Communication: judgment No. 0498 of 2020

IDENTIFIER
62020CA0498
LANGUAGE
English
COURT
Court of Justice of the European Union
AG OPINION
NO
REFERENCES MADE
3
REFERENCED
1
DOCUMENT TYPE
Communication: judgment

Judgment



25.4.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/11


Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Midden-Nederland — Netherlands) — ZK, in his capacity as successor to JM, liquidator in the bankruptcy of BMA Nederland BV v BMA Braunschweigische Maschinenbauanstalt AG

(Case C-498/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Point 2 of Article 7 - Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict - Claim made by a liquidator against a third party for the benefit of the creditors - Place where the damage occurred - Point 2 of Article 8 - Application for leave to intervene by a protector of collective interests - Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 - Scope - General rule)

(2022/C 171/14)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Midden-Nederland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ZK, in his capacity as successor to JM, liquidator in the bankruptcy of BMA Nederland BV

Defendant: BMA Braunschweigische Maschinenbauanstalt AG

Intervener: Stichting Belangbehartiging Crediteuren BMA Nederland

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Point 2 of Article 7 of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that the court for the place of establishment of a company whose debts have become irrecoverable because the ‘grandparent’ company of that company has breached its duty of care towards that company’s creditors has jurisdiction to hear and determine a collective claim for damages in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict which the liquidator in the bankruptcy of that company has made by virtue of his statutory duty to wind up the estate for the benefit of, but not on behalf of, the general body of creditors.

2.

The answer to the first question referred for a preliminary ruling is no different if account is taken of the fact that, in the case in main proceedings, a foundation is acting to protect the collective interests of the creditors and that the claim made for that purpose does not take account of the individual circumstances of the creditors.

3.

Point 2 of Article 8 of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that, if the court seised of the original proceedings reverses its decision that it has jurisdiction in respect of those proceedings, such a reversal also automatically excludes its jurisdiction in respect of the claims made by the intervening third party.

4.

Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) must be interpreted as meaning that the law applicable to an obligation to redress in connection with the duty of care of the ‘grandparent’ company of a company declared bankrupt is, in principle, that of the country in which the latter has its registered office, although the fact that there is a pre-existing financing agreement between those two companies, together with a jurisdiction clause, is a circumstance which may establish a manifestly closer connection with another country within the meaning of paragraph 3 of that article.


(1)  OJ C 443, 21.12.2020.



Citations

Sign up for a free moonlit.ai™ account to access all citing documents.