Flux européens

Sped-Pro / Commission
Concurrence
Le Tribunal annule la décision de la Commission rejetant une plainte à l’encontre de PKP Cargo, société contrôlée par l’État polonais, pour un prétendu abus de sa position dominante sur le marché des services de transport ferroviaire de marchandises en Pologne

The CJEU held (first Chamber, which includes the  CJEU President Koen Lenaerts) in C‑499/18 P Bayer Crop Science v European Commission a few months back. Here at GAVCLaw the judgment was firmly on our minds – but my analysis not yet put to paper.

The case centres around the legality of the conditions imposed by the EU for the approval of the active substances clothianidin, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid (these are neonicotinoids), and prohibiting the use and sale of seeds treated with plant protection products containing those active substances. The act challenged by Bayer is Commission Implementing Regulation 485/2013 and the justification for the measures are the documented losses of honeybee colonies as a result of the use of the substances.

The application follows a tried and tested path of applicants in the chemical and related sectors. Firstly and preferably, find some holes in the (often extensive) documentary trail of preparatory and advisory paperwork relied upon by the Institutions in their measure, and claim these devastate the legality of the eventual measure. A typical example would be ‘the studies relied upon reported testing of the substances on small ponies while the eventual regulation cites concerns for both small and medium-sized ponies’. Secondly, try and tempt the CJEU into finding fault with the application of core principles of EU law (such as subsidiarity, proportionality, ultra vires, attributed powers etc) and /or EU sectoral policy (such as in particular the precautionary principle), or confuse the Court with at best esoteric but usually sophistic discussions on eg ‘new and scientific knowledge’.

The General Court had found against Bayer. Much of the appeal before the CJEU discusses the first type of arguments and, like the General Court, dismisses them.

On the suggested infringement of the precautionary principle, the Court first of all rejects that precaution cannot be relied upon until an ‘exhaustive’ scientific assessment is made: [81]: ‘an exhaustive risk assessment cannot be required in a situation where the precautionary principle is applied, which equates to a situation in which there is scientific uncertainty.’ The point is NOT that precaution does not engage with science. It does. That is also where its weakness may lie: it desperately speaks the language of data, science and numbers yet as the saying goes, “Data is like a spy – if you torture it long enough, it will tell you anything you want to know.” The point is rather (see eg [78]) that for one to have to wait for every single new potential sub-study into a sub-issue, would hand industry the golden ticket for delay tactics; [82] that studies are underway which may call into question the available scientific and technical data, is not an obstacle to application of the precautionary principle.

Bayer put essentially the same argument to the CJEU with slightly differing angles (eg suggesting that for already approved active substances, precaution must be applied to a higher threshold than for new to be approved substances) and the Court rejected them at each turn.

A good judgment.

Geert.

EU environmental law (with Leonie Reins), Edward Elgar, 2018, p.28 ff.

 

 

 

 

 

The UK Ministry of Justice opened this week (2 February 2022) a consultation on whether the UK should sign and ratify the Singapore Convention on Mediation 2018. The consultation closes at 23:59 on 1 April 2022. A Consultation document (with questions to the public) is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/the-singapore-convention-on-mediation

The Court of Justice delivered two days ago (3 February 2022) its judgment in Case C‑20/21 (JW, HD, XS v LOT Polish Airlines), which is about Article 7(1)(b) Brussels I bis :

« The second indent of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 […] must be interpreted as meaning that, in respect of a flight consisting of a confirmed single booking for the entire journey and divided into two or more legs on which transport is performed by separate air carriers, where a claim for compensation, brought on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 […] arises exclusively from a delay of the first leg of the journey caused by a late departure and is brought against the air carrier operating that first leg, the place of arrival for that first leg may not be classified as a ‘place of performance’ within the meaning of that provision ».

Source : https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=253283&mode=req&pageIndex=1&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&cid=1413659

The CJEU held yesterday in C-20/21 LOT Polish Airlines, on the place of performance (hence creation of jurisdiction in an application for flightdelay compensation) of a flight consisting of a confirmed single booking and performed in several legs by two separate air carriers. That the claim came within Article 7(1)’s gateway for contracts is a result of CJEU flightright. The Court also held in that case that both the place of departure of the first leg of the journey and the place of arrival of the last leg of the journey were forum contractus.

In the case at issue, jurisdiction is sought for the place of landing of the first leg of the journey. In CJEU Zurich Insurance, on multimodal transport, place of dispatch was added as forum contractus, with the CJEU refraining from holding explicitly whether other legs of the journey could count as such forum (Tanchev AG had opined they should not). In current case, the CJEU would seem to confirm my feeling that in Zurich Insurance it implicitly sided with a limitation of fora. Indeed it holds that the place of arrival of the first leg is not forum contractus under A7(1), however, there is a caveat: [24]:

the referring court does not indicate the elements of the contract which could justify, with a view to the efficacious conduct of proceedings, the existence of a sufficiently close link between the facts of the dispute in the main proceedings and its jurisdiction.

The CJEU’s dictum is formulated in more absolute terms:

The second indent of [A7(1) BIa] must be interpreted as meaning that, in respect of a flight consisting of a confirmed single booking for the entire journey and divided into two or more legs on which transport is performed by separate air carriers, where a claim for compensation, brought [under the flightdelay Regulation 261/2004] arises exclusively from a delay of the first leg of the journey caused by a late departure and is brought against the air carrier operating that first leg, the place of arrival for that first leg may not be classified as a ‘place of performance’ within the meaning of that provision

However given the caveat [24] it is not to be excluded that contractual terms could distinguish the finding of lack of forum contractus.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, 2.399 ff.

#flightdelay Regulation, place of arrival of first flight is no 'place of performance' granting jurisdiction under A7(1) Brussels Ia #CJEU C‑20/21 LOT Polish Airlineshttps://t.co/5R4YKF3ShL

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) February 3, 2022

République tchèque / Pologne (Mine de Turów)
Environnement et consommateurs
Avocat général Pikamäe : en prolongeant de six ans l’autorisation d’extraction de lignite dans la mine de Turów sans procéder à une évaluation des incidences sur l’environnement, la Pologne a enfreint le droit de l’Union

ÖBB-Infrastruktur Aktiengesellschaft
Transport
Selon l’avocate générale Tamara Ćapeta, la Cour de justice devrait se déclarer compétente s’agissant d’interpréter les règles uniformes CUI, dès lors que l’Union a exercé ses compétences partagées en adhérant à la COTIF

République tchèque / Pologne (Mine de Turów)
Environnement et consommateurs
Avocat général Pikamäe : en prolongeant de six ans l’autorisation d’extraction de lignite dans la mine de Turów sans procéder à une évaluation des incidences sur l’environnement, la Pologne a enfreint le droit de l’Union

Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo / Commission (Rejet de plainte)
Concurrence
Le Tribunal annule la décision de la Commission rejetant la plainte déposée par un grossiste polonais

Scania e.a. / Commission
Concurrence
Le Tribunal rejette le recours de Scania et maintient l’amende de 880,52 millions d’euros infligée par la Commission pour sa participation à l’entente entre constructeurs de camions

Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo / Commission (Engagements de Gazprom)
Concurrence
Le Tribunal rejette le recours à l’encontre de la décision de la Commission rendant obligatoires les engagements présentés par Gazprom en vue de remédier aux préoccupations concurrentielles de la Commission relatives aux marchés nationaux de la fourniture de gaz de gros en amont dans les pays de l’Europe centrale et orientale

The appeal in The Public Institution for Social Security v Banque Pictet & Cie SA & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 29 has been dismissed. I reviewed the first instance judgment here. I conclude that review writing ‘Those criticising the intensity of jurisdiction squabbles will find ammunition in this 497 para judgment.’ The Court of Appeal judgment is another 152 paras and as Andrew Dickinson also notes, Carr LJ, too, is critical: [12]

There will of course be cases where a novel and/or complex point of law needs to be debated fully and decided and, as foreshadowed above, this litigation raises some new, albeit relatively short, legal issues. Further, the sums involved are substantial and the allegations made are serious. However, these features did not create a licence to turn a jurisdictional dispute into an extensive and essentially self-standing piece of litigation. The costs incurred below ran to many, many millions of pounds: the interim payment orders in respect of the Respondents’ costs amounted to £6.88 million against a claimed total of some £13.5 million.

The issues on appeal are listed [41] ff and they of course reflect the discussion I summarised in my post on the first instance findings. I list them below and summarise the Court’s findings.

Article 23 formal requirements (involving Banque Pictet and Mr Bertherat only):

i) For the purposes of the requirement in Article 23(1)(a) that a jurisdiction agreement must be in or evidenced in writing, was the Judge right to conclude that it was unnecessary for the GBCs containing the EJCs (‘exclusive jurisdiction clauses, GAVC) actually to have been communicated to PIFSS?

ii) If so, was the Judge right to find that Banque Pictet did not have the better of the argument that the GBCs were communicated to PIFSS prior to 2012?

Lady Justice Carr is right in my view e.g. [67] that CJEU authority does not require material communication of GTCs etc which contain EJCs. Rather, the judge needs to establish ‘real consent’,  in the spirit of the Raport Jenard with a rejection of excessive formality.

Article 23 material validity (involving all Pictet and Mirabaud Respondents (save for Pictet Asia, Pictet Bahamas and, for the avoidance of doubt, also Mr Amouzegar and Mr Argand)):

i) Was the Judge right to conclude that the “particular legal relationship(s)” in connection with which the EJCs were entered into for the purpose of Article 23 was the totality of the legal relationships between the parties forming part of the banker/customer relationship between them?

ii) Was the Judge right to conclude that the relevant Respondents had the better of the argument that the disputes relating to (a) the Pictet/Mirabaud bribery claims; (b) the Pictet/Mirabaud accessory claims “ar[o]se out of” those “particular legal relationship(s)”?

The term ‘material validity’ is employed both in first instance and at the Court of Appeal although it is not quite correct; what is really meant is what Henshaw J called the ‘proximity’ requirement: which ‘disputes’ ‘relate to’ the matters covered by the EJCs? Here, Carr LJ sides eventually [98] with the judge mostly as a matter of factual analysis: neither CJEU Apple nor CDC require a restrictive approach where parties have formulated the EJC very widely. The judge carefully considered the wording of the clause and on contractual construction was right to find that the disputes at issue fell within it.

Scope of EJCs (as a matter of the relevant domestic law) (involving all Pictet and Mirabaud Respondents (save for Pictet Asia and Pictet Bahamas and again, for the avoidance of doubt, Mr Amouzegar and Mr Argand)):

i) Was the Judge right to find that PIFSS had the better of the argument that, on the true construction of the relevant EJCs, the disputes relating to the wider accessory claims fell outside the scope of the applicable EJCs?

ii) (Mr Mirabaud only): Was the Judge right to conclude that PIFSS had the better of the argument that claims against Mr Mirabaud relating to events after 1 January 2010 fell outside the scope of the relevant EJCs?

This issue relates to whether the EJCs, as a matter of construction under Swiss (or Luxembourg) law – which the judge had discussed obiter, did not extend to cover the wider accessory claims. [101]: in summary the relevant parties suggest that, having correctly recognised that what was alleged by PIFSS were unitary schemes arising out of continuing courses of conduct, the Judge was then wrong to conclude that they did not have the better of the argument that the wider accessory claims also fell within the EJCs.

Carr LJ deals rather swiftly with these discussions, again I feel finding mostly that the judge’s analysis was mostly factual (albeit seen from the viewpoint of Swiss and /or Luxembourg law) and not incorrect.

Article 6: (the number of Respondents to whom the Article 6 challenge is relevant will depend on the outcome of the appeals on the issues above, but on any view the issue of principle arises in relation to Mr Amouzegar and Mr Argand):

i) Was the Judge right to conclude that, for the purpose of Article 6, the Court was not required to consider solely the risk of irreconcilable judgments between the claim against the anchor defendant and the claim(s) against the proposed Article 6 defendant(s) but rather was permitted to consider other relevant circumstances including, in particular, the risk of irreconcilable judgments between the claims sought to be made against the proposed defendant and other claims in other member states?

ii) Did the Judge apply the test correctly in relation to each relevant Respondent?

This I find is the most important part of the judgment for it is in my view the one which most intensely deals with a point of law. Readers may want to refer to my earlier post for a summary of the A6 (Lugano) issues. The judge had found against A6 jurisdiction, also following Privatbank‘s ‘desirability’ approach. Parties upon appeal argue [110] that the Judge’s interpretation results in exclusive jurisdiction clauses having practical effects well beyond the scope of their application, with the collateral effect of conferring on them a “gravitational pull” which is inconsistent with the proper interpretation of A23 Lugano. PIFSS submits that it undermines the drive for legal certainty that motivates the strict approach to A6 identified in the authorities. They also suggested (in oral submission) that for A6 purposes only actual, and not merely potential, proceedings are properly to be taken into account. 

The CA however [112] confirms the relevance of future as well as extant claims and generally supports the flexible approach to A6. Carr J concedes [131] that this approach can be said to give “gravitational pull” to A23 and suggests ‘(t)here is nothing objectionable about that, given the respect to be accorded to party autonomy.’

I do not think this is correct. Including broadly construed ‘related’ claims in choice of court would seem to deny, rather than protect party autonomy: for if parties had really wanted to see them litigated in the choice of court venue, they ought to have contractually include them.

The issue of desirability per Privatbank is not discussed and therefore remains open (compare EuroEco Fuels).

Forum non conveniens: Pictet Asia and Pictet Bahamas:

i) Depending on the outcome of the issues above, was the Judge right to conclude that PIFSS had not shown that England was clearly the appropriate forum for the resolution of the claims against Pictet Asia and Pictet Bahamas?

Here the swift conclusion [143] is that the judge’s finding that PIFSS had not shown that England was clearly the proper forum is unimpeachable.

A lot is riding on this jurisdictional disagreement.  Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused by the CA but may still be sought with the SC itself.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, big chunks of Chapter 2.

 

Choice of court and anchor defendants, Lugano Convention, Brussels Ia.
Appeal dismissed. For the 1st instance judgment see https://t.co/7d1LGpleY4
Public Institution for Social Security v Banque Pictet & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 29 (26 January 2022)https://t.co/WvbXbk1o59

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) January 26, 2022

Sātiņi-S
Agriculture
La Cour interprète les dispositions du droit de l’Union en matière de paiements compensatoires octroyés au titre de Natura 2000

Ligue des droits humains
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Selon l’avocat général Pitruzzella, le transfert ainsi que le traitement automatisé généralisé et indifférencié des données PNR sont compatibles avec les droits fondamentaux au respect de la vie privée et à la protection des données à caractère personnel

Commission / Espagne (Obligation d’information en matière fiscale)
Libre circulation des personnes
La législation nationale obligeant les résidents fiscaux espagnols à déclarer leurs biens ou leurs droits situés à l’étranger est contraire au droit de l’Union

Intel Corporation / Commission
Concurrence
Le Tribunal annule pour partie la décision de la Commission infligeant à Intel une amende de 1,06 milliard d’euros

Intel Corporation / Commission
Concurrence
Le Tribunal annule pour partie la décision de la Commission infligeant à Intel une amende de 1,06 milliard d’euros

Commission / European Food e.a.
Aide d'État
Le Tribunal a commis une erreur de droit en concluant que la Commission n’était pas compétente pour examiner, à la lumière du droit des aides d’État, l’indemnisation versée à des investisseurs suédois par la Roumanie en exécution d’une sentence arbitrale

VYSOČINA WIND
Rapprochement des législations
La Cour invalide partiellement la directive 2012/19 sur les déchets d’équipements électriques et électroniques en ce que cette directive oblige les producteurs de panneaux photovoltaïques à financer les coûts afférents à la gestion des déchets issus de ces panneaux lorsque ceux-ci ont été mis sur le marché à une date antérieure à celle de l’entrée en vigueur de ladite directive

In Easygroup Ltd v Beauty Perfectionists Ltd & Ors [2021] EWHC 3385 (Ch) defendants argue that even though the proceedings were initiated prior to IP completion day (31 December 2020), the English courts no longer have jurisdiction to grant a pan-EU injunction or other remedies in respect of alleged infringement of EU trade marks (“EUTMs”).  The suggestion is that lack of such jurisdiction post 1 January 2021 is a consequence of the relevant statutory UK instrument, the Trade Marks Amendment etc (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

The jurisdictional impact  of the EU Trademark Regulation 2017/1001 was previously considered i.a. in another Easygroup case which I discuss here. In current case, defendants argue that as a result of (potentially an omission in) the 2019 UK Statute, the High Court no longer is an ‘EU Trade Mark Court’ and, that EU Regulation 2017/1001 was not part of EU retained law under section 2(1) of the EU Withdrawal Act 2018. Their submission is based entirely on statutory construction, involving ia reading of the EU Withdrawal Agreement Act 2020 and its alleged impact on Withdrawal Agreement rights.

[48] ff Flaux C takes a much shorter approach to siding with claimants, holding [50] that the clear intention of Article 67 of the Withdrawal Agreement, which has full legal effect, is that the High Court should retain the same jurisdiction under EU Regulation 2017/1001 as it had before IP completion day. He finds support in a more common sense reading of the various Statutes in the context of Brexit with arrangements (as opposed to the potential of a no-deal Brexit).

The application for strike-out was therefore dismissed.

I do not know whether appeal has been sought. The case is a good illustration of the many layers of complexity provoked by the presence of the Withdrawal Agreement (with UK commitment to provide direct effect in the same circumstances as would apply under EU law), the Trade and Co-operation Agreement, and all the statutory provisions designed to cater for both a deal and a no-deal Brexit.

Geert.

 

Easygroup v Beauty Perfectionists [2021] EWHC 3385 (Ch) (17 December 2021)
Status of retained EU law post #Brexit
Held E&W courts continue to have jurisdiction to grant pan-EU injunction or other remedies viz alleged infringement of EU #trademark https://t.co/NmaoqaGfjC

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) December 17, 2021