Flux des sites DIP

Professor Marketa Trimble (UNLV School of Law) has a fascinating post on the Technology and Marketing Law Blog.  She notes that “After years of what seemed to the outside world to be a period of denial, internet companies now appear to have awakened to the idea–or at least to have acknowledged the idea–that conflict of laws does play a crucial role on the internet.”  See this link for more.

By Stephan Walter, Research Fellow at the Research Center for Transnational Commercial Dispute Resolution (TCDR), EBS Law School, Wiesbaden, Germany.

On 10 November 2016, the Academy of European Law (ERA), in co-operation with the European Circuit, the Bar Council and the Hamburgischer Anwaltverein, hosted a conference in London on “The Impact of Brexit on Commercial Dispute Litigation in London”. The event aimed to offer a platform for discussion on a number of controversial issues following the Brexit referendum of 23 June 2016 such as the future rules governing recognition and enforcement of foreign judgements in the UK, the impact of Brexit on the rules determining the applicable law and London’s role in the international legal world.

Angelika Fuchs (Head of Section – Private Law, ERA, Trier) and Hugh Mercer QC (Barrister, Essex Court Chambers, London) highlighted in their words of welcome the significant impact of Brexit on business and the practical necessity to find solutions for the issues discussed.

In the first presentation, Alexander Layton QC (Barrister, 20 Essex Street, London) scrutinised Brexit’s “Implications on jurisdiction and circulation of titles”. He noted that the Brussels I Regulation Recast will cease to apply to the UK after its withdrawal from the EU and examined possible ways to fill the resulting void. Because an agreement between the UK and the EU on retaining the Brussels I Regulation Recast seemed very unlikely, not least because of the ECJ’s jurisdiction over questions of interpretation of the Regulation, he favoured a special agreement between the UK and the EU in regard to the application of the Brussels I Regulation Recast based on the Danish model. The ECJ’s future role in interpreting the Regulation could be addressed by adopting a provision similar to Protocol 2 to the 2007 Lugano Convention. Yet it was disputed whether or not the participation of the UK in the Single Market would be a political prerequisite for such an arrangement. He argued that there would be no room for a revival of the 1988 Lugano Convention since the 2007 Lugano Convention terminated its predecessor. Furthermore, neither a revival of the 1968 Brussels Convention nor the accession to the 2007 Lugano Convention would lead to a satisfactory outcome as this would result in the undesired application of outdated rules. In a second step Layton discussed from an English point of view the consequences on jurisdiction and on the recognition and enforcement of judgements if at the end of the two year period set out in Article 50 TEU no agreement would be reached. Concerning jurisdiction the rules of the English law applicable to defendants domiciled in third States would also apply to cases currently falling under the Brussels I Regulation Recast. In regard to the recognition and enforcement of judgements rendered in an EU Member State pre-Brussels bilateral treaties dealing with these questions would revive, since they were not terminated by the Brussels I Regulation and its successor. Absent a treaty between the UK and the EU Member State in question the recognition and enforcement would be governed by English common law. Likewise, the recognition and enforcement of English judgements in EU Member States would be governed by bilateral treaties or the respective national laws. In Layton’s opinion, the application of these rules might lead to legal uncertainty. He concluded that both the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention and arbitration could cushion the blow of Brexit, but limited to certain circumstances.

Matthias Lehmann (Professor at the University of Bonn) analysed the “Consequences for commercial disputes” laying emphasis on the impact of Brexit on the rules determining the applicable law to contracts and contracts related matters, its repercussions on pre-referendum contracts and potential pitfalls in drafting new contracts post-referendum. Turning to the first issue, he summarised the current state of play, meaning the application of the Rome I Regulation and Rome II Regulation, and stated that these Regulations would cease to apply to the UK after its withdrawal from the EU. In regard to contractual obligations this void could be filled by the 1980 Rome Convention, since the Rome I Regulation had not replaced the Convention completely. Still, this would lead to the application of outdated rules. He therefore recommended to terminate the 1980 Rome Convention altogether. Regarding non-contractual obligations the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 would apply. Lehmann noted that – unlike the Rome II Regulation – this Act contained no clear-cut rules on issues such as competition law or product liability. Because of these flaws he scrutinised three alternative solutions and favoured a new treaty between the UK and the EU on Private International Law. Even though disagreements over who should have jurisdiction over questions of interpretation could hinder the conclusion of such an arrangement the use of a provision similar to Protocol 2 to the 2007 Lugano Convention could be a way out. If this option failed, the next best alternative would be to copy the rules of the Rome I Regulation and the Rome II Regulation into the UK’s domestic law and to apply them unilaterally. As a consequence, the UK courts would not be obliged to follow the ECJ’s interpretations of the Regulations causing a potential threat to decisional harmony. Furthermore, the implementation could cause some difficulties because the Regulations’ rules are based on autonomous EU law concepts. Finally, he rejected a complete return to the common law as this would lead to legal uncertainty and potential conflicts with EU Member States’ courts. Lehmann subsequently discussed Brexit’s repercussions on pre-referendum contracts governed by English law. He submitted that in principle Brexit would not lead to a frustration of a contract. By contrast, hardship, force majeure or material adverse change clauses could cover Brexit, depending on the precise wording and the specific circumstances. Concerning the drafting of new contracts he pointed out that it would be unreasonable not to take Brexit into account. Attention should be paid not only to drafting provisions dealing with legal consequences in the case of Brexit but also to Brexit’s implications on the contract’s territorial scope when referring to the “EU”.  If the contract contained a choice-of-law clause in favour of English law, Lehmann suggested using a stabilization clause because English law might change significantly due to Brexit.

The conference was rounded off by a round table discussion on “The future of London as a legal hub”, moderated by Hugh Mercer QC and with the participation of Barbara Dohmann QC (Barrister, Blackstone Chambers, London), Diana Wallis (Senior Fellow at the University of Hull; President of the European Law Institute, Vienna and former Member of the European Parliament), Burkhard Hess (Professor and Director of the Max Planck Institute for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law, Luxembourg), Alexander Layton QC, Matthias Lehmann, Ravi Mehta (Barrister, Blackstone Chambers, London) and Michael Patchett-Joyce (Barrister, Outer Temple Chambers, London). Regarding the desired outcome of the Brexit negotiations and London’s future role in international dispute resolution the participants agreed on the fact that a distinction had to be made between the perspectives of the UK and the EU. Concerning the latter, the efforts of some EU Member States to attract international litigants to their courts were discussed and evaluated. Moreover, Hess stressed London’s role as an entry point for international disputes into the Single Market – an advantage London would likely lose after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. Patchett-Joyce argued that Brexit was not the only threat to London’s future as a legal hub but that there were global risks that had to be tackled on a global level. In regard to the Brexit negotiations there was widespread consensus that the discussion on the future role of the ECJ would be decisive for whether or not an agreement between the UK and the EU could be achieved. Wallis argued that Brexit might have a very negative impact on access to justice, not least for consumers. To mend this situation, Lehmann expressed his hope to continue the judicial cooperation between the EU Member States and the UK even post-Brexit. An accession to the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention was also advocated, though the Convention’s success was uncertain. Turning to arbitration, since, as Mehta noted, its use increased significantly in numerous areas of law, and on a more abstract level to the privatisation of legal decision-making, Wallis and Patchett-Joyce addressed the problem of confidentiality and its repercussions on the development of the law. Furthermore, Dohmann stated that it was the duty of the state to provide an accessible justice system to everybody. It would not be enough to refer parties to the possibility of arbitration. Finally, Layton argued that in contrast to the application of foreign law which would create significant problems in practise, the importance of judgement enforcement would be overstated because most judgements were satisfied voluntarily.

It comes as no surprise that these topics sparked lively and knowledgeable debates between the speakers and attendees. Though these discussions indicated possible answers to the questions raised by the Brexit referendum it became clear once more that at the moment one can only guess how the legal landscape will look like in a post-Brexit scenario. But events like this ensure that the guess is at least an educated one.

Authority in Transnational Legal Theory – Theorising Across Disciplines, edited by / a cura di Roger Cotterrell, Maksymilian Del Mar, Edward Elgar, 2016, ISBN 9781784711610, 448 pp, GBP 95.

The increasing transnationalisation of regulation – and social life more generally – challenges the basic concepts of legal and political theory today. One of the key concepts being so challenged is authority. This discerning book offers a plenitude of resources and suggestions for meeting that challenge. Chapters … confront the limits of traditional state-based conceptions of authority, and propose new frameworks and metaphors. They also reflect on the methodological challenges of the transnational context, including the need for collaboration between empirical and conceptual analysis, and the value of historicising authority. Examining the challenge offered by transnational authority in a range of specific contexts, including security, accounting, banking and finance, and trade, Authority in Transnational Legal Theory analyses the relations between authority, legitimacy and power. Furthermore, this book also considers the implications of thinking about authority for other key concepts in transnational legal theory, such as jurisdiction and sovereignty. Comprehensive and engaging, this book will appeal to both legal academics and students of law. It will also prove invaluable to political scientists and political theorists interested in the concept of authority as well as social scientists working in the field of regulation.

Crossborder, the website of the Group of interest on private international law established within the Italian Society of International Law and EU Law (SIDI), hosts a debate on the draft decree adopted by the Italian Government on 4 October 2016 to implement Law No 76 of 20 May 2016, on registered partnerships, as regards, specifically, private international law issues (regarding the decrees, see further here). The contributions published so far (in Italian) have been provided by Giacomo Biagioni (Univ. Cagliari), Cristina Campiglio (Univ. Pavia) and Francesco Pesce (Univ. Genova).

Further contributions and comments from academics and practitioners are welcomed (in Italian, English, French or Spanish). For further information, please refer to Fabrizio Marongiu Buonaiuti (Univ. Macerata), the forum coordinator (f1.marongiubuonaiuti@unimc.it). 

Crossborder, il sito web del Gruppo di interesse della SIDI sul diritto internazionale privato e processuale, ospita in questi giorni un forum dedicato ai decreti attuativi della legge 20 maggio 2016 n. 76, recante la regolamentazione delle unioni civili tra persone dello stesso sesso e disciplina delle convivenze, che il Consiglio dei Ministri ha approvato in sede di esame preliminare il 4 ottobre 2016 (si veda in proposito questo post). Sono sin qui intervenuti Giacomo Biagioni (Univ. Cagliari), Cristina Campiglio (Univ. Pavia) e Francesco Pesce (Univ. Genova). I pratici e gli studiosi interessati a contribuire al dibattito sono invitati a pubblicare un commento a uno dei post usciti sin qui, compilando il campo che compare in calce al post stesso. In alternativa, è possibile contattare Fabrizio Marongiu Buonaiuti (Univ. Macerata), che coordina il forum (f1.marongiubuonaiuti@unimc.it).

Chi fosse interessato ad iscriversi al Gruppo di interesse può consultare questo indirizzo (occorre essere soci della SIDI, in regola col pagamento della quota di iscrizione). Per l’iscrizione alla mailing list di Crossborder (che non richiede la previa iscrizione alla SIDI), basta compilare il modulo a cui si accede cliccando su Iscriviti alla mailing list di Crossborder nella colonna di destra di ogni pagina del sito.

On 8 November 2016, the European Court of Human Rights rendered its judgment in Naku v. Lithuania and Sweden. The applicant, a Lithuanian national, had sued the Swedish embassy in Vilnius before the Lithuanian courts, complaining of unlawful dismissal. Lithuanian courts had upheld the defense raised by Sweden and stated that they lacked jurisdiction in accordance with the rules on State immunity.

The European Court found that in the instant case Lithuania had violated Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court noted that the case turned around the issue of whether the applicant performed particular functions in the exercise of governmental authority, for the purposes of the customary rule reflected in Article 11 of the United Nations Convention on jurisdictional immunities of States.

In the Court’s view, ‘by plainly considering that everyone who worked in a diplomatic representation of a foreign State … by virtue of that employment alone in one way or another contributed to the meeting of the sovereign goals of a represented State …, and thus upholding an objection based on State immunity and dismissing the applicant’s claim without giving relevant and sufficient reasons that the applicant in the instant case in reality performed specific duties in the exercise of governmental authority …, the Lithuanian courts impaired the very essence of the applicant’s right of access to a court’.

L’8 novembre 2016, la Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo ha pronunciato la sentenza relativa al caso Naku c. Lituania e Svezia. La ricorrente, cittadina lituana, aveva convenuto l’Ambasciata di Svezia a Vilnius di fronte ai giudici lituani, lamentando di essere stata licenziata da questa in modo illegittimo. I giudici lituani, accogliendo l’eccezione della Svezia, hanno affermato di non potersi pronunciare sulle domande della ricorrente in ragione dell’immunità spettante alla convenuta.

La Corte europea ha ritenuto che la Lituania avesse violato l’art. 6 della Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo. La Corte ha rilevato che il caso di specie si imperniava, fondamentalmente, sulla questione tesa a stabilire se il rapporto litigioso comportasse, per la ricorrente, lo svolgimento di mansioni connesse all’esercizio di prerogative sovrane dello Stato convenuto, agli effetti della norma consuetudinaria che si riflette nell’art. 11della Convenzione delle Nazioni Unite sulle immunità giurisdizionali degli Stati.

Ad avviso della Corte, le autorità lituane, per il fatto di ritenere meccanicamente che chiunque lavori presso la rappresentanza diplomatica di uno Stato straniero contribuisca, per ciò solo, allo svolgimento delle funzioni sovrane di tale Stato, pervenendo così ad affermare l’immunità dello Stato in questione senza motivare adeguatamente in ordine alla natura delle mansioni del prestatore di lavoro nelle circostanze considerate, abbiano intaccato l’essenza stessa del diritto all’accesso alla tutela giurisdizionale, garantito dall’art. 6 della Convenzione europea.

Ann Laquer Estin, International Family Law, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016, ISBN 9781784719852, 1.768 pp., GBP 490,50.

This collection canvasses the growing literature on international family law, extending from the traditional private law governing cross-border families, to multi-lateral treaties on subjects such as child abduction and intercountry adoption, to the framework of international human rights law that shapes domestic and international family law systems. Volume I explores the internationalization of family law and considers adult relationships, whilst Volume II examines parent–child relationships. All of the articles are tied together in the Editor’s introductory essay, which provides a useful and insightful overview.

The author of this post is Kristina Sirakova, Research Fellow at the MPI Luxembourg. Thanks, Kristina.

On 24 and 25 October 2016, the Academy of European Law (ERA) in cooperation with the French Cour de cassation hosted a conference in Paris on private antitrust litigation in Europe and the challenges that the implementation of the antitrust damages package entails for the EU Member States. The speakers, who were of both academic and professional acclaim, provided interesting insights and lively debate on procedural and substantive issues, arising from the recent legislative developments in the field of private antitrust litigation. Topics included inter alia: compensation and quantification of harm suffered from competition law infringements, the role of competition authorities and of the CJEU in private enforcement, limitation periods, evidence and forum shopping considerations.

This post provides an overview of the presentations and discussions on the issues raised.

The objectives of Directive 2014/104/EU and future steps

In her words of welcome, Jacqueline Riffault-Silk, Judge at the Commercial Chamber of the Cour de cassation, addressed the objectives of the Damages Directive in light of the institutional landscape and historical background of the Directive. The first step towards the Directive was made by the CJEU which ruled in cases Courage and Crehan (C-453/99, ECLI: EU:C:2001:465, para 26) and Manfredi (C-295/04, ECLI: EU:C:2006:461, para 60) that it is “open to any individual to claim damages for loss caused to him by a contract or by conduct liable to restrict or distort competition”. Hence, the CJEU established the right to compensation which is the first foundation of the Directive. Furthermore, the Directive is founded on the principles of effectiveness and equivalence. The Directive was eventually proposed by the European Commission in 2013 (COM (2013) 404 final).

Eddy de Smijter, Head of the European Competition Network and Private Enforcement Unit, DG Competition, European Commission, presented the two main objectives of the Damages Directive, which the Member States must transpose by 27 December 2016. Firstly, it aims at helping victims of cartel law infringements to obtain compensation by removing practical obstacles in different national laws. Secondly, the Damages Directive serves to enhance the interplay between the public and private enforcement of competition law. With regard to Pfleiderer (C-360/09, ECLI:EU:C:2011:389), he noted that the CJEU did what it could in the absence of European legislation on the matter. The European Commission subsequently identified in this CJEU judgment a signal to become active.

Mr de Smijter then explained some of the key provisions of the Directive, focusing especially on the principle of full compensation in Article 3. He noted that even though Article 3 (3) Damages Directive excludes the award of punitive damages, the payment of interest could have a similar effect, depending on the duration of the cartel. Regarding the disclosure of evidence, he highlighted the increased possibilities for obtaining access to relevant documents in Article 5 et seq. Damages Directive. However, before granting access to documents, the courts must balance the interests involved: on the one hand, the right to full compensation shall be protected; on the other hand, effective public enforcement shall be ensured.

The morphology and mapping of antitrust damage actions

Assimakis Komninos, Partner at the Brussels office of White & Case LLP, presented “The morphology and mapping of antitrust damage actions” focusing mainly on four key points in damages litigation: types of competition law infringements, types of claimants, follow-on vs. stand-alone claims and types of harm. Firstly, he differentiated between shield litigation and sword litigation. While in shield litigation the claimant seeks for example the nullity of the contract pursuant to Article 101 (2) TFEU, in sword litigation he claims for instance injunctions, damages, restitution or declaratory relief. Secondly, Komninos explained the importance of stand-alone actions for effective judicial protection. In fact, the numbers show that stand-alone actions are more frequently filed than follow-on actions for damages. The claimant’s decision to bring a follow-on or a stand-alone action largely depends on the type of infringement. While follow-on actions are suitable to deal both with exploitative (e.g. cartels) and exclusionary infringements (e.g. foreclosure) stand-alone cases concern mainly exclusionary scenarios. Thirdly, he focused on certain specificities that depend on the type of claimant. Various procedural questions may arise depending on whether the claim was brought by direct/indirect purchasers and/or suppliers, umbrella customers, end consumers, distributors or competitors.

Liability, causality and the principles of effectiveness and equivalence

Sabine Thibault-Liger, Counsel at the Competition/Antitrust department of Linklaters in Paris, presented “Liability, causality and the principles of effectiveness and equivalence”. Starting with the principles of effectiveness and equivalence, she explained that they safeguard the effective enforcement of European law. From a substantive standpoint, the effectiveness of the right to compensation depends on the scope of liability which must be sufficiently wide to ensure that the victim is compensated for the damage suffered. In the framework of the personal scope of liability, Thibault-Liger dealt with two problems. Firstly, the Directive does not define the notion of “undertaking”; thus the question arises as to whether an injured party can sue the parent company of an infringing party. She concluded that the concept of “undertaking” shall be understood in the same way as in competition law; thus, the liability of the parental company depends on whether it had decisive influence over its subsidiaries. Secondly, she explored the several liability for multiple infringing parties as regulated in Article 11 Damages Directive. With regard to the material scope of liability, Thibault-Liger raised four main points: the presumption of damage in Article 17 (2) Damages Directive, umbrella claims, the impact of the fault of the victim and the combination of licit and anticompetitive causes for the damage.

Quantification of damages and the passing-on of overcharges

Three presentations dealt with the quantification of damages both from a legal and an economic perspective.

Firstly, Diana Ungureanu, Judge at the Court of Appeal Pitesti, Romania and Marc Ivaldi, Professor of Economics at the Toulouse School of Economics and at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, jointly presented “The amount of compensation”. Ungureanu focused on the principle of full compensation and the risk of overcompensation. She pointed out the inconsistency between the principle of full compensation and the court’s power to estimate the amount of harm. Thus, she concluded that full compensation is a judicial fiction. Ungureanu identified three questions that arise in the framework of the principle of full compensation: Who is damaged? How are they damaged? By how much are they damaged? Focusing on the amount of harm, she warned of the risk of overcompensation which exists in cases of supply chains. If in such a case a direct purchaser brings a claim for damages against his supplier and the defendant is unable to establish the passing-on defense, the direct purchaser would be awarded full damages for the overcharge. In an action for damages brought subsequently by an indirect purchaser against the same defendant, the claimant can rely on the presumption that the overcharge has been passed on (Article 14 (2) Damages Directive). The fact that the defendant was unable to prove the passing-on of overcharges in the previous proceedings, would not be enough to rebut the presumption, thus the defendant will have to pay again. The two judgments would not contradict to each other as each case would be decided according to the applicable rules on burden of proof. Payment of multiple damages by the defendant and unjust enrichment of at least one of the claimants would be likely to arise as a result.

Ivaldi looked at the amount of compensation “through the economic window”. He presented the damage as an economic concept, constituting the difference between the economic situation of an actor in the absence of a competition law violation (counterfactual scenario) and the economic situation of the same actor as a result of the competition law violation. He explained that from an economic perspective full compensation has three effects: a direct cost effect (direct overcharge), an output effect and a pass-on effect. The direct cost effect is the price overcharge multiplied by the total quantity purchased, yet the main challenge is to determine the overcharge. The output effect is the cost for the purchaser not to have purchased the desired amount at competitive prices. The sum of the direct cost effect and the output effect is the loss caused by the cartel. On the contrary, the pass-on effect constitutes the gains from higher downstream prices.

In the second presentation on quantification of damages Marc Ivaldi talked about “Quantification in practice: challenges and aids for the national judge”. He explained the methods for quantification of harm, which can be divided into two categories: methods based on an existing price benchmark (so called comparator-based methods) and methods based on a construction of the competitive but-for price (cost-markup methods and simulation analysis). While the comparator-based methods compare existing prices across time and/or across markets to identify the counterfactual price, the cost-markup methods and the simulation analysis construct the counterfactual price by adding to the cost a markup for reasonable profit (cost-markup methods) or a markup for maximized profit (simulation analysis).

The third presentation by Benoît Durand, Partner at RBB Economics, focused on “The study on the passing-on of overcharges arising from competition law infringements: an economic perspective” (the study is now available here). Before explaining the various methods applied to quantify the passing-on effect, Durand commented on the role of economists in private antitrust litigation. He highlighted that they not only provide a framework within which both qualitative and quantitative evidence can be evaluated, but also develop counterfactual analysis to quantify damages. He then pointed out key influences on the extent of passing-on and explained that the passing-on effect is the price increase multiplied by the quantity sold. The main challenge to the quantification of the passing-on effect is thus again to estimate the increase in price. Two approaches can be used for this purpose: Firstly, the direct approach estimates the downstream price increase applying the same comparator-based methods used to estimate the initial overcharge. Secondly, the pass-on rate approach uses the purchaser’s pass-on rate and applies it to the input cost increase.

Relationship between public and private enforcement

Wolfgang Kirchhoff, Judge in the antitrust division of the German Federal Court of Justice, presented “Relationship between public and private enforcement”. Although public and private enforcement proceedings are separate, they are related through the binding effect which the Commission’s and national competition authorities’ (NCA) decisions have on courts (Article 16 (1) Reg. 1/2003; Article 9 Damages Directive). German law goes even further than the Directive in this respect and confers on foreign NCA decisions the same binding effect as their own NCA decisions (Article 33 (4) GWB). Kirchhoff explained the scope of the binding effect on the basis of a recent Federal Court judgment in case Lottoblock II (KZR 25/14, ECLI:DE:BGH:2016:120716UKZR25.14.0). It follows from it that only the operative part of a final administrative decision and those parts of the reasons needed to support the final decision with regard to facts and law are binding for courts. He stressed the fact that the binding effect concerns only the competition law infringements and can be extended neither to causality nor to quantification of harm. Furthermore, he explored the possibilities for the Commission and NCAs to act as amicus curiae in private enforcement proceedings and described the extensive German experience with oral statements by the Federal Competition Authority which judges reportedly find very useful. The court, however, is not bound by those statements. Finally, Kirchhoff noted that experience with competition law cases and profound training in competition law are key elements to successful dispute resolution.

The role of the CJEU in interpreting Directive 2014/104/EU

Ian Forrester, Judge at the General Court of the European Union, took a step backwards from the Directive and shared some historical thoughts on the development of European competition law. He explained that in the 70s and 80s it was unusual for firms to bring claims against each other based on competition law. In the 90s, however, the institutionalization of competition law started. Leniency programs were introduced in the US and in Europe. The adoption of competition law measures became desirable and even possibilities to bring actions for damages were mentioned. Yet, in 2003, the case of Courage and Crehan showed how many instances one had to go through to actually be awarded damages suffered from anticompetitive practices. A long discussion followed which finally ended with the adoption of Directive 2014/104/EU. Judge Forrester, however, expressed some doubts about its practical impact. He made a comparison with the Product Liability Directive, which was also controversially discussed before being adopted but has not often been used. He expects that the Damages Directive will share the same destiny because the world has changed since the Directive has been discussed. The law just follows the reality. He stressed the fact that nowadays, settlements are very common in Europe and noted that the need for settlements changes legal professions. This, however, shall not diminish the importance of the Directive, preliminary questions on which will surely be directed to the CJEU. In particular, questions on access to documents, limitation periods, causation and burden of proof are very likely to arise. In his opinion, however, the answers to these particular questions will not be as important as other factors of life.

Limitation periods

Ben Rayment, experienced litigator at Monckton Chambers in London, presented “Limitation periods: When does the clock start and stop?” exploring Articles 10 and 18 Damages Directive. In his presentation he dealt mainly with three groups of issues. Firstly, he addressed factors that start the limitation “clock” and focused on the notion of “knowledge” in Article 10 (2) Damages Directive. Secondly, Rayment discussed issues around stopping the limitation “clock”. In other words, he explained under what circumstances time limits can be suspended. Problems can arise in connection with Article 10 (4) Damages Directive because it might not be sufficiently clear when an investigation of an infringement is started and/or finalized. Moreover, Article 18 Damages Directive leaves the question open as to whether formal arrangements for consensual dispute resolution are necessary to suspend the time limit. Thirdly, he addressed some transitional issues arising out of Article 22 Damages Directive. Finally, he concluded that the rules on limitation in the Directive are generous to claimants and are therefore consistent with the aim of the Directive to facilitate private enforcement.

Evidence

Eric Barbier de la Serre, Partner at Jones Day, presented issues of evidence. On the one hand, the Directive aims at facilitating compensation and solving information asymmetry between parties. On the other hand, however, coordination between public and private enforcement requires the protection of leniency statements and settlements. Barbier de la Serre discussed five types of remedies for this controversy: a change of liability test, a definition of proxies, a lower standard of proof, an introduction of presumptions and a facilitation of the collection of evidence. To a certain extent, the Directive adopts to his opinion all of them. With regard to the collection of evidence, he noted that the Directive still leaves discretion to national judges to order disclosure, so it is unclear whether there is a subjective right to it. Furthermore, it remains to be seen whether costs will act as a deterrent and whether disclosure might become a reason for forum shopping. Concerning the introduction of presumptions, he addressed the presumption in Article 9 Damages Directive that an infringement exists, the presumption of damage for cartels in Article 17 (2) Damages Directive as well as the rules concerning passing-on.

Forum-shopping considerations

Finally, a round table on forum shopping considerations and impact closed the conference.

Jonas Brueckner, Senior Associate of Baker & McKenzie’s Competition Law Practice Group, explained firstly the rules of the Brussels Ibis Regulation on the basis of case CDC Hydrogen Peroxide (C-352/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:335) which govern the question of jurisdiction. Secondly, he presented four considerations for the choice of a forum: the applicable procedural law, the applicable substantive law, soft factors as well as the possibility for recognition and enforcement abroad. He pointed out that the softened standard of proof for damages and the possibility to litigate in English make Germany an attractive jurisdiction for claimants. However, high advance payments and a rather hostile attitude of the judiciary towards private antitrust litigation might discourage claimants to start litigation in German courts.

Ben Rayment stressed the soft factors that make the UK an attractive forum. Judges are highly specialized and have by no means a hostile attitude towards private enforcement. Furthermore, claimants are attracted by the rules on disclosure and the different funding options available. The numerous cases with which UK courts have already dealt have also led to the development of the law and have increased legal certainty.

Jacqueline Riffault-Silk noted that there are fewer cases in France than in the UK and The Netherlands. She stressed the fact that private enforcement falls under civil matters. Therefore the principle of party disposition applies. It is for the parties to start litigation and to define the subject matter of the action. A problem arises, however, when various claimants start proceedings in different Member States against the same cartel members. She noted that this deconcentration of proceedings is not favorable to private enforcement.

Comments and discussion

Each presentation was followed by a lively debate. The speakers and participants highlighted the significance of private enforcement and assessed to what extent the Directive is likely to achieve its aim of facilitating private enforcement. In particular, practical issues on quantification of damages and access to evidence were often subject to discussion. The potential consequences of Brexit on private enforcement as well as incentives for consensual settlements were also widely discussed.

The General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union suggested on 11 November 2016 to correct an obvious error detected in all the linguistic versions of Article 84(1) of Regulation 2015/848 concerning insolvency proceedings. It did so pursuant to the procedure set out in the Statement entered in the Council minutes of 3 December 1975 on the adoption of corrigenda, annexed to document R/2521/75 (JUR 149) (available here, at p. 158 ff.).

Article 84(1), as it appears in the Official Journal, provides that the Regulation ‘shall apply only to insolvency proceedings opened after 26 June 2017’. According to the corrigendum, the provision should rather read as follows: ‘The provisions of this Regulation shall apply only to insolvency proceedings opened from 26 June 2017’, that is, to insolvency proceedings opened either on 26 June 2017 or after that date.

Il Segretariato generale del Consiglio dell’Unione ha suggerito, l’11 novembre 2016, di rettificare un errore materiale rinvenuto in tutte le versioni linguistiche dell’art. 84, par. 1, del regolamento 2015/848 relativo alle procedure di insolvenza. L’iniziativa si inquadra nella procedura disciplinata dalla Dichiarazione del Consiglio del 3 dicembre 1975 per l’adozione delle rettifiche, allegata al documento R/2521/75 (JUR 149) (consultabile qui, a p. 158 ss.).

L’art. 84, par. 1, nel testo apparso sulla Gazzetta ufficiale, prevede che le disposizioni del regolamento si applicano soltanto alle procedure di insolvenza aperte “successivamente al 26 giugno 2017”, mentre, secondo la rettifica, dovrebbe stabilire che tali disposizioni si applicano alle procedure di insolvenza aperte “a decorrere dal 26 giugno 2017”, cioè anche a quelle aperte nel giorno ora indicato.

Bringing together a team of researchers from Europe and Brazil (Universidade de São Paulo), the Center of Family Law of the University Jean Moulin Lyon 3, organizes an international seminar entitled:

The circulation of people and their family status in a globalized world: the foreigner’s family

The Seminar will take place in Lyon, wednesday, November 23, 2016, with the following program:

Morning: 9h – 12h30
Introduction:
What is a “foreigner”? Between regionalization and globalization, J.-S. Bergé and P. Casella (9h – 9h30)

I – The dimensions of the foreigner’s family
Presidency: P. Casella

– In the European area, Fulchiron H., A. Slimani, L. Sorisole (9h30 – 10h)
– In the South American area, G. Cerqueira (10h- 10h30)
– Debate: A. Bonomi (subject) (10h30 to 10h45)

Coffee Break: 10h45 – 11h

II – The integration of the foreigner’s family (social rights, integration policies)
Chair: F. Menezes

– In the European area, B. Baret, L. Eck (11h – 11h30)
– In the South American area, F. Menezes, D. Cordeiro (11h30 – 12h)
– Debate: Discussion A. Bonomi (subject) (12h – 12h30)

Lunch: 12h30 to 2h15

III – The protection of the foreigner’s family (entry, residence permit, displacement)
Chair: C. Moises

– Protection of fundamental rights, L. Robert, C. Moises (14h15 – 14h45)
– Protection by special statutes (political areas, economic areas), E. Durand, G. Monaco (14h45 – 15h15)

Coffee Break: 15h15 – 15h30

– Debate:  A. Bonomi (subject) (15h30 –  16h30)
– Closing, G. Monaco, H. Fulchiron (16h30 – 17h)

Seminar Directors: Hugues Fulchiron and Gustavo Monaco

Language: French

Venue: 15, quai Claude Bernard, Lyon, France – Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3 (Salle Caillemer)

No participation fee.

Case C-613/14 James Elliott illustrates that the EU’s ‘New Approach’ to harmonisation is alive and well more than 30 years after its launch. The judgment is best read in its entirety and against the background of the New Approach, following the Court’s judgment in Cassis de Dijon and the introduction of qualified majority voting in the European Single Act.

The Court confirms the important place which CEN-standards occupy in EU law, despite them being private standards, and clarifies the exact impact which these standards have in private relations.

One for harmonisation anoraks.

Geert.

The conclusions and recommendations of the Special Commission which met met from 2 to 4 November 2016 to review the the practical operation of the Hague Convention of 5 October 1961 abolishing the requirement of legalisation for foreign public documents are available here.

Le conclusioni e raccomandazioni della Commissione speciale riunitasi tra il 2 e il 4 novembre 2016 per discutere del funzionamento della Convenzione dell’Aja del 5 ottobre 1961 sulla soppressione del requisito della legalizzazione per gli atti pubblici stranieri possono essere consultate qui.

The e-Justice portal, run by the Commission, features a dynamic form intended to help getting in touch with the national contact points of the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters. To know more about the tasks of the contact points, the kind of requests they can handle and those entitled to address such requests to the contact points, reference must be made to the decision that established the Network (decision 2001/470/EC, as amended by decision 2009/568/EC: the consolidated version may be found here).

È disponibile sul portale e-Justice, gestito dalla Commissione, un modulo dinamico inteso a facilitare le comunicazioni con i punti di contatto nazionali della Rete giudiziaria europea in materia civile e commerciale. Le funzioni dei punti di contatto, il genere di richieste di cui essi possono fasi carico e i soggetti autorizzati a rivolgersi a loro si ricavano dalla decisione istitutiva della Rete (decisione 2001/470/CE, nel testo consolidato risultante dalle modifiche apportate con la decisione 2009/568/CE).

Lehman Brothers [2016] EWHC 2699 (Comm) does not involve conflict of laws. Yet its discussion of the notion of ‘close of business’ reminded me of the relevance of Article 12(2) Rome I:

In relation to the manner of performance and the steps to be taken in the event of defective performance, regard shall be had to the law of the country in which performance takes place.

Lex loci solutionis supplements lex contractus for factual considerations such as closing times.

In the case at issue, between parties, a notice had to be served ‘by close of business’. A relevant fax transmission started at 5:54 PM and ended at 6:02 PM. Close of business by sender, it was alleged, was understood to be 7 PM. Recipient claimed COB was 5 PM. Blair J in para 147 ff justifiably points to the intention of flexibility behind the notion of COB: had parties wanted a precise cut-off time, they would and should have specified it. The High Court therefore relied on the (little) evidence given as to COB and accepted that in the modern world of commercial banking and even leaving aside the near non-existence of closing hours for investment bankers and the like, more or less 7 PM should be considered COB. (It was specifically stated that no precedent value can be attached to that time slot).

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 3.

The Universities of Genoa, Valencia, Amsterdam, Glasgow, Mainz, the Turība University, the Charles University in Prague, the Institute of Private International Law in Sofia, and IPR Verlag Munich are conducting a research project, co-funded by the European Union, to collect and develop private and procedural international law best practices in cross-border insolvency and pre-insolvency proceedings. Practitioners and academics are invited to answer (anonymously) to a questionnaire elaborated to this effect. The questionnaire is available here. 

Le Università di Genova, Valencia, Amsterdam, Glasgow, Magonza, la Biznesa augstskola Turība, la Charles University di Praga, l’Istituto di Diritto internazionale privato di Sofia e la casa editrice IPR Verlag di Monaco di Baviera stanno conducendo un progetto di ricerca,co-finanziato dall’Unione europea, volto alla collezione ed allo sviluppo di best practices di diritto internazionale privato e processuale in materia di insolvenza e pre-insolvenza transfrontaliera. Pratici ed accademici sono invitati a rispondere (in modo anonimo) a un questionario predisposto a questo fine.  Il questionario è disponibile qui.

A workshop is scheduled to take place at the European Parliament on 8 November 2016 to discuss the Commission’s proposal to recast Regulation No 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility. A compilation of the speakers’ briefings is available here.

Il Parlamento europeo ospita, l’8 novembre 2016, un seminario dedicato alla proposta della Commissione concernente la rifusione del regolamento n. 2201/2003 sulla competenza giurisdizionale, il riconoscimento e l’esecuzione delle decisioni in materia matrimoniale e di responsabilità genitoriale. Il testo delle relazioni è disponibile a questo indirizzo.

On 21 November 2016, the Italian Ombudsman for Childhood and Adolescence and the University of Ferrara will host a conference devoted to Combating the sexual abuse and exploitation of children. The implementation of the Lanzarote Convention in Italy: application experiences and outstanding problems.  The event is part of the initiatives that mark the European Day on the Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse promoted by the Council of Europe, and it is addressed to lawyers, psychologists and social workers.

The flyer is available here. For more information: Ester di Napoli at dnpstr@unife.it.

Il 21 novembre 2016 l’Autorità Garante per l’Infanzia e l’Adolescenza e l’Università di Ferrara organizzano un convegno su La lotta all’abuso e allo sfruttamento sessuale dei minori. L’attuazione della Convenzione di Lanzarote in Italia: esperienze applicative e problemi aperti. L’incontro si colloca nel contesto della Giornata europea per la protezione dei bambini contro lo sfruttamento e gli abusi sessuali promossa dal Consiglio d’Europa e si rivolge ad un pubblico di giuristi, psicologi ed operatori sociali.

La locandina dell’evento è disponibile a questo indirizzo. Per maggiori informazioni, contattare Ester di Napoli (dnpstr@unife.it).

In a judgment of 27 October 2016 regarding the case of Child and Family Agency v. J.D. (Case C‑428/15), the Court of Justice ruled as follows.

(1)   Article 15 of  Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003  concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility must be interpreted as meaning that it is applicable where a child protection application brought under public law by the competent authority of a Member State concerns the adoption of measures relating to parental responsibility, such as the application at issue in the main proceedings, where it is a necessary consequence of a court of another Member State assuming jurisdiction that an authority of that other Member State thereafter commence proceedings that are separate from those brought in the first Member State, pursuant to its own domestic law and possibly relating to different factual circumstances.

(2)  Article 15(1) of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that:
– in order to determine that a court of another Member State with which the child has a particular connection is better placed, the court having jurisdiction in a Member State must be satisfied that the transfer of the case to that other court is such as to provide genuine and specific added value to the examination of that case, taking into account, inter alia, the rules of procedure applicable in that other Member State;
– in order to determine that such a transfer is in the best interests of the child, the court having jurisdiction in a Member State must be satisfied, in particular, that that transfer is not liable to be detrimental to the situation of the child.

(3)  Article 15(1) of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that the court having jurisdiction in a Member State must not take into account, when applying that provision in a given case relating to parental responsibility, either the effect of a possible transfer of that case to a court of another Member State on the right of freedom of movement of persons concerned other than the child in question, or the reason why the mother of that child exercised that right, prior to that court being seised, unless those considerations are such that there may be adverse repercussions on the situation of that child.

Nella sentenza del 27 ottobre 2016,  relativa al caso Child and Family Agency c. J.D. (causa C‑428/15), la Corte di giustizia ha stabilito quanto segue.

(1)  L’articolo 15 del regolamento (CE) n. 2201/2003 del Consiglio, del 27 novembre 2003, relativo alla competenza, al riconoscimento e all’esecuzione delle decisioni in materia matrimoniale e in materia di responsabilità genitoriale, che abroga il regolamento (CE) n. 1347/2000, deve essere interpretato nel senso che si applica in presenza di un ricorso in materia di tutela dei minori presentato sulla base del diritto pubblico dalla competente autorità di uno Stato membro e avente ad oggetto l’adozione di misure relative alla responsabilità genitoriale, come quello di cui al procedimento principale, qualora la dichiarazione di competenza di un organo giurisdizionale di un altro Stato membro necessiti, a valle, dell’avvio, da parte di un’autorità di tale altro Stato membro, ai sensi del suo diritto interno e alla luce di circostanze di fatto eventualmente diverse, di un procedimento distinto da quello avviato nel primo Stato membro.

(2)  L’articolo 15, paragrafo 1, del regolamento n. 2201/2003 deve essere interpretato nel senso che:
– per poter stabilire che un’autorità giurisdizionale di un altro Stato membro con il quale il minore ha un legame particolare è più adatta, il giudice competente di uno Stato membro deve accertarsi che il trasferimento del caso a detta autorità giurisdizionale sia idoneo ad apportare un valore aggiunto reale e concreto al trattamento dello stesso, in particolare tenendo conto delle norme di procedura applicabili in detto altro Stato membro;
– per poter stabilire che un siffatto trasferimento corrisponde all’interesse superiore del minore, il giudice competente di uno Stato membro deve in particolare accertarsi che tale trasferimento non rischi di ripercuotersi negativamente sulla situazione del minore.

(3)  L’articolo 15, paragrafo 1, del regolamento n. 2201/2003 deve essere interpretato nel senso che il giudice competente di uno Stato membro non deve tenere conto, in sede di attuazione di tale disposizione in un determinato caso in materia di responsabilità genitoriale, né dell’incidenza di un possibile trasferimento di detto caso a un’autorità giurisdizionale di un altro Stato membro sul diritto di libera circolazione delle persone interessate diverse dal minore interessato, né del motivo per il quale la madre di tale minore si è avvalsa di tale diritto, prima che detto giudice fosse adito, salvo che considerazioni di questo tipo siano tali da ripercuotersi in modo negativo sulla situazione di tale minore.

Luciano Garofalo, Giuseppina Pizzolante, Spunti per una teoria post-moderna dell’analogia, Giappichelli, 2016, ISBN 9788892104167, pp. 166, EUR 16.

Il volume “Spunti per una teoria post-moderna dell’analogia. Princípi generali, analogia e diritti ‘alieni’” è una raccolta di scritti organizzati in base all’idea di fondo che la funzione interpretativa assuma una connotazione del tutto peculiare nelle situazioni che possiamo definire, atecnicamente, di contatto o osmosi tra più sistemi giuridici. In questa ottica, il volume traccia le caratteristiche del procedimento analogico in alcuni ordinamenti giuridici non statali (ordinamento internazionale, ordinamento dell’Unione europea) – e in segmenti particolari degli ordinamenti giuridici statali (sistema di conflitto di leggi) – per poter fornire indicazioni sistematicamente corrette sulle caratteristiche dello stesso procedimento in tali “condizioni” di sistema. “Spunti per una teoria post-moderna dell’analogia. Princípi generali, analogia e diritti ‘alieni’” è rivolto anzitutto agli studiosi di diritto internazionale e dell’Unione europea ma è impostato in modo tale da renderlo “leggibile” anche agli studenti universitari. In ogni caso, esso è di evidente utilità per gli operatori giuridici in genere, venendo in giuoco problematiche interpretative da gestire a cavallo tra valori giuridici provenienti da ordinamenti diversi.

By James J Fawcett FBA (Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Nottingham), Máire Ní Shúilleabháin (Assistant Professor in Law, University College Dublin) and Sangeeta Shah (Associate Professor of Law, University of Nottingham)
Human Rights and Private International Law is the first title to consider and analyse the numerous English private international law cases discussing human rights concerns arising in the commercial and family law contexts. The right to a fair trial is central to the intersection between human rights and private international law, and is considered in depth along with the right to freedom of expression; the right to respect for private and family life; the right to marry; the right to property; and the prohibition of discrimination on the ground of religion, sex, or nationality.

Focusing on, though not confined to, the human rights set out in the ECHR, the work also examines the rights laid down under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and other international human rights instruments.

Written by specialists in both human rights and private international law, this work examines the impact, both actual and potential, of human rights concerns on private international law, as well as the oft overlooked topic of the impact of private international law on human rights.

Contents

1: Introduction
2: Human rights, private international law, and their interaction
3: The right to a fair trial
4: The right to a fair trial and jurisdiction under the EU rules
5: The right to a fair trial and recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments under the EU rules
6: The right to a fair trial and jurisdiction under national rules
7: The right to a fair trial and recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments under the traditional English rules
8: The right to a fair trial and private international law: concluding remarks
9: The prohibition of discrimination and private international law
10: Freedom of expression and the right to respect for private life: international defamation and invasion of privacy
11: The right to marry, the right to respect for family life, the prohibition on discrimination and international marriage
12: Religious rights and recognition of marriage and extra-judicial divorce
13: Right to respect for family life and the rights of the child: international child abduction
14: Right to respect for private and family life and related rights: parental status
15: The right to property, foreign judgments, and cross-border property disputes
16: Overall conclusions

For further information, see here.

Building on the very successful conferences held in Aberdeen (2005), Birmingham (2007), New York (2009), Milan (2011) Madrid (2013), and Cambridge (2015), we are pleased to announce that the Journal of Private International Law will be holding its next Conference at the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, 3-5 August 2017. We are now calling for abstracts for the Conference. Please submit an abstract if you would like to make a presentation at the Conference and you are willing to produce a final paper that you will submit for publication in the Journal. Abstracts should be up to 500 words in length and should clearly state the name(s) and affiliation(s) of the author(s).

They can be on any subject matter that falls within the scope of the Journal, and can be offered by people at any stage of their career, including postgraduate students.    The  Journal of Private International Law ( J. Priv. Int. L.) was launched in spring 2005 and covers all aspects of private international law, reflecting the role of the European Union and the Hague Conference on Private International Law in the making of private international law, in addition to the traditional role of domestic legal orders. Articles from scholars anywhere in the world writing in English about developments in any jurisdiction on any aspect of private international law are welcomed, as well as shorter articles or analysis from anywhere in the world, including analysis of new treaties and conventions, and lengthy review articles dealing with significant new publications.

Presentation at the Conference will depend on whether your abstract is selected by the Editors of the Journal (Professors Jonathan Harris of King’s College, London and Paul Beaumont of the University of Aberdeen) and by the conference organisers in the Pontifical Catholic University (Professors Nadia de Araujo, Daniela Vargas and Lauro Gama).  The subsequent article should be submitted to the Journal. Publication in the Journal will be subject to the usual system of refereeing by two experts in the field.

The Conference will be a mixture of plenary (Friday) and parallel panel sessions (Thursday afternoon and Saturday morning).  Please indicate on the abstract whether you are willing to present in either or are only willing to do so in one or the other. A willingness to be flexible maximises our ability to select your paper.

The Conference will be held at the main campus of the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, located in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (www.puc-rio.br). . Further information will be available soon.

Speakers will not be expected to pay a conference fee but will be expected to pay their travel and accommodation expenses to attend the Conference in Rio de Janeiro.  Information on Conference accommodation will be available soon, with a list of hotels and hostels nearby the campus, but the University does not have living arrangements  Details about accommodation and the Conference dinner on the Thursday evening will follow.

Please send your abstract to the following email address by November 15th 2016: (jprivintlrioconference2017@gmail.com