Short Reads

European Court of Justice: actio pauliana is covered by jurisdiction rule of forum of contract. A judgment with foreseeable consequences?

European Court of Justice: actio pauliana is covered by jurisdiction

European Court of Justice: actio pauliana is covered by jurisdiction rule of forum of contract. A judgment with foreseeable consequences?

04.04.2019 NL law

Imagine that a debtor voluntarily concludes a transaction with a third party where he knows (or should know) that it hinders the creditor's possibilities of collecting the debt. In civil law countries, a creditor can invoke the nullification of that legal act by means of a so-called actio pauliana. This raises the question of which court has jurisdiction in the case of an international dispute, regarding an actio pauliana, that is instituted by a creditor against a third party?

The Feniks/Azteca judgment of the European Court of Justice (the "ECJ") of 4 October 2018, ECLI:EU:C:2018:805, concerned this question. More specifically, the central question was whether an actio pauliana is covered by the international jurisdiction rule of article 7(1)(a) of the Brussels I Regulation Recast (Regulation (EU) 1215/2012; "Brussels I Recast"). Pursuant to that article, in matters relating to a contract, the courts of the place of performance of the obligation in question have jurisdiction. The ECJ surprisingly concluded that this special head of jurisdiction (in addition to the general head of the residence of the defendant in accordance with article 4(1) Brussels I Recast) is indeed applicable.

An important consequence is that one can be sued by creditors of a contract partner in another member state than the member state in which he is domiciled or does business, if these creditors institute an actio pauliana against him.


The company Coliseum, established in Poland, concluded a contract with the company Feniks, also established in Poland. The contract concerned construction works to be carried out in Poland. Coliseum acted as a general contractor and Feniks as an investor. Subsequently, Coliseum concluded contracts with several subcontractors, but failed to meet its payment obligations towards them. Pursuant to rules of joint and several liability in Polish law, Feniks was liable for these obligations of Coliseum. Therefore, Feniks paid the subcontractors over EUR 300,000, as a result of which it has become a creditor of Coliseum.

When Feniks tried to recover these costs from Coliseum, it appeared that Coliseum could not offer redress. Earlier, Coliseum had sold real estate to the Spanish company Azteca. Feniks brought an actio pauliana against Azteca, asking the Polish court of first instance to nullify the purchase agreement. According to Feniks, the Polish court had jurisdiction based on article 7(1)(a) Brussels I Recast. However, Azteca argued that this article was not applicable and that the jurisdiction could only be assessed by the general rule of article 4(1) Brussels I Recast, for which the court based in the residence of the defendant Azteca  (in this case a Spanish court) had jurisdiction.

Preliminary questions

The Polish court asked two preliminary questions, that – according to the ECJ – essentially come down to the question "whether an actio pauliana, whereby the person entitled to a debt requests that an act by which his debtor has transferred an asset to a third party and which is allegedly detrimental to his rights be declared ineffective in relation to the creditor, is covered by the rule of international jurisdiction provided for in Article 7(1)(a)" Brussels I Recast.

Consideration of the questions referred

The ECJ first considers that the action in the present proceedings falls within the scope of Brussels I Recast instead of the Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings (Regulation (EU) 2015/848; "the Insolvency Regulation"), because (i) the action brought by Feniks does not seem to be at all connected with proceedings for the liquidation of assets or composition proceedings, and (ii) no insolvency proceedings were instigated against Coliseum due to a lack of assets. For an elaboration on the boundaries between Brussels I Recast and the Insolvency Regulation, I refer to paragraph 4.1 of the blog of my colleague Marleen Jonckers about the recent judgment of the ECJ regarding the 'Peeters/Gatzen claim' (ECLI:EU:C:2019:96).

Subsequently, the ECJ states that the jurisdiction rules of Brussels I Recast must be highly predictable in order to strengthen the legal protection of persons established in the European Union. Furthermore, the special heads of jurisdiction have to be interpreted restrictively. According to settled case law, the application of the special head of jurisdiction for matters relating to a contract "presupposes the establishment of a legal obligation freely consented to by one person towards another and on which the claimant’s action is based" (no. 39). Additionally, the ECJ considers that "the actio pauliana is based on the creditor’s personal claim against the debtor and seeks to protect whatever security he may have over the debtor’s estate. (…) It thus preserves the interests of the creditor with a view in particular to a subsequent enforcement of the debtor’s obligations" (no. 40-41).

In the present proceedings, Feniks paid Coliseum's subcontractors as a result of joint and several liability following from national, Polish law. However, according to the ECJ, "the fact remains that both the security that Feniks has over the debtor [i.e. Coliseum]’s estate and the present action regarding the ineffectiveness of the sale concluded by the debtor [i.e. Coliseum] with a third party [i.e. Azteca] originate in the obligations freely consented to by Coliseum with regard to Feniks upon the conclusion of their contract relating to those construction works. By this action the creditor [i.e. Feniks] seeks a declaration that the transfer of assets by the debtor [Coliseum] to a third party [Azteca] has caused detriment to the creditor [Feniks]’s rights deriving from the binding nature of the contract and which correspond with the obligations freely consented to by the debtor [Coliseum]. The cause of this action therefore lies essentially in the breach of these obligations towards the creditor [Feniks] to which the debtor [Coliseum] agreed" (no. 42-43; underlining and additions between square brackets by author).

The ECJ concludes that the actio pauliana falls within the definition of 'matters relating to a contract’ if it is brought on the basis of the creditor’s rights created upon the conclusion of a contract. Therefore, the action in the present proceedings is covered by article 7(1)(a) Brussel I Recast. This would fulfil the requirement for legal certainty and foreseeability, and remain in line with the aim of facilitating a sound administration of justice. The ECJ continues by stating that if only the general jurisdiction rule of the domicile of the defendant would be applicable, the creditor would be forced to bring proceedings before the court of that forum. However, in particular cases that forum would not be linked to the place where the obligations of the debtor against the creditor are performed or will be performed. In the present proceedings, the applicability of this special jurisdiction rule means that the Polish court has jurisdiction, because the agreement between Feniks and Coliseum concerning construction works was performed in Poland.

Finally, the court considers that this conclusion is in line with the aim of foreseeability of jurisdiction rules, because "a professional who has concluded a contract for the sale of immovable property may, where the creditor of the other contracting party objects that the contract obstructs the performance of obligations which the other contracting party has towards that creditor, reasonably expect to be sued in the courts of the place of performance of these obligations" (no. 47).

Judgment contradicts conclusion of Advocate General

Advocate General Bobek reasoned that if we assume that the head of jurisdiction of matters relating to a contract is applicable, this leads to the question to which of the two agreements – i.e. the agreement between the creditor (Feniks) and the debtor (Coliseum), and the agreement between Coliseum and the third-party acquirer (Azteca) – an actio pauliana would relate. To answer this question, Bobek has explored three possibilities: the actio pauliana could be related to (i) the contract that came first in time (between Feniks and Coliseum), or (ii) the contract that came second in time (between Coliseum and Azteca), or (iii) it is sufficient that the actio pauliana falls within the sphere of a contract (or as the ECJ states: "on the orbit" (no. 69)). He eventually concludes that each of these possibilities comes up against objections, and that the actio pauliana should therefore not be covered by the jurisdiction ground of matters relating to a contract.

As said, the ECJ reasons differently. The ECJ's judgment seems to be in line with one of the possibilities mentioned by Bobek, namely that the actio pauliana concerns the contract that comes first in time. Bobek considered application of this possibility to be burdensome, because (i) the connection between the two contracts would be too tenuous and too remote, and (ii) such a broad definition of 'matters relating to a contract' would be incompatible with the restrictive interpretation that has to be given to special jurisdiction grounds.

Aim of foreseeability

It is questionable whether the judgment of the ECJ is in line with Brussels I Recast's aim of foreseeability. Imagine that a Dutch company concludes an agreement with a company from another member state, for example Austria, that has to be performed in the Netherlands. The Dutch company would have to take into account that it can be sued by creditors of that Austrian company in any other member state. This is due to the fact that if the place of performance of the contract between the Austrian company and a third party is, for example, Spain, then a Spanish court would have jurisdiction with respect to an actio pauliana that is instituted by that third party against the Dutch company. That is remarkable, because in this case there is no link between the contract between the Dutch company and the Austrian company, and the Spanish forum.


Based on the special head of jurisdiction of matters relating to a contract, the court of the place of performance of the contract between a contract partner and her creditor will have jurisdiction with regard to an actio pauliana. Thus, it seems that legal entities – and in some cases possibly also consumers – within the European Union have to take into account that they can potentially be sued by creditors of a contract partner in any other member state, if those creditors institute an actio pauliana against them. Only doing business with trading partners that do not conclude contracts with a place of performance in another member state appears, for now, to be the only way to prevent that one can be sued in another member state based on an actio pauliana of a third-party acquirer.

Related news

08.07.2020 NL law
Dutch State breached duty of care in providing information to victims and surviving relatives of plane crash

Short Reads - Earlier this year, the District Court in The Hague ruled that the Dutch State is liable vis-à-vis the victims and surviving relatives of a 1992 plane crash in Faro, Portugal. The State was found liable because it is responsible for the information provided by the Dutch Aviation Safety Board (a government agency) to the victims and surviving relatives. This information, on the causes of the crash was deemed by the court to be incorrect and incomplete.

Read more

07.07.2020 NL law
UBO-register starts on 27 September 2020

Short Reads - It was announced on 7 July that the UBO register will go live on 27 September 2020. The Act on the implementation of the UBO register ("Implementation Act") and the corresponding decree of entry into force have each been published today in the Bulletin of Acts and Decrees. The Act will (partially) enter into force on 8 July 2020, and concerns the obligation for legal entities to collect and maintain information about their UBOs and the obligation for foundations to maintain benefits of 25 percent or less.

Read more

07.07.2020 NL law
Wetsvoorstel Wet Homologatie onderhands akkoord aangenomen door de Tweede Kamer

Short Reads - Het Wetsvoorstel Wet Homologatie onderhands akkoord (“WHOA”) is op 26 mei 2020 door de Tweede Kamer aangenomen en is momenteel in behandeling bij de Eerste Kamer. De WHOA combineert aspecten van de Engelse Scheme of Arrangement en de Amerikaanse Chapter 11 procedure. Ondernemingen die in zwaar weer verkeren krijgen de mogelijkheid om hun schulden buiten formele insolventieprocedures te herstructureren door een akkoord op te leggen aan (een deel van) de schuldeisers. De verwachting is dat de wet dit najaar in werking zal treden.

Read more

02.07.2020 NL law
Aansprakelijkheid van de Staat bij vliegtuigcrash in Faro

Articles - In haar uitspraak van 8 januari 2020 oordeelde Rechtbank Den Haag dat de Nederlandse Staat onrechtmatig heeft gehandeld jegens de slachtoffers en nabestaanden van de vliegramp in Faro (Portugal) in 1992, waarbij een Nederlands toestel was betrokken. De onrechtmatigheid is gelegen in onjuiste dan wel onvolledige informatieverstrekking over de oorzaken van deze vliegramp door de toenmalige Raad voor de Luchtvaart, inmiddels opgegaan in de Onderzoeksraad voor Veiligheid (‘Raad’). 

Read more

07.07.2020 NL law
Actualiteiten bescherming Nederlandse ondernemingen

Short Reads - Het afgelopen half jaar zijn er verschillende ontwikkelingen geweest op het gebied van bescherming van Nederlandse ondernemingen. COVID-19 zorgde daarbij voor een stroomversnelling. De verslechterde economische situatie als gevolg van COVID-19 maakt dat ondernemingen sneller bloot kunnen komen te staan aan ongewenste overnames of investeringen. Het Kabinet biedt ondernemingen handvatten ter bescherming tegen ongewenste overnames en investeringen als de nationale veiligheid in het geding komt.

Read more

18.06.2020 NL law
Wetsvoorstel opheffing verpandingsverboden: (mogelijke) impact op de financieringspraktijk

Short Reads - Het op 2 juni 2020 bij de Tweede Kamer ingediende wetsvoorstel opheffing verpandingsverboden (het “Wetsvoorstel”) beoogt de bestaande praktijk van het contractueel overeenkomen van verboden of beperkingen van de overdracht of verpanding van geldvorderingen op naam, voor zover die verkregen zijn in de uitoefening van beroep of bedrijf, op te heffen. Na inwerkingtreding van het Wetsvoorstel zullen dergelijke bedingen nietig zijn. In dit bericht een weergave van de (mogelijke) impact op de financieringspraktijk.

Read more