OF THEIR NATIONAL LAW ALONE .
THE APPLICATION OF THE DIRECTIVE TO CASES OF ' SURSEANCE VAN BETALING '
25 ALTHOUGH IN THIS CASE THE TRANSFER OF THE UNDERTAKING WAS EFFECTED IN LIQUIDATION PROCEEDINGS , THE QUESTION SUBMITTED BY THE NATIONAL COURT RELATES ALSO TO THE CASE OF A TRANSFER TAKING PLACE IN PROCEEDINGS SUCH AS A ' SURSEANCE VAN BETALING ' ( JUDICIAL LEAVE TO SUSPEND PAYMENT OF DEBTS ).
26 THE PARTIES DISAGREE AS TO WHETHER SUCH A TRANSFER MUST CONFORM TO THE SAME RULES , AS FAR AS THE APPLICATION OF DIRECTIVE NO 77/187 IS CONCERNED , AS A TRANSFER EFFECTED AS A RESULT OF A SALE BY A LIQUIDATOR . IN THAT RESPECT , THE NETHERLANDS GOVERNMENT AND THE COMMISSION TAKE THE VIEW THAT THE REASONS FOR NOT EXTENDING THE SCOPE OF THE DIRECTIVE TO TRANSFERS OF UNDERTAKINGS OCCURRING IN LIQUIDATION PROCEEDINGS ALSO MILITATE AGAINST ITS APPLICATION TO A CASE WHERE A COURT HAS GIVEN THE TRANSFEROR LEAVE TO SUSPEND PAYMENT OF DEBTS .
27 ON THE OTHER HAND , THE BEDRIJFSVERENIGING AND THE DANISH GOVERNMENT APPEAR TO CONSIDER THAT DIRECTIVE NO 77/187 SHOULD APPLY WHERE THE TRANSFEROR HAS OBTAINED LEAVE TO SUSPEND PAYMENT OF DEBTS , EVEN IF THE DIRECTIVE IS NOT APPLICABLE TO A TRANSFER EFFECTED IN LIQUIDATION PROCEEDINGS . OTHERWISE , LEAVE TO SUSPEND PAYMENT OF DEBTS MIGHT BE APPLIED FOR SPECIFICALLY WITH A VIEW TO A TRANSFER , TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE RIGHTS OF THE WORKERS .
28 IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT PROCEEDINGS SUCH AS THOSE RELATING TO A ' SURSEANCE VAN BETALING ' HAVE CERTAIN FEATURES IN COMMON WITH LIQUIDATION PROCEEDINGS , IN PARTICULAR INASMUCH AS THE PROCEEDINGS ARE , IN BOTH CASES , OF A JUDICIAL NATURE . THEY ARE , HOWEVER , DIFFERENT FROM LIQUIDATION PROCEEDINGS IN SO FAR AS THE SUPERVISION EXERCISED BY THE COURT OVER THE COMMENCEMENT AND THE COURSE OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS IS MORE LIMITED . MOREOVER , THE OBJECT OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS IS PRIMARILY TO SAFEGUARD THE ASSETS OF THE INSOLVENT UNDERTAKING AND , WHERE POSSIBLE , TO CONTINUE THE BUSINESS OF THE UNDERTAKING BY MEANS OF A COLLECTIVE SUSPENSION OF THE PAYMENT OF DEBTS WITH A VIEW TO REACHING A SETTLEMENT WHICH WILL ENSURE THAT THE UNDERTAKING IS ABLE TO CONTINUE OPERATING IN THE FUTURE . IF NO SUCH SETTLEMENT IS REACHED , PROCEEDINGS OF THIS KIND MAY , AS IN THE PRESENT CASE , LEAD TO THE DEBTOR ' S BEING PUT INTO LIQUIDATION .
29 IT FOLLOWS THAT THE REASONS FOR NOT APPLYING THE DIRECTIVE TO TRANSFERS OF UNDERTAKINGS TAKING PLACE IN LIQUIDATION PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO PROCEEDINGS OF THIS KIND TAKING PLACE AT AN EARLIER STAGE .
30 FOR ALL THOSE REASONS , THE REPLY TO THE FIRST QUESTION MUST BE THAT ARTICLE 1 ( 1 ) OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE NO 77/187 OF 14 FEBRUARY 1977 DOES NOT APPLY TO THE TRANSFER OF AN UNDERTAKING , BUSINESS OR PART OF A BUSINESS WHERE THE TRANSFEROR HAS BEEN