Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Jurisdictional Rules on Approval Requirements in the European Insolvency Regulation Recast

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Recasting the Insolvency Regulation

Part of the book series: Short Studies in Private International Law ((SSIL))

  • 340 Accesses

Abstract

This contribution deals with the rules on approval requirements in the European Insolvency Regulation Recast (EIR Recast) and argues that they are strengthening the role of the main insolvency proceedings. In many jurisdictions, current contracts of the debtor can be modified or terminated by the insolvency practitioner upon insolvency. In some jurisdictions, the modification or termination has to be approved by a court or a court-appointed supervisory judge. If the lex fori concursus does not contain the procedural rules to fulfil an approval requirement posed by the law applicable to the current contract in insolvency, an unintended regulatory gap exists. Articles 11(2) and 13(2) of the EIR Recast were introduced to solve this problem with regard to contracts relating to immoveable property and with regard to contracts of employment. Because the new provisions are reducing the need to open secondary proceedings, they are contributing to a more powerful role of the main insolvency proceedings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings.

  2. 2.

    Wessels 2011, p. 125.

  3. 3.

    Bork 2017, p. 249; Wessels 2008, p. 70.

  4. 4.

    Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings (recast).

  5. 5.

    Fletcher 2015, p. 98.

  6. 6.

    Leandro 2014, p. 47.

  7. 7.

    McCormack 2016, p. 129.

  8. 8.

    Moss 2014, p. 11; for a detailed discussion of the establishment as a requirement to open secondary proceedings, see Bork and Harten 2018, pp. 673 et seq.

  9. 9.

    Fletcher 2015, p. 99.

  10. 10.

    Fletcher 2015, p. 99; Mucciarelli 2016, p. 13.

  11. 11.

    Fletcher 2005, p. 414, para 7.108; Garcimartín 2015, p. 717; Piekenbrock 2014, p. 204, para 6.5.1; Veder 2011, p. 288.

  12. 12.

    Section 103—Option to be exercised by the Insolvency Administrator—Insolvency Statute: ‘(1) Ist ein gegenseitiger Vertrag zur Zeit der Eröffnung des Insolvenzverfahrens vom Schuldner und vom anderen Teil nicht oder nicht vollständig erfüllt, so kann der Insolvenzverwalter anstelle des Schuldners den Vertrag erfüllen und die Erfüllung vom anderen Teil verlangen.

    (2) Lehnt der Verwalter die Erfüllung ab, so kann der andere Teil eine Forderung wegen der Nichterfüllung nur als Insolvenzgläubiger geltend machen. Fordert der andere Teil den Verwalter zur Ausübung seines Wahlrechts auf, so hat der Verwalter unverzüglich zu erklären, ob er die Erfüllung verlangen will. Unterläßt er dies, so kann er auf der Erfüllung nicht bestehen‘ and see Section 113 Insolvency Statute for employment contracts.

  13. 13.

    Paulus 2017, p. 278.

  14. 14.

    Veder 2011, p. 288.

  15. 15.

    Artículo 64—Contratos de trabajo—ley 22/2003, de 9 de julio, Concursal: ‘Los expedientes de modificación sustancial de las condiciones de trabajo y de suspensión o extinción colectiva de las relaciones laborales, una vez declarado el concurso, se tramitarán ante el juez del concurso por las reglas establecidas en el presente artículo.’

  16. 16.

    Garcimartín 2015, p. 717.

  17. 17.

    Garcimartín 2015, p. 716.

  18. 18.

    Gössl 2018, p. 619.

  19. 19.

    Gössl 2018, p. 619.

  20. 20.

    Gössl 2018, pp. 622 et seq.

  21. 21.

    See Garcimartín 2015, p. 716 for a similar example.

  22. 22.

    This question is also asked by Garcimartín and Virgós 2016, p. 278.

  23. 23.

    Gössl 2018, p. 622; Looschelders 2019, para 1219.

  24. 24.

    Gössl 2018, p. 622; Looschelders 2019, para 1219.

  25. 25.

    The Heidelberg-Luxembourg-Vienna Report on the Application of Regulation No. 1346/2000/EC on Insolvency Proceedings (External Evaluation JUST/2011/JCIV/PR/0049/A4) was presented by Hess B, Oberhammer P and Pfeiffer T in cooperation with Piekenbrock A and Seagon C in 2014.

  26. 26.

    Piekenbrock 2014, p. 205, para 6.5.3: ‘Therefore, we come to the conclusion that the choice of law rule is appropriate to meet the underlying policy and recommend no amendments.’

  27. 27.

    Pfeiffer 2014, p. 206, para 6.7.1.1: ‘Therefore, as a final conclusion in this respect, the General Reporters do not see differences in national labor laws as a sufficient reason for proposing an amendment of Article 10 EIR.’

  28. 28.

    Pfeiffer 2014, p. 206, para 6.7.1.1.

  29. 29.

    Pfeiffer 2014, p. 207, para 6.7.2.

  30. 30.

    Article 10a proposal of the European Commission of 12.12.2012 (COM/2012/0744 final—2012/0360(COD)).

  31. 31.

    Article 10a proposal of the European Commission of 12.12.2012 (COM/2012/0744 final—2012/0360(COD)).

  32. 32.

    Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 05.02.2014 (P7_TC1-COD(2012)0360), OJ C 93, 24.3.2017, p. 366.

  33. 33.

    Position No. 7/2015 of the Council at first reading (2015/C-141/01), OJ C 141, 28.4.2015, p. 1.

  34. 34.

    Kindler 2018a, p. 2066, para 10; Wenner and Schuster 2018a, p. 3518, para 12.

  35. 35.

    Undritz 2017, p. 2485, para 7.

  36. 36.

    Paulus 2017, p. 277; Reinhart 2016a, p. 137, para 1; Undritz 2017, p. 2484, para 1.

  37. 37.

    Dornblüth 2018a, p. 2715, para 1.

  38. 38.

    Snowden 2016, p. 264.

  39. 39.

    Bork 2018a, para 16; Kindler 2018a, p. 2066, para 11; Wenner and Schuster 2018a, p. 3518, para 12.

  40. 40.

    Kindler 2018a, p. 2066, para 11.

  41. 41.

    Wenner and Schuster 2018a, p. 3517, para 2.

  42. 42.

    Josko de Marx 2017, para 21.

  43. 43.

    Mankowski 2016a, p. 253, para 44.

  44. 44.

    Mankowski 2016a, p. 253, para 44 (‘Die eingesetzte Technik ist im kollisionsrechtlichen Sinne eine unionsrechtlich verordnete Substitution im Belegenheitsrecht.’).

  45. 45.

    Gössl 2018, pp. 618 et seq.

  46. 46.

    Paulus 2017, p. 278; Snowden 2016, p. 266.

  47. 47.

    Paulus 2017, p. 278.

  48. 48.

    Wenner and Schuster 2018a, p. 3518, para 13.

  49. 49.

    Garcimartín 2015, p. 718; Mankowski 2016a, p. 253, para 45.

  50. 50.

    Paulus 2017, p. 278.

  51. 51.

    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.

  52. 52.

    Mankowski 2016a, p. 253, para 43.

  53. 53.

    Snowden 2016, p. 266; Wenner and Schuster 2018a, p. 3518, para 14.

  54. 54.

    Garcimartín and Virgós 2016, p. 274.

  55. 55.

    Dornblüth 2018b, p. 2718, para 1; Garcimartín and Virgós 2016, p. 275; Kindler 2018b, p. 2069, para 1.

  56. 56.

    Liersch 2017, p. 289, para 17.

  57. 57.

    Mankowski 2016b, p. 266, para 3; Paulus 2017, p. 284; Wenner and Schuster 2018b, p. 3520, para 1.

  58. 58.

    Mankowski 2016b, p. 266, para 2; Garcimartín and Virgós 2016, p. 274.

  59. 59.

    Mankowski 2016b, p. 278, para 40 argues that the approval requirements of the Member State where a secondary proceeding could be opened are decisive, rather than the approval requirements of the law that governs the employment contract—if this is true a problem of adaptation does not exist because the law that governs the secondary proceeding does not apply in the main proceeding; for the decisiveness of the law that governs the employment contract, see Bork 2018b, para 16 and Paulus 2017, p. 290—the latter opinion is, however, problematic when the law that governs the contract of employment is not the law of the forum of the potential secondary proceeding. In that case, the same problem of adaptation can occur in the secondary proceeding, which might not necessarily have the same approval requirements as the law that governs the employment contract.

  60. 60.

    Garcimartín and Virgós 2016, p. 278.

  61. 61.

    Bork 2018b, para 16; Liersch 2017, p. 289, para 17.

  62. 62.

    Kindler 2018b, p. 2071, para 13; Mankowski 2016b, p. 277, para 35; Wenner and Schuster 2018b, p. 3522, para 8.

  63. 63.

    Mankowski 2016b, p. 277, para 35.

  64. 64.

    Mankowski 2016b, p. 277, para 35.

  65. 65.

    Wenner and Schuster 2018b, p. 3522, para 8.

  66. 66.

    Liersch 2017, p. 290, para 18.

  67. 67.

    Bork 2018b, para 18; Dornblüth 2018b, p. 2720, para 6; Reinhart 2016b, p. 425, para 4.

  68. 68.

    Bork 2016, p. 153, para 4.96.

  69. 69.

    Bork 2016, p. 153, para 4.96.

  70. 70.

    Bork 2016, p. 149, para 4.84.

  71. 71.

    For general comments on the relationship, see Moss 2014, p. 11; Wessels 2014, p. 23.

  72. 72.

    Snowden 2016, p. 266.

  73. 73.

    Snowden 2016, p. 266.

References

  • Bork R (2016) Law Applicable. In: Bork R, Mangano R (eds) European Cross-Border Insolvency Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 115–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Bork R (2017) The European Insolvency Regulation and the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency. International Insolvency Review 26:246–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bork R (2018a) Artikel 11 Vertrag über einen unbeweglichen Gegenstand. In: Kübler B et al (eds) InsO - Kommentar zur Insolvenzordnung, 77. Aktualisierung. RWS, Cologne, pp 1–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Bork R (2018b) Artikel 13 Arbeitsvertrag. In: Kübler B et al (eds) InsO - Kommentar zur Insolvenzordnung, 77. Aktualisierung. RWS, Cologne, pp 1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Bork R, Harten J (2018) Die Niederlassung iSv Art. 2 Nr. 10 EuInsVO bei natürlichen Personen. Neue Zeitschrift für Insolvenz- und Sanierungsrecht 2018:673–680

    Google Scholar 

  • Dornblüth S (2018a) Artikel 11 Vertrag über einen unbeweglichen Gegenstand. In: Kayser G, Thole C (eds) Heidelberger Kommentar zur Insolvenzordnung, 9th edn. C. F. Müller, Heidelberg, pp 2714–2716

    Google Scholar 

  • Dornblüth S (2018b) Artikel 13 Arbeitsvertrag. In: Kayser G, Thole C (eds) Heidelberger Kommentar zur Insolvenzordnung, 9th edn. C. F. Müller, Heidelberg, pp 2718–2720

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher I (2005) Insolvency in Private International Law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher I (2015) The European Insolvency Regulation recast: the main features of the new law. Insolvency Intelligence 28:97–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcimartín F (2015) The EU Insolvency Regulation Recast: Scope, Jurisdiction and Applicable Law. Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht 23:694–731

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcimartín F, Virgós M (2016) Article 13 – Contracts of employment. In: Bork R, van Zwieten K (eds) Commentary on the European Insolvency Regulation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 274–279

    Google Scholar 

  • Gössl S (2018) Anpassung im EU-Kollisionsrecht. Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 82:618–653

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Josko de Marx A (2017) Art. 11 Vertrag über einen unbeweglichen Gegenstand. In: Braun E (ed) Insolvenzordnung (InsO), 7th edn. C.H. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Kindler P (2018a) Art. 11 EuInsVO Vertrag über einen unbeweglichen Gegenstand. In: Säcker F et al (eds) Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, Band 12, 7th edn. C.H. Beck, Munich, pp 2063–2066

    Google Scholar 

  • Kindler P (2018b) Art. 13 EuInsVO Arbeitsvertrag. In: Säcker F et al (eds) Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, Band 12, 7th edn. C.H. Beck, Munich, pp 2069–2072

    Google Scholar 

  • Leandro A (2014) Strengthening the Dominance of Main Proceedings: From Bank Handlowy to the Revision of the European Insolvency Regulation. In: Bariatti S, Omar P (eds) The Grand Project: Reform of the European Insolvency Regulation. INSOL Europe, Nottingham/Paris, pp 47–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Liersch O (2017) Artikel 13 Arbeitsvertrag. In: Vallender H (ed) EuInsVO – Kommentar zur Verordnung (EU) 2015/848 über Insolvenzverfahren. RWS, Cologne, pp 285–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Looschelders D (2019) Einleitung zum Internationalen Privatrecht. In: Henrich D (ed) J von Staudingers Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch mit Einführungsgesetz und Nebengesetzen, 2019. Sellier – de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 1–511

    Google Scholar 

  • Mankowski P (2016a) Art. 11 Vertrag über einen unbeweglichen Gegenstand. In: Mankowski P et al (eds) Europäische Insolvenzverordnung 2015 – Kommentar, 1st edn. C.H. Beck, Munich, pp 241–254

    Google Scholar 

  • Mankowski P (2016b) Art. 13 Arbeitsvertrag. In: Mankowski P et al (eds) Europäische Insolvenzverordnung 2015 – Kommentar, 1st edn. C.H. Beck, Munich, pp 265–278

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormack G (2016) Something Old, Something New: Recasting the European Insolvency Regulation. The Modern Law Review 79:121–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss G (2014) Master and Servant? Relationship between Main and Territorial Proceedings in Light of Bank Handlowy (Case C-116/11). In: Bariatti S, Omar P (eds) The Grand Project: Reform of the European Insolvency Regulation. INSOL Europe, Nottingham/Paris, pp 11–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Mucciarelli F (2016) Private International Law Rules in the Insolvency Regulation Recast: A Reform or a Restatement of the Status Quo? European Company and Financial Law Review 13:1–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulus C (2017) EuInsVO - Europäische Insolvenzverordnung, 5th edn. Fachmedien Recht und Wirtschaft, dfv Mediengruppe, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeiffer T (2014) Article 10 EIR: Employment Contracts. In: Hess B et al (eds) European Insolvency Law – The Heidelberg-Luxembourg-Vienna Report on the Application of Regulation No. 1346/2000/EC on Insolvency Proceedings (External Evaluation JUST/2011/JCIV/PR/0049/A4). C. H. Beck/Hart/Nomos, Munich/Oxford/Baden-Baden, pp 206–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Piekenbrock A (2014) Article 8 EIR: Contracts Relating to Immoveable Property. In: Hess B et al (eds) European Insolvency Law – The Heidelberg-Luxembourg-Vienna Report on the Application of Regulation No. 1346/2000/EC on Insolvency Proceedings (External Evaluation JUST/2011/JCIV/PR/0049/A4). C. H. Beck/Hart/Nomos, Munich/Oxford/Baden-Baden, pp 204–205

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart S (2016a) Art. 8 Vertrag über einen unbeweglichen Gegenstand. In: Kirchhof H et al (eds) Münchener Kommentar zur Insolvenzordnung, 3rd edn. C. H. Beck, Munich, pp 137–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart S (2016b) Art. 13 Arbeitsvertrag. In: Kirchhof H et al (eds) Münchener Kommentar zur Insolvenzordnung, 3rd edn. C. H. Beck, Munich, pp 424–425

    Google Scholar 

  • Snowden R (2016) Article 11 – Contracts relating to immoveable property. In: Bork R, van Zwieten K (eds) Commentary on the European Insolvency Regulation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 264–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Undritz S (2017) Art. 8 Vertrag über einen unbeweglichen Gegenstand. In: Schmidt A (ed) Hamburger Kommentar zum Insolvenzrecht, 6th edn. Carl Heymanns, Cologne, pp 2484–2485

    Google Scholar 

  • Veder M (2011) The Future of the European Insolvency Regulation – Applicable law, in particular security rights. International Insolvency Law Review 2:285–297

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenner C, Schuster M (2018a) Artikel 11 Vertrag über einen unbeweglichen Gegenstand. In: Wimmer K (ed) Frankfurter Kommentar zur Insolvenzordnung mit EuInsVO, InsVV und weiteren Nebengesetzen, 9th edn. Luchterhand, Cologne, pp 3516–3518

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenner C, Schuster M (2018b) Artikel 13 Arbeitsvertrag. In: Wimmer K (ed) Frankfurter Kommentar zur Insolvenzordnung mit EuInsVO, InsVV und weiteren Nebengesetzen, 9th edn. Luchterhand, Cologne, pp 3520–3522

    Google Scholar 

  • Wessels B (2008) Cross-Border Insolvency Law in Europe: Present Status and Future Prospects. Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal 11:68–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Wessels B (2011) Amending the EU Insolvency Regulation: Shaken or Stirred? In: Parry R (ed) The Reform of International Insolvency Rules at European and National Level. INSOL Europe, Nottingham/Paris, pp 125–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Wessels B (2014) Courts should be Leading in Solving Cross-Border Insolvency Matters. In: Bariatti S, Omar P (eds) The Grand Project: Reform of the European Insolvency Regulation. INSOL Europe, Nottingham/Paris, pp 23–31

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Hamburg, Rothenbaumchaussee 33, 20148, Hamburg, Germany

    Julia Harten

Authors
  1. Julia Harten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julia Harten .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Private International Law, T.M.C. Asser Institute, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Vesna Lazić

  2. Erasmus School of Law, Hardinxveld-Giessendam, The Netherlands

    Steven Stuij

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 T.M.C. Asser press and the authors

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Harten, J. (2020). Jurisdictional Rules on Approval Requirements in the European Insolvency Regulation Recast. In: Lazić, V., Stuij, S. (eds) Recasting the Insolvency Regulation. Short Studies in Private International Law . T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-363-4_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-363-4_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-362-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-363-4

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation