Kito asmens turto administravimo taikymo problemos

LTLietuvos Respublikos civilinis kodeksas reglamentuoja kito asmens turto administravimo institutą. Remiantis Lietuvos Respublikos civilinio proceso kodekso 145 straipsnio 1 dalies 5 punktu turto administravimas įstatymo numatyta tvarka ir atvejais gali būti taikomas ir kaip laikinoji apsaugos priemonė. Būtent pastarasis, t. y. procesinis, turto administravimo taikymo aspektas paskatino parašyti šį straipsnį, nes Lietuvos teismų praktikos analizė rodo, kad kito asmens turto administravimo, kaip laikinosios apsaugos priemonės, taikymas kelia rimtų problemų. Autorių nuomone, ypač kontroversiška teismų praktika formuojasi nagrinėjant bylas, kuriose sprendžiami akcininkų ginčai, o turto administravimas, kaip laikinoji apsaugos priemonė, vieno iš akcininkų ar susijusių asmenų prašymu teismo skiriamas bendrovei, kurios akcininkų ginčas sprendžiamas teisme. Sis aspektas reikalauja gilesnės analizės, nes dažnai teismo procesiniai sprendimai, priimami turto administravimą taikant kaip laikinąją apsaugos priemonę, neatitinka nei laikinųjų apsaugos priemonių instituto esmės, nei kito asmens turto administravimo paskirties. Jie tiesiog leidžia vienam iš akcininkų iki ginčo išsprendimo iš esmės perimti bendrovės valdymą.

ENThis article analyses the administration of property of other persons and the legal aspects when this institute is applied as a temporary injunction measure under Lithuanian law. The authors draw the attention to the arguable judicial precedents related to disputes between shareholders where administration of property has been granted as a temporary injunction measure. According to the Lithuanian Code of Civil Procedure a temporary injunction measure is granted before a judgement is given in cases where a risk exists that the execution of the judgement could become impossible. According to the nature and purpose of these measures, they are an extraordinary remedy for the protection of the rights of the claimants, and therefore can only be granted when all legal conditions are satisfied. The administration of property, as a temporary injunction measure, has to be objectively necessary from the perspective of the creditor and has to be in proportion to the disadvantage that follows out of this measure for the debtor. Moreover, it can be used only when other possible measures would not be effective. When issuing such an order, the court has to ensure the balance of interests of the creditor and the debtor and has to point to the particular property of the debtor for which the administration is granted according to the amount of claim. In this article the authors analyse the conditions for a proper practice when a temporary injunction measure for the administration of the property of a private legal entity is granted.First of all, this extraordinary legal remedy can be applied only if all criteria provided in the Code of Civil Procedure are fulfilled. Furthermore, the administration can be imposed only on concrete objects of property of the private legal entity. Most importantly, an injunction where full administration is granted, this means that the administrator has not only the right to preserve the property but may also transfer, invest in, pledge or charge the property with a real right, is not a proper measure. Thus, the remedy has to be limited to a simple administration, and the court when granting this measure has to indicate exactly all rights and duties of the administrator to avoid further disputes in the future. However, the administrator has no right to enter into a particular contract or to act in another way unless this is beforehand authorised by the court. The administrator is also required to insure his own personal civil liability. Despite all these preventive measures, should the administrator fail to perform his obligations or perform them defectively, he is always liable for compensation of damages.