Flux européens

La Cour de justice de l’Union européenne s’associe à l’hommage rendu aux victimes de l’attentat du 14 juillet à Nice

The CJEU has confirmed the views of Szpunar AG in C-222/15 Hőszig /Hoszig, without (much as expected) entertaining the lex fori prorogati rule of the Brussels I Recast.

Can choice of court made in underlying documentation in the context of a tender, for which Hőszig entered a winning bid, be considered valid under Article 23 of the Brussels I Regulation (now: Article 25 Brussels I Recast)? Yes, the Court said, with explicit reference to the AG. Crucial point in the consideration is whether per Case 24/76 Colzani an explicit reference to the choice has been made, reference which can be controlled by a party applying normal diligence and where it is established that the general conditions containing the jurisdiction clause was actually communicated to the other contracting party (at 40 in Hoszig). This was so in the case at issue. The court points out that Article 23 (and now Article 25) includes mostly formal requirements (expression of consent, see the references in my posting on the AG’s Opinion) and only one substantial requirement (choice of court needs to relate to an identified legal relationship between the parties). The remainder of discussion on the substantive requirements with respect to the choice of court agreement, is subject to the lex causae of that separate choice of court agreement (exactly why the current Regulation now includes the lex fori prorogati rule; Szpunar AG’s discussion of this clause however was not required to settle the issue and therefore the Court does not look into it).

‘(T)he Paris Courts [have exclusive and final jurisdiction]’ is sufficient for the CJEU to determine the choice of court with precision: it is perfectly acceptable that it will subsequently be French civil procedure laws that will determine precisely which court will have jurisdiction.

A sensible judgment following clear Opinion of the Advocate General, together further completing the choice of court provisions of Brussels I.

Geert.

(Handbook of) European Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.9 Heading 2.2.9.4. Chapter 3, Heading 3.2.2 .

 

 

Promoimpresa
Liberté d'établissement
Le droit de l’Union s’oppose à ce que les concessions pour l’exercice des activités touristico-récréatives dans le domaine maritime et lacustre soient prorogées de manière automatique en l’absence de toute procédure de sélection des candidats potentiels

Allemagne / Commission
Aide d'État
Le Tribunal de l’UE annule la décision de la Commission ordonnant à l’Allemagne de récupérer auprès de Deutsche Post une partie des subventions relatives aux retraites des anciens fonctionnaires postaux

Dal 16 al 27 agosto 2016 si svolgerà a Urbino il 58ème Séminaire de Droit Comparé et Européen, organizzato dal Centro di studi giuridici europei dell’Università di Urbino “Carlo Bo” in collaborazione con l’Istituto svizzero di diritto comparato.

Nell’ambito dell’iniziativa si succederanno lezioni e conferenze su temi di diritto comparato ed europeo, diritto del commercio internazionale e diritto internazionale privato.

Quest’anno il seminario ospiterà, fra le altre, le lezioni di François Mailhé (Univ. Panthéon-Assas, Paris II) su Les accords d’élection de for, vieilles questions et nouveaux territoires, di Tuto Rossi (Univ. Fribourg) sugli Sviluppi recenti delle garanzie bancarie nel commercio internazionale, di Chris Thomale (Univ. Heidelberg) dal titolo A la recherche d’une coordination des compétences universelles civiles entre l’Union européenne et les Etats tiers, di Luigi Mari (Univ. Urbino “Carlo Bo”) su Il diritto internazionale privato sammarinese; di Paolo Morozzo Della Rocca (Univ. Urbino “Carlo Bo”) su Mariage et nationalité, e di Ilaria Pretelli (Istituto svizzero di diritto comparato) su Language, law and judicial training ou bien Les relations tripartites en droit international privé.

Le iscrizioni sono aperte sino al 30 luglio 2016. Occorre, a tal fine, inviare la domanda di partecipazione, compilata e sottoscritta, a edoardo.rossi@uniurb.it.

Maggiori informazioni sono disponibili a questo indirizzo. Il flyer dell’iniziativa è consultabile qui.

Gutiérrez Naranjo
Rapprochement des législations
Selon l’avocat général Mengozzi, la limitation temporelle des effets de la nullité des clauses « plancher », insérées dans les contrats de prêt hypothécaire en Espagne, est compatible avec le droit de l’Union

Bougnaoui et ADDH
Principes du droit communautaire
Selon l’avocat général Sharpston, le règlement de travail d’une entreprise qui impose à une travailleuse d’ôter son foulard islamique lors de ses contacts avec la clientèle constitue une discrimination directe illicite

An unusually high proportion of cases under Article 22 (old) or 24 (Recast) Brussels I relate to family disputes on property. Webb v Webb, Weber v Weber, Komu v Komu, and now, C-417/15 Schmidt v Schmidt. It’s all about keeping up with the Joneses.

Kokott AG opined in Schmidt last week – the Opinion is not available in English. Mr Schmidt had gifted a (otherwise unspecified) piece of Vienna real estate to his daughter, who lives in Germany. Ms Schmidt is included in the land register as the owner. Mr Schmidt subsequently sues in Austria for the annulment of the gift due to alleged incapacity at the time of the gift, and for removal of the registration. Is the action caught by Article 24? (in which case Ms Schmidt’s claim of lack of jurisdiction fails).

The Advocate General first of all suggests that the referring court’s request should not be turned down simply because it did not specify the time of seizure: in other words it is not clear whether the case is covered by the old or the Recast Brussels I Regulation. Ms Kokott however suggests the Court should not be pedantic about this and answer the question regardless, seeing as the rule has not changed.

Next up and potentially trickier, is the exclusion of capacity from the scope of application of the Regulation. However the Advocate General is right when she suggest that the exclusions should only be relevant where they concern the main object of the litigation. Not, as here, when they are raised incidentally. (She discusses in some detail the linguistic implications given different wording in the different language versions of the Regulation).

Then to the real question. With respect to the annulment of the (gift) agreement, the object and purpose of plaintiff’s action is not the establishment or confirmation of an erga omnes right in rem. Rather, the confirmation of voidness of an agreement transferring such right, due to incapacity. That this will have erga omnes consequences if successful, is not to the point given the long-established need to apply Article 24 restrictively. In this respect this case is akin to C-294/92 Webb and Webb.

The analysis is different however, the AG suggests, for the request to delete the entry in the land register. This does aim directly at erga omnes consequences under Austrian law.

Ms Kokott subsequently rejects the notion that as a result of part of the suit being subject to Article 24, this should drag the remainder into the exclusive bath with it: at 48: if only because if one were to accept this, forum shopping would be facilitated. Including in its suit a procedure covered by Article 24 would enable plaintiff to draw in a whole range of other issues between the parties.

Finally, the AG suggests joinder of the contractual claim (the nullity of the gift) to the right in rem claim, is possible under Article 8(4) and rejects that national rules of civil procedure should or even can play a role in this respect. This part of the Opinion may be optimistically short. For if the joinder route of Article 8(4) may lead to the same result as the one the AG had just rejected, one assumes there ought to be discretion for the national courts to reject it. Not, as the AG rightly suggests, by reference to national civil procedure rules (that would lead to unequal application) but rather by reference to the (probably) EU inspired rule that abuse of Article 8 be avoided.

The Court will probably not answer all the questions the case raises, particularly on Article 8. Expect this to return.

Geert.

 

 

 

Il Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza dell’Università di Ferrara ospita il 20 luglio 2016, nella sua sede di Rovigo, un seminario in inglese dal titolo The Public Policy Exception in Turkish Private International Law.

I lavori inizieranno alle 17 e si incentreranno su una relazione di Çi̇çek Özgür dell’Università Erciyes di Kayseri.

La locandina dell’evento è disponibile qui.

Dan Jerker B. Svantesson, Private International Law and the Internet, 3a ed., Kluwer Law International, 2016, ISBN 9789041159564, pp. 728, 160 Euro

[Dal sito dell’editore] – The third edition of Private International Law and the Internet presents a detailed and insightful account of what is emerging as the most crucial and current issue in private international law: the interplay of private international law and the Internet. The author discusses how the controversial issues that stem from borderless Internet prove to be one of the greatest challenges for private international law and international legal cooperation as both are predicated on the existence of traditional borders that define jurisdictional boundaries. This book goes on to explain the following four fundamental questions: When should a lawsuit be entertained by the courts? Which state’s law should be applied?
When should a court that can entertain a lawsuit decline to do so? and Will a judgment rendered in one country be recognized and enforced in another? The book identifies and investigates twelve characteristics of Internet communication that are relevant to these questions and then proceeds with a detailed analysis of what is required of modern private international law rules.

Il sommario del volume può essere consultato qui.

Ulteriori informazioni a questo indirizzo.

The Brussels Court of Appeal has sided with Facebook  on 29 June. This post I am going to keep very, very simple: told you so. Geert.

 

 

Sono apparsi nella Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea dell’8 luglio 2016 il regolamento (UE) 2016/1103 del 24 giugno 2016 che attua la cooperazione rafforzata nel settore della competenza, della legge applicabile, del riconoscimento e dell’esecuzione delle decisioni in materia di regimi patrimoniali tra coniugi, e il regolamento (UE) 2016/1104 del 24 giugno 2016 che attua la cooperazione rafforzata nel settore della competenza, della legge applicabile, del riconoscimento e dell’esecuzione delle decisioni in materia di effetti patrimoniali delle unioni registrate.

La disciplina racchiusa nei due strumenti si applicherà a decorrere dal 29 gennaio 2019 e interesserà, salvo eccezioni, solo i procedimenti avviati, gli atti pubblici formalmente redatti o registrati e le transazioni giudiziarie approvate o concluse in quella data o successivamente. L’applicabilità delle norme sui conflitti di leggi è peraltro circoscritta ai coniugi che hanno contratto matrimonio o che hanno designato la legge applicabile al loro regime patrimoniale successivamente al 29 gennaio 2019, ovvero ai partner che hanno registrato la loro unione o che hanno designato la legge applicabile agli effetti patrimoniali della loro unione successivamente a tale data.

Gli effetti del regolamento si produrranno comunque negli Stati membri che hanno manifestato l’intenzione di partecipare alla cooperazione rafforzata, vale a dire Belgio, Bulgaria, Repubblica ceca, Cipro, Croazia, Finlandia, Francia, Germania, Italia, Lussemburgo, Malta, Paesi Bassi, Austria, Portogallo, Slovenia,  e Spagna, Svezia.

The Belgian Council of State, chamber of legislation (in the title I call it a ‘parliamentary watchdog: for that is what it is. By issuing prior opinions on the legality of legislative initiative it guards against illegal Statute) has opined that a private members bill banning unstunned slaughter, does not pass the ECHR test.

A European Regulation (1099/2009) provides for an unclear, and conditional,  exemption for religious (regularly rather offendingly called ‘ritual’) slaughter. Practised in particular by the Jewish (Shechita; leading to ‘kosher’ meat) and Muslim (Zabihah; with halal meat) faith, a core aspect of the practice is that animals are not stunned prior to slaughter. The science on the effect of stunned or unstunned slaugther is  unequivocal, and most certainly neither stunned nor unstunned slaughter, when carried out incorrectly (well documented in the case of stunned slaughter) does not aid the welfare of the animal.

Religious slaughter falls squarely within the European Convention of Human Rights Article 9’s freedom of religious expression. Hence the Council of State summarily (its conciseness is rather attractive) reviews the ECtHR’s case-law and concludes that the proposed ban would be both unconstitutional and clearly against the provisions of the ECHR. On the EU Regulation front, I believe the EU rules are more problematic than the Opinion suggests (I have analysis on it forthcoming) however on the ECHR side of things, the Opinion could not be more correct. An outright ban on unstunned slaughter in the name of animal welfare or otherwise would offend freedom of religious expression to such a degree that it simply must not pass.

Geert.

Genentech
Concurrence
Le bénéficiaire d’une licence de brevet doit payer la redevance convenue même s’il ne contrefait pas la technologie brevetée

Tommy Hilfiger Licensing e.a.
Rapprochement des législations
L’exploitant d’une place de marché physique peut se voir contraint de faire cesser les infractions commises par les marchands en matière de marque

Engagement solennel devant la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne de nouveaux membres de la Cour des comptes européenne

For the facts of the case, and the reasoning of the AG in C-559/14 Meroni, I refer to my earlier posting. At the end of May (I am indeed still hoovering up the queue) the Court held very much alongside Kokott AG’s Opinion, I shall therefore not repeat its reasoning here. The CJEU does insist that if third parties rights are directly affected with the intensity as in the case at issue, that third person must be entitled to assert his rights before the court of origin (which English courts provide for), lest one runs the risk of the injunction being refused recognition under ordre public. As I had feared, the Court does not address the AG’s concern whether Mareva orders actually constitute a ‘judgment’ for the purposes of the Regulation.

Post Brexit, this considerable attraction of English courts in interlocutory proceedings might become a lot less real. (Like many of us, I am working on a short review of Brexit consequences for European private international law).

Geert.

(Handbook of) European private international law, second ed. 2016, Chapter 2, 2.2.16.1.1, 2.2.16.1.4

Future Enterprises / EUIPO - McDonald's International Property (MACCOFFEE)
Propriété intellectuelle et industrielle
Selon le Tribunal de l’UE, la renommée des marques de McDonald’s permet de faire échec à l’enregistrement, pour les produits alimentaires ou les boissons, de marques combinant le préfixe « Mac » ou « Mc » avec le nom d’un produit alimentaire ou d’une boisson

È in programma per i giorni 30 settembre e 1° ottobre 2016 a San Ginesio (MC) la sesta edizione dell’Incontro dei dottorandi di ricerca di diritto internazionale.

L’evento, promosso dalla Società Italiana di Diritto Internazionale e di diritto dell’Unione europea in collaborazione con il Centro Internazionale Studi Gentiliani, offre ai dottorandi di ricerca in diritto internazionale, diritto internazionale privato e diritto dell’Unione europea iscritti al secondo anno la possibilità di presentare i risultati parziali delle proprie indagini e di promuovere il dibattito sui temi affrontati.

I dottorandi interessati possono inviare la propria candidatura compilando questo modulo ed inviandolo all’indirizzo mail info@sidi-isil.it entro il 20 luglio 2016.

Ulteriori informazioni sono disponibili qui.

On 20 April 2016, AG Szpunar delivered his Opinion in the case C-135/15, Hellenic Republic v Nikiforidis. The case concerns the temporal scope of application of Regulation (EC) 593/2008 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome I), and the interpretation of Article 9(3) of the same Regulation, concerning the overriding mandatory provisions of third countries.

The referring court, the German Bundesarbeitsgericht (Federal Court for Labour Matters), was seised by Mr Nikiforidis, a teacher in a public school that was managed and run, in Germany, by the Hellenic Republic. Mr Nikiforidis’ claim concerned the salary due to him from 2010 to 2012. The amount of the salary had been unilaterally reduced by the employer under one of the austerity packages adopted by the Greek legislature in connection with the country’s sovereign debt crisis. This led Mr Nikiforidis to sue the Greek Ministry of Education, seeking the payment of the sums withheld.

The Bundesarbeitsgericht found that the Hellenic Republic could not avail itself of State immunity, since the duties performed by a public school teacher are not so closely connected to its sovereign or governmental activities as to exclude the jurisdiction of the courts of any other State. The Federal Court further held it possessed jurisdiction pursuant to Articles 18(1) and 19(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) 44/2001 on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussel I).

As to the applicable law, the Bundesarbeitsgericht observed that the contract should be deemed to be governed by German law, although it failed to specify the provisions on which this finding was grounded. It conceded, however, that the Greek statutes mentioned above could be regarded as overriding mandatory provisions of a third country, insofar as their respect is, quite indisputably, crucial for safeguarding the public interests of the Hellenic Republic, namely its economic organisation.

The first question submitted to the ECJ precisely concerns the legal basis upon which ‘effect may be given’ to provisions of this kind. As it is, the approach taken by the Rome I Regulation in respect of overriding mandatory provisions of third countries is somewhat stricter than the one adopted under the Rome Convention of 19 June 1980 on the law applicable to contractual obligations.

While Article 7(1) of the Rome Convention provides that ‘effect may be given to the mandatory rules of the law of [any] country with which the situation has a close connection’, Article 9(3) of the Rome I Regulation sets forth, for these purposes, two requirements. The rules in question, in fact: (i) must belong to ‘the law of the country where the obligations arising out of the contract have to be or have been performed’; (ii) may be taken into consideration for the purposes of Article 9(3) only insofar as the effect of their application consists in rendering the performance of the contract ‘unlawful’.

It is also worth remembering that the Republic of Germany has entered into a reservation to Article 7(1) of the 1980 Rome Convention, which, according to the EU Commission, translates into the impossibility, for German courts, of giving effect, by any means, to overriding mandatory provisions of third countries when that instrument applies rations temporis (cfr. para 99 of the Opinion).

Pursuant to its Article 28, the Rome I Regulation  applies to ‘contracts concluded after 17 December 2009’. As far as continuing contracts are concerned, this rule evidently determines a considerable extension of the temporal emprise of the regime set forth by the Rome Convention, insofar as it will still apply to durable contractual relationships constituted before that date.  According to  AG Szpunar, anyway,  the intrinsic characteristics of the contract concerned have no bearings in the interpretation and application of Article 28, which therefore applies also to continuing contracts (para 51).

As the relevant point in time for the conclusion of the contract, the Advocate General suggests that it shall be determined according to  the provisions of the putatively applicable lex causae. The Rome I Regulation accordingly applies, ratione temporis, provided that, under the (substantive) law which would govern the case were that Regulation applicable, the contract is regarded as concluded after 17 December 2009 (para 40). The shaping, to these purposes, of an autonomous solution of EU law is, in fact, deemed impractical (para 41).

The putatively applicable lex causae  shall also determine whether any subsequent modification occurred to the contractual relationship is of such a kind and extent as to be regarded as conclusion of a new contract.

The second question submitted to the Court of Justice presupposes the ascertained applicability, ratione temporis, of the Rome I Regulation. The seised court asks whether ‘effect may be given’ under its domestic law  (namely article 241(2) BGB)  to overriding mandatory provisions of a third countries. This on the assumption that the pre-conditions for the triggering of Article 9(3) are not satisfied, being Germany – and not Greece –  the place of performance of the obligations arising out of the contract at stake.

In the Advocate General’s view, nonetheless, Article 9(3) might still apply to the case under examination. The pre-requirements set forth by that provision should not, he contends, be narrowly understood, because a strict reading would run counter  the very rationale underlying the “taking into consideration” of overriding mandatory provisions of a third country (para 87). On the other hand, a more lenient understanding of the concepts therein employed would favour more equitable solutions in the specific case and prevent forum shopping malus (paras 88-89).

In particular, the identification of the ‘place of performance of the obligations arising out of the contract’ should not follow, under Article 9(3) of the Rome I Regulation, the same reasoning postulated by Article 5(1) of the Brussels I Regulation. Under the former provision, that concept should rather be understood as encompassing not only the place in which the obligation in question has to be materially executed, but also any other place featuring a significant connection with either the legal order or the sovereign powers of the concerned third-country (para 93).

Hence, the fact that the Hellenic Republic contributes, with its budget, to the funding of the (public) service provided by the school in which Mr Nikiforidis is employed may be an argument for finding that the obligations arising out of the contract of employment are to be performed, to a certain extent, also in Greece.

The third preliminary question submitted to the ECJ concerned the role of the principle of sincere cooperation enshrined in Article 4(3) TEU in the (indirect) application of overriding mandatory provisions of another Member State. According to the Advocate General, said principle has no bearing in the application of the substantive law appointed by the instruments of private international law. Specifically, it could not, as such, compel the seised court to apply the overriding mandatory provisions of another Member State, not even when these latter are meant to implement a measure decided by the EU itself. This circumstance might, nonetheless, be taken into account to the purposes of the assessment required to the court under the final line of Article 9(3).