Mobilité des sociétés; droit international des sociétés; droit des procédures d'insolvabilité; law shopping; forum shopping; règle de conflits de lois Insolvency III abus fraude protection des tiers lex societatis règlement (EU) n° 2015/848
Disciplines :
European & international law
Author, co-author :
MASTRULLO, Thomas ; University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Law, Economics and Finance (FDEF) > Department of Law (DL)
External co-authors :
no
Language :
English
Title :
Cross-border Mobility of Insolvent Companies Within the European Union
See La mobilité des sociétés dans l’Union européenne, B. François (dir.), Joly éd., 2020.
Article 49 of the TFEU reads: “(...) restrictions on the freedom of establishment of nationals of a Member State in the territory of another Member State shall be prohibited. Such prohibition shall also apply to restrictions on the setting-up of agencies, branches or subsidiaries by nationals of any Member State established in the territory of any Member State. Freedom of establishment shall include the right (...) to set up and manage undertakings, in particular companies or firms within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 54, under the conditions laid down for its own nationals by the law of the country where such establishment is effected (...)”.
Article 54 of the TFEU reads: “Companies or firms formed in accordance with the law of a Member State and having their registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the Union shall (...) be treated in the same way as natural persons who are nationals of Member States. ‘Companies or firms’ means companies or firms constituted under civil or commercial law, including cooperative societies, and other legal persons governed by public or private law, save for those which are non-profit-making.”
[2017] OJEU L169/46.
See W. F. EBKE, “The European Conflict-of-Corporate-Laws Revolution: Überseering, Inspire Art and Beyond”, EBLR, 2005, 9.
Case C-212/97, Centros: D. 1999. 550, note M. Menjucq; JDI 2000. 484, note M. Luby; Rev. sociétés 1999. 386, note G. Parléani. – Case C-167/01, Inspire Art: D. 2004. 491, note E. Pataut; JDI 2/2004, note M. Menjucq; Rev. crit. DIP 2004. 151, note H. Muir-Watt; Rev. sociétés 2004. 135, note J.-Ph. Dom; H.C. Hirt, “Freedom of Establishment, International Company Law and the Comparison of European Company Law Systems after the ECJ’s Decision in Inspire Art Ltd”, EBLR, 2004, 1189.
Case C-208/00, Überseering: Rev. crit. DIP 2003. 508, note P. Lagarde; Rev. sociétés 2003. 315, note. J.-P. Dom; JCP E 2003, n° 448, note M. Menjucq.
[2001] OJEC L294/1.
Reg. (EC) n° 2157/2001, art. 2.
Reg. (EC) n° 2157/2001, art. 8.
[2005] OJEC L310/1.
About cross-border mergers: Case C-411/03, Sevic Systems: Rev. crit. DIP 2006. 662, note J. Heymann; JCP G 2006, II 10077, note R. Dammann; M.M. Siems, « SEVIC: Beyond Cross-Border Mergers», EBOR, 8: 2, 2007, p. 307.
About cross-border conversions: Case C-210/06, Cartesio: JCP G 2009, II 10027, note M. Menjucq; Gaz. Pal. 24 mars 2009, n° H3644, p. 12, note Th. Mastrullo;
Europe, 2009, comm. 82, obs. L. Idot; Rev. société 2009. 147, note G. Parléani; Rev. crit. DIP 2009. 236, note J. Heymann. – Case C-378/10, VALE: JCP G 2012, 1089, note M. Menjucq;
Rev. sociétés 2012. 645, note G. Parléani; JCP E 2012, 1547, note Th. Mastrullo;
Rev. crit. DIP 2013. 236, note J. Heymann. – Case C-106/16, Polbud: D. 2017. 2512, note L. d’Avout;
JCP E 2018, 1014, note M. Menjucq; Rev. Sociétés, 2018, 47, note G. Parléani;
BJS, 2018, 19, note Th. Mastrullo. – Case C-276/22, Edil Work 2 et ST: BJS sept. 2024, n° BJS203f9, p. 7, note M. Menjucq.
See Report of the Reflection Group on the Future of EU Company Law (April 5, 2011): B. Lecourt, “Quel avenir pour le droit européen des sociétés ? (à propos du « Rapport du groupe de réflexion sur le futur du droit européen des sociétés»)”, Rev. Sociétés, 2011, 649.
European Parliament resolution of 2 February 2012 with recommendations to the Commission on a 14th company law directive on the cross-border transfer of company seats (2011/2046(INI)). – European Parliament resolution of 10 March 2009 with recommendations to the Commission on the cross-border transfer of the registered office of a company (2008/2196(INI)).
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/. Date of last access – See also Commission, “Action plan: European company law and corporate governance – a modern legal framework for more engaged shareholders and sustainable companies”, COM,2012, 740/2.
Proposal of 24 April 2018 for a Directive amending Directive (EU) 2017/1132 as regards cross-border conversions, mergers and divisions, COM (2018), 241 final: Dossier “Le Paquet européen « Droit des sociétés» de 2018”, P.-H. Conac (dir.), Rev. sociétés, 2019, 7.
[2019] OJEU L321/1. – B. Lecourt, “Enfin une directive sur la mobilité transfrontalière des sociétés !”, Rev. Sociétés, 2020, 338.
B. Lecourt, “La société privée européenne a-t-elle encore un avenir ? (à propos du retrait de la proposition de règlement)”, Rev. Sociétés, 2014, 133.
B. Lecourt, “Société unipersonnelle à responsabilité limitée (SUP): accord du Conseil sur une orientation générale”, Rev. Sociétés, 2015, 692.
Case C-378/10, VALE, para. 49.
See Th. Mastrullo, Le droit international des sociétés dans l’espace régional européen, PUAM, 2009, no 956.
The proposal of Directive harmonizing certain aspects of insolvency law of 7 December 2022 does not provide for a general definition of insolvency but refers several times to the inability of the debtor to pay its mature debts (See art. 6 and art. 38).
It should be recalled that CJEU has ruled that “once proceedings are listed in Annex A to the Regulation, they must be regarded as coming within the scope of the Regulation” (Case C-116/11, Bank Handlowy, para. 33: JCP G 2012, 1050, note L. d’Avout; Rev. proc. coll. 2013, comm. 29, obs. Th. Mastrullo). Insolvency proceedings listed in Annex A to the regulation may thus be restructuring proceedings (such as French sauvegarde or redressement judiciaire) or liquidation proceedings (such as French liquidation judiciaire).
See A. Keay, P. Walton and J. Curl QC, “Corporate governance and Insolvency – Accountability and transparency, Edward Elgar Publishing”, 2022, n° 1.015.
A. Jacquemont, N. Borga et Th. Mastrullo, « Droit des entreprises en difficulté», 12ème ed., LexisNexis, n° 1261.
On the development of European restructuring and insolvency law: I.L. Fannon, J.L. L. Gant and A. Finnerty, “Corporate Recovery in an Integrated Europe – Harmonisation, Coordination and Judicial Cooperation, Edward Elgar Publishing”, 2022.
EIR, recital 3. – EIR Recast, recital 4.
See Commission, “A new European approach to business failure and insolvency”, COM (2012), 742 final.
See Proposal for a Directive “harmonising certain aspects of insolvency law”, COM (2022) 702 final, 2022/0408 (COD).
[2000] OJEC L160/1.
[2015] OJEU L141/19. – See R. Bork and R. Mangano, “European Cross-Border Insolvency Law”, Oxford University Press, 2e ed., 2022. – M. Menjucq, ‘Droit international et européen des sociétés”, LGDJ, coll. « Précis Domat», 7e ed., 2024, p. 527 and seq. – European Insolvency Regulation, M. Brinkmann (ed), Beck – Hart – Nomos, 2019. – G. Cuniberti, P. Nabet et M. Raimon, « Droit européen de l’insolvabilité», LGDJ, 2017.
Commission, “A new European approach to business failure and insolvency”, COM (2012), 742 final.
Commission Recommendation on a new European approach to business failure and insolvency, COM (2014), 1500 final.
[2019] OJEU L172/18. – See G. McCormak, “The European Restructuring Directive”, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2021.
COM (2022) 702 final, 2022/0408 (COD). – See Th. Mastrullo, “Vers une nouvelle avancée du droit européen des faillites. La proposition de directive « harmonisant certains aspects du droit de l’insolvabilité»”, Rev. sociétés 2023, 140.
See Commission, “A Capital Markets Union for people and businesses-new action plan”, COM (2020), 590 final. About the disappointing first decade of the Capital Markets Union and the need to revitalise it: N. Véron, “Capital Markets Union: Ten Years Later” (2024).
See EIR, recital 19. – EIR Recast, recital 40.
Case 33/74: Rec. CJCE 1974, I, p. 1299, pt 13.
See Case C-116/16 et C-117/16, T Danmark, para. 70.
Case C-212/97, Centros, para. 24.
Case C-161/01, Inspire Art, para. 86.
Case C-106/16, Polbud, para. 61.
Case C-212/97, Centros, para. 38. – Case C-106/16, Polbud, para. 61.
Dir. (EU) 2019/2121, recital 35, art. 86m(8) (cross-border conversions), art. 127(8) (cross-border mergers) and art. 168m(8) (cross-border divisions).
For example, in the Inspire Art judgment, the Court of Justice used the terms “fraud” and “improper recourse to freedom of establishment” and, finally, stated that a company cannot be deprived from its freedom of establishment “save where the existence of an abuse is established on a case-by-case basis” (Case C-161/01, Inspire Art, paras. 95, 136 and 143).
Dir. (EU) 2019/2121, recital 35.
However, fraud seems to have a broader and more fundamental scope than abuse. Indeed, fraud is analysed as a key concept in EU law because it is perceived as a general threat to the European integration (see “La Fraude et le droit de l’Union européenne”, D. Berlin, F. Martucci and F. Picod (dir.), Bruylant, 2017). This explains why fraud finds expression not only in the case law of the CJEU pertained to freedoms of movement, but also in many European texts adopted in very different fields (regulations combating illegal immigration, tax fraud or counterfeiting, for instance). Comparatively, the concept of abuse appears narrower and is mostly used as a limit to fundamental freedoms of movement. In the context of the freedom of establishment, in particular, the link between fraud and abuse is very close: according to European case law, the use of the freedom of establishment to commit fraud gives rise to abuse and allows a national restriction (see Th. Mastrullo, « Le droit international des sociétés dans l’espace régional européen», op. cit., n° 500). Fraud is seen here as a form of protection against abuse of right of establishment (see E. Pataut, “Liberté d’établissement et droit international privé des sociétés: un pas de plus”, D. 2004, p. 491, note II, B, p. 493).
EIR, recital 4. – EIR Recast, recital 5.
A. Jacquemont, N. Borga et Th. Mastrullo, n° 1261.
Case C-396/09, paras. 50 and 51: Rev. proc. coll. 2011, étude 32, note M. Menjucq; Rev. sociétés 2012, 116, note Th. Mastrullo.
Case C-1/04: Rec. CJCE 2006, I, p. 701; D. 2006, 1752, note R. Dammann; Rev. sociétés 2006, 346, note J.-L. Vallens. – “For an application in French law: Cass. com.”, 15 févr. 2011, n° 10–13.832, Bull. civ. 2011, IV, n° 28: D. 2011, 1738, note Dammann et Rapp.
EIR Recast, recital 29.
Case C-341/04: Rec. CJCE 2006, I, p. 3813; JCP G 2006, II, 10089, note M. Menjucq; D. 2006, 1752, note R. Dammann.
Case C-396/09.
EIR Recast, art. 3(1).
Case C-396/09, Interedil, para. 53.
See in France, the judgements handed down in Mansford case (CA Paris, 26 November 2009: Rev. sociétés 2010, 395, note Th. Mastrullo), Heart of la Défense case (CA Versailles, 13e ch., 19 January 2012: JurisData n° 2012-002287), Eurotunnel case (Ca Paris, pôle 5, ch. 8, 26 June 2012: JurisData n° 2012-015265) ou WCDF case (CA Paris, pôle 5, ch. 8, 21 December 2016: Rev. proc. coll. 2017, comm. 63, obs. M. Menjucq). – See in Luxembourg: CA Lux., 6 July 2021, n° 96/21; T. arr. Lux., 15 November 2019, n ° 2019-06530; CA Lux., 12 November 2008, n° 32256.
For a first application in France: Cass. com., 11 March 2020, n° 19–10.657: JCP E 2020, 1285, note L. Sautonie-Laguionie; Rev. proc. coll. 2021, comm. 89, obs. Th. Mastrullo.
See in Luxembourg: CA Lux., 12 November 2008, n° 32256.
Case C-353/15: Rev. proc. coll. 2016, comm. 170, ob. M. Menjucq.
Case C-723/20: Rev. proc. coll. 2022, comm. 72, obs. M. Menjucq. – See also Case C-1/ 04, Staubitz-Shreiber.
The completion of a cross-border conversion notably involves a draft terms of the cross-border conversion and a report for members and employees drawn up by the company’s administrative or management body, an independent expert report, the disclosure of the documents pertained to the operation (such as the draft terms of the cross-border conversion), the approval by the company’s general meeting, the issue of a pre-conversion certificate, the scrutiny of the legality of the cross-border conversion by the destination Member State, and the registration of the operation according to the laws of the departure Member State and of the destination Member State.
Dir. (EU) 2019/2121, art. 86a and seq. – See in French law: G. Parléani, “Le transfert de siège social à l’intérieur de l’Union européenne après l’ordonnance n° 2023-393 du 24 mai 2023”, Rev. sociétés 2023, 726; Th. Mastrullo, “L’introduction de la transformation transfrontalière en droit français”, BJS, 2023, BJS202i5, 61.
See A. Jacquemont, N. Borga et Th. Mastrullo, n° 1241. – M. Menjucq, n° 622.
For instance, in France (C. com. art. L. 210-3 et C. civ., art. 1837; see: M. Menjucq, n° 108) or Belgium (C. dr. int. pr., art. 110).
For instance, in Luxembourg (Amended law of 10 August 1915 on commercial companies, art. 1300-2).
EIR, art. 4(1). – EIR Recast, art. 7(1).
Case C-106/16, Polbud, paras. 40 and 62. – Case C-276/22, Edil Work 2 et ST, para. 47.
Dir. (EU) 2019/2121, recital 9, art. 86a(3), art. 120(4) and art. 160a(4).
See C. com., art. L. 236-32, 1° et 2° (cross-border merger), art. L. 236-46, al. 2 (cross-border division) and art. L. 236-50 (cross-border conversion). – About the French transposition of the Directive (UE) 2019/2121: Dossier “Ordonnance n° 2023-393 du 24 mai 2023 portant réforme du régime des fusions, scissions, apports partiels d’actifs et opérations transfrontalières des sociétés commerciales”, H. Le Nabasque and M. Menjucq (dir.), BJS, 2023, p. 37, n° BJS202h1. – Dossier “Transposition de la directive « Mobilité transfrontalière des sociétés»”, B. Lecourt (dir.), Rev. Sociétés, 2023, 719.
Dir. (EU) 2019/2121, recital 9. The text of the Proposal of 25 April 2018 was more restrictive, by providing that the company would not be entitled to carry out a cross-border operation if it was subject to preventive restructuring proceedings initiated because of the likelihood of insolvency (Proposal of 25 April 2018, art. 86(c)(2) (cross-border conversions), art. 120(4) (cross-border mergers) and 160(d)(2) (cross-border divisions)). The Council has amended this aspect and made the exclusion from the scope of the Directive (EU) 2019/2121 optional unless the company is in liquidation.
Dir. (EU) 2019/2121, art. 86a(4).
Dir. (EU) 2019/2121, art. 120(5).
Dir. (EU) 2019/2121, art. 160a(5).
The option has not been exercised by France.
See Th. Mastrullo, “L’entreprise privée face au commerce international”, in Droit du commerce international, dir. J. Béguin et M. Menjucq, LexisNexis, 3ème éd., 2019, n° 714.
Case C-594/14: JCP G 2016, doctr. 241, n° 10, obs. M. Menjucq; JCP G 2016, 304, note L. d’Avout; Rev. sociétés 2016.311, note G. Parléani; Europe 2016, n° 84, note L. Idot; Dr. sociétés 2016, n° 7, chron. 1, spéc. n° 1, obs. E. Schlumberger; Rev. proc. coll. 2016, n° 171, obs. Th. Mastrullo.
See TA Lux., 14 July 2021, n° TAD-2021-00477. – TA Lux., 3 June 2010, n° 755/2010. – TA Lux., 19 February 2009, n° 239/2009.
See J.-P. Winandy, Manuel de droit des sociétés, Legitech, 2019, p. 312 et s.
CA Lux., 4 July 2012, n° 38271. – CA Lux., 23 March 2011, n° 36199.
CA Lux., 27 November 2019, n° CAL-2019-00412.
CA Lux., 14 December 2021, n° CAL-2021-00436.
This statement needs to be qualified since the Law of 28 October 2022 creating the procedure for administrative dissolution without liquidation. – See Th. Mastrullo, “Un nouvel instrument au soutien de la compétitivité de la place luxembourgeoise: la dissolution administrative sans liquidation des « coquilles vides»”, JurisNews Procédures d’insolvabilité, Larcier, n° 2-3/2023, 193.
C. com. Lux., art. 440 to 572.
EIR, recital 19. – EIR Recast, recital 40.
EIR Recast, art. 2(11).
EIR, recital 12. – EIR Recast, recital 23.
EIR, art. 16 and 25. – EIR Recast, art. 19 and 32.
See A. Jacquemont, N. Borga et Th. Mastrullo, nos 1277 and 1298.
See Case C-195/15, Senior Home, para. 17: JCP E 2017, 1198, spéc. n° 14, obs. M. Menjucq; Rev. proc. coll. 2017, comm. 59, obs. Th. Mastrullo.
EIR and EIR Recast, art. 3, § 2.
EIR, art. 2(h). – EIR Recast, art. 2(10).
Case C-396/09, para. 62.
See, however, for the opening of a secondary insolvency proceedings against a subsidiary: Case C-327/13, Burgo Group: D. 2015, 45, note R. Dammann et A. Rapp; Rev. proc. coll. 2015, comm. 142, obs. Th. Mastrullo.
See A. Jacquemont, N. Borga et Th. Mastrullo, nos 1275 to 1277.
EIR, art. 17(2). – EIR Recast, art. 20(2).
EIR, art. 28. – EIR Recast, art. 35.
EIR, art. 5 to 15. – EIR Recast, art. 8 to 18.
EIR, recital 11. – EIR Recast, recital 22.
EIR, art. 5(1). – EIR Recast, art. 8(1).
EIR, art. 5(4). – EIR Recast, art. 8(4).
EIR, art. 13. – EIR Recast, art. 16.
See Case C-557/13, Lutz, para. 42: D. 2015, p. 2015, note R. Dammann et A.-M. Dang; Rev. proc. coll., 2015, comm. 87, Th. Mastrullo.
See CA, Lux., 15 February 2017, n° 25/17 – VII – REF, nos 43925 et 44011. – T. arr. Lux., 7 April 2017, n° 515/17, n° 178052.
