Agrégateur de flux

Lilydale v Meyn at the Ontario Court of Appeal (held April 2015 but only reaching me now – thank you to Michael Shafler and colleagues for flagging) is a useful reminder of the common law approach to determining lex contractus in the absence of choice of law. (Here of course an inter-State conflicts issue between Ontario and Alberta). Laskin JA refers in support to english precedent, summarised in quoted passage of Cheshire’s Private International Law:

The court must take into account, for instance, the following matters: the domicil and even the residence of the parties; the national character of a corporation and the place where its principal place of business is situated; the place where the contract is made and the place where it is to be performed; the style in which the contract is drafted, as, for instance, whether the language is appropriate to one system of law, but inappropriate to another; the fact that a certain stipulation is valid under one law but void under another … the economic connexion of the contract with some other transaction … the nature of the subject matter or its situs; the head office of an insurance company, whose activities range over many countries; and, in short, any other fact which serves to localize the contract.

The motion judge’s findings on the relevant criteria were held to be reasonable, as was her overall conclusion that the closest and most real connection to the contract was Ontario.

The case is an interesting reminder of what in the Rome I Regulation is now the final resort, should none of the relevant presumptions in Article 4 apply.

An interesting point in the judgment is the main reason why parties prefer one law over the other: at 3: ‘The issue is important because Alberta and Ontario have different ultimate limitation periods. Even taking into account discoverability, Alberta’s ultimate limitation period is 10 years; Ontario’s is 15 years. The parties agreed that Lilydale’s cause of action arose no later than August 31, 1994. Therefore, as Lilydale did not sue until January 2006, if Alberta law applied, its action was statute-barred; if Ontario law applied, it was not.’

Aren’t statutes of limitation under Canadian conflict of laws, covered by lex fori, as procedural issues, and not, as is seemingly accepted here, lex causae?

Geert.

 

 

Pourvois c/ Cour d'appel d'Aix en Provence, 1ere chambre A, 13 janvier 2015 et 8 septembre 2015

The CJEU’s finding in Shell, was applied by the Court of first instance at Antwerp in a judgment from October last, which has just reached me. (I have not yet found it in relevant databases (not uncommon for Belgian case-law), but I do have a copy for those interested). The case concerned debunkered off-spec fuel, off the ship Else Maria Theresa (her engines apparently having been affected by the oil being off-spec), blended into /with a much larger amount of bunker oil.

The court applied the Shell /Carens criteria, leading to a finding of waste. In brief, the blending in the case at issue was not, the court held, standing practice in the bunkering /debunkering business, and /or a commercially driven, readily available preparation of off-spec for purchase by eager buyers. Rather, a quick-fix solution to get rid off unwanted fuel.

The judgment (which is being appealed I imagine) emphasises the case-by-case approach needed for the determination of ‘waste’.

Geert.

On 22 October 2015, the ECJ rendered its judgment in Thomas Cook Belgium (case C-245/14), a case concerning the interpretation of Regulation No 1896/2006 creating a European order for payment procedure.

The request for a preliminary ruling arose from a dispute concerning a contract concluded between a Belgian travel agency and an Austrian company.

The latter, alleging that the travel agency had not performed its contractual obligations, applied for a European order for payment before the Vienna District Court for commercial matters. The jurisdiction of this court was asserted by the applicant on the basis of Article 5(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 (Brussels I), now corresponding to Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 (Brussels Ia), which lays down a head of “special” jurisdiction for matters relating to a contract.

The order for payment was issued and served on the defendant. The latter lodged a statement of opposition, but did so only after the expiry of the time-limit stated in Article 16(2) of Regulation No 1896/2006. Relying on Article 20 of the Regulation, the defendant then applied for the review of the order, claiming that the application form did not mention the choice-of-forum clause featured in the contract, which conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Belgian courts.

Seised of the application for review, the Vienna Commercial Court asked the ECJ to clarify the interpretation of Article 20(2) of Regulation No 1896/2006, whereby the defendant is entitled to apply for a review only “where the order for payment was clearly wrongly issued, having regard to the requirements laid down in this Regulation, or due to other exceptional circumstances”. Pursuant to Recital 25 of the Regulation, such other exceptional circumstances “could include a situation where the European order for payment was based on false information provided in the application form”.

In the judgment, the ECJ begins by noting that, according to Article 12(3), once the European order for payment has been served on the defendant, the latter is deemed to be aware of his options to pay the amount indicated in the order, or lodge a statement of opposition in accordance with article 16, within 30 days of the service.

In the Court’s view, since the Regulation does not provide for the defendant’s participation in the procedure, the second option is aimed at compensate this party, by giving him the chance to contest the claim after the order has been issued.

The Court goes on by inferring from the heading of Article 20 that, once the time-limit for opposition has elapsed, no review is allowed, save in “exceptional circumstances”. Accordingly, this provision requires a strict interpretation.

In light of this, the court seised of a request for review must ascertain whether the order was “clearly wrongly issued, having regard to the requirements laid down in the Regulation” (which include, as indicated in Article 7(2), the ground on which the jurisdiction of the court having issued the order is based). Pursuant to Article 8, the court is merely required to verify, on the basis of the application form, whether the claim appears to be founded, and whether the requirements set forth in the Regulation are met.

In this connection, the ECJ notes that under Article 23 of the Brussels I Regulation, the jurisdiction conferred under a choice-of-court agreement is normally exclusive in nature, but equally observes that, according to Recital 16 of Regulation No 1896/2006, the court seised is required to examine the application, including the issue of jurisdiction, solely on the basis of the information provided in the application form, without having to verify them.

After all, the Court adds, the defendant is informed of this fact in the order, as well as of his duty to lodge a statement of opposition under Article 16 to prevent the order from becoming enforceable, as indicated in Article 12(4)(a) and (b). As a consequence, the defendant is in a position to easily object to the jurisdiction of the seised court within the deadline provided for in the Regulation, by simply alleging that the information provided by the claimant in the application form is false or incorrect, without being required to specify the reasons for the objection.

According to the ECJ, this facilitation is to be read in light of the purpose of the Regulation, namely the need to “reconcile the swiftness and efficiency of court proceedings, whilst observing the rights of defence”. Actually, the assessment of a jurisdiction clause “may give rise to complex points of law, such as the validity…” of the clause itself, which would require a broader examination than that provided under Article 8 of the Regulation.

The conclusion, accordingly, is that “having regard to the circumstances laid down in Regulation No 1896/2006”, the European order for payment in question cannot be considered “clearly wrongly issued”.

The Court goes on to discuss the meaning of the expression “exceptional circumstances”, as employed in Article 20(2).

As mentioned above, Recital 25 clarifies that such exceptional circumstances include a situation where the order was based on false information provided by the claimant in the application form. In the present case, since the defendant based his claim for review on the fact that the applicant did not mention the choice-of-forum clause on which both parties agreed, he could not ignore the aforementioned clause at the time of the service of the order. Accordingly, from the Court’s standpoint, he could have been able to promptly detect the false information and lodge a timely statement of opposition. Such a possibility prevents him from relying on Article 20, given that this provision is not aimed at providing the defendant with a second opportunity to oppose the claim, as clearly stated by Recital 25.

Therefore, in the opinion of the ECJ, “it cannot be considered that the order for payment was wrongly issued due to other exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Article 20(2) of Regulation No 1896/2006”.

To support this conclusion, the Court also refers to Recitals 9 and 29, and to Article 1(1)(a), stating that granting a review would undermine the objective of the Regulation, that is “to simplify, speed up and reduce the costs of litigation in cross-border cases concerning uncontested pecuniary claims by creating a European order for payment procedure”, and “to establish a uniform rapid and efficient mechanism for the recovery of such claims”.

C’est à bon droit que le bénéfice de l’immunité est refusé au second vice-président de Guinée équatoriale, dès lors qu’il n’occupe pas les fonctions de chef d’État, de chef du gouvernement ou de ministre des affaires étrangères.

En carrousel matière:  Oui Matières OASIS:  Néant

en lire plus

En application de l’article 4 du règlement Rome II, il y a lieu de considérer, aux fins de déterminer la loi applicable à une obligation non contractuelle résultant d’un accident de la circulation, que les préjudices liés au décès d’une personne dans un tel accident survenu dans l’État membre du for et subis par les parents proches de celle-ci qui résident dans un autre État membre doivent être qualifiés de « conséquences indirectes » de cet accident.

En carrousel matière:  Non Matières OASIS:  Accident de la circulation (Responsabilité)

en lire plus

Con la sentenza 13 novembre 2015, n. 23291, la Corte di cassazione si è pronunciata in ordine all’individuazione della legge applicabile al cognome della moglie a seguito del divorzio.

Il giudice di prime cure, oltre a dichiarare lo scioglimento del matrimonio e a statuire sulle domande alimentari, aveva inibito alla moglie, cittadina svedese, l’uso del cognome del marito in applicazione dell’art. 5 della legge 1° dicembre 1970 n. 898 sul divorzio. La moglie era allora ricorsa in appello lamentando, fra le altre cose, l’inibizione all’uso del cognome del marito. In appello, la censura è stata ritenuta fondata: la moglie, stando ai giudici dell’appello, aveva acquisito il cognome del marito in forza della legge svedese, e questa rimette alla moglie la scelta di mantenere o meno detto cognome.

Di qui il ricorso per cassazione proposto dal marito, secondo il quale, con riferimento all’uso del cognome, la Corte d’Appello aveva errato nel ritenere che la legge italiana dovesse regolare il divorzio ma non il diritto all’uso del nome.

La Suprema Corte, rigettando il ricorso, dichiara di condividere le conclusioni raggiunte in appello, salvo modificare l’indicazione delle ragioni poste a fondamento della ritenuta applicabilità della legge svedese.

Osserva inizialmente il giudice di legittimità che pur non essendo il diritto al nome materia regolata dal diritto dell’Unione europea, “le norme nazionali, tuttavia, come precisato dalla sentenza Garcia Avello … devono venire applicate in modo da non ostacolare la libera circolazione tra le persone” nelle fattispecie a carattere transnazionale.

Senonché, osserva la Corte, è da escludere che nel caso di specie vengano in rilievo le norme di conflitto poste dalla legge 31 maggio 1995 n. 218, di riforma del sistema italiano di diritto internazionale privato (e in particolare l’art. 24, in tema di diritti della personalità), occorrendo piuttosto fare riferimento alla Convenzione di Monaco del 5 settembre 1980 sulla legge applicabile ai cognomi e ai nomi (di cui si veda qui il testo francese, allegato alla legge italiana di autorizzazione alla ratifica ed esecuzione). In particolare, la Convenzione di Monaco, all’art. 1, prevede che il nome e il cognome dell’individuo sono determinati dalla propria legge di cittadinanza, senza che rilevi (come invece accade in base all’art. 24, comma 2, della legge n. 218/1995) la legge regolatrice dell’eventuale rapporto di famiglia da cui dipenda il diritto all’uso del nome.

È su queste basi che la Corte conclude che il nome della moglie sia soggetto alla legge svedese. Quest’esito, osserva la Corte, non è inficiato dal fatto che la donna, pluricittadina, abbia nel contempo la nazionalità di un paese diverso dalla Svezia, essendo comunque quest’ultimo il paese con cui l’interessata — ai sensi dell’art. 19, comma 2, della legge n. 218/1995 — presenta il collegamento più stretto: in tale paese, in particolare, è stato celebrato il matrimonio, è nato il figlio della coppia e si è svolta in via prevalente la vita familiare.

Dans une décision importante qui imposera une modification du code de procédure civile, la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne se prononce à propos des conditions de certification des jugements nationaux en tant que titre exécutoire européen.

En carrousel matière:  Oui Matières OASIS:  Titre exécutoire

en lire plus

Au sens de l’article 22 du règlement Bruxelles I du 22 décembre 2000, relève de la catégorie des litiges en matière de droits réels immobiliers une action en dissolution, au moyen d’une vente dont la mise en œuvre est confiée à un mandataire, de la copropriété indivise sur un bien immeuble.

En carrousel matière:  Oui Matières OASIS:  Compétence internationale (Procédure civile) Biens

en lire plus

La Commission européenne a présenté le 9 décembre 2015, dans le cadre de sa stratégie pour un marché unique du numérique, ses premières propositions législatives visant à améliorer l’accès aux contenus en ligne pour les citoyens européens et adapter les droits d’auteur à l’ère du numérique.

En carrousel matière:  Non Matières OASIS:  Néant

en lire plus

I have reported some time ago on the reverse logistics case involving Shell and Carens. As noted in that post, the CJEU instructed the court at Rotterdam to gauge the ‘true intentions’ of Shell vis-a-vis the contaminated fuel which it had taken back from one of its clients (Carens).

The Court at Rotterdam issued its final judgment on 23 December last, truly a christmas present for the companies involved for the accusations of illegal waste shipments were rejected. (I could not locate the judgment on ECLI yet: I have a copy for those interested).

The court first of all rejected a rather neat attempt of the Dutch prosecutor to get around the CJEU’s finding in para 46 of its judgment : ‘it is particularly important that the Belgian client returned the contaminated ULSD to Shell, with a view to obtaining a refund, pursuant to the sale contract. By so acting, that client cannot be regarded as having intended to dispose of or recover the consignment at issue and, accordingly, it did not ‘discard’ it within the meaning of Article 1(1)(a) of Directive 2006/12.‘ It was suggested that incoterm FOB (‘Free on Board’), applicable to the agreement between Carens and Shell, meant that the qualification of the payment by Shell could not have been a refund for defective goods (ownership of the goods already having been transferred prior to contamination) but rather the payment of damages for a contract not properly carried out. This, it was argued, made para 46 irrelevant for the facts of the case. The court at Rotterdam essentially argued that par 46 needs to be applied beyond the black letter of the law: in effect, in acting as they did and following their running contractual relationships, Shell and Carens had decided to annul the sale, sale price was refunded, and Carens could therefore not be seen as owner or holder of the goods.

Neither, the court held, could Shell be considered a discarding the fuel: the court paid specific attention to testimony that the fuel concerned was actually presented to market, with a view to establishing what price it could fetch. Offers were made which were not far off the initial sale price. Re-blending of the fuel was only done to obtain a higher price and was carried out in accordance with established market practices. Shell’s resale of the fuel, as holder of it, was not just a mere possibility but a certainty (language reminiscent of what the CJEU normally employs for the distinction recovery /disposal).

Final conclusion: the fuel at no stage qualified as waste and no one could have discarded it.

A very important judgment indeed – it will be interesting to see whether the prosecutor’s office will appeal.

Geert.