| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font

Show document Help

Title:NEPOSREDNI ZAHTEVEK PODIZVAJALCA PO 631. ČLENU OZ
Authors:ID Špes, Mateja (Author)
ID Kranjc, Vesna (Mentor) More about this mentor... New window
Files:.pdf MAG_Spes_Mateja_2014.pdf (1,22 MB)
MD5: 02740CE488DC60549C42FB296D3E5985
 
Language:Slovenian
Work type:Master's thesis
Typology:2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization:PF - Faculty of Law
Abstract:Magistrska naloga po ločenih sklopih obravnava odprta vprašanja, ki so se pojavila ali pa bi se lahko pojavila, v zvezi s 631. členom Obligacijskega zakonika (OZ), ki pri podjemni pogodbi ureja neposredni zahtevek podizvajalca v razmerju do glavnega naročnika. Največ odprtih vprašanj se v pravni teoriji in sodni praksi pojavlja v zvezi z razlago predpostavk neposrednega zahtevka podizvajalca v razmerju do glavnega naročnika in v zvezi z učinkom postopka insolventnosti nad izvajalcem na neposredni zahtevek podizvajalca. Ker glavni naročnik ni pogodbena stranka podizvajalca, je določba 631. člena OZ obravnavana tudi kot izjema od načela relativnosti pogodbenih razmerij. Posebne obravnave je v nalogi deležen še izraz »podizvajalec«, ki ga OZ ne uporablja, vendar je splošno uveljavljen tako v sodni in poslovni praksi kot tudi v pravni teoriji. Za primerjavo je predstavljeno, kako izraz »podizvajalec« uporabljata in urejajta Zakon o javnih naročilih (ZJN-2) in Mednarodna zveza svetovalnih inženirjev (FIDIC). V nalogi je analizirana tudi pravna narava pravice podizvajalca iz 631. člena OZ, glede katere v teoriji obstaja več različnih stališč. Predstavljena pa je tudi možnost podizvajalca, da neposredni zahtevek v razmerju do glavnega naročnika zavaruje z začasno odredbo na podlagi pravil Zakona o izvršbi in zavarovanju (ZIZ).
Keywords:podjemna pogodba, podizvajalec, glavni naročnik, izvajalec, neposredni zahtevek podizvajalca v razmerju do glavnega naročnika, izjema od načela relativnosti pogodbenih razmerij, stečaj izvajalca, začasna odredba
Place of publishing:Maribor
Publisher:[M. Špes]
Year of publishing:2014
PID:20.500.12556/DKUM-44545 New window
UDC:347.4/.5(043.3)
COBISS.SI-ID:4726059 New window
NUK URN:URN:SI:UM:DK:WGQTI1XQ
Publication date in DKUM:06.08.2014
Views:3925
Downloads:862
Metadata:XML DC-XML DC-RDF
Categories:PF
:
Copy citation
  
Average score:(0 votes)
Your score:Voting is allowed only for logged in users.
Share:Bookmark and Share



Hover the mouse pointer over a document title to show the abstract or click on the title to get all document metadata.

Secondary language

Language:English
Title:DIRECT ACTION OF SUBCONTRACTOR ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 631 OF THE CODE OF OBLIGATION (CO)
Abstract:The master’s thesis discuses, under separate lots, open issues which have arisen or could arise in relation to Article 631 of the Code of Obligations (CO) which regulates the direct action of subcontractor against the principal recipient of services in the service contract. The majority of open issues in legal theory and case law appear in connection with the explanation of assumptions of the direct action of subcontractor against the principal recipient of services and in connection with the impact of insolvency procedure over contractor on the direct action of subcontractor. Since the principal recipient of services is not a contracting party of the subcontractor, the provision under Article 631 of the OC is treated also as an exception to the doctrine of privity of contract. The thesis also discuses the term “subcontractor” which is not used in the CO but is generally accepted in the case law and business practice as well as in legal theory. The way the term “subcontractor” is used and regulated under the Public Procurement Act (ZJN-2) and the International Federation of Consulting Engineers is presented for comparison. The thesis analyses also the legal nature of the subcontractor’s right under Article 631 of the OC, on which, in theory, there are several different opinions. The thesis discuses also the possibility of subcontractor to protect the direct action against the principal recipient of services with the interim decision based on the rules under the Enforcement and Securing of Civil Claims Act (ZIZ).
Keywords:contract to provide services, subcontractor, principal/developer/owner/recipient of services, contractor, direct action of subcontractor against the principal, exceptions to the doctrine of privity of contract, contractor’s bankruptcy, interim decision


Comments

Leave comment

You must log in to leave a comment.

Comments (0)
0 - 0 / 0
 
There are no comments!

Back
Logos of partners University of Maribor University of Ljubljana University of Primorska University of Nova Gorica