Agrégateur de flux

By Salih Okur, University of Augsburg

Earlier today, the CJEU rendered its long anticipated decision in Case C-774/22 (FTI Touristik) on whether Art. 18(1) Brussels Ia Regulation concerns “matters relating to a travel contract where both the consumer, as a traveller, and the other party to the contract, the tour operator [,] have their seat in the same Member State, but the travel destination is situated not in that Member State but abroad […]”.

In accordance with the Opinion of AG Emiliou, the Court held that it does.

1. International Scope of the Brussels Ia Regulation

The question goes straight to the problem of the international scope of the Brussels Ia Regulation. In Case C-281/02 (Owusu), the CJEU had held that the application of the Brussels Ia Regulation always required an “international element” – otherwise the national rules of the Member State apply.

Whether this international element exists is particularly problematic in cases like the one at hand, where the parties of the dispute are domiciled in the same Member State but certain elements of the case are situated abroad.

With today’s decision, the CJEU has now adjudicated on two of the most practically relevant situations in quick succession: Only recently, in Case C-566/22 (Inkreal), the CJEU held that the choice of another Member State’s court is enough to establish the international element of a case, even if the parties are both domiciled in the same Member State, triggering the application of Art. 25 Brussels Ia Regulation.

In the present Case C-774/22 (FTI Touristik), the CJEU had to decide whether the travel destination of consumer package travel contracts is enough to establish an international element in the sense of the Brussels Ia Regulation, which would open up the consumer forum of Art. 18 Brussels Ia Regulation.

2. Facts

The parties to the dispute, JX, a private individual domiciled in Nuremberg (Germany), and FTI Touristik, a tour operator established in Munich (Germany), concluded a package travel contract for a trip to Egypt. JX brought proceedings against FTI before the Local Court of Nuremberg, claiming that he was not informed properly of the visa requirements in Egypt.

JX claimed that the Local Court of Nuremberg has international and territorial jurisdiction pursuant to Art. 18(1) Brussels Ia Regulation. FTI, on the other hand, argued that the case lacked any international element, meaning that not the Brussels Ia Regulation but the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) was applicable. Under the latter, the Local Court of Nuremberg would not have had jurisdiction over the dispute as German law does not contain a general consumer forum.

3. The Court’s decision

According to previous decisions of the CJEU, the existence of the international element is not only reserved to cases where the parties to the dispute are domiciled in different Member States (para. 29).

Thus, according to the Court, the place of performance being abroad can on its own raise questions relating to the determination of international jurisdiction and thus establish an international element, triggering the application of the Brussels Ia Regulation (para. 30).

Specifically for consumer contracts, this interpretation is confirmed by Art. 18(1) Brussels Ia Regulation, which applies “regardless of the domicile of the other party” (para. 31) and by Art. 19(3) Brussels Ia Regulation, which addresses choice of law agreements entered “by the consumer and the other party to the contract, both of whom are at the time of conclusion of the contract domiciled or habitually resident in the same Member State“ (para. 32).

Finally, the Court refers to the general purpose of the Brussels Ia Regulation, which seeks to establish rules of jurisdiction which are highly predictable and thus pursues an objective of legal certainty which consists in strengthening the legal protection of persons established in the European Union, by enabling both the applicant to identify easily the court before which he or she may bring proceedings and the defendant reasonably to foresee the court before which he or she may be sued (para. 33).

These arguments lead the Court to the conclusion that the foreign travel destination of a package travel contract triggers the application of the Brussels Ia Regulation even if both parties are domiciled in the same Member State (para. 40).

4. Commentary

While this interpretation of the international element in the sense of the Brussels Ia regulation is in line with the opinion of AG Emiliou, it is difficult to square with the Court’s interpretation in Case C-566/22 (Inkreal): There, the Court primarily relied on the existence of a conflict of (international) jurisdiction to establish the international element (para. 31): if the courts of two or more different Member States could find international jurisdiction under their domestic rules, it would disturb legal certainty. In that case, the application of the Brussels Ia Regulation is justified as it restores said legal certainty by unifying the rules on international jurisdiction.

Case C-774/22 (FTI Touristik) lacks this potential for a conflict of international jurisdiction. Within the European Union, no other court would have international jurisdiction under Art. 18(1) and 18(2) Brussels Ia Regulation as the domiciles of the parties to the consumer contract are situated in the same Member State – pursuant to Art. 17(1) Brussels Ia Regulation, Art. 7(1) Brussels Ia Regulation doesn’t apply. Thus, within the European Union there cannot be a conflict of international jurisdiction; consequently, the Brussels Ia Regulation shall not apply. This argument does not seem to resonate with the Court, though; instead, the Court argues that the nature of the relevant provision of the Brussels Ia Regulation does not play a role when establishing the international element (para. 39).

Still, it cannot be denied that this decision immensely benefits consumers. The Brussels Ia Regulation now applies to all (package) travel contracts for trips abroad, meaning that pursuant to Art. 18(1) Brussels Ia Regulation, consumers may at all times bring proceedings against the tour operator at their domicile.

The CJEU this morning has entirely and in succinct fashion confirmed the Opinion of Emiliou AG which I discuss here.

[30] that the contract between the parties, both domiciled in the same Member State, is meant to be performed either in another Member State or a third State, by its nature triggers the question which court might have jurisdiction (reference to CJEU Inkreal) and sufficiently qualifies as the international element required to trigger Brussels Ia. Like the AG, the CJEU also refers to the use of the wording in A18(1) ‘regardless of the domicile of the other party’ to corroborate that finding.

[35]-[36] the Court like the AG also warns against a symmetric  application of non-BIa authority to Brussels at least one that is assumed too readily.

Confirmation of the consumer title assigning not just national but territorial jurisdiction is backed up ia by reference to CJEU Allianz (on the insurance title).

After the solid AG Opinion, an equally solid judgment.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed 2024, 2.22 ff and 2.233 ff.

https://x.com/GAVClaw/status/1817834126927446343

 

Perle
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Autorisation de séjour sur le territoire de l’Union européenne à des fins d’études : un État membre peut rejeter une demande d’autorisation abusive, même s’il n’a pas correctement transposé la directive prévoyant cette faculté

Banco BPN/BIC Português e.a.
Concurrence
L’échange d’informations pendant plus de dix ans entre 14 établissements de crédit au Portugal pourrait constituer une restriction de la concurrence par objet

Ryanair et Laudamotion / Commission
Aide d'État
Covid-19 : la Cour de justice confirme la légalité du prêt subordonné de 150 millions d’euros accordé par l’Autriche à Austrian Airlines à l’été 2020

FTI Touristik (Élément d’extranéité)
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Un consommateur ayant réservé un voyage à l’étranger peut attraire l’organisateur devant la juridiction du lieu de son domicile

HDI Global
Rapprochement des législations
Covid-19 : la garantie contre l’insolvabilité de l’organisateur de voyages à forfait s’applique aussi lorsque le voyageur a annulé le voyage, avant l’insolvabilité, en raison de circonstances exceptionnelles et inévitables

Belgian Association of Tax Lawyers e.a.
Fiscalité
Lutte contre la planification fiscale agressive : la Cour confirme la validité de diverses dispositions de la directive de l’Union

ASCEL
Environnement et consommateurs
Le loup ne peut être désigné comme espèce chassable au niveau régional lorsque son état de conservation au niveau national est défavorable

Alchaster
Mandats d’arrêt émis par le Royaume-Uni : la Cour clarifie les conditions dans lesquelles ceux-ci peuvent être exécutés dans l’Union européenne

Valančius
Droit institutionnel
Nomination des juges de l’Union : un État membre peut proposer, parmi les candidats figurant sur une liste établie par un groupe national d’experts indépendants, un candidat autre que le mieux classé sur cette liste, pourvu que le candidat proposé satisfasse aux exigences prévues par les traités

CU (Assistance sociale - Discrimination indirecte)
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Assistance sociale : l’accès des ressortissants de pays tiers résidents de longue durée à une mesure de sécurité sociale, d’aide sociale ou de protection sociale ne peut pas être subordonné à la condition d’avoir résidé au moins dix ans dans un État membre

Giovanni Chiapponi (University of Florence; previously Bologna University and Max Planck Institute in Luxembourg) has published a book titled Interfaces between National and EU Law. Time Limits in Cross-Border Civil Proceedings and Their Impact on the Free Circulation of Judgemen31t. The book is published by Nomos, in the Luxembourg Legal Studies series. The blurb reads: […]

The Second Report on the application of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has just been published, click here. For the full report, click here: Second Report GDPR.

At a meeting on 11 July 2024, 22 lawyers and academics voted to form the Australasian Association of Private International Law (AAPrIL).  Professor Mary Keyes (Griffith University) was elected the inaugural President and the Honourable Dr Andrew Bell, Chief Justice of New South Wales, has agreed to be AAPrIL’s patron.

The AAPrIL’s first elected officers are as follows:

• President: Professor Mary Keyes (Griffith University, Queensland)
• Secretary: Professor Reid Mortensen (University of Southern Queensland)
• Treasurer: Ms Cara North (Corrs Chambers Westgarth, Melbourne)
• Australian Vice-President: Dr Michael Douglas (Bennett, Perth)
• New Zealand Vice-President: Mr Jack Wass (Stout Street Chambers, Wellington)

AAPrIL has been established to promoted understanding, awareness and the reform of private international law in Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands, and to provide a regional organisation for cooperation with similar private international law associations across the world.  It plans to hold an annual conference, support regular seminars and roundtables, engage with governments in Australasia on private international law issues and reform, publish a regular newsletter on events and legal developments in the region, and encourage cooperation with the Hague Conference on Private International Law and other private international law inter-governmental organisations.

More details about AAPrIL can be found on its website.  Any enquiries can be made to AAPrIL’s Secretary, Professor Reid Mortensen: reid.mortensen@unisq.edu.au.

The deadline to submit papers for AMEDIP’s Annual Seminar has been extended to Sunday 4 August 2024. Authors whose papers have been accepted will be notified by Saturday 10 August 2024.

For more information, click here  (our previous post). To view the requirements, click Convocatoria AMEDIP 2024.

Papers must be submitted to the following email address: seminario@amedip.org.

Crypto-litigation is an increasingly significant business. The “omniterritorial” nature of digital assets has led to judicial competition in this field. As Matthias Lehman usefully summarised in his recent post on this blog, English courts have taken several steps to position England as a (if not the) leading hub for crypto-litigation, including: allowing actions against persons unknown; permitting […]

The University of Geneva is organising the second edition of the Executive Training on Civil Aspects of International Child Protection (ICPT).

The University of Geneva’s ICPT, offered by the Children’s Rights Academy, is designed to:

• Explore innovative approaches to uphold the fundamental rights of children in transnational situations
• Learn best practices for supporting unaccompanied minors and displaced children seeking asylum
• Collaborate with experts from various fields to create holistic and effective child protection strategies
• Understand the dynamics of how different organisations and stakeholders can work together to protect children

Programme of the 2nd Round 2024 – 2025:

Module 1: Children’s Individual Rights in Transnational Parental Relationships

28 November 2024, 14:15 – 18:15

Module 2: International and Comparative Family Law

19 December 2024, 14:15 – 18:15

Module 3: Vulnerable Migration

27 February 2025, 14:15 – 18:15

Module 4: Practice of Child Protection Stakeholders: Inter-agency Co-operation in Context

10 April 2025, 14:15 – 18:15

This training programme is designed for a diverse audience, including child protection professionals, legislators and lawyers, researchers, students, international organisation staff members, and governmental authorities, among others.

For queries related to the content of the programme, please contact vito.bumbaca@unige.ch.

For more information, please visit the website. To register click here.

The e-mail address is cra-secretariat@unige.ch.

 

 

Nicolas Kyriakides, Heikki A. Huhtamäki and Nicholas Mouttotos have edited European Account Preservation Order – A Multi-jurisdictional Guide with Commentary, on Regulation No 655/2014. The book has just been published by Bruylant / Larcier. This new book on the European Account Preservation Order offers a multi-jurisdictional guide of the Regulation, examining the national operation and […]

This information is kindly provided by Dr. King Fung (Dicky) Tsang, Associate Professor, the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

 

CUHK LAW will host an international conference on private international law from August 1, 2024, to August 2, 2024.

 

Theme

The theme of the conference is “Rethinking Jurisdiction in Private International Law.” Jurisdiction is a broad concept in private international law that includes legislative, judicial, and enforcement aspects. Over the past few years, there have been significant developments in the area of jurisdiction across various countries. These developments, while rooted in national law, have extensive cross-border impacts. Additionally, the HCCH Jurisdiction Project has engaged many countries in focusing on jurisdictional issues and seeking to harmonize jurisdictional conflicts. This conference offers a forum for academics and practitioners to rethink and exchange ideas on the evolving new features of “jurisdiction” in the context of private international law.

This conference is supported by Hitotsubashi University.

 

Speakers, Abstracts and Programme:

The lists of the speakers, abstracts and the programme can be found respectively here, here and here

 

Venue:

The Conference will be held at the Cheng Yu Tung Building (CYT) which is located in Sha Tin, Hong Kong.

Address:
LT1A, 1/F, Cheng Yu Tung Building (CYT), The Chinese University of Hong Kong (Map)

Transportation:
MTR: Get off at the University Station. CYT Building is just 1-minute walk away from Exit B.

 

Languages:

The first day will be conducted in English, while the second day will mainly be in Mandarin Chinese. Attendees are welcome to participate in sessions on both days.

 

Details and registration

Please visit the conference website for more details. If you would like to attend, kindly register here by 31 July 2024, 3:00 pm.

For enquiries, please contact CUHK LAW at law@cuhk.edu.hk.

 

FACULTY OF LAW

The Chinese University of Hong Kong | Shatin, NT, Hong Kong SAR, China

T: +852 3943 4399 | E: law@cuhk.edu.hk | W: https://www.law.cuhk.edu.hk