The following explanations include the objectives as well as the scope and special features of the Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings (EuInsVO/EIR) which are illustrated by means of a practical example.
The aim, to avoid bogus companies in order to move assets in other countries at the expense of creditors or to affect the International jurisdiction by relocation of registered office could thus be implemented within the EU. This was most recently confirmed by the case law (ECJ, Judgement from 24.03.2023 – C-723/20).
Contents
Bibliography
List of sources
List of Abbreviations
1 Introduction
2 Objectives of the regulation
3 Insolvency law cross-border issues
3.1 Outside the EU (Matters relating to foreign countries (Third Countries)
3.2 Inside the EU (Matters relating to foreign countries (EU-countries)
4 Scope of application of the EIR (Reg. 2015/848)
4.1 Material scope
4.2 Temporal scope
4.3 Spatial-personal scope
5 Determination of COMI – practice example
5.1 Example and problem statement
5.2 Ascertainment of the COMI
5.3 Jurisdiction
5.3.1 Eurofood / Parmalat
5.3.2 BRAC
5.3.3 COMI of Siemens AG
6 Conclusion
Introduction
The following explanations include the objectives as well as the scope and special features of the Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings (EuInsVO/EIR) which are illustrated by means of a practical example.
Objectives of the regulation
In times of international globalization, a smooth functioning of the internal market and efficient as well as effective cross-border insolvency proceedings are required, which will be standardized within the EU with the help of the Regulation. This is intended to prevent the relocation of assets or legal proceedings to different member states in the event of insolvency in order to exploit legal advantages (“Forum Shopping”) to the detriment of creditors.
Regulation (EU) 2015/848 is intended to coordinate insolvency proceedings between the European Member States and bundle provisions on the place of jurisdiction and on the applicable law in order to prevent forum shopping. In this respect, a distinction has to be made in advance as to whether the facts of the case have a foreign connection within or outside the EU. Furthermore, significant case law (e.g. Eurofood, Parmalat) should also be noted in this context, which are presented in the following.
- Quote paper
- Anika Petzold (Author), 2023, Cross-border insolvency proceedings, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/1496338
