Flux des sites DIP

Before a court of a Member State of enforcement, a debtor lodges an application opposing enforcement of a maintenance decision given by a court of another Member State. The court of the Member State of enforcement asks the Court of Justice whether that application falls within the scope of the Maintenance Regulation or that of Brussels I bis Regulation and whether the jurisdiction to rule on the application lies with the courts of the Member State of enforcement.

In essence, these are the questions at stake in the case C-41/19, FX. Back in February, we reported on the Opinion of AG Bobek presented in this case.

In its Judgment of 4 June 2020, the Court follows its Advocate General to a large extent and considers that an application opposing enforcement, which has a close link with the procedure for enforcement, falls within the scope of the Maintenance Regulation and is within the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State of enforcement.

First, at paragraphs 31 to 33 of that Judgment, it is observed that the Maintenance Regulation is an instrument governing, inter alia, enforcement of decisions of the courts of the Member States in matters relating to maintenance obligations, these matters being excluded from the Brussels I bis Regulation pursuant to its Article 1(2)(e). As such, the Regulation covers the proceedings on enforcement of a maintenance decision.

Next, at paragraph 35, it is stated that when an application opposing enforcement is connected with an action seeking enforcement of a decision in matters relating to maintenance obligations, it falls within the scope of the Maintenance Regulation, just as that decision itself.

After that, at paragraphs 36 to 42, the Court tackles the question whether the courts of the Members State of enforcement have jurisdiction to rule on such application opposing enforcement. In contrast to the Brussels I bis Regulation and its Article 24(5), the Maintenance Regulation does not contain a provision explicitly concerning jurisdiction at the stage of enforcement. Nevertheless, the Court considers that a court of the Member State of enforcement has jurisdiction under the Maintenance Regulation to adjudicate on an application opposing enforcement where that application has a close link with the action for enforcement brought before it.

While both the Opinion and the Judgments seem to come the conclusion that the Maintenance Regulation contains an implicit rule on jurisdiction at the stage of enforcement that is inherent in the system of that regulation (see point 43 of the Opinion; paragraphs 36 and 38 of the Judgment), the reasonings backing that conclusion seem to differ at least in some aspects.

At point 44 et seq. of his Opinion, AG Bobek argued mainly that a rule according to which international jurisdiction for enforcement belongs to the courts of the Member State where enforcement is sought is ‘an expression of what could be considered a general principle of international law connected with State sovereignty’. Therefore, according to the Advocate General, it is not necessary to have recourse to Article 24(5) of the Brussels I bis Regulation as a supplementary provision in order to be able to establish that the courts of the Member State of enforcement also have jurisdiction with regard to the enforcement of maintenance decisions within the scope of the Maintenance Regulation.

In its Judgment, the Court does not reproduce the aforementioned argument. At paragraphs 37 et seq., it rather infers an implicit rule on jurisdiction from the structure and objectives of the Maintenance Regulation. While doing so, it seems to rely on the idea that, jurisdiction-wise, the procedures closely linked to the enforcement, such as the opposition against it, should not be disconnected from the enforcement itself.

Finally, at paragraphs 44 et seq., the Judgment provides some guidance on interpreting the Maintenance Regulation which may be of assistance to the referring court in connection with a ground of opposition relating to the satisfaction of the debt.

Written by María Barral Martínez, a former trainee at the European Court of Justice (Chambers of AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona) and an alumna of the University of Amsterdam and the University of Santiago de Compostela

The Hoge Raad Neederlanden (The Dutch Supreme Court), the referring court in the case Supreme Site Service and Others, C-186/19, harbours doubts regarding the international jurisdiction of Dutch courts under the Brussels I bis Regulation, in respect to a request to lift an interim garnishee order. An insight on the background of the case can be found here and here, while the implications of that background for admissibility of request for a preliminary ruling are addressed in section 1 of the present text.

In replying to a preliminary ruling request made by that court, AG Saugmandsgaard Øe issued his Opinion. Advocate General concluded that a flexible approach should be taken when interpreting the concept of “civil and commercial matters” within the meaning of Article 1(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation. AG was of the view that an action for interim measures as the one brought by SHAPE, aimed at obtaining the lifting of a garnishee order, qualifies as civil and commercial matters, within the meaning of Article 1(1), provided that such garnishee order had the purpose of safeguarding a right originating in a contractual legal relationship which is not characterised by an expression of public powers, a matter that is left to the referring court to verify. For presentation of AG reasoning and its analysis in relation to interim measures, see section 2.

Moreover, according to AG, alleged claims of immunity enjoyed under international law by one of the parties to the proceedings had no significance, when it comes to the analysis of the material scope of the Brussels I bis Regulation. Against this background, the case provides a good opportunity to explore jurisdictional issues in the face of immunities, such as the debate regarding international jurisdiction preceding the assessment of immunities, and what can be inferred from the case-law of the Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights in that respect. Next, it requires us to determine whether the case-law developed in relation to State bodies and their engagement in acta iure imperii can be applied mutatis mutandis to the international organisations. Finally, it revives the concerns on whether the scope of the Brussels I bis Regulation should be determined in a manner allowing to establish international jurisdiction under that Regulation even though enforcement against public authorities stands little chances, be that international organisations as in the present case. These issues are discussed in section 3.

1.     Admissibility of the preliminary reference

Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe made some remarks on the admissibility of the preliminary ruling and on whether a reply of the Court of Justice would be of any avail to the referring court.

It should be recalled that at national level, two sets of proceedings were initiated in parallel. In the first set, – the proceedings on the merits – Supreme, the private-law companies, sought a declaratory judgment that it was entitled to the payment of several amounts by SHAPE, an international organisation. These proceedings were under appeal before the Den Bosch Court of Appeal because SHAPE challenged the first instance court’s jurisdiction. In the second set – the proceedings for interim measures where the preliminary ruling originated from – SHAPE brought an action seeking the lift of the interim garnishee order and requesting the prohibition of further attempts from Supreme to levy an interim garnishee order against the escrow account.

In the opinion of AG, the preliminary ruling was still admissible despite the fact that the Den Bosch Court of Appeal ruled on the proceedings on the merits granting immunity of jurisdiction to SHAPE in December 2019 – the judgment is under appeal before the Dutch Supreme Court. He opined that the main proceedings should not be regarded as having become devoid of purpose until the court renders a final judgment on the question whether SHAPE is entitled to invoke its immunity from jurisdiction, in the context of the proceedings on the merits and whether that immunity, in itself, precludes further garnishee orders targeting the escrow account (point 35).

2.     Civil and commercial matters in respect of substantive proceedings or interim relief proceedings?

The Opinion addressed at the outset the question on whether the substantive proceedings should fall under the material scope of the Brussels I bis Regulation in order for the interim relief measures to fall as well within that scope. As a reminder, the object of the proceedings on the merits, is a contractual dispute over the payment of fuels supplied by Supreme to SHAPE, in the context of a military operation carried out by the latter.

As AG signalled, to answer the question several hypotheses have been put forward by the parties at the hearing held at the Court of Justice. The first hypothesis, supported by the Greek Government and Supreme, proposed that in order to determine if an action for interim measures falls within the scope of the Regulation, the proceedings on the merits should fall as well under the material scope of the Regulation. In particular, the characteristics of the proceedings on the merits should be taken into account. The second hypothesis, supported by SHAPE, considered that the analysis should be done solely in respect to the proceedings for interim measures. The European Commission and the Dutch and Belgian Governments opined that in order to determine if the action for interim measures can be characterised as civil and commercial matters, it is the nature of the right which the interim measure was intended to safeguard in the framework of the interim relief proceedings that matters.

Endorsing the latter hypothesis, AG indicated that an application for interim measures cannot be regarded as automatically falling within or outside the scope of the Brussels I bis Regulation, depending on whether or not the proceedings on the merits fall within that scope, simply because it is ancillary to the proceedings on the merits (point 51). To support his conclusion, AG followed the line of reasoning developed by the Court in the context of the instruments preceding the Brussels I bis Regulation. In that regard, the Court has held that to ascertain that provisional/protective measures come within the scope of the Regulation, it’s not the nature of the measures that should be taken into account but the nature of the rights they serve to protect. To illustrate this: in Cavel I, the Court held that interim measures can serve to safeguard a variety of rights which may or may not fall within the scope of the now Brussels I bis Regulation (then the Brussels Convention) depending on the nature of the rights which they serve to protect. This has been confirmed in Cavel II: “ancillary claims accordingly come within the scope of the Convention according to the subject-matter with which they are concerned and not according to the subject-matter involved in the principal claim”. Further, in Van Uden, the Court held that “provisional measures are not in principle ancillary to arbitration proceedings but are ordered in parallel to such proceedings and are intended as measures of support. They concern not arbitration as such but the protection of a wide variety of rights”. This case-law has been also confirmed in recent judgments of the Court, namely in Bohez – where a penalty payment was imposed as a measure to comply with the main judgment – and Realchemie Nederland concerning an action brought for alleged patent infringement in the context of interim proceedings, where a prohibition in the form of payment of a fine was ordered.

In brief, what matters in this discussion on interim measures falling or not within the scope of the Brussels I bis Regulation, is not the relation between the main proceedings and the interim measures, the crucial factor being the purpose – determined from a procedural law standpoint – of the interim relief measure vis-à-vis the proceedings on the merits: an interim measure falling within the scope of the Regulation has to safeguard the substantive rights at stake in the main proceedings. In the present case, the substantive right in question is a credit arising from a contractual obligation that Supreme holds against SHAPE.

3.     Whether immunities play a role in determining if an action can qualify as “civil and commercial matters” within the meaning of Article 1(1) of the Regulation

One of the particularities of the case is that in the second set of proceedings where the preliminary ruling originated, SHAPE and JFCB (NATO) have introduced an action for interim relief measures, based on immunity from execution. SHAPE alleged that its immunity from execution flowing from the 1952 Paris Protocol trumps any jurisdiction derived from that Regulation.

It is against this background that the Dutch Supreme Court asked the Court of Justice if the fact that an International Organisation claims to enjoy immunity from execution under public international law, bars the application of the Brussels I bis Regulation or has an impact on its application ratione materiae. In his Opinion, Advocate General considered that the referring court is concerned by the actions relating to “acts or omissions in the exercise of state authority” linked to the concept of “acta iure imperii” – a concept which is also used in international law in relation to the principle of State immunity.

The Opinion tackled the question of immunities under public international law and concluded that a dispute where an International Organisation is a party, should not be automatically excluded from the material scope of the Brussels I bis Regulation. Interestingly, some aspects of the reasoning that allowed to reach that conclusion echo the doctrinal debates on the interplay between the jurisdictional rules of EU private international law, on the one hand, and the immunity derived from public international law, on the other hand.

• Does immunity precede the jurisdiction under EU PIL?

At point 72, AG rejected the arguments advanced by the Austrian Government, who argued that the Brussels I bis Regulation should not apply to the case at hand. In the view of this government, if an international organisation takes part in a dispute, the immunity that this organisation enjoys on the basis of customary international law or treaty law, characterizes the nature of the legal relationship between the parties. In other words, a criterion based on the nature of a party (scil. the fact that it is an international organization that is a party to proceedings) should suffice to decline jurisdiction under the Brussels I regime.

In that respect, AG made some interesting remarks: first, by applying the Brussels I bis Regulation to a dispute where an International Organisation is a party, there is no breach of Article 3(5) TUE and of the obligation to respect public international law enshrined in that provision. Second, if, based on the Brussels I bis regime, a national court declares its international jurisdiction over a dispute,  potential immunity claims advance by the parties will not be affected, as they are to be considered at a later stage of the proceedings. AG departed from the premise that the assessment on immunities should take place after the national judge seised with the case looks into the substance of the merits, including party allegations. This is therefore, at a second stage, after the national court has decided over its international jurisdiction within the first stage, that the immunity needs to be ascertained and its limits set (point 69).

This approach resonates with the idea that national courts are not supposed to engage in an in-depth analysis of the substance at that very first stage, when they are determining their own jurisdiction. They should not be undertaking a mini-trial, ascertaining jurisdiction requires only a first approximation to the facts of the case, solely for the purpose of determining jurisdiction. In FlyLaL II, a case concerning jurisdictional issues pursuant to the Brussels I Regulation, in respect of an action for damages brought for infringement of competition law, the Court observed that at the stage of determining jurisdiction “the referring court must confine itself to a prima facie examination of the case without examining its substance”. The statement draws on AG Bobek’s Opinion presented in the aforementioned case: “[d]etermination of jurisdiction should be as swift and easy as possible. Thus, a jurisdictional assessment is by definition a prima facie one. […] The jurisdictional assessment will, in practice, require a review of the basic factual and legal characteristics of the case at an abstract level.”

From the ECtHR case-law (see, most notably, Waite and Kennedy v. Germany) dealing with immunities of international organizations and the right to a remedy enshrined in Article 6 ECHR, a similar reading can be extracted. National courts deciding on granting of an immunity – be [it] immunity of jurisdiction or from execution – and performing the “reasonable alternative means” test, inevitably engage in a substantive analysis of the merits. To ensure that the claimant’s right to access justice is not breached, requires more than an abstract examination of the facts. This would seem to favour the idea that determination of international jurisdiction precedes a substantive analysis of the circumstances of the case in respect to any alleged claim of immunities made by the parties.

However, it is still not clear how this reasoning can be reconciled with judgments of the Court of Justice in the cases Universal Music International Holding and Kolassa. There, the Court of Justice held that according to the objective of the sound administration of justice which underlies the Brussels I Regulation, and respect for the independence of the national court in the exercise of its functions, a national court in the framework of ascertaining its international jurisdiction pursuant to the Brussels I regime, must look at all the information available to it. Although such an assertion seems to be construed in very general terms, one may well wonder what exactly a court assessing its international jurisdiction under the Brussels I bis Regulation is required to look at. Should it be a minimal review of the substance or a prima facie analysis strictly focused on the nature of the elements of the action – relevant in the context of the connecting factors used by the rules on jurisdiction –,including all the information available before the court?

If the answer would be the latter, that means that in the case at hand, the immunity from execution relied on by SHAPE in support of its action should be taken into account.

A reading of paragraphs 53 to 58 in the Court of Justice’s recent judgment in Rina, hints that in order to establish its own jurisdiction under the Brussels I bis Regulation, a national court has to take into consideration all available information. In the case at issue, party allegations where a party (Rina) invokes immunity of jurisdiction. While at first glance this instruction does not steer away from the judgments in Universal Music International Holding and Kolassa, what the Court proposes here is definitely more complex than a first approximation to the facts of the case. At paragraph 55 the Court notes “a national court implementing EU law in applying [the Brussels I Regulation] must comply with the requirements flowing from Article 47 of the Charter. […] The referring court must satisfy itself that, if it upheld the plea relating to immunity from jurisdiction, [the claimants] would not be deprived of their right of access to the courts, which is one of the elements of the right to effective judicial protection in Article 47 of the Charter.” If the national courts were to engage in such analysis – in a similar fashion as the ECtHR established in regards to Article 6 ECHR – it will certainly go beyond a mere examination in abstracto, implying rather a deep dive on the merits.

Moreover, the judgment in Rina seems to suggest that the analysis of international law cannot be avoided even when it comes only to the question whether the Brussels I regime applies or not. At paragraph 60, the Court of Justice explained “[t]he principle of customary international law concerning immunity from jurisdiction does not preclude the national court seised from exercising the jurisdiction provided for by that regulation in a dispute relating to such an action, where that court finds that such corporations have not had recourse to public powers within the meaning of international law.” Again, for the examination of these matters in the framework of determining international jurisdiction, a greater level of scrutiny is required. A national judge would have to dig dipper in the facts and party allegations to come to the conclusion that a certain party did not have recourse to public powers. Something that is everything but a swift and easy exercise.

• Does the case-law developed in the context of State bodies apply to international organisations?

Be that as it may, while an immunity claim does not automatically rule out the application of the Brussels I bis Regulation according to AG Saugmandsgaard Øe, the key question in his analysis is to determine if actions related to acta iure imperii under Article 1(1) of the Regulation are applicable to international organisations. It flows from the Court of Justice well-settled case-law that disputes between a State body and a person governed by private law come within the scope of civil and commercial matters, if the public authority in question does not act in the exercise of its public powers. At point 75 of his Opinion, AG made a reference to the judgment in Eurocontrol and indicated that exceptions under Article 1(1) in fine can extend to acts and omissions carried out by an international organisation. He remarked that, the concept of “public powers” established under the Court’s case-law, not only relates to State responsibility but refers also to those situations where a public authority acts under the umbrella of its public powers.

Advocate General moved then to analyse the Court of Justice case-law concerning liability of the State for acts and omissions carried out in the exercise of sovereign authority. Here matters get a bit complicated.

On the one hand, it remains to be seen how that case-law could be applied mutatis mutandis to international organisations. Leaving aside the question of immunities and putting emphasis on the notion of “civil and commercial matters” within the meaning of Article 1(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, the acts and omissions of an international organization are strictly connected with the powers conferred to the organisation for its proper functioning. Thus, one could wonder whether a functional test would be more suitable to determine if the acts or omissions were carried out by an international organization in the exercise of its public powers: a demarcating line could be drawn between non-official (non-related to the mission of the organization) acts and omissions and those of official nature, therefore necessary to fulfil the organisation’s mandate.

On the other hand, concerning the criteria applied by the Court when analysing if a public authority has exercised its powers of State authority, there is no “one size fits all” solution. As AG rightly pointed out at point 84 of his Opinion, the Court has still to sort out the interplay between different criteria: matters characterising the legal relationship between the parties, the subject-matter of the dispute and the basis of the action and the detailed rules governing the action brought.

To illustrate this point: in Préservatrice Foncière TIARD, the Court looked mainly at the legal relationship between the parties, while in Baten and Sapir and Others the Court did not refer to the legal relationship between the parties but focused on the subject-matter of the dispute and the basis of the action brought. Hence, the alternative or cumulative use of these criteria – or a flexible one- seem to reflect the need to provide an adequate response to the case-specific factual context of a particular case.

In that sense, AG pointed out that the criterion concerning the basis of the action is not relevant in all cases, it will be determinant in situations where is not established that the substantive basis of the claim is an act carried out in the exercise of public powers. For that reason, at 90, AG considered more appropriate that the action is based on a right originating from an act of public authority or in a legal relationship characterized by a manifestation of public power.

• Does the perspective of anticipated recognition/enforcement influence the interpretation of the notion of “civil and commercial matters”?

It is worth mentioning that some commentators (see also Van Calster, G., European Private International Law, Hart Publishing, 2016, p. 32) pointed out that, in the light of the judgment in Eurocontrol, the scope of application of the Brussels I bis Regulation should be interpreted by taking into account the perspectives of recognition and enforcement. Thus, if immunity bears no significance at the stage of determining jurisdiction, but it is later granted/recognised resulting in refusal of recognition and/or enforcement, concerns are raised regarding what is the practical use of exercising jurisdiction under the Brussels I bis Regulation against public authorities when there are little chances of recognition/enforcement.

On this point, the Spanish Supreme Court – in a case concerning the enforcement of a judgment rendered in Germany in favour of a private party against the Republic of Argentina –, held that a declaration of enforceability issued in relation to a general enforcement order does not breach the rules on immunity of execution. The Spanish Court precised that only when specific legal attachment measures are taken, a court should determine if the property in question is subject to execution. Thus, the issue of immunity of execution and the assessment whether the property to be executed is for commercial or official purposes would be at stake at a second stage of the enforcement procedure, not interfering with the application of the Brussels I regime.

 

 

Cambridge University Press has just published the second edition of the Concise Commentary on the Rome I Regulation edited by Franco Ferrari.

In addition to Ferrari himself, the authors of the commentary are Markus Altenkirch, Christoph Althammer, Jan Bischoff, Tim W. Dornis, Jan D. Lüttringhaus, Spyros Makris,  Sebastian Omlor, Francesca Ragno, Martin Schmidt-Kessel, Björn Steinrötter, and Felipe Temming.

The blurb reads:

This book offers an updated article-by-article commentary of the Rome I Regulation, applicable in the courts of nearly all European countries to identify the law applicable to international contracts. The commentary is authored by an international group of academics and practitioners, who all have practical experience with international contracts and, thus, were able to focus on the needs of practice. This volume will be not only a reference guide for judges and practitioners alike, but also a crucial resource for academics and researchers.

More information available here.

Many thanks indeed Kevin La Croix for flagging the suit brought in New York by a group of Bayer AG shareholders, against Bayer (with seat at Leverkusen, Germany), concerning the not altogether successful purchase of Monsanto by Bayer. Kevin has excellent analysis and I am happy to refer.

Claimants of course pre-empt arguments of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and, subsidiarily, forum non conveniens – please refer to Kevin’s overview for the arguments to and fro. Most interesting. It brought back to me echoes of the Australian case of Tiger v Morris, not because the subject-matter is similar (it is not) but because in this increasingly globalised world (despite Covid19), courts everywhere are increasingly asked to consider the reach of their courts in cases with competing local and foreign interests. Comity considerations underlying the historic roots of conflict of laws are being brought back to the fore, no doubt also partially as a result of the impact of third party financing, contingency fees etc.

One to keep an eye on. One wonders whether Bayer might be launching a related case in Germany, then triggering A33/34 considerations.

Geert.

 

 

Forum shopping, corporate law. Lex causae undoubtedly German law. Shareholder seeking to take advantage in particular of procedure.

via @alahav https://t.co/TBcKULJIQc

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) March 18, 2020

Bertrand Copigneaux, Nikita Vlasov and Emarildo Bani of IDATE DigiWorld, Nikolay Tcholtchev and Philipp Lämmel of Fraunhofer Institute for Open Communication Systems, Michael Fuenfzig, Simone Snoeijenbos and Michael Flickenschild from Ecorys, and Martina Piantoni and Simona Frazzani from Grimaldi Studio Legale, have written a Study on Blockchain for supply chains and international trade at the request of the European Parliament.

The study was commissioned by the Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA) and managed by the Scientific Foresight Unit, within the Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services (EPRS) of the Secretariat of the European Parliament.

The abstract reads:

This study provides an analysis of blockchain technology in the context of international trade. It analyses the potential impacts of blockchain development and applications in eight use cases for supply chains and international trade. It also provides an analysis of the current legislative framework and existing initiatives.

Based on this analysis, and following a broad consultation of relevant organisations, the study identifies several challenges in international trade documentation and processes, and presents a range of policy options for the European Parliament.

The Study concludes by developing 20 policy options, which are organised in six themes.

Customs facilitation through blockchain

1. The European Commission could act as a bridge between EU customs authorities interested in employing blockchain technology for the digitalisation of customs, with a view to jointly developing further proofs of concept.

2. EU Single Window working groups could run through the blockchain key questions to be addressed within the guidelines developed by the World Economic Forum by means of consultations with authorities, private sector groups and mixed focus groups, to explore whether there is a business case for its development.

3. The European Commission could look to its partners in mutual recognition agreements to explore the possibility of sharing Authorised Economic Operator information via blockchain.

Involvement of small and medium-sized enterprises in the blockchain sphere

4. The European Commission could be encouraged to help SMEs keep abreast of blockchain applications relevant for their particular role in the value chain.

5. Funds could be made available to support collaboration between SMEs as both suppliers of solutions and end-users of global value chains. 

Sustainable trade through blockchain

6. The European Commission could be provided with the budget to scale up the solutions being developed under Blockchain for Social Good, particularly those relating to fair trade.

7. The European Commission could include blockchain technology solutions in the considerations for designing the practical aspects of an EU carbon border tax.

Leadership in standardisation of blockchain technology

8. The European Commission could continue to play a leading role in the standardisation process, continue its close collaboration with international partners and strive to provide a platform to enable the various actors working on pilots and standards to engage with each other in order to avoid fragmentation.

9. The European Commission could make use of the Multi-Stakeholder Platform on ICT Standardisation to further collaborate with various stakeholders on blockchain standardisation.

10. Beyond dialogue with third countries on standardisation, the EU could lead by example and set standards itself by introducing blockchain-based services for example in customs or financial transparency, based on which private actors, third countries, and international standardisation organisations could orient themselves.

11. Support could be given to the work of the European Blockchain Partnership, and collaboration encouraged with the International Association for Trusted Blockchain Applications, in order to work towards a comprehensive ecosystem of international supply chains using blockchain technology.

Evidence-based policymaking in the area of blockchain

12. Parliament could engage more actively in the work already going on at EU level with regard to blockchain technology and international trade by observing relevant organisations such as the European Blockchain Partnership or asking the European Commission for regular updates on their work.

13. Networks, such as the European Blockchain Partnership, the Observatory and others could be promoted. To this end the Parliament could also promote and fund further research in the area, including a mapping of regulatory readiness in the EU, its Member States and international partners.

14. The European Commission could be made aware that solutions should include reporting indicators and specific plans on how results will be measured, communicated and developed into lessons learned. 

15. Progress of work already being done in piloting blockchain at EU level could be monitored closely and support given for setting up future use cases and pilots under the European Blockchain Services Infrastructure and the Connecting Europe Facility.

16. Use could be made of funding schemes for research and business to support the EU’s efforts in the early stage development of blockchain-related projects in trade and supply chains.

17. In the context of the International Association for Trusted Blockchain Applications, the European Commission could be supported and encouraged to establish a public–private partnership in the area of blockchain for international trade and supply chains.

Awareness raising for the use of blockchain

18. Regarding blockchain’s potential to improve efficiency and support EU values such as transparency, fair trade, and social and environmental responsibility, the EU could promote recognition of the technology and its use in trade and supply chains.

19. Successful proof of concepts, pilots and the available building blocks on the Connecting Europe Facility platform could be promoted among Member States, private stakeholders and citizens to increase familiarity among stakeholders with the technology and its uptake.

20. The European Commission and Member States could be encouraged to make use of their roles as members of international organisations such as the World Trade Organization, the World Customs Organization and the United Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business to promote trade digitalisation and the use of blockchain technology.

The Study can be freely downloaded here. A Briefing summarizing the findings of the Study is available here.

On 25 May 2020, the CJEU has resumed its activity. This means hearings will be held again. None is scheduled for June on PIL matters, though.

The decision of the third Chamber (Prechal, Rossi, Malenovský, Biltgen, Wahl) in C-41/19, FX, is expected for 4 June.

The case arises from a request for a preliminary ruling made by the Amtsgericht Köln. It is about a child resident in Poland, who had obtained a decision from the Polish courts establishing the maintenance obligations of her father, resident in Germany. After getting a declaration of the enforceability of the Polish maintenance decision in Germany, the maintenance creditor seeks to have that decision enforced there. The debtor opposes enforcement on the basis that his payment obligations have been largely fulfilled; to this aim, he has lodged an application opposing before the German courts. The key issue raised by the request for a preliminary ruling is whether the German courts have jurisdiction to rule on that application on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations. AG Bobek’s Opinion was published on 27 February 2020. He suggests the CJEU answer in the following terms:

Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, and, in particular, Article 41(1) thereof, should be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the Member State where the enforcement of a maintenance decision given in another Member State is sought have jurisdiction to adjudicate on an application opposing enforcement, in so far as it is intrinsically connected with enforcement proceedings, it does not seek the modification or review of the maintenance decision, and it is based on grounds that could not have been raised before the court that issued the maintenance decision. Those conditions appear to be fulfilled by the application of opposition to enforcement based on the discharge of the debt at issue in the present case, which is nonetheless ultimately for the referring court to verify.

A separate post will appear on this blog concerning the Court’s judgment.

Additionally, two Opinions will be delivered on 18 June 2020, one by AG Szpunar (C-433/19, Ellmes Property Services) and the other by AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona (C-540/19, WV).

The former addresses a request from the Austrian Oberster Gerichtshof on the first subparagraph of Article 24(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation. The OG asks whether the provision is to be interpreted as meaning that “actions brought by a co-owner seeking to prohibit another co-owner from carrying out changes to his property subject to co-ownership, in particular to its designated use, arbitrarily and without the consent of the other co-owners, concern the assertion of a right in rem”. Should the question be answered in the negative, the CJUE should determine Article 7(1)(a) whether concern contractual obligations to be performed at the location of the property.

In C-540/19, the German Bundesgerichthof requests the CJEU to decide whether a public body which has provided a maintenance creditor with social assistance benefits in accordance with provisions of public law can invoke the place of jurisdiction at the place of habitual residence of the maintenance creditor under Article 3(b) of the Maintenance Regulation, in the case where it asserts the maintenance creditor’s maintenance claim under civil law, transferred to it on the basis of the granting of social assistance by way of statutory subrogation, against the maintenance debtor by way of recourse. A good occasion to review C-433/01.

Finally, I would also like to mention AG Hogan’s Opinion on C-454/19, Staatsanwaltschaft Heilbronn, delivered the 4 June 2020. At first sight the questions referred to the Court had little to do with PIL:

(a) Is primary and/or secondary European law, in particular Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, in the sense of a full right of EU citizens to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, to be interpreted as meaning that it also covers national criminal provisions?
(b) If the question is answered in the affirmative: does the interpretation of primary and/or secondary European law preclude the application of a national criminal provision which penalises the retention of a child from his guardian abroad where the provision does not differentiate between Member States of the European Union and third countries?

This notwithstanding, Regulation 2201/2003 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility (Brussels II bis) and the case law of the Court relating thereto are very much present in the Opinion.

Jefferies International Ltd & Anor v Cantor Fitzgerald & Co & Ors [2020] EWHC 1381 (QB) engages everything including the kitchen sink (but excluding Articles 33-34 Brussels Ia, one assumes because no competing foreign suits were pending when the English courts were seized) in its application for a stay.

The First to Third Claimants [together Jefferies] and the First to Third Defendants [together Cantor] carry on business in the financial services industry internationally, including investment banking and capital markets business and in particular in the international power and renewables sector. The First Defendant is a general partnership organised under the laws of New York. The Second Defendant is an unlimited company registered in England and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. The Third Defendant is a limited liability company incorporated in Hong Kong. The action arises out of what has become known as a team move. Jefferies’ case is that on 20 November 2017 twenty-six of its employees each resigned in materially identical terms, almost all of the resignations took place at 11.00 am London time notwithstanding that this was outside the normal working hours of those who worked in New York and Hong Kong, each of the employees in each jurisdiction instructed the same solicitors and each now works for Cantor. Jefferies asserts that Cantor has directed each of the twenty-six employees to refuse to honour repayment obligations in respect of certain “Replacement Awards” and “Bonuses” which were triggered by their resignations and subsequent employment by Cantor.

The following issues were agreed for determination:

i) Are the claims of Jefferies US against Cantor US subject to an arbitration agreement between Jefferies US and Cantor US, and if so should those claims be stayed pursuant to the Arbitration Act 1996 section 9?

ii) Should Jefferies’ claims against Cantor US and Cantor HK be stayed because England is not the proper place for determination of those claims?

iii) Should Jefferies’ claims against Cantor US and Cantor HK be stayed because Jefferies breached its duty of fair presentation on its without notice application for permission to serve out?

iv) Do Jefferies’ claims against Cantor US and Cantor HK, insofar as they relate to repayment agreements governed by New York law, have no reasonable prospects of success, because those repayment agreements are unenforceable as a matter of New York law?

v) Should service of the claim form and particulars of claim on Cantor US and Cantor HK and the Order of Master Thornett granting permission to serve Cantor US and Cantor HK out of the jurisdiction be set aside on any of the above grounds?

vi) Should the proceedings (or any part of them not otherwise stayed on the above grounds) be stayed on case management grounds pending final award in the FINRA arbitration?

vii) Should Jefferies’ claims against the Employee Defendants be stayed as a result of exclusive jurisdiction clauses in relevant repayment agreements favouring the courts of the State of New York?

viii) Should Jefferies’ claims against the Employee Defendants be stayed on case management grounds pending final award in the FINRA arbitration?

Master Cook dismissed all applications for a stay in a surprisingly (given the size of the list) succinct judgment and readers are best referred to the text itself for perusal. Other than Articles 33-34 (see above), only abuse of process I think could have been added to this extensive list of attempted grounds for a stay.

Geert.

 

Application for stay on the basis of i.a. forum non, case management, preference to #arbitration.
All dismissed. Claims to proceed, with English anchor defendant. https://t.co/nsvXupnH4z

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) June 2, 2020

The Diesel scandal has produced a wave of litigation word-wide. We are still waiting for the CJEU’s decision on whether claims can be brought in Austria by Austrian purchasers (Case C-343/19). The Advocate General’s opinion in this case has been the subject of an earlier post on this blog.

One of the important issues in the case pending before the CJEU is whether claimants can be expected to sue Volkswagen (VW) at its seat.  VW has its seat in Wolfsburg; thus, the competent court for such claims would be the Regional Court (Landgericht) of Braunschweig (Brunswick). The Braunschweig Regional Court has, however, now introduced a new hurdle for claimants who want to sue VW at its seat.

The Court at VW’s Seat Has Spoken

On 30 April 2020, the Regional Court of Braunschweig gave judgment (docket no 11 O 3092/19) on a case concerning a German debt collection company that had brought a “collective action” based on a number of claims against VW assigned to it by Swiss purchasers who bought cars fitted with the illicit software. The debt collection company was licensed under the German Act on Out-of-Court Legal Services (Rechtsdienstleistungsgesetz – RDG).

The Regional Court dismissed the action on the basis that the company could not dispose of the authorisation necessary under the RDG to pursue the claim, despite being licensed in Germany. It specifically found that neither the company nor its employees had any knowledge of Swiss law. Such expertise was however indispensable for the present case because the Regional Court of Braunschweig assumed that the claims assigned to the company would be governed by Swiss law.

An Overly Simplistic Conflict-of-Laws Analysis

The Regional Court derived the applicability of Swiss law from Article 4(1) of the Rome II Regulation. The court concluded that the place where the damage occurred, which is decisive under this rule, was Switzerland because the purchasers had paid for the cars from Swiss bank accounts.

The Regional Court seems to refer in this respect to the CJEU judgment in Kolassa, which – in the context of international jurisdiction – had considered the place where a bank account is managed as relevant for the localisation of financial loss. However, this judgment concerned the specific situation of prospectus liability, not the sale of cars. It cannot be considered as establishing a general rule, as the CJEU has clarified in its later judgment in Universal Music.

The localisation of loss in the ‘Dieselgate’ cases is much more difficult and intricate, as the Advocate General has pointed out in its conclusions in Case C-343/19. The fact that the cars have been paid from Swiss bank accounts alone will not suffice to establish the applicability of Swiss law. Other circumstances will have to be considered, such as the place of domicile of the purchasers, or the place where they use their cars (see the comment on the AG’s conclusions here).

An Undue Restriction of Access to Justice 

More problematic still is that the Regional Court Braunschweig denied the debt collection company standing to sue VW in Germany on the grounds that it lacks sufficient knowledge of Swiss law. This argument relies on a very restrictive interpretation of German law, which requires debt collection companies to have only general legal expertise; not specific expertise in foreign law. Moreover, the ruling ignores the fact that debt collection companies may instruct experts on Swiss law to advise on certain points of the legal case. Indeed, the court will probably have to do the same were it to try the case, because it also lacks the necessary knowledge of Swiss law (see sec. 293 of the German Code of Civil Procedure).

The judgment raises an unacceptable barrier for the enforcement of foreign claims against VW in Germany. Victims whose claims are based on foreign law cannot use German debt collection companies to advance their claims, as the latter have been found not have the required expertise in foreign law. But they also cannot go via foreign debt collection companies, as these do not have the necessary German license and can only provide “temporarily and occasionally” legal services in this country (sec. 15 German Act on Out-of-Court Legal Services). To instruct a German lawyer will be too burdensome as the purchaser would have to shoulder the litigation risk of losing the case.

It is Now Up to the CJEU

The Regional Court of Braunschweig has set up an additional obstacle for foreign claims in the Diesel scandal. This makes it much more difficult to sue VW at its seat. It is hard not to form the impression that the Regional Court was looking for an efficient way to rid itself of an unattractive case. The case illustrates the difficulties foreign claimants face when bringing an action at VW’s seat. Hopefully, the CJEU will take note of this when it decides whether car purchasers may bring actions against VW abroad.

Prof. Fabrizio Marrella (“Cà Foscari” University of Venice) has recently published the second edition of his textbook on international business law: “Manuale di diritto del commercio internazionale” (CEDAM, 2020), with a foreword of Prof. Andrea Giardina. A presentation has been kindly provided by the author (the complete TOC is available on the publisher’s website):

The Second Edition of this reference textbook (the first and foremost in the Italian language) combines the best aspects of a conceptual, systemic approach and a practical approach. It provides a rigorous and well grounded intellectual framework for understanding the most significant contractual and regulatory issues in international business law. The new edition has been revised and updated to take into account Incoterms 2020 as well as new issues of sales, transport and insurance law, payments and bank guarantees. All aspects of private international law are developed in view of their application in an arbitration or State court context.

Title: F. Marrella, “Manuale di diritto del commercio internazionale”, Padua, CEDAM, 2020.

ISBN: 9788813373672. Pages: 936. Available at CEDAM.

Thank you Helene Peroz for flagging the French Supreme Court on 13 May last referring to the CJEU for clarification of the Bolagsupplysningen case-law. The case concerns Gtflix Tv which I understand is a Czech adult entertainment corporation, who is suing Mr X, himself a producer of porn and domiciled at Hungary, arguing Mr X has defamed them in public comments.

Gtflix claim both retraction and correction of the comments, and symbolic damages. X argues the French courts do not have jurisdiction and the Court of Appeal at Lyons agreed. It held that Gtflix cannot suffice with a simple show of accessibility of the comments in France: for it to establish jurisdiction, Gtflix was required to show real damage to its reputation in France.

The Supreme Court first of all held that Bolagsupplysningen is good authority for acts of unfair competition between competitors – a finding which was not as such made in Manitou v JCB and on which the court does not refer to the CJEU. The applicable law issues which I discussed earlier in the week, were not subject of the Cour de Cassation’s assessment.

The court then does refer to the CJEU to ask whether Bolagsupplysningen means that a claimant who requests both rectification /retraction and damages, has to necessarily turn to courts with full jurisdiction or whether they can continue to turn for the damages part, to all courts with locus damni jurisdiction.

The specific question referred, is

“Les dispositions de l’article 7, point 2, du règlement (UE) n° 1215/2012 doivent-elles être interprétées en ce sens que la personne qui, estimant qu’une atteinte a été portée à ses droits par la diffusion de propos dénigrants sur internet, agit tout à la fois aux fins de rectification des données et de suppression des contenus, ainsi qu’en réparation des préjudices moral et économique en résultant, peut réclamer, devant les juridictions de chaque État membre sur le territoire duquel un contenu mis en ligne est ou a été accessible, l’indemnisation du dommage causé sur le territoire de cet État membre, conformément à l’arrêt eDate Advertising (points 51 et 52) ou si, en application de l’arrêt Svensk Handel (point 48), elle doit porter cette demande indemnitaire devant la juridiction compétente pour ordonner la rectification des données et la suppression des commentaires dénigrants ?” ;

Geert.

(Handbook of) European private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.11.2

 

Unlike the High Court in BVC v EWF [https://t.co/2TjXwU3Hpj], the French SC does refer to the CJEU for further specification of C-194/16 Bolagsupplysningen [https://t.co/W5cCaB3QGf]
Re jurisdiction in the event of libel via the internet. https://t.co/5BTfNPzhzN

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) May 20, 2020

X v Y [2020] EWHC 1116 (Fam) is an uncomplicated case for conflict of laws aficionados. It includes a bit of Vorfrage, a bit of qualification, and a bit of temporal application of Brussels IIa.

Applicant Mr X seeks against the respondent Miss Y to rectify, as he sees it, a decree of divorce granted in relation to his marriage to Miss Y as long ago as 1997. They were married, first of all at a ceremony in Madrid on 25 May 1993, without the knowledge of any member of the wider family. Relationships between the wider families then mellowed to a degree, and there was apparently a second ceremony of marriage conducted in a Registry Office in London on 31 May 1994.

Relevant divorce and financial orders followed  in 1996 and 1997. The divorce petition had been based upon the assertion that the marriage to be dissolved was the second marriage, namely the one conducted in England in May 1994. No reference was made to the earlier marriage conducted in Madrid in 1993. Respondent’s case is that she considers that she is still married to Mr X, and that the Spanish marriage governs their status, and that they cannot be divorced unless and until there are divorce proceedings in Spain. She has, however, indicated a willingness to agree to a contrary outcome, provided a very substantial financial settlement is now made in her favour.

The 1996 petition only referred to the 1994 marriage, and it was that marriage that was referred to in the decree nisi and the decree absolute. It is important to Mr X that the declaration of his divorced status is sound, one assumes because he has remarried. He therefore seeks to rectify the decree absolute, and before it the decree nisi, so that they reflect that the marriage being dissolved was the Spanish marriage in 1993.

The Brussels II Regulation only entered into force in 2005 and jurisdiction for the decrees was governed by section 5 of the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973: “The court shall have jurisdiction to entertain proceedings for divorce or judicial separation if (and only if) either of the parties to the marriage (a) is domiciled in England and Wales on the date when the proceedings are begun or (b) was habitually resident in England and Wales throughout the period of one year ending with that date.” Mr X was domiciled in England and Wales at the time, there was therefore valid jurisdiction.

Relevant authority for the correction or variation, is Thynne v Thynne [1955] 3 All ER 129 which McFarlane J applies to rectify the decree nisi and the decree absolute, so that they record the marriage that was being dissolved as being the Spanish marriage of 1993.

Geert.

 

The Future of the Law of Contract brings together an impressive collection of essays on contract law. Taking a comparative approach, the aim of the book is to address how the law of contract will develop over the next 25 years, as well as considering the ways in which changes to the way that contracts are made will affect the law.

Topics include good faith; objectivity; exclusion clauses; economic duress; variation of contract; contract and privacy law in a digital environment; technological change; choice of court agreements; and Islamic finance contracts.

The chapters are written by leading academics from England, Australia, Canada, the United States, Singapore and Malaysia. As such, this collection will be of global interest and importance to professionals, academics and students of contract law.

 

Table of Contents

1. An Overview

Michael Furmston

2. The Implied Obligation of Good Faith

Howard Hunter

3. Good Faith and the Supreme Court of Canada

Stephen Waddams

4. The Quagmire of Utmost Good Faith in Insurance Law: A Comparative Study of Malaysian, Australian, and English Laws in Consumer Insurance Contracts

Cheah You Sum

5. Objectivity

J. W. Carter and Michael Furmston

6. Automated Transactions and the Law of Contract: When Codes are Not Congruent

Roger Brownsword

7. The Resilience of Contract Law in Light of Technological Change

Eliza Mik

8. A Collision of Contract and Privacy Law in a Digital Environment—An Accident Waiting to Happen! A Comparative Study

Cirami Mastura Drahaman

9. Setting Out a Comprehensive Legal Framework to Govern Exclusion Clauses in Malaysia: Lessons from the United Kingdom and Australia

Loganathan Krishnan

10. Economic Duress: Present State and Future Development: England, Australia and Malaysia

Sri Bala Murugan

11. The Validity of Choice of Court Agreements in International Commercial Contracts Under the Hague Choice of Court Convention and the Brussels Ia Regulation

Mukarrum Ahmed

12. De-Identification of Islamic Finance Contracts by the Common Law Courts

Adnan Trakic

 

Professor Michael Furmston is an internationally–acknowledged authority on contract and commercial law. The author of the leading textbook Cheshire Fifoot & Furmston on Contract (17th edition 2017) and Editor of the Construction Law Reports, volumes 1-150, his published work extends to over 20 books and many dozens of articles, chapters and other contributions.

An eminent academic, he has taught at Oxford, where he was a Fellow of Lincoln College; at Bristol, where he was Dean of the Faculty of Law and Pro Vice Chancellor; and also at other institutions of international standing. He was appointed Emeritus Professor at Bristol in 1998 and Dean and Professor at Singapore Management University’s School of Law.

Professor Furmston was called to the English Bar in 1960 (Gray’s Inn) and has been a Bencher of Gray’s Inn since 1989. He appeared in the House of Lords in Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth on the measure of damages for defective construction and has acted as consultant to many clients, owners, contractors and consultants on commercial and construction law.

The background in Wright v Ver [2020] EWCA Civ 672 is the mysterious history of Bitcoin and its creator, ‘Satoashi Nakamoto’. “Satoshi Nakamoto” is the pseudonym used by the person, or persons, who developed Bitcoin. On 31 October 2008 an academic paper was published under the name of Satoshi Nakamoto titled “Bitcoin: A peer to peer electronic cash system”. The academic paper described the manner in which the electronic cash system operated. Dr Craig Wright, claimant and appellant, is a national of Australia who now lives in Surrey. He has lived in the UK since December 2015 after emigrating from Australia. He also became a citizen of Antigua and Barbuda in 2017. He is a computer scientist with a particular interest in cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin. Dr Wright says that he is Satoshi Nakamoto.

Roger Ver, defendant and respondent, is a bitcoin investor and commentator on bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Mr Ver was born in California, and raised in Silicon Valley. He moved to Japan in 2005. In 2014 he renounced his US citizenship and became a citizen of St Kitts & Nevis, although he continues to live in Japan. Mr Ver does not accept that Dr Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.

The judgment does not address whether Dr Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.

Dr Wright claims that he was libelled by Mr Ver in a YouTube Video posted on the Bitcoin.com YouTube channel on about 15 April 2019, a tweet containing the YouTube Video posted on Mr Ver’s Twitter Account on 3 May 2019, and a reply on Mr Ver’s Twitter Account posted on 3 May 2019 some 8 minutes after the tweet from Mr Ver. The defamatory meaning of these publications is said to be that Dr Wright “had fraudulently claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto, that is to say the person, or one of the group of people who developed Bitcoin”.

Never more (data produced were broken down over periods) than 7 of the total YouTube views were in the UK. 7% of Mr Ver’s Twitter followers are in the UK. By judgment dated 31 July 2019 Mr Justice Nicklin found that England and Wales was not clearly the most appropriate place in which to bring the libel claim in this action and made a declaration that the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the claim.

The Court of Appeal, Dingemans LJ leading, agreed. Brussels Ia is not engaged. The jurisdictional test is section 9 of the Defamation Act 2013 – I previously discussed it in Sadik v Sadik: ‘A court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine an action to which this section applies unless the court is satisfied that, of all the places in which the statement complained of has been published, England and Wales is clearly the most appropriate place in which to bring an action in respect of the statement.’

At 56 Dingemans notes that after Brexit, the Act’s reach will increase.

The first instance judge had argued inter alia that the evidence showed that Dr Wright was putting down roots in the UK and that would increase the reputational interests that Dr Wright had in this jurisdiction but that could not displace the global reputation that he enjoyed.

Dr Wright’s counsel submitted that the judge had set Dr Wright an impossible task by requiring him to adduce evidence of actual harm to his reputation in each candidate jurisdiction, and concluding that in the absence of such evidence Dr Wright could not satisfy the jurisdictional test. Further it was submitted that the judge had wrongly failed to carry out a comparative assessment as to whether each candidate jurisdiction was appropriate for the claim, and therefore failed to carry out the task mandated by s9.

Relevant factors for jurisdiction are discussed at 61 ff. Evidence will have to be shown of all the places in which the relevant statement has been published, as well as the number of times it has there been published. Targeting the publication at an English audience clearly will be an issue. Further elements include the availability of fair judicial processes in the other jurisdictions in which publication occurred. The available remedies from the Courts of the other jurisdictions may be relevant, as may be the costs of pursuing proceedings in each possible jurisdiction. Other factors that might impact on access to justice, for example language barriers, can be relevant. The location of likely witnesses is another feature that may be relevant. This list of factors is not exhaustive.

In a mercifully succinct manner, Dingemans J reviews all the elements and decides the test has not been met here.

A good primer for the 2013 Act.

Geert.

 

On 10–11 October 2019, the Albert-Ludwig-University of Freiburg (Germany) hosted the final conference of the German branch in the framework of the research project “Informed Choices in Cross-Border Enforcement” (IC2BE). Funded by the Justice Program (2014-2020) of the European Commission, the project aimed to assess the working in practice of the “second generation” of EU Regulations on procedural law for cross-border cases, i.e. the European Enforcement Order, Order for Payment, Small Claims and the Account Preservation Order Regulations (see our earlier post here). As a result, an open-access database of CJEU and national case law has been created which is available here. The presentations given at this conference have now been published in the second issue of the 2020 volume of the Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft (German Journal of Comparative Law), Germany’s oldest continuously published review of comparative and PIL legal issues. The abstracts of the articles read as follows:

Informierte Entscheidungen in der grenzüberschreitenden Forderungsdurchsetzung – Vorstellung und Ergebnisse eines internationalen Forschungsprojekts [Informed Choices in Cross-Border Enforcement – Presentation and Results of an International Research Project]

Jan von Hein, University of Freiburg (Germany) – ZVglRWiss 119 (2020) 123–142

An efficient cross-border enforcement is more important than ever in light of the increasing economic integration of the EU. In order to achieve this aim, creditors may freely choose between enforcing a claim under Brussels Ibis or by means of the 2nd generation Regulations. Thus, weighing the pros and cons of choosing between one of the various options has become more difficult. This article presents the main findings of the EU-funded study „Informed Choices in Cross-Border Enforcement – IC2BE“, which is based on an extensive evaluation of case law and interviews with practitioners from eight Member States.

 

Der Anwendungsbereich der EU-Verordnungen zur grenzüberschreitenden Forderungsdurchsetzung [The scope of the EU Regulations on Cross-Border Enforcement of Claims]

Michael Stürner, University of Konstanz (Germany) – ZVglRWiss 119 (2020) 143–166

As part of the judicial cooperation in civil matters, the EU has issued a number of regulations on cross-border enforcement of debts. So far, this harmonization brings about piecemeal solutions with a certain lack of coherence. While those Regulations all apply in civil and commercial matters, they differ in their scope of application depending on the individual goal pursued by the act. The paper analyses those differences with a view to the material and geographical scope of application and discusses possible steps towards a reform, such as the abolition of the Enforcement Order Regulation or the consolidation of the various legal acts in a horizontal instrument (“Regulation Brussels 0”).

 

Die Sicherung von Forderungen im europäischen Zivilprozessrecht [Interim measures to secure monetary claims in European Civil Procedure]

Christian Heinze, University of Hanover (Germany) – ZVglRWiss 119 (2020) 167–196

Interim measures to secure monetary claims are addressed in several instruments of European civil procedure law, ranging from jurisdiction and recognition of foreign judgments, over special rules for cross-border proceedings and into sectoral procedural law for intellectual property disputes. The following article provides an overview of the relevant provisions and develops proposals on how a more coherent regulation at European level could be achieved.

 

Der Beitrag der Gerichtsorganisation zur Effizienz der grenzüberschreitenden Forderungsdurchsetzung [The Contribution of National Judicial Organization to the Efficiency of the International Recovery of Money Claims]

Christoph Althammer, University of Regensburg (Germany) – ZVglRWiss 119 (2020) 197–219

Measures taken by the national judicial organization have so far played only a minor role in improving cross-border enforcement of claims and diverge considerably in the European Member States. This is where the competence of the European legislature conferred by Art. 81 TFEU ends, so that harmonization efforts that are autonomous for the Union are difficult to implement. So far, the topic has been of practical importance in connection with the concentration of jurisdiction in central courts and the transfer of judicial matters to other judicial officers. However, the ECJ has recently made it clear in a different technical context that it wants to shape the national judicial organization more “European” in the future.

 

Der Beitrag der modernen Informationstechnologie zur Effizienz der grenzüberschreitenden Forderungsdurchsetzung [The Contribution of Information Technology to the Efficiency of the International Recovery of Money Claims]

Florian Eichel, University of Berne (Switzerland) – ZVglRWiss 119 (2020) 220–236

The article outlines how digitization and digitalization may contribute to make cross-border judicial recovery of money claims more efficient. It also considers the proposals for reform of the European Service and the European Evidence Regulations.

 

Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsversagungsgründe im Europäischen Zivilprozessrecht [Grounds for Refusing Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in European Civil Procedural Law]

Haimo Schack, University of Kiel (Germany) – ZVglRWiss 119 (2020) 237–253

Even after the abolition of exequatur proceedings in art. 39 Brussels Ibis Regulation the grounds for non-recognition in art. 45 have been kept intact, albeit only after a separate motion by the debtor. Many other EU regulations, however, have significantly restrained the control by the enforcement State. The concurring and different provisions ask too much of the practitioners and invite abuse. The constitutionally mandated protection of the debtor in the enforcement State must not be sacrificed on the altar of an absolutely free movement of judicial decisions. The Regulation (EC) No. 805/2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims is outdated and should be scrapped.

 

Schnittstellen und Wechselwirkungen zwischen dem europäischen Zivilprozessrecht und dem nationalen Vollstreckungsrecht [Interfaces and Interactions between European and National Enforcement Law]

Caroline Meller-Hannich, University of Halle (Germany) – ZVglRWiss 119 (2020) 254–275

There are various ways of transferring a title into the enforcement system of foreign European Union member states, depending on the applicable EU-Regulation. This leads to an unclear legal situation that is to be solved by either the consolidation of the regulations of the second generation or by drafting one unitary system allowing for the freedom of enforcement title movement within the scope of all regulations. The German national executive and implementing law also needs to be revisited. The abolition of the exequatur in the Brussels Ia Regulation has resulted in unanswered questions concerning the enforcement procedure that must be clarified by jurisdiction. This applies in particular to the interpretation and adaptation of the title, the possible enforcement measures and the differentiation between the requirements of enforceability and the conditions for the enforcement procedure. This article will highlight these unanswered questions and suggest potential solutions.

Christopher Marsden (University of Sussex) has posted Transnational Internet Law on SSRN.

The greatest, and certainly to a Westphalian nation-state-centered universe most revolutionary, challenge for regulation is the increasing co-operation between national, regional and international networks of regulators, to regulate the Internet. Reidenberg coined the term ‘lex informatica’ to explain its transnational legal nature, based on Berman and Kaufman’s analysis of mediaeval lex mercatoria, rather than Jessup’s transnational law. In Part 2, I briefly consider the technical standards that permit Inter-networking and thus the Internet. Part 3 examines how standards – including commercial and legal standards – have created a transnational lex informatica. In Parts 4-5, I focus on two phenomena of the transnational Internet law evolution. The first is governance by contract for all commercial transactions, even those that are ostensibly free of monetary value, in which the contractors are trading private information for advertising revenue. The second is the ‘open Internet’, laws protecting some aspects of network neutrality.

The paper is forthcoming in Peer Zumbansen (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Transnational Law (OUP 2020). It can be downloaded here.

The American Association of Private International Law (ASADIP) has postponed its annual conference to a later date in 2021, given the current pandemic. The 2021 conference is entitled “Private International Law and Modern Technologies” and will be held on 4-5 November 2021 in Washington DC (USA). The venues of the conference will be Georgetown University and the Organization of American States (OAS). Blockchain technology and its interrelation with PIL features prominently in the general topics to be discussed. For more information, click here.

As regards recent activities, ASADIP has proudly announced the translation into Spanish of the article of Hans van Loon, former Secretary General of the HCCH, entitled “The Global Horizon of Private International Law: Inaugural Lecture” delivered during the Hague Academy’s Private International Law Session of 2015  (published in Recueil des cours Vol. 380, Pages 9-108, apparently only available in book form). The Spanish translation of Hans van Loon’s article is “El horizonte global del Derecho internacional privado” and is fully available here.

 

Thank you Matthias Lehmann for flagging X v Yelp , held 14 January 2020 at the Bundesgerichthof (German federal court) and to Jef Ausloos for drawing our attention to X and Avrotros v Facebook BV and Facebook Ireland ltd held 15 May 2020. An English summary of that case is here. Note that the Dutch case is one in interlocutory proceedings. Both concern the application of Article 7(2) Brussels IA at the jurisdictional level, and Rome II at the applicable law level, with respect to reputational damage.

In the German Yelp case, a German gym had complained that Yelp’s review algorithm had created a distorted picture of its business. Jurisdiction was established under Article 7(2) Brussels Ia per CJEU Bolagsupplysningen: centre of interests in Germany.  As to applicable law, the pickle is A1(20(g) Rome II which excludes from its scope of application,  “non-contractual obligations arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating to personality, including defamation”.

Under residual German PIL, claimant has a choice between lex locus damni or lex locus delicti commissi. Matthias points to the difficulty:  if companies have ‘personality rights’ within the meaning of Rome II (Bolagsupplysningen clearly suggests they do; but that is a jurisdictional case) then the issue ough to be held exempt from Rome II. Except, a big chunk of unfair trading practices consists of thrashing a competitor’s reputation – and A6 Rome II has a specific lex causae for unfair trading practices.

The German court does not address the issue directly for it held that claimant had made an implicit choice for lex locus damni – German law: the same result as Rome II would have had.

In the Dutch case, the Court likewise holds jurisdiction on the basis of centre of interests,  and then squarely applies A4 Rome II’s genral lex locus damni rule (the action was based against Facebook, arguing that FB was not taking enough measures to block fake/fraudulent bitcoin ads on its platform).

On the choice of court suggestion of Facebook, the court holds that current dispute is not of a contractual nature and that FB’s contractual choice of court and law does not extend to same; it leaves undecided whether the celebrity at issue can be considered a ‘consumer’ for jurisdictional purposes (their FB use I imagine potentially having developed into, or even started as professional use: see the dynamic nature per CJEU C-498/16 Schrems). There must be more argument in there.

Interesting cases, with both courts cutting corners.

Geert.

Court establishes jurisdiction on the basis of A7(2) BIa per Bolagsupplysningen
Then however squarely applies Rome II to what it calls 'reputational damage' – not discussing A1(2)(g) personality rights exception
Compare DE decision reported @eapilorg here https://t.co/0i1OyrK0fM https://t.co/ggBOH1pgMQ

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) May 28, 2020

The author of this post is Nadia Rusinova, Lecturer in International/European Private Law at The Hague University of Applied Sciences. This is the sixth in a series of posts aimed to explore the impact of the coronavirus crisis on the phenomena of mobility and exchange that form the constituent elements of private international law, and to discuss the responses that private international law rules provide to the challenges posed by the crisis itself (see the previous contributions by Giovanni Chiapponi, Matthias Lehmann, Tomaso Ferando, Caterina Benini and Aygun Mammadzada). The EAPIL blog welcomes further contributions on such topics, either in the form of comments to the published posts or in the form of guest posts. Those interested in proposing a guest post for publication are encouraged to contact the blog’s editorial team at blog@eapil.org.

Despite the obvious need for extraordinary measures during the pandemic, the restrictions we face as a response to the threat posed by the COVID-19 engage a number of rights, protected under the ECHR (hereinafter, the Convention). Individuals are entitled to fundamental rights protection even – and especially – in case of an emergency. In this sense, we already ask ourselves: are the adopted measures proportionate and targeted, are they required by the exigencies of the situation, are they not inconsistent with other obligations under international law? Do we need new approaches to respond to this unprecedented situation?

The importance of private international law for family issues in an era of globalization is immense and the topic acquires particular significance due to the increasing mobility and internationalization of the child and of the family. The private international law aspects of international child and family law in the context of international child abduction, intercountry adoption, cross-border surrogacy, cross-border relocation, etc. are frequently dealt with in many cross-border cases and these rapid developments must result in the development of uniform guidelines.

Some of the most important are found in the recently published COVID-19 Toolkit of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, also announced in this blog.

With international borders closed and containment measures in place, cross-border movement of people and goods is subject to unprecedented restrictions. In many jurisdictions, children and families remain stranded. Access to government services remains limited. Legal procedures have been delayed or suspended. Without doubt the future judgments and decisions of European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter, the Court) in this context will have an impact on the main issues of private international law, including the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.

This post focuses on the potential impact of the COVID-19 measures on the assessment of Article 8 violations in its family life aspect. As this is a complex question, this post explores an issue of how the State responses can be seen as an interference in the family life and whether the States ensured adequate regard for Article 8 rights in the context of the pandemic. In particular, concrete example of how domestic courts apply the imposed measures in handling remote family law proceedings is discussed, and the compliance of these approaches with the requirements of the Convention is analyzed.

In the present abnormal circumstances, the fundamental principles of substantive law remain unchanged. Therefore, the procedural aspect of Article 8 is in the center of this post as closely linked to the rights and interests protected by Article 6 of the Convention.

Background

The legal aspects of a pandemic of this magnitude is still terra incognita for the domestic courts and understandably, for the Court as well. The only judgment so far, which concerns the impact of influenza quarantine seen as an interference in the family life related to a parent-child contact is Kuimov v Russia (2009).

In this case foster homes’ management refused the father to exercise his rights of access to his child on the ground that an influenza quarantine had been introduced, however the applicant could speak to the child on the telephone during this time. After the quarantine in the foster home was lifted, the father could resume his face-to-face meetings with his child.

In its assessment the Court found that the restrictions on the father’s access to the child were imposed with the “legitimate aim of protecting child’s health and rights”. Moreover, the Court accepted the Governments’ explanation that the access to the foster home was restricted due to a quarantine, which did not last an unreasonably long time – around 7 weeks. In addition, the father was allowed to come and see the child through the glass window on a weekly basis. In the circumstances of the case and regard being had to the States’ margin of appreciation, the Court was of the view that there was no violation of Article 8 on account of the restrictions imposed by the authorities on the applicant’s access to the child, in respect of the period of the quarantine.

Current Context

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, already mid-March it became clear that measures should be taken, and taken fast, by the States in order to protect individual human rights. Further steps need to be taken in the next days, weeks and months, may be even years; we will experience the consequences for long time ahead. The impact of these measures will be widely felt, and some groups will be affected more than others. All in all, these measures entail the broadest mass restriction of liberties our generation have ever seen.

The rights protected by Article 8 of the Convention make no exception. On the contrary – family life and particularly parent-child relationships suffer to a high extent from the rollercoaster we found ourselves in. As a consequence, the domestic courts are called upon to assess, elaborate and reflect on this situation for years ahead. Naturally, this is the rationale behind the multiple derogations to Article 8. Therefore, even adequately taken in order to respond to the threat posed by COVID-19, these measures will have certain implications on the future assessment of Article 8 violations by the Court as well.

This would be completely new perspective when determining what would constitute a breach of Article 8 in the aforementioned context. The Corona crisis places also the question how is the vulnerability of the children needs to be regarded in the current pandemic. The Court will be asked to adjust to this new setting its child-specific human rights approach, developed with the years, taking into consideration three interrelated concepts: the inherent vulnerability of children, the best interests of the child and the circumscribed children’s autonomy which gradually increases with their evolving maturity (see, among others, M. and M. v Croatia, § 171).

The Court has found that the notion of “family life” under Article 8 of the Convention encompasses de facto “family” ties. The existence or non-existence of “family life” for the purposes of Article 8 is essentially a question of fact depending on the existence of close personal ties. The interferences in parent-child relationships could impact not only the “classical” parental responsibility disputes and child abductions, but foster care and adoption cases as well.

As to the derogations from obligations under the Convention, the Council of Europe acknowledges in the document titled Respecting democracy, rule of law and human rights in the framework of the COVID-19 sanitary crisis: A Toolkit for Member States that the measures taken by the States vary depending upon the specific situation in the States concerned.

The large margin of appreciation of States as regards the existence of emergency and of the required measures is unavoidable. As suggested by Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou, the magnitude of this crisis will clearly translate into significant margin of appreciation allowed to the authorities. This in turn means that the Court will apply looser test of proportionality and if the measures go beyond what is necessary under this loose test of proportionality, then violations are possible.

Potential violations of Article 8 have already been voiced in domestic court proceedings over the last few weeks. The Court will likely be asked to deal with similar allegations in the future. It is of course uncertain how the Court will look at these allegations and whether the current crisis will affect the interpretation of the Convention. The Kuimov case, a quarantine with a duration of 7 weeks and a limited local impact can hardly compare to the current global pandemic. Thus, the roles and perspectives of different stakeholders in child law in the private international law sphere at international level (parents – mothers and fathers, judges, the children themselves, other relatives, etc.) need to be reconsidered to respond adequately to this new situation.

States’ responses and domestic courts procedural actions – interference in the family life

If we try to foresee how the future case-law will look, the first question is what can be considered as “interference” in the current situation. The primary purpose of Article 8 is to protect against arbitrary interferences with private and family life, home, and correspondence by a public authority (Libert v France, §§ 40-42). This obligation is of a negative kind, described by the Court as the essential object of Article 8 (Kroon and Others v the Netherlands, § 31). However, Contracting States also have positive obligations to ensure that Article 8 rights are respected including as between private parties (Evans v the United Kingdom [GC], § 75).

In this sense, interference in times of Corona, related to the right of family life under Article 8 are clearly present. Firstly, the application of the general, mainly procedural rules, adopted by the state’s authorities in emergency response to the COVID-19, and secondly, to give example of particular application of these responses – the various approaches taken by courts in determining how to deal remotely with the specific case in the context of the pandemic.

States Emergency Responses

Shortly after the seriousness of the situation became clear, many States responded to the threat posed by the COVID-19 by setting the rule that decisions regarding parental responsibility still apply, with the caution that the exercise of parental rights and right of access has to be respected in the health context. Due to the pandemic, courts are mostly closed and, generally, the only applications that can be reviewed in family matters are international child abduction cases, urgent claims to obtain a restraining order in cases of domestic violence and, in some cases, provisional and protective measures. As to pending and future cases – for instance parental disputes that are not yet introduced to the court but still might be urgent, the hearings that were originally set during the “lockdown period” have generally been cancelled or postponed. Lodging new applications is possible, but they are not immediately entertained.

As an example of the emergency measures adopted in some States, a state of health emergency was declared in France for two months from 24 March 2020 until 24 May 2020. During the lockdown, the courts have been dealing only with international child abduction cases and urgent applications for restraining order in cases of domestic violence. In Spain, precautionary measures under Article 158 of the Spanish Civil Code are available at this time only in urgent cases. Deadlines remain suspended until further notice, but since 15 April 2020, it has been permissible to file new applications with the court. In Italy the suspension has some exceptions, namely in the field of family law matters and protection of vulnerable people:
some Juvenile Tribunal procedures take place, like adoption procedures, foreign children without parents procedures, children brought away from their families, and situations of heavy risk for the child; surprisingly the same procedures in front of the Court of Appeal are not explicitly exempted from suspension.

The Approaches of Domestic Courts

In sum, Europe-wide, the message from the governments is that existing judgments on custody and access must be maintained, except where there is a concrete risk to the child’s health because of one of the parents’ behavior or living environment, which may give an opening to a modification. The difficulty arises from the fact that assessment of all particular claims is far not realistic having in mind the dimensions of the pandemic and the limited resources of the courts to react at this moment.

However, the courts soon recognized that regardless the danger of potential contamination, blanket policy that children should follow their usual visitation regimes is inconsistent with a comprehensive analysis of the best interests of the child. Therefore, the presumption is that existing parenting arrangements and schedules should continue, but subject to whatever modifications may be necessary to ensure that all COVID-19 precautions are adhered to, including strict social distancing.

This approach reflected into recent court decisions, concerning the rights protected by Article 8. The health, safety and well-being of children and families remains the courts’ foremost consideration during COVID-19. In many cases, a parent’s personal risk factors (through employment or associations, for example) required controls with respect to their direct contact with a child. A parent’s lifestyle or behavior in the face of COVID-19 (for example, failing to comply with social distancing; or failing to take reasonable health-precautions) raised sufficient concerns about parental judgment that direct parent-child contact would have to be reconsidered.

Compliance of the interference with the requirements of Article 8

Turning to the question how these interferences are to be assessed in the light of the Convention, we should note that like most Convention rights, Article 8 is not absolute. Article 8(2) enumerates the legitimate aims which may justify proportionate interference by a public authority and potential infringement upon the rights protected in Article 8.

At least three of these justifications in the aforementioned context can well be related with the Corona crisis: public safety, protection of the health, and protection of the rights and freedoms of others. In the present situation the purpose of the measures is clearly to limit the spread of the Coronavirus by imposing certain limitations, and it logically seems to constitute “legitimate aim”.

The Court is however quite succinct when it comes to assessing the existence of a legitimate aim within the meaning of Article 8(2) (S.A.S. v France [GC], § 114). Following the rule established in its case-law, in future cases it will be for the respondent Governments to demonstrate that the interference pursued a legitimate aim (Mozer v the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], § 194). They will need to show that the particular measure in question aimed at protection of public safety, health, and rights and freedoms of others, depending upon the specific situation in the particular country.

Moreover, the States concerned will need to argue the proportionality of these measures, which might be the greater challenge in this situation. As a principle, the restriction impacting upon fundamental rights is unlikely to be proportionate if a less restrictive method could have been used to achieve this legitimate aim. The concept of proportionality in times of pandemic puts great burden on the authorities, requiring them to strike a fair balance between the interests of the individual whose rights are being impinged upon, and the interests of others or of the community. When life is at stake, like now, that is a particularly difficult balance to strike. In the context of the current pandemic the question is: could these measures be less restrictive?

At this point it is almost impossible to determine the proportionality of the emergency responses, because we must primarily assess the legislative choices underlying it. In addition, the national authorities were forced to make initial assessment in days (if not hours), with all the wide margin of appreciation left to them. In this regard, the Court should give leeway to the Contracting States and their policy makers (see this post by Vassilis P. Tzevelekos at Strasbourg Observers for a discussion on this point).

To summarize whether the potential infringement upon Article 8 is necessary in a democratic society in these pandemic times, we should follow the approach of the Court and balance the interests of the State concerned against the rights of the individual.

In leading Article 8 case, the Court clarified that “necessary” does not have the flexibility of expressions as “useful”, “reasonable”, or “desirable” (which would be nowadays very convenient), but implies the existence of a “pressing social need” for the interference in question (Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, § 51). In this context, we should note that if such measures are in principle regarded and announced as a temporary, amended frequently according to the developments and are discontinued as soon as circumstances permit, in pandemic situation with this magnitude the pressing social need such measures to be imposed may be considered as present.

Speaking specifically of the discussed domestic courts’ approaches, of course, the substantial compliance with the Convention cannot be assessed altogether as it would always depend on the unique circumstances of the case. From procedural point of view, of particular interest is the question if the remote or hybrid hearing is sufficiently fair to meet the requirements of Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention. For instance, where lies the balance with the potential delay of the proceedings, in case the remote hearing is considered not suitable in the particular case?

Traditionally, in cases concerning a persons’ relationship with his or her child, there is a duty to exercise exceptional diligence, in view of the risk that the passage of time may result in a de facto determination of the matter (Ignaccolo-Zenide v Romania, § 102; Süß v Germany, § 100, Strömblad v Sweden, § 80) By its nature, a remote hearing, if appropriate at all, can replicate some but not all of the characteristics of a fully attended hearing. The parties should always stay alert to ensure that the dynamics and demands of the remote process do not impinge upon the fundamental principles. Remote hearings also place additional, and in some cases, considerable burdens on the participants – for instance, despite the right of translation is not absolute in the view if the Court, the language barrier appears as greater issue than in the traditional hearings, which in a cross-border context could be decisive.

How in this context to assess if the safeguards of Article 8 and Article 6 have been regarded? There is no straightforward answer, but in the present crisis the assumption must be that such a process is capable of being fair and meets the requirements of both provisions.

First of all, when assessing the suitability of the remote process, the courts must seek to ensure that it does not become overloaded by making distinction between those decisions that must be prioritized and those that must unfortunately wait until proper time is available. In some cases, even when it is much more difficult for the judge to watch the reactions of the parties to the evidence and although this is a general disadvantage of the remote hearing, it cannot be considered as major issue. Overall, the technology could be capable of providing a satisfactory hearing and the judge would understandably continue with remote proceeding, when the urgency is prioritized, even at the expense that at the end the usual basic procedural safeguards may have been in some way overlooked. Despite all this, it seems that this could not be assessed as a violation of Article 8 and 6 in cases when a child has been held in limbo for a long time.

Naturally, the suitability of the remote hearing will be raised (among the other issues) as a complaint before the Court. In its case per case analysis the Court should assess it not only as a separate procedural issue, but also in its interplay with the whole emergency situation.

Different factors should be taken into account, such as whether each of the parties could engage sufficiently with the professional evidence to an adequate degree for the process to be regarded as fair, and whether each of the parties have been able to follow and to understand the court hearing and to instruct their lawyers adequately in a timely manner. Checking that the demands and dynamics of the remote hearing did not encroach upon the central principles of a fair proceedings is crucial.

In these cases it would be good practice already now the domestic courts to discuss it in their arguments, relating to the requirements posed by the Convention (see for a good example the ruling of the Family Court of England and Wales in Re S (a child), § 13). Some pandemic-specific caveats should also be considered, for instance the fact that the highly pressured circumstances in which all the participants are working could lead to a chain reaction in the course of which fundamental legal and procedural principles come to be compromised despite the best intentions of a range of dedicated professionals.

As a conclusion, last months and weeks turned upside down the world as we know it. Governments tried to keep human rights and fundamental freedoms at the heart of measures to combat the pandemic, yet forced to take various emergency actions. At this point we can only guess whether these measures comply with the requirements of the Convention. Now, as the outbreak of COVID-19 slows down, it is probably a good moment to see if human rights are not forgotten in such uncertain times – there is still time to exercise more attentive monitoring of the level of protection and to make better choices.

At its fifty-second session, in 2019, UNCITRAL considered a proposal from the European Union on applicable law in insolvency proceedings (A_CN.9_995_E).

UNCITRAL agreed on the importance of the topic, which complemented the significant work already done by UNCITRAL in the area of insolvency law, in particular cross-border insolvency.

However, UNCITRAL also observed that the subject matter was potentially complex and required a high level of expertise in various subjects of private international law, as well as on choice of law in areas such as contract law, property law, corporate law, securities and banking and other areas on which it had not worked recently. Therefore, UNCITRAL agreed that it was essential to delineate carefully the scope and nature of the work that it could undertake.

UNCITRAL requested the Secretariat to organize a colloquium, in cooperation with other relevant international organizations, with a view to submitting concrete proposals for UNCITRAL’s possible future work on such topic, for consideration by the Commission at its fifty-third session, in 2020. The Colloquium is to be conducted on an informal basis, that is, not as an intergovernmental group.

The Colloquium was to be held in New York on 15 May 2020 (see the draft programme here), in cooperation with the Hague Conference on Private International Law.

Due to the postponement of the Working Group V session originally scheduled for 11-14 May 2020, the Colloquium on Applicable Law in Insolvency Proceedings is also postponed. Information on the new date will be communicated by the UNCITRAL Secretariat when possible.

AG Manuel Campos Sánchez-Bordona delivered today his opinion in case C‑620/18 (Hungary v European Parliament and Council of the European Union), which is about the relationship between Rome I and Directive (EU) 2018/957 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 June 2018 amending Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services. The opinion is available in all EU official languages (save Irish), albeit not in English. Here is the French version :

“VIII. Cinquième moyen : violation du principe de sécurité juridique en conséquence de l’incompatibilité de la directive 2018/957 avec le règlement Rome I

A. Position des parties

189. Le cinquième moyen comporte en réalité deux branches distinctes, sans grand rapport entre elles.

‐      D’une part, le gouvernement hongrois soutient que la directive 2018/957 est contraire au règlement Rome I ainsi qu’aux principes de sécurité juridique et de clarté normative, en ce qu’elle modifie l’application de ce règlement sans en altérer le libellé, ce qui engendre une incertitude juridique considérable quant à sa bonne application.

[…]

190. La Commission, le Conseil, le Parlement européen et les gouvernements des États membres intervenus à la procédure estiment que ce cinquième moyen n’est pas fondé.

B. Appréciation de la première branche du cinquième moyen : relation entre la directive 2018/957 et le règlement Rome I

191. L’article 8, paragraphe 1, du règlement Rome I, établit la règle générale de conflit de lois applicable aux contrats individuels de travail, qui désigne la loi choisie par les parties (conformément aux conditions que ledit règlement précise par ailleurs). À défaut d’un tel choix, « le contrat individuel de travail est régi par la loi du pays dans lequel ou, à défaut, à partir duquel le travailleur, en exécution du contrat, accomplit habituellement son travail. Le pays dans lequel le travail est habituellement accompli n’est pas réputé changer lorsque le travailleur accomplit son travail de façon temporaire dans un autre pays » (article 8, paragraphe 2).

192. L’article 23 du règlement Rome I prévoit une exception à l’applicabilité des règles de conflit de lois établies par ce dernier : si les dispositions du droit de l’Union fixent des règles relatives à la loi applicable aux obligations contractuelles dans certaines matières, ces règles ont priorité (115)

193. Les règles générales du règlement Rome I relatives au choix de la loi applicable cèdent donc le pas aux règles spéciales prévues à cet égard dans des dispositions spécifiques du droit de l’Union (116).

194. Contrairement à ce qu’avance le gouvernement hongrois, je suis d’avis que l’article 3, paragraphe 1, (pour les travailleurs détachés ordinaires) et le nouvel article 3, paragraphe 1 bis (pour les travailleurs détachés pour une longue durée) de la directive 96/71 constituent des règles spéciales de conflit de lois (117), dont l’application doit être combinée avec celle du règlement Rome I (118).

195. Ces deux dispositions de la directive 96/71, qui s’ajoutent à la loi applicable en vertu des règles ordinaires de conflit de lois, imposent les dispositions suivantes du droit de l’État d’accueil :

‐      Les travailleurs détachés ordinaires se voient imposer les dispositions relatives aux conditions (de travail et de protection de la sécurité et de la santé des travailleurs) détaillées dans la liste exhaustive établie à l’article 3, paragraphe 1 ;

‐      Les travailleurs détachés de longue durée se voient imposer, outre les conditions susmentionnées, toutes les autres règles de l’État d’accueil, comme indiqué ci‑dessus (article 3, paragraphe 1 bis).

196. Comme l’indique le Conseil dans ses observations, le processus d’élaboration du règlement Rome I prouve que son article 23 couvre l’exception prévue par la directive 96/71, car la proposition de la Commission contenait en annexe une liste de règles spéciales établies dans d’autres dispositions du droit de l’Union, parmi lesquelles figuraient celles de la directive 96/71 (119).

197. Le considérant 11 de la directive 96/71 confirme cette affirmation, en ce qu’il expose que la convention de Rome, du 19 juin 1980, sur la loi applicable aux obligations contractuelles (remplacée par le règlement Rome I) « ne préjuge pas l’application des dispositions qui, dans des matières particulières, règlent les conflits de lois en matière d’obligations contractuelles et qui sont ou seront contenues dans les actes émanant des institutions des Communautés européennes ou dans des législations nationales harmonisées en exécution de ces actes ».

198. Le considérant 40 du règlement Rome I, qui expose que « [t]outefois, le présent règlement n’exclut pas la possibilité d’insérer des règles de conflit de lois en matière d’obligations contractuelles dans les dispositions de droit communautaire concernant des matières particulières », conduit à la même conclusion.

199. Contrairement à la thèse de la Hongrie, le principe de sécurité juridique n’exige donc pas que la modification de la directive 96/71 opérée par la directive 2018/957 soit accompagnée d’une modification du règlement Rome I.

200. L’article 23 de ce règlement permet aux règles spéciales de la directive 96/71 de coexister avec les règles générales de son article 8 en ce qui concerne les contrats des travailleurs détachés. La relation entre les deux types de règles est suffisamment claire, prévisible et précise et, par conséquent, respecte à suffisance le principe de sécurité juridique (120).

201. Cette conclusion n’est pas contredite, comme le prétend la Hongrie, par le fait que le nouvel article 3, paragraphe 1 bis, troisième alinéa, de la directive 96/71, prévoie une règle anti-fraude pour les cas de détachement de remplacement que j’ai précédemment évoqués (121). Dans ce cas, le contrat de chaque travailleur concerné par le remplacement peut être soumis à la loi d’un pays différent et cette disposition ne fait qu’ajouter une condition visant à prévenir une utilisation frauduleuse de la relation entre la directive 96/71 et le règlement Rome I”.

Source : here

In another opinion delivered on the same day (case C‑626/18, Poland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union, available here), the same AG makes a renvoi to the above paragraphs 191 to 200 in fn. 33 in the following:

“83. Je ne partage pas non plus l’avis du gouvernement polonais lorsqu’il juge le nouveau régime des travailleurs détachés pour une longue durée incompatible avec l’article 9 du règlement Rome I.

84. Cet article fait référence à « l’application des lois de police du juge saisi », mais le nouvel article 3, paragraphe 1 bis, de la directive 96/71 n’est pas une loi de ce type.

85. La relation entre cette directive et le règlement Rome I est définie par l’article 8 (« Contrats individuels de travail ») et l’article 23 (« Relation avec d’autres dispositions du droit communautaire ») de ce dernier (33) ».