Summary

The protection of creditors’ claims is a more central and important procedure in the bankruptcy proceedings, as it reveals the creditors’ claims and their size. On the basis of a claim determined in the course of the protection of claims, the creditor is entitled to compensation from the bankruptcy estate, and the number of votes to be assigned to the creditor depends on the size of the claim, which is relevant for the adoption of the decisions of the general meeting of creditors.

Since the introduction of the Estonian Bankruptcy Act under the procedure for protecting the claims of creditors in Estonia on 1 September 1992, the protection of claims took place as an extrajudicial proceeding organised by the trustee in bankruptcy. Proofs of claim were submitted to the trustee in bankruptcy within the time limit specified in the Act and their recognition took place at a meeting on the protection of claims organised by the trustee in bankruptcy. Disputes concerning claims which were not recognised at the meeting on the protection of claims were settled by the court in the proceeding of action. Following the recognition of claims at the meeting on the protection of claims and the settlement of disputes in the proceeding of action, the trustee in bankruptcy drew up a distribution proposal which was submitted to the court for approval.

The above situation changed by the amendments to the Bankruptcy Act, which entered into force on 1 February 2021, abolishing the meeting on the protection of claims held by the trustee in bankruptcy and introducing a procedure for the lodging of a statement of objections to the creditor’s claims in a written procedure. A significant change has been made to the role of the court, which, within the statutory 30-day time limit, is required to settle disputes concerning the recognition of creditors’ claims which have been settled in the proceeding of action so far.

According to the author of the Article, the new system for the protection and recognition of creditors’ claims has not eliminated the earlier shortcomings of this process, and the legislator has focused only on the speed of the proceedings, in which unrealistic time-limits have been set not to protect the rights of the parties to the proceedings.