Feed aggregator

The European Parliament Research Service released today a briefing on Access to Justice in environmental matters.

Context: “During the May plenary session, Parliament is due to vote on a report adopted by its Environment Committee, on a proposal aimed at ensuring EU compliance with its obligations as a party to the 1998 Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters”.

Extract: “In the European Green Deal communication, the Commission committed to consider revising the Aarhus Regulation. In October 2020, it adopted a proposal broadening the scope of the review procedure to include non-legislative acts of general scope (excepting those provisions of such acts for which EU law explicitly requires implementing measures at EU or national level), aligning references to environmental law with the convention’s requirements, and extending the time-frame for the administrative review process.

European Parliament position

Taking into account the ACCC advice from early 2021 on the Commission proposal, the report adopted on 23 April 2021 by Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) would open up the review mechanism to members of the public other than NGOs demonstrating sufficient interest or impairment of a right in accordance with the regulation. The Commission would specify by delegated act the criteria they need to fulfil. During the consideration of a request for review, third parties directly affected by the request (e.g. companies or public authorities) would be able to submit comments to the EU institution or body concerned. The report requires the Commission to adopt guidelines to facilitate the assessment of the compatibility of state aid with relevant provisions of EU law relating to the environment. To limit court proceedings costs, it insiststhat EU institutions and bodies make reasonable cost reimbursement requests when successful in litigation. It awaits a vote at the May plenary session. The vote would set Parliament’s position for negotiations with Council, which adopted its position in December 2020”.

Source: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2021/690593/EPRS_ATA(2021)690593_EN.pdf

On Access to Justice, the EU and the Aarhus Convention, see, for example, E. Guinchard and M.-P. Granger, Sisyphus in Luxembourg, in E. Guinchard and M-P Granger, “The New EU Judiciary”, Kluwer, December 2017. 375, spec. p. 377 in fine ff. (available at https://europeanciviljustice.files.wordpress.com/2021/02/sisyphus-in-luxembourg.pdf

The Court of Justice delivered today its judgment in case C–709/19 (Vereniging van Effectenbezitters v BP plc), which is about Article 7.2 Brussels I bis. The judgment is currently available in all EU official languages (save Irish), albeit not in English. Here is the French version (to check whether an English translation has finally been made available, just click on the link below and change the language version):

« L’article 7, point 2, du règlement (UE) no 1215/2012 […] doit être interprété en ce sens que la survenance directe, sur un compte d’investissement, d’un préjudice purement financier résultant de décisions d’investissement prises à la suite d’informations aisément accessibles sur le plan mondial, mais inexactes, incomplètes ou trompeuses provenant d’une société internationale cotée en bourse ne permet pas de retenir, au titre de la matérialisation du dommage, la compétence internationale d’une juridiction de l’État membre dans lequel est établie la banque ou l’entreprise d’investissement sur le registre de laquelle le compte est inscrit, lorsque ladite société n’était pas soumise à des obligations légales de publicité dans cet État membre ».

Source : https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=AD7594B516888CAD5AB5EBC0D74BD409?text=&docid=241171&pageIndex=0&doclang=fr&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2130484

As I suggested when I reviewed the Advocate-General’s Opinion in C‑709/19 Vereniging van Effectenbezitters, the CJEU was likely to be much more succinct, which has proven true with the judgment this morning (no English version available as yet).

The CJEU ignored of course the AG’s calls fundamentally to reconsider the locus damni introduction in Bier. Yet it re-emphasised its willingness to reign in the repercussions of Bier, insisting places of jurisdiction under Article 7(2) Brussels Ia need to correspond to those with a certain link to the case. Its core reference throughout is its judgment in Lober, itself an odd case for the court did not assign territorial jurisdiction (an issue also sub judice in Volvo Trucks). Clearly Universal Music features heavily, too.

The Court’s instruction in Universal Music, that the mere presence of a bank account in which damages materialise, does not suffice to establish jurisdiction, is expanded in Vereniging van Effectenbezitters with the use of statutory reporting requirements: [35] For listed companies (clearly, an entry for distinguishing: how about those unlisted?), only the courts of the Member States in which they are under a statutory reporting duty with a view to its listing, are reasonably foreseeable to it, as places in which a market in its financial instruments may emerge.

The Court also adds [36] that the collective action nature of the suit is of no relevance. The referring court had asked whether in such suits the domicile of the aggrieved could be dropped as being relevant, however the CJEU insisted that domicile has no stand-alone relevance in purely financial damage at all, even in non-collective action.

To the degree that the existence of such statutory obligations is not exhaustively harmonised across the EU (on that subject, I am no expert), this opens op possibilities of course for Member States to assist its consumers with forum shopping, by expanding reporting requirements. (Albeit such extra requirements may themselves by vulnerable under free movement of establishment and /or services; but now my mind is racing ahead).

The Court’s limiting approach here is in stark contrast with the much wider consequences of its findings on jurisdiction viz material consumer products in  Volkswagen.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, para 2.459

The Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) is seeking a Legal Officer (Maternity Leave Replacement). The successful candidate will work primarily in the field of family law, focusing on the 1980 Child Abduction and 1996 Child Protection Conventions as well as on the Family Agreements project.

Applications should be submitted by Monday 31 May 2021 (00:00 CEST). For more information, please visit the Recruitment section of the HCCH website.

This post is published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference of Private International Law (HCCH).

Peines

Prescription - Hypothèque