Flux des sites DIP

A report issued by the European Commission on 10 March 2016 analyses the functioning of the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters (COM(2016) 129 final).

The Network was set up by Council Decision No 2001/470/EC and operates in accordance with the latter Decision, as amended by Decision No 568/2009/EC (see here for the consolidated text of the Decision). It ensures direct contacts and case-handling between national Network contact points, facilitates cross-border access to justice through information given to practitioners and the general public and evaluates and shares experience on the operation of specific Union law instruments in the field of judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters.

The report identifies a number of issues on which action should be taken to improve the Network’s functioning.

These issues relate, inter alia, to the resources and support given to contact points at national level, the synergies of the Network with other European networks pursuing similar aims, the visibility of the Network, including in the national websites of the institutions to which Network members belong to, and the Network’s role “in the full ex post evaluation of existing instruments”, which should be “further developed through the identification and collection of key statistical data based on national data collection mechanisms”.

As already announced on this blog, a conference is scheduled to take place in Bonn on 6 and 7 April 2017, under the title Politics and Private International Law (?). The aim of the initiative is to improve the exchange between young scholars of private international law.

A call for papers has now been issued to select the speakers.

The call may be found here (in German) and here (in English).

The deadline for submissions is 30 June 2016.

It has already been reported on this blog that the Council of the European Union was expected to authorise Austria to sign and ratify, and Malta to accede to, the Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, “in the interest of the Union”.

A decision to this effect has in fact been adopted on at the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 10 March 2016, accompanied by a statement of the German government.

In the statement, Germany expresses its doubts as to whether the decision in question “falls within the exclusive external competence of the European Union”.

It is not clear, the statement observes, “why the future application of the Hague Service Convention to Austria and Malta could affect common rules on judicial cooperation between Member States in civil matters or alter their scope (Article 3(2) TFEU)”, since the Hague Service Convention applies in relation to third countries, whereas between European Union Member States, Regulation No 1393/2007 “clearly takes precedence over that Convention”.

In the view of the German government, the decision “should therefore not be used as a model for and should be without prejudice to any other measures in which the exclusive external competence of the European Union may play a role which may be taken by the European Union to resolve other similar cases”.

 

I have earlier reported on the referral in Universal, Case C-12/15. Szpunar AG opined today, 11 March (the English text of the Opinion is not yet available at the time I write this post) and suggests (at 37) that the Court not apply its Erfolgort /Handlungsort distinction per Case 21/76  Bier /Minnes de Potasse. He reminds the Court of Bier’s rationale: a special link between the Erfolgort and the case at hand, so as to make that place, the locus damni, the place where the damage arises, well suited to address the substantive issues raised by the claim. (He also reminds the Court, at 30, that the language of what is now Article 7(2) only refers to the harmful event; not in the slightest to damage).

In cases where the only damage that arises is purely economic damage, the locus damni is a pure coincidence (in the case of a corporation suffering damage: the seat of that corporation), bearing no relation to the facts of the case at all (lest it be entirely coincidental). The Advocate General skilfully distinguishes all relevant CJEU precedent and in succinct yet complete style comes to his conclusion.

The Court itself embraces its Bier ruling more emphatically than its AGs do (see the similar experience of Cruz Villalon AG in Hejduk).  That Universal Music is quite clearly distinguishable from other cases may sway it to follow the AG in the case at issue. However its fondness of Bier (judgment in 1976; it had been a hot summer that year) may I fear lead it to stick to its fundamental twin track of Erfolg /Handlungsort no matter the circumstances of the case.

Geert.

By a ruling of 8 March 2016, the German Federal Supreme Court declared that claims brought by German holders of Greek bonds against Greece, for damages suffered as a result of the Greek debt restructuring, were barred on grounds of State immunity (a press release may be found here, pending the publication of the full text of the decision).

The following is an excerpt of the report posted by Peter Bert at Dispute Resolution in Germany.

The bonds that the claimants had acquired – in Germany and through German Banks – where governed by Greek law. They did not contain collective action clauses. This notwithstanding, the terms of the bonds were subsequently amended by a majority vote of the bondholders and these amendments were declared binding upon all bondholders by laws passed by the Greek parliament. The measures that were implemented contained both a 53.5% haircut and an extension of the duration of the bonds.

Today, the Federal Supreme Court dismissed the actions as inadmissible (unzulässig). The Hellenic Republic was protected by the principle of sovereign immunity against these lawsuits in Germany. The international public law concept of sovereign immunity is recognized in German law (Sec. 20 para. 2 Courts Constitution Act; Art. 25 Basic Law; GG)

Raising capital by issuing bonds, according to the court, is per se not itself an sovereign act (nicht-hoheitliches Handeln; acta iure gestionis). However, whether the Hellenic Republic was protected by sovereign immunity was not only determined by the legal nature of the relationship between the parties, but also by the nature of the acts of state which are in dispute between the parties.

Accordingly, in the case at hand, it is not the issuance of bonds or the contractual relationship between the bondholders and Greece which is relevant for decision on immunity, but the legal nature of the acts that Greece took in order to restructure its debt. In particular, the dispute between the parties centred on the validity of the Greek law 4050/2012 of February 23, 2012 and the decisions of the Greek Council of Ministers dated March 9, 2012. These were the legal acts that declared the majority vote of the bondholders binding on all bondholders, and they clearly were sovereign acts (acta iure imperii).

In the words of the court, the very idea behind the concept of sovereign immunity is to prevent one state from ruling on the legality of sovereign acts of another state (“Der Grundsatz der Staatenimmunität will gerade Entscheidungen eines Staates über die Rechtmäßigkeit der hier maßgeblichen hoheitlichen Maßnahmen eines anderen Staates verhindern.”). But this is exactly what the German courts would have to do, were they to decide these disputes on the merits.

Thanks to Peter Bert for giving permission for the reproduction of his post.

Our co-editor Tanja Domej from University of Zurich has authored a monograph entitled “Internationale Zwangsvollstreckung und Haftungsverwirklichung am Beispiel der Forderungspfändung” (International Execution and the Implementation of Liability). The volume has been published by Mohr Siebeck. It is written in German.

The official abstract reads as follows:

Tanja Domej retraces the debates over the relevancy and meaning of the principle of territoriality for the cross-border attachment of debts from a comparative perspective. On the basis of an interest analysis, she presents perspectives for an appropriate approach to dealing with issues of cross-border attachment of incorporeal assets.

More information is available on the publisher’s website.

 

Granted, the (bad) pun in the title would have worked better around the end of year, which is when I had originally planned this posting, before I got sidetracked. Bob Wessels has excellent overview here (including admirably swift and exact translation of core parts of the judgment). OOO PROMNEFTSTROY v Yukos at the Dutch Supreme Court is but one instalment in running litigation literally taking place across the globe.

Of particular interest to the blog is the court’s finding (at 3.4.2) that the existence of a corporation is subject to the lex incorporationis not, as the Court of Appeal had held, the lex concursus in the event of insolvency. The EU’s Insolvency Regulation does not apply for COMI is not within the EU. The Insolvency Regulation does not in so many words say the same as the Dutch Supreme Court however it is likely that under the EIR, too, this issue falls under lex societatis /lex incorporationis (see e.g. Miguel Virgos & Francisco Garcimartin, The European Insolvency Regulation: Law and Practice, Kluwer, 2004, p.82 (par 123, f: dissolution of the company).

One can imagine of course the one or two complications arising out of the seizure of assets of a company which no longer exists.

Geert.

Moss, Fletcher and Isaacs on the EU Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings, 3a ed., Oxford University Press, 2016, ISBN 9780199687800, GBP 175.

[Dal sito dell’editore] – This practical book provides complete analysis of the revised EU
Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings (EIR), the main Regulation on cross-border insolvencies in the EU. This is an essential work for anyone who requires knowledge of insolvency law in the UK or in any of the other 26 EU countries to which the Regulation is directly applicable. Timed to take into account the final amended version of the EIR, this third edition of the leading work contains detailed analysis and opinion on the effect of the changes to Regulation in practice. It also considers the numerous ECJ and relevant national cases which have been decided since the last edition. 

Ulteriori informazioni sul volume, che tiene conto del regolamento 2015/848, recante la rifusione del regolamento n. 1346/2000, sono disponibili a questo indirizzo.

 

Esther Bendelac, Le transfert de biens au décès autrement que par succession en droit international privé, Le choix de la loi applicable aux institutions d’estate planning, Bruylant 2016, pp. 426, ISBN-13 9782802752431, Euro 140.

[Dal sito dell’editore] Les institutions d’Estate Planning, issues des droits anglais et américain, permettent à une personne physique de transférer un bien, à son décès, à un bénéficiaire antérieurement désigné par lui, autrement que par succession. L’analyse de ces mécanismes juridiques dans leur contexte d’origine, puis la mise en œuvre de la qualification téléologique-fonctionnelle n’ont pas permis d’assimiler les institutions anglo-américaines à celles de l’ordre juridique français. Pour identifier la loi qui leur est applicable, les propositions doctrinales contemporaines ont été éprouvées. En raison des spécificités constitutives de ces institutions d’Estate Planning – le right of survivorship, le life interest et le contournement de la procédure de probate -, la transposition des actuelles règles de conflits de lois est peu pertinente : les limites du système conflictuel ont été dévoilées. La seule voie qui pouvait encore être explorée, pour accueillir ces institutions dans l’ordre juridique français, était celle de l’émancipation du droit international privé du droit interne. Afin de vérifier la pertinence de l’élaboration d’une catégorie autonome et d’un critère de rattachement qui lui est propre, il a été nécessaire de s’interroger sur l’existence de lois de police et le contenu de l’ordre public international. Aucun de ces procédés alternatif et correctif de la méthode conflictuelle ne constitue un empêchement à l’énoncé de notre proposition de règle de conflit de lois spécifique aux institutions d’Estate Planning. Cet ouvrage comprend d’une part, des développements théoriques – principalement relatifs au droit international privé et au droit européen – destinés aux théoriciens du droit et, d’autre part des développements techniques qui permettront à de nombreux professionnels de découvrir les institutions d’Estate Planning.

L’indice dell’opera è reperibile qui. Maggiori informazioni a questo indirizzo.

The Department of Law of the University of Ferrara hosts a series of seminars, organised by Alberto De Franceschi, under the title New Features of European Contract Law – Towards a Digital Single Market.

The seminars, in English, will run from 9 March to 25 May 2015 2016.

Speakers include Michael Lehmann (Ludwig Maximilian Univ. of Munich and Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition), Christian Twigg-Flesner (Univ. of Hull), Rodrigo Momberg Uribe (Univ. of Oxford), Herbert Zech (Univ. of Basel), Fryderyk Zoll (Univ. of Kraków and Univ. of Osnabrück), Geraint Howells (City Univ. of Hong Kong), Reiner Schulze (Univ. of Münster), Peter Kindler (Ludwig Maximilian Univ. of Munich), Martin Gebauer (Univ. of Tübingen) and Jorge Morais Carvalho (Univ. Nova of Lisbon).

Two seminars are specifically concerned with private international law issues: on 13 May 2016, Peter Kindler will talk about The law applicable to contracts in the Digital Single Market, while, on 18 May 2016, Martin Gebauer will speak of Contracts concluded by electronic means in cross-border transactions.

The complete programme may be downloaded here.

Attendance is free. For more information: alberto.defranceschi@unife.it.

Written by Eloïse Glucksmann

The Center for Private International Law and International Trade Law (CRDI) of the University Panthéon-Assas is pleased to invite you to a conference on the “UNCITRAL Contribution to International Trade Law” that will take place in the faculty premises at 92, rue d’Assas 75005 Paris, conference room no 315, on April 12, 2016. Speeches will be in French.

Please register by contacting laurence.tacquard@u-paris2.fr. This conference is also accountable for the lawyers’ continuing training (formation continue des avocats) of the French National Council of the Bars (Conseil national des barreaux).

This event is organized with the collaboration of the Department for Private International Relations Studies (SERPI-IRJS) of the Sorbonne Law School and the Foundation for Continental Law

Program:

Morning

8:45 – Registration

9:00 – Opening remarks

Marie Goré, Professor at the University Panthéon-Assas Paris II, Director of the Center for Private International Law and International Trade Law (CRDI)

Géraud Sajust de Bergues d’Escalup, Deputy Director for Legal Affairs of Foreign Affairs

Renaud Sorieul, Director of the International Trade Law Division of the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs

Chairman: Sylvain Bollée, Professor at the Sorbonne Law School (University Paris 1), Co-director of the Department for Private International Relations Studies (SERPI-IRJS)

9:20 – The UNCITRAL methods
Vincent Heuzé, Professor at the Sorbonne Law School (University Paris 1)

The UNCITRAL model, its influence on OHADA law
Dorothé Cossi Sossa, permanent secretary

10:30 – International Sale of Goods: how to maintain or reinforce the UNCITRAL promotion of practices’ unification?
Claude Witz, Professor at the University of Saarland (Germany), Co-director of the Legal Center Franco-German

11:00 – Break

11:15 – International Commercial Arbitration
Daniel Cohen, Professor at the University Panthéon-Assas Paris II

11:45 – UNCITRAL and the aspiration to diffuse Security Interests model standards
Jean-François Riffard, Lawyer, Associate-Professor at the University of Auvergne (Clermont 1)

12:30 – Lunch break

Afternoon

Chairman: Pascal de Vareilles-Sommières, Professor at the Sorbonne Law School (University Paris 1)

2:00 – Insolvency of corporate groups
Reinhard Dammann, partner at Clifford Chance Europe LLP

2:30 – The sole ownership
Antoine Gaudemet, Professor at the University Panthéon-Assas Paris II

3:00 – The Rotterdam Rules: how to convince?
Philippe Delebecque, Professor at the Sorbonne Law School (University Paris 1)

3:30 – Break

3:45 – The UNCITRAL contribution to the development of public-private partnerships’ safeguarding
Stéphane Braconnier, Professor at the University Panthéon-Assas Paris II

4:15 – The UNCITRAL contribution to electronic trade development
Thibault Douville, Associate-Professor at the Caen Normandie

4:45 – Summary
Rafael Illescas Ortiz, Professor of Commercial Law, Universidad Carlos III of Madrid, former president of the UNCITRAL

The event will be followed by a cocktail.

The Department of Law of the University of Ferrara hosts a series of seminars, organised by Alberto De Franceschi, under the title New Features of European Contract Law – Towards a Digital Single Market.

The seminars, in English, will run from 9 March to 25 May 2015 2016.

Speakers include Michael Lehmann (Ludwig Maximilian Univ. of Munich and Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition), Christian Twigg-Flesner (Univ. of Hull), Rodrigo Momberg Uribe (Univ. of Oxford), Herbert Zech (Univ. of Basel), Fryderyk Zoll (Univ. of Kraków and Univ. of Osnabrück), Geraint Howells (City Univ. of Hong Kong), Reiner Schulze (Univ. of Münster), Peter Kindler (Ludwig Maximilian Univ. of Munich), Martin Gebauer (Univ. of Tübingen) and Jorge Morais Carvalho (Univ. Nova of Lisbon).

Two seminars are specifically concerned with private international law issues: on 13 May 2016, Peter Kindler will talk about The law applicable to contracts in the Digital Single Market, while, on 18 May 2016, Martin Gebauer will speak of Contracts concluded by electronic means in cross-border transactions.

The complete programme may be downloaded here.

Attendance is free. For more information: alberto.defranceschi@unife.it.

 

As I have reported in December, the Gerechtshof Den Haag confirmed jurisdiction against Shell’s Nigerian daughter company. The proceedings can be joined with the suit against the mother company Royal Dutch Shell (RDS, headquartered in The Netherlands whence easily sued on the basis of Article 4 Brussels I Recast (Article 2 of the Regulation applicable to the proceedings)). I have finally gotten round to properly reading the court’s judgment (which deals with jurisdiction issues only). As I have pointed out, Article 6(1) (now 8(1) of the Brussels I Recast) cannot be used against defendants not domiciled in the EU. Dutch rules on joinders applied therefore. The Gerechtshof however took CJEU precedent into account, on the basis that the preparatory works of the relevant Dutch rules on civil procedure reveal that they were meant to be so applied. Consequently a lot of CJEU precedent is reviewed (the most recent case quoted is CDC). The Gerechtshof eventually holds that lest it were prima facie established that liability of RDS for the actions committed by its Nigerian daughter is clearly unfounded, use of RDS as an anchor can go ahead. Only clearly abusive attempts at joinders can be sanctioned. (A sentiment most recently echoed by the CJEU in Sovag).

The Gerechtshof Den Haag, without being definitive on the issue, also suggested that applicable law for considering whether merger operations inserting a new mother company were abusive (merely carried out to make Royal Dutch Shell escape its liability), had to be addressed using ‘among others’ the lex incorporationis (at 3.2). That is not undisputed. There are other candidates for this assessment.

The judgment being limited to jurisdiction, this case is far from over.

Geert.

Antonio Leandro, Le procedure concorsuali transfrontaliere, in Trattato delle procedure concorsuali, a cura di Alberto Jorio, Bruno Sassani, volume III, Giuffrè, 2016, ISBN 9788814201899, Euro 90, pp. 740-875.

[Indice sommario] 1. Osservazioni introduttive. — 2. Impostazioni teoriche del fenomeno: unificazione di forum e ius alla luce del principio di territorialità della legge processuale e del nesso di strumentalità tra obiettivi della procedura e situazioni da regolare al suo interno. — 3. Segue: contrapposizione e bilanciamento tra universalità e territorialità del fallimento. —4. Segue: altre ricostruzioni teoriche sulla unificazione di forum e ius nell’insolvenza transfrontaliera. — 5. Il reg. 1346/2000: osservazioni generali e àmbito di applicazione. — 6. La giurisdizione sulla domanda di apertura della procedura principale: la determinazione del COMI soprattutto in caso di società. — 7. Segue: la natura del COMI e gli interessi rilevanti. — 8. Segue: l’insolvenza di gruppo. — 9. Segue: il trasferimento del COMI prima e dopo la domanda di apertura. I trasferimenti “fittizi” di sede. — 10. Fasi e vicende interne alla procedura principale: l’accertamento dei presupposti dell’apertura. — 11. Segue: l’individuazione dei soggetti legittimati a domandare l’apertura. —12. Segue: l’individuazione delle “autorità” della procedura. —13. Segue: gli accertamenti sui crediti. L’insinuazione.—14. Segue: la liquidazione dei beni. —15. La giurisdizione sui processi interni alla procedura: la vis attractiva sulle azioni ancillari. — 16. La procedura secondaria/territoriale. — 17. Segue: i soggetti legittimati a domandare l’apertura. Differenze tra procedura “secondaria” e procedura “territoriale”. — 18. L’accertamento dello stato di insolvenza. — 19. Il coordinamento tra le procedure. Gli obblighi dei curatori e il difetto di regole di coordinamento tra i fori. — 20. Il diritto applicabile nel corso della procedura: l’applicazione della lex concursus agli effetti sul debitore. — 21. Gli effetti nei confronti di creditori e terzi: osservazioni generali. — 22. Segue: la compensazione dei crediti nel corso della procedura. — 23. Segue: verifica e insinuazione dei crediti.—24. Segue: gli effetti sulle azioni individuali e sui procedimenti pendenti. Rinvio. — 25. La determinazione del grado dei crediti: conflitto e coordinamento tra le varie leges concursus. — 26. La salvaguardia dei diritti reali su beni situati all’estero. — 27. La riserva di proprietà. — 28. Gli effetti sui rapporti giuridici pendenti. — 29. Gli atti pregiudizievoli. — 30. Segue: la disciplina della revocatoria (fallimentare).—31. La disciplina speciale per taluni atti a titolo oneroso.—32. Considerazioni conclusive sul richiamo di leggi diverse dalla lex concursus. —33. Segue: normativa fallimentare o normativa comune? — 34. L’assenza di prescrizioni sull’ordine pubblico e sulle c.d. norme di applicazione necessaria. — 35. L’efficacia delle decisioni: osservazioni introduttive. — 36. Segue: la nozione di decisione di apertura. — 37. Segue: la natura principale o secondaria della procedura aperta. — 38. Il momento dell’apertura. La priorità della decisione (e della procedura) in base al principio del riconoscimento automatico. — 39. L’efficacia esecutiva. — 40. L’esercizio transfrontaliero dei poteri del curatore. — 41. Assimilazione e differenze di ordine quantitativo tra Stato d’origine e Stato richiesto circa gli effetti della decisione di apertura. — 42. Segue: gli effetti sui procedimenti pendenti all’estero. Considerazioni conclusive e riepilogative sul trattamento delle azioni individuali dei creditori. — 43. L’efficacia di decisioni diverse da quella di apertura: il caso del concordato.—44. La revoca dell’apertura. — 45. Considerazioni conclusive e riepilogative sui rapporti e sul coordinamento tra i curatori nominati in distinte procedure. — 46. L’ordine pubblico come limite alla circolazione degli effetti di decisione e procedura.—47. Le novità del reg. 2015/848. — 48. Cenni sulla disciplina residuale di diritto comune.

Maggiori informazioni sul volume sono disponibili a questo indirizzo.

Readers of our blog will recall that the European legislature, in 2013, adopted the Regulation on Online Dispute Resolution (ODR-Regulation) in consumer matters (alongside the Directive on Alternative Dispute Resolution) (see our previous post).  We are therefore happy to report that the interactive website, the so-called ODR-platform, envisaged by the ODR-Regulation has finally been launched on 15 February 2016. The platform is accessible here in all EU languages. It serves as a single point of entry for consumers and professionals seeking to settle a dispute out of court. It is available for disputes that arise from online contracts between consumers and professionals living in the EU.

The Council of the European Union is expected to adopt a decision authorising Austria to sign and ratify, and Malta to accede to, the Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters.

The Hague Service Convention is already in force for all Member States, with the exception of Austria and Malta. The two countries have expressed their willingness to become a party to the Convention. The Council, for its part, considered that it is in the interest of the Union that all Member States are parties to the Convention.

As stated in the preamble of the draft Council decision, the Convention comes with the external competence of the Union, “in so far its provisions affect the rules laid down in certain provisions of Union legislation or in so far as the accession of additional Member States to the Convention alters the scope of certain provisions of Union legislation”, such as Article 28(4) of Regulation No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels Ia).

The Union, however, is not in a position to accede to the Convention, as the latter is only open to States, not to international organisations. Hence the decision to authorise Austria and Malta to ratify, or accede to, the Convention “in the interest of the European Union”.

 

The programme of the 2016 edition of the International Seminar on Private International Law organized by Prof. Fernández Rozas and Prof. de Miguel Asensio, to be held in Madrid on 14-15 April 2016, has been released and is available here.

Venue:

Salón de Grados de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad Complutense, Avda. Complutense, Ciudad Universitaria, Madrid.

Main speakers:

Jürgen Basedow (Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg) – Consistency in EU Private International Law

Cristina González Beilfuss (Universidad de Barcelona, Spain) – On the recent reforms of Spanish international civil procedure law.

Christian Heinze (Leibniz University Hanover, Germany) – Competition law damages claims and jurisdiction agreements.

Roberto Baratta (University of Macerata, Italy) – Fundamental Rights and Family Private International Law

Thalia Kruger (Antwerp University, Belgium) – The Hague, Strasbourg, Luxembourg and the Bosporus. The best interests of abducted children?

Pietro Franzina (University of Ferrara, Italy) – Do we need a EU legislative measure on the international protection of adults?

Mauro Rubino-Sammartano (Corte Europea de Arbitraje) – Arbitration and Public Policy.

Sebastien Manciaux (Université de Bourgogne, France)- La oferta de arbitraje en arbitraje de inversión: especificidades y dificultades planteadas por esta modalidad de arbitraje.

Emmanuel Guinchard (University of Northumbria, UK) – La transposition en Europe de la directive 2013/11/UE relative au règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges de consommation. L’exemple de la France et du Royaume-Uni.

Bertrand Ancel (Université Paris II)

Additional information on the seminar is available here.

Edina Márton has authored a book on “Violations of Personality Rights through the Internet: Jurisdictional Issues under European Law”. The book has been published by Nomos in cooperation with Hart Publishing.

The official abstract reads as follows:

This book considers jurisdictional issues on violations of personality rights through the Internet under the so-called ‘Brussels-Lugano Regime’ and centres on the special rule of jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict, or quasi-delict. It notes the governing objectives and underlying principles of this special rule; analyses its interpretation through the judgments of the ECJ, especially Bier, Shevill, and eDate and Martinez; and explores views expressed in legal theory and national judicial practice regarding its application for localising online violations of personality rights.

The book aims to examine how the eDate and Martinez-approaches advance administrability, predictability, and litigational justice and to assess whether they are suitable jurisdictional bases in Europe, where common legal norms, interests, and values increasingly integrate and connect persons. It concludes that they are not and recommends their possible reform.

Further information is available on the publisher’s website.

As readers will be aware, the Rome II Regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations, harmonises Member States’ governing law rules on non-contractual obligations (not entirely accurately known in short as ‘tort’). Article 15 clarifies that the scope of the law applicable is very wide, and indeed includes matters which may otherwise be considered to be procedural (hence subject to lex fori): I explained this mechanism in my posting on Wall.  Syred V PZU again concerns Article 15(c) Rome II:

Article 15. Scope of the law applicable
The law applicable to non-contractual obligations under this Regulation shall govern in particular:
…(c) the existence, the nature and the assessment of damage or the remedy claimed;…

The case concerns contributory negligence and quantum of this claim by Mr Syred for injury loss and damage suffered in consequence of a road traffic accident in Poland on 10 February 2010. He and his then girlfriend Kate Cieslar were rear seat passengers in a Fiat Punto, driven by her brother Mr Michal Cieslar, which was involved in a collision with a BMW, being driven by Mr Waclaw Bednorz. The collision caused Mr Syred to be ejected from the Fiat and in consequence to suffer serious injuries, in particular to his brain. He has no memory of the accident. Judgment on primary liability against the Defendants was entered by consent in the two actions on 25 September 2012 and 1 July 2014. Ms Cieslar’s claim in respect of her injuries has been settled.

There is no dispute between the experts for the defence and the plaintiff that a rear seat passenger who fails to wear a seat belt is at fault and negligent for the purpose of the passenger’s civil claims for compensation under Polish law. The experts also agree that the next question in Polish law is whether such negligence caused the injuries or made them worse. They also agree that Polish law in respect of damages for non-pecuniary loss (i.e. the equivalent of general damages for pain and suffering) provides no fixed scales or guidelines relevant to the case and that the judge should seek to assess a reasonable sum taking into account the injuries suffered by the claimant and all the circumstances of the case. Common practice of the Polish civil courts, it was said, is to calculate the non-pecuniary element on the basis of a 2002 table contained in the Ordinance of the Minister of Labour and Social Policy. The Supreme Court of Poland had criticised this practice in civil courts, as too slavish to a social insurance scheme.

In Wall, the CA held that the word ‘law’ in Article 15 of Rome II should be construed broadly and includes practice, conventions and guidelines; so that the assessment of damages should be on that basis. That, Soole J notes here, leaves the question of what the English Court should do if the evidence shows that the foreign courts continue to follow a particular practice despite criticism from the Supreme Court of that country. It is noticeable that the High Court does not wish to impose a precedent rule where there is none (Poland following civil law tradition). However it would be equally impertinent to ignore the criticism of that Supreme Court, that the 2002 table must not be slavishly followed. Soole J therefore ends up taking guidance from the 2002 table, without slavishly following it.

What remains to be seen (as also noted by Matthew Chapman, who alerted me to the case) is whether the High Court may now serve as inspiration for the Polish court. Precedent outsourcing, as it were.

Geert.

Con la sentenza n. 24244 del 27 novembre 2015, le Sezioni unite della Corte di cassazione hanno avuto modo di pronunciarsi sulla portata applicativa dell’art. 5 n. 1 del regolamento n. 44/2001 sulla competenza giurisdizionale e il riconoscimento delle decisioni in materia civile e commerciale (Bruxelles I), corrispondente, oggi, all’art. 7 n. 1 del regolamento n. 1215/2012 (Bruxelles I bis).

La norma in parola istituisce un foro speciale per le liti “in materia contrattuale”, attribuendo la cognizione delle relative domande al giudice del luogo in cui l’obbligazione dedotta in giudizio è stata o dev’essere eseguita. La lett. b) della disposizione precisa peraltro che tale luogo deve per regola essere identificato, in caso di compravendita di beni, nel luogo in cui i beni sono stati o avrebbero dovuto essere consegnati in base al contratto, e, in caso di prestazione di servizi, nel luogo in cui i servizi sono stati o avrebbero dovuto essere forniti in base al contratto.

Si trattava, nella fattispecie, delle domande proposte da una società italiana nei confronti di una società francese volte a ottenere, in relazione alle pretese avanzate da quest’ultima sulla base di alcuni contratti di compravendita che essa affermava di aver concluso con la prima, l’accertamento “dell’insussistenza di qualsivoglia vincolo contrattuale e/o obbligatorio tra le parti” e, in subordine, la “declaratoria della nullità, inesistenza, annullabilità, inefficacia dei contratti tra le stesse asseritamente conclusi”, nonché, in via ancor più gradata, la “loro risoluzione per eccessiva onerosità sopravvenuta”.

La Corte ha affermato, innanzitutto, l’applicabilità al caso in esame dell’art. 5 n. 1, lett. b), del regolamento.

Pur riconoscendo “che la norma sembra riferirsi alle sole azioni indirizzate all’adempimento, e non a quelle volte alla dissoluzione del vincolo, e che d’altra parte le disposizioni sulla competenza derogative del principio generale del foro del convenuto non possono essere interpretate in modo da conferire al regime derogatorio una portata che vada oltre i casi contemplati dalla Convenzione”, il Supremo Collegio ha ritenuto decisivo il fatto che, in fondo, “anche le impugnative per invalidità, inefficacia, inesistenza del negozio, attengono alla ‘materia contrattuale’, in quanto postulano una originaria, effettiva o putativa, assunzione volontaria di un obbligo, del quale tendono in vario modo e con varie formule a conseguire la caducazione”.

Su questa base, rilevato che le domande si riferivano a dei contratti che, stando alla documentazione acquisita al processo, avrebbero comportato la consegna delle merci in questione in territorio francese, la Corte ha asserito l’insussistenza della giurisdizione italiana, rigettando così il ricorso proposto contro la sentenza d’appello pronunciatasi negli stessi termini.