Two private international law offerings from the wise folk of the Court of Justice before they disappear on their Christmas vacations. First, the judgment in Case C-384/10, Voogsgeerd, concerning the employment provisions in Art. 6 of the 1980 Rome Convention. With the Court’s earlier decision in Case C-29/10, Koelzsch (see the earlier post by Gilles Cuniberti here), the Court provides substantial guidance as to the application of Art. 6 and its successor, Art. 8 of the Rome I Regulation. These two decisions look set to be cited in tandem in international employment cases for years to come. Secondly, the judgment in Case C-191/10, Rastelli Davide on the question whether the Insolvency Regulation permits joinder of co-insolvent parties whose centre of main interests (COMI) is in another Member State in circumstances where their affairs are intermixed with the insolvent party whose COMI is in the Member State seised of insolvency proceedings. The question, therefore, is essentially whether a jurisdictional hook similar to that found in Art. 6(1) of the Brussels I Regulation can be implied in the Insolvency Regulation regime. Unsurprisingly, the CJEU gives a negative answer to that question and holds further that the intermixture of assets, of itself, is not sufficient to justify the conclusion that two companies have their COMI in the same Member State.
Happy Christmas to all col.net readers.