Agrégateur de flux

An unusually high proportion of cases under Article 22 (old) or 24 (Recast) Brussels I relate to family disputes on property. Webb v Webb, Weber v Weber, Komu v Komu, and now, C-417/15 Schmidt v Schmidt. It’s all about keeping up with the Joneses.

Kokott AG opined in Schmidt last week – the Opinion is not available in English. Mr Schmidt had gifted a (otherwise unspecified) piece of Vienna real estate to his daughter, who lives in Germany. Ms Schmidt is included in the land register as the owner. Mr Schmidt subsequently sues in Austria for the annulment of the gift due to alleged incapacity at the time of the gift, and for removal of the registration. Is the action caught by Article 24? (in which case Ms Schmidt’s claim of lack of jurisdiction fails).

The Advocate General first of all suggests that the referring court’s request should not be turned down simply because it did not specify the time of seizure: in other words it is not clear whether the case is covered by the old or the Recast Brussels I Regulation. Ms Kokott however suggests the Court should not be pedantic about this and answer the question regardless, seeing as the rule has not changed.

Next up and potentially trickier, is the exclusion of capacity from the scope of application of the Regulation. However the Advocate General is right when she suggest that the exclusions should only be relevant where they concern the main object of the litigation. Not, as here, when they are raised incidentally. (She discusses in some detail the linguistic implications given different wording in the different language versions of the Regulation).

Then to the real question. With respect to the annulment of the (gift) agreement, the object and purpose of plaintiff’s action is not the establishment or confirmation of an erga omnes right in rem. Rather, the confirmation of voidness of an agreement transferring such right, due to incapacity. That this will have erga omnes consequences if successful, is not to the point given the long-established need to apply Article 24 restrictively. In this respect this case is akin to C-294/92 Webb and Webb.

The analysis is different however, the AG suggests, for the request to delete the entry in the land register. This does aim directly at erga omnes consequences under Austrian law.

Ms Kokott subsequently rejects the notion that as a result of part of the suit being subject to Article 24, this should drag the remainder into the exclusive bath with it: at 48: if only because if one were to accept this, forum shopping would be facilitated. Including in its suit a procedure covered by Article 24 would enable plaintiff to draw in a whole range of other issues between the parties.

Finally, the AG suggests joinder of the contractual claim (the nullity of the gift) to the right in rem claim, is possible under Article 8(4) and rejects that national rules of civil procedure should or even can play a role in this respect. This part of the Opinion may be optimistically short. For if the joinder route of Article 8(4) may lead to the same result as the one the AG had just rejected, one assumes there ought to be discretion for the national courts to reject it. Not, as the AG rightly suggests, by reference to national civil procedure rules (that would lead to unequal application) but rather by reference to the (probably) EU inspired rule that abuse of Article 8 be avoided.

The Court will probably not answer all the questions the case raises, particularly on Article 8. Expect this to return.

Geert.

Statut collectif du travail

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Papeete, chambre civile, 12 novembre 2015

Cour d'appel de Rennes, 10e chambre correctionnelle, 23 juin 2016

Tribunal de grande instance de Paris, 17e chambre civile, 6 juillet 2016

Il Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza dell’Università di Ferrara ospita il 20 luglio 2016, nella sua sede di Rovigo, un seminario in inglese dal titolo The Public Policy Exception in Turkish Private International Law.

I lavori inizieranno alle 17 e si incentreranno su una relazione di Çi̇çek Özgür dell’Università Erciyes di Kayseri.

La locandina dell’evento è disponibile qui.

Tribunal de grande instance de Toulouse, pôle civil, fil 5, 23 juin 2016

Tribunal de grande instance de Marseille, 1er juillet 2016

Tribunal correctionnel d'Épinal, 19 mai 2016.

Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Paris, 21 juin 2016

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Paris, pôle 7 de l'instruction, chambre 6, 29 septembre 2015

La Suisse a méconnu les obligations imposées par la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme en ne vérifiant pas si les requérants avaient bénéficié d’une protection suffisante contre l’arbitraire, dans l’inscription de leurs noms sur des listes de sanctions imposées par le Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU.

en lire plus