INSOLVENCY REGULATION AND REGULATION 44/2001 (BRUSSELS I) AND 2007 LUGANO CONVENTION
|
|
- Gavin Chase
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 INSOLVENCY REGULATION AND REGULATION 44/2001 (BRUSSELS I) AND 2007 LUGANO CONVENTION Judgment of 4 September 2014, C-157/13, Nickel & Goeldner Spedition GmbH v Kintra UAB Judgment of 4 December 2014, C-295/13, H v HK MIGUEL TORRES JOAQUIM-J. FORNER 1. Continued dialogue between Insolvency Regulation and Brussels I Regulation The Regulation 44/2001 ( Brussels I Regulation ) excludes insolvency matters from its material scope in Art. 1(2)(b). The ECJ has referred several times to the scope of the exclusion, thus elaboration on the borders between Brussels I Regulation and Insolvencu Regulation. 1 In its Judgment of 4 September 2014, C-157/13, Nickel & Goeldner Spedition GmbH v Kintra UAB, the ECJ has pronounced a decision which reaffirms the doctrine. The facts were as follows: On 28 May 2009, the Vilniaus apygardos teismas (Regional Court, Vilnius) opened insolvency proceedings against Kintra, which has its registered office in Lithuania. The insolvency administrator of Kintra applied to the Vilniaus apygardos teismas for an order that Nickel & Goeldner Spedition, which has its registered office in Germany, pay, by way of principal sum, LTL in respect of services comprising the international carriage of goods provided by Kintra for Nickel & Goeldner Spedition, inter alia in France and in Germany. According to the insolvency administrator of Kintra, the jurisdiction of the Vilniaus apygardos teismas was based on Article 14(3) of the Lithuanian Law on the insolvency of undertakings. Nickel & Goeldner Spedition disputed that jurisdiction claiming that the dispute fell within the scope of Article 31 of the CMR and of Regulation No 44/2001. By judgment of 29 August 2011, the Vilniaus apygardos teismas granted the application of the insolvency administrator of Kintra, holding that its jurisdiction resulted from the provisions of the Lithuanian Law on the insolvency of undertakings and from Regulation No 1346/2000. By decision of 6 June 2012, the Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas (Court of Appeal of Lithuania) upheld the judgment at first instance. It held that the dispute related to the exception concerning bankruptcy, laid down in Article 1(2)(b) of Regulation No 44/2001, and that the court with jurisdiction in the dispute must be decided in 1 See in this webpage section: Insolvency regulation and Regulation 44/2001 (Brussels I), examining Judgment of 12 February 2009, C-339/07, Christopher Seagon, in his capacity as liquidator in respect of the assets of Frick Teppichboden Supermärkte GmbH v Deko Marty Belgium NV; Judgment of 10 September 2009, C-292/08, German Graphics Graphische Maschinen GmbH v Alice van der Schee, acting as liquidator of Holland Binding BV; Judgment of 19 April 2012, C-213/10, F-Tex SIA v Lietuvos-Anglijos UAB Jadecloud-Vilma.
2 accordance with Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000 and with the provisions of the Lithuanian Law on the insolvency of undertakings. 2 The ECJ summarized first its doctrine: It is apparent from that case-law that it is true that, in its assessment, the Court has taken into account the fact that the various types of actions which it heard were brought in connection with insolvency proceedings. However, it has mainly concerned itself with determining on each occasion whether the action at issue derived from insolvency law or from other rules. It follows that the decisive criterion adopted by the Court to identify the area within which an action falls is not the procedural context of which that action is part, but the legal basis thereof. According to that approach, it must be determined whether the right or the obligation which respects the basis of the action finds its source in the common rules of civil and commercial law or in the derogating rules specific to insolvency proceedings. 3 The court found that it is not disputed that the action at issue is an action for the payment of a debt arising out of the provision of services in implementation of a contract for carriage. That action could have been brought by the creditor itself before its divestment by the opening of insolvency proceedings relating to it and, in that situation, the action would have been governed by the rules concerning jurisdiction applicable in civil and commercial matters. The fact that, after the opening of insolvency proceedings against a service provider, the action for payment is taken by the insolvency administrator appointed in the course of those proceedings and that the latter acts in the interest of the creditors does not substantially amend the nature of the debt relied on which continues to be subject, in terms of the substance of the matter, to the rules of law which remain unchanged. It is therefore necessary to hold that the action at issue in the main proceedings does not have a direct link with the insolvency proceedings opened in relation to the applicant. 4 The ECJ concludes: Consequently, the answer to the first question is that Article 1(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that an action for the payment of a debt based on the provision of carriage services taken by the insolvency administrator of an insolvent undertaking in the course of insolvency proceedings opened in one Member State and taken against a service recipient established in another Member State comes under the concept of civil and commercial matters within the meaning of that provision. 5 We shall see infra Section 3 that the ECJ had to clarify its language soon after. 2. What rule of jurisdiction applies? The inclusion in the scope of Brussels I Regulation and exclusion of the Insolvency does not necessarily comport the application of Brussels I Regulation rules of jurisdiction. Art. 71 thereof gives precedence to certain international conventions, in 2 Paras Paras Paras Para 32.
3 particular to the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road, signed in Geneva on 19 May 1956, as amended by the Protocol signed in Geneva on 5 July 1978 ( the CMR ), to which Lithuania acceded in The ECJ summarized its doctrine concerning the relationship between CMR and Brussels I Regulation 6 : [T]he application, in relation to matters governed by specialised conventions, of the rules provided for by those conventions cannot compromise the principles which underlie judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters in the EU such as the principles, recalled in recitals 6, 11, 12 and 15 to 17 in the preamble to Regulation No 44/2001, of the free movement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, predictability as to the courts having jurisdiction and therefore legal certainty for litigants, the sound administration of justice, minimisation of the risk of concurrent proceedings, and mutual trust in the administration of justice in the EU... 7 In the present case, the ECJ has found that Art. 31 of the CMR 8 was consistent with the doctrine and has also underlined that the interpretation given by the ECJ to art. 5(1) of the Brussels I Regulation has reached a solution similar in the matter of passengers transport by air 9 : It is true that the second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation No 44/2001, the wording of which refers to only one place of performance, offers the claimant less choice than Article 31(1) of the CMR, which allows him to choose between the place where the goods were taken over by the carrier and the place designated for delivery of the goods. However, that fact is not such as to affect the compatibility of Article 31(1) of the CMR with principles which underlie judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters in the EU. The Court has accepted in relation to contracts for carriage that, in certain circumstances, the applicant may have the choice between the courts of the place of departure and those of the place of arrival. In that respect, it has stated that such a choice granted to the applicant, apart from respecting the criterion of proximity, also satisfies the requirement of predictability, in so far as it allows the applicant, as well as the defendant, easily to identify the courts before which proceedings may be brought. What is more, it is consistent with the objective of legal certainty, since the applicant s choice is limited to two possible judicial fora within the framework of the second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation No 44/2001 (judgment in Rehder, para 45). Therefore, a dispute falls within the scope of both the regulation and the CMR, a Member State may, in accordance with Article 71(1) of that regulation, apply the rules concerning jurisdiction laid down in Article 31(1) of the CMR Judgment of 4 May 2010 C-533/08 TNT Express Nederland BV v. AXA Versicherung AG and Judgment of 19 December 2013 C-452/12 Nipponkoa Insurance Co. (Europe) Ltd v. Inter-Zuid Transport BV. 7 Para In legal proceedings arising out of carriage under this Convention, the plaintiff may bring an action in any court or tribunal of a contracting country designated by agreement between the parties and, in addition, in the courts or tribunals of a country within whose territory: (a) The defendant is ordinarily resident, or has his principal place of business, or the branch or agency through which the contract of carriage was made, or (b) The place where the goods were taken over by the carrier or the place designated for delivery is situated. 9 Judgment of 9 July 2008, C-204/08, Peter Rehder v. Air Baltic Corporation. 10 Para 42.
4 3. What if applicability of Lugano Convention of 2007 is at stake? a) Exclusion from Regulation 44/2001 In Judgment of 4 December 2014, C-295/13, H v HK the ECJ has faced the relationship between Brussels I Regulation and the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed in Lugano on 30 October 2007, which enacts a system of judicial jurisdiction copied from the Brussels I Regulation. It therefore has a rule in Art. 1(2)(b) excluding bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings from its scope of application. The 2007 Lugano Convention is in force among member States of the EU (except Denmark), on one side, and Iceland, Norway and Switzerland, on the other side 11. The facts of the case involved a defendant domiciled in Switzerland, which makes 2007 Lugano Convention applicable instead of the Brussels I Regulation before a German court: The applicant in the main proceedings is the liquidator in insolvency proceedings opened on 1 November 2009 and concerning the assets of G.T., a German company with its registered office at Offenbach am Main (Germany). The defendant in the main proceedings is the managing director of G.T. He is domiciled in Switzerland. On 1 July 2009, G.T. transferred EUR to one of its subsidiaries and, on 8 July 2009, to the same subsidiary, EUR , EUR of which it recovered. The applicant in the main proceedings is seeking from the defendant in those proceedings, in his capacity as managing director of G.T., reimbursement of the remaining EUR He has based his claim on the first and second sentences of Paragraph 64 of the GmbHG and submits that the transfers made by the defendant in the main proceedings on 1 and 8 July 2009 to the subsidiary in question were made after G.T. became insolvent and after it had been established that the company s liabilities exceeded its assets. The referring court raises the question whether the proceedings fall within the substantive scope of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000. [...] According to the referring court, if the action at issue falls within the substantive scope of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000, it is necessary to answer the question whether that provision also applies if the insolvency proceedings have been opened in a Member State while the defendant s domicile or registered office is situated in a non-member State as, in the present case, the Swiss Confederation. The Swiss Confederation, while a contracting party to the Lugano II Convention, is not bound by that regulation. Should the Court conclude that Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000 is not applicable in a case such as that in the main proceedings, the referring court raises the issue whether the dispute in the main proceedings falls within the substantive scope of Article 1(2)(b) of the Lugano II Convention. Pursuant to that provision, that convention does not apply to bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the 11 See Pocar, F. Explanatory Report. Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed in Lugano on 30 October 2007 OJ C 319, , p. 1.
5 winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings. 12 Regarding the applicability of the Insolvency Regulation the question is whether Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the Member State in the territory of which insolvency proceedings regarding a company s assets have been opened have jurisdiction, on the basis of that provision, to hear and determine an action, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, brought by the liquidator in the insolvency proceedings against the managing director of that company for reimbursement of payments made after the company became insolvent or after it had been established that the company s liabilities exceeded its assets. 13 The answer is positive, but it requires an extended reasoning due to the particular status of Paragraph 64 of the GmbHG which is the relevant rule in German law allowing the institution of the action regardless of an insolvency procedure. The reasoning includes further insights on Judgment of 4 September 2014, C-157/13, Nickel & Goeldner Spedition GmbH v Kintra UAB (Supra Section 1): It must be observed in this connection that, having regard, inter alia, to the effectiveness of Regulation No 1346/2000, Article 3(1) thereof must be interpreted as meaning that it confers international jurisdiction on the Member State within the territory of which insolvency proceedings were opened in order to hear and determine actions which derive directly from those proceedings and which are closely connected to them (judgment in Seagon, para 21). Furthermore, it must be stated that the Court, in its case-law concerning the assessment of the question whether proceedings derive directly from insolvency proceedings or are closely connected with them, has taken into account, first, the fact that the various types of actions which it heard were brought in connection with insolvency proceedings. Secondly, the Court concerned itself above all with determining on each occasion whether the action at issue derived from insolvency law or from other rules (see, to that effect, judgment in Nickel & Goeldner Spedition, C 157/13, para 26). Thus, so far as concerns the action at issue in the main proceedings, based on Paragraph 64 of the GmbHG, it must be found, first, that it has been brought in connection with insolvency proceedings. Secondly, so far as concerns the fact that the wording of Paragraph 64 of the GmbHG theoretically allows an action to be brought even where no insolvency proceedings concerning the assets of the debtor company have been opened, it must be stated that this fact per se does not preclude such an action being characterised as an action which derives directly from insolvency proceedings and is closely connected with them, providing that that action was actually brought in the context of insolvency proceedings, as is the case in the main proceedings. Admittedly, the Court has already held that, in order to identify the area within which an action falls, it is necessary to determine whether the right or the obligation which forms the basis of the action finds its source in the common rules of civil and commercial law or in the derogating rules specific to insolvency proceedings (judgment in Nickel & Goeldner Spedition, para 27). However, those considerations cannot be interpreted to the effect that an action based on a provision whose application does not require insolvency proceedings to have formally been opened but 12 Paras 8-9, Para 14.
6 does require the actual insolvency of the debtor, and thus on a provision which, in contrast to the provisions at issue in the case which gave rise to the judgment in Nickel & Goeldner Spedition (EU:C:2014:2145), derogates from the common rules of civil and commercial law, does not derive directly from insolvency proceedings or is not closely connected with them. Under Paragraph 64 of the GmbHG, the managing director of a debtor company must reimburse the payments which he made on behalf of that company after it became insolvent or after it was established that the company s liabilities exceeded its assets. That provision therefore clearly derogates from the common rules of civil and commercial law, specifically because of the insolvency of the debtor company. An interpretation of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000 to the effect that an action based on Paragraph 64 of the GmbHG, brought in insolvency proceedings, is not an action deriving directly from insolvency proceedings and closely connected with them, would therefore create an artificial distinction between that action and comparable actions, such as the actions to set transactions aside at issue in the cases which gave rise to the judgments in Seagon and F-Tex, on the sole ground that the action based on Paragraph 64 of the GmbHG could theoretically be brought even if there were no insolvency proceedings. Such an interpretation, which has no basis in the relevant provisions of Regulation No 1346/2000, cannot be accepted. It must be stated, on the other hand, that an action based on Paragraph 64 of the GmbHG and brought outside the context of insolvency proceedings may fall within the scope of the Lugano II Convention or, as the case may be, that of Regulation No 44/2001. However, that is not the situation in the case in the main proceedings. 14 b) Exclusion from 2007 Lugano Convention Including the action into the material scope of the Insolvency Regulation corresponds to its exclusion of Brussels I Regulation, which is the same under the 2007 Lugano Convention. In the language of the ECJ the question is whether Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the Member State in the territory of which insolvency proceedings regarding a company s assets have been opened have jurisdiction to hear and determine an action, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, brought by the liquidator in the insolvency proceedings against the managing director of that company for reimbursement of payments made after the company became insolvent or after it had been established that the company s liabilities exceeded its assets, where the managing director is domiciled, not in another Member State but, as is the situation in the main proceedings, in a contracting party to the Lugano II Convention. 15 The ECJ had already admitted that Art. 3(1) of the Insolvency Regulation is applicable regardless of the domicile of the defendant in a third country 16 and the same finding is made in the present case: [T]he Court, in a case concerning, inter alia, the exclusion of bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings from 14 Paras Para Judgment of 16 January 2014 C-328/12 Ralph Schmid, acting as liquidator of the assets of Aletta Zimmermann v. Lilly Hertel.
7 the scope of Regulation No 44/2001, provided for, in identical terms to those of Article 1(2)(b) of the Lugano II Convention, in Article 1(2)(b) of that regulation, has previously held that that exclusion, on the one hand, and the scope of Regulation No 1346/2000, on the other, must be interpreted in such a way as to avoid any overlapping of the rules of law laid down by those texts. Consequently, in so far as an action falls under Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000, it does not fall within the scope of Regulation No 44/2001 (see, to that effect, Nickel & Goeldner Spedition, EU:C:2014:2145, paragraph 21 and the case-law cited).in the light, in particular, of the identical wording of the provisions concerned, the considerations set out in the preceding paragraph may be transposed to the interpretation of Article 1(2)(b) of the Lugano II Convention. Therefore, since the action in the main proceedings falls under Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000, it is excluded from the scope of that convention. Accordingly, the fact that the Swiss Confederation is a contracting party to the Lugano II Convention is irrelevant for the purposes of the outcome of the dispute in the main proceedings, the convention not being applicable to that dispute. Thirdly, the Court has already ruled that Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the Member State within the territory of which the insolvency proceedings were opened have jurisdiction to hear and determine an action which derives directly from those proceedings and which is closely connected with them that is brought against a defendant whose place of residence is not within the territory of a Member State (see the judgment in Schmid, EU:C:2014:6, paragraphs 30 and 39 and the case-law cited).
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 4 September 2014 (*)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 4 September 2014 (*) (Reference for a preliminary ruling Judicial cooperation in civil matters Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 Article 3(1) Concept of an action related
More informationJurisdictional clauses: Exclusive or not? The example of the English Courts jurisdiction under the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement
149 Jurisdictional clauses: Exclusive or not? The example of the English Courts jurisdiction under the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement Dr Christian Oetiker and Dr Jana Essebier* Introduction In the aftermath
More informationThe Jurisdictional Paradox in the Insolvency Regulation
(2016) 4(1) NIBLeJ 3 The Jurisdictional Paradox in the Insolvency Regulation Zoltán FABÓK * Introduction 1 This paper examines one question in the context of the European Insolvency Regulation 1 (the EIR
More informationReports of Cases. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 13 May 2015 *
Reports of Cases JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 13 May 2015 * (Reference for a preliminary ruling Area of freedom, security and justice Judicial cooperation in civil matters Regulation (EC) No 44/2001
More informationThe Approach of the European Insolvency Regulation
Enforcement of Insolvency-Derived Judgments The Approach of the European Insolvency Regulation Alexander Klauser UNCITRAL 4th International Insolvency Law Colloquium Vienna, 18 December 2013 European Insolvency
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 17 February 2016 (*)
1 von 8 18.04.2017 12:34 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 17 February 2016 (*) (Reference for a preliminary ruling Air transport Montreal Convention Articles 19, 22 and 29 Liability of air carrier
More informationProposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.7.2013 COM(2013) 554 final 2013/0268 (COD) Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction
More information32000R1346 OJ L 160, , p (ES, DA, DE, EL, EN, FR, 1. Council regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings
32000R1346 OJ L 160, 30.6.2000, p. 1-18 (ES, DA, DE, EL, EN, FR, 1 Council regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Council regulation (EC)
More informationCross Border Contracts and Dispute Settlement
Cross Border Contracts and Dispute Settlement Professor Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Helmut Rüßmann Former Judge at the Saarland Court of Appeals Cross Border Contract of Sale Buyer France Claim for Payment Germany
More information[340] COUNCIL REGULATION 44/2001/EC ( BRUSSELS II )
[340] COUNCIL REGULATION 44/2001/EC ( BRUSSELS II ) 4. Council Regulation 44/2001/EC of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
More informationCOMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION
EN EN EN COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION Brussels, 30.10.2009 COM(2009)605 final 2009/0168 (CNS) on the conclusion of the Arrangement between the European Community
More informationThis document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents
2001R0044 EN 09.07.2013 010.001 1 This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents B COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December
More information(Notices) NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES COUNCIL
23.12.2009 Official Journal of the European Union C 319/1 IV (Notices) NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES COUNCIL Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments
More informationREGULATION (EC) No 593/2008 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL. of 17 June on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I)
REGULATION (EC) No 593/2008 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN
More informationREGULATIONS. to justice. Since a number of amendments are to be made to that Regulation it should, in the interests of clarity, be recast.
REGULATIONS REGULATION (EU) No 1215/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
More informationRegulation (No) 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
Regulation (No) 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters Ph D Judge Diana Ungureanu, NIM Trainer Bucharest, 14-15 November 2013 1 Introduction.
More informationEUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 31 March 2008 (OR. en) 2005/0261 (COD) PE-CONS 3691/07 JUSTCIV 334 CODEC 1401
EUROPEAN UNION THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMT THE COUNCIL Brussels, 31 March 2008 (OR. en) 2005/0261 (COD) PE-CONS 3691/07 JUSTCIV 334 CODEC 1401 LEGISLATIVE ACTS AND OTHER INSTRUMTS Subject: Regulation of the
More informationTHEMIS 2011 JUDICIAL COOPERATION IN CIVIL MATTERS PRACTICAL CASE
THEMIS 2011 (AMSTERDAM 3 RD 7 TH OCTOBER 2011) JUDICIAL COOPERATION IN CIVIL MATTERS PRACTICAL CASE Italian Team: Luigi D Alessandro Matteo Marini Roberta Mariscotti Accompanying teacher: Carlo Renoldi
More informationIPPT , CJEU, Brite Strike. Court of Justice EU, 14 July 2016, Brite Strike
Court of Justice EU, 14 July 2016, Brite Strike TRADEMARK LAW - LITIGATION Rule of jurisdiction of article 4.6 BCIP (court of the place of registration) as a special rule of jurisdiction is allowed under
More informationThe Brussels I Review Proposal Challenges for the Lugano Convention? The Brussels I Review Proposal Facts and Figures, 10 February 2011
The Brussels I Review Proposal Challenges for the Lugano Convention? Conference of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London The Brussels I Review Proposal Facts and Figures, 10
More informationBANKRUPTCY AFTER BREXIT RECOGNITION OF INSOLVENCY PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING THE UK INSOL EUROPE'S VIEW
1 BANKRUPTCY AFTER BREXIT RECOGNITION OF INSOLVENCY PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING THE UK INSOL EUROPE'S VIEW Until the arrival of the European Insolvency Regulation in 2002 1 there were no rules of European law
More informationEUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 30 November 2012 (OR. en) 2010/0383 (COD) PE-CONS 56/12 JUSTCIV 294 CODEC 2277 OC 536
EUROPEAN UNION THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMT THE COUNCIL Brussels, 30 November 2012 (OR. en) 2010/0383 (COD) PE-CONS 56/12 JUSTCIV 294 CODEC 2277 OC 536 LEGISLATIVE ACTS AND OTHER INSTRUMTS Subject: REGULATION
More informationCONVENTION ON JURISDICTION AND THE RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS
CONVENTION ON JURISDICTION AND THE RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS CONV/JUD/en 1 PREAMBLE THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES TO THIS CONVENTION, DETERMINED to strengthen
More informationCOMIng, and Here to Stay: The Review of the European Insolvency Regulation
THE REVIEW OF THE EUROPEAN INSOLVENCY REGULATION [2016] EBLR 735 COMIng, and Here to Stay: The Review of the European Insolvency Regulation GEERT VAN CALSTER * Abstract In this contribution I summarily
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 10 September 2015 (*)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 10 September 2015 (*) (Reference for a preliminary ruling Judicial cooperation in civil matters Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial
More informationISDA LEGAL OPINIONS & BREXIT
ISDA LEGAL OPINIONS & BREXIT A number of pieces of EU legislation provide certain benefits in relation to contractual arrangements between EU/EEA-based counterparties and contractual arrangements governed
More informationSocial policy - Directive 80/987/EEC - Guarantee institutions' obligation to pay - Outstanding claims
Opinion of Advocate General Cosmas delivered on 14 May 1998 A.G.R. Regeling v Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid Reference for a preliminary ruling: Arrondissementsrechtbank Alkmaar
More informationEuropean Judicial Training Network. EJTN Seminar on Cross-border Insolvency in the EU
European Judicial Training Network Barcelona, 11 12 April 2018 EJTN Seminar on Cross-border Insolvency in the EU Enforcement (recognition of insolvency proceedings in other Member States): the effects
More informationCOMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 03.03.2003 SEC(2002) 1308 final/2 2002/0312(ACC) CORRIGENDUM Annule et remplace les 11 versions du doc. SEC(2002)1308 final du 17.12.2002 (document RESTREINT
More informationHow widespread is its use in competition cases and in what type of disputes is it used? Euro-defence and/or claim for damages?
IBA PRIVATE ENFORCEMENT - ARBITRATION (i) Role of arbitration in the enforcement of EC competition law Commercial contracts frequently refer disputes to be determined and settled by arbitration. This is
More informationRules of Procedure for the International Commercial Chambers of the Amsterdam District Court (NCC District Court) and the Amsterdam Court of Appeal
Rules of Procedure for the International Commercial Chambers of the Amsterdam District Court (NCC District Court) and the Amsterdam Court of Appeal (NCC Court of Appeal) NCC Rules / NCCR First edition
More informationNATIONAL REPORT - CZECH REPUBLIC - JUDr. Petr Lavický, Ph.D, Masaryk University
NATIONAL REPORT - CZECH REPUBLIC - JUDr. Petr Lavický, Ph.D, Masaryk University GENERAL OVERVIEW Court jurisdiction and different types of litigation for debt collection National summary procedures for
More informationCOMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION. of
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 30.8.2017 C(2017) 5853 final COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION of 30.8.2017 establishing the list of supporting documents to be submitted by applicants for short stay visas
More informationL 328/8 Official Journal of the European Union
L 328/8 Official Journal of the European Union 15.12.2005 COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2035/2005 of 12 December 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums
More informationRegulation 4/2009 and rules of jurisdiction
Prof. (em.) Dr. Dieter Martiny Frankfurt (Oder)/Hamburg Regulation 4/2009 and rules of jurisdiction EJTN - Seminar on Maintenance Obligations in Europe 5 th - 6 th December 2013 Sofia, Bulgaria A. Introduction
More informationRecommendation for a COUNCIL DECISION
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 18.10.2017 COM(2017) 605 final Recommendation for a COUNCIL DECISION authorising the opening of negotiations on an Agreement between the European Union and Canada for the
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 17 October 2014 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 17 October 2014 * (Article 30(1) of Directive 2001/24/EC Winding up of credit institutions Applicable law Voidness, voidability or unenforceability of legal acts Acts governed by
More informationCOMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION. of
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 4.9.2014 C(2014) 6141 final COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION of 4.9.2014 establishing the list of supporting documents to be presented by visa applicants in Algeria, Costa
More informationThe enforcement of jurisdiction after Brexit
The enforcement of jurisdiction after Brexit Christopher Riehn Annett Schubert Lennart Mewes EJTN Themis competition 2017 Semi-Final C: International Judicial Cooperation in Civil Matters European Civil
More informationProviding a crossborder. cooperation framework A FUTURE PARTNERSHIP PAPER
Providing a crossborder civil judicial cooperation framework A FUTURE PARTNERSHIP PAPER The United Kingdom wants to build a new, deep and special partnership with the European Union. This paper is part
More informationCOMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION. of establishing the list of supporting documents to be presented by visa applicants in Ireland
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 31.7.2014 C(2014) 5338 final COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION of 31.7.2014 establishing the list of supporting documents to be presented by visa applicants in Ireland (Only
More informationEnglish jurisdiction clauses should commercial parties change their approach?
Brexit legal consequences for commercial parties English jurisdiction clauses should commercial parties change their approach? February 2016 Issue in focus In our first Specialist paper on the legal consequences
More information1 Introduction 1. General Characteristics of Choice-of-Court Agreements 1.03 1.1 Agreement 1.05 1.2 Litigation 1.06 1.3 Parties 1.07 1.4 Content 1.08 2. Choice-of-Court Agreements in English Law 1.10 2.1
More informationContinuity of labour relations
Legal opinion Continuity of labour relations by Henrik Karl Nielsen within LO-TCO Baltic Labour Law Project Case 31, Lithuania 8 October 2002 2 Summary: On 6 May 1999 the general meeting of the shareholders
More informationGuidance from Luxembourg: First ECJ Judgment Clarifying the Relationship between the 1980 Hague Convention and Brussels II Revised
Guidance from Luxembourg: First ECJ Judgment Clarifying the Relationship between the 1980 Hague Convention and Brussels II Revised Andrea Schulz Head of the German Central Authority for International Custody
More informationProposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
EN EN EN EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 14.12.2010 COM(2010) 748 final 2010/0383 (COD) Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement
More informationJudgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 February Herbert Weber v Universal Ogden Services Ltd
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 February 2002 Herbert Weber v Universal Ogden Services Ltd Reference for a preliminary ruling: Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Netherlands Brussels Convention - Article
More informationPRACTICE GUIDE FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE REGULATION ON THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE
PRACTICE GUIDE FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE REGULATION ON THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE (Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking
More informationIn Case 166/80. and. on the interpretation of Articles 27 and 52 of the Convention, THE COURT
KLOMPS v MICHEL 5. Article 27, point 2, of the Convention does not require proof that the document which instituted the proceedings was actually brought to the knowledge of the defendant. As a general
More informationProposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 28.2.2013 COM(2013) 96 final 2013/0060 (COD) Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 as regards the use
More informationISDA LEGAL OPINIONS & BREXIT
ISDA LEGAL OPINIONS & BREXIT A number of pieces of EU legislation provide certain benefits in relation to contractual arrangements between EU/EEA-based counterparties. This document seeks to provide a
More informationThe European Small Claims procedure in Luxembourg
The European Small Claims procedure in Luxembourg Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European small claims procedure. Summary of the
More informationProposal for a COUNCIL DECISION
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 27.10.2015 COM(2015) 549 final 2015/0255 (NLE) Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION on the position to be adopted, on behalf of the European Union, in the European Committee for
More informationFOA netting opinion issued in relation to the FOA Netting Agreements, FOA Clearing Module and ISDA/FOA Clearing Addendum
NETTING ANALYSER LIBRARY The Futures & Options Association 2nd Floor 36-38 Botolph Lane London EC3R 8DE 4 December 2013 Dear Sirs, FOA netting opinion issued in relation to the FOA Netting Agreements,
More informationStudy JLS/C4/2005/03 National Report Sweden (Storskrubb) SE-1
Study JLS/C4/2005/03 National Report Sweden (Storskrubb) SE-1 REVIEW OF SWEDISH CASELAW As agreed I have conducted a limited research into the reported caselaw and caselaw which has been noted in databases
More informationIPPT , ECJ, Falco Privatstiftung and Rabitsch v Weller-Lindhorst
European Court of Justice, 23 April 2009, Falco Privatstiftung and Rabitsch v Weller-Lindhorst PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW The concept provision of services That the second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation
More informationNottingham Law School
Nottingham Law School Centre for Business and Insolvency Law Insolvency Bulletin Spring 2014 Volume 7 In this Bulletin 1. Cross-Border Erste Group Bank AG London Branch v JCS VMZ Red October (1) Red October
More informationCOMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION. of
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 23.2.2016 C(2016) 966 final COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION of 23.2.2016 amending Implementing Decision C(2013) 4914 establishing the list of travel documents which entitle
More informationCouncil of the European Union Brussels, 16 December 2014 (OR. en)
Conseil UE Council of the European Union Brussels, 16 December 2014 (OR. en) Interinstitutional File: 2014/0121 (COD) 16979/14 LIMITE OPINION OF THE LEGAL SERVICE 1 From: To: Subject: Legal Service Working
More informationTIME TO REVISIT FORUM NON CONVENIENS IN THE UK? GROUP JOSI REINSURANCE CO V UGIC
705 TIME TO REVISIT FORUM NON CONVENIENS IN THE UK? GROUP JOSI REINSURANCE CO V UGIC Christopher D Bougen * There has been much debate in the United Kingdom over the last decade on whether the discretionary
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 15 March 2011 (*)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 15 March 2011 (*) (Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations Contract of employment Choice made by the parties Mandatory rules of the law applicable
More informationNote on the relationship between the future Hague Judgments Convention and regional arrangements, in particular the Brussels and Lugano instruments
ANNEX D February 2001 Note on the relationship between the future Hague Judgments Convention and regional arrangements, in particular the Brussels and Lugano instruments drawn up by the Permanent Bureau
More informationA (Not so Simple Matter of) Jurisdiction: the Relationship between Regulations (EU) No. 1346/2000 and No. 44/2001
A (Not so Simple Matter of) Jurisdiction: the Relationship between Regulations (EU) No. 1346/2000 and No. 44/2001 Michele Angelo Lupoi This paper deals with the relationship between two very important
More information1) Freedom of choice the primary principle
The law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I Regulation) - a summary and practical guidance on its impact on contractual obligations concluded by Cyprus companies From 17 December 2009 Regulation
More informationCOMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION
EN EN EN COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 15.7.2009 COM(2009) 366 final 2009/0104 (CNS) Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries
More informationThe Impact of the CDC Hydrogen Peroxide Judgment on Present and Future Arbitration Agreements
The Impact of the CDC Hydrogen Peroxide Judgment on Present and Future Arbitration Agreements Pascal HOLLANDER HANOTIAU & VAN DEN BERG Brussels SCC-CEA Joint Conference Stockholm 28 April 2017 CONTEXT:
More informationInteredil Srl (in liquidation) v Fallimento Interedil Srl and another
This decision has been edited and does not contain the full text of the original Interedil Srl (in liquidation) v Fallimento Interedil Srl and another (Case C-396/09) Court of Justice of the European Union
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 11 October 2007 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 11 October 2007 * In Case C-98/06, REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Articles 68 EC and 234 EC from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden), made by decision of 8 February
More informationARTICLE 29 Data Protection Working Party
ARTICLE 29 Data Protection Working Party 1613//06/EN WP 127 Opinion 9/2006 on the Implementation of Directive 2004/82/EC of the Council on the obligation of carriers to communicate advance passenger data
More informationReports of Cases. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 17 October 2013 *
Reports of Cases JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 17 October 2013 * (Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations Articles 3 and 7(2) Freedom of choice of the parties Limits Mandatory
More informationTHE REVISED LUGANO CONVENTION: Consumer Contracts, Place of Jurisdiction and Applicable Law in Italy
THE REVISED LUGANO CONVENTION: Consumer Contracts, Place of Jurisdiction and Applicable Law in Italy Eurojuris IBG Event September 6, 2013 Basel, Switzerland Lorenzo Bacciardi, LL.M. Chairman of the Eurojuris
More informationNew York State Bar Association International Section - Seasonal meeting 2014
New York State Bar Association International Section - Seasonal meeting 2014 Thursday 16 th October, 2014 Track One: UNCITRAL Cross-Border Insolvency enforcement of foreign insolvency-derived judgements
More informationAbstract: of foreign judgments within the European Union and states outside of the EU, namely three
THE REVISED LUGANO CONVENTION FROM THE SWISS PERSPECTIVE by Lukas Müller Suggested Citation: Lukas Müller, The Revised Lugano Convention from the Swiss Perspective, 18 COLUM. J. EUR. L. ONLINE 9 (2011),
More informationRevision of the European Insolvency Regulation
Revision of the European Insolvency Regulation DRAFT AMENDED VERSION OF COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1346/2000 ON INSOLVENCY PROCEEDINGS AS AMENDED BY COUNCIL REGULATIONS OF 12 APRIL 2005, 27 APRIL 2006,
More informationBRITAIN S BARGAINING STRENGTH REGARDING POST-BREXIT JURISDICTION ARRANGEMENTS. David Wolfson Q.C. Society of Conservative Lawyers
BRITAIN S BARGAINING STRENGTH REGARDING POST-BREXIT JURISDICTION ARRANGEMENTS David Wolfson Q.C. Society of Conservative Lawyers FOREWORD In August 2017 the UK Government proposed an agreement with the
More informationThe EU Visa Code will apply from 5 April 2010
MEMO/10/111 Brussels, 30 March 2010 The EU Visa Code will apply from 5 April 2010 What is the Visa Code? The Visa Code 1 is an EU Regulation adopted by the European Parliament and the Council (co-decision
More informationBIA s.267. UNCITRAL Model Law. Proposed Wording
BIA s.267 267. The purpose of this Part is to provide mechanisms for dealing with cases of cross-border insolvencies and to promote (a) cooperation between the courts and other competent authorities in
More information9117/16 JdSS/ml 1 DG D 1A
Council of the European Union Brussels, 19 May 2016 (OR. en) Interinstitutional File: 2016/0142 (COD) 9117/16 VISA 155 CODEC 691 'A' ITEM NOTE From: To: General Secretariat of the Council Council No. prev.
More informationREPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 23.2.2012 COM(2012) 71 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the application of Directive
More informationField: BVerwGE: No. Professional press: Yes
Field: BVerwGE: No Asylum law Professional press: Yes Sources in law: Asylum Procedure Act Section 27a European Charter of Human Rights Article 3 Basic Law Article 103 (1) Charter of Fundamental Rights
More informationProposal for a COUNCIL DECISION
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 13.7.2011 COM(2010) 414 final 2010/0225 (NLE) Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION on the conclusion of the Agreement on certain aspects of air services between the European Union
More informationAn Outline of The EU Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings
An Outline of The EU Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings Sandy Shandro Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer June 2003 (000000-0000) CONTENTS PART ONE - A GUIDE T O THE REGULATION... 1 INTRODUCTION...1 SCOPE
More informationPROPOSAL European Commission dated: 1 July 2009 Subject: Proposal for a Council Regulation on the introduction of the euro (Codified version)
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 6 July 2009 11759/09 Interinstitutional File: 2009/0083 (CNS) CODIF 87 ECOFIN 499 UEM 206 PROPOSAL from: European Commission dated: 1 July 2009 Subject: Proposal
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 21 July 2016 (*)
Seite 1 von 10 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 21 July 2016 (*) (Request for a preliminary ruling State aid Aid scheme in the form of reductions in environmental taxes Regulation (EC) No 800/2008
More informationCouncil of the European Union Brussels, 8 February 2016 (OR. en)
Council of the European Union Brussels, 8 February 2016 (OR. en) Interinstitutional File: 2015/0307 (COD) 5808/16 LIMITE FRONT 50 CODEC 124 COMIX 80 NOTE From: Presidency To: Permanent Representatives
More informationBrexit English law and the English Courts
Brexit Law your business, the EU and the way ahead Brexit English law and the English Courts Introduction June 2018 One of the key questions that commercial parties continue to raise in relation to Brexit,
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 19 July 2012 (*)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 19 July 2012 (*) (Judicial cooperation in civil matters Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment Contract with an embassy of
More informationThe European, Middle Eastern and African Restructuring Review 2017
The European, Middle Eastern and African Restructuring Review 2017 1 Switzerland: Freezing Orders and Asset Tracing Gion Christian Casanova and Alexander Flink Prager Dreifuss Ltd Switzerland is home to
More informationBrussels, 30 January 2014 COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION 5870/14. Dossier interinstitutionnel: 2013/0268 (COD) JUSTCIV 17 PI 11 CODEC 225
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 30 January 2014 Dossier interinstitutionnel: 2013/0268 (COD) 5870/14 JUSTCIV 17 PI 11 CODEC 225 NOTE from: General Secretariat of the Council to: Coreper No Cion
More informationPRACTICAL LAW DISPUTE RESOLUTION VOLUME 1 MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL GUIDE 2012/13. The law and leading lawyers worldwide
PRACTICAL LAW MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL GUIDE 2012/13 VOLUME 1 The law and leading lawyers worldwide Essential legal questions answered in 32 key jurisdictions Rankings and recommended lawyers in 90 jurisdictions
More information1. This Order may be cited as the Proceeds of Criminal Conduct (Designated Countries and Territories) Order, 1999.
VIRGIN ISLANDS STATUTORY INSTRUMENT 1999 NO. 49 PROCEEDS OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT ACT (No. 5 of 1997) Proceeds of Criminal Conduct (Designated Countries and Territories) Order, 1999 [ Gazetted 14 th October,
More informationWhen the Court gets it wrong
When the Court gets it wrong Case C- 533/08 TNT Express Nederland BV v AXA Versicherung AG. Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 May 2010. Reference for a preliminary ruling: Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
More informationCOMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 14.09.2004 COM(2004)593 final 2004/0199(CNS) 2004/0200(CNS) Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION on the signature, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement
More informationEnforcement The New York Convention vs the Lugano/Brussels Conventions
Enforcement The New York Convention vs the Lugano/Brussels Conventions Karin Fløistad, Simonsen Vogt Wiig page 1 Arbitration The arbitration agreement's rules on jurisdiction and choice of law will apply
More informationILO comments on the EU single permit directive and its discussions in the European Parliament and Council
14.2.2011 ILO comments on the EU single permit directive and its discussions in the European Parliament and Council The social security and equal treatment/non-discrimination dimensions Equal treatment
More informationCOMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. Amended proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 11.6.2003 COM (2003) 341 final 2002/0090 (COD) Amended proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL creating a European enforcement
More information13380/10 MM/GG/cr 1 DG H 1 A
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 8 September 2010 13380/10 FRONT 125 COMIX 571 COVER NOTE from: Secretary-General of the European Commission, signed by Mr Jordi AYET PUIGARNAU, Director date of
More information6310/1/16 REV 1 BM/cr 1 DG D 1 A
Council of the European Union Brussels, 24 February 2016 (OR. en) Interinstitutional File: 2015/0307 (COD) 6310/1/16 REV 1 FRONT 79 SIRIS 20 CODEC 185 COMIX 127 NOTE From: To: Subject: Presidency Council
More informationAppeal. Financial undertakings. Winding-up proceedings. EFTA Court. Advisory opinion. European Economic Area
Friday, 16 December 2011 No. 637/2011 Kaupthing Bank hf. (Þröstur Ríkharðsson, District Court Attorney) v Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd. (Skúli Th. Fjeldsted, Supreme Court Attorney) Appeal. Financial
More informationProposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 30.6.2016 COM(2016) 434 final 2016/0198 (COD) Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002 laying
More information