Feed aggregator

UNION EUROPEENNE - Traité sur le fonctionnement de l'Union européenne

In C-54/16 Vinyls Italia (in full: Vinyls Italia SpA, in liquidation v Mediterranea di Navigazione SpA) Szpunar AG opined last week (the Opinion is not available in English). At the core of the case is the application of Article 13 of the Insolvency Regulation 2000 (Article 16 in the 2015 version; see my general review here), however the case opens an interesting discussion on the meaning of ‘international’ in ‘private international law’.

For the general context of Article 13 (16 new) I should like to refer to my review of Lutz and Nike. At issue in the case at hand are payments made by Vinyls to Mediterranea for the transport of chemicals of the former by the latter. Both are Italian registered companies. Shipment was presumably carried out in Italy (an extra-Italian element in the actual transport does not feature in the factual analysis re ‘international’, which I refer to below). However the contract made choice of law in favour of English law. Mediterranea makes recourse to Article 13 juncto English law as the lex contractus to ward off an attempt by Vinyls to have the payments return to its books.

First up is the question whether courts should apply Article 13 ex officio: for Mediterranea’s claim was made after the procedural deadline foreseen by Italian law. Szpunar AG in my view justifiably suggest it does not: he refers to the Virgos Schmit report [„Article 13 represents a defence against the application of the law of the State of the opening, which must be pursued by the interested party, who must claim it” – § 136 of that report, para 43 of the AG’s Opinion) and to the CJEU’s finding in C-310/14 Nike at 26. The AG does point to the particulars of the case: Mediterranea seemingly had provided proof supporting its view that the substantial conditions of Article 13 had been met (in particular an expert opinion by an English lawyer) but had not expressis verbis requested its application. Szpunar refers the final say to the Italian court, which needs to judge on the basis of Italian civil procedure however does suggest that it seems fairly inconceivable to have provided proof for the fulfillment of a legal proviso, without meaning to request its application.

The question on the applicability of Rome I at all (which is required if Mediterranea want to make recourse to the provisions of English law as lex contractus per Rome I or the Rome convention) may not make it to the CJEU. As Szpunar AG notes, the underlying contract dates prior to 17 December 2009, which is the cut-off date of the Rome I Regulation. The referring court being a court of first instance, it is not in a position to request preliminary review of Rome I’s predecessor, the 1980 Rome Convention. The AG completes the analysis anyway (the Court itself will not, should it find Rome I not to be applicable) and takes in my view the right, expansionist approach (one which I also defend in my handbook): especially given the presence of Article 3(3)’s proviso for ‘purely domestic’ contracts, it is clear that it suffices for Rome I to be applicable that parties make choice of court in favour of a foreign law. Further in the opinion (137 ff) he also suggests that such application is not tantamount to fraude a la loi (fraus legis) and again I agree: the relevance of fraus has been seriously diminished by the provisions on party autonomy in both Rome I and the Rome Convention.

The use of choice of law per Rome I (or the Convention) in turn serves as a jack to trigger the application of the insolvency Regulation. That too is correct in my view, and with undramatic consequences. Choice of law for the underlying contract only identifies its lex causae (where relevant, with an impact on Article 13 of the Insolvency Regulation). It does does not of course in and of itself determine the lex concursus: the latter is determined by the Insolvency Regulation once /if insolvency occurs. Parties have no means to manipulate this at the time of the formation of the contract.

Exciting, conceptual stuff. Most probably the Court itself will not be in a position to assess it all.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 3, Heading 3.2.1; Heading 3.2.8.1; chapter 5; Heading 5.7.1.

X et X
DFON
Les États membres ne sont pas tenus, en vertu du droit de l’Union, d’accorder un visa humanitaire aux personnes qui souhaitent se rendre sur leur territoire dans l’intention de demander l’asile, mais ils demeurent libres de le faire sur la base de leur droit national

United Parcel Service / Commission
Concurrence
Le Tribunal de l’UE annule, pour vice de procédure, la décision par laquelle la Commission a refusé la concentration entre UPS et TNT dans le secteur de la distribution express des petits colis

RPO
Fiscalité TVA INST
Le principe d’égalité de traitement ne s’oppose pas à ce que les livres, les journaux et les périodiques numériques fournis par voie électronique soient exclus de l’application d’un taux réduit de TVA

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Paris, pôle 5, chambre 2, 9 septembre 2016

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Grenoble, chambre sociale, section A, 8 novembre 2016

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'assises d'appel du Cher, 4 octobre 2016

Cour d'appel de Bastia, 16 février 2017

Le 16 février 2017, le président du Tribunal de l’Union a précisé que le Parlement européen peut procéder au recouvrement par compensation des sommes indûment versées à titre de rémunération pour des assistants parlementaires locaux, sans qu’il ne porte atteinte à l’exercice effectif et en toute indépendance du mandat des députés concernés.

en lire plus

L’arrêt rapporté fournit une illustration du délit de provocation à la rébellion.

en lire plus