The Paulian action is an institution which allows the creditor to claim that the legal act which the debtor has committed with the detriment of the creditor has been unsuccessful against him. Under the Civil Code, only the creditor is entitled to the claim. The law of bankruptcy regulates the issue of an action for failure.
In view of the nature of the insolvency proceedings and the role of the syndicate, which upholds the interests of the general creditors, the Act provides that proceedings may be brought by the syndicate.
The following is the court's jurisprudence practice with regard to the interpretation of the rules on the procedural legitimacy of creditors in relation to the Paulian complaint following the declaration of bankruptcy of the debtor, against the background of the 14 June 2023 Supreme Court resolutions.
The previous jurisprudence practice has shown quite uniformly that, with the bankruptcy of the debtor, individual creditors of the debtor lost the opportunity to bring forward and support the Paulian complaint, and only the Syndical became eligible for this. Such a view meant that creditors could not bring a Paulian action against a person third nor support a request in an earlier case of a Paulian complaint.
The courts also held that after the expiry of the two years after the declaration of bankruptcy is not restored the legitimacy of the creditors who have fallen to bring an action for declaring the debtor’s legal action unsuccessful (e.g. judgment of the Supreme Court of 3 October 2008, I CSK 93/08). At the end of that period, the legal action taken against the creditors must not be contested by the administrator or by the creditors.
Supreme Court in Resolution of the Day 14 June 2023 (III CZP 84/22) stated, on the other hand, that: The declaration of bankruptcy of the debtor does not result in the creditor losing his legitimacy to bring an action for declaring the debtor’s legal action unsuccessful on the basis of Article 527 k.c.
In support of this thesis, he pointed out first of all that the case in the Paulian action does not concern the asset of bankruptcy — a certain asset advantage belonging to the person’s assets third may be executed only after a judgment having taken into account the Paulian action has passed.
The opposing view would force the need to acknowledge that the object of the debtor's fraud is at the same time in the person's assets third and constitutes the estate of the bankrupt (and thus belongs to the bankruptcy).
In view of the constitutional nature of the ruling taking into account the Paulian action, it cannot be assumed that the asset benefit did not enter the person's assets third.
Since the case does not concern the component of bankruptcy, from the point of view of the bankrupt creditors, the provisions which state the loss by the bankruptcy of the management and the possibility of using the property of the bankruptcy (Article 75(1) bankruptcy laws, hereinafter: ‘p.u.’). A creditor is entitled to claim that a legal act is unsuccessful rather than a failed creditor, so the inability of the fallen manager to claim that the creditor's legitimacy is not affected.
Since the case of the Paulian complaint does not concern the bankruptcy of the company, but a component that may potentially serve to satisfy creditors if the Paulian action is taken into account, it is unfounded to seek the source of the syndication's procedural legitimacy in Article 144(1) p.u., which states that, after the bankruptcy has been declared, judicial, administrative or administrative proceedings relating to the bankruptcy may be initiated and conducted solely by the administrator or against him.
This authority fully regulates the provision Article 132(1) p.u. (and Article 133(1) p.u. – for the entry of the syndicate in place of the creditor) and should not be extended to the extent Article 144(1). p.u.
Assessment of the legal situation of the syndikt with regard to credentials for the investigation of Paulian protection, taking into account Article 144(1) p.u., has so far been the basis for the absolute basis of the court proceedings initiated or conducted after the bankruptcy, including the case of the Paulian complaint, which, according to the SN, is not acceptable due to the separate regulation of this issue in Article 132(133).
The position on the loss of the creditor’s procedural legitimacy to file a Paulian complaint contradicts the results of a linguistic and historical interpretation Article 132(1) p.u. Before the change Article 57 1 (d.p.u) it was clearly indicated in the provision that an action may be brought by a ‘only’ syndicate.
Current Article 132(1) p.u. does not thus exclude the identity of other entities.
When assessing the scope of this provision, the amendment introduced by the legislator should be taken into account and it should not be deprived of the legal meaning of giving up the word ‘only’, indicating the closed catalogue of entities entitled to file a Paulian complaint.
The Supreme Court also found the lack of a provision to be unfounded Insolvency law indicating the identity of creditors – general regulation is sufficient in this respect Article 527(531)(1) In the opinion of the Court of First Instance, it is unacceptable to waive these provisions. An indication of the legal basis, on the other hand, would be necessary in order to justify the claim that the creditor should be removed and should not be relied on Article 132(1) p.u., as this provision only provides for the right to a syndication card.
The Supreme Court also calls into question the argument of supporters of the deprivation of the creditor's procedural legitimacy because of the nature of the insolvency proceedings, including the basic principles of the insolvency proceedings, i.e. the pursuit of the equal satisfaction of creditors belonging to the same group.
Consequently, the argument remains that the occurrence of the creditor may only concern the recognition of the debtor's legal action as ineffective to that creditor, rather than the bankruptcy, which could lead to injustice and a better position by one Only a creditor.
According to the SN, this situation may be beneficial for the remaining creditors and may lead to a better situation for them.
In support of this thesis, the SN points to a number of arguments, inter alia, recalls that Article 133(1) u.p., which grants the syndication the right to take action in place of the creditor, and therefore cannot be concluded that the individual creditor's activity may lead to a deterioration of the situation of the others, but the possible passiveness of the syndik.
The SN also indicates that the creditor’s submission of the complaint before expiry 5-ed Article 524 k.c., may, according to Article 132(3) dd. 1 in fine u.p.
– to ensure that the creditor’s entitlement does not expire, and thus the two-year period within which the administrator can bring an action for the recognition of a legal act as ineffective with regard to the bankruptcy.
In addition, if the action of the creditor is taken into account, the object of the fraud of the bankruptcy act will not be part of the bankruptcy and the satisfaction by the creditor of the asset which does not belong to the bankruptcy is such that the burden is divided into fewer eligible entities, which has a positive impact on the situation of the other creditors.
The Supreme Court resolution in question significantly alters the view of the legal position of creditors in matters of the Paulian action, confirming their procedural legitimacy, which they have so far lost due to the current interpretation of the law Bankruptcy law, accepting the sole license of the syndicate.
The position of the Supreme Court is an important new voice in the discussion on the possibility of a legal act failing as ineffective in relation to the creditor's victim. This voice appears to be a rational step towards ensuring that creditors can exercise their rights.