Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 June 2026.#shopping24 Gesellschaft für multimediale Anwendung v SR, en qualité de mandataire liquidateur de Sportgigant Lindpointner GmbH.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Linz.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Insolvency proceedings – Regulation (EU) 2015/848 – Article 3(1) – International jurisdiction – Article 6(1) – Action which derives directly from insolvency proceedings and is closely linked with them – Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State within the territory of which insolvency proceedings have been opened.#Case C-292/25.

Provisional text

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Seventh Chamber)

11 June 2026 (*)

( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Insolvency proceedings – Regulation (EU) 2015/848 – Article 3(1) – International jurisdiction – Article 6(1) – Action which derives directly from insolvency proceedings and is closely linked with them – Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State within the territory of which insolvency proceedings have been opened )

In Case C‑292/25,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Landesgericht Linz (Regional Court, Linz, Austria), made by decision of 8 April 2025, received at the Court on 18 April 2025, in the proceedings

shopping24 Gesellschaft für multimediale Anwendung

v

SR, as insolvency administrator for Sportgigant Lindpointner GmbH,

THE COURT (Seventh Chamber),

composed of F. Schalin, President of the Chamber, K. Jürimäe (Rapporteur), President of the Second Chamber, and Z. Csehi, Judge,

Advocate General: J. Richard de la Tour,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

having regard to the written procedure,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

–        the European Commission, by B. Ernst and S. Noë, acting as Agents,

having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,

gives the following

Judgment

1        This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 6 and 18 and Article 32(2) of Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2015 L 141, p. 19).

2        The request has been made in proceedings between shopping24 Gesellschaft für multimediale Anwendung (‘shopping24’), a company established in Germany, and SR, acting as insolvency administrator for Sportgigant Lindpointner GmbH (‘Sportgigant’), a company established in Austria, concerning an action for a declaration of the existence of a claim for the purposes of its lodgement in the insolvency proceedings opened in Austria vis-à-vis Sportgigant.

 Legal context

 European Union law

 Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000

3        Council Regulation No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1) was repealed and replaced by Regulation 2015/848, with effect from 26 June 2017.

4        Recital 6 of Regulation No 1346/2000 was worded as follows:

‘In accordance with the principle of proportionality[,] this Regulation should be confined to provisions governing jurisdiction for opening insolvency proceedings and judgments which are delivered directly on the basis of the insolvency proceedings and are closely connected with such proceedings. …’

5        Article 3(1) of that regulation provided:

‘The courts of the Member State within the territory of which the centre of a debtor’s main interests is situated shall have jurisdiction to open insolvency proceedings. In the case of a company or legal person, the place of the registered office shall be presumed to be the centre of its main interests in the absence of proof to the contrary.’

 Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

6        Article 1 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1) provides, in paragraphs 1 and 2(b):

‘1.      This Regulation shall apply in civil and commercial matters whatever the nature of the court or tribunal. It shall not extend, in particular, to revenue, customs or administrative matters or to the liability of the State for acts and omissions in the exercise of State authority (acta iure imperii).

2.      This Regulation shall not apply to:

…

(b)      bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings’.

 Regulation 2015/848

7        According to recitals 3, 5 to 8 and 35 of Regulation 2015/848:

‘(3)      The proper functioning of the internal market requires that cross-border insolvency proceedings should operate efficiently and effectively. This Regulation needs to be adopted in order to achieve that objective, which falls within the scope of judicial cooperation in civil matters within the meaning of Article 81 [TFEU].

…

(5)      It is necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market to avoid incentives for parties to transfer assets or judicial proceedings from one Member State to another, seeking to obtain a more favourable legal position to the detriment of the general body of creditors (forum shopping).

(6)      This Regulation should include provisions governing jurisdiction for opening insolvency proceedings and actions which are directly derived from insolvency proceedings and are closely linked with them. …

(7)      Bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings and actions related to such proceedings are excluded from the scope of Regulation [No 1215/2012]. Those proceedings should be covered by this Regulation. The interpretation of this Regulation should as much as possible avoid regulatory loopholes between the two instruments. However, the mere fact that a national procedure is not listed in Annex A to this Regulation should not imply that it is covered by Regulation [No 1215/2012].

(8)      In order to achieve the aim of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of insolvency proceedings having cross-border effects, it is necessary, and appropriate, that the provisions on jurisdiction, recognition and applicable law in this area should be contained in a Union measure which is binding and directly applicable in Member States.

…

(35)      The courts of the Member State within the territory of which insolvency proceedings have been opened should also have jurisdiction for actions which derive directly from the insolvency proceedings and are closely linked with them. Such actions should include avoidance actions against defendants in other Member States and actions concerning obligations that arise in the course of the insolvency proceedings, such as advance payment for costs of the proceedings. In contrast, actions for the performance of the obligations under a contract concluded by the debtor prior to the opening of proceedings do not derive directly from the proceedings. Where such an action is related to another action based on general civil and commercial law, the insolvency practitioner should be able to bring both actions in the courts of the defendant’s domicile if he considers it more efficient to bring the action in that forum. This could, for example, be the case where the insolvency practitioner wishes to combine an action for director’s liability on the basis of insolvency law with an action based on company law or general tort law.’

8        Article 3 of that regulation, entitled ‘International jurisdiction’, provides, in the first subparagraph of paragraph 1:

‘The courts of the Member State within the territory of which the centre of the debtor’s main interests is situated shall have jurisdiction to open insolvency proceedings (“main insolvency proceedings”). The centre of main interests shall be the place where the debtor conducts the administration of its interests on a regular basis and which is ascertainable by third parties.’

9        Article 6 of that regulation, entitled ‘Jurisdiction for actions deriving directly from insolvency proceedings and closely linked with them’, provides:

‘1.      The courts of the Member State within the territory of which insolvency proceedings have been opened in accordance with Article 3 shall have jurisdiction for any action which derives directly from the insolvency proceedings and is closely linked with them, such as avoidance actions.

2.      Where an action referred to in paragraph 1 is related to an action in civil and commercial matters against the same defendant, the insolvency practitioner may bring both actions before the courts of the Member State within the territory of which the defendant is domiciled, or, where the action is brought against several defendants, before the courts of the Member State within the territory of which any of them is domiciled, provided that those courts have jurisdiction pursuant to Regulation [No 1215/2012].

…’

10      According to Article 18 of Regulation 2015/848, entitled ‘Effects of insolvency proceedings on pending lawsuits or arbitral proceedings’:

‘The effects of insolvency proceedings on a pending lawsuit or pending arbitral proceedings concerning an asset or a right which forms part of a debtor’s insolvency estate shall be governed solely by the law of the Member State in which that lawsuit is pending or in which the arbitral tribunal has its seat.’

11      Article 32 of that regulation, entitled ‘Recognition and enforceability of other judgments’, provides, in paragraph 2:

‘The recognition and enforcement of judgments other than those referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be governed by Regulation [No 1215/2012] provided that that Regulation is applicable.’

 Austrian law

12      Paragraph 110(1) of the Insolvenzordnung (Insolvency Code) of 11 December 1914 (RGBl. 337/1914) states:

‘The holders of claims the accuracy or rank of which remain at issue may act to seek a declaration of the existence of those claims, where the legal remedy is admissible, by directing their action against all opponents (Paragraph 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure). …’

 The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

13      By application of 27 March 2024, shopping24 brought an action against Sportgigant before the Landgericht Hamburg (Regional Court, Hamburg, Germany) for payment of a claim of EUR 56 829.84 in respect of unpaid invoices, plus interest, as well as the sum of EUR 1 804.90 in respect of pre-litigation costs.

14      By decision of 17 September 2024, the Landesgericht Linz (Regional Court, Linz, Austria), which is the referring court, opened insolvency proceedings vis-à-vis Sportgigant.

15      As a result of the opening of those insolvency proceedings, the court proceedings brought before the Landgericht Hamburg (Regional Court, Hamburg) were stayed. Since then, those court proceedings have not been resumed or definitively closed.

16      On 19 December 2024, shopping24 brought an ‘action seeking a declaration of the existence of a claim’ before the referring court vis-à-vis SR, acting as insolvency administrator of Sportgigant. The purpose of that action is to obtain a declaration, vis-à-vis the insolvency administrator and the general body of creditors, of the existence of a claim for the purposes of its lodgement in the insolvency proceedings. The amount of that claim, fixed at EUR 74 106.16, includes the principal sum of EUR 56 829.84 due in respect of unpaid invoices, plus interest, pre-litigation costs and costs relating to the proceedings brought before the Landgericht Hamburg (Regional Court, Hamburg).

17      The referring court states that, under both German and Austrian law, the opening of insolvency proceedings interrupts ongoing civil proceedings. It explains that, where the creditor lodges its claim and the latter is disputed, the stayed proceedings are resumed and adapted to the requirements of the insolvency proceedings. In view of the similarities between those two laws, the referring court considers that the action for payment brought in Germany and the action seeking a declaration of the existence of that claim, the latter action having been brought subsequently before the referring court, pursue the same aim and have the same subject matter.

18      In those circumstances, that court considers it necessary to determine, before any examination as to the substance of the case, whether the continuation of the action brought before it is precluded by a bar to proceedings based on a lack of international jurisdiction or on lis pendens.

19      In that regard, that court asks, first of all, in view of Article 6 of Regulation 2015/848 and the judgment of 18 September 2019, Riel (C‑47/18, EU:C:2019:754), whether the German or Austrian courts have international jurisdiction to rule on that action.

20      Next, in the event that the German courts have jurisdiction, the referring court wishes to know whether, in the light of Article 32(2) of that regulation, it is required to recognise, in the insolvency proceedings opened in Austria, the forthcoming decision of the Landgericht Hamburg (Regional Court, Hamburg) on a declaration of the existence of the claim at issue.

21      Lastly, if the answer is in the affirmative, the referring court seeks to ascertain whether the objection of lis pendens applies and precludes that court from hearing the action seeking a declaration of the existence of a claim that was brought before it.

22      In those circumstances, the Landesgericht Linz (Regional Court, Linz) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘(1)      Is Article 6 of Regulation 2015/848 to be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of insolvency proceedings pending in Austria, Austria has exclusive jurisdiction over an action seeking a declaration of the existence of a claim under Austrian law even if, at the time of the opening of those insolvency proceedings, an action concerning the same claim is already pending in Germany and the latter proceedings may be continued – under German law – as proceedings for a declaration of the existence of a claim, which is to say as proceedings pursuing the objective of obtaining a (binding) determination of a claim vis-à-vis the insolvency practitioner and all of the insolvency creditors for the purpose of having that claim registered in insolvency proceedings?

(2)      [If the answer to the first question is in the negative,] is Article 32(2) of Regulation 2015/848 to be interpreted as meaning that, in insolvency proceedings pending in Austria, the outcome of proceedings continued in Germany as proceedings for a declaration of the existence of a claim pursuing the objective of obtaining a (binding) determination of a claim vis-à-vis the insolvency practitioner and all of the insolvency creditors for the purpose of having that claim registered in insolvency proceedings is to be recognised in the insolvency proceedings, with the result that the existence and amount of the claim are established (or not, as the case may be)?

(3)      [If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative,] is Article 18 of Regulation 2015/848 to be interpreted as meaning that the bringing of an action seeking a declaration of the existence of a claim under Austrian law is precluded by lis pendens, in the case where an action concerning the same claim is pending in Germany which may be continued – under German law – as proceedings for a declaration of the existence of a claim and which thus pursues the objective of obtaining a (binding) determination vis-à-vis the insolvency practitioner and all of the insolvency creditors to the effect that there is an (insolvency) claim for the purpose of having that claim registered in insolvency proceedings?’

 Consideration of the questions referred

 The first question

23      By its first question, the referring court seeks, in essence, to ascertain whether Article 6(1) of Regulation 2015/848 must be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the Member State in which insolvency proceedings have been opened have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine an action seeking a declaration of the existence of a claim for the purposes of the lodgement of that claim in those insolvency proceedings, even though, on the date of the opening of those insolvency proceedings, an action with the same subject matter was already pending before the courts of another Member State.

24      As a preliminary point, it should be recalled that, according to the Court’s case-law, in so far as Regulation 2015/848 repealed and replaced Regulation No 1346/2000, the Court’s interpretation of the provisions of the latter regulation also applies to the provisions of Regulation 2015/848, whenever those provisions may be regarded as equivalent (judgment of 18 April 2024, Luis Carlos and Others, C‑765/22 and C‑772/22, EU:C:2024:331, paragraph 49).

25      Primarily, it must be noted that Article 3(1) of Regulation 2015/848 confers, on the courts of the Member State within the territory of which the centre of a debtor’s main interests is situated, exclusive jurisdiction to open the main insolvency proceedings (see, to that effect, judgment of 24 March 2022, Galapagos BidCo., C‑723/20, EU:C:2022:209, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited).

26      According to Article 6(1) of that regulation, the courts of the Member State within the territory of which insolvency proceedings have been opened in accordance with Article 3 are to have jurisdiction for any action which derives directly from the insolvency proceedings and is closely linked with them.

27      Although Article 6(1) of that regulation does not correspond to any provision of Regulation No 1346/2000, the fact remains that it codifies a rule of international jurisdiction resulting from the Court’s case-law on the interpretation of Article 3(1) of the latter regulation, in particular from the judgment of 12 February 2009, Seagon (C‑339/07, EU:C:2009:83, paragraph 21), and that it confirms the two criteria that were already set out in the sixth recital of that regulation (see, to that effect, judgments of 6 February 2019, NK, C‑535/17, EU:C:2019:96, paragraph 27, and of 14 November 2024, Oilchart International, C‑394/22, EU:C:2024:952, paragraph 35).

28      In accordance with the Court’s case-law, those two criteria are cumulative (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 December 2019, Tiger and Others, C‑493/18, EU:C:2019:1046, paragraph 26).

29      With regard to the first criterion, relating to whether an action derives directly from insolvency proceedings, the decisive factor for determining the area within which that action falls is not the procedural context of the action, but its legal basis. It must also be determined whether the right or the obligation which forms the basis of that action derives from the ordinary rules of civil and commercial law or from derogating rules specific to insolvency proceedings (judgment of 4 December 2019, Tiger and Others, C‑493/18, EU:C:2019:1046, paragraph 27 and the case-law cited).

30      As regards the second criterion, relating to the close link between the action and the insolvency proceedings, it is the closeness of the link between that action and the insolvency proceedings that is decisive for the purpose of deciding whether that action falls within the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State within the territory of which the insolvency proceedings have been opened (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 December 2019, Tiger and Others, C‑493/18, EU:C:2019:1046, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited).

31      In addition, the Court has already held that an action for a declaration of the existence of claims for the purposes of their being lodged in insolvency proceedings, such as the action provided for in Article 110 of the Austrian Insolvency Code, satisfies the two cumulative criteria referred to in paragraphs 28 to 30 of the present judgment. Such an action constitutes an element of insolvency legislation and is intended to be brought in the context of insolvency proceedings, by creditors participating in those proceedings, in the event of a dispute concerning the accuracy or ranking of the claims declared by those creditors (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 September 2019, Riel, C‑47/18, EU:C:2019:754, paragraphs 37 and 38).

32      Accordingly, such an action falls, pursuant to Article 6(1) of Regulation 2015/848, within the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State of the opening of insolvency proceedings.

33      In order to provide the referring court with a complete answer, it is still necessary to determine whether the international jurisdiction, provided for in that provision, to hear and determine an action which derives directly from the insolvency proceedings and is closely linked with them, is exclusive in nature.

34      In that regard, it must be noted, first, that recital 7 of Regulation 2015/848 states that bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings and actions related to such proceedings are excluded from the scope of Regulation No 1215/2012. Second, under Article 1(2)(b) of the latter regulation, that regulation does not apply to ‘bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings’. According to the Court’s case-law, the latter provision excludes from the scope of Regulation No 1215/2012 only actions which derive directly from the insolvency proceedings and are closely connected with them (see, to that effect, judgment of 14 November 2018, Wiemer & Trachte, C‑296/17, EU:C:2018:902, paragraphs 28 to 30).

35      Regulation Nos 1215/2012 and 2015/848 must be interpreted in such a way as to avoid any overlap between the rules of law laid down by those texts or any legal vacuum. Accordingly, actions excluded, under Article 1(2)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012, from the scope of that regulation fall within the scope of Regulation 2015/848. Correspondingly, actions which fall outside the scope of Article 3(1) and Article 6(1) of Regulation 2015/848 fall within the scope of Regulation No 1215/2012 (see, to that effect, judgments of 14 November 2018, Wiemer & Trachte, C‑296/17, EU:C:2018:902, paragraph 29, and of 14 November 2024, Oilchart International, C‑394/22, EU:C:2024:952, paragraph 32).

36      Thus, the respective scope of each of those two regulations is clearly defined (see, to that effect, judgments of 14 November 2018, Wiemer & Trachte, C‑296/17, EU:C:2018:902, paragraph 31, and of 14 November 2024, Oilchart International, C‑394/22, EU:C:2024:952, paragraph 34). As follows from paragraph 32 of the present judgment, an action seeking a declaration of the existence of claims for the purposes of their lodgement in the context of insolvency proceedings falls within the scope of Regulation 2015/848.

37      In that regard, it should be borne in mind that Article 6(1) of Regulation 2015/848, read in the light of recital 35 of that regulation, codifies, as noted in paragraph 27 of the present judgment, a rule of international jurisdiction resulting from the Court’s case-law on Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000. In the context of the latter regulation, the Court has held that that international jurisdiction is exclusive in nature (judgment of 14 November 2018, Wiemer & Trachte, C‑296/17, EU:C:2018:902, paragraphs 36 and 43).

38      Furthermore, Regulation 2015/848 does not lay down any rule regarding the allocation of international jurisdiction that would confer on the courts of a Member State other than the Member State of the opening of insolvency proceedings jurisdiction to hear and determine actions seeking a declaration of the existence of a claim for the purposes of its lodgement in those proceedings, where those actions derive directly from the insolvency proceedings and are closely linked with them.

39      Moreover, the exclusivity of that international jurisdiction, which is reflected in recital 35 of Regulation 2015/848, is ruled out, in the context of that regulation, only in the situation, expressly referred to in Article 6(2) thereof, where an action, which derives directly from the insolvency proceedings and is closely linked with them, is linked with another action based on the general provisions of civil and commercial law, as Advocate General Wahl observed in his Opinion in Wiemer & Trachte (C‑296/17, EU:C:2018:515, points 66 and 67). Such a situation, in which the insolvency practitioner has the possibility of bringing both actions before the courts of the Member State in which the defendant is domiciled, is unrelated to the circumstances of the dispute in the main proceedings.

40      Furthermore, a concentration of all the actions directly linked with insolvency before the courts of the Member State with jurisdiction to open insolvency proceedings is consistent with the objective of improving the effectiveness and efficiency of insolvency proceedings having cross-border effects, referred to in recitals 3 and 8 of Regulation 2015/848 (see, to that effect, judgments of 12 February 2009, Seagon, C‑339/07, EU:C:2009:83, paragraph 22, and of 14 November 2018, Wiemer & Trachte, C‑296/17, EU:C:2018:902, paragraph 33).

41      Furthermore, according to recital 5 of that regulation, it is necessary, for the proper functioning of the internal market, to avoid incentives for parties to transfer assets or judicial proceedings from one Member State to another, seeking to obtain a more favourable legal position (‘forum shopping’).

42      The possibility for more than one court to have jurisdiction to hear and determine actions that are brought in various Member States and are directly linked with the insolvency would be such as to undermine the pursuit of such an objective (see, to that effect, judgments of 12 February 2009, Seagon, C‑339/07, EU:C:2009:83, paragraph 24, and of 14 November 2018, Wiemer & Trachte, C‑296/17, EU:C:2018:902, paragraph 35).

43      It follows that the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which insolvency proceedings have been opened, as regards hearing and determining actions which derive directly from those proceedings and are closely linked with them, is an exclusive jurisdiction.

44      In the present case, since the insolvency proceedings at issue in the main proceedings were opened in Austria, an action such as that before the referring court falls, subject to the verifications for which that court is responsible, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Austrian courts.

45      In the light of all the foregoing grounds, the answer to the first question is that Article 6(1) of Regulation 2015/848 must be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the Member State in which insolvency proceedings have been opened have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine an action seeking a declaration of the existence of a claim for the purposes of the lodgement of that claim in those insolvency proceedings, even though, on the date on which those insolvency proceedings were opened, an action with the same subject matter was already pending before the courts of another Member State.

 The second and third questions

46      In view of the answer given to the first question, there is no need to answer the second and third questions.

 Costs

47      Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

On those grounds, the Court (Seventh Chamber) hereby rules:

Article 6(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings

must be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the Member State in which insolvency proceedings have been opened have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine an action seeking a declaration of the existence of a claim for the purposes of the lodgement of that claim in those insolvency proceedings, even though, on the date on which those insolvency proceedings were opened, an action with the same subject matter was already pending before the courts of another Member State.

[Signatures]

---

*      Language of the case: German.