# C_2006143EN.01001101.xml

| 17.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) Chamber) of 2 May 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland)) Eurofood IFCS Ltd — Enrico Bondi v Bank of America N.A., Pearse Farrell, Official Liquidator, Director of Corporate Enforcement, Certificate/Note holders

(Case C-341/04) (1)

1

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Insolvency proceedings - Decision to open the proceedings - Centre of the debtor's main interests - Recognition of insolvency proceedings - Public policy (keywords)

(2006/C 143/20)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Enrico Bondi

Applicant:

Defendant(s): Bank of America N.A., Pearse Farrell, Official Liquidator, Director of Corporate Enforcement, Certificate/Note holders

Defendant(s):

Re:

Interpretation of Articles 1, 2, 3 and 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings — Order appointing a provisional liquidator pending a final order — Whether that order may be regarded as a judgment opening insolvency proceedings — Court with jurisdiction to open insolvency proceedings

Operative part of the judgment

| 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. |
| --- | --- |

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. |
| --- | --- |

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. |
| --- | --- |

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. |
| --- | --- |

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.

---

(1)  OJ C 251, 9.10.2004.

1

---