Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62009CN0396

Case C-396/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Bari (Italy) lodged on 12 October 2009 — Interedil Srl, in liquidation v Fallimento Interedil Srl, Banca Intesa Gestione Crediti Spa

SL C 312, 19.12.2009, p. 21–22 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

19.12.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/21

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Bari (Italy) lodged on 12 October 2009 — Interedil Srl, in liquidation v Fallimento Interedil Srl, Banca Intesa Gestione Crediti Spa

(Case C-396/09)

2009/C 312/35

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Bari

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Interedil Srl, in liquidation

Defendant: Fallimento Interedil Srl, Banca Intesa Gestione Crediti Spa

Question(s) referred

1.

Is the concept of ‘the centre of a debtor’s main interests’ in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000 (1) to be interpreted in accordance with Community law or national law, and, if the former, how is that concept to be defined and what are the decisive factors or considerations for the purpose of identifying the ‘centre of main interests’?

2.

Can the presumption laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000, according to which ‘‘[i]n the case of a company. the place of the registered office shall be presumed to be the centre of its main interests in the absence of proof to the contrary’, be rebutted if it is established that the company carries on genuine business activity in a State other than that in which it has its registered office, or is it necessary, in order for the presumption to be deemed rebutted, to establish that the company has not carried on any business activity in the State in which it has its registered office?

3.

If a company has, in a Member State other than that in which it has its registered office, immovable property, a lease agreement concluded by the debtor company with another company in respect of two hotel complexes, and a contract with a banking institution, are these sufficient factors or considerations to rebut the presumption laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000 that the place of the company’s ‘registered office’ is the centre of its main interests and are such circumstances sufficient for the company to be regarded as having an ‘establishment’ within the meaning of Article 3(2) of Regulation No 1346/2000?

4.

If the ruling on jurisdiction by the Corte di Cassazione in the aforementioned Order No 10606/2005 is based on an interpretation of Article 3 of Regulation No 1346/2000 which is at variance with that of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, is the application of that provision of Community law, as interpreted by the Court of Justice, precluded by Article 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure, according to which rulings on jurisdiction by the Corte di Cassazione are final and binding?’

(1)  OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1

Top