Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSM sklep Cpg 352/96 ECLI:SI:VSMB:1996:CPG.352.96 AI generated

Appeal dismissed; two-month deadline for claiming interest in bankruptcy is preclusive and cannot be extended.

Case Number VSM sklep Cpg 352/96
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The appeal was dismissed as unfounded, upholding the first-instance court's rejection of the creditor's additional claim for interest. The creditor timely declared the principal debt but filed for interest arrears after the two-month preclusive period expired under the Bankruptcy Act. The court ruled that this specific deadline is preclusive and cannot be extended via the procedural rules applicable to bankruptcy proceedings.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 137 of the Bankruptcy Act; Article 191 of the Bankruptcy Act: The two-month deadline for declaring interest claims in bankruptcy proceedings is preclusive; such claims cannot be added or extended after the deadline expires, even if the principal claim was timely filed.

Keywords

AI generated
preclusive deadline bankruptcy proceedings interest arrears claim declaration extension of claim ZPPSL ZPP

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 137 of the Bankruptcy Act
Article 191 of the Bankruptcy Act
AI generated
VSM sklep Cpg 35/95
Bankruptcy court dismisses late claim due to expired preclusive filing deadline under ZPPSL.
VSL sklep I Cpg 42/2011
Appeal allowed; claim for annulment of corporate resolutions is not a bankruptcy claim requiring declaration. Court found first instance misapplied bankruptcy law regarding claim declaration. Claimant must now prove standing under company law despite bankruptcy. Appeal allowed; claim for annulment of corporate resolutions is not a bankruptcy claim requiring declaration. Court found first instance misapplied bankruptcy law regarding claim declaration. Claimant must now prove standing under company law despite bankruptcy.
VSM sklep Cpg 256/94
Appeal allowed; bankruptcy court must refer to the creditor who revoked the claim under ZPPSL 1989.
VSM sklep Cpg 89/94
Bankruptcy court must refer disputed debt portion to court for verification under ZPPSL Art. 127/I.
VSM sklep Cpg 303/96
Appeal dismissed; creditor's separate payment right in bankruptcy expires with statutory filing deadline regardless of error correction.

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 kot neutemeljena in se potrdi sklep sodišča prve stopnje.

[JEDRO]

Dvomesečni rok za priglasitev upniške terjatve iz 137. člena Zakona o prisilni poravnavi, stečaju in likvidaciji (Ur.l.RS št.67/93 - v nadaljevanju ZPPSL) je prekluziven, zato pravica zahtevati poplačilo v stečajnem postopku preneha z potekom roka. Pritožnik je v zmoti, ko se sklicuje na določila zakona o pravdnem postopku, ki se smiselno uporabljajo v stečajnem postopku. Tudi pri razširitvi tožbe po 191. členu ZPP taka razširitev ni dovoljena pri zahtevkih, kjer je potekel prekluzivni rok za vložitev tožbe.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Stečajni upnik se je pravočasno pritožil zoper sklep prvostopnega sodišča, ki je njegovo dodatno prijavo upniške terjatve zavrglo. V pritožbi je navedel, da gre le za razširitev zahtevka, ki je bil pravočasno vložen in je razširitev - tako kot pri tožbi, po določilih ZPP dovoljena.

Pritožba ni utemeljena.

Prvostopno sodišče je objavilo oklic o začetku stečajnega postopka v Uradnem listu RS dne 11.11.1994. Dvomesečni rok za priglasitev upniške terjatve iz 137. člena Zakona o prisilni poravnavi, stečaju in likvidaciji (Ur.l.RS št.67/93 - v nadaljevanju ZPPSL) je potekel v 11.1.1995. Upnik je pravočasno prijavil terjatev v znesku 2,970.000,00 sit. Dne 13.2.1995 pa je prijavil nadaljno terjatev in sicer zamudne obresti od navedene glavnice. Ker je navedeni zakonski rok prekluziven, pravica zahtevati poplačilo v stečajnem postopku preneha z potekom roka. Pritožnik je v zmoti, ko se sklicuje na določila zakona o pravdnem postopku, ki se smiselno uporabljajo v stečajnem postopku.

Tudi pri razširitvi tožbe po 191. členu ZPP taka razširitev ni dovoljena pri zahtevkih, kjer je potekel prekluzivni rok za vložitev tožbe.