| Abstract | Paulijanska tužba (paulijanski prigovor) predstavlja važan instrument zaštite ugroženog prava vjerovnika na učinkovito ostvarenje tražbine, premda, opsegom skromna pozitivnopravna regulativa hrvatskoga prava, to ne da naslutiti. Aktualnost ove teme treba promatrati u okviru sveprisutne tendencije prema potpunijoj zaštiti vjerovnika, kao, bez sumnje, rezultatu sve snažnije prisutnosti imperativa tržišnog natjecanja koje svoju nemilosrdnost skriva iza egide o težnji napretku i sveopćem boljitku.
U razradi načela zaštite vjerovnika s dogmatskog i aplikativnog stajališta posebno se vodilo računa o pravnom položaju i interesu dužnika. Naime, u tome je i osnovna paradigma instituta pobijanja pravnih radnji dužnika, jer vjerovnik se institutom paulijanske tužbe (prigovora) mora oprezno koristiti, budući da zahvaća u uredan i perfektan ugovor između dužnika i treće osobe (protivnika pobijanja). Istraživanje je stoga, primarno usmjereno na pretpostavke potrebne za ostvarenje pravne sigurnosti. Kada ono postane upitno, snagom prinudnog propisa treba djelovati i omogućiti zaštitu vjerovniku tako da se onemogući dužniku izbjegavanje ispunjenja obveze. Na putu ostvarenja subjektivnih prava i zahtjeva vjerovnika, spram dužnikova duga i obveze, ne smije biti nezakonitih zapreka.
S druge strane valja voditi računa o pravnom položaju dužnika i njegovim interesima, kako ne bi došlo do neodgovarajuće intervencije u njegovu interesnu sferu.
Razrada problemskih pitanja nezaobilazno obuhvaća i treće osobe (protivnike pobijanja) koje su stupile u pravni odnos s dužnikom, jer one imaju pravo postaviti pitanje: Je li opravdano zadirati u valjani pravni posao kako bi se, na štetu te osobe (upravo protivnika pobijanja), zaštitio vjerovnik?
Svaka ugovorna strana stupa u obveznopravni odnos, odnosno pravni posao s određenom svrhom, tj. namjerom, koja kao izjava ili očitovanje privatnopravne volje omogućava nastajanje dopuštenog pravnog učinka – pravne posljedice. Uloga je pravila, kojima je uređen promatrani institut, da u okviru ta dva pravna posla, dvije pravne posljedice iz dva pravna odnosa (prvi između vjerovnika i dužnika, a drugi između dužnika i treće osobe – protivnika pobijanja), čak i pod pretpostavkom da su oba s materijalnopravnog stajališta valjana, jednom dade prioritet, a drugom oduzme legitimitet snagom kogentnog propisa.
Misao vodilja u razradi teza polazi od pravne prirode odnosa vjerovnika i dužnika, prema kojem je vjerovnik ovlašten od dužnika zahtijevati ispunjenje obveze, a dužnik ju mora ispuniti upravo onako kako ona glasi. Sankcija koja stoji na raspolaganju vjerovniku za neispunjenje dužnikove obveze je imovinska, pa stoga dužnik bez imovine nema čime ispuniti dospjelu obvezu niti se vjerovnik ima iz čega namiriti.
Cilj istraživanja bio je pronalaženje odgovora na pitanje koji su krucijalni razlozi da se institut pobijanja dužnikovih pravnih radnji u hrvatskoj praksi ne koristi dostatno i koje su promjene nužne da bi on saživio u onoj mjeri koliko je to potrebno. |
| Abstract (english) | A Paulian action (a Paulian complaint) presents an important institute to protect threatened creditor’s right to successfully effect a claim, although a modest number of positive legal regulations in Croatian legal system do not support this thesis. The actio pauliana should be analysed within the context of general tendencies to obtain a complete protection of creditors which have undoubtedly arisen as a result of market competition imperatives hiding their ruthlessness under the protection of aspirations of prosperity and general wealth.
While analysing the principles of protection of creditors from theoretical and practical point of view, a special attention has been given to debtor’s legal position and interests. This crucial issue is a paradigm of the institute of contestation of debtor’s legal transactions because a creditor has to carefully submit the actio pauliana, due to the fact that the actio affects a duly and a perfect contract stipulated between the debtor and the third person (who is an opposing party to contestation). Having this in mind, the research is primarily aimed at presumptions of legal security. In cases in which the legal security becomes questionable, it is necessary to act by compulsive provisions to provide protection to a creditor preventing the debtor from not performing his obligation. It is of the most importance to neutralise unlawful obstacles on the path leading to fulfilment of creditor’s subjective rights and claims with respect to debtor’s debt and obligation.
On the other hand it is necessary to take into consideration debtor’s legal position as well as his interests to avoid any inappropriate intervention in debtor’s sphere of interest.
The analysis of issues is given with respect to third parties (objecting the creditor’s claims of contestation) who entered in a legal relationship with debtor due to the fact that third persons have a right to raise a question: Is it reasonable to affect a valid legal transaction to the determinant of the opponent of contestation to protect the creditor?
Each contractual party enters into civil obligations relationship, i.e. into legal transaction with a certain purpose or intent, and produces acceptable legal effects by means of its declarations of private legal intention. The purpose of rules governing the institute in question is to give a priority and at the same time to withdraw legitimacy by a power of cogent norm to one of these two legal transactions (that is the transaction between creditor and debtor or between debtor and third person) even the theory being that both transaction are valid from the material legal point of view.
The main purpose of the present discussion is to scrutinise a legal nature of relationship between creditor and debtor, according to which the creditor is entitled to request from the debtor the performance of the obligation and the debtor has a duty to perform an obligation towards a creditor exactly as it reads. A sanction available to creditor in case if debtor does not perform his obligation is proprietary. Therefore, the debtor having no assets has no means to perform his due obligation and the creditor has no means to settle his claims.
The aim of the present research is to find out crucial reasons why the institute of contestation of debtor’s legal transactions has not been adequately implemented in Croatian legal practice and what should be done to increase its implementation in a sufficient manner. |
