Steve Peers

John Grisham’s novels often feature a recurring theme: a determined but outmatched lawyer battling a powerful corporation that exploits the legal system, a vulnerable client harmed by the corporation, a polished corporate law firm doing the company’s bidding, and an eccentric judge striving for courtroom order. This formula has been a mainstay of his books for over two decades. However, the settings rarely venture beyond the Southern United States, except for occasional plot-driven trips to Caribbean islands. The question arises: could these narratives be successfully transplanted to a European setting?

While Grisham’s novel “Playing for Pizza” does take place in Europe, it centers on an American football player navigating Italy. Instead of fictional exploration, we have a real-life case mirroring Grisham’s themes: the case of “Chain.” Documented by Irish journalists Liam O’Brien and Frank Shouldice, this case involves a vulnerable client, corporate manipulation, and legal complexities, but with unexpected turns worthy of Grisham’s writing. (It’s important to note that some aspects of the case, as reported, are disputed.)

The story revolves around Mr. Bogdan Chain, the vulnerable client. In 2009, he began working for Atlanco Ltd, a Cypriot subsidiary of the Irish recruitment firm Atlanco Rimec, representing the powerful corporation. His work took him to various EU countries and Norway, which, while not in the EU, adheres to EU free movement laws. Working across borders within the EU often leads to social security complications, and while EU legislation exists to address this, it didn’t function as intended in Mr. Chain’s case.

His problems commenced when the Norwegian government pursued him for unpaid social security contributions, even though these were supposedly deducted from his wages. His situation worsened when he suffered a heart attack, rendering him unable to work. He sought disability benefits from the Polish government, believing he qualified based on his contributions. However, both the Norwegian and Polish authorities claimed insufficient contributions, denying him benefits.

While Mr. Chain asserts he never pursued legal action, a lawsuit was filed against Atlanco Ltd in his name without his consent or knowledge. It’s debatable whether this phantom lawsuit would have benefited him if successful, but initiating legal proceedings without the plaintiff’s knowledge is ethically problematic.

The “Chain” case, focusing on his time in Romania, was first heard in Cypriot courts before being referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The press coverage suggests that this case was indirectly linked to another pending case in Cyprus, where Atlanco sued the Cypriot government to allow them to pay social insurance for their staff in Cyprus instead of other EU countries. This preference for Cyprus stems from lower rates, but it can negatively impact social security systems in other member states and potentially leave employees, like Mr. Chain, liable for contributions they believed they had made and deprived of crucial benefits.

Instead of a plucky lawyer championing Mr. Chain’s cause, reports allege that the same law firm, representing the corporate parent, was involved with both sides of the “Chain v Atlanco” case (a claim the law firm denies). However, dedicated journalists O’Brien and Shouldice, while investigating the case, stumbled upon the real Mr. Chain.

This encounter was Mr. Chain’s first awareness of the legal proceedings conducted in his name. He informed the CJEU of his lack of consent, yet the court proceeded with a hearing and even obtained an Advocate-General’s opinion. In the meantime, alerted by Mr. Chain, the Cypriot authorities ensured the case’s withdrawal in Cyprus, leading to its withdrawal from the CJEU as well.

Mirroring the ambiguity of recent Grisham novels, this case remains unresolved. The Atlanco group has reportedly gone bankrupt, the Irish founder of the parent company is seemingly prospering, and the Cypriot government has initiated a criminal investigation. Meanwhile, Mr. Chain remains without disability benefits, and the Belgian authorities haven’t, to our knowledge, sought clarification from the implicated law firm.

Comments

The journalists deserve commendation for their investigative work, which brought this questionable case to light before the CJEU issued a judgment. The crucial question is how the case progressed so far.

The focus here is on the Court of Justice’s role and whether its actions were appropriate. The Court hasn’t, as of yet, released a formal statement, and their silence on the matter is concerning.

It’s unrealistic to expect the Court to systematically verify the legitimacy of parties in every case referred by national courts. They lack the resources for this, and any attempt to do so would fundamentally change the preliminary ruling system, which is primarily a national procedure temporarily involving the CJEU for EU law matters. Ensuring the genuineness of proceedings is primarily the responsibility of the national courts. In this instance, a lapse allowed the case to proceed in Cyprus, but this was rectified once the alleged impersonation surfaced.

The journalists have stated that neither the CJEU nor the national court was aware of the documents suggesting connections between the opposing parties until the recent criminal proceedings began, absolving them of blame in that regard. However, the question remains whether the Court should have halted proceedings upon Mr. Chain’s notification that he hadn’t authorized the case.

The answer is likely no, for two reasons. First, given the nature of the proceedings, it’s the national court’s responsibility to determine a case’s admissibility. Mr. Chain’s claim pointed to a flaw in the national proceedings, and the CJEU rightfully directed him to file a complaint at the national level, a suggestion confirmed by the journalists.

Second, immediately dismissing the case based solely on Mr. Chain’s letter creates a different impersonation risk. Consider the ongoing “Philip Morris” case before the CJEU, where the tobacco company challenges EU legislation on cigarette packaging. It wouldn’t be difficult to impersonate Philip Morris’s legal representation and send a fabricated letter to the Court claiming withdrawal from the case. Therefore, the Court’s decision to await the national court’s response, rather than immediately dismissing the case, is understandable.

However, while the CJEU wasn’t obligated to instantly withdraw the case, it could have taken additional steps besides referring Mr. Chain to the national court. Specifically, they could have informed the parties’ representatives of the allegations and requested their responses. This might have prompted withdrawal by one or both parties, revealing the case’s lack of merit. Additionally, the CJEU should have alerted the national court of the allegations, as they were better positioned to investigate. As far as we know, this didn’t happen.

Instead, the CJEU proceeded with a potentially fabricated case, which is embarrassing, wasteful, and potentially casts doubt on the Court’s integrity. To address this, the Court should issue a public apology and implement the reforms suggested earlier.

While not directly complicit in this questionable litigation, the Court’s complacency is evident. EU citizens rightfully expect better.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 10

Photo credit:mission-impossible-tom-cruise-disguise-e1285873148814.jpg