Feed aggregator

Consorzio Italian Management e Catania Multiservizi et Catania Multiservizi
Droit institutionnel
La Cour précise sa jurisprudence « Cilfit » concernant les situations dans lesquelles les juridictions nationales statuant en dernier ressort ne sont pas soumises à l’obligation de renvoi préjudiciel

LU
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
L’application du principe de reconnaissance mutuelle aux sanctions pécuniaires s’oppose à ce que l’autorité d’exécution remette en cause la qualification juridique donnée par l’autorité d’émission à l’agissement sanctionné

W. Ż. (Chambre de contrôle extraordinaire et des affaires publiques de la Cour suprême - nomination)
Principes du droit communautaire
Les mutations non consenties d’un juge vers une autre juridiction ou entre deux sections d’une même juridiction sont susceptibles de porter atteinte aux principes d’inamovibilité et d’indépendance des juges

Sigma Alimentos Exterior / Commission,dans les affaires jointes C-51/19 P World Duty Free Group/Commission et
Aide d'État
La Cour rejette les pourvois contre les arrêts du Tribunal confirmant la qualification du régime fiscal espagnol d’amortissement de la survaleur financière (goodwill) d’aide d’État incompatible avec le marché intérieur

Les traités n’interdisent pas au Conseil d’attendre, avant d’adopter la décision portant conclusion par l’Union de la convention d’Istanbul, le « commun accord » des États membres, mais cette institution ne saurait modifier la procédure de conclusion de cette convention en subordonnant cette conclusion à la constatation préalable d’un tel « commun accord »

This post was contributed by Thomas Mastrullo, who is an Associate Professor at the University of Luxembourg.

In a judgment of 3 March 2021, the French Court of Cassation allowed an appeal against the judgment of a court of appeal which had refused to declare the enforceability in France of a foreign decision rendered in insolvency proceedings by simply invoking a previous decision of the foreign court without analysing its content, nor finding that it was irreconcilable with the decision the enforcement of which was sought in France.

Decisions of the Court of Cassation on the enforcement of foreign decisions in insolvency proceedings are not frequent, which makes this decision interesting.

Background

In this case, the insolvency practitioner of insolvency proceedings opened in Germany had requested that a decision of the bankruptcy court of Ansbach – ordering the payment of a certain sum of money to the former manager of the debtor company – be declared enforceable in France. The application for enforceability was accepted by a declaration of the registrar, but rejected by the Court of Appeal. The insolvency practitioner appealed to the Court of Cassation. In particular, he criticised the Court of Appeal for refusing to declare the enforceability by simply referring – without any analysis – to an earlier decision of the Ansbsach District Court.

Irreconcilability of Decisions under the Brussels I Regulation

It is true that the enforcement of a decision can sometimes be excluded because of the existence of an earlier decision. But some conditions must be fulfilled.

For the enforcement of judgments, Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings refers to Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Regl. No 1346/2000, Art. 25. – Regulation No 1346/2000 actually refers to the Brussels Convention, the provisions of which are reproduced identically in Regulation (EC) No 44/2001). And Article 34(4) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 provides that a judgment shall not be recognised – and thus shall not be enforceable – only if “it is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in another Member State or in a third State involving the same cause of action and between the same parties, provided that the earlier judgment fulfils the conditions necessary for its recognition in the Member State addressed”. As a consequence, a national judge cannot refuse to recognise and enforce a judgment merely by noting the existence of an earlier judgment: such a refusal demands that the earlier judgment was given “between the same parties” in a dispute “involving the same cause of action” as the judgment for which recognition is sought, that it is able of being recognised in the Member State concerned and that the two judgments are irreconcilable.

Therefore, by merely referring to the judgment of the Ansbach District Court, the Court of Appeal “deprived its judgment of a legal basis”, i.e. did not examine fully whether the requirements of the applicable provision were fulfilled. As the Court of Cassation states, under Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 and Article 34(4) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, the Court of Appeal could not simply refer to the earlier decision without “analysing” its content or “establishing its irreconcilability” with the decision the enforceability of which was sought in France.

Even if it seems self-evident, this reminder of the national judge’s role in the recognition and enforcement of decisions related to insolvency proceedings is welcome.

In any case, one can wonder if the existence of an earlier irreconcilable judgment from the same Member State as the judgment the recognition and enforceability of which is sought, as in the present case, is effectively able to prevent such recognition. Indeed, in the Salzgitter judgment of 26 September 2013, the Court of Justice ruled that Article 34 (4) of the Brussels I Regulation doesn’t cover irreconcilable judgments given by courts of the same Member State.

The long-awaited Rome II Study commissioned by the European Commission, evaluating the first ten years of the application of the Rome II Regulation on the applicable law to non-contractual obligations, has been published. It is available here. The Study was coordinated by BIICL and Civic and relies on legal analysis, data collection, a consultation of academics and practitioners, and national reports by rapporteurs from the Member States. The extensive study which also includes the national reports, discusses the scope of the Regulation and the functioning of the main rules, including the location of damages under Art. 4 Rome II, which is problematic in particular in cases of prospectus liability and financial market torts. As many of our readers will know, one of the issues that triggered debate when the Rome II Regulation was negotiated was the infringement of privacy and personality rights, including defamation, which topic was eventually excluded from the Regulation. While it has been simmering in the background and caught the attention of the Parliament earlier on, this topic is definitely back on the agenda with the majority opinion being that an EU conflict of laws rule is necessary.

Three topics that the European Commission had singled out as areas of special interest are: (1) the application of Rome II in cases involving Artificial Intelligence; (2) business and human rights infringements and the application of Art. 4 and – for environmental cases – Art 7; and (3) Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation (SLAPPs). For the latter topic, which is currently also studied by an expert group installed by the European Commission, the inclusion of a rule on privacy and personality rights is also pivotal.

The ball is now in the court of the Commission.

To be continued.

On 4 October 2021, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held in Convoy Collateral Ltd (Appellant) v Broad Idea (Respondent) (British Virgin Islands) that the House of Lords’ decision in Siskina (Owners of cargo lately laden on board) v Distos Cia Naviera SA [1979] AC 210 (“The Siskina”) and the Privy Council decision in Mercedes Benz AG v Leiduck [1996] AC 284 were wrongly decided.

The first few sentences of Lord Leggatt in Convoy say it all:

1. In his dissenting judgment in Mercedes Benz AG v Leiduck [1996] AC 284 at p 314D, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead said:

“The law took a wrong turning in The Siskina, and the sooner it returns to the proper path the better.”

The Siskina

In The Siskina, the House of Lords held that English courts have no power to grant freezing orders (Mareva injunctions, at the time) unless it is ancillary to a cause of action, in the sense of a claim for final, substantive relief which the court has jurisdiction to grant.

In other words, English courts, and courts of common law jurisdictions following the English common law, would only grant freezing injunctions if they had jurisdiction on the merits.

In contrast, the mere presence of assets within the jurisdiction was not an autonomous ground for granting freezing injunctions. Despite scholarly opinions to the contrary, such as the comments of Lord Collins in a case note in the Law Quarterly Review:

“Common sense would suggest that if proceedings are pending in one country, and the defendant’s assets are situate in another country, the plaintiff ought to be able to obtain protective or interim relief by way of attachment in the latter country. That is indeed the law in most countries …” L. Collins, “The Siskina again: an opportunity missed” (1996) 112 LQR 8

Convoy

Broad Idea is a company incorporated in the BVI. Dr. Cho is a shareholder and director of Broad Idea. In February 2018, Convoy applied to the BVI court for freezing orders against Broad Idea and Dr. Cho in support of anticipated proceedings against Dr Cho in Hong Kong. Convoy also sought permission to serve Dr. Cho out of the jurisdiction. Following a hearing held without notice to Broad Idea and Dr. Cho, the BVI court granted freezing orders restraining them from disposing of or diminishing the value of certain of their respective assets and gave permission to serve Dr. Cho out of the jurisdiction. Convoy commenced proceedings against Dr. Cho (but not Broad Idea) in Hong Kong shortly thereafter. The freezing orders issued against Dr. Cho by the BVI court and the order granting permission to serve Dr Cho out of the jurisdiction were subsequently set aside in April 2019 on the basis that the court did not have jurisdiction to make them. In the meantime, Convoy had made a further application for a freezing order against Broad Idea in support of the Hong Kong proceedings against Dr. Cho.

In July 2019, the judge continued the freezing order against Broad Idea indefinitely on the basis that the principle enunciated in TSB Private Bank International SA v Chabra [1992] 2 All ER 245 applied in the circumstances and that Broad Idea’s assets were at risk of dissipation. Broad Idea’s appeal against the judge’s decision was allowed by the Court of Appeal. Convoy then appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Coucil.

The issues were:

(i) whether the BVI court has jurisdiction and/or power to grant a freezing order where the respondent is a person against whom no cause of action has arisen, and against whom no substantive proceedings are pursued, in the BVI or elsewhere, and if so
(ii) whether any such jurisdiction and/or power extends to the granting of a freezing order in support of proceedings to which that person is not a party.

Lord Leggatt concluded for the majority:

It is necessary to dispel the residual uncertainty emanating from The Siskina and to make it clear that the constraints on the power, and the exercise of the power, to grant freezing and other interim injunctions which were articulated in that case are not merely undesirable in modern day international commerce but legally unsound. The shades of The Siskina have haunted this area of the law for far too long and they should now finally be laid to rest.

Sir Goeffrey Vos wrote a minority opinion.

A Civil Law Perspective

Many lawyers from the civil law tradition found the Siskina quite remarkable. This is because, in most civil law jurisdictions, the proposition that protective measures could produce any extraterritorial effect has always been highly controversial. So, the idea that any other court than the court of the place where the assets might be situated could have jurisdiction to order, or supervise, their freezing, bordered the unthinkable.

True, protective measures in the civil law tradition are typically provisional attachments, which act in rem, while interim injunctions are equitable remedies which act in personam. But I would argue that this is a quite formalistic distinction. There is no fundamental reason why an in rem remedy could not reach assets situated abroad, and be enforced there.

If that is correct, then the issue is how to define the (extra) territorial reach of freezing injunctions/attachements. Jurisdiction on the merits is certainly a very reasonable one.

But, clearly, the location of the assets does also appear as a very reasonable ground for granting jurisdiction to freeze/attach them, if only for efficiency purposes (speed, in particular).

La 4e directive (UE) 2015/849 ne s’oppose pas à ce que l’auteur de l’activité criminelle qui a généré les capitaux blanchis puisse également être l’auteur de l’infraction de blanchiment de capitaux.

Sur la boutique Dalloz Code pénal 2022, annoté Voir la boutique Dalloz

en lire plus

La Cour de justice de l’Union européenne apporte trois utiles précisions à la possibilité offerte par le règlement successions pour les juridictions de l’État membre de résidence habituelle du défunt de décliner leur compétence en faveur des juridictions de l’État membre de nationalité du défunt.

Sur la boutique Dalloz Code civil 2022, annoté Code de procédure civile 2022, annoté Droit des successions Successions et libéralités 2021 Droit des successions et des libéralités Voir la boutique Dalloz

en lire plus

The federal courts of appeal are split over whether state or federal law governs claims brought under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which waives sovereign immunity for foreign entities in certain cases. Sometimes, this is an outcome-determinative question.

In the case of Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation, the heirs of a Holocaust survivor are seeking to recover a painting by French impressionist Camille Pissarro that was stolen by the Nazis in 1939. The 1897 painting is currently on display in the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum, a Spanish state museum in Madrid. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against the heirs, saying that federal law called for the application of Spanish law, which allows the holder of stolen property to obtain title through the doctrine of adverse possession. The heirs claim California law, which never allows the holder of stolen property to obtain good title, applies. 

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to resolve the question. The pleadings are available on SCOTUSBlog here; more coverage of this interesting issue will follow.

Only one judgment on PIL matters, namely the one in C-581/20, TOTO (first chamber: judges Bonichot, Bay Larsen, Safjan, Jääskinen and Toader, the latter as reporting judge) is scheduled so far for publication in October 2021. It will happen next Wednesday. In addition, two opinions are expected towards the end of the month.

Case C-581/20

The Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria) referred the following questions to the Court of Justice:

1) Is Article 1 of [the Brussels I bis Regulation] to be interpreted as meaning that a case such as that described in this order for reference must be regarded in whole or in part as a civil or commercial matter within the meaning of Article 1(1) of that regulation?

2) After the right to make an application for provisional/protective measures has been exercised and the court having jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter has already ruled on that application, is the court seised of an application for interim relief on the same basis and under Article 35 of [the Brussels I bis Regulation] to be regarded as not having jurisdiction from the point at which evidence is produced that the court having jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter has given a ruling on that application?

3) If it follows from the answers to the first two questions referred that the court seised of an application under Article 35 of [the Brussels I bis Regulation] has jurisdiction, must the conditions for the ordering of protective measures under Article 35 of [the Brussels I bis Regulation] be interpreted independently? Should a provision which does not allow a protective measure to be ordered against a public body in a case such as the present one be disapplied?

In the case at hand, the State Treasury – Director-General for National Roads, Poland – commissioned the Italian companies Toto S.p.A Costruzioni Generali and Vianini Lavori S.p.A. to construct the S-5 expressway. Pursuant to clause 20.6 of the contract, the parties agreed on the jurisdiction of the Polish courts. Under the contract, guarantees were provided to ensure the fulfilment of the obligations. Furthermore, another guarantee was issued by an insurance company (ZD ‘Euroins’ AD) to secure payment of a contractual penalty in case of failure to complete the construction works in time.

Toto S.p.A Costruzioni Generali and Vianini Lavori S.p.A. brought actions in Poland against the State Treasury, seeking a declaration that the defendant is not entitled to demand payment of the contractual penalty agreed in the contract, since the conditions for such payment are not met. The Italian companies requested as well an interim measure obliging the defendant to refrain, in particular, from making use of guarantee provided by ZD ‘Euroins’ AD.

The Polish court considered the applications for an interim measure unfounded. The companies applied then to the Sofia City Court for an interim measure in connection with the actions brought before the District Court of Warsaw. The Sofia City Court rejected that application. The Sofia Court of Appeal reversed the decision and issued an attachment order against the receivable of the Ministry of Finance, Director-General for National Roads and Motorways, Poland, arising from the guarantees above mentioned.

The State Treasury of Poland appealed against the Supreme Court of Cassation (Bulgaria), which is the referring court in the main proceedings.

AG Rantos was asked to provide an opinion on the second question. It was published the 9th of September and can be consulted here – no English translation so far.

Case C-421/20

AG Szpunar’s opinion in C-421/20, Acacia, is due on 28 October. The request comes from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, Germany). It focuses on the interpretation (application?) of Article 82(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (CDR), whereby “Proceedings in respect of the actions and claims referred to in Article 81(a) and (d) may also be brought in the courts of the Member State in which the act of infringement has been committed or threatened.”

According to Article 81(a) and (d), “The Community design courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction: (a) for infringement actions and – if they are permitted under national law – actions in respect of threatened infringement of Community designs; … (d) for counterclaims for a declaration of invalidity of a Community design raised in connection with actions under (a)”.

The questions referred read as follows

1) In proceedings for an infringement of Community designs, can the national court dealing with the infringement proceedings having international jurisdiction pursuant to Article 82(5) of the CDR apply the national law of the Member State in which the court dealing with the infringement proceedings is situated (lex fori) to subsequent claims in relation to the territory of its Member State?

2) If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Can the ‘initial place of infringement’ for the purposes of the CJEU judgments in Cases C 24/16, C 25/16 (Nintendo v BigBen) regarding the determination of the law applicable to subsequent claims under Article 8(2) of [the Rome II Regulation] also lie in the Member State where the consumers to whom internet advertising is addressed are located and where goods infringing designs are put on the market within the meaning of Article 19 of the CDR, in so far as only the offering and the putting on the market in that Member State are challenged, even if the internet offers on which the offering and the putting on the market are based were launched in another Member State?

The case concerns a car manufacturer (the claimant in the main proceedings), who is, inter alia, the registered holder of Community design No 001598277-0002 (‘the Registered Design’). The defendant, an Italian company, manufactures rims for motor vehicles in Italy and sells them throughout the European Union. In Germany, it markets rims under the name ‘WSP Italy’, including the ‘Neptune GT’ model. The claimant considers that the distribution of the rims in Germany by the defendant constitutes an infringement of its Registered Design, whereas the defendant invokes the repair clause in Article 110 of the Council Regulation on Community Designs.

The Landgericht (Regional Court) ordered the defendant – geographically limited to the Federal Republic of Germany – to cease and desist, to provide information, to return documents and to surrender items for the purpose of destruction, and established the defendant’s obligation to pay damages. It based its international jurisdiction on Article 82(5) of the Community Design Regulation, assumed that the defendant had infringed the Registered Design, and applied German law to the subsequent claims asserted (damages, information, rendering of accounts, return of documents and surrender of items for the purpose of destruction) in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Rome II Regulation.

The defendant brought an appeal against that judgment. It continues to rely in particular on Article 110 of the CDR. In addition, it takes the view that under Article 8(2) of the Rome II Regulation Italian law is applicable to the subsequent claims asserted by the claimant

The case has been assigned to the fifth chamber (judges Regan, Lenaerts, Ilešič, Jarukaitis, Lycourgos, the latter as judge-rapporteur).

Case C-498/20

The opinion of AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona on C-498/20, BMA Nederland, is expected on the same day. The questions referred concern jurisdiction in tort matters in relation to a Peeters-Gatzen action, with an association defending collective interests intervening. The sixth chamber (Bay Larsen, Jääskinen and Safjan as reporting judge) will adjudicate.

Le Contrôleur européen de la protection des données accueille le paquet législatif relatif à la lutte contre le blanchiment de capitaux et le financement du terrorisme, sous réserves de suivre quelques recommandations.

Sur la boutique Dalloz Code de la protection des données personnelles 2021 Voir la boutique Dalloz

en lire plus

On Tuesday, Oct 5, 2021, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its 14th  monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 11:00-12:30. Jürgen Basedow (Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law) will speak, in German, about the topic Aufgabe und Methodenvielfalt des Internationalen Privatrechts im Wandel der Gesellschaft

 

The presentation will be followed by open discussion. All are welcome. More information and sign-up here. If you want to be invited to these events in the future, please write to veranstaltungen@mpipriv.de.

Against the background of “One Belt, One Road” initiative and the construction of Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Great Bay Area, after being elevated to be a national free trade zone a few years ago, Henqin Island located in Zhuhai City of Guangdong Province and neighboring Macau was re-labelled as the deeper integration (cooperation) area between Guangdong and Macau days before. To keep up with this political pace, the Zhuhai Court of International Arbitration (ZCIA) now regularly running its business in Henqing Island was established by the Zhuhai Arbitration Commission with the hope that international business people especially those pursuing Sino-Portuguese speaking countries trade could choose Henqin as the seat for their arbitration. In honor of the National Day of the People’s Republic of China, Oct 1st, ZCIA publicized its updated arbitration rules yesterday. However, this time three versions of different languages were provided simultaneously ie Chinese, Portuguese and English, the last of which was translated by myself. For its latest arbitration rules, please see http://www.zhac.org.cn/?cat=3.

Membership

On 9 September 2021, Honduras deposited its instrument of acceptance of the Statute, becoming the 90th Member of the HCCH. More information is available here.

Conventions & Instruments

On 1 September 2021, the HCCH 1993 Adoption Convention entered into force for Niger. The Convention currently has 104 Contracting Parties. More information is available here.

On 16 September 2021, Costa Rica signed the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention. Although the 2019 Judgments Convention is not yet in force, Costa Rica is its fourth signatory. More information is available here.

On 16 September 2021, the HCCH 1961 Apostille Convention entered into force for Singapore. The Convention currently has 120 Contracting Parties. More information is available here.

Meetings & Events

On 14 and 15 September 2021, the Experts’ Group on Family Agreements met for the fifth time, via videoconference. The Group discussed the most recent revision of the draft Practical Guide on cross-border recognition and enforcement of agreements reached in the course of family matters involving children. More information is available here.

From 28 to 30 September 2021, the Working Group on Preventing and Addressing Illicit Practices in Intercountry Adoption met via videoconference. The Group continued to work on the development of a Toolkit aimed at preventing and addressing illicit practices in intercountry adoptions made under the HCCH 1993 Adoption Convention.

On 28 September 2021, the HCCH Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific hosted the webinar “HCCH|Approach: Twenty-Five Years of the HCCH 1996 Child Protection Convention in the Asia and Pacific Region: Present, Development and Future”. More information is available here.

Publications & Documentation

On 23 September 2021, the Permanent Bureau announced the publication of translations of 19 new translations of the Guide to Good Practice under the Child Abduction Convention: Part VI – Article 13(1)(b). With these new translations, the Guide to Good Practice is now available in 23 European Union (EU) languages. More information is available here.

Other

On 22 September 2021, the Permanent Bureau announced the successful outcome of a new EU Action Grant application for iSupport. This new project will be called iSupport ITMF (International Transfer of Maintenance Funds), as it will aim at establishing a link between the iSupport software and bank accounts held by Central Authorities. More information is available here.

 

These monthly updates are published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), providing an overview of the latest developments. More information and materials are available on the HCCH website.

The University of Strasbourg will host a conference on Mutual Trust in the Area of Justice, Freedom and Security (La confiance mutuelle dans l’Espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice : crise(s) et perspectives) on 7-8 October 2021.

The conference will include sessions on European integration, the right to cross internal and external borders and cross border investments. It will also include several sessions more specifically dedicated to judicial cooperation, both with respect to Member States and Third States.

Speakers will include numerous PIL specialists, including some of the organisers of the conference (E. Farnoux, S. Fulli-Lemaire), and a number of external speakers (F. Marchadier, A. Marzal, E. Galland, J. Heymann, G.P. Romano, K. Parrot).

The full programme is available here. For registration, please write to jnyobe@unistra.fr.

L'absence de caractérisation d'une intention libérale, présente ou passée, de la personne protégée, fait-elle nécessairement obstacle à la possibilité, pour le juge des contentieux de la protection, d'autoriser la personne habilitée à la représenter de manière générale pour l'ensemble des actes relatifs à ses biens, sur le fondement des articles 494-1 et suivants du code civil, à procéder à une donation ?

Appel civil

Suspicion légitime