Flux européens

A short note to refer to this post on the Wave News which focuses on third party litigation funding and how it might be used in climate change litigation, with input by Yours Truly. A good introductory summary of the opportunities and points of attention of third party funding generally, too.

Geert.

Of #climatelitigation note and happy to have contributed. https://t.co/tOYu0Lqr9N

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) February 1, 2023

 

Puig Gordi e.a.
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Une autorité judiciaire d’exécution ne peut pas, en principe, refuser l’exécution d’un mandat d’arrêt européen en se fondant sur le défaut de compétence de la juridiction appelée à juger la personne recherchée dans l’État membre d’émission

In Bravo & Ors v Amerisur Resources Ltd (Re The Amerisur plc Putumayo Group Litigation) [2023] EWHC 122 (KB) claimants, who live in remote rural communities in the Putumayo region of Colombia, seek damages from the defendant pursuant to the Colombian Civil Code, and in reliance on Colombia Decree 321/1999, in respect of environmental pollution caused by a spill (or spills) of crude oil on 11 June 2015. The claimants’ two causes of action are pleaded under the headings (i) guardianship of a dangerous activity and (ii) negligence. It is common ground between the parties that the oil spillage was the result of deliberate acts by terrorist organisation, FARC.

Steyn J yesterday held on preliminary issues, including statute of limitation. Defendant contends that the two year limitation period provided by relevant Colombian law re Colombian group actions (‘Law 472’), applies to the claim. Parties agree that in substance, Colombian law is lex causae per A4 and A7 Rome II.

Claimants rely on two points of English law and one of Colombian law. First, they contend that the relevant Article of Law 472 is a procedural provision within the meaning of A1(3) Rome II, and therefore it falls outside the scope of Rome II. I believe they are right but the judge did not. Secondly, they refute the defendant’s contention that this action should be treated as a group action under Law 472. Thirdly, even if they are wrong on both those points, they submit that application of the time limit of Law 472 would be inconsistent with English public policy, and so the court should refuse to apply it pursuant to A26 Rome II.

All but one links to case-law in this post refer to my discussion of same on the blog, with pieces of course further linking to the judgment. Apologies for the pat on my own back but it is nice to see that all but one (Vilca, where parties essentially agreed on the Rome II issue) of the cases referred to in the judgment all feature on the blog.

For claimants, Alexander Layton KC referred to Wall v Mutuelle de Poitiers Assurances and Actavis UK Ltd & ors v Eli Lilly and Co (where the issues were discussed obiter). Defendants rely on Vilca v Xstrata Ltd [2018] EWHC 27 (QB), KMG International NV v Chen [2019] EWHC 2389 (Comm), Pandya v Intersalonika General Insurance Co SA [2020] EWHC 273 (QB), [2020] ILPr 44 and Johnson v Berentzen [2021] EWHC 1042 (QB).

My reception of the High Court’s conclusions in KMG, Pandya, and Johnson was not enthusiastic, and in my review of Pandya in particular I also suggest that the same scholarship relied on in this case, did not actually lend support to the  defendant’s arguments, and I stand by that, too.

Hence Steyn J’s conclusion [102] that Article 15 Rome II

contains a list of matters which are ‘in particular’ to fall under the designated law, irrespective of whether they would be classified as matters of substance or procedure

and [106]

that the provisions of article 15 of Rome II should be construed widely

in my view is wrong. (Note the linguistic analysis in [110] will be of interest to readers interested in authentic interpretation of multi-lingual statutes).

 

[109] The key question then is which Colombian limitation period applies to these English proceedings, which brings the judge to discuss [115] ff ia Iraqi Civilians v Ministry of Defence (No.2). Here the judge, after discussing Colombian law evidence, holds [137]

that this action has not been brought under Law 472, and it does not fall to be treated as if it had been brought as a Colombian group action. Therefore, this action is not time-barred pursuant to article 47 of Law 472.

Hence claimants lost the argument on Rome II’s procedural exception but won the argument on application of Colombian law.

[139] ff whether the limitation rule should be disapplied pursuant to A26 Rome II is discussed obiter and summarily, with reference of course to Begum v Maran which I discuss here. The judge holds A26’s high threshold would not be met.

Both parties have reason to appeal, and one wonders on which parts of Rome II, permission to appeal will be sought.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, ia para 4.80.

 

Successful claimants (represented ia by @alexwlayton instructed by @leighdayintl) in Amerisur Putumayo Group Litigation -Colombia crude oil spill
Preliminary Rome II issues include qualification of issues as procedural, public policy

[2023] EWHC 122 (KB)https://t.co/X139KicNzR

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) January 27, 2023

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

Inspecţia Judiciară
Relations extérieures
Organes disciplinaires judiciaires : selon l’avocat général Collins, le droit de l’Union s’oppose à une législation nationale qui confie à l’inspecteur en chef adjoint la charge de superviser l’examen des plaintes déposées contre l’inspecteur en chef

Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (Enregistrement de données biométriques et génétiques par la police)
Principes du droit communautaire
La collecte systématique des données biométriques et génétiques de toute personne mise en examen aux fins de leur enregistrement policier est contraire à l’exigence d’assurer une protection accrue à l’égard du traitement de données sensibles à caractère personnel

De Capitani / Conseil
Droit institutionnel
Le Conseil doit donner accès aux documents établis au sein de ses groupes de travail concernant la procédure législative ayant pour objet la modification de la directive sur les états financiers annuels

The Dutch first instance judgment in Groningen  earlier this month, in X v PayPal (Europe) S.a.r.l. & Cie S.C.A., sees claimant debtor essentially seeking a compulsory settlement – CS. PayPal (established in Luxembourg) is the only debtor refusing the settlement proposed by claimant’s bank.

The CS is not listed in Annex I to the Insolvency Regulation 2015/848 (always check for the consolidated version, for the Annex is frequently updated by the Member States’ communication of proceedings to be included). This is where the discussion of scope of application could and should end.

Instead, the judge tests the CS against A1(1)’s abstract criteria. She decides there is neither divestment of assets, nor a temporary stay of individual enforcement proceedings.

This then raises the applicability of Brussels Ia. Seeing as the judge finds the action does not meet with the CJEU F-Tex criteria (Brussels Ia’s insolvency exception only applies to actions which derive directly from insolvency proceedings and are closely connected with them), she holds that Brussels Ia’s ‘insolvency’ exception is not triggered and that BIa applies.

The judge then cuts the corner which English courts in schemes of arrangement have often cut, namely to consider the willing debtors, domiciled in The Netherlands, as ‘defendants’ per Brussels Ia, hereby triggering Article 8(1) BIa’s anchor defendant mechanism. The judge justifies this by stating that the other creditors are interested parties and that it is in the interest of the sound administration of justice that the CS be discussed viz the interested parties as a whole. That may well be so, however in my view that is insufficient reason for A8(1) to be triggered. A8(1) requires ‘defendants’ in the forum state, not just ‘interested parties’. The suggestion that a co-ordinated approach with an eye for all interested parties, justifies jurisdiction, puts A8(1)‘s expediency cart before the A4 ‘defendant’-horse.

The judge then also cuts corners (at least in her stated reasons) on the applicable law issue, cataloguing this firmly in Rome I. She argues that even if the CS is a forced arrangement, replacing a proposed contract which party refused to enter into, it is still a contractual arrangement. That is far from convincing.

Equally not obvious is as the judge holds, that  per A4(2) Rome I, the party required to effect the ‘characteristic performance’ of a compulsory settlement, is the claimant-debtor of the underlying debt, leading to Dutch law being the lex causae.

The judgment at the very least highlights the continuing elephant in the restructuring tourism room, namely the exact nature of these proceedings under Brussels Ia, EIR and Rome I.

Geert.

1st instance Noord Holland
WSNP Dwangakkoord wrongly held to be outside EU #Insolvency Regulation not by resorting to Annex but by applying abstract definition
Jurisdiction established under A8 BIa anchor defendant
Shaky finding of applicable law A4 Rome Ihttps://t.co/G63d0GO71S

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) January 2, 2023

Unilever Italia Mkt. Operations
Concurrence
Abus de position dominante : les clauses d’exclusivité figurant dans les contrats de distribution doivent avoir la capacité de produire des effets d’éviction

CIHEF e.a.
Rapprochement des législations
Le degré d’harmonisation atteint au sein de l’Union par le règlement sur les produits biocides n’empêche pas les États membres d’adopter des règles restrictives en matière de promotion des ventes de ces produits

Pesticide Action Network Europe e.a.
Agriculture
Protection phytosanitaire : les États membres ne peuvent pas déroger aux interdictions expresses de mise sur le marché et d’utilisation de semences traitées à l’aide de produits phytopharmaceutiques contenant des néonicotinoïdes

Espagne / Commission
Relations extérieures
La Cour annule la décision de la Commission ayant admis la participation du Kosovo à l’organe des régulateurs européens des communications électroniques

A disappointing judgment was issued just before end of year 2022, when the Court, unlike its Advocate General Kokott, held that the ambient air quality Directives do not directly grant a right to compensation in the event of an infringement of the limit values.

In Case C-61/21 Ministre de la Transition écologique and Premier ministre, the CJEU essentially insisted ‘Frankovich’ liability (the power for individuals to claim compensation, on the basis of EU law, of EU Member States when the latter fail properly to implement EU law; Such liability is subject to three conditions: namely that the rule of EU law infringed is intended to confer rights on them, that the infringement of that rule is sufficiently serious and that there is a direct causal link between that infringement and the damage suffered by those individuals) can only be extended to cases where the EU secondary law at issue, grants individual rights.

The Court held however that even though [54] the air quality Directives impose clear and precise duties which the Member States need to achieve, these are aimed at protecting the environment and public health as a whole, not individuals’ right to health and environmental protection [55].

Some might see in this reasoning a strict schism suggested by the Court between the collective enjoyment of public health and a healthy environment on the one hand, and the individual availability of same. I do not think though that this is what the Court had in mind, rather, one assumes, an ambition to cap the amount of cases that might otherwise reach the CJEU.

The Court then directs individuals to the national level, so as to obtain if necessary a court order forcing the authorities to draw up relevant plans (a route confirmed by Case C‑404/13 Client Earth) and it of course confirms that national law may be more generous [63].

The unfortunate consequence of the judgment is that there will not be a level playing field for individuals when it comes to employing the right to compensation for infringement of EU law, and of course an encouragement of a certain amount of forum shopping.

Geert.

 

D.V. (Honoraires d’avocat - Principe du tarif horaire)
Rapprochement des législations PROT
Une clause d’un contrat de prestation de services juridiques conclu entre un avocat et un consommateur qui fixe le prix selon le principe du tarif horaire, sans comporter d’autres précisions, ne répond pas à l’exigence de clarté et de compréhensibilité

Lietuvos geležinkeliai / Commission
Concurrence
Abus de position dominante : la Cour confirme l’arrêt du Tribunal infligeant à la société nationale des chemins de fer lituanienne une amende d’environ 20 millions d’euros

HSBC Holdings e.a. / Commission
Concurrence
Concurrence en matière de produits dérivés de taux d’intérêt libellés en euros : la Cour confirme l’annulation de l’amende de 33,6 millions d’euros infligée au groupe HSBC

FTI Touristik (Voyage à forfait aux Îles Canaries)
Rapprochement des législations
Les voyageurs dont le voyage à forfait a été affecté par les mesures de lutte contre la pandémie de Covid-19 peuvent avoir droit à une réduction du prix du voyage

TP (Monteur audiovisuel pour la télévision publique)
Principes du droit communautaire
L’orientation sexuelle ne saurait être une raison pour refuser de conclure un contrat avec un travailleur indépendant

RegioJet
Concurrence
Une juridiction nationale peut ordonner la production de preuves aux fins d’une procédure en dommages et intérêts liée à une infraction présumée au droit de la concurrence, même si la procédure a été suspendue en raison de l’ouverture par la Commission d’une enquête portant sur cette infraction

Österreichische Post (Informations relatives aux destinataires de données personnelles)
Toute personne a le droit de savoir à qui ses données personnelles ont été communiquées