Agrégateur de flux

AFMB e.a.
Sécurité sociale des travailleurs migrants
L’employeur de chauffeurs de poids lourds salariés dans le transport international routier est l’entreprise de transport qui exerce l’autorité effective sur ces chauffeurs, supporte leur charge salariale et dispose du pouvoir effectif de les licencier

Commission / Roumanie (Lutte contre le blanchiment de capitaux)
Ressources propres des Communautés
La Roumanie et l’Irlande sont condamnées à payer à la Commission, respectivement, une somme forfaitaire d’un montant de 3 000 000 euros et de 2 000 000 euros

Facebook Ireland et Schrems
Rapprochement des législations
La Cour invalide la décision 2016/1250 relative à l'adéquation de la protection assurée par le bouclier de protection des données UE-États-Unis

Bundeszentralamt Fur Steuern (Being the Federal Central Tax Office of the Federal Republic of Germany) & Ors v Heis & Ors [2019] EWHC 705 (Ch) was held in March 2019 bit only came unto BAILII recently and had not caught my attention before.

The primary question raised is whether appeals by the applicants, the German Federal Tax Office (“the GTA”) and by Deutsche Bank AG (“DB”) against the rejection by the Joint Special Administrators (“the Administrators”) of MF Global UK Limited (“MFGUK”) of their respective proofs of debt, to allow the underlying claim which forms the subject of the proof to be resolved by the specialist German tax or fiscal courts, which both the applicants (for different reasons) contend are the natural forum for the determination of the claims and the forum in which they can be resolved most efficiently.

The underlying issue concerns German withholding tax.

The GTA has at all times maintained that its claim should be determined in Germany by the German tax courts, per the UK-Germany double taxation Treaty, based on the OECD model convention (for those in the know: it is Article 28(6) which the GTA has suggested exclusively reserves its GTA Claim to the German Courts). However it felt compelled to submit a proof in MFGUK’s UK administration proceedings in order to preserve its rights.

Under German law, it is within the GTA’s power to give a decision on MFGUK’s objection to relvant Amended Tax Assessment Notices. If and when it did so, it would then be for MFGUK, if it wished to pursue the matter further, to file an appeal against that decision by the GTA with the Fiscal Court of Cologne. The Fiscal Court of Cologne is one of the 18 fiscal courts in Germany which are the courts of first instance for tax matters. That seems a natural course to take however here the GTA is caught in a conundrum: at 18: the GTA has not yet formally rejected MFGUK’s objection. This is because such objection would establish proceedings in Germany, and there is a procedural rule of German law that, in order to prevent parallel proceedings, a German court will automatically defer to the court first seized of a matter. Accordingly, it seems likely that if the GTA were to reject MFGUK’s objection before the Stay Application has been decided by the UK Court, on any appeal by MFGUK, the Fiscal Court of Cologne might as a matter of comity defer to this Court in order to avoid parallel proceedings.

At 57: Brussels Ia is not engaged for the case concerns both the insolvency and the tax exclusion of Articles 1.1 and 1.2.b. At 56 Hildyard J considers the issues under English rules on the power to stay, with a focus on the risk of irreconcilable judgments.

At 84 Hildyard J holds that the GTA read too much into A28(6) and that there is no exclusive jurisdiction, leaving the consideration of whether a stay might be attractive nevertheless (at 89 ff the issue is discussed whether German courts could at all entertain the claim). This leads to an assessment pretty much like a stay under Brussels Ia as ‘related’ (rather than: the same, to which lis alibi pendens applies) cases. Note at 87(6) the emphasis which the GTA places on the actual possibility of consolidating the cases – similar to the arguments used in BIa A33-34 cases such as Privatbank and later cases).

At 115 the impact of this case having public law impacts becomes clear: ‘It seems to me that, despite my hunch that there will also be considerable factual enquiry, and a factual determination of the particular circumstances may determine the result …, the legal issues at stake are not only plainly matters of German law, but controversial and complex issues of statutory construction of systemic importance and substantial public interest in terms of the legitimate interests of the public in the protection of its taxation system from what are alleged to be colourable schemes.’

And at 116, referring ia to VTB Capital v Nutritek, ‘the risk of inconsistent decisions in concurrent proceedings in different jurisdictions, is the more acute when in one of the jurisdictions the issue is a systemic one, or may be decided in a manner which has systemic consequences. Especially in such a context, there is a preference for a case to be heard by the courts of the country whose law applies.’ Reference to VTB is made in particular with resepect to the point that Gleichlauf (the application by a court of its own laws) is to be promoted in particular (at [46] in VTB per Lord Mance: “it is generally preferable, other things being equal, that a case should be tried in a country whose law applies. However, this 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.’

At 117: ‘even if the factual centre of gravity may be London, the jurisdiction likely to be most affected by the result is Germany: and even if the US approach of ‘interest analysis’ is not determinative in this jurisdiction it does not seem to me to be an impermissible consideration.’

Held, at 121, there is here ‘a sufficiently “rare and compelling” reason for granting the stay sought by the GTA, provided that the German Fiscal Court are an available forum in which to determine the substance of the disputes.’ At 122 Hildyard J seeks assurances ‘insofar as the parties’ best endeavours can secure it, resolution of both the GTA Claim and the Later MFGUK Refund Claim as expeditiously as possible. That seems to me necessary in order to safeguard this jurisdictions’ insolvency processes and for the protection of the interests of the body of creditors as a whole.’

Then follows at 131 ff extensive analysis of the impact of this stay decision on the related case of Deutsche Bank, with at 190 a summary of the issues to be decided. Held at 218: ‘By careful selection of potentially dispositive issues, I consider that there is some prospect of that process enabling a determination without recourse to the intricacies of German tax law which are to be decided in the context of the GTA Claim; whereas an immediate stay guarantees a long delay before this court can determine the matter, based on presently hypothetical claims, after a long wait for non-binding guidance from the German court which may result from other cases to which DB is not a party.’ However at 219 the prospect of a stay after all is held out, should a quick resolution of those issues not be possible.

Most interesting.

Geert.

 

A fine example of the public /private divide, and forum conveniens in international litigation.
Application for a stay to allow underlying claim to be resolved by DE fiscal courts.
BIa not engaged: tax and insolvency exemption.
Engages OECD rules and double taxation treaty. https://t.co/Z4WA1h4Dtq

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) June 15, 2020

On 14 July 2020, Austria ratified the 1965 Hague Service Convention. The Convention is set to enter into force for Austria on 12 September 2020. All EU Member States will then be be bound by the Convention. In practice, the latter will apply in  the relationship between the (Members States of the) EU, one the one hand, and some fifty more States worldwide, on the other.

The Austrian ratification comes more than four years after the Council of the European Union issued a decision authorising Austria to sign and ratify, and Malta to accede to, the Convention ‘in the interest of the European Union’.

The Council decision reflects the fact that, as stated in the preamble, the Union ‘has external competence with regard to the Convention in so far as its provisions affect the rules laid down in certain provisions of Union legislation or in so far as the accession of additional Member States to the Convention alters the scope of certain provisions of Union legislation’, such as Article 28(4) of the Brussels I bis Regulation. Still, the Convention ‘does not allow for participation by regional economic integration organisations such as the Union’, meaning that, to make sure that the Convention is in force for all Member States, the Union had no other option but to authorise (and in fact request) the Member States that had not yet done so, to ratify – or accede to, depending on the circumstances – the Convention in the interest of the Union itself.

The Convention is already applicable to Malta as of 17 July 2018.

This Call for Paper is for an edited volume, the working title of which is: Public International Law and Private International Law: Charting a blurry boundary – towards convergence or still divergence?

The editors, Dr Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit (of the University of Tasmania) and Dharmita Prasad (of Jindal Global Law School), are in negotiation with Springer Nature Pte Ltd for this edited volume.

Both editors would like to invite you to contribute a chapter in this edited volume focusing on addressing intersectionality between public international law and private international law. Further details are provided in the concept note below.

 

Tentative Timeline:

• 5 August 2020 – A proposed title of your paper along with a 300-word abstract are to be sent to editors – sooksripaisarnkit@utas.edu.au; dprasad@jgu.edu.in
• 10 August 2020 – Editors will be in touch with selected authors advising each of them of the decision that their proposed paper is accepted for this edited volume.
• 31 August 2020 – Editors will finalise their proposal to Springer Pte Ltd
• 17 July 2021 – First draft of the chapter to be sent to editors
• August 2021 – Editors review all drafts and provide comments / request respective authors to review their chapter
• September 2021 – Editors are to submit manuscript to Springer
• December 2021 / January 2022 – Tentative release of the book

 

Editors:

Dr Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit – Lecturer in Maritime Law, Australian Maritime College, University of Tasmania, E-mail: poomintr.sooksripaisarnkit@utas.edu.au

Dharmita Prasad – Lecturer, Jindal Global Law School, E-mail: dprasad@jgu.edu.in

Concept Note

International law has a long history which can be traced back to over thousands of years ago with developments of modern international law took their starting point from the consequence of the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 whereby the concept of nation state emerged. Along with the rise of legal positivism, international law became perceived as the body of law dealing with external aspects of States or, in other words, with relationships between States. Private disputes with foreign elements were gradually taken out of the scope of international law and students of private international law subject have since been taught of it as a domestic private law dealing with cases or disputes involving foreign elements. Public international law and private international law seemingly diverge.

Still, relationships and interactions between public international law and private international law have led to endless debates. Courts in considering what seemingly private international law cases from time to time have to touch on public international law issues. For example, the Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in Democratic Republic of Congo and Others v FG Hemisphere Associates LLC [2011] HKCFA 41; (2011) HKCFAR 95 had to deal with the concept of sovereign immunity in a case which was essentially an enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Likewise, the issue of sovereign immunity is likely to come up again in a class action lawsuit brought against the People’s Republic of China by thousands of American citizens claiming damages following the COVID-19 outbreak. Relevant to the COVID-19 outbreak, different countries have adopted different measures in an attempt to contain the virus, including closing borders, travel bans, compulsory quarantine, etc. Applying some or all of these measures will bring further complication in terms of potential issues or arguments involving possible frustration of international contracts. Within the scope of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), this involves the consideration of the scope of the force majeure and hardship provision in Article 79. Indeed, international instruments like the CISG present examples of attempts at avoiding private international law issues via public international law instruments. European experiences in negotiating instruments such as the Brussels Regime or wider international experiences in negotiating instruments under the auspices of international organisations such as the Hague Conference on Private International Law only point to the turning of conflict of law matters into international relations. These are some of the issues which highlight the blurry line between public international law and private international law.

This book seeks to contribute to existing debates by focusing its study on the boundary / intersectionality between pubic international law and private international law. In doing so, it seeks contribution for any work which falls within one of the following themes:

• Historical and Theoretical consideration of the boundary between public international law and private international law
• Harmonisation of private international law by public international law instruments – evaluation of process, problems, and effectiveness
• Practical consideration / Case Study of public international law consideration in private international law cases
• Future trends on relationships and interactions between public international law and private international law: towards convergence or still divergence?

Dix millions d’euros par semestre de retard, l’astreinte la plus élevée qu’aura à payer l’État pour le contraindre à exécuter une décision de 2017 en matière d’environnement. Ce faisant, lie Conseil d’État crée un mécanisme novateur d’affectation de l’astreinte.

en lire plus

Par cette décision de non conformité totale à effet différé, le Conseil constitutionnel reproche au législateur d’avoir permis le maintien à l’isolement ou en contention en psychiatrie au-delà d’une certaine durée sans contrôle du juge judiciaire.

en lire plus

Irlande / Commission
Aide d'État
Le Tribunal de l’Union européenne annule la décision de la Commission sur des rulings fiscaux irlandais en faveur d’Apple

Nearly a year ago I reported on a Greek judgment refusing execution of two English orders issued on the basis of a High Court judgment which granted declaratory relief to the applicants. This came as a result of proceedings initiated in Greece, in breach of the settlement agreements and the exclusive jurisdiction clauses in favor of English courts. A recent judgment rendered by the same court confirmed the incidental recognition of the same High Court judgment, which resulted in the dismissal of the claim filed before Greek courts due to lack of jurisdiction.

Piraeus Court of Appeal Nr. 89/31.01.2020

THE FACTS

The facts of the case are clearly presented in the case Starlight Shipping Co v Allianz Marine & Aviation Versicherungs AG [2014] EWHC 3068 (Comm) (26 September 2014. The UK defendants invoked before the Piraeus first instance court the judgment aforementioned, and requested incidental recognition in Greece. The Piraeus court granted recognition, and dismissed the claim. The plaintiffs appealed, seeking reversal on two grounds: Lack of res iudicata and violation of Article 34 (1) Brussels I Regulation.

THE RULING

The Piraeus CoA founded its ruling on point 39 of the English judgment:

39. So far as the Hellenic settlement agreement is concerned, clause 2 expressly provides that the payment of U.S.$4.8 million is “in full and final settlement of all and any claims they may have under the Policy in relation to the loss of [the vessel] against the Underwriters and/or against any of its servants and/or agents..” As with the CMI and LMI settlement agreements, that wording settles claims under the policy in relation to the loss of the vessel. Accordingly, by application of the reasoning of Longmore LJ in the Court of Appeal, as set out at [32] to [35] above, the claims against Hellenic in Greece are within the settlement and indemnity provisions in the Hellenic settlement agreement and in breach of the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the Hellenic settlement agreement and the arbitration clause in the underlying Policy…

Res iudicata and public policy

The Piraeus court had no difficult task in establishing the finality of the English judgment: It simply referred to the certificate issued by the English court.

The public policy defence was also considered as unfounded, by reference to Article 35 (2 and 3) Brussels I Regulation.

No anti-suit injunction order

It then stressed out that the foreign judgment solidifies the exclusive international jurisdiction of English courts, without ordering the claimants/appellants to refrain from filing an action or moving ahead with the proceedings before Greek courts, by imposing any measures for this purpose. Hence, the court continues, the foreign judgment in question fulfils the criteria under Article 32 Brussels I Regulation, and therefore it is not considered as an anti-suit injunction, because it does not hinder the Greek court to examine their jurisdiction. For the above reasons, the English judgment may be incidentally recognized, which means that the Greek court is bound by its findings on the international jurisdiction issue. Finally, it should be underlined that no reference to the Gothaer  ruling of the CJEU was made by the Piraeus court.

Clarifications

Finally, the Piraeus court explained the reasons which led to a different outcome from that of the judgment issued by the same court a year ago. First of all, the court was not bound by the res iudicata of the 2019 judgment, because the defendants were not the same. Secondly, the 2019 judgment examined an application for the enforcement of the English orders, whereas in the present case the subject matter was the existence or non-existence of the choice of court clause.

For all the above reasons, the appeal was dismissed.

SHORT COMMENT

Following the case law of the CJEU on anti-suit injunctions, and the non-recognition of the orders, which were labelled by the 2019 judgment as ‘quasi’ anti-suit injunctions, the defendants used the seemingly sole remaining tool for avoiding a re-examination of international jurisdiction on the merits by the Greek courts; the outcome proves them right. The question however remains the same: Are declaratory orders stating that English courts have exclusive jurisdiction and that proceedings in other Member States are in breach of an English exclusive jurisdiction agreement in line with the mutual trust principle? In his thesis [pp. 146 et seq.], Mukarrum Ahmed  argues that those orders are at odds with the above principle.

The Greek Supreme will have the final word.

Of course, a preliminary request remains a possibility.

Kamalia Mehtiyeva (Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne School of Law) has just published a monograph on the Concept of Judicial Cooperation based on her doctoral thesis (La notion de coopération judiciaire, LGDJ, coll. Droit privé, préf. L. Cadiet, vol. 597, 2020).

The author has provided the following abstract in English:

The diversity of legal orders and their multiplication have led to a growing need to articulate them. In addressing this need, mechanisms of coordination proper to private international law (rules of conflicts of laws and of jurisdictions, lis pendens), based on passive logic in which one legal order holds back in favor of another, reveal to be insufficient.

Parallel to these mechanisms emerged, in a disorganized manner, a whole heteroclite set of more active methods of interaction, both during judicial proceedings and upon their completion, such as mission rogatory, service of process, extradition, European arrest warrant, seizure of assets, Interpol red notices, enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards. The doctoral thesis gathers these diverse mechanisms under the banner of judicial cooperation, not only in order to seek unity behind the apparent diversity, namely by distinguishing a common procedural foundation as well as similar, or at least consistent powers of judges mutually assisting each other, but also to suggest punctual improvements of certain instruments by analogy with features of other mechanisms.

The thesis first strives to analyze diverse mechanisms of judicial cooperation between judges of European Union member states (e.g. European arrest warrant, recognition and enforcement of civil and criminal judgments, European investigation order, obtaining evidence in the European Judicial Area), as well as outside of the European Union (e.g. letters rogatory, service of process, obtaining evidence, extradition, recognition and enforcement of judgements) and interactions between judges and arbitrators (e.g. assistance of the State judge – “juge d’appui”, recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards). The second part of the doctoral thesis is focused on unveiling the unity of the notion of judicial cooperation by defining its criteria and its essence. Thus, behind the analysis of diverse mechanisms of cooperation between national legal orders with each other and with arbitral legal order, as well as in the European order by virtue of the principle of mutual recognition, and the concrete proposals of improvement of some of them, the book reveals a profound unity of the notion of judicial cooperation.

The unity first appears in the criteria of cooperation in so far as it is defined as procedural act, freely accomplished in one legal order upon the request of another legal order for the needs of judicial proceedings with a cross-border element, pending or terminated in the latter. The thesis explains cross-border element not in a usual, geographical sense, characterized by territorial borders, but in a broader one, marked by the limits of jurisdiction of a legal order (national, European or arbitral legal order). Furthermore, the thesis allows to trace a common basis for all types of mechanisms of judicial cooperation, which is reciprocity of relations between legal orders. In that respect, the thesis shows that such reciprocity is rooted in interactions between legal orders, even if it may be stronger between national legal orders belonging to the European Judicial area, as their relations are characterized by mutual trust. Finally, the unity is found in the purpose of judicial cooperation which manifests differently for requesting and requested legal order. For requesting legal order, the purpose of judicial cooperation is obvious : it is to obtain aid from another legal order where the requesting judge is not allowed to act either because of foreign judicial sovereignty (foreign legal order) or its incompetence (arbitral order). As to the requested judge, the purpose behind its action is less clear. The thesis shows that judicial cooperation is a way for the requested judge to contribute to a better management of cross-border litigation.

The study thus reveals that judicial cooperation transforms the core of judicial powers which are no longer reduced to adjudicating cases falling into the scope of  competence of the legal order to which judges belong but is henceforth enriched to include cooperative function(“office coopératif des juges”). The requested judge’s cooperation allows the requesting judge to surpass a cross-border element in the proceedings and thus contributes to a better administration of justice of the requesting legal order.

More details are available here, including free access to the table of contents and the first few pages of the book.

La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (CEDH) conditionne la violation de l’article 3 de la Convention au délai durant lequel les requérants demandeurs d’asiles ont été placés en incapacité de répondre à leurs besoins essentiels et l’absence de réponse adéquate des autorités étatiques.

en lire plus

La chambre sociale se prononce sur la portée de l’immunité de juridiction des États étrangers en présence d’un litige de travail, en se référant à l’article 6 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme et au droit international coutumier.

en lire plus

Practice shows that we’re far away from a perfect world of cooperation between state authorities in the field of cross-border service of process. This post is not about a judgment dealing with the matter (yet). It is what we call a ‘true story’, and serves as a kind of case study, to understand the variety of unprecedented situations with which courts may have to deal with.

The Facts

A Greek company filed an action against a foreign company, situated in an EU Member State. The claim, its translation, and an application pursuant to Article 4 of the Service Regulation were duly sent by the Transmitting to the Receiving Agency. The latter forwarded the claim to a process server for the purpose of serving the action to its recipient. Following fruitless efforts, the bailiff returned the documents to the court of the state of destination, stating that the respondent was not found in the given address. In particular, so his report, there was no indication that the company had its office there, and no person representing the company or any employee was found in the building. In accordance with domestic law on civil procedure, a hearing took place in camera on the request for service. The court stated that, following official information received, the respondent’s registered seat and postal address was in fact the same with the one stated in the claim form. As a result, and pursuant to Article 50(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the documents must be attached to the file, and service shall be deemed as duly made.

On the basis of the above conclusions, the court ordered that a certificate of service in accordance with Article 10 Service Regulation be issued, which should be delivered to the Transmitting Agency, with a true copy of the process server report attached.

The Receiving Agency abided by the order, and issued the above certificate, by making use of the standardized version in Greek. The person in charge filled in the following data: The date and address of service [12.1] in the language of the State of destination, and the method of service [12.2.1.3], i.e. pursuant to Article 50(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, again in the language of the State of destination. The above person ticked also the box under 12.3, which demonstrates that the recipient was informed in writing that he may refuse to accept the document if it is not translated in a language he understands or the official language of the place of service. Finally, the place, name and capacity under which the above person drafted and signed the document were again written in the language of the state of destination. No court stamp is visible in the certificate.

What Would You Do if You Were the Greek Judge?

As I mentioned before, the case is still pending, and the claimant’s lawyer is seriously apprehended whether the documents aforementioned suffice for proving that service has taken place in accordance with the Service Regulation.

There are a number of critical points to be discussed in this case.

1. Is the Greek court entitled to return the certificate, because it was not completed in the languages accepted by the Hellenic Republic (Greek / English / French)? It is true that the receiving Agency made use of the standardized document in its Greek version; however, the crucial data were completed in the language of the State addressed, which is different from the languages declared by Greece).

2. Is the Greek court entitled to challenge the service of process, even if the document was served by a method prescribed by the internal law of the Member State addressed for the service of documents in domestic actions upon persons who are within its territory? According to Greek law, if the process server does not find anything or anyone related to the recipient in the given address, service by publication must follow.

3. Is the Greek court entitled to ask at this stage for a particular method of service, because the one chosen by the foreign court is violating the rights of the defendant? Article 7(1) of the Service Regulation does not give a clear answer in this respect.

4. Is the Greek court entitled to ask at this stage for further scrutiny by the Receiving Agency, so that the document is actually served to the defendant or one of its representatives? I fear that this won’t be accepted by the Receiving Agency, simply because service has taken place in accordance with its domestic rules.

5. If the Greek court considers that service was proper, because it was served by a method prescribed by the internal law of the Member State addressed: was it effected in sufficient time to enable the defendant to defend? I anticipate that the Greek court will consider that service was not timely, and therefore order a stay of proceedings.

Finally, an additional and purely domestic problem comes to the surface for the claimant. According to Greek law, and with respect to cases tried in the so called ordinary proceedings, service of process abroad has to be completed within 60 calendar days following filing of the claim. Failure to do so leads to dismissal of the claim as inadmissible. Filing and service has to be repeated. In the case at hand, the claimant passed already through this ordeal, because service of the first claim was not timely completed, i.e. not within the 60-days term. Now comes the second challenge and the claimant’s lawyer is at a loss…