Abstract
The Article resolves an question what is the actual position of the insolvency practitioner within the judicial system and within the insolvency proceedings. It analyses in detail various concepts which emerged in higher courts' case law and in the theory.
It comes to the resolution that the position of the insolvency practitioner is not totally unambiguous and it could be seen from various points of view. It is common to all of them that certain attributes always exclude definitive assumption under solid category.
For example, emphasizing an entrepreneurship does not correspond to limit that is insolvency practitioner obliged to adhere to as a special subject to the insolvency proceedings. Simultaneously, he does not possess a decision-making authority.
On contrary to be a protector of the common interest of the creditors, he depends too much on dominant creditors without sufficient independence guarantees. The article therefore provides a theoretical background, a historical excursion, a comparison with foreign insolvency practitioners' models, a proposal for further legislative development and weak point of all alternatives.