Feed aggregator

Par un arrêt du 13 mai 2020, la première chambre civile se prononce sur la détermination du juge compétent en présence d’une atteinte aux droits de la personnalité par des contenus mis en ligne et renvoie à la Cour de justice une question concernant la compétence dans l’Union en cas de demande d’indemnisation de cette atteinte.

en lire plus

La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme vient de conclure à la violation de l’article 3 de la Convention européenne de la part de la France pour avoir laissé des demandeurs d’asile vivre dans la rue pendant des mois, sans moyens, à cause des lenteurs administratives les empêchant d’accéder aux conditions d’accueil prévues par le droit.

en lire plus

This post introduces my case note titled ‘A Dangerous Chimera: Anti-Suit Injunctions Based on a “Right to be Sued” at the Place of Domicile under the Brussels Ia Regulation?’ which appeared in the July 2020 issue of the Law Quarterly Review at page 379. An open access version of the case note is available here.

In Gray v Hurley [2019] EWCA Civ 2222, the Court of Appeal (Patten LJ, Hickinbottom LJ and Peter Jackson LJ), handed down the judgment on the claimant’s appeal in Gray v Hurley [2019] EWHC 1972 (QB). The appellant appealed against the refusal of an anti-suit injunction.

The appellant (Ms Gray) and respondent (Mr Hurley) had been in a relationship. They acquired property in various jurisdictions using the appellant’s money, but held it in either the respondent’s name or in corporate names. The relationship ended and a dispute commenced over ownership of some of the assets and properties. The appellant was domiciled in England; the respondent lived in New Zealand after the relationship ended and was no longer domiciled in England. He initiated proceedings there for a division of the property acquired by the couple during the relationship. The appellant issued proceedings in England seeking a declaration that she was entitled absolutely to the assets. She also applied for an anti-suit injunction to restrain the defendant from continuing with proceedings in the courts of New Zealand. Lavender J held that England was the appropriate forum for the trial of the appellant’s claims but that the respondent’s New Zealand claim could not be determined in England. He rejected her argument that Article 4(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation obliged him to grant an anti-suit injunction to prevent the respondent from litigating against her in a non-EU state.

The appellant argued that Samengo-Turner v J&H Marsh & McLennan (Services) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 723, [2007] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 813 and Petter v EMC Europe Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 828, [2015] C.P. Rep. 47 were binding authority that Article 4(1) provided her with a right not to be sued outside England, where she was domiciled, obliging the court to give effect to that right by granting an anti-suit injunction.

The Court of Appeal considered that the issue was not acte claire and sent a preliminary reference to the CJEU (pursuant to Article 267 TFEU) asking whether Article 4(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation provided someone domiciled in England with a right not to be sued outside England so as to oblige the courts to give effect to that right by granting an anti-suit injunction.

The case note examines the Court of Appeal’s decision in Gray v Hurley [2019] EWCA Civ 2222. It offers a pervasive critique of the argument that the general rule of jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation gives rise to a substantive right to be sued only in England and that this right is capable of enforcement by an anti-suit injunction. It is argued that the previous decisions of the Court of Appeal in Samengo-Turner v J&H Marsh & McLennan (Services) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 723 and Petter v EMC Europe Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 828 were themselves wrongly decided. In light of this, it will be even more difficult to justify the broader application of a similar result in the present case.

Indeed, the law would take a wrong turn if the present case is allowed to build on the aberrational foundations of the developing law on anti-suit injunctions based on rights derived from the Brussels Ia Regulation. Essentially, a chimerical remedy based on a fictitious right would not only infringe comity but would also deny the respondent access to justice in the only available forum. The note also anticipates the CJEU’s potential findings in this case.

An open access version of the case note is available here.

Pourvoi c/ cour d'appel d'Aix-en-Provence, 30 janvier 2020

Pourvoi c/ cour d'appel de Versailles, 17 octobre 2019

Cour d'appel d'Aix-en-Provence, 26 mai 2020

Pourvoi c/ cour d'appel de Paris, 15 novembre 2019

Pourvoi c/ cour d'appel de Paris, 28 avril 2020

Tribunal correctionnel de Lyon, 16 juin 2020

On 7 July 2020, the Members of the Committee on Legal Affairs will vote on the provisional agreement resulting from the interinstitutional negotiations on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers. The text is available here.

Here are some points of interest (and a few on-the-spot comments).

1. The resulting document will be a directive not intended to replace the enforcement mechanisms contained in previous legal acts listed in Annex I, among which the GDPR.

2. The Directive will cover both domestic and crossborder infringements, in particular when consumers affected by an infringement live in one or several Member States other than the Member State where the infringing trader is established.

3. As announced in the Commission’s proposal (referred to here), the Directive should not affect the application of nor establish rules on private international law regarding jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of judgments or applicable law (NoA: how long have academics and the CJEU, AGs included, been warning about the PIL rules being utterly inadequate for collective redress? Apparently not enough).

4. Qualified entities should be allowed to bring representatives actions in the Member State where they have been designated as well as in another Member State.

5. When a qualified entity brings a representative action in another Member State than the one of its designation, that action should be considered a cross-border action.

6. When a qualified entity brings a representative action in the Member State where it is designated, the action is considered a domestic representative action even if that action is brought against a trader domiciled in another Member State or even if consumers from several Member States are represented within that action. (NoA: if I am understanding this correctly, the action against a trader domiciled in another Member State is domestic for the purposes of the Directive, although from a PIL perspective it is definitely not domestic).

7. Principle of origin: for the purpose of cross-border representative actions, qualified entities should comply with the same criteria across the Union. It should be for the designating Member State to ensure that the qualified entity designated for the purpose of cross-border representative actions fulfils the criteria, to assess whether it continues to comply with them and, if necessary, to revoke the designation of the qualified entity.

8. Legal standing: Member States should ensure that cross-border representative actions can be brought in their courts (or administrative authorities) by qualified entities designated for the purpose of such representative actions in another Member State.

9. Qualified entities from different Member States should be able to join forces within a single representative action in front of a single forum, subject to relevant rules on competent jurisdiction (NoA: usually who the claimant is has no impact on jurisdiction, so the caveat has to refer to something different. In any event, is this a lost opportunity to reflect on extended rules for related claims?).

10. The mutual recognition of the legal standing of qualified entities designated for the purpose of cross-border representative actions should be ensured

11. When bringing a representative action, the qualified entity should provide sufficient information on the consumers concerned by the action to the court or the administrative authority. The information should allow the court (or the administrative authority) to establish its jurisdiction and the applicable law.

12. Cooperation and exchange of information between qualified entities from different Member States have proven to be useful in addressing in particular cross-border infringements (NoA: has it?). There is a need for continuing and expanding the capacity-building and cooperation measures to a larger number of qualified entities across the Union in order to increase the us representative actions with cross-border implications.

13. The Commission should draw up a report, accompanied if appropriate by a relevant proposal, assessing whether cross-border representative actions could be best addressed at Union level by establishing an European Ombudsman for collective redress (NoA: not sure what his/her role would be).

In [2020] EWHC 1626 (TCC) Engie Fabricom, O’Farrell J essentially had to hold whether the primary activity at an energy from waste plant is power generation or waste treatment. The classification of waste to energy – W2E as either waste recovery (see Waste Framework Directive Recovery Annex, R1 ‘used principally as a fuel or other means to generate energy’) or waste disposal is a classic in EU waste law, with specific implications for shipments permits. It also of course has an impact on a Member State’s waste targets and renewable energy targets. Aside from the Waste Framework Directive, the Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75 is also involved – although oddly no CJEU authority is mentioned in the judgment.

In the case at issue an interesting extra element is that the plant at issue received funding via the European Regional Development Fund ERDF (at 145) however ERDF funding was for the generation of electricity from the biodegradable part of waste based on advanced fluidised bed gasification technology, which at the time of the application was expected to be 84.65% of the fuel. However, subsequently the plant changed to use refuse derived fuel or RDF without any waste wood which reduced the biodegradable percentage of the waste to 50%.

At 149 Justice O’Farrell concludes that the primary activity at the Energy Works Hull facility is power generation, for the reasons listed there. Of particular relevance is her comment that ‘the plant was not developed or intended to be operated in furtherance of any particular waste or energy policy, although it was consistent with both policy initiatives.’

There is an interesting expert evidence issue to the case, as Gordon Exall discusses here. I am suspecting one or two of the issues involved could be chewed over upon appeal, with reference to CJEU case-law.

Geert.

Handbook of EU Waste law, OUP, second ed, 2015.

Refuse-derived fuel – RDF.
Whether the primary activity at an energy from waste plant is power generation or waste treatment.
Held: in casu: power generation.
Considers ia EU waste framework Directive and ERDF funding.
Impacts ia VAT and adjudication process. https://t.co/2FskpGblDj

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) June 25, 2020

Peer Zumbansen edited The Many Lives of Transnational Law – Critical Engagements with Jessup’s Bold Proposal, published by Cambridge University Press.

The blurb reads:

In 1956, ICJ judge Philip Jessup highlighted the gaps between private and public international law and the need to adapt the law to border-crossing problems. Today, sixty years later, we still ask what role transnational law can play in a deeply divided, post-colonial world, where multinationals hold more power and more assets than many nation states. In searching for suitable answers to pressing legal problems such as climate change law, security, poverty and inequality, questions of representation, enforcement, accountability and legitimacy become newly entangled. As public and private, domestic and international actors compete for regulatory authority, spaces for political legitimacy have become fragmented and the state’s exclusivist claim to be law’s harbinger and place of origin under attack. Against this background, transnational law emerges as a conceptual framework and method laboratory for a critical reflection on the forms, fora and processes of law making and law contestation today.

The individual contributions are authored by Stephen Minas, Christopher A. Whytock, Thomas Schultz, Niccolò Ridi, Karsten Nowrot, Gregory Shaffer, Carlos Coye, Francis Snyder, Zhouke Hu, Lili Ni, Florian Grisel, Bryan Horrigan, Shahla Ali, Paul Schiff Berman, Antoine Duval, Ivana Isailovic, A. Claire Cutler, Jothie Rajah, Natasha Affolder, Larry Catá Backer, Prabhakar Singh, Ralf Michaels and Vik Kanwar.

The book’s table of contents can be found here. For further information see here.

Par une décision du 15 mai 2020, publiée au JOUE du 26 juin, le CEPD a adopté une nouvelle version de son règlement intérieur, qui reprend largement les dispositions d’une précédente version.

en lire plus

A new book (in Spanish) on surrogacy in private international law and comparative law, edited by the indefatigable Mercedes Albornoz, and freely available online.