy in cases of
reciprocity (Basedow, Hopt Zimmermann and Stier, 2012: 1425). Every sovereign state
should deal courteously with other states which also reflect in a duty to recognize
judgments as a manifestation of such a state power. It means that a foreign judgment has
to be taken into account as a general rule (Fawcett and Carruthers, 2008: 612). This
concept had been adopted by Anglo-Saxon law by Joseph Story where it had been
transformed to the form of the theory of vested rights (Steiner , 1970: 241) in the middle
of the 19th
century (Fawcett and Carruthers, 2008: 613). The difference between the
theory of comity and theory of vested rights lies in the object which is to be dealt with.
Theory of comity deals with foreign judgment. It is the judgment itself which is granted
by effects in another state and this privilege is based on comity only. On the other hand,
not the judgment but the vested rights created by the judgment are enforced under the
theory of vested rights (Michaels, 2009: 2). Cheshire uses the term “doctrine of
obligation” which is based on the idea of a debtor who, for procedural purposes, is
regarded as having implicitly promised to pay a certain sum adjudicated by a court
irrespective of the State where the court comes from (Fawcett and Carruthers, 2008: 613).
Side effect is the elimination of the need of reciprocity which is necessary under the
doctrine (theory) of comity.
The idea of requirement to deal with foreign judgment because of comity was overcome
in continental Europe by Savigny´s concept of requirement based on the existence of
international community. But the idea of necessity to deal with foreign judgment,
160 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
J. Valdhans & T. Kyselovská : Seleted Issues of Recognition and Enforcement of
Foreign Judgments from the Prespective of EU Member States
however, has not disappeared. State efforts to overcome the tendency of rejection of
foreign judgment´s effects have led to conclusion of first bilateral legal aid agreements
(Michaels, 2009: 2).
3 Methods of dealing with foreign judgments
Previous part introduced basic information about the historical background – doctrines
or let´s say theories – how states can approach to foreign judgments. Even though the
strict approaches dominate the theory of private international law both territorially and
historically, different efforts to overcome this strictness are evident in most countries.
However, methods how state can input more liberal elements to its approach differ.
Three methods can be distinguished: (Heyer , 1963: 112)
- Exequatur (state agrees with enforceability of foreign judgment on its territory
under certain conditions);
- Registration (execution of foreign judgment is a correlative of registration again
under certain conditions – this method is close to the previous one);
- Transformation (foreign judgment has to be transformed – incorporated – into
the new domestic judgment. It is not the foreign judgment which is executed but
the domestic judgment.
As seen from above mentioned, transformation is the least favorable method (except the
strict rejection of foreign judgments at all), exequatur and registration are more favorable.
Described methods correspond with theoretical approaches when states from continental
Europe tended to use the concept of exequatur while Anglo-Saxon states with theories of
comity/vested rights tended more to the concept of transformation. 5
4 Theoretical background of “recognition” and “enforcement”
In previous parts of this contribution we dealt with more particular issues as historical
development of national approaches and the mechanism through which States take into
account foreign judgments. We would like to return back to the basic legal instruments
we are dealing with – recognition and enforcement. These two instruments are often
mixed together. At least, when the desired result of the whole process of dealing with the
foreign judgment is taken into account, this simplification can be understood.
Nevertheless, merging these two legal instruments, or legal procedures behind them,
represents an error and misunderstanding. On the background of these two legal
instruments we will also address briefly the law applicable and area of this law in
particular.
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
J. Valdhans & T. Kyselovská : Seleted Issues of Recognition and Enforcement of
Foreign Judgments from the Prespective of EU Member States
161
Term “recognition” may be perceived in two senses. It can represent the process of
recognition, i.e. legal procedure when usually court examines the conditions established
by the lex fori which are necessary to grant foreign judgment legal effects in the state of
recognition. The second meaning represents the result of the whole process, i.e. the
situation when foreign judgment is granted by legal effects in the state of recognition and
can be subject to enforcement. When taken into account the first meaning, i.e. the legal
procedure, it is with no doubt covered by lex fori of the state of recognition6
, in particular
by its private international law. In order to avoid any doubt what can be considered lex
fori – not only the national laws but also international treaties both bilateral and
multilateral and, from the perspective of EU countries, also EU law have to be taken into
account. In general, all legal rules effective on the territory of the state of recognition.
The issue of applicable legal rules, levels of their origin and solution of possible conflicts
is addressed in next part of this contribution. For the moment we would like to emphasize
only the logical divergence in the level of favorability in national law in comparison with
international treaties and EU law. National laws are most strict (restrictive) while they
display those territorial concepts addressed above. International treaties represent typical
mean of cooperation between states and are used to establish a better regime of dealing
with judgments issued by a court from another member state. Finally, European Union
represents a closely co-operating entity with coercive powers towards the Member States
and the possibility to adopt its own legal regulations. It is thus obvious that the Regulation
could have been designed more flexibly, or in a way which allows for a stronger ingress
into State sovereignty; for example automatic recognition which can be appealed only to
the proposal of the debtor and from exhaustively defined and restrictively interpreted
reasons.
Enforcement refers to the mechanism of execution in the state of recognition. By the
mechanism of execution the authority(ies) providing execution, means of execution or
objections against execution are meant. Recognition is “sine non qua” for enforcement.
In different words – one cannot enforce something that does not exist. This statement
can’t be revoked by the fact that in certain legal regulations the recognition is automatic
in the first stage, the judgment is pronounced enforceable and then the debtor may appeal
against the enforceability of the judgment claiming the reasons against recognition.7
As
in the case of recognition the only possible law applicable to the enforcement is lex fori
and its area of civil law procedure. Enforcement is not covered by private international
law and it is not a subject to unification in any international treaty neither bilateral nor
multilateral or EU regulations. Even today it is an issue regulated exclusively by national
rules.
5 Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in the European
judicial area
As mentioned above, recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is one of the
most important matters in private international law. It is of immense importance
162 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
J. Valdhans & T. Kyselovská : Seleted Issues of Recognition and Enforcement of
Foreign Judgments from the Prespective of EU Member States
especially for the European Union. Creating area of free movement of decisions from one
Member State to another Member State was and still is a core factor and prerequisite of
maintaining and developing the area of freedom, security and justice, and for the proper
functioning of the internal market (Recital 3 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation8
).
5.1 Legal sources regulating recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments
in the European judicial area
In general, there are three main groups of legal sources for recognition and enforcement
of foreign judgments: 1) national law 2) international law (bilateral treaties and
multilateral conventions). The European Union, as regional9
integration entity sui
generis, introduced another 3) group of instruments through its secondary legislation
(regulations and directives).
This article deals primarily with the sources of law relevant for the EU Member States.
It is not supposed to be an exhaustive and in depth analysis of the relevant sources of law,
but mere an overview of legal norms, which shall be taken into account by the EU
Member States.
5.2 National (domestic) law
Every state has usually its own rules for recognition and enforcement of foreign
judgments. It stems from the principle of territoriality and sovereignty (Kučera,
Pauknerová, Růžička, 2015: 357). Since the area of recognition and enforcement of
foreign judgments is nowadays regulated by international conventions (bilateral or
multilateral) and EU regulations, the national rules have to cede wherever international
convention or EU regulation claims precedence.
Czech Private International Law Act
In the Czech Republic, the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is regulated
by the Act No. 91/12 Coll., on private international law (PILA). Application of PILA is
limited because of the EU legislation and international conventions, which take
precedence over Czech law in relationships between EU Member States. The regulation
of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in PILA is complex; it deals with
all aspects of recognition and enforcement as well as with all types of decisions
(judgments, arbitral awards, notarial deeds and public deeds) (Rozehnalová, Drličková et
al., 2015: 68). The rules for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments are in
accordance with international and European standards. It is safe to say that the regulation
in PILA is stricter, because is based, inter alia, on the principle of (material) reciprocity
(Pauknerová, Rozehnalová, Zavadilová et. al., 2013: 113)10
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
J. Valdhans & T. Kyselovská : Seleted Issues of Recognition and Enforcement of
Foreign Judgments from the Prespective of EU Member States
163
5.3 International conventions
The recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is regulated mainly by bilateral
treaties (Kučera, Pauknerová, Růžička, 2015: 377). As mentioned above, private
international law and the relationships between states are based on the principle of
territoriality and sovereignty. The procedural laws and their application are the
manifestation of state power (Rozehnalová, Drličková et al., 2015: 279). The mutual
cooperation and judicial assistance in civil and commercial matters, especially in the field
of movement of judgments between different states, is based on cooperation stemming
from bilateral treaties and agreements. The bilateral treaties on mutual cooperation and
judicial assistance are a traditional source for the idea and its execution that judgment
from one state may have legal effects in another state. In the absence of commitments
arising out of international treaty, states are under no obligation to recognize and enforce
foreign judgments (Michaels, 2009).
There is no general international convention on this subject. Several specialized
multilateral conventions govern recognition and enforcement in some particular areas.
Here, we would like to list the relevant multilateral conventions that shall be taken into
account by the EU Member States:
In the area of family law and protection of family and children, the Convention on the
Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations,11
European Convention on Recognition
and Enforcement of Decisions Concerning Custody of Children and on Restoration of
Custody of Children12
, Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in
Respect of Intercountry Adoption13
and Convention on the International Recovery of
Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance14
are of relevance.
Lugano Convention from 200715
basically extends the “Brussels regime” to three nonMember
States of the EU. The Lugano Convention applies to recognition and
enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters between the EU Member
States, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland.
In the area of international transportation, recognition and enforcement of foreign
judgments is provided for in the CMR Convention16
and COTIF Convention.17
One of the most successful conventions is the New York Convention, with 156 Member
States.18
It applies to recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. This
convention was one of the reasons why arbitration was expressly excluded from Brussels
I Regulation and Brussels Ibis Regulation (Magnus and Mankowski (ed.), 2012: 65).
164 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
J. Valdhans & T. Kyselovská : Seleted Issues of Recognition and Enforcement of
Foreign Judgments from the Prespective of EU Member States
Because of the potentially widespread and global damage caused by nuclear accidents,
the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is also provided for in the Vienna
Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (1963); Protocol to amend the (1963)
Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage;19
and Convention on
Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (1997).20
Orders for costs are enforceable under Convention on International Access to Justice.21
Hague Convention on Choice of Courts Agreements22
is one of the “newest” conventions.
It entered into force on 1 October 2015. The EU (all Member States except Denmark),
Mexico and Singapore are parties to this convention.
The Czech Republic is Member State to all of the above mentioned multilateral
conventions (Rozehnalová, Drličková et al., 2015: 63). As many other states, the Czech
Republic is also bound by a numerous bilateral treaties and agreements which deal with
recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
5.4 EU Regulations
The core EU instrument for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil
and commercial matters is the Brussels Ibis Regulation. Its predecessor was Brussels
Convention23
that was created for the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil
and commercial matters between the then-Member States of the European Economic
Community. Successor of the Brussels Convention was the Brussels I Regulation
(44/2001)24
which was on 10 January 2015 replaced by the Brussels Ibis Regulation.
5.4.1 Brussels Ibis Regulation
For application of the Brussels Ibis Regulation, several conditions shall be met. The
Brussels Ibis Regulation shall apply only to legal proceedings instituted, to authentic
instruments formally drawn up or registered and to court settlements approved or
concluded on or after 10 January 2015 (Art. 66 Para 1). For recognition and enforcement,
both the initial proceedings shall be commenced and the subsequent judgment shall be
rendered after this date (Rozehnalová, Vadhans, Drličková and Kyselovská, 2013: 315).
Legal proceedings instituted, authentic instruments formally drawn up or registered and
court settlements approved or concluded before 10 January 2015 fall within the scope of
Brussels I Regulation (44/2011).
As to the material scope of the Brussels Ibis Regulation, it is applicable to civil and
commercial matters whatever the nature of the court or tribunal. It shall not be extended
to certain aspects of public law (in particular, revenue, customs or administrative matters)
and acta iure imperii (Art. 1 Para 1). The concept of “civil and commercial matters” shall
be interpreted autonomously (Rozehnalová, Vadhans, Drličková and Kyselovská, 2013:
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
J. Valdhans & T. Kyselovská : Seleted Issues of Recognition and Enforcement of
Foreign Judgments from the Prespective of EU Member States
165
213). The Brussels Ibis Regulation excludes from its scope certain areas of law, which
are governed by national laws, resp. other EU regulations. The excluded matters are: the
status or legal capacity of natural persons, rights in property arising out of matrimonial
relationship or out of a relationship deemed by the law applicable to such relationship to
have comparable effects to marriage; bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up
of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and
analogous proceedings; social security; arbitration; maintenance obligations arising from
a family relationship, parentage, marriage or affinity; will and successions, including
maintenance obligations arising by reason of death (Art. 1 Para 2).
Brussels Ibis Regulation is directly applicable in EU Member States (including
Denmark).
Personal scope, ie. domicile of the defendant according to Art. 4, is not relevant for the
recognition and enforcement. The main rule is, that the judgment shall be rendered by a
court or tribunal of the Member State, whatever the judgment may be called, including a
decree, order, decision or writ of execution, as well as a decision on the determination of
costs or expenses by an officer of the court (Art. 2 a)).
5.4.2 Other “specialized” EU Regulations
As mentioned above, the Brussels Ibis Regulation is the main legal source for the free
movement of judgments in civil and commercial matters within the EU territory.
Nevertheless, the EU legislator created other, more specialized regulations in certain
areas within the civil and commercial matters.
The European Enforcement Order Regulation (EET Regulation)25
was created to simplify
recognition and enforcement of uncontested claims. The EET regulation created
minimum standards for judgments. The judgment may be rendered in purely national
proceedings, but its recognition and enforcement is sought in other Member State.
The European Payment Order Regulation (EPO Regulation)26
shall be applied to
uncontested pecuniary claims.
The main aim of the European Small Claims Regulation (ESC Regulation)27
is to simplify
and speed up proceedings in small (consumer) claims in cross-border cases.
All three above mentioned regulations abolished exequatur and introduced proceedings
based on electronic forms.
166 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
J. Valdhans & T. Kyselovská : Seleted Issues of Recognition and Enforcement of
Foreign Judgments from the Prespective of EU Member States
The Brussels IIbis Regulation28
provides for recognition and enforcement of judgments
in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility.
The Maintenance Regulation29
is EU instrument for recognition and enforcement of
maintenance judgments.
The Succession Regulation30
is the newest regulation for recognition and enforcement of
judgments in the area of inheritance law.
5.5 Relationships between legal sources regulating recognition and
enforcement of foreign judgments in the European judicial area
In general, the relationship between sources of law is due to their rather high amount one
of the most difficult issues in private international law. The Brussels Ibis Regulation
provides for express provisions how to solve possible conflicts of legal sources. It deals
with its relationship to other legal instruments in Chapter VII (Art. 67 – 73).
The Brussels Ibis Regulation supersedes and replaces the Brussels Convention as
between the Member States (Art. 68 Para 1). References in the case law or other EU
instruments to the Brussels Convention or Brussels I Regulation (44/2001) shall be
understood as reference to the Brussels Ibis Regulation (Art 68 Para 2).
Art. 67 establishes the principle lex specialis. This means, that the Brussels Ibis
Regulation shall not prejudice application of provisions governing recognition and
enforcement in specific matters which are contained in other EU instruments or in
national legislation harmonized pursuant to such instruments. It is irrelevant if the
concerned instruments became effective before or after the Brussels Ibis Regulation
(Magnus and Mankowski (ed.), 2016: 1021).
Since the Brussels Ibis Regulation excludes from its scope maintenance obligations,
succession and insolvency (Art. 1 Para 2 b), e), f)), the relevant instruments that shall be
applicable to these area are the Maintenance Regulation, the Succession Regulation and
the Insolvency Regulation.
Other relevant instruments are the EET Regulation, the EPO Regulation and the ESC
Regulation. The scope of these regulations is the same as for the Brussels Ibis Regulation,
all of them providing for recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and
commercial matters, the latter regulations in very specific areas. Nevertheless, because
of the aim and purpose of these “special” regulations their position is an “alternative”
instrument to the Brussels Ibis Regulation. Hence, it is up to the claimant which one of
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
J. Valdhans & T. Kyselovská : Seleted Issues of Recognition and Enforcement of
Foreign Judgments from the Prespective of EU Member States
167
them he will choose. These regulations have only an optional nature and the Brussels Ibis
is not prejudiced (Magnus and Mankowski (ed.), 2016: 1023).
Member States of the EU are parties to numerous bilateral treaties (and in some cases
multilateral conventions) dealing with the recognition and enforcement of judgments Art.
69 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation orders its precedence over bilateral treaties of
recognition and enforcement of judgments concluded between Member States. Within its
scope of application, the Brussels Ibis Regulation supersedes the bilateral treaties in total
and in their entirety (they clearly remain in existence, but they have to cede wherever the
Brussels Ibis Regulation claims precedence). List of all relevant bilateral treaties was
established and complied by the Commission. The list of treaties is not exhaustive and
constitutive, mere of a declaratory nature (Magnus and Mankowski (ed.), 2016: 1042),
because of entries of potential new Member States to the EU (Magnus and Mankowski
(ed.), 2016: 1030-1041).
Bilateral treaties between Member States and non-Member States remain generally
unaffected (Art. 73 Para 3). (Magnus and Mankowski (ed.), 2016: 1029). There is a
certain degree of “cooperation” between the Brussels Ibis Regulation and specialized
conventions (Rozehnalová, Vadhans, Drličková and Kyselovská, 2013: 219).
The bilateral treaties of recognition and enforcement concluded between the Member
States continue to have effect in relation to matters to which the Brussels Ibis Regulation
does not apply (Art. 70 Paras 1 and 2); for instance in probate cases, arbitration or in
wider understanding of “civil and commercial matters” than in the Regulation (Magnus
and Mankowski (ed.), 2016: 1043).
Art. 71 states that the Regulation Brussels Ibis shall not affect any conventions, to which
Member States are parties and which, in relation to particular matters, govern the
recognition and enforcement of judgments; in other words, it deals with possible conflicts
of law/making treaties (Magnus and Mankowski (ed.), 2016: 1047). Art 71 Paras 1 and 2
further contain rules on its application with a view to the necessity of uniform
interpretation of the Brussels Ibis Regulation. Art. 71 shall be read in accordance with
Recital 35 which asserts respect for international commitments entered into by the
Member States. This provision in interesting in particular with respect to international
conventions that the Member states have already ratified (especially in the area of
international transportation, such as the CMR Convention, COTIF Convention) and the
Hague Convention on Choice of Courts Agreements (2005).
According to Art 73 Para 1, the Brussels Ibis Regulation shall not affect the application
of the Lugano Convention 2007. The latter is applicable in cases when recognition and
enforcement of a judgment issued by a court of a Member State solely of the Lugano
Convention 2007 is sought after in a Member State of the Brussels Ibis Regulation
(Magnus and Mankowski (ed.), 2016: 1097).
168 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
J. Valdhans & T. Kyselovská : Seleted Issues of Recognition and Enforcement of
Foreign Judgments from the Prespective of EU Member States
Pursuant to Art. 73 Para 2, the Brussels Ibis Regulation shall not affect the application of
the New York Convention 1958 (arbitration is expressly excluded from the scope in Art.
1 Para 2 d) and Recital 12).
Pursuant to Art. 73 Para 3, the Brussels Ibis Regulation shall not affect the application of
bilateral conventions and agreements between a third State and a Member State
concluded before the date of entry into force of the Brussels I Regulation (44/2001) which
concern matters governed by the Brussels Ibis Regulation.
5.6 Enforcement of foreign judgments
Brussels Ibis Regulation governs only the recognition of foreign judgments, resp. grounds
for refusal of recognition or of enforcement. The enforcement itself is governed by
national procedural laws. This is a core principle of procedural autonomy of EU Member
States which is connected to the territoriality and sovereignty. Art. 41 Para 1 expressly
states: “Subject to the provisions of this Section, the procedure for the enforcement of
judgments given in another Member State shall be governed by the law of the Member
State addressed. A judgment given in a Member State which is enforceable in the Member
State addressed shall be enforced there under the same conditions as a judgment given in
the Member State addressed.” This rule is inspired by the principle of assimilation under
which “a judgment given by the courts of a Member State should be treated as if it had
been given in the Member State addressed.” (Magnus and Mankowski (ed.), 2016: 846).
EU Member States thus apply their national rules of civil procedure and enforcement.
In the Czech Republic, enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters
is regulated by two legal sources, Civil Procedural Code and Execution Act.
6 Conclusion
Economic and legal reality shows the importance of taking into account foreign
judgments. The position of states on this matter has changed throughout the history: from
restrictive approach to universality in recognition and then back to restrictions, which are,
nevertheless, nowadays more and more limited.
The mutual cooperation and judicial assistance between states in the area of recognition
and enforcement used to be based on international conventions. And out of European
Union still is. The need for cooperation and creation of area of (relative) free movement
of judgments was essential for the development and economic integration within the
European Communities, resp. the EU. The need for economic cooperation introduced
subsequently many legal challenges and questions that should be dealt with.
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
J. Valdhans & T. Kyselovská : Seleted Issues of Recognition and Enforcement of
Foreign Judgments from the Prespective of EU Member States
169
The legal regulation of recognition and enforcement on the EU level is considered to be
very favorable. The EU legislation interconnects private international law with national
procedural laws. There is an obvious effort to create simple, predictable, yet certain legal
rules. This development and future legislative steps in this area will be dealt with in our
further research in this project.
Note
1
For the decision to be issued many conditions has to be fulfilled which may differ in many ways
from state to state.
2
See also (Briggs and Rees, 2005: 1008).
3
Which persist to the present days.
4
Ibid, s. 241
5
(Černohubý, 1967: 141); however, at the beginning of the first half of the 20th century also some
of continental Europe states used this concept, e.g. the Netherlands, Nordic countries, some of
Swiss cantons.
6
The use of lex fori for procedural proposes represents one of the main doctrines of private
international law. In case of procedural rules no question of the law applicable arises – see (Kučera,
Pauknerová, Růžička et. al., 2015: 352).
7
Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition
and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters and in partially modified form also
Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December
2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial
matters.
8
Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December
2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial
matters.
9
In this text, we do not analyze other regional recognition and enforcement instruments, such as
for instance in Latin America. On this subject, see (Michaels, 2009).
10
For more information on recognition and enforcement of judgments in the Czech Republic, see
(Rozehnalová, Drličková et al., 2015: 59 et seq)..
11
Convention of 1 June 1970 on the Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations, Hague
Conference on Private International Law (1970). Most of the Member States to this convention are
EU Member States. Therefore, the EU law takes precedence over this convention. In: (Pauknerová,
Rozehnalová, Zavadilová et. al., 2013: 349).
12
European Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions Concerning Custody of
Children and on Restoration of Custody of Children, Council of Europe (1980).
13
Convention of 29 May 1993 on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of
Intercountry Adoption, Hague Conference on Private International Law (1993).
14
Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other
Forms of Family Maintenance, Hague Conference on Private International Law (2007).
15
Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcemen of Judgments in Civil and
Commercial Matters.
16 Convention of 19 May 1956 on the Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods by Road,
United Nations.
17
Convention Concerning International Carriage by Rail.
18
Convention on the Recognition and Enfrocement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, United Nations
Commission on International Trade Law (New York 1958).
170 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
J. Valdhans & T. Kyselovská : Seleted Issues of Recognition and Enforcement of
Foreign Judgments from the Prespective of EU Member States
19
Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage.
20
Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage
21
Convention of 25 October 1980 on International Access to Justice, Hague Conference on Private
International Law.
22
Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Courts Agreements, Hague Conference on Private
International Law (2005).
23
Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil
and Commercial Matters.
24
Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition
and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
25
Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004
creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims.
26
Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure.
27
Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007
establishing a European Small Claims Procedure.
28
Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the
recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental
responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000.
29
Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law,
recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance
obligations.
30
Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on
jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and
enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European
Certificate of Succession.
References
Basedow, J., Hopt, K. J., Zimmermann, R. & Stier, A. (2012) Max Planck Encyclopedia of
European Private Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Briggs, A. & Rees, P. (2005) Civil jurisdisdiction and judgments, 4th ed. (London: Norton Rose).
Černohubý, M. (1967) Uznání a výkon cizích rozhodnutí v ČSSR, Socialistická zákonnost, pp. 141
Fawcett, J. & Carruthers, J. (2008) Cheshire, North & Fawcett: Private International Law, 14th ed.
(Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Heyer, J. (1963) Výkon cizozemských rozsudků, Zprávy advokacie, 112.
Kučera, Z., Pauknerová, M., Růžička, K. et. al. (2015) Mezinárodní právo soukromé, 8th ed. (Plzeň:
Vydavatelství a nakladatelství Aleš Čeněk).
Magnus, U. & Mankowski P. (eds.) (2012) Brussels I Regulation, European Commentaries on
Private International Law (Sellier).
Magnus, U. & Mankowski P. (eds.) (2016) Brussels Ibis Regulation, European Commentaries on
Private International Law (Sellier).
Michaels, R. (2009) Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, In: Wolfrum, R. (ed.)
Max Planck Encyclopaedia of Public International Law, (Heidelberg: Max Planck Institute for
Comparative Public Law and International Law & Oxford University Press).
Pauknerová, M., Rozehnalová, N., Zavadilová M. et. al. (2013) Zákon o mezinárodním právu
soukromém. Komentář (Praha: Wolters Kluwer).
Rozehnalová, N., Drličková K. et. al. (2015) Czech Private International Law, (Publications of the
Masaryk University, theoretical series, edition Scientia) (Brno: Masaryk University).
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
J. Valdhans & T. Kyselovská : Seleted Issues of Recognition and Enforcement of
Foreign Judgments from the Prespective of EU Member States
171
Rozehnalová, N., Vadhans, J., Drličková, K. & Kyselovská, T. (2013) Mezinárodní právo
soukromé Evropské unie (Nařízení Řím I, Nařízení Řím II, Nařízení Brusel I) (Praha: Wolters
Kluwer ČR).
Steiner, V. (1970) Některé teoretické koncepce řešení otázky uznání a výkonu cizího rozhodnutí,
Časopis pro mezinárodní právo, 13, pp. 239-247.
Vaške, V. (2007) Uznání a výkon cizích rozhodnutí v České republice (Praha: C. H. Beck).
172 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND
EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS V. Rijavec
Regulation of Employment Relationships of Directors
(Managers) in Companies
DARJA SENČUR PEČEKccclii
Abstract The Companies Act regulates the position of directors only from
the perspective of the functioning of a commercial company and not also
from the perspective of the protection of their personal position. With
reference to such, the Companies Act suggests that a contract be concluded
between the commercial company and its director (a contract to perform
the function of director). In practice, the aforementioned contract is as a
general rule concluded as an employment contract and only rarely as a
civil-law contact. The Employment Relations Act namely allows that a
contractual relation between a company and a director be regulated as an
employment relation and at the same time determines certain particularities
of the labour-law position of directors, which the author discusses in the
present article. As the most critical question the author stresses the
termination of employment contract in the case of termination of the
function of director.
Keywords: • director • manager • contract to perform the function of
director • employment contract with a manager
CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS: Darja Senčur Peček, Ph.D., Associate Professor, University of
Maribor, Faculty of Law, Mladinska ulica 9, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia, e-mail: darja.sencur-
pecek@um.si.
DOI 10.18690/978-961-286-004-2.13 ISBN 978-961-286-004-2
© 2016 University of Maribor Press
Available at: http://press.um.si.
24. KONFERENCA: GOSPODARSKI SUBJEKTI NA TRGU IN EVROPSKE
DIMENZIJE
V. Rijavec
Urejanje delovnih razmerji direktorjev (poslovodnih oseb)
gospodarskih družb
DARJA SENČUR PEČEKcccliii
Povzetek Zakon o gospodarskih družbah ureja položaj direktorja le z
vidika funkcioniranja gospodarske družbe, ne pa z vidika varstva osebnega
položaja direktorja. Glede tega nakazuje na sklenitev pogodbe med
gospodarsko družb in direktorjem (t.i. pogodba o opravljanju funkcije
direktorja). V praksi se navedena pogodba praviloma sklepa kot pogodba o
zaposlitvi, in le redko kot pogodba civilnega prava. Zakon o delovnih
razmerjih namreč dopušča, da se pogodbeno razmerje med družbo in
direktorjem uredi kot delovno razmerje in hkrati določa nekaj posebnosti
delovno-pravnega položaja direktorja, ki jih avtorica v prispevku
obravnava. Pri tem kot najbolj problematično izpostavi vprašanje
prenehanja pogodbe o zaposlitvi v primeru prenehanja funkcije direktorja.
Ključne besede: • direktor • poslovodna oseba • pogodba o opravljanju
funkcije direktorja • pogodba o zaposlitvi s poslovodno osebo
NASLOV AVTORICE: dr. Darja Senčur Peček, izredna profesorica, Univerza v Mariboru, Pravna
Fakulteta, Mladinska ulica 9, SI-2000 Maribor, Slovenija, e-mail: darja.sencur-pecek@um.si.
DOI 10.18690/978-961-286-004-2.13 ISBN 978-961-286-004-2
© 2016 Univerzitetna zalozba Univerze v Mariboru
Dostopno na: http://press.um.si.
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
D. Senčur Peček: Regulation of Employment Relationships of Directors (Managers) in
Companies
175
1 Uvod
Osebe, ki vodijo posle gospodarskega subjekta in ga zastopajo navzven, se v slovenski
poslovni praksi tradicionalno imenujejo direktorji. Njihovo imenovanje, odpoklic,
pristojnosti in odgovornosti urejajo statusno-pravni predpisi, predvsem Zakon o
gospodarskih družbah (ZGD-1).1
Glede varstva osebnega položaja direktorjev zakon
napotuje na pogodbo, ki se sklene med gospodarsko družbo in direktorjem. Medtem ko
je v drugih evropskih državah tovrstna pogodba praviloma pogodba civilnega prava,
slovensko pravo dopušča, da se sklene kot pogodba o zaposlitvi.
Direktor, ki z družbo sklene pogodbo o zaposlitvi je hkrati član poslovodnega in
zastopniškega organa gospodarske družbe in delavec te gospodarske družbe. Navedeno
dejstvo terja določene posebnosti njegovega delovno-pravnega položaja. Veljavni Zakon
o delovnih razmerjih (ZDR-1)2
ureja nekaj tovrstnih posebnosti, hkrati pa dopušča da se
s pogodbo o zaposlitvi pravice in obveznosti direktorja uredijo drugače kot jih določa
zakon. Kljub temu dvojnost statusnega in delovnopravnega položaja direktorja
(poslovodne osebe) sproža številna delovnopravna vprašanja, ki se odražajo v poslovni
praksi.
2 Pojem direktorja in poslovodne osebe
Organ, ki v gospodarski družbi opravlja aktivnosti poslovodenja, se s skupnim (zbirnim)
izrazom imenuje poslovodstvo (10. člen ZGD-1). Upoštevaje navedeno določbo se za
poslovodstvo štejejo organi ali osebe, ki so po ZGD-1 ali po aktih družbe pooblaščeni,
da vodijo njene posle. Že na podlagi navedene zakonske določbe je mogoče za
poslovodstvo v delniški družbi in družbi z omejeno odgovornostjo (ki sta v poslovni
praksi najpomembnejši gospodarski družbi) šteti člane uprave, člane upravnega odbora
in poslovodje. S tem pa krog oseb, ki sodijo k poslovodstvu ni zaključen. Iz določb ZGD-
1, ki se nanašajo na vodenje poslov in zastopanje pri delniški družbi z enotirnim sistemom
upravljanja namreč izhaja, da so za vodenje poslov te družbe pooblaščene tudi druge
osebe (ne le te, ki so izrecno navedene v 10. členu ZGD-1). Poslovodni, nadzorni in
zastopniški organ v takšni družbi je upravni odbor. Glede na to, da upravni odbor združuje
pristojnosti, ki jih imata v dvotirnem sistemu uprava in nadzorni svet, ni nujno, da vsi
člani upravnega odbora vodijo (tekoče) posle družbe in zastopajo družbo. V primeru
javne družbe (družbe, z vrednostnimi papirji katere se trguje na organiziranem trgu) je
vodenje tekočih poslov in zastopanje že na podlagi zakona (praviloma) v pristojnosti
enega ali več izvršnih direktorjev, ki jih upravni odbor mora imenovati. V nejavnih
družbah pa upravni odbor lahko imenuje izvršne direktorje in nanje prenese vodenje
tekočih poslov in druge pristojnosti. Če upravni odbor imenuje izvršne direktorje, ki so
pristojni za vodenje tekočih poslov, le-ti nedvomno predstavljajo poslovodstvo delniške
družbe, kljub temu, da jih ZGD-1 v 10. členu izrecno ne uvršča k poslovodstvu. Tudi z
njimi se sklepa pogodba o opravljanju funkcije (tako tudi Bratina, Kocbek et al., 2014:
68).
176 24.KONFERENCA: GOSPODARSKI SUBJEKTI NA TRGU IN EVROPSKE DIMENZIJE
D. Senčur Peček: Urejanje delovnih razmerji direktorjev (poslovodnih oseb)
gospodarskih družb
V povezavi s poslovodstvom, oziroma osebami, ki sodijo k poslovodstvu se v ZGD-1
pojavlja tudi izraz direktor. ZGD-1 s tem ohranja v slovenskem pravu uveljavljeno
poimenovanje oseb, ki vodijo posle gospodarskega subjekta in ga zastopajo. Tako
poslovodjo družbe z omejeno odgovornostjo kot člane uprave delniške družbe (z
dvotirnim sistemom upravljanja) ZGD-1 označuje tudi z izrazom direktor.3
V delniški
družbi z enotirnim sistemom upravljanja pa se za člane upravnega odbora ne uporablja
izraz direktor,4
ampak se z izrazom (izvršni) direktor označujejo osebe, imenovane s
strani upravnega odbora, ki vodijo tekoče posle in zaradi tega sodijo k poslovodstvu. Izraz
direktor se v slovenski statusni zakonodaji tako uporablja za osebe, ki v družbi dejansko
opravljajo poslovodsko in zastopniško funkcijo - bodisi da so člani poslovodnega in
zastopniškega organa (član uprave, poslovodja), ali jih je ta organ imenoval (izvršni
direktor),5
ne zajema pa niti članov upravnega odbora niti nadzornega sveta.
ZDR-1 pojma direktor ne uporablja, pač pa uporablja izraz poslovodne osebe in ureja
posebnosti njihovega delovno-pravnega položaja. Pri tem ZDR-1 ne določa, kdo sodi v
krog poslovodnih oseb. Glede na to, da ZDR-1 ureja le položaj oseb, ki imajo sklenjeno
pogodbo o zaposlitvi, je treba k pojmu poslovodnih oseb v smislu ZDR-1 šteti osebe, ki
sodijo k poslovodstvu družbe in imajo sklenjeno pogodbo o zaposlitvi. K poslovodnim
osebam tako uvrščamo člane uprave, izvršne direktorje in poslovodje (se pravi
direktorje), člane upravnega odbora pa le v primeru, ko imajo z družbo sklenjeno
pogodbo o zaposlitvi (to pa bo le v primeru, ko upravni odbor ne imenuje izvršnih
direktorjev, in člani upravnega odbora dejansko vodijo tudi tekoče posle in zastopajo
družbo).6
Pojem poslovodnih oseb se tako praviloma prekriva s pojmom direktorja.7
3 Pogodbeni položaj direktorja
Korporacijska zakonodaja določa, kako oseba postane in preneha biti direktor, ureja
pristojnosti, obveznosti in odgovornosti osebe kot direktorja gospodarske družbe ter
njegova razmerja do drugih organov družbe. Na podlagi te ureditve lahko oseba, ki je bila
imenovana za direktorja deluje kot organ oziroma član organa gospodarske družbe,
oziroma opravlja funkcijo direktorja. Glede ureditve pravic in obveznosti med
gospodarsko družbo in direktorjem, ki presegajo ta korporacijski vidik, predvsem glede
ureditve obveznosti družbe do direktorja pa ZGD-1 odkazuje na pogodbo med družbo in
direktorjem.8
S pogodbo se direktor zaveže, da bo vodil posle družbe, zastopal družbo in opravljal vse
druge naloge, ki sodijo k funkciji direktorja, družba pa se zaveže direktorju za to plačati.
Gre za t. i. pogodbo o opravljanju funkcije direktorja,9
v nemškem pravu poimenovano
»namestitvena pogodba (Anstellungsvertrag)«.
Korporacijski položaj direktorja in pogodbeni položaj direktorja sta pravno ločena
(Schmidt, 2002: 416; glej tudi Senčur Peček, 2007: 102, 103), hkrati pa obstajajo med
obema položajem določene povezave in medsebojno učinkovanje. Le-to se kaže tako v
zvezi z nastankom obeh pravnih razmerij,10
njuno vsebino11
in prenehanjem.12
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
D. Senčur Peček: Regulation of Employment Relationships of Directors (Managers) in
Companies
177
Obseg varstva, ki se direktorju zagotavlja s pogodbo o opravljanju funkcije je v veliki
meri odvisen od tega, ali je pogodbeno razmerje med družbo in direktorjem opredeljeno
kot razmerje odvisnega opravljanja dela (in se direktorju prizna položaj delavca), ali kot
razmerje dveh prirejenih subjektov (in ima direktor položaj neodvisnega pogodbenika).
Navedena opredelitev ima daljnosežne posledice za položaj direktorja, predvsem z vidika
veljavnosti delovno-pravne zaščitne zakonodaje in vključevanja direktorja v sisteme
socialnih zavarovanj.
V nemškem in avstrijskem pravu se namestitvena pogodba šteje za civilno-pravno
službeno pogodbo (Dienstvertrag), direktorjem pa se položaj delavca priznava le v
omejenem obsegu (Senčur Peček 2007: 176 in naslednje).
V Republiki Sloveniji je vprašanje pravne narave pogodbenega razmerja med družbo in
direktorjem postalo aktualno z uveljavitvijo ZGD13
(1993), ki je v slovenski pravni red
uvedel gospodarske družbe, urejene po vzoru drugih evropskih držav.14
. V slovenski
teoriji (Dobrin, 1995: 1120; 1121, Bohinc, 1999: 290-292; Klampfer, 2001: 333, 334;
Senčur Peček, 2001: 298-300) so bili izraženi pomisleki v zvezi z delovnopravnim
položajem direktorjev (poslovodnih oseb) oziroma stališča, da je delovno-pravni položaj
zanje praviloma oziroma v določenih primerih neprimeren. Kljub temu je Zakon o
delovnih razmerjih (ZDR),15
ki je bil sprejet skoraj deset let za ZGD, s »salomonskim«
72. členom ohranil možnost, da poslovodna oseba (direktor) sklene pogodbo o zaposlitvi,
hkrati pa dopustil tudi možnost, da poslovodna oseba z družbo sklene pogodbo, ki ni
pogodba o zaposlitvi.16
V praksi so se direktorji tudi po uveljavitvi ZDR večinoma
odločali za delovno razmerje.
Čeprav se je v teoriji (Kresal, 2001: 325; Senčur Peček, 2010) ves čas problematizirala
splošna možnost sklenitve pogodbe o zaposlitvi s poslovodnimi osebami (tudi ko v
njihovem razmerju očitno ni elementov delovnega razmerja), tudi aktualni (leta 2013
uveljavljeni) ZDR-1 v prvem odstavku 73. člena ohranja dikcijo 72. člena ZDR, v drugem
odstavku 73. člena pa izrecno dopušča delovnopravni položaj direktorjev-edinih
družbenikov.17
Gre za določbo, ki je v direktnem nasprotju z navedenimi stališči teorije,
pa tudi z dotedanjo prakso Vrhovnega sodišča RS18
in prakso Sodišča EU.19
S to določbo
se direktorjem enoosebnih družb izrecno priznava položaj delavca, ne glede na to, da je
očitno, da elementov delovnega razmerja tu ni (predvsem ni mogoče najti elementa dela
po navodilih in pod nadzorom delodajalca, saj je direktor hkrati predstavnik delodajalca
in delavec). Ker direktor-edini družbenik (ustanovitelj) delovno-pravnega varstva (v
razmerju do samega sebe) ne potrebuje, je namen te določbe očitno drugje.20
Hkrati je zakonodajalec s tem (hote ali nehote) status delavca izrecno priznal tudi drugim
poslovodnim osebam. Če se status delavca (ne glede na elemente delovnega razmerja)
priznava direktorju enoosebne družbe z omejeno odgovornostjo, to toliko bolj velja za
direktorje v ostalih družbah z omejeno odgovornostjo, vprašanje pa je, ali tudi za vse
poslovodne osebe v delniški družbi in za poslovodne osebe v drugih pravnih osebah.
178 24.KONFERENCA: GOSPODARSKI SUBJEKTI NA TRGU IN EVROPSKE DIMENZIJE
D. Senčur Peček: Urejanje delovnih razmerji direktorjev (poslovodnih oseb)
gospodarskih družb
Očitno je namen zakonodajalca, da se poslovodnim osebam omogoči sklenitev pogodbe
o zaposlitvi, ne glede na to, ali v njihovem razmerju obstajajo elementi delovnega
razmerja, se pravi, ali potrebujejo delovno-pravno varstvo ali ne. Če pravna oseba in
poslovodna oseba svoje medsebojno razmerje uredita s pogodbo o zaposlitvi, je
poslovodna oseba delavec, zato jo varuje delovno pravo.
V primeru, da pravna oseba in poslovodna oseba skleneta pogodbo o opravljanju funkcije
kot pogodbo civilnega prava, se poslovodna oseba praviloma šteje za samozaposleno
osebo in zanjo delovno pravo ne velja.21
4 Posebnosti delovnopravnega položaja direktorja (poslovodne osebe)
4.1 Splošno
Za direktorja, ki z družbo sklene pogodbo o zaposlitvi veljajo vse določbe delovne
zakonodaje, razen tistih, iz veljavnosti katerih je izrecno izvzet oziroma glede vprašanj,
ki so zanj posebej urejena. ZDR-1 posebnosti delovno-pravnega položaja poslovodne
osebe ureja v tretjem in četrtem odstavku 20. člena (zastopnik delodajalca v razmerju do
poslovodne osebe), 26. členu (izjema od objave prostega delovnega mesta), 54. členu in
drugem odstavku 55. člena (dopustnost sklepanja pogodbe o zaposlitvi za določen čas,
tudi v daljšem trajanju od splošne zakonske omejitve), tretjem odstavku 40. člena
(dopustnost določitve konkurenčne klavzule tudi v primeru pogodbe o zaposlitvi za
določen čas), četrtem odstavku 49. člena (mirovanje pogodbe o zaposlitvi za nedoločen
čas v času mandata) in 157. členu (dopustnost drugačne ureditve delovnega časa). Poleg
tega 73. člen ZDR-1, ki ureja pogodbo o zaposlitvi s poslovodnimi osebami izrecno
določa, da lahko pogodbeni stranki pri ureditvi medsebojnih pravic, obveznosti in
odgovornosti iz delovnega razmerja na nekaterih področjih odstopita od splošne
zakonske ureditve.
4.2 Zastopnik družbe pri sklepanju pogodbe o zaposlitvi s poslovodno osebo
Glede na to, da praviloma poslovodne osebe kot zastopnik gospodarske družbe
(delodajalca) sklepajo pogodbe o zaposlitvi z delavci, je v tretjem in četrtem odstavku
20. člena ZDR-1 posebej določeno, da v primeru, ko se pogodba o zaposlitvi sklepa s
poslovodno osebo, v imenu delodajalca nastopa organ, ki je po zakonu oziroma aktih
družbe (akt o ustanovitvi, družbena pogodba, statut) pristojen za zastopanje delodajalca
proti poslovodnim osebam, če tega ni, pa lastnik (v času ustanavljanja pa ustanovitelj).
Upoštevaje določbe ZGD-1, je za nastopanje v imenu delodajalca v primeru sklenitve
pogodbe o zaposlitvi s člani in predsednikom uprave delniške družbe pristojen nadzorni
svet oziroma njegov predsednik, v primeru sklenitve pogodbe o zaposlitvi s poslovodjo
družbe z omejeno odgovornostjo skupščina družbenikov (če ima družba nadzorni svet,
pa le-ta, če družbena pogodba ne določa drugače), v primeru sklenitve pogodbe o
zaposlitvi z izvršnim direktorjem nastopa v imenu delodajalca upravni odbor oziroma
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
D. Senčur Peček: Regulation of Employment Relationships of Directors (Managers) in
Companies
179
njegov predsednik, v primeru sklenitve pogodbe o zaposlitvi s članom upravnega odbora
pa skupščina.
Določbo tretjega odstavka ZDR-1, ki določa »kadar se sklepa pogodba o zaposlitvi s
poslovodno osebo, nastopa v imenu delodajalca organ….« je treba razumeti tako, da
splošno določa, kateri organ zastopa delodajalca-pravno osebo v razmerju do delavcaposlovodne
osebe, v primeru, ko poslovodna oseba s pravno osebo, ki jo vodi sklene
pogodbo o zaposlitvi. Ne gre torej za organ, ki nastopa v imenu delodajalca zgolj pri
sklenitvi te pogodbe o zaposlitvi, ampak za organ, ki nastopa v imenu delodajalca v vseh
vprašanjih, ki se tičejo pogodbe o zaposlitvi oziroma delovnega razmerja, vključno z
odpovedjo te pogodbe o zaposlitvi.22
4.3 Izjema od objave
Upoštevaje 1. odstavek 26. člena ZDR-1 se lahko pogodba o zaposlitvi s poslovodno
osebo sklene brez javne objave prostega delovnega mesta. Glede na to, da je pristojni
organ gospodarske družbe pri imenovanju poslovodnih oseb praviloma prost in
kandidatov ni dolžan iskati preko javnih razpisov, tudi javna objava delovnega mesta
poslovodne osebe ne bi imela smisla. Pogodba o zaposlitvi se v tem primeru namreč
sklene z osebo, ki je bila s strani pristojnega organa že imenovana na funkcijo direktorja
(poslovodne osebe).
4.4 Konkurenčna klavzula
Konkurenčna klavzula, s katero se delavec zaveže, da določen čas po prenehanju pogodbe
o zaposlitvi svojemu bivšemu delodajalcu ne bo konkuriral na nelojalen način (z uporabo
znanj in zvez, ki jih je pri njem pridobil), lahko delavca zavezuje le v primerih, ko
pogodba o zaposlitvi preneha na enega od načinov, ki so taksativno navedeni v drugem
odstavku 40. člena ZDR-1. Med njimi ni prenehanja pogodbe o zaposlitvi za določen čas.
Upoštevaje tretji odstavek 40. člena ZDR-1 (po katerem se ZDR-1 loči od ZDR) se
konkurenčna klavzula lahko dogovori tudi za primer izteka pogodbe o zaposlitvi za
določen čas (v skladu s prvim odstavkom 79. člena ZDR-1), vendar le v primeru pogodb
o zaposlitvi z določenimi kategorijam delavcev, med katerimi so tudi poslovodne osebe.
Glede na to, da poslovodne osebe v času opravljanja svoje funkcije pridobijo za
delodajalca pomembna znanja in zveze, je zakonska možnost vključitve konkurenčne
klavzule v njihovo pogodbo o zaposlitvi, tudi če je ta sklenjena za določen čas in
uveljavitev klavzule ob prenehanju te pogodbe, ustrezna.
4.5 Mirovanje pravic in obveznosti iz pogodbe o zaposlitvi za nedoločen čas
V primeru, da je za poslovodno osebo imenovana oseba, ki ima s tem delodajalcem že
sklenjeno pogodbo o zaposlitvi za nedoločen čas (za opravljanje drugega dela), se lahko
pogodbeni položaj te poslovodne osebe uredi v skladu s četrtim odstavkom 49. člena
180 24.KONFERENCA: GOSPODARSKI SUBJEKTI NA TRGU IN EVROPSKE DIMENZIJE
D. Senčur Peček: Urejanje delovnih razmerji direktorjev (poslovodnih oseb)
gospodarskih družb
ZDR-1. S poslovodno osebo se za določen čas (za čas mandata) sklene pogodba o
zaposlitvi po 73. členu ZDR-1, pravice in obveznosti iz pogodbe o zaposlitvi za
nedoločen čas pa medtem mirujejo.
Po prenehanju pogodbe o zaposlitvi, sklenjene za določen čas, te pravice, obveznosti in
odgovornosti iz pogodbe o zaposlitvi za nedoločen čas spet »oživijo«. V tem delu (glede
mirovanja pravic) gre za podobno rešitev kot v primeru suspenza pogodbe o zaposlitvi
(urejenega v 53. členu ZDR-1), razlika pa je v tem, da v primeru suspenza delavec
začasno ne opravlja dela, v tem primeru pa delavec opravlja delo, le po drugi pogodbi o
zaposlitvi. Gre torej za to, da ima delavec hkrati sklenjeni dve pogodbi o zaposlitvi z istim
delodajalcem.
4.6 Posebnosti pri pogodbeni ureditvi pravic in obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz 73.
člena ZDR-1
Upoštevaje prvi odstavek 73. člena ZDR-1, se s pogodbo o zaposlitvi s poslovodno osebo
lahko drugače uredijo pravice in obveznosti iz delovnega razmerja v zvezi s sklepanjem
pogodbe o zaposlitvi za določen čas, delovnim časom, odmori in počitki, plačilom za
delo, disciplinsko odgovornostjo in prenehanjem pogodbe o zaposlitvi. Pogodbena
ureditev teh pravic in obveznosti je lahko za poslovodne osebe bolj ali manj ugodna od
zakonske. Namen drugačne pogodbene ureditve po tem členu ni v priznavanju več pravic
tem osebam (to je na podlagi drugega odstavka 9. člena ZDR-1 možno pri vseh delavcih,
in glede vseh pravic in obveznosti), ampak v ustreznejši ureditvi nekaterih pravic,
obveznosti in odgovornosti, katerih zakonska ureditev je neustrezna z vidika hkratnega
statusnega položaja poslovodnih oseb.23
Sklepanje pogodbe o zaposlitvi za določen čas
Pogodba o zaposlitvi s poslovodno osebo se lahko sklene za določen čas, ki je lahko daljši
od veh let (kar je sicer splošna časovna omejitev).24
S takšno ureditvijo ZDR-1 omogoča
pogodbenim strankam, da trajanje pogodbenega razmerja poslovodne osebe vežejo na
predvideno trajanje statusno-pravnega razmerja. Statusno-pravni položaj (funkcija)
poslovodne osebe je namreč običajno časovno omejen z mandatnim obdobjem (pri članu
uprave in izvršnem direktorju že na podlagi zakona, pri poslovodji pa, če je tako določeno
v družbeni pogodbi), ki praviloma traja več kot dve leti.25
Delovni čas, odmori, počitki
V 73. členu ZDR-1 določena možnost, da pogodbeni stranki drugače uredita delovni čas,
odmore in počitke poslovodne osebe, je urejena tudi v 157. členu ZDR-1, ki se nanaša na
posebnosti urejanja delovnega časa, nočnega dela, odmorov in počitkov za nekatere
kategorije delavcev, med katere sodijo tudi poslovodne osebe. Pri tem je upoštevan
poseben položaj poslovodnih oseb, za katere je značilno, da jim glede na naravo
njihovega dela delovnega časa ni mogoče vnaprej razporediti (s strani kakšnega drugega
organa v družbi) oziroma si ga razporejajo sami. Kljub temu, da v primeru poslovodnih
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
D. Senčur Peček: Regulation of Employment Relationships of Directors (Managers) in
Companies
181
oseb v pogodbi o zaposlitvi ni treba upoštevati posamičnih zakonskih določb v zvezi z
delovnim časom, ki so namenjene varstvu ostalih delavcev, jim morata biti zagotovljena
varnost in zdravje pri delu.
Plačilo za delo
Upoštevaje 73. člen ZDR-1 se poslovodnim osebam plačilo za delo pogodbeno lahko
uredi drugače, kot to sicer ureja ZDR-1. Če navedene določbe ne bi bilo, se pogodbeni
stranki ne bi mogli ravnati po določbah prvega odstavka 270. in enajstega odstavka 290.
člena ZGD-1, ki določajo pravila za določitev prejemkov člana uprave in izvršnega
direktorja, prav tako ne bi mogli slediti Priporočilom Združenja Manager pri sklepanju
managerskih pogodb (http://www.zdruzenje-manager.si/o-zdruzenju/kljucni-dokumenti)
niti Priporočilom Združenja članov nadzornih svetov za kadrovanje in nagrajevanje
članov uprav in izvršnih direktorjev (http://www.zdruzenje-ns.si/knjiznica/priporocilain-kodeksi/),
saj ta priporočila v veliki meri odstopajo od zakonske ureditve plačila za
delo.
Pogodbeni stranki, ki pri tem nista vezani na sestavine plače, ko jih določa 126. člen
ZDR-1 lahko poslovodni osebi s pogodbo o zaposlitvi prosto določita višino in obliko
plačila za delo (plačo, nagrade, nagrajevanje z delnicami in opcijami, razne bonitete) in
pri tem upoštevata njen položaj v družbi – predvsem dejstvo da kot član poslovodnega
organa vodi posle družbe z veliko samostojnostjo in ima možnost vplivati na rezultate
družbe. Glede tistih vprašanj, povezanih z nagrajevanjem poslovodne osebe, ki so izrecno
urejena v pogodbi o zaposlitvi, velja pogodbena (in ne zakonska) ureditev, glede vseh
ostalih vprašanj pa tudi za poslovodne osebe veljajo določbe ZDR-1. Če glede
posameznih pravic, ki jih ZDR-1 določa, v pogodbi s poslovodno osebo ni drugačne
ureditve, jim te pravice pripadajo v takšnem obsegu, kot izhaja iz ZDR-1 (na primer
nadomestilo plače, regres za letni dopust, odpravnina ob upokojitvi). Za poslovodne
osebe pa praviloma ne veljajo (panožne in podjetniške) kolektivne pogodbe. Če te
kolektivne pogodbe za delavce določajo višji nivo pravic na posameznih področjih, to za
poslovodno osebo ne velja, razen če se njegova pogodba o zaposlitvi sklicuje na
kolektivno pogodbo, ki zavezuje delodajalca, ali če se mu enak (ali višji) nivo pravic, kot
izhajajo iz kolektivne pogodbe, izrecno priznava s pogodbo o zaposlitvi).
Disciplinska odgovornost
Disciplinska odgovornost delavca kot institut, urejen z ZDR-1 se nanaša tudi na
poslovodno osebo - delavca. V imenu delodajalca bi upoštevaje tretji odstavek 20. člena
ZDR-1 v tem primeru nastopal organ, ki je v ZGD-1 določen kot organ, ki družbo zastopa
proti poslovodstvu. Vodenje disciplinskega postopka s strani nadzornega sveta
(upravnega odbora, skupščine družbenikov) proti poslovodni osebi sicer ni običajna
aktivnost za te organe. Le-ti sicer nastopajo proti poslovodni osebi tudi kot zastopnik
delodajalca, vendar vse dokler med njimi in poslovodno osebo obstaja zaupanje,
vprašanje morebitnih (manjših) kršitev poslovodne osebe rešujejo brez uporabe
182 24.KONFERENCA: GOSPODARSKI SUBJEKTI NA TRGU IN EVROPSKE DIMENZIJE
D. Senčur Peček: Urejanje delovnih razmerji direktorjev (poslovodnih oseb)
gospodarskih družb
postopkovno zapletenega disciplinskega postopka, z zaupnim razgovorom. Za primer, da
bi poslovodna oseba huje kršila svoje obveznosti, pa ima gospodarska družba nasproti
poslovodni osebi na voljo tudi druge, iz statusno-pravnega položaja izhajajoče možnosti
ukrepanja (odpoklic). To so po mojem mnenju tudi razlogi, zaradi katerih je ZDR-1 v 73.
členu dopustil, da pogodbeni stranki v pogodbi o zaposlitvi s poslovodno osebo
(disciplinsko odgovornost drugače uredita.
Prenehanje pogodbe o zaposlitvi
Iz 73. člena ZDR-1 izhaja, da lahko pogodbeni stranki drugače uredita tudi prenehanje
pogodbe o zaposlitvi. V času veljavnosti ZDR (ki je vseboval identično določbo) so v tej
zvezi obstajala različna mnenja o tem, na kaj se lahko nanaša drugačna pogodbena
ureditev, predvsem ali se lahko pogodbeni stranki dogovorita za drugačen način
prenehanja pogodbe o zaposlitvi, kot jih sicer ureja zakon, z namenom, da bi ob
prenehanju statusno-pravnega položaja poslovodne osebe (lahko) prišlo tudi do
prenehanja njenega delovnega razmerja.26
Navedeno vprašanje je bilo za prakso zelo
pomembno. V primeru nekrivdne razrešitve direktorja ali ob poteku njegovega mandata
namreč pogodbe o zaposlitvi (ki je bila praviloma sklenjena za nedoločen čas), na podlagi
zakonske ureditve ni bilo mogoče odpovedati.
Danes dvoma o tem, da je dopustno v pogodbi o zaposlitvi s poslovodno osebo drugače
urediti tudi način prenehanje pogodbe o zaposlitvi ni več. Pogodbene stranke na različne
načine urejajo prenehanje pogodbe o zaposlitvi ob prenehanju mandata poslovodne osebe
– praviloma tako da s prenehanjem mandata preneha tudi pogodba o zaposlitvi ali tako,
da je prenehanje mandata razlog za odpoved pogodbe o zaposlitvi. V praksi so različno
določene tudi pravice direktorja ob prenehanju pogodbe o zaposlitvi (odpravnina,
odpovedni rok, pravica do ponudbe drugega dela). Iz sodnih primerov izhaja, da so te
pravice praviloma vezane na razlog za odpoklic in direktorju pripadajo le v primeru, če
do odpoklica ni prišlo iz razloga na njegovi strani.27
Pri uresničitvi pravice do ustreznega
drugega dela, ki je dogovorjena s pogodbo o zaposlitvi za primer prenehanja funkcije, je
v praksi pomembno predvsem to, ali ima delodajalec delovno mesto, ki bi ga lahko
ponudil bivšemu direktorju, na voljo.28
Kadar je v pogodbi o zaposlitvi določeno, da je prenehanje funkcije (odpoklic, odstop
poslovodne osebe) razlog za odpoved pogodbe o zaposlitvi, lahko pogodba preneha s
potekom odpovednega roka. Čeprav je direktorju funkcija prenehala, pogodba o
zaposlitvi vse do izteka odpovednega roka obstaja, delavec pa lahko koristi letni dopust,
predaja posle, ali pa je zgolj upravičen do nadomestila plače.29
Namen pogodbe o
zaposlitvi (pa tudi civilne pogodbe) s poslovodno osebo je ravno v varstvu položaja
poslovodne osebe, tudi ob prenehanju njenega statusnega razmerja (praviloma z
odpovednim rokom oziroma odpravnino).
Če v pogodbi o zaposlitvi s poslovodno osebo prenehanje pogodbe o zaposlitvi ni urejeno,
velja zakonska ureditev (določbe ZDR-1). V primeru krivdnega prenehanja funkcije
poslovodne osebe praviloma pride v poštev izredna odpoved pogodbe o zaposlitvi, v
primeru odpoklica zaradi nesposobnosti, odpoved pogodbe o zaposlitvi iz razloga
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
D. Senčur Peček: Regulation of Employment Relationships of Directors (Managers) in
Companies
183
nesposobnosti in v primerih kot je zmanjšanje števila članov uprave, odpoved iz
poslovnega razloga. V primeru, ko je poslovodna oseba odpoklicana iz razloga, ki ni na
njeni strani (član uprave zaradi drugih ekonomsko-poslovnih razlogov po četrti alineji
drugega odstavka 268. člena ZGD-1, izvršni direktor ali poslovodja pa brez krivde
oziroma brez navedbe razloga) ali ji preneha mandata in ni ponovno imenovana, noben
od zakonsko urejenih načinov prenehanja pogodbe o zaposlitvi ni čisto ustrezen.30
V
poslovni praksi se je v tej zvezi uveljavila redna odpoved pogodbe o zaposlitvi iz razloga
nesposobnosti, Vrhovno sodišče RS pa je v več zadevah potrdilo zakonitost tovrstne
odpovedi z utemeljitvijo, da odpoklicani direktor več ne izpolnjuje z zakonom (ZGD-1)
določenih pogojev za opravljanje svojega dela, zato ne more izpolnjevati obveznosti iz
pogodbe o zaposlitvi.31
Po pregledu sodnih odločitev Vrhovnega sodišča RS in Višjega delovnega in socialnega
sodišča je mogoče ugotoviti, da je prišlo do zanimive prakse. Gospodarske družbe namreč
odpovedi pogodbe o zaposlitvi iz razloga nesposobnosti ne uporabljajo le v primeru
nekrivdnega odpoklica poslovodne osebe, ampak tudi v primeru odpoklica iz krivdnih
razlogov32
Ker so odpravnina in druge pravice praviloma vezane na nekrivdni odpoklic,
poslovodni osebi v takšnem primeru ne izplačajo odpravnine. Poslovodna oseba mora
pravico do odpravnine uveljavljati pred delovnim sodiščem, ki pri tem presoja obstoj
krivdnih razlogov za odpoklic.33
Po drugi strani pa delovna sodišča praviloma zavračajo
zahtevke poslovodnih oseb, ki uveljavljajo nezakonitost odpovedi pogodbe o zaposlitvi
iz razloga nesposobnosti, saj jo štejejo za utemeljeno s samim dejstvom odpoklica.
Odločanje o veljavnosti sklepa o odpoklicu je v pristojnosti rednih sodišč, ki pa glede na
ustaljeno sodno prakso34
lahko zgolj ugotovijo ničnost sklepa (ob analogni uporabi OZ),
ne odločajo pa o njegovi razveljavitvi (zaradi nezakonitosti oziroma neutemeljenosti). O
vprašanju obstoja odpovednih razlogov redna sodišča odločajo le v zvezi z
uveljavljanjem odškodnine zaradi morebitnega neutemeljenega odpoklica. Ugotovimo
lahko, da se je v nekaj letih varstvo delovnopravnega položaja poslovodnih oseb zelo
spremenilo. Če je bilo v preteklosti direktorju ob prenehanju funkcije težko odpovedati
pogodbo o zaposlitvi, danes direktor težko doseže ugotovitev nezakonitosti odpovedi
pogodbe o zaposlitvi tudi, če je bil odpoklic neutemeljen oziroma nezakonit.
5 Sklepno
Pravna ureditev pogodbenega položaja direktorjev v RS se tudi po več kot dvajsetih letih
uvedbe gospodarskih družb, ni spremenila. Direktorji so lahko v delovnem razmerju, pa
čeprav v njihovem pogodbenem razmerju z gospodarsko družbo ni elementov delovnega
razmerja. To sedaj izrecno izhaja iz ZDR-1, ki omogoča sklenitev pogodbe o zaposlitvi
celo direktorju enoosebne družbe. Za direktorja enoosebne družbe je to pomembno zaradi
ugodnejšega socialno-pravnega položaja, v primeru ostalih direktorjev pa predvsem
zaradi delovnopravnega varstva. Direktorja-delavca namreč varujejo vsi mednarodni in
nacionalni delovnopravni viri, pa čeprav tega varstva pogosto ne potrebuje. V določeni
meri je pravni položaj direktorja (poslovodne osebe) sicer drugačen od položaja drugih
delavcev, saj to omogoča posebna zakonska in pogodbena ureditev. V večini primerov ta
184 24.KONFERENCA: GOSPODARSKI SUBJEKTI NA TRGU IN EVROPSKE DIMENZIJE
D. Senčur Peček: Urejanje delovnih razmerji direktorjev (poslovodnih oseb)
gospodarskih družb
drugačna ureditev omogoča usklajevanje delovnopravnega in korporacijskega položaja.
Največ težav je povezanih s prenehanjem pogodbe o zaposlitvi, kar je posledica
nerazumevanja namena pogodbe, ki direktorju (delavcu) zagotavlja varstvo tudi ob
prenehanju statusnega položaja.
Notes
1
Uradni list RS, št. 65/09 (ZGD-1 UPB3), 33/2011, 91/2011, 32/2012, 57/2012, 44/13 – odl. US,
82/2013 in 55/2015.
2
Uradni list RS, št. 21/2013.
3
Glej 1. odstavek 515. člena ZGD-1 in 2. odstavek 265. člena ZGD-1.
4
Glej na primer 286., 287. člen ZGD-1.
5
ZGD-1 poimenuje z izrazom izvršni direktor vse osebe, ki jih upravni odbor imenuje na to
funkcijo (ne le člane upravnega odbora, ampak tudi tretje osebe).
6
V primeru, da upravni odbor imenuje izvršne direktorje, namreč člani upravnega odbora (podobno
kot člani nadzornega sveta v delniški družbi z dvotirnim sistemom upravljanja) z družbo ne
sklenejo posebne pogodbe o opravljanju funkcije, ampak so plačani po sklepu skupščine oziroma
na podlagi določbe v statutu (v obliki sejnin).
7
Več o tem (Senčur Peček, 2008: 7-26).
8
Glej 2. odstavek 270. člena, 8. in 11. odstavek 290. člena, 3. odstavek 515. člena ZGD-1.
9
Tak izraz (»pogodba o opravljanju funkcije« oziroma »pogodba o opravljanju funkcije
poslovodje«) uporablja tudi ZGD-1 ( v 8. odstavku 290. člena 3. odstavku 515. člena).
10
Korporacijski položaj direktorja nastane z imenovanjem, pogodbeni pa s sklenitvijo pogodbe.
Sklenitev pogodbe ni nujna, niti obvezna, zato lahko direktor svojo funkcijo opravlja tudi, če
pogodba ni (veljavno) sklenjena. Veljavno imenovanje osebe za direktorja pa je pogoj za veljavnost
pogodbe o opravljanju funkcije direktorja, saj pogodba o opravljanju funkcije direktorja z osebo,
ki ni direktor nima podlage (kavze).
11
Korporacijsko pravo ureja položaj direktorja z vidika njegovega delovanja kot organa družbe, s
pogodbo pa je urejeno varstvo osebnega položaja direktorja. Navedena položaja se prekrivata le v
določenem delu (predvsem glede obveznosti direktorja, ki jih direktor prevzame skupaj s funkcijo
in jih pogodbeno ni mogoče spremeniti ter glede določitve prejemkov direktorja-člana uprave ali
izvršnega direktorja, pri katerih se morata pogodbeni stranki ravnati po določbah ZGD-1, ki to
vprašanje načeloma urejajo) in le v tem delu mora biti pogodbena ureditev usklajena s statusnopravno
zakonodajo. V ostalem delu sta oba položaja med seboj neodvisna, in se presojata vsak po
svojih pravilih.
12
Korporacijski in pogodbeni položaj sta funkcionalno povezana, zato bo prenehanju
korporacijskega položaja nedvomno sledilo prenehanje pogodbe. Pri tem pa se spet pokaže ločenost
obeh položajev. Korporacijski položaj (funkcija) direktorja preneha po statusno-pravnih pravilih,
za opredelitev trajanja in prenehanja pogodbe pa veljajo pravila, ki veljajo za pogodbo (pravila
civilnega ali delovnega prava). Tudi namen korporacijskih pravil in pogodbene ureditve položaja
direktorja je različen. Prva zagotavljajo čim uspešnejše funkcioniranje družbe (temu služi tudi
zakonska možnost pristojnih organov družbe, da svobodno postavljajo in odstavljajo direktorja).
Namen pogodbene ureditve položaja direktorja pa je v tem, da varuje direktorja, ne le v času trajanja
opravljanja funkcije, ampak tudi v primeru prenehanja funkcije, ki za direktorja pomeni izgubo vira
za preživljanje.
13
Uradni list RS, št. št. 30/1993, 29/1994, 82/1994, 20/1998, 84/1998, 6/1999, 45/2001, 57/2004
in 139/2004.
14
Pred tem je (v času družbene lastnine in samoupravljanja) je bila na ozemlju Republike Slovenije
ureditev gospodarskih subjektov in položaja oseb, ki so te subjekte vodile, prilagojena temu
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
D. Senčur Peček: Regulation of Employment Relationships of Directors (Managers) in
Companies
185
družbeno-ekonomskemu sistemu. Člani poslovodnih organov (direktorji) so bili v delovnem
razmerju in v svojem delovnopravnem položaju v veliki meri izenačeni z ostalimi delavci.
15
Uradni list RS, št. 42/2002, 103/2007..
16
ZDR je v prvem odstavku 72. člena določal: »Če poslovodna oseba sklepa pogodbo o
zaposlitvi….«.
17
V primeru sklenitve pogodbe o zaposlitvi med poslovodno osebo in družbo, katere edini lastnik
je ta poslovodna oseba, se takšno razmerje lahko šteje za delovno razmerje, ne glede na 4. člen
ZDR-1 (se pravi, ne glede na to, ali v razmerju obstajajo elementi delovnega razmerja, med katerimi
je najpomembnejši opravljanje dela po navodilih in pod nadzorom delodajalca.). Glej drugi
odstavek 73. člena ZDR-1.
18
Glej sodbo Vrhovnega sodišča opr. št. VIII Ips 167/2008 iz 29. oktobra 2009 in druge podobne
sodbe, iz katerih izhaja, da direktor-družbenik enoosebne družbe ne more biti vključen v socialno
zavarovanje kot delavec.
19
Sodišče EU, ki sicer pojem delavca pojmuje zelo široko (tudi v primeru direktorjev), je pri tem
izvzelo direktorja, ki je edini družbenik, saj ta ne more biti v razmerju podrejenosti (glej sodbo v
zadevi C-107/94 z dne 27. junija 1996, P. H. Asscher proti Staatssecretaris van Financiën, ZOdl
1996, str. I-03089, točka 26, ki se citira tudi v novejših odločitvah).
20
Predvidevati je mogoče, da je zakonodajalec želel direktorjem enoosebnih družb omogočiti
socialno zavarovanje na podlagi delovnega razmerja (namesto, da bi posebej uredil socialno
zavarovanje za poslovodne osebe, ki niso delavci, podobno kot je to urejeno v primerljivih pravnih
sistemih).
21
Ob tem pa kaže opozoriti na novejšo prakso sodišča EU, ki je v primeru uporabe nekaterih
direktiv EU pričelo oblikovati enotni evropski pojem delavca. Nekatere od odločitev sodišča EU
so se nanašale ravno na direktorja (na primer C-232/09, 11. november 2010, Dita Danosa proti
LKB Līzings SIA, ZOdl 2010, str. I-11405; C-229/14, 9. julij 2015, Ender Balkaya proti Kiesel
Abbruch- und Recycling Technik GmbH, še neobjavljeno), Sodišče pa je direktorja v smislu
obravnavane direktive štelo za delavca, ne glede na to, da je imel z gospodarsko družbo sklenjeno
pogodbo civilnega prava in se po nacionalnem pravu ni štel za delavca
22
Drugačno stališče zavzema Vrhovno sodišče RS v primerih, ko gre za odpoved pogodbe o
zaposlitvi poslovodni osebi, ki je bila pred tem odpoklicana. V sodbah VIII Ips 83/2011 iz 4. 9.
2012, ECLI:SI:VSRS:2012:VIII.IPS.83.2011 in VIII Ips 79/2013 iz 30. 9. 2013,
ECLI:SI:VSRS:2013:VIII.IPS.79.2013 ter sklepu VIII Ips 162/2013 iz 10. 12. 2013,
ECLI:SI:VSRS:2013:VIII.IPS.162.2013 je zavzelo stališče, da v tem primeru za odpoved ni
pristojen organ, določen na podlagi tretjega odstavka 20. člena ZDR-1 (prej 18. člena ZDR), ampak
zakoniti zastopnik po prvem odstavku 20. člena ZDR-1(novi direktor).
Navedenemu stališču ni mogoče pritrditi. Čeprav je bil direktor odpoklican, in formalno ni več
poslovodna oseba, gre za odpoved pogodbe o zaposlitvi, ki je bila sklenjena za opravljanje funkcije
poslovodne osebe. Organ družbe, ki je po statusni zakonodaji pristojen za imenovanje in odpoklic
direktorja in za zastopanje družbe proti direktorju (v primeru delniške družbe je to nadzorni svet),
je v skladu s tretjim odstavkom 20. člena ZDR-1 pristojen tudi za podpis pogodbe o zaposlitvi z
direktorjem. Menim, da bi morali ta organ šteti kot pristojni organ tudi za odpoved te iste pogodbe
o zaposlitvi, ne glede na to, kdaj do te odpovedi pride. Še vedno gre za nastopanje družbe v razmerju
do osebe, ki je opravljala poslovodno funkcijo in glede vprašanj, ki se nanašajo na pogodbo glede
poslovodne funkcije. Takšno je tudi stališče nemške teorije (Münchener Kommentar zum
Aktiengesetz, 2008: 134, 135, 302, 1136-1139; Scholz Kommentar zum GmbH-Gesetz,, 2000:
1549; Lutter/Hommelhoff GmbH-Gesetz Kommentar, 2009: 309) in sodne prakse, ki temelji na
nemški korporacijski zakonodaji (ki ji je sledil ZGD-1).
23
Upoštevaje tretji odstavek 73. člena ZDR-1 velja ta možnost drugačne pogodbene ureditve pravic
in obveznosti tudi za poslovodno osebo-edinega družbenika gospodarske. Glede na to, da gre za
186 24.KONFERENCA: GOSPODARSKI SUBJEKTI NA TRGU IN EVROPSKE DIMENZIJE
D. Senčur Peček: Urejanje delovnih razmerji direktorjev (poslovodnih oseb)
gospodarskih družb
pogodbo o zaposlitvi, ki jo kot delavec in kot delodajalec podpiše ista oseba, so pravila ki jih
delovno pravo določa z namenom varstva delavca (šibkejše stranke) v razmerju do delodajalca, tu
brez pomena. To velja tudi glede vsebine pogodbe o zaposlitvi in možnosti odstopa od zakonske
ureditve. Pogodba o zaposlitvi je v primeru direktorja-družbenika enoosebne družbe namenjena
predvsem temu, da se lahko direktor vključi v socialna zavarovanja kot delavec. Na tej podlagi je
glede pravic iz socialnega zavarovanja izenačen z ostalimi delavci (ki pridobijo pravice tudi, če jim
prispevki niso plačani), čeprav kot edini družbenik in direktor sam odloča o višini plače in o plačilu
prispevkov (kar je značilnost samozaposlenih oseb).
24
Glej prvo alinejo prvega odstavka 73. člena ter prvi odstavek 54. člena, drugi odstavek 55. člena
ZDR-1.
25
Glej prvi odstavek 255. člena, prvi odstavek 290. člena in drugi odstavek 515. člena ZGD-1.
26
Glej v (Bečan et. al, 2008: 317).
27
To glede odpravnine v primeru poslovodnih oseb v delniški družbi izhaja tudi iz tretje alineje
sedmega odstavka 294. člena ZGD-1).
28
Glej na primer sodbo VDSS Pdp 283/2015, 20. 8. 2015, ECLI:SI:VDSS:2015:PDP.283.2015 in
sklep VDSS Pdp 372/2014, 20.8.2014, ECLI:SI:VDSS:2014:PDP.372.2014.
29
Drugačno stališče izhaja iz sodbe Vrhovnega sodišča RS VIII Ips 38/2015, 21. 4. 2015,
ECLI:SI:VSRS:2015:VIII.IPS.38.2015, točka 12.
30
Podrobneje o tem v (Bečan et. al, 2008: 318-319); glej tudi (Senčur Peček, 2009: 7- 34).
31
Glej sodbo VIII Ips 460/2006, 18. 6. 2007, ECLI:SI:VSRS:2007:VIII.IPS.460.2006, ki je bila
prva tovrstna odločitev in sodbo VIII Ips 114/2014, 29. 9. 2014,
ECLI:SI:VSRS:2014:VIII.IPS.114.2014, ki je ena novejših.
32
Glej na primer sodbo VIII Ips 204/2014, 8.6.2015, ECLI:SI:VSRS:2015:VIII.IPS.204.2014.
33
Na primer sodbi VS RS VIII Ips 181/2014, 13.1.2014, ECLI:SI:VSRS:2015:VIII.IPS.181.2014
in VIII Ips 204/2014, 8. 6. 2015, ECLI:SI:VSRS:2015:VIII.IPS.204.2014.
34
Glej sodbo in sklep VS RS III Ips 243/2008, 27. 1. 2011, ECLI:SI:VSRS:2011:III.IPS.243.2008;
sodbo VSK Cpg 43/2015, 20. 8. 2015, ECLI:SI:VSKP:2015:CPG.43.2015.
References
Bečan, I. et. al, (2008) Zakon o delovnih razmerjih s komentarjem (Ljubljana: GV Založba).
Bohinc, R. (1999) Delovnopravni in korporacijski položaj direktorjev, Podjetje in delo, 25(2), pp.
283-306.
Bratina, B., Kocbek, M. et. al, (2014) Veliki komentar Zakona o gospodarskih družbah (Ljubljana:
IUS SOFTWARE, GV založba).
Dobrin, T. (1995) Nekatera vprašanja delovnopravnega in socialnovarstvenega statusa poslovodnih
oseb, Podjetje in delo, 21(8), pp. 1116-1127.
Klampfer, M. (2001) Položaj managerjev po sodni praksi, In: Gospodarski subjekti na trgu, (IX.
Posvetovanje o aktualni problematiki s področja gospodarskega prava, 17. do 19. maj 2001,
Portorož), pp. 331 – 350 (Maribor: Inštitut za gospodarsko pravo).
Kresal, B. (2001) Pravni položaj managerjev z vidika ureditve njihovega plačila, In: Gospodarski
subjekti na trgu, (IX. Posvetovanje o aktualni problematiki s področja gospodarskega prava,
17. do 19. maj 2001, Portorož), pp. 323 – 330 (Maribor: Inštitut za gospodarsko pravo).
Lutter/Hommelhoff GmbH-Gesetz Kommentar (2009) (Köln: Verlag dr. Otto Schmidt).
Münchener Kommentar zum Aktiengesetz (2008) (München: Verlag C. H. Beck; Verlag Franz
Vahlen).
Schmidt, K .(2002) Gesellschaftsrecht (München, Köln, Berlin, Bonn: Carl Heymanns Verlag KG).
Scholz, F. (2000) Kommentar zum GmbH-Gesetz, I. Band (Köln: Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt).
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
D. Senčur Peček: Regulation of Employment Relationships of Directors (Managers) in
Companies
187
Senčur Peček, D. (2001) Pravni položaj direktorja gospodarske družbe, In: Gospodarski subjekti
na trgu, (IX. Posvetovanje o aktualni problematiki s področja gospodarskega prava, 17. do 19.
maj 2001, Portorož), pp. 291-310 (Maribor: Inštitut za gospodarsko pravo).
Senčur Peček, D. (2007) Delovnopravni položaj direktorjev, doktorska disertacija, (Murska
Sobota).
Senčur Peček, D. (2008) Pojem poslovodne osebe, direktorja in vodilnega delavca v gospodarski
družbi, Delavci in delodajalci, 8(1), pp. 7-26.
Senčur Peček, D. (2009) Prenehanje pogodbe o zaposlitvi s poslovodno osebo (direktorjem) v
primeru prenehanja funkcije poslovodne osebe, Delavci in delodajalci, 9(1), pp. 7- 34.
Senčur Peček, D. (2010) Je pogodba o opravljanju funkcije direktorja lahko pogodba o zaposlitvi?,
Podjetje in delo, 36(5), 835-862.
Zakon o delovnih razmerjih (ZDR-1), Uradni list RS, št. 21/2013,
Zakon o delovnih razmerjih (ZDR), Uradni list RS, št. 42/2002, 103/2007,
Zakon o gospodarskih družbah (ZGD-1), Uradni list RS, št. 65/2009 (ZGD-1 UPB3), 33/2011,
91/2011, 32/2012, 57/2012, 44/13 – odl. US, 82/2013 in 55/2015,
Zakon o gospodarskih družbah (ZGD), Uradni list RS, št. 30/1993, 29/1994, 82/1994, 20/1998,
84/1998, 6/1999, 45/2001, 57/2004 in 139/2004,
Priporočila Združenja Manager pri sklepanju managerskih pogodb (2014) [http://www.zdruzenjemanager.si/o-zdruzenju/kljucni-dokumenti]
(obiskano 1. 6. 2016)
Priporočila Združenja članov nadzornih svetov za kadrovanje in nagrajevanje članov uprav in
izvršnih direktorjev (2007) [http://www.zdruzenje-ns.si/knjiznica/priporocila-in-kodeksi/]
(obiskano 1. 6. 2016)
188 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND
EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
V. Rijavec
The Issue of the Order of Acquisition of Derivative Rights
in Case of Bankruptcy of the Immovable Property Owner
RENATO VRENČURccclxxxviii
Abstract: The paper discusses operationalisation of the priority principle,
which represents the other side of the principle of absoluteness. The
principle of absoluteness is in fact reflected in two ways, namely so that
real rights are enforceable against any person, and that the earlier or older
real rights take precedence over subsequent or younger real rights (first in
time, greater in right). Priority principle is operationalized in enforcement
and insolvency law as well. Thus, the discussion in this paper focuses on
legal issues of the order of acquisition of real rights in case of bankruptcy
of the immovable property owner. A special emphasis is placed on the
classification of mortgages and rights of superficies on the same
immovable property.
Keywords: • property law • immovable property • principle of absoluteness
• priority principle • bankruptcy • mortgage • right of superficies
CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS: Renato Vrečur, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Univrsity of Maribor,
Faculty of Law, Mladinska ulica 9, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia, e-mail: renato.vrencur@um.si.
DOI 10.18690/978-961-286-004-2.14 ISBN 978-961-286-004-2
© 2016 University of Maribor Press
Available at: http://press.um.si.
24. KONFERENCA: GOSPODARSKI SUBJEKTI NA TRGU IN
EVROPSKE DIMENZIJE
V. Rijavec
Problematika vrstnega reda pridobitve izvedenih pravic v
primeru stečaja lastnika nepremičnine
RENATO VREČUR ccclxxxix
Povzetek: Avtor v prispevku razpravlja o operacionalicaciji prednostnega
načela, ki predstavlja drugo plat načela absolutnosti. Načelo absolutnosti
se namreč odraža na dva načina, in sicer tako, da stvar-ne pravice
učinkujejo zoper vsakogar ter da imajo zgodnejše oziroma starejše stvarne
pravice prednost pred kasnejšimi oziroma mlajšimi stvarnimi pravicami
(prior tempore, potior iure; hitrejši po času, močnejši po pravici).
Prednostno načelo je operacionalizirano tudi v izvršilnem in insolvenčnem
pravu. Tako se razprava v tem prispevku osredotoči na pravno
problematiko vrstnega reda pridobitve stvarnih pravic v primeru stečaja
lastnika nepremičnine. Poseben pou-darek pa je dan razvrščanju hipotek in
stavbnih pravic na isti nepremičnini.
Ključne besede: • stvarno pravo • nepremičnine • načelo absolutnosti •
prednostno načelo • stečaj • hipoteka • stavbna pravica
NASLOV AVTORJA: dr. Renato Vrečur, izredni profesor, Univerza v Mariboru, Pravna Fakulteta,
Mladinska ulica 9, 2000 Maribor, Slovenija, e-mail: renato.vrencur@um.si.
DOI 10.18690/978-961-286-004-2.14 ISBN 978-961-286-004-2
© 2016 Univerzitetna zalozba Univerze v Mariboru
Dostopno na: http://press.um.si.
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
R. Vrečur: The Issue of the Order of Acquisition of Derivative Rights in Case of
Bankruptcy of the Immovable Property Owner
191
1 Splošno
Absolutnost stvarnih pravic se odraža na dva načina, in sicer tako, (1) da stvarne pravice
učinkujejo zoper vsakogar; (2) da imajo zgodnejše oziroma starejše stvarne pravice
prednost pred kasnejšimi oziroma mlajšimi stvarnimi pravicami (prior tempore, potior
iure; hitrejši po času, močnejši po pravici). Pravkar zapisano pomeni, da je prednostno
načelo odraz načela absolutnosti (eden izmed vidikov načela absolutnosti). Določba 6.
člena SPZ1
, ki opredeljuje vsebino prednostnega načela, je nedosledna, ko določa: »Če
obstaja na isti stvari več stvarnih pravic, ima prej pridobljena stvarna pravica iste vrste
prednost pred pozneje pridobljeno stvarno pravico.« Prednostno načelo ne velja samo za
rangiranje več istovrstnih stvarnih pravic, pač pa razvršča oz. rangira tudi različne
(izvedene) stvarne pravice. Tako je npr. prej pridobljena hipoteka lahko razlog za
prenehanje (pogojno izključitev) kasneje pridobljene stavbne pravice, v kolikor
hipotekarni upnik uresniči svoje prednostno poplačilno upravičenje.
Prednostno načelo, ki je kot pravno načelo tudi ustrezno operacionalizirano v SPZ in
drugih predpisih (npr. v ZZK-12
, ZIZ3
, ZFPPIPP4
) velja za razvrščanje izvedenih stvarnih
pravic. Dve izključni lastninski pravici na isti stvari ne moreta nastati (prej pridobljena
lastninska pravica izključuje pravno možnost nastanka kasnejše lastninske pravice),
nastane pa lahko več izvedenih stvarnih pravic na isti stvari. V tej zvezi velja že omenjeno
pravilo, da ima prej pridobljena izvedena stvarna pravica prednost pred pozneje
pridobljeno izvedeno stvarno pravico. Le stvarne pravice imajo izključevalni učinek za
druge stvarne (in tudi obligacijske) pravice. V pravni teoriji razvrščamo izvedene pravice
na primarne izvedene pravice in sekundarne izvedene pravice. Primarne izvedene stvarne
pravice so pravice, ki obremenjujejo oz. omejujejo ali pogojno izključujejo lastninsko
pravico (zastavna pravica, stavbna pravica, služnosti, stvarno breme). Sekundarne
izvedene stvarne pravice pa so tiste izvedene pravice, ki se oblikujejo na primarni
izvedeni stvarni pravici (npr. hipoteka na stavbni pravici; gl. 264. člen SPZ). Razvrščanje
na primarne izvedene pravice in sekundarne izvedene pravice je pomembno tudi v
pogledu trajanja in prenehanja izvedenih pravic. Prenehanje primarne izvedene pravice
povzroči tudi prenehanje sekundarne izvedene pravice (argument iz drugega odstavka
264. člena SPZ). Npr. s prenehanjem stavbne pravice, preneha tudi hipoteka na stavbni
pravici. Ustanovitev sekundarne izvedene stvarne pravice je pravno možna samo na tistih
primarnih izvedenih stvarnih pravicah, ki vključujejo razpolagalno upravičenje. Takšna
je praktično samo stavbna pravica. Prednostno načelo vsekakor velja tudi za razvrščanje
različnih hipotek, kot sekundarnih izvedenih stvarnih pravic, na primarni izvedeni pravici
(stavbni pravici). Če je npr. stavbna pravica obremenjena z dvema hipotekama z
različnima trenutkoma učinkovanja, bo imela prej pridobljena hipoteka prednost pred
kasneje pridobljeno hipoteko. Razvrščanje hipoteke in stavbne pravice na (primarni)
stavbni pravici ne pride v poštev, saj je naša sodna praksa jasno zavrnila možnost
ustanovitve podstavbne pravice.5
Smisel prednostnega pravila je v tem, da lastnik nepremičnine (oz. imetnik prenosljive
primarne stavbne pravice) s poznejšim razpolaganjem ne more (pravno učinkovito)
192 24. KONFERENCA: GOSPODARSKI SUBJEKTI NA TRGU IN EVROPSKE DIMENZIJE
R. Vrečur: Problematika vrstnega reda pridobitve izvedenih pravic v primeru stečaja
lastnika nepremičnine
razpolagati z lastninsko pravico tako, da bi posegel v že pridobljeno (starejšo) izvedeno
pravico. Zato takšno razpolaganje ne učinkuje proti imetniku zgodnejše izvedene pravice.
Ali obrnjeno, zgodnejša izvedena stvarna pravica ima izključevalni (absolutni) učinek za
pozneje pridobljeno izvedeno stvarno pravico.
Prednostno načelo je konkretizirano oz. operacionalizirano na več mestih v SPZ (gl. npr.
136., 147., 153., 169., 176. člen SPZ) ter v nekaterih drugih področnih predpisih, kot so
npr. 174. člen ZIZ ter 342. člen ZFPPIPP, 89. in 96. člen ZZK-1). Tako npr. ZIZ ureja
razvrščanje hipotek (in »še živečih« zemljiških dolgov) na eni strani ter osebnih služnosti,
stavbnih pravic in stvarnih bremen na drugi strani. Če so bile osebne služnosti, stavbne
pravice ali stvarna bremena pridobljene pred vpisom hipoteke (tudi prisilne) ali
zemljiškega dolga v zemljiško knjigo, ne prenehajo s prisilno prodajo nepremičnine. V
nasprotnem primeru te pravice prenehajo, razen, če se imetniki teh pravic s kupcem
drugače dogovorijo (174. člen ZIZ). Isto vsebinsko določbo vsebuje tudi 342. člen
ZFPPIPP.
Izjema v pogledu prednostnega pravila velja za stvarne služnosti na podlagi prvega
odstavka 174. člena ZIZ, ki ostanejo kot omejitev lastninske pravice na nepremičnini, ne
glede na časovni trenutek njihovega nastanka. Čeprav je bila npr. hipoteka ustanovljena
pred stvarno služnostjo, služnost s prisilno prodajo nepremičnine ne preneha (ugasne).
Pravno pravilo prvega odstavka 174. člena ZIZ velja kot izjema od prednostnega pravila
le za tiste prave pozitivne stvarne služnosti, ki so po vsebini »nujne poti«. Takšno
značilnost imajo tudi služnosti v javno korist. Zato velja ta izjema po naši oceni le za
prave pozitivne stvarne (poljske oz. zemljiške) potne služnosti ter za služnosti v javno
korist. Če gre za stvarno služnost, ki po vsebini ne predstavlja »nujne pot« oz., če ne gre
za služnost v javno korist, izjema ne pride v poštev. Izjema po naši oceni tudi ne pride v
poštev za zasebne neprave stvarne služnosti. Izjema je utemeljena s tem, da so prave
pozitivne stvarne potne služnosti potrebne za gospodarsko rabo in izkoriščanje
gospodujoče nepremičnine ter bi ukinitev (prenehanje) takšne služnosti v posledici
prisilne prodaje nepremičnine, terjala ponovno oblikovanje (ustanovitev) istovrstne
služnosti za potrebe gospodujoče nepremičnine. Navedeno velja tudi za služnosti v javno
korist, saj bi moral operater javnega (npr. energetskega, elektronskega komunikacijskega,
telekomunikacijskega) omrežja ponovno ustanavljati istovrstno služnost za potrebe
obratovanja in vzdrževanja javne infrastrukture določene vrste.6
2 Zemljiškoknjižno načelo vrstnega reda
Tudi zemljiškoknjižno načelo vrstnega reda, je po vsebini prednostno načelo, ki je
operacionalizirano v številnih določbah ZZK-1. Oblikovano je celo nekoliko širše, kot v
SPZ. Pravilo zajame tudi položaje, ko gre za takšne stvarne pravice, ki se medsebojno
izključujejo. To velja za lastninsko pravico. Če npr. A proda isto nepremičnino B-ju in
C-ju, bo postal lastnik tisti, ki bo prvi vložil zemljiškoknjižni predlog za vpis lastninske
pravice. Na področju zemljiškoknjižnega prava je torej odločilna vložitev predloga za
vpis, kajti vpisi pravic in pravnih dejstev v zemljiški knjigi učinkujejo od trenutka
(začetek učinkovanja vpisov), ko je zemljiškoknjižno sodišče prejelo predlog za vpis, oz.
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
R. Vrečur: The Issue of the Order of Acquisition of Derivative Rights in Case of
Bankruptcy of the Immovable Property Owner
193
ko je prejelo listino, na podlagi katere o vpisu odloča po uradni dolžnosti (prim. 5. člen
ZZK-1). V skladu z načelom vrstnega reda, zemljiškoknjižno sodišče torej odloča o
vpisih in opravlja vpise po vrstnem redu, ki se določi po trenutku, ko je prejelo predlog
za vpis, oz. ko je prejelo listino, na podlagi katere o vpisu odloča po uradni dolžnosti
(prvi odstavek 10. člena ZZK-1 ter 122. člen ZZK-1). Ker pa vpisi učinkujejo od prejema
predloga za vpis oz. od prejema listine, na podlagi katere se odloča o vpisu po uradni
dolžnosti, se tudi vrstni red pridobitve stvarne pravice ravna po trenutku, od katerega
začne učinkovati vpis (gl. drugi odstavek 10. člena ZZK-1).
Začetek zemljiškoknjižnega postopka se javno objavi s plombo. Drugače povedano,
oblikovalni učinki vpisov (trenutek pridobitve, spremembe in prenehanja pravic; gl. 7.
člen ZZK-1) nastopijo s trenutkom začetka učinkovanja vpisov (5. člen ZZK-1), ki je
identičen začetku zemljiškoknjižnega postopka, kateri se javno objavi s plombo, ki je
pomožni vpis in katerega namen je, da se publicira (javno objavi) začetek
zemljiškoknjižnega postopka (134. člen ZZK-1). To pa tudi pomeni, da se publicitetni
učinki vpisov (6. člen ZZK-1) začnejo že z vpisom plombe v zemljiško knjigo (135. člen
ZZK-1).
Primer: Če bo vpisana (in s tem že razvidna) plomba za začetek zemljiškoknjižnega
postopka glede vpisa hipoteke na nepremičnini, se kupec iste nepremičnine ne bo mogel
uspešno sklicevati, da je bil v dobri veri v času vložitve zemljiškoknjižnega predloga za
vpis lastninske pravice na svoje ime v zemljiško knjigo.
Glede na 135. člen ZZK-1 vpiše zemljiškoknjižno sodišče plombo po uradni dolžnosti na
podlagi prejema zemljiškoknjižnega predloga ali listine, na podlagi katere o vpisu odloča
po uradni dolžnosti. Pri tem Informacijski sistem e-ZK zagotavlja, da se plombe vpisujejo
po vrstnem redu, ki se določi po trenutku začetka zemljiškoknjižnega postopka in da je
plomba vidna na rednem izpisu iz zemljiške knjige najpozneje do začetka uradnih ur
delovanja informacijskega sistema e-ZK naslednjega delovnega dne po dnevu začetka
zemljiškoknjižnega postopka. Plomba se vpiše tako, da se navedejo naslednji podatki: 1.
oznaka, da gre za plombo, 2. opravilna številka, pod katero se vodi zemljiškoknjižni
postopek, 3. trenutek (dan, ura in minuta) začetka zemljiškoknjižnega postopka, 4.
trenutek (dan, ura in minuta) začetka učinkovanja vpisa, 5. vrsta vpisa, ki se z
zemljiškoknjižnim predlogom zahteva ali o katerem zemljiškoknjižno sodišče odloča po
uradni dolžnosti, 6. podatki o stanju postopka in 7. podatki o tem, ali je bil vpis dovoljen
ali pa je bilo o vpisu odločeno negativno. Ne vpiše pa se plomba, 1. če je zemljiškoknjižni
predlog vložen v nasprotju s prvim ali drugim odstavkom 125.a člena tega zakona, 2. če
je obvestilo sodišča ali drugega državnega organa, ki je podlaga za vpis v zemljiško
knjigo po uradni dolžnosti, vloženo v nasprotju s prvim odstavkom 125.a člena ZZK-1,
3. če je obvestilo geodetske uprave, ki je podlaga za poočitev iz 1. ali 2. točke 114. člena
ZZK-1 poslano v nasprotju s sedmim odstavkom 115. člena ZZK-1, 4. v zvezi s
poočitvami spremembe podatkov o osebi iz 3. točke 114. člena ZZK-1.
194 24. KONFERENCA: GOSPODARSKI SUBJEKTI NA TRGU IN EVROPSKE DIMENZIJE
R. Vrečur: Problematika vrstnega reda pridobitve izvedenih pravic v primeru stečaja
lastnika nepremičnine
Vrstni red (kasnejše) pridobitve stvarnih pravic je mogoče varovati tudi z nekaterimi
pravnimi instituti zemljiškoknjižnega prava (predznambe, zaznambe vrstnega reda,
zaznambe spora ipd.).
3 Posebej o problematiki rangiranja hipotek in stavbnih pravic
Prej pridobljena hipoteka je (lahko)7
razlog za prenehanje kasneje pridobljene stavbne
pravice. Oblikovalni učinek prenehanja stavbne pravice nastopi s pravnomočnostjo
sklepa o izročitvi nepremičnine, izdanega v zvezi s prisilno prodajo nepremičnine v
postopku izvršbe ali stečaja (gl. npr. 174. člen v zv. s 192. členom ZIZ in 342. členu
ZFPPIPP ter 89. in 96. člen ZZK-1). Če je bila stavbna pravica pridobljena pred vpisom
(najzgodnejše) hipoteke (tudi prisilne) ali zemljiškega dolga v zemljiško knjigo, s prisilno
prodajo ne preneha (drugi odstavek 174. člena ZIZ).8
Drugače povedano, tiste stavbne
pravice, ki so bile ustanovljene za hipotekami, bodo zaradi prisilne prodaje prenehale.9
Iz kupnine, dobljene s prisilno prodajo, se bodo poplačali hipotekarni upniki, rangirani
pred stavbno pravico. Tudi imetnik stavbne pravice se lahko poplača za izgubo svoje
pravice (v znesku verzijske terjatve zaradi povečanja vrednosti tuje nepremičnine),
vendar iz kupnine, dobljene s prisilno prodajo, če je je še kaj ostalo, nato pa hipotekarni
upniki, ki so rangirani za imetnikom stavbne pravice.10
Verzijska terjatev je posledica
učinka akcesije (ko ponovno zaživi načelo povezanosti zemljišča in objekta; superficies
solo cedit).11
Če je bila stavbna pravica ustanovljena z najboljšim vrstnim redom, ne preneha zaradi
prisilne prodaje. Zaradi tega dejstva jo mora upoštevati pooblaščeni ocenjevalec
vrednosti pri določitvi (ugotovitvi) vrednosti nepremičnine.12
Upoštevati mora npr. tudi
donose nepremičnine zaradi plačevanja solarija (nadomestila za uporabo nepremičnine).
Ker stavbna pravica z najboljšim vrstnim redom v primeru prisilne prodaje ne preneha,
se nepremičnina stečajnega oz. izvršilnega dolžnika proda z bremenom stavbne pravice.
Tudi določba 342. člena ZFPPIPP ne ureja obravnavane pravne položaje drugače kot ZIZ.
(v bistvenih značilnosti) enako kot ZIZ. Citirano določbo ZFPPIPP je treba razlagati v
povezavi s 96. členom ZZK-1 in 89. členom ZZK-1. To pomeni, da učinkuje zaznamba
stečaja v resnici tako kot zaznamba izvršbe. Ta pa učinkuje že od vpisa prve
(najzgodnejše) in vsake naslednje hipoteke. Vse navedeno pripelje do prav takšnega
rezultata, kot ga ureja 174. člen ZIZ. Tudi, če je bila stavbna pravica ustanovljena pred
dnem začetka stečaja, bo prenehala, če je pred njo hipoteka (pogodbena, prisilna na
podlagi sklepa o izvršbi ali pridobljena v postopku zavarovanja, ali zemljiški dolg – tisti,
ki so seveda že zmeraj »živi«, ker so bili ustanovljeni pred novelo SPZ-A).13
Le, če pred
njo ni hipoteke ter je bila ustanovljena pred začetkom stečaja, bo na nepremičnino ostala
ter s prisilno prodajo ne bo prenehala, ampak bo bremenila lastninsko pravico še nadalje
(praviloma do poteka časa, za katerega je bila ustanovljena), v kolikor ne bo npr. izbrisana
zaradi uspelega izpodbijanja v stečaju (če je bila ustanovljena v izpodbojnem obdobju ter
če so izpolnjene ostale predpostavke za izpodbijanje pravnih dejanj stečajnega dolžnika).
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
R. Vrečur: The Issue of the Order of Acquisition of Derivative Rights in Case of
Bankruptcy of the Immovable Property Owner
195
Določba 342. člena ZFPPIPP je bila do novele ZFPPIPP-G14
nedosledna. Določala je, da
»s plačilom kupnine prenehajo naslednje pravice tretjih na premoženju, ki je predmet
prodajne pogodbe:
1. zastavna pravica ali hipoteka in zemljiški dolg,
2. pravica do prepovedi odtujitve in obremenitve ter
3. osebne služnosti, stvarno breme ali stavbna pravica, če so bile pridobljene po trenutku,
od katerega po 244. členu tega zakona učinkuje začetek stečajnega postopka.«
Začetek stečajnega postopka učinkuje z začetkom dneva, ko je bil objavljen oklic o
začetku stečajnega postopka (glej prvi odstavek 244. člena ZFPPIPP). Izolirana uporaba
navedene določbe bi privedla do napačnega sklepa (na podlagi argumenta a contrario).
To je do sklepa, da stavbna pravica s prisilno prodajo nepremičnine ne bo prenehala, če
je bila ustanovljena pred objavo oklica o začetku stečajnega postopka (čeprav so morda
pred njo že vknjižene hipoteke). Vendar je bila takšna razlaga tudi v času pred novelo
ZFPPIPP-G napačna. V primeru, ko so pred stavbno pravico hipoteke, nastopi učinek
ekstenzivnosti hipoteke (gl. tudi 140. člen SPZ), kar pomeni, da se prej pridobljena
hipoteka razteza tudi na kasneje pridobljeno stavbno pravico. Prav zaradi tega takšna
stavbna pravica v primeru prisilne prodaje preneha, hipotekarni upnik pa se poplača iz
celotne vrednosti nepremičnine, ki zajema tudi vrednost stavbne pravice. Drugačna
razlaga bi povzročila pravno in dejansko devastacijo imetnika zgodnejše hipoteke, kar ne
bi bilo v duhu prednostnega pravila.
Z novelo ZFPPIPP-G je bila dopolnjena določba 3. točke prvega odstavka 342. člena
ZFPPIPP, kar vse tudi v celoti ustreza naši razlagi:
»(1) S plačilom kupnine prenehajo naslednje pravice tretjih na premoženju, ki je predmet
prodajne pogodbe:
1. zastavna pravica ali hipoteka in zemljiški dolg,
2. pravica do prepovedi odtujitve in obremenitve ter
3. naslednje osebne služnosti, stvarno breme ali stavbna pravica:
 če je lastninska pravica na nepremičnini, ki je predmet prodajne pogodbe, omejena
s hipoteko ali zemljiškim dolgom: če so bile pridobljene po trenutku, od katerega
učinkuje vpis najzgodnejše hipoteke ali zemljiškega dolga v zemljiško knjigo,
 v drugih primerih: če so bile pridobljene po trenutku, od katerega po 244. členu
tega zakona učinkuje začetek stečajnega postopka.«
Prenovljena določba 3. točke prvega odstavka 342. člena ZFPPIPP ne vsebuje prehodne
določbe, saj predstavlja le zapis pravilne uporabe prednostnega pravila. To pomeni, da se
spremenjena 3. točka prvega odstavka 342. člena ZFPPIPP uporablja tudi za postopke, ki
so bili 26. aprila 2016 že v teku, ko je začela veljati novela ZFPPIPP-G. Tudi predlagatelj
zakona pojasnjuje, da je bilo z novelo ZFPPIPP-G besedilo samo redakcijsko
popravljeno. V obrazložitvi te spremembe je vlada kot predlagateljica novele ZFPPIPP-
196 24. KONFERENCA: GOSPODARSKI SUBJEKTI NA TRGU IN EVROPSKE DIMENZIJE
R. Vrečur: Problematika vrstnega reda pridobitve izvedenih pravic v primeru stečaja
lastnika nepremičnine
G navedla: »Sedaj veljavno besedilo 3. točke prvega odstavka 342. člena ZFPPIPP ni
dosledno, saj po 6. členu SPZ (prednostno načelo) zaradi izključujočih učinkov hipoteke
oziroma zemljiškega dolga, z njuno uveljavitvijo prenehajo tudi pozneje pridobljene
osebne služnosti, stvarno breme ali stavbna pravica. V stečajnem postopku ima prodaja
nepremičnine učinke sodne uveljavitve hipoteke oziroma zemljiškega dolga. Zato sedaj
veljavno besedilo 3. točke prvega odstavka 342. člena ZFPPIPP zavaja k napačnemu
zaključku, da pozneje pridobljene osebne služnosti, stvarno breme ali stavbna pravica ne
prenehajo, čeprav iz tretjega odstavka 342. člena ZFPPIPP izhaja, da se tudi te pravice
izbrišejo v skladu s 89. členom v zvezi s 96. členom ZZK-1. Zaradi jasnosti se predlaga
ustrezna sprememba 3. točke prvega odstavka 342. člena ZFPPIPP.«
Slovenski zakonodajalec se je pri pripravi SPZ sicer zgledoval (še največ) po nemški
ureditvi (tudi glede normativne ureditve stavbne pravice), vendar pa je mogoče zlasti pri
stavbni pravici (katero je uredil na novo) zaznati številne nedoslednosti in izrazito
podnormiranost tega pravnega instituta. Možnost ustanovitve stavbne pravice na
nepremičnini, ki je že obremenjena s hipoteko (ali drugo zemljiško zastavo, ki vključuje
poplačilno pravico iz vrednosti nepremičnine), je npr. v nemškem pravu izključena. To
pomeni, da se lahko po omenjeni ureditvi ustanovi stavbna pravica samo na
neobremenjeni nepremičnini (nepremičnini, ki ni obremenjena s pogodbeno hipoteko,
zemljiškim dolgom, stvarnim bremenom, prisilno hipoteko). V par. 10 nemškega
Erbbaurechtsgesetz-a (ErbbauRG) iz leta 1919,15
je v tej zvezi določeno sledeče: »Das
Erbbaurecht kann nur zur ausschließlich ersten Rangstelle bestellt werden; der Rang kann
nicht geändert werden.« Nemška ureditev je gramatikalno povsem jasna, ko pravi, »da je
dedna stavbna pravica lahko ustanovljena izključno v prvem vrstnem redu ter da ni
dovoljena sprememba vrstnega reda.«16
Več kot zgovorno je dejstvo, da je v primerjalni
ureditvi stavbna pravica zaradi njene kompleksnosti (in posebnosti) urejena v posebnem
zakonu (to velja tudi za avstrijsko ureditev).17
Oba zakona sta stara okoli 100 let, kar
pomeni, da gre za tradicionalen in (dogmatično) izgrajen pravni institut.
Stavbna pravica bi morala imetniku zagotavljati stabilen pravni položaj, to pa je mogoče
le v primeru, če je ustanovljena z najboljšim vrstnim redom. SPZ te problematike ni uredil
ustrezno. Na zagotavljanje stabilnosti pravnega položaja kaže tudi rok, za katerega je
lahko ustanovljena stavbna pravica. Celo določitev maksimalnega roka trajanja (99 let)
stavbne pravice lahko izzveni v naši ureditvi v celoti v prazno, če se ustanovi za
zemljiškimi zastavami. Položaj se lahko še dodatno zaplete, če zaideta npr. v stečaj tako
lastnik nepremičnine, kot tudi imetnik stavbne pravice. V takem primeru je treba
odgovoriti na vprašanje, kaj spada v stečajno maso imetnika stavbne pravice. Govorimo
seveda o primeru, ko je stavbna pravica ustanovljena za hipotekami. Če spada v stečajno
maso lastnika nepremičnine celotna nepremičnina, skupaj s prirastjo (zgradbo oz.
napravo - sestavino, ki jo je investiral imetnik stavbne pravice), ostane za stečajno maso
imetnika stavbne pravice le verzijska terjatev, ki je v resnici enaka »0«. To pa je treba
prijaviti kot pogojno terjatev v stečaju lastnika nepremičnine. Teh položajev
zakonodajalec ni predvidel.
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
R. Vrečur: The Issue of the Order of Acquisition of Derivative Rights in Case of
Bankruptcy of the Immovable Property Owner
197
4 Prisilna hipoteka se mora umakniti pravici v pričakovanju
Ne glede na dejstvo, na je npr. izvršilni upnik pridobil prisilno hipoteko, ki učinkuje od
zaznambe izvršbe, z najboljšim vrstnim redom, ga prednostno pravilo ne bo varovalo v
razmerju do pravice v pričakovanju, čeprav ob pridobitve prisilne hipoteke za pravico v
pričakovanju ni vedel. Slovenska sodna praksa je oblikovala koncept lastninske pravice
v pričakovanju. Ta izhaja iz podmene, da v razmerju med odsvojiteljem (prenositeljem)
in pridobiteljem začne prenos lastninske pravice (in upravičenj, ki jih ta vključuje)
učinkovati že s tem, ko prenositelj izstavi (in izroči) pridobitelju zemljiškoknjižno
dovolilo z vsebino, določeno v 23. členu SPZ, na katerem je prenositeljev podpis notarsko
overjen (41. člen ZZK-1). Pridobitev lastninske pravice v polnem obsegu je v razmerju
do prenositelja odvisna izključno od ravnanja pridobitelja, t.j. vložitve predloga za vpis
lastninske pravice v zemljiško knjigo. Takšna pravica v pričakovanju je močnejša tudi v
razmerju do upnika, ki je pridobil prisilno hipoteko na podlagi sklepa o izvršbi, saj
hipoteke ni pridobil v pravnem prometu, ampak zaradi teka izvršilnega postopka ter ga
zaradi tega ne varuje načelo zaupanja, ki pravi, kdor v pravnem pošteno ravna in se zanese
na podatke o pravicah, ki so vpisani v zemljiški knjigi, zaradi tega ne sme trpeti škodljivih
posledic (10. člen SPZ).18
Ne učinkuje pa pričakovana pravica v razmerju do tistih, ki so v dobri veri ter v zaupanju
v podatke zemljiške knjige pridobili stvarno pravico v pravnem prometu (na podlagi
pravnega posla) od odsvojitelja. Prav takšno varstvo kot dobroverni pridobitelj, katerega
varuje načelo zaupanja, uživa tudi tisti, ki je pridobil pravico v dobri veri pri prisilni
prodaji. Tudi v razmerju do dobrovernega kupca pri prisilni prodaji, je pravica v
pričakovanju šibkejša.
V primeru, ko je kupcu izstavljeno in izročeno veljavno zemljiškoknjižno dovolilo, kupcu
ni treba uveljavljati izločitvene pravice v stečajnem postopku, saj lahko kot upravičenec
(oseba, v korist katere učinkuje zemljiškoknjižno dovolilo) po 3. oz. 4. točki tretjega
odstavka 94. člena ZZK-1 doseže vknjižbo lastninske pravice brez sodelovanja
stečajnega dolžnika.19
Sporno je bilo stališče sodne prakse v zadevah VS, sodba II Ips 475/2008, 5. 4. 2012, VS,
sodba II Ips 385/2008, 17. 5. 2012 in VS, sodba II Ips 132/2009, 12. 7. 2012, ki je
utemeljevalo, da je lastninska pravica v pričakovanju močnejša (le) v razmerju do
nedobrovernih imetnikov prisilnih hipotek. Ker pridobitelja prisilne hipoteke načelo
zaupanja ne varuje, je povsem irelevantna njegova dobra ali slaba vera glede obstoja
izstavljenega in izročenega zemljiškoknjižnega dovolila pridobitelju (imetniku pravice v
pričakovanju). Če pravica v pričakovanju ne učinkuje proti dobrovernemu imetniku
prisilne hipoteke, to pomeni, da ga varuje načelo zaupanja, kar pa ne drži, kot je sprva
očitno neusklajeno zatrjevala sodna praksa. V drugih, zlasti pa kasnejših odločbah, je
stališče jasno: … »Dobra vera upnika glede izvenknjižnih okoliščin povezanih z
lastninskim stanjem nepremičnine v trenutku vpisovanja neposlovnih - prisilnih hipotek
ni pomembna«.20
198 24. KONFERENCA: GOSPODARSKI SUBJEKTI NA TRGU IN EVROPSKE DIMENZIJE
R. Vrečur: Problematika vrstnega reda pridobitve izvedenih pravic v primeru stečaja
lastnika nepremičnine
Če je razpolagalni pravni posel začel učinkovati pred začetkom učinkovanja hipoteke,
pridobljene v izvršilnem postopku, lahko pridobitelj (imetnik pravice v pričakovanju) z
ugovorom tretjega (in če upnik ugovoru nasprotuje s tožbo za nedovoljenost izvršbe na
to nepremičnino), uveljavlja zahtevek, da nepremičnina ne spada med premoženje
dolžnika (prim. prvi odstavek 64. člena in tretji odstavek 65. člena ZIZ), z enako vsebino,
kot ga v stečajnem postopku uveljavlja s prijavo izločitvene pravice. Zato je tudi v
izvršilnem postopku pri presoji, ali določena nepremičnina spada med premoženje
dolžnika, pomembno, ali je do takrat, ko začne učinkovati hipoteka, pridobljena na
podlagi sklepa, s katerim je izvršilno sodišče dovolilo izvršbo na določeno nepremičnino,
lastninska pravica na tej nepremičnina v razmerju med dolžnikom in pridobiteljem, že
prešla na pridobitelja. Če je do takrat lastninska pravica v razmerju do dolžnika že prešla
na pridobitelja, lahko pridobitelj v zvezi z izvršilnim postopkom uspešno uveljavi
zahtevek za nedovoljenost izvršbe na to nepremičnino zaradi prisilne izterjave
odsvojiteljeve obveznosti. Pri tem moramo biti pozorni, da upnika, ki je izvirno pridobil
hipoteko na podlagi oblikovalne sodne odločbe (sklepa o dovolitvi izvršbe na
nepremičnino), ne varuje načelo zaupanja v zemljiško knjigo (in načelo varovanja
dobrovernega pridobitelja), saj se to načelo uporablja samo glede poslovnih pridobitev
stvarnih pravic.21
5 Namesto zaključka - vprašljivo stališče sodne prakse glede prednostnega
načela
VSL, sklep III Ip 4566/2014, 3.2.2015: Sodišče prve stopnje je v obrazložitvi
izpodbijanega sklepa pojasnilo, da se ocenjuje vrednost nepremičnine parc. št. 479/9 k.
o. X, ki je obremenjena s stavbno pravico, ki je bila v zemljiški knjigi vpisana po tem, ko
je upnik v vodilni izvršilni zadevi na nepremičnini že imel vknjiženo hipoteko. Pojasnilo
je, da bo s prodajo nepremičnine na podlagi 2. odstavka 174. člena ZIZ stavbna pravica
ugasnila, razen če se njen imetnik, to je pritožnik S. B. d.o.o., ne bo s kupcem kako
drugače dogovoril. Ugasnitev stavbne pravice s prodajo nepremičnine na podlagi 2.
odstavka 174. člena ZIZ ima namreč (razen v primeru drugačnega dogovora s kupcem),
v skladu s 1. odstavkom 263. člena SPZ, za posledico, da postane zgradba sestavina
nepremičnine. S tem pa preide lastninska pravica na zgradbi od imetnika stavbne pravice
na kupca - novega lastnika nepremičnine (načelo superficies solo cedit), ki mora imetniku
stavbne pravice ob prenehanju plačati določeno nadomestilo.
Z odločbo se ne strinjamo. V primeru prenehanja stavbne pravice zaradi prisilne prodaje
nepremičnine, ker je bila stavbna pravica ustanovljena za hipoteko, kupec nepremičnine
ne dolguje imetniku stavbne pravice nobenega nadomestila (gl. razdelek »3. Posebej o
problematiki rangiranja hipotek in stavbnih pravic«). Bivši imetnik stavbne pravice se
poplačuje v skladi s 199. členom ZIZ. To pomeni, da mu pripada nadomestilo zaradi
izgube stavbne pravice, poplačuje pa se iz kupnine, dobljene s prisilno prodajo enovite
nepremičnine. Zato mu kupec prisilne prodaje ne dolguje ničesar.
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
R. Vrečur: The Issue of the Order of Acquisition of Derivative Rights in Case of
Bankruptcy of the Immovable Property Owner
199
Notes
1
Stvarnopravni zakonik – SPZ (Uradni list RS, št. 87/02, 91/13).
2
Zakon o zemljiški knjigi – ZZK-1 (Uradni list RS, št. 58/03, 37/08 – ZST-1, 45/08, 28/09, 25/11
in 14/15 – ZUUJFO).
3
Zakon o izvršbi in zavarovanju - ZIZ (Uradni list RS, št. 3/07 – uradno prečiščeno besedilo, 93/07,
37/08 – ZST-1, 45/08 – ZArbit, 28/09, 51/10, 26/11, 17/13 – odl. US, 45/14 – odl. US, 53/14, 58/14
– odl. US, 54/15 in 76/15 – odl. US).
4
Zakon o finančnem poslovanju, postopkih zaradi insolventnosti in prisilnem prenehanju ZFPPIPP
(Uradni list RS, št. 13/14 – UPB, 10/15 – popr., 27/16 – ZFPPIPP-G).
5
VSK, sklep CDn 309/2013, 3.9.2013: Naša zakonodaja ne daje ustrezne pravne podlage za
obremenitev stavbne pravice s stavbno pravico (ustanovitev t.i. podstavbne pravice). Iz
obrazložitve: Predlagateljica se glede na podatke spisa zavzema za to, da bi se pri že vknjiženi
stavbni pravici z ID znakom xxx v korist imetnika H. d.o.o. ustanovila (pod)stavbna pravica v korist
pridobitelja F. d.o.o. Bistveno vprašanje v tej zadevi je, ali je stavbno pravico mogoče obremeniti
s stavbno pravico. Po oceni pritožbenega sodišča naša zakonodaja za tak zaključek ne daje ustrezne
pravne podlage. Iz 3. člena SPZ izhaja, da so predmet stvarne pravice lahko stvari (kot samostojni
telesni predmeti), medtem ko je premoženjska pravica lahko le predmet užitka in zastavne pravice.
Glede na to določbo stavbna pravica ne more biti predmet obremenitve s stavbno pravico in bi
drugačno stališče, kakršnega zagovarja v pritožbi povzeta pravna teorija, preseglo meje, ki jih
določa 3. člen SPZ. Nadalje ta zakon v XI. delu, ki ureja institut stavbne pravice, kar se tiče
razpolaganj, izrecno predvideva (le) tri opcije. Prvič, stavbna pravica je prenosljiva in se za njen
prenos smiselno uporabljajo določbe, ki veljajo za prenos lastninske pravice na nepremičninah
(tretji odstavek 256. člena). Nadalje je možna etažna delitev zgradbe, zgrajene na nepremičnini,
obremenjeni s stavbno pravico (258. člen) ter zastavitev zgradbe, ki je zgrajena na nepremičnini,
obremenjeni s stavbno pravico (264. člen). Tudi ZZK-1, ki izhajajoč iz SPZ in upoštevaje posebno
naravo stavbne pravice konkretno opredeljuje način njene vknjižbe, ne regulira vpisa, s katerim bi
se obstoječa stavbna pravica obremenila z novo stavbno pravico.
6
Glede pravne usode služnosti v javno korist v primeru prisilne prodaje nepremičnine, je treba
upoštevati vsa tista pravila, ki v tej zvezi veljajo za prave pozitivne stvarne služnosti. Zanje velja
(tako za pozitivne prave stvarne služnosti, kot tudi za služnosti v javno korist), da so »stabilne«,
kar pomeni, da s prisilno prodajo nepremičnine ne prenehajo, ne glede na vrstni red ustanovitve.
Tudi v primeru, če je bila npr. pred služnostjo v javno korist ustanovljena hipoteka, služnost s
prisilno prodajo ne preneha. Argument za takšno stališče je treba iskati v pravni naravi služnosti v
javno korist, ki je po svoji vsebini vrsta stvarne služnosti, s katero se zagotavljajo javne dobrine.
7
Če se hipoteka izbriše zaradi prenehanja terjatve (v posledici izpolnitve obveznosti, ki je bila
zavarovana s hipoteko), bo stavbna pravica napredovala v najboljši rang ter bo njenemu imetniku
zagotavljala stabilen pravni položaj.
8
Pravnomočni sklep o izročitvi nepremičnine je sočasno tudi pravni temelj za prenehanje hipotek
(tudi prisilnih) in zemljiških dolgov (prvi odstavek 173. člena ZIZ), izvedenih stvarnih pravic, ki
so bile pridobljene za najzgodnejšo hipoteko oz. zemljiškim dolgom, obligacijskih pravic in
pridobitev lastninske pravice v koristkupca prisilne prodaje. Po izdaji sklepa o domiku in po
položitvi kupnine izda sodišče sklep, da se nepremičnina izroči kupcu in po pravnomočnosti sklepa
v zemljiški knjigi vpiše nanj lastninska pravica na nepremičnini ter izbrišejo tiste pravice in
bremena, za katere je to določeno s sklepom o domiku (prvi odstavek 192. člena ZIZ).
9
Opozarjamo še, da s prenehanjem stavbne pravice (primarne izvedene pravice), avtomatično
prenehajo tudi vse izvedene pravice (sekundarne izvedene pravice), ki so bile ustanovljene na
stavbni pravici.
200 24. KONFERENCA: GOSPODARSKI SUBJEKTI NA TRGU IN EVROPSKE DIMENZIJE
R. Vrečur: Problematika vrstnega reda pridobitve izvedenih pravic v primeru stečaja
lastnika nepremičnine
10
V 199. členu ZIZ je določeno sledeče: »(1) Če se o nadomestilu za osebne služnosti, stavbne
pravice ali stvarna bremena, ki s prodajo ugasnejo, upravičenci in upniki, ki so po vrstnem redu za
poplačilo za njimi, ne morejo sporazumeti, ga določi sodišče, ki pri tem upošteva zlasti čas, kolikor
bi služnost, stavbna pravica oziroma breme še trajale, njihovo vrednost ter starost upravičencev.
(2) Kupec in upravičenec do osebne služnosti, stavbne pravice ali stvarnega bremena se lahko
sporazumeta, da kupec prevzame služnost, stavbno pravico oziroma stvarno breme, nadomestilo,
določeno po prejšnjem odstavku, pa se odbije od kupnine.«
11
V tej zvezi gl. tudi 263. člen SPZ.
12
Gl. npr. tretji odstavek 178. člena ZIZ ter 327. člen ZFPPIPP.
13
Zakon o spremembah Stvarnopravnega zakonika – SPZ-A (Uradni list RS, št. 91/13).
14
Zakon o spremembah in dopolnitvah Zakona o finančnem poslovanju, postopkih zaradi
insolventnosti in prisilnem prenehanju – ZFPPIPP-G (uradni list RS, št. 27/16).
15
RGBl. S. 72, ber. S. 122, nazadnje spremenjen leta 2013; BGBl. S. 3719.
16
Gl. tudi pri (Baur, Baur in Stürner, 2009: 386).
17
V par. 5 avstrijskega Baurechtsgesetz-a (BauRG) iz leta 1912 (RGBl Nr. 86/1912, nazadnje
spremenjen leta 2012; BGBl. Nr. 30/2012) je določeno sledeče: »Pfand- und andere
Leistungsrechte, die auf Geldzahlung gerichtet sind oder dem Zwecke des Baurechtes
entgegenstehen, dürfen dem Baurecht im Range nicht vorgehen.«
18
VS, sklep III Ips 106/2009, 23. 10. 2012.
19
VSL sklep I Cpg 1733/2014, 25. 11. 2014.
20
Treba je še pojasniti, da se v obravnavani situaciji toženka tudi ne bi mogla uspešno obraniti s
sklicevanjem, da ni vedela za dolžnikovo razpolaganje z nepremičninama. Revizijsko sodišče je
tako kot Ustavno sodišče že večkrat pojasnilo, da se na zemljiškoknjižno stanje in dobro vero lahko
sklicuje le tisti upnik, ki je pridobil pogodbeno zastavno pravico na nepremičnini, ne pa tudi tisti,
ki je zastavno pravico pridobil šele z zaznambo sklepa o izvršbi v zemljiški knjigi, kot to velja za
toženca. Prednost pred nevknjiženim lastnikom bo torej imel le tisti upnik, ki je hipoteko pridobil
na pravnoposlovni podlagi in je pošteno zaupal v zemljiškoknjižno stanje (VS, sodba II Ips
132/2009, 12. 7. 2012).
Dobra vera upnika glede izvenknjižnih okoliščin povezanih z lastninskim stanjem nepremičnine v
trenutku vpisovanja neposlovnih - prisilnih hipotek ni pomembna (VS, sodba II Ips 243/2013, 22.
1. 2015).
21
Tako (Plavšak in Vrenčur, 2015: 636-637).
References
Baur, F., Baur, J. F. & Stürner, R. (2009) Sachenrecht (München: Manz Verlag).
Plavšak, N. & Vrenčur, R. (2015) Pomen razpolagalnega upravičenja pri razpolaganju z lastninsko
pravico na nepremičnini, Pravnik, 70(9/10), pp. 595-641.
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND
EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
V. Rijavec
The Brussel Regulation Recast - Abolishing the exequatur
maintaining the exequatur function?
CHRISTIAN WOLFcdxi
Abstract: The paper discuss the German view of the abolishing of the
exequatur according to Brussel Ia. Firstly, the paper gives a short overview
of the main principles of the German national enforcement system. It will
be demonstrated that the principle of formalization has been a main
principle for domestic as well for cross broader enforcement in Germany.
The abolishing of the exequatur leads to an exemption of the principle of
formalization in Germany. Secondly, the paper discusses the question
whether the exequatur served as a tool of democratic legitimation of state
power. The enforcement of a judgment even in civil matters is based on the
power of a state to put a court´s judgment into effect. Lastly, the paper
demonstrates how the control function of the exequatur is upheld under the
new Brussel Ia system in Germany.
Keywords: • Brussel Ia recast • torpedo claims • basic structure of the
German enforcement system • principle of the German enforcement system
especially the principle of formalization • abolishing of the exequatur
according to Brussel Ia • function of the exequatur especially the
democratic legitimation function • maintaining the function of the
exequatur
CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS: Christian Wolf, Ph.D., Leibniz University Hanover, Law Faculty,
Königsworther Platz 1, 30167 Hannover, Germany, e-mail: lg.zpr@jura.uni-hannover.de.
DOI 10.18690/978-961-286-004-2.15 ISBN 978-961-286-004-2
© 2016 University of Maribor Press
Available at: http://press.um.si.
202 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
C. Wolf: The Brussel Regulation Recast – Abolishing the Exequatur Maintaining the
Exequatur Function?
1 Introduction
The European system of recognition and enforcement law is in a process of
transformation. On the one side, the European commission and its allies have been
tirelessly advocating the principle of mutual trust between the member states and the free
movement of court decisions among the European Union. On the other side, it is
questionable if the factual requirements for a common room of mutual trust exist among
all member states. The discussion about the so-called torpedo claims (Schack, 2014: par
851) has illustrated the gap between European wishes and the European reality.
In opposition to the recognition and enforcement regulations of the second generation,
the recast of Brussel I had been much more moderate as originally expected.
Nevertheless, the recast raises fundamental questions in regard to the enforcement and
recognition process (III. 2.); and some rather technical and maybe unexpected questions
(IV.). As enforcement law is a very technical law, which is closely linked to property law,
it seems to be helpful for the cross-border discussion to provide a brief introduction about
the main principles of the German enforcement system (II.).
2 The basic structure of the German enforcement system
2.1 The principle of formalization
In a civil law country like Germany, it is characteristic for the German jurisprudent to
structure a legal subsystem like enforcement law by means of certain principles.1
For the
basic understanding of the German enforcement system, five principles are predominant:
The principle of formalization, the principle of decentralization, the principle of priority,
the principle of strict enumeration of enforcement actions and the principle of clarity and
definiteness (Baur, Stürner & Bruns, 2006: § 6). One of the most important principles of
the German enforcement law may be the principle of formalization.2
Generally speaking, the principle of formalization immunizes the enforcement
proceeding as far as possible against all questions related to substantive law. The principle
of formalization can be subclassified into two parts. The first part deals with the
enforcement conditions and the second part relates to the enforcement actions. More
precisely: In the enforcement proceedings the enforcement authorities do not have to
control or correct the judgement.3
They have to enforce the judgment on the basis of very
formal conditions. The main conditions are the title (§ 704 ZPO: “Compulsory
enforcement may be pursued based on final judgments that have become final and
binding, or that have been declared provisionally enforceable”) and the court certificate
of enforceability (Vollstreckungsklausel, § 724 ZPO: “Compulsory enforcement will be
pursued based on an execution copy of the judgment furnished with the court certificate
of enforceability (enforceable execution copy)”.
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
C. Wolf: The Brussel Regulation Recast – Abolishing the Exequatur Maintaining the
Exequatur Function?
203
The reason for both conditions lies within the separation between the trial proceeding and
the enforcement proceeding.4
The court of the trial proceeding is in general not
responsible for the enforcement of the judgment.5
The competence for enforcement lies
with the Vollstreckungsgerichte (courts responsible for execution, § 764 ZPO). These are
the local courts (Amtsgerichte). This separation between trial and enforcement
proceeding requires an efficient communication between the trial court and especially the
court-appointed enforcement officer (Gerichtsvollzieher).
The hinge between the trial proceeding and the enforcement proceeding is the court
certificate of enforceability (Vollstreckungsklausel).6
In order to pass the information
from the trial court - that the title is enforceable - to the court responsible for the execution
(Vollstreckungsgericht), we use the court certificate of enforceability (enforcement
clause). The wording of the enforcement clause is quite simple and regulated in § 725
ZPO:
“The above execution copy is issued to (designation of the party) for the purposes of
compulsory enforcement.”
The court certificate of enforceability has to be added to the execution copy and has to be
signed by the recording clerk of the court’s registry. Furthermore, it needs to be furnished
with the court seal.
More information about the trial proceeding are not required for the enforcement.
Particularly, we do not involve the trial court or a judge in order to permit the enforcement
proceeding unlike in Austria where an Exekutionsbewilligung (enforcement permission)
is necessary.7
However, the foundation of the enforcement is the judgment and the title
produced on the basis of the judgment, and not the original claim of the enforcement
creditor.8
The enforcement proceeding leaves no room for examining the judgment or the
title. The enforcement court is bound by the decision of the trial court.9
The principle of formalization also deals with the enforcement actions. It is in the interest
of a rapid and uncomplicated enforcement proceeding not to examine detailed and
complicated legal questions regarding whether a certain object or enforcement action is
possible. For the purpose of having an easily manageable enforcement proceeding, the
enforcement actions are also formalized.10
For example, the court appointed enforcement
officer does not verify whether or not the judgment debtor is the owner of the attached
movable asset (physical object). He only has to prove if the movable asset is in custody
and in control of the debtor, § 808 ZPO.
This principle of formalization enables us to largely entrust the enforcement proceeding
to a paralegally trained enforcement officer instead of a judge. The court-appointed
enforcement officer is responsible for physical enforcement acts, § 753 ZPO, being our
main institute in enforcement proceedings.11
The court-appointed enforcement officers
do neither have to have studied law nor do they have to obtain any other form of academic
204 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
C. Wolf: The Brussel Regulation Recast – Abolishing the Exequatur Maintaining the
Exequatur Function?
education. After completing a lower secondary school, they are trained as Justizfachwirte
during a state-organized and -recognized apprenticeship. After several years as recording
clerks of the court registry,12
they have the opportunity to take part in an additional trainee
program to become Gerichtsvollzieher (enforcement officer). This program takes one and
a half years and is rated between level 4 and 5 in the classification of the European
Qualification Framework.13
On the other hand, the principle of formalization needs remedies providing for a
correction if the requirements in accordance with the principle of formalization do not
match the requirements of substantive law. The competence to prove this does not lie
with the enforcement court but with the trial court. We have three different legal actions
to achieve that the substantive law overrules the requirements of the principle of
formalization.
The first legal action is the action to oppose enforcement (§ 767 ZPO
Vollstreckungsgegenklage)
The action to oppose enforcement enables the judgment debtor to raise questions of
substantive law against the title of the judgment.14
The basis for the enforcement
proceeding is not the original claim but the title as ruled in the judgment. Therefore, it
does not matter in terms of the enforcement proceeding if the claim of the judgment
creditor is paid or dissolved. The judgment debtor has to address this question in a special
trial proceeding - the action to oppose enforcement.15
The second legal action is a third-party proceeding instituted to prevent the execution of
a judgment (§ 771 ZPO Drittwiderspruchsklage)
During the enforcement proceeding we do not prove the ownership of the debtor
concerning the attached object of enforcement. In regard to movables, it is sufficient that
the debtor has the custody of and the control over the object of enforcement. The
substantive law is based on the assumption that the person who possesses an object is
also the owner of the object, § 1006 BGB.16
Since this assumption is disprovable, the
same applies for the enforcement proceeding. The custody of and the control over the
object of enforcement establishes only a disprovable assumption that the owner of the
attached movable is simultaneously the debtor. But a third-party can contest this in a trial
proceeding.
The last legal action is the action for preferential satisfaction (§ 805 ZPO Klage auf
vorzugsweise Befriedigung)
This legal action has a close connection with the principle of priority and will be
explained later (sub).
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
C. Wolf: The Brussel Regulation Recast – Abolishing the Exequatur Maintaining the
Exequatur Function?
205
2.2 The principle of decentralization
The principle of decentralization means that the enforcement process is not a single
proceeding like the trial proceeding. Firstly, we have several competent units for different
enforcement actions. Under the umbrella of the local courts (Amtsgerichte), the courtappointed
enforcement officer is responsible for the attachment of movables; the officer
of justice (Rechtspfleger) is responsible for the attachment of a monetary claim17
and the
enforcement court is in charge of the enforcement in land.18
Last but not least, the trial
court is responsible for the enforcement of actions that may not be taken by others and
omissions, § 888 ZPO. The underlining principle constitutes that the court-appointed
enforcement officer is responsible for all enforcement acts in regard to physical power;
the enforcement court, especially the officer of justice (Rechtspfleger), is in charge of all
enforcement measures in the legal field like the attachment of a claim, and the trial court
for all enforcement acts which need a deep understanding and judgment of the case (Baur,
Stürner & Bruns, 2006: § 6 par 6.50; Gaul, 1971: 90).
Decentralization also means that the German enforcement law does not know gradus
executionis (Baur, Stürner & Bruns, 2006: § 22 par 22.7). In principle, it is upon the
creditor to choose among several enforcement instruments. It is also possible to use some
of the instruments simultaneously.19
Furthermore, it is possible to receive an additional,
enforceable execution copy of the judgment, § 733 ZPO. Before the court executes this
additional enforceable execution copy of the judgment, the creditor must be heard. In
addition, it is necessary that the debtor has a legitimate interest. This is the case if the
creditor wishes to enforce the judgment in different assets of the debtor which are located
in different enforcement districts or functionally different enforcement bodies are
responsible for the enforcement.20
It is obvious that this system may jeopardize the legitimate interests of the debtor. Thus,
the enforcement system provides several tools to protect the interests of debtor. Firstly,
each enforceable execution copy must be noted on the original judgment, § 734 ZPO.
This record enables the court, the creditor and the debtor to be informed about the number
of the enforceable execution copies. All partial payments must be noted on the
enforceable execution copy. In case of a final payment, the enforceable execution copy
must be surrendered to the debtor, § 757 ZPO. Finally, the enforcement has to be
terminated if a public record or document is produced, or a private record or document
created by the creditor shows that the creditor - after the delivery of the enforceable
judgment - is satisfied, § 775 No 4 ZPO. If the debtor does not possess such a document,
he has to start a legal action to oppose enforcement, § 767 ZPO.21
2.3 The principle of priority
The German enforcement law follows the principle of priority (§ 804 sec 2 ZPO, § 11 sec
2 ZVG). This means that the creditor who is the first to attach an asset of the debtor will
be satisfied before the creditor who was next in attaching the same asset (Baur, Stürner
206 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
C. Wolf: The Brussel Regulation Recast – Abolishing the Exequatur Maintaining the
Exequatur Function?
& Bruns, 2006: § 6 par 6.37 et seqq). In contrast, the insolvency law in Germany follows
the equal treatment principle.
If a dispute arises between two creditors (who have attached the same asset) over the
question who must – following the principle of priority - be satisfied first, both creditors
can raise a legal action for preferential satisfaction (§ 805 ZPO Klage auf vorzugsweise
Befriedigung).
2.4 The principle of strict enumeration of enforcement actions
Like the law of property the enforcement law only allows an enumerative numbers of
enforcement species (Baur, Stürner & Bruns, 2006: § 6 par 6.63 et seqq). For example,
the German law requires the attachment of individual movables. It is impossible to attach
a warehouse as a whole. Outside the scope of enforcement as described by the law,
enforcement is not possible (Baur, Stürner & Bruns, 2006: § 2 par 2.9 et seqq).
2.5 The principle of clarity and definiteness
The principle of clarity and definiteness (Bestimmtheitsgrundsatz) has a close connection
to the principle of formalization and has a common ground with the principle of strict
enumerations of enforcement actions. The principle of clarity and definiteness means that
the title which has to be enforced must be unequivocally and clear. It is the task of the
trial to verify what the debtor owes the creditor and what the enforcement agent has to
enforce. This is the consequence of the separation of the trial process and the enforcement
process.22
3 The abolishing of the exequatur according to Brussel Ia
3.1 The abolishing of exequatur as an alien element in the German enforcement
system
Nearly each23
domestic judgment and each title needs a court certificated enforcement
clause in Germany for the enforcement process, §§ 724, 795 ZPO. Before the recast of
Brussels Ia a foreign judgement within the scope of Brussel I needed the court certificate
of enforceability in regard to § 9 AVAG. The clause has been very similar to a court
certificate of enforceability for a domestic judgement. In principle, Germany did not ask
for additional proceedings and requirements. The exequatur was smoothly integrated in
the domestic enforcement law (Oberhammer, 2010: 197, 199). Even until the revision of
the Brussel convention in 1989 the German version of the convention was using the word
“Vollstreckungsklausel”24
and not the wording “für vollstreckbar erklärt worden sind”25
used until Brussel Ia recast.26
Brussel Ia forced Germany to accept an exemption from the basic structure of the
enforcement law. The court certificate clause of enforcement is based in the principle of
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
C. Wolf: The Brussel Regulation Recast – Abolishing the Exequatur Maintaining the
Exequatur Function?
207
formalization. For the enforcement of a judgment within the scope of the Brussel Ia we
have expressively stated, that a court certificate of enforceability is not required.
Therefore § 1112 ZPO reads:
§ 1112 ZPO
Dispensability of court certificate of enforceability
If a title which is enforceable in another Member State of the European Union, the
enforcement domestically will take place, without the need for a court certificate of
enforceability.
This is obviously an exception from the normal requirements of enforcement. It becomes
even more significant if one takes into account that § 794 sec 1 no 9 ZPO equates a
European judgment with a domestic judgement.27
In accordance with Art 42 sec 1 Brussle
Ia it is sufficient that the creditor provides the enforcement authority with a copy of the
judgment and a certificate issued pursuant to Art 53 Brussel Ia. In this context Hess is
speaking of the substitution of the national through a European court certificated
enforcement clause.28
But the questions arises whether a European process of court
certificated enforcement clause can really substitute the national proceeding to issue a
certificated enforcement clause.
3.2 Functions of the exequatur
The exequatur had several functions (Thöne, 2016: p. 50 et seqq). Often the function of
the exequatur is subdivided in to two main functions, the title import function and the
title inspection function (Oberhammer, 2010: 197; Hess, 2010: § 3 par 25). On a more
detailed examination, these functions can be further subdivided. The import function
serves as a tool to implement the foreign title and to perpetuate the title. The control
function also serves as tool to develop and strengthen a common standard of the rule of
law.
The implementation function is endangered because the recognition and enforcement law
was harmonized but not the enforcement law as such (Thöne, 2016: 50 et seq). Generally
speaking, the German enforcement law requires a title which fulfills the principle of
clarity and definiteness. It must be easy and simple to take from the judgment and its title
what the debtor has to do.29
This could lead to problems if the foreign judgment does not
harmonize with the principle of clarity and definiteness. Especially with regard to interest
rates one can find different national styles (Seidl, 2010, 54 et seqq). Therefore, the foreign
title must be adapted to the national law of the state of enforcement. Until the recast of
Brussel Ia this was one of the functions of the exequatur decision in accordance with Art
38 Brussel I.30
The perpetuate function is far more than a technical issue and it is closely linked to the
control function. The perpetuate function will give an answer to the question what the
208 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
C. Wolf: The Brussel Regulation Recast – Abolishing the Exequatur Maintaining the
Exequatur Function?
fundamental basis for the enforcement is. Is this the foreign title or the court certificated
enforcement clause? The enforcement of a judgment is an act of sovereignty
(Hoheitsgewalt).31
Therefore, the prevailing opinion saw the legal basis for the
enforcement of a foreign judgment not in the foreign title but in the exequatur.32
This
opinion has led to two consequences. First, the enforcement clause was argued to serve
as a democratic legitimation tool for the administration of state power in the enforcement
process.33
Naturally, this argument is disputable. The argumentative reference that
sovereignty required a court certificate of enforceability for the enforcement process was
said to be based on an extreme outdated understanding of state power from the 19th
century (Nelle, 2000: 408). However, this does not hold true. In the 19th
century the
monarch and his state was the sovereign. To reject arguments of sovereignty in the 19th
century meant to protect the civil society with the bourgeois against the monarch. Under
the reign of democracy the citizens are the sovereign. Habermas speaks in this context
about the equiprimordiality of private autonomy and public autonomy (Habermas, 1992:
151 et seqq). We are all bourgeois and citizens in the same moment. Under the
democracy-oriented basic understanding the vanishing point of the argumentation must
be the democratic legitimation derived from the individuals whose freedom is shaped by
the judgment, even if such legitimation is very indirect (Von Bogdandy &Venzke, 2014:
290).
Second, on a much more technical level the exequatur also served as a limitation of the
action to oppose enforcement (Vollstreckungsgegenklage). As long as the judgment of
the Member State of origin did not build the basis for the enforcement but the
enforcement declaration of the Member State addressed, it had been easy to limit the
effect of the action to oppose enforcement to the Member State addressed. The decision
to abolish the enforcement of a judgment in the country of origin had no immediate
influence on the enforceability of the judgment in Germany under the condition that the
judgment had been declared enforceable in Germany (Geimer, 2015, par 3101; Schack,
2014, par 1026). Brussel Ia leads to a different result. Because the judgment of the
Member State of origin is the foundation of the enforcement the effect of the action to
oppose enforcement, which arose in the Member State addressed, cannot be limited to
the Member State addressed. The court of the Member State addressed decides with effect
in all Member States whether the judgment sill can be enforced (Thöne, 2016: 89 et seqq).
The control function in a narrower sense means to bind the use of state power to certain
standards of human rights.34
To enforce a judgment is the use of state power. The usage
of state power must be justified in line with human rights. The state which enforces a
judgment cannot delegate the responsibility to the Member State of origin.35
Of course,
it is mutually recognized that the Member State addressed do not have the right of the
revision au fond (Geimer & Schütze, 2010: Art 37 par 1). But mutual trust cannot
substitute the responsibility of the Member State addressed for its own exercise of state
power in the enforcement process.36
Mutual trust takes place on the collective level, the
violation of the creditor’s fundamental and human rights by enforcing a foreign judgment,
which for example violates the right to be heard, takes place on the individual level. As
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
C. Wolf: The Brussel Regulation Recast – Abolishing the Exequatur Maintaining the
Exequatur Function?
209
Oberhammer put it (Oberhammer, 2006: 477, 497): “One sacrifices individuals, who
experienced gross injustice, on the altar of mutual trust between the Member States (and
of course a certain acceleration of the cross-border enforcement).” The main aim of the
civil process is to safeguard and ensure individual rights. Abolishing the control function
of the exequatur means to sacrifice the individual rights for the aim of the European
integration (Wolf, 2012: 250, 254).
At least the control function also works as tool to develop and strengths a common
standard of the rule of law. It may encourage the Member State of origin to improve its
legal standards, if the Member State addressed refuses to enforce the judgment of state
of origin (Thöne, 2016: 74). This function cannot be substituted by the state of origin.
But this is the concept of the European Regulations of the second generation, like
European Small Claims Regulation or the European Enforcement Order. For example in
Chaper III of the European Enforcement Order a minimum standard which must be
fulfilled is defined and the state of origin has to certify that its own proceeding has met
this minimum standard as laid out in chapter III of the regulation.37
With other words the
state of origin itself certifies that it has met all requirements. As Bajons says this is
nothing less than a violation of the principle that no one can be judge in its own affairs
(Bajons, 2005: 1, 19). An encouragement to meet all minimum standards and not to be
blamed by the courts of the Member State addressed is not connected with this concept.38
4 Abolishing the exequatur but maintaining the function of the exequatur?
Brussel Ia has abolished the exequatur, but this does not mean that the four functions of
the exequatur also have vanished. Even though we do not have any court experience about
that yet, we can assume that most of the functions maintained. Nevertheless, the new
regulation needs some new adjustments. In detail:
The implementation function of the exequatur can be found in Art 54 Brussels Ia now.
The implementation problems arise for example if a foreign judgement states just the
legal interest must be paid without telling how to calculate the interest rate (Seidl, 2010:
57 et seqq). Recital 28 sentence 2 states that the Member States should determine who is
in charge for the adaption. Contrary to recommendations in the legal literature (Hess,
2011: 125, 129; Roth, 1994, 350) the law makers in Germany did not create a special
jurisdiction at the courts responsible for execution (Vollstreckungsgericht) or at the
locally competent OLG, comparable to the jurisdiction under § 765 ZPO. Rather the law
makers leave it to the competent enforcement officers to adapt the foreign title to the
national system.39
This decision may cause problems in the future (Gössl, 2014: 3479).
In order to adapt a foreign title to the domestic enforcement system it is necessary to
functionally evaluate the foreign measure on a comparative law basis and to judge which
domestic measure is equivalent.40
This task does not fit into the enforcement proceeding
and will mostly need a much higher qualification than the one which the court appointed
enforcement officer has received.
210 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
C. Wolf: The Brussel Regulation Recast – Abolishing the Exequatur Maintaining the
Exequatur Function?
In accordance with Art 54 sec 2 Brussel Ia § 1114 provides a legal remedy system against
the adapting decision of the enforcement officer. But this remedy system does not lead to
the trial court system as for example the countermeasures against execution
(Vollstreckungsgegenklage or Oppositionsklage) Instead, the debtor or the creditor are
only provided with a remedy system, which was developed to correct a violation of the
formal requirements of the enforcement law and not to clarify questions of substantive
law (§ 766 ZPO, Reminder serving as a legal remedy against the nature and manner of
compulsory enforcement Vollstreckungserinnerung). Therefore, in the literature it is
advocated to allow a declaratory proceeding to clarify the adapting requirements (Gössl,
2014: 3479).
Originally a title must have been inspected before the title could be enforced. The
enforcement could have only taken place after the title of a European judgement had been
declared enforceable, Art 38 Brussels I. Now, we have inversed the process. In every
member state, except Denmark, a European judgement can be enforced only on the basis
of the certificate in accordance with Art 53 Brussels Ia.
Art 42 sec lit b explicitly only asks for such a certificate from the court of origin and §
1112 ZPO mirrors this. Nevertheless, there are several possibilities to inspect the
judgement in the member state addressed. The yardstick for these inspections is in any
case Art 45 Brussel Ia. There is no right to review the substance of the Judgement, Art
52 Brussels Ia. In general, with regard to this there are no changes to Brussel I. Solely
Art 45 sec 2 lit e i Brussel Ia now additionally allows a refusal of the enforcement if the
court of Member State of origin has violated the jurisdiction privilege of the employees.41
For the administration of the inspection function we have four different procedural tools
which are all highly regulated through Brussel Ia itself. Three of these tools deal with the
question whether the judgment can be recognized in the Member State addressed. The
last tool affects the enforcement itself.42
The judgment of the Member State of origin is automatically recognized in the Member
State addressed as Art 36 sec 1 Brussel states. Nevertheless, it may be disputable whether
the conditions for the recognition are fulfilled. This question can be raised by the debtor
as well as by the creditor. Both sides have a specific application process which is
governed by Art 46 to 51 Brussel Ia. Only as far as the application process is not governed
by the regulation, the national law has to fill the gap, Art 47 sec 2 Brussel Ia. In German
law § 1115 ZPO serves as fill-in.43
The right to a positive declaratory action in accordance with the conditions of sec 3
subsection 2 Brussel Ia is regulated in Art 36 sec 2 Brussel Ia for the creditor. The
opposite right to a negative declaratory action for the debtor is stated in Art 45 sec 4.
Beside these proceedings under the conditions of sec 2 subsection 2 Brussel I a there is
no room for an additional declaratory proceeding, exclusively regulated by national law
(In Germany the positive or negative Feststellungsklage, § 253 ZPO). The relationship
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
C. Wolf: The Brussel Regulation Recast – Abolishing the Exequatur Maintaining the
Exequatur Function?
211
between the application processes in accordance with Art 36 sec 2 and Art 45 sec 4 is not
self-explanatory. Geimer elaborates that the res judicata of this decision also unfolds res
judicata for the application proceeding. This question is governed by European law not
by national law.44
If one of both sides has raised a declaratory action, the other side is hindered to raise the
opposite declaratory action. Art 29 et. Seqq. Brussel Ia should be applicable to this
question.45
Art 29 Brussels Ia is not directly applicable - as this is not a cross boarder
question - but the Kernpunkttheorie or the same cause of action, in the understanding of
the European court of justice as developed in the Gubisch case46
, fit much better than the
German Streitgegenstandtheorie.47
The third inspection function is laid out in Art 46 Brussel Ia. The debtor and only the
debtor can initiate the application process in accordance with Art 46 Brussel Ia. Because
of the abolishing of the enforcement declaration, the creditor has no need for a legal
remedy in the enforcement phase. The relationship between the application process in
accordance with Art 46 Brussel Ia and the declaratory proceeding in regard to Art 36 sec
2 and Art 45 sec 4 Brussel Ia is not expressively regulated (Hau, 2014: 1417, 1419).
However, on a closer reflection, the same what had been said about the relationship
between the positive and the negative declaratory judgment must in principle apply here.
In contrast to that, Art 29 et seqq. Brussel Ia cannot be applicable in this regard. The logic
of the enforcement process requires that in an ongoing enforcement proceeding, the
application process in accordance with Art 46 Brussel Ia has to prevail.
The decision in accordance with Art 46 Brussel Ia can only be based on the reasons given
in Art 45 and not on any additional reason, especially none in the sense of Art 41 sec 2
Brussel Ia (Zöller & Geimer, 2016: Art 46 par 2). The common ground between all three
application processes is that the effect is limited to the Member State addressed.48
At least, Art 36 sec 3 Brussel Ia allows an incidental review of the judgment of origin if
the judgment has an impact on a German trial proceeding.
The perpetuated function has not been maintained under Brussel Ia. Because the debtor
has the possibility to start the inspection process in the case of enforcement, one can still
argue that the requirement of the democratic legitimacy of exercising state power is
fulfilled. The consequences for the action to oppose enforcement
(Vollstreckungsgegenklage) are more critical. Regarding Brussel I we have discussed
three different questions. The first question has been, whether the action to oppose
enforcement could be integrated in the exequatur process with regard to Art 43 Brussel
I.49
The European court of justice decided that the action to oppose enforcement
(Vollstreckungsgegenklage) cannot be combined with the exequatur process.50
In the
meantime, also Art 41 sec 2 Brussel Ia states this very clearly. The second question had
been, whether the court of the Member State of origin or the court of the Member State
addressed should have jurisdiction over the action to oppose enforcement.51
The last
212 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
C. Wolf: The Brussel Regulation Recast – Abolishing the Exequatur Maintaining the
Exequatur Function?
question has been, whether the action to oppose enforcement only deals with the
enforceability of the judgment in the Member State addressed or in all member states
(Thöne, 2016: 55).
The consequence of abolishing the perpetuate function is that now, the Member State
addressed has the competence to decide the action to oppose enforcement (for example §
1117 ZPO). Furthermore, in accordance with Art 24 sec 5 the Member State addressed
has the exclusive jurisdiction and the decision must be recognized in all member states
(Thöne, 2016: 89 et seqq). In opposition to this, it cannot be disputed that the action to
oppose enforcement has a very close connection to the original trial process and its
decision (Halfmeier, 2007: 381, 385 et seq). The impact of abolishing the perpetuating
function on the action oppose enforcement may not be intended; to find a balanced
solution between the interest of the debtor and the creditor is still a pending issue.52
Notes
1
In general: (Röhl & Röhl, 2008: 283 et seqq).
2
Gaul in (Gaul in (Gaul, Schilken & Becker-Eberhard, 2010: § 5 par 9 et seqq).
3
Gaul, Zur Struktur der Zwangsvollstreckung, Rpfleger 1971, p. 90.
4
Gaul in (Gaul, Schilken & Becker-Eberhard, 2010: § 5 par 2 et seqq).
5
Compare to the historic development (Baur, Stürner & Bruns, 2006: § 3).
6
Becker-Eberhard in (Gaul, Schilken & Becker-Eberhard, 2010: § 16 par 4 et seqq).
7
Fort the Austrian Law: (Rechberger & Oberhammer, 2009: par 86 et seqq).
8
Gaul in (Gaul, Schilken & Becker-Eberhard, 2010: § 5 par 42).
9
For example BGHZ 152, 166 et seqq.
10
BGH, NJW-RR 2010, 16; Gaul in (Gaul, Schilken & Becker-Eberhard, 2010: § 5 par 47).
11
(Glenk, 2014: 2315; Seiler in (Thomas & Putzo, 2016: § 753 par 1).
12
§ 2 APVO-Justiz-GVD.
13
The European Qualifications Framework (EQF) is available at:
https://ec.europa.eu/ploteus/en/content/descriptors-page.
14
Herget in (Zöller, 2016: § 767 par 1).
15
Schneiders in (Kindl, Meller-Hannich & Wolf, 2015: § 767 par 1 et seqq).
16
Berger in (Jauernig, 2015: § 1006 par 1).
17
§ 20 Abs. 1 Nr. 16 RechtspflG.
18
§ 1 ZVG.
19
Gaul in (Gaul, Schilken & Becker-Eberhard, 2010: § 5 par 27 et seqq).
20
Wolfsteiner in (Krüger & Rauscher, 2012: § 733 par 13).
21
Gaul in (Gaul, Schilken & Becker-Eberhard, 2010: § 5 par 30).
22
Gaul in (Gaul, Schilken & Becker-Eberhard, 2010: § 10 par 21)
23
No court certificated enforcement clause is necessary for writs of execution
(Vollstreckungsbescheid), § 796 ZPO; writs of seizure (Arrestbefehlt), § 929 ZPO and Injunction
regarding the subject matter of the litigation (einstweilige Verfügung), § 936 ZPO. Detailed
commentary on the exemptions Wolfsteiner in ((Krüger & Rauscher, 2012: § 724 par 9).
24
ABl EG 1983 C 97/2, 10 (de).
25
ABl EG 1990 C 189/2, 10 (de).
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
C. Wolf: The Brussel Regulation Recast – Abolishing the Exequatur Maintaining the
Exequatur Function?
213
26
While the respective English versions do not reflect such distinction in their wording (cf.
“enforcement issued” and “declared enforceable”), the wording in the German translations
indicates a different mechanism of enforcement by use of a different wording.
27
To this function of § 794 sec 1 no. 9 Hess in (Schlosser &Hess, 2015: Art 39 par 1).
28
Hess in (Schlosser & Hess Art, 2015: 53 par 1).
29
Gaul in (Gaul, Schilken & Becker-Eberhard, 2010: § 10 par 21).
30
BGH, NJW 1993, 1801; (Baur, Stürner & Bruns, 2006: § 55.26).
31
Gaul in (Gaul, Schilken & Becker-Eberhard, 2010: § 1 par 16 et seqq).
32
Schack, Internationales Zivilverfahrensrecht, 6. Ed. 2014, par 1026; BGH, NJW 2014, 702;
BGH, 1993, 1801; Geimer, IZPR, 7. Ed. 2015, par 3101; Geimer, Anerkennung ausländischer
Entscheidungen in Deutschland, 1995, p. 163.
33
Pfeiffer, FS für Jayme, 2004, p. 674 et seqq.; (Weber, 2009: 214 et seqq).
34
Very clear Schack in (Weitz & Gudowski, 2011: 1345, 1354).
35
Schack in (Weitz & Gudowski, 2011: 1345, 1354).
36
Compare Recitals 18 of the regulation (EC) No 805/2004 (European Enforcement Order for
uncontested claims), which abolished the exequatur.
37
Art 6 sec 1 lit c REGULATION (EC) No 805/2004.
38
Rechberger in (Weitz & Gudowski, 2011: 1277, 1301).
39
Bt-Drs. 18/823, p. 22.
40
Dörner in (Saenger, 2015: Art 54 EuGVVO par 1).
41
Dörner in (Saenger, 2015: Art 45 par 30).
42
As far as Mäsch in (Kindl, Meller-Hannich & Wolf, 2015: Art 45 EUGVVO par 1) speaks about
five remedies, he still basis his argumentation on Brussel I. Brussel I only knew the positive
declaratory action in Art 33 sec 2 but not the negative declaratory action. Therefore, there had been
a discussion whether the debtor must have the possibility to raise a negative declaratory action.
Compare for the discussion also Geimer in (Geimer & Schütze, 2010: Art 33 par 85 et seqq).
Meanwhile Brussel Ia has expressly regulated this question in Art 45 sec 4. Therefore, there is no
room for an analogous application of Art 36 sec 2 Brussel Ia.
43
Stadler in (Musielak & Voit, 2016: Art 36, 3 f).
44
Geimer in (Fitz et al., 2015: 311, 316 et seq.); following Geimer, Hau, MDR 2014, 1417 et seq.
45
Geimer in (Fitz et al., 2015: 311, 323; Zöller & Geimer, 2016: Art 36, par 62).
46
ECJ, Judgment from 08.12.1987 - case 144/86.
47
For the Streitgegenstandstheorie only (Rosenberg, Schwab & Gottwald, 2010: § 91).
48
(Zöller & Geimer, 2016: Art 36 par 40); Franzina in (Dickinson & Lein, 2015: par 1374).
49
See Oberhammer in (Stein & Jonas, 2011: Vol. 10, Art 43 par 15 et seqq).
50
ECJ, Judgment from 13.10.2011 case 139/10
51
Oberhammer, in (König & Mayr, 2012: 83 et seqq).
52
Compare Oberhammer, in (König & Mayr, 2012: 83, 99 et seqq).
References
Bajons, E. M. (2005) Von der Internationalen zur Europäischen Urteilsanerkennung und vollstreckung.
Entwicklungsstadien des österreichischen Rechts auf dem Weg zum
Europäischen Vollstreckungstitel, In: Bittner… (et al.) (eds.) Festschrift für Walter H.
Rechberger zum 60. Geburtstag, pp. 1-21 (Wien: Springer).
Baur, F., Stürner, R. & Bruns, A. (2006) Zwangsvollstreckungsrecht, 13. ed. (Heidelberg: C. F.
Müller).
Dickinson A. & Lein, E. (2015) The Brussel I regulation recast (Oxford: Oxford University press).
214 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
C. Wolf: The Brussel Regulation Recast – Abolishing the Exequatur Maintaining the
Exequatur Function?
European Commission (n.d.) The European Qualifications Framework (EQF), available at:
https://ec.europa.eu/ploteus/en/content/descriptors-page (July 19, 2016).
Fitz, H… (et al.) (eds.) (2013) Festschrift für Hellwig Torggler (Wien: Verlag Österreich).
Gaul, H. F., Schilken, E. & Becker-Eberhard, E. (2010) Zwangsvollstreckungsrecht, 12. ed.
(München: C. H. Beck).
Gaul, Zur Struktur der Zwangsvollstreckung, Rpfleger 1971, p. 90.
Geimer, R. & Schütze, R. A. (eds.) (2010) Europäisches Zivilverfahrensrecht: Kommentar zur
EuGVVO, EuEheVO, EuZustellungsVO, EuInsVO, EuVTVO, zum Lugano-Übereinkommen
und zum nationalen Kompetenz- und Anerkennungsrecht, 3. ed. (München: C. H. Beck).
Geimer, R. (1995) Anerkennung ausländischer Entscheidungen in Deutschland (München: C. H.
Beck).
Geimer, R. (2015) Internationales Zivilprozessrecht, 7. ed. (München: C. H. Beck).
Glenk, H. (2014) Unverzichtbares Allerlei – Amt und Haftung des Gerichtsvollziehers, Neue
Juristische Wochenschrift, NJW, 32, pp. 2315-2318
Gössl, S. L. (2014) Die Vollstreckung von dynamischen Zinssätzen unter der neuen EuGVVO,
Neue Juristiche Wochenschrift, NJW, 48, pp. 3479-3483.
Habermas, J. (1992) Faktizität und Geltung (Suhrkamp Verlag).
Halfmeier, A. (2007) Die Vollstreckungsgegenklage im Recht der internationalen Zuständigkeit,
IPRax, 5, pp. 381-387.
Hau, W. (2014), Brüssel Ia-VO – Neue Regeln für die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung
ausländischer Entscheidungen in Zivil- und Handelssachen, Monatsschrift für Deutsches Recht,
MDR, 24, pp. 1417-1421.
Hess, B. (2010) Europäisches Zivilprozessrecht (Heidelberg: C. F. Müller)..
Hess, B. (2011) Die Reform der EuGVVO und die Zukunft des Europäischen Zivilprozessrechts,
IPRax, 2, pp. 125-130
Jauernig, O. (2015) Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, 16. ed. (München: C. H. Beck).
Kindl, J., Meller-Hannich, C. & Wolf, H.-J. (2015) Gesamtes Recht der Zwangsvollstreckung, 3.
ed. (Baden-Baden: Nomos).
König, B. & Mayr P.G. (eds.) (2012) Europäisches Zivilverfahrensrecht in Österreich III (Wien:
Manz).
Krüger, W. & Rauscher, T. (eds.) (2012) Münchener Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung: ZPO,
4 ed. (München: C. H. Beck).
Mansell, H.-P. … et al. (eds.) (2004) Festschrift für Erik Jayme (München : Sellier European Law
Publishing).
Musielak, H.-J. & Voit, W. (2016) Zivilprozessordnung, 13. ed. (München: C. H. Beck).
Nelle, A. (2000) Anspruch, Titel und Vollstreckung im internationalen Rechtsverkehr (Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck).
Oberhammer, P. (2006), Der Europäische Vollstreckungstitel: Rechtspolitische Ziele und
Methoden, Juristische Blätter, 8, pp. 477-497.
Oberhammer, P. (2010) The Abolition of Exequatur, IPRax, 3, pp. 197-199.
Rechberger, W. & Oberhammer, P. (2009) Exekutionsrecht, 5. ed. (Wien: Facultas.wuv).
Röhl, K. F. & Röhl, H. C. (2008) Allgemeine Rechtslehre, 3. ed., (München: Verlag F. Vahlen).
Rosenberg, L., Schwab K. H. & Gottwald, P. (2010) Zivilprozessrecht, 17 ed. (München: C. H.
Beck).
Roth, H. (1994) Konkretisierung unbestimmter ausländischer Titel, IPRax, pp. 350-351.
Saenger, I. (Hrsg.) (2015) Zivilprozessordnung, 6. ed. (München: C. H. Beck).
Schack, H. (2014) Internationales Zivilverfahrensrecht, 6. ed. (München: C. H. Beck).
Schlosser, P. F. & Hess, B. (2015) EU-Zivilprozessrecht, 4. ed. (München: C. H. Beck).
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
C. Wolf: The Brussel Regulation Recast – Abolishing the Exequatur Maintaining the
Exequatur Function?
215
Seidl, S. (2010) Ausländische Vollstreckungstitel und inländischer Bestimmtheitsgrundsatz: eine
Untersuchung zum autonomen und europäischen Exequaturrecht und zur Abschaffung des
Exequaturverfahrens (Sellier european law publishers).
Stein, F. & Jonas, M. (eds.) (2011) Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung: ZPO, 22. ed. (München:
C. H. Beck).
Thomas, H. & Putzo, H. (2016) Zivilprozessordnung, 37. ed. (München: C. H. Beck).
Thöne, M. (2016) Die Abschaffung des Exequaturverfahrens und die EuGVVO:
Bestandsaufnahme, Bewertung, Ausblick (Veröffentlichungen zum Verfahrensrecht)
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
Von Bogdandy, A. & Venzke, I. (2014) In wessen Namen? (Suhrkamp Verlag).
Weber, M. (2009) Europäisches Zivilprozessrecht und Demokratieprinzip (Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck).
Weitz, K. & Gudowski, J. (eds.) (2011) Aurea praxis aurea theoria. Księga pamiątkowa ku czci
Profesora Tadeusza Erecińskiego, Tom I – II, (LexisNexis).
Wolf, C. (2012) Hess: Europäisches Zivilprozessrecht, ZZP - Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess, 125(2),
pp. 250-259.
Zöller, R. (eds.) & Geimer, R. (2016) Zivilprozessordnung, 31. ed. (Otto Schmidt).
216 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND
EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
V. Rijavec
Cross-border Legal Representation as Seen in a Case
Study
SASCHA VEROVNIKcdlxiv
Abstract This case example illustrates the by no means insignificant crossborder
activities of lawyers and their work within the scope of the European
single market. In this context it is essential for an independently practising
lawyer to know under what conditions s/he may also be professionally
active, outside the country in which s/he is authorised to practice.
Keywords: Cross-border legal representation • freedom to provide services
• TFEU (Treaty on the functioning of the European Union) • “Federal Law
on the freedom of establishment and provision of services by European
lawyers in Austria” (EIRAG) • Directive 98/5/EEC (Directive to facilitate
practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State
other than that in which the qualification was obtained) • Limitation of
action
CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS: Sascha Verovnik, M.Sc., ScherbaumSeebacher Rechtsanwälte
GmbH, Schmiedgasse 2, A-8010 Graz, Austria, e-mail: office@scherbaum-seebacher.at.
DOI 10.18690/978-961-286-004-2.16 ISBN 978-961-286-004-2
© 2016 University of Maribor Press
Available at: http://press.um.si.
218 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
S. Verovnik: Cross-border Legal Representation as Seen in a Case Study
1 The case in outline
The transportation of two conveyor belts from the Netherlands to Austria was intended.
A company in the Netherlands (A-Co Ltd.) commissioned another company from the
Netherlands (B-Co Ltd.) with this task. This latter company, B -Co Ltd. of the
Netherlands in turn commissioned an Austrian company (C-Co Ltd.) with the transport
contract. The Austrian company C-Co Ltd. finally commissioned a Slovenian company
(D-Co Ltd.) with the job of transporting the load from Rotterdam to Austria for delivery
to the company E-Co Ltd. The Slovenian D-Co Ltd. took over the goods for transportation
in Rotterdam. A part of this goods consignment was damaged in transport following
departure as a result of not having been fixed and secured in an orderly manner for
transportation. The Austrian C-Co Ltd. subsequently sued the Slovenian D-Co Ltd. at the
Graz Provincial Court in its capacity as the Commercial Court on the basis of CRM and
the threat of the impending limitation period. Only then did B-Co Ltd. of the Netherlands
bring a suit against the Austrian C-Co Ltd. before the District Court of Rotterdam, also
because of the impending limitation period.
This case example illustrates the by no means insignificant cross-border activities of
lawyers and their work within the scope of the European single market. In this context it
is essential for an independently practising lawyer to know under what conditions s/he
may also be professionally active, outside the country in which s/he is authorised to
practice. In seeking an answer to the above problem it is first essential to establish and
differentiate the time period involved for this activity: in the case of simply temporary
activity in another EU member state the freedom to provide services as a fundamental
freedom in the EC should be observed, while in the case of permanent and continuous
activity the freedom of establishment – also provided for as a fundamental freedom within
the EU – is the relevant issue.
2 Freedom to provide services
The freedom to provide services makes it possible for independently self-employed
persons, who are based in one member state, to temporarily conduct a business activity
also in another member state. The relevant regulations can be found in the TFEU1
(Treaty
on the functioning of the European Union), more precisely in its Articles 56 to 62. The
determining factor for a service provision under the terms of the European legislation is
that the service provided has effect in another member state than that in which there is
authorisation to practice. Three various case constellations can be differentiated in this
context: in the first case the lawyer proceeds to another member state than the one in
which s/he is licensed in order to carry out an activity in law (active or positive freedom
to provide services), in the second case, the client proceeds to the country in which the
lawyer is authorised to practice, in order to make use of legal services (passive or negative
freedom to provide services), and the third case is the possibility of providing legal
services through means of communication (for example through letters or phone calls)
with both the lawyers and clients involved remaining in their respective home countries
(correspondence services). A point to be taken into account here is the prohibition of
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
S. Verovnik: Cross-border Legal Representation as Seen in a Case Study
219
discrimination as laid down in Article 57 paragraph 3 of the TFEU , which subjects the
unequal treatment of domestic and foreign service providers to an immanent justification
provision.
The decisive criterion here is – as already mentioned in the beginning – that the service
is only of a temporary nature and not carried out permanently and continuously. The
decision on whether an activity is only carried out temporarily is made on a case-by-case
basis, taking into account the criteria duration, frequency, regularity of recurrence and
continuity. Where the lawyer makes use of an own infrastructure – for example lawyer’s
chambers – this does not rule out any qualification for a purely temporary activity. But
this infrastructure must, however, be an essential requirement for the carrying out of the
activity.
3 Services Directive for Lawyers
More detailed requirements for the carrying out of an activity as a lawyer in another
member state can be found in the Directive 77/249/EEC. In Austria this Directive is
currently implemented and in force as the “Federal Law on the freedom of establishment
and provision of services by European lawyers in Austria” (EIRAG).
The Directive calls for lawyers from another member state to be given equal treatment
with that of local domestic lawyers when carrying out their activities in another member
state. The demand made on the lawyers on the other hand, is that they must comply with
and maintain the directives of the state in which their service is provided (this leads for
example, subjection to the professional regulations of two countries). Furthermore the
professional title as used in the country of origin must be maintained and the relevant
professional organisation in the country of origin together with the court in which the
lawyer if licensed to practice must be disclosed. In cases of legal activities in the practice
of law by lawyers from another EU state, the member state has the competence to decide
for itself on the requirement for nominating a local lawyer under national law to act in
conjunction with the lawyer from abroad. Such a person would be a lawyer licensed to
practice at the court seised. This lawyer would – in the sense of a protective mechanism
– have to instruct the foreign lawyer about all existing formal requirements under the
applicable rules of procedure, as also warrant the adherence of these requirements.
Exceptions to the requirement for appointing a local lawyer acting in conjunction with
lawyer from abroad exist in the case where the national legal regulations do not foresee
mandatory representation by a lawyer. Section 6 of EIRAG furthermore requires that a
person authorized to accept service is nominated when the lawyer from abroad starts the
first proceedings in court.2
4 Freedom of establishment
When a lawyer, who resides in another member state, has the intention of participating
in the business life of another member state in a continuous and stable manner with the
intention of gaining an economic benefit, then this situation relates on the European level
220 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
S. Verovnik: Cross-border Legal Representation as Seen in a Case Study
to the application context of the freedom of establishment. This is regulated in Articles
49 to 55 of TFEU and is also applicable to lawyers. This fundamental freedom relates in
its scope to the taking up and exercising of gainful self-employment as also the founding
and managing of a company. The decisive criterion here is the continuous and permanent
practice of the profession of the lawyer in another member state. In terms of the legal
framework conditions, all relevant national regulations are to be observed. Similar to the
freedom to provide services, the freedom of establishment also includes a discrimination
prohibition; and any limitations imposed require appropriate justification.
5 Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications
On the secondary legislation level the directive on the recognition of professional
qualifications is intended to assure the recognising of an acquired professional
qualification. Where for example times spent in education and professional examinations
are necessary in order to be admitted to a profession, then an appropriate completion is
required in order to fall under the scope of application of the directive. Once the
qualification is obtained, the right to exercise this profession also extends to another
member country. A person wishing to work as a lawyer maybe required to take an
adjustment course or a qualification examination. This is based on the consideration that
the activities of a lawyer demand precise knowledge of national law. The professional
qualifications of the relevant home country must also be taken into account within the
scope of such a qualification examination. Furthermore the host country (auch receiving
country) can require verification of the reliability, the clean criminal record, intellectual
and bodily health and the absence of any record of behaviour to the discredit of the
profession from the foreign lawyer. On a successful completion of the examination, the
lawyer is permitted to use the professional title of the host country and is also subject to
the same rights and obligations as the domestic lawyers.
6 The Establishment Directive for Lawyers
Directive 98/5/EEC (Directive to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a
permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was
obtained) provides a lawyer, wishing to be established professionally in another member
state with two possibilities for doing so: on the one hand to practice under the original
professional title acquired and on the other the possibility for integration in the
professional status of the host country, using the professional title used here. This
Directive is currently implemented and in force in Austria as the “Federal Law on the
freedom of establishment and provision of services by European lawyers in Austria and
amendments to the regulations for lawyers” (EIRAG).
7 Retaining the professional title of the country of origin
When the lawyer decides to settle with the professional title as used in the country of
origin, then no time limitations exist on the right to exercise the professional activities of
lawyer – in contradiction to the original limitation terms outlined in the draft directive (5
24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
S. Verovnik: Cross-border Legal Representation as Seen in a Case Study
221
years). The professional title is – as a warning signal– to be adjusted to the official
language of the host country, without permitting the risk to arise of mistaking the
professional titles of the country of origin. When the professional titles of both member
states are the same, then the professional organisation of the country of origin or the court
in which the lawyer is licensed to practice should be given as supplementary information
(Section 12 EIRAG). Furthermore this must be recorded with the responsible body of the
host country – by submitting a certificate confirming the right to practise law in the
country of origin. In this context the host country can also demand that a professional
liability insurance policy is also taken out.
On fulfilment of these criteria the lawyer from abroad is permitted to carry out the same
professional activities as a lawyer established with the respective appropriate professional
title in the host country. This also includes provision of legal consulting and advice on
the national law of the lawyer’s country of origin, EU and international law as also on the
law of the host country. A limitation can be imposed in the context of representing a client
in the courts by the national legislature through specifying the requirement for calling in
a local lawyer to act in conjunction with the other lawyer [Einvernehmensrechtsanwalt].
In terms of the applicable codes of professional conduct both those of the host country
and also those of the country of origin are applicable.
8 Complete integration
When the lawyer decides on the option of complete integration there are once again two
possibilities for achieving this: on the one hand a full integration following a three year
activity working with the law of the host country and on the other hand a full integration
process following a shorter activity period.
9 After three years
The qualification test that would otherwise be required by the host state does not have to
be taken when in a first step a lawyer is merely registered and active under her/his original
professional title (1) and has been professionally active for three years with the law of the
host country including EU law and (2) verification can be produced of effective and
regular professional activity. In such cases it can be assumed that the knowledge needed
has been acquired. “Effective and regular professional activity” is understood in this case
to be “actual practice of the profession without interruption”. The verification for this,
which the lawyer needs to produce, must take the form of case documentation. A
supplementary explanation of these cases handled can also be required. When the lawyer
has fulfilled this requirement then s/he must be admitted to the profession of a lawyer
insofar as this will not result in a detriment to public order (to terms of infringements
against the compelling general interests in society which must be taken into account
without fail as determined by the member states).
222 24TH
CONFERENCE CORPORATE ENTITIES AT THE MARKET AND EUROPEAN DIMENSIONS
S. Verovnik: Cross-border Legal Representation as Seen in a Case Study
10 Before the expiry of three years
If the lawyer is not in a position to provide the appropriate verification, then the
possibility for full integration still exists – without taking a qualification test. This
decision must be made by the authority responsible for professional authorisation in the
host country; however, the lawyer does not have claim to that. The decision is made on
the one hand based on the entire professional experience of the candidate and on the other
based on participation in courses and seminars. The objective here is that further
education and training can compensate for a lack of professional experience. This must
be verified by the responsible authority in the course of a discussion. This discussion
must not, however, have the range and scope of a qualification test.3
11 Conclusion
In the case presented here it is necessary to integrate a local lawyer in the relevant member
state since only knowledge of the relevant national standards can guarantee
comprehensive legal protection and optimal representation in the courts.
Notes
1
The consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of
the European Union 2012/C 326/01.
2
Garber/Nunner-Krautgasser, Grenzüberschreitende anwaltliche Tätigkeit im europäischen
Binnenmarkt – Teil I: Dienstleistungsfreiheit, 207 ff. (Cross border activities of lawyers in the
Single European Market – part I: Freedom to provide services, p 207 et seq.).
3
Garber/Nunner-Krautgasser, Grenzüberschreitende anwaltliche Tätigkeit im europäischen
Binnenmarkt – Teil II: The freedom of establishment, 243 ff.