2103 February

Date of judgment 20 February 2013 (ref. No. III CZP 96/12)
Is in the bankruptcy proceedings with the possibility of entering into an arrangement that, when an agreement to the effect lose their creditors claims for interest for delay in payment of debts covered by the agreement for the period after the date of opening of insolvency proceedings?

The conclusion does not deprive the creditor's claim for payment outside the system of interest for delay in payment of debts for the period covered by the system after bankruptcy.

Date of judgment 20 February 2013 (ref. No. III CZP 98/12)

Is there continuity of ownership for the acquisition of property in accordance with art. 172 of the Civil Code Real estate dedicated to merge in a situation where the holder of the property covered by the spontaneous land consolidation proceedings, who was not involved in the merge as the "owner" within the meaning of Art. 1 paragraph. 2 Section 4 of the Act of March 26, 1982 year by merging and exchange of land (Journal of Laws of 2003, No. 178, item. 1749 - tj), as a result of the merge takes possession of the property spontaneous separated as an equivalent for the property possessed to merge ?

Spontaneous holder of the property covered by the land consolidation procedure, which in turn takes possession of another property separate from that investigation, preserves the continuity of ownership necessary to acquire ownership of the property by adverse possession even if he was not a participant in the proceedings as the owner within the meaning of Art. 1 paragraph. 2 Section 4 of the Act of 26 March 1982. About merging and exchange of land (consolidated text. Journal of Laws of 2003., No. 178, item. 1749, as amended.).

Date of the decision: 28 February 2013 (ref. No. III CZP 107/12)

1. In circumstances where the contractor involved in the procedure for the award of a public contract in an open tender becomes aware of the circumstances giving rise to an appeal by the client before sending information about the challenged action, the time limit for filing an appeal is counted according to the rules laid down in Art. Paragraph 182. 3 of the Act of 29 January 2004. - Public Procurement Law (Journal of Laws No. 19, item. 177)?

2. In case of rejection by the National Board of Appeal belated appeal ruling on the dismissal of the complaint falls in the form of a decision?

1. In a situation where the contractor involved in the procedure for public procurement in an open tender becomes aware of the circumstances giving rise to appeal before sending him by the customer information about the challenged action, the time limit for filing an appeal is counted according to the rules laid down in Art. Paragraph 182. 3 of the Act of 29 January 2004. - Public Procurement Law (Journal of Laws of 2010. No. 113, item. 759, as amended.).

2. The judgment of the district court decides to dismiss the complaint against the decision of the National Board of Appeal's decision to reject the appeal.

Date of the decision: 28 February 2013 (ref. No. III CZP 108/12)

Is joint venturer corresponding to the power of art. 22 § 2 of the Code of Commercial Companies in conjunction with Art. 31 CCC, personal wealth for the debts of the company, which has given value to the creditor of the company, may on the basis of Art. 376 of the Civil Code request the return of the other shareholders in equal parts, not only the benefits, but also the reimbursement process brought against him by a creditor of the company, as well as the costs of enforcement proceedings conducted at the request of the creditor of the company against him as a shareholder or these costs represent his personal debt?

Joint venturer, which grants the benefit of the creditor of the company, may request the return of another of its partner the relevant part of this provision, including the costs of the process brought against him, unless the defendant partner effectively raise the objection faulty shareholder of the process by the defendant by the creditor.

Date of the decision: 28 February 2013 (ref. No. III CZP 110/12)

In the case where the updated annual charge for the perpetual usufruct in excess of twice the amount of the current annual fee, second and third sentences of Article. 77 paragraph. 2 of the Act of August 21, 1997. Of Real Estate Management (Journal of Laws No. 115, poz.741 with later. D.) Must be interpreted as meaning that:
- In the second year of renovation usufructuary pays a fee, equal to twice the current annual fee and half of the surplus more than double the current fee, and in the third year of renovation fee, equal to the fee determined in the second year (ie. Two times the current annual fee plus half the surplus) and a second half surplus, more than twice the previous rates, or that
- In the next two years of renovation usufructuary pays a fee, equal to twice the current fees and half of the surplus more than double the current fee
or that
- In the next two years of renovation usufructuary pays a fee, equal to the full amount of the revised annual fee and half of the surplus more than double the current fee?

If the updated annual fee exceeds at least twice the amount of the current fee, the usufructuary in the second year of renovation pays a fee in the amount of the sum of twice the current fees and half surplus more than double that fee, and in the third year of renovation pays a fee in the amount of the sum the fee determined in the second half of the year and more than double the current surplus fee (Art. 77 paragraph. 2a second and third sentences of the Act of August 21, 1997. about the real estate, one. text Journal of Laws of 2010. No. 102, item . 651 as amended.).


Kancelaria Prawna 90-060 Łódź, ul. Nawrot 4/1, tel./fax +48 /42/ 630 58 41, tel. +48 /42/ 632 51 44, kancelaria@b2blegal.pl
OK
Korzystanie z tej witryny oznacza wyrażenie zgody na wykorzystanie plików cookies. Więcej informacji możesz znaleźć w naszej Polityce Prywatności.