Helsingin hovioikeus; 2014-06-26; Nike European Operations Netherlands BV, Sportland Oy; HelHO:2014:1375
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:FI:HelHO:2014:1375
Date: 2014-06-26
Subject matter: Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968
Origin: Finland

82014FI0626(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
In 2006, a Finnish company, Sportland, concluded a franchise agreement with a company Nike, domiciled in the Netherlands, according to which all further disputes would be governed by Dutch law. Sportland paid several invoices for Nike's products totalling an amount of EUR 195_108.15. In 2009, Sportland was declared bankrupt.
Based on the Finnish LTK (1), according to which the payments made before the date on which insolvency proceedings were opened could be restituted to the bankruptcy estate if they had not been paid ‘by standard means’, the insolvency administrator requested Nike to return the whole amount to the bankruptcy estate. Nike claimed that the request should be rejected, alleging that according to the Dutch Faillisementswet (‘Bankruptcy Act’) the invoices were paid correctly in compliance with Dutch law and the payments could be claimed to be returned according to the LTK. The Helsingin käräjäoikeus (‘District Court of Helsinki‘) dismissed Nike’s claim as Nike did not provide sufficient proof that Article 13 of the Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 (2) should be applied, according to which the person who benefited from and act detrimental to all the creditors must provide proof that ‘the said act is subject to the law of a Member State other than that of the State of the opening of proceedings, and that law does not allow any means of challenging that act in the relevant case’. Nike was ordered to return the whole amount obtained from Sportland.
Nike appealed this decision alleging that the payments were subject to Dutch law based on the franchise agreement and claiming rejection of the bankruptcy claim by virtue of Article 13 of the Regulation (EC) No 1364/2000. The insolvency administrator claimed that the appeal should be dismissed.
The Court of Appeal, after examining allegations from both sides, decided to request the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) to provide an interpretation on the disputed Article 13. In the request for a preliminary ruling (3) the Court of Appeal asked five questions concerning several issues, mainly whether the payments made in this dispute are capable of being challenged, what are the responsibilities of the party seeking to challenge the payments and of the party affected by that action to challenge them, and who and to what extent has the burden of proof.
The Court of Appeal stayed the proceedings until the CJEU gives the judgment in this matter.
(1) Laki takaisinsaannista konkurssipesään (‘Act on the Recovery of Assets to Bankruptcy Estates’).
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings.
(3) Request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hovioikeus (Finland) lodged on 30 June 2014 - Nike European Operations Netherlands BV v Sportland Oy, in liquidation.