Author: Geert van Calster

Geert is an independent legal practitioner and academic. An alumnus of the College of Europe, Bruges (promotion Stefan Zweig), Prof van Calster is the Head of Leuven Law's department of European and international law. Geert is a visiting professor at Monash University (Melbourne) and at the China-EU School of Law in Beijing, and a visiting professor at King's College, London. He was previously i.a. a visiting lecturer at Oxford University. He was called to the Bar in 1999 after having worked as of counsel to a City law firm since 1995, and practices in the areas of Private international law /Conflict of Laws; WTO law; (EU) environmental law; and EU economic law.
Posted on

Poland v LC CORP BV. A second refusal for ISDS Achmea /Komstroy anti-suit, following Spain v Blasket Renewable Investments LLC and adding to the ECT fog.

In Poland v LC Corp BV, the Amsterdam first instance court mid-March refused Poland’s application for an anti-suit injunction, which would have prohibited LC Corp from seeking UNCITRAL arbitration under the now defunct Poland-Netherlands BIT, with London as curial seat.

The case echoes that of Kingdom of Spain v Blasket Renewable Investments LLC, in which the Amsterdam Court had earlier declined to hear an anti-suit injunction petition by Spain to prevent renewable investors from enforcing arbitral awards in the US: see Josep Galvez’s summary here. That case however in the meantime has encountered quite the opposite reaction from a US judge, who held end of March that Spain enjoys sovereign immunity in the case and that as a result of the CJEU’s Komstroy’s authority, neither Spain nor the defendant had power to sign up to arbitration, hence dismissing the petition to confirm an arbitral award rendered pursuant to the Energy Charter Treaty.  In turn, that decision is in contrast with earlier orders in 9REN v the Kingdom of Spain and NextEra v the Kingdom of Spain as Curtis summarise here. The Court of Appeal will now hear those issues.

The case, as Geraldo Vidigal reminded me, is also reminiscent of the interlocutory decision in ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2022:5772, also involving Poland yet in that case with an anonymised Dutch corporate defendant. In that judgment the arbitration procedure was suggested as the currently only available way for the corporation to have its day in ‘court’, seeing as in the view of the judge, the Polish rule of law crisis  questions the impartiality of the Polish courts, and the EU’s alternative Investment Court is not yet operational. Johannes Hendrik Fahner discusses that case here.

In current case, the court first of all holds that Brussels Ia’s arbitration exception is not engaged, for the case’s core, it suggests, is whether the pursuit of an arbitration proceeding despite CJEU Achmea, constitutes abuse of process. The case, it holds (4.3) does not have the questions  put to the arbitral tribunal as its object, hence the arbitration exception is not in play.
4.5 the Court re applicable law holds parties have made choice of law for Dutch law under Article 14 Rome II, obiter suggesting that finding locus damni under Rome II Article 4(1)’s general rule is not self-evident: would the damage of an abusive pursuit of arbitration proceedings, be located in The Netherlands? It is not entirely clear to me why the Court discusses applicable law (other than Dutch courts having to do so proprio motu.
4.12 the court refers to the tribunal’s Kompetenz Kompetenz. The curial seat being located outside the EU, in London, is a crucial element in the court’s reasoning, despite CJEU Achmea: it is not prima facie clear that the tribunal will refuse to hear the case. Given the overall fog re the consequences of the CJEU case-law on extra-EU arbitration, the issues are not clearly without foundation hence cannot constitute abuse.

 

With recent Australian developments (blogpost imminent), even more proverbial ECT s**** is hitting the fan. IMHO this conundrum is not going to be solved by ever more procedural forum shopping with conflicting outcomes.

Geert.

Posted on

Richard de La Tour AG on trademarks and anchor jurisdiction in Beverage City & Lifestyle.

I am on a break with the family until after Easter, hence only slowly treating myself to writing up blog posts. There are one or two in the queue, and I hope to be clearing them before long. ]

In C‑832/21 Beverage City & Lifestyle GmbH v Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. Richard de la Tour AG Opined a few weeks back. The claim is for trademark infringement between a US domiciled holder of an EU Trademark, and its EU suppliers in Poland and Germany. The AG suggest Article 8(1)’s joinder mechanism may apply in the case, provided the claimant in limine litis (at the start of proceedings) prove the anchor defendant’s role in the chain of infringements.

Background is the Union Trademark Regulation 2017/1001, which has separate rules on jurisdiction discussed in ia AMS Neve, however it leaves A8(1) Brussels Ia’s anchor defendant mechanism untouched.

(34) ff the AG uses the opportunity to clarify CJEU Nintendo,  with respect to Article 8)1)’s condition of ‘same situation in law’: the AG suggests the Court clarify that the application of different national laws as a result of intellectual property rights’ territorial scope, does not stand in the way of the situation being the same in law in the case of a Union trademark.

Next the AG discusses the issues also of relevance in ia CJEU C‑145/10 Painer, namely the question of sameness in fact, and argues for a flexible interpretation despite the defendants at issue not being contractually linked. He suggests inter alia that it would run against the intention of the Regulation to force the claimant into proving the anchor defendant be the main instigator of the infringement. Along similar lines, that the anchor defendant is not a corporation itself but rather one of its directors, with domicile in a different Member State, does not in the view of the AG prevent him being used as anchor defendant, provided (77) claimant prove at the start of proceedings that the director actively engaged in the infringement or should have known about it but did not stop it.

One can see merit in the AG’s approach in that it, as he also suggests, addresses the issue of abuse of the anchor defendant mechanism. On the other hand, this engagement with some of the merits of the case always raises the issue of how intensive that can /ought to be at the jurisdictional stage without leading to a ‘mini’ trial’. It may be preferable simply to hold that as a director of a corporation, one should not be surprised to be used as jurisdictional anchor for that corporation’s infringements, in one’s place of domicile.

Geert.

EU Private international law, 3rd ed. 2021, 2.482 ff.

Posted on

The Credit Suisse rescue operation. A Smorgasbord of international dispute resolution options.

UBS’ bailout of Credit Suisse, arguably strong-armed by the Swiss State, will have had countless lawyers phoning investors, and countless investors lawyering up. I am no expert in banking and finance law, I am of course like everyone else aware that the anger is most visible in so-called AT1 bondholders. This blog is interested in the dispute resolution fall-out likely to rain down on various dispute resolution avenues for some time to come.

A quick flag that those considering litigation, will have a range of issues to ponder. Who to sue, for starters. The Swiss authorities might be a target, leading of course to considerations of immunity and, give the close involvement of the Swiss authorities in the rescue, of the qualification of the claims as ‘civil and commercial’ (echoes here of CJEU Kuhn etc, now under the Lugano Convention).

What litigation avenue to pursue, next: the bond holders will be subject to dispute resolution clauses, one imagines either with choice of court for Switzerland or providing for commercial arbitration. Depending on time and avenue of acquisition of the bonds, the holders may well argue they are not bound by such clauses, Further, a potential to use the route typically favoured by Swiss-headquartered multinationals, against other States: ISDS. Investor-State Dispute Settlement (with their ‘fork in the road’ provisions).

(Digital) Rolodexes the world over will be spinning by now. As and when this leads to litigation as suggested above, the blog will be reporting.

Geert.

 

 

Posted on

Towards a European Private International law Act? Louvain April conference in honour of prof Marc Fallon.

On 21 April, Louvain-La-Neuve will be hosting a conference in honour of prof emeritus Marc Fallon. The general concept of the conference is included below (summary provided by prof Stéphanie Francq, one of the main organisers of the event). More info with full program and link for registration is here. This will be a thoughtFest for all interested in EU private international law and with working languages both English and French, it speaks to a broad audience.

Get thee to Louvain. Geert.

 

Why and for what purpose should European private international law be codified? This twofold question will be at the heart of the discussions on April 21, 2023, during a colloquium paying tribute to the remarkable work of Professor Marc Fallon in the fields of private international law and European law, and in particular to his involvement in the Belgian and European codification of private international law. How did we come to envisage a European codification of private international law? What do we expect from it? Does an EU codification have the same ambitions as national codifications? Do these ambitions not vary according to the place, the time and the context of international constraints imposed on the legislator? Does a codification at the European level, and at the present time, imply specific needs, challenges and consequences, even dangers, for both the national and the European legal orders? And above all, does it offer new prospects or hopes for the European project and for the discipline of private international law?

Posted on

Jalla v Shell – continued. A further judgment in the Bonga Spill litigation considers Article 7 Rome II, and the Nigerian EEZ as a ‘country’ under Article 25 of the Regulation.

Update 10 May 2023 In Jalla and another v Shell International Trading and Shipping Company and another [2023] UKSC 16, the Supreme Court has now held that the spill was a one-off event, not a continuing nuisance, and therefore time-barred under applicable Nigerian law.

Jalla & Anor v Shell International Trading and Shipping Company Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 424 (TCC) is a follow-up of earlier, procedural (including jurisdictional) issues which I discuss here.

[1]-[2] The 2011 Bonga Spill emanated from an offshore floating production, storage and off-loading facility (“the Bonga FPSO”), located approximately 120 kilometres off the Nigerian coastline of Bayelsa State and Delta State within the Nigerian Exclusive Economic Zone. The Spill was caused by a rupture of one of the pipelines connecting the Bonga FPSO to a single point mooring system (“SPM”), both of which were operated and controlled by one of the defendants, Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Company Ltd (“SNEPCo”), a Nigerian company regulated by the Nigerian governmental authorities. The technical manager of the vessel, the MV Northia, that was loading from the Bonga FPSO at the time of the spill was another defendant, Shell International Trading and Shipping Company Ltd, (“STASCO”), a company domiciled and registered in the UK.

Anchor defendant is STASCO. SNEPCo is co-defendant.

The High Court had determined that the claims for damage caused by the Spill  could not constitute a continuing nuisance until any pollution was remedied, so as to extend the limitation period and defeat the defendants’ limitation defence; it held claimants each had a single claim in nuisance in respect of any damage caused by the Bonga Spill, such cause of action accruing when their land and/or water supplies were first impacted by the oil. Claimants’ appeal against that part of the judgment as I reported earlier was dismissed by the Court of Appeal [2021] EWCA Civ 63  and this “Continuing Nuisance Appeal” is now being appealed to the Supreme Court.

[4] Current case is to determine the date on which actionable damage, if any, was suffered by the claimants as a result of the Bonga Spill, for the purpose of deciding whether any of the claims against the anchor defendant, STASCO, are statute-barred for limitation and, therefore, whether E&W courts have jurisdiction to determine the substantive claims. 

[39] Stuart-Smith J (as the then was), alongside the jurisdictional challenges, had further held that the High Court had no discretion to allow, or would refuse, amendment of the claim form to join STASCO and the amendment to add allegations against STASCO, if and to the extent that the applications were made after the expiry of the relevant limitation period. The allegations against STASCO in respect of its responsibility for the  were deemed by the court not to have been made until 2 March 2020.

[40] ff

The issue of jurisdiction as against SNEPCo, a Nigerian corporation, is dependent on there being a valid claim against STASCO, a UK corporation. The court rejected other jurisdictional challenges made by the defendants but was unable to finally dispose of the challenge to jurisdiction because it was subject to the outstanding issue as to whether the claims against STASCO were statute-barred. If the claims against STASCO, the anchor defendant, were statute-barred, there would be no basis on which service out of the jurisdiction against SNEPCo could be permitted and the court would have no jurisdiction to determine any of the claims.

Given the significance of the limitation issue, the court ordered that there should be a trial of preliminary issues to determine in respect of all claimants the date on which they suffered damage, the appropriate limitation period and limitation as a defence to the claims.

Parties agree that Nigerian Law applies to the claims relating to the spill, including the limitation period applicable to the claims (the case therefore does not engage with the outstanding issue of the treatment of limitation under Rome II, discussed most recently in Bravo v Amerisur Resources (Putumayo Group Litigation). The issue between the parties is whether the applicable limitation period is six years, as submitted by the claimants, or five years, as submitted by the defendants.

O’Farrell J holds that given the date of damage, none of the claims in these proceedings was made against STASCO within any applicable limitation period. Obiter, she holds on the limitation issue anyway.

The relevant law that applies in Nigeria is the (English) Limitation of Actions Act 1623 which provides for a limitation period of six years for claims that would amount to tortious claims. The National Assembly for the Nigerian Federation has not enacted any general limitation statute and no such provision is made in the Constitution. The State legislature for Delta State however has enacted a general limitation statute. Section 18 of the Limitation Law of Delta State 2006 (“the Delta State Limitation Law”) provides for a limitation period of five years for claims in tort. 

[306] Claimants’ position is that the limitation period applicable to their claims is the six-year period provided for by the 1623 Act. In the absence of specific federal legislation on this issue, they argue this residual provision is the limitation law generally applicable in Nigeria, including at a federal level, by virtue of section 32(1) of the Interpretation Act 1964; further, that the Delta State Limitation Law is inapplicable in the Federal High Court; only federal legislation can apply, irrespective of where the Federal High Court sits.

Further, [307], claimants argue they are entitled by Article 7 Rome II  to choose the law applicable in the Nigerian Exclusive Economic Zone (“EEZ”) as the lex causae governing their claims for environmental damage, as the country where the event giving rise to the damage occurred, the locus delicti commissi, Handlungsort. The EEZ falls within the control of the Federal Government of Nigeria; as such, it would be subject to the Nigerian Federal law of torts and the residual 1623 Act limitation period.

[308] Defendants’ position is that the limitation period applicable to the claims is the five-year period provided for by the Delta State Limitation Law. The relevant Federal High Court for the claims would be the Federal High Court in Delta State, as the place where the alleged damage occurred. They suggest Nigerian authorities on limitation confirm that if a local limitation law exists in the relevant state, that law applies to the claim; and the limitation statute of each state is territorial in scope. On that basis, the Delta State Limitation Law applies to any action brought in the territorial area of Delta State, including the Federal High Court in Delta State.

[309] viz A7 Rome II they argue the Nigerian EEZ is not a “country” for the purpose of Article 25(1) Rome II [‘“Where a State comprises several territorial units, each of which has its own rules of law in respect of non-contractual obligations, each territorial unit shall be considered as a country for the purposes of identifying the law applicable under this Regulation”], that it has no applicable limitation law and that it would not override the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to determine the claims in these proceedings.

The judge [336] ff holds the country in which the alleged damage occurred is Delta State, making the law of Delta State the default choice of law under Article 4(1) Rome II; that although the claims are for environmental damage, and the event giving rise to the alleged damage occurred at the FPSO within the Nigerian EEZ, the EEZ is not a country within the meaning or A25(1): Nigeria is a Federation with 36 states plus the FCT of Abuja. The EEZ is not a territorial unit and does not comprise one of those states; and the EEZ does not have its own rules of law in respect of non-contractual obligations.

The remainder of the judgment deals with issues of proof of foreign customary law.

Interesting!

Geert.

Posted on

The CJEU on consumer signalling with a view to the protected categories, in Wurth Automotive. One or two further specifications of its Gruber, Milivojević, Schrems case-law.

The CJEU last week held in C-177/22 JA v Wurth Automotive. The case concerns the consumer title of Brussels Ia, in particular a refinement of the CJEU  C-630/17 Milivojević and C-28/18  Petruchová case-law (involvement of people with a background in the sector), C-498/16 Schrems (evolvement of use from non-professional to professional or the other way around) and  CJEU C‑464/01 Gruber criteria (dual (non-)professional use).

Applicant in the main proceedings, whose partner is a car dealer and managing director of an online platform for the sale of motor vehicles, was mentioned on the homepage of that platform as the graphic and web designer, without actually having carried out that activity at the time of the facts in the main proceedings. At the request of the applicant in the main proceedings, the partner did some research and contacted the defendant in the main proceedings from his professional email address, in which he indicated a price offer for the purchase of a vehicle. It was stated in that email that the contract of sale was to be concluded on behalf of the applicant in the main proceedings, however a little while after the purchase the partner enquired (but was rebuffed) about the possibility to indicate the VAT amount of the invoice (typically only of interest to business buyers).

Firstly, in applying the consumer title, must account be taken of current and future purposes of the conclusion of that contract, and of the nature of the activity pursued by that person as an employed or self-employed person? As for the latter, the CJEU answer [27] is clearly ‘no’, with reference to Roi Land Investments. As for the former, whether the purpose for the use is current or planned in the future, per Milivojević [88-89], is held by the CJEU not to be of relevance. I would personally add to both Milivojević and Wurth Automotive that any such future use must have been somehow signalled to the business. While the CJEU in Schrems confirmed the possibility to lose the consumer status as a result of subsequent professional use, it has not held (and in my view ought not to) that an initial professional use later changed to non-professional use, may belatedly trigger the consumer section (it has of course supported the later ‘internationalisation’ of the contract per Commerzbank).

Next, what is the burden of proof on whom, and what needs to be proven, when a good or service has been procured for dual professional and non-professional use. Here, the CJEU [30] ff confirms that first of all the professional use or not of the good or service needs to be established on the basis of the objective elements of the file. Only if “that evidence is not sufficient, that court may also determine whether the supposed customer had in fact, by his or her own conduct with respect to the other party, given the latter the impression that he or she was acting for business purposes, such that the other party could legitimately have been unaware of the non-professional purpose of the transaction at issue” [32].

[36] “the impression created by the conduct of the person claiming the status of ‘consumer’….on the part of the other contracting party, may be taken into account to establish whether that person should be afforded the procedural protection laid down in Section 4 of that regulation.”

In the case at issue,

[38] inaction following the presentation of a contract identifying the buyer as a trader, can constitute evidence (but not of singlehandedly determinative value) that the applicant in the main proceedings could have created, on the part of the defendant in the main proceedings, the impression that she was acting for professional purposes;

[39] ditto the sale of the vehicle shortly after the conclusion of the contract and [40] the potential making of a profit, albeit that the latter would in the view of the CJEU ordinarily not be of great impact.

The CJEU finally is not prepared (despite a self-confessed [47] in Wurth Automotive] potential to read same in CJEU Gruber) to read a benefit of the doubt, in inconclusive cases, to the benefit of the alleged consumer, leaving that with reference to CJEU TOTO to national procedural law. Here I think the Court could have held against such benefit on the basis of Brussels Ia itself.

Geert.

EU private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, 2.231 ff.

 

Posted on

Parveen v Hussain. A super case to teach Vorfrage, qualification and ordre public.

Parveen v Hussain [2022] EWCA Civ 1434 (I am still in clearing the backlog mode) is an excellent illustration of this most peculiar of issues under conflict of laws, the issue of ‘Vorfrage’, with the Court of Appeal ending up recognising the second marriage of a Pakistani lady, but not her prior foreign divorce expressed by her first husband per Talaq.

The Court of Appeal held that the fact that that divorce is not entitled to recognition under the English rules, does not mean that the woman did not have the capacity to (re)marry: her previous divorce was effective under the law of Pakistan.

Moylan LJ summarises that the issue raised by the appeal is in essence the relationship between capacity to marry rules and divorce recognition rules. [7]:

[In England and Wales] “a person’s capacity to marry is governed by the law of their antenuptial domicile. The recognition of a divorce, whether obtained in “the British Islands” (section 44) or in a “country outside the British Islands” (section 45), is governed by the provisions of the [Family Law Act] FLA 1986. What happens when the two are in conflict? In other words, when a person, in this case the wife, has capacity to marry by the law of her antenuptial domicile, Pakistan, but her previous divorce is not entitled to recognition in England and Wales under the FLA 1986, is priority to be given to the law applicable to capacity to marry or to the law applicable to the recognition of divorces.”

After a first marriage in Pakistan, which ended in 2008 by husband Talaq, the wife remarried. The second husband commenced divorce proceedings in 2018. This led to the pronouncement of a Decree Nisi of divorce in 2019. In or about August 2020, the second husband applied for the Decree Nisi to be rescinded and for the Petition to be dismissed on the basis that the wife remained married to her previous husband at the date of her marriage to the  second husband. The husband then issued a nullity Petition in 2021 in which he contended that at “the time of the marriage the (wife) was already lawfully married”. The wife submits that her marriage to the husband is valid because she had capacity to marry under the law of Pakistan which recognised her divorce as having validly determined her previous marriage.

[22] Per Akhtar v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2022] 1 WLR 421:

“Validity of Marriage

[60] Under English rules of private international law: (a) the general rule is that the formal validity (i.e. the formalities) of a marriage is governed by the law of the country where the marriage was celebrated, Dicey at para 17R-001; and (b) the general rule is that capacity to marry (or essential validity) is governed by the law of each party’s antenuptial domicile, Dicey at para 17R-057 (now 17R-054). Bigamy is “a matter of capacity”, Dicey at para 17-082 (now 17-079).

[61] If a marriage is valid in respect of both form and capacity it will be recognised as valid under English law and, as a result, the parties will be recognised as having the status of husband or wife.”

‘Bigamy’ is qualified as a rule of capacity to marry (‘essential validity’ or what the civil law is likely to call substantive validity. Extensive review followed of various authorities,  including the well-known Schwebel v Ungar, with the Court of Appeal as in that latter case, giving priority to capacity to marriage. An ordre public exception was rejected on the basis of the wife at all relevant times having been domiciled in and lived in Pakistan. [89] “The public policy objectives would be sufficiently achieved by denying recognition of the divorce to the wife’s previous husband because of his connections with the UK.”

A super case to teach Vorfrage, qualification and ordre public.

Geert.

Posted on

Transworld Payment Solutions: consideration of applicable law under Rome II for deceit, conspiracy, equitable wrongs

I last updated the draft for this post in November….I am hoping somewhat to catch up with posts this week.

In Transworld Payment Solutions U.K. Ltd, Re [2022] EWHC 2742 (Ch) Freedman J refused an application to set aside an order to serve out of jurisdiction. Claimants’ case is that the E&W proceedings arise out of an alleged “VAT carousel fraud”, carried out in England and Wales, by English and Welsh companies. There are concurrent Curaçao proceedings.

Defendants raise a forum non conveniens jurisdictional defence. They submit that the Curaçao court is presently seised as to the issue as to whether the companies were effectively parties to a number of settlement agreements, and the effect of the same.  These Settlement Agreements are subject to Curaçao law and contain a Curaçao jurisdiction clause (which is not exclusive).  They also submit that the fraud claims will be determined as part of the applications for negative declarations in the Curaçao Proceedings.  The Claimants dispute that the fraud claims or the full scope of the fraud claims will be determined in the Curaçao Proceedings.

There are significant areas of dispute between the parties as regards what is in issue in the Curaçao Proceedings. The issue that is of most interest to the blog, is the consideration of applicable law under Rome II. [79] Freedman J notes “VTB [VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5] ,was a case where English law (used as a shorthand to refer to the law of England and Wales) was the proper law of the tort, but where the majority of the court nonetheless stayed the action in favour of the matter being more appropriately litigated in Russia.”

A first issue is the catchment area of Rome II’s ‘non-contractual obligations’, to typically common law equitable wrongs including dishonestly assisting breach of trust/fiduciary duty. [83] the judge holds with reference to Dicey, Morris and Collins 16th Ed. that they likely do. [84] The most likely lex causae following Rome II is English law and  ‘(I)t seems unlikely that Article 4(3) would apply given the closer connection of any tort or delict with England and Wales rather than with Curaçao or any other country. ‘

The issues will be further discussed at trial and one imagines both Rome I and Rome II will return there. But for now, jurisdiction is going ahead.

Geert.

Posted on

Does objection to territorial jurisdiction only, imply submission under Article 26 Brussels Ia? Gelderland in X v Lufthansa.

The first instance court of Gelderland held in X v Lufthansa that the latter’s limitation to objecting to territorial jurisdiction within The Netherlands, rather than to jurisdiction of the Dutch courts as such, amounts to submission under A26 BIa, leaving the Dutch courts to decide on territorial jurisdiction with reference to internal Dutch civil procedure rules (CPR).

The remainder of the judgment then agrees with Lufthansa on the basis of Dutch CPR identifying the defendant’s office or branch as the territorially relevant factor, leaving Gelderland without jurisdiction. The court seemingly rejected itself as forum contractus, holding that CJEU C-204/08 Rehder v Air Baltic does not apply due to the flight in current case not being intra-EU (final destination being Baku). I would have expected the court to consider C-20/21 LOT Polish Airlines, where the final destination equally was outside the EU.

I do not know what claimant argued (forum contractus one assumes, perhaps locus damni per A7(2) BIA?), at any rate it is wrong to hold that a limitation of jurisdictional objection to internal distribution, implies submission per A26 BIa, for those heads of jurisdiction which assign jurisdiction territorially, not just nationally. That includes A7 forum contractus and forum delicti.

Geert.

 

Posted on

The French Supreme Court in Barclay Pharmaceuticals v Mekni, summarily on blitz service under Brussels Ia, and on Article 24(3)’s jurisdiction viz public registers.

Thank you Gilles Cuniberti for flagging and discussing the French Supreme Court’s judgment in JE and B v Barclay Pharmaceuticals [cross-referral to the English judgment makes this Barclay Pharmaceuticals v Mekni]. Much of this post is already included in prof Cuniberti’s posts.

The core of the case concerns the enforcement of an English judgment [Barclay Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Antoine Mekni and others, [2018] 6 WLUK 461] which, in assisting Barclay Pharmaceuticals with enforcement of an earlier established £8.7 million debt (since accrued with costs etc to about £12 million), had declaratorily held that a large number of bank accounts and other entities which for the most part purport to belong to parties other than Mr Mekni, are in truth owned by him. Mr Mekni did not appear in the English declaratory relief proceedings hence did not there object to jurisdiction.

The relevant issue in the French proceedings for the purposes of the blog, is first of all Article 24(3) Brussels Ia’s exclusive jurisdiction for ‘proceedings which have as their object the validity of entries in public registers’. As Gilles had earlier discussed, here the Supreme Court [5-6] held that an English judgment determining ownership in shares held in public registers, does not engage ‘the validity of entries in public registers’, for said exclusive jurisdiction, it holds, only extends to the formal validity of such entry, not to the ownership of the assets related to the entry.

As Gilles notes, it was possible for the SC succinctly to deal with the A24(3) argument for under the applicable French law relating to the type of corporation involved, whose shares were the object of the proceedings, the only impact of the (non-obligatory) registration was to create limited third party effect; registration has no bearing on the existence, validity and ownership of the shares. Professor Cuniberti justifiably signals that a distinction between substantive and formal validity may not always be easily made.

The second issue of note to the blog, is the issue of service. A43(1) BIa prescribes that

Where enforcement is sought of a judgment given in another Member State, the certificate issued pursuant to Article 53 shall be served on the person against whom the enforcement is sought prior to the first enforcement measure. The certificate shall be accompanied by the judgment, if not already served on that person.

Recital 32 adds

In order to inform the person against whom enforcement is sought of the enforcement of a judgment given in another Member State, the certificate established under this Regulation, if necessary accompanied by the judgment, should be served on that person in reasonable time before the first enforcement measure. In this context, the first enforcement measure should mean the first enforcement measure after such service

In the case at issue, service happened at 2:55 PM and enforcement at 3 PM. Does that leave a ‘reasonable time’? I share Gilles’ frustration that the SC [3] merely replied that French CPR does not require the SC to engage with grounds of appeal that are manifestly unarguable

En application de l’article 1014, alinéa 2, du code de procédure civile, il n’y a pas lieu de statuer par une décision spécialement motivée sur ces griefs qui ne sont manifestement pas de nature à entraîner la cassation.

The take-away from this is that the SC in the circumstances did not see a clear infringement of A43 juncto A53 BIa. That does of course leave a lot of speculation as to when the timing of service might lead to enforcement issues – crucial too, I would suggest, in case of provisional measures.

Geert.

 

%d bloggers like this: