Ar egzistuoja palankesnės teisės ieškojimo galimybės bankroto bylose?

LTTarptautinio bankroto bylų jurisdikcijos klausimus Europos Sąjungos lygiu reguliuoja 2000 m. gegužės 29 d. Tarybos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 1346/2000 dėl bankroto bylų. Jame įtvirtintas vienas tarptautinę jurisdikciją tarptautinio bankroto bylose nulemiantis kriterijus - pagrindinių turtinių interesų vieta. Straipsnyje siekiama atsakyti į klausimą, ar pasirinktu reguliavimu yra pasiektas šio reglamento vienas iš tikslų - panaikinti teisines prielaidas galimybei bylos šalims perkelti turtą arba teismo procesą iš vienos valstybės narės į kitą ieškant palankesnės teisinės padėties. Tuo tikslu analizuojami jurisdikcijos klausimų reguliavimo ypatumai, sudarantys prielaidas palankesnės teisinės padėties ieškojimo galimybei. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Tarptautinio bankroto bylos; Pagrindinių turtinių interesų vieta; Cross-border insolvency proceedings; European Union; Place of main interests; Europos Sąjunga (European Union).

ENUniform rules of international jurisdiction for crossborder insolvency proceedings in all member states are established in the directly applicable Council regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (further - Regulation). One criterion, determining international jurisdiction in cross-border insolvency proceedings, „the place of main interests", is established in this Regulation. Such regulation was chosen to eliminate legal preconditions for background for seeking to obtain a' more favourable legal position in cross-border insolvency proceedings. The intention of this article is to provide the answer to a question, because of what reasons the aim to eliminate possibility of seeking a more favourable legal position is not reached fully in cross-border insolvency proceedings. Two main reasons can be; distinguished and both of them arise from peculiarities, more precisely, gaps of regulation of criteria, which determines international jurisdiction in cross-border cases. The first of the preconditions for seeking a more favourable legal position is an undisclosure of the concept of the place of main interests in the Regulation. The place of main interests in Regulation is defined as by various criteria rebuttable presumption, that the palace of main interests is the place of the registered office. These criteria may be various. There is no a definitive list of these criteria in the Regulation.The second precondition for seeking a more favourable legal position is an unblocked possibility to move the place of main interest from one state to another while seeking to open an insolvency proceedings in a particular state. It is especially important in cases, when because of international aspect of activity of a debtor, marks of place of main interest are detected in several states. The Court of Justice by its interpretation in Case C-l/04 has blocked the possibility to move the palace of main interests into a state of a more favourable legal status and thus to change jurisdiction during the period, which starts with the moment when application to open insolvency proceedings is lodged and ends, when insolvency proceedings are opened. However, there is still left a possibility to move the place of main interests into a favourable state before application to open insolvency proceedings is lodged. Such a way of seeking a more favourable legal status is not blocked, but courts, when applying Regulation, should judge in such situations bearing in mind that one of the aims of Regulation was exactly the aim to eliminate possibilities to fraudulently seek for a more favourable status. [From the publication]