Flux européens

In Vestel Elektronik Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S. & Anor v Access Advance LLC & Anor [2021] EWCA Civ 440 – also known as Vestel v Philips, the Court of Appeal has rejected an attempt to establish jurisdiction for the Courts of England and Wales in a stand-alone competition law damages case.

Hacon J had earlier rejected jurisdiction in the claim which at first instance was formulated as an abuse of dominance claim. That claim was now reformulated with Birss LJ’s permission [30], with the relevant tort being the tort of patent infringement, and in effect the claim a negative declaration relating to that patent. That a claim for declaration of non-liability in tort (‘a ‘negative declaration’) may be covered by A7(2) BIa, was confirmed by the CJEU in C-133/11 Folien Fischer. In the case art issue, it would require Vestel to show it had not infringed a valid IP right. However Birss LJ holds that Vestel’s claim, aimed at obtaining a FRAND declaration for the patented technology (Vestel needs a licence for the technology patented by Philips, and wants it at FRAND terms: Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory).

The declarations sought by Vestel, after dropping the abuse of dominance plea, are in this form [49]: i) A declaration that the terms offered are not FRAND; ii) A declaration that the terms of Vestel’s counter-offer are FRAND; and  iii) Alternatively, a declaration as to the terms which would be FRAND. these, is it held, are not declarations of non-liability in tort. Vestel have not been given right to access the IPRs. They seek that right in specified terms. They cannot claim that a hypothetical right of entry can proactively ground jurisdiction on the ground that the non-existing access has not been transgressed. As Birss LJ puts it: ‘Vestel’s position is like that of a trespasser with no right to enter the property claiming that if they had permission then it would not be a trespass.’

This was a creative jurisdictional attempt. I think it justifiably failed.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, para 2.198; para 2.454.

Vestel v Philips
CA rejects attempt to ground E&W jurisdiction, unsuccessfully argued as an A7(2) abuse of dominance before the High Court (see https://t.co/5uMH0fbZrY as a negative declaration of #patent infringement per CJEU Folien Fischerhttps://t.co/R1S3Eu3iwn

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) April 19, 2021

Lin v Gudmundsson & Ors [2021 EWHC 820 (Ch) is an application to annul the bankruptcy of Mr Gudmundsson by his ex-wife. She argues inter alia that the bankruptcy order should not have been made because England was not Mr Gudmundsson’s COMI.

At 54, Briggs J (presumably so led by counsel) oddly holds that the EU Insolvency Regulation (‘EIR’) 2015/848 only defines COMI in its recital 13. Odd, for that was the case under the previous Regulation, 1346/2000, not the current one which does define COMI in the text of the Regulation proper (Article 3(1) – see Heading 4 of my overview here). However that issue is of minor importance for the real hesitation I have with the judgment is

that the judge despite the EIR’s specific instruction that COMI needs to be determined proprio motu, retreats to the default adversarial nature of common law proceedings and defers to the claimant’s concession ‘that even if the court were to find that Mr Gudmundsson did not have his COMI in England and Wales it should not exercise its discretion to annul the bankruptcy order’ [57]; and

that the judge resorts to section 265(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986’s jurisdictional anchor (“in the period of three years ending with the day on which the petition is presented …a place of residence in England and Wales”) instead of the autonomous concept of ‘habitual residence’ in the Regulation. The meaning of that concept was recently discussed by the CJEU in C-253/19 Novo Banco.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed 2021, Chapter 5, para 5.95.

Lin v Gudmundsson & Ors [2021 EWHC 820 (Ch)
Failed application to annul bankruptcy finding
Includes not altogether convincing COMI determination on the basis of the EU #insolvency Regulationhttps://t.co/uonkiljhuP

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) April 19, 2021

AG De La Tour delivered today his opinion in case C‑30/20, which is about Article 7.2 Brussels I bis and Article 101 TFEU. The opinion is currently available in all EU official languages (save Irish), albeit not in English. Here is the French version (to check whether an English translation has finally been made available, just click on the link below and change the language version):

“L’article 7, point 2, du règlement (UE) no 1215/2012 du Parlement européen et du Conseil, du 12 décembre 2012, concernant la compétence judiciaire, la reconnaissance et l’exécution des décisions en matière civile et commerciale, doit être interprété en ce sens :

–        qu’il désigne la juridiction compétente de l’État membre dans le ressort de laquelle, notamment, le dommage direct s’est matérialisé ;

–        que, dans le cadre d’une action en réparation du préjudice causé par une infraction au titre de l’article 101 TFUE consistant notamment en des arrangements collusoires sur la fixation et l’augmentation des prix de biens, le lieu de la matérialisation du dommage se situe dans l’État membre du marché affecté par cette infraction au sein duquel des surcoûts ont été subis. La juridiction territorialement compétente est, en principe, celle dans le ressort de laquelle se trouve le lieu de l’acquisition de ces biens, par l’entreprise exerçant son activité dans le même État membre, laquelle doit être déterminée en fonction de critères économiques. À défaut de concordance entre le lieu de la matérialisation du dommage et celui de l’activité de la personne lésée, l’action peut être introduite devant la juridiction dans le ressort de laquelle la personne lésée est établie, et

–        que les États membres ont la faculté de choisir de concentrer le traitement des litiges devant certaines juridictions, dans le cadre de leur organisation juridictionnelle, sous réserve du respect des principes d’équivalence et d’effectivité. En particulier, dans le domaine du droit de la concurrence, les États membres doivent veiller à ce que les règles qu’ils établissent ou qu’ils appliquent ne portent pas atteinte à l’application effective des articles 101 et 102 TFUE ».

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=240225&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=4884262

The Court of Justice delivered today its judgment in case C‑73/20, which is about the Insolvency Regulation and Rome I:

“Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings and Article 12(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) must be interpreted as meaning that the law applicable to the contract under the latter regulation also governs the payment made by a third party in performance of a contracting party’s contractual payment obligation where, in insolvency proceedings, that payment is challenged as an act detrimental to all the creditors”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=240225&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=4884262

Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona delivered today his opinion in joint cases C‑152/20 and C‑218/20, which is about Rome I. The opinion is currently available in all EU official languages (save Irish), albeit not in English. Here is the French version (to check whether an English translation has finally been made available, just click on the link below and change the language version):

« 1) L’article 8 du règlement (CE) no 593/2008 […] doit être interprété en ce sens que, lorsque la loi régissant le contrat individuel de travail a été choisie, il y a lieu d’exclure les autres lois qui, à défaut de choix, auraient été applicables en vertu des paragraphes 2, 3 ou 4 de cet article, pourvu que la première offre au travailleur un niveau de protection égal ou supérieur à celui assuré par les dispositions auxquelles il ne peut être dérogé par accord de la loi qui aurait été appliquée en l’absence de choix.

2) Les règles relatives au salaire minimal du pays où le travailleur salarié a exercé habituellement son activité peuvent, en principe, être qualifiées de « dispositions auxquelles il ne peut être dérogé par accord en vertu de la loi qui, à défaut de choix, aurait été applicable », au sens de l’article 8, paragraphe 1, seconde phrase, du règlement no 593/2008. La primauté de ces règles dépendra de leur configuration dans l’ordre juridique de référence, ce qu’il appartient à la juridiction de renvoi de vérifier.

3) Les articles 3 et 8 du règlement no 593/2008 doivent être interprétés en ce sens que le choix, explicite ou implicite, de la loi applicable à un contrat individuel de travail doit être libre pour les deux parties, ce qui n‘est pas le cas lorsqu’une disposition nationale impose d’insérer dans ce contrat une clause de choix de la loi. Ces articles n’empêchent toutefois pas qu’une telle clause soit préalablement rédigée dans le contrat par décision de l’employeur, à laquelle le travailleur donne son consentement ».

Source : https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=240242&pageIndex=0&doclang=FR&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=4884308

Austrian Airlines
Transport
Le simple déroutement d’un vol vers un aéroport proche n’ouvre pas droit à une indemnisation forfaitaire

Chanel / EUIPO - Huawei Technologies (Représentation d'un cercle contenant deux courbes entrelacées)
Propriété intellectuelle et industrielle
Le Tribunal rejette le recours de Chanel contre l’enregistrement d’une marque de Huawei au motif que les marques figuratives en cause ne sont pas similaires

The HCCH Permanent Bureau has released today the Legal Guide to Uniform Instruments in the Area of International Commercial Contracts, with a Focus on Sales, a joint publication of the Secretariats of UNCITRAL, UNIDROIT and the HCCH.

It “offers an overview of the principal legislative texts prepared by each organisation, such as the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, the HCCH Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts and the UNIDROIT Principles on International Commercial Contracts”.

It is attached to this post.

legal-guide-uniform-instruments-international-commercial-contractsDownload

Source: https://www.hcch.net/en/news-archive/details/?varevent=796

The Grand Chamber of the CJEU delivered today its judgment in case C‑896/19 (Repubblika v Il-Prim Ministru, intervening party: WY) on the Rule of Law. This important decision is available in all official languages of the European Union (except Irish) as well as in English. Here is the operative part:

“1. The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU must be interpreted as meaning that it may be applied in a case in which a national court is seised of an action provided for by national law and seeking a ruling on the conformity with EU law of national provisions governing the procedure for the appointment of members of the judiciary of the Member State to which that court belongs. Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be duly taken into consideration for the purposes of interpreting that provision.

2. The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU must be interpreted as not precluding national provisions which confer on the Prime Minister of the Member State concerned a decisive power in the process for appointing members of the judiciary, while providing for the involvement, in that process, of an independent body responsible for, inter alia, assessing candidates for judicial office and giving an opinion to that Prime Minister”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=240084&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=4269763

Repubblika
DFON
Les dispositions nationales d’un État membre qui confèrent au Premier ministre un pouvoir décisif dans la nomination des juges, tout en prévoyant l’intervention d’un organe indépendant chargé d’évaluer les candidats et de fournir un avis, ne sont pas contraires au droit de l’Union

The Court of Justice delivered today its judgment in Case C‑729/19 (TKF v Department of Justice for Northern Ireland), which is about the Maintenance Regulation:

“1. Article 75(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations must be interpreted as applying only to decisions given by national courts in States which were already members of the European Union on the date of adoption of those decisions.

2. Regulation No 4/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that no provision of that regulation enables decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations, given in a State before its accession to the European Union and before the date of application of that regulation, to be recognised and enforced, after that State’s accession to the European Union, in another Member State”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=239895&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=8777055

Advocate General Tanchev delivered today his opinion in case C‑508/19 (M.F. v J.M., joined parties: Prokurator Generalny, Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich), which is about the Rule of Law:

“The right to a tribunal established by law, affirmed by the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted in the sense that, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, a person appointed to the position of judge of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court), Disciplinary Chamber, does not comply with that requirement if his act of appointment was delivered in flagrant breach of national rules governing the procedure for the appointment of judges of the Supreme Court, which is a matter for the referring court to establish. In the context of that assessment, the referring court must appraise the manifest and intentional character as well as the gravity of the breaches in question.

The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU in the light of Article 47 of the Charter must be interpreted as meaning that a court chamber does not constitute an independent and impartial tribunal, within the meaning of those provisions, when the objective conditions in which it was created, its characteristics as well as the manner of appointment of its members are capable of giving rise to legitimate doubts, in the minds of subjects of the law, as to the imperviousness of that chamber to external factors, and, in particular, to the direct or indirect influence of the legislature and the executive, and as to its neutrality with respect to the interests before it and, thus, whether they may lead to that chamber not being seen to be independent or impartial with the consequence of prejudicing the trust which justice in a democratic society must inspire in subjects of the law. It is for the referring court to determine, in the light of all the relevant factors established before it, whether that applies to a court such as the Disciplinary Chamber of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court).

In such a situation, the principle of the primacy of EU law must be interpreted as requiring the referring court to disapply national law provisions which reserve jurisdiction to rule on actions, such as the one in the main proceedings, to such a chamber, so that those actions may be examined by a court which fulfils the requirements of independence and impartiality referred to above and which would have jurisdiction were it not for those provisions”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=239898&pageIndex=0&doclang=fr&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=3157544

Thank you indeed Gilles Cuniberti for flagging and discussing the end of March decision (Press Release only) by the Paris Court of First Instance in which it held that an action against an arbitrator for damages following his failure to disclose a conflict of interests, which led to the annulment of the award, fell within Brussels Ia despite its arbitration exception.

I have more sympathy for the decision than Gilles. At the very least I am not surprised national courts should be confused about the demarcation. Brussels Ia inserted the Smorgasbord of confusion following West Tankers, by collating an even prima facie conflicting array of ins and outs in its recital 12. Even before the entry into force of Brussels Ia, Cooke J in Toyota v Prolat held that recital 12 is of no use. Other than in fairly straightforward cases such as Premier Cruises v DLA Piper Russia, good argument might exist on many conceivable cases.

Deciding the demarcation with help from the New York Convention itself (one might have suggested that what is included in New York, should not be included in Brussels Ia) does not help in the case at issue for as ia Tadas Varapnickas notes, Uncitral and New York are silent on the status of the arbitrator.

Assuming BIa applies, there must be little doubt there is a contractual relation, even between the arbitrator and the party who did not appoint her or him, in the BIa Article 7(1) sense, following CJEU flightright.

Curial seat was Paris, yet hearings and deliberations had taken place in Germany. Forum contractus as a provision of services was held to have been Germany.

This is where Burkhard Hess, at the request of Gilles, took over: Burkhard further discusses the findings on arbitration, agrees with Germany as the forum contractus per ia CJEU Wood Floor Solutions, and suggests (see similarly Mann J in Philips v TCL) the German courts are bound by the Paris’ court’s findings per CJEU Gothaer.

Much relevant. I do not know whether appeal is being sought.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 2.2.3.4, para 2.110 ff.;

Consorzio Italian Management e Catania Multiservizi et Catania Multiservizi
DFON
Selon l’avocat général Michal Bobek, la Cour devrait revoir sa jurisprudence (les critères Cilfit) sur l’obligation de renvoi préjudiciel qui incombe aux juridictions nationales statuant en dernier ressort

FBF
Droit institutionnel
Selon l’avocat général Bobek, la Cour devrait déclarer invalides les orientations sur les modalités de gouvernance et de surveillance des produits bancaires de détail de l’Autorité bancaire européenne

Sumal
Concurrence
Pour l’avocat général Pitruzzella, un juge national peut condamner une filiale à réparer les dommages provoqués par le comportement anticoncurrentiel de sa société mère, seule destinataire de l’amende infligée par la Commission

Stolichna obshtina, rayon "Pancharevo"
Citoyenneté européenne
S’agissant de la reconnaissance dans l’Union de la filiation d’un enfant d’un couple marié du même sexe, l’avocate générale Kokott préconise de trouver un équilibre entre l’identité nationale des États membres et le droit à la libre circulation de l’enfant et de ses parents

IS (Illégalité de l’ordonnance de renvoi)
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Selon l’avocat général Pikamäe, sur la base de la primauté du droit de l’Union, un juge national doit écarter toute législation ou pratique juridictionnelle nationale qui porte atteinte à sa faculté d‘interroger la Cour de justice

Pays-Bas / Conseil et Parlement
Agriculture
La Cour de justice rejette le recours introduit par les Pays-Bas contre l’interdiction de la pêche au moyen de navires utilisant le courant électrique impulsionnel

Olympiako Athlitiko Kentro Athinon
SOPO
Travailleurs du secteur public placés, dans certaines conditions, sous le régime de la réserve de main-d’œuvre : la réglementation grecque n’est pas contraire au droit de l’Union