Flux européens

Commission / Hongrie (Valeurs limites - PM10)
Environnement et consommateurs
La Hongrie a enfreint les règles du droit de l’Union relatives à la qualité de l’air ambiant

This post has been in my draft folder a long time for First Advocate General Szpunar opined Mid-October in C-469/19 All in One Star Ltd. Still worth a flag, with the CJEU presumably soon issuing judgment. The case concerns the refusal of German authorities to enter a branch of a UK-incorporated company, in the German commercial register.  C-106/16 Polbud is the most recent major case on the issue.

The Opinion follows the (slow) progress of positive harmonisation of EU company law, with Directive 2017/1132 core to the questions. The AG opined that that Directive does not preclude a national provision under which the managing director of the company has to provide an assurance that there is no barrier to his personal appointment under national law in the form of a prohibition, ordered by a court or public authority, on practising his profession or trade. However he suggests the Treaty provisions on free movement oppose the authorities of destination requesting the director provide assurances that a notary, a representative of a comparable legal advisory profession or a consular officer has confirmed such absence of obstacle to him.

The AG was asked by the CJEU not to discuss the other question: whether a Member State may insist upon indication of the amount of share capital or a comparable capital value, for a branch of a limited liability company with registered office in another Member State to be entered in the commercial register. Presumably because the answer is clearly ‘No’ in light of earlier case-law.

Clearly following Brexit (the TCA as far as I am aware has no straight free movement principles for corporations) the issue will be different for UK corporations however it will continue to present itself in light of the intra-EU competition in corporate law.

Geert.

EU Private international law, 3rd ed 2021, Chapter 6.

ICMY: Opinion Szpunar AG in All in One Star Ltd: Inbound free movement of corporations, further extension of Centros and Inspire Art case-law https://t.co/19bHt9w5U5 (no EN text available).
Re refusal to enter a branch of a company registered in the UK in DE commercial register.

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) October 15, 2020

Consob
Liberté d'établissement
Une personne physique soumise à une enquête administrative pour délit d’initié a le droit de garder le silence lorsque ses réponses pourraient faire ressortir sa responsabilité pour une infraction passible de sanctions administratives présentant un caractère pénal ou sa responsabilité pénale

Trower J confirmed mid-December (judgment was not published until earlier this week) jurisdiction for England and Wales courts over continental corporations using ‘Restructuring Plans’, in an echo of his earlier findings in Virgin Atlantic.  The plan has in the meantime also been sanctioned. Mother holding is a Dutch BV. Plan companies are all UK incorporated. Creditors in part UK based, largely non-UK based. However the presence of a sizeable number of them in E&W is held (36-38) to be sufficient to serve as anchor using A8(1) BIa.

As I flagged in my review of Virgin Atlantic, pre-Brexit and of course even more so post Brexit, jurisdiction for these Plans let alone their recognition and enforcement in the EU, involves additional challenges to Schemes of Arrangements. I have a paper on the issues forthcoming.

Geert.

EU private international law, 3rd ed. 2021, paras 5.35 ff

 

Convening order is now here https://t.co/ADUj1QubUO
(and sanctioning order https://t.co/8BtUzj8KMM)
Brussels Ia jurisdiction re Deep Ocean #restructuring 'Plan' addressed in two paras simply confirming indeed arguendo approach as under Schemes of Arrangement, anchor defendants. https://t.co/Qb4nH1cPQO

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) January 28, 2021

From 22 to 27 January 2021, the Applicable Law Working Group on the Hague Conference Protocol of 23 November 2007 on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations met via videoconference. The Conclusions & Recommendations summarising the outcomes of the meeting are attached to this post.

Source: https://www.hcch.net/en/news-archive/details/?varevent=783

law-applicable-to-maintenance-obligations-hague-working-groupDownload

ClientEarth / BEI
Environnement et consommateurs
Projet Curtis en Espagne : la BEI doit se prononcer sur la demande de réexamen de ClientEarth

Szpital Kliniczny im. dra J. Babińskiego Samodzielny Publiczny Zakład Opieki Zdrowotnej w Krakowie
SOPO
La pratique d’un employeur consistant à verser un complément de salaire aux seuls travailleurs handicapés ayant remis une attestation de reconnaissance de handicap après une date qu’il a lui-même fixée est susceptible de constituer une discrimination directe ou indirecte fondée sur le handicap

Hessischer Rundfunk
Politique économique
Un État membre de la zone euro peut obliger son administration à accepter des paiements en espèces, mais peut aussi restreindre cette possibilité de paiement pour un motif d’intérêt public

In Top Optimized Technologies SL (A Company Incorporated Under the Laws of Spain) & Anor v Vodafone Group Services Ltd & Ors [2021] EWHC 46 (Pat) Smith J is asked to stay proceedings on the basis of Article 30 Brussels Ia’s related actions rule.

Three sets of proceedings are pending: one in Madrid; two in the UK. Parties, even some of them are of similar corporate blood, are not the same. Hence an Article 29 lis alibi pendens application is not possible. Arguments advanced at 39 ff in favour of a stay, are in the main, the same facts and matters being traversed (with an immediate indication of Smith J that the applicable law being different counts against, there being a ‘danger in overstating the overlap’); the danger of relitigating earlier proceedings elsewhere, and of consequential double recovery.

Smith J at 40 ff is in favour of what he calls the ‘wide approach’ to A30 (unlike a more narrow approach under A29 and incidentally under A45), to which I can subscribe. At 45 he sums up his reasons for declining the stay which of course are largely discretionary. However, among them is one oddity: at 45(4):

Moreover, this is a case where Vodafone has avoided – entirely properly – the jurisdiction of the Spanish courts by invoking the exclusive jurisdiction clauses in favour of England and Wales. Vodafone could have submitted to the jurisdiction of the Spanish courts under Article 26, but instead elected to invoke Article 25. As a result, proceedings involving all relevant parties (Vodafone and Huawei) and so eliminating any risk of irreconcilable judgments have not been possible. No criticism can be made of Vodafone in this: but, conversely, it seems to me perverse now to prevent the progression of the Second UK Proceedings in circumstances where the fragmentation of the originally constituted Madrid Proceedings against Huawei and Vodafone has occurred at Vodafone’s insistence. (emphasis in the original)

This echoes the findings of Lord Briggs in Vedanta, that the potential for submission carries a lot of weight in ultimate jurisdictional decisions. I am not convinced Brussels Ia supports this.

Geert.

European Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 2.2.15.2 (para 2.521 ff)

 

Application for a stay under A30 BIa dismissed, with oddly reference ia to the fact that Vodafone could have avoided the risk of irreconcilable judgments had it foregone its choice of court privilege and seized the Spanish courts for its own proceedings. https://t.co/T4XSzTk14J

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) January 14, 2021

A succinct post on yesterday’s reports that the French courts are now properly engaging with the action brought in France by more than a dozen US-based corporations (and one local, French defendant) on the continuing impact of the use of Agent Orange by the US Army in Vietnam. Thank you Taco van der Valk for pointing me to an earlier interlocutory judgment which identifies defendants.

Claimant is a dual French-Vietnamese citisen. Jurisdiction is based on Article 4 BIa against the one French defendant. Anchor jurisdiction with that defendant in play, reinforces the jurisdiction based on claimant’s French nationality (the infamous, often labelled ‘exorbitant’ jurisdictional rule of Article 14 of the Code Civil; on which see here). Claimant’s domicile in France presumably is an additional reinforcing factor.

Geert.

European Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, para 2.139.

Galapagos Bidco SARL v Kebekus & ors [2021] EWHC 68 (Ch) is yet again a fairly extensive first instance judgment merely on the issue of jurisdiction, entertaining Article 8(1) Brussel Ia’s anchor defendant mechanism as well as Article 25 choice of court.

On A8(1), focus of the discussion was the extent of a merits review under A8(1), which I also discuss  in Sabbagh v Khoury and Senior Taxi v Agusta Westland (both referred to here by Zacaroli J at 44 ff.; as was nb PIS v Al Rajaan). The issue was raised in CJEU C-98/06 Freeport but not answered. The judge here uses the notion of ‘sustainable claim’ to ensure absence of abuse of the anchor mechanism, concluding at 132 after fairly serious if arguably not excessive engagement with the merits, that the conditions of A8(1) are fulfilled.

Article 25 choice of court is discussed obiter at 138 ff., leading to some discussion on the timing of the binding character of the clause upon various parties (and a minor side-issue re Brexit).

A case-management stay was also applied for, with the judge justifiably adopting the strict approach at 160 that such a stay must not be used to circumvent the inapplicability of an Article 34 BIa challenge (the A34 route was dropped; in the light of A25 jurisdiction being established, it would be unavailable at any rate): case-management stay in such circumstances is in essence an application for forum non conveniens which is not permitted under BIa.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 2.2.13.1 (in particular 2.496); Heading 2.2.15.3.2.

In yet another very extensive jurisdictional ruling, jurisdiction in E&W accepted on the basis of A8(1) BIa anchor jurisdiction and A25 choice of court against another defendant. https://t.co/ppPZZqtxNy

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) January 19, 2021

An important notification under the Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on the service of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters has been published today at the OJEU (L 19, 21.1.2021, p. 1):

“According to Article 3(2) of the Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on the service judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters, […] (hereafter “the Agreement”), whenever amendments to the Regulation on the service of documents are adopted, Denmark shall notify to the Commission of its decision whether or not to implement the content of such amendments.

Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents) (recast) was adopted on 25 November 2020.

In accordance with Article 3(2) of the Agreement, Denmark has by letter of 22 December 2020 notified the Commission of its decision to implement the contents of Regulation (EU) 2020/1784. In accordance with Article 3(6) of the Agreement, the Danish notification creates mutual obligations between Denmark and the Community. Thus, Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 constitutes an amendment to the Agreement and is considered annexed thereto.

In accordance with Article 3(4) of the Agreement, the necessary administrative measures enter into force on the date of entry into force of Regulation (EU) 2020/1784”.

Source: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2021.019.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ%3AL%3A2021%3A019%3AFULL

Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi / EUIPO - M. J. Dairies (BBQLOUMI)
Propriété intellectuelle et industrielle
Le Tribunal confirme l’absence de risque de confusion entre la marque collective HALLOUMI, réservée aux membres d’une association chypriote, et le signe « BBQLOUMI » servant à désigner les produits d’une société bulgare

Sánchez-Bordona AG opined last week in C-913/19 CNP. The issue is whether a Polish court has international jurisdiction to rule on a dispute between a company to which a person injured in a road traffic accident that occurred in Poland had assigned his rights, and the insurance undertaking, established in Denmark, which insures the risks of the person who caused the accident. Krzysztof Pacula has interesting Polish context here. He also gives more background to the market and legal implications of involving third parties (such as garages repairing vehicles and providing replacement vehicles) and I am happy to refer to his analysis.

On applicable law and assignment, the EC has proposed rules which complement Rome I. That proposal is making its way through the Institutions, at snail’s pace. On jurisdiction, CJEU Hofsoe clarified one or two things but also created extra fog. The UKSC distinguished Hofsoe in Aspen Underwriting, not however without great effort and with continuing question marks. This really is an area which could do with co-ordinated Rome I and BIa legislative tweaking.

On the specific issue of branch jurisdiction, the case echoes Ryanair v DelayFix. The AG finalises his analysis on that question as follows:

 a commercial company established in a Member State which operates under a contract with an insurance undertaking established in another Member State may be classified as a ‘branch, agency or other establishment’ of that undertaking if, cumulatively:

–        it operates in a Member State by providing compensation for material damage on the basis of insurance against civil liability arising from the use of motor vehicles the risks connected with which are covered by the insurance undertaking;

–        it has the appearance of an extension of the insurance undertaking; and

–        it has a management body and material facilities such as to enable it to transact business with third parties, so that the latter, although knowing that there will if necessary be a legal link with the insurance undertaking, do not have to deal directly with that undertaking.’

Not of course a set of criteria which lead to much spontaneous predictability – again an issue which in the specific insurance context could do with statutory intervention.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, para 2.293 ff, para 2.73 ff.

Opinion Sanchez-Bordona in C‑913/19 CNP this morning the concept of 'branch' (for: branch jurisdiction) in Brussels Ia https://t.co/R0ubu9kTDE
with reference to ZX v Ryanair (on which see https://t.co/LPpDMQwMTE)

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) January 14, 2021

Venezuela / Conseil
Relations extérieures
Selon l’avocat général Hogan, un État tiers peut avoir la qualité pour former un recours en annulation des mesures restrictive adoptées par le Conseil contre lui

Yesterday, 18 January 2021, Singapore acceded to the HCCH Convention of 5 October 1961 Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents, which will enter into force for Singapore on 16 September 2021.

Source: https://www.hcch.net/en/news-archive/details/?varevent=781

Soriano v Forensic News LLC & Ors [2021] EWHC 56 (QB) engages ia the jurisdictional implications of the GDPR (this post focuses solely on the data protection claim). Claimant  (habitually resident in the UK) sues in relation to ten internet publications and various social media postings including on Facebook and on Twitter. He relies on various causes of action including data protection, malicious falsehood, libel, harassment and misuse of private information. Defendants are all domiciled in various US States.

The Brussels Ia Regulation is not engaged; the GDPR is. (On the partial overlap and conflict between BIa and the GDPR see my paper here). A79 GDPR reads

“Right to an effective judicial remedy against a controller or processor

1. 1. Without prejudice to any available administrative or non-judicial remedy, including the right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority pursuant to Article 77, each data subject shall have the right to an effective judicial remedy where he or she considers that his or her rights under this Regulation have been infringed as a result of the processing of his or her personal data in non-compliance with this Regulation.
   2. Proceedings against a controller or a processor shall be brought before the courts of the Member State where the controller or processor has an establishment. Alternatively, such proceedings may be brought before the courts of the Member State where the data subject has his or her habitual residence, unless the controller or processor is a public authority of a Member State acting in the exercise of its public powers.”

At 45-47 the ‘establishment’ issue is not much discussed for the claimant at any rate meets with the habitual residence gateway. Focus of the discussion is on A3’s territorial scope provisions (I am not sure I agree with the suggestion at 46 that A79 logically comes before consideration of A3). Reference is made to Google Spain, Weltimmo and  Verein fur Konsumerentenininformation- see also my review with Yuliya Miadzvetskaya here. The European Data Protection Board’s Guidelines 3/2018 on the Territorial Scope of the GDPR are then turned to to consider targeting, processing and ‘related to’ per A3(2) GDPR.

At 60, Claimant’s case on A3 (2)(a) is set out as arguing that the Defendants, to the extent that they are data controllers, offer services to readers in the UK irrespective of payment. As for A3.2(b), it is contended that the website places cookies on readers’ devices and processes their personal data using Facebook and Google analytics for the purpose of targeting advertisements, with Facebook Ireland Ltd and Google Ireland Ltd operating as the registered joint data controller. Further, it is submitted (By Greg Callus – the same counsel as in the Court of Appeal judgment in Wright v Grannath which I reported yesterday) that the Defendants were collecting and obtaining data about the Claimant and were monitoring his behaviour within the UK and the EU with a view to making publishing decisions.

Justice Jay held claimant has no real prospect of success on either (a) or (b). At 64 ff: the ‘journalistic endeavour’ complained of is not oriented towards the UK in any relevant respect; as for article 3.2(a), there is nothing to suggest that the First Defendant is targeting the UK as regards the goods and services it offers; as for article 3.2(b), at 68

First Defendant’s use of cookies etc. is for the purpose of behavioural profiling or monitoring, but that is purely in the context of directing advertisement content. There is no evidence that the use of cookies has anything to do with the “monitoring” which forms the basis of the Claimant’s real complaint: the Defendant’s journalistic activities have been advanced not through any deployment of these cookies but by using the internet as an investigative tool. In my judgment, that is not the sort of “monitoring” that article 3.2(b) has in mind; or, put another way, the monitoring that does properly fall within this provision – the behavioural profiling that informs advertising choices – is not related to the processing that the Claimant complains about (assuming that carrying out research online about the Claimant amounts to monitoring at all).

(Obiter, at 69, it is held that had the good arguable case succeeded, the claim would have withstood a forum non conveniens argument).

At 112 ff the jurisdictional case for libel is upheld.

An interesting illustration of the unsettled nature of jurisdictional claims under the GDPR.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 2.2.9.2.5, para 2.258 ff.

 

#GDPR, jurisdiction, merits test and forum non
Claimant represented by @Greg_Callus
On the A79 GDPR issue discussed in the judgment, see my paper here https://t.co/bjIRmMejB3 https://t.co/FJEpJ3nOy2

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) January 15, 2021

 

Wright v Granath [2021] EWCA Civ 28 is not the only litigation involving Mr Wright, defamation and bitcoin gossip: see my review of Wright v Ver [2020] EWCA Civ 672 (judgment to which Popplewell LJ refers for connections between Mr Wright and the UK) here. The judgment appealed here is Wright v Granath [2020] EWHC 51 (QB). Jurisdictional grounds evidently include the CJEU case-law right up to Bolagsupplysningen.

The title of this post is courtesy of Greg Callus, one of counsel for the claimant.

Defendant, Magnus Granath, is a citizen of Norway, resident in Oslo. He has tweeted on various technology issues, including cryptocurrencies, and has an interest in Bitcoin and its development. He believes that Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (the developer of bitcoin) is false, a statement that was also tweeted at the since deleted @Hodlonaut account. By 15 May 2019 Dr Wright’s advisers thought they had identified Mr Granath as the owner of the @Hodlonaut account, and sent a further letter via Facebook and LinkedIn seeking confirmation. The letter was served by hand on Mr Granath on 20 May 2019. Meanwhile on the previous day, 19 May 2019, Mr Granath issued proceedings in the Oslo District Court seeking in effect a declaration of non-liability aka NDR: Negative Declaratory Relief: a classic (and as Popplewell LJ justifiably suggests, CJEU-blessed) flip side of the coin action to avoid jurisdiction of the English courts. 

It is common ground that the Norwegian court was first seised. Jurisdiction was accepted by the Norwegian courts right through to the Supreme Court (talk about speedy proceedings: within a year the jurisdictional issue was considered at first instance, appeal and SC) on the basis that the relief sought was “global” in the sense that it was not limited to any harm or loss suffered in Norway, and that A5(3) Lugano was applicable because the “harmful event” occurred in Norway, that being where Mr Granath lived and published the tweets (locus delicti commissi).

CJEU Gubish Machinenfabrik and The Tatry clarify for the English version of Brussels I hence also of Lugano (assuming the requirement of parrallel interpretation of the lis alibi pendens rule) what was already clearer in other language versions:  A27 Lugano requires three identities: identity of parties; identity of object or ‘ subject-matter ’; and identity of cause.

In the establishment of identity of cause of action, the ‘ cause of action’ comprises the facts and the rule of law relied on as the basis of the action (CJEU Gubbisch). 

Coming then to the decision, Popplewell J dissented, with Singh LJ and Moylan LJ allowing the appeal. At 41 ff Popplewell J discusses the cause of action criterion, with the core at 48-49: he identifies two core differences between the English and the Norwegian claims: 

there are two differences between the English and Norwegian Claims whose significance requires examination. The first is that the Norwegian Claim identifies negligence as a necessary ingredient of liability under Norwegian law, and asserts the absence of negligence on Mr Granath’s part. This gives rise to the possibility that Mr Granath could succeed in Norway on a basis that would not be inconsistent with liability to Dr Wright in England under English law: if the Norwegian Court were to hold that the tweet was untrue because Dr Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, and there was no defence of lawfulness by way of public interest or freedom of expression, but that Mr Granath was entitled to his declaration on the grounds that although the tweet was wrong it was not negligently so, Dr Wright would have established all the ingredients of an English law defamation claim. However the consequence of the Court now declining jurisdiction under article 27 would be to preclude him from pursuing that English law claim or obtaining the relief it would provide.

The second difference between the claims is that were Mr Granath to fail in full in Norway, the relief available there to Dr Wright by way of counterclaim would not be co-extensive with that available in a successful English law claim. It would not include a s.12 statement; and it might not include an injunction. I say “might not” because it was in dispute as to whether that was so. Dr Wright sought to adduce expert evidence of Norwegian law before the Judge below, but permission was refused on the grounds that it came too late, with the result that there was no relevant evidence of Norwegian law or practice before the Court. Mr Tomlinson asserted that an injunction must be available in Norway as an effective remedy guaranteed by the EU Charter, but later confirmed that Norway was not a signatory to the Charter and not bound by it. He submitted in the alternative that such relief would be available as part of Dr Wright’s article 8 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, but that is not self-evident to me and the point was not explored in argument. I shall assume for the purposes of my analysis that an injunction is not available in Norway because for the reasons explained below I do not regard any such unavailability as precluding the application of article 27.

At 51 ff, Popplewell J’s important take-aways from Gubisch, are that  when considering objet, the search is not for complete identity, but for identity on a question “which lies at the heart of” the two actions. Same does not mean same. The two claims need not be “entirely identical” (at 55). And at 56 that there can be the necessary identity of cause without complete identity of legal issues in the two sets of proceedings. Here too same does not mean same.

Further precedent is considered extensively (much of it discussed on the blog) leading to summary of the principles at 90 and application in fact at 93 ff: Popplewell J would have held that the claims have the same cause and the same objet and that A27 Lugano requires the EN claim to be dismissed.

At 99 ff he dismisses the argument,  which was encouraged (wrongly in my view, as readers know) by Vedanta and EuroEco, that the application of A27 to Mozaic claims as here, be an abuse of EU law. There is no authority to suggest that A27 is inapplicable to defamation claims, and no sound reason for restricting its applicability, and on this Singh LJ and Moylan LJ agree.

Of note is that Popplewell LJ is spot on at 101 where he says

in any tort claim in which article 5(3) confers a choice of jurisdiction on the claimant for a global claim, the choice is equally conferred on a defendant by way of an NDR claim; in each case the option is circumscribed by the simple and automatic mechanism (per Gantner paragraph 30) in article 27 of who starts first. That is not an abuse of the regime established by the Convention, but rather its implementation.

Singh LJ and Moylan LJ allowed the appeal, however: Moylan LJ for the majority summarises at 160 ff, largely on the basis of the same authority as that discussed by Popplewell (with The Alexandros at the core). At 168:

Although I agree with Popplewell LJ when he says, at paragraph 81, that irreconcilability may be a helpful tool in evaluating whether the article 27 test is met, the potential for conflicting decisions will not determine whether the causes of action are the same.

I should like to refer to the litmus test proposed by Adrian Briggs and applied eg in Awendale: whether a decision in one set of proceedings would have been a conclusive answer in the other. If it would, then there is identity of cause of action.

The appeal is allowed, the case may continue in E&W – clearly irreconcilability at the recognition stage might still be an issue.

Should the UK be successful in its Lugano accession attempt, this case will be crucial authority post The Alexandros. In the alternative, it will be among the last echoes of Lugano in the E&W courts.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 2.2.15.1.

Lis alibi pendens, Lugano, defamation claims
Held: A27 does not apply because the proceedings in Norway and the proceedings in England do not involve the same cause of action. https://t.co/1pijVLyvib

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) January 15, 2021

Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona delivered today his opinion in case C‑913/19 (CNP spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością v Gefion Insurance A/S), which is about Article 7.5 Brussels I bis.

The parties: “CNP [] is a limited liability company established in Poland.

[Gefion] is an insurance undertaking established in Denmark. [Crawford Polska] established in Poland, is the undertaking authorised by Gefion to ‘settle claims in full’, as well as to ‘represent Gefion in all proceedings … before the courts and other public authorities’. [Polins], a second undertaking located in Żychlin (Poland), also represents Gefion in Poland.

The facts: “On 28 February 2018 a road traffic accident occurred in Poland, involving a collision between the vehicle belonging to the injured party and the vehicle belonging to the party responsible for the accident. At that time, the latter had taken out with Gefion a contract of insurance against the civil liability of the owner of the motor vehicle. [] while the car was being repaired, the injured party concluded with the repair workshop a contract for the rental of a replacement vehicle. [] By way of payment for the rental service, that person assigned his claim against Gefion to the repair workshop. At the end of the rental, the workshop issued a VAT invoice for the service. [] CNP acquired from the repair workshop, by way of a contract for the assignment of claims, the right to pursue against Gefion the claim for reimbursement of the costs of renting the replacement vehicle. [] CNP requested Gefion to pay the amount on the invoice. It sent the request to Polins’ address.

[] Gefion instructed Crawford Polska to assume responsibility for payment of the claim. Acting for and on behalf of Gefion, Crawford Polska validated the invoice in part and accepted part of the amount claimed. []     In the same document relating to the aforementioned matters, Crawford Polska referred to the possibility of making a claim against it as the entity authorised by the insurance undertaking. It also included information on the possibility of claiming against Gefion, either under the general provisions on jurisdiction or before the court with jurisdiction for the place where the policyholder, the insured person, the beneficiary or any other person entitled under the insurance contract is resident or established”.

The proceedings: “On 20 August 2018, CNP brought an action against Gefion before the Sąd Rejonowy w Białymstoku (District Court, Białystok, Poland). With respect to the international jurisdiction [of that court], [CNP] cited the information published by Gefion to the effect that its principal representative in Poland is Polins. It asked for service of documents intended for Gefion to be effected at Polins’ address.

25.      Gefion, as defendant, opposed the grant of the application on the ground that the Polish court lacked jurisdiction. It cited, as the provision applicable to jurisdiction, Article 5(1) of the Regulation. After arguing that CNP is a business entity engaged in the purchase of claims arising from insurance contracts, it submitted that CNP is not a policyholder, insured person or beneficiary and that, consequently, it does not have the capacity to bring an action before the court of a Member State other than that where the insured person is established.

26.      CNP submitted in reply that the defendant is on the list of insurance undertakings from EU/EFTA Member States notified in Poland and supervised by the Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego (Financial Supervision Committee, Poland); that it sells policies in Polish territory; and that it is unacceptable that someone subrogated to the injured party’s claim should not be able to seek reimbursement of the repair costs in question before the court for the place where the harmful event and the repair took place”.

The opinion: “Article 7(5) of [Brussels I bis] must be interpreted as meaning that a commercial company established in a Member State which operates under a contract with an insurance undertaking established in another Member State may be classified as a ‘branch, agency or other establishment’ of that undertaking if, cumulatively:

–        it operates in a Member State by providing compensation for material damage on the basis of insurance against civil liability arising from the use of motor vehicles the risks connected with which are covered by the insurance undertaking;

–        it has the appearance of an extension of the insurance undertaking; and

–        it has a management body and material facilities such as to enable it to transact business with third parties, so that the latter, although knowing that there will if necessary be a legal link with the insurance undertaking, do not have to deal directly with that undertaking”

Source: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=236431&mode=req&pageIndex=1&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&cid=22755183

Commission / Italie (Contribution à l’achat de carburants)
Fiscalité
La remise sur le prix des carburants pour les résidents de la Regione autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia n’entraîne pas, en soi, une violation de la directive sur la taxation de l’énergie