Short Reads

European Court of Justice C-195/15: request for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings

European Court of Justice C-195/15: request for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings

European Court of Justice C-195/15: request for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings

06.04.2017 NL law

The qualification of a right as a 'right in rem' (zakelijk recht), within the meaning of Article 5 of Regulation No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (the "Regulation") must be determined according to the law of the place where the asset concerned is situated and the right in rem must satisfy certain criteria set out in Article 5(2) of the Regulation.

European Court of Justice 26 October 2016 (ECLI:EU:C:2016:804)

A French real estate company (the "Debtor") owned real property located in Wedemark, Germany. By a decision of 6 May 2013, the Debtor was put into court-supervised administration by a French court of first instance. On 15 May 2013, the Wedemark local authority applied for the compulsory sale of that property by public auction in order to recover arrears of real property tax, certifying that it was an enforceable tax debt. The court of first instance in Burgwedel ordered the compulsory sale of the real property on 21 May 2013. After dismissal of the appeal from the Debtor against that decision, the Debtor brought an action before the Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Court of Justice (the "BGH")).

Article 4 of the Regulation provides as a general rule that the law of the Member State of the opening of insolvency proceedings shall determine the conditions of the proceedings, their conduct and closure. Article 5 of the Regulation is an exception to this general rule and stipulates that the opening of insolvency proceedings shall not affect the right in rem of a creditor or a third party over a debtor's assets which were located in the territory of another Member State at the time the proceedings were opened.

The BGH observed that under German law, debts due in respect of real property taxes are public charges on real property which are rights in rem and the owner of the encumbered real property must accept enforcement of the instrument recording those debts against that property. However, the BGH doubted whether Article 5(1) of the Regulation was to be interpreted as a conflict-of-laws rule under which German law should determine whether or not a right in rem exists or whether the notion of a 'right in rem' should be interpreted independently. The BGH decided to stay the proceedings and refer this question to the European Court of Justice (the "ECJ") for a preliminary ruling.

In essence, the question concerned the qualification of a right as a 'right in rem' within the meaning of Article 5 of the Regulation. According to ECJ case law, the basis, validity and extent of a right in rem must normally be determined according to the law of the place where the asset concerned is situated. Consequently, this exception to the general rule leads to application of the law of the Member State on whose territory the asset concerned is situated with regard to the right in rem. On this basis, the ECJ ruled that for the purposes of applying Article 5(1) of the Regulation, the issue of the qualification of the right concerned as a right in rem is to be examined having regard to national law.

The ECJ pointed out that although limbs (2) and (3) of Article 5 of the Regulation do not define the notion of right in rem, they do explain through certain (non-exhaustive) examples of rights which qualify as rights in rem the limits of the protection afforded by Article 5, i.e. that it (i) needs to be a charge that directly and immediately encumbers the asset and (ii) is an absolute right.

Finally, whilst acknowledging that an exception to a general rule must be interpreted strictly, the ECJ pointed out that neither the wording nor the objectives of the Regulation could lead to the conclusion that Article 5 of the Regulation does not cover rights in rem outside the context of a commercial transaction.

The ECJ clarified the interpretation of the notion of right in rem within the meaning of Article 5 of the Regulation. There is no independent interpretation of right in rem, but whether or not the right concerned qualifies as a right in rem should be determined according to the national law of the place where the asset concerned is situated and it needs to satisfy certain criteria set out in Article 5(2) of the Regulation.

For the Dutch legal practice this means that when insolvency proceedings are opened in another Member State, this has, in principle, no effect on a Dutch right in rem which (i) satisfies the criteria set out in Article 5(2) of the Regulation; and (ii) is vested on an asset located in the Netherlands at the time of opening of the insolvency proceedings. If the Dutch right in rem can be enforced under Dutch law, the debtor (most likely) must accept enforcement, even if the main insolvency proceedings explicitly precludes enforcement. The same applies to Dutch insolvency proceedings and a right in rem in another Member State.

Team

Related news

15.11.2019 NL law
Het kerstmenu van de AFM: vijf gangen - Column Fondsnieuws

Short Reads - Vliegen de pepernoten, adventskalenders en kerstkransjes u alweer om de oren?  Nee, het aanmeten van een gezonde levensstijl wordt u aan het einde van het jaar niet makkelijk gemaakt. Gelukkig helpt het Voedingscentrum ons daar een handje bij; en wel met de 'Schijf van Vijf'. De AFM introduceerde vorig jaar iets vergelijkbaars voor de financiële sector.

Read more

07.11.2019 NL law
Banking & Finance 2019 Second Edition – The Netherlands and Luxembourg chapter

Articles - Maarten de Bruin, Rein van Helden, Rogier Raas and Robert Steeg have all contributed to the Chambers and Partners Banking & Finance 2019 Second Edition, providing the Netherlands chapter. The Luxembourg chapter was written by Gérald Origer, Jean-Marc Delcour, Steven Paridaens and Nicolas Pradel.

Read more

13.11.2019 NL law
A new Act on the Supervision of Trust Offices

Articles - Roderik Vrolijk and Soeradj Ramsanjhal published an article in the Dutch Financial Law Review as a follow-up on their article two years ago in the same journal. The authors specifically shed light on the customer due diligence and open norms of the new Act on the Supervision of Trust Offices 2018, that entered into force on 1 January 2019. 

Read more

31.10.2019 NL law
EBA Publishes Follow-Up Report on 2018 FinTech Roadmap

Short Reads - Building on its 2018 FinTech Roadmap, the EBA has issued a report focused on potential impediments to the cross-border provision of banking and payment services. In the 29 October 2019 report, the EBA identifies three regulatory areas in which the further integration of European banking and payment services markets can be improved.  The three areas the EBA addresses are authorisation and licensing, conduct of business and consumer protection requirements, and anti-money laundering ("AML") and countering the financing of terrorism ("CFT").

Read more

08.11.2019 BE law
Interview with Wouter Ghijsels on Next Gen lawyers

Articles - Stibbe’s managing partner Wouter Ghijsels shares his insights on the next generation of lawyers and the future of the legal profession at the occasion of the Leaders Meeting Paris where Belgian business leaders, politicians and inspiring people from the cultural and academic world will discuss this year's central theme "The Next Gen".

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring