Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 4

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  succession manager
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

LEGAL STATUS OF THE SUCCESSION MANAGER

100%
Rogacka-Łukasik A.
Roczniki Administracji i Prawa
|
2020
|
vol. 1
|
issue XX
265-279
PL
Celem niniejszego opracowania jest zaprezentowanie pozycji prawnej zarządcy sukcesyjnego, wprowadzonego do polskiego porządku prawnego ustawą z dnia 5 lipca 2018 r. o zarządzie sukcesyjnym przedsiębiorstwem osoby fizycznej i innych ułatwieniach związanych z sukcesją przedsiębiorstw. W artykule przedstawiono sposoby powołania zarządcy sukcesyjnego, zakres jego kompetencji oraz charakter prawny jego działań. Uwagę poświęcono także zagadnieniu odpowiedzialności zarządcy sukcesyjnego oraz sytuacjom, w których dochodzi do ustania pełnienia funkcji przez zarządcę sukcesyjnego.
EN
The purpose of this publication is to present the legal status of the succession manager introduced to the Polish legal order by the Act of 5 July 2018 on the succession management of a natural person’s enterprise and other facilities related to the succession of enterprises. The publication presents the methods of appointing a succession manager, the scope of his competences and the legal nature of his activities. Attention was also paid to the issue of succession manager liability and situations in which the succession manager ceases to perform his function.
2

Wpis właściciela przedsiębiorstwa w spadku do księgi wieczystej

80%
Mleko Ł.
Rejent
|
2023
|
issue 11 (391)
45-73
EN
It has been 5 years already since the Act of 5 July 2018 on the succession management of a natural person’s enterprise and other facilities related to the succession of enterprises entered into force. However, the question (accompanying this Act from the very beginning) of who should be registered in the land and mortgage register, as the subject entitled to the item acquired by the succession manager, incorporated into the inherited enterprise . has not been solved yet. The article conducts a critical analysis of the solutions presented in the doctrine and attempts to take its own position on the indicated legal issue. The considerations made led to the conclusion that the entry should be made in favor of the owners of the inherited enterprise. Assuming that the legal system has not developed the relevant documents certifying such status (i.e. status of the owner of the inherited enterprise), it should be acknowledged, that the disclosure of the legal status, corresponding to the substantive law, in the land and mortgage register is impossible. Presentedsituation disapplys the obligation of the notary, stated in the art. 92 § 4 of the Act of 14 February 1991 Law on Notaries. In such case, to ensure the security of legal transactions, it is necessary to apply for the entry of a warning about the discrepancy of the legal status recorded in the land and mortgage register with the actual legal status, with attached excerpt of the notarial deed (containing the relevant instructions), which shows that there has been a change in the legal status.
3

Zbycie prawa własności mieszkania rodzinnego, będącego składnikiem majątku osobistego jednego z małżonków

80%
Szczekała A.
Rejent
|
2023
|
issue 12 (392)
36-61
EN
The study deals with the aspect of the so-called family-fortune dwelling (mieszkanie rodzinne), which is the object of a right vested exclusively in one spouse, extremely important in the light of the protection of interests of the spouse and the family. The legislature, in Article 281 of the Family and Guardianship Code (FGC), has explicitly granted a spouse the right to use the dwelling and household equipment which are the subject of a right vested exclusively in the other spouse, in order to meet the needs of the family. The spouse to whom the right of ownership of the family-fortune dwelling is vested may freely dispose of it, and the validity of the legal transaction made does not depend on the consent of the spouse who only has the right under Article 281 FGC. This raises the problem of effective protection of the interest of a spouse and family members against a disadvantageous disposal of the right to the family-fortune dwelling and, in particular, of the right of ownership vested in the other spouse. When looking for legal means of protecting the spouse, some scholars in the field allow for the possibility of assessing such a disposal through the prism of the clause of principles of social coexistence. However, neither the literature nor the judicature has considered the assessment of the disposal of the right to real property forming part of the personal property of one of the spouses in terms of its compliance with the social and economic purpose of this right. It should be noted that upon getting married, the socio-economic purpose of some of the spouses' personal assets, such as immovable property, may change if it is a family-fortune dwelling. The socio-economic purpose of such a property is to meet the housing needs not only of the spouse who is the exclusive owner of the dwelling, but also of the other spouse and other members of the so-called nuclear family. It seems therefore possible, in particularly justified cases, to assess the disposal by the spouse of an immovable asset forming part of his/her personal property, the so-called family-fortune dwelling, not only in the light of the principles of social coexistence, but also of the socio-economic purpose of that right.
4

Kto jest przedsiębiorcą w okresie wykonywania zarządu sukcesyjnego? Rozważania na tle wyroku NSA z 23.11.2021 r., II GSK 1749/21

71%
Mleko Ł.
Rejent
|
2023
|
issue 4 (384)
51-80
EN
The Act from July 5th, 2018, on the succession management of a natural person.s enterprise and other facilities related to the succession of enterprises did not determine who is the entrepreneur within the period of implementation of the succession management. The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgement from November 23rd 2021 r., II GSK 1749/21 has decided, that based on the Act, the succession manager gains the entrepreneur status. Hence, he is obliged to fulfill statutory obligations imposed on the entrepreneur and is burdened by the negative consequences of the failure. The article undertakes a critical analysis of the Court.s argumentation. It explains the meanings of the notions .activity on its own behalf. and .activity on someone.s account. used to construct the institution of substitutes and legal definition of an entrepreneur. A view has been expressed, that running an enterprise in succession by a succession manager is not equal to running a business (economic activity) as per the understanding of art. 431 of the Civil Code and art. 4, section 1 and 2 in relation to art. 3 of the Law on Entrepreneurs. A view has been formulated that the entrepreneur in the period of the implementation of the succession management is the owner of the enterprise in succession and that this thesis is equal to the statement that the entrepreneur is the enterprise in succession itself as an organizational unit not having legal capacity. A polemic has been undertaken against doctrinal concepts, granting the status of an entrepreneur to other entities.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.