Droit international général

This post has been written by Ester di Napoli.

On 16 July 2015, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) rendered its judgment in the case of A v. B (C-184/14), clarifying the interpretation of Regulation No 4/2009 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations (the Maintenance Regulation).

More specifically, the ruling regarded the interpretation of Article 3 of the Regulation. This provides, inter alia, that jurisdiction in matters of maintenance lies with “(c) the court which, according to its own law, has jurisdiction to entertain proceedings concerning the status of a person if the matter relating to maintenance is ancillary to those proceedings, unless that jurisdiction is based solely on the nationality of one of the parties”, or with “(d) the court which, according to its own law, has jurisdiction to entertain proceedings concerning parental responsibility if the matter relating to maintenance is ancillary to those proceedings, unless that jurisdiction is based solely on the nationality of one of the parties”.

The dispute in the main proceedings concerned the legal separation of two Italians and the custody of their children. These proceedings had been brought by A (the husband) against B (the wife) before the District Court of Milan.

The Court of Milan asserted its jurisdiction in respect of legal separation relying on Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation No 2201/2003 (Brussels IIa), but held that, pursuant to Article 8(1) of that Regulation, it lacked jurisdiction over parental responsibility, as the children were, at the material time, habitually resident in the UK. The Court of Milan further held that, according to Article 3(c) and (d) of the Maintenance Regulation, it had jurisdiction to decide on the issue of maintenance for the benefit of the wife, but not to decide on maintenance for the benefit of the children, since the latter request was not ancillary to proceedings over personal status, but to proceedings concerning parental responsibility.

The case eventually reached the Italian Supreme Court, which decided to request the ECJ for a preliminary ruling. The Supreme Court asked whether, in circumstances such as those described above, a maintenance request pertaining to the child may be ruled on both by the court that has jurisdiction over legal separation or divorce, as a matter ancillary to the proceedings concerning the status of a person, within the meaning of Article 3(c) of that Regulation, and by the court that has jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings concerning parental responsibility, as a matter ancillary to those proceedings, within the meaning of Article 3(d) of that Regulation; or whether a decision on a similar matter can only be taken by the latter court.

Put otherwise, the issue was whether the heads of jurisdiction set out in Article 3(c) and (d) of the Maintenance Regulation must be understood to be mutually exclusive, or whether the conjunction “or” in the provision implies that the courts that have jurisdiction over legal separation and parental responsibility may be both validly seised of an application relating to maintenance in respect of children.

In its judgment, the ECJ begins by observing that the scope of the concept of “ancillary matter” cannot be left to the discretion of the courts of each Member State according to their national law. The meaning of this expression should rather be determined by reference to the wording of the relevant provisions, their context and goals.

The wording of Article 3(c) and (d) indicates that a distinction should be made between proceedings concerning the status of a person and proceedings concerning parental responsibility. In the face of this wording, it cannot be unequivocally established “whether the alternative nature of those criteria means that the applications relating to child maintenance are ancillary only to one set of proceedings concerning parental responsibility, or whether those applications may be deemed ancillary also to proceedings concerning the status of a person”.

As regards the context of the pertinent provisions, the ECJ notes that the above distinction echoes the distinction made by the Brussels IIa Regulation between disputes concerning divorce, legal separation and marriage annulment, on the one hand, and disputes regarding the attribution, exercise, delegation, and restriction or termination of parental responsibility, on the other. The ECJ further notes in this connection, based on Recital 12 of the preamble of the latter Regulation, that the rules on jurisdiction relating to parental responsibility underlie a concern for the best interests of the child, and adds that “an application relating to maintenance in respect of minor children is … intrinsically linked to proceedings concerning matters of parental responsibility”.

The ECJ concludes that “it is vital to take into account, in interpreting the rules on jurisdiction laid down by Article 3(c) and (d) of Regulation No 4/2009, the best interest of the child”, and that the implementation of such Regulation “must occur in accordance to Article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union”, according to which, in all actions relating to children, whether taken by public authorities or private institutions, the child’s best interests must be a primary consideration.

Finally, as regards the goals of the provisions at stake, the Court considers that the main objective of the Maintenance Regulation is to ensure, in this field, the proper administration of justice within the EU. This implies that the court to which jurisdiction is conferred to decide on parental responsibility should be the court that finds itself “in the best position to evaluate in concreto the issues involved in the application relating to child maintenance, to set the amount of that maintenance intended to contribute to the child’s maintenance and education costs, by adapting it, according to (i) the type of custody (either jointly or sole) ordered, (ii) access rights and the duration of those rights and (iii) other factual elements relating to the exercise of parental responsibility brought before it”.

In light of the above, the ECJ concludes that, when the court of a Member State is seised of proceedings concerning legal separation or divorce between the parents of a minor child, and the court of another Member State is seised of proceedings involving matters of parental responsibility over the same child, Article 3(c) and (d) of Regulation No 4/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that “an application relating to maintenance concerning that child is ancillary only to the proceedings concerning parental responsibility, with the meaning of Article 3(d) of that Regulation”.

On 16 July 2015, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) rendered its judgment in the case of A v. B (C-184/14), clarifying the interpretation of Regulation No 4/2009 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations (the Maintenance Regulation).

More specifically, the ruling regarded the interpretation of Article 3 of the Regulation. This provides, inter alia, that jurisdiction in matters of maintenance lies with “(c) the court which, according to its own law, has jurisdiction to entertain proceedings concerning the status of a person if the matter relating to maintenance is ancillary to those proceedings, unless that jurisdiction is based solely on the nationality of one of the parties”, or with “(d) the court which, according to its own law, has jurisdiction to entertain proceedings concerning parental responsibility if the matter relating to maintenance is ancillary to those proceedings, unless that jurisdiction is based solely on the nationality of one of the parties”.

The dispute in the main proceedings concerned the legal separation of two Italians and the custody of their children. These proceedings had been brought by A (the husband) against B (the wife) before the District Court of Milan.

The Court of Milan asserted its jurisdiction in respect of legal separation relying on Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation No 2201/2003 (Brussels IIa), but held that, pursuant to Article 8(1) of that Regulation, it lacked jurisdiction over parental responsibility, as the children were, at the material time, habitually resident in the UK. The Court of Milan further held that, according to Article 3(c) and (d) of the Maintenance Regulation, it had jurisdiction to decide on the issue of maintenance for the benefit of the wife, but not to decide on maintenance for the benefit of the children, since the latter request was not ancillary to proceedings over personal status, but to proceedings concerning parental responsibility.

The case eventually reached the Italian Supreme Court, which decided to request the ECJ for a preliminary ruling. The Supreme Court asked whether, in circumstances such as those described above, a maintenance request pertaining to the child may be ruled on both by the court that has jurisdiction over legal separation or divorce, as a matter ancillary to the proceedings concerning the status of a person, within the meaning of Article 3(c) of that Regulation, and by the court that has jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings concerning parental responsibility, as a matter ancillary to those proceedings, within the meaning of Article 3(d) of that Regulation; or whether a decision on a similar matter can only be taken by the latter court.

Put otherwise, the issue was whether the heads of jurisdiction set out in Article 3(c) and (d) of the Maintenance Regulation must be understood to be mutually exclusive, or whether the conjunction “or” in the provision implies that the courts that have jurisdiction over legal separation and parental responsibility may be both validly seised of an application relating to maintenance in respect of children.

In its judgment, the ECJ begins by observing that the scope of the concept of “ancillary matter” cannot be left to the discretion of the courts of each Member State according to their national law. The meaning of this expression should rather be determined by reference to the wording of the relevant provisions, their context and goals.

The wording of Article 3(c) and (d) indicates that a distinction should be made between proceedings concerning the status of a person and proceedings concerning parental responsibility. In the face of this wording, it cannot be unequivocally established “whether the alternative nature of those criteria means that the applications relating to child maintenance are ancillary only to one set of proceedings concerning parental responsibility, or whether those applications may be deemed ancillary also to proceedings concerning the status of a person”.

As regards the context of the pertinent provisions, the ECJ notes that the above distinction echoes the distinction made by the Brussels IIa Regulation between disputes concerning divorce, legal separation and marriage annulment, on the one hand, and disputes regarding the attribution, exercise, delegation, and restriction or termination of parental responsibility, on the other. The ECJ further notes in this connection, based on Recital 12 of the preamble of the latter Regulation, that the rules on jurisdiction relating to parental responsibility underlie a concern for the best interests of the child, and adds that “an application relating to maintenance in respect of minor children is … intrinsically linked to proceedings concerning matters of parental responsibility”.

The ECJ concludes that “it is vital to take into account, in interpreting the rules on jurisdiction laid down by Article 3(c) and (d) of Regulation No 4/2009, the best interest of the child”, and that the implementation of such Regulation “must occur in accordance to Article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union”, according to which, in all actions relating to children, whether taken by public authorities or private institutions, the child’s best interests must be a primary consideration.

Finally, as regards the goals of the provisions at stake, the Court considers that the main objective of the Maintenance Regulation is to ensure, in this field, the proper administration of justice within the EU. This implies that the court to which jurisdiction is conferred to decide on parental responsibility should be the court that finds itself “in the best position to evaluate in concreto the issues involved in the application relating to child maintenance, to set the amount of that maintenance intended to contribute to the child’s maintenance and education costs, by adapting it, according to (i) the type of custody (either jointly or sole) ordered, (ii) access rights and the duration of those rights and (iii) other factual elements relating to the exercise of parental responsibility brought before it”.

In light of the above, the ECJ concludes that, when the court of a Member State is seised of proceedings concerning legal separation or divorce between the parents of a minor child, and the court of another Member State is seised of proceedings involving matters of parental responsibility over the same child, Article 3(c) and (d) of Regulation No 4/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that “an application relating to maintenance concerning that child is ancillary only to the proceedings concerning parental responsibility, with the meaning of Article 3(d) of that Regulation”.

As the holiday season now is in full swing, here’s a choice of court and choice of law clause I received. For us all to ponder on the beaches /in the mountains /whatever retreat we’ll find ourselves on:

‘LAW AND JURISDICTION
This agreement is between the holiday-maker (the renter) and the agency or property owner. Booking ltd is acting only as a representative of the agency or owner listed on the voucher and as such can not be held directly responsible for any problems concerned with the booking. The owners of Booking LTd its employees or agents shall not be liable for any damage, loss or personal injury which may be sustained by persons or property at any time during the reserved stay. In the event of controversies arising from the booking of the rental, the Irish Court only can deal with the matter and Irish law only applies. Signing the booking form and making the booking implies that the General Letting Conditions have been understood and have thereby been accepted without reserve and without exception. If any of the conditions of this contract have become invalid or were invalid or if in this contract there should be a gap, the other conditions cannot be contested.

Any and all issues regarding the property, such as damages, injury, etc, shall be a dispute between the owner or agency and the renter of the property. In such cases, with no exceptions, Irish law will apply and the jurisdiction will be the local courts in Ireland.’

Happy holidays. Geert.

Massimo V. Benedettelli, Profili di diritto internazionale privato ed europeo delle società, in Rivista di diritto societario, 1/2015, pp. 35 ss.

1. La dimensione internazionalprivatistica ed europea del diritto delle società. – 2. Criteri guida per il coordinamento tra diritto interno, diritto straniero e diritto europeo in materia societaria. – 3. Il coordinamento internazionalprivatistico secondo il diritto italiano: rinvio tendenzialmente integrale alle valutazioni dell’ordinamento di costituzione della società. – 4. L’influenza del diritto europeo sul coordinamento tra gli ordinamenti degli Stati membri in materia societaria. – 5. L’ambito della giurisdizione italiana in materia societaria. 6. – Il riconoscimento di sentenze, altri provvedimenti e lodi arbitrali stranieri in materia societaria. – 7. Il diritto applicabile in materia societaria. – 8. Le fusioni e le scissioni internazionali. – 9. Il trasferimento della sede sociale all’estero.

Professor Dr. Tim W. Dornis, who teaches law at the Leuphana University (Lüneburg/Germany), has published a very interesting article on the application of the local data theory in European private international law in the Swiss Review of International and European Law (SZIER/RSDIE): Tim W. Dornis, Die Theorie der local data: dogmatische Bruchstelle im klassischen IPR, SZIER/RSDIE 25 (2015), p. 183. The author has kindly provided us with the following English summary:

“Quite often, the applicable law in international torts is not the law of the place where the tortfeasor acted. Indeed, both article 17 of Rome II and article 142 of the Swiss PIL provide for a consideration of “local rules of safety and conduct” instead of an application of the lex causae. Nevertheless, many questions around this so-called local-data doctrine remain unanswered—in particular, the distinction between rules that are “strictly territorial” and rules that are deemed to allow for more “flexibility” is problematic.

An oft-enunciated illustration of the first category is a traffic accident between two German tourists in England. While the German lex domicilii communis may be applied with respect to the liability of the tortfeasor, the English rule of driving on the left side of the street must provide for the standard of conduct. Of course, the tortfeasor cannot claim that he was acting in accordance with German traffic laws while driving his car in England. An example of the second, more flexible category can be found in rules on alcohol limits. These rules are supposed to be more adaptable insofar as parties from the same country are able to ‘carry’ their lex communis with them into a foreign jurisdiction.

If agreement exists—and it does—that considering local data serves lawmakers’ concern for maintaining the local order, this differentiation is questionable. Don’t alcohol limits also promote the safety of local traffic? A closer look at these and other problems reveals that the issue of local data lies at the heart of a debate confronting European choice of law in the Savignian tradition: the discussion on the interrelation between substantive justice and conflicts justice. As this article suggests, a more policy-oriented view allows for modest changes in the categorization of local rules of safety and conduct. This ultimately paves the way for consistent and practically workable results.”

In una ordinanza del 21 luglio 2015, il Tribunale di Milano si è pronunciato sull’individuazione del “luogo di esecuzione” di una decisione agli effetti dell’art. 22 n. 5 della Convenzione di Lugano del 30 ottobre 2007 sulla competenza giurisdizionale e il riconoscimento e l’esecuzione delle decisioni in materia civile commerciale. Tale norma, pressoché identica a quella che si leggeva nell’art. 22 n. 5 del regolamento n. 44/2001 (Bruxelles I) e che ora si ritrova all’art. 24 n. 5 del regolamento n. 1215/2012 (Bruxelles I bis), attribuisce una competenza esclusiva, in materia di esecuzione delle decisioni, ai giudici dello Stato, vincolato dalla Convenzione, “nel cui territorio ha luogo l’esecuzione”.

Nella specie, si trattava di localizzare un’attività esecutiva consistente nell’espropriazione forzata di crediti presso terzi.

La domanda, avanzata da una società svizzera, riguardava un lodo arbitrale emesso in Ticino e dichiarato esecutivo in Italia, recante la condanna di un cittadino italiano residente in Tailandia. Il creditore procedente aveva allora provveduto alla notificazione di un atto di pignoramento al debitore pignorato e ad altri due soggetti debitori di costui, aventi entrambi sede in Italia. Su queste premesse, debitore e terzi sono stati citati a comparire davanti al Tribunale di Milano.

Il giudice adito, rilevata la necessità di verificare la sussistenza della giurisdizione italiana, ha ritenuto di dover fare riferimento alla Convenzione di Lugano del 2007, avendo cura di rilevare che la stessa deve interpretarsi “tenendo debitamente conto” dei principi elaborati dalla Corte di giustizia con riguardo a disposizioni analoghe contenute sia nella Convenzione di Lugano del 1988 (che la Convenzione del 2007 ha provveduto a sostituire), sia nella Convenzione di Bruxelles del 1968 e nel regolamento Bruxelles I.

Riferendosi, dunque, all’art. 22 n. 5 della Convenzione, il Tribunale di Milano ha osservato, innanzitutto, che nel determinare il significato di espressioni dal tenore letterale incerto — quale può essere, appunto, “il luogo di esecuzione di una decisione” — occorre preferire, come emerge del resto dalla giurisprudenza della Corte di giustizia, un approccio autonomo, cioè sganciato dalle categorie dei singoli ordinamenti nazionali, e valorizzare la finalità perseguita dalla norma in questione, presa individualmente e nel contesto in cui è calata.

Tradizionalmente fondata sull’esistenza di un legame particolarmente stretto tra fatti e foro, la giurisdizione esclusiva dovrebbe allora ritenersi sussistente ogniqualvolta tale prossimità riesca, effettivamente, ad attribuire a questo foro una posizione privilegiata per valutare i fatti in causa, poiché, per usare le parole della Corte di Giustizia nella sentenza Sanders, “è chiaro che i giudici cui è riconosciuta competenza esclusiva [ai sensi dell’allora articolo 16 della Convenzione di Bruxelles del 1968] sono quelli meglio situati per dirimere le controversie di cui trattasi”.

La “buona amministrazione della giustizia”, procede il giudice milanese, è poi, innegabilmente, un valore immanente all’intero sistema di Bruxelles e Lugano, oltre che una finalità espressamente attribuita nella giurisprudenza della Corte di giustizia ai titoli di giurisdizione esclusiva.

Su queste basi, il Tribunale ha concluso che, ai fini dell’art. art. 22 n. 5, il luogo dell’esecuzione, in caso di espropriazione forzata di crediti presso terzi, coincida con il “luogo della sede del terzo”.

Nella specie, come detto, i debitori del debitore erano due persone giuridiche aventi sede in Italia, circostanza atta a rendere il foro italiano, stando al Tribunale, la sede maggiormente idonea a garantire un efficiente svolgimento del procedimento, specie sotto il profilo istruttorio.

Nel diritto processuale italiano, infatti, l’espropriazione del credito presso terzi presuppone una verifica incidentale dei rapporti intercorrenti tra il debitore pignorato ed il terzo, la quale, di regola, dovrebbe svolgersi in forma semplificata e meramente documentale (art. 547 del codice di procedure civile, come modificato).

Potrebbe tuttavia rendersi necessario, localmente, il compimento di altre attività istruttorie – nonché la comparizione in udienza – nel caso, non infrequente, di mancanza o contestazione della dichiarazione del terzo, sulla quale il suddetto accertamento è “fisiologicamente” basato.

L’argomento determinante nel ragionamento del giudice è dunque costituito dalla necessità di garantire quella specifica declinazione dell’economia procedurale data dalla “efficacia della prova”. Il rilievo che, nella giurisprudenza europea, tale profilo sia emerso principalmente nella diversa sede dell’interpretazione del foro dell’illecito (come nella sentenza Mines de Potasse d’Alsace o nella sentenza Marinari) nulla toglie alla valenza generale di questa indicazione, derivante dal carattere integrato delle norme giurisdizionali uniformi.

La soluzione adottata per concretizzare il criterio dettato dall’art. 22 n. 5 avrebbe inoltre, secondo l’ordinanza, il merito aggiunto di soddisfare le esigenze di prevedibilità del foro, altro obiettivo dichiarato del regime di Bruxelles e Lugano. La sede del terzo è un dato della realtà oggettiva, per di più dipendente dalla scelta di un soggetto posto in posizione di tendenziale equidistanza rispetto ad entrambe le parti del procedimento esecutivo. Il riferimento a tale circostanza sembra dunque realizzare un duplice vantaggio: in primo luogo, garantisce la disponibilità di un foro prevedibile e certo, ancorato ad un elemento fattuale sottratto a eventuali condizionamenti del debitore pignorato; in secondo luogo, l’individuazione di un tale foro sarebbe resa immediata ed obiettiva, basandosi su una circostanza neutra, indifferente rispetto alla natura del rapporto intercorrente tra debitore pignorato e terzo, spesso ignota al creditore procedente.

(I am grateful to Prof. Francesca Villata – University of Milan – for the following presentation of the latest issue of the RDIPP)

The second issue of 2015 of the Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale (RDIPP, published by CEDAM) was just released. It features one article and two comments.

In her article Costanza Honorati, Professor at the University of Milano-Bicocca, examines the issue of child abduction under the Brussels IIa Regulation in “La prassi italiana sul ritorno del minore sottratto ai sensi dell’art. 11 par. 8 del regolamento Bruxelles II-bis” (Italian Practice on the Return of the Abducted Child Pursuant to Art. 11(8) of the Brussels IIa Regulation; in Italian).

The vast majority of return applications filed with the Italian Central Authority under the 1980 Hague Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction concern children who are habitually resident in Italy and have been wrongfully removed to a foreign State (so-called “outgoing cases”). Therefore, it is not surprising that some of the foreign decisions refusing to return a child on the grounds of Article 13(1)b of the Convention were challenged before Italian courts with the special procedure provided under Article 11(8) of the Brussels IIa Regulation. Indeed, Italy stands out as one of the very few EU States that provide some case law on Article 11(8) of the Brussels IIa Regulation. However, it does come as a surprise that in most of these cases Italian courts, after a thorough analysis of the facts, including what was produced in the foreign proceedings, have confirmed the foreign non-return order and dismissed the request for return. In fact, only in a small number of cases the court has found the foreign decision to be ill-founded and has adopted a «trumping» return order. The present article aims at reviewing and analysing both groups of decisions, showing, on one side, how the time factor is often crucial and rightly kept into consideration by the court of habitual residence when deciding for non-return. On the other side, time is of the essence also in cases where the court of habitual residence orders for the children to be returned. When such order is not complied with or enforced in a very short time, it is here assumed that best interest of the child would call for a subsequent review of the decision rendered by the court of the place of the child’s habitual residence.

In addition to the foregoing, the following comments are also featured:

Elisabetta Bergamini, Associate Professor at the University of Udine, discusses status of children in a private international law perspective in “Problemi di diritto internazionale privato collegati alla riforma dello status di figlio e questioni aperte” (Questions of Private International Law Related to the Status of Children and Open Issues; in Italian).

This paper examines the Italian law reforming the status of children (Law No 219/2012), which finally abolished all discriminations between children born in and out of wedlock, and the consequences such abolishment entails at a private international law level. The first part of the paper analyses the reform, its principles and the problems related to the definition of the rules on the unity of the status of the child as “overriding mandatory provisions”. The second part tackles some of the most relevant unsolved problems related to children status, such as the establishment of the parental link in case of medically assisted reproduction, the regime applicable to surrogate motherhood, and the legal vacuums affecting children of same-sex couples. In this regard, particular attention is paid to the Italian case-law, as well as its relationship with the ECtHR and the EU case-law, and to the possible solutions to the non-recognition of the personal status acquired in a foreign country.

Silvia Marino, Researcher at the University of Insubria, tackles choice-of-court agreements in parental responsibility matters in “La portata della proroga del foro nelle controversie sulla responsabilità genitoriale” (The Scope of Choice-of-Court Agreements in Disputes over Parental Responsibility; in Italian).

This article examines two recent judgments of the European Court of Justice concerning choice of forum in matters related to parental responsibility. These decisions offer the opportunity to reflect on the pre-conditions for the validity of the choice of forum clause, i.e. the agreement, the proximity, the interest of the child and the connection with another proceeding, and the relationships between different bases of jurisdiction (habitual residence and forum non conveniens). Analysing the peculiar facts of the cases and the clarifications provided by the ECJ, the article tackles those pre-conditions from a practical and concrete standpoint with a view to understanding when and how the different bases of jurisdiction can be used. Some final considerations are devoted to the concrete range of the choice of the parties.

Indexes and archives of RDIPP since its establishment (1965) are available on the website of the Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale. This issue is available for download on the publisher’s website.

The publishing house C.H. Beck has recently released the “Gedächtnisschrift für Hannes Unberath”. Edited by Stefan Arnold and Stephan Lorenz the volume contains, among others, four German language contributions relating to private international law and international civil procedure:

• Frank Bauer, Art. 59 EuErbVO: Verfahrensrechtliche Kollisionsnorm zur Sicherung des freien Verkehrs öffentlicher Urkunden (pp. 19 ff.)
• Wolfgang Hau, Zivilsachen mit grenzüberschreitendem Bezug (pp. 139 ff.)
• Peter Kindler, Der europäische Vertragsgerichtsstand beim Warenkauf im Lichte der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofes (pp. 253 ff.)
• Gerald Mäsch, Patrick Battistons Jackettkronen und das Kollisionsrecht, oder: Das Deliktsstatut bei Verletzungen im Rahmen von internationalen  Sportgroßveranstaltungen (pp. 303 ff.)

For more information see the publisher’s website.

…For the Spanish lawmaker to fulfill the promise, made in 2000, of a Ley de cooperación juridical internacional en material civil.

The new Act can be downloaded here. It will come into force  in twenty days.

Many thanks to Dr. Cristian Oró for the hint.

Dr. Agnieszka Oko?ska, LL.M. (Leipzig), has just published a monumental comparative study on “The Counterclaim in the Civil Procedural Law of the European Union and its Member States” (Die Widerklage im Zivilprozessrecht der Europäischen Union und ihrer Mitgliedstaaten, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, 2015, XLVI, 672 pages; Veröffentlichungen zum Verfahrensrecht Vol. 118, € 99.00). The laws on civil procedure of all European Union member states and the contracting states of the Lugano Convention are familiar with the counterclaim. Agnieszka Oko?ska examines meticulously the interaction between national provisions and those contained in the EU Regulations on counterclaims (the Brussels Ibis Regulation, Small Claims Regulation and the Maintenance Regulation). The author identifies pervasive conflicts and offers solutions to them. Her analysis is based on a thorough comparative analysis of various European legal orders, in particular Germany, Austria, France, England and Poland. The author also looks at the counterclaim in public international and ecclesiastical law. Her study was accepted by the law faculty of the University of Trier as a doctoral dissertation “summa cum laude” under the supervision of Professor Dr. Jan von Hein (now University of Freiburg/Germany). For further information, see here.

Giesela Rühl, The Role of Economic Efficiency in European Private International Law, di prossima pubblicazione in S. Leible (a cura di), General Principles of European Private International Law, 2015, disponibile su SSRN a questo indirizzo.

[Abstact] – In recent years, a growing number of contributions have devoted attention to the “general part” of European private international law: in a number of articles academics have either examined how legal concepts traditionally categorized as “general” (e.g. characterization, choice of law, preliminary questions, ordre public, renvoi) are designed in the Regulations thus far enacted by the European legislature. Or they have asked whether and how these concepts could be codified in a Rome 0 Regulation or, more generally, in a Code of European Private International Law. The following article adds to this debate by looking at European private international law from an economic perspective. It analyses whether and to what extent economic efficiency has been considered by the European legislature when enacting the pertaining Regulations and whether and to what extent it should be considered when revising the Regulations currently in place or when adopting a Rome 0 Regulation. The article finds that the TEU and TFEU permit – and in fact demand – that economic efficiency be taken into account in formulating European choice-of-law rules. However, it also finds that European law-makers have not oriented their efforts on economic efficiency in the past. This, in turn, means that efficiency is unlikely to be given any methodological or systematic regard when the relevant provisions are interpreted and applied, for it is only those objectives which the European legislature actually had in mind which may be taken into account when interpreting the pertaining rules and regulations. In the face of the informative value of the economic efficiency criterion this is, of course, to be regretted. The article, therefore concludes, that European law-makers should pay greater attention to economic efficiency in the future than they have done in the past, particularly when enacting a Rome 0 Regulation.

The Institute of European and Comparative Law at the University of Oxford is organising a conference on “General Principles of Law: European and Comparative Perspectives” that will be held at St Anne’s College Oxford and the Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford, on 25-26 September 2015.

The description of the conference on the Institute’s website reads as follows:

” ‘General principles of law’ are one of the most visible areas of intersection between EU law and comparative law: as long as they are understood as ‘the general principles common to the laws of the Member States’ (Art 340(2) TFEU) their fleshing out requires careful comparative preparatory work. True, more often than not, the general principles of EU law were not developed on the basis of thorough and textbook style analysis. This does not make it less interesting to look at the interaction of EU law and comparative law in this particular field. Those working together in elaborating general principles of EU law tend to be responsive to input from national laws, and the laws of the Member States have no choice but to be responsive to the general principles developed at EU level.

It is the purpose of this conference to look at this particular interaction from the perspectives of EU law and comparative law alike. Leading scholars and practitioners from both fields will come together to discuss the most recent developments in the field.

The conference will be held on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the Oxford Institute. It will bring together current and former members, visitors and friends of the Institute, as well as those who might belong to one of these categories in the future. Celebration will be an essential part of the proceedings!”

Further information, including the full programme and registration details can be found here.

Thank you Eiríkur Thorláksson (whose expert report fed substantially into the Court’s findings) for flagging and for additional insight: In Tchenguiz v Kaupthing, the High Court had to review the insolvency exception to the Lugano Convention, combined with Directive 2001/24 on the reorganisation and winding-up of credit institutions. Directive 2001/24 applies to UK /Iceland relations following the EFTA Agreement. See my earlier post on Sabena, for Lugano context. Mr Tchenguiz is a London-based property developer. He claims against Kaupthing; Johannes Johannsson, a member of Kaupthing’s winding-up committee; accountants Grant Thornton; and two of its partners.

While Directive 2001/24 evidently is lex specialis vis-a-vis the Insolvency Regulation, much of the ECJ’s case-law under the Regulation is of relevance to the Directive, too. That is because, as Carr J notes, much of the substantial content of the Regulation has been carried over into the Directive. Carr J does emphasise (at 76) that the dovetailing between the Lugano Convention /the Judgments Regulation, and the Insolvency Regulation, carried over into the 2001 Directive does not extend to matters of choice of law. [A bit of explanation: insolvency was excluded from the Judgments Regulation (and from the Convention before it) because it was envisaged to be included in what eventually became the Insolvency Regulation. Consequently the Judgments Regulation and the Insolvency Regulation clearly dovetail when it comes to their respective scope of application]. That is because neither Lugano nor the Judgments Regulation consider choice of law: they are limited to jurisdiction.

On the substance of jurisdiction, the High Court found, applying relevant precedent (German Graphics, Gourdain, etc.), that the claims against both Kaupthing and Mr Johansson are within the Lugano Convention and not excluded by Article 1(2)(b) of that Convention. That meant that Icelandic law became applicable law by virtue of Directive 2001/24, and under Icelandic law proceedings against credit institutions being wound up come not be brought before the courts in ordinary (rather, a specific procedure before the winding-up committee of the bank applies). No jurisdiction in the UK therefore for the claim aganst the bank. The claim against Mr Johansson can go ahead.

[For the purpose of this blog, the jurisdictional issues are of most relevance. For Kaupthing it was even more important that the Bankruptcy Act in Iceland was found to have extra-territorial effect. The Act on Financial Undertakings implemented the winding-up directive and the Icelandic legislator intented it to have extra-territorial effect].

A complex set of arguments was raised and the judgment consequentially is not an easy or quick read. However the above should be the gist of it. I would suggest the findings are especially crucial with respect to the relation between Lugano /Brussels I, Directive 2001/24, and the Insolvency Regulation.

Geert.

The Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law has recently launched a questionnaire regarding the legal effects of agreements in the area of international family law involving children, e.g., agreements in disputes regarding child custody, child support, relocation with a child, rights to visit and to have contact with a child.

[From the introduction to the questionnaire] – Agreements between parents or other family members in family disputes involving children have gained more importance and have become more frequent. This development is, in part, attributable to the enhanced promotion of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (such as mediation, conciliation, and negotiation) to achieve agreed solutions in these cases. In addition, party autonomy in the area of family law has gained more importance and States increasingly enable parents and other family members to conclude agreements that regulate child-related matters, in particular custody and contact issues. Due to today’s increasing “internationalisation” of the family, agreements are negotiated more and more in cross-border situations (e.g., one of the parents plans to relocate to his / her country of origin with the child and contact between the child and the other parent will be carried out abroad or would require the child to travel) which may require the recognition and enforcement of the agreement in a State (hereinafter referred to as “requested State”) other than the State in which it was concluded (hereinafter referred to as “State of origin”). 

The questionnaire has been sent to government officials and to the members of the International Hague Network of Judges, but Permanent Bureau is equally seeking the views of practitioners, such as lawyers and mediators, and other experts of international family law.

The questionnaire may be completed online here before 18 September 2015.

This post has been some time in the making, notwithstanding my promise to have it up soon. Let’s just say I got distracted. The wide interest in Lutz, Case C-557/13, illustrates the increasing relevance of the actio pauliana in protecting creditors from their debtor’s insolvency. The core underlying issue for Lutz is that, in the absence of considerable capital in companies (arguably a direct result indeed of the regulatory competition in Member States’ corporate law following the ECJ’s case-law on freedom of establishment), civil law mechanisms have become more relevant than classic recourse to companies’ liability. If one relies on more classic modes of securitisation, one may want to have more predictability in what law will apply to those securitised agreements. That is where the Insolvency Regulation comes in, in providing for a mechanism which allows parties to indeed give parties the freedom to choose applicable law for the relevant agreements. Article 4(2)m of the Insolvency Regulation (in the new Regulation this is Article 7(m) – unchanged) makes the lex concursus applicable in principle: lex concursus applies to ‘(m) the rules relating to the voidness, voidability or unenforceability of legal acts detrimental to all the creditors.’ However Article 13 (16 new – unchanged) insulates a set of agreements from the pauliana: ‘Article 4(2)(m) shall not apply where the person who benefited from an act detrimental to all the creditors provides proof that: – the said act is subject to the law of a Member State other than that of the State of the opening of proceedings, and – that law does not allow any means of challenging that act in the relevant case.’  The crucial consideration in Lutz was whether the absence of means of challenge in the lex causae, relates to substantive law only, or also to procedural law. Randi summarise the time-line and relevant distinction in German and Austrian law as follows:

• “17 Mar 2008-Austrian court issues an enforceable payment order in favour of Mr Lutz against the debtor company
• 18 April 2008-debtor files application for German insolvency proceedings
• 20 May 2008-attachment of three Austrian bank accounts of the company
• 4 August 2008-German insolvency proceedings opened (as main proceedings) in respect of the company
• 17 Mar 2009-Austrian bank pays monies to Mr Lutz

Under German law, any enforcement of security over the debtor’s assets during the month preceding the lodging of the application to open proceedings is legally invalid once proceedings are opened. Under Austrian law, an action to set aside a transaction must be brought within one year after the opening of proceedings, failing which it becomes time-barred. By contrast, the limitation period under German law is three years. Although the attachment order was granted before the application to open main proceedings was filed, the actual attachment itself took place after that filing and the subsequent payment of monies by the bank took place after main proceedings were opened in Germany. Mr Lutz argued that art 13 applied and that the payment could no longer be challenged by the German liquidator under Austrian law as the one-year limitation period had expired.” (Randi also have good review of the questions in Lutz relating to rights in rem and Article 5, triggered in the case at issue by the attachments of bank accounts). Essentially, the Court expresses sympathy for the cover of procedural limits to fighting detrimental acts to be determined by the lex causae. (It dismissed any relevance of Article 12(1)d of Rome I Regulation, which provides that prescription and limitation of actions are governed by ‘the law applicable to a contract’: for the Insolvency Regulation is most definitely lex specialis). However leaving the matter up to the lex causae would cause differentiated application of the Insolvency Regulation across the Member States. Consequently the ECJ opts for autonomous interpretation, ruling (at 49) that Article 13 of Regulation No 1346/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that the defence which it establishes also applies to limitation periods or other time-bars relating to actions to set aside transactions under the lex causae.’ The ECJ’s judgment essentially confirms the EFTA Court’s views on the similar proviso in Directive 2001/24 on the winding-up of credit institutions (Lbi hf v Merrill Lynch). A pity the ECJ did not refer to that finding. Geert.

It has already been announced on this blog that the Academy of European Law (ERA) will host an international, English-language conference on recent experience and current trends in international commercial litigation, with a special focus on European private international law (see our earlier post here). The event will take place in Trier (Germany), on 8-9 October 2015. A slightly revised programme has now been put online and is available here. Registration is still possible here – so don’t miss the early bird rebate (before 8 September 2015)!

Professor Dr. Stefan Arnold (University of Graz, Austria) is organising a workshop on general principles of European private international law in Munich on 18 September 2015. Renowned speakers will deal with pervasive problems such as the notion of a family in PIL, the applicability of religious law, general principles of attachment, party autonomy, renvoi and public policy. The programme may be downloaded here. The conference will be held in German at the Bavarian Academy of Sciences. Participation is free of charge, but prior registration is required here.

Professors Anatol Dutta (University of Regensburg), Tobias Helms (University of Marburg) and Walter Pintens (University of Leuven) are organising a conference on a draft for a European regulation on the law applicable to names in Marburg (Germany) on Friday, 27 November 2015; for the programme, further information and registration, see here. The background of this event lies in the fact that, in spite of the far-reaching Europeanization of private international law, common conflicts rules on this matter are currently lacking. As a consequence, natural persons moving from one Member State to another may suffer from a non-recognition of a name that they have acquired abroad. In order to cure those “limping” legal relationships, a Working Group was convened by the Federal Association of German Civil Status Registrars in order to elaborate a proposal for a European Regulation. The resulting proposal has been published in English in the Yearbook of Private International Law XV (2013/14), pp. 31-37 and in French in the Revue critique de droit international privé 2014, pp. 733 et seq. The aim of the upcoming conference is to present and analyse the Working Group’s proposal and to trigger further academic discussion on the subject. The conference language will be German. Participation is free of charge, but registration is required before or on 31 October 2015 at the latest.

I need to give a bit of a factual background before I can get to the implications of the ECJ’s (or CJEU, I still haven’t decided) finding in C-469/13 Nortel.

Nortel Networks SA is established in Yvelines (France). The Nortel group was a provider of technical solutions for telecommunications networks. Nortel Networks Limited (‘NNL’), established in Mississauga (Canada), held the majority of the Nortel group’s worldwide subsidiaries, including NNSA.  In 2008 insolvency proceedings were initiated simultaneously in Canada, the US and the EU. In January 2009, the High Court opened main insolvency proceedings under English law in respect of all the companies in the Nortel group established in the EU, including NNSA, pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Insolvency Regulation.

Following a joint application lodged by NNSA and the joint administrators, by judgment of May 2009 the court at Versailles opened secondary proceedings in respect of NNSA. In July 2009, industrial action at NNSA was brought to an end by a memorandum of agreement settling the action. It provided for the making of a severance payment, of which one part was payable immediately and another part, known as the ‘deferred severance payment’, was to be paid, once operations had ceased, out of the available funds arising from the sale of assets. That memorandum was approved by the court at Versailles. NNSA’s positive balance was subsequently however caught up in the global settlement for Nortel, including transfers of funds to escrow accounts in the US, to be distributed following global settlement, and new debt following the continuation of Nortel’s activities as well as costs related to the global winding-up of the company. The deferred severance payment therefore could no longer be paid.

The works council of NNSA and former NNSA employees brought an action before the court at Versailles seeking, first, a declaration that the secondary proceedings give them an exclusive and direct right over the share of the overall proceeds from the sale of the Nortel group’s assets that falls to NNSA and, second, an order requiring the liquidator to make immediate disbursement, in particular, of the deferred severance payment, to the extent of the funds available to NNSA. the French liquidator then summoned the joint administrators as third parties before the referring court. However, these then suggested the court at Versailles decline international jurisdiction, in favour of the High Court at London, and in the alternative, to decline jurisdiction to rule on the assets and rights which were not situated in France for the purposes of Article 2(g) of the Insolvency Regulation when the judgment opening the secondary proceedings was delivered. That Article reads

(g) “the Member State in which assets are situated” shall mean, in the case of: – tangible property, the Member State within the territory of which the property is situated, – property and rights ownership of or entitlement to which must be entered in a public register, the Member State under the authority of which the register is kept, – claims, the Member State within the territory of which the third party required to meet them has the centre of his main interests, as determined in Article 3(1);

There are essentially two parts to the referring court’s questions: (i) the allocation of international jurisdiction between the court hearing the main proceedings and the court hearing the secondary proceedings; and (ii) identification of the law applicable to determine the debtor’s assets that fall within the scope of the effects of the secondary proceedings.

On the (i) first question, the Court first reviewed whether the Insolvency Regulation applied at all – an issue seemingly which did not feature in the national proceedings nor in the written procedure before the CJEU, however which came up at the hearing. The issue being that what the Works Council was after was that an agreement to pay a debt be honoured: one that looks just like a fairly standard agreement were it not to arise out of insolvency. Per Nickel and Goeldner the Court reviewed whether the right or the obligation which respects the basis of the action finds its source in the common rules of civil and commercial law or in the derogating rules specific to insolvency proceedings. Here, the basis of the action, as was pointed out by Mengozzi AG, was relevant French insolvency law (for the determination of the order of creditors’ rights) and the Insolvency Regulation (for the determination of the hierarchy between main and secondary insolvency proceedings). The Insolvency Regulation therefore applies. The AG’s review in fact was clearer than the Court’s summary. More generally, the ECJ does seem to go out of its way to re-emphasise the Nickel and Goeldner formula, even if the separation of the Brussels I and the Insolvency Regulation was not particularly controversial in the case at issue.

Next, the Court essentially extended its Seagon/Deko Marty case-law to secondary proceedings. In Seagon, the Court held that Article 3(1) must be interpreted as meaning that it also confers international jurisdiction on the courts of the Member State within the territory of which insolvency proceedings were opened to hear an action which derives directly from the initial insolvency proceedings and which is ‘closely connected’ with them, within the meaning of recital 6 in the preamble to the Regulation. In Nortel the Court holds that Article 3(2) of that regulation must be interpreted analogously. Here, the related action seeks a declaration that specified assets fall within secondary insolvency proceedings. It is designed specifically to protect the local interests which justify the very establishment of jurisdiction for the secondary proceedings.

However, such action quite obviously has a direct effect on the interests administered in the main insolvency proceedings. The jurisdiction for the court of the secondary proceedings therefore cannot be exclusive. It is jurisdiction concurrently with the Member State of COMI. This is an altogether sec appreciation of the Court which, as Bob Wessels notes, in reality will create serious co-ordination headaches (one for which I do not think even the provisions for co-ordination in the new insolvency Regulation provide sufficient answer).

Finally, in reply to question (ii), the ECJ is fairly brief: Article 2(g) ought to suffice to give the referring court the guidance it seeks. Granted, the ECJ says, it will not be easy. But it ought to suffice. The one extra guidance the CJEU gives is that that provision is also applicable if the property, right or claim in question must be regarded as situated in a third State (such as here: in the escrow accounts).

All in all, quite an important judgment, indeed. Unlike Nortel’s sad demise, this judgment has quite a life ahead of it.

Geert.

Paul Beaumont and Katarina Trimmings (Director and Deputy Director of the Centre for Private International Law, University of Aberdeen, respectively) have just published a highly interesting paper on “Recent jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in the area of cross-border surrogacy: is there still a need for global regulation of surrogacy?”. The article is the second paper in the Working Paper Series of the Centre for Private International Law (University of Aberdeen) and is now available on the Centre’s website here.

The first part of their paper examines the recent decisions of Chambers of the European Court of Human Rights in cases of Mennesson v. France (on this case, see the earlier post by Marta Requejo), Labassee v. France (cf. the earlier post by F. Mailhé), and Paradiso and Campanelli v. Italy. It then makes some suggestions as to how the Grand Chamber should deal with the Paradiso and Campanelli case before analysing the likely consequences of the Mennesson and Labassee judgments for national authorities in the context of surrogacy. The article then explores whether, following these decisions, there is still a need for an international Convention regulating cross-border surrogacy.

For those interested in recent developments in German case law on cross-border surrogacy, I also recommend an earlier post by Dina Reis.