In this article, we'll cover a selection of the TOP 5 Czech insolvency case law from last year.
- APPLICATION OF A CLAIM FROM AN INCOMPLETE PROMISSORY NOTE
- Decision of the Supreme Court Case No. 29 ICdo 23/2021 of 28 August 2023
A creditor can make a claim in bankruptcy proceedings based on an incomplete promissory note that the debtor has signed as a guarantor, but has not filled in the other details. Such a claim must be submitted as a conditional claim, where the condition is met by adding the missing elements. The incomplete promissory note then turns into a complete promissory note with retroactive effect.
- SALE OUTSIDE THE AUCTION - Supreme Court Decision Case No. 29 ICdo 50/2021 of 27 April 2023
The three-month time limit to annul a contract of sale is a substantive time limit. To comply with the time limit, the action must reach the insolvency court on the last day of the time limit at the latest, and it is not sufficient if the action is brought (within the time limit) before a court which has no subject-matter jurisdiction.
- THE OBLIGATION OF PROOF FOR THE RELEASE FROM PAYMENT OF CLAIMS - Supreme Court Decision Case No. 29 Cdo 3075/2022 of 30 March 2023
A defendant, or a debtor who was released from paying claims after the insolvency proceedings ended, has to show and confirm that a debtor's release from paying claims under Section 414 of the Insolvency Act applies to the defendant's claim as well. Unless the law says otherwise, the party to the dispute who gains from the existence of a certain fact has to prove it. This decision is quite important, since in practice the release is often taken into account ex officio.
- RELEASE OF THE DEBTOR FROM THE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS IN THE INSOLVENCY PROCEEDINGS - Supreme Court Decision No. 29 NSČR 20/2021 of 27 April 2023
For the debtor to obtain release from the payment of the rest of the debts in the insolvency proceedings, they must not only properly fulfill some of the obligations set out in Section 412(1) and (3) of the Insolvency Act, but they must fulfill all of these obligations, the fulfillment of some of which cannot delay the breach of others. At the same time, however, it must be taken into account that the effect of the breach on the course of the insolvency proceedings or the assets, since if the breach is insignificant in this respect, it cannot in itself constitute grounds for rejecting the debtor's application for a payment of claims release.
- THE OBLIGATION TO HAND OVER THE DWELLING TO THE INSOLVENCY ADMINISTRATOR FOR MONETISATION
- Decision of the Supreme Court Case No. 29 NSČR 44/2021 of 31 July 2023
If the conditions are met for a dwelling to be handed over to the insolvency administrator for monetisation, it is not possible for the insolvency court to instead order the debtor to only pay the difference between the value of the dwelling and the value of the so-called protected housing. If the debtor has a cooperative flat or a share in a housing cooperative, they may not have to hand it over to the insolvency administrator for sale. However, this only applies if the share gives them the right to live in the cooperative flat which is debtor’s dwelling.
By Tomas Jelinek, Senior Associate, and Jan Cermak, Junior Associate, Eversheds Sutherland