Aller au contenu principal
Judgment of 4 December 2019
Droit Immobilier

Judgment of 4 December 2019

📅 Décision du 25 March 2020⚖️ Cour de cassation👁️ 11 vues📖 3 min de lecture

By a judgment of 4 December 2019 (C-493/18, Tiger and Others), the CJEU ruled that Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that an action brought by the trustee in bankruptcy, appointed by a court of the Member State within whose territory the insolvency proceedings have been opened, seeking to have the sale of immovable property situated in another Member State and the mortgage granted over that property declared unenforceable against the body of creditors, falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the first Member State. By the same judgment, the CJEU ruled that Article 25(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that a decision by which a court of the Member State of the opening of proceedings authorises the trustee in bankruptcy to bring an action in another Member State, even if that action would fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of that court, cannot have the effect of conferring international jurisdiction on the courts of that other Member State. Consequently, a Court of Appeal which, seised of an action brought by the trustee in bankruptcy in insolvency proceedings opened in England seeking to have mortgages granted by the debtor over property situated in France and the sales of that property to a third party declared unenforceable against the body of creditors in those proceedings, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts, does not of its own motion declare that it lacks jurisdiction to hear the case, infringes Article 3(1) of the Regulation, regardless of the fact that the trustee in bankruptcy was authorised by the English court to bring the matter before the French court.

Reference decision: cc • No. 16-20.520 • 2020-03-25 • View the decision →

This decision sheds important light on your property rights. Here is what it changes for you.

The situation

By a judgment of 4 December 2019 (C-493/18, Tiger and Others), the CJEU ruled that Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that an action brought by the trustee in bankruptcy, appointed by a court of the Member State within whose territory the insolvency proceedings have been opened, seeking to have the sale of immovable property situated in another Member State and the mortgage granted over that property declared unenforceable against the body of creditors, falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the first Member State. By the same judgment, the CJEU ruled that Article 25(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that a decision by which a court of the Member State of the opening of proceedings authorises the trustee in bankruptcy to bring an action in another Member State, even if that action would fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of that court, cannot have the effect of conferring international jurisdiction on the courts of that other Member State. Consequently, a Court of Appeal which, seised of an action brought by the trustee in bankruptcy in insolvency proceedings opened in England seeking to have mortgages granted by the debtor over property situated in France and the sales of that property to a third party declared unenforceable against the body of creditors in those proceedings, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts, does not of its own motion declare that it lacks jurisdiction to hear the case, infringes Article 3(1) of the Regulation, regardless of the fact that the trustee in bankruptcy was authorised by the English court to bring the matter before the French court.

What the law says

This decision confirms the fundamental principles of property law.

Points to remember

  • Strictly observe legal time limits for appeals
  • Keep all supporting documents (titles, deeds, correspondence)
  • Anticipate: preventive advice always costs less than litigation

For an analysis of your situation: 30-minute consultation at €45 with Maître Zakine.

📌 Does this apply to your situation? Maître Cécile Zakine, French real estate lawyer, practises throughout France.
→ Prendre RDV pour une consultation droit du travail  |  → Browse all our legal articles

Informations juridiques

  • Numéro: 16-20.520
  • Juridiction: Cour de cassation
  • Date de décision: 25 mars 2020

Mots-clés

droit immobilierjurisprudenceimmobilier
Maître Cécile Zakine

À propos de l'auteur

Maître Cécile Zakine — Avocate au Barreau des Alpes-Maritimes, Docteur en Droit. Chaque article de ce magazine est rédigé à partir de l'analyse d'une décision de jurisprudence réelle, commentée et mise en perspective par les équipes de Maître Zakine.

Prendre rendez-vous →

Avertissement: Les analyses présentées sur ce site sont fournies à titre informatif uniquement et ne constituent pas des conseils juridiques personnalisés. Pour une consultation adaptée à votre situation, contactez un avocat.

★★★★★4.9/5 — Google Reviews

Does this affect you?

Consult Maître Zakine — lawyer, Doctor of Law. Fast, clear answer.

Book a consultation →

🔒 Confidential · No obligation

📬 Get legal updates

One legal analysis per week, straight to your inbox. Free, no spam.

🔒 1-click unsubscribe · GDPR compliant

★★★★★4.9/5 — Avis Google

Maître Zakine, Doctor of Law

Phone and video consultations available — Fast appointments

Book an appointment
First consultation 30 minutes — €45

🔒 Confidentiel • Sans engagement • Réponse rapide