European Civil Justice

The Court of Justice delivered on 9 December 2021 its judgment in case C‑242/20 (Hrvatske Sume), which is about Brussels I.

Context: “proceedings between, on the one hand, HRVATSKE ŠUME d.o.o., Zagreb, a company established in Croatia, successor in title to HRVATSKE ŠUME javno poduzeće za gospodarenje šumama i šumskim zemljištima u Republici Hrvatskoj p.o., Zagreb, and, on the other, BP Europa SE Hamburg, a company established in Germany, successor in title to Deutsche BP AG, in turn successor in title to The Burmah Oil (Deutschland) GmbH, concerning the recovery, on the basis of unjust enrichment, of an amount unduly paid in enforcement proceedings which were subsequently declared invalid”.

Decision: « 1. Article 22(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an action for restitution based on unjust enrichment does not come within the exclusive jurisdiction provided for by that provision, even though it was brought on account of the expiry of the time limit within which restitution of sums unduly paid in enforcement proceedings may be claimed in the context of the same enforcement proceedings.

2. Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that an action for restitution based on unjust enrichment does not fall within the scope of the ground of jurisdiction laid down in that provision ».

Note paragraph 36 : « In the absence of any application for enforcement, an action for restitution based on unjust enrichment does not come within the scope of Article 22(5) of Regulation No 44/2001 ».

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=250865&mode=req&pageIndex=5&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&cid=5334182

AG Saugmandsgaard Oe had previously, on 9 September 2021, delivered the following opinion: « Article 5(1) and Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 [..] must be interpreted as meaning that a claim for restitution based on unjust enrichment:
– is not a matter ‘relating to a contract’ within the meaning of the former provision, except where it is closely linked to a prior contractual relationship existing, or deemed to exist, between the parties to the dispute; and
– is not a matter ‘relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ within the meaning of the latter provision » (https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=245764&mode=req&pageIndex=23&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&cid=2104).

AG Campos Sanchez-Bordona delivered on 2 December 2021 his opinion in case C‑645/20 (V A), which is about the Succession Regulation.

Context: “1. The Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation, France) asks the Court of Justice whether the authorities of a Member State (2) in which the deceased has assets must establish of their own motion their jurisdiction to rule on the succession as a whole under Article 10 of Regulation No 650/2012.

2. The uncertainty has arisen in the course of a dispute over succession rights between the children of a deceased French citizen whose last habitual residence in France is contested, on the one hand, and the person who was the deceased’s wife (but not the mother of his children) at the time of his death, on the other.

3. None of the parties disputes the nationality of the deceased at the time of his death, or that he was the owner of a property situated in France. The disagreement lies only in where he was habitually resident when he died

4. At first instance, a French court declared that it had jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim brought by the deceased’s children, who had applied for the appointment of an administrator for the estate.

5. On appeal, however, the relevant court held that the French judicial authorities lacked jurisdiction over the succession as a whole, as the deceased’s last place of residence had been in the United Kingdom.

6. On appeal in cassation, the appellants claim that, in any event, the French courts should have declared that they had jurisdiction on their own initiative, which is the issue that forms the subject of the referring court’s question”.

Suggested response: “Article 10(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 […] must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where the deceased did not have his last habitual residence in any Member State of the European Union, the court of a Member State in which a dispute in a matter of succession has arisen must declare of its own motion that it has jurisdiction to settle the succession as a whole if, in the light of facts alleged by the parties which are not in dispute, the deceased was a national of that State at the time of his death and was the owner of assets located there”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=250423&mode=req&pageIndex=5&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&cid=5334182

On 25 November 2021, the CJEU delivered its judgment in case C‑289/20 (IB v FA), which is about Article 3 Brussels II bis.

Decision: “Article 3(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 […] must be interpreted as meaning that a spouse who divides his or her time between two Member States may have his or her habitual residence in only one of those Member States, with the result that only the courts of the Member State in which that habitual residence is situated have jurisdiction to rule on the application for the dissolution of matrimonial ties”.

Note: the Court has clearly indicated, in the preceding paragraphs, the particular State it believes the spouse to be resident in (subject to the national court’s assessment):

“59 In the present case, as is apparent from the documents before the Court, it is common ground that IB, a national of the Member State of the national court seised, satisfied the condition – laid down in the sixth indent of Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No 2201/2003 – of having resided in that Member State for at least six months immediately before lodging his application for the dissolution of matrimonial ties. It is also established that, since May 2017, IB has been carrying out, on a stable and permanent basis, a professional activity of indefinite duration in France during the week, and that he stays in an apartment there for the purposes of that professional activity.

60 That evidence indicates that IB’s stay in the territory of that Member State is stable and also shows, at the very least, IB’s integration into a social and cultural environment within that Member State”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=250046&mode=req&pageIndex=6&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&cid=5338385

On 25 November 2021, the CJEU delivered its judgment in case C‑25/20 (NK, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Alpine BAU GmbH) :

« Article 32(2) of Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 […], read in conjunction with Articles 4 and 28 of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that the lodging, in secondary insolvency proceedings, of claims already submitted in the main insolvency proceedings by the liquidator in those proceedings is subject to the provisions relating to time limits for the lodging of claims and to the consequences of lodging such claims out of time, laid down by the law of the State of the opening of those secondary proceedings ».

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=250042&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=3696513

AG Campos Sanchez-Bordona delivered on 28 October 2021 his opinion in case C‑498/20 (ZK). 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).

Suggested decision: “1) L’article 1er, paragraphe 2, sous d), du règlement (CE) no 864/2007 […] doit être interprété en ce sens qu’il exclut de son champ d’application les obligations non contractuelles résultant d’un manquement au devoir de diligence des associés ou des organes lorsque la loi rend ceux-ci responsables d’un tel manquement à l’égard des tiers pour des raisons propres au droit des sociétés. La responsabilité découlant de la violation du devoir général de diligence n’est pas exclue du champ d’application du règlement.

2) L’article 4, paragraphe 1, du règlement Rome II doit être interprété en ce sens que “le lieu où le dommage survient” est le lieu où est établie la société, lorsque le préjudice subi par ses créanciers est la conséquence médiate de pertes économiques subies en premier lieu par la société elle-même. La circonstance que les actions soient exercées par un curateur, au titre de sa mission légale de liquidation de la masse active, ou par une personne assurant la défense collective d’intérêts pour le compte de (mais, non pas, au nom de) l’ensemble des créanciers est sans incidence sur la détermination de ce lieu. Le fait que le domicile de certains créanciers soit situé en dehors de l’Union européenne n’est pas davantage pertinent.

3) L’article 4, paragraphe 3, du règlement Rome II doit être interprété en ce sens qu’une relation préexistante entre l’auteur d’un dommage et la victime directe (telle que, par exemple, une convention de financement, pour laquelle les parties ont choisi la loi applicable) est un élément qui doit être mis en balance avec les autres circonstances afin d’établir s’il existe un lien manifestement plus étroit entre le fait dommageable et un pays déterminé qu’entre ce même fait et le pays dont la loi serait applicable en vertu de l’article 4, paragraphes 1 ou 2, dudit règlement”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=248304&mode=req&pageIndex=11&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=FR&cid=5352290

AG Szpunar delivered on 28 October 2021 his opinion in case C‑421/20 (Acacia Srl v BMW AG). 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). The issue requires a clarification of the articulation between the 3 Regulations: “1. Le noyau dur du droit international privé de l’Union est composé des règles de compétence et des règles de conflit figurant, respectivement, dans le règlement (UE) no 1215/2012et les deux règlements jumeaux sur la loi applicable aux obligations contractuelles et non contractuelles, à savoir les règlements (CE) nos 593/2008 et 864/2007.

2. Ces règlements ont des champs d’application particulièrement larges. Cela étant, l’application des règles de compétence du règlement no 1215/2012 requiert l’existence d’un élément d’extranéité qui se traduit par le caractère international du rapport juridique en cause découlant de l’implication de plusieurs États. Pareillement, les règles de conflit des règlements Rome I et Rome II s’appliquent dans les situations comportant un conflit de lois.

3. Par ailleurs, sans préjudice de ces exigences relatives à l’existence d’un élément d’extranéité, les règlements no 1215/2012 et Rome II prévoient des exceptions en faveur des dispositions particulières du droit de l’Union en donnant une priorité, notamment, à celles du règlement (CE) no 6/2002.

4. Le présent renvoi préjudiciel donne à la Cour l’occasion de clarifier l’articulation entre ces trois règlements en ce qui concerne les situations visées à l’article 82, paragraphe 5, du règlement no 6/2002, à savoir celles dans lesquelles une action en contrefaçon est portée devant les tribunaux de l’État membre sur le territoire duquel le fait de contrefaçon a été commis ou menace d’être commis”.

Suggested decision: “1) L’article 1er, paragraphe 1, du règlement (CE) no 864/2007 […] et l’article 88, paragraphe 2, et l’article 89, paragraphe 1, sous d), du règlement (CE) no 6/2002 du Conseil, du 12 décembre 2001, sur les dessins ou modèles communautaires doivent être interprétés en ce sens que, lorsqu’un tribunal d’un État membre est saisi au titre de l’article 82, paragraphe 5, de ce dernier règlement d’une action en contrefaçon d’un titulaire établi dans cet État membre contre un auteur de contrefaçon établi dans un autre État membre, qui vise la proposition à la vente et la mise sur le marché de ce premier État membre des produits en cause, il s’agit d’une situation comportant un conflit de lois au sens de l’article 1er, paragraphe 1, du règlement no 864/2007 et, en conséquence, l’article 8, paragraphe 2, de ce règlement désigne la loi applicable aux demandes annexes visant le territoire de cet État membre.

2) L’article 8, paragraphe 2, du règlement no 864/2007 doit être interprété en ce sens que, en ce qui concerne la détermination de la loi applicable aux demandes annexes à cette action en contrefaçon, la notion de « pays dans lequel il a été porté atteinte à ce droit », au sens de cette disposition, vise le pays du lieu où l’acte de contrefaçon initial, qui est à l’origine du comportement reproché, a été commis”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=248303&mode=req&pageIndex=11&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=FR&cid=5352290

On 1 December 2021, the HCCH held an online event focused on contemporary issues relating to the application of the 2005 Choice of Court Convention. The recordings are available at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1pVCqvmzyM&list=PLL3fQvUXrbUH0PwGssTjuJ55qOCiEcgNW

On 8 November 2021, the HCCH Working Group on Preventing and Addressing Illicit Practices in Intercountry Adoption met with a view to developing a Toolkit aimed at preventing and addressing illicit practices in intercountry adoptions made under the 1993 Adoption Convention.
The report of the Group is available at https://assets.hcch.net/docs/35d8530a-b5bd-4330-b2fc-abda099e7f6b.pdf

In a decision of 26 October 2021 (RG 20/04526), the ICCP applies Rome II to acts of unfair competition resulting from the use by a Polish company of a forbidden product to increase the longetivity of fresh fruit salads sold in France :

« Sur la responsabilité de la société FRUCTOFRESH
Sur la loi applicable
94-Conformément à l’article 6 du Règlement CE n° 864 /2007 sur la loi applicable aux obligations non contractuelles, dit Rome II, qui s’applique dans les situations comportant un conflit de lois, aux obligations non contractuelles relevant de la matière civile et commerciale « la loi applicable à une obligation non contractuelle résultant d’un acte de concurrence déloyale est celle du pays sur le territoire duquel les relations de concurrence ou les intérêts collectifs des consommateurs sont affectés ou susceptibles de l’être. »

95- En l’espèce, les actes de concurrence déloyales allégués concernent le territoire français de telle sorte que le droit français dont l’application est commandée par les dispositions du Règlement précité est en conséquence applicable ce que les parties ne contestent pas ».

Résumé : « A judgment from the Créteil Commercial Court of the 4th February 2020, which rejected the unfair competition claim brought by Déli, a French fresh fruits salad distributor against Fructofresh, a Polish company which distributes the same kind of products in France, was partially overturned by the Paris Court of Appeal.

After ascertaining that French law was applicable to these tort claims, the Court decided, based on the exhibits produced that there were enough serious, precise and concurrent elements that Fructofresh had added in their products, between 2013 and 2016, a preservative forbidden by European regulation which is known as velcorin. This preservative allowed said company to extend the preservation period of fruit salads from 10 to 14 days.

The Court did not acknowledge Bharlev’s liability, another competitor, since there was no evidence of the product’s commercialisation. The Court acknowledged the discontinuance of Déli’s claims against the German distributor Drinkstar which sold the preservative to Fructofresh.

The court forbidden the Polish company to commercialise its products containing the prohibited preservative in France, and granted Déli’s claim for financial compensation which was calculated on the loss of profit during the dereferencing period by its client Pomona, which granted the tender to Fructofresh in 2016 ».

Source : https://www.cours-appel.justice.fr/paris/26102021-ccip-ca-rg-2004526-pratiques-anticoncurrentielles

In a decision of 19 October 2021 (RG 20/03074), the ICCP recalled Recital 13 Rome I, and applied its Article 3 in favour of French law (with URDG 758 as part of the contractual rules)

Résumé : « In this case, the ICCP-CA was seized of an appeal against a judgment of the Paris Commercial Court which had sentenced the Egyptian bank SAIB to carry out its obligation of counter-guarantee in favor of the British bank ABC. The British bank, first rank guarantor of an Egyptian importer CDCM, had paid to the French beneficiary Peugeot the amount of the unpaid invoices corresponding to the imported vehicles, and claimed the payment of said amount in execution of its counter-guarantee to the Egyptian bank.

The bank SAID refused to execute the payment, disputing the validity of the guarantee claim on the grounds that some invoices had already been paid and that the amount claimed was therefore incorrect.

The Court, in application of French law, the law chosen by the parties, and of the Uniform Rules of Guarantee on First Demand n° 758 to which the parties had referred to in their agreement, rejected SAIB bank’s exceptions of non-performance in application of the guarantee’s independence from the initial contract, which does not depend on the guarantee’s qualification of either a first demand guarantee or a stand-by letter of credit (SBLC), the Anglo-Saxon variation of the independent guarantee.

The Court held that the bank’s argument to refuse payment actually amounted to reintroduce into the debate, under the guise of the document’s conformity, the contract’s payment exceptions, which are not enforceable (§46).

The Court did not accept the exception of fraud, a new exception on appeal for which the conditions provided for in article 2321 of the French civil code were not met (§51). The decision of the first judges was therefore entirely confirmed »

Source: https://www.cours-appel.justice.fr/paris/19102021-ccip-ca-rg-2003074-jugement-du-tribunal-de-commerce-de-paris-execution-dune-contre

In a decision of 19 October 2021 (RG 20/02342), the ICCP made an interesting application of an accord procédural in favour of the lex fori, which bypasses the application of Rome I in the eyes of the Court.

Résumé : « In this case for liability due to the sudden termination of an established commercial relationship, the ICCP-CA decided that a company which executed a contract signed by its subsidiary after the latter’s liquidation had an established relationship for the entire duration of the commercial relationship. The durability of business was characterized by the continuation of a former relationship. The court ruled that, in consideration of the five year contractual relationship, the six month notice period was sufficient and therefore, there were no sudden termination.

In relation to the alleged termination of the exclusive commercial agency contract, the ICCP-CA held that the continuation of a commercial relationship established after the termination of the contract did not have as an effect to maintain the contractual exclusivity clause, unless ascertained otherwise by the parties, which was not demonstrated by them in this case, the company having terminated said clause before the term of the contract ».

Source: https://www.cours-appel.justice.fr/paris/19102021-ccip-ca-rg-2002342-contrat-distribution-exclusive

On 19 October 2021, HCCH organised an event to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the HCCH 1996 Child Protection Convention. The recordings are available here

On 5 October 2021, Indonesia acceded to the Convention of 5 October 1961 Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents. It will enter into force for Indonesia on 4 June 2022.

Source : https://www.hcch.net/en/news-archive/details/?varevent=825

The Hague Special Commission on the practical operation of the Apostille Convention met from 5 to 8 October 2021. Its Conclusions & Recommendations are available at https://assets.hcch.net/docs/b7b20030-6229-459f-b26b-e9185bf6fffc.pdf

Extract (example) : « the PB is not appropriately placed to establish a digital certificate authority and reiterating the importance of technology neutrality and maintaining flexibility for all Contracting Parties, the SC recognised the good practice of using digital certificates with high standards, that are well-recognised and frequently used, and invited Contracting Parties to inform the PB about the certificate technology used to issue e-Apostilles. […] The SC recalled the fundamental principle that, irrespective of format, an Apostille validly issued by one Contracting Party in accordance with the Convention must be accepted by all other Contracting Parties for which the Convention is in force. In this spirit, it encouraged Contracting Parties to take active steps to ensure the acceptance of incoming e-Apostilles ».

« From 28 to 30 September 2021, the Working Group on Preventing and Addressing Illicit Practices in Intercountry Adoption met [to discuss] a Toolkit aimed at preventing and addressing illicit practices in intercountry adoptions made under the 1993 Adoption Convention ».

The Aide-mémoire of the Group is available https://assets.hcch.net/docs/43cf175b-1c27-4a90-8be7-7a87b8412665.pdf (Annex I)

Source : https://www.hcch.net/en/news-archive/details/?varevent=823

The Council Conclusions on the Protection of Vulnerable Adults across the European Union have been published this week at the OJEU (C 330I, 17.8.2021, p. 1).

Extract : « The Council invites the Commission to:

On civil law matters

— assess possible actions to encourage further Member States to ratify the 2000 Hague Convention as swiftly as possible;

— conduct a thorough study aimed at carefully reflecting on and assessing how the European Union could further strengthen the protection of vulnerable adults in cross-border situations;

— consider the possible need for a legal framework within the European Union to facilitate the free circulation of judicial and extrajudicial decisions on the protection of vulnerable adults in civil matters, which might also include powers of representation, and advance directives on medical treatment;

— present to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee a report on the results of the study, accompanied, if necessary, by legislative proposals ».

It is likely that the issue will become more and more pressing as time passes since no European country reaches the demographic survival rate (renewal of population : 2.1).

Yesterday (10 August 2021), the Hague Conference issued a press release according to which, on 23 July 2021, New Zealand ratified the Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance, which will enter into force for it on 1 November 2021.

Source : https://www.hcch.net/en/news-archive/details/?varevent=814

The Court delivered earlier this week (2 August 2021) its decision in case C‑262/21 PPU (A v B), which is about the impact of a transfer decision under Regulation no 604/2013 on the terms “wrongful removal or retention” under Article 2 Brussels II bis (adoption of the transfer decision followed by its annulment without the tranferred persons being authorised to return). 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 2, point 11, du règlement (CE) no 2201/2003 […] doit être interprété en ce sens que ne peut constituer un déplacement illicite ou un non-retour illicite, au sens de cette disposition, la situation dans laquelle l’un des parents, sans l’accord de l’autre parent, est conduit à emmener son enfant de son État de résidence habituelle vers un autre État membre en exécution d’une décision de transfert prise par le premier État membre, sur le fondement du règlement (UE) no 604/2013 du Parlement européen et du Conseil, du 26 juin 2013, établissant les critères et mécanismes de détermination de l’État membre responsable de l’examen d’une demande de protection internationale introduite dans l’un des États membres par un ressortissant de pays tiers ou un apatride, puis à demeurer dans le second État membre après que cette décision de transfert a été annulée sans pour autant que les autorités du premier État membre aient décidé de reprendre en charge les personnes transférées ou d’autoriser celles-ci au séjour ».

Source : https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=F6B1AEDDB2F275B0B192DEE518C60676?text=&docid=244847&pageIndex=0&doclang=FR&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=4913022

« From 5 to 9 July 2021, the Experts’ Group on Parentage / Surrogacy met for the ninth time. […] The Experts’ Group discussed the scope of the possible draft Convention on legal parentage (draft Convention) and the scope of the possible draft Protocol on legal parentage established as a result of an (international) surrogacy arrangement (draft Protocol). The Group discussed in particular the desirability and feasibility of including domestic adoptions in the scope of the draft Convention; legal parentage established as a result of a domestic surrogacy arrangement in the draft Convention or draft Protocol; and domestic adoptions in the context of a (domestic / international) surrogacy arrangement in the draft Convention or draft Protocol.

The Experts’ Group will meet again in November 2021 and in 2022, before submitting its final report for the 2023 CGAP meeting ».

The report of the ninth meeting is available at https://assets.hcch.net/docs/a29ca035-f4d9-469f-9ff9-cd9fca1918c8.pdf. One finds in it the Aide-mémoire of the meeting.

The opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Digitalisation of justice in the European Union. A toolbox of opportunities (COM(2020) 710 final) (EESC 2021/00048) has been published at the OJEU, C 286, 16.7.2021, p. 88, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.C_.2021.286.01.0088.01.ENG&toc=OJ%3AC%3A2021%3A286%3ATOC