Droit international général

The latest issue of the „Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax)“ features the following articles:

C. Wendehorst: Digital Assets in Private International Law

Rights with third party effect (erga omnes rights, rights in rem) in digital assets may exist at four levels: (a) the level of physical manifestation of data on a medium; (b) the level of data as encoded information; (c) the functional level of data as digital content or services; and (d) the level of data as representation of rival assets. As yet, recognized conflict-of-law rules exist only for level (c), which has always been dealt with under international intellectual property law.

As to rights in physical manifestations of data, these may be dealt with under Art. 43 EGBGB where data is stored and accessed only locally. In the case of remote access to data, especially in the case of data stored in the cloud, the law of the state where the controller is located should apply. In the case of two or more controllers located in different states, the location of the server operator (cloud provider) may decide instead, but neither of these connecting factors applies if the facts of the case indicate a closer connection with the law of another state.

Data as encoded information is a non-rival resource. Should a foreign jurisdiction recognise exclusive data ownership rights, these would have to be dealt with under international intellectual property law. For data access rights, portability rights and similar rights the rules on the territorial scope of the GDPR may provide some helpful indications as to the applicable law. However, where such rights arise within a contractual relationship or other specific framework the law applicable to this framework may prevail.

As to crypto assets, uniform conflict-of-law rules would be highly desirable. Subject to further integration of crypto assets into the existing system for intermediated securities, rights in tokens should primarily be governed by the law referred to by conflict-of-law rules specifically addressing crypto assets, including appropriate analogies to such rules. Where no such rules exist, the closest connection must be ascertained by a connecting factor that is sufficiently certain and clearly visible to third parties, such as the law that has visibly been chosen as the applicable law for the whole ledger (elective situs), the location of the issuer (LIMA), or the place of the central administrator (PROPA) or of the sole holder of a private master key (PREMA).

R. de Barros Fritz: The new legal tech business model of mass action litigation from the choice of law perspective

In recent years, courts had to increasingly deal with questions of substantive law concerning a new, but in practice already well-established business model of mass action litigation, which is offered by companies such as Financialright Claims and Myright. These are often cases that have links to foreign countries. The present article has therefore taken this opportunity to examine the question of the law applicable to this business model in more detail.

P. Hay: Forum Selection Clauses – Procedural Tools or Contractual Obligations? Conceptualization and Remedies in American and German Law

German and American law differ methodologically in treating exclusive forum selection clauses. German law permits parties, subject to limitations, to derogate the jurisdiction of courts and, in the interest of predictability, to select a specific court for any future disputes. The German Supreme Court emphasized in 2019 that, as a contract provision, the clause also gives rise to damages in case of breach. American law historically does not permit parties to “oust” the jurisdiction a court has by law. But the parties’ wishes may be given effect by granting a party’s motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens (FNC) when sued in a different court in breach of the agreement. FNC dismissals are granted upon a “weighing of interests” and in the court’s discretion. The clause, even when otherwise valid, is therefore not the kind of binding obligation, enforced by contract remedies, as in German law. The case law does not give effect to its “dual nature,” as characterized by the German Supreme Court. The latter’s decision correctly awarded attorneys’ fees for expenses incurred by the plaintiff when the defendant had sued (and lost) in the United States in breach of a forum selection clause, especially since German jurisdiction and German law had been stipulated. Application of the “American Rule” of costs most probably would not have shifted fees to the losing party had American law been applied, although the rule is far less stringent today than often assumed.

A. Stadler/C. Krüger: International jurisdiction and the place where the damage occurred in VW dieselgate cases

Once again the European Court of Justice had to deal with the question of where to locate the place where the harm or damage occurred (“Erfolgsort”, Article 7 no. 2 Brussels Ibis Regulation) which is particularly difficult to define in case of pure economic loss tort cases. Previous case law of the ECJ resulted in a series of very specific judgments and a high unpredictability of the international jurisdiction. In the Austrian “Dieselgate” case the referring court had doubts whether the Austrian car purchasers who had bought and received their cars in Austria suffered a “primary loss” or only an irrelevant “secondary loss”. The ECJ rightly rejects the idea of a secondary loss and concludes that the place where the (primary) damage occurred is to be located in Austria. The authors criticise that the ECJ – without an obvious reason – emphasises that the case at hand is not about pure economic loss. Although they agree with the court’s finding that the place where the damage occurred was in Austria as the place of acquisition of the cars, they discuss whether in future cases one might have to distinguish between the place where the sales contract was entered into or the place where the defective object became part of the purchasers’ property. The authors reject any detailed approach and advocate in favour of abandoning the principle of ubiquity in cases of pure economic loss. Alternatively, the only acceptable solution is an entire consideration of all relevant facts of the individual case.

P.F. Schlosser: Jurisdiction agreements binding also third beneficiaries in contracts?

Even in the context of jurisdiction agreements, the European Court applies the rules protecting the policy holder for the benefit of the “insured”. In this respect the Court’s methodology and result must be approved of. The restriction of the holding as to the consent of the insured and the qualification of the insured as an insurance company are of no practical impact and due to the narrow question referred to the Court. The holding may, however, not be transferred by a reverse argumentation to assignments of rights against consumers or employees to commercial entities.

B. Heiderhoff: Article 15 Brussels IIbis Regulation, the Child’s best interests, and the recast

Article 15 Brussels IIbis Regulation provides that the court competent under Article 8 et seq Brussels IIbis Regulation may, under certain prerequisites, transfer the case to a court in another Member State. In the matter of EP./. FO (ECJ C-530/18) the ECJ once more explains the central notion of this rule, being the best interest of the child. The ECJ holds that the competent court must not initiate the transfer on the basis that the substantive law applied by the foreign court is more child friendly – which is, by the way, a rather unrealistic scenario for various reasons. Concerning procedural law, the ECJ points out that different rules may only be taken into account if they “provide added value to the resolution of the case in the interests of the child”. Notwithstanding the ECJ’s fundamental and recurrent statement that the transfer is never mandatory, it still seems reasonable for the competent court to apply a well-balanced, comprehensive approach towards the transfer. Should it deny the transfer to a court that is “better placed to hear the case” on the grounds that the foreign law is “different” or maybe that it even seems to be less in the interest of the child? According to the principle of mutual trust, the author suggests to use the public policy standard and to ignore any differences in the substantive and procedural law, as long as they do not threaten to add up to a public policy infringement. The paper also points out some changes in the new Articles 12 and 13 Brussels IIbis Recast which aim at further specifying the transfer mechanism. The resulting deletion of the comprehensive evaluation of the child’s best interests by the transferring court in para 1 seems unintentional. Thus, the author recommends to keep up the current handling.

F. Koechel: Article 26 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation as a Subsidiary Ground of Jurisdiction and Submission to Jurisdiction Through Eloquent Silence

According to the CJEU’s decision, a court may assume jurisdiction based on the entering of an appearance of the defendant only if Articles 4 ff. of the Brussels Ibis Regulation do not already provide for a concurrent ground of jurisdiction in the forum state. This restrictive interpretation complicates the assessment of jurisdiction and limits the scope of the Brussels Ibis Regulation without any substantial justification. On the contrary, a subsidiary application of Article 26 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation is systematically inconsistent with Article 25, which generally privileges the jurisdiction agreed by the parties over any concurrent ground of jurisdiction. In this decision, the CJEU confirms its previous interpretation according to which Article 26 Brussels Ibis Regulation may not be employed as a ground of jurisdiction vis-à-vis a defendant who chooses not to enter an appearance. However, the CJEU does not sufficiently take into account that in the main proceedings the court had requested the defendant to state whether or not he wanted to challenge jurisdiction. The question therefore was not simply if a defendant submits to a court’s jurisdiction by not reacting at all after having been served with the claim. Rather, the CJEU would have had to answer whether a defendant enters an appearance within the sense of Article 26 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation if he does not comply with the court’s express request to accept or challenge jurisdiction. The article argues that the passivity of the defendant may only exceptionally be qualified as a submission to jurisdiction if he can be deemed to have implicitly accepted the court’s jurisdiction.

C. Lasthaus: The Transitional Provisions of Article 83 of the European Commission’s Succession Regulation

The European Commission’s Succession Regulation 650/2012 aims to facilitate cross-border successions and intends to enable European citizens to easily organise their succession in advance. In order to achieve this goal, the regulation – inter alia – facilitates the establishment of bilateral agreements as to succession. This is the case not only for agreements made after 17/8/2015 but – under the condition that the testator dies after this date – according to the transitional provisions in Article 83 also for those made prior. Due to these transitional provisions, some formerly invalid agreements made prior to the effective date of the regulation turned valid once the regulation applied. In its judgment, the German Federal Court of Justice (“BGH“) ruled on the legal validity of a formerly invalid bilateral agreement as to succession between a German testator and her Italian partner. This legal review inter alia deals with the distinction between Article 83 para. 2 and Article 83 para. 3 of the Regulation as well as legal aspects concerning the retroactive effect of the transitional provisions.

P. Kindler: The obligation to restore or account for gifts and advancements under Italian inheritance law: questions of applicable law and international civil procedure, including jurisdiction and the law applicable to pre-judgment interest

The present decision of the Higher Regional Court of Munich deals with the obligation to restore or account for gifts and advancements when determining the shares of different heirs under Italian law (Article 724 of the Italian Civil Code). Specifically, it addresses a direct debit from the bank account held by husband and wife and payed to the wife alone a few days before the husband’s death. The husband was succeeded on intestacy by his wife and three descendants one of which sued the deceased’s wife in order to obtain a declaratory judgment establishing that half of the amount payed to the wife by the bank is an advancement, received from the deceased during his lifetime, and that such advancement has to be adjusted in the partitioning between the heirs. The article presents the related questions of applicable law under both the European Succession Regulation and the previous conflict rules in Germany and Italy. Side aspects regard, inter alia, the law applicable to interest relating to the judicial proceedings (Prozesszinsen) and how the Court determined the content of the foreign substantive law.

P. Mankowski: Securing mortgages and the system of direct enforcement under the Brussels Ibis Regulation

On paper, the Brussels Ibis Regulation’s turn away from exequatur to a system of direct enforcement in the Member State addressed was a revolution. In practice, its consequences have still to transpire to their full extent. The interface between that system and every-day enforcement practice is about to become a fascinating area. As so often, the devil might be in the detail, and in the minute detail at that. The Sicherungshypothek (securing mortgage) of German law now stars amongst the first test cases.

E. Jayme: Registration of cultural goods as stolen art: Tensions between property rights and claims of restitution – effects in the field of international jurisdiction and private international law

In 1999, the plaintiff, a German art collector had acquired a painting by the German painter Andreas Achenbach in London. In 2016 the painting was registered in the Madgeburg Lost Art Database according to the request of the defendant, a (probably) Canadian foundation. The painting was owned, between 1931 and 1937, by a German art dealer who had to leave Germany and was forced to close his art gallery in Düsseldorf. The plaintiff based his action on a violation of his property rights. The court dismissed the action: the registration, according to the court, did not violate the plaintiff’s property rights. The case, at first, involves questions of international civil procedure. The court based jurisdiction, according to para. 32 of the German Code of Civil Procedure, on the place of the pretended violation of property, i.e. the seat of the German foundation, which had registered the painting in its lost art register. The European rules were not applicable to a defendant having its seat outside the European community. The author follows the Magdeburg court as to the question of jurisdiction, but criticises the outcome of the case and the arguments of the court for generally excluding the violation of property rights. A painting registered as lost art loses its value on the art market, it cannot be sold. In addition, the registration of a painting as lost art may perhaps violate property rights of the German plaintiff in situations where there has been, after the Second World War, a compensation according to German public law, or where the persons asking for the registration did not sufficiently prove the legal basis of their claim. However, the Magdeburg registration board has developed some rules for cancelling registration based on objective arguments. Thus, the question is still open.

I. Bach/H. Tippner: The penalty payment of § 89 FamFG: a wanderer between two worlds

For the second time within only a few years, the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) had to decide on a German court’s jurisdiction for the enforcement of a (German) judgment regarding parental visitation rights. In 2015, the BGH held that under German law the rule regarding the main proceedings (§ 99 FamFG) is to be applied, because of the factual and procedural proximity between main and enforcement proceedings. Now, in 2019, the BGH held that under European law the opposite is true: The provisions in Articles 3 et seq. Brussels IIbis Regulation are not applicable to enforcement proceedings. Therefore, the question of jurisdiction for enforcement proceedings is to be answered according to the national rules, i.e. in the present case: according to § 99 FamFG.

D.P. Fernández Arroyo:Flaws and Uncer tain Effectiveness of an Anti-Arbitration Injunction à l’argentine

This article deals with a decision issued by an Argentine court in the course of a dispute between an Argentine subsidiary of a foreign company and an Argentine governmental agency. The court ordered the Argentine company to refrain from initiating investment treaty arbitration against Argentina. This article addresses the conformity of the decision with the current legal framework, as well as its potential impact on the ongoing local dispute. Additionally, it briefly introduces some contextual data related to the evolution of Argentine policies concerning arbitration and foreign investment legal regime.

After the semaine blanche, the Court of Justice will deliver some judgments and opinions, starting on 11 November 2020, with C-433/19, Ellmes Property Services. The request has been referred by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria), in a case where the applicant seeks to prevent the use of the apartment for tourist purposes, contrary to its designated use and in the absence of consent of the other co-owners; he claims the touristic use interferes with the applicant’s rights of co-ownership. He relies on Article 24(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation; the defendant objects on the basis of the lack of local and international jurisdiction. The questions read as follows:

1. Is the first alternative in the first subparagraph of Article 24(1) of [the Brussels I bis Regulation] to be interpreted as meaning that actions brought by a co-owner seeking to prohibit another co-owner from carrying out changes to his property subject to co-ownership, in particular to its designated use, arbitrarily and without the consent of the other co-owners, concern the assertion of a right in rem?
2. If the first question should be answered in the negative: Is Article 7(1)(a) of the [Brussels I bis Regulation] to be interpreted as meaning that the actions referred to in paragraph 1 concern contractual obligations to be performed at the location of the property?

According to AG Szpunar (Opinion of June 18, 2020), the Court should reply:

1. Article 24(1) of [the Brussels I bis Regulation] must be interpreted as meaning that an action by a co-owner seeking to prevent the use of an apartment by another co-owner for tourist purposes, on the ground that such use is not that agreed in the co-ownership agreement, only falls under that provision if that use is enforceable erga omnes. It is for the national court to carry out the final appraisal in that respect.
2. Article 7(1)(a) of that regulation must be interpreted as meaning that, where the use agreed in the co-ownership agreement is not enforceable erga omnes, such an action falls within the concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’ within the meaning of that provision. In those circumstances, the contractual obligation at issue is an obligation not to do something, specifically, not to change the designated use of a property, in breach of the co-ownership agreement, at the place where the property is situated. In order to ascertain whether the place of performance of that obligation is the place where the apartment subject to co-ownership is situated, it is for the national court to determine that place of performance in accordance with the law governing that obligation on the basis of the conflict of law rules of the court seised.

The decision corresponds to the 1st Chamber (judges Bonichot, Silva de Lapuerta, Toader, Safjan, Jääskinen, with Ms. Silva de Lapuerta as reporting judge).

On 12 November 2020, AG Hogan’s Opinion on C-729/19, Department of Justice for Northern Ireland will be published. The request, from the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland, is related to a dispute between a Polish national and the Department of Justice for Northern Ireland (the Central Authority for the purpose of the Maintenance Regulation). The questions for the Court focus on the temporary scope of application of the Regulation, and on the consequences of the incorporation of the Hague Protocol on the law applicable to maintenance obligations to the system of the Regulation:

1. Must Article 75(2) of the [Maintenance Regulation] be interpreted as applying only to “decisions” which were given in States that were member States of the EU at the time those decisions were made?
2. Bearing in mind that Poland is now a Member State of the European Union which is bound by the Hague Protocol, are maintenance decisions made by a Court in Poland in 1999 and 2003, that is, prior to Poland becoming a member state of the European Union, now capable of being registered and enforced in another EU Member State pursuant to any part of [the Maintenance Regulation], and in particular:
   (a) Pursuant to Article 75(3) and Article 56 of the Maintenance Regulation;
   (b) Pursuant to Article 75(2) and Section 2 of Chapter IV of the Maintenance regulation;
   (c) Pursuant to Article 75(2)(a) and Section 3 of Chapter IV of the Maintenance regulation;
   (d) Pursuant to any other Articles of the Regulation?

A hearing was held on 14 October 2020 where the parties, among other, explained their position, in the light of the judgment in C-283/16, S., on whether Article 75(3) of the maintenance regulation covers the situation where the Central Authority of the requested Member State has lodged with a court of a Member State an application for recognition of a decision in matters relating to maintenance obligations given in a third State that was transmitted to it, after the accession of that State to the European Union and after the date of application of the Maintenance Regulation, via the Central Authority of that new Member State.

Case C-519/19, DelayFix, a preliminary reference where the AG’s opinion was not requested, will be delivered on 18 November 2020. The reference was sent by the Regional Court in Warsaw in a dispute concerning the unfair character of a term (a choice of court clause) included in a consumer’s contract. The case involves the interpretation of Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts and Article 25 of the Brussels I bis Regulation. As the claim had been assigned, the claimant was not the consumer himself, thus the question from the Polish Court. The judgment will be a 1st Chamber one (judges Bonichot, Bay Larsen, Toader, Safjan, Jääskinen; Ms. Toader is the reporting judge).

The much awaited judgment in C-59/19, Wikingerhof, is scheduled for 24 November 2020. It will be a Grand Chamber decision (judges Lenaerts, Silva de Lapuerta, Bonichot, Arabadjiev, Prechal, Piçarra, von Danwitz, Toader, Safjan, Šváby, Rodin, Jürimäe, Lycourgos, Xuereb, Rossi; Mr. Safjian as reporting judge). Here the question, submitted by the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany):

Is Article 7(2) of [the Brussels I bis Regulation] to be interpreted as meaning that jurisdiction for matters relating to tort or delict exists in respect of an action seeking an injunction against specific practices if it is possible that the conduct complained of is covered by contractual provisions, but the applicant asserts that those provisions are based on an abuse of a dominant position on the part of the defendant?

AG Saugmandsgaard Øe delivered his opinion last September. Here my translation (the official English one is not yet available):

Article 7, point 2, of Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 12 December 2012, on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judicial decisions in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted in the sense that a civil liability action, based on the infringement of competition law, is a matter relating to “delict or quasi-delict”, within the meaning of the provision, even in the in the event that the plaintiff and the defendant are parties to a contract and the anti-competitive behavior the plaintiff attributes to the defendant is reflected in their contractual relationship.

Finally, AG Bobek’s opinion in C-307/19, Obala i lučice – a preliminary reference from the Commercial Court of Appeal, Croatia – will be delivered on 26 November 2020. Not a short request, in relation to a civil proceedings to recover the principal amount of HRK 84 (some 11 Euros), owed as payment for a daily parking ticket for a car parked on the public highway in Zadar (Croatia):

1. Are notaries authorised to effect service of documents under [the Service Regulation] when they serve notice of their decisions in cases in which [the Brussels I bis Regulation] does not apply, bearing in mind that, in Croatia, notaries acting within the framework of the powers conferred on them by national law in enforcement proceedings based on an ‘authentic document’ do not fall within the concept of ‘court’ within the meaning of [the Brussels I bis Regulation]? In other words, given that notaries do not fall within the concept of ‘court’ for the purposes of [the Brussels I bis Regulation], are they able, when acting within the framework of the powers conferred on them by national law in enforcement proceedings based on an ‘authentic document’, to apply the rules governing service of documents established in [the Service Regulation]?
2. Can parking in the street and on the public highway, where the right to collect payment is conferred by the Zakon o sigurnosti prometa na cestama (Law on Road Safety) and the legislation governing the performance of municipal activities as public authority activities, be considered a civil matter within the meaning of [the Brussels I bis Regulation], which governs the question of the jurisdiction of the courts and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, especially having regard to the fact that, where a vehicle is found without a parking ticket or with an invalid ticket, it is immediately subject to a requirement to pay for a daily ticket, as though it had been parked for the whole day, regardless of the precise length of time for which it was parked, meaning that this daily parking charge has a punitive effect, and that in some Member States this type of parking constitutes a traffic offence?
3. In court proceedings of the type referred to above concerning parking in the street and on the public highway, where the right to collect payment is conferred by the Law on Road Safety and the legislation governing the performance of municipal activities as public authority activities, can the courts effect service of a document on the defendants in another Member State under [the Service Regulation]?

If, based on the above questions, this type of parking is ruled to be a civil matter, the following further questions are referred.

4. In the present case, there is a presumption that a contract is concluded in respect of the aforesaid on-street parking in a space designated by horizontal and/or vertical markings; in other words, by parking there one is deemed to enter into a contract, and if one fails to pay the correct hourly parking charge one has to pay for a daily ticket. The question is therefore raised as to whether that presumption, that parking gives rise to a contract and entails consent to pay for a daily ticket if one does not buy a ticket in accordance with the hourly parking tariff or if the parking period on the ticket has expired, is contrary to the basic stipulations on the provision of services in Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to the other provisions in the EU acquis.
5. In the present case the parking took place in Zadar, Croatia, and there is therefore a connection between that contract and the Croatian courts. But does this parking constitute a ‘service’ within the meaning of Article 7(1) of [the Brussels I bis Regulation], bearing in mind that the concept of service implies that the party who provides the service carries out a particular activity, that is, that the said party carries out that particular activity in return for remuneration. The question is therefore whether the activity carried out by the appellant is sufficient for it to be considered a service. If the Croatian courts do not have special jurisdiction under Article 7(1) of [the Brussels I bis Regulation], jurisdiction to hear the case would lie with the court of the respondent’s domicile.
6. Can parking in the street and on the public highway, where the right to collect payment is conferred by the Law on Road Safety and the legislation governing the performance of municipal activities as public authority activities, and charges are levied only during a specified period during the day, be considered a tenancy agreement for immovable property under Article 24(1) of [the Brussels I bis Regulation]?
7. If the aforementioned presumption that the parking entails the conclusion of a contract (fourth question referred) cannot be applied in this case, can this type of parking, where authority to collect parking charges is conferred by the Law on Road Safety and a daily ticket must be purchased if a ticket for the parking period is not purchased in advance or if the parking ticket has expired, be deemed to constitute a matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict within the meaning of Article 7(2) of [the Brussels I bis Regulation]?
8. In the present case, the parking took place before Croatia joined the European Union, specifically at 13.02 on 30 June 2012. Therefore, the question is asked whether the regulations governing applicable law, namely [the Rome I Regulation] or [the Rome II Regulation], apply in the present case, having regard to their temporal validity.

If the Court of Justice of the European Union has jurisdiction to provide a response on the application of the material law, the following question is referred.

9. Is the presumption that this type of parking gives rise to a contract and entails consent to pay for a daily ticket if one does not pay the hourly parking charges or if the ticket expires, contrary to the basic stipulations on the provision of services in Article 56 TFEU and to the other provisions of the acquis, irrespective of whether the owner of the vehicle is a natural or a legal person? In other words, for the purposes of determining the material law, can the provisions of Article 4 of [the Rome I Regulation] apply in this case (given that there is no evidence in the proceedings to show that the parties came to an agreement on the applicable law)?
   • If a contract is held to exist, would it be a contract for the provision of services in the present case, that is to say, can the parking contract be considered a service within the meaning of Article 4(1)(b) of [the Rome I Regulation]?
   • In the alternative, could the parking be considered to constitute a tenancy agreement in accordance with Article 4(1)(c) of [the Rome I Regulation]?
   • In the alternative, if the parking comes under the provisions of Article 4(2) of [the Rome I Regulation], the question arises as to what constitutes the characteristic performance in the present case, bearing in mind that, in essence, the appellant merely marks the parking area on the roadway and collects parking charges, while the respondent parks and pays for the parking. In practice, if the characteristic performance is considered to be that of the appellant, Croatian law would apply, whereas if the characteristic performance is that of the respondent, Slovenian law would apply. However, given that in this case the right to collect parking charges is regulated by Croatian law, with which, therefore, the contract is more closely connected, can the provisions of Article 4([3]) of [the Rome I Regulation] nevertheless also apply?
   • If the case is considered to involve a non-contractual obligation within the terms of [the Rome II Regulation], could this non-contractual obligation be considered to constitute damage, meaning that the applicable law would be determined in accordance with Article 4(1) of [that Regulation]?
   • In the alternative, could this type of parking be considered to constitute unjust enrichment, meaning that the applicable law would be determined in accordance with Article 10(1) of [the Rome II Regulation]?
   • In the alternative, could this type of parking be considered to constitute negotiorum gestio, in which case the applicable law would be determined in accordance with Article 11(1) of [the Rome II Regulation]?
   • In the alternative, could this type of parking be considered to constitute liability on the part of the respondent for culpa in contrahendo, in which case the applicable law would be determined in accordance with Article 12(1) of [the Rome II Regulation]?

A hearing was foreseen which could not be held (questions and answers were thus in written form). The decision will be taken by the 1st Chamber (judges Bonichot, Bay Larsen, Toader, Safjan, Jääskinen, with Ms. Toader as reporting judge).

The website of The Hague Conference on Private International Law in October 29th recorded an important development, which reads as follows:

“Following the approval of the Explanatory Report on the HCCH Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (Judgments Convention) on 22 September 2020, the Permanent Bureau is pleased to announce the official publication of the Explanatory Report prepared by the co-Rapporteurs Professors Francisco Garcimartín (Spain) and Geneviève Saumier (Canada).”

More information can be found here

Membership

On 21 October 2020, Nicaragua deposited its instrument of acceptance of the Statute, becoming the 86th Member of the HCCH. More information is available here.

Conventions & Instruments 

On 1 October 2020, the HCCH 1965 Service Convention entered into force for the Philippines. It currently has 78 Contracting Parties. More information is available here.

On 23 October 2020, Serbia deposited its instrument of ratification of the HCCH 2007 Child Support Convention. It now has 42 Contracting Parties (41 States and the European Union) and will enter into force for Serbia on 1 February 2021. More information is available here. 

On 25 October 2020, the HCCH 1980 Child Abduction Convention and HCCH 1980 Access to Justice Convention celebrated their 40th anniversaries since adoption at the Fourteenth Session. More information is available here. 

On 29 October 2020, Costa Rica deposited its instrument of accession to the HCCH 1996 Child Protection Convention. It now has 53 Contracting Parties and will enter into force for Costa Rice on 1 August 2021. More information is available here. 

Meetings & Events

From 6 to 9 October 2020, the Experts’ Group on the Tourists and Visitors (ODR) Project met for the third time, via videoconference. The meeting focused on the necessity, desirability, and feasibility of a soft law instrument on matters relating to online dispute resolution (ODR). More information is available here.  

From 12 to 16 October 2020, the Experts’ Group on Parentage / Surrogacy met for the seventh time, via videoconference. The meeting focused on developing possible provisions for a general private international law instrument on the recognition of foreign judicial decisions on legal parentage and a separate protocol on the recognition of foreign judicial decisions on legal parentage rendered as a result of an international surrogacy arrangement. More information is available here. 

On 29 October 2020, the HCCH, together with the University of Bonn, co-hosted an online roundtable discussion of the prospects for judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters between the EU and third countries. This event was a precursor to the conference ‘The HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention’ which is being held in September 2021, jointly organised by the University of Bonn and HCCH. More information is available here. 

Publications & Documentation

Following its approval last month, the Permanent Bureau has released the official publication of the Explanatory Report on the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention. An electronic copy of the Report is now available for download, in English and French, and hard copies are available for purchase from our website. More information is available here.

These monthly updates are published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), providing an overview of the latest developments. More information and materials are available on the HCCH website.

AG  Saugmandsgaard Øe delivered yesterday (29 October 2020) his opinion in case C‑804/19 (BU v Markt24 GmbH), which is about Brussels I bis and employment contracts in an interesting scenario where no effective work has been carried out. The opinion is currently available in all EU official languages only (save Irish). It is not available in English. Here is the French version (to check whether an English translation has finally been made available, just click on the link below and change the language version):

« 1) Une action en paiement de la rémunération convenue dans un contrat de travail, intentée par un travailleur domicilié dans un État membre contre un employeur domicilié dans un autre État membre, relève du règlement (UE) no 1215/2012 […] et, plus spécifiquement, de la section 5 de son chapitre II, et ce même lorsqu’aucune prestation de travail n’a été accomplie, dans les faits, par ce travailleur en exécution du contrat litigieux.

2) Le règlement no 1215/2012 s’oppose à l’application de règles de compétence, prévues dans le droit national de la juridiction saisie, qui permettent au travailleur de saisir le tribunal dans le ressort duquel il a son domicile ou sa résidence habituelle pendant la durée de la relation de travail, ou de saisir le tribunal dans le ressort duquel la rémunération est due.

3) Lorsqu’un travailleur et un employeur ont conclu un contrat de travail et que, pour une raison quelconque, aucune prestation de travail n’a été accomplie, dans les faits, par ce travailleur en exécution du contrat, le « lieu où ou à partir duquel le travailleur accomplit habituellement son travail », au sens de l’article 21, paragraphe 1, sous b), i), du règlement no 1215/2012, correspond, en principe, au lieu de travail convenu dans ledit contrat ».

Source : http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=233041&mode=req&pageIndex=1&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=FR&cid=10869171

On 29 October 2020, Costa Rica acceded to the HCCH Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children, which will enter into force for Costa Rica on 1 August 2021.

Source: https://www.hcch.net/en/news-archive/details/?varevent=762

The Explanatory Report on the HCCH Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters has been officially published in both English and French. Please find attached to this post the English version.

Source: https://www.hcch.net/en/news-archive/details/?varevent=761

The International Commercial Chamber of the Court of Appeal of Paris (France) delivered a few days ago (27 October 2020) a decision (RG 20/01368) on commercial agents.  

Summary:

“The ICCP -CA was seized by an appeal against a decision of the Paris Commercial Court, which ruled that a commercial agent was liable of a serious breach, excluding the termination indemnities provided for in Articles L.134-11 et seq. of the French Commercial Code.

The ICCP -CA overturned this decision, ruling that a serious breach makes it impossible to maintain the contractual relationship; and that cannot be qualified as serious a breach of which the principal was aware well before the termination of the contract and which it tolerated without blaming the agent or warning or advising of the risk that this breach might have on the continuation of the agency contract. 

The Court thus held that the breach allegedly committed by the commercial agent in 2007, relating to the allegedly faulty registration of the disputed trademark in China, discovered in 2013, and followed by a retrocession agreement in 2014, cannot be qualified as serious enough to deprive the termination notified on 22 September 2016 of any indemnity .

The Court also held that the grievances subsequently raised by the principal were admissible even if they were not included in the letter of termination as they predated the termination; but in the present case, their existence and seriousness were not established and did not amount to a general lack of loyalty”.

In May 2019 a seminar took place in Madrid on the occasion of the 90th anniversary of UNIDROIT. A book has followed edited by Alfonso Luis Calvo Caravaca (Universidad Carlos III, Madrid) and Ignacio Tirado Martí (Universidad Autónoma, Madrid, current Secretary General of UNIDROIT), with contributions in English and Spanish from Lena Peters, Alfonso Luis Calvo Caravaca and Javier Carrascosa González, Marta Requejo Isidro, Carlos Fernández Liesa, Celia Caamiña Domínguez, Anna Veneziano, Teresa Rodríguez de las Heras, and William Brydie-Watson, recalling some of the main achievements of the organization. The introductory words by Prof. Calvo summarize his intervention a the seminar:

UNIDROIT emerged within the League of Nations in 1926. Its cradle is the origin and meaning of its mandate. The spirit of cooperation between nations, as a method of overcoming the differences that had plagued much of the world during the First World War, had its corollary in bringing the different legal systems closer together and promoting socio-economic exchanges between citizens. of the world. In large part, the idea that was beating was none other than the consideration of commercial relations as the axis on which to build a world in peace.

The founding ideas remain in the DNA of the institution, which began as predominantly European (since the Great War had been predominantly European) and gradually became global. Currently, UNIDROIT gathers 63 countries, including all members of the G-20 and covering 80% of the world’s population. There has never been a better time for the unification of private law. UNIDROIT is part of the list of international organizations known as “Las Tres Hermanas” (the Three Sisters), together with the Hague Conference on Private International Law and the United Nations Commission for International Trade Law. The three institutions are currently developing an almost frenetic activity of great practical and academic relevance. This relationship, synergistic and sustained over time, entails a reciprocal benefit that we aspire to reinforce with this initiative, which we hope will be followed by many others.

For more information, see here.

We are happy to announce that Alina Ontanu, of the University of Rotterdam, has joined the team of the EAPIL blog! Check her first post, which is out today.

As indicated in the inaugural issue of the EAPIL Newsletter, we wish to further expand the team. Interested EAPIL members are encouraged to get in touch with the managing editor, Pietro Franzina, at pietro.franzina@unicatt.it.

Applications from scholars or practitioners willing to report about developments in countries other than the countries currently covered by the team are especially welcome (the team is now covering Cyprus, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, and Spain).

The Blog is also seeking to appoint a social media manager, to improve and consolidate the Blog’s presence on LinkedIn, Twitter etc. Those applying for editor are encouraged to state whether they would also be happy to take care of the latter aspects.

On 6 November 2020 (13:30 – 16:30 CET) the Royal Netherlands Society of International Law (KNVIR) will be holding its Annual Meeting online via Zoom. This year the invited legal experts will be focusing on the theme of adaptability of (private) international law to the digital environment.

In their presentations Marjolein Busstra, Wieteke Teeuwen (Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs), Ybo Buruma (Netherlands Supreme Court and Radboud University Nijmegen), and Jerker B. Svantesson (Bond University; Swedish Law & Informatics Research Institute, Stockholm University, Sweden and Masaryk University) will be discussing whether the concepts and ideas developed in the ‘predigital era’ still fit the digital world. In doing so the speakers will analyse whether international law (both public and private) is ready for the digital era or whether law has been a rather ‘fragmented follower of developments’ and we should be fundamentally rethinking a number of notions and approaches.

Marjolein Busstra and Wieteke Teeuwen will focus on International Law in the Context of Cyber Operations. Ybo Buruma will look at internet from the perspective of International Law and Cyberspace – Issues of Sovereignty and the Common Good. Finally, Jerker B. Svantesson will be discussing whether International Law [Is] Ready for the (Already Ongoing) Digital Age: Perspectives from Private and Public International Law.

Registration is open until 3 November 2000 at info@knvir.org.

The reports (preadviezen) prepared by the legal experts have been published in November by Asser Press under the title International Law for a Digitalised World. You can find more information about this here.

Shenzhen Senior Technology Material Co Ltd v Celgard, LLC [2020] EWCA Civ 1293 concerns an appeal against service out of jurisdiction (the judgment appealed is [2020] EWHC 2072 (Ch)). Celgard allege that the importation and marketing by Senior of battery separator film involves the misuse of Celgard’s trade secrets.

Senior (of China) contend that the judge fell into error in concluding, first, that Celgard (incorporated in Delaware) had established a serious issue to be tried (here part of the jurisdictional threshold) assuming that English law applies to its claims and, secondly, that England is the proper forum to try the claims. As to the latter the core argument is that in limiting its claims to remedies in respect of acts in the UK, Celgard could not establish the requisite degree of connection to England. As for the former, they argue the law applicable to Celgard’s claims is Chinese law, which would count against jurisdiction.

Strategically, Celgard’s case against Senior is not based on breach of the NDA applicable between Celgard and one of its former employees,  Dr Zhang who, when he left Celgard, told its then COO that he was going to work for General Electric in California, which does not compete with Celgard in the field of battery separators. It later transpired that he had in fact joined Senior in China, where he was using the false name “Bin Wang”. This element of the facts triggers the question whether Senior is liable for the acts of another, even if that other is its employee.

The Celgard – Zhang NDA is governed by the law of South Carolina, application of which would also have triggered A4(3)(b) or (c) of the Trade Secrets Directive 2016/943. Celgard do rely on the NDA as supporting its case that the trade secrets were confidential. Rather Celgard claim that Senior’s employee acted in breach of an equitable obligation. This engages Rome II,  specifically Article 6(2) because Celgard’s claims are concerned with an act of unfair competition affecting exclusively the interests of a specific competitor, namely Celgard. In such circumstances, Article 6(2) provides that “Article 4 shall apply”.

Of note is that this is one of those cases that show that Rome II applies to more than just tortious obligations: as Arnold LJ notes at 51, as a matter of English law, claims for breach of equitable obligations of confidence are not claims in tort.

Celgard’s case, accepted by Trowe J at the High Court, is that A4(1) leads to English law because the ‘direct damage’ (per Rome II and CJEU Lazard indirect damage needs to be ignored) caused by the wrongdoing it complains of has occurred (and will, if not restrained, continue to occur) in the UK, that being the country into which the infringing goods (namely the shipment to the UK Customer and any future shipments of the same separator) have been (and will be) imported, causing damage to Celgard’s market here.

Senior’s case is that confidential information is intangible property and that damage to intangible property is located at the time and place it became irreversible (support is sought in extracts from Andrew Dickinson’s Rome II volume with OUP). At 58 ff Arnold LJ gives 7 reasons for rejecting the position. I will not repeat them all here. Of note is not just the (most justifiable) heavy leaning on the travaux but also the support sought in secondary EU law different from private international law (such as the Trade Secrets Directive 2016/943) as well as in the consistency between Brussels Ia and the Rome Regulations [on which Szpunar AG has written excellently in Burkhard Hess and Koen Lenaerts (eds.), The 50th Anniversary of the European Law of Civil Procedure]. This is not an easy proposition however given the lack of detail in Rome I and the need for autonomous EU interpretation, understandable.

The Trade Secrets Directive is further discussed at 65 ff for in A4(5) it makes importation of infringing goods an unlawful use of a trade secret “where the person carrying out such activities knew, or ought, under the circumstances, to have known that the trade secret was used unlawfully within the meaning of paragraph 3”. One of the possibilities embraced by paragraph 3 is (a), the person “having acquired the trade secret unlawfully”. Arnold LJ then asks: what law is to be applied to determine whether it was acquired “unlawfully”? Is A4(5) read together with A4(3)(a) an implicit choice of law rule pointing to the law of the place where the trade secret was acquired? Arnold LJ suggests this is not acte clair and may need CJEU clarification however not at this stage for his provisional view (with an eye on the jurisdictional threshold test) is that the Directive is not an implicit choice of law rule and that per Rome II, English law applies.

Plenty applicable law issues to discuss at the merits stage.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 4, Heading 4.6.2. Third ed. forthcoming February 2021.

Service out of jurisdiction with core role for applicable law considerations: Article 6 junto 4 Rome II, unfair competition. https://t.co/BUUjFlzY9P

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) October 9, 2020

The author of this post is Jorg Sladič, associate professor of International and European Law at the European Faculty of Law in Ljubljana.

On 11 August 2020, the Slovenian Supreme Court dismissed an appeal challenging the enforcement of an Austrian judgement compelling the judgment debtor to pay levies to the Austrian Construction Workers’ Annual Leave and Severance Pay Fund, known as BUAK (Bauarbeiter-Urlaubs- und Abfertigungskasse). The sums (claims for wage supplements regarding annual leave pay) to be paid to BUAK even though rather a matter of Austrian public law are under interpretation of Brussels I bis Regulation a civil and commercial matter (case Cpg 8/2020, ECLI:SI:VSRS:2020:CPG.8.2020).

A Slovenian judgment debtor was condemned by an Austrian court upon application of the Austrian person of public law BUAK to pay a sum of money as capital and a levy for claims for wage supplements regarding annual leave to BUAK on 3 May 2018.

The Austrian judgment-creditor moved to enforce the judgment. A Slovenian court granted a writ of execution on 16 June 2019. The judgement-debtor appealed and the appeal arrived at the Slovenian Supreme Court and raised among others a plea in law according to which such an Austrian judgement is contrary to Slovenian public policy. As it was alleged that the liabilities to be paid under the Austrian judgement were already paid under Slovenian law, the enforcement would mean a double payment of the same obligation. Anyhow, according to the judgment-debtor the said Austrian judgment is not a civil or commercial matter governed by Brussels I bis Regulation as the judgment-creditor BUAK is a legal person of public law, the obligation to be paid under the said Austrian judgement (claim for wage supplements regarding annual leave pay) is an obligation of public law or even a levy

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the following grounds.

Article 1(1) of the Brussels I Regulation provides that it applies to civil and commercial matters, but does not cover tax, customs or administrative matters or the State’s liability for acts and omissions in the exercise of State authority (acta iure imperii). Point (c) of the second paragraph of Article 1 of the Regulation explicitly states that it does not apply to social security.

As the Court of First Instance rightly explained, the question of the applicability of the Brussels I bis Regulation has already been settled by the Court of Justice in a preliminary ruling in the case of Korana, decided in 2019 (Case C-579/17). The Court of Justice clarified that the term “civil and commercial matters” must be interpreted autonomously under the regulation and that the fact that BUAK has the status of a collective body governed by public law is not decisive. The legal basis of the relationship from which the claim originates shall be decisive.

The employer’s obligation to pay wage supplements regarding annual leave claimed by BUAK before the Austrian forum is inextricably linked to the employees’ right to annual leave paid under civil law, so the nature of BUAK’s claim is also that of a right under civil law. In addition, a distinction must be made between cases where BUAK itself can issue a certificate of unpaid debts, which is an enforceable title, and cases – such as the case under consideration – where BUAK has to claim unpaid wage supplements regarding annual leave belonging to posted workers not having their habitual place of work in Austria before a court, which is also an argument in favour of the nature of the claim as being a claim of civil law.

The Court of Justice of the EU has in addition also ruled that this is not a benefit in the sense of the“social security” exception, which would also be excluded from the scope of the Brussels I bis Regulation. A social security benefit exists where it would be granted to beneficiaries on the basis of a legally defined position without any individual or discretionary assessment of personal needs. In the present case, however, the issue is the remuneration for annual leave, which in turn depends on the wage supplements, which are the legal basis for employer’s payment. Remuneration for annual leave in connection with work performed by a posted worker must be paid by the employer, even if the payment is made through the BUAK.

Decisions of the Court of Justice of the EU on preliminary questions are binding on the national courts of the Member States, therefore the applicants’ disagreement with the position of the Court of Justice cannot lead to different conclusions than those already reached by the Court of First Instance in the contested order. The Brussels I bis Regulation also applies to claims of BUAK for wage supplements regarding annual leave of posted workers, as these claims are of a civil nature.

The applicants’ plea that the levies or contributions claimed by the judgement-creditor in the enforcement proceedings referring to the Austrian judgment had already been paid in Slovenia, as a result the recognition and enforcement of the judgment of the Republic of Austria is allegedly contrary to Slovenian ordre public does not have any merits. In the appeal, the appellants (judgment-debtors) themselves claim that the Slovenian legal order does not provide for the payment wage supplements regarding annual leave of posted workers in the construction sector, as foreseen in Austrian law, therefore as a consequence the performance of obligations under the challenged judgement cannot already notionally constitute a double payment of the same claim. The mere fact that the Slovenian legal system does not legislate on a certain contribution or that it enacts contributions differently does not mean that the payment of a claim under the impugned judgment is contrary to the Slovenian ordre public. Namely, ordre public does not include all mandatory provisions of domestic law, but only those imperative legal norms and moral rules, the violation of which would endanger the integrity of the Slovenian legal order. However, the payment of contributions in favour of workers does not justify such opposition.

The ruling does completely comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in the 2019 Korana case. The Slovenian and the ECJ cases both refer to Slovenian posted workers in the construction sector in Austria (Slovenia and Austria are neighbouring countries). At the economic level both cases show how the freedom of movement and freedom to provide services operate between East- and West EU. Whereas the Korana case concerned a litigation before the Labour and Social Court of Vienna, the discussed Slovenian case shows the next stage, i.e. the enforcement of Austrian rulings in Slovenia.

The only surprising element in this case is the timing. The Korana case was decided by the ECJ on 28 February 2019, the first ruling by the highest national court of another EU Member State where an enforcement of Austrian judgements based on that ruling is sought was handed down already on 11 August 2020. Considering the translation issues, the service of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters between two EU Member States and then the Coronavirus pandemics, the cross-border cooperation between Slovenia and Austria seems to work quite fast.

On Monday, 16 November 2020, starting at 9.15 am CET, the Young EU Private International Law Research Network of the European Association of Private International Law (EAPIL), organizes a webinar on “Overriding Mandatory Rules in the Law of the EU Member States”.

In two sessions, Young PIL researchers from various EU Member States will discuss selected issues related to overriding mandatory rules, such as their explicit legislative characterization in recent EU directives and their application by arbitral tribunals.

Subsequently, the General Report of the second Young EU PIL project, namely “The Application of Overriding Mandatory Norms outside the Scope of Application of the EU Private International Law Regulations” as well as some national perspectives will be presented. The concluding discussion of the webinar is dedicated to future initiatives and projects of the Research Network.

All young PIL researchers who are interested in joining the webinar and/or the Young EU Private International Research Network are cordially invited to send an e-mail to youngeupil@gmail.com. Attendance is free of charge. Details regarding the virtual attendance will be sent to all registered participants.

The programme reads as follows:

9.15 am   Opening of the conference – Tamás SZABADOS (ELTE)

Session I – Chair: Florian HEINDLER (Sigmund Freund University Vienna)

9.20 am   Ennio PIOVESANI (University of Turin/University of Cologne): Overriding Mandatory Rules in the Context of the Covid-19 Pandemic

9.35 am   Martina MELCHER (University of Graz): Substantive EU Regulations as Overriding Mandatory Provisions?

9.50 am   Johannes UNGERER (University of Oxford): Explicit Legislative Characterization of Overriding Mandatory Provisions in EU Directives

10:05 am   Uglješa GRUŠI? (University College London): Some Recent Developments Regarding the Treatment of Mandatory Rules of Third Countries

10.20-10:35 am   Discussion

Session II – Chair: Dr. Eduardo Alvarez-Armas (Brunel University London)

10.45 am   Katarzyna BOGDZEVI? (Mykolas Romeris University): Overriding Mandatory Provisions in Family Law and Personal Status Issues

11.00 am   Markus PETSCHE (Central European University): The Application of Mandatory Rules by Arbitral Tribunals

11.15 am   István ERD?S (ELTE): Imperative Rules in Investment Arbitration

11.30-11.45 am   Discussion

Young EU PIL Project: The Application of Overriding Mandatory Norms outside the Scope of Application of the EU Private International Law Regulations

2.00 pm   Tamás SZABADOS (ELTE): Presentation and Discussion of the General Report

2.15 pm   Stefano DOMINELLI (University of Genoa) and Ennio PIOVESANI (University of Turin/University of Cologne): Italian Perspective

Holger JACOBS (University of Mainz): German Perspective

Dora ZGRABLJI? ROTAR (University of Zagreb): Croatian Perspective. Overriding Mandatory Rules and the Proposal on the Law Applicable to the Third-party Effects of Assignments of Claims

3.00 -3.30 pm   Future of the Young EU Private International Law Network (Chair: Martina MELCHER and Tamás SZABADOS)

Professor Chris Thomale, University of Vienna and Roma Tre University, has kindly provided us with his thoughts on the recent EP Draft Report on corporate due diligence and corporate accountability.

In recent years, debate on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has picked up speed, finally reaching the EU. The Draft Report first and foremost contains a draft Directive on corporate due diligence and corporate accountability, which seems a logical step ahead from the status quo developed since 2014, which so far only consists of reporting obligations (see the Non-Financial Reporting Directive) and sector specific due diligence (see the Regulations on Timber and Conflict Minerals). The date itself speaks volumes: Precisely, to the very day (!), 8 years after the devastating fire in the factory of Ali Enterprises in Pakistan, which attracted much international attention through its follow-up litigation against the KiK company in Germany, the EU is taking the initiative to coordinate Member State national action plans as required under the Ruggie Principles. Much could be said about this new Directive in terms of company law and business law: The balancing exercise of on the one hand, assuring effective transparency of due diligence strategies and, on the other hand, avoiding overregulation in particular with regard to SMEs still appears somewhat rough and ready and hence should see some refinement in due course. The same applies to the private enforcement of those due diligence duties: By leaving the availability and degree of private enforcement entirely to the Member States (Art. 20), the Directive seems to gloss over one of the most pressing topics of comparative legal debate. The question of availability, conditions and extent of private liability imposed on parent companies for human rights violations committed in their value chains abroad, must be addressed by the EU eventually.

To this forum, however, the private international implications of the Draft Report would appear even more important:

As regards the conflicts of laws solution, the proposed Art. 6a Rome II Regulation seeks to make available, at the claimant’s choice, several substantive laws as conveniently summarized by Geert van Calster in the terms of lex loci damni, lex loci delicti commissi, lex loci incorporationis and lex loci activitatis. Despite my continuous call for a choice between the first two de regulatione lata, to be reached by applying a purposive reading of Art. 4 para 1 and 3 Rome II (see JZ 2017 and ZGR 2017), the latter two, lex loci incorporationis and lex loci activitatis, seem very odd to me. First, they are supported, to my humble knowledge, by no existing Private International Law Code or judicial practice. Second, the lex loci incorporationis has no convincing rationale, why it should in any way be connected with the legal relationship as created by the corporate perpetrator’s tort. Lex loci activitatis is excessively vague and will create threshold questions as well as legal uncertainty. Third, I would most emphatically concur with Jan von Hein’s opinion of a quadrupled choice being excessive and impractical in and of itself.

The solution proposed in terms of international jurisdiction, I will readily admit, looks puzzling to me. I fail to see, which cases the proposed Art. 8 para 5 Brussels Ibis Regulation is supposed to cover: As far as international jurisdiction is awarded to the courts of the “Member State where it has its domicile”, this adds nothing to Art. 4, 63 Brussels Ibis Regulation. In fact, it will create unnecessary confusion as to whether this venue of general jurisdiction is good even when there is no “damage caused in a third country [which] can be imputed to a subsidiary or another undertaking with which the parent company has a business relationship.” Thus, we are left with the courts of “a Member State […] in which [the undertaking] operates.” As already pointed out, this term itself will trigger a lot of controversy regarding certain threshold issues. But there is more: Oftentimes this locus activitatis will coincide with the locus delicti commissi, e.g., when claimants want to rely on an omission of oversight by the European parent company. In that case, Art. 7 No. 2 Brussels Ibis Regulation offers a venue at the very place, i.e. both in terms of international and local jurisdiction, where that omission was committed. How does the new rule relate to the old one? And, again, which cases exactly are supposed to be captured by this provision? In my view, this is a phantom paragraph that, if anything, can only do harm to the fragile semantic and systematic architecture built up by the Brussels Ibis Regulation and CJEU case law.

The same seems true of the proposed Art. 26a Brussels Ibis: First, there is no evident need for such a forum necessitatis, rendering Member State courts competent to hear foreign-cubed cases with no connection to the EU whatsoever. To the contrary, recent development of the US Alien Torts Statute point in the opposite direction. Second, the EU might be overreaching its legislative jurisdiction: Brussels Ibis Regulation is based on the EU’s competence to legislate on judicial cooperation in civil matters (Art. 81 para 2 TFEU). Such a global long-arm statute may not be covered by that competence, if it is legal at all under the public international confines incumbent upon civil jurisdiction (for details, see here). Third, it will be virtually anybody’s guess what a court seized with a politicised and likely emotional case like the ones we are talking about will deem a “reasonable” Third State venue. In fact, this would be a forum non conveniens test with inverted colours, i.e. the very test the CJEU, in 2005, deemed irreconcilable with the exigencies of foreseeability and legal certainty within the Brussels Ibis Regulation.

A webinar, organised by the Young EU Private International Law Research Network (an EAPIL activity), will take place on 16 November 2020, from 9.15 to 15.30. The webinar’s topic is Overriding Mandatory Rules in the Law of the EU Member States.

Speakers include Katarzyna Bogdzevič (Mykolas Romeris University), Stefano Dominelli (University of Genoa), István Erdős (ELTE), Uglješa Grušić (University College London), Holger Jacobs (University of Mainz), Martina Melcher (University of Graz, co-chair of the Network), Markus Petsche (Central European University), Ennio Piovesani (University of Turin/University of Cologne), Johannes Ungerer (University of Oxford), Tamás Szabados (ELTE, co-chair of the Network), Dora Zgrabljić Rotar (University of Zagreb).

The sessions will be chaired by Florian Heindler (Sigmund Freud University Vienna) and Eduardo Alvarez-Armas (Brunel University London).

The full of programme of the event is available here.

Attendance is free of charge, but those interested in attending are asked to register via email at youngeupil@gmail.com before 12 November 2020.

The HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention:

Prospects for Judicial Cooperation in Civil and
Commercial Matters between the EU and Third Countries

Pre-Conference Video Roundtable
University of Bonn / HCCH

Thursday, 29 October 2020, 6.30 p.m. (UTC+1) (via Zoom)

Speakers:

Dr Christophe Bernasconi, Secretary General of the HCCH

Colin Brown, Unit Dispute Settlement and Legal Aspects of Trade Policy, DG Trade, European Commission

Dr Alexandra Diehl, White & Case LLP, Frankfurt, Chair of the Arbitration/Litigation/Mediation (“ALM”) Working Group of the German-American Lawyers Association (DAJV)

Dr Veronika Efremova, Senior Project Manager GIZ, Open Regional Funds for South East Europe-Legal Reform

Andreas Stein, Head of Unit, DG JUST – A1 “Civil Justice”, European Commission

Dr Jan Teubel, German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection

Moderators:                         

Dr João Ribeiro-Bidaoui, First Secretary, HCCH

Prof Dr Matthias Weller, University of Bonn

The largest proportion of EU economic growth in the 21st century is expected to arise in trade with third countries. This is why the EU is building up trade relations with many states and other regional integration communities in all parts of the world. The latest example is the EU-MERCOSUR Association Agreement concluded on 28 June 2019. With the United Kingdom’s exit of the Union on 31 January 2020, extra-EU trade with neighbouring countries will further increase in importance. Another challenge for the EU is China’s “Belt and Road Initiative”, a powerful global development strategy that includes overland as well as sea routes in more than 100 states around the globe. The USA are currently the largest trade partner of the EU. The increasing volume of trade with third states will inevitably lead to a rise in the number and importance of commercial disputes. This makes mechanisms for their orderly and efficient resolution indispensable. China is already setting up infrastructures for commercial dispute resolution alongside its belts and roads. In contrast, the EU still seems to be in search of a strategy for judicial cooperation in civil matters with countries outside the Union. The HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention may be a valuable tool to establish and implement such a strategy, in particular alongside the EU’s external trade relations. These prospects will be discussed by the speakers and a global audience in this Pre-Conference Video Roundtable.

We warmly invite you to participate and discuss with us. In order to do so, please register with sekretariat.weller@jura.uni-bonn.de. You will receive the access data for the video conference via zoom per email, including our data protection concept, the day before the event.

If you have already registered and received a confirmation from our office (please allow us a couple of days for sending it back to you), your registration is valid and you do not need to re-register.

Please do not hesitate to forward our invitation to friends and colleagues if you wish.

Main Conference “The HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, 13 and 14 September 2021

Our event intends to prepare the main conference on the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention at the University of Bonn (Professors Moritz Brinkmann, Nina Dethloff, Matthias Lehmann, Wulf-Henning Roth, Philipp Reuss, Matthias Weller), co-hosted by the HCCH (Dr Chistophe Bernasconi, Dr João Ribeiro-Bidaoui), on 13 and 14 September 2021 (originally scheduled for 25 and 26 September 2020, but rescheduled to avoid Covid-19 risks). At this conference on the campus of the University of Bonn, leading experts will present on the legal concepts and techniques of the Convention, and policy issues will be further developed.

Speakers will include (listed chronologically):

Hans van Loon (key note), Former Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, The Hague;

Prof Dr Xandra Kramer, Erasmus University Rotterdam;

Prof Dr Wolfgang Hau, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Munich;

Prof Dr Pietro Franzina, Catholic University of Milan;

Prof Dr Francisco Garcimartín Alférez, Autonomous University of Madrid;

Dr Ning Zhao, Senior Legal Officer, HCCH;

Prof Paul Beaumont, University of Stirling;

Prof Dr Marie-Elodie Ancel, University Paris 2 Panthéon-Assas;

Dr Pippa Rogerson, Reader in Private International Law, Faculty of Law, Cambridge;

Ass. Prof Dr Ilija Rumenov, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Skopje, Macedonia;

Dr Veronica Ruiz Abou-Nigm, Director of Internationalisation, Senior Lecturer in International Private Law, School of Law, University of Edinburgh;

Prof Zheng (Sophia) Tang, University of Newcastle;

Jose Angelo Estrella-Faria, Principal Legal Officer and Head, Legislative Branch International Trade Law Division, Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations, Former Secretary General of UNIDROIT.

For the full programme see https://www.jura.uni-bonn.de/professur-prof-dr-weller/conference-on-the-hcch-2019-judgments-convention-on-13-and-14-september-2021/. You will receive an invitation for registration in due time. A registration fee of € 100.- will be asked for participating.

The Universities of Genoa, Valencia, Turiba, the Institute of Private International Law in Sofia, the European Association for Family and Succession Law, and Defence for Children Italy are currently conducting a research Project to collect and develop best practices on the right of the child to information in cross-border family proceedings.

The “MiRI Project” (Minor’s Right to Information in EU civil actions), co-funded by the European Union (JUST/2018/JCOO/AG/CIVI/831608), foresees the involvement of lawyers and judges which may contribute to a truthful reconstruction of how children are effectively informed of their rights, of the circumstances litigated before courts, of the consequences following specific decisions, etc. during cross-border proceedings.

Lawyers and judges may provide their knowledge and expertise by fulfilling a questionnaire – answers to the questionnaire will help Partners to the Project to identify, disseminate already existing good practices, and possibly elaborate new ones.

The questionnaire is available in English, Spanish, Bulgarian, Latvian, French and Italian.

Answering the questionnaire takes approximately 25-30 minutes; consultations are open until the end of November 2020. Answers are anonymous and will not be published. Answers can be sent to info@europeanfamilylaw.eu

The Partners to the Project appreciate your involvement!

The October issue of International and Comparative Law Quarterly was recently published. It features two articles on private international law:

S Donelly, “Conflicting Forum-Selection Agreements in Treaty and Contract” (2020) 69  International and Comparative Law Quarterly 759 – 787.

When an investor submits a claim to arbitration under a treaty that falls within the scope of an existing, contractual forum-selection clause between it and the host State, which prevails: the agreement to arbitrate under the treaty or the contractual clause? This is a vexed and commonly arising question. This article argues that by placing it in the context of both private and public international law and reasoning from first principles it is possible to arrive at a coherent, reliable and satisfactory approach. The true question is whether the contractual clause is a waiver of the investor’s right to recourse to an investment tribunal.

TC Hartley, ““Recent Developments under the Brussels I Regulation” (2020) 69  International and Comparative Law Quarterly 779 – 790.

This article considers recent CJEU case law on the Brussels I Regulation. Two aspects of Article 7(1) (which applies to matters relating to a contract) are considered: the first is whether the contract must be between the parties to the case; the second is whether membership of an association should be regarded as constituting implied consent to be bound by decisions of the association so that jurisdiction to enforce them may be taken under Article 7(1). The article also discusses recent case law on who counts as a ‘consumer’ in terms of Article 17.

Complaints about the inefficiency of enforcement mechanisms at national and transnational level are not new. The insufficiency of existing national and international legal frameworks is a growing cause for concern at all levels. Academics and practitioners acknowledge the fundamental importance of procedures and mechanisms for the effective enforcement of creditors’ claims both in domestic and in cross border situations. They also agree on the existence of numerous obstacles for enforcement in most jurisdictions, and on the need for a comprehensive and  detailed international instrument providing for guidance for national legislators to overcome such challenges.

In the agenda UNIDROIT (the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law) has published for the triennial period 2020 – 2022, transnational principles of civil procedure are included with
– high priority:  Formulation of regional rules;
– medium priority : Principles of effective enforcement (NoA: priority was moved to “high” by the UNIDROIT Governing Council at its 99th session);
– low priority:  International Civil Procedure in Latin America.

As a matter of fact, UNIDROIT has been actively working towards a soft harmonisation of civil procedural rules – mainly to be applied in transnational disputes but also meant to provide guidance in domestic law reforms- already for a while. In 2004, the Governing Council of UNIDROIT adopted the so-called ALI/UNIDROIT Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure (ALI=American Law Institute), which the organization itself defines as its “landmark instrument in this area”.

The ‘Principles’ consist of 31 provisions accompanied by a commentary. They aim to reconcile differences among various national rules of civil procedure, taking into account the peculiarities of transnational disputes as compared to purely domestic ones. They are intended to serve as guidelines for code projects in countries without long procedural traditions; also, as a basis for reform in countries with long and high-quality procedural traditions. They may also be applied by analogy in international commercial arbitration.

In 2013, UNIDROIT and the European Law Institute (ELI) started working together towards the development of European Rules of Civil Procedure. The ELI – UNIDROIT Rules were presented in an International Workshop Webwinar held as a closing event of the 99th session of the UNIDROIT Governing Council, on 25 September 2020.

In addition, UNIDROIT Work Programme 2017-2019 envisaged the preparation of Transnational Principles of Effective Enforcement to bridge the gaps of the ALI/ UNIDROIT Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure in this regard. A preliminary feasibility study was conducted by Rolf Stürner, Emeritus Professor at the University of Freiburg (Germany) and former co-reporter of the ALI/UNIDROIT Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure, and submitted to the Governing Council at its 95th session (2016). According to its final conclusion

Principles will set common minimum standards of enforcement, they will motivate legislatures to evaluate and improve the quality of their laws and thereby strengthen the efficiency of enforcement in foreign countries. Common minimum standards will be a source of increasing harmonization of enforcement laws, as well as predictability of the results of enforcement measures in foreign countries and facilitation of enforcement in cross border cases. A certain degree of harmonization is a necessary precondition of international cooperation in the field of cross border enforcement, which is designed to avoid conflicts of sovereignty and conflicting or superfluous parallel and cost intensive enforcement measures. Worldwide, there is sufficient common ground for specific principles of individual modes of enforcement and for overarching general principles of an overall system of efficient civil enforcement. The variety of organizational structures should not be considered a decisive obstacle to harmonizing principles. It will be possible to develop principles, which define managerial standards to be met by the enforcement mechanisms and the individual enforcement authorities and which at the same time leave necessary leeway for successful regional traditions and local needs. Co-operation with other organizations dealing with the harmonization of law could result in a helpful increase of human and financial resources. The experience of the first joint project with the American Law Institute was very encouraging.

At the time, the topic was nevertheless accorded low priority, which meant the work would only commence after the completion of the preparation of European Rules of Civil Procedure. In this context, the Secretariat received in December 2018 a proposal for the 2020-2022 Work Programme by the World Bank regarding a project on the “Development of a Working Paper to Outline Best Practices on Debt Enforcement”, which it presented on the occasion of the discussion of the 2020-2022 Work Programme at the 98th Session of the Governing Council. The proposal was discussed as a continuation, and a refinement, of the scope of the  “Principles of Effective Enforcement”, and eventually included in the new Work Programme by the General Assembly.

On 21 September 2020, the UNIDROIT Secretariat, as mandated by the Governing Council at the first meeting of the 99th  session, convened an internal consultation workshop on the project on Best Practices of Effective Enforcement. The UNIDROIT Governing Council, at its 99th session, approved the guidelines provided by the Secretariat regarding the proposed scope of the project, and authorised the establishment of a Working Group, to meet in Rome and on Zoom on 30-November – 2 December 2020. The composition of the group has not yet been disclosed; the MPI Luxembourg will be represented as an observer.

If the initial schedule is kept, the project will be a quick one, coming to an end already in 2022. No doubt it is worth to follow its development and to reflect on its potential impact on the law and practice of cross-border enforcement within the EU and beyond.