Agrégateur de flux

Assurances - Règles générales

Procédures civiles d'exécution

Officiers publics et ministériels (tarifs)

Many thanks Sofja Goldstein for alerting me a while back to the Hoge Raad’s decision to refer to the CJEU and what is now known to be Case C-186/19. The case concerns SHAPE’s appeal to a Dutch Court to lift the attachment aka ‘garnishment’ of a Belgian NATO /SHAPE escrow account by Supreme Services GmbH, a supplier of fuel to NATO troops in Afghanistan. As Sofja reports, in 2013, Supreme and Allied Joint Force Command Brunssum (JFCB), the Netherlands-based regional headquarters of NATO, set up an escrow bank account in Belgium with the goal of offsetting any contingent liabilities on both sides at the end of Basic Ordering Agreements (BOAs). Supreme Services in 2015 initiated proceedings against SHAPE and JFCB in the Netherlands arguing that the latter parties had not fulfilled their payment obligations towards Supreme. It also attached the account in Belgium.

SHAPE and JFCB from their side seized the Dutch courts for interim relief, seeking (i) to lift the attachment, and (ii) to prohibit Supreme from attaching the escrow account in the future.

The Supreme Court acknowledges the Dutch Courts’ principle jurisdiction at the early stages of the procedure on the basis of Article 35’s rule concerning provisional measures, yet at this further stage of the proceedings now feels duty-bound firstly under Article 27 of Brussels Ia to consider whether Article 24 paragraph 5 applies (Belgium being the place of enforcement of any attachment should it be upheld); further and principally, whether the Brussels I a Regulation applies at all given that SHAPE and NATO invoke their immunity (it is in my view unlikely that the invocation or not of an immunity defence may determine the triggering or not of Brussels Ia), this immunity interestingly being the result of a Treaty not between The Netherlands and NATO but rather resulting from the headquarter agreement between NATO and Belgium.

An interesting example of public /private international law overlap.

Geert.

Like quite a few of the Opinions and Judgment in my recent blog posts, Szpunar AG’s recent Opinion in C-555/18 KHK v BAC (*mutters his usual rant on the idiocy of the parties’ anonimisation rule*) was issued just before many of us took a short summer break. Carlos Santaló Gorisseemingly did not and I am happy to refer in the main to his analysis.

The Advocate General refers first of all to the infamous decision in 125/79 Denilauler, excluding ex parte provisional or protective measures from enforcement under the then Brussels Convention. The European Account Preservation Order Regulation 655/2014 was intended to fix this particular chink in the European civil procedure armour. Which national decisions fit with its definition of ‘authentic instrument’ is the subject of current proceedings, and Szpunar AG as Carlos reports takes a balanced approach between facilitating free movement without assisting abuse.

Of note is that the EAPO Regulation hitherto has received very little practice. Clarification of its precise scope is crucial.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.15, Heading 2.2.16.1.1.

For those of you who are interested in the case Monasky v. Taglieri currently before the US Supreme Court, please note that an extremely useful amicus curiae brief was filed this week by Reunite International Child Abduction Centre (as stated on its website Reunite is the “leading UK charity specialising in parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders”).  This brief will certainly help put things into perspective with regard to the weight that should be given to parental intent when determining the habitual residence of the child under the Hague Child Abduction Convention (but it only answers the second question presented).

Other amicus curiae briefs have also been filed this week (incl. the one for the United States, which addresses accurately, in my view, the first question presented with regard to the standard of review of the district court’s determination of habitual residence; such determinations should be reviewed on appeal for clear error – and not de novo, which is more burdensome-). This reasoning is in line with the Balev case of the Canadian Supreme Court (2018 SCC 16, 20 April 2018).

For more information on this case, see my previous post here.

I include some excerpts of the brief of Reunite below (p. 18):

“It can therefore be seen that, while still important, parental intention is not necessarily given greater weight in English and Welsh law than any other factor when determining a child’s habitual residence. Further, the court evaluates parental intention in relation to the nature of the child’s stay in the country in question (by way of example, whether it was for a holiday, or some other temporary purpose, or whether it was intended to be for a longer duration).

“In that way, parental intention is treated as one factor within a broad factual enquiry, rather than as separate and, perhaps, determinative enquiry that precedes or is separate from an evaluation of the child’s circumstances. Within such an enquiry, the factors that are relevant to the habitual residence determination will vary in terms of the weight that they are given depending on the circumstances of the case. Lord Wilson’s judgment in Re B provides an example of how those facts might be weighed up against each other.”

Succession

Szpunar AG Opined in C-468/18 R v P that in the absence of formal provisions to that effect, the Maintenance Regulation 4/2009 cannot be interpreted to include a forum non conveniens rule.

The referring court is asking, in essence, whether Article 3(a) and Article 5 of Regulation 4/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a court of a Member State with jurisdiction to hear an action relating to a maintenance obligation brought against a defendant who is habitually resident in that Member State or who has entered an appearance before that court from declining to exercise that jurisdiction on the grounds that such a claim is ancillary to a claim relating to parental responsibility, within the meaning of Article 3(d) of that regulation, and that the court with jurisdiction to hear the latter claim would be better placed, having regard to the best interests of the child, to adjudicate on those claims.

The Court’s first Advocate-General clearly and succinctly lays out the relevant principles and reference is best made to the Opinion. It is particularly at 83, including in relevant footnote, that he points out the consequences of the EU’s approach to distribution of jurisdiction: unless a Regulation (such as in Brussels IIa; or now also Brussels Ia) includes a forum non rule, forum non must not apply.

Geert.