Fraus creditorum and the contestability of transactions disadvantaging the creditors of an insolvent debtor

U radu je prikazan razvoj zaštite vjerovnika protiv pravnih radnji kojima je dužnik u korist trećih, a na štetu vjerovnika umanjio imovinu prije ili poslije pokretanja ovrhe nad njom u rimskom pravu, s osvrtom na uređenje u suvremenom hrvatskom pravu. Uvođenje delikta prikrate vjerovnika (fraus creditorum) pripisuje se pretoru, a poklapa se s periodom kada je imovinska ovrha postala redoviti oblik ovrhe. U svrhu zaštite vjerovnika, pretor je uveo procesna sredstva za pobijanje dužnikovih pravnih radnji – prvo interdictum fraudatorium i restitutio in integrum ob fraudem, a kasnije i actio Pauliana, koja je objedinila učinke prethodna dva pravna sredstva i omogućila vjerovnicima sveobuhvatnu zaštitu. Iako je naziv actio Pauliana zabilježen samo na dva mjesta u izvorima rimskog prava, uz što se veže i problem datacije, odnosno da se ne može s potpunom sigurnošću utvrditi po kome je tužba dobila naziv, on se koristi i u suvremenoj pravnoj terminologiji i označava tužbu kojom se pobijaju pravne radnje dužnika učinjene na štetu vjerovnika. Paulijanska tužba odnosno institut pobijanja dužnikovih pravnih radnji izvorno je u hrvatsko pravo preuzet iz njemačkog prava, a temelji se na postavkama izgrađenima u rimskom pravu. Pretpostavke za podizanje izvorne Paulijanske tužbe bile su: osiromašenje dužnika, oštećenje vjerovnika, svijest dužnika da je insolventan i da oštećuje vjerovnika, kao i svijest stjecatelja o istim okolnostima kada su u pitanju bili naplatni pravni poslovi. Navedene pretpostavke preuzete su u suvremenom hrvatskom pravu, uz određene (manje) izmjene. Što se tiče reguliranja ovog instituta, institut od 1978. godine, tj. od uključenja u Zakon o obveznim odnosima iz 1978., nije više uređen posebnim propisom kao što je to bio Zakon o pobijanju pravnih djela izvan stečaja od 22. siječnja 1931., već je dio općeg zakona koji regulira obveznopravne odnose. Pritom treba istaknuti da pored pobijanja izvan stečaja, reguliranog ZOO-om, suvremeno hrvatsko pravo regulira i pobijanje u stečaju, i to Stečajnim zakonom, no koje nije predmet obrade u radu. Važnost samog instituta pobijanja dužnikovih pravnih radnji, koji je u bitnome zadržao karakteristike koje su ustanovljene u rimskom pravu, no uz nužne prilagodbe suvremenim okolnostima kako bi se zaštitili na odgovarajući način i interesi dužnika i vjerovnika, ogleda se u izuzetnoj mogućnosti vjerovnika da djeluje na valjanost pravnih radnji između dužnika i trećih, dok također pridonosi jačanju temeljnog načela obveznog prava – načelu dužnosti ispunjenja obveza.This paper presents the development of creditor protection against legal actions in which the debtor diminishes property in favour of third parties and to the detriment of the creditor before or after the initiation of execution enforcement in Roman law with reference to the regulation in contemporary Croatian law. The introduction of the tort of creditor fraud (fraus creditorum) is attributed to the praetor and coincides with the time when the execution on debtor’s property became a regular form of enforcement. In order to protect the creditor, the praetor introduced the procedural means to refute the debtor’s legal actions – interdictum fraudatorium and the restitutio in integrum ob fraudem, and later the actio Pauliana, which combined the effects of the two previous remedies and gave creditors comprehensive protection. Although the name actio Pauliana is recorded in only two places in the sources of Roman law, which is related to the problem of dating, i.e. that it is not possible to determine with complete certainty who the lawsuit was named after, it is also used in modern legal terminology and denotes a lawsuit that the debtor’s legal actions to the creditor’s detriment are rejected. The Paulian action, i.e. the institution of voiding the debtor’s legal actions, was originally adopted from German law into Croatian law and is based on the principles developed in Roman law. The assumptions used in filing the original Paulian action were: impoverishment of the debtor, damage to the creditor, the debtor’s awareness of insolvency and damage to the creditor, and the debtor’s awareness of the same circumstances when intervening came to collect legal affairs. The aforementioned assumptions are incorporated into modern Croatian law with some (minor) changes. With regard to the regulation of this institute, since 1978, i.e. since its inclusion in the Obligations Act of 1978, the institute is no longer regulated by a special act such as the Act on the Refusal of Legal Acts Outside Bankruptcy Proceedings of January 22, 1931, but is part of the general part and act on the law of obligations. At the same time, it should be noted that modern Croatian law, in addition to rebuttal outside of bankruptcy proceedings, which is regulated by the Obligations Act, also regulates refutation in bankruptcy proceedings, namely by the Insolvency Act, which is not the object of analysis here. The importance of the institute, which essentially retained the features laid down in Roman law, but with the necessary adjustments to all special circumstances in order to adequately protect the interests of debtors and creditors, is reflected in the exceptional possibility for the creditor to void the transactions between the debtor and the third parties, while at the same time it contributes to the strengthening of the basic principle of the law of obligations – the principle of the duty to perform