Agrégateur de flux

Non lieu à renvoi

Non lieu à renvoi

Succession

Divorce

Concurrence déloyale ou illicite

Following an earlier post, here’s a reminder of the First Edition of the Milan Investment Arbitration Pre-Moot.

Albert Henke prepared for this reason the following announcement:

On February, 14 and 15, 2020 will take place in Milan the First Edition of the Milan Investment Arbitration Pre-Moot, an event jointly organized by the Law Firm DLA Piper, Milan, Università degli Studi of Milan and the European Court of Arbitration (Italian section). The Pre-Moot will be a chance for ten University teams from all around the world to test their advocacy skills in moot arbitration hearings, in preparation for the Frankfurt International Arbitration Moot Competition, the oldest and most prestigious student competition in the area of investment protection law, scheduled for the beginning of March 2020 in Frankfurt (https://www.investmentmoot.org/news-2-2/). The Pre-Moot will be introduced by a Conference hosted by Università degli Studi on the topic: “Outstanding issues and recent developments in international investment arbitration”. All the information in the attached flyer. 

In 2006 a German patient received, in Germany, defective breast implants manufactured by Poly Implant Prothèse SA (‘PIP’), a French undertaking that is now insolvent. The patient seeks compensation before the German courts from Allianz IARD SA, the French insurer of PIP.

In France, manufacturers of medical devices are under a statutory obligation to be insured against civil liability for harm suffered by third parties arising from their activities (see Article L.1142‑2 of the Public Health Code). That obligation led PIP to conclude an insurance contract with Allianz, which contained a territorial clause limiting the cover to damage caused on French territory only. Thus, PIP medical devices that were exported to another Member State and used there were not covered by the insurance contract.

In this context, the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main enquires whether the fact that PIP was insured by Allianz for damage caused by its medical devices on French territory only, to the exclusion of that potentially caused in other Member States, is compatible with Article 18 TFEU and the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality contained therein.

The referring court asked first whether Article 18 has a direct third-party effect; subsidiarily, it asked about an indirect discrimination on the basis of nationality on the side of the competent French authority – as an emanation of the State -, who did not object to the territorial clause mentioned above (two further questions followed, for the case of an affirmative reply to the first one).

AG’s Bobek opinion on the case (case C-581/18) was published on 6 February 2020. It contains principally reflections on the autonomous application of Article 18 TFUE. Additionally, in response to a first point of disagreement among the parties presenting observations, it explores the criteria determining whether a subject matter falls under the scope of application of EU.

Mr. Bobek rejects an interpretation of Article 18 TFEU as an autonomous provision creating enforceable obligations not already laid down by one of the four fundamental freedoms, or specifically provided for in any other instrument of EU law: and this, for structural reasons (as he says, in order to respect the regulatory logic of the internal market). According to Mr. Bobek (at 110), otherwise Article 18 TFEU would be turned

into a limitless provision, by virtue of which any issue, however remotely connected to a provision of EU law, could be harmonised by judicial means. It would furthermore turn regulatory competence within the internal market on its head, generating irreconcilable future conflicts of competence between the Member States.

He goes on to say (at 112) that

it is also clear from the discussion of the present case that if Article 18 TFEU were allowed to operate as a free-standing, substantive obligation in the way implied by the referring court in its questions, its reach would go beyond anything that the free movement case-law ever contemplated, including the case-law on goods pre-Keck. Interpreted in that way, there would be no limit to the scope of Article 18 TFEU: that provision would be turned into a Dassonville formula on steroids. In today’s interconnected world, sooner or later, there is inevitably some sort of interaction with goods, services or persons from other Member States. If that were enough to trigger the independent applicability of Article 18 TFEU, every single rule in a Member State would be caught by that provision.”

And adds later (at 114, 115)

the rules on free movement, as well as Article 18 TFEU, logically only cover the free flow of goods or services across borders, including exit and entry. Unless expressly harmonised by the EU legislature, the rules on their subsequent use are a matter for the Member States where they are used (…). In other words, the fact that goods once came from another Member State is not a sufficient reason to suggest that any matter later concerning those goods is covered by EU law.

From a legal point of view, the opinion is most probably correct (the practical outcome, “vous auriez dû aller vous faire soigner en France”, may be morally regrettable; but an expansive interpretation of Article 18 is not the appropriate way to avoid it). However, I have to admit I do not follow him when he seeks support on PIL arguments. This happens at 113, where he puts forward a possible consequence of an independent applicability of Article 18 TFEU:

To take just one example: imagine that, while drafting this Opinion, I am injured — hopefully not too seriously — because the computer I am typing on explodes. The various parts of the computer are likely to have been produced in a Member State other than Luxembourg, more likely even, in the age of integrated supply chains, in several Member States, if not also third countries. Absent any specific contractual terms concerning applicable law and jurisdiction between the producer of that computer and myself, therefore assuming normal rules on tort (delict) were to apply, the applicable law governing any damages claim is likely to be Luxembourg law, as the law of the State in which the accident occurred. Should I then, if I were to find Luxembourg law unsatisfactory for my damages case, have the possibility of relying on Article 18 TFEU in order to invoke the law of the place of production of the computer, or perhaps even the place of production of any of the components of the computer, and have my claim enforced before a Luxembourg court?

Nor do I understand either, at 115, why his recollection of the statutory doctrine:

If that logic were to be embraced, by a questionable interpretation of Article 18 TFEU, the movement of goods in Europe would become (once again) reminiscent of medieval legal particularism, whereby each product would, like a person, carry its own laws with it. Goods would be like snails, carrying their homes with them in the form of the legislation of their country of origin, to be applicable to them from their production to their destruction.

I was looking for conflict-of-law echoes in the Opinion, thus I was happy to find them; but (surely my fault) I fail to see the link of this line of argument with the case at hand. Anyway, one does not need to agree with each single point of an Opinion to approve of it. And it is always fun to read Mr. Bobek.

Jonathan Hutchinson v MAPFRE and Ice Mountain (OBeach) Ibiza [2020] EWHC 178 (QB) like all cases involving serious accidents, cannot be written about without the greatest sympathy for claimants having suffered serious physical damage. The case concerns the horror scenario of either a fall or a dive in a pool leading to head and spinal injury. Mr Hutchinson (represented by Sarah Crowter QC) is a former Birmingham City football player who visited an Ibiza club owned by a fellow Brit – those interested in the background see here.

Defendants are the club (ICE Mountain, Spain registered) and their insurers, MAPFRE (ditto). Clearly to sue in England the case needs to involve either a protected category (consumers; insureds) or a special jurisdictional rule (contract; tort).

Andrews J is right in calling jurisdiction on the consumer title against ICE Mountain straightforward. The Pammer /Alpenhof criteria are fulfilled; that claimant’s purchase of a ticket was not the result of the directed activities is irrelevant per CJEU Emrek; (at 21 she dismisses an argument to try and distinguish Emrek on the facts, which argued that claimant had entered the pool via the VIP area to which his ‘standard’ ticket did not actually give access).

The further discussion involves the insurance title of Brussels Ia, which reads in relevant part (Article 13):

(1).   In respect of liability insurance, the insurer may also, if the law of the court permits it, be joined in proceedings which the injured party has brought against the insured. (2).   Articles 10, 11 and 12 shall apply to actions brought by the injured party directly against the insurer, where such direct actions are permitted. (3).   If the law governing such direct actions provides that the policyholder or the insured may be joined as a party to the action, the same court shall have jurisdiction over them.

The claims against Ice Mountain in tort or for breach of statutory duty are halted by Andrews J. The question here is whether the ‘parasitic’ claim under A13(3) requires the issue to ‘relate to insurance’ (recently also discussed obiter in Griffin v Varouxakis), an issue already discussed in Keefe, Hoteles Pinero Canarias SL v Keefe [2015] EWCA Civ 598 (referred to in Bonnie Lackey), sent to the CJEU but settled before either Opinion of judgment. The same issue is now before the CJEU as Cole and Others v IVI Madrid SL and Zurich Insurance Plc, pending in anonymised fashion before the CJEU it would seem as C-814/19, AC et al v ABC Sl (a wrongful birth case).

At any rate, the non-contractual claims against Ice Mountain were stayed until the CJEU has answered the questions referred to it by Judge Rawlings in Cole.

A late [but that in itself does not matter: lis alibi pendens needs to be assessed ex officio (at 36)] challenge on the basis of A29-30 lis alibi pendens rules was raised and dismissed. The other proceedings are criminal proceedings in Ibiza. The argument goes (at 37) that there are ongoing criminal proceedings in Spain arising out of the accident which led to Mr Hutchinson’s injuries, and because Mr Hutchinson has failed to expressly reserve his right to bring separate civil proceedings, the Public Prosecutor is obliged to bring civil proceedings on his behalf within the ambit of those criminal proceedings. For that reason, Ice Mountain contend that the Spanish court is seised of any civil claim arising from the same facts as are under investigation in the Spanish criminal proceedings, and has been since 2016, long before these proceedings were commenced.

This line of argument fails to convince Andrews J: ‘Through no fault of his own, Mr Hutchinson has never been in a position knowingly to take any formal steps to reserve his position in Spain to commence separate civil proceedings against anyone he alleges to be legally liable for his injuries. Yet, if Ice Mountain is right, he will have been deprived of any choice in the matter of where to bring his civil claim merely because, without his knowledge or consent, a doctor in the hospital filed a report which triggered a criminal investigation into the accident, of which he was never told.’ Quite apart from this unacceptable suggestion, the criminal proceedings in Ibiza have been closed, and (at 59) ‘there is no ongoing criminal action leading to trial, to which any civil action would attach.’

For the claims against Mapfre, Mrs Justice Andrews held that the court has jurisdiction on two alternative basis:

Firstly, the provision in the contract of insurance upon which Mapfre seeks to rely as demonstrating that there is no good arguable case against it on the merits cannot be relied on, as that would substantially undermine the protection to the weaker party specifically provided for in the insurance provisions of Recast Brussels 1.

In essence, Mapfre accepts that under Spanish law, there would be a direct right of action against it as Ice Mountain’s liability insurer if it were liable to indemnify Ice Mountain under the policy, but it contends that Mr Hutchinson does not have a good arguable case that Mapfre’s policy of insurance covers Ice Mountain’s liability to him under a judgment given by an English court. The policy would, however, cover Ice Mountain’s liability to him for the same accident, based on the identical cause (or causes) of action, under a judgment given by a Spanish court. (ICE Mountain agree, therefore also acknowledging it is uninsured in respect of any claims which the English consumers who are its targeted customers might bring in the courts of their own domicile pursuant to A17-18 BIa). If this were right, this would mean a massive disincentive for the consumer to sue in his jurisdiction: at 66 (a devilish suggestion): If he wins and the uninsured defendant is not good for the money, he would be left without a remedy, whereas if he sued in Spain, the same defendant would be insured in respect of the same liability, and he would recover from the insurer up to the policy limits.

At 67: if a party who owes contractual duties to consumers ‘does insure, and a direct of action exists against the insurer under the law which governs the insurance contract, then ‘Recast Brussels I does not contemplate that he should be permitted to contract with the insurer on a basis that acts as a disincentive to consumers to exercise their rights to sue him (and his insurer) in the courts of their own domicile or which renders any rights of suit against the insurer in that jurisdiction completely worthless by using the exercise of those rights as grounds for avoiding the insurer’s obligation to indemnify him.‘

The Spanish law experts called upon to interpret the provisions of the territorial scope title in the insurance policy, differed as to exact meaning. However the issue was settled on the basis of EU law, with most interesting arguments (and reference ia to Assens Havn): summarising the discussion: a substantial policy clause limiting liability to awards issued by Spanish judgments, in practice would have the same third party effect as a choice of court clause which B1A does not allow (see A15: The provisions of this Section may be departed from only by an agreement… (3) Which is concluded between a policyholder and an insurer, both of whom are at the time of conclusion of the contract domiciled or habitually resident in the same member state, and which has the effect of conferring jurisdiction on the courts of that state even if the harmful event were to occur abroad, provided that such agreement is not contrary to the law of that Member State….”

At 84:

‘If a clause which has that effect can be relied on against a person such as Mr Hutchinson it would drive a coach and horses through the special rules on insurance laid down under Section 3 of Chapter II. It would provide every liability insurer (not just Spanish insurers) with the simplest means of depriving the injured party of the choice of additional jurisdictions conferred upon him by Articles 11 to 13 of Recast Brussels 1. It would be the easiest thing in the world for an insurer, as the economically strongest party, to include a standard term in the policy that he is only liable for claims that have been brought against the policyholder in the courts of the policyholder’s and/or the insurer’s own domicile.’

This part of the judgment is most interesting and shows the impact jurisdictional rules and their effet utile may have on substantive law (at the least, third party effect of same).

Alternatively, even if the analysis above is wrong, ‘on the basis of the expert evidence on Spanish law that is currently before the Court, at this stage of the proceedings the Claimant has established at the very least a plausible evidential basis for finding that the clause in question (the one which effectively limits pay-outs to judgments issued in Spain) is not binding upon him as a third party to the contract, and therefore is ineffective to prevent MAPFRE from being directly liable if his claim is otherwise well-founded on the merits. He has therefore established a good arguable case that the jurisdictional gateway under Article 13(2) of Recast Brussels 1 applies.’

Most relevant and interesting.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2 Heading 2.2.11.2

Par un arrêt du 29 janvier 2020, la chambre criminelle est venue préciser les exigences de motivation de l’évaluation du préjudice de l’État dans une affaire de fraude fiscale et de blanchiment de ce délit et a rappelé celles applicables à la peine complémentaire de confiscation.

en lire plus

Quelques mois après que la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne a précisé la portée de la directive OGM sur la mutagénèse, le Conseil d’État enjoint au gouvernement de modifier le code de l’environnement.

en lire plus

Assurances (règles générales) – Prescription civile

For the fourth consecutive year, the Annual Conference of the Society of Legal Scholars (SLS) will feature a section dedicated to Conflict of Laws. This year’s iteration of the conference will take place from 1 to 4 September 2020 at the University of Exeter (more information here). The conveners of the Conflict of Laws section, Andrew Dickinson and Máire Ní Shúilleabháin, have kindly provided the following Call for Papers.

SLS Conflict of Laws Section: Call for Papers and Panels for 2020 SLS Annual Conference at the University of Exeter

This is a call for papers and panels for the Conflict of Laws section of the 2020 SLS Annual Conference to be held at the University of Exeter from Tuesday 1st  September – Friday 4th September. 

This marks the fourth year of the Conflict of Laws section, and we are hoping to build on the successful meetings in past years, most recently at the 2019 Conference in Preston. We would like to thank all those who have supported the section since its inception.

The Conflict of Laws section will meet in the second half of the conference on Thursday 3rd and Friday 4th September.

We intend that the section will comprise four sessions of 90 minutes, with 3 or more papers being presented in each session, followed by discussion. At least three of the sessions will be organised by theme. We hope, if submissions allow, to be able to set aside the fourth session for papers by early career researchers (within 5-years of PhD or equivalent). We also hope to organise a Conflict of Laws social event on the Thursday evening.

We welcome proposals from scholars in the field for papers or panels on any aspect of the Conflict of Laws (private international law). We welcome proposals representing a full range of intellectual perspectives in the subject section, and from those at all stages of their careers.

If you are interested in delivering a paper, we ask you to submit a proposed title and abstract of around 300 words. If you wish to propose a panel, please submit an outline of the theme and rationale for the panel and the names of the proposed speakers (who must have agreed to participate), together with their proposed titles and abstracts.

Please submit your paper abstract or panel details by 11:59pm UK time on Tuesday 24th March 2020.  All abstracts and panel details must be submitted through the Oxford Abstracts conference system which can be accessed using the following link – https://app.oxfordabstracts.com/stages/1763/submitter – and following the instructions (select ‘Track’ for the relevant Subject Section). If you registered for Oxford Abstracts for last year’s conference, please ensure that you use the same e-mail address this year if that address remains current. If you experience any issues in using Oxford Abstracts, please contact slsconference@mosaicevents.co.uk.

As the SLS is keen to ensure that as many speakers with good quality papers as possible are able to present, we discourage speakers from presenting more than one paper at the conference.  With this in mind, when you submit an abstract via Oxford Abstracts, you will be asked to note if you are also responding to calls for papers or panels from other sections. 

The SLS offers a Best Paper Prize which can be awarded to academics at any stage of their career and which is open to those presenting papers individually or within a panel.  The Prize carries a £250 monetary award and the winning paper will, subject to the usual process of review and publisher’s conditions, be published in Legal Studies.  To be eligible:

• speakers must be fully paid-up members of the SLS;
• papers must not exceed 12,000 words including footnotes (as counted in Word);
• papers must be uploaded to the paperbank (via Oxford Abstracts) by 11.59pm UK time on Monday 24th August; and
• papers must not have been published previously or have been accepted or be under consideration for publication.

We have also been asked to remind you that all speakers will need to book and pay to attend the conference and that they will need to register for the conference by Tuesday 16th June in order to secure their place within the programme. Please do let me/us know if this is likely to pose any problems for you. For further information, please see the conference website (https://www.slsconference.com/).

We note also that prospective speakers do not need to be members of the SLS or already signed up as members of a section to propose a paper.

We look forward to seeing you, as a speaker or delegate, at the Conflict of Laws session in Exeter.

With best wishes,

Professor Andrew Dickinson, St Catherine’s College, University of Oxford Dr Máire Ní Shúilleabháin, University College Dublin (Conveners)

As reported earlier in this blog, the Queen Mary University of London will host a series of workshops on Private International Law after Brexit.

The first workshop of the series, scheduled for 28 February 2020, is sold out. The second and third workshop will be held on 1 and 2 April 2020, and will focus on the future development of private international law in the UK in relation to commercial law and family law, respectively.

More on the events can be found here.

Gilbert Chikli, 54 ans, est connu pour ses escroqueries et ses talents d’acteur. Il est poursuivi, au côté de six autres prévenus, pour une escroquerie consistant à se faire passer pour le ministre de la défense pour extorquer des millions. Son procès, débuté le 4 novembre, prendra fin le 12 novembre.

en lire plus

News broke a few weeks back on the class action suit introduced in the USDC for the District of Columbia, against Apple, Dell, Microsoft and Tesla. Swiss-based Glencore (of Mark Rich fame) and Belgium’s Umicore are mentioned in the suit but not added to the defendants. Historical references are inevitably made to the plundering of Congo first by King Leopold personally and in a later stage by the Kingdom of Belgium.

The suit is a strategic one, attempting to highlight the human rights (including child labour) issues involved in the mining of cobalt, used as a raw material in particular for modern batteries, and to propel the corporate social responsibility (CSR) debate on due diligence and supply-chain liability. It is also however a suit seeking damages for the victims of child labour in very dangerous circumstances.

Of note for the blog is the jurisdictional angle: discussed at 18 ff and featuring arguments against the use of forum non conveniens. Claimants put forward they have no practical ability to litigate in DRC: damages under DRC law (therefore assumed to be the lex causae which a Congolese judge would apply were the case litigated in DRC) sought from end-users of cobalt; DRC courts are corrupt; anyone standing in the way of the mining industry is threatened; the 2000 Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act TVPRA as amended in 2013 allows for extraterritorial jurisdiction; finally and of relevance to a classic locus delicti commissi argument: ‘the policymaking that facilitated the harms Plaintiffs suffered was the product of decisions made in the United States by Defendants’.

Personal jurisdiction is suggested to exist for (at 22) are all U.S. resident companies and they do substantial and continuous business within the District of Columbia – minimum contacts are established, and defendants should reasonably anticipate being hailed into court there.

No doubt there will be intense discussion on the jurisdictional basis, prior to debate on the merits of liability of end-users.

Geert.

Biens mal acquis : Teodorin Obiang, vice-président de Guinée équatoriale, condamné en appel à trois ans d’emprisonnement avec sursis et trente millions d’euros d’amende.

en lire plus