June 2026 at the Court of Justice of the European Union

This month begins with the publication, on Thursday 4, of Advocate General Norkus’s opinion in the Grand Chamber case C-41/25, Orsay, on the interpretation of Regulation 2015/848, on insolvency proceedings. The dispute pending before the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) concern avoidance proceedings brought in Germany by a German insolvency practitioner against the Treasury of the Republic of Poland in relation to VAT payments made by a debtor subject to insolvency proceedings in Germany. Prof. A. Leandro commented on the request in the blog one year ago. A hearing took place last February.

The same day, the first chamber (judge Biltgen reporting) will deliver the judgement in case C-791/24, Terve Production, where the Supreme Court of Slovakia asks three questions to the Court of Justice on Regulation Brussels I bis, Articles 7, points 1 and 2, and Article 24, point 4. The facts of the case can be consulted here. In his opinion of 11 December 2025, Advocate General Richard de la Tour proposes the following answers:

1)      Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 […] must be interpreted as meaning that an action to substitute the approval of a draft share purchase agreement presented by a minority shareholder with a court ruling falls within matters relating to a contract, where that action has been brought by the shareholder which initiated a takeover bid in the place of the issuer following a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders to delist the shares.

2)      Article 24(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012 […] must be interpreted as meaning that it is applicable to a claim, even if preliminary, which seeks to challenge the validity of a resolution of a general meeting approving the transfer of the remaining shares to a majority shareholder following a takeover bid freely initiated by that shareholder in the place of the issuer, if that claim is an essential premiss for the principal claim seeking to substitute the majority shareholder’s approval of the sell-out proposed by the minority shareholder with a court ruling.

One week later, on Thursday 11, the seventh chamber (K. Jürimäe as reporting judge) will publish the judgment in case C-292/25, shopping24, where the Landesgericht Linz (Austria) has referred to the Court the following questions on Regulation 2015/848, on insolvency proceedings:

(i)          Is Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2015/848 to be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of insolvency proceedings pending in Austria, Austria has exclusive jurisdiction over an action seeking a declaration of the existence of a claim under Austrian law even if, at the time of the opening of those insolvency proceedings, an action concerning the same claim is already pending in Germany and the latter proceedings may be continued – under German law – as proceedings for a declaration of the existence of a claim, which is to say as proceedings pursuing the objective of obtaining a (binding) determination of a claim vis-à-vis the insolvency practitioner and all of the insolvency creditors for the purpose of having that claim registered in insolvency proceedings?

If Question (i) is answered in the negative:

(ii)         Is Article 32(2) of Regulation (EU) 2015/848 to be interpreted as meaning that, in insolvency proceedings pending in Austria, the outcome of proceedings continued in Germany as proceedings for a declaration of the existence of a claim pursuing the objective of obtaining a (binding) determination of a claim vis-à-vis the insolvency practitioner and all of the insolvency creditors for the purpose of having that claim registered in insolvency proceedings is to be recognised in the insolvency proceedings, with the result that the existence and amount of the claim are established (or not, as the case may be)?

If Question (ii) is answered in the affirmative:

(iii)        Is Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2015/848 to be interpreted as meaning that the bringing of an action seeking a declaration of the existence of a claim under Austrian law is precluded by lis pendens, in the case where an action concerning the same claim is pending in Germany which may be continued – under German law – as proceedings for a declaration of the existence of a claim and which thus pursues the objective of obtaining a (binding) determination vis-à-vis the insolvency practitioner and all of the insolvency creditors to the effect that there is an (insolvency) claim for the purpose of having that claim registered in insolvency proceedings?

The referring court opened insolvency proceedings on 17 September 2024 in respect of Sportgigant Lindpointner GmbH (hereinafter ‘Sportgigant’). SR was appointed as the insolvency administrator for that company. Subsequently, on 19 December 2024, shopping24 Gesellschaft für multimediale Anwendung (hereinafter ‘shopping24’) brought an action before that court against SR seeking a declaration, in respect of SR and the body of creditors, of the existence of a claim for the purposes of its inclusion in the insolvency proceedings. However, at the time the insolvency proceedings were opened, that claim was already the subject of an action for payment brought by shopping24 against Sportgigant before a German court. That action was stayed as a result of the opening of the insolvency proceedings and could be resumed in the form of proceedings seeking a binding declaration, vis-à-vis the insolvency administrator and the body of creditors, of the existence of a claim. The referring court points out that the subject-matter of the action for a declaration pending before it is identical to that of the action for payment before the German court.

On Thursday 18, the Court will publish two decisions. The first one, of the second chamber (judge Schalin reporting), relates to case C-232/25, Idziski, already reported here on the occasion of the publication of Advocate General Rantos’s opinion, which was in turn commented in the blog by G. Marola a few days after its publication. The request, from the Polish Supreme Court, concerns the interpretation of Article 5, point 3, of the Brussels I Regulation in proceedings relating to the alleged infringement of both collective and individual rights, such as the rights to ‘national identity’ and ‘dignity and reputation’, which qualify as ‘personality rights’ under Article 23 of the Polish Civil Code.

The second decision, in case C-346/25, Fibo Markets, corresponds to a request for a preliminary ruling made by the Nejvyšší soud (Czech Republic) on the Rome I Regulation. The main proceedings concern an action brought by J.P., a natural person domiciled in the Czech Republic, against FIBO MARKETS Limited (hereinafter ‘FIBO’), a legal person established in Cyprus, which is a brokerage firm operating as a professional in the securities sector, concerning the payment of a certain sum in US dollars in relation to a contract for difference (contract for difference or ‘CFD’). By its questions, the referring court seeks, first, to obtain a definition of the rights and obligations that constitute financial instruments (a CFD) and, secondly, of the rights and obligations that form part of a broader contractual relationship between the consumer and the trader:

 ‘Is Article 6(4)(d) of the [Rome I] Regulation to be interpreted as meaning that rights and obligations relating to the process of determining the prices of [CFDs], or more specifically to the process of establishing the difference between the prices of the underlying assets for which a contract for difference is concluded, also fall within the scope of rights and obligations constituting financial instruments?’

The decision will be delivered by the eight chamber, with O. Spineanu-Matei acting as  reporting judge.