COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No. 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 ON INSOLVENCY PROCEEDINGS

Straipsnyje analizuojamos 2000 m. gegužės 29 d. Europos Tarybos Reglamente (EB) Nr. 1346/2000 dėl bankroto bylų įtvirtintos taikytinos teisės taisyklės, šių nuostatų turinys, reglamentavimo trūkumui. Taip pat nagrinėjami probleminiai taisyklių taikymo klausimai, su kuriais gali susidurti nacionalinių valstybių teismai tiesiogiai taikydami šį reglamentą. This article contains analysis of choice of law rules established in the Council Regulation (EC) No. 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on Insolvency Proceedings as well as shortcomings of their regulation. Moreover, problematic aspects of application of rules which might be faced by the national courts while directly applying the regulation are examined in this article.

Download Full-text

Europos Sąjungos kompetencijos reguliuoti bankroto procesą ribos

Teisė ◽

10.15388/teise.2009.0.269 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 73 ◽

pp. 89-101

Author(s):

Laura Kirilevičiūtė

Keyword(s):

European Union ◽

The Political ◽

The European Union ◽

Legal Basis ◽

Judicial Cooperation ◽

Political Will ◽

Cross Border ◽

Legislative Activity ◽

Council Regulation ◽

Insolvency Proceedings

Straipsnyje nagrinėjamos 2000 m. gegužės 29 d. Tarybos reglamento (EB) Nr. 1346/2000 dėl bankroto bylų rengimo ir priėmimo metu egzistavusios istorinės ir teisinės prielaidos, turėjusios įtakos pasirinktai reguliavimo dalyko apimčiai. Europos Sąjungos teisėkūros teisminio bendradarbiavimo su užsieniu susijusių civilinių bylų srityje šiuolaikinių tendencijų kontekste analizuojama Europos Sąjungai suteiktos kompetencijos reguliuoti bankroto bylas apimtis ir jos sampratos pokyčiai per devynerius metus po reglamento priėmimo. Keliama ir grindžiama hipotezė, kad Europos Sąjunga dar visa apimtimi neįgyvendino savo kompetencijos reguliuoti bankroto bylas, todėl tikėtina, kad ateityje šio reglamento reguliavimo dalykas bus išplėstas. Teisinės prielaidos tam yra pakankamos. Reguliavimo dalyko apimties pasirinkimą nulems ir politinė valia. This article deals with legal-historical preconditions, which existed while preparing and adopting Council regulation (EC) 1346/2000 of May 2000 on insolvency proceedings. These preconditions have influenced the choice of the scope of this regulation. The scope of the competence of The European Union to regulate insolvency proceedings as well as the changes of its conception during the nine years after the adoption of this regulation is analysed in the context of recent tendencies of European Union legislative activity in the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters with cross-border implications. Hypothesis, that is raised and reasoned, is: The European Union has not exercised its competence to regulate insolvency proceedings in full amount yet. Thus, in the future, it is likely, that the scope of this regulation will be extended. Legal basis for that is sufficient. The choice will depend on the political will as well.

Download Full-text

Book ReviewsBook ReviewsBerendsAndréMinistry of Justice, The Netherlands122000473381390FletcherI.F., Insolvency in Private International Law: National and International Approaches, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1999, 465 pp. ISBN 019-825864-XCopyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 20002000T.M.C. Asser PresspdfS0165070X00001066a.pdfdispartBook Reviews1.See, for instance, T.M. Bos, Grensoverschrijdend faillissementsrecht in Europees perspectief diss. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (2000) (with summary in English: ‘Cross-border Bankruptcies in European Perspective’).2.Philip St. SmartJ., Cross-border Insolvency, 2nd edn. (London, Butterworths 1998).3.For instance, at a colloquium, organised by Insol and UNCITRAL, held in Toronto in 1995, an Expert Committee's Report was distributed (not published), in which six categories of states were distinguished. Category 1 contained the most open states, category 6 the states that were the most closed. The Netherlands and Japan were the only two states in category 64.One should bear in mind that the term ‘bankruptcy’ under English law only refers to an insolvency proceeding for natural persons5.See CooperN. and JarvisR., Recognition and Enforcement of Cross-Border Insolvency (Chichester, John Wiley and Sons Ltd. 1996), in which the laws on this point of 36 countries are described.6.The word ‘anglo-centric’ is used by Fletcher himself (p. 108), in a rather pejorative way7.Initiative of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of Finland with a view to the adoption of a Council Regulation on insolvency proceedings, submitted to the Council on 26 May 1999, Official Journal C 221, 3 August 1999, pp. 8 et seq.8.Council Regulation (EC) No. 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings

Netherlands International Law Review ◽

10.1017/s0165070x00001066 ◽

2000 ◽

Vol 47 (03) ◽

pp. 381

Author(s):

André Berends

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Official Journal ◽

Private International Law ◽

Federal Republic Of Germany ◽

Cross Border ◽

Recognition And Enforcement ◽

The Republic ◽

Council Regulation ◽

Insolvency Proceedings ◽

Open States

Download Full-text

Historical Overview: The Drafting of the Regulation and its Precursors

Moss, Fletcher and Isaacs on the EU Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings ◽

10.1093/oso/9780199687800.003.0001 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

Ian F Fletcher

Keyword(s):

Phase I ◽

Second Phase ◽

Historical Overview ◽

Draft Convention ◽

Council Regulation ◽

Insolvency Proceedings ◽

Preliminary Draft ◽

Istanbul Convention ◽

The Eu

This introductory chapter briefly reviews the development and adoption of Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000, the Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings in the EU. It describes two principal phases that led to its formation. The first phase covers the period of 1960–1980, when the six original Member States worked on and published the Preliminary Draft Convention. The Draft contained a three-tier hierarchy of jurisdictional criteria linking the debtor to the territory of the state in which proceedings could be opened. Unfortunately, the Draft is considered to be a failure due to the shortcomings of the jurisdictional rules. The second phase started in 1989 and formed another Convention which drew from the Phase I Draft EC Convention and the Istanbul Convention. This eventually became Regulation 1346/2000, which contained provisions that were more workable and politically acceptable over matters of credit, security, and insolvency.

Download Full-text

Bankroto bylos iškėlimas Lietuvos Respublikos teisme pagal Europos Sąjungos ir Lietuvos teisę

Teisė ◽

10.15388/teise.2010.0.256 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 74 ◽

pp. 80-92 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Radvilė Čiricaitė

Keyword(s):

The Republic ◽

Council Regulation ◽

Insolvency Proceedings

Straipsnyje analizuojamas 2000 m. gegužės 29 d. Europos Tarybos reglamento (EB) Nr. 1346/2000 dėl bankroto bylų nuostatų bei Lietuvos teisės aktų taikymas iškeliant bankroto bylą Lietuvos Respublikos teisme subjektui, kurio bankrotas turi tarptautinio bankroto požymių. Taip pat nagrinėjami bankroto bylos iškėlimo probleminiai aspektai ir pateikiami galimi problemų sprendimo būdai ir kryptys. This article contains analysis of the rules established in the Council Regulation (EC) No. 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on Insolvency Proceedings as well as in Lithuanian legal acts which are applied by the court of the Republic of Lithuania while opening insolvency proceedings against internationally insolvent entity. Moreover, problematic aspects concerning opening of the insolvency proceedings as well as suggestions for their solution are examined in this article.

Download Full-text