Sittings · Compare
What changed
(1) The objective of this Directive is to contribute to the proper functioning of the internal market and the Capital Markets Union and remove obstacles to the exercise of fundamental freedoms, such as the free movement of capital and freedom of establishment, which result from differences between national laws and procedures in the area of insolvency.
Or. en
Amendment 2
(2) The wide differences in substantive insolvency laws acknowledged by Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council32 create barriers to the internal market by reducing the attractiveness of cross-border investments, thus impacting the cross-border movement of capital within the Union and to and from third countries.
(2) The wide differences in substantive insolvency laws acknowledged by Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council32 and the stark divergence in the quality of domestic insolvency proceedingsprocedures as measured by the World Bank32a create barriers to the internal market by reducing the attractiveness of cross-border investments, thus impacting the viability of economic operation and the cross-border movement of capital within the Union and to and from third countries. It also means that harmonisation of certain aspects of insolvency law may require considerable changes in some Member States.
__________________
32a https://subnational.doingbusiness.org/en/data/exploretopics/resolving-insolvency/what-measured
Or. en
Amendment 3
(3) Insolvency proceedings ensure the orderly winding down or restructuring of companies or entrepreneurs in financial and economic distress. These proceedings are key in financial investments, as they determine the final recovery value of such investments. Diverging rules among Member States have contributed to increasing legal uncertainty and unpredictability about insolvency proceedings’ outcome, so raising barriers especially for cross-border investments in the internal market. Large divergences in recovery value and time required to complete insolvency proceedings across the Union have negative repercussions on cost predictability for creditors and investors in cross-border situations in the internal market.
(3) Insolvency proceedings ensure the orderly winding down or restructuring of companies or entrepreneurs in financial and economic distress. These proceedings are key in financial investments, as they determine the final recovery value of such investments. Diverging rules among Member States have contributed to increasing legal uncertainty and unpredictability about the firms value and insolvency proceedings’ outcome, so raising barriers especially for cross-border investments in the internal market. This uncertainty acts as a disincentive which obstructs the freedom of establishment of undertakings and the willingness to entrepreneurship thus harming the proper functioning of the internal market. Small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular, often lack the necessary resources to assess risks related to cross-border activities. Large divergences in recovery value and time required to complete insolvency proceedings across the Union have negative repercussions on cost predictability for creditors and investors in cross-border situations in the internal market, which acts as a disincentive to investment and makes it more difficult to attract foreign capital into theEU Union.territory.
Or. en
Amendment 4
(4) The integration of the internal market in the area of insolvency laws pursued by this Directive is a key tool for a more efficient functioning of the capital markets in the European Union, including greater access to corporate financing. Therefore, it is necessary to set out minimum requirements in targeted areas of national insolvency proceedings, which have a significant impact on the efficiency and length of such proceedings, especially on cross-border insolvency proceedings.
(4) The integration of the internal market in the area of insolvency laws pursued by this Directive is a key tool for a more efficient functioning of the capital markets in the European Union, including greater access to corporate financing, diversification of portfolios and investment opportunities, while also preventing the build-up of non-performing loans (NPL).(NPL) . Therefore, it is necessary to set out minimum requirements in targeted areas of national insolvency proceedings, as well as creating heightened risks and costs for investors, which have a significant impact on the efficiency and length of such proceedings, especially on cross-border insolvency proceedings.
Or. en
Amendment 5
Amendment
(4a)(4 a) The minimum standards laid down in this Directive aim to harmonise Member States’State’s insolvency law, in particular when it comes toto, maximisationmaximization of legal certainty about a firm’s value, improving efficiency of insolvency proceedingsprocedures both in terms of costs and length (especially for microenterprises and SMEs), protecting employees and preserving jobs and improving predictability and fair distribution of value amongst creditors. It should be understood that employees, to whom a company ows a debt the moment they deliver their labour, can be regarded as creditors.
Or. en
Amendment 6
Amendment
(4b)(4 b) Harmonisation of insolvency proceedings is associated with lower costs of credit, increased access to credit, improved creditor recovery and more effective protection of workers. At the same time one of the goals when completing the Capital Market Union is to stimulate more equity financing, and figures on how more debt financing through better protection of creditor rights will impact equity financing, are inconclusive. Therefore, a legal instrument to harmoniseharmonize the legislative solutions for the debt-equity bias, without prejudice to the legitimate and effective use of debt instruments, is necessary in order to place debt and equity financing on an equal footing in the UnionEU in parallel with this Directive.
Or. en
Amendment 7
Amendment
(5a)(5 a) Exceptionally, when the perfection of a legal act requires registration in a public register, e.g. the land register, the legal act may be deemed to be perfected before the registration takes place.
Or. en
Amendment 8
(8) In the context of avoidance actions, a distinction should be made between legal acts where the claim of the counterparty was due and enforceable and has been satisfied in the owed manner (congruent coverages) and those where performance was not entirely in accordance with the creditor’s claim (incongruent coverage). Incongruent coverages include, in particular, premature payments, the satisfaction with unusual means of payments, the subsequent collateralisation of a so far unsecured claim which was not already agreed upon in the original debt agreement, granting an extraordinary termination right or other amendments not provided for in the underlying contract, the waiver of legal defences or objections or the acknowledgement of disputable debts. In the case of congruent coverages, the avoidance ground of preferences can only be invoked if the creditor of the legal act that can be declared void knew at the time of the transaction that the debtor was insolvent.
Or. en
Amendment 9
(25) In order to guarantee that the business is sold at the best market value during the pre-pack proceedings, Member States should either ensure high standards of competitiveness, transparency and fairness of the sale process conducted in the preparation phase, as well as access to independent valuation where required or provide that the court runs a brief public auction after the opening of the liquidation phase of the proceedings.
Or. en
Amendment 10
(28) The opening of insolvency proceedings should not result in the early termination of contracts under which the parties still have obligations to perform (executory contracts), which are necessary for the continuation of business operations. Such termination would unduly jeopardise the value of the business, or part thereof, to be sold in the pre-pack proceedings. It should, therefore, be ensured that those contracts are assigned to the acquirer of the business of the debtor or part thereof, even without the consent of the counterparty of the debtor to those contracts. Nonetheless, there are situations where the assignment of the executory contracts cannot be reasonably expected, such as when the acquirer is a competitor of the counterparty of the contract. Similarly, the court may come to the conclusion in an individual assessment of an executory contract that its termination would serve the interests of the business of the debtor better than its assignment, such as when the assignment of the contract would result in a disproportionate burden for the business. The court should not be allowed, however, to terminate executory contracts relating to licenses of intellectual and industrial property rights, as they are usually key components of the operations of the business being sold.
(28) The opening of insolvency proceedings should not result in the early termination of contracts under which the parties still have obligations to perform (executory contracts), which are necessary for the continuation of business operations. Such termination would unduly jeopardise the value of the business, or part thereof, to be sold in the pre-pack proceedings. It should, therefore, be ensured that those contracts are assigned to the acquirer of the business of the debtor or part thereof, after consultation of the counterparty of the debtor to those contracts. Nonetheless, there are situations where the assignment of the executory contracts cannot be allowed, such as when the acquirer is a competitor of the counterparty of the contract or when it binds employees to a contract partner they have not chosen.chosen . Similarly, the court may come to the conclusion in an individual assessment of an executory contract that its termination would serve the interests of the business of the debtor better than its assignment, such as when the assignment of the contract would result in a disproportionate burden for the business. The court should not be allowed, however, to terminate executory contracts relating to licenses of intellectual and industrial property rights, as they are usually key components of the operations of the business being sold.
Or. en
Amendment 11
(35) National insolvency rules are not always fit to treat insolvent microenterprises and SMEs properly and in a proportionate manner. Taking into account the unique characteristics of microenterprises and SMEs and their specific needs in financial distress, in particular the need for faster, simpler, and affordable procedures should be acknowledged, separate insolvency proceedings should be developed at national level in accordance with the provisions of this Directive.
Or. en
Amendment 12
(38) In order to establish cost-effective and expeditious simplified winding-up proceedings for microenterprises and SMEs, short deadlines should be introduced. Similarly, formalities for all procedural steps, including for the opening of the proceedings, the lodgement and the admission of claims, the establishment of the insolvency estate and the realisation of the assets should be minimised. A standard form should be used for submitting a request to open simplified winding-up proceedings and electronic means should be used for all communications between the competent authority, and where relevant, the insolvency practitioner, and the parties to the proceedings.
Or. en
Amendment 13
(39) All microenterprises and SMEs should be able to commence proceedings to address their financial difficulties and obtain a discharge. Access to simplified winding-up proceedings should not depend on their ability to cover the administrative costs of such proceedings. The laws of the Member States should introduce rules for covering the costs of administering simplified winding-up proceedings where assets and sources of revenue of the debtor are insufficient to cover those costs.
Or. en
Amendment 14
deleted
Or. en
Amendment 15
(41) A microenterprise or SME debtor should be able to benefit from a temporary stay of individual enforcement actions, in order to be able to preserve the value of the insolvency estate and ensure a fair and orderly conduct of the proceedings. Member States, however, may allow competent authorities to exclude certain claims from the scope of the stay, in well-defined circumstances.
Or. en
Amendment 16
(42) Disputed claims should be dealt with in a way that does not unnecessarily complicate the conduct of simplified winding-up proceedings for microenterprises and for SMEs. If disputed claims cannot be quickly dealt with, the ability to dispute a claim may be used to create unnecessary delays. In deciding on the treatment of a disputed claim, the competent authority should be empowered to allow the continuation of the simplified winding-up proceedings with respect to undisputed claims only.
Or. en
Amendment 17
(50) Fair representation of creditors in the creditors’ committee is particularly important to employees, for whom the delay of wage payments regularly poses an existential threat, as well as to unsecured creditors that are micro, small or medium-sized enterprises, which in the case of insolvency of a debtor which is a large enterprise, if not paid promptly, are also exposed to insolvency (domino effect). Proper representation in the creditors’ committee of such creditors, including the representation of interests of employees through the appointment of a representatitive in the creditors’ committee, could ensure that in the course of the distribution of the recovered proceeds they receive their parts more expeditiously.
Or. en
Amendment 18
(53) Members of the creditors’ committee retain discretion in the organisation of the work, as long as the working methods are lawful, transparent and effective. Member States should therefore require that the creditors’ committee set out the working methods, specifying how meetings should be run, who could attend and vote, and how the impartiality and the confidentiality of the work of the committee is ensured. These working methods should be allowed to also set out a role for employers’ representatives or transparency towards other creditors. Creditors should be able to participate and vote electronically or delegate the voting right to a third person, provided this person is duly authorised. This possibility would be particularly beneficial for creditors resident in other Member States.
(53) Members of the creditors’ committee retain discretion in the organisation of the work, as long as the working methods are lawful, transparent and effective. Member States should therefore require that the creditors’ committee set out the working methods, specifying how meetings should be run, who could attend and vote, and how the impartiality and the confidentiality of the work of the committee is ensured. These working methods should be allowed to also set out a role for employers’ and employees’employees' representatives or transparency towards other creditors. Creditors should be able to participate and vote electronically or delegate the voting right to a third person, provided this person is duly authorised. This possibility would be particularly beneficial for creditors resident in other Member States.
Or. en
Amendment 19
(e) simplified winding-up proceedings for microenterprises and SMEs;
Or. en
Amendment 20
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point q – subparagraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission
(q) ‘party closely related to the debtor’ means persons, including legal persons, provided they have preferential access to non-public information on the affairs of the debtor.
Or. en
Amendment 21
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point q – subparagraph 2 – introductorya part(new)
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
Where the debtor is a natural person, closely related parties shall include in particular:
(q a) ‘contract for the lease of goods’ means a contract under which one party, the lessor, undertakes to provide the other party, the lessee, with a temporary right of use of goods in exchange for rent without the parties having agreed that ownership will be transferred after a period with right of use. The rent may be in the form of money or other value.
Where the debtor is a natural person:
Or. en
Amendment 22
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point q – subparagraph 32 – introductory part
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
Where the debtor is a legalnatural entity,person, closely related parties shall include in particular:
Where the debtor is a legalnatural entity:person:
Or. en
Amendment 23
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 13 – point q aintroductory (new)part
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(qa) ‘contract for the lease of goods’ means a contract under which one party, the lessor, undertakes to provide the other party, the lessee, with a temporary right of use of goods in exchange for rent without the parties having agreed that ownership will be transferred after a period with right of use. The rent may be in the form of money or other value.
Where the debtor is a legal entity, closely related parties shall include in particular:
Where the debtor is a legal entity:
Or. en
Amendment 24
Member States may adopt or maintain rules according to which exceptionally a legal act which in order to be perfected must be registered in a public register is deemed to be perfected before the registration takes place.
Or. en
Amendment 25
This Directive is without prejudice to workers’ rights to be informed and consulted in accordance with Union and national law on insolvency plans or elements of insolvency plans which may impact on terms and conditions of employment, structure of the undertaking, probable development and production and sales, substantial changes concerning organisation, introduction of new working methods or production processes, transfers of production, mergers, cut-backs or closures of undertakings or important parts thereof, and collective redundancies.
Or. en
Amendment 26
(b) that creditor knew that the debtor was unable to pay its mature debts or that a request for the opening of insolvency proceedings has been submitted.
Or. en
Amendment 27
Amendment
(ca)(c a) where relevant, in line with national law, legal acts that serve as satisfaction or collateralisation of claims of social security authorities.
Or. en
Amendment 28
Member States shall ensure that where payments on bills of exchange or cheques are concerned as referred to in the first subparagraph, point (b), the amount paid on the bill or cheque shall be restituted by the last endorser or, if the latter endorsed the bill on account of a third party, by such party if the last endorser or the third party knew that the debtor was unable to pay its mature debts or that a request for the opening of insolvency proceedings has been submitted at the moment of endorsing the bill or having it endorsed. This knowledge is presumed if the last endorser or the third party was a party closely related to the debtor.
Or. en
Amendment 29
Member States shall ensure that legal acts by which the debtor has intentionally caused a detriment to the general body of creditors can be declared void by court order where it is deemed just and equitable to do so where both of the following conditions are met:
Or. en
Amendment 30
(b) the other party to the legal act knew of the debtor’s intent to cause a detriment to the general body of creditors.
Or. en
Amendment 31
1. Member States shall ensure that the rights laid down in Article 9 are enforceable against an heir or another universal successor of the party which benefitted from the legal act that has been declared void, unless the acquisition was in good faith.
Or. en
Amendment 32
(b) the successor knew the circumstances on which the avoidance action is based.
Or. en
Amendment 33
1. Member States shall ensure that pre-pack proceedings are composed of the following two consecutive phases
1. Member States may introduce pre-pack proceedings in situationssituations, where the debtor is in a situation of likelihood of insolvency or is insolvent in accordance with national law. Member States shall ensure that pre-pack proceedings are composed of the following two consecutive phases:phases
Or. en
Amendment 34
Amendment
2a.2 a. This Directive shall not prevent Member States from adopting or maintaining provisions relating to pre-pack proceedings where such provisions provide a greater protection of workers or their representatives than those set out in this Title.
Or. en
Amendment 35
Member States shall provide that, upon request of the debtor, the court appoints a monitor where it is appropriate to do so.
Or. en
Amendment 36
Amendment
(aa)(a a) carries out its tasks in consultation with creditors, where reasonable;
Or. en
Amendment 37
Amendment
(ab)(a b) may have recourse to an independent valuation where appropriate in order to satisfy requirements related to achieving market value;
Or. en
Amendment 38
Amendment
(da)(d a) ensures participation of a creditors’committee committee;of creditors;
Or. en
Amendment 39
Amendment
Member States shall include the obtaining of the services of an independent valuation practitioner as a means of gauging a fair market price.price;
Or. en
Amendment 40
1. Member States shall ensure that the sale process carried out during the preparation phase is competitive, transparent, fair and meets market and social standards, and aims to achieve fair value for the purchase.
Or. en
Amendment 41
2. Where the sale process only produces one binding offer, that offer shall be deemed to reflect the business market price, unless it can be demonstrated otherwise.
Or. en
Amendment 42
Member States shall ensure that the acquirer of the debtor’s business or part thereof is assigned the executory contracts which are necessary for the continuation of the debtor’s business. The assignment shall not require the consent of the debtor’s counterparty or counterparties.
Or. en
Amendment 43
Amendment
3a.3 a. This Article is without prejudice to the rights and obligations laid downforeseen inunder Directive 2001/23/EC and the right of an employee to object to the transfer of her or his employment contract under national law.
Or. en
Amendment 44
Member States shall ensure that the criteria to select the best bid in the pre-pack proceedings are the same as the criteria used to select between competing offers in winding-up proceedings.
Member States shall ensure that the criteria to select the best bid in the pre-pack proceedings include the safeguarding of employment andas well are the same as the criteria used to select between competing offers in winding-up proceedings.
Or. en
Amendment 45
(b) other parties to the sale process, including creditors, receive adequate information on the existence of parties closely related to the debtor and their relation to the latter;
Or. en
Amendment 46
Member States may provide that where it is proved that the disclosure duty referred to in the first subparagraph, point (a), was breached, the court revokes the benefits referred to in Article 28.
Member States may provide that where it is proved that the disclosure duty referred to in the first subparagraph, point (a) and the duty to inform referred to in the first subparagraph, point (b), were breached, the court revokes the benefits referred to in Article 28.
Or. en
Amendment 47
Member States shall ensure that, where a legal entity becomes insolvent, its directors are obliged to submit a request for the opening of insolvency proceedings with the court no later than 3 months after the directors became aware or can reasonably be expected to have been aware that the legal entity is insolvent.
Member States shall ensure that, where a legal entity is likely to become insolvent, its directors are obliged to take steps to avoid insolvency, and where insolvency can not be avoided, take all possible measures to avoid bankruptcy.bankrupcty. In doing so, the directorsdirector shall have regard to:
(a) the interests of the creditors;creditors, and
(b) the need to avoid deliberate or grossly negligent conduct that threatens the viability of the business of the company.
Notwithstanding the first subparagraph, Member States shall ensure that directors of an insolvent legal entity submit a request for the opening of insolvency proceedings with the court without undue delay after the directors became aware or can reasonably be expected to have been aware that the legal entity is insolvent.
Or. en
Amendment 48
2. Paragraph 1 shall be without prejudice to national rules on civil liability for the breach of the duty of directors to avoid insolvency or bankruptcy and to submit a request for the opening of insolvency proceedings as set out in Article 36 that are stricter towards directors.
Or. en
Amendment 49
Proposal for a directive
Title VI – title
Article 38 – Titre
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
WINDING-UP OF INSOLVENT MICROENTERPRISES
RULES ON WINDING-UP OF MICROENTERPRISES AND SMES
Amendment 50
Proposal for a directive
Article 38 – title
Text proposed by the Commission
Rules on winding-up of microenterprises and SMEs
Amendment 51
Or. en
Amendment 50
Proposal for a directive
1. Member States shall ensure that microenterprises, when insolvent, have access to simplified winding-up proceedings that comply with the provisions laid down in this Title.
1. Member States shall ensure that microenterprises and SMEs,SME, when insolvent, have access to simplified winding-up proceedings that comply with the provisions laid down in this Title.
Amendment 52
Or. en
Amendment 51
Proposal for a directive
2. A microenterprise shall be deemed insolvent for the purposes of simplified winding-up proceedings when it is generally unable to pay its debts as they mature. Member States shall set out the conditions under which a microenterprise is deemed to be generally unable to pay its debts as they mature and ensure that these conditions are clear, simple and easily ascertainable by the microenterprise concerned.
2. A microenterprise or an SME shall be deemed insolvent for the purposes of simplified winding-up proceedings when it is generally unable to pay its debts as they mature. Member States shall set out the conditions under which a microenterprise or an SME is deemed to be generally unable to pay its debts as they mature and ensure that these conditions are clear, simple and easily ascertainable by the microenterprise or SME concerned.
Amendment 53
Or. en
Amendment 52
Proposal for a directive
Article 39 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Text proposed by the Commission
Member States shall ensure that in simplified winding-up proceedings an insolvency practitioner may only be appointed if both of the following conditions are met:
Member States shall ensure that in simplified winding-up proceedings the debtor, a creditor or a group of creditors may request that an insolvency practitioner is not appointed provided that the microenterprise or SME has an up-to-date current balance sheet. The request shallneeds to demonstrate that the microenterprise or SME has submitted its most recent required annual statement to the relevant nationalstate authorities.
Or. en
Amendment 53
Proposal for a directive
Article 39 – paragraph 1 – point a
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(a) the debtor, a creditor or a group of creditors requests such an appointment;
(b) the costs of the intervention of the insolvency practitioner can be funded by the insolvency estate or by the party that requested the appointment.
deleted
Or. en
Amendment 54
Proposal for a directive
Article 39 – paragraph 1 a– (new)point b
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
The(b) lackthe costs of fundingthe byintervention of the insolvency estate or bypractitioner thecan partybe thatfunded requestedby the appointment shall notinsolvency constituteestate aor reasonby forthe requestingparty that an insolvency practitioner isrequested notthe appointed.appointment.
deleted
Or. en
Amendment 55
Proposal for a directive
Article 39 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(1a) The lack of funding by the insolvency estate or by the party that requested the appointment shall not constitute a reason for requesting that an insolvency practitioner is not appointed.
Or. en
Amendment 56
Proposal for a directive
Article 41 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that insolvent microenterprises can submit a request for the opening of simplified winding-up proceedings to a competent authority.
1. Member States shall ensure that insolvent microenterprises and SMEsSME can submit a request for the opening of simplified winding-up proceedings to a competent authority.
Amendment 56
Or. en
Amendment 57
Proposal for a directive
2. Member States shall ensure that any creditor of an insolvent microenterprise or SME can submit a request for the opening of simplified winding-up proceedings against the microenterprise or SME to a competent authority. The microenterprise or SME concerned shall be given the opportunity to respond to the request, by contesting or consenting to it.
Amendment 57
Or. en
Amendment 58
Proposal for a directive
3. Member States shall ensure that microenterprises and SMEs can submit a request for the opening of simplified winding-up proceedings using a standard form.
Amendment 58
Or. en
Amendment 59
Proposal for a directive
(a) if the microenterprise or SME is a legal person, the debtor’s name, registration number, registered office or, if different, postal address;
Amendment 59
Or. en
Amendment 60
Proposal for a directive
(b) if the microenterprise or SME is an entrepreneur, the debtor’s name, registration number, if any, and postal address or, where the address is protected, the debtor's place and date of birth;
Amendment 60
Or. en
Amendment 61
Proposal for a directive
(c) a list of the assets of the microenterprise or SME;
Amendment 61
Or. en
Amendment 62
Proposal for a directive
(d) name, address or other contact details of creditors of the microenterprise or SME, as known to the microenterprise or SME at the time of the submission of the request,
Amendment 62
Or. en
Amendment 63
Proposal for a directive
(e) the list of the claims against the microenterprise or SME and, for each claim, its amount specifying the principal and, where applicable, interest and the date on which it arose and the date on which it became due, if different;
Amendment 63
Or. en
Amendment 64
Proposal for a directive
Amendment
(ea)(e a) a list with all commercial transactions in the period of six months preceding the request for the opening of simplified winding-up proceedings;
Amendment 64
Or. en
Amendment 65
Proposal for a directive
(f) if security in rem or a reservation of title exists in respect of a certain claim and, if so, what assets are covered by the security interest.
Amendment 65
Or. en
Amendment 66
Proposal for a directive
6. Member States shall ensure that when the request for opening simplified winding-up proceedings is submitted by a creditor, and the microenterprise or SME expressed its consent to the opening of the proceedings, the microenterprise or SME is required to submit the information listed in paragraph 4 together with the response referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article, where available.
Amendment 66
Or. en
Amendment 67
Proposal for a directive
7. Member States shall ensure that when the request for opening simplified winding-up proceedings is submitted by a creditor and the competent authority opens such proceedings despite the microenterprise or SME contesting or not responding to the request the microenterprise or SME is required to submit the information listed in paragraph 4 of this Article no later than two weeks following the receipt of the notice of opening.
Amendment 67
Or. en
Amendment 68
Proposal for a directive
(a) the debtor is not a microenterprise;
(a)7(a) the debtor is not a microenterprise or ana SME;
Amendment 68
Or. en
Amendment 69
Proposal for a directive
3. Member States shall ensure that the microenterprise, SME or any creditor of the microenterprise or SME may challenge before a court the decision on the request for the opening of simplified winding-up proceedings. The challenge has no suspensive effect on the opening of simplified winding-up proceedings and shall be dealt with promptly by the court.
Amendment 69
Or. en
Amendment 70
Proposal for a directive
Amendment
2a. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to employees’ claims.
2 a. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to employees’ claims. By way of derogation from the first subparagraph, Member States may apply paragraph 1 to employees’ claims if, and to the extent that, Member States ensure that the payment of such claims is guaranteed in preventive restructuring frameworks at a similar level of protection.
By way of derogation from the first subparagraph, Member States may apply paragraph 1 to employees’ claims if, and to the extent that, Member States ensure that the payment of such claims is guaranteed in preventive restructuring frameworks at a similar level of protection.
Or. en
Amendment 7071
Proposal for a directive
2. The assets of the insolvency estate shall include assets in the possession of the debtor at the time of the opening of simplified winding-up proceedings, assets acquired after the submission of the request for opening of such proceedings and assets recovered through avoidance actions or other actions. This paragraph is without prejudice to assets that are temporarily in possession of the debtor in execution of a contract for the lease of goods.
Amendment 71
Or. en
Amendment 72
Proposal for a directive
1. Member States shall ensure that in simplified winding-up proceedings once the insolvency estate has been established and the list of claims against the debtor has been determined, the competent authority, or where appointed, the insolvency practitioner:
Amendment 72
Or. en
Amendment 73
Proposal for a directive
3. Member States shall ensure that, where the competent authority proceeds with the realisation of the debtor’s assets as referred to in paragraph 1, point (a), the competent authority, or where appointed, the insolvency practitioner also specifies the means of realisation of the assets. Other means than the sale of the debtor’s assets through an electronic public auction may only be selected, if their use is deemed more appropriate in light of the nature of the assets or the circumstances of the proceedings.
Amendment 73
Or. en
Amendment 74
Proposal for a directive
1. Member States shall ensure that a creditors’ committee is established only if the general meeting of creditors so decides and in accordance with national law.
Amendment 74
Or. en
Amendment 75
Proposal for a directive
1. Member States shall ensure that the members of the creditors’ committee are appointed either at the general meeting of creditors or by decision of the court, without undue delay from the date of the opening of the proceedings as referred to in Article 24(2), point (a) of Regulation (EU) 2015/848.
Amendment 75
Or. en
Amendment 76
Proposal for a directive
3. Member States may ensure that the appointed members of the creditors’ committee fairly reflect the different interests of creditors or groups thereof.
Amendment 76
Or. en
Amendment 77
Proposal for a directive
deleted
Amendment 77
Or. en
Amendment 78
Proposal for a directive
Member States shall ensure that the creditors’ committee’s function is to ensure that in the conduct of the insolvency proceedings the workers’ and creditors’ interests are protected and individual creditors as well as including employees or their representatives are involved.
Amendment 78
Or. en
Amendment 79
Proposal for a directive
Data reporting
1. The Commission, in consultation with the European Banking Authority, shall offer support to Member States to enhance and harmonise data reporting in order to allow for a regular assessment of the effectiveness of national insolvency proceedings.
Or. en
2. By … [two years from the entry into force of this Directive] and every year thereafter, the Commission shall, in cooperation with the European Banking Authority, draw up an annual report on insolvency cases under the relevant insolvency regulation so that the effectiveness of the system established can be assessed.
Amendment 80
ANNEX: ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT
Proposal for a directive
Pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, the rapporteur for the opinion received input from the following entities or persons in the preparation of the opinion, prior to the adoption thereof in committee:
Article 69 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Entity and/or person
Text proposed by the Commission
Verband Insolvenzverwalter und Sachwalter DeutschlandsConseil national des administrateurs judiciaires et des mandataires judiciaires
Amendment
Deutsche Sozialversicherung Arbeitsgemeinschaft Europa
1 a. The Commission, in consultation with the European Banking Authority, shall offer support to Member States to enhance and harmonise data reporting in order to allow for a regular assessment of the effectiveness of national insolvency proceedings.
Hanbury Strategy and Communications Limited
Or. en
Leaseurope
Amendment 81
CENTR - Council of European Top Level Domain Registries
Proposal for a directive
Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund
Article 69 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Kreditschutzverband von 1870
Text proposed by the Commission
Bundesnotarkammer K.d.ö.R.
Amendment
German Bar Association
2 a. Two years after entry into force and thereafter, the Commission shall, in cooperation with the European Banking Authority, draw up an annual report regular on insolvency cases under the relevant insolvency regulation so that the effectiveness of the system established can be assessed.
Dutch Federation of Pension Funds
Or. en
European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC)
SMEunited
The list above is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur for the opinion.
Where natural persons are identified in the list by their name, by their function or by both, the rapporteur for the opinion declares that he has submitted to the concerned natural persons the European Parliament's Data Protection Notice No 484 (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/data-protect/index.do), which sets out the conditions applicable to the processing of their personal data and the rights linked to that processing.
PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
Title
Harmonising certain aspects of insolvency law
References
COM(2022)0702 – C9-0410/2022 – 2022/0408(COD)
Committee(s) responsible
JURI
Opinion by
Date announced in plenary
ECON
26.1.2023
Rapporteur for the opinion
Date appointed
René Repasi
12.9.2024
Discussed in committee
20.2.2025
Date adopted
19.3.2025
Result of final vote
+:
–:
0:
43
0
7
Members present for the final vote
Georgios Aftias, Rasmus Andresen, Francisco Assis, Isabel Benjumea Benjumea, Stefan Berger, Damian Boeselager, Giovanni Crosetto, Fabio De Masi, Engin Eroglu, Markus Ferber, Jonás Fernández, Dirk Gotink, Michalis Hadjipantela, Eero Heinäluoma, Billy Kelleher, Kinga Kollár, Tomáš Kubín, Aurore Lalucq, Marlena Maląg, Jorge Martín Frías, Fulvio Martusciello, Siegfried Mureşan, Fernando Navarrete Rojas, Denis Nesci, Luděk Niedermayer, Ľudovít Ódor, Nikos Papandreou, Gaetano Pedulla’, Lídia Pereira, Kira Marie Peter-Hansen, Pierre Pimpie, Evelyn Regner, Jussi Saramo, Paulius Saudargas, Ralf Seekatz, Irene Tinagli, Johan Van Overtveldt, Lara Wolters, Stéphanie Yon-Courtin, Roberts Zīle
Substitutes present for the final vote
Matthias Ecke, Fernand Kartheiser, Martine Kemp, Morten Løkkegaard, Tsvetelina Penkova
Members under Rule 216(7) present for the final vote
Valérie Devaux, Sebastian Kruis, Jana Nagyová, Stanislav Stoyanov, Flavio Tosi
FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL BY THE COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
Key to symbols: