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

20.05.2020 NL law
Perpetual securities not considered equity for Dutch corporate income tax purposes

Short Reads - In a decision of Friday 15 May 2020, the Dutch Supreme Court confirmed that fixed-to-floating rate perpetual equity securities (“perpetual securities”) should not be considered a “participation loan” (deelnemerschapslening) for Dutch tax purposes. Under Dutch tax law, characterization of a debt instrument as a “participation loan” implies that such instrument is deemed equity for Dutch corporate income tax purposes. Characterization of the perpetual securities as a participation loan would have meant that the interest would have been regarded non-deductible dividend.

Read more

04.05.2020 NL law
Reputation assessment to be introduced for UBOs of several regulated institutions

Short Reads - On 21 April 2020, the legislative proposal for the Financial Markets Repair Act 2020 (the “Proposal”) was submitted to Dutch Parliament (Tweede Kamer). The Proposal repairs deficiencies and omissions that have occurred in the implementation in Dutch law of certain pieces of European legislation in the field of financial markets. A number of proposed changes are related to the implementation of the (amended) fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (“AMLD”).

Read more

01.05.2020 EU law
Commission adopts banking package in response to COVID-19 pandemic

Short Reads - On 28 April 2020, the European Commission adopted a banking package aimed at facilitating bank lending to support the economy and help mitigate the economic impact of the COVID-19-pandemic. The package intends to encourage banks to make full use of the flexibility embedded in the EU’s prudential and accounting frameworks, to allow banks to fully support citizens and companies during this pandemic by providing funding. The package includes an Interpretative Communication on the EU's accounting and prudential rules, as well as specific “quick fix” amendments to EU banking rules.

Read more

This website uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential for the technical functioning of our website and you cannot disable these cookies if you want to read our website. We also use functional cookies to ensure the website functions properly and analytical cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You can either accept or refuse these functional and analytical cookies.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring