(Case C-198/18 Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 20March 2018— CeDe Group AB v KAN Sp. z o.o. in bankruptcy
Fecha: 01-May-2000
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 20March 2018— CeDe Group AB v KAN Sp. z o.o. in bankruptcy
(Case C-198/18)
Language of the case: Swedish
Referring court
Högsta domstolen
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: CeDe Group AB
Defendant: KAN Sp. z o.o. in bankruptcy
Questions referred
Must Article4 of Regulation No1346/20001 be interpreted as meaning that it applies to an action which is brought before a Swedish court by the liquidator of a Polish company— which is the subject of insolvency proceedings in Poland— against a Swedish company for payment of goods delivered under an agreement into which the companies entered before that insolvency?
If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is it of any importance that, during the proceedings before the courts, the liquidator transfers the claim at issue to a company which enters the proceedings in the place of the liquidator?
If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, is it of any importance if the company which has entered the proceedings thereafter becomes insolvent?
If the defendant in the proceedings before the courts in the situation set out in the first question claims that the liquidator’s claim for payment should be set off against a counterclaim which arises from the same agreement as the claim, is that set-off situation covered by Article4(2)(d)?
Is the relationship between Article4(2)(d) and Article6(1) of Regulation No1346/2000 to be interpreted as meaning that Article6(1) applies only if it is not possible under the law of the State of the opening of proceedings to apply a set-off, or can Article6(1) also apply to other situations, for example where there is only a certain difference between the level of possibility of set-off in the legal orders in question or where there are no differences at all but set-off is nonetheless refused in the State of the opening of proceedings?