Flux des sites DIP

In [2018] EWHC 662 (Comm) Banca Turco Romana, Popplewell J explained his reasons for discontinuing ex parte freezing orders, with reference among others to C-391/95 Van Uden. At 22-23 he discusses the not entirely clear application of the jurisdictional rules of Brussels I, which indicated that that Regulation was engaged either via Article 2 (now 4: domicile in Romania) or 4 (now 6): residual Member State (here: Romanian) jurisdictional rules, which go on to be sheltered under the Brussels I Regulation.

At 20 he refers to the earlier case of ICICI Bank UK plc v Diminco NV [2014] EWHC 3124 (Comm) in which he summarised the English Courts’ requirements for the issuing of ex parte freezing orders where the defendant is neither resident within the jurisdiction nor someone over whom the court has or would assume in personam jurisdiction for some other reason:

‘the court will only grant a freezing order extending to foreign assets in exceptional circumstances. It is likely to be necessary for the applicant to establish at least three things:

(a)        that there is a real connecting link between the subject matter of the measure sought and the territorial jurisdiction of the English court in the sense referred to in Van Uden;

(b)        that the case is one where it is appropriate within the limits of comity for the English court to act as an international policeman in relation to assets abroad; and that will not be appropriate unless it is practical for an order to be made and unless the order can be enforced in practice if it is disobeyed; the court will not make an order even within the limits of comity if there is no effective sanction which it could apply if the order were disobeyed, as will often be the case if the defendant has no presence within the jurisdiction and is not subject to the in personam of the English court;

(c)        it is just and expedient to grant worldwide relief, taking into account the discretionary factors identified at paragraph 115 of the Motorola case. They are (i) whether the making of the order will interfere with the management of the case in the primary court, e.g. where the order is inconsistent with an order in the primary court or overlaps with it; (ii) whether it is the policy in the primary jurisdiction not itself to make to make worldwide freezing/disclosure orders; (iii) whether there is a danger that the orders made will give rise to disharmony or confusion and/or risk of conflicting, inconsistent or overlapping orders in other jurisdictions, in particular the courts of the state where the person enjoined resides or where the assets affected are located; (iv) whether at the time the order is sought there is likely to be a potential conflict as to jurisdiction rendering it inappropriate and inexpedient to make a worldwide order; and (v) whether in a case where jurisdiction is resisted and disobedience may be expected  the court will be making an order which it cannot enforce.”

In Banca Turco discontinuation was ultimately mostly based not on any slip-up of jurisdictional basis, but rather on the absence of full disclosure by the requesting party: at 45: ‘The importance of the duty of disclosure has often been emphasised.  It is the necessary corollary of the court being prepared to depart from the principle that it will hear both sides before reaching a decision, which is a basic principle of fairness.  Derogation from that basic principle is an exceptional course adopted in cases of extreme urgency or the need for secrecy.  If the court is to adopt that procedure where justice so requires, it must be able to rely on the party who appears alone to present the evidence and argument in a way which is not merely designed to promote its own interests, but in a fair and even-handed manner, drawing attention to evidence and arguments which it can reasonably anticipate the absent party would wish to make.  It is a duty owed to the court which exists in order to ensure the integrity of the court’s process.  The sanction available to the court to preserve that integrity is not only to deprive the applicant of any advantage gained by the order, but also to refuse to renew it.’

Geert.

The Law Department of the University of Verona (Italy), in cooperation with the Ph.D. School of Law and Economics and the European Documentation Centre, welcomes submission to the #TILT Young Academics Colloquium, to be held on 23-24 May 2019. It is the first meeting involving early career scholars on trending international and EU law topics to be organised in the unique location of the city of Verona.

The Colloquium falls within the activities of the research project “Trending International Law Topics – #TILT”, supervised by Maria Caterina Baruffi (Full Professor of International Law, University of Verona), which is aimed at deepening the investigation and fostering scientific discussion on trending topics in international and EU law, including also their impact on domestic legal systems. A series of seminars featuring prominent foreign academics and other events have already been organised so far, focusing for example on the relationships between the EU and national legal orders, migration, the EU Regulations in family law matters, the free movement of persons and the protection of fundamental rights.

In this context, the Colloquium represents a further activity dedicated to open issues in international and EU law, but specifically addressed to Ph.D. students and young researchers of any nationality and affiliation, who will be the leading speakers at this event. First, they are expected to present the results of their research, and then, to engage in the debate with the invited international experts acting as chairpersons and discussants.

The Call for Papers “What’s #Trending in International and EU Law” has been issued to select the papers that will be included in the Colloquium’s program. It is directed at advanced Ph.D. students (or within three years of its completion), post-doc research fellows and academics at early stages of their career, who are encouraged to submit proposals (in English) concerning public international law, private and procedural international law, or EU law, including also comparative perspectives, as well as issues related to law and economics.

Interested applicants are invited to submit:

• a proposed title,
• an abstract in English of max. 8000 characters (including spaces),
• 3 keywords,
• a CV

through the Call for Papers Application Form.

The deadline for submission is 15 October 2018 and applicants will be informed of the outcomes by 15 December 2018.

Detailed information about the Call for Papers are available here.

Any inquiry about the #TILT Young Academics Colloquium or the Call for Papers can be directed at this e-mail: trendingtopics.univr@gmail.com.

Dear LSGL members,

We are pleased to announce that there will be a winter academic conference on the topic of Global Social Justice, hosted by the Department of Law, Juridicum, at the Stockholm University, Sweden, on Tuesday, 19 February in conjunction with the Dean’s meeting planned for 18 February, 2019. We ask that you send the attached call for papers to any senior and/or junior researchers at your institutions who may be interested in participating on a panel within the topic. Potential themes include:

• The globalization of discrimination protections (e.g., labour/employment discrimination; gender-based discrimination including issues relating to the #MeToo movement)
• Equality in global trade – the roles of the WTO and other international actors
• Environmental law as a guarantor of global social justice
• Corporate social responsibility – An avenue to greater global justice?
• The potential role of digital technology in promoting global social justice

We anticipate having four panels each with three speakers and a moderator, thus accepting 12 papers. The LSGL will pay for two hotel nights for each one of the 12 speakers.
Paper proposals of 300 to 500 words should be submitted no later than 6 October 2018 together with a brief CV. Decisions will be announced by 1 November 2018 and the papers should be ready for circulation no later than 1 February 2019. Please send any inquiries and paper proposals to presidency@lawschoolsgloballeague.com.

Gustavo Moser has authored a new book on choice of law in cross-border sales. He has kindly provided the following summary:

The choice of a governing contract law is a paramount contractual decision. This is because the governing contract law will dictate a contract’s life from beginning to end, thereby attaching legal and economic consequences to each step taken in the course of a contractual relationship. Yet, this choice is seldom subject to an ex anteevaluation by the parties being rather often defer to an ex postverification. Would this be a contracting parties’ behaviour verified in cross-border contracts? If so, what would be the underlying cause(s) of this pattern of conduct?

Despite its acknowledged theoretical importance, it is often suggested that negotiators might dedicate less attention than they should to the particulars of the choice of law clause. Instead, negotiators tend to opt for law that may be convenient for business, or be the result of previous experiences, including, for example, following in a partner’s footsteps, or a successful deal in the past, without further deliberation. Parties may thus simply attribute a “tag” to this experience and evaluate it according to the outcomes achieved in these previous experiences. However, these evaluations may not always be accurate and can be clouded by emotion. Are there rational and non-rational elements involved in this choice? How can we ascertain these elements?

In light of this apparent discrepancy between theory and practice, we decided to investigate further how traders actually choose the law for their deals. We also wanted to find out the reasons for these decisions and the foundations on which these decisions are based. We therefore mapped out and delved into studies and surveys conducted in the past to appreciate the empirical efforts that had been undertaken so far.

Despite their unquestionable importance, scarce information is available in these studies on how this decision is taken, and the main factors informing choice of governing contract law. The alternatives available to improving and optimising this choice are likewise unexplored.

Additionally, the connection and role of law, economics and psychology in decision-making processes is often underexplored and possibly underestimated. Unfortunately, in a dynamic, globalized and complex world of contracts, interdisciplinary approaches are rarely studied. Therefore, there does not seem to be any answer to these practical questions:

• Are contracting parties maximizers of their welfare?
• Are they, generally speaking, self-interested players who seek to reach efficient results?
• Does it depend on the context and external stimuli?
• Do emotions play any role in the choice?
• Can these emotions cloud or enlighten the judgment of these choices? If so, to what extent?
• How can we avoid, control or minimize the effects of these emotional factors?
• How can parties seek to influence and improve choice of governing contract law?

This is how the Global Empirical Survey on Choice of Law (for the purposes of this summary, the Global Empirical Survey) was conceived in 2014. The survey was essentially designed to investigate parties’ concerns regarding choice of law, reveal how and what factors determine the way contracting parties choose the law to govern their agreements, and to assess whether neutral legal frameworks were welcome in addressing these concerns.

The first chapter of the book sets out evidence on the choice of law and include a focus on how negotiators typically approach the subject and what are the main drives and triggers of this decision. We further investigate whether contracting parties are aware of the vast legal market options available and whether they actually enjoy their benefits. The first part also unveil the results of the Global Empirical Survey, which shown a rather clearer picture of the imperfections produced by cognitive limitations while choosing a governing contract law. In the second and third chapters, we map out some of the market distortions and imperfections to which negotiators are (consciously or not) routinely exposed. We also reveal the common psychological triggers that influence decision-making processes and how to identify and better control them to a party’s best advantage. We further shed light on the idiosyncratic contract design and the mechanisms to manage this properly in an international context, all in an attempt to identify and use the appropriate tools to make better decisions and obtain more efficient outcomes.

Readers will subsequently be invited to consider the major market distortions and failures to which contracting parties are routinely exposed.  We demonstrate that, with the increase of market activities and complexity of deals worldwide, parties need to be equipped with the most efficient tools to maximize gains from cross-border contracts, thereby avoiding risks and costly mistakes. With this purpose in mind, we analyse choice of law studies undertaken and offer alternatives to be used in practice, which seek to overcome recurrent complaints, uncertainties and fears when it comes to choosing governing contract law, including potential interplays and intersections with jurisdictional choices. We also attempt to verify the effectiveness of these solutions in light of the evidence presented.

The final chapter of the book concentrates on alternatives to escape “arm-wrestling”, “home turf”, deadlock situations and other tactical scenarios in cross-border contracts. We present and compare alternatives which can be used in international contract settings and then test the effectiveness of the solutions they can provide, taking into account both the legal and economic aspects and contracting parties’ real-life concerns and preferences collected in the earlier chapters. Readers are invited to find out the answers to the following questions: what really matters to contracting parties when drafting choice-of-law clauses? Are there key provisions, “backbones”, legal standards or frameworks that are indeed indispensable? Do contracting parties consider legal and economic choices at all? With this in mind, we aim to offer to legal practitioners tools that enable them to excel and effectively optimise, at a rather even level between parties, the exchange of goods worldwide.

Readers can file this one under ‘exotic’. The title of this piece does not quite give it away yet: this post is a serious post on customs classification.

My wife and I have a more than average size family, ditto therefore also the family car. Our previous version was black. We had parked it a few summers ago on the village square close to the home of one of my sisters in law, a sleepy French hamlet. A local lady came up to me and asked respectfully who had passed away… She mistook our car for a hearse, leading to my brother-in-law suggesting I should put some stickers up saying ‘ceci n’est pas un corbillard’.

Now, to the serious issue: in Case C-445/17 Pilato, the Court of Justice was asked (the case was triggered by a BTI: Binding Tariff Information) how to classify a hearse under the EU’s combined nomenclature: heading 8704 (motor vehicles for the transport of goods); 8705 (special purpose motor vehicles, other than those principally designed for the transport of persons or goods (for example, breakdown lorries, crane lorries, fire fighting vehicles, concrete-mixer lorries, road sweeper lorries, spraying lorries, mobile workshops, mobile radiological units); or 8703 (Motor cars and other motor vehicles principally designed for the transport of persons (other than those of heading 8702), including station wagons and racing cars).

The Italian customs authorities have classified under 8703 – the importer is appealing, I am assuming given the higher tariff attracted by that heading. Arguments are very serious and technical, as one would expect for customs classification: details on separation racks, etc.

The Court held Wednesday last: at 25: the intended use of a product may constitute an objective criterion for classification; at 30: hearses are particularly built and equipped for the transport of coffins, which contain corpses. A human body, even lifeless, cannot be treated in the same way as goods which may be the subject, as such, of commercial transactions. Therefore, the principal use of hearses is for the transport of persons. 8703 it is (the Court gives some more reasons).

Exactly the kind of case which makes trade classes a little lighter a the right time (the best case for that, ever, involved my wife having to classify a shipment of toy replica. Details on that case I fear are strictly for students of my WTO class).

Geert.

The Asser Institute in The Hague (the Netherlands) is looking for a Researcher in Private International Law (full time – 38 hours per week).

The successful candidate is expected to start preferably from 1 November 2018 and will be conducting research on the Brussels I bis Regulation as part of a DG JUST research project, among other things. He or she will strengthen the research capacity of the Asser Institute in the area of private international law, working within its Research Strand on adequate dispute settlement, and in the context of the Institute’s Strategic Research Agenda.

Applications must be submitted before 7 September 2018.

Remuneration depends on the actual level of education, experience and knowledge with a maximum of € 4,852.-  gross per month based on a full time equivalent (38 hours). Secondary benefits at Dutch universities are attractive and include 8% holiday allowance and an 8.3% year-end allowance.

Applicants are expected to be fluent in Dutch (preferably native) and English. In addition, applicants should have earned a PhD in private international law and have post-doctoral research experience, among other things.

Further information is available here.

There are many scientific and legal /regulatory angles to the pollution caused by micro and nanoplastics (MNPs). I was pleased to have been invited to be part of a scoping exercise with the European Commissions Group of Chief Scientific Advisors, following which that Group issued its initial statement early July.

MNPs is an issue where the EU undoubtedly can recognise its regulatory leadership – at the same time appreciating that the challenge is of a truly global nature (many of the worst plastics pollution issues are located in river deltas way outside EU borders). At the scientific level, studies particularly in the marine environment show cause for great concern – but not necessarily easy fixes.

I accepted therefore to be part of the SAPEA Consortium (Science Advice for Policy by European Academies) Working Group on MNPs, which will oversee in first instance the collation of the state of the art: from a regulatory as well as a scientific point of view – and subject to tight deadlines.

Autumn should be interesting.

Geert.

Many thanks to Julien Juret for asking me contribute to l’Observateur de Bruxelles, the review of the French Bar representation in Brussels (la Délégation des barreaux de France). I wrote this piece on the rather problematic implications of the GDPR, the General Data Protection Regulation, on jurisdictional grounds for invasion of privacy.

I conclude that the Commission’s introduction of Article 79 GDPR without much debate or justification, will lead to a patchwork of fora for infringement of personality rights. Not only will it take a while to settle the many complex issues which arise in their precise application. Their very existence arguably will distract from harmonised compliance of the GDPR rules.

I owe Julien and his colleagues the French translation (as well as their patience in my late delivery) for I wrote the piece initially in English. Readers who would like to receive a copy of that EN original, please just send me an e-mail.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.8.2.5.

This one long overdue – I am adding it to the blog for completeness’ sake. C‑649/16 Valach was held end of December 2017. The CJEU relies heavily on Tunkers and recital 6 of the (old) Insolvency Regulation: the regulation should be confined to provisions governing jurisdiction for opening insolvency proceedings and judgments which are ‘delivered directly on the basis of the insolvency proceedings and are closely connected with such proceedings’: the latter two criteria guide the CJEU.

In the case at issue, the action for liability at issue in the main proceedings is the direct and inseparable consequence of the performance by the committee of creditors, a statutory body established by Slovak law when insolvency proceedings are opened, of the task specifically assigned to them by the provisions of national law governing such procedures. Consequently, it is clear that the obligations which form the basis of bringing an action for liability in tort against a committee of creditors, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, originate in rules that are specific to insolvency proceedings (at 35-36).

As for the second criterion, it is the closeness of the link between a court action and the insolvency proceedings that is decisive for the purposes of deciding whether the Brussels I Recast’s insolvency exception is triggered. That is the case here: at 38: in order to ascertain whether the liability of the members of the committee of creditors may be engaged because of the rejection of the restructuring plan, it will be necessary to analyse in particular the extent of that committee’s obligations in the insolvency proceedings and the compatibility of the rejection with those obligations. Such an analysis clearly presents a direct and close link with the insolvency proceedings, and is therefore closely connected with the course of those proceedings.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 5 Heading 5.4.1. Chapter 2 Heading 2.2.2.10.1

In 2017, the French Cour de Cassation has promoted  a series of seven conferences on the application of foreign law, in partnership with the Société de législation comparée.

Theses conferences have just been published by the SLC.

Prefaced by Mr. Dominique Hascher, Judge at the Cour de cassation and President of the Société de législation comparée, the book contains the following contributions :

Jean-Pierre Ancel, L’office du juge dans la recherche du contenu du droit étranger (The judge’s role in establishing the content of foreign law)

Jean-Baptiste Racine, L’application par les juridictions françaises du droit uniforme et des conventions internationales (The application of uniform law and international conventions)

François Mélin, La coopération internationale dans la recherche du droit étranger : les méthodes classiques (International cooperation in researching the content of foreign law : traditional methods )

Florence Hermite, La coopération internationale dans la recherche du droit étranger : le renouvellement des méthodes (International cooperation in researching the content of foreign law : renewal of methods)

Sabine Corneloup, L’application facultative de la loi étrangère dans les situations de disponibilité du droit et l’application uniforme des règles de conflit d’origine européenne (Optional application of foreign law in situations of availability of law and the uniform application of rules of conflict of European origin)

Gustavo Cerqueira, La hiérarchie étrangère des normes devant le juge français (The foreign hierarchy of norms before the French judge)

Alice Meier-Bourdeau, Le contrôle par la Cour de cassation de l’application du droit étranger (The Cour de cassation’s control in applying foreign law)

Sara Godechot-Patris, L’exception d’équivalence entre la loi française et la loi étrangère (The exception of equivalence between the French law and the foreign law)

The book can be ordered here.

The International Max Planck Research School for Successful Dispute Resolution in International Law (IMPRS-SDR) is accepting applications for PhD proposals within the research areas of the Department of International Law and Dispute Resolution and the Department of European and Comparative Procedural Law to fill a total of 5 funded PhD positions at the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural law.

The IMPRS-SDR was established in 2009 to bring together academics and seasoned practitioners with excellent PhD candidates in international dispute settlement to examine and compare international dispute resolution from a legal and interdisciplinary perspective. It is a collaborative effort of several prestigious research institutions in Germany and Luxembourg, namely, the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law, Heidelberg University, the University of Luxembourg, the Max Planck Foundation for International Peace and the Rule of Law gGmbH, and the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law.

In addition to providing a stimulating research environment, the IMPRS-SDR strives to furnish PhD candidates with theoretical and practical insights into the many facets of international dispute resolution.

Selected PhD candidates will receive full-time research contracts of initially two years, with a possible extension. They are embedded in one of the Departments and its activities while also participating in activities organized by the IMPRS-SDR.

For further information on the admission criteria and the application process, as well as to submit your application, please visit: https://www.mpi.lu/imprs-sdr/call-for-applications/2018/ . Closing date for applications is 31 August 2018.

A short post on manufactured nanomaterials and data. (Readers will be aware that although the blog focuses mostly on litigation, I dabble in regulatory research and practice, too. And that nanotechnology regulation has been a consistent interest of mine).

Thank you Lynn Bergeson and Carla Hutton for flagging the study by EUON on data collection and reporting methodology for manufactured nanomaterials. EUON, the European Union’s Observatory for Nanomaterials, is hosted by ECHA – the EU’s Chemicals Agency. The study’s purpose is made clear on p.15 (only) of the report: the overall context is for the regulators to have an overview of the heterogeneous market for nanomaterials. In order to do so, the study measures the reliability etc of existing reports and studies on the nanomaterials market. It concludes that a Delphi study of the existing research would be required.

For those of you with an interest in information flows and the transparency of data, the implications are clear: part of the exercise of regulating new technologies is to know what is out there; and manufacturers’ data clearly are not making it into the public domain in a transparent and coherent manner. Consider alongside this report, for instance the proposed US EPA rule on transparency in regulator science.

Geert.

Former Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), Hans van Loon, has just published a very interesting article on “Principles and building blocks for a global legal framework for transnational civil litigation in environmental matters” in the Uniform Law Review, Vol. 23, Issue 2, June 2018, pp. 298–318.  An abstract is available at https://doi.org/10.1093/ulr/uny020.

He suggests a number of basic structural components – building blocks – for a global legal framework for transnational civil litigation in environmental matters such as: jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement, and judicial and administrative communication and co-operation (pp. 316-318).

Of particular note is the reference to Article 5(1)(j) of the Hague Draft Convention on the Judgments Project, which provides that a judgment is eligible for recognition and enforcement if one of the following requirements is met –

(j) the judgment ruled on a non-contractual obligation arising from death, physical injury, damage to or loss of tangible property, and the act or omission directly causing such harm occurred in the State of origin, irrespective of where that harm occurred.

The author notes the possible challenges that may arise when the harmful event occurred elsewhere (neither in the defendant’s home – Art. 5(1)(a) of the Draft Convention  – , nor in the State of Origin where the act or omission directly causing such harm occurred, see p. 315) and makes recommendations. For more information on this provision and its narrow scope, please refer to the Preliminary Explanatory Report of the Judgments Convention  (paragraph 162bis, pp. 34-35).

Time to tackle the judgments left over from the exam queue. I reviewed Bobek AG’s Opinion in C-27/17 flyLAL here. The CJEU held early July.

Pro memoria: the AG’s suggested for locus damni not place of financial loss, rather the place within the markets affected by the competition law infringement where the claimant alleges loss of sales: damage located in a Mozaik fashion in other words; for locus delicti commissi with full jurisdiction, the AG distinguishes between Article 101 TFEU (place of the conclusion of the agreement) and 102 TFEU (place where the predatory prices were offered and applied); finally with respect to (now) Article 7(5), the activities of a branch: offering the fixed prices or otherwise having been instrumental in concluding contracts for services at those prices suffices for that branch to have participated in the tort.

The Court itself,

• for locus damni reminds us of the findings in Marinari (which tempered the implications of Bier), implying that one needs to decide whether loss of income of the kind alleged by flyLAL may be regarded as ‘initial damage’, or whether it constitutes solely consequential financial damage which cannot, in itself, lead to a forum under Article 7(2). The Court, like the AG, opts for Mozaik, referring inter alia to its judgment in Concurrences: each place where the loss of income consisting in loss of sales occurred, that is to say, the place of the market which is affected by that conduct and on which the victim claims to have suffered those losses, opens up partial jurisdiction. As I noted in my review of the Opinion, this interpretation aids the tortfeasor: locus damni leading to shattered jurisdiction facilitates anti-competitive behaviour.
• for locus delicti commissi, under Article 101 TFEU (cartels), with reference to CDC, the CJEU opts for courts for the place in which the agreement was definitively concluded: this truly is extraordinary for it allows for forum shopping by the cartel participants. For Article 102 TFEU (abuse of dominant position)
  • Prima facie at 52 there is one consolation for those suffering anti-competitive behaviour: the Court holds that the event giving rise to the damage in the case of abuse of a dominant position is not based on an agreement, but rather on the implementation of that abuse, that is to say, the acts performed by the dominant undertaking to put the abuse into practice, in particular by offering and applying predatory pricing in the market concerned. That would seem to suggest full jurisdiction for each of those places where the pricing is offered and applied. However in that para 52 the Court does not verbatim links this to jurisdiction: this it does do in
  • Para 53: ‘If it were to be established that the events giving rise to the main proceedings were part of a common strategy intended to oust flyLAL from the market of flights to and from Vilnius Airport and that those events all contributed to giving rise to the damage alleged, it would be for the referring court to identify the event of most importance in implementing such a strategy out of the chain of events at issue in the main proceedings.‘ Courts holding on jurisdiction must not delve too deep into the substance of the case but still have to employ, without looking too deeply at the merits of the case, the lex causae for the anti-competitive behaviour (per Rome II) to identify that event of most importance. In para 54 too the Court emphasises the need to limit the amount of potential jurisdictions (reference here is also made to Universal Music). I cannot be sure: does the combination of paras 52 and 53 suggest that the Court does not accept jurisdiction for all places where the pricing is offered and applied?
• Finally with respect to Article 7(5), the CJEU at 64 holds that the national courts must in particular review whether the activities carried out by the branch included actual acts of offering and applying the predatory pricing alleged and whether such participation in the alleged abuse of a dominant position was sufficiently significant to be regarded as a close link with the dispute in the main proceedings. Separate accounts are not required to conduct that exercise (at 65).

Essentially therefore the Court firmly pulls the Brussels I Recast’s ‘predictability’ card. This is in the interest of companies behaving anti-competitively. I do not read in this judgment a definitive answer however for as I suggested, the combination of paras 52 ff is simply not clear.

Geert.

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

Given that discovery plays an important factor in forum shopping, Hogan J’s very critical comments on the extensive possibilities in Ireland are quite relevant. Arthur Cox have good analysis of [2018] IECA 230 Tobin v MOD here  and I am in general happy to refer.  Those of you interested in comparative litigation really should take a moment to read the Judge’s comments in full. Yet again, it seems to me, a topic for serious PhD (in comparative civil procedure) analysis.

Geert.

Those of us who are familiar with the issue of multilingualism and international courts, will  enjoy the discussion of contractual terms in Wahl AG’s Opinion in C-595/17 Apple v eBizcuss. Not only does the issue entre around the precise implications of the wording of a choice of court provision. The Opinion (not yet available in English) also highlights the difficulty of translating the original English of the contractual term, into the languages at the Court.

Current litigation is a continuation of the earlier spats between Apple and eBizcuss, which led to the Cour de Cassation’s 2015 reversed stance on the validity of unilateral choice of court – which I discussed at the time.

The 2002 Apple Authorized Reseller Agreement (in fact the 2005 version which applied after continuation of the contract) included a governing law and choice of court clause reading

„This Agreement and the corresponding relationship between the parties shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Republic of Ireland and the parties shall submit to the jurisdiction of the courts of the Republic of Ireland. Apple reserves the right to institute proceedings against Reseller in the courts having jurisdiction in the place where Reseller has its seat or in any jurisdiction where a harm to Apple is occurring.” (emphasis added)

Footnote 3 displays the translation difficulty which I refer to above: parties disagree as to the translation of the contractual clause in French: applicant suggest this should read  „et la relation correspondante”, defendant proposes „et les relations en découlant”. The AG suggest to include both for the purposes of his analysis „Le présent contrat et la relation correspondante (traduction de la requérante)/et les relations en découlant (traduction de la défenderesse) entre les parties seront régis par et interprétés conformément au droit de l’Irlande et les parties se soumettent à la compétence des tribunaux de l’Irlande. Apple se réserve le droit d’engager des poursuites à l’encontre du revendeur devant les tribunaux dans le ressort duquel est situé le siège du revendeur ou dans tout pays dans lequel Apple subit un préjudice.” In Dutch: „De door partijen gesloten onderhavige overeenkomst en de bijbehorende betrekking (vertaling van verzoekster)/de hieruit voortvloeiende betrekkingen (vertaling van verweerster) tussen partijen zullen worden beheerst door en worden uitgelegd volgens het Ierse recht, en partijen verlenen bevoegdheid aan de Ierse rechter. Apple behoudt zich het recht voor om vorderingen jegens de wederverkoper aanhangig te maken bij het gerecht in het rechtsgebied waar de wederverkoper is gevestigd of in een land waar Apple schade heeft geleden.”

This translation issue however highlights precisely the core of the discussion: ‘the corresponding relationship’ suggest a narrow reading: the relationship corresponding to the contractual arrangements. Infringement of competition law does not correspond, in my view. ‘La relation correspondante’ displays this sentiment. ‘(L)es relations en découlant’ suggests a wider reading.

In 2012 eBizcuss started suing Apple for alleged anti-competitive behaviour, arguing Apple systematically favours its own, vertically integrated distribution network.

The Cour de Cassation had rebuked the Court of Appeal’s finding of lack of jurisdiction. In its 2015 decision to quash, (the same which qualified the Court’s stance on unilateral jurisdiction clauses) it cited C-352/13 CDC, in which the CJEU held that choice of court clauses are not generally applicable to liability in tort (the clause would have to refer verbatim to tortious liability): the specific para under consideration is para 69 of that judgment in CDC:

‘the referring court must, in particular, regard a clause which abstractly refers to all disputes arising from contractual relationships as not extending to a dispute relating to the tortious liability that one party allegedly incurred as a result of its participation in an unlawful cartel’.

At issue in Apple /eBizcuss is essentially what kind of language one needs for choice of court to include infringement of competition law (for Dutch readers, I have an earlier overview in Jacques Steenbergen’s liber amicorum here).

Wahl AG emphasises (at 56) that it would not be in the spirit of Article 25 Brussels I Recast (which he analyses in extenso in the previous paras) to require parties to include the exact nature of the suits covered by the choice of court agreement. He is right of course – except those suits in my view do need to be contractual unless non-contractual liability has been clearly included: that in my view is the clear instruction of the CJEU in CDC.

The AG then continues the discussion (which will be redundant should the CJEU not follow his lead) as to whether the clause covers both follow-on (a suit for tort once a competition authority has found illegal behaviour) as well as stand-alone (private enforcement: a party claiming infringement of competition law in the absence of an authority’s finding of same) suits. He suggests there should be no distinction: on that I believe he is right.

Geert.

Thank you Chloe Oakshett for flagging [2018] CSOH 45 BN Rendering Limited v Everwarm Ltd, in which the Commercial Court in Edinburgh considered its jurisdiction to enforce an adjudicator’s award. Bone of contention was choice of court (ditto law) in the underlying contracts in favour of the courts at England (and English law). Both parties are domiciled in Scotland. Relevant works had to be carried out in Scotland. The Brussels I Recast Regulation does not formally apply between them: Scots-English conflicts are not ‘international’ within the meaning of that Regulation.

However Lord Bannatyne (at 16) points out that even for intra-UK conflicts, the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgements Act 1982 (per instruction in section 20(5) a) must be interpreted taking into account the Brussels regime and its application by the CJEU. It is in this context that Case 24/76 Colzani resurfaces: ‘real consent’ needs to be established without excess formality.

At 28 Lord Banatyne lists claimant’s arguments:  the party’s contract was not signed by both parties; nevertheless the defender’s subcontract terms and conditions form part of the contract; the subcontract order refers expressly to the defender’s subcontract terms and conditions which includes the jurisdiction exclusion clause and lastly, that express reference meets the test for real consent to the jurisdiction clause.

Put in summary: At 49: Is an express reference in the defender’s subcontract order (sent to the pursuer) to the defender’s subcontract terms and conditions, which contain the jurisdiction clause (which document is unsigned by the pursuer) sufficient to satisfy the test that it is clearly and precisely demonstrated that the parties agreed to the clause conferring jurisdiction on the English courts? Or put another way, in order to satisfy the said test is it not only necessary for there to be an express reference to the defender’s subcontract terms and conditions but for the subcontract order to have been signed by the pursuer to demonstrate that the parties agreed to the clause conferring jurisdiction on the English courts?

The judge considers the answer to the above questions to be question 1, yes and question 2, no – and I believe he is right.

Geert.

The last issue of the Revue critique de droit international privé will shortly be released. It contains several casenotes and an article, authored by Campbell McLachlan who is Professor of Law at Victoria University of Wellington (“Entre le conflit de lois, le droit international public et l’application internationale du droit public : le droit des relations externes des Etats »).

The abstract reads as follows:

The relationships between States and individuals of foreign nationality from the perspective of their constitutional rights and freedoms raise a series of issues that all States must resolve and that sit at the interface of the constitutional order of each of them and the intertional legal system through which they are connected. Today, this interface has progressively become porous, raising legal problems in increasing numbers and with increased frequency. The various responses generated thereby exercise a powerful influence over the legal imaginary, including on the ways in which a legal system represents its own relationship with the rest of the world. The thesis developed here is that such responses belong to a third discipline, in between the two traditional, public and private, branches of international law. This discipline can be called «  the law of external relations », borrowing a term from one of the Restatements of the United States but little used in Europe. In what follows, the possible conceptions of this disciplinary field will be explored, along with its relationship to private international law.

A full table of contents is available here.

By Frédéric Breger, Legal Officer at the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH)

The Permanent Bureau of the HCCH has just released Volume XXII of the Judges’ Newsletter (Summer-Fall 2018) with a Special Focus on “The Child’s Voice – 15 Years Later”.

This “Anniversary” Volume was published in co-operation with Professor Marilyn Freeman (University of Westminster, London, England) and Associate Professor Nicola Taylor (University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand) in the context of their British Academy research grant on the objection of the child under Article 13(2) of the 1980 Child Abduction Convention. It gathers contributions from 25 authors (academics, lawyers, judges, mediators, psychologists…) and covering approximately 15 jurisdictions on the topic of the “objection of the child” exception. The objective of this publication is to share good practices on how to hear children in the context of a child abduction case; it further outlines examples of guidelines and normative work developed across jurisdictions in relation to the voice of the child.

A French version of this Volume will be available in October 2018. All previous volumes of the Judges’ Newsletter are available here.

The Accelerated Route to Fellowship Program is a designed for senior practitioners in the field of dispute resolution procedures. Fellowship is the highest grade of Institute membership and allows the use of the designation FCIArb.The program focuses on applicable laws and procedures for the conduct of efficient arbitration hearings in complex international cases. Satisfactory assessment of performance in role play exercises will permit the candidate to take the award writing examination for qualification as a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, which will be administered as part of the program.

Registration and other details are available here.