Regulation of the »izvršnica« in Slovenia and elsewhere and its use for securing financial receivables

V ospredju mojega magistrskega dela je razmeroma nov instrument zavarovanja terjatev v našem pravnem redu – izvršnica. Zakonodajalec jo je uvedel kot odgovor na razširjeno plačilno nedisciplino med gospodarskimi subjekti. Najprej na kratko predstavim problematiko plačilne nediscipline in poslovno prakso v Sloveniji s poudarkom na analizi uporabe izvršnice za zavarovanje terjatev. Iz predstavljenega izpeljem sklep, da se ta instrument v Sloveniji ne uporablja tako pogosto, kot se je pričakovalo. Naštejem tudi razloge, ki so po mojem mnenju ključni za relativno redko uporabo, osredotočim pa se na razlog, ki ga podrobneje in predvsem kritično predstavim v zadnjem poglavju. Karseda celovitemu pregledu pravne ureditve in karakteristik izvršnice ter postopkov, ki se na njeni podlagi lahko vodijo, sledi prikaz morebitnih nevarnosti za dolžnika kot izdajatelja izvršnice in stranke, ki naj ne bi bila dovolj varovana. Celoten koncept izvršnice izvira iz hrvaškega instituta »zadužnice«, zato nadalje kronološko opišem njen razvoj in predstavim pravno ureditev na Hrvaškem. Vse ugotovljeno uporabim za kritično primerjavo slovenskega in hrvaškega instituta, ki sta si v mnogočem podobna, a tudi zelo različna. V Sloveniji je stališče o tem, ali je izvršnica dovoljena za zavarovanje finančnih terjatev, po skoraj desetletju od njene uvedbe še vedno neenotno. Predstavim maloštevilno sodno prakso, ki sprejema različne odločitve, banke pa takšne uporabe izrecno ne dopuščajo, niti izvršnice same ne uporabljajo. Kljub temu se v manjšem delu nebančnih subjektov izvršnica v praksi uporablja na razne načine tudi za zavarovanje finančnih terjatev, a bi bile primernejše celovitejše rešitve. Te bi lahko odpravile, po mojem mnenju brez pravih razlogov povzročeno stanje negotovosti.My master\u27s thesis focuses on a relatively new instrument for securing receivables in our legal order – the »izvršnica«. It was introduced by the legislator in response to a widely spread payment indiscipline between economic operators in Slovenia. In the first part I briefly describe the issue of payment indiscipline and business practice in Slovenia emphasising the analysis of the use of the »izvršnica« instrument. I conclude that the presented instrument in Slovenia is not used as often as expected. Then I list a set of reasons that in my opinion are crucial for its relatively infrequent use, focusing on one in particular, which I describe critically and in detail in the last chapter. A comprehensive review of the regulation as well as the characteristics of »izvršnica« instrument and the procedures that may be conducted on its basis is followed by a review of potential risks for the debtor in the role of issuer of that instrument, as well as for the party, which is supposedly insufficiently protected. The entire concept of the »izvršnica« instrument comes from the Croatian instrument of »zadužnica«. Thus I further chronologically describe its development and the regulation in Croatia. I use the findings to critically compare the Slovenian and Croatian instruments, which are similar in many ways, yet very different in others. The position on the permission to use the »izvršnica« instrument for securing financial receivables in Slovenia after almost a decade is still dissenting. I portray the scarce judicial practice, which adopts different decisions, while the banks do not even allow such use, nor do they use the instrument themselves. However, a few non-banking subjects in practice use the »izvršnica« instrument in different ways also for securing financial receivables, although more comprehensive solutions would be more appropriate. These could eliminate the uncertain state that had been in my opinion created without any real reason