Tag: Brussels Ia

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

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.

 

Posted on

Look away now. Dutch Court, wrongly, minded to uphold choice of court in tenancy agreement despite Article 24 Brussels Ia.

The wide (even if not absolute: see Handbook 2.162 ff) catchment area of Article 24(1) Brussels Ia in the specific context of tenancies is contested, so much so that when the Brussels I Regulation was being revised, the Commission proposed to widen the existing, narrow exception for short-time holiday lets, to rental agreements concerning tenancies of premises for professional use. However it was not followed by Council or Parliament.

Despite this established application of A24(1), the appeal judges in X v Y  ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2023:306 (seriously why the need for anonymity) question its applicability to a claim in rent arrears with the rental agreement concluded by the tenant so as to let the rooms professionally. Parties have agreed choice of court and law for The Netherlands, despite the property being located in Austria (the judge tries to keep even that from public eyes yet it is given away in 3.10). The judges 3.10 mistakenly nota bene assume that non-exlusively expressed choice of court, is indeed non-exclusive (A25 BIa says otherwise).  The judge equally wrongly suggests that a claim for arrears without claims viz for instance enjoyment of the property, obligations vis-a-vis the neighbours etc., is not caught by A24(1).

Should anyone think CJEU C-73/77 Sanders v Van der Putte comes to the rescue, they are wrong. I know the CJEU itself sloppily summarised that  case [13] in C-280/90 Hacker as meaning that A24(1) ‘did not apply to a contract which concerned the operation of a business’. In reality, in Sanders the CJEU concluded that A24(1) was not engaged due to the claim relating to the lease by lessor to lessee of a usufruct on a retail business, with lessor itself renting the property from a third party (that was not involved in the proceedings): that claim simply did not relate to a ‘tenancy’ between parties.

The Dutch courts clearly do not have jurisdiction and whichever party in the Dutch proceedings has an interest in that being confirmed, should say so.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, 2.174 ff.

Posted on

Asian Offshore Services v Self Elevating Platform – SEP. A sloppy conclusion on ‘Principal place of business’ in Brussels Ia.

I am mopping up draft posts so forgive me if some of them are a touch late compared to my original report on them on Twitter.  Asian Offshore Services v Self Elevating Platform ECLI:NL:RBROT:2023:34 of the Court of First Instance at Rotterdam is an interesting illustration of the positive conflicts rule of Article 4 juncto Article 63 Brussels Ia.

Article 4’s domicile rule is supplemented by Article 63’s definition of domicile for legal persons:

Article 63:

1.   For the purposes of this Regulation, a company or other legal person or association of natural or legal persons is domiciled at the place where it has its: statutory seat [Dutch: statutaire zetel]; central administration; [Dutch: hoofdbestuur] or principal place of business [Dutch: hoofdvestiging].

2.   For the purposes of Ireland, Cyprus and the United Kingdom, ‘statutory seat’ means the registered office or, where there is no such office anywhere, the place of incorporation or, where there is no such place anywhere, the place under the law of which the formation took place.

3.   In order to determine whether a trust is domiciled in the Member State whose courts are seised of the matter, the court shall apply its rules of private international law.

A63 may lead to so-called positive conflicts: more than one court considering itself to be the domicile of the defendant. This is interesting nota bene in the case of business and human rights cases where claimants may want to forum shop and sue in the EU, such as in Anglo American.

In the case at issue, the court first of all [4.2] dismisses the parties’ awkward consensus [4.1] that neither Brussels Ia, nor any international Treaty determines jurisdiction. Clearly Brussels Ia does apply (claimant is domiciled at Kuala Lumpur; defendant registered in Curaçao) and the Court applies it proprio motu.

The court then points to the statutory seat in Curaçao, and [4.9] notes SEP’s lack of contestation that Sliedrecht is its ‘fixed place of business’ as testified by an extract from the local commercial register. Now I a may be a stickler for language here but a fixed place of business is not the same as the principal place of business (which implies main business activities). It is the latter which the Regulation requires.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, 2.131 ff.

Posted on

Public Institution for Social Security (PIFFS) v Ruimy. The High Court on ‘case pending’ in Article 34 Brussels Ia (forum non light), and a disappointing obiter conflation of forum non and Article 34.

In Public Institution for Social Security v Ruimy & Anor [2023] EWHC 177 (Comm) Jacobs J rejected both a forum non conveniens argument and an (acquired Brussels Ia) Article 34 Brussels Ia argument (raised by a Luxemburg-based defendant).

My paper on the Article 34 genesis and case-law hitherto is here.

Current claims are related to earlier jurisdictional challenges, culminating in The Public Institution for Social Security v Banque Pictet & Cie SA & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 29 which I discuss here.

PIFSS is a Kuwaiti public institution responsible for Kuwait’s social security system and pension scheme. The claims involve alleged corruption of PIFSS. Director General by international financial institutions and intermediaries in return for causing or influencing PIFSS to invest substantial funds with or through those institutions and intermediaries (or related entities).

Following the Court of Appeal’s decision in January 2022 to uphold the successful jurisdictional challenge by some of the parties (‘the Mirabaud parties’), PIFSS have commenced proceedings against three of the Mirabaud parties (Banque Mirabaud, Mr Pierre Mirabaud and Mr Fauchier-Magnan) in Switzerland. These Swiss proceedings no longer, include a claim in respect of one of the schemes, the ‘Aerium’ scheme. Instead, the claim in those proceedings concerns a large number of other schemes in which the Mirabaud parties are alleged to have participated or assisted.

The forum non arguments are discussed [43] ff and are of course only possible because the United Kingdom are no longer party to the Lugano Convention (and the Swiss proceedings initiated post Brexit). At the heart of the forum non conveniens argument of some of the defendants in current claim, incl. Ruimy, is the proposition that the Aerium Scheme claims should be heard in Switzerland alongside the other claims advanced against the Mirabaud parties. [65] ff Jacobs J holds that defendants have not shown that Switzerland was clearly or distinctly more appropriate than the English forum.

I do not discuss forum non in detail for the interest of the post lies more with the Article 34 analysis.

This is discussed briefly [118] ff with the judge unfortunately albeit obiter following defendants’ concession that failure of the forum non argument would also sink Article 34. The reasoning seems to be that Article 34’s “necessary for the proper administration of justice” test fails if the third State at issue is not shown to be  the clearly or distinctly more appropriate than the English forum. As I discuss in my paper, this is wrong, and it falls into the same trap as the first instance judge in Municipio. While considerations relevant to the forum non test may play a role in Article 34, it is wrong to conflate the two tests.

As noted this view is made obiter only for the formal reason for the judge to reject the Article 34 defence is his decision that Article 34(1)’s condition  that an action be ‘pending before a court of a third State at the time when a court in a Member State is seised of an action which is related to the action in the court of the third State’, has not been met. Per the Court of Appeal in Municipio, “The action in the third state must be pending before the third state court when the member state court becomes seised of the action” (see also Henshaw J in Viegas v Cutrale[149]).

[122] Swiss proceedings which might potentially be considered to be relating to the English proceedings came too late, they were most definitely not pending at the time of the current English claims.

The only potentially relevant “proceedings”, in the context of Article 34, are the proceedings commenced by the service of the commandements de payer, however, they are held not to qualify: [129]

I agree with PIFSS that the request and issue of the commandements de payer did not mean that proceedings were “pending before a court” of Switzerland. In short, this is because there was no document lodged with any court. Commandments de payer are issued by administrative authorities, not a court. …a commandement de payer is at most a precursor to an action in court. In the present case, there was an objection by the recipient, with the result that court proceedings were then necessary if the requesting party wanted to take matters forward. This is what happened in the present case, when PIFSS did issue civil proceedings against the Mirabaud parties in 2022. But there were no relevant court proceedings issued by PIFSS in Switzerland prior to that time.

A judgment of note.

Geert.

Posted on

X v PayPal. Questionable Dutch compulsory settlement jurisdiction reignites discussion similar to English scheme of arrangement tourism. Also raises the question whether compulsory settlements are ‘contracts’ under Rome I.

The Dutch first instance judgment in Groningen  earlier this month, in X v PayPal (Europe) S.a.r.l. & Cie S.C.A., sees claimant debtor essentially seeking a compulsory settlement – CS. PayPal (established in Luxembourg) is the only debtor refusing the settlement proposed by claimant’s bank.

The CS is not listed in Annex I to the Insolvency Regulation 2015/848 (always check for the consolidated version, for the Annex is frequently updated by the Member States’ communication of proceedings to be included). This is where the discussion of scope of application could and should end.

Instead, the judge tests the CS against A1(1)’s abstract criteria. She decides there is neither divestment of assets, nor a temporary stay of individual enforcement proceedings.

This then raises the applicability of Brussels Ia. Seeing as the judge finds the action does not meet with the CJEU F-Tex criteria (Brussels Ia’s insolvency exception only applies to actions which derive directly from insolvency proceedings and are closely connected with them), she holds that Brussels Ia’s ‘insolvency’ exception is not triggered and that BIa applies.

The judge then cuts the corner which English courts in schemes of arrangement have often cut, namely to consider the willing debtors, domiciled in The Netherlands, as ‘defendants’ per Brussels Ia, hereby triggering Article 8(1) BIa’s anchor defendant mechanism. The judge justifies this by stating that the other creditors are interested parties and that it is in the interest of the sound administration of justice that the CS be discussed viz the interested parties as a whole. That may well be so, however in my view that is insufficient reason for A8(1) to be triggered. A8(1) requires ‘defendants’ in the forum state, not just ‘interested parties’. The suggestion that a co-ordinated approach with an eye for all interested parties, justifies jurisdiction, puts A8(1)‘s expediency cart before the A4 ‘defendant’-horse.

The judge then also cuts corners (at least in her stated reasons) on the applicable law issue, cataloguing this firmly in Rome I. She argues that even if the CS is a forced arrangement, replacing a proposed contract which party refused to enter into, it is still a contractual arrangement. That is far from convincing.

Equally not obvious is as the judge holds, that  per A4(2) Rome I, the party required to effect the ‘characteristic performance’ of a compulsory settlement, is the claimant-debtor of the underlying debt, leading to Dutch law being the lex causae.

The judgment at the very least highlights the continuing elephant in the restructuring tourism room, namely the exact nature of these proceedings under Brussels Ia, EIR and Rome I.

Geert.

Posted on

Cornwall Renewable Developments v Wright, Johnston & Mackenzie. A right rigmarole on forum contractus for legal advice.

Cornwall Renewable Developments Ltd v Wright, Johnston & Mackenzie LLP [2022] EWHC 3259 (Ch) is the appeal against [2022] EWHC 441 (Ch) which I flagged here. The jurisdictional challenge concerns the allocation of jurisdiction within the UK. However by statutory instruction in the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (CJJA), account must be taken of the Brussels Regime and CJEU authority on same.

The question is essentially what the ‘place of performance of the obligation in question’ is for legal advice, in this case provided by a Scottish law firm with no place of business yet near-inevitably some dual qualified Scots-E&W lawyers, introduced by an intermediary to an England (Cornwall in fact)-based client viz a development in Cornwall. I have before flagged the difficulty of the ‘obligation in question’ part of the question in light of the unclear, if any, remaining authority of CJEU De Bloos (an issue which unfortunately will not be entertained soon by the CJEU now that the Sao Paolo Panels case has been withdrawn).

Of note (as the judge also does [75] is that the CJJA does not in relevant section have the benefit of the additional clarification in Brussels Ia’s Article 7(1)b: ) ‘for the purpose of this provision and unless otherwise agreed, the place of performance of the obligation in question shall be:…in the case of the provision of services, the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the services were provided or should have been provided;’, although in the case of legal services essentially submitted by phone and e-mail, this might have created its own discussion as the judge’s discussion here also shows.

The result is exactly the kind of rigmarole which forum contractus often leads to, with the principles listed by Smith R [45] ff. The judge confirms [63] after consideration that the first judge was not wrong (this is an appeal, not a de novo assessment) to conclude that the principal “obligation in question” was to provide advice and agreements to the Claimant for negotiation and execution by parties in England, with the intention that they would satisfy Cornwall Council’s planning rules so that planning permission would be granted, and the development could proceed; and that the place where this obligation was to be performed, despite research etc being done from Scotland, was indeed England.

The judgment is (probably too, for a jurisdictional issue) lengthy and I am sure one can find fault with some of the applications of the authorities yet all of this emphasises the urgent need for law firms to include choice of court in their standard retainer agreements.

Best wishes for 2023!

Geert.

Posted on

The CJEU yet again, and briefly, on ‘civil and commercial’ in Brussels Ia. Eurelec Trading: when do competition and fair trading authorities act acta iure imperii.

The Court of Justice yesterday held, without Opinion AG (justifiably in my view), in Case C-98/22 Eurelec Trading Sarl, on yet again the interpretation of ‘civil and commercial’ to determine the scope of application of Brussels Ia.

The dispute in the main proceedings is between the Ministre français de lʼÉconomie et des Finances and two Belgian companies: Eurelec, a pricing and purchasing negotiation centre founded by the French Leclerc group and the German Rewe group, and Scabel, which acts as an intermediary between Eurelec and the French and Portuguese regional purchasing centres of the Leclerc group. Two French undertakings are also parties to the dispute: the Leclerc groupʼ national purchasing centre which negotiates the annual framework contracts with the French suppliers (ʻGALECʼ) and the association of E Leclerc distribution centres (ʻACDLECʼ).

Following an investigation conducted between 2016 and 2018, the Economic Affairs and Finance Minister suspected that potentially restrictive practices were being implemented in Belgium by Eurelec in respect of suppliers established in France. The Minister brought an action against those four companies before the Paris courts,  seeking a declaration ia that the practices consisting in (i) requiring suppliers to accept Belgian law as lex contractus (said to circumvent French lois de police), and (ii) imposing seriously reduced returns, were abusive.

The French Government argue with reference to CJEU Movic that ʻacting in the general interest should not be confused with the exercise of public powersʼ, and that one should distinguish the inquiry stage from the judicial proceedings, in particular, that the criterion for applicability of the Brussels Ia Regulation is the use made of evidence and not the rules for collecting it.

The CJEU disagrees. [26] the claim is based on evidence procured during searches which an ordinary litigation party cannot make resort to, and [27] the procedure at issue involves ia an administrative (not a criminal) fine being sought, which is not a request than can be made by an ordinary civil party. [29] The procedure is one which follows from acta iure imperii, the exercise of public power. [29] CJEU Movic is distinguished for in that case no fine was being sought, merely an end to the restrictive practices as well as damages, which both are claims that can also be made by ordinary parties. The latter once again means that depending on what is included in a claim, BIa may or may not be engaged.

Geert.

European Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, paras 2.28 ff concluding at 2.65.

Posted on

Quite the song and dance. Dutch TikTok class action passes jurisdictional hurdle at first instance, cutting many a((n) appealable) corner in the process.

I reported earlier on the ongoing collective claim against TikTok here. Thank you Xandra Kramer and Eduardo Silva de Freitas for signalling and discussing the first instance jurisdictional finding. I note already that the Court [5.28] has refused interim permission to appeal on the jurisdictional finding (as in i.a. the applicable law issue in Airbus). [5.22] it also refused a preliminary reference o the CJEU even though my concise discussion below already shows that more is at play here than the court has made out. TikTok will now first have to argue the case on the merits to then (presumably) appealing both substance and jurisdictional finding.

As I flagged earlier and as Xandra and Eduardo discuss, the issue here is firstly the relationship between GDPR and Brussels Ia at the jurisdictional level: I discuss that in this paper. Against TikTok Ireland, jurisdiction is established on the basis of A80 GDPR, with no further discussion of A79 (even if A80 partially refers to A79 for the action it establishes).

In my view the court quite carelessly muddles the various concepts used in A79-80, all too easily dismisses ia CJEU Schrems, does not clearly distinguish between assignment, subrogation, mandate etc., and certainly does not correctly delineates the authority which the collective organisations might have under the GDPR: for it is not at all clear that this authority, beyond injunctive relief,  includes a (collective) claim for damages.

[5.13] the court already announces that it may not in fact have jurisdiction for all individuals who are no longer habitually resident in The Netherlands, a concession which in my view in fact goes towards undermining its own reasoning.

[5.14] ff the court then reviews A4 and 7(2) BIa, as a supplementary jurisdictional ground for the GDPR related claims and as a stand-alone ground for the non-GDPR related claims. The court’s decision to apply CJEU Wikingerhof as leading to forum delicti and not forum contractus is in my view optimistic, and surely if A7(2) is at play then the CJEU’s authority ia in Schrems is, too. Yet the court [5.17] quite happily assimilates the harmed individuals’ COMI etc. with the collective organisation.

[5.19-20] the court summarily accepts jurisdiction against the other (non-EU) TikTok entities on the basis of Dutch residual rules for related cases.

Jurisdictional issues will most definitely return upon eventual appeal.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.8.2.5.

 

 

%d bloggers like this: