Agrégateur de flux

Cecilia Rizcallah (ULB & University of Saint-Louis, Belgium) has just published a monograph on the principle of mutual trust in EU Law, based on her doctoral thesis: Le principe de confiance mutuelle en droit de l’Union européenne – Un principe essentiel à l’épreuve d’une crise de valeur, Bruylant, 2020.

The author has provided the following abstract in English:

The legal structure of the European Union “is based on the fundamental premiss that each Member State shares with all the other Member States, and recognises that they share with it, a set of common values on which the Union is founded, as stated in Article 2 TEU”, states the Court of Justice of the European Union. Among these common values, fundamental rights, the rule of law and democracy occupy a central position. This “premiss”, according to the Court, “implies and justifies the existence of mutual trust between the Member States”.

Yet, as we all know, the European Union is currently facing a “crisis of values”. This crisis results from the increasingly frequent questioning, in the European Union, of the values on which it is allegedly based. The semantics of mutual trust between Member States has nevertheless never been more present in official speeches. Like the dictum according to which “we never talk as much about water as in the desert”, should the rise of the discourses on mutual trust be seen as an “excess of vocabulary” symptomatic of the climate of mistrust between Member States?

 This question, prompted by the success of the principle of mutual trust at a time when the context reveals fundamental divisions between Member States as to the meaning of European integration and the values on which it is based, is at the heart of this book.

In order to provide some answers, the first part of the book proposes to “clear the ground” and offer a cross-cutting definition of the principle of mutual trust in Union law, which applies both to internal market law and to the law of the Area of freedom, security and justice. It is the presumptive mechanism that seems, in this respect, to offer the best description of the principle under consideration.

The book then analyses the apparently consubstantial link between this principle and the founding values of the Union. Constituting an uncertain foundation and an imperfect limit to mutual trust, the EU founding values have an ambivalent relationship with the principle under consideration.

Finally, this book concludes with a third part which analyses the essential role played by the principle of mutual trust in Union law, at the crossroads of the imperatives of unity, diversity and equality. Because of the risks entailed by this principle regarding EU founding values, the book, however, argues in favour of moving mutual trust from the rank of postulate to that of method.

More details are available here, including a foreword by Eleanor Sharpston (Former Advocate General at Court of Justice of the European Union).

Since mutual trust is of particular interest for EU Private international law experts, Cecilia will soon provide the readers of this blog with a special focus on the principle of mutual trust in the field of EU judicial cooperation in civil matters, based on her doctoral research.

L’enfant, né sur le territoire d’un établissement cédé, postérieurement à l’expiration du délai d’option pour souscrire une déclaration de nationalité, n’est pas soumis aux dispositions du traité de cession. Il a un statut autonome de celui de son père, lui permettant de revendiquer la nationalité française sur le fondement du droit interne. 

en lire plus

The U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision yesterday in Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp. This is the case we previewed here concerning the Guelph treasure, allegedly taken by Nazis from its Jewish owners via a coerced sale for a fraction of its value prior to World War II. The heirs of the rightful owners and the government had agreed to conciliate the claim before a German Commission, which found that the taking had not been coerced. Dissatisfied with the decision, the heirs sued in Washington under the expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which provides that a foreign state is not immune from jurisdiction of the U.S. courts in cases “in which rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue.” The District Court and the DC Circuit held that Germany was not immune, and the Supreme Court granted Germany’s petition for review. There were a number of issues at play in this case, but Germany’s primary argument was that a state does not violate international law by expropriating the property of its own nationals.

The Court, in a unanimous decision by Chief Justice Roberts, sided with Germany. When the FSIA was enacted in 1976, Roberts said, it was “clear” that a taking of property violated international law only when a state took an alien’s property. The text of the statute also “places repeated emphasis on property and property-related rights, while injuries and acts we might associate with genocide are notably lacking.” Put simply, the Court viewed the statute as linked to direct expropriation of alien property, and not as a way for U.S. courts to hear any claims arising under international law. Repeating a theme against asserting U.S. jurisdiction to acts occurring abroad, Justice Roberts stressed that “United States law . . . does not rule the world,” and noted that the Court will interpret our laws to “to avoid, where possible, “producing friction in our relations with [other] nations.”

Due to its decision on the expropriation exception, the Court did not need to decide whether comity provided an independent basis for dismissal. The court also issued a one-sentence opinion vacating a lower-court ruling in Republic of Hungary v. Simon, a similar lawsuit brought by Holocaust survivors seeking compensation for Hungary’s confiscation of Jewish property.

Procédure civile

Procédure civile

Appel civil

Procédures civiles d'exécution

On 22 February 2021, from 5 to 7 pm CET, the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan will host a webinar titled The Fundamental Rights of Persons with Cognitive Disabilities in Cross-border Situations – Time for Italy and Spain to Join the Hague Adults Convention.

The Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 on the International Protection of Adults is currently in force for thirteen States. As the Hague Conference on Private International Law is preparing to host a Special Commission to review the practical operation of the Convention, scheduled to take place in 2022, other States – including Italy and Spain – are considering ratification.

The purpose of the webinar is to give an account of the domestic rules of private international law governing the protection of adults in Spain and Italy, and explore the benefits that joining the Convention would entail in the two countries for the adults concerned, the competent authorities and legal practitioners, including notaries.

In carrying out this exercise, regard will be had, in particular, to the experience of Portugal, which became a party to the Convention in 2018.

The organisers also seek to collect the views of stakeholders, notably human rights organisations with a focus on the rights of those with cognitive disabilities, regarding the issues surrounding the protection of such rights in cross-border situations, and the role that the Convention may play in enhancing such protection.

Speakers include Philippe Lortie (First Secretary of The Hague Conference on Private International Law), Salomé Adroher Biosca (Comillas Pontifical University), Pietro Franzina (Catholic University of the Sacred Heart) and Geraldo Maciel Rocha Mendes Ribeiro (University of Coimbra).

Attendance is free. No prior registration is required.

For more information, including the link to access the webinar, see here.

Lyle & Scott Ltd v American Eagle Outfitters, Inc [2021] EWHC 90 (Ch) entertains ia the question whether the governing law for passing-off claims involving an eagle trademark, fall under Article 6 or 8 Rome II. The application is for an earlier order allowing service of jurisdiction, to be set aside.

Parties had agreed a ‘memorandum’ (which may or may not be a ‘contract’ – it is further referred to in the judgment as a ‘contract’) following a disagreement on whether each corporation’s eagle (L&S’s being trademarked in the UK and various EU Member States; AEO’s not being trademarked here, I understand) incorporated in apparel involved infringement of trademark and passing off.

AEO are domiciled in the US  and have no physical presence in the UK (or, one assumes, anywhere in the EU (the litigation was initiated pre-Brexit); their apparel is offered via online sales.

Jurisdiction is decided on the basis of the laws of E&W. Applicable law comes into the discussion for per Lord Mance at 46 in VTB v Nutritek,

“The governing law, which is here English, is in general terms, a positive factor in favour of trial in England, because it is generally preferable, other things being equal, that a case should be tried in the country whose law applies. However, that factor is of particular force if issues of law are likely to be important and if there is evidence of relevant differences in the legal principles or rules applicable to such issues in the two countries in contention as the appropriate forum…”.

Miles J discusses the governing law issue at 64 ff. Claimant argue the claim comes under A8 Rome II: infringement of intellectual property rights, English law, lex loci protectionis. Defendants argue they fall under A4 (by way of A6(2): Act of unfair competition), and that A4(3) is engaged to make the applicable law that of the state of Pennsylvania, because of the ‘contractual’ relationship.

At 72 Miles J agrees with the classification under A6, holding ia that ‘(t)he cause of action protects the goodwill of traders against deceptive conduct; goodwill is not an intellectual property right; and passing off is not the infringement of a right.’ Unlike the judge I do not think Rome II’s recital is of much help here and I suspect more can be made of the comparative law insights (common law and civil law) offered.

The next question is whether the claim falls within A6 (2). In Miles J’s succinctly expressed view it does, at 73: ‘The act of unfair competition alleged (passing off) affects exclusively the interests of a specific competitor (L&S). It follows that Art. 4 applies.’ As I have often noted, I find it very difficult to think of acts of unfair competition do not ultimately also impact the consumers of those involved.

The final hurdle then is whether A4(3) is engaged to displace E&W law as the lex loci damni, which at 75 the judge holds is not the case. Parties have not agreed on a governing law for the ‘contract’, they have conducted previous proceedings on the basis of that law being the laws of Pennsylvania. However even if the lex contractus is probably Penn law, and English law probably the lex causae for the passing off claim, Miles J holds this should not have an impact at the jurisdictional level: particularly seeing as there is no immediate reason to assume E&W courts will have great difficulty in applying Penn law to what on the contractual substance does not seem an overly complicated case.

Application dismissed, service out of jurisdiction stands.

This case once again highlights the level of complication resulting from having inserted different heads of applicable law into Rome II – a phenomenon which as I recently reported, might soon be expanded upon.

Geert.

EU private international law, 3rd ed. 2021, Chapter 4, Heading 4.5.2, 4.6.2, 4.6.4.

Horatia Muir Watt, Lucia Biziková, Agatha Brandão de Oliveira, Diego P. Fernández Arroyo and Megan Ma (Sciences Po Law School) have edited Le tournant global en droit international privé, published by Pedone.

This is the French version of Global Private International Law – Adjudication without Frontiers, that the same team of authors had published in 2019 with Edward Elgar.

Global Private International Law is a groundbreaking casebook, combining the expertise of over sixty international and interdisciplinary contributors who analyze key legal proceedings in order to provide a comprehensive study of the impact of globalisation on the law.

Providing a unique and clearly structured tool, this book presents an authoritative collection of carefully selected global case studies. Some of these are considered global due to their internationally relevant subject matter, whilst others demonstrate the blurring of traditional legal categories in an age of accelerated cross-border movement. The study of the selected cases in their political, cultural, social and economic contexts sheds light on the contemporary transformation of law through its encounter with conflicting forms of normativity and the multiplication of potential fora.

Key Features:

• the specific global scope allows the reader to gain a contextualised understanding of legal transformation

• each case has two commentaries from different viewpoints, ensuring a nuanced perspective on the implications of the global turn in private international law and its importance for adjudication

• an astute combination of theory and practice ensures readers gain an understanding of the relevance of innovative legal theories in interpreting concrete cases in a changing world

• comparative material and ground-breaking analysis make this book eminently suitable for use with students and a useful tool for researchers and courts confronted with novel topics or issues.

The French book includes a foreword of Paul Lagarde and an introductory chapter of Horatia Muir Watt which are freely available here, together with the table of contents.

The first chapter of the English book can be freely accessed here.

Non-lieu à renvoi

Etat

FIGC et Consorzio Ge.Se.Av.
Liberté d'établissement
Une fédération sportive nationale, telle que la Fédération italienne de football, peut être soumise aux règles de passation des marchés publics dès lors qu’elle exerce des activités d’intérêt général ayant un caractère autre qu’industriel ou commercial

Fussl Modestraße Mayr
Liberté d'établissement
L’interdiction de diffuser, dans le cadre des programmes de télévision allemands émis au niveau national, de la publicité au seul niveau régional pourrait être contraire au droit de l’Union

Commission / Hongrie (Valeurs limites - PM10)
Environnement et consommateurs
La Hongrie a enfreint les règles du droit de l’Union relatives à la qualité de l’air ambiant

We have previously reported on this case here. This is a collective redress action to seek damages resulting from the Volkswagen emission scandal (also known as Dieselgate).  Proceedings were commenced in the Netherlands against Volkswagen (Group) and involve other related parties such as Audi, Seat, Skoda, Porsche, Robert Bosch, importer(s) and dealers in the Netherlands and abroad. This action is made pursuant to the Dutch Collective Redress of Mass Damages Act (Wet afwikkeling massaschade in collectieve actie, WAMCA).

On 18 January 2021, a case management -pre-trial- hearing (regiezitting in Dutch) was held before the Amsterdam District Court. The purpose of this meeting was for all the parties involved to exchange views on “the desired sequence of subjects to be addressed in the initial phases of the WAMCA procedure”. This includes issues such as the jurisdiction of the Dutch court over the claims, the law that would be applicable to the case, the appointment of an Exclusive Representative Party, etc. For more information, click here.

As indicated before, one of the institutes / organisations seeking to be the exclusive representative in this collective redress action is Diesel Emissions Justice Foundation (DEJF).  The DEJF has stated that: “The [Amsterdam District Court] has indicated that a decision on the order of handling of [these] points can be expected on March 3.”

See also our previous posts: Mass Litigation in Times of Corona and Developments in the Netherlands, Jurisdiction over financial damages – the A-G Opinion in the Volkswagen Case before the CJEU (CJEU) and The VW NOx Emissions Group Litigation, [2019] EWHC 783(QB), and (some aspects of) CoL (UK).

Interestingly, the DEJF has reported about a recent case where a Spanish court ordered damages against Volkswagen. I transcribe the summary of the case provided on the DEFJ website: “25 January 2021 – A Madrid court has found Volkswagen guilty of the use of manipulated software, or “cheating software”. In proceedings brought by a Spanish consumer association against Volkswagen on behalf of 5,400 affiliated consumers, the judge awarded damages totalling € 16.3million for unfair commercial practices, amounting to an average of € 3,000 per consumer. The judge used a pragmatic method to determine this amount; half to compensate for the depreciation of the affected cars and the inconvenience of use of having to have the cars repaired, and the other half for “moral damage” as breach of confidence due to the advertised “green” image of these cars, the environmental damages and the impact on society.” The judgment is available here (in Spanish).

And let us not forget the significant judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of 17 December 2020 (Second Chamber): Criminal proceedings against X, Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juge d’instruction du tribunal de grande instance de Paris Case C-693/18 (in French, which was the language of the proceedings). See also here (in other languages but not yet in English). Although this case arises in the context of criminal proceedings, it provides support to the claims above and in establishing liability.

More information is available here.