Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Besançon, 22 janvier 2020
Accident du travail
Sécurité sociale - Cotisations
Travail dissimulé - Cotisations
Rejet
Thank you Matthias Lehmann for flagging and reviewing the Rotterdam Court’s judgment late in January on applicable law in the Petrobas case. I had earlier reviewed the jurisdictional issues, particularly the application of Brussels Ia’s Article 33-34.
The case relates to a Brazilian criminal investigation into alleged bribery schemes within Petrobras, which took place between 2004 and 2014. The court first, and of less interest for the blog, deals with a representation issue, holding that Portuguese speakers cannot be represented in the class, for the Portuguese version of the relevant dispute settlement provisions, unlike the English translation, was not faulty.
Turning then to applicable law at 5.39 ff. Events occurring on or after 12 January 2009 are subject to the Rome II Regulation. For those before that date, Dutch residual PIL applies which the Court held make Brazilian law lex causae as lex loci delicti commissi: for that is where the alleged fraud, bribery and witholding of information happened.
For the events which are covered by Rome II, the court does not wait for the CJEU finding in VEB v BP and squarely takes inspiration from the CJEU case-law on purely financial damage and jurisdiction: Kronhofer, Kolassa, Universal Music. The court notes that the CJEU in these cases emphasised a more than passing or incidental contact with a State (such as: merely the presence of a bank account) as being required to establish jurisdiction as locus damni. At 5.47 it rejects the place of the investor’s account as relevant (for this may change rapidly and frequently over time and may also be easily manipulated) and it identifies the place of the market where the financial instruments are listed and traded as being such a place with a particular connection to the case: it is the place where the value of the instruments is impacted and manifests itself. It is also a place that meets with the requirements of predictability and legal certainty: neither buyer nor seller will be surprised that that location should provide lex causae.
Conclusion therefore is one of Mozaik: Brasil, Argentina, Germany, Luxembourg are lex causae as indeed may be other places where Petrobas financial instruments are listed. (At 5.49: Article 4(2)’s joint domicile exception may make Dutch law the lex causae depending on who sues whom).
Geert.
(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed.2016, Chapter 4, Heading 4.4.
The Law Applicable to Investor Claims: New Developments from the Rechtbank Rotterdam’s Judgment in Petrobas https://t.co/cuQjWrrOe0
— EAPIL – Eur. Assoc. of Private International Law (@eapilorg) February 24, 2020
Olivier Cachard and Paul Klötgen (both University of Nancy) have published a new edition of their manual of private international law.
The book is primarily a teaching tool. It is a textbook but it also includes numerous abstracts of cases, legislation and articles, as well as a glossary.
The book covers the traditional topics of jurisdiction, choice of law and foreign judgments. The focus is on French private international law, but the book often refers to sources from other jurisdictions.
More details can be found here.
Circulation routière - Demandeur d'asile
Entreprise en difficulté
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer