CJEU on the non-binding effect of the A 1 certificate on the applicable law beyond social security

The Court of Justice delivered last week (14 May 2020) its judgment in case C-17/19 (Bouygues travaux publics, Elco construct Bucarest, Welbond armatures), which is about the A 1 certificate (Article 19(2) of Regulation No 987/2009 – see below):

Question: “‘Must [Article] 11 of Regulation [No 574/72] and [Article] 19 of Regulation [No 987/2009] be interpreted as meaning that an E 101 Certificate issued by the institution designated by the competent authority of a Member State, under […] Regulation No 1408/71 … or an A 1 Certificate issued under Article 13(1) of Regulation No 883/2004 … is binding on the courts of the Member State in which the work is carried out when it comes to determining the legislation applicable, not only as regards the social security system but also as regards employment law, where such legislation defines the obligations of employers and the rights of employees, so that, having heard the arguments of the parties, those courts can disregard the abovementioned certificates only if, on the basis of an assessment of specific evidence, collected in the course of the judicial investigation, which supports the conclusion that the certificates were fraudulently obtained or relied on and which the issuing institution failed to take into account within a reasonable time, the said courts make a finding of fraud, comprised, as regards its objective element, by the failure to meet the conditions laid down in either of the aforementioned provisions of Regulations [No 574/72] and [No 987/2009] and, as regards its subjective element, by the intention of the accused person to evade or circumvent the conditions for the issue of that certificate, in order to obtain the advantages attaching thereto?’”

Edoardo Rossi on the Sharing Economy in Private International Law (with extract)

Edoardo Rossi has recently published a book on “La sharing economy nel diritto internazionale privato europeo” (Giappichelli Editore (Torino, Italy), November 2019, ISBN 9788892131880, available here). Edoardo Rossi has kindly accepted to share with us today not only the presentation and summary of contents of his book but also an extract. The latter focuses on prorogation of jurisdiction (jurisdiction clauses) in electronic contracts, with a particular focus on ascertaining the effectiveness of consent in this situation and with a view to the difficulties now raised by the ‘sharing economy’ in this respect.

Artificial Intelligence: law applicable to the amount and extent of compensation in civil liability claims (Art 9 suggested proposal for a regulation)

The JURI Committee of the European Parliament has now released its draft report of 27 April 2020 (Draft report with recommendations to the Commission on a Civil liability regime for artificial intelligence, PE650.556v01-00). One notes Article 9 within the suggested Proposal for a regulation on liability for the operation of Artificial Intelligence-systems:

“National provisions on compensation and limitation period

Civil liability claims brought in accordance with Article 8(1) shall be subject, in relation to limitation periods as well as the amounts and the extent of compensation, to the laws of the Member State in which the harm or damage occurred”.

CJEU on Article 1 Brussels I (concept of acta iure imperii)

The Court of Justice delivered last week (7 May 2020) its judgment in Case C‑641/18 (LG and Others v Rina SpA, Ente Registro Italiano Navale), which is about Article 1(1) of Brussels I.

Context and question: “LG and Others — relatives of the victims and survivors of the sinking of the Al Salam Boccaccio’98 vessel in the Red Sea on 2 and 3 February 2006, in which more than 1 000 people lost their lives — brought an action before the Tribunale di Genova (District Court, Genoa, Italy) against the Rina companies — ship classification and certification societies — whose seat is in Genoa.

15 LG and Others claim compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses stemming from the Rina companies’ civil liability, arguing that the classification and certification operations for the Al Salam Boccaccio’98 vessel, carried out by the Rina companies under a contract concluded with the Republic of Panama, for the purposes of obtaining that State’s flag for that vessel, were the cause of that sinking.

16 The Rina companies contend that the referring court lacks jurisdiction, relying on the international-law principle of immunity from jurisdiction of foreign States. In particular, according to those companies, the classification and certification operations which they conducted were carried out upon delegation from the Republic of Panama and, therefore, are a manifestation of the sovereign powers of the delegating State.

17 According to LG and Others, by contrast, given that the Rina companies have their seat in Italy and the dispute at issue in the main proceedings is civil in nature, within the meaning of Article 1 of Regulation No 44/2001, the Italian courts have jurisdiction under Article 2(1) of that regulation. In addition, LG and Others submit that the plea of immunity from jurisdiction, relied on by the Rina companies, does not cover activities that are governed by non-discretionary technical rules which are, in any event, unrelated to the political decisions and prerogatives of a State.

18 The referring court raises the question of the jurisdiction of the Italian courts in so far as, while it is common ground that the Rina companies have their seat in Italy, it is claimed that they acted upon delegation from the Republic of Panama”.

CJEU on notaries, enforcement and articles 18 TFEU and 47 Charter of fundamental rights

The Court of Justice delivered last week (7 May 2020) its judgment in joined cases C‑267/19 and C‑323/19 (Parking d.o.o. v Sawal d.o.o. (C‑267/19), and Interplastics s. r. o. v Letifico d.o.o. (C‑323/19)). The judgment is available in all EU official languages (save Irish), albeit not in English. Here is the French version :

Question : « Il convient […] de comprendre que, par ses deux questions, qu’il y a lieu d’examiner ensemble, la juridiction de renvoi demande, en substance, si, dans l’hypothèse où les décisions qu’elle rendra relèvent du champ d’application du règlement no 1215/2012, l’article 18 TFUE et l’article 47 de la Charte doivent être interprétés en ce sens qu’ils s’opposent à une réglementation nationale habilitant les notaires, agissant dans le cadre des compétences qui leur sont dévolues dans les procédures d’exécution forcée sur le fondement d’un document faisant foi, à rendre des ordonnances d’exécution qui, ainsi qu’il ressort de l’arrêt du 9 mars 2017, Pula Parking  (C‑551/15, EU:C:2017:193), ne peuvent pas être reconnues et exécutées dans un autre État membre ».

Guide on Use of Video-Link under Hague Evidence Convention

On 16 April 2020, the Hague Conference announced that the Guide to Good Practice on the Use of Video-Link under the 1970 Evidence Convention has been published. “The Guide analyses the latest developments in relation to the use of video-link in the taking of evidence under the HCCH 1970 Evidence Convention, including references to internal law and other international agreements. It also outlines good practices to be followed and reflects the information provided by Contracting Parties in their respective Country Profiles”. It may be found here

Source: here

 

Towards an instrument on cross-border issues related to judicial sale of ships

Background: “At its thirty-fifth session (New York, 13–17 May 2019), the [UNCITRAL] Working Group considered a draft convention prepared by the Comité Maritime International (CMI) on the recognition of foreign judicial sales of ships, known as the “Beijing Draft” […]. The Working Group decided that the Beijing Draft provided a useful basis for its deliberations on the topic of the judicial sale of ships”.

AG Szpunar on Article 3 Insolvency bis Regulation

AG Szpunar delivered today his opinion in Case C‑253/19 (MH, NI v OJ, Novo Banco SA), which is about the concept of the ‘centre of main interests’ of the Insolvency bis Regulation.

The background and the question: “1. The concept of the ‘centre of main interests’ formed the cornerstone of the system established by Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000. That concept was set out in Article 3(1) of that regulation, and was used as a connecting factor designating the courts having jurisdiction to open insolvency proceedings against a debtor. […] the Court had not yet had the opportunity to address the interpretation of that concept in the context of natural persons not exercising an independent business or professional activity who benefit from the free movement of persons and workers.
2. Regulation No 1346/2000 was repealed by Regulation (EU) 2015/848, which also uses the concept of ‘centre of main interests’. The question in the present case is as follows: can the Court’s case-law, developed within the framework of Regulation No 1346/2000 and relating to that concept, be transposed — and if so, to what extent — to proceedings against a natural person who is in the situation referred to above? This case thus provides the Court with the opportunity to rule on jurisdiction in insolvency matters in relation to any person not pursuing an activity as a self-employed person who exercises his right of free movement, and whose assets are located in the Member State of his former habitual residence”.

The suggested response: “Article 3(1), first and fourth subparagraphs, of Regulation (EC) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the presumption that the habitual residence of a debtor who is a natural person not engaged in a self-employed activity is the centre of his main interests may be rebutted if the place of habitual residence does not fulfil its role as the place where a debtor’s economic decisions are taken, as the place where the majority of his revenue is earned and spent, or as the place where the major part of his assets is located.

AG Szpunar on Article 1 Brussels I bis Regulation

AG Szpunar delivered on 23 April 2020 his opinion in Case C‑73/19 (Belgische Staat v
Movic BV, Events Belgium BV, Leisure Tickets & Activities International BV), which is about the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ in Brussels I bis.

The issue: “In its judgment of 1 October 2002, Henkel, the Court held that the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’, which defines the scope of the majority of EU instruments of private international law, encompassed proceedings in which an action for an injunction preventing the use of unfair terms was brought by a consumer protection association. By this reference for a preliminary ruling, the referring court asks the Court to determine whether that concept also encompasses proceedings in which the public authorities of a Member State bring an action in relation to unfair market and/or commercial practices”.

The suggested response: “Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 […] must be interpreted as meaning that proceedings relating to an action brought by the public authorities of a Member State against persons governed by private law established in another Member State, in which a declaration is sought that infringements constituting unfair commercial practices have taken place, together with an order for the cessation of those practices, an order for measures of publicity at the expense of the defendants, and an order for penalty payments to be made in a fixed amount in respect of every future infringement, fall within the scope of ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of that provision.

Convention on International Settlement Agreements (Mediation) to enter in force on 12 September 2020

Following the ratification of Qatar last week, on 12 March 2020, the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation will enter in force on 12 September 2020: that was quick!

Source: here