Agrégateur de flux

Sánchez Ruiz
SOPO
Les États membres ne peuvent exclure de la notion de « relations de travail à durée déterminée successives » la situation d’un travailleur occupant de manière pérenne, en vertu de plusieurs nominations, un poste de remplacement en l’absence de procédure de concours, sa relation de travail ayant été ainsi implicitement prorogée d’année en année

"AGRO IN 2001"
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Le droit de l’Union n’empêche pas les États membres de prévoir des procédures civiles de confiscation indépendamment du constat d’une infraction pénale

The Department of Law of the University of Aarhus and the European Association of Private International have decided to postpone by one year the Association’s founding conference, originally scheduled to take place on 14, 15 and 16 May 2020.

The conference is now set to take place on 27, 28 and 29 May 2021.

The decision comes in response to the challenges posed, and the concerns raised, by the coronavirus crisis.

The venue, Aarhus, remains unchanged, and so does the conference program.

The Department of Law of the University of Aarhus and the European Association of Private International Law hope that all those who expressed an interest in the event will attend the conference next year.

Registered participants wishing to maintain their registration are invited to write an e-mail to this effect to Gitte Schneider (gs@law.au.dk) by 17 April 2020.

All other registered participants will automatically receive their fees back. This will occur in the days following the above date.

For further information, please visit the webpage of the conference in the website of the Aarhus University, here.

See you in Aarhus in 2021!

In Manitou v J.C. Bamford Excavators, (defendant is better known as ‘JCB’ which in England is an eponym for ‘digger’ or excavator) the Paris Court of Appeal held that French Courts have jurisdiction in an interesting tale of patent insults. JCB (England incorporated) had obtained a French injunction against Manitou (domiciled at France) obliging it to halt production of one of its products possibly in violation of a JCB patent. On the eve of an important trade fair taking place in France, JCB boasted about the injunction in a Twitter, Linked-in and website post. Manitou argue the post was insulting and an act of unfair competition.

Manitou claim jurisdiction on the basis of A7(2) BIa, special jurisdiction for tort, per CJEU C-618/15 Concurrences /Samsumg /Amazon, which I reviewed here. It refers to all sites on which the news was posted being accessible in France (Pinckney would have been strong authority here); to the post discussing a French judgment which is only aimed at and enforceable in France; and that its publication was timed to coincide with the aforementioned French fair. JCB on the other hand argue mere accessibility does not suffice and that the sites did not target readers in France.

The Court refers both to Shevill and to Concurrences; decides that the very fact that the site was published in English does not insulate it from French jurisdiction (seeing also that plenty of potential clients looking to buy from Manitou at the time would have been in France for the fair); and that the publication clearly would have affected the brand’s reputation in France and also its sales there. Jurisdiction therefore established.

Geert.

(Handbook of) European private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.11.2

Unfair competition, publication by UK defendant of judgment concerning #patent infringement
Jurisdiction, Article 7(2) Brussels Ia.
Paris CA upholds FR jurisdiction citing Shevill, Concurrences (on which https://t.co/Ibsofl7Jsl) https://t.co/WD61WwHtwv

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) March 5, 2020

Following the ratification of Qatar last week, on 12 March 2020, the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation will enter in force on 12 September 2020: that was quick!

Source: here

 

The Council on General Affairs and Policy of the Hague Conference met from 3 to 6 March 2020. Its conclusions and decisions are now available.

Key points:
“The projects on normative work include two further meetings of the Experts’ Group on Jurisdiction before CGAP 2021, the continuation of the Parentage / Surrogacy Project and the Tourists and Visitors Project, further work on the draft Practical Guide on cross-border recognition and enforcement of agreements reached in the course of family matters involving children and, subject to available resources, some exploratory work of the intersection of private international law and intellectual property and the monitoring of developments with respect to the private international law implications of distributed ledger technology (DLT).

In relation to post-Convention services, CGAP noted, amongst others, the approval of the Guide to Good Practice on Article 13(1)(b) under the 1980 Child Abduction Convention and the Guide to Good Practice on the Use of Video-Link under the 1970 Evidence Convention. CGAP also approved the holding of a first Special Commission on the 2007 Child Support Convention and its Protocol. In addition, CGAP invited another meeting of the Working Group on Preventing and Addressing Illicit Practices under the 1993 Adoption Convention, and an Experts’ Group to explore whether broader use of new technologies, including DLT, may further enhance the e-APP, in particular in relation to e-Registers”.

Source: here and there

For the Guide to Good Practice under the HCCH Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction – Part VI – Article 13(1)(b), see here

Last week, on 11 March 2020, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in case C‑511/17 (Györgyné Lintner v UniCredit Bank Hungary Zrt.), which is about Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts:

“1. Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a national court, hearing an action brought by a consumer seeking to establish the unfair nature of certain terms in a contract that that consumer concluded with a professional, is not required to examine of its own motion and individually all the other contractual terms, which were not challenged by that consumer, in order to ascertain whether they can be considered unfair, but must examine only those terms which are connected to the subject matter of the dispute, as delimited by the parties, where that court has available to it the legal and factual elements necessary for that task, as supplemented, where necessary, by measures of inquiry.

2. Article 4(1) and Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that, while all the other terms of the contract concluded between a professional and that consumer should be taken into consideration in order to assess whether the contractual term forming the basis of a consumer’s claim is unfair, taking such terms into account does not entail, as such, an obligation on the national court hearing the case to examine of its own motion whether all those terms are unfair”.

Source: here

La création d’un état d’urgence sanitaire, calqué sur le modèle de l’état d’urgence régi par la loi du 3 avril 1955 est la mesure phare du projet de loi d’urgence pour faire face à l’épidémie de covid-19.

en lire plus

Teemu Juutilainen is the author of Secured Credit in Europe – From Conflicts to Compatibility, which is about to be published by Hart Publishing.

The abstract reads as follows.

This monograph seeks the optimal way to promote compatibility between systems of proprietary security rights in Europe, focusing on security rights over tangible movables and receivables. Based on comparative research, it proposes how best to tackle cross-border problems impeding trade and finance, notably uncertainty of enforceability and unexpected loss of security rights. It offers an extensive analysis of the academic literature of more recent years that has appeared in English, German, the Scandinavian languages and Finnish. The author organises the concrete means of promoting compatibility into a centralised substantive approach, a centralised conflicts-approach, a local conflicts-approach and a local substantive approach. The centralised approaches develop EU law, and the local approaches Member State laws. The substantive approaches unify or harmonise substantive law, while the conflicts approaches rely on private international law. The author proposes determining the optimal way to promote compatibility by objective-based division of labour between the four approaches. The objectives developed for that purpose are derived from the economic functions of security rights, the conditions for legal evolution and a transnational conception of justice.

More information here.

Dr. Gérardine Goh Escolar, First Secretary at the Hague Conference on Private International Law, has prepared a lecture on the main features of the Hague Conference and its work. The lecture is available in three languages (English, French and Spanish) in the UN Audiovisual Library of International Law.

You can watch the lectures here. 

Many thanks 2TG for initially flagging the judgment, and for Maura McIntosh and colleagues not just for further reviewing it but also for sending me copy: for the case has not yet appeared on the usual sites.

In Pandya v Intersalonika [2020] EWHC 273 (QB), Tipples J held that proceedings were time-barred in accordance with Greek law as the lex causae, where the claim form was issued in the English courts before the expiry of the applicable Greek limitation period, but was not served until after that period had expired.

The claim arises out of a road traffic accident that happened in Kos, Greece on 29 July 2012. The claimant is a UK national and was on holiday in Kos with her family when she was struck by a motorcycle as she was crossing the road. The claimant suffered a severe traumatic brain injury and was then aged fifteen. Defendant is the Greek-registered insurance company which provided insurance to the motorcyclist or the motorcycle that he was riding.

That claimant is entitled to sue the insurer in England is not of course, contrary to Tipples J passing reference, a result of Rome II but rather of Brussels IA. Jurisdiction however at any rate was not under discussion.

Defendant then relies on A15(h) Rome II to argue a time bar under Greek law, the lex locus damni: service of the claim is a rule of Greek law in relation to limitation and a claim has to be issued and served to interrupt the limitation period. This means that the requirement of service cannot be severed, or downgraded, to a step which is simply governed by the rules of civil procedure under English law. Claimant by contrast argues that service of the claim is a point of pure procedure, which falls squarely within Article 1(3) and is governed by the rules of civil procedure under English law.

At 25 ff Tipples J discusses the issue (I highlight the most relevant arguments)

• starting with the principle of autonomous interpretation;
• further, a need for wide interpretation of A15 which she derives from its non-exhaustive character. I do not agree that non-exhaustive listings necessarily equate broad interpretations;
• thirdly the need, by contrast, to interpret A1(3) narrowly ‘because it is an exception’ to the general rule of lex locus damni in A4. This too I disagree with: A1(3) states it ‘it shall not apply to evidence and procedure, without prejudice to Articles 21 and 22’ (which concern formal validity and burden of proof). In my view A1(3) like A1(2) defines the scope of application, like A1(2). It is listed separately from the issues in A1(2) for unlike those issues, part of the excluded subject-matter is partially brought back into the scope of application. If anything therefore needs to be interpreted restrictively, it is the partial cover of evidence and procedure.  Seemingly between parties however this was not disputed.
• Further support is found in Dicey & Morris 15th ed., which refers to Wall v Mutuelle de Poitiers a case which discusses the issues somewhat, yet if anything more in support of English law applying to the discussion in Pandya rather than the other way around. (A reference further on in Andrew Dickinson’s Rome II Volume with OUP in my mind, too, further underlines the opaqueness of the A1 /A15 distinction and does not clearly lend support pro the lex causae argument).
• Fifth, predictability and certainty are cited in support however how these gazump exclusions from the scope of application is not clear to me.
• Finally PJSC Tatneft v Bogolyubov is referred to but dismissed as irrelevant (which surprises me).

Held: the claim was time-barred and therefore dismissed.

I would suggest there is plenty of scope for appeal here.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 3.

Dr. Gérardine Goh Escolar, First Secretary at the Hague Conference on Private International Law, has prepared a lecture on the main features of the Hague Conference and its work. The lecture is available in three languages (English, French and Spanish) in the UN Audiovisual Library of International Law.

You can watch the lectures here. 

The Court of Justice of the European Union on 27th February 2020 delivered its judgment in Corporis/Gefion Insurance, Case C-25/19. The case concerned rules surrounding service of documents in a specific, yet increasingly common context.

Corporis is a Polish insurance company, who was assigned damages by the owner of a vehicle following a car accident for the value of 30 euro. Gefion was the Danish insurance company covering the risk related to the accident. Under the Solvency II Directive, insurance undertakings may provide services in other Member States without having there an agency or an establishment – yet, for compulsory motor insurance coverages they must appoint a representative with “sufficient powers to represent the undertaking … including the payment of such claims, and to represent it or, where necessary, to have it represented before the courts and authorities of that Member State in relation to those claims” (Art 152). The Polish representative of Gefion was Crawford Polska.

When Corporis wanted to start judicial proceedings, it served legal documents upon the prospective defendant, in Denmark. Documents were not translated, and the recipient of the documents, according to Art 8 of the Service of Documents Regulation (no. 1393/2007), refused to accept service on the ground that it was in not in the condition to understand the content of the documents.

Polish courts suspended proceedings, requesting Corporis advanced payment for translation for 1.500 euro. Failing such payment, the court dismissed the case.

On appeal, the court of appeal questioned whether the Service of Documents Regulation was applicable, as its recital 8 states that it “should not apply to service of a document on the party’s authorised representative in the Member State where the proceedings are taking place regardless of the place of residence of that party”.

The Court of Justice was thus called to rule on whether the rules on the appointment of representatives contained in the Solvency II Directive and the scope of application of the Service of Documents Regulation as reconstructed in light of its recital extend the competence and duties of said representative to receive service of documents in the language of that specific host State for which he has been appointed.

The Court of Justice has confirmed that the Service of Documents Regulation is not applicable to service of a document on the party’s authorized representative in the Member State where the proceedings are taking place (para 28 f). The applicability of the regulation is set aside in light of its recital 8, according to which it should not be applied “to service of a document on the party’s authorised representative in the Member State where the proceedings are taking place regardless of the place of residence of that party”. This sets the difference from the previous case law of the court, namely the Alder judgment Case C-325/11, where there was no local representative of the foreign defendant, nor a legal obligation to appoint such a representative.

Yet, in the Court’s eye, the non-application of the Service of Documents Regulation in the case at hand does not mean that EU law remains silent in general. The Solvency II Directive creates a harmonized regime for the pursuit of insurance activities between Member States. Amongst its goals, not only the promotion of cross-border services, but the protection of persons as well. The necessity for an insurance undertaking to appoint a representative in a State where it decides to offer services without opening an agency or an establishment is pre-ordered at the protection of persons; even though the Solvency II Directive is silent on the matter, according to the Court, not recognizing the right to victim to serve documents in his own language to the representative with whom it has already taken preliminary steps would, in essence, deprive the provisions of their effet utile.

Interestingly, in terms of legal narrative, the matter is mostly constructed in positive terms. The Court speaks of the “possibility for that representative to accept service” (para 37); it stress the negative consequences of excluding “the powers [of the] representative to accept service of documents” (para 42). Evidently, from the perspective of the foreign insurance company and its representative, this is more a matter of legal obligation to accept service.

The approach and the perspective followed by the Court becomes apparent in the conclusion. The Court does not clearly say that the representative has an obligation to accept service – it says that the rules on appointment in the Solvency II Directive include the power to receive service of documents. An argumentative style that appears to little prejudice to the conclusion: insurance companies now know that when they appoint a representative in another Member State under Artt. 152 Solvency II Directive, persons will have the possibility to serve documents to that representative, and avoid a cross-border service of documents.

In May 2018, the European Commission published a proposal for a Regulation amending the 2001 Evidence Regulation. The name of the proposal immediately clarifies the lack of ambition of the project: the intention is to amend the existing text, not to recast it.

The Commission Proposal

The Proposal aims at improving the 2001 Regulation by: using electronic transmission as the default channel for electronic communication and document exchanges; promoting modern means of taking evidence such as videoconferencing and incentives (via the financing of national projects) for Member States to equip courts with videoconferencing facilities; removing legal barriers to the acceptance of electronic (digital) evidence; tackling divergent interpretations of the term ‘court’;  communicating the importance of the uniform standards provided by the Regulation (streamlined procedures, equal standard of protection of the right of the parties involved); best practices for competent courts, to help them apply the procedures properly and without delay; and raising courts’ and legal professionals’ awareness of the availability of the direct channel of taking evidence under the Regulation.

On 13 February 2019, the European Parliament adopted its first-reading position on the proposal, with 37 amendments to the text of the Commission.

On 29 November 2019, the Council of the European Union adopted a general approach of the text.

The main purpose of the proposal is to improve transmission of requests and communication by using modern communication technology. There is no doubt that this is an important concern. Yet, the operation of the Evidence Regulation arguably raises much more important issues.

The Optional Regulation

The Evidence Regulation should further European integration by facilitating and expediting the taking of evidence in other Member States.

Instead, it is the experience of many European practitioners that the Regulation does just the opposite. It creates obstacles, and slows down the taking of evidence abroad. The reason is simple: the Regulation requires the intervention of authorities in the requested state as a preliminary step to the taking of evidence abroad. The most liberal provision in this respect is Article 17, which introduced “Direct taking of evidence by the requesting court” in other Member States. But even under Article 17, it is necessary to “submit a request to the central body or the competent authority” of the requested state.

The European Union has abolished the exequatur procedure for judgments rendered in civil and commercial matters. Under the Brussels II bis Regulation, decisions on the return of a child are immediately enforceable and may not be challenged in the requested state, even for alleged violations of human rights. But the taking of evidence abroad is still subject to a preliminary procedure. The system completely lags behind.

In Lippens and ProRail, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) addressed the issue by ruling that the application of the Evidence Regulation was not mandatory, and that Member States could simply ignore it and take evidence abroad under their own procedures, without seeking any kind of approval from the requested state. In particular, the CJEU ruled in ProRail:

43. (…) it must be recalled that, according to recitals 2, 7, 8, 10 and 11 in the preamble to Regulation No 1206/2001, the aim of the regulation is to make the taking of evidence in a cross-border context simple, effective and rapid. The taking of evidence, by a court of one Member State in another Member State must not lead to the lengthening of national proceedings. (…)

45. An interpretation of Articles 1(1)(b) and 17 of Regulation No 1206/2001 according to which the court of a Member State is obliged, for any expert investigation which must be carried out directly in another Member State, to take evidence according to the method laid down by those articles would not be consistent with those objectives. In certain circumstances, it may be simpler, more effective and quicker for the court ordering such an investigation, to take such evidence without having recourse to the regulation. 

The CJEU however reserved cases where the taking of evidence would affect the powers of the requested Member State.

The Proposal of the Commission does not address the optional character of the Regulation. This means that the future amended Regulation will remain an optional instrument that the courts of the Member States are free to (continue to) ignore.

Liberalizing the Taking of Evidence in Other Member States

The most important issue that the Proposal does not tackle, however, is that of the obstacles that the Regulation creates in the taking of evidence abroad, and that litigants avoid by resorting to national law.

During the legislative process which lead to the adoption of the initial Evidence Regulation, Germany had proposed to fully liberalize the operation of judicial experts in other Members States. Under this exception, courts could appoint a judicial expert to carry out his mission in other Member States without any need for a preliminary procedure in the requested state. The exception was eventually not adopted. However, this is exactly what the CJEU has allowed in ProRail, which was concerned with the operation of a judicial expert in another Member State.

The reform of the Evidence Regulation was thus the perfect opportunity to reconsider the issue. A much more ambitious reform would have attempted to identify cases where the taking of evidence abroad could be liberalized by abolishing any preliminary procedure, and cases where some kind of involvement of the requested state would still appear to be justified.

Instead, the European lawmaker is about to ignore the problem and, by doing so, to generate considerable uncertainty.

Disclosure: the author was a member of the expert group established by the European Commission for the purpose of drafting the Proposal of the Commission.

The Covid-19 pandemic is on everybody’s mind. Around the world, countermeasures limit public life and freedom of movement, especially cross-border traffic. This raises the question to which extent Private International Law is relevant and capable of handling this new situation. Here are some provisional thoughts on the potential impact of travel bans and other emergency measures under the Rome I and II Regulation.

Transport contracts

Some countries have restricted free movement from persons coming from areas affected by the Corona virus. Austria, for instance, does not allow people coming from Italy into its territory, while the US has just banned travel from Europe with the sole exception of the UK. As a result, flights, trains and bus trips have been cancelled.

For courts in the EU (with the exception of Denmark), the law governing these transport contracts is regulated by Article 5 of the Rome I Regulation. The determination of the applicable law is quite straight forward: The fallback rule is that the law of the habitual residence of the passenger applies (Article 5(2) Rome I). The trickier question, however, is which impact the local law at the place of destination might have on the contract.

The answer for EU courts is given by Article 9 of the Rome I Regulation. The prohibition to enter the territory of a Member State certainly qualifies as an overriding mandatory rule in the sense of paragraph 1 of the provision. Should the courts of that Member State decide over the case, they would apply this provision as part of their lex fori (see Article 9(2) Rome I). The result would certainly not be very different for courts outside the EU, which would apply such provisions as part of their public policy.

The court of another Member State, for instance those of the place of departure, may give effect to the overriding mandatory rules of the state of destination because the contract is to be performed there (see Article 9(3) Rome I). In case the latter has prohibited all travel, this would render the performance of the contract unlawful in the sense of the provision. Mind that the courts of the other states have discretion whether to give effect to the travel ban (see the word “may” in Article 9(3) Rome I).

Cancelled or Postponed Events

The virus has led to the cancellation of events around the world, from congresses to concerts and soccer matches. Usually, the tickets to these events will be subject to the local law where the event takes place.

However, this is not always the case. The parties may have chosen another law (Article 3 Rome I). The consumer protection rules do not interfere with this choice, when the event takes place in a state in which the consumer does not have its habitual residence (see Article 6(4)(a) Rome I). In the absence of a choice, the law at the habitual residence of the service provider applies (Article 4(1)(b) Rome I). If it is – as usual – a corporate entity, the law at the place of its central administration governs (Article 19(1) Rome I). These laws may be replaced by that of a branch that has concluded or executed the contract (Article 19(2) Rome I).

If as a result a foreign law governs the contract, the law of the place of the event may be applied as an overriding mandatory rule under the conditions set by Article 9 of the Rome I Regulation. Insofar, the same considerations as for transport contracts apply. Where the law of the event does not call for a full cancellation, but rather for some changes, such as a postponement or the shift to another place, this law may be considered as the law of the place of performance (lex loci solutionis) under Article 12(2) of the Rome I Regulation.

Cancelled or Delayed Deliveries

Where deliveries of goods were cancelled or postponed, the solution is much the same as for events. The law of the place of performance may apply either as an overriding mandatory provision under Article 9 of the Rome I Regulation or is to be taken into account as lex loci solutionis under Article 12(2) of the same Regulation.

An interesting extension of the concept of public policy rules can be observed in China: According to a recent post on Chinese law a Chinese authority is issuing so-called force majeure certificates pretending to absolve Chinese companies from the need to fulfill contracts with foreign parties. The author assumes that courts of the People’s Republic could consider these certificates as part of public policy even in the absence of compulsory government orders.

From an EU viewpoint, the assessment is quite different. European courts apply legal concepts independently of any measures by administrative authorities. And while compulsory restrictions certainly qualify as overriding mandatory rules, the same is not true for the doctrine of force majeure, which does not meet the requirements of Art 9(1) Rome I. European courts will therefore follow this concept only where it is part of the law governing the contract, and assess independently whether its conditions are met. They can merely take into account, as a matter of fact, mandatory provisions at the place of performance if the applicable substantive law so allows (see to this effect the ruling of the Court of Justice in Nikiforidis, para 51).

Infections

It is hard to identify the source of a Corona infection, but it may not be impossible. A victim may for instance sue the operator of a foreign airport, hospital or hotel for the failure to take appropriate precautions. If both parties are privy to a contract, the law applicable to that contract will decide over the necessary measures, including duties of information and warning in the pre-contractual phase (Article 12 Rome II).

It is also possible that the parties are not contractually bound to each other. Imagine for instance a passenger of a flight suing another passenger who has neglected her infection. Which law applies? EU courts will have to search for the solution in the Rome II Regulation.

A first idea that might spring to mind is to apply Article 7 of the Rome II Regulation, which deals with environmental damages. Yet Recital 24 of the Rome II Regulation defines ‘environmental damage’ as ‘adverse change in a natural resource, such as water, land or air, impairment of a function performed by that resource for the benefit of another natural resource or the public, or impairment of the variability among living organisms’. The virus is respiratory and travels by air, but arguably, it does not change this natural resource. Its main negative effects are on the health of other individuals. While one may debate this assessment, it seems more certain that Corona does not impair fauna’s variation.

Hence the general rule of Article 4 of the Rome II Regulation applies. The first, rather curious, result is that any claim is governed by the law of the common habitual residence of the sick and the infected person (Article 4(2) Rome II). The dispute between two Italian residents on a plane from Frankfurt to Moscow would thus be governed by Italian law, unless there is a manifestly closer connection (Article 4(3) Rome II).

If the parties to the dispute reside in different states, then the law of the place where the damage occurred applies (Article 4(1) Rome II). Airplanes are considered as being part of the territory of the country where they are registered. The suit of a Swedish passenger against a Swiss resident on a flight from Stockholm to Geneva in a plane registered in Ireland would thus be governed by Irish law.

Cross-border infections, for instance by sending contaminated goods or livestock, are also governed by the law of the place of damage (Article 4(1) Rome II) or by the common habitual residence of the parties (Article 4(2) Rome II). Mind you, however, that the rules of safety and conduct at the place where the tortfeasor acted have to be taken into account (Art 17 Rome II). Thus, when infected animals are sent from Rome to Paris, the sanitary restrictions of Italian law would have to be considered by a court. But this is only the case insofar as they “appropriate”.

These results can again be influenced by overriding mandatory rules of the forum (Article 16 Rome II). Whether the court can also apply foreign overriding mandatory rules under the Rome II Regulation is subject to dispute. This should however be allowed in analogy to the possibility provided under the Rome I Regulation (Article 9(3) Rome I).

Conclusion

These considerations only concern private international law and leave out interesting questions of substantive law, such as those relating to force majeure, frustration or impossibility, which may be decided differently in each Member State. Moreover, they are merely provisional thoughts. It remains to be seen in which exact shape and form conflict of laws issues will arise from Covid-19.

The Court of Justice of the European Union on 27th February 2020 delivered its judgment in Corporis/Gefion Insurance, Case C-25/19. The case concerned rules surrounding service of documents in a specific, yet increasingly common context.

Corporis is a Polish insurance company, who was assigned damages by the owner of a vehicle following a car accident for the value of 30 euro. Gefion was the Danish insurance company covering the risk related to the accident. Under the Solvency II Directive, insurance undertakings may provide services in other Member States without having there an agency or an establishment – yet, for compulsory motor insurance coverages they must appoint a representative with “sufficient powers to represent the undertaking … including the payment of such claims, and to represent it or, where necessary, to have it represented before the courts and authorities of that Member State in relation to those claims” (Art 152). The Polish representative of Gefion was Crawford Polska.

When Corporis wanted to start judicial proceedings, it served legal documents upon the prospective defendant, in Denmark. Documents were not translated, and the recipient of the documents, according to Art 8 of the Service of Documents Regulation (no. 1393/2007), refused to accept service on the ground that it was in not in the condition to understand the content of the documents.

Polish courts suspended proceedings, requesting Corporis advanced payment for translation for 1.500 euro. Failing such payment, the court dismissed the case.

On appeal, the court of appeal questioned whether the Service of Documents Regulation was applicable, as its recital 8 states that it “should not apply to service of a document on the party’s authorised representative in the Member State where the proceedings are taking place regardless of the place of residence of that party”.

The Court of Justice was thus called to rule on whether the rules on the appointment of representatives contained in the Solvency II Directive and the scope of application of the Service of Documents Regulation as reconstructed in light of its recital extend the competence and duties of said representative to receive service of documents in the language of that specific host State for which he has been appointed.

The Court of Justice has confirmed that the Service of Documents Regulation is not applicable to service of a document on the party’s authorized representative in the Member State where the proceedings are taking place (para 28 f). The applicability of the regulation is set aside in light of its recital 8, according to which it should not be applied “to service of a document on the party’s authorised representative in the Member State where the proceedings are taking place regardless of the place of residence of that party”. This sets the difference from the previous case law of the court, namely the Alder judgment Case C-325/11, where there was no local representative of the foreign defendant, nor a legal obligation to appoint such a representative.

Yet, in the Court’s eye, the non-application of the Service of Documents Regulation in the case at hand does not mean that EU law remains silent in general. The Solvency II Directive creates a harmonized regime for the pursuit of insurance activities between Member States. Amongst its goals, not only the promotion of cross-border services, but the protection of persons as well. The necessity for an insurance undertaking to appoint a representative in a State where it decides to offer services without opening an agency or an establishment is pre-ordered at the protection of persons; even though the Solvency II Directive is silent on the matter, according to the Court, not recognizing the right to victim to serve documents in his own language to the representative with whom it has already taken preliminary steps would, in essence, deprive the provisions of their effet utile.

Interestingly, in terms of legal narrative, the matter is mostly constructed in positive terms. The Court speaks of the “possibility for that representative to accept service” (para 37); it stress the negative consequences of excluding “the powers [of the] representative to accept service of documents” (para 42). Evidently, from the perspective of the foreign insurance company and its representative, this is more a matter of legal obligation to accept service.

The approach and the perspective followed by the Court becomes apparent in the conclusion. The Court does not clearly say that the representative has an obligation to accept service – it says that the rules on appointment in the Solvency II Directive include the power to receive service of documents. An argumentative style that appears to little prejudice to the conclusion: insurance companies now know that when they appoint a representative in another Member State under Artt. 152 Solvency II Directive, persons will have the possibility to serve documents to that representative, and avoid a cross-border service of documents.

Dans un communiqué n° 28/20 du 11 mars 2020, la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne annonce la prise de dispositions afin d’assurer la continuité dans le traitement des affaires et de contribuer à la lutte contre la propagation de l’épidémie. 

en lire plus

Cour de justice de la République