Gavc Law
123 FOLLOWERS
Hi! I'm Geert Van Calster. I am an independent, practising lawyer, member of the Belgian Bar. I offer advice independently, in the areas of conflict of laws/international dispute resolution; International and EU regulatory law (particularly environment); and International and EU trade law. This blog is not meant to be complete, evidently. It simply highlights recent developments which are..
Gavc Law
1M ago
First Advocate General Szpunar Opined last week in Case C-86/23 E.N.I., Y.K.I. v HUK-COBURG-Allgemeine Versicherung AG – let’s call that case HUK-Coburg. The case concerns the application of Article 16 Rome II’s lois de police aka lois d’application immédiate aka overriding mandatory provisions.
A claim is issued for compensation submitted by private individuals, who are Bulgarian nationals, in accordance with compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, against an insurance company for non-material damage caused by the death of their dau ..read more
Gavc Law
1M ago
In his Opinion in C-774/22 JX v FTI Touristik, Advocate General Emiliou in my opinion is spot on for both core elements of the case. A consumer domiciled in Germany issues a claim against a tour operator also established in Germany in relation to a contract for a package of travel services booked by that consumer for a trip abroad. Does Brussels Ia apply and does the consumer title of the Regulation assign territorial as well as national jurisdiction?
The trip is sold as a package holiday. That is relevant, for the consumer title does not apply to mere contracts of transport. The consumer in t ..read more
Gavc Law
1M ago
In competition law there is a strong presumption of attributability of daughter’s action to the mother corporation as I discussed ia in my post on CJEU C-508/11 P ENI (references to further case-law there). In general in competition law there is a strong emphasis on the concept of an ‘economic unit’ which readly looks beyond the legal fiction of separate corporate personality.
In C‑425/22 MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. v Mercedes-Benz Group AG (let’s shorten that to ‘MOL v Mercedez-Benz) Emiliou AG opined that for the purposes of Article 7(2) Brussels Ia jurisdiction a parent company canno ..read more
Gavc Law
1M ago
Project Lietzenburger Strabe Holdco, Re [2024] EWHC 468 (Ch) would seem to heed my prediction when I reviewed AGPS BondCo (“Strategic Value Capital Solutions Master Fund LP & Ors v AGPS BondCo PLC (Re AGPS BondCo PLC) [2024] EWCA Civ 24) here: that the English jurisdictional basis for schemes of arrangement and restructuring plans for corporations without English anchor prior to the restructuring, is less certain than court practice suggested.
Prior to AGPS Bondco and as I report in many posts which readers can find using the ‘scheme of arrangement’, in the event of a non-E&W incorpora ..read more
Gavc Law
1M ago
In Granville Technology Group Ltd v Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 13 (Comm) Pelling J deals with a follow-on damages claim in the context of the LCD cartel (an EC decision under Article 101 TFEU). In E&W these are characterised as tortious claims for breach of statutory duty, as they are in most EU jurisdictions, too.
The applicable law issues were dealt with under residual English law pre Rome II. The events with which this claim is concerned occurred before 11 January 2009, when Rome II came into effect. For the Brussels Ia and Rome II issues see my paper here. However ..read more
Gavc Law
1M ago
Update 13 March 2024 Paul MacMAhon reports the case is going to the UKSC.
I am mopping up the blog queue so forgive me for posting late on Deutsche Bank v RusChemAlliance [2023] EWCA Civ 1144, a successful appeal of SQD v QYP (Rev1) [2023] EWHC 2145 (Comm). (Regular readers of the blog know that I do tend to Tweet these cases with some direction of the blogpost’s direction of travel).
Nugee LJ [1]
A guarantee issued by a German bank in favour of a Russian company is governed by English law and provides for arbitration in Paris. When a dispute arises, the Russian company issues proceedings in R ..read more
Gavc Law
1M ago
I am currently trying to have the Leuven conflict of laws students appreciate Article 7(1) Brussels Ia’s looking over the fence aka conflicts method. On Thursday we shall be reviewing CJEU Tessili v Dunlop and I wonder how many of the students will have seen this post (I am guessing perhaps 2 or 3 out of the 540 in class) for it might help them appreciate the exercise.
For contracts not caught by one of the passe-partout contracts listed in Article 7(1)b, per inter alia Jaaskinen AG (as he then was) in Cormans Collins, the CJEU Tessili v Dunlop formula still applies: in the 4th ed of the ..read more
Gavc Law
1M ago
Emiliou AG opined the day before yesterday in C‑339/22 BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v Electrolux AB. I flagged the case and discussed its context here.
The case in essence concerns two issues: the extent of the exclusive jurisdiction of the Article 24(4) court in infringement (as opposed to direct invalidity actions); and the question whether A24 works reflexively: ie whether the surrender of jurisdiction should also be applied in cases where the A24(4) court is not in an EU Member State.
The AG’s extensive contextualisation has the merit of summarising established authority on Article 24(4). This allo ..read more
Gavc Law
2M ago
In Various parties obo minors v Anglo-American South Africa Limited and Others (2020/32777) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1474, the High Court of South Africa has refused to certify two class actions against Anglo American South Africa Limited (‘Anglo’). The proposed class action seeks monetary compensation for two classes from the Kabwe district in Zambia, who have been injured by lead exposure: children and women of childbearing age.
Kabwe is the capital of the Zambian Central Province and home to 225 000 people. Members of the proposed classes are estimated to make up approximately 140 000 members of this ..read more
Gavc Law
2M ago
I realise Lent has not even kicked off (it does next Wednesday, Valentine’s day) yet the judicial year already has seen a miraculous resurrection. In Skatteforvaltningen v MCML Ltd [2024] EWHC 148 (Comm) (MCML are formerly known as ED&F Man Capital Markets) SKAT did exactly what I suggested they do namely to amend their claim against these defendants to one for deceit.
(I dare say the did not do it upon the blog’s instruction; otherwise a charitable donation might be in order; note here btw for my review of the UKSC judgment in same.)
As Bright J summarises [5], SKAT’s claims at the start ..read more