April 2025 at the Court of Justice of the European Union
In April 2025, Advocate General J. Kokott will deliver her opinion on joint cases C-672/23 , Electricity & Water Authority of the Government of Bahrain e.a., and C-673/23, Smurfit Kappa Europe e.a. The publication is scheduled for Thursday 3. The EAPIL blog has already reported on these (partially identical) Dutch requests for a preliminary ruling concerning Article 8(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, applied to follow-on actions in competition law.
On the same day, Advocate General J. Richard de la Tour will make known his opinion regarding case C-713/23, Wojewoda Mazowiecki, a Polish request on which the blog has also reported, on the occasion of the hearing which took place last December. The question referred does not directly concern a private international law instrument, but the answer is certainly of interest for cross-border cases. The decision of the case will be a Grand Chamber one, with K. Jürimäe as reporting judge.
On 29 April, after the break due to the Easter vacation, a hearing will take place in case C-196/24, Aucrinde. In the main dispute, an individual brought proceedings before the Civil District Court in Genoa seeking a declaration that he is the illegitimate son of a person already deceased. In addition, he is seeking the authorisation to use his father’s surname, an order that the competent registrar enters the future judgment into the record when it becomes final, and an order commissioning an expert’s report establishing his status as an illegitimate child, following exhumation of the body of the presumed father.
The investigating judge of the Civil District Court of Genoa ordered that an expert’s report be produced to determine whether the applicant has genetic characteristics matching those of the defendants to the proceedings, who are recognised children of the deceased.
The defendants objected to the tests and requested that samples be taken from their father’s body in France, where his remains are buried.
The investigating judge of the Civil District Court of Genoa appointed an expert to carry out a genetic comparison between the applicant and the body of the presumed father after exhuming the latter. The Civil District Court then sent the tribunal judiciaire de Chambéry (Court of Chambéry, France) a request for international mutual assistance in civil matters, asking for the exhumation of the body of the presumed father of the applicant. Said request was made pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2020/1783 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters (the Recast Evidence Regulation).
The tribunal judiciaire de Chambéry, after explaining why it considers that his request falls under the scope of Article 267 TFEU, referred the following questions to the Court of Justice, inspired by the fact that under French law a body may be exhumed for the purposes of establishing parentage only if, during his or her lifetime, the person concerned gave his or her express consent:
1) Does Article 12 of [the Recast Evidence Regulation] allow a national court to refuse to apply that regulation and to comply with the request from the requesting State, on the ground that the procedure specified in the request is contrary to fundamental principles of the national law of the requested State, and in particular Article 16-11 of the Civil Code?
2) If Article 12 of [the Recast Evidence Regulation] applies regardless of national law, how should Article 1 (right to dignity) and Article 7 (right to respect for private life) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights be interpreted and the links between them determined in order to establish whether or not such an application of the Regulation infringes the Charter of Fundamental Rights?
Not surprisingly, the ruling will be issued by the Grand Chamber and will be preceded by an opinion, this time authored by Advocate General T. Ćapeta.