CELEX: 62016CA0641
Language: en
Date: 2017-11-09 00:00:00
Title: Case C-641/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Tünkers France, Tünkers Maschinenbau GmbH v Expert France (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Insolvency proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Court having jurisdiction — Action for unfair competition brought in the context of insolvency proceedings — Action brought by a company having its registered office in another Member State against the assignee of part of the business of a company subject to insolvency proceedings — Action not part of the proceedings or action deriving directly from those proceedings and closely connected with them)

8.1.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 5/14
            
         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Tünkers France, Tünkers Maschinenbau GmbH v Expert France
   (Case C-641/16) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Insolvency proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Court having jurisdiction - Action for unfair competition brought in the context of insolvency proceedings - Action brought by a company having its registered office in another Member State against the assignee of part of the business of a company subject to insolvency proceedings - Action not part of the proceedings or action deriving directly from those proceedings and closely connected with them))
   (2018/C 005/18)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Referring court
   
   Cour de cassation
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicants: Tünkers France, Tünkers Maschinenbau GmbH
   
      Defendant: Expert France
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that an action for damages for unfair competition by which the assignee of part of the business acquired in the course of insolvency proceedings is accused of misrepresenting itself as being the exclusive distributor of articles manufactured by the debtor does not fall within the jurisdiction of the court which opened the insolvency proceedings.
   
      (1)  OJ C 70, 6.3.2017.