2026 Video Series European Insolvency Regulation

Video 7 (out of 8)
The System’s Users – Summary
Presenters: Defne Taşman & Bob Wessels

This seventh video turns from the structure of the European Insolvency Regulation to the actors who use it in day-to-day practice and the infrastructure that supports it. The discussion focuses on insolvency practitioners (IPs), debtors in possession (DIP), practitioners in the field of restructuring (PIFORs), courts, foreign creditors. We also discuss insolvency registers and data protection.

The video begins with the IP, who remains one of the central figures of the Regulation. Although national titles differ across Member States, the Regulation uses the common European term “insolvency practitioner”. The Regulation defines the IP by reference to functions rather than professional title. These functions include verifying and admitting claims, representing the collective interests of creditors, administering or liquidating assets, and supervising the debtor’s affairs. The IP derives authority from the lex fori concursus (video 4), which extends across the European Union. Secondary proceedings restrict the authority of the main IP because assets located in the secondary State become subject to the lex concursus secundarii, the law of the Member State where the debtor’s establishment is located and the local IP. Cooperation obligations (video 6) therefore become crucial.

The video then explains the concept of the DIP, which reflects the Regulation’s shift toward restructuring and rescue of the debtor’s business. A DIP remains at least partially in control of the debtor’s assets and affairs even after proceedings have been opened. This aligns with preventive restructuring approaches later reinforced by the Preventive Restructuring Directive 2019/1023. Unlike  a traditional IP, however, the DIP has limited powers. 

The newest figure discussed is the PIFOR, introduced by the Preventive Restructuring Directive 2019/1023. The PIFOR assists debtors and creditors in negotiating restructuring plans, supervises negotiations and may partially control the debtor’s affairs during restructuring discussions. The status of the PIFOR under the Regulation is also discussed.

The role of courts is then examined. Courts determine jurisdiction based on COMI or establishment, supervise insolvency practitioners, open and close proceedings, oversee stays and undertakings, and ensure publication and registration requirements are fulfilled. They also carry important coordination duties 

A substantial part of the video focuses on foreign creditors. The Regulation seeks to eliminate informational and procedural disadvantages for creditors located in other Member States via publication of proceedings and direct notification of all known foreign creditors. The video also highlights divergent case law concerning failures to notify foreign creditors. The video discusses the possibility for creditors to lodge claims in multiple proceedings in which case a creditor who has, in the course of insolvency proceedings, obtained a dividend on his claim, shall share in distributions made in other proceedings only where creditors of the same ranking or category have obtained an equivalent dividend. This rule is commonly known asthe “hotchpot” rule. 

The final part of the video addresses insolvency registers and data protection. Every Member State must maintain a public insolvency register containing basic procedural information. These national registers are interconnected through an EU-wide portal intended to improve accessibility and transparency for foreign creditors. At the same time, insolvency practice increasingly intersects with GDPR obligations. 

Overall, the video shows how the European Insolvency Regulation is not merely a jurisdictional framework, but also a procedural ecosystem. It structures the roles, powers and responsibilities of its users while building a cross-border infrastructure intended to make insolvency proceedings more transparent, coordinated and accessible across the European Union.

Further Reading

    • Bob Wessels and Defne Taşman, The European Insolvency Regulation: An Essential Guide (Edward Elgar Publishing forthcoming 2026) (Elgar Practical Guides)
    • Reinhard Bork and Kristin van Zwieten (eds.), Commentary on The European Insolvency Regulation, Oxford University Press, 2nd ed. (2022)
    • Insolvency Regulation 1346/2000: Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on Insolvency Proceedings [2000] OJ L160/1
    • Insolvency Regulation 2015/848: Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on Insolvency Proceedings (Recast) [2015] OJ L141/19, consolidated version (6 November 2025)
    • Brussels I bis Regulation 1215/2012: Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast), [2012] OJ L 351/1, consolidated version (26 February 2015)
    • Virgos-Schmit Report 1996: Virgos, Miguel and Schmit, Etienne. (1996) Report on the Convention on Insolvency Proceedings. [EU Council of the EU Document] 
    • Ljubljana Appellate Court ([2011] EIRCR (A) 37, 11 May 2011) 
    • Prague High Court (Jens Lemmel, No. 3 VSPH 173.2010, 1 September 2010)
    • Czech Supreme Court Sahin, No. 29 NSCR 13/2010 (31 May 2012
    • Orléans Court of Appeal in Société DHL Global Forward (UK) Ltd (8 October 2009, Rev. proc. coll. 2010 No. 218) 
    • Finnish Supreme Court in Scan Mining Oy (KKO 2013:16, 5 March 2013)
  • Case C-112/10, Procureur-generaal bij het hof van beroep te Antwerpen v Zaza Retail BV (ECLI:EU:C:2011:743)