MASARYKOVA UNIVERZITA PRÁVNICKÁ FAKULTA

EUROPEANIZATION OF THE NATIONAL LAW, THE LISBON TREATY AND SOME OTHER LEGAL ISSUES

Conference proceedings from the COFOLA 2008 conference

Recommended citation form for contributions is:

Bohůnová, P., Problematical Provisions of the Regulation Creating a European Order for Payment

Procedure. In Europeanization of the national law, the Lisbon Treaty and some other legal issues (CD

ROM). 1. vydání. Brno : Tribun EU s.r.o., 2008. od s. 2 - 10, 9 s. ISBN 978-80-210-4630-6

© Masarykova univerzita, 2008

ISBN 978-80-210-4630-6

FOREWORD

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, dear guests and colleagues,

COFOLA 2008 is the II. international conference of doctoral students and young scholars held by the

Faculty of Law, Masaryk University. The change of the name of this conference (former PFAMEI) reflects

our different philosophical approach. Unlike PFAMEI, which was focused mainly on legal and financial

issues, COFOLA 2008 conference has no expressively stated topic for contributions. It is because the aim

of the COFOLA 2008 conference is to give to its participants an opportunity to address the most

poignant questions from their field of interest, whichever it is.

As the organizers of the conference, we are pleased that also our honorable colleagues from Belarus,

Italy, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Ukraine, USA and Yugoslavia participated at the conference.

We are honored that prof. JUDr. Naděžda Rozehnalová, CSc., the Dean of the Faculty of Law, Masaryk

University and Roman Onderka, the Mayor of the city of Brno, have accepted auspices over the COFOLA

2008 conference. We would like to express our thanks also to our donators as their appreciated

contributions significantly contributed to the success of the conference.

We hope that we will be able to welcome all participants again next year at the COFOLA 2009

conference.

Jan Neckář

Martin Orgoník

David Sehnálek

Jiří Valdhans

SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE

prof. JUDr. Naděžda Rozehnalová, CSc., dean of the Faculty of Law, Masaryk University, Department of

International and European Law

prof. JUDr. Vladimír Týč, CSc., Jean Monet Chair, head of the Department of International and

European Law

JUDr. David Sehnálek, Ph.D., assistant professor, Department of International and European Law

Mgr. Jiří Valdhans, Ph.D., assistant professor, Department of International and European Law

PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE CONFERENCE

Mgr. Jan Neckář, doctoral student, Department of Administrative and Financial Law

Mgr. Martin Orgoník, doctoral student, Department of International and European Law

JUDr. David Sehnálek, Ph.D., assistant professor, Department of International and European Law

Mgr. Jiří Valdhans, Ph.D., assistant professor, Department of International and European Law

DONATORS

GENERAL PARTNER

www.rakovsky.com

MAIN PARTNERS

PARTNERS

Advokátní kancelář Hrachy

Advokátní kancelář Schreiber

CONTENT

INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LAW SECTION

PETRA BOHŮNOVÁ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2

PROBLEMATICAL PROVISIONS OF THE REGULATION CREATING A EUROPEAN ORDER FOR PAYMENT PROCEDURE ....................... 2

JANA GLOGAROVÁ ....................................................................................................................................................................... 11

NĚKOLIK ÚVAH NAD PRÁVNÍ REGULACÍ KONCERNŮ S MEZINÁRODNÍM PRVKEM ......................................................................... 11

JANA HERBOCZKOVÁ ................................................................................................................................................................... 23

AMIABLE COMPOSITION IN THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION ............................................................................ 23

VERONIKA HRADILOVÁ ................................................................................................................................................................ 33

THE SELECTED TOPICS OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW IN CHINA .............................................................................................. 33

RADKA CHLEBCOVÁ ...................................................................................................................................................................... 42

BRUSSELS I REGULATION AND “THIRD STATES”/ BRUSELSKÉ NAŘÍZENÍ A TŘETÍ STÁTY .................................................................. 42

ELENA JÚDOVÁ, MARTA TYROLOVÁ ............................................................................................................................................. 53

NEW TYPES OF EUROPEAN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC .................................................................................... 53

ROMAN KALIŠ .............................................................................................................................................................................. 61

LEGAL ENVIRONMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS IN UZBEKISTAN ................................................................................. 61

PETRA NOVOTNÁ ......................................................................................................................................................................... 68

LEGAL PERSONS IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW AND RELATED CASE LAW OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE ................. 68

ZDENĚK NOVÝ .............................................................................................................................................................................. 76

ARBITRATION CLAUSE AS UNFAIR CONTRACT TERM: SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE ECJ´S CLARO CASE...................................... 76

MARTIN ORGONÍK ....................................................................................................................................................................... 90

TOWARDS FRANCHISING IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE ...................................................................................................................... 90

ADAM POSZEWIECKI .................................................................................................................................................................... 96

PERSPECTIVE OF UNIFICATION OF OBLIGATION LAW IN ASPECT OF IMPOSSIBILITY OF PERFORMANCE ....................................... 96

KATEŘINA ŘÍHOVÁ ..................................................................................................................................................................... 102

WTO NON-VIOLATION COMPLAINT: A MISUNDERSTOOD REMEDY OF THE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SYSTEM? ............................. 102

SIMONA TRÁVNÍČKOVÁ ............................................................................................................................................................. 122

ARBITRATION PUBLIC BID .............................................................................................................................................................. 121

RADKA DRULÁKOVÁ, ZUZANA TRÁVNÍČKOVÁ, ŠTĚPÁNKA ZEMANOVÁ ..................................................................................... 128

SANKČNÍ POLITIKA EVROPSKÉ UNIE ............................................................................................................................................... 128

JIRI VALDHANS, PETRA MYSAKOVA............................................................................................................................................ 139

CONFLICT RULES FOR DELICTS AND QUASI-DELICTS ...................................................................................................................... 139

MAGDALENA WASYLKOWSKA .................................................................................................................................................... 148

LOOKING FOR THE LAW APPLICABLE TO NON CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS IN THE REGULATION ROME II ............................... 148

PETR ŽÍDEK ................................................................................................................................................................................. 155

SELLER’S LIABILITY FOR COMPLIANCE OF THE GOODS WITH PUBLIC LAW STANDARDS – IN THE LIGHT OF CISG CASE LAW ....... 155

EUROPEAN LAW SECTION

ZOLTÁN ANGYAL ........................................................................................................................................................................ 164

THE LEGAL CONVERGENCE CRITERION AND THE CZECH REPUBLIC ............................................................................................... 164

ZSÓFIA ASZTALOS ....................................................................................................................................................................... 174

REMEDIES OF UNION CITIZENS VIS-À-VIS DISCRIMINATION.......................................................................................................... 174

RITA ÁGNES BAJOR .................................................................................................................................................................... 185

HUNGARY – “TOWARDS SUSTAINABILITY” .................................................................................................................................... 185

MARIJA BARTL............................................................................................................................................................................ 195

THE DRAFT COMMON FRAME OF REFERENCE: WHAT FUTURE FOR EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW? ............................................. 195

JUSTYNA BAZYLIŃSKA ................................................................................................................................................................ 211

CROSS-BORDER ENFORCEMENT OF EC CONSUMER LAW - CPC REGULATION .............................................................................. 211

IGOR BLAHUŠIAK ........................................................................................................................................................................ 218

THE TREATY OF LISBON: EUROPEAN „PHILADELPHIA“? COMPARISON FROM THE JURISTIC POINT OF VIEW. ............................. 218

JUDIT BŐHM .............................................................................................................................................................................. 227

COMPETITION IN ELECTRICITY MARKET ACCORDING TO THE REGULATION OF DIRECTIVE 2003/54/ EC ..................................... 227

TOMÁŠ BŘICHÁČEK .................................................................................................................................................................... 236

COMMON FRAME OF REFERENCE: A TOOLBOX OR A BASIS FOR A FUTURE EU CIVIL CODE? ...................................................... 236

LENKA ČERVENKOVÁ .................................................................................................................................................................. 247

EUROPEANIZATION AND UNIFICATION OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW .................................................................................. 247

GERGELY HORVÁTH .................................................................................................................................................................... 261

SOME LEGAL ASPECTS OF AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL EFFORTS IN THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY ..................................... 261

MARIA DIANA IONESCU ............................................................................................................................................................. 272

ISSUES RELATED TO THE TRANSPOSITION INTO THE ROMANIAN LAW OF THE FRAMEWORK DECISION 2002/584/JHA ON THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT AND THE SURRENDER PROCEDURES BETWEEN MEMBER STATES .............................................. 272

ANDREA JÁNOSI ......................................................................................................................................................................... 281

PUBLIC SECURITY, PUBLIC POLICY AND PUBLIC HEALTH AS POTENTIAL GROUNDS FOR IMPOSING RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT OF FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS ................................................................................................................................................ 281

JAN JIRÁSEK ............................................................................................................................................................................... 292

APPLICATION OF THE CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EU IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND POLAND ACCORDING TO THE LISBON TREATY ....................................................................................................................................................................... 292

ÁGNES JUHÁSZ ........................................................................................................................................................................... 300

TERRITORIAL COOPERATION AFTER 2007 ...................................................................................................................................... 300

ONDŘEJ KÁBELA ......................................................................................................................................................................... 310

AN OPINION ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT IN THE LIGHT OF THE PRACTICES OF THE CZECH SUPREME ADMINISTRATIVE COURT AND THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE, ESPECIALLY IN THE LIGHT OF PRINCIPLES OF EQUIVALENCE AND EFFECTIVENESS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 310

MAGDALÉNA KUDELOVÁ ........................................................................................................................................................... 321

EU CITIZENSHIP .............................................................................................................................................................................. 321

VERONIKA KUDROVÁ ................................................................................................................................................................. 329

RECOGNITION OF QUALIFICATIONS: EU LAW ................................................................................................................................ 329

SAFWAN NASER ......................................................................................................................................................................... 337

ETHICS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION ................................................................................................................................................. 337

DAVID SEHNÁLEK ....................................................................................................................................................................... 346

EXTERNAL TRADE RELATIONS OF THE EC AND ITS MEMBER STATES: ADMISSIBLE GENERAL EXCEPTIONS .................................. 346

KATEŘINA SKŘIVÁNKOVÁ ........................................................................................................................................................... 357

THE GREEN PAPER ON THE REVISION OF CONSUMER ACQUIS: SOME OBSERVATIONS ............................................................... 357

PETER SMUK .............................................................................................................................................................................. 367

PROTECTION OF MINORITIES BY THEIR KIN-STATES IN THE EU – THE CASE OF HUNGARY ........................................................... 367

VÁCLAV STEHLÍK ......................................................................................................................................................................... 384

CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW OF THE LISBON TREATY – A COMPLAINT LODGED TO THE CZECH CONSTITUTIONAL COURT ............ 384

MICHAEL ŠVARC ......................................................................................................................................................................... 391

COMMUNITARIZATION OF THE EU THIRD PILLAR TODAY AND ACCORDING TO THE LISBON TREATY .......................................... 391

FINANCIAL LAW SECTION

VLADIMÍR ADÁMEK .................................................................................................................................................................... 408

CELOŽIVOTNÍ VZDĚLÁVÁNÍ – PRÁVNÍ ÚPRAVA A VÝZNAM NEJEN Z HLEDISKA FINANCOVÁNÍ VYSOKÝCH ŠKOL .......................... 408

PETRA ADÁMKOVÁ .................................................................................................................................................................... 416

AKTUÁLNÍ OTÁZKY PRÁVNÍ ÚPRAVY FINANCOVÁNÍ VEŘEJNÝCH VÝZKUMNÝCH INSTITUCÍ .......................................................... 416

DOMINIKA BORSA ...................................................................................................................................................................... 427

THE ROLE OF FINANCIAL STANDARDS IN THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE COUNTRIES OF THE VISEGRAD GROUP .......................... 427

COSMIN FLAVIUS COSTAŞ ......................................................................................................................................................... 432

ROMANIAN TAX PROVISIONS INCONSISTENT WITH THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL ................................................................ 432

DAMIAN CZUDEK ....................................................................................................................................................................... 438

EDITAČNÍ POVINNOST - KOMPARACE ČESKÉ A POLSKÉ ÚPRAVY ................................................................................................... 438

OTÍLIA JAKUBČÍNOVÁ ................................................................................................................................................................. 448

ZMLUVA O DIELO NA REALIZÁCIU SYSTÉMOVEJ INTEGRÁCIE VYBRANÉ APLIKAČNÉ PROBLÉMY .................................................. 448

LIBOR KYNCL .............................................................................................................................................................................. 457

JEDNOTLIVÉ DRUHY CENNÝCH PAPÍRŮ .......................................................................................................................................... 457

LUDMILA LIPIEC-WARZECHA ...................................................................................................................................................... 465

ODPOWIEDZIALNOŚĆ ZA NARUSZENIE DYSCYPLINY FINANSÓW W POLSKIM SYSTEMIE ODPOWIEDZIALNOŚCI ......................... 465

DAVID LIŠKUTIN ......................................................................................................................................................................... 474

ECOLOGICAL FISCAL REFORM ........................................................................................................................................................ 474

MICHAELA MOŽDIÁKOVÁ ........................................................................................................................................................... 480

DORUČOVÁNÍ VE SPRÁVĚ DANÍ – KOMPARACE PROCESNÍCH PŘEDPISŮ ..................................................................................... 480

JAN NECKÁŘ ............................................................................................................................................................................... 489

INSTITUCIONÁLNÍ REFORMA DAŇOVÉ SPRÁVY V ČESKÉ REPUBLICE ............................................................................................. 489

JAN NECKÁŘ, DANA ŠRAMKOVÁ ................................................................................................................................................ 498

FLEXIBILITA A LISABONSKÁ SMLOUVA: POSÍLENÁ SPOLUPRÁCE V OBLASTI FINANČNÍHO PRÁVA? .............................................. 498

MARTIN NETOLICKÝ ................................................................................................................................................................... 506

MÁ KRITÉRIUM ROZLOHY OBCE OPODSTATNĚNÍPRO PŘEZOZDĚLENÍ SDÍLENÝCH DANÍ? ............................................................ 506

LÁSZLÓ PARDAVI ........................................................................................................................................................................ 512

ON THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE PREFERENCES OF CUSTOMS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION ............................................................. 512

MICHAL RADVAN ....................................................................................................................................................................... 521

MOŽNOSTI OBCÍ OVLIVNIT DAŇ Z NEMOVITOSTÍ .......................................................................................................................... 521

ALENA SALINKOVÁ ..................................................................................................................................................................... 527

(NE)LEGÁLNOST ON LINE SÁZENÍ ................................................................................................................................................... 527

PETRA SCHILLEROVÁ .................................................................................................................................................................. 533

VZNIK A ŘEŠENÍ MEZINÁRODNÍHO DVOJÍHO ZDANĚNÍ ................................................................................................................. 533

JANA ŠIMONOVÁ ....................................................................................................................................................................... 540

ZÁKLADNÉ VÝCHODISKÁ EURÓPSKEHO VPLYVU NA PRÁVNU REGULÁCIU FINANČNÉHO TRHU V SR........................................... 540

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW SECTION

ĽUBICA CEHLÁROVÁ ................................................................................................................................................................... 547

DARCOVSTVO ĽUDSKÝCH ORGÁNOV A TRANSPLANTÁCIE Z POHĽADU NORIEM SPRÁVNEHO PRÁVA ......................................... 547

LUKÁŠ HLOUCH .......................................................................................................................................................................... 559

INSTITUCIONÁLNÍ PŘEDPOROZUMĚNÍ V PROCESU SPRÁVNÍHO ROZHODOVÁNÍ ......................................................................... 559

PETRA MELOTÍKOVÁ .................................................................................................................................................................. 571

VYBRANÉ PRÁVNÍ NÁSTROJE RADY EVROPY V OBLASTI OCHRANY OSOBNÍCH ÚDAJŮ ................................................................. 571

ONDŘEJ MORAVEC ..................................................................................................................................................................... 579

SJEDNOCOVÁNÍ JUDIKATURY POHLEDEM ÚČASTNÍKA ŘÍZENÍ – ŘÍZENÍ PŘED ROZŠÍŘENÝM SENÁTEM NEJVYŠŠÍHO SPRÁVNÍHO SOUDU ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 579

PETR POSPÍŠIL ............................................................................................................................................................................ 593

NÁJEM PODNIKU(JE MOŽNÝ V PŘÍPADĚ PŘÍSPĚVKOVÉ ORGANIZACE ÚZEMNÍHO SAMOSPRÁVNÉHO CELKU?) .......................... 593

LUKÁŠ POTĚŠIL ........................................................................................................................................................................... 601

INDIVIDUÁLNÍ SPRÁVNÍ AKTY ........................................................................................................................................................ 601

LUCIA RENTKOVÁ ....................................................................................................................................................................... 611

PRÁVNICKÉ OSOBY CIRKVÍ VO SVETLE POVAHY CIRKEVNÝCH PREDPISOV V ČR ............................................................................ 611

FILIP RIGEL ................................................................................................................................................................................. 618

PLATNOST A ZÁVAZNOST ROZHODNUTÍ V MÍSTNÍM REFERENDU VE SVĚTLE ZKUŠENOSTÍ Z PRAXE ........................................... 618

RUDOLF RYS ............................................................................................................................................................................... 629

EVROPSKÝ ROZMĚR LEPŠÍ REGULACE ............................................................................................................................................ 629

MARTIN ŠMÍD ............................................................................................................................................................................ 640

POZNÁMKY K VYŠŠÍ ÚZEMNÍ SAMOSPRÁVĚ V ČR A POLSKU ......................................................................................................... 640

JOZEF TEKELI .............................................................................................................................................................................. 645

ROZHODOVACIA ČINNOSŤ OBCE V RÁMCI STAROSTLIVOSTI O ŽIVOTNÉ PROSTREDIE ................................................................. 645

PATRÍCIA TOMÁŠOVÁ ................................................................................................................................................................ 654

THE MATTER OF PUBLICITY AND PROCESS OF MAKING INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN SLOVAK INFORMATION ACCESS ACT .............. 654

LENKA TUŠEROVÁ ...................................................................................................................................................................... 663

VYDÁVÁNÍ OVĚŘENÝCH VÝSTUPŮ Z INFORMAČNÍCH SYSTÉMŮ VEŘEJNÉ SPRÁVY – CZECHPOINT ............................................... 663

DR. PÉTER VÁCZI ........................................................................................................................................................................ 672

THE INSTITUTION OF GOOD ADMINISTRATION IN THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE .............................................................................. 672

LABOUR LAW SECTION

LEONA BUZRLOVÁ ...................................................................................................................................................................... 681

NÁLEŽITOSTI A SPECIFIKA PRACOVNÍ SMLOUVY V NĚMECKU ................................................................................................... 681

HANA DEJMKOVÁ ...................................................................................................................................................................... 690

VYSÍLÁNÍ ZAMĚSTNANCŮ V RÁMCI EVROPSKÝCH SPOLEČENTSVÍ ................................................................................................. 690

OLGA DVORSKÁ ......................................................................................................................................................................... 705

EVROPSKÝ ROK ROVNÝCH PŘÍLEŽITOSTÍA IMPLEMENTACE SMĚRNIC RADY 2000/43/ES A 2000/78/ES ...................................... 705

JÁCINT FERENCZ ......................................................................................................................................................................... 721

DIE AUFHEBUNG DER ARBEITSVERHÄLTNISSE IN UNGARN .......................................................................................................... 721

JINDŘIŠKA FIALOVÁ .................................................................................................................................................................... 732

JSOU ZAMĚSTNANCI CHRÁNĚNI PŘI SKONČENÍ PRACOVNÍHO POMĚRU DOSTATEČNĚ? .............................................................. 732

IVANA HENDRYCHOVÁ ............................................................................................................................................................... 741

VÝKON VÝDĚLEČNÉ ČINNOSTI PŘI ČERPÁNÍ DOVOLENÉ VE SPOLKOVÉ REPUBLICE NĚMECKO ..................................................... 741

ANDREA HRDLIČKOVÁ ............................................................................................................................................................... 750

ZKUŠEBNÍ DOBA PO NOVELE ZÁKONÍKU PRÁCE ............................................................................................................................ 750

ALEŠ JANOCH ............................................................................................................................................................................. 756

ZÁKONÍK PRÁCE A ŘÍZENÍ PRACOVNÍHO PROCESU ........................................................................................................................ 756

JANA KOMENDOVÁ .................................................................................................................................................................... 764

ZÁKAZ DISKRIMINACE NA ZÁKLADĚ ZDRAVOTNÍHO POSTIŽENÍ V PRACOVNĚPRÁVNÍCH VZTAZÍCH ............................................. 764

MICHAL KURIL ............................................................................................................................................................................ 775

AKTUÁLNY VÝVOJ PRACOVNÉHO PRÁVA EÚ :ZÁKAZ DISKRIMINÁCIE V PRACOVNOPRÁVNYCH VZŤAHOCH. ............................... 775

JOZEF TOMAN ............................................................................................................................................................................ 788

ZÁVISLÁ PRÁCA – PILIER ALEBO BREMENO? .................................................................................................................................. 788

ROMAN TUREK ........................................................................................................................................................................... 801

KONKURENČNÍ DOLOŽKA A PENĚŽITÉ VYROVNÁNÍ ....................................................................................................................... 801

ECONOMIC SECTORS WITHIN EUROPEAN INTEGRATION

ALTYNAY ALIYEVA ...................................................................................................................................................................... 815

BILATERÁLNÍ EKONOMICKÉ VZTAHY MEZI KAZACHSTÁNEM A ČESKOU REPUBLIKOU ................................................................. 815

THEODOR BERAN ....................................................................................................................................................................... 825

VÝZNAM INTEGROVANÉ EKONOMIKY VE VZDĚLÁVACÍM PROCESU .............................................................................................. 825

EVA KOIŠOVÁ, JOZEF KOIŠ .......................................................................................................................................................... 834

FAKTORY VPLÝVAJÚCE NA DOPYT PO PRAVIDELNEJ AUTOBUSOVEJ DOPRAVE ............................................................................ 834

JURAJ KOLENČÍK, LUCIA KOŠABKOVÁ ......................................................................................................................................... 844

MANAŽMENT INOVÁCII ................................................................................................................................................................. 844

JANA MASÁROVÁ ....................................................................................................................................................................... 851

FINANCOVANIE CESTNEJ INFRAŠTRUKTÚRY V SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKE ........................................................................................ 851

FLORIAN MARGAN * .................................................................................................................................................................. 864

EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT UNBUNDLING OF TRANSMISSION SYSTEM OPERATORS (TSO) ........................................................... 864

KARINA MUŽÁKOVÁ .................................................................................................................................................................. 880

INTEGRATION OF FINANCIAL MARKETS ......................................................................................................................................... 880

RICHARD POSPÍŠIL ...................................................................................................................................................................... 890

VYPLÁCENÍ NÁHRAD NÁKLADŮ CHOVATELŮM PŘI VÝSKYTU BOVINNÍ SPONGIFORMNÍ ENCEFALOPATIE V ČESKÉ REPUBLICE A JEJICH PRAKTICKÁ REALIZACE V LETECH 2001 AŽ 2007 ................................................................................................................. 890

MOJMÍR SABOLOVIČ .................................................................................................................................................................. 900

EXPLOITATION OF IP VALUE GROWTH POTENTIAL IN TERMS OF SME‘S INTERNAL ENVIRONMENT ............................................ 900

EVA TOMÁŠKOVÁ ...................................................................................................................................................................... 910

ČESKÉ ZEMĚDĚLSTVÍ V RÁMCI EVROPSKÉ INTEGRACE .................................................................................................................. 910

IVANA VALOVÁ .......................................................................................................................................................................... 922

ÚČETNÍ STANDARDY V SOUVISLOSTECH ........................................................................................................................................ 922

BOHUMILA ŽIŽKOVÁ .................................................................................................................................................................. 931

NOVÉ SMĚRY SPOLEČNÉ ZEMĚDĚLSKÉ POLITIKY EVROPSKÉ UNIE ................................................................................................ 931

LEGAL HISTORY SECTION

JAN ALT ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 943

DOKAZOVÁNÍ V ŘÍZENÍ PŘED HORNÍM SOUDEM PODLE IUS REGALE MONTANORUM ................................................................ 943

PETR BERÁNEK ........................................................................................................................................................................... 954

PŘÍPRAVA VOLEB DO ÚSTAVODÁRNÉHO NÁRODNÍHO SHROMÁŽDĚNÍ V KONTEXTU VZTAHŮ ČECHŮ A SLOVÁKŮ .................... 954

LENKA BEZOUŠKOVÁ .................................................................................................................................................................. 961

PRAMENY ISLÁMSKÉHO PRÁVA ..................................................................................................................................................... 961

LUKÁŠ BUZEK ............................................................................................................................................................................. 975

FORMÁLNÍ KONTINUTITA AMERICKÉHO (KOLONIÁLNÍHO) A ANGLICKÉHO PRÁVA ...................................................................... 975

PETRA CAPANDOVÁ ................................................................................................................................................................... 987

INŠTITÚT VYDRŽANIA V RÍMSKOM PRÁVE A V OBČIANSKOM ZÁKONNÍKU ČSR Z ROKU 1950 ..................................................... 987

GERGELY DELI ............................................................................................................................................................................. 998

CONTINUITY AND DISCONTINUITY IN CONCEPT OF LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY ................................................................................. 998

PAVOL DRLIČKA ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1009

RELATIONSHIP OF EUROPEAN IUS COMMUNE AND NATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEMS IN FORESEEABLE FUTURE .............................. 1009

MIROSLAV FRÝDEK ................................................................................................................................................................... 1019

DEFINOVÁNÍ OPAKEM V ŘÍMSKÉM PRÁVU –CAPITIS DEMINUTIO ET STATUS LIBERTATIS, CIVITATIS ET FAMILIAE ................... 1019

TOMÁŠ GÁBRIŠ ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1036

HISTORICKÝ VÝKLAD V PRAXI EURÓPSKEHO SÚDNEHO DVORA .................................................................................................. 1036

DUŠAN HOLUB ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1046

TEORETICKO PRÁVNE REFLEXIE O VZNIKU HOSPODÁRSKEHO PRÁVA......................................................................................... 1046

ROBERT JAKUBÍČEK .................................................................................................................................................................. 1055

ACTIO EXERCITORIA ET INSTITORIA ANEB PŘÍMÉ ZASTOUPENÍ V ŘÍMSKÉM OBCHODNÍM PRÁVU ............................................ 1055

VERONIKA KUBRIKOVÁ ............................................................................................................................................................ 1066

TRESTNÉ SÚDNICTVO V ČSSR V 60. ROKOCH 20.STOROČIA........................................................................................................ 1066

JANA LOJKOVÁ ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1077

VÝVOJ A VÝZNAM INSTITUTU DĚTSKÉHO OMBUDSMANA .......................................................................................................... 1077

PETRONELA LUPRICHOVÁ ........................................................................................................................................................ 1088

HISTORICKÉ A PRÁVNE ASPEKTY OSOBITNÝCH PRÁVNYCH PREDPISOV O TRESTNOM KONANÁ PROTI MLADISTVÝM PÁCHATEĽOM TRESTNÝCH ČINOV ............................................................................................................................................... 1088

LUCIE OBROVSKÁ ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1099

POSTAVENÍ OTROKA V ANTICKÉM ŘECKU ................................................................................................................................... 1099

BALÁZS PÁLVÖLGYI .................................................................................................................................................................. 1110

ZWISCHENFALL IN TIENTSIN – EIN STÜCK DER DOPPELMONARCHIE IN CHINA IM JAHRE 1917 ................................................. 1110

DARINA POPOVIČOVÁ .............................................................................................................................................................. 1118

PRÁVNÍ ÚPRAVA OCHRANY LIDSKÉHO ŽIVOTA V HISTORII SAMOSTATNÉHO ČESKOSLOVENSKA............................................... 1118

PAVEL SALÁK JR........................................................................................................................................................................ 1130

SELHÁNÍ VOJENSKÉ ASISTENCE V OSLAVANECH V PROSINCI 1920 ............................................................................................. 1130

JOHAN SCHWEIGL .................................................................................................................................................................... 1139

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER – „ZAVRŠENÍ EVOLUCE“ DOKTRINÁLNÍCH PŘÍSTUPŮ K INTERPRETACI DRUHÉHO DODATKU AMERICKÉ ÚSTAVY? ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1139

JAROMÍR TAUCHEN, LENKA ŠKODOVÁ ..................................................................................................................................... 1152

NUCENÉ STERILIZACE VE TŘETÍ ŘÍŠI – ZLOČIN NA ZÁKLADĚ ZÁKONA .......................................................................................... 1152

VÁCLAV VALEŠ ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1163

DNY PRACOVNÍHO KLIDU V ČESKOSLOVENSKÉM PRÁVNÍM ŘÁDU (1918-1938)......................................................................... 1163

CIVIL LAW SECTION

MILAN BORODOVČÁK .............................................................................................................................................................. 1172

VYBRANÉ ASPEKTY SOFTWAROVÉHO PIRÁTSTVA ....................................................................................................................... 1172

RADOVAN DÁVID ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1182

STÁTNÍ ZASTUPITELSTVÍ V CIVILNÍM ŘÍZENÍ DLE JUDIKATURY ESLP ............................................................................................ 1182

DAVID DVOŘÁK ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1193

ZMĚNY SMLUV VE VEŘEJNÝCH ZAKÁZKÁCH ................................................................................................................................ 1193

ZSÓFIA HORVÁTH ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1206

CONSUMER PROTECTION IN THE HUNGARIAN COMPETITION LAW ........................................................................................... 1206

MICHAELA HRUBÁ .................................................................................................................................................................... 1214

MEZINÁRODNÍ ÚNOSY DĚTÍ ......................................................................................................................................................... 1214

TOMÁŠ HÜLLE .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1225

DISPOZITIVNÍ A KOGENTNÍ USTANOVENÍ OBČANSKÉHO ZÁKONÍKU ........................................................................................... 1225

LUCIA CHRAPKOVÁ .................................................................................................................................................................. 1244

ZNALECKÉ DOKAZOVANIE V SLOVENSKOM A NEMECKOM CIVILNOM PROCESE ........................................................................ 1244

JIŘÍ JANEBA .............................................................................................................................................................................. 1252

KARTELY A SOUKROMOPRÁVNÍ NÁHRADA .................................................................................................................................. 1252

MARTIN KORNEL ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1261

PŘÍMÝ A NEPŘÍMÝ STYK RODIČE S NEZLETILÝM DÍTĚTEM ........................................................................................................... 1261

ALEXANDRA KOTRECOVÁ ......................................................................................................................................................... 1270

HLADANIE CESTY K NEZAUJATOSTI SUDCU V CIVILNOM KONANÍ ............................................................................................... 1270

INGRID KOVÁŘOVÁ KOCHOVÁ ................................................................................................................................................. 1280

PRÁVNÍ PRINCIPY ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1280

CARISSA J. MEYER .................................................................................................................................................................... 1289

A PREDATOR IN AMERICA’S MIDST: A LOOK AT PREDATORY LENDING AND THE CURRENT SUBPRIME MORTGAGE CRISIS ...... 1289

PAVEL PETR .............................................................................................................................................................................. 1302

VYMEZENÍ POJMU BYT A SUPERFICÁRNÍ ZÁSADA ....................................................................................................................... 1302

SASKIA POLÁČKOVÁ ................................................................................................................................................................. 1307

UZNANIE A VÝKON ROZHODNUTIA .......................................................................................................................................... 1307

LENKA ŘEHULOVÁ .................................................................................................................................................................... 1317

EXKURZ DO ŠPANĚLSKÉ PRÁVNÍ ÚPRAVY ADVOKACIE ................................................................................................................ 1317

PETR SEDLÁK ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1327

DŮSLEDKY REVIZE EVROPSKÉ ÚMLUVY O OSVOJENÍ DĚTÍ NA NOVELU OBČANSKÉHO ZÁKONÍKU ............................................. 1327

MARKÉTA SELUCKÁ .................................................................................................................................................................. 1335

PŘEZKUM SPOTŘEBITELSKÉHO ACQUIS V KONTEXTU ČESKÉHO PRÁVA DE LEGE LATA .............................................................. 1335

PETR SPRINZ ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1341

PRINCIP TRANSPARENTNOSTI DLE SMĚRNICE O NEPŘIMĚŘENÝCH PODMÍNKÁCH ..................................................................... 1341

ANDRÁS SZEGEDI ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1350

THE NEW APPROACH IN THE REGULATION OF NOMINAL CAPITAL IN COMPANY LAW: FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES OR DEADLOCK? ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1350

ATTILA VERMES ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1358

REFORM OF THE HUNGARIAN INSURANCE LAW ......................................................................................................................... 1358

MICHAL VLASÁK ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1367

EUROPEIZACE SOUKROMOPRÁVNÍCH DELIKTNÍCH VZTAHŮ ....................................................................................................... 1367

RADOSŁAW WOJTECZEK .......................................................................................................................................................... 1378

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CZECH AND POLISH FAMILY LAW – COMPERATIVE ANALYSIS .............................................................. 1378

1

INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LAW SECTION

2

PROBLEMATICAL PROVISIONS OF THE REGULATION CREATING A EUROPEAN ORDER FOR PAYMENT PROCEDURE

PETRA BOHŮNOVÁ

FACULTY OF LAW, MASARYK UNIVERSITY

Abstrakt

Příspěvek se zabývá problematickými ustanoveními nařízení o evropském platebním rozkazu. V úvodu

jsou stručně uvedeny charakteristické znaky nařízení. Poté jsou analyzována jednotlivá ustanovení, o

nichž se dá předpokládat, že v praxi budou působit potíže při aplikaci: pravomoc soudů, vyloučení

nároků z mimosmluvních závazkových vztahů, struktura formuláře, rozsah kontroly návrhu a sankce za

nepravdivé informace v něm uvedené, promlčení, doručování a nejasnosti týkající se opravného

prostředku. V závěru je nařízení krátce zhodnoceno.

Klíčová slova

Nařízení o evropském platebním rozkazu, mezinárodní pravomoc, návrh na vydání evropského

platebního rozkazu, formulářové řízení, opravný prostředek

Abstract

This paper deals with the problematical provisions of the regulation creating a European order for

payment procedure. First, the characteristic features of the regulation are briefly sketched. Then, the

particular provisions of the regulation, which are supposed to cause troubles in practice, are analyzed:

international jurisdiction, exclusion of the claims arising from non-contractual obligations, structure of

the forms, extent of the examination of applications and sanctions for untrue information given, lapse,

service of documents and obscurities related to the remedy. In the end, the regulation is assessed in

short.

Keywords

Regulation creating a European order for payment procedure, international jurisdiction, application for

a European order for payment, form – procedure, remedy

1. Introduction

The European legislator decided to create a legal framework for creditors in the European Union

(hereinafter referred to as „EU“) for swifter, more efficient and cheaper recovery of probably

3

uncontested pecuniary claims1 in cross-border cases. The clue shall be a transnationalized “European

procedure” with a subsidiary application of national laws. The legal base for it is the Regulation (EC) No.

1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European

order for payment procedure (hereinafter referred to as „regulation on European order for payment“).2

The scope of application concerns only pecuniary claims for a specific amount which have fallen due. At

the end of the procedure there shall be a “European” title, i.e. a title issued in the procedure which falls

under the same regulation in all member states of the EU. Moreover, such a title does not need to be

recognized, to be declared enforceable or to be confirmed as a European enforcement order. In this way,

a free circulation of European payment orders shall be ensured and the creditors shall have guaranteed

the same level of a playing field. The next typical feature of this regulation is a broad use of standardised

forms which are mostly to be filled in by marking off of the relevant data. Then, the procedure shall

relieve also the courts because applications do not have to be necessarily examined by a judge.

For creditors, the European order for payment procedure shall be a further alternative for a debt

recovery. It is an optional means additional to the European enforcement order, which can be issued

under the Council Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for

uncontested claims (hereinafter referred to as „regulation creating a European Enforcement Order”), a

decision declared enforceable under the Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on

jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters

(hereinafter referred to as „regulation Brussels I), in particular cases to the “European” decision issued

under the Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007

establishing a European Small Claims Procedure, and to accelerated procedures embodied in some3

national legal orders.

1 The article 6 of the enacting clause as well as the article 1 section 1 lit. a) of the regulation mention „uncontested pecuniary claims”. In reality, whether a claim is really uncontested will be clear as late as in the course of the European payment order procedure. It depends on the fact, whether the defendant will lodge a statement of opposition to the European order for payment (article 16) or whether he/she requires its review. For that reason, it is better to speak about “probably uncontested debts”. 2 The idea to establish a European accelerated procedure for recovery of claims is not a new one. The Council of Ministers recommended it already in 1984. The first concretization of the suggestion came in 1987 at the VIII. International Congress on Procedural Law in Utrecht. Here, a working group was created consisting of experts on the procedural law coming from the twelve member states of the EU. In 1993, they introduced the Model Law on European Civil Procedure. Its articles 11.1. – 11.9. contained provisions concerning the European Payment Order Procedure. Although the Model Law has never entered in force, it remains an important master for activities in the area of procedural law. In 1998, the first law-making initiative arose and resulted in a proposal of the Directive on the fight against defaults with payment in commercial relations. As it was not sure, whether the article 95 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community (hereinafter referred to as „EC – Treaty“) creates competences of the European Community in this field, again, it has never entered in force. The present regulation was issued after the EC obtained the competence in the field of civil procedure (article 61 lit. c) in conjunction with the article 65 of the EC-Treaty). The aim to establish a European payment order procedure was included in the action plans from Vienna and Tampere and in the related Programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters. Sujecki, B. Europäisches Mahnverfahren. ZEuP, 2006, No. 1, p. 127 – 129. 3 E.g. the Czech legal order regulates both the payment order procedure and the procedure on the bill of exchange order and the cheque order. On the contrary, the Dutch law does not know an accelerated procedure at all. Sujecki, B. op. cit. p. 2 (footnote), p. 131.

4

Regarding the fact that the regulation enters in force only on December, 12 of this year we have not had

any response about its use in praxis yet. Therefore, we can not say for a certainty how efficient it will be.

Notwithstanding, some provisions can be currently identified which will probably cause troubles by

their application. The focus of this paper is to analyze these provisions and to suggest some better

solutions. Concerning the course of the European order for payment procedure I refer to the texts

already published in legal journals.4

2. International Jurisdiction of the Courts

Concerning the determination of international jurisdiction article 6 refers to the article 59 regulation

Brussels I. If a defendant is a consumer, a claim can be lodged only by courts in the state, in which the

defendant is domiciled. This means, that an exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of a defendant’s home

state applies in such a case.

However, the use of mentioned provisions of the regulation Brussels I seems not to be suitable for the

European payment order procedure. Beside the general rule in article 2 stipulating that a judicial

procedure has to take place at a court of the member state where the defendant has his domicile, the

regulation contains many other special and exclusive jurisdiction rules, legal regulation of which is quite

complicated in some cases. They have to be interpreted partly in conformity with judicial decisions of

the European Court of Justice, partly according to national rules on jurisdiction. For that reason, the

solution contained in the regulation on European order for payment contravenes the intention to

simplify the recovery of probably uncontested claims. The fulfilment of the conditions, that establish the

international jurisdiction of a particular court, will have to be examined by a judge and not by an e.g.

clerk of court.5

Unfortunately, the proposal to introduce an exclusive international jurisdiction of the courts of a

member state where the defendant is domiciled (which corresponded to the article 2 section 1 of the

regulation Brussels I) did not carry through. This solution would make the European order for payment

procedure more accessible and definitely easier. In such a case, an electronic examination of an

application for a European order for payment would be possible.

3. Exclusion of the claims arising from non-contractual obligations

4 See e.g. Horák, P., Zavadilová, M. Evropský platební rozkaz a jeho role v českém civilním procesu. Právní rozhledy, 2006, No. 22, p. 803 – 810; Sujecki, B. Das Europäische Mahnverfahren. NJW, 2007, No. 23, p. 1622 – 1625. 5 Sujecki, B. Erste Überlegungen zum europäischen elektronischen Mahnverfahren. MMR, 2005, No. 4, p. 214 – 215.

5

The recovery of debts arising from non-contractual obligations in the way of an European payment

order is possible only if they have been the subject of an agreement between the parties or there has

been an admission of debt or if they relate to liquidated debts arising from joint ownership of property

(article 2 section 2 lit. d)).6

It is questionable, whether such a rule was necessary. If there is no pecuniary claim or if its amount is

not specified, they would not have to be particularly excluded from the scope of application of the

regulation. As already mentioned, the regulation applies only to pecuniary claims for a specific amount.

Moreover, the question whether there is a non-contractual obligation or not is qualified differently in

various legal orders (e.g. culpa in contrahendo) which will cause dissension in application of the

regulation.7

4. Structure of the forms

There are seven forms intended for particular phases of the procedure. They contain a broad catalogue

of items with codes which are to be completed by simple ticking off. The forms are translated in all

official languages of the EU, which should eliminate the problems with translation: a person responsible

for the European order for payment procedure can only compare the form in the official language of the

court with the form in the official language of the claimant or defendant.

Unfortunately, this practice is not possible in all cases as some data have to be formulated in whole

sentences.8 The form has to be unconditionally filled in the official language of the state where the court,

which has an international jurisdiction, has the residence, or where the person, whom it is served, is

domiciled. This might discourage creditors to make an application for a European order for payment in

another state than where he is domiciled. It is a complication also for a court which has to use the

language of a state, where a creditor or a defendant has his domicile.9

5. Extent of the examination of applications

Article 8 stipulates that the court seized of an application for a European order for payment shall

examine, as soon as possible, whether the formal requirements (articles 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7) are met and

6 Furthermore, from the scope of application are excluded revenue, customs or administrative matters, liability of the State for acts and omissions in the exercise of State authority („acta iure imperii“), rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship, wills and succession; bankruptcy, compulsory composition and similar proceedings and social security. 7 Sujecki, B. op. cit. p. 3 (footnote), p.1623. 8 E.g. Form A – Application for a European order for payment - article 7 (interests), article 8 (contractual penalty), article 11 (additional statements and further information). 9 E.g. Form B – Request to the claimant to complete and/or rectify an application for the European order for payment – completion or correction of the application in particular points.

6

whether the claim appears to be founded. This examination may take the form of an automated

procedure. If the formal requirements are not met, and unless the claim is clearly unfounded or the

application is inadmissible, the claimant shall be given the opportunity to complete or rectify the

application (article 9). On the contrary, the application can be completely rejected if the legal formal

requirements are not met, if the application is clearly unfounded, if claimant fails to send his reply to the

court's proposal of modification (rectification or completion) of the application or if he does not accept

it (article 10). The claimant is given no right of appeal against the rejection of the application. However,

there are no obstacles to lodge the application again.

The question is, how to interpret the world “examine” in the article 8. Which examination is meant here

– a formal or a material one? It seems to me that the text allows both possibilities:

The issue of fact has to be described and descriptions of evidence supporting the claim have to be stated

in the application. Accordingly, article 16 of the enacting clause mentions the examination of the

application including the issue of jurisdiction and the description of evidence. This would indicate a

material examination. Conversely, the mere formal examination is supported by the fact that in the

European order for payment the defendant shall be informed in conformity with article 12 section 4 lit.

a) that the information provided by the claimant was not verified by the court. Furthermore, an

electronic examination of an application shall be possible, which is very difficult to imagine if there is a

requirement of a material examination. Last, but not least, in compliance with article 16 of the enacting

clause the examination of the application by a judge should not be necessary.

Apparently, there is no clear answer to the question in the regulation, although such an explicit rule

stipulated directly in the regulation would be more than useful. In respect to the mentioned facts I hold

the opinion, that a formal examination of the application is sufficient. The material examination gives

more certainty at law indeed; however, it contradicts the aim of the accelerated procedure. In addition,

one of the features of the accelerated procedure is that the guarantee of the debtor’s right of audience is

shifted in the phase after lodging a statement of opposition when the European order for payment

procedure continues before the courts of the Member State of origin in accordance with the rules of

ordinary civil procedure. The advantage is, that such a rule makes the debtor to behave more

responsible – he is obliged to really deal with the European payment order and to decide – after

forethought – whether he will lodge a statement of opposition. Besides, the debtor is entitled to make

use of a remedy in particular cases.

On the other hand, the interpretation in favour of the formal examination should be amended at least

with the possibility to reject the application if it is clearly unfounded (i.e. it would be examined

7

materially in such a case).10 This solution would permit firstly, that the examination could be made by

e.g. clerks of court, and secondly, the examination could be fully automated. In this way, the procedure

would be more effective and the courts would be relieved. If the single member states regulate this issue

in their national legal orders, it would lead to discrepancy with the aim of the regulation to establish a

uniform European order for payment procedure how it is embodied in article 1.11

6. Sanctions for untrue information in an application

In accordance with article 7 section 3, a claimant shall declare that the information provided is true to

the best of his knowledge and belief and shall acknowledge that any deliberate false statement could

lead to appropriate penalties under the law of the Member State of origin.

This provision explicitly refers to sanctions stipulated by the national legal orders but it is not clear

which sanctions the European legislator meant – criminal, civil or administrative ones? We have to be

aware of the fact that in the single member states sanctions of various characters may be imposed and

moreover, these can be applied differently by the courts.12 Here the regulation is again shifting away

from the idea of a uniform transnationalized European order for payment regulation.

7. Lapse

In the paragraph 5, the conditions for rejection of the application for a European order for payment are

listed (article 11). However, there is no rule concerning the maintenance of the term, interrupting

running of time or the beginning of a new term after the rejection of the application. With regard to the

aim of the unified transnational procedure such a rule would be suitable as in the current situation

national legal rules will be applicable.13

8. Service of documents

Unfortunately, the legal regulation of the service of documents is not ideal. The European legislator

probably overheard the loud criticism of the regulation of the service of documents in the regulation

10 For example, if doubts about the rightness of information provided by the creditor arise in an Austrian payment order procedure, the court can examine the application materially. This concerns e.g. the cases where creditors try to stake too high interests as a part of their claim. Sujecki, B. Kritische Anmerkungen zum gerichtlichen Prüfungsumfang im Europäischen Mahnverfahren. Das Europäische Mahnverfahren. ERA Forum (2007) 8:91–105, p. 96 and 94. 11 Ibid., p. 91 – 105. 12 Sujecki, B. Europäisches Mahnverfahren - Geänderter Verordnungsvorschlag. EuZW, 2006, No. 11, p. 330. 13 Sujecki, B. op. cit. p. 3 (footnote), p. 1624.

8

creating a European Enforcement Order (articles 13 and 14),14 which are exactly the same as in the

regulation on European order for payment (including the numbering of the articles).

Except that, it would be desirable to regulate the situation when the European order for payment is

served in contradiction to the rules for service of documents but the debtor lodges a statement of

opposition though. Does that mean that the European order for payment is completely invalid or can it

be considered as a beginning of a civil procedure?15

9. Remedy

After the lapse of the time for lodging a statement of opposition, the defendant is entitled to apply for a

review of the European order for payment before the competent court in the Member State of origin. It

is a compromise between a one – and a two-stage procedure. The conditions are stipulated in article 20:

1. The order for payment was served by one of the methods provided for in Article 14, and service was

not effected in sufficient time to enable him to arrange for his defence, without any fault on his part, or

2. the defendant was prevented from objecting to the claim by reason of force majeure or due to

extraordinary circumstances without any fault on his part.

In either case, the defendant has to act promptly (article 20 section 1).

3. Order for payment was clearly wrongly issued, having regard to the requirements laid down in this

Regulation, or due to other exceptional circumstances (article 20 section 2).

By this provision, the courts will have to cope (or to wait for judicial decisions of the European Court of

Justice) with undefined notions such as “promptly”, “extraordinary circumstances“ or „clearly wrongly“.

In relation to the article 20 section 1 lit. a) ii doubts arose,16 whether a situation can occur, that the

service was not effected in sufficient time to enable the defendant to arrange for his defence as the term

for sending a statement of opposition starts not until the European order for payment is served. This

distinguishes the European order for payment procedure from an ordinary civil procedure, where the

date of proceeding is appointed and between the service of the document giving notice about that and

14 For more details see Bohůnová, P. Nařízení o evropském exekučním titulu. Je dlužníkovi garantováno právo na spravedlivý proces? Evropský exekuční titul. Právní rádce, 2008, No. 3, p. 28 – 36.

15 Considering the aim of the regulation to ensure an efficient recovery of the debts, I think the second solution would be more convenient as it constitutes a parallel to the regulation Brussels I and the regulation creating a European Enforcement Order. Under the former, a formal mistake in the service of documents can not lead to the rejection of the recognition and of the declaring the decision enforceable if the debtor was aware of it (article 34 section 2). In its article 18, the latter makes the debtor to deal with the procedure in which he was invalidly served. If he gets knowledge of the procedure at least upon the service of the decision and if he does not lodge a remedy, the decision can be confirmed as a European Enforcement Order. Lodging a remedy is an active conduct that shows that the European order for payment was served to the defendant. 16 Sujecki, B. op. cit. p. 2 (footnote), p. 146.

9

the proceeding itself a little time can be left for the defendant to arrange for his defence. According to

the diction of article 20 section 1 lit. a), the legislator meant the case when the European order for

payment is served in accordance with the rules for service but without proof of receipt by the

defendant. I.e. the document taken over by another person than the defendant and the defendant gets

knowledge about it too late and is not able to lodge the statement of opposition in the given term.

The negative of this provision is that it does not explicitly state which remedy shall be lodged. Will it be

possible to break the legal force of the European order for payment? In this context, the remedy seems

to be quite problematical as there is neither a time restriction17, nor a limitation of its use on particular

cases stipulated by the regulation18. Hence, there is a danger of a too broad scope of application of the

remedy and of its conflict with the institute of material legal force.19 Such a rule does not bring much

certainty at law either.

10. Conclusion

The regulation on European order for payment procedure has surely many insufficiencies as well as the

other regulations issued recently20. On the other hand, its positives have to be reflected for it is the first

attempt to establish a really transnational European procedure. Although some provisions cause

interpretation difficulties and sometimes contradict the aims of the regulation itself, the real effects in

the practice will be evident after the regulation enters in force. Nevertheless, after five years, the

commission will draw a report which will review the operation of the European order for payment

procedure (article 32) and according to its findings the regulation can be novelized.

Literature:

[1] Sujecki, B. Europäisches Mahnverfahren. ZEuP, 2006, No. 1, p. 127 – 129.

[2] Horák, P., Zavadilová, M. Evropský platební rozkaz a jeho role v českém civilním procesu. Právní

rozhledy, 2006, No. 22, p. 803 – 810. 17 The regulation maybe does not stipulate any term because in some member states, the enforcement of judicial decisions is possible only in a fixed period after the decision was issued (e.g. England und Wales six years, the Netherlands thirty years). If the term for lodging a remedy would be limited e.g. for three years from the issuing of the European order for payment and the debtor would get knowledge about the proceeding without any fault on his part only together with the enforcement of the decision, he would be deprived of the possibility to get use of the remedy. In consequence, he could not apply for a stay or limitation of enforcement that are provided for in article 23. Joy, M. European Enforcement Order. Seminar on Cross Border Litigation, p. 8. In such a case, the remedy would break the legal force of the European order for payment. On the other hand it is a question, how such a remedy is compatible with the idea of an accelerated and effective procedure. Joy, M. European Enforcement Order. Seminar on Cross Border Litigation, Kroměříž, 26. 6. 2006, p. 8. 18 I.e. consumer affairs. 19 Sujecki, B. op. cit. p. 7 (footnote), p. 333. 20 Particularly the regulation on the European Enforcement Order.

10

[3] Sujecki, B. Das Europäische Mahnverfahren. NJW, 2007, No. 23, p. 1622 – 1625.

[4] Sujecki, B. Erste Überlegungen zum europäischen elektronischen Mahnverfahren. MMR, 2005, No. 4,

p. 213 – 217.

[5] Sujecki, B. Kritische Anmerkungen zum gerichtlichen Prüfungsumfang im Europäischen

Mahnverfahren. Das Europäische Mahnverfahren. ERA Forum (2007) 8:91–105, p. 91 - 105.

[6] Sujecki, B. Europäisches Mahnverfahren - Geänderter Verordnungsvorschlag. EuZW, 2006, No. 11, p.

330 – 333.

[7] Bohůnová, P. Nařízení o evropském exekučním titulu. Je dlužníkovi garantováno právo na

spravedlivý proces? Evropský exekuční titul. Právní rádce, 2008, No. 3, p. 28 – 36.

[8] Joy, M. European Enforcement Order. Seminar on Cross Border Litigation.

Kontaktní údaje na autora – e-mail:

pbohunova@volny.cz

11

NĚKOLIK ÚVAH NAD PRÁVNÍ REGULACÍ KONCERNŮ S MEZINÁRODNÍM PRVKEM

JANA GLOGAROVÁ

PRÁVNICKÁ FAKULTA, MASARYKOVA UNIVERZITA

Abstrakt

Tento příspěvek se zamýšlí nad stávající právní úpravou koncernů s mezinárodním prvkem. Po

obecném uvedení do problematiky koncernů se v další části příspěvek zaměřuje na možná řešení při

hledání právní úpravy koncernů sdružujících obchodní společnosti z různých zemí ES. Následující část

se zabývá právní úpravou mezinárodních koncernů z pohledu mezinárodního práva soukromého.

Autorka dospívá k závěru, že ačkoliv sféra koncernového práva upravená právem komunitárním se

pozvolna rozšiřuje, neměla by odborná veřejnost při hledání právní úpravy mezinárodního koncernu

rozhodně rezignovat na použití mezinárodního práva soukromého, které pokrývá právě ty oblasti, jež

komunitární právo pomíjí.

Klíčová slova

Koncern s mezinárodním prvkem – Koncernové právo – Mezinárodní právo soukromé –

Komunitární právo

Abstract

This paper deals with the current legal regulation of groups of companies in the international context.

Having introduced the general issues connected with the groups of companies next part focuses on

possible solutions of their legal regulation in case they consist of business companies from EC countries.

The following part looks at the legal regulation of international groups of companies from the

perspective of international private law. The author comes to the conclusion that the legal regulation of

groups of companies from the EC countries should be a combination of both, EC law and international

private law. Therefore, international private law plays a crucial role for legal regulation of international

groups of companies.

Key words

Groups of companies in the international context – Legal regulation of groups of companies –

International private law – EC law

12

Úvod

Současný celosvětový hospodářský trend lze bez nadsázky charakterizovat pojmy globalizace,

sbližování právních úprav a technických parametrů, liberalizace a deregulace. Tyto procesy jsou v rámci

Evropy nedílně spjaty s evropskou integrací, která je jejich hlavním motorem, a mimo Evropu úzce

souvisí s odstraňováním celních i necelních obchodních bariér. Je pouze přirozené, že se v rámci tohoto

stále globálnějšího světového obchodního prostředí čím dál častěji setkáváme s obchodními

společnostmi začleněnými do podnikatelského seskupení, které jde svým rozsahem nad rámec

národních států. Do budoucna lze počítat s tím, že koncerny s mezinárodním prvkem budou ještě

častějším a samozřejmějším jevem, proto by na ně měla odpovídajícím způsobem reagovat také právní

úprava, jak evropská tak národní. Tento příspěvek si klade za cíl zamyslet se nad tím, zda a jak je vůbec

mezinárodní koncern regulován a jaká jsou možná úskalí a východiska této regulace.

Faktický a smluvní koncern

V rámci koncernu dochází k seskupení obchodních společností, jež jsou po formální a právní stránce

sice samostatné, nicméně hospodářsky jsou propojeny. Koncern jako takový nemá právní subjektivitu,

tou disponují jednotlivé společnosti v rámci koncernu. Vzniká zde tedy napětí mezi právní

samostatností jednotlivých částí koncernu a jejich hospodářskou jednotou. Toto napětí s sebou přináší

celou řadu praktických problémů a v podstatě definuje jádro problematiky koncernu. V reakci na to je

hlavním účelem existence koncernového práva vůbec ochrana subjektu resp. subjektů, jež se

v koncernovém vztahu nachází ve znevýhodněném postavení. Typicky je tímto subjektem ovládaná

společnost a především její věřitelé a mimo stojící společníci, neboť tito mohou na začlenění ovládané

společnosti do koncernu nejvíce doplatit.

Základní rozlišení koncernů souvisí se způsobem jejich vzniku. Dojde-li k faktickému ovládání jedné

společnosti druhou, a to zejména na základě nabytí přímé nebo nepřímé kapitálové účasti na ovládané

společnosti nebo na základě dispozice s většinou hlasovacích práv, jedná se o koncern faktický. Podle

„četnosti“ jednotlivých zásahů ovládající společnosti do společnosti ovládané, pak rozlišujeme faktický

koncern na jednoduchý, ve kterém jsou zásahy spíše ojedinělé a izolované, a kvalifikovaný, ve kterém

dochází k takové koncentraci vlivu ovládající osoby, že její jednotlivé zásahy už nelze izolovat. Na

druhou stranu smluvní koncern je nezávislý na existenci faktického vlivu, k jeho vzniku dochází na

základě uzavření ovládací smlouvy bez ohledu na to, zda je řízená osoba fakticky ovládána osobou řídící.

13

Už sama ovládací smlouva by měla řízené společnosti zajistit odpovídající ochranu. U faktického

koncernu je třeba tuto ochranu řešit prostřednictvím právní úpravy, jinak u ovládané společnosti hrozí,

že její ztráty způsobené právě účastí ve faktickém koncernu nebudou nijak kompenzovány.

Další dělení koncernů souvisí s jejich vnitřní strukturou a s postavením jednotlivých společností.

Typický koncern je koncernem vertikálním, kdy je jedna nebo více ovládaných společností pod

jednotným řízením společnosti ovládající. Vertikální koncern zajišťuje koordinaci a ovládání

jednotlivých stupňů. Horizontální koncern je naproti tomu uskupení osob pod jednotným řízením bez

existence vzájemného vztahu závislosti.

Koncern lze dále dělit na ryze národní, tedy řídící se podle národního práva daného státu a koncern

s mezinárodním prvkem. Jestliže se budeme zabývat koncernem s mezinárodním prvkem, bude pro

nás relevantní ještě jedno rozdělení koncernů, které se běžně v literatuře neuvádí. V rámci koncernu

s mezinárodním prvkem můžeme rozlišit koncerny sdružující společnosti z různých zemí Evropského

společenství, sdružující společnosti z různých zemí mimo ES a sdružující společnosti jak ze zemí ES tak ze

zemí mimo ES. Toto rozdělení bude zcela zásadní při rozhodování, kterým právním řádem se bude daný

koncern řídit. Pokud budeme hledat právní úpravu koncernu v rámci ES, musíme obrátit pozornost

k právu ES a hledat alespoň částečnou úpravu tam. U mezinárodního koncernu mimo ES bude zase

rozhodující úprava mezinárodního práva soukromého, resp. příslušné kolizní normy. U smíšené verze

mezinárodního koncernu, budeme muset kombinovat obě úpravy.

Nástin možného řešení

V Evropě ani ve světě zatím neexistuje unifikované koncernové právo. Naopak se v jednotlivých státech

výrazně liší přístupy k úpravě vztahů v rámci skupin společností, resp. podnikatelských seskupení.

Koncernové právo nebylo dosud harmonizováno ani na úrovni ES a otázky týkající se koncernového

práva jsou jedním z bodů v rámci práva obchodních společností, kde panuje mezi členskými státy

výrazný nesoulad.1

V evropském měřítku lze odlišit dva základní přístupy ke koncernovému právu – německý a francouzský.

Oba tyto přístupy jsou v Evropě všeobecně uznávané a každ�