Številka 22 - Odvetniška Zbornica Slovenije

Franc Testen
UPNIKOV POLOŽAJ V PRISILNI
PORAVNAVI
Prisilna poravnava je pravni institut insolvenčnega prava.
Eno temeljnih načel insolvenčnega prava je enakopravnost upnikov.
Prispevek obravnava nekatere določbe, ki lahko močno posežejo
v to načelo in postavijo določene upnike oziroma skupine
upnikov v bistveno slabši položaj v primerjavi z drugimi skupinami
upnikov. Takšna ureditev je posebej občutljiva zato, ker
prisilna poravnava predstavlja način sanacije prezadolženega
oziroma insolventnega dolžnika, ki se izvede tako, da sredstva
za to prispevajo prezadolženčevi upniki - v veliki meri lahko tudi
takšni, ki temu nasprotujejo. Postopek prisilne poravnave pozna
nekatere institute, ki so na prvi pogled podobni institutom
stečajnega prava - prijava terjatev, prekluzije zaradi zamude rokov,
prerekanje terjatev, ugotavljanje (verjetnosti) njihovega obstoja,
učinek na terjatve ipd. Vendar se ravno glede na temeljno
razliko med prisilno poravnavo (sanacija in nadaljevanje poslovanja)
in stečajem (civilna "smrt" dolžnika) podobni instituti na
obeh področjih bistveno razlikujejo, kar pri nekaterih upnikih
povzroča negotovost glede prav(n)e vsebine teh institutov. Prispevek
opozarja na nekatere sporne določbe in na rešitve, ki sta
jih že našli teorija in sodna praksa.
Franc Testen
POSITION OF CREDITORS IN A FORCED
SETTLEMENT
The forced settlement is a legal institute of the insolvency
law. One of the basic principles of the insolvency law is the
equality of creditors. The article deals with selected provisions,
which can strongly interfere with the principle in subject and
put specific creditors or groups of creditors in a considerably
weaker position in comparison with other groups of creditors.
Such regulation is especially sensitive, since the forced settlement
represents a mode for the rehabilitation of a heavily indebted
or insolvent debtor, and the settlement is carried out by contributions
of means by the creditors of the debtor - many of
them opposing the decision to carry out a forced settlement. The
proceeding of forced settlement includes several institutes,
which are prima facie similar to the institutes of bankruptcy law
- registration of claims, preclusion for missing the date iimits,
arguing of claims, establishment of probability of their existence,
the effect on claims etc. However, due to the fundamental
difference between the forced settlement (rehabilitation and continuance
of business) and bankruptcy (civil "death" of the debtor),
similar institutes in both fields essentially differ, leading to
uncertainty with some creditors regarding their contents. The article
underlines some controversial provisions and points out to
solutions already provided by the theory and the court practice.
Staša Ternik
DILEME 0 USTREZNOSTI UREDITVE
OGLAŠEVANJA ODVETNIŠKIH STORITEV
PRI NAS
Oglaševanje v odvetništvu je tema, ki je dandanes glede tega
poklica v Sloveniji zelo aktualna. Pojav "odškodninskih"
podjetij, ki se ukvarjajo z odvetniškim zelo podobnimi storitvami,
ki jih množično oglašujejo (na tak način odvetniki, ki z njimi
sodelujejo, posredno oglašujejo svoje storitve), ni edini
vzrok temu. Vprašanja o ustreznosti ureditve burijo duha tudi
zato, ker se je ureditev še večkrat pokazala za neustrezno. Pa ne
le zaradi tega, ker je ureditev na posameznih mestih arhaična in
nepopolna, s čimer mislim na to, da je oglaševanje pri nas preprosto
prepovedano, pri tem pa so dejanja, ki pomenijo prepovedano
oglaševanje odvetniških storitev, našteta le primeroma.
Mnogi pa se sprašujejo, zakaj je v današnjem svetu, kjer je svoboda
"vsega", tudi govora, javnega nastopanja in izražanja,
vsesplošno cenjena in sprejeta, sploh smiselna prepoved oglaševanja
storitev v odvetništvu. Le-ta je zgodovinsko zasnovana na
ideji o odvetništvu kot častivrednem poklicu, v katerem oglaševanje
zaradi moralnih in etičnih načel ni dopustno. Prvi maj
2004 in z njim vstop v Evropsko unijo Sloveniji ne bo prinesel
novosti, saj je znotraj EU to vprašanje še vedno prepuščeno nacionalnim
ureditvam. Na ravni Skupnosti na področje oglaševanja
odvetniških storitev le posredno posegajo nekatere direktive
- v zvezi z določili o dvojni deontologiji, medtem ko drugi akti,
ki tudi urejajo to področje v "Evropi", niso več del prava Skupnosti.
Stasa Ternik
DILEMMAS ON THE SUITABILITY OF THE
REGULATIONS REGARDING ADVERTISING
OF ATTORNEYS IN SLOVENIA
The issue of the advertising of attorneys is a rather topical
issue in Slovenia. The outbreak of various "indemnity" companies,
acting in the field of the attorneys' profession and dealing
with services, similar to attorneys (and extensively advertising
those services), is not the only reason for the issue. Questions
regarding the suitability of the advertising regulations are also
actual, since it has been proven many times that the current system
is not adequate. Not only because of the partially anarchical
and unclear regulation, where the advertising of attorneys is
simply banned in Slovenia, while the actions of unlawful advertising
are listed only comparatively. Many people openly wonder
why in today's world, where free "everything" (including
freedom of speech, acting and expressing) is so appreciated,
attorneys should even be banned from advertising. This prohibition
has been historically conceived on the idea of the attorneyship
as an honorable profession, where advertising is not appropriate
due to moral and ethical norms. The first of May 2004
and the accession of Slovenia to the European Union shall not
bring any novelties, since that subject is within the European
Union left to the national legislators. On the Community level,
certain Directives affect the subject of attorneys' advertising in
regards to the provisions on the "double deontology", while
other acts, regulating that subject within the EU are no longer
part of the Community law.