Agrégateur de flux

Judgment in C-307/19 Obala starts in earnest at 59 for the CJEU like the AG (see my review of his Opinion here) holds many of the questions to be inadmissible. The Court focuses its references to selected case-law, and its concluding assessment (72), on the review of the legal relationship between the parties at issue (this was the preferred route of Bobek AG) and on the foundation and modalities of the action in brought before the courts. Both have the hallmark of relationships which might as well have occurred in purely private transactions without any public law indications at all. Hence a conclusion of a ‘civil and commercial’ matter.

The Court’s selective reference to the legal relationship side of the authorities should not however in my view mean that the AG’s ‘subject-matter’ alternative should now be considered as having been rejected for all cases on the scope of Brussels Ia (and many other related PIL instruments).

Geert.

European Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, paras 2.28 ff concluding at 2.65.

 

 

 

 

Ilaria Pretelli (Swiss Institute of Comparative Law, University of Urbino) has posted Protecting Digital Platform Users by Means of Private International Law on SSRN.

The present article offers perspectives on the possible adaptation of traditional connecting factors to the digital space. It analyses cases that pit platform users against each other and cases that pit platform users against the digital platform itself. For the first set of cases, reliable guidance is offered by the principle of effectiveness. The enforcement of court decisions in cyberspace is often necessary and also plainly sufficient to render justice. Enhanced protection of weaker parties is advocated, both in tortious (favor laesi) and contractual liability (protection of the weaker party), in line with the most recent achievements in human rights due diligence. Protection clauses leading to destination-based labour standards would be a welcome step forward. Protection of users also offers guidance for the shaping of private international law rules governing disputes between users and the platform.

The paper is forthcoming in Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional.

26 March 2021, in response to the UK’s sanctions on relevant Chinese individuals and entity about human rights issues in Xinjiang, China announces on nigh individuals and four entities in the UK, including a top barrister chamber, the Essex Court Chambers. The sanctions measures include prohibiting individuals and their immediate family members from entering into China, freezing their property in China and prohibiting Chinese citizens and institutions from doing business with them. China reserves the right to take further measures.
This is the first time that international sanctions are imposed on an entire set of a legal services organisation. The reason is that four barristers at Essex Court Chambers published a legal opinion about the Xinjiang human rights matters. However, barristers are self-employed, solo practitioners. They cannot become partners of chambers, do not represent the opinion of chambers and are not supervised or guided by chambers for their professional work. It is unusual to sanction chambers for the opinions of its members. The sanctions also cannot force the chambers to supervise the work of barristers. It, however, may generate a chilling effect in the legal sector, especially for firms with close Chinese business connections.
The immediate consequence of the sanctions is that Chinese clients and business partners will have to end business or working relationships with members of the Chambers. The sanctions at the moment only apply to Chinese individuals and institutions, excluding foreign entities. However, it is unclear if “Chinese” refers to mainland or includes Hong Kong and Macau. Furthermore, although the sanctions do not affect foreign entities, if the member of the Chambers represents a foreign entity in litigation or arbitration and the judgment or award needs to be recognised and enforced in China, it may cause problems. The Chambers members cannot enter China, including mainland, Hong Kong and Macau, including appearing as counsels in arbitration. It is unclear whether the sanctions may affect the Chambers Singapore Group Practice. Finally, many members at the Chambers also act as arbitrators. It is unclear if arbitral awards made by the Chambers members can be recognised and enforced in China. Anyway, according to the sanctions, Chinese parties would not be able to engage with the Chambers members and would likely reject them acting as arbitrators.

Written by Mayela Celis

On 25 March 2021, the US Supreme Court rendered its opinion on the consolidated Ford Motor cases, which deals with personal jurisdiction (in particular, specific jurisdiction) over Ford Motor Company. These cases deal with a malfunctioning 1996 Ford Explorer and a defective 1994 Crown Victoria vehicles, which caused the death of a passenger in Montana and the injury of another passenger in Minnesota, respectively. The consolidated cases are: Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court et al. and Ford Motor Co. v. Bandemer.

The opinion is available here. We have previously reported on this case here.

The question presented was:

The Due Process Clause permits a state court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a non­resident defendant only when the plaintiff’s claims “arise out of or relate to” the defendant’s forum activities. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985) (internal quotation marks omitted). The question presented is: Whether the “arise out of or relate to” requirement is met when none of the defendant’s forum contacts caused the plaintiff’s claims, such that the plaintiff’s claims would be the same even if the defendant had no forum contacts.

As noted in our previous post, it can be argued that besides jurisdictional matters relating to the defendant, these cases deal with fundamental notions of access to justice for consumers. Fortunately, the US Supreme Court sided with the victims of the car accidents. As a result, buyers of Ford vehicles are able to sue in their home State (instead of chasing up the defendant). Undoubtedly, this promotes access to justice as it decreases the litigation costs of suing a giant company elsewhere, as well as it avoids the hardship of suing in a remote place.

For a summary of the facts, see the syllabus of the opinion. We also include the facts here:

“Ford Motor Company is a global auto company, incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Michigan. Ford markets, sells, and services its products across the United States and overseas. The company also encourages a resale market for its vehicles. In each of these two cases, a state court exercised jurisdiction over Ford in a products-liability suit stemming from a car accident that injured a resident in the State. The first suit alleged that a 1996 Ford Explorer had malfunctioned, killing Markkaya Gullett near her home in Montana. In the second suit, Adam Bandemer claimed that he was injured in a collision on a Minnesota road involving a defective 1994 Crown Victoria. Ford moved to dismiss both suits for lack of personal jurisdiction. It argued that each state court had jurisdiction only if the company’s conduct in the State had given rise to the plaintiff’s claims. And that causal link existed, according to Ford, only if the company had designed, manufactured, or sold in the State the particular vehicle involved in the accident. In neither suit could the plaintiff make that showing. The vehicles were designed and manufactured elsewhere, and the company had originally sold the cars at issue outside the forum States. Only later resales and relocations by consumers had brought the vehicles to Montana and Minnesota. Both States’ supreme courts rejected Ford’s argument. Each held that the company’s activities in the State had the needed connection to the plaintiff’s allegations that a defective Ford caused instate injury” (Our emphasis).

Ford alleged that the Court should follow a causation-only approach. That means that as stated in the syllabus of the opinion that “In Ford’s view, due process requires a causal link locating jurisdiction only in the State where Ford sold the car in question, or the States where Ford designed and manufactured the vehicle. And because none of these things occurred in Montana or Minnesota, those States’ courts have no power over these cases.”

Fortunately, the Court did not follow that interpretation and stated that:

“To see why Ford is subject to jurisdiction in these cases (as Audi, Volkswagen, and Daimler were in their analogues), consider first the business that the company regularly conducts in Montana and Minnesota. See generally 395 Mont., at 488, 443 P. 3d, at 414; 931 N. W. 2d, at 748; supra, at 3?4. Small wonder that Ford has here conceded “purposeful availment” of the two States’ markets. See supra, at 7-8. By every means imaginable—among them, billboards, TV and radio spots, print ads, and direct mail— Ford urges Montanans and Minnesotans to buy its vehicles, including (at all relevant times) Explorers and Crown Victorias. Ford cars—again including those two models—are available for sale, whether new or used, throughout the States, at 36 dealerships in Montana and 84 in Minnesota. And apart from sales, Ford works hard to foster ongoing connections to its cars’ owners. The company’s dealers in Montana and Minnesota (as elsewhere) regularly maintain and repair Ford cars, including those whose warranties have long since expired. And the company distributes replacement parts both to its own dealers and to independent auto shops in the two States. Those activities, too, make Ford money. And by making it easier to own a Ford, they encourage Montanans and Minnesotans to become lifelong Ford drivers” (our emphasis).

[…]

“Here, resident-plaintiffs allege that they suffered in-state injury because of defective products that Ford extensively promoted, sold, and serviced in Montana and Minnesota. For all the reasons we have given, the connection between the plaintiffs’ claims and Ford’s activities in those States— or otherwise said, the “relationship among the defendant, the forum[s], and the litigation”—is close enough to support specific jurisdiction. Walden, 571 U. S., at 284 (internal quotation marks omitted). The judgments of the Montana and Minnesota Supreme Courts are therefore affirmed.”

In sum, in this David and Goliath scenario, the US Supreme Court sided with the consumers and promoted access to justice.

It is well-known that the Succession Regulation contains specific rules relating to succession agreements in its Article 25. Inter alia, it allows the parties to select the law applicable to such agreements, offering the choice between the law of the parties’ last habitual residence or nationality (Article 25(3)). But when can such a choice be assumed, and under which rules? This is the subject of a recent decision by the German Federal Supreme Court.

Facts

An Austrian and a German national were married and lived together in Germany. In 1996, they appointed each other in a “Gemeinschaftliches Testament”, literally a “common will”, as sole heirs and determined who should succeed the surviving spouse. The will was made in two separate deeds and was therefore technically an “agreement as to succession” in the sense of Article 3(1)(b) of the Succession Regulation, and not a “joint will”, which the Regulation defines as a will drawn up in one document by two or more persons, see its Article 3(1)(c). The parties excluded any unilateral modification of the agreement during their lifetimes and after the death of one spouse.

This agreement was binding on the surviving spouse under German law, but not under Austrian law due to the lack of the notarial form.

After the death of her husband, the wife wrote a new will. When she died, its validity was challenged in a German court by the heirs designated in the agreement from 1996.

Legal Issue

To solve this case, the German Federal Court had to characterise the agreement under the provisions of the Succession Regulation and to determine whether it was governed by German or Austrian law.

The Succession Regulation was applicable as the second spouse had deceased after its entry into force on 17 August 2015 (Article 83(1)). The Regulation’s rules on dispositions after death, which include agreements as to succession, apply in addition to the law of habitual residence and nationality of the deceased, in line with the principle of favor validatis (Article 83(3) Succession Regulation).

The Federal Court considered whether the parties had chosen German law for their agreement in line with Article 25(3) Succession Regulation. But under which rules should the court determine whether such a choice is made? Is this issue governed by EU law or by the chosen national law?

Holding

The German Federal Court opted for the application of EU rules to determine whether a choice of law exists. The autonomous determination was important because the conditions for a choice under German law were not fulfilled in the case.

The court based the need for an EU autonomous interpretation on several arguments. It cited Article 22(2) of the Succession Regulation and Recitals 39 and 40, which show that the Regulation lays downs requirements for the choice of law. The German Federal Court did not see Article 22(3) Succession Regulation as contrary to this view since this provision would concern the validity of a choice, not the existence of a choice itself.

In the opinion of the German judges, Article 22 Succession Regulation permits an implicit choice of law. The Court in this regard distinguished Article 3(1) Rome I Regulation, which does not allow such implicit choice. The Federal Court explained this divergence by reference to the fact that, in case of contractual obligations, the parties typically have opposing interests, which calls for an unambiguous determination of the applicable law. The situation in succession would be different as there are no conflicting interests to be taken into account, only the will of the de cujus.

The Federal Court furthermore considered it unnecessary to submit these questions to the CJEU, as the answers would result with sufficient clarity from the text of the Succession Regulation and the previous case law of the European court (“acte claire” doctrine).

Result

The German Federal Court concluded that from an autonomous European point of view the spouses had implicitly chosen German law to govern their succession agreement. It deduced this from the use of legal terms typical for German law, such as “Schlusserbe” (final heir), which cannot be found in Austrian legislation. Moreover, the Court emphasised the parties’ intention for the agreement to be binding, which was possible only under German but not under Austrian law.

Assessment

The result reached by the German Federal Court has to be applauded. The spouses had drawn up two wills which they wanted to be mutually binding. This intention was best served by assuming the applicability of German law. Yet this result could also have been achieved by an application of Article 25(2) subpara. 2 of the Succession Regulation, as the agreement was most closely connected to Germany, given that both decedents had their habitual residence there and one of them was a German national at the time the deeds were drawn up.

Be that as it may, the clarifications of the Federal Court with regard Article 25(3) of the Regulation are to be welcomed. The judgment draws a distinction between the existence of a choice, which shall be governed by EU law, and its substantive validity, which would be determined by the chosen national law. Admittedly, this is a fine line, yet it is a necessary one. In the case at hand, it was not easy to say which law the parties had chosen in the first place. This question cannot be answered by the hypothetically chosen law.

However, the Federal Court’s distinction between the Succession Regulation and the Rome I Regulation fits unilateral wills only. It is not equally persuasive for agreements as to succession and joint wills, which are much more akin to a contract and where the parties do not necessarily pursue the same interests.

The answers to the questions raised by the case are far from obvious. It is therefore regrettable that the German Federal Court did not submit a reference for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU. This omission demonstrates once again the importance of providing English summaries of national decisions, as is done in this blog.

— Many thanks to Verena Wodniansky-Wildenfeld and Felix Krysa for their contribution to this post.

The Court of Justice delivered today its judgment in case C‑307/19 (Obala i lučice d.o.o. v NLB Leasing d.o.o.), which is about Brussels I bis, notaries and recovery of unpaid parking ticket on public roads. It applies Articles 1 and 7.1 whilst rejecting the application of Article 24.1. 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 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 », au sens de cette disposition, une action en recouvrement d’une redevance portant sur un ticket journalier de stationnement sur une place de parking,  qui est délimitée et située sur la voie publique, diligentée par une société qui a été mandatée par une collectivité territoriale pour la gestion de telles places de parking.

2) L’article 24, point 1, du règlement no 1215/2012 doit être interprété en ce sens que ne relève pas de la notion de « baux d’immeubles », au sens de cette disposition, une action en recouvrement d’une redevance portant sur un ticket journalier de stationnement sur une place de parking délimitée, située sur la voie publique.

3) L’article 7, point 1, du règlement no 1215/2012 doit être interprété en ce sens, d’une part, que relève de la « matière contractuelle », au sens de cette disposition, une action en recouvrement d’une redevance qui est née d’un contrat ayant pour objet le stationnement sur l’une des places de parking délimitées, situées sur la voie publique, organisées et gérées par une société mandatée à cette fin et, d’autre part, que ce contrat constitue un contrat de fourniture de services, au sens de l’article 7, point 1, sous b), second tiret, de ce règlement ».

Source : https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=239289&pageIndex=0&doclang=fr&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=587569

Le président de la chambre de l’instruction ne détient pas le pouvoir de rendre une ordonnance de non-admission d’un appel formé contre une ordonnance de saisie pénale. 

en lire plus

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries et Ranbaxy (UK) / Commission
Concurrence
La Cour de justice rejette les pourvois de plusieurs fabricants de médicaments impliqués dans l’entente visant à retarder la commercialisation du générique de l’antidépresseur citalopram