Feed aggregator

C-213/18 Adriano Guaitoli et al v Easyjet concerns the clearly complex relationship between the Brussels Ia jurisdictional regime, the 1999 Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, and the EU’s flight compensation Regulation 261/2004.

Montreal Article 33 determines which court has jurisdiction to hear an action for damages against an air carrier falling within the scope of that instrument. The reference has been made in the context of a cross-border dispute between an airline and a number of passengers, in relation to sums claimed by those passengers both by way of standardised compensation under Regulation 261/2004 and by way of individualised compensation for damage caused to them by the cancellation of an outward and a return flight, both operated by that airline.

Saugmandsgaard ØE had advised that the two instruments should be applied distributively, according to the nature of the relevant head of claim. The Court has followed: the court of a Member State hearing an action seeking to obtain both compliance with the flat-rate and standardised rights provided for in Regulation No 261/2004, and compensation for further damage falling within the scope of the Montreal Convention, must assess its jurisdiction, on the first head of claim, in the light of Article 7(1) BIa and, on the second head of claim, having regard to Article 33 Montreal.

This is also the result of Articles 67 and Article 71(1) BIa which allow the application of rules of jurisdiction relating to specific matters which are contained respectively in Union acts or in conventions to which the Member States are parties. Since air transport is such a specific matter, the rules of jurisdiction provided for by the Montreal Convention must be applicable within the regulatory framework laid down by it.

Note that per Article 17(3) BIa the consumer section ‘shall not apply to a contract of transport other than a contract which, for an inclusive price, provides for a combination of travel and accommodation’ (see also C‑464/18 Ryanair). The rule of special jurisdiction for the supply of services, A7(1)(b) BIa, designates as the court having jurisdiction to deal with a claim for compensation based on air transport contract of persons, at the applicant’s choice, that court which has territorial jurisdiction over the place of departure or place of arrival of the aircraft, as those places are agreed in that transport contract; see also C-88/17 Zurich Insurance.

The Court further held that Article 33 Montreal, like A7BIa, leads to the direct appointment of the territorially competent court within a Montreal State: it does not just just identify a State with jurisdiction as such.

The combined application of these rules inevitable means that unless claimants are happy to sue in Mozaik fashion, consolidation of the case will most likely take place in the domicile of the airline. In the Venn diagram of options, that is in most cases the only likely overlap.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2, Heading 2.2.11.1.

Dans cette cassation relative à la saisie d’un immeuble d’habitation, la chambre criminelle réaffirme son attachement au principe du contradictoire et au droit à un procès équitable. Elle considère en effet que la chambre de l’instruction saisie d’un recours formé contre une ordonnance de saisie spéciale doit s’assurer que les pièces sur lesquelles elle se fonde ont été communiquées à la partie appelante.

en lire plus

Written by Mayela Celis

The sixth meeting of the Experts’ Group on Parentage / Surrogacy took place early November in The Hague, the Netherlands, and focused on proposing provisions for developing two instruments:

• a general private international law instrument on the recognition of foreign judicial decisions on legal parentage; and
• a separate protocol on the recognition of foreign judicial decisions on legal parentage rendered as a result of an international surrogacy arrangement.

As indicated in the HCCH news item, the Experts’ Group also discussed the feasibility of making provisions in relation to applicable law rules and public documents.

At the outset, experts underlined “the pressing need for common internationally-agreed solutions to avoid limping legal parentage. The aim of any future instrument would be to provide predictability, certainty and continuity of legal parentage in international situations for all individual concerned, taking into account their rights, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and in particular the best interests of the child.”

The Group studied both indirect grounds of jurisdiction (such as the child’s habitual residence) and grounds for refusal of recognition (such as public policy and providing the child with an opportunity to be heard, which seems to me of paramount importance). Other Private International Law techniques were also studied such as applicable law, a presumption of validity of legal parentage recorded in a public instrument issued by a designated competent authority, and direct grounds of jurisdiction.

In particular, to facilitate the recognition of foreign judgments on legal parentage in international surrogacy arrangements, “the Group discussed the possibility of certification (for example, by way of a model form) to verify that conditions under the Protocol have been met.” There was no consensus on who should provide this certification in the State of origin.

Given the controversial nature of international surrogacy arrangements, the Group stressed that any future protocol on this issue should not be understood as supporting or opposing surrogacy. The question of course remains whether States would be willing to join such an instrument and whether the international act of consenting to be bound by such an instrument on the international plane would signal a positive or negative approach to surrogacy arrangements by a specific State (and possibly result in a potential imbalance between national and international surrogacy arrangements i.e. the former being refused effect and the latter being recognised). The issue of domestic surrogacy arrangements still needs to be explored further by the Group (see para No 26 of the Report).

Moreover, an important feature of the work is the future relationship between the two draft instruments. In this regard, the Group noted that “In principle, the Group favoured an approach whereby States could choose to become a party to both instruments or only one of them. Some Experts proposed that consideration be given to possible mechanisms to serve as a bridge between the two instruments. Experts agreed that, at this time, the Group should continue its work by considering the draft instruments in parallel.”

The Group will continue its work on these issues and will report to the governance body of the Hague Conference (HCCH) in March 2022 so that this body can make a final decision on whether to proceed with this project.

The Report of the Experts’ Group is available here.

The HCCH news item is available here.

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Nîmes, 6ème chambre, 17 janvier 2019

Pourvoi c/ Chambre de l'instruction de la Cour d'appel de Montpellier, 31 janvier 2019

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Paris, pôle 5, chambre 10, 17 décembre 2018

Pourvoi c/ chambre de l'instruction de la Cour d'appel de Bourges, 22 août 2019

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Chambéry, chambre sociale, 30 avril 2019

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel d'Amiens, chambre correctionnelle, 20 mai 2019

Santé publique

Cour d'assise

Terrorisme

Stupéfiants - Saisie

Entreprises en difficulté (loi du 26 juillet 2005)

Servitude