Conflictoflaws

On 31 May 2021, Georgia deposited its instrument of accession to the HCCH 1965 Service Convention and the HCCH 1970 Evidence Convention. With the accession of Georgia, the Service Convention now has 79 Contracting Parties. It will enter into force for Georgia on 1 January 2022, subject to the Article 28 procedure. For the Evidence Convention, with the accession of Georgia it now has 64 Contracting Parties. The Convention will enter into force for Georgia on 30 July 2021. More information is available here.

On 1 June 2021, the HCCH and the Asian Business Law Institute co-hosted the webinar “HCCH 1970 Evidence Convention and Remote Taking of Evidence by Video-link”, part of the ongoing celebrations of the Evidence Convention’s golden anniversary. More information is available here.

On 1 June 2021, the HCCH participated in a virtual Regional Discussion on Children’s Rights and Alternative Care, organised by the Council of Europe in preparation to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child Day of General Discussion on this theme. More information is available here.

On 21 June 2021, the HCCH participated in the virtual inaugural event of the Nigeria Group on Private International Law. The recording of the event is available here.

Vacancy: The HCCH is currently seeking an Assistant Legal Officer. The deadline for the submission of applications is 23 July 2021 (00:00 CEST). More information 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.

The ERC Building EU Civil Justice team in Rotterdam is running a series of seminars, covering a variety of topics in the field of European civil justice and international litigation.

On Thursday 1 July, 16-18 hrs CET, the webinar is dedicated to the topic Representing Future Generations: Private Law aspects of Climate Change Litigation. Speakers are Chantal Mak, Geert Van Calster and Sanne Biesmans, and the panel is moderated by Jos Hoevenaars. They will address the relationship between climate litigation, fundamental rights and the role of European judges; private international law aspects of climate litigation and strategic aspects; and liability aspects of climate litigation and implications of the recent Dutch Shell judgment (see our earlier blogpost).

Participation is free of charge. You can register here at Eventbrite.

• The Arbitralization of Courts – Friday, 2 July (09:30-11:30 CET), with Georgia Antonopoulou and Masood Ahmed as speakers and moderated by Xandra Kramer (register)

• European Civil Justice in Transition: Past, Present & Future – Thursday 15 July  (15.30-17.30 CET) with Alan Uzelac, Burkhard Hess, John Sorabji and Eva Storskrubb, moderated by Alexandre Biard and Xandra Kramer (register)

The summary below has been kindly provided by the author:

The International Commission on Civil Status has been working for seventy years for international cooperation in the field of civil status. In this period, 34 Conventions and 11 Recommendations were adopted. Notably, the Commission developed innovative methods, for example, multilingual Forms and Coding of entries in order to overcome translation problems related to civil status documents. Its results are remarkable to a point that some of its instruments serve as a model specially for the European Union.

Despite all the work already accomplished and the many projects still existing, the International Commission on Civil Status is now in risk of vanishing, mainly because of France and Germany’s recent withdrawal.

Still, its know-how is vital in the face of the new challenges posed by changes in the civil status of persons: same-sex marriage, medically assisted reproduction, surrogate motherhood, etc. In this context and for the common interest of present and future generations, rather than abandoning the Commission and the question of civil status in the international arena, it is more than ever time to get involved, by joining it and actively participating in its work.

In that perspective, the article constitutes a plea intended to convince the German authorities of course, but also those of other States, former members of the International Commission on Civil Status or not, to invest in it in order to save an institution which works in an essential field for private relations of an international character.

Such an investment would be all the more appropriate given that the International Commission on Civil Status has fundamentally changed its statutes and its mode of operation in recent years. For example, English is now the second official language of the Commission beside French.

These efforts must henceforth be accompanied. If this were not the case, the risk of losing all the patiently drawn up normative acquis which goes well beyond civil status in the strict sense but also affects family and nationality law exists.

The article is part of an awareness campaign carried out by eminent Authors for several months now.

Source: G. Cerqueira, « Internationale Kommission für das Zivilstandswesen. Eine einzigartige, beispielhafte und notwendige internationale Organisation», StAZ Das Standesamt, n. 6, Juni, 2021, p. 169-170.

Comments by Ivana Isailovi? & Alice Margaria

The case of Valdís Fjölnisdóttir and Others v. Iceland brings to the attention of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) the no longer new, yet persistently complex, question of the determination of legal parenthood following international surrogacy arrangements. Similar to previous cases, such as Mennesson v France, Labassee v France, andParadiso and Campanelli v Italy, this complaint originated from the refusal of national authorities to recognise the parent-child relationship established in accordance with foreign law on the ground that surrogacy is prohibited under national law. Valdís Fjölnisdóttir and Others is the first case of this kind involving a married same-sex couple who subsequently divorced. Like the applicants in the case of Paradiso and Campanelli v Italy, Ms Valdís Glódís Fjölnisdóttir and Ms Eydís Rós Glódís Agnarsdóttir are not biologically linked to their child, who was born in California.

Ivana Isailovi? & Alice Margaria’s comments answer three questions:

1) What’s new in this case?

2) What are the legal effects of this decision?

3) What are alternative legal framings and ideas?

1. Were you surprised by this ruling? Is there anything new in this case?

Alice: This judgment is emblematic of the ECtHR’s generally cautious and minimalistic approach to assessing the proportionality of non-recognition vis-à-vis unconventional parent-child relationships. It is widely agreed (e.g., Liddy 1998; Stalford 2002; Choudhry and Herring 2010) that the Court has over time expanded the boundaries of what constitutes ‘family life’ and supported the adoption of more inclusive and diverse conceptions of ‘family’ through its dynamic interpretation of Article 8 ECHR. Yet, as I have argued elsewhere, this conceptual expansion has not translated into the same protection of the right to respect for family life for all unconventional families. Valdís Fjölnisdóttir and Others is a further manifestation of this trend. The Court has indeed no difficulty in qualifying the bonds existing between the two women and their child as ‘family life’. As far as the applicability of the ‘family life’ limb of Article 8 is concerned, the quality and duration of the relationship at stake trump biological unrelatedness. Yet when it comes to assessing the proportionality of the interference of non-recognition with the applicants’ right to respect for family life, the Court is satisfied with the de facto preservation of the family ties existing between the applicants, and diminishes the disadvantages created by lack of recognition of their parent-child relationship – just as it did in Mennesson. Icelandic authorities had taken steps to ensure that the applicants could continue to enjoy their family ties in spite of non-recognition by placing the child in the foster care of the two women and making these arrangements permanent. This had – from the Court’s perspective – alleviated the distress and anguish experienced by the applicants. In addition, the child had been granted Icelandic citizenship by a direct act of Parliament, with the effect of making his stay and rights in the country regular and secure. As a result, according to the Court, non-recognition had caused the applicants only limited practical hindrances to the enjoyment of their family life. As in Mennesson, therefore, the Court finds that there is family life among the three applicants, but no positive obligation on the part of the State to recognise the parent-child relationships in accordance with the California birth certificate. Whilst it is true that, in the case at hand, the family ties between the applicants had indeed been afforded some legal protection through foster care arrangements (unlike in previous cases), it seems that the unconventional nature of the family at stake – be it due to the lack of a biological link, the fact that it involves two mothers, or because they resorted to surrogacy – continues to hold back the Court from requiring the State to recognise the existing ties ab initio and through filiation. This is also line with the Advisory opinionof 10 April 2019 (request no. P16-2018-001), where the Grand Chamber clarified that States have the obligation to provide ‘only’ some form of legal recognition – e.g., adoption – to the relationship between a child born from surrogacy and their non-genetic mother.

Whilst not setting a new jurisprudential trajectory on how to deal with the determination of legal parenthood following international surrogacy, Valdís Fjölnisdóttir and Others brings two novel elements to bear. The first is encapsulated in para 64, where the Court determines the Supreme Court’s interpretation of domestic provisions attributing legal motherhood to the woman who gives birth to be ‘neither arbitrary nor unreasonable’ and, accordingly, considers that the refusal to recognise the family ties between the applicants and the child has a ‘sufficient basis in law’. In this passage, the Court takes a clear stance on the rule mater semper certa est, which, as this case shows, has the potential to limit the recognition of contemporary familial diversity (not only in the context of surrogacy but also in cases of trans male pregnancies, see e.g. OH and GH v Germany, Applications no. 53568/18 and 54941/18, communicated on 6 February 2019). Second, and in contrast, Judge Lemmens’ concurring opinion takes one important step towards demystifying and problematising the relevance of biological relatedness in regulating legal parenthood following international surrogacy. He points out that the negative impact of non-recognition is equal for all children born from surrogacy abroad who find themselves in legal limbo, regardless of whether they are biologically connected to their parents or not. He further adds that, whilst adoption is an alternative means of recognition, it does not always provide a solution to all difficulties a child might be experiencing. In the case at hand, for instance, adoption would have benefited only one parent-child relationship: the couple had indeed divorced through the national proceedings and, therefore, a joint adoption was no longer a possibility for them. This concurring opinion therefore moves towards questioning and potentially revising the terms of the debate between, on the one hand, preventing illegal conduct by intended parents and, on the other hand, tolerating legal limbo to the detriment of children.

Ivana:  On the one hand, there is nothing new in this decision. Like in Mennesson (2014) and Paradiso & Campanelli (2017), the Court continues to “constitutionalize” domestic PIL rules. As many PIL scholars argued, this reflects the transformations of conflict of laws rules and methods, as the result of  human rights field’s influence. Following the ECHtR and the CJEU case law, conflicts of laws rules became subordinate to a proportionality test which implies weighing various interests at stake. In this case, it involves balancing applicants’ rights to private and family life, and the interests of the state in banning commercial surrogacy.

Second, like in its previous decisions on surrogacy, by recognizing the importance of the mater semper est principle, the ECtHR continues to make the biological link preeminent when defining the scope of human rights protection

On the other, it seems that there is a major rupture with previous decisions. In Mennesson (para 81 & 99), and the advisory opinion requested by the French Cour de cassation (2019) (para 37-38), the ECtHR emphasized child’s right to a recognition of their legal relationship with their intended parents (part of the child’s right to private and family life). This has in turn influenced the Court’s analysis of the scope of states’ margin of appreciation.

In the case however, the Court pays lip service to child’s interests in having their legal relationship with their intended parents recognized (besides pointing out that, under domestic law, adoption is open to one of the two women, par. 71, and that the State took steps to preserve the bond between the (intended) parents and their child).

Without the legal recognition of the parent-child relationship, however, the child—who is placed in foster care—is left in a vulnerable legal position that is hardly in line with the protection of children’s rights. It is unclear what explains this shift in the Court’s reasoning, and Judge Lemmens’ concurring opinion that tries to make sense of it is unconvincing.

2. What are the effects of this decision in terms of the regulation of global surrogacy?

Ivana: There are at least two legal consequences for PIL. First, the decision legitimizes a flawed, biological and marginalizing understanding of legal parenthood/motherhood. Second, it legitimizes feminists’ anti-surrogacy arguments that dovetail with conservative anti-LGBTQ transnational movements’ positions.

According to the Court, mater semper certa est—the notion that the woman who gives birth to the child is the legal mother of that child— which justifies Iceland’s refusal to recognize the foreign parent-child link, is neither “arbitrary nor manifestly unreasonable” (para 69)

But mater semper certa est has consistently been a bit more than an incantation.

In France, scholars showed that the Civil Code from 1804 originally allowed and promoted the constitution of families which didn’t reflect biological bonds, as it was enough to prove marriage to infer kinship. In addition, the mater semper certa est principle has been continuously eroded by assisted reproductive technology, which today enables multiple individuals to be genetic parents.

Motherhood has always been stratified, and mater semper est has operated differently in relation to class, race and gender. Research shows how in the US during slavery, African American women were not considered to be the legal mothers of children they gave birth to, and how today, the state monitors and polices the lives of women of color and poor women (see for instance the work by Angela Davis and Dorothy Roberts). On this side of the Atlantic, between 1962-1984, the French state forcefully deported thousands of children from poor families from Réunion (a former French colony now an oversees territory) to metropolitan France. Finally, this principle penalizes those who do not identify with gender binaries, or with female identity, while being able to give birth, or those who identify as women/mothers, but are unable/unwilling to give birth.

Second, the decision in some respects illustrates the mainstreaming within law of feminists’ anti-surrogacy arguments, which overlap with ant- feminist, conservative, anti-LGBTQ movements’ discourses. Iceland’ s argument that surrogacy is exploitative of surrogates, mirrors  affluent anti-surrogacy networks’ positions that anti-surrogacy feminist groups  adopted in the 1980s. These lobbies argue that surrogacy constitutes the exploitation of women, and that surrogacy severs the “natural maternal bonding” and the biological link between the mother and the child.

This understanding of surrogacy promoted by feminists came to overlap with the one adopted by transnational conservative, pro-life, anti-feminist, anti-LGBTQ groups, and it is interesting that some of the arguments adopted by the Court correspond to those submitted by the conservative institute Ordo Iuris, which intervened in the case. Another example of this overlap, is the EU lobby group No Maternity Trafficking, which includes right-wing groups, such as La Manif pour tous, that organized protests against the same-sex marriage reform in France in 2013.

Here is how the emphasis on the biological link in relation to the definition of legal parenthood may overlap with anti-LGBTQ discourses. As I argued elsewhere, in France, private lawyers, feminists, psychoanalysts, and conservative groups such as La Manif pour tous defended the biological understanding of legal filiation, to oppose the same-sex marriage reform which also opened adoption to same-sex couples, because, according to them, biological rules sustain a “symbolic order” which reflects the “natural order” and outside that order a child will become “psychotic.” This understanding of legal filiation is however relatively recent in France and is in contradiction with the civil law approach to filiation based on individual will. In fact, different actors articulated these arguments in the 1990s, when queer families started demanding that their families be legally protected and recognized. 

Alice: This decision confirms the wide, yet not unlimited, freedom States enjoy in regulating surrogacy and the legal consequences of international surrogacy in their territories and legal systems. In so doing, it legitimises the preservation and continuing operation of traditional filiation rules, in particular the mater semper certa est rule, which anchors legal motherhood to the biological processes of pregnancy and birth. It follows that the public order exception can still be raised. At the same time, however, authorities are required to ensure that some form of recognition be granted to de factoparent-child relationships created following international surrogacy through alternative legal routes, such as foster care or adoption. In a nutshell, therefore, the regulatory approach to international surrogacy supported by this decision is one of accommodation, as opposed to recognition, of familial diversity. Parental ties created following surrogacy arrangements abroad have to be granted some form of legal recognition, to be given some standing in the national legal order, but do not necessarily have to be recognised in their original version, i.e., as legal parental ties ab initio.

3. If not this legal framing, which one should we (scholars, courts or activists) adopt to think about transnational surrogacy? 

Alice: Conflicts of laws in this context can result in two opposing outcomes: openness to familial and other types of diversity, but also – as this case shows – attachment to conventional understandings of parenthood, motherhood and ways of creating and being a family. If we imagine a continuum with the abovementioned points as its extremes, the Court seems to take an intermediary position: that of accommodating diversity. The adoption of such an intermediary position in Valdís Fjölnisdóttir and Others was facilitated by the existence of foster care arrangements and the uninterrupted care provided by the first and second applicants to their child since his birth. In the Court’s eyes, therefore, the child in this case was not left in ‘complete’ legal limbo to the same extent as the children in Mennesson, nor put up for adoption as in the case of Paradiso and Campanelli.

To address the question ‘which framing shall we adopt?’, the answer very much depends on who ‘we’ is. If ‘we’ is the ECtHR, then the margin for manoeuvring is clearly more circumscribed than for activists and scholars. The Court is bound to apply some doctrines of interpretation, in primis the margin of appreciation, through which it gains legitimacy as a regional human rights court. The application of these doctrines entails some degree of ‘physiological’ discretion on the part of the Court. Determining the width of the margin of appreciation is never a mechanical or mathematical operation, but often involves drawing a balance between a variety of influencing factors that might concur simultaneously within the same case and point to diametrically opposed directions. Engaging in this balancing exercise may create room for specific moral views on the issue at stake – i.e., motherhood/parenthood – to penetrate and influence the reasoning. This is of course potentially problematic given the ‘expressive powers’ of the Court, and the role of standard setting that it is expected to play. That being said, if regard is given to the specific decision in Valdís Fjölnisdóttir and Others, despite the fact that the outcome is not diversity-friendly, the reasoning developed by the Court finds some solid ground not only in its previous case law on surrogacy, but more generally in the doctrinal architecture that defines the Court’s role. So, whilst scholars advocating for legal recognition of contemporary familial diversity – including myself – might find this decision disappointing in many respects (e.g., its conventional understandings of motherhood and lack of a child-centred perspective), if we put Valdís Fjölnisdóttir and Others into (the Strasbourg) context, it would be quite unrealistic to expect a different approach from the ECtHR. What can certainly be hoped for is an effort to frame the reasoning in a manner which expresses greater sensitivity, especially towards the emotional and psychological consequences suffered by the applicants as a result of non-recognition, and thus gives more space to their voices and perceptions regarding what is helpful and sufficient ‘to substantially alleviate the uncertainty and anguish’ they experienced (para 71).

Ivana:  In some respects, this decision mirrors dominant PIL arguments about surrogacy. For some PIL scholars, surrogacy challenges traditional (“natural”) mother-child bond, when historically legal motherhood has always been a stratified concept. Other PIL scholars argue that surrogacy raises issues of (over)exploitation of surrogates and that women are coerced into surrogacy, but never really explain what these terms mean under patriarchy, and in a neoliberal context.

Like many economic practices in a neoliberal context, transnational surrogacy leads to abuses, which are well documented by scholars. But, understanding what law can, cannot or should do about it, requires, questioning the dominant descriptions of and normative assumptions about surrogacy that inform PIL discourses.

Instead of the focus on coercion, or on a narrow understanding of what womanhood is, like the one adopted by relational feminism, I find queer and Marxist-feminists’ interventions empirically more accurate, and normatively more appealing.

These scholars problematize the distinctions between nature/ technology, and economy/ love which shape most of legal scholars’ understanding of surrogacy (and gestation). As Sophie Lewis shows in her book Full Surrogacy Nowprocreation was never “natural” and has always been “technologically” assisted (by doctors, doulas, nurses, nannies..) and gestation is work. Seeing gestation as work seeks to upend the capitalist mode of production which relies on the unpaid work around social reproduction. Overall, these scholars challenge the narrow genetic understanding of kinship, argue for a more capacious definition of care, while also making space for the recognition of surrogates’ reproductive work, their voices and their needs.

Legally recognizing the reproductive labor done by surrogates, may lead to rethinking how we (scholars, teachers, students, judges, activists…) understand the public policy exception/ recognition in PIL, and the recent proposals to establish binding transnational principles, and transnational monitoring systems for regulating transnational surrogacy in the neoliberal exploitative economy.

Ivana Isailovic is Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Amsterdam and is a member of the Sustainable Global Economic Law project. She is the co-leader (with Ralf Michaels) of the Gender & Private International Law project. Her research and teaching sit at the intersection of law, gender and political economy in transnational contexts.

Alice Margaria is a Senior Research Fellow in the Law & Anthropology Department at the Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology. Her current research focuses on fatherhood, cultural/religious diversity and human rights. She teaches ‘Gender and Diversity in the International Context’ at Freie Universität (Berlin).

By Tobias Lutzi, University of Cologne

There should be few readers of this blog, and few conflict-of-laws experts in general, to whom Adrian Briggs will not be a household name. In fact, it might be impossible to find anyone working in the field who has not either read some of his academic writings (or Lord Goff’s seminal speech in The Spiliada [1986] UKHL 10, which directly credits them) or had the privilege of attending one of his classes in Oxford or one of the other places he has visited over the years.

Adrian Briggs has taught Conflict of Laws in Oxford for more than 40 years, continuing the University’s great tradition in the field that started with Albert Venn Dicey at the end of the 19th century and had been upheld by Geoffrey Cheshire, John Morris, and Lawrence Collins (now Lord Collins of Mapesbury) among others. His writings include four editions of The Conflict of Laws (one of the most read, and most readable, textbooks in the field), six editions of Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments and his magnus opus Private International Law in English Courts, a perfect snapshot of the law as it stood in 2014, shortly before the UK decided to turn back the clock. His scholarship has been cited by courts across the world. Still, Adrian Briggs has managed to maintain a busy barrister practice in London (including well-known cases such as Case C-68/93 Fiona Shevill, Rubin v Eurofinance [2012] UKSC 46, and The Alexandros T [2013] UKSC 70) while also remaining an active member of the academic community regularly contributing not only to parliamentary committees but also, on occasion, to the academic discussion on this blog.

To honour his impact on the field of Conflict of Laws, two of Adrian’s Oxford colleagues, Andrew Dickinson and Edwin Peel, have put together a book, aptly titled ‘A Conflict of Laws Companion’. It contains contributions from 19 scholars, including four members of the highest courts of their respective countries, virtually all of whom have been taught by (or together with) the honorand at Oxford. The book starts with a foreword by Lord Mance, followed by three short notes on Adrian Briggs as a Lecturer at Leeds University (where he only taught for about a year), as a scholar at Oxford, and as a fellow at St Edmund Hall. Afterwards, the authors of the longer academic contributions offer a number of particularly delightful ‘recollections’, describing Adrian Briggs, inter alia, as “the one time wunderkind and occasional enfant terrible of private international law” (Andrew Bell), “the perfect supervisor: unfailingly generous with his time and constructive with his criticism” (Andrew Scott), and “a tutor, colleague and friend” (Andrew Dickinson).

The academic essays that follow are conventionally organised into four categories: ‘Jurisdiction’, ‘Choice of Law’, ‘Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments’, and ‘Conflict of Laws within the Legal System’. They rise to the occasion on at least two accounts. First, they all use an aspect of Adrian Briggs’ academic oeuvre as their starting point. Second, they are of a quality and depths worthy of the honorand (possibly having profited from the prospect of needing to pass his critical eye). While they all are as insightful as inspiring, Ed Peel’s contribution on ‘How Private is Private International Law?’ can be recommended with particular enthusiasm as it picks up Adrian Briggs’ observation (made in several of his writings) that, so far as English law is concerned, “a very large amount of the law on jurisdiction, but also on choice of law, is dependent on the very private law notions of consent and obligation” and critically discusses it from the perspective of contract-law expert. Still, there is not one page of this book that does not make for a stimulating read. It is a great testament to one of the greatest minds in private international law, and a true Conflict of Laws companion to countless students, scholars, colleagues, and friends.

Chinese Private International Law

Edited by Xiaohong Liu and Zhengyi Zhang

Written with the assistance of a team of lecturers at the Shanghai University of Political Science and Law, this book is the leading reference on Chinese private international law in English. The chapters systematically cover the whole of Chinese private international law, not just questions likely to arise in commercial matters, but also in family, succession, cross-border insolvency, intellectual property, competition (antitrust), and environmental disputes.  The chapters do not merely cover the traditional conflict of law areas of jurisdiction, applicable law (choice of law), and enforcement.  They also look into conflict of law questions arising in arbitration and assess China’s involvement in the harmonisation of private international law globally and regionally within the Belt and Road Initiative. Similarly to the Japanese and Indonesian volumes in the Series, this book presents Chinese conflict of laws through a combination of common and civil law analytical techniques and perspectives, providing readers worldwide with a more profound and comprehensive understanding of Chinese private international law.

Xiaohong Liu is Professor and President and Zhengyi Zhang is Associate Professor and Deputy Director of the International Affairs Office, both at Shanghai University of Political Science and Law, China.

May 2021   |   9781509924370   |   352pp   |   Hbk   |    RSP: £130

Discount Price: £104

Order online at www.hartpublishing.co.uk – use the code UG7 at the checkout to get 20% off your order!

Sign up to our email list to receive updates about our new titles.

The Project Jean Monnet Network – BRIDGE, co-funded by the Erasmus+ Programme of the European Union, and the Latin-American Center for European Studies invite young Latin American researchers to submit their works to the “Monograph Contest for Young Latin American Researchers – Jean Monnet Award”, whose main objective is to foster excellence in research on topics related to European integration in Latin America.

Only unpublished monographs submitted by young researchers who are up to 30 years old at the date of the submission will be accepted. Authors must also be enrolled in any higher education institution of Latin America.

Monographs (between 60-120 pages) written in English, Spanish or Portuguese will be accepted and authors must submit their monographs by 1 August 2021.

For more information, access: https://eurolatinstudies.com/laces/announcement/view/25.

By Stephen G.A. Pitel, Western University

In common law Canada, it has long been established that a court will not recognize and enforce a foreign judgment concerning title to land in the forum.  The key case in support is Duke v Andler, [1932] SCR 734.

The ongoing application of that decision has now been called into question by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Lanfer v Eilers, 2021 BCCA 241 (available here).  In the court below the judge relied on Duke and refused recognition and enforcement of a German decision that determined the ownership of land in British Columbia.  The Court of Appeal reversed and gave effect to the German decision.  This represents a significant change to Canadian law in this area.

The Court of Appeal, of course, cannot overturn a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.  It reached its result by deciding that a more recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, that in Pro Swing Inc v Elta Golf Inc, 2006 SCC 52, had overtaken the reasoning and result in Duke and left the Court of Appeal free to recognize and enforce the German decision (see paras 44-45 and 74).  This is controversial.  It has been questioned whether Pro Swing had the effect of superseding Duke but there are arguments on both sides.  In part this is because Pro Swing was a decision about whether to recognize and enforce foreign non-monetary orders, but the orders in that case had nothing to do with specific performance mandating a transfer or title to land in the forum.

I find it hard to accept the decision as a matter of precedent.  The title to land aspect of the foreign decision seems a significantly different element than what is at issue in most non-monetary judgment decisions, such that it is hard to simply subsume this within Pro Swing.  What is really necessary is detailed analysis of whether the historic rule should or should not be changed at a normative level.  How open should courts be to recognizing and enforcing foreign judgments concerning title to land in the forum?  This raises related issues, most fundamentally whether the Mocambique rule itself should change.  If other courts now know that British Columbia is prepared to enforce foreign orders about land in that province, why should foreign courts restrain their jurisdiction in cases concerning such land?

In this litigation, the defendant is a German resident and by all accounts is clearly in violation of the German court’s order requiring a transfer of the land in British Columbia (see para 1).  Why the plaintiff could not or did not have the German courts directly enforce their own order against the defendant’s person or property is not clear in the decision.  Indeed, it may be that the German courts only were prepared to make the order about foreign land precisely because they had the power to enforce the order in personam and that it thus did not require enforcement in British Columbia (analogous to the Penn v Baltimore exception to Mocambique).

Given the conflict with Duke, there is a reasonable likelihood that the Supreme Court of Canada would grant leave to appeal if it is sought.  And if not, a denial of leave would be a relatively strong signal of support for the Court of Appeal’s decision.  But the issue will be less clear if no appeal is sought, leaving debate about the extent to which the law has changed.

Carlos Santaló Goris, Researcher 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 some aspects of a judgment rendered by the Paris Court of Appeals.

Regulation No 655/2014, establishing a European Account Preservation Order (“EAPO Regulation”) introduced not only the first uniform provisional measure at the EU level but also the first European specific system to search for the debtors’ bank accounts. The so-called information mechanism is, though, less accessible than the EAPO itself. According to Article 5 of the EAPO Regulation, creditors can apply for an EAPO ante demandam, during the procedure on the substance of the matter; or when they have already a title (a judgment, a court settlement, or an authentic document). However, only creditors with a title can submit a request for information. Furthermore, in case the title is not yet enforceable, creditors are subject to specific additional prerequisites.

In broad terms, the information mechanism operates following a traditional scheme of cross-border cooperation in civil matters within the EU. A court in a Member State sends a request for information to an information authority in the same or other Member State. The information authority then searches for the bank accounts and informs the court of origin about the outcome of that search.

Member States have a wide margin of discretion in implementing the information mechanism. They can freely pick the national body appointed as information authority. They also have the freedom to choose whichever method they consider more appropriate to search for the debtors’ bank accounts as long as it is “effective and efficient” and “not disproportionately costly or time-consuming” (Article 14(5)(d) EAPO Regulation).

France assigned the role of information authority to its national enforcement authority, the bailiffs (“huissiers”). Information about the debtors’ bank accounts is obtained by filing an application with FICOBA (“Fichier national des comptes bancaires et assimilés”). FICOBA is a national register hold by the French tax authority containing data about all the bank accounts existing in France. Other Member States, such as Poland or Germany, have also relied on similar domestic registers.

This is where the paradox emerges. In France, creditors without an enforceable title who apply for a French domestic preservation order do not have access to FICOBA; conversely, creditors without an enforceable title who apply for an EAPO do. Article L151 A of the French Manual on Tax Procedures (“Livre des procédures fiscales”) expressly indicates that bailiffs can access FICOBA for the purpose of ensuring the execution of an enforceable title (“aux fins d’assurer l’exécution d’un titre exécutoire”). The only exception is found, precisely, when they have to search for information in an EAPO procedure. This situation generates an imbalance between creditors who can access the EAPO Regulation and those who cannot.

In a judgment rendered by the Paris Court of Appeal on 28 January 2021 (Cour d’appel de Paris, Pôle 1 – chambre 10, 28 janvier 2021, n° 19/21727), the court found that such a difference of treatment between creditors with and without access to the EAPO Regulation “constitutes an unjustified breach of equality and discrimination between creditors” (“cette différence de traitement constitue une rupture d’égalité injustifiée et une discrimination entre créanciers”). Relying on the principle of equality, the court decided to extend access to FICOBA, beyond the context of the EAPO Regulation, to those creditors without an enforceable title.

The relevance of this judgment lies in the French court’s use of the EAPO Regulation to interpret a national domestic procedure. The influence of the national civil procedures system on the European procedure is well known. Uniform European civil procedures, such as the EAPO Regulation, contain numerous references to the Member States’ national law. Furthermore, courts tend to read these instruments through the lens of the national civil procedural systems, even with regard to those aspects that should apply uniformly (here is an example concerning the EAPO Regulation kindly offered by Prof. Requejo Isidro). The Paris Court of Appeal shows us that the European civil procedures can also be a source of inspiration when it comes to interpreting domestic procedural law.

The irony behind this judgment is that, during the travaux préparatoires of the EAPO Regulation, the French delegation expressly requested to restrain access to the information mechanism to those creditors who had “an enforceable title to support [their] application”. One of the reasons argued by the delegation was that “in French law, access to information is only given if the creditor possesses an enforceable title”. Ultimately, it is the French civil procedural system that is being influenced by the EAPO Regulation, and not the other way around.

The Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) is seeking an Assistant Legal Officer. The successful candidate will work in the field of International Family Law and Child Protection, primarily in relation to the 2000 Convention on the Protection of Adults and the 2007 Convention on Child Support and its Protocol, but also the 1961 Convention on the Form of Testamentary Dispositions and 1970 Convention on the Recognition of Divorces.

Applications should be submitted by Friday 23 July 2021 (00:00 CEST). For more information, please visit the Recruitment section of the HCCH website.

This post is published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference of Private International Law (HCCH). 

 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 6th CPLJ Webinar on 2 July 2021, 3:00 – 5:15 pm (CEST).

The programme reads as follows:

Chair: Loïc Cadiet (University of Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne)

3:00 pm         Bruno Deffains (University of Paris II Panthéon-Assas / University Institute of France)

            Comparative procedural law and economics

3:30 pm          Discussion

4:00 pm          Intermission

4:15 pm           Remco van Rhee (Maastricht University)

            The use of foreign models of civil procedure in national law reform: ‘Lessons‘ from History?

4:45 pm           Discussion

5:15 pm           End of conference

The full programme is available here.

Participation is free of charge, but registration is required by 29 June 2021 via a short e-mail to events@mpi.lu.

(Image credits:  Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam)

Written by the Asian Business Law Institute and the Permanent Bureau of the HCCH

It was reported previously that the Asian Business Law Institute (ABLI) and the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) were to co-host a webinar titled HCCH 1970 Evidence Convention and Remote Taking of Evidence by Video-link on 1 June.

The session has since been successfully held. The organisers would like to share the summary and key takeaways of the session with readers of this blog. Readers who are interested in learning more about the session and requesting access to the video recording may contact ABLI at info@abli.asia.

On 1 June 2021, the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) and the Singapore-based Asian Business Law Institute co-hosted webinar HCCH 1970 Evidence Convention and Remote Taking of Evidence by Video-link, welcoming attendees from 30 different jurisdictions, including representatives of Central Authorities, HCCH Members, private practitioners, international public service officers and business professionals.

Dr Christophe Bernasconi, Secretary General of the HCCH, opened the webinar with a welcoming address where he underscored that the success of the 1970 Evidence Convention was attributable to not only its simplified transmission procedures and its flexibility to accommodate the needs of different legal traditions, but also the technology-neutral approach adopted by drafters, which has allowed the Convention to remain fit for purpose in the 21st century. Specifically, Dr Bernasconi highlighted that the Convention, with 63 Contracting Parties representing every major legal tradition, facilitated the transmission of thousands of requests for taking of evidence every year and allowed the use of video-link technology in the taking of evidence abroad.

Professor Yun Zhao, Representative of the HCCH Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, was next to speak where he gave an overview of the operation of the Evidence Convention. He explained how the Convention provided, in Chapter I, a main channel of transmission under which a judicial authority in a requesting State may send a Letter of Request directly to a Central Authority in the requested State, before elaborating that the Convention also provided, in Chapter II, a streamlined process for the direct taking of evidence by commissioners or consuls, to which Contracting Parties may object upon or after accession. Professor Zhao pointed to the recently published Guide to Good Practice on the Use of Video-Link under the 1970 Evidence Convention and outlined a plethora of ways in which video-link technology may be used to take evidence abroad, e.g. to facilitate the presence of the parties and their representatives by video-link at the execution of a request or to permit a commissioner located in the State of Origin to take evidence by video-link in the State of Execution.

Following Professor Zhao’s presentation, Mr Alexander Blumrosen, Partner at Polaris Law (Paris), provided a historical account of the use of the Evidence Convention in the United States and the significance of the landmark Supreme Court decision Aérospatiale. He went on to explain in detail, and by reference to his practical experience, how evidence located in France but needed for U.S. civil or commercial proceedings may be taken through a Letter of Request (under Chapter I) or more swiftly through a commissioner (under Chapter II). Mr Blumrosen highlighted that the execution of a Chapter I Letter of Request in France usually took between six weeks and three months, and that under Article 9 of the Convention, foreign counsel may be allowed to participate in the direct or cross examination of witnesses by video-link provided that such participation was expressly requested in the Letter of Request and allowed by local law and practice as it is in France. Mentioning that the taking of evidence by commissioner under Chapter II could be even faster and more flexible, Mr Blumrosen added that once the Central Authority had authorized a commissioner – which could take between one to ten days, depending on the matter – the evidence may be taken immediately either in person in conference room facilities or using video-link, without needing any further intervention or participation by a local judge. He mentioned the increased use of Chapter II discovery in requests from the U.S. over the last ten years, and applauded the qualified Article 23 reservation adopted by France to the Convention that allows for pre-trial discovery but requires requests to be “enumerated limitatively” and to be relevant to the underlying dispute in order to avoid overly broad “fishing expeditions”.

Turning attendees’ attention from France to Singapore was Mr Edmund Kronenburg, Managing Partner of Braddell Brothers LLP, who presented a brief overview of the operation of the Evidence Convention in Singapore by looking at the country’s legal framework. In his view, the popularity of the Convention was likely to increase in the coming years in tandem with Singapore’s efforts to reinforce its dispute resolution hub status. Mr Kronenburg then moderated a lively panel discussion among all panelists, including Mr Blumrosen, Justice Anselmo Reyes of the Singapore International Commercial Court, Dr João Ribeiro-Bidaoui, First Secretary at the HCCH and Professor Zhao.

To conclude the session, Dr Ribeiro-Bidaoui spoke of the salient benefits and main features of another HCCH instrument, the 1965 Service Convention, highlighting that the Service Convention, with 78 Contracting Parties, was accessible to almost 70% of the global citizenship who represents more than 80% of the world’s GDP.?

The Permanent Bureau of the HCCH and ABLI are heartened by the positive feedback received after the webinar. Some Singaporean practitioners who were in the midst of preparing for virtual hearings found the session especially timely. One attendee from the business community commented that although not legally trained, he found the discussions useful in understanding the difficulties involved in multi-jurisdictional legal processes from the perspective of running a multinational business. Attendees joining from outside of Singapore said they benefited most from learning about the implementation of the Evidence Convention in places other than their home jurisdictions. Specifically, Matthijs Kuijpers and Sofja Goldstein from Amsterdam-based law firm Stibbe shared that they found it extremely valuable for their international litigation practice to have judges, practitioners and academics from various jurisdictions exchange and discuss experiences and best practices. In particular, they very much appreciated that the organisers actively engaged practitioners during the session as such engagement helped overcome issues that would inevitably rise over time given that the methods of taking evidence today differ significantly from how it was envisioned when the Convention was drafted.

The organisers thank all attendees for their active participation and warm reception and look forward to having more such opportunities for exchange of ideas and sharing of experiences.

The full version of the key panel discussion takeaways can be read here.

The Young Research Network of the European Association of Private International Law (EAPIL) has just launched its latest research project, which is being led by Tobias Lutzi, Ennio Piovesani, and Dora Rotar. The project will focus on the national rules on jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters over non-EU defendants, in light of the report envisioned in Article 79 Brussels Ia Regulation.

As the project will primarily be based on national reports describing the situation in each Member State (structured by a detailed questionnaire), the organizers are currently still looking for participants who would be interested in providing a national report for one of the following Member States: Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden.

The full Call for Participants can be found here.

Xu Huang, Wuhan University Institute of International Law

1. Background
On 10 June 2021, China’s Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (hereinafter “NPC”) issued “Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law of the People’s Republic of China” (hereinafter “CAFSL”), which entered into force on the date of the promulgation. This is a reaction in response to the current tension between China and some western countries, in particular, the US and the EU that have imposed a series of sanctions on Chinese officials and entities. For example, in August 2020, the Trump administration imposed sanctions on 11 individuals for undermining Hong Kong’s autonomy and restricting the freedom of expression or assembly of the citizens of Hong Kong. In June 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 14032 to amend ban on US persons purchasing securities of certain Chinese companies. In March 2021, the EU imposed unilateral sanctions on relevant Chinese individuals and entity, based on the human rights issues in Xinjiang. China has responded by imposing counter sanctions, which were issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as administrative orders. The Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law provides the legal basis for China’s further action and counter measures. This law was enacted after only two reading rather than normal three demonstrating China’s urgent need to defend itself against a growing risk of foreign hostile measures.

2. The main content

Competent Authority: All relevant departments under the State Council have been authorized to involve in issuing the anti-sanction list and anti-sanction measures (Art. 4 and Art. 5). The “Ministry of Foreign Affairs” and “other relevant departments under the State Council” are authorized to issue orders of announcement (Art. 9). Reviewing from the current practice of China’s response to foreign sanctions, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has always issued sanctions lists against foreign individuals and organizations, so it is likely that the China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs will still lead the movement of announcing and countering the foreign sanctions. However, other departments now also have the authority to sanction relevant individuals and entities. This provides flexibility if the foreign sanctions relate to a particular issue that is administrated by the particular department and when it is more efficient or appropriate for the particular department to handle it directly.

Targeted measures: Circumstances under which China shall have the right to take corresponding anti-sanction measures are as follows: (1) a foreign country violates international law and basic norms of international relations; (2) contains or suppresses China on various pretexts or in accordance with its own laws; (3) adopts discriminatory restrictive measures against any Chinese citizen or organization; (4) meddles in China’s internal affair (Art. 3).The CAFSL does not expressly specify whether the circumstances should be satisfied simultaneously or separately. From the perspective of legislative intent, it is obvious that the full text of the CAFSL is intended to broaden legal authority for taking anti-sanctions measures in China, so it may not require the fulfilment of all four conditions.

It does not clarify the specific meanings of “violates international law and the basic norms of international relations”, “contains or suppresses”, and “meddles in China’s internal affairs”, which vary in different states and jurisdictions. But considering the sanctions issued by China and answers by the NPC spokesman, the key targeted circumstances are meddling China’s internal affairs. It is reasonable to assume that these circumstances mainly aimed at unilateral sanctions suppressing China under the pretexts of so-called sea-based, epidemic-based, democracy-based and human rights-based issues in Xinjiang, Tibet, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Therefore, other issues may not be included.

Art. 3 aims against the sanctions imposed by foreign states, for example the US and the EU. But from the text of the law, the concept of “sanctions” is not used, instead the concept of “discriminatory restrictive measures” is adopted, which isvery vague and broad. Discriminatory restrictive measures can be interpreted as foreign unilateral sanctions directly targeting Chinese individuals and organizations, which are the so-called “primary sanctions”, different from the “secondary sanctions” restricting Chinese parties from engaging in normal economic, trade and related activities with directly sanctions third state’s parties. In a press conference, the NPC spokesman stated that “the main purpose of the CAFSL is to fight back, counter and oppose the unilateral sanctions against China imposed by foreign states.” It should only apply to tackle the primary sanctions against China.

Targeted entities: The targeted entities of anti-sanction list and anti-sanction measures are vague and broad. The targeted entities of anti-sanctions list include individuals and organizations that are directly involved in the development, decision-making, and implementation of the discriminatory restrictive measures (Art. 4). What means involvement in the development or decision-making or implementation is ambiguous. And the indirect involvement is even vaguer, which may broaden the scope of the list. Besides, following entities may also be targeted: (1) spouses and immediate family members of targeted individuals; (2) senior executives or actual controllers of targeted organizations; (3) organizations where targeted individuals serve as senior executives; (4) organizations that are actually controlled by targeted entities or whose formation and operation are participated in by targeted entities (Art. 5).

Anti-sanction measures: The relevant departments may take four categories of anti-sanction measures: (1) travel ban, meaning that entry into China will not be allowed and deportation will be applied;(2) freezing order, namely, all types of property in China shall be seized, frozen or detained; (3) prohibited transaction, which means entities within the territory of China will not be allowed to carry out transactions or other business activities with the sanctioned entities; (4) the other necessary measures, which may include measures like “arms embargoes” or “targeted sanctions” (Art. 6). Former three anti-sanction measures have been taken by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in practice. For example, on 26 March 2021, China decided to sanction relevant UK individuals and entities by prohibiting them from entering the mainland, Hong Kong and Macao of China, freezing their property in China, and prohibiting Chinese citizens and institutions from doing business with them.

Relevant procedure: The decisions made by the competent authorities shall be final and not subject to judicial review(Art. 7).The counterparty shall not file an administrative lawsuit against anti-sanction measures and other administrative decisions. The counterparty can change the circumstance causing anti-sanction measures, and request the relevant department for the modification and cancellation of anti-sanction measures. If any change in the circumstances based on which anti-sanction measures are taken happens, the competent authorities may suspend, change or cancel the relevant anti-sanction measures (Art. 8). The transparency requirement stipulates the relevant orders shall be announced (Art. 9).

A coordination mechanism for the anti-foreign sanctions work shall be established by the state to coordinate the relevant work. Coordination and cooperation, and information sharing among various departments shall be strengthened. Determination and implementation of the relevant anti-sanction measures shall be based on their respective functions and division of tasks and responsibilities (Art. 10).

Legal consequences of violation: There are two types of legal consequences for violating the obligation of “implementation of the anti-sanction measures”. Entities in the territory of China will be restricted or prohibited from carrying out relevant activities (Art. 11). Any entities, including foreign states’ parties, will be held legally liable (Art. 14).
Besides, a party suffering from the discriminatory restrictive measures may be entitled to bring a civil action against the entities that comply with the foreign discriminatory measures against China (Art. 12). The defendant, in theory, includes any entities in the world, even entities that are the nationals or residents of the country imposing sanctions against China. It is curious how this can be enforced in reality. In particular, if a foreign entity has no connections with China, it is hard for a Chinese court to claim jurisdiction, and even taking jurisdiction, enforcing judgments abroad can also be difficult, if not impossible. Because enforcement jurisdiction must be territorial, without assets and reputation in China, a foreign state’s party may disregard the Chinese anti-sanction measure.

3. Impact of the CAFSL

The CAFSL is a higher-level legislation in Chinese legal system than the relevant departmental rules, such as the Chinese Blocking Rules and “unreliable entity list” . It is a much more powerful legal tool than former departmental rules as it directly retaliates against the primary sanction on China. It provides a legal basis and fills a legal gap. However, it may not be good news for international businesses that operate in both the US and China. Those companies may have to choose between complying with foreign sanctions or Chinese laws, which may probably force some enterprises to make strategic decision to accept risk of penalty from one country, or even to give up the Chinese or US market. The CAFSL is vaguely drafted and likely to create unpredictable results to the commercial transaction and other interests. The application and enforcement of the CAFSL and Chinese subsequent rules and regulations may give detailed interpretation to clarify relevant issues to help parties comply with the CAFSL. However, to China, the CAFSL serves apolitical purpose, which is more important than the normal functioning of a law. It is a political declaration of China’s determination to fight back. Therefore, the most important matter for Chinese law-makers is not to concern too much of the detailed rules and enforcement to provide predictability to international business, but to send the warning message to foreign countries. International businesses, at the same time, may find themselves in a no-win position and may frequently face the direct conflict of overriding mandatory regulations in China and the US. By placing international businesses in the dilemma may help to send the message and pressure back to the US that may urge the US policy-makers to reconsider their China policy. After all, the CAFSL is a counter-measure, which serves defensive purposes, and would not be triggered in the absence of sanctions against Chinese citizens and entities.

The Hague Academy of International Law is holding its Summer Courses on Private International Law for the first (and perhaps last) time online from 26 July to 13 August 2021. Registration is open until Sunday 27 June 2021 at 23:59 The Hague time. More information is available here.

As you may remember, we announced in a previous post that the 2020 Summer Courses were postponed and that the only prior time that the courses were cancelled was World War II.

This year’s general course will be delivered by NYU Professor Linda Silberman and is entitled The Counter-Revolution in Private International Law in the United States: From Standards to Rules. The special courses will be given by José Antonio Moreno Rodríguez, Mary Keyes, Pietro Franzina (former editor of Conflictoflaws.net), Sylvain Bollée, Salim Moollan, Jean-Baptiste Racine and Robert Wai. The inaugural lecture will be delivered by Alexis Mourre, President of the International Court of Arbitration of the ICC. The poster is available here.

The holding of the Summer Courses in times of the Covid-19 pandemic attests to the perseverance of the Hague Academy, which has organised two live broadcasts per day to cater to people living in different time zones.

Please note that “no certificate of attendance will be delivered upon completion of the courses. Instead, each attendee will receive an electronic certificate of enrolment at the end of the session.”

If you are interested in a more full-fledged experience, you may consider registering for the Winter Course, which appears to be an in-person course. Registration for the Winter Courses 2022 is open since 1 June 2021 and will end 31 July (scholarships) and 29 September 2021 (full fee). For more information, click here.

The CJEU has just rendered its decision in Case C-800/19 Mittelbayerischer Verlag (currently only available in French). The Court held that the courts of the claimant’s ‘centre of interests’ have jurisdiction (on this basis) only if the content complained of contains ‘objective and verifiable elements allowing to identify, directly or indirectly, the claimant as an individual’ (para 46). Accordingly, a Polish Holocaust survivor could not sue a German publishing house over the use of the term ‘Polish extermination camp’ in an online article in Poland.

The factual and legal background of the case are described in some detail in our report on the AG Opinion – in a nutshell, the case is about whether a Polish survivor of the Holocaust can sue the publisher of a German newspaper in Poland for an alleged violation of his personality rights (including his national dignity) by an online article containing the phrase ‘Polish extermination camp’. As the claimant sought a range of remedies, at least some of which should only be available in a court with ‘full’ jurisdiction (as per the Court’s decision in Case C-194/16 Bolagsupplysningen, para 48), he needed to rely on the Court’s ‘centre of interests’ criterion to seize the Polish courts. Yet, both the referring court and AG Bobek had doubts if this criterion would not require some kind of limit to prevent the publisher of an online article to be sued in all member states in which a person potentially affected in their national dignity might have their centre of interests.

Upon a first reading of the decision, four aspects may be noted:

(1) The Court appears to have followed the AG’s proposition to adopt “a narrow and minimalist approach [to] this case” (Opinion, para 43). Thus, instead of a full reconsideration of the ‘centre of interests’ criterion, let alone of its interpretation of Art. 7(2) Brussels Ia with regard to personality rights as a whole (as Geert van Calster was hoping for), the Court has opted for its incremental readjustment.

(2) But the importance of the readjustment should not be underestimated. Despite giving access to the ‘full’ range of remedies, the Court has never had an opportunity to specify the exact requirements of ‘centre of interests’ jurisdiction as introduced in Joined Cases C-509/09 and C-161/10 eDate. Although clearly intended to protect the claimant (see eDate, para 47), para 50 of the decision certainly left room for additional requirements regarding the connection between the publication in question and the forum.

The CJEU now has indeed picked up this paragraph and argues that in a situation such as the present one, in which the claimant has – unlike in eDate and Bolagsupplysningen – not been directly targeted by the publication in question, it would hurt the aim of predictability if the claimant could sue for the entirety of the damage (and all injunctions) at their ‘centre of interests’, which the defendant could not reasonably predict (paras 35–38). In support, the Court also cites the need for a particularly close link between the case and the forum for special jurisdiction (para 40), as well as the aim to prevent a multiplication of grounds of jurisdiction (para 39 – a point not easily reconcilable with the Court’s continued adherence to the mosaic principle). On this basis, it formulates the rule cited above:

[46] article 7, point 2, du règlement no 1215/2012 doit être interprété en ce sens que la juridiction du lieu où se trouve le centre des intérêts d’une personne prétendant que ses droits de la personnalité ont été violés par un contenu mis en ligne sur un site Internet n’est compétente pour connaître, au titre de l’intégralité du dommage allégué, d’une action en responsabilité introduite par cette personne que si ce contenu comporte des éléments objectifs et vérifiables permettant d’identifier, directement ou indirectement, ladite personne en tant qu’individu.

(3) It is certainly a step forward that for once, the Court acknowledges the difficulties that its previous case law created for defendants of claims of alleged violations of personality rights through the internet (as to which see Lutzi, Private International Law Online, 2020, paras 4.75–83).

Yet, the Court does not go as far as proposed by AG Bobek, who, like AG Cruz-Villalón did before him, suggested the introduction of an objective foreseeability test, focusing on the relationship between the forum and the content in question (Opinion, paras 58–74; which would not necessarily have prevented the Polish courts from taking jurisdiction here). As a consequence, the new criterion introduced by the Court will raise many of the difficult questions of fact that AG Bobek warned against (Opinion, paras 45–57).

(4) The fact that the Court only considered ‘centre of interests’ jurisdiction may be seen as confirmation that at least some of the remedies sought by the claimant were ‘indivisible’ and therefore required ‘full’ jurisdiction. In this regard, the decision lends support to the reading of Bolagsupplysningen according to which most, if not all injunctions fall into this category (see Stadler, JZ 2018, 94, 95; Lutzi (2018) 34 LQR 208, 212).

With regard to the case at hand, the Court has been very clear that it does not pass the newly introduced threshold for ‘centre of interests’ jurisdiction (see also paras 36, 43, 45):

[44] Or, en l’occurrence, [le demandeur] n’est manifestement pas identifié en tant qu’individu, que ce soit directement ou indirectement, dans le contenu mis en ligne sur le site Internet de Mittelbayerischer Verlag […].

Accordingly, the Court did not need to engage with a number of follow-up questions raised obiter by AG Bobek (paras 75–87), including the potential role of the e-Commerce Directive.

Overall, it seems like the court has added another piece to the mosaic (pun intended) that is its case law on international jurisdiction for violations of personality rights through the internet. It appears not unlikely that the Court will continue to incrementally readjust individual pieces of this mosaic, rather than ever reconsidering it in its entirety – the next opportunity for which is just around the corner with Case C-251/20 Gtflix Tv.

The Minerva Centre for Human Rights at Tel Aviv University is organising an international socio-legal workshop that will explore the impact of the Covid-19 crisis and its regulation on cross-border families. Topics include issues of belonging, travel restrictions, civil rights, birth across borders, international child abduction and transnational homes in pandemic times.

The workshop will take place on 22 June 2021. The  full program and registration form are available.

For additional information, contact eynatmey@tauex.tau.ac.il

The Mexican Academy of Private International and Comparative Law (AMEDIP) will be holding its annual XLIV Seminar entitled “New perspectives for Private International Law in a post-pandemic society” (perspectivas para el derecho internacional privado en una sociedad post-pandemia) from 17 to 19 November 2021 for the second time online.

The main focus of the seminar will be to analyse the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the development of private international law.

Potential speakers are invited to submit a paper in Spanish, English or Portuguese by September 1st 2021. Papers must comply with the criteria established by AMEDIP and will be evaluated accordingly. Selected speakers will be required to give their presentations preferably in Spanish as there will be no interpretation services but some exceptions may be made by the organisers upon request.

Participation is free of charge. The platform that will be used is Zoom and it will also be streamed via Facebook Live. For more information, please click here.

The Milan Law Review (MLR) of the State University of Milan Law Faculty is a multidisciplinary and multilingual law journal, published on a six-monthly basis in open access mode. 

Articles on topics of private international law, public international law and European Union law are welcome. 

Papers can be written in Italian or English. Instructions for authors and more information about the journal can be found on the website: https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/milanlawreview/about. 

Papers may be submitted to the Journal by email to the following address: milanlawreview@unimi.it. 

The next deadline for submitting papers is 31 October 2021.

Written by William S. Dodge (Professor, University of California, Davis, School of Law)

& Wenliang Zhang (Associate Professor, Renmin University of China Law School)

In Shanghai Yongrun Investment Management Co. v. Kashi Galaxy Venture Capital Co., the Supreme Court of New York (New York’s court of first instance) denied enforcement of a Chinese court judgment on the ground that the judgment “was rendered under a system which does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law.” The decision disagrees with every other U.S. and foreign court to have considered the adequacy of the Chinese judicial system in the context of judgments recognition. In recent years, there has been a growing trend in favor of the recognition of Chinese judgments in the United States and U.S. judgments in China. See William S. Dodge & Wenliang Zhang, Reciprocity in China-U.S. Judgments Recognition, 53 Vand. J. Transnat’l L. 1541 (2020). Unless this recent decision is overturned on appeal, it threatens to reverse the trend, to the detriment of judgment creditors in both countries.

In 2016 Shanghai Yongrun purchased an interest in Kashi Galaxy. In 2017, Kashi Galaxy agreed to repurchase that interest for RMB 200 million, an agreement that Kashi Galaxy allegedly breached by paying only part of the repurchase price. The agreement was governed by Chinese law and provided that suits could be resolved by courts in Beijing. In 2018, Shanghai Yongrun sued Kashi Galaxy, Maodong Xu, and Xu’s wife in the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court. After a trial in which defendants were represented by counsel, the court granted judgment in favor of Shanghai Yongrun. The Beijing Higher People’s Court affirmed the judgment on appeal, but it could not be enforced in China because no assets were available within the court’s jurisdiction.

In 2020, Shanghai Yongrun brought an action against Kashi Galaxy and Xu in New York state court, seeking to have the Chinese judgment recognized and enforced. Article 53 of New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) has adopted the 1962 Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act (1962 Uniform Act), which provides that final money judgments rendered by foreign courts are enforceable in New York unless one of the grounds for non-recognition set forth in CPLR 5304 is established. These grounds include that the foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction, that the foreign court did not have subject matter jurisdiction, that the defendant did not receive notice of the foreign proceeding, that the judgment was obtained by fraud, that the judgment is repugnant to the public policy of the state, that the judgment conflicts with another final judgment, that the judgment is contrary to a forum selection clause, that personal jurisdiction was based only on service, and that the judgment is for defamation and provided less protection for speech than would be available in New York. The defendants raised none of these grounds for non-recognition. Instead, they raised the broadest and least frequently accepted ground: that “the judgment was rendered under a system which does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law.” CPLR 5304(a)(1).

To find a systemic lack of due process in the Chinese judicial system, the New York court relied entirely on the State Department’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2018 and 2019. In particular, the court quoted the observations that Chinese “[j]udges regularly received political guidance on pending cases, including instructions on how to rule, from both the government and the [Chinese Communist Party], particularly in politically sensitive cases” and that “[c]orruption often influenced court decisions.” The court held that these country reports “conclusively establish as a matter of law that the PRC judgment was rendered under a system that does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law in the United States.”

The implications of this ruling are broad. If the Chinese judicial system suffers from a systemic lack of due process, then no Chinese court judgments may ever be recognized and enforced under New York law. What is more, ten other states have adopted the 1962 Uniform Act, and an additional twenty-six states have adopted the updated 2005 Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act (2005 Uniform Act), which contains the same systemic due process ground for non-recognition. If followed in other jurisdictions, the New York court’s reasoning would make Chinese judgments unenforceable throughout much of the United States.

But it seems unlikely that other jurisdictions will follow suit or that the New York court’s decision will be upheld on appeal. U.S. decisions denying recognition on systemic due process grounds are rare. The leading cases have involved extreme and unusual circumstances: a Liberian judgment rendered during that country’s civil war when the judicial system had “collapsed,” Bridgeway Corp. v. Citibank, 201 F.3d 134, 138 (2d Cir. 2000), and an Iranian judgment against the sister of the former Shah, Bank Melli Iran v. Pahlavi, 58 F.3d 1406 (9th Cir. 1995). Although other courts have considered State Department country reports to be relevant in considering claims of systemic due process, none has found them to be dispositive. For example, the Fifth Circuit rejected a claim that Moroccan courts suffered from systemic lack of due process notwithstanding a statement in the 2009 country report that “in practice the judiciary . . . was not fully independent and was subject to influence, particularly in sensitive cases.” DeJoria v. Maghreb Petroleum Exploration, S.A., 804 F.3d 373, 381 (5th Cir. 2015). This language about Moroccan courts is quite similar to the country report statements about China that the New York court found conclusive.

With respect to China specifically, no U.S. court had previously denied recognition based on a systemic lack of due process. To the contrary, a prior New York state court decision held that “the Chinese legal system comports with the due process requirements,” Huizhi Liu v. Guoqing Guan, Index No. 713741/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Jan. 7, 2020),  and a federal court in California concluded that “the Chinese court was an impartial tribunal.” Qinrong Qiu v. Hongying Zhang, 2017 WL 10574227, at *3 (C.D. Cal. 2017). Other U.S. decisions have specifically noted that the party resisting enforcement had not alleged systemic lack of due process as a ground for non-recognition. See Global Material Technologies, Inc. v. Dazheng Metal Fibre Co., 2015 WL 1977527, at *7 (N.D. Ill. 2015); Hubei Gezhouba Sanlian Industrial Co. v. Robinson Helicopter Co., 2009 WL 2190187, at *6 (C.D. Cal. 2009).

China has been promoting the rule of law, and its legal system is modernizing to follow internationally accepted standards. The independence of China’s judiciary is guaranteed by its Constitution and other laws. To promote international trade and investment, China has emphasized the independence and impartiality of its courts. Other countries have repeatedly recognized and enforced Chinese judgments, including Australia, Canada, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, and the United Kingdom. When parties have questioned the integrity of the Chinese judicial system as a whole, courts have rejected those arguments. Recently, in Hebei Huaneng Industrial Development Co. v. Deming Shi, [2020] NZHC 2992, the High Court of New Zealand found that the Chinese court rendering the judgment “was part of the judicial branch of the government of the People’s Republic China and was separate and distinct from legislative and administrative organs. It exercised a judicial function. Its procedures and decision were recognisably judicial.” When claims of improper interference are raised in the context of judgments recognition, the New Zealand court suggested, “the better approach is to see whether justice was done in the particular case.”

The New York court’s decision in Shanghai Yongrun is not only contrary to past decisions involving the enforcement of Chinese judgments in the United States and other countries. It also threatens to undermine the enforceability of U.S. judgments in China. Under Article 282 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, foreign judgments are recognized and enforced “in accordance with the principle of reciprocity.” For U.S. judgments, Chinese courts in cases like Liu v. Tao (Reported on by Ron Brand) and Nalco Co. v. Chen have found China’s reciprocity requirement to be satisfied by U.S. decisions that recognized and enforced Chinese judgments. If U.S. courts change course and begin to hold that China’s judiciary can never produce enforceable judgments, Chinese courts will certainly change course too and deny recognition to U.S. judgments for lack of reciprocity.

Maintaining reciprocity with China does not require U.S. courts to enforce every Chinese judgment. U.S. courts have denied recognition and enforcement of Chinese judgments when the Chinese court lacked personal jurisdiction, Folex Golf Indus., Inc. v. O-Ta Precision Industries Co., 603 F. App’x 576 (9th Cir. 2015), or when the Chinese judgment conflicted with another final judgment, UM Corp. v. Tsuburaya Prod. Co., 2016 WL 10644497 (C.D. Cal. 2016). But so far, U.S. courts have treated Chinese judgments the same as judgments from other countries, applying the case-specific grounds for non-recognition in an evenhanded way. The systemic due process ground on which the New York court relied in Shanghai Yongrun is fundamentally different because it holds Chinese judgments to be categorically incapable of recognition and enforcement.

New York may be on the verge of expanding the case-specific ground for non-recognition by adopting the 2005 Uniform Act to replace the 1962 version that is currently in place. A bill to adopt the 2005 Act has passed both the Assembly and the Senate in New York. The 2005 Act adds two grounds for non-recognition not found in the 1962 Act: (1) that “the judgment was rendered in circumstances that raise substantial doubt about the integrity of the rendering court with respect to the judgment”; and (2) that “the specific proceeding in the foreign court leading to the judgment was not compatible with the requirements of due process of law.” These grounds, already found in the laws of twenty-six other states that have adopted the 2005 Uniform Act, would allow New York courts to review foreign judgments for corruption and for lack of due process in the specific case without having to condemn the entire foreign judiciary as incapable of producing recognizable judgments. It is worth noting that the defendants in Shanghai Yongrun did not claim that there was any defect in the Chinese proceedings that led to the judgment against them.

Many court systems around the world are imperfect. The case-specific grounds for non-recognition found in the 1962 and 2005 Uniform Acts allow U.S. courts to refuse enforcement to foreign judgments on a range of case-specific grounds from lack of jurisdiction or notice, to public policy, to corruption or lack of due process. These case-specific grounds largely eliminate the need for U.S. courts to declare that an entire judicial system is incapable of producing valid judgments.