Source: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Notice.do?mode=dbl&lang=en&ihmlang=en&lng1=en,mt&lng2=bg,cs,da,de,el,en,es,et,fi,fr,hu,it,lt,lv,mt,nl,pl,pt,ro,sk,sl,sv,&val=681048:cs&page=
Timestamp: 2013-05-26 02:01:45+00:00
Document Index: 685080

Matched Legal Cases: ['Qorti ', 'qorti ', 'qorti ', 'qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'qorti ', 'qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'qorti ', 'qorti ', 'qorti ', 'qorti ', 'qorti ', 'qorti ', 'qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'qorti ']

In Case C‑527/10,
Fil-Kawża C‑527/10,
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Legfelsőbb Bíróság (Hungary), made by decision of 26 October 2010, received at the Court on 15 November 2010, in the proceedings
li għandha bħala suġġett talba għal deċiżjoni preliminari skont l-Artikolu 267 TFUE, imressqa minn Legfelsőbb Bíróság (L-Ungerija), permezz ta’ deċiżjoni tas-26 ta’ Ottubru 2010, li waslet fil-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja fil-15 ta’ Novembru 2010, fil-proċedura
ERSTE Bank Hungary Nyrt ERSTE Bank Hungary Nyrt v
Magyar Állam, Magyar Állam, BCL Trading GmbH, BCL Trading GmbH, ERSTE Befektetési Zrt, ERSTE Befektetési Zrt, THE COURT (First Chamber),
composed of A. Tizzano (Rapporteur) President of the Chamber, M. Ilešič, E. Levits, J.-J. Kasel and M. Berger, Judges,
Reġistratur: C. Strömholm, Amministratur,
having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 27 October 2011,
wara li rat il-proċedura bil-miktub u wara s-seduta tas-27 ta’ Ottubru 2011,
– ERSTE Bank Hungary Nyrt, by T. Éless and L. Molnár, ügyvédek,
– għal ERSTE Bank Hungary Nyrt, minn T. Éless u L. Molnár, ügyvédek,
– Mr Bárándy és Társai Ügyvédi Iroda, by D. Bojkó, ügyvéd,
– għal Bárándy és Társai Ügyvédi Iroda, minn D. Bojkó, ügyvéd,
– Komerční Banka, as, by P. Lakatos, I. Sólyom, A. Ungár, P. Köves and B. Fazakas, ügyvédek,
– għal Komerční Banka as, minn P. Lakatos, I. Sólyom, A. Ungár, P. Köves u B. Fazakas, ügyvédek,
– the Hungarian Government, by M.Z. Fehér, K. Szíjjártó and K. Veres, acting as Agents,
– għall-Gvern Ungeriż, minn M.Z. Fehér kif ukoll minn K. Szíjártó u K. Veres, bħala aġenti,
– għall-Gvern Spanjol, minn S. Centeno Huerta, bħala aġent,
– the European Commission, by A. Sipos and M. Wilderspin, acting as Agents,
– għall-Kummissjoni Ewropea, minn A. Sipos u M. Wilderspin, bħala aġenti,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 26 January 2012,
wara li semgħet il-konklużjonijiet tal-Avukat Ġenerali, ippreżentati fis-seduta tas-26 ta’ Jannar 2012,
Judgment Sentenza Grounds
1. This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 5(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1) (‘the Regulation’).
1. It-talba għal deċiżjoni preliminari tirrigwarda l-interpretazzjoni tal-Artikolu 5(1) tar-Regolament tal-Kunsill (KE) Nru 1346/2000, tad-29 ta’ Mejju 2000, dwar proċedimenti ta’ falliment (ĠU Edizzjoni Speċjali bil-Malti, Kapitolu 19, Vol. 1, p. 191, iktar ’il quddiem ir-“Regolament”).
2. The reference has been made in insolvency proceedings against the Austrian company BCL Trading GmbH (‘BCL Trading’).
2. Din it-talba ġiet ippreżentata fil-kuntest ta’ proċedura ta’ falliment istitwita fil-konfront ta’ BCL Trading GmbH (iktar ’il quddiem “BCL Trading”), li hija kumpannija stabbilita taħt il-liġi Awstrijaka.
Legal context Il-kuntest ġuridiku European Union law Id-dritt tal-Unjoni 3. Article 2 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 33), (‘the Act of Accession’) states:
3. L-Artikolu 2 tal-Att li jirrigwarda l-kundizzjonijiet tal-adeżjoni [fl-Unjoni Ewropea] tar-Repubblika Ċeka, ir-Repubblika tal-Estonja, ir-Repubblika ta’ Ċipru, ir-Repubblika tal-Latvja, ir-Repubblika tal-Litwanja, ir-Repubblika tal-Ungerija, ir-Repubblika ta’ Malta, ir-Repubblika tal-Polonja, ir-Repubblika tas-Slovenja u r-Repubblika tas-Slovakkja u l-aġġustamenti għat-trattati li fuqhom hija stabbilita l-Unjoni Ewropea (ĠU L 236, p. 33, iktar ’il quddiem l-“Att ta’ Adeżjoni”), jipprovdi:
‘From the date of accession, the provisions of the original Treaties and the acts adopted by the institutions and the European Central Bank before accession shall be binding on the new Member States and shall apply in those States under the conditions laid down in those Treaties and in this Act.’
“Mid-data ta’ l-adeżjoni, id-disposizzjonjiet tat-Trattati originali u l-atti adottati mill-istituzzjonijiet u l-Bank Centrali Ewropew qabel l-adeżjoni ghandhom jorbtu l-Istati Membri l-ġodda u għandhom japplikaw f’dawk l-Istati Membri bil-kondizzjonijiet kif imniżżla f’dawk it-Trattati u f’dan l-Att”.
4. Recitals 6, 11 and 23 to 25 in the preamble to the Regulation provide:
4. Il-premesssi 6, 11 u 23 sa 25 tar-Regolament jiddikjaraw:
‘(6) In accordance with the principle of proportionality this Regulation should be confined to provisions governing jurisdiction for opening insolvency proceedings and judgments which are delivered directly on the basis of the insolvency proceedings and are closely connected with such proceedings. In addition, this Regulation should contain provisions regarding the recognition of those judgments and the applicable law which also satisfy that principle.
“(6) Skond il-prinċipju ta’ proporzjonalità dan ir-Regolament għandu jkun limitat għal dispożizzjonijiet li jirregolaw ġurisdizzjoni għal ftuħ ta’ proċedimenti ta’ falliment u ġudizzji li jingħataw direttament fuq bażi ta’ proċedimenti ta’ falliment u li huma marbuta mill-qrib ma’ proċedimenti bħal dawn. Barra minn hekk, dan ir-Regolament għandu jkun fih dispożizzjonijiet rigward l-għarfien ta’ dawk il-ġudizzji u rigward il-liġi applikabbli li tissodisfa wkoll dak il-prinċipju.
(11) This Regulation acknowledges the fact that as a result of widely differing substantive laws it is not practical to introduce insolvency proceedings with universal scope in the entire Community. The application without exception of the law of the State of opening of proceedings would, against this background, frequently lead to difficulties. This applies, for example, to the widely differing laws on security interests to be found in the Community. … This Regulation should take account of this in two different ways. On the one hand, provision should be made for special rules on applicable law in the case of particularly significant rights and legal relationships (e.g. rights in rem and contracts of employment). On the other hand, national proceedings covering only assets situated in the State of opening should also be allowed alongside main insolvency proceedings with universal scope.
(11) Dan ir-Regolament għandu jagħraf illi b’riżultat ta’ liġijiet sustantivi li huma differenti ħafna minn xulxin, mhux prattikabbli li jkunu introdotti proċedimenti ta’ falliment fl-iskop universali tal-Komunità kollha. F’dan l-isfond, l-applikazzjoni mingħajr eċċezzjoni tal-liġi ta’ l-Istat dwar ftuħ ta’ proċedimenti ta’ spiss twassal għal diffikultajiet. Dan japplika, per eżempju, għal liġijiet ferm differenti dwar interessi ta’ garanziji li jinsabu fil-Komunità. [...] Dan ir-Regolament għandu jieħu konsiderazzjoni ta’ dan b’ żewġ modi differenti. Minn naħa l-waħda, għandhom jiġu magħmula regoli speċjali dwar l-applikabilità tal-liġi fil-każ ta’ drittijiet partikolarment sinjifikanti u relazzjonijiet legali (e.g. drittijiet in rem u kuntratti ta’ impjieg). Minn naħa l-oħra, proċedimenti nazzjonali li jkopru biss assi li jinstabu fl-Istat fejn hemm il-ftuħ, għandhom ukoll ikunu permissibli flimkien mal-proċedimenti prinċipali ta’ falliment bl-iskop universali.
(23) This Regulation should set out, for the matters covered by it, uniform rules on conflict of laws which replace, within their scope of application, national rules of private international law. Unless otherwise stated, the law of the Member State of the opening of the proceedings should be applicable ( lex concursus ). This rule on conflict of laws should be valid both for the main proceedings and for local proceedings; the lex concursus determines all the effects of the insolvency proceedings, both procedural and substantive, on the persons and legal relations concerned. It governs all the conditions for the opening, conduct and closure of the insolvency proceedings.
(23) Dan ir-Regolament għandu jesiġi, għall-materji koperti minnu, regoli uniformi dwar kunflitt ta’ liġijiet, li jibdlu, fl-iskop tal-applikazzjoni tagħhom, ir-regoli nazzjonali tal-liġi privata internazzjonali. Sa kemm ma jingħadx mod ieħor, għandha tapplika l-liġi tal-Istat Membru tal-ftuħ tal-proċedimenti (lex concursus). Din ir-regola ta’ kunflitt ta’ liġijiet għandha tkun valida kemm għal proċedimenti prinċipali kif ukoll għal proċedimenti lokali; il-lex concursus tiddetermina l-effetti tal-proċedimenti ta’ falliment, kemm proċedurali kif ukoll sostantivi, fuq il-persuni u relazzjonijiet legali li jikkonċernawhom. Jirregola il-kondizzjonijiet kollha għal ftuħ, it-twettieq u l-egħluq tal-proċedimenti ta’ falliment.
(24) Automatic recognition of insolvency proceedings to which the law of the opening State normally applies may interfere with the rules under which transactions are carried out in other Member States. To protect legitimate expectations and the certainty of transactions in Member States other than that in which proceedings are opened, provisions should be made for a number of exceptions to the general rule.
(24) L-għarfien awtomatiku ta’ proċedimenti ta’ falliment li għalihom normalment japplikaw il-liġijiet ta’ l-Istat li jiftahom jistgħu ifixklu l-liġijiet li bihom jitwettqu t-transazzjonijiet fl-Istati Membri l-oħra. Sabiex jitħarsu l-aspettativi leġittimi u iċ-ċertezza ta’ transazzjonijiet fi Stati Membri apparti minn dak ta’ fejn ikunu nfetħu l-proċedimenti, għandhom isiru dispożizzjonijiet għal numru ta’ eċċezzjonijiet għar-regola ġenerali.
(25) There is a particular need for a special reference diverging from the law of the opening State in the case of rights in rem, since these are of considerable importance for the granting of credit. The basis, validity and extent of such a right in rem should therefore normally be determined according to the lex situs and not be affected by the opening of insolvency proceedings. The proprietor of the right in rem should therefore be able to continue to assert his right to segregation or separate settlement of the collateral security. Where assets are subject to rights in rem under the lex situs in one Member State but the main proceedings are being carried out in another Member State, the liquidator in the main proceedings should be able to request the opening of secondary proceedings in the jurisdiction where the rights in rem arise if the debtor has an establishment there. If a secondary proceeding is not opened, the surplus on sale of the asset covered by rights in rem must be paid to the liquidator in the main proceedings.’
(25) Hemm ħtieġa partikolari għal referenza speċjali li tkun differenti mil-liġi ta’ l-Istat li jiftaħ il-proċedimenti fil-każ tad-drittijiet in rem la darba dawn huma ta’ importanza konsiderevoli għal-ogħti ta’ kreditu. Il-bażi, il-validità u l-firxa ta’ dan id-dritt in rem għandu għalhekk normalment jiġi determinat bi qbil mal-lex situs u m’għandux ikun effettwat bil-ftuħ tal-proċedimenti ta’ falliment. Il-propjetarju tad-dritt in rem għandu għalhekk ikun jista’ jkompli jinsisti bid-dritt tiegħu ta’ segregazzjoni jew ta’ ftehim separat għal garanzija kollaterali. Meta l-assi huma suġġetti għad-drittijiet in rem tal-lex situs fi Stat Membru wieħed iżda l-proċedimenti prinċipali jitwettqu fi Stat Membru ieħor, il-likwidatur tal-proċedimenti prinċipli għandu jkun jista’ jitlob il-ftuħ ta’ proċedimenti sekondarji fil-ġurisdizzjoni fejn joriġinaw id-drittijiet in rem jekk id-debitur ikollu stabbiliment hemmhekk. Jekk il proċedimenti sekondarji ma jinfetħux, iż-żejjed mill-bejgħ ta’ l-assi koperti bid-drittijiet in rem għandu jitħallas lil-likwidatur tal-proċedimenti prinċipali.”
5. Article 3 of the Regulation, which deals with international jurisdiction, states:
5. L-Artikolu 3 tar-Regolament, li jirrigwarda il-ġurisdizzjoni internazzjonali, jipprovdi:
‘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.
“1. Il-qrati ta’ l-Istat Membru li fit-territorju tiegħu jkun jinstab iċ-ċentru ta’ l-interessi prinċipali tad-debitur għandu jkollu l-ġurisdizzjoni biex jiftaħ il-proċedimenti ta’ falliment. Fil-każ ta’ kumpannija jew persuna ġuridika, il-post ta’ l-uffiċju rreġistrat għandu jkun meqjus li huwa ċ-ċentru ta’ l-interessi prinċipali fin-nuqqas ta’ prova għal kuntrarju.
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.
2. Meta ċ-ċentru ta’ l-interessi prinċipali ta’ debitur ikun jinstab fit-territorju ta’ Stat Membru, il-qrati ta’ Stati Membri oħra għandhom ikollhom il-ġurisdizzjoni li jiftħu proċedimenti ta’ falliment kontra dak id-debitur fil-każ biss li dak ikollu stabbiliment fit-territorju ta’ dak l-Istat Membru l-ieħor. L-effetti ta’ dawk il-proċedimenti għandu jkun ristrett għall-assi tad-debitur li jkunu jinstabu fit-territorju ta’ l-Istat Membru l-ieħor.
3. Meta proċediment ta’ falliment jinfetħu permezz ta’ paragrafu 1, xi proċedimenti miftuħa sussegwentament permezz ta’ paragrafu 2 għandhom ikunu proċedimenti sekondarji. Dawn il-proċedimenti ta’ l-aħħar għandhom ikun proċedimenti ta’ l-egħluq.
6. Article 4 of the Regulation, relating to the law applicable, provides:
6. L-Artikolu 4 tar-Regolament, relatat mal-liġi applikabbli, jipprovdi:
“1. Ħlief fejn ipprovdut b’mod ieħor f’dan ir-Regolament, il-liġi applikabbli għal proċedimenti ta’ falliment u l-effetti tagħhom għandha tkun dik ta’ l-Istat Membru li fit-territorju tiegħu tinfetaħ tali proċedura, minn hawn ‘il quddiem imsemmija bħala l-‘Istat tal-ftuħ tal-proċedimenti’.
2. Il-liġi ta’ l-Istat tal-ftuħ tal-proċedimenti għandha tiddetermina l-kondizzjonijiet tal-ftuħ ta’ dawk il-proċedimenti, il-manjiera tagħhom u l-egħluq tagħhom. Għandu jiddetermina b’ mod partikolari:
(b) the assets which form part of the estate and the treatment of assets acquired by or devolving on the debtor after the opening of the insolvency proceedings;
b) l-assi li jiffurmaw parti mill-propjetà u t-trattament ta’ l-assi meħtieġa minn jew li jmissu lid-debitur wara l-ftuħ tal-proċedimenti ta’ falliment;
f) l-effetti tal-proċedimenti ta’ falliment fuq il-proċedimenti miġjuba minn kredituri individwali, bl-eċċezzjoni ta’ kawżi pendenti;
(g) the claims which are to be lodged against the debtor’s estate and the treatment of claims arising after the opening of insolvency proceedings;
g) it-talbiet li jkunu ġew ippreżentati kontra l-propjetà tad-debitur u t-trattament tat-talbiet li joriġinaw wara l-ftuħ tal-proċedimenti ta’ falliment;
h) ir-regoli li jirregolaw il-preżentazzjoni, il-verifika u l-ammissjoni tat-talbiet;
(i) the rules governing the distribution of proceeds from the realisation of assets, the ranking of claims and the rights of creditors who have obtained partial satisfaction after the opening of insolvency proceedings by virtue of a right in rem or through a set-off;
i) ir-regoli li jirregolaw id-distribuzzjoni ta’ flejjes minn realiżazzjoni ta’ assi, il-prijoritajiet ta’ tabliet u d-dritt ta’ kredituri li ġew parzjalment sodisfatti wara l-ftuħ tal-proċedimenti ta’ falliment bis-saħħa tad-dritt in rem jew permezz ta’ kumpens b’bilanċ;
7. As regards the rights in rem of third parties, Article 5(1) of the Regulation states:
7. Fir-rigward tad-drittijiet in rem ta’ partijiet terzi, l-Artikolu 5(1) tar-Regolament jiddikjara:
‘The opening of insolvency proceedings shall not affect the rights in rem of creditors or third parties in respect of tangible or intangible, moveable or immoveable assets – both specific assets and collections of indefinite assets as a whole which change from time to time – belonging to the debtor which are situated within the territory of another Member State at the time of the opening of proceedings.
“Il-ftuħ ta’ proċedimenti ta’ falliment m’għandux jaffettwa d-drittijiet in rem ta’ kredituri jew partijiet terzi rigward l-assi tanġibbli jew mhux tanġibbli, mobbli jew immobbli - it-tnejn assi speċifiċi u kollezzjonijiet ta’ assi indefiniti bħala massa li jinbidlu minn żmien għal żmien - li jappartieni għad-debitur li jkunu jinstabu fit-territorju ta’ Stat Membru ieħor fil-waqt tal-ftuħ tal-proċedimenti.”
8. Concerning the recognition of insolvency proceedings, Article 16 of the Regulation states:
8. Fir-rigward tar-rikoxximent tal-proċeduri ta’ falliment, l-Artikolu 16 tar-Regolament jipprovdi:
‘1. Any 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.
“1. Ġudizzju li jiftaħ il-proċedimenti ta’ falliment mogħti minn qorti ta’ Stat Membru li jkollu l-ġurisdizzjoni bis-saħħa ta’ l-Artikolu 3 għandu jkun magħruf fl-Istati Membri kollha mill-waqt li jsir effettiv fl-Istat li jiftaħ il-proċedimenti.
This rule shall also apply where, on account of his capacity, insolvency proceedings cannot be brought against the debtor in other Member States.
Din ir-regola għandha wkoll tapplika fejn, minħabba l-kapaċità tiegħu, proċedimenti ta’ falliment ma jistgħux jinġiebu kontra debitur fi Stat Membru ieħor.
2. Recognition of the proceedings referred to in Article 3(1) shall not preclude the opening of the proceedings referred to in Article 3(2) by a court in another Member State. The latter proceedings shall be secondary insolvency proceedings within the meaning of Chapter III.’
2. Għarfien tal-proċedimenti msemmija fl-Artikolu 3(1) m’għandux ifixkel il-ftuħ tal-proċedimenti msemmija fl-Artikolu 3(2) minn qorti fi Stat Membru ieħor. Dawn il-proċedimenti ta’ l-aħħar għandhom ikunu sekondarji għal proċedimenti ta’ falliment fil-qofol ta’ dak li jfisser Kapitolu III.”
9. Article 17(1) of the Regulation, which deals with the effects of the recognition of insolvency proceedings, is worded as follows:
9. L-Artikolu 17(1) tar-Regolament, li jirrigwarda l-effetti tar-rikonoxximent tal-proċedura ta’ falliment, huwa redatt kif ġej:
‘The 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.’
“Il-ġudizzju li jiftaħ il-proċedimenti msemmija fl-Artikolu 3(1) għandu, mingħajr aktar formalitajiet, jipproduċi l-istess effetti f’xi Stat Membru ieħor hekk kif jagħmel b’din il-liġi ta’ l-Istat li jiftaħ il-proċedimenti, sa kemm dan ir-Regolament ma jipprovdix mod ieħor u sa kemm l-ebda proċedimenti msemmija fl-Artikolu 3(2) ma jkunux nfteħu f’xi Stat Membru ieħor.”
10. Article 43 of the Regulation, which governs the applicability in time of that act, provides:
10. L-Artikolu 43 tar-Regolament, li jirregola l-applikazzjoni ratione temporis ta’ dak l-att, jipprovdi:
‘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.’
“Id-dispożizzjonijiet ta’ dan ir-Regolament għandhom japplikaw biss għal proċedimenti ta’ falliment miftuħa wara d-dħul fis-seħħ tiegħu. Atti magħmula minn debitur qabel id-dħul fis-seħħ ta’ dan ir-Regolament għandhom jibqgħu jiġu rregolati bil-liġi li tapplika għalihom fiż-żmien ta’ meta saru.”
11. Article 47 of the basic regulation provides:
11. Fl-aħħar, l-Artikolu 47 tar-Regolament jipprovdi:
‘This Regulation shall enter into force on 31 May 2002.’
“Dan ir-Regolament għandu jidħol fis-seħħ fil-31 ta’ Mejju 2002.”
Hungarian law Id-dritt Ungeriż 12. The rules relating to securities, in force at the material time, are set out in Paragraphs 270 and 271 of Law No IV of 1959 on the Civil Code (Polgári törvénykönyvről szóló 1959. évi IV. törvény).
12. Ir-regoli relatati mal-garanzija finanzjarja, kif applikabbli ratione temporis għall-kawża prinċipali, jinsabu fl-Artikoli 270 u 271 tal-liġi Nru IV tal-1959 li tistabbilixxi l-kodiċi ċivili (Polgári törvénykönyvről szóló 1959. évi IV. törvény).
13. Paragraph 270 of that law provides:
13. L-Artikolu 270 ta’ din il-liġi jipprevedi:
‘1. If a security deposit is provided to secure a claim, the obligee shall be entitled to satisfy his claim directly from the security deposit in the case of deficient performance or non-performance of the contract.
“1. Meta tingħata garanzija finanzjarja sabiex tiġi żgurata l-eżekuzzjoni ta’ obbligu, il-kreditur jista’, f’każ ta’ nuqqas ta’ eżekuzzjoni tal-kuntratt jew ta’ eżekuzzjoni skorretta ta’ dan tal-aħħar, jdur direttament fuq il-beni mogħtija bħala garanzija għall-ħlas tad-dejn.
2. Cash, savings accounts, or securities can be used as security deposits. If the object of the security deposit is some other thing, the regulations on liens shall apply.
2. Garanzija finanzjarja tista’ tiġi kkostitwita fuq flus, kontijiet bankarji jew beni mobbli. Jekk il-garanzija tiġi kkostitwita fuq beni oħra, jkunu applikabbli r-regoli relatati mar-rahan.
3. Security deposits used to secure claims that cannot be enforced in court shall be null and void. This provision shall not be applied to security deposits that are used to secure expired claims.
3. Il-garanzija kkostitwita sabiex jiġi żgurat il-ħlas ta’ obbligu li l-eżekuzzjoni tiegħu ma tistax tintalab skont il-liġi hija nulla. Ir-regola preċedenti ma hijiex applikabbli fir-rigward tal-garanzija finanzjarja pprovduta sabiex jiġi żgurat il-ħlas ta’ dejn preskritt.
4. The expiration of a claim shall not impede satisfaction from the security deposit provided for that purpose.’
4. Il-preskrizzjoni ta’ dejn ma tostakolax il-fakultà li wieħed idur fuq il-garanzija finanzjarja kkostitwita bil-ħsieb li jiġi ggarantit il-ħlas tiegħu.”
14. Paragraph 271 provides:
14. L-Artikolu 271 tal-imsemmija liġi jipprovdi:
‘1. Security deposits can only be used for satisfaction; agreements to the contrary shall be null and void.
“1. Il-garanzija finanzjarja tista’ tintuża biss għall-finijiet tal-ħlas ta’ dejn. Kwalunkwe deroga kuntrattwali għar-regola preċedenti hija nulla.
2. Security deposits shall be returned if the contract providing the basis therefor terminates or the period of guarantee or warranty lapses without providing any legal grounds for satisfaction from the security deposit.’
2. Is-suġġett tal-garanzija finanzjarja jingħata lura meta l-kuntratt sottostanti jintemm, jew meta l-perijodu tal-garanzija jiskadi mingħajr ma jkun irriżulta l-fatt li jiġġustifika t-teħid ta’ azzjoni kontra l-garanzija.”
The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling Il-kawża prinċipali u d- domanda preliminari 15. The present case arises from the dispute between ERSTE Bank Hungary Nyrt (‘ERSTE Bank’) and Magyar Állam (Hungarian State), BCL Trading and ERSTE Befektetési Zrt.
15. Il-kawża odjerna oriġinat mill-kwistjoni ta’ bejn ERSTE Bank Hungary Nyrt. (iktar ’il quddiem “ERSTE Bank” jew ir-“rikorrenti”) u Magyar Állam (Stat Ungeriż) kif ukoll BCL Trading u ERSTE Befektetési Zrt.
16. On 8 May 1998, Postabank és Takarékpénztár Rt (Postabank’) issued a letter of credit in favour of BCL Trading.
16. Fit-8 ta’ Mejju 1998, Postabank és Takarékpénztár rt (iktar ’il quddiem “Postabank”) ħarġet ittra ta’ kreditu favur BCL Trading.
17. BCL Trading subsequently assigned that letter of credit to several banks. Since Postabank refused to pay the amount corresponding to that credit to the banks, the latter brought a claim for payment of the credit assigned.
17. Sussegwentement, BCL Trading ċediet dan il-kreditu lil diversi banek. Peress li Postabank irrifjutat li tittrasferixxi l-ammont li jikkorrispondi għal dan il-kreditu lill-imsemmija banek, dawn tal-aħħar ippreżentaw rikors għall-ħlas tad-dejn ċedut.
18. On 9 July 2003, BCL Trading gave shares in Postabank as a guarantee which it held in the event that the letter of credit was drawn upon and the latter would therefore be required to pay the corresponding amounts. The shares constituted a security deposit.
18. Fid-9 ta’ Lulju 2003, BCL Trading tat bħala garanzija l-azzjonijiet ta’ Postabank li hija kellha f’każ li l-ittra ta’ kreditu ssir eżegwibbli u din tal-aħħar għaldaqstant tkun obbligata li tħallas l-ammonti korrispondenti. Għalhekk, l-imsemmija azzjonijiet saru s-suġġett ta’ garanzija finanzjarja.
19. Insolvency proceedings against BCL Trading, whose registered office in Vienna (Austria), were opened on 5 December 2003 and published on 4 February 2004.
19. Fil-5 ta’ Diċembru 2003 infetħet proċedura ta’ falliment kontra BCL Trading, li s-sede tagħha hija stabbilita fi Vjenna (L-Awstrija), li ġiet ippubblikata fl-4 ta’ Frar 2004.
20. As regards the shares in Postabank held by BCL Trading which constituted a security deposit, on 6 December 2005, the Legfelsőbb Bíróság ordered the Magyar Állam to purchase them on the ground that the latter exercised a determining influence over Postabank, which, under Hungarian law, created an obligation to acquire the Postabank shares offered for sale by small shareholders. Pursuant to that judgment, the Magyar Állam purchased those shares at an amount fixed by the Legfelsőbb Bíróság and paid into court the amount representing the value of those shares which were previously dematerialised.
20. Fir-rigward tal-azzjonijiet ta’ Postabank, detenuti minn BCL Trading, li jifformaw is-suġġett tal-imsemmija garanzija finanzjarja, il-Legfelsőbb Bíróság ordnat lil Magyar Állam, fis-6 ta’ Diċembru 2005 sabiex tixtrihom minħabba li din tal-aħħar kienet teżerċita influwenza determinanti fuq Postabank, li, fid-dritt Ungeriż, kien inissel fil-konfront tagħha obbligu li takkwista l-azzjonijiet ta’ Postabank offruti għall-bejgħ mill-azzjonisti ż-żgħar. B’eżekuzzjoni ta’ dik is-sentenza, Magyar Állam xtrat dawk l-azzjonijiet bi prezz li ġie ffissat mil-Legfelsőbb Bíróság u ddepożitat il-qorti l-flus rikavati mill-imsemmija azzjonijiet li preliminarjament kienu saru intanġibbli.
21. On 27 January 2006, ERSTE Bank, whose registered office is in Budapest (Hungary), who became the legal successor of Postabank, brought an action before the Fővárosi Bíroság (Budapest Municipal Court) against the defendants in the main proceedings seeking a declaratory judgment to the effect that it had a right over the security deposit paid into court.
21. Fis-27 ta’ Jannar 2006, ERSTE Bank, li s-sede tagħha huwa stabbilit f’Budapest (L-Ungerija), li assumiet id-drittijiet ta’ de Postabank, ippreżentat rikors quddiem il-Fővárosi Bíróság (Qorti ta’ Budapest) kontra l-konvenuti fil-kawża prinċipali bil-għan li tikseb sentenza li tiddikjara li għandha garanzija finanzjarja fuq is-somma ta’ flus iddepożitata l-qorti.
22. Pending the outcome of those proceedings, on 8 January 2007, ERSTE Bank also requested the opening in Hungary of secondary insolvency proceedings against BCL Trading, arguing that it possessed an establishment there and that insolvency proceedings had already been opened against it in Austria. While acknowledging the applicability of the Regulation, the Legfelsőbb Bíróság dismissed that application on the ground that the applicant had not established that the debtor possessed an establishment in Hungary as required by Article 3(2) of the Regulation.
22. Waqt il-pendenzi ta’ dak ir-rikors, fit-8 ta’ Jannar 2007, ERSTE Bank talbet ukoll il-ftuħ fl-Ungerija ta’ proċedura sekondarja ta’ falliment fil-konfront ta’ BCL Trading, fejn sostniet li din tal-aħħar hija proprjetarja ta’ bini f’dak il-pajjiż u li kienet diġà ġiet ippreżentata proċedura ta’ falliment fl-Awstrija fil-konfront tagħha. Filwaqt li rrikonoxxiet l-applikabbiltà tar-Regolament, il-Legfelsőbb Bíróság, ċaħdet dik it-talba peress li r-rikorrenti ma stabbilixxietx li d-debitur kellu bini fl-Ungerija kif rikjest mill-Artikolu 3(2) ta’ dak ir-Regolament.
23. On 7 January 2009, the Fővárosi Bíroság ruled that since insolvency proceedings against BCL Trading had already been opened in Austria, Austrian insolvency law was the law applicable to the insolvency proceedings and its effects. As Austrian law excludes the possibility of bringing an action against an economic operator in liquidation in respect of the assets relating to the insolvency, no action could be brought against BCL Trading, since the latter was in liquidation. In those circumstances, the Fővárosi Bíroság delivered an order removing the case from the register.
23. Fis-7 ta’ Jannar 2009, il-Fővárosi Bíróság kkunsidrat li peress li kienet diġà nbdiet proċedura ta’ falliment kontra BCL Trading fl-Awstrija, il-liġi Awstrijaka fuq il-fallimenti hija l-liġi applikabbli għall-proċedura ta’ falliment u l-effetti tagħha. Issa, peress li din il-liġi teskludi l-possibbiltà li tiġi ppreżentata kawża kontra operatur ekonomiku li jkun għaddej mill-proċess ta’ stralċ meta din il-kawża tkun tikkonċerna l-patrimonju tal-falliment, ma setgħet tiġi ppreżentata l-ebda kawża kontra BCL Trading, peress li din tal-aħħar kienet fil-proċess ta’ stralċ. F’dawk il-kundizzjonijiet, il-Fővárosi Bíróság tat digriet għall-arkivjar tal-kawża.
24. Following an appeal by ERSTE Bank against that decision, on 4 February 2010 the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla (Court of Appeal, Budapest), basing its decision on Article 4(1) of the Regulation, confirmed the order given at first instance by the Fővárosi Bíroság. It also pointed out that it is Austrian law that determines whether ERSTE Bank may obtain a declaratory judgment that it has a right over the security deposit paid into court.
24. Wara l-appell ippreżentat min ERSTE Bank kontra dik id-deċiżjoni, fl-4 ta’ Frar 2010, il-Fővárosi Ítélőtábla (qorti tal-appell ta’ Budapest), filwaqt li bbażat ruħha fuq l-Artikolu 4(1) tar-Regolament, ikkonfermat id-digriet mogħti mill-ewwel istanza mill-Fővárosi Bíróság. Hija fakkret ukoll li huwa fid-dawl tad-dritt Awtstrijak li jeħtieġ li jiġi ddeterminat jekk ERSTE Bank tistax tikseb sentenza dikjaratorja dwar garanzija finanzjarja.
25. ERSTE Bank then appealed in cassation to the Legfelsőbb Bíróság seeking, principally, the annulment of the order removing the case from the register and an order to remit the case back to the court of first instance so that that court could reconsider the application for the opening of secondary insolvency proceedings against BCL Trading. Furthermore, it argued that the Regulation was not applicable in this case because the judgment opening insolvency proceedings against BCL Trading in Austria had been handed down before the Republic of Hungary’s accession to the European Union, which therefore made it impossible, pursuant to the Regulation, to regard that company as being in liquidation in Hungary.
25. Għaldaqstant ERSTE Bank ippreżentat rikors ta’ kassazzjoni quddiem il-Legfelsőbb Bíróság, bil-għan li tikseb, prinċipalment, l-annullament tad-digriet definittiv ta’ arkivjar u l-ordni li tobbliga lill-qorti tal-ewwel istanza li teżamina mill-ġdid it-talba għal ftuħ ta’ proċedura sekondarja ta’ falliment fil-konfront ta’ BCL Trading. Barra minn hekk, hija sostniet li r-Regolament ma kienx applikabbli għal dan il-każ peress li d-deċiżjoni li tinbeda l-proċedura ta’ falliment kontra BCL Trading fl-Awstrija kienet ingħatat qabel l-adeżjoni tar-Repubblika tal-Ungerija fl-Unjoni Ewropea, u dan, konsegwentement, kien jirrendi impossibbli, skont l-istess Regolament, il-kunsiderazzjoni li l-imsemmija kumpannija kienet fil-proċess ta’ stralċ fl-Ungerija.
26. Taking the view that the decision in this case depends on the interpretation of the provisions of the Regulation, the Legfelsőbb Bíróság decided to stay proceedings and refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: 26. Billi kkunsidrat li d-deċiżjoni li għandha tiġi adottata tiddependi fuq l-interpretazzjoni tad-dispożizzjonijiet tar-Regolament, il-Legfelsőbb Bíróság iddeċidiet li tissospendi l-proċeduri u tagħmel lill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja d-domanda preliminari li ġejja:
‘Does Article 5(1) of … [the Regulation] govern civil proceedings relating to the existence of rights in rem (in this case security deposits (óvadék)) where the country in which the bond, and subsequently the money it represented, was deposited as a security was not a Member State of the European Union at the time when insolvency proceedings were opened in another Member State, but was a Member State of the European Union by the time the application initiating the proceedings was submitted?’
“L-Artikolu 5(1) tar-[Regolament] għandu jiġi applikat fil-kuntest ta’ proċedura ġudizzjarja ta’ dritt ċivili li tikkonċerna l-eżistenza ta’ dritt in rem [f’dan il-każ, security deposits (óvadék)], fid-dawl tal-fatt li l-pajjiż fejn jinsabu l-beni li huma s-suġġett tal-bond, jiġifieri beni mobbli, u sussegwentement il-flus li ħadu posthom, kien għadu ma huwiex membru tal-Unjoni Ewropea meta bdiet, fi Stat Membru ieħor, il-proċedimenti ta’ falliment attwali, iżda li kien Membru meta seħħet il-preżentata tar-rikors?”
Consideration of the question referred for a preliminary ruling Fuq id-domanda preliminari 27. By its question, the Legfelsőbb Bíróság asks the Court essentially whether Article 5(1) of the Regulation is applicable in the context of civil proceedings concerning the existence of a right in rem, in this case a security, in circumstances in which the property to which that right refers, such as a sum of money paid into court, is situated in a State which was not yet a Member State of the European Union when the insolvency proceedings were opened in a Member State, but which had become one when the action which gave rise to the judicial proceedings was brought.
27. Permezz tad-domanda tagħha, il-Legfelsőbb Bíróság, essenzjalment tistaqsi, lill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja jekk l-Artikolu 5(1) tar-Regolament għandux jiġi interpretat fis-sens li huwa applikabbli fil-kuntest ta’ proċedura ġudizzjarja ta’ dritt ċivili li tikkonċerna l-eżistenza ta’ dritt in rem , f’dan il-każ, garanzija finanzjarja, f’każ fejn il-beni suġġetti għal dan id-dritt, f’dan il-każ somma ta’ flus iddepożitata l-qorti, jkunu jinsabu fi Stat li kien għadu ma sarx membru tal-Unjoni fil-mument tal-ftuħ tal-proċedura ta’ falliment fi Stat Membru, iżda li kien sar membru fil-mument tal-preżentata tar-rikors li beda l-imsemmija proċedura ġudizzjarja.
28. Before answering that question it is necessary to dispel the doubts expressed by certain parties to the present proceedings regarding the possibility that the Regulation itself applies ratione temporis in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings.
28. Qabel ma tingħata risposta għal dik id-domanda, jeħtieġ li jixxejnu d-dubji espressi minn ċerti partijiet fil-proċedura odjerna dwar il-possibbiltà li r-Regolament stess japplika, ratione temporis , f’ċirkustanzi bħal dawk inkwistjoni fil-kawża prinċipali.
29. In that regard, it must be recalled, as a preliminary point, that under Article 1(1), the Regulation applies to collective insolvency proceedings which entail the partial or total divestment of a debtor and the appointment of a liquidator.
29. F’dak ir-rigward, preliminarjament jeħtieġ li jitfakkar li, skont l-Artikolu 1 tiegħu, ir-Regolament għandu japplika għal proċedimenti kollettivi bbażati fuq il-falliment tad-debitur li jinvolvu t-tneħħija tal-assi parzjali jew totali ta’ dak id-debitur kif ukoll il-ħatra ta’ likwidatur.
30. In accordance with Article 43 of the Regulation, which governs its applicability in time, the Regulation applies only to insolvency proceedings opened after its entry into force which, as stated in Article 47 thereof, is fixed for 31 May 2002.
30. B’mod konformi mal-Arikolu 43 tar-Regolament, li jirregola l-applikazzjoni ratione temporis ta’ dan tal-aħħar, ir-Regolament japplika biss għall-proċeduri ta’ falliment mibdija wara d-dħul fis-seħħ tiegħu li, kif ippreċiżat mill-Artikolu 47 tal-istess Regolament, huwa fil-31 ta’ Mejju 2002.
31. It is apparent from the order for reference that the insolvency proceedings against BCL Trading were opened in Austria on 5 December 2003.
31. Issa, mid-deċiżjoni tar-rinviju jirriżulta li l-proċedura ta’ falliment kontra BCL Trading infetħet fl-Awstrija fil-5 ta’ Diċembru 2003.
32. In those circumstances, there is no doubt that those proceedings were opened in a Member State after 31 May 2002 and that, therefore, they fall within the scope of the Regulation.
32. F’dawk il-kundizzjonijiet, ma hemm l-ebda dubju dwar il-fatt li dik il-proċedura infetħet fi Stat Membru qabel il-31 ta’ Mejju 2002 u li, konsegwentement, taqa’ fil-kamp ta’ applikazzjoni tar-Regolament.
33. It should also be observed that it follows from Articles 16(1) and 17(1) of the Regulation that the judgment opening insolvency proceedings in a Member State is to be recognised in all the other Member States from the time that it becomes effective in the State of the opening of proceedings and that it is, with no further formalities, to produce the same effects in any other Member State as under the law of the State of the opening of proceedings (Case C-444/07 MG Probud Gdynia [2010] ECR I-417, paragraph 26).
33. Hemm lok ukoll li jiġi rrilevat li minn qari flimkien tal-Artikoli 16(1) u 17(1) tar-Regolament, jirriżulta li d-deċiżjoni ta’ ftuħ ta’ proċedura ta’ falliment fi Stat Membru hija rikonoxxuta fl-Istati Membri l-oħra kollha minn meta din tipproduċi l-effetti tagħha fl-Istat ta’ ftuħ, u li din tipproduċi, mingħajr il-bżonn ta’ ebda formalità oħra, f’kull Stat Membru ieħor, l-effetti attribwiti lilha mil-liġi tal-Istat ta’ ftuħ (sentenza tal-21 ta’ Jannar 2010, MG Probud Gdynia, C-444/07, Ġabra p. I-417, punt 26).
34. As is shown by recital 22 in the preamble to the Regulation, the rule of priority laid down in Article 16(1) thereof is based on the principle of mutual trust. It is indeed that mutual trust which has enabled not only the establishment of a compulsory system of jurisdiction which all the courts within the purview of the Regulation are required to respect, but also as a corollary the waiver by the Member States of the right to apply their internal rules on recognition and enforcement in favour of a simplified mechanism for the recognition and enforcement of judgments handed down in the context of insolvency proceedings (Case C-341/04 Eurofood IFSC [2006] ECR I-3813, paragraphs 39 and 40, and MG Probud Gdynia , paragraphs 27 and 28).
34. Kif jirriżulta mill-premessa 22 tar-Regolament, ir-regola ta’ prijorità definita fl-Artikolu 16(1) hija bbażata fuq il-prinċipju ta’ fiduċja reċiproka. Fil-fatt, kien dan il-prinċipju li ppermetta mhux biss l-implementazzjoni ta’ sistema obbligatorja ta’ ġurisdizzjoni, li l-qrati kollha li jaqgħu fil-kamp ta’ applikazzjoni tar-Regolament huma obbligati josservaw, iżda anki r-rinunzja korrelattiva mill-Istati Membri għar-regoli interni tagħhom dwar ir-rikonoxximent u l-exequatur favur mekkaniżmu ssemplifikat ta’ rikonoxximent u ta’ infurzar ta’ deċiżjonijiet mogħtija fil-kuntest ta’ proċeduri ta’ falliment (sentenzi tat-2 ta’ Mejju 2006, Eurofood IFSC, C-341/04, Ġabra p. I-3813, punti 39 u 40, kif ukoll MG Probud Gdynia, iċċitata iktar ’il fuq, punti 27 u 28).
35. As regards the case in the main proceedings, it must be stated that, under Article 2 of the Act of Accession, the provisions of the Regulation are applicable in Hungary from the date of accession of that State to the European Union that is from 1 May 2004.
35. Fir-rigward tal-kawża prinċipali, jeħtieġ li jiġi ppreċiżat li, skont l-Artikolu 2 tal-Att tal-Adeżjoni, id-dispożizzjonijiet tar-Regolament huma applikabbli fl-Ungerija sa mid-data tal-adeżjoni ta’ dak l-Istat fl-Unjoni, jiġifieri mill-1 ta’ Mejju 2004.
36. Thus, from that date, the Hungarian courts are required, in accordance with Article 16(1) of the Regulation, to recognise any judgment opening insolvency proceedings handed down by a court of a Member State which has jurisdiction pursuant to Article 3 thereof. Furthermore, pursuant to Article 17(1), any judgment opening insolvency proceedings handed down by a Member State produces in principle in Hungary, from 1 May 2004 and without any other formality, the effects attributed to it by the law of the State of the opening of proceedings.
36. Għalhekk, minn din id-data, il-qrati Ungeriżi huma obbligati, b’mod konformi mal-Artikolu 16(1) tar-Regolament, li jirrikonoxxu kull deċiżjoni li tiftaħ proċedura ta’ falliment mogħtija minn qorti ta’ Stat Membru li jkollha l-ġurisdizzjoni bis-saħħa tal-Artikolu 3 ta’ dak ir-Regolament. Barra minn hekk, b’applikazzjoni tal-Artikolu 17(1) tal-imsemmi regolament, kull deċiżjoni ta’ ftuħ ta’ proċedura ta’ falliment adottata minn qorti ta’ Stat Membru, fil-prinċipju, tipproduċi fl-Ungerija, mill-1 ta’ Mejju 2004 u mingħajr il-bżonn ta’ ebda formalità oħra, l-effetti attribwiti lilha mil-liġi tal-Istat tal-ftuħ.
37. Taking account of the foregoing, it must be held that the Regulation is applicable in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings given that the insolvency proceedings at issue, as is clear from paragraphs 31 and 32 of this judgment, fall within its scope and that, from 1 May 2004, the Hungarian courts were therefore required to recognise the judgment opening those proceedings handed down by the Austrian courts.
37. Fid-dawl ta’ dak kollu li ntqal, hemm lok li jiġi kkunsidrat li r-Regolament huwa applikabbli f’ċirkustanzi bħal dawk fil-kawża prinċipali peress li l-proċedura ta’ falliment inkwistjoni, kif jirriżulta mill-punti 31 u 32 ta’ din is-sentenza, taqa’ taħt il-kamp ta’ applikazzjoni tiegħu u li, mill-1 ta’ Mejju 2004, il-qrati Ungeriżi kienu għaldaqstant obbligati li jirrikonoxxu d-deċiżjoni ta’ ftuħ ta’ dik il-proċedura adottata mill-qrati Awstrijaċi.
38. Article 4(1) of the Regulation then lays down the rule that the determination of the court with jurisdiction entails determination of the law which is to apply. According to that provision, as regards both the main insolvency proceedings and secondary insolvency proceedings, the law of the Member State within the territory of which proceedings are opened ( lex concursus ) is applicable to the insolvency proceedings and their effects (see, to that effect, Eurofood IFSC , paragraph 33; MG Probud Gdynia , paragraph 25; and Rastrelli , paragraph 16). As stated in Recital 23 in the preamble to the Regulation, that law governs all the conditions for the opening, conduct and closure of the insolvency proceedings.
38. Sussegwentement, l-Artikolu 4(1) tar-Regolament jistabbilixxi r-regola li d-determinazzjoni tal-qorti kompetenti ssegwi dik tal-liġi applikabbli. Fil-fatt, b’mod konformi ma’ dik id-dispożizzjoni, f’dak li jikkonċerna kemm il-proċedura prinċipali ta’ falliment kif ukoll il-proċedura sekondarja jew territorjali, il-liġi applikabbli għall-proċedura ta’ falliment u l-effetti tagħha hija dik tal-Istat Membru li fit-territorju tiegħu tkun infetħet il-proċedura (lex concursus) (ara f’dan is-sens, is-sentenzi Eurofood IFSC, iċċitata iktar ’il fuq, punt 33; MG Probud Gdynia, iċċitata iktar ’il fuq, punt 25, u tal-15 ta’ Diċembru 2011, Rastrelli Davide e C., li għadha ma ġietx ippubblikata fil-Ġabra, punt 16). Din il-liġi tirregola, kif tiddikjara l-premessa 23 tar-Regolament, il-kundizzjonijiet kollha relatati mal-ftuħ, l-iżvolġiment u l-għeluq tal-proċedura ta’ falliment.
39. However, in order to protect legitimate expectations and the legal certainty of transactions in Member States other than the State of the opening of the insolvency proceedings, the Regulation lays down, in Articles 5 to 15, a certain number of exceptions to that rule of the applicable law for certain rights and legal situations which are considered, according to recital 11 thereto, as particularly important.
39. Madankollu, bil-għan li jiġu ppreservati l-aspettattivi leġittimi u ċ-ċertezza legali tat-tranżazzjonijiet fl-Istati Membri minbarra dawk tal-ftuħ tal-proċedura ta’ falliment, ir-Regolament jipprevedi, fl-Artikoli 5 sa 15 tiegħu, għadd ta’ eċċezzjonijiet għall-imsemmija regola tal-liġi applikabbli għal ċerti drittijiet u sitwazzjonijiet legali li huma kkunsidrati, skont il-premessa 11 tiegħu, bħala partikolarment importanti.
40. Thus, as regards rights in rem, Article 5(1) of the Regulation states that the opening of insolvency proceedings does not affect the rights in rem of creditors or third parties in respect of assets belonging to the debtor which are situated within the territory of another Member State at the time of the opening of proceedings.
40. Għalhekk, partikolarment fir-rigward tad-drittijiet in rem , l-Artikolu 5(1) tar-Regolament jiddikjara li l-ftuħ tal-proċedura ta’ falliment ma jaffettwax id-dritt in rem ta’ kreditur jew ta’ terz fuq il-beni li jkunu proprjetà tad-debitur u li jkunu jinsabu, fil-mument tal-ftuħ tal-proċedura, fit-territorju ta’ Stat Membru ieħor.
41. The scope of that provision is clarified by recitals 11 and 25 in the preamble to the Regulation, according to which there is a need for a special reference ‘diverging from the law of the opening State’ in the case of rights in rem, since these are of considerable importance for the granting of credit. Thus, according to recital 25, the basis, validity and extent of such a right in rem should therefore normally be determined according to the lex situs and not be affected by the opening of insolvency proceedings.
41. Il-portata ta’ dik id-dispożizzjoni hija ċċarata mill-premessi 11 u 25 tar-Regolament, li jiddikjaraw li huwa neċessarju li tiġi prevista referenza speċjali għad-drittijiet in rem “li tkun differenti mil-liġi ta’ l-Istat li jiftaħ il-proċedimenti”, peress li dawk id-drittijiet huma ta’ importanza kunsiderevoli għall-għoti tal-krediti. Għalhekk, skont il-premessa 25, il-ġustifikazzjoni, il-validità u l-portata ta’ tali dritt in rem għandhom normalment jiġu ddeterminati skont il-liġi tal-post li fih ikun jinsab l-oġġett li jkun is-suġġett ta’ tali dritt (lex rei sitae) u ma jiġux affettwati mill-ftuħ ta’ proċedura ta’ falliment.
42. Therefore, Article 5(1) of the Regulation must be understood as a provision which, derogating from the rule of the law of the State of the opening of the proceedings, allows the law of the Member State on whose territory the asset concerned is situated to be applied to the right in rem of a creditor or a third party over certain assets belonging to the debtor.
42. Konsegwentement, hemm lok li l-Artikolu 5(1) tar-Regolament jinftiehem bħala dispożizzjoni li, billi tidderoga mir-regola tal-liġi tal-Istat ta’ ftuħ, tippermetti l-applikazzjoni, fir-rigward tad-dritt in rem ta’ kreditur jew ta’ terz fuq ċerti beni li huma proprjetà tad-debitur, tal-liġi tal-Istat Membru li fit-territorju tiegħu jkunu jinsabu l-beni inkwistjoni.
43. As regards the case in the main proceedings, it is true that, at the time the insolvency proceedings were opened in Austria, on 5 December 2003, the debtor’s assets on which the right in rem concerned was based were in Hungary, that is in a State which, at the time, was not yet a Member State of the Union.
43. Fir-rigward tal-kawża prinċipali, huwa ċertament vertier li, fil-mument tal-ftuħ tal-proċedura ta’ falliment fl-Awstrija fil-5 ta’ Diċembru 2003, il-beni tad-debitur suġġetti għad-dritt in rem inkwistjoni kienu jinsabu fl-Ungerija, jiġifieri fit-territorju ta’ Stat, li dak iż-żmien, ma kienx għadu sar Stat Membru tal-Unjoni.
44. However, the fact remains, as set out in paragraphs 35 and 37 of this judgment, that the provisions of the Regulation are applicable in Hungary from the date of accession of that State to the European Union, that is 1 May 2004, and therefore, from that date, the Hungarian courts were required to recognise the decision to open insolvency proceedings handed down by the Austrian courts.
44. Madankollu, xorta jibqa’ l-fatt li, kif tfakkar fil-punti 35 u 37 ta’ din is-sentenza, id-dispożizzjonijiet tar-Regolament huma applikabbli fl-Ungerija mid-data tal-adeżjoni ta’ dak l-Istat Membru fl-Unjoni Ewropea, jiġifieri mill-1 ta’ Mejju 2004, u li għalhekk, sa minn dik id-data, il-qrati Ungeriżi kienu obbligati li jirrikonoxxu d-deċiżjoni ta’ ftuħ tal-proċedura ta’ falliment adottata mill-qrati Awstrijaċi.
45. In those circumstances, in order to maintain the cohesion of the system established by the Regulation and the effectiveness of insolvency proceedings, Article 5(1) thereof must be interpreted as meaning that that provision is applicable even to insolvency proceedings opened before the accession of the Republic of Hungary to the European Union in a case, such as that in the main proceedings, when, on 1 May 2004, the debtor’s assets on which the right in rem concerned was based were situated in that State, which is for the referring court to ascertain.
45. F’dawk iċ-ċirkustanzi, bil-għan li tiġi ppreservata l-koerenza tas-sistema stabbilita mir-Regolament u l-effettività tal-proċedura ta’ falliment, jeħtieġ li l-Artikolu 5(1) ta’ dan tal-aħħar jiġi interpretat fis-sens li dik id-dispożizzjoni hija applikabbli anki għall-proċeduri ta’ falliment miftuħa qabel l-adeżjoni tar-Repubblika tal-Ungerija fl-Unjoni f’każ, bħal dak inkwistjoni fil-kawża prinċipali, fejn fl-1 ta’ Mejju 2004, il-beni tad-debitur suġġetti għad-dritt in rem inkwistjoni kienu jinsabu fit-territorju tal-imsemmi Stat, fatt li għandu jiġi vverifikat mill-qorti tar-rinviju.
46. Taking account of those findings, the answer to the question referred is that Article 5(1) of the Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that that provision is applicable, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, even to insolvency proceedings opened before the accession of the Republic of Hungary to the European Union where on 1 May 2004 the debtor’s assets on which the right in rem concerned was based were situated in that State, which is for the referring court to ascertain.
46. Fid-dawl ta’ dawk il-kunsiderazzjonijiet, hemm lok li tingħata risposta għad-domanda magħmula li l-Artikolu 5(1) tar-Regolament għandu jiġi interpretat fis-sens li dik id-dispożizzjoni hija applikabbli, f’ċirkustanzi bħal dawk fil-kawża prinċipali, anki għall-proċeduri ta’ falliment miftuħa qabel l-adeżjoni tar-Repubblika tal-Ungerija fl-Unjoni fil-każ fejn, fl-1 ta’ Mejju 2004, il-beni tad-debitur suġġetti għad-dritt in rem inkwistjoni kienu jinsabu fit-territorju tal-imsemmi Stat, fatt li għandu jiġi vverifikat mill-qorti tar-rinviju.
Costs Fuq l-ispejjeż 47. 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.
47. Peress li l-proċedura għandha, fir-rigward tal-partijiet fil-kawża prinċipali, in-natura ta’ kwistjoni mqajma quddiem il-qorti tar-rinviju, hija din il-qorti li tiddeċiedi fuq l-ispejjeż. L-ispejjeż sostnuti għas-sottomissjoni tal-osservazzjonijiet lill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja, barra dawk tal-imsemmija partijiet, ma jistgħux jitħallsu lura.
Article 5(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that that provision is applicable, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, even to insolvency proceedings opened before the accession of the Republic of Hungary to the European Union where, on 1 May 2004, the debtor’s assets on which the right in rem concerned was based were situated in that State, which is for the referring court to ascertain. 1) L-Artikolu 5(1) tar-Regolament tal-Kunsill (KE) Nru 1346/2000, tad-29 ta’ Mejju 2000, dwar proċedimenti ta’ falliment, għandu jiġi interpretat fis-sens li dik id-dispożizzjoni hija applikabbli, f’ċirkustanzi bħal dawk fil-kawża prinċipali, anki għall-proċeduri ta’ falliment miftuħa qabel l-adeżjoni tar-Repubblika tal-Ungerija fl-Unjoni Ewropea fil-każ fejn, fl-1 ta’ Mejju 2004, il-beni tad-debitur suġġetti għad-dritt in rem inkwistjoni kienu jinsabu fit-territorju tal-imsemmi Stat, fatt li għandu jiġi vverifikat mill-qorti tar-rinviju. Top