What’s going on in Brussels? A lot. And trying to follow it all can be difficult.
So this section of AcrossEU seeks to provide you with an overview of what each of the three main EU institutions are doing.
The Commission
The European Court of Justice has today given its decision in the “Woolworths case” on the duty to consult collectively under the Collective Redundancies Directive, in particular defining the meaning of “establishment” for the purposes of determining when that duty is triggered.
The Supreme Court (unanimously dismissing the appeal in Trustees of Olympic Airlines SA Pension &Life Assurance Scheme v Olympic Airlines SA) has held that “economic activity” is central to the definition of “establishment” in the Insolvency Regulation1.
The European Court of Justice (Judgment of 4 September 2014, C-327/13), held that in accordance to the ECRegulation No. 1346/2000, a secondary insolvency proceeding in the Member State where the debtor has its registeredoffice – which does not coincide with the centre of its main interest (COMI) – may be opened at the request of creditorsentitled under the law of that State.
The case
Tomorrow the UK voting public goes to the polls to select the next government but do the Great British Public realise the effect of their decisions for Cross Border Restructurings and Business Reorganisation across the EU?
Creditors frustrated by cost and time delays in cross border disputes, as well as from unscrupulous delaying tactics by debtors, will have some comfort in the form of the revised EU Judgments Regulation. The revised Regulation came into force on 10 January 2015 and aims to resolve cross-border legal disputes more easily, bringing huge cost savings to creditors.
The European Advocate General has today given his opinion in the “Woolworths case” (and two other cases) on the meaning of “establishment” for the purposes of determining when the duty to consult appropriate representatives is triggered under the European Collective Redundancies Directive (the Directive).
The European Commission has reached agreement to update the current insolvency regulation known as Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 dated May 29, 2000 on insolvency proceedings. The goal of the new Regulation is to rescue companies in distress. The proposed insolvency Regulation will change the member states’ insolvency proceedings with respect to both personal and corporate insolvencies and will include modified restructuring options that may not always result in a formal insolvency proceeding and liquidation.
The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has made a referral to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) concerning the question of whether a director of an English limited company which predominantly operated its business in Germany and over the assets of which insolvency proceedings have been opened in Germany, pursuant to Art 3 para 1 European Insolvency Regulation, can, like the director of a German GmbH, be held liable for forbidden payments pursuant to German corporate law or insolvency law.
The recent judgment of Mrs Justice Proudman in Plaza BV –v- The Law Debenture Trust Corporation1 illustrates and extends a line of authorities in which the English courts have sought to narrow the scope of the mandatory application of Article 2 of the Brussels Regulation 44/2001. These cases are a reaction to the broad interpretation of the applicability and effect of Article 2 set out in the ECJ's decision in Owusu –v- Jackson2 , and attempt to confine the influence of that decision.