| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 787.73 KB | Adobe PDF |
Authors
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
Esta dissertação versa sobre o tema da responsabilidade civil do administrador da insolvĂȘncia perante os credores, ĂłrgĂŁo que no processo de insolvĂȘncia tem assumido um papel central em virtude do aumento considerĂĄvel dos seus poderes funcionais, resultado de uma progressiva desjudicialização daquele, o que levou o nosso legislador a criar jĂĄ tardiamente, um regime privativo de responsabilidade civil plasmado no art. 59.Âș do CIRE, aprovado pelo DL n.Âș 53/2004, de 18 de Março. Tal regime permite aos credores obter o ressarcimento por eventuais danos originados pela atuação do administrador da insolvĂȘncia, durante o exercĂcio das suas funçÔes, quando este nĂŁo observar os deveres aos quais estĂĄ funcionalmente adstrito. A criação deste regime implicou o afastamento da regra geral de direito civil dos arts. 483.Âș e ss do CĂłdigo Civil, que atĂ© entĂŁo era aplicĂĄvel para regular a matĂ©ria da responsabilização civil do administrador da insolvĂȘncia perante os credores.
Perante a insolvĂȘncia de um dos seus devedores, os credores deverĂŁo gozar de um regime que garanta a satisfação integral dos crĂ©ditos que possuem, evitando assim o desfalque do patrimĂłnio que deve ser aproveitado para lhes pagar e tal desiderato incluirĂĄ necessariamente a possibilidade de ressarcimento por eventuais danos causados por actos do ĂłrgĂŁo encarregado de administrar e liquidar os bens do insolvente.
A inobservĂąncia culposa dos deveres funcionais, implica que o administrador atue de forma menos diligente que aquela que a lei lhe impĂ”e, o que configura uma conduta ilĂcita. Esta diligĂȘncia Ă© de cariz mais reforçado que aquela exigĂvel a um bom pai de famĂlia, tal como a que consta do n.Âș 2 do art. 487.Âș do CC, jĂĄ que Ă© necessĂĄria a diligĂȘncia de um administrador da insolvĂȘncia criterioso e ordenado, prĂłpria de um sector profissional especĂfico.
O regime privativo da responsabilidade civil do art. 59.Âș do CIRE, cuja legitimidade ativa estĂĄ nos credores e no devedor, nĂŁo se afastou muito em relação ao regime geral do art. 483.Âș e ss do CC, no que toca Ă maioria dos seus aspectos fundamentais, pelo menos, no que respeita Ă responsabilidade por atos prĂłprios, regulada no n.Âș1 e n.Âș2 do preceito. JĂĄ no que toca Ă responsabilidade por atos dos auxiliares, prevista no n.Âș3, o afastamento relativamente Ă regra geral do art. 500.Âș do CC, foi muito maior.
Acreditåmos que a criação de um regime privativo que trås consigo um afastamento da regra geral, inevitavelmente acarreta a criação de outro com traços muito próprios e não teria o legislador ido por esse caminho se aquele respondesse adequadamente ao problema da responsabilização civil do administrador perante os credores.
No n.Âș1 do art. 59.Âș prescreve-se que o administrador da insolvĂȘncia Ă© responsĂĄvel pelos danos que cause aos credores da insolvĂȘncia e da massa insolvente e ao devedor pela inobservĂąncia culposa dos deveres funcionais que lhe incumbem. A culpa Ă© apreciada pela bitola de um administrador criterioso e ordenado. A prova de culpa, por nĂŁo haver presunção, cabe ao lesado.
O n.Âș 2 Ă© uma extensĂŁo do referido n.Âș 1 pois reza que o administrador da insolvĂȘncia Ă© responsĂĄvel por danos tambĂ©m perante os credores da massa insolvente, em virtude de esta se vir a revelar insuficiente para satisfazer os respectivos direitos. Por outro lado, este preceito comporta uma inversĂŁo do Ăłnus de prova, jĂĄ que este ĂłrgĂŁo pode livrar-se da responsabilidade se provar que tal insuficiĂȘncia era imprevisĂvel.
No n.Âș 3, Ă© consagrado um regime de responsabilidade culposa do administrador da insolvĂȘncia por atos praticados pelos seus auxiliares, tratando-se de um afastamento notĂłrio em relação a regime geral da responsabilidade objectiva do art. 500.Âș do CC. Assim, pelos atos danosos dos seus auxiliares, o administrador responderĂĄ solidariamente com estes, salvo se provar que nĂŁo houve culpa da sua parte, ou que mesmo com a diligĂȘncia devida, os danos nĂŁo poderiam ser evitados.
No n.Âș 4 reza que o preceito sĂł regularĂĄ as situaçÔes anteriormente referidas, se as condutas ou omissĂ”es danosas ocorrerem apĂłs a nomeação deste ĂłrgĂŁo. O prazo de prescrição, referido no n.Âș 5, serĂĄ de dois anos a contar da data do conhecimento do direito por parte do credor, em concorrĂȘncia com o prazo de dois anos a partir do registo pĂșblico da cessação de funçÔes do administrador lesante.
Assim, cumpre escrutinar o referido regime privativo de responsabilidade civil ao ponto de se poder concluir da sua adequação para responder ao problema das condutas lesivas da esfera jurĂdica dos credores, por parte do administrador da insolvĂȘncia.
This dissertation deals with the subject of civil liability of the insolvency administrator before creditors, a body that in the insolvency process has assumed a central role due to the considerable increase of its functional powers, as a result of a progressive unfairness of that, which led to our legislator to create late, a private regime of civil liability set forth in art. 59 of the CIRE, approved by DL no. 53/2004 of 18 March. This regime allows creditors to obtain compensation for any damages caused by the insolvency administrator's performance during the performance of his duties, when he does not observe the duties to which it is functionally attached. The creation of this regime implied a departure from the general rule of civil law of art. 483.Âș and ss of the Civil Code, which until then was applicable to regulate the matter of civil liability of the administrator of insolvency to creditors. In the event of the insolvency of one of their debtors, creditors must enjoy a system that guarantees the full satisfaction of the debts they hold, thus avoiding the embezzlement of the assets that must be used to pay them, and such desideratum will necessarily include the possibility of reimbursement for eventual damages caused by acts of the body in charge of administering and liquidating the assets of the insolvent. Misconduct of functional duties implies that the administrator acts less diligently than the law imposes on him, which constitutes an unlawful conduct. This diligence is of a more reinforced nature than that demanded by a good father of a family, such as that contained in no. 2 of art. 487 of the CC, since the diligence of a prudent and orderly insolvency administrator, specific to a specific professional sector, is necessary. The exclusive regime of civil liability of art. 59 of CIRE, whose active legitimacy is in the creditors and the debtor, did not deviate much in relation to the general regime of art. 483 of the CC, as regards most of its fundamental aspects, at least as regards liability for its own acts, regulated in paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 of the precept. Regarding the responsibility for acts of the auxiliaries, foreseen in number 3, the departure from the general rule of art. 500, was much higher. We believe that the creation of a privative regime that brings with it a departure from the general rule inevitably entails the creation of another with very own traits andthe legislator would not have gone down this path if that answer adequately to the problem of civil liability of the administrator to creditors . In paragraph 1 of art. 59 it is presumed that the insolvency administrator is liable for damages caused to creditors of insolvency and insolvent estate and to the debtor for the culpable non-observance of the functional duties incumbent on him. Guilt is appreciated by the gauge of a judicious and orderly manager. Proof of guilt, as there is no presumption, lies with the injured party. Paragraph 2 is an extension of paragraph 1 stating that the insolvency administrator is liable also for damages to the creditors of the insolvent estate, as it proves to be insufficient to satisfy the respective rights. On the other hand, that provision entails a reversal of the burden of proof, since that body can relieve itself of liability if it proves that such insufficiency was unpredictable. In paragraph 3, a system of culpable liability of the insolvency administrator is established for acts committed by his assistants, being a noticeable departure from the general regime of the objective liability of art. 500 of the CC. Thus, by the harmful acts of his assistants, the administrator will respond jointly with them, unless it proves that it was not his fault, or that even with due diligence, the damages could not be avoided. In paragraph 4, it is stated that the precept will only regulate the situations mentioned above, if the harmful conduct or omissions occur after the appointment of this body. The period of limitation referred to in paragraph 5 shall be two years from the date on which the creditor becomes aware of the right, in competition with the period of two years from the public record of the cessation of duties of the lessor. Therefore, it is necessary to scrutinize the aforementioned private civil liability regime to the extent that it can be concluded that it is adequate to respond to the problem of conduct prejudicial to the legal sphere of creditors by the insolvency administrator.
This dissertation deals with the subject of civil liability of the insolvency administrator before creditors, a body that in the insolvency process has assumed a central role due to the considerable increase of its functional powers, as a result of a progressive unfairness of that, which led to our legislator to create late, a private regime of civil liability set forth in art. 59 of the CIRE, approved by DL no. 53/2004 of 18 March. This regime allows creditors to obtain compensation for any damages caused by the insolvency administrator's performance during the performance of his duties, when he does not observe the duties to which it is functionally attached. The creation of this regime implied a departure from the general rule of civil law of art. 483.Âș and ss of the Civil Code, which until then was applicable to regulate the matter of civil liability of the administrator of insolvency to creditors. In the event of the insolvency of one of their debtors, creditors must enjoy a system that guarantees the full satisfaction of the debts they hold, thus avoiding the embezzlement of the assets that must be used to pay them, and such desideratum will necessarily include the possibility of reimbursement for eventual damages caused by acts of the body in charge of administering and liquidating the assets of the insolvent. Misconduct of functional duties implies that the administrator acts less diligently than the law imposes on him, which constitutes an unlawful conduct. This diligence is of a more reinforced nature than that demanded by a good father of a family, such as that contained in no. 2 of art. 487 of the CC, since the diligence of a prudent and orderly insolvency administrator, specific to a specific professional sector, is necessary. The exclusive regime of civil liability of art. 59 of CIRE, whose active legitimacy is in the creditors and the debtor, did not deviate much in relation to the general regime of art. 483 of the CC, as regards most of its fundamental aspects, at least as regards liability for its own acts, regulated in paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 of the precept. Regarding the responsibility for acts of the auxiliaries, foreseen in number 3, the departure from the general rule of art. 500, was much higher. We believe that the creation of a privative regime that brings with it a departure from the general rule inevitably entails the creation of another with very own traits andthe legislator would not have gone down this path if that answer adequately to the problem of civil liability of the administrator to creditors . In paragraph 1 of art. 59 it is presumed that the insolvency administrator is liable for damages caused to creditors of insolvency and insolvent estate and to the debtor for the culpable non-observance of the functional duties incumbent on him. Guilt is appreciated by the gauge of a judicious and orderly manager. Proof of guilt, as there is no presumption, lies with the injured party. Paragraph 2 is an extension of paragraph 1 stating that the insolvency administrator is liable also for damages to the creditors of the insolvent estate, as it proves to be insufficient to satisfy the respective rights. On the other hand, that provision entails a reversal of the burden of proof, since that body can relieve itself of liability if it proves that such insufficiency was unpredictable. In paragraph 3, a system of culpable liability of the insolvency administrator is established for acts committed by his assistants, being a noticeable departure from the general regime of the objective liability of art. 500 of the CC. Thus, by the harmful acts of his assistants, the administrator will respond jointly with them, unless it proves that it was not his fault, or that even with due diligence, the damages could not be avoided. In paragraph 4, it is stated that the precept will only regulate the situations mentioned above, if the harmful conduct or omissions occur after the appointment of this body. The period of limitation referred to in paragraph 5 shall be two years from the date on which the creditor becomes aware of the right, in competition with the period of two years from the public record of the cessation of duties of the lessor. Therefore, it is necessary to scrutinize the aforementioned private civil liability regime to the extent that it can be concluded that it is adequate to respond to the problem of conduct prejudicial to the legal sphere of creditors by the insolvency administrator.
Description
Keywords
Direito da insolvĂȘncia Responsabilidade civil Administrador Credor Teses de mestrado - 2017