Summary:
Original Link:
Original Article:
Case C-46/24, Ayuntamiento de Humanes de Madrid: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 April 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 19, Madrid – Spain) – RB v Ayuntamiento de Humanes de Madrid (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Directive (EU) 2019/1023 – Procedures concerning restructuring, insolvency and discharge of debt – Article 23(4) – Exclusion of claims governed by public law from discharge of debt – Duly justified nature of such an exclusion)
Language of the case: Spanish
Referring court:
Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 19, Madrid
Parties to the main proceedings:
Applicant: RB
Defendant: Ayuntamiento de Humanes de Madrid
Operative part of the order:
1. Article 23(4) of Directive (EU) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on preventive restructuring frameworks, on discharge of debt and disqualifications, and on measures to increase the efficiency of procedures concerning restructuring, insolvency and discharge of debt, and amending Directive (EU) 2017/1132 (Directive on restructuring and insolvency), must be interpreted as meaning that – there must be an assessment, in accordance with the detailed arrangements laid down in the national law concerned, as to whether the exclusion of claims governed by public law from discharge of debt is ‘duly justified’; – it does not preclude a national law which provides for a general exclusion of claims governed by public law from the discharge of debt on the ground that the satisfaction of those claims has particular importance for a fair and inclusive society based on the rule of law, except in circumstances and limited amounts that are very restrictive, provided that that exclusion is ‘duly justified’ under national law.
2. Article 23(4) of Directive 2019/1023 must be interpreted as precluding a national law which lays down a general exclusion of claims governed by public law from discharge of debts, except in circumstances and limited amounts that are very restrictive, without that exclusion being ‘duly justified’, nor even justified by the national legislature.