Flux européens

Krüsemann e.a.
Transport
Une « grève sauvage » du personnel navigant suite à l’annonce surprise d’une restructuration ne constitue pas une « circonstance extraordinaire » permettant à la compagnie aérienne de se libérer de son obligation d’indemnisation en cas d’annulation ou de retard important de vol

Commission / Pologne
Environnement et consommateurs
Les opérations de gestion forestière concernant le site Natura 2000 Puszcza Białowieska prises par la Pologne enfreignent le droit de l’Union

B
Citoyenneté européenne
Le bénéfice de la protection renforcée contre l’éloignement du territoire est notamment subordonné à la condition que l’intéressé dispose d’un droit de séjour permanent

Our paper on the innovation principle, with Kathleen Garnett and Leonie Reins is just out in Law, Innovation and Technology. We discuss how industry has been pushing for the principle to be added as a regulatory driver. Not as a trojan horse: industry knocks politely but firmly at the EU door, it is then simply let in by the European Commission. We discuss the ramifications of such principle and the wider consequences for EU policy making.

Happy reading.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Environmental Law (with Dr Reins), 1st ed. 2017, Chapter 2.

La finale européenne du concours de la « European Law Moot Court » se tiendra le 13 avril à la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne à Luxembourg

Valcheva
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
L’avocat général Szpunar propose à la Cour de juger que le droit de visite en matière de responsabilité parentale inclut le droit de visite des grands-parents

Infineon Technologies / Commission
Concurrence
Dans le cadre de l’entente sur le marché des puces pour cartes, l’avocat général Wathelet propose à la Cour d’annuler l’arrêt rendu par le Tribunal à l’encontre de la société Infineon Technologie et de lui renvoyer l’affaire

PPC Power
Environnement et consommateurs
Le droit de l’Union s’oppose à l’impôt slovaque qui frappe d’un taux de 80 % la valeur des quotas d’émission de gaz à effet de serre vendus ou non utilisés

Swedish Match
Droit institutionnel
L’avocat général Saugmandsgaard Øe propose à la Cour de juger que l’interdiction de commercialisation du snus est valide

A et S
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Un mineur non accompagné qui devient majeur au cours de la procédure d’asile conserve son droit au regroupement familial

Uber France
Rapprochement des législations
Les États membres peuvent interdire et réprimer pénalement l’exercice illégal de l’activité de transport dans le cadre du service UberPop sans notifier au préalable à la Commission le projet de loi incriminant un tel exercice

Banger
Citoyenneté européenne
Selon l’avocat général Bobek, lorsqu’un citoyen de l’Union retourne dans son État membre d’origine, ce dernier est tenu de favoriser l’entrée et le séjour du partenaire non UE avec lequel ce citoyen a développé ou renforcé des liens familiaux dans un autre État membre

Pisciotti
DISC
Un État membre n’est pas tenu de faire bénéficier tout citoyen de l’Union ayant circulé sur son territoire de l’interdiction d’extradition vers les États-Unis dont bénéficient ses propres ressortissants

I thought I had but seemingly had not, flagged Bob Wessels’ timely alert to [2016] COMP 039 Colin King (Supreme Court of Gibraltar). The judgment first of all looks at the temporal scope of application of the Regulation, holding correctly that it is not the filing for bankruptcy which is relevant but rather the time of actual openings of those proceedings. Further, it makes correct application of the various presumptions and definitions vis-a-vis natural persons.

Not a shocking judgment but one which is a good read for a gentle introduction to COMI. And as Bob notes, it was not quite the first to apply the new EIR.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd edition 2016, Chapter 5.

 

Thank you Klaus Oblin for flagging OGH 7 Ob 183/17p X SE v I SpA (yet again I am happy to grumble that there is really no need to keep B2B litigation anonymous) at the Austrian Supreme Court. At issue is the application of Article 25 Brussels I Recast: when can consent to choice of court be established.

The facts of the case reflect repeated business practice: offers are made and accepted; a business relationship ensues on the basis of which further offers and orders are made; somewhere along the lines reference is made to general terms and conditions – GTCs which include choice of court. Can defendant be considered to have consented?

The Supreme Court, justifiably, lays the burden of proof with the claimant /plaintiff: if the contract is concluded through different offer and acceptance documents, the offer need only reference the terms and conditions containing the agreement conferring jurisdiction only if the other party: can follow-up on this with reasonable diligence; and actually receives the terms and conditions.

I am happy to refer to Klaus’ excellent overview (which also discussed the absence of established business practice between parties: one of the alternatives for showing choice of court). Yet again, the first and foremost quality required of lawyers (here: in-house counsel) emerges: ensure proper filing and compliance with simple procedure. Here: a clear flag of the GTCs in correspondence, and simple follow-up would have sufficed.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.9.

Rechtbank Rotterdam held on 15 March last that 4 ships owned and operated by the Sea Trade concern had to be regarded as waste when they left the port at Rotterdam cq Hamburg (they were eventually beached in a variety of destinations). Not having been notified as waste, their shipment was considered illegal and the concern as well as some of its employees consequently convicted. (Illegal waste shipments being a criminal offense).

The court decided not to refer to the CJEU on the application of the waste definition to ships, as it considered the issue to be acte clair. The court’s review of the legal framework is included in Heading 4.3.4. As such, the analysis does not teach us much about the difficulty of applying the waste definition to international maritime logistics, in particular ship disposal. The court found at a factual level that the owners’ intention to dispose of the ships was clearly established when the ships left the EU, with, it suggested, the facts proving that the intention to dispose was at that moment of such an intensity as to trigger the waste definition.

The court does flag its appreciation for the difficulties. Not only is eventual disposal of hardware such as ships a possibility from the moment of their purchase. Such intention may also be withdrawn, reinstated, modified, at various moments of the ships’ life, fluctuating with market circumstances. Particularly given the criminal nature of the legal discipline here, I find that a very important driver to tread very cautiously and to look for firmer objective factors to establish intent.

Most probably to be continued on appeal.

Geert.

(Handbook of ) EU Waste law, 2nd ed. 2017, para 1.20 ff. Disclosure: I acted as court expert.

 

 

Thank you Tobias Lutzi for alerting us to the ECtHR drawing the final curtain (legally speaking at least) over the tragic events surrounding the Krombach case. The case is a classic viz ordre public, recognition and enforcement issues. Current decision however relates to the criminal law aspects of the case and the ne bis in idem principle in particular.

The Court declared Krombach’s complaint inadmissible.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.16.1.4.

Hotlinking is explained at para 17 of [2018] EWHC 550 (Ch) Wheat v Alphabet /Google Inc and Monaco Telecom. (Cross-reference is also made to the related main case against Monaco Telecom, [2017] EWHC 3150 (Ch)). The principal claim against Monaco Telecom is that it has broadcast, and continues to broadcast, an unauthorised duplicate of theirearth.com – claimant’s website. Google is involved in the litigation because claimant alleges that Google’s search engine algorithm has done little to address hotlinking practice, which, it is said, facilitates copyright infringement.

Both cases are a good example of the standards for serving out of jurisdiction, essentially, to what degree courts of the UK should accept jurisdiction against non-UK defendants (here: with claimants resident in the UK). The Brussels I Recast Regulation is not engaged in either cases for neither Monaco nor Alphabet are EU based.

Copyright aficionados are best referred to the judgment to appreciate its impact. The judgment essentially confirms that other than in a B2C context (particularly where EU law applies and privacy is involved), suing (for tort) Google or indeed internet companies not headquartered here, is not an easy proposition.

Geert.

 

If one needed further illustration that the Brussels I Recast and the Recast Insolvency Regulation do not dovetail (a concept which I explore ia here) [2017] EWHC 2791 (Ch) Agrokor DD is it.

The English courts are being asked to recognise Agrokor’s extraordinary administration as a foreign main proceeding under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (CBIR). For the facts of the case and Hogan Lovells breakdown of the judgment see here.

Of note for this blog is that Croatia have not included the emergency procedure foreseen Agrokor Act in the relevant Annexes to the Insolvency Regulation. Consequently no matter how much the procedure in the abstract meets with the definition of insolvency proceedings, it does not fall under the Insolvency Regulation hence recognition and enforcement of same does not follow that Regulation. Neither does it follow Brussels I Recast: for the procedure most definitely meets with the ‘insolvency’ exception under that Regulation. Matthews J justifiably refers to both in passing only, noting they have no calling here.

Recognition was eventually granted. Despite some serious relevant differences between Croatian and English insolvency law, none of these as so serious as to trigger ordre public objections. As Jake Hardy notes: if no man is an island, nor is any debt obligation – no matter how English it has painted itself to be.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 5.

Statistiques judiciaires 2017 : le nombre d’affaires introduites dépasse à nouveau le seuil de 1 600