Case C-43/25, SML Maschinen: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 23 January 2025 – SML Maschinengesellschaft mbH v AK, acting as liquidator in the insolvency proceedings concerning the assets of MAPLAN Maschinenfabrik und Anlagen für Kunststofftechnik Schwerin GmbH
Date: 2025-01-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, financial solvency, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, loan, private international law, public limited company, shareholder








C_202502358EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2358


28.4.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 23 January 2025 – SML Maschinengesellschaft mbH v AK, acting as liquidator in the insolvency proceedings concerning the assets of MAPLAN Maschinenfabrik und Anlagen für Kunststofftechnik Schwerin GmbH


(Case C-43/25, SML Maschinen)

(C/2025/2358)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: SML Maschinengesellschaft mbH

Respondent on a point of law: AK, acting as liquidator in the insolvency proceedings concerning the assets of MAPLAN Maschinenfabrik und Anlagen für Kunststofftechnik Schwerin GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 (1) (EU Insolvency Regulation, old version – ‘EU Insolvency Regulation’) to be interpreted as meaning that the person who benefited from an act detrimental to all the creditors can rely on the effects of that provision as against a recovery demand by the liquidator even if the recovery demand is intended to enforce the lower ranking laid down in the applicable law of the State of the opening of proceedings (point (i) of the second phrase of Article 4(2) of the EU Insolvency Regulation)?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
Is Article 13 of the EU Insolvency Regulation to be interpreted as meaning that that provision also applies to grounds for avoidance intended to treat loans granted by a shareholder of a company limited by shares prior to the insolvency in order to secure the financial resources of the company largely in the same way as liable equity capital?










3.


If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative:
Is Article 13 of the EU Insolvency Regulation to be interpreted as meaning that the law applicable to a loan granted by a shareholder of a company limited by shares to the company is determined in accordance with company law?










4.


If Question 3 is answered in the negative:
Is Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 (2) applicable to the relevant law to be determined in accordance with Article 13 of the EU Insolvency Regulation and to be interpreted as meaning that overriding mandatory provisions may also be contained in rules of contract law laid down in national insolvency provisions – such as those regarding the lower ranking of shareholder loans and the legal consequences of their lower ranking?






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

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (OJ 2008 L 177, p. 6).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2358/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)