Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2013:540
Date: 2013-09-10
Language of the case: German
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 16 January 2014 1. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Insolvency proceedings — Regulation No 1346/2000 — Scope — Cross-border element concerning solely a Member State and a third country — Included (Council Regulation No 1346/2000, Art. 3(1)) 2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Insolvency proceedings — Regulation No 1346/2000 — International jurisdiction to open insolvency proceedings — Action to set a transaction aside by virtue of insolvency that is brought against a person whose place of residence is not within the territory of a Member State — Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State where the insolvency proceedings have been opened — Inability to rely in third countries on judgments delivered by such a court — No effect (Council Regulation No 1346/2000, Art. 3(1)) 1. Application of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings cannot, as a general rule, depend on the existence of a cross-border link involving another Member State. (see para. 29) 2. Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the Member State within the territory of which insolvency proceedings have been opened have jurisdiction to hear and determine an action to set a transaction aside by virtue of insolvency that is brought against a person whose place of residence is not within the territory of a Member State. Harmonisation, in the European Union, of the rules governing jurisdiction over actions to set a transaction aside by virtue of insolvency contributes to the attainment of the objectives pursued by that provision — which consist in the promotion of foreseeability as regards bankruptcy and liquidation jurisdiction and, therefore, of legal certainty — irrespective of whether the defendant’s place of residence is in a Member State or a third country. The fact that the provisions of Regulation No 1346/2000 concerning recognition and enforcement of judgments delivered by the court which has opened the insolvency proceedings cannot bind third countries does not preclude the application of the rule governing jurisdiction which is laid down in Article 3(1) of the regulation. Moreover, even if, in a particular case, it is not possible to rely on the regulation itself for the recognition and enforcement of judgments, it is sometime possible to obtain under a bilateral convention the recognition and enforcement of a judgment delivered by the court with jurisdiction. Furthermore, even if such a judgment is not recognised and enforced, on the basis of a bilateral convention, by the State in which the defendant’s place of residence is located, it may be recognised and enforced by the other Member States under Article 25 of the regulation, in particular if part of the defendant’s assets are in the territory of one of those States. (see paras 33, 37-39, operative part)