Droit international général

The Council of the European Union is expected to adopt at its next meeting on Justice and Home Affairs, scheduled to take place on 3 and 4 December 2015, a political agreement on the compromise text of the future regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes (see here, however, for a corrigendum), and the compromise text of the future regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions regarding the property consequences of registered partnerships.

The initiative comes one year after the Council had observed that “some member states needed more time to complete their internal reflection process” on the two Commission proposals of 2011 and decided to “re-examine this matter as soon as possible, and by no later than the end of 2015″.

The Council of the European Union is expected to adopt at its next meeting on Justice and Home Affairs, scheduled to take place on 3 and 4 December 2015, a political agreement on the compromise text of the future regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes (see here, however, for a corrigendum), and the compromise text of the future regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions regarding the property consequences of registered partnerships.

The initiative comes one year after the Council had observed that “some member states needed more time to complete their internal reflection process” on the two Commission proposals of 2011 and decided to “re-examine this matter as soon as possible, and by no later than the end of 2015”.

Although it is hard to believe given his prolific writing and his remarkable fitness, American-German conflicts giant Professor Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Peter Hay has actually celebrated his eightieth birthday on 17 September this year in Berlin. On this occasion, he has been honoured by a publication of Selected Essays on Comparative Law and Conflict of Laws, edited by Hans-Eric Rasmussen-Bonne and Manana Khachidze. For further information, click here. This volume is a collection of articles, case notes and book reviews authored by Professor Hay, both in English and in German. The contributions cover the whole range of his academic interests, mainly private international law, comparative law and international civil procedure. Taken together, they provide a fascinating view of the development of private international law and comparative law in recent decades, from the U.S. conflicts revolution in the 1960’s to the Europeanization of conflict of laws since the Treaty of Amsterdam. This book is a testimony to a truly impressive lifetime achievement, and it is to be hoped that many more contributions will be added in the future. Ad multos annos!

Samuel Fulli-Lemaire, Affaire PIP : quelques réflexions sur les aspects de droit international privé, in Revue Internationale de Droit Économique, 2015, pp. 99-122.

[Abstract] – Plusieurs voies s’offrent aux porteuses d’implants mammaires fabriqués par la société PIP pour l’indemnisation de leurs préjudices. La présente étude aborde certaines des implications, au regard du droit international privé, des actions en responsabilité délictuelle qui peuvent être intentées par les victimes contre le fabricant ou ses dirigeants sociaux, contre son assureur, et enfin contre l’organisme notifié, c’est-à-dire l’entité chargée de conduire la procédure d’évaluation de conformité d’un produit de santé aux exigences européennes. Dans chaque hypothèse, les aspects relatifs à la compétence internationale et à la loi applicable seront évoqués. Il ressort de cette analyse que de nombreuses stratégies contentieuses peuvent être envisagées, et si cette diversité peut sembler servir l’objectif assurément louable d’une meilleure indemnisation des victimes, ou au moins de certaines d’entre elles, elle doit aussi conduire à nuancer la vision du marché intérieur comme un ensemble cohérent. Certaines de ces difficultés pourraient être atténuées, sinon résolues, par la généralisation de mécanismes d’actions de groupe, mais l’articulation de ces derniers et des règles de droit international privé soulèverait d’autres complications.

Confession time: when teaching the general conflicts course I tend to simply say about Article 71 of the Brussels I Regulation (unchanged in the Recast): ‘it’s complicated’. I have also briefly flagged the Article in my posting on Nickel and Goeldner. I suppose I should not be quite so shy in addressing the relationship even in an introductory conflicts class for, essentially, it is not that complicated at least form a hierarchical point of view. Article 71 mirrors Article 351 TFEU which states that any rights or obligations arising prior to the TFEU shall not be affected by it unless the agreements are not compatible with the TFEU. At stake therefore is a review by the courts whether international agreements between the Member States prior to the creation of the EU, are compatible with the TFEU.

In BAT Denmark v Kazemier and BAT Switserland v Essers, the United Kingdom Supreme Court had to carry out this exercise vis-a-vis the 1956 CMR Convention –   the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road. As Steven Baker notes, Lord Mance kicks off his judgment with the rather delightfully accurate ‘Cigarettes attract smokers, smugglers and thieves’. Tobacco manufactuters are also of course active litigators hence providing us with repeated opportunity to review case-law on a wide variety of contractual and other matters.

In the two appeals, one container load was allegedly hi-jacked in Belgium en route between Switzerland and The Netherlands in September 2011, while another allegedly lost 756 of its original 1386 cartons while parked overnight contrary to express instructions near Copenhagen en route between Hungary and Vallensbaek, Denmark.

The consignors (two of BAT’s corporate vehicles) are claiming against English main contractors who undertook responsibility for the carriage and against sub-contractors in whose hands the cigarettes were when the alleged losses occurred. The carriage was subject to the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road 1956 (“CMR”), given the force of law in the United Kingdom by the Carriage of Goods by Road Act 1965.

English law and English jurisdiction are said to offer the advantage that such duty and/or taxes are recoverable in a CMR claim against carriers, which is not the case in some other jurisdictions (at 4).

Citing (and reading in a particular way) CJEU precedent, in particular  Nipponkoa Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd v Inter-Zuid Transport BV (DTC Surhuisterveen BV intervening), C-452/12, the Supreme Court held (at 57) that CMR represents a balanced jurisdictional régime adopted across a wide-range of some 55 states, only half of which are Union member states. It did not regard its tailored balance as impinging on any of the principles of Union law which the CJEU would have it check against.

CMR applies therefore and under relevant English application, neither of the defendants can be sued in England.

Geert.

Il regolamento europeo sulle successioni. Commentario al Reg. UE 650/2012 applicabile dal 17 agosto 2015, a cura di Andrea Bonomi e Patrick Wautelet, Giuffrè, 2015, pp. XXXIV – 800, ISBN: 9788814201172, Euro 85.

L’indice dell’opera – che ha per autori Andrea Bonomi, Raffaella Di Iorio, Cristina Mariottini, Fabio Padovini, Paolo Pasqualis, Ilaria Pretelli e Maria Margherita Salvadori – è consultabile qui. Maggiori informazioni disponibili a questo indirizzo.

At first sight, it may seem a bit nerdy to report on Dyson, Case T-544/13. Yet (pun alert) once the dust settled on the judgment, the case in my view reveals quite a lot on how the CJEU sees the role of the EC as a regulator involved in all three steps of risk analysis: risk identification; risk management; and risk communication.

Arguably, misleading information often does more damage than a lack of information. It is on this basis that well-known Dyson, producer ia of bagless hoovers (or vacuum cleaners), challenged a delegated EC Regulation which establishes, in its own wording, ‘labelling and the provision of supplementary product information for electric mains-operated vacuum cleaners, including hybrid vacuum cleaners’. The purpose of the Regulation and of its mother Directive on energy labelling, evidently is to encourage consumers to purchase hoovers using less energy.

The contested regulation requires tests conducted with an empty dust bag. That, Dyson essentially argues, is like testing a Ferrari and a 2 CV on fuel consumption, with both cars in stationary condition (my comparison, not theirs). It will, in Dyson’s plea, lead to: (i) reporting of inaccurate information; (ii) ‘during use’ information not being integrated into the energy performance data; (iii) less incentive for manufacturers to invest with a view to improving the energy efficiency of vacuum cleaners; and (iv) labelling which does not serve to attain the objective of reducing energy consumption and, on the contrary, leads to an increase in energy consumption.

The Court held (at 47) that the Commission cannot be criticised for having failed to require tests conducted with a dust-loaded receptacle if, under its broad discretion, it decided that such tests were not yet reliable, accurate and reproducible. Even though the Court in various parts of the judgment acknowledges the inadequacy of the resulting product comparison, it cannot be held that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment by favouring a test conducted with an empty receptacle over a test conducted with a dust-loaded receptacle (at 53).

The judgment entertains many arguments brought forward however they essentially all revolve around the seemingly unavailable nature of appropriate, peer reviewable testing methods. The Court dismisses them all as (pun alert) hot air and effectively requires Dyson to offer the peer reviewable, repeatable alternative.

With respect, I believe the judgment is fundamentally mistaken. It was obviously not considered to be of a very crucial nature (chamber of three). Yet despite its very focussed nature, it reveals a lot about what the EU expects of its Institutions. In this case, misinformation is essentially considered preferable to no information. Surely (pun alert) that sucks.

The case was before the General Court hence appeal with the CJEU is not impossible.

Geert.

On 13 October 2015 the European Commission issued a report on the application of Regulation No 1896/2006, establishing a European order for payment procedure. Through a uniform and simplified procedure based on the use of standard forms, the Regulation allows a creditor to request a competent court in a EU Member State to issue an order of payment. If the debtor fails to contest the claim in the way prescribed by the Regulation, the order may be enforced without prior exequatur in the rest of the European Judicial area.

In its report, the Commission begins by addressing the issues relating to the submission of applications for an order of payment and their management by courts.

In particular, as regards the examination of applications, the Commission observes that even though inaccuracies in the information on the parties have in some States led to a high number of returned applications, the forms available in the European e-Justice portal effectively assist users in filling in applications in a correct way.

Whereas some States manage to issue the order of payment within the 30-days period provided by the Regulation, most of the Member States fail to comply with that deadline. In some cases, orders have been issued after no less than nine months from the application. With regard to the costs of the procedure, the Commission finds that fees are similar to those required for litigating under analogous national procedures, which largely vary among Member States.

According to the Commission, the opposition, review and enforcement of the European order of payment do not raise specific questions, even if the rate of opposition to the order differs from one Member State to another.

On a different note, the report underlines the prejudice that might be brought about by orders issued against consumers, as courts are instructed to issue orders for payment without examining the substantive bases of the claim. In this respect, the Commission considers, inter alia, that, since Article 8 of the Regulation requires the court to examine the claim on the basis of the information available to it, the seised court may, in case of doubts as to the justification of part of the claim, issue only a partial order.

The report concludes that the application of the Regulation has improved the handling of uncontested claims in cross-border disputes. Yet, the procedure does not seem to be sufficiently known among businesses, citizens, practitioners and courts. Accordingly, in the Commission’s view, the Regulation needs to be better promoted, including through the opportunities of cooperation provided by the European Judicial Network in Civil and Commercial Matters.

First update of the information referring to Article 76 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, to be found here (OJ C 390/10, 24.11.2015).

The French Cour de Cassation’s in Banque Privee Edmond de Rothschild Europe v X held that a unilateral jurisdiction clause was invalid under (doubtful) reference to (then) Article 23 of the Brussels I Regulation. The clause was held not to be binding under the French doctrine of clauses potestatives, even though the agreed forum was Luxembourg (whence the validity of the clause was judged under the lex fori derogati, not prorogati; that will no longer be possible under the recast Jurisdiction Regulation). In Credit Suisse, it extended this view (without reference this time to clauses potestatives) to choice of court in the context of the Lugano Convention.

In Apple Sales international v eBizcuss.com, the Cour de Cassation effectively qualifies its Rotschild case-law. The Court of Appeal held as unacceptable, under the theory of clauses potestatives, choice of court obliging eBizcuss to sue in Ireland, while allowing Apple Sales International to sue either in Ireland, or the place of registered office of eBizcuss, or any place where Apple Sales would have suffered damage. The Cour de Cassation now held that this clause is perfectly acceptable under Article 23 (now 25)’s regime for it corresponds to the need of foreseeability. (Which more extreme unilateral clauses arguably do not have). As always, the judgment is scant on details of the underlying contract whence it is not entirely clear whether French law was lex contractus or whether the Cour stuck to lex fori as determining validity of choice of court.

Geert.

The 10th edition of the International Seminar on Private International Law, organized by Prof. Fernández Rozas and Prof. de Miguel Asensio will be held next 14 and 15 April 2016, at the Faculty of Law of the Universidad Complutense of Madrid .

At the sitting of Thursday 14 special attention will be paid to the recent reforms of Spanish private international law; the latest developments towards codification of private international law in Latin America will also be addressed . The following sessions, on Friday, will focus on the development of private international law in Europe and within international commercial arbitration.

As in previous editions the main lectures of the seminar will be in charge of well-known scholars, including Jürgen Basedow (Max Planck Institute Hamburg), Roberto Baratta (University of Macerata), Bertrand Ancel (Paris II), Christian Heinze (University of  Hannover) and Sebastien Mancieaux (University of Dijon). Nonetheless, the seminar is open to all scholars, either Spanish or foreigners, willing to participate with brief presentations. In this regard proposals including both the title and a brief summary are to be sent no later than December 15 to Prof. Angel Espiniella Menéndez (espiniell@gmail.com). The final written version of the presentations, not exceeding 25 pages, is to be submitted before April 1, 2016. Subject to prior peer-review they will be published in the Anuario Español de Derecho Internacional Privado, vol. XVI.

The registration deadline to attend the seminar, as well as the programme and further information will be announced in due time.

Less is sometimes more so I shall not attempt to summarise all issues in Case C-198/14 Valev Visnapuu. The case makes for sometimes condensed reading however it perfectly illustrates the way to go about dealing with obstacles to trade put in place for environmental, public health or, as in this case, both reasons.

Mr Visnapuu essentially forum shops Estonia’s lower prices on alcohol by offering Finnish clients home delivery of alcoholic beverages purchased there. No declaration of import is made to Finish customs and excise, thereby circumventing (accusation of course is that this is illegal) a variety of excise duties imposed for public health and environmental reasons, as well as a number of requirements relating to retail licenses and container requirements (essentially a deposit-return system) for beverages.

Confronted with a demand to settle various tax debts, as well as with a suspended prison sentence, Mr Visnapuu turns to EU law as his defence in a criminal proceeding. The CJEU then had to settle a variety of classic trade and environment /public health questions: whether the packaging and packaging waste Directive is exhaustive on the issue of deposit-return system (answer: no and hence the system additionally needs to be assessed vis-a-vis EU primary law: Article 34 ff TFEU or Article 110 TFEU); whether in the context of that Directive excise duties on packaging may be imposed (yes) and packaging integrated into a functioning return system exempt (yes; in the absence of indications that imported systems are less likely to enjoy the exemption); whether the relevant excise duties fall under Article 34 ff TFEU or Article 110 TFEU (answer: it is part of an internal system of taxation hence needs to be judged vis-a-vis Article 110 TFEU); and finally whether the retail licence requirement needs to be judged viz Article 34 or Article 37 TFEU (answer: mixed, given the various requirements at stake). Final judgment on proportionality is down to the Finnish courts.

Readers in need of a tipple would be advised to postpone until after reading the judgment. Again though the case shows that if one keeps a clear head, classic structures of applying EU law go a long way in untangling even complex matters of law and fact.

Geert.

Il nuovo diritto di famiglia – Profili sostanziali, processuali e notarili, vol. IV – Tematiche di interesse notarile – Profili internazionalprivatistici, a cura di Alessandra Cagnazzo, Filippo Preite e Vera Tagliaferri, Giuffrè, 2015, ISBN 9788814201134, pp. 1360, Euro 150.

Tra i contributi di argomento internazionalprivatistico si segnalano: La legge italiana di diritto internazionale privato e le convenzioni internazionali, di Alessandra Zanobetti; Qualificazione e istituti del diritto di famiglia sconosciuti, di Stefano Armellini; La legge applicabile al divorzio nel regolamento c.d. “Roma III”, di Ilaria Viarengo; Il regolamento 2201/2003: circolazione delle sentenze in materia di separazione, divorzio e annullamento del matrimonio, di Ilaria Queirolo; La legge applicabile ai fini della determinazione dello status familiare nella disciplina del ricongiungimento, di Olivia Lopes Pegna; La circolazione delle sentenze ecclesiastiche di nullità del matrimonio, di Alessandra Lanciotti; Il riconoscimento del divorzio notarile, di Maria Caterina Baruffi; Giurisdizione in materia di responsabilità genitoriale: il regolamento n. 2201/2003, di Laura Carpaneto; La convenzione dell’Aja del 1996 sulla protezione dei bambini, di Laura Carpaneto; La libera circolazione delle decisioni in materia di responsabilità genitoriale nel regolamento n. 2201/2003, e Giurisdizione, legge regolatrice, riconoscimento ed esecuzione delle decisioni in materia di obbligazioni alimentari, di Margherita Salvadori; Le proposte di regolamenti dedicate ai regimi patrimoniali tra coniugi e partner in unioni registrate, di Elisabetta Bergamini; La cittadinanza multipla dei minori e diritto al nome, di Emilia Maria Magrone; Il riconoscimento dei provvedimenti di adozione stranieri, di Chiara Tuo; Il riconoscimento dei patti successori tra i coniugi, di Giovanna Debernardi; La sottrazione internazionale di minori, di Luciana Sangiovanni.

Per maggiori informazioni si veda qui.

SIDIBlog – the blog of the Italian Society of International Law and European Union Law – has issued a call for contributions to an on-line debate on EU Regulation No 848/2015 on insolvency proceedings (recast).

[From the blog] – The EU Regulation No 848/2015 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 brings about the revision of the EC Regulation No 1346/2000 in matters of insolvency proceedings: while not departing from the structure of the pre-existing Regulation, the new instrument aims at improving the application of uniform rules under several aspects. With the following post of Professor Stefania Bariatti, and other ones that will be published in the coming weeks, the SIDIBlog intends to start a debate on the novelties contained in the new Insolvency Regulation, trusting to host further contributions of Italian and foreign scholars and practitioners, willing to discuss the issues raised by the new instrument. Prospective contributors can submit their posts at sidiblog2013@gmail.com.

Contributions may be submitted in English, French, Spanish or Italian. The papers received will appear in the next issue of the on-line journal Quaderni di SIDIBlog.

Trevor C. Hartley, Anti-suit Injunctions in Support of Arbitration: West Tankers Still Afloat, in International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 2015, p. 965 ss.

[Abstract] – In its eagerly awaited judgment in Gazprom, the CJEU declined to follow the Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet that West Tankers is no longer good law. The West Tankers case decided that the courts of one Member State are precluded from granting antisuit injunctions directed at proceedings in the courts of another Member State, even if the proceedings in which the injunction is granted fall outside the scope of the Brussels Regulation by reason of the fact that they are concerned with arbitration. The Gazprom case confirms that West Tankers is still good law.

Ulteriori informazioni sul fascicolo 4/2015 della rivista sono disponibili qui.

SIDIBlog – the blog of the Italian Society of International Law and European Union Law – has issued a call for contributions to an on-line debate on EU Regulation No 848/2015 on insolvency proceedings (recast).

[From the blog] – The EU Regulation No 848/2015 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 brings about the revision of the EC Regulation No 1346/2000 in matters of insolvency proceedings: while not departing from the structure of the pre-existing Regulation, the new instrument aims at improving the application of uniform rules under several aspects. With the following post of Professor Stefania Bariatti, and other ones that will be published in the coming weeks, the SIDIBlog intends to start a debate on the novelties contained in the new Insolvency Regulation, trusting to host further contributions of Italian and foreign scholars and practitioners, willing to discuss the issues raised by the new instrument. Prospective contributors can submit their posts at sidiblog2013@gmail.com.

Contributions may be submitted in English, French, Spanish or Italian. The papers received will appear in the next issue of the on-line journal Quaderni di SIDIBlog.

The following announcement has been kindly provided by Béligh Elbalti, Assistant Professor, Graduate School of Law, Kyoto University.
On December 19, 2015, a one-day international symposium on the theme of private international law in Asian countries will be held at Doshisha University, Kyoto (Japan). The symposium is organized by The Research Center of International Transaction and Law (RECITAL), Doshisha University (Professor Naoshi Takasugi, Director of RECITAL) with the support of the Ministries of Justice and Foreign Affairs of Japan and coordinated by Professor Yuko Nishitani (Kyoto University). The symposium presents an opportunity to gather distinguished experts in the field of Private International Law from many countries (especially Asian countries) as well as representatives from the Hague Conference on Private International Law. The ultimate purpose of the symposium is to discuss private international law issues from an Asian perspective and to share knowledge as well as experience with the aim of building a set of “Asian Principles of Private International Law”. The program of the symposium is as follows:

Morning Session
Title: “Private International Law from a Comparative Perspective”
Time: 9:30 – 12:00
Venue: Doshisha University, Imadegawa Campus, “Ryoshin-Kan” Building, 1st floor room 107

9:30 – 9:40
Naoshi Takasugi (Professor, Doshisha University, Japan)
“Opening Speech: Towards the Asian Principles of Private International Law (APPIL)”

9:40 – 10:10
Kanaphon Chanhom (Professor, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand)
“Private International Law in Thailand: Focusing on Jurisdiction”

10:10 – 10:40
Yu Un Oppusunggu (Professor, University of Indonesia)
“Introduction to Private International Law in Indonesia”

10:40 – 11:10
Gérald Goldstein (Professor, Montreal University)
“Highlights of Quebec Private International Law Rules and Case Law”

11:10 – 11:40
Discussion

Afternoon Session:
Title: “Cross-Border Business Transactions and the Hague Conference in Asia”
Time: 13:30 – 17:30
Venue: Doshisha University, Imadegawa Campus, “Ryoshin-Kan” Building, 1st floor room 107
Chair: Naoshi Takasugi (Director of RECITAL; Professor, Doshisha University)

13:30-13:35
Koji Murata (President, Doshisha University)
“Welcome Speech”

13:35-13:45
Muneki Uchino (Councilor, Ministry of Justice, Civil Affairs Bureau)
“Opening Speech”

Part 1 – Hague Principles: Soft Law of PIL

13:45-14:15
Yuko Nishitani (Professor, Kyoto University)
“Hague Principles and Party Autonomy in International Contracts”

14:15-14:45
Anselmo Reyes (Representative of HAPRO; Professor, Hong Kong University)
“Hague Principles from a Practical Viewpoint in Asia”

14:45-15:20
Discussion

(Coffee Break)

Part 2 – Foreign Judgment Project: Past, Present and Future

15:30-16:00
Marta Pertegás (First Secretary, Hague Conference on Private International Law)
“Development of the Hague Judgments Project”

16:00-16:30
Keisuke Takeshita (Professor, Hitotsubashi University)
“The Hague Choice of Court Convention and Dispute Resolution in Asia”

16:30-16:50
Masato Dogauchi (Professor, Waseda University)
“Comments”

16:50-17:30
Discussion

Participation to this event is free of charge. However, all those who are interested in taking part of this event are cordially required to contact beforehand via email Professor Naoshi Takasugi (ntakasug@mail.doshisha.ac.jp) and indicate their name, affiliation and email address. All presentations are in English.

Access:
(http://www.doshisha.ac.jp/en/information/campus/imadegawa/imadegawa.html#)
By Subway: from “Kyoto Station”, take Karasuma line to Kokusai-Kaikan and get off at “Imadegawa Station” (10 mn). (Exit #1 of Subway Imadegawa Station is directly connected to the symposium venue, Ryoshinkan, Doshisha University).

Evidence in Contemporary Civil Procedure. Fundamental Issues in a Comparative Perspective, a cura di C.H. van Rhee e Alan Uzelac, 2015, Intersentia, ISBN 9781780683386, pp. 364, Euro 79.

[Abstract] – Since the start of the new millennium, many contemporary jurisdictions have been revisiting the fundamental principles of their civil procedures. Even the core areas of the civil process are not left untouched, including the way in which evidence is introduced, collected and presented in court. One generator of the reforms in the field of evidence-taking in recent decades has been slow and inefficient litigation. Both in Europe and globally, reaching a balance between the demands of factual accuracy and the need to adjudicate disputes in a swift, cost-effective and efficient way is still one of the key challenges. The second reason that many countries are reforming their law of evidence is related to cultural and technological changes in modern societies. As the balance between, on the one side, traditional human rights such as the right to privacy and due process is shifting towards, on the other side, the modern need for security, efficiency and quick access to justice, the perception of what is admissible or not in the context of evidence-taking is changing as well. In the same sense, the fast pace of modern life commands different practices of fact-finding, accompanied by new methods of selection of evidence that are appropriate for this purpose. Last but not least, the overwhelming penetration of new technologies into all spheres of public and private life has the capacity to dramatically change the methods of the collection and presentation of evidence.

L’indice completo può essere consultato qui. Ulteriori informazioni a questo indirizzo.

The report of the fifth meeting of the Working Group established by the Council on General Affairs and Policy of the Hague Conference on Private International Law to prepare proposals in connection with “a future instrument relating to recognition and enforcement of judgments, including jurisdictional filters” is now available through the Conference’s website (see here for an account of the previous meeting).

The Working Group proceeded on the basis that the Convention should: (a) be a complementary convention to the Hague Choice of Court Convention of 30 June 2005, currently in force for the EU and Mexico; (b) provide for recognition and enforcement of judgments from other contracting States that meet the requirements set out in a list of bases for recognition and enforcement; (c) set out the only grounds on which recognition and enforcement of such judgments may be refused; and (d) not prevent recognition and enforcement of judgments in a contracting State under national law or under other treaties, subject to one provision relating to exclusive bases for recognition and enforcement (covering matters in the fields of intellectual property rights and immovable property).

The proposed draft text of the Convention prepared by the Working Group is annexed to the report.

The Working Group recommended to the Council on General Affairs and Policy (which is expected to meet in March 2016) that the proposed draft text be submitted for consideration to a Special Commission “to be held, if possible, in June 2016″.

It also recommended that matters relating to direct jurisdiction (including exorbitant grounds and lis pendens) be considered by the Experts’ Group in charge of the Judgments Project “with a view to preparing an additional instrument”. In the Working Group’s view, the Experts’ Group “should meet soon after the Special Commission has drawn up a draft Convention”.

The report of the fifth meeting of the Working Group established by the Council on General Affairs and Policy of the Hague Conference on Private International Law to prepare proposals in connection with “a future instrument relating to recognition and enforcement of judgments, including jurisdictional filters” is now available through the Conference’s website (see here for an account of the previous meeting).

The Working Group proceeded on the basis that the Convention should: (a) be a complementary convention to the Hague Choice of Court Convention of 30 June 2005, currently in force for the EU and Mexico; (b) provide for recognition and enforcement of judgments from other contracting States that meet the requirements set out in a list of bases for recognition and enforcement; (c) set out the only grounds on which recognition and enforcement of such judgments may be refused; and (d) not prevent recognition and enforcement of judgments in a contracting State under national law or under other treaties, subject to one provision relating to exclusive bases for recognition and enforcement (covering matters in the fields of intellectual property rights and immovable property).

The proposed draft text of the Convention prepared by the Working Group is annexed to the report.

The Working Group recommended to the Council on General Affairs and Policy (which is expected to meet in March 2016) that the proposed draft text be submitted for consideration to a Special Commission “to be held, if possible, in June 2016”.

It also recommended that matters relating to direct jurisdiction (including exorbitant grounds and lis pendens) be considered by the Experts’ Group in charge of the Judgments Project “with a view to preparing an additional instrument”. In the Working Group’s view, the Experts’ Group “should meet soon after the Special Commission has drawn up a draft Convention”.