Flux européens

Yanukovych / Conseil
Relations extérieures
Le Tribunal annule le gel des fonds de sept personnalités de l’ancienne classe dirigeante ukrainienne, dont M. Viktor Yanukovych, ancien président de l’Ukraine

Thank you Jan Jakob Bornheim for flagging Gray v Hurley [2019] EWHC 1636 (QB), in which as he puts it, ‘there is a lot going on’. Judgment is best referred to for facts of the case. On 25 March 2019 Mr Hurley commenced proceedings against Ms Gray in New Zealand. On 26 March 2019 Ms Gray issued the claim form in the present action and obtained an order for alternative service.

Of interest to the blog is first of all the matrimonial exception of Brussels Ia, nota bene recently applied by the CJEU in C-361/18 Weil. Article 1(2)(a) Brussels Ia (Lavender J using the English judges’ shorthand ‘Judgments Regulation’) provides that it does not apply to matters relating to: “…rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship or out of a relationship deemed by the law applicable to such relationship to have comparable effects to marriage.”

There is no EU-wide harmonisation of the conflict of law rules for matrimonial property. The UK is not party to the enhanced co-operation rules in the area and Lavender J did not consider any role these rules might play in same. Rome I and Rome II have a similar exception as Brussels Ia and at 111 Lavender J takes inspiration from Recital 10 Rome II which states that this exception “should be interpreted in accordance with the law of the Member State in which the court is seised.” Discussion ensues whether this is a reference to the substantive law of the court seized (Ms Gray’s position; English law does not deem their relationship to have comparable effects to marriage) or the private international law rules of same (Mr Hurley’s position; with in his view residual English private international law pointing to the laws of New Zealand, which does deem their relationship to have comparable effects to marriage). Lavender J does not say so expresses verbis but seems to side with the exclusion of renvoi: at 115: ‘I do not consider that the relationship between Ms Gray and Mr Hurley was a relationship deemed by the law applicable to such relationship to have comparable effects to marriage.’ Brussels Ia’s matrimonial exception therefore is not engaged.

Next, the application of the exclusive jurisdictional rule of Article 24(1) is considered. Ms Gray’s claim here essentially aims to establish her full ownership of the ‘San Martino’ property in Italy. Webb v Webb is considered, as are Weber v Weber and Komu v Komu (readers of the blog are aware that A24(1) cases often involve feuds between family members). Lavender J concludes that Ms Gray’s claim essentially is like Webb Sr’s in Webb v Webb: Ms Gray is not seeking an order for the sale of San Martino (and it does not appear that the right of pre-emption would be triggered by a judgment in her favour, as it would be by an order for sale). Nor is she seeking to give effect to her existing interest in San Martino. Rather, she claims that Mr Hurley holds his interest in San Martino on trust for her.

Application of Article 25 choice of court is summarily dismissed at 131 ff: there was choice of court and law (pro: Italy) in the preliminary sales and purchase agreement between the seller and Ms Gray. However, this clearly does not extend to the current dispute.

Next comes the application of Article 4’s domicile rule. Was Mr Hurley domiciled in England on 26 March 2019, when the court was seized?  Article 62(1) Brussels Ia refers to the internal law. Application is made by Lavender J of inter alia [2018] EWHC 160 (Ch), Shulman v Kolomoisky which I also included here; he also considers the implications of CJEU C-327/10 Lindner, and eventually decides that Mr Hurley was not domiciled in England, however that Lindner should be read as extending to the defendant’s last known domicile in a case where the Court: (1) is unable to identify the defendant’s place of domicile; and (2) has no firm evidence to support the conclusion that the defendant is in fact domiciled outside the European Union. This is a very relevant and interesting reading of Lindner, extending the reach of Brussels Ia as had been kickstarted by Owusu, with due deference to potential New Zealand jurisdiction (New Zealand domicile not having been established).

Final conclusion, therefore, is that Ms Hurley may rely on Article 4 Brussels Ia. Quite what impact this has on the New Zealand proceedings is not discussed.

Interesting judgment on many counts.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2 practically in its entirety.

 

České aerolinie
Transport
Vols avec correspondance au départ d’un État membre et à destination d’un État tiers via un autre État tiers et ayant fait l’objet d’une réservation unique : le transporteur aérien ayant effectué le premier vol est tenu d’indemniser les passagers ayant subi un retard important à l’arrivée du second vol réalisé par un transporteur aérien non communautaire

Commission / Grèce (Tsipouro)
Fiscalité
La législation grecque appliquant un taux d’accise réduit au tsipouro et à la tsikoudia fabriqués par les entreprises de distillation et un taux d’accise fortement réduit à ceux fabriqués par les petits distillateurs est contraire au droit de l’Union

PlasticsEurope / ECHA
Recherche, informations, éducation, statistiques
Confirmation de l’inscription du bisphénol A comme substance extrêmement préoccupante en raison de ses propriétés toxiques pour la reproduction

HQ e.a.
Transport
Les passagers qui disposent du droit de s’adresser à leur organisateur de voyages pour obtenir le remboursement de leurs billets d’avion n’ont pas la possibilité de demander également un remboursement auprès du transporteur aérien

Aubriet
Libre circulation des personnes
Les modalités de calcul de la durée minimale d’activité au Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, exigée par cet État membre, pour l’attribution d’une aide financière aux étudiants non-résidents, enfants de travailleurs frontaliers, sont contraires au droit de l’Union

Amazon EU
Environnement et consommateurs
Une plate-forme de commerce électronique comme Amazon n’est pas obligée dans tous les cas de mettre un numéro de téléphone à la disposition du consommateur avant la conclusion d’un contrat

Just a quick note for completeness’ sake on Pitruzzella AG’s Opinion in Joined cases C-349/18 to C-351/18 NMBS v Mbutuku Kanyeba et al. It engages consumer protection law, not conflict of laws. To decide whether there is a ‘contract’ between public transport providers and (alleged) fare dodgers, the AG has no choice but to refer to national law:

La directive 93/13/CEE ne réglemente pas les conditions de formation des contrats et le régime relatif aux clauses abusives qu’elle contient est en principe applicable exclusivement aux relations juridiques d’origine contractuelle, qui doivent être qualifiées par le juge national sur le fondement du droit national.

Readers of the blog will appreciate the echoes of Tessili v Dunlop and Handte /Kalfelis, Feniks etc. discussions.

Geert.

 

Commission / Belgique (Article 260, paragraphe 3, TFUE - Réseaux à haut débit)
Rapprochement des législations
La Cour interprète et applique pour la première fois l’article 260, paragraphe 3, TFUE, qui permet d’imposer une sanction financière pour le non-respect de l’« obligation de communiquer des mesures de transposition » d’une directive de l’Union

I reviewed Kokott AG’s Opinion in C-624/17 OM v Tronex here. The Court yesterday essentially confirmed her Opinion – readers may want to have a quick read of my previous posting to get an idea of the issues.

The Court distinguishes between two main categories. First, redundant articles in the product range of the retailer, wholesaler or importer that were still in their unopened original packaging. The Court at 32: ‘it may be considered that those are new products that were presumably in working condition. Such electrical equipment can be considered to be market products amenable to normal trade and which, in principle, do not represent a burden for their holder.’ However (at 33) that does not mean that these can never be considered to be ‘discarded’: the final test of same needs to be done by the national court.

The second category are electrical appliances returned under the product guarantee. At 43: goods that have undergone a return transaction carried out in accordance with a contractual term and in return for the reimbursement of the purchase price cannot be regarded as having been discarded. Where a consumer effects such a return of non-compliant goods with a view to obtaining a reimbursement of them under the guarantee associated with the sale contract of those goods, that consumer cannot be regarded as having wished to carry out a disposal or recovery operation of goods he had been intending to ‘discard’ within the meaning of the Waste Framework Directive. Moreover per C-241/12 and C-242/12 Shell, the risk that the consumer will discard those goods in a way likely to harm the environment is low.

However such a return operation under the product guarantee does not provide certainty that the electrical appliances concerned will be reused. At 35: ‘It will therefore be necessary to verify, for the purposes of determining the risk of the holder discarding them in a way likely to harm the environment, whether the electrical appliances returned under the product guarantee, where they show defects, can still be sold without being repaired to be used for their original purpose and whether it is certain that they will be reused.’

At 36: if there is no certainty that the holder will actually have it repaired, it has to be considered a waste. At 40 ff:  In order to prove that malfunctioning appliances do not constitute waste, it is therefore for the holder of the products in question to demonstrate not only that they can be reused, but that their reuse is certain, and to ensure that the prior inspections or repairs necessary to that end have been done.

The Court ends at 42 with the clear imposition of a triple duty on the holder (who is not a consumer, per above): a duty of inspection,  and, where applicable, a duty of repair and of packaging.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Waste law, 2nd ed. 2015, Oxford, OUP, Chapter 1, 1.149 ff.

Baltic Media Alliance
SERV
Un État membre peut, pour des motifs d’ordre public tels que la lutte contre l’incitation à la haine, imposer l’obligation de ne diffuser ou de ne retransmettre temporairement une chaîne de télévision en provenance d’un autre État membre que dans des bouquets payants

The representatives at the Diplomatic Conference at the Hague Convention have issued a provisional text of the Convention here. I am short of time to post a quick scan of the Convention – see some of my earlier posts on same. Also, since the Convention has taken on the format of the Brussels regime, it is of course quite an exercise even just to give a quick overview.

Of interest is that Jane Holliday posted a summary of key positive takeaways by prof Paul Beaumont, who was heavily involved in the drafting i.a. as a representative of the EU. These include the room for asymmetric choice of court (not covered by the Hague choice of court Convention and crucial for many common law jurisdictions); and the blend between the US and the EU regime for forum contractus: Article 5(g):

‘the judgment ruled on a contractual obligation and it was given by a court of the State in which performance of that obligation took place, or should have taken place, in accordance with

(i) the agreement of the parties, or (ii) the law applicable to the contract, in the absence of an agreed place of performance,

unless the activities of the defendant in relation to
the transaction clearly did not constitute a purposeful and substantial connection to that State.

Of note of course is also the carve-out for intellectual property and of ‘unilateral’ sovereign debt restructuring, but also of defamation and of privacy.

Much analysis no doubt to follow, as are complications in reaching a unified interpretation of the Convention once ratified.

Geert.

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

Thank you Stephen McConnell for flagging Mitchell v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. (Missouri) and Alani Golanski for doing the same for KGS v Facebook at the Alabama Supreme Court,

Both cases have plenty of scope for comparative analysis viz EU law and non-US common law. Which is why I had pondered them for use in exam essays but in the end did not – they might come in handy at a later stage. 

Readers best refer to the reports linked above for a full picture. In short, Mitchell involves the minimum contacts rule as well as ‘directing activities towards forum residents’: both have clear echos (and differences) in EU jurisdictional rules. On neither ground was specific (what the EU would call ‘special’) jurisdiction upheld.

In the Facebook case, Facebook argument is included on p.10-11. Claimant put forward a case for jurisdiction on p.13-14. She argues i.a. effects doctrine. Bryan J discussed both extensively p.15 ff and held that doing business in Alabama is not sufficient for personal jur., and (p.39) Facebook engagement with complaints not enough for specific jurisdiction.

In both cases the US Supreme Court’s decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb is cited as highly relevant authority.

Geert.

Constantin Film Produktion / EUIPO
Propriété intellectuelle et industrielle
Selon l’avocat général Bobek, la décision de l’EUIPO rejetant la demande d’enregistrement de la marque Fack Ju Göhte doit être annulée

Puigdemont i Casamajó et Comín i Oliveres / Parlement

Craeynest e.a.
Environnement et consommateurs
Les juridictions nationales sont compétentes pour contrôler le choix de l’emplacement des stations de mesure de la qualité de l’air et prendre, à l’égard de l’autorité nationale concernée, toute mesure nécessaire

Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (Indépendance de la chambre disciplinaire de la Cour suprême)
Droit institutionnel
Selon l’avocat général Tanchev, la chambre disciplinaire, nouvellement créée, de la Cour suprême polonaise ne satisfait pas aux exigences de l’indépendance judiciaire établies par le droit de l’Union

Hongrie / Commission
Aide d'État
Le Tribunal annule la décision de la Commission constatant l’incompatibilité de la taxe hongroise sur la publicité avec les règles de l’Union concernant les aides d’État

Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (Indépendance de la chambre disciplinaire de la Cour suprême)
Droit institutionnel
Selon l’avocat général Tanchev, la chambre disciplinaire, nouvellement créée, de la Cour suprême polonaise ne satisfait pas aux exigences de l’indépendance judiciaire établies par le droit de l’Union