Conflictoflaws

Cem Veziroglu, doctoral candidate at the University of Istanbul and research assistant at Koc University Law School has provided us with an abstract of his paper forthcoming in the European Company and Financial Law Review.  <!–more–>

Arbitrating Corporate Law Disputes:

A Comparative Analysis of Turkish, Swiss and German Law

Cem Veziroglu

The resolution of corporate law disputes by arbitration rather than litigation in national courts has been frequently favoured due to several advantages of arbitration, as well as the risks related to the lack of judicial independence, particularly in emerging markets. While the availability of arbitration appears to be a major factor influencing investment decisions, and there is a strong commercial interest in arbitrating corporate law disputes, the issue is unsurprisingly debated in respect of certain characteristics of the joint stock company as a legal entity. Hence the issue comprises a series of legal challenges related to both corporate law and arbitration law.

In a paper forthcoming in the European Company and Financial Law Review, I tackle the arbitrability of corporate law disputes and the validity of arbitration clauses stipulated in the articles of association (“AoA”) of joint stock companies. The study compares Turkish law with that of Germany and Switzerland and in particular tries to shed light on the current position of Turkish law with respect to (i) arbitrability of corporate law disputes, such as validity of general assembly resolutions and requests for corporate dissolution, (ii) validity and binding nature of an arbitration clause provided in the AoA. The paper also suggests practicable legislative recommendations as well as a model arbitration clause.

Arbitrability of Corporate Law Disputes

Under Turkish law corporate law disputes are, in principle, considered to be arbitrable, whereas disputes concerning the validity of general assembly resolutions and corporate dissolution are still heavily debated. I argue that both types of disputes are arbitrable, albeit judicial dissolution requests accommodate practical hurdles due to the magnitude of remedial power granted to judges by law. Moreover, I suggest that arbitral awards should be granted an erga omnes effect (the effects exceeding the parties to the dispute), as long as the interested third parties are provided with the necessary procedural protection. These procedural mechanisms may include the pending and consolidation of all actions filed before the arbitral tribunal and collective – or impartial – selection of arbitrators in multy-party arbitral proceedings.

It seems that the case law has thus far followed the distinction adopted by the orthodox doctrine in general terms; namely disputes concerning the validity of general assembly resolutions and corporate dissolution are deemed inarbitrable. However, considering the ever-growing pro-arbitration tendency in Turkey –in parallel with many other jurisdictions– it would not be surprising if a more flexible approach is eventually adopted in case law as well.

Place of the Arbitration Clause: Articles of Association or Shareholders Agreement?

It is necessary to provide an arbitration clause in the AoA of the company, rather than a shareholders’ agreement (“SHA”), in order to (i) prevent contradicting judgments handed down in parallel proceedings, (ii) be able to request claims peculiar to corporate law and (iii) ensure the binding effect vis-à-vis the company, board members and new shareholders as well as the current shareholders.

Validity of an Arbitration Clause Provided in the AoA

There is no rule under Turkish corporate law that restricts contractual freedom within the AoA of privately held joint stock companies that has the effect of restraining arbitration clauses. An arbitration clause can, therefore, be validly provided either in the original AoA or by way of an amendment thereof by way of a unanimous vote. However, the binding effect of the arbitration clause in question depends on its legal nature, namely, ‘corporative’ or ‘formal’ (contractual).

Addressing this issue, the paper proposes to adopt a two-step test and concludes that if an arbitration clause stipulated in the AoA is deemed corporative in nature, the company, the board members, the new shareholders, and the current shareholders are bound by such an arbitration clause. In the event that the arbitration clause in question is deemed to be a formal provision, it may still remain effective only among the parties as a purely contractual term.

Policy Recommendations

The arbitrability of corporate law disputes, the validity of arbitration clauses stipulated in the AoAs and the procedural standards to protect third parties’ interests should be clarified by an explicit legal provision. In fact, Article 697n of the Swiss Draft Code of Obligations dated 23 November 2016[1] and Italian Legislative Decree of 17 January 2003 No. 5 Articles 34-37 may offer motivating examples in this respect.

According to German Federal Court’s decision in 2009[2], an arbitration clause in the AoA is valid, provided that the protections and the opportunity of shareholders to participate in the proceedings comparable to those in national court proceedings are respected. Therefore Turkish courts should examine the arbitration clause in question in terms of the protection provided to shareholders, rather than applying an outright ban on such clauses in the AoA.

The leading arbitration institutions should draft and publish rules for corporate law disputes as annexes to their existing rules of arbitration. These should consider the issues peculiar to corporate law disputes. Hence, they should provide such mechanisms as the pending and consolidation of actions filed before the arbitral tribunal; collective -or impartial- selection of arbitrators so as to provide the minimum legal procedural protection granted to shareholders. A comprehensive example is the German Arbitration Institution’s ‘DIS-Supplementary Rules for Corporate Law Disputes 09’[3].

With a view to facilitating the incorporation of applicable and valid arbitration clauses into the AoA, a model arbitration clause for corporate law disputes should be published by leading arbitration institutions. Such a model clause may be inspired by the draft model clause found in the paper referenced above.

[1]     https://www.admin.ch/opc/fr/federal-gazette/2017/625.pdf.

[2]     BGH, 6 April 2009, II ZR 255/08, BGHZ 180, 221.

[3]     The said rules can be found at: http://www.disarb.org/en/16/rules/dis-supplementary-rules-for-corporate-law-disputes-09-srcold-id15.

On 12 September 2019, the University of Silesia in Katowice (Poland) will host an international conference on the Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council – the Succession Regulation and on the various issues relating to the succession matters within the European area of freedom, security and justice.

The conference is organized at the occasion of the annual session of the European Group for Private International Law (EGPIL/GEDIP) that will be held at the premises of the University of Silesia in Katowice at the invitation of a member of the Group and a Professor of this University – First Advocate General at the CJEU Maciej Szpunar.

The opening session of the conference will be devoted to the review of Member States’ first experiences with the application of the Succession Regulation. This session will be followed by two panel discussions.

The opening session and both panels will be attended by renowned scholars and practitioners, including but not limited to: Professor Stefania Bariatti (University of Milan), Professor Andrea Bonomi (University of Lausanne), Professor Jürgen Basedow (Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht), Professor Christian Kohler (University of Saarbrücken), Professor Paul Lagarde (University of Paris 1 – Panthéon-Sorbonne, Professor emeritus), Professor Cristina González Beilfuss (University of Barcelona) and Michael Wilderspin (European Commission).

The working language of the conference is English, no translation is foreseen.

The fee covering participation in the conference, additional materials and meals including attendance at the reception held after the closing of the deliberations equals to less than 60 EUR.

The draft programme of the conference is available here. More details are available at the website of the University hosting the conference.

Upon the conclusion of the conference, on 13 September 2019, the University of Silesia will award a Doctorate Honoris Causa to the renowned scholar, Professor Paul Lagarde who will deliver a commemorative lecture at this occasion. This ceremony will start at 11:00 AM.

For any inquires that you may have relating to these events, please contact monika.jagielska@us.edu.pl or krzysztof.pacula@curia.europa.eu.

The Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International (HCCH) seeks high-achieving interns for January to July 2020.

An internship with the HCCH offers a unique opportunity to deepen the knowledge of private international law, better understand how the HCCH functions, and contribute to the work of the Organisation.

Interested? Then lodge your application by Monday 30 September 2019.

For more information, including the application requirements, check out the HCCH website at: https://www.hcch.net/en/recruitment/internships#legal.

Less than a year after its decision in Case C-337/17 Feniks (discussed here), the Court of Justice had another opportunity to consider the extent to which the Brussels Ia Regulation provides a head of special jurisdiction for an actio pauliana. In Case C-722/17 Reitbauer (decided last Wednesday but still not available in English), the Court confirmed its decision in Feniks, according to which such an action falls under Art 7(1) Brussels Ia if it is based on a contractual right. Michiel Poesen, PhD candidate at KU Leuven, has been so kind as to share his thoughts on the decision with us in the following post.

Earlier this week, the Court of Justice of the European Union found that an actio pauliana is subject to jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract, contained in Article 7(1) Brussels Ia (Case C-722/17 Reitbauer).

In general terms, the actio pauliana is a remedy that allows a creditor to have an act declared ineffective, because said act was carried out by a debtor with the purpose of diminishing its assets by passing them on to a third party (see Opinion of AG Bobek, C-337/17 Feniks, [35]). This blogpost will briefly summarise the Court’s ruling and its wider impact.

Facts

The facts leading to the ruling are quite complex. Mr Casamassima and Ms Isabel C., both resident in Rome, lived together at least until the spring of 2014. In 2010, they purchased a house in Villach, Austria. While Mr Casamassima apparently funded the transaction, Isabel C. was registered in the land register as the sole owner.

Ms Isabel C. – with the ‘participation’ of Mr Casamassima – entered into contracts for extensive renovation works of the house with Reitbauer and others (the applicants in the preliminary reference proceedings, hereinafter referred to as ‘Reitbauer’). Because the costs of the renovation far exceeded the original budget, payments to Reitbauer were suspended. From 2013 onwards, Reitbauer were therefore involved in judicial proceedings in Austria against Ms Isabel C. Early 2014, the first of a series of judgments was entered in favour of Reitbauer. Ms Isabel C. appealed against those judgments.

On 7 May 2014 before a court in Rome, Ms Isabel C. acknowledged Mr Casamassima’s claim against her with respect to a loan agreement which was granted by the latter in order to finance the acquisition of the house in Villach. Ms Isabel C. undertook to pay this amount to the latter under a court settlement. In addition, she agreed to have a mortgage registered on the house in Villach in order to secure Mr Casamassima’s claim.

On 13 June 2014 a (further) certificate of indebtedness and pledge certificate was drawn up in Vienna by a notary to guarantee the above settlement (‘the pledge’). With this certificate, the pledge on the house in Villach was created on 18 June 2014.

The judgments in favour of Reitbauer did not become enforceable until after this date. The pledges on the house of Ms Isabel C. held by Reitbauer, obtained by way of legal enforcement proceedings, therefore ranked behind the pledge in favour of Ms Casamassima.

In order to realise the pledge, Mr Casamassima applied in February 2016 to the referring court (the District Court in Villach, Austria) for an order against Ms Isabel C., requiring a compulsory auction of the house in Villach. The house was auctioned off in the autumn of 2016. The order of entries in the land register shows that the proceeds would go more or less entirely to Mr Casamassima because of the pledge.

With a view to preventing this, Reitbauer brought an action for avoidance (‘Anfechtungsklage’) in June 2016 before the Regional Court in Klagenfurt, Austria, against Mr Casamassima and Ms Isabel C. The action was dismissed by that court due to a lack of international jurisdiction, given Casamassima’s and Isabel C’s domicile outside of Austria.

At the same time, Reitbauer filed an opposition before the district court of Villach, Austria, in the course of the proceedings regarding distribution of the proceeds from the compulsory auction, and subsequently brought opposition proceedings against Mr Casamassima. In these opposition proceedings, Reitbauer sought a declaration 1) that the decision regarding the distribution to Mr Casamassima of the proceeds of the action was not legally valid for reasons of compensation between Ms Isabel C.’s claims and those of Mr Casamassima, and 2) that the pledge certificate was drawn up to frustrate Reitbauer’s enforcement proceedings with regard to the house in Villach. Essentially, the second part of Reitbauer’s action was based on the allegation that Ms Isabel C. had acted with fraudulent intent, therefore being a form of actio pauliana.

Decision

The Court of Justice had to consider first whether jurisdiction in proceedings that have as their object rights in rem in immovable property or tenancies of immovable property, provided in Article 24(1) Brussels Ia, was applicable. To trigger this ground of jurisdiction, Reitbauer and others alleged that their action was closely related to the house in Villach.

In reaching its conclusion, the Court reiterated that Article 24(1) Brussels Ia does not encompass all actions concerning rights in rem in immovable property, but only those which both come within the scope of th Regulation and are actions which seek to determine the extent, content, ownership or possession of immovable property or the existence of other rights in rem therein and to provide the holders of those rights with protection for the powers which attach to their interest (Case C-722 Reitbauer, [44]; see also Case C?417/15 Schmidt, [30])

This definition implies that an action was based on rights in rem, not on rights in personam. The part of the action alleging compensation between Casamassima’s and Isabel C.’s claims does not satisfy this requirement, as it aims at contesting the existence of the Mr Casamassima’s right in personam that was the cause of the enforcement proceedings.

The second part of the action, the actio pauliana, does not fit within in rem jurisdiction either. The Court found that such an action does not involve the assessment of facts or the application of rules and practices of the locus rei sitae in such a way as to justify conferring jurisdiction on a court of the State in which the property is situated (Case C-722 Reitbauer, [48]; see also C-115/88 Reichert I, [12]).

Having come to this conclusion, the Court decided that jurisdiction over the actions brought by Reitbauer and others was not subject to Article 24(5) Brussels Ia either – which contains a special ground of jurisdiction “in proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments”. According to the Court, this bespoke ground of jurisdiction is to be understood as englobing proceedings that may arise from “recourse to force, constraint or distraint on movable or immovable property in order to ensure the effective implementation of judgments and authentic instruments” (Case C-722 Reitbauer, [52]; see also Case C?261/90 Reichert II, [28]) .

Reitbauer and others’ actions were clearly not related to the enforcement of the judgment but to the substantive rights underlying the pledge which was being enforced. For that reason, enforcement jurisdiction was to remain inapplicable.

Having reached the conclusion that no exclusive ground of jurisdiction could apply, the Court went on to consider Art 7(1) Brussels Ia – jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract. Following a short motivation (Case C-722 Reitbauer, [56]–[62]) the Court confirmed that the part of Reitbauer and others’ action amounting to an actio pauliana was a matter relating to a contract. As in the Feniks ruling, the reason cited is that the action aims at preserving Reitbauer and others’ contractual rights by setting aside the creditor’s allegedly fraudulent acts (Case C-722 Reitbauer, [58]–[59]; Case C-337/17 Feniks, [43]–[44]).

As a consequence, Art 7(1)(b) Brussels Ia allocates jurisdiction to the place of performance of the allegedly defrauded contract, being Villach since Reitbauer and others delivered their renovation services in that location (see Case C-337/17 Feniks, [46]).

The Purpose and Role of Art 7(1) Brussels Ia

As far as the exclusive grounds of jurisdiction in Art 24(1) and 24(5) Brussels Ia are concerned, the decision can hardly be considered surprising. Reitbauer and others tried to plead their actions as relating to a matter covered by exclusive jurisdiction, with the aim of suing the Italian domiciled defendants in Austria instead of Italy (which would be the outcome of the default rule of jurisdiction of Art 4(1) Brussels Ia). This attempt was bound to fail.

More interestingly, the Court confirmed that an action pauliana can be a matter relating to a contract. This emerging line of case law is met with criticism. One of the points raised was that a defendant may be ignorant of the contract it allegedly helped to defraud. In such a situation, applying contract jurisdiction would trigger a forum that is unforeseeable for the defendant (an outcome that the Court rightly attempted to avoid in Case C-26/91 Handte, [19]). A response to this criticism would be not to apply contract jurisdiction to an actio pauliana altogether, as suggested earlier by AG Bobek (Opinion of AG Bobek, C-337/17 Feniks, [62]–[72]). There, the AG opined that an actio pauliana is too tenuously and too remotely linked to a contract to be a matter relating to a contract for the purpose of Art 7(1) Brussels Ia. Alternatively, AG Tanchev opined that the defendant’s knowledge should be taken into account (Opinion in Case C-722/17):

[84] … knowledge of a third party should act as a limiting factor: … the third party needs to know that the legal act binds the defendant to the debtor and that that causes harm to the contractual rights of another creditor of the debtor (the applicants).

[92] … the defendant’s knowledge of the existence of the contract(s) at issue is important.

Instead of realigning the Feniks ruling with the principle of foreseeability, the decision in Reitbauer confirmed that an actio pauliana fits squarely within jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract, the driving factor seemingly being the hope to offer the claimant an additional forum that presumably has a close connection to the dispute (Case C-722 Reitbauer, [60]: Case C-337/17 Feniks, [44]–[45]).

Looking beyond the actio pauliana, the case law begs the question what other types of remedies – however remotely linked to a contract – could be subject to Art 7(1) Brussels Ia. An action for wrongful interference with contract, for example, regarded to be tortious in nature (e.g. Tesam Distribution Ltd v Schuh Mode Team GmbH and Commerzbank AG [1990] I.L.Pr. 149), would be a matter relating to a contract by the standard applied in Feniks and Reitbauer. It is doubtful whether such a broad construction of jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract complies with the limited role of Art 7(1) Brussels Ia within the Regulation (Recital (15) Brussels Ia).

Professor Matthias Lehmann, Director of the Institute for Private International and Comparative Law, University of Bonn, University of Bonn, Germany, is looking for one highly skilled and motivated PhD candidate and fellow (Wissenschaftliche/r Mitarbeiter/in) on a part-time basis (50%). The earliest starting date is 1 October 2019.

The successful candidate holds a first law degree, preferably from a jurisdiction outside of Germany. She or he is acquainted in the comparative and international dimensions of private law, and ideally also interested in questions of financial law, in particular the new problems raised by cryptocurrencies. An excellent command of English and a basic knowledge of German are required. Knowledge of another language as well as good IT skills are additional factors that may be taken into consideration.

The fellow will be given the opportunity to conduct his/her PhD project or post-doc project according to the Faculty’s regulations. The position is paid according to the German public salary scale E-13 TV-L, 50% (about 1300 Euro net per month). There will be an opportunity to increase the position and salary to 75% as of April 1, 2020 should the candidate wish to do so. The initial contract period is up to three years, with the option to have a shorter period or to renew it, according to the wishes of the candidate. Responsibilities include independent teaching obligations (2 hours per week during the semester in a subject of choice of the candidate) as supporting Professor Lehmann in his research and teaching.

If you are interested in this position, please send your application (cover letter in English; CV; and relevant documents and certificates, notably university transcripts and a copy of law degree) to lehrstuhl.lehmann@jura.uni-bonn.de by July 22, 2019. The University of Bonn is an equal opportunity employer.

To register please click on the official Fortaleza Forum website.

The Forum is open to any interested expert. Participation is free of charge but advance registration is required. The deadline for registrations is Friday 13 September 2019.

The HCCH news item is available here.

The Faculty of Law at the University of Trier is looking for a research assistant (Wissenschaftliche(r) Mitarbeiter(in) (m/w/d)) at the Chair for Private Law, Private International Law and Comparative Law (Prof. Dr. Jens Kleinschmidt, LL.M. (Berkeley)) on a part-time basis (50 %).

The position will be paid according to the salary scale E 13 TV-L, and the contract will be for an initial period until 30 June 2022.

The research fellow will be given the opportunity to conduct a Ph.D. project under the chairholder’s supervision (according to the applicable regulations of the Law Faculty). His/her tasks will include supporting the chairholder in research, teaching and administrative matters, an independent teaching obligation of 2 hours/week (in German) and pursuing his/her own Ph.D. project.

The successful candidate holds a first law degree (Erste juristische Prüfung) above average and has a particular interest in private law and the willingness to work in the research areas of the chair. A very good command of German and, in addition, English or French is required. Knowledge of another language or a stay abroad will be an asset.

Candidates with disabilities will be given preference in case of equal qualification. Applications by qualified women are particularly welcome.

If you are interested, please send your application (cover letter in German, CV, all relevant documents including transcripts and copy of law degree) by 31 July 2019 to

Professor Dr. Jens Kleinschmidt
Universität Trier
FB V – Rechtswissenschaft
54286 Trier
Germany

As the application documents will not be returned, applicants are kindly requested to submit only unauthenticated copies.

The full job advert in German is available here.

The agenda of the 11th International Forum on the electronic Apostille Program (e-APP) (to be held from 16 to 18 October 2019 in Fortaleza, Brazil) has been released, click here. For more information, see my previous post here.

The HCCH news item is available here.

This spring, the first meeting of the newly established Young EU Private International Law Research Network  was held at the University of Würzburg (please find more information about this event here). The first research project and meeting in Würzburg dealt with the “Recognition/Acceptance of Legal Situations” in the EU.

The cooperation involving the young generation of private international lawyers is intended to be continued with annual conferences. The next meeting of the network will take place at ELTE Eötvös Loránd University,Budapest on  20 March 2020. The conference will focus on overriding mandatory provisionswith particular regard to national legislation and court practice outside the scope of application of the EU private international law regulations. The provisions of the EU private international law regulations, and in particular the Rome I and II Regulations, on overriding mandatory provisions and the related case law received considerable attention among commentators. However, less attention has been devoted to the treatment of overriding mandatory provisions in the law of the Member States outside the scope of application of the EU private international law regulations. The areas concerned may include property law, family law, company law, etc. A comprehensive comparative study is missing in this field. In order to map the similarities and differences of the approaches of the private international law of the Member States, national reports will be prepared. Based on these national reports, a general report will be produced.

The conference will consist of a morning session where overriding mandatory rules will be discussed in a general way (e.g., the appearance of overriding mandatory provisions in property law, family law, arbitration, their interconnection with human rights, etc.) and an afternoon workshop where participants will discuss the outcome of the national reports and the conclusions of the general report.

If you are interested in the research project or the activity of the Young EU Private International Law Research Network, please do not hesitate to contact us (youngeupil@gmail.com).

Posted on behalf of the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH)

The full text of the Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters is now available online. The HCCH released the text of the Convention on its website.

You can it find it here.

Additional information, including the final version of the Explanatory Report to the Convention will be available soon.

Anna Bizer, doctoral candidate at the University of Freiburg, has kindly provided us with her thoughts on AG Szpunar’s opinion in the case of Glawischnig-Piesczek v Facebook Ireland (C-18/18).

Since the EP-proposal from 2012, the European Union has not shown any efforts to fill the gap still existing in the Rome II Regulation regarding violations of personality rights (Article 1(2)(g)). However, Advocate General Szpunar has just offered some thoughts on the issue in his opinion on the case of Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek v Facebook Ireland Limited (C-18/18) from 18 June 2019.

Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek, an Austrian politician, claimed that a Facebook user had violated her personality right by posting a defamatory comment on the social network. She sued Facebook Ireland for the removal of the publication in question as well as other identical and/or equivalent publications. The commercial court in Vienna granted a corresponding injunction and Facebook Ireland did indeed disable access to the publication – but only in Austria by means of geo-blocking. Hereafter, the Austrian Supreme Court referred various questions to the CJEU regarding the interpretation of Article 15(1) of the e-Commerce Directive (Directive 2000/31) which prohibits the imposition of a general monitoring obligation on host providers. While the details of the responsibility of host providers regarding their users’ activities are certainly interesting, this comment focuses on the territorial dimension of the provider’s obligation to delete certain online content. So, the crucial question is whether an Austrian court may oblige Facebook Ireland to make a user’s comment globally inaccessible or whether the injunction is limited to the respective state of the court.

First of all, the AG addresses the issue of jurisdiction by referring to the CJEU’s eDate decision (C-509/09, C-161/10): „the court of a Member State may, as a general rule, adjudicate on the removal of content outside the territory of that Member State, as the territorial extent of its jurisdiction is universal. A court of a Member State may be prevented from adjudicating on a removal worldwide not because of a question of jurisdiction but, possibly, because of a question of substance.” (para. 86) This statement is, in fact, convincing as the CJEU decided in Bolagsupplysningen (C-194/16, para. 48) that the removal of content is a single and indivisible application which can only be made by a court with “universal” jurisdiction (see our earlier posts here and here).

AG Szpunar further states that the territorial dimension of an injunction cannot be determined by Articles 1, 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights because the original claim was not based on EU law and was therefore outside the scope of the Charter (para. 89). In addition, neither did the claimant invoke the European law on data protection (para. 90) nor does the Brussels Ibis Regulation require that an injunction issued by the court of a Member State also has effects in third states (para. 91). Thus, the AG’s – convincing – result is that EU law does not regulate the question of the territorial scope of an injunction regarding the violation of personality rights (para. 93).

However – and now the interesting part begins – AG Szpunar elaborates on the question of assessing cross-border violations of personality rights in case the CJEU did not agree with the inapplicability of EU law (para. 94-103). These considerations are not based on any legal text as, according to the AG, the question is not regulated by EU law.

Generally, AG Szpunar is not comfortable with a worldwide obligation to remove an online publication, “because of the illegality of that information established under an applicable law, [such an obligation] would have the consequence that the finding of its illegality would have effects in other States. In other words, the finding of the illegal nature of the information in question would extend to the territories of those other States” (para. 80). To avoid this effect, a worldwide obligation of removal could only be justified when all potentially applicable laws agree. Of course, this leads to disadvantages: “should a claimant be required, in spite of the practical difficulties, to prove that the information characterised as illegal according to the law designated as applicable under the conflict rules of the Member State in which he brought the action is illegal according to all the potentially applicable laws?” (para. 97). AG Szpunar leaves this question unanswered and continues to focus on the freedom of information: „the legitimate public interest in having access to information will necessarily vary, depending on its geographic location, from one third State to another. Thus, as regards removal worldwide, there is a danger that its implementation will prevent persons established in States other than that of the court seised from having access to the information.” (para. 99)

To avoid this conflict between the freedom of information and personality rights, AG Szpunar recommends the following: “However, owing to the differences between, on the one hand, national laws and, on the other, the protection of the private life and personality rights provided for in those laws, and in order to respect the widely recognised fundamental rights, such a court must, rather, adopt an approach of self-limitation. Therefore, in the interest of international comity […] that court should, as far as possible, limit the extraterritorial effects of its junctions concerning harm to private life and personality rights. The implementation of a removal obligation should not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the protection of the injured person. Thus, instead of removing the content, that court might, in an appropriate case, order that access to that information be disabled with the help of geo-blocking.” (para. 100) “Those considerations cannot be called into question by the applicant’s argument that the geo-blocking of the illegal information could be easily circumvented by a proxy server or by other means.” (Rz. 101)

First, it is noteworthy that the AG strongly emphasizes the freedom of information. So far, this aspect has been rather neglected in the discussion on violations of personality rights compared to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. However, including freedom of information in the balancing of interest reflects that a publication necessarily requires to be noted by at least one other person to have defamatory effects.

Second, the AG sees the solution in geo-blocking. This solution can of course be considered worthy to be debated further as geo-blocking is already a popular means used amongst host providers. However, it is not clear from the AG’s statement why the risk of circumvention should not be considered, although any order by a court to protect personality rights ought to be effective. In any case, this approach conflicts with the efforts of the European Union to restrict geo-blocking within the internal market (Regulation (EU) 2018/302) and should thus not be supported.

Third, the AG’s approach leads to a rather unsatisfactory result for the claimant. One should not forget how the internet generally and social media especially operate: interesting content will be shared and disseminated again and again. These new publications, however, will not be restricted by geo-blocking unless the host provider actively intervenes.

Fourth, it is doubtful if the AG’s approach is fit for reality: the idea of an approach of self-limitation for the courts based on the question “What is really necessary?” appears rather vague and not helpful for the deciding judges. This question is of a fundamental nature and requires an evaluative assessment. In order to achieve legal certainty, this crucial question of necessity should be answered by the legislature or at least the CJEU and should not be decided on a case-by-case-basis.

Fifth, one has to consider the effects of this proposal in the context of conflict of laws in a technical sense: if a claimant wanted Facebook to delete a publication globally and a court had “universal” jurisdiction according to eDate and Bolagsupplysningen, the court – in accordance with the suggestion of the AG – would have to apply the laws of each state from which the publication is still accessible. To make a long story short: Adopting the AG’s proposal means resurrecting the mosaic approach in conflict of laws! This appears to be a step backwards. Not only are the disadvantages of the mosaic principle in times of the internet commonly known, but also this approach contradicts the CJEU’s rejection of the mosaic principle regarding the question of jurisdiction in actions for the removal of publications (Bolagsupplysningen).

Finally, the question of the direct consequences of this opinion remains. It is likely that the CJEU will follow the first proposal of AG Szpunar that the question of the territorial dimension of an injunction for the violation of personality rights is not regulated by EU law and can thus not be decided by the CJEU. However, the AG’s opinion offers a new and interesting perspective on the issue of cross-border violations of personality rights which might give a boost to achieve international harmonisation.

Prepared by Cara North, external consultant to the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH). This post reflects only personal views.

Today marks a momentous occasion (in the private international law world at least): the conclusion of the Diplomatic Session on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (“Judgments Convention”) (a link to the final text of the Convention will be available soon at www.hcch.net). A Convention that, as noted by the Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (“HCCH”) during his opening remarks for the Session, will be a “gamechanger for cross-border dispute settlement and an apex stone for global efforts to improve real and effective access to justice.”

The origins of the Judgments Convention date back to the early 1990s with a proposal from the United States of America for a mixed convention dealing with the exercise of jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. After many years of hard work on a draft instrument, it was decided that such an instrument was indeed too ambitious, and it was preferable for the HCCH to focus on more specific projects that fell within the remit of that work. The HCCH refocussed its energies on an instrument concerning exclusive choice of court agreements and, with the benefit of the hard work undertaken in the early 1990s, the  Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (“Choice of Court Convention”) was concluded in 2005. That Convention entered in to force in 2015 with Mexico and the European Union becoming Contracting Parties. Since then, Singapore and Montenegro have followed suit and a few other States have either signed the Convention or otherwise indicated their intention to become party to the Convention.

Following the successful conclusion of the Choice of Court Convention, the HCCH once again took stock of potential future projects. In 2012, the train was set in motion for work and negotiations on the Judgments Convention to commence. At first it was decided that the work on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments would be undertaken alongside work on regulating international jurisdiction in civil or commercial matters. However, it was then decided that work would first proceed on drafting an instrument on the recognition and enforcement of judgments, with work on international jurisdiction to follow thereafter.

Some seven years and many meetings later, the Judgments Convention has been concluded. Sharing in the enthusiasm for this long-standing project Uruguay signed the Convention today.

The Objectives and Architecture of the Judgments Convention

Broadly speaking, like the Choice of Court Convention, the objectives of the Judgments Convention are (i) enhancing access to justice and (ii) facilitating cross-border trade and investment by reducing the costs and risks associated with cross-border dealings.

Building on the hard work undertaken in the early 2000s to complete the Choice of Court Convention and with the intention of the Judgments Convention operating as a sister instrument to the Choice of Court Convention, the Judgments Convention took, where appropriate, the basic structure and provisions of the Choice of Court Convention as its starting point. The working method adopted was to depart from the provisions of the Choice of Court Convention only where there was good reason to do so.

With that basic structure and working method in mind, work then focussed on the circumstances in which it would be largely uncontroversial for a civil or commercial judgment rendered in the courts of one Contracting State to be recognised and enforced in the courts of another Contracting State.

A comprehensive overview of the provisions in the Judgments Convention will be found in the forthcoming Explanatory Report to the Judgments Convention. This blog post serves to highlight just some of the key provisions.

A Brief Overview of Some Key Provisions

The Convention is separated into four chapters. Chapter I concerns the scope and definitions. Articles 1 and 2 provide the scope of the Convention (i.e., civil or commercial matters) and Article 2 of the Convention provides a number of exclusions from scope. In some respects, these exclusions mirror the exclusions found in the Choice of Court Convention. There are, however, some notable differences including the exclusion of privacy matters and the exclusion of intellectual property matters (a topic which was the subject of a considerable amount of consultation and discussion), as well as some notable inclusions such as certain tort matters, judgments ruling on rights in rem in immovable property and tenancies of immovable property as well as a very limited number of anti-trust (competition) law matters (emphasis added). Article 3 provides a number of important definitions, including the definition of “judgment”. The Convention provides for the circulation of final judgments, this includes both money and non-money judgments. This is of particular importance because while some jurisdictions recognise and enforce money judgments under national law, the traditional approach under others (e.g., under the common law system) is to decline to enforce non-money judgments.

Chapter II contains several core provisions. Most importantly, it identifies the judgments that are eligible for recognition and enforcement and sets out the process for the recognition and enforcement of those judgments.  In this respect, Article 4 contains the core obligation under the Convention. It provides that “a judgment given by a court of a Contracting State shall be recognised and enforced in another Contracting State in accordance with [Chapter 2 of the Convention].” Article 5 then sets out the categories of judgments that are eligible for recognition and enforcement. It contains an exhaustive list of indirect grounds of jurisdiction. These grounds fall into three broad categories based on (i) the connection between the State of origin and the defendant (e.g., habitual residence in the State of origin), (ii) jurisdiction based on consent (e.g., express consent to the court of origin in the course of proceedings) or (iii) a connection between the claim and the State of origin (e.g., place of performance of the contract).  Some of these grounds are commonly found in regional instruments concerning the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil or commercial matters and/or are under the national law of many jurisdictions, for other jurisdictions the provisions will significantly broaden the basis on which courts will be obliged to recognise and enforce foreign judgments. At this juncture, it should be noted that the Convention, with one exception, does not limit recognition and enforcement under national law in any way. Article 15 of the Convention provides that, subject to Article 6, the Convention does not prevent the recognition or enforcement of judgments under national law. Article 6 contains one exclusive basis of jurisdiction concerning rights in rem in immovable property. It provides that where a judgment ruled on rights in rem in immovable property, that judgment will be recognised and enforced under the Convention if and only if the State of origin is the State in which the property is situated. Article 7(1) contains the specific grounds on which recognition or enforcement may be refused.  There are two categories of grounds (i) based on the way the proceedings took place in the State of origin (e.g., improper notice); or (ii) based on the nature and content of the judgment (e.g., where the judgment is inconsistent with a judgment given by a court of the State in which enforcement is sought).

Articles 8 to 11 provide for specific issues concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention and Articles 12 to 14 concern the process for recognition and enforcement of judgments under the Convention and largely mirror the relevant Choice of Court Convention provisions. As noted above, Article 15 – the last Article in Chapter II – is an important provision in that it cements the basic premise of the Judgments Convention i.e., that it sets the minimum standards for the recognition and enforcement of judgments among Contracting States.

Chapter III deals with general clauses and importantly includes a number of permissible declarations such as (i) declarations with respect to specific matters (Article 18) which enables a State to declare that it will not apply the Convention to a specific matter where that State has a strong interest in doing so (the same provision is found in Article 21 of the Choice of Court Convention); and (ii) declarations with respect to judgments pertaining to States (Article 19). Article 19 enables a State to make a declaration excluding the application of the Convention to judgments which arose from proceedings to which a State was a party, even where the judgment relates to civil or commercial matters.

Finally, Chapter IV of the Convention deals with final clauses, which concern important matters such as the process for ratification of the Convention and the establishment of treaty relations between Contracting States.

What’s next?

With the successful conclusion of the Judgments Convention, the HCCH can once again look to future projects in the area of international civil and commercial litigation. So, what’s next for the work programme of the HCCH in this space?

First, the HCCH is set to resume work on matters relating to jurisdiction. The 2019 Conclusions and Recommendations following the meeting of the Council on General Affairs and Policy (the governing body that sets the work programme of the HCCH) provide that in February 2020 the Experts’ Group will resume its work “addressing matters relating to jurisdiction with a view to preparing an additional instrument”.

Second, as a decision was made to exclude intellectual property matters from the scope of the Convention, the Diplomatic Session invited “the Council on General Affairs and Policy to consider, at its 2020 meeting, what, if any, further work it wishes the HCCH to undertake on the intersection between private international law and intellectual property”. This decision was recorded in the Final Act of the Judgments Convention.

Decades since work commenced in this area, the conclusion of the Judgments Convention is a significant milestone for the HCCH. But more importantly, with the exponential growth in international trade since the commencement of the Judgments Project, and the consequential corresponding increase in the number of transnational commercial disputes, it is now more important than ever for parties engaged in cross-border disputes to have effective access to justice. Once widely ratified, the Convention will go a long way toward enhancing access to justice and facilitating cross-border trade and investment.

Posted for the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH)

Today, the delegates of the 22nd Diplomatic Session of the HCCH signed the Final Act of the 2019 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters – the birth of new treaty and an important day for global justice as well as for the HCCH.

The signing of the Final Act took place during a ceremony in the Great Hall of Justice in the Peace Palace in the presence of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Mr Stef Blok.

The Minister emphasised that the new Convention: “enhances the legal certainty and predictability that is so important in international legal matters…”.

This new Convention will be essential to reducing transactional and litigation costs in cross-border dealings and to promoting international access to justice. It will increase certainty and predictability, promote the better management of transaction and litigation risks, and shorten timeframes for the recognition and enforcement of a judgement in other jurisdictions, providing better, more effective, and cheaper justice for individuals and businesses alike. A true gamechanger in international dispute resolution.

The Secretary General of the HCCH, Dr Christophe Bernasconi, stressed that the 2019 Judgments Convention fills an important gap in private international law. He also reminded delegates that with the signing of the Final Act, the work of promoting the 2019 Judgments Convention has only just begun. Professor Paul Vlas, President of the 22nd Diplomatic Session, echoed this sentiment and reiterated that the fast, wide and effective uptake of the Convention by the international community is its next milestone.

After the signing of the Final Act, Uruguay signed as first State the new 2019 Judgments Convention.

The text of the 2019 Judgments Convention, the HCCH’s 40th global instrument, will be available shortly on www.hcch.net.

An ordinary case for the recognition of a German order appointing a legal guardian became a sheer nightmare for the applicant. It took her twelve years in total, three decisions in Germany and another six in Greece, for finally being recognized as an appointed legal guardian of her husband…

The case is primarily interesting for German colleagues, given that it concerns the 1961 bilateral treaty on the recognition and enforcement of judgments between the two states; however, it serves as a general pattern for the selection of the proper applicable law in similar cases, irrespective of the nationality of the foreign judgment. More here.

Posted for the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law:

Today, the HCCH finalised the text for a new multilateral treaty: the 2019 HCCH Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters.

The 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention will be a single global framework, enabling the free circulation of judgments in civil or commercial matters across borders. It will be essential to reducing the transactional and litigation costs in cross-border dealings and to promoting international access to justice. It will provide a legal regime that further increases certainty and predictability in cross-border dealings, promotes the better management of transaction and litigation risks, and which shortens timeframes for the recognition and enforcement of a judgement in other jurisdictions.

The 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention will provide better, more effective, and cheaper justice for individuals and businesses alike – a gamechanger in international dispute resolution.

The Final Act will be signed during a ceremony which will take place tomorrow, 2 July 2019, in the Great Hall of Justice in the Peace Palace.

Follow the HCCH on this journey with #2019HCCHDS and #2019HCCHJudgments

Adding to the list of recent German publications on Private International Law, the 3rd edition of Volume VI of the German NomosKommentar BGB has just been published.

The book edited by Heinz-Peter Mansel (University of Cologne) and Rainer Hüßtege (Higher Regional Court of Munich) offers detailed commentary on the Rome I, II, and III Regulations, the Succession Regulation (650/2012), the two new Regulations on matrimonial property regimes and property consequences of registered partnerships (2016/1103 and 2016/1104), and on the 2007 Hague Maintenance Obligations Protocol. The authors include both academics and practitioners, with the book seeking to not only make a contribution to legal scholarship but to also provide guidance for legal practitioners working on cross-border cases.

On 8 July 2019, the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law will host the third conference organized in the framework of the ILA Committee on the Protection of Privacy in Private International and Procedural Law, chaired by Prof. Dr. Dres. h.c. Burkhard Hess. After having tackled, in 2014, the shaping of a new understanding of the right to privacy and its impact on competing fundamental rights and having explored, in 2017, some of the most controversial issues lying at the intersection between private international and data protection law, this conference takes a step forward and explores emerging aspects in the protection of privacy in interconnected digital environments. Gathering international leading experts in this area of the law, the conference defines the current challenges and offers prospective solutions, illustrating the need for either significant adaptations of traditional concepts or the pursuit of innovative solutions.

More details on the event are available here.

Participation in the event is free of charge but registration via email by 3 July is a prerequisite (events@mpi.lu).

For those of you who read German it is great news that volume 2 of the leading German textbook on Private International Law, ‘Internationales Privatrecht’ by Christian von Bar has just been published in a second edition, now authored by Peter Mankowski. The impressive book offers a comprehensive analysis of the current framework of Private International Law concepts and rules in specific areas of law: contractual and non-contractual obligations, law of property, family law, law of succession, personal law of natural persons and company law. The book combines a didactic approach with a far-reaching comparative methodology and admirable in-depth analyses. An indispensable reference guide and source of inspiration for everyone interested in Private International Law! Highly recommended!

Further information and the table of contents can be found here and here.

In July 2018, Professors Claudia Schubert (then University of Bochum, now Hamburg), Yuanshi Bu and Jan von Hein (both University of Freiburg) organised a comparative, Chinese-German symposium on the recent codification of the general principles of Chinese private law and their implications for freedom of contract (including choice of law) in Freiburg. The contributions to this conference have now been published in a special edition of the German Journal of Chinese Law (Zeitschrift für Chinesisches Recht [ZChinR]) Vol. 26 No. 1 (2019). The full issue is available (for subscribers) here. All the articles are in German, but the authors have kindly provided the following English abstracts:

Franz Jürgen Säcker: The Development of Civil Law in Accordance with the Constitutional and Economic Order (§ 1 General Part of the Chinese Civil Code)

The article compares the General Part of the German Civil Code with the General Part of the Chinese Civil Code. The author positively assesses the fundamental-rights-related provisions at the top of the Chinese Civil Code, their serving as ideal guiding principles on interpretative matters. Further, he welcomes the inclusion of intention and fault as relevant bases of obligations. The structure and system of the General Part of the Chinese Civil Code is very similar to that of the German Civil Code. However, legal uncertainties and doubts remain here as well, as shown by the example of regulations on usury.

BU Yuanshi: The Principle of Legal Equality

The legal equality of all civil law subjects in China has been codified in § 2 of the General Part of the People’s Republic of China’s Civil Code. The article conveys the significance of the codification by detailing the difficulties in finding a consensus and agreeing upon a choice of words for § 2 GPCL on the one hand and §§ 4 and 113 GPCL on the other. The purpose and content of the codification are clarified in particular by a comparison to the earlier General Principles of Civil Law. Since the principle of legal equality was already entailed in the General Principles of Civil Law, the main function of § 2 GPCL is one of consolidation. Such a function also appears to be of greater significance in light of China’s legislative history. The codification of § 2 GPCL is criticized with regard to the separation of civil and administrative law. However, a comparison to foreign codifications justifies such a separation. The true significance of § 2 GPCL lays in both its “ripple effect” on other codifications as well as in its justiciability. The principle of legal equality has penetrated into various laws, whereas the application of the principle of equality by courts is still debated in legal literature. Nonetheless, the principle has served as grounds for various judgements, some of which were announced by the SPC itself.

Andreas Engert: Contractual Freedom vs. Contractual Justice – §§ 5 and 6 of the General Part of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China

The article examines the relationship between the principles of contractual freedom and justice as enshrined in the new General Part of the Chinese Civil Code. To this end, it considers the contract theory of German legal scholar Walter Schmidt-Rimpler. According to this theory, contractual freedom is merely a means of creating a “correct” (just) regulation of a contractual exchange between parties. However, the free bargaining process does not guarantee that the resulting contract will be perfectly just. Therefore, it seems obvious at first glance that the contract should be subject to comprehensive judicial review. Schmidt-Rimpler objected to such far-reaching interventions as a serious threat to legal certainty. The article elaborates on this claim in more detail. It thus provides a reason why judicial review of a contract must remain narrowly limited even if freedom of contract is only a means to the end of contractual justice.

ZHANG Shuanggen: The Principle of Good Faith in Chinese Civil Law

The article focuses on two aspects in relation to the topic of good faith. First, the state of the current commentary on the Chinese ATZR is briefly presented and evaluated against the yardstick of German legal commentary. Second, individual questions typical of the commentary on § 7 ATZR and the principle of good faith are addressed, such as whether a “special rights relationship” is a prerequisite for the application of Section § 7 ATZR, and how the relationship between the principle of good faith and other individual legal institutions should be understood.

Claudia Schubert: The Principle of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (§§ 6, 7 AT ZGB)

Good faith and fair dealing is a basic principle in German and Chinese civil law. Whereas the German Civil Code does not expressly regulate the principle and relies instead on a general clause in paragraph 242, Chinese law specifies the principle and its manifestations. In both countries the principle of good faith limits the exercise of rights and creates individual justice on the basis of a balancing of interests. Unlike German law, the Chinese Civil Code includes a separate principle of iustitia commutativa. Therefore, the principle of good faith and fair dealing is not completely congruent in both countries.

FENG Jieyu: Public Law Limitations on the Freedom of Contract – A Commentary on § 8 General Part of the Chinese Civil Code

In § 8 of the General Part of the Chinese Civil Code (GPCC), which originated from § 8 of the General Principles of Chinese Civil Law and § 7 of the Contract Law, illegality and public morality are regulated. Compared to the German BGB, it is a special feature of § 8 GPCC that illegality and immorality are regulated in the same paragraph. This reflects the discussion in China about the relationship between prohibitive legal rules and public morality. As a principle, § 8 GPCC is specified in the field of contract law by § 52 No. 4 and 5 Contract Law. The interpretation of “law” in the sense of § 8 GPCC and § 52 No. 5 Contract Law encountered problems in the application of law. Legal theory and legal interpretations in China seek to limit the scope of legal prohibitions. In order to assess the validity of a contract, recent Chinese theory creates a flexible system comprising eight evaluative elements, e.g. the degree to which a contract has been fulfilled.

WANG Hongliang: Public Morality and Contractual Penalties

This article first discusses the principle of public morality. Any legal transaction which violates public morality is void. Thereafter, it is analysed how the principle of public morality affects the concept of contractual penalties. In the view of the legislature, only penalties having the nature of a sanction are compatible with the principle of public morality. However, penalties having a punitive character are not prohibited, instead being only limited. Thirdly, the article considers how an agreed contractual penalty may be reduced. If the contractual penalty that the parties have agreed to is excessive, the judge can reduce it on application of a party. However, not infrequently the judges in China will apply the principle of public morality to a contractual penalty ex officio. In addition, the article looks at legislative provisions limiting usury and the permissible annual interest rate for loan agreements.

Jan Lieder / Philipp Pordzik: Environmental Protection as a Limitation of the Freedom of Contract

With § 9 of the General Part of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China, an obligation to protect the environment was incorporated into Chinese civil law. Henceforth, when legal entities conduct legal transactions, they must contribute to the conservation of resources and protect the ecological environment. This article considers the extent to which § 9 limits the contractual freedom guaranteed in § 5 of the General Part of the Civil Code. For this purpose, the content and scope of the provision will be subject to a critical-constructive analysis with recourse to comparable provisions in German law.

HE Jian: The Green Principle and Law and Economics in Chinese Civil Law

Article 9 of the General Provisions of the Chinese Civil Code (the green principle) aims not only at protecting the environment but also at preserving resources. Although environmental protection is a crucial part of the green principle, this aspect of the principle can rarely be applied in the context of public law or private law. The notion of preserving resources can be interpreted in different ways. A single dimension interpretation is quite common in practice, but it is erroneous. A comprehensive interpretation is synonymous with a minimization of social costs or a maximization of social wealth and leads to a law and economics approach. This must be the future of the green principle.

Phillip Hellwege: The Role of Common Practices under the General Part of the Chinese Civil Code

According to § 10 of the Chinese General Part of the Civil Code, a court may refer to common practices only where there are gaps in the law. Although on its face an easily grasped provision, its interpretation raises a number of problems. The present contribution formulates an interpretation from a comparative perspective. This viewpoint suggests that § 10 uses the term common practices in the meaning of customary law. Furthermore, it would be preferable to interpret § 10 such that customary law is of equal rank to statutory law, thereby allowing customary law to also trump non-mandatory statutory law.

ZHUANG Jiayuan: Draft-Commentary on § 79 Contract Law – An Excerpt

This article presents an excerpt from a commentary on § 79 Contract Law regarding the assignment of claims. In principle, legal claims constitute an important property asset and therefore can be assigned freely. Such an assignment transfers a legal right, which thus requires the assignor to hold legal title of the transferred claim. Reasons for limiting or prohibiting assignment can stem from the content of the claim at hand, the underlying circumstances or societal policies. In addition, parties often agree on the non-assignability of a certain claim. It is pointed out in this article that a prohibition or limitation of assignment also serves to limit the content of the claim itself. The doctrines of relative validity and similar theories are discussed, with focus also placed on the legal status of an assignor, an assignee and a debtor as well as on liquidity and the interests of third parties.

Jan von Hein: Limitations to Contractual Freedom in Private International Law (§ 12 General Part of the Chinese Civil Code)

Although the principle of territoriality has been codified in section 12, 1st sentence, of the General Part of the Chinese Civil Code (GPCC), it merely serves as a default rule in legal practice because, pursuant to the 2nd sentence of section 12 GPCC, the provisions of the Chinese Act on Private International Law and the judicial interpretation by the Supreme People’s Court take precedence. In the present article, the rules governing party autonomy in Chinese international contract law are compared with their counterparts in the Rome I Regulation and the Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts. Although EU and Chinese PIL differ in some technical details, their general approach to party autonomy and the laws that may be chosen is quite similar. Substantial differences exist with regard to consumer and individual employment contracts, but their practical impact appears to be limited. Insofar, the Hague Principles do not offer any guidance for further harmonisation because their scope is limited to B2B scenarios. Both the EU and the Chinese PIL rules are characterised by gaps and uncertainty as far as foreign overriding mandatory rules are concerned.

ZHU Xiaozhe: Party Autonomy and its Limitation when Determining the Law Applicable Law to Foreign Related Civil Relations

12 of the General Part of the new Chinese Civil Code originates from § 8 of the former General Principles of Civil Law. Specifying an absolute principle of territoriality, and thereby reflecting a traditional emphasis on sovereignty, the provision has been heavily criticized in terms of both theory and its legal application. In the view of the legislature, this problem should be remedied by China’s Code on Private International Law (PIL Code) taking precedence over § 12. China’s PIL Code states that the parties can exercise party autonomy so as to agree on the applicable law before or even after the formation of legal relationships. While the menu of eligible laws traditionally encompassed laws having a “substantial connection”to the case at hand, this requirement has been relaxed in § 7 of the Supreme People’s Court interpretive guidelines. Nonetheless, party autonomy is limited by overriding mandatory rules, public policy and notions of consumer protection.

Yesterday the Council of the European Union adopted the Council regulation on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction (recast) (Brussels IIa regulation). For more information, see here.

As indicated on the Council’s website, the new rules will apply 3 years after the publication of the regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union.

For an English version of the regulation, see here (dated 24 May 2019). A Spanish version is available here (dated 24 June 2019).