European Civil Justice

The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs of the European Parliament has released today its report on the establishment of an EU Mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights (A9-0170/2020). The rapporteur is Michal Šimečka.

It is attached to this post.

Yesterday (28 September 2020), the United Kingdom “deposited its instrument of accession to the HCCH Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements […] and its instrument of ratification to the HCCH Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance”. The United Kingdom is currently bound by these conventions “by virtue of the approval of the European Union. These new instruments of accession and ratification ensure continuity in the application of these Conventions after the conclusion of the transition period following the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU. Both Conventions will continue to be applicable to and in the United Kingdom until 31 December 2020, in accordance with the Withdrawal Agreement. The 2005 Choice of Court Convention and 2007 Child Support Convention will then enter into force for the United Kingdom on 1 January 2021”.

Source: here

The International Commercial Chamber of the Court of Appeal of Paris (France) delivered a few days ago (15 September 2020) a decision (RG 19/09518) on abrupt termination of established commercial relationships.

The summary: “In this liability case based on the abrupt termination of established commercial relationships, the ICCP-CA found admissible the action brought against the French subsidiary of the Asus group, alongside its Singaporean subsidiary, which had signed a partnership agreement with Sodexpo for the distribution of ASUS branded products in the French overseas departments and territories, in view of its interference in the establishment, execution and development of the said partnership, which created the appearance of a legitimate belief that the two Asus companies were partners in the commercial relationship (§§ 17 – 26). 

The ICCP-CA found the French and Singaporean subsidiaries of the Asus group liable of the abrupt termination of the commercial relationship. It ruled that the relationship was well established and that it had lasted for 25 months, among others in view of the development of the partnership between 2014 and 2016 and the granting of an exclusivity right at the end of 2016, suggesting a continuity of business flow for 2017 (§§ 30-37). The ICCP-CA held that the abruptness of the termination was characterized by the failure to give sufficient notice. It considered that in view of the 25-month duration of the commercial relationship, the constantly growing business volume (representing 40% of Sodexpo’s sales in 2016), the brand’s reputation and positioning in the global market, as well as the loss of a market that Sodexpo contributed to create in the French overseas departments and territories and the difficulty for the company to develop new business, the notification of termination should have been given 6 months in advance, rather than 7 days. 

The ICCP-CA has set the compensation for the abruptness of the termination on the basis of the loss of gross margin on the discounts granted by the Asus companies within the framework of their partnership with Sodexpo, specifying that the loss could not be calculated by reference to the margin earned by Sodexpo on its sales with wholesalers, third parties to the relationship, but only on the loss of the advantage resulting from the partnership with Asus (§§ 46-51). The ICCP-CA held that the abruptness of the termination also gave rise to a distinct harm affecting the image and commercial credibility of Sodexpo, taking into account the reputation of the Asus brand and the development of its distribution in the French overseas departments and territories.

The ICCP-CA furthermore rejected Sodexpo’s claim for compensation for the misappropriation of know-how in the absence of any proof establishing both wrongful acts committed by the Asus companies and a distinct loss resulting from the abruptness of the termination (§§ 54). It also rejected Sodexpo’s claim for reimbursement of unsold stock because of the lack of proof of an impossibility of selling it (§§ 57)”.

The decision is attached to this post.

The Explanatory Report on the HCCH Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters has been approved yesterday. You can find it attached .

The Court of Justice delivered today its judgment in case C‑540/19 (WV v Landkreis Harburg) which is about Article 3 (b) of the Maintenance Regulation. The decision should have a clear practical impact: « A public body which seeks to recover, by way of an action for recovery, sums paid in place of maintenance to a maintenance creditor, and to which the claims of that maintenance creditor against the maintenance debtor have been transferred by way of subrogation, may validly invoke the jurisdiction of the court for the place where the creditor is habitually resident, as provided in Article 3(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations”.

Source: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=231185&mode=req&pageIndex=1&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&cid=2561617

AG  Saugmandsgaard Øe delivered last week (10 September 2020) his opinion in case C‑59/19 (Wikingerhof GmbH & Co. KG contre Booking.com BV), which is about Brussels I bis. The opinion is currently available in selected EU official languages only (such as German and Spanish). It is not available 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):

“L’article 7, point 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 qu’une action en responsabilité civile fondée sur la violation des règles du droit de la concurrence relève de la « matière délictuelle ou quasi délictuelle », au sens de cette disposition, y compris lorsque le demandeur et le défendeur sont parties à un contrat et que les prétendus agissements anticoncurrentiels que le premier reproche au second se matérialisent dans leur relation contractuelle ».

Source : here

The International Commercial Chamber of the Court of Appeal of Paris (France) delivered a few days ago (8 September 2020) a decision (RG 19/06635) on jurisdiction clauses.

Summary / Resumé: “This case involved a company incorporated under Belgian law and a company incorporated under Emirati law. The latter signed a letter of guarantee for its Gabonese subsidiary in favor of the Belgian company, thereby securing the performance of a telecommunications services contract signed between the Gabonese subsidiary and the Belgian company. This contract stipulated a jurisdiction clause in favor of the Paris courts. Although the Emirati company (the guarantor) did not sign the contract containing the jurisdiction clause, the International Commercial Chamber of the Court of Appeal of Paris decided that the French court had jurisdiction, considering that the said clause was enforceable against it in respect of the warranty action brought by the Belgian company.

The ICCP-CA held that the agreements, although distinct, were intimately linked, as one conditioned the second and vice versa. As a result, it found that both agreements constituted “the Agreement”, so that their existence and performance were only justified by the overall scheme of the operations. It considered that these two acts could be qualified as an indivisible contractual whole, as the parties had intended to include the two contracts in a single transaction, thus rendering the jurisdiction clause stipulated in the Agreement enforceable against the guarantor, which had, furthermore, expressly agreed to the “terms and conditions” and had therefore been aware of it ».

The decision (in French) is attached to this post. 

The Court of Justice delivered on Thursday (3 September 2020) its judgment in case C‑186/19 (Supreme Site Services GmbH, and alii v Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe) which is about Article 1 and 24 Brussels I bis (along with Article 35) in the context of an action brought by an international organisation based on immunity from execution seeking to have an interim garnishee order lifted and a prohibition on new orders being levied on the same grounds.

Background: “The request has been made in the course of proceedings between, on one hand, Supreme Site Services GmbH, established in Switzerland, Supreme Fuels GmbH & Co KG, established in Germany, and Supreme Fuels Trading Fze, established in the United Arab Emirates (together, ‘the Supreme companies’) and, on the other hand, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (‘SHAPE’ [NATO]), established in Belgium, concerning the lifting of an interim garnishee order”.

Decision: “1. Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 […] is to be interpreted as meaning that an action for interim relief brought before a court of a Member State in which an international organisation invokes its immunity from execution in order to obtain both the lifting of an interim garnishee order executed in a Member State other than that of the forum and a prohibition on levying such an order in the future on the same grounds, brought in parallel with substantive proceedings concerning a claim arising from alleged non-payment for fuel supplied for the purposes of a peacekeeping operation carried out by that organisation, is covered by the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’, in so far as that action is not pursued under public powers, within the meaning of EU law, which is a matter for the assessment of the referring court.

2. Article 24(5) of Regulation No 1215/2012 is to be interpreted as meaning that an action for interim relief brought before a court of a Member State in which an international organisation invokes its immunity from execution in order to obtain both the lifting of an interim garnishee order executed in a Member State other than that of the forum and a prohibition on levying such an order in the future on the same grounds, does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which the interim garnishee order was executed”.

Source: here

The Hague Conference announced today that the Marshall Islands ratified on 29 July 2020 the Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, which will enter into force for this country on 1 February 2021.

Source: here

Directive (EU) 2020/1057 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 laying down specific rules with respect to Directive 96/71/EC and Directive 2014/67/EU for posting drivers in the road transport sector and amending Directive 2006/22/EC as regards enforcement requirements and Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012  has been published today at the OJEU (L 249, 31.7.2020, p. 49).

Readers of this blog will be interested in particular by Article 1 paragraphs 1 to 9.

The Directive should be read with the declaration of the European Commission on the “Mobility Package I on road transport”, equally published at the OJEU (C 252, 31.7.2020, p. 1).

Sources: here et there

The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (Rapporteur: Juan Fernando López Aguilar) released earlier this week (20 July 2020) its interim report on the proposal for a Council decision on the determination of a clear risk of a serious breach by the Republic of Poland of the rule of law (COM(2017)0835 – 2017/0360R(NLE)), PE650.665v03-00. You can read it here.

On 14 July 2020, Austria ratified the Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, which will enter into force for Austria on 12 September 2020.

Source: here

The Court of Justice delivered today its judgment in case C‑249/19 (JE v KF), which is about Rome III.

Context: “11 JE and KF, who are Romanian nationals, married in Iași (Romania) on 2 September 2001.

12 On 13 October 2016, JE applied for a divorce to the Judecătoria Iași (Court of First Instance, Iași, Romania).

13 By judgment of 31 May 2017, that court declined jurisdiction to hear that application in favour of the Judecătoria Sectorului 5 București (Court of First Instance of the Fifth District of Bucharest, Romania).

14 By a judgment of 20 February 2018, that court, on the basis of the nationality of both spouses referred to in Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation No 2201/2003, established that the Romanian courts had general jurisdiction to hear the application for divorce made by JE. Furthermore, on the basis of Article 8(a) of Regulation No 1259/2010, it designated Italian law as the law applicable to the dispute of which it was seised, on the ground that, on the date on which the application for divorce was filed, the habitual residence of the spouses was in Italy.

15 In that regard, that court held that, under Italian law, an application for divorce made in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings could be filed only if a legal separation of the spouses had previously been established or declared by a court and if at least three years had elapsed between the date of that separation and the date on which the application for divorce was filed with the court.

16  Given that the existence of a court decision establishing or pronouncing such a separation had not been proven and that Romanian law does not provide for legal separation proceedings, that court held that those proceedings had to be conducted before the Italian courts and that, consequently, any application to that effect made to the Romanian courts was inadmissible.

17 JE lodged an appeal against that judgment before the referring court, claiming, inter alia, that the court at first instance should have applied Article 2600(2) of the Civil Code, which constitutes the transposition into Romanian law of Article 10 of Regulation No 1259/2010.

18 In that regard, JE is of the opinion that, since Italian law is restrictive as regards the conditions required for divorce, Romanian law should apply to the application for divorce.

19 In JE’s view, that solution also flows from the fact that the application of Italian law is manifestly incompatible with the public policy of the forum and that, consequently, that application must, in accordance with Article 12 of that regulation, be disapplied”.

Question refered to the Court of Justice: “‘Is the expression “the law applicable pursuant to Article 5 or Article 8 makes no provision for divorce”[, in Article 10 of Regulation No 1259/2010,] to be interpreted (a) in a strict, literal manner, that it is to say only in respect of a situation where the foreign law applicable makes no provision for any form of divorce, or (b) more broadly, as also including a situation where the foreign law applicable permits divorce, but does so in extremely limited circumstances, involving an obligatory legal separation procedure prior to divorce, in respect of which the law of the forum contains no equivalent procedural provisions?’”.

Decision of the Court of Justice: “Article 10 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 […] must be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘where the law applicable by virtue of Article 5 or Article 8 makes no provision for divorce’ applies only where the foreign law applicable makes no provision for divorce in any form”.

Source: here

The Court of Justice delivered today its judgment in case C‑253/19 (MH, NI v OJ, Novo Banco SA), which is about the Insolvency bis Regulation:

“The first and fourth subparagraphs of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 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 established in that provision for determining international jurisdiction for the purposes of opening insolvency proceedings, according to which the centre of the main interests of an individual not exercising an independent business or professional activity is his or her habitual residence, is not rebutted solely because the only immovable property of that person is located outside the Member State of habitual residence”.

Source: here

The Court of Justice delivered today its judgment in case C‑80/19 (E. E. with the presence of: Kauno miesto 4-ojo notaro biuro notarė Virginija Jarienė, K.-D. E.), which is about the Succession Regulation. The judgment 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) Le règlement (UE) no 650/2012 […] doit être interprété en ce sens que relève de la notion de « succession ayant une incidence transfrontière » une situation dans laquelle le défunt, ressortissant d’un État membre, résidait dans un autre État membre à la date de son décès, mais n’avait pas rompu ses liens avec le premier de ces États membres, dans lequel se trouvent les biens composant sa succession, tandis que ses successibles ont leur résidence dans ces deux États membres. La dernière résidence habituelle du défunt, au sens de ce règlement, doit être fixée par l’autorité saisie de la succession dans un seul desdits États membres.

2) L’article 3, paragraphe 2, du règlement no 650/2012 doit être interprété en ce sens que, sous réserve d’une vérification par la juridiction de renvoi, les notaires lituaniens n’exercent pas des fonctions juridictionnelles lors de la délivrance d’un certificat national d’hérédité. Toutefois, il appartient à la juridiction de renvoi de déterminer si ces notaires agissent par délégation ou sous le contrôle d’une autorité judiciaire et, en conséquence, peuvent être qualifiés de « juridictions », au sens de cette disposition.

3) L’article 3, paragraphe 1, sous g) du règlement no 650/2012 doit être interprété en ce sens que, dans le cas où la juridiction de renvoi considérerait que les notaires lituaniens peuvent être qualifiés de « juridictions », au sens de ce règlement, le certificat d’hérédité qu’ils délivrent, peut être considéré comme étant une « décision », au sens de cette disposition, de telle sorte que, aux fins de le délivrer, ces notaires peuvent appliquer les règles de compétence prévues au chapitre II dudit règlement.

4) Les articles 4 et 59 du règlement no 650/2012 doivent être interprétés en ce sens qu’un notaire d’un État membre, qui n’est pas qualifié de « juridiction », au sens de ce règlement, peut, sans appliquer les règles générales de compétence prévues par ledit règlement, délivrer les certificats nationaux d’hérédité. Si la juridiction de renvoi considère que ces certificats remplissent les conditions prévues à l’article 3, paragraphe 1, sous i), du même règlement, et peuvent, dès lors, être considérés comme étant des « actes authentiques », au sens de cette disposition, ceux-ci produisent, dans les autres États membres, les effets que l’article 59, paragraphe 1, et l’article 60, paragraphe 1, du règlement no 650/2012 attribuent aux actes authentiques.

5) Les articles 4, 5, 7 et 22 ainsi que l’article 83, paragraphes 2 et 4, du règlement no 650/2012 doivent être interprétés en ce sens que la volonté du de cujus ainsi que l’accord entre ses successibles peuvent conduire à la détermination d’une juridiction compétente en matière de successions et à l’application d’une loi successorale d’un État membre autre que celles qui résulteraient de l’application des critères dégagés par ce règlement ».

Source : here

The Court of Justice delivered today its judgment in case C‑73/19 (Belgium v Movic BV, Events Belgium BV, Leisure Tickets & Activities International BV), which is about Brussels I bis. The judgment 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 : « Le 2 décembre 2016, les autorités belges ont assigné en justice devant le président du rechtbank van koophandel Antwerpen-afdeling Antwerpen (tribunal de commerce, division d’Anvers, Anvers, Belgique), en formation de référé, Movic, Events Belgium et Leisure Tickets & Activities International, en demandant à titre principal, d’une part, de faire constater que ces sociétés pratiquaient la revente, en Belgique, au moyen de sites Internet gérés par elles, des titres d’accès à des événements pour un prix supérieur à celui initial, activité constitutive des infractions aux dispositions de la loi du 30 juillet 2013 et du CDE, et, d’autre part, d’ordonner la cessation de ces pratiques commerciales.

18 À titre accessoire, les autorités belges ont demandé d’ordonner des mesures de publicité de la décision prononcée aux frais desdites sociétés, d’imposer une astreinte de 10 000 euros par infraction constatée à partir de la signification de cette décision et de dire pour droit que les infractions futures pourront être constatées par simple procès–verbal dressé par un fonctionnaire assermenté de la direction générale de l’inspection économique, conformément au CDE.

19 Les trois sociétés en cause ont soulevé une exception d’incompétence internationale des juridictions belges, en soutenant que les autorités belges avaient agi dans l’exercice de la puissance publique, de sorte que leurs actions ne relevaient pas du champ d’application du règlement no 1215/2012 »

Decision : “L’article 1er, paragraphe 1, du règlement (UE) no 1215/2012 […] doit être interprété en ce sens que relève de la notion de « matière civile et commerciale », figurant à cette disposition, une action opposant les autorités d’un État membre à des professionnels établis dans un autre État membre dans le cadre de laquelle ces autorités demandent, à titre principal, à ce que soit constatée l’existence d’infractions constituant des pratiques commerciales déloyales prétendument illégales et ordonnée la cessation de celles-ci, ainsi que, à titre accessoire, à ce que soient ordonnées des mesures de publicité et à ce que soit imposée une astreinte ».

Source : here

The Court of Justice delivered today its judgment in case  C‑658/18 (UX v Governo della Repubblica italiana), which is about the status of Judges of the Peace and a judicial victory for the latter with rather wide financial consequences for Italy and beyond. The judgment 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 267 TFUE doit être interprété en ce sens que le Giudice di pace (juge de paix, Italie) relève de la notion de « juridiction d’un des États membres », au sens de cet article.

2) L’article 7, paragraphe 1, de la directive 2003/88/CE […] concernant certains aspects de l’aménagement du temps de travail, et l’article 31, paragraphe 2, de la charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne doivent être interprétés en ce sens qu’un juge de paix qui, dans le cadre de ses fonctions, effectue des prestations réelles et effectives, qui ne sont ni purement marginales ni accessoires, et pour lesquelles il perçoit des indemnités présentant un caractère rémunératoire, peut relever de la notion de « travailleur », au sens de ces dispositions, ce qu’il appartient à la juridiction de renvoi de vérifier.

La clause 2, point 1, de l’accord-cadre sur le travail à durée déterminée conclu le 18 mars 1999, qui figure à l’annexe de la directive 1999/70/CE du Conseil, du 28 juin 1999, concernant l’accord-cadre CES, UNICE et CEEP sur le travail à durée déterminée, doit être interprétée en ce sens que la notion de « travailleur à durée déterminée », figurant à cette disposition, peut englober un juge de paix, nommé pour une période limitée, qui, dans le cadre de ses fonctions, effectue des prestations réelles et effectives, qui ne sont ni purement marginales ni accessoires, et pour lesquelles il perçoit des indemnités présentant un caractère rémunératoire, ce qu’il appartient au juge de renvoi de vérifier.

La clause 4, point 1, de l’accord-cadre sur le travail à durée déterminée conclu le 18 mars 1999, qui figure à l’annexe de la directive 1999/70, doit être interprétée en ce sens qu’elle s’oppose à une réglementation nationale qui ne prévoit pas le droit pour un juge de paix à bénéficier d’un congé annuel payé de 30 jours, tel que celui prévu pour les magistrats ordinaires, dans l’hypothèse où ce juge de paix relèverait de la notion de « travailleur à durée déterminée », au sens de la clause 2, point 1, de cet accord-cadre, et où il se trouverait dans une situation comparable à celle d’un magistrat ordinaire, à moins qu’une telle différence de traitement ne soit justifiée par les différences de qualifications requises et la nature des tâches dont lesdits magistrats doivent assumer la responsabilité, ce qu’il incombe à la juridiction de renvoi de vérifier »

Source : here

The Court of Justice delivered today its much expected judgment in case C‑343/19 (Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Volkswagen AG), which is about Article 7.2 Brussels I bis:

“Point 2 of Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 […] must be interpreted as meaning that, where a manufacturer in a Member State has unlawfully equipped its vehicles with software that manipulates data relating to exhaust gas emissions before those vehicles are purchased from a third party in another Member State, the place where the damage occurs is in that latter Member State”.

Source: here

The Court of Justice delivered today its judgment in case C‑199/19 (RL sp. z o.o. v J. M.), which is about the Late Payment Directive. The judgment is currently available in all EU official languages (save Irish), albeit not in English. Here is the French version:

« 1) L’article 2, point 1, de la directive 2011/7/UE […] doit être interprété en ce sens qu’un contrat dont la prestation principale consiste en la remise, à titre onéreux, d’un bien immobilier pour un usage temporaire, tel qu’un contrat de location d’un local professionnel, constitue une transaction commerciale conduisant à une prestation de services, au sens de cette disposition, pourvu que cette transaction soit effectuée entre des entreprises ou entre des entreprises et les pouvoirs publics.

2) Dès lors qu’un contrat à durée déterminée ou indéterminée, stipulant un paiement périodique à des intervalles définis par avance, tel que le loyer mensuel afférent à un contrat de location d’un local professionnel, relève du champ d’application matériel de la directive 2011/7, en tant que transaction commerciale conduisant à une prestation de services contre rémunération, au sens de l’article 2, point 1, de cette directive, l’article 5 de celle-ci doit être interprété en ce sens que, pour qu’un tel contrat puisse faire naître, en cas de paiement non réglé à l’échéance, les droits aux intérêts et à l’indemnisation prévus à l’article 3 et à l’article 6 de ladite directive, il ne doit pas nécessairement être considéré comme constituant un accord sur un échéancier fixant les montants à payer par tranches, au sens de cet article 5 ».

Source : here

The European Parliament (JURI Committee) has released a draft opinion with recommendations to the Commission on the Establishment of an EU Mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights (PE652.513v01-00). You can read it here