Agrégateur de flux

The British Columbia Court of Appeal has upheld an interlocutory injunction made against Google Inc., a non-party, in litigation between Equustek Solutions Inc. and Datalink Technologies Gateways Inc.  The decision is available here.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had counterfeited their product.  In an effort to prevent the defendants from selling the counterfeit product, which was being done over the internet, the plaintiffs sought and obtained an interlocutory injunction against Google Inc., a Delaware corporation based in California, ordering it to exclude a list of certain web sites from search results.  The aim was to stop customers from finding the defendants.  Google Inc. appealed the injunction on several grounds.

The court concluded that it had in personam jurisdiction over Google Inc. because it conducted business in the province: it advertised to residents of British Columbia and it actively obtained data for use in its search engines in British Columbia.  It held that the fact that Google Inc. was a non-party did not prevent the making of the injunction as against it.  It also held that the fact that the injunction had extraterritorial effects, requiring Google Inc. to take steps outside British Columbia, was not a valid objection.  On these issues the court reviewed several leading United Kingdom cases, including The Siskina, Channel Tunnel Group and South Carolina Insurance.  It also commented favourably on the recent decision in Cartier International AG v British Sky Broadcasting Limited, [2014] EWHC 3354 (Ch.).  Key Canadian authorities relied on include MacMillan Bloedel, BMWE and Minera Aquiline Argentina.

The decision is likely to be important on the question of what it means to carry on business over the internet.

Non renvoyée au Conseil constitutionnel

On 11 June 2015, the European Union deposited its instrument of approval of the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements.

Two declarations are appended to the instrument of approval: a declaration under Article 30 (i.e. a declaration regarding the competences exercised by a Regional Economic Integration Organisation, to be made when such an Organisation accedes to the Convention without its Member States), and a declaration regarding the succession of the European Union to the European Community.

The move of the European Union paves the way to the entry into force of the Convention. Pursuant to Article 31(1), the Convention shall in fact “enter into force on the first day of the month following the expiration of three months after the deposit of the second instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession”. The first of these instruments was the instrument of ratification deposited by Mexico in 2007.

The Convention will thus enter into force for Mexico and the European Union on 1 October 2015.

Par une décision du 21 avril 2015, la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme a jugé que la suppression du versement des prestations sociales aux détenus condamnés, en cas d’internement en établissement psychiatrique durant l’exécution de leur peine d’emprisonnement, ne constituait pas une discrimination déraisonnable au sens de l’article 14 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme.

En carrousel matière:  Non

en lire plus

On 11 June 2015, the European Union deposited its instrument of approval of the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements.

Two declarations are appended to the instrument of approval: a declaration under Article 30 (i.e. a declaration regarding the competences exercised by a Regional Economic Integration Organisation, to be made when such an Organisation accedes to the Convention without its Member States), and a declaration regarding the succession of the European Union to the European Community.

The move of the European Union paves the way to the entry into force of the Convention. Pursuant to Article 31(1), the Convention shall in fact “enter into force on the first day of the month following the expiration of three months after the deposit of the second instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession”. The first of these instruments was the instrument of ratification deposited by Mexico in 2007.

The Convention will thus enter into force for Mexico and the European Union on 1 October 2015.

La Camera dei Deputati ha approvato in via definitiva, l’11 giugno 2015, il disegno di legge di legge che prevede l’autorizzazione alla ratifica della Convenzione sulla competenza, la legge applicabile, l’efficacia delle decisioni e la cooperazione in materia di responsabilità genitoriale e di misure di protezione dei minori, fatta all’Aja il 19 ottobre 1996, nonché l’esecuzione della Convenzione nell’ordinamento italiano (sull’iter del provvedimento, si veda da ultimo questo post).

Il voto dell’aula interviene a pochi giorni di distanza dalla seduta delle commissioni riunite Giustizia e Affari esteri, svoltasi il 4 giugno 2015, nel corso della quale è emerso l’orientamento di procedere senza ulteriori indugi all’approvazione del testo sortito dal Senato, risultante dallo stralcio delle norme di adattamento ordinario e di integrazione del diritto interno ivi previste (atto Camera 1589-B), salva “la necessità che da parte del Governo venga assunto un impegno concreto affinché l’eventuale approvazione del testo trasmesso dal Senato sia accompagnata da una futura ma non lontana approvazione del disegno di legge che contiene le norme di attuazione interna”.

Berlington Hungary e.a.
Rapprochement des législations
La législation hongroise qui interdit l’exploitation des machines à sous hors des casinos peut être contraire au principe de la libre prestation des services

Base Company et Mobistar
Rapprochement des législations
La directive « service universel » n’établit pas une obligation de tarification sociale pour les communications et abonnements Internet mobiles

Fahnenbrock
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Les actions en justice introduites en Allemagne contre l’État grec par des particuliers suite à l’échange forcé de leurs obligations d’État peuvent être notifiées à cet État selon le règlement UE sur la notification

I have delayed reporting on this initiative for exam reasons. The Belgian Parliament is currently debating a private members’ proposal for statute to address so-called ‘vulture funds’. These funds are described by the financial dictionary as ‘A fund that buys distressed debt of commercial companies or sovereign nations at a cheap price and then often sues them for the entire value of the debt. The resemblance to vultures is because these funds profit from the debt of failing companies or poor nations.‘

The text of the proposal (in Dutch and French) is available here. Vulture funds litigation is generally called immoral in the proposal. Reference is made to a number of high-profile recent judgments where vulture funds have been given approval by various courts worldwide, to seek redress against assets held by the sovereign nations concerned, or indeed their creditors. Particularly sore is the enforcement sought against funds destined for development aid.

The proposal essentially defines ‘vulture funds’ and then suggests that recognition and enforcement of relevant judgments or arbitral awards, regardless of the law applicable to the underlying relationship with the government concerned, is considered to be contrary to Belgian ordre public international, hence unenforceable. The proposal as it stands now adds (probably superfluously) that relevant EU (read: the Brussels I recast Regulation) and international (read especially: the 1958 New York Convention) law takes priority.

The part of the proposal that is bound to attract attention is the attempt at defining the ‘vulture’ in vulture funds. Frits Bolkestein for instance (former EU Commissioner) has remarked that buying up ‘bad debt’ need not always be morally reprehensible (I would suggest it is not that part of the fund’ activities which has attracted the Belgian Parliament’s attention). The enforcement /recognition part of the proposal is interesting because it applies ordre public in a categorical manner, rather than in the ad hoc application which both EU law and residual Belgian conflicts law (the Belgian Private International Law Act) ordinarily call for. For residual Belgian law, this is probably Parliament’s prerogative. However for EU law (and the New York convention), a general apprehension against vulture funds may not qualify as a proper exercise of the ordre public exception. Courts at the least may wish formally to disregard the act when the judgment /award concerned is covered by Brussels I cq. New York; however they can point to the sentiment expressed in the Act, to support incompatibility with Belgian ordre public when tested against an individual case.

The drafters are aware that this initiative may be a drop in the ocean. Reference is made to other, national initiatives (France, UK, US) which may point to an emerging pattern of anti-vulture funds sentiment. Indeed the realities of forum shopping mean that vulture funds action will migrate away from the Belgian legal order. On the other hand, Belgium’s safe harbour may also mean that relevant assets will seek refuge there. All of course, presuming the initiative will actually be adopted by Parliament.

Geert. Disclosure: I advised the MPs concerned on the technical aspects of the recognition and enforcement leg of the proposal. [My advice may or may not have been followed ].

Les questions posées au jury, laconiques, ne permettent pas aux requérants, acquittés en première instance et condamnés en appel, de disposer des garanties suffisantes pour comprendre le verdict de condamnation, ce qui constitue une violation du droit au procès équitable. 

En carrousel matière:  Oui

en lire plus