Exercise of the actual and anticipated property rights of third parties after the commencement of bankruptcy

Sodna praksa nakup nepremičnin v postopku prisilne prodaje (izvršilni in stečajni postopek) obravnava kot izviren (originaren) pridobitni način. Za izviren način pridobitve je značilno, da lastninska pravica pridobitelja nastane na novo, neodvisno od dejstva, ali je že kdo poprej imel lastninsko pravico na stvari, saj četudi jo je imel, pridobitelj pridobi lastninsko pravico neodvisno od volje prejšnjega lastnika. Takšen način pridobitve lastninske pravice je po stališču sodne prakse posledica javnosti postopka in vodenja postopka (vodi ga sodišče), zaradi česar izključuje vse ugovore glede nedobrovernosti kupca in močnejše pravice, saj omogoča vsem, da svoje ugovore uveljavijo do sklenitve pogodbe. Pri nakupu nepremičnine na javni dražbi v stečajnem postopku tako velja enako kot v izvršbi: kupec postane lastnik, tudi če se kasneje izkaže, da dolžnik ni bil lastnik nepremičnine oziroma da so obstajali kakšni drugi razlogi za nedopustnost izvršbe. Lastnik postane s pravnomočnostjo sklepa o izročitvi nepremičnine in lastnik ostane tudi, če je sklep o izvršbi naknadno spremenjen ali razveljavljen. Zakon o izvršbi in zavarovanju v 193. členu namreč kupca na dražbi varuje, ko določa, da razveljavitev ali sprememba sklepa o izvršbi po pravnomočnosti sklepa o izročitvi nepremičnine kupcu nima vpliva na pravice, ki jih je kupec pridobil po 192. členu tega zakona. Tudi Zakon o finančnem poslovanju, postopkih zaradi insolventnosti in prisilnem prenehanju v petem odstavku 340. člena izrecno določa, da udeleženec, ki ni uspel na javni dražbi ali v postopku javnega zbiranja ponudb, upnik, predkupni upravičenec ali tretja oseba ni upravičena niti v stečajnem niti v drugem postopku uveljavljati zahtevka za razveljavitev ali ugotovitev ničnosti prodajne pogodbe, zahtevka za sklenitev prodajne pogodbe pod enakimi pogoji z njim, zahtevka za razveljavitev ali ugotovitev ničnosti razpolagalnega pravnega posla, s katerim je bila prenesena lastninska ali druga premoženjska pravica na kupca ali kateregakoli drugega zahtevka, katerega uveljavitev posega v pravice, ki jih pridobi kupec s sklenitvijo ali izpolnitvijo prodajne pogodbe. Zakonske določbe, po kateri bi z nakupom v izvršbi postal lastnik kupljene stvari le tisti kupec, ki je dobroveren, pa ni. Poleg tega je v sodni praksi prevladalo stališče, da se v postopku prisilne prodaje načelo zaupanja ne uporablja, saj ne gre za poslovno pridobitev temveč za pridobitev lastninske pravice s sodno odločbo. Drugače je le v primeru, ko je kupcu mogoče očitati kvalificirano nedobrovernost. To je v primeru, ko je kupec vedel, da nepremičnina ne pripada stečajnemu dolžniku oziroma, ko so bile prekoračene pravno dopustne meje prisilne prodaje. Vendar pa se v delu novejše literature pojavilo stališče, da gre tudi v postopku prisilne prodaje za poslovni način pridobitve. Gre namreč za prenos že obstoječe, dolžnikove lastninske pravice, ki se izvede neodvisno od volje vknjiženega lastnika, torej prisilno (izvirno), zaradi česar naj bi bila pridobitev lastninske pravice izvirna v tem pomenu, da V pridobi kupec pravico neodvisno od poslovne volje dolžnika, ne pa v tem pomenu, da pridobi kupec pravico neodvisno od pravice dolžnika, tudi, če dolžnik ni bil lastnik, kupcu pa je bilo to dejstvo znano oziroma mu ni moglo biti nepoznano.The case law treats the purchase of real estate in the forced sale process as an original acquisition of ownership. The original method of acquisition is characterized by the fact that the acquirer\u27s property right arises anew, that is, regardless of the fact that someone has previously owned the property. Even if the acquirer had acquired it, he had acquired the property right independently of the will of the previous owner. According to the case-law, such method of acquiring property rights is a consequence of the publicity of the proceedings and the conduct of the proceedings (conducted by the court), which excludes all objections to the buyer\u27s unfairness and stronger rights. The publicity of the procedure allows everyone to raise their objections until the conclusion of the contract. In the case of the purchase of the property by public auction in bankruptcy, the same applies as in the execution: the buyer becomes the owner, even if it later turns out that the debtor did not own the property or that there were other reasons for the inadmissibility of the execution. The owner becomes final with the decision on the surrender of the property and the owner keeps ownership rights even if the execution decision is subsequently modified or annulled. The Law on Enforcement and Insurance in Article 193 protects the auctioneer by stipulating that the annulment or modification of the decision on execution after the final decision on the delivery of real estate to the buyer does not affect the rights acquired by the buyer under Article 192 of this Act. The Financial Operations, Insolvency Proceedings and Compulsory Dissolution Act, in the fifth paragraph of Article 340, also explicitly stipulates that a participant who has failed in a public auction or in the process of public bidding, is not entitled to a creditor, pre-emptive or third party in bankruptcy or in another proceeding to bring an application for cancellation or invalidation of a sales contract, a request for conclusion of a sales contract on equal terms with him, a request for cancellation or for a declaration of invalidity of a disposition of legal property transferring ownership or other property right to the buyer or any other claim , the exercise of which interferes with the rights acquired by the buyer by concluding or fulfilling a sales contract. There is no statutory provision that, by virtue of a purchase in execution, only the buyer who is a bona fide would become the owner of the thing purchased. Moreover, the case-law has been the prevailing view that the principle of trust does not apply in the compulsory sale procedure, since it is not a business acquisition but a property right acquisition by a court decision. This is different only if the buyer can be accused of qualified impropriety. This is the case when the buyer knew that the property did not belong to the debtor or when the legally permissible forced-sale limits were exceeded However, some recent literature suggests that the forced sale process is also a business method of acquisition. It is a transfer of an already existing debtor\u27s property right, which is characterized by the transfer of the property right independently of the will of the registered owner, that is, forced (original), which makes the acquisition of the property right original. In order to obtain rights, the buyer has the right independently of the debtor\u27s business will, but not in the sense that the buyer acquires the right independently of the debtor\u27s right, even if the debtor was not the owner and the buyer was aware of this fact or that information could not be unknown