Agrégateur de flux

Benedikt Windau, the editor of a fabulous German blog on civil procedural law, www.zpoblog.de, recently interviewed Federal Judge Dr Harmut Rensen, Member of the Tenth Panel of the division for civil and commercial matters at the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) on the experiences with video hearings in national an international patent matters in the pandemic. I allow myself to pick up a few elements from this fascinating interview in the following for our international audience:

The Tenth Panel functions as a court of first appeal (Berufungsgericht) in patent nullity proceedings and as a court of second appeal for legal review only (Revisionsgericht) in patent infringement proceedings. In both functions, particularly in its function as court of first appeal, actors from all over the world may be involved, and indeed, Judge Rensen reported about parties and their respective representatives and teams from the USA, Japan, South Korea, the UK, France, Italy and Spain during the last year.

Obviously, the start of the pandemic raised the question how to proceed, once physical hearings on site could no longer take place as before, since particularly in the appeal proceedings parties had usually appeared with several lawyers, patent lawyers, technical experts, interpreters etc., i.e. a large number of people had gathered in rather small court rooms, to say nothing of the general public and media. Staying all proceedings until an expected end of the pandemic (for which we are still waiting) would indeed have infringed the parties‘ fundamental procedural right to effective justice, abstaining from oral hearings and resorting to submission and exchange of written documents instead, as theoretically provided as an option under section 128 (2) German Code of Civil Procedure, would evidently not have been satisfying in matters as complex as patent matters (as well as probably in most other matters).

German civil procedural law allows for video hearings under section 128a (1) German Code of Civil Procedure. It reads (in the Governments official, yet may be not entirely perfect translation): „The court may permit the parties, their attorneys-in-fact, and advisers, upon their filing a corresponding application or ex officio, to stay at another location in the course of a hearing for oral argument, and to take actions in the proceedings from there. In this event, the images and sound of the hearing shall be broadcast in real time to this location and to the courtroom.“ The key word is „permit“. If the court „permits“ the parties etc. to proceed as described, it does not mean that the parties are required to do so. And indeed, parties applied for postponing scheduled hearings instead of going into video hearings. The presiding judge of the court has to decide on such a motion according to section 227 on „changes of date for scheduled hearings“. Section 227 (1) Sentence 1 reads: „Should substantial grounds so require, a hearing may be cancelled or deferred, or a hearing for oral argument may be postponed“. Sentence 2 reads: „The following are not substantial grounds: No. 1: The failure of a party to appear, or its announcement that it will not appear, unless the court is of the opinion that the party was prevented from appearing through no fault of its own“. Is this enough ground to reject the motion in light of the offer to go into video hearings? The Tenth Panel was brave enough to answer this question positively. Further, it was brave enough to overcome the friction between section 128a – permission for video hearings to be decided by the entire bench of the court at the opening of the first hearing – and section 227 (1) – decision about the motion to postpone a scheduled hearing by the presiding judge prior to that hearing. In the interest of progress in e-justice and effective access to justice in times of the pandemic, this is to be applauded firmly, all the more because the Panel worked hard, partly on its own initiative (as the general administration of the court would have been far too slow), to equip the court room with the necessary video technology: several cameras showing each judge and the entire bench, at the same time making sure that no camera reveals internal notes, the same for each party and team. The video conference tool that is currently used is MS Teams (despite all obvious concerns) as being the most reliable one in terms of broadcasting image and sound. The Panel invited to technical rehearsals the day before the hearing and for feed-backs afterwards, in order to improve itself and in order to build up trust, which seemed to have been quite successful. The specific nature of patent proceedings resulted in the insight that the function „screen sharing“ is one of the most helpful tools which will probably continue to be used in post-pandemic times. Sounds to me like examples of best practice. In sometimes rather „traditional“ environments of the German administration of justice, this is not a matter of course.

In relation to sovereignty issues when foreign parties are involved, the Panel takes the view that the territorial sovereignty of a foreign jurisdiction is not affected by a mere permission in the sence of section 128a because the place of the hearings can be considered still as being the locus of the court, i.e. Karlsruhe, Germany. Judge Rensen reported about talks between the Federal Ministry of Justice and its counterparts on the level of the states to the opposite, but as Judge Rensen pointed out, these are ongoing talks amongst ministerial officers, no court decisions or specific legislations that would bind the Panel. Things are cetainly more difficult when it comes to the taking of evidence. The Panel has done this only once so far, apparently within the scope of application of the EU Taking of Evidence Regulation. This case was specific, insofar as the testimony appeared to be entirely in line with and supported by undisputed facts and other testimonies, and these circumstances established a particularly solid overall picture about the point. This is why the Panel held the video testimony to be sufficient, which might mean that in mixed pictures the Panel might tend towards insisting on testimony in physical presence. In general, Judge Rensen supported judge-made progress, as opposed to specific legislation on legal assistance, as such legislation (like the EU legislation, including its latest recast on the matter) might lead to the misconception that such legislation would be required as a matter of principle in all cases to allow video hearings with foreign participants. For this reason, he pleaded for taking this factor into account before reforming section 128a (if at all), as such legislation would not be in sight in relation to a number of third states. At the same time the work of e.g. the HCCH on improving and modernising legal assistance under the HCCH 1970 Convention on the Taking of Evidence may be helpful nevertheless to promote and support video hearings in legal certainty, see e.g. the HCCH 2020 Guide to good practice on the use of video-link under the Hague Evidence Convention, but indeed the approach towards states staying outside these legal frameworks must be considered likewise.

Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne
Agriculture
Avocat général Pitruzzella : les produits bénéficiant d’une AOP sont protégés contre toute forme de parasitisme commercial

X (Mandat d’arrêt européen - Ne bis in idem)
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
La Cour clarifie la portée du principe ne bis in idem applicable lors de l’exécution d’un mandat d’arrêt européen pour des faits qui ont déjà fait l’objet d’une condamnation antérieure dans un pays tiers

Ubezpieczeniowy Fundusz Gwarancyjny
Rapprochement des législations
La conclusion d’un contrat d’assurance de la responsabilité civile automobile est obligatoire lorsque le véhicule concerné est immatriculé dans un État membre et qu’il n’a pas été régulièrement retiré de la circulation

Stadt Karlsruhe (Reconnaissance d’un permis de conduire renouvelé)
Transport
Un État membre peut refuser de reconnaître un permis de conduire simplement renouvelé dans un autre État membre après qu’il a interdit à son titulaire de conduire sur son territoire

Natumi
Agriculture
Le droit de l’Union interdit l’ajout de l’algue Lithothamnium calcareum dans la transformation de denrées alimentaires biologiques telles que des boissons biologiques à base de riz et de soja aux fins de leur enrichissement en calcium

As the dust settles, the consequences of the British departure from the EU are becoming clearer, including those for British parties litigating on the Continent. Two of Germany’s highest courts have recently ordered litigants with a habitual residence in the UK to provide security for the likely costs of the defendants, which the claimants would have to pay under the German loser pays-system. The decision was taken by both the Federal Supreme Court on 1 March 2021 and by the Federal Patent Court on 15 March 2021. Both rulings have been discussed on the Dispute Resolution Germany blog by Peter Bert here and here.

Duty to Provide Security for Costs under German Procedural Law

Although German procedural law in principle envisages the possibility of an obligation to provide security if demanded by the defendant (see e.g. sec. 110 of the German Code of Civil Procedure and sec. 81(6) of the German Patent Code), the requirement for a UK resident claimant to post security for costs had been illegal as long as the UK was part of the EU. Already in 1997, the ECJ outlawed such demands by German courts in case C-323/95, David Charles Hayes and Jeannette Karen Hayes v Kronenberger GmbH. This decision was based on the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of nationality (today Art 18 TFEU, ex Art 12 TEC).

As a consequence, litigants with a residence in the EU or the wider EEA have been exempted from the requirement to provide security for costs under sec. 110 of the German Code of Civil Procedure. With Britain now having left the EU and the the transition period having expired, it is reasonably clear the exemption no longer covers UK based claimants, who as of 1 January 2021 may need to provide security for costs upfront.

Exceptions to the Obligation to Provide Security for Legal Costs

Sec. 110(2) no 1 of the German Code of Civil Procedure and by reference also sec. 81(6) 1 German Patent Code provides an exception from the claimant’s obligation to post security for costs where “due to international Treaties, no such security deposit may be demanded”. This exception caused the Federal Patent Court to examine more deeply the legal relations between the UK and Germany post-Brexit.

The Court first analyses the Hague Convention on Civil Procedure 1954, which bans   security for costs in Art. 17. This Convention has however not been signed by the UK.

Next, the Federal Patent Court mentions the 1928 Convention Between His Majesty and the President of the German Reich regarding Legal Proceedings in Civil and Commercial Matters. Besides matters such as cross-border service and taking of evidence, the Convention also provides in its Art. 14 that the subjects or citizens of one contracting party “shall not be compelled to give security for costs in any case where a subject or citizen of such other Contracting Party would not be so compelled”. Yet this clause applies only under the proviso “that they are resident in any such territory”, which means the territory of the contracting party where a claim is brought. Since the British claimants in the cases at hand were not resident in Germany, they could not rely on this clause.

The Court further analyses the European Convention on Establishment, which was concluded under the auspices of the Council of Europe in 1955 and binds a number of states, including Germany and the UK. Its Art. 9 and 30 set out exceptions from the requirement to post security for costs. Yet these provisions are limited to natural persons, whereas the claimant in the case discussed was a corporation.

Finally, the Federal Patent Court also discusses the Trade and Corporation Agreement concluded between the EU and the UK on Christmas Eve 2020. Its Art. IP.6 provides for some special rules with regard to the protection of IP rights. But they only cover the “availability, acquisition, scope, maintenance, and enforcement of intellectual property rights” as well as matters affecting the use of intellectual property rights specifically addressed in the TCA. Security for costs is not among them.

Since there was thus no international treaty in the sense of sec. 110(2) no 1 of the German Code of Civil Procedure, the Federal Patent Court decided that the British claimant had to provide security for costs.

The Relevance of the Brussels Convention 1968

Peter Bert discusses in the Dispute Resolution Germany Blog whether the continued applicability of the Brussels Convention 1968, which has been debated various times in this blog, might change the outcome. From my point of view, this is not the case, as the Convention does not address the issue of security for costs but is focused on issues of jurisdiction as well as recognition and enforcement of judgments.

Conclusion

The two German court decisions illustrate the complexity of international litigation post-Brexit. Courts and parties need to deal with a plethora of often dated international conventions concluded before the UK’s accession to the EU. The decisions clearly show the weaknesses of the lack of international agreements and the disadvantages of Brexit for claimants in Germany who are habitually resident in the UK. The situation in other Member States might well be different from Germany’s, possibly giving rise to even further complications.

On Tuesday, May 4, 2021, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its tenth monthly virtual workshop in private international law at 11:00-12:30. Since January of this year, we are alternating between English and German language. Marta Pertegás Sender (Maastricht University) will speak, in English, about the topic Between Global and Regional Private International Law – Seamless Transitions From Regulations to Conventions? The presentation will be followed by open discussion. All are welcome. More information and sign-up here This is the ninth such lecture in the series, after those by Mathias Lehmann in June, Eva-Maria Kieninger in July, Giesela Rühl in September, Anatol Dutta in October, Susanne Gössl in November, Marc-Philippe Weller in December, Macjiej Szpunar in January,  Dagmar Coester-Waltjen in February, Horatia Muir Watt in March, and Burkhard Hess in April.  On June 1 we will host Tania Domej (Zurich University), on July 6 Hannah Buxbaum (Indiana University). Stay tuned! If you want to be invited to these events in the future, please write to veranstaltungen@mpipriv.de

On 22 April 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled on the law governing the avoidance of the payment of a contractual obligaton by a third party in Z.M. v. E.A. Frerichs, Case C-73/20 (see the previous reports of K. Pacula and G. van Calster).

Background

The issue arose in the context of the insolvency of a German company, Oeltrans Befrachtungsgesellschaft, in Germany. Oeltrans had made a payment to Dutch company Frerichs, that the liquidator of Oeltrans sought to challenge pursuant to the German law of detrimental acts.

The payment had been made for the purpose of performing a contact concluded between Frerichs and Tankfracht GmbH, a German company which belonged to the same group as Oeltrans. It was accepted that Dutch law governed the contract.

While the payment could be challenged under German law, it could not under Dutch law.

Issue

In principle, it was clear that the law of the insolvency governed any action for challenging detrimental acts (Art 4 – today 7- of the Insolvency Regulation). The only exception is the famous then article 13 (today 16) of the European Insolvency Regulation, which refers to the law governing the relevant act:

Article 4(2)(m) shall not apply where the person who benefited from an act detrimental to all the creditors provides proof that:

–        the said act is subject to the law of a Member State other than that of the State of the opening of proceedings, and

–        that law does not allow any means of challenging that act in the relevant case.

The question was, therefore, whether the law governing the relevant act, the payment, was the law of the contract. Importantly, the detrimental act was not the contract, to which the insolvent debtor was a third party. It was a payment made by a third party for the purpose of performing a contract.

Rationale of Article 13

The issue raised was primarily one of insolvency law, and the judgment rightly focuses on the interpretation of Article 13.

The court repeats that the rationale of the exception in Article 13 is to protect the expectations of the party who contracted with the insolvent debtor. That party, the court explains, cannot foresee that its debtor could become insolvent, and where such proceedings could be opened.

33. A party to a contract who has benefited from a payment made by its contracting partner or by a third party in performance of that contract cannot reasonably be required to foresee that insolvency proceedings may be opened against that contracting partner or that third party and, if so, in which Member State those proceedings will be opened.

Nothing in this rationale is convincing. Any reasonable businessman knows that his contractual partners may become insolvent. And, if this businessman has any knowledge of private international law (unlikely, but his lawyers should), he/they will know that the insolvency proceedings would be opened in the country of origin of that partner, and that the law of that country will apply. The surprise, if any, is the existence of Art. 13, and the remarkable result to which it leads: contract law trumps insolvency law.

Article 13 is more simply a failure of European integration, which prevents the recognition of insolvency proceedings within the EU. There are many other such rules in the Insolvency Regulation. This is the political compromise that the Member States reached when they negotiated the Regulation 20 years ago.

Encouraging Fraud?

It is not for the CJEU to change this political compromise and to delete Article 13 (although the Court has not hesitated to move beyond the political compromise of Member States in other circumstances, when interpeting the Evidence Regulation for instance).

But the Court needs not extend the scope of Article 13 beyond what is necessary and encourage fraud.

In Vinyls Italia (Case C-54/16), the Court had accepted that the parties to a domestic contract could avoid the application of insolvency law by choosing a foreign law to govern their contract and shield it against insolvency proceedings.

In the  present case, the insolvent debtor was asked by another company from the same group to pay under a contract concluded by the other company of the group. This looked very suspicious indeed. Was the goal to put the funds of the insolvent company beyond the reach of its creditors by releasing a company of the same group from one of its debts? Maybe not in this case, but it is now possible to do exactly that in the future.

So it might have been possible to determine the law governing the payment in a more objective way than simply submitting it to the law of a contract that the parties may freely choose (including if it is a domestic contract).

A possible solution could have been to decide that the payment was governed by the law of the place where the payment occurred.

Pour la première fois, la Commission va examiner une opération de concentration qui n’est pas soumise à l’obligation de notification au regard des seuils nationaux de chiffres d’affaires.

en lire plus

Contrairement au Conseil d’État, la Cour constitutionnelle belge estime que l’arrêt de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne La Quadrature du net impose aux États de renoncer, pour l’essentiel, à la conservation généralisée et indifférenciée des données de connexion.

en lire plus

Pour le juge des référés du Conseil d’État, les conditions dans lesquelles sont retenus provisoirement dans les locaux de la police à la frontière franco-italienne, des ressortissants des pays tiers à l’Union européenne, faisant l’objet d’un refus d’entrée en France en attente de leur réacheminement vers l’Italie, ne révèlent pas, en l’état de l’instruction, une atteinte grave et manifestement illégale aux libertés fondamentales de nature à justifier la fermeture immédiate de ces locaux de mise à l’abri et de rétention. 

en lire plus

Jan von Hein and Thalia Kruger are the editors of a new volume published with Intersentia on Informed Choices in Cross-Border Enforcement. The European State of the Art and Future Perspectives. The book is dedicated to the functioning of the European Uniform Procedures in eight Member States (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Poland, and Spain), and is the outcome of the research project financed by the European Commission called Informed Choices in Cross-Border Enforcement (IC2BE).

The blurb of the book reads as follows:

How to choose the most beneficial enforcement regime for cross-border claims of a client? A question considerably complicated by (1) the existence of various European Union enforcement tools and (2) particularities in the national legal systems that impact on the operation and suitability of the various enforcement tools.

This book compares and analyses the practical utility and potential pitfalls of the 2nd generation regulations (European Enforcement Order, European Order for Payment, European Small Claims Procedure and European Account Preservation Order) and their relation to Brussels I-bis. Further, it analyses whether and to what extent all of the 2nd generation EU regulations prove their worth in the cross-border enforcement of claims, and which measures can be recommended for their practical improvement and for achieving greater consistency in European enforcement law.

The work is based on an extensive evaluation of case law (more than 500 published and unpublished), empirical data (150 interviews with practitioners) and literature from eight Member States (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Poland, Spain) and the Court of Justice of the European Union. It provides an extensive and up-to-date picture of the cross-border enforcement of claims across Europe and is an important resource for academics and practitioners alike.

Additionally, the case law that was used for the analysis can be consulted online in a free access database. This includes the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (here) and the English summaries (and in certain cases also the links to the original decisions) of the judgments of the national courts regarding the four European procedures (here).

More information about the IC2BE project can be found here.

Funded by Elite Network of Bavaria the International Doctorate Programme „Business and Human Rights: Governance Challenges in a Complex World“ (IDP B&HR_Governance) establishes an inter- and transdisciplinary research forum for excellent doctoral projects addressing practically relevant problems and theoretically grounded questions in the field of business and human rights. Research in the IDP B&HR_Governance will focus on four distinct areas:

• Global value chains and transnational economic governance
• Migration and changing labour relations
• Digital transformation
• Environmental sustainability

The IDP’s research profile builds on law and management as the core disciplines of B&HR complemented by sociology, political, and information sciences. Close cooperation with partners from businesses, civil society, and political actors will enable the doctoral researchers to develop their projects in a broader context to ensure practical relevance. The IDP’s curriculum, lasting for eight semesters, aims at contributing to the professional development of independent and critical researchers through a variety of courses, research retreats, colloquia, and conferences as well as the possibility of practical projects.

The IDP B&HR_Governance will include up to twenty doctoral researchers selected through a competitive process and sixteen principal investigators from Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), the University of Bayreuth and Julius-Maximilians-University Würzburg (JMU). The IDP involves law, management, sociology, political sciences and information systems.

The IDP B&HR_Governance will offer a comprehensive and innovative curriculum for the doctoral researchers. Its activities will commence on 1 November 2021.

The Acting Spokesperson of the IDP B&HR_Governance is Professor Markus Krajewski.

The IDP includes the following professors:

• University of Erlangen-Nürnberg: Anuscheh Farahat, Klaus Ulrich Schmolke, Patricia Wiater, Martin Abraham, Markus Beckmann, Evi Hartmann, Dirk Holtbrügge, Sven Laumer, Matthias Fifka, Petra Bendel, Sabine Pfeiffer
• University of Bayreuth: Eva Lohse, Thoko Kaime
• University of Würzburg: Isabel Feichtner, Eva Maria Kieninger

 

Call for Applications (12 doctoral research positions) – Deadline 15 June 2021

 

The IDP B&HR invites applications for 12 doctoral research positions (4-year contract) starting 1 November 2021.

Applicants need an excellent university degree at master’s level in a relevant discipline (law, management, sociology, political, or information science) and very good knowledge of English. International, intercultural, and practical experiences will be an asset.

An application comprises the following documents:

• Research proposal (in English, max. 5000 words)
• Curriculum Vitae (CV)
• Letter of motivation (in English, max. 1000 words)
• Writing sample, e.g. published article, thesis or seminar paper.
• Certificates of all university degrees with corresponding transcript of records

Applications must be sent in a single PDF document by 15 June 2021 to humanrights-idp@fau.de

The full Call for Applications can found here.

On Friday, 23 April 2021, we informed our readers about an article on the legal aspects of a possible claim brought by the EU against the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca. The post could not have been timelier. Today (Monday, 26 April 2021), the Commission announced it has indeed commenced legal proceedings last Friday against AstraZeneca due to vaccine shortages.

The action was brought before the Belgian courts, as is provided for under the contract between both parties and as was predicted in the article authored by Sixto Sánchez Lorenzo.

Stefan de Keersmaecker, a spokesman on health issues for the Commission, said:

The reason indeed being that the terms of the contract, or some terms of the contract, have not been respected and the company has not been in a position to come up with a reliable strategy to ensure the timely delivery of doses.

It is reported that the decision to bring the action was made jointly with all 27 Member States. It is unclear whether this means the Member States have formally joined or merely support the  action. The further developments remain to be seen.