Flux européens

Alphabet e.a.
Concurrence
Le refus d’une entreprise en position dominante d’assurer l’interopérabilité de sa plateforme avec une application d’une autre entreprise, qui deviendrait ainsi plus attractive, peut être abusif

A quick note on Hugues Falys, FIAN, Greenpeace and Ligue des droits humains v Total Energies SE (domiciled at France), in which submissions are being exchanged and hearings are scheduled for 19 and 26 November 2025. A summary of the claim is reported here. In essence, the Belgian Farmer is seeking damages for harm done to the farming business due to climate change, and an injunction seeking to prohibit Total form further investing in fossil fuel operations.

The case has been lodged with the commercial court at  Doornik /Tournai, one assumes the territorially relevant court on argued locus damni grounds. Of interest is that an appeal will be heard at the Court of Appeal at Bergen /Mons, which has a specialised environmental chamber.

It is the kind of claim in which one can imagine the corporate defendant trying to outgun the claimant on the private international law issues, here: locus damni /locus delicti commissi jurisdiction under Article 7(2) Brussels Ia, and applicable law under lex ecologia – Article 7 Rome II, cq impact of Article 4 Rome II.

Re the jurisdictional issues see likely Total use of an argument which I flagged here: viz an emerging corporate strategy to deflect A7(2) forum damni jurisdiction, the argument that a causal link between the damage and the alleged shortcoming of the defendant needs to be shown in the claim form itself for it to ground jurisdiction.

Geert.

 

On 12 December 2024 the University of Milan hosted a conference on The Enforcement of the ESG Principles in a Transnational Dimension: Jurisdiction and Applicable Law, under the scientific direction of Stefania Bariatti, Luigi Fumagalli, Zeno Crespi Reghizzi, Michele Grassi, Anna Liebman.

I was asked to address jurisdictional issues for environmental law claims, and promised to upload my speaking notes the next day. Err, that turned out to be a bit later for I entirely forgot – and have now remembered. Here are the notes.

Geert.

 

The CJEU held earlier this morning in C‑393/23 Athenian Brewery SA, Heineken NV v Macedonian Thrace Brewery SA (no language versions available at the time of posting than Dutch and French).

My post on Kokott AG’s Opinion is here. The AG all in all supported a ready acceptance of forum connexitatis in competition law cases – in the case at issue a follow-on damages claim, filed in the mother corporation’s domicile, jointly against the daughter against whom a national competition authority had found a competition law infringement.

The Court is somewhat more cautious.

[26] The finding in CDC that A8(1)’s requirement of ‘same situation of law and fact’ is presumed to be met when various corporations have been held by a Decision of the European Commission to have violated competition law and are now pursued in the A4 court of one of them, also applies [27] when a mother and daughter corporation are pursued on the assumption they are part of one and the same economic unity. Once that unity established, it leads to joint and several liability in EU competition law [29].

[30-31] The risk of irreconcilable judgments  increases in the event of bifurcation of claims against the mother corporation and related undertakings when it is not the EC but rather a national competition authority which has found an infringement seeing [32] as the Damages Directive 2014/104 only instructs national authorities to take a finding of infringement by another Member State as prima facie, not binding evidence of such infringement on their own territory.

[39] ff the economic unit theory in competition law can and ought to be extended to follow-on damages claims so as to preserve the effet utile of EU competition law.

[41] ff focusing then on Brussels Ia, the national court’s jurisdictional assessment in the context of A8(1) is not one of intense engagement with the facts let alone the merits of the claim. [43] The claims by the defendant must be given proper attention however the court seized can presume that the information furnished by the claimant as to the alleged tort, is correct.

[45] all in all, the room for manoeuvre for the court seized in the context of an A8(1) claim aimed at joint and several liability, is limited to assessing whether decisive influence by the mother corporation on the related corporation, is excluded. Hence [46] the defendant corporations must be given the opportunity, at the jurisdictional level, to show only that

either the mother corporation neither directly nor indirectly holds all or almost all of the capital of the related undertaking, or

that it did not hold decisive influence despite holding all or almost all of the capital.

In summary therefore while the court seized in a claim for joint and several liability will not be able to hold a mini trial on the alleged tort, it must engage with the corporations’ arguments on capital control and /or decisive influence.  That is not a large window for extensive delay and argumentation yet neither is it the kind of swift A8(1) check which in my view the AG had in mind in her opinion.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed. 2024, 2.516.

 

Slagelse Almennyttige Boligselskab Afdeling Schackenborgvænge
Principes du droit communautaire
Avocate générale Ćapeta : la législation danoise en matière de logement public dans les zones en transformation constitue une discrimination directe fondée sur un critère ethnique

Alchaster II
Mandats d’arrêt émis au titre de l’ACC avec le Royaume-Uni : selon l’avocat général Spielmann, les modifications apportées aux règles relatives à la libération conditionnelle ne relèvent pas, en principe, de la notion de « peine plus forte » au sens de la charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne

Lexitor
Environnement et consommateurs
Contrats de crédit à la consommation : en cas de non-respect de l’obligation d’information, une banque peut être privée de son droit aux intérêts

Engagement solennel de trois membres de la Commission européenne

Servis-Terminal LLC v Drelle [2025] EWCA Civ 62 is an interesting case highlighting the difference between recognition and enforcement, and the circumstances in which one may not need formal recognition of a foreign court’s finding, in order effectively to enforce that finding. 

Can a bankruptcy petition be presented when payment ordered by foreign Court has not been made yet foreign judgment has not been sought to be enforced? The first instance judge had held [Drelle v Servis-Terminal LLC [2024] EWHC 521 (Ch)] that the fact that the Judgment had not been the subject of recognition proceedings in this jurisdiction did not prevent it from being the basis of a bankruptcy petition. 

Newey LJ [40], reversing, confirms that “(p)lainly, a foreign judgment can be determinative on a point even in the absence of recognition or registration.” Referring to Dicey Rule 45, the Court of Appeal recalls that as a general principle a foreign judgment “has no direct operation in England” and [39] “[a] judgment creditor seeking to enforce a foreign judgment in England at common law cannot do so by direct execution of the judgment” but “must bring an action on the foreign judgment”. Lord Justice Newey then uses a sword and shield analogy: [41]

The principle that a foreign judgment “has no direct operation in England” reflects the common law’s aversion to enforcing a foreign exercise of sovereign power. As Professor Briggs has explained, “if a foreign adjudication and judgment is understood as being an act of state sovereignty, … it is regarded as completely effective within the territory of the sovereign, and as completely unenforceable outside it”: see paragraph 21 above. That logic suggests that any use of an unrecognised and unregistered judgment as a “sword”, including presentation of a bankruptcy petition founded on it, is objectionable.

The ‘revenue rule’ (famously and extensively entertained in SKAT) [42]

has a similar root. Professor Briggs referred to it as “a particular manifestation of a more fundamental rule, that an assertion or exercise of the sovereign right of a foreign state will not be enforced by an English court”: see paragraph 21 above. In Solo Partners, Lord Lloyd-Jones thought that the “revenue rule” was to be explained on the basis that “enforcement of a claim for taxes is but an extension of the sovereign power which imposed the taxes, and … an assertion of sovereign authority by one state within the territory of another, as distinct from a patrimonial claim by a foreign sovereign, is (treaty or convention apart) contrary to all concepts of independent sovereignties”: see paragraph 20 above.

Further authorities re discussed however Newey LJ’s mind is firm on the ‘shield and sword’ issue: [55] an unrecognised foreign judgment, which …involves an exercise of sovereign power [similar to a foreign tax not giving rise to a debt that can be the foundation of a bankruptcy petition] cannot form the basis of such petition. Of note! Geert. https://x.com/GAVClaw/status/1886740770033438751

Russmedia Digital et Inform Media Press
Liberté d'établissement
Commerce électronique et RGPD : l’avocat général Szpunar clarifie les responsabilités de l’exploitant d’une place de marché en ligne

A short note (on the day the UKSC appeal in MSC Flaminia is being heard) on the CJEU judgment in C‑188/23 Land Niedersachsen v Conti  11. Container Schiffahrts-GmbH & Co. KG MS ‘MSC Flaminia’.

The Court essentially followed the Opinion of Capeta AG which I discussed here. The operative part reads

Article 1(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste

must be interpreted as meaning that the exclusion from the scope of that regulation that that provision provides for, pertaining to the waste generated on board a ship following damage sustained by that ship on the high seas until that waste is offloaded in order to be recovered or disposed of, no longer applies to the waste which remains on board that ship in order for it to be shipped, together with that ship, for recovery or disposal, after part of that waste has been offloaded in a safe port in order to be recovered or disposed of, that interpretation being in conformity with Article 1(4) of the Convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal, signed in Basel on 22 March 1989, approved on behalf of the European Economic Community by Council Decision 93/98/EEC of 1 February 1993.

The CJEU applies the VCLT’s interpretative matrix holding it leads to the Basel Convention having to be applied teleologically, and it also reminds us [58] of the ling-standing CJEU authority that “in interpreting a provision of EU law, it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also its context and the objectives pursued by the legislation of which it forms part”. It then essentially repeats the AG’s lines of analysis that while exemption from notification etc may be justified in the light of the immediate aftermath of an incident at sea, but is no longer justified once the ship had docked and the captain etc can properly assess the various implications of what has happened.

All in all a sensible judgment.

Geert.

Handbook of EU Waste Law, 2nd ed. 2015, Oxford, OUP, Chapter 3, 3.27 ff.

Ryanair / Commission (TAP II ; aide au sauvetage ; COVID-19)
Aide d'État
Le Tribunal rejette le recours de Ryanair contre la décision de la Commission approuvant de nouveau l’aide au sauvetage à TAP dans le contexte de la pandémie de Covid-19

Pologne / Commission
Droit institutionnel
Réforme de la justice polonaise de 2019 : le Tribunal confirme que la Pologne doit payer un montant total d’environ 320 200 000 euros au titre de l’astreinte prononcée par la Cour de justice au cours de la procédure en manquement

Commission / Courtois e.a.
Droit institutionnel
L’obligation de la Commission de divulguer l’identité des membres de l’équipe de négociation pour l’achat anticipé de vaccins contre la Covid-19 est suspendue provisoirement, dans l’attente de l’arrêt de la Cour

Keren
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Protection internationale : le droit de l’Union ne s’oppose pas, sous certaines conditions, à ce que les bénéficiaires d’une protection internationale doivent réussir un examen d’intégration civique

Asociația Inițiativa pentru Justiție / Commission
Adhésion de nouveaux Etats
État de droit : le recours d'une association professionnelle de procureurs roumains contre la décision de la Commission abrogeant la décision instituant le mécanisme de coopération et de vérification est rejeté comme irrecevable

ASG 2
Concurrence
Réparation du préjudice causé par une entente : une réglementation nationale empêchant une action groupée en recouvrement peut enfreindre le droit de l’Union

Engagement solennel de la présidente et des membres de la Commission européenne devant la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne

I reviewed the first instance judgment in Clifford Change v SocGen here. Soc Gen have unsuccessfully appealed, see Clifford Chance LLP & Anor v Societe Generale SA (Rev1) [2025] EWCA Civ 14, with Phillips LJ not taking up much space to do so.

Viz the question whether Clifford Change LLP was bound, he holds [46] that the pleaded basis of the core of SocGen’s appeal on this aspect is that the Judge erred as a matter of interpretation (emphasis in the original) of the Framework Agreements, asserting that the Judge failed to give effect to the true intention of the parties (ditto) to those agreements that all Clifford Chance entities would be bound by their terms. [47] ‘However, it is entirely clear that the Judge did not decide the question of whether CC LLP was bound by the Framework Agreements as a matter of interpretation, but on the basis that SocGen did not have a good arguable case that CC LLP was, or became, a party to them.’

In other words SocGen’s appeal was held to be questioning the judge’s factual findings on authority to bind parties, findings which it was not allowed to challenge in the appeal. Entirely obiter, Phillips LJ does review those findings [57] ff, holding obiter [60] that SocGen has failed to demonstrate that that evaluation was plainly wrong.

On Clifford Chance Europe being bound, the grounds of appeal are as follows ([65-66]):

SocGen first challenges the Judge’s assumption that there is no substantive claim against CC Europe. SocGen points out that the letter of claim addressed to CC Europe asserted a claim on the basis that CC Europe was the “dominus litis”, a French law claim based on the concept that CC Europe had a supervisory role in relation to the conduct of the Goldas Litigation by CC LLP. SocGen further emphasises that the Judge did not have evidence of French law in that regard, and that in any event the pleadings in the French proceedings have not closed. SocGen contends that if CC Europe wishes to obtain a negative declaration in respect of its liability for such a claim, it is contractually obliged to do so in France, where proceedings on the same issue are already underway.

The second challenge is to the Judge’s concern that staying CC Europe’s claim in this jurisdiction would lead to a multiplicity and/or a fragmentation of proceedings. SocGen points out that there is already and will continue to be a multiplicity of proceedings, pointing out that (i) that position was caused by the respondents’ decision to seek negative declarations in England when proceedings were being brought in France; and (ii) such multiplicity was foreseeable by the parties when (contrary to SocGen’s case) CC LLP was implicitly retained separately and on different terms as to governing law than had been agreed between CC Europe and SocGen.

However Phillips LJ holds [67] that the Judge was right to find that there are strong reasons not to stay CC Europe’s claim in E&W:

There is no doubt that SocGen’s primary and substantive claim is against CC LLP, being the firm that was retained in relation to the Goldas Litigation and whose actions or inactions are now alleged to have been negligent. That is apparent from the letter of claim addressed to CC Europe, all the faults and negligence alleged being those in the conduct of the Goldas Litigation by CC LLP. The Judge determined that England is the appropriate forum for determination of that dispute. I accept that the Judge may have gone too far in concluding (at this stage and on the evidence before him) that SocGen does not have a genuine claim against CC Europe under French law. But even if there is some parasitic claim against CC Europe based on a “supervisory” role (SocGen having failed to adduce any evidence as to the existence of such a claim, let alone to explain its nature and effect), it is plainly desirable that it be determined in the same proceedings as the dispute between SocGen and CC LLP, namely, in these proceedings in the appropriate forum. There are strong reasons why CC Europe should not be debarred from seeking a declaration together with CC LLP in England, the effect of staying its claim being to require CC Europe to defend itself separately in France in respect of the very actions of CC LLP which will be the subject of these proceedings.

The first hearing in Soc Gen’s French proceedings took place in March 2024. [68] the Court of Appeal suggests a possible course of action for the French Proceedings, both on behalf of SocGen and the French court itself:

It is true that the French proceedings may continue notwithstanding the Judge’s order, and that may be a result of Clifford Chance entities having bifurcated their contractual relations with SocGen and having then initiated proceedings in this jurisdiction. But that is not a sufficient reason to fragment these proceedings before the plainly appropriate forum. There must be a realistic expectation that SocGen, and indeed the French court, will be reluctant to duplicate in France proceedings in England as to the alleged negligent conduct by English solicitors of Commercial Court proceedings in London.

Geert.

 

Royal Football Club Seraing
Arbitrage sportif : selon l’avocate générale Ćapeta, les sentences du Tribunal arbitral du sport doivent pouvoir faire l’objet d’un contrôle complet par les juridictions nationales afin de vérifier la compatibilité des règles de la FIFA avec le droit de l’Union