Res judicata under the Brussels I Regulation: AG Pikamäe’s Opinion

This post was contributed by Fabienne Jault-Seseke, who is Professor at University Paris Saclay (UVSQ), and a member of GEDIP.

---

I reported here on the French judgment which questioned the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) on res judicata. Two months later, in a Recamier case, the French Court of cassation referred again to the ECJ on res judicata as reported by François Mailhé here.

AG Pikamäe delivered his opinion on 16 February 2023 in the first case C-567/21, BNP Paribas. As a reminder, the case relates to an action for payment of various sums, brought in France against a French company by one of its former employees in connection with his dismissal. Previously, he had initiated proceedings in London, his last place of work, and had obtained a judgment ordering the company to pay him compensation for unfair dismissal. In the first instance, a French labour court declared the claims relating to his dismissal inadmissible, because of the res judicata effect of the English judgment. On appeal, the judgment was overturned: the Court of Appeal considered that the various claims for compensation had not been examined by the English court.

The first question referred to the ECJ concerns the obligation to concentrate claims provided for by both legal system at stake.  The second and third questions are related to the notions of cause and subject-matter of the action. In this case, the question is whether an action for unfair dismissal in the United Kingdom has the same cause of action and the same subject-matter as an action for dismissal without real and serious cause in French law or an action for payment of bonuses or premiums provided for in the employment contract, as these actions are based on the same contractual relationship between the parties.  The answers depend on the respective role of Union law and national laws to determine res judicata. Res judicata is not mentioned in the Brussels I Regulation. So the Advocate General first looks at the relationship between res judicata and recognition. Not surprisingly, he states that res judicata is one of the facets of recognition.

AG Pikamäe focuses on two issues, that of the scope of res judicata and that of the consequences for the court of another Member State hearing a related case.

Res Judicata

In a first step, regarding the scope of res judicata and the impact of an national rule of concentration of claims, AG Pikamäe refers to the Jenard Report and the Hoffman judgment (145/86) to justify appliying the doctrine of “extension of effects”, leaving it to the law of the Member State of origin to determine the effects of the judgment invoked in a second Member State (para 46). Therefore, no independent interpretation of the res judicata is given. The Gothaer judgment that might have led to the opposite conclusion. is here irrelevant. It is specific and only apply to jurisdictional decisions.

Thus the law of the United Kingdom must be “taken into account” (applied would have been more precise) for the purpose of determining the authority and effectiveness of the judgment given by the British court (para 52).

But the obligation to concentrate claims does not affect the authority and effectiveness of the judgment (para 53). For AG Pikamäe the rule of “abuse of process”, which is the source of this obligation is not related to res judicata: it is only a means to sanction abuses (para 55). Here it seems that in a somewhat confusing way AG Pikamäe is not interpreting EU law but English law. He refers also to the scheme of Regulation 44/2001 and considers that taking into account, at the stage of the recognition of a decision, a national rule on the concentration of claims could jeopardise the subsequent implementation of the specific rules on jurisdiction in matters relating to individual contracts of employment and of the provisions governing lis pendens and related actions (para 60).  The reasoning does not really convince even in matters of employment contracts where the rules of jurisdiction ensure the protection of the worker. Indeed, one could consider that the protective effect is exhausted with the first proceeding initiated by the worker against his employer. In other words, the employee only has the option of choosing between the place of work and the employer’s home once.

AG Pikamäe goes very far in questioning procedural autonomy when he states that the application of the provisions of Regulation 44/2001 cannot depend on the content of the procedural rules of a Member State (para 62). It does not matter, he adds, that the two Member States concerned have the same rule (para 63). He concludes that a domestic procedural rule on concentration of claims is not an effective criterion for determining the authority attached to a decision given in a Member State. In short, the concentration of claims rule has no consequences for the recognition of decisions. This statement may be surprising. It is up to the law of the country from which the decision originates to specify the extent of res judicata, but the rule on the concentration of claims that it contains is not applied. Thus, while new claims could not have been made in the State of origin, they can be made in another State. Such an attitude is likely to fuel forum shopping and sharpen procedural strategies. In any case the aim of procedural economy is clearly not a priority.

Cause and Subject Matter of Action

In a second step, the opinion focuses on the concepts of cause and subject-matter. The French Cour de cassation had asked the Court of Justice whether a claim for unfair dismissal in the UK has the same cause of action and the same subject-matter as a claim for dismissal without real and serious cause under French law. It also wondered whether a claim for unfair dismissal in the UK has the same cause of action and the same subject-matter as claim for payment of bonuses or premiums provided for in the employment contract, since these actions are based on the same contractual relationship.

The answer to these questions presupposes a precise comparison of the provisions of English labour law with those of French labour law, which is beyond the role of the Court (para 71) but AG Pikamäe suggests that the Court reformulates the questions referred to it in this way : for the purposes of Articles 33 and 36 of Regulation No 44/2001, do actions based on the same employment contract and relating to obligations arising out of the performance of that contract and to obligations arising out of its termination have the same cause of action and the same subject-matter?

As expected, a parallel between the conditions of lis pendens and those of res judicata is made. AG Pikamäe notes that “the rules on lis pendens and recognition have the common purpose of contributing to the full authority of the judgment given in the Member State of origin, which must not be called into question by a judgment given by a court in another Member State” (para 80). Consequently, he suggests transposing the criterion of identity of parties, cause and subject-matter applicable to lis pendens to res judicata (para 90). As for lis pendens, the terms cause and subject-matter must be regarded as independent.

Building on Gubisch Maschinenfabrik (144/86), Tatry (C‑406/92), and Merck (C‑231/16), AG Pikamäe considers that the claims brought before the Employment Tribunal and those brought before the French Courts, based on the same contractual relationship, are based on the same cause of action.

As regards the ‘subject matter’, the case is more complicated. The Court has stated on different occasions that this means the end the action has in view, that the concept is to be interpreted broadly and cannot be restricted so as to mean two claims which are formally identical and that account must be taken in that regard of the applicants’ respective claims in each of the sets of proceedings. AG Pikamäe distinguishes then between claims relating to the termination of the employment contract and its financial consequences and those relating to the performance of the employment contract (claims for payment of sums due for the performance of work). They have not the same subject-matter (para 106). Nevertheless, the “second” court hearing claims for payment of remuneration in respect of the performance of an employment contract should take into account the possible implications of the original decision. An example is given, the case of the determination, in accordance with the law of the State of origin, by the initial decision of the date of termination of the employment contract, which would be likely to have an impact on the end of the period during which remuneration is due.

AG Pikamäe focuses on the distinction between issues relating to the end of the contract and those relating to the performance of the contract. He considers then that a claim for unfair dismissal in the UK has not the same subject-matter that a claim for payment of sums due for the performance of work. In doing so, it leaves part of the question unanswered. Has a claim for unfair dismissal in the UK the same subject-matter as a claim for dismissal without real and serious cause under French law? A positive answer is only suggested. It is to be hoped that the ECJ will be clearer. The worker is sometimes encouraged to pick and choose among the different laws that may be applied to the employment relationship. The effect would be multiplied if he were also allowed to multiply the proceedings in different countries.