Conflictoflaws

Financial technology (Fintech) describes the way in which technological innovations transform financial services. Examples are bitcoin, PayPal or crowdfunding. These new phenomena not only raise important regulatory concerns, but also difficult conflict-of-laws questions. They will be addressed at a conference hosted by the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL) and organized by Eva Lein. It will take place today, 16 March 2016, from 5 to 7 PM, at Charles Clore House, Russell Square (London). The line-up of speakers includes Daniel Awrey (Oxford University), Tetsuo Morishita (Sophia University, Tokyo), and Matthias Lehmann (University of Bonn). Registration information and further details are available here.

Matthias Klöpfer has authored a book entitled “Missbrauch im Europäischen Zivilverfahrensrecht” (Abuse of Procedure in European Civil Procedural Law). The book has been published in German by the German publishing house Mohr Siebeck.

The official abstract reads as follows:

There are times when European civil procedural law seems to actually encourage abuse of law and circumvention strategies. Matthias Klöpfer examines if and how Europe’s so-called prohibition of abuse of law principle can serve as a union-wide approach to regulate abuse of procedure.

More information is available on the publisher’s website.

The University of Maribor (Slovenia) is organizing the Central European Law Conference for Students (CELCOS). It will take place in Maribor from 31 March to 2 April 2016. CELCOS will be the first large international student event in Central and Southeastern Europe to reflect current issues of EU law.
The main concept of this Jean Monnet project is to gather over 50 law doctoral students from universities across Europe for a three-day conference at the University of Maribor (Slovenia), where the doctoral students will be the main actors and about 30 experts, i.e. professors of EU law, judges, prosecutors and policy-makers at the national and EU level will give impulses to the discussion about selected areas of EU law by commenting on the students’ contributions.
The aim of this conference is to analyze current topics of EU law, especially in light of the importance that EU law has for establishing the rule of law in Central and Southeastern Europe. Moreover, it aims at promoting fresh ideas and proposals for the future development of the EU legal system in general.

The conference will be divided into nine sessions dealing with the following topics:

Session 1: Triangle of cooperation between courts – ECtHR, CJEU and national courts.

Session 2: Managing migration in Europe – between economic feasibility and protection of human rights.

Session 3: Market integration through law: reforming legal foundations for a stable EU market.

Session 4: Effective enforcement of data protection law in Europe.

Session 5: EU Consumer protection – the current challenges.

Session 6: From transnational principles to European rules of civil procedure.

Session 7: Common EU standards on rights of suspects, the accused and victims in criminal proceedings.

Session 8: Integration of environmental protection into EU policies.

Session 9: Democracy and rule of law in Central and Southeastern Europe.

CELCOS is co-financed by the EU Commission – Erasmus programme – Jean Monnet Project. Further information is available at the Conference homepage. A detailed description of the sessions may be found here.

Our co-editor Tanja Domej from University of Zurich has authored a monograph entitled “Internationale Zwangsvollstreckung und Haftungsverwirklichung am Beispiel der Forderungspfändung” (International Execution and the Implementation of Liability). The volume has been published by Mohr Siebeck. It is written in German.

The official abstract reads as follows:

Tanja Domej retraces the debates over the relevancy and meaning of the principle of territoriality for the cross-border attachment of debts from a comparative perspective. On the basis of an interest analysis, she presents perspectives for an appropriate approach to dealing with issues of cross-border attachment of incorporeal assets.

More information is available on the publisher’s website.

 

Written by Eloïse Glucksmann

The Center for Private International Law and International Trade Law (CRDI) of the University Panthéon-Assas is pleased to invite you to a conference on the “UNCITRAL Contribution to International Trade Law” that will take place in the faculty premises at 92, rue d’Assas 75005 Paris, conference room no 315, on April 12, 2016. Speeches will be in French.

Please register by contacting laurence.tacquard@u-paris2.fr. This conference is also accountable for the lawyers’ continuing training (formation continue des avocats) of the French National Council of the Bars (Conseil national des barreaux).

This event is organized with the collaboration of the Department for Private International Relations Studies (SERPI-IRJS) of the Sorbonne Law School and the Foundation for Continental Law

Program:

Morning

8:45 – Registration

9:00 – Opening remarks

Marie Goré, Professor at the University Panthéon-Assas Paris II, Director of the Center for Private International Law and International Trade Law (CRDI)

Géraud Sajust de Bergues d’Escalup, Deputy Director for Legal Affairs of Foreign Affairs

Renaud Sorieul, Director of the International Trade Law Division of the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs

Chairman: Sylvain Bollée, Professor at the Sorbonne Law School (University Paris 1), Co-director of the Department for Private International Relations Studies (SERPI-IRJS)

9:20 – The UNCITRAL methods
Vincent Heuzé, Professor at the Sorbonne Law School (University Paris 1)

The UNCITRAL model, its influence on OHADA law
Dorothé Cossi Sossa, permanent secretary

10:30 – International Sale of Goods: how to maintain or reinforce the UNCITRAL promotion of practices’ unification?
Claude Witz, Professor at the University of Saarland (Germany), Co-director of the Legal Center Franco-German

11:00 – Break

11:15 – International Commercial Arbitration
Daniel Cohen, Professor at the University Panthéon-Assas Paris II

11:45 – UNCITRAL and the aspiration to diffuse Security Interests model standards
Jean-François Riffard, Lawyer, Associate-Professor at the University of Auvergne (Clermont 1)

12:30 – Lunch break

Afternoon

Chairman: Pascal de Vareilles-Sommières, Professor at the Sorbonne Law School (University Paris 1)

2:00 – Insolvency of corporate groups
Reinhard Dammann, partner at Clifford Chance Europe LLP

2:30 – The sole ownership
Antoine Gaudemet, Professor at the University Panthéon-Assas Paris II

3:00 – The Rotterdam Rules: how to convince?
Philippe Delebecque, Professor at the Sorbonne Law School (University Paris 1)

3:30 – Break

3:45 – The UNCITRAL contribution to the development of public-private partnerships’ safeguarding
Stéphane Braconnier, Professor at the University Panthéon-Assas Paris II

4:15 – The UNCITRAL contribution to electronic trade development
Thibault Douville, Associate-Professor at the Caen Normandie

4:45 – Summary
Rafael Illescas Ortiz, Professor of Commercial Law, Universidad Carlos III of Madrid, former president of the UNCITRAL

The event will be followed by a cocktail.

The Department of Law of the University of Ferrara hosts a series of seminars, organised by Alberto De Franceschi, under the title New Features of European Contract Law – Towards a Digital Single Market.

The seminars, in English, will run from 9 March to 25 May 2015 2016.

Speakers include Michael Lehmann (Ludwig Maximilian Univ. of Munich and Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition), Christian Twigg-Flesner (Univ. of Hull), Rodrigo Momberg Uribe (Univ. of Oxford), Herbert Zech (Univ. of Basel), Fryderyk Zoll (Univ. of Kraków and Univ. of Osnabrück), Geraint Howells (City Univ. of Hong Kong), Reiner Schulze (Univ. of Münster), Peter Kindler (Ludwig Maximilian Univ. of Munich), Martin Gebauer (Univ. of Tübingen) and Jorge Morais Carvalho (Univ. Nova of Lisbon).

Two seminars are specifically concerned with private international law issues: on 13 May 2016, Peter Kindler will talk about The law applicable to contracts in the Digital Single Market, while, on 18 May 2016, Martin Gebauer will speak of Contracts concluded by electronic means in cross-border transactions.

The complete programme may be downloaded here.

Attendance is free. For more information: alberto.defranceschi@unife.it.

Readers of our blog will recall that the European legislature, in 2013, adopted the Regulation on Online Dispute Resolution (ODR-Regulation) in consumer matters (alongside the Directive on Alternative Dispute Resolution) (see our previous post).  We are therefore happy to report that the interactive website, the so-called ODR-platform, envisaged by the ODR-Regulation has finally been launched on 15 February 2016. The platform is accessible here in all EU languages. It serves as a single point of entry for consumers and professionals seeking to settle a dispute out of court. It is available for disputes that arise from online contracts between consumers and professionals living in the EU.

The programme of the 2016 edition of the International Seminar on Private International Law organized by Prof. Fernández Rozas and Prof. de Miguel Asensio, to be held in Madrid on 14-15 April 2016, has been released and is available here.

Venue:

Salón de Grados de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad Complutense, Avda. Complutense, Ciudad Universitaria, Madrid.

Main speakers:

Jürgen Basedow (Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg) – Consistency in EU Private International Law

Cristina González Beilfuss (Universidad de Barcelona, Spain) – On the recent reforms of Spanish international civil procedure law.

Christian Heinze (Leibniz University Hanover, Germany) – Competition law damages claims and jurisdiction agreements.

Roberto Baratta (University of Macerata, Italy) – Fundamental Rights and Family Private International Law

Thalia Kruger (Antwerp University, Belgium) – The Hague, Strasbourg, Luxembourg and the Bosporus. The best interests of abducted children?

Pietro Franzina (University of Ferrara, Italy) – Do we need a EU legislative measure on the international protection of adults?

Mauro Rubino-Sammartano (Corte Europea de Arbitraje) – Arbitration and Public Policy.

Sebastien Manciaux (Université de Bourgogne, France)- La oferta de arbitraje en arbitraje de inversión: especificidades y dificultades planteadas por esta modalidad de arbitraje.

Emmanuel Guinchard (University of Northumbria, UK) – La transposition en Europe de la directive 2013/11/UE relative au règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges de consommation. L’exemple de la France et du Royaume-Uni.

Bertrand Ancel (Université Paris II)

Additional information on the seminar is available here.

Edina Márton has authored a book on “Violations of Personality Rights through the Internet: Jurisdictional Issues under European Law”. The book has been published by Nomos in cooperation with Hart Publishing.

The official abstract reads as follows:

This book considers jurisdictional issues on violations of personality rights through the Internet under the so-called ‘Brussels-Lugano Regime’ and centres on the special rule of jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict, or quasi-delict. It notes the governing objectives and underlying principles of this special rule; analyses its interpretation through the judgments of the ECJ, especially Bier, Shevill, and eDate and Martinez; and explores views expressed in legal theory and national judicial practice regarding its application for localising online violations of personality rights.

The book aims to examine how the eDate and Martinez-approaches advance administrability, predictability, and litigational justice and to assess whether they are suitable jurisdictional bases in Europe, where common legal norms, interests, and values increasingly integrate and connect persons. It concludes that they are not and recommends their possible reform.

Further information is available on the publisher’s website.

Professor Victoria Camarero Suarez published an article on marriage for all and international public policy in the Spanish Journal on the Law of Church and State.

Here is the English abstract:

In this work, in the first place, some general considerations are carried out, in relation with same-sex marriages and their roots in comparative systems as far as the legal practice is concerned. After this brief outline, we offer a presentation of the Decision of the French Cour de Cassation dated 28 January 2015, following the development of its historical iter and the foundations on which it is based upon. Within the stage that we may define as a comment, our research makes a evaluation of such as those foundations and, above all, of the interplay between international public policy and Fundamental Rights. In the same way we make detailed comparisons with the Spanish legal practice within the terms specially defined by DGRN. We put an end to our study through suggestive reflections with a view to throwing some light on the issue concerning the performance criteria of the French High Court and the need to reach full Human Rights, avoiding to the extent possible the emergence of unnecessary conflicts with regard to the subject of coexistence among the different legal systems.

A second edition of the commentary of the Succession Regulation written by Andrea Bonomi and Patrick Wautelet has just been published. As with the first edition, the book is conceived as a commentary, article by article, of the Regulation. Written in French it provides in more than 1.000 pages a comprehensive analysis of the Regulation taking into account the vast literature already published on the Regulation, as well as various measures adopted by Member States in order to facilitate the practical operation of the Regulation.

More information available here.

 

 

Written by Edina Márton

On 1 February 2016, the Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament delivered an “Opinion on the legal basis of the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on promoting the free movement of citizens and businesses by simplifying the acceptance of certain public documents in the European Union and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 (COM(2013)0228 – C7-0111/2013 – 2013/0119(COD))”. As is clear from the opinion, the initial proposal was based on “dual legal basis” [i.e., Articles 114(1) and 21(2) TFEU]. After the removal of the former provision, the need for the assessment of the latter provision arose. Thus, the Chair, Mr Pavel Svoboda, assesses whether “the new single legal basis” of the proposal is valid and appropriate.

The opinion is available here.

 Written by Edina Márton On 21 December 2015, the Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament issued a Working Document on establishing common minimum standards for civil procedure in the European Union – the legal basis (PE572.853v01-00). The Rapporteur, Emil Radev, outlines the scope of the legislative competence of the EU regarding civil procedure law and discusses provisions of the EU Treaties as possible legal basis for harmonising national civil procedure laws in the EU. The Working Document is available here.

It has not been mentioned on this blog that the French Cour de cassation has submitted a request for a preliminary ruling to the ECJ regarding Article 5(3) Brussels I Regulation (Concurrence Sàrl v Samsung Electronics France SAS, Amazon Services Europe Sàrl – Case C-618/15) on 23 November 2015. The question relates to the interpretation of the phrase »the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur« and reads as follows:

»Is Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an alleged breach of a prohibition on resale outside a selective distribution network and via a marketplace by means of online offers for sale on a number of websites operated in various Member States, an authorised distributor which considers that it has been adversely affected has the right to bring an action seeking an injunction prohibiting the resulting unlawful interference in the courts of the territory in which the online content is or was accessible, or must some other clear connecting factor be present?« (OJ 2016 C 38/38, footnote omitted.)

Thanks to Edina Márton for the tip-off!

This post has been written by Ilaria Aquironi.

On 2 March 2016 the European Commission adopted  a proposal for a Council decision authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions on the property regimes of international couples, covering both matters of matrimonial property regimes and the property consequences of registered partnerships (COM(2016) 108 final).

This stance comes close after the failure, in December 2015, to reach a political agreement among all Member States on the proposals relating to matrimonial property regimes and registered partnerships adopted in 2011.

Over the last few weeks, seventeen Member States – namely Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Slovenia, Finland and Sweden – addressed a request to the Commission to propose a decision authorising the establishment of enhanced cooperation between themselves in this field.

As a response, the Commission adopted the aforementioned proposal for a Council decision authorising enhanced cooperation, as well as a proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes (COM(2016) 106 final) and a proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of the property consequences of registered partnerships (COM(2016) 107 final).

The adoption of the decision authorising enhanced cooperation requires a qualified majority of Member States within the Council and the consent of the European Parliament. The adoption of the two regulations implementing the enhanced cooperation requires unanimity by the participating Member States and the consultation of the European Parliament.

The non-participating Member States will continue to apply their national private international law rules to cross-border situations dealing with matrimonial property regimes and the property consequences of registered partnerships, and will remain free to join the enhanced cooperation at any time.

It is a tradition of the University of Maribor to organise conferences “Corporate Entities at the Market“. This year the conference will include issues related to cross-border debt collection. The conference is supported and partly financed by the European Commission, in the framework of EU Project BIARE. The programme of the conference is divided into five sessions:

1st Session: Corporate Law – Current Issues Related to ZGD-1 and Amendments
2nd Session: Commercial Legal Transactions
3rd Session: Cross-border Disputes in Civil and Commercial Matters (International session, English-Slovene interpretation) – 1. part
4th Session: Cross-border Disputes in Civil and Commercial Matters (International session, English-Slovene interpretation) – 2. part
Poster Session: National System of Enforcement from Perspective of Bruxelles Ia (Slovenia, Croatia, Austria, Germany, Italy, Czech Republic, Portugal, Netherlands, France, Lithuania, Estonia, Belgium, Sweden, UK, Greece).

The conference will take place on 19–21 May 2016 in Portoroz, Slovenia. The registration form can be accessed here.

Against the backdrop of the CJEU’s judgment in Kolassa (Case C-375/13, see here and here for previous posts), Matthias Lehmann has written an article that is forthcoming in the August issue of the Journal of Private International Law. The article can be downloaded here.

The abstract reads as follows:

In its Kolassa judgment, the CJEU has for the first time decided which national court in the EU has jurisdiction for claims against an issuer of securities based on an allegedly false prospectus. This contribution analyses this fundamental and at the same time ambiguous ruling.

The ruling’s most important part concerns tort jurisdiction, in particular the identification of the place where loss is suffered by the investor. The court’s mixture between the domicile of the investor and the location of the bank that manages his account is unsatisfying and leads to problems, which will be analysed. With regard to the place of conduct, the decision will be criticized for hesitating between four different connecting factors, the relation of which among each other remains unclear. Moreover, this contribution argues that prospectus liability never falls under the consumer provisions or the contractual head of jurisdiction in the Brussels I(a) Regulation because such liability is delictual in nature. Contrary to the CJEU’s assumption, the particularities of the securities holding system do not play any role in the determination of the competent court.

Finally, it will be shown that the judgment is not limited to the determination of the competent court, but also affects the governing law for prospectus cases. It will be argued that the consequences of the Kolassa judgment under the Rome II Regulation are so drastic that a legislative reform of this Regulation has become necessary.

This post has been written by Ilaria Aquironi.

After nearly three years of negotiations, the time apparently has come for the adoption of a regulation aimed at simplifying the requirements for presenting certain public documents in the European Union (the initial proposal may be found here).

The regulation aims at promoting the free movement of EU citizens (a) by facilitating the circulation within the European Union of certain public documents (those regarding, inter alia, birth, death, marriage, legal separation and divorce, registered partnership, adoption, parenthood), as well as their certified copies, and (b) by simplifying other formalities, such as the requirement of certified copies and translations of public documents.

Here’s a summary of the key developments occurred over the last two years.

In February 2014, the European Parliament adopted its position at first reading on the proposed regulation. In June 2015, the Council approved, as a general approach, a compromise text (contained in document 6812/15 and its annex I, in combination with document n. 3992/15, and annexes I, II and III here) and further agreed that it should constitute the basis for future negotiations with the European Parliament.

In October 2015, an agreement was reached between the Council and the European Parliament on a compromise package; the agreement was then confirmed  by COREPER and the compromise package was endorsed by the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs.

The Chair of the latter Committee addressed a letter to the Chair of COREPER II to inform him that, should the Council formally transmit its position to the European Parliament in the form presented in the Annex to that letter, he would recommend to the plenary that the Council’s position be accepted without amendment, subject to legal-linguistic verification, at the European Parliament’s second reading.

In December 2015, the Council adopted a political agreement on the compromise package and instructed the Council’s legal-linguistic experts to proceed with the revision of the text.

The text resulting from the revision carried out by the legal-linguistic experts can be found here (Council document No 14956/15 of 25 February 2016).

The Council is expected to discuss the adoption of its position at first reading on 10 and 11 March 2016.

The American Society of International Law Private International Law Interest Group (ASIL PILIG) is sponsoring a webinar entitled “The Nature or Natures of Agreements on Choice of Court and Choice of Law.” The session, which is free but requires a reservation, will take place on Wednesday, March 2, at 11:30 am Eastern time (10:30 am Central, 8:30 am Pacific) and features two giants of private international law – Professor Adrian Briggs of the University of Oxford and Professor Symeon Symeonides of Willamette University.

ASIL’s description of the event is as follows:

To judge from judicial decisions over the last 20 years, the English common law version of private international law has come to treat agreements on choice of court as contractual agreements that will be enforced in almost exactly the same way as any other bilateral contractual agreement. This had led the courts to some conclusions, particularly in the context of remedies against breach, which look surprising as features in the landscape of private international law. But this narrow contractual focus, which takes it for granted that agreements on choice of court are promissory terms of a contract, liable to be enforced as such, has blinded lawyers to the possibility of viewing them as (multiple) unilateral notices. But Regulation (EU)1215/2012, otherwise known as the Brussels I Regulation, provides the basis for one alternative understanding of what is involved in making an agreement on choice of court.

When it comes to (agreements on) choice of law, the English courts have managed to avoid having to decide whether such terms in a contract are promissory in nature. The idea that they may be non-promissory terms has yet to be worked through; but it may provide a more satisfactory basis for providing answers than the alternative, that they are promissory terms.

Attendees can download papers and register here. The aim of the discussion will therefore be to consider the nature or natures of agreements on choice of court and on choice of law.

Tobias Lutzi, the author of this post, is an MPhil Candidate at the University of Oxford.

AG Saugmandsgaard Øe has delivered his opinion in Case C-572/14 Austro­Mechana, raising an interesting question as to the scope of Art. 5(3) Brussels I (= Art. 7(2) Brussels I recast).

The case concerns the so-called ‘blank-cassette levy’ that sellers of recording equipment have to pay under § 42b(1), (3) of the Austrian Copyright Act (Urheberrechtsgesetz – UrhG). The levy constitutes a compensation for the right to make private copies for personal use provided in § 42 UrhG. It is collected on behalf of the individual copyright holders by a copyright-collecting society called Austro-Mechana. According to the ECJ’s decision in Case C-521/11 Amazon.com, this system is consistent with the requirements of Art. 5(2) of the Copyright Directive (Directive 2001/29/EC).

Austro-Mechana had seized an Austrian court based on Art. 5(3) Brussels I in order to seek payment of the blank-cassette levy from five subsidiaries of Amazon, established in Luxembourg and Germany, which were selling mobile phones and other recording material in Austria. Austro-Mechana argued that the blank-cassette levy was intended to compensate the harm suffered by the copyright holders by reason of the copies made pursuant to § 42 UrhG and would thus fall within the scope of Art. 5(3). Amazon objected that the levy was payable upon the mere act of selling recording equipment, which in itself was neither unlawful nor harmful; the copyright holders would only suffer harm from the (equally lawful) use of the equipment by third parties; as a consequence, Art. 5(3) would be inapplicable to the present case. Amazon did not contest, however, that if Art. 5(3) would apply, Austria would be the place of the harmful event.

In his opinion, AG Saugmandsgaard Øe first gives a detailed account of the blank-cassette levy system created under §§ 42, 42b UrhG (paras 28–51). In order to decide whether a claim brought under this system would fall within the scope of Art. 5(3) Brussels I, he then refers to the well-known two-stage test from Case C-189/87 Kalfelis, according to which an action falls under Art. 5(3) if it ‘seeks to establish the liability of a defendant’ and is ‘not related to a “contract” within the meaning of Article 5(1)’ (para 56). The AG first assesses the second condition and rightly points out that the defendants’ obligation to pay compensation under § 42b UrhG was not ‘freely entered into’ and could thus not be qualified as contractual (paras 58–61).

The difficulty of the present case, however, clearly lies in the first condition established in Kalfelis, the role of which has always remained somewhat unclear and subject to debate. While its German translation (‘Schadenshaftung’) and the ECJ’s decision in Case C-261/90 Reichert (No 2) seemed to indicate that a claim would only ‘seek to establish the defendant’s liability’ in the sense of Art. 5(3) if its aim was to have the defendant ordered to ‘make good the damage he has caused’, the court’s recent decision in Case C-548/12 Brogsitter seems to be understood, by some, as promoting a wider interpretation of Art. 5(3), covering all obligations not falling under Art. 5(1). Yet, AG Saugmandsgaard Øe seems to adhere to the former interpretation when he states that ‘a “claim seeking to establish the liability of a defendant” must be based on a harmful event, that is to say, an event attributed to the defendant which is alleged to have caused damage to another party’ (para 67).

Surprisingly, though, the AG considers as this harmful event the fact ‘that Amazon EU and Others failed, as is alleged, deliberately or through negligence, to pay the levy provided for in Article 42b of the UrhG, thus causing damage to Austro­Mechana’ (para 72). Therefore, he concludes, ‘a case of this type is an absolutely quintessential instance of a matter relating to tort or delict’ (para 75).

This understanding of Art. 5(3) seems hardly reconcilable with the commonly accepted interpretation of Art. 5(3) established in Case 21/76 Bier, according to which the ‘harmful event’ refers to the (initial) event ‘which may give rise to liability’. Besides, if it were correct, the first condition established in Kalfelis, which the AG appears to uphold, would be rendered completely meaningless since every claim potentially falling under Art. 5(3) is ultimately motivated by the defendant’s failure to comply with an alleged obligation.

Instead, the correct question to ask seems to be whether the initial sale of recording material constitutes a ‘harmful event’ in the sense of Art. 5(3). Of course, the ECJ may still hold that it does, promoting a rather broad reading of the notion of ‘tort, delict or quasi-delict’ that also accommodates lawful behavior if it triggers a legal obligation to pay some sort of compensation. But the court may also come to the conclusion that the obligation to pay a ‘blank-cassette levy’ simply does not constitute a ‘matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’, relegating the claimant to proceedings in the defendants’ home jurisdiction(s) pursuant to Art. 2(1) Brussels I (= Art. 4(1) Brussels I recast).