Insolvency proceedings - see INT/673

This page is also available in

Opinjoni tal-KESE: Insolvency proceedings - see INT/673

The EESC reflects in the opinion its view on two Commission proposals: COM(2012) 742 final and COM(2012) 744 final - 2012/0360 COD (INT/673-680).

Key points

The EESC:

  • agrees with the goals set out in the Commission communication, while considering that the "second chance" it refers to should benefit business operators who have learned from their previous failures and who can make a fresh start on the basis of a rethought business plan;
  • prefers the notion of a "fresh start" (a key concept in American insolvency law) to that of a "second chance" advocated by the Commission;
  • considers that employees should be better protected and should be treated as preferential creditors;
  • considers that making insolvency legislation part of criminal law is not desirable, as this would increase the judicialisation of insolvency proceedings, making them criminal in nature and prolonging investigation times;
  • does not believe that systematic recourse to a judge is the best solution and calls on the Commission to consider setting up new bodies with a multidisciplinary approach (economic, financial and legal);
  • urges the Commission to consider the proposals on harmonising the status of liquidators, such as those put forward in the European Parliament resolution of 11 October 2011;
  • supports the proposal for a regulation, but is disappointed that this is not more ambitious;
  • welcomes the obligation for Member States to improve publicity rules, making relevant decisions in cross-border insolvency cases publicly accessible in an electronic register, and the interconnection of national insolvency registers;
  • calls on the Commission to ensure that the obligations, costs and deadlines of translations do not slow down insolvency proceedings;
  • supports the integration of civil over-indebtedness procedures but this integration should not be unfavourable to individual debtors;
  • calls on the Commission to ensure that making use of the delegation procedure to amend the annexes to the regulation takes account of Article 290 TFEU and the case-law on the notion of "essential measures".

Other EESC opinions:

For more information please contact the INT Section Secretariat