Droit international général

The Oberlandesgericht of Düsseldorf has recently lodged a request for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Article 97(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark (Case C-617/15, Hummel Holding). Specifically, the request concerns the meaning of the term “establishment” as used in the Regulation.

According to Article 97(1), proceedings in respect of the actions and claims referred to in Article 96 — ie infringement actions, actions for declaration of non-infringement etc. — “shall be brought in the courts of the Member State in which the defendant is domiciled or, if he is not domiciled in any of the Member States, in which he has an establishment”.

The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. The applicant, a Danish company, sues a German company before a German court, alleging that the latter has infringed its Community trade mark. The defendant complains that German courts lack jurisdiction, relying on the circumstance that the German company is a subsidiary of a Dutch company, which is itself a subsidiary of an American holding company.

In connection with the foregoing, the Oberlandesgericht asks the ECJ to clarify “(u)nder which circumstances is a legally distinct second-tier subsidiary, with its seat in an EU Member State, of an undertaking that itself has no seat in the European Union to be considered as an ‘establishment’ of that undertaking within the meaning of Article 97(1)” of the Regulation.

This post has been written by Ilaria Aquironi.

On 15 April 2016 the Law Faculty of the University of Santiago del Compostela will host an international conference on Security Rights and the European Insolvency Regulation: from Conflicts of Laws towards Harmonization. The event is part of the Security Rights and the European Insolvency Regulation Project.

Speakers include Paul Beaumont (Univ. of Aberdeen), Francisco Garcimartín Alferez (Univ. Autonoma of Madrid), Juana Pulgar Esquerra (Univ. Complutense of Madrid) and Anna Veneziano (Unidroit).

With a view to promote scientific debate on the topic, a call for papers has been issued. The organizers will consider papers addressing, in particular: (a) Security Rights, Set-Off, Transactional Avoidance and Conflict-of-Laws Issues; (b) Security Rights and Insolvency Law in National Legislation, in particular taking into account the New Approach to Business Failure and Insolvency as proposed by the 2014 European Commission Recommendation; (c) Harmonization Trends at an international level.

Submissions should be sent by 11 March 2016 either to Marta Carballo Fidalgo (marta.carballo@usc.es) or to Laura Carballo Piñeiro (laura.carballo@usc.es).

Further information about the project is available here. The call for papers can be downloaded here.

On 15 April 2016 the Law Faculty of the University of Santiago del Compostela hosts an international conference on Security Rights and the European Insolvency Regulation: from Conflicts of Laws towards Harmonization. The event is part of the Security Rights and the European Insolvency Regulation Project.

Speakers include Paul Beaumont (Univ. of Aberdeen), Francisco Garcimartín Alferez (Univ. Autonoma of Madrid), Juana Pulgar Esquerra (Univ. Complutense of Madrid) and Anna Veneziano (Unidroit).

With a view to promote scientific debate on the topic, a call for papers has been issued. The organizers will consider papers addressing, in particular: (a) Security Rights, Set-Off, Transactional Avoidance and Conflict-of-Laws Issues; (2) Security Rights and Insolvency Law in National Legislation, in particular taking into account the New Approach to Business Failure and Insolvency as proposed by the 2014 European Commission Recommendation; (3) Harmonization Trends at an international level.

Submissions should be sent by 11 March 2016 either to Marta Carballo Fidalgo (marta.carballo@usc.es) or to Laura Carballo Piñeiro (laura.carballo@usc.es).

Further information about the project is available here. The call for papers can be downloaded here.

Il 15 gennaio 2016 la Serbia ha depositato il proprio strumento di adesione alla Convenzione dell’Aja del 19 ottobre 1996 sulla competenza, la legge applicabile, l’efficacia delle decisioni e la cooperazione in materia di responsabilità genitoriale e di misure di protezione dei minori.

La Convenzione, che è in vigore per altri 42 Stati, fra cui l’Italia (dal 1° gennaio 2016: si veda questo post), entrerà in vigore per la Serbia il 1° novembre 2016, conformemente a quanto previsto all’art. 61, par. 2, lett. b), della Convenzione stessa.

Questo lungo lasso di tempo si spiega alla luce dell’art. 58, par. 3, della Convenzione, il quale stabilisce che per gli Stati a cui è data la possibilità di aderire alla Convenzione (tutti gli Stati che non erano membri della Conferenza dell’Aja all’epoca dell’adozione del testo), l’adesione è efficace solo nei riguardi di quegli Stati contraenti che non abbiano obiettato all’adesione nei sei mesi successivi alla notifica della stessa.

Clotilde Camus, La distinction du droit public et du droit privé et le conflit de lois, L.G.D.J., 2015, ISBN: 9782275047676, pp. 396, Euro 45.

[Dal sito dell’editore] – Cette étude a pour objet d’analyser les implications des mutations de la distinction du droit public et du droit privé pour le droit international privé, et plus particulièrement pour le conflit de lois. En effet, dans la mesure où l’on enseigne traditionnellement que la méthode du conflit de lois prend pour point de départ la summa divisio, ses transformations influencent nécessairement le conflit de lois.  Plus précisément, cette recherche est fondée sur le constat de la résistance de la distinction du droit public et du droit privé, en dépit des remises en cause récurrentes dont elle fait l’objet. Quand bien même son tracé et son rôle évoluent sans cesse, elle ne nous semble pas avoir perdu sa raison d’être, tant que subsiste la res publica. Il nous a dès lors paru pertinent de transposer à la summa divisio la formule de Maurice Hauriou relative à l’existence de la juridiction administrative : «c’est peine perdue de la discuter ; au contraire, il faut en accepter la donnée et en observer le jeu».  L’observation du jeu de la distinction du droit public et du droit privé nous a conduit à analyser ses mutations à partir de trois paradigmes – libéral, post-étatique et constitutionnel -, chacun éclairant sous un jour particulier l’opposition du droit public et du droit privé. Il a alors fallu étudier au sein de chacun de ces trois paradigmes l’influence de ces évolutions sur le conflit de lois.

L’indice completo è consultabile al seguente indirizzo. Maggiori informazioni sono disponibili sul sito dell’editore.

In Ecobank Transnational v Tanoh, the Court of Appeal refused an anti-enforcement injunction because of the applicant’s delay in filing it. Nigel Brook reviews the judgment’s findings on the issue of the anti-enforcement injunction here. The issue in this appeal is whether the High Court was wrong to refuse to grant Ecobank Transnational Incorporated (“Ecobank”), an injunction restraining Mr Thierry Tanoh (“Mr Tanoh”) from enforcing two judgments which he had obtained in Togo and Côte d’Ivoire. In substance the case concerned the relationship between arbitration, proceedings in the court in ordinary, and submission: it is to the latter that I turn my attention in this posting.

The Brussels regime does not apply – at stake is the application of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, which reads in relevant section

“33 For the purposes of determining whether a judgment given by a court of an overseas country should be recognised or enforced in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, the person against whom the judgment was given shall not be regarded as having submitted to the jurisdiction of the court by reason only of the fact that he appeared (conditionally or otherwise) in the proceedings for all or any one or more of the following purposes, namely

(a) to contest the jurisdiction of the court;

(b) to ask the court to dismiss or stay the proceedings on the ground that the dispute in question should be submitted to arbitration or to the determination of the courts of another country.”

Whilst the section states that a person shall not be regarded as having submitted by reason only of the facts there mentioned it is silent as to what additional facts are sufficient to establish submission. The Court of appeal confirms the feeling expressed in earlier case-law that Section 33 needs to be applied in parallel with Article 18 of the Brussels Convention, now Article 26 of the Brussels I Recast (and before that, Article 24 in the Brussels I Regulation). That is because Section 33 is largely derived from Article 18 of the Brussels Convention.

In the High Court judgment Burnton LJ said that it would be unfortunate if the principles applied by the courts of England and Wales on whether a litigant had submitted to the jurisdiction of a foreign court in non-EU cases were different from the principles applied by the Court of Justice, and therefore those courts, in cases under the Brussels and Lugano Conventions and now the Judgments Regulation.

In current appeal, Clarke LJ held (at 66) ‘I would go further. The decision of the court in Harada in relation to section 33 was heavily influenced by the decision of the European Court in relation to Article 18 of the Brussels Convention. But, now that section 33 has been interpreted in the way that it has, it cannot be right that it should bear a different meaning in cases outwith the European context.‘

Submission was not found to exist.

Do be aware of the limits to the relevant findings: Section 33 was largely borrowed, it appears, from the Brussels Convention. Many parts of English private international law, statutory or not, are no so borrowed. In those areas, the courts of England happily continue to follow their own course.

Geert.

In un decreto del 26 agosto 2015, il Giudice Tavolare del Tribunale di Trieste ha annoverato l’ingiunzione di pagamento europea di cui al regolamento n. 1896/2006, dichiarata esecutiva in conformità all’art. 18 del regolamento stesso, tra le possibili fonti del diritto all’ipoteca giudiziale ex art. 2820 del codice civile, ammettendo che sulla base di essa possa essere autorizzata l’iscrizione del relativo diritto nei registri del conservatore immobiliare.

Una tale conclusione verrebbe a discendere, nell’opinione del giudice disponente, dai principi posti alla base dello stesso regolamento n. 1896/2006, il quale – pur configurando, in termini espressi, il procedimento da esso istituito come un meccanismo supplementare e facoltativo rispetto a quelli previsti dalla legislazione nazionale per il recupero di crediti non contestati – mira, tuttavia, a garantire l’effettività della tutela del credito così realizzata.

Tale effettività, in particolare, andrebbe preservata, anche per via interpretativa, riconoscendo ai creditori che decidano di avvalersene la possibilità di rivendicare, sulla base dell’ingiunzione, i diritti e le facoltà che spetterebbero loro in base a un analogo titolo nazionale.

Una conclusione opposta, che negasse l’attitudine dell’ingiunzione europea a fungere da base per l’iscrizione di un’ipoteca giudiziale nei confronti del debitore ingiunto, si porrebbe del resto in contrasto, ad avviso del giudice triestino, con le indicazioni date dalla Corte di Giustizia nel caso Szyrocka, poiché finirebbe col dissuadere il creditore dall’avvalersi del procedimento europeo, diminuendone l’appetibilità rispetto al più favorevole procedimento nazionale esperibile in situazioni analoghe (segnatamente, il procedimento di ingiunzione di cui agli articoli 633 e seguenti del codice di procedura civile).

In definitiva, stando al provvedimento, è la necessità di assicurare l’effettivo esercizio dei diritti conferiti dal diritto dell’Unione che impone di riconoscere all’ingiunzione europea di pagamento non opposta – al pari del decreto ingiuntivo non opposto (cfr. l’art. 647 del codice di procedura civile e l’art. 2817 e seguenti del codice civile) – l’efficacia di titolo per l’iscrizione dell’ipoteca giudiziale.

Ana Fernández Pérez, Funciones de las cláusulas de excepción en el proceso de localización de la norma en conflicto, in Revista española de derecho internacional (REDI), 2015, pp. 83-109.

[Abstract] – An important aspect of flexibility is that, without abandoning the localization process, it counteracts the rigidity of the connections of the rule of conflict that may appoint, in certain circumstances, a legal system with weak links to the assumption and producing adverse situations. In national and international codification of private international law some texts have turned to so-called “exception clause” from which the judge has an institutionalized power to determine the applicable law, as long as the situation  provides unequivocally a very loose connection with another law designated by the rule of conflict laws. The exception clauses designed for specific situations have been proved to be useful and, therefore, have been welcomed as an important correction instrument and as the best mechanism for specialization due to the degree of heterogeneity. Its use helps to consolidate the necessary certainty and predictability of the rules of conflict and therefore the satisfaction of the proximity principle. Naturally, this loca-tion must be understood in a material sense character. The exception clause will deploy its usefulness if it acts as a technical localization inside the confrontational mechanism that seeks the right answer, given the physical objectives that seeks solution of the case.

Lazar v Allianz, Case C-350/14, was held on 10 December last. It addressed the issue of ‘ricochet’ damage in the Rome II Regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations. Ricochet or ‘reflective’ or ‘indirect’ losses occur when someone suffers losses as a result of a tort directly causing damage to someone else.

The request has been made in a dispute between Mr Lazar, who resides in Romania, and the Italian insurance company Allianz SpA regarding compensation for material and non-material damage which Mr Lazar claims to have suffered in jure proprio by reason of the death of his daughter, a Romanian national who was resident in Italy, which occurred in Italy as a result of a road traffic accident caused by an unidentified vehicle. For Mr Lazar, it is more interesting for Italian law to be considered the lex causae.

The Opinion of Wahl AG neatly summarised the two opposing views: (at 40-41 of his Opinion):

According to the first view, (…) material and non-material damage suffered by the family members of a person who has died in another Member State does not necessarily constitute indirect consequences of the tort/delict for the purposes of Article 4(1) of the Rome II Regulation. It would follow in particular that, because it is based on an obligation that is distinct from the obligation as between the opposing party and the person who died in the accident, a claim for compensation in respect of material rights claimed by the close relatives of a person who has died as a result of a traffic accident which occurred in the State of the court seised must be assessed by reference to the law of the place in which the damage sustained by those relatives occurred, namely the place of their habitual residence, unless it can be demonstrated that, in accordance with Article 4(3) of the Rome II Regulation, it is clear from all the circumstances of the case that there are manifestly closer connections with another country.

According to the second view (…) the damage sustained, in their country of residence, by the close relatives of a person who has died in a road accident which occurred in the State of the court seised must be regarded as constituting indirect consequences of the damage suffered by the immediate victim of the accident. The term ‘country in which the damage occurs’ must be interpreted as referring to the place which caused the damage, which, in the main proceedings, is the place of the road accident.

He eventually opined in favour of the second view, taking inspiration ia from CJEU case-law on Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Recast (previously Article 5(3) Brussels I)- even though at 51 he cautioned against lifting interpretation from the jurisdictional Regulation for use in the applicable law Regulation. His main arguments were as follows:

(at 74) the interpretation whereby the general rule under which the expression ‘country in which the damage occurs’ in Article 4(1) of the Rome II Regulation extends to the place of the direct damage — in this case the place of the fatal collision — has the benefit of simplicity and objectivity where all the damage alleged actually originates from the same source.

(at 75) this is consistent with the foreseeability pursued by the drafting of the Rome II Regulation. In most cases, the person liable is able to anticipate the consequences in other countries of his conduct or of the conduct of persons for whom he is responsible. Similarly, the victim is generally informed of the legal context to which he was exposed or exposed his property. In other words, both the person liable and the victim were informed and took the necessary steps, in particular with regard to insurance, in connection with the applicable law in the country or countries in which damage might potentially occur.

(at 76) the general rule for determining the applicable law in the Rome II Regulation is characterised by neutrality. Taking the example of the material damage suffered by the survivors of a person who has died as a result of a traffic accident, it may be considered that the neutrality of the law would be jeopardised in so far as that damage is still located in the victim’s place of residence. (The AG notes that in other instances Rome II is not neutral: he refers in particular to Articles 6 (on acts of competition) and 7 (on environmental damage).

(at 77) such an interpretation is also consistent with the other idea underlying connecting factors in private international law, namely the idea of proximity, which is intended, as far as possible, to connect a situation to the law of the country with which it is most closely connected. Whilst the place of the accident is undeniably related to the other components of the liability, the domicile of the indirect victim is not necessarily so related. 

(at 79) the Rome II Regulation introduces corrective mechanisms which make it possible, in several respects, to avoid the apparent rigidity of the rule of the place in which the damage occurs.

Conclusion (at 83) ‘The term ‘place in which the damage occurs’ must, further to the case-law on the Brussels Convention and the Brussels I Regulation, be understood as meaning the place of the occurrence of the event, in this case the road accident, which directly produced its harmful effects upon the person who is the immediate victim of that event.’

The Court itself, much more succinctly, agrees.

A singular event, therefore, leads to one applicable law, even if its ricochet effect causes damage elsewhere. That such damage is actionable separately (for it may create multiple obligations in tort) or even iure proprio does not impact that analysis.

A word of caution, however: the judgment only holds for singular events. More complex events, especially of a continuing kind, are much more likely to create direct harmful effects in a multitude of persons, potentially therefore also leading to more loci damni. The ricochet effect therefore is highly likely to echo again at Kirchberg.

Geert.

On 25 and 26 February 2016 a conference titled From common rules to best practices in European Civil Procedure will be held in Rotterdam, jointly organised by the Erasmus University and the  Max Planck Institute for European, International and Regulatory Procedural Law of Luxembourg.

The conference will bring together experts in the field of civil procedure from the European Union and beyond. It seeks to facilitate in-depth discussion and sharing of knowledge, practical experiences, and solutions, with the aim of reinforcing mutual trust and contributing to the further development of European civil procedure.

The focus is on how to move beyond common rules and towards best practices that give body to mutual trust and judicial cooperation, which can in turn feed the further development of the European civil procedure framework from the bottom up.

For more information see here.

Horatia Muir Watt, Private International Law and Public Law, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015, ISBN 9781782547792, pp. 2072, GBP 605.

[Dal sito dell’editore] – The conspicuous absence of private international law from the current global governance debate may be traced in part to its traditional ‘public law taboo’, fed by liberal understandings of statehood and its characteristic public/private divide, in the context of the modern schism between the public and private branches of international law. Alongside an original introduction, the materials assembled in this important collection are of immediate interest to both public and private international lawyers, and more broadly to all those interested in new forms of global governance and the theory of law beyond the state.

Ulteriori informazioni, compreso l’indice dell’opera, sono disponibili qui.

R (Seiont, Gwyrfai and Llyfni Anglers’ Society) v Natural Resources Wales has a long history. That’s not meant to be a fairy tale opening: it actually has legal relevance.

Article 2(2) of the environmental liability Directive provides the following definition: “ ‘damage’ means a measurable adverse change in a natural resource or measurable impairment of a natural resource service which may occur directly or indirectly.” ‘Environmental damage’ is further defined in Article 2(1), providing a variety of layers which need ‘unpacking’ in the words of Hickinbottom J. He concludes, after lengthy and instructive analysis, that  “damage” as defined in article 2(2) of the EL Directive is restricted to a deterioration in the environmental situation, and does not in addition include the prevention of an existing, already damaged environmental state from achieving a level which is acceptable in environmental terms – or a deceleration in such achievement. Since “environmental damage” is a subset of “damage”; “environmental damage” necessarily has that same restriction.

The judgment is very considered and there is not much point in repeating it here: please refer to the text for a thorough read on the ELD, the water framework Directive, habitats and much more.

Geert.

Règlement UE n° 2015/848 du 20 mai 2015 relatif aux procédures d’insolvabilité, a cura di Cécile Lisanti e Laura Sautonie-Laguionie, Société de législation comparée, 2016, pp. 430, ISBN 9782365170550, Euro 430.

[Dal sito dell’editore] Lorsqu’une entreprise développe son activité sur le sol de plusieurs États membres de l’Union Européenne, et qu’elle fait l’objet d’une procédure d’insolvabilité, le droit applicable est défini par le Règlement (UE) n°2015/848 du 20 mai 2015, qui opère une refonte du Règlement (CE) n°1346/2000 du 29 mai 2000. L’intérêt pratique de ce texte est manifeste puisqu’il détermine quelle juridiction est compétente pour ouvrir la procédure, quelle sera la loi applicable et quelle portée aura la procédure dans les différents États intéressés. Le Règlement insolvabilité est aussi intéressant sur le plan de la construction européenne puisque, sans procéder à une harmonisation des règles matérielles en la matière, il met en place des solutions garantissant la sécurité juridique, favorisant la circulation des décisions de justice, et invitant à une coopération des organes de la procédure mais aussi des juridictions. Il est donc un outil original dont l’ouvrage propose une étude article par article, qui renseigne sur le sens des dispositions, l’état du contentieux et les enjeux de leur application. Destiné tant aux professionnels qu’aux enseignants-chercheurs et aux étudiants, il permet de connaître le droit européen des procédures d’insolvabilité. 

Maggiori informazioni a questo indirizzo.

Sono state rese note il 23 dicembre 2015 le conclusioni dell’Avvocato generale Juliane Kokott nella causa Granarolo, un procedimento pregiudiziale concernente l’interpretazione del regolamento n. 44/2001 sulla competenza giurisdizionale e il riconoscimento delle decisioni in materia civile e commerciale (Bruxelles I).

Il quesito sottoposto alla Corte riguarda l’art. 5 del regolamento, corrispondente oggi all’art. 7 del regolamento n. 1215/2012 (Bruxelles I bis). Si tratta della norma che prevede una serie di competenze “speciali”, alternative al foro generale del domicilio del convenuto e fondate sull’esistenza di un nesso particolarmente stretto fra il giudice di un dato luogo e la lite di cui detto giudice è investito.

Il rinvio mira ad ottenere un chiarimento circa la sfera di applicazione delle regole attributive contemplate all’art. 5 n. 1 e n. 2 del regolamento, riguardanti, rispettivamente, la “materia contrattuale” e la “materia degli illeciti civili dolosi e colposi” (nel regolamento Bruxelles I bis, si tratta, rispettivamente, dell’art. 7 n. 1 e n. 2). Più specificamente, viene chiesto alla Corte di precisare se debba aversi riguardo all’una o all’altra disposizione quando si faccia questione della responsabilità affacciata nei riguardi di un imprenditore per aver interrotto in modo brusco, senza un adeguato preavviso, una relazione commerciale stabile, e ciò al di fuori dell’ipotesi in cui tale interruzione costituisca la reazione all’inadempimento degli obblighi dell’altra parte. Una siffatta responsabilità è prevista, in Francia, dall’art. L 442-6 del Code de commerce.

Secondo l’Avvocato generale, un’azione di questo genere, riferita all’interruzione di relazioni commerciali stabili “non inserite in un contratto quadro”, e in mancanza di un patto di esclusiva, deve considerarsi compresa nella materia degli illeciti civili dolosi o colposi e comporta dunque l’operatività dell’art. 5 n. 3, del regolamento n. 44/2001.

Per giungere a tale conclusione, l’Avvocato generale fa leva principalmente sulla sentenza Brogsitter. In essa, la Corte di giustizia ha affermato che, per delimitare la sfera applicativa del foro della materia contrattuale, distinguendolo da quello degli illeciti civili, è decisivo stabilire se “l’interpretazione [di un] contratto che vincola il convenuto al ricorrente appare indispensabile per stabilire … l’illiceità del comportamento … rimprovera[to] al secondo”. Una tale interpretazione, ha osservato la Corte in quel frangente, risulta indispensabile in materia di contratti qualora “le azioni intentate … nel procedimento principale abbiano per oggetto una domanda di risarcimento la cui causa può essere ragionevolmente considerata una violazione dei diritti e delle obbligazioni del contratto che vincola le parti …, circostanza che ne renderebbe indispensabile la presa in considerazione per decidere sul ricorso”.

Nel caso di specie, osserva l’Avvocato generale, il diritto al risarcimento invocato dall’attore si ricollega all’improvvisa interruzione di una relazione commerciale stabile nel cui contesto un’impresa italiana ha compiuto varie forniture di prodotti a un’impresa francese, in assenza, tuttavia, di un contratto quadro che disciplinasse nel complesso la relazione commerciale delle parti.

In tali circostanze, prosegue l’Avvocato generale, la questione decisiva, quella consistente nel sapere se l’interruzione della relazione commerciale in questione sia stata accompagnata, o meno, da un ragionevole termine di preavviso, “non dipende … dalla valutazione di accordi tra le parti”, ma si collega semmai ad “una norma di legge che, nell’interesse di ordinate relazioni commerciali, ne disapprova ogni improvvisa interruzione, prevedendo, in questi casi, diritti al risarcimento per l’ex partner commerciale”.

Nel caso in esame, si legge ancora nelle conclusioni, non si discute di violazioni contrattuali, “bensì del rifiuto dell’ex partner commerciale di stipulare contratti”. Si potrebbe parlare, in effetti, di importi “contrattuali” solamente “qualora la parte che interrompe la relazione commerciale eccepisca eventuali violazioni contrattuali pregresse da parte del creditore nell’ambito di detta relazione, per giustificare così l’interruzione di quest’ultima e sottrarsi al relativo obbligo di risarcimento”. Senonché, rimarca l’Avvocato generale, “un siffatto motivo di difesa – quand’anche sollevato mediante eccezione … – non modificherebbe la natura della pretesa risarcitoria e non la trasformerebbe in una pretesa contrattuale”.

La pretesa azionata in giudizio va dunque qualificata come extracontrattuale, in linea con quanto fatto dalla stessa Corte di giustizia nella sentenza Tacconi in relazione alla responsabilità connessa all’interruzione di trattative precontrattuali: nell’uno come nell’altro caso – stando all’Avvocato generale – mancano quegli “impegni liberamente assunti da una parte nei confronti di un’altra” che, sin dalla sentenza Handte, rappresentano, per il giudice dell’Unione, il proprium della materia contrattuale.

Lilydale v Meyn at the Ontario Court of Appeal (held April 2015 but only reaching me now – thank you to Michael Shafler and colleagues for flagging) is a useful reminder of the common law approach to determining lex contractus in the absence of choice of law. (Here of course an inter-State conflicts issue between Ontario and Alberta). Laskin JA refers in support to english precedent, summarised in quoted passage of Cheshire’s Private International Law:

The court must take into account, for instance, the following matters: the domicil and even the residence of the parties; the national character of a corporation and the place where its principal place of business is situated; the place where the contract is made and the place where it is to be performed; the style in which the contract is drafted, as, for instance, whether the language is appropriate to one system of law, but inappropriate to another; the fact that a certain stipulation is valid under one law but void under another … the economic connexion of the contract with some other transaction … the nature of the subject matter or its situs; the head office of an insurance company, whose activities range over many countries; and, in short, any other fact which serves to localize the contract.

The motion judge’s findings on the relevant criteria were held to be reasonable, as was her overall conclusion that the closest and most real connection to the contract was Ontario.

The case is an interesting reminder of what in the Rome I Regulation is now the final resort, should none of the relevant presumptions in Article 4 apply.

An interesting point in the judgment is the main reason why parties prefer one law over the other: at 3: ‘The issue is important because Alberta and Ontario have different ultimate limitation periods. Even taking into account discoverability, Alberta’s ultimate limitation period is 10 years; Ontario’s is 15 years. The parties agreed that Lilydale’s cause of action arose no later than August 31, 1994. Therefore, as Lilydale did not sue until January 2006, if Alberta law applied, its action was statute-barred; if Ontario law applied, it was not.’

Aren’t statutes of limitation under Canadian conflict of laws, covered by lex fori, as procedural issues, and not, as is seemingly accepted here, lex causae?

Geert.

The CJEU’s finding in Shell, was applied by the Court of first instance at Antwerp in a judgment from October last, which has just reached me. (I have not yet found it in relevant databases (not uncommon for Belgian case-law), but I do have a copy for those interested). The case concerned debunkered off-spec fuel, off the ship Else Maria Theresa (her engines apparently having been affected by the oil being off-spec), blended into /with a much larger amount of bunker oil.

The court applied the Shell /Carens criteria, leading to a finding of waste. In brief, the blending in the case at issue was not, the court held, standing practice in the bunkering /debunkering business, and /or a commercially driven, readily available preparation of off-spec for purchase by eager buyers. Rather, a quick-fix solution to get rid off unwanted fuel.

The judgment (which is being appealed I imagine) emphasises the case-by-case approach needed for the determination of ‘waste’.

Geert.

On 22 October 2015, the ECJ rendered its judgment in Thomas Cook Belgium (case C-245/14), a case concerning the interpretation of Regulation No 1896/2006 creating a European order for payment procedure.

The request for a preliminary ruling arose from a dispute concerning a contract concluded between a Belgian travel agency and an Austrian company.

The latter, alleging that the travel agency had not performed its contractual obligations, applied for a European order for payment before the Vienna District Court for commercial matters. The jurisdiction of this court was asserted by the applicant on the basis of Article 5(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 (Brussels I), now corresponding to Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 (Brussels Ia), which lays down a head of “special” jurisdiction for matters relating to a contract.

The order for payment was issued and served on the defendant. The latter lodged a statement of opposition, but did so only after the expiry of the time-limit stated in Article 16(2) of Regulation No 1896/2006. Relying on Article 20 of the Regulation, the defendant then applied for the review of the order, claiming that the application form did not mention the choice-of-forum clause featured in the contract, which conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Belgian courts.

Seised of the application for review, the Vienna Commercial Court asked the ECJ to clarify the interpretation of Article 20(2) of Regulation No 1896/2006, whereby the defendant is entitled to apply for a review only “where the order for payment was clearly wrongly issued, having regard to the requirements laid down in this Regulation, or due to other exceptional circumstances”. Pursuant to Recital 25 of the Regulation, such other exceptional circumstances “could include a situation where the European order for payment was based on false information provided in the application form”.

In the judgment, the ECJ begins by noting that, according to Article 12(3), once the European order for payment has been served on the defendant, the latter is deemed to be aware of his options to pay the amount indicated in the order, or lodge a statement of opposition in accordance with article 16, within 30 days of the service.

In the Court’s view, since the Regulation does not provide for the defendant’s participation in the procedure, the second option is aimed at compensate this party, by giving him the chance to contest the claim after the order has been issued.

The Court goes on by inferring from the heading of Article 20 that, once the time-limit for opposition has elapsed, no review is allowed, save in “exceptional circumstances”. Accordingly, this provision requires a strict interpretation.

In light of this, the court seised of a request for review must ascertain whether the order was “clearly wrongly issued, having regard to the requirements laid down in the Regulation” (which include, as indicated in Article 7(2), the ground on which the jurisdiction of the court having issued the order is based). Pursuant to Article 8, the court is merely required to verify, on the basis of the application form, whether the claim appears to be founded, and whether the requirements set forth in the Regulation are met.

In this connection, the ECJ notes that under Article 23 of the Brussels I Regulation, the jurisdiction conferred under a choice-of-court agreement is normally exclusive in nature, but equally observes that, according to Recital 16 of Regulation No 1896/2006, the court seised is required to examine the application, including the issue of jurisdiction, solely on the basis of the information provided in the application form, without having to verify them.

After all, the Court adds, the defendant is informed of this fact in the order, as well as of his duty to lodge a statement of opposition under Article 16 to prevent the order from becoming enforceable, as indicated in Article 12(4)(a) and (b). As a consequence, the defendant is in a position to easily object to the jurisdiction of the seised court within the deadline provided for in the Regulation, by simply alleging that the information provided by the claimant in the application form is false or incorrect, without being required to specify the reasons for the objection.

According to the ECJ, this facilitation is to be read in light of the purpose of the Regulation, namely the need to “reconcile the swiftness and efficiency of court proceedings, whilst observing the rights of defence”. Actually, the assessment of a jurisdiction clause “may give rise to complex points of law, such as the validity…” of the clause itself, which would require a broader examination than that provided under Article 8 of the Regulation.

The conclusion, accordingly, is that “having regard to the circumstances laid down in Regulation No 1896/2006”, the European order for payment in question cannot be considered “clearly wrongly issued”.

The Court goes on to discuss the meaning of the expression “exceptional circumstances”, as employed in Article 20(2).

As mentioned above, Recital 25 clarifies that such exceptional circumstances include a situation where the order was based on false information provided by the claimant in the application form. In the present case, since the defendant based his claim for review on the fact that the applicant did not mention the choice-of-forum clause on which both parties agreed, he could not ignore the aforementioned clause at the time of the service of the order. Accordingly, from the Court’s standpoint, he could have been able to promptly detect the false information and lodge a timely statement of opposition. Such a possibility prevents him from relying on Article 20, given that this provision is not aimed at providing the defendant with a second opportunity to oppose the claim, as clearly stated by Recital 25.

Therefore, in the opinion of the ECJ, “it cannot be considered that the order for payment was wrongly issued due to other exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Article 20(2) of Regulation No 1896/2006”.

To support this conclusion, the Court also refers to Recitals 9 and 29, and to Article 1(1)(a), stating that granting a review would undermine the objective of the Regulation, that is “to simplify, speed up and reduce the costs of litigation in cross-border cases concerning uncontested pecuniary claims by creating a European order for payment procedure”, and “to establish a uniform rapid and efficient mechanism for the recovery of such claims”.

Con la sentenza 13 novembre 2015, n. 23291, la Corte di cassazione si è pronunciata in ordine all’individuazione della legge applicabile al cognome della moglie a seguito del divorzio.

Il giudice di prime cure, oltre a dichiarare lo scioglimento del matrimonio e a statuire sulle domande alimentari, aveva inibito alla moglie, cittadina svedese, l’uso del cognome del marito in applicazione dell’art. 5 della legge 1° dicembre 1970 n. 898 sul divorzio. La moglie era allora ricorsa in appello lamentando, fra le altre cose, l’inibizione all’uso del cognome del marito. In appello, la censura è stata ritenuta fondata: la moglie, stando ai giudici dell’appello, aveva acquisito il cognome del marito in forza della legge svedese, e questa rimette alla moglie la scelta di mantenere o meno detto cognome.

Di qui il ricorso per cassazione proposto dal marito, secondo il quale, con riferimento all’uso del cognome, la Corte d’Appello aveva errato nel ritenere che la legge italiana dovesse regolare il divorzio ma non il diritto all’uso del nome.

La Suprema Corte, rigettando il ricorso, dichiara di condividere le conclusioni raggiunte in appello, salvo modificare l’indicazione delle ragioni poste a fondamento della ritenuta applicabilità della legge svedese.

Osserva inizialmente il giudice di legittimità che pur non essendo il diritto al nome materia regolata dal diritto dell’Unione europea, “le norme nazionali, tuttavia, come precisato dalla sentenza Garcia Avello … devono venire applicate in modo da non ostacolare la libera circolazione tra le persone” nelle fattispecie a carattere transnazionale.

Senonché, osserva la Corte, è da escludere che nel caso di specie vengano in rilievo le norme di conflitto poste dalla legge 31 maggio 1995 n. 218, di riforma del sistema italiano di diritto internazionale privato (e in particolare l’art. 24, in tema di diritti della personalità), occorrendo piuttosto fare riferimento alla Convenzione di Monaco del 5 settembre 1980 sulla legge applicabile ai cognomi e ai nomi (di cui si veda qui il testo francese, allegato alla legge italiana di autorizzazione alla ratifica ed esecuzione). In particolare, la Convenzione di Monaco, all’art. 1, prevede che il nome e il cognome dell’individuo sono determinati dalla propria legge di cittadinanza, senza che rilevi (come invece accade in base all’art. 24, comma 2, della legge n. 218/1995) la legge regolatrice dell’eventuale rapporto di famiglia da cui dipenda il diritto all’uso del nome.

È su queste basi che la Corte conclude che il nome della moglie sia soggetto alla legge svedese. Quest’esito, osserva la Corte, non è inficiato dal fatto che la donna, pluricittadina, abbia nel contempo la nazionalità di un paese diverso dalla Svezia, essendo comunque quest’ultimo il paese con cui l’interessata — ai sensi dell’art. 19, comma 2, della legge n. 218/1995 — presenta il collegamento più stretto: in tale paese, in particolare, è stato celebrato il matrimonio, è nato il figlio della coppia e si è svolta in via prevalente la vita familiare.

I have reported some time ago on the reverse logistics case involving Shell and Carens. As noted in that post, the CJEU instructed the court at Rotterdam to gauge the ‘true intentions’ of Shell vis-a-vis the contaminated fuel which it had taken back from one of its clients (Carens).

The Court at Rotterdam issued its final judgment on 23 December last, truly a christmas present for the companies involved for the accusations of illegal waste shipments were rejected. (I could not locate the judgment on ECLI yet: I have a copy for those interested).

The court first of all rejected a rather neat attempt of the Dutch prosecutor to get around the CJEU’s finding in para 46 of its judgment : ‘it is particularly important that the Belgian client returned the contaminated ULSD to Shell, with a view to obtaining a refund, pursuant to the sale contract. By so acting, that client cannot be regarded as having intended to dispose of or recover the consignment at issue and, accordingly, it did not ‘discard’ it within the meaning of Article 1(1)(a) of Directive 2006/12.‘ It was suggested that incoterm FOB (‘Free on Board’), applicable to the agreement between Carens and Shell, meant that the qualification of the payment by Shell could not have been a refund for defective goods (ownership of the goods already having been transferred prior to contamination) but rather the payment of damages for a contract not properly carried out. This, it was argued, made para 46 irrelevant for the facts of the case. The court at Rotterdam essentially argued that par 46 needs to be applied beyond the black letter of the law: in effect, in acting as they did and following their running contractual relationships, Shell and Carens had decided to annul the sale, sale price was refunded, and Carens could therefore not be seen as owner or holder of the goods.

Neither, the court held, could Shell be considered a discarding the fuel: the court paid specific attention to testimony that the fuel concerned was actually presented to market, with a view to establishing what price it could fetch. Offers were made which were not far off the initial sale price. Re-blending of the fuel was only done to obtain a higher price and was carried out in accordance with established market practices. Shell’s resale of the fuel, as holder of it, was not just a mere possibility but a certainty (language reminiscent of what the CJEU normally employs for the distinction recovery /disposal).

Final conclusion: the fuel at no stage qualified as waste and no one could have discarded it.

A very important judgment indeed – it will be interesting to see whether the prosecutor’s office will appeal.

Geert.

by Jonas Wäschle

Jonas Wäschle, LL.M. is a research fellow at the EBS Law School Research Center for Transnational Commercial Dispute Resolution at EBS University for Economics and Law in Wiesbaden (www.ebs.edu/tcdr).

The Research Center for Transnational Commercial Dispute Resolution at EBS Law School will host a lecture on cross border insolvency. Hon. Elizabeth Stong, judge since 2003 at the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of New York, Professor Dr Heinz Vallender, University of Cologne, former judge at the Insolvency Court of Cologne, and Jennifer Marshall, Partner in Allen & Overy London and General Editor of the Sweet & Maxwell loose-leaf on European cross-border insolvency, will talk to us on cross-border insolvencies.

The focus will be on the techniques to reconcile national principles with the challenges from international cases. Starting with a key note lecture by Stong on her experiences from a US perspective, her European counterparts will pick up the ball and present and compare European practice. The speakers will look at recent US and European cases and refer to guiding principles. This input will be measured against the principles of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency with its 2014 Guide to Enactment and Interpretation and the European Insolvency Regulation Recast of 2015. All attendees are invited to join the discussion chaired by Dr Oliver Waldburg, Partner in Allen & Overy.

The Lecture will be held on 18 February 2016 at 6.30 p.m. in Lecture Room “Sydney”. The program will be as follows:

Welcome and Introduction

Prof. Dr. Matthias Weller, Mag.rer.publ., EBS Law School, Wiesbaden

Keynote Lecture

Hon. Elizabeth Stong, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, E.D.N.Y.

Panel discussion

Chair: Dr. Oliver Waldburg, Allen & Overy Frankfurt

Hon. Elizabeth Stong, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, E.D.N.Y.

Prof. Dr. Heinz Vallender, University of Cologne

Jennifer Marshall, Allen & Overy London

Get-together at the Lounge of the EBS Law School

 The lecture will be held in co-operation with:

Allen & Overy | Harvard Law School Association of Germany e.V. | Deutsch-Amerikanische Juristen-Vereinigung e.V.

We would like to cordially invite you to join the lecture! Further questions and registrations may be addressed to claudia.mueller@ebs.edu.