TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP TITLE FOR INSURANCE AND NON-POSSESSORY LIEN ON MOVABLE PROPERTY

Autor: Viher, Diana
Přispěvatelé: Vrenčur, Renato
Jazyk: slovinština
Rok vydání: 2014
Předmět:
Zdroj: Maribor
Popis: Naš pravni red v Stvarnopravnem zakoniku ureja tako fiduciarni prenos lastninske pravice v zavarovanje kot neposestno zastavno pravico na premičninah. Zaradi slednjega je v našem pravu fiduciarni prenos le alternativa neposestni zastavi premičnin. Bistvena razlika med njima je, da gre pri fiduciarni lastnini za polno lastninsko pravico, pri neposestni zastavi pa za omejeno stvarno pravico. Prav iz te pravne narave institutov izvira najpomembnejša razlika med omenjenima institutoma, in sicer glede akcesornosti. Fiduciarna lastnina je načeloma neakcesorna, pri neposestni zastavi pa gre za akcesorno obliko zavarovanja. Za popolno neakcesornost fiduciarne lastnine se zahteva izrecen dogovor strank, da se fiduciarni posel opravlja nepogojno. Pri tej primerjavi obeh oblik zavarovanja izhajamo iz predpostavke, da sta stranki izrecno dogovorili nepogojen fiduciarni prenos. Praktičen pomen neakcesorne narave fiduciarne lastnine se pokaže predvsem, kadar stranki ustanovita zavarovanje v sklopu dalj časa trajajočega upniško-dolžniškega razmerja, saj v takem primeru zavarovanje z večkratno ustanovitvijo neposestne zastavne pravice prinaša neprimerno višje stroške zavarovanja. Fiduciarni prenos je za razliko od neposestne zastave mogoč tudi kadar terjatev, ki se zavaruje sploh še ni nastala in se tako fiduciarno jamstvo ustanovi »za rezervo«. Drugače je pri neposestni zastavi, kjer morata stranki v sporazum o ustanovitvi zastavne pravice vnesti podatke o višini in zapadlosti terjatve. Posledica neakcesornosti fiduciarne lastnine je tudi to, da kadar upnik odstopa zavarovano terjatev tretji osebi, v primeru fiduciarne lastnine le ta ne preide samodejno na cesionarja. Fiduciarni upnik lahko tako premičnino preneseno v fiduciarno lastnino obdrži in jo kot jamstvo uporabi ob nastanku nove terjatve, ki jo bo odobril fiduciantu. V primeru zastavne pravice pa s cesijo zavarovane terjatve na novega upnika avtomatično preide tudi zastavna pravica, razen če se cedent in cesionar dogovorita, da se cedira le zavarovana terjatev. V slednjem primeru pa zastavna pravica, ki je akcesorna zavarovani terjatvi, prav zaradi tega preneha. Pri neakcesornem fiduciarnem prenosu se drugače kot pri zastavni pravici ne zahteva, da sta fiduciar in upnik zavarovane terjatve ista oseba. Druga pomembna razlika se pokaže, če zavarovana terjatev ob zapadlosti ni plačana. Tako fiduciar kot neposestni zastavni upnik v tem primeru od fiducianta oziroma zastavitelja zahteva izročitev predmeta, danega v zavarovanje, v neposredno posest. Pri neposestni zastavi veljajo glede realizacije kogentna določila o realizaciji zastavne pravice na premičninah. Za uresničitev fiduciarne lastnine pa se uporabijo pravila o uresničitvi zastavne pravice le kadar ni posebnega dogovora strank, sicer pa se opravi v skladu z izrecnim dogovorom strank. To pa, v primerjavi z neposestno zastavo, predstavlja možnost enostavnejše in učinkovitejše realizacije fiduciarnega zavarovanja. V kvaliteti omenjenih institutov zavarovanja praktično ni razlik. V obeh primerih se namreč zahteva notarski zapis, ki onemogoča antidatiranje in zagotavlja gotov datum. Ob primerjavi fiduciarne lastnine z registrsko neposestno zastavno pravico pa bi lahko ugotovili, da je registrska neposestna zastavna pravica vsaj za odtenek kvalitetnejša od fiduciarne lastnine. Z vpisom v register namreč registrska neposestna zastava pridobi publiciteto, ki je fiduciarna lastnina nima. S tem se prepreči oškodovanje zastavnega upnika s strani zastavitelja, saj tretji, ki mu je stvar naknadno ročno zastavljena ali mu je naknadno prenesena lastninska pravica na zastavljeni stvari, ne more biti v dobri veri, ravno iz razloga publicitete, ki jo zagotavlja register. Our legal system in Law of Property Code governs both the fiduciary transfer of ownership rights in the insurance as well as non-possessory lien on movable property. Due to the latter, fiduciary transfer is on our law only an alternative to non-possessory pledge of movable property. The main difference between them is, that the fiduciary property covers full ownership rights, while non-possessory pledge is for a limited real right. This legal nature of the institute is the source of most significant difference between the two institutes, namely the ancillary nature. Fiduciary property is in principle non accessory, while non-possessory pledge is an accessory form of insurance. Full non-accessory of fiduciary property requires an explicit agreement of the parties, for the fiduciary business to be conducted unconditionally. In this comparison of the two forms of insurance, we start from the assumption that the parties expressly agreed unconditional fiduciary transfer. The practical importance of non accessory nature of fiduciary property is shown particularly where the parties establish insurance in the context of long-lasting creditor-debtor relationship, in which case such an insurance with setup of multiple non-possessory lien delivers much higher insurance costs. Fiduciary transfer is unlike the non-possessory pledge also possible where claim to be insured has not even occurred, and thus established fiduciary guarantee is created for a "reserve". Opposite, at the non-possessory pledge, where the parties must enter data on the amount and maturity date to the agreement on the establishment of a lien. As a result non accessory fiduciary property is also the fact that when a creditor withdraws the insured receivable to a third party in the event of fiduciary property this one is not passed automatically to the assignee. Trust the creditor can retain movable property transferred into a fiduciary property and use it as a guarantee upon the occurrence of new claim, which will be approved to donor fiduciary insurance. In the case of a lien, this one is automatically transferred to the new creditor with the cession of a secured claim, unless the transferor and transferee agree to cede only the secured claim. In the latter case, the lien that is ancillary to the secured claim ceases just because of this. For non accessory fiduciary transfer, opposite than in the lien, it is not required that the trustee and the creditor of the secured claim are the same person. Another important difference appears, if the secured claim is not paid when due. Thus, the trustee as non-possessory lien creditor in this case requests the extradition of the object placed as collateral, in direct possession from donor fiduciary insurance or mortgagor. In the case of non-possessory pledge provisions of the realization of the pledge on movable property apply on the realization of a peremptory. In order to realize the fiduciary property, however, the rules on the realization of a lien are used only when there is no special agreement of the parties, otherwise it will be carried out in accordance with the explicit agreement of the parties. This, compared to non-possessory pledge represents the possibility of simpler and more efficient realization of fiduciary insurance. There is virtually no difference in the quality of these insurance institutes. In both cases, notarial act, which prevents backdating and provides a sure date, is required. A comparison of fiduciary property with registry non-possessory lien, shows that registry non-possessory lien is of at least slightly better quality than fiduciary property. By the entry in the register the non-possessory pledge namely obtains publicity that fiduciary property does not have. This prevents detriement to the pledgee by the mortgagor, as the third person, which is a matter subsequently manually asked whether he was subsequently transferred ownership of the pledged things can not be in good faith, precisely for the reason of publicity provided by the register.
Databáze: OpenAIRE
Externí odkaz: