Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL sklep III Cp 1744/99 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:1999:III.CP.1744.99 AI generated

Conversion of a d.o.o. to a d.d. does not justify an objection as it remains the same legal subject.

Case Number VSL sklep III Cp 1744/99
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The appellate court dismissed the debtor's objection, upholding the first-instance court's decision to authorize enforcement proceedings. The debtor argued that a company named E. d.o.o. did not exist on the relevant address, while the court found that the entity had legally transformed into E. d.d. on January 19, 1999. The court ruled that this transformation constitutes a change of legal form rather than a change of legal subject, meaning the new entity bears the same liability as the original one.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 58, paragraph 3 of the Enforcement Act; A transformation of a limited liability company (d.o.o.) into a joint stock company (d.d.) does not alter the identity of the legal subject, and the successor entity remains liable for the predecessor's obligations.

Keywords

AI generated
legal transformation limited liability company joint stock company enforcement proceedings legal subject identity successor liability objection dismissal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 58, paragraph 3 of the Enforcement Act

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]

Preoblikovanje družbe d.o.o. v d.d. ni utemeljen razlog za ugovor. Gre za isti pravni subjekt.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

V skladu z določbo tretjega odst. 58. čl. ZIZ je pritožbeno sodišče odločalo o ugovoru dolžnika kot o pritožbi.

Sodišče prve stopnje je z izpodbijanim sklepom dovolilo predlagano izvršbo zaradi izterjave 2,108.607,30 SIT spp. z rubežem in prenosom denarnih sredstev, ki jih ima dolžnik pri Agenciji za plačilni promet Ljubljana.

Zoper ta sklep vlaga ugovor dolžnik in navaja, da na naslovu D. ne obstaja družba pod nazivom E. d.o.o.

Pritožba ni utemeljena.

Kot je razvidno iz uradnega zaznamka sodišča prve stopnje je sodišče opravilo poizvedbe pri sodnem registru in ugotovilo, da se je družba E. d.o.o. dne 19.1.1999 preoblikovala v družbo E. d.d. Če pa se je E. d.o.o. preoblikovala v E. d.d.

pa gre za isti pravni subjekt, kar pomeni, da E. d.d.

odgovarja prav tako kot je prej E. d.o.o. Tudi, če ne bi šlo za isti pravni subjekt pa bi E. d.d. odgovarjala kot pravdni naslednik E. d.o.o. Pritožbeno sodišče je zato pritožbo zavrnilo kot neutemeljeno in potrdilo sklep sodišča prve stopnje.