CJEU on the social security legislation applicable to flight and cabin crew

The Court of Justice delivered yesterday (19 May 2022) its judgment in case C‑33/21 (Istituto nazionale per l’assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL), Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) v Ryanair DAC):

“Article 14(2)(a)(i) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 [on social security] must be interpreted as meaning that the social security legislation applicable to the flight and cabin crew of an airline, established in a Member State, which crew is not covered by E101 certificates and which work for 45 minutes per day in premises intended to be used by staff, known as the ‘crew room’, which that airline has in the territory of another Member State in which that flight and cabin crew reside and, which for the remaining working time, are on board that airline’s aircraft is the legislation of the latter Member State”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=259607&text=&dir=&doclang=EN&part=1&occ=first&mode=DOC&pageIndex=0&cid=1267764

The European Commission Recommendation on SLAPP

The European Commission Recommendation (EU) 2022/758 of 27 April 2022 on protecting journalists and human rights defenders who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings (‘Strategic lawsuits against public participation’), C/2022/2428, has been published this week at the OJEU (L 138, 17.5.2022, p. 30).

Source: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2022.138.01.0030.01.ENG&toc=OJ%3AL%3A2022%3A138%3ATOC

CJEU on Article 6 Directive 93/13 and national rules of procedure

The Grand Chamber delivered on 17 May 2022 its judgment in case C‑869/19 (L v Unicaja Banco SA, formerly Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria SAU), which is about Directive 93/13/EEC on Unfair terms in consumer contracts and national rules of procedure:

“Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding the application of principles of national judicial procedure, under which a national court, hearing an appeal against a judgment temporally limiting the repayment of sums wrongly paid by the consumer under a term declared to be unfair, cannot raise of its own motion a ground relating to the infringement of that provision and order the repayment of those sums in full, where the failure of the consumer concerned to challenge that temporal limitation cannot be attributed to his or her complete inaction”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=259430&mode=req&pageIndex=1&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&cid=922860

CJEU on the Hague Protocol on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations

The Court of Justice delivered on 12 May 2022 its judgment in case C‑644/20, which is about not the Maintenance Regulation itself but the Hague Protocol of 23 November 2007 on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations. The judgment 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):

« L’article 3 du protocole de La Haye, du 23 novembre 2007, sur la loi applicable aux obligations alimentaires […] doit être interprété en ce sens que, aux fins de la détermination de la loi applicable à la créance alimentaire d’un enfant mineur déplacé par l’un de ses parents sur le territoire d’un État membre, la circonstance qu’une juridiction de cet État membre a ordonné, dans le cadre d’une procédure distincte, le retour de cet enfant dans l’État où il résidait habituellement avec ses parents immédiatement avant son déplacement, ne suffit pas à empêcher que ledit enfant puisse acquérir une résidence habituelle sur le territoire de cet État membre ».

Source : https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=259145&text=&dir=&doclang=FR&part=1&occ=first&mode=DOC&pageIndex=0&cid=209782

AG Collins on Articles 1 and 34 of Brussels I

AG Collins delivered on 5 May 2022 his opinion in case C‑700/20 (The London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Limited v Kingdom of Spain), which is about Brussels I (recognition of a judgment given in another Member State, a judgment irreconcilable with a judgment incorporating an arbitral award given between the same parties in the Member State in which recognition is sought).

Background: “Slightly under two decades ago, in November 2002, the M/T Prestige (‘the vessel’), a single-hull oil tanker registered in the Bahamas, broke into two sections and sank off the coast of Galicia (Spain). At the time the vessel was carrying 70 000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil and the resulting oil spill caused significant damage to beaches, towns and villages along the northern coastline of Spain and the western coastline of France. […] the sinking of the vessel generated a lengthy dispute between its insurers and the Spanish State pursued by way of two different procedures in two Member States. It resulted in two judgments: one delivered by the Audiencia Provincial de La Coruña (Provincial Court, A Coruña, Spain), the other handed down by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court) (United Kingdom). The Spanish State ultimately sought to have the judgment of the Audiencia Provincial de La Coruña (Provincial Court, A Coruña) recognised by the courts of England & Wales. In the last days of the transitional period after the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, the High Court of Justice (England & Wales) made a reference for preliminary ruling seeking an interpretation by the Court of Justice of Article 1(2)(d) and Article 34(1) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters”.

AG Collins on the meaning of divorce judgment within Brussels II bis

AG Collins delivered on 5 May 2022 his opinion in case C‑646/20 (Senatsverwaltung für Inneres und Sport, Standesamtsaufsicht v TB, joined parties: Standesamt Mitte von Berlin, RD), which is about Brussels II bis:

“The dissolution of a marriage by a legally ordained procedure whereby spouses each make a personal declaration that they wish to divorce before a civil registrar, who confirms that agreement in their presence not less than 30 days later after having verified that the conditions required by law for the dissolution of the marriage have been met, namely that the spouses do not have minor children or adult children who are incapacitated or severely disabled or economically dependent and the agreement between them does not contain terms concerning the transfer of assets, is a divorce judgment for the purposes of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=258881&text=&dir=&doclang=EN&part=1&occ=first&mode=DOC&pageIndex=0&cid=217509

CJEU on provisional measures in IP law

The Court of Justice delivered on 28 April 2022 its judgment in case C‑44/21 (Phoenix Contact GmbH & Co. KG v HARTING Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Harting Electric GmbH & Co. KG), which is about Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property:

“Article 9(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as precluding national case-law under which applications for interim relief for patent infringement must, in principle, be dismissed where the validity of the patent in question has not been confirmed, at the very least, by a decision given at first instance in opposition or invalidity proceedings”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=258493&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=218534

AG De La Tour on Articles 21, 6 and 17 Brussels I bis and 6 Rome I

AG De La Tour delivered on 28 April 2022 his opinion in C‑604/20 (ROI Land Investments Ltd. v FD), which is about Brussels I bis and Rome I. The opinion is currently available in selected EU official languages only (and therefore 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)

« À titre principal :

1) L’article 21, paragraphes 1 et 2, du [Brussels I bis] doit être interprété en ce sens qu’une personne physique ou morale, domiciliée ou non sur le territoire d’un État membre, avec laquelle le travailleur a conclu non pas son contrat de travail, mais un accord faisant partie intégrante de ce contrat, en vertu duquel cette personne est responsable de l’exécution des obligations de l’employeur envers ce travailleur, peut être considérée comme un « employeur », si celle-ci a un intérêt direct à la bonne exécution dudit contrat. L’existence d’un tel intérêt direct doit être appréciée par la juridiction de renvoi de manière globale, en prenant en considération l’ensemble des circonstances de l’espèce.

2) L’article 6, paragraphe 1, du règlement no 1215/2012 doit être interprété en ce sens que l’application des règles de compétence du droit national est exclue lorsque les conditions d’application de l’article 21, paragraphe 2, de ce règlement sont réunies.

CJEU on Article 10 Succession Regulation

The Court of Justice delivered on 7 April 2022 its judgment in case C‑645/20 (V A), which is about the Succession Regulation:

“Article 10(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 […] must be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State must raise of its own motion its jurisdiction under the rule of subsidiary jurisdiction referred to in that provision where, having been seised on the basis of the rule of general jurisdiction established in Article 4 of that regulation, it finds that it has no jurisdiction under that latter provision”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=257493&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2662053

CJEU on Articles 2 and 39 Brussels I bis

The Court of Justice delivered on 7 April 2022 its judgment in case C‑568/20 (J v H Limited), which is about Brussels I bis:

“Article 2(a) and Article 39 of [Brussels I bis] must be interpreted as meaning that an order for payment made by a court of a Member State on the basis of final judgments delivered in a third State constitutes a judgment and is enforceable in the other Member States if it was made at the end of adversarial proceedings in the Member State of origin and was declared to be enforceable in that Member State. The fact that it is recognised as a judgment does not, however, deprive the party against whom enforcement is sought of the right to apply, pursuant to Article 46 of that regulation, for a refusal of enforcement on one of the grounds referred to in Article 45”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=257492&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2662053