The latest issue of the Dutch Journal on Private International Law (NIPR) has been published.
NIPR 2024 issue 2
EDITORIAL
M.H. ten Wolde / p. 239
Article
C.G. van der Plas, A.F. Veldhuis, B.H.B. Verheul, Automatische erkenning en tenuitvoerlegging van vonnissen in het Europa van nu: de noodzaak van een nieuwe blik op wederzijds vertrouwen na J/H Limited / p. 241-267 Read more
In its judgment of 8 February 2024, the CJEU had to decide whether “the application of the Brussels Ibis Regulation be based solely on the fact that two parties with their seat in the same Member State agree on the jurisdiction of courts of another EU Member State.”
The case concerned two loans granted to Dúha reality, a Slovak company, by a third party also domiciled in Slovakia, in 2016 and 2017 respectively. Both loan contracts contained an identical choice of forum clause stating that any ‘dispute shall be settled by a court of the Czech Republic having substantive and territorial jurisdiction’. In 2021, the receivables arising from those loan agreements were assigned to Inkreal, another purely Slovak business corporation, who upon non-payment by the debtor brought action in the Czech Republic. Seeking, inter alia, to determine the specific Czech court having territorial jurisdiction, the Czech Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud) referred the question to the CJEU.
By Professor András Osztovits*
I. Introduction
The heart of European economic integration is the Single Market, which can only function properly and provide economic growth and thus social welfare if effective competition rules ensure a level playing field for market players. The real breakthrough in the development of EU competition policy in this area came with Regulation 1/2003/EC, and then with Directive 2014/104/EU which complemented the public law rules with private law instruments and made the possibility to bring actions for damages for infringement of competition law easier.
An action brought between parties to a contract in a scenario where the consent to at least some of the contractual terms was allegedly expressed by the plaintiff only on account of the dominant position of the defendant is to be considered as falling within the concept of ‘matters relating to contract’ [Article 7(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation] or within the concept of ‘matters relating to delict or quasi-delict’ [Article 7(2) of the Regulation]?
In his Opinion delivered last Thursday, 10 September 2020, Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe addresses that question for the purposes of the reference for a preliminary ruling in the case C-59/19, Wikingerhof.
On 3 September 2020, the Court of Justice delivered its Judgment in the case that had sparked considerable scholarly interest in recent months, namely in the case Supreme Site and Others, C-186/19.
Back in June, due to the courtesy of María Barral Martínez, we presented an analysis of the case itself and of the Opinion issued by AG Saugmandsgaard Øe.
A non-profit consumer protection association established in Austria is bringing an action before the Austrian courts against a motor vehicle manufacturer with its registered office in Germany. The association asserts claims for damages, assigned to it by the purchasers of motor vehicles, and seeks the payment of a fixed amount and a declaration establishing the liability of the defendant for all future damage. These claims are related to an alleged emission manipulation: had the purchasers been aware of the manipulation, they would have not purchased the vehicles or would have purchased them at a reduced price.
To establish the international jurisdiction of the Austrian court, the associations relies on Article 7(2) of the Brussels I big Regulation. It argues, in particular, that the damage materialised in the form of a reduction in the value of the purchasers’ assets, at the earliest upon the purchase and transfer of the vehicles within the Austrian territory.
In those circumstances, the national court refers the matter to the Court of Justice and asks whether the ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ within the meaning of Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation may be construed as the place in a Member State where the damage occurred, when that damage consists exclusively of financial damage that is the direct result of an unlawful act committed in another Member State.
This issue is thoroughly analyzed in today’s Opinion of Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona. At point 81, the Opinion concludes:
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 must be interpreted as meaning that, where an unlawful act committed in a Member States consists of the manipulation of a product, the existence of which is concealed and only becomes apparent after the product is purchased in another Member State for a price that is higher than its actual value:
- a purchaser of that product, who retains the product as part of his or her assets when the defect is made public, is a direct victim;
- the place where the event giving rise to the damage occurred is the place where the event which created the defect in the product took place; and
- the damage occurred in the place, situated in a Member State, where the victim purchased the product from a third party, provided that the other circumstances confirm the attribution of jurisdiction to the courts of that State. Those circumstances must include, at all events, one or more factors which enabled the defendant reasonably to foresee that an action to establish civil liability as a result of his or her actions might be brought against him or her by future purchasers who acquire the product in that place.
Interestingly, in particular at points 65 et seq., the Opinion addresses the doubts raised by the referring court and relating to the question whether, in the present case, the German courts are not better placed to examine the association’s action. If anything, that would be tantamount to the implantation of some variation of the forum non conveniens doctrine within Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation in order to give preference either to ‘Handlungsort’ or ‘Erfolgsort’. However, according to the final point of the Opinion:
Article 7(2) of [the Brussels I bis Regulation] must be interpreted as meaning that it does not authorise the court for the place where the damage occurred to determine that it does or does not have jurisdiction based on an appraisal of the other circumstances of the case, aimed at identifying which court — itself or the court for the place of the event giving rise to the damage — is best placed, in terms of proximity and foreseeability, to decide on the dispute.’
Instead of presenting a synthesis of the Opinion (press release can be found here), it is best to recommend giving it an attentive lecture. Definitely a must-read.