Glosa do Wyroku Sądu Najwyższego z dnia 15 października 2021 r., sygn. akt I CSKP 226/21

IF 0.1 Q4 LAW
Justyna Łacny
{"title":"Glosa do Wyroku Sądu Najwyższego z dnia 15 października 2021 r., sygn. akt I CSKP 226/21","authors":"Justyna Łacny","doi":"10.31268/ps.2023.170","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Supreme Court ruled on 15 October 2021, ref. no. I CSKP 226/21, that the provisions of the Civil Code set out in Article 509 and subsequent articles are not applicable to assignment agreements (cession agreement) concerning EU funds. According to Article 509 of the Civil Code, a creditor may, without the debtor’s consent, assign a claim to a third party, unless this would be contrary to the law, a contractual condition, or the nature of the obligation. In commented judgement, the Supreme Court stated that an assignment agreement concluded between a beneficiary of EU funds (assignor, debt seller) and a third party (assignee, debt buyer) has legal effects with respect to the debtor, which is a public administration body granting subsidies from EU funds, only if it has been approved by this body. In the absence of approval, the public administration body is not obliged to perform such an agreement and the claim for a subsidy from EU funds, which debt seller transferred to debt buyer by means of an assignment agreement, may pay to the benefit of the debt seller. This unprecedented thesis, excluding the application of the Civil Code to assignment agreements relating to EU funds, leads to the question of its scope of application. Does the requirement set forth by the Supreme Court to approve assignment agreements by the public administration body apply only to the case at hand, or does it have universal character and should be applied to all assignment agreements concerning EU fund? A question arises as to the legal remedies available to the parties to such agreements to protect their rights under unapproved assignment agreements, who, on the date of their conclusion, could not have known about the requirement for their approval and thus fulfil the formalities required for this purpose. That issue will be addressed in this article.","PeriodicalId":42093,"journal":{"name":"Przeglad Sejmowy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Przeglad Sejmowy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31268/ps.2023.170","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Supreme Court ruled on 15 October 2021, ref. no. I CSKP 226/21, that the provisions of the Civil Code set out in Article 509 and subsequent articles are not applicable to assignment agreements (cession agreement) concerning EU funds. According to Article 509 of the Civil Code, a creditor may, without the debtor’s consent, assign a claim to a third party, unless this would be contrary to the law, a contractual condition, or the nature of the obligation. In commented judgement, the Supreme Court stated that an assignment agreement concluded between a beneficiary of EU funds (assignor, debt seller) and a third party (assignee, debt buyer) has legal effects with respect to the debtor, which is a public administration body granting subsidies from EU funds, only if it has been approved by this body. In the absence of approval, the public administration body is not obliged to perform such an agreement and the claim for a subsidy from EU funds, which debt seller transferred to debt buyer by means of an assignment agreement, may pay to the benefit of the debt seller. This unprecedented thesis, excluding the application of the Civil Code to assignment agreements relating to EU funds, leads to the question of its scope of application. Does the requirement set forth by the Supreme Court to approve assignment agreements by the public administration body apply only to the case at hand, or does it have universal character and should be applied to all assignment agreements concerning EU fund? A question arises as to the legal remedies available to the parties to such agreements to protect their rights under unapproved assignment agreements, who, on the date of their conclusion, could not have known about the requirement for their approval and thus fulfil the formalities required for this purpose. That issue will be addressed in this article.
关于最高法院2021年10月15日判决的声明。第一幕CSKP 226/21
最高法院于2021年10月15日作出裁决。I CSKP 226/21,民法典第509条及其后条款的规定不适用于涉及欧盟资金的转让协议(让与协议)。根据《民法典》第509条,债权人可以在未经债务人同意的情况下,将债权转让给第三方,除非这将违反法律、合同条件或债务的性质。在评论判决中,最高法院指出,欧盟资金的受益人(转让人、债务卖方)与第三方(受让人、债务买方)之间达成的转让协议,只有在获得该机构批准的情况下,才对债务人(即从欧盟资金中发放补贴的公共行政机构)具有法律效力。在没有批准的情况下,公共管理机构没有义务履行这样的协议,并且债务卖方通过转让协议向债务买方转移的欧盟基金补贴索赔可以支付给债务卖方。这一史无前例的论点排除了民法典对欧盟基金转让协议的适用,从而导致了民法典适用范围的问题。最高法院规定的由公共行政机构批准转让协议的要求是否只适用于手头的案件,还是具有普遍性,应该适用于所有涉及欧盟基金的转让协议?产生了一个问题,即这种协定的当事方可以利用什么法律补救办法来保护他们在未经核准的转让协定下的权利,因为他们在签订转让协定之日不可能知道需要核准他们,因此不可能履行为此目的所需的手续。这个问题将在本文中讨论。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
39
×
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