Flux européens

Si è svolta il 14 settembre 2015, in seno alla Commissione giuridica del Parlamento europeo, una breve discussione sull’ipotesi — già affacciata in altre occasioni dallo stesso Parlamento europeo — che l’Unione si doti di uno strumento normativo riguardante la protezione dei maggiorenni vulnerabili nelle situazioni a carattere internazionale.

Lo scambio di idee, animato dalla deputata Joëlle Bergeron e documentato nel video disponibile a questo indirizzo (il tema viene trattato a partire dal minuto 19 e 20 secondi), si è concluso con una rinnovata richiesta alla Commissione europea affinché prenda in considerazione, in funzione dell’elaborazione di specifiche proposte, gli auspici espressi dal Parlamento europeo nella risoluzione del 18 dicembre 2008 recante raccomandazioni alla Commissione sulla protezione giuridica degli adulti.

L’idea, in estrema sintesi, è quella di rafforzare in questo campo la cooperazione fra gli Stati membri, prendendo come base le soluzioni offerte dalla Convenzione dell’Aja del 13 gennaio 2000 sulla protezione internazionale degli adulti (sin qui ratificata, per la verità, da appena sei Stati membri; tra questi non vi è l’Italia: vedi, peraltro, a quest’ultimo proposito questo post).

In a judgment of 9 September 2015 (Christophe Bohez v. Ingrid Wiertz, Case C-4/14), the European Court of Justice (ECJ) clarified the interpretation of Article 1(2) and Article 49 of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matter (Brussels I), corresponding to Articles 1(2) and 55 of Regulation No 1215/2012 (Brussels Ia), as well as the interpretation of Article 47(1) of Regulation No 2201/2003 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility (Brussels IIa). The questions referred to the Court concerned the enforcement of a penalty payment (astreinte) issued to ensure compliance with the rights of access to children granted to one of the parents.

While Article 49 of the Brussels I Regulation states that judgments ordering “a periodic payment by way of a penalty” are enforceable in a different Member State “only if the amount of the payment has been finally determined by the courts of the Member State of origin”, no equivalent provision may be found in the Brussels IIa Regulation. The latter merely specifies, in Article 47(1), that the enforcement procedure is governed by the law of the Member State of enforcement.

The case from which the judgment originated may be summarised as follows.

Mr Bohez and Ms Wiertz married in Belgium in 1997 and had two children. When they divorced, in 2005, Ms Wiertz moved to Finland. In 2007, a Belgian court rendered a decision on the responsibility over the children. As a means to ensure compliance with the rights of access granted to the father, the court set at a periodic amount per child to be paid to Mr Bohez for every day of the child’s non-appearance, and fixed a maximum amount that the defaulting parent could be requested to pay under the astreinte.

The mother failed to comply with the Belgian decision, so the father sought enforcement of the Belgian order in Finland relying on Article 49 of Brussels I Regulation. The Finnish authorities observed that the amount of the payment had not been determined in the Member State of origin, and added that, in any event, the request did not fall within the scope of the Brussels I Regulation but rather within the scope of the Brussels IIa Regulation.

The ECJ, seised by the Finnish Supreme Court, pointed out that the scope of Brussels I Regulation is limited to “civil and commercial matters”, and that the inclusion of interim measures is determined “not by their own nature but by the nature of the rights that they serve to protect”.  Thus, since the Brussels I Regulation expressly excludes from its scope “the status of natural persons” (notion “which encompasses the exercise of parental responsibility over the person of the child”), the Court held that Article 1 of Brussels I Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to the enforcement of a penalty payment imposed in a judgment concerning matters of parental responsibility.

The ECJ then moved on to consider the interpretation of the Brussels IIa Regulation.

It recalled that mutual recognition of judgments concerning rights of access is “a priority within the judicial area of the European Union” and observed that, although the Regulation does not contain any provision on penalties, a penalty payment imposed in a judgment concerning rights of access “cannot be considered in isolation as a self-standing obligation, but must be considered together with the rights of access which it serve to protect and from which it cannot be dissociated”. Accordingly, its recovery forms part “of the same scheme of enforcement as the judgment concerning the rights of access that the penalty safeguards and the latter must therefore be declared enforceable in accordance with the rules laid down by Regulation No 2201/2003”.

The Court stressed that, in order to seek enforcement of the decision ordering a penalty payment, the amount must have been finally determined by the courts of the Member State of origin. Where the penalty payment has not been determined, “a requirement, in the context of Regulation No 2201/2003, for quantification of a periodic penalty payment prior to its enforcement is consistent with the sensitive nature of rights of access”.

Joseph Lookofsky, Ketilbjørn Hertz, EU-PIL: European Union Private International Law in Contract and Tort, 2a edizione, Juris Publishing, 2015, pp. 216, ISBN 9781578234455, USD 75.

[Dal sito dell’editore] Experienced practitioners in Europe realise the increasing commercial significance of the discipline known as Private International Law (Conflict of Laws). As indicated by its title, the focus of this book is on the Private International Law rules applied by courts and arbitral tribunals in the European Union, but by including numerous concrete examples, the authors emphasise the interdisciplinary nature of the subject and thus the many relevant ‘connections’ between private international law and substantive commercial law, especially as regards contractual and delictual matters (e.g.) in cases concerning contracts for the international sale of goods, cross-border claims relating to product liability, etc. This second edition has been revised to consider the new ‘recast’ of the Brussels I Regulation on Jurisdiction and Judgments (2012). This new edition also incorporates a number of important decisions which the Court of Justice of the European Union has had occasion to render as regards the proper interpretation of key rule-sets covered in this volume.

Maggiori informazioni a questo indirizzo.

The CJEU yesterday confirmed the Opinion of Cruz Villalón AG in Holterman: please refer to my posting on the Opinion for background.

In particular of course, a contract for employment needs to be distinguished from a contract for the provision of services. ‘Contract of employment’ was addressed in the abstract by the CJEU in Shenavai, Case 266/85, where the Court identified a double requirement for it referred to the need for a contract to be qualified as a contract of employment: there must be durable relation between individual and company: a lasting bond, which brings the worker to some extent within the organisational framework of the business; and a link between the contract and the place where the activities are pursued, which determines the application of mandatory rules and collective agreements. However precedent value of Shenavai for the Brussels I and recast Regulation is necessarily incomplete, for a the time employees as a protected category did not yet exist in the Regulation and the Court’s findings on contracts of employment took place within the need to identify a ‘place of performance’ under the Brussels Convention’s special jurisdictional rule on contracts.

The Jenard and Möller report to the 1988 Lugano Convention suggested the relationship of subordination of the employee to the employer.

In Holterman the Court throws into the mix reference to its interpretation of secondary EU law on health and safety at work as well as European labour law, holding that ‘the essential feature of an employment relationship is that for a certain period of time one person performs services for and under the direction of another in return for which he receives remuneration’ (at 41).

Consequently the national courts now have quite a number of criteria which need to apply in practice: it is not for the CJEU to do so in an individual case. In Holterman the Court does seem to suggest that once a worker finds himself qualified as an employee, for the purposes of the application of the Jurisdiction Regulation, that qualification will trump any other roles which that individual may play in the organisation (at 49: ‘the provisions of Chapter II, Section 5 (Articles 18 to 21) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude the application of Article 5(1) and (3) of that regulation, provided that that person, in his capacity as director and manager, for a certain period of time performed services for and under the direction of that company in return for which he received remuneration, that being a matter for the referring court to determine.’).

In light of the deference to the factual assessment of the national court, the CJEU does complete the analysis with respect to (now) Article 7(1): if the contract is not one of employment, then the special jurisdictional rule of Article 7(1) needs to be applied. The director of a company, the Court holds, provides a service to the company within the meaning of Article 7(1)b. In the absence of any derogating stipulation in the articles of association of the company, or in any other document, it is for the referring court to determine the place where Mr Spies in fact, for the most part, carried out his activities in the performance of the contract, provided that the provision of services in that place is not contrary to the parties’ intentions as indicated by what was agreed. For that purpose, it is possible to take into consideration, in particular, the time spent in those places and the importance of the activities carried out there, it being a matter for the national court to determine whether it has jurisdiction in the light of the evidence submitted to it (at 64).

Finally, should national law also allow for an action in tort against the director of a company, the locus delicti commissi is the place where the director carries out his duties for the company (at 76). The locus damni is the place where the damage alleged by the company actually manifests itself; it cannot be construed so extensively as to encompass any place where the adverse consequences can be felt of an event which has already caused damage actually taking place elsewhere (at 77-78).

All in all, a useful completion of the Shenavai criterion, and in the main a referral to the national court for factual analysis.

Geert.

Uglješa Grušić, The European Private International Law of Employment, Cambridge University Press, 2015, pp. 382, ISBN: 9781107082946, GBP 79,99.

[Dal sito dell’editore] The European Private International Law of Employment provides a descriptive and normative account of the European rules of jurisdiction and choice of law which frame international employment litigation in the courts of EU Member States. The author outlines the relevant rules of the Brussels I Regulation Recast, the Rome Regulations, the Posted Workers Directive and the draft of the Posting of Workers Enforcement Directive, and assesses those rules in light of the objective of protection of employees. By using the UK as a case study, he also highlights the impact of the ‘Europeanisation’ of private international law on traditional perceptions and rules in this field of law in individual Member States. For example, the author demonstrates that the private international law of the EU is fundamentally reshaping English conflict of laws by almost completely merging the traditionally perceived contractual, statutory and tortious claims into one claim for choice-of-law purposes.

Il sommario dell’opera può essere consultato qui. Ulteriori informazioni a questo indirizzo.

FCD et FMB
Rapprochement des législations
Les articles incorporés en tant que composant d’un produit complexe doivent faire l’objet d’une notification auprès de l’Agence européenne des produits chimiques, lorsqu’ils contiennent une substance extrêmement préoccupante dans une concentration supérieure à 0,1 %

Federación de Servicios Privados del sindicato Comisiones obreras
SOPO
Les déplacements que les travailleurs sans lieu de travail fixe ou habituel effectuent entre leur domicile et le premier ou le dernier client de la journée constituent du temps de travail

H&M Hennes & Mauritz / OHMI - Saint Laurent (Forme de sacs à main)
Propriété intellectuelle et industrielle
Le Tribunal de l’UE rejette les recours formés par H&M contre l’enregistrement de deux modèles de sac d’Yves Saint Laurent

EU Cross-Border Insolvency Court-to-Court Cooperation Principles, a cura di Bob Wessels, Eleven International Publishing, 2015, pp. 136, ISBN 9789462365865, Euro 32,50.

[Dal sito dell’editore] This publication contains a set of 26 EU Cross-Border Insolvency Court-to-Court Cooperation Principles (‘EU JudgeCo Principles’) and 18 EU Cross-Border Insolvency Court-to-Court Communications Guidelines (‘EU JudgeCo Guidelines’). These EU JudgeCo Principles will strengthen efficient and effective communication between courts in EU Member States in insolvency cases with cross-border effects. They have been produced in a period of two years (2013-2014), developed by a team of scholars of Leiden Law School and Nottingham Law School, in collaboration with some 50 experts, including 25 judges representing just as many different EU countries. The principles are set in EU stone, in that they especially function within the framework of the EU Insolvency Regulation. The texts have been aligned with the text of the recast of the Regulation, as published early December 2014. The EU JudgeCo Principles try to overcome present obstacles for courts in EU Member States such as formalistic and detailed national procedural law, concerns about a judge’s impartiality, uneasiness with the use of certain legal concepts and terms, and, evidently, language. The texts further build on existing experience and tested resources, especially in cross-border cases in North America, but tailor-made into an EU insolvency law context. These Principles include a set of very practical EU JudgeCo Guidelines to facilitate communications in individual cross-border cases. The project was funded by the European Union and the International Insolvency Institute (III) (www.iiiglobal.org) and we thank both sponsors for their continued support.

Ulteriori informazioni a questo indirizzo.

Towards the end of July, the Court at Amsterdam applied the recent CJEU judgment in CDC, on the application of (now) Article 8’s rule on anchor defendants. The case also involved CDC – busy bees on the competition enforcement front, this time pursuing inter alia Kemira, a Finnish company, using Akzo Nobel NV, domiciled in The Netherlands, as anchor defendants.

The court referred in extenso to the CJEU’s CDC case, noting inter alia that it is not up to CDC to show that the suit was not just introduced to remove Kemira from the Finnish judge: that Kemira suggests that introduction of the suit in The Netherlands is not very logical given the absence of factual links to that Member State, does not suffice. The court also adopted the CJEU’s finding on choice of court and liability in tort. In the absence of specific proviso in standard contractual choice of court, liability such as here, for infringement of competition law, cannot be assumed.

Finally, at 2.18, the Court also referred to argument made by Kemira that Finish and Swedish law ought to apply to the interpretation (not: the validity) of the choice of court agreement. That would have been an interesting discussion. However in light of the court’s earlier judgment on the irrelevance of the court of choice, the court did not entertain that issue.

Geert.

 

Panasonic Corp. et MT Picture Display Co. Ltd / Commission
Concurrence
Le Tribunal réduit les amendes infligées par la Commission à Panasonic et à Toshiba au titre de leur participation à une entente sur le marché européen des tubes pour téléviseurs

Panasonic Corp. et MT Picture Display Co. Ltd / Commission
Concurrence
Le Tribunal réduit les amendes infligées par la Commission à Panasonic et à Toshiba au titre de leur participation à une entente sur le marché européen des tubes pour téléviseurs

Ferreira da Silva e Brito e.a.
SOPO
L'Etat portugais devra indemniser les travailleurs d'Air Atlantis, ancienne filiale de TAP

The Hague Academy of International Law has made available the programme of the 2016 summer courses of public and private international law.

The private international law course will run from 1 to 19 August 2016 and will be opened by an an inaugural lecture on Languages and Private International Law by Erik Jayme.

The general course (Private International Law: Aspirations and Realities) will be delivered by Symeon C. Symeonides.

Special courses will be given by Lotfi Chedly (The Effectiveness of International Commercial Arbitration), Lauro da Gama e Souza Jr. (The UNIDROIT Principles and the Law Governing International Trade Contracts), Michael Hellner (Private International Law Issues concerning Surrogacy Arrangements), Sergio Marchisio (The Legal Regime of International Space Activities: Between Public and Private Law), Cyril Nourissat (Restrictive Practices in Private International Law), Marta Pertegás Sender (Foreign Civil and Commercial Judgements: From Reciprocity to a Multilateral Scheme?) and Karsten Thorn (The Protection of Small and Medium Enterprises in Private International Law).

The directors of studies will be Maxi Scherer and Sabine Corneloup.

Interested applicants will be able to register online as of November 1st, 2015, by filling out the relevant registration forms on the Academy’s website.

A posting out off the box here, so bear with me. Neither Brussels I nor the Recast include many requirements with respect to (now) Article 8(1)’s rule on joinders. A case against a defendant, not domiciled in the court’s jurisdiction, may be joined with that against a defendant who is so domiciled, if the cases are ‘so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together in order to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments’. There is of course CJEU case-law on what ‘so closely connected’ means however that is outside the remit of current posting.

As I reported recently, the CJEU has introduced a limited window of abuse of  process viz Article 8(1), in CDC. The Court’s overall approach to Article 8(1) is not to take into account the subjective intentions of plaintiff, who often identify a suitable anchor defendant even if is not the intended target of their action. The Court does make exception for one particular occasion, namely if it is found that, at the time the proceedings were instituted, the applicant and that defendant had colluded to artificially fulfil, or prolong the fulfilment of, (now) Article 8’s applicability.

What if at the time the proceedings were instituted, applicant artificially ignores the fulfilment of, (now) Article 8’s applicability?

The Aldi rule of the courts of England and Wales, and its recent application in Otkritie, made me ponder whether there is merit in suggesting that the CJEU should interpret Article 8(1) to include an obligation, rather than a mere possibility, to join closely connected cases. I haven’t gotten much further than pondering, for there are undoubtedly important complications.

First, a quick look at the Aldi rule, in which the Court of Appeal considered application of the Johnson v Gore Wood principles on abuse of process of the (then) House of Lords, to an attempt to strike out a claim for abuse of process on the basis that the claim could and should have been brought in previous litigation. Aldi concerned complex commercial litigation, as does Otkritie. The result of Aldi is that plaintiffs need to consult with the court in case management, to ensure that related claims are brough in one go. Evidently, the courts need to walk a fine rope for the starting point must be that plaintiffs have wide discretion in deciding where and when to bring a claim: that would seem inherent in Article 6 ECHR’s right to a fair trial.

In Otkritie [the case nota bene does not involve the Brussels Regulation], Knowles J strikes the right balance in holding that the Aldi requirement of discussing with the court had been breached (and would have cost implications for Otkritie in current proceedings) but that otherwise this breach did not amount to abuse of process.

Now, transporting this to the EU level: to what degree could /should Article 8 include a duty to join closely related proceedings? Should such duty be imposed only on plaintiff or also on the court, proprio motu? A crazy thought perhaps for the time being, but certainly worthwhile pondering for future conflicts entertainment.

Geert.

Taricco e.a.
Aide d'État
En empêchant, en matière de fraude grave à la TVA, l’infliction effective et dissuasive de sanctions, en raison d’un délai global de prescription trop bref, la réglementation italienne est susceptible de porter atteinte aux intérêts financiers de l’Union

The European Commission has issued a call for proposals concerning action grants to support transnational projects on judicial training covering civil law, criminal law, fundamental rights and fight against terrorism and radicalisation.

Proposals presented under the civil law priority shall focus notably on legal instruments in family matters and successions, in particular Regulation No 650/2012 successions upon death; legal instruments in civil and commercial matters, in particular Regulation No 805/2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims, Regulation No 1896/2006 creating a European Order for Payment Procedure, Regulation No 861/2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure, Regulation No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels Ia); Regulation No 655/2014 creating a European Account Preservation Order.

The Commission also calls for proposals aimed at training enforcement authority agents as regards instruments in the area of civil judicial cooperation, in particular: Regulation No 2201/2003 on matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility (Brussels IIa); Regulation No 805/2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims and Regulation No 655/2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order.

The deadline for applications is 16 November 2015.

Further information available here.

The Oberlandesgericht of Munich has recently lodged a request for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Regulation No 1259/2010 of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation, ie the Rome III Regulation (Case C-281/15, Soha Sahyouni v Raja Mamisch).

The request provides the ECJ with the opportunity of delivering, in due course, its first judgment relating specifically to the Rome III Regulation.

To begin with, the referring court asks the ECJ to provide a clarification as to the scope of the uniform conflict-of-laws regime set forth by the Regulation. In particular, the German court wonders whether the Regulation also applies to ‘private divorces’, namely divorces pronounced before a religious court in Syria on the basis of Sharia.

If the answer is in the affirmative, the referring court asks whether, in the case of an examination as to whether such a divorce is eligible for recognition in the forum, Article 10 of the Regulation must also be applied. According to the latter provision, where the law specified by the Regulation to govern the divorce or the legal separation “does not grant one of the spouses equal access to divorce or legal separation on grounds of their sex”, the lex fori applies instead.

Should the latter question, too, be answered in the affirmative, the referring court wishes to know which of the following interpretive options should be followed in respect of Article 10: (1) is account to be taken in the abstract of a comparison showing that, while the law of the forum grants access to divorce to the other spouse too, that divorce is, on account of the other spouse’s sex, subject to different procedural and substantive conditions than access for the first spouse? (2) or, does the applicability of Article 10 depend on whether the application of the foreign law, which is discriminatory in the abstract, also discriminates in the particular case in question?

Finally, were the ECJ to assert that the second of these options is the correct one, the Oberlandesgericht of Munich seeks to know whether the fact that the spouse discriminated against has consented to the divorce — including by duly accepting compensation — constitutes itself a ground for not applying Article 10.

Il Max Planck Institute for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law di Lussemburgo offre anche per il 2016 alcune borse di studio rivolte a dottorandi di ricerca interessati a trascorrere un periodo di studio presso l’Istituto.

Le candidature possono essere presentate entro il 15 settembre 2015.

Ai dottorandi assegnatari della borsa di studio verrà data la possibilità di avere uno spazio di lavoro nella sala di lettura della biblioteca e di partecipare attivamente alle attività di ricerca dell’Istituto.

Ulteriori informazioni sono disponibili qui.

La famiglia si trasforma. Status familiari costituiti all’estero e loro riconoscimento in Italia, tra ordine pubblico ed interesse del minore, a cura di Grazia Ofelia Cesaro, Paola Lovati e Gennaro Mastrangelo, Franco Angeli Editore, 2014, pp. 144, ISBN 9788820452018, Euro 19.

[Dal sito dell’editore] Questo volume raccoglie gli interventi dell’incontro di studio intitolato “Nuove famiglie e circolazione dei nuovi status familiari: le risposte del diritto interno tra interesse del minore ed ordine pubblico”, tenutosi a Milano il 26 ottobre 2012. Esso rappresenta la prima pubblicazione dove giuristi, psicologi, magistrati, avvocati, sociologi si interrogano sul tema. Che cosa accade quando adozione del single, maternità surrogata, fecondazione eterologa, stepchild adoption, genitorialità omosessuale, adozione legittimante del single pronunciate all’estero chiedono di essere riconosciute nel diritto interno? Basterà la clausola di ordine pubblico ad impedire al minore e al suo/suoi genitori, il riconoscimento di tali diritti? È giuridicamente possibile uno status familiare scisso, cioè valevole solo nello Stato in cui è stato prodotto ma non in Italia? Quale peso annettere all’interesse del minore nelle decisioni dell’autorità giudiziaria? Questi interrogativi, nuovi per la realtà italiana, non lo sono in altri Paesi, per cui le relazioni pubblicate esaminano l’esperienza inglese, francese e statunitense per trovare possibili soluzioni.  Il volume rappresenta un’utile raccolta interdisciplinare per approfondire alcuni temi che si porranno sempre di più nella pratica giudiziaria. È infatti certo che l’internazionalizzazione degli status familiari porrà all’interprete sempre maggiori interrogativi.

Maggiori informazioni a questo indirizzo.