Flux européens

Espagne / Commission
Aide d'État
Le Tribunal annule la décision de la Commission déclarant illicite le régime fiscal espagnol de déduction des prises de participations indirectes dans des sociétés étrangères

Valve Corporation / Commission
Concurrence
Jeux vidéo en ligne : le Tribunal confirme que le géoblocage de clés d’activation pour la plate-forme Steam a enfreint le droit de la concurrence de l’Union

Entrée en fonctions de deux nouveaux membres du Tribunal de l’Union européenne
Entry into office of two new Members of the General Court of the European Union

In C-632/21 JF and NS v Diamond Resorts Europe Limited (Sucursal en España) (‘Diamond Resorts Europe) the CJEU has held that Article 6(2) Rome I on consumer contracts is exhaustive, preventing a consumer to shop for more favourable laws different from those of their habitual residence.

Applicants are British consumers resident in the UK who concluded, on 14 April 2008 and 28 June 2010 respectively, two timeshare contracts with Diamond Resorts Europe, an English company operating as a branch in Spain of the Diamond Resorts group. The accommodation subject to the timeshare is spread across the EU with focus on Spain. Applicants request invalidity of the contracts on the basis of the Spanish timeshare laws, which implement the relevant EU law at issue. They seize a Spanish court, claiming the proceedings have as their object a right in rem in immovable property (the jurisdictional echo of C-73/04 Klein v Rhodos Management already should have made them think otherwise imho). Defendants argue the claim concerns a right in personam which in consequence of Rome Convention’s and /or the Rome I Regulation’s provisions on consumer contracts, are subject to the laws of the habitual residence of the consumers, i.e. English law.

The CJEU first of all holds (para 55) that as a consequence of Articles 66(a) and 126 of the UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement, the Rome Regulation applies to one of the contracts only, the other one being subject to the Rome Convention. It also confirms (para 52) that despite the contracts having been concluded between UK parties, the contract is clearly ‘international’ given the presence of foreign elements.

Next, it confirms without much ado (para 70 ff) the contracts as consumer contracts, notes lex voluntatis as being English law, and in consequence of the consumer title, that lex voluntatis being the same lex contractus as would have applied in the absence of choice.

Importantly, with reference mutatis mutandis to CJEU Schlecker, and a clear hint as to the future reply in VK v N1,

“An interpretation whereby it would be possible to derogate from the conflict-of-law rules laid down by the Rome I Regulation for determining the law applicable to consumer contracts, on the ground that another law would be more favourable to the consumer, would necessarily seriously undermine the general requirement of predictability of the applicable law and, therefore, the principle of legal certainty in contractual relationships involving consumers” (para 75)

A further question on Article 9 overriding mandatory provisions is declared inadmissible for lack of any detail on the nature of the national laws, given by the referring court.

Geert.

New #CJEU judgment applicable law Rome I, re timeshare agreements and consumer law
C-632/21 Diamond Resorts Europehttps://t.co/IBmyg43pzM

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) September 14, 2023

ADDE e.a.
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice FRON ASIL J-AI
Réintroduction de contrôles aux frontières intérieures : la directive « retour » s’applique à tout ressortissant de pays tiers entré sur le territoire d’un État membre sans remplir les conditions d’entrée, de séjour ou de résidence

Juan
L’interdiction de la double incrimination ne semble pas s’opposer à l’exécution d’un mandat d’arrêt européen contre le responsable d’un système pyramidal frauduleux mis en place en Espagne et au Portugal
The prohibition of double jeopardy does not appear to preclude the execution of a European arrest warrant against the person responsible for a fraudulent pyramid scheme set up in Spain and in Portugal

Belgique / Commission
Aide d'État
Tax rulings : les exonérations fiscales accordées par la Belgique à des sociétés faisant partie de groupes multinationaux constituent un régime d’aides illicite

The Court of Justice delivered a few days ago (14 September 2023) its judgment in case C‑632/21 (JF, NS v Diamond Resorts Europe Limited (Sucursal en España), Diamond Resorts Spanish Sales SL, Sunterra Tenerife Sales SL), which is about the applicability of Rome I and its Article 6:

“1. The provisions of [Rome I] are applicable, in the context of a dispute before a court of a Member State, to contracts the two parties of which are United Kingdom nationals, to the extent that those contracts have a foreign element.

2. Article 6(2) of Regulation No 593/2008 must be interpreted as meaning that:

–        where a consumer contract fulfils the requirements laid down in Article 6(1) of that regulation, the parties to that contract may, in accordance with Article 3 of that same regulation, choose the law applicable to that contract, provided, however, that that choice does not result in depriving the consumer concerned of the protection afforded to him or her by provisions that cannot be derogated from by agreement by virtue of the law which, in the absence of choice, would have been applicable on the basis of Article 6(1), which provides that such a contract is to be governed by the law of the country where the consumer has his or her habitual residence;

–        in view of the mandatory and exhaustive nature of that same Article 6(2), it is not possible to derogate from that provision for the benefit of legislation allegedly more favourable to the consumer”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?mode=DOC&pageIndex=0&docid=277406&part=1&doclang=EN&text=&dir=&occ=first&cid=94681

The Court of Justice delivered a few days ago (14 September 2023) its judgment in case C‑821/21 (NM v Club La Costa (UK) plc, sucursal en España, CLC Resort Management Ltd, Midmark 2 Ltd, CLC Resort Development Ltd, European Resorts & Hotels SL), which is about Articles 18 and 63 Brussels I bis as well as Articles 3 and 6 Rome I:

“1. Article 18(1) of [Brussels I bis] must be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘other party to a contract’, in that provision, must be understood as referring only to the natural or legal person who is a party to the contract in question and not to other persons, not parties to that contract, even if they are connected with that person.

2. Article 63(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that the determination, in accordance with that provision, of the domicile of the ‘other party to a contract’, within the meaning of Article 18(1) of that regulation, does not constitute a limitation of the choice which the consumer may make under that Article 18(1). In that regard, the clarifications provided in Article 63(2) concerning the concept of ‘statutory seat’ constitute autonomous definitions.

3. Article 3 of [Rome I] must be interpreted as not precluding a choice-of-law clause in the general terms and conditions of a contract or in a separate document to which that contract refers and which has been provided to the consumer, provided that that clause informs the consumer that he or she enjoys, in any event, under Article 6(2) of that regulation, the protection afforded to him or her by the mandatory provisions of the law of the country in which he or she has his or her habitual residence.

4. Article 6(1) of Regulation No 593/2008 must be interpreted as meaning that where a consumer contract fulfils the requirements set out in that provision and in the absence of a valid choice of law applicable to that contract, that law must be determined in accordance with that provision, which may be relied on by both parties to that contract, including the professional, notwithstanding the fact that the law applicable to the contract in accordance with Articles 3 and 4 of that regulation may be more favourable to the consumer”

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=277408&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1961282

The Court of Justice delivered a few days ago (14 September 2023) its judgment in case C‑393/22 (EXTÉRIA s.r.o. v Spravime, s.r.o.), which is about Article 7(1)(b) Brussels I bis.

Decision: “Article 7(1)(b) [Brussels I bis] must be interpreted as meaning that a contract to enter into a future contract relating to the future conclusion of a franchise agreement which provides for an obligation to pay a contractual penalty based on non-performance of that contract to enter into a future contract, the breach of which serves as a basis for a claim, does not fall within the concept of a contract for the ‘provision of services’ within the meaning of that provision. In such a case, jurisdiction over a claim on which that obligation serves as a basis is determined, in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) of that regulation, by reference to the place of performance of that obligation”.

Facts: “The applicant in the main proceedings, which provides consultancy services in the field of occupational safety and health, and the defendant in the main proceedings concluded, on 28 June 2018, a contract to enter into a future contract relating to the future conclusion of a franchise agreement (‘the contract to enter into a future contract’) which would enable the defendant in the main proceedings to operate and manage franchised branches of the applicant in the main proceedings in Slovakia. That contract to enter into a future contract contained, in addition to the obligation to conclude that contract in the future, certain contractual terms and conditions and an undertaking on the part of the defendant in the main proceedings to pay an advance of EUR 20 400, exclusive of value added tax, and, in the event of failure to comply with that obligation, a contractual penalty equal to the amount of that advance (‘the contractual penalty’).

6 That advance, the purpose of which was not only to guarantee that obligation but also to preserve the confidentiality of all the information contained in that contract to enter into a future contract relating to the franchise concept of the applicant in the main proceedings, had to be paid within 10 days of the signing of that contract to enter into a future contract. In addition, the latter gave the applicant in the main proceedings the right to withdraw if the defendant in the main proceedings did not pay it the agreed fee within the prescribed period.

7 The contract to enter into a future contract provided for the application of Czech law, without any agreement on jurisdiction having been concluded.

8 Alleging that the defendant in the main proceedings had failed to fulfil its obligation to pay the advance in question, the applicant in the main proceedings withdrew from the contract to enter into a future contract and claimed payment of the contractual penalty.

9 To that end, it brought a European order for payment procedure before the Okresní soud v Ostravě (District Court, Ostrava, Czech Republic).

10 By order of 17 December 2020, that court dismissed the plea of lack of jurisdiction of the Czech courts raised by the defendant in the main proceedings and held that it had jurisdiction to hear the dispute at issue on the basis of Article 7(1)(a) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, since that dispute concerned the performance of an obligation, within the meaning of that provision, namely the obligation to pay the contractual penalty, which had to be performed at the place where the applicant in the main proceedings had its registered office.

11 In the appeal against that order, the defendant in the main proceedings invoked the jurisdiction of the Slovak courts on the ground that the obligation secured by that contractual penalty, which admittedly had its source in the contract to enter into a future contract, was nevertheless linked to the place of production and delivery of the goods under the franchise agreement which was to be concluded.

12 By an order of 16 February 2021, the Krajský soud v Ostravě (Regional Court, Ostrava, Czech Republic), as the court of appeal, upheld the decision at first instance, holding that the subject matter of the action was the right to payment of the contractual penalty on account of non-compliance, by the defendant in the main proceedings, of the terms of the contract to enter into a future contract and was therefore not related to the production or delivery of goods, so that Article 7(1)(b) of the Brussels I bis Regulation did not apply. Accordingly, jurisdiction should be determined in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) of that regulation, under which the court having jurisdiction is the court for the place of performance of the obligation in question, and that place must be determined in accordance with the law of the court seised, in the present case Czech law.

13 The defendant in the main proceedings brought an appeal on a point of law against that order before the Nejvyšší soud (Supreme Court, Czech Republic), the referring court, claiming that the nature of the right to payment of the contractual penalty had not been correctly assessed.

14 Referring to the Court’s settled case-law on the interpretation of the concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’ (judgments of 17 June 1992, Handte, C‑26/91, EU:C:1992:268, paragraph 15, and of 15 June 2017, Kareda, C‑249/16, EU:C:2017:472, paragraph 30), that court concludes that the dispute before it, concerning entitlement to payment of the contractual penalty, has its origin in the contract to enter into a future contract, so that that dispute falls within the concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’ within the meaning of Article 7(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation.

15 Since, according to that court, that right is not linked to the production or delivery of goods, the application of the first indent of Article 7(1)(b) should be ruled out from the outset.

16 It is then necessary to determine whether it is not a right relating to a ‘provision of services’ within the meaning of the second indent of Article 7(1)(b) thereof.

17 The referring court points out that there are two possible solutions for the purposes of determining the court with international jurisdiction, namely one would be to classify the contract to enter into a future contract as an autonomous contract, and the other would be to determine the nature of the rights resulting from the contract to enter into a future contract on the basis of the nature of the contract to be concluded.

18 In the light of the Court’s case-law, the mere conclusion of a contract to enter into a future contract does not constitute a provision of services, within the autonomous meaning of EU law as a contract involving the performance of an activity by means of positive acts for the benefit of another person in return for remuneration (see, to that effect, judgments of 23 April 2009, Falco Privatstiftung and Rabitsch, C‑533/07, EU:C:2009:257; of 14 July 2016, Granarolo, C‑196/15, EU:C:2016:559; and of 25 March 2021, Obala i lučice, C‑307/19, EU:C:2021:236), so that the Nejvyšší soud (Supreme Court) is inclined to conclude that that contract to enter into a future contract does not fall within the scope of the second indent of Article 7(1)(b) of the Brussels I bis Regulation.

19      Consequently, in accordance with Article 7(1)(c) thereof, according to which Article 7(1)(a) applies if Article 7(1)(b) does not apply, the court with jurisdiction should be determined by reference to the place of performance of the obligation in question.

20 In so far as the Court has not yet expressly addressed the question whether a pactum de contrahendo can be classified as a ‘contract for services’, there is reasonable doubt as to the correct interpretation of Article 7(1)(b) of the Brussels I bis Regulation.

21 In those circumstances, the Nejvyšší soud (Supreme Court) decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling:

‘Must Article 7(1)(b) of [the Brussels I bis] Regulation be interpreted as meaning that the concept “contract for the provision of services” also includes a contract to enter into a future contract (pactum de contrahendo), in which the parties undertook to enter into a future contract that would be a contract for the provision of services, within the meaning of that provision?’”

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=277414&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2440337

NADA e.a.
Principes du droit communautaire PDON
Lutte contre le dopage et protection des données : l’avocate générale Ćapeta considère qu’une autorité nationale de lutte contre le dopage qui publie sur Internet des données à caractère personnel d’un sportif professionnel dopé ne viole pas le RGPD 

TGSS (Refus du complément de maternité)
Discrimination fondée sur le sexe en Espagne : les pères de deux enfants ou plus contraints d’aller en justice pour bénéficier d’un complément à leur pension d’invalidité ont droit à une indemnisation supplémentaire

Tuk Tuk Travel
Rapprochement des législations PROT
Résiliation de voyages à forfait en cas de circonstances exceptionnelles : une juridiction nationale peut, sous certaines conditions, informer d’office le voyageur de son droit de résiliation sans frais

Volkswagen Group Italia et Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Le principe ne bis in idem s’applique aux sanctions infligées en matière de pratiques commerciales déloyales qualifiées de sanctions administratives de nature pénale

Venezuela / Conseil
Relations extérieures
Le Tribunal rejette le recours du Venezuela contre les mesures restrictives de l’Union

I discussed Richard de La Tour AG’s Opinion in C-590/21 Charles Taylor Adjusting Limited v Starlight Shipping Company and Overseas Marine Enterprises Inc here.

The CJEU held last week, [27] qualifying as the AG did, the English orders as a quasi anti-suit injunction in the circumstances of the order (leaving some room for distinguishing).

Rather more so (and correctly so) than its AG, it [35] points to the nature of ordre public as expressed in (now) A45 BIa as being a concept of the national legal order of the Member States, even if [36] the origin of that rule may lie in EU law (such as here the rule [37] that “every court seised itself determines, under the applicable rules, whether it has jurisdiction to resolve the dispute before it”).

The CJEU’s reference to Meroni and its stating that a Member State “cannot, without undermining the aim of [Brussels Ia], refuse recognition of a judgment emanating from another Member State solely on the ground that it considers that national or EU law was misapplied in that judgment” [29], with reference ia to Liberato), imho mean that it does not push the principle of ‘non-review’ quite so emphatically as the AG did, however one cannot see in what circumstances an order such as this would survive (now) Article 45.

Finally, the CJEU does not discuss the AG’s ‘ ‘unless it gives effect to a decision which would have been prohibited in direct proceedings’, which I flagged in my earlier post.

The judgment is consistent with the (much contested) Turner and West Tankers approach, and it leaves some open questions on the qualification of orders as ‘quasi anti-suit’,  and the individual circumstances in which they might not clash with ordre public.

Geert.

(EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, ia 2.95 ff.

#CJEU European court confirms 'quasi anti-suit injunctions' (here ia related to cost order) may fall foul of BIa's recognition rules: MSs may use ordre public to refuse to enforce

C‑590/21 Charles Taylor Adjusting v Starlight Shipping re: The Alexandros Thttps://t.co/u5vT91nLjN

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) September 7, 2023

The Court of Justice delivered today (7 September 2023) its decision in case C‑832/21 (Beverage City & Lifestyle GmbH, MJ, Beverage City Polska Sp. z o.o., FE v Advance Magazine Publishers Inc.), which is about the conditions of application of Article 8 Brussels I bis:

“Article 8(1) of [Brussels I bis] must be interpreted as meaning that a number of defendants, domiciled in different Member States, may be sued in the courts for the place where one of them is domiciled before which, in the context of an infringement action, claims have been brought against all of those defendants by the proprietor of an EU trade mark where they are each accused of having committed a materially identical infringement of that trade mark and they are connected by an exclusive distribution agreement”.

Source : https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?mode=DOC&pageIndex=0&docid=277065&part=1&doclang=EN&text=&dir=&occ=first&cid=478516

The Court of Justice delivered today (7 September 2023) its decision in case C‑590/21 (Charles Taylor Adjusting Ltd, FD v Starlight Shipping Co., Overseas Marine Enterprises Inc.), which is about a “quasi anti-suit injunction” and recognition and enforcement of judgments from other Member States:

“Article 34(1) of [Brussels I] read in conjunction with Article 45(1) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a court or tribunal of a Member State may refuse to recognise and enforce a judgment of a court or tribunal of another Member State on the ground that it is contrary to public policy, where that judgment impedes the continuation of proceedings pending before another court or tribunal of the former Member State, in that it grants one of the parties provisional damages in respect of the costs borne by that party on account of its bringing those proceedings on the grounds that, first, the subject matter of those proceedings is covered by a settlement agreement, lawfully concluded and ratified by the court or tribunal of the Member State which gave that judgment and, second, the court of the former Member State, before which the proceedings at issue were brought, does not have jurisdiction on account of a clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction”.

One of the key points: “the judgment and orders of the High Court [of England and Wales] could be classified as ‘“quasi” anti-suit injunctions’. While the purpose of that judgment and those orders is not to prohibit a party from bringing or continuing legal action before a foreign court, they may be regarded as having, at the very least, the effect of deterring Starlight and OME, together with their representatives, from bringing proceedings before the Greek courts or continuing before those courts an action the purpose of which is the same as those actions brought before the courts of the United Kingdom, which matter is, in any event, for the referring court to determine” (paragraph 27). The Court adds, at paragraph 28, that “An injunction having such effects would not […] be compatible with Regulation No 44/2001”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=277063&mode=req&pageIndex=3&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&cid=434606

Asociaţia "Forumul Judecătorilor din România"
Principes du droit communautaire
État de droit en Roumanie : la promotion de juges vers une juridiction supérieure, fondée sur une évaluation de leur travail et de leur conduite par des membres de cette juridiction, est compatible avec le droit de l’Union

Nexive Commerce e.a.
Liberté d'établissement
Coûts de fonctionnement de l’autorité réglementaire du secteur postal : une obligation de contribution peut être imposée aux acteurs du marché, en excluant tout financement par l’État