Category: European

Harper Hygienics v OHMI – Clinique Laboratories (Cleanic Natural Beauty) T-363/12: ECFI 13 May 2015

ECJ Judgment – Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark CLEANIC natural beauty – Earlier Community word marks CLINIC – Relative grounds for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of goods and services – Article 8, paragraph 1 b) Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier marks – Article 8, paragraph 5 of Regulation No 207/2009

Judges:

D. Gratsias, P

Citations:

T-363/12, [2015] EUECJ T-363/12, ECLI: EU: T: 2015 278

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.546604

France v Commission T-366/13: ECFI 1 Mar 2017

ECJ (Judgment) State aid – Maritime cabotage – Aid implemented by France in favor of the Societe Nationale Maritime Corse Mediterranee (SNCM) and Compagnie Meridionale de Navigation – Service of general economic interest – Compensation for a complementary service Basis to cover peak periods during the tourist season – Decision declaring aid to be incompatible with the internal market – Concept of State aid – Advantage – Altmark judgment

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:135, [2017] EUECJ T-366/13

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European, Transport

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.579675

Glencore Cereales France v Etablissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer: ECJ 2 Mar 2017

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 – Protection of the European Union’s financial interests – Article 3 – Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 – Article 11 – Recovery of an export refund unduly granted – Regulation (EEC) No 3002/92 – Article 5a – Security wrongly released – Interest due – Limitation period – Point from which time begins to run – Interruption of the period – Maximum limit – Longer period – Whether applicable

Citations:

C-584/15, [2017] EUECJ C-584/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:160

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.579676

Hudzinski v Agentur fur Arbeit Wesel – Familienkasse: ECJ 12 Jun 2012

ECJ Social security for migrant workers – Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Articles 14(1)(a) and 14a(1)(a) – Articles 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU – Temporary work in a Member State other than that in which work is normally carried out – Family benefits – Applicable legislation – Possibility for child benefit to be granted by the Member State in which the temporary work is carried out but which is not the competent State – Application of a rule of national law against overlapping of benefits which excludes that benefit in the case where a comparable benefit is received in another State

Judges:

Skouis P

Citations:

[2012] EUECJ C-611/10, C-611/10

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

See Also – Hudzinski v Agentur fur Arbeit Wesel – Familienkasse ECJ 16-Feb-2012
ECJ Social security – Child benefit – Articles 14(1)(a) and 14a(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Temporary work in another Member State – Legislation applicable – Right of a Member State other than the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.460433

Schleswig-Holsteinische Landwirtschaftliche Hauptgenossenschaft Egmbh v Hauptzollamt Itzehoe: ECJ 15 Dec 1971

ECJ 1. The concept ‘day of importation’, which is conclusive for the purposes of the application of the levy scheme must have the same meaning in all the member states, since otherwise there is a danger that different rates of levy would be applied to goods which are in the same situation economically at the same date and the introduction of which into the territory of the member states has comparable effects on the market in agricultural products. This meaning is to be inferred from the purpose of the levy system.
2. The levies are mainly intended to protect and stabilize the community market, in particular by preventing fluctuations in world market prices from having repercussions within the community.
This aim is best achieved if the levy is fixed on the basis of the date from which the imported goods exercise an influence on the internal market of the community, that is to say, the date on which they finally reach this market and enter into competition with domestic products. The rate of levy applicable must therefore be that in force on the date on which the goods are irrevocably put into free circulation.
3. As regards goods which are stored in deferred levy warehouses (abschoepfungsaufschublager) article 15 of regulation no 120/67 of the council of the european communities must be interpreted as meaning that the day of importation or of the effecting of the importation is the day on which the goods are removed from the warehouse, which implies that they are irrevocably put into free circulation. It is for the legislation of the individual member states to stipulate in detail what factual circumstances or what customs formalities fulfil these conditions.
4. Where goods in respect of which a levy fixed in advance are not removed from store until after the expiry of the period of validity of the import licence, the rate of levy applicable on the date of removal from store must be applied.

Citations:

R-35/71, [1971] EUECJ R-35/71

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Agriculture

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.214155

Menini and Rampanelli v Banco Popolare – Societa Cooperativa: ECJ 16 Feb 2017

ECJ (Advocate Generals Opinion) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Appeal against an order for payment – Directive 2008/52/EC – Mediation in civil and commercial matters – Article 1(2) – Scope – Directive 2013/11/EU – Alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes – Article 1 – Obligation on the consumer to use a mediation procedure before referring the matter to a judicial body – Article 2 – Scope – Article 8(b) – Mandatory assistance of a lawyer – Article 9(2)(a) – Penalties for withdrawal from a mediation procedure

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2017:132, [2017] EUECJ C-75/16 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.579662

Jingao Solar and Others v Council T-157/14: ECFI 28 Feb 2017

(Judgment) Dumping – Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating in or consigned from China – Definitive anti-dumping duty – Undertakings – Action for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Admissibility -Exporting country – Scope of the investigation – Sampling – Normal value – Definition of the product concerned – Time limit for the adoption of a decision on a market economy treatment claim – Temporal application of new provisions – Injury – Causal link

Citations:

T-157/14, [2017] EUECJ T-157/14

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.579656

Penny-Markt v OHMI – Boquoi Handels (B!O): ECFI 18 Feb 2016

ECJ Judgment – Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community figurative mark B O – Earlier Community word mark bo – Relative ground for refusal – Article 53, paragraph 1 a) and Article 8, paragraph 1 b) of Regulation ( EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

T-364/14, [2016] EUECJ T-364/14, ECLI:EU:T:2016:84

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.560218

Germany v Commission: ECJ 18 Feb 2016

ECJ Judgment – Appeal – State aid – disposal services of animal carcasses and slaughterhouse waste – Maintenance of reserve capacity in case of an outbreak – Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market – Service of general economic interest – manifest error of assessment – Compensation relating to the public service obligation – obligation to state reasons

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2016:97, C-446/14, [2016] EUECJ C-446/14

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.560212

Housieaux v Delegues du conseil de la Region de Bruxelles-Capitale: ECJ 21 Apr 2005

ECJ Directive 90/313/EEC – Freedom of access to information on the environment – Request for information – Requirement to give reasons in the event of refusal – Mandatory time-limit – Failure of a public authority to respond within the time-limit for reply – Implied refusal – Fundamental right to effective judicial protection

Citations:

C-186/04, [2005] EUECJ C-186/04, [2006] Env LR 2, [2005] 2 CMLR 53

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 90/313/EEC

Jurisdiction:

European

Environment, Information

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.224399

Pepsico v OHMI – Intersnack Knabber-Gebaeck (Ruffles): ECFI 21 Apr 2005

ECJ Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark RUFFLES – Earlier national trade mark RIFFELS – Even earlier national trade mark RUFFLES – Coexistence and equivalence between national trade marks and Community trade marks.

Citations:

T-269/02, [2005] EUECJ T-269/02

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.224404

Lindberg (Industrial Policy): ECJ 21 Apr 2005

ECJ Directive 83/189/EEC – Notification procedure in the field of technical standards and regulations – Obligation to notify draft technical regulations – National legislation on gaming and lotteries – Gaming machines – Prohibition on the organisation of games on gaming machines which do not pay out winnings directly – Machines of the ‘wheel of fortune’ type – Definition of ‘technical regulation’

Judges:

Timmermans P

Citations:

C-267/03, [2005] EUECJ C-267/03, [2005] ECR I-3247

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 83/189/EEC

Jurisdiction:

European

Licensing

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.224400

Commission v Czech Republic (Freedom of Movement for Workers – Judgment) French Text: ECJ 15 Mar 2018

State failure – Article 49 TFEU – Freedom of establishment – Notaries – Condition of nationality – Article 51 TFEU – Participation in the exercise of public authority

Citations:

C-575/16, [2018] EUECJ C-575/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:186

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Legal Professions

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.606489

Republic of Poland v Italian Republic: ECJ 30 May 2013

ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Transport – Directive 91/440/EEC – Development of the Community’s railways – Directive 2001/14/EC – Allocation of railway infrastructure capacity – Article 6(2) and (3) of Directive 2001/14 – Continued absence of financial balance – Articles 6(1) and 7(3) and (4) of Directive 91/440 – Absence of incentives for infrastructure managers – Articles 7(3) and 8(1) of Directive 2001/14 – Calculation of the minimum access charge

Citations:

C-512/10, [2013] EUECJ C-512/10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 91/440/EEC, Directive 2001/14/EC

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.510320

Castelnou Energia v Commission: ECFI 3 Dec 2014

ECJ Judgment – State aid – Electricity – Compensation of additional production costs – Public service obligation to produce certain volumes of electricity from indigenous coal – priority call mechanism – Decision not to raise objections – Decision declaring the aid compatible with the common market – Action for annulment – Individual concern – Substantial Assigning the competitive position – Admissibility – No opening of the formal investigation procedure – Serious difficulties – Service of general economic interest – Safety of electricity supply – Article 11, paragraph 4 of Directive 2003/54 / EC – Free movement of goods – Environmental protection – Directive 2003/87 / EC

Judges:

Mme M. Martins Ribeiro, P

Citations:

T-57/11, [2014] EUECJ T-57/11, ECLI: EU: T: 2014: 1021

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2003/87/EC, Directive 2003/54/EC

Jurisdiction:

European

European, Utilities

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.539575

Asociacion Nacional De Grandes Empresas De Distribucion (Anged) v Federacion De Asociaciones Sindicales (Fasga) and Others: ECJ 21 Jun 2012

ECJ Directive 2003/88/EC – Organisation of working time – Entitlement to paid annual leave – Sick leave – Annual leave coinciding with sick leave – Entitlement to take paid annual leave at another time

Judges:

Safjan P

Citations:

C-78/11, [2012] EUECJ C-78/11

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2003/88/EC

Jurisdiction:

European

Employment

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.460888

Revenue and Customs v Sunico ApS and Others: ECJ 11 Apr 2013

ECJ (Opinion) Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Article 6 of the Agreement – Capacity of Danish courts to make references to the Court – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Article 1(1) – Concept of civil and commercial matters – Action by an authority – Damages for involvement in tax evasion by a third party which is not itself a taxable person

Judges:

Kokott AG

Citations:

C-49/12, [2013] EUECJ C-49/12, [2013] EUECJ C-49/12

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 1(1)

Jurisdiction:

European

Jurisdiction, Taxes Management

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.472566

Dirk Frederik Asbeek Brusse v Jahani Bv: ECJ 30 May 2013

ECJ Directive 93/13/EEC – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Residential tenancy agreement between a landlord acting on a commercial basis and a tenant acting on a non-commercial basis – Examination by the national court, of its own motion, as to whether a contractual term is unfair – Penalty clause – Annulment of the clause

Citations:

C-488/11, [2013] EUECJ C-488/11

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 93/13/EEC

Jurisdiction:

European

Consumer

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.510305

Genil 48 Sl v Bankinter Sa: ECJ 30 May 2013

ECJ Directive 2004/39/EC – Markets in financial instruments – Article 19 – Conduct of business obligations when providing investment services to clients – Investment advice – Other investment services – Obligation to assess the suitability or appropriateness of the service to be provided – Contractual consequences of non-compliance with that obligation – Investment service offered as part of a financial product – Interest-rate swap agreements to protect against the risk of variations of interest rates on financial products

Citations:

C-604/11, [2013] EUECJ C-604/11

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2004/39/EC

Jurisdiction:

European

Financial Services

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.510312

Specsavers International Healthcare Ltd and Others v Asda Stores Ltd: ChD 30 Jul 2010

The claimant complained of the defendant’s use of its trade marks alleging infringement and passing off when it relaunched its own optician services. Having had advance notice of the details of the proposed campaign, the claimants had launched their own pre-emptive campaign. They now admitted misuse of the confidential information acquired.
Held: The claim succeeded on one point but failed on the others. The Asda campaign had started with the claimant’s materials and worked away to what it considered to be a safe distance. The strap lines used were a parody of the claimant, but there first consideration was the emphasis on price advantage. That the defendant had approached the matter in this way supported in a limited way an assertion of intended confusion. The claim as to the logo failed. The ovals did not merge as was characteristic of the claimant’s logo. As to the strap lines used: ‘at one level there is a plain and close similarity between ‘Specsavers’ and ‘spec saver’. They are not identical, but they are closely similar. That is obvious from just looking at them, and the notion of parody, which Asda wanted, would not work if there were no similarity. But that does not entitle Specsavers to succeed. They need to establish that that similarity gives rise to a likelihood of confusion, or a likelihood of association.’ It was a contrast which was intended to be created, not confusion.
As to the claim under Article 9(1)(c): ‘it is necessary to show a link between the offending sign, in the sense of calling the registered mark to mind; that an advantage is gained thereby; and that that advantage is unfair. Here the campaign had set out to call the Specsavers to mind and had succeeded. As to the unfairness this related also to the element of ‘riding on the coat tails’ of Specsaver. This Asda had done. In this area, Asda’s intention was relevant: ‘calling the brand to mind in this way inevitably, and predictably, calls other aspects of it to mind. That is why it was done.’ It was using Specsavers’ established cachet for its own purposes. The claim in passing off failed.

Judges:

Mann J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2035 (Ch), [2011] FSR 1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – United Biscuits v Asda ChD 1997
Robert Walker J upheld a claim in passing off notwithstanding the existence of different branding. He said: ‘But it seems to me to be likely that [certain individuals acting for the defendants] were, under advice, seeking to make only such changes . .
Cited – Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer v Klijsen Handel ECJ 22-Jun-1999
ECJ In accordance with the division of functions provided for by Article 177 of the Treaty (now Article 234 EC), the role of the Court of Justice is limited to providing the national court with the guidance on . .
Cited – LTJ Diffusion SA v Sadas Vertbaudet SA ECJ 20-Mar-2003
The Directive protected a trade mark owner against use in the course of trade of ‘any sign which is identical with’ the registered mark.
Held: A use was identical within the article if, when used, it both reproduced without any modification or . .
Cited – O2 Holdings Limited and O2 (UK) Limited -v -Hutchison 3G UK Limited ECJ 31-Jan-2008
ECJ (Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi) Directive 84/450/EEC Comparative advertising Use of a competitor’s trade mark or of a sign similar to a competitor’s trade mark in comparative advertising Applicability . .
Cited – Whirlpool Corporation and Another v Kenwood Ltd CA 23-Jul-2009
Allegation of infringement of trade mark. . .
Cited – Intel Corporation v CPM United Kingdom Ltd (Approximation Of Laws) ECJ 27-Nov-2008
Europa Directive 89/104/EEC Trade marks Article 4(4)(a) Trade marks with a reputation – Protection against the use of a later identical or similar mark Use which takes or would take unfair advantage of, or is or . .

Cited by:

Cited – A and E Television Networks Llc and Another v Discovery Communications Europe Ltd ChD 1-Feb-2013
The claimants had operated the ‘History’ and associated variant TV channels and trade marks. The claimed that the defendant’s ‘Discovery History’ channels were in breach. The defendants challenged the validity of the trade marks. The court now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, European

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.421362

IB v Cabinet (Police And Judicial Cooperation In Criminal Matters): ECJ 6 Jul 2010

ECJ (French Text) Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – European arrest warrant – Grounds for optional non-execution and guarantees provided by the issuing Member State – Possibility for the Member State [Or 1] implementation, making the surrender of a person residing in its territory on condition that this person, after being heard in the Member State issuing the arrest warrant is returned to the Member State execution in order to serve the sentence or measure involving deprivation of liberty that could be passed against him – any impact on the decision taken by the judicial authorities of the executing Member State, a risk achieving the fundamental rights of the individual and, in particular, to respect for his private and family life

Citations:

C-306/09, [2010] EUECJ C-306/09

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

See Also – IB v Cabinet (Police And Judicial Cooperation In Criminal Matters) ECJ 21-Oct-2010
ECJ Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States – Article 4 – Grounds for optional . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.420487

Cali Esprou (Environment – Packaging and Packaging Waste – Judgment): ECJ 15 Mar 2018

Reference for a preliminary ruling ? Directive 94/62/EC ? Packaging and packaging waste ? Recovery and recycling of waste ? National environmental fund contribution ? National marketing of packaged products and their packaging, without alteration ? ‘Polluter-pays’ principle ? Status of polluter

Citations:

C-104/17, [2018] EUECJ C-104/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:188

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Environment

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.606486

Ribeiro Sinde Monteiro v EEAS: ECJ 18 Mar 2015

ECJ Judgment – Public service – Staff EEAS – Official – Promotion – Articles 43 and 45, paragraph 1, of the Statute – Consideration of comparative merits of all the officials eligible for promotion – Officials proposed by service, not available EEAS officials – Consideration staff reports – Likes exclusively literal

Citations:

F-51/14, [2015] EUECJ F-51/14

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.544897

DK v EEAS: ECJ 18 Mar 2015

ECJ Judgment – Public service – Staff EEAS – Official – Disciplinary proceedings – Removal without reduction of pension rights – Article 25 of Annex IX – Criminal proceedings underway – Identity of facts submitted to the appointing authority and criminal justice

Judges:

K. Bradley, P

Citations:

F-27/14, [2015] EUECJ F-27/14, ECLI: EU: F: 2015 : 12

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.544598

Maternus v EUIPO – Adp Gauselmann (WILD): ECFI 2 Feb 2022

Judgment – European Union trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – European Union word mark WILD – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(c), of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

Citations:

T-116/21, [2022] EUECJ T-116/21

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European

Updated: 04 February 2022; Ref: scu.671886

Procureur De La Republique And Others v Guy Vedel And Others: ECJ 16 Feb 1982

Europa Agriculture – wine-based aperitifs – community definition – none – power of member states to enact rules as to quality – requirement of minimum proportion of alcohol – permissibility – conditions (council regulations no 816/70, annex ii, point 10, and no 337/79, annex ii, point 11) The appellation ‘wine-based aperitifs’ is not at present governed by community regulations which exclude the application of the national legislation of the member states. Since there are no applicable community regulations the member states continue to have the power to define the standards applicable to the manufacture and marketing of national products called wine-based aperitifs. Therefore a member state may not be prevented from subjecting the manufacturer of wine-based aperitifs to special quality rules, depending on the characteristics of that kind of beverage. If a requirement of a minimum proportion of alcohol is within the community limits, it meets that criterion of quality.

Citations:

R-204/80, [1982] EUECJ R-204/80

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European, Agriculture

Updated: 04 February 2022; Ref: scu.215045

Sociaal Fonds voor de Diamantarbeiders v S A Ch Brachfeld and Sons and Chougol Diamond Co (Judgment): ECJ 1 Jul 1969

Europa Customs duties are prohibited independently of any consideration of the purpose for which they were introduced and the destination of the revenue obtained therefrom. Any pecuniary charge, however small and whatever its designation and mode of application, which is imposed unilaterally on domestic or foreign goods when they cross a frontier, and which is not a customs duty in the strict sense, constitutes a charge having equivalent effect within the meaning of articles 9 and 12 of the treaty, even if it is not imposed for the benefit of the state, is not discriminatory or protective in effect or if the product on which the charge is imposed is not in competition with any domestic product. The prohibition of new customs duties or charges having equivalent effect, linked to the principle of the free movement of goods, constitutes a fundamental rule which, without prejudice to the other provisions of the treaty, does not permit of any exceptions. It follows from articles 95 et seq. That the concept of a charge having equivalent effect does not include taxation which is imposed in the same way within a state on imported products and similar domestic products, or which falls, in the absence of comparable domestic products, within the framework of general internal taxation, or which is intended to compensate for taxation of this nature within the limits laid down by the treaty. The rendering of a specific service may in certain specific cases warrant the payment of a fee in proportion to the service actually rendered. The provisions of the treaty laying down prohibitions on customs duties and charges having equivalent effect impose precise and clearly-defined obligations on member states which do not require any subsequent intervention by community or national authorities for their implementation. For this reason, these provisions directly confer rights on individuals concerned. Without prejudice to any limitations which might be imposed in order to attain the objectives of the common customs tariff, pecuniary charges other than customs duties pecuniary charges other than customs duties in the strict sense applied by a member state before the introduction of that tariff on goods imported directly from third countries are not, according to the treaty, incompatible with the requirements concerning the gradual alignment of national customs tariffs on the common external tariff.

Citations:

C-2/69

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.131987

Reunion Europeenne Sa and Others v Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor Bv and Another: ECJ 27 Oct 1998

French consignees of a shipment of peaches sued in France the Australian issuers of the bill of laiding under which the goods were carried (a contract claim) and the Dutch carriers and master of the ship in which they were carried (tort claims).
Held: There was no jurisdiction under Article 6(1) because none of the defendants were domiciled in France. After referring to Kalfelis: ‘It follows that two claims in one action for compensation directed against different defendants and based in one instance on contractual liability and in the other on liability in tort or delict cannot be regarded as connected.’
Europa An action by which the consignee of goods found to be damaged on completion of a transport operation by sea and then by land, or by which his insurer who has been subrogated to his rights after compensating him, seeks redress for the damage suffered, relying on the bill of lading covering the maritime transport, not against the person who issued that document on his headed paper but against the person whom the plaintiff considers to be the actual maritime carrier, does not fall within the scope of matters relating to a contract within the meaning of Article 5, point 1, of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, since the bill of lading in question does not disclose any contractual relationship freely entered into between the consignee and the defendant. Such an action is, however, a matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict within the meaning of Article 5, point 3, of that Convention, since that concept covers all actions which seek to establish the liability of a defendant and are not related to matters of contract within the meaning of Article 5, point 1. As regards determining the `place where the harmful event occurred’ within the meaning of Article 5, point 3, the place where the consignee, on completion of a transport operation by sea and then by land, merely discovered the existence of the damage to the goods delivered to him cannot serve to determine that place. Whilst it is true that the abovementioned concept may cover both the place where the damage occurred and the place of the event giving rise to it, the place where the damage arose can, in the circumstances described, only be the place where the maritime carrier was to deliver the goods. Article 6, point 1, of the Convention of 27 September 1968 must be interpreted as meaning that a defendant domiciled in a Contracting State cannot, on the basis of that provision, be sued in another Contracting State before a court seised of an action against a co-defendant not domiciled in a Contracting State on the ground that the dispute is indivisible rather than merely displaying a connection. The objective of legal certainty pursued by the Convention would not be attained if the fact that a court in a Contracting State had accepted jurisdiction as regards one of the defendants not domiciled in a Contracting State made it possible to bring another defendant, domiciled in a Contracting State, before that same court in cases other than those envisaged by the Convention, thereby depriving him of the benefit of the protective rules laid down by it.

Citations:

Times 16-Nov-1998, C-51/97, [1998] ECR I-6511, [1998] EUECJ C-51/97

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Brussels Convention on Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Mazur Media Limited and Another v Mazur Media Gmbh in Others ChD 8-Jul-2004
Proceedings were brought in England. The respondents sought a stay, saying the company was subject to insolvency proceedings in Germany.
Held: Our domestic insolvency law was not applicable to foreign proceedings, and so could not be used to . .
Cited – Shahar v Tsitsekkos and others ChD 17-Nov-2004
The defendant wished to make a claim against another party outside the jurisdiction and was granted permission to serve documents which were headed ‘defence and counterclaim’. The proposed defendant argued that such a document could be served in . .
Cited – Casio Computer Co Ltd v Sayo and others CA 11-Apr-2001
The court was asked whether a constructive trust claim based on dishonest assistance is a matter ‘relating to tort, delict or quasi delict’ for the purpose of Article 5(3) of the Brussels Convention?
Held: A constructive trust claim based upon . .
Cited – AMT Futures Ltd v Marzillier and Others SC 1-Mar-2017
AMT entered into many financial services agreements providing for exclusive EW jurisdiction. It now sought to restrain the defendant German lawyers from encouraging litigation in Germany saying that induced breaches of the contracts. It also sought . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Jurisdiction

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.88750

Handelskwekerij G. J. Bier BV v Mines de potasse d’Alsace SA: ECJ 30 Nov 1976

Europa A discharge into the French part of the Rhine of saline waste caused alleged damage to the horticultural business of the first plaintiff, and to the waters of the Rhine in general in the Netherlands.
Held: Both the place of the event giving rise to the damage and the place where the damage occurred constituted a significant connecting factor from the point of view of jurisdiction, and each of them could be particularly helpful from the point of view of evidence and the conduct of proceedings. Accordingly the plaintiff had an option to commence proceedings either at the place where the damage occurred or the place of the event giving rise to it. Where the place of the happening of the event which may give rise to liability in tort, delict or quasi-delict and the place where that event results in damage are not identical, the expression ‘place where the harmful event occurred’, in article 5(3) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, must be understood as being intended to cover both the place where the damage occurred and the place of the event giving rise to it. The result is that the defendant may be sued, at the option of the plaintiff, either in the courts for the place where the damage occurred or in the courts for the place of the event which gives rise to and is at the origin of that damage.

Citations:

[1976] ECR 1375, C-21/76

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Henderson v Jaouen and Another CA 1-Feb-2002
The plaintiff had been injured in an accident and had sued and recovered damages for his injuries in France. Later, his condition deteriorated. In France he would have been able to revive his action to claim further damages, but he sought a similar . .
Cited – Mazur Media Limited and Another v Mazur Media Gmbh in Others ChD 8-Jul-2004
Proceedings were brought in England. The respondents sought a stay, saying the company was subject to insolvency proceedings in Germany.
Held: Our domestic insolvency law was not applicable to foreign proceedings, and so could not be used to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.132429

Overseas Union Insurance Ltd and others v New Hampshire Insurance Company: ECJ 27 Jun 1991

ECJ Article 21 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters must be interpreted as meaning that the rules applicable to lis alibi pendens set out therein must be applied irrespective of the domicile of the parties to the two sets of proceedings. Without prejudice to the case where the court second seised has exclusive jurisdiction under the Convention and in particular under Article 16 thereof, Article 21 of the Convention must be interpreted as meaning that, where the jurisdiction of the court first seised is contested, the court second seised may, if it does not decline jurisdiction, only stay the proceedings and may not itself examine the jurisdiction of the court first seised.

Citations:

C-351/89, [1992] QB 434, [1991] EUECJ C-351/89

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Turner v Grovit and others HL 13-Dec-2001
The applicant was a solicitor employed by a company in Belgium. He later resigned claiming unfair dismissal, saying he had been pressed to become involved in unlawful activities. The defendants sought to challenge the jurisdiction of the English . .
Cited – Turner v Grovit ECJ 27-Apr-2004
The claimant had been employed as a solicitor by the respondent at locations across Europe, and came to claim in England that they had wrongly implicated him in unlawful activity. The company sought to issue proceedings in Spain.
Held: The . .
Cited – Moore v Moore CA 20-Apr-2007
The family were wealthy, and had lived for some time in Spain. On the breakdown of the marriage, the wife returned to the UK, and sought ancillary relief here, though the divorce had been in Spain. The husband argued that this should be dealt with . .
Cited – AMT Futures Ltd v Marzillier and Others SC 1-Mar-2017
AMT entered into many financial services agreements providing for exclusive EW jurisdiction. It now sought to restrain the defendant German lawyers from encouraging litigation in Germany saying that induced breaches of the contracts. It also sought . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Jurisdiction

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.160375

Marinari v Lloyd’s Bank: ECJ 19 Sep 1995

A ‘harmful event’ occurred where the physical damage was suffered and not at the time and place of a later financial loss.
Europa The term ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ in Article 5(3) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters does not, on a proper interpretation, cover the place where the victim claims to have suffered financial damage folowing upon initial damage arising and suffered by him in another Contracting State. Although that term may cover both the place where the damage occurred and the place of the event giving rise to it, it cannot be construed so extensively as to encompass any place where the adverse consequences can be felt of an event which has already caused damage actually arising elsewhere.

Citations:

Times 19-Oct-1995, C-364/93, [1995] ECR I-2719, [1995] EUECJ C-364/93, [1996] QB 217

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Mazur Media Limited and Another v Mazur Media Gmbh in Others ChD 8-Jul-2004
Proceedings were brought in England. The respondents sought a stay, saying the company was subject to insolvency proceedings in Germany.
Held: Our domestic insolvency law was not applicable to foreign proceedings, and so could not be used to . .
Cited – Cooley v Ramsey QBD 1-Feb-2008
The claimant sought damages after being severely injured in a road traffic accident in Australia caused by the defendant. The defendant denied that the court had jurisdiction to permit service out of the jurisdiction. The claimant said that the . .
Cited – AMT Futures Ltd v Marzillier and Others SC 1-Mar-2017
AMT entered into many financial services agreements providing for exclusive EW jurisdiction. It now sought to restrain the defendant German lawyers from encouraging litigation in Germany saying that induced breaches of the contracts. It also sought . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.161183

AKZO Chemie BV v Commission of the European Communities: ECJ 3 Jul 1991

Europa Regard for the rights of the defence requires that the undertaking concerned shall have been enabled to make known effectively its point of view on the documents relied upon by the Commission in making the findings on which its decision is based. In examining the possibly dominant position of an undertaking in a particular market, the possibilities of competition must be judged in the context of the market comprising the totality of the products which, with respect to their characteristics, are particularly suitable for satisfying constant needs and are only to a limited extent interchangeable with other products. Very large market shares are usually evidence of the existence of a dominant position. The concept of abuse is objective, relating to the behaviour of an undertaking in a dominant position which is such as to influence the structure of a market where, as a result of the very presence of the undertaking in question, the degree of competition is weakened and which, by recourse to methods different from those which condition normal competition in products or services on the basis of the transactions of commercial operators, has the effect of hindering the maintenance of the degree of competition still existing in the market or the growth of that competition.

Citations:

C-62/86, [1993] 5 CMLR 215, [1986] EUECJ C-62/86R, [1991] EUECJ C-62/86, [1991] ECR 1-3359

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Carter Holt Harvey Building Products Group Ltd v The Commerce Commission PC 14-Jul-2004
(New Zealand) The company had been found guilty under the Act of abusing its dominant position. The appeal was restricted to whether the dominant position was being used in the way suggested. Would the company have introduced its price cuts if it . .
Cited – Chester City Council and Another v Arriva Plc and others ChD 15-Jun-2007
The claimant council alleged that the defendant had acted to abuse its dominant market position in the provision of bus services in the city.
Held: It was for the claimant to show that the defendant had a dominant position. It had not done so, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Commercial

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.134361

Universal Music International Holding BV v Schilling and others: ECJ 16 Jun 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Special jurisdiction – Article 5(3) – Tort, delict or quasi-delict – Harmful event – Lawyer’s negligence in drafting the contract – Place where the harmful event occurred

Citations:

C-12/15, [2016] EUECJ C-12/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:449

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 5(3)

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – AMT Futures Ltd v Marzillier and Others SC 1-Mar-2017
AMT entered into many financial services agreements providing for exclusive EW jurisdiction. It now sought to restrain the defendant German lawyers from encouraging litigation in Germany saying that induced breaches of the contracts. It also sought . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.565636

Kalfelis v Bankhaus Schroder, Munchmeyer, Hengst and Co and others: ECJ 27 Sep 1988

ECJ For Article 6(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters to apply, a connection must exist between the various actions brought by the same plaintiff against different defendants. That connection, whose nature must be determined independently, must be of such a kind that it is expedient to determine the actions together in order to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings. The expression ‘matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ contained in Article 5 (3) of the Convention must be regarded as an independent concept covering all actions which seek to establish the liability of a defendant and which are not related to a ‘contract’ within the meaning of Article 5(1). A court which has jurisdiction under Article 5(3) over an action in so far as it is based on tort or delict does not have jurisdiction over that action in so far as it is not so based.

Citations:

C-189/87, [1988] ECR 5565, R-189/87, [1988] EUECJ R-189/87, [1988] ECT 6656

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Convention on Jurisdiction And The Enforcement Of Judgments 5

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Mazur Media Limited and Another v Mazur Media Gmbh in Others ChD 8-Jul-2004
Proceedings were brought in England. The respondents sought a stay, saying the company was subject to insolvency proceedings in Germany.
Held: Our domestic insolvency law was not applicable to foreign proceedings, and so could not be used to . .
Cited – Kleinwort Benson Limited v City of Glasgow District Council HL 19-Jun-1997
Restitution when Contract Void ab initio
A claim for restitution of money paid under a contract which was void ab initio is not a claim in contract, nor tort, nor delict, it was justiciable only in the court of domicile. The Brussels Convention does not decide jurisdiction. ‘But it is . .
Cited – Shahar v Tsitsekkos and others ChD 17-Nov-2004
The defendant wished to make a claim against another party outside the jurisdiction and was granted permission to serve documents which were headed ‘defence and counterclaim’. The proposed defendant argued that such a document could be served in . .
Cited – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd CA 24-Oct-2005
The defendants who were resident in Greece appealed a decision that the English court had jurisdiction over them, by virtue of a close connection of the matter with earlier proceedings heard here.
Held: The fact that the defendants were all . .
Cited – Casio Computer Co Ltd v Sayo and others CA 11-Apr-2001
The court was asked whether a constructive trust claim based on dishonest assistance is a matter ‘relating to tort, delict or quasi delict’ for the purpose of Article 5(3) of the Brussels Convention?
Held: A constructive trust claim based upon . .
Cited – Gomez and others v Vives CA 3-Oct-2008
The claimant appealed a finding that the court did not have jurisdiction over income payable to a trust governed by English law under which the claimant was beneficiary.
Held: The appeal failed in part. Because Article 5 is in derogation from . .
Cited – Kinnear and Others v Falconfilms Nv and Others QBD 27-Jan-1994
The deceased had died in an accident whilst filming in Spain for the defendants. The plaintiff personal representatives sought damages here, while the defendants denied that the court had jurisdiction under the 1968 Convention, and said that the . .
Cited – AMT Futures Ltd v Marzillier and Others SC 1-Mar-2017
AMT entered into many financial services agreements providing for exclusive EW jurisdiction. It now sought to restrain the defendant German lawyers from encouraging litigation in Germany saying that induced breaches of the contracts. It also sought . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Jurisdiction

Leading Case

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.134648

Melzer v MF Global UK: ECJ 29 Nov 2012

ECJ Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters – Interpretation of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Special jurisdiction in tort or delict – Cross-border participation of several people in the same allegedly harmful act – Possible option of establishing the jurisdiction of a court of a Member State with regard to a defendant domiciled in another Member State by reason of the place where an event giving rise to such act may has been committed by a purported joint participant or accomplice who is not being sued for damages.

Judges:

Jaaskinen AG

Citations:

C-228/11, [2012] EUECJ C-228/11

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 5(3)

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Opinion – Melzer v MF Global UK ECJ 16-May-2013
Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Special jurisdiction in matters of tort, delict and quasi-delict – Cross-border participation by several persons in the same unlawful act – Possibility of establishing territorial jurisdiction according to the . .
Cited – AMT Futures Ltd v Marzillier and Others SC 1-Mar-2017
AMT entered into many financial services agreements providing for exclusive EW jurisdiction. It now sought to restrain the defendant German lawyers from encouraging litigation in Germany saying that induced breaches of the contracts. It also sought . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.466426

Peter Pinckney v KDG Mediatech Ag: ECJ 3 Oct 2013

ECJ Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Jurisdiction – Matters relating to tort, delict and quasi-delict – Copyright – Material support reproducing a protected work – Placing on line – Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred

Citations:

C-170/12, [2013] EUECJ C-170/12, [2013] WLR(D) 367

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – AMT Futures Ltd v Marzillier and Others SC 1-Mar-2017
AMT entered into many financial services agreements providing for exclusive EW jurisdiction. It now sought to restrain the defendant German lawyers from encouraging litigation in Germany saying that induced breaches of the contracts. It also sought . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.516350

Wintersteiger v Products 4U Sondermaschinenbau GmbH: ECJ 16 Feb 2012

Judicial co-operation in civil matters – Jurisdiction – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001- Infringement of a trade mark as a result of the registration by a competitor of a sign identical to the trade mark with an internet search services provider – Registration of an AdWord – National protection of the trade mark in a Member State other than the one in which the AdWord is registered – Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur.

Citations:

C-523/10, [2012] EUECJ C-523/10

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

At ECFI – Wintersteiger v Products 4U Sondermaschinenbau GmbH ECJ 19-Apr-2012
ECJ Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Jurisdiction ‘in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ – Determination of the place . .
Cited – AMT Futures Ltd v Marzillier and Others SC 1-Mar-2017
AMT entered into many financial services agreements providing for exclusive EW jurisdiction. It now sought to restrain the defendant German lawyers from encouraging litigation in Germany saying that induced breaches of the contracts. It also sought . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.453029

Folien Fischer Ag and Another v Ritrama Spa: ECJ 19 Apr 2012

ECJ (Opinion) Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters – Interpretation of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Special grounds of jurisdiction – Matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict – Meaning – Action for a negative declaration (negative Feststellungsklage) – Right of a potential injuring party to sue the party potentially injured in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur in order to obtain a declaration as to the non-existence of liability in tort.

Judges:

Askinen AG

Citations:

C-133/11, [2012] EUECJ C-133/11, [2013] ILPr 1, [2013] QB 523, [2014] 1 All ER (Comm) 569, [2013] 2 WLR 373, ECLI:EU:C:2012:664, [2012] WLR(D) 292, [2013] CEC 727

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 5(3)

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Opinion – Folien Fischer AG and another v Ritrama SpA ECJ 25-Oct-2012
ECJ Area of freedom, security and justice – Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters – Special jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict – Action for a negative declaration (‘negative Feststellungsklage’) . .
Cited – AMT Futures Ltd v Marzillier and Others SC 1-Mar-2017
AMT entered into many financial services agreements providing for exclusive EW jurisdiction. It now sought to restrain the defendant German lawyers from encouraging litigation in Germany saying that induced breaches of the contracts. It also sought . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.460413

Coty Germany (Anciennement Coty Prestige Lancaster Group): ECJ 5 Jun 2014

ECJ (Judgment Of The Court) Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulations (EC) No 40/94 and No 44/2001 – Community trade mark – Article 93(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – International jurisdiction relating to infringement – Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred – Cross-border participation by several persons in a single unlawful act
Otherwise: Coty Germany GmbH v First Note Perfumes NV

Citations:

C-360/12, [2014] EUECJ C-360/12, [2014] Bus LR 1294

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – AMT Futures Ltd v Marzillier and Others SC 1-Mar-2017
AMT entered into many financial services agreements providing for exclusive EW jurisdiction. It now sought to restrain the defendant German lawyers from encouraging litigation in Germany saying that induced breaches of the contracts. It also sought . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.526310

AMT Futures Ltd v Marzillier, Dr Meier and Dr Guntner Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft Mbh: ComC 11 Apr 2014

Application by the Defendant for a declaration that the court did not have jurisdiction over it in respect of the subject matter of the claim and for an order setting aside service of the Claim Form.
Held: The English courts had jurisdiction. The exclusive jurisdiction clause was a benefit derived from the contract, and its denial would be a harm suffered in that jurisdiction within article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.

Judges:

Popplewell J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 1085 (Comm), [2015] 1 All ER (Comm) 374, [2014] WLR(D) 182, [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 349, [2014] 1 CLC 531, [2014] CTLC 190, [2015] 2 WLR 187, [2015] ILPr 18

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, art 5(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Marzillier, Dr Meier and Dr Guntner Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft Mbh v AMT Futures Ltd CA 26-Feb-2015
Claims were to be made against the execution only broker defendant by the claimants who were based in Germany. The contracts provided for the exclusive jurisdiction of the EW Courts.
Held: The English courts did not have jurisdiction as the . .
At ComC – AMT Futures Ltd v Marzillier and Others SC 1-Mar-2017
AMT entered into many financial services agreements providing for exclusive EW jurisdiction. It now sought to restrain the defendant German lawyers from encouraging litigation in Germany saying that induced breaches of the contracts. It also sought . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, European

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.523698

Commission v Sweden (Energy): ECJ 29 Oct 2009

Europa Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations Directive 2003/54/EC Article 15(2) Article 23(2) – Internal market in electricity Prior approval of the methodologies used to calculate or establish the terms and conditions for connection and access to national networks, including transmission and distribution tariffs National regulatory authority.

Citations:

C-274/08, [2009] EUECJ C-274/08

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European, Utilities

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.380290

Commission v Ireland (Law Relating To Undertakings): ECJ 29 Oct 2009

Europa Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations Public works contracts Directives 93/37/EEC and 89/665/EEC – Obligation of the contracting authority to inform an unsuccessful tenderer of the award decision Review procedures under national law Effective legal protection Decisions open to challenge Limitation periods Length of the period Requirement to bring proceedings ‘at the earliest opportunity’.

Citations:

C-456/08, [2009] EUECJ C-456/08 – O, [2010] EUECJ C-456/08

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European

Updated: 02 February 2022; Ref: scu.380285

Kovacevic (British Citizen – Art 21 TFEU): UTIAC 5 Jul 2018

(1) A Union citizen who resides in a Member State of which he or she is a national is not a beneficiary under Article 3(1) of the Citizen’s Directive.
(2) A dual Croatian/British citizen who was residing in the United Kingdom when Croatia joined the EU and who has never exercised EU Treaty rights does not acquire a right of residence under Article 21 TFEU.

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 273 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, European

Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.628733

Novar v EUIPO: ECFI 17 Feb 2017

ECJ (Judgment) Non-contractual liability – Proof of the existence, validity and scope of protection of the earlier mark – International registration designating the European Union – Decision rejecting the opposition in the absence of proof of the earlier right – Rule 19(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 – Revision of the decision – Article 62(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Damage consisting in the lawyers’ fees – Causal link

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:99, [2017] EUECJ T-726/14

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.575274

Club Hotel Loutraki and Ors (Law Relating To Undertakings) French Text: ECJ 29 Oct 2009

Europa Marches publics Contrat ayant pour objet une cession d’actions et un volet relatif – des services Classification Procedure de recours en matiere de passation des marches publics Legislation nationale interdisant l’exercice individuel d’un recours par l’un des membres d’une association momentanee depourvue de personnalite juridique Revirement de jurisprudence.

Citations:

C-149/08, [2009] EUECJ C-149/08 – O, [2010] EUECJ C-149/08

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.380281

Wachauf v Bundesamt Fur Ernahrung und Forstwirtschaft: ECJ 13 Jul 1989

ECJ 1. The term ‘holding’ in Article 12(d) of Council Regulation No 857/84 relating to the application of the additional levy on milk covers all the agricultural production units which are the subject of a lease, even if those units, as leased, had neither dairy cows nor the technical facilities necessary for milk production and the lease provided for no obligation on the part of the lessee to engage in milk production.
2. The fundamental rights recognized by the Court are not absolute, but must be considered in relation to their social function. Consequently, restrictions may be imposed on the exercise of those rights, in particular in the context of a common organization of a market, provided that those restrictions in fact correspond to objectives of general interest pursued by the Community and do not constitute, with regard to the aim pursued, a disproportionate and intolerable interference, impairing the very substance of those rights.
In the light of those criteria, Community rules which, upon the expiry of the lease, had the effect of depriving the lessee, without compensation, of the fruits of his labour and of his investments in the tenanted holding would be incompatible with the requirements of the protection of fundamental rights in the Community legal order. Those requirements are also binding on the Member States when they implement Community rules.
In the context of the transmission, on expiry of the lease of a tenanted holding, of reference quantities attached to the holding and exempt from the additional levy on milk, Regulation No 857/84 leaves the competent national authorities a sufficiently wide margin of appreciation to enable them to ensure that that regulation is applied in a manner consistent with the requirements of the protection of fundamental rights, either by giving the lessee the opportunity of keeping all or part of the reference quantity if he intends to continue milk production, or by compensating him if he undertakes to abandon such production definitively.
3 . Article 5(3 ) of Regulation No 1371/84 relating to the transmission, in the context of the scheme for an additional levy on milk, of reference quantities exempt from the levy in the case of a change of ownership or occupancy of a holding, must be interpreted as applying to the surrender, upon the expiry of the lease, of all the agricultural production units leased, even if those units, as leased, had neither dairy cows nor the technical facilities necessary for milk production and the lease provided for no obligation on the part of the lessee to engage in milk production.
When a regulation confers a discretionary power on a Member State, it must exercise that power in accordance with European Union law

Judges:

Grevisse P

Citations:

C-5/88, [1991] 1 CMLR 328, [1989] ECR 2609, R-5/88, [1989] EUECJ R-5/88

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Swift and Another v Dairywise Farms Limited and others CA 1-Feb-2001
The company lent money to farmers secured against their milk quotas. They had to petition for a winding up, and the liquidators requested authority to continue the milk loan repayment schemes. The milk quotas had been vested in the farmers, and the . .
Cited – Zagorski and Baze, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Others Admn 29-Nov-2010
The claimants, in the US awaiting execution for murders, challenged the permitting by the defendant for export of the chemical Sodium Thipental which would be used for their execution. The respondent said that its use in general anaesthesia practice . .
Cited – Faulks v Faulks ChD 1992
One brother, as tenant farmed land under a partnership with his brother. On the death of either partner, an account was to be taken and a valuation. On the death of the tenant, there was a dispute as to whether the value of the farm’s milk quotahad . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Agriculture, Constitutional

Updated: 30 January 2022; Ref: scu.134786

Vedanta Resources Plc and Another v Lungowe and Others: SC 10 Apr 2019

The claimants alleged negligence causing them personal injury and other losses arising from pollution from mining operations of the defendants in Zambia. The company denied jurisdiction. In the Court of Appeal the defendants’ appeals were dismissed.
Held: The appeals failed save that the UK was not the proper jurisdiction to bring the case. The claim was an abuse of EU law by the use of one defendant to notionally create a jurisdiction. There was a real and triable issue against Vedanata on the allegations. The defendant had offered to submit to the jurisdiction of Zambia, and there was a risk by granting UK jurisdiction of conflicting decisions. However there were undeniable difficulties in pursuing the case in Zambia particularly as regards group claims, and sufficiently experienced legal teams.

Judges:

Baroness Hale of Richmond PSC, Lord Wilson, Lord Hodge, Lady Black, Lord Briggs JJSC

Citations:

[2019] 2 WLR 1051, [2019] WLR(D) 241, [2019] UKSC 20, UKSC 2017/0185, [2020] AC 1045, [2019] 2 All ER (Comm) 559, [2019] 1 CLC 619, [2019] BLR 327, [2019] BCC 520, [2019] Env LR 32, [2019] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 399, [2019] 3 All ER 1013

Links:

Bailii Summary, Bailii, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 19 Jan 15 am Video, SC 19 Jan 15 pm Video, SC 19 Jan 16 am Video, SC 19 Jan 16 pm Video

Statutes:

Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, art 4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At TCC – Lungowe and Others v Vedanta Resources Plc and Another TCC 27-May-2016
‘The claimants are 1,826 Zambian citizens who are residents of four communities (Shimulala, Hellen, Kakosa and Hippo Pool) in the Chingola region of Zambia. On 31 July 2015, they commenced these proceedings alleging personal injury, damage to . .
Appeal from – A v A and another (Children) (Children: Habitual Residence) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre intervening) SC 9-Sep-2013
Acquisition of Habitual Residence
Habitual residence can in principle be lost and another habitual residence acquired on the same day.
Held: The provisions giving the courts of a member state jurisdiction also apply where there is an alternative jurisdiction in a non-member . .
See Also – Lungowe and Others v Vedanta Resources Plc and Another CA 13-Oct-2017
Appeal against jurisdiction order . .
See Also – Vedanta Resources Plc and Another v Lungowe and Others SC 10-Apr-2019
The claimants alleged negligence causing them personal injury and other losses arising from pollution from mining operations of the defendants in Zambia. The company denied jurisdiction. In the Court of Appeal the defendants’ appeals were dismissed. . .
Cited – Elmes and others v Vedanta Lisheen Mining Ltd and others 21-Feb-2014
High Court of Ireland . .
Cited – U and M Mining Zambia Ltd v Konkola Copper Mines Plc ComC 10-Oct-2014
Application on notice to continue world wide freezing orders obtained ex parte. The defendant alleged that the Claimant had not established a risk of dissipation, that it was not just and convenient to grant a WFO, and that the Claimant had failed . .
Cited – Konkola Copper Mines PLC v Nyasulu and Other 1-Apr-2015
Supreme Court of Zambia – Without any agreement otherwise it will be necessary for each individual claimant to prove both causation and loss, and to value their loss. . .
Cited – Cartel Damage Claims (CDC) Hydrogen Peroxide SA v Akzo Nobel NV ECJ 21-May-2015
ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Special jurisdiction – Article 6(1) . .
Cited – AMT Futures Ltd v Marzillier and Others SC 1-Mar-2017
AMT entered into many financial services agreements providing for exclusive EW jurisdiction. It now sought to restrain the defendant German lawyers from encouraging litigation in Germany saying that induced breaches of the contracts. It also sought . .
Cited – Wenlock v Moloney CA 1965
The plaintiff alleged a conspiracy to deprive him of his shares and interest in a company. Each side filed affidavit evidence raising issues of fact. With no oral evidence or cross examination on the affidavits, the Master, after a four day hearing, . .
Cited – Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office HL 6-May-1970
A yacht was damaged by boys who had escaped from the supervision of prison officers in a nearby Borstal institution. The boat owners sued the Home Office alleging negligence by the prison officers.
Held: Any duty of a borstal officer to use . .
Cited – Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd, The Spiliada HL 1986
Forum Non Conveniens Restated
The House reviewed the authorities on the principle of forum non conveniens and restated how to apply the principle where the defendant seeks a stay of proceedings on the ground that there is another more appropriate forum.
Held: ‘In the . .
Cited – AAA and Others v Unilever Plc and Another CA 4-Jul-2018
Sales LJ said: ‘There is no special doctrine in the law of tort of legal responsibility on the part of a parent company in relation to the activities of its subsidiary, vis-a-vis persons affected by those activities. Parent and subsidiary are . .
Cited – Ogale Community and Others v Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Another CA 14-Feb-2018
The claimants sought damages after widescale historic damage to areas of Nigeria by subsidiaries of the defendant. The defendant said that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear such a claim.
Held: The claimants had not established the . .
Cited – Rome v Punjab National Bank 1989
. .
Cited – VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and Others SC 6-Feb-2013
The claimant bank said that it had been induced to create very substantial lending facilities by fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendants. They now appealed against findings that England was not clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for . .
Cited – OJSC VTB Bank v Parline Ltd and Others ComC 25-Oct-2013
Application by the second defendant to set aside service on her out of the jurisdiction in Russia. . .
Cited – Melzer v MF Global UK ECJ 16-May-2013
Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Special jurisdiction in matters of tort, delict and quasi-delict – Cross-border participation by several persons in the same unlawful act – Possibility of establishing territorial jurisdiction according to the . .
Cited – Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman and others HL 8-Feb-1990
Limitation of Loss from Negligent Mis-statement
The plaintiffs sought damages from accountants for negligence. They had acquired shares in a target company and, relying upon the published and audited accounts which overstated the company’s earnings, they purchased further shares.
Held: The . .
Cited – Connelly v RTZ Corporation Plc and others HL 24-Jul-1997
The availability of legal aid to a party is not part of criteria for choosing jurisdiction save in exceptional circumstances.
Lord Goff discussed the Spiliada case: ‘the burden of proof rests on the defendant to persuade the court to exercise . .
Cited – Swain v Hillman CA 21-Oct-1999
Strike out – Realistic Not Fanciful Chance Needed
The proper test for whether an action should be struck out under the new Rules was whether it had a realistic as opposed to a fanciful prospect of success. There was no justification for further attempts to explain the meaning of what are clear . .
Cited – Vava and Others v Anglo American South Africa Ltd QBD 16-Jul-2012
. .
Cited – Lubbe (Suing As Administrator Of The Estate Of Rachel Jacoba Lubbe) and 4 Others v Cape plc and Related Appeals HL 22-Jun-2000
South African asbestosis victims suing in England submitted that to stay their proceedings in favour of the South African forum would violate their article 6 rights. A stay was refused on the non-Convention ground that, because of the lack of . .
Cited – Chandler v Cape Plc CA 25-Apr-2012
. .
Cited – AK Investment CJSC v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd and Others PC 10-Mar-2011
Developing Law – Summary Procedures Very Limited
(Isle of Man) (‘Altimo’) The parties were all based in Kyrgyzstan, but the claimant sought a remedy in the Isle of Man which would be unavailable in Kyrgyzstan.
Held: Lord Collins said: ‘The general rule is that it is not normally appropriate . .
Cited – Deripaska v Cherney CA 31-Jul-2009
The court considered where the trial of the action should take place.
Held: The defendant’s appeal failed. Even though the rights sought to be protected were of a proprietary nature, where the rights could properly be said to have arisen under . .
Cited – Freeport plc v Arnoldsson ECJ 11-Oct-2007
(Opinion) The claimant sought to use article 6.1 of the Judgments Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 as a means of invoking the jurisdiction of the Swedish courts over a claim against an English company, because a Swedish company was a co-defendant. One of . .

Cited by:

See Also – Vedanta Resources Plc and Another v Lungowe and Others SC 10-Apr-2019
The claimants alleged negligence causing them personal injury and other losses arising from pollution from mining operations of the defendants in Zambia. The company denied jurisdiction. In the Court of Appeal the defendants’ appeals were dismissed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice, European, Torts – Other

Updated: 30 January 2022; Ref: scu.636997

Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency (No 7): Admn 7 May 2014

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 1340 (Admin), [2014] WLR(D) 200, [2014] 4 All ER 222, [2014] 1 WLR 4589, [2014] 3 CMLR 21

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency Admn 16-Jul-2013
. .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency (No 2) Admn 26-Jul-2013
. .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency and Others Admn 24-Oct-2013
. .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency (No 4) Admn 22-Nov-2013
The claimant sought an order to allow it to continue to produce meat products for sale and an associated costs award. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency and Another Admn 21-May-2014
. .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd v Food Standards Agency ECJ 16-Oct-2014
ECJ Judgment – Protection of health – Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 – Hygiene rules for food of animal origin – Annex I, points 1.14 and 1.15 – Concepts of ‘mechanically separated meat’ and ‘meat preparations’ – . .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency Admn 23-Mar-2016
Application of principles identified by ECJ on reference as to to the process of separating fresh meat from flesh bearing bones of pork and from chicken carcasses carried out by Newby. . .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency CA 25-May-2017
Appeal by the Food Standards Agency against a decision in which he allowed in part a claim for judicial review by Newby Foods Limited and held, inter alia, that certain chicken and pork products manufactured by Newby should not be classified as . .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency SC 3-Apr-2019
The parties disputed the classification and labelling of mechanically separated meats (‘MSM’) under EU law. The ECJ had imposed a moratorium on certain products. Newby challenged that unsuccessfully, but now Newby appealed to the Supreme Court on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Consumer, European

Updated: 30 January 2022; Ref: scu.525080

Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency and Another: Admn 21 May 2014

Judges:

Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 1492 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency Admn 16-Jul-2013
. .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency (No 2) Admn 26-Jul-2013
. .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency and Others Admn 24-Oct-2013
. .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency (No 4) Admn 22-Nov-2013
The claimant sought an order to allow it to continue to produce meat products for sale and an associated costs award. . .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency (No 7) Admn 7-May-2014
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Newby Foods Ltd v Food Standards Agency ECJ 16-Oct-2014
ECJ Judgment – Protection of health – Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 – Hygiene rules for food of animal origin – Annex I, points 1.14 and 1.15 – Concepts of ‘mechanically separated meat’ and ‘meat preparations’ – . .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency Admn 23-Mar-2016
Application of principles identified by ECJ on reference as to to the process of separating fresh meat from flesh bearing bones of pork and from chicken carcasses carried out by Newby. . .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency CA 25-May-2017
Appeal by the Food Standards Agency against a decision in which he allowed in part a claim for judicial review by Newby Foods Limited and held, inter alia, that certain chicken and pork products manufactured by Newby should not be classified as . .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency SC 3-Apr-2019
The parties disputed the classification and labelling of mechanically separated meats (‘MSM’) under EU law. The ECJ had imposed a moratorium on certain products. Newby challenged that unsuccessfully, but now Newby appealed to the Supreme Court on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Consumer, European

Updated: 30 January 2022; Ref: scu.525774

Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency: CA 25 May 2017

Appeal by the Food Standards Agency against a decision in which he allowed in part a claim for judicial review by Newby Foods Limited and held, inter alia, that certain chicken and pork products manufactured by Newby should not be classified as mechanically separated meat.

Judges:

Lloyd Jones, Beatson, Moylan LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 400

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

EU Regulation No. 853/2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency Admn 16-Jul-2013
. .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency (No 2) Admn 26-Jul-2013
. .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency (No 4) Admn 22-Nov-2013
The claimant sought an order to allow it to continue to produce meat products for sale and an associated costs award. . .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency and Others Admn 24-Oct-2013
. .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency (No 7) Admn 7-May-2014
. .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency and Another Admn 21-May-2014
. .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd v Food Standards Agency ECJ 16-Oct-2014
ECJ Judgment – Protection of health – Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 – Hygiene rules for food of animal origin – Annex I, points 1.14 and 1.15 – Concepts of ‘mechanically separated meat’ and ‘meat preparations’ – . .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency Admn 23-Mar-2016
Application of principles identified by ECJ on reference as to to the process of separating fresh meat from flesh bearing bones of pork and from chicken carcasses carried out by Newby. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency SC 3-Apr-2019
The parties disputed the classification and labelling of mechanically separated meats (‘MSM’) under EU law. The ECJ had imposed a moratorium on certain products. Newby challenged that unsuccessfully, but now Newby appealed to the Supreme Court on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Consumer, European

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.584529

Revenue and Customs v Aimia Coalition Loyalty UK Ltd: SC 13 Mar 2013

The company managed a card loyalty scheme for retailers. The Revenue appealed against a decision that the company could reclaim VAT input tax on the goods purchased on the customers redeeming their points. The ECJ had decided that the service charges amounted, at least in part, to third party consideration paid by LMUK to the redeemers for the supply of goods and services to collectors, but had declined to give a concluded answer in the absence of more detail.
Held: The ECJ judgment must be considered incomplete, and the Court had to make its own assessment. The Commissioners appeal was dismissed (Wilson and Carnwath LL dissenting). Though no payment had been made as between the company and the consumer rights had been created and those were properly reflected in the invoices on which the VAT reclaims were based.
Decisions about the application of the VAT system are highly dependent upon the factual situations involved. A small modification of the facts can render the legal solution in one case inapplicable to another
Lord Reed explained: ‘The speeches in Redrow should not be interpreted in a manner which would conflict with the principle, stated by the Court of Justice in the present case, that consideration of economic realities is a fundamental criterion for the application of VAT. . [The judgments in Redrow cannot have been intended to suggest otherwise. On the contrary, the emphasis placed upon the fact that the estate agents were instructed and paid by Redrow, and had no authority to go beyond Redrow’s instructions, and upon the fact that the object of the scheme was to promote Redrow’s sales, indicates that the House had the economic reality of the scheme clearly in mind. When, therefore, . . Lord Millett asked, ‘Did he obtain anything – anything at all – used or to be used for the purposes of his business in return for that payment?’, [that question] should be understood as being concerned with a realistic appreciation of the transactions in question.
Reflecting the point just made, it is also necessary to bear in mind that consideration paid in respect of the provision of a supply of goods or services to a third party may sometimes constitute third party consideration for that supply, either in whole or in part. The speeches in Redrow should not be understood as excluding that possibility. Economic reality being what it is, commercial businesses do not usually pay suppliers unless they themselves are the recipient of the supply for which they are paying (even if it may involve the provision of goods or services to a third party), but that possibility cannot be excluded a priori. A business may, for example, meet the cost of a supply of which it cannot realistically be regarded as the recipient in order to discharge an obligation owed to the recipient or to a third party. In such a situation, the correct analysis is likely to be that the payment constitutes third party consideration for the supply.’
Lord Hope said: ‘I think that Lord Millett went too far [above] when he said that the question to be asked is whether the taxpayer obtained ‘anything – anything at all’ used or to be used for the purposes of his business in return for that payment. Payment for the mere discharge of an obligation owed to a third party will not, as he may be taken to have suggested, give rise to the right to claim a deduction. A case where the taxpayer pays for a service which consists of the supply of goods or services to a third party requires a more careful and sensitive analysis, having regard to the economic realities of the transaction when looked at as a whole.’

Judges:

Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Walker, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath

Citations:

UKSC 2009/0154, [2013] UKSC 15, [2013] STI 591, [2013] 2 CMLR 51, [2013] 2 All ER 719, [2013] BVC 67, UKSC 2009/0154

Links:

Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC, Bailii

Statutes:

Council Directive 77/388/EEC 17

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At VDT – Loyalty Management UK Ltd v Customs and Excise VDT 6-Apr-2005
VDT VALUE ADDED TAX – input tax – the Appellant operates the Nectar programme under which customers who purchase goods (called primary goods) from certain retailers receive points which they may use to acquire . .
At ChD – Revenue and Customs v Loyalty Management UK Ltd ChD 22-Jun-2006
The taxpayer operated a substantial loyalty reward scheme (Nectar) for assorted companies. The Revenue appealed against an order allowing the company to reclaim input VAT. The court was asked now: ‘what is the proper characteristic, for VAT . .
Cited – Auto Lease Holland BV v Bundesamt fur Finanzen ECJ 6-Feb-2003
The court identified the need to give an autonomous meaning to the phrase ‘supply of goods’ in article 5(1) of the Sixth Directive as follows: ‘ . . .. it is clear from the wording of that provision that ‘supply of goods’ does not refer to the . .
Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Redrow Group Plc HL 11-Feb-1999
Where house builders had paid the estate agents’ fees for exchanged property on sales, the supply had been, at least in part, to the builder, and the builder could accordingly recover the agents’ VAT as input tax. A supplier could be treated as . .
Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Plantiflor Limited HL 25-Jul-2002
The company charged no VAT on its postage and packaging charged to mail order customers. The company had described it as an advance of the sums to be charged by Parcelforce.
Held: There was no separate contract between the end customer and . .
Cited – Kuwait Petroleum (GB) Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 27-Apr-1999
‘Items’ described as gifts’ which Kuwait Petroleum exchanged under a petrol promotion scheme for vouchers received by customers purchasing petrol were issued ‘free of charge’. The purchase of petrol and the exchange of vouchers for gifts were . .
ECJ Preliminary Ruling – Loyalty Management UK (Taxation) ECJ 7-Oct-2010
ECJ (prelimiary ruling) Sixth VAT Directive – Taxable amount – Sales promotion scheme – Loyalty rewards scheme allowing customers to earn points from traders and to redeem them for loyalty rewards – Payments made . .
Cited – AC-ATEL Electronics v Hauptzollamt Munchen-Mitte ECJ 2-Jun-1994
ECJ 1. Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Jurisdiction of the national court – Determination and assessment of the facts of the dispute – Need for a preliminary ruling and relevance of the . .
ECJ – Loyalty Management UK (Taxation) ECJ 7-Oct-2010
ECJ Sixth VAT Directive – Taxable amount – Sales promotion scheme – Loyalty rewards scheme allowing customers to earn points from traders and to redeem them for loyalty rewards – Payments made by the operator of . .

Cited by:

See Also – Revenue and Customs v Aimia Coalition Loyalty UK Ltd SC 20-Jun-2013
Decisions about the application of the VAT system are highly dependent upon the factual situations involved. The case-law of the Court of Justice indicates that, when determining the relevant supply in which a taxable person engages, regard must be . .
Cited – Airtours Holidays Transport Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 11-May-2016
The court was asked whether the appellant, Airtours Holidays Transport Ltd (formerly MyTravel Group plc), was entitled to recover, by way of input tax VAT charged by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP in respect of services provided by PwC and paid for by . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Secret Hotels2 Ltd SC 5-Mar-2014
The Court was asked as to: ‘the liability for Value Added Tax of a company which markets and arranges holiday accommodation through an on-line website. The outcome turns on the appropriate characterisation of the relationship between the company, . .
Cited – Amoena (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 13-Jul-2016
The court considered the proper classification under customs codes for a mastectomy bra. The First Tier Tribunal had found no evidence that it had an medical purpose beyond the containment of the breast from.
Held: The appeal succeeded.
Cited – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency SC 3-Apr-2019
The parties disputed the classification and labelling of mechanically separated meats (‘MSM’) under EU law. The ECJ had imposed a moratorium on certain products. Newby challenged that unsuccessfully, but now Newby appealed to the Supreme Court on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, European

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.471644

Newby Foods Ltd v Food Standards Agency: ECJ 16 Oct 2014

ECJ Judgment – Protection of health – Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 – Hygiene rules for food of animal origin – Annex I, points 1.14 and 1.15 – Concepts of ‘mechanically separated meat’ and ‘meat preparations’ – Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 – Prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies – Consumer protection – Directive 2000/13/EC – Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs

Citations:

C-453/13, [2014] EUECJ C-453/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2297

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, Regulation (EC) No 999/2001, Directive 2000/13/EC

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency Admn 16-Jul-2013
. .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency (No 2) Admn 26-Jul-2013
. .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency and Others Admn 24-Oct-2013
. .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency (No 4) Admn 22-Nov-2013
The claimant sought an order to allow it to continue to produce meat products for sale and an associated costs award. . .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency (No 7) Admn 7-May-2014
. .
Cited – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency and Another Admn 21-May-2014
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency Admn 23-Mar-2016
Application of principles identified by ECJ on reference as to to the process of separating fresh meat from flesh bearing bones of pork and from chicken carcasses carried out by Newby. . .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency CA 25-May-2017
Appeal by the Food Standards Agency against a decision in which he allowed in part a claim for judicial review by Newby Foods Limited and held, inter alia, that certain chicken and pork products manufactured by Newby should not be classified as . .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency SC 3-Apr-2019
The parties disputed the classification and labelling of mechanically separated meats (‘MSM’) under EU law. The ECJ had imposed a moratorium on certain products. Newby challenged that unsuccessfully, but now Newby appealed to the Supreme Court on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.537699

Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency: Admn 23 Mar 2016

Application of principles identified by ECJ on reference as to to the process of separating fresh meat from flesh bearing bones of pork and from chicken carcasses carried out by Newby.

Judges:

Edwards-Stuart J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 408 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency Admn 16-Jul-2013
. .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency (No 2) Admn 26-Jul-2013
. .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency and Others Admn 24-Oct-2013
. .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency (No 4) Admn 22-Nov-2013
The claimant sought an order to allow it to continue to produce meat products for sale and an associated costs award. . .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency (No 7) Admn 7-May-2014
. .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency and Another Admn 21-May-2014
. .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd v Food Standards Agency ECJ 16-Oct-2014
ECJ Judgment – Protection of health – Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 – Hygiene rules for food of animal origin – Annex I, points 1.14 and 1.15 – Concepts of ‘mechanically separated meat’ and ‘meat preparations’ – . .

Cited by:

See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency CA 25-May-2017
Appeal by the Food Standards Agency against a decision in which he allowed in part a claim for judicial review by Newby Foods Limited and held, inter alia, that certain chicken and pork products manufactured by Newby should not be classified as . .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency SC 3-Apr-2019
The parties disputed the classification and labelling of mechanically separated meats (‘MSM’) under EU law. The ECJ had imposed a moratorium on certain products. Newby challenged that unsuccessfully, but now Newby appealed to the Supreme Court on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Consumer

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.561487

Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency: SC 3 Apr 2019

The parties disputed the classification and labelling of mechanically separated meats (‘MSM’) under EU law. The ECJ had imposed a moratorium on certain products. Newby challenged that unsuccessfully, but now Newby appealed to the Supreme Court on the proper interpretation of point 1.14 in light of the CJEU judgment.
Held: The Supreme Court unanimously dismisses the appeal.

Judges:

Lord Reed, Deputy President, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge, Lord Kitchin, Lord Sales

Citations:

[2019] UKSC 18, UKSC 2017/0110

Links:

Bailii, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 19 Jan 30 am Video, SC 19 Jan 30 pm Video

Statutes:

EU Regulation No 853/2004 Annex I 1..1 . . . . . . . . 4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency (No 4) Admn 22-Nov-2013
The claimant sought an order to allow it to continue to produce meat products for sale and an associated costs award. . .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency Admn 16-Jul-2013
. .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency (No 2) Admn 26-Jul-2013
. .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency and Others Admn 24-Oct-2013
. .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency (No 7) Admn 7-May-2014
. .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency and Another Admn 21-May-2014
. .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd v Food Standards Agency ECJ 16-Oct-2014
ECJ Judgment – Protection of health – Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 – Hygiene rules for food of animal origin – Annex I, points 1.14 and 1.15 – Concepts of ‘mechanically separated meat’ and ‘meat preparations’ – . .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency Admn 23-Mar-2016
Application of principles identified by ECJ on reference as to to the process of separating fresh meat from flesh bearing bones of pork and from chicken carcasses carried out by Newby. . .
Appeal from – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency CA 25-May-2017
Appeal by the Food Standards Agency against a decision in which he allowed in part a claim for judicial review by Newby Foods Limited and held, inter alia, that certain chicken and pork products manufactured by Newby should not be classified as . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Aimia Coalition Loyalty UK Ltd SC 13-Mar-2013
The company managed a card loyalty scheme for retailers. The Revenue appealed against a decision that the company could reclaim VAT input tax on the goods purchased on the customers redeeming their points. The ECJ had decided that the service . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, European, Consumer

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.635237

Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency (No 2): Admn 26 Jul 2013

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 2132 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency Admn 16-Jul-2013
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency and Others Admn 24-Oct-2013
. .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency (No 4) Admn 22-Nov-2013
The claimant sought an order to allow it to continue to produce meat products for sale and an associated costs award. . .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency (No 7) Admn 7-May-2014
. .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency and Another Admn 21-May-2014
. .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd v Food Standards Agency ECJ 16-Oct-2014
ECJ Judgment – Protection of health – Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 – Hygiene rules for food of animal origin – Annex I, points 1.14 and 1.15 – Concepts of ‘mechanically separated meat’ and ‘meat preparations’ – . .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency Admn 23-Mar-2016
Application of principles identified by ECJ on reference as to to the process of separating fresh meat from flesh bearing bones of pork and from chicken carcasses carried out by Newby. . .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency CA 25-May-2017
Appeal by the Food Standards Agency against a decision in which he allowed in part a claim for judicial review by Newby Foods Limited and held, inter alia, that certain chicken and pork products manufactured by Newby should not be classified as . .
See Also – Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency SC 3-Apr-2019
The parties disputed the classification and labelling of mechanically separated meats (‘MSM’) under EU law. The ECJ had imposed a moratorium on certain products. Newby challenged that unsuccessfully, but now Newby appealed to the Supreme Court on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Consumer

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.513747

Masco and Others v Commission: ECJ 26 Jan 2017

(Judgment) Appeal – Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria – Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information — Single and continuous infringement – Obligation to state reasons

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2017:63, [2017] EUECJ C-614/13

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573812

Maxcom v Chin Haur Indonesia: ECJ 26 Jan 2017

ECJ (Judgment) Appeal – Dumping – Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 – Imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia – Extension to such imports of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China – Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 – Article 13 – Circumvention – Article 18 – Lack of cooperation – Evidence – Body of consistent evidence – Contradictory reasoning – Inadequate statement of reasons – Breach of procedural rights

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2017:62, [2017] EUECJ C-247/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573813

Mamoli Robinetteria v Commission: ECJ 26 Jan 2017

ECJ (Judgment) Appeals – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Belgian, German, French, Italian, Dutch and Austrian markets for sanitary installations for bathrooms – Coordination of sales prices and exchange of sensitive commercial information – Leniency program – Regulation (EC) No 1 / 2003 – Article 23 (2) – Ceiling of 10% of turnover – Exercise of unlimited jurisdiction

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2017:50, [2017] EUECJ C-619/13

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 1/2003

Jurisdiction:

European

European

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573811

Villeroy and Boch, Austria v Commission: ECJ 26 Jan 2017

ECJ (Judgment) Appeal – Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria – Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area – Price coordination and exchange of sensitive business information – Single infringement – Proof – Fines – Unlimited jurisdiction – Reasonable time – Proportionality

Citations:

C-626/13, [2017] EUECJ C-626/13

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573821

Forgital Italy v Council: ECJ 14 Jul 2015

ECJ Appeal – Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Action for annulment – Fourth subparagraph of Article 263 TFEU – Right to bring proceedings – Locus standi – Customs rules amending the conditions Of tariff suspension – Possible to bring proceedings before the national courts

Citations:

C-84/14, [2015] EUECJ C-84/14

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

TFEU 263

Jurisdiction:

European

European

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573767

Sjelle Autogenbrug I/S v Skatteministeriet: ECJ 18 Jan 2017

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC – Special scheme for taxing the profit margin – Concept of ‘second-hand goods’ – Sales of parts removed from end-of-life vehicles

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2017:20, [2017] EUECJ C-471/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.573265

Plaumann v Commission EEC: ECJ 21 Dec 1962

ECJ The declaration of the federal minister of finance set out above and produced by the applicant in fact removes the foundation from the statement in the second paragraph of the grounds of the order of 31 August 1962. This statement must accordingly be disregarded for the purpose of the decision on the present application.
1. The applicant has stated that it would be impossible to pass on to its customers the excess customs duty which it would have to pay if its application were dismissed . This is contested by the defendant.
Having regard to the relatively small increase in the selling price of clementines in this event, and taking account of commercial practices and the behaviour of consumers in shopping at the end of the year – circumstances which it may be assumed are known to the court – the arguments of the applicant do not appear to be sufficiently convincing.
2. The applicant has further stated that during the period in which it alleges the interim measure would have its effects, that is to say, from 21 to 31 december 1962, it would still take approximately one sixth of its total imports of clementines since 31 august 1962. It has further argued that the additional costs which this increase in customs duties would involve in respect of imports made during the last eleven days of the year 1962 would amount to some 7000 dm. This claim is disputed by the defendant.
It is not necessary to go into the question whether the applicant’s arguments are correct, for if they were, quite apart from the considerations mentioned at 1. Above, the interim measure asked for by the applicant would procure for it only a relatively small benefit.
3. As already set out in the order of 31 august 1962, to which reference is made, the interim measure asked for would on the contrary have far-reaching legal effects and could be justified only by wholly exceptional circumstances and if it were highly likely that the applicant would otherwise suffer serious damage, but it has not been proved that this would be so.
4. There is a further point to be made . The defendant, as it did in its observations on the first application, even now insists, in support of its conclusions for the dismissal of the application for the adoption of the interim measure, that it is improbable that the main application will be found to be either admissible or well-founded.
This argument misconceives the purely protective nature of interim measures, which would in any event apply in the present case. The application for the adoption of an interim measure is not intended to prejudge the decision in the main action and the arguments on inadmissibility or absence of grounds in the main action are irrelevant and must be dismissed.

Citations:

[1962] EUECJ C-25/62R

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Order – Plaumann v Commission EEC (Order) ECJ 31-Aug-1962
ECJ (Order) The applicant bases its application on the claim that, even if in the main action the court were to annul the refusal of the commission to grant to the federal republic of germany an import quota for . .

Cited by:

See Also – Plaumann v Commission EEC ECJ 15-Jul-1963
ECJ (Judgment) 1. A measure must be considered as a decision if it refers to a particular person and binds that person alone.
2. The words and the natural meaning of the second paragraph of article 173 of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.566771

David Baxendale Ltd v Revenue and Customs: CA 31 Jul 2009

The court was asked as to the correct VAT treatment to be applied to the sale to members of the public of what is described as the LighterLife weight loss programme. The taxpayer appealed against a finding that services of dietary products and counselling support were in law one supply.
Held: The appeal failed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Patten

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 831, [2009] STI 2348, [2009] BVC 663, [2009] STC 2578

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At FTTTx – David Baxendale Ltd v Revenue and Customs VDT 30-Jul-2008
VDT VAT – Supply of services – Whether supplied for consideration – Dietary foodpacks supplied together with counselling support, payment made for foodpacks – Whether consideration given for counselling support – . .
At ChD – HM Revenue and Customs v David Baxendale Ltd ChD 5-Feb-2009
The taxpayer provided slimming schemes in two parts, counselling support and supplies of dietary products. The parties disputed the treatement of the services for VAT purposes. The revenue argued there was one service, and the taxpayer that there . .

Cited by:

At CA – Baxendale Ltd and Another v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 4-Jul-2013
FTTTx PROCEDURE – striking out of proceedings – whether appellants’ case had a reasonable prospect of succeeding – abuse of process – whether Court of Appeal decision in David Baxendale was per incuriam or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, European, Constitutional

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.368592

Georgios Agorastoudis and Others, Ioannis Panou and Others, Kostantinos Kotsampougioukis and Others, Georgios Akritopoulos and Others v Goodyear Hellas AVEE: ECJ 7 Sep 2006

ECJ Collective redundancies – Directive 75/129/EEC – Article 1(2)(d) – Termination of an establishment’s activities as a result of a judicial decision – Termination of an establishment’s activities of the employer’s own volition.

Citations:

C-188/05, [2006] EUECJ C-188/05

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 75/129/EEC

Jurisdiction:

European

European

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.244829

Bushara, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department: Admn 16 Nov 2012

The claimant from Sudan originally claimed asylum in Italy but then illegally entered the United Kingdom. The HS sought His removal to Italy under the Dublin II Regulation. He resisted asserting a risk that he would be treated in a way that breached his human rights or the duty owed by Italy to refugees and asylum seekers on its territory. The claimant’s claims had been certified as unfounded and removal directions issued, which meant that he had no in-country right of appeal. The claimant sought judicial review of that decision.
Held:
In assessing risks on a return to a member state, the fact that that state was also bound by the Conventions and Community law applicable here obviated the risk unless there was shown a systemic failure in the receiving state. Without such a failure, the person was adequately protected: his rights were against the receiving government with, if necessary, the possibility of recourse to the European Court of Human Rights from the receiving country.

Judges:

C M G Ockelton

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 3483 (Admin), [2013] WLR(D) 16

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Council Regulation (EC) 343/2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, European

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.467107

Shindler and Others v Commission: ECFI 31 Jan 2020

(Order) Interim application – Area of freedom, security and justice – Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union – Citizens of the United Kingdom residing in another Member State of the Union – Loss of Union citizenship – Appeal for deficiency – Inadmissibility of the application for interim relief

T-627/19, [2020] EUECJ T-627/19_CO
Bailii
European

European

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.654731