Agrégateur de flux

Divorce, séparation de corps

Is the actio pauliana by a Polish company against a Spanish company, which had bought immovable property from the former’s contracting party, one relating to ‘contract’ within the meaning of Article 7(1) Brussels I Recast?

Bobek AG Opined in C-337/17 Feniks v Azteca on 21 June. His Opinion features among others a legal history class on the action pauliana, and eventually a justifiable conclusion: the action is not one in contract. In C-115/88 Reichert I the Court held that the French civil law actio pauliana does not fall within exclusive jurisdiction concerning rights in rem in immovable property (Article 24(1). Soon afterwards, the Court added in C-261/90 Reichert II that the same actio pauliana was neither a provisional measure nor an action bringing proceedings concerned with the enforcement of a judgment. It was also not a matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict.

That left only the potential for a forum contractus to be decided.

The AG reviews a number of arguments to come to his decision. One of those I find particularly convincing: at 62: assuming that the applicability of the head of jurisdiction for matters relating to a contract were to be contemplated, the question that immediately arises is which of the two contracts potentially involved should be taken as relevant? To which of the two contracts would an actio pauliana in fact relate? Among others (at 69-70) Sharpston AG’s Opinion in Ergo is discussed in this respect and the AG in my view is right when he dismisses the contractual relations at issue as an anchor point.

At 69 the AG also adds a knock-out point which could logically have come at the very beginning of the Opinion:

‘it should also be added and underlined that both approaches outlined above fail to satisfy the requirement of ‘obligation freely assumed by one party towards another’, [the AG refers to Handte, GAVC] that is by the Defendant towards the Applicant. Even if the case-law of this Court does not require that there is identity between the parties to the proceeding and to the respective contract, it appears difficult to consider that the mere filing of an actio pauliana creates a substantive-law relationship between the Applicant and the Defendant resulting from, for example, some kind of legal subrogation founded by an act of COLISEUM (as the Applicant’s initial debtor).’

Readers further may want to take note of para 92: the AG’s view to treat the power of recitals with caution. The AG ends at 97-98 with a robust defence of the Brussels regime, with specific reference to the common law (footnotes omitted):

‘What has to be sought is a principled answer that applies largely independently of the factual elements in an individual case. While fully acknowledging and commending the attractive flexibility of rules such as forum(non) conveniens that allow for derogation in the light of the facts of a specific case, the fact remains that the structure and the logic of the Brussels Convention and Regulations is indeed built on different premises. What is understandably needed in a diverse legal space composed of 28 legal orders are ex ante reasonably foreseeable, and thus perhaps somewhat inflexible rules at times, and less of an ex post facto explanation (mostly as to why one declared oneself competent) heavily dependent on a range of factual elements.

All in all, in the current state of EU law, actio pauliana seems to be one of the rare examples that only allows for the applicability of the general rule and an equally rare confirmation of the fact that ‘… there is no obvious foundation for the idea that there should always or even often be an alternative to the courts of the defendant’s domicile’. ‘

 

A solid opinion with extra reading for the summer season (on the Pauliana).

Geert.

Generalstaatsanwaltschaft (Conditions de détention en Hongrie)
DFON
L’avocat général Campos Sánchez-Bordona propose à la Cour de déclarer que l’existence, dans l’État d’émission d’un mandat d’arrêt européen, de voies de recours judiciaires permettant de contester d’éventuels traitements inhumains ou dégradants constitue un élément important pour écarter le risque de tels traitements, de sorte que, dans un tel cas, il n’existerait en principe pas de circonstances exceptionnelles pouvant justifier l’inexécution de ce mandat

Kuhn
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
L’avocat général Bot propose à la Cour de justice de juger que le règlement « Bruxelles I bis » n’est pas applicable pour déterminer quelle juridiction d’un État membre est compétente pour statuer sur les demandes formées contre l’État grec par un particulier détenteur d’obligations souveraines grecques suite à leur échange forcé dans des conditions et des circonstances exceptionnelles

Wirth e.a.
Transport
En cas de retard important d’un vol, la compagnie aérienne à qui le versement de l’indemnisation due aux passagers incombe n’est pas celle qui a donné en location l’appareil et l’équipage ayant été utilisé, mais celle qui a décidé de réaliser le vol

Planta Tabak
Liberté d'établissement
L’avocat général Saugmandsgaard Øe propose à la Cour de juger que la large interdiction de vente des produits du tabac contenant un arôme caractérisant est conforme au principe d’égalité de traitement

Commission / Slovaquie
Droit institutionnel
Pour avoir tardé à mettre en œuvre le droit de l’Union sur la mise en décharge des déchets, la Slovaquie est condamnée à une somme forfaitaire d’un million d’euros et à une astreinte de 5 000 euros par jour de retard

Pourvoi c/ Chambre de l'instruction de la cour d'appel de Versailles, 06 février 2018

Pourvoi c/ Conseil de prud'hommes de Brest, 29 juin 2018

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Fort-de-France - chambre civile, 03 octobre 2017

Pourvoi c/ Chambre de l'instruction de la cour d'appel de Paris - 2e section, 14 mai 2018

Conseil de prud'hommes de Paris, 27 juin 2018

Following the successful international doctoral conference two years ago, the Faculty of Law in Rijeka is organising RiDoc 2018: Rijeka Doctoral Conference, to be held on 7 December 2018. The call for abstracts is available here and contains all the necessary details. It is important to note that the applications are welcome by 25 July 2018 and the results of the review will be known by 15 September 2018. Applications and any questions should be addressed to ridoc@pravri.hr.