23.11.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/47

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Тargоvishtki оkrazhеn sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 9 September 2013 — Parva Investitsionna Banka AD, UniKredit Bulbank AD, Siyk Faundeyshan LLS v Ear Proparti Developmant — v nesastoyatelnost АD, Insolvency administrator of Ear Proparti Developmant — v nesastoyatelnost АD

(Case C-488/13)

2013/C 344/81

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Тargоvishtki оkrazhеn sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Parva Investitsionna Banka AD, UniKredit Bulbank AD, Siyk Faundeyshan LLS

Defendants:‘Ear Proparti Developmant — v nesastoyatelnost’ АD, Insolvency administrator of ‘Ear Proparti Developmant — v nesastoyatelnost’ АD

Questions referred

1.	How is the criterion of the uncontested nature of an enforceable pecuniary claim within the meaning of the sixth recital in the preamble to, and Article 1 of, Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 to be interpreted?

In cases in which national legislation of a Member State of the European Union, in whose territory the pecuniary claim is being enforced, does not determine whether the enforcement order is applicable to a pecuniary claim in insolvency proceedings which were initiated against the person whose property is affected by the enforcement, must the prohibition in Article 2(2)(b) of the Regulation be interpreted strictly and does it only apply to the contested pecuniary claims to be enforced or does it also relate to the uncontested pecuniary claims to be enforced?

Is Article 2(2)(b) of the Regulation, according to which the Regulation shall not apply to bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings, to be interpreted as meaning that the restriction only concerns the initiation of the proceedings referred to, or does that restriction also cover the whole course of the proceedings according to the stages of the proceedings provided for in the national legislation of the Member State of the European Union concerned?

In accordance with the doctrine of the primacy of Community law and in the case of a gap in the national legislation of a Member State of the European Union, may the national court of the Member State in which insolvency proceedings were initiated against a person whose property is affected by the enforcement deliver a judgment which is different and contrary to the basic principles of the Regulation by way of interpretation of the tenth recital in the preamble to, and Article 26 of, the Regulation?