| Abstract (croatian) | Iz poredbeno-pravne perspektive razlikujemo dva osnovna modela
provođenja postupka generalne egzekucije, tzv. formalni i neformalni model.
Po jednom, koji je još uvijek zastupljeniji, ključnu ulogu ima sud (tzv. formalni
model). On donosi odluku o pokretanju i otvaranju postupka, rukovodi čitavim
postupkom te tijekom postupka angažira izvansudska operativna tijela (stečajnog
upravitelja, povjerenika) koja obavljaju određene radnje za sud i po nalogu
suda. Po drugom modelu postoje određene službe koje dobivaju (manju ili veću)
samostalnost (tzv. neformalni model). Oni ne podliježu unaprijed propisanim
pravilima i procedurama pružajući sudionicima veću mogućnost iznalaženja
najoptimalnijeg rješenja. Ovaj neformalni model postupka generalne egzekucije
uglavnom je dominantan u zemljama anglosaksonskog prava, ali se u posljednje
vrijeme počeo implementirati i u zemljama zapadne i istočne Europe. U posljednjih
nekoliko godina u bosansko-hercegovačkom pravnom okružju ponovno se
afirmira postupak generalne egzekucije dobivajući mjesto koje mu je duže vrijeme
bilo neopravdano uskraćeno. Štoviše i predstojeća reforma insolvencijskog
prava, pa i implementiranje formalnog modela postupaka generalne egzekucije
– predstečajnog postupka u Nacrtu Zakona o stečaju, ukazuju na tendenciju
funkcionalizacije stečajno pravne zaštite.
Stoga, radi usporedbe i mogućih prijedloga de lege ferenda za
bosansko-hercegovačkog zakonodavca, analiza hrvatskih iskustava s modelom
predstečajnog postupka je bitna jer ukazuje hoće li potencijalna implementacija
i primjena novog modela insolvencijskog postupka ostvariti svoju svrhu i dati
očekivane rezultate – niže troškove i kraće trajanje postupka te veće namirenje
vjerovnika. Kompleksnost predmeta istraživanja i postavljeni zadaci uvjetovali
su izbor metoda pa je u istraživanju prvenstveno korišten poredbeno pravni i
normativno pravni metodološki pristup. Smatramo bitnim istaknuti kako prostor
koji ovdje imamo, ne dopušta detaljnu raščlambu ove problematike, pa smo
prinuđeni ograničiti se isključivo, po mišljenju autora, na neke aspekte nove
regulative. |
| Abstract (english) | From a comparative legal perspective, there are two basic models for
the general execution procedure, the so-called, formal and informal model. In
a formal model, which is still prevalent, the key role has the court. It decides
should the process be initiated and later on opened, manages the entire process,
and in the process it engages other extrajudicial operational entities (e.g.
bankruptcy manager, trustee) who perform certain actions for the court on the
basis of the court order. In an informal model, there are certain services which
are (more or less) independent. They are not subject to formally prescribed rules
and procedures which give participants greater ability to find the most optimal
solutions. This informal model process of general execution is mainly dominant
in common law countries, but recently it was a model that was implemented in
server countries of Western and Eastern Europe. In the past several years in the
Bosnian legal environment there is a process of re-affirming general executions
as a legal discipline, giving it a place that was for a long time unjustly denied.
Moreover, the upcoming reform of insolvency law, including the implementation
of a formal model of procedures of general executions - prebankruptcy procedure
in the Draft Law on Bankruptcy, indicate a tendency for a functionalization of
bankruptcy law protection.
Therefore, for comparison and possible proposals for Bosnia-Herzegovina
legislator, analysis of Croatian experience with the model of prebankruptcy
procedure is important because it indicates whether a potential implementation
and application of new model of insolvency proceedings will achieve its purpose
and give the expected results - lower costs and shorter duration of the bankruptcy
process and, as a final result, greater satisfaction of creditors due claims. The
complexity of the research subject and set tasks dictated the choice of methods, so
the author primarily used comparative and normative methodological approach.
It is important to emphasize that the length of the paper doesn’t permit a detailed
analysis of this issue, so author is forced to limit his observations to some aspects
of the new regulation. |
