June 2023 at the Court of Justice of the European Union
June 2023 begins at the Court of Justice with the decision in case C-567/21, BNP Parisbas, which will be read on 8 June. The request from the Social Chamber of the Cour de Cassation (France) had been lodged on September 15, 2021. It concerns the interpretation of Regulation 44/2001. The national court referred the following questions:
1. Must Articles 33 and 36 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters 1 be interpreted as meaning that, where the legislation of the Member State of origin of the judgment confers on that judgment authority such as to preclude a new action being brought by the same parties for determining the claims that could have been raised in the initial proceedings, the effects which that judgment has in the Member State in which enforcement is sought preclude a court of that latter State, whose legislation, as applicable ratione temporis, provided in employment law for a similar obligation of concentration of claims, from adjudicating on such claims?
2. If the first question is answered in the negative, must Articles 33 and 36 of Council Regulation No 44/2001 be interpreted as meaning that an action such as a claim of unfair dismissal in the United Kingdom has the same cause of action and the same subject matter as an action such as a claim of dismissal without actual and serious cause in French law, so that the employee’s claims for damages for dismissal without actual and serious cause, compensation in lieu of notice, and compensation for dismissal before the French courts are inadmissible after the employee has obtained a decision in the United Kingdom declaring that there has been an unfair dismissal and making a compensatory award in that respect? Is it necessary in that regard to distinguish between, on the one hand, the damages for dismissal without actual and serious cause that might have the same cause of action and the same subject matter as the compensatory award and, on the other, the compensation for dismissal and compensation in lieu of notice which, in French law, are payable where the dismissal is based on an actual and serious cause, but are not payable in the event of dismissal based on serious misconduct?
3. Likewise, must Articles 33 and 36 of Council Regulation No 44/2001 be interpreted as meaning that an action such as a claim of unfair dismissal in the United Kingdom and an action for payment of bonuses or allowances provided for in the contract of employment have the same cause of action and the same subject matter when those actions are based on the same contractual relationship between the parties?
Advocate General P. Pikamäe had delivered his opinion on 16 February 2023. As of today, no official English translation is available. My own one reads:
1. Articles 33 and 36 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters should be interpreted in the sense that the recognition of a court decision rendered in a Member State, the law of which provides for a rule of concentration of claims prohibiting the same parties from initiating a new action relating to claims which could have been made at the initial instance, does not preclude the court of that second State ruling on such claims, even in circumstances where the law of the Member State in which recognition is invoked provides for a similar obligation of concentration of claims.
2. Articles 33 and 36 of Regulation 44/2001 should be interpreted as meaning that, in the event that the recognition of a decision given in a first Member State is invoked incidentally before a court of a second Member State, claims based on the same employment contract relating to some of the obligations arising from the execution of this contract, and claims based on the obligations arising from the breach of this contract have the same cause but do not have the same object.
A comment by Fabienne Jault-Seseke appeared on this blog.
The case was allocated to the Third Chamber, presided by K. Jürimäe; N. Jääskinen was reporting judge.
On 22 June, Advocate General J. Richard de la Tour will publish his opinion on case C-497/22, Roompot Service. The request comes from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany), and was lodged on 22 July 2022. In a nutshell, the question relates to the relevant criteria to be taken into consideration in order to classify a contract relating to the transfer of short-term use of a bungalow in a holiday park as a lease contract within the meaning of Article 24(1), first sentence, of Regulation 1215/2012, or as a contract relating to the provision of services.
Must the first sentence of Article 24(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 be interpreted as meaning that a contract which is concluded between a private individual and a commercial lessor of holiday homes in relation to the short-term letting of a bungalow in a holiday park operated by the lessor, and which provides for cleaning at the end of the stay and the provision of bed linen as further services in addition to the mere letting of the bungalow, is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the State in which the rented property is situated, irrespective of whether the holiday bungalow is owned by the lessor or by a third party?
The Fourth Chamber will decide, with C. Lycourgos presiding and O. Spineau-Matei reporting.
On the same day, a hearing is taking place on case C-339/22, BSH Hausgeräte. The request for a preliminary ruling has been sent by the Svea hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen (Sweden), and lodged on May 24th, 2022. It comprises three questions on Regulation 1215/2012:
1. Is Article 24(4) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents … irrespective of whether the issue is raised by way of an action or as a defence’ implies that a national court, which, pursuant to Article 4(1) of that regulation, has declared that it has jurisdiction to hear a patent infringement dispute, no longer has jurisdiction to consider the issue of infringement if a defence is raised that alleges that the patent at issue is invalid, or is the provision to be interpreted as meaning that the national court only lacks jurisdiction to hear the defence of invalidity?
2. Is the answer to Question 1 affected by whether national law contains provisions, similar to those laid down in the second subparagraph of Paragraph 61 of the Patentlagen (Patents Law; ‘the Patentlagen’), which means that, for a defence of invalidity raised in an infringement case to be heard, the defendant must bring a separate action for a declaration of invalidity?
3. Is Article 24(4) of the Brussels I Regulation to be interpreted as being applicable to a court of a third country, that is to say, in the present case, as also conferring exclusive jurisdiction on a court in Turkey in respect of the part of the European patent which has been validated there?
In the case at hand, the parties to the main proceedings litigate on a European patent relating to a vacuum cleaner, validated in Austria, Germany, Spain, France, the United Kingdom, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and Turkey. BSH brought an action for infringement of this patent against Electrolux before a Swedish court, who raised an objection of invalidity of the patents in question. The court of first instance has dismissed BSH’s action on the basis of Article 24(4) read together with Article 27 of the Brussles I bis Regulation, insofar as it concerned patents validated in States other than Sweden – with the added element that one of them is a third State. BSH appealed to the referring court.
The case has been allocated to the Fourth Chamber (C. Lycourgos presiding, O. Spineanu-Matei reporting). An opinion will be delivered in due time by Advocate General N. Emiliou.
