Case C-371/25, Tillsynsmyndigheten i konkurser: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sundsvalls tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 4 June 2025 – FX v The State represented by the Tillsynsmyndigheten i konkurser
Date: 2025-06-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, employer, employment service, financial solvency, industrial restructuring, job application, pay








C_202504438EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4438


18.8.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sundsvalls tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 4 June 2025 – FX v The State represented by the Tillsynsmyndigheten i konkurser


(Case C-371/25, Tillsynsmyndigheten i konkurser)

(C/2025/4438)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Sundsvalls tingsrätt

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: FX

Defendant: The State represented by the Tillsynsmyndigheten i konkurser

Questions referred







1.


Must an employer be deemed to be in a state of insolvency within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2(1) of the Insolvency Protection Directive (1) where the employer is the subject of:






(a)


company restructuring in accordance with national law, which may be ordered by a national court and which means that a trader in financial difficulties entailing a likelihood of insolvency may, in special proceedings, restructure its business under the direction of an administrator, in the course of which the trader’s control over its assets will be partially restricted?










(b)


proceedings listed in Annex A to the Insolvency Regulation, (2) which thus constitute insolvency proceedings in accordance with Article 2(4) of the Insolvency Regulation?














2.


If one or both or the above questions are answered in the affirmative, can company restructuring be regarded as insolvency proceedings in accordance with the Insolvency Protection Directive, even if a Member State has not notified company restructuring as proceedings falling within the scope of the directive, where that Member State has notified company restructuring as insolvency proceedings in accordance with the Insolvency Regulation?










3.


If the above question is answered in the affirmative, is Article 12 of the Insolvency Protection Directive to be interpreted as meaning that national legislation under which a requirement is imposed on the employee to register as a job seeker with the public employment service in order for the wage guarantee to cover the notice salary for the period during which the employee has not performed work for another party is incompatible with the directive (see judgment in Case C-435/10)? (3)











4.


If that question is answered in the affirmative, is the Insolvency Protection Directive to be interpreted as meaning that an employee may rely on a right to a wage guarantee and thus base his or her outstanding wage claim directly on the directive (see judgment in Case C-441/99)? (4)







(1)  Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 2008 L 283, p. 36).

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2015 L 141, p. 19).

(3)  Judgment of 17 November 2011, van Ardennen (C-435/10, EU:C:2011:751).

(4)  Judgment of 18 October 2001, Gharehveran (C-441/99, EU:C:2001:551).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4438/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)