Feed aggregator

Scotch Whisky Association
Agriculture
La juridiction de renvoi doit vérifier si un consommateur a directement à l’esprit l’indication géographique enregistrée « Scotch Whisky » en présence d’un produit comparable portant la désignation « Glen » afin de déterminer l’existence d’une « évocation » interdite par le droit de l’Union

Choices, choices. I will continue to follow the GDPR for jurisdictional purposes, including territorial scope. (And I have a paper coming up on conflict of laws issues in the private enforcement of same). But for much of the GDPR enforcement debate, I am handing over to others. Johannes Marosi, for instance, who reviews the CJEU judgment this week in Fansites, over at Verfassungsblog. I reviewed the AG’s Opinion here.

Judgment in Grand Chamber but with small room for cheering.

As Johannes’ post explains, there are many loose ends in the judgment, and little reference to the GDPR (technically correct but from a compliance point of view wanting). (As an aside: have a look at Merlin Gömann’s paper, in CMLREv, on the territorial scope of the GDPR).

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.8.2.5.

 

 

La notion de « droit de visite », visée à l’article 1er, § 2, a), ainsi qu’à l’article 2, points 7 et 10, du règlement Bruxelles II bis du 27 novembre 2003, doit être interprétée en ce sens qu’elle comprend le droit de visite des grands-parents à l’égard de leurs petits-enfants.

en lire plus

Pour la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne (CJUE), il ressort du règlement (UE) n° 604/2013 du 26 juin 2013, dit « Dublin III », que lorsqu’une personne se rend dans un Etat membre après avoir introduit une demande de protection internationale dans un autre Etat membre, le premier Etat ne peut adopter et notifier à la personne une décision de transfert vers le second avant que celui-ci n’ait donné son accord explicite ou implicite à cette requête.

en lire plus

Cautionnement dans la vie des affaires

Cautionnement dans la vie des affaires

[2017] EWHC 3012 (QB) Spring v MDO and Evengelisches Krankenhaus Bielefeld is unreported as far as I can tell (and I have checked repeatedly). Thank you Max Archer for flagging the case and for sending me copy of judgment a few months back. (I am still chipping away at that queue).

In 1997, Claimant was stationed in Germany with the British Army. The Claimant very seriously fractured his right leg and ankle whilst off duty in Germany (the off duty element evidently having an impact – on duty injuries arguably might not have been ‘civil and commercial’). He was then treated at the Second Defendant’s hospital under an established arrangement for the treatment of UK service personnel between the First (the Ministry of Defence) and Second Defendants (the German hospital). Various complications later led to amputation.

The Brussels I Recast Regulation applies for claimant did not introduce the claim against the second defendant until after its entry into force: 18 years in fact after the surgery. This was the result of medical reports not suggesting until after July 2015 that the German hospital’s treatment has been substandard. Rome II ratione temporis does not apply given the timing of the events (alleged wrongful treatment leading to damage).

Yoxall M held that Article 8(1)’s conditions for anchoring /joinder were fulfilled, because of the risk of irreconcilable judgments (at 35). Even if the claim against the First Defendant is a claim based on employer’s liability whereas the claim against the Hospital is based on clinical negligence. Should the proceedings be separate there is a risk of the English and German courts reaching irreconcilable judgments on causation of loss. At 35: ‘It would be expedient for the claims to be heard together – so that all the factual evidence and expert evidence is heard by one court. In this way the real risk of irreconcilable judgments can be avoided.’

With reference to precedent, Master Yoxall emphasised that ‘in considering Article 8(1) and irreconcilable judgments a broad common sense approach is justified rather than an over-sophisticated analysis’ (at 36).

Yoxal M is entirely correct when he states at 37 that Article 8(1) does not include a requirement that the action brought against the different defendants have identical legal bases. For decisions to be regarded as contradictory the divergence must arise in the context of the same situation of law and fact (reference is made to C-98/06 Freeport).

Next however the court considers as a preliminary issue, the limitation period applying between claimant and the German defendant and holds that the Hospital have an arguable case that the claim is statute barred in German law (German expert evidence on the issue being divided). The latter is the lex causae for the material dispute (on  the basis of English residual private international law), extending to limitation periods per Section 1(3) of the Foreign Limitations Period Act 1984 (nota bene partially as a result of the 1980 input by the Law Commission, and not entirely in line with traditional (or indeed US) interpretations of same). This ultmately sinks the joinder.

As a way forward for plaintiff, the Court suggests [2005] EWCA Civ 1436 Masri. In this case the Court of Appeal essentially held that joinder on the basis of Article 8(1) may proceed even if litigation against the England-based defendants are not the same proceedings, but rather take place in separate action. Masri has not been backed up as far as I know, by European precedent: Clarke MR held it on the basis of the spirit of C-189/87 Kalfelis, not its letter. Moreover, how the German limitation periods would then apply is not an obvious issue, either.

An interesting case and I am pleased Max signalled it.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.12.1.

 

On Friday, 15 June, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, will host a workshop on ‘Perspectives of Unification of Private International Law in the European Union’. The programme will be as follows.

12:00 Welcome speech
by Prof. Miklós Király (ELTE)

12:10 The Interface Between the Harmonisation of Contract Law and Private International Law
by Prof. Miklós Király (ELTE)
Comments by Dr. Zoltán Nemessányi (Corvinus University)

12:40 Uniform or Diverging Application of EU Instruments in the Field of Private International Law by National Jurisdictions – Preliminary References in the Area of Judicial Cooperation in Civil Matters
by Dr. Réka Somssich (ELTE)
Comments by Dr. Orsolya Szeibert (ELTE)

13:10 Discussion

13:30 Coffee break

13:45 Companies in EU Private International Law – An EU Law Perspective
by Dr. Tamás Szabados (ELTE)
Comments by Dr. Péter Metzinger (Corvinus University)

14:15 Illusion or Reality: the Interrelation of the Conflict of Laws Rules and the Practices of State Courts and Arbitral Tribunals
by Dr. István Erd?s (ELTE)
Comments by Dr. Kinga Tímár (ELTE)

14:45 Discussion

Further information can be found on the conference flyer.