Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorTikniūtė, Agnė
dc.contributor.authorUsonienė, Jūratė
dc.date.accessioned2014-05-07T06:21:57Z
dc.date.available2014-05-07T06:21:57Z
dc.identifier.urihttps://www3.mruni.eu/ojs/jurisprudence/article/view/1507/1451
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.mruni.eu/handle/007/11495
dc.description.abstractThe article analyses the key issues of the legal status of the sole managing body from the perspective of the valid legal regulation, the established case-law and doctrine. The first part of the article analyses the dualism of the manager’s legal status from the perspective of civil law and labour law. The analysis of the latest case-law presented herein shows that the rule of “internal” and “external” relations between the manager and the company formulated in the case-law is applied differently, and the criterion of distinguishing the manager’s as the subject of the labour law and that of the civil law statuses still remains unclear. The authors of the article are of the view that due to insufficient legal regulation in force rules established by the case-law to regulate the manager’s legal status cannot ensure the required legal certainty. Thus, the reform of the manager’s legal regulation is essential. The second part of the article strives to answer the question what legal regulation models exist and what are the main criteria of quality legal regulation. The comparative analysis of the legal status regulation of the sole managing body allows to determine the main available regulation models of the manager’s legal status and to distinguish their advantages and disadvantages. The authors of the article believe that it is necessary to take regard to other states’ practices regulating the relations at issue, however, while creating such legal regulation, the evaluation of economic, cultural and social peculiarities of Lithuania is also required. In search for the most appropriate model of the manager’s legal status, attention should be drawn to the fact that in some aspects the labour law regime is too restrictive (e.g., shareholders cannot recall the manager, who is on maternal leave, and the manager at interim does not have full authority) and uncoordinated with the doctrine of the companies’ law. Moreover, quite a few questions directly related to the issues of the manager’s authority do not fall or only partially fall into the scope of the labour law. On the other hand, the problem of the manager’s legal status involves a broader scope of points of the companies’ law than the dualism of the manager’s status, and a part of these points has already been regulated by the Law on Companies (the agreement conclusion, termination, removal from the register of legal persons, terms of notice). In regard to this, a question can be raised if it not be better to regulate the issues of the manager’s legal status by the provisions of the Law on Companies and not of the Labour Code. It is proposed to create a specific legal regulation of the companies’ law, which could meet the needs of business and match up to the doctrine of the companies’ law, which is already being applied.en
dc.language.isolten
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.titleVienasmenio valdymo organo teisinis statusas: ar įmanomas vienareikšmiškumas?en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.description.abstract-ltStraipsnyje nagrinėjama įmonės vienasmenio valdymo organo teisinio statuso problematika Lietuvoje susiformavusios teismų praktikos, doktrinos ir teisinio reguliavimo aspektais. Pirmojoje straipsnio dalyje analizuojamas vadovo teisinės padėties dualizmas civilinės ir darbo teisės požiūriu, apžvelgiant galiojantį teisinį reguliavimą, teisės doktriną ir naujausią teismų praktiką, kurioje mėginama atriboti darbo teisės ir civilinės bei bendrovių teisės taikymo sritis įmonės vadovui. Daroma išvada, kad riba tarp darbo teisės ir civilinės teisės taikymo vadovo teisiniam statusui tebėra neaiški, o ateities teismų sprendimai sunkiai prognozuojami. Straipsnio autorių nuomone, teismų praktikos kuriamos vadovo teisinį statusą reglamentuojančios normos negali suteikti reikalingo teisinio tikrumo, tam būtina teisinio reguliavimo reforma. Antroje straipsnio dalyje ieškoma atsakymo į klausimą, kokie yra galimi teisinio reguliavimo modeliai ir kokie pagrindiniai kokybiško teisinio reguliavimo kriterijai. Lyginamuoju aspektu išnagrinėjus vienasmenio valdymo organo teisinio statuso reglamentavimą, įvardinami pagrindiniai klausimai, kuriuos turėtų išspręsti teisinis reguliavimas, ir nurodomi galimi teisinio reguliavimo modeliai. Teikiamas siūlymas kurti specialų bendrovių teisės teisinį reguliavimą, atitinkantį verslo poreikius ir suderintą su jau dabar taikoma įmonių teisės doktrina. Straipsnis baigiamas išvadomis ir pasiūlymais.en
dc.doidoi:10.13165/JUR-13-20-3-12
dc.identifier.aleph000015763en
dc.publication.sourceJurisprudencija, 2013, Nr. 20(3)en
dc.subject.facultyTeisės fakultetasen
dc.subject.keywordVienasmenis valdymo organasen
dc.subject.keywordVienasmenis valdymo organasen
dc.subject.keywordVadovo teisinis statusasen
dc.subject.keywordVadovo ir įmonės teisiniai santykiaien
dc.subject.keywordSole managing bodyen
dc.subject.keywordManager’s legal statusen
dc.subject.keywordLegal relations between the manager and the companyen
dc.subject.publicationtypeS3en
dc.subject.sciencedirection01S - Teisėen


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record