Source: https://gavclaw.com/tag/ius-commune/
Timestamp: 2019-11-20 22:05:32
Document Index: 357310451

Matched Legal Cases: ['CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'art=1', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ']

Ius commune | gavc law - geert van calster
Posts Tagged Ius commune
Hofsoe: Scope ratione personae of Brussels I’s protected categories in cases of assignment (specifically: insurance).
Posted by Geert van Calster in Conflict of Laws /Private international law on 28/02/2018
In C‑106/17 Hofsoe, the CJEU held late January that the Brussels I Recast Regulation jurisdictional rules for jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance, do not apply in case of assignment to a professional party. A B2C insurance contract assigned to a professional party therefore essentially turns into a B2B contract: the rules for protected categories are meant to protect weaker parties only. The Court also rejects a suggestion that the assignee ought to be able to prove that in fact it merits the forum actoris protection (on account of it being a sole insurance practitioner with little practice): the weakness is presumed and not subject to factual analysis.
Conclusion: at 43: ‘a person such as Mr Hofsoe, who carries out a professional activity recovering insurance indemnity claims against insurance companies, in his capacity as contractual assignee of such claims, should not benefit from the special protection constituted by the forum actoris.’
Predictability, and restrictive interpretation of the Regulation’s exceptions to the actor sequitur forum rei rule, are the classic lines along which the CJEU holds the case.
I for one continue to find it difficult to get my head round assignment not leading to the original obligation being transferred full monty; including its jurisdictional peculiarities. The referring court in this respect (at 28) refers to the applicable national law which provides for as much:
‘In that regard, the referring court points out, under Article 509(2) of the Civil Code, ‘all rights associated with the claim …shall be transferred with the claim’. In those circumstances, the assignment of the claim should include that of the benefit of jurisdiction.’
Indeed in Schrems the Court emphasises the impact of the assignor’s rights on the rights of the assignee. By contrast in Hofsoe, the assignee’s qualities (here: as a professional) call the shots. The Court essentially pushes an autonomous and not necessarily consistent EU law on assignment here. In Rome I, the issue has triggered all sorts of discussions – not least the relevant BICL study and the EC 2016 response to same. Under Brussels I Recast, the discussion is more silent.
(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.8.
1215/2012, Article 11(1)(b), Article 13(2), Assignment, B2B, Brussels I recast, C-106/17, CJEU, Curia, ECJ, ECLI:EU:C:2018:50, forum actoris, Hofsoe, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=198883&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1106819, insurance, Ius commune, Protected categories
Status updated: can a ‘relationship’ be a ‘contract’? CJEU says it’s complicated in Granarolo, and complements the Handte formula.
Posted by Geert van Calster in Conflict of Laws /Private international law on 22/07/2016
Update 4 October 2017 for the eventual judgment by the Cour de Cassastion see here: contractual relation upheld.
In C-196/15 Granarolo, extensive reference is made to Brogsitter, in which the CJEU held that the fact that one contracting party brings a civil liability claim against the other is not sufficient to consider that the claim concerns ‘matters relating to a contract’ within the meaning of Article 7(1) Brussels I Recast. That is the case only where the conduct complained of may be considered a breach of contract, which may be established by taking into account the purpose of the contract, which will in principle be the case only where the interpretation of the contract which links the defendant to the applicant is indispensable to establish the lawful or, on the contrary, unlawful nature of the conduct complained of against the former by the latter.
Kokott AG Opined that there was no such contractual relationship in the case at hand: see my review of the Opinion. The Court held last week and was less categorical. It suggests a contractual relationship between the parties (which did not have a framework agreement in place: rather a long series of one-off contracts) should not be excluded: the long-standing business relationship which existed between the parties is characterised by the existence of obligations tacitly agreed between them, so that a relationship existed between them that can be classified as contractual (at 25).
What follows can be considered a CJEU addition to the rather byzantine double negative C-26/91 Handte formula: ‘matters relating to a contract is not to be understood as covering a situation in which there is no obligation freely assumed by one party towards another’. In Granarolo at 26 the Court notes
The existence of a tacit relationship of that kind cannot, however, be presumed and must, therefore, be demonstrated. Furthermore, that demonstration must be based on a body of consistent evidence, which may include in particular the existence of a long-standing business relationship, the good faith between the parties, the regularity of the transactions and their development over time expressed in terms of quantity and value, any agreements as to prices charged and/or discounts granted, and the correspondence exchanged.
These criteria obviously are quite specific to the question at hand yet it is the first time the Court, carefully, ventures to give indications of some kind of a European ius commune on the existence of ‘a contract’.
Whether any such contract then is a contract for the sale of goods or one for services, is not a call the Court wishes to make. It lists the various criteria it has hitherto deployed, with extensive reference in particular to C-9/12 Corman-Collins, and leaves the decision up to the national court.
Make a mental note of Granarolo. It may turn out to have been quite pivotal. Geert.
Bijzondere bevoegdheid, Brogsitter, Brussels I recast, Brussels I Regulation, C-196/15, C-26/91, C-548/12, CJEU, Competition law, Conflict of laws, Court of Justice, ECJ, ECLI:EU:C:2015:851, EEX, EEX Verordening, Granarolo, Granorolo, Handte, harmonisation, https://www.courdecassation.fr/jurisprudence_2/chambre_commerciale_574/1136_20_37632.html, Ius commune, Jurisdiction, Jurisdiction Regulation, Private international law, Regulation 1215/2012, Regulation 44/2001, Special jurisdictional rule, Tort