CELEX: 62010CN0191
Language: en
Date: 2010-04-19 00:00:00
Title: Case C-191/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 19 April 2010 — Rastelli Davide et C. v Jean-Charles Hidoux, in his capacity as liquidator appointed by the court for Médiasucre International

19.6.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 161/36
            
         
      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 19 April 2010 — Rastelli Davide et C. v Jean-Charles Hidoux, in his capacity as liquidator appointed by the court for Médiasucre International
      (Case C-191/10)
      (2010/C 161/55)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Referring court
      
      Cour de Cassation
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicant: Rastelli Davide et C.
      
         Defendant: Jean-Charles Hidoux, in his capacity as liquidator appointed by the court for Médiasucre International
      
         Questions referred
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Where a court in a Member State opens the main insolvency proceedings in respect of a debtor, on the view that the centre of the debtor’s main interests is situated in the territory of that Member State, does Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (1) preclude the application, by that court, of a rule of national law conferring upon it jurisdiction to join to those proceedings a company whose seat is in another Member State solely on the basis of a finding that the property of the debtor and the property of that company have been intermixed?
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  If the action for joinder falls to be categorised as the opening of new insolvency proceedings in respect of which the jurisdiction of the court of the Member State first seised is conditional on proof that the company to be joined has the centre of its main interests in that Member State, can such proof be inferred solely from the finding that the property of the two companies has been intermixed?
               
            
         (1)  OJ L 160, p. 1.