Bankroto bylų teismingumas pagal Europos Sąjungos teisę

LTStraipsnyje analizuojamos 2000 m. gegužės 29 d. Europos Tarybos Reglamente (EB) Nr. 1346/2000 dėl bankroto bylų įtvirtintos bankroto bylų teismingumo taisyklės, praktinės jų taikymo problemos. Atsižvelgiantį tai, kad Lietuvoje, kaip ir kitose Europos Sąjungos valstybėse narėse, reglamentas taikomas tiesiogiai, straipsnyje nagrinėjami klausimai aktualūs tiek praktiniu, tiek moksliniu aspektu. Problematikai atskleisti straipsnyje nagrinėjama Europos Sąjungos valstybių narių teismų praktika ir Europos Teisingumo Teismo išaiškinimai, susiję su reglamento nuostatų taikymu. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Bankrotas; Teismingumas; Europos Tarybos Reglamentas (EB) Nr. 1346/2000; Bancrupcy; Jurisdiction; Council Regulation (EC); No. 1346/2000.

ENThe attempts to resolve jurisdiction problems of the international insolvency cases on the European Union level after extensive debates resulted in adoption of the Council Regulation (EC) No. 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on Insolvency Proceedings ("Regulation"). This article contains analysis of jurisdiction rules established by the Regulation and practical problems of their application. Regulation sets different jurisdiction rules to open main and secondary insolvency proceedings. The courts of the Member State within the territory of which the centre of a debtor's main interests is situated have jurisdiction to open main insolvency proceedings. In the case of a company or legal person, this is the place of its registered office (in the absence of proof to the contrary). However, the Regulation docs not define the concept of the "centre of debtor's main interests". The absence of clear definition of the "centre of debtor's main interests" leads to different interpretation of this concept by national courts of the Member States. The awaited preliminary ruling of the European Court of Justice in the Eurofoods IFSC Limited case failed to give more obvious explanations. Until a definitive interpretation of concept of the "centre of debtor's main interests" is provided, contradictory interpretations of jurisdiction to open the main insolvency proceedings by national courts of the Member States are inevitable. Secondary proceedings may be opened consequently to liquidate assets located in another Member State provided the debtor has an establishment within the territory of that Member State.An "establishment" requires any place of operations where the debtor carries out non-transitional economic activity with human goods and activities. In some cases, provided in the Regulation, territorial proceedings may be opened before the main proceeding. The Regulation gives a solution how to avoid positive conflicts of jurisdiction by establishing that decision of the first court to open insolvency proceeding must be recognized in the other Member State without the power to scrutinize the court's decision. The relevant moment for the court to establish its jurisdiction, following the preliminary ruling of the European Court of Justice in the Susanne Staubte- Schreiber case, is the moment when petition to open insolvency proceeding has been presented to the court. In conclusion it should be stated that since Regulation contains some vague terms and definitions, it is impossible to ensure uniform application of jurisdiction rules enshrined in the Regulation throughout t h e European Union. Case law of European Court of Justice could be a significant input towards for achieving uniformity in the application of the Regulation. [From the publication]