Flux européens

AB e.a.
Avocate générale Kokott : mandat d’arrêt européen motivé par l’enlèvement du fils d’un ancien président slovaque et émis après la révocation d’une amnistie

M.I.C.M.
Liberté d'établissement
L’enregistrement systématique d’adresses IP d’utilisateurs et la communication de leurs noms et adresses postales au titulaire des droits intellectuels ou à un tiers afin de permettre d’introduire un recours en indemnisation sont admissibles sous certaines conditions

In Greenaway v Parrish & Ors [2021] EWHC 1506 (QB) ( I signaled it a while ago but the case has only recently appeared on BAILII), Spencer J had to consider the practical implications of the impossibility of referrals to the Court of Justice of the EU, by UK judges. Plenty of pending cases were introduced before Brexit day. Moreover, an even larger number of cases will be subject to retained EU law.

In a specific conflict of laws sense, this raises the particular (procedural and substantive) issue of foreign law being fact and hence needing to be proven. Retained and /or previously applicable EU law, will not be foreign law as such, yet clearly it is law of a different nature than UK statutory and common law across the isles.

The practical implications of all this have now surfaced in Greenaway. Following CJEU CILFIT, EU law is (usually) equally authentic in 22 languages. In the case at hand, this centres upon the meaning of the word ‘stolen’, in the motor insurance Directive 2009/103. How should a judge inform her /himself of the meaning of the word in the 22 languages, and potentially also of the implementation of the Directive across the Member States. 12 King’s Bench Walk have analysis of the case here. As they note, Mr Justice Spencer granted permission to each party to adduce four foreign law experts reports in EU jurisdictions of their choosing, so that the relevant foreign language versions of the Directive could be understood. He also gave permission for those experts to give evidence as to the implementation of the Directive in those member states, that material being part of the context in which the point at issue had to be decided.

This is an important procedural point which no doubt will surface in a variety of shapes in years to come.

Geert.

Languages and retained EU law
Of much note indeed
Greenaway & Rocks v Covea Insurance ea
How should the E&W courts deal with the CILFIT principle of 22 authentic language versions (see https://t.co/TE7wheSbTP) viz 'stolen' in Dir 2009/103
paging @Prof_KMcA @stefaanvdjeught https://t.co/0XhfqUdIbL

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) March 18, 2021

Sharpston / Conseil et Conférence des Représentants des Gouvernements des États membres
Droit institutionnel
La Cour confirme le rejet de deux recours en annulation introduits par Mme Eleanor Sharpston, aux fins de faire constater l’illégalité de la fin anticipée de son mandat d’avocate générale du fait du retrait du Royaume-Uni de Grande Bretagne et d’Irlande du Nord de l’Union européenne

The Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) delivered today its decision in case C‑645/19 (Facebook Ireland Ltd, Facebook Inc., Facebook Belgium BVBA, v Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit), which is about the cross-border processing of personal data:

“1. Article 55(1), Articles 56 to 58 and Articles 60 to 66 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 […] on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data […] read together with Articles 7, 8 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a supervisory authority of a Member State which […] has the power to bring any alleged infringement of that regulation to the attention of a court of that Member State and, where necessary, to initiate or engage in legal proceedings, may exercise that power in relation to an instance of cross‑border data processing even though it is not the ‘lead supervisory authority’, within the meaning of Article 56(1) of that regulation, with respect to that data processing, provided that that power is exercised in one of the situations where Regulation 2016/679 confers on that supervisory authority a competence to adopt a decision finding that such processing is in breach of the rules contained in that regulation and that the cooperation and consistency procedures laid down by that regulation are respected.

2. Article 58(5) of Regulation 2016/679 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of cross-border data processing, it is not a prerequisite for the exercise of the power of a supervisory authority of a Member State, other than the lead supervisory authority, to initiate or engage in legal proceedings, within the meaning of that provision, that the controller with respect to the cross-border processing of personal data against whom such proceedings are brought has a main establishment or another establishment on the territory of that Member State.

3. Article 58(5) of Regulation 2016/679 must be interpreted as meaning that the power of a supervisory authority of a Member State, other than the lead supervisory authority, to bring any alleged infringement of that regulation to the attention of a court of that Member State and, where appropriate, to initiate or engage in legal proceedings, within the meaning of that provision, may be exercised both with respect to the main establishment of the controller which is located in that authority’s own Member State and with respect to another establishment of that controller, provided that the object of the legal proceedings is a processing of data carried out in the context of the activities of that establishment and that that authority is competent to exercise that power, in accordance with the terms of the answer to the first question referred.

4. Article 58(5) of Regulation 2016/679 must be interpreted as meaning that, where a supervisory authority of a Member State which is not the ‘lead supervisory authority’ […] has brought a legal action, the object of which is an instance of cross-border processing of personal data, before 25 May 2018, that is, before the date when that regulation became applicable, that action may, from the perspective of EU law, be continued on the basis of the provisions of Directive 95/46/EC […] on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, which remains applicable in relation to infringements of the rules laid down in that directive committed up to the date when that directive was repealed. That action may, in addition, be brought by that authority with respect to infringements committed after that date, on the basis of Article 58(5) of Regulation 2016/679, provided that that action is brought in one of the situations where, exceptionally, that regulation confers on a supervisory authority of a Member State which is not the ‘lead supervisory authority’ a competence to adopt a decision finding that the processing of data in question is in breach of the rules contained in that regulation with respect to the protection of the rights of natural persons as regards the processing of personal data, and that the cooperation and consistency procedures laid down by that regulation are respected, which it is for the referring court to determine.

5. Article 58(5) of Regulation 2016/679 must be interpreted as meaning that that provision has direct effect, with the result that a national supervisory authority may rely on that provision in order to bring or continue a legal action against private parties, even where that provision has not been specifically implemented in the legislation of the Member State concerned”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=242821&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=14254177

Aldricus – Makanan ialah zat yang dikonsumsi oleh makhluk hidup untuk memperoleh gizi yang selanjutnya dibuat jadi energi. Karbohidrat, lemak, protein, vitamin, dan mineral sebagai nutrien pada makanan yang diperlukan oleh badan. Cairan yang digunakan untuk tujuan ini kerap disebutkan minuman, tapi kata ‘makanan’ bisa juga digunakan. Makanan yang dimakan oleh manusia disebutkan pangan, sedang makanan yang dimakan oleh hewan disebutkan pakan.

Kualitas satu makanan bisa dipandang dari energi makanan dan usia taruh yang dipunyainya. Mengonsumsi makanan secara tidak pas atau kurang cukup akan mengakibatkan malnutrisi, yang bisa berbuntut pada beragam masalah kesehatan.

Disamping itu, beberapa macam makanan dapat memacu munculnya alergi makanan saat dimakan oleh pribadi yang peka. Bahan makanan dibuat jadi beragam sajian yang berbeda dan jadi keunikan satu kebudayaan atau warga di lokasi geografis tertentu. Makanan sebagai subyek yang didalami dalam beragam pengetahuan, seperti pengetahuan pangan, pengetahuan nutrisi atau gizi, dan gastronomi.

2017 itu trendingnya makanan sehat . Maka, untuk kamu yang ingin ngikutin trend saat ini, mulai seringkali dech searching resep makanan sehat. Satu diantaranya alpukat yang menjadi bahan makan harus buat trend makanan sehat tahun 2017 ini. Yuk lihat resepnya!

1. Avocado Toast

Jika kamu umumnya makan pagi dengan toast dan selai, coba saat ini tukar menu sarapanmu dengan toast dan alpukat. Sama gampangnya dan rasanya juga lebih nikmat dan sehat. Triknya mudah, mengambil daging buah alpukat dan remukin kasar dengan memakai sendok, jadi dech seperti selai kasar. Jika kamu ingin menambah rasa, kamu dapat taburin chili powder di atasnya.

2. Avocado Steak

Alpukat pas sekali lho buat jadi rekan makan steak. Jika umumnya kamu cicipin dengan sauce barbecue, saat ini kamu punyai rekomendasi lain yakni sauce alpukat. Triknya sama gampangnya seperti buat selai alpukat untuk toast-mu barusan.

3. Avocado Salsa

Sukai makan nachos gunakan sambal salsa? Nach, saat ini kamu dapat tambahin akar alpukat dalam sauce salsa itu. Dengan kombinasi tomat, bawan bombay dan alpukat, ditanggung kesan makan nachos gunakan sauce salsamu menjadi lebih terasa.

4. Avocado Tacos

Siapa ngomong goreng-gorengan tidak sehat? Jika bahan intinya alpukat, tentu masih sehat, donk? Nach, buat alternatif daging-dagingan, kamu dapat buat fried avocado buat jadi isian Tacos ini. Tambahin dengan sauce salsa atau irisan tomat dan paprika, Tacos a la kamu tentu lebih nikmat!

5. Baked Avocado

Alpukat bisa juga kamu jadiin makanan fancy lho dengan memadukannya dengan rebusan telur 1/2 masak di atasnya. Trus, untuk sentuhan akhir, kamu dapat kasih taburan keju parmesan atau chili powder dech. Hm, nikmat!

6. Pea dan Avocado Pizza

Saat ini, style makan pizza dapat semakin sehat kembali dengan menukar topping-nya. Jika umumnya kamu pakai sauce barbecue, saat ini kamu dapat tukar dengan sauce alpukat dengan potongan tipis dan potongan buah-buahan yang lain. Tidak kalah menarik dech visualnya seperti pizza komersial yang lain!

7. Avocado Soup

Sukai malas makan buah? Jus saja! Dengan percampuran beragam bahan buah-buahan dan makanan jadi sup, tentu kamu menjadi lebih nikmat melahapnya. Kasih topping buah-buahan lain yang lebih fresh seperti mangga.

8. Salmon Avocado Sauce

Salmon dan sauce alpukat sebagai salah satunya kombinasi yang tidak ada yang dapat menyaingi. Dengan memakai alpukat yang telah diblender secara lembut, tentu rasa Baked Salmonmu menjadi lebih nikmat dan sehat. Ingin mencoba?

Normal 0 false false false EN-ID X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
mso-ansi-language:#0021;}

The post 8 Cara Sehat Nikmatin Alpukat di Sajian Makananmu appeared first on Aldri Blog.

Facebook Ireland e.a.
Principes du droit communautaire
Règlement général sur la protection des données (RGPD) : la Cour précise les conditions d’exercice des pouvoirs des autorités nationales de contrôle pour le traitement transfrontalier de données

A quick note on Dhir v Flutter Entertainment Plc (Rev 2) [2021] EWHC 1510 (QB), in which Griffiths J had to consider ia whether choice of law had been made at all and if so (or also if no choice of law had been made), whether this was for the onshore law of the Emirate of Dubai – onshore Dubai law, or for the law of the Dubai International Financial Centre – DIFC.

Claimant (Amarjeet Dhir) is a Dubai-based businessman who advanced money to another businessman in Dubai which he thought would be invested in the local property market. Unknown to him, the man taking his money (Tony Parente) was a gambling addict. As Mr Parente now admits, he applied money he had been given by Mr Dhir (and, it seems, others) to fund his gambling habit. One of the gambling businesses with which he lost a lot of money in a short space of time was the defendant, through that part of its operations branded as Paddy Power. Mr Dhir now seeks to recover from Paddy Power money in its hands which he says represents the money he is entitled to recover from Mr Parente.

The relevant agreement includes express choice of law as follows: 

“This agreement is signed in Dubai and shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of Dubai”.

Claimant says that it meant DIFC laws, while defendant says that it means onshore Dubai law). All experts agreed that it had to be one or the other: it could not be both.

[116] jurisdiction before the E&W Courts is by prorogation (A26 Brussels Ia). Both parties agree [129] that the Rome I Regulation guides the search for the lex contractus. The agreement is silent on choice of court: otherwise that could certainly have been a factor in determining choice of law (recital 12 Rome I). In general [118] the judge is cautious in ‘letting the jurisdiction dog wagging the choice of law tail’, and held the many ties of parties and contract with Dubai (including signature at Dubai and not DIFC: a geographically distinct location) pointed to onshore Dubai law as  lex contractus.

Choice of law therefore made not verbatim, yet ‘clearly demonstrated’ (A3(1) Rome I).

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 3.2.4.

Dhir v Flutter Entertainment [2021] EWHC 1510 (QB)
Considers ia A3(1) Rome I: choice of law: whether agreement to advance monies is governed by the onshore law of the Emirate of Dubai or by the law of the Dubai International Financial Centre DIFChttps://t.co/PrQQwQCXrd

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) June 14, 2021

The London Steam-Ship Mutual Insurance Association Ltd v The Kingdom of Spain (M/T PRESTIGE) [2021] EWHC 1247 (Comm) has been in my blog in-tray for a little while: I had thought of using it for exam purposes but have now decided against that.

The case is the appeal against Cook J’s registration of the Spanish judgment in the Prestige disaster.  I have reported thrice before on the wider litigation – please use tag ‘Prestige’ in the search box.

References in the judgment are to Brussels I (44/2001), not its successor, Brussels Ia (1215/2012) however the  relevant provisions have not materially changed. Application is for recognition and enforcement of the Spanish Judgment to be refused,  and the Registration Order to be set aside for one or both of two main reasons, namely: (1) that the Spanish Judgment is irreconcilable with a 2013 Hamblen J order, upheld on Appeal,  enforcing the  relevant Spanish award (A34(3) BI), and (2) that recognition would entail a manifest breach of English public policy in respect of (a) the rule of res judicata and/or (b) human and fundamental rights (A34(1) BI).

Butcher J referred the first issue to the CJEU on 18 December 2020 – just before the Brexit deadline. I have not been able to obtain a copy of that judgment – the judge merely refers to it in current one. The CJEU reference, now known as Case C-700/20, is quite exciting for anyone interested in the relationship between arbitration and the Brussels regime. Questions referred, are

1) Given the nature of the issues which the national court is required to determine in deciding whether to enter judgment in the terms of an award under Section 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996, is a judgment granted pursuant to that provision capable of constituting a relevant ‘judgment’ of the Member State in which recognition is sought for the purposes of Article 34(3) of EC Regulation No 44/2001?

(2) Given that a judgment entered in the terms of an award, such as a judgment under Section 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996, is a judgment falling outside the material scope of Regulation No 44/2001 by reason of the Article 1(2)(d) arbitration exception, is such a judgment capable of constituting a relevant ‘judgment’ of the Member State in which recognition is sought for the purposes of Article 34(3) of the Regulation?

(3) On the hypothesis that Article 34(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 does not apply, if recognition and enforcement of a judgment of another Member State would be contrary to domestic public policy on the grounds that it would violate the principle of res judicata by reason of a prior domestic arbitration award or a prior judgment entered in the terms of the award granted by the court of the Member State in which recognition is sought, is it permissible to rely on Article 34(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 as a ground of refusing recognition or enforcement or do Articles 34(3) and (4) of the Regulation provide the exhaustive grounds by which res judicata and/or irreconcilability can prevent recognition and enforcement of a Regulation judgment?

These are exciting questions both on the arbitration exception and on the res judicata refusal for recognition and enforcement. They bring into focus the aftermath of CJEU West Tankers in which the status of the High Court confirmation of the English award was also an issue.

The Club’s argument that recognition would be contrary to English public policy because the Spanish Judgment involved a breach of human and fundamental rights was not referred to the CJEU. Discussion  here involves ia CJEU Diageo. Suggested breaches, are A 14(5) ICCPR; breach of fundamental rights in the Master being convicted on the basis of new factual findings made by the Supreme Court; inequality of arms; and; A1P1.

There is little point in rehashing the analysis made by Butcher J: conclusion at any rate is that all grounds fail.

That CJEU case is one to look out for!

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed 2021, 2.84 ff, 2.590 ff.

 

Allemagne - Ville de Paris e.a. / Commission
Environnement et consommateurs
Avocat général Bobek : la Cour devrait rejeter les pourvois formés contre l’arrêt du Tribunal annulant les limites trop élevées d’émission d’oxydes d’azote (NOx) que la Commission avait fixées pour les essais en conditions de conduite réelles à la suite du scandale du « Dieselgate »

Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Notion de "menaces graves et individuelles")
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Lorsqu’elles sont saisies d’une demande de protection subsidiaire, les autorités compétentes des États membres doivent examiner l’ensemble des circonstances pertinentes caractérisant la situation du pays d’origine du demandeur afin de déterminer le degré d’intensité d’un conflit armé

BNP Paribas Personal Finance
Environnement et consommateurs
Un consommateur ayant souscrit un prêt libellé en devise étrangère qui ignore le caractère abusif d’une clause incluse dans le contrat de prêt ne peut être exposé à aucun délai de prescription pour la restitution des sommes payées sur la base de cette clause

KRONE - Verlag
Rapprochement des législations
Un article dans un journal imprimé, qui dispense un conseil de santé inexact relatif à l’utilisation d’une plante, dont le respect a causé un dommage à la santé d’un lecteur, ne constitue pas un produit défectueux au sens du droit de l’Union

In DTEK Energy BV, Re [2021] EWHC 1551 (Ch) Norris J yesterday expanded on his reason to sanction this scheme of arrangement of a Dutch corporation. I had referenced an earlier DTEK scheme in my post here. The judge firstly pointed out the straddle position of the E&W courts, in assessing the sanction of the scheme from the jurisdictional point of view: [30]:

for the purposes of testing whether the Judgments Regulation presented a jurisdictional bar to the English Court exercising jurisdiction over EU domiciled scheme members or creditors it was assumed to apply (and an appropriate gateway identified). But for the purposes of testing international effectiveness it was not assumed to apply, and the English Courts looked for expert evidence which demonstrated alternative bases.

He also points out [31] what I have repeatedly mentioned: the analysis was never extensive, for the schemes tended eventually to be unopposed. Summary of the default position is done [31] with reference to Van Gansewinkel (in which I acted as one of the experts) seeing as, like DTEK, it involved recognition and enforcement in The Netherlands.

At [37], importantly, the judge refers to a report produced by Prof. Dr. Christoph Paulus and Prof. Dr. Peter Mankowski as to the likelihood of the recognition of the Bank Scheme by EU Member States. They seemingly are of opinion that the Bank Scheme would be given effect in every Member State by virtue of Art 12(1)(d) Rome I. This provides that the law applicable to a contract (in the instant case, English law) shall govern the various ways of extinguishing obligations: and that rule covers all modes of extinguishing obligations (including those operating against dissentient creditors). At [38] this conclusion is said to have been supported by a number of relevant E&W precedents (all of which  I have reported on the blog; see eg Lecta Paper) however these all merely scratched the surface.

Gazprombank however oppose this conclusion and refer in support to a report produced (I have not seen it) by Dr Peters for the Dutch situation and, at [44] by Mr Vorkas for the Cypriot situation. Both question the opposability of the scheme to recalcitrant creditors in light of amended choice of law. I have not studied the issue in the detail these reports have, and I have not seen any of them, however my own view on this is that there is certainly merit in what are here the opponents: certain English schemes’ position under Rome I is really quite vulnerable.

At [41] the judge on balance sides with the Paulus /Mankowiski report for ‘it is common ground that I cannot decide between the rival Dutch views’ (later repeated for the Cypriot report). I do not think that is necessarily correct, or at least it deserves some discussion: Brussels Ia may not be retained EU law yet Rome I is, therefore this is arguably not an issue of ‘foreign law’ (and certainly not ‘Dutch law’).  

Conclusion [46]: If sanctioned, the Bank Scheme will certainly be effective as regards 95% of Energy’s creditors. There is a reasonable prospect that the sole dissentient creditor will be unable to mount any challenge to it. Even in the event of a challenge, uncontested evidence demonstrates that the Bank Scheme will be effective in the jurisdiction in which operations are undertaken and assets located.

Seeing as this is one of the first times the BIa and particularly the Rome I situation is discussed in greater detail, I do hope this case is heading for the Court of Appeal.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, para 5.35 ff.

A more extensive than usual consideration of jurisdiction, applicable law re schemes of arrangement.
Norris J in DTEK yesterday (which I cross-referred herehttps://t.co/3QeZJfflxF)
Brussels Ia, Rome I https://t.co/Bkg4ctn6er

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

Ryanair / Commission
Aide d'État
Le Tribunal annule, pour insuffisance de motivation, la décision de la Commission approuvant l’aide d’État de l’Allemagne en faveur de la compagnie aérienne Condor Flugdienst

Dansk Erhverv / Commission
Aide d'État
Le Tribunal annule la décision de la Commission constatant que l’absence de perception d’une consigne sur certains emballages de boissons vendues par des commerces frontaliers allemands à des clients domiciliés au Danemark ne constitue pas une aide d’État

Yanukovych / Conseil
Relations extérieures
Le Tribunal annule les actes du Conseil de 2019 sur la prorogation du gel de fonds infligé à M. Viktor Yanukovych, ancien président de l’Ukraine, et à son fils, M. Oleksandr Yanukovych

In C-280/20, ZN v Generalno konsulstvo na Republika Bulgaria v grad Valensia, Kralstvo Ispania [the Bulgarian consulate], the CJEU last week essentially confirmed CJEU C-154/11 Mahamdia. ZN is a Bulgarian national residing in Sofia who holds a permit to reside in Spain, where she provided services relating to the activity of the Consulate General. ZN brought an action in Bulgaria against the Consulate General seeking, first, recognition of her employment relationship and, second, payment of compensation in lieu of paid annual leave not taken during a period in which she provided services concerning the receipt of documents. The Consulate General contests the jurisdiction of the Bulgarian courts and invokes the jurisdiction of the Spanish courts as the courts of ZN’s place of employment. The referring court has doubts as to the existence of cross-border implications in so far as the dispute at issue in the main proceedings concerns a Bulgarian employee and a Bulgarian employer, and the fact that their legal relationship is closely connected with the Republic of Bulgaria.  It also notes that Bulgarian law expressly provides that, in the case of contracts concluded between a Bulgarian employer established abroad and a Bulgarian national working abroad, any disputes may be examined only by the Bulgarian courts.

In Mahamdia the Court first of all applied the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and held that an embassy often acts iure gestionis, not iure imperii, and that under the Vienna rules, the EU is perfectly entitled to apply the Regulation given that it applies to ‘civil and commercial’ matters. In that vein, an embassy may very well have to be regarded as an ‘establishment’ within the meaning of Article 20(2) (on employment contracts). In ZN, the Court [28-29] suggests that services in connection with the receipt of documents in files opened at the consulate by Bulgarian nationals and the management of those files, do not fall within the exercise of public powers and do not risk interfering with the security interests of the Republic of Bulgaria. Hence it strongly suggests the issue is a ‘civil and commercial one’, leaving final determination of same to the referring court. I would intuitively have thought that processing documents at a country’s consulate quite au contraire, does engage closely with diplomatic functions that must be qualified as iure imperii, particularly seeing as before said processing one is likely not to have knowledge of the documents’ content.

On the issue of ‘international element’ required to trigger Brussels Ia, the Court per Mahamdia considers a consulate to be an ‘establishment’ of one Member State in another Member State. Hence one of the parties to the dispute must be considered to be domiciled or habitually resident in a Member State other than that of the court seised [37]: the cross-border element is clearly present, which will not surprise many of us. One also assumes that the  aforementioned Bulgarian rule on exclusive jurisdiction for employment disputes between Bulgarians even with an international element present, does not meet with EU law requirements.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, para 2.35, para 2.128.

 

A short note on the claim form for the collective claim by a group of parents based in The Netherlands against TikTok Technology Limited, domiciled at Dublin, Ireland.  It engages Article 79 GDPR, as well as the consumer section of Brussels Ia. At the applicable law level, it suggests application of Article 6 Rome I (consumer contracts; a logical counterpart of the jurisdictional analysis) and, in subsidiary fashion, Article 4 Rome II, each to suggest application of Dutch law.

I wrote on Article 79 here, and the problems which I signalled have in the meantime surfaced in case-law, as I signalled ia here.  Current TikTok claim however prima facie would seem to be more straightforward under both GDPR, BIa and Rome I – one imagines a possible TikTok’s defence to go towards the meaning of ‘establishment’.

Geert.

 

Dutch collective claim against #TikTok
Claim form here https://t.co/YhQ8IfXxA8
At jurisdictional level it engages A79 #GDPR (see https://t.co/KBZ4s5diN7) & consumer section BIa
Re applicable law, A6 Rome I, A4 Rome II.
A claim form only, the analysis on both is as yet incomplete. https://t.co/ShOhuQwzP4

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) June 2, 2021

The Court of Justice delivered today its judgment in Case C‑280/20 (ZN v Generalno konsulstvo na Republika Bulgaria v grad Valensia, Kralstvo Ispania), which is about Brussels I bis and an employment contract concluded with a consular representation of the Member State of the employee in another Member State:

“Article 5(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, read in conjunction with recital 3 of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that it applies for the purposes of determining the international jurisdiction of the courts of a Member State to hear and rule on a dispute between an employee from a Member State who does not carry out duties involving the exercise of public powers and a consular authority of that Member State situated in the territory of another Member State”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=242028&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=9748919