Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 October 2018

Feniks Sp. z o.o. v Azteca Products & Services SL

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Szczecinie

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Special jurisdiction — Article 7(1)(a) — Concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’ — Actio pauliana

Case C-337/17


Top of the page Documents in the Case
Document Date Name of the parties Subject-matter Curia EUR-Lex
Judgment (OJ)
16/11/2018 Feniks
Judgment
ECLI:EU:C:2018:805
04/10/2018 Feniks
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Judgment (Summary)
ECLI:EU:C:2018:805
04/10/2018 Feniks
Opinion
ECLI:EU:C:2018:487
21/06/2018 Feniks
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Application (OJ)
25/08/2017 Feniks
View pdf documents
Top of the page Legal analysis of the decision or of the case

Reports of Cases

published in the electronic Reports of Cases (Court Reports - general)

Subject-matter

Information not available

Systematic classification scheme

1.
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.06 Area of freedom, security and justice
    4.06.02 Judicial cooperation in civil matters
      4.06.02.01 Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments – Civil and commercial matters
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.06 Area of freedom, security and justice
    4.06.02 Judicial cooperation in civil matters
      4.06.02.09 Insolvency procedures
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.06 Area of freedom, security and justice
    4.06.02 Judicial cooperation in civil matters
      4.06.02.01 Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments – Civil and commercial matters


Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

  • Regulation 1346/2000 : paragraphs 29, 30
  • Regulation 1346/2000 -A01P1 : paragraph 7
  • Regulation 1215/2012 : paragraphs 29, 34
  • Regulation 1215/2012 -A01 : paragraph 4
  • Regulation 1215/2012 -A01P1 : paragraph 33
  • Regulation 1215/2012 -A01P2LB : paragraph 30
  • Regulation 1215/2012 -A04P1 : paragraphs 5, 19, 23, 35, 45
  • Regulation 1215/2012 -A07 : paragraph 6
  • Regulation 1215/2012 -A07PT1LA : paragraphs 1, 18, 19, 21 - 23, 26, 27, 35, 38, 44, 46, 48, 49
  • Regulation 1215/2012 -A07PT1LB : paragraph 46
  • Regulation 1215/2012 -C15 : paragraph 3
  • Regulation 1215/2012 -C16 : paragraphs 3, 36
  • Regulation 1215/2012 -C34 : paragraph 3
  • Regulation 1215/2012 -CH2S2 : paragraph 5
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -115/88 -N12 : paragraph 40
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -261/90 -N17 : paragraph 40
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -261/90 -N28 : paragraph 41
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -26/91 : paragraphs 24, 26
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -27/02 -N51 : paragraph 39
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -339/07 -N19 : paragraph 31
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -147/12 -N33 : paragraph 39
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -359/14 -N44 : paragraph 39
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -196/15 -N16 : paragraph 34
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -196/15 -N17 : paragraph 35
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -196/15 -N18 : paragraph 37
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -274/16 -N58 : paragraph 38
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -274/16 -N61 : paragraph 48
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -649/16 -N24 : paragraph 30

Operative part

Information not available

Opinion

  • Regulation 1346/2000 : point 44
  • Regulation 44/2001 : point 97
  • Regulation 864/2007 : points 46, 64
  • Regulation 593/2008 : point 46
  • Regulation 1215/2012 : points 5, 45, 46, 76, 79, 93, 94, 97
  • Regulation 1215/2012 -A01P2LB : points 8, 43
  • Regulation 1215/2012 -A04 : point 23
  • Regulation 1215/2012 -A04P1 : points 9, 75, 82, 87, 88, 99
  • Regulation 1215/2012 -A05P1 : point 10
  • Regulation 1215/2012 -A07 : point 11
  • Regulation 1215/2012 -A07PT1 : points 23, 26, 82
  • Regulation 1215/2012 -A07PT1LA : points 22, 24, 60, 70, 72, 99
  • Regulation 1215/2012 -A07PT2 : point 82
  • Regulation 1215/2012 -A18P1 : point 54
  • Regulation 1215/2012 -A35 : point 83
  • Regulation 1215/2012 -A66P1 : point 6
  • Regulation 1215/2012 -C15 : point 7
  • Regulation 1215/2012 -C16 : points 7, 90, 92
  • Regulation 848/2015 : point 44
  • Brussels Convention 1968 : point 97
  • Brussels Convention 1968 -24 : point 48
  • Brussels Convention 1968 -A05P3 : point 48
  • Brussels Convention 1968 -A16P1 : point 48
  • Brussels Convention 1968 -A16P5 : point 48
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -133/78 -N4 : point 43
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -133/78 -N5 : point 43
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -133/78 -N6 : point 43
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -115/88 : point 49
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -115/88 -N11 : point 50
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -115/88 -N12 : point 50
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -115/88 -N13 : point 50
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -261/90 : point 55
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -261/90 : points 51, 81
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -261/90 -N19 : points 52, 82
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -261/90 -N27 : point 52
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -261/90 -N28 : point 52
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -261/90 -N35 : points 52, 83
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -26/91 : points 24, 26
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -26/91 -N15 : point 54
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -465/93 -N32 : point 84
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -334/95 -N44 : point 84
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -391/95 -N37 : point 86
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -391/95 -N40 : point 86
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -334/00 -N22 : points 54, 54
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -281/02 -N37 : point 97
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -281/02 -N38 : point 97
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -281/02 -N39 : point 97
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -281/02 -N40 : point 97
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -281/02 -N41 : point 97
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -281/02 -N42 : point 97
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -281/02 -N43 : point 97
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -281/02 -N44 : point 97
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -281/02 -N45 : point 97
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -281/02 -N46 : point 97
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -339/07 -N24 : points 2, 29
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -339/07 -N25 : points 2, 29
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -339/07 -N26 : points 2, 29
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -339/07 -N27 : point 38
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -339/07 -N32 : point 55
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -339/07 : points 43, 44
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -292/08 : point 44
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -213/10 : point 44
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -548/12 -N24 : point 54
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -548/12 -N25 : point 54
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -359/14 -N57 : point 69
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -359/14 -N58 : point 69
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -359/14 -N59 : point 69
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -359/14 -N60 : point 69
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -359/14 -N61 : point 69
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -359/14 -N62 : point 69
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -359/14 -N44 : point 54
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -196/15 -N21 : point 54
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -274/16 : point 68
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -274/16 -N58 : point 54
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -274/16 -N60 : point 54
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -274/16 -N61 : point 54
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -340/16 : point 68
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -498/16 -N43 : point 54
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -498/16 -N44 : point 54
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -498/16 -N45 : point 54


Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

  • 07/06/2017

Date of the Opinion

  • 21/06/2018

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

04/10/2018


References

Publication in the Official Journal

Judgment: OJ C 436 from 03.12.2018, p.11

Application: OJ C 300 from 11.09.2017, p.14

Name of the parties

Feniks

Notes on Academic Writings

  1. Mankowski, Peter: Erfüllungsortsgerichtsstand für Gläubigeranfechtungsklage auf Unwirksamerklärung einer für eine vertragliche Forderung nachteiligen Handlung („Feniks“), Entscheidungen zum Wirtschaftsrecht 2018 p.701-702 (DE)
  2. Idot, Laurence: Notion de matière contractuelle et action paulienne, Europe 2018 Décembre Comm. nº 12 p.41-42 (FR)
  3. Lutzi, Tobias: ,Feniks‘ aus der Asche: Internationale Zuständigkeit für die actio pauliana nach der EuGVVO, Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft 2019 p.252-258 (DE)
  4. Poesen, Michiel: Once more unto the breach : the Actio Pauliana is a matter relating to a contract in EU private international law, European Review of Contract Law 2019 Vol. 15 Issue1 p.58-6500 (EN)
  5. Dostal, Boris: Zur Frage der internationalen Zuständigkeit und des anwendbaren Rechts für Gläubigeranfechtungsklagen, Internationales Handelsrecht 2019 p.89-101 (DE)
  6. Majkowska-Szulc, Sylwia ; Wowerka, Arkadiusz: Jurysdykcja szczególna dla skargi pauliańskiej, Europejski Przegląd Sądowy 2019 Vol. 3 p.31-37 (PL)
  7. Jafferali, Rafaël: Arrêt "Feniks": action paulienne et compétence internationale à la lumière du règlement Bruxelles Ibis, Journal de droit européen 2019 nº260 p.252-253 (FR)
  8. Hoffmann, Jan Felix: Gläubigeranfechtungsklagen und Zuständigkeit nach Maßgabe der EuGVVO, Zeitschrift für das Privatrecht der Europäischen Union - GPR 2019 N°4 p.168-173 (DE)
  9. Libchaber, Remy: Les équilibres propres à l'action paulienne, Revue des contrats 2019 p.53-55 (FR)
  10. Haftel, Bernard: Revirement et extension du champ de la "matière contractuelle" dans les relations à trois personnes, Revue des contrats 2019 p.85-89 (FR)
  11. Tenenbaum, Aline: Action paulienne et détachement des travailleurs : nouveautés jurisprudentielle et législative, Revue des contrats 2019 p.154-158 (FR)
  12. Uhlmann, Christian: Internationale Zuständigkeit bei Anfechtungsklagen, die außerhalb eines Insolvenzverfahrens erhoben werden, Praxis des internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts 2019 p.488-493 (DE)
  13. der Plas, C.G.: C-337/17, Nederlandse jurisprudentie ; Uitspraken in burgerlijke en strafzaken 2019 nº 50 p.7336-7339 (NL)



Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Sąd Okręgowy w Szczecinie - Poland

Subject-matter

  • area of freedom, security and justice
  • - Judicial cooperation in civil matters

Provisions of national law referred to

Information not available

Provisions of international law referred to

Information not available

Procedure and result

  • Reference for a preliminary ruling

Formation of the Court

deuxième chambre (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

Toader

Advocate General

Bobek

Language(s) of the Case

  • Polish

Language(s) of the Opinion

  • English