European Civil Justice

AG Bobek delivered today his opinion in case C‑826/18 (LB, Stichting Varkens in Nood, Stichting Dierenrecht, Stichting Leefbaar Buitengebied v College van burgemeester en wethouders van de gemeente Echt-Susteren, joined parties: Sebava BV), which is about the Aarhus Convention and access to justice:

“(1) Article 6 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 […], Article 6 of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment […] and Article 24 of Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) confer full participation rights only to ‘the public concerned’ within the meaning of those instruments, but not to ‘the public’ at large.

(2) Neither Article 9(2) of the Aarhus Convention, nor Article 11 of Directive 2011/92, nor Article 25 of Directive 2010/75, nor Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, are opposed to the exclusion of ‘the public’ who do not fall within ‘the public concerned’ within the meaning of those instruments, from access to court.

(3) Article 9(2) of the Aarhus Convention, Article 11 of Directive 2011/92 and Article 25 of Directive 2010/75 preclude a condition in national law which makes the right of access to justice for ‘the public concerned’ within the meaning of those instruments dependent on prior participation in the procedures subject to Article 6 of the Aarhus Convention, Article 6 of Directive 2011/92, and Article 24 of Directive 2010/75”

Source: here

On the last day of the Croatian Presidency of the Council of the EU, an important deal was concluded: “the Council Presidency and the European Parliament today reached a provisional agreement on two amended regulations, one on the taking of evidence and a second on the service of documents”.

Key points: “Changes in both regulations include the mandatory use of an electronic decentralised IT system, composed of interconnected national IT systems, for the transmission of documents and requests between member states. The draft regulations also task the Commission with the creation, maintenance and future development of a reference software which member states can choose to apply as their back end system, instead of a nationally-developed IT system.

Regarding the service of documents, under the draft new rules documents can be served electronically and directly on an addressee with a known address in another member state, when his or her express consent is given in advance. The service can be performed through qualified electronic registered delivery services or, under additional conditions, by e-mail.

The draft new rules also promote the use of videoconferencing or other distance communication technology in the taking of evidence which implies hearing a witness, party or expert present in another member state”.

Next step: “The provisional agreement now needs to be submitted for endorsement by EU member states’ ambassadors”

Source: here

See also, from the European Parliament, here

The Court of Justice delivered yesterday its judgment in case C‑380/19 (Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV v Deutsche Apotheker- und Ärztebank eG), which is about Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on consumer alternative dispute resolution:

“Article 13(1) and (2) of Directive 2013/11 […] are to be interpreted as meaning that a trader who provides in an accessible manner on his website the general terms and conditions of sales or service contracts, but concludes no contracts with consumers via that website, must provide in his general terms and conditions information about the ADR entity or ADR entities by which that trader is covered, when that trader commits to or is obliged to use that entity or those entities to resolve disputes with consumers. It is not sufficient in that respect that the trader either provides that information in other documents accessible on his website, or under other tabs thereof, or provides that information to the consumer in a separate document from the general terms and conditions, upon conclusion of the contract subject to those general terms and conditions”.

Source: here

The EU Commission is organising a consultation on whether the EU should accede to the Judgments Convention. Responses to the questionnaire may be submitted until 5 October 2020.

If you are interested, see here

Yesterday, EU Parliament and Council of the EU negotiators reached a deal on the first EU-wide rules on collective redress, which will take the form of a Directive to be implemented within the usual 2 years period.

Here is the official presentation of the rules: “The new rules introduce a harmonised model for representative action in all member states that guarantees consumers are well protected against mass harm, while at the same time ensuring appropriate safeguards from abusive lawsuits. The new law also aims to make the internal market function better by improving tools to stop illegal practices and facilitating access to justice for consumers”. […]

Main elements of the agreement:

At least one representative action procedure for injunction and redress measures should be available to consumers in every member state, allowing representative action at national and EU level;

Qualified entities (organisations or a public bodies) will be empowered and financially supported to launch actions for injunction and redress on behalf of groups of consumers and will guarantee consumers’ access to justice;

On designation criteria for qualified entities, the rules distinguish between cross-border cases and domestic ones. For the former, entities must comply with a set of harmonised criteria. They have to demonstrate 12 months of activity in protecting consumers’ interest prior to their request to be appointed as a qualified entity, have a non-profit character and ensure they are independent from third parties whose economic interests oppose the consumer interest;

For domestic actions, member states will set out proper criteria consistent with the objectives of the directive, which could be the same as those set out for cross-border actions;

The rules strike a balance between access to justice and protecting businesses from abusive lawsuits through the Parliament’s introduction of the “loser pays principle”, which ensures that the defeated party pays the costs of the proceedings of the successful party;

To further avoid abusive lawsuits, Parliament negotiators also insisted that courts or administrative authorities may decide to dismiss manifestly unfounded cases at the earliest possible stage of the proceedings in accordance with national law;

Negotiators agreed that the Commission should assess whether to establish a European Ombudsman for collective redress to deal with cross-border representative actions at Union level;

The scope of collective action would include trader violations in areas such as data protection, financial services, travel and tourism, energy, telecommunications, environment and health, as well as air and train passenger rights, in addition to general consumer law”.

Source: here

AG Manuel Campos Sánchez-Bordona delivered yesterday his opinion in case C‑540/19 (WV v Landkreis Harburg), which is about the Maintenance Regulation. Should the opinion be endorsed by the Court of Justice, the decision will be of great practical importance. The opinion is currently available in all EU official languages (save Irish), albeit not in English. Here is the French version:

« L’article 3, sous b), du règlement (CE) no 4/2009 […] doit être interprété en ce sens qu’un organisme public qui a fourni des prestations d’aide sociale à un créancier d’aliments et qui s’est subrogé légalement dans la créance alimentaire peut réclamer cette dette à la personne qui est tenue de la payer, au moyen d’une action récursoire, devant les juridictions de l’État où le créancier a sa résidence habituelle ».

Source : here

AG Szpunar delivered yesterday his opinion in case C‑433/19 (Ellmes Property Services Limited v SP), which is about Brussels I bis. The opinion is currently available in all EU official languages (save Irish), albeit not in English. Here is the French version:

« 1) L’article 24, point 1 [Bruxelles I bis] doit être interprété en ce sens qu’une action d’un copropriétaire tendant à la cessation de l’usage touristique d’un appartement par un autre copropriétaire, au motif que cet usage ne correspond pas à celui convenu dans le contrat de copropriété, ne relève de cette disposition que si cet usage est opposable à l’égard de tous. Il appartient au juge national d’effectuer les ultimes vérifications à cet égard.

2) L’article 7, point 1, sous a), de ce règlement doit être interprété en ce sens que, dans le cas où l’usage convenu dans le contrat de copropriété n’est pas opposable à l’égard de tous, une telle action relève de la notion de « matière contractuelle » au sens de cette disposition. Dans ces conditions, l’obligation contractuelle litigieuse consiste en une obligation de ne pas faire et, plus précisément, de ne pas modifier, d’une manière non conforme au contrat de copropriété, l’affection d’un bien dans le lieu où celui-ci se situe. Pour vérifier si le lieu d’exécution de cette obligation correspond au lieu où se situe l’appartement soumis au régime de copropriété, il appartient au juge national de déterminer ce lieu d’exécution conformément à la loi régissant cette obligation, selon les règles de conflit de la juridiction saisie ».

Source : here

The Court of Justice delivered this week, on 4 June 2020, its judgment in case C‑41/19 (FX v GZ, represented for legal purposes by her mother), which is about the Maintenance Regulation.

Context: “By decision of the Sąd Okręgowy w Krakowie (Regional Court, Krakow, Poland) of 26 May 2009, FX was ordered to make monthly maintenance payments of around EUR 100 for the benefit of his daughter GZ, a minor, retroactively from June 2008.

20 Further to GZ’s application of 20 July 2016, the Amtsgericht Köln (Local Court, Cologne, Germany), by order of 27 July 2016, decided that an order for enforcement was to be issued in respect of the aforementioned decision of the Sąd Okręgowy w Krakowie (Regional Court, Krakow).

21 On the basis of that order declared enforceable, GZ, represented for legal purposes by her mother, initiated enforcement proceedings against FX in Germany. Challenging those proceedings, FX lodged before the Amtsgericht Köln (Local Court, Cologne) on 5 April 2018 an application opposing enforcement, pursuant to Paragraph 767 of the ZPO.

22 In support of his application, FX submits that the maintenance debt at issue in the main proceedings was discharged either directly until 2010 or, since December 2010, through the Maintenance Fund (Poland), to which FX claims to have reimbursed the sums paid to GZ to the extent of his financial capacity. FX maintains that, in any event, the debt has been predominantly settled”.

Issue: “The referring court has doubts, in the first place, as to whether the application opposing enforcement that FX lodged before it falls within its international jurisdiction.

24 On the one hand, the referring court states that if that application is to be treated as a matter relating to maintenance obligations within the meaning of Article 1 of Regulation No 4/2009, it has no international jurisdiction under that regulation and accordingly the Polish courts would have exclusive jurisdiction to examine FX’s objection that the maintenance debt at issue in the main proceedings has been discharged.

25 In that regard, the referring court notes that part of the German literature takes the view that an application opposing enforcement under Paragraph 767 of the ZPO is in fact to be treated as a matter relating to maintenance obligations within the meaning of Regulation No 4/2009 in so far as the objections raised in such an application, in particular those relating to the fulfilment or subrogation of that claim, are ultimately directed against the order for enforcement as such rather than the manner of the enforcement, which is to be assessed purely under enforcement law. Similarly, the referring court points out that that application opposing enforcement functionally corresponds to an application seeking reduction of the maintenance claim in respect of which an order for enforcement has been issued, which modification application, under Article 8 of Regulation No 4/2009, is subject to the jurisdictional principles set out therein. In the referring court’s view, that interpretation, which is supported by part of the German literature and which the referring court is inclined towards, is the only one compatible with the objective pursued by that regulation, namely guaranteeing the protection and jurisdictionally privileged status of the maintenance creditor, without, accordingly, the creditor having to defend himself, before the courts of the Member State of enforcement of the claim for which an order of enforcement has been issued, against an application opposing enforcement concerning substantive objections to that claim.

26 On the other hand, the referring court observes that the German legislature, conversely, is evidently of the opinion that the courts of the Member State of enforcement of a maintenance claim have jurisdiction to adjudicate on an application opposing enforcement, such as that provided for in Paragraph 767 of the ZPO, in which the debtor is authorised to raise objections to the claim itself. According to the referring court, the prevailing view in Germany is furthermore that such an application opposing enforcement does not come under matters relating to maintenance obligations within the meaning of Regulation No 4/2009 on the ground that, inter alia, the legal protection objective sought is directed solely against the enforcement of the claim, whereas the continuance of the original order remains untouched.

27 If that second position is to prevail, the referring court asks, in the second place, whether FX’s application opposing enforcement is then to be treated as ‘proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments’ within the meaning of Article 24(5) of Regulation No 1215/2012.

28 According to the referring court, the judgments of 4 July 1985, AS-Autoteile Service (220/84, EU:C:1985:302) and of 13 October 2011, Prism Investments (C‑139/10, EU:C:2011:653) are not capable, by themselves, of providing an answer to that question. Indeed, they were delivered in the regulatory framework preceding the entry into force of Regulation No 4/2009. In addition, pursuant to Article 1(2)(e) of Regulation No 1215/2012, that regulation does not apply to maintenance obligations”.

Question: “By its questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether an application opposing enforcement lodged by a maintenance debtor against the enforcement of a decision given by a court of the Member State of origin and which established that claim falls within the scope of Regulation No 4/2009 or that of Regulation No 1215/2012 and the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State of enforcement”.

Response from the Court of Justice: “Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 […] is to be interpreted as meaning that an application opposing enforcement brought by the maintenance debtor against enforcement of a decision given by a court of the Member State of origin and which established that debt, which has a close link with the procedure for enforcement, falls within its scope and is within the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State of enforcement.

Pursuant to Article 41(1) of Regulation No 4/2009 and to the relevant provisions of national law, it is for the referring court, being a court of the Member State of enforcement, to adjudicate on the admissibility and the validity of the evidence adduced by the maintenance debtor, seeking to support the submission that he has predominantly discharged his debt”.

Source: here

AG Manuel Campos Sánchez-Bordona delivered today his opinion in case C‑620/18 (Hungary v European Parliament and Council of the European Union), which is about the relationship between Rome I and Directive (EU) 2018/957 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 June 2018 amending Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services. The opinion is available in all EU official languages (save Irish), albeit not in English. Here is the French version :

“VIII. Cinquième moyen : violation du principe de sécurité juridique en conséquence de l’incompatibilité de la directive 2018/957 avec le règlement Rome I

A. Position des parties

189. Le cinquième moyen comporte en réalité deux branches distinctes, sans grand rapport entre elles.

‐      D’une part, le gouvernement hongrois soutient que la directive 2018/957 est contraire au règlement Rome I ainsi qu’aux principes de sécurité juridique et de clarté normative, en ce qu’elle modifie l’application de ce règlement sans en altérer le libellé, ce qui engendre une incertitude juridique considérable quant à sa bonne application.

[…]

190. La Commission, le Conseil, le Parlement européen et les gouvernements des États membres intervenus à la procédure estiment que ce cinquième moyen n’est pas fondé.

B. Appréciation de la première branche du cinquième moyen : relation entre la directive 2018/957 et le règlement Rome I

191. L’article 8, paragraphe 1, du règlement Rome I, établit la règle générale de conflit de lois applicable aux contrats individuels de travail, qui désigne la loi choisie par les parties (conformément aux conditions que ledit règlement précise par ailleurs). À défaut d’un tel choix, « le contrat individuel de travail est régi par la loi du pays dans lequel ou, à défaut, à partir duquel le travailleur, en exécution du contrat, accomplit habituellement son travail. Le pays dans lequel le travail est habituellement accompli n’est pas réputé changer lorsque le travailleur accomplit son travail de façon temporaire dans un autre pays » (article 8, paragraphe 2).

192. L’article 23 du règlement Rome I prévoit une exception à l’applicabilité des règles de conflit de lois établies par ce dernier : si les dispositions du droit de l’Union fixent des règles relatives à la loi applicable aux obligations contractuelles dans certaines matières, ces règles ont priorité (115)

193. Les règles générales du règlement Rome I relatives au choix de la loi applicable cèdent donc le pas aux règles spéciales prévues à cet égard dans des dispositions spécifiques du droit de l’Union (116).

194. Contrairement à ce qu’avance le gouvernement hongrois, je suis d’avis que l’article 3, paragraphe 1, (pour les travailleurs détachés ordinaires) et le nouvel article 3, paragraphe 1 bis (pour les travailleurs détachés pour une longue durée) de la directive 96/71 constituent des règles spéciales de conflit de lois (117), dont l’application doit être combinée avec celle du règlement Rome I (118).

195. Ces deux dispositions de la directive 96/71, qui s’ajoutent à la loi applicable en vertu des règles ordinaires de conflit de lois, imposent les dispositions suivantes du droit de l’État d’accueil :

‐      Les travailleurs détachés ordinaires se voient imposer les dispositions relatives aux conditions (de travail et de protection de la sécurité et de la santé des travailleurs) détaillées dans la liste exhaustive établie à l’article 3, paragraphe 1 ;

‐      Les travailleurs détachés de longue durée se voient imposer, outre les conditions susmentionnées, toutes les autres règles de l’État d’accueil, comme indiqué ci‑dessus (article 3, paragraphe 1 bis).

196. Comme l’indique le Conseil dans ses observations, le processus d’élaboration du règlement Rome I prouve que son article 23 couvre l’exception prévue par la directive 96/71, car la proposition de la Commission contenait en annexe une liste de règles spéciales établies dans d’autres dispositions du droit de l’Union, parmi lesquelles figuraient celles de la directive 96/71 (119).

197. Le considérant 11 de la directive 96/71 confirme cette affirmation, en ce qu’il expose que la convention de Rome, du 19 juin 1980, sur la loi applicable aux obligations contractuelles (remplacée par le règlement Rome I) « ne préjuge pas l’application des dispositions qui, dans des matières particulières, règlent les conflits de lois en matière d’obligations contractuelles et qui sont ou seront contenues dans les actes émanant des institutions des Communautés européennes ou dans des législations nationales harmonisées en exécution de ces actes ».

198. Le considérant 40 du règlement Rome I, qui expose que « [t]outefois, le présent règlement n’exclut pas la possibilité d’insérer des règles de conflit de lois en matière d’obligations contractuelles dans les dispositions de droit communautaire concernant des matières particulières », conduit à la même conclusion.

199. Contrairement à la thèse de la Hongrie, le principe de sécurité juridique n’exige donc pas que la modification de la directive 96/71 opérée par la directive 2018/957 soit accompagnée d’une modification du règlement Rome I.

200. L’article 23 de ce règlement permet aux règles spéciales de la directive 96/71 de coexister avec les règles générales de son article 8 en ce qui concerne les contrats des travailleurs détachés. La relation entre les deux types de règles est suffisamment claire, prévisible et précise et, par conséquent, respecte à suffisance le principe de sécurité juridique (120).

201. Cette conclusion n’est pas contredite, comme le prétend la Hongrie, par le fait que le nouvel article 3, paragraphe 1 bis, troisième alinéa, de la directive 96/71, prévoie une règle anti-fraude pour les cas de détachement de remplacement que j’ai précédemment évoqués (121). Dans ce cas, le contrat de chaque travailleur concerné par le remplacement peut être soumis à la loi d’un pays différent et cette disposition ne fait qu’ajouter une condition visant à prévenir une utilisation frauduleuse de la relation entre la directive 96/71 et le règlement Rome I”.

Source : here

In another opinion delivered on the same day (case C‑626/18, Poland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union, available here), the same AG makes a renvoi to the above paragraphs 191 to 200 in fn. 33 in the following:

“83. Je ne partage pas non plus l’avis du gouvernement polonais lorsqu’il juge le nouveau régime des travailleurs détachés pour une longue durée incompatible avec l’article 9 du règlement Rome I.

84. Cet article fait référence à « l’application des lois de police du juge saisi », mais le nouvel article 3, paragraphe 1 bis, de la directive 96/71 n’est pas une loi de ce type.

85. La relation entre cette directive et le règlement Rome I est définie par l’article 8 (« Contrats individuels de travail ») et l’article 23 (« Relation avec d’autres dispositions du droit communautaire ») de ce dernier (33) ».

The Court of Justice delivered last week (14 May 2020) its judgment in case C-17/19 (Bouygues travaux publics, Elco construct Bucarest, Welbond armatures), which is about the A 1 certificate (Article 19(2) of Regulation No 987/2009 – see below):

Question: “‘Must [Article] 11 of Regulation [No 574/72] and [Article] 19 of Regulation [No 987/2009] be interpreted as meaning that an E 101 Certificate issued by the institution designated by the competent authority of a Member State, under […] Regulation No 1408/71 … or an A 1 Certificate issued under Article 13(1) of Regulation No 883/2004 … is binding on the courts of the Member State in which the work is carried out when it comes to determining the legislation applicable, not only as regards the social security system but also as regards employment law, where such legislation defines the obligations of employers and the rights of employees, so that, having heard the arguments of the parties, those courts can disregard the abovementioned certificates only if, on the basis of an assessment of specific evidence, collected in the course of the judicial investigation, which supports the conclusion that the certificates were fraudulently obtained or relied on and which the issuing institution failed to take into account within a reasonable time, the said courts make a finding of fraud, comprised, as regards its objective element, by the failure to meet the conditions laid down in either of the aforementioned provisions of Regulations [No 574/72] and [No 987/2009] and, as regards its subjective element, by the intention of the accused person to evade or circumvent the conditions for the issue of that certificate, in order to obtain the advantages attaching thereto?’”

Reminder of some key provisions:

“Regulation No 883/2004
8 Regulation No 1408/71 was repealed and replaced with effect from 1 May 2010 by Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems
[…]
10 Article 13(2)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71 was replaced, in essence, by Article 11(3)(a) of Regulation No 883/2004, which provides that ‘subject to Articles 12 to 16 … a person pursuing an activity as an employed or self-employed person in a Member State shall be subject to the legislation of that Member State’.
11 Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71 was replaced, in essence, by Article 12(1) of Regulation No 883/2004, which provides that ‘a person who pursues an activity as an employed person in a Member State on behalf of an employer which normally carries out its activities there and who is posted by that employer to another Member State to perform work on that employer’s behalf shall continue to be subject to the legislation of the first Member State, provided that the anticipated duration of such work does not exceed [24] months and that that person is not sent to replace another posted person’.
12 Article 14(2)(b) of Regulation No 1408/71 was replaced, in essence, by Article 13(1) of Regulation No 883/2004, which provides:
‘A person who normally pursues an activity as an employed person in two or more Member States shall be subject to:
(a) the legislation of the Member State of residence if he/she pursues a substantial part of his/her activity in the Member State of residence; or
(b) if he/she does not pursue a substantial part of his/her activity in the Member State of residence…’
[…]

Regulation No 987/2009

15 Regulation No 574/72 was repealed and replaced, with effect from 1 May 2010, by Regulation No 987/2009.
16 Article 5(1) of Regulation No 987/2009 provides:
‘Documents issued by the institution of a Member State and showing the position of a person for the purposes of the application of the basic Regulation and of the implementing Regulation, and supporting evidence on the basis of which the documents have been issued, shall be accepted by the institutions of the other Member States for as long as they have not been withdrawn or declared to be invalid by the Member State in which they were issued.’
17 Article 19(2) of Regulation No 987/2009, which partly replaced Article 11(1)(a) and Article 12a(2)(a) and (4)(a) of Regulation No 574/72, provides that ‘at the request of the person concerned or of the employer, the competent institution of the Member State whose legislation is applicable pursuant to Title II of [Regulation No 883/2004] shall provide an attestation that such legislation is applicable and indicate, where appropriate, until what date and under what conditions’. That attestation is issued by means of a certificate (‘the A 1 Certificate’)”.

Response from the Court of Justice: “Article 11(1)(a), Article 12a(2)(a) and (4)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to their families moving within the Community […] and Article 19(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, must be interpreted as meaning that an E 101 Certificate, issued by the competent institution of a Member State, under [Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71] to workers employed in the territory of another Member State, and an A 1 Certificate, issued by that institution, under Article 12(1) or Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems […] to such workers, are binding on the courts or tribunals of the latter Member State solely in the area of social security”.

Source: here

Edoardo Rossi has recently published a book on “La sharing economy nel diritto internazionale privato europeo” (Giappichelli Editore (Torino, Italy), November 2019, ISBN 9788892131880, available here). Edoardo Rossi has kindly accepted to share with us today not only the presentation and summary of contents of his book but also an extract. The latter focuses on prorogation of jurisdiction (jurisdiction clauses) in electronic contracts, with a particular focus on ascertaining the effectiveness of consent in this situation and with a view to the difficulties now raised by the ‘sharing economy’ in this respect.

__ Presentation of the book: “In the current economic and social context new and controversial sharing practices, offering anyone the opportunity to search for or make available goods or services on the market regardless of the professional or amateur nature of the persons involved, have emerged. These practices, very heterogeneous and concerning the most different areas of daily life, such as mobility, housing, business activities, communications, work, culture, communication, education and finance, have been linked to the notion of “sharing economy”, which brings them together by virtue of temporary access to goods or services, facilitated by the large-scale intervention of digital platforms, through which requests and offers are coordinated online in order to share goods or services.
The legitimacy of schemes linked to these new economic models has been challenged in a number of aspects, including low quality of services, safety of consumers, authorisation and licensing, taxes and compliance with competition rules. The inadequacy of the existing rules to deal with the provision of services through the sharing economy models has consequently emerged.
In spite of these critical profiles, the legal relations established through sharing economy platforms are constantly increasing around the world, implying the emergence of elements of transnationality, from which derives the recourse to the rules of private international law, in order to determine the applicable law and the judge competent to rule on any disputes.
The monograph thus attempts to analyse some of the most important private international law issues, such as the inadequacy of the party autonomy in regulating the phenomenon, especially with reference to the general terms and conditions of contract unilaterally drawn up by platform operators, which state that the latter is totally unrelated to the legal relations between users, often in conflict with the minimum level of consumer protection guaranteed by EU law and by the national legislations. Critical profiles have also been identified in the online conclusion of contracts that bind the parties involved in sharing economy legal relations, in ascertaining the effectiveness of consent on the choice of forum and choice of law clauses, in cases of potential related actions and in the location of the “domicile” of the platform operators”.

__ Extract: you can find it here , starting p. 4 of the pdf

__ Summary of contents: it may be found here

The JURI Committee of the European Parliament has now released its draft report of 27 April 2020 (Draft report with recommendations to the Commission on a Civil liability regime for artificial intelligence, PE650.556v01-00). One notes Article 9 within the suggested Proposal for a regulation on liability for the operation of Artificial Intelligence-systems:

“National provisions on compensation and limitation period

Civil liability claims brought in accordance with Article 8(1) shall be subject, in relation to limitation periods as well as the amounts and the extent of compensation, to the laws of the Member State in which the harm or damage occurred”.

The Court of Justice delivered last week (7 May 2020) its judgment in Case C‑641/18 (LG and Others v Rina SpA, Ente Registro Italiano Navale), which is about Article 1(1) of Brussels I.

Context and question: “LG and Others — relatives of the victims and survivors of the sinking of the Al Salam Boccaccio’98 vessel in the Red Sea on 2 and 3 February 2006, in which more than 1 000 people lost their lives — brought an action before the Tribunale di Genova (District Court, Genoa, Italy) against the Rina companies — ship classification and certification societies — whose seat is in Genoa.

15 LG and Others claim compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses stemming from the Rina companies’ civil liability, arguing that the classification and certification operations for the Al Salam Boccaccio’98 vessel, carried out by the Rina companies under a contract concluded with the Republic of Panama, for the purposes of obtaining that State’s flag for that vessel, were the cause of that sinking.

16 The Rina companies contend that the referring court lacks jurisdiction, relying on the international-law principle of immunity from jurisdiction of foreign States. In particular, according to those companies, the classification and certification operations which they conducted were carried out upon delegation from the Republic of Panama and, therefore, are a manifestation of the sovereign powers of the delegating State.

17 According to LG and Others, by contrast, given that the Rina companies have their seat in Italy and the dispute at issue in the main proceedings is civil in nature, within the meaning of Article 1 of Regulation No 44/2001, the Italian courts have jurisdiction under Article 2(1) of that regulation. In addition, LG and Others submit that the plea of immunity from jurisdiction, relied on by the Rina companies, does not cover activities that are governed by non-discretionary technical rules which are, in any event, unrelated to the political decisions and prerogatives of a State.

18 The referring court raises the question of the jurisdiction of the Italian courts in so far as, while it is common ground that the Rina companies have their seat in Italy, it is claimed that they acted upon delegation from the Republic of Panama”.

Response: “Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 […] must be interpreted as meaning that an action for damages, brought against private-law corporations engaged in the classification and certification of ships on behalf of and upon delegation from a third State, falls within the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’, within the meaning of that provision, and, therefore, within the scope of that regulation, provided that that classification and certification activity is not exercised under public powers, within the meaning of EU law, which it is for the referring court to determine. The principle of customary international law concerning immunity from jurisdiction does not preclude the national court seised from exercising the jurisdiction provided for by that regulation in a dispute relating to such an action, where that court finds that such corporations have not had recourse to public powers within the meaning of international law”.

Key points of the reasoning: “the mere fact that certain powers are delegated by an act of a public authority does not imply that those powers are exercised iure imperii” (at 39), “the fact that certain activities have a public purpose does not, in itself, constitute sufficient evidence to classify them as being carried out iure imperii, in so far as they do not entail the exercise of any powers falling outside the scope of the ordinary legal rules applicable to relationships between private individuals” (at 41) and “the fact that, having regard to their objective, some acts are carried out in the interest of a State does not, in itself, result in the operations at issue in the main proceedings being carried out in the exercise of public powers” (at 42).

Source: here

The Court of Justice delivered last week (7 May 2020) its judgment in joined cases C‑267/19 and C‑323/19 (Parking d.o.o. v Sawal d.o.o. (C‑267/19), and Interplastics s. r. o. v Letifico d.o.o. (C‑323/19)). The judgment is available in all EU official languages (save Irish), albeit not in English. Here is the French version :

Question : « Il convient […] de comprendre que, par ses deux questions, qu’il y a lieu d’examiner ensemble, la juridiction de renvoi demande, en substance, si, dans l’hypothèse où les décisions qu’elle rendra relèvent du champ d’application du règlement no 1215/2012, l’article 18 TFUE et l’article 47 de la Charte doivent être interprétés en ce sens qu’ils s’opposent à une réglementation nationale habilitant les notaires, agissant dans le cadre des compétences qui leur sont dévolues dans les procédures d’exécution forcée sur le fondement d’un document faisant foi, à rendre des ordonnances d’exécution qui, ainsi qu’il ressort de l’arrêt du 9 mars 2017, Pula Parking  (C‑551/15, EU:C:2017:193), ne peuvent pas être reconnues et exécutées dans un autre État membre ».

Réponse : « L’article 18 TFUE et l’article 47 de la charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne doivent être interprétés en ce sens qu’ils ne s’opposent pas à une réglementation nationale habilitant les notaires, agissant dans le cadre des compétences qui leur sont dévolues dans les procédures d’exécution forcée sur le fondement d’un document faisant foi, à rendre des ordonnances d’exécution qui, ainsi qu’il ressort de l’arrêt du 9 mars 2017, Pula Parking (C‑551/15, EU:C:2017:193), ne peuvent pas être reconnues et exécutées dans un autre État membre ».

Source : here

On 16 April 2020, the Hague Conference announced that the Guide to Good Practice on the Use of Video-Link under the 1970 Evidence Convention has been published. “The Guide analyses the latest developments in relation to the use of video-link in the taking of evidence under the HCCH 1970 Evidence Convention, including references to internal law and other international agreements. It also outlines good practices to be followed and reflects the information provided by Contracting Parties in their respective Country Profiles”. It may be found here

Source: here

Background: “At its thirty-fifth session (New York, 13–17 May 2019), the [UNCITRAL] Working Group considered a draft convention prepared by the Comité Maritime International (CMI) on the recognition of foreign judicial sales of ships, known as the “Beijing Draft” […]. The Working Group decided that the Beijing Draft provided a useful basis for its deliberations on the topic of the judicial sale of ships”.

An annotated second revision of the Beijing Draft has now been released. It may be found here along with a note by the UNCITRAL secretariat there

Relevant UNCITRAL meetings have been suspended due to coronavirus.

AG Szpunar delivered today his opinion in Case C‑253/19 (MH, NI v OJ, Novo Banco SA), which is about the concept of the ‘centre of main interests’ of the Insolvency bis Regulation.

The background and the question: “1. The concept of the ‘centre of main interests’ formed the cornerstone of the system established by Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000. That concept was set out in Article 3(1) of that regulation, and was used as a connecting factor designating the courts having jurisdiction to open insolvency proceedings against a debtor. […] the Court had not yet had the opportunity to address the interpretation of that concept in the context of natural persons not exercising an independent business or professional activity who benefit from the free movement of persons and workers.
2. Regulation No 1346/2000 was repealed by Regulation (EU) 2015/848, which also uses the concept of ‘centre of main interests’. The question in the present case is as follows: can the Court’s case-law, developed within the framework of Regulation No 1346/2000 and relating to that concept, be transposed — and if so, to what extent — to proceedings against a natural person who is in the situation referred to above? This case thus provides the Court with the opportunity to rule on jurisdiction in insolvency matters in relation to any person not pursuing an activity as a self-employed person who exercises his right of free movement, and whose assets are located in the Member State of his former habitual residence”.

The suggested response: “Article 3(1), first and fourth subparagraphs, of Regulation (EC) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the presumption that the habitual residence of a debtor who is a natural person not engaged in a self-employed activity is the centre of his main interests may be rebutted if the place of habitual residence does not fulfil its role as the place where a debtor’s economic decisions are taken, as the place where the majority of his revenue is earned and spent, or as the place where the major part of his assets is located.

However, that presumption cannot be rebutted in favour of the Member State within the territory of which a debtor’s sole immovable asset is located in the absence of any other indication that the centre of that debtor’s main interests is located in that Member State. That fact may be determined on the basis of objective factors which are ascertainable by third parties (current and potential creditors) and relate to the financial interests of that debtor”.

Source: here

AG Szpunar delivered on 23 April 2020 his opinion in Case C‑73/19 (Belgische Staat v
Movic BV, Events Belgium BV, Leisure Tickets & Activities International BV), which is about the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ in Brussels I bis.

The issue: “In its judgment of 1 October 2002, Henkel, the Court held that the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’, which defines the scope of the majority of EU instruments of private international law, encompassed proceedings in which an action for an injunction preventing the use of unfair terms was brought by a consumer protection association. By this reference for a preliminary ruling, the referring court asks the Court to determine whether that concept also encompasses proceedings in which the public authorities of a Member State bring an action in relation to unfair market and/or commercial practices”.

The suggested response: “Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 […] must be interpreted as meaning that proceedings relating to an action brought by the public authorities of a Member State against persons governed by private law established in another Member State, in which a declaration is sought that infringements constituting unfair commercial practices have taken place, together with an order for the cessation of those practices, an order for measures of publicity at the expense of the defendants, and an order for penalty payments to be made in a fixed amount in respect of every future infringement, fall within the scope of ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of that provision.

On the other hand, such proceedings do not fall within the scope of that expression in so far as they relate to an action in which the public authorities seek the grant of special powers that go beyond those arising from the rules applicable in relationships between private individuals”.
Source: here

Following the ratification of Qatar last week, on 12 March 2020, the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation will enter in force on 12 September 2020: that was quick!

Source: here

The Council on General Affairs and Policy of the Hague Conference met from 3 to 6 March 2020. Its conclusions and decisions are now available.

Key points:
“The projects on normative work include two further meetings of the Experts’ Group on Jurisdiction before CGAP 2021, the continuation of the Parentage / Surrogacy Project and the Tourists and Visitors Project, further work on the draft Practical Guide on cross-border recognition and enforcement of agreements reached in the course of family matters involving children and, subject to available resources, some exploratory work of the intersection of private international law and intellectual property and the monitoring of developments with respect to the private international law implications of distributed ledger technology (DLT).

In relation to post-Convention services, CGAP noted, amongst others, the approval of the Guide to Good Practice on Article 13(1)(b) under the 1980 Child Abduction Convention and the Guide to Good Practice on the Use of Video-Link under the 1970 Evidence Convention. CGAP also approved the holding of a first Special Commission on the 2007 Child Support Convention and its Protocol. In addition, CGAP invited another meeting of the Working Group on Preventing and Addressing Illicit Practices under the 1993 Adoption Convention, and an Experts’ Group to explore whether broader use of new technologies, including DLT, may further enhance the e-APP, in particular in relation to e-Registers”.

Source: here and there

For the Guide to Good Practice under the HCCH Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction – Part VI – Article 13(1)(b), see here