PROCURATOR\u27S LEGAL SITUATION

Naloga ponuja bralcu celovit oris instituta prokure. Koncept naloge temelji na pregledu domače pravne ureditve prokure, pri določenih področjih pa je v nalogi predstavljena tudi ureditev v sorodnih pravnih sistemih (predvsem nemškem in avstrijskem, v manjšem delu tudi hrvaškem). Primerjalno pravna analiza pokaže, da poizkuša večina obravnavanih pravnih sistemov institut prokure urediti na soroden oziroma vsaj primerljiv način, precej podobno pa se prokuro obravnava tudi v literaturi. Kljub temu so pri določenih vprašanjih v literaturi pravna mnenja dokaj neenotna, prav tako tudi odgovorov na mnoga vprašanja ni moč najti niti v zakonu niti v obstoječi literaturi. Poudarek v nalogi je dan obravnavi pravnega položaja in pristojnosti prokurista, poleg tega pa so celovito predstavljena tudi druga področja instituta prokure. Kot bistveno vprašanje – kar poizkuša biti tudi rdeča nit naloge – je predstavljeno vprašanje oziroma ločevanje pristojnosti med prokuristom in zakonitim zastopnikom družbe, pri čemer se izhaja iz osnovnega koncepta prokure kot vrste pooblastila. K temu se navezuje tudi subsidiarna uporaba nekaterih pravil iz zakonske ureditve mandatne pogodbe. Upoštevajoč obstoječo zakonsko ureditev instituta prokure in njegovo uporabo ter dojemanje v poslovnem svetu, avtor ocenjuje, da so nekatera zakonska določila nejasna oziroma je na določenih mestih prisotna podnormiranost, glede uporabe prokure v poslovnem svetu pa ugotavlja, da se ta mestoma napačno dojema ter posledično temu tako tudi uporablja. Naloga na nekaterih področjih zato vsebinsko precej odstopa od mnenj, ki jih je mogoče najti v literaturi. Kot že omenjeno, predstavlja glavnino naloge ločnica med pristojnostmi prokurista in zakonitega zastopnika družbe, saj tako v poslovnem svetu, kakor tudi v pravni literaturi, ta ločnica med njima včasih precej »zbledi«. K temu dodatno pripomore tudi zakonsko dana možnost določitve mešanega skupnega zastopanja zakonitega zastopnika in prokurista družbe, saj zakon pristojnosti obeh v teh primerih natančneje ne ureja. V nalogi se zastopa stališče, da takšna oblika za zastopanje družb ni primerna. V kontekstu z navedenim se v nalogi uvodoma obravnava tudi širši pogled glede določitve pristojnosti pooblaščencev, katere so umeščene med pristojnostmi sla in pristojnostmi samega pooblastitelja. Slednje velja tudi za prokurista. V uvodnem delu se naloga podrobneje ukvarja tudi z vprašanjem določitve oseb, pristojnih za podelitev prokure v družbi, pri čemer je večji del namenjen analizi ureditve te pristojnosti v družbi z omejeno odgovornostjo in delniški družbi. Zakon tega vprašanja pri delniški družbi namreč ne ureja, pri obeh družbah pa se to vprašanje obravnava tudi v povezavi s pristojnostmi nadzornega sveta, v kolikor družba deluje na principu dvotirnega sistema upravljanja. V nadaljevanju so obravnavane tudi druge pristojnosti nadzornega sveta nad delom prokurista, kljub temu, da so pristojnosti obeh na prvi pogled obeh povsem ločene. V času nastajanja naloge se je kot aktualno pokazalo tudi vprašanje glede prokuristove pristojnosti za zastopanje družbe v sodnih (predvsem pravdnih) postopkih, pri čemer se – glede na obstoječo zakonsko ureditev - zavzema stališče, da lahko prokurist v teh postopkih družbo veljavno zastopa, vendar pa mora pri tem izpolnjevati tudi pogoje, ki mu jih nalaga procesna zakonodaja. To vprašanje se navezuje tudi na pravico oziroma pristojnost prokurista, da podeli pooblastilo za zastopanje družbe (kar zajema tudi procesno pooblastilo) drugim osebam, vendar pa kljub nekaterim mnenjem v literaturi, da ta pravica prokuristu nedvomno pripada, naloga stoji na stališču, da je v tem primeru prokurista potrebno obravnavati enako kot vse druge pooblaščence in zato prokuristu ta pravica pripada le v izrednih primerih. Te primere določa drugi odstavek 71. člena OZ. V teoriji se poudarja strogo ločevanje prokure od pogodbenega razmerja, katero je temelj njene podelitve, pri čemer je govoraDiploma paper gives a reader a complete outline of procuration. Paper concept is based on the overview of domestic legal arrangements of procuration. In certain areas there are presented systems in similar legal systems (mostly in Germanic and Austrian, and in smaller degree also in Croatian). Comparative legal analysis shows that the majority of discussed legal systems try to arrange procuration similarly or at least in a comparable manner. Very similarly procuration is discussed in literature. Despite that legal opinions are quite incoherent about certain questions in literature. Likewise it is not possible to find many answers for many questions neither in law nor in existing literature. Emphasis of this paper is seen at discussing procurator\u27s legal situation and competences. Additionally, also other areas of procuration are presented comprehensively. As a key issue, and what is also a topic of this diploma paper, is a question about separating procurator\u27s competences from those of legal representative of the company. Here we are coming from basic concept of procuration as a kind of authorization. To this refers subsidiary usage of some rules from legal regulation of mandatory contract. Considering existing legal regulation of procuration and its usage and perception in the business world, author believes that some legal provisions are unclear. It can be said that at some points under-standardisation is present. Regarding to usage of procuration in business world author determines that here and there it is wrongly perceived and consequently also used the same way. This is the reason that diploma paper in some areas substantively derogates from opinions, which can be found in literature. As mentioned before the majority of diploma paper is about separating procurator’s competences from those of a legal representative of the company. The reason for this is that in business world as well as in legal literature there is not a clear line of separation. Additionally to this helps legally given possibility of mixed joint representation of legal representative and procurator of the company. Law does not precisely define competences of them both. The position of diploma paper is that this kind of form for representation of companies is not appropriate. In the context of the above in paper\u27s introduction a wider view regarding definitions of authorised representative\u27s competences are discussed, which are placed between messenger competences and appointers competences. The latter goes also for the procurator. At the beginning diploma paper is dealing with a question how to designate people who are responsible for granting procuration in a company. Greater part is given to analysing of arranging this competence in a limited liability company and in a joint-stock company. Law does not regulate this question in a joint-stock company. By both companies this question is being approached in connection with supervisory board\u27s competences if the company operates on the principle of two-tier management system. Following part of diploma paper discusses also other supervisory board\u27s competences over procurator\u27s work, despite the fact that competences of them both are completely separated at a glance. During writing of diploma paper a question appeared. This is a question about procurator\u27s competence for representing company in court (mainly civil) proceedings. Regarding to existing legal regulations the standpoint is that procurator can validly represent the company in this proceedings, but procurator has to satisfy the requirements that are connected to procedural legislation. This question is also connected to procurator\u27s right and competence to grant authorisation for company representation (that contains also procedural authorisation) to other bodies. Despite some opinions in literature that this right undoubtedly belongs to the procurator, this diploma paper takes the stand that in this case procurator has to be treated as all other authorised representatives. This is the reason that above mentioned righ