Flux européens

The Court of Justice delivered today its judgment in case C‑21/22 (OP v Notariusz Justyna Gawlica), which is about the Succession Regulation:

“1. Article 22 of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 […] must be interpreted as meaning that a third-country national residing in a Member State of the European Union may choose the law of that third State as the law governing his or her succession as a whole.

2. Article 75 of Regulation No 650/2012, read in conjunction with Article 22 of that regulation, must be interpreted as not precluding – where a Member State of the European Union has concluded, before the adoption of that regulation, a bilateral agreement with a third State which designates the law applicable to succession and does not expressly provide for the possibility of choosing another law – a national of that third State, residing in the Member State in question, from not being able to choose the law of that third State to govern his or her succession as a whole”

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?mode=DOC&pageIndex=0&docid=278536&part=1&doclang=EN&text=&dir=&occ=first&cid=283716

AG De La Tour delivered today his opinion in case C‑566/22 (Inkreal s. r. o. v Dúha reality s. r. o.), which is about Article 25 Brussels I bis:

“Article 25 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 […] must be interpreted as meaning that in a purely internal situation, it is not applicable based solely on the fact that the parties domiciled in the same Member State have designated a court or courts of another Member State to settle any disputes between them which have arisen or which may arise”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=278538&mode=req&pageIndex=1&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&cid=220250

KBC Verzekeringen
Rapprochement des législations
Un vélo à assistance électrique ne relève pas de l’obligation d’assurance des véhicules automoteurs car il n’est pas actionné exclusivement par une force mécanique

Sofatutor
Approximation of laws
Le droit du consommateur de se rétracter d’un abonnement souscrit à distance, initialement gratuit et reconduit automatiquement, est garanti une seule fois

Ascenza Agro et Industrias Afrasa / Commission
Agriculture
Le Tribunal rejette le recours contre le non-renouvellement de l’approbation de la substance active chlorpyriphos-méthyl, utilisée dans des produits phytopharmaceutiques

Article 1 of the following decision confirms the participation of Ireland to e-Codex: Commission Decision (EU) 2023/2099 of 28 September 2023 confirming the participation of Ireland in Regulation (EU) 2022/850 of the European Parliament and of the Council on a computerised system for the cross-border electronic exchange of data in the area of judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters (e-CODEX system), OJEU L 241, 29.9.2023, p. 144

Source: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2023/2099/oj

X v Y (*grumbles his usual grumble about anonymisation*) ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2023:1759  is an interesting judgment discussing, yet not determining, the extent of Rome I’s Article 18’s ‘burden of proof’ provision. Clearly the discussion has echoes for the similar provision in Article 22 Rome II.

Article 18 Rome I

Burden of proof

1.   The law governing a contractual obligation under this Regulation shall apply to the extent that, in matters of contractual obligations, it contains rules which raise presumptions of law or determine the burden of proof.

2.   A contract or an act intended to have legal effect may be proved by any mode of proof recognised by the law of the forum or by any of the laws referred to in Article 11 under which that contract or act is formally valid, provided that such mode of proof can be administered by the forum.

Article 22 Rome II

Burden of proof

1.   The law governing a non-contractual obligation under this Regulation shall apply to the extent that, in matters of non-contractual obligations, it contains rules which raise presumptions of law or determine the burden of proof.

2.   Acts intended to have legal effect may be proved by any mode of proof recognised by the law of the forum or by any of the laws referred to in Article 21 under which that act is formally valid, provided that such mode of proof can be administered by the forum.

The court first of all [5.6] justifiably confirms that A24(1) BIa does not stand in the way of its jurisdiction, which parties agreed to in a choice of court clause per A25 BIa: the claim concerns monies allegedly still owed on the transfer of a share of ownership in German real estate. It does not have rights in rem in that property as the object of the proceedings.

Choice of law was made for German law. The A18 Rome I issue is triggered by a declaration made by the claimant in the main proceedings, in front of a German notary. Claimant argues that statement was made to speed up the entry of the sale in the German land register, not to discharge the defendant in the main proceedings of the monies owed. The court [5.9] holds that German law as a result of A18 only determines the burden of proof and evidentiary value of that statement, to the degree German law has specific rules relating to the law of obligations generally or for the specific contract at issue.

On the facts, the court [5.16] holds that it need not determine the lex causae issue for evidentiary value under the Dutch ‘antikiesregel’ ―meaning the court being absolved of the proprio motu obligation to determine applicable law if the alternatives lead to the same result― for under neither laws the notarial statement has discharging effect. I for one am not convinced that the antikiesregel complies with the effet utile of EU private international law, but that is a different matter.

Geert.

Extent of A18 Rome I's burden of proof being subject to lex causae, v procedure being subject to lex fori (here: sale of ownership of German real estate, subject to German law as lex voluntatis)

Den Haag court in appeal, X v Y ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2023:1759 https://t.co/SXDUgdORYB

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) September 19, 2023

Changement du mode de publication du Journal officiel de l’Union européenne : comment consulter les informations relatives aux affaires introduites devant la Cour de justice ou le Tribunal ou clôturées par ces juridictions à partir du 1er octobre 2023 ?

La Quadrature du Net e.a. (Données personnelles et lutte contre la contrefaçon)
Rapprochement des législations
Avocat général Szpunar : la conservation et l’accès à des données d’identité civile couplées à l’adresse IP utilisée devraient être permis lorsque ces données constituent le seul moyen d’investigation permettant l’identification d’auteurs d’infractions exclusivement constituées sur Internet

Ryanair / Commission
Aide d'État
Aides d’État en faveur de SAS pendant la pandémie de Covid-19 : la Cour rejette définitivement les recours de Ryanair concernant les garanties de prêts mises en place par la Suède et le Danemark en avril 2020

Commission / Royaume-Uni (Marquage fiscal du gazole)
Fiscalité
La Cour de justice condamne le Royaume-Uni à une somme forfaitaire de 32 millions d’euros en ce qu’il n’a pas interdit l’utilisation de carburant marqué aux fins de la navigation de plaisance privée dans le délai imparti par la Commission

Espagne / Commission
Aide d'État
Le Tribunal annule la décision de la Commission déclarant illicite le régime fiscal espagnol de déduction des prises de participations indirectes dans des sociétés étrangères

Valve Corporation / Commission
Concurrence
Jeux vidéo en ligne : le Tribunal confirme que le géoblocage de clés d’activation pour la plate-forme Steam a enfreint le droit de la concurrence de l’Union

Entrée en fonctions de deux nouveaux membres du Tribunal de l’Union européenne
Entry into office of two new Members of the General Court of the European Union

In C-632/21 JF and NS v Diamond Resorts Europe Limited (Sucursal en España) (‘Diamond Resorts Europe) the CJEU has held that Article 6(2) Rome I on consumer contracts is exhaustive, preventing a consumer to shop for more favourable laws different from those of their habitual residence.

Applicants are British consumers resident in the UK who concluded, on 14 April 2008 and 28 June 2010 respectively, two timeshare contracts with Diamond Resorts Europe, an English company operating as a branch in Spain of the Diamond Resorts group. The accommodation subject to the timeshare is spread across the EU with focus on Spain. Applicants request invalidity of the contracts on the basis of the Spanish timeshare laws, which implement the relevant EU law at issue. They seize a Spanish court, claiming the proceedings have as their object a right in rem in immovable property (the jurisdictional echo of C-73/04 Klein v Rhodos Management already should have made them think otherwise imho). Defendants argue the claim concerns a right in personam which in consequence of Rome Convention’s and /or the Rome I Regulation’s provisions on consumer contracts, are subject to the laws of the habitual residence of the consumers, i.e. English law.

The CJEU first of all holds (para 55) that as a consequence of Articles 66(a) and 126 of the UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement, the Rome Regulation applies to one of the contracts only, the other one being subject to the Rome Convention. It also confirms (para 52) that despite the contracts having been concluded between UK parties, the contract is clearly ‘international’ given the presence of foreign elements.

Next, it confirms without much ado (para 70 ff) the contracts as consumer contracts, notes lex voluntatis as being English law, and in consequence of the consumer title, that lex voluntatis being the same lex contractus as would have applied in the absence of choice.

Importantly, with reference mutatis mutandis to CJEU Schlecker, and a clear hint as to the future reply in VK v N1,

“An interpretation whereby it would be possible to derogate from the conflict-of-law rules laid down by the Rome I Regulation for determining the law applicable to consumer contracts, on the ground that another law would be more favourable to the consumer, would necessarily seriously undermine the general requirement of predictability of the applicable law and, therefore, the principle of legal certainty in contractual relationships involving consumers” (para 75)

A further question on Article 9 overriding mandatory provisions is declared inadmissible for lack of any detail on the nature of the national laws, given by the referring court.

Geert.

New #CJEU judgment applicable law Rome I, re timeshare agreements and consumer law
C-632/21 Diamond Resorts Europehttps://t.co/IBmyg43pzM

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) September 14, 2023

ADDE e.a.
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice FRON ASIL J-AI
Réintroduction de contrôles aux frontières intérieures : la directive « retour » s’applique à tout ressortissant de pays tiers entré sur le territoire d’un État membre sans remplir les conditions d’entrée, de séjour ou de résidence

Juan
L’interdiction de la double incrimination ne semble pas s’opposer à l’exécution d’un mandat d’arrêt européen contre le responsable d’un système pyramidal frauduleux mis en place en Espagne et au Portugal
The prohibition of double jeopardy does not appear to preclude the execution of a European arrest warrant against the person responsible for a fraudulent pyramid scheme set up in Spain and in Portugal

Belgique / Commission
Aide d'État
Tax rulings : les exonérations fiscales accordées par la Belgique à des sociétés faisant partie de groupes multinationaux constituent un régime d’aides illicite

The Court of Justice delivered a few days ago (14 September 2023) its judgment in case C‑632/21 (JF, NS v Diamond Resorts Europe Limited (Sucursal en España), Diamond Resorts Spanish Sales SL, Sunterra Tenerife Sales SL), which is about the applicability of Rome I and its Article 6:

“1. The provisions of [Rome I] are applicable, in the context of a dispute before a court of a Member State, to contracts the two parties of which are United Kingdom nationals, to the extent that those contracts have a foreign element.

2. Article 6(2) of Regulation No 593/2008 must be interpreted as meaning that:

–        where a consumer contract fulfils the requirements laid down in Article 6(1) of that regulation, the parties to that contract may, in accordance with Article 3 of that same regulation, choose the law applicable to that contract, provided, however, that that choice does not result in depriving the consumer concerned of the protection afforded to him or her by provisions that cannot be derogated from by agreement by virtue of the law which, in the absence of choice, would have been applicable on the basis of Article 6(1), which provides that such a contract is to be governed by the law of the country where the consumer has his or her habitual residence;

–        in view of the mandatory and exhaustive nature of that same Article 6(2), it is not possible to derogate from that provision for the benefit of legislation allegedly more favourable to the consumer”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?mode=DOC&pageIndex=0&docid=277406&part=1&doclang=EN&text=&dir=&occ=first&cid=94681

The Court of Justice delivered a few days ago (14 September 2023) its judgment in case C‑821/21 (NM v Club La Costa (UK) plc, sucursal en España, CLC Resort Management Ltd, Midmark 2 Ltd, CLC Resort Development Ltd, European Resorts & Hotels SL), which is about Articles 18 and 63 Brussels I bis as well as Articles 3 and 6 Rome I:

“1. Article 18(1) of [Brussels I bis] must be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘other party to a contract’, in that provision, must be understood as referring only to the natural or legal person who is a party to the contract in question and not to other persons, not parties to that contract, even if they are connected with that person.

2. Article 63(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that the determination, in accordance with that provision, of the domicile of the ‘other party to a contract’, within the meaning of Article 18(1) of that regulation, does not constitute a limitation of the choice which the consumer may make under that Article 18(1). In that regard, the clarifications provided in Article 63(2) concerning the concept of ‘statutory seat’ constitute autonomous definitions.

3. Article 3 of [Rome I] must be interpreted as not precluding a choice-of-law clause in the general terms and conditions of a contract or in a separate document to which that contract refers and which has been provided to the consumer, provided that that clause informs the consumer that he or she enjoys, in any event, under Article 6(2) of that regulation, the protection afforded to him or her by the mandatory provisions of the law of the country in which he or she has his or her habitual residence.

4. Article 6(1) of Regulation No 593/2008 must be interpreted as meaning that where a consumer contract fulfils the requirements set out in that provision and in the absence of a valid choice of law applicable to that contract, that law must be determined in accordance with that provision, which may be relied on by both parties to that contract, including the professional, notwithstanding the fact that the law applicable to the contract in accordance with Articles 3 and 4 of that regulation may be more favourable to the consumer”

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=277408&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1961282