CJEU on Article 53 Brussels I bis (absence of ex officio verification of the existence of infringements to jurisdiction rules on consumers)

The Court of justice delivered this week (4 September 2019) its judgment in case C‑347/18 (Alessandro Salvoni v. Anna Maria Fiermonte), which is about Article 53 Brussels I bis and the absence of ex officio verification by the court of origin of the existence of infringements to jurisdiction rules which protect consumers:

It is available in the vast majority of EU Languages, albeit not in English. Here is the French version:

« L’article 53 du règlement (UE) no 1215/2012 […], lu en combinaison avec l’article 47 de la charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne, doit être interprété en ce sens qu’il s’oppose à ce que la juridiction d’origine saisie de la demande de délivrance du certificat prévu à cet article 53, en ce qui concerne une décision définitive, puisse vérifier d’office si les dispositions du chapitre II, section 4, de ce règlement ont été méconnues, afin d’informer le consommateur de la violation éventuellement constatée et de lui permettre d’évaluer en toute connaissance de cause la possibilité de faire usage de la voie de recours prévue à l’article 45 dudit règlement ».

Source: here

Advertisements

AG Saugmandsgaard Øe on the Rome Convention (Art. 1 and 5) and Rome I (Art. 1 and 6)

AG Saugmandsgaard Øe delivered his opinion on 5 September 2019 in case C‑272/18 (Verein für Konsumenteninformation v TVP Treuhand‑ und Verwaltungsgesellschaft für Publikumsfonds mbH & Co. KG), which is about the Rome Convention and Rome I. It is available in many EU Languages, albeit not in English. Here is the French version:

“1) L’article 1er, paragraphe 2, sous e), de la convention sur la loi applicable aux obligations contractuelles, ouverte à la signature à Rome le 19 juin 1980, et l’article 1er, paragraphe 2, sous f), du règlement (CE) no 593/2008 du Parlement européen et du Conseil, du 17 juin 2008, sur la loi applicable aux obligations contractuelles (Rome I), doivent être interprétés en ce sens que l’exclusion qu’ils prévoient, relative aux « questions relevant du droit des sociétés, associations et personnes morales », ne s’applique pas à des obligations contractuelles trouvant leur source dans un contrat de fiducie ayant pour objet la gestion d’une participation dans une société en commandite.

2) L’article 5, paragraphe 4, sous b), de la convention sur la loi applicable aux obligations contractuelles, ouverte à la signature à Rome le 19 juin 1980, et l’article 6, paragraphe 4, sous a), du règlement no 593/2008 doivent être interprétés en ce sens que l’exclusion qu’ils prévoient, relative au « contrat de fourniture de services lorsque les services dus au consommateur doivent être fournis exclusivement dans un pays autre que celui dans lequel il a sa résidence habituelle », ne s’applique pas à un contrat de fiducie dans le cadre duquel des services sont fournis par le professionnel au consommateur, dans le pays de résidence habituelle de ce dernier, à distance depuis le territoire d’un autre pays.

Continue reading

CJEU on Articles 3 and 5 of the Maintenance Regulation

The Court delivered on 5 September 2019 its judgment in Case C‑468/18 (R v P), which is about Articles 3 and 5 of the Maintenance Regulation:

“Article 3(a) and (d) and Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 […] must be interpreted as meaning that where there is an action before a court of a Member State which includes three claims concerning, respectively, the divorce of the parents of a minor child, parental responsibility in respect of that child and the maintenance obligation with regard to that child, the court ruling on the divorce, which has declared that it has no jurisdiction to rule on the claim concerning parental responsibility, nevertheless has jurisdiction to rule on the claim concerning the maintenance obligation with regard to that child where it is also the court for the place where the defendant is habitually resident or the court before which the defendant has entered an appearance, without contesting the jurisdiction of that court”.

Source: here

Signature of United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation

“46 States, including the world’s two largest economies, the United States and China, and three of the four largest economies in Asia, China, India and South Korea, met in Singapore today and inked a new international treaty on mediation that will enable the enforcement of mediated settlement agreements amongst the signatory countries. Singapore […] was the first signatory of the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation, also known as the Singapore Convention on Mediation, when it opened for signature in Singapore today. […]

Continue reading

CJEU on Article 7.2 Brussels I bis (claim for compensation for damage caused by a cartel)

The Court of Justice delivered this week (29 July 2019) its judgment in case C‑451/18 (Tibor-Trans Fuvarozó és Kereskedelmi Kft v DAF Trucks NV), which is about Brussels I bis:

“Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 […] must be interpreted as meaning that, in an action for compensation for damage caused by an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, consisting, inter alia, of collusive arrangements on pricing and gross price increases for trucks, ‘the place where the harmful event occurred’ covers, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the place where the market which is affected by that infringement is located, that is to say, the place where the market prices were distorted and in which the victim claims to have suffered that damage, even where the action is directed against a participant in the cartel at issue with whom that victim had not established contractual relations”.

Source: here

AG Szpunar on Directive 96/71 (posting of workers)

AG Szpunar delivered this week (29 July 2019) his opinion in case C‑16/18 (Michael Dobersberger joined parties: Magistrat der Stadt Wien), which is about (notably) Directive 96/71:

“Article 1(3) of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services does not cover services such as the provision of food and drink to passengers, on-board service or cleaning services by the workers of a service-providing undertaking established in the Member State of posting in performance of a contract with a railway undertaking established in the host Member State when these services are provided on international trains which also travel through the host Member State.

Continue reading

AG Szpunar on the European Account Preservation Order Regulation

AG Szpunar delivered this week (29 July 2019) his opinion in case C‑555/18. It is not yet available in English, by contrast with most other languages. Here is the French version:

« L’article 4, point 10, du règlement (UE) nº 655/2014 du Parlement européen et du Conseil, du 15 mai 2014 […] doit être interprété en ce sens qu’une ordonnance d’injonction de payer […] ne constitue pas un acte authentique au sens de ce règlement dans la mesure où le contenu de celle-ci, en faisant abstraction du bien-fondé de la créance, se résume en l’obligation pour le débiteur de désintéresser le créancier et, en conséquence, l’authenticité de cet acte ne porte pas sur le contenu de celui-ci au sens souhaité par le législateur de l’Union.

Dans le système du règlement nº 655/2014, un titre doit être exécutoire dans l’État membre où il a été rendu, approuvé, conclu ou établi afin de pouvoir considérer que le créancier a obtenu un titre (une décision, une transaction judiciaire, un acte authentique) exigeant du débiteur le paiement de la créance, au sens de l’article 5, sous b), de ce règlement ».

Source : here

AG Szpunar on the Maintenance Regulation (including on the refusal to exercise jurisdiction in favour of a Court better placed)

AG Szpunar delivered this week (29 July 2019) his opinion in case C‑468/18 (R v P), which is about the Maintenance Regulation, including by contrast with Brussels II bis:

“(1) Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the application relating to the maintenance obligation is ancillary to an application relating to parental responsibility, within the meaning of Article 3(d) of that regulation, does not have the effect of precluding the jurisdiction of the court of a Member State based on Article 3(a) of the regulation or, failing that, on Article 5 of thereof.

Continue reading