![]() ![]() Pursuant to rules of joint and several liability in Polish law, Feniks was liable for these obligations of Coliseum. ![]() Subsequently, Coliseum concluded contracts with several subcontractors, but failed to meet its payment obligations towards them. Coliseum acted as a general contractor and Feniks as an investor. The contract concerned construction works to be carried out in Poland. The company Coliseum, established in Poland, concluded a contract with the company Feniks, also established in Poland. The ECJ surprisingly concluded that this special head of jurisdiction (in addition to the general head of the residence of the defendant in accordance with article 4(1) Brussels I Recast) is indeed applicable.Īn important consequence is that one can be sued by creditors of a contract partner in another member state than the member state in which he is domiciled or does business, if these creditors institute an actio pauliana against him. Pursuant to that article, in matters relating to a contract, the courts of the place of performance of the obligation in question have jurisdiction. More specifically, the central question was whether an actio pauliana is covered by the international jurisdiction rule of article 7(1)(a) of the Brussels I Regulation Recast (Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 “Brussels I Recast”). The Feniks/Azteca judgment of the European Court of Justice (the “ECJ”) of 4 October 2018, ECLI:EU:C:2018:805, concerned this question. This raises the question of which court has jurisdiction in the case of an international dispute, regarding an actio pauliana, that is instituted by a creditor against a third party? In civil law countries, a creditor can invoke the nullification of that legal act by means of a so-called actio pauliana. Imagine that a debtor voluntarily concludes a transaction with a third party where he knows (or should know) that it hinders the creditor’s possibilities of collecting the debt.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |