Flux européens

Yesterday (28 September 2020), the United Kingdom “deposited its instrument of accession to the HCCH Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements […] and its instrument of ratification to the HCCH Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance”. The United Kingdom is currently bound by these conventions “by virtue of the approval of the European Union. These new instruments of accession and ratification ensure continuity in the application of these Conventions after the conclusion of the transition period following the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU. Both Conventions will continue to be applicable to and in the United Kingdom until 31 December 2020, in accordance with the Withdrawal Agreement. The 2005 Choice of Court Convention and 2007 Child Support Convention will then enter into force for the United Kingdom on 1 January 2021”.

Source: here

Hessischer Rundfunk
Politique économique
Selon l’avocat général Pitruzzella, le droit de l’Union prévoit, en principe, une obligation d’accepter des espèces en euros pour le règlement des créances de sommes d’argent

Installation du Parquet européen

Generalbundesanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof (Principe de spécialité)
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Une mesure restrictive de liberté prise contre une personne visée par un premier mandat d’arrêt européen (MAE) sur la base de faits antérieurs et différents de ceux qui ont justifié sa remise en exécution d’un second MAE n’est pas contraire au droit de l’Union si cette personne a quitté volontairement l’État membre d’émission du premier MAE

The International Commercial Chamber of the Court of Appeal of Paris (France) delivered a few days ago (15 September 2020) a decision (RG 19/09518) on abrupt termination of established commercial relationships.

The summary: “In this liability case based on the abrupt termination of established commercial relationships, the ICCP-CA found admissible the action brought against the French subsidiary of the Asus group, alongside its Singaporean subsidiary, which had signed a partnership agreement with Sodexpo for the distribution of ASUS branded products in the French overseas departments and territories, in view of its interference in the establishment, execution and development of the said partnership, which created the appearance of a legitimate belief that the two Asus companies were partners in the commercial relationship (§§ 17 – 26). 

The ICCP-CA found the French and Singaporean subsidiaries of the Asus group liable of the abrupt termination of the commercial relationship. It ruled that the relationship was well established and that it had lasted for 25 months, among others in view of the development of the partnership between 2014 and 2016 and the granting of an exclusivity right at the end of 2016, suggesting a continuity of business flow for 2017 (§§ 30-37). The ICCP-CA held that the abruptness of the termination was characterized by the failure to give sufficient notice. It considered that in view of the 25-month duration of the commercial relationship, the constantly growing business volume (representing 40% of Sodexpo’s sales in 2016), the brand’s reputation and positioning in the global market, as well as the loss of a market that Sodexpo contributed to create in the French overseas departments and territories and the difficulty for the company to develop new business, the notification of termination should have been given 6 months in advance, rather than 7 days. 

The ICCP-CA has set the compensation for the abruptness of the termination on the basis of the loss of gross margin on the discounts granted by the Asus companies within the framework of their partnership with Sodexpo, specifying that the loss could not be calculated by reference to the margin earned by Sodexpo on its sales with wholesalers, third parties to the relationship, but only on the loss of the advantage resulting from the partnership with Asus (§§ 46-51). The ICCP-CA held that the abruptness of the termination also gave rise to a distinct harm affecting the image and commercial credibility of Sodexpo, taking into account the reputation of the Asus brand and the development of its distribution in the French overseas departments and territories.

The ICCP-CA furthermore rejected Sodexpo’s claim for compensation for the misappropriation of know-how in the absence of any proof establishing both wrongful acts committed by the Asus companies and a distinct loss resulting from the abruptness of the termination (§§ 54). It also rejected Sodexpo’s claim for reimbursement of unsold stock because of the lack of proof of an impossibility of selling it (§§ 57)”.

The decision is attached to this post.

15 sept 2020 CCIP- CA RG 1909518Download

The Explanatory Report on the HCCH Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters has been approved yesterday. You can find it attached .

HCCH Judgments Convention – Explanatory ReportDownload

Espagne / Commission
Aide d'État
Le régime fiscal espagnol applicable à certains accords de location-financement conclus par des chantiers navals constitue un régime d’aides

Landesbank Baden-Württemberg / CRU
Politique économique
Le Tribunal annule la décision du Conseil de résolution unique sur le calcul des contributions ex ante au Fonds de résolution unique pour 2017 et constate l’illégalité partielle du règlement délégué 2015/63

Asociaţia "Forumul Judecătorilor Din România"
Adhésion de nouveaux Etats
L’avocat général Bobek estime que la nomination ad interim de l'Inspecteur judiciaire en chef et les dispositions nationales relatives à la création d'une section spéciale des poursuites ayant compétence exclusive pour les infractions commises par des magistrats sont contraires au droit de l'Union

Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal
SERV
Le principe de la libre prestation des services et la directive sur les soins de santé transfrontaliers s’opposent à une réglementation nationale qui exclut, en l’absence d’autorisation préalable, le remboursement des coûts liés à une intervention subie d’urgence par une personne assurée, résidente d’un État membre, dans un autre État membre

Cali Apartments
Liberté d'établissement
Une réglementation nationale soumettant à autorisation la location, de manière répétée, d’un local destiné à l’habitation pour de courtes durées à une clientèle de passage qui n’y élit pas domicile est conforme au droit de l’Union

Autriche / Commission
Aide d'État
La Cour de justice confirme la décision de la Commission approuvant les aides britanniques en faveur de la centrale nucléaire de Hinkley Point C

Recorded Artists Actors Performers
Liberté d'établissement
Le droit de l’Union s’oppose à ce qu’un État membre exclue les artistes interprètes ou exécutants qui sont ressortissants d’États tiers à l’EEE du droit à une rémunération équitable et unique pour la diffusion de musique enregistrée

The Court of Justice delivered today its judgment in case C‑540/19 (WV v Landkreis Harburg) which is about Article 3 (b) of the Maintenance Regulation. The decision should have a clear practical impact: « A public body which seeks to recover, by way of an action for recovery, sums paid in place of maintenance to a maintenance creditor, and to which the claims of that maintenance creditor against the maintenance debtor have been transferred by way of subrogation, may validly invoke the jurisdiction of the court for the place where the creditor is habitually resident, as provided in Article 3(b) 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”.

Source: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=231185&mode=req&pageIndex=1&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&cid=2561617

AG  Saugmandsgaard Øe delivered last week (10 September 2020) his opinion in case C‑59/19 (Wikingerhof GmbH & Co. KG contre Booking.com BV), which is about Brussels I bis. The opinion is currently available in selected EU official languages only (such as German and Spanish). It is not available 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’une action en responsabilité civile fondée sur la violation des règles du droit de la concurrence relève de la « matière délictuelle ou quasi délictuelle », au sens de cette disposition, y compris lorsque le demandeur et le défendeur sont parties à un contrat et que les prétendus agissements anticoncurrentiels que le premier reproche au second se matérialisent dans leur relation contractuelle ».

Source : here

I reported earlier on the jurisdictional issues in BNP Paribas SA v Trattamento Rifiuti Metropolitani SPA [2020] EWHC 2436 (Comm) . In current judgment the issue of interest to the blog is the possibility of res judicata /issue estoppel on  the substance of the claim as a result of arguments made in the jurisdictional challenge.

The issue is an important one given the English (potentially other States’) courts’ inclusion of a ‘serious issue to be tried’ test in which the judge has to decide to ‘much the better of the argument’ standard at the jurisdictional gateway level. While aimed at determining jurisdiction, this inevitably engages with some discussion on the merits.

Cockerill J is justifiably cautious in accepting much estoppel, given the clear separation between jurisdictional and substantial discussions. I do feel she might have pointed out the relevance of the case being heard under Brussels Ia rules as opposed to residual English rules. Under the former, a certain amount of merits engagement may be required for some jurisdictional gateways as discussed repeatedly on the blog (and in the jurisdictional rulings there was clearly a lot of engagement with the facts, to establish Article 25 consent for choice of court). But there can certainly not be a ‘serious issue to be tried’ condition for the substance of the case, in the jurisdictional gateways of BIa (summary dismissal proceedings are an entirely different matter).

Geert.

 

Discussion on res judicate /issue estoppel and abuse of process in relation to earlier judgments upholding jurisdiction of the English courts – which I discuss here https://t.co/mn3rGYTttG

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) September 11, 2020

Compagnie des pêches de Saint-Malo
Aide d'État
Saisie d’une demande en interprétation portant sur les modalités d’exécution d’une décision de la Commission sanctionnant la France pour une aide d’État déclarée incompatible avec le marché commun, la Cour de justice constate l’invalidité de cette décision

Rosneft e.a / Conseil
Relations extérieures
La Cour confirme l’arrêt du Tribunal ayant rejeté un recours contre les mesures restrictives imposées à des sociétés pétrolières russes appartenant au groupe Rosneft dans le contexte de la crise de l’Ukraine

EUIPO / Messi Cuccittini
Propriété intellectuelle et industrielle
La Cour rejette les recours formés par l’EUIPO et une société espagnole contre l’arrêt du Tribunal autorisant le joueur de football Lionel Messi à enregistrer la marque « MESSI » pour des articles et des vêtements de sport

Telenor Magyarország
Liberté d'établissement
La Cour interprète, pour la première fois, le règlement de l’Union consacrant la « neutralité d’Internet »