This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014CA0310
Case C-310/14: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hovioikeus — Finland) — Nike European Operations Netherlands BV v Sportland Oy, in liquidation (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Articles 4 and 13 — Insolvency proceedings — Detrimental legal acts — Action for restitution of payments made before the date on which insolvency proceedings were opened — Law of the Member State in which insolvency proceedings were opened — Law of the Member State governing the legal act at issue — Law not allowing ‘any means of challenging that act in the relevant case’ — Burden of proof)
Case C-310/14: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hovioikeus — Finland) — Nike European Operations Netherlands BV v Sportland Oy, in liquidation (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Articles 4 and 13 — Insolvency proceedings — Detrimental legal acts — Action for restitution of payments made before the date on which insolvency proceedings were opened — Law of the Member State in which insolvency proceedings were opened — Law of the Member State governing the legal act at issue — Law not allowing ‘any means of challenging that act in the relevant case’ — Burden of proof)
Case C-310/14: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hovioikeus — Finland) — Nike European Operations Netherlands BV v Sportland Oy, in liquidation (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Articles 4 and 13 — Insolvency proceedings — Detrimental legal acts — Action for restitution of payments made before the date on which insolvency proceedings were opened — Law of the Member State in which insolvency proceedings were opened — Law of the Member State governing the legal act at issue — Law not allowing ‘any means of challenging that act in the relevant case’ — Burden of proof)
OJ C 406, 7.12.2015, p. 10–11
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
7.12.2015 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 406/10 |
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hovioikeus — Finland) — Nike European Operations Netherlands BV v Sportland Oy, in liquidation
(Case C-310/14) (1)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Articles 4 and 13 - Insolvency proceedings - Detrimental legal acts - Action for restitution of payments made before the date on which insolvency proceedings were opened - Law of the Member State in which insolvency proceedings were opened - Law of the Member State governing the legal act at issue - Law not allowing ‘any means of challenging that act in the relevant case’ - Burden of proof))
(2015/C 406/10)
Language of the case: Finnish
Referring court
Helsingin hovioikeus
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Nike European Operations Netherlands BV
Defendant: Sportland Oy, in liquidation
Operative part of the judgment
|
1. |
Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that, after taking account of all the circumstances of the case, the article applies provided that the act at issue cannot be challenged on the basis of the law governing that act (lex causae). |
|
2. |
For the purposes of the application of Article 13 of Regulation No 1346/2000 and in the event that the defendant in an action relating to the voidness, voidability or unenforceability of an act relies on a provision of the law governing that act (lex causae) under which that act can be challenged only in the circumstances provided for in that provision, it is for the defendant to plead that those circumstances do not exist and to bear the burden of proof in that regard. |
|
3. |
Article 13 of Regulation No 1346/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘does not allow any means of challenging that act …’ applies, in addition to the insolvency rules of the law governing that act (lex causae), to the general provisions and principles of that law, taken as a whole. |
|
4. |
Article 13 of Regulation No 1346/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that the defendant in an action relating to the voidness, voidability or unenforceability of an act must show that the law governing that act (lex causae), taken as a whole, does not allow for that act to be challenged. The national court before which such an action is brought may rule that it is for the applicant to establish the existence of a provision or principle of the lex causae on the basis of which that act can be challenged only where that court considers that the defendant has first proven, in accordance with the rules generally applicable under its national rules of procedure, that the act at issue cannot be challenged on the basis of the lex causae. |