Conflictoflaws

by Wolfgang Hau, University of Munich

This year’s Dispute Resolution Day of the Munich Center for Dispute Resolution on 6 May is dedicated to the above mentioned highly topical issue: Can companies in Germany be held responsible for human rights violations that have occurred somewhere in the global supply chain? Are civil lawsuits and commercial arbitration at all suitable for enforcing international human rights obligations of business enterprises? Such and related questions will be examined and discussed by renowned speakers. The conference will be held in German at the University of Munich. You can find the programme and registration information here:

https://www.mucdr.jura.uni-muenchen.de/munich_dispute_resolution_day/drd-2022-flyer.pdf

 

 

Conference The HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention: Cornerstones – Prospects – Outlook

 

Registration now open!

 

 

Dates:                       Friday, 9 September 2022, and Saturday, 10 September 2022 

Venue:                      Universitätsclub Bonn, Konviktstraße 9, D – 53113 Bonn 

Registration:          sekretariat.weller@jura.uni-bonn.de 

 

Registration fee: € 200.- Young Scholars rate (limited capacity): € 100.- Conference Dinner on 9 September 2022:                         € 50.-

Registration: Please register with sekretariat.weller@jura.uni-bonn.de. Clearly indicate whether you want to benefit from the young scholars’ reduction of the conference fees and whether you want to participate in the conference dinner. You will receive an invoice for the respective conference fee and, if applicable, for the conference dinner. Please make sure that we receive your payment at least two weeks in advance. After receiving your payment we will send out a confirmation of your registration. This confirmation will allow you to access the conference hall and the conference dinner.

Please note: Access will only be granted if you are fully vaccinated against Covid-19. Please confirm in your registration that you are, and attach an e-copy of your vaccination document. Please follow further instructions on site. Thank you for your cooperation.

Further information: https://www.jura.uni-bonn.de/professur-prof-dr-weller/the-hcch-2019-judgments-convention-cornerstones-prospects-outlook-conference-on-9-and-10-september-2022

 

Programme

 

Friday, 9 September 2022

 

8.30 a.m. Registration 9.00 a.m. Welcome notes

Prof Dr Wulf-Henning Roth, Director of the Zentrum für Europäisches Wirtschaftsrecht, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Germany

Dr Christophe Bernasconi, Secretary General of the HCCH

    Part I: Cornerstones

1. Scope of application

Prof Dr Xandra Kramer, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Utrecht University, Netherlands

2. Judgments, Recognition, Enforcement

Prof Dr Wolfgang Hau, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Munich, Germany

3. Indirect jurisdiction

Prof Dr Pietro Franzina, Catholic University of Milan, Italy

4. Grounds for refusal

Dr Marcos Dotta Salgueiro, Adj. Professor of Private International Law, Law Faculty, UR, Uruguay; Director of International Law Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Uruguay

5. Trust management: Establishment of relations between Contracting States

Dr João Ribeiro-Bidaoui, First Secretary, HCCH / Dr Cristina Mariottini, Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for International, European and Regulatory Law Luxemburg

  1.00 p.m.

  Lunch Break

    Part II: Prospects for the World

1. The HCCH System for choice of court agreements: Relationship of the HCCH Judgments Convention 2019 to the HCCH 2005 Convention on Choice of Court Agreements

Prof Dr Paul Beaumont, University of Stirling, United Kingdom

2. European Union

Andreas Stein, Head of Unit, DG JUST – A1 “Civil Justice”, European Commission

3. Canada, USA

Professor Linda J. Silberman, Clarence D. Ashley Professor of Law, Co-Director, Center for Transnational Litigation, Arbitration, and Commercial Law, New York University School of Law, USA

Professor Geneviève Saumier, Peter M. Laing Q.C. Professor of Law, McGill Faculty of Law, Canada

4. Southeast European Neighbouring and EU Candidate Countries

Prof Dr Ilija Rumenov, Associate Professor at Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Skopje, Macedonia 8.00 p.m. Conference Dinner (€ 50.-)

 

Saturday, 10 September 2022

 

9.00 a.m. Part II: Prospects for the World (continued)

 

5. Middle East and North Africa (including Gulf Cooperation Council)

Prof Dr Beligh Elbalti, Associate Professor at the Graduate School of Law and Politics at Osaka University, Japan

6. Sub-Saharan Africa (including Commonwealth of Nations)

Prof Dr Abubakri Yekini, University of Manchester, United Kingdom

Prof Dr Chukwuma Okoli, Postdoctoral Researcher in Private International Law at the T.M.C. Asser Institute, Netherlands

7. Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR)

Prof Dr Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm, Director of Internationalisation, Senior Lecturer in International Private Law, School of Law, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom

8. Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)

Prof Dr Adeline Chong, Associate Professor of Law, Yong Pung How School of Law, Singapore Management University, Singapore

9. China (including Belt and Road Initiative)

Prof Dr Zheng (Sophia) Tang, University of Newcastle, United Kingdom

  1.00 p.m.

  Lunch Break

    Part III: Outlook

1. Lessons from the Genesis of the Judgments Project

Dr Ning Zhao, Senior Legal Officer, HCCH

2. International Commercial Arbitration and Judicial Cooperation in civil matters: Towards an Integrated Approach

José Angelo Estrella-Faria, Principal Legal Officer and Head, Legislative Branch, International Trade Law Division, Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations; Former Secretary General of UNIDROIT

3. General Synthesis and Future Perspectives

Hans van Loon, Former Secretary General of the HCCH

In the context of the Vici project ‘Affordable Access to Justice’, the project team (Erasmus School of Law) is organising a series of online seminars dedicated to the Trends and Challenges in Costs and Funding of Civil Justice.

The next session is scheduled for Wednesday, 20 April 2022 (14:00-16:00 CET) on the topic: Austerity policies and litigation costs reforms.

The relationship between access to justice, efficiency of courts, and litigation costs has never been an easy one. Yet, finding a proper balance has never been more challenging than in recent times. The EU economic crises of the last decade and austerity policies deeply affected justice budgets in several EU Member States and triggered justice reforms, particularly in the area of litigation costs. Building on the experiences of three EU jurisdictions that have been greatly affected by such developments (namely, Greece, Portugal, and Spain), the seminar will assess the impact of austerity measures on access to justice.

Speakers: Panagiotis Perakis (Vice President CCBE), Paula Costa e Silva (Lisbon University), Fernando Gascón Inchausti (Complutense University of Madrid)

To attend the online event, please register here.

With thanks to Adriani Dori for the tip-off.

The final programme of the conference on Regulation Brussels Ia: a standard for free circulation of judgments and mutual trust in the European Union (JUDGTRUST) 21 and 22 April 2022 at The Hague can be found here. A previous post introduced the themes, speakers, moderators and the coordinator of the conference.

Documents & Publications

On 9 March 2022, the Permanent Bureau announced the launch of the post-event publication of HCCH a|Bridged – Edition 2021, focused on contemporary issues relating to the application of the 2005 Choice of Court Convention, including the promotion of party autonomy. More information is available here.

On 9 March 2022, the Permanent Bureau published the results of the 2022 survey for arbitration institutions on the 2015 Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts. More information is available here.

On 16 March 2022, the Permanent Bureau of the HCCH published an Information Note on the subject of “Children deprived of their family environment due to the armed conflict in Ukraine: Cross-border protection and intercountry adoption”. More information is available here.

Vacancies

The Permanent Bureau is currently welcoming applications for the position of Diplomat Lawyer (Secretary or First Secretary). The deadline for the submission of applications is 15 April 2022 (5.00 p.m. CEST). More information is available here.

Other

CEDEP’s Choice of Law online course is now open to the public, featuring an introductory lecture on the Legal Guide to Uniform Instruments in the Area of International Commercial Contracts, with a Focus on Sales, published year by the Secretariats of UNCITRAL, UNIDROIT and the HCCH. The lecture is available here, and more information about the course is available here.

 

These monthly updates are published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), providing an overview of the latest developments. More information and materials are available on the HCCH website.

May the 30-day time limit within which the defendant has to sent a statement of opposition against a European order for payment, set in Article 16(2) of the Regulation No 1896/2006 (the EOP Regulation), be interrupted through application of the national provision that, for a specified timeframe related to the pandemic of SARS-CoV-2, provides for such effect ?

This is, in essence, the question that Advocate General Collins addresses in his Opinion in the case Uniqa Versicherungen, C-18/21.

 

Legal context of the preliminary question

As summarized at point 2 of the Opinion, Article 16(2) of the EOP Regulation provides that a statement of opposition to a European order for payment shall be sent within 30 days of service of the order, in the absence of which that order becomes enforceable against the defendant.

A defendant who does not lodge a statement of opposition within that 30-day time limit may, in a number of exceptional cases, apply for a review of the order pursuant to Article 20 of the Regulation.

According to its Article 26, procedural issues not specifically dealt with in that Regulation are governed by national law.

Against this background, as the referring court in the present case, the Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof), puts it in its request for a preliminary ruling, some authors take the view that Article 20 of Regulation takes account (in the abstract) of situations such as the COVID-19 crisis and, for such situations, has provided for the possibility to have European orders for payment reviewed and, if necessary, declared null and void. According to that view, recourse to national law is therefore not permissible in view of Article 20, which was created precisely to address cases of force majeure.

The opposing view, also reported by the referring court, is based on the interpretation according to which the interruption of the time limit set in Article 16(2) of the EOP Regulation has remained unregulated by EU law, with the result that – pursuant to Article 26 of the Regulation – recourse is to be done to national law.

 

Preliminary question

All this prompted the Austrian court to refer a following preliminary question to the Court:

Are Articles 20 and 26 of the EOP Regulation to be interpreted as meaning that those provisions preclude an interruption of the 30-day period for lodging a statement of opposition to a European order for payment, as provided for in Article 16(2) of that Regulation, by Paragraph 1(1) of the Austrian Law on accompanying measures for COVID-19 in the administration of justice, pursuant to which all procedural periods in proceedings in civil cases for which the event triggering the period occurs after 21 March 2020 or which have not yet expired by that date are to be interrupted until the end of 30 April 2020 and are to begin to run anew from 1 May 2020?

 

Assessment of the preliminary question provided for in the Opinion

In the first place, in his overview of the EOP Regulation, AG Collins convincingly demonstrates that the review procedure under Article 20 of the Regulation does not purport to be a substitute for the opposition procedure under Article 16 (see, for detailed argumentation, points 31 et seq.).

Building upon that demonstration, in the second place, he addresses the legal issue at hand and presents a series of arguments that lead him to the conclusion according to which the EOP Regulation “[does] not preclude the adoption, in the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, of a national measure that interrupted the 30-day time limit for lodging a statement of opposition to a European order for payment contained in Article 16(2) thereof” (point 49).

In particular, AG Collins contends, firstly, that the EOP Regulation “lays down minimum standards to ensure the recognition and enforcement of an order adopted in another Member State without the necessity to bring any prior intermediate proceedings in the Member State of enforcement” and, as a consequence, “a general interruption of time limits due to the COVID-19 pandemic is a procedural issue not dealt with in [the] Regulation” (point 42).

He indicates, secondly, that “national procedural measures adopted in accordance with Article 26 of [the EOP Regulation] may not […] undermine the objectives pursued by that regulation” (point 43).

Benchmarking the national measure related to COVID-19 against that requirement, he explains that this measure does not undermine the objectives of the Regulation “since a general interruption of time limits does not add another procedural step to the recognition and enforcement of a European order for payment” and, as a consequence, “the uniform mechanism established by [the EOP Regulation] is unaltered” (point 45).

Thirdly, AG Collins backs his findings by the considerations relating to Article 47 of the Charter, with a further reference to the case law of the ECtHR (see footnote 35). In essence, refusing to interrupt the time limit for sending the opposition against a European order for payment and, thus, ignoring the impact of the pandemic on the practical possibility to sent that statement could run against the rights of the defendant (points 46 and 47).

The Opinion is available here.

‘Access to Justice and International Organisations: Coordinating Jurisdiction between the National and Institutional Legal Orders’ by Rishi Gulati has just been published by Cambridge University Press. The author has kindly provided us with the follow summary:

This book addresses some of the most difficult legal challenges that international institutions confront. As is all too evident, we live in a denial of justice age when it comes to the individual pursuit of justice against international organisations (IOs). Victims of institutional conduct are often denied reasonable means of dispute settlement at the international level. Victims are also generally unable to seek justice at the national level due to IO immunities, which aim to secure institutional independence. Access to justice and IO independence are equally important values and satisfactorily realising them both has so far proven elusive. In this book, Rishi Gulati argues that private international law techniques can help allocate regulatory authority between the national and institutional orders in a nuanced manner by maintaining IO independence without sacrificing access to justice. As private international law rules can be adjusted nationally without the need for international action, the solution proposed can be readily implemented, thereby resolving a conundrum that public international law has not been able to address for decades.

The book is divided into five chapters. Chapter 1 provides the basis of, and nature of an IO’s access to justice obligation. It  demonstrates that under international law, IOs must provide ‘appropriate’ modes of dispute resolution to the victims of institutional conduct. Relying on international human rights law in general, and the right to a fair trial in particular, chapter 2 goes on to specify the criteria for assessing the ‘appropriateness’ of dispute resolution mechanisms that should be created at IOs. The discussion does not stop here. Chapter 3 goes on to rigorously apply those criteria to assess dispute resolution mechanisms at IOs, where such mechanisms even exist. It is concluded that where such mechanisms exist, they tend to be deficient. This is the case with several international administrative tribunals created to resolve employment disputes. Alarmingly, in many instances, dispute resolution mechanisms are completely absent, meaning that a denial of justice is a foregone conclusion.

It is thus hardly surprising that more and more, national courts are asked by victims to adjudicate claims against IOs. However, adjudication at the national level is complicated due to the existence of an IO’s jurisdictional immunities before national courts. Chapter 4 considers the nature of institutional immunities, and shows that the application of IO immunities is a conundrum that is yet to be resolved. This chapter considers the latest jurisprudence on the topic. It provides a succinct analysis of all aspects of the law on IO immunities, showing that the manner in which the law is currently applied results in further denials of justice. It is pointed out that no satisfactory solution has been implemented to realise access to justice for victims and an IO’s functional independence simultaneously. Chapter 5 resolves this long-standing international legal challenge. It shows how private international law techniques can be used to realize access to justice in claims against IOs but without compromising on IO independence. This book shows how the various branches of public international law, including international human rights  and international organisations law, do and should interact with private international law with a view to solve a particularly difficult regulatory challenge. The work is not only intended to be academically rigorous, but it seeks to provide real life answers to hard cases.

Written by Catherine Shen, ABLI

The Asian Business Law Institute (ABLI) has recently released a free publication titled Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in ASEAN: Ranking the Portability of ASEAN Judgments within ASEAN, a derivative publication under its Foreign Judgments Project.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) comprises of Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. These jurisdictions are of different legal traditions of civil law (Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao, Thailand and Vietnam), common law (Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Myanmar and Singapore) and hybrid law (Philippines) tradition. There are two primary hurdles for increasing the portability of ASEAN judgments within the bloc. First, some ASEAN jurisdictions, such as Indonesia and Thailand, have no law that allows foreign judgments to be recognised and enforced. Second, most civil law jurisdictions in ASEAN still have rather rigid requirements on reciprocity. These two hurdles are the main influencers of the ranking.

Three key takeaways can be gleaned from the ranking.

First, Vietnamese judgments claim the crown of being the most portable of ASEAN judgments within ASEAN. They can be enforced in seven out of the other nine ASEAN countries, provided, of course, that the requirements for enforcement under the laws of those countries are satisfied. This is a portability rate of close to 78%. Compared to other ASEAN jurisdictions, Vietnam has the benefit of having bilateral agreements with Cambodia and Lao which allow its judgments to be enforced in the latter two jurisdictions. Cambodia requires a guarantee of reciprocity while Lao PDR requires a bilateral treaty with the relevant country covering the enforcement of each other’s judgments before reciprocity is satisfied.

Second, judgments rendered by the other civil law countries of ASEAN come in second place. They can be enforced in six out of nine ASEAN countries.

Third, judgments from the common law countries of ASEAN and the hybrid law jurisdiction of the Philippines are jointly in third place. They can be enforced in five out of nine ASEAN countries, namely in the other common law and hybrid law jurisdictions, as well as Vietnam. Although Vietnam, being a civil law jurisdiction, imposes a condition of reciprocity, it appears relatively easy to satisfy this requirement.

This result may be surprising or even perverse since most civil law jurisdictions, i.e., Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao and Thailand, have comparatively illiberal regimes for the enforcement of foreign judgments (whether due to the rigid requirement of reciprocity or the lack of relevant laws), while the common law and hybrid law jurisdictions in ASEAN have comparatively liberal rules for foreign judgments enforcement. This “asymmetry” is mainly due to the inability of those civil law jurisdictions to return the favour of the more liberal rules of the common law and hybrid law jurisdictions in ASEAN given the state of their laws, namely, the requirement that there be reciprocity between the two countries.

The Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in ASEAN: Ranking the Portability of ASEAN Judgments within ASEAN is available for free and can be downloaded here. ABLI regularly publishes latest developments in the field of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Asia on its website and LinkedIn.

On 31 March 2022, 4-7pm CEST, the German Association of International organizes an online panel, in German, on question of public and private international law regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine: The topics are as follows:

• Public international law questions of armed conflict (Paulina Starski)
• Public international law questions “off the battlefield” (Markus Krajewski)
• The enforcement of claims from Russian government bonds: potential scenarios (Peter Kindler)
• The status of Ukrainian refugees in private international law (Jan von Hein)

More information here.

 

The war in Ukraine has also affected the lives of legal researchers. The Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law is extending support to these individuals.

The Institute would like to assist scholars who have had to discontinue their research activities because of the war in Ukraine. Towards this end, the Institute is offering scholarships supporting a stay in Hamburg for research in the field of private law. In addition to office space and access to our library, we can also provide assistance in locating housing.

Affected researchers can contact the Institute’s Welcome Center. The offer is directed at doctoral candidates as well as individuals who have already earned their doctorates.

© shutterstock / MAKSIM ANKUDA

 

Under the Insolvency Regulation 2015, a transfer of the centre of main interests (COMI) of the debtor after lodging of the request for opening of insolvency proceedings affects the exclusive jurisdiction of the court seised with that application prior to the transfer?

This is the legal issue that the Court addresses in the judgement delivered this morning in the case Galapagos BidCo, C-723/20.

Factual context

A holding having its registered office in Luxembourg since 2014 contemplates, in June 2019, to move its actual centre of administration to England. In August 2019, its directors lodge a request before the High Court to have insolvency proceedings opened in respect of the debtor’s assets.

The following day the directors are replaced by a new one, who sets up an office for the holding in Germany.

The request to have insolvency proceedings opened before the High Court is not withdrawn. Quite to the contrary, they seem to continue although a decision opening these proceedings has not yet been delivered.

That being said, a request for the opening of insolvency proceedings is lodged by the holding also with a German court.

This court orders preservation measures and appoints a temporary insolvency administrator. The capital market and bondholders are informed that the centre of administration of the holding have been move to Germany. However, the second instance court ruling on an appeal introduced by the creditors reverses the order of the first instance and dismisses the debtor’s request to have insolvency proceedings opened, due to the lack of international jurisdiction.

Next, the creditors request to have insolvency proceedings opened, still in Germany, in respect of the debtor’s assets. The German court considers that it has jurisdiction to rule on the request as the centre of main interests of the holding is situated in Germany. It orders preservation measures and appoints a temporary insolvency administrator.

A subsidiary of the holding brings an appeal against the order. It argues that the German courts lack jurisdiction as the centre of administration of the holding has been moved to England in June 2019. The appeal is dismissed by the second instance court.

An appeal on a point of law is brought before the Bundesgerichtshof, which lodges a request for a preliminary ruling before the Court of Justice.

 

Preliminary questions

Is Article 3(1) of [the Insolvency Regulation 2015] to be interpreted as meaning that a debtor company the statutory seat of which is situated in a Member State does not have the centre of its main interests in a second Member State in which the place of its central administration is situated, as can be determined on the basis of objective factors ascertainable by third parties, in the case where, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the debtor company has moved that place of central administration from a third Member State to the second Member State at a time when a request to have the main insolvency proceedings opened in respect of its assets has been lodged in the third Member State and a decision on that request has not yet been delivered?

If Question 1 is answered in the negative:

Is Article 3(1) of [the Insolvency Regulation 2015] to be interpreted as meaning that: the courts of the Member State within the territory of which the centre of the debtor’s main interests is situated at the time when the debtor lodges the request to have insolvency proceedings opened retain international jurisdiction to open those proceedings if the debtor moves the centre of its main interests to the territory of another Member State after lodging the request but before the decision opening insolvency proceedings is delivered, and such continuing international jurisdiction of the courts of one Member State excludes the jurisdiction of the courts of another Member State in respect of further requests to have the main insolvency proceedings opened received by a court of that other Member State after the debtor has moved its centre of main interests to that other Member State?

 

The judgement of the Court

The Court decided to answer the preliminary question without first requesting its Advocate General to present an Opinion.

In its judgement, the Court focuses its attention on the second preliminary question.

Its considers that, by this question, which it is appropriate to examine first, the referring court seeks to establish, in substance, whether Article 3(1) of the Insolvency Regulation 2015 is to be interpreted as meaning that the court of a Member State to which an application for the opening of main insolvency proceedings has been made retains exclusive jurisdiction to open such proceedings where the centre of the debtor’s main interests is transferred to another Member State after that application has been lodged but before that court has given a decision on it (paragraph 24).

The Court answers in the sense that the court of a Member State seised of an application for the opening of main insolvency proceedings retains exclusive jurisdiction to open such proceedings where the centre of the debtor’s main interests is transferred to another Member State after the application has been lodged but before that court has given a ruling on it. Consequently, and insofar as that Regulation remains applicable to that application, the court of another Member State subsequently seised of an application made for the same purpose may not, in principle, assume jurisdiction to open main insolvency proceedings until the first court has given judgement and declined jurisdiction (paragraph 40).

Having in mind the specificity of the case which concerns the UK, the Court makes some additional remarks as to the implications of Brexit. Indeed, the aforementioned passage relating to the fact that “the Regulation remains applicable to the application” echoes this issue.

In essence, the Court clarifies that if on the date of expiry of this transitional period (31 December 2020), High Court had still not ruled on the application for the opening of main insolvency proceedings (it seems that it is not clear whether this was the case), it would follow that Insolvency Regulation 2015 would no longer require that, as a result of this application, a court of a Member State, on the territory of which debtor’s centre of main interests would be located, should refrain from declaring itself competent for the purposes of opening such proceedings (paragraphs 38 and 39)

Given the answer to the second question and having in mind that at least potentially the court seized first with the request for the opening of main insolvency proceedings may have retained its exclusive jurisdiction, the Court deems it not necessary to address the first preliminary question  (paragraphs 41 to 43)

The judgement can be consulted here.

The Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (Heidelberg) and the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law (Hamburg) are pleased to announce an intensive three- day seminar on “Populism and the New Foreign Relations Law: Between Public International Law, ‘External Public Law, and Conflict of Laws.”

The seminar will take place in Heidelberg on June 18-20, 2022, and will be co-directed by Prof. Anne Peters, Director, MPIL Heidelberg; Prof. Ralf Michaels, Director, MPI Hamburg; and Prof. Karen Knop, University of Toronto and Max Planck Law Fellow.

Costs for transportation (economy train or flight in Europe, lump sum for overseas), accommodation and meals in Heidelberg will be provided.

The seminar will host 20 Doctoral, Post-Doctoral and graduate researchers in law or other related fields. Application deadline: April 24, 2022

More information here.

 

Comparative Procedural Law and Justice (CPLJ) is a global project of the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law, with the support of the Luxembourg National Research Fund (019/13946847), involving more than one hundred scholars from all over the world.

CPLJ is envisioned as a comprehensive study of comparative civil procedural law and civil dispute resolution schemes in the contemporary world. It aims at understanding procedural rules in their cultural context, as well as at highlighting workable approaches to the resolution of civil disputes.

In this framework, the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law will host its 9th CPLJ Webinar on 1 April 2022, 3:00 – 5:00 pm (CET).

The programme reads as follows:

Russell Miller – Senior Research Fellow and Head of Max Planck Law, J.B. Stombock Professor of Law (W&L University – Virginia)

          Comparing Comparisons: A Survey of Approaches to Comparative Law

The webinar is an open event. For more information and to register see here.

(Image credits:  Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam)

 

 

The latest issue of the „Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax)“ features the following articles:

(These abstracts can also be found at the IPRax-website under the following link: https://www.iprax.de/en/contents/)

 

H.-P Mansel/K. Thorn/R. Wagner: European Conflict of Law 2021: The Challenge of Digital Transformation

This article provides an overview of developments in Brussels in the field of judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters from January 2021 until December 2021. It gives information on newly adopted legal instruments and summarizes current projects that are presently making their way through the EU legislative process. It also refers to the laws enacted at the national level in Germany as a result of new European instruments. Furthermore, the authors look at areas of law where the EU has made use of its external competence. They discuss both important decisions and pending cases before the CJEU as well as important decisions from German courts pertaining to the subject matter of the article. In addition, the article also looks at current projects and the latest developments at the Hague Conference of Private International Law.

 

H. Wais: The Applicable Law in Cases of Collective Redress

Both the European and the German legislator have recently passed legislation aimed at establishing access to collective redress for consumers. As European conflict of law rules do not contain any specific rules on the applicable law in cases of collective redress, the existing rules should be applied in a way that enables consumers to effectively pursue collective actions. To that aim, Art. 4 (3) 1st S. Rome II-Regulation provides for the possibility to rely on the place of the event that has given rise to the damages as a connecting-factor for collective redress cases in which mass damages have occurred in different states. As a consequence of its application, all claims are governed by the same applicable law, thereby fostering the effectiveness of collective redress.

 

M. Lehmann: Locating Financial Loss and Collective Actions in Case of Defective Investor Information: The CJEU’s Judgment in VEB v BP

For the first time, the CJEU has ruled in VEB v BP on the court competent for deciding liability suits regarding misinformation on the secondary securities market. The judgment is also of utmost importance for the jurisdiction over collective actions. This contribution analyses the decision, puts it into larger context, and discusses its repercussions for future cases.

 

M. Pika: Letters of Comfort and Alternative Obligations under the Brussels I and Rome I Regulations

In its judgment of 25 November 2020 (7 U 147/19), the Higher Regional Court of Brandenburg ruled on special jurisdiction regarding letters of comfort under Article 7 No. 1 Brussels I Regulation. While the court left the decision between lit. a and lit. b of that Article open, it ruled that either way, the courts at the domicile of the creditor of the letter of comfort (in this case: the subsidiary) have no special jurisdiction. This article supports the court’s final conclusion. In addition, it assesses that Article 7 No. 1 lit. b Brussels I Regulation on services may apply to letters of comforts given the CJEU’s decision in Kareda (C-249/16).

 

B. Hess/A.J. Wille: Russian default interests before the District Court of Frankfort

In its judgment of February 2021, the Landgericht Frankfurt a.M., applying Russian law, awarded a three-month interest rate of 37% to a defendant domiciled in Germany. When examining public policy, the regional court assumed that there was little domestic connection (Inlandsbezug), as the case was about the repayment of a loan issued in Moscow for an investment in Russia. However, the authors point out that the debtor’s registered office in Hesse established a clear domestic connection. In addition, the case law of German courts interpreting public policy under Article 6 EGBGB should not be directly applied to the interpretation of Articles 9 and 21 of the Rome I Regulation.

 

D. Looschelders: Implied choice of law under the EU Succession Regulation – not just a transitional problem in connection with joint wills

The decision of the German Federal Supreme Court focuses on the question, under which conditions an implied choice of law may be assumed within the framework of the EU Succession Regulation (Regulation No 650/2012). In this particular case, an implied choice of German law as the law governing the binding effect of the joint will drawn up by the German testator and her predeceased Austrian husband was affirmed by reference to recital 39(2) of the EU Succession Regulation. Actually, the joint will of the spouses stipulated the binding effect as intended by German law. As the spouses had drawn up their will before the Regulation became applicable, the question of an implied choice of law arose in the context of transition. However, the decision of the German Federal Supreme Court will gain fundamental importance regarding future cases of implied choices of law for all types of dispositions of property upon death, too. Nevertheless, since the solution of the interpretation problem is not clear and unambiguous, a submission to the ECJ would have been necessary.

 

M. Reimann: Human Rights Litigation Beyond the Alien Tort Claims Act: The Crucial Role of the Act of State Doctrine

The Kashef case currently before the federal courts in New York shows that human rights litigation against corporate defendants in the United States is alive and well. Even after the Supreme Court’s dismantling of the Alien Tort Claims Act jurisdiction remains possible, though everything depends on the circumstances. And even after the Supreme Court’s virtual elimination of federal common law causes of action claims under state or foreign law remain possible, though they may entail complex choice-of-law issues.

Yet, so far, the most momentous decision in this litigation is the Court of Appeals’ rejection of the defendants’ potentially most powerful argument: the Court denied them shelter under the act of state doctrine. It did so most importantly because the alleged human rights abuses amounted to violations of jus cogens.

Coming from one of the most influential courts in the United States, the Second Circuit’s Kashef decision adds significant weight to the jus cogens argument against the act of state doctrine. As long as the Supreme Court remains silent on the issue, Kashef will stand as a prominent reference point for future cases. This is bad news for corporate defendants, good news for plaintiffs, and excellent news for the enforcement of human rights through civil litigation.

 

J. Samtleben: Paraguay: Choice of Law in international contracts

To date, Paraguay is the only country to have implemented into its national law the Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts. Law No. 5393 of 2015, which closely follows the Hague model, owes its creation primarily to the fact that the Paraguayan delegate to the Hague was actively involved in drafting the Principles. Unlike the Principles, however, Law No. 5393 also regulates the law governing the contract in the absence of a choice of law, following the 1994 Inter-American Convention on the Law Applicable to International Contracts of Mexico. Contrary to the traditional rejection of party autonomy in Latin America, several Latin American countries have recently permitted choice of law in their international contract law. Paraguay has joined this trend with its new law, but it continues to maintain in procedural law that the jurisdiction of Paraguayan courts cannot be waived by party agreement.

The most recent issue of the German Journal of Comparative Law (Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft) features the following articles on private international and comparative law:

 

Werner F. Ebke: Prüfungs- und Beratungsnetzwerke und die Unabhängigkeit des Abschlussprüfers: Versuch einer europarechtskonformen Konturierung des § 319b Abs. 1 Satz 3 HGB

Independence is the cornerstone of the law requiring corporations to have their annual financial statements and consolidated statements audited by independent accountants. To ensure confidence in the audit function, EU Directive 2006/43/EC and EU Directive 2014/56/EU emphasize that statutory auditors and audit firms should be independent when carrying out statutory audits. Accordingly, Member States are required to ensure that an auditor or an audit firm shall not carry out a statutory audit if there is any direct or indirect financial, business, employment or other relationship – including the provision of additional non-audit services – between the statutory auditor, audit firm or network and the audited entity from which an objective, reasonable and informed third party would conclude that the statutory auditor’s or audit firm’s independence is compromised. Building on these two Directives, Regulation (EU) 537/2014 states that a statutory auditor or an audit firm carrying out the statutory audit of a public-interest entity (PIE), or any member of the network to which the statutory auditor or the audit firm belongs, shall not directly or indirectly provide to the audited entity, to its parent company or to its controlled companies within the EU any of the prohibited non-audit services listed in its Article 5. The reference to a “network” takes account of the fact that, since the 1980ies, audit firms are increasingly cooperating with each other, both nationally and internationally, to provide audit and consulting services pursuant to (worldwide) uniform standards close to their clients with highly qualified personell at reasonable costs (economies of scale; regional or global presence). Article 2 No. 7 of EU Directive 2006/43/EC contains a broad defintion of the term “network” which is also applicable within the ambit of Regulation (EU) 537/2014. The German legislature has implemented the definition in § 319b of the Commercial Code (HGB), although not verbatim. After a short desciption of the rules requiring the auditor’s independence (II.), we shall illuminate the legal environment within which § 319b operates (III.). Thereafter, the present essay analyses the term “network”, using the classic means of interpretation of statutes and secondary European law in light of the jurisprudence of the ECJ (IV.). Against this backdrop, the application of § 319b will be examined (V.). A brief summary of the findings will conclude the essay (VI.).

 

Francesco A. Schurr/Angelika Layr: Emission und Übertragung von DLT-Wertrechten im internationalen Privatrecht Liechtensteins und der Schweiz

The legal scholarly discussion of the last decade has brought to the establishment of various models in the fields of contract law, property law, company law, securities law etc. Thus, various legal problems in these fields of law could be solved. On the contrary, many legal questions regarding the tension between DLT and the conflict of law rules still need to be answered. The present paper intends to contribute to finding answers to these questions and analyses the progressive legislation of Liechtenstein and Switzerland in the fields of Blockchain. In most scenarios analysed in the paper there is a need to rely on a choice of law clause in order to achieve the desired legal certainty.

 

Marco Lettenbichler: Die Generalversammlung der liechtensteinischen Aktiengesellschaft und die Übertragung von deren Befugnissen auf andere Organe

This article deals with the question whether powers of a general meeting of a Liechtenstein stock corporation are transferable to other organs. According to Art. 338 (3) PGR, the flexible Liechtenstein Persons and Companies Act allows for transferring all tasks assigned by law and by the articles of association to another body. This norm is the subject of this article. It is to be examined whether a full transfer of tasks is compatible with the Liechtenstein legal system. After a legal comparison with Austrian, German and Swiss stock corporation law, it is concluded that there is an inalienable and non-transferable core area of tasks of the general meeting.

 

WANG Qiang: Optimiert oder nur halbherzig geändert? – Die Erbenhaftung für Nachlassverbindlichkeiten in Chinas neuem Erbrecht im rechtswissenschaftlichen und -terminologischen Vergleich zum deutschen Erbrecht

On May 28th 2020, the People’s Republic of China witnessed the promulgation of its Civil Code after having it put on high political and legislative agenda in the past years. Since its founding in 1949, the PRC have undertaken numerous endeavors to codify its civil law, which finally culminated in this codification. A landmark law of the PRC, the new Civil Code embodies furthermore a significant milestone in China’s legal history, especially of civil law legislation, which, in contrast to its long and turbulent history, had not started until the late Qing-Dynasty (1911). With the Civil Code’s implementation on January 1st, 2021, the leges speciales, which had been drawn upon as essential basis for the seven books of the Civil Code, were replaced by the latter. Expecting comprehensive law renewals fulfilled in the course of the codification, legal scholars in the PRC, especially those of the inheritance law, set great hope on the newly codified inheritance law as an initiative to thoroughly update and improve the old one, which had been in force as lex specialis ever since 1985 and needed urgent reform in numerous aspects. However, the long-expected substantial reform of the outdated inheritance law has failed to materialize. First and foremost, the regulations on the heirs’ liabilities for obligations of the estate, which are comprehensive in content and therefore complicated, but at the same time highly important in legal practice, still remain extremely cursory. The article aims at providing an in-depth analysis of the afore-mentioned regulations stipulated in the newly codified inheritance law in comparing them with those of the German inheritance law. Shedding light nevertheless on the reform achievement of the new inheritance law in certain aspects, this article will probe into the roots of the relevant problems while exploring potential solutions mainly from the legal-technical, legal-systematic and legal-terminological perspective.

Written by Mayela Celis, UNED

The oral arguments of the case Golan v. Saada (20-1034) will take place tomorrow (Tuesday 22 March 2022) at 10 am Washington DC time before the US Supreme Court. For the argument transcripts and audio, click here. The live audio will be available here.

We have previously reported on this case here and here.

“QUESTION PRESENTED

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction requires return of a child to his or her country of habitual residence unless, inter alia, there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm. The question presented is:

Whether, upon finding that return to the country of habitual residence places a child at grave risk, a district court is required to consider ameliorative measures that would facilitate the return of the child notwithstanding the grave risk finding.” (our emphasis)

Please note that US courts often use the terms “ameliorative measures” and “undertakings” interchangeably (as stated in the petition). Also referred to as protective measures in other regions.

This case stems from the fact that there is a split in the US circuits (as well as state courts).

There were several amicus curiae briefs filed, three of which are worthy of note: the amicus brief of the United States, the amicus brief of Hague Conventions delegates Jamison Selby Borek & James Hergen and finally, the amicus brief filed by Linda J. Silberman, Robert G. Spector and Louise Ellen Teitz.

The amicus brief of the United States stated:

“Neither the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction nor its implementing legislation requires a court to consider possible ameliorative measures upon finding under Article 13(b) that there is a grave risk that returning a child to his country of habitual residence would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation. Rather, the Convention and ICARA leave consideration of possible ameliorative measures to a court’s discretion.”

The amicus brief of the Hague Delegates coincide with this statement of the United States, while the brief of professors Silberman, Spector and Teitz holds the opposite view.

As is widely known, the US Executive Branch’s interpretation of a treaty is entitled to great weight. See Abbott vs. Abbott 560 U. S. _ (2010); Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc. v. Avagliano, 457 U. S. 176.

In my personal opinion, the position taken by the United States is the correct one.

The fact is that the Hague Abduction Convention is silent on the adoption of ameliorative measures. Article 13 indicates: “the judicial or administrative authority of the requested State is not bound to order the return of the child if the person, institution or other body which opposes its return establishes that […]” (our emphasis). The discretion of the court is thus key. Besides, and as we all aware, the Child Abduction Convention is not a treaty on recognition and enforcement of protective measures.

In some legal systems, this void has been supplemented with additional legislative measures such as the Brussels II ter Regulation (2019/1111) in the European Union. Importantly, this instrument provides for the seamless enforcement of  provisional – including protective – measures, which makes it a much more cogent system (see, for example, recitals 30, 45 and 46, and articles 2(1)(b), 15 – on jurisdiction-, 27(5), 35(2) and 36(1)). And not to mention the abolition of the declaration of enforceability or the registration for enforcement, which speeds up the process even more.

Furthermore, and particularly in the context of the United States, the onus that ameliorative measures exist or could be made available should be placed mainly on the parties requesting the return, and not on the court. See the amicus brief filed by former US judges where they stressed that “mandating judicial analysis of ameliorative measures forces US courts beyond their traditional jurisdiction and interactions with foreign law / civil law judges perform investigatory functions; common law judges do not.”

Arguably, the 13(1)(b) Guide to Good Practice may be read as supporting both views. See in particular:

See paragraph 36: “The examination of the grave risk exception should then also include, if considered necessary and appropriate, consideration of the availability of adequate and effective measures of protection in the State of habitual residence.” (our emphasis).}

See paragraph 44: “Protective measures may be available and readily accessible in the State of habitual residence of the child or, in some cases, may need to be put in place in advance of the return of the child. In the latter case, specific protective measures should only be put in place where necessary strictly and directly to address the grave risk. They are not to be imposed as a matter of course and should be of a time-limited nature that ends when the State of habitual residence of the child is able to determine what, if any, protective measures are appropriate for the child. In certain circumstances, while available and accessible in the State of habitual residence, measures of protection may not be sufficient to address effectively the grave risk. An example may be where the left-behind parent has repeatedly violated protection orders.” (our emphasis)

But see in contrast paragraph 41 of the Guide, which was mentioned in the amicus brief of Child Abduction Lawyers Association (CALA).

Putting this legal argument aside, and in the context of the United States, there are several reasons why US courts should not be required to consider ameliorative measures (but may do so on a discretionary basis):

• The United States is not a Contracting Party to any global treaty that would allow the recognition and enforcement of protective measures (such as the 1996 Hague Protection of Children Convention – USA is only a signatory State);
• A great number of child abductions occur to and from the United States and Mexico. The Mexican legal system is not familiar with the recognition and enforcement of undertakings or with adopting mirror orders in the context of child abduction (or in any other context for that matter);
• Requiring courts to look into ameliorative measures in every single case would unduly delay abduction proceedings;
• Social studies have revealed that undertakings are very often breached once the child has been returned (usually with the primary carer, the mother), which has the direct result of leaving children and women in complete vulnerability. See Lindhorst, Taryn, and Jeffrey L Edleson. Battered Women, Their Children, and International Law : The Unintended Consequences of the Hague Child Abduction Convention. Northeastern Series on Gender, Crime, and Law. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press, 2012.

In conclusion, I believe that we all agree that ameliorative measures (or undertakings) are important. But they must be adequate and effective and should not be adopted just for the sake of adopting them without any teeth, as this would not be in the best interests of the child (in concreto).

NASAMER Law Blog, by Dr. Nüsret-Semahat Arsel International Business Law Implementation and Research Center at Koç University, is an online platform featuring posts about international business law – defined broadly.

The blog has been launched in January this year with the inaugural piece written by Prof. Dr. Klaus Hopt entitled “Corporate Governance in the International Discussion“. The Academic Advisory Board of the blog is comprised of prominent scholars from the Universities of Oxford, Zürich, Singapore, LSE and Koç University.

The Editorial Board would like to invite submissions in the form of opinion & current awareness pieces discussing recent news and developments such as judgments and legislative changes and research pieces reporting on recently published or forthcoming literature such as journal articles and books, as well as on recent academic events such as conferences and workshops.

More information about the submission rules, the Academic Advisory Board, and the Editorial Board can be found on the blog website. For any inquiries, please do not hesitate to contact the editors via nasamerblog@ku.edu.tr.

The Chinese University of Hong Kong’ Cross-Border Legal issues Dialogue Seminar Series presents this online seminar by Professor Richard Garnett on 1st April 2022 12.30pm -2pm (Hong Kong time; GMT +8 hours).

The conflict of laws has traditionally drawn a sharp distinction between jurisdiction and applicable law. The conventional approach suggests that a court only reaches the question of the law to be applied to the merits after the tribunal has determined that it has the power to adjudicate the action. Common law systems have however long recognised that a court has a discretion to accept or decline jurisdiction (determine the appropriate forum) and that a relevant factor in this discretion is the applicable law.

The purpose of this presentation is to examine the current status of the applicable law in jurisdiction and forum disputes, noting the trend in countries such as Australia to give the factor substantial weight and significance.

About the speaker:

Richard Garnett is Professor of Private International Law at the University of Melbourne, Australia and a consultant in international disputes at Corrs Chambers Westgarth. Richard regularly advises on cross-border litigation and arbitration matters and has appeared as advocate (barrister) before several tribunals including the High Court of Australia. Richard has written extensively in the fields of conflict of laws, foreign state immunity and international arbitration, with his work cited by leading tribunals around the world, including the International Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights, the English Court of Appeal, United States federal district courts, the Singapore Court of Appeal and Australian, Israeli and New Zealand courts. Richard has also served as expert member of the Australian Government delegation to the Hague Conference on Private International Law, to negotiate the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements and the 2019 Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments.

Please register by 5 pm, 31 March 2022 (Hong Kong time; GMT +8 hours) to attend the seminar.

 

The Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) has just issued an “Information Note – Children deprived of their family environment due to the armed conflict in Ukraine”. Click here for the English version and here for the French version. The HCCH news item is available here.

The Center for Law, Economics and Policy Studies (CEDEP) is organising an online course on Choice of Law, International Contracts and the Hague Principles. For more information on this course, click here.

The course will officially begin on Tuesday 22 March 2022, with weekly sessions (a total of 9) to be released on Tuesdays (which may be supplemented with additional lessons in May). The sessions will be in English with Spanish subtitles and will be available throughout the year 2022 on the CEDEP e-learning platform, thus there is no deadline for registration. The registration fee is 90USD – several payment methods are possible (including online). To register click here.

CEDEP has kindly provided in advance the link to the Introductory Session (Choice of Law – 22 March 2022) for Conflictoflaws.net readers, which may be viewed free of charge here: 1. Choice of Law – Introductory Session.

The speakers of the Introductory Session are Luca Castellani (UNCITRAL), Anna Veneziano (UNIDROIT) and Ning Zhao (HCCH) and the topic is UNCITRAL, HCCH, and UNIDROIT Legal Guide to Uniform Instruments in the Area of International Commercial Contracts, with a Focus on Sales. The Legal Guide and other information may be accessed on the Hague Conference website, click here.

The e-learning platform will also make available relevant bibliography, the presentations of the speakers, discounts for a relevant publication and much more. A certificate of participation will be given if a minimum attendance is confirmed.

Below is a list of the speakers per session: