Droit international général

The Court of Appeal, referring powerfully ia to VTB, has confirmed (albeit with dissenting opinion) lack of the English courts jurisdiction in [2018] EWCA Civ 191 Okpabi et al v Shell. I reviewed the High Court’s decision in same here. Plenty of the High Court’s considerations. e.g. (pro inspiratio) joinder under Brussels I Recast, and the optionally distributive lex causae rule under Article 7 Rome II, do not feature in the Court of Appeal’s approach.

The crucial take-away from the judgment is that the English courts do not believe that headquarter instructed mandatory compliance, equates control. This runs along the lines of Scheindlin USDJ’s approach in Apartheid.

Geert.

(Handbook of) European Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 8, Heading 8.3.

Arnold van Steenderen and Milan Simić have complete and concise review here of judgment of the Rotterdam court of December 2017 in re the Belo Horizonte (officially Cefetra et al v Ms ‘IDA’ Oetker Schiffahrtsgesellschaft MbH & Co KG et al). The case is a follow-up to 2015 proceedings. In these the Rotterdam court had first sanctioned seizure, and then rejected further action for claimant had not formally requested access to the documents.

Arnold and Milan summarise the facts very very helpfully – I am much obliged for the judgment is in Dutch (although as the judgment shows, the proceedings were actually conducted in English: a nice example of the use of regulatory competition in civil procedure) and their efforts have saved me a lot of translation time:

The decisions of the Rotterdam Court are a result of the carriage under bill of lading
of soya beans on behalf of Cefetra B.V. (Netherlands based) on board of the “Belo
Horizonte” from Argentina to the United Kingdom. Cefetra supplies raw materials to
the feed, food, and fuel industries. Cefetra Ltd. (UK based) was the holder of the
b/l’s and English law applied to the b/l’s. The vessel is owned by MS ‘IDA’ Oetker
and is time chartered by Rudolf A Oetker (both German based, together addressed
as Oetker). MS ‘IDA’ Oetker is the carrier under the b/l’s. London arbitration is
agreed upon for any dispute rising from the contract of carriage and the b/l’s.

Following engine failure, ‘(d)uring the voyage, experts commissioned by both Cefetra and Oetker visited the “Belo Horizonte” to preliminary assess the condition of the vessel and its engines. Further investigation was conducted upon arrival in England. Oetker, however, only granted permission for inspection of the engine room and refused to disclose the documents on board. Crew interviews were not allowed as well. Subsequently, Cefetra obtained leave to attachment for the purpose of preserving evidence in the Netherlands on 27 October 2015. The leave was effected by the bailiff on 28 October 2015 on board of the “Belo Horizonte”. Several documents were seized and handed over to a sequestrator. Cefetra initiated proceedings’ to gain access to the seized documents.

The dispute in the main is arbitrable in London.

Oetker disputes jurisdiction of the court at Rotterdam on the basis of defendants’ domicile in Germany. Cefetra argue in favour of jurisdiction on the basis of Article 7(1), alternatively 7(2) or indeed Article 35 Brussels I Recast:

• 7(1) forum contractus: for, it is argued, the main agreement between the two parties implies an obligation to provide any relevant evidence; the place of performance for that ‘obligation in question’ lies in The Netherlands since that is where the sequestrator holds them.
• 7(2) forum delicti: Oetker’s obstruction of truth finding is a tort which is located (locus delicti commissi) at Rotterdam since that is where Oetker opposes disclosure.
• 35 provisional, including protective measures.

The Court does not at all entertain Cefetra’s arguments on the basis of 7(1) or 7(2). Wrongly so: plenty of not at all obvious contracts or torts could qualify as same under these provisions, to not address them at all does not make them simply go away.

The court first of all (5.7 in fine) rejects relevance of the arbitration exclusion on the basis of C-391/95 Van Uden Deco-Line. It then sticks to a very restrictive approach to Article 35, with the classic provisionary (not covered by Article 35) v provisional (covered) nature of measures, as also discussed in C-104/03 St. Paul Dairy/Unibel (to which the Court refers). In the words of the court: seizure of evidence is provisional; actual access, copy or extract is not (5.8): the court suggests this is not provisional since it allows the party to gauge the evidentiary position of the party and hence is irreversible.

I disagree -and I have at least a shelf in my library to support the discussion.

Ireversibility in fact (once the evidence seen, the party can never wipe it from its memory, so to speak) does not equate ireversibility in law. The court takes a very limited view of Article 35 and I do not believe it is the right one.

There are not that many national judgments covering Article 35 quite so expressly. This is one to treasure.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.15.

On 15 June 2018 Prof. Dr. Susanne Augenhofer, LL.M. (Yale) will host the 4th round of the Yale-Humboldt Consumer Law Lectures. The Lectures take place in the Senatssaal of Humboldt-University and start at 2pm. This year’s speakers are:

• Prof. Robert C. Post, Sterling Professor of Law, Yale Law School
• Prof. Judith Resnik, Arthur Liman Professor of Law, Yale Law School
• Prof. Reva Siegel, Nicholas de B. Katzenbach Professor of Law, Yale Law Schoo

Participation in the event is free of charge, but requires registration at https://yhcll2018.eventbrite.de by June 1, 2018.

Allow me a succinct grumble about the precautionary principle. A recent Guardian item on trade talks post-Brexit refers ia to proponents of Brexit wanting to use future trade talks eg with the US, to ditch the precautionary principle. It states the proponents’ strategy ‘also advocates tearing up the EU’s “precautionary principle”, under which traders have to prove something is safe before it is sold, rather than waiting for it to be proved unsafe’.

Reversing the burden of proof (also known as the ‘no data no market rule’) is not a necessary prerequisite of the precautionary principle. If it were, public authorities’ task in regulating health, safety and the environment would look very different than it does today, as would the regulation of new technologies such as nano or synthetic biology (indeed even AI). Only in specific sectors, has the burden of proof been reversed. This includes, in the EU, REACH – the flagship Regulation on chemicals. In others, it was discussed (e.g. in the reform of the EU’s cosmetics Directive into a Regulation), but eventually dismissed.

Neither does the EU’s approach to the precautionary principle imply ‘when in doubt, opt out’, or ‘when in doubt, don’t do it’. One need only refer to the recent decision to extend the licence for glyphosate to show that the EU does not ban what is not proven safe (the least one can say about glyphosate is that its health and environmental safety is not clearly established). I blame Cass Sunstein’s Laws of Fear, superbly reviewed (critically) by Liz Fisher in the 2006 Modern Law Review for misrepresenting the principle – such that even its proponents often misunderstand its true meaning.

Precaution is not an alternative to science. It is a consequence of science.

Geert.

EU environmental law (with Leonie Reins), Edward Elgar, soft cover edition 2018, p.28 ff.

The Max Planck Institute Luxembourg invites young researchers to actively participate in a colloquium on the “Current Challenges for EU Cross-Border Litigation in a Changing Procedural Environment”. The colloquium will precede a larger conference hosted together with the Court of Justice of the European Union on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. All candidates are requested to submit their abstract by 15 April 2018.

The 1968 Brussels Convention and its progeny have mainly been designed in reference to a classic cross-border case, with two opposing parties connected to different Member States. The 2012 recast of the Brussels Regulation remains largely indebted to this original setup. Time is already catching up with the Brussels Ibis Regulation, however. Today, the Brussels Regime is challenged by societal and technological changes, pushing the rules to their limits. Recent cases adjudicated by the Court of Justice in the field of data protection and competition law show that the current Regime does not entirely provide a satisfactory framework. Notable issues entail the plurality of parties, both as claimants and defendants, and considerations of public interest. Similar concerns can be raised in relation to consumer law and shareholder protection litigation. Against this backdrop, one can notice the emergence of online platforms that collect claims in order to facilitate cross-border litigation in these areas. At its 50th anniversary, can the Brussels Regime still provide an adequate response to today’s challenges?

On 26 September, the MPI Luxembourg will host a colloquium to look ahead to the current and future challenges for cross-border litigation in a changing European procedural environment. Young professors, post-docs and advanced PhD students who are interested in contributing to the discussions, are invited to submit an abstract of max. 1,000 words, together with their CV, to BrusselsConvention50@mpi.lu by 15 April 2018. The selected candidates will be expected to write a paper and give a presentation during the colloquium; and to prepare and present a poster during the conference that follows. Organised in collaboration with the CJEU on 27-28 September, the conference will bring together members of the CJEU and renown procedural law scholars to look back on 50 years of European civil procedure and discuss the impact and importance of the Brussels Regime for European integration.

The candidates’ papers will then be included in the conference proceedings, along with the contributions of members of the CJEU and procedural law scholars. All travel and accommodation expenses will be covered by the MPI Luxembourg.

Submit an abstract

In [2017] EWHC 3368 (QB) Kennedy v National Trust for Scotland, Eady J considers two important (for this blog at least) issues leading to dicta: when a prima facie domestic case may turn out to be international really; and following his ruling on same, the application of forum non conveniens intra-UK. I reviewed the latter issue, also intra-UK, in my analysis of Cook & McNeil (v Virgin & Tesco).

First the issue of the case being purely domestic or international. It is only when it is the latter, that the Brussels I Recast regime is engaged and, per Owusu, forum non conveniens excluded.

The Claimant, who is domiciled in Scotland, seeks damages and other remedies in this jurisdiction against the National Trust for Scotland in respect of a number of allegations published in both jurisdictions as well as in Italy, France and Brazil. He relies not only on defamation but also on negligence and on alleged breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998. The dispute arises over the Claimant’s attendance at Craigievar Castle in Aberdeenshire on 23 February 2012, when he took a series of photographs of a naked model for commercial purposes. He claims that he did so pursuant to an oral contract, entered into with a representative of the Defendant, which expressly authorised that activity. Some years later, this episode came to the attention of the daughter of Lord Sempill who had gifted the castle to the Defendant (more than 50 years ago) and she protested that it had been used for the purpose of taking nude photographs. Her remarks caught the attention of a journalist who made enquiries and was given a statement by or on behalf of the Defendant on 24 February 2016 which was reported in the Scottish Mail on Sunday of 28 February. Thereafter, the Defendant also issued a press release which denied that the taking of the photographs had been authorised. This was sent to a number of media outlets including a reporter on the (London) Metro newspaper.

Claimant suggests that this is not “a purely domestic case” by referring to re-publication of the defamatory words in France and Italy. At 51 Eady J, with reference to the aforementioned Cook v Virgin Media, suggests the purpose of the regulation, and of the rule of general jurisdiction in particular, is to regularise issues of jurisdiction as between different states, and that no such question arises here, because the only potential competition is between the courts of Scotland and England & Wales (i.e. internal to the United Kingdom). I do not think this is the effect of CJEU precedent, Lindner in particular, as well as Maletic and Vinyls Italia (the latter re Rome I). The potential competition between the England and Scotland only arises if, not because, the Brussels I Regulation does not apply: the High Court’s argument is circular. In Linder and in Maletic, the CJEU upheld the application of Brussels I even though competing jurisdiction elsewhere in the EU was only potential, not actual. Given the potential for jurisdiction with courts in France and Italy, I would suggest the Lindner logic applies.

Eady J though applies forum non conveniens to establish Scotland as the more appropriate forum in the UK, and to stay the English case.

He then obiter (had FNC not applied), at 86 ff suggests the court develop a novel sub-national model of Shevill, such that only courts of the sub-national place where the publisher is domiciled would have jurisdiction to award global damages – and all other courts within the United Kingdom would be restricted to awarding damages for harm occurring within their relevant regions. Importantly, even for post-Brexit use, Eady J suggest the importation of CJEU case-law in applying English law of conflicts is appropriate for Parliament has approved rules in parallel to those under the Recast Regulation.

A little gem of a judgment.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.2.1.

By Georgia Antonopoulou and Erlis Themeli, Erasmus University Rotterdam

(PhD candidate and postdoc researchers ERC project Building EU Civil Justice)

On February 7, 2018 the French Minister of Justice inaugurated the International Commercial Chamber within the Paris Court of Appeals following up on a 2017 report of the Legal High Committee for Financial Markets of Paris (Haut Comité Juridique de la Place Financière de Paris HCJP, see here). As the name suggests, this newly established division will handle disputes arising from international commercial contracts (see here). Looking backwards, the creation of the International Commercial Chamber does not come as a surprise.  It offers litigants the option to lodge an appeal against decisions of the International Chamber of the Paris Commercial Court (see previous post) before a specialized division and thus complements this court on a second instance.

According to the press release, litigants will have the possibility to conduct proceedings not only in English, but also in other foreign languages. The parties can submit documents in a foreign language without official translation and hearings can be held in a foreign language as well. However, a simultaneous translation of the oral hearing will take place. In addition, the parties may submit their briefs in a foreign language accompanied by a French translation. Finally, the court will render its decisions in French accompanied by a translation in the relevant foreign language. Contrary to the respective German and Dutch legislative proposals, which allow for the conduct of proceedings, including the decisions of the court, entirely in English, the French initiative appears more modest setting multiple translation requirements.

However, France is one more domino piece affected by the civil justice system competition in the European Union. In light of Brexit, the list of European Union Member States opting for the creation of international commercial courts is growing. The legislative proposal for the establishment of Chambers for International Commercial Disputes in Germany (Kammern für Internationale Handelssachen) was the first -though unsuccessful- attempt. Nevertheless, the recent ‘Frankfurt Justice Initiative’ came to revive the seemingly dormant German debate (see previous post). Not far away from Germany, the Netherlands is launching the Netherlands Commercial Court (NCC), which is expected to open its doors in the second half of 2018. Finally, in October 2017, the Belgian Minister of Justice announced the government’s initiative to establish a specialized court in commercial matters, called the Brussels International Business Court (BIBC) (see previous post).

Competing Member States try to attract cross-border litigation, and thus increase the work of the local legal community and related services. As accepted in the press release of this latest French initiative, a good competitive court is a positive signal to foreign investors. It should be reminded that this is not the first time that competitive activities erupt. A few years ago, competing Member States were focused on publishing brochures to highlight the best qualities of their jurisdictions. This time, competitive activities seem to be more vigorous and seem to better address the needs of international litigants. Only time will show how dynamic competition will unfold, and who the winners will be.

The next Biennial Conference of the German Society for International Law (DGfIR) will take place from 20 to 22 March 2019 at the University of Vienna. The conference will deal with the topic Corporate Accountability and International Law. Speakers are Professors Tanja Domej (Zürich), Oliver Dörr (Osnabrück), Anatol Dutta (Munich), Peter Hilpold (Innsbruck), Stefan Huber (Tübingen), Nico Krisch (Geneva), Giesela Rühl (Jena) and Silja Vöneky (Freiburg i. Br.). Further information will soon be available here.

On 4-6 April 2018 the Loyola University Andalusia in Seville (Spain) will host a conference to celebrate the 60th birthday of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.

Jointly organized by The United Nations Commission for International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), the Loyola University Andalusia, the University of Zaragoza and the Spanish Club of Arbitration (CEA) the conference analyses key issues and future challenges of the Convention and provides a unique opportunity to meet with professionals and academics from around the world.

Registration is now open via the conference website.

The program is available here and here.

For a limited time (one week), the Elgar Encyclopedia of Private International Law is accessible for free online. Check it out. And then ask your library to buy it.

As reported on this blog, the French Cour de Cassation decided last year that the réserve héréditaire, the portion of the decedent’s estate that is reserved for the legal heirs, is not part of the French ordre public with regard to the Succession Regulation. Now, the Société de Législation Comparée is organizing a conference in Paris on March 15,  to discuss the consequences from the decision. Under the Presidency of Dominique Hascher, there will be presentations by Andrea Bonomi, Professor in Lausanne, and Delphine Vincent, notary in Paris. Hugues Fulchiron, Professor in Lyon, will comment. Registration required. Another website here.

SLS Conflict of Laws Section: Call for Papers and Panels for 2018 SLS Annual Conference at Queen Mary University of London   

This is a call for papers and panels for the Conflict of Laws section of the 2018 SLS Annual Conference to be held at Queen Mary University of London from Tuesday 4th September – Friday 7th September.  This year’s theme is ‘Law in Troubled Times’.

This section is new to the SLS Annual Conference, having been introduced as a trial section last year.

The Conflict of Laws section will meet in the second half of the conference on Thursday 6th and Friday 7th September.

We intend that the section will comprise four sessions of 90 minutes, with 3 or more papers being presented in each session, followed by discussion. At least three of the sessions will be organised by theme. We hope, if submissions allow, to be able to set aside the fourth session for papers by early career researchers (within 5-years of PhD or equivalent).

We welcome proposals from scholars in the field for papers or panels on any issue relating to any topical aspect of the Conflict of Laws (private international law), including but not limited to those addressing this year’s conference theme.

If you are interested in delivering a paper, please submit a proposed title and abstract of around 300 words. If you wish to propose a panel, please submit a document outlining the theme and rationale for the panel and the names of the proposed speakers (who must have agreed to participate), together with their proposed titles and abstracts.   

If you are also interested in delivering a paper or organising a panel, please submit your paper abstract or panel details by 11:59pm UK time on Monday 26th March.  All abstracts and panel details must be submitted through the Oxford Abstracts conference system which can be accessed using the following link –  https://app.oxfordabstracts.com/stages/488/submission – and following the instructions (select ‘Track’ for the relevant subject section). If you experience any issues in using Oxford Abstracts, please contact slsconference@mosaicevents.co.uk.

As the SLS is keen to ensure that as many members with good quality papers as possible are able to present, we discourage speakers from presenting more than one paper at the conference.  With this in mind, when you submit an abstract via Oxford Abstracts, you will be asked to note if you are also responding to calls for papers or panels from other sections.

We should also note that the SLS offers a Best Paper Prize which can be awarded to academics at any stage of their career and which is open to those presenting papers individually or within a panel.  The Prize carries a £250 monetary award and the winning paper will, subject to the usual process of review and publisher’s conditions, be published in Legal Studies.  To be eligible:

• speakers must be fully paid-up members of the SLS;
• papers must not exceed 12,000 words including footnotes (as counted in Word);
• papers must be uploaded to the paperbank by 11.59pm UK time on Monday 27th August; and
• papers must not have been published previously or have been accepted or be under consideration for publication.

We have also been asked to remind you that all speakers will need to book and pay to attend the conference and that they will need to register for the conference by the end of June in order to secure their place within the programme, though please do let me/us know if this is likely to pose any problems for you.  Booking information will be circulated in due course.

We note also that prospective speakers do not need to be members of the SLS or already signed up as members of a section to propose a paper.

We look forward to seeing you, as a speaker or delegate, at the Conflict of Laws session in London.

With best wishes,

Professor Andrew Dickinson, St Catherine’s College, University of Oxford

Dr Lorna Gillies, University of Strathclyde

Dr Máire Ní Shúilleabháin, University College Dublin (Co-Conveners)

The University of Otago recently set up an online platform dedicated to the conflict of laws in New Zealand: www.otago.ac.nz/conflicts/index.html

The platform includes (1) a reference database of New Zealand scholarship on the conflict of laws, originally created by Professor Elsabe Schoeman at Auckland University, (2) a blog, and (3) links to relevant sources and materials.

Feedback and suggestions on the site are much appreciated. In particular, if you are aware of any relevant materials that are currently missing from the database, I would be very grateful if you could let me know.

The fourth issue of 2017 of the Dutch Journal on Private International Law, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht, contains contributions on the likely response of developing countries to the Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts 2015 developed by the Hague Conference on Private International Law, the interpretation of Article 9(3) of the Rome I Regulation by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case Nikiforidis v. Republik Griechenland, the consequences of a ‘hard Brexit’ for the Family Law areas currently covered by EU regulations, and new developments in China’s recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.

Matthijs ten Wolde & Kees de Visser, ‘Editorial’, p. 725-726.

Akinwumi Ogunranti, ‘The Hague Principles – a new dawn for developing countries?’, 727-746

This paper focuses on the likely response of developing countries to the Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts 2015 (hereafter: Principles) developed by the Hague Conference on Private International Law. It makes two claims: that Article 2(4) of the Principles which permits parties to make an unrelated choice of law in international contracts, without generally protecting weaker parties, may not be favourably received by developing countries. Second, that Article 3 of the Principles on non-state law may also not be viewed favourably by developing countries because such provisions are always seen with distrust. In effect, this paper examines the likely reactions of developing countries to these pivotal provisions of the Principles. It then asks the question of whether a new dawn has arrived in private international legislations relating to choice of law or whether developing countries should be charting roads that lead to more places than just The Hague.

A.E. Oderkerk, ‘Buitenlandse voorrangsregels in de context van de Griekse crisis: geen rol voor het unierechtelijk beginsel van loyale samenwerking’, p. 747-758

In its ruling of 18 October 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) answers a number of questions related to the interpretation of Article 9(3) of the Rome I Regulation, two of which confirm the current legal doctrine on this matter. Firstly, it is confirmed that Article 9 should be interpreted restrictively; no other overriding mandatory rules than those of the forum State or the State where the obligations in the agreement are (to be) fulfilled can be applied. Secondly, it is acknowledged that a national court may take into account other overriding mandatory rules as facts in so far as this is in accordance with the lex causae. In this ruling the Court departs from the doctrine with regard to the temporal scope of the Regulation, holding that the phrase ‘the conclusion of the agreement’ in Article 28 must be interpreted autonomously. The Court also clarifies under which circumstances a long-term contract concluded before 17 December 2009 may fall within the temporal scope of the Regulation. Finally, it is of interest that the Court takes the position that the principle of loyal cooperation has no influence on the (strict) interpretation of Article 9(3).

Just van der Hoeven, ‘Zachte conclusies over de betekenis van een harde Brexit voor het internationaal personen- en familierecht’, p. 759-771

This article gives an overview of the consequences of a ‘hard Brexit’ for the Family Law areas currently covered by EU regulations. It examines the applicability of various international instruments in these areas, and gives a brief answer to the question how the current EU regulations differ from these international instruments.

Yahan Wang, ‘A turning point of reciprocity in China’s recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments: a study of the Kolmar case’, p. 772-789

In the case of Kolmar Group AG v. Jiangsu Textile Co. Ltd. (the Kolmar case), a Chinese court has for the first time recognized and enforced a foreign civil judgment based on reciprocity. This article regards this case as a turning point of reciprocity in China’s recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. Before 2016, the reliance on treaty-based and factual reciprocity led to some defects in China’s judicial practice, which could be attributed to the strict standards of reciprocity and deficient judicial interpretations. Through the Belt and Road initiative, China is seeking to improve international transactions between China and foreign countries – including some EU countries. In line with this development, the Chinese Supreme People’s Court seems to be transforming the strict criteria of reciprocity, adopting presumed reciprocity in its judicial practice. This article argues that execution of the Belt and Road initiative, establishing an efficient court reporting system and participating in international conventions are essential to China’s judicial reform.

As I am about to take the family on a half-term break (and with no less than 22 draft blog posts in the ledger – February /March are likely to be intense blog months), I am pleased to flag a conference which I am calling together with Jura Falconis, the faculty’s student-run law review.

Registration and program are here. Below is the blurb and exciting line-up. It would be great to see many of you at Leuven! Geert.

*****

In 2018 we celebrate the 50th year since the adoption of the 1968 Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. The 1968 attempt to facilitate the free movement of judgments in the EU, helped lay the foundations for the exciting developments in European private international law which have occurred since. Many of the outstanding issues in what is now the Brussels I Recast (also known as EEX-bis; or Brussels Ibis) continue to have an impact on other parts of European civil procedure.

Co-organised by Leuven Law’s Institute of Private International Law and Jura Falconis, KU Leuven’s student law review, this event will consider, capita selecta wise, the application and implications of the Convention and its successors. It will also discuss the future direction of EU private international law both for civil and commercial matters, and for issues outside of commercial litigation. At a time when in most Member States the majority of commercial transactions have some kind of international element, this is a timely refresher for practitioners, judges, students and scholars alike.

Morning program. Chaired by professor Jinske Verhellen (U Gent)

10:00 – 10:30 
Registration and welcome

10:30 – 10:35 
Opening by Jura Falconis

10:35 – 11:00
Les grands courants of 50 years of European private international law
Professor Geert Van Calster (KU Leuven)

11:00 – 11:30
Regulatory competition in civil procedure between the Member States
Professor Stéphanie Francq (UC Louvain)

11:30 – 12:00 
The application of Brussels I (Recast) in the Member States
Professor Burkhard Hess (Max Planck Institute Luxembourg)

12:00 – 12:15
Discussion

12:15 – 13:00
Lunch

Afternoon program. Chaired by professor Karen Vandekerckhove (European Commission’s Directorate General for Justice and Consumers, UC Louvain)

13:00 – 13:30
Brussels calling. The extra-EU application of European private international law
Professor Thalia Kruger (U Antwerpen)

13:30 – 14:00
The (not so symbiotic?) relation between the Insolvency and the Brussels I regimes
Arie Van Hoe (NautaDutilh, U Antwerpen)

14:00 – 14:30
Alternative Dispute Resolution and the Brussels Regime
Professor Stefaan Voet (KU Leuven)

14:30 – 15:00
Brussels I Recast and the Hague Judgments Project
Professor Marta Pertegas (U Antwerpen)

15:00 – 15:15
Discussion

15:15 – 15:45
Coffee break

15:45 – 16:10
Provisional measures under the Brussels regime
Professor Arnaud Nuyts (ULB)

16:10 – 16:30
Brussels falling. The relationship between the UK and the EU post Brexit
Dr Helena Raulus (UK Law Societies’ Brussels office)

16:30 – 16:50
The current European Commission agenda for the development of European private international law
Dr Andreas Stein (European Commission’s Directorate General for Justice and Consumers)

16:50 – 17:15
The CJEU and European Private International Law
Ilse Couwenberg (Judge in the Belgian Supreme Court/Hof van Cassatie)

17:15 – 17:30
Close of conference
Professor Geert Van Calster (KU Leuven)

17:30 – 18:30
Drinks

Professor Jen Daskal writes on Just Security about a potential legislative solution to the Microsoft Ireland case pending in the U.S. Supreme Court, which presents the question of whether a U.S. warrant requires Microsoft to hand over a user’s data that Microsoft stores in Ireland:

“A bipartisan group of Senators today introduced the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data (CLOUD) Act—a bill that moots the pending Supreme Court Microsoft Ireland case and authorizes the executive to enter into bilateral and multilateral agreements so as to facilitate cross-border access to data in the investigation of serious crime. Amazingly, the legislation has the support of both the Department of Justice and Microsoft – the dueling parties in the Microsoft Ireland case. It also has the support of many other tech companies.

As it should.

…”

Read the full post here.

For Professor Daskal’s thoughtful analysis of the conflicts of laws issues presented in the Microsoft case and their relationship to private international law issues, see her earlier analysis here.

On Friday, 13 April 2018, the Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg (Germany) will host a workshop in the framework of the research project “Informed Choices in Cross-Border Enforcement” (IC²BE). Funded by the Justice Programme (2014-2020) of the European Commission, the project aims to assess the working in practice of the “second generation” of EU regulations on procedural law for cross-border cases, i.e. the European Enforcement Order, Order for Payment, Small Claims (as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2421) and the Account Preservation Order Regulations. As a result, it is intended to create a database of national case law. The project is carried out by a European consortium (the MPI Luxembourg and the universities of Antwerp, Complutense, Milan, Rotterdam, and Wroclaw) and is coordinated by Prof. Jan von Hein, Freiburg. Confirmed speakers include Professors Gerald Mäsch (University of Münster), Ivo Bach (University of Göttingen), Stefan Huber (University of Tübingen), as well as Dr. Denise Wiedemann (Max-Planck-Institute, Hamburg) and Dr. Bernhard Ulrici (University of Leipzig). Their presentations will be commented on by distinguished practitioners, such as Dr. Max Peiffer (Munich), Prof. Dr. Andreas Baumert (Achern), Dr. David Einhaus (Freiburg) and Dr. Nils H. Harbeck (Hamburg). The language of the workshop will be German. Partcipation is free of charge, but requires a registration. For further information about the program and the process of registration, please click here.

When I reported on Saugmandsgaard ØE’s Opinion in C-359/16 Altun, I emphasised the issue of mutual trust. I noted that the AG effectively flipped the coin: sincere co-operation requires sincerity on both sides (my words, not the AG’s). The AG had recalled the Halifax case-law of the CJEU: EU law cannot be relied on for abusive or fraudulent ends and that national courts may, case by case, take account — on the basis of objective evidence — of abuse or fraudulent conduct on the part of the persons concerned in order, where appropriate, to deny them the benefit of the provisions of EU law, in the light of the objectives pursued by the provisions of EU law concerned. In November 2017 the CJEU confirmed in C-251/16 Cussens that this principle has direct effect and is directly applicable: it is a general principle of EU law which does not require a national measure transposing it.

In the case at issue, the facts point to non-fulfillment of one of the substantive criteria for the E101 certificate to be issued, namely that only an undertaking which habitually carries on significant activities in the Member State in which it is established may be issued an E101 of that State.

The Court today has confirmed the AG’s view (only the Dutch and French version were available at the time of writing). Mutual trust implies responsibilities on both sides. Upon receiving indications of fraud, the Member State of origin is duty-bound to investigate diligently and either confirm or refute the suspicions. (In the event of continuing divergence, there is an appeals procedure within the relevant secondary law, and if need be the possibility for the host State to pursue infringement proceedings with the home State). Like its AG, the Court emphasises that the fraud must be established in the context of adversarial proceedings with legal guarantees for the persons concerned and in compliance with their fundamental rights, in particular the right to an effective remedy enshrined.

This remains relevant even after the planned changes to the posted workers Directive. In the future system, too, Member States will issue certificates, feed data into the newly created register etc.

Geert.

This post has been prepared by

Dr. Jorg Sladic, Attorney in Ljubljana and Assistant Professor in Maribor (Slovenia)

In judgment of 25 October 2017 in case I Cpg 1084/2016 (ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2017:I.CPG.1084.2016) published on 31 January 2018 the Slovenian Appellate Court ruled on a question of implied consent to application of Slovenian law.

Unfortunately the underlying facts are not described with the necessary precision. It would appear that there was a three-person contractual chain between an Austrian, an Italian and a Slovenian commercial company. Apparently the Italian company was the seller, the roles of both the Austrian and Slovenian company are not very clearly described. The underlying transaction that led to the dispute was a contract for the sale of goods concluded under the CISG. The ruling does not state where the seller had the habitual residence, yet the condemnation to perform the payment can only be construed in such a way that the Italian plaintiff was the seller.

The court of first instance condemned the defendant (a Slovenian commercial company) to payment of the sum of 52.497,28 EUR to the Italian claimant (Italian commercial company) and dismissed the Slovenian defendant’s defense of set-off (exceptio compensationis) in the sum of 50.000,00 EUR.

The condemnation was based upon a sales contract for goods concluded under the application of the CISG. The Slovenian defendant contended that the Italian claimant did not sign the double order / mandate addressed to the Austrian third person (named the client or the orderer) who had been instructed to perform the payment to the Italian company. The Austrian client later withheld the performance of payment due to a non signed double order / mandate (double order/mandate is a figure where a principal gives the first mandate to the agent to perform an obligation to a third person (recipient) and the second mandate to the third person (recipient) to accept the performance of such an obligation, see Art. 1035 Slovenian Code of Obligations: Through an instruction one person, the principal, authorizes a second person, the agent, to perform an obligation for the latter’s account to a certain third person, the recipient (the beneficiary), and authorizes the third person to accept performance in the third person’s name. The Slovenian legislative provision corresponds to § 1400 Austrian ABGB, § 784 German BGB and Art. 468 Swiss Code of Obligations). The defendant claimed in his defense of set-off that there was an extra-contractual obligation (a delict) due to lack of performance of the Austrian agent that was caused by the Italian company.

One of the pleas in appeal was that Italian and in the alternative the Austrian substantive law should be applied for assessing the existence of the obligation to be set-off. The Court of Appeal dismissed such a plea. The Slovenian defendant alleged an allegedly mature and liquid non-contractual obligation to be set-off. The assessment of facts narrated by the Slovenian company i.e. the damages set-off due to non signature of an order given to the Austrian company shows that there is in essence a defense of breach of the claimant’s obligation in accepting the performance based on the same facts as the claimant’s claim to payment. The Appellate Court expressly avoided the characterization of the said breached obligation as contractual or as non-contractual. There was only a precisions that the facts underlying both the contractual obligation to perform a payment and the allegedly breached obligation are identical.

According to the Appellate Court in Ljubljana the court of first instance found that there was an implied consent to apply the Slovenian law, neither party contested the application of Slovenian law in the first and also in the appellate instance. The law applicable to the obligation that was claimed in set – off is therefore Slovenian law. Even if such an obligation were non – contractual, Slovenian law would have to be applied under Art. 4(1) and (3) in connection with Art. 15 Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 (Rome II).

The ruling does not contain any explicit connecting factor. The issue is not Art. 17 Rome I Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 593/2008). One can assume that under Art. 1(1) CISG the applicable law is the CISG as Austria, Italy and Slovenia are contracting parties to the said UN convention. However, the interesting part is the reference to the implied consent to the application Slovenian substantive law. Under Art. 4(1)(a) Rome I Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 593/2008) “a contract for the sale of goods shall be governed by the law of the country where the seller has his habitual residence”. This should prima facie be the Italian law, as the Italian company applied for payment after having performed the specific performance under the sales contract. However, not contesting the application of Slovenian substantive law in judicial proceedings in first and also in the appellate instance was then construed as “implied consent” to Slovenian substantive law (Art. 3(2) Regulation Rome I). Seen in pragmatic perspective, in order to avoid a uneasy modus vivendi or fine tuning of Art. 3 and 15 of the Regulation Rome II with Art. 17 Regulation Rome I the Slovenian Appellate Court preferred to refer to Slovenian law even if under conditions that do not easily fit in Art. 3(2) and 10 Rome I Regulation.

Many thanks to Andrew Savage and Nick Payne for flagging [2017] EWHC 1968 (Comm) Bestolov v Povarenkin a little while ago, and for sending me copy of the judgment at the time. Apologies for late reporting: frustratingly even at gavclaw we cannot always devote the amount of time to the blog we would wish. Dr Maganaris in the meantime also has summary here.

As readers no doubt are aware, the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Article 62) does not define ‘domicile’: it defers to national private international law on the issue. The Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Order 2001 establishes that a person is domiciled in England for the purpose of the Brussels Regulation (recast) if: the person is “resident” in England; and (cumulatively) the person has a “substantial connection” to England. Bryan DJ takes us through the relevant (and often colourful) precedent and notes, importantly, at 28 that the consequence of the English rules is that the same person can be resident in two different jurisdictions at the same time. At 44, he summarises with a list of criteria, and decides on the facts of the case that Mr Povarenkin is indeed domiciled in England (the substantial connection test having been more easy to determine than that of residence).

Subsequently the High Court reviews at length whether there was a valid choice of court agreement under Article 25 of the Regulation – which at this jurisdictional stage of the proceedings Bryan DJ decides there was not (choice of law for the relevant contracts being English law, was justifiably not considered definitive in this respect), at least not clearly. Obiter, the judge reviews forum non conveniens, at lenght in fact (and in a very clear way with a keen eye on relevant precedent as well as court practice in England) however he holds both before and after the obiter that evidently given Owusu, forum non conveniens has no calling.

A well written judgment, the approach of which on domicile evidently goes beyond having relevance merely for the English courts: for under the Regulation, courts in other Member States, too, may have to consider whether parties are domiciled in an EU Member State other than their own including, for the time being, the United Kingdom.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.3, Heading 2.2.14.5.