Content IPRax-Issue 6/2023 (July 2023)

In its ruling of 15.2.2022 (Trustpilot A/S ./. Interreal Group B.V.), the Gerechtshof Amsterdam had to decide on provisional measures within the meaning of Article 35 Brussels Ia Regulation against an online evaluation platform. The Court held that Article 35 Brussels Ia Regulation applied independently of a jurisdiction clause concerning the proceedings on the merits of the case. However, according to the Court, Article 35 Brussels Ia Regulation only covers measures having a provisional or protective character. The Court found that this applies to an obligation of an online platform to temporarily store user data available to the platform, but it excludes both obligations of that online platform to hand over user data to the applicant company and a forward-looking duty to store the data of prospective users.

Almost two years late due to the COVID-19 pandemic, in May 2022 over 200 delegates representing Members of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, Contracting Parties of the Hague Conventions as well as Observers met for the First Meeting of the Special Commission to review the practical operation of the 2007 Child Support Convention and the 2007 Hague Protocol on Applicable Law. The author focuses on this latter instrument and analyses the difficulties encountered by the Member States in the practical operation of the Hague Protocol, more than ten years after it entered into force at the European Union level. Particular attention is given to the Conclusions and Recommendations of the Applicable Law Working Group, unanimously adopted by the Special Commission which, in light of the challenges encountered in the implementation of the Hague Protocol, provide guidance on the practical operation of this instrument.

The decision of the Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof – BGH) is a milestone in the German-British relations regarding the procedural position of English plaintiffs in German courts after the Brexit. The BGH – overruling an earlier judgment of the Regional Court of Appeal Frankfurt/Main – decided that plaintiffs residing in the UK are not obliged to provide security for costs under sect. 110 German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO). The Court applied the European Convention on Establishment (Art. 34, Sect. 4).

The Court further decided that Plaintiffs residing in Switzerland have no such obligation either under the Lugano Convention 2007.

The BGH finally decided that Respondent must request security for costs in the instance the event occurs that gives Respondent the right to claim security for cost.

On 22 December 2022 the CJEU handed down a further judgment on the definition of civil and commercial matters within the meaning of art. 1 Brussels Ia-reg. and the distinction between civil matters and acta iure imperii. The short judgment denied the applicability of the regulation with regard to an action of a public authority of a Member State against companies established in another Member State seeking a declaration of the existence of restrictive practices, an order penalising those practices and an order on the cessation of those practices. Christoph Thole finds the judgment to be feasible, but parts of the Court’s line of reasoning remain doubtful.

The preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Wurth Automotive concerns the determination of whether a person has the status of consumer as defined by Art. 17 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation. According to settled case law of the Court of Justice, the national court must determine the aim for which the contract was concluded by the person who claims the consumer status. The referring Austrian court nonetheless seems to have had some issues with applying the case law of the Court on “mixed” contracts given the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The highly factual preliminary questions are all reformulated by the Court to rather abstract questions of interpretation, evaluation and evidence. The ruling confirms that a person who misleads their professional contractual partner as to the aims for which they sought to conclude the contract cannot invoke the protective jurisdictional rules for consumers, but also ties this defence to certain questionable evidentiary restrictions.

For child maintenance proceedings where one of the parties is domiciled abroad, Article 5 of the EuUnterhVO regulates the – international and local – jurisdiction based on the appearance of the defendant. According to its wording, the provision does not require the court to have previously informed the defendant of the possibility to contest the jurisdiction and the consequences of proceeding without contest – even if the defendant is the dependent minor child. Article 5 of the EuUnterhVO thus not only dispenses with the protection of the structurally weaker party that is usually granted under procedural law by means of a judicial duty to inform (such as Article 26(2) EuGVVO), but is in contradiction even with the other provisions of the EuUnterhVO, which are designed to achieve the greatest possible protection for the minor dependent child. This contradiction could already be resolved, at least to some extent, by a teleological interpretation of Article 5 of the EuUnterhVO, according to which international jurisdiction cannot in any case be established by the appearance of the defendant without prior judicial reference. However, in view of the unambiguous wording of the provision and the lesser negative consequences for the minor of submitting to a local jurisdiction, Article 5 of the EuUnterhVO should apply without restriction in the context of local jurisdiction. De lege ferenda, a positioning of the European legislator is still desirable at this point.

Two recent decisions shed new light on the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The Court of Appeal of Berlin comments on the controversial question of whether a wrongfully removed child can be returned to a Contracting State other than that in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal. According to the Court of Appeal, this is possible if children return to their usual family ties and relationships. The Supreme Court of Justice of Austria was concerned with the best interests of the child in the return process. The current decision reaffirms the established jurisdiction, according to which the claim that the child’s best interests are endangered by the return can only be based on facts that occurred after the making of an order for the return of the child.

Within the scope of application of the Brussels Ia Regulation, creditors have two options when enforcing a judgment obliging a debtor to perform an action or to refrain from an action: On the one hand, creditors can enforce this judgment across borders by means of the enforcement methods available in another Member State. On the other hand, creditors may obtain an order levying a penalty payment and enforce that order in accordance with the enforcement measures for monetary claims in another Member State (Art. 55 Brussels Ia Regulation). Thus, creditors are free to choose whether to enforce the judgment or to enforce an order levying a penalty payment across the border. The securing of penalty payments by means of a European Account Preservation Order (Regulation 655/2012) could be a third procedural option. In the first case, the Higher Regional Court of Cologne refused to allow this option. The court decided that creditors may not pursue a European Account Preservation because the penalty payment essentially concerns a claim to perform an action and not a pecuniary claim. In the second case, the CJEU implied that penalty payments should indeed be regarded as pecuniary claims. However, a penalty payment order that does not determine the final amount cannot justify the issuance of a European Account Preservation Order. In this case, the creditor has to satisfy the court that the claim is likely to succeed (Art. 7(2) Regulation 655/2012).

40 BGH 27.09.2022 VI  ZR 68/21 

41 EuGH 22.12.2022 Rs. C-98/22

42 EuGH 9.3.2023 Rs. C-177/22

43 BGH 11.5.2022 XII ZB 543/20

44 KG Berlin 21.7.2022 16 UF 63/22

45 OGH 17.8.2022 6 Ob 157/22i 

46 OLG Köln 2.12.2020 13 W 40/20

47 EuGH 20.4.2023 Rs. C-291/21