Droit international général

The workshop Cross-Border Debt Recovery in the EU. Application of the “second generation” regulations in France and Luxembourg, taking place at the MPI Luxembourg on June 8th, is organised in the framework of the IC2BE research project “Informed Choices in Cross-Border Enforcement” (JUST-AG-2016-02). Funded by the Justice Programme (2014-2020) of the European Commission, this project aims at assessing the working in practice of the “second generation” of EU regulations on procedural law for cross-border cases – the European Enforcement Order, Order for Payment, Small Claims (as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2421) and the Account Preservation Order Regulations. The project is carried out by a European consortium comprising the MPI Luxembourg and the universities of Antwerp, Complutense of Madrid, Milan, Rotterdam and Wroclaw, under the coordination of Prof. Jan von Hein, from the University of Freiburg.

Experts and practitioners from different countries, mainly France and Luxembourg, will get together on the 8th of June to address the application in practice of the above-mentioned regulations in both Member States. Presentations will be given by Prof. Cyril Nourissat, Mr. Marc Cagniart, Prof. Agnieszka Frackowiak-Adamska, Mr. Max Mailliet, Dr. Alina Ontanu, Ms. Julie Jasson, Dr. Katharina Raffelsieper, Ms. Katrien Baetens, Ms. Alice Canet, Mr. Grégory Minne and Ms. Clara Mara-Marhuenda. A panel discussion will follow, with the presence of, i.a., Prof. Gilles Cuniberti, Dr. Justus Froehlich, Mr. Patrick Gielen, Prof. Olivier Hance, Mr. Jona van Leeuwen, Dr. Stephan Lesage-Mathieu, Dr. Carl Friedrich Nordmeier, Dr. Herbert Woopen. The program is available here.

The spoken languages will be English and French.

The workshop is conceived as a closed event. However, people having a special interest on the topic are invited to apply for admission upon condition they provide a short explanation for their interest.

Contact address: veerle.vandeneeckhout@mpi.lu

The conference titled Pride and Prejudice in Cross-Border Cases will take place at the University of Rijeka, Faculty of Law on Tuesday 22 May 2018. It is intended to serve as an open forum for scholars and practitioners to address current issues pertaining to private international law. The programme offers selection of topics by speakers from both sides of the Atlantic. Conference fee is not charged, but prior registration is required at zeup@pravri.hr.

Sebastian Mock (University of Hamburg), Kristian Csach (Pavol Jozef Šafárik University in Košice) and Bohumil Havel (Institute of Law, Czech Academy of Science, Prague) have published an “International Handbook on Shareholders’ Agreements – Regulation, Practice and Comparative Analysis” addressing various issues of shareholders’ agreements. The book includes general remarks on specific topics related to shareholders’ agreements and numerous country reports. One chapter also specifically deals with cross-border shareholders’ agreements and private international law. More information is available on the website of the publisher (here).

Not just my blog posts on both cases follow each other closely. Tanchev AG in his Opinion in C-88/17 Zurich Insurance v Metso, takes inspiration from the Court’s findings in flightright (which I reported this morning). He emphasises the objective of predictability of the Brussels I Recast Regulation.

The case concerns multimodal transport of goods from one Member State to another. Pursuant to an agreement entered into with a Finnish undertaking, a British haulier undertook to carry goods from Finland to the United Kingdom. After the goods concerned were lost while being transported in the United Kingdom, the Finnish undertaking and the insurer of the goods sued for damages before a Finnish court. Does that court have jurisdiction per Article 7(1)b, second indent ?: in the case of the provision of services, the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the services were provided or should have been provided.

ALS concluded a contract for the carriage of goods with Metso Minerals Oy (‘Metso’), a Finnish manufacturer of equipment for the mining and construction industries. A cylindroconical crusher was to be transported from Pori in Finland to Sheffield in the United Kingdom. The crusher was insured by Zurich Insurance plc (‘Zurich’). Both Metso and Zurich are the plaintiffs in the main proceedings.

ALS, with the help of subcontractors, transported the crusher as follows. It was first transported from Pori to Rauma in Finland by a lorry with a low loader. At Rauma, it was unloaded from the lorry and driven on to a ship under its own power. After transport by sea to the United Kingdom, the crusher was again driven under its own power off the ship in the port of Hull and loaded onto another lorry. As Metso’s consignee did not have sufficient or adequate storage capacity, it asked a sub-contractor of ALS to drive the crusher to its own warehouse and keep it there temporarily for a couple of days. However, the crusher was stored there for a longer period, and disappeared before it could be delivered to the consignee in Sheffield.

ALS argues that only the place of unloading may be deemed to be the place of performance, claiming that the place of performance can only be one single place and that the place of final destination is of considerably greater importance than the place of dispatch. This, according to ALS, is consistent with the determination of the applicable law in respect of contracts for the carriage of goods under Rome I, which gives a degree of preference to the place of delivery and is to be interpreted taking into account the Brussels I Regulation.

The Commission, referring to CJEU predecent Rehder, Wood Floor Solutions Andreas Domberger and Color Drack, acknowledges that, in any event, the place of arrival is a place of performance, as it is the final place in the chain of transportation. The Commission further argues, however, that, bearing in mind the requirements of proximity, foreseeability and legal certainty, it would be appropriate to recognise in addition the place of dispatch as a place of performance.

The question of international jurisdiction arises in the main proceedings because the case has connections not only with Finland but also with other countries: Finland is the country in which the goods were dispatched and the consignor has its seat, whereas the destination of the goods being carried and the location of the haulier’s seat is in the United Kingdom, where, moreover, the goods were ultimately lost. Finally, in order to convey the crusher from Finland to the United Kingdom, it had to be transported through the waters of other Member States or waters under the sovereignty of no State. In ordinary language, the AG suggests (at 28) all these territories and waters are places where the contract was performed.

According to their wording, both sections (a) and (b) of Article 5(1) of the Brussels I Regulation refer to ‘the place of performance’ and, in the case of section (b), additionally to ‘the place in a Member State’. In consideration of the singular form employed, it seems,  the AG suggests at 30, that only one single place can be regarded as having special jurisdiction in respect of contractual matters. However, this conclusion is not borne out by the case-law.

In color Drack the Court ruled that, if it is not possible to determine one single principal place of performance, each of the places of performance has a sufficiently close link of proximity to the material elements of the dispute and, accordingly, a significant link as regards jurisdiction. In a dispute concerning the sale of goods, the Court has held that, in such a case, the plaintiff may sue the defendant at one of the places of performance — at his choice.

In flightright, as far as delayed flights are concerned, the Court considers both the place of departure and the place of the final destination to be equally significant under the contract, thereby establishing a sufficient territorial link between these places and any proceedings arising from the contractual situation.

(At 59) In the present situation, where the means used to transport the goods change as the journey progresses, particularly in harbours, the fact that the goods are carried in a number of different stages is also an inevitable feature of such transport. In the AG’s view, however, even the fact that it was necessary to unload heavy and bulky goods such as the crusher in question and transfer it across land under its own power, with the dangers in terms of loss or damage inherent in a procedure of that kind (including the possibility of theft), does not alter the situation in such a way as to give the places of reloading or transhipping an importance equal to that of the place of dispatch. Therefore, recognising the latter place, along with the place of destination, as one of two ‘places of performance’ does not enhance the number of available fora in a way as to give reason for concerns of forum shopping.

The AG clearly struggles between limiting forum shopping and enhancing predictability, and suitability of various places to assess the litigation at issue. The AG (at 60) finds support for his view that the intermediate stages should not so be given jurisdiction, in the fact that it is common practice not to mention the places of reloading or reshipping in contracts of the kind in issue in the main proceedings.

The AG concludes therefore that the place of dispatch and the place of destination are thus both ‘main places of performance’ under the second indent of Article 7(1)(b), whereas the loading places in general are not.

A good case to further complete analysis under Article 7(1).

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.11.1

One of my PhD students, Michiel Poesen, has an extensive case-note coming up on C-274/16 flightright – when it is out I shall include a link here. For the time being therefore I shall be very brief. In summary, the Court held

• first of all that the special jurisdictional rules of the Brussels I Recast do not apply to defendants domiciled outside of the EU. That was as such an obvious finding: these suits are subject to residual national rules on jurisdiction. However the Court makes a point, at 54, to emphasise that in accordance with the principle of effectiveness (effet utile), rules under national law cannot make it impossible or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by EU law. Here: the rights of passengers under the flight delay compensation rules, Regulation 261/2004. Is that CJEU shorthand for suggesting that if a Member State were not to allow claimants based in the EU, to claim compensation against third-country defendants, it would contravene EU law?
• second, where an operating air carrier which has no contract with the passenger performs obligations under Regulation 261/2004, it is to be regarded as doing so on behalf of the person having a contract with that passenger. (At 64) that carrier must be regarded as fulfilling the freely consented obligations (a reference to the Handte formula) vis-à-vis the contracting partner of the passengers concerned. Those obligations arise under the contract for carriage by air. Consequently,  an application for compensation for the long delay of a flight carried out by an operating air carrier such as (here) Air Nostrum, with which the passengers concerned do not have contractual relations, must be considered to have been introduced in respect of contracts for carriage by air concluded between those passengers and the carrier with whom they bought tickets. (Per the first bullet-point above, provided that carrier does have domicile in the EU). Of note is that this finding of a jurisdictional trigger under the rule of contracts (7(1), does not necessarily imply that at the substantive level, the court with jurisdiction will eventually decide that there is a contract on the basis of the lex causae.
• finally, to determine per Article 7(1)b second -, the court of ‘the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the goods were delivered or should have been delivered’, a contract for carriage by air, such as the contracts at issue in the cases in the main proceedings consisting of a single booking for the entire journey, establishes the obligation, for an air carrier, to carry a passenger from a point A to a point C. Such a carriage operation constitutes a service of which one of the principal places of provision is at point C. That finding is not called into question by the fact that the operating operates only the carriage on a flight which does not finish at the place of arrival of the second leg of a connecting flight in so far as the contract for carriage by air relating to the connecting flight covers the carriage of those passengers to the place of arrival of the second leg.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.11.1.

Clearing up my backlog.

In [2017] EWCH 2208 (Comm)  Zavod Ekran v Magneco the Blair J held in September 2017 that a company must not hide behind documents initiating arbitration being drafted in Russian, when a properly observant litigant should have known that arbitration proceedings were being commenced. The most important point from a practical perspective was found to be that the heading of a letter, in English, states that it comes from the Moscow arbitration body—the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation. From that alone it should have been obvious that an arbitration was being commenced. There was no other reason for ICAC to be writing to the company.

An utterly practical approach.

Geert.

I reported earlier on the Aldi abuse of process principle: a party who intends to bring a subsequent action against existing parties or their privies must raise the issue with the court, which on case-management grounds may hold that all claims must be brought simultaneously.

Chivers J has now held that the principle applies in the British Virgin Islands. Harneys have the report here. I have pondered before whether there ought not to be an Aldi rule in EU conflicts law, however one can see the difficulty particularly as in the EU context an Aldi principle might favour the actor sequitur forum rei rule to the detriment of special jurisdictional rules: not an outcome supported by the current rules.

Geert.

This post has been written by Cristián Giménez Corte, Editor of the ASIL Commentaries on PIL.

We are pleased to present the third issue of Commentaries on Private International Law, the newsletter of the American Society of International Law (ASIL) Private International Law Interest Group (PILIG). As readers of the newsletter know, the name of our newsletter, Commentaries, represents a modest tribute to one of the founding fathers of modern PIL, Joseph Story, by borrowing the name of his seminal book “Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws, foreign and domestic,” and only replacing “Conflict of Laws” with “Private International Law” to better reflect the broader object of our discipline today.

The primary purpose of our newsletter is to communicate news on PIL. Accordingly, the newsletter attempts to transmit information on new developments on PIL rather than provide substantive analysis, with a view to providing specific and concise raw information that our readers can then use in their daily work. These new developments on PIL may include information on new laws, rules and regulations; new judicial and arbitral decisions; new treaties and conventions; new scholarly work; new conferences; proposed new pieces of legislation; and the like.

Commentaries aims to be a truly global newsletter, by reporting news from all major legal systems of the world, which may have different conceptions of PIL. Thus, the PILIG newsletter is framed in a rather broad sense, comprising all types of situations generating potential conflicts of laws and/or jurisdictions, regardless of the “international” or “internal,” or “public” or “private” nature of those conflicting regulations.

To achieve what is perhaps the first comprehensive global approach to PIL, Commentaries includes five sections dealing with regional issues, edited by specialists on the field: Africa, edited by Richard Frimpong Oppong and Justin Monsenepwo Joost; Asia, by Chi Chung, Yao-Ming Hsu and Béligh Elbalti; the Americas by Cristian Giménez Corte and Jeannette Tramhel (Central and South America), and Freddy Sourgens and Mayra Cavazos Calvillo (North America); Europe, by Massimo Benedettelli, Marina Castellaneta, and Antonio Leandro; and Oceania, by Jeanne Huang. We would like to highlight the efforts made by our global editorial team in translating, both linguistically and legally, into English and for a global audience information that was originally in Japanese, Arabic, Portuguese, Spanish, Russian, Italian, French, German, Turkish, Vietnamese, and Chinese.

This third issue of Commentaries covers more countries and includes in greater detail recent developments in our field. Each regional section includes a brief introductory note, and a special chapter devoted to new scholarly work, which is of particular importance for those areas of the world where the dissemination of information on PIL is more difficult. The main developments covered by Commentaries occurred during 2016, including only a few developments occurred in late 2015 and early 2017.

In this third issue, Commentaries continues to develop a section introduced last year. This section is called “Global Conflict of Laws,” edited by Cristián Giménez Corte and Javier Toniollo, presents new developments on PIL that are not necessarily linked to one particular region or country in the world, but that are truly transnational or global.

Commentaries would not have been possible without the tireless support of the PILIG co-chairs, Freddy Sourgens and Kabir Duggal, and the hard and smart work of the section editors mentioned above. In addition, I would like to express our gratitude for the comments, suggestions and help provided by Sheila Ward, Matthew Gomez, and Mitsue Steiner. And I would like also to express our gratitude to Adriana Chiuchquievich, Emilia Gonzalez Cian y Martin Cammarata, for their assistance in the research and edition of the new section “Global Conflict of Laws.”

We would appreciate receiving your suggestions, comments and critiques. We welcome your feedback and participation. Please send me an e-mail at cristiangimenezcorte@gmail.com.

Tanya Monestier (Roger Williams University School of Law) has published an article (available here) addressing the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Douez v Facebook, Inc. (available here).

The abstract reads: Every day, billions of people use the online social media platform, Facebook.  Facebook requires, as a condition of use, that users “accept” its terms and conditions — which include a forum selection clause nominating California as the exclusive forum for dispute resolution.  In Douez v. Facebook, the Supreme Court of Canada considered whether this forum selection clause was enforceable, or whether the plaintiff could proceed with her suit in British Columbia.  The Supreme Court of Canada ultimately decided that the forum selection clause was not enforceable.  It held that the plaintiff had established “strong cause” for departing from the forum selection clause.  The Court premised its decision on two primary considerations: the contract involved a consumer and was one of adhesion, and the claim involved the vindication of privacy rights. The Court’s analysis suffers from several major weaknesses that will undoubtedly cause confusion in this area of law.  This Article will examine those weaknesses, and argue that the Supreme Court of Canada actually abandoned the strong cause test that it claimed to be applying.  The consequence of the Douez decision is that many forum selection clauses — at least in the consumer context — will be rendered unenforceable.  While this may be a salutary development from the perspective of consumer protection, it will undoubtedly have an effect on companies choosing to do business in Canada.

Delaware’s governor John Carney signed a bill prohibiting marriage before age 18, making it the first US state to ban all child marriage, on May 9, 2018. Heather Barr from Human Rights Watch has more on that topic here.

The Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality of the European Parliament has, on 18 April 2018, adopted an opinion entitled “Towards an EU external strategy against early and forced marriages – next steps” (2017/2275(INI), PE616.622v03-00). The Committee stresses that “child, early and forced marriage is a violation of the human rights enshrined in international standards such as the Beijing Declaration and Platform of Action, the International Conference on Population and Development Programme of Action and the UN Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage and Registration of Marriages and which form part of the core principles embodied in the European Union as an area of security, freedom, justice and human rights, including women’s and girls’ rights”. Although “child marriage is ingrained in some traditions and cultures, […] no culture or religion can justify such a practice, particularly when human rights and the rights of children are at stake.” The Committee “[n]otes that many parents living in distress and extreme poverty in refugee camps feel the need to protect their daughters from the threat of sexual violence by marrying them to older men; stresses however that the EU and its Member States should be united and consistent in their dismissal of the requests of refugees for legal recognition of marriages where one of the alleged spouses is a child or teenager; underlines that refugee status cannot be used as a legal backdoor to recognition of child marriages in Europe”. The full text of the opinion is available here. For a more detailed report, see here.

Pitt Law’s CILE will once more be co-sponsoring the Summer School in Transnational Commercial Agreements, Litigation, and Arbitration in Vicenza, Italy, beginning June 4 and ending June 8, 2018.

All classes will be in English, and as in prior years we expect to have the School approved for up to 24 hours of Pennsylvania Continuing Legal Education credit (22 substantive and 2 ethics). The instructors include Ronald A. Brand (Professor, University of Pittsburgh), Serena Corongiu (Lawyer, AIGA Representative), Francesco Cortesi (Judge, Italian Supreme Court), Aldo Frignani (Professor, University of Turin), Paul Herrup (Department of State, United States of America), Luca Radicati di Brozolo (Professor, Catholic University, Milan; Fountain Court Chambers, London), Francesca Ragno (Professor, University of Veorna), Marco Torsello (Professor, University of Verona), Matteo Winkler (Professor, HEC Paris).

The program is available here

Teemu Juutilainen from the University of Helsinki has just published an interesting book on “Secured Credit in Europe: From Conflicts to Compatibility” (Hart Publishing, 2018). It sets out to to develop an optimal division of labour between private international law and substantive unification or harmonisation in the area of security rights over tangible movables and receivables:

This monograph seeks the optimal way to promote compatibility between systems of proprietary security rights in Europe, focusing on security rights over tangible movables and receivables. Based on comparative research, it proposes how best to tackle cross-border problems impeding trade and finance, notably uncertainty of enforceability and unexpected loss of security rights. It offers an extensive analysis of the academic literature of more recent years that has appeared in English, German, the Scandinavian languages and Finnish. The author organises the concrete means of promoting compatibility into a centralised substantive approach, a centralised conflicts-approach, a local conflicts-approach and a local substantive approach. The centralised approaches develop EU law, and the local approaches Member State laws. The substantive approaches unify or harmonise substantive law, while the conflicts approaches rely on private international law. The author proposes determining the optimal way to promote compatibility by objective-based division of labour between the four approaches. The objectives developed for that purpose are derived from the economic functions of security rights, the conditions for legal evolution and a transnational conception of justice.

For more information visit the publisher’s website.

The UK Supreme Court held in [2018] UKSC 19 JSC BTA Bank v Khrapunov late March. Defendant is based in Switzerland, hence triggering the Lugano Convention. Addleshaw Goddard have the history of the case and I am happy to refer for those facts. Suffice to say that at the core is a claim in tort of conspiracy, alleging that Mr Khrapunov and his father in-law Mr Ablyazov conspired to injure the Bank by preventing it from enforcing its judgments against Mr Ablyazov’s assets.

First let’s have a look at was not discussed at the SC: domicile and locus damni. As for the former, domicile once held but now fleed from was correctly rejected by Teare J as establishing domicile under Lugano (or indeed Brussels). The argument that jurisdiction should, nevertheless, be taken still to be domiciled in England because defendant was in breach of an obligation under the worldwide freezing order prohibiting him from leaving the jurisdiction, was likewise rejected. An interesting proposition though.

Now, for the location of the locus damni. At 29 the SC refers to the Bank’s argument at the High Court and Court of Appeal stage. The Bank’s argument was that the damage occurred in England. This was based on the contention that its worldwide freezing order and its judgments against Mr Ablyazov were located here and had been reduced in value by the alleged conduct in relation to assets in other jurisdictions. The High Court and Court of Appeal considered that the element of damage proximate to the harmful event was the Bank’s inability or reduced ability to execute against those assets in the places where they were located.  Another fine example of the difficult implications of Bier and not one which the CJEU has hitherto had the occasion to review. (But current case will not reach it).

As for locus delicti commissi, the Bank submit that the event giving rise to the damage was the conspiracy itself, which was hatched in England. At the High Court Teare J rejected this submission, because he considered that the cause of the damage was not the conspiracy but its implementation: a suggestion I like in the context of competition law, as readers of the blog will be aware. Teare J was not followed by the Court of Appeal though, which identified the place where the conspiratorial agreement was made as the place of the event which gives rise to and is at the origin of the damage.

The SC refers to CJEU authority to conclude with CDC and at 41 it reiterates the CA’s core reasoning: ‘As Sales LJ explained (at para 76), in entering into the agreement Mr Khrapunov would have encouraged and procured the commission of unlawful acts by agreeing to help Mr Ablyazov to carry the scheme into effect. Thereafter, Mr Khrapunov’s alleged dealing with assets the subject of the freezing and receivership orders would have been undertaken pursuant to and in implementation of that agreement, whether or not he was acting on instructions from Mr Ablyazov.’

The Supreme Court concludes that the making of the agreement in England should be regarded as the harmful event which set the tort in motion. 

The judgment keeps open many issues, however. For starters, to have a sole birthplace of conspiratorial agreement is handy in the case at issue however it is likely not often to be so clearly the case (as Dan and Tom point out, particularly not in a digital context). Moreover, for those instances where Mr Khrapunov were not to be acting on instructions from Mr Ablyazov, questions of ultra vires so to speak and hence of a separate tort would arise.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.11.2

A flag simply to lead readers to a recent textbook application of Spiliada forum non conveniens authority: Moulder J in [2018] EWHC 1078 (Comm) KMG v Chipper.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.14.5

Erasmus School of Law (under the ERC project Building EU Civil Justice) in collaboration with the Max Planck Institute for Procedural Law Luxembourg, and the Montaigne Centre for Rule of Law and Administration of Justice (Utrecht University) hosts the seminar ‘Innovating International Business Courts: A European Outlook’ that will take place in Rotterdam on 10 July 2018.

In relation thereto Erasmus Law Review invites submissions for its upcoming special issue on International Business Courts – a European and Global Perspective on topics relating to court specialization, specifically relating to the development of international business courts in Europe and beyond, and focusing on justice innovation and their relevance for access to justice and the judicial system, including the challenges they may pose for judicial administration, litigants and other stakeholders. Contributions can be theoretical, empirical as well as policy oriented. Interdisciplinary approaches are especially encouraged. The issue will also include papers focusing on the Netherlands, the United Kingdom (England and Wales), France, Germany, and Belgium, and deriving from the seminar.

Authors of selected papers will be exempt from registration fees for the seminar and will have the opportunity to present a poster during the drinks after the seminar.

Please submit an abstract in English of no more than 500 words to Erlis Themeli (themeli@law.eur.nl) and Alexandre Biard (biard@law.eur.nl) before 10 June 2018. Include your name, affiliation, and a link to your research profile. You will be informed on the outcome on 24 June 2018 at the latest. Responsible issue editors are Xandra Kramer (Erasmus University Rotterdam/Utrecht Utrecht) and John Sorabji (University College, London).

The final paper should be 8,000-12,000 words in length (including footnotes) and must comply with the Erasmus Law Review’s Authors Guidelines. Selected papers will go through the regular double-blind peer review process and publication is subject to the outcome of this review process. The deadline for submission of the paper is 1 October 2018.

For more information see the Call for Papers.

The Conference “Eurolanguage in Private International Law. Legislating, translating and  applying”, which will take place next June 14 in Tarragona, is an interdisciplinary forum for lawyers and scholars in the field of private international law, comparative law and private law to establish fruitful discussions with scholars and practitioners in the areas of legal language and translation, with the personnel from international institutions, academics and professionals.

The aim is to reflect on the possible establishment and impact of a European legal language framed within the area of private international law (PIL). The ground rules of European PIL are enshrined in European regulations, but also directives, which are discussed in the legislative process using, a priori, the 24 official languages in a context of integral multilingualism. As a result, EU rules in 24 language versions are applicable in all 28 Member States.

The analysis will focus on the linguistic issues pertaining to drafting the EU rules; the tools, techniques, and problems in translating the linguistic versions of the rules; whether interlinguistic coherence is achieved; and the legal-linguistic issues the legal operators of Member States face when applying European rules on PIL norms coexisting with other rules of conventional and domestic origin.

Click here to access the PROGRAM .

Venue: Congress will take place at the Sala de Juntes of Universitat Rovira i Virgili Campus Catalunya. (information to get there is provided here)

PAPERS SUBMIT

Topics: The organizers invite proposals on several issues related to the general topic. Check “Call for papers” document on the congress website: http://www.dret-privat.urv.cat/jornades-i-congressos/eurolenguaje/

Formal requirements: 500-600 word-long abstracts and 5 keywords in a MS Word file.

Languages: Spanish and English.

Deadline and address for submissions: Proposals may be submitted until 21 May, 2018. Proposals should be sent to: mireia.eizaguirre@urv.cat, who will confirm reception.

Confirmation of acceptance and oral presentation: All authors will receive an email with the decision by 25 May, 2018: proposals may be accepted to be presented orally (10 minutes); accepted not to be presented orally; or rejected.

Publication: Accepted papers, presented or not, will be published in a collective volume as long as they are positively assessed in the relevant blind review.

REGISTRATION

Registration: authors of accepted proposal should complete registration by 8th June 2018. Registration will be valid after payment on a € 50 fee credited to the account number: BANCO BILBAO VIZCAYA, IBAN: ES9601826035450201605723.

SWIFT: BBVAESMMXXX. Proof of payment should be sent to: mireia.eizaguirre@urv.cat.

Following fierce consultations, deliberations and debates, a new law has been passed by the Hellenic Parliament on improving adoption and foster care procedures. The law introduces a new institution: The National Foster Care & Adoption Council, and contains provisions on the requirements and procedures for foster care, thus, enriching the existing landscape embedded in the Civil Code since 1996. It also establishes two national registries:  The National Registry of adoptive applicants and the National Registry of adoptions.

The bone of contention was however the ‘window’ opened by the new legislation under Article 8, i.e. the right of same-sex partners to become foster parents. After a couple of weeks full of tension in the press and the Parliament, the Government moved on and secured the necessary majority for passing the provision.

This is yet another step towards full equivalence of same-sex with heterosexual couples. It was preceded by the introduction of same-sex partnerships in 2015, as an aftermath of the country’s condemnation by the ECHR in the Vallianatos ruling. Still, same-sex marriage is not, and will seemingly not be allowed for quite some time in the future, given that the Supreme Court has ruled out this possibility end last year.

Finally, it should be noted that Greece has recently enacted  legislation allowing the out of court dissolution of marriage in mutual consent, and abolished the compulsory application of Sharia law for Greek Muslims.

The IACPIL (Interdisciplinary Association of Private International and Comparative Law) and the University of Vienna invite to a lecture by Prof. Budzikiewicz (in German).

Whereas private divorces were mostly executed outside Europe, nowadays Italian, French as well as Spanish law allow a contractual divorce. The lecture addresses to what extent private divorces can be valid outside the enforcing state. The recognition can be relevant in different cases, e.g. another marriage is aspired or legal questions concerning the right of maintenance, tax law as well as law of succession arise.
The CJEU recently ruled that the Rome III regulation is not applicable to a marriage divorced by a spiritual court in a third country. In this respect the lecture focuses on how private divorces are to be treated with regard to private international law and international procedural law.

The flyer can be found here

Where: University of Vienna, Juridicum, Schottenbastei 10-16, 1010 Vienna, SEM 20
When: 17 May 2018, 6 p.m.
The event is free but registration is required (office@igkk.org).

In [2018] EWHC 380 (Comm) UCP Plc v Nectrus Limited Cockerill J takes the same conclusion on the new lis alibi pendens rule ex-EU in the Brussels I Recast, which I had suggested in the Handbook (p.182). A court in a Member State seized of an action other than those based on Articles 4, 7, 8 or 9 cannot refuse jurisdiction in favour of a court based ex-EU.

From Herbert Smith’s summary of the case: Nectrus, a Cypriot company, commenced proceedings in the Isle of Man seeking payment of sums withheld by UCP, an Isle of Man company, on the sale of a company, Candor. UCP then commenced proceedings in England claiming that Nectrus was in breach of an Investment Management Agreement (IMA), the loss being the amount by which the sale consideration of Candor had been reduced, hence the amount withheld on its sale.

The IMA contained a non-exclusive jurisdiction agreement in favour of the English courts. UCP disputed the jurisdiction of the Manx court, but in the event the proceedings continued, indicated they would raise the cause of action relied on in the English proceedings by way of equitable set off. Nectrus disputed their right to do so.

Nectrus disputed the jurisdiction of the English court on the basis that the Manx courts were the most appropriate forum to determine the dispute and were first in time.

Other than for the articles listed above, the CJEU’s findings in Owusu continue to apply. That includes English jurisdiction on the basis of non-exclusive choice of court, covered by Article 25 of the Recast Regulation. Justice Cockerill is entirely correct in unhesitatingly (at 39) rejecting forum non conveniens.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.4 (International impact of the Brussels I Recast Regulation), Heading 2.2.14.5.2.