宣告破产后转重整的合法性分析

Legitimacy Analysis of the Reorganization after the Declaration of Bankruptcy

当前破产法研究缺乏法解释学层面严谨的规范分析。对于宣告破产后是否还可申请重整这一问题,实务界以往多仅从社会效果角度考虑,以重整和和解同为破产中之重建程序为由,主张类推适用2002年最高人民法院《关于审理企业破产案件若干问题的规定》第25条第三款,关于宣告破产后仍得转和解之规定。虽然2018年《全国法院破产审判工作会议纪要》第24条已明确否认上述类推适用,但仍有必要从方法论的角度来审视此一问题。具体而言:上述第25条第三款与企业破产法第95条互相抵触而失其效力。但在不考虑其失效与否的前提下,现行立法对重整程序的规定实乃立法者价值选择的产物,并不存在法律漏洞,仍不宜据此类推适用。即便如此,从公平原则及保护债权人利益的角度,仍应有限制地给予某些案件在宣告破产后获得重整的机会。

The current bankruptcy law research lacks rigorous normative analysis at the level of legal interpretation. Regarding the question of whether or not to apply for reorganization after declaring bankruptcy,the practice community used to consider only from the perspective of social effects,and the restructuring and reconciliation were the same as the reconstruction procedure in bankruptcy,and advocated the analogy of the 2002 Supreme People’s Court. Article 25,paragraph 3,of the "Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Enterprise Bankruptcy Cases",the provisions for reconciliation after the declaration of bankruptcy. Although Article 24 of the Meeting Minutes of the National Court of Bankruptcy Trial Work in 2018 has explicitly denied the above analogy,it is still necessary to examine this issue from a methodological point of view. Specifically: although Article 25,paragraph 3,and Article 95 of the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law have no legislative conflicts,it is clear that Article 70 of the bankruptcy law and related judicial interpretations have actually made it possible to transfer to the reorganization after bankruptcy. It is stipulated that there is no legal loophole,so there is no space in the methodology that can be applied analogically. Even so,concerning the principle of fairness and the disposition of creditors,there should still be restrictions on giving certain cases the opportunity to be reorganized after they declare bankruptcy.