Top of page ↑
Log out
Reset filters
    • Verdicts from/at until
48 search results

Case report

2011-03-22

Austria

2011/19 Austrian Supreme Court more friendly to employee claims following transferor’s insolvency (AT)

Following a transfer of undertaking, the plaintiff’s new employer became insolvent. At that time, the plaintiff had a claim for unpaid wages against his former employer, the transferor. Under previous case law he could not have been compensated for this claim by the national guarantee institution. The Supreme Court reversed this heavily criticised doctrine.

Oberster Gerichtshof (Austrian Supreme Court), 2011-03-22

Summary

2011-03-22

2011/19 Austrian Supreme Court more friendly to employee claims following transferor’s insolvency (AT)

Following a transfer of undertaking, the plaintiff’s new employer became insolvent. At that time, the plaintiff had a claim for unpaid wages against his former employer, the transferor. Under previous case law he could not have been compensated for this claim by the national guarantee institution. The Supreme Court reversed this heavily criticised doctrine.

Oberster Gerichtshof (Austrian Supreme Court), 2011-03-22

Court watch

2011-03-10

ECJ 10 March 2011, case C-477/09 (Charles Defossez - v – Christian Wart, in his capacity as liquidator of Sotimon Sarl and others), Insolvency

Article 3 of Directive 80/987 in the pre-Directive 2002/74 version is to be interpreted as meaning that, for the payment of the outstanding claims of workers having been habitually employed in a Member State other than that where their employer was established, where the employer was declared insolvent before 8 October 2005 and that employer is not established in that other Member State and fulfils its obligation to contribute to the financing of the guarantee institution in the Member State where it is established, that institution will be liable. However, Member States may allow employees to claim under a more favourable regime.

European Court of Justice (ECJ), 2011-03-10

Summary

2011-03-10

ECJ 10 March 2011, case C-477/09 (Charles Defossez - v – Christian Wart, in his capacity as liquidator of Sotimon Sarl and others), Insolvency

Article 3 of Directive 80/987 in the pre-Directive 2002/74 version is to be interpreted as meaning that, for the payment of the outstanding claims of workers having been habitually employed in a Member State other than that where their employer was established, where the employer was declared insolvent before 8 October 2005 and that employer is not established in that other Member State and fulfils its obligation to contribute to the financing of the guarantee institution in the Member State where it is established, that institution will be liable. However, Member States may allow employees to claim under a more favourable regime.

European Court of Justice (ECJ), 2011-03-10

Court watch

2011-02-10

ECJ 10 February 2011, case C-30/10 (Lotta Andersson – v – Staten genom Kronofogdemyndigheten i Jönköping), Insolvency

Article 12(c) of Directive 2008/94 does not preclude a provision of national law that excludes an employee from entitlement under the guarantee of payment on the grounds that the employee, alone or together with close relatives, within the six months preceding the application for a declaration of insolvency, was the owner of an essential part of the business and had a considerable influence on its activities.

European Court of Justice (ECJ), 2011-02-10

Summary

2011-02-10

ECJ 10 February 2011, case C-30/10 (Lotta Andersson – v – Staten genom Kronofogdemyndigheten i Jönköping), Insolvency

Article 12(c) of Directive 2008/94 does not preclude a provision of national law that excludes an employee from entitlement under the guarantee of payment on the grounds that the employee, alone or together with close relatives, within the six months preceding the application for a declaration of insolvency, was the owner of an essential part of the business and had a considerable influence on its activities.

European Court of Justice (ECJ), 2011-02-10

Case report

2009-03-10

Italy

2010/53: How a "secondary insolvency" procedure can protect assets from a foreign receiver (IT)

Under EU Regulation 1346/2000 it is possible to open secondary insolvency proceedings even if the establishment situated in the State where the secondary proceedings are to be opened is the only one owned by the debtor subject to the main insolvency proceedings.

Court of Appeal of Turin, 2009-03-10

Summary

2009-03-10

2010/53: How a "secondary insolvency" procedure can protect assets from a foreign receiver (IT)

Under EU Regulation 1346/2000 it is possible to open secondary insolvency proceedings even if the establishment situated in the State where the secondary proceedings are to be opened is the only one owned by the debtor subject to the main insolvency proceedings.

Court of Appeal of Turin, 2009-03-10