Feed aggregator

Many thanks to Andrew Savage and Nick Payne for flagging [2017] EWHC 1968 (Comm) Bestolov v Povarenkin a little while ago, and for sending me copy of the judgment at the time. Apologies for late reporting: frustratingly even at gavclaw we cannot always devote the amount of time to the blog we would wish. Dr Maganaris in the meantime also has summary here.

As readers no doubt are aware, the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Article 62) does not define ‘domicile’: it defers to national private international law on the issue. The Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Order 2001 establishes that a person is domiciled in England for the purpose of the Brussels Regulation (recast) if: the person is “resident” in England; and (cumulatively) the person has a “substantial connection” to England. Bryan DJ takes us through the relevant (and often colourful) precedent and notes, importantly, at 28 that the consequence of the English rules is that the same person can be resident in two different jurisdictions at the same time. At 44, he summarises with a list of criteria, and decides on the facts of the case that Mr Povarenkin is indeed domiciled in England (the substantial connection test having been more easy to determine than that of residence).

Subsequently the High Court reviews at length whether there was a valid choice of court agreement under Article 25 of the Regulation – which at this jurisdictional stage of the proceedings Bryan DJ decides there was not (choice of law for the relevant contracts being English law, was justifiably not considered definitive in this respect), at least not clearly. Obiter, the judge reviews forum non conveniens, at lenght in fact (and in a very clear way with a keen eye on relevant precedent as well as court practice in England) however he holds both before and after the obiter that evidently given Owusu, forum non conveniens has no calling.

A well written judgment, the approach of which on domicile evidently goes beyond having relevance merely for the English courts: for under the Regulation, courts in other Member States, too, may have to consider whether parties are domiciled in an EU Member State other than their own including, for the time being, the United Kingdom.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.3, Heading 2.2.14.5.

Un utilisateur d’un compte Facebook privé ne perd pas la qualité de « consommateur », au sens de l’article 15 du règlement Bruxelles I, lorsqu’il publie des livres, donne des conférences, exploite des sites internet, collecte des dons et se fait céder les droits de nombreux consommateurs afin de faire valoir ces droits en justice.

en lire plus

On February 7th, a workshop on the EU Matrimonial and Partnership Property Regulations will take place at the University of Strasbourg. Coordinated by Prof. Estelle Naudin and Delphine Porcheron, the workshop will explore the strategies of anticipation provided by the new regulations and some of the practical issues raised by French-German situations.

Speakers include :

• Richard Crône, Notary in Paris, Member of the Institut Notarial Europe et International (INEI)
• Alain Devers, University of Lyon III
• Claire Farge, Lawyer, Member of the Legal Committee of FNDP
• Michel Farge, University of Grenoble-Alpes
• Eric Fongaro, University of Bordeaux
• Estelle Gallant, University Paris I
• Estelle Naudin, University of Strasbourg
• Delphine Porcheron, University of Strasbourg

Click here to access the full program.

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'assises de la Guadeloupe, 30 juin 2017

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel d'Aix-en-Provence - 7e chambre correctionnelle , 20 juin 2017

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Caen - chambre correctionnelle, 03 juillet 2017

Non lieu à renvoi

On 26 January 2018, the European Commission published the second General Report of the study on procedural law undertaken by the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg. This strand of the study concerned the effect of divergences in national procedural laws on the equivalence and effectiveness of the procedural protection of consumers under EU consumer law. For the first strand of the study, see here.

More information available here.

Kühne + Nagel International e.a. / Commission
Concurrence
La Cour maintient les amendes infligées par la Commission à plusieurs sociétés dans le cadre de l’entente dans le secteur des services de transit international aérien

Séparation des pouvoirs

La Cour de justice de l’Union européenne vient de préciser les modalités de la procédure de reprise en charge d’un « dubliné » qui, après avoir introduit une demande de protection internationale dans un premier État membre, a été transféré vers cet État membre par suite du rejet d’une nouvelle demande introduite auprès d’un second État membre, puis est revenu, sans titre de séjour, sur le territoire de ce second État membre.

en lire plus

Non-lieu à renvoi et irrecevabilité partielle

Tribunal de commerce d'Évry, 18 janvier 2018

[2018] EWHC 59 (Ch) International Bank of Azerbaijan is an excellent illustration of the practicality v the doctrine of modified universalism in international insolvency law, as well as of the binding force of precedent even in a changing world. Hildyard J first summarises at 2 the question raised as ‘whether the Court has power to grant a permanent moratorium or stay to prevent a creditor exercising its rights under a contract governed by English law in order to prevent that creditor enforcing its rights contrary to the terms of the foreign insolvency proceeding by which all creditors were, under the relevant foreign law, intended to be bound. If it does, the second question is whether in its discretion the Court should exercise that power.’

IBA has fallen into financial difficulties, obliging it to enter into a restructuring proceeding under Azeri law. The Foreign Representative, Ms Gunel Bakhshiyeva (hence also giving her name to the official case-name) had the High Court issue an order  recognising the Restructuring Proceeding as a foreign main proceeding. That recognition order imposes a wide-ranging moratorium preventing creditors from commencing or continuing any action against IBA or its property without the permission of the Court.  The plan proposed by IBA pursuant to the restructuring proceeding has been approved by a substantial majority at a meeting of creditors in Azerbaijan, sanctioned by the relevant Azeri court, and as a matter of Azeri law, the plan is now binding on all affected creditors, including those who did not vote and those who voted against the Plan: a classic cram-down.

Respondents in the case contend that the plan cannot bind them. In each case their relationship as creditor with IBA is governed by English law. They rely on the (1890) rule in Gibbs, which states that a debt governed by English law cannot be discharged by a foreign insolvency proceeding. Reformulating the essential issues at 19, Hildyard J summarises them as

(1) Whether the Court has jurisdiction to extend a moratorium imposed under the CBIR without limit as to time, and in particular, beyond the date on which the foreign proceeding will terminate; and

(2) If so, whether the Court should refuse to lift the continuing moratorium in favour of a creditor whose debt is governed by English law, so as to prevent that creditor from achieving a better return than that enjoyed by all of the company’s other creditors under a restructuring plan promulgated in the jurisdiction in which the company is registered and has its centre of main interests (“COMI”).

At 44 ff Hildyard J excellently summarises the rule, and the critical reception of it in recent scholarship, the latter suggesting it is not just out of touch with a less anglo-centric view of the world, but also inconsistent with the English courts themselves expecting foreign recognition of schemes of arrangement (SAs being of a corporate, not lex concursus nature but nevertheless fishing in the same waters as insolvency proceedings) conducted in the English courts with English law as the lex causae.

Having summed up all the arguments against the rule and yet recent continued application of it, Hildyard J at 58 dryly notes that his place in the hierarchy means that he cannot simply swipe the rule aside: he must apply it and simply assess whether it applies in the current circumstances. More particularly, whether at one and the same time the ‘rule’ may formally be observed by accepting the continuation of the rights which English law confers, and yet also the principles of modified universalism which the UNCITRAL Model Law gives effect to.

Lengthy discussion then follows of the pros and contras, with the High Court eventually finding no persuasive argument to set aside the rule, particularly not by the English application of the UNCITRAL model law. Counsel had argued that qualifying the model law as procedural as opposed to substantive law, would enable the Court effectively to sidestep Gibbs as precedent. However Hildyard J prefered to accept the full force of precedent rather than sweeping it aside by the procedural pretext.

The substantive rule clearly is ripe for reconsideration by the Court of Appeal.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 5, Heading 5.1.

 

Tribunal de police de Paris, 15 janvier 2018

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel d'Aix-en-Provence, 1re chambre A, 21 mars 2017

Pourvoi c/ Premier Président près la Cour d'Appel de Paris , 16 novembre 2017

Tribunal de commerce de Pontoise, 18 janvier 2018

L’exequatur aux fins de reconnaissance ou d’exécution d’un jugement étranger peut être demandé par voie incidente dans une instance qui n’a pas pour objet principal ce jugement, y compris pour la première fois en appel lorsque la partie défenderesse n’a pas été constituée en première instance.

en lire plus