Flux européens

Fenix International
Fiscalité TVA
Selon l’avocat général Rantos, la disposition du règlement d’exécution de la directive TVA prévoyant qu’une plate-forme intermédiaire en ligne est, en principe, redevable de la TVA est valide

FTI Touristik (Voyage à forfait aux Îles Canaries) et C 407/21 UFC - Que choisir et CLCV
Rapprochement des législations
Tourisme en temps de pandémie : selon l’avocate générale Medina, si les opérateurs touristiques ne sont pas en mesure d’honorer les termes d’un contrat de voyage à forfait, la pandémie ne les exonère pas de l’obligation de réduire le prix et, en cas d’annulation, de procéder à un remboursement en argent, à moins de prouver l’existence de difficultés exceptionnelles

HA.EN.
Fiscalité TVA
Une pratique administrative fiscale nationale privant les assujettis ayant acquis un bien immeuble dans le cadre d’une procédure de vente forcée de leur droit à déduction de TVA est, en l’absence d’une fraude ou abus de droit, contraire au droit de l’Union

Fossil (Gibraltar)
Aide d'État
Imposition des sociétés à Gibraltar : les autorités nationales en charge de la récupération d’une aide qualifiée d’illégale peuvent appliquer une disposition nationale en vue de prévenir la double imposition

QBE Europe SA/NV v Generali Espana De Seguros Y Reaseguros [2022] EWHC 2062 (Comm) is not a surprising judgment of course. I flagged it on Twitter early August and I post it here for the sake of blog completeness.

The judgment grants an urgent anti-suit injunction (ASI) to restrain proceedings brought by the Defendant (Generali) against QBE UK in Spain, and to prevent Generali from commencing similar proceedings against QBE Europe. The proceedings in Spain assert a direct claim against QBE UK under a Spanish statute, by reference to a liability insurance policy. The judgment is exactly the kind of ASI outlawed by CJEU West Tankers and will reinforce the position of London in the arbitration market.

Geert.

Move over CJEU West Tankers….
Anti-suit injunction viz Spanish proceedings granted to protect #arbitration in London. Discusses ia nature of claim in SP proceedings

QBE Europe SA/NV v Generali Espana De Seguros Y Reaseguros [2022] EWHC 2062 (Comm) https://t.co/LwzrDzzNXv

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) August 1, 2022

Google et Alphabet / Commission (Google Android)
Concurrence
Le Tribunal confirme dans une large mesure la décision de la Commission selon laquelle Google a imposé des restrictions illégales aux fabricants d’appareils mobiles Android et aux opérateurs de réseaux mobiles, afin de consolider la position dominante de son moteur de recherche

Banka Slovenije
Politique économique ETAB
Politique monétaire et résolution bancaire dans la zone euro : la Cour précise les limites de la responsabilité d’une banque centrale face aux dommages subis par des titulaires d’instruments financiers qu’elle a supprimés en application de mesures d’assainissement

Lydia Lundstedt has prior review of the judgment in CJEU C-399/21 IRnova AB v FLIR Systems AB (who had been business partners in the past) here. Swedish courts are clearly busy referring the private international law elements of patent cases to the CJEU.

Of particular note is that a 3 judge chamber would seem to have ruled out reflexive effect as casually as if it were swatting a fly.

On 13 December 2019, IRnova brought an action before the Patent and Market Court seeking, inter alia, a declaration that it had a better right to the inventions covered by international patent applications, subsequently supplemented by European, US and Chinese patent applications deposited by FLIR in 2015 and 2016, and by US patents granted to FLIR on the basis of those latter applications. In support of that action, IRnova had stated, in essence, that those inventions had been made by one of its employees, meaning that that employee had to be regarded as their inventor or, at the very least, as their co-inventor. IRnova therefore argued that, as the inventor’s employer and thus successor in title, it had to be regarded as the owner of the inventions. However, FLIR, without having acquired those inventions or otherwise being entitled to do so, deposited the applications in its own name.

The court had dismissed jurisdiction viz the Chinese and US patent applications, and the US patents, on the ground, in essence, that it regarded the action concerning the determination of the inventor as being linked to the registration and validity of the patents, and it applied A24(4) BIa reflexively. The Appeals Court referred the issue on reflexive effect to the CJEU, in the following terms:

‘Is an action seeking a declaration of better entitlement to an invention, based on a claim of inventorship or co-inventorship according to national patent applications and patents registered in a non-Member State, covered by exclusive jurisdiction for the purposes of Article 24(4) of [the Brussels Ia Regulation]?’

however the CJEU reformulated [22-24] the case as not concerning reflexive effect at all, rather, enquiring about the scope of the A24(4) gateway.

The Court first of all [25] ff makes a point of confirming its broad reading of the ‘international’ element required to trigger European private international law, referring to CJEU Owusu.

It then [35] would seem to rule out reflexivity in a very matter of factly way (and as Lydia also noted, without AG Opinion):

as has already been pointed out in paragraph 26 of the present judgment, the patent applications at issue in the main proceedings were deposited and the patents concerned were granted not in a Member State, but in third countries, namely the United States and China. As Article 24(4) of the Brussels Ia Regulation does not envisage that situation, however, that provision cannot be regarded as applicable to the main proceedings.

This may have already answered a core question in  BSH Hausgeräte v Aktiebolaget Electrolux .

[36] ff it refers ia to CJEU Hanssen and to the exceptional nature of A24 [39]. It holds that [42]

the main proceedings relate not to the existence of the deposit of a patent application or the grant of a patent, the validity or lapse of a patent, or indeed an alleged right of priority by reason of an earlier deposit, but to whether FLIR must be regarded as being the proprietor of the right to the inventions concerned or to a portion of them.

[47] it refers ia to the fact that fact that

an examination of the claims of the patent or patent application at issue may have to be carried out in the light of the substantive patent law of the country in which that application was deposited or that patent was granted [however it ] does not require the application of the rule of exclusive jurisdiction laid down in Article 24(4) of the Brussels Ia Regulation

Much relevant and surprisingly succinct on the reflexivity issue.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, 2.208 and 2.548.

 

I mentioned the pending case C-339/22 BSH Hausgeräte v Aktiebolaget Electrolux yesterday at our excellent (if I say so myself) Max Planck Institute – EAPIL – KU Leuven workshop on Brussels Ia reform. Questions referred, are

Is Article 24(4) [BIA] to be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents … irrespective of whether the issue is raised by way of an action or as a defence’ implies that a national court, which, pursuant to Article 4(1) of that regulation, has declared that it has jurisdiction to hear a patent infringement dispute, no longer has jurisdiction to consider the issue of infringement if a defence is raised that alleges that the patent at issue is invalid, or is the provision to be interpreted as meaning that the national court only lacks jurisdiction to hear the defence of invalidity?

Is the answer to Question 1 affected by whether national law contains provisions, similar to those laid down in the second subparagraph of Paragraph 61 of the [Swedish] Patentlagen (Patents Law), which means that, for a defence of invalidity raised in an infringement case to be heard, the defendant must bring a separate action for a declaration of invalidity?

Is Article 24(4) [BIa] to be interpreted as being applicable to a court of a third country, that is to say, in the present case, as also conferring exclusive jurisdiction on a court in Turkey in respect of the part of the European patent which has been validated there?

BSH hold a European patent relating to a vacuum cleaner. The patent has been validated in Austria, Germany, Spain, France, the United Kingdom, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and Turkey. Electrolux of Sweden has subsidiaries in a number of other Member States, such as Germany. A number of disputes have arisen between BSH and companies in the Electrolux group concerning the patent in question. Inter alia, the European patent validated in Germany was invalidated in 2020 by a German court at the request of a subsidiary of Electrolux. That judgment has been appealed.

On 3 February 2020, BSH brought an action against Electrolux before the Patents and Market Court in Sweden and claimed inter alia that Electrolux should be prohibited from using the patented invention in all the abovementioned States and ordered to pay reasonable compensation for the unlawful use. BSH also claimed compensation for the additional damage caused by Electrolux’s alleged patent infringement. Electrolux argue that the Court should dismiss the action in relation to the foreign parts of the patents. In its view the foreign patents are invalid and the Swedish court therefore lacks jurisdiction to hear infringement actions concerning those patents.

End of December 2020 the court agreed, citing A24(4) viz the EU patents (the claim being issued prior to Brexit implementation day, this includes the UK) and ‘an internationally accepted principle of jurisdiction’ (in essence, the Moçambique rule) viz the Turkish patent.

BSH of course appeal.

A asked students in the August resit exams how they think the CJEU should answer. On Q1 I would expect them to cite the need to interpret A24 restrictively, with reference to one or two cases confirming same (there are plenty); and the lack of solution in the Brussels Recast. Contrary to what Electrolux contend, a proposal to allow a court to merely stay the case pending the foreign court’s decision on validity, was never rejected. Such a proposal was never made. BIa merely confirmed CJEU Gat v Luk’s holding that exclusive jurisdiction kicks in regardless of whether the argument of invalidity is introduced as a claim of by way of defence.

On Q2 I would like to seem them argue something to the effect that national CPR must not infringe the effet utile of BIa. (Only) if the effect of the Swedish rules is that it requires the defendant to initiate IPR invalidity claims in all the relevant States, or lose its possibility of an invalidity defence, this would in my view run counter BIa’s intention and scope.

Finally, on the 3rd Q they should engage with the lack of BIa clarification on reflexive effect, other than in the strict confines of A33-34 and its related recitals. Relevant case-law of course includes Ferrexpo and Central Santa Lucia L.C. v. Meliá Hotels International S.A. Interested readers may wish to consult Alexander Layton KC’s most excellent paper on same. Some students may refer to the UPC developments and the jurisdictional consequences in Article 71 BIa (operational 2023?).

Geert.

The Court of Justice delivered yesterday its judgment in case C‑399/21 (IRnova AB v FLIR Systems AB), which is about the scope of application of Article 24 Brussels I bis. The judgment is currently available in all EU official languages (save Irish), albeit not in English. Here is the French version (to check whether an English translation has finally been made available, just click on the link below and change the language version)

“L’article 24, point 4, du règlement (UE) no 1215/2012 du Parlement européen et du Conseil, du 12 décembre 2012, concernant la compétence judiciaire, la reconnaissance et l’exécution des décisions en matière civile et commerciale, doit être interprété en ce sens que : il ne s’applique pas à un litige tendant à déterminer, dans le cadre d’un recours fondé sur la qualité alléguée d’inventeur ou de co-inventeur, si une personne est titulaire du droit sur des inventions visées par des demandes de brevet déposées et par des brevets délivrés dans des pays tiers”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=265068&pageIndex=0&doclang=fr&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1837579

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

D.B.P. (Crédit hypothécaire libellé en devises étrangères)
Environnement et consommateurs
Prêts libellés en devise étrangère : si le consommateur s’y oppose, le juge national ne peut pas substituer à une clause abusive liée au prix de conversion une disposition de droit national à caractère supplétif

Ministerstvo životního prostředí (Perroquets Ara hyacinthe)
Environnement et consommateurs
La Cour apporte des précisions à la notion d’« élevage en captivité » des spécimens de perroquet Ara hyacinthe

Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice CIT
Un ressortissant d’un pays tiers qui bénéficie d’un titre de séjour en tant que membre de la famille d’un citoyen de l’Union peut acquérir, lorsqu’il remplit les conditions prévues par le droit de l’Union, le statut de résident de longue durée

Boriss Cilevičs e.a.
L’obligation de dispenser des programmes d’enseignement supérieur dans la langue officielle de l’État membre peut être conforme à la liberté d’établissement

On 1st September 2023, the Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters will enter in force between the European Union (save Denmark) and Ukraine, following their ratification on 29 August 2022.

Source: https://www.hcch.net/en/news-archive/details/?varevent=870

On 29 August 2022, Ukraine ratified the Hague Protocol of 23 November 2007 on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations, which will enter in force for this country on 1 December 2022.

Source: https://www.hcch.net/en/news-archive/details/?varevent=870

The blog is back from summer recess with a post on Airbus Investors Recovery Limited v Airbus SE, where the first instance court at Amsterdam by way of preliminary judgment deals with the law applicable to an investor suit. Claimant has had the investment claims of a number of Airbus investors assigned to it. The core of the claim is that Airbus has tortiously caused damage to the investors in both the act, and in the correspondence leading to, and after, settlement with various financial authorities following allegations of corruption in securing aircraft orders. 

Oddly, no reference at all is made to Petrobas, despite the issues there being similar – perhaps the court in Airbus rejected relevance of the Petrobas decision for that case was held prior to CJEU Vereniging voor Effectenbezitters (VVE v BP).

I flagged many of the issues at issue in the judgment, in my post on applicable law which followed the jurisdictional discussion by the CJEU in VVE v BP.

The judgment is in Dutch of course however non-Dutch speakers may refer to it anyway, for the extract of Airbus’ choice of law provisions in the 2019 annual accounts [2.6]. This is relevant with a view to the discussion on transparency obligations following CJEU VVE v BP. 

The court, and one assumes parties were in agreement for the issue is not discussed, first of all assumes the liability is non-contractual. I continue to be of the view that this need not necessarily be the case. Focusing the discussion on Rome II therefore, the court also accepts readily that the lex societas carve-out of Rome II does not apply (reference is made [5.3] to CJEU Treuhand). Parties are in agreement [5.6] that for Dutch investors, Dutch law applies per Article 4(2) Rome I (shared habitual residence).

[5.10] Airbus absolutely correctly in my view insist that the CJEU’s Brussels Ia application in VVE must not simply be extrapolated to the applicable law issues at stake here. The court essentially disagrees ([5.10] in fine) and in my view it is wrong to do so.

It then [5.111], not entirely convincingly in my view, dismisses application of Article 4(1), holding that this Article in its view always leads to two applicable laws in each investor-Airbus relationship: that of the market in which the shares were bought (which will have subjected the sales to information requirements), always accompanied by Dutch law for that is where in any event listing information needed to be given.

Having ruled out A4(1), it settles for Dutch law under Article 4(3) as the law of the place of the seat of the corporation that issues financial instruments, largely citing predictability. I am not convinced.

Reference to the CJEU, requested by Airbus, is dismissed, as is [5.17] immediate appeal against the applicable law finding. Airbus will no doubt appeal the final judgment to review the issue of applicable law, too. I would suggest they have plenty of reason to do so.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Chapters 2 and 4.

 

The Court of Justice delivered on 1 August 2022 its judgment in case C‑501/20 (MPA v LCDNMT), which is about Brussels II bis and the Maintenance Regulation:

“1. Article 3(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 […] must be interpreted as meaning that the status of the spouses concerned as members of the contract staff of the European Union, working in the latter’s delegation to a third country and in respect of whom it is claimed that they enjoy diplomatic status in that third State, is not capable of constituting a decisive factor for the purposes of determining habitual residence, within the meaning of those provisions.

2. Article 8(1) of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of determining a child’s habitual residence, the connecting factor of the mother’s nationality and her residence, prior to the marriage, in the Member State of the court seised of an application relating to parental responsibility is irrelevant, whereas the fact that the minor children were born in that Member State and hold the nationality of that Member State is insufficient.

3. Where no court of a Member State has jurisdiction to rule on an application for the dissolution of matrimonial ties pursuant to Articles 3 to 5 of Regulation No 2201/2003, Article 7 of that regulation, read in conjunction with Article 6 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the respondent in the main proceedings is a national of a Member State other than that of the court seised prevents the application of the clause relating to residual jurisdiction laid down in Article 7 to establish the jurisdiction of that court without, however, preventing the courts of the Member State of which the respondent is a national from having jurisdiction to hear such an application pursuant to the latter Member State’s national rules on jurisdiction.
Where no court of a Member State has jurisdiction to rule on an application relating to parental responsibility pursuant to Articles 8 to 13 of Regulation No 2201/2003, Article 14 of that regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the respondent in the main proceedings is a national of a Member State other than that of the court seised does not preclude the application of the clause relating to residual jurisdiction laid down in Article 14 of that regulation.

4. Article 7 of Regulation No 4/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that:
– where the habitual residence of all the parties to the dispute in matters relating to maintenance obligations is not in a Member State, jurisdiction founded, on an exceptional basis, on the forum necessitatis referred to in Article 7 may be established if no court of a Member State has jurisdiction under Articles 3 to 6 of that regulation, if the proceedings cannot reasonably be brought or conducted in the third State with which the dispute is closely connected, or proves to be impossible, and there is a sufficient connection between the dispute and the court seised;
– in order to find, on an exceptional basis, that proceedings cannot reasonably be brought or conducted in a third State, it is important that, following an analysis of the evidence put forward in each individual case, access to justice in that third State is, in law or in fact, hindered, in particular by the application of procedural conditions that are discriminatory or contrary to the fundamental guarantees of a fair trial, without there being any requirement that the party relying on Article 7 demonstrate that he or she has been unsuccessful in bringing or has attempted to bring the proceedings in question before the courts of the third State concerned; and
– in order to consider that a dispute must have a sufficient connection with the Member State of the court seised, it is possible to rely on the nationality of one of the parties”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=263727&mode=req&pageIndex=2&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&cid=4969924

On 28 July 2022, the Hellenic Republic ratified the Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 on the International Protection of Adults, which will enter into force for Greece on 1 November 2022.

Source: https://www.hcch.net/en/news-archive/details/?varevent=869