Flux européens

Advocate General Szpunar delivered today his opinion in Case C‑651/21 (М. Ya. M.), which is about the Succession Regulation and a declaration of waiver of succession made by an heir in the Member State of his habitual residence, with a subsequent registration of that declaration, at the request of another heir, with the court of another Member State.

Suggested decision: “1) Article 13 of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 […] does not preclude, after an heir has had registered with a court of the Member State in which he or she is habitually resident his or her acceptance or waiver of the succession of a deceased person who was habitually resident in another Member State at the time of death, another heir from subsequently requesting registration of that declaration in the latter Member State.

(2) Article 13 of Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as not precluding a co-heir other than the person who made the declaration of waiver in the Member State of his or her habitual residence from informing the court dealing with the succession of the existence of that declaration”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?mode=DOC&pageIndex=0&docid=268184&part=1&doclang=EN&text=&dir=&occ=first&cid=195575

PACCAR e.a.
Concurrence ENTR POSI
La production de « preuves pertinentes », au sens du droit de l’Union, recouvre les documents qu’une partie peut être amenée à créer par l'agrégation ou la classification d'informations, de connaissances ou de données en sa possession

Commission / Valencia Club de Fútbol
Aide d'État
Décision concernant une aide d’État octroyée par l’Espagne au Valencia CF annulée par le Tribunal : la Cour rejette le pourvoi de la Commission

The Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) delivered yesterday its judgment in case C‑873/19 (Deutsche Umwelthilfe eV v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, joined party: Volkswagen AG), which is about the Aarhus Convention and access to justice in environmental matters:

“1. Article 9(3) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, signed in Aarhus on 25 June 1998 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding a situation where an environmental association, authorised to bring legal proceedings in accordance with national law, is unable to challenge before a national court an administrative decision granting or amending EC type-approval which may be contrary to Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information.

2. Article 5(2)(a) of Regulation No 715/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that a defeat device can be justified under that provision only where it is established that that device strictly meets the need to avoid immediate risks of damage or accident to the engine, caused by a malfunction of a component of the exhaust gas recirculation system, of such a serious nature as to give rise to a specific hazard when a vehicle fitted with that device is driven. Furthermore, the ‘need’ for a defeat device, within the meaning of that provision, exists only where, at the time of the EC type-approval of that device or of the vehicle equipped with it, no other technical solution makes it possible to avoid immediate risks of damage or accident to the engine, which give rise to a specific hazard when driving the vehicle”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=268044&mode=req&pageIndex=1&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&cid=280104

Ferriera Valsabbia et Valsabbia Investimenti / Commission
Concurrence
Le Tribunal confirme les sanctions allant de 2,2 à 5,1 millions d’euros infligées par la Commission à quatre entreprises pour leur participation à une entente sur le marché italien des ronds à béton

Minority SafePack - one million signatures for diversity in Europe / Commission
Droit institutionnel
Le Tribunal confirme la communication de la Commission refusant d’entreprendre les actions demandées dans l’initiative citoyenne européenne « Minority SafePack - one million signatures for diversity in Europe »

Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe / Commission
Aide d'État
« Tax rulings » : la Cour juge que le Tribunal a confirmé à tort le cadre de référence retenu par la Commission pour l’application du principe de pleine concurrence aux sociétés intégrées au Luxembourg, en omettant de tenir compte des règles spécifiques mettant en œuvre ce principe dans cet État membre

Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Examen d’office de la rétention)
Justice et Affaires intérieures
Le juge national est tenu de vérifier de sa propre initiative la légalité d’une mesure de rétention prise à l’égard d’un ressortissant étranger en séjour irrégulier ou d’un demandeur d’asile

Deutsche Umwelthilfe (Réception des véhicules à moteur)
Environnement et consommateurs
Les associations de protection de l’environnement agréées doivent pouvoir contester en justice une réception CE par type de véhicules équipés de « dispositifs d’invalidation » susceptibles d’être interdits

AG Pikamae delivered on 20 October 2022 his opinion in case C‑393/21 (Lufthansa Technik AERO Alzey GmbH), which is about the European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims. The opinion is currently available in all EU official languages (save Irish), albeit not in English. Here is the French version (to check whether an English translation has finally been made available, just click on the link below and change the language version):

Suggested decision : “L’article 23 du règlement (CE) no 805/2004 […] doit être interprété en ce sens que : l’expression « circonstances exceptionnelles », visée à cette disposition, couvre le préjudice grave et irréparable pouvant être causé au débiteur par l’exécution immédiate de la décision certifiée en tant que titre exécutoire européen, caractérisant une situation d’urgence qu’il revient au débiteur d’établir. Dans l’affirmative, il appartient à la juridiction ou à l’autorité compétente de l’État membre d’exécution de procéder à une mise en balance des intérêts en présence au regard de l’ensemble des circonstances pertinentes du cas d’espèce.

Seules les mesures de limitation de la procédure d’exécution visées à l’article 23, sous a) et b), de ce règlement peuvent faire l’objet d’une application combinée.

2)      Les articles 6 et 11 du règlement no 805/2004 doivent être interprétés en ce sens que :

lorsque le caractère exécutoire de la décision certifiée en tant que titre exécutoire européen a été suspendu dans l’État membre d’origine et que le certificat prévu à l’article 6, paragraphe 2, de ce règlement a été transmis à l’instance compétente dans l’État membre d’exécution, cette dernière est tenue, dans le cadre de la mise en œuvre des règles nationales applicables, d’assurer le plein effet de l’article 11 dudit règlement en suspendant la procédure d’exécution”.

Source : https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=267418&mode=req&pageIndex=3&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=FR&cid=363782

AG Szpunar delivered on 20 October 2022 his opinion in case C‑291/21 (Starkinvest SRL), which is about the European Account Preservation Order. The opinion is currently available in all EU official languages (save Irish), albeit not in English. Here is the French version (to check whether an English translation has finally been made available, just click on the link below and change the language version):

Context: “1. Le présent renvoi préjudiciel trouve son origine dans une procédure dans le cadre de laquelle la société de droit belge Starkinvest SRL demande l’autorisation de procéder à une saisie-arrêt conservatoire européenne de compte bancaire sur les sommes se trouvant potentiellement sur le compte bancaire français d’une société de droit irlandais.

2. Par cette procédure, la requérante au principal cherche à garantir une créance sur des astreintes qui seraient dues par cette société de droit irlandais sur la base d’une décision judiciaire rendue en Belgique l’obligeant, sous peine d’une astreinte de 2 500 euros par infraction, à cesser certains comportements.

3. [] le règlement (UE) nº 655/2014 prévoit des conditions différentes pour la délivrance d’une ordonnance européenne de saisie conservatoire des comptes bancaires (ci-après l’« OESC ») selon que le créancier a déjà obtenu ou non un titre exigeant du débiteur le paiement de sa créance dans l’État membre d’origine. Dans le premier cas, le créancier ne doit démontrer que le caractère urgent de la mesure du fait de l’existence d’un danger imminent, tandis que, dans le second cas, il doit également convaincre la juridiction du fumus boni iuris.

4. Dans la présente affaire se pose la question de savoir si le créancier, qui a obtenu une décision judiciaire condamnant le débiteur au paiement d’une astreinte en cas de violation d’un ordre de cessation imposé par cette décision, dispose d’un titre remplissant les conditions requises par le règlement nº 655/2014 et s’il est, dès lors, dispensé de l’obligation qui est exigée dans ce second cas de figure”.

Suggested decision : « L’article 7, paragraphe 2, du règlement (UE) no 655/2014 […] doit être interprété en ce sens que : une décision judiciaire signifiée condamnant le débiteur au paiement d’une astreinte en cas de violation d’un ordre de cessation ne constitue pas une « décision exigeant du débiteur le paiement de [la] créance » au sens de cette disposition, de sorte que la juridiction saisie d’une demande d’ordonnance européenne de saisie conservatoire des comptes bancaires par laquelle le créancier cherche à garantir le paiement de la créance relative à cette astreinte doit examiner l’existence et le montant de cette créance ».

Source : https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=267415&mode=req&pageIndex=4&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=FR&cid=365262

The Court of Justice delivered on 20 October 2022 its judgment in case C‑604/20 (ROI Land Investments Ltd), which is about employment law and Brussels I bis and Rome I. The opinion is currently available in all EU official languages (save Irish), albeit not in English. Here is the French version (to check whether an English translation has finally been made available, just click on the link below and change the language version):

« 1) L’article 21, paragraphe 1, sous b), i), et paragraphe 2, du règlement (UE) no 1215/2012 du Parlement européen et du Conseil, du 12 décembre 2012, concernant la compétence judiciaire, la reconnaissance et l’exécution des décisions en matière civile et commerciale, doit être interprété en ce sens que : un travailleur peut attraire devant la juridiction du dernier lieu où, ou à partir duquel, il a accompli habituellement son travail une personne, domiciliée ou non sur le territoire d’un État membre, avec laquelle il n’est pas lié par un contrat de travail formel, mais qui est, en vertu d’un accord de garantie dont dépendait la conclusion du contrat de travail avec un tiers, directement responsable envers ce travailleur de l’exécution des obligations de ce tiers, à condition qu’il existe un lien de subordination entre cette personne et le travailleur.

2) L’article 6, paragraphe 1, du règlement no 1215/2012 doit être interprété en ce sens que : la réserve relative à l’application de l’article 21, paragraphe 2, de ce règlement exclut qu’une juridiction d’un État membre puisse se fonder sur les règles de cet État en matière de compétence judiciaire lorsque les conditions d’application de cet article 21, paragraphe 2, sont réunies, quand bien même ces règles seraient plus favorables au travailleur. En revanche, lorsque les conditions d’application ni dudit article 21, paragraphe 2, ni d’aucune des autres dispositions énumérées à l’article 6, paragraphe 1, dudit règlement ne sont réunies, une telle juridiction est libre, conformément à cette dernière disposition, d’appliquer lesdites règles pour déterminer la compétence judiciaire.

3) L’article 17, paragraphe 1, du règlement no 1215/2012 et l’article 6, paragraphe 1, du règlement [] (Rome I), doivent être interprétés en ce sens que : la notion d’« activité professionnelle » recouvre non seulement une activité indépendante, mais également une activité salariée. En outre, un accord conclu entre le travailleur et une personne tierce à l’employeur mentionné dans le contrat de travail, en vertu duquel celle-ci est directement responsable envers le travailleur des obligations de cet employeur découlant du contrat de travail, ne constitue pas un contrat conclu en dehors et indépendamment de toute activité ou finalité d’ordre professionnel pour l’application de ces dispositions ».

Source : https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=267403&mode=req&pageIndex=4&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=FR&cid=367019

Kingdom of Sweden v Serwin & Ors [2022] EWHC 2706 (Comm) concerns an attempt by Sweden to gain compensation of a number of defendants whom it alleges were parties to a substantial fraud.  The fraud resulted in the misappropriation of in excess of €115m from the pension saving accounts of some 46,222 Swedish pension savers.

I may have to think one or two things through however I wanted to collect my initial thoughts at any rate.

Of note is that the application was one for summary judgment and that quite a few of the respondents did not file an acknowledgment of service or a defence. However, Sweden obtained permission from the court to obtain summary judgment on the merits even against them, rather than entering judgment in default (ia because that makes enforcement more straightforward). Other defendants are serving prison sentences in Sweden and they did enter a defence.

I do not want to turn this post into a banking and finance one however some background is required: [20] ff

The Swedish pension system has various types of pension provision, including a compulsory premium pension (PPM), in which a percentage of a pension saver’s earnings is put into an account, which is invested in investment funds selected by the pension saver from an online platform that the Swedish Pension Authority (SPA) maintains. Each pension saver has a PPM account. Among the investments which might be made were investments in so-called UCITS funds where these had been approved by the Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority (SFSA). UCITS funds are those meeting the requirements of the Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities Directive 209/65/EC.

A company that wished to participate in the PPM was required to
enter into a cooperation agreement with the SPA. This case arises from two UCITS funds which were listed on the PPM online platform:

i)            the Optimus High Yield Fund (Optimus), managed by Optimus Fonder which entered into a co-operation agreement with the SPA on 26 March 2012; and

ii)          the Falcon Funds SICA V plc (Falcon) which entered into a co-operation agreement with the SPA in relation to three funders under its management.

The events concerning these two separate funds have been described in the evidence as the Optimus phase and the Falcon phase..

There was consensus ([38]) that the law applicable to the Swedish claims so far as they concerned the Optimus phase was Swedish law, whether by virtue of Article 4(1) or (3) Rome II. That Sweden’s claims relating to the Optimus phase were barred by the doctrine of res judicata, merger, cause of action estoppel or the allied doctrine in Henderson v Henderson, was dismissed by Foxton J [44].

Falcon then was incorporated and authorised by the Maltese Financial Services Authority as a UCITS fund on 22 November 2013. Sweden’s summary judgment claim in relation to the Falcon phase argued that its claims in delict and for breach of fiduciary duty relating to that phase are governed by Maltese law and not Swedish law.

As far as the delict issue is concerned (misappropriation), application of A4(2)  to some of the defendants was clear, and Sweden argued application of A4(1) for the remainder, seemingly arguing (judgment is a bit unclear on this point) that the damage was suffered in Malta when funds held in Falcon were applied to the various classes of loss-making investments.  Reference was made by counsel and judge to Dicey 16th ed. 35-027: “in misappropriation cases … it seems appropriate to locate damage at the place where an asset … is taken from the control of the claimant or another person with whom the claimant has a relationship” – the judge held that it is strongly arguable that this happened when Sweden’s funds became subject to the control of Falcon and the powers of its directors or those operating behind the scenes; the judge seems to locate this in Sweden, not Malta, and to some degree it does not matter for with reference ia to Avonwick and reasons listed [81] it is held that A4(3) arguably is engaged to make the lex causae Swedish law.

[86] reference is again made to Dicey for the applicable law issue as far as breach of fiduciary duties is concerned: Dicey, Morris & Collins [36-069]-[36-070]:

i)                 If equitable obligations of a fiduciary character arise in the context of a contractual relationship, there is a strong argument that the law applicable to the parties’ contractual relationship under Rome I determines whether a fiduciary relationship exists and the nature and content of the duties imposed.

ii)               If, however, the equitable obligations are characterised as incidents of a company law relationship rather than as “contractual”, common law principles determine the applicable law ( company law matters are excluded from Rome I and Rome II).

iii)             If a fiduciary duty arises where the parties were not in a prior relationship, such as in the case of a recipient of trust property, then the “better view” is that the obligation is non- contractual in nature and falls within the ambit of Rome II.

Unlike Sweden, the judge holds there are strong arguments that Swedish law applies, by reference it seems to Dicey, above, i) and with the ‘anchor’ agreement being the one by which Falcon becomes eligible to received PPM funds. Rule ii) seems to be moved aside by the judge here, and at any rate the extent of that rule is not clear-cut (see the CJEU itself recently). It is clear and it was correct to hold that the discussion is not one for summary judgment material.

An interesting final, obiter point comes [91] ff re the ‘reflective loss’ rule (a shareholder (and some others) cannot claim for a fall in the value of their holdings due to loss suffered by the company, if and when the company has a cause of action against the same wrongdoer) under Maltese law. Falcon itself is currently asserting claims against some of the alleged wrongdoers in relation to those same misappropriations, however Sweden argues an exception to that rule on the basis of Maltese expert evidence that was not considered to be robust enough for the summary judgment stage.

I wonder though whether the suggested relevance of the reflective loss rule, does not serve as ammunition for the suggestion that Rome I and II’s corporate carve-out is engaged viz the breach of fiduciary duties claim. For is the DNA of the rule not one of clear lex incorporationis?

To be further pondered.

Geert.

Partially successful application for summary judgment
Some of the implications of lex causae under Rome II for breach of fiduciary duty have to go to trial

Kingdom of Sweden v Serwin & Ors [2022] EWHC 2706 (Comm) https://t.co/JgLAba8zI2
via @legalstyleblog

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) October 27, 2022

Generalstaatsanwaltschaft München (Extradition et ne bis in idem)
Citoyenneté européenne
Les autorités d’un État membre ne peuvent pas extrader un ressortissant d’un État tiers vers un autre État tiers lorsque ce ressortissant a été définitivement condamné dans un autre État membre pour les mêmes faits que ceux visés dans la demande d’extradition et a subi la peine qui y a été prononcée

Minister for Justice and Equality (Levée du sursis)
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Mandat d’arrêt européen : l’avocate générale Ćapeta propose que l’expression « procès qui a mené à la décision » soit interprétée en ce sens qu’elle vise toute étape de la procédure qui a une incidence déterminante sur la privation de liberté d’une personne

Confédération paysanne e.a. (Mutagenèse aléatoire in vitro)
Rapprochement des législations
Variétés végétales modifiées génétiquement : selon le Premier avocat général Szpunar, la mutagenèse aléatoire appliquée in vitro doit être exclue du champ d’application du droit de l’Union en matière de dissémination volontaire d’OGM dans l’environnement

La Quadrature du Net e.a. (Données personnelles et lutte contre la contrefaçon)
Rapprochement des législations
Premier avocat général Szpunar : une autorité nationale devrait pouvoir accéder à des données d’identité civile couplées à des adresses IP lorsque ces données constituent le seul moyen d’investigation permettant d’identifier les titulaires de ces adresses soupçonnés d’atteintes aux droits d’auteur sur Internet

Proximus (Annuaires électroniques publics)
Rapprochement des législations
Le responsable du traitement de données personnelles est tenu de prendre des mesures raisonnables afin d’informer les moteurs de recherche sur Internet d’une demande d’effacement par la personne concernée

Whether orders for penalty payment my constitute a ‘judgment’ is an issue under Brussels Ia (A55, see also below). It is also under the EU account preservation order Regulation 655/2014 (the ‘APO’ Regulation or simply ‘APO’) and it is on the latter that Szpunar AG opined last week in C‑291/21 Starkinvest (no English version is as yet available).

Per A7 APO, confirmed in CJEU C-555/18 H.K., when the applicant for an APO  (the creditor) does not (yet) have a judgment, court settlement or authentic instrument requiring the debtor to pay the creditor’s claim, creditor must submit sufficient evidence to satisfy the court that he is likely to succeed on the substance of his claim against the debtor: that is the ‘fumus boni juris’ (literally ‘the smoke of a solid right’) requirement.

Under Belgian civil procedure rules, a creditor need not return to the court to have the final amount of a periodic penalty payment confirmed before being able to seize assets commensurate to the amount due: the judgment itself, which for that reason must clearly detail the parameters for the payment’s calculation, serves as enforceable title; the bailiff seizes following her /his own calculation, and the attachment judge confirms the final amount. The point of the exercise is to guarantee sufficient asset seizure, pending the final confirmation of the amount due.

In essence the question is whether this security also works in an international context. The discussion of course triggered discussion of A55 Brussels Ia and its relationship with APO: ‘A judgment given in a Member State which orders a payment by way of a penalty shall be enforceable in the Member State addressed only if the amount of the payment has been finally determined by the court of origin.’

The AG (and with him, the EC and the Member States that intervened) zooms in on the A7(2( APO condition: the debtor must have obtained ‘a judgment, court settlement or authentic instrument requiring the debtor to pay the creditor’s claim‘  (emphasis added): not just ‘a judgment’ as defined in A4(8) APO: “‘judgment’ means any judgment given by a court of a Member State, whatever the judgment may be called, including a decision on the determination of costs or expenses by an officer of the court”. This focus is then followed by a discussion of the word ‘claim’, for which reference is made to the relevant forms prescribed by Commission Implementing Regulation 2016/1823 . This form refers to an amount ‘awarded’ and an ‘amount set out in’ the judgment.

The AG ends his Opinion with the suggestion that the judgment which imposed the penalty payment, together with confirmation eg by a bailiff that the debtor did not meet with the requirements to escape the payment, form a sound basis for the A7(2) APO route of fumus boni iuris.

It is clear that penalty payments could have done with more specific consideration in APO, and  the spirit of the APO Regulation could in my view support a different conclusion. However the textual anchors for the AG’s Opinion would seem strong.

Geert.

Opinion Szpunar AG this morning, whether order to pay periodic penalty payment without determination of the final amount, is a judgment viz the European Account Preservation Order

Starkinvest SRLhttps://t.co/t5a7rPGnzy

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) October 20, 2022

Banca Intesa Sanpaolo SPA & Anor v Comune Di Venezia [2022] EWHC 2586 (Comm) is an excellent illustration of the relevance of characterisation and of the international harmonisation of same. It also discusses the application of the ‘purely domestic contracts’ rule of Article 3(3) Rome Convention, carried over into the Rome Regulation.

Background is long-running litigation involving derivative transactions used by Italian municipalities to hedge their interest rate risk, as Sarah Ott summarises the context here (she discusses Dexia Crediop SpA v Provincia di Pesaro e Urbino [2022] EWHC 2410 (Comm), a case with many similar issues).

Venice contends that, for various reasons, it lacked the substantive power to enter into the Transactions as a matter of Italian law, and that, applying English conflict of law principles, that means that it did not have capacity to enter into the Transactions and that they are not valid. It also contends that the Transactions breached various rules of Italian law which have the status of “mandatory rules of law” for the purposes of A3(3) Rome Convention 1980 (which is applicable and not the Rome I Regulation) and that as a result the Transactions are void and/or unenforceable.

The Banks deny that the entry into the Transactions contravened any provisions of Italian law, on the basis of arguments as to the effect of Italian law and its application to the facts of this case, and further deny that any such contravention would deprive Venice of capacity to contract as a matter of English conflict of laws principles in any event.

Capacity to enter into contractual relationship itself is not caught by the Rome Convention as a result of the Convention’s carve-out of Article 1(2) c (most legal systems make such capacity subject to the lex incorporationis, and [115] is determined by reference to the law in force when the Transactions were entered into). Foxton J refers as authority to Credit Suisse International v Stichting Vestia Groep [2014] EWHC 3103 (Comm) [185].

Who then is to decide whether a particular issue of Italian law raises a question of capacity, or authority, or some other kind of legal challenge to the validity and efficacy of the Transactions? Here Foxton J wrongly in my view simply refers to lex fori, English law. In reality of course it is the Rome Convention that does so, although as I have pointed out before, neither the Rome Convention nor Rome I excels at clarifying.

[129] ff then follows lengthy analysis of the issues of capacity under Italian law as the lex causae, with the conclusion being that Venice did indeed so lack capacity under Italian law.

The issue of mandatory Italian law replacing the English lex contractus as a result of Article 3(3) Rome Convention’s ‘purely domestic contracts’ rule, is dealt with obiter. It fails at the first hurdle with Foxton J holding [341] that the scenario is not purely domestic. He does not much entertain the issue of whether under Italian law (lack of) a theory of contractual consideration might be of mandatory nature, referring [356] to the similar issues of consideration and privity of contracts under English law (which in effect might subsequently become relevant under the overriding mandatory rules of the forum).

An interesting judgment.

Geert.

Capacity under IT law to enter into financial transactions; Qualification whether 'capacity' is at stake is subject to lex fori, EN law
(Non)application of A3(3) Rome Convention purely domestic contracts rule

Banca Intesa Sanpaolo ea v Comune Di Venezia https://t.co/lrSv1v4E5b

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) October 14, 2022