Flux européens

WS e.a. / Frontex (Opération de retour conjointe)
Droit institutionnel
Avocate générale Ćapeta : opérations de retour - le Tribunal a commis une erreur dans son appréciation du lien de causalité dans le cadre d’un recours en dommages et intérêts introduit par une famille syrienne contre Frontex

OHB System / Commission
Marché publics
Programme Galileo : l’arrêt du Tribunal rejetant le recours d’OHB System contre l’attribution du marché des satellites de transition est annulé

Espagne / Commission
Agriculture
Les recours introduits contre la détermination par la Commission de zones à protéger, abritant ou susceptibles d’abriter des écosystèmes marins vulnérables dans certains lieux de pêche en eau profonde, sont rejetés

[If you do use the blog for research, practice submission or database purposes, citation would be appreciated, to the blog as a whole and /or to specific blog posts. Many have suggested I should turn the blog into a paid for, subscription service however I have resisted doing so. Proper reference to how the blog is useful to its readers, will help keeping this so.]

Thank you Alain Devers for alerting us to the Supreme Court’s decision in follow-up of the CJEU judgment in Case C‑633/22 Real Madrid Club  de Fútbol, AE v EE, Société Éditrice du Monde SA which I discussed here.

On 28 May the Supreme Court held that the court of appeal’s refusal of recognition is annulled, and needs to be reconsidered by a different court of appeal. Its annulment is based squarely on the court of appeal not having properly considered the elements identified by the CJEU. Evidently, the final judgment may still lead to the same result, but will have to be justified differently if that is the route that will be taken.

[33] it notes that the court of appeal had reviewed the substance of the Spanish courts’ findings, in reassessing whether the French journalists and editor had acted with disregard for their professional duties and in reevaluating both the seriousness of their disregard and the impact this had on the aggrieved.

[39] it refers to the court of appeal’s ordre public finding which had not considered the seriousness of the infringement as held by the Spanish courts.

[45] the court of appeal is faulted for not having considered the financial means of the journalist in question, in considering whether the recognition and enforcement would have an impact on free speech: this is one of the criteria the CJEU had held as being relevant.

[51] the same consideration is made viz the newspaper itself.

[57] the court of appeal should have considered, as now instructed by the CJEU, the distinction between the reputation of a legal cq natural person (the former lacking the ‘moral’ element of impacting on the ‘dignity’ of the person).

The CJEU had given very specific instructions to the national judges in cases like these and I am not sure that is the way to go. As Szpunar AG had noted in his Opinion in the case, the relevant CJEU authorities prior to current case hitherto had engaged with procedural law ordre public exceptions, rather than substantive rules such as here fundamental rights. The obvious downside of that route is that national courts may now be tempted nay feel obliged to refer to the CJEU to seek substantive instruction for the ordre public assessment of other rights, too, leading to Kirchberg having to give specific instructions for umpteen scenarios. Not what Brussels Ia intended, me thinks.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed, 2024, 2.619 ff.

[If you do use the blog for research, practice submission or database purposes, citation would be appreciated, to the blog as a whole and /or to specific blog posts. Many have suggested I should turn the blog into a paid for, subscription service however I have resisted doing so. Proper reference to how the blog is useful to its readers, will help keeping this so.]

In Stichting Environment and fundamental rights v Repsol Perú BV et al ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2025:8700, the claim relates to the 15 January 2022 oil leak at La Pampilla, Peru, also known as the Callao Oil Spill.

Defendants are Repsol Perú BV, domiciled at The Hague: this is the anchor defendant and jurisdiction against it is easily established using Article 4 Brussels Ia. The other defendants are Repsol SA Madrid, and Refinería La Pampilla SAA of Callao. Peru.

‘Forum connexitatis’ is the power for a court to exercise jurisdiction over defendants against whom it does not ordinarily have jurisdiction, provided the claims against them are so closely related to (hence ‘connexitatis’) one against a defendant viz whom said court undisputedly has jurisdiction, that the interest of justice requires joint treatment of all claims concerned. The latter defendant is called the ‘anchor defendant’.

In the case at issue, forum connexitatis needs to be tested against the EU rules (Article 8 Brussels Ia) in the case of Repsol SA; and under residual Dutch rules (Article 7(1) CPR, because A8(1) does not apply against non-EU domiciled defendants) in the case of Refiniería La Pampilla SAA.

Current judgment deals with the jurisdictional issues only and does not mention applicable law at all. It is likely claimants make use of Article 7 Rome II’s lex ecologia provisions (compare the Lliuya v RWE judgment just last week) however I cannot be sure.

A first argument of defendants is that under Article IX of the 1992 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage  – CLC, the claim must be brought in Peru:

“Where an incident has caused pollution damage in the territory, including the territorial sea or an area referred to in Article II, of one or more Contracting States or preventive measures have been taken to prevent or minimize pollution damage in such territory including the territorial sea or area, actions for compensation may only be brought in the Courts of any such Contracting State or States.”

[4.6] the court acknowledges that prima facie this does look like a knock-out point. However [4.7] it points out that on the other hand, the CLC only regulates the liability of the ship owner and its insurer and how they can be sued. [4.9] the court confirms its reading of text itself, the travaux and the DNA of the CLC as not pertaining to claims against parties other than the ship owner and its insurer. ‘A 2002 judgment by the Italian Supreme Court’ which I suspect is I.O.P.C.F. v. Registro Italiano Navale and others, re the sinking
of m/t “Erika”, Italian Supreme Court 17 October 2002 n. 14769 is distinguished on the ground that that claim involved the affiliated persons listed in A IX CLC.

The court then considers A8(1) BIa viz Repsol SA, and [4.13] points out that the same principles in application of the EU anchor rules, apply equally to the residual Dutch rules.

[4.11] it suggests that the claim against the anchor defendant must have a prospect of success, for A8(1) jurisdiction to be possible. That view is not imo supported by the authorities and the issue is currently sub judice at least as far as follow-on damages claims are concerned, in CJEU C-673/23 Electricity & Water Authority of Government of Bahrain ea v Prismiian ea. I review the Opinion of Kokott AG here.

[4.16] the core reproach viz the defendants is said to concern the inadequacy of the La Pampilla reception facilities, and defendants’ inadequate response to the spill. Repsol BV argues that it is a most remote shareholder and not at all involved in the goings-on in Peru and that even Repsol SA has no direct dealings with the Peruvian operations. [4.17] claimants argues the near exclusive ownership (more than 99%) of Repsol BV in La Pampilla, a shared director and other links show the direct involvement or at the very least a culpable non-involvement: Repsol VB ought to have used its influence to avoid the calamity.

[4.18] however the court rejects the shareholding and other circumstances and demands claimants show “direct involvement” by Repsol BV. That is most definitely a step back viz recent duty of care litigation, including in The Netherlands. The court did not immediately refuse instant permission to appeal hence I suspect (but I am not a Dutch CPR expert) this must be possible – and most definitely should be exercised.

The merits review test is as I argue above, not good law under A8(1) authority and the requirement of ‘direct involvement’ is not in line with recent duty of care practice.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 2.2.13.1 (in particular 2.496); Heading 2.2.15.3.2; Chapter 7.

'Global North' business & human rights claim, Peru oil spillDutch court rejects forum connexitatis viz Spanish, Peruvian corps, wth Dutch anchor defendantAccepts jurisdiction viz NL defendant despite 1992 CLC ConventionStichting E&FR v Repsol BV ea deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id…

— Geert Van Calster (@gavclaw.bsky.social) 2025-05-26T07:17:55.045Z

Tony’s Open Chair have today published my opinion on the impact the European Commission’s ‘Omnibus’ deregulation proposal will have on the applicable law for supply chain liability claims. In short: not a good one.

Richard Gardiner has other updates on the issue here and he is generally a marvel when it comes to sharing all things CS3D.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed 2025, Chapter 7.

Commission / Zippo Manufacturing e.a.
Relations extérieures
Litige de 2020 entre l’Union européenne et les États-Unis concernant les droits de douane : selon l’avocate générale Ćapeta, la Commission n’a pas violé le droit de Zippo d’être entendue

Pumpyanskiy / Conseil
Relations extérieures
Gel des fonds : l’avocate générale Medina considère que le critère d’inscription de femmes et d’hommes d’affaires influents sur les listes de personnes faisant l’objet de mesures restrictives à la suite de l’invasion de l’Ukraine par la Russie est légal

Commission / Hongrie (Valeurs de l’Union)
Liberté d'établissement
Valeurs de l’Union : l’avocate générale Ćapeta considère que, en interdisant ou en restreignant l’accès aux contenus LGBTI, la Hongrie a violé le droit de l’Union

Commission / Grèce (Actualisation des plans de gestion de district hydrographique et des risques d’inondation)
Environnement et consommateurs
La Cour condamne pour la première fois la Grèce pour ne pas avoir actualisé les plans de gestion des risques d’inondation afférents à 14 districts hydrographiques

[If you do use the blog for research, practice submission or database purposes, citation would be appreciated, to the blog as a whole and /or to specific blog posts. Many have suggested I should turn the blog into a paid for, subscription service however I have resisted doing so. Proper reference to how the blog is useful to its readers, will help keeping this so.]

I have posted before of course on the jurisdictional and applicable law rules for climate claims (see in particular my post on Hugues Falys v Total) and on Article 7 Rome II’s special rule for choice of law in environmental claims. On the latter, use ‘Article 7’ or ‘A7’ in the search box, and see also my paper on A7/ lex ecologia as well as my paper here on climate justice litigation and private international law.

A few days ago I posted my overall assessment of the most recent climate judgment, Lliuya v RWE (more generally known as ‘Peruvian farmer v RWE) and in that post I said I would leave the applicable law analysis for a later post. So here we are.

Frustratingly there is still no sign of the judgment in the original German so like in my earlier post I am working with the unofficial English translation that is circulating. This may have an impact on how some of the court’s reasoning is translated and hence I may perhaps have to soften some of the criticism below once the judgment’s German version is out.

P.26  the court first of all confirms the straightforward jurisdictional basis: Article 4 of the Brussels Ia Regulation, establishing the principal rule that a defendant can and should as of right be sued in their domicile. Note the difference here with Hugues Falys where claimant is suing Total, domiciled at France, in what he presumable argues is a locus damni or locus delicti commissi under Article 7(2) Brussels Ia. The possibility to claim as of right in the defendant’s domicile is not easily dislodged in the European system, as I explain here.

Next up is the applicable law p.32 ff. Here the court’s plan of approach is, with respect, messy.

Overall the court could have sufficed with its primary finding of lex voluntatis. Much of its remaining discussion therefore would be obiter in the common law.

[2.a.aa] it first suggests implied choice of law in that parties invoked in their submissions almost exclusively provisions of German law. It refers to pre-Rome II German authority for its finding that this implies choice of law.

[2.a.bb] p.33 it then confirms this additionally as choice of law under the Rome II Regulation: reference here is made to Article 14(1) Rome II.

[2.a.cc] it confirms the universal character of Rome II but either misunderstands what this implies, or jumbles it with the meaning of ‘international’ under Rome II: for the court here rightly points out that Rome II may lead to the application of a law that is not the law of a Member State (here Peruvian law would be the obvious candidate) but then states “The Regulation therefore also applies in the case of a foreign connection to a non-member state in its material scope of application as the conflict of laws of the member state -…” (emphasis added). That is wrong; the latter (the choice of law being either for an EU or non-EU Member State, ie the conflict of laws not being between two EU laws but between an EU and non-EU law) relates to the ‘international’ element required to trigger Rome II. It is not at all related to the universal character of Rome II.

[2.a.dd] p.33 onwards the court then probably (it really could have formulated its approach here much more clearly) dismissed lex rei sitae as a rule that would bounce German law. It is unclear whether it does this proprio motu or in answer to an argument formulated by REWE (but had it not been established that REWE had agreed to German law?) and /or in German scholarship?

Whatever the trigger, the court’s approach to a role for lex rei sitae is most unclear. p.33 in fine the court refers to “legal claims resulting from an (alleged) violation of (co-)ownership and which – as in this case – are based on the law of the place where the property is located.” I assume this must be a discussion under German conflict of laws prior to Rome II, which it seems classifies nuissance claims as claims in rem, subject to the lex rei sitae. However as the court points out p.34, this qualification is irrelevant as far as Rome II is concerned. Rome II’s concepts need to be applied autonomously and lex rei sitae is not a rule contemplated by it.

Only then does the court address Article 7 Rome II, the tailor-made rule for environmental damage:

The law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising out of
environmental damage or damage sustained by persons or property as a result of such damage shall be the law determined pursuant to Article 4(1), unless the person seeking compensation for damage chooses to base his or her claim on the law of the country in which the event giving rise to the damage occurred

Midway p.34 the ’emission’ is identified as the ‘event giving rise to the damage’.

The court’s engagement with Article 7 is unclear as to how it seems climate damage in relation to that Article. It has been suggested by some that Article 7 does not see to climate damage as such.

Either the court in current case dismissed that argument out of hand, seeing as it straightforwardly applies Article 7 to what is arguably a climate claim. Or it sees (the threat of) flooding (as opposed to ‘climate change’) as the environmental damage. A matter of course application of Article 7 to climate claims would be supportive of a wide notion of the statutory language “arising out of” environmental damage.

The court once again notes parties’ agreement on the applicable law being German law but then seemingly proprio motu flags the potential for dépeçage, midway through p.34:

However, a distinction must be made because, according to the plaintiff’s submission, the defendant’s conduct (issuing activity) has been ongoing since 1965 and the Rome II Regulation has only been applicable to non-contractual obligations since January 11, 2009 (see Art. 31 Rome II Regulation).

Under applicable German conflicts rules then, between 1 June 1999 and the entry into force of Rome I, German law would have applied as lex fori solutionis (the place of performance; I am not familiar enough with German conflicts rules to understand what performance is talked about here) and prior to 1 June 1999 the German rule it seems was ‘the place of action’ (presumably the locus delicti commissi: here earlier established of Germany as the place of emission) or the locus damni (surely Peru?), with it seems here like now in Rome II, claimant being able to choose.

For this section, availability of the judgment in German would be most welcome.

Importantly, the court’s reading suggest that for continuing torts, it decides (but it does so obiter, surely: see its overall finding of lex voluntatis) dépeçage applies.

As regular readers of the blog may remember, the Dutch Supreme Court has referred to the CJEU on the issue of continued infringement, in the case of competition claims.

The judgment overall has some loose ends on the Article 7 Rome II issue (compare similarly Milieudefensie v Shell) and the expression of the train of thought imo could have been clearer.

As noted, once I have the German version of the judgment, I shall revisit.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed. 2023, 4.56 ff.

 

[If you do use the blog for research, practice submission or database purposes, citation would be appreciated, to the blog as a whole and /or to specific blog posts. Many have suggested I should turn the blog into a paid for, subscription service however I have resisted doing so. Proper reference to how the blog is useful to its readers, will help keeping this so.]

Kinsa
Un ressortissant d’un pays tiers qui entre irrégulièrement dans l’Union européenne ne peut être sanctionné pour aide à l’entrée irrégulière du seul fait qu’il est accompagné de son enfant mineur

Pietro Franzina has excellent summary of European Commission report COM (2025) 268 and Staff Working Document SWD(2025) 135, both discussing the implementation of Brussels Ia, building inter alia on the Milieu Study on the same topic.

Pietro has done a tour de force in summarising both documents, highlighting the areas where statutory change might be proposed:

scope of application (‘civil and commercial’; ! arbitration; vis attractiva concursus /insolvency);

third country defendants: crucial for business and human rights claims and harmonisation here would be welcome ia in light of the expanded use of EU sustainability instruments with extended territorial scope; I discussed the issue briefly here;

rules on special jurisdiction where ia the A7(1) and (2) distinction is getting opaque but where as Pietro notes little change may be expected;

consumer contracts (with special mention for the imo outdated carve-out for contracts of transport);

exclusive jurisdiction with likely an amendment to be proposed to codify CJEU BSH Hausgeräte; 

potential for clarification of the lis pendens rules;

ditto for collective redress actions and, but with less immediate urgency it would seem, for digital assets.

Of side note is that the Staff Working Document would seem to add little to the actual Report. There is probably an institutional reason, eg SWDs do not require translation into all EU languages, however in general one would expect the SWDs to bring a bit more beef to the analytical bone. Otherwise there seems little point in having one at all.

All in all extensive proposed amendments are not to be expected however that does not mean those that might me, could not be impactful.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed 2024, Chapter 2.

Delighted to have been asked by Arie Van Hoe to post on the Lliuya v RWE climate ruling. See the link below to Corporate Finance Lab.

Geert.

Lliuya v RWE. Germany’s historic climate ruling: A pyrrhic loss for claimants?

In Litasco SA v Banque El Amana SA [2025] EWHC 312 (Comm) Hutton DJ engaged (on an application for summary judgment) ia with an issue that one does not see all too often in litigation: a change in governing law under Article 3(2) Rome I; and with the application of Article 9 Rome I’s overriding mandatory law aka lois de police provision.

On the first issue, Litasco as claimant argue that the effect of a SWIFT message (SWIFT being an inter-bank electronic messages platform) was to change the applicable law for the relevant StandBy Letter of Credit – SBLC, into English law, pursuant to A3(2) Rome I, which permits the parties to “agree to subject the contract to a law other than that which previously governed it”.

[15] both parties seemingly agreed that “whether the SWIFT message was effective to make that change should be resolved as a matter of English law (whether as the putative applicable law, by reference to Article 10 of Rome I, or as the lex fori, which it said was supported by the Supreme Court’s analysis in Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v OOO Insurance Company Chubb [2020] 1 WLR 4117 at [33]).” In that para the SC held

In our view, it is both consistent with authority and sound in principle to apply English law as the law of the forum to ascertain whether the parties have agreed on the law which is to govern their contract (and, if not, what law governs it in the absence of agreement). To apply any other law for this purpose would introduce an additional layer of complexity into the conflict of laws analysis without any clear justification and could produce odd or inconsistent results. As the authors of Dicey, Morris & Collins on The Conflict of Laws, 15th ed (2012) observe, at para 32-036 , by reference to a case in which subsequent conduct was taken into account to construe a contract found to be governed by Chilean law because it was admissible under that law:

Under a proper Rome I analysis however (reminder that Rome I is assimilated UK law) in my opinion there is CJEU authority for neither the lex fori approach nor the putative law approach (clearly post Brexit [Enka was a pre-Brexit case] there binding character of the CJEU is more complicated). In Nikiforidis a role for A10’s putative law was discussed viz the question of temporal application of Rome I and a role for said putative law on that issue was not the outcome.

For the specific claim at issue the question is arguably less relevant seeing as parties agree, therefore the determination of the lex causae to settle the effectiveness of the change arguable may a considered as having been done per Article 3(1) Rome I.

On the facts at issue, [22] the judge holds that advancing an argument that the lex contractus was not amended by the relevant SWIFT message, would not have a real prospect of success.

[23] ff deal with the issue whether Mauritian civil proceedings may be recognisable in England and have an impact on current claim. However [28] it is held that claimant in current claim did not submit to those proceedings and that as such they are clearly not recognisable for current purposes. [29] ff ff hold the same viz relevant criminal proceedings.

[43] ff then discuss the application of the Ralli Bros principle and lois de police. I have discussed in my review of Banco San Juan Internacional Inc v Petroleos De Venezuela SA why in my opinion the application of lois de police may be considered to have been exhaustively regulated by Rome I, hence displacing any application of Ralli Bros. The alternative view is that Ralli Bros continues to apply as a principle of the applicable lex contractus, English law.

In current case, the judge fully conflates Article 9 Rome I with Ralli Bros, taking [6] it seems defendant’s counsel cue:

BEA instead relies on orders made by the Mauritanian courts as providing a defence to Litasco’s claim, originally pursuant to the rule in Ralli Brothers v Compania Naviera Sota y Aznar [1920] 2 KB 287 (CA) and also pursuant to Article 9(3) of the Rome I Regulation but in the skeleton for this hearing, Mr Power (counsel for BEA) indicated that BEA was content to proceed on the basis that Article 9(3) adds nothing to the Ralli Bros principle (which he noted was the view taken by Cockerill J in Banco San Juan Internacional Inc v Petroleos de Venezuela SA [2021] 2 All ER (Comm) 590 at [118]).

– this is a similar route as the one taken in Celestial Aviation Services, and while the substantive outcome may be the same as if one had pursued an Article 9 Rome I analysis, the shortcut still does not convince me.

[84] the conclusion is that a Ralli Bros defence has no reasonable prospect of success and summary judgment is granted.

An interesting judgment.

Geert.

European Private International Law, 4th ed. 2024, 3.90.

 

https://x.com/GAVClaw/status/1891417588841750955

If you do use the blog for research or database purposes, citation would be appreciated, to the blog as a whole and /or to specific blog posts. Many have suggested I should turn the blog into a paid for, subscription service however I have resisted doing so. Proper reference to how the blog is useful to its readers, will help keeping this so.

In X v Amstelveen Equity Trust BV et al, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:2975 (anonymised presumable because of the family issues in the litigation; not a convincing reason to anonymise imo) claimant seeks damages in excess of 1.3 billion $ from two of his uncles and a series of corporations associated with them. The nephew (a similar claim by his ssiter was settled earlier, In Turkey) claims that the uncles mismanaged the shares which were held by his father in the two defendant Turkish companies, a shareholding in which he claims he has succeeded his father.

The claim alleges that the two Turkish corporations transferred the shares to their own ownership and subsequently transferred them to the two Dutch corporations who are also defendants, without paying the proper value to the nephew. Claimant has also seized a Turkish court, with a claim to value the shares, and to annul the decisions of the Turkish corporations to transfer the shares first into their own names and subsequently to the Dutch corporations.  The transfer of the shares is based on relevant article in the Turkish Corporations Act which reads

“if the shares have been acquired by inheritance, division of inheritance, provisions of the property regime between spouses or by compulsory execution, the company may refuse to give approval to the person acquiring the shares only if he proposes to take over the shares at their real value”

Current judgment deals only with the defendant’s request, which it grants, to stay the Dutch proceedings, pending the decision by the Turkish court. [3.14] the shares meanwhile have been sequestered by earlier decision of the Dutch courts.

[5.2] and [5.3] the Court holds that Article 26 Brussels Ia (voluntary appearance aka prorogation aka submission) applies equally to non-EU domiciled defendants, with reference to CJEU C-412/98 Group Josi [44]:

Admittedly, under Article 18 of the Convention, the voluntary appearance of the defendant establishes the jurisdiction of a court of a Contracting State before which the plaintiff has brought proceedings, without the place of the defendant’s domicile being relevant.

As I explain in my critical review of X v Trustees of Max Stern, I do not think that section of Group Josi relates to the non-EU element of the defendant’s domicile, rather its domicile full stop (within the EU). Neither the German Supreme Court nor the Amsterdam court here are right, in my view, and the issue is most certainly not acte claire, particularly given the language of Article 6 Brussels Ia.

[5.4] ff then discusses the call of both the Dutch and the Turkish defendants upon either Article 33 lis pendens or Article 34 related cases, or their residual Dutch equivalent.

The court [5.6] swiftly decides that the Turkish defendants’ call upon Articles 33-34 does not go anywhere seeing as Article 6 (which it, imo wrongly, held grounds its jurisdiction) is not listed as one of the jurisdictional anchors which may be corrected by Articles 33-34. Yet [5.41] the court holds that the (Dutch) ‘sound administration of justice’ justifies a stay ‘on the same considerations’ which led to its granting  a stay on A33-34 grounds viz the Dutch defendants. This is cakeism. Either you hold that Brussels Ia applies and then you apply all of Brussels Ia, including the consequences of the A33-34 limits. Here: if an A33-34 stay is not possible, then neither is a case-management stay or a ‘sound administration of justice’ stay if these merely recycle the, by definition inapplicable, A33-34 analysis (see also my earlier posts echoing ‘circumventing Owusu via the back door’, ia viz de Jong and Municipio): for that is just a ‘me too’ A33-34 stay in circumstances where these Articles clearly do not apply.

Viz the Dutch defendants, the court first of all holds that A33 does not apply for the lis pendens conditions are not met: [5.12] while the Turkish proceedings only concern the Turkish corporations, the Dutch concern both the Dutch and the Turkish ones, and a number of directors; both materially and from the point of view of procedures, the defendants in the Dutch proceedings have a very different position both among themselves and, for the Turkish defendants, viz their position in the Turkish proceedings. [5.13] neither do the proceedings concern the same matters of law, seeing as the Dutch one relates to tort and unjust enrichment, while the Turkish one concerns corporate law as well as economic law.

However the call upon A34 forum connexitatis /related action is successful. I discuss all conditions here and will not repeat them all at length in this post.

[5.19] the court matter of factly posits that for the condition of ‘relatedness’, A30 Brussels Ia’s approach (A30 applies in case of lis pendens between EU Courts) equally applies to A34. It holds that [5.25] the ownership question over the shares is core to, at the least very relevant in, both the Turkish and the Dutch procedures, as is [5.26] the valuation of the shares. [5.27] diverging answers to these questions by the Turkish cq Dutch courts would lead to a risk of irreconcilable judgments. [5.28] that the pending cases in Turkey concern more than just one procedure is held to be irrelevant for the purposes of A34.

Further, applying an Anerkennungsprognose, any future Turkish judgment is likely to be recognisable in The Netherlands following the criteria of the Dutch Supreme Court in Gazprom.

As for the ‘proper administration of justice’, [5.35] the court holds that the Turkish proceedings are likely to be completed within a reasonable period (reference here is made to the Dutch courts likely not deciding such a complex case in a shorter timeframe); the Turkish proceedings already having been underway for quite a while (and for some of them, under an exclusive ground of jurisdiction); and the close link with Turkey even in the Dutch proceedings. [5.40] the court reminds the parties that if circumstances change the balance of competing interests (one would imagine, excessive delay in the Turkish procedures, perceived bias, etc), an application to lift the stay may be made.

Both the A6 decision and the effective application of A33-34 to the Turkish defendants despite these Articles not applying to relevant claim, are a weak link in my view in current judgment. The A33-34 analysis is a touch on the concise size with a view to proper administration of justice.

At any rate, a judgment of note, seeing the extensive engagement with A33-34.

Geert.

European Private International Law, 2.572 ff.

 

If you do use the blog for research or database purposes, citation would be appreciated, to the blog as a whole and /or to specific blog posts. Many have suggested I should turn the blog into a paid for, subscription service however I have resisted doing so. Proper reference to how the blog is useful to its readers, will help keeping this so.

Our University’s reminder re open access policies and our publication repository, reminds me of the interesting provision inserted in 2018 in Article X.196 of Belgium’s Economic Law Act: (DeepL translation)

The author of a scientific article that is the result of at least half publicly funded research retains, even if, in accordance with Article XI.167, he has disposed of his rights to a journal publisher or placed them under an ordinary or exclusive licence, the right to make the manuscript available free of charge in open access to the public in a journal after the expiry of a period of 12 months for human and social sciences and six months for other sciences after the first publication, provided that the source of the first publication is mentioned.
The publishing contract may provide for a shorter period than that stipulated in the first paragraph.
The King [that is shorthand for the Government, GAVC] may extend the period stipulated in the first paragraph.
The right described in the first paragraph cannot be waived. This law is mandatory and applies irrespective of the law chosen by the parties as soon as there is a link in Belgium. It also applies to works created before the entry into force of this paragraph and which do not belong to the public domain at that time.

Under Article 9 Rome I 

1.   Overriding mandatory provisions are provisions the respect for which is regarded as crucial by a country for safeguarding its public interests, such as its political, social or economic organisation, to such an extent that they are applicable to any situation falling within their scope, irrespective of the law otherwise applicable to the contract under this Regulation.

2.   Nothing in this Regulation shall restrict the application of the overriding mandatory provisions of the law of the forum.

3.   Effect may be given to the overriding mandatory provisions of the law of the country where the obligations arising out of the contract have to be or have been performed, in so far as those overriding mandatory provisions render the performance of the contract unlawful. In considering whether to give effect to those provisions, regard shall be had to their nature and purpose and to the consequences of their application or non-application.

This is the ‘overriding mandatory law’, aka lois de police aka lois d’application immédiate provision.

Clearly even in Belgian courts the provision is bound to trigger interesting discussions. First of all of course the statutory construction of ‘scientific’ [note that the Dutch (‘wetenschappelijk’) and French use of ‘scientific’ is a much broader category than the English language ‘scientific’; humanities faculties for instance are very much ‘scientific’ in the ‘wetenschappelijk’ sense]. Is a historic novel loosely based on scientific research, a ‘scientific’ work? Further, the meaning of ‘at least half publicly funded research’: that’s a statutory construction quagmire and I suspect the travaux might help (I have not consulted them for this post). Finally, at least for purposes of this blog, the limitation to cases with ‘a link to Belgium’: e.g. would the mere seizing of a Belgian court not suffice? Further, any choice of court away from Belgium, in copyright and other agreements is likely to upend the impact of the provision, seeing as a non-Belgian, EU Member States courts (and the UK under Rome I) will have much more flexible room for manoeuvre under  Rome I (see above) to apply the Belgian Act. This may be managed by authors either by seizing a Belgian court first (in a denial of (copyright) infringement claim, presumably), or potentially by claiming the illegality of choice of court away from Belgium (not such an easy proposition I imagine; e.g. the consumer contract protection prima facie would seem unavailable). Fun with conflict of laws. Have I mentioned it’s exam season? (I know, I am on sabbatical. But not everyone is). Geert. Handbook of EU Private International Law, 4th ed. 2024, 3.73 ff.

RRC Sports
Concurrence
Avocat général Emiliou : les instances dirigeantes du sport sont limitées dans leur autorégulation en cas d’impact significatif sur les matières régies par le droit de l’Union

This is an academic public service claxon: the European Commission Roadmap towards ending Russian energy imports COM(2025)440 is an absolute treasure trove for questions in current exam season underway in much of the Northern Hemisphere at least.

The Roadmap obviously has solid security credentials in the light of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and raises the type of issues which imo are excellent to discuss with students particularly in an oral exam:

what are the implications of the consequential trade restrictions viz international trade law;

how does the EC propose to deal with ongoing long-term contracts (both in the suggestions for communication of these contracts to Commission services, and the roadmap towards ending them. Flag viz the latter element: these contracts are subject to a smorgasbord of dispute resolution clauses, governing law provisions etc. How does force majeur in war times impact on contracts subject to different national laws? (The Commission suggesting ia ‘Building on joint European preparations, the assessment of the impact of the measures carried out by the Commission since the Versailles Declaration, including effects on gas security of supply, market, prices and legal aspects (including contracts), the Commission intends to propose legal measures for the effective phase out of gas imports from Russia.’);

what is the impact of any EU measure on claims under international investment law, particularly for claims that may be brought outside of the EU;

etc. Should guarantee at least half an hour of discussion which may gauge a student’s knowledge of the issues in various legal subjects quite nicely.

You’re welcome.

Geert.

If you do use the blog for research or database purposes, citation would be appreciated, to the blog as a whole and /or to specific blog posts. Many have suggested I should turn the blog into a paid for, subscription service however I have resisted doing so. Proper reference to how the blog is useful to its readers, will help keeping this so.

In HM Treasury & Anor v Global Feedback Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 624, the Court of Appeal overturned the finding by Lang J in [2024] EWHC 1943 (Admin) that the relevant UK statutory provisions on trade in agricultural products (specifically: beef), giving effect to the UK-Australia 2021 Free Trade Agreement (FTA), are a “provision of [a Contracting State’s] national law relating to the environment” (emphasis added) in Article 9(3) of the Convention on Access to Information Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (“the Aarhus Convention“).

The judgment has an important impact, before you start wondering why I am reporting on a nerdy issue of international environmental law.

A9(3) Aarhus (the Convention was ratified by the United Kingdom on 23 February 2005, and Brexit has no impact on its membership) requires each Party to ensure that members of the public “have access to administrative or judicial procedures to challenge acts and omissions by private persons and public authorities which contravene provisions of its national law relating to the environment.”

A9(4) in turn requires inter alia those procedures, and also procedures under Art.9(1) and (2), to “provide adequate and effective remedies” and not to be “prohibitively expensive”. The latter element has been transposed in English civil procedure law as follows:

Part IX of the civil procedure rules – CPR 46 give partial effect to A9(4) by imposing costs limits on “Aarhus Convention claims”. That expression means “a claim brought by one or more members of the public by judicial review or review under statute which challenges the legality of any decision, act or omission of a body exercising public functions, and which is within the scope of Art. 9(1), 9(2) or 9(3)” of the Aarhus Convention (CPR 46.24(2)(a)).

The central issue in this appeal is therefore the meaning and width of the phrase “which contravene provisions of its national law relating to the environment” in Art.9(3).

The issue has arisen in a claim for judicial review brought by Global Feedback Limited (GFL) against the UK Government viz its 23 February 2023 to make the Customs Tariff (Preferential Trade Arrangements and Tariff Quotas) (Australia) (Amendment) Regulations 2023 (SI 2023 No. 195) (“the 2023 Regulations”). The 2023 Regulations give effect to tariff preferences on Australian imports under the Free Trade Agreement (“FTA”) between the UK and Australia which was signed on 17 December 2021 and came into force on 31 May 2023.

GFL claims that the 2023 Regulations will harm the environment by adversely impacting on climate change. It says that the FTA would lead to a substantial increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the production of cattle meat, because (i) beef production methods in Australia produce significantly more GHG emissions per weight of beef than those in the UK and (ii) the lower prices of Australian beef compared to UK beef are likely to lead to a net increase in production of Australian beef for consumption in the UK. According to GFL, “carbon leakage” occurs when production moves from one country to another resulting in higher net GHG emissions, for example where the production process in the new country is more GHG intensive.

GFL’s specific target is the insufficient nature, it argues, of the Impact Assessment that coincided with the amendments to the UK’s customs classifications and -tariffs resulting from the UK-AUS FTA.

Lang J ordered that the costs limits in CPR 46 should apply. [58-59] of the current judgment summarise her findings as

the judge decided at [12]-[14] that the present claim does fall within Art.9(3) and (4). She said that it was arguable that s.28 of the 2018 Act required the appellants to have regard to relevant international obligations, including the UNFCCC, and those obligations were directly concerned with environmental issues. The appellants were under obligations in UK national law to have proper regard to their environmental obligations under international law when making the 2023 Regulations. This was sufficient to bring the claim within the scope of Art. 9(1), applying a broad purposive approach.

The judge also took into account at [13] the nature of the alleged contravention. She was not persuaded that the appellants’ obligations only related to GHG emissions in the UK as opposed to Australia, in circumstances where the implementation of the FTA by the 2023 Regulations would promote a market for the importation of Australian produce into the UK with a risk of increased emissions in Australia. There is a public interest in the environmental issues raised by the claim and the scope of s.28 of the 2018 Act may be relevant to other free trade agreements which are being implemented.

The Court of appeal disagrees with the first instance judge.

Holgate LJ reminds parties first of the informative yet non-binding nature of both the findings of the Aarhus Compliance Committee, and the Guidance documents drawn up by the EU when the EU itself acceded to the Convention. He turn summarises the relevant interpretative provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties – VCLT, incl [5v2] in fine, with reference to A33 VLCT, the provision on authentic (language) versions of the Convention.

[74] ff he considers first “relating to”. That, “(and other similar connectors) shows that the nature and strength of the link will depend upon the surrounding language, the wider context of the legislation and its purpose.” Discussion of CJEU authorities not being of determinative help, he then [82] turns to the travaux préparatoires and the French text of the Aarhus Convention to find [88] that the French text confirms that “relating to” is used as a strong, not a loose or broad, connector:

The relevant legal provision of national law should be to do with, or be concerned with, the environment. This is consistent with saying that to fall within Art.9(3) the purpose of the legal provision in question should be for the protection or regulation of the environment. The preparation of the Convention shows that the Parties were not prepared to agree that Art.9(3) should apply to any claim or matter related to the environment or the protection of the environment.

Discussion of relevant case-law does not he decide help claimants, and [134] ‘the present case raises this issue: does Art.9(3) of the Aarhus Convention apply where a claim alleges that a defendant’s decision or act under a legal provision not relating to the environment is vitiated by a public law error in some way connected to the environment or an effect on the environment?’ He decides [141]

it cannot be assumed that the Court’s reasoning in Venn [Venn v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] 1 WLR 2328], which was specific to the nature of the well-established role played by the planning regime in environmental protection, is transferrable to open-ended statutory requirements to take into account relevant considerations in other legislation enacted for non-environmental purposes, such as funding for overseas projects, financial market controls or international trading arrangements.

and [148]

this is a challenge which amounts to allegations of breaches of public law principles and not any breach of this country’s law relating to the environment or environmental law. It therefore falls outside the scope of Art.9(3) of the Aarhus Convention. Any costs protection could only be considered through an application for a costs protection order.

Evidently the views of the Court of Appeal are debatable, and one imagines there might be more in the Aarhus travaux that might help claimants. For those interested in the domestic implementation of Treaty law, this is an interesting judgment.

Geert.

1/2 Cost caps, public interest litigationMeaning of "provisions of..national law relating to the environment" A9(3) Aarhus ConventionCustoms provisions in UK-Australia FTA with impact on Greenhouse Gas emissions[HMG] v Global Feedback [2025] EWCA Civ 624bailii.org/ew/cases/EWC…

— Geert Van Calster (@gavclaw.bsky.social) 2025-05-14T06:45:07.686Z