Flux européens

Élection des présidents de chambre du Tribunal de l’Union européenne

Meta Platforms e.a. (Conditions générales d’utilisation d’un réseau social)
Principes du droit communautaire
Selon l’avocat général Rantos, une autorité de la concurrence peut, dans l’exercice de ses compétences, tenir compte de la compatibilité d’une pratique commerciale avec le règlement général sur la protection des données

VD
Liberté d'établissement
La conservation généralisée et indifférenciée des données de trafic pendant un an à compter du jour de l’enregistrement par les opérateurs de services de communications électroniques n’est pas autorisée, à titre préventif, aux fins de la lutte contre les infractions d’abus de marché, dont font partie les opérations d’initiés

SpaceNet
Rapprochement des législations
La Cour de justice confirme que le droit de l’Union s’oppose à une conservation généralisée et indifférenciée des données relatives au trafic et des données de localisation, sauf en cas de menace grave pour la sécurité nationale

M. Savvas Papasavvas est réélu vice-président du Tribunal de l’Union européenne

M. Marc van der Woude est réélu président du Tribunal de l’Union européenne

Renouvellement partiel et entrée en fonctions de trois nouveaux membres du Tribunal

Fenix International
Fiscalité TVA
Selon l’avocat général Rantos, la disposition du règlement d’exécution de la directive TVA prévoyant qu’une plate-forme intermédiaire en ligne est, en principe, redevable de la TVA est valide

FTI Touristik (Voyage à forfait aux Îles Canaries) et C 407/21 UFC - Que choisir et CLCV
Rapprochement des législations
Tourisme en temps de pandémie : selon l’avocate générale Medina, si les opérateurs touristiques ne sont pas en mesure d’honorer les termes d’un contrat de voyage à forfait, la pandémie ne les exonère pas de l’obligation de réduire le prix et, en cas d’annulation, de procéder à un remboursement en argent, à moins de prouver l’existence de difficultés exceptionnelles

HA.EN.
Fiscalité TVA
Une pratique administrative fiscale nationale privant les assujettis ayant acquis un bien immeuble dans le cadre d’une procédure de vente forcée de leur droit à déduction de TVA est, en l’absence d’une fraude ou abus de droit, contraire au droit de l’Union

Fossil (Gibraltar)
Aide d'État
Imposition des sociétés à Gibraltar : les autorités nationales en charge de la récupération d’une aide qualifiée d’illégale peuvent appliquer une disposition nationale en vue de prévenir la double imposition

QBE Europe SA/NV v Generali Espana De Seguros Y Reaseguros [2022] EWHC 2062 (Comm) is not a surprising judgment of course. I flagged it on Twitter early August and I post it here for the sake of blog completeness.

The judgment grants an urgent anti-suit injunction (ASI) to restrain proceedings brought by the Defendant (Generali) against QBE UK in Spain, and to prevent Generali from commencing similar proceedings against QBE Europe. The proceedings in Spain assert a direct claim against QBE UK under a Spanish statute, by reference to a liability insurance policy. The judgment is exactly the kind of ASI outlawed by CJEU West Tankers and will reinforce the position of London in the arbitration market.

Geert.

Move over CJEU West Tankers….
Anti-suit injunction viz Spanish proceedings granted to protect #arbitration in London. Discusses ia nature of claim in SP proceedings

QBE Europe SA/NV v Generali Espana De Seguros Y Reaseguros [2022] EWHC 2062 (Comm) https://t.co/LwzrDzzNXv

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) August 1, 2022

Google et Alphabet / Commission (Google Android)
Concurrence
Le Tribunal confirme dans une large mesure la décision de la Commission selon laquelle Google a imposé des restrictions illégales aux fabricants d’appareils mobiles Android et aux opérateurs de réseaux mobiles, afin de consolider la position dominante de son moteur de recherche

Banka Slovenije
Politique économique ETAB
Politique monétaire et résolution bancaire dans la zone euro : la Cour précise les limites de la responsabilité d’une banque centrale face aux dommages subis par des titulaires d’instruments financiers qu’elle a supprimés en application de mesures d’assainissement

Lydia Lundstedt has prior review of the judgment in CJEU C-399/21 IRnova AB v FLIR Systems AB (who had been business partners in the past) here. Swedish courts are clearly busy referring the private international law elements of patent cases to the CJEU.

Of particular note is that a 3 judge chamber would seem to have ruled out reflexive effect as casually as if it were swatting a fly.

On 13 December 2019, IRnova brought an action before the Patent and Market Court seeking, inter alia, a declaration that it had a better right to the inventions covered by international patent applications, subsequently supplemented by European, US and Chinese patent applications deposited by FLIR in 2015 and 2016, and by US patents granted to FLIR on the basis of those latter applications. In support of that action, IRnova had stated, in essence, that those inventions had been made by one of its employees, meaning that that employee had to be regarded as their inventor or, at the very least, as their co-inventor. IRnova therefore argued that, as the inventor’s employer and thus successor in title, it had to be regarded as the owner of the inventions. However, FLIR, without having acquired those inventions or otherwise being entitled to do so, deposited the applications in its own name.

The court had dismissed jurisdiction viz the Chinese and US patent applications, and the US patents, on the ground, in essence, that it regarded the action concerning the determination of the inventor as being linked to the registration and validity of the patents, and it applied A24(4) BIa reflexively. The Appeals Court referred the issue on reflexive effect to the CJEU, in the following terms:

‘Is an action seeking a declaration of better entitlement to an invention, based on a claim of inventorship or co-inventorship according to national patent applications and patents registered in a non-Member State, covered by exclusive jurisdiction for the purposes of Article 24(4) of [the Brussels Ia Regulation]?’

however the CJEU reformulated [22-24] the case as not concerning reflexive effect at all, rather, enquiring about the scope of the A24(4) gateway.

The Court first of all [25] ff makes a point of confirming its broad reading of the ‘international’ element required to trigger European private international law, referring to CJEU Owusu.

It then [35] would seem to rule out reflexivity in a very matter of factly way (and as Lydia also noted, without AG Opinion):

as has already been pointed out in paragraph 26 of the present judgment, the patent applications at issue in the main proceedings were deposited and the patents concerned were granted not in a Member State, but in third countries, namely the United States and China. As Article 24(4) of the Brussels Ia Regulation does not envisage that situation, however, that provision cannot be regarded as applicable to the main proceedings.

This may have already answered a core question in  BSH Hausgeräte v Aktiebolaget Electrolux .

[36] ff it refers ia to CJEU Hanssen and to the exceptional nature of A24 [39]. It holds that [42]

the main proceedings relate not to the existence of the deposit of a patent application or the grant of a patent, the validity or lapse of a patent, or indeed an alleged right of priority by reason of an earlier deposit, but to whether FLIR must be regarded as being the proprietor of the right to the inventions concerned or to a portion of them.

[47] it refers ia to the fact that fact that

an examination of the claims of the patent or patent application at issue may have to be carried out in the light of the substantive patent law of the country in which that application was deposited or that patent was granted [however it ] does not require the application of the rule of exclusive jurisdiction laid down in Article 24(4) of the Brussels Ia Regulation

Much relevant and surprisingly succinct on the reflexivity issue.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, 2.208 and 2.548.

 

I mentioned the pending case C-339/22 BSH Hausgeräte v Aktiebolaget Electrolux yesterday at our excellent (if I say so myself) Max Planck Institute – EAPIL – KU Leuven workshop on Brussels Ia reform. Questions referred, are

Is Article 24(4) [BIA] to be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents … irrespective of whether the issue is raised by way of an action or as a defence’ implies that a national court, which, pursuant to Article 4(1) of that regulation, has declared that it has jurisdiction to hear a patent infringement dispute, no longer has jurisdiction to consider the issue of infringement if a defence is raised that alleges that the patent at issue is invalid, or is the provision to be interpreted as meaning that the national court only lacks jurisdiction to hear the defence of invalidity?

Is the answer to Question 1 affected by whether national law contains provisions, similar to those laid down in the second subparagraph of Paragraph 61 of the [Swedish] Patentlagen (Patents Law), which means that, for a defence of invalidity raised in an infringement case to be heard, the defendant must bring a separate action for a declaration of invalidity?

Is Article 24(4) [BIa] to be interpreted as being applicable to a court of a third country, that is to say, in the present case, as also conferring exclusive jurisdiction on a court in Turkey in respect of the part of the European patent which has been validated there?

BSH hold a European patent relating to a vacuum cleaner. The patent has been validated in Austria, Germany, Spain, France, the United Kingdom, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and Turkey. Electrolux of Sweden has subsidiaries in a number of other Member States, such as Germany. A number of disputes have arisen between BSH and companies in the Electrolux group concerning the patent in question. Inter alia, the European patent validated in Germany was invalidated in 2020 by a German court at the request of a subsidiary of Electrolux. That judgment has been appealed.

On 3 February 2020, BSH brought an action against Electrolux before the Patents and Market Court in Sweden and claimed inter alia that Electrolux should be prohibited from using the patented invention in all the abovementioned States and ordered to pay reasonable compensation for the unlawful use. BSH also claimed compensation for the additional damage caused by Electrolux’s alleged patent infringement. Electrolux argue that the Court should dismiss the action in relation to the foreign parts of the patents. In its view the foreign patents are invalid and the Swedish court therefore lacks jurisdiction to hear infringement actions concerning those patents.

End of December 2020 the court agreed, citing A24(4) viz the EU patents (the claim being issued prior to Brexit implementation day, this includes the UK) and ‘an internationally accepted principle of jurisdiction’ (in essence, the Moçambique rule) viz the Turkish patent.

BSH of course appeal.

A asked students in the August resit exams how they think the CJEU should answer. On Q1 I would expect them to cite the need to interpret A24 restrictively, with reference to one or two cases confirming same (there are plenty); and the lack of solution in the Brussels Recast. Contrary to what Electrolux contend, a proposal to allow a court to merely stay the case pending the foreign court’s decision on validity, was never rejected. Such a proposal was never made. BIa merely confirmed CJEU Gat v Luk’s holding that exclusive jurisdiction kicks in regardless of whether the argument of invalidity is introduced as a claim of by way of defence.

On Q2 I would like to seem them argue something to the effect that national CPR must not infringe the effet utile of BIa. (Only) if the effect of the Swedish rules is that it requires the defendant to initiate IPR invalidity claims in all the relevant States, or lose its possibility of an invalidity defence, this would in my view run counter BIa’s intention and scope.

Finally, on the 3rd Q they should engage with the lack of BIa clarification on reflexive effect, other than in the strict confines of A33-34 and its related recitals. Relevant case-law of course includes Ferrexpo and Central Santa Lucia L.C. v. Meliá Hotels International S.A. Interested readers may wish to consult Alexander Layton KC’s most excellent paper on same. Some students may refer to the UPC developments and the jurisdictional consequences in Article 71 BIa (operational 2023?).

Geert.

The Court of Justice delivered yesterday its judgment in case C‑399/21 (IRnova AB v FLIR Systems AB), which is about the scope of application of Article 24 Brussels I bis. The judgment is currently available in all EU official languages (save Irish), albeit not in English. Here is the French version (to check whether an English translation has finally been made available, just click on the link below and change the language version)

“L’article 24, point 4, du règlement (UE) no 1215/2012 du Parlement européen et du Conseil, du 12 décembre 2012, concernant la compétence judiciaire, la reconnaissance et l’exécution des décisions en matière civile et commerciale, doit être interprété en ce sens que : il ne s’applique pas à un litige tendant à déterminer, dans le cadre d’un recours fondé sur la qualité alléguée d’inventeur ou de co-inventeur, si une personne est titulaire du droit sur des inventions visées par des demandes de brevet déposées et par des brevets délivrés dans des pays tiers”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=265068&pageIndex=0&doclang=fr&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1837579

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

D.B.P. (Crédit hypothécaire libellé en devises étrangères)
Environnement et consommateurs
Prêts libellés en devise étrangère : si le consommateur s’y oppose, le juge national ne peut pas substituer à une clause abusive liée au prix de conversion une disposition de droit national à caractère supplétif

Ministerstvo životního prostředí (Perroquets Ara hyacinthe)
Environnement et consommateurs
La Cour apporte des précisions à la notion d’« élevage en captivité » des spécimens de perroquet Ara hyacinthe