Feed aggregator

Confiscation - Donation

Indemnité de déplacement

Rupture anticipée du contrat de travail - Indemnisation

CAPA e.a. / Commission
Aide d'État
Parcs éoliens en mer subventionnés par des aides au fonctionnement : le Tribunal rejette le recours introduit par une coopérative et des patrons pêcheurs contre la décision de la Commission de ne pas soulever d’objections

This post was contributed by Fabienne Jault-Seseke, who is Professor at University Paris Saclay (UVSQ), and a member of GEDIP.

Decisions of the French Supreme Court on civil and criminal matters (Cour de cassation) on res judicata regarding foreign decisions are rare. The judgment in which, on 8 September 2021, its social Division (Chambre sociale) questions the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) is all the more remarkable.

Background

In this case, the plaintiff, who had been hired by French bank BNP to work in the London branch under a contract subject to English law, was posted in Singapore, and had entered into a contract subject to French law for that purpose. He was then posted to London and dismissed for misconduct during his secondment to Singapore.

The employee brought an action before the Employment Tribunal in London. The English tribunal found that the procedure followed by the employer was, under English law, unfair and ordered BNP to pay the sum of £81,175. BNP did not challenge the decision. Almost a year later, the employee brought various claims before the Conseil de prud’hommes (the court of first instance in matter of labour law) in Paris relating to the termination of his employment contract. The French court declared the claims relating to his dismissal inadmissible, because of the res judicata effect of the English judgment.

On appeal, the judgment was overturned: the Court of Appeal followed the employee’s argument, considering that the res judicata effect of the English decision relates only to the unfairness of the dismissal and that the various claims for compensation had not been examined by the English tribunal. BNP appealed to the Court of Cassation: in its view, the res judicata effect of the English decision prevents the French judge from hearing the claims relating to the dismissal of the person concerned.

Reference

Interesting questions were put to the Cour of Cassation, which took the opportunity to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the ECJ.

As a starting point, the Cour de cassation asserted that that recognition in general and res judicata in particular are autonomous European concepts, citing ECJ, 15 November 2012, C-456/11, Gothaer Allgemeine Versicherung AG in support for that proposition. But the court then noted that a foreign judgment which has been recognised under Article 33 of Regulation No 44/2001 must in principle have the same effects in the State in which recognition is sought as it does in the State of origin (ECJ 4 February 1988, Hoffmann, C-145/86).

After a long analysis, the Cour de cassation asked the following questions (see below for French version).

Firstly, do Articles 33 and 36 of Regulation No 44/2001 lead to the conclusion that, where the law of the Member State of origin of the decision prevents the same parties from bringing a new action to rule on claims that could have been made in the initial proceedings (this would be the case in English law, pursuant to the Henderson v. Henderson case of 20 July 1843 of the Court of Chancery, which was referred to French courts by BNP), the court of another Member State, whose law provided for a similar obligation of concentration of claims (as is the case in French law, in particular in labour law with Article R. 1452-6 of the Labour Code, which has now been repealed, but which was applicable at the time before the French court) to rule on such claims?

In other words, does the obligation to concentrate claims provided for by the legal system of the State from which the decision emanates prevent the court of another Member State, in which a similar obligation exists, from hearing the action brought between the same parties in order to rule on claims that could have been formulated in the proceedings in the court of origin?

Should the answer be positive, other questions will inevitably arise. What would be the solution if only one of the two legal systems provides such an obligation to concentrate claims? Indeed, as Gilles Cuniberti noted on this blog, “the vast majority of scholars in Europe debate whether res judicata should be governed by the law of the State of origin or the law of the requested State”.

Secondly, and more classically, the Social Chamber questions the Court of Justice on the notions of cause and subject-matter. There are already a number of decisions of the Court of Justice on these issues but they concern lis pendens and not res judicata. It would however be consistent to retain the same requirements to define lis pendens and res judicata. In this case, the question is whether an action for unfair dismissal in the United Kingdom has the same cause of action and the same subject-matter as an action for dismissal without real and serious cause in French law or an action for payment of bonuses or premiums provided for in the employment contract since these actions are based on the same contractual relationship between the parties?  The French Supreme Court wonders whether a distinction should be made between damages for dismissal without real and serious cause, which could have the same cause and the same subject-matter as the compensatory award, and the redundancy and notice payments which, under French law, are due when the dismissal is based on a real and serious cause but are not due in the event of dismissal based on serious misconduct.

The answers that the Court of Justice will give to these questions will not only have consequences on the further integration of the European judicial area, but also on its tolerance toward certain procedural strategies.

—

In the French original, the questions of the Cour de cassation read:

1°/ Les articles 33 et 36 du règlement (CE) n° 44/2001 du Conseil, du 22 décembre 2000, concernant la compétence judiciaire, la reconnaissance et l’exécution des décisions en matière civile et commerciale doivent-ils être interprétés en ce sens que, lorsque la loi de l’État membre d’origine de la décision confère à cette dernière une autorité telle que celle-ci fait obstacle à ce qu’une nouvelle action soit engagée par les mêmes parties afin qu’il soit statué sur les demandes qui auraient pu être formulées dès l’instance initiale, les effets déployés par cette décision dans l’État membre requis s’opposent à ce qu’un juge de ce dernier État, dont la loi applicable ratione temporis prévoyait en droit du travail une obligation similaire de concentration des prétentions statue sur de telles demandes ?

2°/ En cas de réponse négative à cette première question, les articles 33 et 36 du règlement n° 44/2001 du Conseil doivent-ils être interprétés en ce sens qu’une action telle que celle en « unfair dismissal » au Royaume-Uni a la même cause et le même objet qu’une action telle que celle en licenciement sans cause réelle et sérieuse en droit français, de sorte que les demandes faites par le salarié de dommages-intérêts pour licenciement sans cause réelle et sérieuse, d’indemnité compensatrice de préavis et d’indemnité de licenciement devant le juge français, après que le salarié a obtenu au Royaume-Uni une décision déclarant l’ « unfair dismissal » et allouant des indemnités à ce titre (compensatory award), sont irrecevables ? Y a-t-il lieu à cet égard de distinguer entre les dommages-intérêts pour licenciement sans cause réelle et sérieuse qui pourraient avoir la même cause et le même objet que le « compensatory award », et les indemnités de licenciement et de préavis qui, en droit français, sont dues lorsque le licenciement est fondé sur une cause réelle et sérieuse mais ne sont pas dues en cas de licenciement fondé sur une faute grave ?

3°/ De même, les articles 33 et 36 du règlement n° 44/2001 du Conseil doivent-ils être interprétés en ce sens qu’ont la même cause et le même objet une action telle que celle en « unfair dismissal » au Royaume-Uni et une action en paiement de bonus ou de primes prévues au contrat de travail dès lors que ces actions se fondent sur le même rapport contractuel entre les parties ?

Saugmandsgaard Oe AG opined (no English version at the time of writing) last week in C‑242/20 HRVATSKE ŠUME on the classic conflict of laws issue of distinguishing contract from tort.. He, oddly perhaps, unless some technical reason for it escapes me, does not entertain the question on the scope of Article 24(5) Brussels Ia’s exclusive jurisdictional rule for ‘proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments’.

The Opinion is a Qualificationfest.

The case concerns actions for recovery of sums unduly paid, in other words, undue enrichment. This enrichment came about by a Croatian court having  earlier ordered Hrvatske Šume, debtor of  Futura, both of Croatia, to pay its debt to Futura directly to BP Europe SA, successor to Burmah Oil, both domiciled in Germany. Hrvatske appealed that order however that appeal did not halt the payment. Now that the appeal has turned out to be successful, Hrvatske want their money back yet so far Croatian courts have held that they do not have jurisdiction under Article 7(2) BIa (the case actually went under the the predecessor, Brussels I however there is no material difference).

As the referring court notes, there is no delicti commissi in the case of unjust enrichment: it is a non-contractual obligation in which no delict is committed. (This is the very reason Rome II includes a separate heading for unjust enrichment). One might suggest this would leave forum damni only under A7(2), however the AG correctly in my view re-emphasises the seminal statements in CJEU Kalfelis, that actions under A7(2) concern ‘all actions which seek to establish liability of a defendant  and which are not related to a ‘contract’ within the meaning of Article [7](1)’. Unjust enrichment not seeking to establish liability, A7(2) is not engaged. Along the way, note his discussion of linguistics and his seeking support in Rome II.

At 71 ff the AG distinguishes the wide interpretation of ‘establishing liability’ in CJEU Austro Mechana.

A clear implication of the Opinion is that it confirms a disjoint in BIa /Rome II: not all non-contractual obligations for which Rome II identifies a lex causae, are caught by A7(2) BIa’s forum delicti rule.

The AG also engages with the possibility of Croatia being forum contractus  (he kicks off his Opinion with this issue) and dismisses it, seeking support inter alia in CJEU Handte and also in Rome II specifically providing for an unjust enrichment heading. This part of the Opinion is more optimistically straightforward than one might have expected. Following flightright, Wikingerhof etc., A7(1) has been (unduly, in my view) stretched and it would be good to have the CJEU further clarifying same. (C-265/21, in which I have been instructed, might be just the case).

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, 2.419 ff.

Opinion Saugmandsgaard Oe this morning, C‑242/20 HRVATSKE ŠUME. Jurisdiction, Brussels Ia, concept of 'contract', delineation with A7(2) forum delicti. Actio pauliana. (In other words, a collection of old chestnuts).https://t.co/3R5qU9rvVn

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) September 9, 2021

The International Law Association will celebrate its 150th anniversary all along the year 2023 through a series of webinars and, hopefully, an event organised by the French branch of the ILA in Paris on 18 – 20 June 2023.

In order to prepare the scientific content of these events, a vast organization of working groups has already been launched, on the five continents, under the coordination of the Foresight Council, in order to feed back the ideas that will be developed during the webinars and during the June event. These working groups are primarily aimed at the younger generation (PhD students, PhDs, young professionals in all branches of international law). Companies, essential actors of the international society, will be full partners, as well as NGOs and public actors.

A series of thematic White Papers will be prepared on 24 themes, including Cities, Civil Status, Cultural Heritage, Dispute Resolution, Migration, Intellectual Property or Oceans, to name only a few.

Regular updates concerning the evolution of the work of the Working Groups and the preparation of the celebration will be given by a Newsletter. The first issue is available here.

Au mois d’août, l’activité jurisprudentielle de la Cour de Strasbourg se limite, traditionnellement, à une poignée d’arrêts et de décisions si bien que la chronique estivale promettait d’être quantitativement réduite, même si qualitativement elle devra rendre compte d’importantes prises de position sur le renforcement du droit des étrangers, l’examen post-mortem du corps d’un bébé contre la volonté de sa mère, de nouvelles applications du principe de non-discrimination, le stockage des produits radioactifs, la protection des journalistes, la protection des détenus, les droits procéduraux. En 2021, ce déficit sera compensé par un événement majeur qui n’est pas d’ordre jurisprudentiel, mais qui influencera sans doute fortement l’activité de la Cour dans les mois et les années à venir. Aussi faudra-t-il lui réserver la première place.

en lire plus

La chambre de l’instruction n’a pas à rechercher si la personne visée par un mandat d’arrêt européen émis par une autorité étrangère était atteinte d’un trouble mental, seulement s’assurer que les faits à l’origine du mandat constituent une infraction au regard de la loi pénale française.

en lire plus

On Friday, 24 September 2021, the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law will host the EFFORTS National Exchange Seminar for France and Luxembourg (online).

This Seminar is organised in the framework of the EFFORTS project (Towards more effective enforcement of claims in civil and commercial matters within the EU), which tackles the Brussels I-bis Regulation and the Regulations on the European Enforcement Order, the European Small Claims Procedure, the European Payment Order, and the European Account Preservation Order. The Project investigates, in particular, the implementation of these Regulations in the national procedural law of Belgium, Croatia, France, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, and Luxembourg, and is conducted by a consortium comprising the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg, the Universities of Milan (coord.), Heidelberg, Zagreb, Vilnius, and the Free University of Brussels.

The programme of the Seminar is available here.

Participants are kindly requested to pre-register by sending an email including their full name, title and affiliation to secretariat-prof.hess@mpi.lu at the latest by Sunday, 19 September 2021.

More information on EFFORTS and its research outputs are available via the project website and in various newsletters previously posted here, here, and here.

On the EFFORTS German Exchange Seminar, see the previous announcement here.

This Project was funded by the European Union’s Justice Programme (2014-2020). The content of this study represents the views of the authors only and is their sole responsibility. The European Commission does not accept any responsibility for use that may be made of the information it contains.

Project JUST-JCOO-AG-2019-881802
With financial support from the Civil Justice Programme of the European Union

This post was written by Harshal Morwale, an India-qualified international arbitration lawyer working as an associate with a premier Indian law firm in New Delhi; LLM from the MIDS Geneva Program (2019-2020); alumnus of the Hague Academy of International Law. 

Recently, the issue of foreign sovereign immunity became a hot topic in India due to the new judgment of the Delhi High Court (“DHC”) in the case of (KLA Const Tech v. Afghanistan Embassy). The previous part of the blog post analyzed the decision of the DHC.  Further, the post focused on the relevance of the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property. The post also explored the interplay between state immunity and diplomatic immunity.

This part focuses on two further issues which emanate from the decision of the DHC. Firstly, the post deals with the impact of the consent to arbitrate on immunity from enforcement. Then, the post explores the issue of attachment of state’s property for satisfying the commercial arbitral award against a diplomatic mission.

Consent to Arbitrate: Waiver Of Immunity From Enforcement?

As highlighted in the last post, one of the main arguments of the KLA Const Technologies (“claimant”) was that the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan’s (“respondent”, “Embassy”) consent to arbitrate resulted in the waiver of the sovereign immunity. The DHC accepted the argument and ruled that a separate waiver of immunity is not necessary to enforce an arbitral award in India as long as there is consent to arbitrate. The DHC also stated that this position is in consonance with the growing International Law principle of restrictive immunity while referring to the landmark English case (Trendtex Trading Corp. v. Central Bank of Nigeria).

However, there’s more to the issue than what catches the eye. First of all, the Trendtex case was decided before the English Sovereign Immunity Act (“UKSIA”) came into effect. Therefore, the DHC could have examined the relevant provisions under UKSIA and the more recent cases to track the jurisprudential trend on sovereign immunity under English law. For example, Section 13(2) of the UKSIA recognizes the difference between jurisdictional immunity and immunity from enforcement and requires an express waiver of immunity from enforcement. Even the ICJ has noted the requirement of an express waiver of immunity from enforcement in the Jurisdictional Immunities case. (para 118).

Furthermore, there was an opportunity to undertake a more detailed cross-jurisdictional analysis on the issue.  In fact, the issue of arbitral consent as a waiver of immunity from enforcement was dealt with by the Hong Kong Courts in FG Hemisphere v. Democratic Republic Of The Congo. Reyes J, sitting in the Court of First Instance, ruled that consent of the state to arbitrate does not in itself imply the waiver of immunity from enforcement. The ruling on the issue was confirmed by the majority decision of the Court of Final Appeal. The position has also been confirmed by scholars.

However, this position is not the settled one. The DHC’s decision is in line with the approaches adopted in France (Creighton v. Qatar), Switzerland (United Arab Republic v. Mrs. X) that no separate waiver of immunity from enforcement would be required in the existence of an arbitration agreement.

However, the decision made no reference to the reasoning of the cases from these jurisdictions. Regardless of the conclusion, the DHC’s decision could have benefited from this comparative analysis, and there would have been a clearer answer as to the possible judicial approaches to the issue in India.

 Attachment of State’s Property for Satisfying an Award Against A Diplomatic Mission

In the current case, the DHC ordered the respondent to declare not only its assets and bank accounts in India but also all its commercial ventures, state-owned airlines, companies, and undertakings in India, as well as the commercial transactions entered into by the respondent and its state-owned entities with the Indian companies.

It is not entirely clear whether the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan’s (“Afghanistan”) properties and commercial debts owed by private Indian companies to the state-entities of Afghanistan would be amenable to the attachment for satisfying the award against the Embassy. To resolve the issue of attaching Afghanistan’s property to fulfill the liability of the Embassy, a critical question needs to be considered – while entering into the contract with the claimant, was the respondent (Embassy) acting in a commercial capacity or as an agent of the state of Afghanistan?

The contract between the claimant and the respondent was for the rehabilitation of the Afghanistan Embassy. The DHC found that the respondent was acting in a commercial capacity akin to a private individual. Additionally, there’s no indication through the facts elaborated in the judgment that the contract was ordered by, or was for the benefit of, or was being paid for by the state of Afghanistan. In line with these findings, it can be concluded that the contract would not be a sovereign act but a diplomatic yet purely commercial act, independent from the state of Afghanistan. Consequently, it is doubtful how the properties of state/state-entities of Afghanistan can be attached for fulfilling the award against the Embassy.

The attachment of the state’s property to fulfill the liability of the Embassy would break the privity of contract between the claimant and the respondent (Embassy). According to the privity of contract, a third party cannot be burdened with liability arising out of a contract between the two parties. Therefore, the liability of the Embassy cannot be imposed on the state/state-entities of Afghanistan because they would be strangers to the contract between the claimant and the respondent.

That said, there are a few well-known exceptions to the principle of privity of contract such as agency, third party beneficiary, and assignment. However, none of these exceptions apply to the case at hand. It is accepted that an embassy is the agent of a foreign state in a receiving state. However, in this case, the contract was entered into by the Embassy, in its commercial capacity, not on behalf of the state but in the exercise of its diplomatic yet commercial function. Afghanistan is also not a third-party beneficiary of the contract as the direct benefits of the contract for the rehabilitation of the Afghanistan Embassy are being reaped by the Embassy itself. Additionally, there is no indication from the facts of the case as to the assignment of a contract between the state of Afghanistan and the Embassy. Therefore, the privity of contract cannot be broken, and the liability of the Embassy will remain confined to its own commercial accounts and ventures.

In addition to the above, there also lacks guidance on the issues such as mixed accounts under Indian law. Regardless, the approach of the DHC remains to be seen when the claimant can identify attachable properties of the respondent. It also remains to be seen if the respondent appears before the DHC and mounts any sort of defence.

Conclusion

There remains room for growth for Indian jurisprudence in terms of dealing with issues such as immunity from the enforcement of arbitral awards. An excellent way to create a more conducive ecosystem for this would be to introduce stand-alone legislation on the topic as recommended by the Law Commission of India in its 176th report. Additionally, the issues such as the use of state’s properties to satisfy the commercial liability of diplomatic missions deserve attention not only under Indian law but also internationally.

(The views expressed by the author are personal and do not represent the views of the organizations he is affiliated with. The author is grateful to Dr. Silvana Çinari for her feedback on an earlier draft.)