Podle z\u00e1v\u011br\u016f Nejvy\u0161\u0161\u00edho soudu odpov\u00eddaj\u00ed jednatel\u00e9 za jedn\u00e1n\u00ed jm\u00e9nem spole\u010dnosti po sv\u00e9m odvol\u00e1n\u00ed z funkce podle stejn\u00fdch krit\u00e9ri\u00ed, jak\u00e1 platila po dobu v\u00fdkonu jejich funkce. Nen\u00ed p\u0159itom rozhodn\u00e9, zda o ukon\u010den\u00ed funkce v\u011bd\u011bli \u010di nikoliv. Stejn\u00fd z\u00e1v\u011br dopadne na situace, kdy se jednatel sv\u00e9 funkce vzdal.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Nejvy\u0161\u0161\u00ed soud \u010cesk\u00e9 republiky zaujal ve sv\u00e9m rozsudku ze dne 29.03.2017 (sp.zn. 29 Cdo 4095\/2016) stanovisko k ot\u00e1zce, jak\u00e1 krit\u00e9ria odpov\u011bdnosti plat\u00ed pro jednatele, kte\u0159\u00ed jednaj\u00ed jm\u00e9nem spole\u010dnosti je\u0161t\u011b po sv\u00e9m odvol\u00e1n\u00ed z funkce.<\/p>\n
Podle n\u00e1zoru Nejvy\u0161\u0161\u00edho soudu se v dan\u00e9m rozsahu neuplatn\u00ed ku prosp\u011bchu jednatele ohledn\u011b odpov\u011bdnosti \u017e\u00e1dn\u00e1 \u00faleva. Jednatel, kter\u00fd i po sv\u00e9m odvol\u00e1n\u00ed vystupuje jako jednatel spole\u010dnosti a pr\u00e1vn\u011b jedn\u00e1 jej\u00edm jm\u00e9nem, odpov\u00edd\u00e1 spole\u010dnosti za \u0161kody t\u00edm zp\u016fsoben\u00e9 podle stejn\u00fdch krit\u00e9ri\u00ed, jako v dob\u011b v\u00fdkonu funkce, tj. odpov\u00edd\u00e1 v p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b, \u017ee sv\u00fdm jedn\u00e1n\u00edm poru\u0161il povinnost postupovat s p\u00e9\u010d\u00ed \u0159\u00e1dn\u00e9ho hospod\u00e1\u0159e.<\/p>\n
Pro posouzen\u00ed odpov\u011bdnosti nen\u00ed v takov\u00e9m p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b dle n\u00e1zoru Nejvy\u0161\u0161\u00edho soudu podstatn\u00e9, zda jednatel p\u0159i dan\u00e9m pr\u00e1vn\u00edm jedn\u00e1n\u00ed pouze nev\u011bd\u011bl o sv\u00e9m odvol\u00e1n\u00ed (nebo\u0165 k odvol\u00e1n\u00ed jednatele m\u016f\u017ee jak zn\u00e1mo doj\u00edt bez jeho v\u011bdom\u00ed), nebo tohoto odvol\u00e1n\u00ed naopak nedbal z\u00e1m\u011brn\u011b. V logick\u00e9 n\u00e1vaznosti je pak nutn\u00e9 aplikovat tento rozsudek tak\u00e9 na p\u0159\u00edpady, kdy se jednatel s\u00e1m vzd\u00e1 sv\u00e9 funkce. Jednatel se tak nem\u016f\u017ee zbavit sv\u00e9 odpov\u011bdnosti t\u00edm, \u017ee se dovol\u00e1 sv\u00e9ho odvol\u00e1n\u00ed. Naopak je rozhoduj\u00edc\u00ed ten pr\u00e1vn\u00ed stav, kter\u00fd v pr\u00e1vn\u00edm styku b\u00fdval\u00fd jednatel ud\u00e1v\u00e1, kdy\u017e se i po sv\u00e9m odvol\u00e1n\u00ed prezentuje jako jednatel spole\u010dnosti.<\/p>\n
P\u0159esto\u017ee se tento rozsudek t\u00fdkal pr\u00e1vn\u00ed \u00fapravy platn\u00e9 p\u0159ed 01.01.2014, je vzhledem k v\u011bcn\u00e9 i z\u00e1jmov\u00e9 shod\u011b mo\u017en\u00e9 o\u010dek\u00e1vat, \u017ee se za \u00fa\u010delem ochrany spole\u010dnosti a jej\u00edch v\u011b\u0159itel\u016f tento judikatorn\u00ed n\u00e1zor prosad\u00ed i podle platn\u00e9 pr\u00e1vn\u00ed \u00fapravy.<\/p>\n
Vzhledem k tomu, \u017ee \u010desk\u00fd z\u00e1kon o obchodn\u00edch korporac\u00edch stanov\u00ed u prokurist\u016f p\u0159i poru\u0161en\u00ed p\u00e9\u010de \u0159\u00e1dn\u00e9ho hospod\u00e1\u0159e v z\u00e1sad\u011b stejn\u00e1 krit\u00e9ria odpov\u011bdnosti jako u jednatel\u016f, bude t\u0159eba z\u00e1v\u011bry Nejvy\u0161\u0161\u00edho soudu odpov\u00eddaj\u00edc\u00edm zp\u016fsobem aplikovat tak\u00e9 na prokuristy.<\/p>\n
Zdroj: Nejvy\u0161\u0161\u00ed soud \u010cesk\u00e9 republiky, rozsudek ze dne 29.03.2017 (29 Cdo 4095\/2016)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Podle z\u00e1v\u011br\u016f Nejvy\u0161\u0161\u00edho soudu odpov\u00eddaj\u00ed jednatel\u00e9 za jedn\u00e1n\u00ed jm\u00e9nem spole\u010dnosti po sv\u00e9m odvol\u00e1n\u00ed z funkce podle stejn\u00fdch krit\u00e9ri\u00ed, jak\u00e1 platila po dobu v\u00fdkonu jejich funkce. Nen\u00ed p\u0159itom rozhodn\u00e9, zda o ukon\u010den\u00ed funkce v\u011bd\u011bli \u010di nikoliv. Stejn\u00fd z\u00e1v\u011br dopadne na situace, kdy se jednatel sv\u00e9 funkce vzdal. Nejvy\u0161\u0161\u00ed soud \u010cesk\u00e9 republiky zaujal ve sv\u00e9m rozsudku […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5470,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[78],"tags":[79],"class_list":["post-6839","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\/6839","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=6839"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lynx.legal\/cs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6839\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lynx.legal\/cs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5470"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lynx.legal\/cs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6839"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lynx.legal\/cs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6839"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lynx.legal\/cs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6839"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}