TFL Vsebine / Revija Pravnik

3

Temeljni namen postopka prisilne poravnave je čim hitrejše finančno, obligacijsko, korporacijsko in poslovno prestrukturiranje insolventnega dolžnika, da bo ta lahko nadaljeval poslovanje z rentabilnim delom svojega podjema, upnikom pa bodo zagotovljene boljše možnosti za plačilo njihovih terjatev, kot če bi se nad dolžnikom začel stečajni postopek. Da bi postopek prisilne poravnave lahko dosegel svoj namen, ga mora sodišče voditi hitro in učinkovito, vendar pri tem ustrezno zavarovati interese upnikov, zlasti tedaj, ko se ti sklicujejo na zlorabo pravic v postopku prisilne poravnave. Pri takem ravnanju mora sodišče ustrezno tehtati med dvema načeloma postopka prisilne poravnave – med načelom hitrosti (učinkovitosti) postopka in načelom kontradiktornosti, ob tem pa uporabiti vse institute »splošnega« civilnega procesnega prava, ki smiselno veljajo tudi v postopku prisilne poravnave, in kadar je to potrebno, z ozirom na naravo in namen postopka prisilne poravnave, načelo kontradiktornosti ustrezno omejiti. Avtor predstavi razloge in načine, kako to doseči, in ugotovi, da za zagotovitev takega procesnega ravnanja sodišča niti niso potrebne zakonodajne spremembe, ampak dosledno izvrševanje že veljavnih pristojnosti sodišča.

The fundamental purpose of compulsory settlement proceedings is to enable the fastest possible financial, obligation, corporate, and business restructuring of an insolvent debtor, thereby ensuring continued operation of the viable part of its undertaking and offering creditors better prospects of settling their claims than would be available were bankruptcy proceedings instituted against the debtor. To ensure that compulsory-settlement proceedings fulfil this purpose, the court must manage them swiftly and effectively while simultaneously safeguarding creditors’ interests, particularly when those interests are threatened by an abuse of rights within the proceedings. In such cases the court must balance the two most important compulsory-settlement proceedings principles—the expedience (effectiveness) principle and the audi alteram partem (right-to-be-heard) principle—while applying mutatis mutandis, all institutes of “general” civil-procedural law also to compulsory-settlement proceedings. Where appropriate, and having regard to the nature and purpose of compulsory-settlement proceedings, the court may restrict the audi alteram partem principle accordingly. The article sets out the grounds and methods for achieving the foregoing and concludes that no legislative amendments but only the diligent exercise of the existing competences of the court are required for providing for such procedural conduct by the court.

Application of “The Right to Be Heard” Principle in Compulsory Settlement Proceedings in Slovenian Case Law