Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2022:9
Date: 2022-01-13
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Third Chamber
Subject matter: Right of establishment;Freedom to provide services
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: France

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 28 December 2020 – Paget Approbois SAS v Depeyre entreprises SARL, Alpha Insurance A/S and Alpha Insurance A/S v Paget Approbois SAS, Depeyre entreprises SARL (Case C-724/20) Language of the case: French Referring court Cour de cassation Parties to the main proceedings Applicants: Paget Approbois SAS, Alpha Insurance A/S Defendants: Depeyre entreprises SARL, Alpha Insurance A/S, Paget Approbois SAS Questions referred Must Article 292 of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II) 1 be interpreted as meaning that the pending lawsuit brought before the court of a Member State by the creditor of an insurance compensation claim to obtain the settlement of that claim by an insurance undertaking subject to winding-up proceedings pending in another Member State, concerns, within the meaning of that directive, an asset or a right of which the insurance undertaking has been divested? If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is the law of the Member State in which the proceedings are pending intended to govern all the effects of the winding-up proceedings on the pending lawsuit? In particular, should it be applied in so far as it: - provides that the opening of such proceedings results in the suspension of the pending lawsuit; - subjects the resumption of the proceedings to the claim for insurance compensation being lodged against the estate of the insurance undertaking by the creditor and to the bodies responsible for the winding-up proceedings being summoned; - and precludes an order to pay the insurance compensation, since such an order can no longer be the subject of a judgment except relating to the determination and fixing the amount of the compensation? ____________ 1 OJ 2009 L 335, p. 1.