Short answer
The uses one main proceeding, centred on the debtor's centre of main interests (COMI), as the anchor for cross-border recognition. A judgment opening main proceedings is recognised automatically in other participating Member States and normally has there the effects given by the opening State's law. Judgments governing the course or closure of the proceeding—and judgments directly deriving from it, including qualifying avoidance judgments—also circulate under the Regulation.
That universality has limits. A secondary proceeding may cover local assets where the debtor has an establishment. Rights in rem over assets in another Member State are generally insulated from the opening but remain exposed to avoidance rules. Avoidance actions normally belong in the opening State and use its insolvency law, subject to a defence based on the law governing the challenged act.
A corporate group is not one debtor or estate. Each company keeps its COMI and proceeding. Cooperation and optional coordination do not prevent opt-outs or permit estate consolidation.
Which proceedings and Member States are covered?
The Regulation applies only to public collective proceedings listed in Annex A and recognised practitioners in Annex B. The current consolidation is dated 6 November 2025; replaced those annexes. The recast governs proceedings opened after 26 June 2017; Regulation 1346/2000 continues for earlier proceedings.
Denmark does not participate and is not bound. “Across the EU” therefore means circulation among Member States bound by the Regulation, not automatic recognition in Denmark or a third country. Questions outside its material or territorial scope depend on other EU instruments, national private international law or treaties.
COMI decides where main proceedings begin
Under Article 3, the courts where the debtor's COMI is situated may open main proceedings. COMI is where the debtor regularly administers its interests in a way ascertainable by third parties. For a company, the registered office is presumed to be COMI unless rebutted; the presumption does not apply if the office moved to another Member State during the preceding three months. The opening court must examine jurisdiction and state its grounds, while the debtor and creditors may challenge it.
Eurofood, decided under the predecessor Regulation, remains important because the recast retains the objective, third-party-ascertainable COMI test. Parent control did not by itself move a subsidiary's COMI:
the mere fact that its economic choices are or can be controlled by a parent company in another Member State is not enough to rebut the presumption laid down by that Regulation. —
If a debtor has an “establishment”—a non-temporary economic activity with people and assets—in another participating State, that State may open territorial or secondary proceedings. Their effects are restricted to assets situated there. This protects local interests without converting a corporate group into a single proceeding.
Recognition is automatic, but not unlimited
Article 19 provides the central rule:
Any judgment opening insolvency proceedings handed down by a court of a Member State which has jurisdiction pursuant to Article 3 shall be recognised in all other Member States from the moment that it becomes effective in the State of the opening of proceedings. —
No exequatur or jurisdictional re-litigation is ordinarily required. Under Article 20, main proceedings produce the same effects elsewhere as in the opening State, unless the Regulation provides otherwise or local secondary proceedings intervene. The main practitioner may exercise its opening-State powers elsewhere, but must respect local realisation procedures and cannot use coercive measures without a local court order.
Article 32 covers judgments concerning the proceeding's course or closure, approved compositions, preservation measures, and judgments directly deriving from insolvency and closely linked with it. Enforcement follows specified Brussels I Recast provisions; ordinary civil judgments remain under that instrument where applicable.
The claim's legal basis decides which instrument applies. In Case C-394/22, Oilchart International, an ordinary action for payment for goods remained within Brussels I Recast even though the debtor was insolvent and the same claim had been lodged in the estate. By contrast, Case C-292/25 held that the opening-State courts have exclusive jurisdiction over an action to establish a claim specifically for lodgement in the insolvency proceeding, even where an action on the same subject was already pending elsewhere.
Article 33 permits refusal where recognition would be manifestly contrary to fundamental principles or constitutional rights. Eurofood held that a flagrant breach of the right to be heard could qualify, but did not permit general reconsideration of COMI or the merits.
Avoidance actions: one forum, two-law control
An avoidance action challenges a transaction detrimental to creditors. Article 6 gives opening-State courts jurisdiction over actions deriving directly from insolvency and closely linked to it, expressly including avoidance actions.
In Seagon v Deko Marty, the Court interpreted the predecessor provision to permit proceedings against a defendant in another Member State:
the courts of the Member State within the territory of which insolvency proceedings have been opened have jurisdiction to decide an action to set a transaction aside by virtue of insolvency that is brought against a person whose registered office is in another Member State. —
Article 7 normally applies the opening State's insolvency law—the lex fori concursus—including its rules on voidness, voidability or unenforceability. Article 16 creates a cumulative defence. The beneficiary must prove both that another Member State's law governs the act and that this law provides no means of challenging it in the particular case.
Under the corresponding predecessor rule, Lutz extended the defence to limitation periods and time bars. Vinyls Italia placed the cumulative burden on the beneficiary and excluded abusive or fraudulent law choice. Those cases remain useful, but current Article 16 controls.
An avoidance judgment that directly derives from and is closely linked to insolvency is recognised under Article 32. The combination avoids forcing the practitioner to relitigate the estate's insolvency basis in every State while preserving the transaction-law defence.
Security rights are protected, not made untouchable
Article 8 generally prevents the opening of proceedings from affecting a creditor's or third party's right in rem over a debtor asset situated in another Member State at the opening date. It covers, among other things, liens, mortgages, rights to obtain satisfaction from an asset, and registered rights enforceable against third parties. Set-off, reservation of title, immovable-property contracts, registered assets, employment contracts, payment systems and pending litigation have additional conflict rules.
This is not an EU security code. Applicable law and the Regulation's location rules determine existence, rank and location. Article 8(4) preserves avoidance: the effect of opening and possible avoidance under Articles 7 and 16 are separate questions.
The 2024 Air Berlin judgment confirmed that a secondary estate comprises assets located in that State when the secondary proceeding opens, not when the main proceeding opened. The secondary practitioner could also challenge an act by the main practitioner. Location and timing therefore determine which estate and practitioner can act.
Company groups are coordinated, not consolidated
Articles 56–60 require practitioners and courts to cooperate and exchange relevant information, subject to confidentiality, procedure and conflicts. They may coordinate administration, hearings and restructuring, including a short protected stay supporting a viable coordinated plan.
A practitioner may request group coordination. The court opens it only if administration is facilitated and no participating member's creditors are likely to be financially disadvantaged. A practitioner has 30 days after notice to object, excluding that member and estate from coordination and costs.
The independent coordinator can mediate, request information, propose recommendations and prepare a group coordination plan. But Article 70 preserves practitioner autonomy, and Article 72 preserves entity separateness:
An insolvency practitioner shall not be obliged to follow in whole or in part the coordinator's recommendations or the group coordination plan. ... [The plan] shall not include recommendations as to any consolidation of proceedings or insolvency estates. —
Coordination can reduce duplication and preserve group value, but it does not pool assets, merge creditor rankings or make one subsidiary answer for another's debts.
Conclusion
Regulation 2015/848 combines qualified universality with targeted territorial safeguards. COMI anchors main jurisdiction; opening and insolvency-derived judgments circulate automatically; and the main practitioner can act across borders. Secondary proceedings, public policy, local procedural limits and specific conflict rules prevent that universality from becoming absolute.
For avoidance and security disputes, classification matters. The forum and insolvency law usually follow the opening, but Article 16 may protect a transaction under its governing law, while Article 8 protects rights in rem without immunising their creation from avoidance. A real case requires the current Annex A proceeding, COMI, establishments, asset location, transaction law and any secondary or group proceeding.
Sources
This article provides general legal information, not advice for a specific matter. Laws, facts and procedural deadlines may change the result. Follow the linked primary sources and obtain local advice before acting.