Flux européens

When prof Bookman asked my input on Celsius’ choice of court and governing law’s clause in its GTCs, I was otherwise engaged. Subsequently I waited with an answer for I used the issue for an exam question. – so here is my primer.

Celsius are one of the leading crypto currencies exchanges (future readers may not be familiar: crypto currencies were an early 21st century Ponzi scheme).

The question I put to the students, was:  A fellow academic and practitioner from the US asks you how clause 33 of the standard Celsius contract, copied below, would be received in the EU. Celsius are one of the world’s leading crypto currencies exchanges.

How do you respond to this question? Argue with reference inter alia to relevant CJEU case-law.

Students had two pages to answer. I did not specify Celsius’ domicile. This is what I expect to be included in the reply. Both for jurisdiction and for there is a clear distinction between the B2B and B2C scenario.

Re: B2C: For the contract to be a true ‘consumer’ contract within the meaning of Brussels Ia, Celsius would have had to target their activities at the consumer’s Member State etc.: CJEU Peil and Reliantco are good pointers, as are Ramona Ang and Khalifeh v Blom Bank. Whether Celsius are domiciled in the EU is of no consequence for the consumer section to be engaged. At the jurisdictional level, the choice of court clause would have no consequence (A19 BIa), and the consumer would be able to sue Celsius either in the consumer’s EU domicile, or in Celsius’ EU domicile if it has one. Celsius would only be able to sue in the consumer’s domicile. Articles 33-34 BIa lis pendens rules would not be engaged.

At the applicable law level, the choice for New York law would stand, however mandatory law of the consumer’s habitual residence (which would include transposition of EU consumer law) would trump any conflicting provisions (A6(1) and (2) Rome I).

Re: B2B or indeed a B2C contract which does not trigger the consumer section, the picture would be quite different. Here, whether Celsius as contracting partner has a domicile in the EU, does matter.

If there is such domicile, then at the level of jurisdiction, the EU based party is likely to seize the A4 domicile court, potentially also seeking out a forum contractus if the currency services were to be provided elsewhere than in the place of Celsius’ domicile. That is where Celsius, had it seized an ex-EU court first, then might seek application of A33-34. For this it may come to regret having included hybrid choice of court: recital 24(2)’s reference to the ex-EU court having exclusive jurisdiction arguably does not apply to hybrid choice of court.

Were Celsius to sue the other party in an EU court first (taking ‘any applicable jurisdiction’ at its face value and understanding it as including EU courts), the other party is likely to raise the invalidity of the hybrid choice of court. This is where BIa knickers will get into their proverbial twist: for recital 20’s lex fori prorogati’s instruction as lex casae for the validity of the clause, only refers to ‘a court or courts of a Member State’. Celsius could of course chose to ignore choice of court (implicitly accepting its invalidity) and seize the A4 court of the EU counterparty.

At the level of applicable law, choice for New York law will in any case stand in this scenario, with however A3(4) Rome I’s rule for ‘purely EU’ contracts kicking in, and potentially Article 9 Rome I’s lois de police.

If there is no EU Celsius domicile, Celsius is unlikely to sue in the EU (for it risks having an EU court apply EU banking, finance etc law as mandatory law) however if it does, it would either do so on the basis of A4 domicile jurisdiction, or invoking, as above, the ‘any applicable jurisdiction’ instruction in the hybrid choice of court. Only A9 Rome I could then marginally upset choice of NY law.

Finally, assuming Celsius were to sue the consumer outside the EU, and were to seek enforcement of the judgment in an EU Member State, this would engage the Member States’ residual rules on recognition and enforcement.

Quite a set of variables in the end, and I would be much happy to hear others’ thoughts.

Marking me will look out for core B2B /B2C and domicile considerations.

Geert.

 

I was going to ask why the dispute has to be in the US, and point out that the class action and class arb ban might not be enforceable elsewhere, but then I saw the NY choice of law and choice of forum clauses, which presumably are enforceable, rt?@Tarheel_Lawprof @GAVClaw pic.twitter.com/vq6Rx3L6Np

— Pamela Bookman (@PamelaBookman) June 15, 2022

 

The Court of Justice delivered today its judgment in case C‑652/20 (Allianz Elementar Versicherungs AG), which is about 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 11, paragraphe 1, sous b), 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, lorsque cette disposition est applicable, elle détermine tant la compétence internationale que la compétence territoriale de la juridiction d’un État membre dans le ressort de laquelle se situe le domicile du demandeur ».

Reminder : Article 11: « 1. An insurer domiciled in a Member State may be sued:

a) in the courts of the Member State in which he is domiciled;

b) in another Member State, in the case of actions brought by the policyholder, the insured or a beneficiary, in the courts for the place where the claimant is domiciled; or

c) if he is a co-insurer, in the courts of a Member State in which proceedings are brought against the leading insurer”.

Source : https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=261922&mode=req&pageIndex=1&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=FR&cid=8348163

Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnyba
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Le droit de l’Union s’oppose à la législation lituanienne en vertu de laquelle, en cas d’afflux massif d’étrangers, un demandeur d’asile peut être placé en rétention au seul motif qu’il se trouve en séjour irrégulier

Hijos de Moisés Rodríguez González / EUIPO - Irlande et Ornua (La Irlandesa 1943)
Propriété intellectuelle et industrielle
Une marque contenant un terme relatif à une provenance géographique utilisée par le passé qui est ensuite enregistrée et utilisée pour des produits qui n’ont plus cette provenance est susceptible d’induire les consommateurs en erreur quant à la provenance géographique de ces produits

A puzzling title perhaps I agree but let me explain. Thank you Matthias Storme for alerting me to the May 2021 preliminary reference by the Belgian Supreme Court, a reference now known at the CJEU as Case C-358/21 Tilman SA (of Belgium) v Unilever Supply Chain Company AG (of Switserland). Elucidation is asked of Article 23 of the Lugano 2007 Convention, the choice of court provision in the Convention.

The question referred, reads

Are the requirements under Article 23(1)(a) and (2) of [Lugano 2007], satisfied where a clause conferring jurisdiction is contained in general terms and conditions to which a contract concluded in writing refers by providing the hypertext link to a website, access to which allows those general terms and conditions to be viewed, downloaded and printed, without the party against whom that clause is enforced having been asked to accept those general terms and conditions by ticking a box on that website?

Article 23 Lugano 2007 is identical (mutatis mutandis: the only difference being that A23 Lugano refers to ‘States to the Convention’ instead of ‘Member States’) to the former Article 23 of the Brussels I Regulation, Regulation 44/2001.  A23 Lugano 2007 reads in relevant part

1. 1. If the parties, one or more of whom is domiciled in a State bound by this Convention, have agreed that a court or the courts of a State bound by this Convention are to have jurisdiction to settle any disputes which have arisen or which may arise in connection with a particular legal relationship, that court or those courts shall have jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction shall be exclusive unless the parties have agreed otherwise. Such an agreement conferring jurisdiction shall be either: (a) in writing or evidenced in writing; or (b) in a form which accords with practices which the parties have established between themselves; or (c) in international trade or commerce, in a form which accords with a usage of which the parties are or ought to have been aware and which in such trade or commerce is widely known to, and regularly observed by, parties to contracts of the type involved in the particular trade or commerce concerned.
   2. Any communication by electronic means which provides a durable record of the agreement shall be equivalent to ‘writing’.

The case at issue therefore does not question so-called ‘click-wrap’ consent to general terms and conditions – GTCs. These require the contracting partner to tick the relevant box which then ‘wraps up’ the agreement, including choice of court (and law). They were the subject of CJEU El Majdoub v CarsOnTheWeb. In that judgment, the CJEU held that in a B2B context, where the GTCs that have to be ticked can be saved and printed, they can be a ‘durable’ record of consent. (Not: consent itself: that is subject to a separate analysis, under the relevant lex causae, see below).

Rather, the title of this post calls the issue one of ‘flag-wrap’: one of the parties’ (Unilever’s) GTCs  are contained on a website, and their existence is ‘flagged’ in the written main contract. Does that suffice to bind the parties as to the GTC’s choice of court (in favour of the English courts; note the courts were seized pre-Brexit; the UK’s Lugano troubles are not engaged)?

The provisions on forum clauses are drafted in a way ‘not to impede commercial practice, yet at the same time to cancel out the effects of clauses in contracts which might go unread’ (Jenard Report), or otherwise ‘unnoticed’ (CJEU Colzani). The Brussels Convention and now the Regulation show great support for choice of court agreements and aim not to be as overly formalistic as the conditions imposed upon them.

Importantly, valid choice of court does require both a clearly and precisely demonstrated consent to be bound by choice of court and one or another Article 25-sanctioned form of expression of that consent. In Colzani the CJEU held [7]:

the requirements set out in Article [25] governing the validity of clauses conferring jurisdiction must be strictly construed. By making such validity subject to the existence of an ‘agreement’ between the parties, Article [25] imposed upon the court before which the matter is brought the duty of examining, first, whether the clause conferring jurisdiction upon it was in fact the subject of a consensus between the parties, which must be clearly and precisely demonstrated. The purpose of the formal requirements imposed by Article [25] is to ensure that the consensus between the parties is in fact established.

CJEU authority of Colzani and Coreck Maritime impose on the court the duty of examining ‘whether the clause conferring jurisdiction upon it was in fact the subject of a consensus between the parties’ and this had to be ‘clearly and precisely demonstrated’.

In practice, many courts conflate the check for consent with the check for expression of that consent and even the CJEU is not always clear in distinguishing it. In particular, absence of proof of any of the three possible avenues for expression of consent, included in Article 25(1) a, b or c, or then taken as an absence of consent, full stop. In Colzani, the CJEU held

[T]he mere fact that a clause conferring jurisdiction is printed among the general conditions of one of the parties on the reverse of a contract drawn up on the commercial paper of that party does not of itself satisfy the requirements of Article 17, since no guarantee is thereby given that the other party has really consented to the clause waiving the normal rules of jurisdiction. Where a clause conferring jurisdiction is included among the general conditions of sale of one of the parties, printed on the back of a contract, the requirement of a writing under the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention is fulfilled only if the contract signed by both parties contains an express reference to those general conditions.

The CJEU here, wrongly, seems to suggest lack of compliance with the expression of consent indicates a lack of that consent full stop.

Importantly, the CJEU in its rulings on what was then Article 23 and its Brussels Convention predecessor keeps utterly silent on national conditions relating to the actual formation or existence of consent. This, as regular readers of the blog will know, is at least for cases covered by Brussels Ia, subject to the lex fori prorogati, with renvoi, an issue which both national courts and the CJEU struggle with.

How then should the CJEU respond to the question (I asked my conflict of laws students at Leuven this question in a first exam on 18 June)?

Firstly, the Court should (and will) remind us of the Jenard /Colzani core instruction: the need to ensure consent is established, without being overly formalistic. Different from the context of the protected categories, there is no ‘weaker category’ to protect here.

Secondly,  there needs to be durability of the record of consent. That seems to be guaranteed here via the technicalities of the Unilever platform (downloadable GTCs) and in line with aforementioned CJEU Al Majdoub (the June students were not given technical details but should still flag durability).

Thirdly, despite the formal A23  requirement most probably being met, the consent requirement to me seems far from certain. In a click and wrap context ― lest there be issues of agency, duress, consumer protection laws etc. (in a context where the consumer title’s conditions are not met) which need to be held under the law applicable to consent ― the box ticking solidifies establishment of consent. In a mere flag and wrap context, that to me seems far less certain. If the reference were to a url where GTCs are properly and collectively displayed (if need be, updated with clear reference to chronology; see housekeeping), consent by an ordinary careful business (the proverbial (business)man on the Clapham omnibus). Yet if such as here, the link communicated in the formal contract refers to a platform where the  GTCs are not the first thing the contracting party sees, rather, where it is expected that that contracting party registers and /or downclicks, search and retrieve etc., that consent to me seems far less certainly established. [Again my students were not given the details on the platform which the reference includes, they did however have to signal the issue of consent).

Finally, under BIa, the lex fori prorogati, incl renvoi, would determine the above considerations of consent. Here, therefore, English law including its conflict of laws rules on choice of court. However seeing as the case is not subject to Brussels Ia, but rather to Lugano, the lex causae for consent will be an issue for the courts seized (here, the Belgian courts) to determine. Under the Belgian rules, this means application of Rome I (Rome I excludes choice of court agreements however Belgium’s private international law Act makes Rome I applicable even to carved-out contractual arrangements).

An interesting reference.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 2.2.10.

 

Commission / Espagne
Droit institutionnel
Responsabilité de l’État pour les dommages causés aux particuliers par les violations du droit de l’Union : l’Espagne a manqué aux obligations qui lui incombent en vertu du principe d’effectivité

I have a bit of catching up to do with the blog and I shall start with the case that is currently also being discussed over at the EAPIL blog. The CJEU has held in C-700/20 London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Limited v Spain (re: the Prestige oil spill). I have further background and links to the English judgments that preceded the reference in my review of the AG Opinion. In that review, I predicted the Court would probably not follow its Advocate General and I should have betted on it for the Court, in Grand Chamber no less, did indeed largely not follow its Advocate General.

Had it been up to the Court of Appeal, the case should have not been referred at all, and given the consequences of the CJEU’s judgment, the referral may come to be regretted.

Essentially, the question at issue is whether an English ‘Section 66’ (Arbitration Act) judgment, which confirms an arbitral award is enforceable in the same way as a judgment in ordinary, qualify as a judgment under the recognition and enforcement Title of Brussels Ia (the case is formally subject to its predecessor, the Brussels I Regulation – see here for a BI- BIa table of equivalence which will make reading of the judgment easier)? If it does, the Spanish judgment contradicting the award is unlikely to be recognised.

Of note is that the 1958 New York Convention does not come into play in the proceedings for the reason that those proceedings do not involve, as Article I(1) of that convention requires, the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award in a State other than that in which that award was made: the award was made in the UK.

The AG, despite his broad interpretation of the arbitration exclusion in the case at issue, suggests the proceedings are not caught by the arbitration exception, for reasons I discuss in my earlier post. The Court disagrees all in all in succinct terms.

It is worth relisting the 3 issues which the High Court is unsure about, followed by the CJEU’s answer to each:

First, whether a judgment such as its judgment given under Section 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996 qualifies as a ‘judgment’, within the meaning of Article 34(3) of Brussels I, where that court has not itself heard all the substantive merits of the dispute which had been heard by the arbitration tribunal.  Secondly, it has doubts whether a judgment falling outside the material scope of BI  by reason of the arbitration exception may nevertheless be relied on to prevent recognition and enforcement of a judgment from another Member State pursuant to Article 34(3).

Answering these together, the Court [44] kicks off with a curt reference to a fairly unqualified statement in CJEU Rich [18]: ‘the Contracting Parties [to the Brussels Convention, GAVC] intended to exclude arbitration in its entirety, including proceedings brought before national court’.  Further support is found in the 4th (!) para of recital 12 of Brussels Ia, referring specifically to recognition and enforcement proceedings as being excluded from Brussels Ia: [the Regulation does not apply] ‘nor to any action or judgment concerning the annulment, review, appeal, recognition or enforcement of an arbitral award.’

With reference to CJEU Gazprom, the Court [45] notes that the lex causae for recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards is national law, including the international law obligations the Member State may have adhered to. As noted however, the New York Convention does not apply to the recognition of the award at issue.

[48] ff the CJEU however concedes, partially with reference to earlier case-law, that judgments on issues carved out from the Regulation, may nevertheless qualify as a ‘judgment’ as meant in Article 34(3) [‘a judgment shall not be recognised’ ‘3. if it is irreconcilable with a judgment given in a dispute between the same parties in the Member State in which recognition is sought’]. This is mostly meant to protect Member State’s internal legal order and ensure that its rule of law is not disturbed by the obligation to recognise a judgment from another Member State which is inconsistent with a decision given, in a dispute between the same parties, by its own court.

This recycling of a carved-out subject-matter, via the enforcement title remains awkward to me, and is a similar back-door entry into BIa as for ex-EU judgments in C-568/20 J v H Limited.

[54] the Court then makes a leap which is reminiscent of its effet utile (safeguarding the overall objectives of the Brussels regime) approach viz anti-suit and arbitration in CJEU West Tankers : ‘the position is different where the award in the terms of which that judgment was entered was made in circumstances which would not have permitted the adoption, in compliance with the provisions and fundamental objectives of that regulation, of a judicial decision falling within the scope of that regulation.’

[59] it lists the two cardinal sins under Brussels I which the award, had it been a judgment covered by the Regulation (but surely it is not!), would have committed: it would have infringed ‘two fundamental rules of that regulation concerning, first, the relative effect of an arbitration clause included in an insurance contract [here the CJEU refers to Assens Havn, GAVC] and, secondly, lis pendens [here, [64] ff, the Court finds the lis pendens conditions would have been met had the two sets of proceedings both been included in the Regulation, GAVC].’

This whole construction requires a parallel universe being built next to BIa (or it is effectively nonsense, as prof Briggs puts it).

[71] the CJEU formulates an instruction for courts faced with request for arbitral awards:

It is for the court seised with a view to entering a judgment in the terms of an arbitral award to verify that the provisions and fundamental objectives of Regulation No 44/2001 have been complied with, in order to prevent a circumvention of those provisions and objectives, such as a circumvention consisting in the completion of arbitration proceedings in disregard of both the relative effect of an arbitration clause included in an insurance contract and the rules on lis pendens laid down in Article 27 of that regulation

The UK courts not having so verified, [72] ‘a judgment entered in the terms of an arbitral award, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, cannot prevent, under Article 34(3) of Regulation No 44/2001, the recognition of a judgment from another Member State.’ As Gilles Cuniberti notes, this instruction, effectively to arbitral tribunals (for if they ignore them, their award risks becoming unenforceable) to verify lis pendens requirements  is at odds with CJEU Liberato, and an extraordinary extension of the BIa rules to arbitral tribunals.

Thirdly, is it permissible to rely on Article 34(1)’s orde public exception as a ground for refusing recognition or enforcement of a judgment from another Member State, on the basis that such recognition or enforcement (of the Spanish judgment) would disregard the force of res judicata acquired by a domestic arbitral award or a judgment entered in the terms of such an award. Here, the CJEU [74] ff answers that the issue of the force of res judicata acquired by a judgment given previously is already exhaustively dealt with under Articles 34(3) and (4) of Brussels Ia and cannot therefore be resurrected under the ordre public exception.

The judgment is concocted reality, but not one which surprises me as I already indicated in my post on the AG’s Opinion. It is time the EU have a fundamental reflection on its relation with commercial arbitration. Treated with odd deference in the discussions on investor-state dispute settlement (think: CJEU Achmea, Komstroy etc) yet seriously obstructed in the case-law on the Brussels regime.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, ia 2.120.

As I suspected when I reviwed the Opinion AG https://t.co/PphA3zHY0j the #CJEU seems less forgoving of the #arbitration exception in Brussels Ia. More soon. https://t.co/ROQO2oM9Kh

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) June 20, 2022

Ryanair / Commission (Finnair II; Covid-19)
Aide d'État
Le recours visant à l’annulation de la décision de la Commission approuvant l’aide accordée par la Finlande à la compagnie aérienne Finnair est rejeté dans son intégralité

Anglo Austrian AAB et Belegging-Maatschappij "Far-East" / BCE
Politique économique
Le Tribunal confirme le retrait de l’agrément d’AAB Bank comme établissement de crédit

thyssenkrupp / Commission
Concurrence
Le Tribunal confirme la décision de la Commission interdisant le projet de concentration entre thyssenkrupp et Tata Steel

Porr Bau
Environnement et consommateurs
Selon l’avocate générale Medina, des sols d’excavation non pollués de la classe de qualité la plus élevée fournis par une entreprise de construction à des agriculteurs locaux afin d’améliorer leurs terres agricoles pourraient ne pas constituer des « déchets » au sens du droit de l’Union

Commission / Slovaquie (Protection du Grand tétras)
Environnement et consommateurs
Protection du grand tétras (Tetrao urogallus) et des zones Natura 2000 abritant l’habitat de cet oiseau sauvage : la Cour constate la violation des directives « habitats » et « oiseaux » par la Slovaquie

Volvo et DAF Trucks
Concurrence
La Cour précise le champ d’application temporel des règles régissant le délai de prescription pour l’introduction des recours en dommages et intérêts pour les infractions au droit de la concurrence ainsi que des règles régissant la quantification du préjudice résultant de telles infractions et la présomption réfragable relative à l’existence d'un préjudice résultant d’une entente

Visite à la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne de S. Exc. Mme Katerina Sakellaropoulou, présidente de la République Hellénique

Ligue des droits humains
PDON
La Cour estime que le respect des droits fondamentaux exige une limitation des pouvoirs prévus par la directive PNR au strict nécessaire

The Grand Chamber of the CJEU delivered today its judgment in case C‑700/20 (London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Limited v Kingdom of Spain), which is about Article 34 Brussels I:

“1. Article 34(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 […] must be interpreted as meaning that a judgment entered by a court of a Member State in the terms of an arbitral award does not constitute a ‘judgment’, within the meaning of that provision, where a judicial decision resulting in an outcome equivalent to the outcome of that award could not have been adopted by a court of that Member State without infringing the provisions and the fundamental objectives of that regulation, in particular as regards the relative effect of an arbitration clause included in the insurance contract in question and the rules on lis pendens contained in Article 27 of that regulation, and that, in that situation, the judgment in question cannot prevent, in that Member State, the recognition of a judgment given by a court in another Member State.

2. Article 34(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event that Article 34(3) of that regulation does not apply to a judgment entered in the terms of an arbitral award, the recognition or enforcement of a judgment from another Member State cannot be refused as being contrary to public policy on the ground that it would disregard the force of res judicata acquired by the judgment entered in the terms of an arbitral award”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=261144&text=&dir=&doclang=EN&part=1&occ=first&mode=DOC&pageIndex=0&cid=4584727

AG Szpunar delivered last week (16 June 2022) his opinion in case C‑265/21 (AB, AB-CD v Z EF), which is about Article 5 Brussels I. The opinion is available in the vast majority of EU official languages (save notably German), albeit not in English. Here is the French version:

« 1) L’article 5, point 1, du règlement (CE) nº 44/2001 […] doit être interprété en ce sens que son application présuppose la détermination d’une obligation juridique librement consentie par une personne à l’égard d’une autre et sur laquelle se fonde l’action du demandeur, même lorsque cette obligation ne lie pas directement les parties au litige. Dans le cadre de l’interprétation de cette disposition, la juridiction nationale doit veiller au respect de l’équilibre entre l’objectif de prévisibilité et de sécurité juridique et celui de proximité et de bonne administration de la justice.

2) Aux fins d’apprécier le fondement d’une action en vue de déterminer si elle relève de la « matière contractuelle », au sens de l’article 5, point 1, du règlement nº 44/2001, la juridiction saisie n’est pas tenue d’examiner, au stade de la vérification de la compétence, l’obligation contractuelle ou, le cas échéant, le contenu du ou des contrats en cause. Afin de vérifier si les conditions essentielles de sa compétence sont remplies, cette juridiction identifie uniquement les points de rattachement avec l’État du for justifiant sa compétence en vertu de cette disposition et apprécie tous les éléments dont elle dispose, notamment les allégations pertinentes du demandeur quant à la nature des obligations sur lesquelles se fonde son action et, le cas échéant, les contestations émises par le défendeur. La circonstance que l’action en cause au principal est une action en reconnaissance d’un droit de propriété est sans incidence sur le fait que cette action relève de la « matière contractuelle » et, partant, sur l’application de l’article 5, point 1, du règlement nº 44/2001.

3) L’action en reconnaissance d’un droit de propriété portant sur un bien meuble, lorsqu’elle est fondée sur deux contrats qui ne lient pas directement les parties au litige, relève de la « matière contractuelle », au sens de l’article 5, point 1, du règlement nº 44/2001. Le contrat à prendre en compte pour déterminer le lieu de l’obligation qui sert de base à la demande est le contrat original faisant l’objet du litige ».

Source : https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=261006&pageIndex=0&doclang=fr&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=4632834

London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Naufrage du Prestige : l’arbitrage initié au Royaume-Uni ne peut bloquer la reconnaissance de l’arrêt espagnol condamnant l’assureur à réparer les dommages causés par la marée noire

Junqueras i Vies / Parlement
Droit institutionnel
Selon l’avocat général Szpunar, le pourvoi de M. Junqueras i Vies contre l’ordonnance rendue par le Tribunal de l’Union européenne le 15 décembre 2020 doit être rejeté

Projet de traité sur la Charte de l’énergie modernisé : la demande d’avis de la Belgique est irrecevable, en raison de son caractère prématuré