Case C-295/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Darmstadt (Germany) lodged on 28 May 2013 — Rechtsanwalt H. (Insolvenzverwalter über das Vermögen der G.T. GmbH) v H. K.
Date: 2013-05-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, debt, enforcement of ruling, financial solvency, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction, legal domicile, offence, share capital








C_2013226EN.01000401.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/4





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Darmstadt (Germany) lodged on 28 May 2013 — Rechtsanwalt H. (Insolvenzverwalter über das Vermögen der G.T. GmbH) v H. K.
(Case C-295/13)
(2013/C 226/07)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Darmstadt

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Rechtsanwalt H. (Insolvenzverwalter über das Vermögen der G.T. GmbH)

Defendant: H. K.

Questions referred

Interpretation of Article 1(2)(b), Article 5(1)(a), Article 5(1)(b) and Article 5(3) of the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) (Lugano II Convention) and Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No. 1346/2000 of the Council of the European Union of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (2) (‘Regulation 1346/2000’):






1.


Do the courts of the Member State in the territory of which insolvency proceedings regarding the debtor’s assets have been opened have jurisdiction to decide an action brought by the liquidator in the insolvency proceedings against the managing director of the debtor for reimbursement of payments which were made after the company became insolvent or after determination of an excess of company liabilities over assets?










2.


Do the courts of the Member State in the territory of which insolvency proceedings regarding the debtor’s assets have been opened have jurisdiction to decide an action brought by the liquidator in the insolvency proceedings against the managing director of the debtor for reimbursement of payments which were made after the company became insolvent or after determination of an excess of company liabilities over assets, if the managing director is not domiciled in another Member State of the European Union but in a contracting party to the Lugano II Convention?










3.


Does the action referred to in question 1 above fall under Article 3(1) of Regulation 1346/2009?










4.


If the action referred to in question 1 above does not fall under Article 3(1) of Regulation 1346/2009 and/or the jurisdiction of the court in that regard does not extend to a managing director who is domiciled in a contracting party to the Lugano II Convention:
Does the case concern bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions or analogous proceedings within the meaning of Article 1(2)(b) of the Lugano II Convention?










5.


If question 4 is to be answered in the affirmative:






(a)


Does the court of the Member State in which the debtor has its registered office have jurisdiction, in accordance with Article 5(1)(a) of the Lugano II Convention, in relation to an action of the kind referred to in question 1 above?






(i)


With regard to that action, is the defendant being sued in a matter relating to a contract within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) of the Lugano II Convention?










(ii)


With regard to that action, is the defendant being sued in a matter relating to a contract for services within the meaning of Article 5(1)(b) of the Lugano II Convention?














(b)


In relation to the action referred to in question 1 above, is the defendant being sued in a matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict within the meaning of Article 5(3) of the Lugano II Convention?










(1)  OJ 2009 L 147, p.5.

(2)  OJ 2000 L 160, p.1.