Flux européens

État luxembourgeois (Informations sur un groupe de contribuables)
Rapprochement des législations
Coopération administrative dans le domaine fiscal : une demande d’informations peut concerner un groupe de personnes identifiables, mais non nominativement et individuellement identifiées

Aldricus – Jasa rental catering begitu diperlukan untuk mengsukseskan acara terutama acara besar untuk kantor anda. Meskipun pandemic belum juga berakhir, tetapi tidak ada salahnya anda mencoba peruntungan membuka jasa rental catering untuk usaha pertama anda, asalkan protocol Kesehatan yang dilakukan sudah sebenar-benarnya untuk jasa rental catering yang anda buka sebagai usaha pertama anda. Perhatikan hal berikut ini untuk memilih jasa rental catering terbaik yang dikutip dari co create id.

Tips Memilih jasa rental catering terbaik pertama untuk acara anda di PaDi UMKM yaitu Lakukan Riset & Sampling, Lakukan survei terlebih dahulu mengenai apa saja yang saat ini sedang diminati oleh banyak orang. Kemudian, lakukan sampling untuk mengetahui apakah masakan kamu enak dan gak membosankan. Cara ini juga bisa membantu kamu menentukan variasi menu.

Tips Memilih jasa rental catering terbaik kedua untuk acara anda di PaDi UMKM yaitu Tawarkan Beberapa Pilihan Paket, Berikan beberapa pilihan paket agar calon pembeli bisa memilih sesuai dengan keinginan. Contohnya, pilihan paket diet, paket hemat, paket vegetarian, atau paket lainnya. Berikan harga yang lebih murah dibanding harga satuan, agar mereka tertarik untuk mencoba katering kamu.

Tips Memilih jasa rental catering terbaik ketiga untuk acara anda di PaDi UMKM yaitu Lakukan Kesepakatan, Kesepakatan yang harus diperhatikan antara lain jam pengantaran katering. Dalam hal ini, sebaiknya kamu gak terlambat, karena keterlambatan bisa mengurangi nilai usaha sehingga ada kemungkinan pembeli memutuskan untuk gak memperpanjang kerja sama dengan kamu.

Tips Memilih jasa rental catering terbaik keempat untuk acara anda di PaDi UMKM yaitu Perhatikan Pelanggan, Kamu juga perlu masukan mengenai masakan yang telah dibuat. Sering-seringlah melakukan survei terhadap pelanggan. Seluruh masukan dan kritik dari pelanggan bisa kamu gunakan untuk mengembangkan usaha katering.

Tips Memilih jasa rental catering terbaik kelima untuk acara anda di PaDi UMKM yaitu Minta Testimoni, Testimoni bisa menjadi semacam kesaksian kalau konsumen puas terhadap masakan yang mereka dapat. Testimoni tersebut bisa digunakan sebagai tanda bahwa katering kamu enak dan terpercaya. Dengan ini, kamu jadi punya nilai lebih untuk memasarkannya ke tempat-tempat baru. Dalam beberapa bulan setelah usaha berjalan, bukan gak mungkin pemasukan dan pengeluaran kamu masih belum teratur. Ada banyak kemungkinan yang akan memengaruhi hal ini, misalnya belum memiliki banyak pelanggan setia dengan jadwal pemesanan yang teratur. Kalau begini, ada baiknya kamu memiliki tabungan khusus untuk memisahkan omzet usahamu dari simpanan pribadi. Jadi seluruh pengeluaran dan pemasukan usaha kateringmu bisa lebih terkontrol. Terlebih, jika sewaktu-waktu kateringmu mendapat pesanan dalam jumlah yang lebih banyak, kamu bisa mengambilnya kapan saja sebagai modal tambahan.

The post CALON PEMBELI, PASTIKAN JASA CATERING ANDA MEMILIKI PROGRAM INI KETIKA MELAKUKAN PENJUALAN appeared first on Aldri Blog.

Conseil / Hamas
Relations extérieures
La Cour confirme les actes du Conseil maintenant le Hamas sur la liste européenne des organisations terroristes

IS (Illégalité de l’ordonnance de renvoi)
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Le droit de l’Union s’oppose à ce que, à la suite d’un pourvoi dans l’intérêt de la loi formé par le procureur général, une juridiction suprême nationale constate l’illégalité d’une demande de décision préjudicielle introduite par une juridiction inférieure, au motif que les questions posées ne sont pas pertinentes ni nécessaires pour la solution du litige au principal

SpaceNet,Telecom Deutschland,Commissioner of the Garda Síochána
Rapprochement des législations
L’avocat général Campos Sánchez-Bordona rappelle que la conservation généralisée et indifférenciée des données relatives au trafic et des données de localisation afférentes aux communications électroniques n’est autorisée qu’en cas de menace grave pour la sécurité nationale

O’Loan and Scott v MIB and AIG (Fintan O’Loan and Elisabeth Scott v Motor Insurance Bureau and AI Europe SA) involves the same Loi Badinter that was also the subject of Marshall v MIB. I was alerted to the case buy Ian Denham’s post. Judgment is as yet unreported and I am grateful to Ian for having sent me copy.

The contested claim is the one of Ms Scott v AIG. She was the front seat passenger of the hire car, insured by AIG and driven by Mr O’Loan, her partner, when the car was driven into by an uninsured, French registered car. Ms Scott therefore turns to the driver, her partner (in reality, the insurer of the hire car), to have her damage covered under the strict liability (no need to show fault) rule of the French Loi Badinter.

To get to French law however she needs to overcome Article 4(2) Rome II’s provision that in case victim and party claimed to be liable are habitually resident in the same country at the time the damage occurs, the laws of that country apply. A4(3) is the portal to that escape route:

(3) Where it is clear from all the circumstances of the case that the tort/delict is manifestly more closely connected with a country other than that indicated in paragraphs 1 or 2, the law of that other country shall apply. A manifestly closer connection with another country might be based in particular on a pre-existing relationship between the parties, such as a contract, that is closely connected with the tort/delict in question.

It was conceded by both parties [12] that the district judge cut quite a few corners on the A4(3) analysis and Platts J therefore started afresh. Winrow v Hemphill of course was referred to, as was Owen v Galgey (the conclusions of which I disagreed with).

The judge notes (as does the Handbook: para 4.39) that it is important to identify what is meant by “the tort/delict’ in A4(3) before considering whether that tort/delict is more closely connected with a country other than England. A4(3) holds that ‘the tort’ (not individual elements of the tort, such as the event and/or the damage and /or anything singular at all) needs to be ‘more closely connected’.

I disagree with the judge [23] that ‘the tort’ or ‘delict’ clearly refers to the event which caused the damage, or ‘the incident’ [24]. In the case of a tortious obligation ‘the tort’ arguably refers to the classic 3 elements of event, damage, and causal link between the two (all three here clearly referring to France). I do agree it does not refer to the cause of action which arises from the incident [24]. While linguistically speaking that may be caught be ‘the tort’ for it would be one of its consequences, it would also mean that remedies available, or not, for instance would play a role in determining lex causae. Where Rome II envisages such assessment, it says so explicitly: such as in Article 7’s environmental damage rule.

The judge’s reasons for opting for displacement are [30]

I therefore consider the connection with France to be manifestly closer than the connection with England: the collision was in France; it was between two vehicles registered in France; the damage was caused in France in that the initial injury was suffered in France. Further, the circumstances were such that the claim of first claimant is to be dealt with under French law.

That last element is in slight contradiction I find to the judge’s consideration signalled above, that an advance on (remedies available or not under the) lex causae, must not play a role. If that is the case for claimant seeking to overturn A4(2)’s presumption, arguably there must not be a role either for the lex causae of other claims involved in the case.

Of note is the judge’s emphasis on the vehicles both being registered in France. If that is an element, travellers of countries without strict liability rules, might have a strong incentive indeed to hire cars rather than drive their own when driving in EU Member States with strict liability rules such as the Loi Badinter.

Appeal dismissed, for the result is the same (French law applies) even if the route to it was quite different from the first judge.

I do not think the analysis on ‘the tort’ is quite there yet.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 4.5.2 (para 4.39 ff).

Of much note and my review shall be on the blog soon. (There is a queue, plus the posts inevitably are playing snakes and ladders with my day jobs). https://t.co/JxrMg02Sxh

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) November 15, 2021

 

Governor of Cloverhill Prison e.a.
Relations extérieures
Les dispositions concernant le régime du mandat d’arrêt européen à l’égard du Royaume-Uni prévues dans l’accord de retrait et concernant le nouveau mécanisme de remise dans l’accord de commerce et de coopération entre l’Union européenne et cet État tiers sont contraignantes pour l’Irlande

Commission / Hongrie
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
En sanctionnant pénalement l’activité d’organisation visant à permettre l’ouverture d’une procédure de protection internationale par des personnes ne remplissant pas les critères nationaux d’octroi de cette protection, la Hongrie a violé le droit de l’Union

Prokuratura Rejonowa w Mińsku Mazowieckim
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Le droit de l’Union fait obstacle au régime en vigueur en Pologne permettant au ministre de la Justice de déléguer des juges dans des juridictions pénales supérieures, délégation à laquelle ce ministre, qui est en même temps le procureur général, peut à tout moment mettre fin sans motivation

In Silverman v Ryanair DAC (Rev1) [2021] EWHC 2955 (QB), claimant was injured whilst going down stairs at an airport terminal in England. The claim is subject to EU private international law. Jurisdiction for the English courts in this personal injury claim is not disputed.

Under A5 Rome I, contracts for carriage of goods are subject to the ordinary lex voluntatis rule, while for carriage of passengers, parties can only choose from a limited selection of leges contractus. The standard approach is for  general terms and conditions to select the law of the carrier’s habitual residence or his place of central administration, which is entirely kosher under Rome I. Unless the booking qualifies as package travel, it essentially means that passengers are generally less protected than ordinary consumers under A6 Rome I.

In the case of Ryanair, the default choice inevitably leads to Irish law, except in this case (because Irish law would lead to higher damages), the airline unusually seeks to divert from its default choice of law.  The airline’s relevant clause, reads

8.2.4: Governing Law: “Except as otherwise provided by the Convention or applicable law, your contract of carriage with us, these Terms and Conditions of Carriage and our Regulations shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Ireland and any dispute arising out of or in connection with this contract shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Irish Courts.”

The Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air 1999 is unaffected by Rome I as a result of the Regulation’s A25, which gives clear priority to multilateral Conventions at least if the Convention concerned also includes non-EU Member States. The Convention also operates to make the choice of court provision invalid, as discussed ia in CJEU  C-213/18 Adriano Guaitoli et al v Easyjet.

Claimant however argues that assessment of quantum of damages is not regulated by Montreal and therefore remains subject to the lex voluntatis. This is where the second line of Ryanair’s defence comes in, namely an attempt to qualify the claim as one in tort, subject to Rome II’s lex loci damni rule, rather than Rome I’s lex voluntatis.

In essence therefore the question is a matter of Treaty interpretation viz the Montreal Convention (what does it mean to regulate in its provisions on liability and damages), subsequently secondary EU law interpretation viz Rome I and II (qualification: is it a claim in contract or tort, and once that held, does the lex casuae indicated by the relevant Regulation, cover quantum of damages).

Master McCloud turns to international comparison not by way of binding authority but pro inspiratio seeing as the case concerns an international Convention [52]. Scalia J’s ‘Pass-through’ approach to the lex fori’s choice-of-law rules in Zicherman (1996) is the approach also followed in this judgment. The judge uses the formulation by Bader Ginsburg J in El Al Israel: that Warsaw drafters intended to resolve whether there is liability, but to leave to domestic law (the local law identified by the forum under its choice-of-law rules or approaches) determination of the compensatory damages available to the suitor.”

Comparative case-law analysis makes sense. However one would have thought a starting point should have been analysis of the Convention and its travaux itself. Master McCloud does get to that when considering the rather awkward , counsel-inspired idea that there needs to be a discussion of the law that applies to the interpretation of the Convention. Determining the ‘Applicable law to matters of interpretation of the Convention’ might perhaps make sense in a dualist jurisdiction like the UK?

At [59] the judge holds the lex causae for interpretation of the Convention is the lex fori, English law therefore. At [61] he calls this

Convention law as understood by this court, ie the lex fori in that rather special international sense.’

Here I am lost.

The judge then employs the ‘natural language’ approach to determine what parts of the Montreal liability scheme parties can and cannot contractually be negotiated away.

Only the liability issues that have ‘passed through’ to the lex fori are then considered with a view to determining the qualification exercise: is the claim one in contract or one on tort. The judge raises the possibility that the claimant could have construed the claim as being a ‘Convention claim incorporated in the contract’ [64] however he holds that claim is not brought on that footing:

‘the Claim and Particulars are clear: they plead a claim for damages for breach of the Convention, they do not plead a claim in the law of contract’ [64].

That, I would submit, is wrong. The claim is subject to European conflict of laws rules. These require the judge to qualify the claim subject to the autonomous interpretation of ‘contract’ and ‘non-contractual obligation’ as most recently discussed by the CJEU in Wikingerhof. While I am the first to acknowledge claim formulation is a powerful tool to manage qualification (indeed Wikingerhof confirms as much), I do not think deference to claimant may be as large as suggested here.

The judge proceeds with the non-contractual nature (causing injury to the claimant through negligence [65]), points out that the Convention covers both contractual and non-contractual claims [66] and seeks support in his analysis on tort and contract in Prof. Thomas Kadner Graziano’s 2016 paper in the Yearbook of Private International Law. With respect, I do not think Thomas’ paper supports the conclusions in this case.

At [72][73] the judge then rather summarily and using A4(3) Rome II displaces the lex loci damni for the ‘passed through’ claim, in favour of Irish law, the lex contractus to the contract of carriage. Once the Rome II path chosen (of which, per above, I am not convinced), I do not think the lex loci damni may be pushed aside quite as concisely as this.

The relationship between international Conventions and European conflicts rules is not always straightforward. Yet here I think it has been presented a touch too convolutedly.

Geert.

Silverman v #Ryanair (Rev1) [2021] EWHC 2955 (QB)
Aviation law, whether airline can disapply its own choice of law & how #Montreal Convention interacts with the choice of law rules of the Forum, here: Rome I and II (and A4(3) escape clause for the latter https://t.co/EWJ7njH5ED

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) November 12, 2021

HR Rail
SOPO
Emploi des personnes handicapées : selon l’avocat général Rantos, un employeur est tenu, au titre des aménagements raisonnables, de réaffecter un travailleur devenu inapte à occuper son poste de travail à un autre poste lorsqu’il dispose de la compétence, de la capacité et de la disponibilité requises, et lorsqu’une telle mesure n’impose pas à cet employeur une charge disproportionnée

Dublin City Council
Libre circulation des personnes
La Cour précise la portée de la notion de « temps de travail » pour une période de garde sous régime d’astreinte

MH et ILA
Liberté d'établissement
Un État membre ne peut subordonner le bénéfice de la distraction, en principe intégrale et automatique, de droits à pension de la masse de la faillite à l’exigence de l’obtention préalable d’un agrément fiscal, dans ce pays, du plan d’épargne retraite dont sont tirés ces droits lorsque ce plan a déjà été fiscalement agréé dans l’État membre d’origine du citoyen migrant de l’Union concerné

Roumanie / Commission
Droit institutionnel
Le Tribunal rejette le recours de la Roumanie contre la décision de la Commission enregistrant la proposition d’initiative citoyenne « Politique de cohésion pour l’égalité des régions et le maintien des cultures régionales »

AC Milan / EUIPO - InterES (ACM 1899 AC MILAN)
Propriété intellectuelle et industrielle
Le Tribunal confirme que le signe représentant l’écusson du club de football AC Milan ne peut faire l’objet d’un enregistrement international en tant que marque désignant l’Union pour des articles de papeterie et de bureau

Google et Alphabet / Commission (Google Shopping)
Concurrence
Le Tribunal rejette pour l’essentiel le recours de Google contre la décision de la Commission constatant que l’entreprise a abusé de sa position dominante en favorisant son propre comparateur de produits par rapport aux comparateurs de produits concurrents

Aldricus – Kondisi tubuh wanita yang tengah hamil dan tidak memang berbeda, bukan hanya dari segi fisik tapi juga psikis. Ibu hamil lebih rentan mengalami gangguan kesehatan, terutama mengalami anemia. Ada beberapa penyebab anemia ibu hamil yang jika diketahui sejak dini dapat membantu Anda menghindarinya.

Penyebab Bumil Alami Anemia

Anemia pada ibu hamil memang bukan hal langka dan banyak yang mengalaminya. Akan tetapi, masalah ini tidak dapat disepelekan karena dapat berakibat fatal pada kehamilan, seperti bayi lahir prematur atau mengalami cacat fisik. Berikut adalah beberapa penyebab anemia pada wanita hamil:

1. Kekurangan Zat Besi

Zat besi dibutuhkan untuk memproduksi sel darah merah dan sel darah merah sangat dibutuhkan untuk mengalirkan oksigen dan nutrisi ke seluruh tubuh. Jika dibiarkan akan mempengaruhi tumbuh kembang janin dan membuat plasenta tidak lagi optimal. Biasanya anemia ini disebabkan kurangnya ibu mengonsumsi makanan mengandung zat besi, baik selama maupun sebelum masa kehamilan.

2. Kekurangan Asam Folat atau Vitamin B9

Penyebab anemia ibu hamil berikutnya adalah kekurangan asam folat yang dapat mengakibatkan malabsorpsi. Dalam kondisi ini tubuh ibu hamil akan mengalami kesulitan menyerap asam folat sehingga dapat mengganggu perkembangan sel otak janin dan mempengaruhi perkembangan pada bagian tubuh janin.

3. Kekurangan Asupan Vit. B12

Selain vitamin B9, vitamin B12 juga merupakan jenis nutrisi yang diperlukan bagi tubuh. Kondisi ini akan berbahaya karena tubuh tidak mampu mencukupi kebutuhan sel darah merah dan dapat berakibat pada pertumbuhan janin.

Ketika tubuh tidak mampu melakukan penyerapan vitamin B12 dengan baik, maka akan membuat pembentukan sel darah merah berkurang. Jadi, harus ditangani dengan pemberian suplemen mengandung vit.12. Kebiasaan mengonsumsi alkohol saat hamil juga dapat membuat bumil bisa memicu kekurangan vit B12 ini.

Oleh sebab itu, penyebab anemia ibu hamil harus diketahui sehingga dapat diberikan pengobatan yang tepat untuk mengatasi masalah tersebut. Bisa dengan mengatur asupan makanan yang kaya zat besi dan vitamin B9 dan B12 atau menambahkan asupan suplemen.

The post 4 Penyebab Ibu Hamil Mengalami Anemia dan Cara Penangannya appeared first on Aldri Blog.

Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Maintien de l’unité familiale)
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice IMMI
Le régime d’asile européen commun ne s’oppose, en principe, pas à ce qu’un État membre étende automatiquement, à titre dérivé et aux fins du maintien de l’unité familiale, le statut de réfugié à l’enfant mineur d’un parent auquel a été octroyé ce statut

Governor of Cloverhill Prison e.a.
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Avocate générale Kokott : les dispositions de l’accord de retrait et de l’accord de commerce et de coopération, qui prévoient le maintien du régime du mandat d’arrêt européen à l’égard du Royaume-Uni, sont contraignantes pour l’Irlande

Viegas & Ors v Cutrale & Ors [2021] EWHC 2956 (Comm) (05 November 2021) concerns an alleged cartel between several Brazilian companies which produce orange juice, including Sucocítrico Cutrale: 3rd defendant. The other two defendants, Mr Cutrale Sr and Mr Cutrale Jr,  are natural persons Claimants are orange farmers who are all domiciled in Brazil.  The claim relates to alleged antitrust infringements committed in Brazil and said to have restricted competition in markets in Brazil, causing harm to the Claimants there.

Claimants claim to be entitled to maintain proceedings in England and Wales on the bases that:

i)                   although Sucocítrico Cutrale is a Brazilian company, it has its central administration in London and is therefore domiciled in the UK pursuant to A63(1)(b) Brussels Ia;

ii)                 alternatively, the Claimants were entitled to serve Sucocítrico Cutrale, pursuant to CPR 6.3(c)/6.9(2) at a “place within the jurisdiction where [it] carries on its activities; or any place of business of the company within the jurisdiction”.

iii)               Cutrale Snr is domiciled in England; and

iv)               Cutrale Jnr is domiciled in Switzerland and the claims against him are so closely connected with the claims against Sucocítrico Cutrale and Cutrale Snr that it is expedient to hear and determine them together so as to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments, pursuant to Article 6 Lugano Convention.

The Defendants’ position is in outline as follows:

Sucocítrico Cutrale

i)                   Sucocítrico Cutrale has its “central administration” in Brazil and is therefore not domiciled in the UK for the purpose of A63(1)(b) BIa.  There is therefore no right to bring proceedings against the company in England under Article 4(1). The court must apply common law principles to determine jurisdiction.

ii)                 Alternatively, the claims against Sucocítrico Cutrale should be stayed under A33 and/or 34 BIa because of ongoing proceedings in Brazil concerning the alleged cartel.

iii)               The Claimants were not entitled to serve Sucocítrico Cutrale at an address within the jurisdiction, and so the company has not been validly served.

iv)               Alternatively, applying common law forum non conveniens principles, Brazil is the proper place for the claims against Sucocítrico Cutrale and the court should not exercise jurisdiction against it.  The claims against Sucocítrico Cutrale should be stayed even if (contrary to the Defendants’ primary case) Cutrale Snr is domiciled in England. Cutrale Snr has confirmed that he would submit to the jurisdiction of the Brazilian court. The risk of inconsistent judgments in England and Brazil therefore carries little weight because it would be caused by the Claimants’ unnecessary pursuit of litigation in England. In such circumstances, the court may stay the claims against the foreign defendant notwithstanding the presence of a UK domiciled anchor defendant (reference is made to Vedanta Resources plc v Lungowe [2020] AC 1045 . I flagged the ‘submission to foreign jurisdiction’ issue in my review of Vedanta).

Cutrale Snr

v)                  Cutrale Snr is not domiciled in the UK. There is therefore no right to bring proceedings against him under A4(1) BIa.

vi)               Further or alternatively, the court should stay the claims against Cutrale Snr pursuant to A34 BIa because of the ongoing proceedings in Brazil.

vii)             Although Cutrale Snr was served in the jurisdiction, applying common law forum non conveniens principles Brazil is the proper place for the claim.  Accordingly, the court should decline jurisdiction.

Cutrale Jnr

viii)           If neither Sucocítrico Cutrale nor Cutrale Snr is English domiciled there is no basis to assume jurisdiction against Cutrale Jnr.

ix)               If Cutrale Snr is English domiciled but the claims against Sucocítrico Cutrale are to proceed in Brazil, the criteria under A6 Lugano are not met because it would be more expedient for the claims against Cutrale Jnr to be heard in Brazil alongside the claims against Sucocítrico Cutrale.

x)                  Further or alternatively, the court should stay the claims pursuant to a reflexive application of A28 Lugano Convention because of the ongoing proceedings in Brazil.

Henshaw J held that the court lacks jurisdiction over Sucocítrico Cutrale however that it does have jurisdiction over Cutrale Snr and Cutrale Jnr and  that there is no proper basis on which to stay the claims against them.

Domicile of Sucocítrico Cutrale (‘SuCu’)

A63 BIa determines corporate domicile as the place where the corporation has its (a) statutory seat; (b) central administration; or (c) principal place of business. Claimants suggest place of central administration as being in London. Anglo American came to my mind as indeed it did to counsel and judge in current case. At 31 ff a concise look into the travaux is offered as are references to CJEU case-law under freedom of establishment (including Uberseering). I would be cautious however with too much emphasis on those cases, which are judged in quite a different context to the one in a jurisdictional assessment.

SuCu are in in essence a family-run business [55]. This is also emphasised in the witness statement of Cutrale Sr himself. SuCu refer extensively to its internal by-laws and the role in same for the ‘Executive Board’ which is made up of professionals. However there is also a, by-laws sanctioned, Family Board (in which Cutrale Sr until recently had a 99% stake). The Executive Board, by defendant’s own admission [55], runs the company on a day to day basis. The Family Board seemingly meets at various places worldwide, and the role of London in the family Board’s direction is not small, given that Cutrale Sr has secretarial assistance for his business interests there, and that his daughter (who also sits on the Family Board) conducts all her business interests there [57].

In Anglo American, the CA held

 ‘the correct interpretation of “central administration” in Article 60(1)(b), when applied to a company, is that it is the place where the company concerned, through its relevant organs according to its own constitutional provisions, takes the decisions that are essential for that company’s operations. That is, to my mind, the same thing as saying it is the place where the company, through its relevant organs, conducts its entrepreneurial management; for that management must involve making decisions that are essential for that company’s operation’

[75] ff the judge does not see London as that place where the entrepreneurial management takes place. This is to some degree a factual appraisal however I I am minded to see quite strong arguments in favour of London. I do not think for instance that BIa’s DNA of predictability for the defendant knowing where it might be sued, carries too much weight here seeing as the complex structure and the diverse effective location of the Family Board’s meetings is of its own making. By failing clearly to implement one centre of entrepreneurial management, visible to outsiders, the defendant in my view brings the risk of positive conflicts of jurisdiction upon itself.  All the more so in my view in cases where, such as here, the accusation is involvement in a cartel, which is unlikely to have happened with the firm controller of the Family Board having been kept in the dark.

Alternative serving under CPR 6.9.(2) [“Any place within the jurisdiction where the corporation carries on its activities; or any place of business of the company within the jurisdiction.”] is also dismissed: [104] ff.

[112] ff the judge discusses the domicile of Cutrale Sr which, per A62(1) BIa is to be determined under English law. This [129] ff is held to be England.

Cutrale Jr being undisputably domiciled in Switserland, the question arises whether the claim against him may be anchored upon the claim against his father, per A6(2) Lugano. The judge is reminded of his own judgment in PIS v Al Rajaan. Defendants submit that if the claims against Sucocítrico Cutrale must be pursued in Brazil, it is more expedient for the claims against Cutrale Jnr to be pursued in that jurisdiction, even if the Claimants are entitled to sue Cutrale Snr as of right in England. However [142] the judge agrees with Claimants’ point that somewhat different policy considerations arise when considering the risk of inconsistent judgments within the EU (or between Lugano States), compared to the position vis-à-vis so-called ‘third States’, and that the latter context does not involve the same particular impetus to remove obstacles to the single market and observe the principle of ‘mutual trust’ between the courts of different Member States.

Whilst the claims against Cutrale Jnr are of course connected with those against Sucocitrico, they are also bound to involve important issues in common with the claims against Cutrale Snr which (subject to the issue of an A34 stay, see below) are to be pursued in England  [143].

[144] In conclusion the expediency threshold under A6 Lugano is held to have been reached.

Next, a stay of the proceedings against Cutrale Snr under A34 BIa is rejected [147] ff. Much of the A34 authority, all of which I have discussed on the blog, is flagged. The judge observes the tension between Kolomoisky and EuroEco Fuels (Poland) as to whether the power to stay depends on there being a procedural means by which the two actions could, in fact, be tried together. At [163] the judge thankfully notes the important distinction between A33-34 and A29-30, despite citing A29-30 authority with some emphasis:

I would observe, however, in disagreement with the Defendants, that despite the similarity of language it may well make a difference whether a stay is sought (a) under Article 28 as such or (b) under Article 34 or under Article 28 as applied reflexively vis a vis proceedings in a third country (see § 238 below).  The observation quoted above that there might be a presumption in favour of a stay seems considerably easier to justify in a case where the intra-EU internal market considerations referred to in § 142 above apply than where the overseas proceedings are in a non-Member State.  On the contrary, a presumption of a stay in favour of a third country state of proceedings prima facie brought as a right against a defendant in his place of domicile may well be hard to square with the fundamental principles underlying the Brussels and Lugano regimes.

At [221], too, and in an in my view important and marked departure from Justice Turner in Municipio, Henshaw J here holds that

whilst recital 24 indicates that the court should consider all the circumstances of the case, it does not follow that the court can grant a stay pursuant to Article 34 which is in substance no more than a forum non conveniens stay.  It follows that the factors listed in § 213.iv) above are relevant only insofar as they support the granting of a stay based on the Favero and Costa claims as related claims.

This puts the horse back before the cart.

At [164] ff the ‘rival’ Brasil claims are discussed, [197] of which only two predate the current E&W claim against Cutrale Sr and a conclusion [210] that these are related in a broad sense to the present claims, but that degree of relationship would be insufficient to make it expedient to stay the present claims by reference to them.

[213] ff the various arguments that a stay would be in the ‘interest of justice’ are rejected: these include in particular [216] suggestions of consolidation or joint case management, whilst theoretically possible, are unrealistic in practice (reference is made ia to the fact that none of the current Brazilian claims have been consolidated); [217] neither rival claim is likely to reach a conclusion in the reasonably foreseeable future: on the contrary, both have been mired in procedural disputes for many years.

Similar arguments are made obiter when considering an A33-34 stay against Sucocitrico (in the event the A4 analysis, above, were to be wrong): [241] ff.

At 237, the possibility of a stay of the proceedings against Cutrale Jr, under a reflexive application of A28 Lugano is rejected with mere reference to the reasons listed viz the A34 stay. The judge has to follow the Court of Appeal’s finding in Kolomoisky, that reflexive application of A28 Lugano is possible. Clearly, I submit, it is not and this will be an important point to clarify when and if the UK accede to Lugano.

The judge concludes [249] ff by obiter upholding a forum non stay. His arguments here are interesting among others for they lead to a different result than the A33-34 application – which serves to confirm the very different nature of both mechanisms.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 2.2.15.3.

1/2 Viegas & Ors v Cutrale & Ors [2021] EWHC 2956 (Comm)
Brazilian sugar #cartel. Claimants, represented ia by @RHopkins_Law, fail to establish A4 BIa domicile jurisdiction against one defendant but succeed against another.
Claimants succeed on lis pendens challenges: ….

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) November 8, 2021