Personal counselling required for insolvency certificate

92 IK 184/16Court of First InstanceJul 27, 2016Insolvency lawOther

Open source

Extracted by Omnilex

Omnilex summary

In insolvency-opening proceedings concerning G, the debtor brought an immediate complaint against an order dated 23 June 2016. The Aachen Local Court declined to amend that order, finding that the complaint did not displace its grounds, and sent the file to the Aachen Regional Court. The decision states that the certificate required by InsO § 305(1) no. 1 is deficient if an employee, rather than the lawyer issuing the certificate, personally counselled the debtor. Supervision and instructions do not alter that conclusion, and counselling by the lawyer after the out-of-court settlement effort and filing does not cure the deficiency.

Omnilex headnote

InsO § 305(1) no. 1; AGInsO NW § 3; requirements for the certificate confirming failure of an out-of-court debt settlement. The certificate is valid only where the lawyer who issues it has personally counselled the debtor. Counselling by an employee of that lawyer is insufficient, even if the employee acts under instructions and is supervised by the lawyer: otherwise the statutory recognition requirements for persons authorised to issue such certificates would be circumvented. The requirement concerns the counselling preceding the out-of-court settlement effort and cannot be cured by personal counselling from the certifying lawyer after that effort has been conducted and the insolvency application filed.

Full text

Amtsgericht Aachen — 92 IK 184/16 — Beschluss

Entscheidungsdatum: 2016-07-27

Aktenzeichen: 92 IK 184/16

ECLI: ECLI:DE:AGAC1:2016:0727.92IK184.16.00

Dokumenttyp: Beschluss

Spruchkörper: Richterin am Amtsgericht

Normen: InsO § 305 Abs. 1 Nr. 1; AGInsO NW § 3

Leitsätze

Die Anforderungen an die nach § 305 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 InsO erforderliche Bescheinigung zum Scheitern der außergerichtlichen Einigung sind nur dann erfüllt, wenn der die Bescheinigung ausstellende Rechtsanwalt auch die persönliche Beratung des Schuldners vorgenommen hat. Ist die persönliche Beratung nicht von dem ausstellenden Rechtsanwalt, sondern von einem Mitarbeiter des Rechtsanwalts vorgenommen worden, genügt die Bescheinigung nicht den Anforderungen des § 305 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 InsO. Dies gilt auch für den Fall, dass der Mitarbeiter des Rechtsanwalts weisungsgebunden ist und von dem Rechtsanwalt überwacht wird. Andernfalls würden die in § 3 AGInsO normierten Anerkennungsregularien unterlaufen werden. Eine nach Durchführung der außergerichtlichen Einigung und Antragstellung erfolgte nachträgliche persönliche Beratung des ausstellenden Rechtsanwalts führt nicht zur Heilung des Mangels der Bescheinigung.

Tenor

In dem Insolvenzeröffnungsverfahren über das Vermögen

der G

Verfahrensbevollmächtigte: Q mbH

wird der sofortigen Beschwerde der Schuldnerin gegen den Beschluss vom 23.06.2016 aus den Gründen der angefochtenen Entscheidung, die durch das Beschwerdevorbringen nicht entkräftet werden, nicht abgeholfen.

Die Akte wird dem Landgericht Aachen zur Entscheidung vorgelegt.

Keywords

consumer insolvencyout-of-court debt settlementpersonal counsellingcertificate requirements

Key legal questions extracted by Omnilex

Whether the certificate of failure of an out-of-court settlement under InsO § 305(1) no. 1 is sufficient when personal counselling was conducted by the certifying lawyer’s employee rather than by the lawyer.

The certificate is insufficient unless the lawyer who issues it also personally counsels the debtor; later personal counselling does not cure the deficiency.

Allowing an employee to conduct the counselling, even under the lawyer’s instructions and supervision, would circumvent the recognition requirements in AGInsO NW § 3. Counselling after the settlement attempt and filing cannot cure the defect.

Whether the Local Court should grant the debtor’s immediate complaint against its 23 June 2016 order.

The Local Court declined to grant relief and referred the file to the Aachen Regional Court for a decision.

The grounds of the challenged decision were not overcome by the arguments in the complaint.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.