Besplatne pravne radnje stečajnog dužnika u načelu su pobojne jer interesiprotivnika pobijanja koji je bez naknade ili uz neznatnu naknadu stekao dioimovine stečajnog dužnika moraju ustuknuti pred kolektivnim interesomstečajnih vjerovnika na ujednačeno namirenje. Stečajnim zakonom (čl. 203.)predviđena je i posebna osnova za pobijanje besplatnih pravnih radnjipoduzetih u kritičnom razdoblju započetom četiri godine prije podnošenjaprijedloga za otvaranje (pred)stečajnog postupka i okončanom otvaranjemstečajnog postupka. Ovlašteni pobijatelj pritom ne mora dokazivati nikakvesubjektivne pretpostavke na strani stečajnog dužnika ni protivnika pobijanja.Pri razlikovanju besplatnih od naplatnih radnji valja poći od toga da je onaplatnoj radnji riječ ako je protivnik pobijanja učinio ili se obvezao učinitiimovinski izdatak odgovarajuće vrijednosti i ako između tog izdatka i radnjestečajnog dužnika postoji kauzalna veza. Ako bilo kojoj od tih pretpostavakanije udovoljeno, riječ je o besplatnoj pravnoj radnji. Ako je stečajni dužnik bioosigurao tražbinu vjerovnika prema trećoj osobi i za to nije primio naknadu,to je osiguranje ipak naplatno uz uvjet da se vjerovnik trećoj osobi obvezaoučiniti kakav imovinski izdatak. I za pobijene besplatne pravne radnje – usprkoszbunjujućim odredbama nekritički preuzetim iz njemačkog prava – vrijede općapravila da je pobijena pravna radnja bez učinka prema stečajnoj masi i da jeprotivnik pobijanja dužan vratiti u stečajnu masu sve imovinske koristi stečenena temelju pobijene radnje.
It is clear from the case law of Croatian courts that intentional disadvantaging the creditors (regulated in Article 202 of the Insolvency Act) is the most commonly used ground for contesting the legal transactions of an insolvent debtor. On this ground, all legal transactions undertaken in the suspect period of as long as ten years before the submission of the application for opening (pre-)insolvency proceedings until the opening insolvency proceedings can be contested. The authorized contester, however, in litigation has a tall order of proving not only that the debtor took action with the intent to disadvantage its creditors but also that the opponent of the contestation was aware of that intent. The debtor’s intent to disadvantage its creditors and the awareness of the opponent of the contestation are both determined on the basis of objective indications that are at the heart of the analysis of this paper. Incongruent settlement, the unequal value of consideration, unusual contractual clauses, the proximity of the insolvency debtor and the opponent of the contestation, and the debtor’s (threatening) inability to pay his debts are most often recognized in case law as indications of intentional disadvantaging the creditors of an insolvent debtor. In addition to certain objections to the normative regulation of the institute itself, especially regarding the drafting of presumptions that make it easier to prove the contester’s awareness of the debtor’s intention to disadvantage its creditors, the paper presents a critical assessment of case law that could facilitate its harmonization and serve as a guide to authorized contesters as to whether it is appropriate to engage in contestation or not.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.