Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

Land, Security in Land and the Insolvency Regulation 1346/2000

August 29, 2006/in /by Martin George
image_pdfimage_print

There is an interesting article on "Land, security in land and the European Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings 2000" by Paul Omar in the latest issue of the Conveyancer and Property Lawyer. The article discusses the interaction between insolvency law and land law in the UK, France and EU. It summarises Council Regulation 1346/2000, noting the provision for the law of the Member State in which property is situated to govern land issues. It also examines the exceptions to the default lex concursus rule introduced by Arts.5-15 of the Regulation, and addresses the types of security interest affected, particularly where no local equivalent exists.

Conveyancer and Property Lawyer Conv. (2006) July/August Pages 353-373. The full text is available on Westlaw.

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Martin George https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Martin George2006-08-29 11:33:462006-11-25 15:18:57Land, Security in Land and the Insolvency Regulation 1346/2000

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • Conflicts of jurisdiction in Senegal: lesson from the Senegalese Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and the Exequatur of foreign judgments July 27, 2026
  • Adoption in the proposal for a European Parenthood Regulation July 21, 2026
  • Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot July 15, 2026
  • A Follow-Up: The German Judges Association’s Response to the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions July 15, 2026
  • Private International Law Dimensions of Singapore’s New Legislation to Combat Online Harms July 14, 2026
  • The 1961 HCCH Apostille Convention: Why All African Countries Should Ratify It? — Insights from Judicial Practice in Africa July 14, 2026
  • The enforcement of an advance on costs for substitute performance at the expense of a Russian debtor in German-French legal relations July 2, 2026
  • “Yes, in principle, but not quite there yet…” – Some Observations on the Public Consultation on the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions June 29, 2026
  • Judgment Mobility Rules in India’s Private International Law Regime: No place for a revision au fond? June 26, 2026
  • Nothing to See Here: The CJEU’s Decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski June 18, 2026
  • Refusal to Enforce in Egypt of a Californian (U.S.) Judgment for Lack of Reciprocity: What Has Gotten into the Egyptian Supreme Court? June 15, 2026
  • PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal: Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments June 10, 2026
  • The AIFC Court, Gazprom v Naftogaz and the Emergence of a New Conduit Jurisdiction Debate June 6, 2026
  • Montana Supreme Court Decides International Child Custody Case June 3, 2026
  • China’s Countering Improper Foreign Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Regulation Blocked EU’s Extraterritorial Data Acquisition May 29, 2026
Link to: Rome I Regulation – A Dangerous Proposal? Link to: Rome I Regulation – A Dangerous Proposal? Rome I Regulation – A Dangerous Proposal? Link to: Latvia and the Rome Convention Link to: Latvia and the Rome Convention Latvia and the Rome Convention
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top