Abstract

The gloss comments on the Court ruling relating to Art. 299 of the Commercial Companies Code. This time, the basis for the Supreme Court judgment was the verdict of the Court of Appeal in Wroclaw, where the Court held that, despite the absence of a prior enforcement order with a warrant of execution against the company, the creditor may prove his claim in the insolvency proceedings against the company. Entering such a claim on the list may constitute the title against members of the board when the bankrupt’s assets prove to be insufficient to satisfy the creditor’s claims.

In the ratio decidendi the Supreme Court stated that the concept of ineffectiveness, which is provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure and relates to singular execution should be extended to every case of a failure to satisfy the creditor's claims – also under the procedure of general execution and completion of the insolvency proceedings does not preclude pursuing claims pursuant to Art. 299 of the Commercial Companies Code. Moreover, an extract from the list of debts may be a legal title against members of the board. Such a reasoning cannot be accepted for, at least, several reasons, one of which is the fact that the concept of „ineffectiveness of enforcement" is generally associated with enforcement under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure rather than the Insolvency Act.