EU Regulation 2015/848 (Recast) laid down new rules on the debtor’s ‘centre of main interests’ (COMI) both to make it easier to determine international jurisdiction and to prevent a debtor from fraudulently relocating his/her/its COMI from one Member State to another. However, the terms of the litigation concerning the NIKI case and an in-depth analysis of the Recast demonstrate that this operation has been unsuccessful. This paper argues: first, that the new COMI rules contain logical and teleological flaws; secondly, that the prerequisite that the COMI ‘shall be the place […] which is ascertainable by third parties’ is a duplicate of the prerequisite ‘on a regular basis’; thirdly, that the ‘ascertainability’ prerequisite could even prove to be problematic when insolvency occurs within an enterprise that is multinational in nature; and/or conducts its relationships with suppliers and customers through digital networks; and/or deals with a business having glocal considerations. Consequently, this paper puts forward a proposal for a better regulation that would aim both at fixing the regulatory flaws and at addressing more efficiently insolvencies within multinational, digital and glocal enterprises.

中文翻译：

---

新欧洲 COMI 规则之谜：重新思考跨国、数字和全球企业时代的 COMI

欧盟第 2015/848 号条例（重铸）制定了关于债务人“主要利益中心”（COMI）的新规则，既可以更容易地确定国际管辖权，又可以防止债务人以欺诈手段将其 COMI 从一个成员国转移状态到另一个。然而，NIKI案的诉讼条款和对Recast的深入分析表明，该操作并未成功。本文认为：第一，新的COMI规则包含逻辑和目的论缺陷；其次，COMI“应是第三方可确定的地点[……]”的先决条件是“定期”先决条件的重复；第三，当跨国企业发生破产时，“可确定性”的先决条件甚至会被证明是有问题的；和/或通过数字网络与供应商和客户建立关系；和/或与具有全球本地考虑因素的企业打交道。因此，本文提出了一项更好的监管建议，旨在修复监管缺陷并更有效地解决跨国、数字和全球企业中的破产问题。