Droit international général

The German Federal Labour Court, the ‘Bundesarbeitsgericht’, has provided the ECJ with an opportunity to provide much needed clarity on the application of Rome I to continuing (employment) contracts, and on the Regulation (or as the case may be, the Rome convention)’s provisions on overriding mandatory law. The Bundesarbeitsgericht has issued a press release on the case, Giesela Rühl flagged the case in March, and Lisa Günther has more detailed input on the overall context. Claimant is a Greek, employed by the Greek State at the Greek primary school in Nuremberg (Germany). His salary was reduced in accordance with relevant Greek Saving Laws. Claimant asks for payment of the sums withheld. Is the German court bound to apply the Greek Saving Laws?

The case (which as yet to appear on the ECJ’s website) first of all seeks clarification on the temporal scope of Rome I. Article 28 Rome I provides that it applies to contracts concluded ‘as from 17 December 2009′ (this is the corrected format; initially Article 28 read ‘after’). When exactly a contract is ‘concluded’ needs to be determined in accordance with the lex causae as identified by the Regulation (an extension of Article 10(1), suggested by most if not all of relevant scholarship). There has hitherto been much less noise about the application of Article 28 to ‘continuing’ contracts': those concluded before the temporal scope of the Regulation, continuing after, however renewed, renegotiated, amended…: do these continue to be covered by the Rome convention ad infinitum, or is there a cut-off point at which these continuing contracts become newly concluded? Any suggestion along these latter lines presumably requires determination of a threshold. For instance, adaptation of price in line with inflation presumably is not sufficient to speak of a ‘new’ contract. But would contractually foreseen price renegotiation to take account of economic cycles, lead to such a new contract?

One’s intuitive assumption may be to prefer autonomous interpretation of the concept ‘concluded’ however in the current state of (lack of) harmonisation of contractual law, it is more likely that the Court will prefer an Article 10(1) type solution.

Next up is the application of Article 9’s provision on overriding mandatory provisions. This is the first time the ECJ will rule on that Article (Unamar was held under the Rome Convention). The Regulation quite deliberately limited the room for manoeuvre for the court seized to apply overriding mandatory law other than that of the forum: only such laws of the country where the obligations arising out of the contract ‘have to be performed’ can come into calling. That place is likely to be Germany in the case at issue (the Regulation does not define ‘place of performance’ under Article 9(3)).

No doubt the ECJ will cut some corners, per judicial economy, however the case nevertheless promises to be entertaining.

Geert.

In East Sussex County Council Case C-71/14, the question under consideration is the application of Directive 2003/4 ‘s reasonableness test. Article 5 of the Directive provides that in situ access to information to for example public registers has to be free of charge. Further, that charges for supplying any environmental information must be ‘reasonable’.

In particular, how ‘objective’ must a reasonable cost be, seen against the light of English statutory law which allows local authorities to specify access (and other) fees providing that the amount ‘shall not exceed an amount which the public authority is satisfied is a reasonable amount’. Application in that case is made by a property search group with a view to commercial conveyancing. Sharpston AG on 16 April 2015 opined that even for commercial applicants, authorities’ hands are quite tied. In particular,

• that Article 5(2) of Directive 2003/4 does not authorise a public authority to recover, through a charge for supplying information, all or part of the costs of establishing and maintaining a database in which it has organised the environmental information it holds and which it uses to answer requests for information of the type listed in a questionnaire such as that at issue in the main proceedings.
• that a charge which does not exceed a reasonable amount within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Directive 2003/4 is a charge which: (i) is set on the basis of objective factors that are known and capable of review by a third party; (ii) is calculated regardless of who is asking for the information and for what purpose; (iii) is set at a level that guarantees the objectives of the right of access to environmental information upon request and thus does not dissuade people from seeking access or restrict their right of access; and (iv) is no greater than an amount that is appropriate to the reason why Member States are allowed to make this charge (that is, that a member of the public has made a request for the supply of environmental information) and directly correlated to the act of supplying that information; that
• In particular, a charge of a ‘reasonable amount’ under Article 5(2) of Directive 2003/4 is to be based on the costs actually incurred in connection with the act of supplying environmental information in response to a specific request. That will include the costs of staff time spent on searching for and producing the information requested and the cost of producing it in the form requested (which may vary). However, it is not permissible for such a charge also to seek to recover overheads such as heating, lighting or internal services. And that
• Article 5(2) of Directive 2003/4 requires public authorities to ensure that their charges do not exceed a reasonable amount, judged by the yardstick of what a ‘reasonable amount’ means objectively under EU law. That does not, as such, preclude a rule of national law according to which a public authority must satisfy itself that a charge levied meets that standard, however, Member State to ensure that there is (first) administrative and (then) judicial review of whether a public authority’s decision on what constitutes a reasonable charge is in conformity with the autonomous EU law meaning of what is ‘reasonable’ under Article 5(2) of Directive 2003/4.

In other words: the current wording in the relevant English statute, in the view of the AG, does not infringe the Directive. (It does in my view at least however add a layer of complication: for the authority’s subjective finding of reasonableness subsequently has to be checked, in two tiers of appeal (administrative cq judicial), against the Directive’s objective standard).

Aarhus is considered throughout the appeal and hence Charles Banner’s book on the Aarhus Convention, just out with Hart, a timely publication I would think.

Geert.

          Les demandes d'inscription sont à adresser par courrier électronique à Mme Anne Garde ( agarde@shearman.com ).

  Les membres de  Lynxlex , un site juridique que le D.U. présente ici , ont élaboré un outil indispensable à tous ceux qui étudient et pratiquent les conflits de juridictions dans l'Union européenne.   Le Tableau panoramique "de Bruxelles à Lugano" permet de mettre...

      La réforme du règlement 1346 relatif aux procédures d’insolvabilité   le 23 juin 2014 à 17h30        Table ronde organisée par l’Association des juristes de droit international privé  ...

Dossier de candidature et brochure sont disponibles.

  Pour sa première participation au classement SMBG des meilleurs Masters, MS et MBA,   le DU Contentieux international des affaires   entre directement   à la 6e place   dans la catégorie Droit européen et inte...

  Colloque organisé conjointement par l’Association des Juristes de Droit International Privé, l’Association des Diplômés en Droit des Relations Economiques Internationales, et l’Association de l’Institut des Hautes Etudes Internationales. en collaboration a...

Le Conseil de l'Union européenne publie un recueil rassemblant les instruments relevant de la coopération judiciaire civile et des commentaires d'éminents spécialistes. Disponible, gratuitement et en plusieurs langues, sous un format électronique, cet ouvrage est un outil précieux pour les juges et...

Juridiction unifiée du brevet Le Cabinet Véron & Associés propose de suivre le processus de mise en place de cette nouvelle juridiction sur le site   www.upc.documents.eu.com . En autres informations utiles, on y trouvera: - de quoi suivre les mises à jour sur les sites officiels...

En 5 jours, cette formation vous permettra de : > Déterminer la loi applicable à un litige de la vie des affaires devant un juge étatique > Connaître les règles de compétence internationale, spécialement en Europe > Maîtriser ces règles par des accords appropriés (choix de loi, élection de for)...

Le 1er juillet 2013, la Croatie est devenue le 28e Etat membre de l'Union européenne. Le site e-Justice détaille les conséquences de cette accession au regard de l'espace judiciaire européen en matière civile et commerciale.

A partir de la rentrée 2013-2014, toute personne relevant de la formation continue peut suivre les formations du D.U. en tant qu’auditeur libre. L’auditeur libre n’est pas soumis au contrôle des connaissances et, en conséquence, ne peut pas prétendre à être diplômé du D.U. En revanch...

COMITE FRANCAIS DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE                                         à la 1ère Chambre de la Cour d'Appel de Paris , Palais de Justice, boulevard du Palais, PARIS IV à partir de 17h30 (Entrée libre, sans inscription -...

COMITE FRANCAIS DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE                                         à la 1ère Chambre de la Cour d'Appel de Paris , Palais de Justice, boulevard du Palais, PARIS IV à partir de 17h30 (Entrée libre, sans inscription -...

COMITE FRANCAIS DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE                                         à la 1ère Chambre de la Cour d'Appel de Paris , Palais de Justice, boulevard du Palais, PARIS IV à partir de 17h30 (Entrée libre, sans inscription -...

COMITE FRANCAIS DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE                                           à la 1ère Chambre de la Cour d'Appel de Paris , Palais de Justice, boulevard du Palais, PARIS IV à partir de 17h30 (Entrée libre, sans inscription - se mun...

Fruit d'une initiative conjointe de la Faculté de droit de l'Université de Sherbrooke et de la Schulich School of Law de l'Université Dalhousie, avec la collaboration du Congrès d'arbitrage canadien, la Revue d'arbitrage et de médiation succède à la Revue de prévention et règlement des différends...

Le cabinet Shearman & Sterling et Columbia Law School lancent, avec le soutien de la CNUDCI , le premier site entièrement consacré à la jurisprudence appliquant et interprétant la Convention de New York de 1958 pour la reconnaissance et l’exécution des sentences arbitrales étrangères....

L' Académie de l'Arbitrage , dont le D.U. Contentieux international des affaires est partenaire, organise chaque année une session d'été (pendant 3 semaines en juillet) à Paris. Le programme, qui propose des cours et des conférences dispensés par d'éminents spécialistes français et étrangers, attire...