magistrsko delo
Sara Tajnik (Avtor), Šime Ivanjko (Mentor)

Povzetek

Oblikovanje tržnega gospodarstva, kot ga poznamo danes, je zahtevalo veliko število žrtev, tako pravnih oseb kot tudi fizičnih. Osamosvojitev Slovenije je bila poglavitni razlog za sprejemanje nove zakonodaje na vseh področjih, med drugim tudi na področju korporacijskega prava. Novonastala država je sprva spodbujala k ustanovitvi podjetij, a so kmalu nastopile težave, ker so se v podjetniške vode podali neizkušeni podjetniki, kar je povzročilo, da je bilo v sodni register vpisano veliko število nedelujočih, nelikvidnih podjetij, v nekaterih primerih tudi brez premoženja ali zaposlenih, kar je po mnenju zakonodajalca predstavljalo grožnjo gospodarskemu trgu. Še pred začetkom 21. stoletja zakonodajalec sprejel zakonsko ureditev, ki je ne pozna nobena druga država, in sicer omogočala je prisilen izbris gospodarskih družb iz sodnega registra po uradni dolžnosti brez predhodno opravljenega postopka likvidacije družbe, če so bili izpolnjeni ne tako zahtevni kriteriji za izbris podjetja, hkrati pa so na družbenike in delničarje (v nadaljevanju: družbeniki) ex lege prešli dolgovi izbrisane družbe, za katere so odgovarjali solidarno in neomejeno. Takšna odgovornost je v praksi povzročila izvršbe na zasebnem premoženju fizičnih oseb, ki so bile vpisane v sodni register kot družbeniki kapitalskih družb. Zakonska ureditev je bila sporna z vidika treh pravnih področij, katerih načela so bila z začetkom veljavnosti zakona prekršena, to so ustavno, korporacijsko in civilno pravo, vendar je pred razveljavljenjem zakonodaje nastala škoda tako gospodarskim družbam neposredno z dejanjem izbrisa kot tudi v zasebni sferi posameznikov oziroma družbenikov kapitalskih družb. Zakonodajalec je sprejetje sporne zakonske ureditve skušal utemeljiti kot sankcijo za neupoštevanje kogentnih določb (jus cogens) drugega zakona, na katerega je napotovala. Izpostavljeno je bilo tudi dejstvo, da bi bila sodišča ob običajnem vodenju stečajnih postopkov nad podjetji preobremenjena. Korporacijska zakonodaja je, preden je bila leta 2011 ugotovljena kot protiustavna in nesorazmerna, veljala presenetljivih 12 let in za seboj pustila negativne posledice, večkrat je bila izpodbijana na Ustavnem sodišču in enkrat celo na Evropskem sodišču za človekove pravice (v nadaljevanju: ESČP), vendar je bilo šele na slednjem ugotovljeno, da so oškodovanci zakonodaje na vseh nacionalnih instancah postavljali napačna vprašanja s tega področja, in sicer družbeniki so na nacionalnih instancah zatrjevali, da so direktni oškodovanci, morali pa bi se sklicevati, da so sekundarno oškodovani. Zakonodajalec je, ko je leta 2011 opazil svojo napako sprejetja sporne zakonodaje, ki je dala državi možnost tako radikalnega posega v različna področja prava in pravice ne le družb, ampak tudi njenih družbenikov osebno, s številnimi zakoni neuspešno poskušal odpravljati daljnosežne posledice do leta 2021, ko je bil Državnemu svetu prvič podan predlog zakona, ki vključuje odškodninsko odgovornost države.

Ključne besede

izbris iz sodnega registra po uradni dolžnosti;prisilno prenehanje;finančno poslovanje družb;spregled pravne osebnosti;aktivni družbeniki;pasivni družbeniki;večkratna sprememba zakonodaje;saniranje posledic;drugačen pristop s strani ESČP.;

Podatki

Jezik: Slovenski jezik
Leto izida:
Tipologija: 2.09 - Magistrsko delo
Organizacija: UM PF - Pravna fakulteta
Založnik: [S. Tajnik]
UDK: 347.72(043.3)
COBISS: 79953667 Povezava se bo odprla v novem oknu
Št. ogledov: 332
Št. prenosov: 79
Ocena: 0 (0 glasov)
Metapodatki: JSON JSON-RDF JSON-LD TURTLE N-TRIPLES XML RDFA MICRODATA DC-XML DC-RDF RDF

Ostali podatki

Sekundarni jezik: Angleški jezik
Sekundarni naslov: Legal consequences of ex officio deletion of companies from the slovenian register without liquidation
Sekundarni povzetek: The result of shaping the market economy as we know it today has required numerous victims, meaning legal entities as well as natural persons. After independence of Slovenian country was declared, the new country's legislator wrote and passed a large number of laws regarding different legal fields, including corporate law. During that time, the country's policy was to encourage individuals to establish their own company, which has turned out to be a difficulty due to inexperienced individuals running a business. The Slovenian Register therefore contained a large number of non-operating and illiquid companies, many of them had no employees or assets. Mere existence of such companies, according to Slovenian legislator at that time, endangered the market economy. A new legislation had been written and passed even before the beginning of the 21st century, which allowed the court maintaining the commercial register to ex officio delete the companies that satisfied the conditions set out in the legislation, without the company previously going into liquidation, and the company's debt was ex lege undertaken to discharge by the company's partners or shareholders (hereinafter: partners). The latter had unlimited, joint and several liability for the debt of the deleted company, which had resulted in enforcement of private assets of natural persons listed as the company's partners in the Slovenian register. The corporate legislation at issue infringes three legal fields, constitutional, corporate and civil law. The legislation caused significant damage to the ex officio deleted companies as well as the company's partners as individuals before it was annulled by the judgement of the Slovenian Constitutional Court. Slovenian legislator tried to develop a justification for writing and passing this corporate legislation by claiming it is a form of penalty for infringement of a jus cogens provision of another legislation to which it refers. The legislator had also highlighted the fact that without this corporate legislature at issue the national courts would be overburdened and the insolvency procedures would require too much time. The legislation had surprisingly been in force for 12 years and therefore caused significant negative consequences, constitutionality of the law had been challenged several times before the Constitutional Court before it was declared unconstitutional and disproportional to the objective. However, the case regarding the legislation at issue has been brought before the ECHR, which has found that the partners, in this case injured parties, victims, that brought action before the national courts, have been asking the wrong questions regarding the field at issue, meaning partners have been essentially indirectly injured by the legislation, whilst they were claiming to be injured directly. The legislator noticed in 2011 that a manifest error was made when the legislation at issue was passed because it has enabled a disproportionate interference with various rights of the companies and their partners. The legislator has made a few failed attempts of eliminating the far-reaching implications after the legislation was annulled, until 2021, when the first legislative proposal that contains civil liability of the State has been brought forward to the National Council.
Sekundarne ključne besede: Ex officio deletion of companies;forced dissolution of companies;financial operations of companies;lifting the corporate veil;active partners and shareholders;passive partners and shareholders;multiple changes to legislation;remediation of consequences;different approach made by the ECHR.;
Vrsta dela (COBISS): Magistrsko delo/naloga
Komentar na gradivo: Univ. v Mariboru, Pravna fak.
Strani: VI, 75 f.
ID: 13358854