Flux européens

[If you do use the blog for research or database purposes, citation would be appreciated, to the blog as a whole and /or to specific blog posts. Many have suggested I should turn the blog into a paid for, subscription service however I have resisted doing so. Proper reference to how the blog is useful to its readers, will help keeping this so.]

In Commercial Bank of Dubai v Al Sari [2025] EWHC 400 (Comm) Foxton J discusses at length the identification of the lex causae in a claim that certain of the defendants maliciously prosecuted two sets of DIFC Proceedings.

The losses claimed are legal fees in respect of various proceedings as well as losses alleged to have been suffered from a delay in recovering certain assets.

Claimants contend that the effect of A4(1) Rome II is that the claims for malicious prosecution of relevant DIFC Proceedings are governed by UAE law, or alternatively involve a series of claims, governed, inter alia, by UAE and English law, and that the claims for malicious prosecution of another set of DIFC Proceedings are likewise governed by English law and/or UAE law. In the alternative, by way of a new argument, they contend that UAE law applies as between some parties by virtue of A4(2) Rome II.

It is common ground that the law of the DIFC does not recognise a tort of malicious prosecution of civil claims.

[14] the judge refers to the need consistently to apply concepts in Rome I/II with the same concepts in  Lugano Convention, Brussels Ia although he also, and much justifiably (as I have repeatedly stated) urges caution in doing so for “the cases disclose consideration in the former context of issues which do not seem to be directly germane to the latter.”

[15] Claimants refers to many authorities

“in which the claimant contended it had made what proved to be a worthless, or at least insufficiently valuable, investment in reliance on negligent advice or inaccurate statements. The obvious tension in these cases is whether the place of damage is where the “defective” transaction is irreversibly entered into, the place from which funds are advanced to make it, or where the flaws in the investment subsequently manifest themselves or crystallise (for example through on-sale of the investment at a reduced value).”

The authorities referred to are Kwok Ho Wan v UBS AG [2022] EWHC 245 (Comm), which in turn cited CJEU Kronhofer, CJEU Kolassa, CJEU Universal Music, CJEU Löber v Barclays Bank Plc, CJEU Vereniging van Effectenbezitters v BP. Cockerill J in Kwok suggested that the overall thrust of the CJEU jurisprudence favoured the place of the manifestation of damage, rather than the place of the transaction which led to the damage, as the relevant place for jurisdiction purposes – this was confirmed upon appeal [2023] EWCA Civ 222 where at [33], Sir Geoffrey Vos MR emphasised that the CJEU authorities which the Judge had said were “not entirely clear” reflected their particular facts, and should not be construed as a statute ([33]). The Court of Appeal doubted that there was “a rule that is universally applicable to financial loss cases”. 

Clearly therefore the ‘fact pattern’ [21] needs to be taken into account and specific consideration is made of “two cases which were not defective investment cases, but cases in which a legal wrong had caused the defendant to incur various heads of costs. Those might be said to be closer to the fact pattern here.”: MX1 Limited v Farahzad, and W Nagel v Pluczenik.

[31] ff the judge concludes, with reference (like Kockerill J in Kwok) to prof Dickinson, both his Rome II contribution in Dicey (with the use of ‘reversability’), and [35] his chapter in the Gedächtnisschrift for Professor Jonathan Fitchen : 

“The central submission of this chapter is that the concept of ‘damage’ within EU private international law is an active one which fixes upon the way in which the relevant event brings about its (claimed) effects upon the victim by adversely affecting a legally protected interest of that person to which the claim relates. This opens up the possibility of classifying different kinds of legally protected interests with a view to developing autonomous approaches for locating interference with them”.

[36] the judge then also links this to a ‘rights based’ approach to applicable law for torts, and for torts generally:

The assistance to be derived from the nature of the legally protected right as a relevant factor when identifying what constitutes direct and immediate damage and where it is suffered, coheres with wider right-based tort scholarship (e.g. Robert Stevens, Torts and Rights (2007)).

[37] “Approached from this perspective, the tort of malicious prosecution addresses the very specific interest of not being harassed by bad faith litigation before the sovereign court of a particular state.”

The judge continues (and readers might want to read those passages in full) with further underpinning of the argument that the legal costs etc suffered, all are indirect, consequential damage, and concludes [40] “Applying Article 4(1) to this singular tort, I am satisfied that the place of the invasion of the protected legal interest (and, in this case, of the primary or direct loss) is the DIFC.”

[41] ff Discussion of the fall-back A4(2) option leads to an interesting discussion of on-shore UAE law as a territorial unit per A25 Rome II and a conclusion [48] that A4(2) is engaged so far as the parties habitually resident in Sharjah and Dubai are concerned. [51] ff recourse to A4(3) is discussed ia with recourse to Owen v Galgay and I think (but have to say the judgment by this stage is not entirely clear) that the judge holds that A4(3) operates to displace the A4(2)  presumption viz those parties where it was engaged (reference to Marshall v MIB), [60] ultimately making DIFC law the applicable law for all claims.

I wonder whether the ‘rights based’ approach to purely economic loss will get much traction. Prof Dickinson’s ‘reversability’ approach seems by now to be firmly anchored in English law.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed. 2024, Chapters 2 and 4.

Extensive discussion under the assimilated Rome II Regulation identifying the applicable law (held: DIFC) for tort of malicious prosecutionPurely economic loss claxonCommercial Bank of Dubai v Al Sari [2025] EWHC 400 (Comm) http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWH…

— Geert Van Calster (@gavclaw.bsky.social) 2025-03-10T09:07:52.373Z

 

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/geert-van-calster-60abab9_lengthy-discussion-of-jurisdictional-issues-activity-7281969805660680193-xIOO?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAHHS6oB7DOA8jUedLLahLDL6cEwepyHYwA

https://x.com/GAVClaw/status/1899023760415506565

Commission / Italie (Traitement des eaux urbaines résiduaires)
Environnement et consommateurs
Traitement des eaux urbaines résiduaires : la Cour impose des sanctions financières à l’Italie pour n’avoir pas respecté ses obligations en matière de collecte et de traitement pour quatre agglomérations

UBS Group et UBS / Commission (Obligations d’État européennes)
Concurrence

Entente dans le secteur des obligations d'État européennes : le Tribunal confirme pour l’essentiel la décision de la Commission 

UBS Group et UBS / Commission (Obligations d’État européennes)
Concurrence
Entente dans le secteur d'obligations d'État européennes : le Tribunal confirme pour l’essentiel la décision de la Commission

Engagement solennel de deux membres de la Commission européenne

[If you do use the blog for research or database purposes, citation would be appreciated, to the blog as a whole and /or to specific blog posts. Many have suggested I should turn the blog into a paid for, subscription service however I have resisted doing so. Proper reference to how the blog is useful to its readers, will help keeping this so.]

I earlier reviewed the jurisdictional ruling in the claim brought by ia members of the Brasilian Quilombola community against Norsk Hydro related corporations. The pleadings this month on the merits reminded me to follow-up on the case and introduced me to a judgment of last May, which I had missed. Hence apologies for late reporting.

The judgment is of interest for the application ia of Rome II‘s rules on statutes of limitation and the burden of proof viz aspects of that statute of limitation. The court is most succinct on it [5.29]: (my translation)

Statutes of limitation are governed by the law applicable to the claim, in this case Brazilian law. The court will therefore assess the defense of prescription under Brazilian (substantive) law, also with respect to the burden of proof. This concerns a material aspect of the law of evidence that the court considers is subject to the lex causae, Brazilian law. (emphasis added)

The para caught my attention for corporate defendants have been known to make a spiel about the implication of the evidence and procedure carve-out in Rome II and its interplay with both Article 15’s ‘scope of the law applicable’ and Article 22’s specific provision for the burden of proof. I am not privy to how extensively the issue was argued in the case at issue.

Here, the court held [5.31] that Norsk Hydro had the burden of proof to show knowledge of the damage, its cause and those responsible for it with a view to the statute of limitation beginning to run, leading to a discussion on whether the pollution was a continuous or single event. As a result of the discussion, [5.36] only a few events were held to be past the statute of limitation.

The judgment does not address substantive reversal of the burden of proof issues under Brasilian environmental law: that I imagine might have been at issue in this month’s heairings.

Geert.

The Dutch SC has today held that it is minded to refer to the CJEU on a variety of issues relating to Rome II’s applicable law rule for (follow-on damages claims) related to competition law infringement. The case is related to the air cargo cartel referral which I flag here and is a follow-up to the Opinion of the AG at the SC, which I discuss here.

The decision to refer is not definitive yet seeing as the judgment was held on a (intra-Netherlands) preliminary reference. Parties are now given the opportunity to comment on the intention to refer.

The SC first of all refers to the questions it has today already sent up to the CJEU, namely whether continuous infringement leads to one albeit diverse claim as opposed to various albeit related claims. I briefly discuss these here. [4.2.8] clearly a qualification as one claim much facilitates the determination of applicable law and therefore arguably also the enforcement of EU competition law (reference to C-605/21 Heureka v Google).

It then addresses Rome II’s scope ratione temporis and the consequential conflit mobile which I discuss in my earlier post. Unlike its AG (who opined that there is no material difference in outcome hence no need to request an academic opinion, as it were, from Luxembourg), the SC does feel that this question needs to be referred to the CJEU, seeing as it held on yet another question referred to it that the Dutch residual rules do not lead to the outcome suggested by the AG.

Finally, the court intends to ask the CJEU to clarify Article 6(3) a (‘markets affected’ and b (conditions for claimant’s choice of law) Rome II, part of the complex layer of rules on the lex causae for follow-on (and stand alone) claims: in particular, the meaning of ‘markets affected’ and the conditions for choice of law which claimants may exercise.

As I discuss inter alia in this paper, Article 6 frankly is a mess, flying directly in the face of predictability so coveted by EU private international law.

[4.6.6] the SC refers to a perceived need for consistency between Article 6 Rome II and Article 7(2) Brussels Ia (e.g. in Volvo), a need which in my opinion is neither as established nor as obvious as the SC sees it.

This will be a very important case for the application of Rome II Article 6.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed. 2024, 4.53 ff.

Palink.Dutch SC minded to refer to CJEU on the scope ratione temporis of Rome II (conflit mobile arising from continuous infringement of competition law; follow-on damages)ECLI:NL:HR:2025:414lnkd.in/eXyB3JTABackground here lnkd.in/emyQYWpG

— Geert Van Calster (@gavclaw.bsky.social) 2025-03-21T12:26:03.537Z

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/geert-van-calster-60abab9_palink-dutch-sc-minded-to-refer-to-cjeu-activity-7308820270905999362-FZ7w?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAHHS6oB7DOA8jUedLLahLDL6cEwepyHYwA

https://x.com/GAVClaw/status/1903054432079647053

 

 

 

I discussed Vlas AG (at the Dutch Supreme Court)’s opinion in the Air Cargo case here. The Dutch Supreme Court today has decided to refer to the CJEU. The specific questions referred, concern the (effet utile of) the EU’s rules on effective enforcement of EU competition law and the qualification of continuous infringement of competition law as leading to one claim per victim, with multiple heads of damages, or rather one claim per infringement, each single handedly qualifying as a separate entitlement for damages.

The difference is relevant to conflict of laws given the ‘conflit mobile’. If the claims are separate, Rome II with its complex rule for competition law damages in Article 6, ratione temporis only applies to some of the claims. I discuss in my previous post how that leads to a complicated patchwork of applicable law.

The actual question referred enquires with the CJEU on whether continuous infringement leads to one albeit diverse claim as opposed to various albeit related claims, but adds ‘with a view to determining applicable law’. It will be interesting to see therefore how intensively the CJEU will engage with the Rome II issues on the specific case, which however is likely to be joined with the other case in which the SC is minded to refer and which I discuss here.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed. 2024, 4.53 ff.

Lufthansa ea v SCC eaDutch Supreme Court refers to CJEU re qualification of continuous infringement of competition law, follow-on damages claimsWhether one albeit diverse claim as opposed to various albeit related claimsRelevant viz applicable law, Rome II.deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id…

— Geert Van Calster (@gavclaw.bsky.social) 2025-03-21T11:47:13.510Z

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/geert-van-calster-60abab9_deutsche-lufthansa-et-al-v-stichting-cartel-activity-7308816006683000832-aU9Q?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAHHS6oB7DOA8jUedLLahLDL6cEwepyHYwA

https://x.com/GAVClaw/status/1903050936391455031

Statistiques judiciaires 2024 : augmentation importante tant des affaires introduites devant la Cour de justice que des affaires clôturées par l’institution dans son ensemble

In IDBI Bank Ltd v Axcel Sunshine Ltd & Anor [2025] EWHC 442 (Comm) claimant is an Indian bank which, at the relevant times, operated outside India via a branch in the Dubai International Financial Centre – DIFC. Defendants are a company incorporated and registered in the British Virgin Islands, and a company incorporated and registered in India.

Second defendant argues ia that a relevant letter of comfort must not be enforced seeing as its performance would contravene Indian law.

Persey J discussed among others therefore whether an English court should disregard a letter of comfort due to A3(3) or A9(3) of the assimilated Rome I Regulation. These are the Articles which in the case of Article 3(3)  give priority to domestic law in a ‘purely domestic’ contract subject to a third country law:

Where all other elements relevant to the situation at the time of the choice are located in a country other than the country whose law has been chosen, the choice of the parties shall not prejudice the application of provisions of the law of that other country which cannot be derogated from by agreement.

and in the case of Article 9(3):

Effect may be given to the overriding mandatory provisions of the law of the country where the obligations arising out of the contract have to be or have been performed, in so far as those overriding mandatory provisions render the performance of the contract unlawful. In considering whether to give effect to those provisions, regard shall be had to their nature and purpose and to the consequences of their application or non-application.

In the case of Article 3(3), domestic law trumping lex voluntaris is mandatory, while in the case of Article 9(3), the override is optional, at the discretion of the court.

As for Article 3(3), the judge refers in particular to Banco Santander Totta. It was there held that for Art 3(3) to apply, all elements of a claim needed to be within the other country. [105]

In the present case there are elements with connections to the BVI and Dubai, such that Art 3(3) does not apply. Thus, for example, the CFA was entered into by the Bank’s Dubai branch office, the LoC was addressed to the Bank’s Dubai branch office, Axcel was incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, Axcel was required to repay its loan to an account in Dubai, and the facilities under the CFA were used by Siva to repay the debt owed by WinWind (a Finnish company), and thereby to discharge the WinWind Guarantee and Facility (both contracts being governed by English law). The same discharge was used by Siva to obtain the discontinuance of the WinWind Proceedings (before the English court).

([106] the judge doubts very much whether the contended effect of Indian regulation is what defendant purports it to be).

As for A9(3), [108]

I am satisfied that Article 9(3) also does not apply in this case. It is only applicable where the obligations ‘have to be‘ performed in a country where performance would be unlawful. As I have already observed above, performance under clause 3 ought to have taken place in Dubai, not India. Had performance been required to take place in India, the FEMA Regulations are not regarded by India as crucial to safeguarding its public interests. [the judge refers here to expert evidence]

Moreover, obiter [109] even had Article 9(3) applied, the judge would have used his discretion not to grant priority to the Indian rules:

In circumstances where the Indian Courts would enforce the guarantee and/or a judgment of this Court, I am satisfied that there is no basis for giving Siva relief under Art 9(3).

This judgment is a good illustration of what Articles 3(3) and 9 might lead to – although not on the facts of the case.

Geert.

Handbook of EU Private International LAw, 4th ed. 2024, 3.73 ff.

https://bsky.app/profile/gavclaw.bsky.social/post/3ljz7jp7o7c2j https://www.linkedin.com/posts/geert-van-calster-60abab9_judgment-discussing-ia-whether-english-court-activity-7304791236215795712-tb2M?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAHHS6oB7DOA8jUedLLahLDL6cEwepyHYwA https://x.com/GAVClaw/status/1899025501504651508

Arce
Environnement et consommateurs
Protection des consommateurs : une clause contractuelle obligeant un jeune sportif à reverser une partie de ses revenus s’il devient un athlète professionnel peut être abusive

In my contribution to the EAPIL online seminar discussing Ekatarina Aristova’s excellent Tort Litigation against Transnational Corporations: The Challenge of Jurisdiction in English Courts (OUP 2024), I flagged the discussion by Dr Aristova in Chapter 6 of the book, of one of the objections to jurisdiction exercised by ‘European’ or by extension courts in the Global North, in cases involving human rights and environmental abuse by business located in the Global South. That is the argument that such exercise of jurisdiction is a form of neocolonialism.

This same argument was used by counsel for defendants in Da Silva & Ors v Brazil Iron Ltd & Anor [2025] EWHC 606 (KB). The case involves mining pollution in Bahia state by Brazil Iron, domiciled at England. Background to the case is here. [71] Bourne J summarises counsel’s argument:

For this Court to accept the Claimants’ attempt to litigate the case in this country would, [counsel] submits, be contrary to requirements of judicial comity and would be an exercise of judicial colonialism. In that regard he referred to Altimo Holdings v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd [2012] 1 WLR 1804 PC, where Lord Collins said at [97]:

“Comity requires that the court be extremely cautious before deciding that there is a risk that justice will not be done in the foreign country by the foreign court, and that is why cogent evidence is required.”

Justice Bourne did not directly address the ‘judicial colonialism’ vocabulary yet in accepting jurisdiction for the E&W courts and rejecting the forum non conveniens challenge, he clearly disagrees with it.

Defendants’ attempt at rebuffing jurisdiction of course centres upon the Court of Appeal’s recent application of the test in cases like these in Limbu v Dyson and the approach, as was to be expected, attempts to distinguish Dyson and /or employ the one or two levers to support a forum non challenge, indicated by that judgment.

The judge summarises [100]

“an examination of “connecting factors” leads to the conclusion that Brazil is the forum with which this action has the more real and substantial connection, although there are factors leaning in both directions.”

Emphasis was put by defendants ia on the risk  of irreconcilability of the outcome of the English proceedings with an ongoing Brasilian ‘Civil Public Action’ – CPA, a well as an ordinary civil claim introduced in Brasil.

The judge acknowledges that risk [101]. He refers in this context to Vedanta which flagged it as an important issue.  (See also the extensive discussions on irreconcilability in Municipio viz the then applicable European rules of Brussels Ia (Articles 33-34)).

However he finds it outweighs the fact that the Defendants in England and are served there “as of right” (the actor sequitur forum rei principle). Also, control of  the Brazilian company Brazil Iron Mineração Ltda (“BIML”), which operates the Fazenda Mocó iron ore mine in Mocó that is core to the claim, is held to be an issue which will be important in the proceedings and which heavily leans towards England. [101] Although “the Defendants’ directors may not live in the UK, it would be a logical assumption that a significant amount of evidence about the control issue may emanate from England and be in English.”

Overall, arguments which counted for Brasil are

[103] “the most important issues in the case are likely to concern (1) the operation and regulation of the Mine and (2) its impact on the Claimants. That does not mean that control will not be an important issue, but ultimately the claims concern environmental damage and the relevant environment is in Brazil. Those matters obviously occurred in Brazil and will be the subject of witness evidence and documentary evidence in that country.”

[104] “it is agreed that Brazilian law applies to the dispute. The relevant regulatory framework also is that of Brazil, or Bahia State. It therefore appears highly likely that there will be expert witnesses from Brazil, whether or not there are also experts from any other country. I do not overlook the fact that the English courts are well accustomed to applying foreign law. Nevertheless, there may be significant differences between the applicable systems of law – civil law and common law – and that favours the jurisdiction of the Brazilian courts. There may also be issues about Quilombola status and although I do not place much emphasis on that fact, it would be a theme with which the English courts would be wholly unfamiliar.” The latter refers to the issue of protection of indigenous communities under Brasilian law.

[105] “it would plainly be easier and cheaper for ..evidence to be received in Brazil, in Portuguese.”

However the one strong argument standing out in favour of jurisdiction of the English courts is [106]-[107]

that there is a real risk that the Claimants will not be able to obtain substantial justice in Brazil. That means that Brazil, despite its closer connection with the case, is not the appropriate forum in which it can most suitably be tried in the interests of the parties and for the ends of justice.

The reason, in brief summary, is that the evidence reveals a real risk that the Claimants will not be able to fund, or obtain funding for, legal representation of the kind necessary to litigate these claims to a proper conclusion.

This is not [108] down to any criticism of the Brasilian legal system, nor lack of integrity of that system or delay, neither of which the judge suggests exist. Rather, [110] the relatively small size of the claims, [111] the small number of claimants (implicit reference here by the judge to Municipio), [112] the limited means of the claimants, [113] complexity of the case in terms of both liability and control, [114] despite the judge not accusing the Brasilian system of delay, it has been shown that it does take a long time for Brasilian courts to hold on issues of such complexity.

[115] in England the case will go forward under a conditional fee arrangement – CFA, while [116] ff the expert evidence on balance of the possibility to find appropriate funding in Brasil including via legal aid, on the whole shows that that is unlikely.

[134] Comity is not considered to be an obstacle:

“As I have said, it is not premised on any criticism of the legal system in Brazil. Instead, it is founded on the fact that the economics of litigating this claim in the two jurisdictions are significantly different.”

[146] Lack of representation in a particular forum clearly is the Leitmotiv for the judge’s decision, and it is one based on a detailed consideration of the various options presented to him.

A judgment of note!

Geert.

EU private international law, 4th ed. 2024, Chapter 7.

 

Catarina Oliveira Da Silva ea v Brazil Iron ea [2025] EWHC 606 (KB)High Court applying Limbu v Dyson gavclaw.com/2024/12/13/l… rejects forum non challenge in mining pollution case Reject defendants' suggestion that jurisdiction for E&W courts would amount to 'judicial colonialism'

— Geert Van Calster (@gavclaw.bsky.social) 2025-03-16T10:41:59.200Z

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/geert-van-calster-60abab9_court-rules-claim-against-brazil-iron-can-activity-7306988440980516864-PSld?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAHHS6oB7DOA8jUedLLahLDL6cEwepyHYwA

https://x.com/GAVClaw/status/1901222249807462509

 

Audience solennelle d'éloges funèbres à la mémoire de M. Uno Lõhmus et de Mme Ena Cremona

Deldits
Principes du droit communautaire
RGPD et transidentité : la rectification de données relatives à l’identité de genre ne peut être subordonnée à la preuve d’un traitement chirurgical

Shuvalov / Conseil
Relations extérieures
Guerre en Ukraine : la Cour de justice confirme les mesures restrictives adoptées contre M. Igor Shuvalov, ancien vice-Premier ministre du gouvernement russe

Semedo / Parlement
Statut des fonctionnaires
Plainte pour harcèlement visant une ancienne membre du Parlement européen : le constat de harcèlement et la sanction prononcée par la présidente du Parlement sont annulés, au motif que les droits de la défense n’ont pas été respectés

Commission / Pologne (Contrôle ultra vires de la jurisprudence de la Cour de justice par une cour constitutionnelle)
État de droit : l’avocat général Spielmann considère que le recours de la Commission européenne concernant la Cour constitutionnelle polonaise est fondé

I could not quite think of a catchier title conveying both the plus (claim will continue to be heard in England) and the minus (the discussion having already caused considerable delay), without resorting too obviously to football metaphors.

The claim is brought in England by a number of Liverpool fans physically and psychologically damaged by the poor security at the May 2022 Champions League Final at Paris’ Stade de France. Claimants allege that UEFA had organisational responsibilities for the match and that they owed, and were in breach of, contractual and/or tortious duties concerning the safety of the
claimants.

The case illustrates a problem highlighted by Oliver Holland (partner with Leigh Day, the law firm representing claimants however not, as far as I am aware, involved in the claim), last week at a hearing at the UK Parliament’s human rights committee. (Mr Holland did not give current claim as an example and seeing as the hearing focused on forced labour in the supply chain, he likely did not have the claim in mind at his testimony).

Defendants in personal injury claims (whether or not linked to business and human rights) have quite the series of avenues available to them to try and derail the claims in the English courts. These include (Mr Holland discusses some of these)

objections to jurisdiction, including the infamous doctrine of forum non conveniens;

the prospect of (handy for its freezing effect) very considerable adverse costs orders whether or not coupled with security for costs; and (with impact on the costs issue)

a tendency to entertain issues of both jurisdiction and applicable law at considerable length.

Other jurisdictions of course suffer from similar challenges and I for one am not going to complain about a good conflict of laws yarn. Moreover, Lord Briggs denouncing mini-trials at the jurisdictional stage in Vedanta (Turner J in current case refers to this [15]), and the Court of Appeal’s instructions on forum non in Dyson, ought to bring more discipline to at least some of this maneuvering.

Sean Abram and others v UEFA and UEFA Events SA [2025] EWHC 483 (KB) engages with another means to try and bounce the case away from England and Wales: namely the doctrine of foreign act of state.  For an excellent primer and discussion of the future of the principle see Mary Newbury here.

[5] The principal basis for UEFA’s jurisdiction challenge is that the claims would require the English Court to adjudicate on the lawfulness or validity of acts of a foreign state (France) performed within its own territory, which, UEFA argue, would be impermissible under said “Foreign Act of State Doctrine”.

I have posted quite a few times on the doctrine: see among others

Crane Bank Ltd & Ors v DFCU Bank Ltd & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 886 which [13] defined the doctrine as courts “will not adjudicate or sit in judgment on the lawfulness or validity under its own law of an executive act of a foreign state, performed within the territory of that state” and which entertained a number of exceptions to the doctrine, as well as in my opinion leaving a potential incompatibility of (some of the implications of) the doctrine with Article 6 ECHR underdiscussed;

SKAT [Skatteforvaltningen v Solo Capital Partners Llp [2022] EWCA Civ 234] in which both the Court of Appeal and later the Supreme Court focused on the substance rather than the context of the claim (in my post I flag the echos of the Brussels /Lugano ‘civil and commercial’ discussions);

Reliance v India  [2018] EWHC 822 (Comm) where Popplewell J (as he then was) held on whether the doctrine applies to arbitration tribunals;

Servis-Terminal LLC v Drelle [2025] EWCA Civ 62 which flags the need to seek formal recognition of a foreign judgment before its enforcement with Newey LJ suggesting the similar roots of this requirement as the foreign act of state doctrine.

There is certainly merit in holding on jurisdictional issues separately, before extensive engagement with the merits, at least where these objections are not obviously spurious and cannot be summarily addressed. Even in those States where civil procedure rules (CPR) give defendants a procedural right to hear the jurisdictional objections first (the E&W means is Part 11 of the CPR), and despite Turner J’s appreciation that the matter must be dealt with concisely (and note [17] his rejection of defendants’ request to delay even further and squeeze this jurisdictional objection even more), I think continental rules would not have allowed the discussion in current case to take on the extensive nature that it has, with all the costs and time delay this has already caused. And there is potential for an appeal I imagine.

The foreign act of state element of the discussion at issue, if of any relevance at all, clearly in my view is entirely incidental or ‘contextual’ and not substantial, per UKSC SCAT above and therefore simply cannot lead to rejection at the jurisdictional stage. The summary [65] in my view is poignant:

claimants make no direct allegations of unlawfulness in their Particulars of Claim in respect of the conduct of the French police or any other state entity. The defendants contend, however, that the issue of the lawfulness of such conduct is nevertheless bound to arise as an important issue
in the proceedings if the case were to be permitted to proceed further.

There is no suggestion that the way in which the claim has been formulated is designed as it were to circumvent the Foreign Act of State doctrine and that the real object of the proceedings as it were is to hold on the validity of actions by a French state entity. The pleaded case as is clear from Abram v UEFA [2024] EWHC 1518 and as summarised here [64] focuses genuinely on UEFA and consorts’ (in)actions.

Defendants contend, however, that the issue of the lawfulness of such conduct is nevertheless bound to arise as an important issue in the proceedings if the case were to be permitted to proceed further, ([126] ff they point to issues of French law to support this argument) and (ia [77]) argue that there cannot be a ‘threshold requirement’ below which the assessment of a foreign act of state becomes de minimis and does not engage the doctrine.

The judge, after having made a thorough and clear overview of both the principle (including [82] ff the absence of established authority on what amounts to an act of state) and its exceptions (much more entertained in case-law) as applied by the authorities,

[91] notes that the principle must not extend beyond the natural bounds required to fulfil the aims which it is intended to achieve (international comity, GAVC);

[106] accepts that “some aspects of the conduct of the French government and the other listed public bodies through its higher officials may (and I stress may) amount to acts of state”; however that “the task of determining which, if any, of these acts do engage the Doctrine cannot be confidently carried out on the present incomplete state of the pleadings and evidence”.

[108] ff Two relevant exceptions to the rule are further discussed obiter. The second exception is discussed [122] ff: where challenges to foreign acts
of state are merely ancillary to the claim or by way of collateral aspersion. I know this exception has been so determined by the authorities yet in my opinion would be better formulated not as an exception but as a substantive limitation to the rule.

As a side-note, there appears to be some confusion on the law that will apply to the merits of the case: see [18] ff

18. Until very shortly before the hearing of the application before me,
the claimants had been proceeding under the assumption that
French law applied to the claims of all the claimants. Experts in
French law were duly instructed to report on behalf of the
claimants and defendants respectively.
19. However, it transpires that the position may have been less clear
cut because only some of the claimants had purchased tickets
from the UEFA online ticket portal. Others had bought them
directly from Liverpool FC. Owing to the lateness of the
realisation of the true position, the claimants’ skeleton arguments
deployed for the purposes of the hearing before me had been
drafted on the premise that all of the claims were governed by
French law.
20. The position of the claimants, as now articulated in a letter dated
2 October 2024, is that their claims in tort are subject to French
law regardless of their provenance and so too is any contractual
claim in respect of those tickets purchased from the UEFA online
ticket portal. However, contractual claims brought by claimants
who received their tickets from Liverpool FC involve the
imposition of an English contractual duty to take reasonable skill
and care to be considered in regard to French health and safety
laws and regulations as applicable to the stadium. No purpose
would here be served by articulating their reasons for reaching
this view.

No doubt the cross-over between contractual claims (subject to assimilated Rome I) and non-contractual claims (Rome II, ditto assimilated) and, I imagine, the application of the consumer section of Rome I, will be made clearer in the continuation of the claims.

Geert.

 

I am much pleased that Dr Brooke Marshall has accepted to write on CJEU Lastre for the blog. Dr Marshall has written the guiding volume on the issue (highlights of the book’s launch are here). True to form, her analysis below is as complete as it is on point, and a most excellent addition to the analysis already out there.

Geert.

 

CJEU on substantive validity and on asymmetric clauses: what we now know, and what we (still) don’t.

The background to Case C-537/23 Società Italiana Lastre ECLI:EU:C:2025:120, and commentary on it, has already been expertly provided by François Mailhé, Gilles Cuniberti, and Geert van Calster. It is a privilege for me to contribute to that discussion on this excellent blog.

My post confines itself to the questions that the French Cour de cassation asked and the answers which the CJEU gave (and did not give). My analysis draws heavily from my book on the subject, so pinpoint references to that are given in each section below.

The asymmetric jurisdiction clause in issue said:

‘the court of Brescia [(Italy)] will have jurisdiction over any dispute arising from or related to this contract. [SIL] reserves the right to bring proceedings against the purchaser before another competent court in Italy or elsewhere’.

The preliminary questions of the Cour de cassation, in essence, were:

(1) Is a complaint about a clause’s asymmetric character or imprecision an autonomous (EU law) question or a question of the clause’s substantive validity? Or should substantive validity be interpreted restrictively ‘and regarded as relating purely to the material grounds for invalidity, which are principally fraud, error, deceit, violence and incapacity’?

(2) If it is an autonomous question, is a clause like the one in issue compatible with Art 25 of the Recast?

(3) If asymmetry goes to substantive validity, how does the conflict-of-laws rule in Art 25 of the Recast work? Which court’s law applies and does that law include renvoi?

These were all good questions, each deserving an answer. Regrettably, the Court only answered the first two.

The Court’s decisions on the first question:

I. The phrase ‘null and void as to its substantive validity’ must be interpreted autonomously

The Court begins at [30] by resolving several uncertainties attending the process of characterisation and the substantive validity rule, which are relevant to jurisdiction clauses generally. The first is as to which law applies to the interpretation of the phrase ‘null and void as to its substantive validity’ in Art 25(1). It had hitherto been uncertain whether the meaning of that phrase and the scope of the issues it covers was a question to be resolved by the law of the court seised, by reference to an autonomous interpretation or by reference to the law applicable to substantive validity of the clause itself, as designated by the conflict-of-laws rule in Art 25(1).

Sensibly, and unsurprisingly in my and Gilles Cuniberti’s view, the Court decides that this question is to be resolved by an autonomous interpretation. This ensures that issues of substantive validity, governed by national law, do not overlap with other aspects of Art 25(1) which are governed by an autonomous approach. Several of those other aspects are pointed out by the Court at [35], namely: that ‘the parties … have agreed that a court or the courts of a Member State are to have jurisdiction to settle any disputes which have arisen or which may arise in connection with a particular legal relationship’, which the Court describes as requirements as regards a jurisdiction agreement’s ‘substance’; and that the agreement complies with conditions as to form. In this respect, the Court’s decision coheres with its decision in C- 519/ 19 Ryanair DAC, paras 41, 48– 61. There, the Court observed that it is for the court seised to ascertain first whether a jurisdiction agreement satisfies the requirements of form and consensus under the Recast before turning to the separate issue of substantive validity. So far, so good.

Asymmetric Jurisdiction Clauses (OUP 2023), para 6.35.

 

II. Few issues can be characterized as issues of substantive validity (and asymmetry is not one of them)

At [36] and [37], the Court resolves a second uncertainty of general application, namely as to which kinds of issues can be characterized as issues of substantive validity, adopting a restrictive approach. It rules that ‘that concept covers the general causes of nullity of a contract, namely, in particular, those which vitiate consent, such as error, deceit, violence or fraud, and incapacity to contract’ and that it must be interpreted as ‘referring solely to [a jurisdiction agreement’s] nullity in respect of general causes of nullity of a contract’ (my emphasis). In other words, the issues that we knew were already covered by the substantive validity rule are covered but nothing else.

That nothing else is covered is a surprising result, given that there had been some sign that the CJEU might favour a broad interpretation in C- 519/ 19 Ryanair DAC, para 50. One of the reasons the Court gives for its approach is to reflect the solution taken in the 2005 Hague COCA Convention (at [40]). It does not say anything more, but the Court seems to be insinuating that since there is some support for the view that the null and void rule under Art 5(1) of the COCA Convention should be interpreted restrictively (see the COCA Convention’s Explanatory Report, para 126), so too should the substantive validity rule under the Recast. I, therefore, share Gilles Cuniberti’s view that the Court may seek to align its interpretation of the null and void rule in the COCA Convention and the substantive validity rule in the Recast.

Asymmetric Jurisdiction Clauses (OUP 2023), para 6.37, cf paras 6.38-6.48, 6.52–6.55

 

III. A complaint about asymmetry in a jurisdiction clause is an autonomous question (and only an autonomous question)

In light of the Court’s restrictive approach to the characterization of issues relevant to substantive validity, the Court consequentially rules at [51] that ‘the validity of an agreement conferring jurisdiction in view of its alleged asymmetry must be examined having regard not to criteria relating to the causes of an agreement being ‘null and void as to its substantive validity’, within the meaning of the first sentence of Art 25(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation, but to autonomous criteria which are derived from that Art 25 as interpreted by the Court.’

Seemingly, to justify that autonomous approach, the Court relies on the fact that the former Art 17(4) of the Brussels Convention expressly provided for clauses to the benefit of one party and that asymmetric jurisdiction agreements which favour consumers, insureds etc, and employees are contemplated and permitted by Recast: [48]–[50], [52]. For cogent criticism on the latter point, see Geert van Calster’s post.

Asymmetric Jurisdiction Clauses (OUP 2023), paras 1.27–1.36 cf paras 6.69–6.82

 

IV. Whether a jurisdiction clause is sufficiently precise is a question to be resolved by applying an autonomous standard

The Court reiterates the requirement that the court or courts on which the agreement confers jurisdiction must be sufficiently precisely identified, and that this applies to Art 25(1) of the Recast, as it did to the Recast’s predecessors: [45]. Any complaint about an asymmetric jurisdiction clause being insufficiently precise must, therefore be resolved autonomously: [47].

Frustratingly, the Court merely repeats the crux of that previous case law without elaboration at [42]:

‘It is sufficient that the clause state the objective factors on the basis of which the parties have agreed to choose a court or the courts to which they wish to submit disputes … Those factors, which must be sufficiently precise to enable the court seised to ascertain whether it has jurisdiction, may, where appropriate, be determined by the particular circumstances of the case being examined by the court.’  (C-387/98 Coreck, para 15; C-222/15 Hőszig, para 43).

Asymmetric Jurisdiction Clauses (OUP 2023), paras 6.05–6.07

 

The Court’s decisions on the second question:

 V. Assessed autonomously, an asymmetric jurisdiction clause is valid under EU law and sufficiently precise where the optional limb can be interpreted as contemplating proceedings only before an EU Member State or EFTA Lugano State court

The Court rules that an asymmetric jurisdiction is in principle valid/admissible under EU law, relying especially on the need to protect party autonomy (recital 19) (see [56], [58], [64], [65]). No surprises there, until one does a double take at [58]: what the Court rules is valid is an asymmetric jurisdiction clause the optional limb of which is limited to courts with jurisdiction under the Recast and the 2007 Lugano Convention. More on that in a moment (see VI).

So far as the requirement of precision of content is concerned, the Court rules at [59] that an asymmetric agreement clause which designates a particular EU Member State or EFTA Lugano State court, on the one hand, and courts which have jurisdiction under the Recast and 2007 Lugano Convention, on the other, ‘satisfies the requirement of precision resulting from Art 25(1) of that regulation and the objectives of foreseeability, transparency and legal certainty, set out in recitals 15 and 16 of that regulation.’ Subject to the reservations I have as to what the Court means by the word ‘designate’ (see VIII below), that seems to me to be a cogent conclusion:  ‘any court with jurisdiction’ is an objective factor that is sufficiently precise, assessed from the perspective of a court seised: any court EU Member State or EFTA Lugano State court which would otherwise regard itself as competent has jurisdiction.

Asymmetric Jurisdiction Clauses (OUP 2023), paras 6.09–6.10

 

VI. Assessed autonomously, an asymmetric jurisdiction clause is not sufficiently precise and contrary to EU law where the optional limb is to be interpreted as contemplating proceedings before a Third State court

The Court rules at [60] that, if, in referring to ‘another competent court … elsewhere’, the agreement ‘must be interpreted’ as meaning that it also designates the courts of one or more Third States, it would be contrary to the Recast. Put another way, the asymmetric clause in issue ‘is incapable of satisfying the requirement of precision, … unless it may be interpreted as designating the court of Brescia and the courts of Member States or States that are parties to the Lugano II Convention as having jurisdiction to resolve disputes between the parties’: [62] (my emphasis). In practical terms, if the words ‘another competent court … elsewhere’ could encompass an English court, for example, because one of the parties has some connection to England, the clause would not be valid under the Recast.

What I find curious about this aspect of the Court’s decision is the lack of clarity in the reasoning it used to get there. It reasoned, at [60], that where the optional limb can be interpreted as contemplating proceedings before a Third State court:

‘that agreement conferring jurisdiction would not be consistent with the objectives of foreseeability, transparency and legal certainty referred to in recitals 15 and 16 of that regulation, to the extent that EU law does not, in itself, make it possible to designate the courts which have jurisdiction, as that designation is, where appropriate, the result of the application of the rules of private international law of third countries.’

While it is true that whether a Third State court is competent is not the result of EU law, it is difficult to see why that matters if the requirement of precision applies to the clause as a whole and is to be assessed only from the perspective of a court seised. Indeed, it is difficult to see why the criterion ‘another competent court … elsewhere’ is not an objective factor or why it is insufficiently precise, assessed only from the perspective of a court seised: any court which would otherwise regard itself as competent has jurisdiction, whether that court is a Third State court or not. Although the optional limb does not, in my view, confer jurisdiction on those courts (only the clause’s first sentence designating the courts of Brescia does that), the optional limb provides a criterion allowing any court that is seised to determine whether it is one of the courts before which the parties had contemplated that the option holder could bring proceedings.

Instead, the Court could have more persuasively justified its decision by elaborating on its previous case law in C-387/98 Coreck and C-222/15 Hőszig to clarify that the requirement of precision applies as much to the parties as it does to the court. Put another way, the Court could have clarified that the requirement of precision is not to be examined purely from the perspective of a court seised; rather, as a result of the ‘objectives of foreseeability, transparency and legal certainty, set out in recitals 15 and 16’ of the Recast,  it also requires that the parties be able to foresee from a jurisdiction clause where they may be called upon to defend proceedings. Reference to C-566/22 Inkreal paras 28–29 would have done the job. There, the court said that an agreement conferring jurisdiction coheres with the aim of legal certainty because it ‘helps the applicant to ascertain the court before which he or she may bring proceedings and the defendant to foresee the court before which he or she may be sued, and enables the national court seised to be able readily to decide whether it has jurisdiction’. (The Court did refer to Inkreal but, unfortunately, not to make this point.)

I had foreshadowed the Court’s decision at [60] and [62] as a possible problem for asymmetric clauses of this kind, albeit on the argument that an aspect of the requirement of precision under EU law ought to be that the agreement should allow a reasonably well-informed defendant to foresee the courts before which they may be sued. I had suggested that since it was uncertain what the CJEU may say, it might be thought prudent for drafters to specify (expressly) that ‘any competent court’ is restricted to those within the EU or to an EFTA Lugano State, if that was their intention. In light of the CJEU’s decision, that suggestion may well warrant some serious consideration.

The Court’s decision may also give cause to reconsider non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses which designate one EU Member State or EFTA Lugano State court, to the extent that these impliedly permit both parties to bring proceedings before any other competent court, including Third State courts.

Asymmetric Jurisdiction Clauses (OUP 2023), paras 2.31–2.33, 5.50, 6.10, 6.14–6.24

 

Unanswered questions

VII. So is the clause in Case C-537/23 Società Italiana Lastre sufficiently precise and compatible with the Recast?

This is not a question for the CJEU to answer and, on my reading, it is not one which the Court did. For a different view, see Gilles Cuniberti’s post. Note that the Court’s careful use of conditional language in [60] and [62] ‘if’ … ‘unless’… One may only speculate on how a French court will now interpret the clause against the backdrop of the CJEU’s rulings.

 

VIII. Which court(s) does an asymmetric clause ‘designate’? And how does the substantive validity rule work for them?

The Court, is to my eyes, vague or perhaps ambivalent as to which court or courts an asymmetric clause typically ‘designates’ (ie confers jurisdiction on/ prorogates the jurisdiction of). Does it designate (1) only the ‘anchor court’ (to use Richard Fentiman’s words), here Brescia, and merely preserve the special or general jurisdiction that other courts have under the Recast or 2007 Lugano Convention for one of the parties? Or (2) does it ‘designate’/confer jurisdiction on/prorogate the jurisdiction of all those courts? The Court’s reasons at [55] suggest the latter and [59] appears to contemplate both possibilities.

This opacity is regrettable for multiple reasons. One reason is that the conflict-of-laws rule in Art 25(1) for determining a clause’s substantive validity presupposes that the clause confers jurisdiction on/designates only one court. That conflict-of-laws rule necessitates the following interpretation for an asymmetric clause of this kind: only the anchor court is ‘prorogated’ and the jurisdiction under the default rules of the courts the subject of the option is preserved but not prorogated. On that argument: if the anchor court is seised by either party, it should apply the law selected by its conflict-of-laws rules to the substantive validity of the clause (assuming renvoi is included – see IX below). If, instead, another court is seised, it should apply the law selected by the anchor court’s conflict-of-laws rules to the clause’s substantive validity. Whether that other court is seised by the option holder, according to the agreement, or by the non-option holder, contrary to it, is immaterial for the purposes of the rule.

Put another way, if that argument is wrong and an asymmetric clause of this kind ‘designates’ more than just the anchor court, the Court will (again) be called upon to explain how the substantive validity rule is supposed to work for a clause that ’designates’ multiple courts. It is a shame that it did not grasp the nettle and do so in this case.

Asymmetric Jurisdiction Clauses (OUP 2023) paras 5.07–5.09, 5.33, 6.58–6.59

 

IX. Is renvoi included in the substantive validity rule?

Also unfortunate is that the Court did not clarify whether the conflict-of-laws rule for substantive validity in Art 25(1) includes renvoi as recital 20 suggests. At [33], as Geert van Calster has highlighted, the Court quotes recital 20 in its entirety but for the crucial words ‘including the conflict-of-laws rules of that Member State’. Alignment of the conflicts rule in Art 25(1) with the COCA Convention, which the Court appears to favour (see II above) would militate in favour of including renvoi. What one should make of the Court’s misleading truncation of recital 20 is, therefore, anyone’s guess.

Asymmetric Jurisdiction Clauses (OUP 2023), paras 6.50–6.51

 

Luxembourg should expect more questions to come…

Brooke Marshall.

Commission / Croatie (Décharge de Biljane Donje II)
Environnement et consommateurs
La Cour impose des sanctions financières à la Croatie pour n’avoir pas géré de manière adéquate des déchets mis en décharge présentant une menace pour la santé humaine et l’environnement