CELEX: 62004CJ0001
Language: en
Date: 2006-01-17
Title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 January 2006.#Susanne Staubitz-Schreiber.#Reference for a preliminary ruling: Bundesgerichtshof - Germany.#Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Insolvency proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Temporal application - Court having jurisdiction.#Case C-1/04.

Case C-1/04
      Susanne Staubitz-Schreiber
      (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof)
      (Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Insolvency proceedings – Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 – Temporal application – Court having jurisdiction)
      Summary of the Judgment
      1.        Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Insolvency proceedings – Regulation No 1346/2000
      (Council Regulation No 1346/2000, Art. 43)
      2.        Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Insolvency proceedings – Regulation No 1346/2000
      (Council Regulation No 1346/2000, Art. 3(1))
      1.        The first sentence of Article 43 of Regulation No 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as applying if no
         judgment opening insolvency proceedings has been delivered before its entry into force on 31 May 2002, even if the request
         to open proceedings was lodged prior to that date. 
      
      (see para. 21)
      2.        Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the court of the Member
         State within the territory of which the centre of the debtor’s main  interests is situated at the time when the debtor lodges
         the request to open insolvency proceedings retains jurisdiction to open those proceedings if the debtor moves the centre of
         his main interests to the territory of another Member State after lodging the request but before the proceedings are opened.
      
      (see para. 29, operative part)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)
      17 January 2006 (*)
      
      (Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Insolvency proceedings – Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 – Temporal application – Court having jurisdiction)
      In Case C-1/04,
      REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), made by decision of 27 November
         2003, received at the Court on 2 January 2004, in the proceedings
      
      Susanne Staubitz-Schreiber
      THE COURT (Grand Chamber),
      composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas and J. Malenovský, Presidents of Chambers, A. La Pergola,
         J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J. Klučka, U. Lõhmus and E. Levits, Judges,
      
      Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
      Registrar: R. Grass,
      after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
      –        the German Government, by A. Tiemann, acting as Agent,
      –        the Netherlands Government, by H.‑G. Sevenster and N.A.J. Bel, acting as Agents,
      –        the Commission of the European Communities, by S. Grünheid and A.‑M. Rouchaud‑Joët, acting as Agents,
      after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 6 September 2005,
      gives the following
      Judgment
      1        This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000
         of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1) (‘the Regulation’).
      
      2        The reference was made in the course of proceedings brought before the Bundesgerichtshof by Ms Staubitz-Schreiber (‘the applicant
         in the main proceedings’) after her application to open insolvency proceedings (‘Insolvenzverfahren’) was dismissed by the
         Amtsgericht-Insolvenzgericht Wuppertal and subsequently, on appeal, by the Landgericht Wuppertal.
      
       Legal background
      3        According to the fourth and sixth recitals in the preamble, the Regulation defines the rules of jurisdiction for opening insolvency
         proceedings with cross-border effects and for judgments which are delivered directly on the basis of such proceedings and
         are closely connected with them. It also contains provisions regarding the recognition of those judgments and the applicable
         law, and in particular aims to avoid incentives for the parties to transfer assets or judicial proceedings from one Member
         State to another, seeking to obtain a more favourable legal position. 
      
      4        It follows from the 12th recital in the preamble to the Regulation that the latter provides for the main insolvency proceedings
         to be opened in the Member State where the debtor has the centre of his main interests. Those proceedings have universal scope
         and aim in principle at encompassing all the debtor’s assets, subject, in particular, to the opening of parallel secondary
         proceedings in the Member State or States in which the debtor has an establishment, the effects of which are limited to the
         assets located in that State or those States. 
      
      5        According to Article 1(1), the Regulation is to apply, subject to special cases set out in paragraph 2, ‘to collective insolvency
         proceedings which entail the partial or total divestment of a debtor and the appointment of a liquidator’.
      
      6        Under Article 2 of the Regulation:
      
      ‘(a)      “insolvency proceedings” shall mean the collective proceedings referred to in Article 1(1). These proceedings are listed in
         Annex A;
      
      …
      (d)      “court” shall mean the judicial body or any other competent body of a Member State empowered to open insolvency proceedings
         or to take decisions in the course of such proceedings;
      
      (e)      “judgment” in relation to the opening of insolvency proceedings or the appointment of a liquidator shall include the decision
         of any court empowered to open such proceedings or to appoint a liquidator;
      
      (f)      “the time of the opening of proceedings” shall mean the time at which the judgment opening proceedings becomes effective,
         whether it is a final judgment or not;
      
      …’.
      7        Article 3 of the Regulation lays down the following rules on international jurisdiction:
      
      ‘1.      The courts of the Member State within the territory of which the centre of a debtor’s main interests is situated shall have
         jurisdiction to open insolvency proceedings. In the case of a company or legal person, the place of the registered office
         shall be presumed to be the centre of its main interests in the absence of proof to the contrary.
      
      2.      Where the centre of a debtor’s main interests is situated within the territory of a Member State, the courts of another Member
         State shall have jurisdiction to open insolvency proceedings against that debtor only if he possesses an establishment within
         the territory of that other Member State. The effects of those proceedings shall be restricted to the assets of the debtor
         situated in the territory of the latter Member State.
      
      3.      Where insolvency proceedings have been opened under paragraph 1, any proceedings opened subsequently under paragraph 2 shall
         be secondary proceedings. These latter proceedings must be winding-up proceedings.
      
      4.      Territorial insolvency proceedings referred to in paragraph 2 may be opened prior to the opening of main insolvency proceedings
         in accordance with paragraph 1 only:
      
      (a)      where insolvency proceedings under paragraph 1 cannot be opened because of the conditions laid down by the law of the Member
         State within the territory of which the centre of the debtor’s main interests is situated; or
      
      (b)      where the opening of territorial insolvency proceedings is requested by a creditor who has his domicile, habitual residence
         or registered office in the Member State within the territory of which the establishment is situated, or whose claim arises
         from the operation of that establishment.’
      
      8        Article 4(1) of the Regulation states that the law applicable to the insolvency proceedings and their effects ‘shall be that
         of the Member State within the territory of which such proceedings are opened, hereafter referred to as the “State of the
         opening of proceedings”’. Several exceptions to the law of the State of the opening of proceedings are, however, provided
         for by Articles 5 to 15 of the Regulation.
      
      9        Under Article 16(1) of the Regulation, ‘[a]ny judgment opening insolvency proceedings handed down by a court of a Member State
         which has jurisdiction pursuant to Article 3 shall be recognised in all the other Member States from the time that it becomes
         effective in the State of the opening of proceedings. This rule shall also apply where, on account of his capacity, insolvency
         proceedings cannot be brought against the debtor in other Member States’.
      
      10      According to Article 17(1) of the Regulation, ‘[t]he judgment opening the proceedings referred to in Article 3(1) shall, with
         no further formalities, produce the same effects in any other Member State as under this law of the State of the opening of
         proceedings, unless this Regulation provides otherwise and as long as no proceedings referred to in Article 3(2) are opened
         in that other Member State’.
      
      11      Article 38 of the Regulation provides that ‘[w]here the court of a Member State which has jurisdiction pursuant to Article
         3(1) appoints a temporary administrator in order to ensure the preservation of the debtor’s assets, that temporary administrator
         shall be empowered to request any measures to secure and preserve any of the debtor’s assets situated in another Member State,
         provided for under the law of that State, for the period between the request for the opening of insolvency proceedings and
         the judgment opening the proceedings’.
      
      12      Pursuant to the transitional provisions, Article 43 of the Regulation provides, under the heading ‘Applicability in time’:
      
      ‘The provisions of this Regulation shall apply only to insolvency proceedings opened after its entry into force. Acts done
         by a debtor before the entry into force of this Regulation shall continue to be governed by the law which was applicable to
         them at the time they were done.’
      
      13      Article 44 of the Regulation also provides, under the heading ‘Relationship to Conventions’:
      
      ‘1.      After its entry into force, this Regulation replaces, in respect of the matters referred to therein, in the relations between
         Member States, the Conventions concluded between two or more Member States …
      
      2. The Conventions referred to in paragraph 1 shall continue to have effect with regard to proceedings opened before the entry
         into force of this Regulation.
      
      …’.
      14      Pursuant to Article 47, the Regulation entered into force on 31 May 2002. Annex A mentions the ‘Insolvenzverfahren’ in German
         law as insolvency proceedings referred to in Article 2(a) of the Regulation.
      
       The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling
      15      The applicant in the main proceedings was resident in Germany where she operated a telecommunications equipment and accessories
         business as a sole trader. She ceased to operate that business in 2001 and requested, on 6 December 2001, the opening of insolvency
         proceedings regarding her assets before the Amtsgericht-Insolvenzgericht Wuppertal. On 1 April 2002, she moved to Spain in
         order to live and work there.
      
      16      By order of 10 April 2002, the Amtsgericht-Insolvenzgericht Wuppertal refused to open the insolvency proceedings applied for
         on the ground that there were no assets. The appeal brought by the applicant in the main proceedings against that order was
         dismissed by the Landgericht Wuppertal, by orders of 14 August 2002 and 15 October 2003, on the ground that the German courts
         did not have jurisdiction to open insolvency proceedings in accordance with Article 3(1) of the Regulation, since the centre
         of the main interests of the applicant in the main proceedings was situated in Spain.
      
      17      The applicant in the main proceedings brought an appeal before the Bundesgerichtshof in order to have the above orders set
         aside and the case referred back to the Landgericht Wuppertal. She submits that the question of jurisdiction should be examined
         in the light of the situation at the time when the request to open insolvency proceedings was lodged, or, in this case, by
         taking account of her domicile in Germany in December 2001.
      
      18      The national court states, first of all, that the case before it falls, in principle, within the scope of the Regulation,
         in accordance with Articles 43 and 44(2), since no positive judgment opening insolvency proceedings was delivered prior to
         the entry into force, on 31 May 2002, of the Regulation.
      
      19      That court goes on to point out that the applicant in the main proceedings moved the centre of her main interests to Spain
         after she had requested the opening of insolvency proceedings in Germany, but before such proceedings were opened or produced
         their effects under German law.
      
      20      In those circumstances, the Bundesgerichtshof decided to stay the proceedings before it and to refer the following question
         to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
      
      ‘Does the court of the Member State which receives a request for the opening of insolvency proceedings still have jurisdiction
         to open insolvency proceedings if the debtor moves the centre of his or her main interests to the territory of another Member
         State after filing the request but before the proceedings are opened, or does the court of that other Member State acquire
         jurisdiction?’
      
       The question referred for a preliminary ruling
      21      The first sentence of Article 43 of the Regulation lays down the principle governing the temporal conditions for application
         of that regulation. That provision must be interpreted as applying if no judgment opening insolvency proceedings has been
         delivered before its entry into force on 31 May 2002, even if the request to open proceedings was lodged prior to that date.
         That is in fact the case here, since the request by the applicant in the main proceedings was lodged on 6 December 2001 and
         no judgment opening insolvency proceedings was delivered before 31 May 2002.
      
      22      It follows that, in the case in the main proceedings, the national court must determine whether it has jurisdiction in the
         light of Article 3(1) of the Regulation.
      
      23      That provision, which states that the courts of the Member State within the territory of which the centre of a debtor’s main
         interests is situated are to have jurisdiction to open insolvency proceedings, does not specify whether the court originally
         seised retains jurisdiction if the debtor moves the centre of his main interests after submitting the request to open proceedings
         but before the judgment is delivered.
      
      24      However, a transfer of jurisdiction from the court originally seised to a court of another Member State on that basis would
         be contrary to the objectives pursued by the Regulation.
      
      25      In the fourth recital in the preamble to the Regulation, the Community legislature records its intention to avoid incentives
         for the parties to transfer assets or judicial proceedings from one Member State to another, seeking to obtain a more favourable
         legal position. That objective would not be achieved if the debtor could move the centre of his main interests to another
         Member State between the time when the request to open insolvency proceedings was lodged and the time when the judgment opening
         the proceedings was delivered and thus determine the court having jurisdiction and the applicable law.
      
      26      Such a transfer of jurisdiction would also be contrary to the objective, stated in the second and eighth recitals in the preamble
         to the Regulation, of efficient and effective cross-border proceedings, as it would oblige creditors to be in continual pursuit
         of the debtor wherever he chose to establish himself more or less permanently and would often mean in practice that the proceedings
         would be prolonged.
      
      27      Furthermore, retaining the jurisdiction of the first court seised ensures greater judicial certainty for creditors who have
         assessed the risks to be assumed in the event of the debtor’s insolvency with regard to the place where the centre of his
         main interests was situated when they entered into a legal relationship with him.
      
      28      The universal scope of the main insolvency proceedings, the opening, where appropriate, of secondary proceedings and the possibility
         for the temporary administrator appointed by the court first seised to request measures to secure and preserve any of the
         debtor’s assets situated in another Member State constitute, moreover, important guarantees for creditors, which ensure the
         widest possible coverage of the debtor’s assets, particularly where he has moved the centre of his main interests after the
         request to open proceedings but before the proceedings are opened.
      
      29      The answer to be given to the national court must therefore be that Article 3(1) of the Regulation must be interpreted as
         meaning that the court of the Member State within the territory of which the centre of the debtor’s main  interests is situated
         at the time when the debtor lodges the request to open insolvency proceedings retains jurisdiction to open those proceedings
         if the debtor moves the centre of his main interests to the territory of another Member State after lodging the request but
         before the proceedings are opened.
      
       Costs
      30      Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court,
         the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs
         of those parties, are not recoverable.
      
      On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:
      Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning
            that the court of the Member State within the territory of which the centre of the debtor’s main interests is situated at
            the time when the debtor lodges the request to open insolvency proceedings retains jurisdiction to open those proceedings
            if the debtor moves the centre of his main interests to the territory of another Member State after lodging the request but
            before the proceedings are opened.
      [Signatures]
      * Language of the case: German.