Flux européens

Apologies for the truly misleading title. Trumpism and Brexitism is getting to me. Yes, it sounds awkward to hold that a tube which is at the very inside of  product can be categorised as ‘packaging’. Yet it fits completely within the fabric of the EU’s Packaging and packaging and packaging waste Directive 94/62 (as amended).

The CJEU held 2 weeks ago in Joined Cases C‑313/15 and C‑530/15 Eco-Emballages et al., on the issue whether Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound (‘Roll cores’) are ‘packaging’ within the meaning of the Directive, hence subject to recycling etc. targets and also to fees under collective schemes. The Directive defines packaging as

all products made of any materials of any nature to be used for the containment, protection, handling, delivery and presentation of goods, from raw materials to processed goods, from the producer to the user or the consumer. ‘Non-returnable’ items used for the same purposes shall also be considered to constitute packaging.

‘Packaging’ consists only of:

(a) sales packaging or primary packaging, i.e. packaging conceived so as to constitute a sales unit to the final user or consumer at the point of purchase;

(b) grouped packaging or secondary packaging, i.e. packaging conceived so as to constitute at the point of purchase a grouping of a certain number of sales units whether the latter is sold as such to the final user or consumer or whether it serves only as a means to replenish the shelves at the point of sale; it can be removed from the product without affecting its characteristics;

(c) transport packaging or tertiary packaging, i.e. packaging conceived so as to facilitate handling and transport of a number of sales units or grouped packagings in order to prevent physical handling and transport damage. Transport packaging does not include road, rail, ship and air containers….

This definitional article then continues with references to an illustrative Annex and an update of this Annex by way of comitology. Any such measures are adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, resulting in a new, 2013 Annex 1 to the Directive adopted by the Commission in February 2013, which specifically refers to rolls. At issue in the case was therefore whether the EC had acted ultra vires in that annex (which it had adopted ‘alone’ since the committee established by Article 21 of Directive 94/62 did not deliver an opinion and the Council did not take any decision on the Commission’s proposal).

The Court confirms that roll cores meet entirely with the core definition of the Directive: they protect from the inside the flexible products wound around them, which strengthens those products, allowing their presentation and facilitating their transport and use. A roll core is, moreover, a ‘non-returnable’ item, within the meaning of the second sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1), once the flexible product wound around it has been used up.

A storm in a tea-cup therefore and rolls confirmed as packaging.

Geert.

(Handbook of EU Waste law, second ed. OUP 2015, Chapter 4).

Uglješa Grušić, Long-Term Business Relationships and Implicit Contracts in European Private Law, (2016) European Review of Contract Law (forthcoming / di prossima pubblicazione), available through / disponibile su SSRN.

In Granarolo SpA v Ambrosi Emmi France SA, the European Court of Justice held that a dispute between a distributor and its supplier concerning an action for damages for the abrupt termination of a long-term business relationship, which was not expressed in a framework, umbrella contract, was a matter relating to a contract for the purposes of European private international law. This note explores the wider significance of Granarolo for the meaning of ‘contract’ in European contract law.

Much as expected, the Court has this week confirmed Kokott AG’s views on Article 24(1) and Article 8(4) Brussels I Recast. Please refer to my review of the Advocate General’s Opinion for detail of the case.

A request for voidance of a contract of gift of immovable property, on grounds of incapacity, is not covered by Article 24(1). The fact that the contract for which a declaration of invalidity is sought concerns immovable property is irrelevant to the issue of its validity, the immovable nature of the subject matter of the contract being only of marginal significance in that context (at 36). This does not endanger the ratio legis of Article 24(1): by ruling on the request for the avoidance of a contract of gift on the ground of the donor’s incapacity to contract, the court before which the dispute is brought is not required to carry out investigations strictly related to the immovable property concerned so as to justify an application of the rule of exclusive jurisdiction provided for in that article (at 37). In the present case, the action in the main proceedings is based on the alleged invalidity of the contractual obligation consisting of the conveyance of ownership of the immovable property, which, provided that the contract is valid, must be, and which was initially, performed in Austria. This therefore establishes jurisdiction for that court on the basis of Article 7(1) a of the Brussels I Recast.

The separate request for removal from the land register of the donee’s right of ownership, in turn is based on the invalidity of the conveyance of ownership and, therefore, on the right in rem relied on by the applicant in the main proceedings in the immovable property concerned:this action is covered by Article 24(1). This latter court may also rule on the request for voidance: there is a connection between the claims pursuant to Article 8(4) of Regulation 1215/2012. Unlike the AG, the CJEU does not add that this possibility for joinder must not be abused, however there is no reason why the prohibition of abuse must not apply to Article 8(4). Given the possibility of joinder, a race to court of course is triggered between, in this case, father and daughter.

Schmidt v Schmidt is once again a useful reminder for courts and notaries alike, not to shy away from contracts, gifts, matrimonial property etc. simply because it involves real estate located elsewhere. Plenty of the legal issues surrounding such constructions can be perfectly dealt with outside the locus rei sitae.

Geert.

In its judgment of 16 November 2016 regarding case C‑417/15, Wolfgang Schmidt v. Christiane Schmidt, the Court of Justice ruled as follows.

The provisions of Regulation No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters is to be interpreted as meaning that an action seeking the avoidance of a gift of immovable property on the ground of the donor’s incapacity to contract does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which the property is situated, provided for under Article 24(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012, regarding rights in rem in immoveables and tenancies, but within the special jurisdiction provided for under Article 7(1)(a) of that regulation for matters relating to a contract.
An action seeking the removal from the land register of notices evidencing the donee’s right of ownership falls within the exclusive jurisdiction provided for under Article 24(1) of the same regulation.

La Corte di giustizia ha affermato quanto segue nella sentenza del 16 novembre 2016 relativa alla causa C‑417/15, Wolfgang Schmidt c. Christiane Schmidt.

Le disposizioni del regolamento n. 1215/2012 concernente la competenza giurisdizionale, il riconoscimento e l’esecuzione delle decisioni in materia civile e commerciale (Bruxelles I bis), devono essere interpretate nel senso che l’azione di annullamento di un atto di donazione di un immobile per incapacità di agire del donante non rientra nella competenza esclusiva del giudice dello Stato membro in cui l’immobile è situato, prevista all’articolo 24, punto 1, di tale regolamento, in materia di diritti reali e personali su beni immobili, bensì nella competenza speciale per le controversie in materia contrattuale di cui all’art. 7, punto 1, lett. a), di detto regolamento.
L’azione di cancellazione dal registro fondiario delle annotazioni relative al diritto di proprietà del donatario ricade nella competenza esclusiva prevista all’articolo 24, punto 1, del medesimo regolamento.

Authority in Transnational Legal Theory – Theorising Across Disciplines, edited by / a cura di Roger Cotterrell, Maksymilian Del Mar, Edward Elgar, 2016, ISBN 9781784711610, 448 pp, GBP 95.

The increasing transnationalisation of regulation – and social life more generally – challenges the basic concepts of legal and political theory today. One of the key concepts being so challenged is authority. This discerning book offers a plenitude of resources and suggestions for meeting that challenge. Chapters … confront the limits of traditional state-based conceptions of authority, and propose new frameworks and metaphors. They also reflect on the methodological challenges of the transnational context, including the need for collaboration between empirical and conceptual analysis, and the value of historicising authority. Examining the challenge offered by transnational authority in a range of specific contexts, including security, accounting, banking and finance, and trade, Authority in Transnational Legal Theory analyses the relations between authority, legitimacy and power. Furthermore, this book also considers the implications of thinking about authority for other key concepts in transnational legal theory, such as jurisdiction and sovereignty. Comprehensive and engaging, this book will appeal to both legal academics and students of law. It will also prove invaluable to political scientists and political theorists interested in the concept of authority as well as social scientists working in the field of regulation.

Crossborder, the website of the Group of interest on private international law established within the Italian Society of International Law and EU Law (SIDI), hosts a debate on the draft decree adopted by the Italian Government on 4 October 2016 to implement Law No 76 of 20 May 2016, on registered partnerships, as regards, specifically, private international law issues (regarding the decrees, see further here). The contributions published so far (in Italian) have been provided by Giacomo Biagioni (Univ. Cagliari), Cristina Campiglio (Univ. Pavia) and Francesco Pesce (Univ. Genova).

Further contributions and comments from academics and practitioners are welcomed (in Italian, English, French or Spanish). For further information, please refer to Fabrizio Marongiu Buonaiuti (Univ. Macerata), the forum coordinator (f1.marongiubuonaiuti@unimc.it). 

Crossborder, il sito web del Gruppo di interesse della SIDI sul diritto internazionale privato e processuale, ospita in questi giorni un forum dedicato ai decreti attuativi della legge 20 maggio 2016 n. 76, recante la regolamentazione delle unioni civili tra persone dello stesso sesso e disciplina delle convivenze, che il Consiglio dei Ministri ha approvato in sede di esame preliminare il 4 ottobre 2016 (si veda in proposito questo post). Sono sin qui intervenuti Giacomo Biagioni (Univ. Cagliari), Cristina Campiglio (Univ. Pavia) e Francesco Pesce (Univ. Genova). I pratici e gli studiosi interessati a contribuire al dibattito sono invitati a pubblicare un commento a uno dei post usciti sin qui, compilando il campo che compare in calce al post stesso. In alternativa, è possibile contattare Fabrizio Marongiu Buonaiuti (Univ. Macerata), che coordina il forum (f1.marongiubuonaiuti@unimc.it).

Chi fosse interessato ad iscriversi al Gruppo di interesse può consultare questo indirizzo (occorre essere soci della SIDI, in regola col pagamento della quota di iscrizione). Per l’iscrizione alla mailing list di Crossborder (che non richiede la previa iscrizione alla SIDI), basta compilare il modulo a cui si accede cliccando su Iscriviti alla mailing list di Crossborder nella colonna di destra di ogni pagina del sito.

Hemming
Liberté d'établissement
La directive services s’oppose à l’exigence du paiement, au moment de l’introduction d’une demande d’autorisation, de coûts liés à la gestion et à la police du régime d’autorisation concerné

La directive sur le droit d’auteur s’oppose à une réglementation nationale autorisant la reproduction numérique des livres indisponibles dans le commerce en méconnaissance des droits exclusifs des auteurs

On 8 November 2016, the European Court of Human Rights rendered its judgment in Naku v. Lithuania and Sweden. The applicant, a Lithuanian national, had sued the Swedish embassy in Vilnius before the Lithuanian courts, complaining of unlawful dismissal. Lithuanian courts had upheld the defense raised by Sweden and stated that they lacked jurisdiction in accordance with the rules on State immunity.

The European Court found that in the instant case Lithuania had violated Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court noted that the case turned around the issue of whether the applicant performed particular functions in the exercise of governmental authority, for the purposes of the customary rule reflected in Article 11 of the United Nations Convention on jurisdictional immunities of States.

In the Court’s view, ‘by plainly considering that everyone who worked in a diplomatic representation of a foreign State … by virtue of that employment alone in one way or another contributed to the meeting of the sovereign goals of a represented State …, and thus upholding an objection based on State immunity and dismissing the applicant’s claim without giving relevant and sufficient reasons that the applicant in the instant case in reality performed specific duties in the exercise of governmental authority …, the Lithuanian courts impaired the very essence of the applicant’s right of access to a court’.

L’8 novembre 2016, la Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo ha pronunciato la sentenza relativa al caso Naku c. Lituania e Svezia. La ricorrente, cittadina lituana, aveva convenuto l’Ambasciata di Svezia a Vilnius di fronte ai giudici lituani, lamentando di essere stata licenziata da questa in modo illegittimo. I giudici lituani, accogliendo l’eccezione della Svezia, hanno affermato di non potersi pronunciare sulle domande della ricorrente in ragione dell’immunità spettante alla convenuta.

La Corte europea ha ritenuto che la Lituania avesse violato l’art. 6 della Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo. La Corte ha rilevato che il caso di specie si imperniava, fondamentalmente, sulla questione tesa a stabilire se il rapporto litigioso comportasse, per la ricorrente, lo svolgimento di mansioni connesse all’esercizio di prerogative sovrane dello Stato convenuto, agli effetti della norma consuetudinaria che si riflette nell’art. 11della Convenzione delle Nazioni Unite sulle immunità giurisdizionali degli Stati.

Ad avviso della Corte, le autorità lituane, per il fatto di ritenere meccanicamente che chiunque lavori presso la rappresentanza diplomatica di uno Stato straniero contribuisca, per ciò solo, allo svolgimento delle funzioni sovrane di tale Stato, pervenendo così ad affermare l’immunità dello Stato in questione senza motivare adeguatamente in ordine alla natura delle mansioni del prestatore di lavoro nelle circostanze considerate, abbiano intaccato l’essenza stessa del diritto all’accesso alla tutela giurisdizionale, garantito dall’art. 6 della Convenzione europea.

Salaberria Sorondo
Principes du droit communautaire SOPO
L’exclusion des candidats âgés de plus de 35 ans d’un concours visant à recruter des agents de police destinés à assumer des fonctions opérationnelles et exécutives est compatible avec le droit de l’Union

Ann Laquer Estin, International Family Law, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016, ISBN 9781784719852, 1.768 pp., GBP 490,50.

This collection canvasses the growing literature on international family law, extending from the traditional private law governing cross-border families, to multi-lateral treaties on subjects such as child abduction and intercountry adoption, to the framework of international human rights law that shapes domestic and international family law systems. Volume I explores the internationalization of family law and considers adult relationships, whilst Volume II examines parent–child relationships. All of the articles are tied together in the Editor’s introductory essay, which provides a useful and insightful overview.

The General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union suggested on 11 November 2016 to correct an obvious error detected in all the linguistic versions of Article 84(1) of Regulation 2015/848 concerning insolvency proceedings. It did so pursuant to the procedure set out in the Statement entered in the Council minutes of 3 December 1975 on the adoption of corrigenda, annexed to document R/2521/75 (JUR 149) (available here, at p. 158 ff.).

Article 84(1), as it appears in the Official Journal, provides that the Regulation ‘shall apply only to insolvency proceedings opened after 26 June 2017’. According to the corrigendum, the provision should rather read as follows: ‘The provisions of this Regulation shall apply only to insolvency proceedings opened from 26 June 2017’, that is, to insolvency proceedings opened either on 26 June 2017 or after that date.

Il Segretariato generale del Consiglio dell’Unione ha suggerito, l’11 novembre 2016, di rettificare un errore materiale rinvenuto in tutte le versioni linguistiche dell’art. 84, par. 1, del regolamento 2015/848 relativo alle procedure di insolvenza. L’iniziativa si inquadra nella procedura disciplinata dalla Dichiarazione del Consiglio del 3 dicembre 1975 per l’adozione delle rettifiche, allegata al documento R/2521/75 (JUR 149) (consultabile qui, a p. 158 ss.).

L’art. 84, par. 1, nel testo apparso sulla Gazzetta ufficiale, prevede che le disposizioni del regolamento si applicano soltanto alle procedure di insolvenza aperte “successivamente al 26 giugno 2017”, mentre, secondo la rettifica, dovrebbe stabilire che tali disposizioni si applicano alle procedure di insolvenza aperte “a decorrere dal 26 giugno 2017”, cioè anche a quelle aperte nel giorno ora indicato.

Case C-613/14 James Elliott illustrates that the EU’s ‘New Approach’ to harmonisation is alive and well more than 30 years after its launch. The judgment is best read in its entirety and against the background of the New Approach, following the Court’s judgment in Cassis de Dijon and the introduction of qualified majority voting in the European Single Act.

The Court confirms the important place which CEN-standards occupy in EU law, despite them being private standards, and clarifies the exact impact which these standards have in private relations.

One for harmonisation anoraks.

Geert.

 

The conclusions and recommendations of the Special Commission which met met from 2 to 4 November 2016 to review the the practical operation of the Hague Convention of 5 October 1961 abolishing the requirement of legalisation for foreign public documents are available here.

Le conclusioni e raccomandazioni della Commissione speciale riunitasi tra il 2 e il 4 novembre 2016 per discutere del funzionamento della Convenzione dell’Aja del 5 ottobre 1961 sulla soppressione del requisito della legalizzazione per gli atti pubblici stranieri possono essere consultate qui.

Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main
Rapprochement des législations PROT
Selon l’avocat général Szpunar, les coûts pour un appel vers un numéro téléphonique de service après-vente ne doivent pas excéder ceux pour un appel standard

Vereniging Openbare Bibliotheken
Liberté d'établissement SERV RAPL PROP
Le prêt d’un livre électronique (e-book) peut, sous certaines conditions, être assimilé au prêt d’un livre traditionnel

La Cour confirme que le régime de financement de la télévision publique espagnole (RTVE) est compatible avec les règles de l’Union en matière d’aides d’État

Simba Toys / EUIPO
Propriété intellectuelle et industrielle MARQ
La Cour annule l’arrêt du Tribunal et la décision de l’EUIPO qui validaient l’enregistrement de la forme du Rubik’s cube comme marque de l’Union

Commission / Grèce
Environnement et consommateurs
La Cour constate que la Grèce a manqué à son obligation de protéger les tortues marines Caretta caretta dans la baie de Kyparissia

The e-Justice portal, run by the Commission, features a dynamic form intended to help getting in touch with the national contact points of the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters. To know more about the tasks of the contact points, the kind of requests they can handle and those entitled to address such requests to the contact points, reference must be made to the decision that established the Network (decision 2001/470/EC, as amended by decision 2009/568/EC: the consolidated version may be found here).

È disponibile sul portale e-Justice, gestito dalla Commissione, un modulo dinamico inteso a facilitare le comunicazioni con i punti di contatto nazionali della Rete giudiziaria europea in materia civile e commerciale. Le funzioni dei punti di contatto, il genere di richieste di cui essi possono fasi carico e i soggetti autorizzati a rivolgersi a loro si ricavano dalla decisione istitutiva della Rete (decisione 2001/470/CE, nel testo consolidato risultante dalle modifiche apportate con la decisione 2009/568/CE).