- 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-723/20: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Galapagos BidCo. Sàrl v DE, in its capacity as liquidator of Galapagos SA, Hauck Aufhäuser Fund Services SA, Prime Capital SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) 2015/848 — Insolvency proceedings — Article 3(1) — International jurisdiction — Moving of the centre of a debtor’s main interests to another Member State after a request to open main insolvency proceedings has been lodged)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020CA0723
62020CA0723
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
16.5.2022
Official Journal of the European Union
C 198/9
(Case C-723/20) (*)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) 2015/848 - Insolvency proceedings - Article 3(1) - International jurisdiction - Moving of the centre of a debtor’s main interests to another Member State after a request to open main insolvency proceedings has been lodged)
(2022/C 198/13)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Galapagos BidCo. Sàrl
Defendants: DE, in its capacity as liquidator of Galapagos SA, Hauck Aufhäuser Fund Services SA, Prime Capital SA
Operative part of the judgment
Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the court of a Member State with which a request to open main insolvency proceedings has been lodged retains exclusive jurisdiction to open such proceedings where the centre of the debtor’s main interests is moved to another Member State after that request has been lodged, but before that court has delivered a decision on it. Consequently, in so far as that regulation is still applicable to that request, the court of another Member State with which another request is lodged subsequently for the same purpose cannot, in principle, declare that it has jurisdiction to open main insolvency proceedings until the first court has delivered its decision and declined jurisdiction.
(*)
Language of the case: German
ECLI:EU:C:2022:198