Flux européens

Commission / Pologne (Indépendance et vie privée des juges)
Principes du droit communautaire
Avocat général Collins : la loi polonaise modifiant les règles d’organisation des juridictions de droit commun et de la Cour suprême viole le droit de l’Union

Commission / Pologne (Indépendance et vie privée des juges)
Principes du droit communautaire
Avocat général Collins : la loi polonaise modifiant les règles d’organisation des juridictions de droit commun et de la Cour suprême viole le droit de l’Union

I reported earlier on the ongoing collective claim against TikTok here. Thank you Xandra Kramer and Eduardo Silva de Freitas for signalling and discussing the first instance jurisdictional finding. I note already that the Court [5.28] has refused interim permission to appeal on the jurisdictional finding (as in i.a. the applicable law issue in Airbus). [5.22] it also refused a preliminary reference o the CJEU even though my concise discussion below already shows that more is at play here than the court has made out. TikTok will now first have to argue the case on the merits to then (presumably) appealing both substance and jurisdictional finding.

As I flagged earlier and as Xandra and Eduardo discuss, the issue here is firstly the relationship between GDPR and Brussels Ia at the jurisdictional level: I discuss that in this paper. Against TikTok Ireland, jurisdiction is established on the basis of A80 GDPR, with no further discussion of A79 (even if A80 partially refers to A79 for the action it establishes).

In my view the court quite carelessly muddles the various concepts used in A79-80, all too easily dismisses ia CJEU Schrems, does not clearly distinguish between assignment, subrogation, mandate etc., and certainly does not correctly delineates the authority which the collective organisations might have under the GDPR: for it is not at all clear that this authority, beyond injunctive relief,  includes a (collective) claim for damages.

[5.13] the court already announces that it may not in fact have jurisdiction for all individuals who are no longer habitually resident in The Netherlands, a concession which in my view in fact goes towards undermining its own reasoning.

[5.14] ff the court then reviews A4 and 7(2) BIa, as a supplementary jurisdictional ground for the GDPR related claims and as a stand-alone ground for the non-GDPR related claims. The court’s decision to apply CJEU Wikingerhof as leading to forum delicti and not forum contractus is in my view optimistic, and surely if A7(2) is at play then the CJEU’s authority ia in Schrems is, too. Yet the court [5.17] quite happily assimilates the harmed individuals’ COMI etc. with the collective organisation.

[5.19-20] the court summarily accepts jurisdiction against the other (non-EU) TikTok entities on the basis of Dutch residual rules for related cases.

Jurisdictional issues will most definitely return upon eventual appeal.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.8.2.5.

 

 

Caisse nationale d’assurance pension-test
Libre circulation des personnes
Travailleurs frontaliers : pas d’obligation de faire inscrire au Luxembourg un PACS conclu dans un autre État membre 

Caisse nationale d’assurance pension-test
Libre circulation des personnes
Travailleurs frontaliers : pas d’obligation de faire inscrire au Luxembourg un PACS conclu dans un autre État membre 

Caisse nationale d’assurance pension-test
Libre circulation des personnes
Travailleurs frontaliers : pas d’obligation de faire inscrire au Luxembourg un PACS conclu dans un autre État membre 

1952-2022 : Forum des magistrats extraordinaire à l’occasion du 70e anniversaire de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne
1952-2022 : Forum des magistrats extraordinaire à l’occasion du 70e anniversaire de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne

Caisse nationale d’assurance pension-test
Libre circulation des personnes
Travailleurs frontaliers : pas d’obligation de faire inscrire au Luxembourg un PACS conclu dans un autre État membre 

Caisse nationale d’assurance pension
Libre circulation des personnes
Travailleurs frontaliers : pas d’obligation de faire inscrire au Luxembourg un PACS conclu dans un autre État membre 

Orde van Vlaamse Balies e.a.
Lutte contre la planification fiscale agressive : l’obligation imposée à l’avocat d’informer les autres intermédiaires impliqués n’est pas nécessaire et viole le droit au respect des communications avec son client

Orde van Vlaamse Balies e.a.
Lutte contre la planification fiscale agressive : l’obligation imposée à l’avocat d’informer les autres intermédiaires impliqués n’est pas nécessaire et viole le droit au respect des communications avec son client

Orde van Vlaamse Balies e.a.
Lutte contre la planification fiscale agressive : l’obligation imposée à l’avocat d’informer les autres intermédiaires impliqués n’est pas nécessaire et viole le droit au respect des communications avec son client

Google (Déréférencement d’un contenu prétendument inexact)
Droit à l’effacement (« droit à l’oubli ») : l’exploitant du moteur de recherche doit déréférencer des informations figurant dans le contenu référencé lorsque le demandeur prouve qu’elles sont manifestement inexactes

Google (Déréférencement d’un contenu prétendument inexact)
Droit à l’effacement (« droit à l’oubli ») : l’exploitant du moteur de recherche doit déréférencer des informations figurant dans le contenu référencé lorsque le demandeur prouve qu’elles sont manifestement inexactes

The European Commission has released today its Proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition of decisions and acceptance of authentic instruments in matters of parenthood and on the creation of a European Certificate of Parenthood. However, it is not currently available in the official languages of the European Union, only in English at https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/com_2022_695_1_en_act_part1.pdf

WhatsApp Ireland / Comité européen de la protection des données
Droit institutionnel
Le Tribunal rejette comme irrecevable le recours de WhatsApp contre une décision du Comité européen de la protection des données (CEPD)

Dooley & Ors v Castle Trust & Management Services Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1569  is the successful appeal against Russen HHJ’s first instance judgment which I discussed here – readers best consult that post for context, before reading on. For reasons I explain in that post, judicial relations between the UK and Gibraltar pre-Brexit engaged the Brussels 1968  Convention.

Carr LJ wrote the reasons for overruling the judgment, and the Court of Appeal does find there is jurisdiction in E&W. [35] she reminds us of the evidentiary burden at the jurisdictional stage

For the purpose of the evidential analysis, the standard lies between proof on the balance of probabilities and the mere raising of an issue. On contentious factual issues, the court takes a view on the material available if it can reliably do so; if a reliable assessment is not possible, there is a good arguable case for the application of the gateway if there is a plausible (albeit contested) evidential basis for it. The test is context-specific and flexible, and if there is an issue of fact the court must use judicial common sense and pragmatism, making due allowance for the limitations of the material available at an early point in the proceedings.

[41] ff the judge is held to have wrongly treated the relationship between Article 5 (mostly known for forum contractus and forum delicti reasons but also including a trust forum: A5(6) concerning trust-related claims in the courts of the trust’s domicile) and Article 13 (the forum consumptoris). [43] Articles 13 to 15 make up an entirely separate and self-contained section and there is no need or indeed allowance to first check whether Article 5’s conditions apply (including on the conditions for a ‘contract’ to exist), subsequently to check whether A13 ff (including the conditions for a ‘consumer contract’ to exist) apply with a consequence of disapplying A5. Both Opinion AG and judgment in CJEU C-96/00 Gabriel are called upon in solid support.

[48] Jurisdiction under Article 13 is thus a self-standing lex specialis and derogation from the general rule in Article 2. If jurisdiction is not established under Article 13, it may nevertheless arise under Article 5(1). But it is not necessary to establish jurisdiction under Article 5(1) in order to make it out under Article 13.

[49] The Judge’s error on this issue was material, in the light of his conclusion that any claim against Castle would fall within Article 5(6) (and so could not fall within Article 5(1)).

Continuing then on A13, the contentious issue is whether the Judge was wrong to conclude that the pensioners did not have the better of the argument for the purpose of A13:  i) that the proceedings were “proceedings concerning” contracts between the pensioners and Castle for the supply of services; and, if so, ii) that in England and Wales the conclusion of the contracts was preceded by specific invitations addressed to the pensioners.

Re i), [55] the Judge appears to have concluded that there was no contract, by reference to the lack of clarity as to the services to be provided by Castle beyond the contents of the Welcome Letter. On appeal Castle concede that a contract for services did exist between each pensioner and Castle, however that the services to be provided by Castle under each contract were limited to the technical execution of the relevant Deed of Adherence in each case and that therefore the proceedings, which made no complaint about the technical execution of the Deeds, were not “proceedings concerning a contract”.

Carr LJ [57ff] insists that the existence of a trustee-beneficiary relationship does not preclude the co-existence of a contract between the same parties, and, referring to language with strong ‘contract’ echo in the marketing, holds that there was indeed a contract between each of the pensioners and Castle, a relationship that went beyond mere technical execution of the deeds.

[61] ff then deals with ii), with the Court holding there is a good arguable case that each pensioner received (in the State of their domicile) a specific invitation addressed to them, such invitation crystallising at the moment that Management Services sent or handed them an application form. Carr LJ suggest that such an invitation might be sufficient for A13(3) purposes without more: A13 does not contain any express requirement for a connection between the invitation and the trader; the focus is on the existence of a sufficiently strong connection between the contract and the country of domicile of the consumer. However the claimants concede that there was a further requirement, namely that the invitation had to be made on behalf of the trader, here Castle. Arguendo, [66] Carr LJ holds 

there is a plausible evidential basis for the proposition that there was some sufficient connection between MS and Castle, including the possibility that MS was acting for Castle as a “middleman” of the type envisaged in the Schlosser Report (by cross-reference to the Giuliano/Lagarde Report). It is, for example, not in dispute that MS obtained Castle’s application forms and provided them to the pensioners. It appears that MS procured or facilitated production of all the complex documentation and declarations as required by Castle from the pensioners in the build-up to the application forms and transfers themselves.

[68] ff are the proceedings then “proceedings concerning” the contracts in question? The Court holds they are, at a general level for the proceedings are not about mismanagement of the trusts once established, but rather that the pensioners should never have entered the Schemes in the first place, and at a more specific level for the claims to relate to specific issues in the services agreement.

The claims can now proceed to trial where, as I noted before, applicable law will be one of the contested issues.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 2.2.9.2.1 and 2.2.9.2.2.

 

Successful appeal on jurisdiction (jurisdiction now established) under Brussels Convention (that's right: the 1968 Convention)
For the 1st instance judgment see https://t.co/JE8yVUJkO3

Dooley eos v Castle Trust & Management Services [2022] EWCA Civ 1569https://t.co/8uUVpYv0DU

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) November 30, 2022

1952-2022 : Forum des magistrats extraordinaire à l’occasion du 70e anniversaire de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne
1952-2022 : Forum des magistrats extraordinaire à l’occasion du 70e anniversaire de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne

1952-2022 : Forum des magistrats extraordinaire à l’occasion du 70e anniversaire de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne

RWE’s case (seeking huge damages for the impact on its assets following the Dutch coal phase-out) under investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) continues I understand (I would also suggest it is problematic given the ECT’s fork in the road provisions), while Uniper’s will be dropped as part of its bail-out conditions. Yet this post is about yesterday’s first instance Uniper judgment and RWE judgment in the Dutch courts. I use the Uniper judgment for this post, the RWE judgment is not materially different as to its legal analysis.

Of note is first of all that these judgments are by the ‘commercial’ chamber at the Den Haag court, not an ‘environmental’ chamber. This might be relevant for those wishing to present the judgment as one of a maverick band of environmental crusaders.

RWE and UNIPER’s claims are based on ‘A1P1‘ (Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights) and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, both of which protect the right to property.

[5.6] the court lays out the benchmarks (translation courtesy of DeepL and double-checked by me):

( a) is there “possession” (property)

( b) is there “interference,” that is, deprivation or regulation of the right to property?

If both these conditions are met, then the following requirements are examined:

( c) is the interference “lawful,” that is, provided for by law;

( d) if so, does the infringement have a legitimate objective that serves to promote the “general interest,” and

( e) if so, is there a “fair balance,” that is, a reasonable balance, between the requirements of the general interest and the protection of the fundamental rights of the individual?

The latter “fair balance test” is not satisfied if there is an individual and excessive burden on the person concerned.

[5.9] the State had argued that uncertain future earnings are not caught by A1P1 however the court [5.10] disagrees. The corporations have a long-term guarantee to use of the site, ia via a long-term lease. That the earnings might potentially not qualify as possessions, does not diminish the qualification of the guaranteed economic interest as ‘property’.

Interference, lawfulness and general interest are established each in one para [5.11 ff] , and did not seem to be the focus of much discussion even by the parties.

Fair balance is discussed extensively [5.14] ff. [5.15.3] the court qualifies the measure as regulatory interference and not de facto expropriation (the latter would have triggered guaranteed compensation rights). Even if electricity generation using coal will be phased-out, after the end of the transition period, Uniper will continue to have use of the site and has indeed already assumed such use in announced coal-free business plans.

The court then discusses the foreseeability at length, concluding [5.16.31] that although the Dutch Government frequently expressed support for modern facilities generating electricity using coal, this was always done with the caveat that that method had to be compatible with the Dutch climate commitments. [5.16.35] the ETS permit defence is dismissed.

[5.17.9] the court, having studies the various scientific reports presented to it, holds that there are most definitely alternative uses for the site. That their profitability is uncertain, is simply also a feature of energy markets as a whole.

[5.18] the court holds that the Dutch coal phase-out does have an effect on reduced CO2 emissions (carbon leakage is not accepted as being of much relevance to that conclusion). For the measure to be considered not the least trade-restrictive, the Dutch State is held to have a wide margin of manoeuvre and it is not established that the State gravely erred in opting for a coal phase-out [5.18.7]. The long transition period is held to substantiate enough room for compensation [5.19.6], again with reference to the volatility of market returns as being part and parcel of energy markets full stop.

Like the Dutch judgments eg in Urgenda, this judgment on protection of property rights viz GHG emission reduction policies, is likely to serve as an international benchmark. It can be appealed, of course.

Geert.

Dutch #RWE #UNIPER coal phase-out judgment is here https://t.co/aJWRCE9H6H
Held ia: phase-out and closure compatible with European Convention, A1P1 #ECHR
Court calls closure foreseeable, transition period testifies to proportionality. https://t.co/qwhU9HZ24j

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) November 30, 2022