Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 29 December 2020 – Insolvency proceedings concerning the assets of Galapagos S.A.; other parties: DE, as insolvency administrator of Galapagos S.A., Galapagos BidCo. S.a.r.l, Hauck Aufhäuser Fund Services S.A. and Prime Capital S.A.
(Case C-723/20)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Bundesgerichtshof
Parties to the main proceedings
Debtor: Galapagos S.A.
Other parties: DE, as insolvency administrator of Galapagos S.A., Galapagos BidCo. S.a.r.l., Hauck Aufhäuser Fund Services S.A., Prime Capital S.A.
Questions referred
Is Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings 1 (‘the European Insolvency Regulation’) to be interpreted as meaning that a debtor company the statutory seat of which is situated in a Member State does not have the centre of its main interests in a second Member State in which the place of its central administration is situated, as can be determined on the basis of objective factors ascertainable by third parties, in the case where, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the debtor company has moved that place of central administration from a third Member State to the second Member State at a time when a request to have the main insolvency proceedings opened in respect of its assets has been lodged in the third Member State and a decision on that request has not yet been delivered?
If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Is Article 3(1) of the European Insolvency Regulation to be interpreted as meaning that:
the courts of the Member State within the territory of which the centre of the debtor’s main interests is situated at the time when the debtor lodges the request to have insolvency proceedings opened retain international jurisdiction to open those proceedings if the debtor moves the centre of its main interests to the territory of another Member State after lodging the request but before the decision opening insolvency proceedings is delivered, and
such continuing international jurisdiction of the courts of one Member State excludes the jurisdiction of the courts of another Member State in respect of further requests to have the main insolvency proceedings opened received by a court of that other Member State after the debtor has moved its centre of main interests to that other Member State?
____________
1 OJ 2015 L 141, p. 19.