Flux européens

Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (Enregistrement de données biométriques et génétiques par la police)
Principes du droit communautaire
La collecte systématique des données biométriques et génétiques de toute personne mise en examen aux fins de leur enregistrement policier est contraire à l’exigence d’assurer une protection accrue à l’égard du traitement de données sensibles à caractère personnel

De Capitani / Conseil
Droit institutionnel
Le Conseil doit donner accès aux documents établis au sein de ses groupes de travail concernant la procédure législative ayant pour objet la modification de la directive sur les états financiers annuels

The Dutch first instance judgment in Groningen  earlier this month, in X v PayPal (Europe) S.a.r.l. & Cie S.C.A., sees claimant debtor essentially seeking a compulsory settlement – CS. PayPal (established in Luxembourg) is the only debtor refusing the settlement proposed by claimant’s bank.

The CS is not listed in Annex I to the Insolvency Regulation 2015/848 (always check for the consolidated version, for the Annex is frequently updated by the Member States’ communication of proceedings to be included). This is where the discussion of scope of application could and should end.

Instead, the judge tests the CS against A1(1)’s abstract criteria. She decides there is neither divestment of assets, nor a temporary stay of individual enforcement proceedings.

This then raises the applicability of Brussels Ia. Seeing as the judge finds the action does not meet with the CJEU F-Tex criteria (Brussels Ia’s insolvency exception only applies to actions which derive directly from insolvency proceedings and are closely connected with them), she holds that Brussels Ia’s ‘insolvency’ exception is not triggered and that BIa applies.

The judge then cuts the corner which English courts in schemes of arrangement have often cut, namely to consider the willing debtors, domiciled in The Netherlands, as ‘defendants’ per Brussels Ia, hereby triggering Article 8(1) BIa’s anchor defendant mechanism. The judge justifies this by stating that the other creditors are interested parties and that it is in the interest of the sound administration of justice that the CS be discussed viz the interested parties as a whole. That may well be so, however in my view that is insufficient reason for A8(1) to be triggered. A8(1) requires ‘defendants’ in the forum state, not just ‘interested parties’. The suggestion that a co-ordinated approach with an eye for all interested parties, justifies jurisdiction, puts A8(1)‘s expediency cart before the A4 ‘defendant’-horse.

The judge then also cuts corners (at least in her stated reasons) on the applicable law issue, cataloguing this firmly in Rome I. She argues that even if the CS is a forced arrangement, replacing a proposed contract which party refused to enter into, it is still a contractual arrangement. That is far from convincing.

Equally not obvious is as the judge holds, that  per A4(2) Rome I, the party required to effect the ‘characteristic performance’ of a compulsory settlement, is the claimant-debtor of the underlying debt, leading to Dutch law being the lex causae.

The judgment at the very least highlights the continuing elephant in the restructuring tourism room, namely the exact nature of these proceedings under Brussels Ia, EIR and Rome I.

Geert.

1st instance Noord Holland
WSNP Dwangakkoord wrongly held to be outside EU #Insolvency Regulation not by resorting to Annex but by applying abstract definition
Jurisdiction established under A8 BIa anchor defendant
Shaky finding of applicable law A4 Rome Ihttps://t.co/G63d0GO71S

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) January 2, 2023

Unilever Italia Mkt. Operations
Concurrence
Abus de position dominante : les clauses d’exclusivité figurant dans les contrats de distribution doivent avoir la capacité de produire des effets d’éviction

CIHEF e.a.
Rapprochement des législations
Le degré d’harmonisation atteint au sein de l’Union par le règlement sur les produits biocides n’empêche pas les États membres d’adopter des règles restrictives en matière de promotion des ventes de ces produits

Pesticide Action Network Europe e.a.
Agriculture
Protection phytosanitaire : les États membres ne peuvent pas déroger aux interdictions expresses de mise sur le marché et d’utilisation de semences traitées à l’aide de produits phytopharmaceutiques contenant des néonicotinoïdes

Espagne / Commission
Relations extérieures
La Cour annule la décision de la Commission ayant admis la participation du Kosovo à l’organe des régulateurs européens des communications électroniques

A disappointing judgment was issued just before end of year 2022, when the Court, unlike its Advocate General Kokott, held that the ambient air quality Directives do not directly grant a right to compensation in the event of an infringement of the limit values.

In Case C-61/21 Ministre de la Transition écologique and Premier ministre, the CJEU essentially insisted ‘Frankovich’ liability (the power for individuals to claim compensation, on the basis of EU law, of EU Member States when the latter fail properly to implement EU law; Such liability is subject to three conditions: namely that the rule of EU law infringed is intended to confer rights on them, that the infringement of that rule is sufficiently serious and that there is a direct causal link between that infringement and the damage suffered by those individuals) can only be extended to cases where the EU secondary law at issue, grants individual rights.

The Court held however that even though [54] the air quality Directives impose clear and precise duties which the Member States need to achieve, these are aimed at protecting the environment and public health as a whole, not individuals’ right to health and environmental protection [55].

Some might see in this reasoning a strict schism suggested by the Court between the collective enjoyment of public health and a healthy environment on the one hand, and the individual availability of same. I do not think though that this is what the Court had in mind, rather, one assumes, an ambition to cap the amount of cases that might otherwise reach the CJEU.

The Court then directs individuals to the national level, so as to obtain if necessary a court order forcing the authorities to draw up relevant plans (a route confirmed by Case C‑404/13 Client Earth) and it of course confirms that national law may be more generous [63].

The unfortunate consequence of the judgment is that there will not be a level playing field for individuals when it comes to employing the right to compensation for infringement of EU law, and of course an encouragement of a certain amount of forum shopping.

Geert.

 

D.V. (Honoraires d’avocat - Principe du tarif horaire)
Rapprochement des législations PROT
Une clause d’un contrat de prestation de services juridiques conclu entre un avocat et un consommateur qui fixe le prix selon le principe du tarif horaire, sans comporter d’autres précisions, ne répond pas à l’exigence de clarté et de compréhensibilité

Lietuvos geležinkeliai / Commission
Concurrence
Abus de position dominante : la Cour confirme l’arrêt du Tribunal infligeant à la société nationale des chemins de fer lituanienne une amende d’environ 20 millions d’euros

HSBC Holdings e.a. / Commission
Concurrence
Concurrence en matière de produits dérivés de taux d’intérêt libellés en euros : la Cour confirme l’annulation de l’amende de 33,6 millions d’euros infligée au groupe HSBC

FTI Touristik (Voyage à forfait aux Îles Canaries)
Rapprochement des législations
Les voyageurs dont le voyage à forfait a été affecté par les mesures de lutte contre la pandémie de Covid-19 peuvent avoir droit à une réduction du prix du voyage

TP (Monteur audiovisuel pour la télévision publique)
Principes du droit communautaire
L’orientation sexuelle ne saurait être une raison pour refuser de conclure un contrat avec un travailleur indépendant

RegioJet
Concurrence
Une juridiction nationale peut ordonner la production de preuves aux fins d’une procédure en dommages et intérêts liée à une infraction présumée au droit de la concurrence, même si la procédure a été suspendue en raison de l’ouverture par la Commission d’une enquête portant sur cette infraction

Österreichische Post (Informations relatives aux destinataires de données personnelles)
Toute personne a le droit de savoir à qui ses données personnelles ont été communiquées

Budapesti Elektromos Művek
Les recours administratif et civil prévus par le règlement général sur la protection des données peuvent être exercés de manière concurrente et indépendante

DOBELES HES
Aide d'État
L’instauration en tant que telle d’une aide d’État ne saurait procéder d’une décision juridictionnelle

In Oxford University Innovation Ltd v Oxford Nanoimaging Ltd [2022] EWHC 3200 (Pat) Daniel Alexander KC in a lengthy judgment eventually held for the University in a dispute on the validity of the University’s contractual terms claiming intellectual property over research students’ work. The case is of interest to the blog in that it contrasts the consumer provisions in the ‘Brussels (conflict of laws) regime’ with those of substantive consumer law.

[8] The thrust of ONI’s case is that Oxford’s approach to allocation of the commercial fruits of research is unfair to DPhil students and, more particularly, unfair to Mr Jing, the young researcher, in the circumstances of the case. More specifically it is said that Oxford’s policies are unfairly weighted in favour of the University and senior academics, who may have contributed less to the detail of the work than more junior researchers or inventors.

Applicability or impact of consumer protection legislation on terms relating to intellectual property rights of students is core to the case. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999/2083 – UTCCR are derived from the European Directive on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts 93/13, the ‘Unfair Consumers Terms Directive’ UCTD, which is retained EU law and the CJEU authority on same is retained EU case law [240] . They only apply to contracts between a “consumer” and a “seller or supplier”. Was Mr Jing such a ‘consumer’?

UK courts regularly made recourse to Brussels  Convention and later Brussels Ia cases in the absence of much CJEU UCTD authority. The judge correctly holds [242] that one must be cautious with such approach pro inspiratio, as indeed I have also pointed out on this blog before, and discusses ia CJEU Benincasa, Gruber, Schrems, Milivojevic, albeit not CJEU Reliantco, and the UK cases of Standard Bank v Apostolakis, AMT Futures v Marzillier and Ang v Reliantco. In the discussion on whether the Brussels case-law has an impact on the UCTD, he refers ia to Weco Projects. [288] he points out that when later CJEU authority did interpret the term ‘consumer’ in the UCTD directly (eg Karel de Grote), it made fairly little reference to Brussels authority. [306] he decides the UCTD approach to ‘consumer’ is ‘more expansive’ and ‘not as strictly’ as under the Brussels regime and [310] rejects Oxford’s submission that it is necessarily the right approach to this case under the UCTD to adopt the framework of analysis of dual-purpose contracts of the Brussels Convention/Regulation case law. This also includes [320] a different approach to the burden of proof.

[410] the final conclusion is that a ‘DPhil student is normally entitled to be treated as a consumer under the UCTD and that it does not matter for this purpose whether the student is undertaking that educational qualification with a view to her career, profession and/or professional advancement’  and [425] that ‘Oxford has not shown that Mr Jing’s circumstances were such that it would be wrong to treat him as a consumer in entering into the DPhil Contract he did.’ However eventually [639] the terms were not judged to be ‘unfair’.

Many of the issues raised are new and one imagine permission to appeal may have been sought.

Geert.

EU private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, 2.231 ff.

1/2 Interesting IPR, research students case
651 para judgment on terms re intellectual property which @UniofOxford, other universities may validly agree with degree students relating to the fruits of their work.
Refers ia to EU consumer protection law (unfair contract terms)

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) January 3, 2023

Les affaires préjudicielles anonymisées introduites à partir du 1er janvier 2023 se verront attribuer un nom fictif

Cornwall Renewable Developments Ltd v Wright, Johnston & Mackenzie LLP [2022] EWHC 3259 (Ch) is the appeal against [2022] EWHC 441 (Ch) which I flagged here. The jurisdictional challenge concerns the allocation of jurisdiction within the UK. However by statutory instruction in the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (CJJA), account must be taken of the Brussels Regime and CJEU authority on same.

The question is essentially what the ‘place of performance of the obligation in question’ is for legal advice, in this case provided by a Scottish law firm with no place of business yet near-inevitably some dual qualified Scots-E&W lawyers, introduced by an intermediary to an England (Cornwall in fact)-based client viz a development in Cornwall. I have before flagged the difficulty of the ‘obligation in question’ part of the question in light of the unclear, if any, remaining authority of CJEU De Bloos (an issue which unfortunately will not be entertained soon by the CJEU now that the Sao Paolo Panels case has been withdrawn).

Of note (as the judge also does [75] is that the CJJA does not in relevant section have the benefit of the additional clarification in Brussels Ia’s Article 7(1)b: ) ‘for the purpose of this provision and unless otherwise agreed, the place of performance of the obligation in question shall be:…in the case of the provision of services, the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the services were provided or should have been provided;’, although in the case of legal services essentially submitted by phone and e-mail, this might have created its own discussion as the judge’s discussion here also shows.

The result is exactly the kind of rigmarole which forum contractus often leads to, with the principles listed by Smith R [45] ff. The judge confirms [63] after consideration that the first judge was not wrong (this is an appeal, not a de novo assessment) to conclude that the principal “obligation in question” was to provide advice and agreements to the Claimant for negotiation and execution by parties in England, with the intention that they would satisfy Cornwall Council’s planning rules so that planning permission would be granted, and the development could proceed; and that the place where this obligation was to be performed, despite research etc being done from Scotland, was indeed England.

The judgment is (probably too, for a jurisdictional issue) lengthy and I am sure one can find fault with some of the applications of the authorities yet all of this emphasises the urgent need for law firms to include choice of court in their standard retainer agreements.

Best wishes for 2023!

Geert.

Forum contractus ('courts for place of performance of the obligation in question') for intra-UK conflicts, inspired by Brussels regime
What is that place for legal advice?

Cornwall Renewable Developments v Wright Johnston & Mackenzie [2022] EWHC 3259 (Ch)https://t.co/etoIhjqmgg https://t.co/bIx8L143pb

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) January 3, 2023