Flux européens

Commission / Belgique et Magnetrol International
Aide d'État
Exonérations fiscales accordées par la Belgique à des sociétés multinationales par la voie de rulings : la Commission a établi à juste titre l’existence d’un régime d’aides

Commission / Italie
Fiscalité
L’Italie a enfreint le droit de l’Union en exonérant des droits d’accise les carburants des bateaux de plaisance privés, affrétés et utilisés par les utilisateurs finaux pour des activités non commerciales

CAPA e.a. / Commission
Aide d'État
Parcs éoliens en mer subventionnés par des aides au fonctionnement : le Tribunal rejette le recours introduit par une coopérative et des patrons pêcheurs contre la décision de la Commission de ne pas soulever d’objections

Saugmandsgaard Oe AG opined (no English version at the time of writing) last week in C‑242/20 HRVATSKE ŠUME on the classic conflict of laws issue of distinguishing contract from tort.. He, oddly perhaps, unless some technical reason for it escapes me, does not entertain the question on the scope of Article 24(5) Brussels Ia’s exclusive jurisdictional rule for ‘proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments’.

The Opinion is a Qualificationfest.

The case concerns actions for recovery of sums unduly paid, in other words, undue enrichment. This enrichment came about by a Croatian court having  earlier ordered Hrvatske Šume, debtor of  Futura, both of Croatia, to pay its debt to Futura directly to BP Europe SA, successor to Burmah Oil, both domiciled in Germany. Hrvatske appealed that order however that appeal did not halt the payment. Now that the appeal has turned out to be successful, Hrvatske want their money back yet so far Croatian courts have held that they do not have jurisdiction under Article 7(2) BIa (the case actually went under the the predecessor, Brussels I however there is no material difference).

As the referring court notes, there is no delicti commissi in the case of unjust enrichment: it is a non-contractual obligation in which no delict is committed. (This is the very reason Rome II includes a separate heading for unjust enrichment). One might suggest this would leave forum damni only under A7(2), however the AG correctly in my view re-emphasises the seminal statements in CJEU Kalfelis, that actions under A7(2) concern ‘all actions which seek to establish liability of a defendant  and which are not related to a ‘contract’ within the meaning of Article [7](1)’. Unjust enrichment not seeking to establish liability, A7(2) is not engaged. Along the way, note his discussion of linguistics and his seeking support in Rome II.

At 71 ff the AG distinguishes the wide interpretation of ‘establishing liability’ in CJEU Austro Mechana.

A clear implication of the Opinion is that it confirms a disjoint in BIa /Rome II: not all non-contractual obligations for which Rome II identifies a lex causae, are caught by A7(2) BIa’s forum delicti rule.

The AG also engages with the possibility of Croatia being forum contractus  (he kicks off his Opinion with this issue) and dismisses it, seeking support inter alia in CJEU Handte and also in Rome II specifically providing for an unjust enrichment heading. This part of the Opinion is more optimistically straightforward than one might have expected. Following flightright, Wikingerhof etc., A7(1) has been (unduly, in my view) stretched and it would be good to have the CJEU further clarifying same. (C-265/21, in which I have been instructed, might be just the case).

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, 2.419 ff.

Opinion Saugmandsgaard Oe this morning, C‑242/20 HRVATSKE ŠUME. Jurisdiction, Brussels Ia, concept of 'contract', delineation with A7(2) forum delicti. Actio pauliana. (In other words, a collection of old chestnuts).https://t.co/3R5qU9rvVn

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) September 9, 2021

Flowers & Ors v Centro Medico Salus Baleares SL & Anor [2021] EWHC 2437 (QB) is a case packed with jurisdictional complication under Brussels Ia. In early February 2020, Mrs Yvonne Flowers, then 67 years of age, was admitted on an emergency basis to a private hospital facility in Benidorm, Spain, with significant back discomfort and pain arising from spinal disc herniation. Nine days later she died in the same hospital from multiple organ failure having contracted sepsis. T

The principal issues at stake concern the level of proof required for a jurisdictional challenge; determination of domicile; the existence of a consumer contract and who can all avail themselves of the consequential jurisdictional rules; and when a matter ‘relates to’ insurance’.

Starting with the latter, Wood J stayed judgment on much of the issues until the CJEU will have ruled in C-708/20 Betty Tattersall,  on which James Beeton reports here and which engages similar issues as CJEU Cole, settled before judgment, and Hutchinson. Betty Tattersall will be a crucial judgment.

The level of proof for jurisdictional challenges was discussed at an extraordinary length in Brownlie, and the SC’s ruling is applied here as detailed in the judgment.

The claimants’ domicile is not ordinarily relevant under BIa but it is for the consumer and insurance title and its determination is subject to national law. Seeing as the judge finds a good arguable case that domicile is indeed established in England, no consideration of Spanish domicile rules is necessary.

The ‘newer’ elements of the case are first of all the existence of a consumer contract. There are 3 issues [67]: (i) Was there a contract between the late Mrs Flowers and Centro Medico? (ii) If there was, was it a consumer contract within the meaning of section 4 BIa? (iii) Does the Claimant’s claim against Centro Medico fall outside the scope of the consumer contracts section because it has not been brought by the “consumer” within the meaning of the section?

Ia Committeri is relied on and the judge has little hesitation [115] to find the existence of a contract. (Much about that has been written in German scholarship in the specific area of medical services).

Surprisingly though, the question whether there is a contract which meets with the A17 requirements is brushed over when it comes to the question whether the hospital directs its activities to England and Wales, which the court established as the relevant  domicile. Particularly in the context of emergency care, this does not seem to be a given.

The judge does enquire as to whether the claim which can no longer be pursued because the contracting (and thus weaker) party is now deceased, can be picked up by heirs in the same jurisdictional gateway and pursued on the basis of the domicile of either the deceased or the heirs. Schrems and KABEG are discussed, however unlike the first instance judge in Bonnie Lackey, Justice Wood [126] adopts a much less wide approach. There must be scope for a lot more discussion on this, for the scenario in Bonnie Lackey, of which I was critical, is quite different from that of the heirs who step in the  litigation shoes of the deceased.

Geert.

EU Private international law, 3rd ed. 2021, big chunks of Chapter 2.

Flowers v CMS
Jurisdiction, BIa, 'domicile', consumer section (whether there was consumer contract, and who needs to bring the claim), matters 'relating to' insurance
Latter element stayed pending CJEU Betty Tattersall. Other gateways prima facie acceptedhttps://t.co/K3YmPtjYDY

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) September 3, 2021

Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl (Demande ultérieure de protection internationale )
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Le droit de l’Union s’oppose à ce qu’une demande ultérieure de protection internationale soit rejetée comme irrecevable au seul motif qu’elle est fondée sur des faits qui existaient déjà lors de la procédure relative à la première demande

Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne
Agriculture
La Cour précise les conditions de protection dont bénéficient les produits couverts par une AOP prévues par le règlement portant organisation commune des marchés des produits agricoles

A short (and late – I am in mopping-up mood it seems) post on the AG’s Opinion in Case C‑124/20 Bank Melli Iran – in which he also cites my former colleague proximus Cédric Ryngaert. Hogan AG’s Opinion addresses the rock and the hard stone, or the devil and the deep blue sea dilemma facing corporations in the light of diverging export laws /sanctions law. May a German bank refuse to do business indeed end business with an Iranian bank, under pressure from US secondary export control laws?

More on the external relations aspects of the case is ia here and of course in the Opinion itself. My interest here lies in part of the Opinion: the AG’s view that an EU undertaking seeking to terminate an otherwise valid contract with an Iranian entity subject to the US sanctions must demonstrate to the  satisfaction of the national court that it did not do so by reason of its desire to comply with those sanctions. It must show other motives, such as ethical reservations about doing business with Iran. These reservations may be documented by a genuinely rolled-out CSR compliance program: (88)

‘In order, however, to establish that the reasons given in respect of any decision to terminate a contract on this ground were in fact sincere, the person referred to in Article 11 of the EU blocking statute in question − in the present case Telekom Deutschland – would need, in my view, to demonstrate that it is actively engaged in a coherent and systematic corporate social-responsibility policy (CSR) which requires them, inter alia, to refuse to deal with any company having links with the Iranian regime.’

CSR programs have been used as carrot ia in Trafigura and as stick ia in Vedanta. The view here is very much the carrot or if one likes, the shield function: CSR policies as a defensive weapon against the rock and hard stone dilemma. That is most interesting for the EU corporations concerned and likely to draw the attention of export sanctions practitioners (both in-house and out) to part of the corporation’s blurb which they may otherwise ignore. Yet it may put too much emphasis on fairly unregulated CSR policy drafting, and compliance issues.

Geert.

A most late flag on Nestlé & Cargill v John Doe at the US Supreme Court, back in June. I reported on the case here and if you follow Lucas’ thread on the case, there is further interesting and impromptu analysis. Readers of the blog may know I have published on the issue before – search tag ‘ATS’ should give you all cases referred to below.

This case reconfirms the mood viz the Alien Tort Statute,  a popular (if not the only!) vehicle for corporate social responsibility litigation: since Kiobel, the USSC has seriously reigned in the scope of application of the ATS. In Nestlé, it would seem to impose a further squeeze on the ATS jurisdictional gateway. In Apartheid and Jesner Bank, ‘aiding and abetting’ by the US corporate headquarters of culpable conduct by their subsidiaries abroad, seemed to be a burden of proof claimants had to meet in order for the action to be admissible under the ATS. In Nestlé the Court in its current composition (sub III of the majority Opinion) suggests that aiding and abetting in that interpretation risks becoming a court-introduced (hence in its view noli sequi) action in tort.

Sub II, the Court is not at all clear what the jurisdictional hurdle might be, except that it is a very high one: ‘Nearly all the conduct that [claimants] say aided and abetted forced labor—providing training, fertilizer, tools, and cash to overseas farms—occurred in Ivory Coast… allegations of general corporate activity—like decisionmaking—cannot alone establish domestic application of the ATS.’ (Interesting contrast here with the UKSC in ia Vedanta).

Not only could one debate whether this decision represents the intention of the ATS (which, even if one applies it in limited fashion, did historically mean to catch at least in part activities outside of the US). One also immediately sees the most unattractive consequence of this judgment: as long as the dirty work is left for foreign affiliates to carry out overseas, one escapes the reach of ATS. As Lucas points out, it is not clear what kind of headquarter engagement could still trigger a suit under the ATS.

There is little solace in the indication that the Court (both in majority opinion and minority concurrence) accepts that corporations are not as such immune from suit under the ATS (which links to the issues currently discussed in Nevsun Resources).

There will be more attempts to further refine the ATS scope. At the same time one imagines claimants will study in even greater detail than before, the possibility to bring the suit under more recent US federal laws with clear extraterritorial intent, such as in the field of corruption of export controls. As past (but now gone) ATS litigation shows, human rights and /or environmental suit need not necessarily label themselves as such.

Nomen non est omen. It is the end goal of human rights or environmental protection or, say, environmental justice which determines a suit’s character, no matter what prima facie subject matter the suit addresses. If one can advance these causes by suing under the by-laws of the World Philately Federation, say, one should have a good go at it.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Chapter 7.

For background to the case see https://t.co/EcFiv6EDgQ https://t.co/gXdWqrR0jB

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

bpost
DFON
L’avocat général Bobek propose une approche uniforme de la protection de la charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne contre la double incrimination (non bis in idem)

Commission / Conseil (Accord avec l’Arménie)
Droit institutionnel
La Cour annule les décisions du Conseil concernant l’application de l’accord de partenariat avec l’Arménie

EPSU / Commission
SOPO
Pourvoi EPSU : la Commission n’est pas tenue de donner suite à la demande de partenaires sociaux visant à mettre en œuvre, au niveau de l’Union, l’accord qu’ils ont conclu

Irish Ferries
Transport
La Cour clarifie un certain nombre de dispositions du règlement concernant les droits des passagers voyageant par mer ou par voie de navigation intérieure

Ja zum Nürburgring / Commission
Aide d'État
La Commission doit réexaminer si la vente du Nürburgring en 2014 impliquait l’octroi d’une aide d’État

INPS (Allocations de naissance et de maternité pour les titulaires de permis unique)
Sécurité sociale des travailleurs migrants
Les ressortissants de pays tiers titulaires d’un permis unique de travail obtenu en vertu de la législation italienne transposant une directive de l’Union ont le droit de bénéficier d’une allocation de naissance et d’une allocation de maternité telles que prévues par la réglementation italienne

État belge (Droit de séjour en cas de violence domestique)
Citoyenneté européenne
Selon la Cour, le ressortissant d’un pays tiers victime d’actes de violence domestique commis par son conjoint, citoyen de l’Union, ne se trouve pas dans une situation comparable à celle du ressortissant d’un pays tiers, victime d’actes de violence domestique commis par son conjoint, ressortissant d’un pays tiers

Commission / Portugal (Taxe sur les véhicules)
Fiscalité
Les modalités de calcul de la taxe d’immatriculation des véhicules d’occasion importés au Portugal portent atteinte au principe de la libre circulation des marchandises

Vodafone
Rapprochement des législations
Des options à « tarif nul » sont contraires au règlement sur l’accès à un Internet ouvert

OTP Jelzálogbank e.a.
Rapprochement des législations
La législation hongroise interdisant l’annulation d’un contrat de prêt libellé en devise étrangère au motif qu’il comporte une clause abusive relative à l’écart de change paraît être compatible avec le droit de l’Union

Homoki / Commission
Droit institutionnel
Le Tribunal annule la décision de l’OLAF de ne pas donner un accès partiel au rapport final de son enquête relative aux projets d’éclairage public réalisés par la société Élios en Hongrie avec participation financière de l’Union