Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL Sklep Cst 158/2021 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2021:CST.158.2021 AI generated

Bankruptcy administrator appeal dismissed; lacks standing to challenge court consent to asset management.

Case Number VSL Sklep Cst 158/2021
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Court of Appeal dismissed the bankruptcy administrator's appeal against a first-instance court order requiring the return of seized wages to the debtor. The administrator argued that all income earned during the bankruptcy process belongs to the estate, but the court found the administrator is merely the procedural organ, not a party to the insolvency proceedings. Consequently, the court ruled that the administrator lacks statutory standing to appeal decisions granting consent for the management of the bankruptcy estate.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

126. odstavek 2. ZFPPIPP; 322. odstavek 2. ZFPPIPP: The bankruptcy administrator, as the procedural organ rather than a party, lacks standing to appeal a court decision granting consent for the management of the bankruptcy estate.

Keywords

AI generated
bankruptcy administrator standing insolvency proceedings party court consent management procedural organ status appeal admissibility

Cited Legislation

AI generated
126. odstavek 1. ZFPPIPP
126. odstavek 2. ZFPPIPP
322. odstavek 2. ZFPPIPP
365. odstavek 1. ZPP
121. odstavek 1. ZFPPIPP

Cited Case Law

AI generated
Cst 533/2019
Appeal court allows administrator's objection against advance cost ruling under Insolvency Act.
Cst 313/2020
Appeal dismissed because the administrator lacks statutory standing to challenge a ruling on bankruptcy costs under ZFPPIPP.
Cst 511/2019
Appeal dismissed because a ruling on agreement to pay bankruptcy costs is not appealable under the Insolvency Act.
Cst 208/2019
Bankruptcy administrator's appeal dismissed due to lack of statutory right to appeal and procedural error.
Cst 639/2017
Appeal dismissed because administrator lacks statutory standing to appeal denial of cost payment consent.
Cst 90/2017
Bankruptcy court dismisses debtor's appeal as non-party; only creditors are parties in main proceedings.
Cst 733/2016
Appeal dismissed because administrator and cost beneficiary lack standing to appeal bankruptcy cost payment rejection.
Cst 539/2016
Appeal by administrator against bankruptcy commencement dismissed due to lack of standing and procedural illegality.
Cst 838/2014
1 Primerjaj Cst 533/2019, Cst 313/2020, Cst 511/2019, Cst 208/2019, Cst 639/2017, Cst 90/2017, Cst 733/2016, Cst 539/2016, Cst 838/2014, Cst 85/2013 in drugi.
Cst 85/2013
Appeal dismissed because the administrator lacks statutory standing to appeal the court's ruling on cost approval in insolvency proceedings.
AI generated
VSL Sklep Cst 344/2018
Appeal dismissed; shareholder must rebut statutory presumption of insolvency with proof of capital recovery.
VSL Sklep Cst 393/2022
Appeal dismissed; bankruptcy proceedings do not automatically apply execution law unless specifically referenced.
VSL sklep Cst 180/2012
Appeal dismissed; court upheld insolvency ruling based on prolonged illiquidity rather than over-indebtedness.
VSL Sklep Cst 244/2024
Appeal granted; administrator's additional task compensation included in court advance payment under insolvency law.
VSL sklep III Cpg 655/2016
Appeal dismissed; statutory presumption of insolvency stands absent proof of delayed wage payments to multiple employees.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Pritožba se zavrže.

[JEDRO]

Zakon ne daje upravitelju procesne legitimacije za izpodbijanje sklepa, s katerim daje sodišče soglasje k upravljanju stečajne mase.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je z izpodbijanim sklepom stečajnemu upravitelju naložilo, da znesek 376,94 EUR, ki je bil dolžnici zasežen iz naslova plače in dne 24. 12. 2020 nakazan na fiduciarni račun upravitelja, vrne na TRR dolžnice.

2. Zoper navedeni sklep je vložil stečajni upravitelj pravočasno pritožbo. V pritožbi navaja, da sodijo v stečajno maso vsi prejemki iz dela glede na čas, ko je bilo delo opravljeno.

3. Pritožba ni dovoljena.

4. V postopkih zaradi insolventnosti ima vsaka stranka postopka pravico vložiti pritožbo proti sklepu, ki ga izda sodišče v tem postopku (prvi odstavek 126. člena ZFPPIPP). Upravitelj ni stranka postopka zaradi insolventnosti, pač pa organ postopka zaradi insolventnosti. Upravitelj ima zato pravico vložiti pritožbo samo proti tistim sklepom, za katere tako določa zakon (drugi odstavek 126. člena ZFPPIPP).

5. Sodišče prve stopnje je izpodbijani sklep izdalo na podlagi smiselne uporabe določbe drugega odstavka 322. člena ZFPPIPP. Zakon ne daje procesne legitimacije upravitelju za izpodbijanje sklepa, s katerim daje sodišče soglasje k upravljanju stečajne mase (drugi odstavek 322. člena ZFPPIPP). To pa pomeni, da upravitelj, ki je vložil pritožbo v lastnem imenu, nima pravice do pritožbe zoper izpodbijani sklep sodišča prve stopnje. 1

6. Pritožbeno sodišče je glede na navedeno pritožbo upravitelja zavrglo kot nedovoljeno (1. točka 365. člena ZPP v zvezi s prvim odstavkom 121. člena ZFPPIPP).

Ta pisni odpravek se ujema z elektronskim izvirnikom sklepa.

1 Primerjaj Cst 533/2019, Cst 313/2020, Cst 511/2019, Cst 208/2019, Cst 639/2017, Cst 90/2017, Cst 733/2016, Cst 539/2016, Cst 838/2014, Cst 85/2013 in drugi.