Flux européens

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

The Court of Justice delivered today its judgment in case C‑914/19 (Ministero della Giustizia v GN). The judgment 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):

« L’article 21 de la charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne et l’article 6, paragraphe 1, de la directive 2000/78/CE du Conseil, du 27 novembre 2000, portant création d’un cadre général en faveur de l’égalité de traitement en matière d’emploi et de travail, doivent être interprétés en ce sens qu’ils s’opposent à une réglementation nationale qui fixe une limite d’âge de 50 ans pour pouvoir participer au concours d’accès à la profession de notaire, dans la mesure où une telle réglementation ne paraît pas poursuivre les objectifs d’assurer la stabilité de l’exercice de cette profession pendant une durée significative avant la retraite, de protéger le bon fonctionnement des prérogatives notariales et de faciliter le renouvellement générationnel ainsi que le rajeunissement de ladite profession et, en tout état de cause, dépasse ce qui est nécessaire pour atteindre ces objectifs, ce qu’il appartient à la juridiction de renvoi de vérifier ».

https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=242025&pageIndex=0&doclang=fr&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=9748919

Tesco Stores
SOPO
Le principe de l’égalité des rémunérations entre travailleurs masculins et travailleurs féminins consacré par le droit de l’Union est invocable directement, pour un « même travail » comme pour un « travail de même valeur », dans des litiges entre particuliers

I reported on the AG’s Opinion in C-913/19 CNP here. The CJEU held on 20 May.

The case essentially queries the application of Section 3 BIa (‘matters relating to insurance’) and Section 2 (the ‘special jurisdictional rules’, in particular contract and tort) in the event of assignment and /or subrogation of claims from the natural person to a professional party. As many of us may have experienced, filing an insurance claim particularly in the automotive sector immediately engages 2, 3 or more distinct businesses: insurance agents, insurers, towing trucks and garages…. The case also discusses whether some of those business may be considered a ‘branch’ of the insurance company on account of their close relationship as experienced by repairers and insureds.

In the case at hand, a road traffic accident occurred in Poland, in which two vehicles collided. The person responsible for the accident had, before that time, taken out a contract for motor liability insurance with Gefion, domiciled at Denmark. The injured party paid to lease a replacement vehicle from the repair workshop to which his damaged vehicle had been entrusted. By way of payment for that lease service arrangement, that person transferred the claim against Gefion to the repair workshop pursuant to a contract for assignment of the claim. Slightly later, pursuant to a new contract for the assignment of claims, the repair workshop assigned that claim to CNP. CNP requested Gefion to pay it the amount invoiced for the lease of the replacement vehicle. That request was sent to the address of Polins, a limited liability company established in Poland,  which represented Gefion’s interests in Poland. Crawford Polska, a company established in Poland and entrusted by Gefion with loss adjustment, then validated the invoice relating to the leasing of the replacement vehicle in part and granted CNP part of the amount invoiced for such lease. In its correspondence, Crawford Polska referred to the possibility of making a claim against it as the entity authorised by Gefion, or directly against Gefion, ‘either under the general provisions on jurisdiction or before the court with jurisdiction for the place where the policyholder, the insured person, the beneficiary or any other person entitled under the insurance contract is resident or established’. CNP then brought an action against Gefion in Poland, citing the information published by Gefion according to which Polins was its principal representative in Poland.  Gefion opposes the subsequent payment order, arguing inter alia that the Polish courts do not have jurisdiction.

Gefion rely in large part on CJEU Hofsoe, which as I noted in my review of UKSC Aspen Underwriting, is not as clear as one might hope. The Court in CNP v Gefion refers again to Hofsoe and Voralberger and zooms in on the professional activities of the corporations involved: [40] no special protection is justified where the parties concerned are ‘professionals in the insurance sector’; [43] CNP recovers claims from insurance undertakings. This precludes  it from being regarded as a party in a weaker position than the other party.

This finding as such arguably has no impact on the authority of Aspen Underwriting, in which the professional party, the Bank, is the named loss payee under the Policy and therefore the “beneficiary” of that Policy.

[46] The Court then confirms that Section 2’s special jurisdictional rules do open up in such circumstances.

As to whether Crawford may be considered a Gefion branch, the Court employs the criteria suggested by the AG (see my review of the opinion) and notes [56] that Crawford has every power to carry out activities involving the loss adjustment and settlement of claims which are binding on the insurer, meaning that Crawford Polska must be regarded as a centre of operations which has the appearance of permanency, such as the extension of a parent body. [57] Whether that centre is materially equipped to negotiate business with third parties, so that they do not have to deal directly with the parent body, is something which the referring court has to verify (and which will therefore determine branch jurisdiction).

Per CJEU Ryanair, [59] Crawford’s role here seems to have been more than just a data hatch: it was an active contributor (in deciding, upon having given such overall authority by Gefion,  only half of the amount claimed would be settled) to the legal situation that led to the dispute in the main proceedings. Therefore provided the aforementioned ‘material equipment’ criterion is met, the dispute is to be regarded as ‘arising out of the operation of the branch’.

All in all a bit more follow-up work to be done by the referring court and, as I noted in my review of the AG’s Opinion, not great publicity for the predictability of jurisdictional rules.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, para 2.293 ff, para 2.73 ff.

Commission / Allemagne (Valeurs limites - NO2)
Environnement et consommateurs
Entre 2010 et 2016, l’Allemagne a dépassé de façon systématique et persistante les valeurs limites pour le dioxyde d’azote (NO2)

Hongrie / Parlement
Droit institutionnel
La Cour rejette le recours de la Hongrie contre la résolution du Parlement déclenchant la procédure de constatation de l’existence d’un risque clair de violation grave, par cet État membre, des valeurs sur lesquelles l’Union est fondée

TEAM POWER EUROPE
Libre circulation des personnes
Pour être considérée comme « exerçant normalement ses activités » dans un État membre, une entreprise de travail intérimaire doit effectuer une partie significative de ses activités de mise à la disposition de travailleurs au profit d’entreprises utilisatrices établies et exerçant leurs activités sur le territoire dudit État membre

Puigdemont i Casamajó e.a. / Parlement
Le vice-président du Tribunal de l’Union européenne suspend provisoirement la levée de l’immunité parlementaire de MM. Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó et Antoni Comín i Oliveres ainsi que de Mme Clara Ponsatí i Obiols

I have an article forthcoming on the application of Rome II’s Article 7, ‘environmental damage’ rule. Last week’s widely reported first instance ruling in the Dutch Shell climate case will of course now feature.

I reported on application of A7 in Begum v Maran. There I submit, the Court of Appeal engaged without sufficient depth with the Article. It held against its application. Xandra Kramer and Ekaterina Pannebakker then alerted us to the use of Article 7 in last week’s momentous Milieudefensie v Shell (umpteen) ruling [Dutch version here, English version here], in which Shell by a first instance judge has been ordered to reduce its CO2 emissions. In that ruling, too, the judges leave a lot of issues on Rome II underanalysed. The conclusion  however goes in the opposite direction: the court held A7 is engaged and leads to Dutch law as the lex loci delicti commissi (Handlungsort or ldc).

I have taken the Dutch version of the judgment as the basis for the analysis for the English version is a touch under par when it comes to the finer detail. The Dutch version it has to be said is not entirely clear either on the conflict of laws analysis.

Firstly, Milieudefensie argue that A7 is engaged, and it suggests it opts for Dutch law given the choice left to it by that Article. Whether it does so as lex loci damni (Erfolgort or ld) or lex loci delicti commissi is not specified. It is reported by the courts that in subsidiary fashion Milieudefensie argue that per A4(1)’s general rule, Dutch law is the lex causae: that has to be Erfolgort.  (Lest the court inaccurately reported parties’ submissions here and the argument made under A4 focused on Article 4(3)’s displacement rule) [4.3.1].

The judges further report [4.3.2] that parties were in agreement that climate change, whether dangerous or otherwise, due to CO2 emissions constitutes ‘environmental damage’ in the sense of A7 Rome II (and the judges agree) and that they were in disagreement on the locus delicti commissi. Milieudefensie argue that Shell’s holding policy viz climate change and emissions, dictated from its corporate home of The Netherlands, is that Handlungsort. Shell argue that the place of the actual emissions are the Handlungsorts (plural), hence a Mozaik of applicable laws. (This nota bene has interesting applications in competition law, as I suggest here).

Then follows a rather sloppy reference to Jan von Hein’s note bene excellent review of Article 7 in Calliess; distinguishing of the arguments made by Shell with reference to ia product liability cases; and eventually, with reference to ia the cluster effect of emissions (‘every contribution towards a reduction of CO2 emissions may be of importance’ [4.3.5]) and the exceptional, policy driven nature of A7, the conclusion [4.3.6] that the holding policy is an independent cause of the CO2 emissions and hence imminent climate damage and obiter [4.3.7] that A4(1) would have led to the same conclusion.

The ruling will of course be appealed. It would be good to get the application of Article 7 right, seeing as environmental law is a core part of strategic and public interest litigation.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd. ed. 2021, Chapter 4, Heading 4.6.3 (4.54 ff).

 

 

 

 

The International Commercial Chamber of the Court of Appeal of Paris (France) delivered on 25 May 2021 a judgment on International jurisdiction under Brussels I bis (ICCP-CA RG 20/12522).

Here is the official translation of the résumé of the decision: “The CCIP-CA had to rule on an appeal on the jurisdiction of an action for damages brought by a French company against a German certifying company (and its German insurer), based on an alleged tort from the latter producing certificates of conformity in the context of a contract with the manufacturer of the boxes necessary for the operation of photovoltaic panels.

The Court upheld the decision of the Court of first instance which ruled for the international jurisdiction of the French courts under Article 7 § 2 of the Brussels I Regulation (Recast) , which allows a person domiciled in a Member State to be sued “in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts of the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur “, and ruled out the question for a preliminary ruling by the CJEU.

The Court found, relying on the case law of the CJEU (§ 43 to 53) that the boxes of the photovoltaic panels had been installed on proprieties located in France and that the repair work resulting from the defect noticed had also been done on these facilities located in France. It considered that the installer company and its subrogated insurer were therefore “direct victims due to the normal use of panels” and that the place of occurrence of the initial damage was located in France (§ 55 to 60). However, considering that Article 7 point 2 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) was intended to directly designate the competent court without referring to the internal rules of the Member States, which are therefore not practical, the Court held that each judicial court in the jurisdiction in which the contentious facility was located must have authority to hear this action (§ 61 et seq.)”.

The decision is not yet available. However, it is likely it will be in a few days (check the following link).

Source: https://www.cours-appel.justice.fr/paris/25052021-ccip-ca-rg-2012522-competence-juridictionnelle-internationale-international

On Monday 24 May 2021, Niger acceded to the Hague Convention of 29 May 1993 on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, which will enter into force for this country on 1 September 2021.

Source: https://www.hcch.net/en/news-archive/details/?varevent=801

Trappit SA & Ors v American Express Europe LLC & Anor [2021] EWHC 1344 (Ch) confirms an application to strike out or stay proceedings claiming infringement of intellectual property rights in a computer programme called ARPO (relevant to fare re-booking), and breach of non-contractual obligations of confidence that are said to have arisen when ARPO was made available by claimants (Panamanian and Spanish special purpose vehicles of 2 software engineers) to first Defendant AmEx (a Delaware corporation with a registered branch in England), for assessment. AmEx after inspection declined to take a licence. AmEx reorganised and second defendant GBT UK (a joint AmEx and private equity venture) acquired AmEx Europe’s travel management services business in the UK. GBT use an alternative software which claimants argue is effectively an ARPO rip-off facilitated by AmEx’ consultation of ARPO.

The application is made by the Defendants, who argue Claimants are contractually bound to litigate the claims in Spain rather than England (an A25 Brussels Ia argument), or that in light of proceedings that have already been brought and provisionally determined against the Second Claimant in Spain, the E&W  should decline jurisdiction (A29 BIa) or strike out the English proceedings as an abuse of process.

First on the issue of choice of court and privity under A25 BIa. Relevant authority discussed includes CJEU CDC and UKSC AMT Futures v Marzillier. At 6 ff the genesis of choice of court and law provisions in the NDA is mapped (drafts had been sent to and fro). As Snowden J notes at 76,

it is the parties related to Trappit SA who are the claimants, who sought the NDA before making ARPO available to AmEx Europe, and who asked for a Spanish law and jurisdiction clause. However, it is those parties who now contend that the jurisdiction clause does not bind them and that they are free to issue proceedings in England for breach of confidence and copyright infringement arising (so they say) from the unauthorised copying of the source code to ARPO. In contrast, it was the parties related to AmEx Europe who would most naturally be the defendants to any claim under the NDA and who originally proposed an English law and jurisdiction clause. But it is those parties who are now contending that the jurisdiction clause in the NDA binds all parties and requires all of the claims made in the English Proceedings to be litigated in Spain.

The eventual clause reads “18. Governing law and jurisdiction. This Agreement (including any non-contractual obligations arising out of or in connection with the same) shall be governed in all respects by the laws of Spain without regard to conflict of law principles. Any dispute or controversy arising in connection with this Agreement shall be submitted before the courts of the city of Madrid, Spain.”

At 77 the judge notes that the scope and the circumstances in which persons other than Trappit SA and AmEx Europe might become a party to the NDA are matters to be determined in accordance with Spanish law as the governing law of the NDA. This underestimates the impact of A25 itself and discussion of in particular CJEU Refcomp rather than the tort /contract discussion in CDC would have been appropriate. Snowden J relies on expert reports on Spanish law with respect to (i) the proper approach to contractual construction, and (ii) the circumstances in which third parties can be bound by contracts.

Conclusion on these report is that a narrow construction of the clause must be rejected: [94] ‘all types of claims arising from misuse of the information which the NDA envisaged would be provided by one party to the other. This would include claims based upon unauthorised copying and infringement of intellectual property rights as well as claims for breach of confidence,..’ (At 97-98 a side-argument based on A8 Rome II is dismissed).

As for the privity element, Snowden J finds there was no contractual intention for other corporate entities also to be parties entitled to enforce the agreement and there was no indication that any other company was intended to acquire rights (or be bound) under the NDA. Spanish (statutory) law on assignment, subrogation and the like does not alter this.

Conclusion [138]: ‘the jurisdiction clause in the NDA applied to all the claims in the English Proceedings, but that it only binds AmEx Europe and Trappit SA as the original signatories to the NDA. The effect of Article 25 is that the English courts therefore have no jurisdiction over the claims brought by Trappit SA against AmEx Europe in the English Proceedings.’ Proceedings against GBT on that basis may continue on a A4 BIa basis (neither of the UK Defendants were named defendants to the Spanish Proceedings, hence an A29 ff lis alibi pendens argument against them has no object).

Obiter viz AmEx Europe yet of relevance to the UK defendants, on Article 29 lis pendens, of note is first of all that the Spanish proceedings are criminal ones, with an embedded civil liability claim. The English Proceedings were issued prior to the provisional dismissal of the Spanish Proceedings but after the delivery of the Expert Report in those proceedings whose findings were part incorporated into the Spanish judge’s provisional dismissal.

The first, threshold issue on A29 is whether the Spanish courts are still seised of the Spanish Proceedings seeing as there is a provisional dismissal in the Spanish criminal proceedings. Authority discussed was Easygroup v Easy Rent a Car [2019] EWCA Civ 477 and Hutchinson v Mapfre was also referred to. A29 only applies where there are concurrent proceedings before the courts of different member states at the time when the court second seised makes its determination [147]. Following the reasoning in Hutchinson, the judge decides  that the Spanish courts are no longer seized of the case: experts are agreed that the case has been closed and archived, and that it is unlikely in the extreme that any new evidence would come to light so as to justify reopening the case after more than five years of extensive investigatory proceedings in Spain [158].

A final set of arguments by the defendants, based on issue estoppel (the Expert Report had found that there had been no plagiarism or copying of the ARPO source code by the Defendants), Henderson v Henderson abuse, and vexatious ligation (all under an ‘abuse of process‘ heading) is dismissed.

Conclusion [195]: no jurisdiction to entertain any of the claims made in the English proceedings between Trappit SA and AmEx Europe by reason of the application of A25 BIa. The case against the UK defendants may continue.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, 2.296 ff (2.355 ff), 2.532 ff.

 

Trappit ea v Am Express Europe ea [2021] EWHC 1344 (Ch) (19 May 2021)
Scope of A25 Brussels Ia choice of court viz NDA and 3rd parties (interpretation of Spanish law, lex causae)
Lis pendens A29 BIa; abuse of process, vexatious litigation, Henderson abusehttps://t.co/ntzA2np2td

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

Aldricus – Momen 17 Agustus saat wabah pasti pas jika kita masih tetap di dalam rumah dan mainkan games di handphone. Berikut kami akan memberinya referensi 7 games Android bikinan Indonesia yang dapat kalian permainkan.

Jejeran games berikut ini memiliki beberapa topik menarik hingga cukup cocok dimainkan bersamaan dengan Hari Kemerdekaan. Mainkan games lokal pasti bisa menolong mengembangnya industri games di Tanah Air.

Beberapa games ini tawarkan berbagai macam topik seperti pahlawan atau hero, jajan lokal, sampai cerita romantis untuk beberapa remaja. Berikut 6 game Android bikinan Indonesia yang bisa kalian permainkan pada Hari Kemerdekaan Indonesia:

1. Diponegoro – Tower Defense

Game Diponegoro – Tower Defense mengusung topik pahlawan nasional Indonesia, Pangeran Diponegoro. Walau gameplay-nya simpel, Diponegoro – Tower Defense ini asyik dimainkan karena tawarkan diagram yang menarik.

Kamu akan bertindak selaku Pangeran Diponegoro yang dapat membuat beberapa menara seperti Menara Tonggak Bambu, Panah Api, Balista, dan ada banyak menara yang lain. Lumayan menarik, games bikinan Indonesia ini menyuguhkan peta yang memvisualisasikan tanah Jawa di mana kamu harus berusaha melawan kolonialisme.

2. Lokapala

Sesudah versus stabilnya di-launching pada 20 Mei 2020, Lokapala jadi games MOBA pertama bikinan Indonesia. Walau diketemukan beberapa bug saat launching pertama kalinya, tetapi si developer Anantarupa Studios, rajin memberinya up-date untuk melakukan perbaikan. Selama ini, Lokapala sudah didownload lebih satu juta kali di Play Toko.

Games cukup menunjukkan beberapa unsur riwayat dan kebudayaan asal dari Indonesia. Bahkan juga beberapa watak hero diadaptasi dari beberapa “pejabat” kerajaan Majapahit. Ada hero atau Ksatriya namanya Nala (Fighter) yang berperanan sebagai Laksamana Angkatan Laut dari Majapahit, yang menolong Jinno (Tanker) sebagai mahapatih, dan Vijaya, si pangeran dari Kerajaan Majapahit. Walau beberapa lain tidak terlampau kental tampilkan hero atau Ksatriya asal dari Indonesia, games ini menjadi alternative untuk fans MOBA.

3. Juragan Wayang : Funny Heroes

Tidak terus-terusan narasi yang kaku, games Juragan Wayang sebagai gabungan dari komedi pedas dan tanding antara hero. Topik yang diangkat cukup konyol di mana pemain bisa mendapati beberapa puluh watak sampai kartu sichir dengan dampak unik.

Kamu harus tingkatkan pahlawan punyamu jadi pahlawan kuat setiap tingkat yang lain. Games ini ibarat games Tower Defense tetapi cuman memakai hero dan tidak mempunyai tower. Bagus sekali, kamu bahkan juga dapat mempunyai hero dengan senjata berbentuk wajan sampai senjata hebat seperti punya Gundam.

4. Tahu Bulat

Tahu Bundar terhitung salah satunya games lokal berjenis replikasi dalam jumlah unduhan tinggi sekali yakni lebih dari 10 juta kali. Kalian akan disuruh untuk jalankan visi sebagai pelaku bisnis yang jual tahu bundar.

Pemain bisa juga menukar mobil dan lakukan penyesuaian untuk menarik konsumen. Developer asal Bandung, Own Game, ternyata sukses memadukan rekam jejak kesedapan tahu bundar dengan gameplay menarik dan simpel dalam basis bermainnya.

5. Bambu Runcing

Games Bambu Lancip sebagai games simpel yang tawarkan narasi saat bangsa Indonesia menantang penjajah. Sama dengan namanya, games ini mendatangkan bambu lancip sebagai senjata khusus menantang watak antagonis berbentuk penjajah.

Games sejenis pembelajaran bikinan Playground SMK Telkom Malang sediakan senjata berbentuk keris yang bisa dilempar dan bambu lancip yang bisa ditusukkan. Bagus sekali, tiap chapter diberi komik yang bercerita perjuangan menantang penjajah di sejumlah daerah Indonesia.

6. Tak Gentar

Game ini tawarkan pemain untuk menjaga Indonesia menghindar gempuran dari bangsa asing. Tidak Gentar mendatangkan beberapa perang terkenal yang sempat terjadi di Indonesia seperti Gempuran Umum Satu Maret, Gempuran 10 November, Pertarungan Bandung Lautan Api dan yang lain.

The post 6 Game Android Buatan Indonesia, Cocok Dimainkan Pas Hari Kemerdekaan! appeared first on Aldri Blog.

OHB System / Commission
Marché publics
Le président du Tribunal rejette la demande de sursis à l’exécution des décisions de l’Agence spatiale européenne, agissant au nom et pour le compte de la Commission européenne, comportant l’exclusion de la société allemande OHB System du marché public pour la « Fourniture de satellites de transition Galileo »

Axis Corporate Capital UK Ltd & Ors v Absa Group Ltd & Ors [2021] EWHC 225 (Comm) is a good illustration of choice of court and law clauses that are a gift to conflict of laws practitioners. Choice of law and in particular choice of court was as Calver J put it [35] ‘somewhat poorly worded’. This is what the clauses look like in the various (re)insurance agreements [36 ff]

The primary reinsurances contain the following provision: “Any disputes concerning the interpretation of the terms, conditions, limitations and/or exclusions contained in this policy is understood and agreed by both the Reinsured and the Reinsurers to be subject to England Wales Law. Each party agrees to submit to a worldwide jurisdiction and to comply with all requirements necessary to give such court jurisdiction.”

The excess reinsurances contain the following provision: “Any dispute concerning the interpretation of the terms, conditions, limitations and/or exclusions contained in this policy is understood and agreed by both the insured and the insurers to be subject to England and Wales. Each party agrees to submit to the jurisdiction of England and Wales to comply with all requirements necessary to give such court jurisdiction. In respect of claims brought against the Insured and indemnified under this policy, as more fully described herein, the choice of law applicable is Worldwide and the choice of jurisdiction is Worldwide.”

Thirdly, the ARR [aggregate retention reinsurance, GAVC] contains the following two provisions: “Supplemental Clauses … “Policy Interpretation, Jurisdiction and Service of Suit Clause.” And then: “Choice of Law and Jurisdiction. “Any dispute concerning the interpretation of the terms, conditions, limitations and/or exclusions contained in this policy is understood and agreed by both the (re)insured and the (re)insurers to be subject to England and Wales. Each party agrees to submit to the jurisdiction of Worldwide to comply with all requirements necessary to give such court jurisdiction.”

The policy interpretation, jurisdiction and service of suit clause, which is specifically referred to as a supplemental clause, provides as follows and was contained in a schedule: “Any dispute between the Reinsured and the Reinsurer alleging that payment is due under this reinsurance shall be referred to the jurisdiction of the courts of the England and Wales and the meaning of this reinsurance policy shall be decided by such courts in accordance with the law of England and Wales.”

Claimant submits that, on the proper construction of the reinsurance contracts, the defendants were obliged to submit to and to submit any dispute arising under or in connection with any of the reinsurances contracts to the exclusive (A25 BIa imposes exclusive choice of court in principle: [56]) jurisdiction of the English courts. Calver J agrees that that is the case with a high degree of probability (this is an interlocutory stage). Generali Italia v Pelagic features as authority. Note the ‘worldwide’ reference in some of the clauses means that parties agree that all courts worldwide should ensure that the dispute be referred to the English courts.

The formulation in the excess reinsurance agreements, include what is construed as a carve-out of worldwide jurisdiction, which is non-exclusive, for claims brought against the insured and indemnified under the excess reinsurance. This is taken by the judge to mean that for all other claims, choice of court for E&W is, a contrario, exclusive.

At 81 ff, the judge grants an interim anti-suit injunction against proceedings in South Africa. The very possibility for this is not discussed at all (possibly as a result of the nature of the proceedings). It is not established that anti-suit to protect jurisdiction of a court in the EU, against that of courts outside the EU, is at all possible. In Gray v Hurley the Court of Appeal suggested it is not possible within the context of A4 BIa, yet referred to the CJEU where the case was withdrawn. This might become a contested issue.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, para 2.24, para 2.296 ff.

Axis Corporate Capital UK ea v Absa Group ea [2021] EWHC 225 (Comm)
Arcane choice of court clauses in insurance and reinsurance contracts (A25 BIa, A3 Rome I) which are a true gift to conflict of laws practitionershttps://t.co/jTCR3BhkoO

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

République tchèque / Pologne
La Pologne doit cesser immédiatement les activités d’extraction de lignite dans la mine de Turów