Flux des sites DIP

In C-196/15 Granarolo, extensive reference is made to Brogsitter, in which the CJEU held that the fact that one contracting party brings a civil liability claim against the other is not sufficient to consider that the claim concerns ‘matters relating to a contract’ within the meaning of Article 7(1) Brussels I Recast. That is the case only where the conduct complained of may be considered a breach of contract, which may be established by taking into account the purpose of the contract, which will in principle be the case only where the interpretation of the contract which links the defendant to the applicant is indispensable to establish the lawful or, on the contrary, unlawful nature of the conduct complained of against the former by the latter. 

Kokott AG Opined that there was no such contractual relationship in the case at hand: see my review of the Opinion. The Court held last week and was less categorical. It suggests a contractual relationship between the parties (which did not have a framework agreement in place: rather a long series of one-off contracts) should not be excluded: the long-standing business relationship which existed between the parties is characterised by the existence of obligations tacitly agreed between them, so that a relationship existed between them that can be classified as contractual (at 25).

What follows can be considered a CJEU addition to the rather byzantine double negative C-26/91 Handte formula: ‘matters relating to a contract is not to be understood as covering a situation in which there is no obligation freely assumed by one party towards another’. In Granarolo at 26 the Court notes

The existence of a tacit relationship of that kind cannot, however, be presumed and must, therefore, be demonstrated. Furthermore, that demonstration must be based on a body of consistent evidence, which may include in particular the existence of a long-standing business relationship, the good faith between the parties, the regularity of the transactions and their development over time expressed in terms of quantity and value, any agreements as to prices charged and/or discounts granted, and the correspondence exchanged.

These criteria obviously are quite specific to the question at hand yet it is the first time the Court, carefully, ventures to give indications of some kind of a European ius commune on the existence of ‘a contract’.

Whether any such contract then is a contract for the sale of goods or one for services, is not a call the Court wishes to make. It lists the various criteria it has hitherto deployed, with extensive reference in particular to C-9/12 Corman-Collins, and leaves the decision up to the national court.

Make a mental note of Granarolo. It may turn out to have been quite pivotal. Geert.

(Handbook of) European Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.11.2, Heading 2.2.11.2.9

Prepared by guest editors Dr. Ignacio Torterola and Quinn Smith, this special addresses the various challenges and changes at work in dispute resolution in Latin America. A second volume that continues many of the themes from different angles and perspectives is also nearing completion. Download a free Excerpt here

EDITORIAL

* TDM Latin America Special – Introduction by I. Torterola, Q. Smith, GST LLP

LATIN AMERICA

* Two Solutions for One Problem: Latin America’s Reactions to Concerns over Investor-State Arbitration
by A. López Ortiz, J.J. Caicedo and W. Ahern, Mayer Brown

* Towards a Resolution of Outstanding Nationalization Claims Against Cuba
by M. Marigo and L. Friedman, Freshfields US LLP

* Comparative Commentary to Brazil’s Cooperation and Investment Facilitation Agreements (CIFAs) with Mozambique, Angola, Mexico, and Malawi
by N. Bernasconi-Osterwalder and M.D. Brauch,

* International Investment Law and the Protection of Foreign Investment in Brazil
by C. Titi, CNRS / CREDIMI

* Recognition of Foreign Judgments and Awards in Brazil
by C.A. Pereira, Justen, Pereira, Oliveira & Talamini

* What to Expect from the Arbitration Center of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR)?
by J.I. Hernández G., Universidad Central de Venezuela, Universidad Católica Andrés Bello

* The Court of Justice of the Andean Community: A New Forum for the Settlement of Foreign Investment Disputes?
by E. Anaya Vera, Pontifical Catholic University of Peru; R. Polanco Lazo, World Trade Institute

* Commercial Mediation in the Americas
by H. Otero and A.L. Torres, American University Washington College of Law

* Los Dilemas De La Mediación. Efectivos Referentes Para Su Enseñanza En El Contexto Latinoamericano
by A. Castanedo Abay, Universidad de la Habana

* Bestiary of Mexican State Contracts: Treatise on Various Real and Mythical Kinds of Arbitration
by O.F. Cabrera Colorado, Ibáñez Parkman; A. Orta González Sicilia, Caraza y Morayta

* El Recuento de los Daños: Compensación, Intereses y Costas del Arbitraje Inversionista-Estado del TLCAN. La Experiencia Mexicana
by J. Moreno González, CIDE; J.P. Hugues Arthur, Ministry of Finance and Public Credit, Mexico

* La negociación de la tierra en La Habana – El problema de la disputa de las rentas de los recursos naturales en el siglo XXI
by C.G. Álvarez Higuita, Profesor Honorario, Universidad Nacional

* Analysis of the New Argentine Arbitration Regulation: Much Ado about (Nearly) Nothing
by D.L. Alonso Massa, Attorney

* Compensation for Losses to New or Unfinished Business: A New Paradigm in the Making? A Case Comment on Gold Reserve v. Venezuela
by L. Hoder, Kocian Solc Balastik

* Dual Nationality in Investment Arbitration: The Case of Venezuela
by J.E. Anzola, International Arbitrator

* FCPA, UKBA, and International Arbitration: Dealing with Corruption in Latin America
by R. Pereira Fleury, Shearman & Sterling LLP; Q. Wang, The Chinese University of Hong Kong

* Currency Exchange Controls and Transfer Protections in BITs
by R. Ampudia, International Litigation Counsel; M.I. Pradilla Picas, Jones Day

by Lukas Schmidt, Research Fellow at the Center for Transnational Commercial Dispute Resolution (TCDR) of the EBS Law School, Wiesbaden, Germany.

In the wake of the Juncker Plan, the Action Plan on Building a Capital Markets Union and the Single Market Strategy the European Commission has made the strengthening of Europe´s Economy and the stimulation of investments in Europe some of its top priorities. In doing so the Commission has identified insolvency and restructuring proceedings as an important factor for creating a strong capital market. Thus insolvency law has increasingly attracted the Commission’s attention. The recast of the European Insolvency Regulation on (cross-border) insolvency proceedings which will be applicable from June 26, 2017 (or the day after? See http://conflictoflaws.net/2016/oops-they-did-it-again-remarks-on-the-intertemporal-application-of-the-recast-insolvency-regulation/) is only an intermediate step towards a European Insolvency Law.

Already back in 2014 the Commission formulated the non-binding recommendation on a new approach to business failure and insolvency encouraging the member states to create ”a framework that enables the efficient restructuring of viable enterprises in financial difficulty” and to “give honest entrepreneurs a second chance”. Now, the Commission is far more ambitious as it is preparing an “insolvency initiative” on certain aspects of substantive insolvency laws to be adopted in autumn this year, as Vera Jourová, EU Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality, announced at last week´s conference on the “Convergence of insolvency frameworks within the European Union – the way forward” in Brussels. This conference was intended to contribute to the preparatory work of the Commission on the insolvency initiative.

Accompanying the conference the Commission has also published an insightful comparative study on substantive insolvency law throughout the EU prepared by a team from the School of Law at the University of Leeds. It is highly interesting how far-reaching the Commission´s legislative proposal will be. Is the Commission even planning to harmonize the member state´s rules on the ranking of claims? Will there be minimum standards for insolvency practitioners and courts throughout the EU? Will there be special rules for insolvencies of corporate groups? As indicated by the Commission´s “Inception Impact Assessment” on the insolvency initiative published earlier this year we can at least expect an EU Directive on a preventive restructuring procedure. Either way international insolvency law will be a highly interesting and dynamic area of international law for the next years.

The Stream of the conference is still available at: https://webcast.ec.europa.eu/insolvency-conference

The Impact Assessment is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/files/insolvency/impact_assessment_en.pdf

The comparative study is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/files/insolvency/insolvency_study_2016_final_en.pdf

A few days ago, the 5th of edition of a (German language) classic on private international law, the “Hay”, was released. Fully revised and updated by Hannes Rösler, a Professor for Civil Law, Comparative Law and Private International Law at the University of Siegen (Germany), it now appears as Hay/Rösler, Internationales Privat- und Zivilverfahrensrecht, 5th edition, C.H. Beck 2016 (XXXI + 326 pages).

The book covers nearly every aspect of private international law through 229 questions and cases. The first part of the book (about 40 percent) covers procedural aspects. It starts with international jurisdiction under the Brussels Ibis Regulation, further EU regulations (including the Regulations on maintenance and succession) and German law. It continues with questions of proof of facts and service of documents and finishes with recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.

The second part deals with private international law in the narrower sense. It first addresses key concepts (“Allgemeiner Teil”) and then covers the Rome I and Rome II Regulations, property law, family law (including the relatively new Rom III Regulation), succession law and company law.

The books is an excellent and up-to-date introduction to private international law. It provides easy access to complex legal issues. Thanks to its case-orientation it will be especially helpful for students preparing for classes and exams. In addition, it will prove helpful for lawyers and practitioners interested in private international law.

Further information, including a table of contents, can be found here.

Professor Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Jürgen Basedow, Director of the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law (Hamburg), has analyzed the challenges that Brexit poses for private and commercial law in an editorial for issue 3/2016 of the Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht. The main contents of this article have been summarized in English on the Institute’s website; this abstract is reproduced here with the kind permission of Professor Basedow.

As soon as the UK notifies the European Council of its intent to leave the EU in accordance with Article 50 para. 2 TEU, a two year period shall commence within which all negotiations must be conducted. Should negotiations exceed this two year period or if the outcomes meet resistance in the UK or the EU bodies, Art. 50 para. 3 TEU stipulates that Union Treaties shall simply cease to apply, unless the Council and the UK unanimously agree to extend that period.

As sparing as the wording of Art. 50 para. 2 TEU is, it does make it very clear: should the EU and the UK not reach agreement within two years of notification, then the Treaties, including the freedom of movement they contain, cease to be in force. The possibility that access may be lost to the European single market and other guarantees provided by primary EU law puts the UK under economic and political pressure that may weaken their negotiating position against the EU. British voters were probably not aware of this consideration before the referendum.

The question of whether and how the international conventions of the EU, particularly those for a uniform system of private law, shall continue to apply is also complex. It may be that conventions like the Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air or the Cape Town Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment and the Aviation Protocol will continue to apply, as they were ratified by both the UK and the EU, although relevant decisions handed down by the ECJ will no longer be binding on the UK courts. But what is the situation with regard to the Hague Jurisdiction Convention of 2005 that was ratified by the EU on behalf of all Member States, but not by the States themselves? These private and procedural law Conventions – just as all other international law agreements of the EU – must also be addressed during the exit negotiations.

Any change of Great Britain’s status under the Brussels I Regulation 1215/2012 is also particularly significant for private law. It is for the British courts to decide whether they will continue to observe the rules of jurisdiction. Their judgments however will no longer be automatically enforceable across the whole Union, as Art. 36 only applies to “a judgment given by the courts of a Member State”. Older bilateral agreements such as that existing between Germany and Britain may go some way to bridging the gap, as will the autonomous recognition of laws, but neither will suffice completely. International legal and commercial affairs must thus return to square one. As it currently stands, the Lugano Convention (OJ 2009 L 147) is also unable to cover the shortfall, signed as it was by the EU and not the individual Member States. According to Art. 70, Great Britain is not one of the states entitled to join the Convention. This effectively removes one of the fundamental pillars supporting the remarkable rise in the number of law firms in London, with a business model based on the simple promise that stipulating London in a jurisdiction agreement would guarantee enforceability across the whole of Europe. This model will soon be a thing of the past, if viable solutions cannot be found for the exit agreement.

The agenda for the exit negotiations will thus be immensely broad in its scope. Even if the British government should drop EU primary law for the reasons listed above, they will try to include secondary legal guarantees for access to the European single market into their exit agreement. That would require the discussion of hundreds of Directives and Regulations. Considering that the entry negotiations with nine member states, divided into over 30 negotiation chapters, took so many years to complete, it is doubtful whether negotiations in the other direction can be completed within the two years stipulated by Art. 50 para. 3 TEU. Brexit has also shaken up international commercial competition in ways that have yet to be determined.

The complete article “Brexit und das Privat- und Wirtschaftsrecht” by Professor Jürgen Basedow will be published in the forthcoming issue 3/2016 of the ZEuP – Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht.

In the case Child and Family Agency v JD (C-428/15) EU:C:2016:458, Advocate General Wathelet issued his Opinion about the transfer of the proceedings pursuant to Article 15 of the Bruseels II bis Regulation, in particular clarifying the considitions for such transfer.
An account of this Opinion is given by Agne Limante in yesterday’s post in the Preliminary reference section of the Columbia Journal of European Law, available here.

The Supreme Court of Canada has released its decision in Lapointe Rosenstein Marchand Melancon LLP v Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP, 2016 SCC 30 (available here).  The decision builds on the court’s foundational decision in Club Resorts Ltd v Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17, which altered the law on taking jurisdiction in cases not involving presence in the forum or submission to the forum.

In Club Resorts the court held that to take jurisdiction in service ex juris cases the plaintiff had to establish a presumptive connecting factor (PCF) and it identified four non-exhaustive PCFs for tort claims.  The fourth of these was that a contract connected with the dispute was made in the forum.  This was viewed as unusual: there was very little precedential support for considering such a connection sufficient to ground jurisdiction in tort cases.  Commentators expressed concern about the weakness of the connection, based as it was on the place of making a contract, and about the lack of a clear test for determining whether such a contract was sufficiently connected to the tort claim.  Both of these issues were squarely raised in Lapointe Rosenstein.

The majority (6-1) agreed with the motions judge and the Court of Appeal for Ontario that this PCF was established on the facts of this case.  Justice Cote dissented, concluding both that the contract was not made in Ontario and that it was not sufficiently connected with the tort claim.

The facts are somewhat complex.  After the 2008 financial crisis the Canadian government bailed out General Motors of Canada Ltd (GM Canada).  In return for this financial support, GM Canada agreed to close dealerships (ultimately over 200) across Canada.  Each dealership being closed was compensated under a Wind-Down Agreement (WDA) between GM Canada and the dealer.  The WDA was governed by Ontario law and contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause for Ontario.  The WDA required each dealer to obtain independent legal advice (ILA) about the consequences of signing the WDA.

Some time after the dealerships closed over 200 dealers brought a class action in Ontario against GM Canada disputing the legality of the WDAs.  They also sued Cassels Brock & Blackwell, the lawyers for the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association, for negligent advice to the dealers.  In turn, Cassels Brock brought third-party claims against 150 law firms which had provided the ILA to the dealers.  Many of the law firms, including those in Quebec, challenged the court’s jurisdiction over the third-party claim.  Cassels Brock argued that the WDAs were contracts made in Ontario and that the WDAs were connected with the tort claim Cassels Brock was advancing in the third-party claim (which was for negligence in providing the ILA).

The court had the chance to adjust or move away from this PCF, given the criticism which it had attracted (see para 88).  But it affirmed it.   Worse, the Court of Appeal for Ontario had at least expressed a willingness to be flexible in determining the place of making of the contract (which in part got around the central weakness in this PCF).  In contrast the majority stresses the “traditional rules of contract formation” (para 31).  Insisting on the traditional rules is what gives rise to the core difference between the majority (Ontario: paras 42-43) and the dissent (Quebec: paras 74-80) on where the WDAs were made.  Those rules mean the dissent is right to point out (para 81) that related connections between the WDAs and Ontario (such as the applicable law and the jurisdiction clause: see para 48) do not, strictly speaking, have anything to do with where the contract is made and so must be ignored on that issue.  The more robust approach of the Court of Appeal allows more to be assessed and thus for an easier (more consensual) conclusion that the WDAs were “made” in Ontario.  There is reason to be quite concerned that the Supreme Court of Canada’s approach will lead to more disputes about where a particular contract has been made, focusing on technical rules, which is unwelcome.

The court also splits on whether the contract, if made in Ontario, is connected to the tort claim.  I am inclined to think the majority gets it right when it finds that it is.  Note, though, that I think it is wrong to claim, as the majority does (para 47 last sentence), that somehow the law firms were brought “within the scope of the contractual relationship” by providing the advice about it.  The best part of the dissent is the demolition of that claim (para 86).  The real problem is that a close enough connection should be available to be found even in the absence of bringing the defendant “within” that contractual relationship.  This PCF, if the misguided narrow focus on place of contracting could be overcome, can be broader than that and thus broader than the dissent would make it (para 87).

Here a local Quebec law firm is asked by its local client to provide it with advice about the client’s entering into the WDA.  The terms of the WDA expressly say that to so enter into it the client has to get that advice.  The WDA is clearly very connected to Ontario.  It seems to me right to say that the WDA is a contract related to any subsequent negligent advice claim the client would advance against the firm.  The WDA is not just context, bearing peripherally on the advice.  The advice entirely centers on the WDA and whether the client should enter into it.  The WDA is what the advice is about.  The majority gets all of this right in para 47 except for its last sentence.  Of the 11 judges who addressed this issue in the three levels of court, only Justice Cote finds the connection between the contract and the tort claim to be insufficient.

So I think the decision is right but the majority errs by stressing the traditional rules of contract formation for assessing the place of making and by using the “within the scope of the contractual relationship” test for the requisite connection.

Some smaller points:

1.  I am somewhat puzzled by the idea (para 31) that parties would expressly think about how they would go about making their contracts so as to have them made in a particular place so as to get to subsequently take advantage of this PCF.  Do parties think like that?  Did they before this PCF was created?  I suppose it is easier to say they now do think like that since they are being told to do so by the court.

2.  For future debates about where contracts are made, I worry about some of the court’s language.  One example is para 40’s reference to where the acceptance “took place”.  Is that compatible with the postal acceptance rule which looks, for some contracts, at the place of posting rather than place of receipt?  Would we say the acceptance in such a case “took place” at the place of posting?  See in contrast para 73.

3.  Justice Cote’s dissent could be seen as a covert attempt to eliminate this PCF.  She insists on a very tight connection between the contract and the tort claim.  She refers to circumstances in which “the defendant’s breach of contract and his tort are indissociable” (para 95; emphasis in original) and states that this PCF “only provides jurisdiction over claims where the defendant’s liability in tort flows immediately from the defendant’s own contractual obligations” (para. 90).  In such cases, this PCF (tied to the place of contracting) might safely be abolished and replaced with other, better PCFs relating to tort and contract claims (especially in light of para 99 of Club Resorts).  It would not be needed for the court to be able to take jurisdiction, as it was on the facts of Club Resorts and Lapointe Rosenstein.  I am sympathetic to a desire to eliminate this PCF, but I think that result needed to be confronted directly rather than indirectly.  In the wake of the majority decision, it is now unlikely to happen at all.

Il 30 giugno 2016, la Commissione europea ha presentato la proposta di revisione del regolamento (CE) n. 2201/2003 relativo alla competenza, al riconoscimento e all’esecuzione delle decisioni in materia matrimoniale e in materia di responsabilità genitoriale (“Bruxelles II bis”). La proposta, accompagnata da un comunicato stampa e da una scheda che ne delinea i caratteri principali, interviene dopo una lunga fase di studio (l’agenda dei lavori e l’esito degli incontri del gruppo di esperti a tal fine designato possono essere consultati a questo indirizzo), nell’ambito della quale è stata prodotta, in particolare, una valutazione d’impatto che ha evidenziato le criticità della disciplina esistente, soprattutto con riguardo alla sottrazione internazionale dei minori.

La Commissione suggerisce di rifondere l’attuale regime in un regolamento nuovo, che manterrebbe sostanzialmente invariate le disposizioni in tema di divorzio, separazione personale e annullamento del matrimonio, introducendo, viceversa, una serie di novità sul terreno dei procedimenti in tema di responsabilità genitoriale e di sottrazione.

Il testo risultante dalla prospettata rifusione tiene conto dei molti gli strumenti normativi adottati dall’Unione europea nel campo del diritto internazionale privato della famiglia dopo l’elaborazione del regolamento Bruxelles II bis (in particolare, i regolamenti relativi alle obbligazioni alimentari, alla legge applicabile a separazione e divorzio, nonché, recentemente, ai regimi patrimoniali tra coniugi e agli effetti patrimoniali delle unioni registrate), oltre che della pronunce rese dalla Corte di giustizia per interpretare il regolamento.

In generale, nella prospettiva della Commissione, il futuro regolamento dovrebbe: snellire i procedimenti relativi alla responsabilità genitoriale; rafforzare la tutela e la promozione dei diritti fondamentali, in armonia col principio del superiore interesse del minore garantito dall’art. 24, par. 1, della Carta sui diritti fondamentali dell’Unione europea e dall’art. 12 della Convenzione delle Nazioni Unite sui diritti del fanciullo; rafforzare il ruolo della Rete giudiziaria europea in materia civile e commerciale; chiarire e consolidare le funzioni delle Autorità centrali designate da ciascuno Stato membro per garantire lo spedito ritorno del minore in caso di illecito trasferimento o mancato rientro.

Tra le novità prefigurate dalla proposta si segnalano le seguenti.

1. È istituita una procedura autonoma per il collocamento dei minori a carattere transnazionale. A tal fine, è stabilito un termine di otto settimane per lo Stato membro investito della richiesta di collocamento. La proposta introduce requisiti uniformi per i documenti necessari per il collocamento del minore, tra cui un obbligo di traduzione nella lingua dello Stato membro richiesto: l’autorità richiedente deve presentare una relazione sul minore e precisare i motivi sottesi alla richiesta di collocamento.

2. Viene introdotta una disposizione ai sensi della quale, al minore capace di discernimento (“who is capable of forming his or her own views”), deve essere data la possibilità “reale ed effettiva” di esprimere liberamente le proprie opinioni durante il procedimento che lo interessa (art. 20). L’art. 22 dispone che ciascuno Stato membro concentri dinanzi ad un numero limitato di tribunali la competenza per le richieste di ritorno (e che comunichi alla Commissione tali tribunali); avverso una decisione che disponga il ritorno del minore ovvero che lo neghi, sarà ammesso un solo grado di appello (art. 23, par. 4).

3. Si prevede l’abolizione della procedura di exequatur per tutte le decisioni concernenti la responsabilità genitoriale (art. 30 e seguenti). Il canale di circolazione preferenziale che il regolamento Bruxelles II bis accorda oggi alle sole decisioni relative al diritto di visita e a certe decisioni sul ritorno del minore sarà dunque esteso anche alle decisioni per cui, come quelle concernenti l’affidamento, il regolamento richiede ancora una dichiarazione di esecutività. L’abolizione dell’exequatur è accompagnata da tutele procedurali volte a garantire il diritto del convenuto ad un ricorso effettivo e ad un giudice imparziale sancito nell’art. 47 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali (articoli 40-42).

The CJEU has confirmed the views of Szpunar AG in C-222/15 Hőszig /Hoszig, without (much as expected) entertaining the lex fori prorogati rule of the Brussels I Recast.

Can choice of court made in underlying documentation in the context of a tender, for which Hőszig entered a winning bid, be considered valid under Article 23 of the Brussels I Regulation (now: Article 25 Brussels I Recast)? Yes, the Court said, with explicit reference to the AG. Crucial point in the consideration is whether per Case 24/76 Colzani an explicit reference to the choice has been made, reference which can be controlled by a party applying normal diligence and where it is established that the general conditions containing the jurisdiction clause was actually communicated to the other contracting party (at 40 in Hoszig). This was so in the case at issue. The court points out that Article 23 (and now Article 25) includes mostly formal requirements (expression of consent, see the references in my posting on the AG’s Opinion) and only one substantial requirement (choice of court needs to relate to an identified legal relationship between the parties). The remainder of discussion on the substantive requirements with respect to the choice of court agreement, is subject to the lex causae of that separate choice of court agreement (exactly why the current Regulation now includes the lex fori prorogati rule; Szpunar AG’s discussion of this clause however was not required to settle the issue and therefore the Court does not look into it).

‘(T)he Paris Courts [have exclusive and final jurisdiction]’ is sufficient for the CJEU to determine the choice of court with precision: it is perfectly acceptable that it will subsequently be French civil procedure laws that will determine precisely which court will have jurisdiction.

A sensible judgment following clear Opinion of the Advocate General, together further completing the choice of court provisions of Brussels I.

Geert.

(Handbook of) European Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.9 Heading 2.2.9.4. Chapter 3, Heading 3.2.2 .

The most recent issue of the German „Zeitschrift für Unternehmens- und Gesellschaftsrecht“ (ZGR, Journal of Enterprise and Corporate Law) has just been released. The volume is based on presentations given at a conference in Königstein/Taunus in January 2016. It contains several articles dealing with the relationship between private and criminal law and its impact on corporate governance. In particular, two articles approach the subject from a conflict-of-laws perspective. Here are the English abstracts:

Marc-Philippe Weller, Wissenszurechnung in internationalen Unternehmensstrafverfahren, ZGR 2016, pp. 384–413

The article deals with the imputation of knowledge in legal entities from a private and a criminal law perspective. Several foreign criminal proceedings against domestic companies induce this question. Firstly, the article demonstrates the different ways to determine the applicable law to this imputation. Secondly, it discusses measures to limit the imputation via knowledge governance.

Jan von Hein, USA: Punitive Damages für unternehmerische Menschenrechtsverletzungen, ZGR 2016, pp. 414–436

While German Law traditionally neither accepts universal civil jurisdiction for violations of customary international law nor a penal responsibility of corporations, foreign companies have in the past been frequently sued in the United States on the basis of the Alien Tort Statute of 1789 for the payment of punitive damages for alleged human rights violations. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has severely curtailed the reach of this jurisdiction in its groundbreaking Kiobel judgment of 2013. The present article analyzes, in light of the subsequent jurisprudence, the impact of this decision on German-American legal relations and the defenses available to German corporations.

Robert Freitag, Professor for private, European and international law at the University of Erlangen, Germany, has kindly provided us with his following thoughts on the recast Insolvency Regulation.

It is already some time since regulation Rome I on the law applicable to contractual obligations was published in the Official Journal. Some dinosaurs of private international law might still remember that pursuant to art. 29 (2) of regulation Rome I, the regulation was (as a general rule) supposed to be applied “from” December 17, 2009. Quite amazingly, art. 28 of the regulation stated that only contracts concluded “after” December 17, 2009, were to be governed by the new conflicts of law-regime. This lapse in the drafting of the regulation gave rise to a great amount of laughter as well as to some sincere discussions on the correct interpretation of the new law. The European legislator reacted in time by publishing a “Corrigendum” (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 87) clarifying that regulation Rome I is to be applied to all contracts concluded “as from” December 17, 2009.

Although one can thoroughly debate whether history generally repeats itself, it obviously does so on the European legislative level at least with regard to the intertemporal provisions of European private international law. The 2015 recast regulation on insolvency proceedings (Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings, OJ L 141, p. 19) has, according to its art. 92 (1), entered into force already on June, 26, 2015. However, the European legislator has accorded a lengthy transitional period to practitioners and national authorities. The recast regulation therefore foresees in art. 92 (2) that it will only be applicable “from” June 26, 2017. This correlates well with art. 84 (2) of the recast regulation, according to which “Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 shall continue to apply to insolvency proceedings which fall within the scope of that Regulation and which have been opened before 26 June 2017”. Since the old regime will be applicable only before June 26, 2017, the uninitiated reader would expect the new regime to replace the current one for all insolvency proceedings to be opened “as of” or “from” June 26, 2017. This is, hélas, not true under art. 84 (1) of the recast regulation which states that “[…] this Regulation shall apply only to insolvency proceedings opened after 26 June 2017.” The discrepancy between the two paragraphs of art. 84 is unfortunately not limited to the English version of the recast regulation; they can be observed in the French and the German text as well. The renewed display of incompetence in the drafting of intertemporal provisions would be practically insignificant if on June 26, 2017, all insolvency courts will be closed within the territorial realm of the recast regulation. Unfortunately, June 26, 2017 will be a Monday and therefore (subject to national holidays) an ordinary working day even for insolvency courts. The assumption seems rather farfetched that on one single day next summer no European insolvency regime at all will be in place and that the courts shall – at least for one day – revert to their long forgotten national laws. Art. 84 (1) of the recast regulation is therefore to be interpreted against its wordings as if stating that the new regime will be applicable “as of” (or “from”) June 26, 2017. This view is supported not only by art. 92 (2) and art. 84 (2), but also by art. 25 (2). The latter provision obliges the Commission to adopt certain implementation measures “by 26 June 2019”.

It would be kind of the Commission if once again it would publish a corrigendum prior to the relevant date. And it would be even kinder if the members of the “European legislative triangle”, i.e. the Commission, the European Parliament and the Counsel, would succeed in avoiding making the same mistake again in the future although there is the famous German saying “Aller guten Dinge sind drei” and it is time for an overhaul of regulation Rome II namely with respect to claims for damages for missing, wrong or misleading information given to investors on capital markets …

Rijeka Doctoral Conference is intended for doctoral candidates who wish to present and test their preliminary research findings before academics and practicing lawyers, as well as to discuss these findings with their peers. It is limited to topics of law or closely related to law, including of course private international law. RIDOC 2016 will be held on 2 December 2016 at the University of Rijeka Faculty of Law.
Details about the conference and call for papers are available here.

Dal 16 al 27 agosto 2016 si svolgerà a Urbino il 58ème Séminaire de Droit Comparé et Européen, organizzato dal Centro di studi giuridici europei dell’Università di Urbino “Carlo Bo” in collaborazione con l’Istituto svizzero di diritto comparato.

Nell’ambito dell’iniziativa si succederanno lezioni e conferenze su temi di diritto comparato ed europeo, diritto del commercio internazionale e diritto internazionale privato.

Quest’anno il seminario ospiterà, fra le altre, le lezioni di François Mailhé (Univ. Panthéon-Assas, Paris II) su Les accords d’élection de for, vieilles questions et nouveaux territoires, di Tuto Rossi (Univ. Fribourg) sugli Sviluppi recenti delle garanzie bancarie nel commercio internazionale, di Chris Thomale (Univ. Heidelberg) dal titolo A la recherche d’une coordination des compétences universelles civiles entre l’Union européenne et les Etats tiers, di Luigi Mari (Univ. Urbino “Carlo Bo”) su Il diritto internazionale privato sammarinese; di Paolo Morozzo Della Rocca (Univ. Urbino “Carlo Bo”) su Mariage et nationalité, e di Ilaria Pretelli (Istituto svizzero di diritto comparato) su Language, law and judicial training ou bien Les relations tripartites en droit international privé.

Le iscrizioni sono aperte sino al 30 luglio 2016. Occorre, a tal fine, inviare la domanda di partecipazione, compilata e sottoscritta, a edoardo.rossi@uniurb.it.

Maggiori informazioni sono disponibili a questo indirizzo. Il flyer dell’iniziativa è consultabile qui.

An unusually high proportion of cases under Article 22 (old) or 24 (Recast) Brussels I relate to family disputes on property. Webb v Webb, Weber v Weber, Komu v Komu, and now, C-417/15 Schmidt v Schmidt. It’s all about keeping up with the Joneses.

Kokott AG opined in Schmidt last week – the Opinion is not available in English. Mr Schmidt had gifted a (otherwise unspecified) piece of Vienna real estate to his daughter, who lives in Germany. Ms Schmidt is included in the land register as the owner. Mr Schmidt subsequently sues in Austria for the annulment of the gift due to alleged incapacity at the time of the gift, and for removal of the registration. Is the action caught by Article 24? (in which case Ms Schmidt’s claim of lack of jurisdiction fails).

The Advocate General first of all suggests that the referring court’s request should not be turned down simply because it did not specify the time of seizure: in other words it is not clear whether the case is covered by the old or the Recast Brussels I Regulation. Ms Kokott however suggests the Court should not be pedantic about this and answer the question regardless, seeing as the rule has not changed.

Next up and potentially trickier, is the exclusion of capacity from the scope of application of the Regulation. However the Advocate General is right when she suggest that the exclusions should only be relevant where they concern the main object of the litigation. Not, as here, when they are raised incidentally. (She discusses in some detail the linguistic implications given different wording in the different language versions of the Regulation).

Then to the real question. With respect to the annulment of the (gift) agreement, the object and purpose of plaintiff’s action is not the establishment or confirmation of an erga omnes right in rem. Rather, the confirmation of voidness of an agreement transferring such right, due to incapacity. That this will have erga omnes consequences if successful, is not to the point given the long-established need to apply Article 24 restrictively. In this respect this case is akin to C-294/92 Webb and Webb.

The analysis is different however, the AG suggests, for the request to delete the entry in the land register. This does aim directly at erga omnes consequences under Austrian law.

Ms Kokott subsequently rejects the notion that as a result of part of the suit being subject to Article 24, this should drag the remainder into the exclusive bath with it: at 48: if only because if one were to accept this, forum shopping would be facilitated. Including in its suit a procedure covered by Article 24 would enable plaintiff to draw in a whole range of other issues between the parties.

Finally, the AG suggests joinder of the contractual claim (the nullity of the gift) to the right in rem claim, is possible under Article 8(4) and rejects that national rules of civil procedure should or even can play a role in this respect. This part of the Opinion may be optimistically short. For if the joinder route of Article 8(4) may lead to the same result as the one the AG had just rejected, one assumes there ought to be discretion for the national courts to reject it. Not, as the AG rightly suggests, by reference to national civil procedure rules (that would lead to unequal application) but rather by reference to the (probably) EU inspired rule that abuse of Article 8 be avoided.

The Court will probably not answer all the questions the case raises, particularly on Article 8. Expect this to return.

Geert.

Il Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza dell’Università di Ferrara ospita il 20 luglio 2016, nella sua sede di Rovigo, un seminario in inglese dal titolo The Public Policy Exception in Turkish Private International Law.

I lavori inizieranno alle 17 e si incentreranno su una relazione di Çi̇çek Özgür dell’Università Erciyes di Kayseri.

La locandina dell’evento è disponibile qui.

Dan Jerker B. Svantesson, Private International Law and the Internet, 3a ed., Kluwer Law International, 2016, ISBN 9789041159564, pp. 728, 160 Euro

[Dal sito dell’editore] – The third edition of Private International Law and the Internet presents a detailed and insightful account of what is emerging as the most crucial and current issue in private international law: the interplay of private international law and the Internet. The author discusses how the controversial issues that stem from borderless Internet prove to be one of the greatest challenges for private international law and international legal cooperation as both are predicated on the existence of traditional borders that define jurisdictional boundaries. This book goes on to explain the following four fundamental questions: When should a lawsuit be entertained by the courts? Which state’s law should be applied?
When should a court that can entertain a lawsuit decline to do so? and Will a judgment rendered in one country be recognized and enforced in another? The book identifies and investigates twelve characteristics of Internet communication that are relevant to these questions and then proceeds with a detailed analysis of what is required of modern private international law rules.

Il sommario del volume può essere consultato qui.

Ulteriori informazioni a questo indirizzo.

The Brussels Court of Appeal has sided with Facebook  on 29 June. This post I am going to keep very, very simple: told you so. Geert.

The next Journal of Private International Law Conference will take place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil from 3-5 August 2017. We are now issuing a call for papers on any aspect of private international law.  Abstracts of a maximum of 500 words should be sent to  jprivintlrioconference2017@gmail.com by 15 November 2016.  The previous conferences at Aberdeen, Birmingham, New York, Milan, Madrid and Cambridge have been extremely successful.  The conference is the leading opportunity for private international law academics of all levels of seniority from around the world to gather together to advance our subject.

Speakers will not have to pay a registration fee for the conference but will be expected to fund their own travel expenses and accommodation costs. In addition, speakers will be expected to submit the finalised version of their articles for consideration for publication in the Journal of Private International Law in the first instance.

Sono apparsi nella Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea dell’8 luglio 2016 il regolamento (UE) 2016/1103 del 24 giugno 2016 che attua la cooperazione rafforzata nel settore della competenza, della legge applicabile, del riconoscimento e dell’esecuzione delle decisioni in materia di regimi patrimoniali tra coniugi, e il regolamento (UE) 2016/1104 del 24 giugno 2016 che attua la cooperazione rafforzata nel settore della competenza, della legge applicabile, del riconoscimento e dell’esecuzione delle decisioni in materia di effetti patrimoniali delle unioni registrate.

La disciplina racchiusa nei due strumenti si applicherà a decorrere dal 29 gennaio 2019 e interesserà, salvo eccezioni, solo i procedimenti avviati, gli atti pubblici formalmente redatti o registrati e le transazioni giudiziarie approvate o concluse in quella data o successivamente. L’applicabilità delle norme sui conflitti di leggi è peraltro circoscritta ai coniugi che hanno contratto matrimonio o che hanno designato la legge applicabile al loro regime patrimoniale successivamente al 29 gennaio 2019, ovvero ai partner che hanno registrato la loro unione o che hanno designato la legge applicabile agli effetti patrimoniali della loro unione successivamente a tale data.

Gli effetti del regolamento si produrranno comunque negli Stati membri che hanno manifestato l’intenzione di partecipare alla cooperazione rafforzata, vale a dire Belgio, Bulgaria, Repubblica ceca, Cipro, Croazia, Finlandia, Francia, Germania, Italia, Lussemburgo, Malta, Paesi Bassi, Austria, Portogallo, Slovenia,  e Spagna, Svezia.

The Belgian Council of State, chamber of legislation (in the title I call it a ‘parliamentary watchdog: for that is what it is. By issuing prior opinions on the legality of legislative initiative it guards against illegal Statute) has opined that a private members bill banning unstunned slaughter, does not pass the ECHR test.

A European Regulation (1099/2009) provides for an unclear, and conditional,  exemption for religious (regularly rather offendingly called ‘ritual’) slaughter. Practised in particular by the Jewish (Shechita; leading to ‘kosher’ meat) and Muslim (Zabihah; with halal meat) faith, a core aspect of the practice is that animals are not stunned prior to slaughter. The science on the effect of stunned or unstunned slaugther is  unequivocal, and most certainly neither stunned nor unstunned slaughter, when carried out incorrectly (well documented in the case of stunned slaughter) does not aid the welfare of the animal.

Religious slaughter falls squarely within the European Convention of Human Rights Article 9’s freedom of religious expression. Hence the Council of State summarily (its conciseness is rather attractive) reviews the ECtHR’s case-law and concludes that the proposed ban would be both unconstitutional and clearly against the provisions of the ECHR. On the EU Regulation front, I believe the EU rules are more problematic than the Opinion suggests (I have analysis on it forthcoming) however on the ECHR side of things, the Opinion could not be more correct. An outright ban on unstunned slaughter in the name of animal welfare or otherwise would offend freedom of religious expression to such a degree that it simply must not pass.

Geert.