Agrégateur de flux

As I suggested when I reviewed the Advocate-General’s Opinion in C‑709/19 Vereniging van Effectenbezitters, the CJEU was likely to be much more succinct, which has proven true with the judgment this morning (no English version available as yet).

The CJEU ignored of course the AG’s calls fundamentally to reconsider the locus damni introduction in Bier. Yet it re-emphasised its willingness to reign in the repercussions of Bier, insisting places of jurisdiction under Article 7(2) Brussels Ia need to correspond to those with a certain link to the case. Its core reference throughout is its judgment in Lober, itself an odd case for the court did not assign territorial jurisdiction (an issue also sub judice in Volvo Trucks). Clearly Universal Music features heavily, too.

The Court’s instruction in Universal Music, that the mere presence of a bank account in which damages materialise, does not suffice to establish jurisdiction, is expanded in Vereniging van Effectenbezitters with the use of statutory reporting requirements: [35] For listed companies (clearly, an entry for distinguishing: how about those unlisted?), only the courts of the Member States in which they are under a statutory reporting duty with a view to its listing, are reasonably foreseeable to it, as places in which a market in its financial instruments may emerge.

The Court also adds [36] that the collective action nature of the suit is of no relevance. The referring court had asked whether in such suits the domicile of the aggrieved could be dropped as being relevant, however the CJEU insisted that domicile has no stand-alone relevance in purely financial damage at all, even in non-collective action.

To the degree that the existence of such statutory obligations is not exhaustively harmonised across the EU (on that subject, I am no expert), this opens op possibilities of course for Member States to assist its consumers with forum shopping, by expanding reporting requirements. (Albeit such extra requirements may themselves by vulnerable under free movement of establishment and /or services; but now my mind is racing ahead).

The Court’s limiting approach here is in stark contrast with the much wider consequences of its findings on jurisdiction viz material consumer products in  Volkswagen.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, para 2.459

The Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) is seeking a Legal Officer (Maternity Leave Replacement). The successful candidate will work primarily in the field of family law, focusing on the 1980 Child Abduction and 1996 Child Protection Conventions as well as on the Family Agreements project.

Applications should be submitted by Monday 31 May 2021 (00:00 CEST). For more information, please visit the Recruitment section of the HCCH website.

This post is published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference of Private International Law (HCCH).

Peines

Prescription - Hypothèque

Avocat - Retraite

Cour d'assises

In December 2020, we reported about the Opinion presented by Advocate Generale Campos Sánchez-Bordona in the case Vereniging van Effectenbezitters, C-709/19. Today, the Court delivered its judgment in this case.

In brief, the request for a preliminary ruling arose out of the proceedings pertaining to a collective action for a declaratory judgment brought by an association against an oil and gas company on behalf of investors who bought, held or sold the ordinary shares through an investment account in the Netherlands. The association argued that this internationally listed company acted unlawfully towards its shareholders inasmuch as it made incorrect, incomplete and misleading statements about the circumstances pertaining to, inter alia, an explosion resulting in an oil spill. It is in this context that the referring court requested the Court of Justice to interpret Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation.

At the request of the Court, in his Opinion of last December, AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona addressed two first preliminary questions. Thus, the third and fourth preliminary questions on international and internal territorial jurisdiction to hear subsequent individual claims of the investors were not addressed in the Opinion.

Ultimately, the third and fourth questions do not receive a definitive answer in the judgment either. The Court held that these questions are inadmissible as they are of hypothetical nature – in the proceedings pending before the referring court, no subsequent individual claim is concerned (paragraphs 38 and 39).

As to the first and second preliminary questions, these are worded as follows:

(1) (a)      Should Article 7(2) of [the Brussels I bis Regulation] be interpreted as meaning that the direct occurrence of purely financial damage to an investment account in the Netherlands or to an investment account of a bank and/or investment firm established in the Netherlands, damage which is the result of investment decisions influenced by globally distributed but incorrect, incomplete and misleading information from an international listed company, constitutes a sufficient connecting factor for the international jurisdiction of the Netherlands courts by virtue of the location of the occurrence of the damage (“Erfolgsort”)?

(b)      If not, are additional circumstances required to justify the jurisdiction of the Netherlands courts and what are those circumstances? Are the additional circumstances [namely, the fact that the international listed company focuses on global investment public, including the investors in the Netherlands, and the association represents a considerable number of investors in this Member State, the fact that the settlement reached by the international listed company with a number of shareholders in the United States of America was not proposed to the investors represented by the association and, lastly, the fact that the shareholders for whom this association is acting include consumers to whom the Brussels I bis Regulation affords special legal protection] sufficient to found the jurisdiction of the Netherlands courts?

(2)      Would the answer to Question 1 be different in the case of a claim brought under Article 3:305a of the BW by an association the purpose of which is to defend, in its own right, the collective interests of investors who have suffered damage as referred to in Question 1, which means, among other things, that neither the places of domicile of the aforementioned investors, nor the special circumstances of individual purchase transactions or of individual decisions not to sell shares which were already held, have been established?

 

In its judgment, the Court answered together this questions (paragraph 22) and held that Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation must be interpreted to the effect that the direct occurrence, in an investment account, of purely financial damage resulting from investment decisions made on the basis of information which was readily available worldwide, but which was incorrect, incomplete and misleading and emanated from an international listed company, does not allow the international jurisdiction of the court of the Member State in which the bank or investment firm that holds that account is established to be founded on a connection with the place where the damage occurred, where that company was not subject to statutory reporting obligations in that Member State (paragraph 37).

The judgment can be consulted here (the English version is not yet available).

Luxembourg / Commission
Aide d'État
Absence d’avantage sélectif au profit d’une filiale luxembourgeoise du groupe Amazon : le Tribunal annule la décision de la Commission déclarant l’aide incompatible avec le marché intérieur

“Le constat par le juge des libertés et de la détention, à l'occasion du contrôle systématique d'une mesure de soins psychiatriques sans consentement prenant la forme d'une hospitalisation complète, ou d'une demande de levée de cette mesure ou d'une saisine d'office de la juridiction, d'une irrégularité affectant une mesure d'isolement ou de contention mise en oeuvre à l'occasion de cette hospitalisation, peut-il être sanctionné par la levée de la mesure d'hospitalisation complète, en particulier lorsque l'isolement ou la contention n'est plus en vigueur lorsque la juridiction statue, dès lors qu'il est établi que l'irrégularité relevée a porté atteinte aux droits du patient ?”

Moerenhout e.a. / Commission
Droit institutionnel
Le Tribunal annule, pour insuffisance de motivation, une décision de la Commission refusant l’enregistrement d’une proposition d’initiative citoyenne

Luxembourg / Commission
Aide d'État
Absence d’avantage sélectif au profit d’une filiale luxembourgeoise du groupe Amazon : le Tribunal annule la décision de la Commission déclarant l’aide incompatible avec le marché intérieur

Luxembourg / Commission
Tax rulings accordés par le Luxembourg aux sociétés du groupe Engie : le Tribunal constate l’existence d’un avantage fiscal