- 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-772/22, Air Berlín: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Palma de Mallorca (Spain) lodged on 19 December 2022 — Victoriano and Others v Air Berlín PLC & CO Luftverkehrs KG, Sucursal en España, Air Berlín PLC & CO Luftverkehrs KG
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022CN0772
62022CN0772
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
3.4.2023
Official Journal of the European Union
C 121/5
(Case C-772/22, Air Berlín)
(2023/C 121/08)
Language of the case: Spanish
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: Victoriano, Bernabé, Jacinta, Sandra, Patricia, Juan Antonio, Verónica
Defendants: Air Berlín PLC & CO Luftverkehrs KG, Sucursal en España, Air Berlín PLC & CO Luftverkehrs KG
Questions referred
In the main qualified universal proceedings outlined by Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings, (1) in which it is permissible to open secondary proceedings that apply exclusively to assets situated in the State where the proceedings are opened:
(1)May Article 3(2) and Article 34 of the Regulation be interpreted as meaning that the assets situated in the State of the opening of secondary proceedings, to which the effects of the proceedings are restricted, are only the assets existing at the time the secondary proceedings are opened and not those that existed when the main proceedings were opened?
(2)May Article 21(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/848 be interpreted as meaning that the decision of the insolvency practitioner in the main insolvency proceedings to remove assets, without requesting the opening of secondary proceedings or avoiding the opening of such proceedings by offering a unilateral undertaking under Articles 36 and 37, is in conformity with the power to remove the debtor’s assets from the territory of the Member State in which they are situated where it is apparent to that practitioner that there are local creditors with claims arising from employment contracts that have been recognised by judgments and a protective attachment of assets ordered by an employment court of that Member State?
(3)May Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) 2015/848 be interpreted as meaning that the power to bring actions to set aside in the interests of creditors conferred on the insolvency practitioner in the secondary insolvency proceedings applies to a situation such as that described, in which it is sought to revoke an act performed by the insolvency practitioner appointed in the main insolvency proceedings?
(1) OJ 2015 L 141, p. 19.