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

Refine search results

Results found: 7

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The study outlines three concepts of legal regulation of the concept of insolvency based on the pre-war bankruptcy law, the bankruptcy and reorganization law and the new bankruptcy law in force today. The aim is to capture the overall direction of the optimal model of regulation. The concept of insolvency, which determines the possibility of opening bankruptcy proceedings, is of key importance here. Bankruptcy, which typically entails stigmatisation of an undertaking to a lesser or greater degree, has a negative impact on its social and economic environment. A declaration of bankruptcy is, albeit imperfect, an alternative to a singular enforcement, which leads to the satisfaction of one creditor at the expense of the others. The legal regulation of insolvency should weigh up the interests of the debtor and his creditors. The new “philosophy” of understanding the notion of insolvency can be partly reconciled with the achievements of the pre-war bankruptcy law. At the same time, the legislator should be open to new solutions, which are in step with the practice of law enforcement.
Roczniki Nauk Prawnych
|
2017
|
vol. 27
|
issue 3
145-159
PL
Zaprezentowana glosa dotyczy wyroku Trybunału Konstytucyjnego z dnia 10 listopada 2009 r., sygn. akt. P88/08, w przedmiocie orzeczenia art. 28 ust. 1 ustawy z dnia 28 lutego 2003 r. – Prawo upadłościowe i naprawcze [zwane p.u.n.], w zakresie odnoszącym się do dłużnika niekorzystającego z pomocy adwokata lub radcy prawnego, wskazuje na niezgodność art. 28 ust. 1 wyżej wymienionej ustawy z art. 45 Konstytucji Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej oraz nie niezgodność z art. 32 ust. 1 Konstytucji. Marszałek Sejmu, Prokurator Generalny, Biuro Studiów i Analiz przedstawili stanowisko aprobujące zgodność art. 28 ust. 1 p.u.n. z art. 32 ust. 1 i art. 45 ust. 1 Konstytucji. Trybunał Konstytucyjny wskazuje na liczne wymagania formalne, szczególnie wobec wniosku o ogłoszenie upadłości składanego przez dłużnika. Podnosi, że prawo do sądu może być naruszone nie tylko bezpośrednio, ale również pośrednio wskutek takiego ukształtowania przez ustawodawcę wymagań proceduralnych, które czynią zainicjowanie postępowania nadmiernie utrudnione. W konsekwencji zwraca uwagę, że nadmierny rygoryzm połączony ze znaczną formalizacją wniosku o ogłoszenie upadłości nie spełnia funkcji kompensacyjnej, nie chroni w dostateczny sposób dłużnika, jego przedsiębiorstwa. W kontekście profesjonalnych pełnomocników wyraża stanowisko o przygotowaniu zawodowym, które zapewnia fachowość obsługi prawnej w postępowaniu procesowym przed sądami. Trybunał Konstytucyjny dokonał rozróżnienia między dłużnikami mającymi zawodowego pełnomocnika i działającymi samodzielnie, określając cechę relewantną, która pozwala na wyodrębnienie grupy. W następstwie kwestionowany przepis nie spełnia wymogów konstytucyjnych w art. 45 ust. 1 Konstytucji. W odniesieniu do art. 32 Konstytucji Trybunał Konstytucyjny prezentuje pogląd, że przy znacznym skomplikowaniu i rygoryzmie połączonym z brakiem reprezentacji w konkretnym przypadku dojść może do naruszenia praw gwarantowanych konstytucyjnie. W ramach wyroku Trybunału Konstytucyjnego zgłoszono zdanie odrębne w części dotyczącej kwestii zgodności art. 28 p.u.n. z art. 45 ust. 1 Konstytucji. Niniejsza glosa podziela argumentacje, którą zauważył Trybunał Konstytucyjny, jednocześnie zwracając uwagę na interes społeczny, negatywne skutki spóźnionego złożenia wniosku o ogłoszenie upadłości, wskazując sygnalizacyjnie ustawodawcy na rozważenie zwiększenia ochrony przedsiębiorców dłużników.
EN
The presented gloss refers to Verdict, P88/08, issued on 10th November 2009 by the Constitutional Tribunal concerning the decision under Article 28 Section 1 of the Act of 28th February 2003 – Bankruptcy and Reorganisation Law [referred to as BRL] as regards the debtor who is not using a solicitor or legal counsel, it indicates inconsistency of Article 28 Section 1 of the above Act with Article 45 of the Polish Constitution and no inconsistency with Article 32 Section 1 of the Constitution. The Speaker of the Sejm, the Prosecutor General and the Research and Analysis Bureau have presented the position approving the compliance of Article 28 Section 1 of BRL with Article 32 Section 1 and Article 45 Section 1 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Tribunal draws attention to numerous formal requirements, especially concerning the bankruptcy petition filed by the debtor. The Tribunal states that the right to court may be infringed not only directly, but also indirectly as a result of the procedural requirements being formed by the legislator in the way making the initiation of the proceedings excessively difficult. Subsequently, the Tribunal points out that excessive strictness connected with considerable formalization of the bankruptcy petition does not perform the compensation function, and does not satisfactorily protect the debtor and his enterprise. In the context of professional representatives, the Tribunal expresses its position on the professional skills that assure professional legal service in court proceedings. The Constitutional Tribunal made a distinction between debtors having a professional representative and debtors acting on their own, by defining a relevant feature that allows to separate a group, as a consequence the provision in question does not fulfil the constitutional requirements in Article 45 Section 1 of the Constitution. As regards Article 32 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Tribunal presents the view that with considerable complexity and strictness connected with the lack of representation, in a concrete case the constitutionally guaranteed rights may be infringed. As part of the verdict of the Constitutional Tribunal a separate statement was made in the part concerning the compliance of article 28 of BRL with Article 45 Section 1 of the Constitution. The present gloss shares the argumentation observed by the Constitutional Tribunal, at the same time paying attention to the public interest, negative results of the late submission of the bankruptcy petition, pointing to the legislator that greater protection of entrepreneurs debtors may be considered.
Roczniki Nauk Prawnych
|
2017
|
vol. 27
|
issue 1
143-157
PL
Zaprezentowana glosa dotyczy wyroku Sądu Najwyższego z dnia 23 listopada 2012 r. sygn. akt IV CSK 598/12 w przedmiocie dopuszczalności uznania nabywcy przedsiębiorstwa upadłego za jego następcę prawnego oraz wpływu rozmiaru dotychczas spełnionych w ramach umowy świadczeń na ważność postanowienia w sprawie wysokości wynagrodzenia za bezumowne korzystanie z rzeczy. Sąd Najwyższy podkreśla, że zbycie przedsiębiorstwa upadłej spółki kapitałowej w toku postępowania upadłościowego z opcją likwidacyjną, wywołuje zdarzenia właściwe dla następstwa prawnego pod tytułem ogólnym. Stanowisko wskazujące na brak skutku następstwa prawnego po stronie nabywcy odnosi się do przypadku nabycia przedsiębiorstwa upadłego, które zachowuje byt prawny po zakończeniu postępowania upadłościowego. Nie ma jednak zastosowania do sytuacji szczególnej związanej ze zbyciem całego przedsiębiorstwa spółki w prawomocnie zakończonym postępowaniu upadłościowym. Sąd Najwyższy uznał, że przy ocenie ważności spornego postanowienia umownego nie może mieć decydującego znaczenia rozmiar dotychczas spełnionych w ramach umowy świadczeń w postaci opłat leasingowych. Sama dysproporcja świadczeń nie musi być sprzeczna z normami współżycia społecznego. Niniejsza glosa aprobuje argumentacje zawartą w wyroku Sądu Najwyższego, jednocześnie jednak zwracając uwagę na zasadę proporcjonalności pomiędzy wierzycielami a dłużnikiem oraz rangę art. 5 Kodeksu cywilnego.
EN
The presented gloss refers to Verdict IV CSK 598/12 issued on 23rd November 2012 by the Supreme Court concerning the admissibility of recognizing the acquirer of the bankrupt’s business as his legal successor, and the impact of the extent of the heretofore provided contractual performances on the validity of the decision concerning the amount of the remuneration for the non-contractual use of a thing. The Supreme Court underlines that the disposal of an enterprise of a bankrupt company in the course of bankruptcy proceedings with a winding-up option, results in the events appropriate for a universal succession. The position indicating lack of effect of legal succession on the part of the acquirer refers to the case of acquisition of the bankrupt’s enterprise that remains its legal existence after the end of the bankruptcy proceedings. However, it shall not apply to the special situation connected with the disposal of the entire enterprise of the company in the finally completed bankruptcy proceedings. The Supreme Court found that in assessing the validity of the contested contractual provision, the extent of the contractual performances heretofore provided in the form of leasing fees, cannot be decisive. The disproportion in performances cannot be contrary to the principles of social coexistence. The present gloss accepts the arguments contained in the verdict of the Supreme Court, however, it also draws attention to the principle of proportionality between the creditors and the debtor, and the importance of Article 5 of the Civil Code.
EN
The presented gloss, addressing the judgement of the Constitutional Tribunal, file ref. no. P88/08, issued on November 10, 2009, concerning the decision under art. 28 para. 1 of the act of 28 February 2003 (Bankruptcy and Reorganisation Law) [referred to as BRL] as regards the debtor who is not using an advocate or legal counsel, demonstrates inconsistency of art. 28 para. 1 of the above law with art. 45 and art. 32 para. 1 of the Constitution. The Speaker of the Sejm, Public Prosecutor General and the Research and Analysis Bureau have presented their positions approving the compliance of art. 28 para. 1 BRL with art. 32 para. 1 and art. 45 para. 1 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Tribunal draws attention to numerous formal requirements, especially concerning the bankruptcy petition filed by the debtor. The Tribunal argues that the right to trial may be infringed not only directly, but also indirectly as a result of the procedural requirements being formed by the legislator in the manner which makes the initiation of the proceedings excessively difficult. Subsequently, the Tribunal points out that excessive strictness connected with considerable formalism of petitions for bankruptcy does not fulfil a compensatory function, and does not satisfactorily protect the debtor and his undertaking. In the context of professional representatives, the Tribunal expresses its position on the professional skills that assure professional legal service in court proceedings. The Constitutional Tribunal drew a distinction between debtors having a professional representative and debtors acting on their own, by defining a relevant feature that allows to separate a group, as a consequence the provision in question does not fulfil the constitutional requirements in art. 45 para. 1 of the Constitution. As regards art. 32 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Tribunal presents the view that with considerable complexity and strictness connected with the lack of representation, in a concrete case the constitutionally guaranteed rights may be infringed. As part of the judgement of the Constitutional Tribunal, a separate statement was made in the part concerning the compliance of art. 28 BRL with art. 45 para. 1 of the Constitution. The presented gloss shares the argumentation observed by the Constitutional Tribunal, at the same time considering the public interest, negative results of the late submission of the bankruptcy petition, pointing to the legislator that greater protection of entrepreneurs debtors may be considered.
Roczniki Nauk Prawnych
|
2018
|
vol. 28
|
issue 3
139-159
PL
Przedmiotem opracowania jest prezentacja w zarysie trzech koncepcji regulacji prawnej pojęcia niewypłacalności na podstawie przedwojennego prawa upadłościowego, prawa upadłościowego i naprawczego oraz aktualnego nowego prawa upadłościowego. Celem omawianej materii jest poszukiwanie ogólnego kierunku optymalnego modelu regulacji. Kluczowe znaczenie ma pojęcie niewypłacalności, które warunkuje możliwość zainicjowania postępowania upadłościowego. Upadłość, co do zasady oznacza w mniejszym lub większym stopniu na ogół stygmatyzację przedsiębiorstwa oraz negatywnie rzutuje na otoczenie społeczno-gospodarcze. Ogłoszenie upadłości jest, choć niedoskonałą, ale alternatywą dla egzekucji singularnej, która prowadzi do zaspokojenia jednych wierzycieli kosztem drugich. Regulacja prawna niewypłacalności powinna ważyć interesy dłużnika i wierzycieli. Nowa „filozofia” rozumienia pojęcia niewypłacalności po części koreluje z dorobkiem przedwojennego prawa upadłościowego. Jednocześnie ustawodawcę powinna cechować otwartość na nowe rozwiązania, skorelowane z praktyką stosowania prawa.
EN
The subject of the study is to present a general outline of three concepts of the insolvency concept regulation by law on the basis of the prewar bankruptcy law, bankruptcy and recovery law and the current new Polish bankruptcy law. The purpose of the subject matter discussed is to generally search for an optimum model of such regulation. The concept of insolvency that is the condition of starting the bankruptcy proceedings is of key importance. Bankruptcy, as a rule, means an enterprise stigmatization to a lesser of higher extent and has a negative impact on the social and economic environment. The announcement of bankruptcy, although imperfect, is an alternative to singular enforcement that leads to the satisfaction of some creditors at the cost of the others. The legal regulation of insolvency should consider the interests of a debtor and creditors. The new “philosophy” of understanding the concept of insolvency partly correlates with the output of the Polish prewar bankruptcy law. At the same time, the legislative body should be open to new solutions, correlated with the law application practice.
EN
The presented gloss, addressing the judgement of the Constitutional Tribunal, file ref. no. P88/08, issued on November 10, 2009, concerning the decision under art. 28 para. 1 of the act of 28 February 2003 (Bankruptcy and Reorganisation Law) [referred to as BRL] as regards the debtor who is not using an advocate or legal counsel, demonstrates inconsistency of art. 28 para. 1 of the above law with art. 45 and art. 32 para. 1 of the Constitution. The Speaker of the Sejm, Public Prosecutor General and the Research and Analysis Bureau have presented their positions approving the compliance of art. 28 para. 1 BRL with art. 32 para. 1 and art. 45 para. 1 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Tribunal draws attention to numerous formal requirements, especially concerning the bankruptcy petition filed by the debtor. The Tribunal argues that the right to trial may be infringed not only directly, but also indirectly as a result of the procedural requirements being formed by the legislator in the manner which makes the initiation of the proceedings excessively difficult. Subsequently, the Tribunal points out that excessive strictness connected with considerable formalism of petitions for bankruptcy does not fulfil a compensatory function, and does not satisfactorily protect the debtor and his undertaking. In the context of professional representatives, the Tribunal expresses its position on the professional skills that assure professional legal service in court proceedings. The Constitutional Tribunal drew a distinction between debtors having a professional representative and debtors acting on their own, by defining a relevant feature that allows to separate a group, as a consequence the provision in question does not fulfil the constitutional requirements in art. 45 para. 1 of the Constitution. As regards art. 32 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Tribunal presents the view that with considerable complexity and strictness connected with the lack of representation, in a concrete case the constitutionally guaranteed rights may be infringed. As part of the judgement of the Constitutional Tribunal, a separate statement was made in the part concerning the compliance of art. 28 BRL with art. 45 para. 1 of the Constitution. The presented gloss shares the argumentation observed by the Constitutional Tribunal, at the same time considering the public interest, negative results of the late submission of the bankruptcy petition, pointing to the legislator that greater protection of entrepreneurs debtors may be considered.
EN
The presented gloss discusses the judgement file ref. no. IV CSK 598/12 dated November 23, 2012, issued by the Supreme Court concerning the possibility of recognizing the acquirer of a bankrupt undertaking as its legal successor, and the impact of the amount of contractual payments made to date on the validity of a decision issued in connection with the amount of remuneration for the non-contractual use of the leased thing. The Supreme Court underscores that the disposal of an undertaking of a bankrupt company in the course of bankruptcy proceedings with a winding-up option gives rise to events appropriate for universal succession. The position indicating lack of effect of legal succession on the part of the acquirer concerns the case of acquisition of a bankrupt undertaking which retains its legal existence after bankruptcy proceedings are over. However, this does not apply to the special situation connected with the disposal of an entire undertaking of the company in the course of completed bankruptcy proceedings. The Supreme Court found that in assessing the validity of the contested contractual provision, the extent of the contractual performances made to date in the form of lease payments, cannot play a decisive role. The disproportion in payments cannot be contravene the principles of social intercourse. The presented gloss accepts the arguments of the judgement of the Supreme Court; however, attention is drawn to the principle of proportionality between creditors and a debtor, as well as the import of Article 5 of the Civil Code.
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.