Flux européens

Conseil / Bank Mellat
Relations extérieures
La Cour confirme l’annulation du gel de fonds édicté depuis 2010 contre la Bank Mellat

L’Università di Milano, assieme alla Fondazione Italiana del Notariato ed altri enti, organizza per il 4 marzo 2016 un convegno dal titolo Il diritto internazionale privato europeo delle successioni. Si tratta dell’evento conclusivo di una ricerca dedicata al regolamento n. 650/2012 sulle successioni mortis causa, co-finanziata dalla Commissione europea.

Il convegno si articolerà in quattro sessioni, dedicate rispettivamente all’ambito di applicazione del regolamento e alle nozioni di cui esso si serve, alle norme sui conflitti di leggi, a quelle sulla giurisdizione e il riconoscimento delle decisioni e all’impatto della disciplina uniforme sugli ordinamenti statali.

Interverranno, fra gli altri, Stefania Bariatti (Univ. Milano), Paul Beaumont (Univ. Aberdeen), Alegría Borrás (Univ. Barcellona), Roberta Clerici (Univ. Milano), Peter Kindler (Univ. Monaco), Luigi Fumagalli (Univ. Milano), Cyril Nourissat (Univ. Lyon), Ilaria Queirolo (Univ. Genova), Francesca Villata (Univ. Milano) e Ilaria Viarengo (Univ. Milano).

Il programma può leggersi qui.

La partecipazione – gratuita – richiede la registrazione al sito www.suxreg.eu.

The November 2015 draft ‘Judgments project’ of the Hague Conference on private international law, otherwise known as the draft convention on the recognition and enforcement of judgments relating to civil and commercial matters, is a very ambitious project which at the same time risks exposing some of the inherent weaknesses of the modus operandi of the Hague Conference. This is not the right forum for an exhaustive analysis. Rather, with input from other members (Elsemiek Apers in particular) at Leuven PIL institute, I would like to flag some areas of interest. Inevitably, an obvious point of reference is the European Union’s Brussels I (Recast) regime.

First, the text itself. The Working Group’s report, which accompanies the draft, explains the history and development of the text and the various options taken. No need to repeat it here. The approach of the Convention is the same ‘mission creep’ which the 1968 Brussels Convention had to resort to, to enhance the free movement of judgments between Member States. Given that the most widespread reason for refusal of recognition and enforcement (R&E), are accusations of excessive or inappropriate exercise of jurisdiction, one can only truly co-ordinate R&E if one also co-ordinates jurisdiction. The Hague Convention takes this route in Articles 5-6, (Exclusive) bases for recognition and enforcement. Following this co-ordination of jurisdictional rules, Article 7 then limits the ground upon which R&E may be refused.

Of note is that Article 4(2)’s ban on merits review (when assessing the possibility of recognition and enforcement), probably does not extend to judgments issued by default. The Article is not clear on what is meant exactly: the first para of Article 4(2) rules out ‘review of the merits’. The second para suggests ‘The court addressed shall be bound by the findings of fact on which the court of origin based its jurisdiction, unless the judgment was given by default.’ Not being bound by findings of fact does not necessarily entail a possibility for merits review, and the text can probably do with clarification at this point.

Article 5(e)’s special jurisdictional rule for contracts, has been clarified compared with earlier versions, however the text remains subject to plenty of room for debate.

Article 8’s room for refusing R&E when the exclusive jurisdictional rules of the Convention were infringed, or where matters excluded from the Convention were at issue, could in our view do with tidying up. It currently mingles scope for refusal of R&E as such, in the case of infringement of the exclusive jurisdictional rules, with discussion of excluded matters as ‘preliminary issues’ only – a clear reference to the EU’s experience with arbitration. Without editorial perfection, however, this article, in combination with Article 2’s excluded matters, risks similar and protracted debate as was /is the case under Brussels I (and the Recast).

Further, the modus operandi, and institutional consequences of the Convention. As indicated, an exhaustive review of the Convention is not possible here. That is due in large part to the extensive comments which one could address vis-a-vis each individual entry of the text. Rather like in the case of each individual provision of the Brussels regime. In the case of the latter, the CJEU is exercised on a very regular basis with the determination of the precise meaning of the heads of jurisdiction. In the Hague process, there is no such institution. One has to rely on the application of the Convention by the signatory States. At some point, one has to assess whether it is tenable not to have some kind of review process at The Hague, lest one risks the Convention being applied quite differently in the various signatory States. Coupled with the additional lawyer of complication were the EU to accede (which it is bound to; however would it really be progress to create additional layers of differentiation?), the CJEU itself might have difficulty accepting a body of judicial review, where the text to be reviewed borders so closely unto the Brussels regime.

Geert.

N.
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Le droit de l’Union permet le placement en rétention d’un demandeur d’asile lorsque la protection de la sécurité nationale ou de l’ordre public l’exige

Rendón Marín
Citoyenneté européenne
Selon l’avocat général Szpunar, un ressortissant non UE qui a la garde exclusive d’un citoyen mineur de l’UE ne saurait être expulsé d’un État membre ou se voir refuser un permis de séjour du seul fait de ses antécédents pénaux

Federica Falconi, La legge applicabile ai contratti di assicurazione nel regolamento Roma I, Cedam, 2016, pp. 272, ISBN 9788813358297, Euro 24,50.

[Dal sito dell’editore] – Il volume si propone di condurre un’analisi critica della disciplina di conflitto dettata dal regolamento Roma I in relazione ai contratti di assicurazione, alla luce delle modifiche di carattere sostanziale, oltre che sistematico, apportate da tale strumento rispetto alla normativa previgente. L’esegesi delle norme del regolamento è perciò svolta mettendo in evidenza i nodi interpretativi che tuttora permangono, per poi cercare di suggerire alcune possibili soluzioni nella prospettiva di un’ulteriore, più radicale riforma.

L’indice dell’opera e ulteriori informazioni sono disponibili a questo indirizzo.

On 24 and 25 March 2017 the Observatory on the European area of freedom, security and justice, based at the Department of Legal Sciences of the University of Salerno, will host an international conference titled 60 years after the signing of the Treaty of Rome: developments and perspectives on the construction of the area of freedom, security and justice.

The Observatory is launching a call for contributions of scholars and experts in EU Law of any nationality. Abstracts, written either in English or in Italian, and relating to aspects of the European area of freedom, security and justice, including judicial cooperation in civil matters having cross-border implications, should be sent to slsg@unisa.it by 30 June 2016.

Selected papers will be published in the first issue of the review The European Area of Freedom, Security and Justice; the authors of particularly innovative contributions will be invited to attend the conference as speakers.

The call is available here.

Il Dipartimento di Scienze Giuridiche dell’Università di Verona, unitamente all’Ordine degli Avvocati e alla Camera Minorile di Verona, organizza per il giorno 11 febbraio 2016 un incontro formativo dal titolo Il minore nel contesto giuridico internazionale: responsabilità genitoriale, giurisdizione e legge applicabile, riconoscimento ed esecuzione delle decisioni.

L’incontro, che si terrà presso la sede del Dipartimento di Scienze Giuridiche, sarà coordinato da Ernesto D’Amico (Trib. Verona) e vedrà susseguirsi le relazioni di Maria Caterina Baruffi e di Francesca Ragno (entrambe Univ. Verona).

Per maggiori informazioni si veda qui.

Con sentenza 1° febbraio 2016, n. 1863, la Corte di cassazione si è pronunciata sul ricorso di un uomo contro la decisione con cui la Corte di appello di Firenze aveva accordato all’ex moglie un assegno di mantenimento, all’esito di un autonomo procedimento,  successivo a quello di scioglimento del matrimonio svoltosi nella Repubblica Ceca.

Con il primo motivo di ricorso l’uomo lamentava la falsa applicazione degli articoli 5 e 9 della legge 1° dicembre 1970 n. 898 sulla disciplina dei casi di scioglimento del matrimonio. L’art. 5, comma 6, di tale legge, stabilisce che con la sentenza che pronuncia lo scioglimento, il tribunale – tenuto conto delle condizioni dei coniugi – “dispone l’obbligo per un coniuge di somministrare periodicamente a favore dell’altro un assegno quando quest’ultimo non ha mezzi adeguati o comunque non può procurarseli per ragioni oggettive”. L’art. 9 disciplina invece i casi di revisione (successivi, dunque, al divorzio) delle disposizioni concernenti l’affidamento dei figli e di quelle relative alla misura e alla modalità dei contributi economici.

Sulla base di tale disciplina, l’uomo riteneva che la donna non potesse avviare in Italia un procedimento autonomo rispetto a quello di divorzio, avente ad oggetto l’assegno (tra l’altro, ella aveva già presentato una richiesta di assegno in sede di procedimento di divorzio dinanzi a un giudice ceco, ma tale domanda non era stata ritenuta proponibile in quella sede, prevedendo la legislazione ceca la possibilità di proporre un separato giudizio per le questioni di carattere economico).

Con il secondo motivo di ricorso, l’ex marito rilevava inoltre che, poiché ai sensi dell’art. 21 del regolamento (CE) n. 2201/2003 relativo alla competenza, al riconoscimento e all’esecuzione delle decisioni in materia matrimoniale e di responsabilità genitoriale (Bruxelles II bis), la sentenza di divorzio pronunciata nella Repubblica Ceca doveva essere riconosciuta automaticamente in Italia, questa dovesse essere equiparata ad una decisione italiana e, pertanto, assoggettata alle medesime preclusioni processuali che impediscono l’accertamento del diritto all’assegno divorzile.

La Corte ha sottolineato come la pronuncia contestuale dello scioglimento del matrimonio (o della cessazione degli effetti civili del matrimonio) e delle statuizioni relative ai figli e alle condizioni economiche “non risponde a un principio costituzionale che imponga la regolamentazione contestuale dei diritti e dei doveri scaturenti da un determinato status”, portando ad esempio la sentenza non definitiva di divorzio che si pronuncia sullo status e rinvia al successivo corso del giudizio per l’adozione dei provvedimenti conseguenti.

La Corte ha inoltre stabilito che la richiesta di corresponsione dell’assegno divorzile di cui all’art. 5 della l. 898/1970 si configura “come domanda (connessa ma) autonoma rispetto a quella di scioglimento del matrimonio”: pertanto, la parte che non l’abbia avanzata nel corso del procedimento di divorzio, ben può proporla successivamente senza che a ciò sia ostacolo la sopravvenuta pronuncia di scioglimento del vincolo di coniugio.

La Corte ha osservato infine come il riferimento al regime del riconoscimento automatico di cui al regolamento n. 2201/2003 corrobori questa interpretazione: esso comporta la ricezione nel nostro ordinamento del contenuto specifico della decisione ceca, che si è limitata ad accertare le condizioni per lo scioglimento del matrimonio ed a pronunciarlo, lasciando aperta la possibilità di far valere le pretese economiche in un separato procedimento.

Alla decisione ceca, infatti, per il Supremo Collegio, non può attribuirsi “il contenuto di un accertamento implicito sulla insussistenza delle condizioni per il riconoscimento di un assegno divorzile e neanche quello di un giudicato costituente una preclusione processuale alla proposizione di una successiva domanda di assegno divorzile basata sulle condizioni economiche degli ex coniugi anche se coincidenti con quelle esistenti al momento della pronuncia di divorzio”.

In Ranza v Nike, the Court of Appeal for the ninth circuit confirmed the high hurdle to establish personal jurisdiction over foreign corporations in the US, following the Supreme Court’s decisions in Kiobel and Bauman /Daimler. Trey Childress has good summary here and I am happy largely to refer.

Loredana Ranza is a US citisen, resident in the EU (first The Netherlands; Germany at the time of the court’s decision). She seeks to sue against her Dutch employer, Nike BV, and its parent corporation, Nike inc. for alleged violation of federal laws prohibiting sex and age discrimination. The Dutch equality Commission had earlier found the allegations unfounded under Dutch law.

Of particular interest are the Court’s views on the attributability test /piercing the corporate veil following Daimler and Kiobel. The Court held (p.15 ff) that prior to Daimler, personal jurisdiction over the mother company could be established using either the agency or the alter ego test, with the former now no longer available following Daimler. Under the Agency test, effectively a type of abus de droit /fraus /fraud, plaintiff needed to show that the subsidiary performed services which were sufficiently important to the foreign corporation that if it did not have a representative to perform them, the corporation’s own officials would undertake to perform substantially similar services. Daimler, the Court suggested in Ranza, held that the agency test leads to too broad a jurisdictional sweep. That leaves the alter ego test: effectively, whether the actions prima facie carried out by the subsidiary, are in fact carried out by the mother company for it exercises a degree of control over the daughter which renders that daughter the mother’s alter ego. Not so here, on the facts of the case: Nike Inc, established in Oregon, is heavily involved in Nike BV’s macromanagement, but not so ‘enmeshed’ in its routine management of day-to-day operation, that the two companies should be treated as a single enterprise for the purposes of jurisdiction.

For good measure, the Court also confirmed application of dismissal of jurisdiction on the basis of forum non conveniens.

Geert.

Rendón Marín
Citoyenneté européenne
Selon l’avocat général Szpunar, un ressortissant non UE qui a la garde exclusive d’un citoyen mineur de l’UE ne saurait être expulsé d’un État membre ou se voir refuser un permis de séjour du seul fait de ses antécédents pénaux

C & J Clark International
Relations extérieures
Le règlement instituant un droit antidumping sur les importations dans l’Union européenne de certaines chaussures en cuir originaires de Chine et du Viêt Nam est partiellement invalide

Ince
SERV
Le droit de l’Union peut s’opposer à ce que l’intermédiation transfrontalière de paris sportifs effectuée sans autorisation en Allemagne soit sanctionnée

Barclays v ENPAM has been travelling in my briefcase for some time – apologies. Reminiscent of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Alexandros, and the High Court in Nomura , Blair J in October 2015 employed national courts’ room under Article 27/28 of the Brussels I Regulation (the lis alibi pendens and related actions rules) to refuse a stay of English proceedings in favour of proceedings in (of course) Italy. Litigation like this will be somewhat less likely now that the Brussels I Recast applies. As readers will be aware, the current version of the Regulation has means to protect choice of court agreements against unwilling partners (see however below).

Claimant, Barclays Bank PLC, is an English bank. The defendant, Ente Nazionale di Previdenza ed Assistenza dei Medici e Degli Odontoiatri (“ENPAM”) is an Italian pension fund. A dispute has arisen between them as to a transaction entered into by way of a Conditional Asset Exchange Letter from ENPAM to Barclays dated 21 September 2007 by which ENPAM exchanged fund assets for securities which were in the form of credit-linked notes called the “Ferras CDO securities”. ENPAM’s claim is that it incurred a major loss in the transaction, and that it is entitled in law to look to Barclays to make that loss good.

On 18 May 2015, Barclays issued a summary judgment application on the basis that there is no defence to its claim that the Milan proceedings fall within contractual provisions giving exclusive jurisdiction to the English courts. ENPAM began proceedings against Barclays and others in Milan on 23 June 2014. Barclays says that this was in breach of provisions in the contractual documentation giving exclusive jurisdiction to the English courts. It issued the proceedings reviewed here seeking a declaration to that effect and other relief on 15 September 2014. On 20 April 2015, ENPAM applied pursuant to Article 27 or Article 28 of the Brussels I Regulation for an order that the English court should not exercise its jurisdiction in these proceedings on the basis that Milan court was first seised.

The High Court refused. Reference is best made to the judgment itself, for it is very well drafted. Read together with e.g. the aforementioned Alexandros and Nomura judgments, it gives one a complete view of the approach of the English courts viz lis pendens under the Regulation. (E.g. Blair J has excellent overview of the principles of Article 27 (Article 29 in the Recast) under para 68).

Discussion of what exactly Barclays could recover from the English cq Italian proceedings, was an important consideration of whether these two proceedings were each other’s mirror image. (see e.g. para 82 ff). This is quite an important consideration for litigators. Statements of claims are an important input in the lis pendens analysis. Be careful therefore what you ask for. Restraint in the statement of claims might well serve you very well when opposed with recalcitrant opposing parties, wishing to torpedo your proceedings. (Let’s face it: the likelihood of such opposition is quite high in a litigious context).

Finally, it is often assumed that precedent value of the case discussed here and other cases with it, has diminished drastically following the Brussels I Recast. It instructs all courts not named in a choice of court agreement, to step back from jurisdiction in favour of the court named (Article 31(2)). Yet what is and what is not caught by a choice of court agreement (starting with the issue of non-contractual liability between the parties) depends very much on its wording and interpretation. Article 31(2) is not the be all and end all of litigation between contracting parties.

Geert.

Affum
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Selon l’avocat général Szpunar, un ressortissant étranger, qui n’est pas intercepté lors du franchissement irrégulier d’une frontière extérieure de l’espace Schengen, ne peut pas être mis en prison au seul motif de son entrée irrégulière sur le territoire d’un État membre

On 11 February 2016, the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL) will host an event titled International Protection of Adults – the Current Legal Framework Under Scrutiny.

[From the website of the Institute] – Despite the 2000 Hague Convention, practical problems arise in cross-border scenarios, involving public policy and human rights considerations. On a practical level, private mandates are not accepted by financial institutions and there is no mechanism for enforcement. Speakers will discuss strengths and weaknesses of the current legal framework, prospects for future ratification of the 2000 Hague Convention, and initiatives of the European Parliament and Council of Europe to improve matters for European citizens.

Speakers include Philippe Lortie, Adrian Ward, Claire Van Overdijk, Richard Frimston and Alex Ruck Keene.

More information available here.

I have reported before on the narrow possibility, within the scope of the Brussels I Regulation, for refusal of recognition of judgments from fellow national courts in the EU (Diageo; Trade Agency). The High Court confirmed the exceptional character of the exercise in Smith v Huertas. Following conviction in a criminal court, Dr Smith had been instructed by the French courts to pay Huertas a considerable sum following fraudulent payments made by a new insolvent company, of which Dr Smith was a director. The argument on ordre public grounds was made viz alleged bias and hostility in one particular court hearing; the long duration of the trial; and one or two alleged procedural inadequacies (in particular, the refusal to interview Dr Smith on a number of occasions).

Most if not all of the complaints were taken by Dr Smith to the ECtHR, which decided not to proceed with the case (such decisions are made in summary manner and one therefore has to guess whether either the claims were found to be manifestly unfounded, or not of a nature as having actually put the applicant at a disadvantage).

Importantly, Cooke J emphasises the responsibility of applicant (seeking refusal of recognition) to raise matters which might conceivably lead to a refusal of recognition, in the Member State of origin: at 21:

Where the factors relied on as being contrary to public policy in England are factors which the court has already considered in the foreign jurisdiction or are factors which could have been raised by way of objection in that jurisdiction, it appears to me self-evident that the foreign jurisdiction must be treated as the best place for those arguments to be raised and determined. To do otherwise would be contrary to the spirit of the Convention and, where issues of unfairness are raised which are capable of being the subject of appeal in the foreign jurisdiction, the court in the enforcing jurisdiction would be much less able to assess them than the original court which was familiar with its own forms of procedure. It is plain that an enforcing court will have much more difficulty in understanding the overall foreign system and its procedures for ensuring that justice is done than the appeal court of the original jurisdiction itself. There is moreover a highly unattractive element in a defendant not raising points which he could have raised in the original jurisdiction, by way of appeal against the judgment and only seeking to raise those matters when the judgment is exported to an enforcing jurisdiction under the Convention as matters of public policy for that court.

Dr Smith’ task therefore was to (at 26) not only … show an exceptional case of an infringement of a fundamental principle constituting a manifest breach of a rule of law regarded as essential in the legal order in this country or of a right recognised as being fundamental within it but that the system of legal remedies in France did not afford a sufficient guarantee of his rights. Dr Smith must overcome the strong presumption that the procedures of the courts of France, another Contracting State, are compliant with Article 6…

A task which in the end Dr Smith failed to accomplish and summary judgment for recognition and enforcement was issued. Review by Cooke J may seem lengthy to some however CJEU case-law emphasises the ad hoc nature of the ordre public exception: that requires some case-specific assessment, of course.

Geert.

 

L’Istituto Ellenico di diritto internazionale e straniero ha comunicato attraverso il suo sito, il 28 gennaio 2016, la decisione di sospendere, per ragioni finanziarie, la pubblicazione della Revue hellénique de droit international.

Fondata nel 1948, la Revue hellénique ha rappresentato il principale veicolo di diffusione della dottrina greca nel campo del diritto internazionale pubblico e privato, oltre che nel campo del diritto dell’Unione europea, in lingua francese e inglese.

Rispetto alle tematiche internazionalprivatistiche, la rivista ha ospitato, oltre a numerose cronache della giurisprudenza greca, molti contributi scientifici importanti, di studiosi greci e non (le coordinate bibliografiche degli scritti apparsi sulla rivista sono reperibili a questo indirizzo).

La sospensione delle pubblicazioni della Revue hellénique, se non dovesse essere solo temporanea, costituirebbe una perdita significativa per la comunità scientifica degli internazionalisti europei. Essa in ogni caso riflette le condizioni di straordinaria difficoltà in cui sono costretti a lavorare gli studiosi greci, dopo la drammatica crisi che ha colpito il loro paese.

Dorota Leczykiewicz, Human Rights and the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: Immigration, Criminal Justice and Judicial Cooperation in Civil Matters, available here through on SSRN.

[Abstract] – The chapter considers the rich acquis of the EU falling within the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice from the perspective of human rights. It starts by looking at human rights issues arising from EU asylum and migration law and moves on to the EU’s prevention of crime measures, where it focuses on the judicial cooperation in criminal matters. It finishes by considering the human rights issues arising in the context of judicial cooperation in civil matters. The chapter explains the double role of human rights in the AFSJ – as a policy objective realised through legislative measures and a standard of review of acts adopted as part of this EU activity. It also explains why so many human rights issues arise in the AFSJ and investigates the way in which they have been addressed by the Court of Justice of the EU. The chapter argues that the Court’s case law exhibits an extreme version of utilitarianism, which is incompatible with a corrective justice conception of human rights, underlying the ECHR and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It concludes that the Court of Justice is far from usurping a human rights jurisdiction for itself and that the full potential of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights to infuse EU law in the AFSJ with content inspired by human rights has not yet been realised. Instead, the chapter observes, the Court is often using the argument of effectiveness to resist arguments of human rights, which, as a result, are protected in the AFSJ only in so far as they are recognised and codified in secondary law.

 

Autriche / Commission
Aide d'État
Le Tribunal confirme que la garantie accordée par l’Autriche à la BayernLB dans le cadre de sa restructuration en ce qui concerne les lignes de crédit de BayernLB en faveur de Hypo Group Alpe Adria constitue une aide d’État qui est toutefois compatible avec le droit de l’Union