Odgovornost sticaoca za obaveze prenosioca u slučaju prenosa preduzeća

Abstract

U ovom radu autor analizira odgovornost sticaoca za obaveze u vezi sa preduzećem koje mu je preneto na osnovu ugovora ili drugog pravnog posla. Ova odgovornost ima prirodu zakonskog pristupanja dugu, a u Srbiji je regulisana u okviru Zakona o obligacionim odnosima (čl. 452). Prvi deo rada je uvodnog karaktera i sadrži objašnjenje uslova za primenu i posledica posebnog pravila o odgovornosti sticaoca, ukazujući na njihove osobenosti u odnosu na opšti režim odgovornosti za obaveze u slučaju prenosa preduzeća. Centralni deo rada je posvećen obrazloženju svrhe i smisla posebnog propisivanja odgovornosti sticaoca za obaveze u vezi sa prenetim preduzećem. U tom pogledu autor omogućava uvid ne samo u stavove domaće sudske prakse, već i u dostignuća pravne teorije u razvijenim zemljama, poput Nemačke i Austrije, gde se slično pravilo zasniva na tzv. teoriji fonda odgovornosti. Potom je pružena detaljna kritika pravila o odgovornosti sticaoca, koja je u razvijenim pravnim sistemima dovela do sužavanja njegovog domena primene, odnosno njegovog potpunog ukidanja. Imajući u vidu da u srpskom pravu navedeno pravilo opstaje uprkos opravdanoj kritici, autor predlaže uvođenje brojnih izuzetaka kojim bi se njegova primena ograničila samo na slučajeve kada je to naročito potrebno i korisno, s obzirom na odmeravanje interesa kako poverilaca, tako i samog sticaoca preduzeća.

In this paper the author analyses the assumption of liabilities by the acquirer with regard to a contractual transfer of an undertaking. In Serbian law such liability is prescribed by the Obligation Relations Act (Art. 452), according to which the person who acquires even a part of assets of another person, shall be jointly and severally liable with that other person (the transferor) for the obligations connected with those assets. The first, introductory part of the paper explains the conditions and consequences of application of this rule, with special emphasis on their differences from the general regime of liability for pertinent obligations in case of a transfer of an undertaking. The central part of the paper deals with the rationale behind the specific rule on the assumption of liabilities by the transferee. In this regard, the author presents not only the views expressed in the Serbian judicial practice, but also the current understanding of this issue in developed countries, such as Germany and Austria. In these countries a similar rule is based on the theory that a separate transfer of assets without the pertinent liabilities would endanger the creditors' position, by taking away the funds they could have used for satisfaction of their claims (this is the so-called Haftungsfondstheorie). Thereafter, the author critically examines the explained rule on the transferee's assumption of liabilities. In comparative legal systems numerous arguments against such a rule have led to limiting its scope of application, or even its complete abolishment. Bearing in mind that the assumption of liabilities by the transferee still survives in Serbian law, the author recommends introducing a number of exceptions to the rule in order to limit its application only to those cases where it is especially needed and useful, based on the weighing of interests of both the creditors and the acquirer.