Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2019:292
Date: 2019-04-04
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: Austria

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 26 January 2018 — Skarb Pánstwa Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej — Generalny Dyrektor Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad v Stephan Riel, acting as administrator in the insolvency proceedings concerning the assets of Alpine Bau GmbH (Case C-47/18) Language of the case: German Referring court Oberlandesgericht Wien Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: Skarb Pánstwa Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej — Generalny Dyrektor Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad Defendant: Stephan Riel, acting as administrator in the insolvency proceedings concerning the assets of Alpine Bau GmbH Questions referred Question 1 Is Article 1(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the Jurisdiction Regulation 2012) 1 to be interpreted as meaning that an action for a specific declaration in insolvency proceedings (Prüfungsklage) under Austrian law concerns insolvency for the purposes of Article 1(2)(b) of the Jurisdiction Regulation 2012 and is, therefore, excluded from the material scope of that regulation? Question 2a (only in the event that Question 1 is answered in the affirmative): Is Article 29(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the Jurisdiction Regulation 2012) to be applied analogously to related actions falling within the scope of the Insolvency Regulation? Question 2b (only in the event that Question 1 is answered in the negative or Question 2a is answered in the affirmative): Is Article 29(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the Jurisdiction Regulation 2012) to be interpreted as meaning that proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same parties exist when a creditor (the applicant) who has lodged a (largely) identical claim in the main proceedings in Austria and in the secondary proceedings in Poland, which (in the main) was contested by the respective administrator, brings actions for a declaration of the existence of insolvency claims of a certain amount first in Poland against the administrator acting in the secondary proceedings in that country and then in Austria against the administrator acting in the main proceedings (the defendant)? Question 3a: Is Article 41 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (the Insolvency Regulation) 2 to be interpreted as meaning that the requirement to indicate the ‘nature of the claim, the date on which it arose and its amount’ is satisfied where, in the lodgement of his claim in the main insolvency, as is the case here, the creditor established in a Member State other than the State of the opening of proceedings (the applicant): a) describes the claim simply by assigning a specific amount to it without stating the date on which that claim arose (for example, as a ‘claim by the subcontractor JSV Slawomir Kubica in respect of the carrying out of roadworks’); b) does not state the date on which the claim arose in the claims form itself, but such a date may be inferred from the annexes submitted with that form (for example, on the basis of the date stated on the invoice submitted)? Question 3b: Is Article 41 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (the Insolvency Regulation) to be interpreted as not precluding the application of national provisions — for example those relating to the requirement to state the day on which a claim arose — which are more favourable in the particular case to the creditor lodging the claim, who is established in a Member State other than the State of the opening of proceedings? ____________ 1 OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1. 2 OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1.