# C_2012039EN.01000302.xml

| 11.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Rastelli Davide e C. Snc v Jean-Charles Hidoux, in his capacity as liquidator appointed by the court for the company Médiasucre international

(Case C-191/10) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Insolvency proceedings - International jurisdiction - Extension of insolvency proceedings opened in respect of a company established in one Member State to a company whose registered office is in another Member State because the property of the two companies has been intermixed)

(2012/C 39/04)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rastelli Davide e C. Snc

Defendant: Jean-Charles Hidoux, in his capacity as liquidator appointed by the court for the company Médiasucre international

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation — Interpretation of Article 3(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1) — International jurisdiction of the French courts to join to insolvency proceedings, opened in respect of a company established on the national territory, a company whose seat is in another Member State, because the property of the two companies has been intermixed — Notions of ‘opening’ and of ‘joinder’ in relation to insolvability proceedings — Determination of the centre of main interests

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings is to be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State that has opened main insolvency proceedings against a company, on the view that the centre of the debtor’s main interests is situated in the territory of that Member State, can, under a rule of its national law, join to those proceedings a second company whose registered office is in another Member State only if it is established that the centre of that second company’s main interests is situated in the first Member State. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings is to be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State that has opened main insolvency proceedings against a company, on the view that the centre of the debtor’s main interests is situated in the territory of that Member State, can, under a rule of its national law, join to those proceedings a second company whose registered office is in another Member State only if it is established that the centre of that second company’s main interests is situated in the first Member State.

| 2. | Regulation No 1346/2000 is to be interpreted as meaning that, where a company, whose registered office is situated within the territory of a Member State, is subject to an action that seeks to extend to it the effects of insolvency proceedings opened in another Member State against another company established within the territory of that other Member State, the mere finding that the property of those companies has been intermixed is not sufficient to establish that the centre of the main interests of the company concerned by the action is also situated in that other Member State. In order to reverse the presumption that this centre is the place of the registered office, it is necessary that an overall assessment of all the relevant factors allows it to be established, in a manner ascertainable by third parties, that the actual centre of management and supervision of the company concerned by the joinder action is situated in the Member State where the initial insolvency proceedings were opened. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Regulation No 1346/2000 is to be interpreted as meaning that, where a company, whose registered office is situated within the territory of a Member State, is subject to an action that seeks to extend to it the effects of insolvency proceedings opened in another Member State against another company established within the territory of that other Member State, the mere finding that the property of those companies has been intermixed is not sufficient to establish that the centre of the main interests of the company concerned by the action is also situated in that other Member State. In order to reverse the presumption that this centre is the place of the registered office, it is necessary that an overall assessment of all the relevant factors allows it to be established, in a manner ascertainable by third parties, that the actual centre of management and supervision of the company concerned by the joinder action is situated in the Member State where the initial insolvency proceedings were opened.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.

---