CJEU considers interplay between EC Regulation on Insolvency and Brussels I

CJEU considers interplay between EC Regulation on Insolvency and Brussels I
What did the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) decide in Nickel & Goeldner Spedition GmbH v "Kintra" UAB and how do you decide whether the EC Regulation on Insolvency 1346/2000 or Brussels I applies to jurisdictional disputes?

Original news

Nickel & Goeldner Spedition GmbH v "Kintra" UAB C-157/13, [2014] All ER (D) 129 (Sep)

The CJEU gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000, arts 3(1) and 44(3) (the EC Regulation on Insolvency) and of Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001, arts 1(2)(b) and 71 (Brussels I) dealing with jurisdictional issues. The request had been made in proceedings between Nickel & Goeldner Spedition GmbH (Nickel) and "Kintra" UAB (Kintra), a company that had been placed in liquidation, concerning payment in respect of services comprising the international carriage of goods.

How did the issue arise and what were the jurisdictional factors?

Kintra (a company incorporated under Lithuanian law that has been placed in liquidation in Lithuania) provided services comprising the international carriage of goods for Nickel (a company incorporated under German law) in France and in Germany.

Kintra's insolvency administrator applied to the Lithuanian Regional Court, Vilnius for an order that Nickel pay for these services.

Kintra's administrator argued that the Lithuanian court had jurisdiction based on Lithuanian insolvency law. Nickel disputed that jurisdiction claiming that the dispute fell within the scope of:

the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road, signed in Geneva on 19 May 1956, as amended by the Protocol signed in Geneva on 5 July 1978 (the CMR) (which applies to 'every contract for the carriage of goods by road...when the place of taking over of the goods and the place designated for delivery...are situated in two different countries, of which at least one is a contracting country,... irrespective of the place of residence and the nationality of the parties') and

Brussels I

The matter was appealed through the Lithuanian courts up to

Subscription Form

Related Articles:
Latest Articles:

Already a subscriber? Login
RELX (UK) Limited, trading as LexisNexis, and our LexisNexis Legal & Professional group companies will contact you to confirm your email address. You can manage your communication preferences via our Preference Centre. You can learn more about how we handle your personal data and your rights by reviewing our  Privacy Policy.

Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.

Read full article

Already a subscriber? Login

About the author:
Kathy specialises in restructuring and cross-border insolvency. She qualified as a solicitor in 1995 and has since worked for Weil Gotshal & Manges and Freshfields. Kathy has worked on some of the largest restructuring cases in the last decade, including Worldcom, Parmalat, Enron and Eurotunnel.