Agrégateur de flux

Contrat de travail, requalification

Protection des droits de la personne

This post was contributed by Fabienne Jault-Seseke, who is Professor at University Paris Saclay (UVSQ), and a member of GEDIP.

On 26 May 2021, the French supreme court for private and criminal matters (Cour de Cassation) issued an important judgment requiring the ex officio application of a European conflict of laws rule. The Court specifically relies on the principles of primacy and effectiveness of EU law to justify the solution, which is different from its traditional doctrine on the application of conflict of laws rules.

The case involves Mienta France and Groupe SEB-Moulinex, a French group, in relation to their activities on the Egyptian market. Groupe SEB-Moulinex granted Intercommerce the exclusive representation and distribution of Moulinex brand products. It also granted Blendex an exclusive licence to use the international Moulinex brands and a licence to manufacture certain products, while lending it moulds and supplying certain components. After these relationships were terminated,  Groupe SEB-Moulinex sued Intercommerce and Blendex for liability for  brutal termination of an established commercial relationship. The group brought also an action for forced intervention against Mienta France. It is alleged that Mienta manufactures, directly or through Blendex, small household appliances which it markets under the Mienta brand on the Egyptian market, in particular through the company Intercommerce. These products are likely to create harmful confusion in the public mind with the Seb group’s own products. It is alleged that these facts constitute unfair competition and parasitism.

The question of the law applicable to the dispute does not appear to have been discussed before the Court of Appeal. The Cour of Cassation therefore decided to set aside the judgment of the lower court for failing to apply ex officio Article 6 of the Rome II Regulation to the issue of unfair competition. It should be noted that the court does not decide here the question of the law applicable to the action for brutal termination of established commercial relations. Article 6 designates the applicable law to unfair competition (law of the country where competitive relations or the collective interests of consumers are affected, or if the act of unfair competition affects exclusively the interests of a specific competitor, the law of the country in which the damage occurs or the law of the country where the person claimed to be liable and the person sustaining damage both have their habitual residence) and specifies also that the law applicable may not be derogated from by an agreement.

The Court refers to two sets of norms to require ex officio application of Article 6. The first is Article 12 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, which states that “the judge shall decide the dispute in accordance with the rules of law applicable to it”. The second are “the principles of primacy and effectiveness of European Union law”. To our knowledge, this combination is used for the first time to justify the authority of a conflict of laws rule. The Cour de Cassation has used it once to ensure the application of the product liability regime established by the 1985 Directive.

More specifically, the Court rules that courts must apply a conflict of laws rule ex officio when it is forbidden to derogate from it. Implicitly, the Court deduces that Article 6 of the Rome II Regulation must be applied because the parties do not have the power to agree on the applicable law. For the first time, it is thus indicated that courts must apply ex officio conflict of laws rule which excludes party autonomy in choice of law.

Placed under the patronage of the principles of primacy and effectiveness of European Union law, the solution is limited to conflict rules of European origin. Nevertheless, one might consider extending it to the whole of French Private international law. First of all, the regime of conflict rules has not been harmonized at European level. Consequently, there is no need to distinguish the European rules from other conflict-of-laws rules. As regards the Rome II Regulation specifically, the foreign law regime ressembles the Arlesian woman, about which one speaks, but that one never sees (see Article 30, 1. I and the lack of any study). Secondly, the proposed solution would be more readable than the one that results today from the criterion of the free availability of rights (libre disponibilité des droits) that the Cour de Cassation usually uses.

The application of Article 6 in the dispute brought by the Seb group is likely to lead to the application of Egyptian law, which will upset those who point out that in matters of unfair competition the law of origin of competitors should prevail over the law of the market (see V. Pironon, Rev. crit DIP 2020. 814). It may be possible to avoid this by establishing that Mienta France has its habitual residence in France and that only the interests of the Seb group are affected. In this case, the judgment of 26 May 2021 will simply have made it possible to refine the regime of the conflict of laws rule. This is already a lot.

Droit coutumier

Action civile

This information was provided by Ms Lenka Vysoka, European Commission 

In May 2021, the European Commission launched a public consultation on its initiative on recognition of parenthood between Member States.

This initiative aims to ensure that parenthood, as established in one EU Member State, will be recognised across the EU so that children maintain their rights in cross-border situations, in particular when their families travel or move within the EU. The initiative does not aim to harmonise national laws on the establishment of parenthood.

This survey should help to identify the problems that may currently arise in cross?border situations in the Union where the parenthood of a child established in a Member State is not recognised in another Member State. The survey should also provide an opportunity to all interested parties to give their views on the initiative and its scope.

In June 2021 the CJEU will rule on in two cases of interest for private international law.

On 3 June 2021, the decision on the request for a preliminary ruling from Bulgaria C-280/20, Generalno konsulstvo na Republika Bulgaria, will be delivered by the 8th Chamber (judges N. Wahl, F. Biltgen, J. Passer, with the latter as reporting judge).

The request concerns the action filed by a person who claims to be a worker against the Bulgarian Embassy in Valencia, Kingdom of Spain, for the payment of financial remuneration in respect of unused paid annual leave to which she claims to be entitled under the labour law of the Republic of Bulgaria. The referring court has doubts as to whether it has been seised of a dispute with a ‘cross-border implication’.

The judgment in C-800/19, Mittelbayerischer Verlag, from the Court of Appeal, Warsaw (Poland), will be published on Thursday 17th by the 1st Chamber, with Judge Silva de Lapuerta acting as reporting judge (J.C. Bonichot, R. Silva de Lapuerta, L. Bay Larsen, M. Safjan, N. Jääskinen).

For the record, here are the questions:

1) Should Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters 1 be interpreted as meaning that jurisdiction based on the centre-of-interests connecting factor is applicable to an action brought by a natural person for the protection of his personality rights in a case where the online publication cited as infringing those rights does n contain information relating directly or indirectly to that particular natural person, but contains, rather, information or statements suggesting reprehensible actions by the community to which the applicant belongs (in the circumstances of the case at hand: his nation), which the applicant regards as amounting to an infringement of his personality rights?

2) In a case concerning the protection of material and non-material personality rights against online infringement, is it necessary, when assessing the grounds of jurisdiction set out in Article 7(2) of Regulation [No 1215/2012], that is to say, when assessing whether a national court is the court for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur, to take account of circumstances such as:

– the public to whom the website on which the infringement occurred is principally addressed;

– the language of the website and in which the publication in question is written;

– the period during which the online information in question remained accessible to the public;

– the individual circumstances of the applicant, such as the applicant’s wartime experiences and his current social activism, which are invoked in the present case as justification for the applicant’s special right to oppose, by way of judicial proceedings, the dissemination of allegations made against the community to which the applicant belongs?

AG Bobek delivered his Opinion on 23 February 2021. He proposed the Court to answer that :

1)  Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that the establishment of the jurisdiction based on the centre of interests does not require that the allegedly harmful online content names a particular person.

2)   However, in order to establish jurisdiction pursuant to Article 7(2) of that regulation, a national court must verify that there is a close connection between that court and the action at issue, thus ensuring the sound administration of justice. In the particular context of online publications, the national court must ensure that, in view of the nature, content, and the scope of the specific online material, assessed and interpreted in its proper context, there is a reasonable degree of foreseeability of the potential forum in terms of the place where the damage resulting from such material may occur.

No other decisions nor Opinions are expected. As for hearings, the one in C-262/21 PPU, A, from the Supreme Court of Finland on the return of the child in application of the Hague Convention, is scheduled for 28 June. In the case at hand, a request had been made for the return to Sweden of a child who has been taken to Finland. The question that arises is whether the removal or retention of a child may be considered to be wrongful where one of the two parents, without the authorisation of the other, has removed the child from the State in which he was habitually resident to another Member State of the European Union after the immigration authority of the State of residence considered that it was in that other Member State that the applications for asylum concerning the child and the parent in question should be examined. I remember having studied myself the interfaces between the Dublin III Regulation and the Brussels II bis Regulation in 2017, although concentrating on the situation of unaccompanied minors seeking asylum (Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional, open access). The case has been allocated to the 1st Chamber (J.C.  Bonichot, reporting judge ; C. Toader, M. Safjan, L. Bay Larsen, N. Jääskinen), and to G. Pitruzzella as Advocate General.

NoA: The Grand Chamber decision of 15 June 2021 regarding C-645/19, Facebook Ireland e.a., on the GDPR, will certainly be also of interest, even if not directly related to cooperation in civil and commercial matters in cross-border cases.  The request comes from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium), L.S. Rossi is the reporting judge, and AG Bobek delivered his Opinion last January.

La Cour de justice de l’Union européenne se penche sur la détermination des juridictions compétentes dans un litige opposant l’assureur du responsable d’un accident de la route au cessionnaire de la créance d’indemnisation détenue par la victime.

en lire plus

On 24 May 2021, Niger deposited its instrument of accession to the HCCH 1993 Adoption Convention. With the accession of Niger, the Adoption Convention now has 104 Contracting Parties. It will enter into force for Niger on 1 September 2021. More information is available here.

On 4 May 2021, the HCCH participated in the virtual launch of the book Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts, published by Oxford University Press. The recording of the event is available here.

From 3 to 6 May 2021, the Experts’ Group on the e-APP and New Technologies met via videoconference. The Group discussed the current use of the electronic Apostille Programme (e-APP), and future solutions. It endorsed a set of key principles and good practices for Contracting Parties in the implementation of the e-APP, and invited the PB to develop an online forum to facilitate intersessional discussion and information sharing, including in relation to best practices, between meetings of the Special Commission and the International Forum on the e-APP. More information is available here.

On 10 and 11 May 2021, the Administrative Cooperation Working Group on the 2007 Child Support Convention met via videoconference. The Group continued its work as a forum for discussion of issues pertaining to administrative cooperation, making significant progress on a Draft Statistical Report under the 2007 Child Support Convention. More information is available here.

From 18 to 22 May 2021, the HCCH co-organised a virtual seminar for judges on adoption and the protection of the rights of children and adolescents, in collaboration with the Judiciary Council and the Ministry of Economic and Social Inclusion of Ecuador. More information on the HCCH 1993 Adoption Convention is available here.

On 21 May 2021, the HCCH and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) launched a questionnaire on the intersection of private international law and intellectual property. The Questionnaire is open for consultation to a wide audience, including Member States of both Organisations, other intergovernmental organisations, non-governmental organisations, practitioners, in-house counsel, academics and other private individuals. Responses will be received until 30 June 2021, after which they will be compiled and analysed, with the results to be submitted to the HCCH’s Council on General Affairs and Policy (CGAP) ahead of its 2022 meeting. More information is available here.

These monthly updates are published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), providing an overview of the latest developments. More information and materials are available on the HCCH website.

I have an article forthcoming on the application of Rome II’s Article 7, ‘environmental damage’ rule. Last week’s widely reported first instance ruling in the Dutch Shell climate case will of course now feature.

I reported on application of A7 in Begum v Maran. There I submit, the Court of Appeal engaged without sufficient depth with the Article. It held against its application. Xandra Kramer and Ekaterina Pannebakker then alerted us to the use of Article 7 in last week’s momentous Milieudefensie v Shell (umpteen) ruling [Dutch version here, English version here], in which Shell by a first instance judge has been ordered to reduce its CO2 emissions. In that ruling, too, the judges leave a lot of issues on Rome II underanalysed. The conclusion  however goes in the opposite direction: the court held A7 is engaged and leads to Dutch law as the lex loci delicti commissi (Handlungsort or ldc).

I have taken the Dutch version of the judgment as the basis for the analysis for the English version is a touch under par when it comes to the finer detail. The Dutch version it has to be said is not entirely clear either on the conflict of laws analysis.

Firstly, Milieudefensie argue that A7 is engaged, and it suggests it opts for Dutch law given the choice left to it by that Article. Whether it does so as lex loci damni (Erfolgort or ld) or lex loci delicti commissi is not specified. It is reported by the courts that in subsidiary fashion Milieudefensie argue that per A4(1)’s general rule, Dutch law is the lex causae: that has to be Erfolgort.  (Lest the court inaccurately reported parties’ submissions here and the argument made under A4 focused on Article 4(3)’s displacement rule) [4.3.1].

The judges further report [4.3.2] that parties were in agreement that climate change, whether dangerous or otherwise, due to CO2 emissions constitutes ‘environmental damage’ in the sense of A7 Rome II (and the judges agree) and that they were in disagreement on the locus delicti commissi. Milieudefensie argue that Shell’s holding policy viz climate change and emissions, dictated from its corporate home of The Netherlands, is that Handlungsort. Shell argue that the place of the actual emissions are the Handlungsorts (plural), hence a Mozaik of applicable laws. (This nota bene has interesting applications in competition law, as I suggest here).

Then follows a rather sloppy reference to Jan von Hein’s note bene excellent review of Article 7 in Calliess; distinguishing of the arguments made by Shell with reference to ia product liability cases; and eventually, with reference to ia the cluster effect of emissions (‘every contribution towards a reduction of CO2 emissions may be of importance’ [4.3.5]) and the exceptional, policy driven nature of A7, the conclusion [4.3.6] that the holding policy is an independent cause of the CO2 emissions and hence imminent climate damage and obiter [4.3.7] that A4(1) would have led to the same conclusion.

The ruling will of course be appealed. It would be good to get the application of Article 7 right, seeing as environmental law is a core part of strategic and public interest litigation.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd. ed. 2021, Chapter 4, Heading 4.6.3 (4.54 ff).

Jurisdiction is a fundamental aspect of Nigerian procedural law. In Nigerian judicial parlance, we have become accustomed to the principle that the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any time, even at the Nigerian Supreme Court – the highest court of the land – for the first time.[1] The concept of jurisdiction in Nigerian conflict of laws (often called “territorial jurisdiction” by many Nigerian judges) is the most confusing aspect of Nigerian conflict of laws. This is because the decisions are inconsistent and not clear or precise. The purpose of this write up is to briefly highlight the confusion on the concept of jurisdiction in Nigerian conflict of laws through the lens of a very recently reported case (reported last week) of Attorney General of Yobe State v Maska & Anor. (“Maska”).[2]

In Maska the 1st claimant/respondent instituted an action for summary judgment against the defendant/appellant and the 2nd respondent at the High Court of Katsina State for breach of contract. The 1st claimant/respondent alleged that the defendant/appellant purchased some trucks of maize from the 1st claimant/respondent and promised to pay for it. The 1st claimant/respondent also alleged that the defendant/appellant failed to pay for the goods, which resulted in the present action. It was undisputed that the place of delivery (or performance) was in Kastina State, the 1st claimant/respondent’s place of business, where the defendant/appellant took delivery of the goods. However, the defendant/appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the Kastina State High Court to hear the case on the basis that the contract in issue was concluded in Yobe State, where  it claimed the cause of action arose, which it argued was outside the jurisdiction of Kastina State. On this basis the defendant/appellant argued that the court of Yobe State had exclusive jurisdiction.

The High Court of Kastina State assumed jurisdiction and rejected the argument of the defendant/appellant. The defendant/appellant appealed but it was not successful. The Court of Appeal held that the concept of territorial jurisdiction for breach of contract is based on any or a combination of the following three factors – (a) where the contract was made (lex loci contractus); (b) where the contract is to be performed (lex loci loci solutions);.and (c) where the defendant resides. In the instant case, the place of performance – particularly the place of delivery – was in Kastina State – so the High Court of Kastina State could assume jurisdiction in this case.[3]

Maska adds to the confusion on the concept of jurisdiction in Nigerian conflict of laws. In Maska, the focus was on what it labeled as “territorial jurisdiction for breach of contract” in inter-state matters. In international and inter-state matters, Nigerian judges apply at least four approaches in determining whether or not to assume jurisdiction in cases concerned with conflict of laws.

First, some Nigerian judges apply the traditional common law rules on private international law to determine issues of jurisdiction.[4] This approach is based as of right on the residence and/or submission of the defendant to the jurisdiction of the Nigerian court. Where the defendant is resident in a foreign country and does not submit to the jurisdiction of the Nigerian court, then leave of court is required in accordance with the relevant civil procedure rules to bring a foreign defendant before the Nigerian Court. This is all subject to the principle of forum non conveniens – the appropriate forum where the action should be brought in the interest of the parties and the ends of justice. In Maska, the common law approach of private international law was not applied. If it was applied the High Court of Kastina State would not have had jurisdiction as of right because the defendant/appellant was neither resident in Kastina State nor submitted to the jurisdiction of the Kastina State High Court. In recent times, the common law approach to conflict of laws appears to be witnessing a steady decline among Nigerian appellate judges except for Abiru JCA (a Nigerian Court of Appeal judge) who has vehemently supported this approach by submitting that the concept of territorial jurisdiction in Nigeria is one of the misunderstood concepts of Nigerian conflict of laws.[5]

Second, some Nigerian judges apply choice of venue rules to determine conflict of law rules on jurisdiction.[6] This is wrong. Indeed, some Nigerian judges have rightly held that choice of venue rules are not supposed to be used to determine matters of jurisdiction in Nigerian conflict of laws.[7] Choice of venue rules are used to determine which judicial division within a State (in the case of the State High Court) or judicial division within the Nigerian Federation (in the case of the Federal High Court) has jurisdiction. Choice of venue rules are mainly utilised for geographical and administrative convenience. Unfortunately, it appears that in Maska choice of venue rules were utilised to determine the jurisdiction of the Kastina State High Court in matters of conflict of laws. Order 10 rule 3 of the Kastina State High Court Civil Procedure Rules provides that all suits for breach of contract “shall be commenced and determined in the Judicial Division in which such contract ought to have been performed or in which the defendant resides or carries on business.” Although Maska did not explicitly refer to Order 10 rule 3, it referred to some  previous decisions of Nigerian appellate judges that were influenced by choice of venue rules to determine which court has jurisdiction in matters of conflict of laws.[8] Maska makes the confusion more problematic because it did not cite the wrong choice of venue rules in question (Order 10 rule 3 of the Kastina State High Court Civil Procedure Rules) but wrongly created the impression that this represents the position on Nigerian conflict of laws on jurisdiction.

Third, some Nigerian judges apply the strict territorial jurisdiction approach.[9] This approach is that a Nigerian court cannot assume jurisdiction where the cause of action arose in one State, or another foreign country. I label this approach as “strict” because my understanding of the Nigerian Supreme Court decisions on this point is that based on constitutional law a Nigerian court is confined to matters that arose within its territory, so that one State High Court cannot assume jurisdiction over a matter that occurs within another territory. This approach is also wrong as it ignores the principles of traditional Nigerian common law conflict of laws. It also leads to injustice and unduly circumscribes the jurisdiction of the Nigerian court, which ultimately makes Nigerian courts inaccessible and unattractive for litigation. Nigerian courts should have jurisdiction as of right once a defendant is resident or submits to the jurisdiction of the Nigerian court. In Maska, even if the strict territorial jurisdiction approach was applied, the Kastina State High Court would probably have jurisdiction because the cause of action for breach of contract arose in Kastina State where the defendant/appellant took delivery of the goods.

Fourth some Nigerian judges apply the mild territorial jurisdiction approach.[10] This approach softens the strict territorial jurisdiction approach. This is an approach that has mainly been applied by the Nigerian Court of Appeal probably as a way of ameliorating the injustice of the strict territorial approach applied in some Nigerian Supreme Court decisions. This approach is that more than one court can have jurisdiction in matters of conflict of laws where the cause of action is connected to such States. With this approach, all the plaintiff needs to do is to tailor its claim to show that the cause of action is also connected to its claim. The danger with this approach is that it can lead to forum shopping and unpredictability – the plaintiff can raise the slightest grounds on why the cause of action is connected with its case to institute the action in any court of the Nigerian federation.  The mild territorial jurisdiction approach was applied in Maska because the Court of Appeal held either the Kastina State High Court or Yobe State High Court could assume jurisdiction as the cause of action was connected with both of them.

In conclusion, in very recent times the Nigerian traditional common law principle of conflict of laws (based on English common law conflict of laws without EU influences) on jurisdiction is beginning to witness a steady decline among Nigerian judges and lawyers. The concept of strict territorial jurisdiction, mild territorial jurisdiction, and choice of venue rules appears to be the current norm despite criticism from some Nigerian academics and even a Court of Appeal judge (Justice Abiru).[11] Maska is just another case that demonstrates why the principle of private international law should feature more in the parlance of Nigerian lawyers and judges. I have argued for judicial decisions and academic works in private international law in Africa to be intellectually independent and creative. This means that in Nigeria we should not blindly follow English common law rules. It could be that the common law approach might be an inadequate basis of jurisdiction for Nigerian private international law especially in inter-state matters.  For example in Maska, if the Kastina State High Court had applied the common law private international law rules, it would not have had jurisdiction despite being the place of performance, since the defendant was neither resident nor submitted to the jurisdiction of the court! Should there be a reformulation of the principle of jurisdiction in Nigerian conflict of laws in international and inter-state matters so that it is clear, consistent and predictable? This is a discussion for another day.

[1]Madukolu v Nkemdilim ( 1962) 2 SCNLR 341; Drexel Energy and Natural Resources Ltd v Trans International Bank Ltd ( 2008 ) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1119) 388, 424 – 27, 437 – 38 Dangote General Textiles Products Ltd v Hascon Associates (Nig) Ltd ( 2013 ) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1379) 60, 91; B Apugo & Sons Ltd v Orthopaedic Hospitals Management Board ( 2016 ) 13 NWLR 206, 240. In principle, what can be raised for the first time on appeal is procedural jurisdiction and not substantive jurisdiction as prescribed by the Constitution or enabling statute. This is a point that has been stressed by Abiru JCA in recent cases such as Khalid v Ismail ( 2013 ) LPELR-22325 (CA); Alhaji Hassan Khalid v Al-Nasim Travels & Tours Ltd ( 2014 ) LPELR-22331 (CA) 23 – 25 ; Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation v Zaria ( 2014 ) LPELR-22362 (CA) 58 – 60; Obasanjo Farms (Nig) Ltd v Muhammad ( 2016 ) LPELR-40199 (CA).

[2](2021) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1776) 535.

[3] Attorney General of Yobe State v Maska & Ano (2021) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1776) 535, 548-9.

[4]See generally British Bata Shoe Co v Melikan (1956) SCNLR 321; Nigerian Ports Authority v Panalpina World Transport (Nig) Ltd (1973) 1 ALR Comm 146, 172;  Muhammed v Ajingi  (2013) LPELR-20372 (CA);  Barzasi v Visinoni (1973) NCLR 373.

[5]Muhammed v Ajingi  (2013) LPELR-20372 (CA) 23-5; Foreword to CSA Okoli and RF Oppong, Private International Law in Nigeria (1st edition, Hart, Oxford, 2020); ‘The Concept of Territorial Jurisdiction’ in IO Smith (ed), Law and Developments in Nigeria: Essays in Honour of Alhaji Femi Okunnu, SAN, CON ( Ecowatch Publications (Nig) Ltd , 2004).

[6]See generally the Supreme Court cases of; Dangote General Textiles Products Ltd v Hascon Associates (Nig) Ltd (2013) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1379) 60; First Bank of Nigeria Plc v Kayode Abraham (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1118) 172; Arjay Ltd v Airline Management Support Ltd (2003) 7 NWLR (Pt. 820) 57.

[7]British Bata Shoe Co v Melikian (1956 ) SCNLR 321, 325 – 26, 328; Muhammed v Ajingi (2013) LPELR-20372 (CA);  Zabusky v Israeli Aircraft Industries (2008) 2 NWLR (Pt. 109) 109, 133-6;  Ogunsola v All Nigeria Peoples Party (2003) 9 NWLR (Pt. 826) 462, 480

[8]A.-G. Abia State v. Phoenix Environmental Services Nig. Ltd (2015) LPELR-25702

[9] See the Supreme Court cases of Capital Bancorp Ltd v Shelter Savings and Loans Ltd (2007) 3 NWLR 148; Dairo v Union Bank of Nigeria Plc (2007) 16 NWLR (Pt 1059) 99; Mailantarki v Tongo & Ors (2017) LPELR-42467; Audu v. APC & Ors (2019) LPELR – 48134.

[10]Sarki v Sarki & Ors (2021) LPELR – 52659 (CA).; Onyiaorah v Onyiaorah (2019) LPELR-47092 (CA).

[11]See generally Abiru JCA in Muhammed v Ajingi  (2013) LPELR-20372 (CA) 23 – 25, 25 – 26;  CSA Okoli and RF Oppong, Private International Law in Nigeria (1st edition, Hart, Oxford, 2020) 95-103; AO Yekini, “Comparative Choice of Jurisdiction Rules in Cases having a Foreign Element: are there any Lessons for Nigerian Courts?” (2013) 39 Commonwealth Law Bulletin 333; Bamodu O., “In Personam Jurisdiction: An Overlooked Concept in Recent Nigerian Jurisprudence” (2011) 7 Journal of Private International Law 273.

On 11 May 2021, the Juzgado de lo Mercantil nr. 17 of Madrid has submitted a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the interpretation of Articles 101 and 102 TFUE, on the one hand, and of Articles 45, 49, 56 and 63 TFUE, on the other, in the frame of a declaratory claim filed on behalf of European Superleague Company S.L. on 19 April 2021. Readers may recall that inaudita alter parte interim measures were granted the next day.

The Juzgado refers now six questions to the CJEU – maybe a bit over the threshold which separates interpreting EU law and applying it to the case at hand. In a nutshell, the Spanish court is asking whether specific provisions in the bylaws of UEFA and FIFA fall under the prohibition of either Article 101 or Article 102, or both. In case of an affirmative answer regarding the former, the court asks whether the exception in para 3 of Article 101 could nevertheless apply. In case of a positive answer vis à vis Article 102, the equivalent question is whether such a restriction could benefit from an objective justification. In addition, the referring court is asking about the compatibility between the prior authorization FIFA and UEFA require for the establishment of a pan-European club competition, and the free movement of persons, services and capital.

While waiting for the request to be available at the website of the CJEU, I have made the following translation (questions one and two are practically identical in Spanish; I changed a little bit the wording in an attempt to make them more intelligible):

1. Must Article 102 TFEU be interpreted as prohibiting FIFA and UEFA, which have conferred upon themselves an exclusive competence to organize or authorize international club competitions in Europe, an abuse of a dominant position consisting in imposing in their Statutes ( in particular, articles 22 and 71 to 73 of the FIFA Statutes, articles 49 and 51 of the UEFA Statutes, and any similar article contained in the statutes of member associations and national leagues) any third party entity wishing to establish a new pan-European club competition such as the Super League the need to obtain prior authorization, in particular as there is no regulated procedure based on objective, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria, and taking into account the possible conflict of interests that would affect FIFA and UEFA?
2. Must Article 101 TFEU be interpreted as meaning it prohibits FIFA and UEFA, which have granted themselves exclusive competence to organise or authorise international competitions in Europe, to require in their statutes (in particular Articles 22 and 71 to 73 of FIFA’s statutes, Articles 49 and 51 of UEFA’s statutes, and any similar article in the statutes of member associations and national leagues) their prior authorisation for any third party entity to establish a pan-European club competition, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in particular as there is no regulated procedure thereto based on objective and non-discriminatory criteria, and taking into account the possible conflict of interest that would affect FIFA and UEFA?.
3. Should articles 101 and / or 102 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that they prevent FIFA, UEFA, their member associations and / or national leagues, to threaten with sanctions the clubs participating in the Super League, and / or its players, in light of the deterrence effect such threats can generate? In case sanctions for exclusion from competitions or the prohibition to participate in national team matches are adopted, would they, without being based on objective, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria, constitute a violation of Articles 101 and / or 102 of the TFEU?
4. Are Articles 101 and/or 102 TFEU to be interpreted as incompatible with Articles 67 and 68 of the FIFA Statute, in so far as the latter identify UEFA and its national federations as ‘original holders of all rights arising from competitions… within their respective jurisdiction’, thus depriving participating clubs and any alternative competition organiser of the original ownership of said rights, and assuming the exclusive responsibility for their marketing?
5. If FIFA and UEFA, as entities entrusted with exclusive competence to organise and authorise international football clubs competition in Europe, prohibit or oppose, on the basis of the abovementioned provisions of their statutes, the development of the Super League, must Article 101 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that those restrictions on competition benefit from the exception it provides for, considering that: production is substantially limited, alternative products to those offered by FIFA / UEFA in the market is prevented, and innovation is restricted in that other formats and modalities are prevented, thus potential competition in the market is removed and consumer choices limited? Would such a restriction have an objective justification, so that it could be concluded that there is no abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU?
6. Are Articles 45, 49, 56 and/or 63 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that a provision such as that contained in the FIFA and UEFA Statutes (in particular under Articles 22 and 71 to 73 of the FIFA statutes, Articles 49 and 51 of the UEFA Statutes and any other similar article contained in the statutes of associations belonging to national leagues) constitutes a restriction of one of the fundamental freedoms enshrined in those provisions, in that it requires prior authorisation of those entities for an economic operator of a Member State to establish a pan-European competition?

The Auto (Order) is available in Spanish here. I would also like to draw attention to the post of 22 April 2021, by Dwayne Bach, in the Kluwer Competition Law Blog, where he makes a first assessment of the situation under EU competition law.

Selon l’avocat général, une entreprise de l’Union européenne cherchant à résilier une relation contractuelle s’inscrivant dans la durée avec une entité iranienne visée par les sanctions américaines doit démontrer que sa décision n’est pas motivée par le souhait de respecter ces sanctions.

en lire plus

The Department of Juridical Sciences of the University of Bologna, Ravenna Campus, has organized a Summer School on Transnational Jurisdiction: Current Issues In Civil And Commercial Matters, to be held in Ravenna (and online), on July 19-23, 2021.

The Faculty of the Summer School is composed of experts from different jurisdictions, focusing on several aspects of private international and procedural law. The Director of the School is Prof. Michele Angelo Lupoi, who teaches Civil Procedural Law and European Judicial Cooperation at the University of Bologna. The Summer School is aimed at law students as well as law graduates and law practitioners who want to obtain a specialised knowledge in this complex and fascinating area of International civil procedure. The lectures, if the conditions will make it possible, will be held in a blended way, both
in presence and online.

The pre-registration form and the program of the Summer School may be downloaded from this link.

Registration is open until 2 July 2021. The registration fee is 200,00 €. The Bar Association of Ravenna will grant 20 formative credits to lawyers who participate in the Summer School.