The purpose of this article is to present the relation between the Actio Pauliana undertaken by the creditor and the ineffectiveness of a juridical act provided for in bankruptcy law. The analysis shows that the ineffectiveness of a juridical act towards the bankruptcy estate differs in meaning from the ineffectiveness towards the creditor, primarily because in the latter case the purpose of the ineffectiveness is to protect a specific receivable. This inference and the realization that the object of a juridical act carried out to the creditors' detriment is not included in the bankruptcy estate allow us to conclude that the creditor is entitled to bring and support the Actio Pauliana also after the declaration of the debtor's bankruptcy. Regardless of this solution, the applicable law prioritizes the protection of all creditors over the protection of one of them. Recognizing the bankrupt's juridical act as ineffective towards the bankruptcy estate (by virtue of law or as a result of a ruling) results in treating the object of the challenged juridical act as part of the bankruptcy estate. In this case, the creditor can no longer file the Actio Pauliana, and if he is in possession of a final judgment obtained following the said complaint, he cannot use it in enforcement proceedings conducted in his favour.