Flux européens

Thelen Technopark Berlin

Malgré le fait que la Cour ait déjà constaté que la réglementation allemande fixant des montants minimaux d’honoraires pour les prestations des architectes et des ingénieurs (HOAI) est contraire à la directive « services », une juridiction nationale, saisie d’un litige opposant des particuliers, n’est pas tenue, sur le seul fondement du droit de l’Union, de laisser inappliquée cette réglementation allemande

Wiener Landesregierung (Révocation d'une assurance de naturalisation)
Citoyenneté européenne
La révocation d’une assurance de naturalisation doit respecter le principe de proportionnalité lorsqu’elle empêche de recouvrer la citoyenneté de l’Union

I am hoping to tackle some of the pre-Christmas queue this week, kicking off with the Opinion (no English version available) of Pikamae AG in C-568/20 J v H Limited. The case concerns the enforcement of a 2019 decision of the England & Wales High Court [I believe that judgment is Arab Jordan Investment Bank Plc & Anor v Sharbain [2019] EWHC 860 (Comm). The dates do not quite correspond (6 days of) but the amounts and line of argument do].

Clearly the UK were still a Member State at the time. The English decision was based, in turn, on two Jordanian judgments of 2013. It had rejected, on the basis of the English common law (judgments issued outside the EU are not subject to EU recognition and enforcement rules), the arguments against enforcement in the UK. The judge subsequently issued an Article 53 Brussels Ia certificate.

The issue is not whether a judgment merely confirming a non-EU judgment, may be covered by Article 53 Brussels Ia. CJEU Owens Bank has already held they cannot (see Handbook, 3rd ed. 2021, 2.573). The issue is rather whether, exequatur having been abandoned in Brussels Ia, arguments as to whether the judgment in the State of origin be at all covered by Brussels Ia, may be raised by way of an Article 45 objection to recognition and enforcement.

CJEU Diageo Brands, among others, has confirmed the narrow window for refusal of recognition on the basis of ordre public. The AG suggests wrong decisions on the scope of application of BIa, leading to incorrect A53 certificates, may fall within that category. Far from upsetting the principle of mutual trust, he suggests it is a necessary ‘safety valve’, a “soupape de sécurité » (40) which assist with said mutual trust. The AG qualifies the opinion by suggesting the issuing of an A53 certificate for a judgment that merely enforces an ex-EU judgment, is a grave error in the scope of application of the Regulation.

Should the CJEU confirm, discussion of course will ensue as to what are clear errors in the scope of application, or indeed in the very interpretation of Brussels Ia.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed 2021, Heading 2.2.17.1.

Opinion Pikamae AG yday, #CJEU C-568/20
Member State court may refuse recognition of other MS (UK, pre #Brexit) High Court judgment if said judgment merely enforces judgment from a third State, Jordan. Brussels Ia Title 3 'judgments' must emanate from a MShttps://t.co/NkJ6zh9FU9

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) December 17, 2021

Entrée en fonctions de trois nouveaux membres du Tribunal de l’Union européenne

Regione Puglia
Liberté d'établissement
Un État membre peut, dans les limites géographiques qu’il a fixées, octroyer à un même opérateur plusieurs permis de prospection, d’exploitation et d’extraction d’hydrocarbures, tels que le pétrole et le gaz naturel, pour des zones contiguës à condition de garantir à tous les opérateurs un accès non discriminatoire à ces activités et d’apprécier l’effet cumulé des projets susceptibles d’avoir un impact notable sur l’environnement

Allemagne - Ville de Paris e.a. / CommissionC-178/19 P Hongrie - Ville de Paris e.a./Commission
Environnement et consommateurs
La Cour annule l’arrêt du Tribunal sur l’annulation partielle du règlement de la Commission fixant des valeurs d’émissions pour les essais en conditions de conduite réelles des véhicules légers neufs

MIUR et Ufficio Scolastico Regionale per la Campania
DFON
Professeurs de religion catholique : la nécessité d’un titre d’aptitude délivré par une autorité ecclésiastique ne justifie pas le renouvellement de contrats à durée déterminée

Mahmudov & Anor v Sanzberro & Ors [2021] EWHC 3433 (QB) tackles the issue of libel tourism. As Collins Rice J puts it [3]

underlying the contest of law is a contest of two mainstream policies embodied in modern defamation law: on the one hand, the need for the law to keep up with the borderless realities of the internet, and on the other the need for international libel to be dealt with by the courts best able fairly to do so (or, to put it less neutrally, to prevent ‘libel tourism’).

The case is held under Brussels Ia for the claim was introduced on 31 December 2020, ‘IP completion day’.  Parties mostly seem at loggerheads over the implications of CJEU C-509/09 eDate. Claimants suggest eDate establishes a stand-alone full jurisdictional gateway for the Member State where the aggrieved has his or its centre of interests – CoI. Defendant claims [19]

there is still a binary choice, as per Shevill: to sue either (a) where a defendant is domiciled or (b) where a completed tort (the harmful event) occurred. The effect of eDate, they say, is that claimants taking the second route in their CoI country can now get global relief rather than being limited to compensation for harm arising in that individual state. CoI is not jurisdictional in the pure sense of introducing a freestanding basis for bringing an action somewhere; it is jurisdictional only to the limited or secondary (but nevertheless important) extent of the nature and quantum of the relief that may be sought.

Parties oddly seem in agreement that Shevill v Presse Alliance (No.2) [1996] AC 959 reaffirmed ([11] in Mahumdov]

that what constituted the ‘harmful event’ was to be determined by the national court applying its own substantive law. In other words, the preliminary jurisdictional question for the High Court in a libel case brought against a non-domiciled defendant was whether a claimant could show to the requisite standard that all the components of a tort actionable in the UK were present

I find that debatable to say the least, and in fact that consensus has an important impact on the judge’s final conclusion, which rejects CoI as a stand-alone gateway: [28] the judge sides with the defendants for the claimant’s reading would imply ‘an autonomous meaning of the ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ ‘. The latter, many might argue, must be the implication of the CJEU’s overall application of Brussels Ia. At [34] Napag Trading is offered in support however the judge I feel in Mahmudov should  have made a clearer distinction (as the judge did in Napag Trading) between the EU-governed jurisdictional gateway for tort, and the (England and Wales) governed Civil Procedure Rules test for a ‘good arguable case’. As I note in my review of Napag Trading, these CPR rules may still form a formidable procedural hurdle, however properly distinguishing between them is important, among others for costs reasons.

Geert.

Mahmudov & Anor v Sanzberro & Ors [2021] EWHC 3433 (QB) (17 December 2021)#libel tourism
Held E&W courts do not have jurisdiction per #CJEU Brussels Ia, Shevill, eDate etchttps://t.co/9vP1s5TJZd

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) December 20, 2021

The CJEU (Grand Chamber) delivered on 21 December 2021 its judgment in case C‑251/20 (Gtflix Tv), which is about Brussels I bis:

« Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 […] must be interpreted as meaning that a person who, considering that his or her rights have been infringed by the dissemination of disparaging comments concerning him or her on the internet, seeks not only the rectification of the information and the removal of the content placed online concerning him or her but also compensation for the damage resulting from that placement may claim, before the courts of each Member State in which those comments are or were accessible, compensation for the damage suffered in the Member State of the court seised, even though those courts do not have jurisdiction to rule on the application for rectification and removal ».

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=251510&mode=req&pageIndex=1&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&cid=5320006

Earlier on, on 16 September 2021, AG Hogan had suggested: “Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012 […] must be interpreted as meaning that a claimant who relies on an act of unfair competition consisting in the dissemination of disparaging statements on the internet and who seeks both the rectification of the data and the deletion of certain content and compensation for the non-material and economic damage resulting therefrom, may bring an action or claim before the courts of each Member State in the territory of which content published online is or was accessible, for compensation only for the damage caused in the territory of that Member State. In order, however, for those courts to have the requisite jurisdiction it is necessary that the claimant can demonstrate that it has an appreciable number of consumers in that jurisdiction who are likely to have access to and have understood the publication in question” (https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=246102&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2104).

The CJEU (Grand Chamber) delivered on 21 December 2021 its judgment in case C‑124/20 (Bank Melli Iran v Telekom Deutschland GmbH), which is about Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 (Protection against the effects of the extraterritorial application of legislation adopted by a third country):

« 1. The first paragraph of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 of 22 November 1996 […] must be interpreted as prohibiting persons referred to in Article 11 of Regulation No 2271/96, as amended, from complying with the requirements or prohibitions laid down in the laws specified in the annex to that regulation, even in the absence of an order directing compliance issued by the administrative or judicial authorities of the third countries which adopted those laws.

2. The first paragraph of Article 5 of Regulation No 2271/96, as amended by Regulation No 37/2014 and Delegated Regulation 2018/1100, must be interpreted as not precluding a person referred to in Article 11 of that regulation, as amended, who does not have an authorisation within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 5 of that regulation, as amended, from terminating contracts concluded with a person on the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List, without providing reasons for that termination. Nevertheless, the first paragraph of Article 5 of the same regulation, as amended, requires that, in civil proceedings relating to the alleged infringement of the prohibition laid down in that provision, where all the evidence available to the national court suggests prima facie that a person referred to in Article 11 of Regulation No 2271/96, as amended, complied with the laws specified in the annex to that regulation, as amended, without having an authorisation in that respect, it is for that same person to establish to the requisite legal standard that his or her conduct was not intended to comply with those laws.

3. Regulation No 2271/96, as amended by Regulation No 37/2014 and Delegated Regulation 2018/1100, in particular Articles 5 and 9 thereof, read in the light of Article 16 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding the annulment of the termination of contracts effected by a person referred to in Article 11 of that regulation, as amended, in order to comply with the requirements or prohibitions based on the laws specified in the annex to that regulation, as amended, even though that person does not have an authorisation, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 5 of the same regulation, as amended, provided that that annulment does not entail disproportionate effects for that person having regard to the objectives of Regulation No 2271/96, as amended, consisting in the protection of the established legal order and the interests of the European Union in general. In that assessment of proportionality, it is necessary to weigh in the balance the pursuit of those objectives served by the annulment of the termination of a contract effected in breach of the prohibition laid down in the first paragraph of Article 5 of that regulation, as amended, and the probability that the person concerned may be exposed to economic loss, as well as the extent of that loss, if that person cannot terminate his or her commercial relationship with a person included in the list of persons covered by the secondary sanctions at issue resulting from the laws specified in the annex to that regulation, as amended ».

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=251507&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=5321152

AG Pikamae delivered on 16 December 2021 his opinion in case C‑568/20 (J), which is about the incorrect use of Brussels I bis by the court of origin. 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).

Question : « À la suite de la délivrance, par la juridiction de l’État membre d’origine, du certificat prévu à l’article 53 du règlement (UE) no 1215/2012 (2), attestant du caractère exécutoire de la décision rendue et de l’applicabilité de ce règlement, la juridiction de l’État membre requis, saisie d’une demande de refus d’exécution de cette décision par la personne contre laquelle l’exécution est sollicitée, peut-elle y faire droit au motif d’une appréciation erronée quant au caractère applicable dudit règlement, dans la mesure où la procédure suivie devant la juridiction de l’État membre d’origine visait à déclarer exécutoires des jugements rendus dans un État tiers ? ».

Suggested response : «  Les articles 45 et 46 du règlement (UE) no 1215/2012 du Parlement européen et du Conseil, du 12 décembre 2012 […] doivent être interprétés en ce sens que la juridiction de l’État membre requis, saisie d’une demande de refus d’exécution, peut y faire droit au motif que la décision et le certificat, prévu à l’article 53 de ce règlement, adoptés par la juridiction de l’État membre d’origine violent l’ordre public de l’État membre requis dès lors que l’erreur de droit invoquée constitue une violation manifeste d’une règle de droit considérée comme étant essentielle dans l’ordre juridique de l’Union et donc dans celui de cet État. Tel est le cas d’une erreur affectant l’application de l’article 2, sous a), et de l’article 39 dudit règlement exigeant que la décision dont l’exécution est demandée soit rendue dans un État membre.
Lorsqu’il vérifie l’existence éventuelle d’une violation manifeste de l’ordre public de l’État requis, du fait de la méconnaissance d’une règle de fond ou de forme du droit de l’Union, le juge de cet État doit tenir compte du fait que, sauf circonstances particulières rendant trop difficile ou impossible l’exercice des voies de recours dans l’État membre d’origine, les justiciables doivent faire usage dans cet État membre de toutes les voies de recours disponibles afin de prévenir en amont une telle violation ».

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=251315&mode=req&pageIndex=2&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=FR&cid=5321152

The Court of Justice delivered on 9 December 2021 its judgment in case C‑708/20 (BT v Seguros Catalana Occidente, EB), which is about Article 13 Brussels I bis:

« Article 13(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 […] must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of a direct action brought by the injured person against an insurer in accordance with Article 13(2) thereof, the court of the Member State in which that person is domiciled cannot also assume jurisdiction, on the basis of Article 13(3) thereof, to rule on a claim for compensation brought at the same time by that person against the policyholder or the insured who is domiciled in another Member State and who has not been challenged by the insurer ».

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=250867&mode=req&pageIndex=4&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&cid=5332111

The Court of Justice delivered on 9 December 2021 its judgment in case C‑242/20 (Hrvatske Sume), which is about Brussels I.

Context: “proceedings between, on the one hand, HRVATSKE ŠUME d.o.o., Zagreb, a company established in Croatia, successor in title to HRVATSKE ŠUME javno poduzeće za gospodarenje šumama i šumskim zemljištima u Republici Hrvatskoj p.o., Zagreb, and, on the other, BP Europa SE Hamburg, a company established in Germany, successor in title to Deutsche BP AG, in turn successor in title to The Burmah Oil (Deutschland) GmbH, concerning the recovery, on the basis of unjust enrichment, of an amount unduly paid in enforcement proceedings which were subsequently declared invalid”.

Decision: « 1. Article 22(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an action for restitution based on unjust enrichment does not come within the exclusive jurisdiction provided for by that provision, even though it was brought on account of the expiry of the time limit within which restitution of sums unduly paid in enforcement proceedings may be claimed in the context of the same enforcement proceedings.

2. Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that an action for restitution based on unjust enrichment does not fall within the scope of the ground of jurisdiction laid down in that provision ».

Note paragraph 36 : « In the absence of any application for enforcement, an action for restitution based on unjust enrichment does not come within the scope of Article 22(5) of Regulation No 44/2001 ».

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=250865&mode=req&pageIndex=5&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&cid=5334182

AG Saugmandsgaard Oe had previously, on 9 September 2021, delivered the following opinion: « Article 5(1) and Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 [..] must be interpreted as meaning that a claim for restitution based on unjust enrichment:
– is not a matter ‘relating to a contract’ within the meaning of the former provision, except where it is closely linked to a prior contractual relationship existing, or deemed to exist, between the parties to the dispute; and
– is not a matter ‘relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ within the meaning of the latter provision » (https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=245764&mode=req&pageIndex=23&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&cid=2104).

AG Campos Sanchez-Bordona delivered on 2 December 2021 his opinion in case C‑645/20 (V A), which is about the Succession Regulation.

Context: “1. The Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation, France) asks the Court of Justice whether the authorities of a Member State (2) in which the deceased has assets must establish of their own motion their jurisdiction to rule on the succession as a whole under Article 10 of Regulation No 650/2012.

2. The uncertainty has arisen in the course of a dispute over succession rights between the children of a deceased French citizen whose last habitual residence in France is contested, on the one hand, and the person who was the deceased’s wife (but not the mother of his children) at the time of his death, on the other.

3. None of the parties disputes the nationality of the deceased at the time of his death, or that he was the owner of a property situated in France. The disagreement lies only in where he was habitually resident when he died

4. At first instance, a French court declared that it had jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim brought by the deceased’s children, who had applied for the appointment of an administrator for the estate.

5. On appeal, however, the relevant court held that the French judicial authorities lacked jurisdiction over the succession as a whole, as the deceased’s last place of residence had been in the United Kingdom.

6. On appeal in cassation, the appellants claim that, in any event, the French courts should have declared that they had jurisdiction on their own initiative, which is the issue that forms the subject of the referring court’s question”.

Suggested response: “Article 10(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 […] must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where the deceased did not have his last habitual residence in any Member State of the European Union, the court of a Member State in which a dispute in a matter of succession has arisen must declare of its own motion that it has jurisdiction to settle the succession as a whole if, in the light of facts alleged by the parties which are not in dispute, the deceased was a national of that State at the time of his death and was the owner of assets located there”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=250423&mode=req&pageIndex=5&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&cid=5334182

On 25 November 2021, the CJEU delivered its judgment in case C‑289/20 (IB v FA), which is about Article 3 Brussels II bis.

Decision: “Article 3(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 […] must be interpreted as meaning that a spouse who divides his or her time between two Member States may have his or her habitual residence in only one of those Member States, with the result that only the courts of the Member State in which that habitual residence is situated have jurisdiction to rule on the application for the dissolution of matrimonial ties”.

Note: the Court has clearly indicated, in the preceding paragraphs, the particular State it believes the spouse to be resident in (subject to the national court’s assessment):

“59 In the present case, as is apparent from the documents before the Court, it is common ground that IB, a national of the Member State of the national court seised, satisfied the condition – laid down in the sixth indent of Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No 2201/2003 – of having resided in that Member State for at least six months immediately before lodging his application for the dissolution of matrimonial ties. It is also established that, since May 2017, IB has been carrying out, on a stable and permanent basis, a professional activity of indefinite duration in France during the week, and that he stays in an apartment there for the purposes of that professional activity.

60 That evidence indicates that IB’s stay in the territory of that Member State is stable and also shows, at the very least, IB’s integration into a social and cultural environment within that Member State”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=250046&mode=req&pageIndex=6&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&cid=5338385

On 25 November 2021, the CJEU delivered its judgment in case C‑25/20 (NK, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Alpine BAU GmbH) :

« Article 32(2) of Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 […], read in conjunction with Articles 4 and 28 of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that the lodging, in secondary insolvency proceedings, of claims already submitted in the main insolvency proceedings by the liquidator in those proceedings is subject to the provisions relating to time limits for the lodging of claims and to the consequences of lodging such claims out of time, laid down by the law of the State of the opening of those secondary proceedings ».

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=250042&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=3696513

AG Campos Sanchez-Bordona delivered on 28 October 2021 his opinion in case C‑498/20 (ZK). 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).

Suggested decision: “1) L’article 1er, paragraphe 2, sous d), du règlement (CE) no 864/2007 […] doit être interprété en ce sens qu’il exclut de son champ d’application les obligations non contractuelles résultant d’un manquement au devoir de diligence des associés ou des organes lorsque la loi rend ceux-ci responsables d’un tel manquement à l’égard des tiers pour des raisons propres au droit des sociétés. La responsabilité découlant de la violation du devoir général de diligence n’est pas exclue du champ d’application du règlement.

2) L’article 4, paragraphe 1, du règlement Rome II doit être interprété en ce sens que “le lieu où le dommage survient” est le lieu où est établie la société, lorsque le préjudice subi par ses créanciers est la conséquence médiate de pertes économiques subies en premier lieu par la société elle-même. La circonstance que les actions soient exercées par un curateur, au titre de sa mission légale de liquidation de la masse active, ou par une personne assurant la défense collective d’intérêts pour le compte de (mais, non pas, au nom de) l’ensemble des créanciers est sans incidence sur la détermination de ce lieu. Le fait que le domicile de certains créanciers soit situé en dehors de l’Union européenne n’est pas davantage pertinent.

3) L’article 4, paragraphe 3, du règlement Rome II doit être interprété en ce sens qu’une relation préexistante entre l’auteur d’un dommage et la victime directe (telle que, par exemple, une convention de financement, pour laquelle les parties ont choisi la loi applicable) est un élément qui doit être mis en balance avec les autres circonstances afin d’établir s’il existe un lien manifestement plus étroit entre le fait dommageable et un pays déterminé qu’entre ce même fait et le pays dont la loi serait applicable en vertu de l’article 4, paragraphes 1 ou 2, dudit règlement”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=248304&mode=req&pageIndex=11&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=FR&cid=5352290

AG Szpunar delivered on 28 October 2021 his opinion in case C‑421/20 (Acacia Srl v BMW AG). 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). The issue requires a clarification of the articulation between the 3 Regulations: “1. Le noyau dur du droit international privé de l’Union est composé des règles de compétence et des règles de conflit figurant, respectivement, dans le règlement (UE) no 1215/2012et les deux règlements jumeaux sur la loi applicable aux obligations contractuelles et non contractuelles, à savoir les règlements (CE) nos 593/2008 et 864/2007.

2. Ces règlements ont des champs d’application particulièrement larges. Cela étant, l’application des règles de compétence du règlement no 1215/2012 requiert l’existence d’un élément d’extranéité qui se traduit par le caractère international du rapport juridique en cause découlant de l’implication de plusieurs États. Pareillement, les règles de conflit des règlements Rome I et Rome II s’appliquent dans les situations comportant un conflit de lois.

3. Par ailleurs, sans préjudice de ces exigences relatives à l’existence d’un élément d’extranéité, les règlements no 1215/2012 et Rome II prévoient des exceptions en faveur des dispositions particulières du droit de l’Union en donnant une priorité, notamment, à celles du règlement (CE) no 6/2002.

4. Le présent renvoi préjudiciel donne à la Cour l’occasion de clarifier l’articulation entre ces trois règlements en ce qui concerne les situations visées à l’article 82, paragraphe 5, du règlement no 6/2002, à savoir celles dans lesquelles une action en contrefaçon est portée devant les tribunaux de l’État membre sur le territoire duquel le fait de contrefaçon a été commis ou menace d’être commis”.

Suggested decision: “1) L’article 1er, paragraphe 1, du règlement (CE) no 864/2007 […] et l’article 88, paragraphe 2, et l’article 89, paragraphe 1, sous d), du règlement (CE) no 6/2002 du Conseil, du 12 décembre 2001, sur les dessins ou modèles communautaires doivent être interprétés en ce sens que, lorsqu’un tribunal d’un État membre est saisi au titre de l’article 82, paragraphe 5, de ce dernier règlement d’une action en contrefaçon d’un titulaire établi dans cet État membre contre un auteur de contrefaçon établi dans un autre État membre, qui vise la proposition à la vente et la mise sur le marché de ce premier État membre des produits en cause, il s’agit d’une situation comportant un conflit de lois au sens de l’article 1er, paragraphe 1, du règlement no 864/2007 et, en conséquence, l’article 8, paragraphe 2, de ce règlement désigne la loi applicable aux demandes annexes visant le territoire de cet État membre.

2) L’article 8, paragraphe 2, du règlement no 864/2007 doit être interprété en ce sens que, en ce qui concerne la détermination de la loi applicable aux demandes annexes à cette action en contrefaçon, la notion de « pays dans lequel il a été porté atteinte à ce droit », au sens de cette disposition, vise le pays du lieu où l’acte de contrefaçon initial, qui est à l’origine du comportement reproché, a été commis”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=248303&mode=req&pageIndex=11&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=FR&cid=5352290

The CJEU held yesterday in Grand Chamber in C-251/20 GtflixTV – for the facts see my initial flag of the case here. I reviewed the Opinion of Hogan AG here. The AG need not have bothered for the Court entirely ignores the Opinion.

The AG had predicted, as had I, that the CJEU would not heed his calls (joining those of plenty of AGs before him) that the Article 7(2) CJEU Bier introduced distinction between Handlungsort and Erfolgort be abandoned or at least curtailed. The CJEU however also dismisses his suggestion that the case at issue, which involves defamation of competitors over the internet, does not engage the Bolagsupplysningen case-law (infringement of personality rights over the internet) but rather Tibor Trans on acts of unfair competition.

I do not see quite clearly in the Grand Chamber’s mention [28] that Gtlix did not request inaccessibility of the information in France: for Gtflix did request retraction.

Instead of qualifying locus damni jurisdiction, the CJEU squarely confirms its faith in the Mosaic consequences of Article 7(2) locus damni jurisdiction. Each court in whose district damage has occurred, will continue to have locus damni jurisdiction even if the claimant requests rectification of the information and the removal of the content placed online in the Handlungsort or centre of interests jurisdiction. Locus damni jurisdiction in my view extends only to the damage occurring in that district (for Article 7(2) determines territorial, not just national jurisdiction), albeit in current, internet related case the CJEU [38] would seem to speak of ‘national’ jurisdiction, linked to accessibility in the Member State as a whole.

Those courts’ locus damni jurisdiction is subject to the sole condition that the harmful content must be accessible or have been accessible in that Member State. Per CJEU Pinckney, an additional direction of activities to that Member State is not required (the recent High Court approach in Mahmudov on which I shall blog shortly, is at odds with that approach nota bene).

Grand Chamber judgments must not only be expected in cases where earlier authority is radically changed or qualified. It can also occur in cases where the CJEU wishes to reconfirm a point earlier made but stubbornly resisted in scholarship and lukewarmly embraced in national court practice.

Geert.

#CJEU Gtflix. Insulting comments viz competitor do fall within A7(2) Brussels Ia forum delicti. Aggrieved claimant may sue for damages in every jurisdiction where the publication was accessible. Court confirms Mozaik jurisdiction https://t.co/dhz5AlGJ9A https://t.co/GOwADA02Wu

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) December 21, 2021

Trapeza Peiraios
Environnement et consommateurs
La Cour précise l'étendue de la protection assurée aux consommateurs dans le cadre d’un contrat de prêt remboursable en devise étrangère