Summary:
On January 18th 2017 the Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 of the European parliament and of the Council establishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure came into effect. The purpose of this regulation is to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters. It is used for all debt-recoveries with the exception of rights in property arising out of a matrimonial or non marital relationships, claims arising from wills and succession, claims against debtors that have become insolvent, claims out of social security and claims arising from arbitration agreements. The regulation is a big step forward in securing successful cross-border debt recovery.
Summary:
A company from the area of Celje sued the Republic of Slovenia for damages that arose due to unlawful conduct of one of its public bodies, specifically a certain court, which wrongfully served a lawsuit to a defendant in some other proceeding, which the aforementioned company initiated against it. The defendant in this proceeding was a company from the Republic of Macedonia. The court served the lawsuit to the company from Macedonia directly by post to the Republic of Macedonia, even though the bilateral convention between the Republic of Slovenia and the Republic of Macedonia specifies that court documents should be issued through diplomatic or consular channels. The defending company from Macedonia ignored the court's summon and did not reply to it, which is why the court issued a default judgment, which became final, but the company from the area of Celje could not achieve the recognition and enforcement of the judgment in Macedonia, as the Macedonian court deemed the lawsuit as wrongfully served.
Summary:
The basis for this article is the judgment of the Constitutional Court nr. U-I-220/14-11, U-I-161/14-15, Up-559/14-14, U-I-21/15-7, Up-101/15-9, U-I-30/15-8, U-I-59/15-8, from 12.11.2015. With the presented judgment the Constitutional Court judged the constitutionality of the provisions of the Law on changes and amendments of the Law on financial affairs, proceedings due to insolvency and forced termination (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia 100/13) in how much it relies on the creditors, who in insurance proceedings managed to get preliminary decrees against debtors that just fell into insolvency proceedings, but their insurance proceedings were stopped with a preliminary decree, the performed operations were nullified on account of point 4 paragraph 3 article 132 of the Law on financial affairs, proceedings due to insolvency and forced termination. The Constitutional Court decided that the presented regulation is not in violation with the Constitution. The purpose of this article is to present the standpoint of the creditors and their feebleness in the fight against debtors.
Summary:
The applicant began several enforcement proceedings against her debtors for the recovery of her debt. Afterwards it was established that the debtors already bought the apartment from the municipality in the year 1993 (the debt arose from unpaid running and administration costs), but in the land registry the apartment was registered as municipality property, because the debtors never made the effort to enter their right to property in the land register. With the judgment case nr. II Ips 113/2015 from 26.10.2015 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia granted the revision request of the applicant (administrator of several residential buildings), represented by our law firm, and answered to the revision question, what can be the basis of legal action according to Article 168 Paragraph 5 of the Law on enforcement and security of claims (ZIZ).
Summary:
It is long known that executive legislation is written to favour debtors, a fact that they are skilfully exploiting. Debtors have become very rational in writing objections through the years. Objections, especially when they are drafted by the debtors themselves without the help of a legal expert, are usually very short, they are mostly focused on pretending a debt, any prepayments or any obstacles, why they haven't settled the debt, do not exist. At first glance it is obvious that such objections are thought up and filed only to stall the procedure. Case law now made an end to this. A position has been formed among the courts, that it is unjust, that a debtor can stall a judicial enforcement for several years using such "cheap tricks", which is why they made it possible for the creditors, to get temporary insurance by issuing preliminary injunctions. In practice, temporary insurance means that the debtors bank account is blocked for the enforced sum. In a time when credit ratings of individual companies are extremely important, a blocked bank account is an effective way to get debtors to consider, whether it is worth it, to stick to their absurd objection, if the creditor was already successful in blocking their bank account. Over 90 % of debtors (from our experience) are ready to make a deal with the creditor and repay their debts relatively quickly, once they receive a preliminary injunction.