3 results
Slovenia
- Reinhard Bork, University of Hamburg, Michael Veder
-
- Book:
- Harmonisation of Transactions Avoidance Laws
- Published by:
- Intersentia
- Published online:
- 26 May 2022
- Print publication:
- 09 February 2022, pp 475-478
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
A. INSOLVENCY LAW OF SLOVENIA
Slovenian insolvency law has its own insolvency statute, i.e. the Financial Operations, Insolvency Proceedings and Compulsory Dissolution Act (ZFPPIPP); so transactions avoidance law is part of the insolvency statute.
Slovenian transactions avoidance law also applies to natural persons (including consumers).
B. SCOPE
The implementation of the Model Law would not change the scope of Slovenian transactions avoidance law at the moment, when the Amendment H to ZFPPIPP is in the progress. See F (Other impact issues).
C. GENERAL PREREQUISITES
The general prerequisite is the legally defined state of insolvency of the debtor at the moment when the legal transactions or other legal acts were entered into or performed (and not just a bad financial situation of the debtor). The general prerequisites are as follows:
– Transactions (12 months) prior to the filing of the application for the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings.
– Disadvantageous for the general body of creditors.
– Advantageous/preferential for the individual creditor.
– Mental element (awareness of substantive insolvency) on the opponent’s side.
– No mental element regarding the transactions at an undervalue.
– No mental element regarding transactions in favour of closely related parties (in case of personal bankruptcy).
D. AVOIDANCE GROUNDS
Avoidance grounds follow the principles of par condicio creditorum and bona fide. The grounds are as follows:
– Transactions disadvantaging creditors.
– Preferences.
– Transactions at an undervalue.
– Forbearances (omissions).
E. LEGAL CONSEQUENCES
Not applicable
F. OTHER IMPACT ISSUES
1) IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING
An implementation monitoring working group was set up with the Ministry of Justice in March 2014. Members of the group are the following institutions:
– Ministry of Justice;
– Ministry of Finance;
– Ministry of Economic Development and Technology;
– Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia;
– Appellate Court of Ljubljana;
– Chamber of Insolvency Administrators;
– Bar Association of Slovenia;
– State Attorney’ s Office;
– Bank of Slovenia;
– Financial Administration of the Republic of Slovenia;
– Bank Association of Slovenia;
– Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Slovenia;
– Chamber of Craftand Small Business of Slovenia;
– Slovenian Chamber of Commerce;
– independent professionals.
Slovenia
- Reinhard Bork, University of Hamburg, Michael Veder
-
- Book:
- Harmonisation of Transactions Avoidance Laws
- Published by:
- Intersentia
- Published online:
- 26 May 2022
- Print publication:
- 09 February 2022, pp 1209-1230
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
PART 1. DETAILS OF YOUR NATIONAL TRANSACTIONS AVOIDANCE LAW
I. SYSTEM
Question 1. Is your transactions avoidance law (for terminology cf. Introduction at C.) part of insolvency law or is it in parts or as a whole incorporated in other fields of law (e.g. general civil law, commercial law, company law)?
Part of insolvency law.
Question 2. Are the rules on transactions avoidance law in your jurisdiction the same for entrepreneurs/legal entities and consumers/natural persons? If not, please explain the differences and take it into account when completing this questionnaire.
It is different in cases of personal bankruptcy. There are additional challenging legal acts (i.e. transactions made in favour of closely connected parties) with a longer challengeability period (five years).
Question 3. Are the rules on transactions avoidance law in your jurisdiction the same for liquidation and restructuring proceedings (if any)? If not, please explain the differences and take it into account when completing this questionnaire.
They are different. No avoidance powers in restructuring proceedings, only limitation of the debtor’s operations (but the acts performed during the course of restructuring proceedings contrary to limitation are voidable in the case of subsequent bankruptcy proceedings).
Question 4. Are the rules on transactions avoidance law in your jurisdiction the same for debtor-in-possession proceedings (if any)? If not, please explain the differences and take it into account when completing this questionnaire
No debtor-in-possession proceedings.
Question 5. Does your transactions avoidance law distinguish various avoidance grounds (e.g. preferences, transactions at an undervalue, etc.) or is there only one general clause for all kinds of transactions?
There are various avoidance grounds.
Question 6. If the answer to Question 5 is “yes”: does your law contain special rules for the following kinds of transactions (for details, see below at Question 12 et seq.):
a) preferences?
Yes.
b) transactions at an undervalue?
Yes.
c) intentionally fraudulent transactions?
Yes.
d) shareholder loans?
No.
Question 7. Are there any other special kinds of transactions which are addressed in your transactions avoidance law and which you would like to mention here?
Chapter 19 - On the Need of EU Wide Best Practices in Competition Law Enforcement Proceedings
- from PART V - ECONOMIC EVIDENCE, ENFORCEMENT PROBLEMS AND NATIONAL COURTS
-
- By Miodrag Dordevic, Judge at the Supreme Court of Slovenia (Slovenia)
- Edited by Kovac Mitja, Vandenberghe Ann-Sophie
-
- Book:
- Economic Evidence in EU Competition Law
- Published by:
- Intersentia
- Published online:
- 21 September 2018
- Print publication:
- 22 February 2016, pp 429-432
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
INTRODUCTION
In order to establish a system that ensures the competition in the common market is not distorted, Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty must be applied effectively and uniformly in the European Community. In order to ensure the effective enforcement of the Community competition rules and the proper functioning of the cooperation mechanisms, it is necessary to develop the best practices in international competition law enforcement proceedings.
BEST PRACTICES
The best practices should be intended to promote the adoption of procedural safeguards for all types of competition matters, directed at ensuring that due regard is given to the fundamental fairness of the processes by which the competition law is enforced in an increasingly global context. It is essential to embrace the principles of transparency, engagement, confidentiality, due process, non-discrimination and accountability in order to operate effectively. Such principles are essential not only to ensure fairness to firms being investigated, but also to more effectively pursue the policies that underlie competition laws, promote greater respect for competition law, competition authorities and their enforcement decisions.
The best practices would not only ensure procedural fairness for those involved, but would also importantly strengthen vigorous, efficient enforcement of competition laws in a number of respects. For example, frequent and open engagement with firms under investigation enhances the abilities of agencies (enforcing the competition laws) to gather relevant information, increases efficiency by the parties on the issues in which agencies are actually interested, and strengthens the internal deliberations of agencies by enabling them to better understand the firms’ arguments, and the facts that support those arguments before, rather than after, the agencies decide whether to recommend formal charges. Providing due process protections to firms under investigation enables competition authorities to ensure their decisions (even if adverse to respondents) to be respected by all parties. Thus, increased procedural fairness can strengthen agency decision-making and increase public confidence in agency decisions, benefiting businesses, competition authorities and the consumers they serve.