Case C-213/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Republic of Lithuania) lodged on 4 May 2010 — F-Tex SIA v Lietuvos-Anglijos UAB ‘Jadecloud-Vilma’
Date: 2010-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, financial solvency, interpretation of the law, legal action








C_2010195EN.01000702.xml










17.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/7





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Republic of Lithuania) lodged on 4 May 2010 — F-Tex SIA v Lietuvos-Anglijos UAB ‘Jadecloud-Vilma’
(Case C-213/10)
2010/C 195/12
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: F-Tex SIA

Defendant: Lietuvos-Anglijos UAB ‘Jadecloud-Vilma’

Questions referred







1.


Having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice in Gourdain and Seagon, do Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000 (1) and Article 1(2)(b) of Regulation No 44/2001 (2) have to be interpreted in such a way that:






(a)


a national court hearing insolvency proceedings has exclusive jurisdiction to hear an actio Pauliana which derives directly from the insolvency proceedings or is closely connected with them, and exceptions to such jurisdiction can be founded only on other provisions of Regulation No 1346/2000;










(b)


an actio Pauliana by the sole creditor of an undertaking in respect of which insolvency proceedings have been initiated in one Member State, that:






—


is brought in another Member State,










—


arises from a right of claim against third parties assigned to him by the liquidator on the basis of an agreement for consideration, restricting in that way the extent of the liquidator’s claims in the first Member State, and










—


does not give rise to a danger for other possible creditors,




is to be classified as a civil and commercial matter under Article 1(1) of Regulation No 44/2001?














2.


Does an applicant’s right to judicial protection, which is recognised by the Court of Justice as a general principle of European Union law and which is guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, have to be understood and interpreted in such a way that:






(a)


the national courts having jurisdiction to hear an actio Pauliana (depending upon its connection with the insolvency proceedings) either under Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000 or under Article 2(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 cannot both decline jurisdiction;










(b)


where a court of one Member State has decided to leave an actio Pauliana unheard for want of jurisdiction, a court of another Member State, seeking to safeguard the applicant’s right to a court, has the right to find of its own motion that it itself has jurisdiction, regardless of the fact that according to the provisions of European Union law concerning the determination of international jurisdiction it cannot so decide?










(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2004 L 12, p. 1).