Lietuva: bnt advok\u0101tu birojs p\u0101rst\u0101v V\u0101cijas maks\u0101tnesp\u0113jas administratoru v\u0113sturisk\u0101 p\u0101rrobe\u017eu maks\u0101tnesp\u0113jas liet\u0101.<\/p>\n
Lieta attiec\u0101s uz Eiropas Maks\u0101tnesp\u0113jas regulas (IR) interpret\u0101ciju, jo \u012bpa\u0161i uz to, vai ir izpild\u012bti \u201cuz\u0146\u0113muma\u201d krit\u0113riji, kas \u013cauj Lietuvas ties\u0101m uzs\u0101kt t\u0101 saukto sekund\u0101ro maks\u0101tnesp\u0113jas proced\u016bru pret V\u0101cijas par\u0101dnieku, ja kompetent\u0101 V\u0101cijas tiesa ir uzs\u0101kusi maks\u0101tnesp\u0113jas proced\u016bru.<\/p>\n
Vienas dal\u012bbvalsts tiesas var uzs\u0101kt sekund\u0101ro maks\u0101tnesp\u0113jas proced\u016bru pret par\u0101dnieku, kura galveno intere\u0161u centrs (COMI) atrodas cit\u0101 dal\u012bbvalst\u012b, pat ja \u0161aj\u0101 cit\u0101 dal\u012bbvalst\u012b jau ir uzs\u0101kta maks\u0101tnesp\u0113jas proced\u016bra. Sekund\u0101ro maks\u0101tnesp\u0113jas proced\u016bru var uzs\u0101kt tikai tad, ja par\u0101dniekam ir \u201cuz\u0146\u0113mums\u201d dal\u012bbvalst\u012b, kur\u0101 tiek l\u016bgta sekund\u0101r\u0101s maks\u0101tnesp\u0113jas proced\u016bras uzs\u0101k\u0161ana. Par\u0101dnieka kreditoriem \u0161aj\u0101 valst\u012b ir ties\u012bbas piepras\u012bt proced\u016bras uzs\u0101k\u0161anu. Sekund\u0101r\u0101s maks\u0101tnesp\u0113jas proced\u016bras sekas attiecas tikai uz akt\u012bviem sekund\u0101r\u0101s maks\u0101tnesp\u0113jas proced\u016bras valsts teritorij\u0101. Kreditori var iesniegt savu pras\u012bbu gan galvenaj\u0101 proced\u016br\u0101, gan sekund\u0101raj\u0101 proced\u016br\u0101. Sekund\u0101r\u0101s proced\u016bras var\u0113tu b\u016bt interesantas viet\u0113jiem kreditoriem, jo \u200b\u200btiks piem\u0113roti viet\u0113jie likumi un proced\u016bras, ar kur\u0101m vi\u0146i ir paz\u012bstami. Turkl\u0101t vi\u0146i var\u0113s sazin\u0101ties sav\u0101 dzimtaj\u0101 valod\u0101.<\/p>\n
2015.\u00a0gada 7.\u00a0august\u0101 Lietuvas Apel\u0101cijas tiesa apstiprin\u0101ja sekund\u0101r\u0101s maks\u0101tnesp\u0113jas proced\u016bras s\u0101k\u0161anu \u0161aj\u0101 liet\u0101. Tiesa uzskat\u012bja, ka V\u0101cijas uz\u0146\u0113mumam ir \u201cuz\u0146\u0113mums\u201d, k\u0101 defin\u0113ts \u012arijas maks\u0101tnesp\u0113jas likum\u0101, kas noz\u012bm\u0113 \u201cjebkura darb\u012bbas vieta, kur par\u0101dnieks veic past\u0101v\u012bgu saimniecisko darb\u012bbu ar cilv\u0113kresursiem un prec\u0113m\u201d.<\/p>\n
Galvenais jaut\u0101jums, kas bija j\u0101izlemj, bija, kur\u0101 br\u012bd\u012b \u0161im uz\u0146\u0113mumam ir j\u0101past\u0101v. Kreditors, kas iesniedza pieteikumu par sekund\u0101r\u0101s maks\u0101tnesp\u0113jas proced\u016bras s\u0101k\u0161anu, apgalvoja, ka iz\u0161\u0137iro\u0161ais br\u012bdis ir galven\u0101s proced\u016bras s\u0101k\u0161anas br\u012bdis (\u0161eit: 2014.\u00a0gada 31.\u00a0marts). bnt advok\u0101tu biroja juristi Franks H\u0113mans un Karol\u012bna Gasp\u0101rke iebilda pret \u0161o viedokli un apgalvoja, ka iz\u0161\u0137iro\u0161ais br\u012bdis ir br\u012bdis, kad kreditors iesniedzis pieteikumu par sekund\u0101r\u0101s proced\u016bras s\u0101k\u0161anu (\u0161eit: 2014.\u00a0gada 17.\u00a0novembris), un \u0161o viedokli apstiprina V\u0101cijas Feder\u0101l\u0101s Augst\u0101k\u0101s tiesas un Anglijas un Velsas Apel\u0101cijas tiesas judikat\u016bra. Sav\u0101 spriedum\u0101 Lietuvas Apel\u0101cijas tiesa piekrita kreditora, kur\u0161 iesniedza pieteikumu, viedoklim. Tiesa pamatoja ar to, ka sekund\u0101r\u0101s maks\u0101tnesp\u0113jas proced\u016bras uzs\u0101k\u0161ana k\u013c\u016btu neiesp\u0113jama, ja iz\u0161\u0137iro\u0161ais br\u012bdis b\u016btu sekund\u0101r\u0101s maks\u0101tnesp\u0113jas proced\u016bras pieteikuma iesnieg\u0161anas br\u012bdis, jo administrators pamatliet\u0101 var\u0113tu atlaist visus darbiniekus vai p\u0101rcelt visus akt\u012bvus \u0101rpus valsts, t\u0101d\u0113j\u0101di likvid\u0113jot \u201cuz\u0146\u0113muma\u201d krit\u0113rijus. Diem\u017e\u0113l sav\u0101 argument\u0101cij\u0101 tiesa ignor\u0113ja to, ka administratori pamatliet\u0101 var un ne reti nolemj turpin\u0101t par\u0101dnieka uz\u0146\u0113muma saimniecisko darb\u012bbu cit\u0101 dal\u012bbvalst\u012b \u201car cilv\u0113kresursiem un prec\u0113m\u201d, piem\u0113ram, pabeigt b\u016bvdarbus vai citus pas\u016bt\u012bjumus un t\u0101d\u0113j\u0101di g\u016bt ie\u0146\u0113mumus kreditoru lab\u0101. T\u0101p\u0113c tiesas arguments, ka viet\u0113jiem kreditoriem k\u013c\u016btu neiesp\u0113jami uzs\u0101kt sekund\u0101ro maks\u0101tnesp\u0113jas proced\u016bru, ja iz\u0161\u0137iro\u0161ais br\u012bdis \u201cuz\u0146\u0113muma\u201d past\u0101v\u0113\u0161anai neb\u016btu galven\u0101s proced\u016bras uzs\u0101k\u0161anas br\u012bdis, nav \u012bsti p\u0101rliecino\u0161s. \u012apa\u0161i no\u017e\u0113lojami ir tas, ka tiesa, cen\u0161oties aizst\u0101v\u0113t viet\u0113jo kreditoru intereses, \u0161\u0137iet, nav pietiekami apsv\u0113rusi jaut\u0101jumu, vai tiesas viedok\u013ca ietekme uz iz\u0161\u0137iro\u0161o br\u012bdi \u201cdibin\u0101\u0161anai\u201d patie\u0161\u0101m kalpo viet\u0113jo kreditoru interes\u0113m. Tas ir j\u0101ap\u0161auba, jo br\u012bd\u012b, kad viens no daudzajiem viet\u0113jiem kreditoriem iesniedza pieteikumu par sekund\u0101r\u0101s proced\u016bras uzs\u0101k\u0161anu, bija pag\u0101ju\u0161i jau se\u0161i m\u0113ne\u0161i kop\u0161 pamatproced\u016bras uzs\u0101k\u0161anas, visi darbinieki bija atlaisti, \u012bres l\u012bgumi un projekti bija izbeigti, saimniecisk\u0101 darb\u012bba bija beigusies un liel\u0101k\u0101 da\u013ca akt\u012bvu bija p\u0101rdoti. Ir gr\u016bti saskat\u012bt ekonomisko j\u0113gu uzs\u0101kt papildu proced\u016bru, radot papildu izmaksas un aizkav\u0113jot procesu, 18 m\u0113ne\u0161us p\u0113c pamatproced\u016bras uzs\u0101k\u0161anas.<\/p>\n
Lietuvas Apel\u0101cijas tiesas spriedums ir pla\u0161i pav\u0113ris durvis sekund\u0101raj\u0101m maks\u0101tnesp\u0113jas proced\u016br\u0101m Lietuv\u0101, jo daudzos gad\u012bjumos, piem\u0113ram, \u0161aj\u0101 liet\u0101, b\u016bs viegli pier\u0101d\u012bt, ka \u0101rvalstu maks\u0101tnesp\u0113j\u012bgais par\u0101dnieks pamatproced\u016bras uzs\u0101k\u0161anas br\u012bd\u012b saglab\u0101ja uz\u0146\u0113mumu Lietuv\u0101. V\u0113l j\u0101noskaidro, vai \u0161\u012b retrospekt\u012bv\u0101 p\u0101rbaude patie\u0161\u0101m kalpos viet\u0113jo kreditoru interes\u0113m p\u0101rrobe\u017eu maks\u0101tnesp\u0113jas procesos vai ar\u012b \u0161o precedenta spriedumu \u013caunpr\u0101t\u012bgi izmantos da\u017ei viet\u0113jie kreditori, m\u0113\u0123inot torped\u0113t pamatprocesu, lai \u201cvienotos\u201d par k\u0101du \u012bpa\u0161u attieksmi.<\/p>\n
Lietuvas Apel\u0101cijas tiesas 2015. gada 7. augusta l\u0113mums, civillieta Nr. 2-1420-381\/2015<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Lietuva: bnt advok\u0101tu birojs p\u0101rst\u0101v V\u0101cijas maks\u0101tnesp\u0113jas administratoru v\u0113sturisk\u0101 p\u0101rrobe\u017eu maks\u0101tnesp\u0113jas liet\u0101. Lieta attiec\u0101s uz Eiropas Maks\u0101tnesp\u0113jas regulas (IR) interpret\u0101ciju, jo \u012bpa\u0161i uz to, vai ir izpild\u012bti \u201cuz\u0146\u0113muma\u201d krit\u0113riji, kas \u013cauj Lietuvas ties\u0101m uzs\u0101kt t\u0101 saukto sekund\u0101ro maks\u0101tnesp\u0113jas proced\u016bru pret V\u0101cijas par\u0101dnieku, ja kompetent\u0101 V\u0101cijas tiesa ir uzs\u0101kusi maks\u0101tnesp\u0113jas proced\u016bru. Vienas dal\u012bbvalsts tiesas var uzs\u0101kt […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5471,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[111],"tags":[112],"class_list":["post-7399","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-bnt","tag-latvian"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lynx.legal\/lv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7399","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lynx.legal\/lv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lynx.legal\/lv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lynx.legal\/lv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lynx.legal\/lv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7399"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lynx.legal\/lv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7399\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lynx.legal\/lv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5471"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lynx.legal\/lv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7399"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lynx.legal\/lv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7399"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lynx.legal\/lv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7399"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}