A Syndych action outside bankruptcy proceedings? crucial ultimate Court Resolution

The resolution is full accurate. The origin of doubts expressed within the framework of legal issues will be seen only after the ultimate Court has drawn up a message of reasons for the resolution, but it can be presumed that it was Articles 222(1) and 1a of the PrUpad. It states that the insolvency court has a complaint in the cases referred to in the Act, and that the insolvency court in another composition has jurisdiction in principle. Article 134(1b) of the PrDead shall stay silent on the admissibility of a complaint against the provision of security. If it is considered that the proceedings of the court of bankruptcy proceedings are part of the insolvency proceedings, then this silence can be interpreted as inadmissible to challenge the order with a complaint. If we look at this action as a stand-alone civilian process, although recognized by the insolvency court, the provision of safety will appear to be open to appeal to the court of the second instance pursuant to Article 741(1) of the KPC and §2 of the KPC.

The nature of the proceedings brought by the insolvency court is, in fact, the origin of disputes as to whether Article 216a PrUpad applies to it, and so whether the proceedings should take place in the National Debt Register. Mr Zimmerman replied to that question (P. Zimmerman, Bankruptcy Law. Comment [in:] Bankruptcy Law. Restructuring law. Commentary, Issues 9, 2025, Art. 134, nb. 15). In contrast, P. Filipiak and M. Wozniak (Mr Filipiak and Mr Wozniak, Proceedings for the transfer of assets to bankruptcy and sanitization by fraud after 1.12.2021, Restructuring Advisor 2022, No 3, pp. 87-89).

On the basis of the operative part of the said resolution, it can be assumed that the ultimate Court has advocated the perception of the syndikt’s action as a procedural procedure, governed straight by the provisions of the civilian Procedure Code, and not by the provisions of the Insolvency Law, and only through Article 229(1) of the PrUpad, respectively, by the provisions of the civilian Procedure Code. This view should be divided.

It is worth noting that the action under Article 134(1a) of the PrUpad is not the first form of action brought before a bankruptcy court. Before him, the bill was known as an action for the exclusion of property from bankruptcy (Art. 74 PrUpad). On this basis, the legislator modelled his action for bankruptcy, which was expressly granted in the explanatory memorandum of the draft amendment (the draft Act of 28.5.2021 amending the Act on the National Debt registry and any another laws, parliamentary printing No. 1016 of the Sejm of the 9th term). The literature pointed out that KPC’s law applies to proceedings brought by a bankruptcy action, since ‘the action brought by the action, although it takes place at first instance before the insolvency court, is simply a process going beyond the insolvency proceedings framework’ (D. Chrapoński [in:] Bankruptcy law. Commentary, ed. II, ed. A. J. Witosz, Warsaw 2021, Art. 74, pt. 5, LEX). This view can be applied equally to the action for bankruptcy.

For the above reasons, the resolution in question may aid to clarify the nature of not only the action for bankruptcy but besides another actions brought before the insolvency court (aside from the action for bankruptcy exclusion, it should besides be mentioned that the action for property separation is effective in relation to bankruptcy – Article 125(3) of PrUpad). To date, the nature of any of these actions has not received a broader reflection at the level of the ultimate Court, and even more so in its extended composition. However, we will not know whether the resolution in question will supply a convincing argument in this respect until the reasons are published. However, the essence itself is optimistic.