CJEU (Grand Chamber) on Article 7(2) Brussels I bis (2021)

The CJEU (Grand Chamber) delivered on 21 December 2021 its judgment in case C‑251/20 (Gtflix Tv), which is about Brussels I bis:

« Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 […] must be interpreted as meaning that a person who, considering that his or her rights have been infringed by the dissemination of disparaging comments concerning him or her on the internet, seeks not only the rectification of the information and the removal of the content placed online concerning him or her but also compensation for the damage resulting from that placement may claim, before the courts of each Member State in which those comments are or were accessible, compensation for the damage suffered in the Member State of the court seised, even though those courts do not have jurisdiction to rule on the application for rectification and removal ».

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=251510&mode=req&pageIndex=1&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&cid=5320006

CJEU (Grand Chamber) on Regulation No 2271/96 (2021)

The CJEU (Grand Chamber) delivered on 21 December 2021 its judgment in case C‑124/20 (Bank Melli Iran v Telekom Deutschland GmbH), which is about Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 (Protection against the effects of the extraterritorial application of legislation adopted by a third country):

« 1. The first paragraph of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 of 22 November 1996 […] must be interpreted as prohibiting persons referred to in Article 11 of Regulation No 2271/96, as amended, from complying with the requirements or prohibitions laid down in the laws specified in the annex to that regulation, even in the absence of an order directing compliance issued by the administrative or judicial authorities of the third countries which adopted those laws.

AG Pikamae on Articles 45, 46 and 53 Brussels I bis (2021)

AG Pikamae delivered on 16 December 2021 his opinion in case C‑568/20 (J), which is about the incorrect use of Brussels I bis by the court of origin. The opinion is currently available in all EU official languages (save Irish), albeit not in English. Here is the French version (to check whether an English translation has finally been made available, just click on the link below and change the language version).

Question : « À la suite de la délivrance, par la juridiction de l’État membre d’origine, du certificat prévu à l’article 53 du règlement (UE) no 1215/2012 (2), attestant du caractère exécutoire de la décision rendue et de l’applicabilité de ce règlement, la juridiction de l’État membre requis, saisie d’une demande de refus d’exécution de cette décision par la personne contre laquelle l’exécution est sollicitée, peut-elle y faire droit au motif d’une appréciation erronée quant au caractère applicable dudit règlement, dans la mesure où la procédure suivie devant la juridiction de l’État membre d’origine visait à déclarer exécutoires des jugements rendus dans un État tiers ? ».

CJEU on Article 13 Brussels I bis (2021)

The Court of Justice delivered on 9 December 2021 its judgment in case C‑708/20 (BT v Seguros Catalana Occidente, EB), which is about Article 13 Brussels I bis:

« Article 13(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 […] must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of a direct action brought by the injured person against an insurer in accordance with Article 13(2) thereof, the court of the Member State in which that person is domiciled cannot also assume jurisdiction, on the basis of Article 13(3) thereof, to rule on a claim for compensation brought at the same time by that person against the policyholder or the insured who is domiciled in another Member State and who has not been challenged by the insurer ».

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=250867&mode=req&pageIndex=4&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&cid=5332111

CJEU on Articles 22(5) and 5(3) Brussels I (2021)

The Court of Justice delivered on 9 December 2021 its judgment in case C‑242/20 (Hrvatske Sume), which is about Brussels I.

Context: “proceedings between, on the one hand, HRVATSKE ŠUME d.o.o., Zagreb, a company established in Croatia, successor in title to HRVATSKE ŠUME javno poduzeće za gospodarenje šumama i šumskim zemljištima u Republici Hrvatskoj p.o., Zagreb, and, on the other, BP Europa SE Hamburg, a company established in Germany, successor in title to Deutsche BP AG, in turn successor in title to The Burmah Oil (Deutschland) GmbH, concerning the recovery, on the basis of unjust enrichment, of an amount unduly paid in enforcement proceedings which were subsequently declared invalid”.

AG Campos Sanchez-Bordona on Article 10 Succession Regulation (2021)

AG Campos Sanchez-Bordona delivered on 2 December 2021 his opinion in case C‑645/20 (V A), which is about the Succession Regulation.

Context: “1. The Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation, France) asks the Court of Justice whether the authorities of a Member State (2) in which the deceased has assets must establish of their own motion their jurisdiction to rule on the succession as a whole under Article 10 of Regulation No 650/2012.

2. The uncertainty has arisen in the course of a dispute over succession rights between the children of a deceased French citizen whose last habitual residence in France is contested, on the one hand, and the person who was the deceased’s wife (but not the mother of his children) at the time of his death, on the other.

3. None of the parties disputes the nationality of the deceased at the time of his death, or that he was the owner of a property situated in France. The disagreement lies only in where he was habitually resident when he died

4. At first instance, a French court declared that it had jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim brought by the deceased’s children, who had applied for the appointment of an administrator for the estate.

5. On appeal, however, the relevant court held that the French judicial authorities lacked jurisdiction over the succession as a whole, as the deceased’s last place of residence had been in the United Kingdom.

6. On appeal in cassation, the appellants claim that, in any event, the French courts should have declared that they had jurisdiction on their own initiative, which is the issue that forms the subject of the referring court’s question”.

CJEU on Article 3 Brussels II bis (2021)

On 25 November 2021, the CJEU delivered its judgment in case C‑289/20 (IB v FA), which is about Article 3 Brussels II bis.

Decision: “Article 3(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 […] must be interpreted as meaning that a spouse who divides his or her time between two Member States may have his or her habitual residence in only one of those Member States, with the result that only the courts of the Member State in which that habitual residence is situated have jurisdiction to rule on the application for the dissolution of matrimonial ties”.

Note: the Court has clearly indicated, in the preceding paragraphs, the particular State it believes the spouse to be resident in (subject to the national court’s assessment):

CJEU on Article 32 Insolvency Regulation (2021)

On 25 November 2021, the CJEU delivered its judgment in case C‑25/20 (NK, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Alpine BAU GmbH) :

« Article 32(2) of Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 […], read in conjunction with Articles 4 and 28 of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that the lodging, in secondary insolvency proceedings, of claims already submitted in the main insolvency proceedings by the liquidator in those proceedings is subject to the provisions relating to time limits for the lodging of claims and to the consequences of lodging such claims out of time, laid down by the law of the State of the opening of those secondary proceedings ».

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=250042&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=3696513

AG Campos Sanchez-Bordona on Articles 1, 4-1 and 4-3 Rome II (2021)

AG Campos Sanchez-Bordona delivered on 28 October 2021 his opinion in case C‑498/20 (ZK). The opinion is currently available in all EU official languages (save Irish), albeit not in English. Here is the French version (to check whether an English translation has finally been made available, just click on the link below and change the language version).

Suggested decision: “1) L’article 1er, paragraphe 2, sous d), du règlement (CE) no 864/2007 […] doit être interprété en ce sens qu’il exclut de son champ d’application les obligations non contractuelles résultant d’un manquement au devoir de diligence des associés ou des organes lorsque la loi rend ceux-ci responsables d’un tel manquement à l’égard des tiers pour des raisons propres au droit des sociétés. La responsabilité découlant de la violation du devoir général de diligence n’est pas exclue du champ d’application du règlement.

2) L’article 4, paragraphe 1, du règlement Rome II doit être interprété en ce sens que “le lieu où le dommage survient” est le lieu où est établie la société, lorsque le préjudice subi par ses créanciers est la conséquence médiate de pertes économiques subies en premier lieu par la société elle-même. La circonstance que les actions soient exercées par un curateur, au titre de sa mission légale de liquidation de la masse active, ou par une personne assurant la défense collective d’intérêts pour le compte de (mais, non pas, au nom de) l’ensemble des créanciers est sans incidence sur la détermination de ce lieu. Le fait que le domicile de certains créanciers soit situé en dehors de l’Union européenne n’est pas davantage pertinent.

AG Szpunar on Brussels I bis, Rome II and Regulation 6/2002 (2021)

AG Szpunar delivered on 28 October 2021 his opinion in case C‑421/20 (Acacia Srl v BMW AG). The opinion is currently available in all EU official languages (save Irish), albeit not in English. Here is the French version (to check whether an English translation has finally been made available, just click on the link below and change the language version). The issue requires a clarification of the articulation between the 3 Regulations: “1. Le noyau dur du droit international privé de l’Union est composé des règles de compétence et des règles de conflit figurant, respectivement, dans le règlement (UE) no 1215/2012et les deux règlements jumeaux sur la loi applicable aux obligations contractuelles et non contractuelles, à savoir les règlements (CE) nos 593/2008 et 864/2007.

2. Ces règlements ont des champs d’application particulièrement larges. Cela étant, l’application des règles de compétence du règlement no 1215/2012 requiert l’existence d’un élément d’extranéité qui se traduit par le caractère international du rapport juridique en cause découlant de l’implication de plusieurs États. Pareillement, les règles de conflit des règlements Rome I et Rome II s’appliquent dans les situations comportant un conflit de lois.

3. Par ailleurs, sans préjudice de ces exigences relatives à l’existence d’un élément d’extranéité, les règlements no 1215/2012 et Rome II prévoient des exceptions en faveur des dispositions particulières du droit de l’Union en donnant une priorité, notamment, à celles du règlement (CE) no 6/2002.

4. Le présent renvoi préjudiciel donne à la Cour l’occasion de clarifier l’articulation entre ces trois règlements en ce qui concerne les situations visées à l’article 82, paragraphe 5, du règlement no 6/2002, à savoir celles dans lesquelles une action en contrefaçon est portée devant les tribunaux de l’État membre sur le territoire duquel le fait de contrefaçon a été commis ou menace d’être commis”.