November 2024 at the Court of Justice of the European Union

November 2024 starts with the delivery on Thursday 7 of a decision on the Succession Regulation. C-291/23, Hantoch, is a request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany). The single question reads:

Must an interpretation of Article 10 of the EU Succession Regulation with regard to the question whether any estate assets existed in the Member State of the court seised be based on the time of the succession or on the time when the action was filed?

The parties to the dispute are descendants of a person (‘the deceased’) who died on 18 March 2017. The deceased was born in Egypt; he lived and worked for many years in Germany, where he also started a family. He held both German and Egyptian citizenship. After retiring, the deceased resided mainly in Egypt, where he also died. During this time, however, he was still covered by German health insurance and was entitled to a pension in Germany. He transferred any payments thereunder to his Egyptian account via an account maintained solely for this purpose. Due to the receipt of his pension under the German insurance fund for physicians, he was also liable to pay tax in Germany. At the time of the deceased’s death, there was a credit balance in an account at Apo Bank, which, however, had already been closed at the time the action was filed.

The defendant is the sole heir of the deceased on the basis of a notarised will dated 13 May 2015.

The applicant brings claims for information and payment against the defendant with regard to a claim for a compulsory share of the deceased’s estate. She argues that the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Regional Court, Düsseldorf, Germany) has international jurisdiction as, at the time of the succession, the deceased had held assets in Germany, in addition to the credit balance at Apo Bank in particular, in the form of tax refund claims against the tax authorities and claims against the private health insurance provider. The defendant argues that the court does not have international jurisdiction.

The deciding chamber is composed by judges I. Jarukaitis, D. Gratsias and E. Regan (reporting).

One week later, the Court will deliver her decision in the Belgium request C-394/22, Oilchart International, on Regulation 1346/2000 (insolvency proceedings). The Court of Appeal of Antwerp asks the following:

(a)  Must Article 1(2)(b) of the Brussels [I bis Regulation] in conjunction with Article 3(1) of the Insolvency Regulation … be interpreted as meaning that the term “bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings” in Article 1(2)(b) of the Brussels [I bis Regulation] includes also proceedings in which the claim is described in the summons as a pure trade receivable, without any mention of the respondent’s previously declared bankruptcy, whereas the actual legal basis of that claim is the specific derogating provisions of [the NFW, i.e., the Dutch Law on Insolvency] and whereby:

– it must be determined whether such a claim must be considered a verifiable claim (Article 26 of the NFW in conjunction with Article 110 thereof) or an unverifiable claim (Article 25(2) of the NFW),

– it appears that the question whether both claims can be brought simultaneously and whether one claim does not appear to exclude the other, taking into account the specific legal consequences of each of those claims (inter alia, in terms of the possibilities of calling for a bank guarantee deferred after the bankruptcy), may be determined in accordance with the rules specific to Netherlands bankruptcy law?

And further

(b) Can the provisions of Article 25(2) of [the NFW] be regarded as compatible with Article 3(1) of the Insolvency Regulation, in so far as that legislative provision would allow such a claim (Article 25(2) of the NFW) to be brought before the court of another Member State instead of before the insolvency court of the Member State in which the bankruptcy was declared?’

I reported on the case here. In the meantime, in her Opinion of 18 April 2024, Advocate General L. Medina has proposed to answer that

(1) Article 1(1) and (2)(b) of [the Brussels I bis Regulation] and Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a court of a Member State is seised of insolvency proceedings for a claim concerning a contractual obligation to pay for a supply of goods, and the same claim is the subject of an action against an insolvent company under those insolvency proceedings, that action falls within the scope of Regulation No 1346/2000.

(2)         Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000 and the principle of exclusive jurisdiction must be interpreted as precluding national legislation or a national practice that has the effect of circumventing the exclusive jurisdiction of a court of a Member State which is first seised of insolvency proceedings for a claim concerning a contractual obligation to pay for a supply of goods which falls within the insolvency estate.’

Judge F. Biltgen is the reporting judge in a chamber originally composed by judges M.L.  Arastey Sahún and J. Passer N. Whal and A. Prechal.

Finally, on Thursday 28 November, Advocate General J. Richard de la Tour will deliver his Opinion on case C-395/23, Anikovi, a Bulgarian case on Regulation 2019/1111 (Brussels II ter), allocated to judges K. Lenaerts, C. Lycourgos, M.L. Arastey Sahún, S. Rodin, and O. Spineanu-Matei (reporting). A hearing was held last September, as reported here. The questions read:

Does the scope of Article 1(e) of [the Brussels II ter Regulation] cover non-contentious proceedings concerning the granting of permission by a court for the disposal, e.g. a sale, of immovable property or co-ownership shares in immovable property belonging to a child?

Which regulation determines the international jurisdiction of a court of a Member State of the European Union in non-contentious proceedings concerning the granting of permission by a court for the disposal, e.g. a sale, of immovable property or co-ownership shares in immovable property belonging to a child: (i) Article 7(1) of [the Brussels II ter Regulation] – the court for the place where the child is habitually resident – or (ii) Article 4(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 [Rome I] or Article 24(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 [Brussels I bis] – the court for the place where the immovable property is situated?

Are the rules of [the Brussels II ter Regulation] on international jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility derogated from by a bilateral international agreement between a Member State (Bulgaria) and a third country (the Soviet Union or the Russian Federation) which was concluded before the Member State’s accession to the European Union, if that international agreement is not listed in Chapter VIII of [the said Regulation]?