Indirect Responsibility

Is the bank liable ex delicto – for the defective termination of the loan agreement – to the INDIRECTLY INJURED shareholders of the capital company to which the loan was granted. Part of the doctrine thinks so. Part of the doctrine is that it does not. The question is why not. There are three arguments of the ‘no’ view:

1. if the bank claims the loan incorrectly, the company itself has a claim, so the partner is not harmed (this argument does not take into account that the company may lose liquidity or fail and the shareholder’s injury is much wider;
2. The shareholder has no DIRECT CLAIM, because HE CAN take a lawsuit for the company under the so-called actio pro socio (Art. 295 and 486 k.s.h.) (this argument does not address the same issues as the first argument);
3. there is no causal link in the sense that only someone directly targeted by the offender is protected from harm from tort and not protected by someone who is affected by so-called relative illegality (I will never agree with the argument that the reasons for EMPTY and, in addition, dubious DOGMATICS puts above the RATIONS arising from HUMAN RIGHTS (property and the right to compensation guaranteed by the Constitution) and higher than the VALUES on which social and economic life is organised (appendix in the commentary).