Flux européens

Commission / Hongrie (Accueil des demandeurs de protection internationale II)
Droit institutionnel
Politique d’asile : la Hongrie est condamnée à payer une somme forfaitaire de 200 millions d’euros et une astreinte de 1 million d’euros par jour de retard pour ne pas avoir exécuté un arrêt de la Cour de justice

Société du Tour de France / EUIPO - FitX (TOUR DE X)
Propriété intellectuelle et industrielle
Droit des marques : le recours de la Société du Tour de France contre l’enregistrement de la marque de l’Union européenne Tour de X est rejeté

Commission / Deutsche Telekom
La Commission doit payer des intérêts sur les amendes qu’elle a indument infligées en matière de concurrence et dont elle a perçu les montants à titre provisoire

Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Femmes s’identifiant à la valeur de l’égalité entre les sexes)
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Protection internationale : le statut de réfugié peut être accordé aux femmes s’identifiant à la valeur de l’égalité entre les femmes et les hommes

INGSTEEL
Rapprochement des législations
Marchés publics : le soumissionnaire illégalement évincé d‘une procédure de passation peut réclamer des dommages et intérêts en raison d’une perte de chance

Ryanair / Commission
Aide d'État
Covid-19 : la Cour confirme la décision de la Commission autorisant le fonds de soutien à la solvabilité des entreprises stratégiques espagnoles

Malacalza Investimenti et Malacalza / BCE
Droit institutionnel
Responsabilité non contractuelle de l’Union : le Tribunal rejette le recours en indemnisation de Malacalza Investimenti et de M. Vittorio Malacalza contre la BCE

Supermac's / EUIPO - McDonald's International Property (BIG MAC)
Propriété intellectuelle et industrielle
McDonald's perd la marque de l’Union européenne Big Mac pour les produits de volaille

Medel / Conseil
Cohésion économique et sociale
État de droit : les recours des organisations de juges européens contre la décision du Conseil approuvant le plan pour la reprise et la résilience de la Pologne sont rejetés comme irrecevables

Nicholls & Anor v Mapfre Espana Compania De Seguros Y Reaseguros SA [2024] EWCA Civ 718 is the unsuccessful appeal against Sedgwick v Mapfre Espana Compania De Seguros Y Reaseguros Sa [2022] EWHC 2704 (KB) which I discuss here and against Nicholls v Mapfre and Sonia Woodward v Mapfre [2023] EWHC 1031 (KB) which I discuss here.

The case centres around the difference in the Rome II Regulation between matters of procedure on the one hand and substantive law on the other hand, for the purposes of private international law and the interpretation of A1 and 15 Rome II.

In the appeals Mapfre contend that the interest payable under Spanish Insurance Contract Act Act 50/1980 is penal in nature because it rises to 20 per cent per annum in the third year of application, is payable as a matter of Spanish procedural law to encourage early settlement of disputes by insurance companies, and is a matter of procedure which is not covered by Rome II. This means that in their view the laws of E&W apply to the assessment and award of interest. Mapfre also contend that it is wrong to use the statutory discretion under either section 35A of the (English) Senior Courts Act or section 69 of the County Courts Act to allow Spanish penal interest in by the back door when it relates to a different procedural environment to which different procedural rules apply, and where the laws of England and Wales contain within Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules procedural provisions to encourage the early settlement of disputes.

Respondents contend that Act 50/1980 is a matter of substantive law because it is an integral part of the way in which damages and interest are assessed in proceedings in Spain for personal injuries in actions against insurers. Therefore it should be ordered to be paid as Spanish law governs the action. As an alternative, the respondents also contend that if Act 50/1980 is a matter of procedure for the purposes of Rome II, then all of the judges were right, and made no error in the exercise of their discretion, in ordering the payment of an equivalent rate of interest under Act 50/1980 as a matter of discretion under section 35A of the Senior Courts Act or section 69 of the County Courts Act.

Dingemans LJ referred to Wall, Lazar, and Actavis as most relevant authority. I agree with his view [33] which I have expressed before (eg in the Handbook, 4th ed, 4.83), that the the evidence and procedure carve-out need not be given either a narrow, strict, or broad interpretation. It simply needs to be applied as intended. [34] he argues

In order to carry out the task of determining whether the interest payable under article 20.4 of Act 50/1980 is a matter of procedure, it is necessary to undertake a consideration of Act 50/1980. That is not to discover whether the provision is considered to be substantive law or a matter of procedure under either Spanish law or the laws of England and Wales, because what is a matter of procedure for the purposes of article 1(3) of Rome II is an autonomous concept under Rome II. The purpose of undertaking a consideration of Act 50/1980 is to determine whether the issue of interest under that provision is so “intertwined” with the assessment of damages, which is a matter of substantive law under Rome II, that interest payable under Act 50/1980 should be considered a matter of substantive law and not a matter of procedure.” (emphasis added)

The test put forward by the Court of Appeal therefore would seem to be the intensity of intertwinedness of the issue at stake, with one of the elements that are clearly listed in A15’s ‘scope of the law applicable’ (here: “assessment of damage”). (Note Stuart-Smith LJ’s concurrence [79] not to look at the issue through an “overly-Anglo/Welsh prism”).

This leads here [58] to the conclusion that

the interest payable under Act 50/1980 is not a matter of procedure for the purposes of article 1(3) of Rome II, and is governed by the law applicable to the non-contractual obligation, namely the law of Spain.

[68] ff then discusses subrogation under A19 Rome II with reference [70] to relevant CJEU authority.

Of note.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed 2024, ia Heading 4.8.

https://x.com/GAVClaw/status/1806583047313121464

 

Conny
Rapprochement des législations
Commandes en ligne : le bouton de commande ou une fonction similaire doit clairement indiquer qu’en y cliquant, le consommateur se soumet à une obligation de payer

Airbnb Ireland
E-commerce : un État membre ne peut imposer des obligations supplémentaires à un prestataire de services en ligne établi dans un autre État membre

Hypo Vorarlberg Bank / CRU (Contributions ex ante 2022)
Politique économique
Le Tribunal constate que le calcul des contributions ex ante pour 2022 au Fonds de résolution unique (FRU) est illégal

Pologne / Commission
Droit institutionnel
Le Tribunal maintient l’obligation de la Pologne de payer l’astreinte journalière infligée dans le cadre de l'affaire relative à la mine de Turów

This guest post was authored by Dr Mukarrum Ahmed, Barrister (Lincoln’s Inn), and Lecturer in Business Law & Director of PG Admissions at Lancaster University Law School. I am most grateful to Dr Ahmed for complementing my earlier post on the CJEU case discussed, Joined Cases C‑345/22 and C‑347/22 Maersk.

 

According to the doctrine of privity of contract, only parties to a choice of court agreement are subject to the rights and obligations arising from it. However, there are exceptions to the privity doctrine where a third party may be bound by or derive benefit from a choice of court agreement, even if it did not expressly agree to the clause. A choice of court agreement in a bill of lading which is agreed by the carrier and shipper and transferred to a consignee, or third-party holder is a ubiquitous example.

Article 25 of the Brussels Ia Regulation does not expressly address the effect of choice of court agreements on third parties. However, CJEU jurisprudence has laid down that the choice of court agreement may bind a third party in some contexts even in the absence of the formal validity requirements. Effectively, this is a context specific harmonised approach to developing substantive contract law rules to regulate the effectiveness of choice of court agreements.

Article 25 of the Brussels Ia Regulation prescribes formal requirements that must be satisfied if the choice of court agreement is to be considered valid. Consent is also a necessary requirement for the validity of a choice of court agreement. (Case C-322/14 Jaouad El Majdoub v CarsOnTheWeb.Deutschland GmbH EU:C:2015:334, [26]; Case C‐543/10 Refcomp EU:C:2013:62, [26]).

Although formal validity and consent are independent concepts, the two requirements are connected because the purpose of the formal requirements is to ensure the existence of consent (Jaouad El Majdoub, [30]; Refcomp, [28]). The CJEU has referred to the close relationship between formal validity and consent in several decisions. The court has made the validity of a choice of court agreement subject to an ‘agreement’ between the parties (Case C-387/98 Coreck EU:C:2000:606, [13]; Case C-24/76 Estasis Salotti di Colzani Aimo e Gianmario Colzani s.n.c. v Rüwa Polstereimaschinen GmbH EU:C:1976:177, [7]; Case C-25/76 Galeries Segoura SPRL v Société Rahim Bonakdarian EU:C:1976:178, [6]; Case C-106/95 Mainschiffahrts-Genossenschaft eG (MSG) v Les Gravières Rhénanes SARL EU:C:1997:70, [15]). The Brussels Ia Regulation imposes upon the Member State court the duty of examining whether the clause conferring jurisdiction was in fact the subject of consensus between the parties, which must be clearly and precisely demonstrated (ibid). The court has also stated that the very purpose of the formal requirements imposed by Article 17 (now Article 25 of Brussels Ia) is to ensure that consensus between the parties is in fact established (Case 313/85 Iveco Fiat v Van Hool EU:C:1986:423, [5]).

In similar vein, the CJEU has developed its case law as to when a third party may be deemed to be bound by or derive benefit from a choice of court agreement. In the context of bills of lading, the CJEU has decided that if, under the national law of the forum seised and its private international law rules, the third-party holder of the bill acquired the shipper’s rights and obligations, the choice of court agreement will also be enforceable between the third party and the carrier (C 71/83 Tilly Russ EU:C:1984:217, [25]; C-159/97 Castelletti EU:C:1999:142, [41]; C‑387/98 Coreck EU:C:2000:606, [24], [25] and [30], C‑352/13 CDC Hydrogen Peroxide EU:C:2015:335, [65]; Cf. Article 67(2) of the Rotterdam Rules 2009). There is no separate requirement that the third party must consent in writing to the choice of court agreement. On the other hand, if the third party has not succeeded to any of the rights and obligations of the original contracting parties, the enforceability of the choice of court agreement against it is predicated on actual consent (C‑387/98 Coreck EU:C:2000:606, [26]; C‑543/10 Refcomp EU:C:2013:62, [36]). A new choice of court agreement will need to be concluded between the holder and the carrier as the presentation of the bill of lading would not per se give rise to such an agreement (AG Slynn in Tilly Russ).

Article 17 of the Brussels Convention and Article 23 of the Brussels I Regulation did not contain an express provision on the substantive validity of a choice of court agreement. The law of some Member States referred substantive validity of a choice of court agreement to the law of the forum whereas other Member States referred it to the applicable law of the substantive contract (Heidelberg Report [326], 92). However, Article 25(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation applies the law of the chosen forum (lex fori prorogatum) including its choice of law rules to the issue of the substantive validity of a choice of court agreement (‘unless the agreement is null and void as to its substantive validity under the law of that Member State’).

The CJEU recently adjudicated on whether the enforceability of English choice of court agreements in bills of lading against third party holders was governed by the choice of law rule on ‘substantive validity’ in Article 25(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. (Joined Cases C‑345/22 and C‑347/22 Maersk A/S v Allianz Seguros y Reaseguros SA and Case C‑346/22 Mapfre España Compañía de Seguros y Reaseguros SA v MACS Maritime Carrier Shipping GmbH & Co.) The CJEU held that the new provision in Article 25(1) referring to the law of the Member State chosen in the choice of court agreement including its private international law rules is not applicable. A third-party holder of a bill of lading remains bound by a choice of court agreement, if the law of the forum seised and its private international law rules make provision for this. Notwithstanding, the principle of primacy of EU law precludes Spanish special provisions for the subrogation of a choice of court agreement that undermine Article 25 as interpreted by CJEU case law.

In the three preliminary references under Article 267 TFEU, the enforceability of English choice of court agreements between Spanish insurance companies and maritime transport companies was at issue. The insurance companies exercised the right of subrogation to step into the shoes of the consignees and sued the maritime transport companies for damaged goods. The central issue in the proceedings was whether the choice of court agreements concluded in the original contracts of carriage evidenced by the bills of lading between the carrier and the shipper also bound the insurance companies. The transport companies objected to Spanish jurisdiction based on the English choice of court agreements. The Spanish courts referred questions to the CJEU on the interpretation of choice of court agreements under the Brussels Ia Regulation.

At the outset, the CJEU observed that the Brussels Ia Regulation is applicable to the disputes in the main proceedings as the proceedings were commenced by the insurance companies before 31 December 2020. (Article 67(1)(a), Article 127(1) and (3) of the EU Withdrawal Agreement)

The CJEU proceeded to consider whether Article 25(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the enforceability of a choice of court clause against the third-party holder of the bill of lading containing that clause is governed by the law of the Member State of the court or courts designated by that clause. The CJEU characterised the subrogation of a choice of court agreement to a third party as not being subject to the choice of law rule governing substantive validity in Article 25(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. (C‑519/19 DelayFix EU:C:2020:933, [40]; C‑543/10 Refcomp EU:C:2013:62, [25]; C‑366/13 Profit Investment SIM EU:C:2016:282, [23])

The CJEU relied on a distinction between the substantive validity and effects of choice of court agreements (Maersk, [48]; AG Collins in Maersk, [54]-[56]). The latter logically proceeds from the former, but the procedural effects are governed by the autonomous concept of consent as applied to the enforceability of choice of court agreements against third parties developed by CJEU case law.

Although Article 25(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation differs from Article 17 of the Brussels Convention and Article 23(1) of the Brussels I Regulation, the jurisprudence of the CJEU is capable of being applied to the current provision (Maersk, [52]; C‑358/21 Tilman, EU:C:2022:923, [34]; AG Collins in Maersk, [51]-[54]).

The CJEU concluded that where the third-party holder of the bill of lading has succeeded to the shipper’s rights and obligations in accordance with the national law of the court seised then a choice of court agreement that the third party has not expressly agreed upon can nevertheless be relied upon against it (C 71/83 Tilly Russ EU:C:1984:217, [25]; C-159/97 Castelletti EU:C:1999:142, [41]; C‑387/98 Coreck EU:C:2000:606, [24], [25] and [30], C‑352/13 CDC Hydrogen Peroxide EU:C:2015:335, [65]; Maersk, [51]; Cf. Article 67(2) of the Rotterdam Rules 2009).

In this case, there is no distinct requirement that the third party must consent in writing to the choice of court agreement. The third party cannot extricate itself from the mandatory jurisdiction as ‘acquisition of the bill of lading could not confer upon the third party more rights than those attaching to the shipper under it’ (C 71/83 Tilly Russ EU:C:1984:217, [25]; C-159/97 Castelletti EU:C:1999:142, [41]; C‑387/98 Coreck EU:C:2000:606, [25]; Maersk, [62]). Conversely, where the relevant national law does not provide for such a relationship of substitution, that court must ascertain whether that third party has expressly agreed to the choice of court clause (C‑387/98 Coreck EU:C:2000:606, [26]; C‑543/10 Refcomp EU:C:2013:62, [36]; Maersk, [51]).

According to Spanish law, a third-party to a bill of lading has vested in it all rights and obligations of the original contract of carriage but the choice of court agreement is only enforceable if it has been negotiated individually and separately with the third party. The CJEU held that such a provision would undermine Article 25 of the Brussels Ia Regulation as interpreted by the CJEU case law (Maersk, [60]; AG Collins in Maersk, [61]). As per the principle of primacy of EU law, the national court has been instructed to interpret Spanish law to the greatest extent possible, in conformity with the Brussels Ia Regulation (Maersk, [63]; C‑205/20 Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld (Direct effect) EU:C:2022:168) and if no such interpretation is possible, to disapply the national rule [65].

The choice of law rule in Article 25(1) is not an innovation without utility. A broad interpretation of the concept of substantive validity would encroach upon the autonomous concept of consent developed by CJEU case law yet it could avoid the need for a harmonised EU substantive contract law approach to the enforceability of choice of court agreements against third parties. The CJEU in its decision arrived at a solution that upheld the choice of court agreement by the predictable application of its established case law without disturbing the status quo. In practical terms, the application of the choice of law rule in Article 25(1) would have led to a similar outcome. However, the unnecessary displacement of the CJEU’s interpretative authorities on the matter would have increased litigation risk in multi-state transactions.

By distinguishing substantive validity from the effects of choice of court agreements, the CJEU does not extrapolate the choice of law rule on substantive validity to issues of contractual enforceability that are extrinsic to the consent or capacity of the original contracting parties. On balance, a departure from the legal certainty provided by the extant CJEU jurisprudence was not justified. It should be observed that post-Brexit, there has been a resurgence of English anti-suit injunctions in circumstances such as these where proceedings in breach of English dispute resolution agreements are commenced in EU Member State courts.

Mukarrum.

 

Three Opinions of Vlas AG at the Dutch Supreme Court dated 5 April 2024 but published today discuss issues of applicable law in competition follow-on cases. See also my earlier posts on Air Cargo and Palink. CJEU authority cited includes Concurrence, Nintendo, Tibor Trans, CDC, flyLAL.

ECLI:NL:PHR:2024:561 is the Palink case in the Truck Cartel: Uzdaroji Akcine Bendrove “Palink” et al v CNH Industrial NV et al

ECLI:NL:PHR:2024:370 concerns the Air Cargo cartel: KLM et al v Stichting Cartel Compensation – SCC; and

ECLI:NL:PHR:2024:369 is also an Air Cargo case, ‘Equilib’: KLM et al v Equilib Netherlands B.V.

In the Truck Cartel opinion which is a preliminary reference, the essence of the case is the impact of a single and continuous infringement on the application of A6 Rome II. A first issue is the date of application of Rome II: it applies (A31 juncto A32) to events giving rise to damage which occur (the events, NOT the damage) after 11 January 2009. The cartel at issue ran between 1997 and 2011. (4.6) the application of Dutch residual lex causae rules for the pre 2009 period and of the Rome II rules for the post 2009 period does not serve Rome II’s quest for predictability. The fissure between pre and post Rome II’s application ratione temporis in the case of a continuous tort is not solved by CJEU Homawoo as referenced ia in CJEU Nikiforidis. 

Vlas AG 4.8 cites Mankowski

The second remaining issue is whether the Rome II Regulation applies where a continuous tort was at stake, i.e. where a multiplicity of events giving rise to the damage have occurred, some before and some after 11 January 2009. There is a plethora of conceivable solutions: First, the last causal event matters. One would run into severe trouble in identifying which event is the last. Second, the first causal event matters. Third, the most relevant causal event matters. Fourth, all causal events are treated as equivalent, and it disqualifies for the purposes of applying the Rome II Regulation that one of them occurred before 11 January 2009. Fifth, all causal events are treated as equivalent, and it suffices for the application of the Rome II Regulation that one of them occurred on or after 11 January 2009.

If one is prepared to adopt as a general policy that the Rome II Regulation and its uniform rules should be applied to the widest possible extent, the fifth approach ought to be preferred.

and Fitchen (4.10)

(…) accordingly, for many years to come it may be that the applicable law in cross-border competition law claims brought after 11 January 2009 will still be wholly or partially governed by pre-Rome II methods of determining the applicable law. As such an outcome does not appear to accord with the general policy of increasing legal certainty in the context of cross-border claims, it is worth considering whether, in the circumstance that an infringement of competition law is alleged to be ongoing both before and after the temporal datum point of Rome II, it is wrong to split the ascertainment of the applicable law. Possibly the fact that the damage causing events of the competition law tort continue past the Rome II datum point should cause the alleged tort to be regarded as occurring continuously and to therefore legitimate the application of the Rome II Regulation to determine the applicable law for the entire claim? Though increasing legal certainty and simplifying the choice of law process for cross-border competition law claims, this suggestion has to contend with the principled objection that it would be an unfair departure from the general stance of Rome II of neutrality between claimant and defendant. This objection is possibly less convincing in the specific context of follow-on competition law claims as here the existence of an anti-competitive act is already established: in these cases such neutrality may be argued to perversely favour the wrongdoer. Considerations of principle aside, the most formidable obstacle to any suggestion that competition claims which straddle the temporal datum point should benefit from a single method of applicable law selection is Rome II itself: the text currently lacks any provision supporting retrospective temporal applicability whether immediate or deferred in time.

It is suggested that a case based upon increasing legal certainty can be made for a legislative amendment to address the problem of an absence of transitional provisions concerning the temporal applicability in Rome II for follow-on competition claims either by allowing a deferred form of retrospective temporal applicability after the effluxion of a certain period of time from 11 January 2009, or, by providing follow-on competition claims with a new specific regime which includes private international law measures more appropriate to this specific type of competition claim.

Vlas AG then himself opposes the fissure or ‘split’ (4.11), citing predictability and legal certainty. However unlike Mankowski he does not propose that author’s ‘5th solution’ per above, rather, (4.13) he suggests the residual rules should apply seeing as the continuous event started pre Rome II’s ratione temporis scope. This he argues will serve predictability and unity of lex causae, albeit he concedes that unity will be achieved at the national as opposed to the EU level. The general absence of retroactive effect of EU PRivIL rules is cited, justifiably IMO, in support. (4.14) he argues against referral to the CJEU, not because the issue is acte clair, rather because in his view under the Dutch residual rules, too, claimants may make choice of law for the lex fori, just as they can under A6(3) RII. In other words he does not think there is an interest in requesting the view from the CJEU. The AG then further discusses the exercise by claimants under A6(3) Rome II (and the residual Dutch rules), opining that it need not be the claimant whose interests have been affected in various countries, just as long as markets have been affected in various countries. He also sees no reason (and I agree; the AG uses ia linguistic comparison) that this should be any different where the claims have been acquired by litigation vehicles. In the air cargo cartel SCC and Equilib cases, which are an application for annulment, Rome II does not feature ratione temporis however in accordance with Dutch authority, A6 Rome II is used pro inspiratio. Here the determination of ‘markets affected’ is an issue. With reference to the travaux and a wide variety of scholarship, the AG suggests ‘the law of the state on whose market the victim was affected by the anti-competitive practice’ ought to be the lex causae, leading to Mozaik of course, with then the subsequent discussion of A6(3)b. In both cases, the AG proposes that the judgment appealed be annulled on the issue of validity of assignment.

Others no doubt will have more analysis. These are highly relevant opinions.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed. 2024, 4.53 ff.

https://x.com/GAVClaw/status/1793671819590766990

 

 

A bit of a late reblog but for archival etc purposes see my post with Elijah Granet on ECtHR Executief van de Moslims van België v Belgium , re unstunned slaughter, freedom of religious expression and animal welfare over at the Oxford Human Rights Blog here in four languages.

The CJEU held succinctly yesterday and without AG Opinion in Case C-222/23 Toplofikatsia Sofi. The Bulgarian rule according to which all Bulgarian nationals have a permanent domicile in Bulgaria even if they move to a different Member State, undermines the effet utile of Brussels Ia despite that Regulation leaving the determination of domicile of natural persons to the Member States: [60]:

in so far as national legislation automatically links [the concept of domicile] to a permanent, mandatory and sometimes fictitious address registered for any national of the Member State concerned, such legislation undermines the effectiveness of Regulation No 1215/2012, since it amounts to replacing the domicile criterion, on which the rules of jurisdiction laid down by that regulation are based, with the criterion of nationality.

Article 21 TFEU (non-discrimination and citisenship) need not be separately addressed in light of the BIa finding.

Orders for payment against a debtor suspected of being domiciled elsewhere in EU yet also domiciled in Bulgaria according to the formal presumption, may of course (and only) be issued by a Bulgarian court on the basis of A7(1) or indeed any other jurisdictional gateway other than A4,  5 and 6 BIa.

Geert.

 

Touristic Aviation Services
Transport
Droits des passagers aériens : le manque de personnel aéroportuaire pour le chargement des bagages qui a causé un retard important du vol peut constituer une « circonstance extraordinaire »

Hocinx
Libre circulation des personnes
Égalité de traitement : le travailleur frontalier doit bénéficier des mêmes avantages sociaux que les travailleurs résidents