Conflictoflaws

The programme of the XLI Seminar of the Mexican Academy of Private International and Comparative Law (AMEDIP) is now available here.

American Association of Private International Law (ASADIP) is holding its Annual Conference on 8 and 9 November 2018 in Santa Cruz, Bolivia. The main focus of the conference will be family law. More information is available here (incl. programme).

By Friederike Henke, Advocaat & Rechtsanwältin at Buren in Amsterdam

The international demand for English language dispute resolution is increasing as the English language is commonly used in international trade and contracts as well as correspondence, not only between the trading partners themselves, but also by international parties, their legal departments and their advisors. Use of the English language in legal proceedings is expected to save time and money for translations and language barriers in general.

We would like to note that Dutch courts tend to allow parties to provide exhibits in the English language and often allow parties to conduct hearings in English, at least in part. Moreover, the district courts in Rotterdam and The Hague offer the possibility for proceedings in certain types of cases to be held in English: maritime, transportation and international trade cases in Rotterdam and intellectual property rights cases in The Hague. The courts render their judgments in the Dutch language with an English summary.

In order for the Dutch courts to be able to render valid and binding judgments in the English language, the Dutch code of civil procedure needs to be amended.

Netherlands Commercial Court: draft legislation
As mentioned in earlier posts on this blog (see here) in the Netherlands, legislation is on its way for the introduction of English language courts for the settlement of commercial disputes:  the Netherlands Commercial Court (“NCC”) and the Netherlands Commercial Court of Appeal (“NCCA”).

On 8 March 2018, the Dutch parliament adopted the draft legislation, following which it was expected to be approved by the Dutch senate soon. However, to date, despite earlier optimism, the legislation has not yet been passed. The (draft) rules of procedures are ready though (see here)  and the judges have been selected as well. The courts are now expected to open their doors in 2019.

In anticipation to the adoption and effectiveness of the draft legislation, this post offers an overview of the key characteristics of the proceedings with the NCC and NCCA.

The NCC and NCCA: structure and location
The NCC and NCCA will be imbedded in the ordinary judiciary. The NCC will thus be a chamber of the Amsterdam district court and the NCCA will be a chamber at the Amsterdam court of appeals. Any appeal from a judgment by the NCC will go to the NCCA. An appeal (cassation) from the NCCA to the highest court of the Netherlands (Hoge Raad) will take place in the Dutch language.

The judges of the NCC and NCCA who have already been selected, will be from the ordinary judiciary. No lay judges will be appointed. The selected judges (six for each instance) are judges who have vast experience in commercial disputes and excellent language skills.

Situating the chambers with the courts of Amsterdam has mostly practical reasons: Amsterdam is the financial capital of the Netherlands and a lot of international companies have their corporate seats there. Also, practical reasons have been mentioned: Amsterdam is easy to reach and internationally active law firms have their offices in Amsterdam.

The NCC procedure
Proceedings with the NCC and NCCA will in principle be held in the English language. All legal documents will be in English. Evidence may be handed in in the French, German or Dutch language, without a translation being required. The court hearing will be held in English and the judgment will be rendered in English.

In addition to the NCC’s rules of procedure, the NCC will apply Dutch procedural law and the substantive rules of Dutch private international law. The proceedings will be paperless and legal documents will be submitted electronically.

According to article 1.2.1 of the NCC’s draft rules of procedure, an action may be initiated in the NCC in case the following three requirements have been met:

1. the action is a civil or commercial matter within the autonomy of the parties and is not subject to the jurisdiction of the cantonal court (kantongerecht, the court for small claims) or the exclusive jurisdiction of any other chamber or court;
2. the matter has an international aspect;
3. the parties to the proceedings have designated the Amsterdam District Court as the forum to hear their case or the Amsterdam District Court has jurisdiction to hear the action on other grounds; and
4. the parties to the proceedings have expressly agreed that the proceedings will be in English and will be governed by the NCC’s rules.

The NCC has jurisdiction in any commercial case, regardless the legal ground. So it may hear both contractual disputes – claims for performance or breach of contract, rescission of a contract, termination or damages – as well as claims for unlawful acts.

In line with the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU, the internationality requirement is to be interpreted broadly. Only if all relevant aspects of a case refer to one case, it will thus be considered an internal dispute. An international aspect can e.g. be that one of the parties has its seat outside of the Netherlands or was incorporated under foreign law, that the contract language is not Dutch or a foreign law applies to the contract, that more than 50% of the employees works outside of the Netherlands, etcetera.

The NCC is only competent if the Parties have agreed to submit their dispute to the competence of the NCC. Such agreement may be done in a contractual choice of forum, but parties may also agree on such forum choice after a dispute has arisen. The NCC’s rules of procedure contain a template clause for a forum choice in Annex I:

“All disputes arising out of or in connection with this agreement will be resolved by the Amsterdam District Court following proceedings in English under that Court’s Rules of Procedure of the Chamber for International Commercial Matters (“Netherlands Commercial Court” or “NCC”). Application for provisional measures, including protective measures, available under Dutch law may be made to the NCC’s Preliminary Relief Judge in proceedings in English in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the NCC.”

Court fees
The court fees for proceedings with the NCC will amount to EUR 15,000.- for substantive proceedings and EUR 7,500.- for summary proceedings. The court fees for proceedings with the NCCA will amount to EUR 20,000.- for substantive proceedings and EUR 10,000.- for summary proceedings.

When compared to other courts in the Netherlands, the court fees for the NCC and NCCA are relatively high. In comparison: the highest court fee for cases in first instance currently amount to EUR 3,946.- and for appeal cases to EUR 5,270.-. Within the international playing field, the NCC and NCCA courts fees are however relatively low, especially when compared to arbitration.

 

This study, commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the Committee on Legal Affairs, authored by Marta Requejo Isidro, Tim Amos, Pedro de Miguel Asensio, Anatol Dutta and Mark Harper, explores the possible legal scenarios of judicial cooperation between the EU and the UK at both the stage of the withdrawal and of the future relationship in the area of family law, covering the developments up until 5 October 2018. More specifically, it assesses the advantages and disadvantages of the various options for what should happen to family law cooperation after Brexit in terms of legal certainty, effectiveness and coherence. It also reflects on the possible impact of the departure of the UK from the EU on the further development of EU family law. Finally, it offers some policy recommendations on the topics under examination.

The Slovenian Branch of the International Law Association invites abstract submissions for consideration for the ILA Regional Conference Slovenia 2019. The conference will be held in Portorož (Slovenia) on 27-30 June 2019.

The the conference is themed “Migration/international legal regulation” and abstracts from both public and private international law perspectives are welcome. Deadline for submitting abstracts is 11 January 2019 and completed papers are due by 30 August 2019. Contact is available at papers@ilaslovenia2019.com.

More details is available here.

By Diana Kostina

The recent Court of Appeal judgment in Alexander Vik and Deutsche Bank AG [2018] EWCA Civ 2011confirmedthat contempt of court applications for alleged non-compliance with a court order can be served on a party outside the jurisdiction of England and Wales. The Court of Appeal’s judgment also contains a useful reminder of the key principles governing the powers of English courts to serve defendants outside of the jurisdiction.

Background

This Court of Appeal’s judgment is the latest development in the litigation saga which has been ongoing between Deutsche Bank (‘the Bank’) and Alexander Vik, the Norwegian billionaire residing in Monaco (‘Mr Vik’) and his company, Sebastian Holdings Inc (‘the Company’). The Bank has been trying to enforce a 2013 judgment debt, which is now estimated to be around US $ 320 million.

Within the enforcement proceedings, the English court made an order under CPR 71.2 requiring Mr Vik to appear before the court to provide relevant information and documents regarding the assets of the Company. This information would have assisted the Bank in its efforts to enforce the judgment against him. Although Mr Vik did appear in court, the Bank argued that he had deliberately failed to disclose important documents and lied under oath. Accordingly, the Bank argued that Mr Vik should be held in contempt of court by way of a committal order.

To obtain a committal order, the Bank could have applied under either CPR 71.8 or CPR 81.4. The difference is that the former rule provides for a simple and streamlined committal procedure, while the latter is more rigorous, slow, and — as accepted by courts — possibly extra-territorial. The Bank filed an application under CPR 81.4, and the court granted a suspended committal order. The Bank then sought to serve the order on Mr Vik in Monaco.

High Court decision

The Judge at first instance, Teare J, carefully considered the multi-faceted arguments. Teare J concluded that permission should not be required to serve the committal order on Mr Vik, because the debtor was already subject to the incidental jurisdiction of the English courts to enforce CPR 71 order. A similar conclusion could be reached by relying on Article 24(5) of the Brussels Recast Regulation (which provides that in proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments, the courts of the member state shall have exclusive jurisdiction regardless of the domicile of the parties). However, if the Bank had needed permission to serve the committal order outside the jurisdiction, then his Lordship concluded that the Bank could not rely on the gateway set out in PD 6B 3.1(10) (which provides that a claim may be served out of the jurisdiction with the permission of the court where such claim is made to enforce a judgment or an arbitral award). Both parties appealed against this judgment.

Court of Appeal decision

The Court of Appeal, largely agreeing with Teare J, made five principal findings.

(1) The court found it ironic that Mr Vik argued that CPR 71.8 (specific ground), rather CPR 81.4 (generic ground) applied to the alleged breach of CPR 71.2, since CPR 81.4 offered greater protections to the alleged contemnor. The likely reason for this “counter-intuitive” step was that the latter provision was extra-territorial. The Court of Appeal confirmed that CPR 71.8 is not a mandatory lex specialis for committal applications relating to a breach of CPR 71.2, and that the Bank was perfectly entitled to rely on CPR 81.4.

(2) The Court of Appeal agreed with the findings of Teare J that the court’s power to commit contemnors to prison is derived from its inherent jurisdiction. The CPR rules only provide the technical steps to be followed when this common law power is to be exercised. It followed that it did not make much difference which rule to apply –  either the broader CPR 81.4 or the narrower CPR 71.8. Thus, if the Bank had made the committal application under CPR 71.8, the application would have had an extra-territorial effect.  

(3) Mr Vik sought to challenge Teare J’s finding that he should be deemed to be within the jurisdiction in the contempt of court proceedings, because they are incidental to the CPR 71.2 order in which he participated. Instead, he argued, such proceedings were distinguishably “new”, and would require permission to serve outside the jurisdiction.  The Court of Appeal disagreed and confirmed that the committal order was incidental as the means to enforce the CPR 71.2 order. Therefore, in the light of the strong public interest in the enforcement of English court orders, it was not necessary for the Bank to obtain permission to serve the committal order outside the jurisdiction.

(4) Teare J observed that Article 24(5) of the Brussels Recast Regulation meant that that permission to serve Mr Vik outside of the jurisdiction was not required. Article 24(5) confers exclusive jurisdiction on the courts of the Member State in which the judgment was made and to be enforced by, regardless of the domicile of the parties. The Court of Appeal (in obiter) was generally supportive of this approach, opining that the committal application in the case at hand was likely to fall within Article 24(5) of the Brussels Recast Regulation. However, the careful and subtle wording of Article 24(5) implied that this conclusion might be subject to further consideration on a future occasion.

(5) Under CPR 6.36, a claimant may serve a claim form out of the jurisdiction with the permission of the court where the claim comes within one of the “gateways” contained in PD 6B. The relevant gateway in the Mr Vik’s case was to be found at PD 6B, para 3.1(1), as a claim made to enforce a judgment. Teare J was of the view that the Bank could not rely on this gateway to enforce the committal order. The Court of Appeal was reluctant to give a definitive answer on this point, even though “there may well be considerable force” in the Teare J’s approach. Thus, it remains unclear whether the CPR rules regulating service outside the jurisdiction would apply to the CPR 71 order and the committal order.

The importance of the judgment

This Court of Appeal’s judgment serves as an important reminder for parties who are involved in the enforcement of English judgment debts. Rather than giving a short answer to a narrow point of civil procedure, the judgment contains an extensive analysis of English and EU law. The judgment highlights the tension between important Rule of Law issues such as “enforcing court orders on the one hand” and “keeping within the jurisdictional limits of the Court, especially as individual liberty is at risk, on the other” (Court of Appeal judgment, at para. 1).

The judgment demonstrates the broad extra-territorial reach of the English courts. It also confirms the English court’s creditor-friendly reputation. The findings on the issues of principle may be relevant to applications to serve orders on defendants out of the jurisdiction in other proceedings, for instance worldwide freezing orders or cross-border anti-suit injunctions.

Nevertheless, the judgment demonstrates the need for clear guidance on the jurisdictional getaways to serve out of the jurisdiction for contempt of court. In giving judgment, Lord Justice Gross carefully suggested that the Rules Committee should consider implementing a specific rule permitting such service on an officer of a company, where the fact that he is out of the jurisdiction is no bar to the making of a committal application.

Another issue that seems subject to further clarification is whether a committal order or a provisional CPR 71 order are covered by the Brussels Recast Regulation. A definitive answer to this question becomes particularly intriguing in the light of Brexit.

A conference, organised by IACPIL – Interdisciplinary Association of Comparative and Private International Law, will take place in Vienna on 29 November 2018 under the title Receivables and Securities in Private International Law.

The aim of this half-day conference is to discuss the proposal of the European Commission on the law applicable to third-party effects of transactions in securities and assignment and the relevant issues arising in cross-border securities and receivables finance transactions.

Speakers from the Commission, academia and law practice will address issues arising in the context of cross-border security trading, assignment and subrogation, factoring, securitisation, and similar transactions both in the light of the relevant EU proposal, national law and uniform law instruments, such as the UN Assignment of Receivables Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law on Secured Transactions. The advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches will be discussed from a comparative law perspective, with a focus on current challenges and opportunities arising from the digitalisation of trade and Brexit.

Registration is required by 25 November 2018.

The full programme is available here, together with further practical information.

Dear Colleagues,
We are pleased to invite you to attend the International Investment and Trade Agreements: Recent Developments and Problems Conference to be hosted by the University of Marmara, School of Law, Department of Private International Law, and Economic Development Foundation (IKV).
The main goal of the conference is to discuss recent developments in the field of international investment and trade law.
We are looking forward to welcoming our colleagues from all around the world to participate in this international meeting.
Venue: TOBB PLAZA, Levent, the European Side of Istanbul, Turkey.
Date: 25th October 2018.
Further information: http://etkinlik.marmara.edu.tr/uluslararasiyatirim
Yours Sincerely,
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mustafa Erkan
Conference Co-Chair

On October 5th, The Cour de Cassation, the highest court in France for private law matters, requested an advisory opinion of the ECtHR (Ass. plén. 5 octobre 2018, n°10-19053). It is the first time a Contracting State applies to the ECtHR for an advisory opinion on the basis of Protocol n° 16 which entered into force on August 1st, 2018. The request relates to the legal parentage of children born to a surrogate mother. More specifically, it concerns the intended mother’s legal relationship with the child.

The Mennesson case is again under the spotlight, after 18 years of judicial proceedings. Previous developments will be briefly recalled, before the Advisory opinion request is summarized.

Previous developments in the Mennesson case:

A French couple, Mr and Mrs Mennesson, went to California to conclude a surrogacy agreement. Thanks to the surrogate mother, twins were born en 2000. They were conceived with genetic material from the intended father and eggs from a friend of the couple. The Californian Supreme Court issued a judgment referring to the couple as genetic father and legal mother of the children. Birth certificates were issued and the couple asked for their transcription into the French civil status register.

French authorities refused the transcription, arguing that it would be contrary to public policy. Surrogate motherhood, in particular, is forbidden under article 16-7 of the Civil Code. Such agreements are then considered void and resulting foreign birth certificates establishing parentage are considered contrary to public policy (Cass. Civ. 1ère, 6 avril 2011, n°10-19053).

As a last resort, The Mennesson family brought a claim before the ECtHR. They claimed that the refusal to transcribe the birth certificate violated their right to respect for private and family life. While the Court considered that the parent’s right to family life was not infringed, it ruled that the refusal to transcribe the birth certificates violated the children’s right to identity and was not in their best interest. As a consequence, it ruled that the refusal to establish the legal parentage of the indented parents was a violation of the children’s right to private life, particularly so if the indented father was also the biological father.

After the ECtHR ruling: the French landscape

After the ECtHR ruling, the Cour de Cassation softened its position. In 2015, sitting in Assemblée plénière, it ruled that the mere fact that a child was born of a surrogate mother did not in itself justify the refusal to transcribe the birth certificate, as long as that certificate was neither unlawful nor forged, nor did it contain facts that did not correspond to reality (Ass. plén., 3 juillet 2015, n° 14-21323 et n°15-50002).

As a consequence, the Court only accepted the transcription of foreign birth certificate when the intended father is also the biological father. When it came to the other intended parent, the Cour de Cassation refused the transcription. By so doing, the Cour de Cassation reiterates its commitment to the Mater semper certa principle as the sole basis of its conception of motherhood. Meanwhile, in 2017, the Cour de Cassation signalled that the genetic father’s spouse could adopt the child if all the requirements for adoption were met and if it was in the best interest of the child (Cass. Civ. 1ère, 5 juillet, 2017, n°15-28597, n°16-16455, and n°16-16901 ; 16-50025 and the press release)

However, the Mennessons’ fight was not over yet. Although according to the latest decisions, it looked like both Mr and Mrs Mennesson could finally establish their kinship with the twins, they still had to overcome procedural obstacles. As the Cour de Cassation had refused the transcription in its 2011 judgment which had become final, the parents were barred from applying for it again. As pointed out by the ECtHR in the Foulon and Bouvet v. France case (21/07/2016, Application n°9063/14 and 10410/14), French authorities failed to provide an avenue for the parties involved in cases adjudicated before 2014 to have them re-examined in the light of the subsequent changes in the law. Thus, France was again held to be in violation of its obligations under the Convention. (See also Laborie v. France, 19/01/2017, Application n°44024/13).

In 2016, the legislator adopted a new procedure to allow for the review of final decisions in matter of personal status in cases where the ECtHR had ruled that a violation of the ECHR had occurred. The review is possible when it appears that the consequences of the violation of the Convention are serious and that the just satisfaction awarded on the basis of article 41 ECHR cannot put an end to the violation (see articles L.452-1 to L.452-6 of the Code de l’organisation judiciaire). 

Current situation:

Taking advantage of this new procedure, the Mennesson family asked for a review of their situation. They claimed that the refusal to transcribe the birth certificates was contrary to the best interest of the children. They also argued that, as it obstructed the establishment of parentage, it amounted to a violation of article 8 ECHR. Moreover, they argued that the refusal to transcribe the birth certificates on the ground that the children were born of a surrogate mother was discriminatory and infringed article 14 ECHR.

Sitting again in Assemblée plénière, the Cour de Cassation summarized its previous case law. It concluded that while the issue of the transcription of the father biological parentage is settled, the answer is less certain regarding the intended mother. The Court wondered if its refusal to transcribe the birth certificate as far as the intended mother is concerned is consistent with the State margin of appreciation under article 8. It also wondered whether it should distinguish between cases where the child is conceived with the genetic material of the intended mother and cases where it is not. Finally, it raised the issue of whether its approach of allowing the intended mother to adopt her husband’s biological child was compatible with article 8 ECHR.

After pointing out the uncertain compatibility of its reasoning with ECtHR case law, the Court chose to request an advisory opinion from the ECtHR. Protocol 16 allows Contracting States to apply to the ECtHR for its advisory opinion “on questions of principles relating to the interpretation or application of the rights and freedom defined in the Convention or the protocols thereto” (Protocol 16 art.1).

Thus, the Cour de Cassation asked the ECtHR the two following questions:

• By refusing to transcribe into civil status registers the birth certificate of a child born abroad from a surrogate mother inasmuch as it refers to the intended mother as the “legal mother”, while the transcription has been accepted when the intended father is the biological father of the child, does a State Party exceed its margin of appreciation under article 8 ECHR? In this respect, is it necessary to distinguish between whether or not the child is conceived with the gametes of the intended mother?
• If the answer to one of the two preceding questions is in the affirmative, does the possibility for the intended mother to adopt her husband’s biological child, which constitutes a mean of establishing parentage open to her, comply with the requirements of article 8 of the Convention?

As the Cour de Cassation indicates on the press release accompanying the request of an advisory opinion, it seized the opportunity of initiating a judicial dialogue between national jurisdictions and the ECtHR. However, it looks more like a sign of caution on the part of the French court, in a particularly sensitive case. Depending on the answer it receives, the Cour de Cassation will adapt its case law.

Although Protocol n°16 does not refer to a specific deadline, the Explanatory report indicates that it would be appropriate for the ECtHR to give high priority to advisory opinion proceedings.

Thus, it looks like the Mennesson saga will be continued soon…

 

On 28 and 29 March 2019, the international conference ‘Families Beyond Borders. Migration with or without private international law’ will take place in Ghent at the Faculty of Law of Ghent University (Belgium). The conference, organised by Jinske Verhellen, will focus on the challenging interactions between private international law, migration law and human rights law.

Speakers will deal with legal problems encountered by refugees and migrants with regard to their personal status acquired in one country and taken along to another country. How do people prove their family ties? How can families be reunited? How do unaccompanied refugee and migrant children prove their minority? How do asylum and migration authorities assess foreign documents that relate to the personal status of refugees? What happens if no (authentic) documents can be presented? How to combat fraud relating to personal status documents in an efficient manner without depriving migrants of their right to family life? These are just some questions that will be discussed.

The conference will put the spotlight on the ‘people’ (subject of all kinds of legal procedures). Therefore, the programme will be centred around three groups of people: persons in need of international protection, refugee and migrant children, migrants and their families. Both academics and experts with experience from the field will take and share the floor.

Ghent University is very honoured to welcome the following keynote speakers: Prof. James C. Hathaway (University of Michigan Law School) and Judge Ksenija Turkovi? (European Court of Human Rights).

Confirmed speakers and rapporteurs are: Prof. Laura Carpaneto (University of Genoa), Prof. Sabine Corneloup (Université Paris II), Judge Martina Erb Klünemann (Family Court Germany, EJN and International Hague Network of Judges), Katja Fournier (Coordinator Platform Minors in Exile), Dr. Susanne Gössl (University of Bonn), Steve Heylen (President European Association of Civil Registrars), Prof. Maarit Jänterä-Jareborg (Uppsala University), Prof. Fabienne Jault-Seseke (Université Versailles), Prof. Thalia Kruger (University of Antwerp), Lise Van Baelen (Restoring Family Links Officer, Belgian Red Cross), Dr. Hans van Loon (former Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law), Prof. Jinske Verhellen (Ghent University) and Prof. Patrick Wautelet (Université de Liège).

Prof. Jean-Yves Carlier (Université catholique Louvain) will draw the conference conclusions.

The full program and information on registration will soon be available here.

The Dickson Poon School of Law at King’s College London is holding an inaugural Memorial Lecture to honour the memory of Professor Robin Morse, who died last year. He was widely admired both within King’s (where he served as Dean of the School of Law) and beyond it for his scholarship and dedication to teaching, especially of the conflict of laws.   The lecture will be given by Lord Collins of Mapesbury on “Justiciability and the Conflict of Laws” on Wednesday 7 November 2018 in the Safra Lecture Theatre on KCL’s Strand Campus, and will begin promptly at 6.30pm. It will be followed by a reception.   Attendance is free, but numbers are limited and registration is required. You can sign up here.

The latest volume of the Yearbook of Private International Law has just been released; the full table of contents can be found here.

The following teaser has been kindly provided by Ilaria Pretelli:

This XIX Yearbook revisits classical questions such as forum non conveniens and exception clauses, foreign overriding mandatory provisions, reciprocity etc., at the same time presenting contributions discussing very specific and technical problems, as that of the law applicable to the right of recourse in the field of liability insurance law, that of the recognition of punitive damages in the EU or international insolvency in the banking sector.

A special section is devoted to some of the difficult questions addressed by the European regulations on matrimonial property and the property effects of registered partnerships that will soon enter into force.

A juicy special section is devoted to cultural property and heritage, including obstacles to claims for the restitution of looted art and new mechanisms leading to the proper resolution of cultural property-related disputes. Both contributions forming this section observe a gradual transition in the judicial practice and the slow but steady development of a body of transnational rules forming a true lex culturalis.

One of the truly first codifications of the latter is offered by the new Hungarian Private International Law Act, presented in the National Reports Section.

The need to adapt private international law legislation has led to a sectorial reform in New Zealand, where the traditional, and indeed discriminatory, double actionability rule has now disappeared in favour of a more modern solution, clearly inspired by European Union regulations.

The National Reports further include an essay on how Russian authorities implement both the 1996 Hague Children’s Convention and the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention, with a detailed review of Russian case-law grappling with such notions as a child’s residence, removal and retention, or the legitimate reasons to refuse return of the child.

Another paper features the first English-language contribution on Mongolian private international law – trade, commerce, family and people-to-people relationships between Mongolians and other State communities being constantly on the rise. Turkish law is once again present through a meticolous account of jurisdiction agreements and the favour they increasingly enjoy both in Turkish adjudication and academia.

Two papers on international surrogacy offer French and Italian perspectives, as these countries were involved in the Mennesson, Labassée and Paradiso ECtHR cases.

Those who are curious as to “What’s new” in terms of work-in-progress of The Hague Convention on Judgments will devour the section devoted to relevant contributions with articles on the exclusion of privacy and the relationship with other existing multilateral instruments, in particular certain instruments in force in Latin America.

The Center for Transnational Litigation, Arbitration and Commercial Law at the New York University School of Law will host a conference, on 15 and 16 November 2018, titled The Continuing Relevance of Private International Law and Its Challenges.

The conveners are Franco Ferrari (New York University, Executive Director of the Center for Transnational Litigation, Arbitration and Commercial Law) and Diego P. Fernández Arroyo (Science Po, Paris).

Speakers include George A. Bermann (Columbia University), Andrea Bonomi (Lausanne University), Ronald A. Brand (University of Pittsburgh), Hannah L. Buxbaum (Indiana University, Bloomington), Giuditta Cordero-Moss (Oslo University), Horacio Grigera Naón (Director, Center on International Commercial Arbitration, Washington College of Law, American University, Washington DC), Burkhard Hess (Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law), Matthias Lehmann (Bonn University), Hans van Loon (Former Secretary-General, Hague Conference on Private International Law), Ralf Michaels (Duke University), Yuko Nishitani (Kyoto University), Francesca Ragno (Verona University), Mathias W. Reiman (University of Michigan), Kermit Roosevelt (University of Pennsylvania), Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm (University of Edinburgh), Linda J. Silberman (New York University), Symeon C. Symeonides (Willamette University) and Louise Ellen Teitz (Roger Williams University).

Last year the New Zealand singer Lorde cancelled a concert in Tel Aviv following an open letter by two New Zealand-based activists urging her to take a stand on Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine. A few weeks later, the two activists found themselves the subject of a civil claim brought in the Israeli court. The claim was brought by the Israeli law group Shurat HaDin, on behalf of three minors who had bought tickets to the concert, pursuant to Israel’s so-called Anti-Boycott Law (the Law for the Prevention of Damage to the State of Israel through Boycott). The Israeli court has now released a judgment upholding the claim and ordering the activists to pay NZ$18,000 in damages (plus costs).

Readers who are interested in a New Zealand perspective on the decision may wish to visit The Conflict of Laws in New Zealand, where I offer some preliminary thoughts on the conflict of laws issues raised by the judgment. In particular, the post addresses – from a perspective of the New Zealand conflict of laws – the concern that the judgment represents some kind of jurisdictional overreach, before discussing the enforceability of the judgment in New Zealand (and elsewhere).

The Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law has made available two reports for the attention of its governance Council (i.e. the Council on General Affairs and Policy): the Report of the Experts’ Group on the Parentage / Surrogacy Project and the Report of the Experts’ Group on the Co-operation and Access to Justice for International Tourists.

The Group on Parentage/Surrogacy Project will need to meet one more time early next year to reach final Conclusions on future work. In particular, the Group established possible methods to ensure cross-border continuity of legal parentage both established by and in the absence of a judicial decision.

Importantly,  “[t]he Group recalled that the absence of uniform PIL rules on legal parentage can lead to limping parentage across borders in a number of cases and can create significant problems for children and families. The Group further recalled that uniform PIL rules can assist States in resolving these conflicts and can introduce safeguards for the prevention of fraud involving public documents, while ensuring that the diverse substantive rules on legal parentage of States are respected. Any new instrument should aim to provide predictability, certainty and continuity of legal parentage in international situations for all persons involved, taking into account their fundamental rights, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and in particular the best interests of children. The Group agreed that any international instrument would need to be developed with a view to complementing the existing Hague Family Conventions and to attracting as many States as possible.”

Regarding the Group on the Tourism Project, it should be noted that it is currently exploring the need for an international instrument on the co-operation and provision of access to justice for international tourists. The Group concluded that “[t]he Experts’ Group recommends to the CGAP that it mandates the Experts’ Group to continue its work, with a view to assessing the need for, the nature (soft law and hard law options) and the key elements of, a possible new instrument. The composition of the Experts’ Group should remain open, and, if possible, also include representatives of Stakeholders, such as the UNWTO, as well as representatives of relevant organisations and private international law experts.” It was noted that the Consultant will finalise his draft (substantive) Report, which will be circulated at the end of this year.

The aide-mémoire of the Chair of the Tourism Project noted: “[i]f a new instrument were to be developed, the Experts identified a number of possible expected values such instrument might add. These included that tourists might be able to obtain appropriate information, including in a language they understand, to ascertain and understand their rights, and the potentially available options to seek redress. It might also provide co-operation mechanisms among suitable bodies that can work in a concerted manner to facilitate the resolution of complaints, with a view to guaranteeing access to justice in the broadest sense, including through alternative dispute resolution, in a non- discriminatory way. The instrument might also have a preventive effect. Finally, it might create an official record of the complaint, including for subsequent use abroad.”

In March 2019, the HCCH governance Council will determine whether work on these two subjects will go forward.

For the second time, the Society of Legal Scholars (SLS) conference, held this September at Queen Mary University of London, ran a conflict of laws section (more papers on conflict of laws given in other sections here, look for “conflict of laws”). Michael Douglas provides a charming report. Hopefully this is a sign of increased appreciation of conflict of laws as a scholarly discipline.

The latest issue of Cuadernos de Derecho Internacional, a journal published half-yearly and chiefly devoted to private international law, is now available on-line here.

It includes more than forty articles, written in Spanish, English and Italian, on topics such as actions for damages resulting from acts restricting free competition, the law applicable to divorce, dispute settlement clauses in maritime contracts and party autonomy under the EU regulations on matrimonial property regimes and the property consequences of registered partnerships.

Csongor István Nagy (University of Szeged, Faculty of Law) has posted on SSRN a paper titled Intra-EU Bilateral Investment Treaties and EU Law after Achmea: ‘Know Well What Leads You Forward and What Holds You Back’, which appeared in 19(4) German Law Journal 2017, pp. 981-1016.

The abstract reads as follows.

This paper analyzes the compatibility of intra-EU bilateral investment treaties – intra-EU BITs – with EU law. The status and validity of intra-EU BITs gave rise to a heated debate in Europe, which culminated in the CJEU’s recent controversial judgment in Achmea. This Article demonstrates that although the CJEU approached intra-EU BITs from the angle of federalism – where they are both redundant and illegitimate – the reality is that EU law does not provide for the kind of protection afforded by BITs. The paper gives both a positivist and a critical assessment of the Achmea ruling. It argues that the judgment should be construed in the context of the underlying facts and, hence, notwithstanding the CJEU’s apparently anti-arbitration attitude, its holding is rather narrow. It gives an alternative theory on intra-EU BITs’ fit in the EU internal market – based on European reality – showing that the complete invalidation of intra-EU BITs is flawed because the overlap between BITs and EU law is merely partial: BITs address a subject EU law does not. This Article’s central argument is that intra-EU BITs accelerate the internal market and, hence, their suppression does not lead the European integration further, but holds it back. Finally, this Article argues that the prevailing pattern of investment protection is a global scheme that cannot be arrested through regional unilateralism as essayed by the CJEU.

The last issue of the “Revue critique de droit international privé” will shortly be released.

This is a special edition for the celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the Brussels Convention of 1968, composed of fourteen articles from all over Europe.

The articles are authored by Hélène Gaudemet-Tallon (“La convention de Bruxelles du 27 septembre 1968: 50 ans”); Jürgen Basedow (“L’espace judiciaire européen et ses voisins”); Paul Beaumont, (“Forum non conveniens and the EU rules on Conflicts of Jurisdiction: A Possible Global Solution”); Andrea Bonomi (“50 ans de Convention de Bruxelles: ce n’est qu’un début, continuons le combat!”); Francisco Garcimartín (“Brussels I instruments: past, present and… future”); Trevor C. Hartley (“The Brussels Convention in International Perspective”); Alex Mills (“The Brussels Convention 1968: A Code and a Concept”); Rui Manuel Moura Ramos (“La Convention de Bruxelles, un demi-siècle après”); Charalambos Pamboukis, “La Convention de Bruxelles: une convention constituante et un système de conflit de juridictions fédéral?”); Monika Pauknerová (“Reflections on the Brussels Convention from the Czech perspective”); Fausto Pocar (“La longue marche de Bruxelles I: un parcours encore inachevé?”); Peter Schlosser (“Observations autour du cinquantième anniversaire de la Convention de Bruxelles”); Symeon C. Symeonides (“The Brussels Convention Fifty Years Later: A View from Across the Atlantic”); and Maciej Szpunar (“Droit international privé de l’Union: cohérence des champs d’application et/ou des solutions?”).

A full table of contents is available here.

On 26-27 November, a Conference entitled From Transnational Principles to European Rules of Civil Procedure will be held in Trier (Germany). This conference is being organised by the European Law Institute (ELI) and the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT), in cooperation with the Academy of European Law (ERA). Please click here for more information, including the programme of the conference.

As some of you may know, ELI and UNIDROIT are currently working on a joint project entitled “From Transnational Principles to European Rules of Civil Procedure.” It builds upon an instrument produced jointly by the ALI (American Law Institute) and UNIDROIT entitled “Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure” and aims at the regional development of those Principles.

There are currently 8 working groups on different aspects of civil procedure, in addition to an overarching working group dealing with structure. For further information about the background of this project, click here.

As indicated on the conference’s website: “[t]his public Conference aims at presenting the advanced results achieved by the project’s current and former working groups. Participants of the Conference will have a chance to get a sense of the whole project as the work is drawing to an end with an estimated date in spring 2019. Members of the project as well as other esteemed experts in the field of civil procedure will present the achievements and challenges of the work of the respective working groups and stimulate a discussion on selected pressing legal issues in the area of civil procedure.”