Language of document :

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof – Germany) – ZM, in his capacity as liquidator in the insolvency of Oeltrans Befrachtungsgesellschaft mbH v E.A. Frerichs

(Case C-73/20) 1

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 – Insolvency proceedings – Article 4 – Law applicable to insolvency proceedings – Law of the Member State within the territory of which the proceedings are opened – Article 13 – Acts detrimental to all the creditors – Exception – Conditions – Act subject to the law of a Member State other than the State of the opening of proceedings – Act which is not open to challenge on the basis of that law – Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 – Law applicable to contractual obligations – Article 12(1)(b) – Scope of the law applicable to the contract – Performance of the obligations arising from the contract – Payment made in performance of a contract subject to the law of a Member State other than the State of the opening of proceedings – Performance by a third party – Action for repayment of that payment in insolvency proceedings – Law applicable to that payment)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: ZM, in his capacity as liquidator in the insolvency of Oeltrans Befrachtungsgesellschaft mbH

Defendant in the appeal on a point of law: E.A. Frerichs

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings and Article 12(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) must be interpreted as meaning that the law applicable to the contract under the latter regulation also governs the payment made by a third party in performance of a contracting party’s contractual payment obligation where, in insolvency proceedings, that payment is challenged as an act detrimental to all the creditors.

____________

1 OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.