ных проблем в польском гражданском праве. С одной стороны есть много причин того, почему определенное гражданским правом товарищество должно иметь правовой статус, возможность выступать стороной в гражданских делах, обладать возможностью банкротства и статусом предпринимателя. С другой стороны, система общего совладения устраняет товарищество от получения такого статуса. Признание правового статуса товарищества означало бы, что оно является носителем прав и обязанностей. Это, однако, было бы воспринято как вызов самой системой общего совладения, так как в данном случае участники товарищества, как совладельцы, становились бы теми же самыми носителями прав и обязанностей. Однако невозможно, чтобы товарищество и его участники являлись бы носителями одних и тех же прав собственности, особенно права на собственность товарищества. Даже если бы законодательный орган решил, что гражданское право по отношению к товариществу является не просто обязательством, но также и структурной единицей, и что по отношению к нему должен применяться принцип право- и дееспособности, то от системы общего совладения, рассматриваемой с точки зрения гражданского права товарищества, нужно было бы отказаться. Многочисленные положения общественного права, в особенности налогового, предлагают такое решение. Они уже рассматривают товарищество в гражданском праве как юридическое лицо. Соответствующий акт предоставления право- и дееспособности привел бы статус товарищества в соответствие во всех областях закона. Кроме того, за рубежом есть юридические прецеденты, которые говорят в пользу вышеприведенного решения. Во Франции и Шотландии товарищество в гражданском праве является юридическим лицом. В Германии эквивалентному партнерству предоставили правовой статус, и это стало возможно без необходимости выхода из системы общего совладения (Gesamthand). В отличие от польского общего совладения, немецкий Gesamthand является не типом совместного владения, а скорее типом правового сообщества личной, а не имущественной природы. В странах, где товариществу в гражданском праве не предоставили правовой статус, возникают проблемы, подобные тем, которые характерны для польского законодательства. Постулат предоставления правового статуса товариществу в гражданском праве оправдан. Однако это должно быть ограничено теми товариществами, областью деятельности которых является деловая активность. Обычные внешние партнерства не требуют правового статуса, поэтому они все еще могут сохранить систему общего совладения.
The problem of joint co-ownership in a Polish civil law partnership constitutes one of the most complex and contentious problems in Polish civil law. On one hand, there are many reasons why a civil law partnership should have legal capacity, capacity to be a party in civil cases, bankruptcy capacity and a status of an entrepreneur. On the other hand, the system of joint co-ownership precludes the partnership from being accorded that status. Recognising the legal capacity of a partnership would mean that it is a carrier of rights and obligations. This, however, would be defied by the system of joint co-ownership, since in that case it would be the partners, as coowners, that would be the carriers of rights and obligations. It is not possible that a partnership and its partners are both carriers of the same property rights; particularly, the right to the property of partnership. Even if the legislature de-cided that a civil law partnership is not just a civil law obligation, but also an organisa-tional unit and that the legal capacity should be accorded to it, then the system of joint co-ownership in a civil law partnership would also have to be waived. Numerous provi-sions of public law, including in particular tax law, suggest such a solution. They already treat a civil law partnership as a legal entity. Accordance of” as the act of granting civil law capacity would unify its status in all areas of law. Furthermore, there are cases from foreign law that speak for the above-presented solution. In France and Scotland a civil law partnership has legal personality. In Germany the equivalent partnership was granted legal capacity. In the latter country, this was possible without the need to resign from the system of community of joint co-ownership (Gesamthand). Contrary to the Polish joint co-ownership, the German Gesamthand is not a type of co-ownership, but a type of legal community of personal rather than property nature. In countries in which a civil law partnership has not been granted legal capacity, problems similar to those that occur in Polish law arise. The postulate of granting legal capacity to a civil law partnership is justified. However, it should be limited to partnerships that operate business activity. Ordinary external partnerships do not require legal capacity; therefore they can still retain the system of joint co-ownership.
There are two types of co-ownership in Polish ownership relations: co-ownership in fractional parts and joint co-ownership. The former can arise in any legal relationship in which there are joint and indivisible rights to the same movable or immovable item. It is therefore an intrinsic legal relationship, in which shares of co-ownership are defined in fractions and a co-owner has freedom to dispose of them freely. Joint co-ownership however, has completely different characteristics. First of all, it does not exist autonomously, but always within a relationship of another type, under Polish law — in a marriage and a civil law partnership. Second, shares in this co-ownership are not defined by a fraction or any other similar way. Third, neither a spouse nor a partner of a civil law partnership can freely dispose of those shares, which means that he or she cannot dispose of them without the consent of the spouse or of all partners [1].In the past, existence of joint co-ownership was also adopted in a general partnership and a limited partnership. However, in the year 2000, a new Code of Commercial Partnerships and Companies was introduced in Poland (Act of 15.09.2000 — Code of Commercial Partnerships and Companies (Journal of Laws No. 94 item 1037 as amended.), hereinafter referred to as the CCPC), in which a general partnership, in addition to other commercial partnerships (Currently there are 4 commercial partnerships: those that have existed before — a general partnership and a limited partnership, and new ones — a professional partnership and a limited jointstock partnership), were accorded legal capacity pursuant to 8 § 1 the CCPC. Legal capacity means that those partnerships can be the subjects of rights and obligations. However, those partnerships do not have legal personality. Legal personality must be explicitly granted by a law and then the members of a legal entity are not liable for its obligations with their personal property. In commercial partnerships, due to lack of legal personality, their partners have subsidiary liability for its obligations with their personal property. Since they are carriers of rights, e.g. property right, partners cannot, at the same time, be carriers of rights on the basis of joint co-ownership. Therefore, it is the partnership that is the owner of its property and partners are not its co-owners.