Feed aggregator

Détention provisoire

In a recently reported ruling (No 423/2018, in Chronicles of Private Law, 2019, p. 204), the Greek Supreme Court (Άρειος Πάγος) addressed the thorny issues of choice of forum and choice of law agreements relating to agency and distribution. The judgment basically follows the path paved by the CJEU. However, its analysis is noteworthy, allowing hopes for a shift in the established course of action.

A Dutch company entered into a distribution agreement with a Greek company in 2004, followed by an agency agreement in 2007. The agreements included a choice of forum clause granting exclusive jurisdiction to the courts of Amsterdam and a clause stating that the contracts were governed by Dutch law. The Dutch principal terminated the agreements in 2009.

The Greek company started litigation in Athens. The defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the Greek courts on the basis of the choice of court clause. Both first and second instance Greek courts found they lacked jurisdiction.

The claimant filed a (final) appeal before the Supreme Court, arguing that the choice of forum clause was abusive, and contrary as such to public policy. The Greek company submitted, among other things, that it had no real negotiating power with the principal, and that the choice of law clause resulted in the circumvention of Greek mandatory provisions.

The Supreme Court confirmed the lower courts’ finding and dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction. The forum selection clause, the Court noted, was agreed upon as a result of sound negotiations, with no abuse on the part of the Dutch company. A draft of the agreement had been previously submitted to the claimant, who had sufficient time to reflect and did not raise any objections or reservations.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the Greek company had a high turnover and significant profits. Its representatives, the Court noted, were familiar with travelling abroad for discussions and negotiations; hence, any difficulty and increased costs associated with the exclusive jurisdiction of Dutch courts did not make litigation before the latter courts impossible or unreasonably burdensome.

The combined choice of Dutch courts and Dutch law, the Court added, did not affect the validity of the choice of forum clause. A circumvention of Greek mandatory law provisions was not established. No abuse of the principal’s position was evidenced. In any case, Dutch law could not be regarded as completely alien to the case, given that the principal is in fact based in the Netherlands.

The Supreme Court finally approved the Athens Court of Appeal decision not to turn to the choice of law clause for the purposes of assessing the validity of the choice of forum agreement. It relied for this on the ruling of the CJEU in Trasporti Castelletti, where the Court of Justice stated that “the national court seised should be able readily to decide whether it has jurisdiction on the basis of the rules of the [Brussels] Convention [of 1968, the predecessor of the Brussels I bis Regulation], without having to consider the substance of the case”, adding that the “substantive rules of liability applicable in the chosen court must not affect the validity of the jurisdiction clause”.

In a nutshell, the show must go on. In spite of the scepticism voiced in legal scholarship, the foundations of the CJEU ruling in Trasporti Castelletti are too hard to shake, let alone demolish.

Still, the Supreme Court did not refuse to examine the public policy defence raised by the agency, and in fact accepted to discuss the issue of the abusive character of the clause. One may not agree with the result; however the sheer fact that the court dared the step, raises ambitions for a further scrutiny in future cases.

I finish with a suggestion for further reading: Many esteemed colleagues have published notes on the above and subsequent rulings of the Court which followed suit. One of the most recent articles dealing extensively with the issue was authored by Matthias Weller, whose analysis gave me ample food for thought [Matthias Weller, Choice of court agreements under Brussels Ia and under the Hague convention: coherences and clashes, Journal of Private International Law, 2007, 13:1, 91-129, in particular pp. 107-109].

Maud Minois (University Paris Descartes) has published earlier this year a monograph presenting her Research on Characterization in the Private International Law of Obligations (Recherche sur la qualification en droit international privé des obligations).

The author has provided the following English abstract:

Characterization is traditionally presented as a tool used to ensure legal certainty and rationality of law. We observe, however, that this is not necessarily the case in the context of private international law. For a long time, the lex fori characterization has dominated the international scene, so that it may appear as the most suitable model of qualification. But it does reveal certain shortcomings when applied to contract and tort law. The diversification of sources of the law as well as the rise of autonomous characterizations established by the Court of Justice of the European Union add further complexity to the picture. An efficient model for characterization is needed to restore coherence in private international law. In order to elaborate such a model, two axes of study must be explored successively. First, the model must suit the specificities of private international relations. Second, once proof has been offered for the thesis that autonomous characterization best answers this demand, the question of its generalization should be addressed. It appears that an efficient use of the autonomous qualifications can be made not only at the level of European private international law, but on the contrary, can be extended to private international law of conventional as well as of national sources. On the other hand, this model, as it specifically applies to private international relations has no place in substantive law.

More details are available here, including free access to the table of contents and the introduction of the book.

C-500/18 AU v Reliantco was held by the CJEU on 2 April, in the early fog of the current pandemic. Reliantco is a company incorporated in Cyprus offering financial products and services through an online trading platform under the ‘UFX’ trade name – readers will recognise this from [2019] EWHC 879 (Comm) Ang v Reliantco. Claimant AU is an individual. The litigation concerns limit orders speculating on a fall in the price of petrol, placed by AU on an online platform owned by the defendants in the main proceedings, following which AU lost the entire sum being held in the frozen trading account, that is, 1 919 720 US dollars (USD) (around EUR 1 804 345).

Choice of court and law was made pro Cyprus.

The case brings to the fore the more or less dense relationship between secondary EU consumer law such as in particular the unfair terms Directive 93/13 and, here, Directive 2004/39 on markets in financial instruments (particularly viz the notion of ‘retail client’ and ‘consumer’).

First up is the consumer title under Brussels Ia: Must A17(1) BIa be interpreted as meaning that a natural person who under a contract concluded with a financial company, carries out financial transactions through that company may be classified as a ‘consumer’ in particular whether it is appropriate, for the purposes of that classification, to take into consideration factors such as the fact that that person carried out a high volume of transactions within a relatively short period or that he or she invested significant sums in those transactions, or that that person is a ‘retail client’ within the meaning of A4(1) point 12 Directive 2004/39?

The Court had the benefit of course of C-208/18 Petruchová – which Baker J did not have in Ang v Reliantco. It is probably for that reason that the case went ahead without an Opinion of the AG. In Petruchová the Court had already held that factors such as

• the value of transactions carried out under contracts such as CFDs,
• the extent of the risks of financial loss associated with the conclusion of such contracts,
• any knowledge or expertise that person has in the field of financial instruments or his or her active conduct in the context of such transactions
• the fact that a person is classified as a ‘retail client’ within the meaning of Directive 2004/39 is, as such, in principle irrelevant for the purposes of classifying him or her as a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of BIa,

are, as such, in principle irrelevant to determine the qualification as a ‘consumer’. In Reliantco it now adds at 54 that ‘(t)he same is true of a situation in which the consumer carried out a high volume of transactions within a relatively short period or invested significant sums in those transactions.’

Next however comes the peculiarity that although AU claim jurisdiction for the Romanian courts against Reliantco Investments per the consumer title (which requires a ‘contract’ to be concluded), it bases its action on non-contractual liability, with applicable law to be determined by Rome II. (The action against the Cypriot subsidiary, with whom no contract has been concluded, must be one in tort. The Court does not go into analysis of the jurisdictional basis against that subsidiary, whose branch or independent basis or domicile is not entirely clear; anyone ready to clarify, please do).

At 68 the CJEU holds that the culpa in contrahendo action is indissociably linked to the contract concluded between the consumer and the seller or supplier, and at 71 that this conclusion is reinforced by A12(1) Rome II which makes the putative lex contractus, the lex causae for culpa in contrahendo. At 72 it emphasises the need for consistency between Rome II and Brussels IA in that both the law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising out of dealings prior to the conclusion of a contract and the court having jurisdiction to hear an action concerning such an obligation, are determined by taking into consideration the proposed contract the conclusion of which is envisaged.

Interesting.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.8.2.

Par deux arrêts rendus le 18 mars 2020, la Cour de cassation rappelle la caractérisation du blanchiment commis par concours apporté à une opération portant sur le produit de l’infraction principale.

en lire plus

En présence d’une marque tridimensionnelle constituée par la forme du produit nécessaire à l’obtention du résultat technique, la perception du public pertinent peut être prise en compte pour identifier la caractéristique essentielle de la forme.

en lire plus

I currently have a practice interest in all things Cypriot territory hence Local Authority B v X (Mother) & Ors [2020] EWFC 37 caught my eye even more than had it just involved Brussels IIa.

The application concerns a child, T. He is now about 5 years old. He is a British national; both his parents are British nationals. He was born in Kyrenia in the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus (‘TRNC’), and lived there from his birth in early 2014 until late summer 2018 when he travelled with his mother to the Republic of Cyprus, the southern territory of the island, where he remained until 17 October 2018. On that day, he flew to London, again in the company of his mother. On each occasion on which T and his mother travelled, the mother was the subject of a formal deportation order from the relevant territory of the island of Cyprus. On her arrival in the UK the mother was arrested and taken into custody, where she has remained to date. A police protection order was made in relation to T on his arrival in England, and he was placed into foster care, where he, in turn, has remained.

At issue is whether the Family Court in this country can properly exercise jurisdiction in relation to T.  Cobb J notes that the legal issues in the case are complicated by the internal territorial and political division within Cyprus. The United Kingdom, in accordance with its obligations under international law, has not recognised, and does not recognise, the TRNC as a state, yet the Republic of Cyprus is a Member State of the EU. Further discussion of the territorial issues at 7 ff include references to Protocol 10 of Cyprus’ accession Treaty, and CJEU C-420/07 Apostolides v Orams. (Itself linked to [2010] EWCA Civ 9).

The ensuing complicated jurisdictional questions are summarised at 33-34, with at 53 a resulting finding of lack of habitual residence of T in England, and an A13 BIIa jurisdiction. The mother, who argues for habitual residence in Cyprus, agues that BIA per CJEU Orams treats the TRNC as part of the Member State of the Republic of Cyprus, and so should BIIa. They further contend that given the many direct similarities between the language and the purpose of the two regulations, Brussels 1 and BIIa, Orams provides good authority for the argument that T, habitually resident in the TRNC (outside the Government’s effective control) was nonetheless, at the critical point, subject to the provisions of BIIa. At 68ff, Cobb J disagrees.

An interesting judgment for both BIIa and EU external relations law.

Geert.

The German Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshof) rendered an important ruling on jurisdiction and applicable law in claims against internet portals publishing crowd-sourced reviews about businesses on 14 January 2020 (BGH VI ZR 497/18).

Yelp Ireland Ltd., a company incorporated under Irish law, offers a well-known website and application (“app”) providing businesses recommendations. Yelp uses an algorithm to determine how reviews are arranged, distinguishing between “Recommended reviews” and “Currently not recommended reviews.”  When calculating the rating (“stars”) of a business, only “recommended reviews” are taken into account.

Yelp was sued by the owner of a German fitness studio, who complained that this mode of calculation had created a distorted picture of its business because a number of older, more favourable reviews had been ignored. The claim was brought before a German court at the place of business of the claimant.

The issue of jurisdiction was rather straight-forward. The Federal Court had to decide whether the claimant had suffered damage in Germany and could therefore bring the claim under Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation.

Tthe Federal Court started by clarifying that Art. 7(2) Brussel Ibis Regulation also covers violations of personal rights and actions for injunctive relief. Insofar, it referred to the CJEU decision in Bolagsupplysningen, which had held that “a legal person claiming that its personality rights have been infringed by the publication of incorrect information concerning it on the internet and by a failure to remove comments relating to that person can bring an action for rectification of that information, removal of those comments and compensation in respect of all the damage sustained before the courts of the Member State in which its centre of interests is located” (CJEU, Bolagsupplysningen, margin no 44).

The Federal Court applied this standard and ruled that the claimant had its centre of interests in Germany where it carries out the main part of its economic activities. It thus found that it had international jurisdiction over the claim.

Much more arduous was determining the applicable law under Article 4(1) of the Rome II Regulation. This is also the most interesting part of the decision.

The source of the problem is Article 1(2)(g) of the Regulation, which excludes “non-contractual obligations arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating to personality, including defamation” from the scope of the Regulation. It was doubtful whether the business in the present case had claimed such a violation. If it had, the Rome II Regulation would be inapplicable and German Private International Law would govern. The latter uses a different general conflict rule to the Regulation, giving tort victims in all cases a choice between the law of the place of tortious conduct and the place of damage (Art 40(1) Introductory Code to the German Civil Code – Einführungsgesetz zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch (EGBGB)).

Whether companies can be victims of “violations of privacy and rights relating to personality, including defamation” in the sense of the Rome II exclusion is subject to debate in the literature (see e.g. Andrew Dickinson, The Rome II Regulation, OUP 2008, margin no 3.227; Anatol Dutta, IPRax 2014, p. 33, 37). The German Federal Court avoids this point by a “trick”: It deems the submissions made by the claimant as conclusive evidence of an implicit choice of German law. Thus, it would not matter whether the Rome II Regulation applies or not. In both cases, German law would be applicable, either as a result of Article 4(1) of the Rome II or of Article 40(1) of the EGBGB.

Although the decision of the Federal Court provided clarity in the individual case, it did not answer the fundamental question of the scope of the exclusion under Article 1(2)(g) of the Rome II Regulation. In this respect, it is agreed that Article 1(2)(g) of the Regulation must be interpreted autonomously. It therefore does not matter whether national law grants companies personality rights or not.

The wording of Article 1(2)(g) does not differentiate between violations against natural or legal persons. The very term “legal person” and the concept of “legal personality” suggests that corporations may have “personality rights” in the sense of the provision. The decision in Bolagsupplysningen also points in this direction, though it concerned international jurisdiction and not the applicable law.

From a systematic viewpoint, however, the existence of Article 6(1) of the Rome II Regulation means that negative statements made in a commercial context must fall into the Regulation’s scope, as they make out a large part of unfair competition claims. Thus, they cannot be excluded under Article 1(2)(g) of the Regulation, regardless of whether they are brought against a legal or a natural person.

Historically, the exclusion under Article 1(2)(g) can be explained by conflicting views on the implications of the freedom of the press and other media and the freedom of expression for private international law. The Member States could not agree whether to use a connecting factor favouring the publisher’s freedom or the victim’s protection. For this reason, they decided to exclude the violation of personality and privacy rights from the provision’s scope altogether.

This background points to the need of careful construction of Article 1(2)(g) of the Rome II Regulation; the exclusion it contains must not be understood too widely.  An overly broad interpretation would also run against the effectiveness of the harmonised rules.

The proper decision would have been to apply the Rome II Regulation to negative online reviews of legal or other persons’ commercial activities. They should be seen as falling squarely in its scope. This also includes the question of how business ratings are calculated. It is unfortunate that the German Federal Court missed this opportunity for clarification.

Le Conseil constitutionnel déclare, avec réserve, l’article L 131-11 du code des juridictions financières conforme à la Constitution et apporte d’utiles précisions à propos du cumul des poursuites et des sanctions appliqué aux comptables de fait. 

en lire plus

In Generali Italia & Ors v Pelagic Fisheries & Anor [2020] EWHC 1228 (Comm) the claimants-insurers commenced these proceedings seeking declarations that they are not liable to the Insureds. Pelagic had already commenced proceedings in Treviso, Italy on the basis of what it claims to be choice of court in favour of Italy. The first instance Italian court stayed the Treviso Proceedings (the insureds have appealed; the appeal is yet to be heard) pending a determination by the English court as to whether the Treviso Policies are subject to an exclusive English jurisdiction clause. The Stay order readers in relevant part:

‘the lis alibi pendens defence which has been raised requires that these proceedings are suspended in order to allow the High Court of London to rule on the exclusive English jurisdiction clause pursuant to art 31.2 of EU Reg 1215/2012. That since, in the light of what is established by the said provisions, it is irrelevant that the Italian Judicial Authority has been seised first, …. Indeed article 31 of the above mentioned regulation represents an exception to the operation of the ordinary rule of priority in matter of lis alibi pendens, in order to allow the judges chosen by the parties in contractual terms (cover notes) to be the first to rule on the validity of the clause itself (according to the law chosen by the parties). In the concerned case all the cover notes, in the special insurance conditions, contain the clause ‘English jurisdiction. Subject to English law and practice”, with consequent waiver to the general insurance conditions provided in Camogli Policy 1988 form”.’

Other parties are part of the proceedings, too – readers best refer to the facts of the case. They clarify that chunks of the proceedings bear resemblance to the kind of split stay scenario applied by the CJEU in C-406/92 The Tatry.

Foxton J refers to the good arguable case test viz Article 25 Brussels Ia of BNP Paribas v Anchorage, recently also further summarised by the Court of Appeal in Kaefer Aislamientos and further in Etihad Airways PJSC v Flöther.

The case essentially puts Article 31 BIa’s anti-torpedo mechanism to the test in related ways as the first instance judge and the Court of Appeal did in Ablynx. There is a dispute between the parties as to whether A31(2) obliges the English Court to stay proceedings unless and until there is a determination in the Treviso Proceedings that the Italian courts do not have jurisdiction. There are 3 core questions: i) Should the English Court proceed to determine whether there is an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of this Court, in circumstances in which Pelagic is contending in Italy that the Italian courts have jurisdiction, or should it await a ruling on jurisdiction in the Treviso Proceedings? ; ii) If it is appropriate to determine the issue, is there an English exclusive jurisdiction agreement in the Treviso Policies for the purposes of Article 25?; iii) Should the Court stay the remainder of the proceedings under Article 30?

At 65 counsel for the insureds take a similar position as Ms Lane did in Ablynx: he argues that the only issue which the High Court should consider is whether it is satisfied that there is a prima facie case that the Italian court has jurisdiction (which he says there is on the basis that the parties agreed that both the English and Italian courts would have jurisdiction) and that if it is so satisfied, it should stay the English proceedings, pending the outcome of Pelagic’s appeal in the Italian proceedings.

Foxton J however at 68 ff highlights the inadequate nature and limitations of A25(4), as also pointed out by the last para of recital 22 which accompanies it: in the face of conflicting choice of court provisions (typically, as a result of overlapping clauses in overlapping contractual relations between the parties), A25(4) loses its power and the more classic lis alibi pendens rules take over. At 70 he points to the ping-pong that threatens to ensue:

in circumstances in which the Italian court has stayed its proceedings to allow the English court to determine if it has exclusive jurisdiction, it would be particularly surprising if the English court was then bound to stay its proceedings pending a decision on jurisdiction by the Italian court. This approach, in which the dispute might become caught in the self-perpetuating politeness of an Alphonse and Gaston cartoon, is not consistent with enhancing “the effectiveness of exclusive choice-of-court agreements” and avoiding “abusive litigation tactics” which Article 31(2) is intended to achieve. It does not matter for these purposes that the decision of the Italian court granting such a stay is presently under appeal.

He holds therefore at 79 that his task is essentially to review whether there is a good arguable case that the Treviso Policies (the ones subject of the English litigation, GAVC) are subject to exclusive jurisdiction agreements in favour of the English court which satisfy the requirements of A25 BIa. At 95 he finds there is such case. At 113 ff he holds obiter he would have stayed the remainder of the claims under A30, had he held in favour of a stay under A31(2).

Fun with conflict of laws.

Geert.

(Handbook of ) European Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.6.7, Heading 2.2.9.5.

Jurisdiction, Brussels IA. Choice of court A25, lis alibi pendens A29/30. https://t.co/F68mMIQ1jC

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) May 18, 2020