Judgments nº C-548/18 of Tribunal de Justicia, October 09, 2019

Resolution Date:October 09, 2019
Issuing Organization:Tribunal de Justicia
Decision Number:C-548/18
SUMMARY

Fonction publique - Agents temporaires - Rapport de notation pour l’année 2016 - Congé de maladie - Demande en indemnité - Réclamation introduite après l’expiration du délai de trois mois prévu à l’article 90, paragraphe 2, du statut - Force majeure - Erreur excusable - Irrecevabilité manifeste

 
FREE EXCERPT

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 - Law applicable to contractual obligations - Article 14 - Assignment of claims - Third-party effects)

In Case C-548/18,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Saarländisches Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court of Saarland, Germany), made by decision of 8 August 2018, received at the Court on 23 August 2018, in the proceedings

BGL BNP Paribas SA

v

TeamBank AG Nürnberg,

THE COURT (First Chamber),

composed of J.-C. Bonichot, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, Vice-President of the Court, C. Toader (Rapporteur), L. Bay Larsen and M. Safjan, Judges,

Advocate General: H. Saugmandsgaard Øe,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

having regard to the written procedure,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

- TeamBank AG Nürnberg, by C. Hecken, Rechtsanwältin,

- the German Government, by M. Hellmann, U. Bartl and T. Henze, acting as Agents,

- the Czech Government, by M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and A. Kasalická, acting as Agents,

- the Netherlands Government, by M.K. Bulterman and J.M. Hoogveld, acting as Agents,

- the European Commission, by M. Heller and M. Wilderspin, acting as Agents,

having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,

gives the following

Judgment

1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (‘Rome I’) (OJ 2008 L 177, p. 6, ‘the Rome I Regulation’).

2 The request has been made in the context of a dispute between BGL BNP Paribas SA (‘BNP’), a banking institution based in Luxembourg, and TeamBank AG Nürnberg (‘TeamBank’), a banking institution based in Germany, concerning the release of the lodgement, in a German court, of a sum of money deposited by the trustee in insolvency of a debtor of those two institutions.

Legal context

European Union law

The Rome Convention

3 Under the heading ‘Voluntary assignment’, Article 12 of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980 (OJ 1980 L 266, p. 1; ‘the Rome Convention’), provided:

‘1. The mutual obligations of assignor and assignee under a voluntary assignment of a right against another person (“the debtor”) shall be governed by the law which under this Convention applies to the contract between the assignor and assignee.

  1. The law governing the right to which the assignment relates shall determine its assignability, the relationship between the assignee and the debtor, the conditions under which the assignment can be invoked against the debtor and any question whether the debtor’s obligations have been discharged.’

    The Rome I Regulation

    4 The Rome I Regulation replaced the Rome Convention. Recital 38 of that regulation states:

    ‘In the context of voluntary assignment, the term “relationship” should make it clear that Article 14(1) also applies to the property aspects of an assignment, as between assignor and assignee, in legal orders where such aspects are treated separately from the aspects under the law of obligations. However, the term “relationship” should not be understood as relating to any relationship that may exist between assignor and assignee. In particular, it should not cover preliminary questions as regards a voluntary assignment or a contractual subrogation. The term should be strictly limited to the aspects which are directly relevant to the voluntary assignment or contractual subrogation in question.’

    5 Under the terms of Article 14 of that regulation, entitled ‘Voluntary assignment and contractual subrogation’:

    ‘1. The relationship between assignor and assignee under a voluntary assignment or contractual subrogation of a claim against another person (the debtor) shall be governed by the law that applies to the contract between the assignor...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL