Tag: Curia

Posted on

Germany v Commission re toys: ECJ confirms that recourse to precautionary principle is no walk in the park.

The ECJ this morning held in Germany v Commission (for context see my earlier posting). On 1 March 2012, the European Commission only partially (and temporarily) granted Germany approval for upholding stricter limits on limit values for lead, barium, arsenic, antimony, mercury, nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances in toys (for the decision, see here).
The ECJ stood with Germany only in its appeal against the EC’s decision on values for lead: this decision was internally inconsistent (acknowledgement of higher public health protection in the German measures while at the same time unfounded (and vague) limitation in time for those German measures). However for all other substances, the ECJ rejected Germany’s appeal. In doing so it emphasises the burden of proof which the precautionary principle implies (often misrepresented by opponents of the principle). The review of the available scientific evidence shows first of all the challenges associated with the different methods employed by Germany cq the EC. The latter’s measures employ migration limits (migration being the amount of toxic substances not just released from the product but effectively absorbed by the human body), while Germany’s measures rely on bioavailability (the amount of chemical substances released from the product and available for human absorption, even if not all of that is necessarily effectively absorbed).

The ECJ supports the room for Member States to have divergent opinions on risk than those of the EC, however, it needs to show that the national measures better protect human health and do so in a proportionate way. The crucial shortcoming in Germany’s proof turned out to be that its exposure scenarios were, in the view of the ECJ, unrealistic (and not supported by further scientific reporting): they imply simultaneous exposure of a child to all possible toy safety Directive scenarios: dry, brittle, powder-like or pliable toy material; AND liquid or stocky toy material; AND scraped-off toy material.

Hum. That such simultaneous exposure should necessarily be unrealistic is of course open to debate. Many of us have tales to tell of children achieving the impossible with toys clearly not designed for the game a child or group of children might at some point concoct . (Reminiscent of the inherently flawed furniture endurance tests displayed by large furniture chains: I have always thought that letting our family loose on the displayed piece of kitchen, bathroom or dining room furniture would be a more realistic test than an engineered testroom).

As often with risk assessment and risk management: the final conclusion almost always remains open to discussion.

Geert.

 

Posted on

Lis alibi pendens rule does NOT apply (to the court seized second having such jurisdiction) in the event of exclusive jurisdictional rules – The ECJ in Weber v Weber

In C-438/12 Weber v Weber the ECJ gave helpful clarification of the non-application of the strict lis alibi pendens rules of the Jurisdiction Regulation in the event of infringement of the Regulation’s exclusive jurisdictional rules. This to my knowledge at least had not yet been clearly established by the Court.

Ms I. Weber (I’) and Ms M. Weber (‘M’), are co-owners to the extent of 6/10 and 4/10 of a property in Munich.  On the basis of a notarised act of 20 December 1971, a right in rem of pre‑emption over the four-tenths share belonging to M was entered in the Land Register in favour of I. By a notorial contract of 28 October 2009, M sold her four-tenths share to Z. GbR, a company incorporated under German law, of which one of the directors is her son, Mr Calmetta, a lawyer established in Milan. According to one of the clauses in that contract, M, as the seller, reserved a right of withdrawal valid until 28 March 2010 and subject to certain conditions.

Being informed by the notary who had drawn up the contract in Munich, I exercised her right of pre-emption by letter of 18 December 2009. On 25 February 2010, by a contract concluded before that notary, I and M once more expressly recognised the effective exercise of the right of pre-emption by I and agreed that the property should be transferred to her for the same price as that agreed in the contract for sale signed between M and Z. GbR. However, the two parties asked the notary not to carry out the procedures for the registration of the transfer of property in the Land Register until M had made a written declaration before the same notary that she had not exercised her right of withdrawal or that she had waived that right arising from the contract concluded with Z. GbR within the period laid down, which expired on 28 March 2010. On 2 March, I paid the agreed purchase price of EUR 4 million.

By letter of 15 March 2010, M declared that she had exercised her right of withdrawal from the contract of 28 October 2009. By an application of 29 March 2010, Z. GbR brought an action against I and M, before the District Court, Milan, seeking a declaration that the exercise of the right of pre-emption by I was ineffective and invalid, and that the contract concluded between M and that company was valid.

On 15 July 2010, I brought proceedings against M before the Landgericht München, seeking an order that M register the transfer of ownership of the four-tenths share with the Land Register.

The Court of Justice first of all had to decide whether an action seeking a declaration that a right in rem in immovable property has not been validly exercised, falls within the category of proceedings which have as their object right in rem in immovable property, within the meaning of Article 22(1) of Regulation No 44/2001. It held that it did, with the required amount of deference to national law: a right of pre-emption, such as that provided for by Paragraph 1094 of the BGB, which attaches to immovable property and which is registered with the Land Register, produces its effects not only with respect to the debtor, but guarantees the right of the holder of that right to transfer the property also vis-à-vis third parties, so that, if a contract for sale is concluded between a third party and the owner of the property burdened, the proper exercise of that right of pre-emption has the consequence that the sale is without effect with respect to the holder of that right, and the sale is deemed to be concluded between the holder of that right and the owner of the property on the same conditions as those agreed between the latter and the third party.

The next core question was whether Article 27’s lis alibi pendens rule applies in the event of the court second seized having exclusive jurisdiction. Here, the ECJ distinguished Gasser, in which it declined freedom for the court second seized to assume priority on the basis of a choice of court agreement. (A particular use of torpedoeing which is now addressed by the Brussels I-bis Regulation). It refers in particular to the positive obligation included in Article 35 of the Jurisdiction Regulation for courts not to recognise earlier judgments which were held in contravention of Article 22’s exclusive jurisdictional rules. Article 23’s choice of court agreements, by contrast, does not feature in Article 35.

The ECJ’s reference to Article 35  in my view means that the Court’s reasoning extends to all jurisdictional rules included in that article, including the protected categories of consumers and insureds (not, strangely, employees. This will change however following the Brussels I recast). There is lingering doubt however over the impact of the judgment on the application of Article 22(4)’s rule on intellectual property. In Weber (at 56) the Court holds that ‘ In those circumstances, the court second seised is no longer entitled to stay its proceedings or to decline jurisdiction, and it must give a ruling on the substance of the action before it in order to comply with the rule on exclusive jurisdiction.‘ In the application of Article 22(4), this continues to raise the question whether ‘the substance of the action before it’ only concerns the validity of the intellectual property, or also the underlying issue of infringement of such property.

Weber v Weber is a crucial further step in clarifying the lis alibi pendens rule. Sadly, family tussles do often advance the state of the law.

Geert.

Posted on

Christmas crums part II – ÖFAB confirms narrow scope of the insolvency exception and clarifies ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ in case of tort by omission

Ok, I cheat. Judgment of the ECJ in C-147/12 ÖFAB is in fact a left-over of my summer queue. Contractual claims for payment against a Swedish company (Copperhill) had been assigned to Invest, equally domiciled in Sweden. Invest brought an action against a former director and former major shareholder, both domiciled in The Netherlands. Invest sought to have both held liable for the debts of the company, because they had allegedly allowed that company to continue to carry on business even though it was undercapitalised and was forced to go into liquidation.

Firstly the Court had to decide whether the action falls within the ‘insolvency’ exception of Article 1(2)(b) of the Regulation, which provides that it does not to apply to ‘bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings’. The ECJ held that the exception did not apply, for – per previous case-law – it has to be interpreted narrowly. Only actions which derive directly from insolvency proceedings and are closely connected with them are covered by the exception. Here, the actions in the main proceedings do not constitute insolvency proceedings but were brought after Copperhill had been subject to a company reconstruction order (a near-automatic consequence of Swedish company law, I understand, in the event of limited companies having insufficient capital). In any event, the Court held, those actions do not concern the exclusive prerogative of the liquidator to be exercised in the interests of the general body of creditors, but of rights which an individual creditor is free to exercise in its own interests.

Next up was the qualification of the action as one in tort under Article 5(3) of the Brussels-I Regulation, and if so, the determination of the locus delicti commissi. The underlying debt was a result of work carried out under contract, however the action was based on the former company director and shareholder allegedly not properly having carried out their monitoring duties. Consequently the Court held in favour of the application of Article 5(3)’s special jurisdictional rule for tort.

That leaves the determination of the locus delicti commissi. What was at stake, the Court suggested, was not the financial situation or the carrying-on of the business of that company per se, but rather the conclusion to be drawn as regards a possible failure of monitoring by the member of the board of directors and the shareholder.

Turning to the locus delicti commissi, the Court refers to the place where the activities of the company took place: ‘ It is clear from the documents submitted to the Court that, in the period in which the disputed facts took place, Copperhill’s seat was in the municipality of Åre within the jurisdiction of the Östersunds tingsrǎtt, where, in the same period, it carried on its business and built a hotel. In those circumstances, it appears that the activities carried out and the financial situation related to those activities is connected to that place. In any event, the information on the financial situation and activities of that company necessary to fulfill the management obligations by the member of the board of directors and the shareholder should have been available there. The same is true for the information concerning the alleged failure to comply with those obligations. It is for the referring court to ascertain the accuracy of that information.‘ (at 54).

In other words, in a tort caused by omission (rather than by positive action by the alleged tortfeasor), the Court turns to the place where the tortfeasor’s action ought to have taken place, so as to avoid the very omission that led to the action in tort. For it is that place which answers best to the very raison d’être of the special jurisdictional rules of Article 5: ‘In matters of tort, delict or quasi-delict, the courts of the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur are usually the most appropriate for deciding the case, in particular on grounds of proximity and ease of taking evidence‘   (at 50, with reference ex multis to Folien Fischer).

A very useful judgment. Geert.

Posted on

‘More closely connected’ in employment contracts – The ECJ in Schlecker emphasises tax and national insurance (social security)

I reported earlier on Wahl AG’s Opinion in C-64/12 Schlecker. The ECJ held last week. Reminder: formally the judgment relates to the application of the similar provision in the predecessor of the Rome I Regulation, the 1980 Rome Convention. The relevant provisions have not materially changed, however. The ECJ in fact refers to the slightly more precise provisions of Rome I in support.

In the case at issue, a closer connection with Germany was suggested by the circumstances as a whole, in particular by the following facts: the employer is a legal person governed by German law; the remuneration was paid in German marks (prior to the introduction of the euro); the pension arrangements were made with a German pension provider; Ms Boedeker had continued to reside in Germany, where she paid her social security contributions; the employment contract referred to mandatory provisions of German law; and the employer reimbursed Ms Boedeker’s travel costs from Germany to the Netherlands.

The Court concurs with the AG that the closer connection test must apply as suggested by its formulation: even if there is a habitual place of performance, this may be trumped by other circumstances. However the Court also held that the sheer amount of ‘other criteria’ in and of itself does not suffice to rebut the presumption: ‘the court called upon to rule in a particular case cannot automatically conclude that the rule laid down in Article 6(2)(a) of the Rome Convention must be disregarded solely because, by dint of their number, the other relevant circumstances – apart from the actual place of work – would result in the selection of another country‘ (at 40).

In other words: the actual place of work has considerable gravity. Nevertheless, among the other criteria, there are two, the Court suggested (however without reference to specific support in preparatory works or otherwise), which are particularly relevant:

‘among the significant factors suggestive of a connection with a particular country, account should be taken in particular of the country in which the employee pays taxes on the income from his activity and the country in which he is covered by a social security scheme and pension, sickness insurance and invalidity schemes. In addition, the national court must also take account of all the circumstances of the case, such as the parameters relating to salary determination and other working conditions.’ (at 41).

As always, much misery may be avoided by inserting a proper choice of law in the contract, in accordance with the Convention (now Regulation).

Geert.

Posted on

‘Appropriate assesment’ under the Habitats Directive as applied in Sweetman. Basically, avoid the water going under the (limestone) bridge.

In the event of a site classified under the EU’s Habitat directive, in case screening has revealed the possibility or the risk that a planned project may cause significant effects to the site, an ‘appropriate assessment’ will have to be drawn up. Sweetman is unusual in that, to Sharpston AG’s memory, the Court’s previous case-law concerns situations where there has been no appropriate assessment in terms of that provision and the question is whether such an assessment is necessary. Here, by contrast, an assessment was undertaken and there is no suggestion that it was improperly conducted – indeed, all the indications are that it was done with great care. Rather, the issue concerns the conclusion reached as a result of that assessment, on the basis of which the local authority adopted the decision at issue.

The habitat site concerned hosts a number of priority habitats (see here). If a proposed road development proceeds, 1.47 hectares of limestone pavement will be permanently lost.The discussion centres on the impact of this loss for the integrity and survival of the site.

The appropriate assessment stage corresponds to the second sentence of article 6.3 of the Habitats Directive, i.e.

In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public.

The aim of the appropriate assessment is to provide an answer to this question, since the protection regime under the Habitats Directive only allows a project to be authorized on condition that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned, unless the exceptions of article 6.4 are applied.

In Sweetman the Court held that the interpretation of this criterion has to be construed as a coherent whole in the light of the conservation objectives pursued by the Habitats Directive, meaning that the integrity of the site is not adversely affected, in case it is preserved at a favourable conservation status. This entails the lasting preservation of the constitutive characteristics of the site concerned that are connected to the presence of the natural habitat type or the species whose preservation was the objective justifying the designation of the site in the list of SCI’s.

Based on this reasoning, the Court concluded that competent national authorities cannot authorize interventions in a site protected under the Habitats Directive where there is a risk of lasting harm to the ecological requirements of sites which host priority natural habitat types. According to the Court, that would particularly be so where there is a risk that an intervention of a particular kind will bring about the disappearance or the partial and irreparable destruction of a priority natural habitat type present on the site concerned. This risk needs to be assessed in accordance with the precautionary principle.

Previously, the Court had taken a similar approach with regard to the disappearance of priority species in Commission v Spain. 

In the main proceedings, the Lough Corrib SCI was designated as a site hosting a priority habitat type because, in particular, of the presence in that site of limestone pavement, a natural resource which, once destroyed, cannot be replaced. The natural habitat affected by the proposed road scheme is among the priority natural habitat types, which Article 1(d) of the Habitats Directive defines as ‘natural habitat types in danger of disappearance’ for whose conservation the European Union has ‘particular responsibility’.

The conservation objective, the Court noted,  thus corresponds to maintenance at a favourable conservation status of that site’s constitutive characteristics, namely the presence of limestone pavement. Consequently, if, after an appropriate assessment of a plan or project’s implications for a site, carried out on the basis of the first sentence of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, the competent national authority concludes that that plan or project will lead to the lasting and irreparable loss of the whole or part of a priority natural habitat type whose conservation was the objective that justified the designation of the site concerned as an SCI, the view should be taken that such a plan or project will adversely affect the integrity of that site.

That does not mean that the planned project cannot go ahead – however the procedure for it to be allowed, becomes ever more stringent.

There’s no use crying over spilled milk. Or lamenting water having already gone under the bridge. However faits accomplis have no place in EU habitat protection , especially for priority sites: for once gone, it’s gone: otherwise it would not even be on the list.

Geert.

Posted on

Negative jurisdiction conflicts covered by enforcement title of Brussels I – The ECJ in Gothaer

The ECJ has issued its ruling in C-456/11 Gothaer, the AG’s Opinion in which I reported earlier. The Court first of all confirmed that the term ‘judgment’ within the meaning of Article 32 of Regulation No 44/2001 covers a judgment by which a court of a Member State declines jurisdiction on the ground of an agreement on jurisdiction, even though that judgment is classified as a ‘procedural judgment’ by the law of the Member State addressed.

Moreover, the ECJ held that the court in the Member State in which enforcement is sought, is bound by the finding of the first court – made in the grounds of a judgment, which has since become final, declaring the action inadmissible – regarding the validity of that clause. To justify its finding, it refers in principle to the very definition of recognition as highlighted in the Report Jenard: recognition must ‘have the result of conferring on judgments the authority and effectiveness accorded to them in the State in which they were given’. Accordingly, a foreign judgment which has been recognised under Article 33 of Regulation No 44/2001 must in principle have the same effects in the State in which recognition is sought as it does in the State of origin. It further emphasizes the same arguments as flagged by the AG in coming to its finding.

On the peculiarity that in the case at issue, the choice of court clause points way from the EU, which raises the question what effect can be given to such clauses under the Jurisdiction Regulation, the court concedes that Article 23 does not apply, however, like the AG, it refers to the Lugano Convention, which contains a proviso very much like Article 23 JR. That to me is a bit of an awkward finding: whether the choice of court clause points to a Lugano State or not ought to be irrelevant. It would, through the recognition process, make choice of court in favour of Lugano States in some way less ‘not covered’ by the JR than those pointing to non-Lugano States (and by flagging Lugano, the Court leaves open the question of jurisdiction clauses in favour of non-Lugano States). A further argument made by the court in my view is more convincing, namely the ‘but for’ argument:

To allow a court of the Member State in which recognition is sought to disregard, as devoid of effect, the jurisdiction clause which a court of the Member State of origin has held to be valid would run counter to that prohibition of a review as to the merits, particularly in circumstances where the latter might well have ruled, but for that clause, that it had jurisdiction. (at 38)

Indeed typically the action in the court of origin is taken by the recalcitrant party (i.e. the one acting in spite of a choice of court clause), trying to convince the court of origin that it has jurisdiction on the basis of another Article in the JR, Whence indeed but for the clause, that court would most likely have exercised jurisdiction. A finding of validity of the clause therefore is likely to have been seriously considered. Allowing a court in another Member State to nevertheless exercise jurisdiction and refusing recognition and enforcement,  would make the JR nugatory.  This is in my view no different where as a result (such as here) no court in the EU will be able to hear the case.

Geert.

Posted on

Court Judgment in Solvay: Roche distinguished, jurisdiction for provisional measures upheld in spite of Article 22(4) JR.

Solvay, case C-616/10 [I reported on the AG’s Opinion here; readers may want to have a quick look at that post before or after reading on], was decided by the Court on Thursday, 12 July. AG and Court revisited a number of old chestnuts in the application of the Brussels I Regulation (the Jurisdiction Regulation or ‘JR’): the exclusive ground of jurisdiction with respect to intellectual property rights, of Article 22(4); multipartite litigation in Article 6 JR; and finally provisional measures, referred to in Article 31.

Solvay accuses Honeywell Flourine Products Europe BV and Honeywell Europe NV of performing the reserved actions in the whole of Europe and Honeywell Belgium NV of performing the reserved actions in Northern and Central Europe. In the course of its action for infringement, on 9 December 2009 Solvay also lodged an interim claim against the Honeywell companies, seeking provisional relief in the form of a cross-border prohibition against infringement until a decision had been made in the main proceedings.  In the interim proceedings, the Honeywell companies raised the defence of invalidity of the national parts of the patent concerned without, however, having brought or even declared their intention of bringing proceedings for the annulment of the national parts of that patent, and without contesting the competence of the Dutch court to hear both the main proceedings and the interim proceedings.

On the applicability of Artice 6 (multipartite litigation), the Court agrees with the AG that Roche still holds: the same situation of law cannot be inferred where infringement proceedings are brought before a number of courts in different Member States in respect of a European patent granted in each of those States and those actions are brought against defendants domiciled in those States in respect of acts allegedly committed in their territory. A European patent continues to be governed, per the Munich Convention, by the national law of each of the Contracting States for which it has been granted.

However in the specific circumstances of a case, Roche may be distinguished: whether there is a risk of irreconcilable judgments if those claims were determined separately, is for the national court to determine. The Court of Justice instructs the national court to take into account, inter alia, the dual fact that, first, the defendants in the main proceeding are each separately accused of committing the same infringements with respect to the same products and, secondly, such infringements were committed in the same Member States, so that they adversely affect the same national parts of the European patent at issue.

On the application of Article 22(4), the Court emphasises the very different and unconnected nature of Article 22 and Article 31. They are part of different titles of the Regulation, etc. However, on the other hand, the application of one part of the Regulation may of course have an impact on the remainder, hence one cannot simply apply different parts of the Regulation in splendid isolation.

The COJ notes that according to the referring court, the court before which the interim proceedings have been brought does not make a final decision on the validity of the patent invoked but makes an assessment as to how the court having jurisdiction under Article 22(4) of the Regulation would rule in that regard, and will refuse to adopt the provisional measure sought if it considers that there is a reasonable, non-negligible possibility that the patent invoked would be declared invalid by the competent court. Hence there is no risk of conflicting decisions: the interim proceedings have been brought will not in any way prejudice the decision to be taken on the substance by the court having jurisdiction under Article 22(4) .

‘…does not make a final decision’: this effectively means that the Court simply states that as long as the main condition of Article 31 is met [measures covered by Article 31 need to be ‘provisional’; see also Case C-261/90 Reichert], Article 22(4) does not interfere with a court’s jurisdiction under Article 31.

Geert.

Posted on

Mirror, mirror. Cartesio obiter clarified in Vale. The Court of Justice further completes the corporate migration jigsaw.

Postscript 22 December 2016. Corporate migration also often triggers issues of ‘exit taxation’. Core reference is C-371/10 National Grid Indus (other than Daily Mail of course; referred to below). Grid Indus was referred to extensively by Kokott AG yesterday (21 December) in Case C-646/15 Panayi. Do trust enjoy the protection of the four freedoms even if they do not have distinct legal personality? (Answer Yes). What is Member States’ freedom of manouevre for exit taxation. (Answer in principle untouched. But since such taxation impacts upon freedom of establishment, tax treatment needs to be proportionate).

 

In family law, the status and capacity of a natural person is largely determined by a person’s nationality, which generally stays with it for life, or, particularly in common law countries, by a person’s domicile, which is less fixed but nevertheless assumes strong links with a particularly State. The corporate equivalent of nationality and domicile is the lex societatis. It is the ‘personal law’ or corporate identity of companies [Hartley, T.C., International Commercial Litigation, Cambridge, CUP, 2009, 506.]. It often determines ‘whether the company had been validly created; what its constitution is; what the powers are of its organs, officers and shareholders; whether it has been merged with another company; and whether it has been dissolved.’ [Ibid] These in others words are the corporate equivalents of life and death, capacity, marriage, divorce, adoption etc.

Just as individual may want to change nationality, or acquire another, and face the consequences of their choice under States’ nationality laws, so, too, do companies want to migrate for all sorts of reasons: shareholder structures, fiscal, directors’ liability, etc. They, too, face consequences: the original State (the ‘home’ State) may not want to let go, and put in place al sorts of hurdles for the company to migrate. The new State (the ‘host’ State) may equally be unimpressed with and unwelcoming to the newcomers’ arrival. States’ willingness or not to welcome new arrivals and to say goodbye to those wishing to leave, loosely translates into two main models: the real seat theory, and the incorporation theory.

In the EU, these issues play a particular role as they come within the purview of the freedom of establishment, laid down in Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (‘TFEU’):

Article 49

(ex Article 43 TEC)

Within the framework of the provisions set out below, restrictions on the freedom of establishment of nationals of a Member State in the territory of another Member State shall be prohibited. Such prohibition shall also apply to restrictions on the setting-up of agencies, branches or subsidiaries by nationals of any Member State established in the territory of any Member State.

Freedom of establishment shall include the right to take up and pursue activities as self-employed persons and to set up and manage undertakings, in particular companies or firms within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 54, under the conditions laid down for its own nationals by the law of the country where such establishment is effected, subject to the provisions of the Chapter relating to capital.

Article 50 TFEU foresees harmonisation to accompany the principal freedom. However the Union legislator (and the Community legislator before it) has not got all that far.

It has therefore, largely been the Court of Justice which has had to establish how far Member States’ freedom of manoeuvre reaches in obstructing corporate migration. In Daily Mail, the Court gave a lot of leeway to Member States on the outbound corporate migration side: the home Member States have a lot of freedom in determining the consequences of corporate migration. By contrast, in Centros, Ǜberseering, and Inspire Art, the Court was much stricter for inbound corporate migration: the host Member State has to have very good, ad hoc reasons for obstructing  freedom of establishment (and services) by insisting on incorporation and /or refusing commercial activities of affiliates, if all the company concerned wants to do, is to do business in the host Member State (rather than actually incorporating). All these cases are referenced in Jääskinen AG‘s Opinion.

In Cartesio, the Court stuck to its perceived dichotomy between in- and outbound migration, despite a plea by Maduro AG to approximate the two. The court then added an obiter in para 112:

‘In fact, in that latter case, the power referred to in paragraph 110 above, far from implying that national legislation on the incorporation and winding-up of companies enjoys any form of immunity from the rules of the EC Treaty on freedom of establishment, cannot, in particular, justify the Member State of incorporation, by requiring the winding-up or liquidation of the company, in preventing that company from converting itself into a company governed by the law of the other Member State, to the extent that it is permitted under that law to do so.’

[the English version of the text in fact is not the clearest]

That obiter got many excited, and confused: do the final words of para 112 imply that the host Member State can choose whether to accept such re-incorporation, or rather, does Article 49 TFEU imply that the host Member State has no choice but to accept such re-incorporation?

In Cartesio, a company incorporated in Hungary wanted to change its operational headquarters to Italy but keep Hungarian incorporation. Hungarian corporate law does not allow for this: a company can keep its Hungarian incorporation but only if it moves headquarters within Hungary. Otherwise it has to dissolve in Hungary and incorporate elsewhere.

The case decided yesterday, Case C-378/10 Vale, is a mirror image (see also Stefan Rammeloo’s bullet-point overview of issues here): an Italian company wants to dissolve in Italy and re-incorporate in Hungary, and it wishes its Italian predecessor to be recognised as its legal predecessor, meaning all rights and obligations of the old company transfer to the new. A procedure which is perfectly possible for Hungarian companies, within Hungary: in particular, by changing company form. Vale’s application for registration was rejected. The obiter in Cartesio led to speculation whether the host Member State is under a duty to co-operate with such conversion (as opposed to Cartesio, which sought to establish the limits to obstruction by the home Member State).

The Court in my view /in my reading of the judgment took a perfectly logical approach to the obiter: ‘to the extent that it is permitted under that law to do so‘ refers to the existence of a national conversion procedure. If nationally incorporated companies may convert and transfer all rights and obligations to the new company, any restrictions on foreign companies employing this mechanism come within the reach of Article 49 TFEU.

There may be reasons for the host Member State to restrict this possibility in specific instances (for reasons of e.g. protection of the interests of creditors, minority shareholders and employees, the preservation of the effectiveness of fiscal supervision and the fairness of commercial transactions: see para 39 of Vale), however none of these apply here: Hungarian law precludes, in a general manner, cross‑border conversions, with the result that it prevents such operations from being carried out even if the interests mentioned in paragraph 39 above are not threatened in any event (para 40).

The host Member State must therefore open the possibility of conversion to foreign registered companies, (only) if it has such conversion possibility in its own corporate laws. Any conditions imposed by national law (documentation, proof of actual economic continuity of operations etc) may also be imposed on these foreign companies, provided this is done in a transparent, non-discriminatory fashion, and in a way which does not jeopardise the actual freedom of establishment.

It is interesting to note that the Court recycled (as it did in Cartesio), the very core Daily Mail quote which explains its hesitation effectively to harmonise corporate law itself, through too drastic an interpretation of Article 49 TFEU:

‘companies are creatures of national law and exist only by virtue of the national legislation which determines their incorporation and functioning‘(Vale, para 27).

No doubt many corporate law implications escape me (see, on the AG’s Opinion, rather excellently Thomas Biermeyer and Thore Holtrichter in the Columbia Journal of European Law here) and will lead to further cases at the Court.

 Geert.
(Handbook of) European Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 7, Heading 7.6.
Posted on

Once more unto the breach – German action against Commission Decision on the Toy safety Directive provides a master class in EU law

Pre-script: this case is now known as Case T-198/12, and on 15 May 2013 the Court by way of interim measure ordered the Commission to grant approval to the German measures in full, at least until such time as a judgment on the substance has been issued. It made specific reference to the precautionary principle. The ECJ eventually held in May 2014.

 

I have always thought of legislation on, and trade in, toys, as a perfect illustration for many regulatory mechanisms worldwide. Prof Francis Snyder’s work (see e.g. here) is a perfect illustration of same.

This is no different for the general workings, and finer mechanics, of EU law. Once more, the sector hands teachers and practitioners of EU law a perfect illustration of harmonisation techniques, exhaustion (pre-emption) arguments, and judicial review.

On 1 March 2012, the European Commission only partially (and temporally) granted Germany approval for upholding stricter limits on limit values for lead, barium, arsenic, antimony, mercury, nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances in toys (for the decision, see here)  [As an aside, it is often said that one should never watch laws and sausages being made. Reading that list of substances, prima facie (only) one might want to add toys to that list]. Germany has announced it will appeal that decision with the Court of Justice of the EU.

I can think of one or two areas for discussion: risk management and migration limits v bioavailability (or the cheese and chalk argument); limits to pre-emption; application of the ‘environmental and health guarantee’ of Article 114 TFEU, including the principle of proportionality. Expect that future judgment to feature in core readers of EU law.

Geert.

%d bloggers like this: