Cross-Border Litigation in Insolvency

The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of June 11, 2026, in Case C-292/25 concerns the interpretation of Article 6, Article 18, and Article 32(2) of Regulation (EU) 2015/848 on insolvency proceedings (hereinafter the "Regulation"). The preliminary ruling reference was made by the Landesgericht Linz in a dispute between the German company shopping24 Gesellschaft für multimediale Anwendung (hereinafter "shopping24") and the insolvency administrator of the Austrian company Sportgigant Lindpointner GmbH (hereinafter "Sportgigant").

The Core of the Dispute: Existence of a Claim

First, in March 2024, shopping24 sued Sportgigant before the Landgericht Hamburg for payment based on unpaid invoices. However, in September 2024, insolvency proceedings were opened against Sportgigant in Austria, as a result of which the German proceedings were stayed. Within the insolvency proceedings, Sportgigant contested shopping24's lodged claim. Consequently, in December 2024, shopping24 filed a declaratory action before the Austrian insolvency court—including the principal amount, interest, and costs associated with the proceedings conducted in Germany—seeking a judicial determination of the existence of the claim vis-à-vis Sportgigant's insolvency administrator and the body of creditors as a whole for the purpose of lodging it in the insolvency proceedings.

The essence of the preliminary questions was whether the court of the Member State where insolvency proceedings were opened has exclusive jurisdiction to hear such a declaratory action even if proceedings concerning the same claim are already pending in another Member State.

CJEU Ruling

The CJEU answered unambiguously: Article 6(1) of the Regulation establishes exclusive jurisdiction for the courts of the Member State in which insolvency proceedings were opened to hear an action for a declaration of the existence of a claim for the purpose of lodging it in those insolvency proceedings, even if proceedings with the same subject matter were already pending before a court of another Member State on the date of the opening of insolvency proceedings.

The CJEU's argumentation builds upon its established case law. The Court recalled that the decisive factor for determining the applicable legal regime is not the procedural context of the action, but its legal basis. It is therefore necessary to examine whether the claim derives from the general rules of civil and commercial law or from the special rules of insolvency law, and further whether the action is closely connected with the insolvency proceedings.

• Already in the Riel judgment (C-47/18), it was established that an action for a declaration of the existence of a claim for the purpose of lodging it in insolvency proceedings is excluded from the scope of the Brussels Ia Regulation and falls under the insolvency regime.
• Furthermore, in the Wiemer & Trachte case (C-296/17), the CJEU held that the courts of the state of the opening of insolvency proceedings have exclusive jurisdiction over actions deriving directly from insolvency and being closely linked to it.

The significance of the reviewed judgment lies in the fact that the CJEU explicitly projects this line of case law into the interpretation of the current Article 6(1) of the Regulation and confirms it even for situations where proceedings concerning the same substantive claim are already pending in another Member State. The CJEU emphasized the need to prevent an overlap between the Brussels Ia Regulation and the Insolvency Regulation, as well as the need for the concentration of disputes directly related to insolvency before the court of the state in which the insolvency proceedings were opened. It justified this conclusion in particular by the requirement of efficiency in cross-border insolvency proceedings and the prevention of forum shopping (i.e., shifting proceedings to a more favorable jurisdiction to the detriment of the collective interest of creditors).

Implications for Practice

For Czech practice, the judgment implies that if main insolvency proceedings are opened in the Czechia, disputes concerning the determination of a lodged claim with a cross-border element should be concentrated before the Czech insolvency court, provided they meet the criteria of Article 6(1) of the Regulation. This conclusion also corresponds to Czech rules on incidental disputes regarding the validity, amount, or rank of claims (incidenční spory).

A Czech creditor who is already conducting a payment action against a debtor in another Member State cannot therefore rely on this proceeding replacing the insolvency review after the opening of insolvency proceedings. If a claim is contested, the rules of the state of the opening of insolvency proceedings must be followed, and any resulting dispute concerning its establishment must be conducted before the insolvency court there. The judgment thus strengthens legal certainty and predictability in cross-border insolvency proceedings.

This text was translated by AI.