LexGo

Grounds to reverse a judicial liquidation - recent Luxembourg case law
25/02/2022

On 14 December 2021, the Luxembourg court of appeal rendered a decision setting out the potential grounds for overturning a judicial liquidation of a company based on the right to an effective legal action (“droit au recours effectif”), as provided in the European Convention of Human Rights, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the Luxembourgish Constitution.

In the case at hand, in November 2020, the state prosecutor (“procureur d’Etat”) required the dissolution and liquidation of a Luxembourg public limited liability company due to the lack of a known registered office since 2015 and of a regularly composed board of directors and to the failure to publish its financial statements since the year 2013, based on article 1200-1 of the law of 10 August 1915 relating to commercial companies, as amended (the “Law”), which allows for the judicial liquidation of Luxembourg companies inter alia when those carry out activities in serious breach of the provisions of the Law. 

The lower court judgment having granted the state prosecutor's request by ordering the dissolution with liquidation of the company and appointed a liquidator, the latter sought to appeal such decision, as the company had recently remedied its breaches by appointing a director, setting up a registered office and approving the financial statements for the years 2014 to 2020. In addition, the company had settled the fees of the liquidator appointed by the court.

The appealing party argued that the case-law of the Luxembourg highest jurisdiction (“Cour de Cassation”) which allowed the judge to assess whether the facts of which a company is accused are sufficiently serious to justify its dissolution and liquidation at the time of the request of the state prosecutor, breaches the right to an effective legal action (“droit au recours effectif”).

As a reply to this argument, the court of appeal reminded that within the framework of the review and of the power granted to the courts to determine whether the seriousness of the contraventions justifies a sanction as final as the dissolution of the company, the court may not totally disregard the facts subsequent to the request of the public prosecutor's office (“Ministère Public”), without jeopardizing the right to an effective legal action (“droit à un recours effectif”).

The court of appeal noted that the irregularities committed were remedied, that the costs and fees of the liquidator were paid and that no creditor had produced any liabilities in the liquidation. 

Considering that the appealing company demonstrated its awareness of the seriousness of the deficiencies and its efforts to remedy those, the court of appeal concluded that the breaches no longer justified the sanction of dissolution and liquidation of the company and therefore overruled the decision of judicial liquidation relating to the company.

This decision illustrates the possibility for a Luxembourg company to remedy serious breaches of the Law, even after a judicial decision relating to the liquidation has been rendered.

For additional information in this respect, please contact our specialists.

Voir aussi : CMS Luxembourg ( Mrs. Andreea Antonescu ,  Mr. Jounaïd Perrin )

[+ http://www.cms-db.com]

Mrs. Andreea Antonescu Mrs. Andreea Antonescu
Senior Counsel
[email protected]
Mr. Jounaïd Perrin Mr. Jounaïd Perrin
Managing Associate
[email protected]

Tous les articles Droit des sociétés

Derniers articles Droit des sociétés

Deletion of documents published with the RCS – Recent Luxembourg case law
10/06/2022

Legal proceedings were initiated in front of the Luxembourg district court by a public limited liability company (soci&eac...

Read more

CSSF Circular 22/811 on UCI Administrators
03/06/2022

On 16 May 2022, the CSSF issued Circular 22/811 concerning the authorisation and organisation of entities acting...

CSSF Circular 22/811 on UCI Administrators Read more

Piercing the corporate veil of a Luxembourg limited liability company - Recent case law
05/05/2022

On 3 April 2019, the Luxembourg court of appeal reiterated certain principles applicable for a claimant seeking to pierce ...

Read more

Réforme du droit d'établissement à Luxembourg : à quoi faut-il s'attendre ?
04/05/2022

Le 8 avril 2022, le ministre des Classes Moyennes a déposé le projet de loi n°7989 modifiant l...

Read more

Derniers articles de Mrs. Andreea Antonescu

Accepted invoice principle (“principe de la facture acceptée”) – Application to lawyers’...
04/07/2022

While lawyers may exercise their activity by forming a commercial company, such law firm admitted to the Luxembourg Bar is...

Read more

Deletion of documents published with the RCS – Recent Luxembourg case law
10/06/2022

Legal proceedings were initiated in front of the Luxembourg district court by a public limited liability company (soci&eac...

Read more

Piercing the corporate veil of a Luxembourg limited liability company - Recent case law
05/05/2022

On 3 April 2019, the Luxembourg court of appeal reiterated certain principles applicable for a claimant seeking to pierce ...

Read more

Unilateral termination of agreements - recent Luxembourg case law
12/01/2022

On 2 July 2020, the Luxembourg court of appeal rendered a decision relating to the consequences of the non-fulfilment of a...

Read more

Derniers articles de Mr. Jounaïd Perrin

LexGO Network