Cabo Verde accedes to the 2007 Hague Child Support Convention

Earlier this month (9 January 2024), the Republic of Cabo Verde acceded to the Hague Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance, which will enter into force for it on 12 January 2025 [Note: this is not our reading of Article 60 of the Convention]. With the accession of Cabo Verde, 49 States and the European Union will be bound by the 2007 Child Support Convention.

Source: https://www.hcch.net/en/news-archive/details/?varevent=955

CJEU on Articles 6 and 7 Directive 93/13

The Court of Justice delivered yesterday its judgment in case C‑531/22 (Getin Noble Bank S.A.), where it has, once more, defended the right of the national judge to, ex officio, examine the potential unfairness of a clause in a contract concluded by a consumer (Directive 93/13).

The decision is available in all EU languages, albeit not in English. Here is the French version:

“1) L’article 6, paragraphe 1, et l’article 7, paragraphe 1, de la directive 93/13/CEE du Conseil, du 5 avril 1993, concernant les clauses abusives dans les contrats conclus avec les consommateurs, doivent être interprétés en ce sens que : ils s’opposent à une réglementation nationale prévoyant qu’une juridiction nationale ne peut procéder d’office à un examen du caractère éventuellement abusif des clauses figurant dans un contrat et en tirer les conséquences, lorsqu’elle contrôle une procédure d’exécution forcée fondée sur une décision prononçant une injonction de payer définitive revêtue de l’autorité de la chose jugée :

– si cette réglementation ne prévoit pas un tel examen au stade de la délivrance de l’injonction de payer ou

– lorsqu’un tel examen est prévu uniquement au stade de l’opposition formée contre l’injonction de payer concernée, s’il existe un risque non négligeable que le consommateur concerné ne forme pas l’opposition requise soit en raison du délai particulièrement court prévu à cette fin, soit eu égard aux frais qu’une action en justice entraînerait par rapport au montant de la dette contestée, soit parce que la réglementation nationale ne prévoit pas l’obligation que soient communiquées à ce consommateur toutes les informations nécessaires pour lui permettre de déterminer l’étendue de ses droits.

AG Emiliou on Articles 71 and 45 Brussels I bis

On 14 December 2023, AG Emiliou delivered his opinion in case C‑90/22 (‘Gjensidige’ ADB), which is about Brussels I bis, more precisely Articles 71 and 45, and the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR).

The context: A “dispute arose following a theft of cargo during its transportation from the Netherlands to Lithuania. The insurer concerned claimed compensation from the carrier and it did so in Lithuania, relying on a choice-of-court agreement contained in the contract of carriage.

5. However, at that point in time, the carrier had already initiated judicial proceedings in the Netherlands, with the aim of establishing that its liability in this particular context was limited. Before granting that claim, the Netherlands court affirmed its jurisdiction by applying one of the jurisdictional rules contained in the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (‘the CMR’), despite the choice-of-court agreement referred to above, which, from the point of view of that court, could not exclude the other (alternative) grounds of jurisdiction set out in the CMR.

6. Following recognition by the Lithuanian courts of that judgment, [Gjensidige, an insurance company that had insured the consignment and made an insurance payment] filed an appeal in cassation before the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania, Lithuania), the referring court. It argues that recognition of the judgment of the Netherlands court is at odds with Regulation No 1215/2012, as that regulation establishes, in principle, the exclusivity of the jurisdiction resulting from a choice-of-court agreement.

7. In those circumstances, the referring court wonders, first, which rules of jurisdiction apply. It notes that Regulation No 1215/2012 confers primacy of application to rules laid down in a specialised international convention, such as the CMR. Nevertheless, it doubts whether such precedence may permit a choice-of-court agreement to be disregarded, in view of the enhanced protection accorded to those agreements by Regulation No 1215/2012. Second, it seeks clarification on whether this increased protection must result in the recognition of the judgment of the Netherlands court being refused. Although Regulation No 1215/2012 does not expressly allow for such an approach, the referring court enquires whether broader interpretation thereof is called for so as to safeguard, in essence, the intentions of the parties, as documented in the choice-of-court agreement at issue”.

CJEU on Article 7 Directive 93/13

The Court of Justice delivered on 23 November 2023 its judgment in case C‑321/22 (ZL, KU, KM v Provident Polska S.A.), which is about Article 7 Directive 93/13 (notably):

“Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13, read in the light of the principle of effectiveness, must be interpreted as precluding a national law which, as interpreted in the case-law, requires, in order for a consumer’s action for a declaration that an unfair term in a contract concluded with a seller or supplier is unenforceable to be upheld, proof of an interest in bringing proceedings, where that interest is regarded as being absent where the consumer may bring an action for the recovery of sums unduly paid, or where the consumer may raise that unenforceability as part of his or her defence to a counter-claim brought against him or her by that seller or supplier on the basis of that term.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=280068&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=10873860

AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona on Article 19 TEU

AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona delivered on 23 November 2023 his opinion in case C‑634/22, which is about Article 19 TEU and the abolition of a specialised Court (in that case a criminal one but the opinion seems equally applicable to a civil and commercial Court, hence its inclusion on this blog).

The opinion: “The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a reform of the judicial system of a Member State according to which a specialised criminal court is abolished and its jurisdiction transferred to a different, ordinary, court, and which provides at the same time that the criminal cases being dealt with in the abolished court and in which a hearing has been held will continue to be heard by the formation that had jurisdiction until that time.

Nor does it preclude, in the context of that reform of the judicial system, the reassignment of the judges of the abolished court to other courts with the same rank, on the basis of objective criteria free of any suspicion of arbitrariness”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=juridiction%2Bp%25C3%25A9nale%2Bsuppression%2B&docid=280082&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=10883304#ctx1

CJEU on Article 24 Brussels I bis

The Court of Justice delivered on 16 November 2023 its judgment in case C‑497/22 (EM v Roompot Service BV), which is about Article 24 Brussels I bis.

The context: “On 23 June 2020, EM, made a booking, via the internet on the website of Roompot Service, for a bungalow at the Waterpark Zwartkruis holiday park, situated at Noardburgum (Netherlands), for the period from 31 December 2020 to 4 January 2021 for a group of nine people who were members of more than two different households.

7 The booking was for a total rental price of EUR 1 902.80, which EM paid in full, and included the provision of bed linen and cleaning at the end of the stay

8 The water park has bungalows located directly on a lake, each with a separate jetty. Boats and canoes can be hired for an additional charge.

9 Roompot Service informed EM by email, prior to arrival and at her request, that the waterpark was open during the period of her booking despite the COVID-19 pandemic, but that, due to the rules in force in the Netherlands, it was only possible for her to stay in the accommodation with her family and a maximum of two people from another household in one bungalow. Roompot Service also offered EM the opportunity to rebook her stay for a later date.

10 Since EM did not stay at the accommodation and did not rebook her stay, she was repaid the amount of EUR 300 by Roompot Service.

11 EM brought an action against Roompot Service before the Amtsgericht Neuss (Local Court, Neuss, Germany) seeking repayment of the remainder of the rental price, in the amount of EUR 1 602.80, plus interest and costs. Roompot Service contested the international jurisdiction of the German courts to hear such an action.

12 By judgment of 1 October 2021, the Amtsgericht Neuss (Local Court, Neuss) dismissed the action as unfounded.

13 EM lodged an appeal before the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Regional Court, Düsseldorf, Germany), the referring court.

14 That court is uncertain whether Netherlands courts have exclusive international jurisdiction to hear the case in the main proceedings on the basis of the first subparagraph of Article 24(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012”.

AG Collins on Article 25 Brussels I bis

AG Collins delivered on 16 November 2023 his opinion in joined cases C‑345/22 to C‑347/22 (Maersk A/S), which are about Article 25 Brussels I bis.

The context: “Each of these actions is a claim for damages on foot of the partial loss of goods transported by sea. They raise the issue as to the conditions under which a jurisdiction clause in a contract for the carriage of goods by sea evidenced by a bill of lading may be enforced against a third party that subsequently acquired those goods, thereby becoming a third-party holder of that bill of lading”.

The opinion: “(1) Article 25(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 […] must be interpreted as meaning that a jurisdiction clause agreed between a carrier and a shipper which is incorporated in a bill of lading is enforceable against a third-party holder of the bill of lading if, on acquiring that bill, it succeeded to the shipper’s rights and obligations. It is for the court seised of the matter to answer that question in accordance with national substantive law as established by applying its rules of private international law. The rule in that provision that the substantive validity of a jurisdiction clause is to be assessed in accordance with the law of the Member State of the court or courts designated in that clause does not govern the enforceability of a jurisdiction clause incorporated in a bill of lading against a third-party holder of that bill.

CJEU on Article 7 Directive 93/13

The Court of Justice delivered on 9 November 2023 its judgment in case C‑598/21 (SP, CI v Všeobecná úverová banka a.s.), which is about Article 7 Directive 93/13 (notably):

“Article 3(1), Article 4(1), Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, read in the light of Articles 7 and 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the judicial review of the unfairness of an acceleration clause contained in a consumer credit agreement does not take account of the proportionality of the option given to the seller or supplier to exercise his or her right under that clause, in the light of criteria relating, in particular, to the extent of the consumer’s failure to fulfil his contractual obligations, such as the amount of the instalments which have not been paid in relation to the total amount of the credit and the duration of the contract, and to the possibility that the implementation of that clause may result in the seller or supplier being able to recover the sums due under that clause by selling, without any legal process, the consumer’s family home”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=279485&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=10873860

AG Pikamäe on Article 19 TEU

AG Pikamäe delivered on 26 October 2023 his opinion in joined cases C‑554/21, C‑622/21 and C‑727/21 (Hann-Invest), which are about Article 19 TEU:

“The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union must be interpreted as not precluding national rules and practices which, at the deliberation stage of court proceedings at second instance concerning a dispute that has been the subject of a decision by the judicial panel seised, provide for:

–      the referral to an enlarged formation by the president of the court or the president of a specialised section, in the light of that decision and where the consistency of the court’s case-law may be or is being undermined, for the purpose of the adoption, by majority vote, of a common position as to the general and abstract interpretation of the applicable legal rule, previously a matter of debate between the parties, which the formation initially seised must take into account for the purpose of resolving the dispute as to the substance;

CJEU on Articles 22 and 75 of the Succession Regulation

The Court of Justice delivered today its judgment in case C‑21/22 (OP v Notariusz Justyna Gawlica), which is about the Succession Regulation:

“1. Article 22 of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 […] must be interpreted as meaning that a third-country national residing in a Member State of the European Union may choose the law of that third State as the law governing his or her succession as a whole.