Flux des sites DIP

From a technological standpoint, geography is largely irrelevant. Data flows through the internet without regard for political borders or territories. Services, communication, and interaction can occur online between persons who may be in different countries. Illegal activities, like hacking, cyberespionage, propagating terrorist propaganda, defamation, revenge porn, and illegal marketplaces may all be remotely targeted and accessed from various countries. As such, the internet has created an interesting and complex set of challenges for the concept of jurisdiction and conflicts of law. This title takes a comparative approach covering the EU, UK, US, Germany, and China.

Broken into four parts, this book delves into the notion of jurisdiction as it relates to the internet. Part I focuses on the different meanings of the concept of jurisdiction, from a legal and historical perspective, and distinguishing between the different branches of government. It will highlight the challenges created by the internet, including social media and cloud computing. Part II analyses criminal jurisdiction, in regards to both jurisdictions in cybercrime cases and jurisdictional issues relating to criminal investigations (access to the cloud) and enforcement. Part III examines jurisdiction and applicable law in civil and commercial matters, such as e-commerce B2B and B2C contracts, torts typically occurring online, and online defamation and privacy infringement. Finally, Part IV looks at regulatory jurisdiction, examining the power of the executive (whether an arm of government or independent regulator) to apply and enforce national law. It will look at aspects like the provision of online audio-visual media services and online gambling services, both of which are heavily regulated, but which can be easily provided remotely from different jurisdictions. The book concludes by analysing how the concept of jurisdiction should be adapted to ensure the rule of law by nation states and prevent international conflicts between states.

Here’s the link to the book: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/internet-jurisdiction-law-and-practice-9780198806929?cc=gb&lang=en&

Julia Hörnle, Professor of Internet Law, CCLS, Queen Mary University of London[1]

It is now well known that internet users are widely tracked and profiled by a range of actors and the advancements in data science mean that such tracking and profiling is increasingly commercially profitable[2]. This raises difficult questions about how to balance the value of data with individual privacy. But since there is no point in having privacy (or data protection) rights if no redress can be found to vindicate them, it is even more important to investigate how internet users can obtain justice, if their privacy has been infringed. Given the power of Big Tech Companies, their enormous financial resources, cross-jurisdictional reach and their global impact on users’ privacy, there are two main litigation challenges for successfully bringing a privacy claim against Big Tech. One is the jurisdictional challenge of finding a competent court in the same jurisdiction as the individual users.[3] Secondly, the challenge is how to finance mass claims, involving millions of affected users. In privacy claims it is likely that there is significant user detriment, potentially with long-term and latent consequences, which are difficult to measure. This constellation provides a strong argument for facilitating collective redress, as otherwise individual users may not be able to obtain justice for privacy infringements before the courts. In privacy infringement claims these two challenges are intertwined and present a double-whammy for successful redress. Courts in a number of recent cases had to grapple with questions of jurisdiction in consumer collective redress cases in the face of existing provision on consumer jurisdiction and collective redress, which have not (yet) been fully adapted to deal with the privacy challenges stemming from Big Tech in the 21st century.

In Case C-498/16 Max Schrems v Facebook Ireland[4] the Court of Justice of the EU in 2018 denied the privilege of EU law for consumers to sue in their local court[5] to a representative (ie Max Schrems) in a representative privacy litigation against Facebook under Austrian law. By contrast, courts in California and Canada have found a contractual jurisdiction and applicable law clause invalid as a matter of public policy in order to allow a class action privacy claim to proceed against Facebook.[6] In England, the dual challenge of jurisdiction and collective actions in a mass privacy infringement claim has presented itself before the English Courts, first in Vidal-Hall v Google before the Court of Appeal in 2015[7] and in the Supreme Court judgment of Google v Lloyd in November 2021[8]. Both cases concerned preliminary proceedings on the question of whether the English courts had jurisdiction to hear the action, ie whether the claimant was able to serve Google with proceedings in the USA and have illustrated the limitations of English law for the feasibility of bringing a collective action in mass-privacy infringement claims.

The factual background to Vidal- Hall and Lloyd is the so-called “Safari workaround” which allowed Google for some time in 2011-2012 to bypass Apple privacy settings by placing DoubleClick Ad cookies on unsuspecting users of Apple devices, even though Safari was trying to block such third party cookies, used for extensive data collection and advertising. The claimants alleged that this enabled Google to collect personal data, including sensitive data, such as users’ interests, political affiliations, race or ethnicity, social class, political and religious beliefs, health, sexual interests, age, gender, financial situation and location. Google additionally creates profiles from the aggregated information which it sells. The claim made was that Google as data controller had breached the following data protection principles set out in the Data Protection Act 1998 Schedules 1 and 2: 1st (fair and lawful processing), 2nd (processing only for specified and lawful purposes) and 7th (technical and organizational security measures). In particular, it was alleged that Google had not notified Apple iPhone users of the purposes of processing in breach of Schedule 1, Part II, paragraph 2 and that the data was not processed fairly according to the conditions set out in Schedules 2 and 3.

Vidal-Hall[9] concerned the first challenge of jurisdiction and in particular whether the court should allow the serving of proceedings on the defendant outside the jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Rules[10]. For privacy infringement, previous actions had been brought under the cause of action of breach of confidence[11], which is a claim in equity and, thus it was unclear whether for such actions jurisdiction lies at the place of where the damage occurs. The Court of Appeal held that misuse of private information and contravention of the statutory data protection requirements was a tort and therefore, if damage had been sustained within England, the English courts had jurisdiction and service to the USA (California) was allowed.

The second hurdle for allowing the case to proceed by serving outside the jurisdiction was the question of whether the claimant was limited to claiming financial loss or whether a claim for emotional distress could succeed. The Court of Appeal in Vidal-Hall decided that damages are available for distress, even in the absence of financial loss, to ensure the correct implementation of Article 23 of the (then) Data Protection Directive, and in order to comply with Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. The Court therefore found that there was a serious issue to be tried and allowed service abroad to proceed, at which point the case settled.

The more recent English Supreme Court judgment in Lloyd concerned the second challenge, collective redress. As pointed out by Lord Leggatt in the judgment, English procedural law provides for three different types of actions: Group Litigation Orders (CPR 19.11), common law representative actions, and statutory collective proceedings under the Competition Act 1998. Their differences are significant for the purposes of litigation financing in two respects: first the requirement to identify and “sign-up” claimants and secondly, the requirement for individualized assessment of damages. Since both these requirements are expensive, they make collective redress in mass privacy infringement cases with large numbers of claimants impractical.

Group actions require all claimants to be identified and entered in a group register (“opt-in”) and are therefore expensive to administer, which renders them commercially unviable if each individual claim is small and if the aim is to spread the cost of litigation across a large number of claimants.

English statutory law in the shape of the Competition Act 1998 provides for collective proceedings before the Competition Appeal Tribunal in competition law cases only.[12] Since the reforms by the Consumer Rights Act in 2015, they can be brought under an “opt-in” or “opt-out” mechanism. Opt-out means that a class can be established without the need for affirmative action by each and every member of the class individually. The significance of this is that it is notoriously difficult (and expensive) to motivate a large number of consumers to join a collective redress scheme. Human inertia frequently prevents a representative claimant from joining more than a tiny fraction of those affected. For example, 130 people (out of 1.2-1.5 million) opted into the price-fixing case against JJB Sports concerning replica football shirts.[13] Likewise, barely 10,000 out of about 100,000 of Morrison’s employees joined the group action against the supermarket chain for unlawful disclosure of private data on the internet by another employee.[14] Furthermore, s.47C (2) of the Competition Act obviates the need for individual assessment of damages, but limits the requirement to prove damages to the class as a whole, as an aggregate award of damages, as held by Lord Briggs in Merricks v Mastercard[15]. However no such advanced scheme of collective redress has yet been enacted in relation to mass privacy infringement claims.

While the Supreme Court held that Mr Lloyd’s individual claim had real prospect of success, the same could not necessarily be said of everyone in the class he represented. This case was brought as a representative action where Mr Lloyd represented the interests of everyone in England and Wales who used an iPhone at the relevant time and who had third party cookies placed by Google on their device. One of the interesting features of representative actions is that they can proceed on an opt-out basis, like the collective actions under the Competition Law Act. Common law representative actions have been established for hundreds of years and have now been codified in CPR Rule 19.6: “Where more than one person has the same interest in a claim by or against one or more of the persons who have the same interest as representatives of any other person who have that interest”. Thus representative actions are based on the commonality of interest between claimants. The pivotal issue in Lloyd was the degree of commonality of that interest and in particular, whether this commonality must extend to the losses, which claimants have suffered, and proof of damages.

Lord Leggatt in Lloyd emphasized the spirit of flexibility of representative actions. Previous caselaw in the Court of Appeal had held that it was possible for claimants to obtain a declaration by representative action, which declares that they have rights which are common to all of them, even though the loss and amount of damages may vary between them.[16] He held that a bifurcated approach was permissible: a representative action can be brought seeking a declaration about the common interests of all claimants, which can then form the basis for individual claims for redress. Lord Leggatt held that, depending on the circumstances, a representative action could even be brought in respect of a claim for damages, if the total amount of damages could be determined for the class as a whole, even if the amount for each individual claimant varied, as this was a matter which could be settled between the claimants in a second step. He held that, therefore, a representative action can proceed even if a claim for damages was an element of the representative action, as in Lloyd.

Lord Leggatt found that the interpretation of what amounts to the “same interest” was key and that there needed to be (a) common issue(s) so that the “representative can be relied on to conduct the litigation in a way which will effectively promote and protect the interests of all the members of the represented class.”[17] The problem in Lloyd was that the total damage done to privacy by the Safari workaround was unknown.

Lord Leggatt saw no reason why a representative action for a declaration that Google was in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998, and that each member was entitled to compensation for the damage suffered as a consequence of the breach, should fail. However, commercial litigation funding in practice cannot fund actions seeking a mere declaration, but need to be built on the recovery of damages, in order to finance costs. In order to avoid the need for individualised damages, the claim for damages was formulated as a claim for uniform per capita damages. The problem on the facts of this case was clearly that the Safari workaround did not affect all Apple users in the same manner, as their internet usage, the nature and amount of data collected, as well as the effect of the data processing varied, all of which required individualised assessment of damages.

For this reason, the claimant argued that an infringement of the Data Protection Act 1998 leads to automatic entitlement to compensation without the need to show specific financial loss or emotional distress. This argument proved to be ultimately unsuccessful and therefore the claim failed. The Court examined Section 13 of the Data Protection Act 1998, entitling the defendant to compensation for damage, but the court held that each claimant had to prove such damage. The level of distress varied between different members of the represented class, meaning that individual assessment was necessary.

The claimant sought to apply the cases on the tort of misuse of private information by analogy. In this jurisprudence the courts have allowed for an award of damages for wrongful intrusion of privacy as such, without proof of distress in order to compensate for the “loss of control” over formerly private information.[18] Lord Leggatt pointed out that English common law now recognized the right to control access to one’s private affairs and infringement of this right itself was a harm for which compensation is available.

However in this particular case the claim had not been framed as the tort of misuse of private information or privacy intrusion, but as a breach of statutory duty and Lord Leggatt held that the same principle, namely the availability of damages for “loss of control” did not apply to the statutory scheme. He pointed out that it may be difficult to frame a representative action for misuse of private information, as it may be difficult to prove reasonable expectations of privacy for the class as a whole. This may well be the reason that the claim in this case was based on breach of statutory duty in relation to the Data Protection Act. Essentially the argument that “damages” in Section 13 (1) included “loss of control” over private data was unsuccessful. Both Article 23 of the Data Protection Directive and Article 13 made a distinction between the unlawful act (breach of data protection requirements) and the damage resulting, and did not conceive the unlawful act itself as the damage. Furthermore, it was not intended by the Directive or the Act that each and every contravention led to an entitlement to damages. He held that “loss of control” of personal data was not the concept underlying the data protection regime, as processing can be justified by consent, but also other factors which made processing lawful, so the control over personal data is not absolute.

Furthermore, it did not follow from the fact that both the tort of misuse of private information and the data protection legislation shared the same purposes of protecting the right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights that the same rule in respect of damages should apply in respect of both. There was no reason “why the basis on which damages are awarded for an English domestic tort should be regarded as relevant to the proper interpretation of the term “damage” in a statutory provision intended to implement a European directive”.[19] He concluded that a claim for damages under Section 13 required the proof of material damage or distress. He held that the claim had no real prospect of success and that therefore no permission should be given to serve proceedings outside the jurisdiction (on Google in the US).

This outcome of Lloyd raises the question in the title of this article, namely whether the cross-border battle on collective actions in mass privacy infringement cases against Big Tech has been lost, or whether on the contrary, it has just begun. One could argue that it has just began for the reason that the facts underlying this case occurred in 2011-2012, and therefore the judgment limited itself to the Data Protection Act 1998 (and the then Data Protection Directive 1995/46/EC). Since then the UK has left the EU, but has retained the General Data Protection Regulation[20] (“the UK GDPR”) and implemented further provisions in the form of the Data Protection Act 2018, both of which contain express provisions on collective redress. The GDPR provides for opt-in collective redress performed by a not-for-profit body in the field of data protection established for public interest purposes.[21] This is narrow collective redress as far removed from commercial litigations funders as possible. Because of the challenge of financing cross-border mass-privacy infringements claims, this is unlikely to be a practical option. The GDPR makes it optional for Member States to provide that such public interest bodies are empowered to bring opt-out collective actions for compensation before the courts.[22] These provisions unfortunately do not add anything to common law representative actions or group actions under English law. As has been illustrated above, representative actions can be brought on an “opt-out” basis, but have a narrow ambit in that all parties must have the same interest in the claim and Lloyd has demonstrated that in the case of distress this communality of interest may well defeat a claim. For group actions the bar of communality is lower, as it may encompass “claims which give rise to common or related issues of fact or law”[23]. But clearly the downside of group actions is that they are opt-in. Therefore, while English law recognizes collective redress, there are limitations to its effectiveness.

The Data Protection Act 2018 imposes an obligation on the Secretary of State to review the provision on collective redress, and in particular, consider the need for opt-out collective redress, and lay a report before Parliament. This may lead to Regulations setting out a statutory opt-out collective redress scheme for data protection in the future.[24] This Review is due in 2023.

Thus, the GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 have not yet added anything to the existing collective redress. It can only be hoped that the Secretary of State reviews the collective redress mechanisms in relation to data protection law and the review leads to a new statutory collective redress scheme, similar to that enacted in respect of Competition Law in 2015, thereby addressing the challenge of holding Big Tech to account for privacy infringement.[25]

However the new data protection law has improved the provision of recoverable heads of damage. This improvement raises the question, if the issues in Lloyd had been raised under the current law, whether the outcome would have been different. The Data Protection Act 2018 now explicitly clarifies that the right to compensation covers both material and non-material damage and that non-material damage includes distress.[26] Since non-material damage is now included in the Act, the question arises whether this new wording could be interpreted by a future court as including the privacy infringement itself (loss of control over one’s data). Some of the arguments made by Lord Leggatt in Lloyd continue to be relevant under the new legislation, for example that the tort of statutory breach is different from the tort of misuse of private information and that not each and every (minor) infringement of a statute should give raise to an entitlement for damages. Nevertheless it is clear from the new Act that non-material damage is included and that non-material damage includes distress, but is wider than distress. This means that claimants should be able to obtain compensation for other heads of non-material damage, which may include the latent consequences of misuse of personal information and digital surveillance. There is much scope for arguing that some of the damage caused by profiling and tracking are the same for all claimants. A future representative action in an equivalent scenario may well be successful. Therefore, the battle for collective action against Big Tech companies’ in privacy infringement cases may just have begun.

[1] J.hornle@qmul.ac.uk

[2] Shoshana Zuboff The Age of Surveillance Capitalism (2018)

[3] See further J. Hörnle, Internet Jurisdiction Law & Practice (OUP 2021)

[4] ECLI:EU:C:2018:37; discussed further in J. Hörnle fn 1 Chapter 8

[5] Ie the courts of the consumer’s domicile, if the business directed their activities to that state, Art 17 and Art 18 (1) Brussels Regulation on Jurisdiction (EU) 1215/2021

[6] In Re Facebook Biometric Information Privacy Litigation 185 F.Supp.3d 1155 (US District Court N.D. California 2016) and Douez v Facebook [2017] SCC 33; discussed further in J. Hörnle fn 1 Chapter 8

[7] [2016] QB 1003

[8] [2021] 3 WLR 1268

[9] [2015] 3 WLR 409 (CA)

[10] CPR PD 6B para.3.1(9)

[11] Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] 2 WLR 1232 (HL)

[12] Section 47B

[13] The Consumers Association v JJB Sports Plc [2009] CAT 2

[14] Various Claimants v WM Morrisons Supermarkets Plc [2017] EWHC 3113 (QB)

[15] [2021] Bus LR 25, para 76

[16] David Jones v Cory Bros & Co Ltd (1921) 56 LJ 302; 152 LT Jo 70

[17] Paras 71-74

[18] by Mann J affirmed in the Court of Appeal Gulati v MGN Ltd [2017] QB 149

[19] Para 124

[20] Regulation (EU) 2016/679, L119, 4 May 2016, p. 1–88

[21] Art 80 (1)

[22] Arts 79 and 80 (2) in relation to effective judicial remedies

[23] CPR Part 19- Group Litigation Orders, Rules 19.10, 19.11

[24] ss. 189-190

[25] The current government, however seems to march in the opposite direction, see Consultation on reform of data protection law https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/data-a-new-direction

[26] S. 168 (1)

Mahmudov & Anor v Sanzberro & Ors [2021] EWHC 3433 (QB) tackles the issue of libel tourism. As Collins Rice J puts it [3]

underlying the contest of law is a contest of two mainstream policies embodied in modern defamation law: on the one hand, the need for the law to keep up with the borderless realities of the internet, and on the other the need for international libel to be dealt with by the courts best able fairly to do so (or, to put it less neutrally, to prevent ‘libel tourism’).

The case is held under Brussels Ia for the claim was introduced on 31 December 2020, ‘IP completion day’.  Parties mostly seem at loggerheads over the implications of CJEU C-509/09 eDate. Claimants suggest eDate establishes a stand-alone full jurisdictional gateway for the Member State where the aggrieved has his or its centre of interests – CoI. Defendant claims [19]

there is still a binary choice, as per Shevill: to sue either (a) where a defendant is domiciled or (b) where a completed tort (the harmful event) occurred. The effect of eDate, they say, is that claimants taking the second route in their CoI country can now get global relief rather than being limited to compensation for harm arising in that individual state. CoI is not jurisdictional in the pure sense of introducing a freestanding basis for bringing an action somewhere; it is jurisdictional only to the limited or secondary (but nevertheless important) extent of the nature and quantum of the relief that may be sought.

Parties oddly seem in agreement that Shevill v Presse Alliance (No.2) [1996] AC 959 reaffirmed ([11] in Mahumdov]

that what constituted the ‘harmful event’ was to be determined by the national court applying its own substantive law. In other words, the preliminary jurisdictional question for the High Court in a libel case brought against a non-domiciled defendant was whether a claimant could show to the requisite standard that all the components of a tort actionable in the UK were present

I find that debatable to say the least, and in fact that consensus has an important impact on the judge’s final conclusion, which rejects CoI as a stand-alone gateway: [28] the judge sides with the defendants for the claimant’s reading would imply ‘an autonomous meaning of the ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ ‘. The latter, many might argue, must be the implication of the CJEU’s overall application of Brussels Ia. At [34] Napag Trading is offered in support however the judge I feel in Mahmudov should  have made a clearer distinction (as the judge did in Napag Trading) between the EU-governed jurisdictional gateway for tort, and the (England and Wales) governed Civil Procedure Rules test for a ‘good arguable case’. As I note in my review of Napag Trading, these CPR rules may still form a formidable procedural hurdle, however properly distinguishing between them is important, among others for costs reasons.

Geert.

Mahmudov & Anor v Sanzberro & Ors [2021] EWHC 3433 (QB) (17 December 2021)#libel tourism
Held E&W courts do not have jurisdiction per #CJEU Brussels Ia, Shevill, eDate etchttps://t.co/9vP1s5TJZd

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) December 20, 2021

The post below was written by Adrian Briggs QC, who is Professor of Private International Law Emeritus at the University of Oxford. It is the second contribution to the EAPIL online symposium, announced by an earlier post, regarding the ruling of the Court of Justice in the case of Hrvatske Šume. The previous post of Peter Mankowski can be found here. 

The arrival of the decision in C-242/20 Hrvatske Šume in December 2021 was as predictable as it was depressing. So was the omicron variant of covid-19: early December 2021 will not go down as the high point of anyone’s year. Those who have already contributed to this commentary have highlighted the technical shortcomings in the apology for a judgment, and there is no need to repeat their criticisms which are, in my view and in any rational world, unanswerable. Their careful work allows others to paint a more impressionistic picture.

The claimant in the case sustained damage: any consequence arising out of … unjust enrichment, as this is explained in the Rome II Regulation. The reason why the claim was not within Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation will therefore have been that there was no harmful event when the defendant refused to repay a sum which it had no legal basis to retain. Although English is only one of twenty-odd languages, each of which is equally authentic, in what sense is that refusal, assuming it is unjustified in law, not a harmful event ? Consider the child who, sent on a shopping errand, refuses to hand over to her mother the change from the original £10 which the shopkeeper had given her. This refusal is, it seems, not to be understood as a harmful event. That will come as news to many. If while out walking I find a wallet which someone has evidently dropped, and decide to pick it up and keep it, does the claim later brought against me by the owner fall within Article 7(2) ? One would think so; and it makes no difference whether the claim is for the leather folder or the banknotes which it contains. Or take the case in which I attempt to make an electronic transfer of funds to my favourite nephew’s bank account but which, as a result of my incompetent typing, I manage to transfer to a complete stranger (it happens; don’t ask). When I discover my mistake, and the bank, in the modern way of banks, refuses point blank to do anything to help, I am left to sue the intransigent recipient for repayment. Does the claim fall within Article 7(2) ? The answer should be yes, and the proposition that the refusal to repay that which one should not have received and certainly should never have kept is not a harmful event rejected as the nonsense which it certainly is.

In what sense is the refusal to pay over not a harmful event ? The only illumination has to come from bare and conclusory paragraph 55 of the judgment, which says that ‘a claim for restitution based on unjust enrichment is based on an obligation which does not originate in a harmful event. That obligation arises irrespective of the defendant’s conduct, with the result that there is no causal link that can be established between the damage and any unlawful act or omission committed by the defendant’. The proposition that there is no causal link between the damage (which seems to be admitted) and anything the defendant did or didn’t do is apparent only to those who value belief above observation. The damage of which the claimant now complains would not have occurred if the defendant had behaved otherwise: how is that relationship not a causal one ? The Court may say that it depends on the meaning of ‘causal’, which it may do. That, however, is not elaborated by the judgment. So we must try to do it ourselves.

One possible explanation might be that the recipient does me no harm; that I harmed myself and everything which follows is an immaterial consequence of that self-harm. If that is so, it would reflect developments within the judicial exegesis of ‘damage occurring’ as this relates to Article 7(2). Maybe so, but it makes cases of transfer or property as a result of fraud or misrepresentation hard to deal with. If it is suggested that the delayed-refusal to deliver or redeliver is not a harmful event, what of the case in which the person to whom I have lent my bicycle (gratuitously, not for reward) refuses to return it to me ? He did no wrong when I handed it over and he borrowed it, but it would make one rub one’s eyes in disbelief if it were said that his refusal to return it on my demand hand it over was not a wrongful act because I had self-harmed by voluntarily parting with it in the first place.

And so one could continue unto length of days. Not everyone will see the lines as needing to be drawn in the same place as I would locate them, which is, no doubt, exactly as it should be. One should instead ask why the Court has decided to turn its back on Kalfelis and thirty-odd years of general (granted, not universal) assumption that ‘all actions which seek to establish the liability’ of a defendant does not mean what it said, in favour of some abstract and doctrinaire distinction-drawing, which serves no useful purpose at all. It will now require a judge at first instance, perhaps in the remoter regions of the Union where theories of unjust enrichment and waiver of tort are not part of daily discourse, to figure out whether a non-contractual obligation giving rise to a pleaded claim is – as a matter of general European law, rather than within his or her own legal system, as paragraph 40 makes perfectly clear – based on a harmful event. What on earth was the sense of that ?

This is the first contribution to the on-line symposium regarding the ruling of the Court of Justice in the case of Hrvatske Šume. The author is Peter Mankowski, who is Professor of Private International Law at the University of Hamburg. It is based on the author’s case note in German, forthcoming in Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft. The publication of this version is permitted by courtesy of Deutscher Fachverlag, Frankfurt/Main. 

Article 7 of the Brussels I bis Regulation provides for special jurisdiction for contractual claims (point 1) and for tort claims (point 2).

On the other hand, it does not mention any claims for unjust enrichment (alternatively called: restitution). Does this mean that there is no special jurisdiction for claims or unjust enrichment under Article 7 of the Brussels I bis Regulation if point 5 does not apply)?

However, even if the answer was ‘yes’, this would not amount to a denial of justice for creditors in unjust enrichment since they could always avail temselves of the general jurisdiction in the State where the defendant is domiciled under Article 4 (1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation as kind of ‘residual jurisdiction’ (A-G Saugmandsgaard Øe, Opinion of 9 September 2021 in Case C-242/20, para. 80). Actor sequitur forum rei might save the last remains of the day for claimants, thus. It is ‘only’ about additional options for the claimant through special jurisdictional grounds.

The CJEU has so far avoided rendering a fundamental opinion where to place unjust enrichment (in particular in Case C-102/15, Gazdasági Versenyhivatal v Siemens AG Österreich; see, as contrast to A-G Wahl, Opinion of 7 April 2016 in Case C-102/15, paras. 54 to 75) and only occasionally decided on bits pieces (CJEU Case C-611/45, Land Berlin v Ellen Mirjam Sapir, paras. 35 et seq.; CJEU Case C-366/13, Profit Investment SIM SpA v Stefano Ossi, para. 55; CJEU Case C-185/15, Marjan Kostanjevec v F&S Leasing GmbH, paras. 34-40).

However, in Hrvatske Šume (Case C-242/20) the CJEU can no longer avoid a more principled approach. A-G Saugmandsgaard Øe had categorically denied, on detailed grounds, that an action for recovery of the property gave rise to liability for damage and therefore ruled out the possibility that it could constitute a tort for the purposes of Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation (A-G Saugmandsgaard Øe, Opinion of 9 September 2021 in Case C-242/20, paras. 56-79). In other words, the CJEU accepts this as key argument (paras. 53-59). That is, however, taking things way to litteral. It does not fit with the concept of ‘damage’ in Article 2(1) of the Rome II Regulation, which is very broad and, in particular, must be broad enough to also cover ‘damage’ in the case of other non-contractual obligations beyond the actual law of tort (see only Mankowski, in: Ulrich Magnus v Mankowski, Rome II Regulation [2019] Article 2 Rome II Regulation note 8), further to the fact that claims for injunctive relief under tort law fall within point 2, too. Oh, and on top of it, it tends to disregard purposive interpretation and hails litteral interpretation instead (Layton, Cuniberti, EAPIL Blog 9 December 2021; Cuniberti [Comment], EAPIL Blog 9 December 2021).

In any event, actions for the recovery of ineffective contractual relationships must be characterised differently (to the same avail van Calster, gavclaw.com 9 December 2021). In their case, the assessment of Article 12(1)(d) of the Rome I Regulation is correct. They must be characterised as contractual, and special jurisdiction at the place of performance of Article 7(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation is therefore open to them (Court of Justice, 20 April 2016, Case C-366/13, para. 55 — Profit Investment SIM SpA v Stefano Ossi; A-G Saugmandsgaard Øe, Opinion of 9 September 2021 in Case C-242/20,  points 48-52; Mankowski, RIW 2017, 322, 324-326; Grušić, [2019] 68 ICLQ 837, 854-859). The CJEU does not hesitate to confirm this (paras. 47-50). Profit Investement is still good law on this point. In so far as the void or ineffective contract is a consumer, insurance or individual employment contract, what is at issue would be the grounds of jurisdiction under the relevant protective regime (A-G Kokott, Opinion of 2 June 2016 in Case C-195/15, points 54 et seq.; OLG Dresden IPRspr. 2007 No 140, p. 394; LG Darmstadt ZIP 2004, 1924, 1925), in accordance with the generalisable principle underpinning Articles 12(1)(e) of the Rome I Regulation and 10(1) of the Rome II Regulation. Moreover, the rules on jurisdiction for other kinds of actions where the recovery of sums paid, i.e. the way back, should be the same as the ones governing the way forward, e.g. those of the Maintenance Regulation in the event of recovery of maintenance overpaid (Mankowski, RIW 2017, 322, 326).

The CJEU had to rule on another specific issue: Do actions for recovery based on unjust enrichment in respect of something obtained in enforcement fall within the scope of (now) Article 24(5) of the Brussels I bis Regulation and fall within exclusive jurisdiction at the place of enforcement? It could be argued that this would result in a substantive revision of enforcement and therefore a sort of extraordinary remedy exists. On the other hand, these are not formally attacks or even appeals against individual enforcement measures. Its success does not create the foreclosure measure as such, but merely revises its economic result. This is rightly not sufficient for the Court of Justice (paras. 31-36). Irrespective of the legal basis used, it is not sufficient if this unjust enrichment (para. 36), a general offence or a specific offence such as § 717(2) of the German ZPO (in more detail Mankowski, in: Rauscher, EuZPR/EuIPR, vol. 1 [5th ed. 2021] Article 24 Brussels I bis Regulation notes 220-223; Philip Schwarz, Enforcement shopping in the European judicial area [2019] pp. 227-245; see also OLG Saarbrücken EuZW 2017, 347 paras. 18-23).

The Rome II Regulation recognises unjust enrichment as a separate non-contractual obligation besides and on equal footing with tort; it consequently allocates an own and separate conflict-of-law rule to unjust enrichment in Article 10 of the Rome II Regulation. The Brussels I bis Regulation, on the other hand, makes no mention of unjust enrichment. This leads to a discrepancy (Mankowski, RIW 2017, 322 [322]; van Calster, gavclaw.com 14 September 2021). It can be inferred from the 2007 Rome II Regulation that unjust enrichment is not a tort for its purposes. It is precisely for that reason that it sets up its own system of unjust enrichment, almost in return for compensation. The more recent Brussels I bis Regulation of 2012 does not reflect this either in positive or negative terms, but requires a characterisation for every claim based on unjust enrichment, whether it can be characterised — more or less badly — as contractual or delicate for the purposes of the Brussels I bis Regulation. Its grid has therefore remained rougher and less sophisticated than that of the Rome II Regulation. ‘Non contractual’ does not automatically equate to the narrower ‘tort, delict, or quasi-delict’ of Article 7 point 2 of the Brussels I bis Regulation (A-G Saugmandsgaard Øe, Opinion of 9 September 2021 in Case C-242/20, paras. 76-79; Briggs, EAPIL Blog 10 December 2021; Pacula, conflictoflaws.net, 17 December 2021). In that regard, unjust enrichment continues to be an unfamiliar concept for the law of jurisdiction, as it has ever been since the days of the original 1968 Brussels Convention. However, this is no longer fully in line with the state of play since the Rome II Regulation at the latest. Unfortunately, the CJEU does not correct this judicially. The CJEU in effect treats creditors in unjust enrichment (beyond ineffective contracts) less favourably than creditors in tort by denying them the benefit of a special head of jurisdiction which would be encroachable on them.

The CJEU is focused on the premissae maiores, i.e. on the individual grounds of jurisdiction, the limits of which the CJEU feels bound to examine. Unfortunately, the premissa minor does not get like attention. In particular, it is not possible to see any recourse to the assistance which the doctrine on condictiones would offer (see Mankowski, RIW 2017, 322, 323 et seq.), which in turn already has its roots in Roman law — and thus in a central source of European and Community law. The term ‘interference’ or ‘infringement’, Eingriffskondiktion, or a functional equivalent, does not appear anywhere in the CJEU. In that regard, already the A-G’s Opinion scored less than possible. The A-G and, following, the CJEU celebrate a ‘chracterisation festival’, a Qualifikationsfest (van Calster, gavclaw.com 14 September 2021), without employing the full array of methodological tools. The contention that unjust enrichment could never be attributable to an event harmful in the broad sense and to the conduct of the person liable for the condiction (para. 55), is wrong for it disregards the cases of interference and infringement of another’s rights. Hence, other cases in the future might prompt more distinguishing answers (cf. Miguel de Asensio, pedromiguelasensio.blogspot.com, 13 December 2021). While not all claims in unjust enrichment automatically qualify for Article 7 point (2) of the Brussel I bis Regulation, there might be some instances that do individually (cf. Cuniberti, EAPIL Blog 9 December 2021; Miguel de Asensio, pedromiguelasensio.blogspot.com, 13 December 2021). One future day, a notion of ‘restitution in wrong’ should prevail, properly re-transferring interference and infringement into the realm of Article 7 point 2 of the Brussels I bis Regulation even de regulatione lata (Mankowski, in: Ulrich Magnus/Mankowski, Brussels Ibis Regulation [2nd ed. 2022] Article 7 Brussels Ibis Regulation note 245). Predictability would not be overly impinged by that (to calm the concerns raised by (cf. Sisák, EAPIL Blog 10 December 2021).

However, neither the unconvincing reasoning nor the conclusion raising severe doubts for cases of interference or infringement (see Mankowski, RIW 2017, 322, 326 et seq.) can erase the fact that the CJEU establishes a seemingly clear orientation mark for practical purposes (to the same avail Miguel de Asensio, pedromiguelasensio.blogspot.com 13 December 2021). It would be ill-advised to implement any specific restriction on actions for recovery in natura. This is because such recovery is the primary legal consequence of any claim for enrichment, and a subsidiary shift to compensation for value must not have the effect of changing the jurisdiction of the court, as the primary legal consequence is also the ground for the subsidiary one. Hrvatske Šume conveys the practical message, for the time being: Beyond the realm of ineffective contracts, claims in unjust enrichment can avail them only of general jurisdiction and the special grounds of jurisdiction derived from Article 7 point 5; 8 points 1 and 3 of the Brussels I bis Regulation, but not of the special grounds of jurisdiction derived from Article 7 points 1 and 2 Brussels I bis Regulation. The Kalfelis formula (Athanassios Kalfelis v Bankhaus Schröder Münchmeyer Hengst & Cie) has always been deceptive, and there have always been tertia to contract and tort even in liability cases. Liability is not a binary world. Any perceived suggestion that Article 7 (2) Brussels I bis Regulation, or previously Article 5 point 3 Brussels Convention or Brussels I Regulation, was a residual rule within the realm of special jurisdiction (cf. Cuniberti, EAPIL Blog 9 December 2021; Okoli, EAPIL Blog 9 December 2021) has always been wrong. Sloppy and inaccurate drafting must prompt such important consequences.

Choice of court agreements pursuant to Article 25 of the Brussels I bis Regulation remain possible, ex ante as well as post eventum (Mankowski, RIW 2017, 322, 330). However, ex ante choice of court agreements (also) on claims for enrichment are unlikely to exist outside a contractual environment; they score their highest probality in framework agreements covering all legal relationships between the respective parties.

The reform agenda of the European legislature for a future Brussels Ib Regulation ought to reflect whether unjust enrichment should be blessed with a separate rule on special jurisdiction (Grušić, [2019] 68 ICLQ 837, 854-859; Mankowski, in: Ulrich Magnus/Mankowski, Brussels Ibis Regulation [2nd ed. 2022] Article 7 Brussels Ibis Regulation note 63a). The same applies to claims in negotiorum gestio (see in detail Dornis, in: Mankowski [ed.], Research Handbook on the Brussels Ibis Regulation [2020], p. 64). If these categories of non contractual obligations, well within the realm of the Rome II Regulation, were expressly addressed this would placate the principal questions.

On 9 December 2021, the CJEU ruled in HRVATSKE ŠUME d.o.o., Zagreb v. BP EUROPA SE (Case C-242/20) that the distinction between contracts and torts under Article 7 of the Brussels I bis Regulation is not exclusive, and that claims for unjust enrichment need not be characterised either as contractual or tortious (see the comments by Geert van Calster here and Krzysztof Pacula here).

The Court had established until this case a clear bright line rule. Cases which did not fall within the jurisdictional rule for contracts (Article 7(1)) fell within the jurisdictional rule for torts (Article 7(2)). The ‘tort’ category was thus a residual category which included all liability actions which were not contractual in nature.

Hrvatske Sume changes this, and may have far reaching consequences.

First, as Article 7(2) only applies to ‘torts’ as such, it will now be necessary to positively define the concept of tort in the meaning of that provision. Will it include strict liability rules? Will it include torts which do not require the existence of a damage? Will it include torts which do not strictly require causation between the act of the defendant and the damage suffered by the victim?

Secondly, it will be necessary to identify those concepts which must be distinguished from torts and contracts. One of them is unjust enrichment. What are the others? Other quasi-contracts such as negotiorum gestio? Certain statutory rights? Certain other remedies?

Starting from tomorrow morning, the EAPIL blog will host an online symposium to discuss the above issues. Peter Mankowski will kick off the discussion. More contributions are scheduled for publication later on Monday and on Tuesday.

Readers are encouraged to contribute to the discussion by commenting on the posts. Those wishing to submit longer analyses are invited to do so by writing an e-mail to Pietro Franzina (pietro.franzina@unicatt.it).

Daria Levina (European University Institute) posted on SSRN a paper titled The Law Governing Enforceability of Forum Selection Agreements. The paper was completed to fulfill the requirements for a master of laws degree at Harvard Law School and received the 2018 Addison Brown Prize in conflict of laws.

The abstract reads as follows:

The paper examines approaches to determining the law governing forum selection agreements (“FSA”) in the US, the EU, Germany, and on international level (on example of the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements). It analyses the historical treatment of FSA, as well as its legal features, and shows how they influenced the approaches adopted by the above jurisdictions. It looks at all potentially applicable laws (lex fori, lex causae, lex fori prorogati) and discusses the arguments in favor and against each of them, testing them against the principles of predictability, procedural economy, legal certainty, and regulatory interests of states. The paper adopts comparative approach in order to familiarize with the solutions adopted by different legal systems draw conclusions which might benefit them.

On 17 November 2021, the French Supreme Court for private and criminal matters (Cour de cassation) issued an interesting decision in the field of family law (Cass. Civ. 1re, 17 November 2021, n°20-19.420). The Court held that a bigamous marriage is not automatically void under French law when the spouses are foreign nationals. Indeed, the French choice of law rule on the validity of marriage provides for the application of the law of the spouses’ common nationality (article 202-1 of the Civil Code). Therefore, the lower court is required to designate on its own motion the applicable law to the marriage to assess its validity.

A couple, both Libyan nationals, married in 2000 in Libya. On November 2017, the wife filed a petition for divorce before French court. The lower court ruled that the request for divorce was inadmissible, because the husband was already married in Libya before this marriage. French law prohibits bigamy pursuant to article 147 of the Civil Code. As a result, the lower court had held that the second marriage “has no legal existence” and thus cannot be dissolved by a French court.

The wife appealed to the French Supreme Court based on a traditional conflict-of-law reasoning. She argued that the lower court should have checked whether the personal law of the spouses (as applicable law to marriage pursuant to article 202-1, op. cit.) did authorise bigamy. If so, the second marriage, celebrated abroad, could produce effects in France and thus be dissolved by a French court.

Under French domestic family law, article 147 of the French Civil Code lays down the principle of monogamy. French criminal law punishes a spouse guilty of bigamy (article 433-20 of the Penal Code). At the same time, comparative law reveals that some foreign legal systems allow polygamy. Even if this institution is in sharp contrasts to Western socio-cultural values, the global mobility of persons requires to pay attention to a possible acceptance of such marriages in the French forum.

Remarkably, the French legal system has traditionally adopted a nuanced position, depending on the proximity that the situation of bigamy or polygamy has with the forum. In France, no bigamous or, a fortiori, polygamous marriage can be validly celebrated, even if the second marriage is concluded between the same persons, already married abroad (Civ. 1re, 3 February 2004, n°00-19.838). The situation is different when the bigamy is not “created” in France, but was legally established abroad. The second marriage may then, in certain circumstances, be recognised in France and produce certain effects (e.g. in the field of social security rights or succession). In these latter circumstances, two hypotheses must be distinguished.

Either the national law of one of the spouses (pursuant to article 202-1 of the Civil Code) does not allow bigamy. French law will consider this prohibition as constituting an absolute impediment to marriage prevailing over the more liberal content of the national law of the other spouse. French authorities will therefore refuse to give effect to this marriage in France. For instance, a second marriage, validly celebrated abroad, of a foreign spouse whose personal status admits polygamy, with a French woman, cannot be recognised in France (Civ. 1re, 28 January 2002, n°00-15789).

Or the personal status of the spouses, i.e. their common or own national law, authorises polygamy. The French court may, to a certain extent, recognise the second marriage (and make it produce effects) by attenuating the “eviction” impact of the French fundamental values (effet atténué de l’ordre public). This has been held by the French Supreme Court on several occasions (Civ. 1re, 28 January 1958, Chemouni and more recently Civ. 2e, 14 February 2007, n°05-21.816).

In the present case, the lower court ruled on a domestic law basis. The case, however, was international and required a conflict-of-law analysis since the parties may not dispose of their rights. It is worth recalling that French PIL does not provide for a systematic mandatory application of choice of law rules. But French courts are required to apply conflict-of-law rules in non-patrimonial matters, such as personal status issues, since the parties may not dispose of their rights. They even have to determine the applicable law ex officio (comp. recently on the context of EU PIL, Civ. 1re, 26 May 2021, n°19-15.102, commented on the blog here and here).

In the absence of French written rules of PIL, the French Supreme Court has traditionally based this solution on article 3 of the French Civil Code. It was the only “international” provision in the Code Napoleon at the time of the judicial development of PIL rules in the French legal system. Unfortunately, it may be confusing for the reader, since article 3 makes no mention whatsoever of the court’s role in conflict-of-law matters. This is a strong point in favour of a (forthcoming?) French PIL codification.

This is the ground on which the French Supreme Court annulled the judgment of the Court of appeal in this case: in the field of marriage, conflict-of-law rules are mandatory. The lower court should have verified, in accordance with the personal law of the spouses pursuant to article 202-1 of the Civil Code, whether the foreign bigamous marriage was valid (so that, in the affirmative, it could be dissolved). At that stage of the reasonning, the French prohibition of bigamy pursuant to article 147 of the Civil Code did not matter.

We could maybe regret that the Supreme Court does not provide for the full PIL reasoning in order to be more informative. It will be indeed for the lower court to proceed to the second step of the choice of law analysis. The validity of the foreign marriage could be denied, despite its validity under the applicable law, on the basis of public policy. If the content of  foreign law infringes the fundamental values of French society, a French court may displace it and apply French law instead.

There is, however, a limit mentioned above: in order to protect rights acquired abroad and the permanence of the status of individuals across borders, the effect of public policy may be limited (effet atténué de l’ordre public). This has traditionally been the case in the field of polygamy when it is allowed under the personal status of the spouses (see above). The lower court should thus exclude the eviction of the foreign law despite its sharp cultural difference with French substantive family law and consider the foreign marriage as valid.

In this case, the bigamous marriage should be recognised so that the second wife is allowed to divorce. In other words, as a matter of policy, the private interests of the second wife should prevail. Whether this view would be shared by all Member States in the implementation of the EU PIL instruments on family matters is another matter.

The fifth edition of the treatise of Horatia Muir Watt (Sciences Po Law School) and Dominique Bureau (Paris II University) on French private international law has recently been published.

The treatise, which is one of the leading texts on private international law in France, is divided into two volumes (over 800 p. each). The first volume focuses on the general theory of private international law, and distinguishes between conflits de juridictions (jurisdiction and judgments), conflits de lois (choice of law) and conflits d’autorités (international regime of the action of non judicial authorities and recognition of the acts that they issue).

The second volume is concerned with special rules applicable in the different fields of private law (persons, property, family, obligations, businesses). It ends with a long conclusion which discusses two innovative topics. The first is an attempt to build a general theory of special European law on jurisdiction, judgments and choice of law. The second is an enquiry into whether new forces will lead to a complete reorganisation of the field: environment, digitalisation and the impact of new forms of organisation of business on traditional conceptual categories.

The latest issue of the IPRax (Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts) has been published.

It contains a number of insightful articles and case comments, whose abstracts are provided below.

E.-M. Kieninger, Climate Change Litigation and Private International Law

The recent Shell ruling by the District Court of The Hague raises the question whether Carbon Majors could also be sued outside the state of their corporate home and which law would be applicable to claims for damages or injunctive relief. In particular, the article discusses possible restrictions of the right to choose between the law of the state in which the damage occurred and the law of the state in which the event giving rise to the damage took place (Art. 7 No. 2 Brussels Ia Regulation and Art. 7 Rome II Regulation). It also considers the effects of plant permits and the role that emissions trading should play under Art. 17 Rome II Regulation.

S. Arnold, Artificial intelligence and party autonomy – legal capacity and capacity for choice of law in private international law

Artificial intelligence is already fundamentally shaping our lives. It also presents challenges for private international law. This essay aims to advance the debate about these challenges. The regulative advantages of party autonomy, i.e. efficiency, legal certainty and conflict of laws justice, can be productive in choice of law contracts involving artificial intelligence. In the case of merely automated systems, problems are relatively limited: the declarations of such systems can simply be attributed to their users. Existence, validity or voidability of choice of law clauses are determined by the chosen law in accordance with Art. 3(5), 10(1) Rome I Regulation. If, however, the choice of law is the result of an artificial “black box” decision, tricky problems arise: The attribution to the persons behind the machines might reach its limit, for such artificial decisions can neither be predicted nor explained causally in retrospect. This problem can be solved in different ways by the substantive law. Clearly, national contract laws will differ substantially in their solutions. Thus, it becomes a vital task for private international law to determine the law that is decisive for the question of attribution. According to one thesis of this article, two sub-questions arise: First, the question of legal capacity for artificial intelligence and second, its capacity for choice of law. The article discusses possible connecting factors for both sub-questions de lege lata and de lege ferenda. Furthermore, it considers the role of ordre public in the context of artificial choice of law decisions. The article argues that the ordre public is not necessarily violated if the applicable law answers the essential sub-questions (legal capacity and capacity for choice of law) differently than German law.

M. Sonnentag and J. Haselbeck, Divorce without the involvement of a court in Member States of the EU and the Brussels IIbis- and the Rome III-Regulation

In recent years some Member States of the European Union such as Italy, Spain, France, and Greece introduced the possibility of a divorce without the involvement of a court. The following article discusses the questions whether such divorces can be recognised according to Art. 21 Regulation No 2201/2003 (Brussels-IIbis), Art. 30 Regulation No 2019/1111 (Brussels-IIbis recast) and if they fall within the scope of the Regulation No 1259/2010 (Rome III).

W. Hau, Personal involvement as a prerequisite for European tort jurisdiction at the centre of the plaintiff’s interests

The case Mittelbayerischer Verlag KG v. SM gave the ECJ the opportunity to further develop its case law on the European forum delicti under Art. 7 No. 2 Brussels Ibis Regulation for actions for alleged infringements of personality rights on the internet. The starting point was the publication of an article on the homepage of a Bavarian newspaper, which misleadingly referred to “Polish extermination camps” (instead of “German extermination camps in occupied Poland”). Strangely enough, Polish law entitles every Polish citizen in such a case to invoke the “good reputation of Poland” as if it were his or her personal right. The ECJ draws a line here by requiring, as a precondition of Art. 7 No. 2, that the publication contains objective and verifiable elements which make it possible to individually identify, directly or indirectly, the person who wants to bring proceedings at the place of his or her centre of interest. While this approach allows for an appropriate solution to the case at hand, it leaves several follow-up questions open.

A. Hemler, Which point in time is relevant regarding the selection of a foreign forum by non-merchants according to § 38(2) German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO)?

38(2) German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) permits the selection of a foreign forum only if at least one party does not have a place of general jurisdiction in Germany. In the case discussed, the defendant had general jurisdiction in Germany only when the claim was filed. However, there was no general jurisdiction in Germany when the choice of forum clause was agreed upon. The Landgericht (district court) Frankfurt a.M. therefore had to decide on the relevant point in time regarding § 38(2) ZPO. Given the systematic structure of § 38 ZPO and the law’s purpose of advancing international legal relations, the court argued in favour of the point in time in which the choice of forum clause was agreed upon. The author of the paper rejects the court’s view: He argues that the systematic concerns are less stringent on closer inspection. More important, however, is the fact that the law also calls for the protection of non-merchants. This can only be sufficiently achieved if the point in time in which the claim was filed is regarded as the crucial one.

D. Henrich, News on private divorces in and outside the EU

In two decisions the German Federal Court of Justice (“BGH”) had to deal with the recognition of private divorces (divorces without involvement of a state authority). In the first case (XII ZB 158/18) a couple of both Syrian and German nationality had been divorced in Syria by repudiation. While recognition of foreign public divorces (divorces by a state court or other state authority) is a question of procedure, private divorces are recognized if they are effective according to the applicable law, here the Rules of the Rome III Regulation (Article 17(1) Introductory Act to the Civil Code). Because the couple had no common ordinary residence, the Court applied Article 8 lit. c Rome III Regulation. German Law dominating, the Court denied recognition.

In the second case (XII ZB 187/20) the BGH made a reference for a preliminary ruling of the European Court of Justice regarding the recognition of a divorce in Italy in the register office in front of the registrar. The BGH follows the opinion that in such cases it is the consent of the parties that dissolves the marriage, the divorce being a private one. The BGH questions whether in spite of that the divorce could be recognized according to Sec. 21 Council Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 or, if not, according to Sec. 46 of the Council Regulation.

C. Budzikiewicz, On the classification of dowry agreements

Agreements on the payment of a bride’s dowry are a recurring topic in German courts. It usually becomes the subject of a legal dispute in connection with or after a divorce. This was also the case in the decision to be discussed here, in which the applicant demands that her divorced husband pay for the costs of a pilgrimage to Mecca. Since the case has an international connection due to the husband’s Libyan nationality, the Federal Supreme Court first addresses the controversial question of the characterization of dowry. However, since all connection options lead to German law in the present case, the Court ultimately refrains from deciding the question of characterization. It explains that the agreement on the payment of dowry is to be classified under German law as a sui generis family law contract, which requires notarization in order to be effective. The article critically examines the decision. In doing so, it addresses both the question of characterization of dowry and the need for form of agreements on the payment of dowry under German law.

E. Jayme and G. Liberati Buccianti, Private Divorces under Italian Law: Conflict of Laws

Divorce, under German law, is only permitted by a decision of a judge, even in cases where a foreign law is applicable which would allow a private divorce based on the agreement of the spouses. Italy, however, has introduced, in 2014, a divorce by private agreement in two procedures: the agreement of the spouses can be submitted to the public prosecutor who, in case he agrees, will send it to the civil registrar, or, secondly, by a direct application of the spouses to the civil registrar of the place where the marriage had been registered.

The article discusses the problems of private international law and international civil procedure, particularly in cases where Italian spouses living in Germany intend to reach a private divorce in Italy. The discussion includes same-sex-marriages of Italian spouses concluded in Germany which are permitted under German law, but not under Italian law, according to which only a “civil union” is possible. The Italian legislator has enacted (2017) a statute according to which the same-sex-marriage concluded by Italian citizens abroad will have the effects of a civil union under Italian law. The question arises of whether the Italian rules on terminating a civil union will have an effect on the spouses marriage concluded in Germany.

The article also discusses the validity of private divorces obtained in Third States which are not members of the European Union, particularly with regard to religious divorces by talaq expressed by the husband, and the problem whether such divorces are compatible with the principles of public policy. The authors mention also the specific problems of Italian law with regard to religious (catholic) marriages concluded and registered in Italy, where a divorce by Italian law is possible which, however, may be in conflict with a nullity judgment of the catholic church.

G. Mäsch and C. Wittebol, None of Our Concern? – A Group of Companies‘ Cross-border Environmental Liability Before Dutch Courts

The issue of cross-border corporate responsibility has been in the limelight of legal debate for some time. In its decision of 29 January 2021, the Court of Appeal of The Hague (partially) granted a liability claim against the parent company Royal Dutch Shell plc with central administration in The Hague for environmental damages caused by its Nigerian subsidiary. In particular, the Dutch court had to address the much-discussed question to what extent domestic parent companies are liable before domestic courts for environmental damage committed by their subsidiaries abroad, and whether domestic courts have international jurisdiction over the subsidiary. With this precedent, the number of cross-border human rights and environmental claims is likely to rise in the near future.

H. Jacobs, Article 4(2) and (3) Rome II Regulation in a case involving multiple potential tortfeasors

In Owen v Galgey, the High Court of England and Wales engaged in a choice of law analysis in a case involving multiple potential tortfeasors. The claimant, a British citizen habitually resident in England, was injured in France when he fell into an empty swimming pool. In the proceedings before the High Court, he claimed damages from, inter alia, the owner of the holiday home and his wife, both British citizens habitually resident in England, and from a French contractor who was carrying out renovation works on the swimming pool at the material time. The judgment is concerned with the applicability of Article 4(2) Rome II Regulation in multi-party tort cases and the operation of the escape clause in Article 4(3) Rome II Regulation. While the High Court’s view that Article 4(2) requires a separate consideration of each pair of claimants and defendants is convincing, it is submitted that the court should have given greater weight to the parties’ common habitual residence when applying Article 4(3).

The table of contents of the issue is available here.

The latest issue of the „Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax)“ features the following articles:

(These abstracts can also be found at the IPRax-website under the following link: https://www.iprax.de/en/contents/)

E.-M. Kieninger: Climate Change Litigation and Private International Law

The recent Shell ruling by the District Court of The Hague raises the question whether Carbon Majors could also be sued outside the state of their corporate home and which law would be applicable to claims for damages or injunctive relief. In particular, the article discusses possible restrictions of the right to choose between the law of the state in which the damage occurred and the law of the state in which the event giving rise to the damage took place (Art. 7 No. 2 Brussels Ia Regulation and Art. 7 Rome II Regulation). It also considers the effects of plant permits and the role that emissions trading should play under Art. 17 Rome II Regulation.

S. Arnold: Artificial intelligence and party autonomy – legal capacity and capacity for choice of law in private international law

Artificial intelligence is already fundamentally shaping our lives. It also presents challenges for private international law. This essay aims to advance the debate about these challenges. The regulative advantages of party autonomy, i.e. efficiency, legal certainty and conflict of laws justice, can be productive in choice of law contracts involving artificial intelligence. In the case of merely automated systems, problems are relatively limited: the declarations of such systems can simply be attributed to their users. Existence, validity or voidability of choice of law clauses are determined by the chosen law in accordance with Art. 3(5), 10(1) Rome I Regulation. If, however, the choice of law is the result of an artificial “black box” decision, tricky problems arise: The attribution to the persons behind the machines might reach its limit, for such artificial decisions can neither be predicted nor explained causally in retrospect. This problem can be solved in different ways by the substantive law. Clearly, national contract laws will differ substantially in their solutions. Thus, it becomes a vital task for private international law to determine the law that is decisive for the question of attribution. According to one thesis of this article, two sub-questions arise: First, the question of legal capacity for artificial intelligence and second, its capacity for choice of law. The article discusses possible connecting factors for both sub-questions de lege lata and de lege ferenda. Furthermore, it considers the role of ordre public in the context of artificial choice of law decisions. The article argues that the ordre public is not necessarily violated if the applicable law answers the essential sub-questions (legal capacity and capacity for choice of law) differently than German law.

M. Sonnentag/J. Haselbeck: Divorce without the involvement of a court in Member States of the EU and the Brussels IIbis- and the Rome III-Regulation

In recent years some Member States of the European Union such as Italy, Spain, France, and Greece introduced the possibility of a divorce without the involvement of a court. The following article discusses the questions whether such divorces can be recognised according to Art. 21 Regulation No 2201/2003 (Brussels-IIbis), Art. 30 Regulation No 2019/1111 (Brussels-IIbis recast) and if they fall within the scope of the Regulation No 1259/2010 (Rome III).

W. Hau: Personal involvement as a prerequisite for European tort jurisdiction at the centre of the plaintiff’s interests

The case Mittelbayerischer Verlag KG v. SM gave the ECJ the opportunity to further develop its case law on the European forum delicti under Art. 7 No. 2 Brussels Ibis Regulation for actions for alleged infringements of personality rights on the internet. The starting point was the publication of an article on the homepage of a Bavarian newspaper, which misleadingly referred to “Polish extermination camps” (instead of “German extermination camps in occupied Poland”). Strangely enough, Polish law entitles every Polish citizen in such a case to invoke the “good reputation of Poland” as if it were his or her personal right. The ECJ draws a line here by requiring, as a precondition of Art. 7 No. 2, that the publication contains objective and verifiable elements which make it possible to individually identify, directly or indirectly, the person who wants to bring proceedings at the place of his or her centre of interest. While this approach allows for an appropriate solution to the case at hand, it leaves several follow-up questions open.

A. Hemler: Which point in time is relevant regarding the selection of a foreign forum by non-merchants according to § 38(2) German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO)?

38(2) German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) permits the selection of a foreign forum only if at least one party does not have a place of general jurisdiction in Germany. In the case discussed, the defendant had general jurisdiction in Germany only when the claim was filed. However, there was no general jurisdiction in Germany when the choice of forum clause was agreed upon. The Landgericht (district court) Frankfurt a.M. therefore had to decide on the relevant point in time regarding § 38(2) ZPO. Given the systematic structure of § 38 ZPO and the law’s purpose of advancing international legal relations, the court argued in favour of the point in time in which the choice of forum clause was agreed upon. The author of the paper rejects the court’s view: He argues that the systematic concerns are less stringent on closer inspection. More important, however, is the fact that the law also calls for the protection of non-merchants. This can only be sufficiently achieved if the point in time in which the claim was filed is regarded as the crucial one.

D. Henrich: News on private divorces in and outside the EU

In two decisions the German Federal Court of Justice (“BGH”) had to deal with the recognition of private divorces (divorces without involvement of a state authority). In the first case (XII ZB 158/18) a couple of both Syrian and German nationality had been divorced in Syria by repudiation. While recognition of foreign public divorces (divorces by a state court or other state authority) is a question of procedure, private divorces are recognized if they are effective according to the applicable law, here the Rules of the Rome III Regulation (Article 17(1) Introductory Act to the Civil Code). Because the couple had no common ordinary residence, the Court applied Article 8 lit. c Rome III Regulation. German Law dominating, the Court denied recognition.

In the second case (XII ZB 187/20) the BGH made a reference for a preliminary ruling of the European Court of Justice regarding the recognition of a divorce in Italy in the register office in front of the registrar. The BGH follows the opinion that in such cases it is the consent of the parties that dissolves the marriage, the divorce being a private one. The BGH questions whether in spite of that the divorce could be recognized according to Sec. 21 Council Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 or, if not, according to Sec. 46 of the Council Regulation.

C. Budzikiewicz: On the classification of dowry agreements

Agreements on the payment of a bride’s dowry are a recurring topic in German courts. It usually becomes the subject of a legal dispute in connection with or after a divorce. This was also the case in the decision to be discussed here, in which the applicant demands that her divorced husband pay for the costs of a pilgrimage to Mecca. Since the case has an international connection due to the husband’s Libyan nationality, the Federal Supreme Court first addresses the controversial question of the characterization of dowry. However, since all connection options lead to German law in the present case, the Court ultimately refrains from deciding the question of characterization. It explains that the agreement on the payment of dowry is to be classified under German law as a sui generis family law contract, which requires notarization in order to be effective. The article critically examines the decision. In doing so, it addresses both the question of characterization of dowry and the need for form of agreements on the payment of dowry under German law.

E. Jayme/G. Liberati Buccianti: Private Divorces under Italian Law: Conflict of Laws

Divorce, under German law, is only permitted by a decision of a judge, even in cases where a foreign law is applicable which would allow a private divorce based on the agreement of the spouses. Italy, however, has introduced, in 2014, a divorce by private agreement in two procedures: the agreement of the spouses can be submitted to the public prosecutor who, in case he agrees, will send it to the civil registrar, or, secondly, by a direct application of the spouses to the civil registrar of the place where the marriage had been registered.

The article discusses the problems of private international law and international civil procedure, particularly in cases where Italian spouses living in Germany intend to reach a private divorce in Italy. The discussion includes same-sex-marriages of Italian spouses concluded in Germany which are permitted under German law, but not under Italian law, according to which only a “civil union” is possible. The Italian legislator has enacted (2017) a statute according to which the same-sex-marriage concluded by Italian citizens abroad will have the effects of a civil union under Italian law. The question arises of whether the Italian rules on terminating a civil union will have an effect on the spouses marriage concluded in Germany.

The article also discusses the validity of private divorces obtained in Third States which are not members of the European Union, particularly with regard to religious divorces by talaq expressed by the husband, and the problem whether such divorces are compatible with the principles of public policy. The authors mention also the specific problems of Italian law with regard to religious (catholic) marriages concluded and registered in Italy, where a divorce by Italian law is possible which, however, may be in conflict with a nullity judgment of the catholic church.

G. Mäsch/C. Wittebol: None of Our Concern? – A Group of Companies‘ Cross-border Environmental Liability Before Dutch Courts

The issue of cross-border corporate responsibility has been in the limelight of legal debate for some time. In its decision of 29 January 2021, the Court of Appeal of The Hague (partially) granted a liability claim against the parent company Royal Dutch Shell plc with central administration in The Hague for environmental damages caused by its Nigerian subsidiary. In particular, the Dutch court had to address the much-discussed question to what extent domestic parent companies are liable before domestic courts for environmental damage committed by their subsidiaries abroad, and whether domestic courts have international jurisdiction over the subsidiary. With this precedent, the number of cross-border human rights and environmental claims is likely to rise in the near future.

H. Jacobs: Article 4(2) and (3) Rome II Regulation in a case involving multiple potential tortfeasors

In Owen v Galgey, the High Court of England and Wales engaged in a choice of law analysis in a case involving multiple potential tortfeasors. The claimant, a British citizen habitually resident in England, was injured in France when he fell into an empty swimming pool. In the proceedings before the High Court, he claimed damages from, inter alia, the owner of the holiday home and his wife, both British citizens habitually resident in England, and from a French contractor who was carrying out renovation works on the swimming pool at the material time. The judgment is concerned with the applicability of Article 4(2) Rome II Regulation in multi-party tort cases and the operation of the escape clause in Article 4(3) Rome II Regulation. While the High Court’s view that Article 4(2) requires a separate consideration of each pair of claimants and defendants is convincing, it is submitted that the court should have given greater weight to the parties’ common habitual residence when applying Article 4(3).

Antonio Leandro (University of Bari) has posted Asset Tracing and Recovery in European Cross-border Insolvency Proceedings on SSRN.

Tracing and recovering assets amount to crucial means to preserve the estate in insolvency proceedings. The proceedings’ outcome may depend on a successful liquidation, which, in turn, can succeed insofar as the concerned assets are traced and recovered smoothly. Besides, insolvency-related disputes, such as the avoidance disputes, may benefit from instruments that help find debtor’ assets or recover payments.

Cross-border insolvency proceedings exhibit peculiar features in this respect because of the debtor’s assets and affairs being in touch with different States. Multiple laws and jurisdictions, with differing or even divergent underlying legal traditions, may in fact be concerned with tracing and recovery.

Moreover, tracing and recovery may affect individuals (e.g., debtors, directors, shareholders, secured creditors, third parties) whose interests clash with those of insolvency proceedings, especially that of satisfying creditors through the proceeds of liquidated assets. If such persons have connections (e.g., citizenship, seat, habitual residence, domicile, as well as affairs, rights, obligations, etc.) with different States, including other States than that in which the assets are located, the cross-border context gets wider.

Against this backdrop, intermingled problems of private international law arise, including assessing the courts having jurisdiction to issue tracing or recovering measures, the authorities that may apply and take action, the law governing the measures and the enforcement thereof, the recognition of foreign tools aimed at detecting and recovering the assets. All these problems lie on a terrain where issues of characterization, state sovereignty and cooperation between foreign authorities are interwoven.
The paper intends to explain how to melt this skein within the EU civil judicial space.

The CJEU (Grand Chamber) delivered on 21 December 2021 its judgment in case C‑251/20 (Gtflix Tv), which is about Brussels I bis:

« Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 […] must be interpreted as meaning that a person who, considering that his or her rights have been infringed by the dissemination of disparaging comments concerning him or her on the internet, seeks not only the rectification of the information and the removal of the content placed online concerning him or her but also compensation for the damage resulting from that placement may claim, before the courts of each Member State in which those comments are or were accessible, compensation for the damage suffered in the Member State of the court seised, even though those courts do not have jurisdiction to rule on the application for rectification and removal ».

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=251510&mode=req&pageIndex=1&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&cid=5320006

Earlier on, on 16 September 2021, AG Hogan had suggested: “Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012 […] must be interpreted as meaning that a claimant who relies on an act of unfair competition consisting in the dissemination of disparaging statements on the internet and who seeks both the rectification of the data and the deletion of certain content and compensation for the non-material and economic damage resulting therefrom, may bring an action or claim before the courts of each Member State in the territory of which content published online is or was accessible, for compensation only for the damage caused in the territory of that Member State. In order, however, for those courts to have the requisite jurisdiction it is necessary that the claimant can demonstrate that it has an appreciable number of consumers in that jurisdiction who are likely to have access to and have understood the publication in question” (https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=246102&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2104).

The CJEU (Grand Chamber) delivered on 21 December 2021 its judgment in case C‑124/20 (Bank Melli Iran v Telekom Deutschland GmbH), which is about Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 (Protection against the effects of the extraterritorial application of legislation adopted by a third country):

« 1. The first paragraph of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 of 22 November 1996 […] must be interpreted as prohibiting persons referred to in Article 11 of Regulation No 2271/96, as amended, from complying with the requirements or prohibitions laid down in the laws specified in the annex to that regulation, even in the absence of an order directing compliance issued by the administrative or judicial authorities of the third countries which adopted those laws.

2. The first paragraph of Article 5 of Regulation No 2271/96, as amended by Regulation No 37/2014 and Delegated Regulation 2018/1100, must be interpreted as not precluding a person referred to in Article 11 of that regulation, as amended, who does not have an authorisation within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 5 of that regulation, as amended, from terminating contracts concluded with a person on the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List, without providing reasons for that termination. Nevertheless, the first paragraph of Article 5 of the same regulation, as amended, requires that, in civil proceedings relating to the alleged infringement of the prohibition laid down in that provision, where all the evidence available to the national court suggests prima facie that a person referred to in Article 11 of Regulation No 2271/96, as amended, complied with the laws specified in the annex to that regulation, as amended, without having an authorisation in that respect, it is for that same person to establish to the requisite legal standard that his or her conduct was not intended to comply with those laws.

3. Regulation No 2271/96, as amended by Regulation No 37/2014 and Delegated Regulation 2018/1100, in particular Articles 5 and 9 thereof, read in the light of Article 16 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding the annulment of the termination of contracts effected by a person referred to in Article 11 of that regulation, as amended, in order to comply with the requirements or prohibitions based on the laws specified in the annex to that regulation, as amended, even though that person does not have an authorisation, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 5 of the same regulation, as amended, provided that that annulment does not entail disproportionate effects for that person having regard to the objectives of Regulation No 2271/96, as amended, consisting in the protection of the established legal order and the interests of the European Union in general. In that assessment of proportionality, it is necessary to weigh in the balance the pursuit of those objectives served by the annulment of the termination of a contract effected in breach of the prohibition laid down in the first paragraph of Article 5 of that regulation, as amended, and the probability that the person concerned may be exposed to economic loss, as well as the extent of that loss, if that person cannot terminate his or her commercial relationship with a person included in the list of persons covered by the secondary sanctions at issue resulting from the laws specified in the annex to that regulation, as amended ».

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=251507&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=5321152

AG Pikamae delivered on 16 December 2021 his opinion in case C‑568/20 (J), which is about the incorrect use of Brussels I bis by the court of origin. The opinion is currently available in all EU official languages (save Irish), albeit not in English. Here is the French version (to check whether an English translation has finally been made available, just click on the link below and change the language version).

Question : « À la suite de la délivrance, par la juridiction de l’État membre d’origine, du certificat prévu à l’article 53 du règlement (UE) no 1215/2012 (2), attestant du caractère exécutoire de la décision rendue et de l’applicabilité de ce règlement, la juridiction de l’État membre requis, saisie d’une demande de refus d’exécution de cette décision par la personne contre laquelle l’exécution est sollicitée, peut-elle y faire droit au motif d’une appréciation erronée quant au caractère applicable dudit règlement, dans la mesure où la procédure suivie devant la juridiction de l’État membre d’origine visait à déclarer exécutoires des jugements rendus dans un État tiers ? ».

Suggested response : «  Les articles 45 et 46 du règlement (UE) no 1215/2012 du Parlement européen et du Conseil, du 12 décembre 2012 […] doivent être interprétés en ce sens que la juridiction de l’État membre requis, saisie d’une demande de refus d’exécution, peut y faire droit au motif que la décision et le certificat, prévu à l’article 53 de ce règlement, adoptés par la juridiction de l’État membre d’origine violent l’ordre public de l’État membre requis dès lors que l’erreur de droit invoquée constitue une violation manifeste d’une règle de droit considérée comme étant essentielle dans l’ordre juridique de l’Union et donc dans celui de cet État. Tel est le cas d’une erreur affectant l’application de l’article 2, sous a), et de l’article 39 dudit règlement exigeant que la décision dont l’exécution est demandée soit rendue dans un État membre.
Lorsqu’il vérifie l’existence éventuelle d’une violation manifeste de l’ordre public de l’État requis, du fait de la méconnaissance d’une règle de fond ou de forme du droit de l’Union, le juge de cet État doit tenir compte du fait que, sauf circonstances particulières rendant trop difficile ou impossible l’exercice des voies de recours dans l’État membre d’origine, les justiciables doivent faire usage dans cet État membre de toutes les voies de recours disponibles afin de prévenir en amont une telle violation ».

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=251315&mode=req&pageIndex=2&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=FR&cid=5321152

The Court of Justice delivered on 9 December 2021 its judgment in case C‑708/20 (BT v Seguros Catalana Occidente, EB), which is about Article 13 Brussels I bis:

« Article 13(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 […] must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of a direct action brought by the injured person against an insurer in accordance with Article 13(2) thereof, the court of the Member State in which that person is domiciled cannot also assume jurisdiction, on the basis of Article 13(3) thereof, to rule on a claim for compensation brought at the same time by that person against the policyholder or the insured who is domiciled in another Member State and who has not been challenged by the insurer ».

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=250867&mode=req&pageIndex=4&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&cid=5332111

The Court of Justice delivered on 9 December 2021 its judgment in case C‑242/20 (Hrvatske Sume), which is about Brussels I.

Context: “proceedings between, on the one hand, HRVATSKE ŠUME d.o.o., Zagreb, a company established in Croatia, successor in title to HRVATSKE ŠUME javno poduzeće za gospodarenje šumama i šumskim zemljištima u Republici Hrvatskoj p.o., Zagreb, and, on the other, BP Europa SE Hamburg, a company established in Germany, successor in title to Deutsche BP AG, in turn successor in title to The Burmah Oil (Deutschland) GmbH, concerning the recovery, on the basis of unjust enrichment, of an amount unduly paid in enforcement proceedings which were subsequently declared invalid”.

Decision: « 1. Article 22(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an action for restitution based on unjust enrichment does not come within the exclusive jurisdiction provided for by that provision, even though it was brought on account of the expiry of the time limit within which restitution of sums unduly paid in enforcement proceedings may be claimed in the context of the same enforcement proceedings.

2. Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that an action for restitution based on unjust enrichment does not fall within the scope of the ground of jurisdiction laid down in that provision ».

Note paragraph 36 : « In the absence of any application for enforcement, an action for restitution based on unjust enrichment does not come within the scope of Article 22(5) of Regulation No 44/2001 ».

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=250865&mode=req&pageIndex=5&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&cid=5334182

AG Saugmandsgaard Oe had previously, on 9 September 2021, delivered the following opinion: « Article 5(1) and Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 [..] must be interpreted as meaning that a claim for restitution based on unjust enrichment:
– is not a matter ‘relating to a contract’ within the meaning of the former provision, except where it is closely linked to a prior contractual relationship existing, or deemed to exist, between the parties to the dispute; and
– is not a matter ‘relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ within the meaning of the latter provision » (https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=245764&mode=req&pageIndex=23&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&cid=2104).

AG Campos Sanchez-Bordona delivered on 2 December 2021 his opinion in case C‑645/20 (V A), which is about the Succession Regulation.

Context: “1. The Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation, France) asks the Court of Justice whether the authorities of a Member State (2) in which the deceased has assets must establish of their own motion their jurisdiction to rule on the succession as a whole under Article 10 of Regulation No 650/2012.

2. The uncertainty has arisen in the course of a dispute over succession rights between the children of a deceased French citizen whose last habitual residence in France is contested, on the one hand, and the person who was the deceased’s wife (but not the mother of his children) at the time of his death, on the other.

3. None of the parties disputes the nationality of the deceased at the time of his death, or that he was the owner of a property situated in France. The disagreement lies only in where he was habitually resident when he died

4. At first instance, a French court declared that it had jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim brought by the deceased’s children, who had applied for the appointment of an administrator for the estate.

5. On appeal, however, the relevant court held that the French judicial authorities lacked jurisdiction over the succession as a whole, as the deceased’s last place of residence had been in the United Kingdom.

6. On appeal in cassation, the appellants claim that, in any event, the French courts should have declared that they had jurisdiction on their own initiative, which is the issue that forms the subject of the referring court’s question”.

Suggested response: “Article 10(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 […] must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where the deceased did not have his last habitual residence in any Member State of the European Union, the court of a Member State in which a dispute in a matter of succession has arisen must declare of its own motion that it has jurisdiction to settle the succession as a whole if, in the light of facts alleged by the parties which are not in dispute, the deceased was a national of that State at the time of his death and was the owner of assets located there”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=250423&mode=req&pageIndex=5&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&cid=5334182

On 25 November 2021, the CJEU delivered its judgment in case C‑289/20 (IB v FA), which is about Article 3 Brussels II bis.

Decision: “Article 3(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 […] must be interpreted as meaning that a spouse who divides his or her time between two Member States may have his or her habitual residence in only one of those Member States, with the result that only the courts of the Member State in which that habitual residence is situated have jurisdiction to rule on the application for the dissolution of matrimonial ties”.

Note: the Court has clearly indicated, in the preceding paragraphs, the particular State it believes the spouse to be resident in (subject to the national court’s assessment):

“59 In the present case, as is apparent from the documents before the Court, it is common ground that IB, a national of the Member State of the national court seised, satisfied the condition – laid down in the sixth indent of Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No 2201/2003 – of having resided in that Member State for at least six months immediately before lodging his application for the dissolution of matrimonial ties. It is also established that, since May 2017, IB has been carrying out, on a stable and permanent basis, a professional activity of indefinite duration in France during the week, and that he stays in an apartment there for the purposes of that professional activity.

60 That evidence indicates that IB’s stay in the territory of that Member State is stable and also shows, at the very least, IB’s integration into a social and cultural environment within that Member State”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=250046&mode=req&pageIndex=6&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&cid=5338385

On 25 November 2021, the CJEU delivered its judgment in case C‑25/20 (NK, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Alpine BAU GmbH) :

« Article 32(2) of Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 […], read in conjunction with Articles 4 and 28 of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that the lodging, in secondary insolvency proceedings, of claims already submitted in the main insolvency proceedings by the liquidator in those proceedings is subject to the provisions relating to time limits for the lodging of claims and to the consequences of lodging such claims out of time, laid down by the law of the State of the opening of those secondary proceedings ».

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=250042&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=3696513