Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Potreba Implementacije Potrošačkog Stečaja
Potreba Implementacije Potrošačkog Stečaja
Dejan Bodul
Dejan Bodul*
O POTREBI I MOGUĆNOSTI IMPLEMENTACIJE INSTITUTA
POTROŠAČKOG STEČAJA U PRAVNI POREDAK
BOSNE I HERCEGOVINE
Ovaj je rad nastao uz potporu Hrvatske zaklade za znanost u okviru projekta 6558
Business and Personal Insolvency - the Ways to Overcome Excessive Indebtednes
SAŽETAK
Nije pretjerano reći da je u Bosni i Hercegovini vlada(la) pravna
anomalija pa je neredu ekonomskom životu (bio) neminovna posljedica.
Ipak, učestalost financijske krize uvjetovala je potrebu za radikalnom
reformom stečajne regulative tako da je osim tradicionalnog modela
provođenja stečajnog postupka koji predstavlja likvidaciju cjelokupne
imovine subjekata u stečaju (likvidacijski stečaj), razvijen i model
reorganizacije. Štoviše, u teorija se raspravlja i o recepciji tzv. pre-pack
(unaprijed pripremljenog plana) modela reorganizacije. Stoga, kako je
stečajno zakonodavstvo u direktnoj vezi s karakteristikama važećih
društveno-ekonomskih odnosa, daljnji iskorak u reformi stečajnog
zakonodavstva će, svakako, trebati napraviti prema implementaciji
instituta potrošačkog stečaja. Prvenstveno, s jedne strane, jer je polazište
za nove stečajne propise bio njemački Insolvencijski zakon iz 1999., koji
je i sam uveo institut potrošačkog stečaja te s druge strane, jer primjena
nefleksibilne stečajne regulative doprinosi produbljivanju krize. Ovaj rad
je strukturiran na način da se, nakon uvodnog dijela, bavi pozitivno-
pravnim modelom stečajnog postupka u BiH. U trećem dijelu rada,
analizirani su ključni ekonomski kriteriji na primjeru BiH i urađeno je
poređenje BiH i sa zemljama članicama i zemljama kandidatima za
članstvo, kada je u pitanju ovaj segment integracije. Kompleksnost
predmeta istraživanja i postavljeni zadaci determinirali su izbor metoda
pa je pri istraživanju korišten metodološki pristup koji obuhvaća
proučavanje domaće i strane literature, odgovarajućih zakonskih propisa,
kao i analizu domaće i strane sudske prakse. Zbog ograničene dostupnosti
podataka, neki od kriterija postavljeni su temeljem indikativne metode
utvrđivanja činjenica. U radu će se analizirati i praksa Europskog suda za
Dr.sc., Pravni fakultet Sveučilišta u Rijeci.
327
ANALI Pravnog fakulteta Univerziteta u Zenici
The parties
ljudska pravaareu also allowed tojer
postupcima conclude
polazimoa choice
od of court agreement
pretpostavke da but their o
saznanja
right is limited because it only allows for choice of court accompanied
ovome mogu biti ključna za razumijevanje problematike rada, kao i za by choice
of law42) since “[t]he rules of this Regulation are devised so as to ensure that the
pravilnudealing
authority primjenu the succession will, okvira
withpravno-teorijskog in most potrošačkog stečaja. its own
situations, be applying
law.” The agreement needs to be in writing, dated and signed by the parties.
43)
Parties
Ključne canriječi:
also expressly
stečaj, agree on jurisdiction
potrošački of the court
stečaj, poredbena of the chosen
iskustva, reforme law
state after seising it. The Regulation also allows parties to the proceedings that
44)
were not party to the choice of court agreement to submit to the chosen jurisdic-
tion, ie appear in the proceedings without contesting jurisdiction.45)
Jurisdictional rules in the Succession Regulation include several objective
connecting factors: habitual residence, nationality and location of the assets.
They provide a reasonably wide jurisdiction to the EU national courts in suc-
cession matters as long as some connection to the state exists. The habitual resi-
dence of the deceased should ensure a “close and stable connection with the State
concerned taking into account the specific aims of this Regulation.”46) Lack of
habitual residence will either lead to subsidiary jurisdiction based primarily on
the location of the assets or to forum necessitatis based on the lack of another ap-
propriate forum. The rest of the Chapter II of the Regulation that is dedicated to
jurisdiction in succession matters deals with procedural issues such as limitation
of proceedings (Article 12), acceptance and waiver (Article 13), seising of the
court (Article 14), examination as to jurisdiction (Article 15) and admissibility
(Article 16), lis pendens (Article 17), related actions (Article 18) and security
measures (Article 19). The lis pendens rule differs significantly from the Croatian
one. The Succession Regulation prescribes the first come first served rule and the
Croatian court can only stay the proceedings if foreign court was the first seised,
if there is no exclusive domestic jurisdiction and in case of reciprocity.47) The EU
lis pendens rule is easier to apply, but it still has its deficiencies when applied
strictly in choice of court agreements.48) Although the rules differ, the outcome
will often be the same when the exclusive jurisdiction is not given to the Croatian
courts since the third requirement, the reciprocity, is presumed.
42) Succession Regulation, Article 5.
43) Preamble to the Succession Regulation, Recital 27.
44) Succession Regulation, Article 7/1/c.
45) In a case on interpretation of submission to a jurisdiction under the Brussels I Regulation the Court of Justice
of the European Union held that submission even overrides the choice of court agreements. This case might be
useful in the context of the Succession regulation. See: Case 150/80 Elefanten Schuh GmbH v Pierre Jacqmain
ECR [1981] 01671, paras 10-11. In that case, the
46) Preamble to the Succession Regulation, Recital 23.
47) Croatian PIL Act, Article 80.
48) The same rule in the Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the
recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters OJ 2001 L12/1 (Brussels I Regu-
lation) invoked some criticism when applied to choice of court agreements since it produced uncertainty and
disregard of parties’ expectations. See: R. Fentiman, Access to Justice and Parallel Proceedings in Europe, Cam-
brige Law Journal (Camb. L. J.), 2/2004, 312-314; P. Bříza, Choice-Of-Court Agreements: Could the Hague
Choice of Court Agreements Convention and the Reform of the Brussels I Regulation be the Way Out of the
Gasser-Owusu Disillusion?, Journal of Private International Law (Jour. P. I. L.), 3/2009, 537-563.
328
14
Dejan Bodul O potrebi i mogućnosti implementacije instituta
potrošačkog stečaja u pravni poredak Bosne i Hercegovine
UVODNA RAZMATRANJA
1
Podrobnije, D. Bodul/A. Vuković/Ž. Bartulović, „Pravnopovijesni i poredbenopravni
prikaz razvoja stečajnog postupka“, Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Rijeci, vol.
34, 2013, br. 2, 911-941.
2
Donošenje stečajna regulative je u nadležnosti entiteta Bosne i Hercegovine i oba
entiteta su donijela gotovo identične zakone o stečajnom postupku. Zakon o stečaju u
Republici Srpskoj usvojen je 2002. dok je Zakon o stečaju Federacije BiH je usvojen
2003. Isto vidi D. Bodul/A. Vuković, „Stečajno zakonodavstvo u tranziciji:
komparativni osvrt, hrvatski izazovi i potencijalna rješenja“, Zbornik radova Pravnog
fakulteta u Splitu, vol. 49, 2012., br. 3, 633-661.
3
Ipak to je bio problem u bivšim socijalističkim zemljama. Vidi, M. Falke, Insolvency
Law Reformin Transition Economies, Humboldt University, Berlin, 2003.
4
Primjerice, vidi V. Čolović, Opšti pojmovi o međunarodnom stečaju (stečajnom
postupku sa elementom inostranosti), Aktuelna pitanja stečajnog prava, Udruženje
pravnika Republike Srpske, Banja Luka, 2008., 289-359. te M. Čokić, „Indicije za
uvođenje prepack instituta u stečajno zakonodavstvo Bosne i Hercegovine - sa osvrtom
na pravo Republike Srbije“, Strani pravni život, 2011., br. 2, 285-295.
329
ANALI Pravnog fakulteta Univerziteta u Zenici
The parties
vjerovnika teare also troškove
niže allowed topostupka).
conclude a 5choice of court agreement
Od prvenstvenog but their
značaja za
right is limited because it only allows for choice of court accompanied by choice
ubrzanje, i procesa restrukturiranja, bilo je i noveliranje niza zakona koji
of law42) since “[t]he rules of this Regulation are devised so as to ensure that the
su u većoj
authority ili manjoj
dealing with themjeri usklađeni
succession will,s in
europskim zakonodavstvom.
most situations, be applying itsTime
own
6
je unaprijeđen
law.” 43) pravnineeds
The agreement okvirtoubekojem posluju
in writing, subjekti.
dated and signed Ipak,
by najsnažniji
the parties.
Parties can
poticaj also expressly
daljnjim reformama, agree
neon jurisdiction
samo u Bosniof the court of the
i Hercegovini, većchosen law
i u cijeloj
state afterEuropi,
istočnoj seising it.44)
The Regulation
predstavlja also allows u
proces učlanjenja parties
EU, jerto the
da proceedings
bi jedna zemljathat
were not party to the choice of court agreement to submit to the chosen jurisdic-
postala članica, mora zadovoljiti tzv. „Kopenhaške i Madridske kriterije„
tion, ie appear in the proceedings without contesting jurisdiction.45)
što podrazumijeva usklađivanje zakonodavstva i prakse zemlje kandidata
Jurisdictional rules in the Succession Regulation include several objective
sconnecting
acquis communautaireom Europskom
factors: habitual residence, unijom
nationality and (funkcionalna
location of the tržišna
assets.
ekonomija,
They provideučinkovita
a reasonably zaštita
widegrađanskih
jurisdictionprava,
to the vladavina
EU national prava,
courtspolitička
in suc-
7
cession matters
stabilnost). Naime,
as long tendencija Bosne to
as some connection i the
Hercegovineprema članstvu
state exists. The habitual resi-u
dence of the deceased should ensure a “close and stable
Euroatlantskim integracijama ima svoje snažno pravno utemeljenje connection with the State
jer
concerned taking into account the specific aims of this Regulation.”46) Lack of
pripada kontinentalnoj školi prava zasnovanoj, prvotno, na recepciji
habitual residence will either lead to subsidiary jurisdiction based primarily on
rimskog
the locationprava,
of the aassets
kasnije
or to njemačkog prava.based
forum necessitatis Na ontajthe
način,
lack ofzemlja
anotherkojaap-
pretendira
propriate forum.na The
članstvo prisiljena
rest of the Chapter je II ofpostupno
the Regulation„europeizirati“
that is dedicatedsvojeto
jurisdiction in succession matters deals with procedural
zakonodavstvo te posljedično „popravljati“ funkcioniranje institucija.issues such as limitation
of proceedings (Article 12), acceptance and waiver (Article 13), seising of the
court (Article 14), examination as to jurisdiction (Article 15) and admissibility
(Article 16), lis pendens (Article 17), related actions (Article 18) and security
measures (Article 19). The lis pendens rule differs significantly from the Croatian
5
one.
Ista The Succession
situacija Regulation
je i u postupcima tzv.prescribes
specijalne the first come
egzekucije kojifirst served rule
su definirani and theo
Zakonom
Croatian postupku
izvršnom court canpredonlySudom
stay the proceedings
Bosne if foreign
i Hercegovine (Sl. gl.court
BiH, was the firstZakonom
br. 18/03.), seised,
oif there
izvršnom
is nopostupku
exclusive (Sl. novine, jurisdiction
domestic FBiH, br. 32/03.
and ini case
33/06.), Zakonom o
of reciprocity. 47) izvršnom
The EU
Postupku
lis pendens (Sl.rule
gl. is
RS,easier
br. 59/03., 85/03.,
to apply, 64/05.,
but it 118/0.7,
still has 29/10., 57/12.
its deficiencies wheni 67/13.)
appliedte
Zakonom o izvršnom postupku (Sl. gl. Brčko Distrikta BiH, br.
strictly in choice of court agreements.48) Although the rules differ, the outcome39/13.). Podrobnije,
ekspertiza od UZELAC, Alan, Rad naručen od Saveta Evrope DG-
will often be the same when the exclusive jurisdiction is not given to the Croatian
HL/CG/GM/EKO/nka, PO Nr. 312883., Ekspertiza je obavljena u sklopu projekta
courts since prepreka
„Uklanjanje the third requirement, the reciprocity,
na putu neizvršenja presuda isdomaćih
presumed. sudova/obezbeđivanja
42) Successionprimene
delotvorne Regulation,presuda domaćih sudova“ koji financira Trast fond za ljudska prava,
Article 5.
Nacrt Zakona
43) Preamble o Succession
to the izvršenjuRegulation,
i obezbeđenju Republike Srbije, komentari o usklađenosti sa
Recital 27.
zahtevima
44) SuccessionEvropske
Regulation,konvencije
Article 7/1/c. za zaštitu ljudskih prava, 2010.; Analiza i preporuke
45) In a case
radne on interpretation
skupine of submission
za unapređenje to a jurisdiction
ovršnog under the
postupka, Brussels2009.
listopad I Regulation the Court
(Radna of Justice
skupina za
of the European Union held that submission even overrides the choice
unapređenje ovršnog postupka, imenovana Odlukom VSTV BiH od 19.06.2008. imalaof court agreements. This case might be
je
useful in the context of the Succession regulation. See: Case 150/80 Elefanten Schuh GmbH v Pierre Jacqmain
zadatak izraditi analize alternativnih
ECR [1981] 01671, paras 10-11. In that case, the
modela provođenja postupka ovrhe na osnovu
ovršne isprave
46) Preamble to the kao i predlaganje
Succession Regulation, mjera poboljšanja sudskog ovršnog postupka) te T.
Recital 23.
Zoroska-Kamilovska, „Reforme
47) Croatian PIL Act, Article 80. sistema izvršenja u državama regiona - konceptualne
sličnosti
48) The samei razlike, kontroverze
rule in the (EC) NoZbornik
i dileme“,
Council Regulation 44/2001 ofradova: Harmonizacija
22 December građanskog
2000 on jurisdiction and the
recognition
prava and enforcement
u regionu, 2013, of judgments in civil and commercial matters OJ 2001 L12/1 (Brussels I Regu-
447-477.
6lation) invoked some criticism when applied to choice of court agreements since it produced uncertainty and
Podrobnije, N. Miljević, Efekti stečajnog postupka na privredna kretanja u Bosni i
disregard of parties’ expectations. See: R. Fentiman, Access to Justice and Parallel Proceedings in Europe, Cam-
Hercegovini, Aktuelna pitanja stečajnog prava, Udruženje pravnika Republike Srpske,
brige Law Journal (Camb. L. J.), 2/2004, 312-314; P. Bříza, Choice-Of-Court Agreements: Could the Hague
Banja Luka, 2008, 385-397.
7Choice of Court Agreements Convention and the Reform of the Brussels I Regulation be the Way Out of the
Podrobnije, P. Baucer,
Gasser-Owusu Disillusion?, Journal Eastward
of Private Enlargement
International Law- (Jour.
BenefitsandCostsof EU Entry for
P. I. L.), 3/2009, 537-563.
theTransitionCountries, Intereconomics, Hamburg, Germany, 1998.
330
14
Dejan Bodul O potrebi i mogućnosti implementacije instituta
potrošačkog stečaja u pravni poredak Bosne i Hercegovine
8
Sl. list Republike BiH, br. 5/93.
9
Podrobnije, C. Steiner, N. Ademović, Komentar Ustava Bosne i Hercegovine, Konrad
Adenauer Fondacija (izd.), Sarajevo, 2010.
10
F. Bieber, Bosna i Hercegovina poslije rata: Politički sistemi u podijeljenom društvu,
Buybook (izd.), Sarajevo, 2006.
11
Visoko sudsko i tužilačko vijeće Bosne i Hercegovine, Modul 3 – Reorganizacija
stečajnog dužnika, Sarajevo, 2007, 1-108.
12
Sl. glasnik Republike Srpske, br. 67/02. 72/02., 38/03, 96/03 i 68 /07.
13
Sl. glasnik Republike Srpske, br. 64/02. Kada govorimo o stečajnom pravu Federacije
treba imati na umu da na području Federacije postoji deset kantona, s dvostupanjskim
331
ANALI Pravnog fakulteta Univerziteta u Zenici
The parties
donijela je i are also allowed
Federacija to conclude
Bosne a choice of
i Hercegovine. 14 court agreement but their
U Distriktu Brčko, za
right is limited because it only allows for choice of court accompanied by choice
razliku od entitetskih propisa, donijet je Zakon kojim se u jednomthat
of law42) since “[t]he rules of this Regulation are devised so as to ensure
tekstu
the
15
regulira materija stečaja, prinudnog poravnanja i likvidacije.
authority dealing with the succession will, in most situations, be applying its own
law.”43) The agreement needs to be in writing, dated and signed by the parties.
Oni su koncepcijski istovjetni njemačkom Insolvencijskom
Parties can also expressly agree on jurisdiction
16 of the court of the chosen law
zakonu (Insolvenzordnung)
44) iz 1999. Iznimka
state after seising it. The Regulation also allows partiesje Zakon Distrikta Brčko
to the proceedings that
koji not
were je koncepcijski blizak
party to the choice of rješenjima Zakona
court agreement o prinudnom
to submit poravnanju,
to the chosen jurisdic-
tion, ie appear
stečaju in the proceedings
i likvidaciji bivše SFRJ. without contesting
Dakle, možemo jurisdiction.45)
načelno tvrditi kako su
zakonodavci
Jurisdictionalusvojili
rules in europski
the Successionkoncept stečajnog
Regulation includepostupka koji je
several objective
connecting
tradicionalno factors: habitualinteresima
naklonjen residence, stečajnih
nationalityvjerovnika,
and location aliofsutheistoassets.
tako
They provide a reasonably wide jurisdiction to the EU national courts in suc-
uzeli u obzir i suvremene tendencije u stečajnom zakonodavstvu po
cession matters as long as some connection to the state exists. The habitual resi-
kojima
dence themoguće
of je deceasedspašavanje
should ensure (restrukturiranja,
a “close and stablepreustroja,
connectionrehabilitacije,
with the State
17
reorganizacije
concerned takingiliinto
stečajnog
accountplana) stečajnog
the specific aims ofdužnika. U pogledu
this Regulation.” 46) načina
Lack of
habitual residence will either lead to subsidiary jurisdiction
reorganizacije pravna teorija ukazuje da se pružaju različite mogućnosti, based primarily on
the
takolocation
da se of theu assets or to forum
konkretnim necessitatis based
situacijama možeonizabrati
the lack ofonaj
another ap-
model
propriate forum. The rest of the Chapter II of the Regulation that is dedicated to
reorganizacije (likvidacijski, sanacijski
jurisdiction in succession matters deals
ili prijenosni) koji najviše
with procedural issues such as limitation
18
odgovara interesima vjerovnika. To
of proceedings (Article 12), acceptance and waiver je bitno jer(Article
u modelu13), reorganizacije
seising of the
trgovačkog
court društva,
(Article 14), kao as
examination vidu alternative(Article
to jurisdiction likvidacijskom stečaju,
15) and admissibility
(Article 16), lis pendens (Article 17), related actions (Article
primjećujemo određene sličnosti s institutom potrošačkog stečaja, budući 18) and security
measures (Article 19). The lis pendens rule differs significantly from the Croatian
da oba instituta imaju za cilj „ekonomsko ozdravljenje“ određenog
one. The Succession Regulation prescribes the first come first served rule and the
insolventnog
Croatian court cansubjekta,
only staykroz izradu i ifprimjenu
the proceedings plana
foreign court otplate
was the duga.
first seised,
if there is no exclusive domestic jurisdiction and in case of reciprocity.47) The EU
lis pendens rule is easier to apply, but it still has its deficiencies when applied
pravosudnim
strictly instancama,
in choice of courtgdje se postupak
agreements. 48) završava na razini kantonalnog suda, što
Although the rules differ, the outcome
uvelike
will komplicira postupak.
often be the same when the exclusive jurisdiction is not given to the Croatian
14
Zakon o stečajnom postupku i Zakon o likvidacinom postupku objavljeni su u Sl.
courts since the third requirement, the reciprocity, is presumed.
novinama Federacije BIH, br. 29/03.Zakon o izmjenama Zakona o stečajnom postupku,
Sl. Succession
42) novine Federacije
Regulation, BiH,
Articlebr.
5. 42/06.
15
43) Zakon
Preambleotostečaju, prinudnom
the Succession Regulation,poravnanju
Recital 27. i likvidaciji, Sl. glasnik Distrikta Brčko, br.
44)
1/02.Succession Regulation, Article 7/1/c.
45)
16 In a case on interpretation of submission to a jurisdiction under the Brussels I Regulation the Court of Justice
Bundesgesetzblatt, 1994, I, 2866; posljednja izmjena Bundesgesetzblatt, 2011., I,
of the European Union held that submission even overrides the choice of court agreements. This case might be
2854.
useful
- dalje: InsO.
in the context of the Succession regulation. See: Case 150/80 Elefanten Schuh GmbH v Pierre Jacqmain
that case,Novine
E.InHogić, stečajnog zakona u Federaciji BiH te M.
17
ECR [1981]i01671,
Tako podrobnije,
paras 10-11. the
46) Preamble„Zakonska
Rajčević, regulativa
to the Succession Regulation, stečaja
Recital ili
23. likvidacije u Bosni i Hercegovini“, u: Das
47) Croatian Symposium:
Ohrider PIL Act, Article 80.
Beiträge zur Reform des Insolvenzrechts in den Staaten
48) The same rule in the Council Regulation
Südosteuropas/Simpozijum u Ohridu: (EC) No 44/2001
prilozi reformi of 22 December prava
stečajnog 2000 onu jurisdiction
zemljamaand južne
the
recognition and enforcement
Evrope/Deutsche of judgments in civil and commercial matters OJ(GTZ)
GesellschaftfürTechnischeZusammenarbeit 2001 L12/1 (BrusselsBremen:
(Hrsg.), I Regu-
lation) invoked some criticism when applied to choice of court agreements since it produced uncertainty and
EditionTemmen, 2006., 73-77 i 93-103.
disregard of parties’ expectations. See: R. Fentiman, Access to Justice and Parallel Proceedings in Europe, Cam-
18
brigePodrobnije, S. Spasić,
Law Journal (Camb. Oblici
L. J.), 2/2004, reorganizacije
312-314; stečajnogAgreements:
P. Bříza, Choice-Of-Court dužnika Couldu stečajnom
the Hague
zakonodavstvu
Choice Republike
of Court Agreements Srbije, and
Convention 221-241. te N.
the Reform Miljević,
of the Brussels Procedura
I Regulation usvajanja
be the Way Outi potvrde
of the
stečajnog plana,
Gasser-Owusu Journal u:
251-257,
Disillusion?, Aktuelna
of Private pitanjaLaw
International stečajnog
(Jour. P. I. prava, Udruženje
L.), 3/2009, 537-563. pravnika
Republike Srpske, Banja Luka, 2008.
332
14
Dejan Bodul O potrebi i mogućnosti implementacije instituta
potrošačkog stečaja u pravni poredak Bosne i Hercegovine
333
ANALI Pravnog fakulteta Univerziteta u Zenici
The parties
ljudsko are also allowed
dostojanstvo to conclude
nije samo etička akategorija,
choice of court
većagreement
i pojam butkojitheir
je
right is limited because it only allows for choice of court accompanied by choice
sadržan u određenom broju međunarodnih dokumenata i nacionalnih
of law42) since “[t]he rules of this Regulation are devised so as to ensure that the
zakona, kroz koji
authority dealing withse the nameće
successionobveza
will, in da
mostsesituations,
na putubeprema
applying„nekom“
its own
funkcionalnom
law.” The agreement
43)
ekvilibrijumu, u kojem
needs to be će doći
in writing, dateddoandkoegzistencije
signed by the između
parties.
Partiesocan
brige also expressly
ljudskim pravima agree on jurisdiction
i brige države oofsocijalno
the court of the chosen law
najugroženijima,
state after seising it. The Regulation also allows parties to the proceedings that
44)
neprekidno traga za uspješn(ijim) rješenjima. Stoga, kako ima mnogo
were not party to the choice of court agreement to submit to the chosen jurisdic-
spornih pitanja,
tion, ie appear a čimbenika
in the proceedings koji utječu
without na moguće
contesting pravilne45)odgovore još
jurisdiction.
je više, doktrina je pokušala odgovoriti na pitanje: zašto potrošački stečaj?
Jurisdictional rules in the Succession Regulation include several objective
connecting
2.1. factors: habitual residence,
Socijalno-rehabilitacijsko nationality
opravdanje and location
instituta of the assets.
potrošačkog
Theystečaja
provide a reasonably wide jurisdiction to the EU national courts in suc-
cession matters as long as some connection to the state exists. The habitual resi-
dence ofIzthe poredbene
deceased should ensure a “close
perspektive uzrokand moderne
stable connection with the
socijalne State
politike
formiranje je industrijaliziranih zapadnoeuropskih zemalja koje of
concerned taking into account the specific aims of this Regulation.” Lack
46)
su
habitual residence will either lead to subsidiary jurisdiction based primarily on
stvorile socijalne probleme koje tradicionalni mehanizmi nisu bili u stanju
the location of the assets or to forum necessitatis based on the lack of another ap-
riješiti.
propriateUsporedbom
forum. The restprestacijskih
of the Chapter politika
II of thezaključujemo
Regulation that da isšto je slabija
dedicated to
socijalna
jurisdictionmreža koju država
in succession mattersosigurava
deals withsvojim
proceduralgrađanima,
issues suchvjerojatnije
as limitation je
of proceedings (Article 12), acceptance and waiver (Article
da će pojedinci posuđivati financijska sredstva da bi koristili usluge koje13), seising of the
court
bi (Article
inače 14), examination
omogućavala država.as to jurisdiction
Sukladno (Article
takvim 15) and admissibility
razmišljanjima cilj je
(Article 16), lis pendens (Article 17), related actions (Article 18) and security
potrošačkog
measures (Article stečaja
19). The omogućavanje
lis pendens rule differssocijalnog
significantlyosiguranja protiv
from the Croatian
nesposobnosti
one. The Succession za plaćanje
Regulationte prescribes
neočekivanih izdataka
the first u budžetu
come first served rulepotrošača.
and the
Ova teorija
Croatian courtpolazi od stay
can only činjenice da za posljedice
the proceedings if foreigninsolventnosti
court was the first nisuseised,
krivi
if there is no exclusive domestic jurisdiction24 and in case of reciprocity.47) The EU
ni vjerovnici ni dužnici, već država. Stoga, kada insolventnost vodi
lis pendens rule is easier to apply, but it still has its deficiencies when applied
prema oduzimanju stambenih nekretnina, zdravstvenim problemima ili
strictly in choice of court agreements.48) Although the rules differ, the outcome
nezaposlenosti, socijalna
will often be the same država
when the je obvezna
exclusive pružiti
jurisdiction pomoć
is not given todužniku. Ona
the Croatian
mora oblikovati stečajno pravo, a otpust dugova
courts since the third requirement, the reciprocity, is presumed. može biti uspoređen s
drugim sigurnosnim
42) Succession Regulation, Articlesocijalnim
5. mrežama, primjerice, naknadom za
43) Preamble to the25
Succession Regulation, Recital 27.
nezaposlene.
44) Succession Regulation, Article 7/1/c.
45) In a case on interpretation of submission to a jurisdiction under the Brussels I Regulation the Court of Justice
of the
24
U. European
Reifner,Union held that submission
J. Kiesilainen, N. Huls,evenH.overrides the choice Consumer
Springeneer, of court agreements. This case might be
Overindebtednessand
useful in the context of the Succession regulation. See: Case 150/80 Elefanten Schuh GmbH v Pierre Jacqmain
Consumer Lawinthe European Union, Reportpresentedbythe Institute for Financial
ECR [1981] 01671, paras 10-11. In that case, the
Servicese.v. Erasmus University Rotterdam/School of Law University of
46) Preamble to the Succession Regulation, Recital 23.
Helsinki/Helsinki Collegium
47) Croatian PIL Act, Article 80. for Advanced Studies to Commission of the European
Communities,
48) The same ruleHealth and Consumer
in the Council Protection
Regulation (EC) No 44/2001Directorate-General
of 22 December 2000Contract Reference,
on jurisdiction and the
No. B5- 1000/02/00353,
recognition and enforcement of2003, 62. in civil and commercial matters OJ 2001 L12/1 (Brussels I Regu-
judgments
25
lation) invoked some
Primjerice, I. Ramsay, „Modelsof
criticism when applied toConsumer
choice of court agreements since
Bankruptcy: it producedfor
Implications uncertainty
Policyandand
disregard of parties’
Research“, Journalexpectations. See: R. Fentiman,
of Consumer Access
Policy, vol. 20,to Justice
1997,and no.Parallel
1, 269.,Proceedings
274-278.;in Europe, Cam-
B. Adler;
brige Law Journal (Camb. L. J.), 2/2004, 312-314; P. Bříza, Choice-Of-Court Agreements: Could the Hague
B. Polak, A. Schwartz, „Regulating Consumer Bankruptcy: A Theoretical Inquiry“,
Choice of Court Agreements Convention and the Reform of the Brussels I Regulation be the Way Out of the
Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 29, 2000., no. 1, 585-592.; R. M. Hynes, „Optimal
Gasser-Owusu Disillusion?, Journal of Private International Law (Jour. P. I. L.), 3/2009, 537-563.
Bankruptcy in a Non-optimal World, Boston College Law Review, vol. 44, 2002, no. 1,
334
14
Dejan Bodul O potrebi i mogućnosti implementacije instituta
potrošačkog stečaja u pravni poredak Bosne i Hercegovine
75-78; M. B. Jacoby, Collecting Debts from the Illand Injured: The Rhetorical
Significance, But Practical Irrelevance, of Culpability and Ability to Pay, American
University Law Review, vol. 51, 2001., no. 1, 250-266.; A. Feibelman, Defining the
Social Insurance Function of Consumer Bankruptcy, American Bankruptcy Institute Law
Review, vol. 13, 2005., 129-130.; D. Bodul, V. Smokvina, „Izazovi socijalne države u
uvođenju Zakona o osobnom bankrotu - neka komparativna iskustva i potencijalni
problemi“, Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Splitu, vol. 49, 2012, br. 1, 139-165.
26
R.A. Posner, The Economic Approach to Law, Tax Law Review, vol. 53, 1975, no. 1,
757., 764; L. White, H. Lawrence, „Bankruptcy as an Economic Intervention“, Journal
of Libertarian Studies, vol. 1, 1977., no. 1, 281., 283.-284.; P. C. Alexander, „With
Apologies to C.S. Lewis: An Essay on Discharge and Forgiveness“, Norton Journal of
Bankruptcy Law and Practice, vol. 9, 2000., no. 1, 601, 601-602.; R.A. Posner; A.M.
Rosenfield, M. Andrew, „Impossibility and Related Doctrines in Contract Law: An
Economic Analysis“, Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 6, 1997., no. 1, 83. i 90.
27
Vidi, T. Eisenberg, „Bankruptcy Law in Perspective“, UCLA Law Review, vol. 28,
1980.-1981, 981. Isto S. W. Halpern, Application of the Doctrine of Commercial
Impracticability: Searching for „The Wisdom of Solomon“, University of Pennsylvania
Law Review, vol. 135, 1987, no. 1, 1123. i 1159.
28
Detaljnije M. Howard, „A Theory of Discharge in Consumer Bankruptcy“, Ohio State
Law Journal, vol. 48, 1987, no. 1, 1064.
335
ANALI Pravnog fakulteta Univerziteta u Zenici
337
ANALI Pravnog fakulteta Univerziteta u Zenici
razlog
were notnavodila potreba
party to the choicepridržavanja načelatopactasuntservanda,
of court agreement submit to the chosen odnosno
jurisdic-
da jeiesvatko
tion, dužan
appear in ispuniti svoju
the proceedings obvezu
without te dajurisdiction.
contesting je odgovoran45)
za njezino
ispunjenje. Ipak rules
Jurisdictional od 1984.,
in thepotrošačko
Succession stečajna regulativa
Regulation include polako
several pronalazi
objective
33
svoj put ufactors:
connecting zakonodavstvima europskih
habitual residence, država.and Uslijed
nationality location deregulacije
of the assets.i
They provide a reasonably wide jurisdiction to the EU national courts in suc-
cession
32 matters
S druge strane,asanalizirajući
long as some connection
razvoj potrošačkogto the state uexists.
stečaja SAD,The habitual
možda resi-
i najvažniji
dence of the deceased should ensure a “close and stable connection
događaj koji je promijenio odnos vjerovnika i dužnika je program vlasništva stambenog with the State
concerned
prostora kojitaking
je uveointo accountRoosevelt
predsjednik the specifickrozaims
New ofDealthis Regulation.”
legislativu
46)
Lack Act
(U.S. Housing of
habitual residence will either lead to subsidiary jurisdiction
of 1937 ch. 896, 50 Stat. 888 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. par. 1437(2000)). based primarily on
the location
Naime, prije of the assets
1930-ih, or to forum
stambeni krediti necessitatis
su imali dvije based on the lackBili
karakteristike. of another
su isključivoap-
kratkoročni te su prvenstveno korišteni od strane imućnih, budući
propriate forum. The rest of the Chapter II of the Regulation that is dedicated da je dužnik biotou
obvezi predujmiti
jurisdiction 50% od ukupne
in succession matterskupoprodajne cijene kakoissues
deals with procedural bi dobio
suchstambeni kredit.
as limitation
Kao rezultat tih uvjeta, samo oko 45% domova u SAD-u su zauzete
of proceedings (Article 12), acceptance and waiver (Article 13), seising of the od strane vlasnika.
Misao vodilja predsjednika Roosevelt je bila poticanje stabilnosti i sigurnosti za vrijeme
court (Article 14), examination as to jurisdiction (Article 15) and admissibility
depresije na način da se prosječnom Amerikancu omogući da kupi i zadrži dom. To se
(Article 16), lis pendens
postiglo formiranjem Home(Article
Owners 17),Loanrelated actions(HOLC),
Corporation (ArticleFederalnog
18) and security
Housing
measures (Article
Administration 19). te
(FHA) lis pendens
TheOdjela rule differs
za veterane (VA).significantly from the Croatian
FHA je organizirana temeljem
one.
ZakonaTheo Succession Regulation
stambenim odnosima prescribes
iz 1934. the first
(National comeAct.
Housing first served
Pub. rule
L. No. and the
73-479, 48
Croatian
Stat. 1246court
(1934)can(codified
only stay asthe proceedings
amended if foreign
at 12 U.S.C. par.court was the(2000))
1701–1750 first seised,
te nije
davala
if therehipotekarne
is no exclusive kredite već ih je
domestic osiguravala.
jurisdiction andKao posljedica
in case činjenice47)daThe
of reciprocity. je FHA
EU
počela
lis osiguravati
pendens rule iskredite,
easiervjerovnici
to apply, su butliberalizirali
it still hastržište kredita, dakle
its deficiencies when krediti
applied
su se
lakše odobravali
strictly in choicei of uz court
niže kamatne stope.
agreements. 48) Na taj način hipotekarni krediti su postali
Although the rules differ, the outcome
dostupniji za srednju klasu više nego ikada. Posjedovanje kuće postaje gotovo
will often be the same when the exclusive jurisdiction is not given to the Croatian
univerzalni san za američke građane nakon Drugog svjetskog rata. 1940-ih polovica svih
courts
mladih since
odraslihtheosoba
third requirement,
u dobi izmeđuthe reciprocity,
dvadeset is presumed.
i dvadeset četiri između živi sa svojim
roditeljima.
42) Succession U petnaestArticle
Regulation, godina 5. nakon rata, vlasništvo na stambenim površinama raste na
62%.
43) Ovi događaji
Preamble su zauvijek
to the Succession Regulation,promijenili
Recital 27. lice američkog konzumerizma i potrošačkih
44) Succession
kredita. Oni Regulation,
su na kraju Article 7/1/c.
revolucionalizirali hipotekarnu industriju na dva načina: tako što
45) In a case on interpretation of submission to a jurisdiction under the Brussels I Regulation the Court of Justice
je 20% pologa za stambeni prostor postao standard, u odnosu na prethodno potrebnih
of the European Union held that submission even overrides the choice of court agreements. This case might be
50%; davanjem stambenih kredita na razdoblje preko dvadeset ili trideset godina, što je u
useful in the context of the Succession regulation. See: Case 150/80 Elefanten Schuh GmbH v Pierre Jacqmain
usporedbi
ECR s prijašnje
[1981] 01671, tri godine
paras 10-11. In that znatna
case, therazlika. Kao rezultat tih i drugih novijih promjena,
68,6%
46) američkih
Preamble građanaRegulation,
to the Succession sada posjeduju svoje domove, postotak viši od većine drugih
Recital 23.
zemalja
47) u svijetu.
Croatian PIL Act, Article
New Deal80. zakonodavstvo neupitno dovodi do ovog rezultata i, zajedno
s pojavom
48) privatnog
The same rule osiguranja
in the Council hipoteka,
Regulation (EC) Nodopušta
44/2001 ofda22američki
December građani kupuju dom
2000 on jurisdiction za
and the
recognition
0% pologa. and enforcement
Takav model of judgments in civil and
zaduženosti commercial
znatno matters OJ u2001
se povećao L12/1 (Brussels
kratkom I Regu-
vremenskom
lation) invoked some criticism when applied to choice of court agreements since it produced uncertainty and
razdoblju, i to s 60 milijardi dolara u 1981. do 357 milijardi dolara u 1991. Detaljnije,
disregard of parties’ expectations. See: R. Fentiman, Access to Justice and Parallel Proceedings in Europe, Cam-
SAUER,
brige Richard
Law Journal Carl,L.Bankruptcy
(Camb. Law and
J.), 2/2004, 312-314; the Maturing
P. Bříza, of American
Choice-Of-Court Agreements:Capitalism, Ohio
Could the Hague
State Law
Choice Journal,
of Court vol. Convention
Agreements 55, 1994.,and 291,the 291-98.
Reform of the Brussels I Regulation be the Way Out of the
33
Prva europska
Gasser-Owusu zemlja
Disillusion?, kojaof Private
Journal je uvela potrošački
International Lawstečaj
(Jour. P.je Danska.
I. L.), 3/2009, U njoj je uveden
537-563.
potrošački stečaj (dan. Gældssaneringslov), 9. svibnja 1984. (stupio na snagu 1. srpnja
338
14
Dejan Bodul O potrebi i mogućnosti implementacije instituta
potrošačkog stečaja u pravni poredak Bosne i Hercegovine
1984.), kada je Stečajnom zakonu (dan. Konkurslov) dodan 4. dio. Posljednja zemlja u
europskom pravnom krugu koja je uvela potrošački stečaj je Grčka (Zakon br.
3816/2010., donesen 27. srpnja 2010.).
34
To je dio šireg fenomena. Detaljnije W. Wiegand, The Reception of American Law in
Europe, American Journal of Comparative Law, vol. 39, 1991., no. 1, 229. Isto vidi I.
RAMSAY, Between Neo-Liberalism and the Social Market: Approaches to Debt
Adjustment and Consumer Insolvency in the EU, u: R. Anderson, H. Dubois; A. Koark;
G. Lechner; I. Ramsay; T. Roethe; H-W. Micklitz, (eds.), „Consumer Bankruptcy in
Europe, Different Paths for Debtors and Creditors“, European University Institute -
Department ofLaw, Florence, 2011., 5. etseq. te N. Huls, „American Influences on
European Consumer Bankruptcy Law“, Journal of Consumer Policy, vol. 15, 1992., no.
1, 125-142.
35
Primjerice, tko su tijela i sudionici u postupku donošenja i provođenja odluke o
oslobođenju dužnika od preostalih dugova i koje su njihove dužnosti, kakav je postupak
suda ili izvansudskog tijela po prijedlogu za oslobođenje od preostalih dugova, koji je
model postupka u okviru kojeg će se odlučivati o postupku oslobađanja od preostalih
dugova, tko je aktivno legitimiran za podnošenje prijedloga za oslobođenje od preostalih
dugova, kakav je postupak suda ili izvansudskog tijela po prijedlogu za oslobođenje od
preostalih dugova, kakvi su učinci rješenja o prihvaćanju prijedloga za oslobođenje od
preostalih dugova, koje su zapljenive tražbine predmet ustupa odnosno koje su tražbine
na kojima je dopuštena ovrha radi namirenja novčanih tražbina vjerovnika, kakva su
prava vjerovnika za trajanja ustupa, koje su posljedice okončanja postupka oslobođenje
od preostalih dugova te kakav je položaj budućih primanja odnosno treba li se dužnik
pravomoćnošću rješenja o oslobađanju od preostalih dugova prema stečajnim
vjerovnicima osloboditi svih neplaćenih dugova, pa čak i prema onim vjerovnicima koji
svoje tražbine nisu prijavili u potrošačkom stečajnom postupku, koji su razlozi za
uskratu prava na oslobođenje od preostalih dugova, koji su slučajevi gdje će se dopustiti
opoziv oslobođenje i nakon pravomoćnosti rješenja o oslobođenju dužnika od preostalih
dugova, koje su pravne posljedice uskrate oslobođenja od preostalih dugova, treba li
dužnik platiti minimalni dio dospjelih, a neplaćenih tražbina ili može biti oslobođen
cjelokupnog dospjelog duga prema vjerovnicima bez otplate i dijela duga, ako bi u
suprotnom ugrozio svoj egzistencijalni minimum, kakvi su učinci oslobođenja te je li
moguć opoziv oslobođenja dužnika od preostalih obveza.
339
ANALI Pravnog fakulteta Univerziteta u Zenici
The parties
uvjetuje načinare njegovog
also allowedshvaćanja
to concludei a utječe
choice ofnacourt agreement
stvaranje but their
određenog
right is limited because it only allows for choice of court accompanied by choice
pravnog modela koji će se implementirati u stečajno zakonodavstvo
of law42) since “[t]he36 rules of this Regulation are devised so as to ensure that the
authority zemlje.with
određenedealing Stoga pravna teorija
the succession will, injemost
ukazala na nekoliko
situations, kriterija
be applying its ownna
osnovuThe
law.” 43) kojih se može
agreement needspraviti
to be inrazlika
writing,između
dated andtzv. liberalnih
signed i tzv.
by the parties.
37
Parties can also expressly agree on jurisdiction of the court
konzervativnih potrošačko stečajnih modela. To su: mogućnost fizičke of the chosen law
state
osobeafterda seising it. Thestečajnog
44)
bude subjekt Regulationpostupka
also allows parties to
odnosno the proceedings
dostupnost that
stečajnog
were not party to the choice of court agreement to submit to the chosen jurisdic-
postupka svakoj fizičkoj osobi; predvidivost i sigurnost koju zakonska
tion, ie appear in the proceedings without contesting jurisdiction.45)
rješenja pružaju pojedincima koji ispune određene uvjete te brzina
Jurisdictional rules in the Succession Regulation include several objective
postupka i učinkovitost stečajnih propisa koja se analizira kroz troškove
connecting factors: habitual residence, nationality and location of the assets.
postupka
They kaoa ireasonably
provide stupanj namirenja vjerovnika.
wide jurisdiction Upravo
to the EU zatocourts
national za Bosnu
in suc-i
Hercegovinu
cession mattersvišestruku važnost
as long as some ima učenje
connection to the poredbeno-pravnih rješenja,
state exists. The habitual resi-
dence of the deceased should ensure a “close and stable connection
kao i prepoznavanje iskustava drugih zemalja u razrješenju problema koji with the State
concerned taking into
mogu rezultirati account the specific
prakticiranjem aims ofstečajnog
potrošačkog this Regulation.” 46)
prava. StogaLack of se
habitual residence will either lead to subsidiary jurisdiction based primarily on
osvrćemo
the locationna odabrana
of the assets orporedbeno pravna rješenja
to forum necessitatis based ondajući
the lacknjihovu
of anotherkratku
ap-
analizu forum.
propriate i, slijedom
The restpraktičnih i II
of the Chapter pravno teorijskih that
of the Regulation iskustava,
is dedicated neke
to
jurisdiction
preporuke. in succession matters deals with procedural issues such as limitation
of proceedings (Article 12), acceptance and waiver (Article 13), seising of the
3.1. Liberalno
court (Article 14),potrošačko
examinationstečajni sustavi (Article 15) and admissibility
as to jurisdiction
16), lis pendens
(Article Liberalno (Article 17),
potrošačko relatedsustavi,
stečajni actions (Article 18) and
primjerice securityi
SAD-a
measures (Article 19). The lis pendens rule differs significantly from the Croatian
Francuske,
one. propisuju
The Succession manji prescribes
Regulation broj preduvjeta
the first comeza first
pokretanje
served rulepostupka
and the
potrošačkog
Croatian court stečaja, što the
can only stay naravno rezultira
proceedings velikim
if foreign courtbrojem
was thetakve vrste
first seised,
stečajeva.
if there is noDoktrina
exclusive ukazuje
domestickako je naglasak
jurisdiction stavljen
and in case na pružanje
of reciprocity. 47)
Thenove
EU
lis pendens rule is easier to apply, but it still has its deficiencies
šanse za pojedinca (engl. fresh start), potrošača, dakle u prvi plan se when applied
strictly in choice of court agreements.48) Although the rules differ, the outcome
postavljaju interesi dužnika, potrošača što znači da se rizik prebacuje na
will often be the same when the exclusive jurisdiction is not given to the Croatian
vjerovnike
courts kaothird
since the ekonomski jaču
requirement, the stranu dvostrano
reciprocity, pravnog odnosa. U
is presumed.
takvoj zakonskoj regulaciji primjećujemo težnju prema ograničavanju
42) Succession Regulation, Article 5.
prava
43) vjerovnika
Preamble u korist
to the Succession prava
Regulation, dužnika, što je i u skladu s glavnom
Recital 27.
44) Succession Regulation, Article 7/1/c.
premisom potrošačko stečajnog postupka, ekonomskom rehabilitacijom
45) In a case on interpretation of submission to a jurisdiction under the Brussels I Regulation the Court of Justice
dužnika,
of the European dok
Uniontoheld
nije slučaj kod
that submission stečajathepravnih
even overrides osoba,
choice of court u kojem
agreements. This casepretežu
might be
useful in the context of the Succession regulation. See: Case 150/80 Elefanten Schuh GmbH v Pierre Jacqmain
prava
ECR vjerovnika.
[1981] 01671, paras 10-11. In that case, the
46) Preamble to the Succession Regulation, Recital 23.
47) Croatian PIL Act, Article 80.
48) The same rule in the Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the
recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters OJ 2001 L12/1 (Brussels I Regu-
lation) invoked some criticism when applied to choice of court agreements since it produced uncertainty and
disregard of parties’ expectations. See: R. Fentiman, Access to Justice and Parallel Proceedings in Europe, Cam-
(Camb.„Osobni stečaj
36
brige Law Journal
Vidi, D. Bodul, L. J.), 2/2004, 312-314; P. Bříza,trend
- globalni Choice-Of-Court
i hrvatska Agreements: Could the
perspektiva“, Hague
Zbornik
Pravnog
Choice fakulteta
of Court Sveučilišta
Agreements u Rijeci,
Convention and thevol.
Reform
32, of the Brussels
2011, br. 1. I355.
Regulation
i 356.be the Way Out of the
Gasser-Owusu
37 Disillusion?,
Tako, V. Radović, Journal of Private
Individualni International
stečaj, Law (Jour. 2006.
Dosje, Beograd, P. I. L.), 3/2009, 537-563.
340
14
Dejan Bodul O potrebi i mogućnosti implementacije instituta
potrošačkog stečaja u pravni poredak Bosne i Hercegovine
38
11 U.S. Code Chapter 7 – Liquidation, Pub. L. No. 113-185, par. 701.-784.
39
11 U.S. Code Chapter 13 - Adjustment of debts of an individual with regularin come,
Pub. L. No. 113-185, par. 1301.-1330.
40
Bankruptcy Code, Pub. L. 113-86, (izuzev 113-79). Dostupno na:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/ (12.03.2014.).
41
U.S. Code: Title 11, Pub. L. No. 113-185, par. 1101.-1174.
42
Presuda Toibb v. Radloff, 501 U.S. 157 (1991). V. WELER, Robin, Consumer
Bankruptcy Reform in the 109th Congress: Background and Issues Updated, Report for
Congress, 2005., 6.
43
Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005., S. 256, Pub. L.
No. 109-8, 119 Stat. 23 (2005).
44
11 U.S. Code Chapter 15 - Ancillary and other cross-border cases,Pub. L. No. 113-185,
par. 1501.-1532.
341
ANALI Pravnog fakulteta Univerziteta u Zenici
The parties
reforme areje
2005. also allowed to broja
smanjenje conclude a choicekoji
dužnika of court agreement
su se but their
prijavljivali za
right is limited because it only allows for choice of court accompanied by choice
stečajni postupak prema glavi 7. budući da su u određenim slučajevima
of law42) since “[t]he rules of this Regulation are devised so as to ensure that the
dužnici tražili
authority dealing automatski otpust will,
with the succession dugova, iako
in most su bilibeuapplying
situations, mogućnosti,
its ownu
law.”
skladu The
43)
agreement
s glavom 13. ineeds to be
planom in writing,
otplate duga,dated and signed
namiriti by theDa
vjerovnike. parties.
bi se
Parties can also expressly
to izbjeglo zakonodavac agree on jurisdiction of the court of the
je 2005. u Stečajni zakonik uveo nekoliko chosen law
state after seising it. The Regulation also allows parties to the proceedings that
44)
novosti, a jedna od njih je i postupak obveznog savjetovanja od strane
were not party to the choice of court agreement to submit to the chosen jurisdic-
ovlaštenih
tion, ie appearagencija. Sljedeća without
in the proceedings velika contesting
novina je jurisdiction.
matematički 45) formulirani
342
14
Dejan Bodul O potrebi i mogućnosti implementacije instituta
potrošačkog stečaja u pravni poredak Bosne i Hercegovine
343
ANALI Pravnog fakulteta Univerziteta u Zenici
The parties
postupaka nadareimovinom
also allowed to conclude
potrošača. a choice
Glavni of court
razlog agreement buttakvih
neučinkovitosti their
right is limited because it only allows for choice of court accompanied
postupaka je postavljanje ispunjenja obveza dužnika kao primarnog cilja by choice
of law42) since “[t]he rules of this Regulation are devised so as to ensure that the
potrošačkog
authority stečaja.
dealing with theStoga se i institut
succession will, inoslobođenja od be
most situations, preostalih dugova
applying its own
drugačije
law.” 43)
Thereguliraju
agreementpropisujući
needs to be duge i obvezne
in writing, datedplanove
and signed otplate duga
by the čije
parties.
je ispunjenje preduvjet okončanja postupka potrošačkog stečaja. Neki,
Parties can also expressly agree on jurisdiction of the court of the chosen law
state after seising
primjerice it.44)
Italija, The Regulation
sužavaju also allows parties
krug potencijalnih to the stečaja
subjekata proceedings that
odnosno
were not party to the choice of court agreement to submit to the chosen jurisdic-
ne reguliraju institut oslobođenja potrošača od preostalih dugova što je bit
tion, ie appear in the proceedings without contesting jurisdiction.45)
načela novog financijskog početka potrošača.
Jurisdictional rules in the Succession Regulation include several objective
3.2.1. Njemačko
connecting
3.2.1. uređenje:
factors: habitual otpust nationality
residence, dugova tek nakon
and minimalno
location of the assets.
They provide godina
šest godina
a reasonably wide jurisdiction to the EU national courts in suc-
cession matters as long as some connection to the state exists. The habitual resi-
dence ofNama blizak should
the deceased
47
njemački insolvencijski
ensure postupak
a “close and stable za potrošače
connection with thesastoji
State
se od tri etape.
concerned taking into Kaoaccount
u većinithesustava,
specifici aims
njemački
of thiszahtijeva od dužnika
Regulation.” 46)
Lack of da
krene od izvansudske faze. Tijekom te prve faze dužniku pomažu
habitual residence will either lead to subsidiary jurisdiction based primarily on
the locationosobe,
podobne of the assets or to forum
odnosno službenecessitatis
koje jebased on the lack
odredila svakaof another
njemačka ap-
propriate forum. The rest of the Chapter II of the Regulation that is dedicated to
pokrajina za sebe. Kako zakon ne specificira sadržaj plana sve je
jurisdiction in succession matters deals with procedural issues such as limitation
podložno
of sporazumu
proceedings (Article s12),vjerovnicima,
acceptance and čakwaiver
i tzv., (Article
nulti plan
13),otplate
seisingdugaof theu
kojem(Article
court vjerovnici ne dobiju ništa
14), examination as to od svojih tražbina.
jurisdiction Ipak
(Article 15) andradi sklapanja
admissibility
(Article 16), lis pendens (Article 17), related actions
izvansudskog sporazuma, svi vjerovnici se moraju izričito složiti (Article 18) and securitysa
measures (Article 19). The lis pendens rule differs significantly from the Croatian
sadržajem plana što je u praksi izrazito rijetko. U slučaju da je pokušaj
one. The Succession Regulation prescribes the first come first served rule and the
postizanja
Croatian courtizvansudskog
can only stay the sporazuma
proceedings o ifreguliranju
foreign courtdužnikovih
was the first obveza
seised,
neuspješan,
if slijedi otvaranje
there is no exclusive domestic sudskog
jurisdictioninsolvencijskog postupka.47)Kao
and in case of reciprocity. The prvi
EU
lis pendens rule is easier to apply, but it still has
korak dužnik će ponovno pokušati postići sporazum s vjerovnicima oits deficiencies when applied
strictly in choice
reguliranju duga,of court agreements.
ali sada
48)
u okviru Although
sudskog the rules differ, the
postupka. outcomes
Zajedno
will often be the same when the exclusive jurisdiction is not given to the Croatian
prijedlogom za otvaranje sudskog postupka ili odmah nakon njegovog
courts since the third requirement, the reciprocity, is presumed.
podnošenja, dužnik je obvezan sudu podnijeti potrebne dokumente.
42) Succession Regulation, Article 5.
Doktrina
43) Preamble tonavodi kako
the Succession se u praksi
Regulation, Recital 27.drugi pokušaj zaobilazi te kao takav
44) Succession Regulation, Article 7/1/c.
postaje nepotreban čime se javlja potreba za njegovim ukidanjem. Ako ni
45) In a case on interpretation of submission to a jurisdiction under the Brussels I Regulation the Court of Justice
u the
of okviru
European sudskog
Union held postupka
that submissionvjerovnici
even overrides nisu prihvatili
the choice plan za
of court agreements. Thisreguliranje
case might be
useful in the context of the Succession regulation. See: Case 150/80 Elefanten Schuh GmbH v Pierre Jacqmain
dugova
ECR dužnika,
[1981] 01671, a Insud
paras 10-11. nedostatak
that case, the postojanja pristanka pojedinih
vjerovnika nije mogao nadomjestiti svojom odlukom, slijedi treća faza,
46) Preamble to the Succession Regulation, Recital 23.
47) Croatian PIL Act, Article 80.
odnosno
48) ex inoffo
The same rule nastavlja
the Council se (EC)
Regulation pojednostavljeni insolvencijski
No 44/2001 of 22 December postupak.
2000 on jurisdiction and the
recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters OJ 2001 L12/1 (Brussels I Regu-
Dužnik potrošač dužan se je izjasniti, prilikom podnošenja prijedloga za
lation) invoked some criticism when applied to choice of court agreements since it produced uncertainty and
otvaranje
disregard insolvencijskog
of parties’ postupka,
expectations. See: R. Fentiman, Access to želi li Parallel
Justice and se Proceedings
koristiti in institutom
Europe, Cam-
brige Law Journal (Camb. L. J.), 2/2004, 312-314; P. Bříza, Choice-Of-Court Agreements: Could the Hague
Choice of Court Agreements Convention and the Reform of the Brussels I Regulation be the Way Out of the
Gasser-Owusu
47
Disillusion?, Journal of Private International Law (Jour. P. I. L.), 3/2009, 537-563.
Par. 304.-314. InsO.
344
14
Dejan Bodul O potrebi i mogućnosti implementacije instituta
potrošačkog stečaja u pravni poredak Bosne i Hercegovine
oslobađanja od preostalih obveza. U slučaju da vjerovnici ne ukažu na
postojanje razloga za uskratu tog instituta,48 sud će najaviti oslobođenje
od preostalih obveza. Ono će uslijediti protekom šestogodišnjeg, tzv.
razdoblja dobroga ponašanja (Wohlverhaltensperiode). Obveza je dužnika
da uredno izvršava svoje obveze te da naknadno tijekom trajanja tog
razdoblja ne nastupe okolnosti za uskratu tog instituta. Ipak judikatura
ukazuje da većina pojedinca nije u mogućnosti isplatiti ni dio tih
potraživanja, pa se i postavilo pitanje ima li smisla razdoblje dobrog
ponašanja budući da je velika većina na rubu preživljavanja. Novelom
InsO-a iz 2001, napravljen je model koji će biti prilagođen financijskoj i
socijalnoj situaciji insolventnih pojedinaca tako da su dužnici mogli
odgoditi plaćanje sudskih troškove do okončanja insolvencijskog
postupka. Ipak i takva mogućnost se nije pokazala opravdanom. 49 Stoga
je planirana reforma, a cilj je pojednostavljenje stečaja i postupaka bez
imovinske mase. Time bi se dužniku omogućilo brže oslobađanje od
odgovornosti za preostale obveze. Neosporno je, a što je slučaj i u drugim
zemljama, da potreba za nečim takvim postoji, ali je potrebno pozitivno-
pravno uskladiti potencijalni pojednostavljeni model i pravila
dosadašnjega potrošačkog insolvencijskog postupka. Karakteristika
48
Razlozi za uskratu od oslobođenja od preostalih dugova su sljedeći: (1.) dužnik je
pravomoćno osuđen zbog nekog od kaznenih dijela navedenih u par. 283.-283.c.
Kaznenog zakonika; (2.) dužnik je u posljednje tri godine prije podnošenja prijedloga za
otvaranje insolvencijskog postupka ili nakon tog prijedloga namjerno ili iz grube
nepažnje pismeno dao netočne ili nepotpune podatke o svojim gospodarskim odnosima
kako bi dobio kredit, primio plaćanja iz javnih sredstava ili izbjegao plaćanje iz javne
blagajne; (3.) u posljednjih deset godina prije podnošenja prijedloga za otvaranje
insolvencijskog postupka ili nakon tog prijedloga dužnik je oslobođen preostalih dugova
ili mu je takvo oslobađanje uskraćeno sukladno par. 296. ili 297. InsO-a; (4.) dužnik je u
posljednjoj godini prije podnošenja prijedloga za otvaranje insolvencijskog postupka ili
nakon tog prijedloga namjerno ili iz grube nepažnje onemogućio namirenje
insolvencijskih vjerovnika time što je preuzeo neprimjerene obveze ili rasipao imovinu
ili bez izgleda na poboljšanje svojega gospodarskog položaja odugovlačio s otvaranjem
insolvencijskog postupka; (5.) dužnik je tijekom insolvencijskog postupka namjerno ili
iz grube nepažnje povrijedio svoje dužnosti davanja obavijesti ili suradnje prema
Insolvencijskom zakoniku: (6.) dužnik je u popisu svoje imovine i prihoda, popisu
vjerovnika i popisu tražbina koje su usmjerene protiv njega, koje je dužan priložiti
prijedlogu za otvaranje insolvencijskog postupka za potrošače prema par. 305., st. 1.,
reč. 3. InsO-a, namjerno ili iz grube nepažnje dao netočne ili nepotpune podatke (par.
290., st. 1. i 2. InsO),
49
Par. 4.a-4.d, par. 26., st. 1. i par. 298. InsO.
345
ANALI Pravnog fakulteta Univerziteta u Zenici
The parties
sustava, are also allowed
prvenstveno to conclude
njemačkoga, a choice gdje
a i drugih, of court
je agreement
uloga suda butostala
their
right is limited because it only allows for choice of court
neokrnjena, je činjenica da zakonodavci imaju problema s troškovima accompanied by choice
of law42) since “[t]he rules of this Regulation are devised so as to ensure that the
postupka,dealing
authority a samim
with thetime i održivosti
succession sustava.
will, in most Ipakbenajzanimljiviji
situations, applying its owni
nakomentiraniji
law.” 43) prijedlog
The agreement needsjeto be inZakona
Nacrt writing,odated
oslobađanju
and signedod bydugova osoba
the parties.
bez ikakvih sredstava i o izmjeni insolvencijskog postupka za potrošače,
Parties can also expressly agree on jurisdiction of the court of the chosen law
state
Nacrtafter seising it. The Regulation also allows parties to the proceedings that
od 23.01.2007.
44) 50
were not party to the choice of court agreement to submit to the chosen jurisdic-
tion, Irskoinuređenje:
3.2.2.ie appear neučinkovitost
the proceedings sustavajurisdiction.
without contesting otpusta dugova
45)
Jurisdictional
Irska je rules in the zemlja
europska Succession Regulation include
s najrigidnijim several stečajnim
potrošačko objective
connecting factors: habitual residence, nationality and location of the assets.
zakonom. Pogotovo ako se usporedi s liberalnim modelom Velike
They provide a reasonably wide jurisdiction to the EU national courts in suc-
Britanije.
cession Navedena
matters as longregulativa u Irskoj to
as some connection je the
donesena 1988.
state exists. Thei habitual
od tadaresi- nije
51
prošlaofznačajnije
dence the deceased reforme.
should ensureDužnik,
a “closekao
andi stable
vjerovnik, imajuwith
connection mogućnost
the State
concerned
pokrenuti postupak pred Visokim sudom pod pretpostavkom Lack
taking into account the specific aims of this Regulation.” 46)
of
trajnije
habitual residence will either lead to subsidiary jurisdiction based primarily on
insolventnosti (tri mjeseca neplaćanja dospjelih obveza). Otvaranjem
the location of the assets or to forum necessitatis based on the lack of another ap-
postupka,forum.
propriate sud izdaje
The restNalog, da se sva
of the Chapter II ofdužnikova
the Regulation imovina
that is prebacuje
dedicated tou
fiducijarnoinvlasništvo
jurisdiction successionpovjerenika,
matters deals koju će on prodati
with procedural s ciljem
issues such as namirenja
limitation
of proceedings (Article 12), acceptance and waiver (Article
vjerovnika. U prava privilegiranih vjerovnika se ne dira. Iznos neizuzete 13), seising of the
court (Article 14), examination as to jurisdiction (Article
imovine koja ostaje dužnik, u cilju održavanja skromnog načina života, 15) and admissibility
(Article 16), lis pendens (Article 17), related actions (Article 18) and security
iznosi 3,100
measures eura
(Article 19).(ili
Theviše ako sud
lis pendens rulesmatra opravdanim).
differs significantly fromZanimljivost
the Croatian
Irskog
one. Themodela je činjenica
Succession Regulationdaprescribes
se otpustthedugova
first come može
first ishoditi isključivo
served rule and the
Croatian
po odluci court can only
Visokog sudastayithe
to proceedings
nakon što if seforeign
tražbine court was the first
vjerovnika seised,u
otplate
cijelosti odnosno nakon istekla razdoblje dobrog vladanja koje trajeEU
if there is no exclusive domestic jurisdiction and in case of reciprocity. 47)
The 12
lis pendens rule is easier to apply, but it still has its deficiencies when applied
godina. Ovako postavljeni preduvjeti predstavljaju težak teret iz
strictly in choice of court agreements.48) Although the rules differ, the outcome
perspektive
will potrošača.
often be the same when Posljedično dužnici
the exclusive pokušavaju
jurisdiction postići
is not given to izvansudski
the Croatian
courts
sporazumsince sthevjerovnicima
third requirement, the reciprocity,
o otplati duga kako is presumed.
bi izbjegli pokretanje
sudskog
42) Successionpostupka potrošačkog
Regulation, Article 5. stečaja. Primjerice u 2007. samo je
43) Preamble to the Succession Regulation, Recital 27.
otvoreno 5 postupaka potrošačkog stečaja. U konačnici potrošačko
44) Succession Regulation, Article 7/1/c.
45) In a case on interpretation of submission to a jurisdiction under the Brussels I Regulation the Court of Justice
of the European Union held that submission even overrides the choice of court agreements. This case might be
useful in the context of the Succession regulation. See: Case 150/80 Elefanten Schuh GmbH v Pierre Jacqmain
ECR [1981] 01671, paras 10-11. In that case, the
46) Preamble to the Succession Regulation, Recital 23.
50
47)Detaljnije Garašić,
Croatian PILJ.Act, „Kako zakonski regulirati „osobni stečaj“ u Hrvatskoj“, Zbornik
Article 80.
48) The same
Pravnog rule in theuCouncil
Fakulteta Regulation
Zagrebu, (EC)2011.,
vol. 61, No 44/2001
no. of5, 221492.
December 2000S.
etseq.; on Braun, „German
jurisdiction and the
recognition
Insolvency andAct:
enforcement
Specialof judgments
Provisionsin civil
ofand commercial Insolvency
Consumer matters OJ 2001 L12/1 (Brusselsand
Proceedings I Regu-
the
lation) invoked some criticism when applied to choice of court agreements since it produced uncertainty and
Discharge of Residual Debts“, German Law Journal, vol. 7, 2005., no. 1, 59-70. te J. J.
disregard of parties’ expectations. See: R. Fentiman, Access to Justice and Parallel Proceedings in Europe, Cam-
Kilborn,
brige „The Innovative
Law Journal (Camb. L. J.),German Approach
2/2004, 312-314; to Choice-Of-Court
P. Bříza, Consumer Debt Relief: Could
Agreements: Revolutionary
the Hague
Changes
Choice in German
of Court AgreementsLaw, and Surprising
Convention Lessons
and the Reform forBrussels
of the the U.S.“, Northwestern
I Regulation be the WayJournal of
Out of the
Gasser-Owusu Law and Journal
InternationalDisillusion?, Business,of Private 2004., no.
International
vol. 24, Law1,(Jour.
279.P. I. L.), 3/2009, 537-563.
51
Bankruptcy Act, 1988, and the Bankruptcy rules and forms, Order 76.
346
14
Dejan Bodul O potrebi i mogućnosti implementacije instituta
potrošačkog stečaja u pravni poredak Bosne i Hercegovine
stečajni model Irske favorizira vjerovnike, potičući dužnike na sklapanje
izvansudskih nagodbi s vjerovnicima o otplati duga.52
3.2.3. Talijansko
3.2.3. Talijansko uređenje:
uređenje: zakonska
zakonskanemogućnost
nemogućnost otpusta
otpusta dugova
dugova
potrošačima
potrošačima
Jedna od većih država EU nema reguliran institut potrošačkog
stečaja, iako rasprava o potrebi uvođenja traje nekoliko godina. Štoviše
Model Zakona je predstavljen u predstavničkom tijelu. Zagovara se ideja
po kojoj se potrošač može osloboditi svojih obveza prema stečajnim
vjerovnicima koje su u stečajnom postupku ostale nenamirene.
Pretpostavka oslobođenja je provođenje stečajnog postupka, unovčenjem
neizuzete imovine i namirenjem vjerovnika u omjeru u kojemu bi to bilo
moguće te da je ostalo nenamirenih tražbina stečajnih vjerovnika. Potom
bi se na prijedlog dužnika, od strane suda donijelo rješenje o pokretanju
postupka oslobođenja od preostalih dugova koji se nisu mogli naplatiti iz
njegove imovine u stečajnoj masi. Sud određuje posebnim rješenjem
razdoblje dobrog vladanja i posebne obveze dužnika u vezi s plaćanjem
preostalih dugova. Tijekom trajanja razdoblja dobrog vladanja dužniku se
ograničava poslovna sposobnost jer je pod nadzorom stečajnog
upravitelja. Samo razdoblje može trajati do pet godina od trenutka
podnošenja prijedloga za pokretanje postupka osobnog stečaja.
Oslobođenje dužnika od preostalih dugova predstavlja očekivani
završetak razdoblja trajanja ustupa odnosno dobrog vladanja. Trenutna
situacija potrošačke insolventnosti se regulira putem Građanskog
zakonika (Codice civile),53 pa tako u situacijama kada dužnik ne može
odgovoriti svojoj obvezi plaćanja, vjerovniku stoji na raspolaganju
pokretanje ovršnog postupka radi naplate svog potraživanja. Međutim, s
obzirom na opće načelo u ovršnom postupku prior tempore potior iure,
javlja se mogućnost da se prvi vjerovnik koji je predložio isplatu u
potpunosti namiri iz imovine dužnika i to tako da nakon njegovog
52
Detaljnije C. McGuinness; P. T. Rickard-Clarke; F. Mcauley; M. Shanley i D.
O‘Donnell, (eds.), The Law Reform Commission, Consultation Paper, Personal Debt
Management and Debt Enforcement, (lrc CP 56), 2009.
53
Regio decreto 16.3.1942., n. 262-Approvazione del testo del codice civile,
Gazzettaufficiale, n. 79, edizionestraordinaria, od 4.4.1942.
347
ANALI Pravnog fakulteta Univerziteta u Zenici
The parties
namirenja neare also allowed
ostane to conclude
sredstava a choiceostalih
za namirenje of courtvjerovnika
agreement but
kojitheir
su
right is limited because it only54allows for choice of court accompanied by choice
prijedlog podnijeli kasnije.
of law42) since “[t]he rules of this Regulation are devised so as to ensure that the
authority
3.2.4. dealing with
3.2.4. Englesko
Englesko the succession
uređenje:
uređenje: will,preciznosti
upitnost
upitnost in most situations,
preciznosti be applying its own
legislative
legislative
law.”43) The agreement needs to be in writing, dated
konstruirane sublimacijom više međusobno različitihand signed by the parties.
uređenja
konstruirane
Parties can also expressly agree on jurisdiction of the court of the chosen law
state after seising it.
Engleski The Regulation
je44)zakonodavac u also
svojeallows partiespravo
pozitivno to the proceedings that
ugradio najveći
were not party to the choice of court agreement to submit to
broj modela potrošačkog stečaja (otpusta dugova), od kojih je svaki the chosen jurisdic-
tion, ie appear in the proceedings without contesting jurisdiction.45)
prilagođen posebnostima dužnikove financijske situacije. U tako
Jurisdictional rules in the Succession Regulation include several objective
kompleksnoj strukturi ključan je problem „preklapanja“ sudskih i
connecting factors: habitual residence, nationality and location of the assets.
izvansudskih
They provide anačina reasonably oslobađanja od odgovornosti
wide jurisdiction za dug.courts
to the EU national Pokazalain suc- se
problematičnom
cession matters as long i kapacitiranost
as some connection savjetodavne
to the state infrastrukture
exists. The habitual kojaresi-bi
potrošače
dence trebala should
of the deceased savjetovati o optimalnom,
ensure a “close and stable connection odnosno with za njih
the State
concerned
najpovoljnijem taking into načinuaccountotpustathe specific
dugova. aimsNavedeno
of this Regulation.”
postaje sve
46)
Lackvećiof
habitual residence will either lead to subsidiary jurisdiction based primarily on
problem budući da englesko potrošačko stečajno zakonodavstvo ne
the location of the assets or to forum necessitatis based on the lack of another ap-
zahtijeva,forum.
propriate kao The preduvjet
rest of the ulaskaChapter u sudski
II of thepostupak,
Regulationpokušaj postizanja
that is dedicated to
jurisdiction
sporazuma ino succession
otplati duga matters deals with procedural
u izvansudskoj fazi niti issues o načinu
such as limitation
savjetovanje
of
koji proceedings (Article 12), acceptance
bi bio najpovoljniji za insolventnog and waiver (Article Stečaj
potrošača. 13), seising of the
predstavlja
court (Article 14), examination as to jurisdiction (Article 15) and admissibility
formalni odgovor na insolventnost fizičkih osoba u Engleskoj. Stečaj je u
(Article 16), lis pendens (Article 17), related actions (Article 18) and security
UK-u reguliran
measures (Articledijelom
19). The IX Insolvencijskog
lis pendens rule differs zakona (Insolvency
significantly from the Acta 1986
Croatian
55
(UK)). Riječ je o sudskom postupku u kojem odluku
one. The Succession Regulation prescribes the first come first served rule and the o otpustu dugova
Croatian
može donijeti court cannadležni
only staysud, the proceedings
na prijedlog if foreign
dužnika courtiliwas the first seised,
vjerovnika. No,
if there is no exclusive domestic jurisdiction and
insolventnost ne mora nužno voditi u sudski stečajni postupak budući da in case of reciprocity. 47)
The EU
lis pendens rule is easier to apply, but it still has its deficiencies when applied
egzistiraju
strictly i alternativni
in choice načini rješavanja
of court agreements. 48)
Although insolventnosti
the rules differ, the (primjerice,
outcome
Individualni dobrovoljni sporazum, Brzi dobrovoljni
will often be the same when the exclusive jurisdiction is not given to the Croatian sporazum;
courts since the
Jednostavni third requirement,
individualni the reciprocity,
dobrovoljni sporazum; is presumed.
Sporazum o reguliranju
dugova;
42) SuccessionAdministrativni
Regulation, Article 5. nalog suda te Ovršni nalog). Koncept novoga
43) Preamble to the Succession Regulation, Recital 27.
financijskog početka, etabliran u zakonodavstvu SAD-a, utjecao je i na
44) Succession Regulation, Article 7/1/c.
liberalizaciju
45) engleskoga
In a case on interpretation uređenja
of submission otpusta
to a jurisdiction underdugova
the Brusselskoji je noveliran
I Regulation the Court of2002.
Justice
of the European Union held that submission even overrides the choice of court agreements. This case 56 might be
stupanjem
useful na of
in the context snagu Zakona
the Succession o poduzetništvu
regulation. See: Case 150/80 (Enterprise Act 2002).
Elefanten Schuh GmbH Iako
v Pierre Jacqmain
je prvotni
ECR ciljparas
[1981] 01671, navedene
10-11. In thatreforme
case, the i uvođenje ovog propisa bio poticanje
46) Preamble to the Succession Regulation, Recital 23.
47) Croatian PIL Act, Article 80.
48) The same rule in the Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the
54
recognition
Disegnoand legge. Dostupno
di enforcement na mrežnim
of judgments in civil and commercial matters OJ 2001 L12/1 (Brussels I Regu-
stranicama:
lation) invoked some criticism when applied
http://www.senato.it/leg/16/BGT/Schede/Ddliter to choice of court agreements
/testi/ since it produced
29935_testi.htm uncertainty and
(14.09.2014.).
disregard
55 of parties’ expectations. See: R. Fentiman, Access to Justice and Parallel Proceedings in Europe, Cam-
Insolvency Act 1986, c. 45. Dostupno na: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986
brige Law Journal (Camb. L. J.), 2/2004, 312-314; P. Bříza, Choice-Of-Court Agreements: Could the Hague
(12.03.2014.).
Choice of Court Agreements Convention and the Reform of the Brussels I Regulation be the Way Out of the
56
Enterprise Disillusion?,
Gasser-Owusu Act 2002,Journal c. 40.of Private
Dostupno na: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002
International Law (Jour. P. I. L.), 3/2009, 537-563.
(11.02.2014.).
348
14
Dejan Bodul O potrebi i mogućnosti implementacije instituta
potrošačkog stečaja u pravni poredak Bosne i Hercegovine
349
ANALI Pravnog fakulteta Univerziteta u Zenici
The parties
njihove are also allowed
(pre)zaduženosti to conclude
te bez obzira na a choice
profil of court agreement
opsega but theiri
njihove imovine
right is limited
57 because it only allows for choice of court accompanied by choice
prihoda.
of law42) since “[t]he rules of this Regulation are devised so as to ensure that the
3.2.5. Slovensko
authority
3.2.5. dealing with
Slovensko uređenje:
uređenje: najbolje
the succession
najbolje od
will, in romanskih
most
od situations,iigermanskih
romanskih be applying its own
germanskih
law.”43) rješenja
The agreement
rješenja needs to be in writing, dated and signed by the parties.
Parties can also expressly agree on jurisdiction of the court of the chosen law
state after
Pravilima The Regulation
seising it.44)slovenskog also allows
Zakona o parties to the proceedings
financijskom that
poslovanju,
were not party to the choice of court agreement to
postupcima povodom insolventnosti i prisilnom poravnavanju submit to the chosen jurisdic-
dužnik,58
tion, ie appear in the proceedings without contesting jurisdiction. 45)
fizička osoba, koja ne može podmiriti svoje dugove, podnosi nadležnom
Jurisdictional
općinskom sudurules in the za
prijedlog Succession
pokretanje Regulation
postupka include
osobnogseveral objective
stečaja. Sud
connecting factors: habitual residence, nationality and location of the assets.
donosi rješenje o pokretanju postupka osobnog stečaja i imenuje
They provide a reasonably wide jurisdiction to the EU national courts in suc-
stečajnog
cession upravitelja
matters as long as kojisome je connection
dužan pratiti štostate
to the dužnik
exists.„radi“ za vrijeme
The habitual resi-
trajanja
dence stečajnog
of the deceased should
postupka. ensureUkoliko
a “close and su stable connection
ispunjene with the State
pretpostavke za
concerned taking into account the specific aims
otvaranje postupka osobnog stečaja, plijeni se zapljeniva imovina dužnika of this Regulation.” 46)
Lack of
habitual residence will either lead to subsidiary jurisdiction based primarily on
(fizičke osobe), radi razmjernog namirenja vjerovnika. Iz činjenice da je
the location of the assets or to forum necessitatis based on the lack of another ap-
dužnik fizička
propriate forum. osoba,
The restkoja of the i nakon
Chapterzaključenja postupkathat
II of the Regulation osobnog
is dedicatedstečaja
to
postoji i odgovara
jurisdiction vjerovnicima
in succession matters deals za obveze utvrđeneissues
with procedural u stečaju,
such aspredviđena
limitation
of
je proceedings
drugačija zakonska(Article 12), acceptance
regulativa and waiver
odnosa dužnika (Article 13), seising
i njegovih of the
vjerovnika,
court (Article 14), examination as to jurisdiction
nego što je to slučaj kod pravnih osoba. Naime, tijekom osobnog (Article 15) and admissibility
(Article 16), lis pendens (Article 17), related actions (Article 18) and security
stečajnog(Article
measures postupka, 19). na
Theprijedlog
lis pendens dužnika, sudsignificantly
rule differs donosi rješenje o otvaranju
from the Croatian
postupka
one. oslobođenja
The Succession dužnika
Regulation od preostalih
prescribes the first dugova
come firstkoji se rule
served nisuand mogli
the
naplatiti court
Croatian iz njegove
can onlyimovine u stečajnojifmasi.
stay the proceedings foreign Sudcourtposebnim
was the firstrješenjem
seised,
if there is no
određuje exclusivedobrog
razdoblje domestic jurisdiction
vladanja and in case
i posebne obveze dužnika uThe
of reciprocity. 47)
EUs
vezi
lis pendens rule is easier to apply, but it still has its deficiencies when applied
plaćanjem preostalih dugova. Tijekom trajanja razdoblja dobrog vladanja
strictly in choice of court agreements.48) Although the rules differ, the outcome
dužniku
will often be se the„ograničava“
same when theposlovna sposobnostis not
exclusive jurisdiction jer given
je podto thenadzorom
Croatian
stečajnog
courts sincepovjerenika. Samo razdoblje
the third requirement, može trajati
the reciprocity, od dvije do pet godina
is presumed.
od Succession
42) trenutka zaključenja
Regulation, Article 5. postupka osobnog stečaja. Oslobođenje dužnika
od Preamble
43) preostalih dugovaRegulation,
to the Succession predstavlja očekivani završetak razdoblja trajanja
Recital 27.
44) Succession Regulation, Article 7/1/c.
ustupa
45) In a caseimovine, odnosno
on interpretation of submissiondobrog vladanja.
to a jurisdiction Ako I Regulation
under the Brussels nema prijedloga za
the Court of Justice
of the European Union held that submission even overrides the choice of court agreements. This case might be
uskratu oslobođenja, ili je sud našao prijedloge za uskratu neutemeljenim,
useful in the context of the Succession regulation. See: Case 150/80 Elefanten Schuh GmbH v Pierre Jacqmain
nakon
ECR [1981]saslušanja stečajnog
01671, paras 10-11. povjerenika,
In that case, the dužnika i stečajnih vjerovnika
46) Preamble to the Succession Regulation, Recital 23.
47) Croatian PIL Act, Article 80.
48) The same rule in the Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the
57
recognition and enforcement
A. Walters, D. Mckenzie Skene,in „Consumer
of judgments civil and commercial matters OJ
Bankruptcy L12/1 (Brussels
2001Reform
Law I Regu-
in Scotland“,
lation) invoked some criticism when applied to choice of court agreements
England and Wales, American Bankruptcy Law Journal, vol. 80, 2006., 481. etseq. tesince it produced uncertainty andI.
disregard of parties’ expectations. See: R. Fentiman, Access to Justice and Parallel Proceedings in Europe, Cam-
Ramsay, Bankruptcy in Transition: The Case of England and Wales, u: J. Niemi-
brige Law Journal (Camb. L. J.), 2/2004, 312-314; P. Bříza, Choice-Of-Court Agreements: Could the Hague
Kiesilainen, Johanna; I. RAMSAY, Iain; W.C. Whitford, Consumer Bankruptcy in
Choice of Court Agreements Convention and the Reform of the Brussels I Regulation be the Way Out of the
Global Perspective,
Gasser-Owusu HartPub.,
Disillusion?, Journal ofOxford, 2003., 212.
Private International Law (Jour. P. I. L.), 3/2009, 537-563.
58
Vidi suprafus nota 22.
350
14
Dejan Bodul O potrebi i mogućnosti implementacije instituta
potrošačkog stečaja u pravni poredak Bosne i Hercegovine
59
G. Primoš, Ureditevstečajnega prava v Republiki Sloveniji - kontinuiteta razvoja, u:
Simpozijum u Ohridu, Prilozi reformi stečajnog prava u zemljama južne Evrope, Edition
Temmen, 2006., 30-50. te Š. Ivanjko, „Novo insolventno pravo i osobni stečaj u
Sloveniji“, Zbornik radova - Aktualnosti građanskog i trgovačkog zakonodavstva i
pravne prakse, Mostar, 2009., br. 7, 49-56.
60
„Ministarstvo pravosudja Kraljevine Ugarske, Hrvatske i Slavonije i serbske
Vojvodine s tamiškim Banatom i za veliku knježevinu Erdeljsku“ izdalo je 18. srpnja
1852. Naredbu kojom donosi Privremeni stečajni red, koji će se primjenjivati od 1. rujna
1853. (dalje u tekstu: Stečajni red). Sadržan u XLIII. kom. drž.-zak. lista pod br. 132.
izdanom i razposlanom dne 20. srpnja 1853.
61
NN, br. 44/96., 161/98., 29/99., 129/00., 123/03., 197/03., 187/04., 82/06., 116/10.,
25/12. 133/12. i 45/13. - dalje: SZ.
62
NN, br. 108/12., 144/12., 81/13. i 112/13. - dalje: ZFPPN.
351
ANALI Pravnog fakulteta Univerziteta u Zenici
The parties
osvrćemo se are
na also
bitnu allowed to conclude
novinu reforme astečajnog
choice of court
prava agreement but their
1997., odnosno
right is limited because it only allows for choice of court accompanied by choice
uvođenje instituta stečaja nad imovinom fizičkih osoba. Imajući u vidu
of law42) since “[t]he rules of this Regulation are devised so as to ensure that the
činjenicudealing
authority kako with
je zakonodavac
the successionocijenio da situations,
will, in most još nisu „sazreli“ uvjeti
be applying za
its own
uvođenje
law.” 43)
Theposebne
agreementvrste stečajnog
needs to be inpostupka za sve
writing, dated andfizičke
signedosobe,
by the stečajni
parties.
Parties
postupak se može provesti samo nad imovinom dužnika pojedinca,law
can also expressly agree on jurisdiction of the court of the chosen tj.
state after seising it.44)
The Regulation
63 also allows parties to
obrtnika i trgovca pojedinca. Kako je zakonodavac pokazao inicijativu the proceedings that
were not party to the choice of court agreement to submit to the chosen jurisdic-
za recepcijom
tion, modela
ie appear in the potrošačkog
proceedings without stečaja
contestingnjemačkog
jurisdiction.prava
45) (Polazne
osnove za uvođenje instituta Osobnog bankrota, Ministarstvo pravosuđa,
Jurisdictional rules in the Succession Regulation include several objective
connecting2012.,
Zagreb, 1-6. teresidence,
str.habitual
factors: Nacrt Prijedloga
nationality iskaza o procjeni
and location of the učinka
assets.
propisa
They za pripremu
provide a reasonably Nacrta prijedloga toZakona
wide jurisdiction o stečaju
the EU national potrošača,
courts in suc-
cession matters pravosuđa,
Ministarstvo as long as some connection
Zagreb, to thestr.
2012., state1-5.,
exists.i The habitualNacrt
konačno resi-
dence of the deceased should ensure a “close and stable connection
prijedloga Zakona o stečaju potrošača, Ministarstvo pravosuđa, Zagreb, with the State
concerned taking into account the specific aims of this Regulation.”46) Lack of
lipanj, 2014.), početkom
habitual residence
2015. se očekuje donošenje Zakona o stečaju
will either lead to subsidiary jurisdiction based primarily on
64
potrošača.
the location of the assets or to forum necessitatis based on the lack of another ap-
propriate forum. The rest of the
3.2.7. Srpsko Chapter II of the Regulation that is dedicated to
3.2.7. Srpskouređenje:
uređenje:usmjeravanje
usmjeravanjepažnje pažnje
jurisdiction in succession matters deals with procedural issues such as limitation
prema
of proceedings
korporativnom
prema(Article
korporativnom stečaju
stečaju
12), acceptance and waiver (Article 13), seising of the
court (Article 14), examination as to jurisdiction
Donošenjem Zakona o stečajnom postupku (Article 15) 65
2004., and admissibility
stečajno pravo
(Article 16), lis pendens (Article 17), related actions (Article 18) and security
Srbije je reformirano u pravcu harmonizacije s zemljama europskog
measures (Article 19). The lis pendens rule differs significantly from the Croatian
pravnog
one. kruga. Analizom
The Succession Regulationpetogodišnje
prescribes the primjene Zakona
first come first servedo rule
stečajnom
and the
postupku,
Croatian uočene
court su stay
can only pravne praznine, ifpostojanje
the proceedings foreign court teškoća
was the ufirstprimjeni
seised,
if there is no exclusive domestic jurisdiction and in case of
pojedinih zakonskih odredbi. Također analiza pokazatelja učinkovitostireciprocity. 47)
The EU
lis pendens rule is easier to apply, but it still has its deficiencies when applied
stečajnog postupka (vrijeme trajanja, visina troškova provođenja i stupanj
strictly in choice of court agreements.48) Although the rules differ, the outcome
namirenja
will often bevjerovnika),
the same when a zatim i potreba
the exclusive za uvođenjem
jurisdiction reformi,
is not given to the imale
Croatiansu
66
za posljedicu
courts potrebu
since the third donošenja
requirement, novog zakona.
the reciprocity, is presumed.Stoga je dana 24.
42) Succession Regulation, Article 5.
43) Preamble to the Succession Regulation, Recital 27.
Čl. 3., st. 1. SZ.
63 Succession Regulation, Article 7/1/c.
44)
45)
64 In a case on interpretation of submission to a jurisdiction under the Brussels I Regulation the Court of Justice
Vidi supra fusnotu 21.
of
65 the European Union held that submission even overrides the choice of court agreements. This case might be
Sl. glasnik RS, br. 84/04. i 85/05.
useful in the context of the Succession regulation. See: Case 150/80 Elefanten Schuh GmbH v Pierre Jacqmain
66
Vidi, V. Rakić-Vodinelić; A. Knežević, „Postupak prilagođavanja stečajnog prava
ECR [1981] 01671, paras 10-11. In that case, the
Srbije
46) pravilu
Preamble to theEU o postupcima
Succession u Recital
Regulation, slučaju23.insolventnosti“, u: Das Ohrider Symposium:
47) Croatian PIL Act, Article 80.
Beiträge zur Reform des Insolvenzrechts in den Staaten Südosteuropas/Simpozijum u
48) The sameprilozi
Ohridu: rule in the Council Regulation
reformi stečajnog (EC)prava u of
No 44/2001 zemljama
22 Decemberjužne
2000 onEvrope/Deutsche
jurisdiction and the
recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and (GTZ),
GesellschaftfürTechnischeZusammenarbeit commercial matters OJ
(Hrsg.), 2001 L12/1
Bremen: (Brussels I Regu-
EditionTemmen,
lation)
2006., 105-127. te S. Spasić, Sporna pravna pitanja i praktični problemiuncertainty
invoked some criticism when applied to choice of court agreements since it produced and
u postupku
disregard of parties’ expectations. See: R. Fentiman, Access to Justice and Parallel Proceedings in Europe, Cam-
reorganizacije, u: Zakonodavstvo i praksa zbornik radova sa regionalne konferencije o
brige Law Journal (Camb. L. J.), 2/2004, 312-314; P. Bříza, Choice-Of-Court Agreements: Could the Hague
stečajuofBanja
Choice Luka 14. iConvention
Court Agreements 15.2.2008.,
and Njemačka
the Reform oforganizacija
the Brussels I za tehničku
Regulation be suradnju
the Way Out (GTZ),
of the
GmbH, Otvoreni Regionalni Fond za jugoistočnu Evropu – Pravna
Gasser-Owusu Disillusion?, Journal of Private International Law (Jour. P. I. L.), 3/2009, 537-563. reforma,
Jugoslavenski pregled, Beograd, 135-155.
352
14
Dejan Bodul O potrebi i mogućnosti implementacije instituta
potrošačkog stečaja u pravni poredak Bosne i Hercegovine
67
Sl. glasnik RS, br. 104/09., 99/11. - dr. zakon i 71/12. - odluka US.
68
V. Radović, „Stečaj nad imovinom preduzetnika prema usvojenom Zakonu o
stečajnom postupku“, Pravo i privreda, 2004., br. 9-12, 123-137.
69
Podrobnije, J.J. Kilborn, Comparative Consumer Bankruptcy, Carolina Academic
Press, Durham, 2007.; J. Niemi-Kiesilainen, Johanna, I. Ramsay, W.C. Whitford, (eds.),
op. cit., 2009.; J. S. Ziegel, Comparative Consumer Insolvency Regimes - A Canadian
Perspective, Hart Publishing, Portland, 2003.; I. Ramsay, Comparative Consumer
Bankruptcy, University of Illinois Law Review, vol. 1, 2007., no. 1. C.J. Tabb, The Top
Twenty Issues in the History of Consumer Bankruptcy, Universityof Illinois Law
Review, vol. 9, 2007., no. 1. J. Ziegel, Facts on the Ground and Reconciliation of
Divergent Consumer Insolvency Philosophies, Theoretical Inquiries in Law, vol. 7,
2006., no. 2.
353
ANALI Pravnog fakulteta Univerziteta u Zenici
The parties
izvora prava.70areDakle,
also allowed
cilj je to conclude
autora a choice
ukazati of courtoagreement
na potrebu but their
prezauevidentnoj
right
promjeni karaktera prava, posebno u oblasti konvencijskog choice
is limited because it only allows for choice of court accompanied by prava
of law42) since “[t]he rules of this Regulation are devised so as to ensure that the
(Europske konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava i temeljnih sloboda (dalje:
authority dealing with the succession will, in most situations, be applying its own
Konvencija))
law.” 43) jer polazeći
The agreement needs toodbekoncepta
in writing,pravnog
dated andmonizma
signed bytethepraktično
parties.
Parties položaja
can also expressly
kvazi-ustavnog agreeKonvencije
on jurisdictionuof the
bosansko-hercegovačkom
court of the chosen law
state after seising
pravnom poretkuit.44) The Regulation
postoji also allows
obveza izravne parties to
(direktne) the proceedings
primjene that
pravorijeka
were
ECHRa.not party
71 to the choice of court agreement to submit to the chosen jurisdic-
tion, ie appear in the proceedings without contesting jurisdiction. 45)
4.1.Jurisdictional
Prava vjerovnika
rules in the Succession Regulation include several objective
connecting factors: pristup
4.1.1. Pravo na habitual sudu
residence, nationality and location of the assets.
They provide a reasonably wide jurisdiction to the EU national courts in suc-
Pravo vjerovnika na pristup sudu zaštićeno je čl. 6., st. 1.
cession matters as long as 72 some connection to the state exists. The habitual resi-
Europske
dence of thekonvencije.
deceased should Po ensure
tumačenjua “closeECHR-a,
and stablepristup sudu with
connection je inherentan
the State
73
čl. 6., st. 1.,
concerned a pravo
taking na pristup
into account je samoaims
the specific jedanof aspekt čl. 6. Konvencije.
this Regulation.” 46)
Lack of
habitual residence will either lead to subsidiary jurisdiction based primarily on
the location of the assets or to forum necessitatis based on the lack of another ap-
propriate forum. The rest of the Chapter II of the Regulation that is dedicated to
jurisdiction
70
U članku in succession
II/2. Ustava BiH matters deals with
regulirano je da procedural issueskonvencija
će se Europska such as limitation
za zaštitu
of proceedings
ljudskih (Article 12),
prava i temeljnih acceptance
sloboda and waiver
i njeni protokoli (Article
„direktno 13), seisingu of
primjenj[ivati] the i
Bosni
court (Article i14),
Hercegovini” da examination as to jurisdiction
će imati „prioritet nad svim(Article
ostalim15)zakonima”.
and admissibility
Ovakvu
(Article 16), lis
ustavnopravnu pendens USBiH
formulaciju (Article(primjerice,
17), related actions
odluke br. U(Article
5/98-III 18)
od 1.and security
srpnja 2000.,
točka 57 ili U 5/06 od 29. svibnja 2009.) je protumačio na način
measures (Article 19). The lis pendens rule differs significantly from the Croatian da je i ovaj akt dio
formalnog
one. ustavnog (svakako i materijalnog) prava.
The Succession Regulation prescribes the first come first served rule and the
71
Tako i podrobnije, Poruke s XVIII. Susret pravnika u gospodarstvu, održano
Croatian court can only stay the proceedings if foreign court was the first seised,
uVrnjačkoj Banji od 13. do 15. ožujka 2009., tradicionalnom mjestu47)okupljanja
if
pravnika, no
there is exclusive
s temom domestic
„Poslovno jurisdiction
pravo i europske and integracije“, u prisustvu The
in case of reciprocity. oko EU
400
lis pendens rule is easier to apply, but it still has its deficiencies
sudionika (pravnika iz gospodarstva, pravosuđa, uprave i drugih organizacija), uz učešćewhen applied
strictly in choice
80 podnosilaca of court
referata agreements.
iz zemlje, AlthoughMakedonije,
kao i iz48)Njemačke, the rules differ, the outcome
Hrvatske, Slovenije,
Mađarske,
will often be the same when the exclusive jurisdiction is not given to the Croatian
Crne Gore i Republike Srpske, Federacije Bosne i Hercegovine.
72
Bitnosince
courts je naglasiti
the thirddarequirement,
se čl. 6., st.the
1. reciprocity,
Europske konvencije
is presumed.primjenjuje na stečajni
postupak. Budući da da je Vlada Republike Hrvatske u presudi Ismeta Bačić v. Croatia,
42)
19.Succession Regulation,
lipnja 2006., Articlebr.
zahtjev 5. 43595/06. zastupala stajalište prema kojem čl. 6., st. 1.
43) Preamble to the Succession Regulation, Recital 27.
Konvencije nije primjenjiv na stečajni postupak, tvrdeći da stečajni postupak nije sporni
44) Succession Regulation, Article 7/1/c.
postupak i da u takvom postupku sudovi ne presuđuje o zahtjevima stranaka, već samo
45) In a case on interpretation of submission to a jurisdiction under the Brussels I Regulation the Court of Justice
utvrđuje
of imovinu
the European Unionstečajnog dužnikaeven
held that submission (par. 17.). Sud
overrides je to of
the choice osporio, ukazujući
court agreements. nacase
This relevantnu
might be
praksu
useful suda
in the (par.
context 19.)
of the premaregulation.
Succession kojoj jeSee:primjena
Case 150/80čl. Elefanten
6., st. 1. Konvencije
Schuh GmbH v Pierrena Jacqmain
stečajni
postupak
ECR [1981] neupitna.
01671, parasU10-11. In thatpotpadanja
pogledu case, the stečajnog postupka pod kategoriju građanskih
prava
46) i obveza
Preamble to thejudikatura je više puta
Succession Regulation, utvrdila
Recital 23. kao neupitno.
47)
73 Croatian PIL Act, Article 80.
Za istaknuti je da kao i u slučaju drugih odredaba Konvencije, mnogi pojmovi koji se
48) The same
koriste rule in the
u članku 6., Council
st. 1. Regulation (EC) No 44/2001
imaju autonomno značenjeof 22 December
i ponekad 2000 on jurisdiction
zahtijevaju and the
drugačije
recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters OJ 2001 L12/1 (Brussels I Regu-
tumačenje od tumačenja koje nude unutarnji zakoni ili nacionalne vlasti. Iznimka je
lation) invoked some criticism when applied to choice of court agreements since it produced uncertainty and
spomenuti
disregard čl. 14.
of parties’ Konvencije
expectations. See:koji se ne može
R. Fentiman, Accessprimijeniti,
to Justice and osim
Parallelako se ne uzme
Proceedings zajedno
in Europe, Cam-s
nekim drugim člankom Konvencije. Detaljnije
brige Law Journal (Camb. L. J.), 2/2004, 312-314; P. Bříza, Choice-Of-Court Agreements: Could the Hagueu
J. Omejec, Zabrana diskriminacije
praksiofEuropskog
Choice Court Agreements sudaConvention
za ljudska and theprava,
ReformZbornik Pravnog
of the Brussels fakulteta
I Regulation be the Sveučilišta
Way Out of theu
Gasser-Owusu
Zagrebu, vol. Disillusion?,
59, 2009., Journal
no. 5,of Private
886. International Law (Jour. P. I. L.), 3/2009, 537-563.
354
14
Dejan Bodul O potrebi i mogućnosti implementacije instituta
potrošačkog stečaja u pravni poredak Bosne i Hercegovine
No, pravo na pristup sudu nije apsolutno pravo.74 Naime, u predmetu
Shestakov v. Russia zbog kršenja prava iz čl. 6., st. 1. Konvencije, ECHR
navodi se da unatoč činjenici što je domaći sud dosudio u korist tužitelja,
pravo na pravovremenu ovrhu sudske presude ne ide tako daleko da se od
države zahtijeva da u stečajnim postupcima na sebe preuzme obvezu
isplate tražbina koja prema tuženoj osobi u privatnoj tužbi ima neka druga
privatna osoba.75
4.1.2. Pravo na mirno uživanje imovine
Konvencija za zaštitu ljudskih prava i temeljnih sloboda, štiti
imovinska prava.76 Dok čl. 1. Protokola br. 1. Konvencije štiti prava na
imovinu, čl. 6., st. 1. Konvencije predviđa postupovna jamstva za
rješavanje građanskopravnih sporova. Propust da se postupi po
pravomoćnoj presudi može rezultirati i kršenjem imovinskih prava.
Širokom interpretacijom pojma „imovina“ Sud podsjeća da imovina u čl.
1. Protokola br. 1 ima autonomno značenje, koje nije ograničeno na
vlasništvo nad fizičkim dobrima.77 U predmetu Bäck i drugi78 podnositelji
prijedloga imali su pravni položaj jamca u korist osobe N. Kako osoba N.
nije mogla vraćati dospjela dugovanja, jamci su bili prisiljeni platiti
kreditnoj instituciji iznos od oko 19.000,00 eura. Osoba N. se nakon toga
prijavila za postupak otpusta dugova u skladu s finskim Zakonom o
prilagođavanju duga iz 1993. i predložila plan otplate duga sudu na
odobrenje. Bäck, jamac, tomu se protivio, zbog činjenice da će, ako se
74
Detaljnije presuda, Yagtzilar and Others v. Greece, 15. siječnja 2004., zahtjev
br. 41727/98. te presuda, Truhli v. Croatia, 28. svibnja 2001., zahtjev br. 45424/99. s
dodatnim izvorima na koje se upućuje.
75
Odluka, Shestakov v. Russia, 18. svibnja 2002., zahtjev br. 48757/99.
76
Europska konvencija, Article 1. “Protection of Property”: Prijevod na hrvatski koji je
objavljen u službenom glasilu: “čl. 1. Zaštita vlasništva. Smatramo da je prijevod na
hrvatski jezik, kako je to objavljeno u službenom glasilu, nepravilan. Iz naslova iznad
odredbe čl. 1. dalo bi zaključiti da se štiti vlasništvo, a zapravo se štiti imovina (engl.
property) koja je daleko širi pojam od vlasništva (osim vlasništva postoje i druga stvarna
prava). Iz engleskog teksta odredbe čl. 1. moglo bi se smatrati i da se štiti ostvarivanje
posjedovnih prava (engl. Peaceful enjoyment of his possessions).
77
Detaljnije D. Gomien, Short Guide to the European Convention of Human Rights,
Zadar, 2007, 67.
78
Presuda, Back v. Finland, 20. srpnja 2004., zahtjev br. 37598/97.
355
ANALI Pravnog fakulteta Univerziteta u Zenici
The parties
odobri are alsoduga,
plan otplate allowedbititolišen
conclude
svogalegitimnog
choice of court agreement
očekivanja 79 but their
koje ima
right is limited because
80 it only allows for choice of court accompanied by choice
prema osobi N. Ipak, kako je N. našao zaposlenje, nadležni sud je
of law42) since “[t]he rules of this Regulation are devised so as to ensure that the
prihvatiodealing
authority prijedlog
with the i plan otplate
succession will,duga koji
in most je uzeobe uapplying
situations, obzir its
znatno
own
smanjenje
law.” 43)
agreement osobe
The primanja needs toN.bezbog prijašnje
in writing, datednezaposlenosti
and signed by thei propalih
parties.
Parties
poslovnih can poduhvata.
also expressly agree on jurisdiction
Tužiteljeva of the courtjeof
tražbina u konačnici thesmanjena
bila chosen law na
state after seising it.44)
The Regulation also allows parties
okvirno 360 eura. Slijedom toga, Bäck se žalio ECHRu pozivajući se na to the proceedings that
were not party to the choice of court agreement to submit to the chosen jurisdic-
povredu
tion, čl. 1.
ie appear Protokola
in the proceedings brojwithout
1. uz contesting
Konvenciju, tvrdeći 45)da ga je plan
jurisdiction.
otplate duga koji je odobrio sud lišio njegove imovine. Naime, čl. 1.
Jurisdictional rules in the Succession Regulation include several objective
Prvog
connectingprotokola
factors:uz Europsku
habitual konvenciju
residence, štiti and
nationality pravo na mirno
location of theuživanje
assets.
imovine. Kao što je to predmet i s drugim bitnim
They provide a reasonably wide jurisdiction to the EU national courts pravima zajamčenim
in suc-
cession matters as
Konvencijom, long as
države someograničiti
mogu connectionpravoto the na
state exists. The
imovinu. Onehabitual
mogu resi-
lišiti
dence of the deceased should ensure a “close and
pojedinca imovine u javnom interesu i pod uvjetima predviđenimstable connection with the State
concerned taking into account the specific aims of this Regulation.”46) Lack of
zakonom.
habitual Država,
residence will također,
either leadmože primjenjivati
to subsidiary zakone
jurisdiction based koje smatra
primarily on
the location of the assets or to forum necessitatis based on the lack of another ap-
79
Pojam „imovine“
propriate forum. The nijerest
ograničen
of the samo na postojeću
Chapter II of the imovinu.
Regulation Druga
thatdobra, uključujući
is dedicated to
ijurisdiction
zahtjeve u pogledu kojih podnositelj može tvrditi da on ili ona imaju
in succession matters deals with procedural issues such as limitation barem legitimno
očekivanje
of (koje (Article
proceedings mora biti12),
maloacceptance
konkretnije andprirode od same
waiver nade)13),
(Article da će biti ostvareni,
seising of the
također se kvalificiraju kao imovina. Tražbina se može smatrati imovinom samo kada je
court (Article 14), examination as to jurisdiction (Article 15) and admissibility
u dovoljnoj mjeri utvrđeno da se ta tražbina može realizirati (fran.
(Article 16), lis pendens (Article 17), related actions (Article 18) and security
suffisammentetabliepouretreexigible). Ne može se govoriti o legitimnom očekivanju ako
measures
ne postoji u(Article 19).
dovoljnoj mjeri lis pendens
Theutvrđena rule differs
tražbina. Vidi A.significantly from M.
Grgić; Z. Mataga; theLongar,
Croatian A.
one. ThePravo
Vilfan, Succession Regulation
na imovinu prescribesKonvenciji
prema Evropskoj the first come first served
o ljudskim rule Vodič
pravima, and theza
Croatian
primjenu court can Konvencije
Evropske only stay the proceedings
o ljudskim pravimaif foreign
i njenihcourt was theSavet
protokola, first seised,
Evrope,
if there is2007.,
Sarajevo, no exclusive
8. domestic jurisdiction and in case of reciprocity.47) The EU
lisČl. 1. Protokola
rule isbr.easier
1. uz Konvenciju ne itbavi
stillsehas
odnosima između pojedinaca
80
pendens to apply, but its deficiencies when appliedkoji su
čisto ugovorne
strictly in choiceprirode. Takoagreements.
of court sudska odluka48) koja nalaže da jedna osoba preda imovinu
Although the rules differ, the outcome
drugoj
will osobi,
often be npr. u skladu
the same s zakonima,
when kao što
the exclusive su ZOO (oduzimanje
jurisdiction is not given i prodaja imovine u
to the Croatian
sklopu ovrhe), deliktno pravo ili obiteljsko pravo (podjela naslijeđene imovine ili bračne
courts since the third requirement, the reciprocity, is presumed.
imovine), ne spadaju u domenu članka 1. Protokola br. 1. Ipak, u određivanju utjecaja
pravnih
42) odnosa
Succession između
Regulation, pojedinaca
Article 5. po pitanju imovine, organi Konvencije provjeravaju
43)
da Preamble
zakon nije to thestvorio
Succession Regulation,
takvu Recital 27.gdje bi se jednoj osobi mogla proizvoljno i
nejednakost
44) Succession Regulation,
nepravedno Article 7/1/c.
oduzeti imovina u korist druge osobe. U određenim okolnostima, međutim,
45) In a case on interpretation of submission to a jurisdiction under the Brussels I Regulation the Court of Justice
država može biti obvezna intervenirati kako bi regulirala postupanje privatnih osoba.
of the European Union held that submission even overrides the choice of court agreements. This case might be
Dakle,
useful čl. context
in the 1. Protokola br. 1 primjenjuje
of the Succession regulation. See:seCase
kada se sama
150/80 Elefantendržava umiješa
Schuh GmbH u imovinska
v Pierre Jacqmain
prava ili to dopusti trećoj osobi.
ECR [1981] 01671, paras 10-11. In that case, the Ovdje se može postaviti pitanje moguće diskriminacije.
Međutim
46) Preamblečl. 14.
to the Konvencije
Succession dakle,
Regulation, štiti
Recital 23. pravo da se uživaju imovinska prava bez
47) Croatian PIL Act,
diskriminacije. Articlese80.poziva na ovu odredbu, podnositelj mora dokazati da je imao
Kada
48) The same
imovinu rule in thečlanku
sukladno Council 1.Regulation
Protokola(EC) br.
No 44/2001
1. i daofje22uDecember
ostvarivanju2000 onprava
jurisdiction and the
na nju bio
recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters OJ 2001 L12/1 (Brussels I Regu-
izložen postupanju koje je bilo manje povoljno od postupanja prema drugim osobama u
lation) invoked some criticism when applied to choice of court agreements since it produced uncertainty and
sličnim situacijama. Teret utvrđivanja tada pada na državu da je takav drugačiji tretman
disregard of parties’ expectations. See: R. Fentiman, Access to Justice and Parallel Proceedings in Europe, Cam-
bio uLaw
brige skladu
Journalsa(Camb.
zakonom,L. J.),legitimnim
2/2004, 312-314; ciljem i daChoice-Of-Court
P. Bříza, su sredstva koja su upotrijebljena
Agreements: bila
Could the Hague
razmjerna
Choice tom
of Court cilju. Treba
Agreements napomenuti
Convention da kada
and the Reform of je
theosnova
Brussels različit
I Regulationtretman
be the imovina,polje
Way Out of the
slobodne procjene
Gasser-Owusu kojeJournal
Disillusion?, se daje of državi je šire. Detaljnije
Private International Law (Jour.
A.P.Grgić;
I. L.), 3/2009, 537-563.M. Longar,
Z. Mataga;
A. Vilfan, op. cit., 8. etseq.
356
14
Dejan Bodul O potrebi i mogućnosti implementacije instituta
potrošačkog stečaja u pravni poredak Bosne i Hercegovine
81
Stoga čl. 1. Protokola br. 1 uz Konvenciju obuhvaća tri različita pravila. Prvo pravilo,
navedeno u prvom stavku, opće je prirode i iskazuje načelo mirnog uživanja imovine.
Drugo pravilo, sadržano u drugoj rečenici istog stavka, obuhvaća lišavanje imovine i čini
ga podložnim određenim uvjetima. Treće pravilo, koje se nalazi u drugom stavku,
priznaje da države članice imaju pravo, između ostalog, kontrolirati korištenje imovine u
skladu s javnim interesom. Ova tri pravila nisu različita u smislu da su nepovezana:
drugo i treće pravilo odnose se na pojedinačne slučajeve ometanja prava na mirno
uživanje imovine, te ih stoga treba tumačiti u svjetlu općeg načela iskazanog u prvom
pravilu. Vidi presudu, Sporrong i Lonnrothv. Švedske, 23. rujna 1982., zahtjev br.
7151/75. i 71752/75. te presudu James and others v. The United Kingdom, 21. veljače
1986., zahtjev br. 8793/79.
82
Čl. 1. Konvencije ne jamči pravo na punu kompenzaciju u svim okolnostima, jer
legitimni ciljevi javnog interesa mogu tražiti naknadu nižu od pune tržišne vrijednosti
(presuda, Lithgow and Othersv.the United Kingdom, 8. srpnja 1986., zahtjev br.
9006/80., 9262/81., 9263/81., 9265/81., 9266/81., 9313/81., 9405/81.).
83
Detaljnije o čl. 6. Konvencije J.W. Mark, etal., European Human Rights Law, Textand
Materials, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008., 1-957. te S. Grbić, Pošteno suđenje
u građanskim postupcima u Hrvatskoj u svjetlu članka 6., stavka 1. Europske konvencije
o ljudskim pravima, Pravni fakultet, Rijeci, 2014., 16-29.
357
ANALI Pravnog fakulteta Univerziteta u Zenici
The parties
načela are also
pravičnog allowed topodrazumijeva
postupka conclude a choice seofi court agreementjednakost
postupovna but their
right is limited
84 because it only allows for choice of court accompanied by choice
stranaka. Ipak ako se radi o građanskom sporu, jednakost strana u
of law42) since “[t]he rules of this Regulation are devised so as to ensure that the
postupkudealing
authority ne mora withbitithe apsolutna. Europski
succession will, in mostsud je u svojoj
situations, praksi its
be applying utvrdio
own
law.”
da je bilo
43)
The agreement needs to be uin skladu
kakvo ograničenje writing, sdated
čl. 6.
anddopušteno samo
signed by the pod
parties.
Parties can also expressly agree on jurisdiction of the court
sljedećim uvjetima: ako teži legitimnom cilju i ako postoji razuman odnos of the chosen law
state after seising
razmjernosti it.44) The
između Regulation
korištenih also allows
sredstava parties
i cilja kojem to the
se proceedings that
teži.85 Slijedom
were not party to the choice of court agreement to submit to the chosen jurisdic-
toga ieprvo
tion, ograničenje
appear je u okviru
in the proceedings obveze
without državejurisdiction.
contesting da na temelju45) čl. 6., st. 1.
Konvencije osigura učinkovit pristup sudu, što ne mora nužno završiti
Jurisdictional rules in the Succession Regulation include several objective
connecting nadležnog
odlukom tijelaresidence,
factors: habitual da se nationality
osigura besplatna
and location pravna
of the pomoć.
assets.
They provide a reasonably wide jurisdiction to the EU national courtsdovoljno
Primjerice, ne postoji obveza države da stranci, koja nema in suc-
cession matters
sredstava, as long
osigura as some
pravnu connection
pomoć koja tobi the
mustate exists. The
omogućila dahabitual resi-
se uspješno
dence of the deceased should ensure86a “close and stable connection with the State
nosi s imućnijim protivnikom. Pitanje je li potrebno osigurati pravnu
concerned taking into account the specific aims of this Regulation.”46) Lack of
pomoć utvrđivat će se u zavisnosti o konkretnim činjenicama i
habitual residence will either lead to subsidiary jurisdiction based primarily on
okolnostima
the location of svakog
the assetspojedinog
or to forumslučaja. Između
necessitatis based ostalog, uzimat
on the lack će se
of another ap-u
propriate forum.jeThe
obzir i koliko samrest značajan
of the Chapter
postupak zathe
II of podnositelja
Regulation predstavke, koliko
that is dedicated to
jurisdiction in succession matters deals with procedural issues
su složena važeća zakonska rješenja i postupci i može li podnositelj such as limitation
of proceedings (Article 12), acceptance and waiver (Article 13), seising of the
predstavke sam sebe zastupati pred sudom.87
court (Article 14), examination as to jurisdiction (Article 15) and admissibility
16), lis ograničenje
(Article Drugo pendens (Article 17),jerelated
vezano actionsstranke.
uz karakter (Article Naime,
18) and usecurity
nekim
measures (Article 19). The lis pendens rule differs significantly
predmetima, pristup sudu je odbijen zbog karaktera same stranke. ECHR from the Croatian
one. The Succession Regulation prescribes the first come first served rule and the
je prihvatio
Croatian courtda
canograničenja
only stay thekakva su onaifkoja
proceedings se odnose
foreign court wasnathe
maloljetnike,
first seised,
mentalno
if there is nooboljele
exclusiveosobe,
domestic„parničare
jurisdictionkoji
and insucase
bankrotirali“
of reciprocity.i 47)one
The koji
EU
88
lis pendens
šikaniraju druge, teže legitimnom cilju.
rule is easier to apply, but it still has its deficiencies when applied
strictly in choice of court agreements.48) Although the rules differ, the outcome
will often be the same when the exclusive jurisdiction is not given to the Croatian
courts since the third requirement, the reciprocity, is presumed.
84
42)Presuda,
SuccessionNeumeister v. Austria,
Regulation, Article 5. 27. lipnja 1968., zahtjev br. 1936/63.
85
43)Presuda,
Preamble toAshingdane
the Successionv.Regulation,
United Kingdom,
Recital 27. 28. svibnja 1985, zahtjev br. 8225/78.
86
44) Succession Regulation,
Detaljnije 7/1/c.Morris v. the United Kingdom, 15. veljače 2005., zahtjev
Articleand
presuda, Steel
45)
br. In68416/01.
a case on interpretation
Može seof submission
postaviti topitanje
a jurisdiction under the Brussels
opravdanosti I Regulation
zabrane the Court
pokretanja of Justice
parničnog
of the European Union held that submission even overrides the choice of court agreements. This case might be
postupka za određene kategorije podnositelja zahtjeva, primjerice, zatvorenike. Sud je
useful in the context of the Succession regulation. See: Case 150/80 Elefanten Schuh GmbH v Pierre Jacqmain
našao povredu čl. 6., st. 1. kada je jednom zatvoreniku uskraćena mogućnost pokretanja
ECR [1981] 01671, paras 10-11. In that case, the
parničnog
46) Preamble postupka (presuda,
to the Succession Golder
Regulation, v. the
Recital 23. United Kingdom, 21. veljače 1975., zahtjev
br. 4451/70. i kada je s
47) Croatian PIL Act, Article 80.velikim zakašnjenjem zatvorenicima omogućena pravna pomoć
radiThepokretanja
48) parničnog
same rule in the postupka.
Council Regulation (EC)Vidi presudu
No 44/2001 of 22 Campbell
December 2000 andon jurisdiction
Fell v. and the
United
recognition
Kingdom,and 28.enforcement of judgments
lipnja 1984., zahtjevinbr.civil and commercial
7819/77., 7878/77.matters OJ 2001 L12/1 (Brussels I Regu-
lation)
87 invoked Steel
Presuda, some criticism when applied
and Morris v. theto choice
Unitedof Kingdom,
court agreements
15. since it produced
veljače 2005.,uncertainty
zahtjev and br.
disregard of parties’ expectations. See: R. Fentiman, Access to Justice and Parallel Proceedings in Europe, Cam-
68416/01.
brige
88 Law Journal (Camb. L. J.), 2/2004, 312-314; P. Bříza, Choice-Of-Court Agreements: Could the Hague
M. ofv.Court
Choice the Agreements
United Kingdom,
Convention52 and DR 269., ofcit.
the Reform the iz MOL,I Regulation
Brussels Nula; K.beHarbi,
the Way Pravo na
Out of the
pravično suđenje, Vodič za primjenu članka 6. Evropske konvencije o ljudskim
Gasser-Owusu Disillusion?, Journal of Private International Law (Jour. P. I. L.), 3/2009, 537-563. pravima,
Savet Evrope, Beograd, 2007., 76.
358
14
Dejan Bodul O potrebi i mogućnosti implementacije instituta
potrošačkog stečaja u pravni poredak Bosne i Hercegovine
89
High Court, 2007., IEHC 90. (materijali dostupni kod autora).
90
Čl. 85., st. 4. Bankruptcy Act 1988, No. 27/1988. Dostupno na mrežnim stranicama:
http://www.irishstatu tebook.Ie/1988/en/act/pub/0027/index.html (17.05.2012.).
91
J. Spooner, Nottingham Law School’s International Insolvency Law Conference,
srijeda, 15. rujna 2010. „A Case Study of Divergences and Convergences in National
Personal Insolvency Laws in the Context of European “Bankruptcy Tourism“ (materijali
dostupni kod autora).
92
Tekstovi ustava dostupni na mrežnim stranicama:
http://www.servat.unibe.ch/law/icl/index.html (17.05.2014.)
93
Detaljnije Interights, Paket za obuku - Pravo na slobodu i bezbednost (čl. 5.) prema
pravilima Europskog suda za ljudska prava, 2005. 1-75.
359
ANALI Pravnog fakulteta Univerziteta u Zenici
budeThezakonito.
parties areUalso allowed
biti, to conclude
Konvencija a choice
se ovdje of court
odnosi na agreement
unutarnjebut theiri
pravo
right is limited
propisuje obvezu because
da seit poštuju
only allows for choicepropisi
postupovni of courtunutarnjeg
accompanied by choice
prava, ali se
of law42) since “[t]he rules of this Regulation are devised so as to ensure that the
pored toga zahtijeva da svako lišenje slobode bude u skladu s ciljem čl. 5.
authority dealing with the succession will, in most situations, be applying 94 its own
Konvencije
law.” 43) - zaštitomneeds
The agreement pojedinca odwriting,
to be in proizvoljnosti
dated andpostupanja.
signed by theČl. 5., st.
parties.
(1.) (b.),
Parties can (d.), (e.) i (f.)agree
also expressly Konvencije reguliraju
on jurisdiction of thepritvaranja
court of theuchosen
kontekstu
law
state after seising
građanskog prava. it. The
95
44)
VažnoRegulation also allows
je napomenuti parties
da se ova to the proceedings
odredba ne odnosithat na
were not party to the choice of court agreement to submit to
ispunjenje ugovornih obveza: čl. 1. Protokola br. 4. propisuje da nitko the chosen jurisdic-
tion, ie appear in the proceedings without contesting jurisdiction.45)
neće biti lišen slobode samo zato što nije u stanju ispuniti ugovornu
Jurisdictional
obvezu. 96 rules in the Succession Regulation include several objective
connecting factors: habitual residence, nationality and location of the assets.
They
4.2.3.provide
Pravo a reasonably
na privatnost wide jurisdiction to the EU national courts in suc-
cession matters as long as some connection to the state exists. The habitual resi-
dence ofKonvencija omogućuje
the deceased should ensurezaštitu
a “closeprava
and stablena connection
privatnost.withU the mnogim
State
državama taking
concerned pravo intona privatnost
account thenije izričito
specific aims zaštićeno. Pravo na privatnost,
of this Regulation.” 46)
Lack of
habitual residence will either
prema međunarodnim lead tostandardima,
pravnim subsidiary jurisdiction
uključujebased primarilyi on
tri jamstva to:
the location of the assets or to forum necessitatis based on the lack of another ap-
pravo na poštovanje privatnog ili obiteljskog života, doma i prepiske. Čl.
propriate forum. The rest of the Chapter II of the Regulation that is dedicated to
8. Konvencije,
jurisdiction jedan je matters
in succession od onih, kojiwith
deals imaju najšire issues
procedural područjesuchprimjene.
as limitation On
pokriva
of različite
proceedings aspekte
(Article 12),ljudskog
acceptance života
and iwaiver
djelovanja, počevši
(Article od situacija
13), seising of the
court (Article 14), examination as to jurisdiction (Article
kada se država miješa u najprivatnije stvari pojedinca, do onih kada je 15) and admissibility
(Article 16), lis pendens
država obvezna (Article
intervenirati. 97 17), related actions (Article 18) and security
Osnovna je ideja zaštite prava, na koje se
measures (Article 19). The lis pendens rule differs significantly from the Croatian
primjenjuje
one. čl. 8. Konvencije,
The Succession da postoje
Regulation prescribes thesfere života
first come svakog
first served pojedinca
rule and theu
Croatian court can only stay the proceedings if foreign court was the firstkada
koje se država ne smije miješati, osim u onim situacijama su
seised,
kumulativno
if ispunjeni
there is no exclusive uvjetijurisdiction
domestic iz čl. 8. and Konvencije: da takvo miješanje
in case of reciprocity. 47)
The EU
lis pendens
bude u skladu sa zakonom, da ima legitimni cilj, odnosno da štiti applied
rule is easier to apply,
98 but it still has its deficiencies when prava i
strictly in choice99of court agreements.48) Although the rules differ, the outcome 100
interesa drugih i kada je ono neophodno demokratskom društvu.
will often be the same when the exclusive jurisdiction is not given to the Croatian
courts since the third requirement, the reciprocity, is presumed.
42)
94 Succession Regulation, Article 5.
43) Presuda,
Preamble to Bizotto v. Greece
the Succession 15. studeni
Regulation, Recital 1996.,
27. zahtjev br. 22126/93.
95
44) Detaljnije J. S. Ressler,
Succession Regulation, Civil Contempt Confinement and the Bankruptcy Abuse
Article 7/1/c.
Prevention
45) In a case onand Consumer
interpretation Protection
of submission to a of 2005.: under
jurisdiction An examination of Debtor
the Brussels I Regulation Incarceration
the Court of Justice
of
inthe
theEuropean
ModernUnion Age,held that submission
Rutgers even overrides
Law Journal, vol. 37,the 2006.,
choice ofno.
court
1, agreements.
355. etseq.This case might be
useful
96 in the context
Detaljnije of the Succession
D. Gomien, 19. See: Case 150/80 Elefanten Schuh GmbH v Pierre Jacqmain
regulation.
op. cit.,
ECR [1981] 01671, paras 10-11. In that case, the
97
Pravo na poštovanje nečijeg doma ne obuhvaća pravo na dom per se. Pravo na
46) Preamble to the Succession Regulation, Recital 23.
poštovanje doma je građansko i političko pravo. Ono ne predstavlja ekonomsko i
47) Croatian PIL Act, Article 80.
48) The same rule in koje
socijalno pravo bi bilo
the Council izvan (EC)
Regulation djelokruga
No 44/2001 Konvencije.
of 22 DecemberSukladno tomu, čl.and
2000 on jurisdiction 8. the
ne
nameće nikakvu
recognition and enforcementobvezu državi indacivilosigura
of judgments smještaj
and commercial beskućnicima
matters ili da osigura
OJ 2001 L12/1 (Brussels I Regu-
adekvatan
lation) invoked smještaj. Detaljnije
some criticism presuda,
when applied VelossaBarretto
to choice v. Portugal,
of court agreements 26. listopada
since it produced 1995.,
uncertainty and
disregard
zahtjev of br.parties’ expectations. See: R. Fentiman, Access to Justice and Parallel Proceedings in Europe, Cam-
18072/91.
brige
98
ULawpresudi
Journal (Camb.
Narinen L. J.),
v.2/2004, 312-314;1.P. Bříza,
Findland, lipnjaChoice-Of-Court
2004., zahtjev Agreements: Could the Hague
br. 45027/98., nad
Choice of Court Agreements Convention and the Reform of the Brussels I Regulation be the Way Out of the
podnositeljem je proglašen stečaj. Sudskim je nalogom za službenog stečajnog
Gasser-Owusu Disillusion?, Journal of Private International Law (Jour. P. I. L.), 3/2009, 537-563.
upravitelja njegovog imanja imenovan odvjetnik. On je tražio od poštanske službe da
360
14
Dejan Bodul O potrebi i mogućnosti implementacije instituta
potrošačkog stečaja u pravni poredak Bosne i Hercegovine
361
ANALI Pravnog fakulteta Univerziteta u Zenici
The parties
poštivati arena
pravo also allowed to conclude
dostojanstvo a choice 103
pri provođenju. of court
U tomagreement
pogledubut their
moraju
right is limited because it only allows for choice of court accompanied by choice
uzeti i prava pojedinaca koji ovise o dužnicima potrošačima, nad čijom se
of law42) since “[t]he rules of104
this Regulation are devised so as to ensure that the
imovinom
authority provodi
dealing withstečaj.
the succession will, in most situations, be applying its own
law.”
4.2.5. The
43)
agreement
Pravo na mirno needs to be in imovine
uživanje writing, dated and signed by the parties.
Parties can also expressly agree on jurisdiction of the court of the chosen law
state after
U seising it.44) Thepostupku
stečajnom Regulation also allows
znatno je parties to the proceedings
ograničeno that
raspolaganje
were not party to the choice of court agreement to submit
imovinom dužnika. Naime, miješanje u pravo na mirno uživanje to the chosen jurisdic-
imovine
tion, ie appear in the proceedings without contesting jurisdiction. 105
45)
dopušteno je samo ako je: propisano zakonom, neophodno u
Jurisdictional rules in the
106 Succession Regulation include
demokratskom društvu i u javnom interesu. Sva tri uvjeta moraju several objective
biti
connecting factors: habitual residence, nationality and location of the assets.
kumulativno ispunjena. Ako nije ispunjen samo jedan od njih,
They provide a reasonably wide jurisdiction to the EU national courts in suc-smatrat će
se da je
cession došloasdo
matters kršenja
long as someKonvencije.
connection toMeđutim, uvjetThe
the state exists. javnog interesa
habitual resi-
zahtijeva
dence više
of the od zakonitog
deceased cilja, aodnosno
should ensure cilja
“close and kojiconnection
stable nije nerazuman.
with the Javni
State
concerned taking into
interes implicira account
pravičnu the specific
ravnotežu aims cilja
između of this
zaRegulation.”
koji se navodiLack
46)
da jeofu
habitual residence will either lead to subsidiary jurisdiction based primarily on
the location of the assets or to forum necessitatis based on the lack of another ap-
propriate forum. The rest of the Chapter II of the Regulation that is dedicated to
jurisdiction
103 in succession matters deals with procedural issues such as limitation
Detaljnije Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on
of
Legal solutions to(Article
proceedings 12), acceptance
Debt Problems, Council of and waiver
Europe (Article
CM/Rec 13), 8,seising
(2007) of the
2007. op. cit.,
court (Article
par. 3., st. (b). 14), examination as to jurisdiction (Article 15) and admissibility
(Article
104
Stoga,16),
osobitulis pozornost
pendens (Article 17), related
mora posvetiti djeci kojaactions
žive u(Article 18) and
insolventnim security
obiteljima, pa
imeasures
Konvencija (Article 19). The lis pendens rule differs significantly from the Croatian
o pravima djece priznaje svakom djetetu pravo na životni standard
one. njegovu tjelesnom,
The Succession
primjeren Regulationduševnom, duhovnom,
prescribes the first moralnom
come firstiserved
društvenom razvoju
rule and the
(čl. 27.). U tom pogledu zanimljiv je predmet u Švedskoj gdje je
Croatian court can only stay the proceedings if foreign court was the first seised,dužnikov prijedlog za
otpusta dugova odbačen, iako je dužnik ispunjavao pretpostavke za ostvarenja 47) prava na
if there is no exclusive domestic jurisdiction and in case of reciprocity. The EU
novi financijski početak, čime se dovela u pitanje egzistencija njega i njegove
lis pendens rule
sedmeročlane is easier
obitelji. to apply,j. but
Detaljnije it still has its deficiencies
Niemi-Kiesiläinen, Consumer when appliedin
Bankruptcy
strictly in choice of court agreements. 48)
Although the rules
Comparison: Do We Cure a Market Failure or a Social Problem? Osgoode Hall Law differ, the outcome
will often
Journal, be 37,
vol. the 1999.,
same when the exclusive
no. 1/2, 501. U ovom jurisdiction
pogledu is not givenjetodatheseCroatian
zanimljivo na razini
courts
europskihsince the third
država requirement,
pokušala utvrditi the reciprocity,
definicija is presumed.
insolventnosti za potrebe potrošačkog
stečaja koja, prvenstveno zbog uzdržavanih članova, kao polaznu točku uzima
42) Succession Regulation, Article 5.
kućanstvo, a ne potrošača. Vidi D. Davydoff, G. Naacke, E. Dessart, N. Jentzsch, F.
43) Preamble to the Succession Regulation, Recital 27.
Figueira,
44) SuccessionM.Regulation,
Rothemund, W.7/1/c.
Article Mueller, E. Kempson, A. Atkinson i A. Finney, Towards a
CommonOperational
45) European
In a case on interpretation DefinitionofOverindebtedness,
of submission Directorate
to a jurisdiction under the Brussels I Regulation - General
the Court for
of Justice
Employment,
of the European Union Social
held Affairs and even
that submission Equal Opportunities
overrides the choice ofUnit, Inclusion,This
court agreements. Social Policy
case might be
useful
Aspects in theofcontext of the Succession
Migration, regulation.
Streamlining of See: Case 150/80
Social Elefanten
Policies, Schuh GmbH
European v Pierre Jacqmain
Commission, 2008.,
ECR
33-37. [1981] 01671, paras 10-11. In that case, the
46)
105 Preamble to the Succession Regulation, Recital 23.
U presudi James v. United Kingdom, 21. veljače 1986., zahtjev br. 8793/79. Sud je
47) Croatian PIL Act, Article 80.
naglasio da …je stalno bio mišljenja da se izrazi “zakon” i “zakonit” u Konvenciji ne
48) The same rule in the Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the
odnose samo na domaće zakone, već i na kvalitetu zakona, zahtijevajući da budu
recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters OJ 2001 L12/1 (Brussels I Regu-
kompatibilni
lation) s vladavinom
invoked some criticism when prava.
applied to choice of court agreements since it produced uncertainty and
106
Takva
disregard mjeraexpectations.
of parties’ mora uspostaviti pravednu
See: R. Fentiman, Accessravnotežu između
to Justice and Parallel zahtjeva
Proceedingsopćeg interesa
in Europe, Cam-
zajednice
brige i zahtjeva
Law Journal (Camb. temeljnih prava
L. J.), 2/2004, pojedinca.
312-314; Takva ravnoteža
P. Bříza, Choice-Of-Court neće biti
Agreements: Couldpostignuta
the Hague
tamo gdje
Choice pojedinac,
of Court Agreementsvlasnik imovine,
Convention and the podnosi
Reform of pojedinačan i pretjeran
the Brussels I Regulation teret.
be the WayDetaljnije
Out of the
Gasser-Owusu
A. Grgić; Z.Disillusion?,
Mataga; M. Journal of Private
Longar, International
A. Vilfan, Law (Jour.
op. cit., 13. P. I. L.), 3/2009, 537-563.
362
14
Dejan Bodul O potrebi i mogućnosti implementacije instituta
potrošačkog stečaja u pravni poredak Bosne i Hercegovine
107
Kako je Sud dalje i naznačio …Međutim, ovim se ovo pitanje ne rješava. Ne samo da
mjera kojom se neko lišava imovine mora, činjenično i načelno, slijediti legitiman cilj u
javnom interesu, već mora postojati i razuman odnos proporcionalnosti između rabljenih
sredstava i cilja koji se želi ostvariti (v. između ostalog i, mutatis mutandis, presudu
Ashingdane v. United Kingdom, 28. svibnja 1985., zahtjev br. 8225/78). Ovaj drugi
zahtjev izražen je na drugi način u presudi SporrongandLönnroth v. Sweden, 23. rujna
1982., zahtjev br. 7151/75., 7152/75. pojmom pravične ravnoteže, koja se mora
uspostaviti između zahtjeva od općeg interesa zajednice i zahtjeva zaštite temeljnih
prava pojedinca. Potrebna ravnoteža neće postojati ako osoba mora snositi pojedinačan i
pretjeran teret (ibid., 28., st. 73). Iako je u toj presudi Sud govorio u kontekstu općeg
pravila mirnog uživanja imovine iz prve rečenice prvog stavka, ukazuje da je traganje za
ovakvom ravnotežom […] odraženo u strukturi čl. 1. u cjelini (ibid., 26., st. 69.).
108
Detaljnije G. Dutertre, op. cit., 33. etseq.
109
Pravo na sud je i pravo na ovrhu sudske odluke (presuda, Golder v. the United
Kingdom, 21. veljače 1975., zahtjev br. 4451/70. i presuda, Georgiadis v. Greece, 29.
svibnja 1997., zahtjev br. 21522/93.).
363
ANALI Pravnog fakulteta Univerziteta u Zenici
The parties
moraju are also allowed
biti učinkoviti te netosmiju
conclude a choice
dopustiti of court agreement
izbjegavanje ovrhe but their
sudskih
right is limited because it only allows for choice of court accompanied by choice
odluka. U pogledu potrošača, važno je da se ne donose neprovedive
of law42) since “[t]he rules of this Regulation are devised so as to ensure that the
odluke. dealing
authority Naime,with akothe
potrošač newill,
succession može ispuniti
in most svojebedospjele
situations, applying obveze,
its own
provedba
law.” 43)
Theodluke će biti
agreement onemogućena,
needs a integritet
to be in writing, dated and suda će biti
signed okrnjen
by the na
parties.
Parties can also expressly agree on jurisdiction of the court of
način da izdaje odluke koji neće biti provedive. Stoga navedeno potvrđujethe chosen law
state after seising it.44) The Regulation also allows parties to the proceedings that
tvrdnju da je nužno razlikovati dužnike koji ne mogu platiti i one koji ne
were not party to the choice of court agreement to submit to the chosen jurisdic-
žele ie
tion, platiti.
appearAko zakonodavac
in the ne može
proceedings without osigurati
contesting učinkovit45)sustav ovrhe,
jurisdiction.
drugi oblici „privatne pravde“, nerijetko i samopomoći, mogu se razviti i
Jurisdictional rules in the Succession
110 Regulation include several objective
dalje ugroziti vladavinu prava. Ovo bi stvoriloand
connecting factors: habitual residence, nationality mogućnost da the
location of vjerovnici
assets.
111
unajme privatne agencije kako bi namirili svoj dospjeli dug.
They provide a reasonably wide jurisdiction to the EU national courts in suc-Vladavina
cession matters asučinkovit
prava zahtijeva long as some connection
mehanizam datobithe state exists.
uklonio potrebuThevjerovnika
habitual resi-za
dence of the deceased should ensure
pribjegavanjem ovim situacijama. a “close and stable connection with the State
concerned taking into account the specific aims of this Regulation.” Lack of46)
364
14
Dejan Bodul O potrebi i mogućnosti implementacije instituta
potrošačkog stečaja u pravni poredak Bosne i Hercegovine
načelo ugovornog zakonodavstva, ne smije se izgubiti iz vida problem
insolventnih pojedinaca tako da zakon mora priznati da ova načela moraju
biti ograničena kada je ostvarivanje ugovora nemoguće.114
ZAKLJUČNA RAZMATRANJA
Iako je trebalo dosta vremena da problematika potrošačkog stečaja
postane aktualna tema i konačno dobije svoje zasluženo mjesto pri
reformi stečajnog zakonodavstva, reforme koje se intenzivno vrše
posljednjih nekoliko godina daju nam slobodu konstatirati kako bosansko
hercegovački zakonodavci prate tendencije u stečajnom pravu. Stoga uz
opće reforme, usklađivanje bosanskohercegovačkog pravnog sustava s
europskim modelima insolvencijskih zakona i rast potrošačkog
mentaliteta, kao i tendencije suvremenih europskih zakonodavstava,
možemo očekivati da će se uskoro implementirati institut otpusta dugova
za potrošače. Ipak, recepcijom propisa o potrošačkom stečaju izazovi tek
počinju. O tome svjedoče brojne izmjene i dopune regulative potrošačkog
stečaja kako u europskom kontinentalnom pravnom krugu, tako i onih
koji pripadaju anglo-američkom pravnom krugu.Štoviše,uočeno je da se i
uporedbeno pravnoj teoriji i u praksi javljaju mnoge nedoumice u vezi s
modelom i primjenom potrošačko stečajnog zakonodavstva.Naime,
većina, ne samo europskih zemalja, ima specifično uređenje potrošačkog
stečaja koje ima svoje prednosti i nedostatke. S nomotehničkog stajališta
svakako je mudrije transplantirati određeni zakon iz zemlje koja ima više
tradicije, znanja i iskustva u određenom pravnom području negoli
prolaziti kroz mukotrpan proces samostalnog iznalaženja zakona.
Polazište za bosansko hercegovačke propise o stečaju bio je njemački
Insolvencijski zakon iz 1999. koji je i sam radikalno izmijenio njemačko
insolvencijsko zakonodavstvo. Njemački zakonodavac omogućio je
uniformiranu mogućnost za sve insolventne potrošače. Svaki je dužnik po
utvrđivanju insolventnosti obvezan napraviti predvidljivu žrtvu i to na
način da kroz šestogodišnje razdoblje dobrog vladanja ustupi
vjerovnicima zapljenivu imovinu. Kada je otpust dugova, kao u
njemačkom pravu jasan i predodređen, put za dobivanje otpusta može biti
114
Detaljnije S. L. Schwarcz, „Rethinking Freedom of Contract: A Bankruptcy
Paradigm“, Texas Law Review, vol. 77, 1999., no. 1, 515. etseq.
365
ANALI Pravnog fakulteta Univerziteta u Zenici
standardiziran
The parties ares also malo odstupanja.
allowed to conclude Stoga se moraju
a choice of courtnametnuti
agreement but razumni
their
right is limited
standardi, because itiskustvo,
a njemačko only allows uzfor svechoice of court pruža
nedostatke, accompanied
primjerbykako choice se
of law 42)
since “[t]he rules of this Regulation
takav proces može razvijati u europskim potrošačko stečajnim sustavima.are devised so as to ensure that the
authority dealing with the succession will, in most situations, be applying its own
Slijedom
law.” 43)
Thetoga,
agreementnesumnjivo
needs to je be indawriting,
njemački datedmodeland signedpredstavlja model
by the parties.
pravičnosti.
Parties can also S gledišta
expressly dosljednosti, njemačkiofsustav
agree on jurisdiction the courtčini ofsethe
najpošteniji
chosen law iz
state after seising
perspektive it. The iRegulation
potrošača
44)
legitimnog alsoizvora
allows parties
socijalneto theedukacije.
proceedingsIpak, that
were not party to the choice of court agreement
reforme su nužne budući da su obvezatni planovi otplate duga uzrokovali to submit to the chosen jurisdic-
tion, ie appear in the proceedings without contesting jurisdiction.45)
probleme potrošačima koji ih ne mogu ispuniti. Stoga poredbeni utjecaj,
Jurisdictional rules in the Succession Regulation include several objective
pa prvenstveno utjecaj njemačkog kontinentalnog prava, ne smije biti
connecting factors: habitual residence, nationality and location of the assets.
provide aOreasonably
precijenjen.
They određenom widekonsenzusu
jurisdiction tomože the EUsenational govoriti u in
courts vezisuc-s
činjenicom
cession mattersdaas long je preventivno
as some connection djelovanje
to the state te exists.
pokušaj sprječavanja
The habitual resi-
dence of the deceased should ensure a “close
prezaduženosti dao korisne rezultate. Međutim, ne postoji prijedlog and stable connection with the State
concerned taking into account the specific aims of this Regulation.”46) Lack of
optimalnog modela za sprječavanje prezaduženosti, a još manje modela
habitual residence will either lead to subsidiary jurisdiction based primarily on
potrošačkog
the location ofstečaja.
the assets U orsvakom
to forum slučaju potrebno
necessitatis basedjeon uzeti u obzir
the lack u kojojap-
of another su
mjeri kretanja
propriate forum. u Theekonomiji
rest of thejedne Chapter zemlje
II of theu skladu
Regulation s modernim tržišnim
that is dedicated to
jurisdiction in succession matters deals with procedural
zahtjevima, jer implementacija zakonskih rješenja po uzoru na razvijene issues such as limitation
of proceedings (Article 12), acceptance and waiver (Article 13), seising of the
zemlje, u uvjetima kada ne postoje tržišna svijest i ponašanje, može imati
court (Article 14), examination as to jurisdiction (Article 15) and admissibility
negativne
(Article 16),učinke.
lis pendens Kako ne postoji,
(Article 17), related tzv.actions
“pareto 18) and odnosno
optimum”,
(Article security
rješenje (Article
measures koje bi19). biloThe idealno
lis pendensi prihvatljivo za sve sudionike
rule differs significantly from thepostupka
Croatian
one. The Succession Regulation prescribes
oslobađanja od preostalih dugova, zakonska regulacija potrošačkog the first come first served rule and the
Croatian court can only stay the proceedings if foreign court was the first seised,
stečaja trebala bi se oslanjati na kontinentalnu pravnu tradiciju, s tim da se
if there is no exclusive domestic jurisdiction and in case of reciprocity.47) The EU
revidiraju
lis pendens rule pojedini
is easierinstituti,
to apply,bez but radikalne
it still has its izmjene temeljnih
deficiencies načela.
when applied
Određena rješenja koja bi se mogla pokazati prikladnim „bliža“ su
strictly in choice of court agreements. 48)
Although the rules differ, the outcome
will often beizthe
rješenjima same whenanglo-američkog
legislative the exclusive jurisdiction pravnogiskruga, not given pa to
prithedonošenju
Croatian
courts since the third requirement, the reciprocity, is presumed.
potrošačko stečajne regulative treba izabrati ona koja se najbolje uklapaju
42) Succession Regulation, Article 5.
u postojeći koncept stečajnih propisa. U tom smislu moguće je da se
43) Preamble to the Succession Regulation, Recital 27.
određena
44) Succession rješenja ne pokažu
Regulation, Article 7/1/c. idealnima, ali će ih valjati „nametnuti“ u
45) In a case on interpretation of submission to a jurisdiction under the Brussels I Regulation the Court of Justice
danim
of the Europeanokolnostima. U kojoj
Union held that submission će sethe choice
even overrides mjeriof court
donošenjem
agreements. Thispropisa
case might beo
useful in the context of the Succession regulation. See: Case 150/80 Elefanten Schuh GmbH v Pierre Jacqmain
potrošačkom stečaju, a čije je donošenje nužnost, uspjeti u svemu onome
ECR [1981] 01671, paras 10-11. In that case, the
štoPreamble
46) bi timtozakonom
the Successionvaljalo ostvariti
Regulation, Recital 23. ovisiti će o nizu čimbenika. U prvom
47) Croatian PIL Act, Article 80.
redu
48) Theosameunaprjeđenju
rule in the Councili učinkovitom
Regulation (EC) No provođenju ovršnog2000
44/2001 of 22 December postupka, reformi
on jurisdiction and the
sudova, novim uređenjem pravila o prinudnoj naplati itd. Novi propis
recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters OJ 2001 L12/1 (Brussels I Regu-o
lation) invoked some criticism when applied to choice of court agreements since it produced uncertainty and
potrošačkom
disregard stečaju trebao
of parties’ expectations. bi riješiti
See: R. Fentiman, Accessproblem
to Justice andogromnog brojain Europe,
Parallel Proceedings potrošačaCam-
brige Law Journal (Camb. L. J.), 2/2004, 312-314; P. Bříza, Choice-Of-Court Agreements: Could the Hague
koji je odavno „spreman“ za stečaj i veliki broj onih za koje se očekuje da
Choice of Court Agreements Convention and the Reform of the Brussels I Regulation be the Way Out of the
će imati Disillusion?,
Gasser-Owusu značajne Journal probleme u skorijoj
of Private International Law (Jour. P. budućnosti. U svakom
I. L.), 3/2009, 537-563.
366
14
Dejan Bodul O potrebi i mogućnosti implementacije instituta
potrošačkog stečaja u pravni poredak Bosne i Hercegovine
367
ANALI Pravnog fakulteta Univerziteta u Zenici
The parties
ABOUT are also
NEEDS AND allowed to conclude a choice
POSSIBLITIES of court agreement but their
OF IMPLEMENTATION OF
right is limited because it only allows for choice of court accompanied by choice
CONSUMER BANKRUPTCY INSTITUTE IN LEGAL SYSTEM
of law42) since “[t]he rules of this Regulation are devised so as to ensure that the
OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
authority dealing with the succession will, in most situations, be applying its own
law.” The agreement needs to be in writing, dated and signed by the parties.
43)
SUMMARY
Parties can also expressly agree on jurisdiction of the court of the chosen law
state after seising it.44) The Regulation also allows parties to the proceedings that
It is no exaggeration to say that in Bosnia and Herzegovina
were not party to the choice of court agreement to submit to the chosen jurisdic-
exist(ed)
tion, legalinanomaly,
ie appear whichwithout
the proceedings is whycontesting
disorder in economic45)life (was) the
jurisdiction.
inevitable consequence.
Jurisdictional rules in the However,
Succession the frequency
Regulation of the financial
include several crisisobjectivehas
caused the factors:
connecting need forhabitual
radical residence,
reform ofnationality
the bankruptcy legislation
and location of the so assets.
that in
They
addition provide
to the a reasonably
traditionalwide modeljurisdiction to the EU
of conducting national courts
bankruptcy in suc-
proceedings
cession matters as long as some connection to the state exists. The habitual resi-
which represents the liquidation of all assets in bankruptcy (liquidation
dence of the deceased should ensure a “close and stable connection with the State
bankruptcy),
concerned taking a model
into account of reorganization
the specific aims was developed.
of this Regulation.” Moreover,
46)
Lack of in
habitual
theory isresidence will either lead
being discussed to subsidiary
the reception of jurisdiction
the so-called based primarily(pre-
pre-pack on
the locationplan)
prepared of themodel
assets or forum necessitatis
of toreorganization. based on since
Therefore, the lack theof bankruptcy
another ap-
propriate forum. The rest of the Chapter II of the Regulation that is dedicated to
legislation inissuccession
jurisdiction directly mattersrelated dealsto the withcharacteristics
procedural issuesofsuch present socio-
as limitation
economic
of proceedings relations,
(Articlea 12),further step in and
acceptance the reform of bankruptcy
waiver (Article 13), seising legislation
of the
court (Article 14), examination as to jurisdiction
should be made towards the implementation of the consumer bankruptcy (Article 15) and admissibility
(Article 16), lis pendens (Article 17), related actions (Article 18) and security
institute. Firstly, on the one hand, because the starting point for a new
measures (Article 19). The lis pendens rule differs significantly from the Croatian
insolvency
one. The Successionlegislation Regulation was prescribes
a German insolvency
the first come firstlaw served 1999,
rule and which
the
Croatian
introduced court thecaninstitute
only stay ofthe proceedings
consumer if foreign court
bankruptcy, and on wasthethe other
first seised,
hand,
if there is inflexible
because no exclusive domestic jurisdiction
application of bankruptcy and inlegislation
case of reciprocity.
contributes
47)
The toEUthe
lis pendens rule is easier to apply, but it still has its deficiencies when applied
deepening crisis. This paper is structured in such a way that, after the
strictly in choice of court agreements.48) Although the rules differ, the outcome
introductory
will often be the section,
same when it deals with positive-legal
the exclusive jurisdiction is model of the
not given bankruptcy
to the Croatian
courts since the
proceedings inthird
B&H. requirement,
In the third the reciprocity,
part of theispaper presumed. provides analysis of
theSuccession
42) key economic
Regulation, Article criteria
5. on the example of BiH, in addition to
43) Preamble to the Succession Regulation, Recital 27.
comparison
44) between
Succession Regulation, ArticleB&H7/1/c. and the EU member states and candidate
45) In a case on interpretation of submission to a jurisdiction under the Brussels I Regulation the Court of Justice
countries when it comes to this segment of integration. The complexity of
of the European Union held that submission even overrides the choice of court agreements. This case might be
the research
useful in the contextandof theset tasksregulation.
Succession determinedSee: Casethe choice
150/80 of Schuh
Elefanten the GmbH
method, v PierreinJacqmain
a way
ECR [1981] 01671, paras 10-11. In that case, the
thatPreamble
46) usedtomethodological
the Succession Regulation, approach
Recital 23.during the research encompassed the
47)
studyCroatian
of PIL Act, Articleand
domestic 80. foreign literature, appropriate legislation, as well as
48) The same rule in the Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the
an analysis
recognition of domestic
and enforcement of judgmentsandin foreign jurisprudence.
civil and commercial matters OJ 2001 DueL12/1 to(Brussels
the limitedI Regu-
lation) invoked some criticism when applied to choice of court agreements since it produced uncertainty and
availability
disregard ofexpectations.
of parties’ data, some See: R. of the set
Fentiman, Accesscriteria areParallel
to Justice and based on thein Europe,
Proceedings indicativeCam-
brige Law Journal (Camb. L. J.), 2/2004, 312-314; P. Bříza, Choice-Of-Court
methods of establishing the facts. This paper will also provide analysis of Agreements: Could the Hague
Choice of Court Agreements Convention and the Reform of the Brussels I Regulation be the Way Out of the
the practice
Gasser-Owusu of the Journal
Disillusion?, European Court
of Private of Human
International Law (Jour. Rights in the
P. I. L.), 3/2009, proceedings
537-563.
369