Flux européens

Windhorst v Levy [2021] EWHC 1168 (QB) has been in my in-tray a little while. The court was asked to consider whether registration of a German judgment under Brussels Ia should be set aside when the judgment debt in question was subsequently included within a binding insolvency plan, which is to be recognized in E&W pursuant to the European Insolvency Regulation  – EIR 1346/2000 (not materially different on this point to the EIR 2015). Precedent referred to includes Percival v Moto Novu LLC.

Appellant argues the registration order should be set aside as the initial 2003  judgment is no longer enforceable, having been waived as part of a binding insolvency plan, which came into effect by order of a German court on 31 August 2007 (“the Insolvency Plan”), and which this court is bound to recognize under the Insolvency Regulation.

In CJEU C-267/97 Coursier v Fortis Bank SA (held before the adoption of the EIR) it was held that enforceability of a judgment in the state of origin is a precondition for its enforcement in the state in which enforcement is sought. However that judgment then at length discussed what ‘enforceability’ means, leading to the Court holding that it refers solely to the enforceability, in formal terms, of foreign decisions and not to the circumstances in which such decisions may in practice be executed in the State of origin. This does not require proof of practical enforceability. The CJEU left  it to ‘the court of the State in which enforcement is sought, in appeal proceedings brought under [(now) Brussels Ia], to determine, in accordance with its domestic law including the rules of private international law, the legal effects of a decision given in the State of origin in relation to a court-supervised liquidation.’

The respondent contends that, applying the test laid down in Coursier v Fortis, the 2003 Judgment plainly remains enforceable in formal terms under German law.

The judge, at 52 ff, refers ia to CJEU Prism Investments and Salzgitter to emphasise the very narrow window for refusal of recognition, and holds [56] that the German judgment clearly is still formally enforceable in Germany (where enforcement is nota bene only temporarily stayed pending appeal proceedings). The effects of the German insolvency plan, under German law, are not such that the 2003 judgment has become unenforceable [58].

The request for a stay of execution is also denied, seeing as the appellant chose not to pursue a means available to it under German law and before the German courts, to seek a stay (it would have required it to put down the equivalent sum as court security).

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, 2.560 ff, 5.141 ff.

Brussels I (not Ia; no material difference), Insolvency Regulation EIR
Whether registration of DE judment should be set aside when debt subsequently included in #insolvency plan, to be recognized under EIR
Windhorst v Levy [2021] EWHC 1168 (QB) (6 05 2021)https://t.co/B23rsMDykA

— Geert van Calster (@GAVClaw) May 7, 2021

Winslet & Ors v Gisel, The Estate of [2021] EWHC 1308 (Comm) is a brilliant example to teach the ‘looking over the fence’ method for determining forum contractus under Article 7(1), for contracts that do not fall within the default categories and whence the CJEU De Bloos place of performance bumps into the limits of harmonisation following CJEU Tessili v Dunlop. Confused?: the judgment certainly helps.

Claimants, domiciled at England, seek to recover from the estate of a late friend, a considerable sum by way of repayment of principal in respect of a number of interest-free loans between friends (the borrower domiciled at France).

At [16] Butcher J holds (despite considering the broad interpretation of ‘services’ by the AG in Corman-Collins /Maison du Whiskey) ‘In my judgment, the simple provision of money to a friend, which is not undertaken as part of a business of lending money, probably does not qualify as the provision of a service’ (per A7(2), GAVC – reference is made to C-533/07 Falco Privatstiftung v Weller-Lindhorst [29]: “The concept of services implies, at the least, that the party who provides the service carries out a particular activity in return for remuneration.”

The answer to the question ‘what is the place of performance of the obligation to repay’ therefore leads to Rome I per CJEU Tessili v Dunlop and to Article 4(2) Rome I. [26]

‘In the context of banking services, it is, at least ordinarily, the lender that renders characteristic performance of a loan agreement in providing the principal sum to the borrower’ (reference to CJEU Kareda). [27] ‘The question of which party renders the characteristic performance of a loan agreement outside the sphere of financial services has been viewed as rather less clear cut.’ [32] ‘pursuant to the contracts of loan which are in issue, claimants loaned money in return for a promise to repay.’ They, it is held, rendered characteristic performance under the Loans.

As a result, the Loans are governed by English law, as England is the place where each claimant has his or its habitual residence, and English law therefore determines the place of performance, which it does at the creditor’s place of residence or business (contrary it would seem to the position under French law.

Superbly clear analysis.

Geert.

EU private international law, 3rd ed. 2021, 2.401 ff.

A classic De Bloos, Tessili v Dunlop looking over the fence quagmire.
A7(1) forum contractus 'goods', 'services', 'neither' issue.
Winslet & Ors v Gisel, The Estate of [2021] EWHC 1308 (Comm)https://t.co/LlwbfpJaWR

— Geert van Calster (@GAVClaw) July 7, 2021

In ID v LU & Anor [2021] EWHC 1851 (Comm) Pelling J discusses a challenge to jurisdiction in which each of the parties are Ukrainian nationals. Brussels Ia applies but is only engaged viz one of the defendants. Claimant and second defendant are both domiciled and resident in Ukraine. The first defendant is a Ukrainian national who is and was at all material times domiciled in an otherwise unidentified EU Member State.

Claimant alleges that the second defendant approached him requesting that he move his corporate banking business to the second defendant, a Bank. Following discussions, the claimant agreed to do so and considerable funds  were placed with The Bank. The claimant’s case is that he agreed to do so only after the second defendant agreed that he would undertake personal responsibility for all monies that the companies placed with The Bank. The claimant alleges that it was expressly agreed by the claimant and second defendant that this oral agreement was governed by English law.

There was more tro and fro however I focus here on the jurisdictional challenge. With reference to Article 4 BIa and the most recent authority of Vedanta, the judge holds that in principle the defendant with EU domicile has a right to refuse to be sued other than in his place of domicile. However that defendant acknowledged service, indicating an intention to defend the claim but not to contest jurisdiction. This leads the judge to conclude, after some discussion, that there is A26 BIa submission (aka voluntary appearance).

Next follows an important discussion on the circumstances in which a defendant who voluntarily submits, may serve as an anchor defendant under the English residual rules.  It would certainly not be possible under Brussels Ia. The relevant rule in the practice directions (this is ‘Gateway 3’) reads

“3.1 The claimant may serve a claim form out of the jurisdiction with the permission of the court under rule 6.36 where –… 3) A claim is made against a person (‘the defendant’) on whom the claim form has been or will be served (otherwise than in reliance on this paragraph) and  – a) there is between the claimant and the defendant a real issue which it is reasonable for the court to try; and b) the claimant wishes to serve the claim form on another person who is a necessary or proper party to that claim.

Second defendant argues claimant is not entitled to rely on Gateway 3 because the first defendant is not a defendant who is to be treated as being a person on whom the claim form has been or will be served because the court has jurisdiction over the first defendant only because he has voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the English Court. The overall nature of the discussions on this issue essentially discuss the need to avoid abuse. Of note in this respect is the judge finding [41] that there is ‘no evidence that suggests that there was any agreement reached between the claimant and the first defendant by which the first defendant agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the court prior to the issue of the Claim Form in these proceedings or for that matter afterwards.’

Nevertheless the judge holds that the current authorities in particular the Court of Appeal in the Benarty [1983] 1 Lloyds Rep 361, continue to not permit a claimant to rely on an anchor defendant who has voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction when he could not otherwise have been served in accordance with the CPR. Obiter he holds that while there is a real issue to be tried against the second defendant, the contract gateway for jurisdiction (which would require English law to be the lex contractus) is not engaged. No clearly demonstrated will exists for English law to be lex voluntatis per Rome I [76] and [80]

There is no plausible evidential basis to submit that that the governing law identified by either Article 4(2), 4(3), or 4(4) [of Rome 1] would be English law. The Tripartite Agreement was, if made: (a) agreed between three Ukrainians who reside (or resided) in Ukraine and/or [The EU Member State]; (b) agreed in, variously, [The EU Member State], Ukraine, and France; (c) premised on a further agreement said to have been agreed in Ukraine, between two Ukrainians, in respect of deposits made by Ukrainians into a Ukrainian bank; (d) to be performed outside England. No party has provided any evidence of any connection between themselves, or the Tripartite Agreement, and England”

Neither does the tort gateway help [83]:

There is no evidence that at any stage any of the contact that took place leading to what the claimant contends to be the inducement of a breach by the first defendant of the Tripartite Agreement took place otherwise than in either Ukraine or The EU Member State.

At [86] ff England is, equally obiter, held to be forum non conveniens.

Lack of jurisdiction against the second defendant is confirmed. One imagines there might be ground of appeal given the change to the practice directions’ formulation after the Benarty and the need to clear up this principled issue.

Geert.

The opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Digitalisation of justice in the European Union. A toolbox of opportunities (COM(2020) 710 final) (EESC 2021/00048) has been published at the OJEU, C 286, 16.7.2021, p. 88, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.C_.2021.286.01.0088.01.ENG&toc=OJ%3AC%3A2021%3A286%3ATOC

The opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a computerised system for communication in cross-border civil and criminal proceedings (e-CODEX system), and amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1726’ (COM(2020) 712 final — 2020/0345 (COD)) (EESC 2020/05898) has been published at the OJEU, C 286, 16.7.2021, p. 82, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.C_.2021.286.01.0082.01.ENG&toc=OJ%3AC%3A2021%3A286%3ATOC

The opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions “Ensuring justice in the EU — A European judicial training strategy for 2021-2024”’ (COM(2020) 713 final) (EESC 2021/00976) has been published at the OJEU, C 286, 16.7.2021, p. 141, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.C_.2021.286.01.0141.01.ENG&toc=OJ%3AC%3A2021%3A286%3ATOC

Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Su & Ors [2021] EWHC 1907 (Comm)  discusses i.a. [840 ff; this is a lengthy judgment] the applicable law in the case of conspiracy. Lakatamia advance two claims against the Defendants, the first re dissipation of two assets (net sale proceeds of two Monegasque villas – the Monaco conspiracy and a private jet – the Aeroplane conspiracy)  in breach of a World Wide Freezing Order (“WFO”)  and secondly re intentional violation of rights in a judgment debt.

Lakatamia’s case as claimants is that English law applies to the claims regarding both conspiracies, whilst Madam Su’s case is that Monaco law applies to the claim regarding the Monaco Sale Proceeds and that an unspecified law (but not English law) applies to the Aeroplane Conspiracy.

None of the specific categories of torts in the Rome II Regulation are said to apply, bringing the focus therefore on the general rule of Article 4(1), with firstly its insistence that only direct damage determines lex causae, not indirect damage.

At 843 Bryan J, like claimants, focuses on the judgment:

the focus being on the freezing order and judgment, with the damage to Lakatamia being suffered in England as that is the situs of the Judgment Debt arising out of the Underlying Proceeding in England, policed by the… Freezing Order, and that is where the Judgment Debt stands to be paid, and where Lakatamia suffers damage if it is not paid or the ability for it to be paid is impaired – put another way England is the country where the Judgment Debt should have been paid, and the damage has accordingly occurred here.

To support the point, at 845 ff English and CJEU authority (much of it also reviewed on this blog) under A7(2)BIa is discussed albeit the judge correctly cautions ‘Authorities on the Brussels Regulation are “likely to be useful” but are not of direct application’. Core reference is Pan Oceanic,

(6)  There is a difference between a case in which the claimant complains that he has lost his money or goods (as in the Marinari case [1996] QB 217 or the Domicrest case [1999] QB 548 ) and a case in which the claimant complains that he has not received money or goods which he should have received. In the former case the harm may be regarded as occurring in the place where the money or goods were lost, although the loss may be said to have been consequentially felt in the claimant’s domicile. In the latter case the harm lies in the non-receipt of the money or goods at the place where they ought to have been received, and the damage to him is likely to have occurred in the place where he should have received them: the Dolphin case [2010] 1 All ER (Comm) 473 , para 60 and the Réunion Européenne case [2000] QB 690 , paras 35-36. (emphasis in the original).

I am not entirely convinced. While it is true that the conspiracy clearly impacts on the receipts, this is the consequence of actual behaviour by defendants elsewhere, with actual impact of that behaviour in that same place abroad. I do not think it is inconceivable to qualify the damage in England as ricochet hence indirect damage. The discussion here leads to CJEU Lazar which, it would seem, was not discussed in the proceedings.

At 860 at any rate, the judge lists his reasons for picking English law as the ‘proper law of the tort’ per A4(3) Rome II. This may be a more solid decision than the A4(1) decision.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, para 4.30, para 4.39 ff.

Distinguishing (in)direct damage per Rome II in a case of conspiracy [840ff]
Eventually A4(3) Rome II applied: manifestly closer connection to England
Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Su & Ors [2021] EWHC 1907 (Comm)https://t.co/pO1BRphvyB

— Geert van Calster (@GAVClaw) July 12, 2021

In Emerald Pasture Designated Activity Company & Ors v Cassini SAS & Anor [2021] EWHC 2010 (Ch) there is an interesting split between pre and post Brexit applicable EU rules, with BIa not engaged yet the EU insolvency rules firmly in the picture.

Claimants Emerald are lenders, and first defendant Cassini is the borrower, under a senior facilities agreement dated 28 March 2019 (the SFA). The SFA is governed by English law and has an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the English courts. Cassini is subject a French ‘Sauvegarde’) opened on 22 September 2020. This is a form of debtor-in-possession safeguard proceeding for a company in financial difficulties that wishes to propose a restructuring plan to its creditors. Sauvegarde is included in the proceedings that are subject to the Recast European Insolvency Regulation 2015/848. Parties are seemingly in agreement that the EIR 2015 continues to apply in the UK in respect of the Sauvegarde, because it was commenced prior to 31 December 2020, Brexit date.

Cassini contest jurisdiction, arguing that the claim derives from and is closely linked to the Sauvegarde and thus falls within A6(1) EIR, the so-called vis attractiva concursus which reads

“The courts of the Member State within the territory of which insolvency proceedings have been opened in accordance with Article 3 shall have jurisdiction for any action which derives directly from the insolvency proceedings and is closely linked with them, such as avoidance actions.”

This Article is the result of CJEU case-law such as Gourdain , Seagon , German Graphics , F -Tex.

Zacaroli J unfortunately repeats the suggested dovetail between BIa and the EIR, referring to CJEU Nickel & Goeldner.

As the judge notes [24] the application of A6(1) has not been made easier by the CJEU blurring the distinction between the conditions – with reference to Bobek AG in NK v BNP Paribas Fortis NV (on the Peeters /Gatzen suit).

Emerald argue that the question is whether the action itself derives from the insolvency proceeding. They contend that since the action is for declaratory relief in respect of a contract, its source is the common rules of civil and commercial law. Cassini focus on the issue raised by the action. They contend that since the only matter in issue in the action is whether the rights to information under the SFA are overridden by the Sauvegarde – and the principles of French insolvency law that govern the Sauvegarde – the real matter in issue concerns the effects of the insolvency proceedings so that the action falls within A6(1).

The judge [45] after discussion and assessment of the authorities (incl   ING Bank NV v Banco Santander SA ) discussed by both parties, decides against vis attractiva concursus. He holds that the legal basis for the declarations sought remains the SFA, and thus the rules of civil and commercial law, notwithstanding that the only issue which the court would be required to determine is the impact of French insolvency law on the obligations under the SFA. The question which the declarations are designed to answer, it is held, is the enforceability of the contractual rights.

On that basis, the exclusive choice of court clause grants E&W courts jurisdiction, under English common law (as it would have done under BIa, given the judge’s finding on vis attractiva).

If the claim goes ahead (one images appeal may be sought), the French insolvency proceedings will not have lost their relevance. Cassini argue on that issue [12 ff] that since the characteristic performance of the SFA is the loan of funds, which has already occurred, the SFA is not a “current contract” and as a result of French law, is no longer enforceable. Only the underlying debt subsists, they argue, which must be paid by way of dividends in the French insolvency proceedings. That argument, one assumes, will bump into further obstacles.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed, 2021, para 5.76 ff.

 

Interesting judgment where Brussels Ia due to claim date doesn't apply, EU EIR does: earlier opening of French #insolvency
CJEU Gourdain, related actions
Held E&W courts have jurisdiction per choice of court
Emerald Pasture v Cassini [2021] EWHC 2010 (Ch)https://t.co/RBcRzbVn98

— Geert van Calster (@GAVClaw) July 17, 2021

Aldricus – Apakah anak Anda kerap bolak-balik ke kamar mandi untuk kencing? Kemungkinan ada keadaan tertentu yang menjadi pemicunya. Untuk ketahui langkah menangani kerap buang air kecil pada anak, Anda perlu pahami dahulu pemicu anak kerap kencing. Dengan begitu, pengatasan terbaik bisa dicari.

Bila anak kerap kencing sesudah dia minum banyak air, ini tentu saja dipandang normal. Tetapi, jika Sang Kecil kerap buang air kecil saat sedikit minum air, kemungkinan ada keadaan tertentu yang menjadi pemicunya.Berikut beragam pemicu anak kerap buang air kecil dan langkah menanganinya yang dapat Anda kerjakan.

1. Terburu-buru saat buang air kecil

Jika anak terburu-buru saat buang air kecil, kemungkinan masih tetap ada urine yang masih ada dalam kandungan kemihnya. Keadaan ini dikenali sebagai voiding dysfunction.Voiding dysfunction umumnya terjadi saat anak sedang main dengan beberapa temannya hingga dia tergesa-gesa saat buang air kecil. Hasilnya, urine yang sisa dalam kandungan kemihnya akan membuat Sang Kecil kembali lagi ke kamar mandi untuk kencing.Bila ini kasusnya, langkah menangani kerap buang air kecil pada anak yang dapat Anda kerjakan ialah minta anak tidak untuk terburu-buru saat kencing hingga urine di kandungan kemih dapat dikeluarkan seutuhnya.

2. Peradangan pada organ intim

Peradangan pada organ intim dapat menjadi pemicu anak kerap buang air kecil. Bila terjadi pada anak wanita, keadaan ini dikatakan sebagai vulvovaginitis. Saat itu, permasalahan ini dikenali sebagai balanitis bila terjadi pada anak lelaki.Ke-2 keadaan ini umumnya terjadi bila anak-anak tidak bersihkan organ intimnya dengan baik. Disamping itu, mandi dalam bak yang penuh busa bisa juga jadi pemicunya.Vulvovaginitis ialah permasalahan yang umum terjadi pada anak wanita.

3. Diabetes tipe 1

Walau jarang ada, diabetes type 1 bisa menjadi pemicu anak kerap buang air kecil. Dokter biasanya akan lakukan analisis lebih dulu untuk pastikan apa diabetes type 1 sebagai pemicu anak kerap kencing.Bila memang keadaan anak kerap kencing disebabkan penyakit ini, umumnya urine yang dikeluarkan bisa banyak. Sang Kecil akan berasa haus terlalu berlebih (polidipsia) hingga dia bisa banyak minum.

4. Diabetes insipidus

Diabetes insipidus ialah pemicu sangat jarang dari anak kerap buang air kecil. Tipe diabetes ini terjadi karena ada permasalahan pada hormon antidiuretik (hormon yang membuat ginjal mempernyerap air).Keadaan ini membuat ginjal tidak dapat simpan air hingga badan akan kehilangan cairan. Hasilnya, anak akan berasa haus terlalu berlebih dan kerap bolak-bolak ke kamar mandi untuk kencing.

Penyembuhan diabetes insipidus akan dilandasi oleh macamnya. Misalkan, dokter akan mereferensikan pasien diabetes insipidus sentra untuk minum air semakin banyak dan konsumsi obat desmopressin untuk gantikan hormon antidiuretik yang lenyap.Sedang, untuk pasien diabetes insipidus nefrogenik, dokter akan mereferensikan skema makan rendah garam untuk kurangi jumlah urine yang dibuat ginjal. Dokter akan menyarakankan untuk minum cukup air buat menghindar dehidrasi.

5. Infeksi saluran kemih

Infeksi aliran kemih bisa juga mengakibatkan anak kerap kencing. Tanda-tanda infeksi aliran kemih yang perlu dicurigai berbentuk merasa sakit saat kencing, urine berdarah atau kotor, demam, ngilu punggung, sampai mual.Langkah menangani kerap buang air kecil pada anak yang disebabkan karena infeksi aliran kemih akan berbeda. Dokter akan lakukan analisis lebih dulu untuk cari tahu apa pemicunya.Bila pemicunya ialah bakteri, karena itu dokter bisa mereferensikan obat antibiotik. Tetapi, bila virus atau jamur yang menjadi pemicunya, karena itu dokter akan memberi resep obat antivirus dan antijamur.

The post Cara Mengatasi Sering Buang Air Kecil pada Anak appeared first on Aldri Blog.

Advocate General Pikamäe delivered on 14 July 2021 his opinion in case C‑262/21 PPU (A v B), which is about the impact of a transfer decision under Regulation no 604/2013 on the term “wrongful removal or retention” under Article 2 Brussels II bis. The opinion is currently available only in Finn and French. 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):

« Le règlement (CE) no 2201/2003 […] doit être interprété en ce sens que la situation, telle que celle au principal, dans laquelle un enfant et sa mère se sont rendus et maintenus dans un État membre en exécution d’une décision de transfert prise par l’autorité compétente de l’État membre d’origine conformément au règlement (UE) no 604/2013 du Parlement européen et du Conseil, du 26 juin 2013, établissant les critères et mécanismes de détermination de l’État membre responsable de l’examen d’une demande de protection internationale introduite dans l’un des États membres par un ressortissant de pays tiers ou un apatride ne saurait être considérée comme un déplacement ou un non-retour illicites, au sens de l’article 2, point 11, du règlement no 2201/2003, sauf s’il est établi que, sous le couvert d’une demande de protection internationale formée pour l’enfant, la mère a commis une voie de fait afin de contourner les règles de compétence judiciaire prévues par le règlement no 2201/2003, ce qu’il appartient à la juridiction de renvoi de vérifier au regard de l’ensemble des circonstances particulières du cas d’espèce ».

Source : https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=244107&pageIndex=0&doclang=fr&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2220107

The Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice delivered yesterday (15 July 2021) an important decision in case C‑791/19 on the Rule of Law in Poland:

“1.  Declares that:

– by failing to guarantee the independence and impartiality of the Izba Dyscyplinarna (Disciplinary Chamber) of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland), which is responsible for reviewing decisions issued in disciplinary proceedings against judges […];

– by allowing the content of judicial decisions to be classified as a disciplinary offence involving judges of the ordinary courts […];

– by conferring on the President of the Izba Dyscyplinarna (Disciplinary Chamber) of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court) the discretionary power to designate the disciplinary tribunal with jurisdiction at first instance in cases concerning judges of the ordinary courts […] and, therefore, by failing to guarantee that disciplinary cases are examined by a tribunal ‘established by law’; and

– by failing to guarantee that disciplinary cases against judges of the ordinary courts are examined within a reasonable time (second sentence of Article 112b § 5 of the Law on the organisation of the ordinary courts), and by providing that actions relating to the appointment of defence counsel and the taking up of the defence by that counsel do not have a suspensory effect on the course of the disciplinary proceedings (Article 113a of that law) and that the disciplinary tribunal is to conduct the proceedings despite the justified absence of the notified accused judge or his or her defence counsel (Article 115a § 3 of the same law) and, therefore, by failing to guarantee respect for the rights of defence of accused judges of the ordinary courts,

the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU;

2.      Declares that, by allowing the right of courts and tribunals to submit requests for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union to be restricted by the possibility of triggering disciplinary proceedings, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second and third paragraphs of Article 267 TFEU”

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=244185&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2220107

The European Commission adopted today a proposal for the EU’s accession to the Hague 2019 Judgement Convention. The proposal is available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/proposal_eu_accession_judgments_convention_and_annex_en.pdf

The Court of Justice delivered yesterday (15 July 2021) its decision in case C‑30/20 (RH v AB Volvo, and alii), which is about Article 7(2) Brussels I bis and the private enforcement of competition law

“Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 […] must be interpreted as meaning that, within the market affected by collusive arrangements on the fixing and increase in the prices of goods, either the court within whose jurisdiction the undertaking claiming to be harmed purchased the goods affected by those arrangements or, in the case of purchases made by that undertaking in several places, the court within whose jurisdiction that undertaking’s registered office is situated, has international and territorial jurisdiction, in terms of the place where the damage occurred, over an action for compensation for the damage caused by those arrangements contrary to Article 101 TFEU”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=244190&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2220107

The Court of Justice delivered yesterday (15 July 2021) its decision in joined Cases C‑152/20 and C‑218/20 (DG, EH v SC Gruber Logistics SRL (C‑152/20), and Sindicatul Lucrătorilor din Transporturi, DT v SC Samidani Trans SRL (C‑218/20)), which is about the law applicable to employment contracts:

“1. Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 […]  must be interpreted as meaning that, where the law governing the individual employment contract has been chosen by the parties to that contract, and that law differs from the law applicable pursuant to paragraphs 2, 3 or 4 of that article, the application of the latter law must be excluded with the exception of ‘provisions that cannot be derogated from by agreement’ under that law within the meaning of Article 8(1) of that regulation, provisions that can, in principle, include rules on the minimum wage.

2. Article 8 of Regulation No 593/2008 must be interpreted as meaning that:

–  first, the parties to an individual employment contract are to be regarded as being free to choose the law applicable to that contract even if the contractual provisions are supplemented by national labour law pursuant to a national provision, provided that the national provision in question does not require the parties to choose national law as the law applicable to the contract, and

– secondly, the parties to an individual employment contract are to be regarded as being, in principle, free to choose the law applicable to that contract even if the contractual clause concerning that choice is drafted by the employer, with the employee merely accepting it”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=244192&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2220107

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