Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2019:1046
Date: 2019-12-04
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: France

Summary C-493/18 — 1 
Case C-493/18 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
26 July 2018 
Referring court: 
Cour de cassation (France) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
24 May 2018 
Appellant in cassation: 
UB 
Respondents in cassation: 
VA 
Société civile immobilière Tiger 
WZ, as UB’s trustee in bankruptcy  
Société anonyme Banque patrimoine et immobilier (‘BPI’) 
  
I. Circumstances and subject matter of the dispute 
1 Upon application by, inter alia, Wirecard, a company governed by German law, 
alleging damage in the amount of GBP 2 million and claiming legal costs of 
approximately GBP 1 million, an English court made (on 7 August 2008, 
19 December 2008 and 19 November 2010) various ‘orders and asset freezing 
injunctions’ covering all assets of UB in England and Wales or abroad. 
2 UB was also the owner of an apartment and immovable property in France, where 
he resided at the time. 
3 On 22 August 2008, UB signed an acknowledgment of debt to his sister, VA, and 
mortgaged the two assets located in France for that purpose.  
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — C-493/18 
 
2  
4 On 18 and 24 March 2010, UB sold those two assets to société civile immobilière 
(real estate company) Tiger, which was formed with his sister, VA. The BPI 
financed that acquisition. 
5 On 10 May 2011, Croydon County Court (United Kingdom) made a bankruptcy 
order in respect of UB on his own petition (Section 272 of the Insolvency Act 
1986). On 26 October 2011, in the proceedings before Croydon County Court, the 
Secretary of State, acting under the Insolvency Act 1986, authorised UB’s trustee 
in bankruptcy to request the French courts to rule that the mortgage registered on 
22 August 2008 and the transfers of the properties to real estate company Tiger on 
18 and 24 March 2010 were transactions at an undervalue or for no consideration 
(Section 339 of the Insolvency Act 1986) and to allow the restitution of those 
properties to the debtor’s estate, and their subsequent disposal. 
6 By decision of 19 November 2013, the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris 
(Regional Court, Paris, France) held that the mortgages and sales could not be 
relied on as against the trustee in bankruptcy, to the extent of the outstanding sums 
owed to creditors.  
7 By judgment of 13 May 2016, the Cour d’appel de Paris (Court of Appeal, Paris, 
France) in essence upheld that decision. 
8 UB brought an appeal on a point of law against that judgment. He contends that 
the French court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the action 
brought by the trustee in bankruptcy seeking a declaration that the transactions at 
issue are ineffective as against the trustee and also claims that the Court of Appeal 
incorrectly applied English law.  
II. The provisions at issue 
Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings  
9 Article 3 provides: 
International jurisdiction 
1. The courts of the Member State within the territory of which the centre of a 
debtor’s main interests is situated shall have jurisdiction to open insolvency 
proceedings. … 
10 Article 4 states: 
Law applicable 
1. Save as otherwise provided in this Regulation, the law applicable to insolvency 
proceedings and their effects shall be that of the Member State within the territory 
SOCIETE TIGER AND SOCIETE BANQUE PATRIMOINE ET IMMOBILIER 
 
3 
of which such proceedings are opened, hereafter referred to as the “State of the 
opening of proceedings”. 
2. The law of the State of the opening of proceedings shall determine the 
conditions for the opening of those proceedings, their conduct and their closure. It 
shall determine in particular: 
… 
(m) the rules relating to the voidness, voidability or unenforceability of legal acts 
detrimental to all the creditors. 
11 Article 5 provides: 
Third parties’ rights in rem 
1. The opening of insolvency proceedings shall not affect the rights in rem of 
creditors or third parties in respect of tangible or intangible, moveable or 
immoveable assets — both specific assets and collections of indefinite assets as a 
whole which change from time to time — belonging to the debtor which are 
situated within the territory of another Member State at the time of the opening of 
proceedings. 
2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall in particular mean: 
(a) the right to dispose of assets or have them disposed of and to obtain 
satisfaction from the proceeds of or income from those assets, in particular by 
virtue of a lien or a mortgage; 
… 
4. Paragraph 1 shall not preclude actions for voidness, voidability or 
unenforceability as referred to in Article 4(2)(m). 
12 Article 25 states: 
Recognition and enforceability of other judgments 
1. Judgments handed down by a court whose judgment concerning the opening of 
proceedings is recognised in accordance with Article 16 and which concern the 
course and closure of insolvency proceedings, and compositions approved by that 
court shall also be recognised with no further formalities. … 
The first subparagraph shall also apply to judgments deriving directly from the 
insolvency proceedings and which are closely linked with them, even if they were 
handed down by another court. 
The first subparagraph shall also apply to judgments relating to preservation 
measures taken after the request for the opening of insolvency proceedings. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — C-493/18 
 
4  
III. Arguments of the parties 
A. UB 
13 UB raises, first of all, a plea alleging that the French courts do not have 
jurisdiction. 
14 The Court of Justice of the European Union has held that Article 3(1) [of 
Regulation No 1346/2000] 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 in another Member State (judgments of 16 January 2014, Schmid, C-328/12, 
EU:C:2014:6; and of 12 February 2009, Seagon, C-339/07, EU:C:2009:83). 
15 UB submits that in the present case, since the insolvency proceedings were 
opened in the United Kingdom, the courts of that State alone have jurisdiction to 
hear and determine the action for ‘unenforceability’ with regard to the 
registrations of mortgages and sales of immovable property, even though he 
himself resides in France and the assets concerned are located there. He claims 
that, by failing to raise, of its own motion, its lack of jurisdiction, the Court of 
Appeal infringed Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000. 
16 Next, UB criticises the French court’s allegedly incorrect application of English 
law. He refers, inter alia, to the alleged closure of the insolvency proceedings in 
the United Kingdom, the scope of the action seeking a declaration that the 
transactions in question are ineffective as against the trustee, the discretion which 
English law confers on the court, the fact that an action for ‘inopposabilité 
paulienne’ [an action by which a creditor can have declared ineffective certain 
transactions made by the debtor with third parties] is not consistent with penalties 
applicable under English law and the option of ‘ring-fencing’ provided by English 
law.  
B. The trustee in bankruptcy 
17 The French courts derive, in the present case, their international jurisdiction from 
the judgment of Croydon County Court (United Kingdom) of 26 October 2011, 
which authorised the trustee in bankruptcy to bring its action before those courts. 
That judgment, concerning the course of the proceedings, enjoys recognition in 
France with no further formalities pursuant to Article 25(1) of Regulation (EC) 
No 1346/2000. 
SOCIETE TIGER AND SOCIETE BANQUE PATRIMOINE ET IMMOBILIER 
 
5 
IV. Appraisal of the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation, France) 
18 Under Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000, the courts of the Member State 
within the territory of which the centre of a debtor’s main interests is situated are 
to have jurisdiction to open insolvency proceedings. 
19 The Court of Justice of the European Union has held that an action which is 
related to bankruptcy if it derives directly from the bankruptcy and is closely 
linked to proceedings for realising the assets or judicial supervision, is excluded 
from the scope of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the 
enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (judgment of 
22 February 1979, Gourdain, 133/78, EU:C:1979:49, paragraph 4) 
20 The Court of Justice has further held that, taking into account the effectiveness of 
the regulation, Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000 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 decide an action to 
set a transaction aside by virtue of insolvency (judgment of 12 February 2009, 
Seagon, C-339/07, EU:C:2009:83, paragraphs 21 and 28).  
21 Furthermore, according to Article 25(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000, judgments 
handed down by a court whose judgment concerning the opening of proceedings 
is recognised in accordance with Article 16 and which concern the course and 
closure of insolvency proceedings … are to be recognised with no further 
formalities. 
22 The appeal raises the question of determining the court having jurisdiction to hear 
and determine an action seeking a declaration of ineffectiveness in respect of the 
registration of mortgages taken out for the benefit of third parties covering the 
assets, located in France, of the debtor declared bankrupt in the United Kingdom 
and the sale of those assets to those third parties, brought by the trustee in 
bankruptcy for the purposes of securing the restitution of the assets to the debtor’s 
estate, which constitutes the bankruptcy estate, and the potential impact on that 
determination of the judgment of the court of the Member State within the 
territory of which the insolvency proceedings were opened authorising that trustee 
in bankruptcy to act. 
23 It is therefore necessary to refer to the Court of Justice of the European Union 
questions to determine the court having international jurisdiction to hear and 
determine an action such as that in the present case. 
V. The questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
24 For the purposes of applying Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 on insolvency 
proceedings, the Court of Cassation refers the following questions to the Court of 
Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling: 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — C-493/18 
 
6  
1. Does the action brought by the trustee in bankruptcy appointed by the court 
of the Member State which opened the insolvency proceedings seeking a 
declaration that mortgages registered over immovable property of the debtor 
located in another Member State and the sale of that immovable property in that 
State are ineffective as against the trustee, with a view to the restitution of those 
assets to the debtor’s estate, derive directly from the insolvency proceedings and 
is it closely linked to them? 
2. If so, do the courts of the Member State in which the insolvency proceedings 
were opened have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine the action brought 
by the trustee in bankruptcy or, on the contrary, do the courts of the Member State 
in which the immovable property is located alone have jurisdiction for that 
purpose, or is there concurrent jurisdiction between those various courts, and, if 
so, under what conditions? 
3. Can the judgment by which the court of the Member State which opened the 
insolvency proceedings authorises the trustee in bankruptcy to bring, in another 
Member State, an action falling, in principle, within the jurisdiction of the court 
which opened the proceedings, have the effect of imposing the jurisdiction of that 
other State, in so far as, inter alia, that judgment could be classified as a judgment 
concerning the course of insolvency proceedings within the meaning of 
Article 25(1) of Regulation [No 1346/2000] which may, on that basis, be 
recognised with no further formalities, pursuant to that article?