The History and the
Contemporaneity of the European
Insolvency Law
Ilona
Schelleová[1] – Karel Schelle[2]
1. INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY
The Aim of and Reason behind the
European Legal Regulation of Insolvency
The continuing European economic and
political integration, which actually began at the end of the twentieth century
and became more intense at the beginning of the twenty-first century,
significantly influences the economic independence of individual EU Member
States. These states support a greater openness of their economic system. The
sky-rocketing cross-border business activities are at the same time becoming
more and more complicated. This is undoubtedly supported by the four basic
European principles of freedom – the freedom of movement for goods, people,
services and methods of funding – the non-existence of which would mean
limitation of the development. This development also results in an increased
number of debtors who have property abroad either for diversification of the
risk of loss of own values or for their own profit growth. This usually means
certain barriers for the creditors, who would like to achieve full satisfaction
of their rights from the debtors. The debtor may, especially in the case of his
insolvency, try to hide his property from the creditors by transferring it to a
foreign country that does not legally recognize insolvency proceeding abroad.
On this account, the aim of the international and European legal regulation of
insolvency is to react to these situations by ensuring that no debtor’s
property remains unaffected by his insolvency, regardless of debtor’s country
of origin or his place of residence, as this is the only efficient and proper
way of dealing with the cases of insolvency.
Both international and European
insolvency law recognizes and differentiates between two basic legal principles
in this area:
a) the principle of universality:
this principle states that it does not matter, where debtor’s property is
located, which enables to include debtor’s property located in any country;
b) the principle of particularity
(territoriality): it has been the main principle over the last years; this
principle is based on the national legal regulations of insolvency where each
country will exercise full sovereignty in deciding whether the decisions of
foreign courts shall be accepted or not.
As may be obvious from the
differentiation above, the real barrier to the prospect for the international
as well as European insolvency law is the typical rule of national courts to
obey the principle of particularity (territoriality) – the courts in many countries
do not recognize the decisions of foreign institutions or courts as legally
binding. The obvious solution to such situations therefore is the attempt of
the international institutions at unification of national insolvency
regulations according to the uniform international criterion, which guarantees
common standards in consideration of the rights of the creditors to
satisfaction from debtors’ property. This idea and internationally applied
approach of unification of the national insolvency laws are called the
Principle of controlled universality.
The principle of particularity began
to prevail and became an internationally known and acceptable approach
to insolvency law only over the past decades. This was caused not only by
the intensification of European integration, but also by the overall tendencies
towards globalization all over the world, which turn the question of common
principles for the insolvency proceedings into a more and more important and
urgent topic. Together with the academic and politically multilateral
discussions held on the international level, many countries slowly try to
transform their national insolvency laws and thus achieve greater cooperation
and coordination in this area in accordance with the international principles. Nevertheless,
the first and really successful attempt at leaving the legislative and national
approach, which still prevailed in most countries in the seventies and eighties
of the twentieth century, was the „Bankruptcy Law“ of the USA. This bankruptcy
law, issued in year 1978, subsequently served as one of the models for other
modern legal regulations of insolvency all over the world.
However, the historical development
of the legal regulation of insolvency in Europe dates back further than that,
long before the foundation of the European Community. Nevertheless, it was only
in the twentieth century that the European countries began to make laws and
agreements that were accepted also beyond the boundaries of individual
countries.
The first pioneer in this area was
the Scandinavian Agreement, which was entered into at the Nordic Convention in
year 1932. This agreement, signed in the same year by Sweden, Norway, Finland
and Denmark, was the first international agreement dealing with insolvency and
settlement proceedings. It followed from the principle of universality and
comprised also some conflicting rules of law that regulated certain specific
cases. It came into effect in year 1935.
Another pioneer in this development
appeared some time later and although its implementation was not to a larger
extent successful, it managed to extend regional cooperation to real
international cooperation, which significantly contributed to further
development of the international insolvency law. The Istanbul Convention (known
also as the European Convention on Certain International Aspects of
Insolvency), which was signed by 7 countries in Istanbul, was prepared by the
Council of Europe on the 5th June 1990. Unfortunately, this
convention was ratified only by Cyprus, and therefore has not come into effect
yet (, as this would require ratification by at least three countries). A
probable reason for this failure is insufficient scope of questions of the
insolvency law, which are dealt with in this convention. However, the
importance of this convention lies in laying the foundations for multilateral
and international unification of the legal regulation of insolvency in Europe.
Another guideline for achieving the
common goal in the area of cross-border insolvency law, besides the European
development of the international insolvency law, was provided by acts of
international institutions, such as the UNCITRAL – the United Nations
Commission on International Trade Law. UNCITRAL started to prepare the model of
insolvency law at the beginning of the nineties and the „Model Law on
Cross-Border Insolvency with Guide to Enactment“ was adopted by the middle of
the year 1997. “This model law is designed to assist States to equip their
insolvency laws with a modern, harmonized and fair framework to address more
effectively instances of cross-border insolvency.“ One of the advantages of
this model law was the fact that it respects the differences between national
legal regulations of insolvency on the one hand, and offers some solutions on
the other hand. Proceedings according to this model law in one country do not
have to have a direct influence on another foreign country, but rather rely on
the authority of UNCITRAL. One expects its principles that have been
incorporated into this model law to be generally accepted by foreign countries
as the whole. Some countries actually have already accepted this model law and
modified their legislation accordingly; among these countries are Mexico,
Japan, Great Britain, USA, Poland and others.
The newly developing institutions of
the EU also tried to draft and adopt similar regulations on insolvency on the
basis of the last-mentioned attempts, such as the EC Directive on insolvency
proceedings. However, this specific draft of a subsidiary agreement dealing
with unification of the insolvency proceedings within the EU was prepared too
early before the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam (from year 1997) and has
never been signed. On the other hand, it served as the basis for the well-known
Council regulation (EC) No. 1346/2000, which was prepared after the extension
of the powers of the European Community by the Treaty of Amsterdam.
2. GENERAL EUROPEAN
LEGAL REGULATION OF INSOLVENCY TODAY
Before the present European legal
regulation of insolvency can be discussed in more detail, it is necessary to
mention those articles of the EU Treaty that enabled adoption of such a
regulation. The following articles of the Treaty establishing the European
Community are concerned:
-
Article
10 – on fulfilment of the obligations arising out of this Treaty
-
Article
249 – on general application of the Regulations and Directives, binding, as
regards the result that shall be achieved.
The general European insolvency law is
primarily based on Regulations. “A regulation is a legislative act of the
European Union that has general application. It shall be binding in its
entirety and directly applicable in all Member States”.
There are the following EU Regulations that deal with the insolvency
law:
-
EC
Regulation No. 1346/2000
-
EC
Regulation No. 603/2005.
The legal regulation of insolvency proceedings
in the EU is on the other hand based primarily on Directives. “A directive
is a legislative act of the European Union. It shall be binding, as to the
result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but
shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods. A
Directive differs from Regulations, which alone are at the same time
implementing and do not require any implementation measures.”
There are the following main EU
Directives concerning some specific questions of the insolvency law:
-
Directive
No. 2001/17/EC
-
Directive
No. 2001/24/EC
There may also exist some other
Directives dealing with specific issues concerning the European insolvency law,
yet these Directives regulate some very specific questions of
the insolvency proceedings, such as the questions concerning insurance
companies.
3. EC REGULATION NO. 1346/2000
General Introduction to the
Regulation
The Regulation No. 1346/2000 on insolvency
proceedings, which came into effect on the 31st May 2002, like many
important and crucial legal regulations, did not originate overnight; the
preparation of this Regulation lasted almost forty years. It has 47 Articles
and contains the framework for cross-border insolvency within the European
Union after the 31st May 2002. The Regulation according to the
protocol of the Treaty of Amsterdam applies to all Member States of the EU
except Denmark, including countries that joined the EU on the 1st
May 2004. Like most modern international legal regulations dealing with
insolvency, this Regulation is based on the principle of controlled universality.
Most EU Member States thus still, irrespective of the fact that the Regulation,
as an EU regulation, shall be binding in its entirety
and implicitly applicable in all Member
States, have to modify their national insolvency law within a very short term,
so as to be fully compatible with this Regulation and capable of putting this
objective into practice. There may consequently arise some problems, which have
to be dealt with in most Member States, in order to make the Regulation fit
correctly into their national legal frames. Some EU Member States have already,
as a reaction to these problems and their diversity, modified their
legislation, nevertheless some other Member States are still at the stage of
consideration. The following rules that are determined by the Regulation are
nevertheless applied directly:
The general aims of the Regulation,
besides directly applicable rules, which have been demonstrated above, shall
primarily enable a more efficient and effective execution of cross-border
insolvency proceedings, provide a unified framework for the coordination of
provisions that are to be made with respect to the property of the debtor,
and last but not least, they should also to eliminate the debtors‘ “forum
shopping“ (intentional choice of court of any country).
The Framework for Insolvency
Proceedings according to the EU Regulation on Insolvency
Article 1 of the Regulation defines
the scope of powers of the Regulation. It is according to this article
necessary for direct application of the Regulation to fulfil four cumulative
conditions concerning the insolvency proceedings:
a) Only one set of main collective proceedings
is permitted, which means that all relevant creditors may demand satisfaction
only by means of these proceedings or by means of secondary insolvency
proceedings that have been opened pursuant to these main proceedings, because
individual suits will be precluded;
b) the proceedings concerning debtor’s
insolvency have to be based only on „debtor’s insolvency“ and not on any other
reasons. The test of insolvency itself is entrenched in the legislation of the
Member State that instigates the main proceedings;
c) the proceedings concerning total or partial
loss of debtor’s entitlement to the property have to result in his total or
partial loss. Partial loss of debtor’s entitlement to the property, concerning
debtor’s assets or his power of administering these assets, is sufficient. The
possible legal character of this loss, depending on the relevant national
legislation, does not have any influence on the application of the Regulation
on relevant proceedings;
d) The proceedings concerning appointment of
the liquidator should result in the liquidator being appointed. This
requirement is a logical consequence of the previous condition. One can
generally say that the transfer of rights to another person, namely the
liquidator, takes place always in the case of any insolvency proceedings to
achieve debtor’s loss of entitlement. This transfer involves the power of
administering or disposition concerning all or part of debtor’s assets and
limitations upon debtor’s powers by means of intervention and control of
debtor’s action.
Scope of Application of the
Regulation
The conception of the Regulation
differentiates between three types of rules: procedural, substantive and
collision rules. Procedural rules represent a concrete management policy.
Substantive rules are rights and obligations that apply to persons whom they
refer to. Collision rules are those, which the Regulation focuses on, because
they help to decide in which country, and according to which law, the
insolvency shall be enforced and what effect it will have on the material level
of the law.
The Regulation provides for two basic types of
insolvency proceedings: main proceedings of universal scope and local
proceedings of territorial scope. Both types of insolvency proceedings are
described in more detail in individual chapters of the Regulation and will be
outlined below.
The key point of the Chapter 1 is
the jurisdiction and relevant law. Article 3 of the Regulation confers the
jurisdiction to open the main insolvency proceedings. Member States are free to
designate the national courts that may open insolvency proceedings. These
insolvency proceedings should be recognised and effective in all other Member
States without further formalities or obstructions. This Chapter further
defines the term “centre of main interests”. It stands for the court of the
Member State located in the Member State where the debtor has his “centre of
main interests“ and that has jurisdiction to open the main insolvency
proceedings. Debtor’s “centre of main interests” shall analogously be his place
of the registered office.
Chapter 2 of the Regulation focuses
on the recognition of insolvency proceedings. It makes use of the universality
principle for the main proceedings opened according to the Article 3, which
affect all the debtor’s assets and technically involve all his creditors. The
Regulation guarantees this universality by setting up a system of mandatory and
automatic recognition in all Member States.
This principle basically implies
recognition of the main proceedings and its consequences in all Member States,
where these assets or creditors are located. In other words, this practically
means that the opening of main proceedings produces the same effect in other
Member States as under the law of the state where the proceedings are opened.
This actually provides solution to the key point mentioned in the Introduction
to this paper – countries that did not want to accept the decisions of foreign
institutions no longer have either the possibility or right to do so, because
Chapter 2 of the Regulation puts them under explicit obligation to accept this.
The Chapter furthermore deals with the appointment and recognition of the
liquidator and with his powers in all Member States. This is one of the crucial
effects of the Regulation, because the appointed liquidator is irrespective of
the Member State where the proceedings are opened capable of executing his
powers equally in all Member States.
Chapter
3 deals primarily with the “secondary insolvency proceedings”. The framework of
this Regulation follows from the main insolvency proceedings in the Member
State where the proceedings are opened, and where the debtor has his “centre of
main interests“, yet it permits the opening of secondary proceedings in other
Member States, if the debtor has any place of operation there. Chapter 3 of the
Regulation deals with this matter in more detail. Secondary proceedings may
serve two main purposes: firstly, they protect the creditors (usually local
creditors) against the main proceedings and secondly, they help the main
proceedings and support them. The opening of secondary proceedings may be
demanded by the liquidator in the main proceedings or by another person who is
duly authorized by the local law. It is worthy of notice that one of the
crucial provisions dealing with secondary proceedings emphasises the obligation
primarily for the liquidators to cooperate and communicate all necessary
information. This may not necessarily be the case between the courts, due to
the fact that there are certain problematic issues concerning cross-border
insolvency. The Regulation thus follows the principle that various liquidators
have to cooperate closely, especially by exchanging sufficient amount of key
information. The main insolvency proceedings and secondary insolvency
proceedings together may not contribute to effective realization of total
assets, unless there is an effective coordination of all collateral and
mutually dependant proceedings.
Chapter 4 of the Regulation deals
with particularities of information for the creditors and with their claims. In
short, each creditor, no matter where within the EU he has a seat, is entitled
to set up their claims with respect to debtor’s assets in any set of insolvency
proceedings that has not been closed yet.
Chapter 5, which is the last chapter
of the Regulation, contains final and transitional provisions.
4. INFLUENCE OF THE CURRENT EU REGULATION ON INSOLVENCY ON THE LEGAL SYSTEMS IN THE EU MEMBER STATES
The Council Regulation (EC) No.
1346/2000 of 20th May 2000 on insolvency proceedings came into
effect as late as on the 31st May 2002. The European Union thus
introduced a legal frame for solving cross-border insolvency proceedings.
However the Regulation is limited by its scope, which can be simply explained
by diverse background of the legal systems of individual Member States.
The main reason lies in
non-existence of a unified system of rights of retention (of deposits,
guarantees) in Europe and in great diversity of the national insolvency laws
with respect to the criterion of priority that shall be granted to various
categories of creditors. In fact, the basic elements of the framework for
insolvency law of each country still vary greatly. The same applies also to
national legislations that have been revised in the last decade, e.g. in France
and Belgium and – in year 1999 – in Germany and Italy. England and Scotland
have already significantly revised their insolvency laws; Spain and Poland
shall revise them this year, while a radical revision is already in progress in
the Netherlands. Nevertheless, some Member States (such as Denmark, England,
Italy, the Netherlands or Scotland) keep modifying the diversity of insolvency
proceedings, which are often entrenched in several different national acts and
regulations, whereas other European countries (such as Germany or France) have
only one (complex) solution. Let us have a look at one figure as an
illustration of this diversity: The EU Regulation on insolvency nowadays
coordinates 54 types of proceedings. However, there is another difference
in the scope of application of the insolvency law. For example in France and
Belgium, the insolvency law applies only to debtors with commercial or
professional activities, whereas in England, Germany or the Netherlands it
applies basically to all types of debtors; with the exception of the last two
countries mentioned, which again treat insolvency of banks and insurance
companies (or some other financial intermediaries) very differently.
There are about twenty verdicts
under this Regulation that were reached in Europe only in the first year since
the Regulation on insolvency came into effect. It seems that the Regulation
brought about interesting decisions especially in Great Britain, Germany, and
the Netherlands. These decisions have pointed to the two main streams of
problems in the area of legal regulation of insolvency and the insolvency
legislation.
The first of them concerns the area that was
excluded from the scope of Article 1, section 1 of the European Regulation on
insolvency; namely insolvency proceedings concerning financial intermediaries,
such as insurance companies, credit institutions, investment companies holding
funds or securities for third parties and collective investment companies. The
exclusion of these subjects has not been specified expressly in the Regulation,
but only by means of other tools and regulations of the acquis communnautaire.
The second stream of problems may be
connected with the limited geographic reach of the EU Regulation on insolvency.
Although there is a widespread belief in most European countries that the EU
Regulation on insolvency represents a giant step forward towards creating an
approvable framework for facilitating the interaction and synchronization of
various insolvency systems in the whole European Community, the principal
drawback actually is the limited territorial scope of the Regulation. In the
introductory part (item 14) of the Regulation is simply stated: “This
Regulation applies only to proceedings where the centre of the debtor's main
interests is located in the Community.“ As a result of this, the Regulation
cannot be applied, if the centre of the debtor's main interests is located
outside the area of the Member State; such as in Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, the
CIS or the USA. Into the framework of the Regulation on insolvency does not fit
either a debtor who only has his “place of work” there.
The Czech Republic has been bound by
the European Regulation on insolvency since it joined the EU in May 2004. The
recent insolvency regulation of the Czech Republic – Act No. 328/1991 Coll., on
Bankruptcy and Settlements – is by various experts considered to be one of the
worst insolvency regulations in the whole Europe, even despite the fact that it
has undergone numerous direct and indirect revisions. The main reasons for
criticism are:
a) insufficient protection of the
creditors
b) „automatic“ winding-up of a
company
c) too general provisions and
interpretation
d) long duration of the proceedings.
A new law on insolvency was adopted
as a result of this criticism – the Act No. 182/2006 Coll. on insolvency and
settlements (or the new „ Insolvency Law“). This law has been in force since
the 9th May 2006. It is a completely new regulation, (i.e. not
another confused revision), which is elaborated in more detail and is more
connected with the Regulation (EC) No. 1346/2000 in force. It might be
considered to belong among modern regulations on insolvency, because this
recodification is based on modern European regulations on insolvency. As a
result of this, the insolvency proceedings according to this law include both
European and international elements. Its effects are directly connected with
the applicable Regulation (EC) No. 1346/2000 and with the relevant national
regulation of the EU Member State, as required by the relevant EU law.
This law seems to be a good step
forward, but there still remains the question, whether it will really bring
some significant changes to the Czech insolvency proceedings practice.
Unfortunately, it seems that the principle of the problems with Czech
insolvency proceedings practice is connected not only with poor quality of the
current laws, but probably also with many other critical and eventual problems,
which will be explained in the following paragraphs of this paper.
If we want to sum up the effects of the legal
regulation of insolvency since year 2003, we shall point out to a very
important period in the development of international insolvency law, especially
within the region of Europe. The main legislative development can be observed
in the legal systems of Germany and Spain, as well as of Austria; out of the
new EU Member States or Accession States can be mentioned Poland and Romania. A
majority of these legislative developmental modifications, except for the
German and Austrian ones, recognize the model law of UNCITRAL and specifically
coordinate their approaches to codification of international insolvency law
regulations. The main driving force within the context of the EU that led to creation
of the EU Regulation on insolvency was the idea that insolvency of companies,
the activities of which have bigger and bigger cross-border impacts,
significantly affects proper operation of the domestic market. This invoked the
need for a European Community Regulation that would focus on necessary
coordination of activities concerning assets of an insolvent debtor. The
followed EU principle is not restricted only to the EU territory, but could
partly be detected also in other regions worldwide. However, only time will
tell, what the real assets of synchronization of the provisions concerning
cross-border insolvencies, which include also interests of countries -
non-member states, are.
5. DIFFERENTIAL ANALYSIS OF
INSOLVENCY REGULATIONS AMONG SELECTED EU MEMBER STATES
Before we start performing the differential analysis of insolvency regulations among selected EU Member States, it is first necessary to determine the main indicators, which may be used to assess, or even better to measure, the efficiency and quality of the insolvency regulations. One of the factors that might reflect the quality of these regulations definitely is the duration of legal action, in this specific case – duration of an average set of insolvency proceedings.
There are at least three main
factors that may exercise an influence on the insolvency proceedings:
legislation, judicial process and corruption.
The legislative situation in the
Czech Republic is by no means very positive. „The legislative
environment in the Czech Republic for supporting the rights of creditors and
recovery of debts is generally considered as unsatisfactory.“ Until
recently, the situation was similar also in Slovakia, which had almost
identical insolvency law. The adoption of new legislation, which took place
about a year ago, may not have such a considerable effect, nevertheless one can
still expect bigger chances in the future. Besides that “the non-existence
of explicit procedural rules including mandatory deadlines make room for arbitrariness,
cause an excessive prolongation of the proceedings, and postpone the
decision-making.“
It can be said that this statement still holds true for the Czech Republic,
where the old insolvency law is still in force, although the newly adopted
Insolvency Law, which shall come into effect on 1st July 2007,
contains for example mandatory deadlines. Ireland, on the other hand, has a
modern Insolvency Law, which ensures effective judicial process by observance
of all deadlines.
Another significant factor that
influences the efficiency of insolvency proceedings is the judicial process.
This is probably the main reason for the ineffectiveness of insolvency
proceedings in the Czech Republic, as well as in Slovakia, which manifests
itself in the long-windedness of the process. Both legal systems distinguish
magistrates in bankruptcy, who are a part of regional courts and deal only with
commercial matters. However, these they may deal with commercial matters also
in some other regions. “Most judges are overburdened with cases and the
number of arrears keeps rising, because the judges are unable to close cases as
quickly as they open new ones.“ The process is thus protracted and lasts 9
years on an average. Nevertheless, this is the problem not only of bankruptcy
proceedings, but also of all proceedings concerning business matters in
general. “Approximately one third of trade disputes lay at courts for more
than 5 years.“ This may be explained by the number of commercial cases that
suddenly appeared after the change of regime in year 1989, as well as by the
high number of less important or fundamental cases. There is, according to the
words of the Ministry of Justice, a lack of judges, particularly in some
regions (e.g. Northern Moravia), but the processes are slow also in regions
that are expected to have enough judges. Ironically, the less judges are
statistically available per one inhabitant, the more effective the judicial
process appears to be (e.g. the Czech Republic has 3 645 inhabitants per
one judge, Slovakia 4 607 inhabitants per one judge and Ireland
approximately 50 000 inhabitants per one judge!). It is therefore highly
probable that the judges either do not work efficiently enough, or are forced
to do also someone else’s job, i.e. they spend more time on dealing with
paperwork than on judicature. Excessive is especially the amount of paperwork
in courts, which therefore are desperately in need of new office workers. This
is another significant difference between the Czech Republic and Slovakia on
the one hand, and Ireland on the other hand. The procedural part of the lawsuit
itself in Ireland is also quicker and more efficient.
The last significant factor that
influences the insolvency proceedings is corruption. Corruption undoubtedly
remains an important factor, which may influence any lawsuit. According to
Transparency International is corruption a fundamental problem both in the
Czech Republic and in Slovakia. The Corruption Perception Index (CPI) for year
2005 in both countries was 4.3, which means that they occupy the 47th
position in the world, or in other words, have the worst result in the European
Union (a level of CPI below 5 represents according to TI a serious problem).
Although the CPI in the Czech Republic and in Slovakia is the same, the Czech Republic
is in a worse situation than Slovakia. Slovakia achieves an improvement caused
by a reform of the whole judicial system, whereas the Czech Republic is in the
period of stagnation and status quo. By way of contrast, the CPI in Ireland is
7.4 and this figure will generally remain above 6.9 in the long-term.
6. CONCLUSION
The existence of the new „Insolvency
Law“ of the Czech Republic is the best example of how integration of the
Czech Republic into the established order of the European Union can bring a
positive effect also in the legal sphere, nevertheless, the main aim of this
new legal regulation remains the growth in economic benefit for the country
itself. Positive effect therefore again cannot be fully realized, unless
relevant reforms are performed in a complex way. As results from the performed
analyses, the changes in insolvency legislation have only partial effect, if
they are not accompanied by adequate support, i.e. by the desirable drop in the
total level of corruption or of the ineffectiveness of the management in public
offices, and by an improvement in the general economic development of the whole
society. At the same time, if we take a look at this issue from the European
point of view, the issue of cross-border insolvency already is being dealt with
on the European level, and thus the global equivalent seems to be highly
desirable. If this further step is not taken, then the malevolent debtors will
make use of any opportunity, concerning circumstances and possibility of
prediction, to abuse the ineffectiveness resulting from cross-border cases,
which are hardly regulated nowadays. The EU Regulation on insolvency should
thus be another good example for a global equivalent, towards which the
European legal regulation of insolvency certainly is heading.
Literature:
MOSS, G., FLETCHER, I.F., ISAACS, S. The EC Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings: A commentary and Annotated Guide. Oxford university Press, 2002
TICHÝ, Luboš. Základní orientace mezinárodního konkurzního práva. Praha: Univerzita Karlova 1995
ALDERTON, Joan. The
EC Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings: Streamlining Cross–Border Insolvency?
The Contrasting Approaches of the Courts in England and France. International Corporate
Rescue, 2006, è. 3, s. 257 - 264.
ASWANI, Ravi, GEE QC, Steven. Transactions in Fraud of Creditors: The Foreign
Element. International Corporate Rescue, 2005, è. 2, s. 29 –
35.
COUNIHAN, Niamh, O ´GRADY, Tony. The European Court of Justice Judgment in Eurofood
IFSC Limited (in Liquidation). International Corporate
Rescue, 2006, è. 3, s. 215 – 219.
COUNIHAN, Niamh, O’GRADY, Tony. Advocate General’s Decision in Eurofood. International Corporate
Rescue, 2005, è. 2, s. 294 - 299.
DEACOCK, Adam. Re
Collins &
Aikman Corporation Group. International Corporate Rescue, 2006, è.3, s. 88 - 89.
FULLER, Simon. EC Regulation: COMI Moves to Spain.
International Corporate Rescue, 2005, è. 2, s. 285 – 286.
GALEN, van, Robert.
The European Insolvency
Regulation and Groups of Companies. International Corporate Rescue,
2004, è. 1, s. 88 – 96.
HEIKO, Tschauner,
HERWEG, Christian. EC Regulation on Insolvency Procedings - Recent Decisions on
Shifting and Changign the COMI. International Corporate Rescue , 2006, è.3, s. 117 - 119.
HIRT, Hans. Freedom
of Establishment, International Company Law and the Comparison of European
Company Law Systems after the ECJ´s Decision in Inspire Art Ltd.
European Business Law Review, 2004, è. 15, s. 1189 - 1222.
HO, Look Chan. Interfacing the Insolvency Regulation with the
Judgments Regulation: Oakley v Ultra Vehicle Design.
International Corporate Rescue, 2005, è. 2 s. 196 – 201.
HO, Look Chan. A Teleological Application of the EC Insolvency
Regulation: European Commission v AMI Semiconductor Belgium. International Corporate Rescue, 2005, è.
2 s. 137 – 139.
CHERUBINI, Giorgio. Parmalat: A Lesson for the Future. International Corporate
Rescue, 2004, è. 1, s. 63 - 65.