Droit international général

In 2015, the Council on General Affairs and Policy of the Hague Conference decided that an Experts’ Group should be convened to explore the feasibility of advancing work on the private international law issues surrounding the status of children, including issues arising from international surrogacy arrangements (for further information on the Parentage / Surrogacy project, see here).

The Experts’ Group on Parentage / Surrogacy met from 15 to 18 February 2016 (the full report is available here). The discussion, based on a background note drawn up by the Permanent Bureau, revealed significant diversity in national approaches to parentage and surrogacy.

The Group noted that “the absence of uniform private international law rules or approaches with respect to the establishment and contestation of parentage can lead to conflicting legal statuses across borders and can create significant problems for children and families”, including limping parental statuses, uncertain identity of the child, immigration problems, uncertain nationality or statelessness of the child, abandonment including the lack of maintenance. “Common solutions”, the Group observed, “are needed to address these problems”.

In particular, as regards the status quo, the Group noted the following.

(a) Most States do not have specific private international law rules regarding assisted reproductive technologies and surrogacy agreements.

(b) Regarding jurisdiction, issues mostly arise in the context of legal parentage being established by or arising from birth registration, voluntary acknowledgment of legal parentage or judicial proceedings. The experts reported, however, that jurisdiction issues tend to arise not as a stand-alone topic, but rather in connection with recognition.

(c) Regarding applicable law, there is a split between those States whose private international law rules point to the application of the lex fori and those whose private international law rules may also lead to the application of foreign law.

(d) Regarding recognition, the Group acknowledged the diversity of approaches of States with respect to the recognition of foreign public documents such as birth certificates or voluntary acknowledgements of parentage, and noted that there is more congruity of practice with respect to the recognition of foreign judicial decisions.

Based on the foregoing, the Group determined that “definitive conclusions could not be reached at the meeting as to the feasibility of a possible work product in this area and its type or scope” and expressed the view that “work should continue” and that, at this stage, “consideration of the feasibility should focus primarily on recognition”. The Group therefore recommended to Council, whose next meeting is scheduled to take place on 15 to 17 March 2016 (see here the draft agenda), that the Group’s mandate be continued.

Sabrine Maya Bouyahia, La proximité en droit international privé de la famille, Harmattan, 2015, ISBN 9782343054643, pp. 618, Euro 51,30.

[Dal sito dell’editore] – Parmi les méthodes proposées pour trancher les litiges présentant un élément d’extranéité, figure celle reposant sur le principe de proximité. L’étude porte sur deux systèmes de droit international privé de la famille différents (droit français et droit tunisien) pour mettre en exergue d’une part l’adaptation de cette méthode aux spécificités de chaque ordre étatique et d’autre part son adéquation avec tous les différents systèmes de droit.

Ulteriori informazioni sono disponibili a questo indirizzo.

L’Associazione Italiana per l’Arbitrato ha indetto la settima edizione del premio “Eugenio Minoli”, per le migliori tre tesi di laurea in materia di arbitrato commerciale internazionale discusse nel periodo compreso tra il 1° giugno 2014 e il 30 marzo 2016.

Il termine per la presentazione delle domande scade il 31 maggio 2016.

Maggiori informazioni sono disponibili a questo indirizzo.

Marjolaine Jakob, the author of this post, is a researcher at the University of Zurich, Faculty of Law.

In October 2015, the Swiss Federal Department of Justice and Police (Eidgenössisches Justiz- und Polizeidepartement) published a preliminary draft for the reform of the 11th title of the Swiss Private International Law Act (SPILA) on insolvency proceedings and compensation proceedings (Articles 166–175 rev-SPILA) along with an explanatory report. Simultaneously, the consultation procedure (Vernehmlassungsverfahren) was opened, which ended on February 5, 2016. The preliminary draft and the explanatory report are available here.

Summary of the content of the preliminary draft

The preliminary draft aims at improving the existing rules against the background of recent national and international developments in cross-border insolvency law. A complete revision is not intended. The new rules are supposed to facilitate the procedure and the requirements for the recognition of foreign bankruptcies.

Amongst other amendments, the proposal contains the following modifications:

•  It is proposed to abandon the requirement of reciprocity, which is currently still a pre-requisite for the recognition of foreign bankruptcies (cf. art. 166 para 1. lit. c SPILA).
• Following international trends, indirect jurisdiction is to be extended. In future, not only bankruptcy orders rendered at the debtor’s domicile but also those rendered in the state of the centre of main interests of the debtor (under the condition that the debtor was not resident in Switzerland at the time of the opening of the foreign bankruptcy proceedings) should be recognized (art. 166 para. 1 lit. c nr. 2 rev-SPILA).
• Currently, the recognition of a foreign bankruptcy order necessarily leads to the opening of secondary insolvency proceedings with regard to the debtor’s assets located in Switzerland. Claims secured by pledge and privileged claims of creditors domiciled in Switzerland are satisfied in advance. The preliminary draft provides for a rule according to which a a waiver of secondary insolvency proceedings is possible where there is no need for a protection of claims secured by pledge and domestic creditors (art. 174a para. 1 rev-SPILA). In the event of the court approving the request for a waiver, the foreign bankruptcy administrator is supposed to have all powers that the debtor had before the foreign bankruptcy proceedings were opened. Accordingly, assets located in Switzerland would be at the disposal of the foreign bankruptcy administrator in this case (art. 174a para. 2 rev-SPILA).
• The draft also contains a rule according to which domestic authorities and institutions shall coordinate their actions with foreign authorities and institutions (art. 174b rev-SPILA).
• Furthermore, it is proposed that foreign judgments on avoidance claims and insolvency related claims are to be recognised by Swiss courts subject to certain prerequisites (art. 174c rev-SPILA).

Subsequent legislative process

As a next step, the Swiss Federal Office of Justice will prepare a report on the results of the consultation procedure. Based on this report, the Federal Council (Bundesrat), i.e. the Swiss government, will decide on the further procedure.

The Federal Council has the option to submit a final draft to the Federal Parliament, which may either adhere to the preliminary draft or contain limited or extensive amendments. In either case, the final draft is issued a long with a dispatch (Botschaft). Subsequently, the final draft will be discussed in the Parliament.

The Federal Council might, however, also decide to no longer pursue the revision of the 11th title of SPILA or to instruct the Swiss Federal Office of Justice to undertake further clarifications regarding the revision project.

The U.S. Library of Congress has just published its first multinational report which considers some fundamental questions underlying the practice of comparative law: who makes the laws, and how are the laws made? The report covers eleven diverse jurisdictions from Asia, North America and Europe, and discusses the constitutional status and role of the national parliament, its structure and composition, and the lawmaking process in each jurisdiction. For students and scholars of comparative law–and in particular the comparative lawmaking process–this report is a very useful reference tool.

A new article titled “U.S. Discovery and Foreign Blocking Statues,” forthcoming in the Louisiana Law Review, has just been posted to SSRN by Professor Vivian Curran from the University of Pittsburgh. The article tackles the interaction between U.S. discovery and the foreign blocking statutes that impede it in France and other civil law states, and how to understand this interaction at a time when companies are multinational in composition as well as in their areas of commerce. To be sure, U.S. courts continue to grapple with the challenge of understanding why they should adhere to strictures that seem to compromise constitutional or quasi-constitutional rights of American plaintiffs, while French and German lawyers and judges struggle with the challenges U.S. discovery poses to values of privacy and fair trial procedure in their legal systems. Each of these issued is addressed in Professor Curran’s article.

It has already been announced on this blog that the 77th Biennial Conference of the International Law Association will take place from 7 to 11 August 2016 in Johannesburg, South Africa.

This year’s main topic will be ‘International Law and State Practice: Is there a North/South Divide?’ 

Further information and programme details are available at the official conference website.

This post is meant to remind our readers that early-bird registration ends on 29 February 2016. We are looking forward to seeing many of you in Johannesburg, so don‘t forget to register!

In Case C-605/14, Komu v Komu, the CJEU stuck to its classic application of the rule of Article 22(1) Brussels I (now Article 24(1) Brussels Recast). This Article prescribes exclusive jurisdiction for (among others) proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property. Article 25 adds that where a court of a Member State is seised of a claim which is principally concerned with a matter over which the courts of another Member State have exclusive jurisdiction by virtue of Article 22, it shall declare of its own motion that it has no jurisdiction. (emphasis added).

Mr Pekka Komu, Ms Jelena Komu, Ms Ritva Komu, Ms Virpi Komu and Ms Hanna Ruotsalainen are domiciled in Finland and are co-owners of a house situated in Torrevieja (Spain), the first three each with a 25% share and the other two each with a 12.5% share. In addition, Ms Ritva Komu has a right of use, registered in the Spanish Land Register, over the shares held by Ms Virpi Komu and Ms Hanna Ruotsalainen.Wishing to realise the interests that they hold in both properties, and in the absence of agreement on the termination of the relationship of co-ownership, Ms Ritva Komu, Ms Virpi Komu and Ms Ruotsalainen brought an action before the District Court, South Savo, Finland for an order appointing a lawyer to sell the properties and fixing a minimum price for each of the properties. The courts obliged in first instance and queried the extent of Article 22’s rule in appeal.

Co-ownership and rights of use, one assumes, result from an inheritance.

The CJEU calls upon classic case-law, including most recently Weber. At 30 ff it recalls the ‘considerations of sound administration of justice which underlie the first paragraph of Article 22(1) …’ and ‘also support such exclusive jurisdiction in the case of an action intended to terminate the co-ownership of immovable property, as that in the main proceedings.’:

The transfer of the right of ownership in the properties at issue in the main proceedings will entail the taking into account of situations of fact and law relating to the linking factor as laid down in the first paragraph of Article 22(1) of Regulation No 44/2001, namely the place where those properties are situated. The same applies, in particular, to the fact that the rights of ownership in the properties and the rights of use encumbering those rights are the subject of entries in the Spanish Land Register in accordance with Spanish law, the fact that rules governing the sale, by auction where appropriate, of those properties are those of the Member State in which they are situated, and the fact that, in the case of disagreement, the obtaining of evidence will be facilitated by proximity to the locus rei sitae. The Court has already held that disputes concerning rights in rem in immovable property, in particular, must generally be decided by applying the rules of the State in which the property is situated, and the disputes which frequently arise require checks, inquiries and expert assessments which have to be carried out there.

A sound finding given precedent. However I continue to think it questionable whether these reasons, solid as they may have been in 1968, make much sense in current society. It may be more comfortable to have the case heard in Spain for the reasons set out by the Court. But essential? Humankind can perform transcontinental robot-assisted remote telesurgery. But it cannot, it seems, consult the Spanish land registry from a court in Finland. I would suggest it is time to adapt Article 24 in a future amendment of the Regulation.

Geert.

Il principio dell’armonia delle decisioni civili e commerciali nello spazio giudiziario europeo, a cura di Giacomo Biagioni, Giappichelli, 2015, pp. XII+196, ISBN 9788892100282, Euro 24.

[Abstract] Muovendo dalla premessa che il riconoscimento reciproco e la libera circolazione dei provvedimenti giurisdizionali costituiscono obiettivi generali degli strumenti di cooperazione giudiziaria civile che possono essere adottati sulla base dell’art. 81 del Trattato sul funzionamento dell’Unione europea, il volume mira ad esaminare in quale misura e sotto quali profili la necessità di garantire il valore dell’armonia tra le decisioni in materia civile e commerciale venga in rilievo nell’interpretazione e nell’applicazione delle norme dell’Unione relative alla competenza giurisdizionale, al coordinamento delle azioni civili nello spazio e all’efficacia delle decisioni. L’indagine è condotta su due piani distinti: per un verso, essa attiene a profili di carattere più generale immanenti all’intero àmbito della cooperazione giudiziaria civile dell’Unione europea; per altro verso, essa si concentra sul sistema c.d. “Bruxelles I”, che ha costituito in passato e continua a costituire un laboratorio entro il quale vengono elaborate soluzioni, normative e giurisprudenziali, spesso destinate ad essere poi estese ad altri strumenti UE in materia di cooperazione giudiziaria civile. Questo metodo di indagine impone sia di tener conto delle molteplici innovazioni conseguenti all’adozione e all’entrata in vigore del regolamento UE n. 1215/2012 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio; sia dei progressivi sviluppi della giurisprudenza della Corte di giustizia dell’Unione europea, nella quale nel corso degli anni il principio di armonia delle decisioni, pur con talune inevitabili oscillazioni, si è venuto enucleando nelle sue caratteristiche di principio generale della cooperazione giudiziaria civile tra gli Stati membri.

Il volume raccoglie, fra gli altri, contributi di Giacomo Biagioni, Elena D’alessandro, Antonio Leandro, Paola Piroddi, Francesco Salerno e Chiara Tuo. Il sommario dell’opera può leggersi qui.

Altre informazioni a questo indirizzo.

È da poco uscito il fascicolo invernale dell’annata 2015 di Int’l Lis – Corriere trimestrale della litigation internazionale, diretto da Claudio Consolo.

Il fascicolo contiene una nota di Annalisa Ciampi alla sentenza Taricco della Corte di giustizia (8 settembre 2015, causa C-105/14), dal titolo Il caso Taricco impone la disapplicazione delle garanzie della prescrizione: un problema di rapporti fra diritto dell’UE e diritto nazionale e di tutela dei diritti fondamentali, non solo di diritto processuale internazionale.

Viene poi proposto un commento di Marco De Cristofaro a Cassazione, sez. I, 4 giugno 2015, n. 11564, intitolato Il private enforcement antitrust ed il ruolo centrale della disciplina processuale, di nuovo conio legislativo o di nuova concezione giurisprudenziale.

La sezione Antologia ospita la seconda parte di uno scritto di Neil Andrews sulle più recenti innovazioni del contract law inglese.

Chiudono il fascicolo il caso del trimestre di Luca Penasa, relativo al caso Gazprom, deciso dalla Corte di giustizia (13 maggio 2015, causa C-536/13), e la recensione di Albert Henke della seconda edizione del libro di Richard Fentiman dedicato alla International Commercial Litigation.

Maggiori informazioni disponibili a questo indirizzo.

A great example of internal forum shopping and the application of forum non conveniens in the Court of Appeal. (Just before Christmas. I am still hacking away at my end-of-year queue).

Claimants claim damages for personal injuries they alleged they sustained in accidents in Scotland as a result of the negligence and/or breach of statutory duty of the defendants. The claims were issued in the Northampton County Court. The registered offices of the defendants are situated in England and Wales. Both claimants are domiciled in Scotland. Liability has been admitted in the case of Cook, but denied in the case of McNeil.  Since the claims related to accidents in Scotland, the claims were allocated to Carlisle County Court, which is the court geographically closest to Scotland. The claims were struck out on forum non conveniens grounds, with Scotland being the appropriate forum.

The most important issue that arises on these appeals (and the reason why Tomlinson LJ gave permission for a second appeal) is whether the doctrine of forum non conveniens can apply in a purely domestic context where the competing jurisdictions are England and Scotland. Put simply, the question is: does the English court have the power in such a case to stay or strike out a claim on the ground that the natural and more appropriate forum is Scotland?

As Floyd MR notes (at 7) it is surprising that there was no authority on this point.

He correctly holds that the ‘international element’ required for the Brussels I regime to apply, as it did in Owusu and Maletic  (but also Lindner) is absent in the case at issue. There is nothing in the facts which renders the case international in the Brussels I (Recast) sense.  Relevant precedent which did have some calling was Kleinwort Benson, Case C-346/93, in which the CJEU refused to interpret the (then) Brussels Convention in a purely domestic UK situation, even if the internal UK rules were modelled on the Brussels regime.

Forum non conveniens could be applied. Though not under appeal, Floyd MR does suggest that in his view the claim in which liability was admitted (Cook), should not have been struck out but rather stayed under the relevant rules.

Geert.

As announced earlier on this blog, on 25 and 26 February 2016 a conference will be held at Erasmus University Rotterdam (Netherlands) on the theme From common rules to best practices in European Civil Procedure, jointly organized by Erasmus School of Law and the Max Planck Institute in Luxembourg.

The conference brings together many distinguished academics, practitioners, EU and national legislators and policy makers, discussing in panels the need for common rules to facilitate judicial cooperation and mutual trust, procedural innovation and e-justice in the EU, alternative dispute resolution, and best practices on the operationalization of judicial cooperation in civil matters.

The updated program and more information is available here. Please register as soon as possible if you intend to come!

Edited by Professors Jürgen Basedow, John Birds, Malcolm A. Clarke, Herman Cousy, Helmut Heiss and Dr. Leander D. Loacker, the second expanded edition of “Principles of European Insurance Contract Law (PEICL)” has just been released. The updated volume is based on no less than 15 years of cooperative research in the field of cross-border insurance law, which was initiated at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law (Hamburg) under the guidance of Director Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Jürgen Basedow, LL.M. (Harvard), and involved legal scholars from 14 Member States of the European Union as well as Switzerland. In 2009, the Project Group “Restatement of European Insurance Contract Law” first published the Principles of European Insurance Contract Law (PEICL), which provided model rules for a common European insurance contract law in the form of an optional instrument.

While the first edition set out provisions regarding general insurance law, the new expanded volume also covers rules on liability insurance, life insurance and group insurance. In addition, the book contains translated versions of the PEICL rules in Chinese, Czech, Dutch, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Polish, Portuguese, Serbian, Slovak, Spanish, Swedish and Turkish.

For further information, please see the publisher’s website here.

La Corte di Giustizia è stata recentemente investita di un rinvio pregiudiziale volto a chiarire l’incidenza del diritto primario dell’Unione europea sulle norme che disciplinano, a livello nazionale, il riconoscimento della modifica di un cognome intervenuta sulla base delle regole di un diverso Stato membro (Causa C-541/15, Mircea Florian Freitag).

Il dubbio del giudice remittente concerne l’interpretazione degli articoli 18 e 21 del Trattato sul funzionamento dell’Unione. La prima di tali norme vieta, nel campo di applicazione dei trattati, “ogni discriminazione effettuata in base alla nazionalità”, mentre la seconda garantisce ad ogni cittadino dell’Unione “il diritto di circolare e di soggiornare liberamente nel territorio degli Stati membri”.

Il quesito — che dovrebbe consentire alla Corte di sviluppare gli orientamenti delineati (in un contesto non identico) nella sentenza Grunkin e Paul  del 2008 (C-353/06) — punta a sapere se le norme testé richiamate impongano alle autorità di uno Stato membro di “riconoscere la modifica del cognome di un cittadino di tale Stato se questi è nel contempo cittadino di un altro Stato membro e in tale Stato ha (ri-)acquisito, a seguito di una modifica del cognome non legata a una variazione dello stato di famiglia, il proprio cognome originario ricevuto alla nascita, benché l’acquisizione di tale cognome non sia avvenuta quando il cittadino aveva la residenza abituale nell’altro Stato membro e sia avvenuta dietro sua richiesta”.

The University of Milan will host on 4 March 2016 the final conference of a project co-funded by the Civil Justice Programme of the EU: “Towards the Entry into Force of the Succession Regulation: Building Future Uniformity upon Past Divergencies“.

The project, lasting from April 2014 to March 2016, focuses on the impact of Regulation 650/2012 on national legal systems and the related national and European case law with the aim of assessing the changes that it introduces to legal practice, arising awareness within the legal professionals (notaries, lawyers and court judges), providing training and disseminating information in order to promote future uniformity in the application of its provisions. Video footage of the conferences and seminars organized in the frame of the project are available on its website, as well as a database of caselaw and legislation related to succession matters.

The sessions of the final conference will be held in English and Italian (with simultaneous interpreting). Here’s the programme (available as a .pdf file):

Welcome addresses – Presentation of the Project

• Stefania Bariatti (Univ. of Milan)
• Domenico Cambareri (Notary in Milan)
• Petra Jeney (EIPA, Luxembourg)

SESSION 1: Scope and definitions. Chair: Alegría Borrás (Univ. of Barcelona)

• Introduction to the Regulation and to Its Scope, Domenico Damascelli (Notary in Turi and Univ. of Salento)
• The Definition of “Succession” and Habitual Residence Within the Meaning of the Regulation (EU) 650/2012, Peter Kindler (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München)

SESSION 2: Applicable law. Chair: Roberta Clerici (Univ. of Milan)

• Applicable Law: Choice of Law, Ilaria Viarengo (Univ. of Milan)
• Agreements as to Successions, Jacopo Re (Univ. of Milan)
• Public Policy and Overriding Mandatory Rules, Francesca C. Villata (Univ. of Milan)
• Renvoi, Luigi Fumagalli (Univ. of Milan)
• Practice Paper, Daniele Muritano (Notary in Empoli)

SESSION 3: Jurisdiction and recognition. Chair: Alexandra Irina Danila (Notary in Romania)

• Jurisdiction: General Rules and Choice of Court, Ilaria Queirolo (Univ. of Genoa)
• Jurisdiction: Other Grounds, Stefania Bariatti (Univ. of Milan)
• Recognition of Judgments, Stefano Dominelli / Francesco Pesce (Univ. of Genoa)
• European Certificate of Succession: First Remarks concerning its Application, Carlo Alberto Marcoz (Notary in Turin)

SESSION 4: Round Table: The Impact on Member States and Third Countries. Chair: Stefania Bariatti (Univ. of Milan)

• Isidoro Calvo Vidal (Notary in Coruña)
• Cyril Nourissat (Univ. Jean Moulin Lyon 3)
• Peter Kindler (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München)
• Andrew Godfrey (Russell-Cooke, London)
• Paul Beaumont/Jayne Holliday (Univ. of Aberdeen)

Further information and the registration form are available on the conference’s webpage.

L’Università di Milano, assieme alla Fondazione Italiana del Notariato ed altri enti, organizza per il 4 marzo 2016 un convegno dal titolo Il diritto internazionale privato europeo delle successioni. Si tratta dell’evento conclusivo di una ricerca dedicata al regolamento n. 650/2012 sulle successioni mortis causa, co-finanziata dalla Commissione europea.

Il convegno si articolerà in quattro sessioni, dedicate rispettivamente all’ambito di applicazione del regolamento e alle nozioni di cui esso si serve, alle norme sui conflitti di leggi, a quelle sulla giurisdizione e il riconoscimento delle decisioni e all’impatto della disciplina uniforme sugli ordinamenti statali.

Interverranno, fra gli altri, Stefania Bariatti (Univ. Milano), Paul Beaumont (Univ. Aberdeen), Alegría Borrás (Univ. Barcellona), Roberta Clerici (Univ. Milano), Peter Kindler (Univ. Monaco), Luigi Fumagalli (Univ. Milano), Cyril Nourissat (Univ. Lyon), Ilaria Queirolo (Univ. Genova), Francesca Villata (Univ. Milano) e Ilaria Viarengo (Univ. Milano).

Il programma può leggersi qui.

La partecipazione – gratuita – richiede la registrazione al sito www.suxreg.eu.

At the Institute for Foreign and Private International Law of the Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg im Breisgau (Germany), a vacancy has to be filled at the chair for private law, private international law and comparative law (chairholder: Prof. Dr. Jan von Hein), from 1 April, 2016 with

a legal research assistant (salary scale E 13 TV-L, personnel quota 50%)
limited for 2 years.

The assistant is supposed to support the organizational and educational work of the chairholder, to participate in research projects of the chair as well as to teach his or her own courses (students’ exercise). Applicants are offered the opportunity to obtain a doctorate.

Applicants are expected to be interested in the chair’s main areas of research. They should possess an above-average German First State Examination (at least “vollbefriedigend”) or a foreign equivalent degree and be fluent in German. In addition, a thorough knowledge of German civil law as well as conflict of laws, comparative law and/or international procedural law is a necessity. Severely handicapped persons will be preferred provided that their qualification is equal.

Please send your application (curriculum vitae, certificates and, if available, further proofs of talent) to Prof. Dr. Jan von Hein, Institut für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht, Abt. III, Peterhof, Niemensstr. 10, D-79098 Freiburg (Germany) no later than 1 March, 2016.

As the application documents will not be returned, applicants are kindly requested to submit only unauthenticated copies. Alternatively, the documents may be sent as a pdf-file via e-mail to ipr3@jura.uni-freiburg.de.

A collection of papers from the 11th Regional Private International Law Conference held in Osijek, Croatia, on 11-12 June 2014 is out now. The book, edited by Professor Mirela Župan, contains scientiffic contributions by prominent authors on topics ranging from analysing the role and/or meaning of different connecting factors (habitual residence, nationality, party autonomy) to commenting on the effects which ECtHR case law may have on the interpretation of the Hague Abduction Convention. In addition, the book contains six national reports on the operation of the Hague Abduction Convention in the region.
The links to the books in .pdf and .epub formats are available here.

Readers of our blog might recall that Jan von Hein and I convened a conference on coherence in European private international law in Freiburg i.Br. (Germany) in October 2014 (see our previous post). Today, we are happy to report that the findings of the conference have just been published by the German publishing house Mohr Siebeck.

The  volume critically assesses the current state of European private international law including the law of international civil procedure. It sheds light on existing incoherences, describes the requirements for a more coherent regulation and discusses perspectives for a future European codification in the field of Private International Law. In addition, the volume contains English language summaries of each contribution as well as detailed discussion reports.

More information is available on the publisher’s website. The table of contents reads as follows:

Part 1: Grundlagen

• Jürgen Basedow, Kohärenz im Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrecht der Europäischen Union: Eine einleitende Orientierung
• Anatol Dutta, Gemeinsame oder getrennte Kodifikation von IPR und IZVR auf europäischer Ebene: Die bisherigen und geplanten Verordnungen im Familien- und Erbrecht als Vorbilder für andere Rechtsgebiete?
• Thomas Kadner Graziano, Gemeinsame oder getrennte Kodifikation von IPR und IZVR: Das schweizerische IPR-Gesetz als Modell für eine europäische Gesamtkodifikation – Lehren für die EU?

Part 2: Der räumliche Anwendungsbereich des europäischen IPR/IZVR

• Burkhard Hess, Binnenverhältnisse im Europäischen Zivilprozessrecht: Grenzüberschreitende v. nationale Sachverhalte
• Tanja Domej, Das Verhältnis nach „außen“: Europäische v. Drittstaatensachverhalte
• Andrea Schulz, Die EU und die Haager Konferenz für Internationales Privatrecht

Part 3: Subjektive und personale Anknüpfungspunkte im europäischen IPR/IZVR

• Felix Maultzsch, Parteiautonomie im Internationalen Privat- und Zivilverfahrensrecht
• Frauke Wedemann, Die Verortung juristischer Personen im europäischen IPR und IZVR
• Brigitta Lurger, Die Verortung natürlicher Personen im europäischen IPR und IZVR: Wohnsitz, gewöhnlicher Aufenthalt, Staatsangehörigkeit

Part 4: Objektive Anknüpfungsmomente für Schuldverhältnisse im europäischen IPR/IZVR

• Michael Müller, Objektive Anknüpfungsmomente für Schuldverhältnisse im europäischen IPR und IZVR: Die Behandlung vertraglicher Sachverhalte
• Haimo Schack, Kohärenz im europäischen Internationalen Deliktsrecht

Part 4: Schutz schwächerer Parteien und von Allgemeininteressen im europäischen IPR/IZVR

• Eva-Maria Kieninger, Der Schutz schwächerer Personen im Schuldrecht
• Urs Peter Gruber, Der Schutz schwächerer Personen im Familien- und Erbrecht
• Moritz Renner, Ordre public und Eingriffsnormen: Konvergenzen und Divergenzen zwischen IPR und IZVR

The November 2015 draft ‘Judgments project’ of the Hague Conference on private international law, otherwise known as the draft convention on the recognition and enforcement of judgments relating to civil and commercial matters, is a very ambitious project which at the same time risks exposing some of the inherent weaknesses of the modus operandi of the Hague Conference. This is not the right forum for an exhaustive analysis. Rather, with input from other members (Elsemiek Apers in particular) at Leuven PIL institute, I would like to flag some areas of interest. Inevitably, an obvious point of reference is the European Union’s Brussels I (Recast) regime.

First, the text itself. The Working Group’s report, which accompanies the draft, explains the history and development of the text and the various options taken. No need to repeat it here. The approach of the Convention is the same ‘mission creep’ which the 1968 Brussels Convention had to resort to, to enhance the free movement of judgments between Member States. Given that the most widespread reason for refusal of recognition and enforcement (R&E), are accusations of excessive or inappropriate exercise of jurisdiction, one can only truly co-ordinate R&E if one also co-ordinates jurisdiction. The Hague Convention takes this route in Articles 5-6, (Exclusive) bases for recognition and enforcement. Following this co-ordination of jurisdictional rules, Article 7 then limits the ground upon which R&E may be refused.

Of note is that Article 4(2)’s ban on merits review (when assessing the possibility of recognition and enforcement), probably does not extend to judgments issued by default. The Article is not clear on what is meant exactly: the first para of Article 4(2) rules out ‘review of the merits’. The second para suggests ‘The court addressed shall be bound by the findings of fact on which the court of origin based its jurisdiction, unless the judgment was given by default.’ Not being bound by findings of fact does not necessarily entail a possibility for merits review, and the text can probably do with clarification at this point.

Article 5(e)’s special jurisdictional rule for contracts, has been clarified compared with earlier versions, however the text remains subject to plenty of room for debate.

Article 8’s room for refusing R&E when the exclusive jurisdictional rules of the Convention were infringed, or where matters excluded from the Convention were at issue, could in our view do with tidying up. It currently mingles scope for refusal of R&E as such, in the case of infringement of the exclusive jurisdictional rules, with discussion of excluded matters as ‘preliminary issues’ only – a clear reference to the EU’s experience with arbitration. Without editorial perfection, however, this article, in combination with Article 2’s excluded matters, risks similar and protracted debate as was /is the case under Brussels I (and the Recast).

Further, the modus operandi, and institutional consequences of the Convention. As indicated, an exhaustive review of the Convention is not possible here. That is due in large part to the extensive comments which one could address vis-a-vis each individual entry of the text. Rather like in the case of each individual provision of the Brussels regime. In the case of the latter, the CJEU is exercised on a very regular basis with the determination of the precise meaning of the heads of jurisdiction. In the Hague process, there is no such institution. One has to rely on the application of the Convention by the signatory States. At some point, one has to assess whether it is tenable not to have some kind of review process at The Hague, lest one risks the Convention being applied quite differently in the various signatory States. Coupled with the additional lawyer of complication were the EU to accede (which it is bound to; however would it really be progress to create additional layers of differentiation?), the CJEU itself might have difficulty accepting a body of judicial review, where the text to be reviewed borders so closely unto the Brussels regime.

Geert.