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

23.07.2018 NL law
Evaluatie Wbfo en start consultatie over mogelijke wijzigingen/wettelijke maatregelen voor vaste beloning

Short Reads - Op 17 juli 2018 heeft de minister van Financiën de twee rapporten over de evaluatie van de Wet beloningsbeleid financiële ondernemingen (Wbfo) aangeboden aan de Tweede Kamer. Tevens is een maatschappelijke consultatie naar drie wettelijke maatregelen met betrekking tot de vaste beloningen geopend.

Read more

11.07.2018 NL law
Update initiatiefwetsvoorstel introductie instemmingsrecht en aanscherping vaste beloning bankiers

Short Reads - Op 25 april 2018 heeft de Afdeling advisering van de Raad van State (hierna Raad van State) een kritisch advies uitgebracht over het initiatief-wetsvoorstel om de wet op het financieel toezicht (Wft) te wijzigen. Op 5 juli 2018 is dit advies tezamen met de reactie van de initiatiefnemers van het wetsvoorstel op het advies van de Raad van State gepubliceerd, evenals het aangepaste wetsvoorstel dat is aangeboden aan de Tweede Kamer.

Read more

16.07.2018 NL law
ISDA publishes consultation on benchmark fallbacks

Short Reads - ISDA publishes consultation on benchmark fallbacks. As part of an initiative to amend its standard derivatives documentation to facilitate the replacement of existing interbank offered rates (IBORs) by risk free rates (RFRs), the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) has published a consultation paper on certain adjustments required to such RFRs.

Read more

10.07.2018 EU law
Hof van Justitie EU oordeelt over reikwijdte 'beroepsgeheim' financiële toezichthouders voor bedrijfsgegevens

Articles - In een arrest van 19 juni 2018 oordeelt de Grote kamer van het Hof van Justitie EU over de reikwijdte van het 'beroepsgeheim' van financiële toezichthouders voor bedrijfsgegevens. Het hof oordeelt dat de informatie die zich in het toezichtsdossier bevindt niet onvoorwaardelijk vertrouwelijk van aard is en bijgevolg onder het beroepsgeheim van de toezichthouder valt. Gegevens die mogelijk commerciële geheimen zijn geweest, worden in beginsel geacht niet meer actueel en dus niet langer geheim te zijn, wanneer die gegevens ten minste vijf jaar oud zijn.

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring