17Jadecloud-Vilma appealed against the decision of the Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas of 5 November 2009 to the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania), which decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:1. Having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice in [Case 133/78] Gourdain [[1979] ECR 733] and in [Case C-339/07] Seagon [[2009] ECR I-767], do Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000 and Article 1(2)(b) of Regulation No 44/2001 have to be interpreted in such a way that:(a) a national court hearing insolvency proceedings has exclusive jurisdiction to hear an actio Pauliana which derives directly from the insolvency proceedings or is closely connected with them, and exceptions to such jurisdiction can be founded only on other provisions of Regulation No 1346/2000;(b) an actio Pauliana by the sole creditor of an undertaking in respect of which insolvency proceedings have been initiated in one Member State, that:— is brought in another Member State,— arises from a right of claim against third parties assigned to him by the liquidator on the basis of an agreement for consideration, restricting in that way the extent of the liquidator’s claims in the first Member State, and— does not give rise to a danger for other possible creditors,is to be classified as a civil and commercial matter under Article 1(1) of Regulation No 44/2001?2. Does an applicant’s right to a judicial remedy, which is recognised by the Court of Justice as a general principle of European Union law and which is guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, have to be understood and interpreted in such a way that:(a) the national courts having jurisdiction to hear an actio Pauliana (depending upon its connection with the insolvency proceedings) either under Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000 or under Article 2(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 cannot both decline jurisdiction;(b) where a court of one Member State has decided to leave an actio Pauliana unheard for want of jurisdiction, a court of another Member State, seeking to safeguard the applicant’s right to a court, has the right to find of its own motion that it itself has jurisdiction, regardless of the fact that according to the provisions of European Union law concerning the determination of international jurisdiction it cannot so decide?’