Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
Find up-to-date guidance on points of law and then easily pull up sources to support your advice with Lexis PSL
Check out our straightforward definitions of common legal terms.
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Access our unrivalled global news content, business information and analytics solutions
Insurance, risk and compliance intelligence using big data, proprietary linking and advanced analytics.
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
Tünkers France and another v Expert France C-641/16,  All ER (D) 80 (Nov)
Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 (the EC Regulation on Insolvency) should be interpreted as meaning that an action for damages for unfair competition by which the assignee of part of the business acquired in the course of insolvency proceedings was accused of misrepresenting itself as being the exclusive distributor of articles manufactured by the debtor, did not fall within the jurisdiction of the court which had opened the insolvency proceedings. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) so held in a preliminary ruling in proceedings concerning an action for unfair competition brought by the respondent company against the applicant companies.
The court of cassation in France made a request to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling under Article 257 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on the interpretation of Article 3(1) of the EC Regulation on Insolvency.
The request was made in the context of proceedings between Tünkers France (TF) and Tünkers Maschinenbau GmbH (TM) and Expert France (EF) concerning an action for unfair competition brought by EF against TM and TF.
Following the opening of insolvency proceedings in Germany against Expert Maschinenbau GmbH (EM), a German company which had given exclusive distribution rights to EF in France, TM agreed a transfer agreement for EM. TM subsequently invited the clients of EF to make direct orders with it, representing itself as an assignee of EM. EF viewed this as constituting unfair competition and issued proceedings in France.
TM and TF challenged EM’s action on the basis of the jurisdiction of the French court, asserting the dispute fell within the jurisdiction of the German courts, them having opened the insolvency proceedings of EM. Both the commercial court and Court of Appeal in Paris rejected this argument, causing TM and TF to bring an appeal before the court of cassation which referred the following question to the Court of Justice:
‘Must Article 3 of the EC Regulation on Insolvency be interpreted as meaning that the court which opened insolvency proceedings has exclusive jurisdiction over an action seeking to establish liability by which the assignee of part of a business acquired in the course of those insolvency proceedings is accused of misrepresenting itself as the exclusive distributor of the goods manufactured by the debtor?’
The pertinent issue therefore involved the scope of Article 3(1) of the EC Regulation on Insolvency, and the extent to which it can be said an action derives directly from insolvency proceedings.
The legal arguments centred on the meaning behind Article 3(1) of the EC Regulation on Insolvency, as well as Articles 1(1) and 1(2) of Regulation (EC) 44/2001 (the Judgments Regulation) on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments.
Article 3(1) of the EC Regulation on Insolvency provides that the courts of the Member State within the territory where the debtor’s centre of main interests (COMI) is situated has jurisdiction to open insolvency proceedings.
Article 1(2)(b) of the Judgments Regulation, which applies in civil and commercial matters, excludes from its scope ‘bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings’.
Attention was given to Nickel & Goeldner Spedition, Case-157/13, which held that actions which fall outside the scope of Article 3(1) of the EC Regulation on Insolvency fall within the scope of the Judgments Regulation.
‘Civil and commercial matters’ as referred to in the Judgments Regulation should be interpreted broadly. However, the EC Regulation on Insolvency should not be interpreted broadly.
Only those actions which derive directly from insolvency proceedings, and are closely connected with them, are excluded from the scope of the Judgments Regulation.
In order to determine whether an action derives directly from insolvency proceedings, the decisive criterion is not the procedural context of the action, but its legal basis.
The CJEU decided that the action for unfair competition did not fall within the jurisdiction of the court which opened the insolvency proceedings. This was for the following reasons:
Insolvency lawyers must be mindful of the fact that if insolvency proceedings have been brought in one Member State, the EC Regulation on Insolvency will not prevent the courts of another Member State from having the jurisdiction to hear an action commenced against a party connected with those insolvency proceedings.
This judgment highlights the difficulties which parties could have in relying on a challenge to jurisdiction as a form of defence. Insolvency lawyers will have to advise their clients that the circumstances in which such a challenge will be successful are narrow, and will only be accepted by the courts where the action has a direct and clear link with the insolvency proceedings. The fact an action may arise in the context of insolvency proceedings will not be sufficient.
The judgment confirms the two-stage test that the court will use when determining whether Article 3(1) of the EC Regulation on Insolvency applies:
It also reiterates the narrow scope of the EC Regulation on Insolvency, coupled with the broad interpretation the courts will take of the Judgments Regulation. It is now clear that the courts will not view an action which has arisen in the context of insolvency proceedings, such that they would not have been brought without those insolvency proceedings, as sufficiently connected to those proceedings to enable the EC Regulation on Insolvency to apply.
This judgment is largely unsurprising given the procedural history of the action, together with the recent case law of the CJEU which has pointed towards the narrow interpretation of Article 3(1) of the EC Regulation on Insolvency. However, it may be viewed as unhelpful by insolvency practitioners and their lawyers as it adds another nail in the coffin to the ability to challenge an action commenced after insolvency proceedings have already been issued on the basis of jurisdiction.
In terms of lessons to be learnt, it is now apparent that should a party wish to challenge the jurisdiction of an action using Article 3(1) of the EC Regulation on Insolvency, they should focus their attentions on the factors which make the action directly connected to the insolvency proceedings, and which can show a close connection between the action and the proceedings.
Parties seeking to defend an action brought in another Member State should also be aware that challenging the jurisdiction of the courts may not be the best use of resources, and if another defence is available to use, that should be followed as a first port of call.
Interviewed by Stephanie Boyer.
The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
0330 161 1234