Flux européens

Yesterday (14 November 2022), Botswana acceded to the Hague Child Abduction, Adoption and Child Support Conventions, i.e. respectively: the Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, the Convention of 29 May 1993 on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, and the Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance. The Child Abduction Convention will enter into force for Botswana on 1 February 2023, the Adoption Convention on 1 March 2023 and the Child Support Convention on 16 November 2023.

Last month, on 4 October 2022, Cabo Verde acceded to the Hague Child Abduction and Child Protection Conventions, i.e. respectively the Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children. The Child Abduction Convention will enter into force for Cabo Verde on 1 January 2023 and the Child Protection Convention on 1 August 2023.

Source: https://www.hcch.net/en/news-archive/details/?varevent=883 et https://www.hcch.net/en/news-archive/details/?varevent=877

In GW Pharma Ltd & Anor v Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1462, the Court of Appeal confirmed jurisdiction for the courts of England and Wales, confirming the first instance judgment which I reviewed here.

The first instance judgment dismissing GW Pharma’s application decided three issues: jurisdiction under the Moçambique principle, foreign act of state and a distinct application for a stay on forum non conveniens grounds.

Arguments on appeal are listed [20] ff:

GW Pharma’s grounds 1 and 2 address the Moçambique principle and its application. GW Pharma contend that the judge erred in applying an overly restrictive test for the purposes of the Moçambique principle and further erred in his application of that test to the facts.

Ground 3 addresses the foreign act of state doctrine, and the common law public policy exception. The submission is that the judge erred in law in holding that the act of state doctrine (or common law public policy) did not require the court to decline jurisdiction.

Ground 4 relates to forum non conveniens, contending that the judge erred in declining a stay on those grounds.

Otsuka’s case is that the judge was right for the reasons he gave but Otsuka also advances two additional points in support of the judge’s overall conclusion. The first point is that as well as the exception to the Moçambique rule based on whether a validity challenge is direct or not which the judge applied, there is a second exception – for claims which relate to a contract. This case would also fall within that exception. The second point is a submission that GW Pharma’s case would necessarily involve a country-by-country approach, contrary to the approach adopted by the English courts in related contexts (citing the Supreme Court in Unwired Planet v Huawei [2020] UKSC 37). The relevant principles ought not to be applied so as to prevent Otsuka from bringing its contractual royalty claim against GW Pharma in a single set of proceedings in GW Pharma’s home jurisdiction.

Birss LJ [26] notes, with common sense, that Brussels Ia authority still has relevance, despite the Regulation no longer applying

the fact the Regulation does not apply is a different thing from the question whether aspects of the thinking behind the Brussels Regulation may illuminate questions which do arise.

[29] the main point of UKSC Lucasfilm is summarised as the

modern trend [being] in favour of the enforcement of foreign intellectual property rights, particularly where there is no issue as to validity.

That modern trend of course provokes discussion as to when a claim engages validity as opposed to mere infringement, with Chugai a classic illustration. The judge here sometimes necessarily skates on thin ice for creative counsel may direct the end-result by claim formulation. Here Birss LJ offers a relevant distinction between direct challenges to the validity of a patent, as opposed to proceedings being ‘principally concerned with’ such challenges:

In Chugai there is reference to both the idea of whether a validity challenge is a direct one and also to whether proceedings are “principally concerned with” validity. These two expressions are performing different tasks and it is worth keeping them distinct. A claim consisting of nothing other than a claim for infringement, in which the defendant does not claim that the patent is invalid, but merely requires the court to ask itself, as a guide to construction, what would be the hypothetical consequences for validity if there was infringement, does not involve a direct challenge to validity. Such a claim is also not principally concerned with validity. On the other hand a claim consisting of nothing other than a request for revocation on the ground of invalidity or a declaration of invalidity would be a direct challenge to validity, and would be principally concerned with validity. However a claim raising multiple issues might well properly be said not to be principally concerned with validity, even if one of the subsidiary issues was a direct challenge to validity; but in such a case the court’s response would depend on the circumstances. The court might not decline jurisdiction over the dispute as a whole but might address individual issues separately. If the direct challenge only arises on a contingent basis then the right response might involve case management. Unlike the judge below, I would not describe this latter situation as one in which what was really a direct validity challenge was rendered not a direct challenge owing to its subsidiary nature in the action as a whole. The nature of the challenge is a direct one, but its status in the proceedings as a whole means that they are not principally concerned with it.

This is a discussion which to my mind is also useful for the A24(4) discussion in Brussels Ia, sub judice in BSH Hausgeräte v Electrolux.

[38] ff discusses the long standing exception to the Moçambique rule concerning contracts and equitable obligations. [40] There are said to be two questions in the present case about the contract exception. One is whether it depends on the existence of an exclusive jurisdiction clause in the contract  (answered [42] in the negative] and the other is about the extent of the exception itself. Would it, for example, allow the court to entertain a direct challenge to the validity of a foreign patent which the court would not have had jurisdiction to determine in the absence of the relevant contract (or equitable obligation)? : [43]:

In a way the question is whether the exception really is an exception to a rule that the court has no jurisdiction to determine a claim principally concerned with title (etc.) to foreign land or whether it is really just a manifestation of the proper application of the test for what it does or does not mean to say that a claim is principally concerned with title (etc.). Or putting it another way, can the court, when considering a contract claim, decide on title to foreign land, and by extension the validity of a foreign patent?

[46] that question is answered with reference to the classic in rem v in personam discussion that is part of the original Moçambique rule (and A24(1)BIa)

The contract exception does not allow the court to make a decision about the validity of a foreign patent in rem but it would allow the court to address the validity of a foreign patent in the course of making a decision concerning contractual rights in personam, assuming (such as if the Lear point does work in the way I have described) such a question was relevant to the contract decision.

[48] ff Lord Justice Birss summarises:

Bearing all this in mind, I would state the Moçambique rule as explained and formulated in Lucasfilm, and as it applies to patents in the following way:

First, in a case in which the courts of England and Wales have in personam jurisdiction over a defendant, then the courts have jurisdiction in proceedings for infringement of a foreign patent save where those proceedings are principally concerned with a question of the validity of that patent. The proceedings will not be principally concerned with validity only because the defendant, who does not claim that the patent is invalid, requires the court to ask itself as a guide to construction, what would be the hypothetical consequences for validity if there was infringement. However what the rule does not permit is a direct challenge to the validity of a foreign patent, and (subject to the exception below) the court has no jurisdiction to determine a claim that the foreign patent is invalid.

Second, this Moçambique principle is also subject to a contractual exception. If the case is one in which the court is asked to enforce a contract between the parties then in addition to questions of patent scope/infringement, if and only to the extent that questions of the validity of foreign patents need to be addressed in order to decide on the true nature and scope of the parties’ contractual obligations to one another, then the court can do so.

Applying this summary to the first instance judgment, that judgment is confirmed [60].

The third ground of appeal then invokes the foreign act of State doctrine, in that is is said that (certain) intellectual property rights may be said to depend on the grant or registration by the state. Birss LJ dismisses the argument [73] essentially by suggesting it harks back to bygone notions of intellectual property rights:

even absent the authorities I would hold that as a matter of principle the modern grant of a patent for an invention does not fit within the act of state doctrine as it stands today for two reasons. The first reason relates to the exercise of grant itself. The very word “grant” harks back to a past time, before the Statute of Monopolies 1623, when letters patent were granted on the whim of the Stuart monarchs (and similarly I suspect the Danish monarchy in Blad v Bamfield). Today there is no such condescension by the sovereign power in the grant of a patent by the Comptroller of the Patent Office. Once a properly constituted patent application has been examined and found to comply with the requirements of the law, the Comptroller is required by statute to grant the patent. The relevant words are in s18(4) of the Patents Act 1977 which provide essentially that if the applicant’s application is all in order then ‘the comptroller shall … grant him a patent.’ The second reason follows on from this and was given by Henry Carr J in Chugai at paragraph 68. He observed that once the patent had been granted, any party can challenge the validity of the patent and then can do so in a manner and on grounds which are quite different from an attempt to challenge legislation or government acts such as requisition.

Conclusion on this ground [75]

on grounds of authority and principle, I agree with the judge below that the act of state doctrine is not relevant to the analysis of the court’s jurisdiction in this case.

The first instance judge’s finding on forum non is also confirmed and the appeal therefore dismissed.

I do not know whether, if sought, permission to appeal to the Supreme Court will be granted, but it seems unlikely. The appeal judgment in my view includes important instruction in particular on the ‘principally concerned with’ issue however it largely applies existing UKSC authority.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, 2.196 ff.

Court of Appeal rejects appeal against finding of jurisdiction in foreign #patent case
Rule in Moçambique confirmed as not engaged
See here https://t.co/hHZdeXVpCb for first instance judgment

GW Pharma v Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1462 https://t.co/GLsmtCRNtZ

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) November 8, 2022

Senatsverwaltung für Inneres und Sport
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Reconnaissance automatique des divorces extrajudiciaires : un acte de divorce établi par l’officier d’état civil d’un État membre, qui comporte un accord de divorce conclu par les époux et confirmé par ceux-ci devant cet officier en conformité avec les conditions prévues par la réglementation de cet État membre, constitue une décision au sens du règlement Bruxelles II bis

Szpunar AG opined a few weeks back in C-423/21 Grand Production v GO4YU  ea. The case involves a variety of issues related to streaming and VPNs, many of which concern telecoms law yet one is of interest to the blog: namely the question whether

in the event of an allegation of infringement of copyright and related rights guaranteed by the Member State of the court seised, that court has jurisdiction only to rule on the damage caused in the territory of the Member State to which it belongs – because the territoriality principle precludes domestic courts from having jurisdiction to determine and examine the facts in relation to foreign acts of infringement – or can or must that court also rule on offences committed outside that territory (worldwide), as alleged by the author whose rights were allegedly infringed?

It transpires from the Opinion however that the case in the national court does not involve one for damages, yet rather one for a temporary injunction prohibiting distribution. To the degree this is aimed at the Serbian defendants at issue, these are domiciled outside the EU and hence not subject for actions in tort, to Brussels Ia. Against the Austrian defendants, the case is subject to full jurisdiction under A4 forum re, hence not triggering the full or partial jurisdictional issues of the relevant CJEU case-law (Bolagsupplysningen etc.).

The AG suggests inadmissibility of the Brussels Ia question.

Geert.

Opinion first Advocate General Szpunar this morning on VPNs, #copyright and platform streaming, including the jurisdictional aspects: forum delicti under A7(2) Brussels Ia

Grand Production v GO4YU eahttps://t.co/D7Uaor19wO

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) October 20, 2022

Advocate General Szpunar delivered today his opinion in Case C‑651/21 (М. Ya. M.), which is about the Succession Regulation and a declaration of waiver of succession made by an heir in the Member State of his habitual residence, with a subsequent registration of that declaration, at the request of another heir, with the court of another Member State.

Suggested decision: “1) Article 13 of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 […] does not preclude, after an heir has had registered with a court of the Member State in which he or she is habitually resident his or her acceptance or waiver of the succession of a deceased person who was habitually resident in another Member State at the time of death, another heir from subsequently requesting registration of that declaration in the latter Member State.

(2) Article 13 of Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as not precluding a co-heir other than the person who made the declaration of waiver in the Member State of his or her habitual residence from informing the court dealing with the succession of the existence of that declaration”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?mode=DOC&pageIndex=0&docid=268184&part=1&doclang=EN&text=&dir=&occ=first&cid=195575

PACCAR e.a.
Concurrence ENTR POSI
La production de « preuves pertinentes », au sens du droit de l’Union, recouvre les documents qu’une partie peut être amenée à créer par l'agrégation ou la classification d'informations, de connaissances ou de données en sa possession

Commission / Valencia Club de Fútbol
Aide d'État
Décision concernant une aide d’État octroyée par l’Espagne au Valencia CF annulée par le Tribunal : la Cour rejette le pourvoi de la Commission

The Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) delivered yesterday its judgment in case C‑873/19 (Deutsche Umwelthilfe eV v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, joined party: Volkswagen AG), which is about the Aarhus Convention and access to justice in environmental matters:

“1. Article 9(3) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, signed in Aarhus on 25 June 1998 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding a situation where an environmental association, authorised to bring legal proceedings in accordance with national law, is unable to challenge before a national court an administrative decision granting or amending EC type-approval which may be contrary to Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information.

2. Article 5(2)(a) of Regulation No 715/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that a defeat device can be justified under that provision only where it is established that that device strictly meets the need to avoid immediate risks of damage or accident to the engine, caused by a malfunction of a component of the exhaust gas recirculation system, of such a serious nature as to give rise to a specific hazard when a vehicle fitted with that device is driven. Furthermore, the ‘need’ for a defeat device, within the meaning of that provision, exists only where, at the time of the EC type-approval of that device or of the vehicle equipped with it, no other technical solution makes it possible to avoid immediate risks of damage or accident to the engine, which give rise to a specific hazard when driving the vehicle”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=268044&mode=req&pageIndex=1&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&cid=280104

Ferriera Valsabbia et Valsabbia Investimenti / Commission
Concurrence
Le Tribunal confirme les sanctions allant de 2,2 à 5,1 millions d’euros infligées par la Commission à quatre entreprises pour leur participation à une entente sur le marché italien des ronds à béton

Minority SafePack - one million signatures for diversity in Europe / Commission
Droit institutionnel
Le Tribunal confirme la communication de la Commission refusant d’entreprendre les actions demandées dans l’initiative citoyenne européenne « Minority SafePack - one million signatures for diversity in Europe »

Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe / Commission
Aide d'État
« Tax rulings » : la Cour juge que le Tribunal a confirmé à tort le cadre de référence retenu par la Commission pour l’application du principe de pleine concurrence aux sociétés intégrées au Luxembourg, en omettant de tenir compte des règles spécifiques mettant en œuvre ce principe dans cet État membre

Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Examen d’office de la rétention)
Justice et Affaires intérieures
Le juge national est tenu de vérifier de sa propre initiative la légalité d’une mesure de rétention prise à l’égard d’un ressortissant étranger en séjour irrégulier ou d’un demandeur d’asile

Deutsche Umwelthilfe (Réception des véhicules à moteur)
Environnement et consommateurs
Les associations de protection de l’environnement agréées doivent pouvoir contester en justice une réception CE par type de véhicules équipés de « dispositifs d’invalidation » susceptibles d’être interdits

AG Pikamae delivered on 20 October 2022 his opinion in case C‑393/21 (Lufthansa Technik AERO Alzey GmbH), which is about the European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims. The opinion is currently available in all EU official languages (save Irish), albeit not in English. Here is the French version (to check whether an English translation has finally been made available, just click on the link below and change the language version):

Suggested decision : “L’article 23 du règlement (CE) no 805/2004 […] doit être interprété en ce sens que : l’expression « circonstances exceptionnelles », visée à cette disposition, couvre le préjudice grave et irréparable pouvant être causé au débiteur par l’exécution immédiate de la décision certifiée en tant que titre exécutoire européen, caractérisant une situation d’urgence qu’il revient au débiteur d’établir. Dans l’affirmative, il appartient à la juridiction ou à l’autorité compétente de l’État membre d’exécution de procéder à une mise en balance des intérêts en présence au regard de l’ensemble des circonstances pertinentes du cas d’espèce.

Seules les mesures de limitation de la procédure d’exécution visées à l’article 23, sous a) et b), de ce règlement peuvent faire l’objet d’une application combinée.

2)      Les articles 6 et 11 du règlement no 805/2004 doivent être interprétés en ce sens que :

lorsque le caractère exécutoire de la décision certifiée en tant que titre exécutoire européen a été suspendu dans l’État membre d’origine et que le certificat prévu à l’article 6, paragraphe 2, de ce règlement a été transmis à l’instance compétente dans l’État membre d’exécution, cette dernière est tenue, dans le cadre de la mise en œuvre des règles nationales applicables, d’assurer le plein effet de l’article 11 dudit règlement en suspendant la procédure d’exécution”.

Source : https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=267418&mode=req&pageIndex=3&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=FR&cid=363782

AG Szpunar delivered on 20 October 2022 his opinion in case C‑291/21 (Starkinvest SRL), which is about the European Account Preservation Order. The opinion is currently available in all EU official languages (save Irish), albeit not in English. Here is the French version (to check whether an English translation has finally been made available, just click on the link below and change the language version):

Context: “1. Le présent renvoi préjudiciel trouve son origine dans une procédure dans le cadre de laquelle la société de droit belge Starkinvest SRL demande l’autorisation de procéder à une saisie-arrêt conservatoire européenne de compte bancaire sur les sommes se trouvant potentiellement sur le compte bancaire français d’une société de droit irlandais.

2. Par cette procédure, la requérante au principal cherche à garantir une créance sur des astreintes qui seraient dues par cette société de droit irlandais sur la base d’une décision judiciaire rendue en Belgique l’obligeant, sous peine d’une astreinte de 2 500 euros par infraction, à cesser certains comportements.

3. [] le règlement (UE) nº 655/2014 prévoit des conditions différentes pour la délivrance d’une ordonnance européenne de saisie conservatoire des comptes bancaires (ci-après l’« OESC ») selon que le créancier a déjà obtenu ou non un titre exigeant du débiteur le paiement de sa créance dans l’État membre d’origine. Dans le premier cas, le créancier ne doit démontrer que le caractère urgent de la mesure du fait de l’existence d’un danger imminent, tandis que, dans le second cas, il doit également convaincre la juridiction du fumus boni iuris.

4. Dans la présente affaire se pose la question de savoir si le créancier, qui a obtenu une décision judiciaire condamnant le débiteur au paiement d’une astreinte en cas de violation d’un ordre de cessation imposé par cette décision, dispose d’un titre remplissant les conditions requises par le règlement nº 655/2014 et s’il est, dès lors, dispensé de l’obligation qui est exigée dans ce second cas de figure”.

Suggested decision : « L’article 7, paragraphe 2, du règlement (UE) no 655/2014 […] doit être interprété en ce sens que : une décision judiciaire signifiée condamnant le débiteur au paiement d’une astreinte en cas de violation d’un ordre de cessation ne constitue pas une « décision exigeant du débiteur le paiement de [la] créance » au sens de cette disposition, de sorte que la juridiction saisie d’une demande d’ordonnance européenne de saisie conservatoire des comptes bancaires par laquelle le créancier cherche à garantir le paiement de la créance relative à cette astreinte doit examiner l’existence et le montant de cette créance ».

Source : https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=267415&mode=req&pageIndex=4&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=FR&cid=365262

The Court of Justice delivered on 20 October 2022 its judgment in case C‑604/20 (ROI Land Investments Ltd), which is about employment law and Brussels I bis and Rome I. The opinion is currently available in all EU official languages (save Irish), albeit not in English. Here is the French version (to check whether an English translation has finally been made available, just click on the link below and change the language version):

« 1) L’article 21, paragraphe 1, sous b), i), et paragraphe 2, du règlement (UE) no 1215/2012 du Parlement européen et du Conseil, du 12 décembre 2012, concernant la compétence judiciaire, la reconnaissance et l’exécution des décisions en matière civile et commerciale, doit être interprété en ce sens que : un travailleur peut attraire devant la juridiction du dernier lieu où, ou à partir duquel, il a accompli habituellement son travail une personne, domiciliée ou non sur le territoire d’un État membre, avec laquelle il n’est pas lié par un contrat de travail formel, mais qui est, en vertu d’un accord de garantie dont dépendait la conclusion du contrat de travail avec un tiers, directement responsable envers ce travailleur de l’exécution des obligations de ce tiers, à condition qu’il existe un lien de subordination entre cette personne et le travailleur.

2) L’article 6, paragraphe 1, du règlement no 1215/2012 doit être interprété en ce sens que : la réserve relative à l’application de l’article 21, paragraphe 2, de ce règlement exclut qu’une juridiction d’un État membre puisse se fonder sur les règles de cet État en matière de compétence judiciaire lorsque les conditions d’application de cet article 21, paragraphe 2, sont réunies, quand bien même ces règles seraient plus favorables au travailleur. En revanche, lorsque les conditions d’application ni dudit article 21, paragraphe 2, ni d’aucune des autres dispositions énumérées à l’article 6, paragraphe 1, dudit règlement ne sont réunies, une telle juridiction est libre, conformément à cette dernière disposition, d’appliquer lesdites règles pour déterminer la compétence judiciaire.

3) L’article 17, paragraphe 1, du règlement no 1215/2012 et l’article 6, paragraphe 1, du règlement [] (Rome I), doivent être interprétés en ce sens que : la notion d’« activité professionnelle » recouvre non seulement une activité indépendante, mais également une activité salariée. En outre, un accord conclu entre le travailleur et une personne tierce à l’employeur mentionné dans le contrat de travail, en vertu duquel celle-ci est directement responsable envers le travailleur des obligations de cet employeur découlant du contrat de travail, ne constitue pas un contrat conclu en dehors et indépendamment de toute activité ou finalité d’ordre professionnel pour l’application de ces dispositions ».

Source : https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=267403&mode=req&pageIndex=4&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=FR&cid=367019

Kingdom of Sweden v Serwin & Ors [2022] EWHC 2706 (Comm) concerns an attempt by Sweden to gain compensation of a number of defendants whom it alleges were parties to a substantial fraud.  The fraud resulted in the misappropriation of in excess of €115m from the pension saving accounts of some 46,222 Swedish pension savers.

I may have to think one or two things through however I wanted to collect my initial thoughts at any rate.

Of note is that the application was one for summary judgment and that quite a few of the respondents did not file an acknowledgment of service or a defence. However, Sweden obtained permission from the court to obtain summary judgment on the merits even against them, rather than entering judgment in default (ia because that makes enforcement more straightforward). Other defendants are serving prison sentences in Sweden and they did enter a defence.

I do not want to turn this post into a banking and finance one however some background is required: [20] ff

The Swedish pension system has various types of pension provision, including a compulsory premium pension (PPM), in which a percentage of a pension saver’s earnings is put into an account, which is invested in investment funds selected by the pension saver from an online platform that the Swedish Pension Authority (SPA) maintains. Each pension saver has a PPM account. Among the investments which might be made were investments in so-called UCITS funds where these had been approved by the Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority (SFSA). UCITS funds are those meeting the requirements of the Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities Directive 209/65/EC.

A company that wished to participate in the PPM was required to
enter into a cooperation agreement with the SPA. This case arises from two UCITS funds which were listed on the PPM online platform:

i)            the Optimus High Yield Fund (Optimus), managed by Optimus Fonder which entered into a co-operation agreement with the SPA on 26 March 2012; and

ii)          the Falcon Funds SICA V plc (Falcon) which entered into a co-operation agreement with the SPA in relation to three funders under its management.

The events concerning these two separate funds have been described in the evidence as the Optimus phase and the Falcon phase..

There was consensus ([38]) that the law applicable to the Swedish claims so far as they concerned the Optimus phase was Swedish law, whether by virtue of Article 4(1) or (3) Rome II. That Sweden’s claims relating to the Optimus phase were barred by the doctrine of res judicata, merger, cause of action estoppel or the allied doctrine in Henderson v Henderson, was dismissed by Foxton J [44].

Falcon then was incorporated and authorised by the Maltese Financial Services Authority as a UCITS fund on 22 November 2013. Sweden’s summary judgment claim in relation to the Falcon phase argued that its claims in delict and for breach of fiduciary duty relating to that phase are governed by Maltese law and not Swedish law.

As far as the delict issue is concerned (misappropriation), application of A4(2)  to some of the defendants was clear, and Sweden argued application of A4(1) for the remainder, seemingly arguing (judgment is a bit unclear on this point) that the damage was suffered in Malta when funds held in Falcon were applied to the various classes of loss-making investments.  Reference was made by counsel and judge to Dicey 16th ed. 35-027: “in misappropriation cases … it seems appropriate to locate damage at the place where an asset … is taken from the control of the claimant or another person with whom the claimant has a relationship” – the judge held that it is strongly arguable that this happened when Sweden’s funds became subject to the control of Falcon and the powers of its directors or those operating behind the scenes; the judge seems to locate this in Sweden, not Malta, and to some degree it does not matter for with reference ia to Avonwick and reasons listed [81] it is held that A4(3) arguably is engaged to make the lex causae Swedish law.

[86] reference is again made to Dicey for the applicable law issue as far as breach of fiduciary duties is concerned: Dicey, Morris & Collins [36-069]-[36-070]:

i)                 If equitable obligations of a fiduciary character arise in the context of a contractual relationship, there is a strong argument that the law applicable to the parties’ contractual relationship under Rome I determines whether a fiduciary relationship exists and the nature and content of the duties imposed.

ii)               If, however, the equitable obligations are characterised as incidents of a company law relationship rather than as “contractual”, common law principles determine the applicable law ( company law matters are excluded from Rome I and Rome II).

iii)             If a fiduciary duty arises where the parties were not in a prior relationship, such as in the case of a recipient of trust property, then the “better view” is that the obligation is non- contractual in nature and falls within the ambit of Rome II.

Unlike Sweden, the judge holds there are strong arguments that Swedish law applies, by reference it seems to Dicey, above, i) and with the ‘anchor’ agreement being the one by which Falcon becomes eligible to received PPM funds. Rule ii) seems to be moved aside by the judge here, and at any rate the extent of that rule is not clear-cut (see the CJEU itself recently). It is clear and it was correct to hold that the discussion is not one for summary judgment material.

An interesting final, obiter point comes [91] ff re the ‘reflective loss’ rule (a shareholder (and some others) cannot claim for a fall in the value of their holdings due to loss suffered by the company, if and when the company has a cause of action against the same wrongdoer) under Maltese law. Falcon itself is currently asserting claims against some of the alleged wrongdoers in relation to those same misappropriations, however Sweden argues an exception to that rule on the basis of Maltese expert evidence that was not considered to be robust enough for the summary judgment stage.

I wonder though whether the suggested relevance of the reflective loss rule, does not serve as ammunition for the suggestion that Rome I and II’s corporate carve-out is engaged viz the breach of fiduciary duties claim. For is the DNA of the rule not one of clear lex incorporationis?

To be further pondered.

Geert.

Partially successful application for summary judgment
Some of the implications of lex causae under Rome II for breach of fiduciary duty have to go to trial

Kingdom of Sweden v Serwin & Ors [2022] EWHC 2706 (Comm) https://t.co/JgLAba8zI2
via @legalstyleblog

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) October 27, 2022

Generalstaatsanwaltschaft München (Extradition et ne bis in idem)
Citoyenneté européenne
Les autorités d’un État membre ne peuvent pas extrader un ressortissant d’un État tiers vers un autre État tiers lorsque ce ressortissant a été définitivement condamné dans un autre État membre pour les mêmes faits que ceux visés dans la demande d’extradition et a subi la peine qui y a été prononcée

Minister for Justice and Equality (Levée du sursis)
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Mandat d’arrêt européen : l’avocate générale Ćapeta propose que l’expression « procès qui a mené à la décision » soit interprétée en ce sens qu’elle vise toute étape de la procédure qui a une incidence déterminante sur la privation de liberté d’une personne

Confédération paysanne e.a. (Mutagenèse aléatoire in vitro)
Rapprochement des législations
Variétés végétales modifiées génétiquement : selon le Premier avocat général Szpunar, la mutagenèse aléatoire appliquée in vitro doit être exclue du champ d’application du droit de l’Union en matière de dissémination volontaire d’OGM dans l’environnement