Agrégateur de flux

Arnold van Steenderen and Milan Simić have complete and concise review here of judgment of the Rotterdam court of December 2017 in re the Belo Horizonte (officially Cefetra et al v Ms ‘IDA’ Oetker Schiffahrtsgesellschaft MbH & Co KG et al). The case is a follow-up to 2015 proceedings. In these the Rotterdam court had first sanctioned seizure, and then rejected further action for claimant had not formally requested access to the documents.

Arnold and Milan summarise the facts very very helpfully – I am much obliged for the judgment is in Dutch (although as the judgment shows, the proceedings were actually conducted in English: a nice example of the use of regulatory competition in civil procedure) and their efforts have saved me a lot of translation time:

The decisions of the Rotterdam Court are a result of the carriage under bill of lading
of soya beans on behalf of Cefetra B.V. (Netherlands based) on board of the “Belo
Horizonte” from Argentina to the United Kingdom. Cefetra supplies raw materials to
the feed, food, and fuel industries. Cefetra Ltd. (UK based) was the holder of the
b/l’s and English law applied to the b/l’s. The vessel is owned by MS ‘IDA’ Oetker
and is time chartered by Rudolf A Oetker (both German based, together addressed
as Oetker). MS ‘IDA’ Oetker is the carrier under the b/l’s. London arbitration is
agreed upon for any dispute rising from the contract of carriage and the b/l’s.

Following engine failure, ‘(d)uring the voyage, experts commissioned by both Cefetra and Oetker visited the “Belo Horizonte” to preliminary assess the condition of the vessel and its engines. Further investigation was conducted upon arrival in England. Oetker, however, only granted permission for inspection of the engine room and refused to disclose the documents on board. Crew interviews were not allowed as well. Subsequently, Cefetra obtained leave to attachment for the purpose of preserving evidence in the Netherlands on 27 October 2015. The leave was effected by the bailiff on 28 October 2015 on board of the “Belo Horizonte”. Several documents were seized and handed over to a sequestrator. Cefetra initiated proceedings’ to gain access to the seized documents.

The dispute in the main is arbitrable in London.

Oetker disputes jurisdiction of the court at Rotterdam on the basis of defendants’ domicile in Germany. Cefetra argue in favour of jurisdiction on the basis of Article 7(1), alternatively 7(2) or indeed Article 35 Brussels I Recast:

• 7(1) forum contractus: for, it is argued, the main agreement between the two parties implies an obligation to provide any relevant evidence; the place of performance for that ‘obligation in question’ lies in The Netherlands since that is where the sequestrator holds them.
• 7(2) forum delicti: Oetker’s obstruction of truth finding is a tort which is located (locus delicti commissi) at Rotterdam since that is where Oetker opposes disclosure.
• 35 provisional, including protective measures.

The Court does not at all entertain Cefetra’s arguments on the basis of 7(1) or 7(2). Wrongly so: plenty of not at all obvious contracts or torts could qualify as same under these provisions, to not address them at all does not make them simply go away.

The court first of all (5.7 in fine) rejects relevance of the arbitration exclusion on the basis of C-391/95 Van Uden Deco-Line. It then sticks to a very restrictive approach to Article 35, with the classic provisionary (not covered by Article 35) v provisional (covered) nature of measures, as also discussed in C-104/03 St. Paul Dairy/Unibel (to which the Court refers). In the words of the court: seizure of evidence is provisional; actual access, copy or extract is not (5.8): the court suggests this is not provisional since it allows the party to gauge the evidentiary position of the party and hence is irreversible.

I disagree -and I have at least a shelf in my library to support the discussion.

Ireversibility in fact (once the evidence seen, the party can never wipe it from its memory, so to speak) does not equate ireversibility in law. The court takes a very limited view of Article 35 and I do not believe it is the right one.

There are not that many national judgments covering Article 35 quite so expressly. This is one to treasure.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.15.

 

 

 

Les sapeurs-pompiers volontaires ne peuvent pas être exclus totalement de l’application de la directive 2003/88/CE du 4 novembre 2003 concernant l’aménagement du temps de travail.

en lire plus

Conseil de prud'hommes de Bordeaux, 1er février 2018

Commission / Grèce
Environnement et consommateurs
Pour avoir tardé à mettre en œuvre le droit de l’Union sur le traitement des eaux urbaines résiduaires, la Grèce est condamnée à une somme forfaitaire de 5 millions d’euros et à une astreinte dégressive de 3,28 millions d’euros par semestre de retard

Commission / Pologne
Environnement et consommateurs
La Cour de justice constate que la Pologne a enfreint le droit de l’Union sur la qualité de l’air ambiant

Dyson
Énergie
L’avocat général Saugmandsgaard Øe propose à la Cour de juger que les fournisseurs et les distributeurs d’aspirateurs ne peuvent pas utiliser d’étiquettes complémentaires reproduisant ou précisant les informations figurant sur l’étiquette énergétique prévue par un règlement de l’Union

The Scotch Whisky Association
Agriculture
L’avocat général Saugmandsgaard Øe se prononce sur l’interprétation des dispositions du droit de l’Union relatives aux indications géographiques des boissons spiritueuses dans le cadre d’un litige concernant un whisky allemand dénommé « Glen Buchenbach »

Porras Guisado
SOPO
Les travailleuses enceintes peuvent être licenciées en raison d’un licenciement collectif

On 15 June 2018 Prof. Dr. Susanne Augenhofer, LL.M. (Yale) will host the 4th round of the Yale-Humboldt Consumer Law Lectures. The Lectures take place in the Senatssaal of Humboldt-University and start at 2pm. This year’s speakers are:

• Prof. Robert C. Post, Sterling Professor of Law, Yale Law School
• Prof. Judith Resnik, Arthur Liman Professor of Law, Yale Law School
• Prof. Reva Siegel, Nicholas de B. Katzenbach Professor of Law, Yale Law Schoo

Participation in the event is free of charge, but requires registration at https://yhcll2018.eventbrite.de by June 1, 2018.

Pouvant aller à l’encontre du droit à la vie privée et familiale pour les prisonniers russes, et faisant l’objet de requêtes devant la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme, l’éloignement des condamnés pourrait faire l’objet d’un encadrement plus strict.

en lire plus

Cour d'appel de Colmar, 08 février 2018

Tribunal de grande instance de Paris, 12 février 2018

Cour d'appel de Paris, 08 février 2018

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel d'Orléans, 5e chambre, 11 septembre 2017

Tribunal de grande instance de Montpellier, 12 février 2018

Conseil de prud'hommes de Bordeaux, 01 février 2018

Pourvoi c/Cour d'appel de Paris - pôle 6-chambre 1, 06 octobre 2017

Tribunal de grande instance de Nevers, 13 février 2018

Conseil de prud'hommes de Bordeaux, 1er février 2018

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel d'Aix-en-Provence, 13e chambre, 08 août 2017