V n\u011bmecky mluv\u00edc\u00edch zem\u00edch je b\u011b\u017en\u00e9, \u017ee \u010dlen statut\u00e1rn\u00edho org\u00e1nu zastupuje spole\u010dnost spole\u010dn\u011b spolu s prokuristou. P\u0159ipou\u0161t\u00ed toto i \u010desk\u00e1 pr\u00e1vn\u00ed \u00faprava?<\/p>\n
Pravidlo \u010dty\u0159 o\u010d\u00ed je obl\u00edben\u00fdm zp\u016fsobem zaji\u0161t\u011bn\u00ed vz\u00e1jemn\u00e9 kontroly managementu ve veden\u00ed spole\u010dnosti. Spo\u010d\u00edv\u00e1 zpravidla v tom, \u017ee k jedn\u00e1n\u00ed za spole\u010dnost je zapot\u0159eb\u00ed spole\u010dn\u00e9ho jedn\u00e1n\u00ed v\u00edce \u2013 zpravidla dvou \u2013 \u010dlen\u016f statut\u00e1rn\u00edho org\u00e1nu. Zat\u00edmco spole\u010dn\u00e9 jedn\u00e1n\u00ed v\u00edce \u010dlen\u016f statut\u00e1rn\u00edho org\u00e1nu je b\u011b\u017en\u00e9 a z\u00e1konem p\u0159ipu\u0161t\u011bn\u00e9, jak je to se spole\u010dn\u00fdm jedn\u00e1n\u00edm \u010dlena statut\u00e1rn\u00edho org\u00e1nu a prokuristy?<\/p>\n
V na\u0161\u00ed praxi se st\u00e1le \u010das od \u010dasu setk\u00e1v\u00e1me s po\u017eadavkem klient\u016f, aby pravidlo \u010dty\u0159 o\u010d\u00ed bylo realizov\u00e1no pomoc\u00ed spole\u010dn\u00e9ho jedn\u00e1n\u00ed jednatele a prokuristy. Tento po\u017eadavek maj\u00ed nej\u010dast\u011bji zahrani\u010dn\u00ed klienti s n\u011bmeck\u00fdm \u010di rakousk\u00fdm managementem, nebo\u0165 tato \u00faprava je typick\u00e1 zejm\u00e9na v n\u011bmecky mluv\u00edc\u00edch zem\u00edch.<\/p>\n
Za \u00fa\u010dinnosti z\u00e1kona \u010d. 513\/1991 Sb., obchodn\u00ed z\u00e1kon\u00edk (\u00fa\u010dinn\u00fd do 31.12.2013), nebylo spole\u010dn\u00e9 jedn\u00e1n\u00ed jednatele a prokuristy mo\u017en\u00e9 (viz nap\u0159. rozhodnut\u00ed Vrchn\u00edho soudu v Praze sp. zn. 7 Cmo 55\/99). Mezi hlavn\u00ed argumenty pat\u0159ila rozd\u00edln\u00e1 m\u00edra odpov\u011bdnosti \u010dlena statut\u00e1rn\u00edho org\u00e1nu a prokuristy (\u010dlen statut\u00e1rn\u00edho org\u00e1nu m\u011bl povinnost jednat s p\u00e9\u010d\u00ed \u0159\u00e1dn\u00e9ho hospod\u00e1\u0159e a prokurista nikoli) a fakt, \u017ee zat\u00edmco jednatel jedn\u00e1 jm\u00e9nem spole\u010dnosti, prokurista byl pouh\u00fdm z\u00e1stupcem spole\u010dnosti de facto na z\u00e1klad\u011b pln\u00e9 moci.<\/p>\n
Debata o p\u0159\u00edpustnosti spole\u010dn\u00e9ho jedn\u00e1n\u00ed statut\u00e1rn\u00edho org\u00e1nu a prokuristy se op\u011bt vyno\u0159ila s p\u0159ijet\u00edm nov\u00e9ho ob\u010dansk\u00e9ho z\u00e1kon\u00edku (z\u00e1kon \u010d. 89\/2012 Sb.) a z\u00e1kona o obchodn\u00edch korporac\u00edch (z\u00e1kon \u010d. 90\/2012 Sb.), kter\u00e9 nabyly \u00fa\u010dinnosti 01.01.2014. Podle aktu\u00e1ln\u00ed \u00fapravy m\u00e1 i prokurista povinnost jednat s p\u00e9\u010d\u00ed \u0159\u00e1dn\u00e9ho hospod\u00e1\u0159e a z\u00e1rove\u0148 \u010dlen statut\u00e1rn\u00edho org\u00e1nu je podle sou\u010dasn\u00e9 \u00fapravy z\u00e1stupcem spole\u010dnosti. Zd\u00e1lo se tedy, \u017ee hlavn\u00ed argumenty pro nep\u0159\u00edpustnost spole\u010dn\u00e9ho jedn\u00e1n\u00ed jsou p\u0159ekon\u00e1ny.<\/p>\n
\u017de tomu tak nen\u00ed, vyjasnil op\u011bt Vrchn\u00ed soud ve sv\u00fdch rozhodnut\u00edch sp. zn. 4 Cmo 184\/2014 nebo 14 Cmo 576\/2014, kde stanovil, \u017ee spole\u010dn\u00e9 jedn\u00e1n\u00ed prokuristy a \u010dlena statut\u00e1rn\u00edho org\u00e1nu nen\u00ed p\u0159\u00edpustn\u00fdm zp\u016fsobem zastupov\u00e1n\u00ed obchodn\u00ed korporace a nem\u016f\u017ee b\u00fdt zaps\u00e1no do obchodn\u00edho rejst\u0159\u00edku jako zp\u016fsob, jak\u00fdm \u010dlenov\u00e9 statut\u00e1rn\u00edho org\u00e1nu jednaj\u00ed za obchodn\u00ed korporaci.<\/p>\n
Jednozna\u010dn\u00fd z\u00e1v\u011br pak p\u0159inesl na konci lo\u0148sk\u00e9ho roku Nejvy\u0161\u0161\u00ed soud \u010cR, kter\u00fd ve sv\u00e9m usnesen\u00ed sp. zn. 29 Cdo 387\/2016 ze dne 31. \u0159\u00edjna 2017 potvrdil v\u00fd\u0161e uveden\u00fd n\u00e1zor Vrchn\u00edho soudu. Podle Nejvy\u0161\u0161\u00edho soudu nelze z\u00e1stup\u010d\u00ed opr\u00e1vn\u011bn\u00ed \u010dlen\u016f statut\u00e1rn\u00edho org\u00e1nu v\u00e1zat na spole\u010dn\u00e9 jedn\u00e1n\u00ed s dal\u0161\u00edmi osobami, kter\u00e9 nejsou \u010dleny statut\u00e1rn\u00edho org\u00e1nu. Takov\u00e1 ujedn\u00e1n\u00ed by poru\u0161ovala pr\u00e1vn\u00ed \u00fapravu statut\u00e1rn\u00edch org\u00e1n\u016f a zp\u016fsobu, jak\u00fdm jejich \u010dlenov\u00e9 zastupuj\u00ed pr\u00e1vnickou osobu. Nadto tak\u00e9 zd\u016fraznil, \u017ee nelze p\u0159ehl\u00ed\u017eet, \u017ee z\u00e1stup\u010d\u00ed opr\u00e1vn\u011bn\u00ed prokuristy je, na rozd\u00edl od z\u00e1stup\u010d\u00edho opr\u00e1vn\u011bn\u00ed \u010dlen\u016f statut\u00e1rn\u00edho org\u00e1nu, omezen\u00e9 na pr\u00e1vn\u00ed jedn\u00e1n\u00ed vypo\u010dten\u00e1 v \u00a7 450 odst. 1 ob\u010dansk\u00e9ho z\u00e1kon\u00edku. Nejvy\u0161\u0161\u00ed soud d\u00e1le vysv\u011btlil, \u017ee ujedn\u00e1n\u00ed o spole\u010dn\u00e9m jedn\u00e1n\u00ed jednatele a prokuristy jako\u017eto zp\u016fsobu zastupov\u00e1n\u00ed spole\u010dnosti \u010dleny jej\u00edho statut\u00e1rn\u00edho org\u00e1nu odporuje z\u00e1konu (\u00a7 1 odst. 2, \u00a7 164 odst. 2 ob\u010dansk\u00e9ho z\u00e1kon\u00edku) a zjevn\u011b poru\u0161uje pr\u00e1vo t\u00fdkaj\u00edc\u00ed se postaven\u00ed osob, tedy i ve\u0159ejn\u00fd po\u0159\u00e1dek. Nejvy\u0161\u0161\u00ed soud tak dovodil, \u017ee ujedn\u00e1n\u00ed spole\u010densk\u00e9 smlouvy o spole\u010dn\u00e9m jedn\u00e1n\u00ed statut\u00e1rn\u00edho org\u00e1nu a prokuristy je absolutn\u011b neplatn\u00e9, a \u017ee k t\u00e9to neplatnosti soud p\u0159ihl\u00e9dne i bez n\u00e1vrhu.<\/p>\n
Z\u00e1v\u011brem nezb\u00fdv\u00e1 ne\u017e shrnout, \u017ee spole\u010dn\u00e9 jedn\u00e1n\u00ed \u010dlena statut\u00e1rn\u00edho org\u00e1nu a prokuristy nen\u00ed ani nad\u00e1le p\u0159\u00edpustn\u00e9, a doporu\u010dit v\u0161em klient\u016fm, kte\u0159\u00ed maj\u00ed takto nastaven\u00e9 zastupov\u00e1n\u00ed spole\u010dnosti vadn\u00fd stav co nejd\u0159\u00edve odstranit zm\u011bnou spole\u010densk\u00e9 smlouvy.<\/p>\n
Zdroj: \uf02d z\u00e1kon \u010d. 89\/2012 Sb. \uf02d z\u00e1kon \u010d. 90\/2012 Sb. \uf02d z\u00e1kon \u010d. 304\/2013 Sb. \uf02d usnesen\u00ed NS \u010cR sp. zn. 29 Cdo 387\/2016 \uf02d rozhodnut\u00ed Vrchn\u00edho soudu v Praze sp. zn. 7 Cmo 55\/99, \uf02d rozhodnut\u00ed Vrchn\u00edho soudu v Praze sp. zn. 4 Cmo 184\/2014 rozhodnut\u00ed Vrchn\u00edho soudu v Praze sp. zn. 14 Cmo 576\/2014<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
V n\u011bmecky mluv\u00edc\u00edch zem\u00edch je b\u011b\u017en\u00e9, \u017ee \u010dlen statut\u00e1rn\u00edho org\u00e1nu zastupuje spole\u010dnost spole\u010dn\u011b spolu s prokuristou. P\u0159ipou\u0161t\u00ed toto i \u010desk\u00e1 pr\u00e1vn\u00ed \u00faprava? Pravidlo \u010dty\u0159 o\u010d\u00ed je obl\u00edben\u00fdm zp\u016fsobem zaji\u0161t\u011bn\u00ed vz\u00e1jemn\u00e9 kontroly managementu ve veden\u00ed spole\u010dnosti. Spo\u010d\u00edv\u00e1 zpravidla v tom, \u017ee k jedn\u00e1n\u00ed za spole\u010dnost je zapot\u0159eb\u00ed spole\u010dn\u00e9ho jedn\u00e1n\u00ed v\u00edce \u2013 zpravidla dvou \u2013 \u010dlen\u016f statut\u00e1rn\u00edho […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5467,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[78],"tags":[79],"class_list":["post-6828","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-bnt","tag-czech"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lynx.legal\/cs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6828","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lynx.legal\/cs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lynx.legal\/cs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lynx.legal\/cs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lynx.legal\/cs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6828"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lynx.legal\/cs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6828\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lynx.legal\/cs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5467"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lynx.legal\/cs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6828"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lynx.legal\/cs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6828"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lynx.legal\/cs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6828"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}