Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2024:287
Date: 2024-04-11
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: Right of establishment;Approximation of laws
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Spain

Summary C-687/22 – 1 
Case C-687/22 
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: 
7 November 2022 
Referring court: 
Audiencia Provincial de Alicante (Spain) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
11 October 2022 
Appellants: 
Julieta 
Rogelio 
Respondent: 
Agencia Estatal de Administración Tributaria 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Arrangement with creditors – Appeal against an order which excludes claims 
governed by public law from the benefit of discharge of debt – Compatibility of 
national legislation on arrangements with creditors with Directive (EU) 
2019/1023 – National legislation on delegation of legislative powers 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Request for a preliminary ruling on interpretation – Article 267 TFEU – Directive 
(EU) 2019/1023 – Article 23(4) – Transposition period – Effects – National 
legislation on arrangements with creditors which excludes claims governed by 
public law from the benefit of discharge of debt – Application for the request for a 
preliminary ruling to be dealt with under to the expedited procedure 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-687/22 
 
2  
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
(i) Is it possible to apply the principle that national law must be interpreted in 
conformity with EU law to Article 23(4) of [Directive (EU) 2019/1023] where the 
facts (as in the present case, in view of the date of the application for discharge of 
debt) occurred during the period between the entry into force of the directive and 
the deadline for its transposition, and the applicable national legislation (the 
consolidated text of the Ley Concursal (Insolvency Law), as amended by Royal 
Legislative Decree 1/2020) is not the legislation which transposes the directive 
(Law 16/22)? 
(ii) Is national legislation, such as the Spanish legislation established in the 
consolidated text of the Insolvency Law (as amended by Royal Legislative Decree 
1/2020), which provides no justification for excluding claims governed by public 
law from discharge of debt, compatible with Article 23(4) of the directive and its 
underlying principles concerning discharge of debt? In so far as that legislation 
excludes claims governed by public law from discharge of debt and is not duly 
justified, does it compromise or jeopardise the attainment of the objectives 
established in the directive? 
(iii) Does Article 23(4) of the directive contain an exhaustive, closed list of 
categories of claims which can be excluded from discharge, or is the list instead 
merely illustrative, with the national legislature enjoying absolute discretion to 
establish such categories of excludable claims as it sees fit, provided that they are 
duly justified under national law? 
Provisions of European Union law and case-law relied on 
Directive (EU) 2019/1023 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
20 June 2019 on preventive restructuring frameworks, on discharge of debt and 
disqualifications, and on measures to increase the efficiency of procedures 
concerning restructuring, insolvency and discharge of debt, and amending 
Directive (EU) 2017/1132 (Directive on restructuring and insolvency) (OJ 2019 
L 172, p. 18). Recitals 1, 78, 81 and 82, point 10 of Article 2(1), Article 20(1), 
Article 23(4) and Article 34. 
Corrigendum to Directive (EU) 2019/1023 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 20 June 2019 on preventive restructuring frameworks, on discharge of 
debt and disqualifications, and on measures to increase the efficiency of 
procedures concerning restructuring, insolvency and discharge of debt, and 
amending Directive (EU) 2017/1132 (Directive on restructuring and insolvency) 
(OJ 2022 L 43, p. 94). [This corrigendum does not concern the English version.] 
Commission Recommendation 2014/135/EU of 12 March 2014 on a new 
approach to business failure and insolvency (OJ 2014 L 74, p. 65). 
AGENCIA ESTATAL DE LA ADMINISTRACIÓN TRIBUTARIA 
 
3 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 18 December 1997, Inter-Environnement 
Wallonie v Région wallonne (C-129/96, EU:C:1997:628). Paragraphs 44 to 47. 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 22 November 2005, Mangold (C-144/04, 
EU:C:2005:709). Paragraph 72. 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 8 October 1987, Kolpinghuis Nijmegen 
(80/86, EU:C:1987:431). Paragraphs 4, 15 and 16. 
Provisions of national law and case-law relied on 
Real Decreto Legislativo 1/2020, de 5 de mayo, por el que se aprueba el texto 
refundido de la Ley Concursal (Royal Legislative Decree 1/2020 of 5 May 2020 
approving the consolidated text of the Insolvency Law) (BOE 127 of 7 May 
2020). 
According to paragraph 1 of Article 491 (‘Scope of discharge’) of the 
consolidated text of the Insolvency Law, in the version applicable to the 
proceedings: 
‘1. Provided that claims against the estate and preferential insolvency claims 
have been paid in full and that, where the debtor satisfies the relevant criteria, he 
or she has sought to reach a prior extrajudicial payment agreement, the benefit of 
discharge of debt shall apply to all unpaid claims other than claims governed by 
public law and claims for maintenance payments.’ 
According to paragraph 1 of Article 497 (‘Scope of discharge in the event of a 
payment plan’) of the consolidated text of the Insolvency Law, in the version 
applicable to the proceedings: 
‘1. The benefit of discharge of debt granted to debtors who have agreed to be 
subject to a payment plan shall apply to that part of the following claims which, 
under the plan, will remain unpaid: 
1.º Ordinary and subordinated claims outstanding at the date of the termination 
of the insolvency proceedings, even where they have not been notified, with the 
exception of claims governed by public law and claims for maintenance payments. 
…’. 
Article 82 of the Spanish Constitution (concerning delegation of legislative 
powers). 
Ley 16/2022, de 5 de septiembre, de reforma del texto refundido de la Ley 
Concursal, aprobado por el Real Decreto Legislativo 1/2020, de 5 de mayo, para 
la transposición de la Directiva (UE) 2019/1023 del Parlamento Europeo y del 
Consejo, de 20 de junio de 2019, sobre marcos de reestructuración preventiva, 
exoneración de deudas e inhabilitaciones, y sobre medidas para aumentar la 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-687/22 
 
4  
eficiencia de los procedimientos de reestructuración, insolvencia y exoneración de 
deudas, y por la que se modifica la Directiva (UE) 2017/1132 del Parlamento 
Europeo y del Consejo, sobre determinados aspectos del Derecho de sociedades 
(Directiva sobre reestructuración e insolvencia) (Law 16/2022 of 5 September 
2022 amending the consolidated text of the Insolvency Law approved by Royal 
Legislative Decree 1/2020 of 5 May 2020 for the transposition of Directive (EU) 
2019/1023 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on 
preventive restructuring frameworks, on discharge of debt and disqualifications, 
and on measures to increase the efficiency of procedures concerning restructuring, 
insolvency and discharge of debt, and amending Directive (EU) 2017/1132 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council relating to certain aspects of company 
law (Directive on restructuring and insolvency)) (BOE 214 of 6 September 2022). 
Ley 22/2003, de 9 de julio, Concursal (Insolvency Law 22/2003 of 9 July 2003) 
(BOE 164 of 10 July 2003). 
Ley 14/2013, de 27 de septiembre, de apoyo a los emprendedores y su 
internacionalización (Law 14/2013 of 27 September 2013 on support for 
entrepreneurs and their internationalisation) (BOE 233 of 28 September 2013). 
Real Decreto-ley 1/2015, de 27 de febrero, de mecanismo de segunda 
oportunidad, reducción de carga financiera y otras medidas de orden social (Royal 
Decree-Law 1/2015 of 27 February 2015 on a second chance mechanism, 
reduction in financial burdens and other social measures (BOE 51 of 28 February 
2015). 
Ley 25/2015, de 28 de julio, de mecanismo de segunda oportunidad, reducción de 
la carga financiera y otras medidas de orden social (Law 25/2015 of 28 July 2015 
on a second chance mechanism, reduction in financial burdens and other social 
measures) (BOE 180 of 29 July 2015). 
Ley 58/2003, de 17 de diciembre, General Tributaria (General Taxation Law 
58/2003 of 17 December 2003) (BOE 302 of 18 December 2003). 
Article 43(1)(a). 
Judgment No 381/2019 of 2 July 2019 of the Civil Chamber of the Tribunal 
Supremo (Supreme Court, Spain). 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 In insolvency proceedings before the Juzgado de Primera Instancia n.º 1 de Denia 
(Court of First Instance No 1, Denia, Alicante, Spain), in which Rogelio and 
Julieta are the insolvency debtors, the insolvency practitioner applied for the 
termination of the insolvency proceedings on the grounds that the insolvency 
debtors had no assets or rights, and that the other legal requirements were 
satisfied. Then, on 3 March 2021, the insolvency debtors filed an application for 
discharge of debt, which was served on the insolvency practitioner and the 
AGENCIA ESTATAL DE LA ADMINISTRACIÓN TRIBUTARIA 
 
5 
creditors represented in the proceedings to enable them to submit such arguments 
as they deemed appropriate. 
2 The Agencia Estatal de Administración Tributaria (National Tax Administration 
Agency; ‘AEAT’) lodged a written objection to the inclusion of its claim, which it 
considered to be a preferential claim governed by public law, in the discharge. 
The claim arose from a debt recovery procedure commenced under the General 
Taxation Law for the sum of EUR 192 366.21. 
3 By order of 30 July 2021, the Court of First Instance No 1, Denia, (Alicante, 
Spain) ordered the termination of the insolvency proceedings. Under the terms of 
the order, the insolvency debtors were granted the benefit of a discharge of debt 
with the exception of the claims governed by public law, discharge of which was 
prevented by Articles 491, 495 (concerning the proposal for a payment plan) and 
497 of the consolidated text of the Insolvency Law. 
4 However, the order noted that ‘moreover, the current situation has an expiry date, 
because Article 23(4) of Directive 2019/1023 (which must be transposed into 
Spanish law in June 2021), which is part of Title III of the directive concerning 
discharge of debt, provides only for the following exceptions to the discharge …’, 
and those exceptions did not include claims governed by public law. The order 
also referred to Spanish case-law which ‘… has recognised the discharge of Tax 
and Social Security debts in insolvency proceedings intended to offer business 
people and the self-employed a second chance, thus following the approach 
adopted by the Supreme Court in the judgment of 2 July 2019’. 
5 The insolvency debtors lodged an appeal against the order with the referring court 
(Audiencia Provincial de Alicante – Sección Octava – Tribunal de Marcas de la 
Unión Europea) (Provincial Court, Alicante, Section Eight, EU Trade Mark Court, 
Spain), seeking to have the ruling which excluded the AEAT’s claim from the 
discharge set aside, so that the benefit of the discharge would also cover that 
claim. The appeal was accompanied by numerous rulings from various Spanish 
courts which supported the position that claims governed by public law should be 
included in the discharge. 
6 In its response, opposing the appeal, the AEAT essentially argued that the 
discharge should not apply to claims governed by public law and that the appeal 
should therefore be dismissed. 
7 After consulting the parties and the Ministerio Fiscal (Public Prosecutor’s Office), 
the referring court has concluded that, before ruling on the appeal, it would be 
appropriate to refer a series of questions to the Court of Justice of the European 
Union concerning the compatibility of the provisions in the consolidated text of 
the Insolvency Law (in the version applicable to the dispute) which exclude 
claims governed by public law from the benefit of discharge of debt with 
Article 23(4) of Directive 2019/1023. It has asked the Court of Justice to deal with 
the questions referred under the expedited procedure. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-687/22 
 
6  
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
8 The insolvency debtors have stated that they support the request for a preliminary 
ruling. The AEAT opposes the request on the grounds that the questions referred 
were allegedly not applicable at the time in question, since Directive 2019/23 had 
not been transposed into national law at the time of the facts, and because, in its 
opinion, the list in Article 23(4) of the directive is illustrative rather than a 
numerus clausus. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
9 To assist in understanding the legal dispute at issue, the referring court begins by 
explaining the development of the legislation and case-law concerning discharge 
of debt in Spanish law. 
10 In 2003, Insolvency Law 22/2003 of 9 July 2003 was passed, and came into force 
on 1 September 2004; but, as originally drafted, the Law did not provide for any 
form of discharge of debt in insolvency proceedings. Subsequently, Law 14/2013 
of 27 September 2013 on support for entrepreneurs and their internationalisation 
was passed; this amended the Insolvency Law by introducing a mechanism for 
discharge of debt into Spanish law for the first time, in cases where insolvency 
proceedings were terminated on the grounds that the assets had been liquidated. It 
contained no provision concerning the scope of the discharge and, therefore, did 
not establish whether or not claims governed by public law were included. 
11 In 2014, Commission Recommendation of 12 March 2014 on a new approach to 
business failure and insolvency was adopted. Paragraph 30 of the recommendation 
stated that ‘entrepreneurs should be fully discharged of their debts which were 
subject of a bankruptcy …’. There was no express reference to claims governed 
by public law. 
12 In 2015, Royal Decree-Law 1/2015 of 27 February 2015 on a second chance 
mechanism, reduction in financial burdens and other social measures was adopted. 
The royal decree-law amended the Insolvency Law by introducing the concept of 
a ‘second chance’ for natural persons. In order for the second chance system to 
apply, the insolvency debtor had to be a natural person and the insolvency 
proceedings had to have been terminated on grounds of either liquidation or 
insufficiency of assets; in addition, a series of requirements had to be satisfied. It 
was then possible to opt either for an immediate discharge of debt or for a 
discharge in five years’ time, subject to a payment plan. However, under the 
option of a discharge subject to a payment plan, claims governed by public law 
were excluded from the benefit of discharge of debt. There was no provision for 
such an exclusion under the immediate discharge option. The royal decree-law 
was ratified by Law 25/2015 of 28 July 2015 on a second chance mechanism, 
reduction in financial burdens and other social measures. 
AGENCIA ESTATAL DE LA ADMINISTRACIÓN TRIBUTARIA 
 
7 
13 That was the position at the time of the adoption of Directive (EU) 2019/1023 of 
the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on preventive 
restructuring frameworks, on discharge of debt and disqualifications, and on 
measures to increase the efficiency of procedures concerning restructuring, 
insolvency and discharge of debt, and amending Directive (EU) 2017/1132 
(Directive on restructuring and insolvency). Directive 2019/1023 came into force 
on 16 July 2019 and, following the one-year extension provided for in 
Article 34(2), the directive should have been transposed into Spanish law by 
15 July 2022. 
14 Paragraph 1 of Article 20 (‘Access to discharge’) of the directive provides that 
‘Member States shall ensure that insolvent entrepreneurs have access to at least 
one procedure that can lead to a full discharge of debt in accordance with this 
Directive’. 
15 Paragraph 4 of Article 23 (‘Derogations’), as it applied following the corrigendum 
[to the Spanish version] of 24 February 2022, provides that ‘Member States may 
exclude specific categories of debt from discharge of debt, or restrict access to 
discharge of debt or lay down a longer discharge period where such exclusions, 
restrictions or longer periods are duly justified, such as in the case of [como en los 
siguientes casos]: (a) secured debts; (b) debts arising from or in connection with 
criminal penalties; (c) debts arising from tortious liability; (d) debts regarding 
maintenance obligations arising from a family relationship, parentage, marriage or 
affinity; (e) debts incurred after the application for or opening of the procedure 
leading to a discharge of debt; and (f) debts arising from the obligation to pay the 
cost of the procedure leading to a discharge of debt.’ Prior to the corrigendum [to 
the Spanish version], the beginning of Article 23(4) was as follows: ‘Member 
States may exclude specific categories of debt from discharge of debt, or restrict 
access to discharge of debt or lay down a longer discharge period where such 
exclusions, restrictions or longer periods are duly justified, in the case of [en los 
siguientes casos] …’. 
16 Judgment No 381/2019 of 2 July 2019 of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court 
sought to resolve the paradox which arose under the legislation in force at that 
time (introduced by Royal Decree-Law 1/2015 of 27 February 2015 on a second 
chance mechanism, reduction in financial burdens and other social measures) in 
respect of the discharge of claims governed by public law, depending on whether 
the insolvency debtor opted for an immediate discharge or for the payment plan. 
The judgment concluded that it was difficult to understand the difference in 
treatment established by the Insolvency Law and that, in order to harmonise the 
regime and resolve the internal contradiction in the legislation, the legislation 
should be interpreted as meaning that claims governed by public law were 
included in the benefit of discharge both in the case of an immediate discharge 
and in the case of a payment plan. 
17 Royal Legislative Decree 1/2020 of 5 May 2020 approving the consolidated text 
of the Insolvency Law, which came into force on 1 September 2020, introduced 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-687/22 
 
8  
amendments to the provisions governing the benefit of discharge of debt, making 
provision for a general scheme and a special scheme, which applied where a 
payment plan was approved. In both cases it expressly provided, contrary to the 
position adopted in the Supreme Court judgment of 2 July 2019, that claims 
governed by public law were excluded from the discharge (Articles 491(1) and 
497(1) of the consolidated text of the Insolvency Law). Since the wording of the 
legislation differed from the interpretation in the judgment of the Supreme Court, 
and since the sole purpose of the consolidated text was to regularise, clarify and 
harmonise legislation on this matter, the Spanish courts with jurisdiction in 
commercial matters have adopted radically opposing positions on the issue. Some 
take the view that the consolidated text exceeds the delegated legislative powers 
conferred on the government by parliament (that is to say, it is ultra vires), 
meaning that the law can be disapplied, with the result that claims governed by 
public law would be discharged. Others take the opposite view, maintaining, 
therefore, that the legislation established in the consolidated text of the Insolvency 
Law must prevail over the interpretation given by the Supreme Court. All those 
rulings by the Spanish courts rely on Directive 2019/1023 as a factor in 
interpretation, as did the Supreme Court in its judgment of 2 July 2019. 
18 Directive 2019/1023 was transposed into Spanish national law by Law 16/2022 of 
5 September 2022 amending the consolidated text of the Insolvency Law 
approved by Royal Legislative Decree 1/2020 of 5 May 2020 for the transposition 
of Directive (EU) 2019/1023 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
20 June 2019 on preventive restructuring frameworks, on discharge of debt and 
disqualifications, and on measures to increase the efficiency of procedures 
concerning restructuring, insolvency and discharge of debt, and amending 
Directive (EU) 2017/1132 of the European Parliament and of the Council relating 
to certain aspects of company law (Directive on restructuring and insolvency). 
Law 16/2022 amends the consolidated text of the Insolvency Law. In principle, it 
continues to exclude claims governed by public law from the benefit of discharge 
of debt, with the exception of debts owed to the National Tax Administration 
Agency and Social Security up to a maximum amount of EUR 10 000. Moreover, 
by contrast with Royal Legislative Decree 1/2020, Law 16/2022 provides a 
justification for excluding claims governed by public law from the benefit of 
discharge of debt on the basis of the ‘particular importance of satisfying those 
claims in achieving a fair and mutually supportive society founded on the rule of 
law’. 
19 In the opinion of the referring court, in the light of the date on which the 
application for discharge of debt was lodged (3 March 2021), the rules applicable 
to the case are those in Royal Legislative Decree 1/2020 rather than those which 
apply now, following the transposition of Directive 2019/1023 into national law 
by Law 16/2022. The referring court notes that, therefore, Royal Legislative 
Decree 1/2020 was adopted when Directive 2019/1023 was already in force, but 
before the expiry of its transposition period. In its view, there is settled case-law 
of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the so-called anticipatory effect 
of directives, according to which directives not only have an effect once they have 
AGENCIA ESTATAL DE LA ADMINISTRACIÓN TRIBUTARIA 
 
9 
been transposed or the period prescribed for transposition has expired, but also 
before that point, since, before the expiry of the transposition period, Member 
States must refrain from taking any measures liable seriously to compromise or 
jeopardise the attainment of the objectives established by the directive. In that 
regard, the referring court refers to the judgments of the Court of Justice of 
8 October 1987, Kolpinghuis Nijmegen (80/86, EU:C:1987:431), paragraphs 4, 15 
and 16; of 18 December 1997, Inter-Environnement Wallonie v Région wallonne 
(C-129/96, EU:C:1997:628), paragraphs 44 to 47; and of 22 November 2005, 
Mangold (C-144/04, EU:C:2005:709), paragraph 72. 
20 The referring court wishes to explain that Spanish case-law on the application of 
the version of the consolidated text of the Insolvency Law at issue in the case (the 
version introduced by Royal Legislative Decree 1/2020) is divided between 
judicial decisions which take the view that claims governed by public law are 
included in the discharge, and those which conclude that they are not. It also notes 
that all the judicial decisions it has consulted rely on Directive 2019/1023 as a 
factor in interpretation, that it is the first time that the question at issue in the 
dispute has come before it, and that no appeal lies to the Supreme Court from the 
decision (order) to be issued. It also notes that, in view of the circumstances, it has 
various doubts concerning the compatibility of the Spanish legislation on 
discharge of debt contained in the consolidated text of the Insolvency Law (as 
amended by Royal Legislative Decree 1/2020) with Directive 2019/1023, as 
regards whether or not claims governed by public law are excluded. It affirms that 
those doubts are legally relevant and that the approach adopted in that regard will 
determine the outcome of the case before it – that is, whether or not the claim 
governed by public law (amounting to nearly two hundred thousand euros) is 
included in the discharge of debt in the insolvency proceedings at issue. Its doubts 
concern, in particular, the due justification required by Directive 2019/1023 in 
order for national transposing legislation to be able to exclude certain categories 
of debt, and whether or not the list in Article 23(4) of the directive is a numerus 
clausus. 
21 With regard to the doubts over whether the exclusion of claims governed by 
public law has been duly justified, the referring court notes that Article 23(4) of 
Directive 2019/1023 offers Member States the possibility of excluding certain 
specific categories of debt, but that that possibility is subject to the prerequisite 
that ‘such exclusions … are duly justified’. It also notes that the need for due 
justification also appears in recitals 78 and 81 of the directive. However, in its 
opinion, the consolidated text of the Insolvency Law introduced by Royal 
Legislative Decree 1/2020 contains no justification for excluding claims governed 
by public law from the discharge. The referring court therefore asks itself whether 
the absence of any justification contravenes the objectives established in Directive 
2019/1023 and Article 23(4), even before the expiry of the transposition period. 
22 With regard to the doubts over whether or not the list in Article 23(4) of Directive 
2019/1023 is a numerus clausus, the referring court notes that, before the 
corrigendum to the [Spanish version of the] directive dated 24 February 2022, the 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-687/22 
 
10  
wording of the final part of Article 23(4) before the colon was ‘in the case of’ [en 
los siguientes casos], which had been interpreted by certain courts as meaning that 
it was not possible to exclude from the discharge categories of debt other than 
those listed in points (a) to (f), which did not include claims governed by public 
law. The corrigendum appears to alter that interpretation, since the wording ‘such 
as in the case of’ [como en los siguientes casos] could be interpreted as meaning 
that the list is purely illustrative. However, the referring court continues to have 
doubts as to whether the list of debts is illustrative or a numerus clausus. It notes 
that, if it is concluded that, during the period for the transposition of Directive 
2019/1023, the Spanish legislature could not pass laws that were contrary to the 
directive’s objectives, then it is important to determine the nature of the list of 
debts. If one accepts the argument that the list is a numerus clausus, the 
consolidated text of the Insolvency Law (as amended by Royal Legislative Decree 
1/2020) could be considered contrary to Article 23(4) of Directive 2019/1023, 
since it excludes from discharge a category (claims governed by public law) not 
provided for in that provision. If the list were deemed to be illustrative, the 
legislation in the aforementioned provision would be compatible with the 
directive, which had yet to be transposed. 
23 In particular, the referring court asks itself whether it would make sense for a 
directive to provide examples of categories which are capable of being excluded if 
the national legislature had absolute discretion to exclude whatever categories it 
saw fit, subject only to the requirement for the exclusion to be duly justified. It 
also notes that there is a certain internal consistency among the debts expressly 
provided for in Article 23(4) of Directive 2019/1023 (secured debts; debts arising 
from criminal or civil wrongs; debts arising in the context of family relationships; 
and debts in connection with the insolvency proceedings themselves). The court 
therefore asks itself whether that consistency would be destroyed if the national 
legislature were completely free to decide on any other categories to be exempt 
from discharge. Since it is well known that claims governed by public law are 
extraordinarily important in insolvency proceedings, the court is also surprised 
that Directive 2019/1023 does not expressly list them in the excludable categories, 
as it did with other claims; it asks itself whether that omission, which in its view 
was deliberate, may not be an indication that the list in Article 23(4) of the 
directive is a numerus clausus. It also wonders what effect it would have on the 
operation of the internal market if Member States had absolute discretion to 
exclude debts from discharge. 
24 In view of the number of people who are potentially affected, the referring court 
asks for its request for a preliminary ruling to be dealt with under the expedited 
procedure provided for in Article 105(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of 
Justice. It notes that the economic crisis which Spain is undergoing has resulted in 
a very large number of insolvency proceedings which include applications for 
discharge of debt, and that a rapid response to the doubts over interpretation which 
it has set out would help to achieve a correct and speedy resolution of all those 
proceedings.