Agrégateur de flux

Majeur protégé - Adoption

Etat-civil - Filiation - Adoption

One can say many things about climate change litigation by individuals. (See my earlier piece on the Dutch Urgenda case). Many argue that the separation of powers suggest that governments, not judges, should be making climate policy. Or that international environmental law lacks the type of direct effect potentially required for it to be validly invoked by citisens. Others point to the duty of care of Governments; to binding – even if fluffy – climate change obligations taken on since at least the 1990s, and to the utter lack of progress following more than 25 years of international climate change law.

It is therefore no surprise to see that this type of litigation has now also reached the European Court of Justice: the text of the application is here, see also brief legal (by Olivia Featherstone) and Guardian background.

Like cases before it, colleagues shy of preparation materials for an international environmental law course, with comparative EU law thrown in, can use the case to hinge an entire course on.

As Olivia reports, the legal principles involved are the following:

The claimants state that EU emissions leading to climate change are contrary to:

• The principle of equality (Articles 20 and 21, EU Charter)
• The principle of sustainable development (Article 3 TEU, Article 11 TFEU)
• Article 37 EU Charter
• Article 3 UNFCCC
• The no harm principle in international law
• Article 191 ff TFEU (the EU’s environmental policy

One to watch.

Geert.

EU Environmental Law, with Leonie Reins, Edward Elgar, 1st ed. 2017, part I Chapter 2 in particular.

By the Swiss Association SVIR/SSDI (“Schweizerische Vereinigung für Internationales Recht – Société suisse de droit international“)

The Swiss Association SVIR/SSDI offers since this year a 3,000 CHF grant to support researchers who wish to complete an internship with an international organisation. For the year 2018/19, the award will support a post-graduate student or graduate of a Swiss Law School to undertake a (4- to) 6-month internship at the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) by providing a financial contribution to cover the costs of travel to the Netherlands and a contribution towards living expenses.

Applications should be submitted via the SVIR Grant website no later than Friday 31 August 2018. The internship at the Permanent Bureau will commence as of mid-January 2019.

For further details, please refer to the SVIR Grant website at http://www.svir-ssdi.ch/de/svir-preise/svir-grant/ (click “Ausschreibung”, description in English).

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Bordeaux, 22 décembre 2017

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Versailles, 16e chambre, 22 février 2018

Thank you Pawel Sikora for flagging some time back, and subsequently analysing in detail (p.221 onwards) the decisions of the Polish Courts particularly at Reszow, on whether  arbitrated claims can be secured with a European account preservation order under Regulation 655/2014: not something I recall having been discussed elsewhere before. Article 2(2)(e) of the regulation explicitly states that “it does not apply to arbitration”: Brussels I- aficionados will be familiar with the expression.

The Courts discussed C-391/95 Van Uden in particular, with the Rzeszow Appellate Court holding that an EAPO may be granted for arbitrated claims. Using Van Uden language, in the Court’s view provisional measures such as freezing orders (which must be ordered by the courts in ordinary, not the arbitral panels) are not in principle ancillary to arbitration proceedings, but rather they are ordered in parallel to such proceedings and intended as measures of support.

Some might read in the judgment further encouragement for the EU to consider drafting an EU arbitration Regulation.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Heading 2.2.2.10.2.

The proceedings of the conference Crisi transfrontaliera di impresa: orizzonti internazionali ed europei, held in Rome on 3 and 4 November 2017 at the LUISS University (advertised here on this blog) have recently been published, edited by Antonio Leandro, Giorgio Meo and Antonio Nuzzo.

Authors include experts on insolvency, cross-border insolvency and private international law. The contributions – some in Italian, others in English – address international and European policies on business crisis and failure, the innovations brought about by Regulation (EU) 2015/848 and the interplay of that instrument with other European texts relating to judicial cooperation in civil matters.

The book also discusses the challenges faced by the on-going reform of insolvency law in Italy, in light of regional and international developments.

The table of contents is available here.

Reminiscent of the decision in Yukos v Tomskneft, which concerned recognition of an arbitral award in Ireland even though there were no relevant assets to exercise enforcement against, the Irish Court of Appeal earlier this year in [2018] IECA 46 Albaniabeg v Enel upheld [2016] IEHC 139 Albaniabeg Ambient Sh.p.k. -v- Enel S.p.A. & Anor . (See my tweet below at the time – the case got stuck in my blog queue).

Thank you to Julie Murphy-O’Connor, and Gearóid Carey for flagging the case earlier in the year. The High Court had refused to grant plaintiff, Albaniabeg, liberty to serve out of the jurisdiction to seek to enforce a judgment of an Albanian court in Ireland against the two defendants, ENEL S.p.A. and ENEL Power S.p.A. (“ENEL”). The judgment therefore is ex-EU.

Enforcement proceedings were commenced in New York, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, France and Ireland in relation to the Judgment.  [I have not been able to locate outcome in those cases]. Notably no enforcement proceedings were brought in Italy. Presumably plaintiff’s motif is to obtain enforcement in one Member State, to ease the enforcement paths in other Member States (including Italy).

McDermott J at the High Court refused the application on the basis that the defendants had no assets within the jurisdiction and were not likely to have such assets in the near future. As the judge concluded that the plaintiff did not stand to gain any practical benefits if enforcement proceedings were to be commenced within this jurisdiction, he refused to grant them leave to serve such proceedings out of the jurisdiction on the defendants.

Hogan J at the Court of Appeal upheld. At 59 he notes ‘I should state in passing that it was not suggested that if an Irish court were to grant an order providing for the recognition or enforcement under own rules of private international law of the Albanian judgment, this then would be a “judgment” for the purposes of Article 2(a) of the Brussels Regulation (recast) which could then be enforced in other Member States under the simplified enforcement procedure provided for by Chapter III of that Regulation. As this point was not argued before us, it is not necessary to express any view on it.‘

In my Handbook I suggest such order is not a ‘judgment’ within the meaning of the Brussels I Recast Regulation.

Geert.

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

Enforcement of an ex-EU judgment. Brussels I Recast does not apply. Had the Irish Court recognised: would that judgment be a judgment under the Recast?
Irish Court of Appeal Decision on Enforcement of Foreign Judgment https://t.co/nL3tSUs3It @MathesonLaw

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) April 3, 2018

It doesn’t happen too often that a Member State refuses enforcement judgment rendered in another Member State for violation of the ordre public. But in a decision published yesterday exactly this happened: The German Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof – BGH) refused to recognize and enforce a Polish judgment under the Brussels I Regulation (before the recast) arguing that enforcement would violate the German public policy, notable freedom of speech and freedom of the press as embodied in the German Constitution. In so doing the highest German court adds to the already difficult debate about atrocities committed by Germans in Poland during WW II.

The facts of the case were as follows:

In 2013, the ZDF (Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen) one of Germany’s main public-service television broadcaster announced the broadcasting of documentary about the liberation of the concentration camps Ohrdruf, Buchenwald and Dachau. In the announcement, the camps Majdanek and Auschwitz were described as “Polish extermination camps”. Following a complaint by the Embassy of the Republic of Poland in Berlin, the defendant changed the text of the announcement to “German extermination camps on Polish territory”. At the same time, the applicant, a Polish citizen and former prisoner of the Auschwitz-Birkenau and Flossenbürg concentration camps, complained to the ZDF claiming that his personal rights had been violated and demanded, among other things, the publication of an apology.

In 2013, the ZDF apologized to the applicant in two letters and expressed its regret. In spring 2016 it also published a correction message expressing its regret for the “careless, false and erroneous wording” and apologising to all people whose feelings had been hurt as a result. At the end of 2016, on the basis of an action he had brought in Poland in 2014, the applicant obtained a second instance judgment of the Cracow Court of Appeal requiring the ZDF to publish an apology on the home page of its website (not just anywhere on the website) for a period of one month expressing its regrets that the announcement from 2013 contained “incorrect wording distorting the history of the Polish people”. The ZDF published the required text of the judgment on its home page from December 2016 to January 2017, however, only via a link. The applicant considered this publication to be inadequate and, therefore, sought to have the Polish judgment enforced in Germany.

The Regional Court Mainz as well as the Court of Appeal Koblenz declared the judgment enforceable under the Brussels I Regulation (Reg. 44/2001). The German Federal Supreme Court, however, disagreed. Referring to Article 45 Brussels I Regulation, the Court held that enforcement of the judgment would result in a violation of the German ordre public because the exercise of state power to publish the text of the judgment prepared by the Cracow Court of Appeal would clearly violate the defendant’s right to freedom of speech and freedom of press as embodied in Article 5(1) of the German Constitution (Grundgesetz – GG) as well as the constitutional principle of proportionality.

The Court clarified that the dispute at hand did not concern the defendant’s original announcement – which was incorrect and, therefore, did not enjoy the protection of Article 5(1) GG, but only the requested publication of pre-formulated text. This text – which the defendant, according to the Cracow court, had to make as its own statement – represented an expression of opinion. It required the defendant to regret the use of “incorrect wording distorting the history of the Polish people” and to apologize to the applicant for the violation of his personal rights, in particular his national identity (sense of belonging to the Polish people) and his national dignity. To require the defendant to published a text drafted by someone else as its own opinion would, therefore, violate the defendant’s fundamental rights under Article 5(1) GG. In addition, it would violate the constitutional principle of proportionality. The defendant had corrected the disputed wording “Polish concentration camps”, which had been available for four days, on the day of the objection by the Embassy of the Republic of Poland. Even before the decision of the Court of Appeal, the defendant had personally asked the applicant for an apology in two letters and also published an explanatory correction message with a request for apology addressed to all those concerned.

The official press release is available here. The full German decision can be downloaded here.

I have reported earlier on the action of MNL Capital against the 2015 Belgian Vulture Fund Act (my EN translation here), on which I have a paper here. I then reported on a related action (where MNL were joined by Yukos).

At the end of May the Belgian Constitutional Court, ruling 61/2018, rejected an MNL challenge to the Act, which was based inter alia on an alleged infringement of the Brussels I Recast Regulation: at A.23.2: MNL argued that Belgium cannot across the board reject vulture funds activities (I agree) based on an absolute ordre public argument against them: MNL suggested this entails a one-sided reading of ordre public in favour of foreign entities refusing to honour their debt.

Due in large part to the peculiarities of constitutional review in Belgium, the Court at B.15.4 looked at the argument purely from a non-discrimination point of view: creditors who have obtained a foreign judgment against a State are no better or worse off than those having obtained such ruling from a Belgian court.

In essence therefore the arguments on the basis of EU law are left entirely unanswered.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.16, Heading 2.2.16.1.4.

Thank you Brick Court and Stewarts, among other, for flagging Vattenfall et al v Prysmian et al in which the High Court dismissed a call for summary judgment on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction.

A classic case of follow-up damages litigation in competition law, here in the high voltage power cables cartel, fines for which were confirmed by the CJEU early July. Core to the case is the application of Article 8(1)’s anchor defendants mechanism. Only two of the defendants are UK incorporated companies – UK subsidiaries of companies that have been found by the European Commission to have infringed EU competition law.

Authority cited includes of course CDC, Roche Nederland and Painer, and Cooper Tyre (sale of the cartelised products can amount to implementation of the cartel). Vattenfall confirms that for the English courts, ‘knowingly implementing’ the cartel has a low threshold.

At 89 ff the Court refers to the pending case of (what I now know to be) C-724/17 Skanska Industrial Solutions e.a.: Finnish Courts are considering the application for cartel damages against parent companies on acquiring cartelist subsidiaries, had dissolved them. Relevance for Vattenfall lies with the issue of knowledge: the Finnish courts wonder what Article 101 TFEU has to say on the degree of knowledge of the cartelist activities, relevant for the liability of the parent company. An application of fraus, or abuse in other words. Elleray DJ however, did not consider the outcome of that reference to be relevant for the case at hand, in its current stage of procedure.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.12.1

Pourvoi c. Chambre de l'instruction de la cour d'appel de Paris, 3e section, 28 juin 2018

Non lieu à renvoi