摘要
在最高人民法院公布的“杭州某球拍公司破产清算案”中,法院将管理人的处置行为认定为“管理人全面履行涉环境污染事项处置职责,并将履职费用定性为破产费用”的裁判观点缺乏证成理由。经法教义学检验后可知,管理人处置危废物行为无法与《中华人民共和国企业破产法》第二十五条第六项建立涵摄关系。但处置行为属于管理人全面履行涉环境污染事项处置职责,而处置职责可以与《企业破产法》第二十五条第九项建立涵摄关系。在法教义学构造论上,管理人涉环境污染事项处置职责应是一种补充责任,而法院、债权人等主体可以要求管理人履行该职责。另外,法院将履职费用认定为破产费用的结论正确,但法律依据应为《企业破产法》第四十一条第三项之规定。
In the"Case of Bankruptcy Liquidation of a Racket Company in Hangzhou",the court found that the verdict of"the administrator's act of disposal was the administrator's full performance of its duty to dispose of matters involving environmental pollution,and characterized the costs of performance as bankruptcy costs"lacked justification.After the test of legal doctrine,it was clear that the act of disposal of hazardous waste by the administrator could not establish a connotative relationship with Article 25(6)of the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law.However,the act of disposal belongs to the administrator's full performance of the duty to dispose of matters involving environmental pollution,and the duty to dispose can establish a relationship of implication with Article 25(9)of the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law.In terms of legal doctrine,the administrator's duty to dispose of environmental pollution-related matters should be a supplementary responsibility,and the court,creditors and other subjects could require the administrator to fulfill that duty.In addition,the court correctly concluded that the costs of the performance of the duties were insolvency costs,but the legal basis should be the provisions of article 41,subparagraph 3,of the Enterprise Insolvency Law.
作者
胡守鑫
HU Shouxin(School of law,Liaoning Normal University,Dalian 116033,China)
出处
《辽宁大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》
CSSCI
2024年第3期88-96,共9页
Journal of Liaoning University(Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition)
基金
辽宁师范大学2023年博士科研启动项目“破产程序与民事强制执行程序协同研究”(2023BSW011)。
关键词
管理人全面履行涉环境污染处置职责
危废物处置行为
破产费用
法教义学
administrator's full performance of its duty to dispose of matters involving environmental pollution
act of disposal of hazardous waste
bankruptcy costs
legal doctrine
