Agrégateur de flux

In advising on a territorial restriction in an insurance clause earlier this month, I studied the CJEU judgment in C-581/18 Rheinland, important for the (limitations to the) reach of Article 18 TFEU, the general non-discrimination requirement on the basis of nationality. Bobek AG had earlier opined, and the Court followed, that in the absence of harmonisation and in a scenario with no EU links, Article 18 TFEU is not engaged. I had missed the AG’s earlier opinion – forgive me if I am late to this party.

It is important to sketch the context: Bobek AG had summarised the facts as

A German patient received, in Germany, defective breast implants manufactured by Poly Implant Prothèse SA (‘PIP’), a French undertaking that is now insolvent. The patient seeks compensation before the German courts from Allianz IARD SA, the French insurer of PIP. In France, manufacturers of medical devices are under a statutory obligation to be insured against civil liability for harm suffered by third parties arising from their activities. That obligation led PIP to conclude an insurance contract with Allianz, which contained a territorial clause limiting the cover to damage caused on French territory only. Thus, PIP medical devices that were exported to another Member State and used there were not covered by the insurance contract.

In this context, the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Higher Regional Court, Frankfurt am Main, Germany) enquires whether the fact that PIP was insured by Allianz for damage caused by its medical devices on French territory only, to the exclusion of that potentially caused in other Member States, is compatible with Article 18 TFEU and the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality contained therein.

This post is not on Article 18 TFEU. Rather, consider the excellent (and eloquent) discussion by Bobek AG at 109 ff. Does the imperative of equal protection of all European citizen-consumers, in the absence of EU harmonising law on the issue, preclude a national rule that, in effect, limits insurance cover to persons who undergo surgery on the territory of the Member State, thus indirectly limiting the cover to citizens of that Member State? Bobek AG emphatically and despite moral sympathy for the victims, says no. The alternative would be ‘like Dassonville on steroids’ (at 111), it would ‘turn regulatory competence within the internal market on its head’ (at 109).

Consider his link with conflict of laws at 114-115:

In other words, the fact that goods once came from another Member State is not a sufficient reason to suggest that any matter later concerning those goods is covered by EU law. If that logic were to be embraced, by a questionable interpretation of Article 18 TFEU, the movement of goods in Europe would become (once again) reminiscent of medieval legal particularism, [at footnote 78 he refers to the excellent work by my legal history colleague Randall Lesaffer] whereby each product would, like a person, carry its own laws with it. Goods would be like snails, carrying their homes with them in the form of the legislation of their country of origin, to be applicable to them from their production to their destruction.

Such a consequence would not only displace any (normal) territoriality in the application of laws, but would also generate conflicts of regulatory regimes between the Member States. Indeed, such an expansionist interpretation of Article 18 TFEU could make the legislation of any of the Member States potentially applicable on the same territory without any clear and objective criteria as to which legislation should prevail in a given dispute, with the victim being able to choose the most favourable legislation.’

Most delightful analysis.

Geert.

On 13 May 2020, the French Supreme Court for private and criminal matters (Cour de cassation) issued an interesting decision on jurisdiction based on Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation in case of online defamation (here).

The French Court implemented the Bolagsupplysningen and Ilsjan Case ruled by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in 2017, but also asked for clarification on its scope of application to the CJEU (here).

A Czech company, Gtflix Tv, content producer and distributor, sued a film director and distributor, MX, domiciled in Hungary, before French court for unfair competition resulting from online defamation. The company accused MX of having used insulting language against itself and its website materiel on different online forums and websites. Therefore, the company asked for the removal and rectification of the defaming contents as well as for financial compensation. According to it, French jurisdiction should arise under Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, since French viewers are the main audience. MX opposed a lack of international jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal of Lyon followed the latter position and dismissed the demand. Gtflix Tv appealed to the Supreme Court.

The legal issue submitted to the French Supreme Court was therefore to determine if any relevant connecting factors pursuant Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, as interpreted by the CJEU, could assert the French jurisdiction.

The application of Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation (corresponding to Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation) regarding online defamation matters is not a new issue. In the eDate Case on online infringements of personality rights, the CJEU held that the victim has “the option of bringing an action for liability, in respect of all the damage caused, either before the courts of the Member State in which the publisher of that content is established or before the courts of the Member State in which the centre of his interests is based”. In addition, the Court of justice also admitted that the victim could bring “his action before the courts of each Member State in the territory of which content placed online is or has been accessible” but “only in respect of the damage caused in the territory of the Member State of the court seised”.

Then, this acquis was partially extended by the Bolagsupplysningen and Ilsjan Case to infringements related to online publication of incorrect information and failure to remove comments. On the one hand, the CJEU ruled, by analogy, that the victim could bring an action for rectification and removal of the contested comments and for compensation in respect of all the damage sustained “before the courts of the Member State in which its centre of interests is located”. On the other hand, the CJEU refused to distribute the jurisdiction between “the courts of each Member State in which the information published on the internet was accessible” to rule on rectification and removal of the comments. It is worth noting that the Court of Justice left out the claim for damages.

In the present case, the French Supreme Court applied, by analogy, the Bolagsupplysningen acquis to the unfair competition claim, following publication on the Internet of defaming information against Gtflix TV and failure to remove comments. Since France is not the Member State in which the victim has its centre of the interests under Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation (the Czech Republic is), nor the Member State in which the defendant, MX, is domiciled pursuant Article 4, French courts have no competent jurisdiction to hear this part of the case. However, according to the French Supreme Court, the question of jurisdiction for financial compensation remains unclear (for other national judgements on this issue, see the post of Geert Van Calster on Gtflix Tv). Should the Bolagsupplysningen interpretation be extended to that additional issue and exclude the distribution of jurisdiction based on the different places where the information published on the Internet is accessible? Or, on the contrary, should the eDate alternative in favour of the fragmentation of jurisdiction remain applicable? Following the latter solution, French courts could indeed have a partial jurisdiction.

This is the question referred by the French Supreme Court to the CJEU.

As encouraged by the CJEU in its Recommendations to national courts and tribunals in relation to the initiation of preliminary ruling proceedings, the French Supreme Court sketched out a response. Considering the proper administration of justice, it took position in favour of an extension of the Bolagsupplysningen ruling. The competent jurisdiction for ruling on rectification and removal of online comments under Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation should have an exclusive jurisdiction to rule on damages, because of the obvious connection between the two actions.

This solution would make online defamation claims much easier and more predictable. And it would contribute to adapt the European jurisdictional rules to the transnational digital area.

Rendez-vous lundi 31 août.

en lire plus