# C_2009312EN.01002102.xml

| 19.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 312/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/21

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Bari (Italy) lodged on 12 October 2009 — Interedil Srl, in liquidation v Fallimento Interedil Srl, Banca Intesa Gestione Crediti Spa

(Case C-396/09)

2009/C 312/35

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Bari

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Interedil Srl, in liquidation

Applicant:

Defendant: Fallimento Interedil Srl, Banca Intesa Gestione Crediti Spa

Defendant:

Question(s) referred

Question(s) referred

| 1. | Is the concept of ‘the centre of a debtor’s main interests’ in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000 (1) to be interpreted in accordance with Community law or national law, and, if the former, how is that concept to be defined and what are the decisive factors or considerations for the purpose of identifying the ‘centre of main interests’? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the concept of ‘the centre of a debtor’s main interests’ in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000 (1) to be interpreted in accordance with Community law or national law, and, if the former, how is that concept to be defined and what are the decisive factors or considerations for the purpose of identifying the ‘centre of main interests’?

1

| 2. | Can the presumption laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000, according to which ‘‘[i]n the case of a company. the place of the registered office shall be presumed to be the centre of its main interests in the absence of proof to the contrary’, be rebutted if it is established that the company carries on genuine business activity in a State other than that in which it has its registered office, or is it necessary, in order for the presumption to be deemed rebutted, to establish that the company has not carried on any business activity in the State in which it has its registered office? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the presumption laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000, according to which ‘‘[i]n the case of a company. the place of the registered office shall be presumed to be the centre of its main interests in the absence of proof to the contrary’, be rebutted if it is established that the company carries on genuine business activity in a State other than that in which it has its registered office, or is it necessary, in order for the presumption to be deemed rebutted, to establish that the company has not carried on any business activity in the State in which it has its registered office?

| 3. | If a company has, in a Member State other than that in which it has its registered office, immovable property, a lease agreement concluded by the debtor company with another company in respect of two hotel complexes, and a contract with a banking institution, are these sufficient factors or considerations to rebut the presumption laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000 that the place of the company’s ‘registered office’ is the centre of its main interests and are such circumstances sufficient for the company to be regarded as having an ‘establishment’ within the meaning of Article 3(2) of Regulation No 1346/2000? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If a company has, in a Member State other than that in which it has its registered office, immovable property, a lease agreement concluded by the debtor company with another company in respect of two hotel complexes, and a contract with a banking institution, are these sufficient factors or considerations to rebut the presumption laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000 that the place of the company’s ‘registered office’ is the centre of its main interests and are such circumstances sufficient for the company to be regarded as having an ‘establishment’ within the meaning of Article 3(2) of Regulation No 1346/2000?

| 4. | If the ruling on jurisdiction by the Corte di Cassazione in the aforementioned Order No 10606/2005 is based on an interpretation of Article 3 of Regulation No 1346/2000 which is at variance with that of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, is the application of that provision of Community law, as interpreted by the Court of Justice, precluded by Article 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure, according to which rulings on jurisdiction by the Corte di Cassazione are final and binding?’ |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the ruling on jurisdiction by the Corte di Cassazione in the aforementioned Order No 10606/2005 is based on an interpretation of Article 3 of Regulation No 1346/2000 which is at variance with that of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, is the application of that provision of Community law, as interpreted by the Court of Justice, precluded by Article 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure, according to which rulings on jurisdiction by the Corte di Cassazione are final and binding?’

---

(1)  OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1

1

---