15

In those circumstances, the Helsingin hovioikeus (Court of appeal, Helsinki) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Is Article 13 of Regulation No 1346/2000 to be interpreted to the effect that “the act in the relevant case” means that the act cannot be challenged after taking account of all the circumstances of the case? (2) If the answer to question 1 is affirmative and if the party affected by the application to challenge the act has relied on a provision of the law within the meaning of the first indent of Article 13, according to which the payment of an outstanding debt may be challenged only in the circumstances provided for therein, which are not mentioned in the action based on the law of the State in which the insolvency proceedings have been opened, (a) are there reasons prohibiting an interpretation of Article 13 to the effect that the party seeking to challenge the act must, after becoming aware of that legal provision, plead those circumstances if, in accordance with the national law of the State of the opening of insolvency proceedings, that party has to plead all the circumstances founding the action to challenge the act, or (b) must the party affected by action to challenge the act prove that those circumstances did not exist and that therefore it is not possible to challenge the act under the provision in question, and the party seeking to challenge it does not need to rely specifically on those circumstances? (3) Regardless of the answer to question 2(a), is Article 13 to be interpreted as meaning that (a) the party affected by the action to challenge the act has the burden of proving that the circumstances provided for in the provision do not exist in the specific case, or (b) may the burden of proof as to the existence of those circumstances be determined in accordance with the law of a Member State other than the State in which the insolvency proceedings were opened that is applicable to the act and which provides that the party challenging the act has the burden of proof, or (c) may Article 13 also be interpreted in such a way that the issue of the burden of proof is determined in accordance with the national law of the State of the court seised? (4) Is Article 13 to be interpreted as meaning that the expression “that law does not allow any means of challenging that act in the relevant case” includes the general provisions and principles of the law applicable to the act in addition to the insolvency rules of the law applicable to that act? (5) If the answer to question 4 is affirmative, (a) is Article 13 to be interpreted as meaning that the party affected by the action to challenge the act must prove that the law within the meaning of Article 13 does not contain any general or other provisions or principles on the basis of which it would be possible to challenge the act in the light of the facts presented, and (b) under Article 13, may the court, if it considers that this party has adduced sufficient evidence, rule that the other party must establish the existence of a provision or principle of the insolvency law or general law of a Member State other than the State of the opening of insolvency proceedings within the meaning of Article 13 which is applicable to the act and on the basis of which that act may indeed be challenged?’