Flux européens

The CJEU held yesterday in C-30/20 Volvo Trucks. I reviewed Richard de la Tour AG’s Opinion here.

After having noted the limitation of the questions referred to locus damni [30]  (excluding therefore the as yet unsettled locus delicti commissi issues) the CJEU confirms first of all [33] that Article 7(2) clearly assigns both international and territorial jurisdiction. The latter of course subject to the judicial organisation of the Member State concerned. If locus damni x has no court then clearly the Regulation simply assigns jurisdiction to the legal district of which x is part. However the Court does not rule out [36] per CJEU Sanders and Huber that a specialised court may be established nationally for competition law cases.

The Court then [39] applies C‑343/19 Volkswagen (where goods are purchased which, following manipulation by their producer, are of lower value, the court having jurisdiction over an action for compensation for damage corresponding to the additional costs paid by the purchaser is that of the place where the goods are purchased) pro inspiratio: place of purchase of the goods at artificially inflated prices will be locus damni, irrespective of whether the goods it issue were purchased directly or indirectly from the defendants, with immediate transfer of ownership or at the end of a leasing contract [40].

The Court then somewhat puzzlingly adds [40] that ‘that approach implies that the purchaser that has been harmed exclusively purchased goods affected by the collusive arrangements in question within the jurisdiction of a single court. Otherwise, it would not be possible to identify a single place of occurrence of damage with regard to the purchaser harmed.’

Surely it must mean that if purchases occurred in several places, Mozaik jurisdiction will ensue rather than just one locus damni (as opposed to the alternative reading that locus damni jurisdiction in such case will not apply at all). However the Court then also confirms [41 ff] its maverick CDC approach of the buyer’s registered office as the locus damni in the case of purchases made in several places.

Here I am now lost and the simply use of vocabulary such as ‘solely’, ‘additionally’ or ‘among others’ would have helped me here. Are we now to assume that the place of purchase of the goods is locus damni only if there is only one place of purchase, not if there are several such places (leaving a lot of room for Article 7(2) engineering both by cartelists and buyers); and that, conversely, place of registered office as locus damni only applies in the event of several places of purchase, therefore cancelling out the classic (much derided) Article 7(2) Mozaik per Shevill and Bier – but only in the event of competition law infringement? This, too, would lead to possibility of forum engineering via qualification in the claim formulation.

I fear we are not yet at the end of this particular road.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 2.2.12.2.8.

Just out #CJEU Volvo Trucks https://t.co/fkCqdk015C
Location of damage in competition law follow-on damages suits: locus damni A7(2) BIa.
Seems to confirm AGs opinion which I reviewed here https://t.co/CvpU5bFR2U More analysis soon.

— Geert van Calster (@GAVClaw) July 15, 2021

 

Thelen Technopark Berlin
Principes du droit communautaire
Selon l’avocat général Maciej Szpunar, une juridiction nationale saisie d’un litige entre particuliers ayant pour objet une demande fondée sur une disposition nationale fixant des tarifs minimaux applicables à des prestataires de services d’une manière contraire à la directive « services » doit laisser inappliquée cette disposition nationale

Commission / Espagne
Résidents fiscaux en Espagne : selon l’avocat général Saugmandsgaard Øe, sont contraires au droit de l’Union les amendes forfaitaires infligées en cas d’inexécution ou d’exécution tardive de l’obligation d’information concernant la détention de biens et droits à l’étranger 

Pologne / Parlement et Conseil
Selon l’avocat général Saugmandsgaard Øe, l’article 17 de la directive 2019/790 sur le droit d’auteur et les droits voisins dans le marché unique numérique est compatible avec la liberté d’expression et d’information garantie à l’article 11 de la charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne

Volvo e.a.
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Entente sur les prix de vente des poids lourds : la Cour précise les juridictions compétentes pour statuer sur des actions en réparation

A (Soins de santé publics)
Citoyenneté européenne
La Cour confirme le droit des citoyens de l’Union économiquement inactifs, résidant dans un État membre autre que leur État membre d’origine, d’être affiliés au système public d’assurance maladie de l’État membre d’accueil

Commission / Landesbank Baden-Württemberg et CRU
Politique économique
La décision du Conseil de résolution unique sur le calcul des contributions ex ante au Fonds de résolution unique pour 2017 est annulée à l’égard de Landesbank Baden-Württemberg pour insuffisance de motivation

Tartu Vangla
Principes du droit communautaire
La réglementation estonienne prévoyant une impossibilité absolue de maintenir dans ses fonctions un agent pénitentiaire dont l’acuité auditive ne répond pas à des seuils de perception sonore minimaux sans permettre de vérifier s’il est en mesure de remplir ses fonctions est contraire au droit de l’Union

The Department for Communities in Northern Ireland
DISC
La réglementation britannique sur le crédit universel, qui prive de ce dernier les citoyens de l’Union disposant d’un droit de séjour sur la base du régime instauré dans le contexte du Brexit, mais ne satisfaisant pas à toutes les conditions de la directive 2004/38, est compatible avec le principe d’égalité de traitement garanti par le droit de l’Union

FBF
Droit institutionnel
Les orientations sur les modalités de gouvernance et de surveillance des produits bancaires de détail de l’Autorité bancaire européenne sont valides

Ministrstvo za obrambo
Libre circulation des personnes
La Cour précise les cas dans lesquels la directive concernant certains aspects de l’aménagement du temps de travail ne s’applique pas aux activités exercées par des militaires

Commission / Pologne (Régime disciplinaire des juges)
Principes du droit communautaire
Le régime disciplinaire des juges en Pologne n’est pas conforme au droit de l’Union

Allemagne / Pologne
Énergie
La légalité de tout acte des institutions de l’Union relevant de la politique de celleci dans le domaine de l’énergie doit être appréciée au regard du principe de solidarité énergétique

WABE
SOPO
L’interdiction de porter toute forme visible d’expression des convictions politiques, philosophiques ou religieuses sur le lieu de travail peut être justifiée par le besoin de l’employeur de se présenter de manière neutre à l’égard des clients ou de prévenir des conflits sociaux

Nike European Operations Netherlands et Converse Netherlands / Commission
Aide d'État
Tax rulings émis par l’administration fiscale néerlandaise au bénéfice de Nike et de Converse : le Tribunal rejette le recours contre la décision de la Commission d’ouvrir la procédure formelle d’examen

Commission / Pologne
La Pologne doit suspendre immédiatement l’application des dispositions nationales relatives notamment aux compétences de la chambre disciplinaire de la Cour suprême

NB / Cour de justice de l'Union européenne
Statut des fonctionnaires
Tax rulings émis par l’administration fiscale néerlandaise au bénéfice de Nike et de Converse : le Tribunal rejette le recours contre la décision de la Commission d’ouvrir la procédure formelle d’examen

Ryanair et Laudamotion / Commission
Aide d'État
Le Tribunal confirme que l’aide accordée par l’Autriche à Austrian Airlines afin de l’indemniser pour les dommages résultant de l’annulation ou de la reprogrammation de ses vols en raison de la pandémie de Covid-19 est compatible avec le marché intérieur

Guerlain / EUIPO (Forme d'un rouge à lèvres oblongue, conique et cylindrique)
Propriété intellectuelle et industrielle
Marque de l’Union européenne : la marque tridimensionnelle de la forme d’un rouge à lèvres de Guerlain peut être enregistrée

Eastern Pacific Chartering Inc v Pola Maritime Ltd [2021] EWHC 1707 (Comm) is a highly unusual case which shows that dormant Conventions can be awoken from their slumber.  I merely dabble in EU external relations law, I am no expert in it. The application of that law in the context of private international law is an issue I have tasked one or two students with – let’s just say they find it challenging.

On the specific issue at hand, parties agree that consequential to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (Gibraltar) Order 1997, matters of jurisdiction between the E&W Courts and the Supreme Court of Gibraltar are governed by the Brussels Convention 1968 and that this remains the case notwithstanding Brexit. That core issue of external relations law pre and post Brexit is therefore not sub judice. One imagines that had it been, it could have led to extensive to and fro, among others within the context of the UK having revoked the 1968 Convention per the jurisdiction and Judgments Exit Regulations SI 2019/479, and of the Withdrawal Agreement.

In July 2020, claimant had a ship arrested in Gibraltar, with the purpose to serve as security for claims under a charterparty between both, claims that were to be brought in London, consistently with an exclusive jurisdiction clause in the charterparty. Roberston DJ classifies that action as one for provisional measures under Article 24 Convention (35 of the Brussels Ia Regulation).  The legality of that arrest (which ended upon claimant releasing it) continues to be disputed (ia viz the actual ownership of the ship).

Claimant (not domiciled in a 1968 Convention Contracting State) now sues  in E&W (pursuant to the choice of court) Defendant (domiciled at Cyprus) for outstanding monies. In current proceedings it applies to dismiss and strike out that part of the Defendant’s counterclaim at the E&W courts which seeks to advance claims in tort based on the alleged wrongful Gibraltar arrest.  In essence claimant submits that the High Court court has no jurisdiction to try the Defendant’s tort claims and should decline jurisdiction in favour of the Supreme Court of Gibraltar.

After a swipe [18 ff] at both parties having engaged, without court approval, experts on Gibraltarian law (which, she holds, bear no relevance for the jurisdictional issues anyways), Roberston DJ proceeds to discuss the lis pendens issue.

Defendant’s primary case is that, on the facts of this case, Article 17 Convention (A25 BIa) applies to confer jurisdiction, because the exclusive jurisdiction clause is broad enough to cover the tort claims. The Defendant’s fallback position is that, if that is wrong, the Court nevertheless has jurisdiction in respect of its counterclaims, not on the basis of A5(3) Convention (the Claimant (defendant on the counterclaim) not being domiciled in a Convention State) either because that necessarily follows from the Claimant’s decision to litigate its own claims here, or because Claimant has taken steps since service of the Defence and Counterclaim which waived any right to object to jurisdiction in respect of the counterclaims.

The discussion revolves around the contractual and statutory interpretation of the action radius of choice of court. This also involves the classic issue of tort claims between contractual parties (compare Wikingerhof) with the judge opting for the one stop shop approach (distinguishing ia Ryanair Ltd v Esso Italiana Srl [2015] 1 All ER (Comm) 152): 42: ‘there is a clear causal connection [between the contractual and tort claims, GAVC], which seems to be sufficient for the purposes of a clause worded “in connection with“.’ In conclusion: [52]: ‘whether damages are recoverable for an allegedly wrongful arrest made in seeking security for claims under the charter, ..is a claim “in connection with” the charter’ hence the E&W courts have jurisdiction. [39]: this ‘allows a single accounting, as regards the overall financial position of the parties as a result of the legal relationship created between them by the charter, and their dispute about what rights and obligations properly flow from that legal relationship.’

Obiter jurisdiction on the alternative grounds, under English residual rules, is also accepted (with the interesting note of the absence, in the Convention, of a gateway for counterclaims, in contrast with Brussels I and Brussels Ia).

Coming then to lis pendens under Article 21 Convention, this is dismissed. [70] The arrest claim plainly does not involve either the same cause of action or the same object as the Defendant’s tort claims seeking to recover damages for wrongful arrest, which are advanced solely by way of counterclaim in E&W. The factual and legal foundation for that counterclaim needs, on any view, to travel substantially beyond the matters the Claimant relies on for its own cause of action and the object of the counterclaim is to recover damages.

Neither [73] is an acknowledgment of service in the Gibraltar arrest proceedings does not amount to a submission to that jurisdiction which would preclude the Defendant from raising its distinct tort claims in E&W.

A stay on ‘related proceedings’ (Article 22 Convention) is also rejected for the reasons listed at [83]. Core reference here is Research in Motion v Visto [2007] EWHC 900 (Ch).

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Chapter 1 Heading 1.7, Chapter 2 para 2.375, 2.469.

Eastern Pacific Chartering v Pola Maritime [2021] EWHC 1707 (Comm)
Interesting and unusual case involving the UK and Gibraltar and applying the 1968 Brussels Convention (!)
Lis pendens, choice of court (charterparty), whether issues arises out of samehttps://t.co/eNp2jpl4Zw

— Geert van Calster (@GAVClaw) June 28, 2021