Agrégateur de flux

Rejet

Bail commercial

Bail commercial

On 20 October 2020, the European Parliament adopted – with a large margin – a resolution with recommendations to the Commission on a civil liability regime for artificial intelligence (AI). The text of this resolution is available here; on other issues of AI that are part of a larger regulatory package, see the Parliament’s press release here. The draft regulation (DR) proposed in the resolution is noteworthy from a choice-of-law perspective because it introduces new, specific conflicts rules for artificial intelligence (AI) (on the general issues of AI and PIL, see the conference report by Stefan Arnold here). With regard to substantive law, the draft regulation distinguishes between legally defined high-risk AI systems (Art. 4 DR) and other AI systems involving a lower risk (Art. 8 DR). For high-risk AI systems, the draft regulation would introduce an independent set of substantive rules providing for strict liability of the system’s operator (Art. 4 DR). Further provisions deal with the amount of compensation (Art. 5 DR), the extent of compensation (Art. 6 DR) and the limitation period (Art. 7 DR). The spatial scope of those autonomous rules on strict liability for high-risk AI systems is determined by Article 2 DR, which reads as follows:

“1.        This Regulation applies on the territory of the Union where a physical or virtual activity, device or process driven by an AI-system has caused harm or damage to the life, health, physical integrity of a natural person, to the property of a natural or legal person or has caused significant immaterial harm resulting in a verifiable economic loss.

2. Any agreement between an operator of an AI-system and a natural or legal person who suffers harm or damage because of the AI-system, which circumvents or limits the rights and obligations set out in this Regulation, concluded before or after the harm or damage occurred, shall be deemed null and void as regards the rights and obligations laid down in this Regulation.
3. This Regulation is without prejudice to any additional liability claims resulting from contractual relationships, as well as from regulations on product liability, consumer protection, anti-discrimination, labour and environmental protection between the operator and the natural or legal person who suffered harm or damage because of the AI-system and that may be brought against the operator under Union or national law.”

The unilateral conflicts rule found in Art. 2(1) DR would prevail over the Rome II Regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual relations pursuant to Art. 27 Rome II, which states that the Rome II Regulation shall not prejudice the application of provisions of EU law which, in relation to particular matters, lay down conflict-of-law rules relating to non-contractual obligations. Insofar, it must be noted that Art. 2(1) DR deviates considerably from the choice-of-law framework of Rome II. While Art. 2(1) DR reflects the lex loci damni approach enshrined as the general conflicts rule in the Rome II Regulation (Art. 4 Rome II), one must not overlook the fact that product liability is subject to a special conflicts rule, i.e. Art. 5 Rome II, which is considerably friendlier to the victim of a tort than the general conflicts rule. Recital 20 Rome II states that “[t]he conflict-of-law rule in matters of product liability should meet the objectives of fairly spreading the risks inherent in a modern high-technology society, protecting consumers’ health, stimulating innovation, securing undistorted competition and facilitating trade”. In order to achieve these purposes, the Rome II Regulation opts for a cascade of connections, starting with the law of the country in which the person sustaining the damage has his or her habitual residence when the damage occurred, provided that the product was marketed in that country (Art. 5(1)(a) Rome II). If that connection fails because the product was not marketed there, the law of the country in which the product was acquired governs, again provided that the product was marketed in this state (Art. 5(1)(b) Rome II). Finally, if that fails as well, the Regulation returns to the lex loci damni under Art. 5(1)(c) Rome II, if the product was marketed there. This cascade of connections is evidently influenced by the desire to protect the mobile consumer from being confronted with a law that may be purely accidental from his point of view because it has neither a relationship with the legal environment that he is accustomed to (his habitual residence) nor to the place where he decided to expose himself to the danger possibly emanating from the product (place of acquisition). The rule reflects the presumption that most consumers will be affected by a defective product in the country where they are habitually resident. Insofar, Art. 2(1) DR is, in comparison with the Rome II Regulation, friendlier to the operator of a high-risk AI system than to the consumer.

Even if one limits the comparison between Art. 2(1) DR and the Rome II Regulation to the latter’s general rule (Art. 4 Rome II), it is striking that the DR does not adopt familiar approaches that allow for deviating from a strict adherence to lex loci damni. Contrary to Art. 4(2) Rome II, where the person claimed to be liable and the person sustaining damage both have their habitual residence in the same country at the time when the damage occurs, Art. 2 DR does not allow to apply the law of that country. Moreover, an escape clause such as Art. 4(3) or Art. 5(2) Rome II is missing in Art. 2 DR. Finally yet importantly, Art. 2(2) DR bars any party autonomy with regard to strict liability for a high-risk AI system, which deviates strongly from the liberal approach found in Art. 14 Rome II.

Apart from the operator’s strict liability for high-risk AI systems, the draft regulation would introduce a fault-based liability rule for other AI systems (Art. 8 DR). In principle, the spatial scope of the latter liability rule would also be determined by Art. 2 DR as already described. However, unlike the comprehensive set of rules on strict liability for high-risk systems, the draft regulation’s model of fault-based liability is not completely autonomous. Rather, the latter type of liability contains important carve-outs regarding the amounts and the extent of compensation as well as the statute of limitations. Pursuant to Art. 9 DR, those issues are left to the domestic laws of the Member States. More precisely, Art. 9 DR provides that

“Civil liability claims brought in accordance with Article 8(1) shall be subject, in relation to limitation periods as well as the amounts and the extent of compensation, to the laws of the Member State in which the harm or damage occurred.”

Thus, we find a lex loci damni approach with regard to fault-based liability as well. Again, all the modern approaches codified in the Rome II Regulation – the cascade of connecting factors for product liability claims, the common habitual residence rule, the escape clause, and party autonomy – are strikingly absent from the draft regulation.

Moreover, the draft regulation, in principle, limits its personal scope to the liability of the operator alone (as legally defined in Art. 3(d)–(f) DR). Recital 9 of the resolution explains that the European Parliament “[c]onsiders that the existing fault-based tort law of the Member States offers in most cases a sufficient level of protection for persons that suffer harm caused by an interfering third party like a hacker or for persons whose property is damaged by such a third party, as the interference regularly constitutes a fault-based action; notes that only for specific cases, including those where the third party is untraceable or impecunious, does the addition of liability rules to complement existing national tort law seem necessary”. Thus, for third parties, the conflicts rules of Rome II would continue to apply.

At first impression, it seems rather strange that a regulation on a very modern technology – artificial intelligence – should deploy a conflicts approach that seems to have more in common with Joseph Beale’s First Restatement of the 1930’s than with the modern and differentiated set of conflicts rules codified by the EU itself at the beginning of the 21st century, i.e. the Rome II Regulation. While the European Parliament’s resolution, in its usual introductory part, diligently enumerates all EU regulations and directives dealing with substantive issues of liability, the Rome II Regulation is not mentioned once in the Recitals. One wonders whether the members of Parliament were aware of the European Union’s acquis in the field of private international law all. In sum, compared with Rome II, the conflicts approach of the draft regulation would be a regrettable step backwards. It remains to be seen how the relationship between the draft regulation and Rome II will be designed and fine-tuned in the further course of legislation.

In June 2020, the Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS) held an online symposium dealing with “Global Perspectives on Responsible Artificial Intelligence (AI)”. The range of topics included the implications of AI for European private law (Christiane Wendehorst, ELI/University of Vienna), data protection (Boris Paal, Freiburg), corporate law (Jan Lieder, Freiburg), antitrust (Stefan Thomas, Tübingen), and, last but not least, private international law (Jan von Hein, Freiburg). The videos of the presentations are now available here.

Matthias Weller (University of Bonn) has posted The HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention: New Trends in Trust Management on SSRN.

The abstract reads:

On its 22nd Diplomatic Session on 2 July 2019, the Hague Conference on Private International Law concluded its Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters. The adoption of this Convention completes intense efforts of the HCC and the participating State Parties since 1992. One of the controversial issues in the last steps before the adoption was what has been called, in other contexts, “trust management”. This concept refers to the question how to embark on meaningful judicial cooperation in civil matters with participating states whose administration of justice is perceived as not sufficiently trust-worthy by other participating states – the “real elephant in the room”. At the same time, judicial integration in civil matters is an indispensable part of regulating transnational trade relations. Undoubtedly, international commercial arbitration should have the fullest possible freedom and support. However, without any effective alternative, there is no “alternative” dispute resolution and no “freedom of choice”. Rather, nations and regions, particularly those trading within frameworks of economic integration and thus on an intensified scale, should strive for an “integrated approach”. Against this background, the text explores new trends of trust management of the new HCCH instrument.

The article was published in the Festschrift für Herbert Kronke zum 70. Geburtstag.

by Marta Pertegás Sender, Maastricht University and University of Antwerp

On 5 February 2021 a group of renowned experts will discuss the attractiveness of Dutch courts in an online interactive seminar. The event will more generally address the settlement of complex private transnational disputes in light of recent Dutch and European legislation.

The starting point for this event is the observation that a number of complex multijurisdictional cases find their way to the Dutch courts. Notorious examples of past and pending collective redress cases include the Shell Nigeria (environmental claims), Libor (market manipulation claims), Petrobras (investor claims) and the “truck cartel” (competition claims) cases.

This “Dutch-bound” trend raises questions about the adequacy of the legal framework for such complex cases, in particular with regard to the international jurisdiction of the Dutch courts, the scope of application of the new law on collective redress, the domestic and international coordination of proceedings, the available (extraterritorial) remedies, etc.

Furthermore, this trend begs a more fundamental question about the position of the Dutch courts in a fragmented legal landscape. The broad application of the Law on Collective Settlements and the more restrictive scope of the new law on collective action, illustrate some of these controversies. Should The Netherlands remain an international dispute settlement hub ( forum conveniens) for such disputes?

Dutch and international academic experts, practitioners and policy-makers will lead the discussion from a legal, political and societal perspective. The attractive programme and line of speakers will soon be available here. For now, please save the date and join us for an in-depth reflection on how to tackle such collective redress cases.

This conference is organised by Maastricht University, Tilburg University and University of Amsterdam (UvA), with the collaboration of the Open University, in the context of the Netherlands Sector Plan on the transformative effects of globalisation in the law.

 

Syndicat professionnel

Fraude - Questions préjudicielles

Transports aériens

Responsabilité du fait des produits défectueux

The EAPIL Blog hosts today two posts on the ruling of the Court of Justice in E.E., a case regarding the Succession Regulation decided on 16 July 2020. The firs post, by Matthias Lehmann, appeared this morning. The second post, by Carlos Santaló Goris, a research fellow at the MPI Luxembourg and a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Luxembourg, is featured below.

Introduction  

On 16 July 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) delivered its sixth judgment on Regulation No 650/2012 (the Succession Regulation): C-80/19, E. E.

The preliminary reference allowed the CJEU to address several questions about the
Succession Regulation’s rules on jurisdiction, applicable law, and recognition and enforcement. It also gave the CJEU the opportunity to clarify certain elements of the Succession Regulation: some of them new (such as the determination of the habitual residence), others already familiar to the Court (e.g. are notaries ‘courts’ for the purposes of the Succession Regulation?).

Facts of the Case and Questions Referred

E.E.’s mother – the deceased – was a Lithuanian national who, in 2013, got married to a German national and moved to Germany. The same year she made a will before a Lithuanian notary. In 2017, she passed away in Germany. E.E., also of Lithuanian nationality, requested a notary in Kaunas (Lithuania) to open the succession and issue a certificate of succession rights. The notary rejected the requests arguing the deceased was habitually resident in Germany: therefore, according to the jurisdictional rules of the Succession Regulation, it was up to German authorities to open the succession. E.E. challenged the notary’s refusal. The case ended up before the Supreme Court of Lithuania, which referred the following questions to the CJEU:

(1) Is a situation such as that in the case under examination — in which a Lithuanian national whose habitual place of residence on the day of her death was possibly in another Member State, but who in any event had never severed her links with her homeland, and who, inter alia, had drawn up, prior to her death, a will in Lithuania and left all of her assets to her heir, a Lithuanian national, and at the time of the opening of the succession it was established that the entire estate comprised immovable property located solely in Lithuania, and a national of that other Member State surviving his spouse expressed in clear terms his intention to waive all claims to the estate of the deceased, did not take part in the court proceedings brought in Lithuania, and consented to the jurisdiction of the Lithuanian courts and the application of Lithuanian law — to be regarded as a succession with cross-border implications within the meaning of [the Succession Regulation]?

(2) Is a Lithuanian notary who opens a succession case, issues a certificate of succession rights and carries out other actions necessary for the heir to assert his or her rights to be regarded as a ‘court’ within the meaning of Article 3(2) of [the Regulation]?

(3) If the second question is answered in the affirmative, are certificates of succession rights issued by Lithuanian notaries to be regarded as being decisions within the meaning of Article 3(1)(g) of [the Succession Regulation] and must jurisdiction for that reason be established for the purpose of issuing them?

(4) If the second question is answered in the negative, should the provisions of Articles 4 and 59 of [the Succession Regulation] be construed as meaning that Lithuanian notaries are entitled to issue certificates of succession rights without following general rules on jurisdiction and that such certificates will be held to be authentic instruments which also give rise to legal consequences in other Member States?

(5) Must Article 4 of [the Succession Regulation] (or other provisions thereof) be construed as meaning that the habitual place of residence of the deceased can be established in only one specific Member State?

Should the provisions of Articles 4, 5, 7 and 22 of [the Regulation] be construed and applied in such a way that, in the present case, in accordance with the facts as set out in the first question, it must be concluded that the parties concerned agreed that the courts in Lithuania should have jurisdiction and that Lithuanian law should be applied?

One or More Habitual Residence(s), and Where?

The CJEU addressed first whether a deceased may have more than one habitual residence for the purposes of the Succession Regulation. Indeed, in the case at hand, there were data suggesting that the habitual residence of the de cujus could have been located in two Member States: she had lived for a while in Germany when she passed away, but she held Lithuanian nationality and all her assets were in Lithuania. However, the CJEU made it clear that there can be only one habitual residence. A different answer would lead to a fragmented succession, something that the Succession Regulation aims at avoiding (para. 41).

Was the habitual residence of the deceased in Germany, or rather in Lithuania? The Regulation itself acknowledges that determining the place of habitual residence is not always easy. Some domestic courts have already struggled with this issue. The CJEU relies on the guidance offered by the Regulation’s Preamble, Recitals 23 and 24, inviting the referring court to consider both in order to establish the habitual residence of the deceased in the case at hand.

It is here submitted that by relying on the recitals, the CJEU has vested them with some kind of normative value. From now on, domestic authorities shall consider recitals 23 and 24 of the Succession Regulation when confronted with the need to determine the habitual residence of a deceased. Moreover, the Court’s reasoning indicates how to apply the recitals. First, the national authorities shall rely on Recital 23 to try and establish a close and stable connection with a Member State, taking into account both subjective factors (e.g., why the deceased lived in that Member State) and objective factors (e.g., how long the deceased spent in that Member State). Only if they fail can domestic authorities rely on Recital 24 and consider other data, such as the nationality or the location of the assets.

A Succession with Cross-border Implications?

The CJEU was asked as well whether the succession of E.E.’s mother qualified as one with cross-border implications. Indeed, as the CJEU recalls, the Succession Regulation only applies to such successions (paras. 34 – 35). However, there is no definition of what the European legislator meant by ‘cross-border implications.’ In this sense, the CJEU states: “it must be assessed whether the succession has a cross-border nature due to the location of another element of it in a State other than that of the deceased’s last habitual residence” (para. 42). But what are these other elements? In a non-exhaustive manner, the CJEU referred to the location of the deceased’s assets in a Member State other than the one of habitual residence of the deceased (para. 43). Therefore, in the present case, the succession of E.E.’s mother would fall under the scope of the Regulation if Germany prevails as “habitual residence”, for the estate assets (an apartment) are located in Lithuania.

By contrast, if ultimately (very unlikely, though) the national court prefers Lithuania as place of habitual residence, both the assets and habitual residence would be located in the same Member State. Would the succession be a purely internal one, then? The question arises whether other factors confer a cross-border dimension to a succession; the E.E. judgment is of little help here. Instead, one should look at the AG Opinion, where reference is made as well to the heirs’ habitual residence as a significant element to determine the succession’s cross-border implications (para. 65). In the present case, both potential heirs (E.E. and his stepfather) had their habitual residence in Germany. Therefore, should the deceased’s habitual residence be deemed to be Lithuania, the succession would still be one of interest for the Regulation.

Nothing New Concerning (Lithuanian) Notaries

The referring court also asks whether Lithuanian notaries are “courts” within the meaning of the Succession Regulation. A positive answer would have meant that they are subject to the Succession Regulation’s jurisdictional rules. The question is not new for the CJEU. In C-658/17, WB, a similar one had been referred concerning Polish notaries. The CJEU answered in the negative: the Polish notaries lack “judicial functions” (para. 61), i.e., “the power to rule of [their] own motion on possible points of contention between the parties concerned“(para. 55).

The CJEU applied the same logic in E.E. It appears from its reasoning that Lithuanian notaries in functions like the one deployed in the case at stake are not courts within the meaning of Article 3 of the Succession Regulation (para. 53). However, the CJEU does not say it so in so many words, but leaves it to the referring court to decide (para. 54).

Since the CJEU follows WB, the same critical remarks the judgment has met within scholarly circles will probably apply to E.E.. The CJEU did not fully elaborate on the notion of court, but simply referred to one of the characteristics mentioned in Article 3(2). Additionally, the notion of “jurisdictional functions” retained appears to be inconsistent with C-20/17, Oberle, where the CJEU ruled that the issuance of a domestic certificate of succession by a German court was subject to the Succession Regulation’s jurisdictional rules, in spite of the fact that the proceeding were not “judicial” in the sense of WB (and, now, E.E.). Several scholars have expressed their surprise that a certificate of succession rendered by a German court fall within the Succession Regulation’s jurisdictional scheme, but one rendered by a Lithuanian or a Polish notary does not.

One may wonder whether E.E. was actually a suitable occasion to work out a comprehensive notion of “court”. True, in E.E., the question was formulated in slightly broader terms than in WB. In the latter, the referring court asked whether a Polish notary issuing a certificate of succession is a ‘court’. Conversely, in the latter, the referring court asked whether a Lithuanian notary was a court when it “issues a certificate of succession rights and carries out other actions necessary for the heir to assert his or her rights.” This notwithstanding, it seems that Lithuanian and Polish notaries are quite similar. Thus, it is not surprising that the CJEU followed the same approach. There might be better occasions to address the issue again.

The Lithuanian Certificate of Succession: Judgment or Authentic Instrument?

The CJEU was also requested to determine whether a Lithuanian domestic certificate of succession was a judgment (if notaries are regarded as courts), or an authentic instrument (if notaries are not regarded as courts). The Court explored both possibilities:

Should the notaries be “courts” in the sense of the Regulation, they would be subject to its jurisdictional rules (para. 62), and the national certificate of succession would be a judgment within the meaning of Article (para. 63).

Conversely, if notaries are not ‘courts’, the certificate of succession would be an ‘authentic instrument,’ as long as it fulfils the characteristics imposed by the Succession Regulation on this type of instruments (paras. 72 – 73).

The CJEU’s outcome is hardly surprising considering that it had already explored this point in WB, on the Polish domestic certificate of succession.

The Parties’ Autonomy

In principle, under the Succession Regulation, the courts’ jurisdiction and the applicable law corresponds to the Member State of the deceased’s habitual residence. However, the Regulation grants a certain degree of autonomy to the deceased and to the heirs to opt for a different applicable law and another jurisdiction, respectively. This freedom is nonetheless limited: the deceased can only choose the law of the State his/her nationality (Article 22); the heirs can only opt for the courts of a Member State whose law had been chosen by the deceased (Article 5, Article 7). In E.E., the referring court was uncertain as to whether the deceased had actually opted for the law of her nationality, and the heirs for the jurisdiction of the Lithuanian courts.

Concerning the applicable law, E.E.’s mother had not expressly chosen the law of her nationality. Nonetheless, Article 83(4) of the Regulation creates a fiction according to which “if a disposition of property upon death was made prior to 17 August 2015 in accordance with the law which the deceased could have chosen in accordance with this Regulation, that law shall be deemed to have been chosen as the law applicable to the succession”. Since E.E.’s mother drew up her will before a Lithuanian notary in 2013 according to Lithuanian law, the fiction applies (para. 26) .

Lithuanian law being applicable, the referring court wondered if the potential heirs (E.E. and the deceased’s husband) had chosen the jurisdiction of Lithuanian courts. According to the Succession Regulation they could have done it through a choice-of-court agreement (Article 5); or through express declarations in which they accepted the jurisdiction of the court seized (Article 7). In the present case, unilateral declarations had been made by the deceased’s husband in Germany waiving any claim to the estate, consenting to the jurisdiction of the Lithuanian court and refusing to enter an appearance before it in the proceedings under way in that State. It is clear that these declarations do not amount to an Article 5 choice-of-agreement (para. 85); could they be an “express declaration” in the sense of Article 7? One more time, the CJEU leaves the question open, to be decided by the referring court. AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona went a step further, suggesting a flexible reading of the party’s autonomy. In his words, “it is appropriate to recall that the Regulation must not be read in such a way as to prevent parties from settling a succession out of court in a Member State which they have chosen, if that is possible under the law of that Member State” (para. 122).

Overall Assessment

E.E. will hardly be seen as a landmark case on the Succession Regulation. The main contribution/output of this judgment is the elaboration on an autonomous concept of “habitual residence”, based on the Preamble of the Regulation; and the characterization of Article 83(4) as a fiction, and not a presumption. Beyond that, the answer to the other questions is relatively basic, sometimes even disappointing . The CJEU either relies on what it had already said in previous cases without moving forward (e.g., Oberle; WB); or it paraphrases the text of the Succession Regulation. The referring court may find the AG’s Opinion more instructive than the judgment: something not unusual, and – even if not aimed at by the CJUE’s procedural and estructural rules- a good example of teamwork.

At any rate, E.E. remains an interesting case in that it reflects common difficulties faced by the domestic authorities when dealing with the Succession Regulation.

The EAPIL Blog hosts today two posts on the ruling of the Court of Justice in E.E., a case regarding the Succession Regulation decided on 16 July 2020. Matthias Lehmann and Carlos Santaló Goris, the authors of the two contributions, approach the judgment from different angles and express different views (the post by Carlos Santaló Goris will be out later today). Readers are encouraged to join the discussion!

Sometimes the Directorates for Legal Translations of the Court can take forever to translate a judgment into the other official languages. The bottleneck is increasingly the English language, as there seems to be a draught of English interpreters. An illustration of the phenomenon is the judgment in E.E. (Case C-80/19), which was rendered on 16 July 2020, and for which, to this day, no English translation is yet available.

This should not stop us from taking a closer look at the judgment. In fact, it is the first one to deal with several fundamental issues of the Succession Regulation. Let’s take them one by one after having recapitulated the facts.

Facts

A Lithuanian national had married a German national and lived with him in Germany. In 2013 she made a will before a notary in Lithuania, designating her son E.E. as her only heir. When she died, her estate basically consisted of a piece of real estate in Lithuania.

After the death of his mother, E.E. applied to a Lithuanian notary for a certificate of succession. The notary refused to deliver it on the ground that the deceased’s habitual residence had been in Germany. E.E. brought a claim against the notary before the Lithuanian tribunals. During the proceedings, the German spouse of the deceased declared to have no interest in the succession and agreed to the jurisdiction of the Lithuanian tribunals.

Based on these facts, the Lithuanian Supreme Court decided to refer a number of preliminary questions to the CJEU.

Succession with Cross-Border Implications

The first question raised related to the applicability of the Succession Regulation. The Lithuanian Supreme Court asked whether a succession like the one underlying the reference for preliminary ruling could be considered as having cross-border implications. The notion “succession with cross-border implications” is not used in the rules of the Regulation, but rather in its Preamble (Recitals 1, 7 and 67) as well as in the legal basis on which the Regulation was enacted (Art. 81 TFEU).

To ask whether a case like the present one has cross-border implications may seem factitious, given that the deceased had lived in Germany and owned an asset in Lithuania.

But the Lithuanian Supreme Court highlighted that despite having her last habitual residence in Germany, the deceased had never broken her links with her country of origin, where she had drawn up a will and were almost all her estate was located. The referring court therefore also raised the (fifth) question whether the habitual residence of the deceased can only be located in a specific Member State.

This implied the possibility of multiple habitual residences under the Regulation, which would have been ground-breaking indeed.

The CJEU takes the opportunity to underline that the Regulation is built on the concept of a single habitual residence of the deceased (para 40). Any other interpretation would lead to a fragmentation of the succession (para 41).

Unsurprisingly, the Court of Justice found that a succession has cross-border implications where the habitual residence of the deceased and her major assets were located in different Member States (para 45). One might even say that this is a paradigm case falling within the scope of the Regulation. Thus, the first and the fifth questions were essentially smokescreens which were easily dealt with by the court.

Notion of Court, Scope of Jurisdictional Rules and Authentic Instruments

The next set of questions (2 to 4) concerned the jurisdiction of the notary to issue an authentic instrument of succession.

The CJEU first clarified helpfully that a Lithuanian notary is not to be regarded as a “court” within the meaning of Art. 3(2) of the Regulation because it does not have the right to exercise judicial functions (para 54). The only exception is where it acted pursuant to a delegation of power by a judicial authority or under the control of such an authority (para 55). The CJEU left it to the national court to ascertain whether this is the case.

If the notary is not to be regarded as a court – which seems highly likely –, she would not be bound by the rules on jurisdiction enshrined in Art. 4 to 19 of the Regulation (paras 66 and 80). In particular, she can issue a national succession certificate regardless of the habitual residence of the deceased (para 80).

The Court rightly emphasises in this context that the principle of unity of succession is not absolute (para 69). Nothing therefore stops authorities from different Member States to issue certificates regarding the same succession. Article 64 of the Regulation is an outlier because it concerns the European Certificate Succession, which indeed can only be issued by the authorities of one Member State (para 70).

Although the notary issuing a national certificate of succession is not bound by the rules on jurisdiction of the Regulation, the authentic instrument she issues under national law will have the same evidentiary effects in other Member States as it has in the Member State of origin (paras 75 to 77). This is clearly set out in Art. 59 of the Regulation, which has no link whatsoever to the provisions regarding jurisdiction in Art. 4 to 19 of the Regulation. National authentic instruments will therefore freely circulate within the Union independently of the Member State in which they are made.

Testamentary Choice of Law

 Perhaps the most interesting part of the decision (question 6) concerns the conditions of a choice of law in a will. The deceased had drawn up the will in Lithuania before the entry into force of the Regulation in 2015. The Court concludes that this disposition is deemed to be a choice of law under Art. 83(4) of the Regulation given that the will was made in accordance with Lithuanian law.

Interestingly, the Court bases the conclusion that the will was made “in accordance with Lithuanian law” on the simple fact that the will was made in Lithuania. No other conditions, such as an expression of the testator’s intent or an allusion or reference to the law of Lithuania in the text of the will, seem to be required.

This generous interpretation by the Court greatly facilitates the determination of a choice of law before the entry into force of the Regulation. In future cases, it will be sufficient to prove that the will has been made before a notary of a certain Member State in order to show that the deceased chose the law of this Member State.

Conclusion

Even bad references can make good law. The CJEU has used the opportunity of the somewhat confused reference for preliminary ruling by the Lithuanian Supreme Court to clarify some important issues regarding the Succession Regulation. In particular, it is now clear that a single habitual residence of the deceased has to be identified, that notaries issuing national certificates of succession are not bound by the rules on jurisdiction of the Regulation, and that wills made before a notary prior to the entry into force of the Regulation amount to a choice of the law of the notary’s Member State. If we could finally get this decision in English, the situation would be even clearer. 

In Koninklijke Philips NV v Tinno Mobile Technology Corporation & Ors [2020] EWHC 2553 (Ch) Mann J considers the English side of a licence on  ‘FRAND’ (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) terms.  In these English proceedings Philips seek inter alia, a declaration that the terms it has offered are FRAND, or alternatively that FRAND terms be determined. Its injunction claim accepts that the injunction will only come into force if a worldwide FRAND licence is not accepted by TCL, one of the defendants who is seeking the licence. TCL have commenced proceedings in France which, inter alia, seem to seek to have FRAND terms determined. Philips attempted to have those proceedings stayed pursuant to Article 29 Brussels Ia, but that attempt failed, as did an application for a stay under Article 30 BIa. In turn, not surprisingly, TCL seek a stay of the English proceedings, including, crucially, the vacation of a trial date in November which is intended to determine FRAND issues, in favour of its French proceedings pursuant to the same Articles 29 and/or 30 Brussels Ia.

Philips’ claim form says it is for infringement of two of its European patents, corresponding injunction (prohibiting further infringement) and damages or an account of profits, and other ancillary relief.

At 49 in assessing the impact of the French judgment and the scope of its res judicata, Mann J justifiable refers to C-456/11 Gothaer, that it is not just the ‘dispositif’ of a judgment which has res judicata, but also the core reasoning: at 40 of the CJEU judgment: ‘the concept of res judicata under European Union law does not attach only to the operative part of the judgment in question, but also attaches to the ratio decidendi of that judgment, which provides the necessary underpinning for the operative part and is inseparable from it …’

His enquiry of the dispositif and the French judge’s reasoning as well as, to a certain extent, the submissions of the parties, leads Mann J to conclude that the French judge did not hold that the French court was first seized of FRAND proceedings. Instead, she held that the proceedings in England and the proceedings in France did not (for the purposes of A29) have the same subject matter. That means that the question of first seised became irrelevant.

Mann J then holds himself that the English court was first seized of the FRAND issue and consequently has no power under A30 BIa to stay its proceedings. It was suggested in vain by counsel for the defendants that Articles 29 and 30 are not acte clair on the point of new actions arising in an existing action, given a distinction between the word “proceedings” in Article 29 and “actions” in Article 30 at least in the English version of those Articles.

The jurisdictional challenge was rejected and the relief granted. Geert. (Handbook of) European Private International Law – 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.14.5. Third edition forthcoming February 2021. https://twitter.com/GAVClaw/status/1309481362186031105