Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL Sklep Cst 67/2025 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2025:CST.67.2025 AI generated

Appeal dismissed; no legal remedy exists in ZFPPIPP to order repayment of funds to insolvency estate.

Case Number VSL Sklep Cst 67/2025
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Higher Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the first-instance decision rejecting the creditor's request for repayment of 62,000 EUR to the insolvency estate. The creditor argued for restitution of funds received by the administrator, but the court found no specific legal provision in the Insolvency Act granting this right. Consequently, the court ruled that creditors cannot obtain a judicial order for such repayment under the current statutory framework.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

ZFPPIPP 121. člen; 350. člen 2. ZPP: In the Insolvency Act, there is no legal remedy available to a creditor to request a court order for the return of funds to the insolvency estate, as such claims lack statutory basis.

Keywords

AI generated
insolvency proceedings creditor's rights ZFPPIPP remedies court order repayment insolvency estate legal remedy absence administrative payment

Cited Legislation

AI generated
121. člen ZFPPIPP
350. člen 2. ZPP
365. člen 2. točka ZPP
366. člen ZPP

Cited Case Law

AI generated
Cst 495/2018
Creditor dismissed for lack of active standing to request court orders for bankruptcy administrator to sign sales contract.
AI generated
VSL Sklep II Cpg 121/2021
Appeal dismissed; failure to claim mailbox rule invalidates service by fiction under ZPP.
VSL Sodba II Cpg 104/2020
Appeal dismissed; tenant remains liable for network fee as contract signatory despite EZ-1 transition.
VSL Sodba I Cp 780/2017
Appellant's claim for unjust enrichment regarding a building addition is dismissed because they acquired co-ownership after the improvements were made.
VSL sklep I Cp 9/2015
Court allows appeal and remands case for retrial due to trial court's violation of adversarial principle by ruling on unasserted facts.
VSL sklep I Cpg 344/2014
Appeal allowed; defendant bears costs because they never received the complaint and were not warned of consequences.

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 zavrne in se izpodbijani sklep potrdi.

[JEDRO]

V ZFPPIPP pravnega sredstva, za katero se zavzema pritožnik, ni. Sodišče prve stopnje je pravilno zavrglo njegovo vlogo, naj se družbi A., d. o. o., naloži vrniti 62.000 EUR z obrestmi od prejema plačila.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je zavrglo vlogo v uvodu tega pritožbenega sklepa navedenega upnika z dne 10. 12. 2024, naj se družbi A., d. o. o., naloži vrniti 62.000 EUR z obrestmi od prejema plačila.

2. Upnik se pritožuje, vendar neutemeljeno.

3. V Zakonu o finančnem poslovanju, postopkih zaradi insolventnosti in prisilnem prenehanju (ZFPPIPP) pravnega sredstva, za katero se zavzema pritožnik, ni. To višje sodišče je že pojasnilo v zadevi Cst 495/2018, da upnik lahko da pobudo sodišču, da to da obvezna navodila upravitelju, vendar glede (ne)ukrepanja sodišča v zvezi s to pobudo nima nikakršnega pravovarstvenega zahtevka. Brez sleherne podlage v ZFPPIPP je tudi, da bi sodišče nalagalo vrnitev (dela) prejetega plačila, za katero upravitelj navaja, da ga je izvedel v skladu s pravnomočno potrjenim predračunom stroškov stečajnega postopka, v stečajno maso, in še manj, da bi upnik kaj takšnega lahko od sodišča zahteval.

4. Prvostopenjski sklep, ki tudi nima napak, na katere mora pritožbeno sodišče paziti po uradni dolžnosti, je zato potrdilo, pritožbo pa zavrnilo (drugi odstavek 350. v zvezi s 366. in 2. točko 365. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku, uporabljeni na podlagi prvega odstavka 121. člena ZFPPIPP).