Background

A claimant filed a case against a defendant before the court requesting to be declared bankrupt due to financial difficulties.

The court dismissed the case.

The claimant appealed the ruling before the court of appeal. The court upheld the appealed ruling.

Decision

The claimant appealed the ruling before the court of cassation and said in his grounds of appeal that the ruling had erred in the application of law and had violated the right of defence because the court had concluded that the cessation of the payment of the debt and the cheques did not mean that he faced financial difficulties. The claimant said that the court had established its ruling based on an expert report which concluded that the debt had resulted from buying cars for personal purposes although he used these cars in the commercial activities of his company.

The court said that this argument was invalid because Article 1 of the Law of Bankruptcy stipulated that the unpaid debts were the debts which resulted from commercial activity. The court said that the claimant had bought the cars for personal use and sold these cars later in to pay personal expenses.

The court dismissed the appeal.