| Abstract (croatian) | Dana 01. rujna 2015. na snagu je u Republici Hrvatskoj stupio novi
Stečajni zakon (NN, br. 71/15. – dalje: SZ). Time je zakonodavac nakon
trogodišnjeg eksperimentiranja u upravnom postupku i kroz upravna tijela
(definirano Zakonom o financijskom poslovanju i predstečajnoj nagodbi
(NN, br. 108/12., 144/12., 81/13. i 112/13.)) ponovno ovlasti vođenja i
odlučivanja predstečajnim postupkom vratio sudu. Pritisak za ovakve reforme,
odnosno za ponovno jaču ulogu suda u novom SZ, vršila je i primjena
čl. 6. iz Europske konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava i temeljnih
sloboda (NN-MU, br. 18/97., 6/99., 14/02., 13/03., 9/05., 1/06. i 2/10. –
dalje: Konvencija). Naime, praksa Europskog suda za ljudska prava (engl.
European Court of Human Rights, franc. Cour Européenne des Droits de
l’Homme)(dalje: ECHRa) naznačuje kako se čl. 6., st. 1. primjenjuje na
stečajni postupak (exempli causa,S.p.r.l. ANCA and Others protiv Belgije,
odluka, 10. prosinca 1984.). To je bitno jer dvojba koja se odnosila na
samu legitimnost procesa dejudicijalizacije kroz (prijašnji) model predste-
čajne nagodbe predstavlja činjenicu da stečajno pravna zaštita mora biti u
nadležnosti onog tijela koje Konvencija označava sintagmom „tribunal“, a
danas ta svojstva u pozitivnom pravu ima samo tijelo državne vlasti - sud.
Stoga iako suvremeni ekonomski odnosi sa svojom socijalnom pozadinom nameću određene reformske promjene u samom shvaćanju položaja
suda u stečajnom postupku, analizirajući fenomen predstečajnih nagodbi
potrebno je ignoriranje očiglednih činjenica da bi se suprotstavili tezi kako
je stečajni postupak, shvaćen u najširem smislu riječi, tradicionalno sudski
postupak, dakle postupak koji se vodi pred nadležnim sudom. Naravno,
postoje i određeni izvansudski (neformalni) aranžmani, primjerice prepack
model, ali njih u konačnici mora potvrditi i ozakoniti sud. Stoga kako
bi potvrdili navedenu tezu, autori analiziraju i opravdavaju ulogu suda u
stečajnim postupcima počevši od rimskog prava do novog hrvatskog SZ i
recentne judikature ECHR-a vezane uz čl. 6. Dakle, u radu će se analizirati
i praksa Europskog suda za ljudska prava u postupcima po čl. 6. Europske
konvencije (pravo na pristup sudu) jer polazimo od pretpostavke da
saznanja o ovome mogu biti ključna za razumijevanje problematike rada,
kao i za pravilno tumačenje pojma „sud“, koje je utemeljeno na praksi Europskog
suda za ljudska prava i europskom pozitivnom pravu. Aktualnosti
teme doprinosi i činjenica da se u pravu Bosne i Hercegovine raspravlja
o prijedlozima koji su ostvarivi u stečajnim propisima entiteta i Brčko
distriktu BiH, a tiču se recepcije izvansudskog modela reorganizacije odnosno
instituta predstečajne nagodbe. |
| Abstract (english) | New Bankruptcy Act (OG, no. 71/15. - hereinafter: BA) has entered
into force on 01 September 2015 in the Republic of Croatia. By doing this
the legislator has after three years of experimentation in the administrative
procedure and through governmental bodies (as defined by the Law
on financial operations and prebankruptcy settlement (OG, no. 108/12.,
144/12., 81/13, and 112/13.)) repowered court in managing prebankruptcy
procedure. The pressure for such reforms, or for a stronger role of the
court in the new BA, was made possible by the application of art. 6 of the
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms (OG-IT, no. 18/97., 6/99., 14.2., 13.3., 9.5., 6.1. and 2/10.
- hereinafter: Convention). The European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter:
ECHR) indicates that Article. 6, par. 1 shall apply to bankruptcy
proceedings (exempli causa, Sprl ANCA and Others v Belgium, decision,
10 December 1984). This is important because the uncertainty concerning
the very legitimacy of the process of dejudicilization in (previous) model
of the pre-bankruptcy settlement is the fact that the bankruptcy legal protection
must be in the jurisdiction of the body that Convention points out as a
“tribunal” (regardless of which of the state power it belongs). Today, these
characteristics in the positive law has only the court as one of the states
organs. The present economic relation with its social background imposes
certain reforms in the understanding of the position of the court in bankruptcy
proceedings. Analyzing the phenomenon of prebankruptcy settlement
requires persistence and irrational thinking to ignore the obvious fact
that the bankruptcy process, understood in the broadest sense, is and was
traditionally court process, i.e. proceedings pending before the competent
court. Of course, there are certain non-judicial (informal) arrangements,
such as pre-pack model, but they ultimately must be verified and validated
by the court. Therefore, in order to confirm the above thesis, the authors analyze and justify the role of the court in bankruptcy proceedings starting
from Roman law to the new Croatian BA and recent case law of the ECHR
related to art. 6. This paper will analyze the case law of the European
Court of Human Rights in the proceedings under art. 6 of the European
Convention (right to access to court) because the authors assume that such
information have key role in understanding the work, as well as the proper
interpretation of the term “court”, which is based on the law of the European
Court of Human Rights and the European positive law. The importance
of this paper highlights the fact that in the Bosnia and Herzegovina are
discussed proposals that are achievable in the bankruptcy legislation of its
entities and Brcko District, and they are concerning the reception of the
court reorganization model and institute of the pre-bankruptcy settlement |
