Bankruptcy Law

As the 1967 law and ordinance failed to achieve any of their objectives, the scheme was repealed and replaced by three new laws.
The Law of 1 March 1984  sought to improve the means of achieving the prevention objective of the 1967 Ordinance by emphasizing the prevention and amicable settlement of “company difficulties”. The aim is to intervene before a company's situation is irremediably compromi …

Laws of 1984, 1985 and 1994

For a long time, the difficulties faced by insolvent debtors were dealt with solely from the point of view of repression, in order to punish the betrayal of trust implicit in credit, an essential cog in the wheel of commercial exchanges. Originally, the situation was dealt with by rules applicable to all debtors, whether merchants or not. Roman law began with enforcement against the debtor himself, who in the event of absolute inability to pay could be reduced to the status of a slave, before moving on to measures against his property with the venditio bonorum, which organized the collective sale of the debtor's assets to pay off his creditors, and led to dishonor and to the forfeiture of certain rights, notably political. In the Middle Age, similar enforcement procedures continued to apply, through “lettres de foires”, which enabled certain creditors to have the debtor's assets sold and to obtain payment of their claims in priority to creditors whose claims had not arisen at the fairs, in addition to personal sanctions ranging from pillorying to the death penalty. Colbert's Ordinance of 1673 perpetuated this system, while introducing a degree of flexibility for debtors whose insolvency was not due to fault, who could obtain from the King a temporary suspension of proceedings by means of a “letter of respite”.

The Commercial Code of 1807 instituted a real “bankruptcy” procedure, reserved for merchants, marked by extreme severity with regard to debtors judged to be at fault, who could be punished by heavy prison sentences or even hard labor. The sole aims of bankruptcy proceedings were to sell the debtor's assets in order to pay off creditors collectively, punish the debtor and exclude him from the merchant community .

Following an initial law of 28 May 1838, which eased the sanctions, a law of 4 March 1889 marked the first major turning point towards a relaxation of the rules and an abandonment of the purely repressive vision of the procedures, by distinguishing the wrongful and dishonest merchant from the merchant of good faith, not responsible for his bankruptcy. The former is subject to the traditional bankruptcy procedure, in which he is represented by a trustee responsible for selling his assets, while the latter can benefit from the new judicial liquidation procedure, in which he is only assisted by the trustee, and which enables him to obtain a composition ensuring the continuity of his business.

Three decree-laws (décret-loi) of 8 August 1935 introduced a number of procedural changes, as well as a system of compensation for the debtor's workers and clerks  and penalties for managers who used the company's assets as if they were their own.

The professions of trustee and receiver were subsequently regulated by a decree of 20 May 1955. Another decree of the same date replaced the judicial liquidation procedure with the judicial settlement procedure, which became the procedure of ordinary law and benefited debtors in good faith whose company was likely to recover from its difficulties through the adoption of a composition agreement with its creditors. Bankruptcy remains an elimination measure against undeserving merchants.

During this very long phase of history, the treatment of a merchant's difficulties, devoid of any economic vision, has essentially revolved around a possible fault committed by the debtor, without distinguishing the person from the company and, in fact, without taking into account a possible or even desirable recovery by the latter.

The Code provided for two types of bankruptcy, simple or fraudulent, using an expression derived from the Italian banca rotta, meaning “broken bench”, in reference to the practice of breaking the bench occupied by the bankrupt trader in the market, to indicate to the public that he was no longer authorized to trade.

This plan is considered the forerunner of the superprivilege for salaried employees.

Background

To make up for the shortcoming discussed in the previous paragraph, in 1967 the legislator and the government distinguished between three procedures: judicial settlement, liquidation of assets and provisional stay of proceedings. The explanatory memorandum to the Law of 13 July 1967  gave impetus to the new dynamic of insolvency proceedings, providing that its aim was to “eliminate economically condemned companies without, however, bringing disgrace and dishonor to managers who did not deserve it”, thus dissociating the fate of the individual from that of the company. Under the new system, the debtor benefits from a court-supervised settlement if he is “in a position to present a reliable and serious composition agreement” to creditors. Conversely, if no composition is possible, the court orders the liquidation of assets.

The Ordinance of 23 September 1967  introduced a provisional stay of proceedings to enable “companies in a difficult but not irremediably compromised financial situation, whose disappearance would be likely to cause a serious disturbance to the national or regional economy” to prepare a receivership plan and negotiate debt remission or payment terms with their creditors. The aim is to avoid the disappearance of the company while protecting the interests of creditors. This is the first attempt to set up a preventive procedure, since it can only take place in the period preceding the cessation of payments, which it aims to avoid. This procedure is faster, limited to three months in duration, and creditors to a lesser extent, and remedies are reduced.

L. 67-563 of 13 July 1967 on judicial settlement, liquidation of assets, personal bankruptcy and bankruptcies.

Order 67-820 of 23 September 1967 to facilitate the economic and financial receivership of certain companies.

Law and Ordinance from 1967

As the 1967 law and ordinance failed to achieve any of their objectives, the scheme was repealed and replaced by three new laws.

The Law of 1 March 1984  sought to improve the means of achieving the prevention objective of the 1967 Ordinance by emphasizing the prevention and amicable settlement of “company difficulties”. The aim is to intervene before a company's situation is irremediably compromised, through better release of accounting information, the creation of warning procedures designed to alert managers to any fact likely to jeopardize the company's continued operation, and amicable procedures aimed at reaching an agreement between the debtor and its main creditors.

Two laws of 25 January 1985 completely redesigned the architecture of insolvency proceedings, instituting receivership and liquidation procedures  and regulating the profession of  legal representatives . The company is placed at the heart of the new receivership system, the aim of which is “to safeguard the business, maintain activity and employment, and pay off liabilities”  . “When the company has ceased all activity or when receivership is manifestly impossible”, it is liquidated without the opening of an observation period. The procedures instituted by this law place greater emphasis on the economic nature of insolvency law, to the detriment of the interests of creditors, who are placed in third place in the order of priorities, who are required to declare and verify their claims, and whose scope of action and rights are reduced to enable the debtor to bounce back. In addition, the 1985 law considerably improves the situation of employees, who are consulted at all stages of the procedure through the works council , staff delegates or the employee representative, since safeguarding employment has become the legislator's second objective.

Nevertheless, the scope of the preventive mechanism introduced in 1984 proved too narrow, while the interests of too many creditors were sacrificed, without saving any more companies in difficulty. The Law of 10 June 1994  therefore sought to broaden the scope of amicable settlement, shorten the duration of receivership and liquidation procedures and strengthen creditors' rights, without sacrificing the logic of saving the business.

L. 84-148 of 1 March 1984 on the prevention and amicable settlement of business difficulties.

Law 85-98 of 25 January 1985 on receivership and court-supervised liquidation of companies.

L. 85-99 of 25 January 1985 relating to receivers, legal representatives in the liquidation of companies and company diagnostics experts.

Now known as the social and economic committee.

L. 94-475 of 10 June 1994 on the prevention and handling of business difficulties.

The so-called “Safeguard Law” of 26 July 2005  was adopted to change French insolvency procedures, following the European Union Council Regulation of 29 May 2000  on cross-border insolvency proceedings, and against the backdrop of the introduction, by several member states, of safeguard procedures enabling a company's difficulties to be dealt with without waiting for it to cease payments. These safeguard procedures were themselves largely inspired by Chapter 11 of American Law, which provides for a reorganization procedure in favor of a debtor experiencing serious financial difficulties, but whose business remains viable. The purpose of this scheme  is to enable a company that has incurred debts to its creditors to undertake restructuring measures in accordance with a plan defined in agreement with the creditors and validated by a court. The mere request to open the procedure, submitted by the debtor or one of its creditors, automatically stays the creditors' actions. The procedure is highly attractive because, in principle, the business continues to operate with the debtor in possession. The procedure involves creditors' and equity security holders' committees, whose task is to agree with the debtor on a reorganization plan that will eventually enable the debt to be settled. The 2005 Law imported this receivership procedure and now offers three alternatives to receivership, when the company's difficulties are not yet insurmountable: the ad hoc mandate, conciliation or safeguard. Even though safeguarding the business has been given absolute priority, the 2005 Law nonetheless marks a perceptible shift in insolvency proceedings towards a liquidation approach, as illustrated by the transfer of the disposal plan to court-supervised liquidation.

Against a backdrop of economic crisis, the Ordinance of 18 December 2008  completed the 2005 reform and facilitated remedy under the safeguard procedure, which had been little used since its inception. Subsequently, the Ordinance of 12 March 2014  involved creditors more closely in the process of adopting a continuation or sale plan, and introduced the professional recovery procedure designed to help debtors bounce back by eliminating their debts.

L. 2006-845 of 26 July 2005 on safeguarding businesses.

Reg. 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings, repealed and replaced by Reg. 2015/848 of 20 June 2015.

Described in the Hyest report (no. 335) submitted on 11 May 2005 as part of the examination of the safeguard bill.

Ordinance 2008-1345 of 18 December 2008 concerning the reform of the law governing companies in difficulty.

Ordinance 2014-326 of 12 March 2014 concerning the reform of the prevention of business difficulties and insolvency proceedings.

Law of 2005 and Ordinances of 2008 and 2014

Insolvency proceedings were initially adapted on a temporary basis to the imperatives arising from the health crisis . Then, in order to transpose the Directive of 20 June 2019 , the Ordinance of 15 September 2021  reconfigured the national tools for preventing corporate difficulties, notably the accelerated safeguard procedure, and replaced creditors' committees with classes of affected parties. It also perpetuates the post-money privileged claim introduced by Ordinance No 2020-596. Lastly, the Law of 14 February 2022  replaces the individual limited liability entrepreneur regime introduced in 2010 with that of the sole trader.

Ord. 2020-341 of 27 March 2020, concerning the adaptation of rules relating to the difficulties of companies and farms to health emergencies and amending certain provisions of criminal procedure; 2020-596 of 20 May 2020, concerning the adaptation of rules relating to the difficulties of companies and farms to the consequences of the covid-19 epidemic.

Dir. 2019/1023 of 20 June 2019 on preventive restructuring frameworks, debt forgiveness and discharges, and on measures to be taken to increase the efficiency of restructuring, insolvency and debt forgiveness procedures.

Ord. 2021-1193 of 15 September 2021 concerning amendments to Book VI of the Commercial Code.

L. 2022-172 of 14 February 2022 in favor of independent professional activity.

Ordinance 2021 and other legislation

Debtors in difficulty may apply for out-of-court procedures under Articles L. 611-1 to L. 611-17 of the Commercial Code, before their difficulties become insurmountable and lead to suspension of payments. The ad hoc mandate and conciliation procedures enable businesses to negotiate amicably and confidentially with their creditors, with a view to obtaining extended payment terms and debt forgiveness. The ad hoc mandate, which has no time-limit, can be used as a preliminary to conciliation, which may not exceed five months. Conciliation, on the other hand, cannot be initiated if the debtor has been in suspension of payments for more than forty-five days. Conciliation enables an agreement to be reached between the debtor and his creditors, but can also lead to the organization of a partial or total sale of the business, known as a “pre-pack sale”, which may be implemented as part of a subsequent safeguard, receivership or liquidation procedure.

However, the debtor may also prefer to apply to the court for the opening of a safeguard procedure, when, although not in cessation of payments, he can demonstrate difficulties which he is unable to overcome .

If these procedures are not sufficient to resolve the debtor's difficulties, he must declare that he is in a state of cessation of payments within forty-five days, and request the opening of receivership or court-supervised liquidation proceedings. Judicial receivership is opened when the debtor is unable to meet its current liabilities with its available assets . If receivership is manifestly impossible, the only option open is judicial liquidation . All too often, however, the matter is referred to the courts when it is already too late. The law therefore provides for the possibility of converting a safeguard or receivership procedure into a liquidation procedure when the debtor's state of cessation of payments and the impossibility of receivership are proven .

C. com. L. 622-10, for the conversion of a safeguard into liquidation and art. L. 631-15, II, for the conversion of receivership into liquidation.

Coordination of procedures

In 2017, 55,511 insolvency proceedings were opened, including 1,195 safeguards, 14,322 receiverships and 39,994 direct liquidations. The number of procedures fell over the following two years (54,452 in 2018 and 51,800 in 2019), before dropping dramatically with the health crisis and the accompanying measures put in place by the Government (32,417 procedures in 2020, 27,561 in 2021) .

In 2022, the trend was unfortunately reversed: 42,500 procedures were opened, almost 50% more than in 2021 . 1,125 court rulings for safeguard were issued, up 54.3% on 2021, representing less than 3% of procedures. 10,132 receivership court rulings were handed down, up 55.8% year-on-year. These represent less than 25% of the procedures opened. Lastly, 31,257 court-supervised liquidations were ordered, up 47.9% on 2021, accounting for almost 75% of procedures. In the first half of 2023 , the number of insolvencies returned to its highest level since 2016: 27,583 procedures were opened between 1 January and 30 June 2023.

Data from the first Annual Report of the Economic Data Observatory produced by the National Council of Receivers and Legal Representatives (CNAJMJ), 2021.

Altares 2022 study on business failures and safeguards in France, 17 January 2023.

Altares studies 2 business failures and safeguards in France, T1 and T2 2023.

Key figures

Regulation No 2015/848 of 20 May 2015 , which replaces Regulation No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 , pursues the same objective of settling conflicts of jurisdiction as Regulation No 1215/2012 of 12 December 2012 : it lays down skill for the opening of insolvency proceedings and decisions deriving therefrom, and organizes the recognition of such decisions. However, unlike Regulation No 1215/2012, it also governs conflicts of law in international bankruptcy matters. Regulation No 2015/848 is accompanied by an implementing regulation, Regulation No 2017/1105 .

The regulation applies to procedures that promote the receivership of economically viable but troubled businesses and give entrepreneurs a second chance (recital 10). It covers insolvency proceedings involving the partial or total divestiture of the debtor (art. 1(1)(a) and the appointment of a liquidator, as well as procedures in which a debtor's assets and affairs are subject to the control or supervision of a court, known as “debtor in possession” proceedings (art. 1(1)(b) and procedures granting a provisional stay of individual proceedings, provided that they provide for adequate measures to protect the general body of creditors and, if no agreement is reached, that they are preliminary to the other two procedures (art. 1(1)(c).

Article 2(1) of the regulation defines insolvency proceedings as “proceedings in which all or a substantial proportion of a debtor's creditors participate, provided that, in the latter case, the proceedings do not concern the claims of creditors who are not party to the proceedings”. Excluded from its scope of application are insolvency proceedings concerning insurance companies and credit institutions, investment firms providing services involving the holding of third-party funds or securities, and collective investment schemes.

The substantive scope of Regulation No 2015/848 is interpreted restrictively and is limited to provisions governing the skill for opening insolvency proceedings and taking decisions that derive directly from the insolvency procedure and are closely connected to it.

Under the terms of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of the Regulation, the courts of the Member State in which the debtor's center of main interests is located have jurisdiction to open insolvency proceedings. In the case of companies and legal persons, the center of main interests is presumed to be, in the absence of proof to the contrary, the place of their registered office . Enshrining the case law of the Court , Regulation No 2015/848 states that “the place of main interests corresponds to the place where the debtor habitually manages its interests and which is ascertainable by third parties”. A reversal of the simple presumption provided for by the European legislator in favor of the registered office is possible when, from the point of view of third parties, the place of a company's central administration is not at the registered office. From a temporal point of view, in principle, the location of the debtor's center of main interests at the date of filing of the application to open insolvency proceedings determines which court has jurisdiction. Under Regulation No 1346/2000, the Court of Justice held that in the event of a transfer of the debtor's center of main interests after the lodging of an application to open insolvency proceedings, but before the opening of the procedure, the courts of the Member State in which the center of main interests was situated at the time the application was lodged retained jurisdiction to rule on the application . On the other hand, in the event of a transfer of the registered office prior to the lodging of an application to open insolvency proceedings, the debtor's COMI is presumed to be located at the new registered office. The courts of the Member State on whose territory this new registered office is located become in principle competent to open main insolvency proceedings, unless the presumption set out in Article 3(1) is rebutted by proof that the center of main interests has not followed the change of registered office . Accordingly, the new Regulation now expressly provides that “this presumption shall apply only if the registered office has not been transferred to another Member State during the three months preceding the application to open insolvency proceedings ” .

Regulation No 2015/848 also lays down a presumption in favor of natural persons, the content of which varies depending on whether or not the natural person exercises a liberal profession or is self-employed. In such cases, the center of main interests is presumed, until proven otherwise, to be the principal place of business of the person concerned . For other individuals, the center of main interests is presumed to be the place of habitual residence . For liberal professions, the presumption only applies if the natural person's place of main business has not been transferred to another Member State in the three months preceding the application to open insolvency proceedings, and for other natural persons, only if the habitual residence has not been transferred to another Member State in the six months preceding the application.

Where the debtor has an establishment within the territory of another Member State, proceedings may be opened there, but their effects will be limited to the debtor's assets located within that territory . The notion of “establishment” within the meaning of Article 3(2) requires the presence of a structure involving a minimum of organization and a certain stability with a view to the exercise of an economic activity; the mere presence of isolated assets or bank accounts does not, in principle, meet this definition. Territorial insolvency proceedings are no longer necessarily liquidatory in nature, as was the case under Regulation No 1346/2000. It is, in principle, a “secondary” procedure . The courts of the Member State in which secondary insolvency proceedings are opened have jurisdiction, alternately with the courts of the Member State in which the main proceedings are opened, to rule on the determination of the debtor's assets falling within the scope of the effects of the secondary proceedings. Determination of which of the debtor's assets falls within the scope of the secondary procedure is carried out in accordance with the provisions of Article 2, which stipulates that the Member State in which an asset is located is, in the case of tangible assets, the Member State within whose territory the asset is situated; in the case of assets and rights which the owner or holder must have entered in a public register, the Member State under whose authority the register is kept; and, finally, in the case of claims, the Member State within whose territory the center of the debtor's main interests is located. Under the terms of Article 3(4), secondary insolvency proceedings may nevertheless be opened before main proceedings if “a) main insolvency proceedings cannot be opened because of the conditions laid down by the law of the Member State within the territory of which the center of the debtor's main interests is situated ; or if b) the opening of the territorial insolvency proceedings is requested by i) a creditor whose claim has arisen from, or is connected with, the operation of an establishment situated within the territory of the Member State in which the opening of the territorial proceedings is requested; or ii) a public authority which, under the Law of the Member State within the territory of which the establishment is situated, is entitled to request the opening of insolvency proceedings”.

Regulation No 2015/848 enshrines the mechanism of ipso jure recognition of the decision to open the procedure given in one Member State, by all the other States of the Union.

Article 19(1) of the Regulation enshrines the principle of universality of the procedure, by virtue of which the decision to open insolvency proceedings by a court in one Member State is recognized in all other Member States, as soon as it produces its effects in the State of opening. The opening of main insolvency proceedings in one Member State precludes the subsequent opening of main proceedings in another Member State against the same debtor, although the application of this principle does not preclude the opening of secondary proceedings in other Member States, subject to certain conditions . Article 19(1) thus lays down a rule of priority, based on a chronological criterion, in favor of the decision to open proceedings in the first place, which is based on the principle of mutual trust. The principle of mutual trust implies that the court of a Member State seized of an application to open main insolvency proceedings must verify its skill in the light of Article 3(1) of the Regulation, i.e. it must examine whether the debtor's center of main interests is located on its national territory. In compensation, the main insolvency procedure opened by this court is recognized by the courts of the other Member States, without the latter being able to review the jurisdiction of the court of the opening State or order enforcement measures concerning the assets of the debtor declared insolvent and situated on their territory, if the law of the opening State does not allow this.

Under Article 32(1) of Regulation No 2015/848, decisions relating to the conduct and closure of insolvency proceedings given by a court whose opening decision is recognized in accordance with Article 19, as well as compositions approved by such a court, are also recognized without further formality and enforced in accordance with Articles 39 to 44 and 47 to 57 of Regulation No 1215/2012. This provision shall also apply to judgments which arise directly out of and are closely connected with the insolvency proceedings, even if they have been issued by another court, as well as to judgments relating to protective measures taken after the application for the opening of insolvency proceedings or in connection therewith. The recognition and enforcement of decisions other than those referred to in paragraph 1 of Article 32 are governed by Regulation No 1215/2012, if applicable.

Under Article 33 of the Regulation, “any Member State may refuse to recognize insolvency proceedings opened in another Member State or to enforce a decision taken in the context of such proceedings, where such recognition or enforcement would produce effects manifestly contrary to its public policy, in particular its fundamental principles or the rights and individual freedoms guaranteed by its constitution”. Regulation No 1346/2000 also provided that Member States were not obliged to recognize or enforce a decision relating to the conduct and closure of insolvency proceedings which would have the effect of limiting individual freedom or postal secrecy, but this second ground for refusing recognition or enforcement has not been taken up by Regulation No 2015/848.

The concept of “center of main interests of the debtor” determines not only the court with jurisdiction to open the procedure, but also, by extension, the law applicable to the procedure. Under Article 7(1) of the Regulation, the law applicable to the insolvency procedure and its effects is that of the Member State in whose territory the procedure is opened. Paragraph 2 of Article 7 contains a non-exhaustive list of the various elements governed by the Law of the State in which the proceedings are opened, including: “a) the debtors who may be subject to insolvency proceedings by virtue of their status; b) the assets forming part of the insolvency estate and the fate of assets acquired by or accruing to the debtor after the opening of the insolvency proceedings; c) the respective powers of the debtor and the insolvency practitioner; d) the conditions under which a set-off is enforceable; e) the effects of insolvency proceedings on current contracts to which the debtor is a party; f) the effects of insolvency proceedings on proceedings instituted by individual creditors, with the exception of current proceedings; g) the claims to be lodged against the debtor and the fate of claims arising after the opening of the procedure; h) the rules governing the lodging, verification and admission of claims; i) the rules governing the distribution of proceeds from the realization of assets, the ranking of claims and the rights of creditors who have been partially satisfied after the opening of the insolvency procedure by virtue of a right in rem or by the effect of a set-off; j) the conditions and effects of the closure of insolvency proceedings; k) the rights of creditors after the closure of insolvency proceedings; l) the burden of costs and expenses of insolvency proceedings; m) the rules relating to the nullity, voidability or unenforceability of acts prejudicial to all creditors”.

Articles 8 to 18 set out exceptions to the principle of application of the Law of the opening Member State, which are to be interpreted strictly. The conflict-of-laws rules set out in Articles 8 to 10 concern creditors or third parties to the procedure who hold rights in the debtor's assets located in a State other than the opening State, and give them the possibility of asserting their rights in these assets, according to the law of the State concerned. These include creditors' rights based on retention of title (art. 10) and rights in rem (art. 8). Other overriding conflict rules are designed to govern the effects of insolvency proceedings on, in particular: - contracts relating to immovable property (art. 11); - payment systems and financial markets (art. 12); - employment contracts (art. 13); - rights subject to registration (art. 14); - European patents and trademarks (art. 15); - pending proceedings concerning, not only a specific right or property, but more broadly, a right or property falling within the scope of the insolvency estate (art. 18).

Among the derogations to the general conflict rule of the lex fori concursus, Article 16, concerning prejudicial acts, provides that Article 7(2)(m), which makes the determination of rules relating to the nullity, voidability or unenforceability of legal acts prejudicial to the estate of creditors subject to the law of the State in which the insolvency proceedings are opened, is not applicable where the beneficiary of an act prejudicial to the creditors as a whole demonstrates that this act is subject to the law of a Member State other than the State of opening and that it cannot be challenged on the basis of the provisions of the lex causae applicable to insolvency, This requires proof both of the existence of factual elements that would lead to the conclusion that the act in question is unassailable, and of the absence of any element that would oppose such a conclusion.

Reg. No 2015/848 of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings.

Council Reg. No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings.

Reg. No 2015/848, art. 3, paragr. 1, al. 4

Reg. 2015/848, art. 3, para. 3: “Where insolvency proceedings have been opened pursuant to paragraph 1, any proceedings subsequently opened pursuant to paragraph 2 shall be secondary insolvency proceedings”.

Reg. No 2015/848, art. 19, paragr. 2 ; art. 34 à 52.

Reg. 1215/2012 of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.

Exec. Reg. No 2017/1105 of 12 June 2017 establishing the forms referred to in Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council on insolvency proceedings. This regulation provides for four standardized forms to be used imperatively from 27 June 2017, the first concerning information for creditors, the second, the procedure for lodging claims, the third, objections during collective coordination proceedings and the fourth, the conditions for accessing information via the European e-justice portal

Reg. No 2015/848, art. 3, paragr. 1, al. 2

CJCE, 2 May 2006, Eurofood IFSC, aff. C-341-04, LawLex200600002447JBJ.

CJCE, 17 January 2006, Staubitz-Schreiber, aff. C-1-04, LawLex200600002448JBJ.

CJCE, 20 October 2011, Interedil Srl, aff. C-396-09, LawLex201100001630JBJ.

Reg. No 2015/848, art. 3, paragr. 1, al. 2.

Reg. No 2015/848, art. 3, paragr. 1, al. 3.

Bankruptcy Law

3. Laws of 1984, 1985 and 1994

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les notions juridiques connexes

3. Laws of 1984, 1985 and 1994

Demandez un accès gratuit au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les notions juridiques connexes

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise