EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case C-198/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 20 March 2018 — CeDe Group AB v KAN Sp. z o.o. in bankruptcy

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018CN0198

62018CN0198

March 20, 2018
With Google you find a lot.
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

4.6.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/11

(Case C-198/18)

(2018/C 190/15)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CeDe Group AB

Defendant: KAN Sp. z o.o. in bankruptcy

Questions referred

1.Must Article 4 of Regulation No 1346/2000 (1) be interpreted as meaning that it applies to an action which is brought before a Swedish court by the liquidator of a Polish company — which is the subject of insolvency proceedings in Poland — against a Swedish company for payment of goods delivered under an agreement into which the companies entered before that insolvency?

2.If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is it of any importance that, during the proceedings before the courts, the liquidator transfers the claim at issue to a company which enters the proceedings in the place of the liquidator?

3.If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, is it of any importance if the company which has entered the proceedings thereafter becomes insolvent?

4.If the defendant in the proceedings before the courts in the situation set out in the first question claims that the liquidator’s claim for payment should be set off against a counterclaim which arises from the same agreement as the claim, is that set-off situation covered by Article 4(2)(d)?

5.Is the relationship between Article 4(2)(d) and Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000 to be interpreted as meaning that Article 6(1) applies only if it is not possible under the law of the State of the opening of proceedings to apply a set-off, or can Article 6(1) also apply to other situations, for example where there is only a certain difference between the level of possibility of set-off in the legal orders in question or where there are no differences at all but set-off is nonetheless refused in the State of the opening of proceedings?

Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings ( OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1).

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia