173 KB32 KB201320252023Zaman, Markoletnik:49številka:6/7str. 1168-1177ISSN:0353-6521COBISSID:181784323URN:URN:NBN:SI:doc-Y3CSC6SAslLEXPERAPodjetje in delofinančno poslovanjegospodarsko pravoinsolventnostnovele zakonovpravna ureditevstečajupnikiNovela ZFPPIPP-H in nekatere predvidene spremembe pravil v stečajnem postopku|In this article, the author focuses on four individual sets of changes envisaged by the amendment to the Financial Operations, Insolvency Proceedings, and Compulsory Dissolution Act (ZFPPIPP-H). First, the author questions the rationale for interfering with the rights of creditors to decide on the choice of the insolvency administrator who will represent the interests of creditors in bankruptcy and compulsory settlement proceedings. As we shall see, the proposer of the amendment has put forward a number of arguments that have led him to interfere with the existing arrangements, but in the author's opinion, he has failed in this. In the author's view, the proposed amendments in this respect represent a step in the wrong direction - a complete deprofessionalisation of persons who perform the duties of insolvency administrators. The proposed introduction of an online public auction is completely unnecessary, as it is already allowed under the current rules of the Financial Operations, Insolvency Proceedings, and Compulsory Dissolution Act. Clearly, the intention of the proposer of the amendment in this respect is different, as the content of the proposed amendments shows a (probably unintentional) privileging of only one of the providers of online public auction services. The introduction of a new obligation for the management to ensure the repayment of the advance paid for the initiation of insolvency proceedings is not only technically ill-considered but also constitutionally questionable. It basically constitutes a form of determination of the liability of the management in a shortened and non-adversarial procedure. It is also completely unnecessary to change the rules governing challenges to the legal acts of the insolvent debtor. In fact, the proposer of the amendment to the Financial Operations, Insolvency Proceedings, and Compulsory Dissolution Act has shown that he is not familiar with the current regime of the Financial Operations, Insolvency Proceedings, and Compulsory Dissolution Act, while the proposed amendments seriously undermine the principle of legal certaintyAvtor se v članku osredotoča na štiri posamezne sklope sprememb, predvidenih z novelo ZFPPIPP-H. Najprej se sprašuje, kako smiselno je posegati v pravice upnikov, da odločajo o izbiri upravitelja, ki bo zastopal interese upnikov v stečajnem postopku in postopku prisilne poravnave. Predlagatelj novele je nanizal nekaj argumentov, zaradi katerih se je odločil poseči v dosedanjo ureditev, a je bil po avtorjevem mnenju pri tem neuspešen. Avtor meni, da predlagane spremembe v tej zvezi pomenijo korak v napačno smer - popolno deprofesionalizacijo oseb, ki opravljajo naloge upravitelja. Predlagana uvedba instituta spletne javne dražbe je povsem nepotrebna, saj je dovoljena že po zdaj veljavnih pravilih ZFPPIPP. Očitno je namen predlagatelja novele v tej zvezi drugačen, saj vsebina predlaganih sprememb kaže na (verjetno nenamerno) privilegiranje zgolj enega izmed ponudnikov storitev spletne javne dražbe. Uvedba nove obveznosti poslovodstva, da poskrbi za vračilo plačanega predujma za začetek stečajnega postopka, je tehnično nepremišljena in celo ustavno sporna. Pomeni neke vrste ugotavljanje odškodninske odgovornosti poslovodstva v skrajšanem in nekontradiktornem postopku. Povsem nepotrebna je tudi sprememba ureditve izpodbijanja pravnih dejanj stečajnega dolžnika. Predlagatelj novele ZFPPIPP-H je s predlagano spremembo v resnici pokazal, da mu je v tem trenutku veljavna ureditev ZFPPIPP tuja, predlagane spremembe pa močno načenjajo načelo pravne varnostiTEXTznanstveno časopisjejournalsSlovenian National E-content AggregatorNational and University Library of Slovenia