Posts Tagged Germany
Thank you Bob Wessels for again alerting us (with follow-up here [update 15 January 2018 and here ; looks like regular revisits of prof Wessels’ blog are in order) and also reporting by Lukas Schmidt here) timely to a decision this time by the German courts in Niki, applying the Insolvency Regulation 2015, on the determination of COMI – Centre of Main Interests. Bob’s review is excellent per usual hence I am happy to refer for complete background.
Of particular note is the discussion on the extent of a court’s duty to review jurisdiction ex officio; the court’s correct assumption that in the event of foggy circumstances, the EIR’s presumption of COMI at the place of incorporation must have priority; and finally in my view the insufficient weight the court places on ascertainability by third parties.
(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 5, Heading 5.6.1.
I discussed this case with my students the day the judgment came out. Copy of the judgment has travelled with me far and wide. Yet I only now find myself getting round to posting on Anas v Facebook, at the courts at Würzburg back in February. Mr Anas came from Syria as a refugee and took a famous selfie with Frau Merkel. The photo later came to haunt him as fake news sites used it in connecting with accusations of terrorism. Mr Anas thereupon sued Facebook, requesting it to act more swiftly to remove the various content reporting on him in this matter. The Würzburg court obliged. I understand that in the meantime Mr Anas has halted further action against FB which I am assuming includes the appeal which FB must have launched.
Now, the interest for this blog lies not in the issue of fake news, but rather the jurisdictional grounds for the ruling. Mr Anas sued Facebook Ireland, not Facebook Inc. The latter, I would suggest, he might have done on the basis of the Brussels I Recast’s provisions on consumer contracts – albeit that the conditions for that title might not be fulfilled if Mr Anas became a FB user in Syria.
The court did not entertain the consumer title. It did uphold its jurisdiction on the basis of Article 7(2) of the Recast, as lex loci damni. (But without consideration of the Shevill limitation). Awkwardly, it then lest my German fails me, goes on to determine its internal jurisdiction on the basis of German civil procedure law. Plaintiff was domiciled in Berlin; not Würzburg. The judgment therefore turns into the proverbial cake and eating it: Article 7(2) does not just lay down jurisdiction for a Member State: it also identifies the very court in that MS that has jurisdiction. It cancels out internal rules of jurisdiction. With Mr Anas’ domicile in Berlin, Wurzburg as locus damni is not immediately obvious.
German speakers, if I am not reading this right please do comment.
(Handbook of) European Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.11.
Location of damage resulting from law firm’s alleged wrongful inducement in breach of exclusive jurisdiction clause. The High Court in AMT v Marzillier.
AMT v Marzillier  EWHC 1085 (Comm) concerns special jurisdiction under tort, Article 5(3) of the Brussels I-Regulation, in the event of a loss of contractual right. Here: the loss, allegedly due to wrongful inducement by defendant (a law firm) to have a contractual claim heard in England. Contractual claims (alleged precarious investment advice) by a group of individuals had been settled by AMT in Germany. Popplewell J concisely revisits the complete history of Article 5(3), from Bier via Kalfelis and Dumez France to Marinari and Kronhofer, however, leaving out Shevill. (See also below).
On the basis of said precedents he holds that the Courts of England do indeed have jurisdiction: ‘The place where the damage occurred as a result of MMGR’s allegedly tortious conduct was England, where such conduct deprived AMT of the contractual benefit of the exclusive jurisdiction clause which ought to have been enjoyed in England. ‘ (at 46). Counsel for AMT had also put forward an alternative ground which was that the payments for the settlements and costs came from England, and that England is where management time was wasted and future business lost. Not so: Popplewell J: ‘The unquantified heads of loss for wasted management time and loss of business are not the primary heads of claim and do not constitute the main part of the damage said to have occurred as a result of the harmful event. They are not the damage. They are not initial, direct or immediate damage, but to the extent quantifiable and recoverable, merely the remoter financial consequences of the harm suffered in Germany. ‘ (at 52).
Per Shevil, jurisdiction of the English courts will be limited to the extent of damages suffered by the loss of the contractual benefit of the exclusive jurisdiction clause which ought to have been enjoyed in England: how exactly that ought to be quantified (if liability is at all withheld, of course) will not be a straightforward matter, one assumes. Geert.
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.
In Case C-228/11 Melzer v MS Global, the court at Dusseldorf requested the Court of Justice to clarify Article 5(3) Brussels I, the special jurisdictional rule for tort: on the basis of the application of this rule in Bier, a defendant may be sued in the place where the damage occurred (locus damni) and, if different, where the action (or inaction) leading to that damage occurred (the locus delicti commissi) . Article 5(3), like Article 5(1), determines not just international jurisdiction [i.e. the courts of which Member State have jurisdiction], but also territorial jurisdiction within that State.
Mr Melzer, who is domiciled in Berlin, was solicited as a client and looked after by telephone by the company Weise Wertpapier Handelsunternehmen (‘WWH’), whose registered office is in Düsseldorf. That company opened an account for Mr Melzer with MF Global UK Ltd (‘MF Global UK’), a brokerage house located in London, which traded in stock market futures for Mr Melzer in return for corresponding fees. Mr Melzer brought proceedings before the Landgericht Düsseldorf claiming that MF Global UK should be ordered to pay him damages equivalent to the difference between what he had paid out and what he had received in the context of those transactions, namely EUR 171 075.12, with interest. W.W.H. has not been implicated in the proceedings. In support of his claims, Mr Melzer maintained that he had not been sufficiently informed about the risks involved in futures trading, so far as options contracts were concerned, either by WWH or by MF Global UK.
The court at Dusseldorf rejected its jurisdiction on the basis of locus damni, arguing that this had taken place in Berlin (Melzer’s domicile), not Dusseldorf. It does however argue that it has jurisdiction on the basis of the locus delicti commissi, based on a combination of Article 5(3) Brussels I and the German Civil Code. Under Paragraph 830 of that Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch), entitled ‘Joint participants and common purpose’:
‘(1) Where several persons have caused damage by the commission of an unlawful act undertaken in common, each of them shall be liable for that act. That is also the case even where it is impossible to determine which of the persons involved caused the damage by his act.
(2) Instigators and accomplices shall be treated as joint participants of the act.’
The attribution of W.W.H.’s actions to MS Global, in the view of the Dusseldorf court, gives it jurisdiction on the basis of Article 5(3). It asked the following of the Court of Justice:
‘In the context of jurisdiction in matters relating to tort or delict under Article 5(3) of Regulation [No 44/2001], where there is cross-border participation of several persons in a tort or delict, is reciprocal attribution of the place where the event occurred admissible for determining the place where the harmful event occurred?’
There is no trace in the Jurisdiction Regulation of any rule on attribution for acts committed in tort. There are however many arguments against allowing such attribution from creating extra fora:
The JR’s general rule determines jurisdiction in the domicile of the defendant. This principle may be subject to many exceptions, and to many a jurisdictional rule which trumps it, however it remains the principle. As emphasised repeatedly by the ECJ, exceptions to Article 2’s general rule must be interpreted strictly, for the exceptions would otherwise lead to too many potential jurisdictions. All the more so in the case at issue. Allegations of attributions are easily made, and it is not clear how far the Court can go in reviewing the merits of the argument at the jurisdictional stage.
A restrictive interpretation also serves the Regulation’s purpose, as emphasised by the ECJ, of predictability and reliability. A party may otherwise end up being pursued in courts in which it could not reasonably have foreseen to be sued.
Furthermore of course, the attributive rule at issue superimposes national law unto Article 5(3) JR. The Court’s emphasis on autonomous interpretation sits uneasily with that.
Alternative jurisdictional rules would have been possible to establish jurisdiction: Article 6’s rule on joinders (which would have required plaintiff to use WWH as an anchor defendant) comes to mind; as does Article 5(1)’s rule on contracts (although it may not have been easy to establish that the services under contract were or should have been provided in Dusseldorf).
The Court held on 16 May. It referred inter alia to Refcomp to emphasise the presumption against letting national law infiltrate the concepts used by the Regulation, and to many of the arguments referred to above, and held
Accordingly, the answer to the question referred is that Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not allow the courts of the place where a harmful event occurred which is imputed to one of the presumed perpetrators of damage, who is not a party to the dispute, to take jurisdiction over another presumed perpetrator of that damage who has not acted within the jurisdiction of the court seised.