February 2024 at the Court of Justice of the European Union
February 2024 will be a busy month at the Court of Justice.
A hearing took already place on 1 February in case C-394/22, Oilchart International, a request for a preliminary ruling on the delimitation of Regulation Brussels I bis and Regulation 1346/2000, as well as on the compatibility with the latter of specific Dutch provisions. The Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) is asking the Court:
(a) Must Article 1(2)(b) of the Brussels Ia Regulation in conjunction with Article 3(1) of the Insolvency Regulation be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings’ in Article 1(2)(b) of the Brussels Ia Regulation includes also proceedings in which the claim is described in the summons as a pure trade receivable, without any mention of the respondent’s previously declared bankruptcy, whereas the actual legal basis of that claim is the specific derogating provisions of Netherlands bankruptcy law (Article 25(2) of the Wet van 30 september 1893, op het faillissement en de surséance van betaling (Law of 30 September 1893 on bankruptcy and suspension of payment; ‘NFW’) and whereby:
– it must be determined whether such a claim must be considered a verifiable claim (Article 26 NFW in conjunction with Article 110 thereof) or an unverifiable claim (Article 25(2) NFW),
– it appears that the question whether both claims can be brought simultaneously and whether one claim does not appear to exclude the other, taking into account the specific legal consequences of each of those claims (inter alia, in terms of the possibilities of calling for a bank guarantee deferred after the bankruptcy), may be determined in accordance with the rules specific to Netherlands bankruptcy law?
And further
(b) Can the provisions of Article 25(2) [NFW] be regarded as compatible with Article 3(1) of the Insolvency Regulation, in so far as that legislative provision would allow such a claim (Article 25(2) NFW) to be brought before the court of another Member State instead of before the insolvency court of the Member State in which the bankruptcy was declared?
The national proceedings concern a claim for the payment of an invoice still pending when the debtor became insolvent. Due to the provisions contained in bank guarantees, the claim was brought before a Belgian court. The case has been assigned to a chamber of five judges (A. Prechal, N. Wahl, J. Passer, L. Arastey Sahún, and F. Biltgen reporting). AG L. Medina will provide an opinion in due course.
On 8 February AG M. Szpunar will deliver his opinion in C-633/22, Real Madrid Club de Fútbol. I reported on this Grand Chamber case and on the hearing held in October 2023 here. At stake is the interpretation of the Brussels I Regulation in relation to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.
The opinion of AG M. Campos Sánchez-Bordona in case C-35/23, Greislzel, will be read as well on 8 February 2024. The request, from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Higher Regional Court, Frankfurt am Main, Germany), focuses on the interpretation of Articles 10 and 11 of the Brussels II bis Regulation:
To what extent is the regulatory mechanism provided for in Article 10 and Article 11 of the Brussels IIa Regulation limited to proceedings conducted in the context of relations between EU Member States?
More specifically:
1. Does Article 10 of the Brussels IIa Regulation apply, with the effect that the jurisdiction of the courts in the former State of residence is retained, if the child had his or her habitual residence in an EU Member State (Germany) before his or her removal and the return proceedings under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (‘the HCAC’) were conducted between an EU Member State (Poland) and a third State (Switzerland) and, in those proceedings, the return of the child was refused?
If question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
2. In the context of Article 10(b)(i) of the Brussels IIa Regulation, what requirements are to be imposed for the purposes of establishing continuing jurisdiction?
3. Does Article 11 (6) to (8) of the Brussels IIa Regulation also apply in the case of return proceedings implemented under the HCAC in the context of relations between a third State and an EU Member State, as a State of refuge, in so far as the child had his or her habitual residence in another EU member state before the removal?
Like in many child abduction settings, the facts of the case are convoluted and not easy to summarize. In a nutshell, the problem revolves around the (allegedly wrongful) removal of a child from Germany to Poland by her mother. The father has lodged a request for return under the 1980 Hague Convention on Child Abduction, first, and then in the framework of a claim for the transfer of the sole parental custody under the Brussels II bis Regulation . The peculiarity of the case lies with the fact that, because he lives in Switzerland, both attempts focus in an order that would send the child to that country, and not to the Member State where she was habitually resident immediately before the wrongful removal.
The case will be solved by judges C. Lycourgos, O. Spineanu-Matei, J.C. Bonichot, S. Rodin, and L.S. Rossi (reporting).
The opinion of AG N. Emiliou on C-425/22, MOL, will be published as well on 8 February. The referring court is the Kúria (Hungary). The questions are:
1. Where a parent company brings an action for damages in respect of the anti-competitive conduct of another company in order to obtain compensation for the damage suffered as a result of that conduct solely by its subsidiaries, does the registered office of the parent company determine the forum of jurisdiction, as the place where the harmful event occurred for the purposes of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 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 (‘the Brussels Ia Regulation’)?
2. Is the fact that, at the time of the purchases at issue in the proceedings, not all the subsidiaries belonged to the parent company’s group of companies relevant for the purposes of the application of Article 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation?
The main proceedings are a follow-on action based on a final decision of the European Commission, where it is established that, by colluding on gross list pricing for medium and heavy trucks in the European Economic Area, the defendant, established in Germany, together with other companies, had participated in a cartel in continuous infringement of the prohibitions laid down in Article 101 TFUE and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area. The claimant requests the reimbursement of the additional cost paid by its subsidiaries for the indirect purchase of 71 trucks from the defendant, in different Member States. The case raises the question of whether, in the context of Article 7 (2), of the Brussels I bis Regulation, a parent company can invoke the theory of economic unity for the purposes of determining the competent court for an action for the damage suffered by its subsidiaries.
M. Ilešič is the reporting judge in a chamber comprising as well E. Regan, K. Lenaerts, I. Jarukaitis and D. Gratsias.
Finally, the decision of the 1st Chamber (composed by judges A. Arabadjiev, T. von Danwitz, P.G. Xuereb, I. Ziemele and A. Kumin, with the latter reporting) in case C-566/22, Inkreal will be published on the same day. The requests addresses the interpretation of the Brussels Ibis Regulation and its scope of application. AG J. Richard de la Tour had delivered his opinion October last year: see here.
Two further opinions and a decision will be delivered on Thursday 22 February, thus after the ‘semaine blanche’.
AG N. Emiliou is the author of the opinion in case C-774/22, FTI Touristik, a request from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg (Germany) on Article 18 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation:
Is Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 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 (Article 18(1) of the Brussels I Regulation) to be interpreted as meaning that, in addition to providing for international jurisdiction, the rule also concerns a provision on the territorial jurisdiction of national courts in matters relating to a travel contract where both the consumer, as a traveller, and the other party to the contract, the tour operator[,] have their seat in the same Member State, but the travel destination is situated not in that Member State but abroad (so-called ‘false internal cases’) with the consequence that the consumer can make contractual claims against the tour operator supplementing national provisions on jurisdiction at the court of his or her place of residence?
The applicant is a traveler, domiciled in Nuremberg at all relevant times, who had booked a package tour with the defendant, a tour operator established in Munich, through a travel agency. The travel agent acted as an intermediary in the conclusion of the contract and it is undisputed that it is not itself a contracting partner; it is also not a branch of the defendant. The applicant claims from the defendant payment of compensation amounting to EUR 1,499.86 on account of the fact that he was not adequately informed of the necessary entry and visa requirements.
The case will be solved by a chamber of five judges – A. Prechal, N. Wahl, J. Passer, L. Arastey Sahún, and F. Biltgen reporting.
Another AG N. Emiliou’s opinion is expected on the same day, this time in case C-339/22, BSH Hausgeräte, on Article 24 (4) of the Brussels Ibis Regulation. It was originally scheduled for November 2023 and I already reported about the case then.
Finally, the 9th Chamber (J.C. Bonichot, L.S. Rossi, and O. Spineanu-Matei reporting) will render its decision on C-81/23, FCA Italy et FPT Industrial also on 22 February. The referring court is requesting the interpretation of Article 7 of the Brussels I bis Regulation in a clear follow-up on case C‑343/19, VKI. In the Austrian proceedings the applicant, whose domicile is in Krems an der Donau (Austria) purchased a camper van from the dealer established in Germany. The written sale contract was signed at the seller’s seat in Germany. In accordance with the agreement concluded, the vehicle was transferred to the applicant and his wife by the Austrian seller’s distribution centre in Salzburg (Austria). The first respondent, established in Italy, is the manufacturer of the basic vehicle; the second respondent, also established in Italy, developed the engine, which, according to the applicant’s claims in the main proceedings, is equipped with a prohibited defeat device within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 on type approval.
The Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) asks the Court in Luxembourg:
Must point 2 of Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 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 (‘Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012’) be interpreted as meaning that, in an action for tortious liability against the developer of a diesel engine with a prohibited defeat device within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 on type approval, the place where the harmful event occurred in a case where the vehicle was bought by the applicant domiciled in Member State B (in this case: Austria) from a third party established in Member State C (in this case: Germany) is
a) the place where the contract was concluded;
b) the place where the vehicle was delivered, or
c) the place where the physical defect constituting the damage occurred and, therefore, the place where the vehicle is normally used?