Agrégateur de flux

The International Max Planck Research School for Successful Dispute Resolution in International Law (IMPRS-SDR) is accepting applications for PhD proposals within the research areas of the Department of International Law and Dispute Resolution and the Department of European and Comparative Procedural Law to fill a total of 5 funded PhD positions at the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural law.

The IMPRS-SDR was established in 2009 to bring together academics and seasoned practitioners with excellent PhD candidates in international dispute settlement to examine and compare international dispute resolution from a legal and interdisciplinary perspective. It is a collaborative effort of several prestigious research institutions in Germany and Luxembourg, namely, the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law, Heidelberg University, the University of Luxembourg, the Max Planck Foundation for International Peace and the Rule of Law gGmbH, and the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law.

In addition to providing a stimulating research environment, the IMPRS-SDR strives to furnish PhD candidates with theoretical and practical insights into the many facets of international dispute resolution.

Selected PhD candidates will receive full-time research contracts of initially two years, with a possible extension. They are embedded in one of the Departments and its activities while also participating in activities organized by the IMPRS-SDR.

For further information on the admission criteria and the application process, as well as to submit your application, please visit: https://www.mpi.lu/imprs-sdr/call-for-applications/2018/ . Closing date for applications is 31 August 2018.

A short post on manufactured nanomaterials and data. (Readers will be aware that although the blog focuses mostly on litigation, I dabble in regulatory research and practice, too. And that nanotechnology regulation has been a consistent interest of mine).

Thank you Lynn Bergeson and Carla Hutton for flagging the study by EUON on data collection and reporting methodology for manufactured nanomaterials. EUON, the European Union’s Observatory for Nanomaterials, is hosted by ECHA – the EU’s Chemicals Agency. The study’s purpose is made clear on p.15 (only) of the report: the overall context is for the regulators to have an overview of the heterogeneous market for nanomaterials. In order to do so, the study measures the reliability etc of existing reports and studies on the nanomaterials market. It concludes that a Delphi study of the existing research would be required.

For those of you with an interest in information flows and the transparency of data, the implications are clear: part of the exercise of regulating new technologies is to know what is out there; and manufacturers’ data clearly are not making it into the public domain in a transparent and coherent manner. Consider alongside this report, for instance the proposed US EPA rule on transparency in regulator science.

Geert.

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel d'Aix-en-Provence - 3e chambre, 11 janvier 2018

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Paris - pôle 5 chambre 10, 08 janvier 2018

Tribunal de grande instance de Rennes, 01 décembre 2017

Cour d'appel d'Amiens, chambre correctionnelle, 27 septembre 2017

La Cour de justice de l’Union européenne (CJUE) juge que, lorsqu’un citoyen de l’Union retourne dans l’État membre dont il possède la nationalité, ce dernier doit favoriser l’octroi d’une autorisation de séjour au partenaire ressortissant d’un État tiers, avec lequel le citoyen a une relation durable.

en lire plus

Former Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), Hans van Loon, has just published a very interesting article on “Principles and building blocks for a global legal framework for transnational civil litigation in environmental matters” in the Uniform Law Review, Vol. 23, Issue 2, June 2018, pp. 298–318.  An abstract is available at https://doi.org/10.1093/ulr/uny020.

He suggests a number of basic structural components – building blocks – for a global legal framework for transnational civil litigation in environmental matters such as: jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement, and judicial and administrative communication and co-operation (pp. 316-318).

Of particular note is the reference to Article 5(1)(j) of the Hague Draft Convention on the Judgments Project, which provides that a judgment is eligible for recognition and enforcement if one of the following requirements is met –

(j) the judgment ruled on a non-contractual obligation arising from death, physical injury, damage to or loss of tangible property, and the act or omission directly causing such harm occurred in the State of origin, irrespective of where that harm occurred.

The author notes the possible challenges that may arise when the harmful event occurred elsewhere (neither in the defendant’s home – Art. 5(1)(a) of the Draft Convention  – , nor in the State of Origin where the act or omission directly causing such harm occurred, see p. 315) and makes recommendations. For more information on this provision and its narrow scope, please refer to the Preliminary Explanatory Report of the Judgments Convention  (paragraph 162bis, pp. 34-35).

Time to tackle the judgments left over from the exam queue. I reviewed Bobek AG’s Opinion in C-27/17 flyLAL here. The CJEU held early July.

Pro memoria: the AG’s suggested for locus damni not place of financial loss, rather the place within the markets affected by the competition law infringement where the claimant alleges loss of sales: damage located in a Mozaik fashion in other words; for locus delicti commissi with full jurisdiction, the AG distinguishes between Article 101 TFEU (place of the conclusion of the agreement) and 102 TFEU (place where the predatory prices were offered and applied); finally with respect to (now) Article 7(5), the activities of a branch: offering the fixed prices or otherwise having been instrumental in concluding contracts for services at those prices suffices for that branch to have participated in the tort.

The Court itself,

• for locus damni reminds us of the findings in Marinari (which tempered the implications of Bier), implying that one needs to decide whether loss of income of the kind alleged by flyLAL may be regarded as ‘initial damage’, or whether it constitutes solely consequential financial damage which cannot, in itself, lead to a forum under Article 7(2). The Court, like the AG, opts for Mozaik, referring inter alia to its judgment in Concurrences: each place where the loss of income consisting in loss of sales occurred, that is to say, the place of the market which is affected by that conduct and on which the victim claims to have suffered those losses, opens up partial jurisdiction. As I noted in my review of the Opinion, this interpretation aids the tortfeasor: locus damni leading to shattered jurisdiction facilitates anti-competitive behaviour.
• for locus delicti commissi, under Article 101 TFEU (cartels), with reference to CDC, the CJEU opts for courts for the place in which the agreement was definitively concluded: this truly is extraordinary for it allows for forum shopping by the cartel participants. For Article 102 TFEU (abuse of dominant position)
  • Prima facie at 52 there is one consolation for those suffering anti-competitive behaviour: the Court holds that the event giving rise to the damage in the case of abuse of a dominant position is not based on an agreement, but rather on the implementation of that abuse, that is to say, the acts performed by the dominant undertaking to put the abuse into practice, in particular by offering and applying predatory pricing in the market concerned. That would seem to suggest full jurisdiction for each of those places where the pricing is offered and applied. However in that para 52 the Court does not verbatim links this to jurisdiction: this it does do in
  • Para 53: ‘If it were to be established that the events giving rise to the main proceedings were part of a common strategy intended to oust flyLAL from the market of flights to and from Vilnius Airport and that those events all contributed to giving rise to the damage alleged, it would be for the referring court to identify the event of most importance in implementing such a strategy out of the chain of events at issue in the main proceedings.‘ Courts holding on jurisdiction must not delve too deep into the substance of the case but still have to employ, without looking too deeply at the merits of the case, the lex causae for the anti-competitive behaviour (per Rome II) to identify that event of most importance. In para 54 too the Court emphasises the need to limit the amount of potential jurisdictions (reference here is also made to Universal Music). I cannot be sure: does the combination of paras 52 and 53 suggest that the Court does not accept jurisdiction for all places where the pricing is offered and applied?
• Finally with respect to Article 7(5), the CJEU at 64 holds that the national courts must in particular review whether the activities carried out by the branch included actual acts of offering and applying the predatory pricing alleged and whether such participation in the alleged abuse of a dominant position was sufficiently significant to be regarded as a close link with the dispute in the main proceedings. Separate accounts are not required to conduct that exercise (at 65).

Essentially therefore the Court firmly pulls the Brussels I Recast’s ‘predictability’ card. This is in the interest of companies behaving anti-competitively. I do not read in this judgment a definitive answer however for as I suggested, the combination of paras 52 ff is simply not clear.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law), 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.11.2