Vol 17 (2020) - Issue 6

Article preview

Case Note on the Decision of the European Court of Justice in Tiger, dated 4 December 2019 – C 493/18

Synopsis
After the European Court of Justice ('ECJ') decision in Seagon v Deko Marty it is well established that the international jurisdiction of the state of the opening of insolvency proceedings according to Art. 3 para. 1 of the Regulation No 1346/2000 (European Insolvency Regulation, 'EIR 2000') also extends – due to an annex competence/jurisdiction – to so-called insolvencyrelated annex claims/procedures ('annex claims/ procedures'). This is because on the one hand such annex claims/procedures are not covered by the Regulation No 1215/2012 ('Brussels Recast Regulation') due to the exemption for 'bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings' in Art. 1 para. 2 lit. b of the Brussels Recast Regulation. On the other hand, according to the conception of the European legislator the EIR 2000 and the Brussels Recast Regulation shall seamlessly complement each other.
The question of whether such an annex competence can be assumed and how it is designed concretely was refined by the ECJ in numerous following decisions.
In the present case the ECJ adds a piece to this mosaic dealing primarily with the exclusiveness of the annex competence/ jurisdiction.