The analysis starts from art. 16 EC 848/2015 and the consolidated case-law of the CJEU on the application of lex fori concursus and lex fori contractus in cases of avoidance action in insolvency proceedings. Secondly, the text deals with the similarities and differences about the procedural implementation of the above-mentioned action within the Italian and Latvian legal systems. The scientific study deals with the cases of avoidance action and the timeframes within which the administrator of the insolvency proceedings may propose the legal measure mentioned above. Subsequently, the study links the case law of the CJEU to the implementing problems concerning a possible fraud against creditors and it will examine, on the one hand, the past judgements of the court, on the other the repercussions it used to have whenever it would take into consideration. Finally, the research deals on the recent case C54/2016 in which the CJEU, appointed by the Venice Court in a similar case, declares the implementing requirement. Considering the sentence and the referral, the conclusions are concerned to delimit the scope of application and implementing area of the combined provision referred to in art. 7 and 16 EC 848/2015 and to provide a forecast for the problems arising from the laziness of the European legislator.
COMPARATIVE BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURAL LAW ASPECTS OF CROSS-BORDER AND DOMESTIC AVOIDANCE ACTION
Andrea Jonathan Pagano;
2018-01-01
Abstract
The analysis starts from art. 16 EC 848/2015 and the consolidated case-law of the CJEU on the application of lex fori concursus and lex fori contractus in cases of avoidance action in insolvency proceedings. Secondly, the text deals with the similarities and differences about the procedural implementation of the above-mentioned action within the Italian and Latvian legal systems. The scientific study deals with the cases of avoidance action and the timeframes within which the administrator of the insolvency proceedings may propose the legal measure mentioned above. Subsequently, the study links the case law of the CJEU to the implementing problems concerning a possible fraud against creditors and it will examine, on the one hand, the past judgements of the court, on the other the repercussions it used to have whenever it would take into consideration. Finally, the research deals on the recent case C54/2016 in which the CJEU, appointed by the Venice Court in a similar case, declares the implementing requirement. Considering the sentence and the referral, the conclusions are concerned to delimit the scope of application and implementing area of the combined provision referred to in art. 7 and 16 EC 848/2015 and to provide a forecast for the problems arising from the laziness of the European legislator.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
