January 31, 2019

By January 31, 2019News

Procedural steps taken by a judicial administrator for the purpose of termination of legal entities may also include the right to file an application for entry in the National Court Register. The above view has been taken by the Supreme Court seised of the cassation complaint brought by B. SA under reference number I CSK 679/17. The supreme Court has resolved the issue whether the joint stock company being under legal supervision pursuant to art. 42 of polish civil code, subject to compulsory registration (whithout bodies authorised to represent it), may be effectively registered by a judicial administrator.

The Court has held that in extraordinary circumstances such as for instance the impossibility of making entry in the register existing before the date on which the National Court Register Act is brought into effect, it should be assumed that the judicial administrator was also entitled to file an application for entry in the register pursuant to art. 7 of the introductory regulations of National Court Register Act. The above article stipulates that the entity subject to compulsory registration pursuant to the provisions of National Court Register Act in force until the date of filing the application for entry in Register, is oblige to file an application. Therefore, the judicial administrator, aiming to produce legal effects set out in art. 42 of polish civil code, was entitled to file an application for entry in the National Court Register.

The ruling was issued upon cassation complaint brought by the team of Sobczyńscy Adwokaci lawyers (led by attorney Michał Sobczyński) on the behalf of the company- a party to the proceedings. The complaint was brought against the decision of Regional Court in Warsaw upholding the appealed decision of District Court to dismiss the application for entry in the register. The Regional Court took the view that judicial administrator appointed under art. 42 of polish civil code has the range of competencies stipulated only in that provision and therefore is not entitled to represent the company in legal proceedings including registration procedure. The Supreme Court disagreed with the above and setting aside the appealed decision, remanded the case, resolving at the same time the legal issue.