Conflictoflaws

This post was written bij Helga Luku, PhD researcher at the University of Antwerp.

On 1 March 2023, the Supreme Administrative Court of the Republic of Bulgaria issued its final decision no. 2185, 01.03.2023 (see here an English translation by Nadia Rusinova) in the Pancharevo case. After an appeal from the mayor of the Pancharevo district, the Supreme Administrative Court of Bulgaria ruled that the decision of the court of first instance, following the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in this case, is “valid and admissible, but incorrect”. It stated that the child is not Bulgarian due to the lack of maternal ties between the child and the Bulgarian mother, and thus there is no obligation for the Bulgarian authorities to issue a birth certificate. Hereafter, I will examine the legal reasoning behind its ruling.

Background

On 2 October 2020, the Administrative Court of the City of Sofia in Bulgaria requested a preliminary ruling from the CJEU in the case C-490/20 V.M.A. v. Stolichna Obshtina, Rayon ‘Pancharevo’. It sought clarification on the interpretation of several legal provisions. Specifically, the court asked whether a Member State is obliged, under Article 4(2) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), Articles 20 and 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and Articles 7, 24, and 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter), to issue a birth certificate to a child, who is a national of that Member State, in order to obtain the identity document. This inquiry arose with respect to a child, S.D.K.A., born in Spain, whose birth certificate was issued by Spanish authorities, in accordance with their national law. The birth certificate identifies a Bulgarian national, V.M.A., and her wife, a British national, as the child’s mothers, without specifying which of the two women gave birth to the child.

The CJEU decided that Article 4(2) TEU, Articles 20 and 21 TFEU and Articles 7, 24 and 45 of the Charter, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) of Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a child, being a minor, who is a Union citizen and whose birth certificate, issued by the competent authorities of the host Member State, designates as that child’s parents two persons of the same sex, the Member State of which that child is a national is obliged

• to issue to that child an identity card or a passport without requiring a birth certificate to be drawn up beforehand by its national authorities, and
• to recognise, as is any other Member State, the document from the host Member State that permits that child to exercise, with each of those two persons, the child’s right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.

The trajectory of the case within the Bulgarian courts

On the basis of the decision of the CJEU in the Pancharevo case, the referring court, i.e. the Administrative Court of the City of Sofia obliged the authorities of the Pancharevo district to draw up the birth certificate of S.D.K.A., indicating two women as her parents.

The mayor of the Pancharevo district then filed an appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court of Bulgaria, contending that the decision is inadmissible and incorrect.

Based on its considerations, the Supreme Court held that the decision of the court of first instance is “valid and admissible but incorrect”. Its rationale is premised on several arguments. Firstly, it referred to Article 8 of the Bulgarian Citizenship Law, which provides that a Bulgarian citizen by origin is everybody of whom at least one of the parents is a Bulgarian citizen. In the present case, the Supreme Court deemed it crucial to ascertain the presence of the biological link of the child, S.D.K.A. with the Bulgarian mother, V.M.A. Thus, it referred to Article 60 of the Bulgarian Family Code, according to which the maternal origin shall be established by birth; this means that the child’s mother is the woman who gave birth to the child, including in cases of assisted reproduction. Therefore, the Supreme Court proclaimed in its ruling that the Bulgarian authorities could not determine whether the child was a Bulgarian citizen since the applicant refused to provide information about the child’s biological mother. Consequently, the authorities could not issue a birth certificate and register the child’s civil status. Furthermore, in a written defence presented to the court of first instance by the legal representative of V.M.A., it was provided that S.D.K.A. was born to K.D.K., the British mother, and the British authorities had also refused to issue a passport to the child, as she was not a British citizen.

The Supreme Administrative Court of Bulgaria ruled that the child is not a Bulgarian citizen, and the conclusion of the CJEU that the child is a Bulgarian citizen and thus falls within the scope of EU law (Articles 20 and 21 TFEU and Article 4 of Directive 2004/38/EC) is inaccurate. According to the Supreme Court’s legal reasoning, these provisions do not establish a right to claim the granting of Bulgarian citizenship, and Union citizenship is a prerequisite for enjoying free movement rights.

In these circumstances, the Supreme Administrative Court of Bulgaria held that the refusal to issue a birth certificate does not result in the deprivation of citizenship or the violation of the child’s best interests. It referred to the law of the host country, Spain. Article 17 of the Spanish Civil Code of July 24, 1889, provides that Spanish citizens by origin are persons born in Spain to parents:

• who are foreigners if at least one of the parents was born in Spain (except for the children of diplomatic or consular officials accredited to Spain),
• who are both stateless, or
• neither of whose national laws confer nationality on the child.

According to this Article, the Supreme Court reasoned that since the national laws of the parents named in the child’s birth certificate (i.e. Bulgarian and UK legislation), issued in Spain, do not grant citizenship to the child, baby S.D.K.A. must be considered a Spanish citizen by virtue of this provision.

The applicability of Spanish law was expressly confirmed by the Spanish Government during the hearing at the CJEU, provided in paragraph 53 of Advocate General Kokott’s Opinion, stating that if the child could claim neither Bulgarian nor UK nationality, she would be entitled to claim Spanish nationality. Thus, the Supreme Court ruled that the child is Spanish and averted the risk of leaving the child stateless.

Is the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of Bulgaria in conformity with EU law interpretation?

In light of the ruling of the CJEU on the Pancharevo case, certain aspects might have required further scrutiny and more attention from the Supreme Court. Paragraph 68 of the Pancharevo judgment provides:

“A child, being a minor, whose status as a Union citizen is not established and whose birth certificate, issued by the competent authorities of a Member State, designates as her parents two persons of the same-sex, one of whom is a Union citizen, must be considered, by all Member States, a direct descendant of that Union citizen within the meaning of Directive 2004/38 for the purposes of the exercise of the rights conferred in Article 21(1) TFEU and the secondary legislation relating thereto.”

According to this paragraph, it can be inferred that Bulgaria and other Member States must recognize a child with at least one Union citizen parent as a direct descendant of that Union citizen. This paragraph has important implications as regards the establishment of the parent-child relationship. The CJEU, in its case law (C-129/18 SM v Entry Clearance Officer), has firmly established that the term “direct descendant” should be construed broadly, encompassing both biological and legal parent-child relationships. Hence, as a family member of the Bulgarian mother, according to Article 2 (2)(c) of Directive 2004/38, baby S.D.K.A., should enjoy free movement and residence rights as a family member of a Union citizen. In its decision, however, the Supreme Administrative Court of Bulgaria did not conform to the CJEU’s expansive understanding of the parent-child relationship. Therefore, its persistence in relying on its national law to establish parenthood exclusively on the basis of biological ties appears to contradict the interpretation of EU law by the CJEU.

The Supreme Administrative Court of Bulgaria seems relieved to discover that the child probably has Spanish nationality. It can be doubted, however, at what conclusion the court would have arrived if the child were not recognized as Spanish under Spanish nationality laws, especially considering that the child was not granted nationality under UK legislation either. In such a scenario, the Supreme Court might have explored alternative outcomes to prevent the child from becoming stateless and to ensure that the child’s best interests are always protected.

Posted at the request of Shiva Patil, Technical Editor at Trade, Law and Development.

Trade, Law and Development

Call for Submissions

Special Issue

“Sustainability and Inclusivity: Evolving Paradigms of the Global Economy”

Founded in 2009, the philosophy of Trade, Law and Development (TL&D) has been to generate and sustain a constructive and democratic debate on emergent issues in international economic law and to serve as a forum for the discussion and distribution of ideas. Towards these ends, the Journal has published works by noted scholars such as the WTO DDG Yonov F. Agah, Dr. (Prof.) Ernst Ulrich Petersmann, Prof. Steve Charnovitz, Prof. Petros Mavroidis, Prof. Mitsuo Matsuhita, Prof. Raj Bhala, Prof. Joel Trachtman, Dr. (Prof.) Gabrielle Marceau, Prof. Simon Lester, Prof. Bryan Mercurio, and Prof. M. Sornarajah among others. TL&D also has the distinction of being ranked the best journal in India across all fields of law for several years by Washington and Lee University, School of Law.

Pursuant to this philosophy, the Board of Editors of TL&D is pleased to announce “Sustainability and Inclusivity: Evolving Paradigms of the Global Economy” as the theme for its next Special Issue.

It is indisputably true that sustainability which comprises the three interdependent pillars of “economic growth, social equity, and environmental protection”, is increasingly gaining traction among governments, businesses, research organisations, scholars and the general populace. Discussions in international economic law, including those surrounding world trade, cross-border investment, and development, have abundantly focused on this. Economic benefits of trade ultimately decline while the social and environmental costs rise to unbearable levels, if sustainable trade rules are not in place. Whereas, a more sustainable trade strategy would recognise the need for a more varied export mix, invest in technology, and have minimal trade barriers while balancing long-term resilience with short-term ambitions. Since TL&D’s objective is to provide a forum of exchange of ideas and constructive debate on legal and policy issues, the above-mentioned factors arguably constitute some of the biggest issues for international economic law discourse this year.

While the theme is broad enough to cover a wide range of issues, an indicative list of specific areas is as follows:

• Trade Rules and Environmental Interactions
• Environmental Protection Clauses in International Investment Agreements
• Trade and Human Rights
• Promoting Entrepreneurship/ Trade Facilitation
• Trade and Gender Justice
• Transparency and Good Governance Obligations
• Sustainable Agriculture
• Sustainable Fisheries
• Indigenous Peoples Interaction with International Trade and Investment
• Sustainable Development Goals

These sub-issues are not exhaustive, and the Journal is open to receiving submissions on all aspects related to sustainability and inclusivity in the global economy.

Accordingly, the Board of Editors of TL&D is pleased to invite original, unpublished manuscripts for publication in the Special Issue of the Journal in the form of ‘Articles’, ‘Notes’, ‘Comments’ and ‘Book Reviews’, focusing on the theme of “Sustainability and Inclusivity: Evolving Paradigms of the Global Economy”.

In case of any queries, please feel free to contact us at: editors[at]tradelawdevelopment[dot]com.

PATRON: P.P. Saxena | ADVISORS: Raj Bhala | Jagdish Bhagwati | B.S. Chimni | Glenn Wiser | Daniel B. Magraw, Jr. | Vaughan Lowe | Ricardo Ramirez Hernandez | W. Michael Reisman | M. Sornarajah | FACULTY-IN-CHARGE: Dr. Rosmy Joan | BOARD OF EDITORS: Swikruti Nayak | Aastha Asthana | Rashmi John | Ria Chaudhary | Ananya Awasthi | Jahnavi Srivastava | Yashvi Hora | Sunchit Sethi | Shiva Patil| Rishi Pareek | Anoushka | Himanshu Sharma| Priyanshu Shrivastava | Simran Bherwani | Yana Gupta | Alka Mahapatra | Anandita Srivastava | Ishaan Pant | Krishna Ravishankar | Neel Rao | Samiksha Lohia | Shambhavi Uniyal | Sonali P. Raju

In 2014, Adrian Briggs published his own comprehensive account of English Private International Law, taking stock of centuries of English case law and decades of growing European influence. Other than the author’s unique ability to present even the most complex concepts with both clarity and style, the book’s strongest selling point arguably was his conscious decision to put the European instruments at the front and centre of the book, presenting English private international law as the hybrid system that it had long become. As Adrian Briggs later admitted, though, the timing of this project could be described as sub-optimal.

Indeed, in light of the UK’s subsequent departure from the EU and the resulting ‘realignment of the planets’, the second edition required changes that went far beyond a mere update. While some parts of the first edition that engaged with European sources and materials could be preserved as historical background (see, eg, pp. 18-21; 123) or even as descriptions of what has now become ‘retained EU law’ (mainly the Rome I and II Regulations, and with important caveats), other parts had to be rewritten almost entirely. This is most notable in the chapter on Jurisdiction (ch. 3), which according to the author, is now subject to ‘a corpus iuris which is a shambles’, ‘a mess in urgent need of reform’ (p. 129).

It is all the more commendable that Adrian Briggs has undertaken this difficult and presumably depressing task to paint, for the second time, a full picture of English private international law as it stands, again drawing heavily from his decades of experience as an author, teacher, and practitioner. It seems fair to say that most of the apparent coherence of this picture is testimony not to the ease with which European instruments, rules and thoughts could be removed from English law but to the author’s ability to patch up what was left.

(As a footnote, it is a pity for the reader that not only much European law but also the paragraph numbers have been lost between the first and second edition.)

The Belgian Court of Cassation found in a judgment of 10 March 2023 (in Dutch) that the Brussels Court of Appeal was wrong to refuse the granting of a cautio iudicatum solvi against a US company, with principal seat in Colorado.

As previously reported, the cautio iudicatum solvi as stated in the Belgian Code of Civil Procedure (or Judicial Code), Article 851 was declared unconstitutional by the Belgian Constitutional Court in 2018. The Constitutional Court found that the criterion of nationality as basis for the granting of the cautio was not relevant to reach the goal pursued by the legislator, namely to ensure payment of procedural costs and possible damages if the plaintiff loses the suit. The Court called on the legislator to amend the article, but this never happened.

The Brussels Court of Appeal refused to issue the cautio requested by a Belgian defendant as against the US plaintiff, on the basis of the unconstitutionality of the provision. The Court of Cassation, however, stated that Article 851 does not in general infringe Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights; the Constitutional Court’s finding of unconstitutionality was based on the principle of non-discrimination, in so far as a Belgian defendant could not use the cautio against any plaintiff without property in Belgium, but only against a non-Belgian plaintiff. As long as the legislator has not rectified the provision, it must according to the Court of Cassation be interpreted in line with the Constitution. This means that the cautio may be granted against any plaintiff with insufficient property in Belgium, irrespective of the plaintiff’s nationality. The Court reiterated that the cautio is outlawed by several international conventions, but none of these conventions applied in the present case.

Just yesterday, Hart Studies in Private International Law officially published an edited book titled: T Lutzi et al, Jurisdiction over Non-EU Defendants: Should Brussels Ia Regulation be Extended?  The blurb reads as follows:

This book looks at the question of extending the reach of the Brussels Ia Regulation to defendants not domiciled in an EU Member State. The Regulation, the centrepiece of the EU framework on civil procedure, is widely recognised as one of the most successful legal instruments on judicial cooperation. To provide a basis for the discussion of its possible extension, this volume takes a closer look at the national rules that currently govern the question of jurisdiction over non-EU defendants in each Member State through 17 national reports. The insights gained from them are summarised in a comparative report and critically discussed in further contributions, which look at the question both from a European and from a wider global perspective. Private international lawyers will be keen to read the findings and conclusions, which will also be of interest to practitioners and policy makers.

The latest Volume (Vol. 65, 2022) of the Japanese Yearbook of International Law – published by the International Law Association of Japan – has been recently released. It features the following articles, case notes as well as English translation of some relevant court decisions relating to private international law.

 

GLOBALIZATION OF SOCIETY AND INTERNATIONAL FAMILY LAW IN JAPAN

Takami Hayashi, Introductory Note (p. 167)

Ryoko Yamaguchi, Interests of the Child in Child Abduction and Visitation Cases — Differences Between Japan’s Domestic and International Criteria— (p. 169)

Takami Hayashi, Transboundary Child Protection in Japan (p. 191)

HAYAKAWA Shinichiro, Japanese Perspective on Legal Issues of International Surrogacy (p. 213)

Moonsook Kim, International Adoption in Korea (p. 231)

Manabu Iwamoto, International Recovery of Maintenance in Japan (247)

 

CASES AND ISSUES IN JAPANESE PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

Chisato Nakamura, Failure of Service of Judgment Documents and Public Policy Control at The Stage of Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (p. 336)

Miho Shin, Habitual Residence in Japanese Private International Law (p. 348)

 

JUDICIAL DECISIONS IN JAPAN (Private International Law)

 

Supreme Court (3rd Petty Bench), Judgment, May 25, 2021 (p.423)

Enforcement of Foreign Judgment — Punitive Damages — Contrary to Public Policy

 

Intellectual Property High Court, Judgment, September 29, 2021 (p. 426)

Applicable Law — Copyright — Employee Work — Copyright Transfer

 

Tokyo District Court, Judgment, February 12, 2020 (p. 430)

Lawsuit for State Redress — Conduct of a Public Employee Outside of Japan

 

Tokyo District Court, Judgment, November 20, 2020 (p. 433)

Applicable Law — Characterization — Succession to Immovables Abroad — Unjust Enrichment

 

Tokyo District Court, Judgment, January 21, 2021 (p. 438)

Nationality Law — Case Requesting Confirmation of Japanese Nationality — Loss of Japanese Nationality due to the Acquisition of Foreign Nationality

 

Tokyo District Court, Judgment, March 9, 2021 (p. 443)

Enforcement of Foreign Judgment — Service of Documents During the Litigation Proceedings — Contrary to Procedural Public Policy

 

More information on the Yearbook (former Annual) and the content of its past volumes are available at http://www.ilajapan.org/jyil/.

The Full text of Vols. 1~62 (1957-2019) is accessible on HeinOnline.

Following successful collaborations in 2021 and 2022, the Asian Business Law Institute (ABLI) and the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) are teaming up again for their third joint webinar this year on Tuesday 27 June between 4 to 5:10pm (Singapore time) or 10 to 11:10am (CEST).

Titled Cross-border Commercial Dispute Resolution – HCCH 1965 Service Convention, the webinar is expected to discuss, among others, the operation of the Service Convention in practice, how the Service Convention works with the other HCCH Conventions for cross-border dispute resolution, and Singapore’s accession to and upcoming implementation of the Service Convention.

Invited speakers include Sara Chisholm-Batten (Partner, Michelmores LLP), Melissa Ford (Secretary, HCCH), Delphia Lim (2Director, International Legal Division, Ministry of Law, Singapore), Professor Yeo Tiong Min (Singapore Management University), and Professor Yun Zhao (University of Hong Kong and Representative of Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, HCCH).

For more information or to register, click here. Early bird discount is available till 28 May.

More about the webinar and its speakers can be found in the flyer.

Queries about the webinar can be directed to ABLI at info@abli.asia.

 

From 22 to 27 May 2023, the 2023 edition of the Milan Arbitration Week will take place, online and in presence. It encompasses a series of events dedicated to domestic, international commercial and investment arbitration, with the participation of renowned Italian and foreign experts from academia and legal profession.

 

The Milan Arbitration Week is jointly organized by Università degli Studi di Milano and the European Court of Arbitration, in collaboration with DLA Piper-Milan, Comitato Italiano dell’Arbitrato, the Centre of Research DEuTraDiS and the Erasmus + Programme of the European Union.

 

In particular, this edition will focus on the recent Italian reform of arbitration law; the mechanism of the mandatory mediation; the status quo and future perspectives of surfing on pledges in international arbitration; the umbrella clauses; the recent developments of the relationships between EU Law and investment arbitration. In addition, the MiAW, always attentive to the relationship between university education and arbitration, will host a chat with the winners of the 30th edition of the Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot, as well as the Frankfurt Investment Pre-Moot (Conference and hearings), organized by DLA Piper, Milan.

 

All information (including how to register) can be found at this link.

The UK Supreme Court ruled that the cause of action in the aftermath of the 2011 Bonga offshore oil spill accrued at the moment when the oil reached the shore. This was a one-off event and not a continuing nuisance. The Nigerian landowners’ claim against Shell was thus barred by the limitation periods under applicable Nigerian law (Jalla and another v Shell International Trading and Shipping Company and another [2023] UKSC 16, on appeal from [2021] EWCA Civ 63).

On 10 May 2023, the UK Supreme Court has ruled in one of the cases in the series of legal battles started against Shell in the English courts in the aftermath of the Bonga spill. The relevant facts are summarized by the UK Supreme Court as follows at [6] and [7]:

6. (…) The Bonga oil field is located approximately 120 km off the coast of Nigeria. The infrastructure and facilities at the Bonga oil field include a Floating Production Storage and Offloading unit (“FPSO”), which is linked to a Single Point Mooring buoy (“SPM”) by three submersible flexible flowlines. The oil is extracted from the seabed via the FPSO, through the flowlines to the SPM, and then on to tankers. The Bonga Spill resulted from a rupture in one of the flexible flowlines connecting the FPSO and the SPM. The leak occurred overnight during a cargo operation when crude oil was being transferred from the Bonga FPSO through the SPM and onwards onto a waiting oil tanker on (…) 20 December 2011. The cargo operation and the leaking were stopped after about six hours.
7. As a result of the Bonga Spill, it is estimated that the equivalent of at least 40,000 barrels of crude oil leaked into the ocean. The claimants allege that, following its initial escape, the oil migrated from the offshore Bonga oil field to reach the Nigerian Atlantic shoreline’.

Some 27,830 Nigerian individuals and 457 communities stated that the spill had a devastating effect of the oil on the fishing and farming industries and caused damage to their land. They sued Shell in English courts. The claim was instituted against International Trading and Shipping Co Ltd (an English company, anchor defendant) and Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Co Ltd (a Nigerian company, co-defendant).

The English courts have accepted jurisdiction, as it had happened in several cases based on a comparable set of facts relevant for establishing jurisdiction, as reported earlier on this blog here, here, here, here, and here. The jurisdiction and applicable law in the specific case of Bonga spill litigation have been closely followed inter alia by Geert van Calster here.

The case at hand is an appeal on a part of an earlier rulings. However, unlike some earlier claims, this is not a representative action, as the UK Supreme Court explicitly states at [8]. The crux of the ruling is the type of tort that the Bonga spill represents under Nigerian law, applicable to that case (on applicable law, see Jalla & Anor v Shell International Trading and Shipping Company Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 424 (TCC), at [348] ff.).

According to the Nigerian party, the spill gave rise to ‘a continuing cause of action because there is a continuing nuisance so that the limitation period runs afresh from day to day,’ as some oil has not been cleaned up and remained on the coast. Shell submitted, on the contrary, that the spill was a one-off event, that the cause of action accrued with the coast was flooded, and that the claim was time barred under the relevant limitation statutes. The lower courts and the UK Supreme court agreed with Shell. They rule that the cause of action had accrued at the moment when the spilled oil had reached the shore. This occurred some weeks after the spill. As a result, at the moment of instituting the proceedings, the claim was time barred.

Noteworthy is the detail in which the UK Supreme Court discusses the authorities on the tort of nuisance under the heading ‘4. Four cases in the House of Lords or Supreme Court’ at [17] ff. This degree of detail is certainly not surprising, due to the relevance of English law for the Nigerian legal system. In the meantime, it contrasts with the approach that would be adopted by a civil law tradition’s court, if the case was brought under their jurisdiction. Firstly, in the civil law traditions, a claim governed by foreign law reaches the highest judicial authority only in exceptional cases. Secondly, if – as in this case – there were ‘no prior case in English law that has decisively rejected or accepted the argument on continuing nuisance put forward by the claimants in this case,’ a continental court might have come to the same conclusion, but finding the law would perhaps be much less business as usual for a continental court than for the UK Supreme Court.

The footage of the hearings that the UK Supreme Court makes available on its website is most enlightening on the Court’s approach and reasoning.

 

Hart Studies in Private International Law officially released a book today titled: The HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention: Cornerstones, Prospects, Outlook. The book is edited by M Weller et al. The blurb reads as follows:

This book analyses, comments and further develops on the most important instrument of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH): the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention. The HCCH Convention, the product of decades of work, will have a transformative effect on global judicial cooperation in civil matters. This book explores its ‘mechanics’, i.e. the legal cornerstones of the new Convention (Part I), its prospects in leading regions of the world (Part II), and offers an overview and comment on its outlook (Part III). Drawing on contributions from world-leading experts, this magisterial and ambitious work will become the reference work for law-makers, judges, lawyers and scholars in the field of private international law.

The United States legal system is immensely complex. There are state courts and federal courts, state statutes and federal statutes, state common law and federal common law. When I imagine a foreign lawyer trying to explain this system to a foreign client, my heart fills with pity.

This feeling of pity is compounded when I imagine this same lawyer trying to advise her client as to whether a choice-of-court clause will be enforced by a court in the United States. The law on this subject is complicated. It is, moreover, not easy to determine how it is applied in practice. Are there differences in clause enforcement rates across the states? Across federal circuits? Do state courts enforce these clauses at the same rate as federal courts? Until recently, there was no data that would allow a foreign lawyer – or a U.S. lawyer, for that matter – to answer any of these questions.

Over the past several years, I have authored or co-authored several empirical articles that seek to answer the questions posed above. This post provides a summary of the data gathered for these articles. All of the cases referenced involve outbound choice-of-court clauses, i.e. clauses that select a jurisdiction other than the one where the suit was filed. Readers interested in the data collection process, the caveats to which the data is subject, or other methodological issues should consult the articles and their appendices. This post first describes state court practice. It then describes federal court practice. It concludes with a brief discussion comparing the two.

 

State Courts

Most state courts have held that choice-of-court clauses are presumptively enforceable. These courts will not, however, enforce a clause when it is unreasonable or contrary to public policy. A clause may be deemed unreasonable when enforcement would result in duplicative litigation, when the plaintiff cannot obtain relief in the chosen forum, when the plaintiff was never provided with notice of the clause, or when the chosen forum lacks any relationship to the parties. A clause is contrary to public policy when a statute or a judicial decision declares that enforcement is inconsistent with the policy of the state.

The chart below lists the enforcement rate in state courts with at least fifteen judicial decisions between 1972 and 2019 and at least ten judicial decisions between 2010 and 2020. These rates were calculated by dividing (1) the total number of cases where a clause was enforced by (2) the total number of cases where the court considered the issue of enforceability.

 

State Enforcement Rate

1972-2019 Enforcement Rate

2010-2020 California 80% 78% Connecticut 71% 88% Delaware 89% 100% Florida 78% 100% Georgia 67% 54% Illinois 74% 83% Louisiana 78% 70% Michigan 78% 82% New Jersey 63% 64% New York 79% 76% Ohio 78% 73% All States 77% 79%

Between 1972 and 2019, state courts enforced choice-of-court clauses in 77% of cases. Between 2010 and 2020, they enforced them in 79% of cases. The state courts in Florida and Connecticut have become more likely to enforce in recent years. The state courts in Georgia have become less likely to enforce in recent years. The state courts in California, New Jersey, and New York have been relatively consistent in their enforcement practice over time.

These data indicate that while there are significant differences in enforcement rates in state court across the United States, choice-of-court clauses are given effect in most cases.

Federal Courts

Like state courts, federal courts take the position that choice-of-court clauses are presumptively enforceable. Like state courts, federal courts will not enforce these clauses when they are unreasonable or contrary to public policy. Unlike state courts, federal courts do not apply state law to decide the issue of enforceability. They apply federal common law. This means that the federal courts are free to adopt their own view of whether a clause is unreasonable or contrary to public policy without considering prior state court decisions.

In theory, the fact that the federal courts apply federal common law to this question should produce uniform results across the nation. In fact, there are notable variations in enforcement rates across federal district courts sitting in different circuits, as shown in the chart below.

 

 

Circuit

  Enforcement Rate

All Federal Cases

2014-2020 Eleventh Circuit 95% Third Circuit 92% Second Circuit 91% Sixth Circuit 91% Fifth Circuit 90% Fourth Circuit 90% All Circuits 88% Seventh Circuit 87% First Circuit 84% Eighth Circuit 85% Tenth Circuit 83% Ninth Circuit 81%

The federal district courts sitting in the Eleventh Circuit, which includes Florida, have the highest enforcement rate. The federal district courts sitting in the Ninth Circuit, which includes California, have the lowest enforcement rate. On the whole, a plaintiff arguing that a choice-of-court clause is unenforceable would rather be in federal court in California than in Florida. Even in California, however, these clauses are still enforced by federal courts in the overwhelming majority of cases.

Comparing State and Federal Courts

Federal courts sitting in diversity enforce choice-of-court clauses at a rate that is equal to or greater than the rate of geographically proximate state courts in every federal circuit. In the Fourth and Eighth Circuits, the enforcement gap is particularly large, as shown in the chart below.

 

Circuit Enforcement Rate

State Cases

(2010-2020) Enforcement Rate

Federal Diversity Cases

(2014-2020) Difference Fourth Circuit 67% 96% 29% Eighth Circuit 64% 88% 24% Sixth Circuit 73% 93% 20% Third Circuit 76% 95% 19% Eleventh Circuit 78% 96% 18% Second Circuit 78% 94% 16% First Circuit 79% 94% 15% Overall 79% 90% 11% Ninth Circuit 78% 85% 7% Tenth Circuit 86% 91% 5% Fifth Circuit 90% 90% 0% Seventh Circuit 85% 85% 0%

These data suggest that a defendant seeking to enforce a choice-of-court clause should try to remove the case to federal court. These courts are, on average, more likely to enforce a clause than their state counterparts. The data further suggest that plaintiffs seeking to invalidate a choice-of-court clause should strive to keep the case in state court. These courts are, on average, less likely to enforce a clause than their federal counterparts. The incentives for forum shopping as between state and federal court when it comes to choice-of-court clauses raise serious concerns under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Erie Railroad Company v. Tompkins, as discussed at greater length here,

There are two main reasons why the enforcement rate is higher in federal court. First, some federal courts applying federal law refuse to give effect to state statutes that invalidate choice-of-court clauses. When these invalidating statutes are applied by state courts and ignored by federal courts, the result is a sizable enforcement gap. The Supreme Court recently denied cert in a case that would have resolved the question of whether federal courts should give effect to state statutes that invalidate choice-of-court clauses.

Second, federal courts applying federal law are less willing than state courts applying state law to conclude that a clause is unreasonable. Over many cases decided over many years, state court judges have shown themselves to be more sympathetic to plaintiffs seeking to avoid choice-of-court clauses. Federal courts, by comparison, have enforced clauses in a number of instances where state courts probably would have refused on unreasonableness grounds.

Conclusion

The law of choice-of-court clauses in the United States is sprawling and complicated. Until recently, there were no empirical studies addressing how the courts applied this law in practice. The information presented above is the product of hundreds of hours of work reading thousands of state and federal cases in an attempt to identify patterns and trends.

Readers interested in learning more about state court practice should look here and here. Readers interested in learning more about federal court practice should look here. Readers interested in learning more about the differences between state and federal practice – and the Erie problems generated by these differences – should look here.

[A version of this post is cross-posted at Transnational Litigation Blog.]

We are happy to announce the following new members of the Editorial Board:

• Prof Marlene Wethmar-Lemmer (University of South Africa, South Africa)
• Prof Béligh Elbalti (University of Osaka, Japan)
• Prof David P Stewart (Georgetown University, USA)
• Prof Du Tao (East China University of Politics and Law, China)
• Prof Wenliang Zhang (Renmin University, China)
• Prof Samuel Fulli-Lemaire (University of Strasbourg, France)
• Prof Étienne Farnoux (University of Strasbourg, France)

We are pleased to announce that registration is now open for the 9th Journal of Private International Law Conference. The conference will be held on 3 to 5 August 2023 at the Yong Pung How School of Law at the Singapore Management University. The keynote address will be delivered by The Honourable Justice Philip Jeyaretnam, President of the Singapore International Commercial Court.

The deadline for speakers to register is 30 May 2023. The deadline for other registrants is 25 June 2023.

Registration is complimentary for speakers, Journal of Private International Law editorial board members and SMU faculty, staff and students. Preferential rates apply for academics, government officials, SMU alumni and non-SMU students – register with your institutional e-mail to enjoy the preferential rate.

More information, including the draft programme and link to register, can be found here. We look forward to welcoming you to Singapore.

We are pleased to remind you two days ahead of a lecture hosted by the University of Bonn in cooperation with ConflictofLaws.net. Professor Amnon Lehavi (Harry Radzyner Law School, Reichman University, Israel) is going to speak on ‘Globalization through the re-codification of property law?’.

The globalization of markets, technology, and interpersonal networks poses a growing challenge for national legal systems. Property law is traditionally considered a “domestic” field of law, not only because of its structural features (such as the in rem or numerus clausus principles), but also because it promotes cultural, economic, and social values. The decision if property law should be globalized also requires a choice among potential globalization strategies (how to do so). This lecture examines four globalization strategies: (1) soft law / private ordering; (2) conflict of laws; (3) approximation; and (4) supranationalism. It does so by comparing three types of assets: land, digital assets, and cultural property – which have all been dramatically affected by current processes of globalization, albeit in diverging ways. It is argued that different strategies of globalization, and corresponding forms of re-codification of national property laws, should be adopted for land, digital assets, and cultural property.

The event will take place on 17 May at 6.30pm at the Senate Hall of the University of Bonn; it can also be joined via Zoom. The flyer can be found here.

 

 

 

 

A seminar will be held on 19 June 2023 at Maastricht University in the Netherlands concerning the Service and Evidence Regulations recast (see here our previous post regarding these regulations).

This seminar is being organised within the framework of the DIGI-GUARD project, which is co-funded by the European Union under the JUST-2021-JCOO program and which stands for Digital communication and safeguarding the parties’ rights: challenges for European civil procedure.

Among the topics to be discussed will be the electronic service of documents, e-codex and many other practicalities relating to the service and the taking of evidence within the European Union. It will include breakout sessions where practical examples will be discussed and led by officials / practitioners.

Discussions will take place in Dutch.

For more information (incl. registration), please click here. Attendance is possible both online and in-person. Please find the program below.

Programma

13:00 – 13:25 uur Ontvangst en inschrijving 13:30 – 13:40 uur Welkom door Pauline van der Grinten 13:40 – 14:25 uur Wannes Vandenbussche
De Betekeningsverordening: een overzicht van de recente wijzigingen en een stand van zaken 14:30 – 15:15 uur Cedric Vanleenhove
De Bewijsverordening: een overzicht van recente wijzigingen en een stand van zaken 15:30 – 16:15 uur Praktische oefeningen (breakout rooms)

1. Betekenen in het buitenland – o.l.v. Bartosz Sujecki en een gerechtsdeurwaarder
2. Bewijsvoering in het buitenland – o.l.v. een rechter

16:20 – 16:40 uur Marta Pertegás Sender
Het DIGI-GUARD project: relevantie voor de rechtspraktijk 16:40 – 17:00 uur Discussie 17:00 – 18:00 uur Borrel

 

Many other activities (mainly in English) are being held as part of the DIGI-GUARD project, click here for more information.

“Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Commission. Neither  the European Union nor the European Commission can be held responsible for them.”

 

 

 

Written by Akanksha Oak and Shubh Jaiswal, undergraduate law students at Jindal Global Law School, India.

 

A Constitution Bench of the Indian Supreme Court in N.N Global recently adjudicated the contentious issue of whether arbitration clauses in contracts that were not registered and stamped would be valid and enforceable. As two co-ordinate benches of the Supreme Court had passed conflicting opinions on this point of law, the matter was referred to a Constitution bench—who answered the question in the negative, by a 3:2 majority.

The majority posited that an insufficiently stamped arbitration agreement within the meaning of Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter “ACA”) could not be acted upon in view of Section 35 of the Stamp Act unless following impounding and paying requisite duty. Furthermore, the bench held that the Court was bound to examine the agreement at Section 11 (appointment of arbitrators) stage itself and was duty bound to impound the agreement—if found to be unstamped.

In doing so, the Apex Court reiterated the principle cited in SMS Tea Estates and Garware Wall ropes and overturned the decision of the full bench of the same court in the 2021 N.N Global case. In this regard, the authors intend to critique this decision of the Constitution bench on three primary grounds-

1. Limited review under Section 11

The Court observed that the issue of stamping had to be looked at the very threshold, by the courts in the exercise of Section 11(6A) of the ACA, when the consideration with respect to the appointment of an arbitrator is undertaken. To that effect, it is argued that Section 11 (6A) merely allows the court to examine the “existence of an arbitration agreement” while dealing with the appointment of arbitrators. In fact, in Pravin Electricals, the court had held that the scope of review under Section 11 (6A) was confined to scrutinizing whether the contractual essentials had been fulfilled and whether the requisites under Section 7 of the ACA (which lays down the necessary particulars of arbitration agreements) had been satisfied. It is imperative to note that Section 7 does not include stamping as a necessary particular of an arbitration agreement. Moreover, in Sanjiv Prakash, the court had observed that Section 11 (6A) only permitted a prima facie review for the existence of an agreement, and a more detailed review could only be carried out by the arbitral tribunal.

Thus, it is contended that at the Section 11 stage, if the court feels that a deeper consideration is required, it must appoint an arbitral tribunal and refer the matter for their adjudication. This is in line with the cardinal principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz (which allows the tribunal to decide over its own jurisdiction) that is found in Section 16 (1) of the ACA. This provision permits the tribunal to make rulings on objections with respect to the “existence and validity” of the arbitration agreement, thereby allowing the arbitrator to make considerations with respect to the stamping of the document. These words have been adopted from Article 16 (1) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International arbitration, in order to ensure that the Indian Act is in conformity with international standards and practices. In fact, most international arbitration institutions like LCIA, SIAC and HKIAC also use similar terminology to encapsulate the principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz, thus showcasing that such extraneous factors are always left to the tribunal’s discretion globally.

Accordingly, leaving the consideration of stamping to the arbitral tribunal is the only way to harmonize Sections 11 and 16 and ensure that the purpose of Section 16 is not defeated. Such an interpretation would cement India’s position as a pro-arbitration country and ensure that international parties are not deterred from choosing India as the seat of their arbitration. The court’s judgement in NN Global dilutes the Kompetenz- Kompetenz principle, consequently hampering India’s position as a choice of seat for arbitrations between Indian parties or between Indian and International parties (as Section 11, by virtue of being part of Part I of the ACA, is applicable to international arbitrations seated in India).

1. Grounds for invalidation of the arbitration agreement

Internationally, there are two grounds on which the arbitration agreement is invalidated, namely, if the arbitration agreement is “inoperative and incapable” or if it is “null and void”. The words “inoperative or incapable” of being performed, which are enshrined in Section 45 of the ACA, have been mirrored from Article II (3) of the New York Convention. Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration define these terms to describe situations in which the arbitration agreement is no longer in effect, such as when it has been revoked by the parties or when the arbitration cannot be set in motion. The latter may be a possibility if the arbitration clause is ambiguously worded or if the other provisions of the contract conflict with the parties’ intention to arbitrate.

The other ground where an arbitration agreement becomes invalidated is if it is “null and void”. Albert Jan Van Dan Berg, in an article, states that the terms “null and void” can be defined when referring to situations in which the arbitration agreement is affected by some invalidity from the start, such as lack of consent owing to misrepresentation, duress, fraud or undue influence. An insufficiently stamped arbitration agreement does not fall under the ambit of either of these grounds as being a curable defect; non-stamping would not render the instrument null and void. Thus, it can be inferred that the Indian courts have developed a new ground for invalidation of the arbitration agreement, which is not recognised internationally.

In fact, this new ground also violates Article 5 of the UNCITRAL Model law, which has been interpreted to prohibit domestic courts from adding any extra grounds for invalidation—grounds that are not mentioned in the model law.

The implications of this judgement could hamper India’s position as an unfavourable seat for International Commercial Arbitration since this new caveat is not arbitration-friendly and could invalidate an agreement if a technical procedure such as stamping is not followed.

1. Technical advancements

This Court cannot be oblivious to electronic improvements given that commercial transactions are moving beyond pen-and-paper agreements. The ACA’s definition of arbitration agreements was amended in 2015 to recognise electronic communication, bringing the procedure in line with Article 7 of the UNCITRAL Model law, which was revised in 2006. Dr. Peter Binder in International Commercial Arbitration and Mediation in UNCITRAL Model Law Jurisdictions notes that “The wording in exchange of letters, telex, telegrams or other means of telecommunication indicates Model law’s flexibility towards future means of communication by being geared solely at the record of the agreement rather than the strict direct signature of the agreement.” It expanded the form of the arbitration agreement to align with international contract conventions and practices. In the present times, a valid arbitration agreement includes communications via letters, telexes, telegrams, or other forms of communication, including electronic channels. From the foregoing, it follows logically that traditional laws cannot deem these new types of agreements unenforceable merely because of insufficient stamping. However, the court in N.N Global has failed to clarify the same, thereby rendering the validity of such agreements questionable.

In conclusion, the authors posit that it is imperative to note that the Indian ACA is based on the doctrine of autonomie de la volonté (“autonomy of the will”), enshrined in the policy objectives of the UNCITRAL. Accordingly, it is improper and undesirable for the courts to add a number of extra formalities that are not envisaged by the legislation. The courts’ goal should be to achieve the legislative intention, and not to act as a barrier between parties and their aim of seeking an efficient, effective, and potentially cheap resolution of their dispute.

This post has been prepared by Prof. Paris Arvanitakis

 Corporate cross-border disputes in modern commercial world have taken on a much more complex dimension than in the early years of the EU. Issues such as the relationship between the registered and the real seat (see e.g. CJEU, 27.9.1988, Daily Mail, C-81/87), the possibility of opening a branch in another Member State (e.g. ECJ, 9.3.1999, Centros/Ehrvervs-og, C-212/97), or the safeguarding of the right of free establishment by circumventing contrary national rules not recognizing the legal capacity of certain foreign companies (CJEU, 5.11.2002, Überseering/Nordic Construction, C-208/00), which were dealt with at an early stage by the ECJ/CJEU, now seem obsolete in the face of the onslaught of new transnational corporate forms, cross-border conversions and mergers, the interdependence of groups of companies with scattered parent companies and subsidiaries, or cross-border issues of directors’ liability or piercing the corporate veil, which create complex and difficult problems of substantive, procedural and private international law. These contemporary issues of corporate cross-border disputes were examined during an online conference of Lex&Forum on 23.2.2023, and are the main subject of the present issue (Focus.

In particular, the Preafatio of the issue hosts the valuable thoughts of Advocate General of the CJEU, Ms Laila Medina, on the human-centered character of the European Court’s activity (“People-centered Justice and the European Court of Justice”), while the main issue (Focus) presents the introductory thoughts of the President of the Association of Greek Commercialists, Emeritus Professor Evangelos Perakis, Chair of the event, and the studies of Judge Evangelos Hatzikos on “Jurisdiction and Applicable Law in Cross-border Corporate Disputes”, of Professor at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Rigas Giovannopoulos on “Cross-border Issues of Lifting the Corporate Veil”, of Dr. Nikolaos Zaprianos on “Directors Civil Liability towards the Legal Person and its Creditors”, of Professor at the University of Thrace Apostolos Karagounidis on the “Corporate Duties and Liability of Multinational Business Groups for Human Rights’ Violations and Environmental Harm under International and EU Law”, and of Professor at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki George Psaroudakis, on “Particularities of cross-border transformations after Directive (EU) 2019/2121”.

The case law section of the issue presents the judgments of the CJEU, 7.4.2022, V.A./V.P., on subsidiary jurisdiction under Regulation 650/2012 (comment by G.-A. Georgiades), and CJEU, 10.2.2022, Share Wood, on the inclusion of a contract of soil lease and cultivation within the Article 6 § 4 c of Rome II Regulation (comment by N. Zaprianos). The present issue also includes judgments of national courts, among which the Cour d’ Appel Paris no 14/20 and OLG München 6U 5042/2019, on the adoption of anti-suit injunctions by European courts in order to prevent a contrary anti-suit injunction by US courts (comment by S. Karameros), are included, as well as the decision of the Italian CassCivile, Sez.Unite n. 38162/22, on the non-recognition of a foreign judgment establishing parental rights of a child born through surrogacy on the grounds of an offence against public policy (comment by I. Valmantonis), as well as the domestic decisions of Thessaloniki Court of First Instance 1201/2022 & 820/2022 on jurisdiction and applicable law in a paternity infringement action (comment by I. Pisina). The issue concludes with the study of the doctoral candidate Ms. Irini Tsikrika, on the applicable law on a claim for damages for breach of an exclusive choice-of-court agreement, and the presentation of practical issues in European payment order matters, edited by the Judge Ms. Eleni Tzounakou.

The second issue of Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly for 2023 was published today. It contains the following private international law articles, case notes, and book reviews:

PS Davies & D Foxton, “A View from Westbridge – Arbitrability in the Singapore Court of Appeal”

H Sanderson, “The Divine Comity”

P MacMahon, “Conditional Agreements and Arbitration Law’s Seperability Principle”

A CY Chan & K KC Tse, “The Tort Gateway: The Missing Jigsaw Piece?”

L Zhao & Z Jing, “Conflict of Jurisdiction between the UK and China and Enforcement of Arbitral awards and Judgments”

A Briggs, Book Review of “The UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration: A Commentary” by Gilles Cuniberti

A Briggs, Book Review of “Freezing Injunctions in Private International Law” by F Šaranovi?

 

 

The latest issue of the Dutch Journal on Private International Law (NIPR) has been published.

NIPR 2023 issue 1

Editorial

M.H. ten Wolde / p. 1-2

A.V.M. Struycken, Arbitrages in Nederland waarop de Nederlandse rechter geen toezicht kan houden / p. 3-8

Abstract
The Code of Civil Procedure contains a chapter on arbitration. Procedures and awards rendered in the Netherlands are subject to a certain degree of scrutiny by the civil courts. This authority, however, does not extend to arbitration on litigation between private enterprises and a foreign State.
This exception applies to such awards rendered at the Peace Palace under the flag of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. This also applies to awards, if rendered in the Netherlands, based on investment treaties like the Washington Convention of 18 March 1965 which created the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). It was correctly recognized by the Act of 1 November 1980 providing for a special rule.
A 1983 proposal to declare that awards rendered by the Iran-US Tribunal situated in The Hague are Dutch awards was not successful. The proposal was only retracted in 2000.
The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) 2016, between the EU and its Member States, on the one side, and Canada, on the other, which was approved for ratification by the Netherlands in July 2022, provides for arbitration in its Articles 27 and 28, within the framework of its investment court system. The recognition and execution of its awards in the Netherlands must still be implemented.
In arbitration based on investment treaties an issue of public international law is involved. This is ignored in Dutch caselaw, however.

N. Touw & I. Tzankova, Parallel actions in cross-border mass claims in the EU: a (comparative) lawyer’s paradise? / p. 9-30

Abstract
In the context of cross-border mass harms, collective redress mechanisms aim to offer (better) access to justice for affected parties and to facilitate procedural economy. Even when national collective redress mechanisms seek to group cases together, it is likely that cross-border parallel actions will still be filed. Parallel actions risk producing irreconcilable judgments with conflicting or inconsistent outcomes and the rules of European private international law aim to reduce this risk. This contribution argues that the rules on parallel actions currently run the risk of not achieving their objective in the context of mass claims and collective redress. Given their lack of harmonization, when collective redress mechanisms with different levels of representation are used, the application of the rules on parallel actions can cause procedural chaos. In addition, judges have a great deal of discretion in applying the rules on parallel actions, whilst there is a lack of guidance on how they should use this discretion and what criteria to apply. They may be unaware of the effects on the access to justice of their decisions to stay or proceed with a parallel collective action. This contribution argues that there should be more awareness about the interaction (and sometimes perhaps even a clash) between the goals of private international law and of collective redress and of how access to justice can come under pressure in the cross-border context when the traditional rules on parallel actions are applied. A stronger focus on the training and education of judges and lawyers in comparative collective redress could be a way forward.

N. Mouttotos, Consent in dispute resolution agreements: The Pechstein case law and the effort to protect weaker parties / p. 31-50

Abstract
The unending Pechstein saga involving the German speed skater and Olympic champion Claudia Pechstein and the International Skating Union has acquired a new interesting turn with the decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court. Among the various interesting questions raised, the issue of party autonomy, especially in instances of inequality in bargaining power, and the resulting compelled consent in dispute resolution agreements is of great relevance for private international law purposes. This article deals with the part of the judgment that focuses on the consensual foundation that underpins arbitration in the sporting context, providing a systematic examination with other areas of the law where other forms of regulation have emerged to remedy the potential lack of consent. This is particularly the case when it involves parties who are regarded as having weaker bargaining power compared to their counterparty. In such cases, procedural requirements have been incorporated in order to ensure the protection of weaker parties. The legal analysis focuses on European private international law, also merging the discussion with substantive contract law and efforts to protect weaker parties by way of providing information. This last aspect is discussed as a remedy to the non-consensual foundation of arbitration in the sporting context.

CASE NOTES

A. Attaibi & M.A.G. Bosman, Forumkeuzebeding in algemene voorwaarden: de ‘hyperlink-jurisdictieclausule’ nader bezien. HvJ EU 24 november 2022, ECLI:EU:C:2022:923, NIPR 2022-549 (Tilman/Unilever) / p. 51-58

Abstract
Tilman v. Unilever concerns the validity of a jurisdiction clause included in the general terms and conditions contained on a website, in case the general terms and conditions are referenced via a hyperlink in a written B2B contract. The CJEU held that such a jurisdiction clause is valid, provided that the formal requirements of Article 23 Lugano Convention 2007, that ensure the counterparty’s consent to the clause, are met. In this annotation the authors discuss and comment on the CJEU judgment, also in the broader context of earlier CJEU judgments on jurisdiction clauses contained in general terms and conditions.

K.J. Saarloos, Arbitrage en de effectiviteit van de EEX-Verordening naar aanleiding van de schipbreuk van de Prestige in 2002. Hof van Justitie EU 20 juni 2022, zaak C-700/20, ECLI:EU:C:2022:488, NIPR 2022-544 (London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Ltd/Spanje) / p. 59-74

Abstract
The CJEU’s ruling in the Prestige case confirms the rule from the J/H Limited case (2022) that a judgment by a court of a Member State is a judgment within the meaning of Article 2 of the EEX Regulation if the judgment is or could have been the result of adversarial proceedings. The content of the judgment is not relevant for the definition. Judgments recognising judgments by arbitrators or the courts of third countries are therefore judgments within the meaning of the EEX Regulation. The question of the definition of the term judgment must be distinguished from the material scope of the EEX Regulation. A judgment recognising an arbitral award is not covered by the EEX Regulation’s rules on recognition and enforcement; however, such a judgment may be relevant for the application of the rule that the recognition of the judgment of a court of a Member State may be refused if the judgment is irreconcilable with a judgment given in the Member State addressed.
The ruling in the Prestige case also makes it clear that a judgment by a Member State court on arbitration cannot impair the effectiveness of the EEX Regulation. If it does, that judgment cannot be opposed to the recognition of an incompatible judgment from the other Member State. The CJEU thus formulates an exception to the rule that a judgment from a Member State may not be recognised if the judgment is irreconcilable with a judgment in the Member State addressed: that ground for refusal is not applied if the irreconcilable judgment in the requested Member State violates certain rules in the EEX Regulation. The ruling raises questions both in terms of substantiation and implications for the future. It is not convincing to limit a statutory limitation on the effectiveness of the EEX Regulation by invoking the same effectiveness. Moreover, the ruling creates tension with the rule that the New York Convention takes precedence over the EEX Regulation.

Discussion on the Commission Proposal for a Regulation on Parenthood  is intensifying – recall the virtual workshop by Tobias Helms in February and the current regular webinars on the proposal. Now, a group of German professors (including Helms) that calls itself “the Marburg group” has published critical comments. Their verdict: “The Marburg Group welcomes the initiative of the Commission. The Group embraces the overall structure of the Parenthood Proposal. Nevertheless, it suggests some fundamental changes, apart from technical amendments.”

For details, see here.