Lecture III

Video 3 (out of 8)
International Jurisdiction: Who is in Charge? – Summary
Presenters: Defne Taşman & Bob Wessels

This third video explains international jurisdiction under the European Insolvency Regulation. International jurisdiction determines which Member State’s courts have the power to open insolvency proceedings. This is different from territorial jurisdiction, which specific court within that Member State is competent. This territorial jurisdiction is determined by national law.

The video introduces the distinction between main, secondary and territorial proceedings. Main insolvency proceedings are opened in the Member State where the debtor has its center of main interests, or COMI. They have universal scope, meaning they cover the debtor’s assets across the EU and these proceedings are automatically recognized in other Member States. The main proceeding is presented as the “trunk of the tree”: there can only be one.

Secondary proceedings may be opened in another Member State where the debtor has an ‘establishment’. These proceedings have territorial scope, meaning they only affect assets located in that Member State. They are the “branches of the tree”. Their role is to protect local creditor interests, support the effective administration of complex insolvency estates, and manage difficulties caused by differences between national laws.

The core concept is COMI. The Regulation provides for certain assumptions on the COMI-location. These presumptions can also be rebutted. The video discusses two key cases, namely Eurofood and Interedil, for determining the location of the COMI.

The video then explains the concept of forum shopping. The Regulation seeks to prevent abusive COMI shifting designed to disadvantage creditors or to frustrate their expectations. Safeguards include suspect periods, the requirement that activity be genuine and ascertainable by third parties, the court’s duty to examine its own jurisdiction, and the right of creditors to challenge the judicial COMI determination.

The concept of ‘establishment’ is explained. An establishment requires a place of operations where the debtor carries out a non-transitory economic activity with human means and assets. There must be real economic activity. Only on the basis of the presence of a debtor’s establishment does the court have jurisdiction to open secondary proceedings.

Finally, the video covers related actions under Article 6. A court that has international jurisdiction to open insolvency proceedings also has jurisdiction over actions that derive directly from those proceedings and are closely linked to them, such as avoidance actions or certain liability claims.

Overall, the video shows that international jurisdiction is the first operational step of the Regulation. Determining COMI identifies the court that can open main proceedings, the law that will apply, the scope of recognition, the powers of the insolvency practitioner, and the possibility of secondary proceedings elsewhere.

Further Reading

• Bob Wessels and Defne Taşman, The European Insolvency Regulation: An Essential Guide (Edward Elgar Publishing forthcoming 2026) (Elgar Practical Guides)
• Reinhard Bork and Kristin van Zwieten (eds.), Commentary on The European Insolvency Regulation, Oxford University Press, 2nd ed. (2022),
• Insolvency Regulation 1346/2000: Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on Insolvency Proceedings [2000] OJ L160/1
• Insolvency Regulation 2015/848: Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on Insolvency Proceedings (Recast) [2015] OJ L141/19, consolidated version (6 November 2025)
• Case C-341/04, Eurofood IFSC Ltd (ECLI:EU:C:2006:281)
• Case C-396/09, Interedil Srl v. Fallimento Interedil Srl, Intesa Gestione Crediti SpA (ECLI:EU:C:2011:671)
• Case C-1/04, Susanne Staubitz-Schreiber (ECLI:EU:C:2006:39)
• Case C-295/13, H v. H.K. (ECLI:EU:C:2014:2410)
• Case C-339/07, Christopher Seagon v. Deko Marty Belgium NV (ECLI:EU:C:2009:83)
• Case C-111/08, SCT Industri AB i likvidation v. Alpenblume AB (ECLI:EU:C:2009:419)
• Case C-133/78, Henri Gourdain v. Franz Nadler (ECLI:EU:C:1979:49)
• Case C-292/08, German Graphics Graphische Maschinen GmbH v. Alice van der Schee (ECLI:EU:C:2009:544)
• Case C-147/12 ÖFAB, Östergötlands Fastigheter AB v. Koot, Evergreen Investments BV (ECLI:EU:C:2013:490)