Flux européens

Budapesti Elektromos Művek
Les recours administratif et civil prévus par le règlement général sur la protection des données peuvent être exercés de manière concurrente et indépendante

DOBELES HES
Aide d'État
L’instauration en tant que telle d’une aide d’État ne saurait procéder d’une décision juridictionnelle

In Oxford University Innovation Ltd v Oxford Nanoimaging Ltd [2022] EWHC 3200 (Pat) Daniel Alexander KC in a lengthy judgment eventually held for the University in a dispute on the validity of the University’s contractual terms claiming intellectual property over research students’ work. The case is of interest to the blog in that it contrasts the consumer provisions in the ‘Brussels (conflict of laws) regime’ with those of substantive consumer law.

[8] The thrust of ONI’s case is that Oxford’s approach to allocation of the commercial fruits of research is unfair to DPhil students and, more particularly, unfair to Mr Jing, the young researcher, in the circumstances of the case. More specifically it is said that Oxford’s policies are unfairly weighted in favour of the University and senior academics, who may have contributed less to the detail of the work than more junior researchers or inventors.

Applicability or impact of consumer protection legislation on terms relating to intellectual property rights of students is core to the case. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999/2083 – UTCCR are derived from the European Directive on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts 93/13, the ‘Unfair Consumers Terms Directive’ UCTD, which is retained EU law and the CJEU authority on same is retained EU case law [240] . They only apply to contracts between a “consumer” and a “seller or supplier”. Was Mr Jing such a ‘consumer’?

UK courts regularly made recourse to Brussels  Convention and later Brussels Ia cases in the absence of much CJEU UCTD authority. The judge correctly holds [242] that one must be cautious with such approach pro inspiratio, as indeed I have also pointed out on this blog before, and discusses ia CJEU Benincasa, Gruber, Schrems, Milivojevic, albeit not CJEU Reliantco, and the UK cases of Standard Bank v Apostolakis, AMT Futures v Marzillier and Ang v Reliantco. In the discussion on whether the Brussels case-law has an impact on the UCTD, he refers ia to Weco Projects. [288] he points out that when later CJEU authority did interpret the term ‘consumer’ in the UCTD directly (eg Karel de Grote), it made fairly little reference to Brussels authority. [306] he decides the UCTD approach to ‘consumer’ is ‘more expansive’ and ‘not as strictly’ as under the Brussels regime and [310] rejects Oxford’s submission that it is necessarily the right approach to this case under the UCTD to adopt the framework of analysis of dual-purpose contracts of the Brussels Convention/Regulation case law. This also includes [320] a different approach to the burden of proof.

[410] the final conclusion is that a ‘DPhil student is normally entitled to be treated as a consumer under the UCTD and that it does not matter for this purpose whether the student is undertaking that educational qualification with a view to her career, profession and/or professional advancement’  and [425] that ‘Oxford has not shown that Mr Jing’s circumstances were such that it would be wrong to treat him as a consumer in entering into the DPhil Contract he did.’ However eventually [639] the terms were not judged to be ‘unfair’.

Many of the issues raised are new and one imagine permission to appeal may have been sought.

Geert.

EU private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, 2.231 ff.

1/2 Interesting IPR, research students case
651 para judgment on terms re intellectual property which @UniofOxford, other universities may validly agree with degree students relating to the fruits of their work.
Refers ia to EU consumer protection law (unfair contract terms)

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) January 3, 2023

Les affaires préjudicielles anonymisées introduites à partir du 1er janvier 2023 se verront attribuer un nom fictif

Cornwall Renewable Developments Ltd v Wright, Johnston & Mackenzie LLP [2022] EWHC 3259 (Ch) is the appeal against [2022] EWHC 441 (Ch) which I flagged here. The jurisdictional challenge concerns the allocation of jurisdiction within the UK. However by statutory instruction in the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (CJJA), account must be taken of the Brussels Regime and CJEU authority on same.

The question is essentially what the ‘place of performance of the obligation in question’ is for legal advice, in this case provided by a Scottish law firm with no place of business yet near-inevitably some dual qualified Scots-E&W lawyers, introduced by an intermediary to an England (Cornwall in fact)-based client viz a development in Cornwall. I have before flagged the difficulty of the ‘obligation in question’ part of the question in light of the unclear, if any, remaining authority of CJEU De Bloos (an issue which unfortunately will not be entertained soon by the CJEU now that the Sao Paolo Panels case has been withdrawn).

Of note (as the judge also does [75] is that the CJJA does not in relevant section have the benefit of the additional clarification in Brussels Ia’s Article 7(1)b: ) ‘for the purpose of this provision and unless otherwise agreed, the place of performance of the obligation in question shall be:…in the case of the provision of services, the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the services were provided or should have been provided;’, although in the case of legal services essentially submitted by phone and e-mail, this might have created its own discussion as the judge’s discussion here also shows.

The result is exactly the kind of rigmarole which forum contractus often leads to, with the principles listed by Smith R [45] ff. The judge confirms [63] after consideration that the first judge was not wrong (this is an appeal, not a de novo assessment) to conclude that the principal “obligation in question” was to provide advice and agreements to the Claimant for negotiation and execution by parties in England, with the intention that they would satisfy Cornwall Council’s planning rules so that planning permission would be granted, and the development could proceed; and that the place where this obligation was to be performed, despite research etc being done from Scotland, was indeed England.

The judgment is (probably too, for a jurisdictional issue) lengthy and I am sure one can find fault with some of the applications of the authorities yet all of this emphasises the urgent need for law firms to include choice of court in their standard retainer agreements.

Best wishes for 2023!

Geert.

Forum contractus ('courts for place of performance of the obligation in question') for intra-UK conflicts, inspired by Brussels regime
What is that place for legal advice?

Cornwall Renewable Developments v Wright Johnston & Mackenzie [2022] EWHC 3259 (Ch)https://t.co/etoIhjqmgg https://t.co/bIx8L143pb

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) January 3, 2023

The Court of Justice yesterday held, without Opinion AG (justifiably in my view), in Case C-98/22 Eurelec Trading Sarl, on yet again the interpretation of ‘civil and commercial’ to determine the scope of application of Brussels Ia.

The dispute in the main proceedings is between the Ministre français de
lʼÉconomie et des Finances and two Belgian companies: Eurelec, a pricing and purchasing negotiation centre founded by the French Leclerc group and the German Rewe group, and Scabel, which acts as an intermediary between Eurelec and the French and Portuguese regional purchasing centres of the Leclerc group. Two French undertakings are also parties to the dispute: the Leclerc groupʼ national purchasing centre which negotiates the annual framework contracts with the French suppliers (ʻGALECʼ) and the association of E Leclerc distribution centres (ʻACDLECʼ).

Following an investigation conducted between 2016 and 2018, the Economic Affairs and Finance Minister suspected that potentially restrictive practices were being implemented in Belgium by Eurelec in respect of suppliers established in France. The Minister brought an action against those four companies before the Paris courts,  seeking a declaration ia that the practices consisting in (i) requiring suppliers to accept Belgian law as lex contractus (said to circumvent French lois de police), and (ii) imposing seriously reduced returns, were abusive.

The French Government argue with reference to CJEU Movic that ʻacting in the general interest should not be confused with the exercise of public powersʼ, and that one should distinguish the inquiry stage from the judicial proceedings, in particular, that the criterion for applicability of the Brussels Ia Regulation is the use made of evidence and not the rules for collecting it.

The CJEU disagrees. [26] the claim is based on evidence procured during searches which an ordinary litigation party cannot make resort to, and [27] the procedure at issue involves ia an administrative (not a criminal) fine being sought, which is not a request than can be made by an ordinary civil party. [29] The procedure is one which follows from acta iure imperii, the exercise of public power. [29] CJEU Movic is distinguished for in that case no fine was being sought, merely an end to the restrictive practices as well as damages, which both are claims that can also be made by ordinary parties. The latter once again means that depending on what is included in a claim, BIa may or may not be engaged.

Geert.

European Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, paras 2.28 ff concluding at 2.65.

#CJEU yesterday C-98/22 Eurelec
French Finance Ministry's attempt to impose (civil) fines on Belgian corporation in action aimed at anti-competitive behaviour, is actum iure imperii, does not fall within scope of Brussels Ia 'civil and commercial' claimshttps://t.co/mdQ3EwGJ9z

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) December 23, 2022

Udlændingenævnet (Examen linguistique imposé aux étrangers)
Libre circulation des personnes
La législation danoise subordonnant le regroupement familial entre un travailleur turc résidant légalement au Danemark et son conjoint à la condition que ce travailleur réussisse un examen attestant d’un certain niveau de connaissance du danois constitue une « nouvelle restriction » illégale

Udlændingenævnet (Examen linguistique imposé aux étrangers)
Libre circulation des personnes
La législation danoise subordonnant le regroupement familial entre un travailleur turc résidant légalement au Danemark et son conjoint à la condition que ce travailleur réussisse un examen attestant d’un certain niveau de connaissance du danois constitue une « nouvelle restriction » illégale

Udlændingenævnet (Examen linguistique imposé aux étrangers)
Libre circulation des personnes
La législation danoise subordonnant le regroupement familial entre un travailleur turc résidant légalement au Danemark et son conjoint à la condition que ce travailleur réussisse un examen attestant d’un certain niveau de connaissance du danois constitue une « nouvelle restriction » illégale

Airbnb Ireland et Airbnb Payments UK
Location immobilière de courte durée : le droit de l’Union ne s’oppose ni à l’obligation de collecte d’information ni à la retenue d’impôt par un régime fiscal national
Short-term property rentals: EU law does not preclude the requirement to collect information or to withhold tax under a national tax regime

Airbnb Ireland et Airbnb Payments UK
Location immobilière de courte durée : le droit de l’Union ne s’oppose ni à l’obligation de collecte d’information ni à la retenue d’impôt par un régime fiscal national
Short-term property rentals: EU law does not preclude the requirement to collect information or to withhold tax under a national tax regime

Airbnb Ireland et Airbnb Payments UK
Location immobilière de courte durée : le droit de l’Union ne s’oppose ni à l’obligation de collecte d’information ni à la retenue d’impôt par un régime fiscal national
Short-term property rentals: EU law does not preclude the requirement to collect information or to withhold tax under a national tax regime

EUROAPTIEKA
Rapprochement des législations
La législation lettone qui interdit la publicité pour des médicaments axée sur les prix, sur des offres promotionnelles ou sur des ventes combinées de médicaments et d’autres produits est compatible avec le droit de l’Union

EUROAPTIEKA
Rapprochement des législations
La législation lettone qui interdit la publicité pour des médicaments axée sur les prix, sur des offres promotionnelles ou sur des ventes combinées de médicaments et d’autres produits est compatible avec le droit de l’Union

EUROAPTIEKA
Rapprochement des législations
La législation lettone qui interdit la publicité pour des médicaments axée sur les prix, sur des offres promotionnelles ou sur des ventes combinées de médicaments et d’autres produits est compatible avec le droit de l’Union

Generalstaatsanwaltschaft München (Demande d’extradition vers la Bosnie-Herzégovine)
L’extradition d’un citoyen de l’Union vers un État tiers pour y subir une peine peut être justifiée pour éviter le risque d’impunité

Generalstaatsanwaltschaft München (Demande d’extradition vers la Bosnie-Herzégovine)
L’extradition d’un citoyen de l’Union vers un État tiers pour y subir une peine peut être justifiée pour éviter le risque d’impunité

Generalstaatsanwaltschaft München (Demande d’extradition vers la Bosnie-Herzégovine)
L’extradition d’un citoyen de l’Union vers un État tiers pour y subir une peine peut être justifiée pour éviter le risque d’impunité

Louboutin (Usage d’un signe contrefaisant sur un marché en ligne)
Propriété intellectuelle et industrielle

Market Place : Amazon fait elle-même usage du signe enregistré par Louboutin lorsque l’utilisateur de son site a l’impression que c’est elle qui commercialise, en son nom et pour son compte, des escarpins de la marque

Louboutin (Usage d’un signe contrefaisant sur un marché en ligne)
Propriété intellectuelle et industrielle

Market Place : Amazon fait elle-même usage du signe enregistré par Louboutin lorsque l’utilisateur de son site a l’impression que c’est elle qui commercialise, en son nom et pour son compte, des escarpins de la marque