Flux des sites DIP

Professor Jürgen Basedow does not need any introduction.

A volume published by Intersentia, titled EU Private Law. Anatomy of a Growing Legal Order, summarises, updates and completes studies he has published since the late 1980s. It exists as e-book (although this is not a book to read on the screen, but to hold in the hands).

EU law covers numerous sectors of private law and is still expanding. Due to its fragmentary nature, most legal literature addresses specific areas such as EU labour law, EU company law, EU private international law, EU consumer law, etc. In contrast, this book presents an innovative approach in its analysis of EU private law, considering its continuous expansion as an ongoing process and interrogating some central questions: What is private law in the framework of the EU? How does EU private law relate to traditional concepts of private law? What is the impact on horizontal relations of the law of the Union which was established with a view to the integration of peoples in Europe? Is the frequent reference to the policy orientation of EU law sufficient to overcome the differences between public and private law?

Like the growth rings of a tree the numerous acts and judgments of EU private law feed from the trunk and the roots, which developed in the vertical relations between the Union and the Member States. The foundations of EU law, which often have a background in legal history, comparative experience and public international law, impact upon horizontal relations in a manner previously unknown in national systems of private law.

Across ten parts grouped in four books devoted to foundations, principles, enforcement and implementation, respectively, as well as the external dimension, the author elaborates on the peculiarities of EU private law as compared to the traditional analysis of private law in any given national legal system. The author traces throughout the book the origins of legal principles and rules in comparative law, legal history and public international law and their application and development in EU private law instruments and the judgments of the CJEU. This comparison helps to strengthen our understanding of those peculiarities and paves the way for a comprehensive critical assessment of the state of EU private law today.

The table of contents is accessible at the website of Intersentia.

A book like this one is good news for academia.

The new issue of Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale (Volume 57, Issue 1/2021) is out.

It features three articles, two in Italian, the other in English, whose abstracts are provided below.

Fausto Pocar, Riflessioni sulla recente convenzione dell’Aja sul riconoscimento e l’esecuzione delle sentenze straniere (Reflections on the Recent HCCH Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments)

The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters, concluded on 2 July 2019 in the framework of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, signifies a further, albeit partial, step in the context of the more ambitious project, initiated over twenty-five years ago, aimed at achieving a so-called “double” convention on jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil or commercial matters. Through the careful consideration of the salient features of the Convention – some of which appear to be innovative in character, whereas others evoke more solutions – as well as of the interactions that the Convention’s adoption (and possible entry into force) entails in the existing multilateral treaty landscape, including the 2005 HCCH Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, the Author offers a dynamic and contextualized reading of the new instrument, emphasizing its lights and shadows, and illustrating the underlying interests surrounding the Convention’s possible ratification by the European Union.

Federica Favuzza, Riflessioni in margine all’entrata in vigore del c.d. SOFA dell’Unione Europea (Reflections on the Entry into Force of the EU SOFA)

On 1 April 2019, the 2003 Status of Forces Agreement between the EU Member States finally entered into force. This international agreement applies within the territory of the EU and aims to define the legal status of individuals and entities involved in the preparation and execution of the tasks referred to in Art. 42 TEU, i.e. in the context of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). After examining its scope of application, the Author provides an overview of some of the main legal issues that the Agreement raises in respect of the exercise of criminal and civil jurisdiction. The analysis highlights the drafters’ deference to the approach and wording of the NATO SOFA. This choice is understandable, especially considering that individuals and entities involved in the CSDP are often also deployed in NATO context. However, in the Author’s view, it risks reproducing in the context of the EU some known difficulties and critical issues arisen in nearly 70 years of practice in the interpretation and application of the NATO SOFA.

Caterina Benini, Remarks on the Commission’s Proposal on the Law Applicable to the Third-Party Effects of Assignment of Claims [in English]

The paper provides an overview of the European Commission’s proposal on the law applicable to the third-party effects of the assignment of claims. The Proposal, based on a sensitive balance between the interests of the factoring and the securitisation industries, fosters the foreseeability of the applicable law and the harmony of solutions. The combination of the law of the assignor as general rule with the law of the assigned claim as exception is consistent with the solution adopted at the international level and fits the property interests underlying the assignment of claims. Normative consistency with the Insolvency Regulation is depicted as one of the main goals of the Proposal. However, due to the mismatches between the connecting factors adopted in the two instruments, such goal risks to remain only on paper. To avoid this, the present article suggests localising the assignor’s habitual residence at the company’s registered office under the COMI notion adopted under the Insolvency Regulation.

The issue also contains a review, by Francesca Clara Villata, of Felix M. Wilke’s A Conceptual Analysis of European Private International Law. The General Issues in the EU and its Member States.

The table of contents of the issue is available here.

In Greenaway v Parrish & Ors [2021] EWHC 1506 (QB) ( I signaled it a while ago but the case has only recently appeared on BAILII), Spencer J had to consider the practical implications of the impossibility of referrals to the Court of Justice of the EU, by UK judges. Plenty of pending cases were introduced before Brexit day. Moreover, an even larger number of cases will be subject to retained EU law.

In a specific conflict of laws sense, this raises the particular (procedural and substantive) issue of foreign law being fact and hence needing to be proven. Retained and /or previously applicable EU law, will not be foreign law as such, yet clearly it is law of a different nature than UK statutory and common law across the isles.

The practical implications of all this have now surfaced in Greenaway. Following CJEU CILFIT, EU law is (usually) equally authentic in 22 languages. In the case at hand, this centres upon the meaning of the word ‘stolen’, in the motor insurance Directive 2009/103. How should a judge inform her /himself of the meaning of the word in the 22 languages, and potentially also of the implementation of the Directive across the Member States. 12 King’s Bench Walk have analysis of the case here. As they note, Mr Justice Spencer granted permission to each party to adduce four foreign law experts reports in EU jurisdictions of their choosing, so that the relevant foreign language versions of the Directive could be understood. He also gave permission for those experts to give evidence as to the implementation of the Directive in those member states, that material being part of the context in which the point at issue had to be decided.

This is an important procedural point which no doubt will surface in a variety of shapes in years to come.

Geert.

Languages and retained EU law
Of much note indeed
Greenaway & Rocks v Covea Insurance ea
How should the E&W courts deal with the CILFIT principle of 22 authentic language versions (see https://t.co/TE7wheSbTP) viz 'stolen' in Dir 2009/103
paging @Prof_KMcA @stefaanvdjeught https://t.co/0XhfqUdIbL

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) March 18, 2021

The Minerva Centre for Human Rights at Tel Aviv University is organising an international socio-legal workshop that will explore the impact of the Covid-19 crisis and its regulation on cross-border families. Topics include issues of belonging, travel restrictions, civil rights, birth across borders, international child abduction and transnational homes in pandemic times.

The workshop will take place on 22 June 2021. The  full program and registration form are available.

For additional information, contact eynatmey@tauex.tau.ac.il

The author of this post is Estelle Gallant, professor of private law at the University of Toulouse 1 Capitole.

In a judgment of 27 January 2021 the French Supreme Court for civil and criminal matters (Cour de cassation) applied the Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 on the International Protection of Adults (the ‘Adults Convention’) in a case concerned with a mandate in case of incapacity. More specifically, the issue was the content of the distinction between the conditions of validity of the mandate and its manner of exercise.

Currently applicable in 13 States (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Latvia, Monaco, Portugal, Switzerland and the United Kingdom), the 2000 Hague Convention takes into consideration a particular mechanism enabling an adult to organise in advance his or her personal or property protection for the time when he or she is no longer able to provide it. This legal form of mandate in case of incapacity, which was well known in North America and not very widespread in Europe at the time the Convention was drafted, is now more common in Europe. It exists in French law in the form of the “future protection mandate” and in Swiss law in the form of the “mandate for incapacity”. The mandate in case of incapacity is governed in the Adults Convention by Articles 15 and 16.

Article 15 refers to “powers of representation granted by an adult, either under an agreement or by a unilateral act, to be exercised when such adult is not in a position to protect his or her interests”. The adult thus entrusts a person or an institution of his or her choice with powers of representation for the future in the event that he or she is unable to protect his or her interests. Such mandate may take the form of an agreement, but also of a unilateral legal act. It may concern the management of property and affairs, but also the protection of the person, his or her care or the decisions to be taken at the end of life, in order to put an end to over-treatment for example. Generally speaking, the legislation establishing this mandate in case of incapacity makes the starting point of the mandate’s effects depend on a judicial and/or medical finding of incapacity.

Article 15(1) of the Convention designates the law of the adult’s habitual residence at the time the instrument is drawn up as applicable to mandates in case of incapacity. Article 15(2) also offers the adult the possibility of choosing the applicable law among three: a) his or her national law, b) the law of a former habitual residence, c) the law of the place where his or her property is located. Irrespective of how it is designated, the applicable law applies to “the existence, extent, modification and extinction of powers of representation” granted by the adult. However, the manner of exercise the powers conferred by the mandate is governed by the law of the State where it is exercised, according to Article 15(3). It follows that whenever the mandate is to be implemented in a State other than the one whose law is applicable, the manner of exercise the mandate will be governed by a different law than the one governing the mandate.

This was the issue raised by the case before the Cour de cassation. A mandate in case of incapacity had been established in Switzerland, where the adult had his habitual residence, before moving to France. As he wished to implement the mandate in France, one of his sons obtained that the mandate be verified formally and “stamped” by an officer of the court (visé par le greffier du Tribunal) in accordance with French procedure. However, another son of the grantor brought proceedings to challenge the implementation of the mandate. He won before the court of appeal of Pau, which annulled the clerk’s stamping on the grounds that it should not have been granted because the mandate did not include any means of controlling the representative of the adult.

The son who had obtained the stamping appealed to the Cour de cassation, which allowed the appeal. The Court held that by requiring that the clerk’s stamping be granted only if the mandate expressly provided any arrangements with respect to the control of the representative, the court of appeal had actually imposed conditions which were not concerned with the implementation of the mandate, but with its validity.

According to the Cour de Cassation, the implementation in France of a Swiss mandate in case of incapacity could not be subject to a condition of validity of French law that was not imposed by Swiss law. The provisions of the Adults Convention are thus perfectly respected: they imply making a distinction between conditions of validity and manner of exercise of mandates in case of incapacity.

The Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) delivered today its decision in case C‑645/19 (Facebook Ireland Ltd, Facebook Inc., Facebook Belgium BVBA, v Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit), which is about the cross-border processing of personal data:

“1. Article 55(1), Articles 56 to 58 and Articles 60 to 66 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 […] on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data […] read together with Articles 7, 8 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a supervisory authority of a Member State which […] has the power to bring any alleged infringement of that regulation to the attention of a court of that Member State and, where necessary, to initiate or engage in legal proceedings, may exercise that power in relation to an instance of cross‑border data processing even though it is not the ‘lead supervisory authority’, within the meaning of Article 56(1) of that regulation, with respect to that data processing, provided that that power is exercised in one of the situations where Regulation 2016/679 confers on that supervisory authority a competence to adopt a decision finding that such processing is in breach of the rules contained in that regulation and that the cooperation and consistency procedures laid down by that regulation are respected.

2. Article 58(5) of Regulation 2016/679 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of cross-border data processing, it is not a prerequisite for the exercise of the power of a supervisory authority of a Member State, other than the lead supervisory authority, to initiate or engage in legal proceedings, within the meaning of that provision, that the controller with respect to the cross-border processing of personal data against whom such proceedings are brought has a main establishment or another establishment on the territory of that Member State.

3. Article 58(5) of Regulation 2016/679 must be interpreted as meaning that the power of a supervisory authority of a Member State, other than the lead supervisory authority, to bring any alleged infringement of that regulation to the attention of a court of that Member State and, where appropriate, to initiate or engage in legal proceedings, within the meaning of that provision, may be exercised both with respect to the main establishment of the controller which is located in that authority’s own Member State and with respect to another establishment of that controller, provided that the object of the legal proceedings is a processing of data carried out in the context of the activities of that establishment and that that authority is competent to exercise that power, in accordance with the terms of the answer to the first question referred.

4. Article 58(5) of Regulation 2016/679 must be interpreted as meaning that, where a supervisory authority of a Member State which is not the ‘lead supervisory authority’ […] has brought a legal action, the object of which is an instance of cross-border processing of personal data, before 25 May 2018, that is, before the date when that regulation became applicable, that action may, from the perspective of EU law, be continued on the basis of the provisions of Directive 95/46/EC […] on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, which remains applicable in relation to infringements of the rules laid down in that directive committed up to the date when that directive was repealed. That action may, in addition, be brought by that authority with respect to infringements committed after that date, on the basis of Article 58(5) of Regulation 2016/679, provided that that action is brought in one of the situations where, exceptionally, that regulation confers on a supervisory authority of a Member State which is not the ‘lead supervisory authority’ a competence to adopt a decision finding that the processing of data in question is in breach of the rules contained in that regulation with respect to the protection of the rights of natural persons as regards the processing of personal data, and that the cooperation and consistency procedures laid down by that regulation are respected, which it is for the referring court to determine.

5. Article 58(5) of Regulation 2016/679 must be interpreted as meaning that that provision has direct effect, with the result that a national supervisory authority may rely on that provision in order to bring or continue a legal action against private parties, even where that provision has not been specifically implemented in the legislation of the Member State concerned”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=242821&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=14254177

Aldricus – Makanan ialah zat yang dikonsumsi oleh makhluk hidup untuk memperoleh gizi yang selanjutnya dibuat jadi energi. Karbohidrat, lemak, protein, vitamin, dan mineral sebagai nutrien pada makanan yang diperlukan oleh badan. Cairan yang digunakan untuk tujuan ini kerap disebutkan minuman, tapi kata ‘makanan’ bisa juga digunakan. Makanan yang dimakan oleh manusia disebutkan pangan, sedang makanan yang dimakan oleh hewan disebutkan pakan.

Kualitas satu makanan bisa dipandang dari energi makanan dan usia taruh yang dipunyainya. Mengonsumsi makanan secara tidak pas atau kurang cukup akan mengakibatkan malnutrisi, yang bisa berbuntut pada beragam masalah kesehatan.

Disamping itu, beberapa macam makanan dapat memacu munculnya alergi makanan saat dimakan oleh pribadi yang peka. Bahan makanan dibuat jadi beragam sajian yang berbeda dan jadi keunikan satu kebudayaan atau warga di lokasi geografis tertentu. Makanan sebagai subyek yang didalami dalam beragam pengetahuan, seperti pengetahuan pangan, pengetahuan nutrisi atau gizi, dan gastronomi.

2017 itu trendingnya makanan sehat . Maka, untuk kamu yang ingin ngikutin trend saat ini, mulai seringkali dech searching resep makanan sehat. Satu diantaranya alpukat yang menjadi bahan makan harus buat trend makanan sehat tahun 2017 ini. Yuk lihat resepnya!

Jika kamu umumnya makan pagi dengan toast dan selai, coba saat ini tukar menu sarapanmu dengan toast dan alpukat. Sama gampangnya dan rasanya juga lebih nikmat dan sehat. Triknya mudah, mengambil daging buah alpukat dan remukin kasar dengan memakai sendok, jadi dech seperti selai kasar. Jika kamu ingin menambah rasa, kamu dapat taburin chili powder di atasnya.

Alpukat pas sekali lho buat jadi rekan makan steak. Jika umumnya kamu cicipin dengan sauce barbecue, saat ini kamu punyai rekomendasi lain yakni sauce alpukat. Triknya sama gampangnya seperti buat selai alpukat untuk toast-mu barusan.

Sukai makan nachos gunakan sambal salsa? Nach, saat ini kamu dapat tambahin akar alpukat dalam sauce salsa itu. Dengan kombinasi tomat, bawan bombay dan alpukat, ditanggung kesan makan nachos gunakan sauce salsamu menjadi lebih terasa.

Siapa ngomong goreng-gorengan tidak sehat? Jika bahan intinya alpukat, tentu masih sehat, donk? Nach, buat alternatif daging-dagingan, kamu dapat buat fried avocado buat jadi isian Tacos ini. Tambahin dengan sauce salsa atau irisan tomat dan paprika, Tacos a la kamu tentu lebih nikmat!

Alpukat bisa juga kamu jadiin makanan fancy lho dengan memadukannya dengan rebusan telur 1/2 masak di atasnya. Trus, untuk sentuhan akhir, kamu dapat kasih taburan keju parmesan atau chili powder dech. Hm, nikmat!

Saat ini, style makan pizza dapat semakin sehat kembali dengan menukar topping-nya. Jika umumnya kamu pakai sauce barbecue, saat ini kamu dapat tukar dengan sauce alpukat dengan potongan tipis dan potongan buah-buahan yang lain. Tidak kalah menarik dech visualnya seperti pizza komersial yang lain!

Sukai malas makan buah? Jus saja! Dengan percampuran beragam bahan buah-buahan dan makanan jadi sup, tentu kamu menjadi lebih nikmat melahapnya. Kasih topping buah-buahan lain yang lebih fresh seperti mangga.

Salmon dan sauce alpukat sebagai salah satunya kombinasi yang tidak ada yang dapat menyaingi. Dengan memakai alpukat yang telah diblender secara lembut, tentu rasa Baked Salmonmu menjadi lebih nikmat dan sehat. Ingin mencoba?

Normal 0 false false false EN-ID X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
mso-ansi-language:#0021;}

The post 8 Cara Sehat Nikmatin Alpukat di Sajian Makananmu appeared first on Aldri Blog.

The post you are reading is the 500th post of the blog of the European Association of Private International law since the blog was launched in November 2019.

How have things gone for the blog over this time? The statistics below provide some answers.

The number of those who wish to be notified by e-mail of new new posts has steadily grown over the months. They currently exceed 540.

How many people come and visit us? The figure below shows the number of times a unique visitor has viewed the blog or any of its posts. To date, views exceed 170.000 in the aggregate.

Where do our readers come from? The color gradation in the maps below shows the countries where blog visitors are based: the greener the country, the larger its share of the overal blog viewers.  

Top 10 – World Countries
Germany: 10,55%
Italy: 10,22%
Luxembourg: 9,66%
Netherlands: 7,86%
United Kingdom: 7,83%
France: 7,32%
Spain: 6,17%
United States: 4,56%
Belgium: 4,13%
Poland: 2,94%

Posts are grouped, according to their content, into different categories. The five categories with the most posts are, in order, scholarship, case law, normative texts, views and comments and conferences and academic events.

The aim of the EAPIL blog is not just to inform readers but also to foster debate on any issues relating to private international law, consistent with the goals of the Association. Readers’ comments are crucial to that. They are very welcome! So far, blog posts have received more than 230 comments.

The post that has received the most comments is French Supreme Court Redefines Territoriality of Enforcement over Debts, by Gilles Cuniberti, published on 18 March 2021. It discussed two judgments delivered by the French Supreme Court for civil and criminal matters which extended the reach of French attachments to any claims owed to third parties established in France, irrespective of whether the third party had its headquarters in France or abroad, and irrespective of the situs of the debt. It attracted 14 comments.

While most of the posts are written by the blog editors, the blog regularly hosts contributions by academics and practitioners form outside the team. So far, the blog has welcomed posts from specialists based in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland and United Kingdom. Those willing to submit a guest post, are invited to write an e-mail to blog@eapil.org.

And don’t forget: the blog, and the Association generally, is active on social media too. So, join us also on Twitter (@eapilorg) and LinkedIn!

The Milan Law Review (MLR), run by the Faculty of Law of the State University of Milan, is a multidisciplinary and multilingual law journal, published on a six-monthly basis in open access mode.

The editors of the journal are calling, inter alia, for articles on topics in the field of public and private international law, either in Italian or in English.

Interested authors will find more information here.

Papers intended for the next issue shall be submitted by 31 October 2021.

A quick note on Dhir v Flutter Entertainment Plc (Rev 2) [2021] EWHC 1510 (QB), in which Griffiths J had to consider ia whether choice of law had been made at all and if so (or also if no choice of law had been made), whether this was for the onshore law of the Emirate of Dubai – onshore Dubai law, or for the law of the Dubai International Financial Centre – DIFC.

Claimant (Amarjeet Dhir) is a Dubai-based businessman who advanced money to another businessman in Dubai which he thought would be invested in the local property market. Unknown to him, the man taking his money (Tony Parente) was a gambling addict. As Mr Parente now admits, he applied money he had been given by Mr Dhir (and, it seems, others) to fund his gambling habit. One of the gambling businesses with which he lost a lot of money in a short space of time was the defendant, through that part of its operations branded as Paddy Power. Mr Dhir now seeks to recover from Paddy Power money in its hands which he says represents the money he is entitled to recover from Mr Parente.

The relevant agreement includes express choice of law as follows: 

“This agreement is signed in Dubai and shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of Dubai”.

Claimant says that it meant DIFC laws, while defendant says that it means onshore Dubai law). All experts agreed that it had to be one or the other: it could not be both.

[116] jurisdiction before the E&W Courts is by prorogation (A26 Brussels Ia). Both parties agree [129] that the Rome I Regulation guides the search for the lex contractus. The agreement is silent on choice of court: otherwise that could certainly have been a factor in determining choice of law (recital 12 Rome I). In general [118] the judge is cautious in ‘letting the jurisdiction dog wagging the choice of law tail’, and held the many ties of parties and contract with Dubai (including signature at Dubai and not DIFC: a geographically distinct location) pointed to onshore Dubai law as  lex contractus.

Choice of law therefore made not verbatim, yet ‘clearly demonstrated’ (A3(1) Rome I).

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 3.2.4.

Dhir v Flutter Entertainment [2021] EWHC 1510 (QB)
Considers ia A3(1) Rome I: choice of law: whether agreement to advance monies is governed by the onshore law of the Emirate of Dubai or by the law of the Dubai International Financial Centre DIFChttps://t.co/PrQQwQCXrd

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) June 14, 2021

The Mexican Academy of Private International and Comparative Law (AMEDIP) will be holding its annual XLIV Seminar entitled “New perspectives for Private International Law in a post-pandemic society” (perspectivas para el derecho internacional privado en una sociedad post-pandemia) from 17 to 19 November 2021 for the second time online.

The main focus of the seminar will be to analyse the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the development of private international law.

Potential speakers are invited to submit a paper in Spanish, English or Portuguese by September 1st 2021. Papers must comply with the criteria established by AMEDIP and will be evaluated accordingly. Selected speakers will be required to give their presentations preferably in Spanish as there will be no interpretation services but some exceptions may be made by the organisers upon request.

Participation is free of charge. The platform that will be used is Zoom and it will also be streamed via Facebook Live. For more information, please click here.

The following post was written by Paul Eichmüller (Vienna).

Although rules concerning the use of a name of natural persons have been liberalised in the member states of the European Union to a large extent after the CJEU’s famous decisions in C-148/02, Garcia Avello, and C-535/06, Grunkin and Paul, there still remain areas where national name law remains untouched. The Austrian Supreme Court has shown in its latest decision from 20 April 2021 that even for citizens of two member states, the conflict of laws rules for name matters may not generally be affected by CJEU judicature.

The parties of the case in question were the unmarried German mother and the Italian father of a son with German-Italian dual citizenship. After the child had been born in Germany – where he acquired his mother’s surname, as is usual under German law if the parents are unmarried – the boy and his mother moved to Austria. There, the father brought a request in court to change the child’s surname to a compound name consisting of both the mother’s and the father’s surnames. The mother, however, wanted her son to retain his current surname.

The Austrian courts of first and second instance concordantly dismissed the father’s request to change the child’s surname. Under Austrian law, the law applicable to name disputes follows the personal statute, which in turn is determined by a person’s citizenship (§§ 13, 9 IPRG). In cases of dual nationality – neither nationality being Austrian – the “effective nationality” (i.e. the nationality of the state to which the person has the closest link) determines the personal statute (§ 9(1) sentence 3 IPRG).

The courts concluded that the link to Germany had in this case been stronger, as the boy had been born in Germany and lived in a household with his German mother. German law, which accepts the renvoi (Article 10(1) EGBGB), does not provide for a change of the child’s surname against the will of the other parent unless the well-being of the child is affected, so that the request was denied.

The Austrian Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ decisions. It found no fault in how the previous instances had determined the applicable law. More importantly, it also ruled that this outcome was compatible with the CJEU’s rulings on European name disputes. According to the CJEU in Garcia Avello and Grunkin and Paul, Articles 18 and 20 TFEU merely require that EU citizens that lawfully use a name in one member state are allowed to use this name also in other member states. However, in the present case, the child in the case at hand had precisely not yet acquired a different name in Italy. Additionally, the father even conceded that under Italian law, a child may alternatively bear the surname of one parent or a compound name of both parents’ surnames. Thus, there were no objections from a perspective of European law, as neither freedom of movement was restricted nor was there discrimination on the basis of citizenship, and the request was dismissed.

Without explicitly stating it, the Austrian Supreme Court made one point very clear in its judgment: the EU fundamental freedoms as interpreted by the CJEU in Garcia Avello and Grunkin and Paul do not impose on the member states the duty to determine the law on name disputes in a different way. Only the recognition of legal facts or acts from other member states, but not the identification of the applicable law is affected by the freedoms.

EU primary law requires that a name legally borne or acquired in another member state may also be borne in all other member states. It does, however, not impose a specific conflict-of-laws rule. Therefore, the law that determines whether and under which circumstances the name (even of a dual citizen) can be changed in another member state is not affected.

As the desired name is not legally borne in the other state, it remains merely hypothetical and thus is not subject to the fundamental freedoms. Whether the father could have changed his son’s name without the consent of the mother under Italian law was therefore not even assessed by the Supreme Court, as it deemed it not of importance.

As conflicts issues with regard to the change of name are concerned, each state is thus free to apply its own national rules of private international law. However, as most states offer the possibility to apply for a name change in their home state anyway, this issue will mainly arise in parental disputes. Like in the case at hand, one parent may wish to change the name of a child living in a different country against the will of the other parent and thus might bring an action in the family court at the child’s habitual residence pursuant to Article 8 of the Brussels II bis Regulation. When posed with the question of whether a change of name is possible, this court can then – free from obligations of EU primary law – assess the possibility of the name change according to its very own (private international) law.

The London Steam-Ship Mutual Insurance Association Ltd v The Kingdom of Spain (M/T PRESTIGE) [2021] EWHC 1247 (Comm) has been in my blog in-tray for a little while: I had thought of using it for exam purposes but have now decided against that.

The case is the appeal against Cook J’s registration of the Spanish judgment in the Prestige disaster.  I have reported thrice before on the wider litigation – please use tag ‘Prestige’ in the search box.

References in the judgment are to Brussels I (44/2001), not its successor, Brussels Ia (1215/2012) however the  relevant provisions have not materially changed. Application is for recognition and enforcement of the Spanish Judgment to be refused,  and the Registration Order to be set aside for one or both of two main reasons, namely: (1) that the Spanish Judgment is irreconcilable with a 2013 Hamblen J order, upheld on Appeal,  enforcing the  relevant Spanish award (A34(3) BI), and (2) that recognition would entail a manifest breach of English public policy in respect of (a) the rule of res judicata and/or (b) human and fundamental rights (A34(1) BI).

Butcher J referred the first issue to the CJEU on 18 December 2020 – just before the Brexit deadline. I have not been able to obtain a copy of that judgment – the judge merely refers to it in current one. The CJEU reference, now known as Case C-700/20, is quite exciting for anyone interested in the relationship between arbitration and the Brussels regime. Questions referred, are

1) Given the nature of the issues which the national court is required to determine in deciding whether to enter judgment in the terms of an award under Section 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996, is a judgment granted pursuant to that provision capable of constituting a relevant ‘judgment’ of the Member State in which recognition is sought for the purposes of Article 34(3) of EC Regulation No 44/2001?

(2) Given that a judgment entered in the terms of an award, such as a judgment under Section 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996, is a judgment falling outside the material scope of Regulation No 44/2001 by reason of the Article 1(2)(d) arbitration exception, is such a judgment capable of constituting a relevant ‘judgment’ of the Member State in which recognition is sought for the purposes of Article 34(3) of the Regulation?

(3) On the hypothesis that Article 34(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 does not apply, if recognition and enforcement of a judgment of another Member State would be contrary to domestic public policy on the grounds that it would violate the principle of res judicata by reason of a prior domestic arbitration award or a prior judgment entered in the terms of the award granted by the court of the Member State in which recognition is sought, is it permissible to rely on Article 34(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 as a ground of refusing recognition or enforcement or do Articles 34(3) and (4) of the Regulation provide the exhaustive grounds by which res judicata and/or irreconcilability can prevent recognition and enforcement of a Regulation judgment?

These are exciting questions both on the arbitration exception and on the res judicata refusal for recognition and enforcement. They bring into focus the aftermath of CJEU West Tankers in which the status of the High Court confirmation of the English award was also an issue.

The Club’s argument that recognition would be contrary to English public policy because the Spanish Judgment involved a breach of human and fundamental rights was not referred to the CJEU. Discussion  here involves ia CJEU Diageo. Suggested breaches, are A 14(5) ICCPR; breach of fundamental rights in the Master being convicted on the basis of new factual findings made by the Supreme Court; inequality of arms; and; A1P1.

There is little point in rehashing the analysis made by Butcher J: conclusion at any rate is that all grounds fail.

That CJEU case is one to look out for!

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed 2021, 2.84 ff, 2.590 ff.

The University of Manchester Law School is seeking to recruit a Lecturer in Conflicts of Law.

The new appointment is meant to enhance teaching and research in Conflict of Laws, comparative private law and or commercial litigation at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels. This post will be available from 1 September 2021.

The candidate must fulfill the following requirements:

• have a relevant PhD (or equivalent) and demonstrate the ability to produce high quality publications, meet flexible curricular and teaching needs, and demonstrate capability to contribute organisationally to the wider School community.
• have experience of delivering research-informed teaching at an institution of higher learning or should be able to demonstrate the clear potential to do so.

The deadline for the applications is 17 June 2021.

Enquiries about the vacancy, shortlisting and interviews should be addressed to Professor Yenkong Hodu (yenkong.ngangjohhodu@manchester.ac.uk). Blended working arrangements may be considered.

More information about the vacancy can be found here.

The Milan Law Review (MLR) of the State University of Milan Law Faculty is a multidisciplinary and multilingual law journal, published on a six-monthly basis in open access mode. 

Articles on topics of private international law, public international law and European Union law are welcome. 

Papers can be written in Italian or English. Instructions for authors and more information about the journal can be found on the website: https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/milanlawreview/about. 

Papers may be submitted to the Journal by email to the following address: milanlawreview@unimi.it. 

The next deadline for submitting papers is 31 October 2021.

Written by William S. Dodge (Professor, University of California, Davis, School of Law)

& Wenliang Zhang (Associate Professor, Renmin University of China Law School)

In Shanghai Yongrun Investment Management Co. v. Kashi Galaxy Venture Capital Co., the Supreme Court of New York (New York’s court of first instance) denied enforcement of a Chinese court judgment on the ground that the judgment “was rendered under a system which does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law.” The decision disagrees with every other U.S. and foreign court to have considered the adequacy of the Chinese judicial system in the context of judgments recognition. In recent years, there has been a growing trend in favor of the recognition of Chinese judgments in the United States and U.S. judgments in China. See William S. Dodge & Wenliang Zhang, Reciprocity in China-U.S. Judgments Recognition, 53 Vand. J. Transnat’l L. 1541 (2020). Unless this recent decision is overturned on appeal, it threatens to reverse the trend, to the detriment of judgment creditors in both countries.

In 2016 Shanghai Yongrun purchased an interest in Kashi Galaxy. In 2017, Kashi Galaxy agreed to repurchase that interest for RMB 200 million, an agreement that Kashi Galaxy allegedly breached by paying only part of the repurchase price. The agreement was governed by Chinese law and provided that suits could be resolved by courts in Beijing. In 2018, Shanghai Yongrun sued Kashi Galaxy, Maodong Xu, and Xu’s wife in the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court. After a trial in which defendants were represented by counsel, the court granted judgment in favor of Shanghai Yongrun. The Beijing Higher People’s Court affirmed the judgment on appeal, but it could not be enforced in China because no assets were available within the court’s jurisdiction.

In 2020, Shanghai Yongrun brought an action against Kashi Galaxy and Xu in New York state court, seeking to have the Chinese judgment recognized and enforced. Article 53 of New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) has adopted the 1962 Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act (1962 Uniform Act), which provides that final money judgments rendered by foreign courts are enforceable in New York unless one of the grounds for non-recognition set forth in CPLR 5304 is established. These grounds include that the foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction, that the foreign court did not have subject matter jurisdiction, that the defendant did not receive notice of the foreign proceeding, that the judgment was obtained by fraud, that the judgment is repugnant to the public policy of the state, that the judgment conflicts with another final judgment, that the judgment is contrary to a forum selection clause, that personal jurisdiction was based only on service, and that the judgment is for defamation and provided less protection for speech than would be available in New York. The defendants raised none of these grounds for non-recognition. Instead, they raised the broadest and least frequently accepted ground: that “the judgment was rendered under a system which does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law.” CPLR 5304(a)(1).

To find a systemic lack of due process in the Chinese judicial system, the New York court relied entirely on the State Department’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2018 and 2019. In particular, the court quoted the observations that Chinese “[j]udges regularly received political guidance on pending cases, including instructions on how to rule, from both the government and the [Chinese Communist Party], particularly in politically sensitive cases” and that “[c]orruption often influenced court decisions.” The court held that these country reports “conclusively establish as a matter of law that the PRC judgment was rendered under a system that does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law in the United States.”

The implications of this ruling are broad. If the Chinese judicial system suffers from a systemic lack of due process, then no Chinese court judgments may ever be recognized and enforced under New York law. What is more, ten other states have adopted the 1962 Uniform Act, and an additional twenty-six states have adopted the updated 2005 Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act (2005 Uniform Act), which contains the same systemic due process ground for non-recognition. If followed in other jurisdictions, the New York court’s reasoning would make Chinese judgments unenforceable throughout much of the United States.

But it seems unlikely that other jurisdictions will follow suit or that the New York court’s decision will be upheld on appeal. U.S. decisions denying recognition on systemic due process grounds are rare. The leading cases have involved extreme and unusual circumstances: a Liberian judgment rendered during that country’s civil war when the judicial system had “collapsed,” Bridgeway Corp. v. Citibank, 201 F.3d 134, 138 (2d Cir. 2000), and an Iranian judgment against the sister of the former Shah, Bank Melli Iran v. Pahlavi, 58 F.3d 1406 (9th Cir. 1995). Although other courts have considered State Department country reports to be relevant in considering claims of systemic due process, none has found them to be dispositive. For example, the Fifth Circuit rejected a claim that Moroccan courts suffered from systemic lack of due process notwithstanding a statement in the 2009 country report that “in practice the judiciary . . . was not fully independent and was subject to influence, particularly in sensitive cases.” DeJoria v. Maghreb Petroleum Exploration, S.A., 804 F.3d 373, 381 (5th Cir. 2015). This language about Moroccan courts is quite similar to the country report statements about China that the New York court found conclusive.

With respect to China specifically, no U.S. court had previously denied recognition based on a systemic lack of due process. To the contrary, a prior New York state court decision held that “the Chinese legal system comports with the due process requirements,” Huizhi Liu v. Guoqing Guan, Index No. 713741/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Jan. 7, 2020),  and a federal court in California concluded that “the Chinese court was an impartial tribunal.” Qinrong Qiu v. Hongying Zhang, 2017 WL 10574227, at *3 (C.D. Cal. 2017). Other U.S. decisions have specifically noted that the party resisting enforcement had not alleged systemic lack of due process as a ground for non-recognition. See Global Material Technologies, Inc. v. Dazheng Metal Fibre Co., 2015 WL 1977527, at *7 (N.D. Ill. 2015); Hubei Gezhouba Sanlian Industrial Co. v. Robinson Helicopter Co., 2009 WL 2190187, at *6 (C.D. Cal. 2009).

China has been promoting the rule of law, and its legal system is modernizing to follow internationally accepted standards. The independence of China’s judiciary is guaranteed by its Constitution and other laws. To promote international trade and investment, China has emphasized the independence and impartiality of its courts. Other countries have repeatedly recognized and enforced Chinese judgments, including Australia, Canada, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, and the United Kingdom. When parties have questioned the integrity of the Chinese judicial system as a whole, courts have rejected those arguments. Recently, in Hebei Huaneng Industrial Development Co. v. Deming Shi, [2020] NZHC 2992, the High Court of New Zealand found that the Chinese court rendering the judgment “was part of the judicial branch of the government of the People’s Republic China and was separate and distinct from legislative and administrative organs. It exercised a judicial function. Its procedures and decision were recognisably judicial.” When claims of improper interference are raised in the context of judgments recognition, the New Zealand court suggested, “the better approach is to see whether justice was done in the particular case.”

The New York court’s decision in Shanghai Yongrun is not only contrary to past decisions involving the enforcement of Chinese judgments in the United States and other countries. It also threatens to undermine the enforceability of U.S. judgments in China. Under Article 282 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, foreign judgments are recognized and enforced “in accordance with the principle of reciprocity.” For U.S. judgments, Chinese courts in cases like Liu v. Tao (Reported on by Ron Brand) and Nalco Co. v. Chen have found China’s reciprocity requirement to be satisfied by U.S. decisions that recognized and enforced Chinese judgments. If U.S. courts change course and begin to hold that China’s judiciary can never produce enforceable judgments, Chinese courts will certainly change course too and deny recognition to U.S. judgments for lack of reciprocity.

Maintaining reciprocity with China does not require U.S. courts to enforce every Chinese judgment. U.S. courts have denied recognition and enforcement of Chinese judgments when the Chinese court lacked personal jurisdiction, Folex Golf Indus., Inc. v. O-Ta Precision Industries Co., 603 F. App’x 576 (9th Cir. 2015), or when the Chinese judgment conflicted with another final judgment, UM Corp. v. Tsuburaya Prod. Co., 2016 WL 10644497 (C.D. Cal. 2016). But so far, U.S. courts have treated Chinese judgments the same as judgments from other countries, applying the case-specific grounds for non-recognition in an evenhanded way. The systemic due process ground on which the New York court relied in Shanghai Yongrun is fundamentally different because it holds Chinese judgments to be categorically incapable of recognition and enforcement.

New York may be on the verge of expanding the case-specific ground for non-recognition by adopting the 2005 Uniform Act to replace the 1962 version that is currently in place. A bill to adopt the 2005 Act has passed both the Assembly and the Senate in New York. The 2005 Act adds two grounds for non-recognition not found in the 1962 Act: (1) that “the judgment was rendered in circumstances that raise substantial doubt about the integrity of the rendering court with respect to the judgment”; and (2) that “the specific proceeding in the foreign court leading to the judgment was not compatible with the requirements of due process of law.” These grounds, already found in the laws of twenty-six other states that have adopted the 2005 Uniform Act, would allow New York courts to review foreign judgments for corruption and for lack of due process in the specific case without having to condemn the entire foreign judiciary as incapable of producing recognizable judgments. It is worth noting that the defendants in Shanghai Yongrun did not claim that there was any defect in the Chinese proceedings that led to the judgment against them.

Many court systems around the world are imperfect. The case-specific grounds for non-recognition found in the 1962 and 2005 Uniform Acts allow U.S. courts to refuse enforcement to foreign judgments on a range of case-specific grounds from lack of jurisdiction or notice, to public policy, to corruption or lack of due process. These case-specific grounds largely eliminate the need for U.S. courts to declare that an entire judicial system is incapable of producing valid judgments.

The new issue of International & Comparative Law Quarterly (Volume 70, Issue 2) is out. Some of the articles relate to private international law. Their abstracts are provided below. The whole issue is available here.

P. Giliker, Codification, Consolidation, Restatement? How Best to Systemise the Modern Law of Tort

The law of tort (or extra or non-contractual liability) has been criticised for being imprecise and lacking coherence. Legal systems have sought to systemise its rules in a number of ways. While civil law systems generally place tort law in a civil code, common law systems have favoured case-law development supported by limited statutory intervention consolidating existing legal rules. In both systems, case law plays a significant role in maintaining the flexibility and adaptability of the law. This article will examine, comparatively, different means of systemising the law of tort, contrasting civil law codification (taking the example of recent French proposals to update the tort provisions of the Code civil) with common law statutory consolidation and case-law intervention (using examples taken from English and Australian law). In examining the degree to which these formal means of systemisation are capable of improving the accessibility, intelligibility, clarity and predictability of the law of tort, it will also address the role played by informal sources, be they ambitious restatements of law or other means. It will be argued that given the nature of tort law, at best, any form of systemisation (be it formal or informal) can only seek to minimise any lack of precision and coherence. However, as this comparative study shows, further steps are needed, both in updating outdated codal provisions and rethinking the type of legal scholarship that might best assist the courts.

C. Harris, Incidental Determination In Determinations in Proceedings under Compromissory Clauses

A dispute brought before an international court or tribunal pursuant to a compromissory clause in a specific treaty may involve issues under rules of international law found outside of the treaty in question. In what circumstances can a court or tribunal determine such external issues? At present, there is no clear answer to this question. This article sets out a framework for how courts and tribunals exercising jurisdiction under compromissory clauses could approach external issues.

M. Teo, Narrowing Foreign Affairs Non-Justiciability

The UK Supreme Court’s decision in Belhaj v Straw defined foreign affairs non-justiciability and unearthed its constitutional foundations. However, two decisions since Belhaj—High Commissioner for Pakistan v Prince Muffakham Jah and The Law Debenture Trust Corpn plc v Ukraine—have called Belhaj into doubt, narrowing non-justiciability to give effect to ordinary private law rights. This article analyses these decisions and argues that their general approach of subjecting issues involving transactions between sovereign States to private international law’s framework is desirable, because the constitutional foundations of non-justiciability identified in Belhaj are shaky. Yet, it is suggested that private international law itself may require courts to exercise judicial restraint on these issues, given its goal of upholding the efficient resolution of international disputes in appropriate fora.

The issue also contains review, by M. Chen-Wishart, Y. Wu, of Contract Law in Japan by H. Sono, L. Nottage, A. Pardieck and K. Saigusa, Wolters Kluwer: Alphen aan den Rijn 2018.

In DTEK Energy BV, Re [2021] EWHC 1551 (Ch) Norris J yesterday expanded on his reason to sanction this scheme of arrangement of a Dutch corporation. I had referenced an earlier DTEK scheme in my post here. The judge firstly pointed out the straddle position of the E&W courts, in assessing the sanction of the scheme from the jurisdictional point of view: [30]:

for the purposes of testing whether the Judgments Regulation presented a jurisdictional bar to the English Court exercising jurisdiction over EU domiciled scheme members or creditors it was assumed to apply (and an appropriate gateway identified). But for the purposes of testing international effectiveness it was not assumed to apply, and the English Courts looked for expert evidence which demonstrated alternative bases.

He also points out [31] what I have repeatedly mentioned: the analysis was never extensive, for the schemes tended eventually to be unopposed. Summary of the default position is done [31] with reference to Van Gansewinkel (in which I acted as one of the experts) seeing as, like DTEK, it involved recognition and enforcement in The Netherlands.

At [37], importantly, the judge refers to a report produced by Prof. Dr. Christoph Paulus and Prof. Dr. Peter Mankowski as to the likelihood of the recognition of the Bank Scheme by EU Member States. They seemingly are of opinion that the Bank Scheme would be given effect in every Member State by virtue of Art 12(1)(d) Rome I. This provides that the law applicable to a contract (in the instant case, English law) shall govern the various ways of extinguishing obligations: and that rule covers all modes of extinguishing obligations (including those operating against dissentient creditors). At [38] this conclusion is said to have been supported by a number of relevant E&W precedents (all of which  I have reported on the blog; see eg Lecta Paper) however these all merely scratched the surface.

Gazprombank however oppose this conclusion and refer in support to a report produced (I have not seen it) by Dr Peters for the Dutch situation and, at [44] by Mr Vorkas for the Cypriot situation. Both question the opposability of the scheme to recalcitrant creditors in light of amended choice of law. I have not studied the issue in the detail these reports have, and I have not seen any of them, however my own view on this is that there is certainly merit in what are here the opponents: certain English schemes’ position under Rome I is really quite vulnerable.

At [41] the judge on balance sides with the Paulus /Mankowiski report for ‘it is common ground that I cannot decide between the rival Dutch views’ (later repeated for the Cypriot report). I do not think that is necessarily correct, or at least it deserves some discussion: Brussels Ia may not be retained EU law yet Rome I is, therefore this is arguably not an issue of ‘foreign law’ (and certainly not ‘Dutch law’).  

Conclusion [46]: If sanctioned, the Bank Scheme will certainly be effective as regards 95% of Energy’s creditors. There is a reasonable prospect that the sole dissentient creditor will be unable to mount any challenge to it. Even in the event of a challenge, uncontested evidence demonstrates that the Bank Scheme will be effective in the jurisdiction in which operations are undertaken and assets located.

Seeing as this is one of the first times the BIa and particularly the Rome I situation is discussed in greater detail, I do hope this case is heading for the Court of Appeal.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, para 5.35 ff.

A more extensive than usual consideration of jurisdiction, applicable law re schemes of arrangement.
Norris J in DTEK yesterday (which I cross-referred herehttps://t.co/3QeZJfflxF)
Brussels Ia, Rome I https://t.co/Bkg4ctn6er

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) June 9, 2021

Mary Keyes (Griffith University) has posted Women in Private International Law on SSRN.

The abstract reads:

There has been almost no consideration of the position of women in private international law. There is very little published research applying a feminist analysis to, or even considering the position of women in, private international law. This field gives almost no attention to the particular interests, positions and experiences of women as subjects of the law, or the contribution of women as makers of the law. In the common law, private international law was largely developed in the 19th century, by male judges who were strongly influenced by commentary written exclusively by men. This chapter establishes that the apparently gender-neutral nature of private international law conceals profoundly ingrained assumptions about gender, in which the masculine is represented as a rational and sophisticated businessman, and the feminine is represented as a legally incapable wife. It then considers the gendered dimension of private international law in international family law, referring in particular to the regulation of international child abduction, international family property agreements, and international commercial surrogacy. Each of these examples demonstrates the differential impact of the law on women, indicating the need for greater awareness of and attention to gender. It concludes that while there have been some advances recently, particularly in terms of increased representation of women in making and commenting on private international law, there remains a great need for further research into the position of women as legal subjects and law-makers in this field.

Election or political party disputes often feature before Nigerian courts. In Nigeria jurisdiction in matters of conflict of laws (called “territorial jurisdiction” by many Nigerian judges) also applies to matters of disputes between members of a political party in the inter-state context.[1]

In Oshiomhole v Salihu (No. 1)[2] (reported on June 7, 2021), one of the issues for determination was whether the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja possessed territorial jurisdiction to handle a dispute between members of Nigeria’s ruling political party. The 1st defendant/appellant was at the time the National Chairman of the 2nd defendant/appellant (the ruling party in Nigeria). It was alleged by some Members of the party that he had been suspended at the ward level in Edo State and he was thus disqualified from holding the position of National Chairman. The 1st defendant/appellant, inter alia, filed a preliminary objection to the suit and argued that the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory did not possess territorial jurisdiction because the cause of action arose in Edo State where he was alleged to have been suspended as the National Chairman. The Court of Appeal (per Onyemenam JCA in his leading judgment) dismissed the preliminary objection and held as follows:

“The issue herein is straightforward. Order 3 rule 4 of the High Court of Federal Capital Territory (Civil Procedure) Rules 2018 provides that:

“All other suits shall where the defendant resides or carries on business or where the cause of action arose in the Federal Capital Territory, be commenced and determined in the High court of Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.”

By this Rule, apart from the matters that fall under Order 3 Rules 1 & 2 of the High Court of Federal Capital Territory (Civil Procedure) Rules 2018, the High Court of Federal Capital Territory, Abuja shall have territorial jurisdiction where:

1. The defendant resides within the Federal Capital Territory or
2. The defendant carries on business within the Federal Capital Territory or
3. The cause of action arose within the Federal Capital Territory or

In either of the three circumstances stated above, the High Court of Federal Capital Territory, Abuja shall have territorial jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit. The appellants’ contention herein is that the cause of action arose in Edo State and not in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja and as such the High court of Federal Capital Territory, Abuja lacks the jurisdiction to hear the suit. This argument is one third percent correct for the simple fact that, where cause of action arose is not the sole source of territorial jurisdiction of the High court of Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. In the instant case, the office of the 1st appellant as National Chairman of the 2nd appellant; as well as the Registered office and Secretariat of the 2nd appellant are both within the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. This makes the High court of Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, have territorial jurisdiction over the suit filed by the respondents under Order 3 rule 4(1) of the High Court of Federal Capital Territory(Civil Procedure) Rules, 2018…

I therefore hold that the trial court has the territorial jurisdiction to hear the respondent’s suit and resolve the issue in favour of the 1st – 6th respondents.”[3]

The above rationale for the Court of Appeal’s decision of Onyemenam JCA in his leading judgment is clearly wrong. Order 3 rule 4 of the High Court of Federal Capital Territory (Civil Procedure) Rules 2018 is a choice of venue rule for allocating jurisdiction as between the judicial division of the Federal Capital Territory for the purpose of geographical and administrative convenience. It cannot and should not be used to resolve inter-state matters of conflict of laws. It is submitted that the better view is stated by the Court of Appeal in Ogunsola v All Nigeria Peoples Party,[4] where Oduyemi JCA in his leading judgment at the Court of Appeal, rightly held that:

“Where the dispute as to venue is not one between one division or another of the same State High Court or between one division or the other of the F.C.T. Abuja High Court, but as between one division or the other of the F.C.T Abuja High Court, but as between the High Court of one State in the Federation and the High Court of the F.C.T. then the issue of the appropriate or more convenient forum is one to be determined under the rules of Private International Law formulated by courts within the Federation.”[5]

In Oshiomhole (supra) the opportunity was missed to apply and develop jurisdictional conflict of law rules for disputes between members of a political party in Nigeria. The  result of the decision reached in Oshiomhole (supra) in applying choice of venue rules through Order 3 rule 4 of the High Court of Federal Capital Territory (Civil Procedure) Rules 2018 will conflate with the principles of Nigerian private international as the defendants were resident in the State they were sued. So the Court of Appeal in Oshiomhole (supra) incorrectly reasoned its way to the right conclusion – the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory had jurisdiction in this case.

Unfortunately, in recent times the Supreme Court of Nigeria has held that the High Court of a State cannot establish jurisdiction over a cause of action that occurs in another State – the strict territorial jurisdiction approach.[6] This approach has also been applied to disputes between members of a political party.[7] This approach is also wrong as it ignores the principles of traditional Nigerian common law conflict of laws. It also leads to injustice and unduly circumscribes the jurisdiction of the Nigerian court, which ultimately makes Nigerian courts inaccessible and unattractive for litigation. Nigerian courts should have jurisdiction as of right once a defendant is resident or submits to the jurisdiction of the Nigerian court. In Oshiomhole (supra), if the strict territorial jurisdiction approach was applied, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja would not have had jurisdiction because the cause of action arose in Edo State.

In summation, applying the right principle of private international law, the Court of Appeal in Oshiomhole (supra) reached the right decision (residence of the defendant) through an incorrect reasoning of relying on Order 3 rule 4 of the High Court of Federal Capital Territory (Civil Procedure) Rules 2018, which is choice of venue rule for judicial divisions within a State. If the recent Supreme Court cases, which apply the strict territorial jurisdiction approach was applied in this case, Oshiomhole (supra) would be per incuriam and, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja would not have had jurisdiction because the cause of action arose in Edo State.

[1]Ogunsola v All Nigeria Peoples Party (2003) 9 NWLR (Pt. 826) 462, 480.

[2] (2021) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1778) 237.

[3]Oshiomhole v Salihu (No. 1) (2021) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1778) 237, 275-6.

[4](2003 ) 9 NWLR (Pt. 826) 462, 480 .

[5] Ogunsola v All Nigeria Peoples Party (2003 ) 9 NWLR (Pt. 826) 462, 480 .

[6] Capital Bancorp Ltd v Shelter Savings and Loans Ltd (2007) 3 NWLR 148; Dairo v Union Bank of Nigeria Plc (2007) 16 NWLR (Pt 1059) 99,

[7]Mailantarki v Tongo & Ors (2017) LPELR-42467; Audu v. APC & Ors (2019) LPELR – 48134.