Pobojnost namjernog oštećenja vjerovnika stečajnog dužnika

Q4 Social Sciences
Antun Bilić, Marko Bratković
{"title":"Pobojnost namjernog oštećenja vjerovnika stečajnog dužnika","authors":"Antun Bilić, Marko Bratković","doi":"10.3935/zpfz.71.34.05","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is clear from the case law of Croatian courts that intentional disadvantaging the creditors (regulated in Article 202 of the Insolvency Act) is the most commonly used ground for contesting the legal transactions of an insolvent debtor. On this ground, all legal transactions undertaken in the suspect period of as long as ten years before the submission of the application for opening (pre-)insolvency proceedings until the opening insolvency proceedings can be contested. The authorized contester, however, in litigation has a tall order of proving not only that the debtor took action with the intent to disadvantage its creditors but also that the opponent of the contestation was aware of that intent. The debtor’s intent to disadvantage its creditors and the awareness of the opponent of the contestation are both determined on the basis of objective indications that are at the heart of the analysis of this paper. Incongruent settlement, the unequal value of consideration, unusual contractual clauses, the proximity of the insolvency debtor and the opponent of the contestation, and the debtor’s (threatening) inability to pay his debts are most often recognized in case law as indications of intentional disadvantaging the creditors of an insolvent debtor. In addition to certain objections to the normative regulation of the institute itself, especially regarding the drafting of presumptions that make it easier to prove the contester’s awareness of the debtor’s intention to disadvantage its creditors, the paper presents a critical assessment of case law that could facilitate its harmonization and serve as a guide to authorized contesters as to whether it is appropriate to engage in contestation or not.","PeriodicalId":34908,"journal":{"name":"Zbornik Pravnog Fakulteta u Zagrebu","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zbornik Pravnog Fakulteta u Zagrebu","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3935/zpfz.71.34.05","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

It is clear from the case law of Croatian courts that intentional disadvantaging the creditors (regulated in Article 202 of the Insolvency Act) is the most commonly used ground for contesting the legal transactions of an insolvent debtor. On this ground, all legal transactions undertaken in the suspect period of as long as ten years before the submission of the application for opening (pre-)insolvency proceedings until the opening insolvency proceedings can be contested. The authorized contester, however, in litigation has a tall order of proving not only that the debtor took action with the intent to disadvantage its creditors but also that the opponent of the contestation was aware of that intent. The debtor’s intent to disadvantage its creditors and the awareness of the opponent of the contestation are both determined on the basis of objective indications that are at the heart of the analysis of this paper. Incongruent settlement, the unequal value of consideration, unusual contractual clauses, the proximity of the insolvency debtor and the opponent of the contestation, and the debtor’s (threatening) inability to pay his debts are most often recognized in case law as indications of intentional disadvantaging the creditors of an insolvent debtor. In addition to certain objections to the normative regulation of the institute itself, especially regarding the drafting of presumptions that make it easier to prove the contester’s awareness of the debtor’s intention to disadvantage its creditors, the paper presents a critical assessment of case law that could facilitate its harmonization and serve as a guide to authorized contesters as to whether it is appropriate to engage in contestation or not.
客户债务人故意损害的腐败
克罗地亚法院的判例法清楚地表明,故意使债权人处于不利地位(《破产法》第202条规定)是对破产债务人的法律交易提出质疑的最常用理由。基于这一理由,在提出启动(预)破产程序申请之前长达十年的可疑期间进行的所有法律交易,直到启动破产程序,都可以提出质疑。然而,在诉讼中,经授权的异议人不仅要证明债务人采取行动的意图是使其债权人处于不利地位,而且要证明异议人知道这一意图。债务人使债权人处于不利地位的意图和反对者的意识都是根据本文分析的核心客观迹象确定的。在判例法中,和解不畅、对价价值不平等、合同条款不寻常、破产债务人与诉讼对手接近以及债务人(威胁性)无力偿还债务,通常被视为有意使破产债务人的债权人处于不利地位的迹象。除了对该机构本身的规范性法规,特别是在起草推定方面存在某些反对意见外,这些推定更容易证明异议人意识到债务人有意使其债权人处于不利地位,本文对判例法进行了批判性评估,有助于判例法的统一,并为经授权的诉讼人提供参与诉讼是否合适的指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信