EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62022CN0394

Case C-394/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 15 June 2022 — Oilchart International NV v O.W. Bunker (Netherlands) BV, ING Bank NV

OJ C 359, 19.9.2022, p. 32–33 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

19.9.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/32


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 15 June 2022 — Oilchart International NV v O.W. Bunker (Netherlands) BV, ING Bank NV

(Case C-394/22)

(2022/C 359/37)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Oilchart International NV

Defendants: O.W. Bunker (Netherlands) BV, ING Bank NV

Questions referred

1.

Must Article 1(2)(b) of the Brussels Ia Regulation (Regulation No 1215/2012 (1)) in conjunction with Article 3(1) of the Insolvency Regulation (Regulation No 1346/2000 (2)) be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings’ in Article 1(2)(b) of the Brussels Ia Regulation includes also proceedings in which the claim is described in the summons as a pure trade receivable, without any mention of the respondent’s previously declared bankruptcy, whereas the actual legal basis of that claim is the specific derogating provisions of Netherlands bankruptcy law (Article 25(2) of the Wet van 30 september 1893, op het faillissement en de surséance van betaling (Law of 30 September 1893 on bankruptcy and suspension of payment; ‘NFW’)) and whereby:

it must be determined whether such a claim must be considered a verifiable claim (Article 26 NFW in conjunction with Article 110 thereof) or an unverifiable claim (Article 25(2) NFW),

it appears that the question whether both claims can be brought simultaneously and whether one claim does not appear to exclude the other, taking into account the specific legal consequences of each of those claims (inter alia, in terms of the possibilities of calling for a bank guarantee deferred after the bankruptcy), may be determined in accordance with the rules specific to Netherlands bankruptcy law?

And further

2.

Can the provisions of Article 25(2) [NFW] be regarded as compatible with Article 3(1) of the Insolvency Regulation, in so far as that legislative provision would allow such a claim (Article 25(2) NFW) to be brought before the court of another Member State instead of before the insolvency court of the Member State in which the bankruptcy was declared?


(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1).


Top