| Abstract | Pri odabiranju oblika društva putem kojeg će ostvarivati svoje poslovne pothvate, osnivatelji društava najčešće se u praksi odlučuju za društva kapitala. Jedan od glavnih razloga za to jest ujedno i jedno od temeljnih pravila prava kapitalnih društava, a to je pravilo o nepostojanju osobne odgovornosti članova tih društava za obveze društava. U našem pravu, sva trgovačka društva za svoje obveze u svakom slučaju odgovaraju cjelokupnom svojom imovinom te je to pravilo i zakonski propisano prema odredbi čl. 9. st. 1. Zakona o trgovačkim društvima. Ipak, postoji mogućnost da za obveze društva odgovaraju i članovi tog društva u slučaju kada zloupotrijebe svoju povlasticu neodgovornosti. Ta iznimka od pravila i ispunjenje pretpostavki za postojanje odgovornosti propisane su odredbama ZTD-a u čl. 10. st. 3. i st. 4. te predstavljaju izvorište primjeni instituta proboja pravne osobnosti u našem pravu. Proboj pravne osobnosti kao koncept odraz je načela savjesnosti i poštenja te zabrane zloupotrebe prava, a ujedno i poseban oblik zaštite vjerovnika društva. U nastavku rada razmotriti će se navedeni institut iz teorijske i praktične perspektive, a najveći naglasak biti će na analizi činjeničnih osnova za primjenu instituta proboja pravne osobnosti, konkretno o stupnju utjecaja i vladajućem položaju, miješanju imovine člana i društva te potkapitalizaciji. Analizom nekoliko sudskih odluka iz domaće prakse prikazat će se različita stajališta sudova u pogledu tumačenja i shvaćanja instituta te primjenjivost teorijskih i činjeničnih osnova u konkretnim situacijama. Pokazat će se kako su činjenične osnove za proboj u stvarnosti često isprepletene, te kako je najveći zadatak na strani sudstva i samih sudaca koji su prvi pozvani interpretirati institut proboja i osigurati pravnu sigurnost pri njegovoj potencijalnoj primjeni u svakom činjenično specifičnom slučaju. |
| Abstract (english) | Upon deciding on the form of business entity through which they will conduct their business ventures, founders often opt for limited companies. One of the main reasons for this is one of the fundamental rules of corporate law, which is the rule of non-liability of the members of such companies for the company's obligations. Under Croatian Law, all limited companies are, in any case, liable for their obligations with their entire assets which is a rule according to Article 9, Paragraph 1 of the Companies Act. However, there is a possibility that members of the company may be liable for the company's obligations in cases where they abuse their privilege of non-liability. This exception to the rule and the fulfillment of the conditions for the existence of liability are prescribed by the provisions of the Companies Act in Article 10, Paragraphs 3 and 4, and as such represent the basis for the application of the institute of piercing the corporate veil in our law. Piercing the corporate veil as a concept reflects the principles of conscientiousness and fairness, prohibition of abuse of rights, and at the same time, it is a special form of creditor protection. Both theoretical and practical perspectives on the piercing of the corporate veil shall be analysed, with the greatest emphasis on the factual basis for the application of the institute, specifically regarding the degree of influence and control, mixture of assets, and undercapitalization. By analyzing several court decisions from domestic practice, different viewpoints of the courts regarding the interpretation and understanding of the institute will be presented, as well as the applicability of theoretical and factual foundations in concrete situations. It will be shown how the factual bases for application of the forementioned institute are often intertwined in reality, and how the biggest task and responsibility is given directly to the judicial system, explicitly judges themselves, who are crucial for interpretation of the institute and ensuring legal certainty in its applicability. |
