Search

Institut upravne izplačilne prepovedi delno sloni na prostovoljnosti, kar je v nasprotju z bistvom izvršilnega prava. Na prvi pogled se zdi, da je obravnavani institut povezan z upravnim pravom, vendar to ni res. Upravna izplačilna prepoved je pravnoposlovni odstop bodoče denarne terjatve iz delovnega razmerja v korist upnika, ki ga odobri dolžnik sam, delodajalec pa mora tako razpolaganje potrditi zaradi nadaljnjih obveznosti, ki nastanejo zanj s trenutkom potrditve. Ker je obravnavani institut v vsakdanjiku pogosto uporabljen, njegova normativna ureditev pa skopa, je v tem magistrskem delu predstavljen podrobneje z vsemi odprtimi vprašanji, na katera sta opozorili tako pravna teorija kot tudi praksa. Kljub burni debati teoretikov o materialnopravni naravi instituta, ta ostaja nedorečena, medtem ko se je jasno izoblikovalo stališče o omejenosti prenosljivosti denarne terjatve iz delovnega razmerja, ki je doživelo tudi zakonsko ubeseditev. Manj dorečen je predmet upravne izplačilne prepovedi, ki je glede na gramatikalno razlago zakona zgolj plača, vendar se v teku razvoja družbe to pokaže kot nezadostno in omejujoče. Upravna izplačilna prepoved ima pravni učinek sklepa o izvršbi, vendar zgolj glede zagotovitve vrstnega reda poplačila upnika, kar nasprotno pomeni, da upravna izplačilna prepoved nima drugih učinkov sklepa o izvršbi. To se kaže zlasti v možnosti preklica upravne izplačilne prepovedi s strani delavca. The institute of administrative prohibition to pay out is partially based on voluntariness, which is in contrast with the very essence of enforcement law. At first glance, it seems that the institute in question is connected with administrative law, but this is not the case. The administrative prohibition to pay out is the contractual relinquishment of a future monetary claim from employment in favour of the creditor, which is approved by the debtor himself. The employer must confirm such disposal due to consequent duties that arise in the moment of confirmation. Since the institute is frequently used and its relevant regulatory framework is inadequate, the present MA thesis presents it in detail together with all open questions which were raised both by judicial theory and practice. Despite a heated debate of theoreticians on the substantive legal nature of the institute, the matter remains unsettled. However, a clear stance on the limitation of transferability of a monetary claim has been formed and statutorily articulated. Less settled is the object of administrative prohibition to pay out, which is, according to a grammatical explanation, simply a salary, but this has throughout society’s development turned out to be inadequate and limiting. The administrative prohibition to pay out has a legal consequence of the decree of execution, but only regarding the assurance of the sequence of repayment of creditors. Contrarily, this means that the administrative prohibition to pay out has no other consequence of the decree of execution, which appears especially in the possibility of reversal of the administrative prohibition to pay out from a worker concerned.

V exekučním řízení je vymáhána celá řada exekučních titulů. Exekuční řízení, která mají základě závazku směnečného, pak mají řadu svých specifických problémů a praktických výzev. Jednou z nich je právě otázka, zda oprávněný je povinen k exekučnímu návrhu přikládat originál směnky. Tento příspěvek se podrobněji věnuje teoretickým otázkám i praktickým důsledkům dosavadní aplikované praxe. There is quite a number of execution titles that can be enforced in the execution proceedings. Execution proceedings based on the bill of exchange obligation have a lot of specific problems and practical challenges. One of them is a question whether the creditor is obliged to present the original bill of exchange together with the motion to commence execution proceedings. This article in detail addresses the theoretical issues and practical consequences of existing legal practice. There is quite a number of execution titles that can be enforced in the execution proceedings. Execution proceedings based on the bill of exchange obligation have a lot of specific problems and practical challenges. One of them is a question whether the creditor is obliged to present the original bill of exchange together with the motion to commence execution proceedings. This article in detail addresses the theoretical issues and practical consequences of existing legal practice.

Pridobitev lastninske pravice na podlagi prisilne prodaje pri izvršbi in stečaju se, če velja slediti teoriji in sodni praksi, šteje za izvirno oziroma originarno pridobljeno lastninsko pravico. Poglavitna značilnost takšne vrste pridobitve je, da se lastninska pravica prenese ne glede na voljo dosedanjega imetnika pravice, še več, celo v nasprotju z njegovo voljo. Naslednja pomembna značilnost tovrstne prodaje je ta, da predpostavka pridobitve stvarne pravice ni zemljiškoknjižno dovolilo (razpolagalni pravni posel) kot to velja za poslovne pridobitve, temveč je predpostavka pridobitve oblikovalna sodna odločba. Do prisilne prodaje stvari pride v primerih, ko dolžnik ne izpolni svoje obveznosti, ki jo ima v razmerju do upnika, kar posledično lahko pripelje do sodnega izvršilnega postopka. V izvršilnem postopku sodišče izda sodno odločbo, s katero naloži dolžniku, da poravna terjatev. V primeru, ko dolžnik ne izpolni kar mu je bilo s sodno odločbo naloženo, sledi njena prisilna izvršitev. Naša zakonodaja upnika ne omejuje pri izbiri izvršilnega sredstva, saj ne predpisuje nobenega vrstnega reda le-teh. Velja načelo proste izbire izvršilnega sredstva, ne glede na višino terjatve. Upnik tako lahko že v začetku predlaga izvršbo na nepremičnino, kljub izterjavi nesorazmerno nizke terjatve. To možnost mu daje zakonodaja, ki ne določa spodnje meje višine terjatve, nad katero bi bilo možno dovoliti izvršbo na nepremičnino ter tudi ne predvideva, da bi bilo dopustno dovoliti izvršbo na nepremičnino šele po tem, ko izterjava terjatve z drugimi sredstvi izvršbe ne bi bila mogoča. Na podlagi pravnomočnega sklepa o izročitvi nepremičnine kupec torej pridobi lastninsko pravico. Sklep velja za listino, na podlagi katere se dovoli vknjižba pravice na kupca. Vsled dejstva, da je vpis v zemljiško knjigo v tem primeru zgolj deklaratornega značaja, je ta kljub temu potreben prav zaradi publicitete vpisov. Posebej zanimivi postanejo primeri, kjer so vpisi v zemljiški knjigi napačni, zaradi česar pogosto pride do prenosa lastninske pravice nelastnika. Gre za primere, ko dolžnik ni resnični lastnik nepremičnine, ki je predmet prodaje. Če operacionaliziram, problem velikokrat nastaja pri nepremičninah, ki predstavljajo skupno premoženje zakoncev, v zemljiški knjigi pa je kot izključni lastnik vpisan zgolj eden, ali pa je nepremičnina vpisana kot solastnina. Vpisa ne odražata dejanskega stanja lastništva, kar ima lahko negativne posledice tudi v postopku izvršbe, ko se lahko nepremičnina proda. Pogosti primeri, kjer vpisi lastninske pravice ne odražajo dejanskega, so tudi prodaje s pridržkom lastninske pravice ter primeri zunajknjižnega priposestvovanja. Tukaj sodna praksa zavzema različna stališča, s predpostavko (ne)dobrovernosti kupca, proti kateremu pravi lastnik uveljavlja svojo lastninsko pravico. V obzir stališču sodne prakse je potrebno vzeti tudi dejstvo, da ima pri tovrstni prodaji pomembno vlogo interes upnika, ki zasleduje poplačilo svoje še neplačane terjatve. Taking a look at theory and case-law, the acquisition of a property right based on forced sale in the event of enforcement and bankruptcy is deemed as an originally acquired property right. The main feature of this type of acquisition is that the property right is transferred regardless of the will of the current right holder, moreover, even contrary to his will. Another important characteristic of such a sale is that the requirement for the acquisition of a right in rem is not a land registration permit (dispositional legal transaction) as in the case of business acquisitions, but a formative court decision. A forced sale occurs in cases where the debtor fails to fulfil his obligations towards the creditor, which in turn may lead to judicial enforcement proceedings. In enforcement proceedings, the court issues a decision ordering the debtor to settle the claim. If the debtor fails to fulfil his obligations pursuant to the court order, this results in the enforcement of such a decision. Slovene law does not restrict the creditor’s options to choose an enforcement instrument, as it does not provide any prescribed order of enforcement. Regardless of the amount of the claim the principle of free choice of enforcement instrument applies. Already in the beginning, the creditor may therefore propose an enforcement against property, despite the recovery of a disproportionally low claim. This option is provided under the law prescribing no minimum amount of the claim which would exclude the granting of an enforcement against property and anticipates no option of allowing an enforcement against property to take place only after a recovery of the claim by other means of enforcement has not been possible. The buyer thus acquires the property right based on the final decision on the sale of the property. Such a decision is considered a document, which allows the registration of the right in favour of the buyer. In this case, the entry in the land register is only declaratory, but is nevertheless required to provide for the publication of entries. Particularly interesting are cases where the land registry entries are incorrect, which often results in the transfer of property rights from a non-owner. This refers to cases where the debtor is not the real owner of the property being sold. From a more operational point of view, the problem often arises with real estate representing matrimonial property of the spouses where in the land register only one of them is registered as the sole owner, or where the property is registered as being a joint property. The registry entries do not reflect the actual state of ownership, which can have negative effects also in the enforcement proceeding when the property can be sold. Common cases where the property right entries do not reflect the actual state of affairs are also sales involving a retention of property rights and off-book prescription cases. Considering this, the case law adopts different positions assuming the (absence of )bona fide of the buyer against whom the actual owner exercises his own property right. In support of the position of case-law, it should be taken into consideration that the interest of the creditors pursuing the repayment of their outstanding claim plays an important role in such a sale.

O presente trabalho prop?e-se a aprofundar o tema dos neg?cios jur?dicos processuais na perspectiva dos direitos fundamentais das partes. Enfrenta-se a referida tem?tica, abordando a principiologia e os fundamentos da negocia??o processual a desaguar na sua aplicabilidade na tutela executiva, em especial na execu??o de quantia. Os limites dos neg?cios processuais autorizados pelo art. 190 do C?digo de Processo Civil s?o concatenados frente ao publicismo e privatismo processual, bem como apresentados no vi?s de um modelo cooperativo de processo a partir de sua inser??o no panorama processual ? luz do formalismo-valorativo. Sugere-se a correta interpreta??o dos requisitos estabelecidos em ?mbito infraconstitucional com vistas ? validade na forma??o de neg?cios jur?dicos processuais. Transpassando os direitos fundamentais ? liberdade, ? seguran?a jur?dica e ? efetividade do processo, a negocia??o sobre mat?ria processual ? justificada e inserida no ambiente da tutela executiva. Analisa-se o impacto da forma??o e aplica??o dos neg?cios jur?dicos processuais nas medidas executivas, expropriat?rias e nas normas procedimentais. Defende-se a validade de neg?cios jur?dicos processuais at?picos que possam implicar em restri??es justificadas aos direitos fundamentais das partes no processo executivo, tal como a limita??o ao duplo grau de jurisdi??o e a ren?ncia ? impenhorabilidade, a partir da correta aplica??o da proporcionalidade. The present study has the purpose to deepen the subject of contract procedure from the perspective of the fundamental rights of the parties. The issue is addressed by approaching the principles and fundamentals of contract procedure, flowing into its applicability in the executive order, especially in the amount execution. The limits of the contract procedures authorized by article 190 of the Civil Procedure Code are concatenated against procedural publicism and privatism, as well as presented in the bias of a corporative model of process from its insertion in the procedural panorama in the light of formalism-value. It is suggested the correct interpretation of the requirements established in the infraconstitucional scope with a view to the validity in the formation of contract procedure. Transposing the fundamental rights to freedom, legal certainty and effectiveness of the process, negotiation on procedural matters is justified and inserted in the environment of executive process. The impact of formation and application of contract procedure on executive expropriatory measures and on procedural rules is analyzed. It is defended the validity of atypical contract procedure that may imply justified restrictions to the fundamental rights of the parties in the executive process, such as the limitation to the double degree of jurisdiction and the renunciation of unenforceability, based on the correct application of proportionality.

Сайко Л.Ю., ст. викладач кафедри права