Judgment of the Court; 2 May 2006; Eurofood IFSC Ltd.; Case C-341/04
1. Where a debtor is a subsidiary company whose registered office and that of its parent company are situated in two different Member States, the presumption laid down in the second sentence of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings, whereby the centre of main interests of that subsidiary is situated in the Member State where its registered office is situated, can be rebutted only if factors which are both objective and ascertainable by third parties enable it to be established that an actual situation exists which is different from that which location at that registered office is deemed to reflect. That could be so in particular in the case of a company not carrying out any business in the territory of the Member State in which its registered office is situated. By contrast, where a company carries on its business in the territory of the Member State where its registered office is situated, the mere fact that its economic choices are or can be controlled by a parent company in another Member State is not enough to rebut the presumption laid down by that Regulation.
2. On a proper interpretation of the first subparagraph of Article 16(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000, the main insolvency proceedings opened by a court of a Member State must be recognised by the courts of the other Member States, without the latter being able to review the jurisdiction of the court of the opening State.
3. On a proper interpretation of the first subparagraph of Article 16(1) of the Regulation, a decision to open insolvency proceedings for the purposes of that provision is a decision handed down by a court of a Member State to which application for such a decision has been made, based on the debtor’s insolvency and seeking the opening of proceedings referred to in Annex A to the Regulation, where that decision involves the divestment of the debtor and the appointment of a liquidator referred to in Annex C to the Regulation. Such divestment implies that the debtor loses the powers of management that he has over his assets.
4. On a proper interpretation of Article 26 of the Regulation, a Member State may refuse to recognise insolvency proceedings opened in another Member State where the decision to open the proceedings was taken in flagrant breach of the fundamental right to be heard, which a person concerned by such proceedings enjoys.
- DIGI - GUARD
- Diversity of Enforcement Titles in cross-border Debt Collection in EU
- Train to Enforce
- Remedies concerning Enforcement of Foreign Judgements according to Brussels I Recast
- LAWtrain
- Developments and trend in the regulation of the attorney's profession with the emphasis on Slovenia and Germany
- Civil vs "Common Law" – the assessment of »rules« of evidence law (testing the admissibility of electronic evidence in common law and continental law systems)
- Dimensions of Evidence in European Civil Procedure
- Simplification of Debt Collection in the EU
- Role of Faculty of Law
- Conferences and other activities
- Project results
- Council regulation (EC) No 1346/2000
- Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003
- Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001
- Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000
- Brussels Regulation
- Brussels Convention
- Protocol on the interpretation of the Brussels Convention
- Brussels Convention
- Brussels Regulation
- Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001
- Council regulation (EC) No 1348/2000
- Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003
- Council regulation (EC) No 1346/2000
- Judgment of the Court; 17 January 2006; Susanne Staubitz-Schreiber; Case C-1/04
- Judgment of the Court; 2 May 2006; Eurofood IFSC Ltd.; Case C-341/04
- Judgment of the Court; 21 January 2010; MG Probud Gdynia sp. z o.o.; Case C-444/07
- European Enforcement Order
- Medicine, Law and Society
- CRP Service