Droit international général

Performing Right Society Ltd v Qatar Airways Group QCS [2020] EWHC 1872 (Ch) concerns the infringement or not of copyright via Qatar Airways’ inflight entertainment system known as “Oryx One”. Holding on an application for a stay on grounds of forum non conveniens or alternatively on case management grounds, Birss J on Friday first of all noted the relevance of Lucasfilm Limited v Ainsworth [2011] UKSC 39 that the English court can have jurisdiction over claims for infringement of copyright by non-UK acts and under non-UK law where there is a basis for in personam jurisdiction. Which there is because of the presence of the aircraft on the ground or in the territorial airspace of the UK – the airline was served at the London address of the UK branch (defendant, QATAR Airways Group Q.C.S.C. is not domiciled in the UK, I gather). Lucasfilm did not itself deal with forum non.

I flag this case for Birss J gives a good summary of the approach to forum non, building of course on Spiliada but also with reference to Vedanta, Okpabi etc., all reviewed on the blog. Note at 16-17 claimant’s and defendant’s alternative formulations of the Stage 1 cq 2 tests following Spiliada.

The defendant has summarised the test in Spiliada as follows:

“(1) Is there another available forum which is clearly and distinctly the natural forum, that is to say, the “forum with which the action has the most real and substantial connection”?

(2) If there is, is England nevertheless the appropriate forum, in particular because the court is not satisfied that substantial justice will be done in the alternative available forum?”

At: claimant’s rival formulation is:

“Stage 1: Qatar Airways bears the burden of satisfying the Court that the Qatari court is an available forum with competent jurisdiction to determine PRS’s claim and is clearly or distinctly a more appropriate forum than England for the trial of the issues. If it fails to satisfy the Court of these matters, a stay should be refused.

Stage 2: If the Court determines that the Qatari court is prima facie more appropriate, it must nevertheless refuse to grant a stay if PRS demonstrate that, in all the circumstances of the case, it would be unjust for it to be deprived of the right to trial in England.”

The distinctions may seem trivial. However they relate to, firstly, burden of proof and secondly, which factors need to be considered in which stage (and therefore, proven by whom). In particular, it is suggested that issues such as the location of witnesses arose at the first stage yet that at least aspects of the points which were debated about expert witnesses (of foreign law) arose at the second stage not the first.

Birss J ends up summarising Stage 1 as entailing the following headings:

i) the personal connections the parties have to the countries in question; ii) factual connections which the events relevant to the claim have with the countries; iii) applicable law; iv) factors affecting convenience or expense such as the location of witnesses or documents.

I will leave readers to digest the arguments under the various headings themselves, Birss J concludes that Qatar is not clearly a more appropriate forum and does not therefore consider Stage 2.

Readers will remember that the CJEU in Owusu objected to forum non on the basis of its unpredictability. Now, I am not one for arguing that following Spiliada and Vedanta, and given the authority rule to which common lawyers and judges are attuned, forum non be unpredictable. Neither can one posit however, seeing the intensity of the discussion here and in many other cases, that it is an entirely clear exercise.

Geert.

Application (dismissed) for stay of a claim of worldwide infringement of #copyright, on grounds of forum non conveniens or alternatively on case management grounds.
References of course UKSC Lucasfilm. https://t.co/sXPxUgpbdH

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) July 17, 2020

Following successful events in Bonn and Würzburg, the third iteration of the conference for young German-speaking scholars in private international law will take place – hopefully as one of the first events post-Corona – on 18 and 19 March 2021 at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law in Hamburg. The conference will focus on the theme of PIL for a better world: Vision – Reality – Aberration?

It will include a keynote by Angelika Nußberger, former judge at the European Court of Human Rights, and a panel discussion between Roxana Banu, Hans van Loon, and Ralf Michaels.

The organisers are inviting contributions that explore any aspect of the conference theme, which can be submitted until 20 September 2020. The call for papers, in German and English, together with further information, can be found on the conference website.

Anita Durakovic, Associate Professor at the University Dzemal Bijedic Mostar, and Jasmina Alihodzic, Professor at the University of Tuzla, co-authored a monograph titled International Surrogate Motherhood – Account of the Legislation in Bosnia and Herzegovina (in the original: Medunarodno surogat materinstvo – osvrt na zakonodavstvo u Bosni i Hercegovini). The book was published earlier in 2020 by the Faculty of Law of the University Dzemal Bijedic in Mostar.

The book’s first pages are devoted to interdisciplinary approaches to the surrogacy phenomenon followed by the comparative perspective over substantive laws. The central part of the book is focused on the legislation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where particularly interesting for the readers of this blog are the sections devoted to recognition of cross-border surrogacy arrangements there at three distinct levels: within the proceedings on the merits before the competent authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as part of the recognition of the status certified by the foreign authentic document, and as part of the recognition of the foreign judgment in which the decision is made concerning the personal status. In evaluating the difficulties which incoming intended parents would be faced with in Bosnia and Herzegovina, especially against the background of the prohibition of surrogate motherhood in force in one of the territorial units there, the authors differentiate between situations where surrogate parents request issuing of the travel documents in order to enter Bosnia and Herzegovina with the child, and where subsequent to entering the country they attempt to regulate the child’s civil status. Further chapters are glancing through human rights aspects of the surrogate arrangements and efforts on international level to regulate these matters, particularly within the Hague Conference on Private International Law. The conclusion favours recognition of foreign authentic documents and judgments concerning the legal parenthood deriving from a surrogate arrangement as opposed to the long and costly family law proceedings to obtain decisions establishing fatherhood and adoption on the part of the mother. The authors also stress that the competent authorities need to take account of the best interest of the child when deciding in recognition proceedings and assessing whether to apply the public policy clause.

While this book offers some discussion on theoretical level, it is primarily intended to serve as a reference point for the competent authorities and potential intended parents as well as to advise legislator or the need to adjust legal framework. It would have been much more convincing if the actual cases rated to the Bosnia and Herzegovina could have been discussed. However, according to the authors, there are no official cases although it is known to have happened in practice. Perhaps this book will contribute to raising awareness not only among legal professionals but also in the local community about important interests at stake in surrogate parenting arrangements, especially that of the child.

On 17 July 2020, the Depositary (i.e. the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands) notified that Austria ratified the HCCH Service Convention, which will enter into force for Austria on 12 September 2020. With this ratification, the HCCH Service Convention continues to attest itself as an important instrument of judicial co-operation given that all EU Member States are now a party to it.

The ratification of Austria was made pursuant to Council Decision (EU) 2016/414 of 10 March 2016 authorising the Republic of Austria to sign and ratify, and Malta to accede to, the Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, in the interest of the European Union. As indicated in a previous post, this decision required that such ratification be made by 31 December 2017 so it was long overdue.

Among the declarations/reservations made by Austria features an important reservation on service upon the Republic of Austria, which reads as follows: “The Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters of 15 November 1965 shall not apply to the service of documents addressed to the Republic of Austria, including its political subdivisions, its authorities and persons acting on its behalf; such service shall be effected through diplomatic channels.” Although this reservation is not so common among the Contracting States to the HCCH Service Convention, and by the way it’s not contemplated explicitly in this treaty (but see art. 9(2)), it dispels any doubt as to the procedure to follow when suing a State.

All the declarations/reservations of Austria are available here.

The HCCH news item is available here.

Written by Jonathan Fitchen, University of Aberdeen

Introduction

The EEO Regulation (805/2004) was mooted in the mid-1990’s to combat perceived failings of the Brussels Convention that were feared to obstruct or prevent ‘good’ judgment creditors from enforcing ‘uncontested’ (i.e. undisputable) debts as cross-border debt judgments within what is now the EU. The characterisations ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are not employed facetiously; the unreasonable obstruction of a creditor who was assumed to pursue a meritorious debt claim was and remains a central plank of the EEO project: hence the Regulation offers an alternative exequatur and public policy free procedure for the cross-border enforcement of such uncontested monetary civil and commercial claims that, until 2002, fell under the quite different enforcement procedures of the Brussels Convention. The 2004 EEO Regulation covers money enforcement titles (judgments, settlements and authentic instruments) that are already enforceable in the Member State of origin and hence are offered an alternative route to cross-border enforcement in the Member State addressed via the successors to the Brussels Convention, first the Brussels I Regulation and now the Brussels Ia Regulation, on an expedited basis due to omitting both an exequatur stage and the ability of the Member State addressed to refuse enforcement because of public policy infringements.

As the EEO Regulation was introduced some years after the cross-border enforcement provisions of the Brussels Convention had been replaced by those of the Brussels I Regulation, many of the EEO’s ‘innovations’ to remedy ‘unnecessary’ or abusive delays, caused by either a ‘bad’ debtor or by an overly cautious enforcement venue, had already been mitigated three years before it came into force in 2005. This fact and other issues (e.g. a preference among lawyers for the familiar and now streamlined Brussels I Regulation enforcement procedure, the issue of ignorance of the EEO procedures, and a greater than expected willingness for creditors to litigate debt claims directly in foreign venues) contributed to a lower than expected take up of the EEO Regulation in the context of contentious legal proceedings.

Anecdotal evidence of low use of the EEO in contentious matters has led to a view that the EEO Regulation is somewhat redundant. The coming into force of the exequatur-free Brussels Ia Regulation and the surveys connected with the IC²BE project  have re-enforced this view of its redundancy. An expected recasting for the 2004 Regulation did not however occur in 2012 as the Commission withdrew it. The same year the Commission had received a less than complimentary report from RAND Europe concerning the Regulation (with which it disagreed and continues to disagree). It may be speculated that having lost the argument on restricting or deleting public policy in the course of the re-casting of the Brussels I Regulation, the Commission may have feared that the re-casting of the EEO might tend towards its de factodeletion if the Member States were permitted to consider its reliance on control in the Member State of origin and the lack of a public policy exception given examples of national case law that were already suggestive of structural difficulties with the Regulation and its underlying drafting assumptions (e.g. see G Cuniberti’s comment on French Cour de cassation chambre civile 2, 6 janvier 2012 N° de pourvoi: 10-23518).

As matters stand, the EEO Regulation continues to apply and continues to cause particular difficulties for debtors (and also creditors, enforcement authorities and the CJEU), whether in the Member State of origin or in the Member State addressed. This assertion is supported by two litigation notes, of which this is the first (and most extraordinary): indeed, it is suggested that the difficulties that arose in the litigation discussed below are at least as significant for European private international law as the infamous case C-7/98 Krombach v Bamberski; Krombach and Lee each indicate the need for the inclusion of an overt public policy exception for those cases in which domestic civil procedure and the norms of European and international civil procedure have malfunctioned to such an extent that EU PIL is in danger of being ‘understood’ to force the Member State of enforcement to grant cross-border legal effect to a judgment granted improperly in flagrant breach of European and domestic human rights standards.

Facts

In January 2014 the civil judgment enforcement officials of the English High Court received a European Enforcement Order (EEO) application from a Spanish gentleman’s lawyers requesting the actual enforcement of the Spanish judgment and costs recorded by the EEO certificate for €923,000. The enforcement target – who had been contacted officially by a letter from the applicant’s lawyers for the first time in the proceedings shortly before this application and given 14 days to pay – was the well-known actor Christopher Lee, who was domiciled in the UK and resident in London where he had lived for many years.

Thus began the enforcement stage of a cross-border saga in which the judgment creditor and judgment debtor sought respectively to enforce or resist the enforcement of an EEO certificate that was incomplete (hence defective on its face) and unquestionably should never have been granted because it related to a Spanish judgment that should never have been delivered (or declared enforceable) concerning a debt, that had not been properly established according to Spanish procedural law, and relating to an at best contestable (and at worst fanciful) legal liability alleged to somehow fall upon an actor in a film concerning a subsequent unauthorised use by the DVD distributor of that film of the claimant artist’s copyrighted artwork from that film in connection with the European DVD release of that film. The claim under Spanish copyright law was based on proceedings dating from June 2007 commenced before the Burgos Commercial court that unquestionably were never at any time (whether as a process, a summons or a judgment) in the following seven years served properly on the famous and foreign-domiciled defendant in accordance with the service provisions of the EU Service Regulation.

The original claim named three parties: 1) a production company (The Quaid Project Ltd); 2) Mr. Juan Aneiros (who was alleged to have signed a contract pertaining to the artwork for the film with the claimant artist in 2004 and who was the son-in-law of Christopher Lee and who seemingly ran Mr Lee’s website) and 3) Christopher Lee himself. The proceedings attempted in Spain however encountered an initial problem of how to serve these ‘persons’ in or from Spain. The solution selected as far as Lee was concerned did not use the Service Regulation nor did it anticipate the later reasoning of the CJEU in Case C 292/10 G v de Visser ECLI:EU:C:2012:142. After not finding Lee resident in Spain, the hopeless fiction of service by pinning the originating process to the noticeboard of the Burgos Commercial Court for a period of time was employed: it was then claimed that this properly effected service in circumstances where it was claimed to be impossible to find or serve a world renowned and famous English actor (or the actor’s agent) in Spain (where he did not live).

Such modes of service where the defendant is likely to be domiciled in another state have been condemned as insufficient by the ECJ in cases such as: Case 166/80 Peter Klomps v Karl Michel [1981] ECR 1593; Case C-300/14 Imtech Marine Belgium NV v Radio Hellenic SA ECLI:EU:C:2015:825; Case C-289/17 Collect Inkasso OU v Aint 2018 EU:C:2018. These defects in serving Lee as intended defendant, and then as an enforcement target, proved fatal in February 2020 when, after roughly six years of challenges by Lee (and from mid 2015 by his Widow), the Spanish Constitutional Court decided that the consequences flowing from the service violations were sufficiently serious to remit the Spanish proceedings back to square one for noncompliance with Article 24 of the Spanish Constitution by the Spanish civil courts.

Significant aspects of the claim are unclear, in particular, why Lee was regarded as potentially liable for the claim. The various law reports make clear that the claim concerned compensation sought under Spanish copyright law by an artist whose contracted artwork for a film called ‘Jinnah’ (in which Christopher Lee had starred) had later been used without his permission for the subsequent European DVD release of that film. Though Spanish law permits such a contractual claim by the artist against the relevant party who uses his artwork, it is unclear from the various English and Spanish law reports how, in connection with the DVD release, this party was Christopher Lee. It is stated at para 11 of [2017] EWHC 634 (Ch) that Lee’s lawyers told the English court that their client (who was not a producer or seemingly a funder of the original film) did not sign any contract with the claimant. It is hence not clear that Lee made (or could make) any decisions concerning the artwork for the film and still less concerning its later use for the European DVD release to breach the claimant’s copyright. Such decisions appear to have been made by other natural and legal persons, without any link to Lee capable of making him liable for the compensation claimed.

Though it is doubtful that the issue will ever be resolved, a few statements in the Spanish press (El Pais, 22 March 2010) suggest both that the claimant regarded Lee as having been amongst those who had ‘authorised’ his original appointment to the film as its artist/illustrator but also, and confusingly, that the artist had not been able to speak to Lee about the issue and did not, subject to what the court might hold, consider him responsible for the misuse. Though it is speculation, it may be that a connection was supposed by the claimant (or his lawyers) analogous to a form of partnership liability between Lee and some of the other defendants who might have been presumed to have been involved in the original decision to employ the artist at the time of the film and hence might possibly have later been involved in the decision to re-use the same artwork (this time without the artist’s consent) for the European DVD release. Neither the matter nor the nature of Lee’s potential liability is though clear.

Further uncertainty arises from the issue of quantum. Spanish law allows an aggrieved artist to bring a claim for contractual compensation to seek sums representing those revenues that would have accrued to him had there been a reasonable contractual agreement to use his artwork in this manner. One function of the Spanish court in such a claim is to determine the correct quantum of this sum by considering representations from each party to the claim: this process could not occur properly in the present case as the service defects meant that only the views of the claimant were ever presented. Why was €710,000 the correct sum? Why not €720,000, €700,000 or €10,000? Trusting the artist’s own estimation seems optimistic given that the sum claimed was large and the matter concerned the European DVD release of a film that was many orders of magnitude less well-budgeted or commercially successful than other films in which Christopher Lee had starred (e.g. Star Wars and the Lord of the Rings). Equally, did the artist really have all the data in his possession to allow him to demonstrate unilaterally the proper quantum in a forensic manner?

Despite these uncertainties the suggested liability and quantum were asserted for the purposes of formulating the Spanish claim that led to the in absentia judgment granted in March 2009 which, by May 2009, (in default of any appeal by the officially uncontacted Lee) was declared final. In October 2009 the judgment was declared enforceable by yet another notice from the same Burgos court that was again pointlessly fixed to the notice board of the court in default of employing any effective mode of service that should have been used in this context.

The matter was reported (inaccurately) in the UK press and media in 2010, possibly based on not quite understood Spanish newspaper reports, without however securing any comment from Lee. It is unclear if Lee ever did know unofficially of the Spanish proceedings, but it seems likely that he did as his son-in-law was involved in these. Such unofficial knowledge does not, of course, excuse successive service failures. One point that the UK media did record accurately in 2010 was that no defendant had appeared in the earlier Spanish proceedings.

In 2011, at the request of the claimant, the Burgos court issued him with an EEO certificate. It was seriously incomplete, omitting ticks for the boxes found at: 11.1 (that service had been as per the Service Regulation); 12.1 (ditto the summons); 13.1 (that service of the judgment had been as per the Regulation); 13.3 (that the defendant had a chance to challenge the judgment); and, 13.4 (that the defendant had not so challenged). The judgment on which the EEO certificate was based was claimed in the certificate to be one dated 26 April 2010 (seemingly never produced in the later London enforcement proceedings) while the certificate wrongly gave as Lee’s London address as the address of his son-in-law and misspelled Lee’s middle name.

In October 2013 the claimant applied to the Spanish courts for the rectification of the 2011 EEO certificate: such rectification was however confined only to correct the misspelled name and to add over €200,000 to the original ‘debt’ as costs due in part, it may be supposed from the comments of the Constitutional Court, to unsuccessful attempts to pursue the Spanish property of Lee’s Spanish son-in-law. Seemingly no rectification was sought for the other serious omissions.  The October 2013 EEO certificate was presented in January 2014 in London to Lee and to the English court. Lee’s correct address had now been ascertained by the claimant’s lawyers instructed to seek the cross-border enforcement of the EEO certificate concerning the ‘uncontested’ sums apparently due in Spain via its expedited and public policy free procedures.

On finally learning officially of the existence of the earlier Spanish in absentia proceedings when met with a lawyer’s letter to his address demanding payment of the entire alleged debt within 14 days, Lee instructed his English lawyers and appointed Spanish lawyers to commence challenges to the earlier Spanish proceedings and to secure stays of enforcement in Spain and in the UK (the latter being via Art 23(c) EEO). By reason of a good-faith error, Lee’s English lawyers ‘jumped-the-gun’ and represented to the English court that the Spanish challenge proceedings had already commenced – in fact at that point the Spanish lawyers had only been instructed to bring a challenge – and secured the English Art.23(c) stay some 17 days ahead of the actual commencement of the Spanish challenge proceedings. The creditor, via his lawyers, objected (correctly) to the premature grant and also to the continuation of the stay under Art.23(c) which first required the commencement of the Spanish challenges: this objection led to a Pyric victory when the English court dispensed with the erroneous stay but replaced it, seamlessly, with another stay granted as part of its inherent jurisdiction (rather than via any provision of the EEO Regulation) which it justified as appropriate given the presentation of a manifestly defective and incomplete EEO certificate. The stay was to endure for the duration of the Spanish appeals and all Spanish challenges to enforcement. Lee’s death in mid 2015 saw the stay endure for the benefit of his widow.

While the stay proceedings were ongoing in England, the attempts by Lee’s lawyers to challenge the earlier Spanish proceedings before the Spanish civil courts and appeal courts went from bad to worse. The said courts all took the astonishing view (summarised in paras 23 – 30 of [2017] EWHC 634 (Ch) (03 April 2017)) that there had been sufficient service and that Lee was now out-of-time to raise objections by civil appeal. All Spanish stay applications were rejected; even the Constitutional Court rejected such a stay application (on an earlier appeal prior to the 2020 case), finding the earlier conclusions of the civil courts that there was no demonstrable irreparable harm for Lee without the stay to be in accordance with the Constitution. Appeal attempts before the civil courts to object to the frankly ridiculous triple failure of service of process, summons and judgment, or to the existence of a viable claim, or to the lack of the quantification stage required by Spanish procedural law, all fell on deaf ears in these courts.

In this sense, because the Spanish civil courts all demonstrated their unwillingness to remedy the successive misapplication of EU laws, the private international law and procedural law of the EU all failed in this case in the Member State of origin. That this failure did not result in immediate actual enforcement against Lee’s estate in the Member State addressed was due only to the extemporisation by an English court of an inherent jurisdiction stay in response to an incomplete certificate supporting the application. Without this extemporised stay the enforcement would have proceeded in the UK without any possibility of Lee requesting corrective intervention by English authorities to invoke a missing public policy exception. The English court was clear that had the empty boxes been ticked, there would have been no basis for the stay and enforcement would have been compelled. So much for the Recital 11 assurances of the EEO Regulation:

“This Regulation seeks to promote the fundamental rights and takes into account the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In particular, it seeks to ensure full respect for the right to a fair trial as recognised in Article 47 of the Charter.”

These events left Lee’s lawyers with only one remaining challenge possibility in Spain, viz. arguing that the Spanish civil courts had violated the Spanish Constitution. These challenges were brought to the Spanish Constitutional Court by lawyers acting first for Lee and then, after his death, acting for his widow. The decision of the Constitutional Court was delivered on 20 February 2020 (see comment by M Requejo Isidro) and found that there had indeed been a significant domestic breach of the Spanish Constitution, specifically, Section 24 para 1 which (in English) reads

“All persons have the right to obtain effective protection from the judges and the courts in the exercise of their rights and legitimate interests, and in no case may there be a lack of defense.”

The Constitutional Court – which necessarily is restricted to a consideration of the matters that go directly to the operation of the Spanish Constitution and hence has no further general appellate competence over the actions of the civil courts – concluded that the initial failure to serve a non-domiciled person, whose address was claimed to be unknown, but would have been very simple to discover, in accordance with the provisions of the relevant EU Service Regulation meant that Christopher Lee, and later his widow, were not adequately protected by the Spanish courts as required by Section 24 of the Spanish Constitution and hence had been deprived impermissibly of the defence that had to be provided. The order of the Constitutional Court annulled the earlier Spanish proceedings and sent the contingency-fee-funded claimant back to square one to recommence any subsequent proceedings properly and with due service concerning his alleged claim against whatever parts of the estate of the late Christopher Lee might now still be located within the UK or the EU.

Reflections on some of the wider issues

Though this litigation was compared above with the cause-celebre that was Krombach, it can be argued to represent a greater Member State of origin catastrophe than the earlier case: at least Herr Krombach was officially notified, served, summoned to the proceedings and then notified of the judgment. Krombach and Lee do both however illustrate why a public policy exception in the Member State addressed is essential. Unfortunately, in Lee this illustration is set against the absence of that exception. Thus, Lee demonstrates the grim prospects facing the ‘debtor of an uncontested sum’ (who only has this status due to blatant and successive breaches of service and private international law procedures) in cross-border enforcement procedures if the ‘emergency brake’ of public policy has been removed by drafters keen to prevent its unnecessary application to facilitate faster ‘forward-travel’ in circumstances in which the application of the said brake would not be necessary.

Had not the presented EEO certificate been so deficient, the English courts would not have been willing to extemporise a stay and the whole sum would have been enforced against Lee in London long before the civil and constitutional proceedings – all of which Lee also had to fund – concluded in Spain. Few ordinary people could have effectively defended the enforcement across two venues for six years when facing a claimant pursuing a speculative claim via a conditional fee arrangement (with its clear significance for the likely recovery of defence costs and a resulting impact upon the need to fund your own lawyers in each jurisdiction). It must be presumed that, despite manifest breaches of EU law and human rights standards, most ordinary persons would simply have had to pay-up. Whether this has already occurred, or occurs regularly, are each difficult to ascertain; what can though be said is that the design and rationale of the EEO Regulation facilitate each possibility.

Lee was fortunate indeed to face an incomplete EEO certificate and to find English judges who, successively, were favourably disposed towards his applications despite a Regulation drafted to dismiss them. Though some may be disposed to regard the judiciary of that ex-Member State as ‘constitutionally’ predisposed to effect such interpretative developments, this would be a mistake, particularly in the present context of applications to the Masters in question (members of the judiciary who deal with incoming foreign enforcement applications). In any case, judicial willingness to extemporise a solution when faced with a defective EEO certificate to avert an immediate cross-border injustice seems a slender thread indeed from which to hang the conformity of the operation of the EEO Regulation with the basic human rights that should have been, but were not, associated with the treatment of Lee throughout these proceedings.

It is suggested that the circumstances of Lee demonstrate the failure of both the EEO Regulation, and of EU PIL in general, to protect the rights of an unserved and officially unnotified defendant to object to a cross-border enforcement despite the grossest of failings in the Member State of origin that, given the existence of Article 24 of the Spanish Constitution, proved astonishingly unsusceptible to Spanish appeal procedures. Had the judgment creditor been compelled to proceed to enforcement under the Brussels I Regulation (or later under the Recast of that Regulation) the service defects would probably have been more evident whether in the assumption of jurisdiction and / or at the point of enforcement outside Spain: the judgment debtor would also have had the option to raise the public policy exception to defend the enforcement proceedings plus better stay options in the enforcement venue.

Further it is suggested that Lee indicates that the EEO Regulation is no longer fit for purpose and should be recast or repealed. Lee, like Krombach, illustrates the danger of relying on the Member State of origin when drafting cross-border procedures of a non-neutral nature, i.e. reflecting assumptions that certified claims sent abroad by the ‘creditor’ will be ‘good’. It is not always correct that all will remain ‘fixable’ in the Member State of origin such that objections to enforcement in the Member State addressed and a public policy exception are unnecessary. Krombach and Lee may be exceptional cases, but it is for such cases that we require the equally exceptional use of a public policy exception in the enforcement venue.

Thank you Nathalie Smuha for first signalling the €600,000.00 fine which the Belgian Data Protection Authority (DPA) issued on Tuesday against Google Belgium, together with a delisting order of uncertain reach (see below) and an order to amend the public’s complaint forms. The decision will eventually be back up here I am assume (at vanished yesterday) however I have copy here.

Nauta Dutilh have very good summary and analysis up already, and I am happy to refer. Let me add a few things of additional note:

• The one-stop shop principle of the GDPR must now be under severe strain. CNIL v Google already put it to the test and this Belgian decision further questions its operationalisation – without even without for the CJEU to answer the questions of the Brussels Court of Appeal in the Facebook case. At 31, the DPA refers to a letter which Google LLC had sent on 23 June 2020 (a few days therefore after the French decision) to the Irish DPA saying that it would no longer object to national DPAs exercising jurisdiction in right to be forgotten cases. Of note is that in ordinary litigation, deep-pocket claimants seeking mozaik jurisdiction seldom do that because it serves the general interest.
• Having said that, the Belgian DPA still had to establish jurisdiction against Google Belgium. Here, CJEU Google v Spain, Google v CNIL, and Wirtschaftsakademie led the DPA to take a ‘realistic’ /business plan approach (such as Jääskinen AG in Google Spain) rather than a legally pure approach: at 80 following extensive reference to CJEU authority, and to the effet utile of the GDPR, the DPA holds that it matters little whether the actual processing of the date takes places outside of the EU, by Google employees ex-EU, and that Google Belgium’s activities are supportive only. A Belgian resident’s right to be forgotten has been infringed; a Google entity is available there: that would seem to suffice.
• That left the issue of the territorial reach of the delisting request. The DPA arguably cuts a few corners on the Google Belgium issue; here, it is simply most vague: at 81 ff it refers to the jurisdictional decision in e-Date Advertising, that for infringement of privacy within Brussels Ia, the courts of the person’s centre of interests are best placed to hear the case in its entirety, holding this should be applied mutatis mutandis in GDPR cases and removal orders. It then holds at 85 that neither Google v CNIL nor Belgian law give it specific power to impose a worldwide delisting order, yet at 91 that an EU-wide delisting order would seem an effective means of redress, to end up in its final order (p.48-49) not identifying a territorial scope for delisting.

I am confused. I suspect I am not the only one.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed.2016, chapter 2, Heading 2.2.8.2.5.

On 14 July 2020, Austria ratified the Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, which will enter into force for Austria on 12 September 2020.

Source: here

The Court of Justice delivered today its judgment in case C‑249/19 (JE v KF), which is about Rome III.

Context: “11 JE and KF, who are Romanian nationals, married in Iași (Romania) on 2 September 2001.

12 On 13 October 2016, JE applied for a divorce to the Judecătoria Iași (Court of First Instance, Iași, Romania).

13 By judgment of 31 May 2017, that court declined jurisdiction to hear that application in favour of the Judecătoria Sectorului 5 București (Court of First Instance of the Fifth District of Bucharest, Romania).

14 By a judgment of 20 February 2018, that court, on the basis of the nationality of both spouses referred to in Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation No 2201/2003, established that the Romanian courts had general jurisdiction to hear the application for divorce made by JE. Furthermore, on the basis of Article 8(a) of Regulation No 1259/2010, it designated Italian law as the law applicable to the dispute of which it was seised, on the ground that, on the date on which the application for divorce was filed, the habitual residence of the spouses was in Italy.

15 In that regard, that court held that, under Italian law, an application for divorce made in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings could be filed only if a legal separation of the spouses had previously been established or declared by a court and if at least three years had elapsed between the date of that separation and the date on which the application for divorce was filed with the court.

16  Given that the existence of a court decision establishing or pronouncing such a separation had not been proven and that Romanian law does not provide for legal separation proceedings, that court held that those proceedings had to be conducted before the Italian courts and that, consequently, any application to that effect made to the Romanian courts was inadmissible.

17 JE lodged an appeal against that judgment before the referring court, claiming, inter alia, that the court at first instance should have applied Article 2600(2) of the Civil Code, which constitutes the transposition into Romanian law of Article 10 of Regulation No 1259/2010.

18 In that regard, JE is of the opinion that, since Italian law is restrictive as regards the conditions required for divorce, Romanian law should apply to the application for divorce.

19 In JE’s view, that solution also flows from the fact that the application of Italian law is manifestly incompatible with the public policy of the forum and that, consequently, that application must, in accordance with Article 12 of that regulation, be disapplied”.

Question refered to the Court of Justice: “‘Is the expression “the law applicable pursuant to Article 5 or Article 8 makes no provision for divorce”[, in Article 10 of Regulation No 1259/2010,] to be interpreted (a) in a strict, literal manner, that it is to say only in respect of a situation where the foreign law applicable makes no provision for any form of divorce, or (b) more broadly, as also including a situation where the foreign law applicable permits divorce, but does so in extremely limited circumstances, involving an obligatory legal separation procedure prior to divorce, in respect of which the law of the forum contains no equivalent procedural provisions?’”.

Decision of the Court of Justice: “Article 10 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 […] must be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘where the law applicable by virtue of Article 5 or Article 8 makes no provision for divorce’ applies only where the foreign law applicable makes no provision for divorce in any form”.

Source: here

The Court of Justice delivered today its judgment in case C‑253/19 (MH, NI v OJ, Novo Banco SA), which is about the Insolvency bis Regulation:

“The first and fourth subparagraphs of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the presumption established in that provision for determining international jurisdiction for the purposes of opening insolvency proceedings, according to which the centre of the main interests of an individual not exercising an independent business or professional activity is his or her habitual residence, is not rebutted solely because the only immovable property of that person is located outside the Member State of habitual residence”.

Source: here

The Court of Justice delivered today its judgment in case C‑80/19 (E. E. with the presence of: Kauno miesto 4-ojo notaro biuro notarė Virginija Jarienė, K.-D. E.), which is about the Succession Regulation. The judgment is currently available in all EU official languages (save Irish), albeit not 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) Le règlement (UE) no 650/2012 […] doit être interprété en ce sens que relève de la notion de « succession ayant une incidence transfrontière » une situation dans laquelle le défunt, ressortissant d’un État membre, résidait dans un autre État membre à la date de son décès, mais n’avait pas rompu ses liens avec le premier de ces États membres, dans lequel se trouvent les biens composant sa succession, tandis que ses successibles ont leur résidence dans ces deux États membres. La dernière résidence habituelle du défunt, au sens de ce règlement, doit être fixée par l’autorité saisie de la succession dans un seul desdits États membres.

2) L’article 3, paragraphe 2, du règlement no 650/2012 doit être interprété en ce sens que, sous réserve d’une vérification par la juridiction de renvoi, les notaires lituaniens n’exercent pas des fonctions juridictionnelles lors de la délivrance d’un certificat national d’hérédité. Toutefois, il appartient à la juridiction de renvoi de déterminer si ces notaires agissent par délégation ou sous le contrôle d’une autorité judiciaire et, en conséquence, peuvent être qualifiés de « juridictions », au sens de cette disposition.

3) L’article 3, paragraphe 1, sous g) du règlement no 650/2012 doit être interprété en ce sens que, dans le cas où la juridiction de renvoi considérerait que les notaires lituaniens peuvent être qualifiés de « juridictions », au sens de ce règlement, le certificat d’hérédité qu’ils délivrent, peut être considéré comme étant une « décision », au sens de cette disposition, de telle sorte que, aux fins de le délivrer, ces notaires peuvent appliquer les règles de compétence prévues au chapitre II dudit règlement.

4) Les articles 4 et 59 du règlement no 650/2012 doivent être interprétés en ce sens qu’un notaire d’un État membre, qui n’est pas qualifié de « juridiction », au sens de ce règlement, peut, sans appliquer les règles générales de compétence prévues par ledit règlement, délivrer les certificats nationaux d’hérédité. Si la juridiction de renvoi considère que ces certificats remplissent les conditions prévues à l’article 3, paragraphe 1, sous i), du même règlement, et peuvent, dès lors, être considérés comme étant des « actes authentiques », au sens de cette disposition, ceux-ci produisent, dans les autres États membres, les effets que l’article 59, paragraphe 1, et l’article 60, paragraphe 1, du règlement no 650/2012 attribuent aux actes authentiques.

5) Les articles 4, 5, 7 et 22 ainsi que l’article 83, paragraphes 2 et 4, du règlement no 650/2012 doivent être interprétés en ce sens que la volonté du de cujus ainsi que l’accord entre ses successibles peuvent conduire à la détermination d’une juridiction compétente en matière de successions et à l’application d’une loi successorale d’un État membre autre que celles qui résulteraient de l’application des critères dégagés par ce règlement ».

Source : here

The Court of Justice delivered today its judgment in case C‑73/19 (Belgium v Movic BV, Events Belgium BV, Leisure Tickets & Activities International BV), which is about Brussels I bis. The judgment is currently available in all EU official languages (save Irish), albeit not 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):

Context : « Le 2 décembre 2016, les autorités belges ont assigné en justice devant le président du rechtbank van koophandel Antwerpen-afdeling Antwerpen (tribunal de commerce, division d’Anvers, Anvers, Belgique), en formation de référé, Movic, Events Belgium et Leisure Tickets & Activities International, en demandant à titre principal, d’une part, de faire constater que ces sociétés pratiquaient la revente, en Belgique, au moyen de sites Internet gérés par elles, des titres d’accès à des événements pour un prix supérieur à celui initial, activité constitutive des infractions aux dispositions de la loi du 30 juillet 2013 et du CDE, et, d’autre part, d’ordonner la cessation de ces pratiques commerciales.

18 À titre accessoire, les autorités belges ont demandé d’ordonner des mesures de publicité de la décision prononcée aux frais desdites sociétés, d’imposer une astreinte de 10 000 euros par infraction constatée à partir de la signification de cette décision et de dire pour droit que les infractions futures pourront être constatées par simple procès–verbal dressé par un fonctionnaire assermenté de la direction générale de l’inspection économique, conformément au CDE.

19 Les trois sociétés en cause ont soulevé une exception d’incompétence internationale des juridictions belges, en soutenant que les autorités belges avaient agi dans l’exercice de la puissance publique, de sorte que leurs actions ne relevaient pas du champ d’application du règlement no 1215/2012 »

Decision : “L’article 1er, paragraphe 1, du règlement (UE) no 1215/2012 […] doit être interprété en ce sens que relève de la notion de « matière civile et commerciale », figurant à cette disposition, une action opposant les autorités d’un État membre à des professionnels établis dans un autre État membre dans le cadre de laquelle ces autorités demandent, à titre principal, à ce que soit constatée l’existence d’infractions constituant des pratiques commerciales déloyales prétendument illégales et ordonnée la cessation de celles-ci, ainsi que, à titre accessoire, à ce que soient ordonnées des mesures de publicité et à ce que soit imposée une astreinte ».

Source : here

The Court of Justice delivered today its judgment in case  C‑658/18 (UX v Governo della Repubblica italiana), which is about the status of Judges of the Peace and a judicial victory for the latter with rather wide financial consequences for Italy and beyond. The judgment is currently available in all EU official languages (save Irish), albeit not 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) L’article 267 TFUE doit être interprété en ce sens que le Giudice di pace (juge de paix, Italie) relève de la notion de « juridiction d’un des États membres », au sens de cet article.

2) L’article 7, paragraphe 1, de la directive 2003/88/CE […] concernant certains aspects de l’aménagement du temps de travail, et l’article 31, paragraphe 2, de la charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne doivent être interprétés en ce sens qu’un juge de paix qui, dans le cadre de ses fonctions, effectue des prestations réelles et effectives, qui ne sont ni purement marginales ni accessoires, et pour lesquelles il perçoit des indemnités présentant un caractère rémunératoire, peut relever de la notion de « travailleur », au sens de ces dispositions, ce qu’il appartient à la juridiction de renvoi de vérifier.

La clause 2, point 1, de l’accord-cadre sur le travail à durée déterminée conclu le 18 mars 1999, qui figure à l’annexe de la directive 1999/70/CE du Conseil, du 28 juin 1999, concernant l’accord-cadre CES, UNICE et CEEP sur le travail à durée déterminée, doit être interprétée en ce sens que la notion de « travailleur à durée déterminée », figurant à cette disposition, peut englober un juge de paix, nommé pour une période limitée, qui, dans le cadre de ses fonctions, effectue des prestations réelles et effectives, qui ne sont ni purement marginales ni accessoires, et pour lesquelles il perçoit des indemnités présentant un caractère rémunératoire, ce qu’il appartient au juge de renvoi de vérifier.

La clause 4, point 1, de l’accord-cadre sur le travail à durée déterminée conclu le 18 mars 1999, qui figure à l’annexe de la directive 1999/70, doit être interprétée en ce sens qu’elle s’oppose à une réglementation nationale qui ne prévoit pas le droit pour un juge de paix à bénéficier d’un congé annuel payé de 30 jours, tel que celui prévu pour les magistrats ordinaires, dans l’hypothèse où ce juge de paix relèverait de la notion de « travailleur à durée déterminée », au sens de la clause 2, point 1, de cet accord-cadre, et où il se trouverait dans une situation comparable à celle d’un magistrat ordinaire, à moins qu’une telle différence de traitement ne soit justifiée par les différences de qualifications requises et la nature des tâches dont lesdits magistrats doivent assumer la responsabilité, ce qu’il incombe à la juridiction de renvoi de vérifier »

Source : here

As announced earlier, Erasmus School of Law is recruiting five researchers for a project on Affordable Access to Civil Justice in Europe, financed by the Dutch Research Council. The deadline for application has been extended till 27 July 2020. See our previous post.

The EU Regulations on the Property Regimes of International Couples – A Commentary has been published by Edward Elgar in its “Elgar Commentaries in Private International Law” series.

The publisher’s abstract reads: This article-by-article Commentary on EU Regulations 2016/1103 and 2016/1104 critically examines the uniform rules adopted by the EU to deal with the property relations of international couples, both married and in registered partnerships. Written by experts from a variety of European countries, it offers a comprehensive side-by-side discussion of the two Regulations to provide context and a deeper understanding of the issues of jurisdiction, applicable law and recognition of judgements covered.

Edited by Ilaria Viarengo and Pietro Franzina, this commentary features contributions by Giacomo Biagioni, Andrea Bonomi, Beatriz Campuzano Díaz, Janeen Carruthers, Sabine Corneloup, Gilles Cuniberti, Elena D’Alessandro, Pietro Franzina, Martin Gebauer, Christian Kohler, Silvia Marino, Cristina M. Mariottini, Dieter Martiny, Csongor I. Nagy, Jacopo Re, Carola Ricci, Andres Rodríguez Benot, Lidia Sandrini, Ilaria Viarengo and Patrick Wautelet.

Further info here

The author of this post is Giulio Monga, a PhD student at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milan. The editors of the EAPIL blog encourage scholars and practitioners to share their views on the Court’s judgment and its implications. Those interested in submitting guest posts are invited to get in touch with the blog editors at blog@eapil.org. 

On 16 July 2020 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its judgment on the Schrems II case (a press release is available here). The ruling is part of the judicial saga between Facebook and the Austrian data protection advocate Max Schrems relating to transfers of personal data from the EU to the US. It follows the judgment of 2015 whereby the CJEU invalidated the so-called ‘Safe Harbour’, later replaced by the ‘EU-US Privacy Shield’, the adequacy of which had been established by the European Commission by a Decision of 2016.

Max Schrems lodged a complaint against Facebook Ireland Ltd. before the Irish Supervisory Authority (the Data Protection Commissioner, DPC) over the transfer of personal data relating to him by Facebook Ireland to Facebook Inc., the latter’s parent company established in the US.

In particular, Mr Schrems claimed that the inclusion of the controller-to-processor Standard Contractual Clauses (SCC) approved by the EU Commission through Decision 2010/87 in a data transfer processing agreement between Facebook Ireland, acting as a controller with the meaning of Article 4(7) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and Facebook Inc., acting as a processor with the meaning of Article 4(8) GDPR, did not justify the transfer of the personal data relating to him to the US. Under US law, Schrems argued, Facebook Inc. is required to make the personal data of its users available to US authorities, such as the NSA and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), in the context of surveillance programmes that preclude the exercise of the rights enshrined in Articles 7, 8 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter). On that basis, Mr Schrems asked that DPC suspend the transfer of data.

The DPC, as well as the referring Irish High Court, noted that it was impossible to adjudicate Mr Schrems’ complaint unless the CJEU examined the validity of the Decision 2010/87. Furthermore, the referring High Court also asked CJEU to rule on the validity of the Decision 2016/1250 establishing the ‘EU-US Privacy Shield’.

Pursuant to Articles 25-26 of the repealed Directive 95/46/EC and to Articles 44-50 of the GDPR,  transfer of personal data to a third country may, in principle, take place only if the third country in question ensures an adequate level of data protection.

According to Article 45 GDPR, the Commission may find that a third country ensures, by reason of its domestic law or its international commitments, such an adequate level of protection. With regard to the US, the EU Commission, by Decision 2000/520/EC, firstly established that adequate protection was ensured by companies joining the so-called ‘Safe Harbour’ mechanism, which was invalidated under the first Schrems ruling. Later, with the new adequacy Decision 2016/1250 the EU-US Privacy Shield has been established.

In the absence of an adequacy decision, transfers of personal data to third countries may take place only if the personal data exporter established in the EU has provided appropriate safeguards provided by for Article 46, which may arise, among others, from standard contractual clauses adopted by the EU Commission. Standard Contractual Clauses, depending on the circumstances, might be controller-to-processor SCC such as those used by Facebook Ireland or controller-to-controller SCC approved by EU Commission through Decisions 2001/497/EC and 2004/915/EC.

In addition to the adoption appropriate safeguards, Article 46 GDPR also requires that enforceable data subject rights and effective legal remedies for data subjects are available.

The Court began with considering that the GDPR applies to the transfer of personal data for commercial purposes by an economic operator established in a Member State to another economic operator established in a third country, even if, at the time of that transfer or thereafter, that data may be processed by the authorities of the third country in question for the purposes of public security, defence and State security. The Court added that this type of data processing by the authorities of a third country cannot preclude such a transfer from the scope of the GDPR.

As in Schrems I, the CJEU stated that, according to the relevant rules of GDPR, data subjects whose personal data are transferred to a third country pursuant to Standard Contractual Clauses must be afforded a level of protection essentially equivalent to that guaranteed within the EU by the GDPR, read in the light of the Charter. The Court specified that

[t]he assessment of the level of protection afforded in the context of such a transfer must, in particular, take into consideration both the contractual clauses agreed between the controller or processor established in the European Union and the recipient of the transfer established in the third country concerned and, as regards any access by the public authorities of that third country to the personal data transferred, the relevant aspects of the legal system of that third country. (para. 105)

In light of the foregoing, the CJEU Court considered that the validity of Decision 2010/78 is not called into question by the mere fact that the SCC therein approved do not bind the authorities of the third country to which data may be transferred. In fact,

[t]hat validity depends, however, on whether, in accordance with the requirement of Article 46(1) and Article 46(2)(c) of the GDPR, interpreted in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 47 of the Charter, such a standard clauses decision incorporates effective mechanisms that make it possible, in practice, to ensure compliance with the level of protection required by EU law and that transfers of personal data pursuant to the clauses of such a decision are suspended or prohibited in the event of the breach of such clauses or it being impossible to honour them. (para. 137)

The CJEU found that Decision 2010/87 establishes such mechanisms. Namely, the CJEU pointed out that the decision imposes an obligation on a data exporter and the recipient of the data to verify, prior to any transfer, whether that level of protection is respected in the third country concerned and that the decision requires the recipient to inform the data exporter of any inability to comply with the standard data protection clauses, the latter being, in turn, obliged to suspend the transfer of data and/or to terminate the contract with the former. The Court concluded that nothing affected the validity of Decision 2010/87.

Lastly, the CJEU examines the validity of Decision 2016/1250 establishing the EU-US Privacy Shield.

In that regard, the CJEU notes that that Decision enshrines the position, as did Decision 2000/520, that the requirements of US national security, public interest and law enforcement have primacy, thus condoning interference with the fundamental rights of persons whose data are transferred under the Privacy Shield framework.

In the view of the Court,

[t]he limitations on the protection of personal data arising from the domestic law of the United States on the access and use by US public authorities of such data transferred from the European Union to the United States, which the Commission assessed in the Privacy Shield Decision, are not circumscribed in a way that satisfies requirements that are essentially equivalent to those required, under EU law, by the second sentence of Article 52(1) of the Charter. (para. 185)

The Court pointed out that, in respect of certain surveillance programmes, those provisions do not indicate any limitations on the power they confer to implement those programmes, or the existence of guarantees for potentially targeted non-US persons. The Court adds that, although those provisions lay down requirements with which the US authorities must comply when implementing the surveillance programmes in question, the provisions do not grant data subjects actionable rights before the courts against the US authorities.

As regards the requirement of judicial protection, the CJEU focused its reasoning on the Ombudsperson mechanism provided for by the EU-US Privacy Shield Decision, which the EU Commission found as capable to ensure data subjects with level of protection essentially equivalent to that guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter.

The CJEU stressed that data subjects must be given an opportunity to seise an independent and impartial court in order to have access to their personal data, or to obtain the rectification or erasure of such data.

The CJEU observed in particular that the Privacy Shield Ombudsperson,

[a]lthough described as ‘independent from the Intelligence Community’, was presented as ‘[reporting] directly to the Secretary of State who will ensure that the Ombudsperson carries out its function objectively and free from improper influence that is liable to have an effect on the response to be provided’. (para. 195)

Furthermore, the CJEU noted that nothing in Decision 2016/1250 indicates that the dismissal or revocation of the appointment of the Ombudsperson is accompanied by any particular guarantees, which is such as to undermine the Ombudsman’s independence from the executive.

Similarly, the Court, noted that

[a]lthough recital 120 of the Privacy Shield Decision refers to a commitment from the US Government that the relevant component of the intelligence services is required to correct any violation of the applicable rules detected by the Privacy Shield Ombudsperson, there is nothing in that decision to indicate that that ombudsperson has the power to adopt decisions that are binding on those intelligence services and does not mention any legal safeguards that would accompany that political commitment on which data subjects could rely.

The CJEU found that

[t]he Ombudsperson mechanism to which the Privacy Shield Decision refers does not provide any cause of action before a body which offers the persons whose data is transferred to the United States guarantees essentially equivalent to those required by Article 47 of the Charter.

In light of the foregoing, the CJEU invalidated Decision 2016/1250 on EU-US Privacy Shield.

The ruling is expected to have a very significant impact on the transfer of personal data from the EU to third countries.

Concerning the immediate effects of the judgment, the Court made the following remarks:

As to whether it is appropriate to maintain the effects of that decision for the purposes of avoiding the creation of a legal vacuum … the Court notes that, in any event, in view of Article 49 of the GDPR, the annulment of an adequacy decision such as the Privacy Shield Decision is not liable to create such a legal vacuum. That article details the conditions under which transfers of personal data to third countries may take place in the absence of an adequacy decision under Article 45(3) of the GDPR or appropriate safeguards under Article 46 of the GDPR (para. 202).

I reviewed Szpunar AG’s Opinion in C-73/19 Belgische Staat v Movic BV et al here. The CJEU held this morning. At the time of posting an English version of the judgment was not yet available. The case at issue concerns enforcement of Belgium’s unfair trading act by the public authorities of the Member State. Movic BV of The Netherlands and the others defendants practices ticket touting: resale of tickets for leisure events.

The court is more succinct than the AG in its analysis yet refers repeatedly to points made by Szpunar AG without itself therefore having to refer to so extensive an analysis.

The fact that a power was introduced by a law is not, in itself, decisive in order to conclude that the State acted in the exercise of State authority (at 52). Neither does the pursuit of the general interest automatically involve the exercise of public powers (at 53). With respect to the authorities’ powers of investigation, it would seem that the Court like the AG reads (at 57) C‑49/12 Sunico as meaning that to exclude proceedings from the scope of ‘civil and commercial matters’, it must be determined, in concreto, whether the public authority uses evidence which it has in its possession as a result of its public powers of investigation, hence putting it in a different position as a person governed by private law in analogous proceedings. Collecting evidence in the same way as a private person or a consumer association could, does not fall within that category (at 58).

Neither the request for penalty payments nor an application for an injunction makes the proceedings drop out off Brussels Ia: both instruments are available to private parties, too. That is not however the case for the observation of continued infringement by mere civil servant oath as opposed to bailiff certification. This, the Court holds like the AG, does amount to exercise of public authority (at 62) however (at 63) that element alone escapes BIA, it does not so taint the other part of the proceedings.

As I noted in my review of first Advocate General Szpunar’s Opinion, the need for highly factual considerations sits uneasily with the Regulation’s expressed DNA of predictability. However this squares with the CJEU case-law on ‘civil and commercial’. 

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Heading 2, Heading 2.2.

Back in February we reported on the Opinion presented by Advocate General Tanchev in case C-249/19, JE. Today the Court of Justice rendered its Judgment in which it confirms the interpretation provided in the Opinion.

As a reminder, the question referred to the Court of Justice originated in the proceedings pending before the Romanian courts dealing with a petition for divorce. The parties to these proceedings are Romanian nationals, habitually resident in Italy.

In these circumstances, under Article 8(a) of the Rome III Regulation, it is a priori Italian law that governs the grounds of divorce. According to Italian law, the dissolution of marriage can be pronounced only where there had been a legal separation of the spouses and at least three years have passed between this separation and the time at which the court have been seized by the applicant.

Seized of a petition for divorce, the first instance court considered that since no provision is made for legal separation proceedings under Romanian law, such proceedings must be conducted before the Italian courts and therefore any application to that effect made before the Romanian courts is inadmissible.

Yet, seized of an appeal lodged by the applicant, the second instance court focused on Article 10 of the Regulation that states, inter alia, ‘[w]here the law applicable […]  makes no provision for divorce […], the law of the forum shall apply’. That court referred a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court asking, in essence, whether Italian law could be disapplied under Article 10.

In his Opinion presented this February, AG Tanchev held that Article 10 of the Rome III Regulation calls for a strict interpretation. The expression ‘where the law applicable pursuant to Article 5 or Article 8 makes no provision for divorce’ relates only to situations in which the applicable foreign law does not recognize the institution of divorce. Italian law should therefore be applied by the Romanian courts. Despite the lack of procedural rules in relation to legal separation, these courts have to verify whether the requirement relating to separation was met.

The Judgment is in line with the Opinion: it confirms that a foreign law can be disapplied on the basis of Article 10 only when that law does not provide for any form of divorce.

As discussed in the initial post, at points 64 to 66, the Opinion seems to qualify the requirement provided for in the Italian law as a ‘procedural condition’. That qualification does not appear explicitly in the Judgment. At paragraph 43, the Judgment convincingly confines itself to stating that the substantive requirement at issue consists on a three years’ separation of the spouses and that the lack of procedural rules in relation to legal separation cannot prevent the Romanian court from verifying whether that requirement is met.

Against this background, at paragraph 40, the Judgment makes a point in the context of effectiveness of the Rome III Regulation. If the application of the requirement provided for in Italian law leads to the situation where the petitions for divorce are being rejected without their examination, the practical effectiveness of the uniform conflict of laws rules on divorce is undermined. I deem the references to the effectiveness/effet utile to be highly interesting. See paragraph 20 of the Judgment in Bier for one of the earliest occurrences of such reference. The Judgment in JE is yet another example: it presents a noteworthy take on the interaction between effet utile and conflict of laws rules. It will be interesting to see whether and how that specific line of argument will be developed in the future.

Bundeszentralamt Fur Steuern (Being the Federal Central Tax Office of the Federal Republic of Germany) & Ors v Heis & Ors [2019] EWHC 705 (Ch) was held in March 2019 bit only came unto BAILII recently and had not caught my attention before.

The primary question raised is whether appeals by the applicants, the German Federal Tax Office (“the GTA”) and by Deutsche Bank AG (“DB”) against the rejection by the Joint Special Administrators (“the Administrators”) of MF Global UK Limited (“MFGUK”) of their respective proofs of debt, to allow the underlying claim which forms the subject of the proof to be resolved by the specialist German tax or fiscal courts, which both the applicants (for different reasons) contend are the natural forum for the determination of the claims and the forum in which they can be resolved most efficiently.

The underlying issue concerns German withholding tax.

The GTA has at all times maintained that its claim should be determined in Germany by the German tax courts, per the UK-Germany double taxation Treaty, based on the OECD model convention (for those in the know: it is Article 28(6) which the GTA has suggested exclusively reserves its GTA Claim to the German Courts). However it felt compelled to submit a proof in MFGUK’s UK administration proceedings in order to preserve its rights.

Under German law, it is within the GTA’s power to give a decision on MFGUK’s objection to relvant Amended Tax Assessment Notices. If and when it did so, it would then be for MFGUK, if it wished to pursue the matter further, to file an appeal against that decision by the GTA with the Fiscal Court of Cologne. The Fiscal Court of Cologne is one of the 18 fiscal courts in Germany which are the courts of first instance for tax matters. That seems a natural course to take however here the GTA is caught in a conundrum: at 18: the GTA has not yet formally rejected MFGUK’s objection. This is because such objection would establish proceedings in Germany, and there is a procedural rule of German law that, in order to prevent parallel proceedings, a German court will automatically defer to the court first seized of a matter. Accordingly, it seems likely that if the GTA were to reject MFGUK’s objection before the Stay Application has been decided by the UK Court, on any appeal by MFGUK, the Fiscal Court of Cologne might as a matter of comity defer to this Court in order to avoid parallel proceedings.

At 57: Brussels Ia is not engaged for the case concerns both the insolvency and the tax exclusion of Articles 1.1 and 1.2.b. At 56 Hildyard J considers the issues under English rules on the power to stay, with a focus on the risk of irreconcilable judgments.

At 84 Hildyard J holds that the GTA read too much into A28(6) and that there is no exclusive jurisdiction, leaving the consideration of whether a stay might be attractive nevertheless (at 89 ff the issue is discussed whether German courts could at all entertain the claim). This leads to an assessment pretty much like a stay under Brussels Ia as ‘related’ (rather than: the same, to which lis alibi pendens applies) cases. Note at 87(6) the emphasis which the GTA places on the actual possibility of consolidating the cases – similar to the arguments used in BIa A33-34 cases such as Privatbank and later cases).

At 115 the impact of this case having public law impacts becomes clear: ‘It seems to me that, despite my hunch that there will also be considerable factual enquiry, and a factual determination of the particular circumstances may determine the result …, the legal issues at stake are not only plainly matters of German law, but controversial and complex issues of statutory construction of systemic importance and substantial public interest in terms of the legitimate interests of the public in the protection of its taxation system from what are alleged to be colourable schemes.’

And at 116, referring ia to VTB Capital v Nutritek, ‘the risk of inconsistent decisions in concurrent proceedings in different jurisdictions, is the more acute when in one of the jurisdictions the issue is a systemic one, or may be decided in a manner which has systemic consequences. Especially in such a context, there is a preference for a case to be heard by the courts of the country whose law applies.’ Reference to VTB is made in particular with resepect to the point that Gleichlauf (the application by a court of its own laws) is to be promoted in particular (at [46] in VTB per Lord Mance: “it is generally preferable, other things being equal, that a case should be tried in a country whose law applies. However, this factor is of particular force if issues of law are likely to be important and if there is evidence of relevant differences in the legal principles or rules applicable to such issues in the two countries in contention as the appropriate forum.’

At 117: ‘even if the factual centre of gravity may be London, the jurisdiction likely to be most affected by the result is Germany: and even if the US approach of ‘interest analysis’ is not determinative in this jurisdiction it does not seem to me to be an impermissible consideration.’

Held, at 121, there is here ‘a sufficiently “rare and compelling” reason for granting the stay sought by the GTA, provided that the German Fiscal Court are an available forum in which to determine the substance of the disputes.’ At 122 Hildyard J seeks assurances ‘insofar as the parties’ best endeavours can secure it, resolution of both the GTA Claim and the Later MFGUK Refund Claim as expeditiously as possible. That seems to me necessary in order to safeguard this jurisdictions’ insolvency processes and for the protection of the interests of the body of creditors as a whole.’

Then follows at 131 ff extensive analysis of the impact of this stay decision on the related case of Deutsche Bank, with at 190 a summary of the issues to be decided. Held at 218: ‘By careful selection of potentially dispositive issues, I consider that there is some prospect of that process enabling a determination without recourse to the intricacies of German tax law which are to be decided in the context of the GTA Claim; whereas an immediate stay guarantees a long delay before this court can determine the matter, based on presently hypothetical claims, after a long wait for non-binding guidance from the German court which may result from other cases to which DB is not a party.’ However at 219 the prospect of a stay after all is held out, should a quick resolution of those issues not be possible.

Most interesting.

Geert.

A fine example of the public /private divide, and forum conveniens in international litigation.
Application for a stay to allow underlying claim to be resolved by DE fiscal courts.
BIa not engaged: tax and insolvency exemption.
Engages OECD rules and double taxation treaty. https://t.co/Z4WA1h4Dtq

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) June 15, 2020

On 14 July 2020, Austria ratified the 1965 Hague Service Convention. The Convention is set to enter into force for Austria on 12 September 2020. All EU Member States will then be be bound by the Convention. In practice, the latter will apply in  the relationship between the (Members States of the) EU, one the one hand, and some fifty more States worldwide, on the other.

The Austrian ratification comes more than four years after the Council of the European Union issued a decision authorising Austria to sign and ratify, and Malta to accede to, the Convention ‘in the interest of the European Union’.

The Council decision reflects the fact that, as stated in the preamble, the Union ‘has external competence with regard to the Convention in so far as its provisions affect the rules laid down in certain provisions of Union legislation or in so far as the accession of additional Member States to the Convention alters the scope of certain provisions of Union legislation’, such as Article 28(4) of the Brussels I bis Regulation. Still, the Convention ‘does not allow for participation by regional economic integration organisations such as the Union’, meaning that, to make sure that the Convention is in force for all Member States, the Union had no other option but to authorise (and in fact request) the Member States that had not yet done so, to ratify – or accede to, depending on the circumstances – the Convention in the interest of the Union itself.

The Convention is already applicable to Malta as of 17 July 2018.

This Call for Paper is for an edited volume, the working title of which is: Public International Law and Private International Law: Charting a blurry boundary – towards convergence or still divergence?

The editors, Dr Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit (of the University of Tasmania) and Dharmita Prasad (of Jindal Global Law School), are in negotiation with Springer Nature Pte Ltd for this edited volume.

Both editors would like to invite you to contribute a chapter in this edited volume focusing on addressing intersectionality between public international law and private international law. Further details are provided in the concept note below.

Tentative Timeline:

• 5 August 2020 – A proposed title of your paper along with a 300-word abstract are to be sent to editors – sooksripaisarnkit@utas.edu.au; dprasad@jgu.edu.in
• 10 August 2020 – Editors will be in touch with selected authors advising each of them of the decision that their proposed paper is accepted for this edited volume.
• 31 August 2020 – Editors will finalise their proposal to Springer Pte Ltd
• 17 July 2021 – First draft of the chapter to be sent to editors
• August 2021 – Editors review all drafts and provide comments / request respective authors to review their chapter
• September 2021 – Editors are to submit manuscript to Springer
• December 2021 / January 2022 – Tentative release of the book

Editors:

Dr Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit – Lecturer in Maritime Law, Australian Maritime College, University of Tasmania, E-mail: poomintr.sooksripaisarnkit@utas.edu.au

Dharmita Prasad – Lecturer, Jindal Global Law School, E-mail: dprasad@jgu.edu.in

Concept Note

International law has a long history which can be traced back to over thousands of years ago with developments of modern international law took their starting point from the consequence of the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 whereby the concept of nation state emerged. Along with the rise of legal positivism, international law became perceived as the body of law dealing with external aspects of States or, in other words, with relationships between States. Private disputes with foreign elements were gradually taken out of the scope of international law and students of private international law subject have since been taught of it as a domestic private law dealing with cases or disputes involving foreign elements. Public international law and private international law seemingly diverge.

Still, relationships and interactions between public international law and private international law have led to endless debates. Courts in considering what seemingly private international law cases from time to time have to touch on public international law issues. For example, the Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in Democratic Republic of Congo and Others v FG Hemisphere Associates LLC [2011] HKCFA 41; (2011) HKCFAR 95 had to deal with the concept of sovereign immunity in a case which was essentially an enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Likewise, the issue of sovereign immunity is likely to come up again in a class action lawsuit brought against the People’s Republic of China by thousands of American citizens claiming damages following the COVID-19 outbreak. Relevant to the COVID-19 outbreak, different countries have adopted different measures in an attempt to contain the virus, including closing borders, travel bans, compulsory quarantine, etc. Applying some or all of these measures will bring further complication in terms of potential issues or arguments involving possible frustration of international contracts. Within the scope of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), this involves the consideration of the scope of the force majeure and hardship provision in Article 79. Indeed, international instruments like the CISG present examples of attempts at avoiding private international law issues via public international law instruments. European experiences in negotiating instruments such as the Brussels Regime or wider international experiences in negotiating instruments under the auspices of international organisations such as the Hague Conference on Private International Law only point to the turning of conflict of law matters into international relations. These are some of the issues which highlight the blurry line between public international law and private international law.

This book seeks to contribute to existing debates by focusing its study on the boundary / intersectionality between pubic international law and private international law. In doing so, it seeks contribution for any work which falls within one of the following themes:

• Historical and Theoretical consideration of the boundary between public international law and private international law
• Harmonisation of private international law by public international law instruments – evaluation of process, problems, and effectiveness
• Practical consideration / Case Study of public international law consideration in private international law cases
• Future trends on relationships and interactions between public international law and private international law: towards convergence or still divergence?