Flux européens

The Court of Justice delivered on 20 October 2022 its judgment in case C‑604/20 (ROI Land Investments Ltd), which is about employment law and Brussels I bis and Rome I. The opinion 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):

« 1) L’article 21, paragraphe 1, sous b), i), et paragraphe 2, 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 : un travailleur peut attraire devant la juridiction du dernier lieu où, ou à partir duquel, il a accompli habituellement son travail une personne, domiciliée ou non sur le territoire d’un État membre, avec laquelle il n’est pas lié par un contrat de travail formel, mais qui est, en vertu d’un accord de garantie dont dépendait la conclusion du contrat de travail avec un tiers, directement responsable envers ce travailleur de l’exécution des obligations de ce tiers, à condition qu’il existe un lien de subordination entre cette personne et le travailleur.

2) L’article 6, paragraphe 1, du règlement no 1215/2012 doit être interprété en ce sens que : la réserve relative à l’application de l’article 21, paragraphe 2, de ce règlement exclut qu’une juridiction d’un État membre puisse se fonder sur les règles de cet État en matière de compétence judiciaire lorsque les conditions d’application de cet article 21, paragraphe 2, sont réunies, quand bien même ces règles seraient plus favorables au travailleur. En revanche, lorsque les conditions d’application ni dudit article 21, paragraphe 2, ni d’aucune des autres dispositions énumérées à l’article 6, paragraphe 1, dudit règlement ne sont réunies, une telle juridiction est libre, conformément à cette dernière disposition, d’appliquer lesdites règles pour déterminer la compétence judiciaire.

3) L’article 17, paragraphe 1, du règlement no 1215/2012 et l’article 6, paragraphe 1, du règlement [] (Rome I), doivent être interprétés en ce sens que : la notion d’« activité professionnelle » recouvre non seulement une activité indépendante, mais également une activité salariée. En outre, un accord conclu entre le travailleur et une personne tierce à l’employeur mentionné dans le contrat de travail, en vertu duquel celle-ci est directement responsable envers le travailleur des obligations de cet employeur découlant du contrat de travail, ne constitue pas un contrat conclu en dehors et indépendamment de toute activité ou finalité d’ordre professionnel pour l’application de ces dispositions ».

Source : https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=267403&mode=req&pageIndex=4&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=FR&cid=367019

Kingdom of Sweden v Serwin & Ors [2022] EWHC 2706 (Comm) concerns an attempt by Sweden to gain compensation of a number of defendants whom it alleges were parties to a substantial fraud.  The fraud resulted in the misappropriation of in excess of €115m from the pension saving accounts of some 46,222 Swedish pension savers.

I may have to think one or two things through however I wanted to collect my initial thoughts at any rate.

Of note is that the application was one for summary judgment and that quite a few of the respondents did not file an acknowledgment of service or a defence. However, Sweden obtained permission from the court to obtain summary judgment on the merits even against them, rather than entering judgment in default (ia because that makes enforcement more straightforward). Other defendants are serving prison sentences in Sweden and they did enter a defence.

I do not want to turn this post into a banking and finance one however some background is required: [20] ff

The Swedish pension system has various types of pension provision, including a compulsory premium pension (PPM), in which a percentage of a pension saver’s earnings is put into an account, which is invested in investment funds selected by the pension saver from an online platform that the Swedish Pension Authority (SPA) maintains. Each pension saver has a PPM account. Among the investments which might be made were investments in so-called UCITS funds where these had been approved by the Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority (SFSA). UCITS funds are those meeting the requirements of the Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities Directive 209/65/EC.

A company that wished to participate in the PPM was required to
enter into a cooperation agreement with the SPA. This case arises from two UCITS funds which were listed on the PPM online platform:

i)            the Optimus High Yield Fund (Optimus), managed by Optimus Fonder which entered into a co-operation agreement with the SPA on 26 March 2012; and

ii)          the Falcon Funds SICA V plc (Falcon) which entered into a co-operation agreement with the SPA in relation to three funders under its management.

The events concerning these two separate funds have been described in the evidence as the Optimus phase and the Falcon phase..

There was consensus ([38]) that the law applicable to the Swedish claims so far as they concerned the Optimus phase was Swedish law, whether by virtue of Article 4(1) or (3) Rome II. That Sweden’s claims relating to the Optimus phase were barred by the doctrine of res judicata, merger, cause of action estoppel or the allied doctrine in Henderson v Henderson, was dismissed by Foxton J [44].

Falcon then was incorporated and authorised by the Maltese Financial Services Authority as a UCITS fund on 22 November 2013. Sweden’s summary judgment claim in relation to the Falcon phase argued that its claims in delict and for breach of fiduciary duty relating to that phase are governed by Maltese law and not Swedish law.

As far as the delict issue is concerned (misappropriation), application of A4(2)  to some of the defendants was clear, and Sweden argued application of A4(1) for the remainder, seemingly arguing (judgment is a bit unclear on this point) that the damage was suffered in Malta when funds held in Falcon were applied to the various classes of loss-making investments.  Reference was made by counsel and judge to Dicey 16th ed. 35-027: “in misappropriation cases … it seems appropriate to locate damage at the place where an asset … is taken from the control of the claimant or another person with whom the claimant has a relationship” – the judge held that it is strongly arguable that this happened when Sweden’s funds became subject to the control of Falcon and the powers of its directors or those operating behind the scenes; the judge seems to locate this in Sweden, not Malta, and to some degree it does not matter for with reference ia to Avonwick and reasons listed [81] it is held that A4(3) arguably is engaged to make the lex causae Swedish law.

[86] reference is again made to Dicey for the applicable law issue as far as breach of fiduciary duties is concerned: Dicey, Morris & Collins [36-069]-[36-070]:

i)                 If equitable obligations of a fiduciary character arise in the context of a contractual relationship, there is a strong argument that the law applicable to the parties’ contractual relationship under Rome I determines whether a fiduciary relationship exists and the nature and content of the duties imposed.

ii)               If, however, the equitable obligations are characterised as incidents of a company law relationship rather than as “contractual”, common law principles determine the applicable law ( company law matters are excluded from Rome I and Rome II).

iii)             If a fiduciary duty arises where the parties were not in a prior relationship, such as in the case of a recipient of trust property, then the “better view” is that the obligation is non- contractual in nature and falls within the ambit of Rome II.

Unlike Sweden, the judge holds there are strong arguments that Swedish law applies, by reference it seems to Dicey, above, i) and with the ‘anchor’ agreement being the one by which Falcon becomes eligible to received PPM funds. Rule ii) seems to be moved aside by the judge here, and at any rate the extent of that rule is not clear-cut (see the CJEU itself recently). It is clear and it was correct to hold that the discussion is not one for summary judgment material.

An interesting final, obiter point comes [91] ff re the ‘reflective loss’ rule (a shareholder (and some others) cannot claim for a fall in the value of their holdings due to loss suffered by the company, if and when the company has a cause of action against the same wrongdoer) under Maltese law. Falcon itself is currently asserting claims against some of the alleged wrongdoers in relation to those same misappropriations, however Sweden argues an exception to that rule on the basis of Maltese expert evidence that was not considered to be robust enough for the summary judgment stage.

I wonder though whether the suggested relevance of the reflective loss rule, does not serve as ammunition for the suggestion that Rome I and II’s corporate carve-out is engaged viz the breach of fiduciary duties claim. For is the DNA of the rule not one of clear lex incorporationis?

To be further pondered.

Geert.

Partially successful application for summary judgment
Some of the implications of lex causae under Rome II for breach of fiduciary duty have to go to trial

Kingdom of Sweden v Serwin & Ors [2022] EWHC 2706 (Comm) https://t.co/JgLAba8zI2
via @legalstyleblog

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) October 27, 2022

Generalstaatsanwaltschaft München (Extradition et ne bis in idem)
Citoyenneté européenne
Les autorités d’un État membre ne peuvent pas extrader un ressortissant d’un État tiers vers un autre État tiers lorsque ce ressortissant a été définitivement condamné dans un autre État membre pour les mêmes faits que ceux visés dans la demande d’extradition et a subi la peine qui y a été prononcée

Minister for Justice and Equality (Levée du sursis)
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Mandat d’arrêt européen : l’avocate générale Ćapeta propose que l’expression « procès qui a mené à la décision » soit interprétée en ce sens qu’elle vise toute étape de la procédure qui a une incidence déterminante sur la privation de liberté d’une personne

Confédération paysanne e.a. (Mutagenèse aléatoire in vitro)
Rapprochement des législations
Variétés végétales modifiées génétiquement : selon le Premier avocat général Szpunar, la mutagenèse aléatoire appliquée in vitro doit être exclue du champ d’application du droit de l’Union en matière de dissémination volontaire d’OGM dans l’environnement

La Quadrature du Net e.a. (Données personnelles et lutte contre la contrefaçon)
Rapprochement des législations
Premier avocat général Szpunar : une autorité nationale devrait pouvoir accéder à des données d’identité civile couplées à des adresses IP lorsque ces données constituent le seul moyen d’investigation permettant d’identifier les titulaires de ces adresses soupçonnés d’atteintes aux droits d’auteur sur Internet

Proximus (Annuaires électroniques publics)
Rapprochement des législations
Le responsable du traitement de données personnelles est tenu de prendre des mesures raisonnables afin d’informer les moteurs de recherche sur Internet d’une demande d’effacement par la personne concernée

Whether orders for penalty payment my constitute a ‘judgment’ is an issue under Brussels Ia (A55, see also below). It is also under the EU account preservation order Regulation 655/2014 (the ‘APO’ Regulation or simply ‘APO’) and it is on the latter that Szpunar AG opined last week in C‑291/21 Starkinvest (no English version is as yet available).

Per A7 APO, confirmed in CJEU C-555/18 H.K., when the applicant for an APO  (the creditor) does not (yet) have a judgment, court settlement or authentic instrument requiring the debtor to pay the creditor’s claim, creditor must submit sufficient evidence to satisfy the court that he is likely to succeed on the substance of his claim against the debtor: that is the ‘fumus boni juris’ (literally ‘the smoke of a solid right’) requirement.

Under Belgian civil procedure rules, a creditor need not return to the court to have the final amount of a periodic penalty payment confirmed before being able to seize assets commensurate to the amount due: the judgment itself, which for that reason must clearly detail the parameters for the payment’s calculation, serves as enforceable title; the bailiff seizes following her /his own calculation, and the attachment judge confirms the final amount. The point of the exercise is to guarantee sufficient asset seizure, pending the final confirmation of the amount due.

In essence the question is whether this security also works in an international context. The discussion of course triggered discussion of A55 Brussels Ia and its relationship with APO: ‘A judgment given in a Member State which orders a payment by way of a penalty shall be enforceable in the Member State addressed only if the amount of the payment has been finally determined by the court of origin.’

The AG (and with him, the EC and the Member States that intervened) zooms in on the A7(2( APO condition: the debtor must have obtained ‘a judgment, court settlement or authentic instrument requiring the debtor to pay the creditor’s claim‘  (emphasis added): not just ‘a judgment’ as defined in A4(8) APO: “‘judgment’ means any judgment given by a court of a Member State, whatever the judgment may be called, including a decision on the determination of costs or expenses by an officer of the court”. This focus is then followed by a discussion of the word ‘claim’, for which reference is made to the relevant forms prescribed by Commission Implementing Regulation 2016/1823 . This form refers to an amount ‘awarded’ and an ‘amount set out in’ the judgment.

The AG ends his Opinion with the suggestion that the judgment which imposed the penalty payment, together with confirmation eg by a bailiff that the debtor did not meet with the requirements to escape the payment, form a sound basis for the A7(2) APO route of fumus boni iuris.

It is clear that penalty payments could have done with more specific consideration in APO, and  the spirit of the APO Regulation could in my view support a different conclusion. However the textual anchors for the AG’s Opinion would seem strong.

Geert.

Opinion Szpunar AG this morning, whether order to pay periodic penalty payment without determination of the final amount, is a judgment viz the European Account Preservation Order

Starkinvest SRLhttps://t.co/t5a7rPGnzy

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

Banca Intesa Sanpaolo SPA & Anor v Comune Di Venezia [2022] EWHC 2586 (Comm) is an excellent illustration of the relevance of characterisation and of the international harmonisation of same. It also discusses the application of the ‘purely domestic contracts’ rule of Article 3(3) Rome Convention, carried over into the Rome Regulation.

Background is long-running litigation involving derivative transactions used by Italian municipalities to hedge their interest rate risk, as Sarah Ott summarises the context here (she discusses Dexia Crediop SpA v Provincia di Pesaro e Urbino [2022] EWHC 2410 (Comm), a case with many similar issues).

Venice contends that, for various reasons, it lacked the substantive power to enter into the Transactions as a matter of Italian law, and that, applying English conflict of law principles, that means that it did not have capacity to enter into the Transactions and that they are not valid. It also contends that the Transactions breached various rules of Italian law which have the status of “mandatory rules of law” for the purposes of A3(3) Rome Convention 1980 (which is applicable and not the Rome I Regulation) and that as a result the Transactions are void and/or unenforceable.

The Banks deny that the entry into the Transactions contravened any provisions of Italian law, on the basis of arguments as to the effect of Italian law and its application to the facts of this case, and further deny that any such contravention would deprive Venice of capacity to contract as a matter of English conflict of laws principles in any event.

Capacity to enter into contractual relationship itself is not caught by the Rome Convention as a result of the Convention’s carve-out of Article 1(2) c (most legal systems make such capacity subject to the lex incorporationis, and [115] is determined by reference to the law in force when the Transactions were entered into). Foxton J refers as authority to Credit Suisse International v Stichting Vestia Groep [2014] EWHC 3103 (Comm) [185].

Who then is to decide whether a particular issue of Italian law raises a question of capacity, or authority, or some other kind of legal challenge to the validity and efficacy of the Transactions? Here Foxton J wrongly in my view simply refers to lex fori, English law. In reality of course it is the Rome Convention that does so, although as I have pointed out before, neither the Rome Convention nor Rome I excels at clarifying.

[129] ff then follows lengthy analysis of the issues of capacity under Italian law as the lex causae, with the conclusion being that Venice did indeed so lack capacity under Italian law.

The issue of mandatory Italian law replacing the English lex contractus as a result of Article 3(3) Rome Convention’s ‘purely domestic contracts’ rule, is dealt with obiter. It fails at the first hurdle with Foxton J holding [341] that the scenario is not purely domestic. He does not much entertain the issue of whether under Italian law (lack of) a theory of contractual consideration might be of mandatory nature, referring [356] to the similar issues of consideration and privity of contracts under English law (which in effect might subsequently become relevant under the overriding mandatory rules of the forum).

An interesting judgment.

Geert.

Capacity under IT law to enter into financial transactions; Qualification whether 'capacity' is at stake is subject to lex fori, EN law
(Non)application of A3(3) Rome Convention purely domestic contracts rule

Banca Intesa Sanpaolo ea v Comune Di Venezia https://t.co/lrSv1v4E5b

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) October 14, 2022

In an interesting judgment, the CJEU yesterday held (no English edition yet) in C-604/20 ROI Land Investments Ltd v FD on protected categories suing a defendant not formally associated with the claimant by a clear contract of employment. That the defendant is not domiciled in the EU is in fact of less relevance to the issues.  I had somehow missed Richard de la Tour AG’s Opinion on same (it happens to the best of us).

Claimant in the main proceedings is FD, domiciled in Germany. Defendant is not his current employer and is not domiciled in a Member State. Yet by virtue of a letter of comfort it is directly liable to the employee for claims arising from an individual contract of employment with a third party. The gist of the case is whether an employee can sue this legal person under the employment title if the contract of employment with the third party would not have come into being in the absence of the letter of comfort.

The slightly complex three part construction, transferring relationships of employment, essentially is one of tax optimisation via Switserland. FD used to be employed by ROI Investment, a Canadian corporation, before his contract was transferred to R Swiss, a Swiss SPV created for the very purpose of the operation. ROI Investment via a letter of comfort effectively guaranteed the outstanding wages due to FD. FD’s contract with Swiss was ended, a German court held this to have been done illegally and ordered Swiss to pay a substantial sum whereupon Swiss went into insolvency. FD now wishes to sue the Canadian ’employer’.

CJEU Bosworth is the most recent case which extensively discusses the existence of ’employment’, referring to CJEU Shenavai and Holterman. In ROI Land the CJEU [34] instructs the national court in particular to assess whether there is a relationship of subordination between individual and corporation, even if subordination is actually only one of the Shenavai /Holterman criteria.

Erik Sinander has already noted here (his post came in as I was writing up mine) that this is a different emphasis from the AG: he had suggested a third party who was directly benefitting from the work performed by the employee (“un intérêt direct à la bonne exécution dudit contrat”) should be considered an employer. That to my mind is way too large a criterion and the CJEU is right to stick to the earlier ones.

[35] the CJEU suggests relevant circumstances in the case most probably confirming the relationship of subordination hence of employment: the activities which FD carried out for his two respective employers stayed the same, and the construction via the  SPV would not have been entered into by FD had it not been for his original employer’s guarantee.

The forum laboris in the case at issue is then I assume (it is not discussed quite so clearly in the judgment) determined by the place of habitual performance of the activities for the third party, the formal (now insolvent) employer, not the activities carried out for the issuer of the letter of comfort: for there are (no longer) such activities.

[37] ff the Court entirely correctly holds that more protective national rules cannot trump Brussels Ia’s jurisdictional provisions for the  protected categories: both clear statutory language and statutory purpose support that  conclusion.

[52] ff the CJEU entertains the subsidiary issue raised in the national proceedings as to whether the contract may be considered a consumer contract. It holds that the concept of ‘a purpose outside (a natural person’s) trade or profession’ does not just apply to a natural person in a self-employed capacity but may also apply to an employee. [56] seeing as FD would not have signed the new employment agreement without the letter of comfort, the employment agreement cannot be considered to be outside FD’s profession. Therefore it cannot qualify as a consumer contract.

Geert.

 

#CJEU this morning on the application of the protective rules for employees, both in Brussels Ia and Rome I, in the event of an employer not domiciled in the EU

ROI Land Investments v FDhttps://t.co/Ne7LQalAFJ

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

 

Commission / CK Telecoms UK Investments
Concurrence
Contrôle des concentrations : l’avocate générale Kokott précise les exigences de preuve de l’existence d’effets non coordonnés remplissant la notion d’« entrave significative à une concurrence effective » sur un marché oligopolistique en l’absence de position dominante de l’entité fusionnée

IG Metall et ver.di
Liberté d'établissement
La transformation d’une société de droit national en société européenne (SE) ne doit pas réduire la participation des syndicats à la composition du conseil de surveillance

Soleymani v Nifty Gateway LLC [2022] EWCA Civ 1297 is the appeal against [2022] EWHC 773 (Comm) which I reviewed here. That post will give readers the necessary background. The Court of Appeal partially overturned. The judge had issued a stay of English proceedings under s9 Arbitration Act 1996, effectively allowing a US arbitrator to decide the validity of the arbitration agreement. That stay has now been lifted and E&W proceedings on that issue will go ahead.

Of note is that the discussion takes place under retained EU law, with the relevant provisions in ia s15b of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (as amended) mirroring the consumer section of Brussels Ia and Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, as amended.

A first ground of appeal concerned the core of the Brussels Ia issue: whether the Court had jurisdiction under s. 15B CJJA because the exception for arbitration under Article 1(2)(d) of the Recast Regulation did not apply to the Arbitration Claim. In other words whether the exclusion for arbitration is engaged when a consumer, ordinarily protected by the forum actoris provisions in A17 ff BIa, calls upon that protection to seize a UK court.

The first instance judge held that the principal focus and subject matter of Mr Soleymani’s claim is whether he is legally obliged to arbitrate, hence engaging the arbitration exception. The Court of Appeal agrees for largely the same reasons as the judge, and with Popplewell J [89] indicating no change in his views following CJEU Prestige. The CA’s own finding in [2021] EWCA Civ 1589 The Prestige is recalled:  “the question is whether a principal focus of the proceedings is arbitration, the essential subject matter of the claim concerns arbitration, or the relief sought can be said to be ancillary to the arbitration process, these being alternative ways of expressing the same idea”.

The Court of Appeal’s focus seems to be on avoiding abuse by the consumer, who could circumvent the arbitration exception by bringing his claim within the scope of BIa hence characterising it as a claim to enforce his consumer rights.

I continue to find the alternative more convincing: that the consumer section could be easily circumvented, particularly by non-EU based traders and /or in the event of arbitration outside the EU, simply by inserting an ADR clause in the contract, depriving the consumer of the forum actoris. Claimant’s counsel’s nine reasons [51] in my view have convincing appeal, and not Popplewell J’s suggestion [93] ff that in practice the consumer would be protected anyways, either by the ability to sue in the UK and have the ADR clause declared void under consumer protection law, or by the ability to have any foreign award declared unenforceable under the New York Convention’s ordre public exception. The very case at hand show the real difficulties (and costs) the consumer will be put through if and when the business party to the transaction decides to pursue the arbitration proceedings abroad.

The second ground of appeal was dismissed for it relied on s. 15D(1) being construed as invalidating the arbitration clause, which the Court had already held it did not, however ground 3 was accepted, for reasons formulated by Birss LJ.

Mr Soleymani’s claim consisted of claims for three distinct declarations: (i) a declaration that the arbitration clause was unfair and not binding, (ii) a declaration that the governing law clause was unfair and not binding, and (iii) a declaration that the contract formed in the auction was illegal under the Gambling Act 2005.

The jurisdiction issues under Grounds 1 and 2 of the appeal relate only to the first of these three, the arbitration clause claim. The judge as discussed decided that the Arbitration Claim was within the arbitration exception which now forms part of the CJJA (and had its origin in the Brussels Convention and the later Recast Regulation), and the appeal from that decision was dismissed.

The judge however also decided that the other two claims, that is the Governing Law Claim and the Gambling Act Claim were not clearly within the arbitration exception, yet she stayed the E&W proceedings to give way to the arbitration in New York. Therefore these claims were at least capable of falling within the jurisdiction gateway provided for in s15B(2)(b) CJJA 1982.  Ground 3 argued that the first instance judge erred in staying these proceedings under section 9 of the arbitration Act without determining the fairness question or directing a trial before the English Court on the issues raised by that objection.

That ground was upheld for three reasons [151] ff which all go towards limits to Kompetenz Kompetenz in consumer (and other?) cases.

Firstly, the public importance of decisions vindicating (or not) consumers’ rights. The case Mr Soleymani is seeking to make has implications for  consumers in general in this jurisdiction and it is important that they are considered and ruled upon in public in a court. Therefore it was held the s9(4) issues should be decided at a trial and not left to be decided in the arbitral tribunal.

Further [152] the consumer protection rights under UK law involve domestic concepts which UK court are far better placed to adjudicate upon than a New York arbitrator. Even if it were certain that the New York Tribunal would apply UK law (a late proffered undertaking to do so was made and discussed [155] ff), it engages principles which are the subject matter of our domestic jurisprudence, not simply some general notion of fairness.

Thirdly whether the arbitration agreement does in fact operate unfairly on Mr Soleymani is not suited to summary determination. “If the invalidity argument is good, the very reasons which make it good, namely that it places an unfair burden on Mr Soleymani, weigh against allowing the tribunal to decide the issue under its Kompetenz-Kompetenz jurisdiction. The Judge’s finding that there would be nothing unfair about leaving it to the arbitrator to decide that issue is inconsistent with her recognition that there was a triable issue whether this was an unfair arbitration agreement.”

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 2.2.3.2, and 2.2.9.2.

Highly relevant judgment under retained EU law on possibility for consumers to enjoy jurisdictional protection of EU rules to avoid #arbitration outside of the EU
Review of the first instance judgment here https://t.co/G1wCZbigfs
Soleymani v Niftyhttps://t.co/3h8nGbIgGZ

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) October 6, 2022

Towercast
Concurrence
L’avocate générale Kokott estime qu’une concentration entre entreprises qui n’a pas fait l’objet d’un contrôle ex ante au titre de la législation sur le contrôle des concentrations peut faire l’objet d’un contrôle a posteriori sur la base de l’interdiction de l’abus de position dominante prévue par le droit primaire

S.C.R.L. (Vêtement à connotation religieuse)
Principes du droit communautaire
La règle interne d’une entreprise interdisant le port visible de signes religieux, philosophiques ou spirituels ne constitue pas une discrimination directe si elle est appliquée de manière générale et indifférenciée à tous les travailleurs

The Court of Justice delivered last month (15 September 2022) its judgment in case C‑18/21 (Uniqa Versicherungen AG v VU), which is about the EOP and COVID-19:

“Articles 16, 20 and 26 of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 […] must be interpreted as not precluding the application of national legislation, which was adopted when the COVID‑19 pandemic arose and which interrupted the procedural periods in civil matters for approximately five weeks, to the 30-day time limit laid down by Article 16(2) of that regulation for the defendant to lodge a statement of opposition to a European order for payment”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=265546&mode=req&pageIndex=6&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&cid=1393109

flightright (Transport aérien de Stuttgart à Kansas City)
Transport
Le droit à indemnisation des passagers aériens pour retard important s’applique aux vols avec correspondances composés de vols assurés par des transporteurs aériens effectifs distincts

Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej
Fiscalité TVA
Les services financiers fournis au titre d’un contrat de sous-participation sont exonérés de la TVA

Espagne / Commission
Aide d'État
L’avocat général Pikamäe propose d’annuler partiellement l’arrêt du Tribunal ainsi que la décision de la Commission sur le « régime espagnol de leasing fiscal »

LOT (Indemnisation imposée par l’autorité administrative)
Transport
L’autorité nationale chargée de l’application du règlement sur les droits des passagers aériens peut, à la suite de plaintes individuelles, obliger un transporteur à indemniser des passagers