Conflictoflaws

The International Journal of Procedural Law is a new  multilingual journal that provides an international research platform for scholars and practitioners in the field of procedural law, especially in civil matters.

The following papers were published in this issue:

Editorial

E Oteiza

DOCTRINE/STUDIES

A Nylund, “Introduction: Perspectives on Orality in Civil Proceedings”

FG Inchausti, “Challenges for Orality in Times of Remote Hearings: Efficiency, Immediacy and Public Proceedings”

MA Hjort, “Orality and Digital Hearings”

V Benabou and E Jeuland, “From the Principle of Immediacy to the Principle of Presence: A French Example and a Comparative Law Perspective”

A Nylund, “Oral Proceedings during the Preparatory Stage”

M Strandberg, “Immediacy, Orality and Appellate Proceedings”

 

PRATIQUE/PRACTICE

Analyse Comparative/ Comparative Perspectives

C Wendelstein, “Online Trading of Cryptocurrencies: A European Civil Procedure Law Perspective”

TA Alvim et al, “Class Actions in Brazil”

MA Lupoi, “Grandes Décisions/Leading Cases”

 

 

The ILA Reporter, the official blog of the International Law Association (Australian Branch), is currently calling for submissions on private international law to be published on the website.

The Reporter provides leading analysis, commentary and discussion on public and private international law issues, which have a bearing on Australia and the wider region. The length of contributions is flexible – anywhere between 500 and 1,500 words is ideal, and we frequently publish multi-part article series.

Would you or any of the postgraduate students in the law school be interested in publishing in the ILA Reporter?

Terms and conditions for the submissions are available here, and submissions should conform to the ILA Reporter’s Style Guide here.

 

On Tuesday, October 4, 2022, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its 26th monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 11:00 a.m. -12:30 p.m. (CEST). Prof. Sabine Corneloup (Paris-Panthéon-Assas University) will speak, in English, about the topic

Migrants in Transit or Under Temporary Protection: How Can Private International Law Deal With Provisional (But Not Necessarily Short-Term) Presence?

An increasing number of migrants are provisionally present in the territory of a State other than their State of origin, be it because they are granted temporary protection until they can return to their country of origin (4 million refugees from Ukraine registered for Temporary Protection in Europe), or because migration policies – notably externalization measures – prevent them from accessing the territory of their State of destination. As a result, many migrants are blocked for months if not years in transit countries at the external borders of Europe, before being able to resume their migratory route. Their provisional presence, which initially was meant to remain transitional and short-term, often becomes indefinite. In the meantime, life goes on: children are born, couples marry and divorce, parental child abductions take place etc.
How can Private International Law deal with these situations? The presentation aims to explore PIL connecting factors, such as nationality, habitual residence and mere presence, and assess their appropriateness for migrants on the move or under temporary protection. The 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention, which requires that the personal status of refugees be governed by the law of domicile or residence, does not provide an answer to all difficulties.

The presentation will be followed by open discussion. All are welcome. More information and sign-up here.

If you want to be invited to these events in the future, please write to veranstaltungen@mpipriv.de.

Sydney Law School is pleased to announce the inaugural Kim Santow Law and Social Justice Essay Prize. For more information, see here.

The Essay Prize is open to students enrolled in an LLB or JD program at an Australian University.  In 2022, essays must be submitted by  by 5.00 pm (AEDT) on Monday 31 October 2022. The Essay Prize will be awarded in association with the annual Kim Santow Expert Panel on Law and Social Justice which will take place on Thursday 1 December 2022.

Rules for the competition are below:

Kim Santow Law and Social Justice Essay Prize 2022: Rules

1. The Kim Santow Law and Social Justice Essay Prize is open to any student enrolled in an LLB or JD degree program at an Australian tertiary institution at the time of submission or within the previous six months.
2. Essays must have been written in the 12 months before the submission deadline. A person may not submit more than one essay to the Competition in any given year.
3.  Essays must respond to the following proposition:
   The NDIS is described as a shift from a welfare system to a market-based system, but there may be limitations in relying on competition and choice in the provision of disability support. Discuss.
4. Essays must be no more than 3,000 words. Essays exceeding this word limit will not be accepted. Footnotes if used, and bibliographies (required), are not included in the final word count.
5. Essays must be submitted as a .pdf document by email to <law.reform@sydney.edu.au>.
6. The deadline for submission of essays is 5.00 pm (AEDT) on Monday 31 October, 2022. No extensions will be allowed.
7. Essays must meet the highest standards of academic integrity, and be fully and accurately referenced according to a recognised referencing standard (eg, AGLC, Harvard, MLA).
8. Each person submitting an essay must declare that the essay is the person’s own original work. By submitting an essay, a person agrees that Sydney Law School may conduct an integrity check for copyright infringement or plagiarism.
9. An essay that is submitted to the Competition must be accompanied by a separate cover page stating:
   a.     the author’s name, contact email and telephone number
   b.     a declaration of enrolment (see rule 1)
   c.     a declaration of time (see rule 2)
   d.     a declaration of integrity (see rule 7)
10. A submitted essay must not include any information – for example in a header or footer – that identifies the author, so that it can be marked anonymously.
11. Eligible essays will be reviewed by a panel of experts against the following criteria:
    1. Novelty: does the essay address a cutting-edge issue and/or contribute a novel perspective or analysis to the question
    2. Argument: is the argument clear, compelling, well-developed and supported by evidence?
    3. Clarity and structure: is the essay written clearly and concisely, and organised in a logical and effective way?
    4. Accuracy: is the essay presented neatly and legibly, with few or no content, typographical, grammatical and referencing errors?
12. The best essay will be announced on 1 December, 2022 at the Kim Santow Experts Panel on Social Justice to be hosted at the Sydney Law School. The decision of the judging panel is final.
13. The judging panel may in its discretion decline to award prizes.
14. Subject to rule 13, the author of the Winning Essay will each receive a prize of AU$1000.
15. The author of the Winning Essay will be offered academic support and advice to revise their work for submission for publication.
16. The author of the Winning Essay agrees that if their essay is published (by any means, in any forum), that its publication will be accompanied by an acknowledgment that the essay won the Prize in the relevant year.

Please direct any inquiries to Mr Josh Pallas at <law.reform@sydney.edu.au>.

 

The Nigeria Group on Private International Law “(NGPIL”) invites submissions for the annual NGPIL Conflict of Laws’ Competition. The winner will be awarded for the best essay on any aspect of Nigerian conflict of laws. Entries will be accepted from the following: an undergraduate and/or postgraduate scholar studying in Nigeria, or any Nigerian lawyer five years call or below practising and residing in Nigeria. The essay should be unpublished at the time of submission. Submitted essays should be in the English language. Submitted essays should also be within five to eight thousand words. Competitors may be citizens of any nation, age or gender but must be an undergraduate and/or postgraduate scholar studying in Nigeria, or any lawyer below five years post-call experience practising and residing in Nigeria.

The first prize is ?120,000 Naira (NGN), and the winner of the competition will be encouraged to publish the paper in any high-quality peer reviewed journal on private international law (conflict of laws). The second prize is ?80,000 Naira (NGN), and third prize is ?50,000 Naira (NGN). The prize is sponsored by and will be awarded by NGPIL.

Submissions to the Prize Committee must be received no later than January 9, 2023. Entries should be submitted by email in Word or pdf format. The winner will be announced no later than 2 months after the deadline. Decisions of the NGPIL on the winning essay and on any conditions relating to this prize are final. Submissions and any queries should be addressed by email to ngpilaw@gmail.com. All submissions will be acknowledged by e-mail.

The second issue of Journal of Private International Law  for 2022 was released today. It features the following interesting articles:

T Kruger et. al., Current-day international child abduction: does Brussels IIb live up to the challenges?

Regulation 2019/1111 tries to tackle the new challenges arising from societal changes and legal developments in international child abduction. The result is a sophisticated set of rules centred on the child and aimed at enhancing their protection. The Regulation provides for the hearing of the child and for speedy and efficient proceedings. In it the EU acknowledges its role in the protection of human and children’s rights and sets goals towards de-escalating family conflicts. The new EU child abduction regime is at the same time more flexible than its predecessor allowing consideration of the circumstances characterising each single case in the different stages of the child abduction procedure

O Vanin, Assisted suicide from the standpoint of EU private international law

The article discusses the conflict-of-laws issues raised by such compensatory claims as may be brought against health professionals and medical facilities involved in end-of-life procedures. The issues are addressed from the standpoint of EU private international law. The paper highlights the lack of international legal instruments on assisted-suicide procedures. It is argued that the European Convention on Human Rights requires that States provide a clear legal framework concerning those procedures. The author contends that the said obligation has an impact on the interpretation of the relevant conflict-of-laws provisions of the EU.

 

S Avraham-Giller, The court’s discretionary power to enforce valid jurisdiction clauses: time for a change?

The paper challenges the well-rooted principle in the Anglo-American legal tradition that courts have discretion whether they should enforce a valid jurisdiction clause. The paper highlights the ambiguity and uncertainty that accompany this discretionary power, which raises a serious analytical problem. The paper then analyses two factors that shaped this discretionary power – jurisdictional theories and the general principle of party autonomy in contracts. Based on the analysis, the paper argues that the time has come to end the courts’ discretionary power with respect to the limited context of the enforcement of valid jurisdiction clauses. The proposal relies on a number of foundations: contractual considerations that relate to autonomy and efficiency; jurisdictional and procedural considerations, including the consent of a party to the jurisdiction of the court by general appearance; the increasing power of parties to re-order procedure; the more appropriate expression of the forum’s public interests and institutional considerations through overriding mandatory provisions; and finally the legal position regarding arbitration agreements and the willingness of a common law legal system such as the United Kingdom to accede to the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements.

 

TT Nguyen, Transnational corporations and environmental pollution in Vietnam – realising the potential of private international law in environmental protection

Many transnational corporations have been operating in Vietnam, contributing to economic and social development in this country. However, these actors have caused a number of high-profile environmental incidents in Vietnam through the activities of their local subsidiaries, injuring the local community and destroying the natural ecosystem. This paper discloses the causes of corporate environmental irresponsibility in Vietnam. Additionally, this paper argues that Vietnam’s private international law fails to combat pollution in this country. To promote environmental sustainability, Vietnam should improve ex-ante regulations to prevent and tackle ecological degradation effectively. Additionally, this paper suggests that Vietnam should remedy its national private international law rules to facilitate transnational liability litigation as an ex-post measure to address the harmful conducts against the natural ecosystem of international business.

 

D Levina, Jurisdiction at the place of performance of a contract revisited: a case for the theory of characteristic performance in EU civil procedure

The article revisits jurisdiction in the courts for the place of performance of a contract under Article 7(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. It proposes a new framework for understanding jurisdiction in contractual matters by offering a comparative and historical analysis of both the place of performance as a ground for jurisdiction and its conceptual counterpart, the place of performance as a connecting factor in conflict of laws. The analysis reveals that jurisdiction in the courts for the place of performance is largely a repetition of the same problematic patterns previously associated with the place of performance as a connecting factor. The article asserts that the persisting problems with Article 7(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation are due to the inadequacy of the place of performance as a ground for jurisdiction and advocates for the transition to the theory of characteristic performance in EU civil procedure.

T Bachmeier and M Freytag,  Discretional elements in the Brussels Ia Regulation Following continental European traditions, the Brussels Ia Regulation forms a rigid regime of mandatory heads of jurisdiction, generally not providing jurisdictional discretion. Nonetheless, to some limited extent, the Brussels regime includes discretional elements, in particular when it comes to lis pendens (see Articles 30, 33 and 34 of Brussels Ia). Reconsidering the strong scepticism towards forum non conveniens stipulated by the CJEU in its Owusu case, the fundamental question arises whether a substantial form of discretion concerning jurisdictional competence might be (in)compatible with the core principles of the Brussels regime.

 

P Mostowik and E Figura-Góralczyk, Ordre public and non-enforcement of judgments in intra-EU civil matters: remarks on some recent Polish-German cases

The article discusses the enforcement of foreign judgments within the European Union and the public policy (ordre public) exception. It is mainly focused on some recent judgments of Polish and German courts. On 22nd December 2016 and 23rd of March 2021 rulings in cases of infringement of personality rights were issued by the Court of Appeal in Cracow (ordering an apology and correction). The enforcement of the former ruling was dismissed by the German Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) (IX ZB 10/18) on 19th July 2018. The non-enforcement was justified by invoking German ordre public and “freedom of opinion” as a constitutional right stipulated in Article 5 of the German Constitution (Grundgesetz). A reference to the CJEU ruling of 17 June 2021 is also presented.

After presenting the issue of ordre public in the context of enforcement of foreign judgments within the EU, the authors evaluate as questionable the argumentation of the BGH in its 2018 judgment. The Polish ruling ordering the defendant to correct and apologise for the false statement was included by the BGH in the category of “opinion” (Meinung) protected by the German Constitution. Enforcement of the judgment of the Polish court in Germany was held to be contrary to this German constitutional right and the enforceability of the Polish judgment was denied as being manifestly contrary to German public policy.

The authors support the functioning of the ordre public clause in intra-EU relations. It is justified inter alia by the large differences in EU legal systems and future possible changes. However, the common standards of the ECHR should be particularly taken into consideration when applying the public policy clause, because they co-shape the EU legal systems.

 

Building on the very successful conferences held in Aberdeen (2005), Birmingham (2007), New York (2009), Milan (2011), Madrid (2013), Cambridge (2015), Rio (2017) and Munich (2019), we are pleased to announce that the Journal of Private International Law will be holding its 9th Conference at the Singapore Management University from 3 to 5 August 2023.

We now invite abstracts for the conference. Please submit an abstract if you would like to make a presentation at the conference and you are willing to produce a final paper that you will submit for publication in the Journal. Abstracts should be up to 500 words in length and should clearly state the name(s) and affiliation(s) of the author(s).

They can be on any subject matter that falls within the scope of the Journal and can be offered by people at any stage of their career, including postgraduate students. Presentation at the conference will depend on whether your abstract is selected by the Editors of the Journal (Professor Jonathan Harris KC of King’s College, London and Professor Paul Beaumont FRSE of the University of Stirling) and the conference organiser (Associate Professor Adeline Chong, Singapore Management University). The subsequent article should be submitted to either of the editors of the Journal before the end of 2023. Publication in the Journal will be subject to the usual system of refereeing by two experts in the field.

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

The Conference will be held in the Yong Pung How School of Law, Singapore Management University. Please see here for up-to-date information on travel requirements to enter Singapore.

Speakers will not be expected to pay a conference fee but will be expected to pay their expenses in relation to their attendance at the conference in Singapore. Details about options for accommodation and the conference dinner on the Friday evening will be made available on the conference webpage . Please send your abstract to the following email address by Friday 16 December 2022: jpil2023@smu.edu.sg.

Today (16 September 2022) the Russian Federation has ceased to be a High Contracting Party to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This means, inter alia, that applications against the Russian Federation will no longer be entertained by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

However, the Resolution of the ECtHR of 22 March 2022 clarified that “The Court remains competent to deal with applications directed against the Russian Federation in relation to acts or omissions capable of constituting a violation of the Convention provided that they occurred until 16 September 2022.” To view the full resolution, click here. The news item is available here.

The Russian Federation had ceased to be a member of the Council of Europe on 16 March 2022. See here.

We have previously reported on the increasing interaction between the ECHR and Private International Law. This is particularly so in surrogacy and international child abduction cases. See for example a judgment regarding international child abduction rendered by the ECtHR earlier this year, where no violation of article 8 of the ECHR was found against Russia: Case of P.D. v. Russia (Application no. 30560/19). But see Thompson v. Russia (Application no. 36048/17) where a violation of article 8 of the ECHR was indeed found.

For more information about this interaction, click here.

Undoubtedly, today is a sad day for human rights law.

Under the auspices of the EU Justice project E-training on EU Family Property Regimes, shortly known as EU-FamPro, the project partners organise a conference COUPLES’ PROPERTY WITH CROSS-BORDER IMPLICATIONS: Uniting Academic Discussions and Practical Concerns, followed by the seminar on Practical Challenges in the Application of the Twin Regulations. The conference and the seminar are due to take place on 19 September 2022 at the University of Almeria, Spain.

The programme of the event is now available here.

The event will be held in hybrid format. You may join the event via Zoom by clicking on this link.

Some of our readers will be interested to know that University of Rijeka, Faculty of Law announced this year’s call for applications to the Rijeka Doctoral Conference: RIDOC 2022. Receiving applications on any legal or related topic of doctoral research, the conference traditionally hosts at least one session in private international law. Applications should be sent to ridoc@pravri.hr by 5 October. The conference is scheduled for 9 December 2022 in the hybrid format, but hopefully many of the participants will be able to attend onsite.

From the intersection of conflict of laws, archaeology, and indigenous studies, this multidisciplinary webinar will explore legal and practical challenges and solutions in repatriating cultural heritage in Australia, China, the EU, and the USA.

Examples include an Australian repatriation project with the Anindilyakwa Land Council and Traditional Owners on Groote Eylandt, the world-wide Return of Cultural Heritage (RoCH) program established by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, legal battles in repatriating the Chinese statue of Zh?ng G?ng Z? Sh? (a budda statue with a mummy inside), sovereign immunity issues in recovery of World War II-era stolen art and other heritage, and participation of local communities in protecting and repatriating cultural heritage.

Speakers (listed in the surname alphabetic order):

• Dr. Evelien Campfens, member of the International Law Association Cultural Heritage Law Committee based at Leiden University, the Netherlands, and former director to the Dutch Restitutions Committee for Nazi looted art
• Professor Anne (Annie) Clarke, Chair of Archaeology Discipline and Member of Museum and Heritage Studies Program, the University of Sydney, Australia
• Professor Zheng Xin Huo, China University of Political Science and Law, China
• Professor Charles T. Kotuby Jr., University of Pittsburgh School of Law and Honorary Professor of Law, Durham Law School, the USA and UK
• Mr. Craig Ritchie, an Aboriginal man of the Dhunghutti and Biripi nations and the Chief Executive Officer at the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS), Australia

Moderator:

• Associate Professor Jie (Jeanne) Huang, the University of Sydney Law School and Co-Director of Center for Asian and Pacific Law

Webinar via Zoom: Wednesday 21 September 6.00-7.15 pm (AEST)

Once registered, you will be provided with Zoom details closer to the date of the webinar.

 

If interested, please register here.

 

This webinar is jointly presented by the American Society of International Law Private International Law Interest Group, Centre for Asian and Pacific Law and the Center for International Law at the University of Sydney Law School.

The Australian Institute of International Affairs (AIIA) and the Australian Branch of the ILA are pleased to present the 2022 Peter Nygh Hague Conference Internship. The award will support a postgraduate student or graduate of an Australian law school to undertake an internship with The Hague Conference on Private International Law in the Netherlands by providing funds to cover the cost of travel to the Netherlands and a contribution towards living expenses.

 

Applications for the 2023 Nygh Internship are now open, and will close on 30 September 2022. More information about the award and how to apply is available here, and below.

 

The Internship

The award will provide a postgraduate student or graduate with the opportunity to work with some of the leading private international law practitioners in the world. With over 80 members (including the European Union) representing all major regions and legal systems, The Hague Conference is a global intergovernmental organisation that aims for the ‘progressive unification’ of the various State private international law rules.

Activities of The Hague Conference are coordinated by a multinational Secretariat – the Permanent Bureau – located in The Hague. The successful intern will work for 5 to 6 months under the direction of the Secretariat, assisting with research, translation and preparation of meetings in accordance with the needs of the lawyers of the Permanent Bureau.

 

How to apply

Please send a letter of application addressed to the Peter Nygh Hague Conference Internship Board (nygh.internship@internationalaffairs.org.au) or to c/- Ms Nicola Nygh, Resolve Litigation Lawyers, level 18, 126 Phillip Street, Sydney NSW 2000.

The letter should include:

• the applicant’s reasons for applying for the Peter Nygh Hague Conference Internship;
• the benefits which the applicant expects are to be derived from the internship and the contribution which the applicant expects to make to the work of The Hague Conference;
• the applicant’s career ambitions and how the internship will relate to those ambitions;
• a description of the applicant’s current research, if applicable; and
• the dates when the applicant would be available to undertake the internship (Note: The applicant must be available to undertake the internship for 5 to 6 months. The preferred start date is the beginning of January 2023 and the preferred end date is the end of June 2023. The start date, and indeed whether the internship can be undertaken in 2023, may vary depending on what travel restrictions are in place at the time).

The award is for a lump sum amount, and the successful candidate will need to accept the risks and increased costs of travelling during the COVID-19 pandemic, including limited and more expensive flights (in particular into and out of Australia), government restrictions on travel, and quarantine regimes for travellers.

 

Please also enclose the following:

• the applicant’s up-to-date résumé;
• the applicant’s most recent academic transcript;
• two letters of reference for the applicant (including at least one academic reference), with contact details of referees;
• a copy of research work by the applicant in a field relevant to the work of The Hague Conference; and
• any other proof of the applicant’s legal and linguistic abilities and knowledge. Knowledge of French would be an asset but is not required. Knowledge of any other languages may also be an advantage.

The Hon Dr Peter Nygh AM

The Peter Nygh Hague Conference Internship has been established in memory of the late Hon Dr Peter Nygh AM, a leading international lawyer, former judge of the Family Court of Australia and former President of the ILA (Australian Branch). Dr Nygh began his 25 year association with The Hague Conference as a member of Australia’s delegation in 1975. During this time, Dr Nygh helped to draft the Convention on the Celebration and Recognition of the Validity of Marriages as well as the Convention on the Law Applicable to Matrimonial Property Regimes, work which contributed to his appointment to the Family Court of Australia. After his retirement from the bench, Dr Nygh returned to The Hague Conference and between 1994 and his death in 2002 he contributed in many ways, including serving as co-rapporteur on The Hague ‘judgments project’ from 1996 and representing Australia in the negotiations that led to the Convention on the Protection of Children. In his later years Dr Nygh spent extended periods in The Hague without remuneration or payment of his expenses, yet his work did not go unrecognised. He was awarded the Centenary Medal by the Australian Government as well as the Order of Australia, partly in recognition of his outstanding and longstanding contribution to private international law, and in particular his representation of Australia at The Hague Conference.

On 9 September 2022, the Max Planck Institute for Procedural Law Luxembourg hosted a conference on the Brussels Ibis Reform, in collaboration with the KU Leuven and the EAPIL.

The Brussels Ibis Regulation is certainly the fundamental reference-instrument of cross-border judicial cooperation in civil matters within the European Union. Since its establishment in 1968, it has been constantly evolving. At present, the European Commission is required to present a report on the application of the Regulation and to propose improvements. Against this background, a Working Group was set up within the network of the European Association of Private International Law (EAPIL) to draft a position paper. The group is led by Burkhard Hess (MPI Luxembourg) and Geert van Calster (KU Leuven). Members of the working group answered a questionnaire, reporting the application and possible shortcomings of the Brussels Ibis Regulation in their respective jurisdictions.

The topics of the conference were based on the 19 reports that were received from 16 working group members and 3 observers. Additional experts presented topics ranging from insolvency proceedings to third state relationships. The aim of the conference is to prepare a position paper. The paper will be presented to the European Commission to advise it on the evaluation process. EAPIL Members are invited to join the Members Consultative Committee (MCC) of the EAPIL Working Group on reforming Brussels Ibis.

After welcome notes by Burkhard Hess (MPI Luxembourg), Andreas Stein (Head of Unit, DG JUST – A1 “Civil Justice”, European Commission European Commission, connected via Video from outside), Gilles Cuniberti (University of Luxemburg/EAPIL) and Geert van Calster (KU Leuven), the first panel, chaired by Marie-Élodie Ancel, Paris, focused on the role and scope of the Brussels Ibis Regulation in European Procedural Law. Dário Moura Vicente, Lisbon, highlighted the Regulation’s indispensable function as a “backbone” of European civil procedural law, reaching far beyond civil and commercial matters into e.g. family law, in order to increase consistency. Room for improvement in this respect was identified, inter alia, for the definition of the substantive scope, in particular in relation to arbitration, the subjective or personal scope, in particular in relation to third state domiciled defendants, and for coordinating the relationships with other instruments such as the GDPR. Following up on the latter aspect, Björn Laukemann, Tübingen, analysed the delineation of the Regulation and the European Insolvency Regulation with a view to annex actions and preventive restructuring proceedings. No imminent need for textual reform was seen for the former, whereas for the latter suggestions for amendments of the Recitals were submitted. Vesna Lazic, Utrecht/The Hague, discussed the controversial judgment of the ECJ in London Steamship that certainly put again on the table the question whether the arbitration exception of the Regulation should be drafted more precisely. Whereas some argued that the large differences in the arbitration laws of the Member States would not allow any unifying approach based on notions of mutual trust, others held that there was some sense in the ECJ’s attempt not to get blocked the Spanish judgments in the UK via arbitration. As to the suggestion of a full-fledged European Arbitration Regulation, one reaction was that this might result in unintended consequences, namely exclusive external competence by the EU on arbitration. Further, the question came up whether in light of the ECJ’s judgment in London Steamship its earlier decision in Liberato should be rectified in the reform. In Liberato, the ECJ held that a violation of the lis pendens rules of the Regulation does not amount to a ground for refusal of recognition whereas in London Steamship the Court held that the lis pendens rules formed part of the fundamental principles of the Regulation to be respected under all circumstances. Speaking of lis pendens, another question in the discussion was whether a backbone instrument like the Brussels Ibis Regulation would or should allow de lege lata transferring certain core elements, such as the rules on lis pendens, to other instruments without any rules on lis pendens, such as the European Insolvency Regulation. The ECJ in Alpine Bau GmbH had rejected the application of Article 29 Brussels Ibis Regulation by way of analogy, as it considered the EIR as a special and distinct instrument of its own kind, so the question was whether analogies from the “backbone” should be encouraged expressly where appropriate in the concrete constellation.

The second panel, chaired by Burkhard Hess, dealt with collective redress. François Mailhé, Picardy, Stefaan Voet, Leuven, and Camelia Toader, Bucharest, discussed intensely the cross-border implications of the new Representative Actions Directive, in particular the potential need for specific heads of jurisdiction, as the Directive was described as subtly seeking to encourage pan-European actions but at the same time leaves a number of options to the Member States. Obviously, this means that provision and allocation of – ideally one-stop – jurisdiction would be of the essence, e.g. by extending the forum connexitatis of Article 8 (1) Brussels Ibis Regulation to connected claimants, possibly even for third state domiciled claimants. However, concerns were formulated that the Brussels Ibis Regulation should not be “politicized” (too strongly). In addition, the importance of other aspects were highlighted such as coordinating and consolidating proceedings, the delineation of settlements and court judgments in respect to court-approved settlements (probably to be characterised as judgments) and the essential role of funding. The overall tendency in the room seemed to be that one should be rather careful with (at least large-scale) legislative interventions at this stage.

The third panel, chaired by Thalia Kruger, Antwerp, focused on third state relations. Chrysoula Michailidou, Athens, discussed potential extensions of heads of jurisdiction for third state domiciled defendants, in particular in respect to jurisdiction based on (movable) property and a forum necessitatis. Alexander Layton, London, focused on the operation of Articles 33 and 34 and reiterated the position that discretion of the court to a certain extent was simply inevitable, also in a distributive system of unified heads of jurisdiction, as it is provided for e.g. in these Articles, in particular by the tool of a prognosis for the chances of recognition of the future third state judgment (“Anerkennungsprognose”) in Article 33(1) lit. a and Article 34(1) lit. b, and by the general standard that the later proceedings in the Member State in question should only be stayed if the Member State court is satisfied that a stay is necessary for the proper administration of justice (Articles 33(1) lit. b and 34(1) lit. c). Further, the question was posed why Articles 33 and 34 would only apply if the proceedings in the Member State court are based on Articles 4, 7, 8 or 9, as opposed to e.g. Articles 6(1) and sections 3, 4 and 5 of Chapter II. The author of these lines observed that relations to third states should be put on a consistent basis including all aforementioned aspects as well as recognition and enforcement of such judgments. Further, need for clarification, e.g. in the respective Recitals, was identified for the question whether there is an implicit obligation of the Member State courts not to recognize third state judgments that violate Articles 24, 25 and the said sections 3, 4 and 5 of Chapter II. This could be framed as a matter of the Member States’ public policy, including fundamental notions of EU law (see ECJ in Eco Swiss on another fundamental notion of EU law as an element of the respective Member State’s public policy). The central point, however, was the suggestion to correct the latest steps in the jurisprudence of the ECJ towards allowing double exequatur, if a Member State’s lex fori provides for judgments upon foreign judgments (see ECJ in H Limited). Options for doing so would be either adjusting the relevant Recitals, 26 and 27 in particular, or the definition of “judgment” or inserting another specific ground for refusal outside the general public policy clause, thereby in essence restating the principle of “no double exequatur” within the mechanics of the Regulation as understood by the ECJ, or limiting the effects of a judgment upon judgments for the purposes of the Brussels system, a method (altering the effects of a judgment under its lex fori) employed by the ECJ in Gothaer Versicherung in respect to other effects of a judgment from a Member State court, or, finally, by introducing an entire set of rules on the recognition and enforcement of third state judgments. In the latter case, all measures would have to be coordinated with the latest and fundamental development within the EU on third state judgments, namely the (prospective) entering into force of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention on 1 September 2023. Anyone who is interested in what this Convention could offer should feel warmly invited to participate and discuss, inter alia, the interplay between the Brussels and the Hague systems at the Bonn / HCCH Conference on 9 and 10 June 2023.

The next panel, chaired by Geert van Calster, related to certain points on jurisdiction and pendency to be reformed. Krzystof Pacula, Luxemburg, discussed Articles 7 no. 1 and no. 2 and, inter alia, suggested abstaining from a general reformulation of these heads of jurisdiction but rather opted for concrete measures for improving the text in light of lines of case law that turned out to be problematic. Problems identified were, inter alia, the delineation of the personal scope of Article 7 no. 1 in light of the principle of privity of contracts (“Relativität des Schuldverhältnisses”) and the concurrence of claims under Article 7 no. 1 and no. 2. In this regard, it was discussed whether both of these heads should allow to assume annex competence in regard to each other. Marta Requejo Isidro, Luxemburg, discussed the intricate interplay of Article 29 and 31 and, inter alia, considered increased obligations of the two Member State courts involved to coordinate conclusively the proceedings, for example by inserting certain time limits and, in case only the non-designated court is seized, powers to order the parties to institute proceedings at the designated court within a certain time limit. Otherwise the court seized should decline jurisdiction finally. Victória Harsági, Budapest, discussed the implications of the judgment of the ECJ in Commerzbank in respect to balancing consumer protection with foreseeability when the consumer, after a Lugano Convention State court has been seized with the matter, transferred its domicile to another (Lugano Convention) State, thereby creating the only international element of the case. Burkhard Hess dealt with reforming Article 35 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation after the ECJ in Toto and observed that there was no express hierarchy between measures under that Article and measures by the court of the main proceedings, and the Court did not infer any such hierarchy in its decision. The suggestion, therefore, was to think about introducing express coordination, be it along the lines of Rules 202 et seq. of the 2020 European Model Rules of Civil Procedure, be it along those of Article 6(3) of the 2022 Lisbon Guidelines on Privacy (on these see here and here), be it along those of Article 15 (3) Brussels IIter Regulation. Good reasons for the latter approach were identified, and this led back to the fundamental question to what extent the notion of a coherent “Brussels system” might allow even de lege lata not only to apply concepts from the Brussels Ibis Regulation, the “backbone” of that system, to other instruments by analogy, but also vice versa from the latter instruments to the former.

The last panel started with a submission by Gilles Cuniberti, Luxemburg, to remove Article 43, based on a number of reasons, as the Brussels I Recast aimed at removing “intermediate measures” such as exequatur, which rendered it inconsistent to uphold the intermediate measure foreseen in Article 43 – service of the certificate of Article 53 upon the judgment debtor. This was held to be all the more so, as this measure would primarily protect the debtor, already adjudged to pay, to an unjustifiable degree. Marco Buzzoni, Luxemburg, discussed the adaptation of enforcement titles under Article 54, a provision that was held to be one of the major innovations of the last Recast but turned out to be of little practical relevance. A similar provision had been proposed in the preparatory works for the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention (February 2017 Draft Convention, Article 9), but was ultimately dropped, as opposed to the 2022 Lisbon Guidelines on Privacy (see its Article 12(2) Sentence 2). Vesna Rijavec, Maribor (unfortunately unable to attend for compelling reasons, but well represented by the chair, Geert van Calster) presented proposals on refining Articles 45(1) lit. c and d, mainly arguing that these should connect to pendency (as had already been proposed by the Heidelberg Report for the Recast of the Brussels I Regulation).

An overall sense of the conference was that no radical revolutions should be expected in the forthcoming Recast, which should be taken as another sign for the overall success of the backbone of the Brussels system, but that there was quite some room for specific and well-reasoned improvements. The conference contributed to preparing these in a truly excellent and inspiring way and in outstanding quality.

The University of Lagos Law Review (“Unilag Law Review”) in its 2022 issue recently published articles on Nigerian law. One of the articles is focused on conflict of laws:

P Oladimeji, “Simplifying the Doctrine of Renvoi under Conflict of Laws”

The doctrine of Renvoi is a topic in Conflict of Laws that posits a stumbling block, more often than anticipated, to students of the academic discourse trying to understand the scope of Conflict of Laws and how the framework of this topic applies in international matters. As such, this paper is an effort by the writer to simplify the tenets of the doctrine of Renvoi, its applicability, and its suppositions as reflected by scholars of English jurisprudence who dealt extensively with the doctrine at the time of its inception in the early 20th century. The paper begins with an introduction to the doctrine of Renvoi and its meaning per Private International Law; and then proceeds to distil the doctrine further by looking at the theories concocted by early scholars of its discourse as to its functionality in law. This paper also looks at the often quoted types of Renvoi and simplifies the difference(s) between these types as much as possible. Following this, the paper analyses the challenges brought to bear by the application of Renvoi in international matters – challenges that have led to rising arguments for and against the application of the doctrine as is.

Thanks to Costanza Honorati and Laura Carpaneto for the tip!

The Practice Guide on the Brussels IIb Regulation (Regulation 2019/1111) has been published on the site of the European Judicial Network in Civil and Commercial Matters (EJN) – scroll to the bottom.

The Guide was written by Boriana Musseva under a contract between the European Commission and Milieu Consulting. It uses the name Brussels IIb (presumably the Commission’s preferred nomenclature) even though some authors also use Brussels IIter. The Guide is still being translated in the other EU languages and will then also be published with the other information that the Commission provides on the European Judicial Atlas.

Here is the direct link to the Practice Guide for the application of the Brussels IIb Regulation.

A volume titled “Cross-Border Litigation in Central Europe: EU Private International Law Before National Courts” and edited by Csongor István Nagy (University of Szeged, Hungary & Center for Social Sciences, Budapest) has recently been published by Kluwer. It was and authored by Katazyna Bogdzevic, Pavle Flere, Lucia Gandzalova, Justyna Gumula-Kedracka, Tena Hosko, Monika Jagielska, Elena Judova, Inga Kacevska, Wojciech Klyta, Vadim Mantrov, Csongor István Nagy, Gabor Palasti, Dora Zgrabljic Rotar, Magdalena Sobas, Janos Szekely, Dace Trupovniece, Jiri Valdhans, Emod Veress, Lucie Zavadilova. The book provides a detailed understanding of the process of seeking justice in cross-border disputes in Central Europe and a comprehensive and exhaustive presentation of the case law in 10 Central European Member States (Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia). It is the first of its kind to offer a comprehensive and analytical overview of the judicial practice in the region. More information on the book, its content and contributors is available here.

The book is a product of the multi-year EU-funded CEPIL project (“Cross-Border Litigation in Central-Europe: EU Private International Law before National Courts”, 800789 — CEPIL — JUST-AG-2017/JUST-JCOO-AG-2017), which was based on the cooperation of six universities (University of Szeged, Hungary, Masarykova univerzita, Czech Republic, Sveu?ilište u Zagrebu, Croatia, Universitatea Sapientia din municipiul Cluj-Napoca, Romania, Univerzita Mateja Bela v Banskej Bystrici, Slovakia, Uniwersytet ?l?ski, Poland). The CEPIL project inquired whether EU private international law functions optimally in the Central European Member States to secure a Europe of law and justice and whether EU private international law instruments are applied correctly and uniformly. It analyzed whether national courts deal appropriately with disputes having a cross-border element and whether the current legal and institutional architecture is susceptible of securing legal certainty and an effective remedy for cross-border litigants. More information on the project is available here.

The current issue of Lex & Forum explores the existing status of Private International Law & the Internet, and tries to map out solutions and proposals for the future.

The issue benefits from the privilege of hosting papers of two worldwide leading figures in the area of private international law: Professor Dan Svantesson is sharing his insightful conclusions about the current state of the interplay between Private International Law & the Internet and, also, points at the critical problems that need to be addressed in order to secure a better digital future. In doing so, he sets the tone of the entire issue. At the same time, Professor Symeon Symeonides offers a fascinating account of a much needed international coordination effort. After explaining the current status of addressing internet related personality infringemetns accross different jurisdictions, Prof. Symeonides focuses on the initiative of the Institut de Droit International (IDI), which at its 79th biennial session adopted a critical Resolution on internet related personality infringements and Private International Law. Prof. Symeonides explains vividly how this transnational initiative improves over existing regional approaches and offers great insights on its history, rationale and development.

The papers of Prof. Svantesson and Prof. Symeonides are accompanied by that of Professor Ioannis Deliskostopoulos, University of Athens, who offers an excellent account of how the CJEU has been dealing with the challenge of personality related internet disputes. Trying to address future challenges, a second family of papers focused on blockchain based issues. Dr. Ioannis Revolidis, Lecturer at the University of Malta, contributes a primer on International Jurisdiction and the Blockchain, by exploring the unique characteristics of blockchain based systems and by extending his analysis on the so-called Non Fungible Tokens. Dr. Nikolaos Zaprianos puts the challenge of smart contracts into perspective, offering an excellent account about the limits of automation in contractual relationships, while Dr. Konstantinos Voulgarakis monitors the impact of cryptoassets in capital markets and the ensuing private international law challenges. All the aforementioned papers have been presented during a webinar hosted by Lex&Forum on May 13 2022 (youtube.com/watch?v=84wCNVyWXPA&t=652s, accessed 3.9.2022).

The analysis of the relation between Private International Law & the Internet in the current issue of Lex&Forum is concluded with the Praefatio authored by another leading expert in the area, Prof. Gerald Spindler from the University of Göttingen/Germany. The title of it reads as follows: “The Internet and other emerging technologies within the EU and international legal order – aspects of conflicts of laws and international civil procedure”.

At the same time, the Judge of the Court of Appeal Mr. Ioannis Valmantonis has provided a comment on the decision of the CJEU in Gtflix v DR, while Dr. Apostolos Anthimos contributes his views on two Greek court decisions on the refusal of recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards ordering payment in bitcoin (Court of Appeal Western Central Greece 88/2021 and Court of First Instance of Agrinio, Single Chamber, 193/2018). Lastly, Dr. Evangelos Ziakas contributes a paper on the mosaic approach of the CJEU on internet related personality disputes.

Lex&Forum will return with a new issue, which will be focusing on the relationship of the EU Private International Law acquis with cases including third country elements.

The Centre for Studies and Research in International Law and International Relations Series at Brill has just issued its 23rd volume, edited by Hannah Buxbaum.

The Centre for Studies and Research in International Law and International Relations of the Hague Academy of International Law is designed to bring together highly qualified young international lawyers from all over the world, to undertake original research on a common general theme which is determined annually by the Curatorium of the Academy. The Centre is sub-divided in an English-speaking and French-speaking section. The research undertaken at the Centre is published in a collective volume containing the reports of the Directors and the best contributions from the participants. In 2019, the Director was Hannah Buxbaum, and her fascinating cross-over topic was „extraterritoriality“.

The blurb reads as follows: „Extraterritoriality is a challenging concept as a matter of international law and policy, raising fundamental questions about the allocation of power among States. It is also a dynamic concept, reflecting and responding to shifts in the global economy, patterns of human behavior, and understandings of state sovereignty.“

Following the Reports of the Directors of Studies, no less than 20 chapters explore the notion and implications of extraterritoriality, either in French or in English language, such as e.g. the first Chapter by Buxbaum herself  on “The Practice(s) of Extraterritoriality” (for an SSRN preprint see here), “(Il)licéités et (dé)mesures de l’extraterritorialité”, several Chapters on historical aspects, “Objects and Subjects of Extraterritorialité”, “Extraterritorialité within the Framework of the EU” and other regional organisations, as well as aspects of extraterritoriality in certain areas of law such as in criminal law, cybersecurity, human rights, environmental law, outer space, data protection etc. “Throughout, the volume recognizes extraterritoriality as an expansive concept used to assess both the actions and the obligations of states within the international arena”, the blurb further explains.

Thus, the volume connects private and public international law perfectly and also includes interdisciplinary input. It thereby represents the spirit of the Hague Academy’s Centre for Studies and Research at its best. Highly recommended!

A similarly promising project is currently ongoing at the Centre: “Climate Change and the Testing of International Law” from 22 August – 9 September 2022.

 

The second issue of 2022 of the Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale (RDIPP, published by CEDAM) was just released. It features:

Costanza Honorati, Professor at the University Milan-Bicocca, Giovanna Ricciardi, Doctoral candidate at the University Milan-Bicocca, Violenza domestica e protezione cross-border (Domestic Violence and Cross-Border Protection) [in Italian]

Domestic violence has drawn increasing attention both from the lawmaker and legal scholars. Legal means to prevent domestic violence and protect women have been promoted and implemented at the national and supranational levels. This article concentrates on seeking and enforcing civil protection measures in cross-border family conflicts. Protective measures are often sought and taken in the State where the prospective victim (and often also the tortfeasor) is habitually resident. PIL issues are however rarely addressed. Regulation (EU) No 606/2013 on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters provides a useful instrument when the need for recognition and enforcement in a different Member State arises at a later stage. Less dealt with is the issue of selecting an appropriate ground for jurisdiction, which is not governed by the mentioned Regulation. The latter issue becomes especially relevant in the very peculiar case of protection measures to be issued in the so-called State of refuge when a mother challenges a situation of domestic violence as a ground for leaving the State of a child’s habitual residence and searches for protection elsewhere. The interplay between domestic violence and abduction cases, a situation quite frequent in practice but rarely addressed in legal literature, is further explored and dealt with.

Ilaria Viarengo, Professor at the University Milan, The Coordination of Jurisdiction and Applicable Law in Proceedings Related to Economic Aspects of Family Law

This article addresses the complex features and problems arising from the combined application of all European and international instruments dealing with divorce and the economic aspects of family law. The need to avoid litigation proceedings in different jurisdictions, entailing the duplication of proceedings and costs and the need to have divorce and all the financial aspects governed by the same law are of central importance from a practical point of view. This article provides an analysis of whether and to what extent these two needs can be satisfied with the combined application of the EU family law regulations at issue. Firstly, it deals with some general issues whose solution could have an impact on the coordination among all these instruments. Consequently, it examines the interplay among rules on jurisdiction and applicable law, including the role of party autonomy in pursuing coordination.

The following comment is also featured:

Curzio Fossati, Doctoral candidate at the University of Insubria, La residenza abituale nei regolamenti europei di diritto internazionale privato della famiglia alla luce della giurisprudenza della Corte di giustizia (Habitual Residence in EU Private International Law Regulations in Family Matters in View of the Case-Law of the Court of Justice) [in Italian]

This article deals with the concept of habitual residence, which is in widespread use in the EU Regulations in the field of family law. Firstly, the article gives an overview of these Regulations, and then it analyses the case-law of the CJEU on the criterion of habitual residence referred to children, deceased persons, and spouses. The contribution examines two fundamental elements of the concept of habitual residence identified both by CJEU and scholars: the objective element, i.e. a sufficiently stable presence of a person in a Member State, and the subjective element, i.e. the intention of the person concerned to establish the permanent or habitual centre of his or her interests in that place. The article also tries to identify the most suitable method of interpretation of the concept of habitual residence and, in particular, it investigates which approach is more desirable between a uniform approach (which fosters a uniform definition of habitual residence in EU law) and a functional one (which implies an interpretation that takes into account the aim of the disposition in which the concept is used). Ultimately, the Author endorses the solution adopted by the CJEU in the IB case, which combines the aforementioned approaches.

Finally, this issue features the following book review by Cristina M. Mariottini, Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law: Henry Deeb GABRIEL, Contracts for the Sale of Goods – A Comparison of U.S. and International Law, 3rd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2022, pp. v-401.

Carlos Santaló Goris, Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law and Ph.D. candidate at the University of Luxembourg, offers an analysis of the reform recently approved in Luxembourg concerning the functioning of the information mechanism of the Regulation No 655/2014, establishing a European Account Preservation Order (“EAPO Regulation”). The EAPO Regulation and other EU civil procedural instruments are the object of study in the ongoing EFFORTS project, with the financial support of the European Commission. 

The EAPO Regulation introduced the first European civil interim measure that permits, as its name indicates, the provisional attachment of the debtors’ bank accounts in cross-border civil and commercial claims. Besides the temporary attachment of debtors’ funds, it also contains a special tool to search for the bank accounts containing those funds. This information mechanism is perhaps one of the main appeals of the EAPO. It has even inspired some national legislatures, for instance, the French one, to improve their domestic mechanisms to trace debtors’ assets in civil proceedings. Nonetheless, access to the EAPO’s information mechanism is more limited than access to the EAPO itself. Whereas creditors without a title can apply for an EAPO, they cannot submit a request to search for debtors’ bank accounts. This option is limited to creditors with a title, whether the title is enforceable or not.

Article 14 of the EAPO Regulation sets up the basic structure of the information mechanism. Provided creditors satisfy the necessary prerequisites to ask for the investigation of the debtors’ bank accounts, the court which examines the EAPO application sends a request for information to the Member State where the bank accounts are located. There, an information authority would be in charge of searching for debtors’ bank accounts and giving an answer to the requesting court.

The EAPO Regulation gives the Member States broad discretion in implementing the mechanism to investigate the debtors’ bank accounts. Article 14 only suggests three different methods that the Member States can choose to search the information about the debtors’ bank accounts. The first one consists of asking all the banks in the territory of the requested Member State to disclose whether they have the debtors’ bank accounts (Art. 14(5)(a) EAPO Regulation). According to the second method, the information about the debtors’ bank accounts is retrieved from the registries held by public administrations (Art. 14(5)(b) EAPO Regulation). Finally, according to the third method, courts may “oblige the debtor to disclose with which bank or banks in its territory he holds one or more accounts” (Art. 14(5)(c) EAPO Regulation).  The request to disclose the information is “accompanied by an in personam order by the court prohibiting the withdrawal or transfer” by the debtor “of funds held in his account or accounts up to the amount to be preserved by the Preservation Order” (Art. 14(5)(c) EAPO Regulation). This list of methods is not exhaustive, and the Member States are allowed to opt for any other method as long as it is “effective and efficient” and “not disproportionately costly or time-consuming” (Art. 14(5)(d) EAPO Regulation).

At the Luxembourgish domestic level, the EAPO information mechanism represented a major innovation. The Luxembourgish civil procedural system lacks an equivalent national tool to investigate debtors’ bank accounts. Therefore, the EAPO’s mechanism became (and still is) the only tool to trace debtors’ bank accounts during a civil procedure in Luxembourg. When a creditor requests a national provisional attachment order (saisie-arrêt), but ignores in which bank the debtors’ accounts are located, the attachment order must be sent to all the banks where those accounts may be held. The more banks the saisie-arrêt is sent to, the higher the chances of freezing the debtors’ funds. Such “fishing expeditions’ are costly. The saisie-arrêt is served to the banks through a bailiff (huissier). The more banks the saisie-arrêt is sent to, the higher the fee that the bailiff will charge.

Luxembourg appointed its national financial authority, the Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (“CSSF”), as its national information authority for the EAPO information mechanism. In contrast to the costly “fishing expeditions” of the saisie-arrêt, the CSSF does not charge any fees for obtaining information about the debtors’ bank accounts.

The CSSF searches for the bank accounts by requesting that all the banks or branches of foreign banks operating in Luxembourg disclose if they hold the debtors’ accounts (Art. 14(5)(a) EAPO Regulation). Until September 2022, this request was sent by regular mail to all those entities. Banks were given 20 days to reply to the CSSF. Those 20 days, plus the time it takes to send the request by mail to the banks and receive their answers, explain why it takes at least one month until the CSSF can reply to the court which submitted the original information request.

However, from 1 September 2022, the request for information is sent through an online platform, the Guichet numérique eDesk (Circulaire CSSF 22/819). Banks operating in Luxembourg are required to join this platform. Thanks to this reform, the CSSF will be able to obtain information about the debtors’ bank accounts faster. It also ensures better monitoring of the answers provided by the banks. Overall, this reform enhances the functioning of the EAPO’s information mechanism at the Luxembourgish level and is in line with the EAPO Regulation, which favours the swift transmission of documents (Recital 24 Regulation).