O izvršenju na digitalnim dobrima

Abstract

U centru naše analize u ovoj prilici našlo se prinudno namirenje izvršnih poverilaca iz digitalnih dobara. Pri tom, potraživanje može da glasi na kripto dobra, ali i na nacionalnu ili stranu valutu. Iako zakonodavac ne isključuje mogućnost da se u izvršnom postupku namire i potraživanja obezbeđena zalogom, takav razvoj događaja će u praksi biti srazmerno manje zastupljen. Po pravilu će, za slučaj neizmirenja ugovorne obaveze, založni poverilac, putem samoizvršivog (pametnog) ugovora, za sebe ugovoriti vansudsko namirenje preuzimanjem predmeta zaloge. Stoga je akcenat u radu stavljen na prinudno namirenje onih potraživanja koja nisu obezbeđena. Digitalna imovina je posebnim zakonom izrečno regulisana u srpskom pravu. Međutim, prinudnom izvršenju na digitalnim dobrima nije poklonjena primerena pažnja. Zakonodavac u materijalnopravnoj normi krajnje šturo upućuje da će se u pogledu izvršenja na digitalnoj imovini primenjivati Zakon o izvršenju i obezbeđenju, a da ni odnosna porocesnopravna norma o izvršenju na drugim imovinskim pravima izvršnog dužnika (patent, žig i drugo) nije mnogo opširnija. Od stupanja na snagu Zakona o digitalnoj imovini, u ovom pogledu se ništa značajnije nije promenilo, pravna književnost je ostala nema u pogledu prinudnog namirenja neobezbeđenih poverilaca iz digitalne imovine. Izgleda da u sudskoj praksi nije bilo predloga za izvršenje na digitalnoj imovini, tako da domaći sudovi nisu obajavljivali svoj stav ovim povodom. Kod takvog stanja stvari, pred pravnim piscima se otvaraju dva puta: jedan jednostavniji i dobro popločan koji počiva na tvrdnji da je prinudno izvršenje na digitalnim dobrima u srpskom pravu do izrečnog zakonskog normiranja posebnog sredstva izvršenja nedopušteno i drugi "puteljak kroz trnje" po kome je na osnovu postojećih propisa u našem pravu dopušteno izvršenje na digitalnim dobrima, ali da bi imajući u vidu imperativ pravne sigurnosti i međunarodne akte usmerene na harmonizaciju prava izvršenja de lege ferenda, bez odlaganja, trebalo detaljno formulisati procesne norme u pogledu posebnog sredstva izvršenja koje bi naročito vodile računa o prirodi i specifičnim odlikama digitalnih dobara.

Digital assets are becoming increasingly important in today's society. Crypto currencies and crypto-tokens are considered as property by market participants and, more recently, by the courts. Recognition of the economic value of digital assets has also raised the issue of the possibility of forced execution on this subject - matter. As of 2020, digital property in the Republic of Serbia is regulated by a special law, including the collection of claims secured by digital assets. However, for the execution of unsecured claims on digital assets, the legislator refers to the general rules of the Law on Enforcement and Security. Such a legislative approach raises numerous dilemmas. It remains unclear: which enforceable title can be used as a basis for execution against digital assets; what kind of claims can be settled in this way; how the creditor has to specify the subject - matter of the enforcement; how to prevent the debtor from disposing of digital assets despite the commencement of enforcement procedure; how to secure the cooperation of debtors as well as third parties (i.e. custodians) in terms of information disclosure, transfer of private key etc. The very nature of crypto assets implies decentralisation, volatility and the ability to vanish ("disappearability"). These inherent characteristics make cryptoassets the challenging subject for enforcement. Accordingly the legal rules in this case should be fine-tuned in a way that is to a reasonable extent creditor-friendly in terms of efficiency, without neglecting the appropriate balance with the principle of proportionality in enforcement, as well as the compliance of enforcement agents' actions with fundamental rights and ethical principles, such as the protection of privacy etc. Digital assets can easily be transferred - "in the blink of an eye" - from one account to another, from an online wallet to an offline wallet, from one owner to another or (divided into smaller parts) to multiple owners, from one digital assets to another, from one jurisdiction to several etc., which makes the enforcement process extremely complex and, in some cases, even impossible. Therefore, enforcement procedure on digital assets must be particularly urgent. In this context, it is common for the creditor to request some form of interim measure - a pre-judgment attachment of digital assets - which the court should decide on in a short period of time. Ideally, this measure should have global effect, not limited to a single state or jurisdiction. In legal literature, such a measure is generally referred to as a "worldwide freezing order", which is intended to be universally enforceable without prior recognition by national courts. In addition, the law should allow the creditor to seek an injunction in respect of specific digital assets without identifying the holder(s) - in relation to unknown person(s).