Flux européens

A (Publicité et vente de médicaments en ligne)
Liberté d'établissement
Un État membre de destination d’un service de vente en ligne de médicaments non soumis à prescription médicale ne peut interdire à des pharmacies établies dans d’autres États membres vendant ces médicaments de recourir au référencement payant dans des moteurs de recherche et des comparateurs de prix

Groupe Lactalis
Rapprochement des législations
La réglementation de l’Union harmonisant l’indication obligatoire du pays d’origine ou du lieu de provenance des denrées alimentaires et, notamment, du lait ne fait pas obstacle à l’adoption de mesures nationales imposant certaines mentions complémentaires d’origine ou de provenance

I flagged [2020] EWHC 2191 (Ch) Virgin Atlantic (the plan in the meantime has been sanctioned in [2020] EWHC 2376 (Ch)) in an update of my earlier post on the Colouroz Investment Scheme of Arrangement.

Restructuring practitioners have been justifiably excited by this new addition to England’s regulatory competition in restructuring tourism.

In my many posts on Schemes of Arrangements (see in particular Apcoa with the many references to later cases in that post; and Lecta Paper), I have summarised the modus operandi: no firm decision on jurisdiction under Brussels Ia is made (it is by no means certain but scheme creditors have so far not taken much of a swipe seeing as they tend to accept the attraction of the debtor company continuing as  a going concern following the use of an English scheme). If at least one of the creditors is domiciled in England, it is considered sued and a defendant per Article 4 Brussels Ia. Other, non-England domiciled creditors are then pulled into English jurisdiction using the one anchor defendant per Article 8(1). Trower J extends that assumption to Restructuring Plans at 58 ff:

1. 1. 1. It is now well-established that an application for sanction of a Part 26 scheme is a civil or commercial matter and the reasoning seems to me to apply with equal force to a Part 26A restructuring plan. However, it has never been completely determined whether the rule laid down in Article 4(1) of the Regulation, that any person domiciled in an EU member state must (subject to any applicable exception) be sued in the courts of that member state, also applies to a Part 26 scheme, although the matter has been referred to and debated in a number of cases.

1. 1. 1. In the present case, I shall adopt the usual practice of assuming without deciding that Chapter II and, therefore, Article 4 of the Recast Judgments Regulation applies to these proceedings on the basis that Plan Creditors are being sued by the company and that they are defendants, or to be treated as defendants, to the application to sanction the scheme. If, on the basis of that assumption, the court has jurisdiction because one of the exceptions to Article 4 applies, then there is no need to determine whether the assumption is correct and I will not do so.

1. 1. 1. In the present case, the Company relies on the exception provided for by Article 8 of the Recast Judgments Regulation. By Article 8, a defendant who is domiciled outside a member state may be sued in that member state provided that another defendant in the same action is domiciled there and provided that it is expedient to hear the claims against both together to avoid risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting in separate proceedings. The consequence of this is that if sufficient scheme creditors are domiciled in England then Article 8(1) confers jurisdiction on the English court to sanction a scheme affecting the rights of creditors domiciled elsewhere in the EU, so long as it is expedient to do so, which it normally will be (see, for example, Re DTEK Finance Plc [2017] BCC 165 and [2016] EWHC 3563 (Ch) at the convening and sanctioning stages).

1. 1. and concluding at 61
      1. In the present case, the evidence is that at least one Plan Creditor from each class is domiciled in the jurisdiction. Perhaps most importantly, so far as in terms of Trade Plan Creditors, it is 90 out of 168. In my view, this is amply sufficient to ensure that the requirements of Article 8 are satisfied.’

Article 25 BIa jurisdiction is obiter dismissed at 62 for not all creditors have credit arrangements subject to English choice of court.

Restructuring Plans do have features which differ from Schemes of Arrangement and some of those do trigger different considerations at the recognition and enforcement level than have hitherto been the case for Schemes.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd edition 2016, Chapter 2, Chapter 5. Note: 3rd of the Handbook is forthcoming (February 2021).

report-on-the-establishment-of-an-eu-mechanism-on-democracy-the-rule-of-law-and-fundamental-rightsDownload

The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs of the European Parliament has released today its report on the establishment of an EU Mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights (A9-0170/2020). The rapporteur is Michal Šimečka.

It is attached to this post.

In Marriott v Fresson & Ors [2020] EWHC 2515 (Comm) at issue in the jurisdictional challenge is whether Articles 24(2) or (3) Brussels Ia are engaged in litigation essentially seeking to uphold commitments included in two contracts expressly governed by English law and with an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the courts of England. The goal of the agreements being the transfer of shares in Spanish-domiciled corporation (PEV), the question is whether they ‘have as their object the validity of the constitution, the nullity or the dissolution of companies or other legal persons or associations of natural or legal persons, or the validity of the decisions of their organs’ (A24(2)) alternatively ‘have as their object the validity of entries in public registers’ (A24(3)).

Toledano DJ referred ia to Koza, Zavarco, and C-144/10 BVG and held that the principal object of the proceedings is the enforcement of shareholder agreements.

Even the defendants, in their jurisdictional challenge, do not suggest that the proceedings directly call into question the validity of any specific decision of PEV organs. Rather, they contend that the proceedings are principally concerned with a claim to the legal ownership of shares in PEV which impacts upon the composition of the shareholders of PEV and prospectively therefore upon the validity of decisions of the shareholders as an organ of that company.

That was a bit optimistic for Brussels Ia’s exclusive jurisdictional rules quite clearly do not aim at claims whose eventual effect might engage the heads of jurisdiction listed in them. The distinction however is not always easy to make. Claimants may creatively formulate their claims so as they do not fall within A24 (a tactic used particularly in A24(4) intellectual property rights cases, hence requiring the judge to decide what the true object of the proceedings might be; see e.g. Chugai v UCB).

Marriott v Fresson clearly differs from Ferrexpo, which is discussed in the judgment, where validity of the resolutions of the company’s general meeting of shareholders was the direct and specifically formulated claim engaged Article 24 which was applied reflexively.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.6, Heading 2.2.6.5.

Challenge to jurisdiction on the basis of Articles 24(2) and (3) Brussels Ia. Fails. Principal object of the proceedings held to be the enforcement of shareholder agreements. https://t.co/479ryb3lV5

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) September 25, 2020

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