- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-353/15: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 May 2016 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di Appello di Bari — Italy) — Leonmobili Srl, Gennaro Leone v Homag Holzbearbeitungssysteme GmbH and Others (Request for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Article 3(1) and (2) — Insolvency proceedings — International jurisdiction — Centre of a debtor’s main interests — Transfer of a company’s registered office to another Member State — No establishment in the Member State of origin — Presumption that the centre of main interests is the place of the new registered office — Proof to the contrary)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015CB0353
62015CB0353
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C 326/4
(Case C-353/15) (<span class="super">1</span>)
((Request for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Article 3(1) and (2) - Insolvency proceedings - International jurisdiction - Centre of a debtor’s main interests - Transfer of a company’s registered office to another Member State - No establishment in the Member State of origin - Presumption that the centre of main interests is the place of the new registered office - Proof to the contrary))
(2016/C 326/05)
Language of the case: Italian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: Leonmobili Srl, Gennaro Leone
Defendants: Homag Holzbearbeitungssysteme GmbH, Curatela del Fallimento Leonmobili Srl, ICO Srl, Arturo Salice SpA, Grafiche Ricciarelli di Ricciarelli Bernardino, Deutsche Bank SpA, Fida Srl, Elica SpA
Operative part of the order
Article 3(1) of Council regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that, where a company’s registered office has been transferred from one Member State to another Member State, the court seised, subsequent to that transfer, of an application to open insolvency proceedings in the Member State of origin may disregard the presumption that that company’s centre of main interests is situated at the place of the new registered office and find that the centre of those interests remained, as at the date on which that application was brought before it, in that Member State of origin, although the company no longer had an establishment there, only if it is apparent from other objective evidence, ascertainable by third parties, that, nonetheless, the company’s actual centre of management and supervision and of the management of its interests was still located there at that date.
(<span class="note">1</span>) OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.