Vis Attractiva Concursus in the European Union: Its Development by the European Court of Justice
29 Pages Posted: 18 Aug 2014
Date Written: August 17, 2014
Abstract
Contrary to both Preliminary Convention Drafts on insolvency proceedings, the Insolvency Regulation does not set out a specific rule on vis attractiva concursus. This silence is surprising given the fact that the ECJ had already held in the leading case Gourdain vs. Nadler that decisions deriving directly from insolvency proceedings, and closely connected with them, are not included within the scope of the Brussels Convention. The Regulation’s silence and the fact that these claims were excluded from the Brussels Convention, now the Brussels I Regulation, had given rise to different interpretations, to which the ECJ has now put an end by stating in Seagon vs. Deko Marty Belgium that Article 3 of the Insolvency Regulation sets out the vis attractiva concursus principle. Moreover, this case has been immediately followed by SCT Industri vs. Alpenblume, and German Graphics vs. A. van der Schee, both cases with the same background, i.e. to determine which claims are within the scope of the Insolvency Regulation and, therefore, they have to be brought before the forum concursus. This paper tackles this background and the state of the question after Seagon vs. Deko Marty Belgium: the list of claims attracted by the forum concursus, deliberately not laid down by the Insolvency Regulation, is now to be compiled by the ECJ.
Keywords: vis attractiva concursus, forum concursus, avoidance proceedings, actio pauliana, insolvency proceedings
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation