Feed aggregator

Schlömp
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Dans les situations où le recours à une procédure de conciliation est obligatoire, une autorité de conciliation suisse chargée de traiter des requêtes en matière civile constitue une juridiction au sens de la convention de Lugano II

Nowak
Rapprochement des législations
Les réponses écrites fournies lors d’un examen professionnel et les éventuelles annotations de l’examinateur relatives à ces réponses constituent des données à caractère personnel du candidat auxquelles il a, en principe, un droit d’accès

Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne
Agriculture
Une glace peut être vendue sous la dénomination « Champagner Sorbet » si cette glace a, comme caractéristique essentielle, un goût généré principalement par le champagne

Schweppes
Rapprochement des législations
La société espagnole Schweppes ne peut pas s’opposer à l’importation de bouteilles d’eau tonique revêtues de la marque « Schweppes » en provenance du Royaume-Uni si elle a elle-même donné l’impression qu’il s’agit d’une marque unique et globale

Sahyouni
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Le règlement Rome III ne détermine pas la loi applicable aux divorces privés

I explained the issue in [2017] EWHC 3104 (Pat) Eli Lily v Genentech in my posting on Chugai v UCB. A defendant in a patent infringement case often tries to make the case that the suit is about patent infringement really: for this obliges the court per GAT v Luk to refer (only the) invalidity issue to the court with exclusive jurisdiction under Article 24(4) Brussels I Recast.

Here, Eli Lily seek a declaration of non infringement of a bundle of European patents held by Genentech, a US-incorporated firm.

Birss J in the case summarises all relevant precedent, including Chugai, to reach the conclusion that the suit can stay in the UK.

Of note is his holding on costs. The English courts do not just review whether the case is currently about validity but also what the likelihood is that it will become one on validity. For if it does later on, Birss J suggests ‘this entire exercise will have been something of a charade‘ (at 84). (Which is not quite the case: even if the validity issue needs to be temporarily outsourced to different courts, the infringement issue may later return to the courts of England).

On this point, Eli Lilly refuse to disclose whether they may seek a ruling on the validity of the patents: they would rather wait to see Genentech’s defence. Not an unacceptable position, but one, High Court does warn, which will have an impact on costs. At 87: ‘I am satisfied that these unusual circumstances mean that it would not be fair to pre-empt what each party may decide to do. There are sufficient uncertainties that the right thing to do is wait and see what happens. However in my firm but necessarily provisional view that wait should be at Lilly’s risk as to costs. If Genentech does counterclaim for infringement, and validity of the non-UK patents is put in issue (here or abroad) in response, then it is very likely that Lilly should bear the whole costs of this application even if they win it in its form today.‘

That latter point is interesting. It’s twice now this week that judgments come to my attention where jurisdictional considerations are clothed in costs implications.

Geert.

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

 

As part of a research, financed by an Action Grant of the European Commission, on the amendments of the Brussels I-bis Regulation and the functioning in legal practice, questionnaire are available. The research is conducted by the Asser Institute (the Hague), Erasmus School of Law and the Leibniz Institute (Amsterdam). The researchers are extremely grateful if you could fill these out or forward these to others that might be interested.

The survey is available in Dutch, English, French and German.

 

 

 

Les États membres de l’Union doivent adopter des sanctions dissuasives pour lutter contre les fraudes à la TVA, mais cette lutte ne doit pas entraîner une violation du principe de légalité des délits et des peines. 

en lire plus

Former Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), Hans van Loon, has just published an article on the HCCH and a Chinese translation of his inaugural lecture on the global horizon of private international law delivered at the 2015 Session of the Hague Academy:

– Hans van Loon, “At the Cross-roads of Public and Private International Law – The Hague Conference on Private International Law and Its Work”, in Collected Courses of the Xiamen Academy of International Law, Vol. 11, pp. 1-65, (Chia-Jui Cheng, ed.), Brill/Nijhoff, 2017 (available via Brill).

Contents:

1. Role and Mission of the Hague Conference on Private International Law
2. Origin and Development of the Hague Conference
3. The impact of Contemporary Globalisation
4. Hague Conventions Promoting Global Trade, Investment and Finance
5. Hague Conventions Promoting Administrative and Judicial Cooperation
6. Hague Conventions Promoting Personal Security and Protecting Families in Cross Border Situations
7. Outlook – (Potential) Significance of the Hague Conference and Its work for the Asia-Pacific Region.

– Chinese translation (by Prof. Zhang Meirong and Prof. Wu Yong) of Hans van Loon’s Inaugural Lecture, “The Global Horizon of Private International Law” given at the 2015 Session of the Hague Academy of International Law, Recueil des Cours, Vol. 380, in Chinese Review of International Law 2017, vol. 6, pp. 2-52, vol. 6), for more information see http://www.guojifayanjiu.org/.

Excerpt of table of contents:

Chapter I. The development of private international law against the backdrop of the evolving nation-State

1. Origins and early development of private international law
2. Birth of the Hague Conference on private international law
3. Establishment of the Hague Conference as an international organization – early innovations
4. Globalization – its effects on the nation-State

Chapter II. The impact of globalization on the development of private international law

1. Rising profile, proliferation of sources, new approaches
2. Commerce and trade: party autonomy within limits
3. Families and children: direct transnational institutional co-operation and interaction with human rights

Chapter III. Global challenges for private international law on the horizon

1. People on the move
2. Environment and climate change

Some general conclusions

For a long time, Japan refused to extend application of its antitrust laws to foreign cartels, even those with an impact on the Japanese market. Following a 1990 Study Group Report recommending adoption of the effects doctrine, the Japanese Fair Trade Commission has increasingly applied Japanese antitrust law extraterritorially, as Marek Martyniszyn reports in a helpful recent article. Now the Japanese Supreme Court has upheld a series of judgments from the Tokyo High Court, thereby effectively adopting the effects doctrine. The doctrine appears to go very far: according to the report, the cartel had reached its price-fixing agreement in Southeast Asia, and affected products had been purchased by Southeast Asian units and subcontractors rather than the Japanese companies themselves.
An earlier article, including more detailed comment on the decision by the Tokyo High Court is Tadashi Shiraishi, Customer Location and the International Reach of National Competition Laws, (2016) 59 Japanese Yearbook of International Law, 202-215 (published 2017) (SSRN). The author of the article was involved in the litigation.

By Emma van Gelder and Alexandre Biard, Erasmus University Rotterdam

(PhD and postdoc researchers ERC project Building EU Civil Justice)

On 13 December 2017, the European Commission published a report on the functioning of the Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) Platform for consumer disputes, and the findings of a web-scraping exercise of EU traders’ websites that investigated traders’ compliance with their information obligations vis-à-vis consumers.

In 2013, two complementary and intertwined legislative instruments – the Consumer ADR Directive (Directive 2013/11/EU) and the ODR Regulation (Regulation 524/2013) – were adopted to facilitate the out-of-court resolution of consumer disputes in the EU. Among other things, the Consumer ADR Directive has promoted a comprehensive landscape of high quality ADR bodies operating across the EU, and the ODR Regulation has established an ODR platform that offers consumers and traders a single point of entry for complaints arising out from online sales and services. The ODR platform is operational since 15 February 2016.

Data about claims lodged between 15 February 2016 and 15 February 2017 reveals:

• 1,9 million individuals visited the ODR platform, proving the considerable level of coverage and uptake of the platform, as well as a high level of awareness among consumers and traders;
• Consumers submitted more than 24,000 complaints via the ODR platform. Reasons for complaining included problems with the delivery of goods (21%), non-conformity issues (15%) and defective goods (12%). 1/3 of complaints related to cross-border issues;
• 85 % of cases were automatically closed within 30 days after submission, which is the deadline for consumers and traders to agree on a competent ADR body. A large number of traders ultimately did not follow through using the ODR platform. However, it appears that 40% of consumers were bilaterally contacted by traders to solve their problems outside the scope of the ODR platform. As the European Commission highlights, the ODR platform has thus behavioural effects on traders and ‘consumers’ mere recourse to the ODR platform has a preventive effect on traders that are more inclined to settle the dispute rapidly without taking the complaint to a dispute resolution body through the ODR platform workflow’;
• 9 % of complaints were not closed by the system, but refused by the trader. For 4% of them, parties both pulled backed before they reached an agreement with the ADR entity;2% of complaints were submitted to an ADR body. In half of these cases, the ADR body refused to deal with the case on procedural grounds (e.g. lack of competence or consumer’s failure to contact the trader first). In the end, only 1% of the cases reached an outcome via an ADR entity.

In parallel, the web-scraping exercise of 20,000 traders’ websites was conducted between 1 June and 15 July 2017. It aimed to investigate traders’ compliance with their information obligations, which include in particular the obligation to provide consumers with an easily accessible electronic link to the ODR platform on their websites, and an email address that consumers may use to submit complaint against them on the ODR platform. Key findings of can be summarized as follows:

• Only 28% of controlled websites included a link to the ODR platform. Compliance ultimately depended on traders’ size (e.g., 42% of large traders included a link vs. 14% of small traders), location (e.g., 66% of online traders located in Germany provided a link vs. 1% in Latvia), and sectors (e.g., 54% in the insurances sector vs. 15% of ‘online reservations of offline leisure’);
• 85% of investigated traders provided an email address;
• Accessibility to the ODR link appears still limited: for 82% of websites, the link to the ODR platform was included in the Terms & Conditions, which for consumers might be difficult to retrieve considering the risk of information overload.

The EU Commission now intends to take actions to solve the identified issues. In particular, it will cooperate with national authorities to solve technical issues, and maximize the use of the platform with the view to strengthening its contribution to the development of the Digital Single Market.

By Stephan Walter, Research Fellow at the Research Center for Transnational Commercial Dispute Resolution (TCDR), EBS Law School, Wiesbaden, Germany.

In light of the success of the first German conference for young PIL scholars, held in April 2017 in Bonn (see the recent announcement of the conference volume as well as the conference report), we would like to continue the academic and personal exchange with a second conference. It will take place on 4 and 5 April 2019 at the University of Würzburg (Germany). The key note will be given by Professor Jürgen Basedow (emeritus director at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law).

The conference theme will be

“Private International Law between Tradition and Innovation”
– German title: “IPR zwischen Tradition und Innovation” –

Today, anyone working on questions of private international law finds an area of law that is highly differentiated, shaped by theory, and characterized by a complex network of legal sources. It is up to young scholars in particular to question these structures, mechanisms and methods, which have been consolidated in over a hundred years of academic discourse and legal evolution. New political, social, and technological developments also provide an opportunity to take a fresh look at established approaches and possibly outdated solutions. In short, the relationship between tradition and innovation in private international law requires close scrutiny.

Against this backdrop, we are inviting contributions that address the tension inherent in the conference theme, that question dated rules and methodological approaches, or that engage with new problems and challenges for PIL, such as mass migration, digitization, gender identities or modern forms of family. For this purpose, we understand PIL in a broad sense that includes questions of conflict of laws, international civil procedure, arbitration and uniform law.

Papers that are selected for presentation will be published in a conference volume by Mohr Siebeck. Presentations should take about 30 minutes and ideally be in German. The call for papers will be published in spring 2018.

Questions may be directed to ipr-nachwuchstagung@jura.uni-wuerzburg.de. For further information, please visit https://www.jura.uni-wuerzburg.de/lehrstuehle/rupp/tagungen/ipr_nachwuchstagung/.

La ministre de la Justice a présenté en conseil des ministres, le 13 décembre 2017, un projet de loi d’adaptation au droit de l’Union européenne de la loi n° 78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l’informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés. 

en lire plus

Non lieu à renvoi

In [2017] EWHC 2541 (IPEC) Pablo Star Media v Richard Bowen the issue was one over copyright infringement relating to a photograph of Dylan Thomas. Of interest to this blog is not the copyright issue or the height of damages relating to same – I am not a specialist in that area. (As far as the jurisdictional issues are concerned, there is a slightly muddled reference to the Brussels I Recast and various other Regulations including Regulation 542/2014 which I discussed here).

What did trigger my interest, though, is the ruling on costs.

At 33-34 Hacon J quotes the District Judge’s reasoning for obliging claimant (Pablo Star) to pay part of the defendant’s cost, despite having won the case. In that cost award, the District Judge scolds claimant for having initiated proceedings in Ireland as well as the UK, and for considering (or threatening, as the case may be) litigation in the US. The High Court at 38 and 41 leaves aside the proceedings in Ireland as a factor to consider, and now limits the reasoning for the award on cost to the potential proceedings in the US.

Now, costs determination largely is within the realm of national rules of civil procedure. Sometimes, EU and /or international law has a direct impact on cost determination, such as for instance in the case of Aarhus and environmental litigation; or, importantly for the case at issue, Directive 2004/48 on intellectual property rights enforcement (the enforcement Directive). This Directive provides in Article 14 on legal costs

‘Member States shall ensure that reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses incurred by the successful party shall, as a general rule, be borne by the unsuccessful party, unless equity does not allow this.’

That Directive was applied in CJEU C-57/15 UVP v Telenet, expressly condemning Belgium’s restrictive regime on cost recovery in intellectual property cases. The High Court’s finding on cost may to my mind be at odds with that ruling.

More generally, the District Judge’s reference to claimant’s Irish proceedings contributing to the judge’s finding on cost, without a doubt is an infringement of the effet utile of the EU’s jurisdictional regimes. Claimant has a certain right to sue in Ireland and that possibility must in no way be disciplined.  Hacon J at the High Court, purposely or not, may have insulated himself from criticism at this point, by leaving the Irish proceedings outside the consideration and only referring to the threat of US proceedings as relevant for partially shifting costs to the plaintiff.

Absolute numbers in the case are not high. Yet the principle to my mind deserves right to appeal at the CA and, from there on, potentially to the CJEU.

Geert.

Fonds de garantie

Vente

Expropriation

Responsabilité délictuelle ou quasi délictuelle

Architecte entrepreneur