Conflictoflaws

The focus of this write-up is a brief case note on a recent decision of the Nigerian Court of Appeal on Mareva injunction.

The principal concern of a judgment creditor is that it should reap the fruits of the judgment. A judgment is useless or nugatory if the judgment debtor has no assets within the jurisdiction of the court and the judgment debtor is unwilling to comply with the court’s judgment. A prospective judgment debtor could frustrate the administration of justice and commercial effectiveness of a judgment by moving away all its assets from the Nigerian jurisdiction to another jurisdiction. The remedy of a Mareva injunction (or freezing injunction) was developed as a means of curtailing this form of bad litigation tactics by a judgment debtor. In reality, a Mareva injunction is similar to interlocutory and anticipatory injunctions. It is similar to an interlocutory injunction because it is granted pending the determination of the dispute between the parties. It is similar to an anticipatory injunction because it anticipates that there is a real likelihood that a prospective judgment debtor would take its assets out of the court’s jurisdiction in order to frustrate the effectiveness of a judgment.[1]

The Mareva injunction (as applied in Nigeria) was developed in the English case of Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA The Mareva (“The Mareva”).[2] It is also described as a “freezing injunction” on the basis that the order freezes the assets of a prospective judgment debtor, pending the determination of the case.[3]

Prior to the decision of the English Court of Appeal in The Mareva, it was uncertain[4] whether the English court had jurisdiction to protect a creditor before it obtained a judgment. The English Court of Appeal, in 1975,[5] had initially granted a “Mareva injunction” in the form of an interlocutory injunction, but the application of this concept in that case remained controversial.[6] The remedy of the Mareva injunction was later accepted by the then English House of Lords,[7] and is available in other Commonwealth jurisdictions.[8]

In the landmark case of Sotuminu v Ocean Steamship (Nig) Ltd(“Sotuminu”),[9] the Supreme Court of Nigeria legitimised the Mareva injunction, though on the facts of the case, the court did not think it was appropriate to grant a Mareva injunction.

Interestingly, although the decision of the Supreme Court was unanimous in dismissing the plaintiff-appellant’s case, Uwais JSC (as he then was), with whom two other Justices of the Supreme Court simply concurred, treated the plaintiff-appellant’s case as one involving an interlocutory injunction, and applied the principles relating to the grant of interlocutory injunction. It was Nnaemeka-Agu JSC and Omo JSC in their concurring judgments who qualified the plaintiff-appellant’s case as one involving a Mareva injunction.

Nnaemeka-Agu JSC made reference to Section 18(1) of the then High Court of Lagos Civil Procedure Rules, which provides that “[t]he High Court may grant an injunction by an interlocutory order in all cases in which it appears to the Court to be just and convenient to do so”; and Section 13 (of the then High Court of Lagos State Civil Procedure Rules), which provides that “subject to the express provisions of any enactment, in every civil cause or matter commenced in the High Court, law and equity shall be administered by the High Court concurrently and in the same manner as they are administered by the High Court of Justice in England.”  He was of the view that these provisions enabled a court in Nigeria to apply the principles of a Mareva injunction. The learned Justice provided the criteria to grant a Mareva injunction when he held that:

Now, all decided cases on the point show that the Courts are ever conscious of the fact that because of its very nature, Mareva injunctions could be open to abuses. So they have evolved some rules and principles which are designed to guard against such abuses. By these rules, before a Mareva injunction could be granted the applicant must show:-

“(i) that he has a cause of action against the defendant which is justiciable in Nigeria:[10] See – Siskina (Owners of Cargo lately laden on borad) v distas Compania S.A (1979) A.C 210;

(ii) that there is a real and imminent risk of the defendant removing his assets from jurisdiction and thereby rendering nugatory any judgment which the plaintiff may obtain: See – Barclay-Johnson v. Ynill(1980) 1 WLR 1259, at p.1264: also –Rahman (Prince Abdul) him Turki al Sudiary v Abu-Taha(1980) 1 WLR 1268, at p.1272;

(iii) that the applicant has made a full disclosure of all material facts relevant to the application: see – Negocios Del Mar SA v. Doric Shipping Corp. SA. (The Assios) (1979) 1 LI. Rep. 331;

(iv) that he has given full particulars of the assets within the jurisdiction;

(v) that the balance of convenience is on the side of the applicant; and

(vi) that he is prepared to give an undertaking as to damages.

If he fails to satisfy the Court in any of these preconditions for a grant of a Mareva injunction, it ought not to be granted.”[11]

Nnaemeka-Agu JSC’s concurring judgment in  Sotuminu has become the standard test for the application of Mareva injunction in Nigeria. However, it was not obvious whether this test provided by Nnaemeka Agu JSC was strict.

In the recent case of Haladu v Access Bank, (Haladu)[12] the Court of Appeal (Ojo JCA) interpreted the Supreme Court’s decision (Nnaemeka Agu JSC) in Sotuminu as follows:

“The apex court in the above case has stated clearly the conditions that must be met for the grant of a Mareva Injunction. In other words, they are pre-conditions that must be met. To my mind, the conditions are of strict liability. It follows therefore that an applicant who seeks an order of Mareva Injunction must place sufficient materials before the court upon which it can exercise its discretion.”[13]

In the instant case, the applicant’s case failed at the Court of Appeal because it failed to provide an undertaking as to damages in its application for Mareva injunction, and did not sufficiently prove that the defendant intends to remove its asset in Nigerian banks to a foreign country.[14]

The take away of Haladu is that an applicant that wants to obtain a Mareva injunction in Nigeria has to be thorough, hardworking, and diligent in its case. All the conditions for the grant of Mareva injunction as stated in Nnaemeka-Agu JSC’s concurring judgment in Sotuminu must be met. Indeed, this is not an easy task. As stated by Ojo JCA in Haladu, “solid evidence” must be provided to succeed in a prayer for Mareva injunction. It is submitted that there is justice in this approach because if a Mareva injunction is granted without the right justification, it would cause great hardship to the respondent. A balance is thus struck between ensuring that a claimant should be able to reap the fruits of its judgment, and on the other hand the defendant should not be subjected to great hardship by a wrongful grant of Mareva injunction. Haladu’s case demonstrates that Nigerian law tilts more towards the side of the defendant as a matter of evidence and procedure.

[1]See Omo JSC in Sotuminu v Ocean Steamship (Nig) Ltd (1992) LPELR-SC 55/1990 approving the English case of Z Ltd v AZ and AA-LL (1982) 2 QB 558, 584-6.

[2](1980) 1 All ER 213.

[3]See generally Dangabar v Federal Republic of Nigeria (2012) LPELR-19732 (CA).

[4]“I know of no case where, because it was highly improbable that if the action were brought to a hearing the plaintiff could establish that a debt was due to him from the defendant, the defendant has been ordered to give security until that has been established by the judgment or decree.” – Lister & Co v Stubbs (1886-90)] All ER Rep 797, 799 (Cotton LJ).

[5]Nippon Yusen Kaisha v Karageorgis (1975) 3 All ER 282.

[6]Cf. Sotuminu v Ocean Steamship (Nig) Ltd (1992) LPELR-SC 55/1990 (Nnaemeka-Agu JSC); Adeyemi Durojaiye v Continental Feeders (Nig) Limited (2001) LPELR-CA/L/445/99 (Aderemi JCA, as he then was).

[7]Owners of Cargo Lately Laden on Board the Siskina v Distos Compania Naveria SA (1979) AC 210.

[8] AJ Moran and AJ Kennedy, Commercial Litigation in Anglophone Africa (Cape Town, Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd, 2018) at 47–50, 87.

[9](1992) LPELR-SC 55/1990.

[10]The original judgment contains “in England”. We have substituted it with the phrase “in Nigeria” to appropriately suit the Nigerian context.

[11]Sotuminu v Ocean Steamship (Nig) Ltd (1992) LPELR-SC 55/1990. See also AIC LTD v. NNPC (2005) LPELR-6 (SC) 33-4 (Edozie JSC); Extraction System And Commodity Services Ltd. v. Nigbel Merchant Bank Ltd.(2005) 7 NWLR (Pt. 924) 215; R Benkay (Nig.) Ltd v Cadbury (Nig) Plc (2006) 6 NWLR (Pt. 976)338; International Finance Corporation v DSNL Offshore Ltd (2007) LPELR-5140(CA) 12-3 (Rhodes Vivour JCA (as he then was); Union Bank of Nig. Plc v. Pam (2016) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1533) 400; Haladu v Access Bank (2021) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1794) 434. The Nigerian Court of Appeal has granted Mareva injunction in some cases : Adeyemi Durojaiye v Continental Feeders (Nig) Ltd (2001) LPELR-CA/L/445/99; Compact Manifold and Energy Services Ltd v West Africa Supply Vessels Services Ltd (2017) LPELR-43537 (CA). See also AIC Ltd v Edo State Government (2016) LPELR-40132 (CA).

[12] (2021) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1794) 434.

[13] Haladu v Access Bank (2021) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1794) 434, 458.

[14] ibid.

The second issue of the Journal of Private International Law  for 2021 was just released and it features the following articles:

Lachlan Forrester, “Resulting Trusts in Conflict of Laws: An Australian Perspective”

The common law world continues to grapple with how to properly characterise equitable doctrines in private international law. There has been extensive criticism of the existing approach to characterisation and choice of law for equity which favours separately characterising equitable obligations and applying the lex fori. Within this broader discourse, a debate is beginning to emerge around issues involving both equitable obligations and immovable property. In this early debate, two schools of thought have developed with respect to the proper characterisation and choice of law for implied or resulting trusts over immovable property. The first approach, advanced primarily by the courts, characterises the trust as an equitable obligation governed by the lex fori. The second approach, primarily endorsed by commentators, characterises the trust as an issue of immovable property governed by the lex situs. This paper, upon evaluating the lex fori and the lex situs against the underlying objectives of choice of law, rejects both approaches as unfit for purpose. Instead, it advocates a new approach to the characterisation and choice of law for resulting trusts. This paper proposes that resulting trusts be governed by the proper law of the relationship. This conception would align with the approach taken to express trusts under the Hague Trusts Convention and most effectively provides for consistency and clarity while upholding the reasonable expectations of the parties.

María Mercedes Albornoz & Sebastián Paredes, “No turning back: information and communication technologies in international cooperation between authorities”

The usefulness of ICTs is on full display when it comes to international cooperation between authorities in civil and commercial litigation. The core international conventions on cross-border cooperation (currently in force) were drafted many decades ago, when the overwhelming growth of ICTs was unimaginable. Setting the focus on Latin America, where legal regional integration has not yet reached the level attained by the European Union, this article assesses whether the selected legal sources reject, tacitly accept, or encourage the use of ICTs in international cooperation. The analysis of international conventions, some soft law instruments and domestic PIL rules supports the argument that an adequate legal framework that accepts the use of ICTs in international cooperation is necessary. Indeed, there is no turning back from the use of technologies in this field, where modern and suitable regulation would strengthen legal certainty, of utmost importance for the parties involved in cross-border litigation.

Sirko Harder, “The territorial scope of Australia’s consumer guarantee provisions”

Australian Consumer Law provides for consumer guarantees, according to which the taking of a particular action (for example, the application of due care and skill) or the presence of a particular fact (for example, a particular quality) is deemed as guaranteed where goods or services are supplied to a consumer in certain circumstances. Remedies lie against the supplier or (where goods are supplied) against the manufacturer or both. Pursuant to its application provisions, Australian Consumer Law applies to conduct outside Australia if one of several alternative criteria is satisfied. One criterion is that the defendant carried on business within Australia. There is no express requirement that the defendant’s business activities in Australia include the transaction with the plaintiff. This article argues that comity requires an implied restriction on the territorial scope of the consumer guarantee provisions, and searches for the most appropriate criterion for that purpose.

Lance Ang, “Party autonomy, venue risk and jurisdiction agreements – the Singapore position reappraised”

Party autonomy is the defining principle of private international law today. Notwithstanding its broad acceptance, what does party autonomy mean in the context of jurisdiction agreements? The lack of commercial certainty in how the agreement to “submit” to the jurisdiction of the courts in the chosen forum will be interpreted and enforced by the courts defeats the very purpose of party autonomy itself, which is the management of venue risk by commercial parties in entering into cross-border transactions. In light of recent developments, the Singapore court has blurred the distinction between exclusive and non-exclusive jurisdiction agreements by holding that the same requirement of “strong cause” applies if a party reneges on its agreement to “submit”. This is premised on the same strict contractual analysis and enforcement of both types of agreements. It is against this background that the approach of the Singapore courts in determining the exercise of their own jurisdiction under the common law will be reappraised, along with a comparison with the practice of the English courts.

Marco Giacalone, Irene Abignente & Seyedeh Sajedeh Salehi, “Small in value, important in essence: lessons learnt from a decade of implementing the European Small Claims Procedure in Italy and Belgium”

This article examines the extent to which the European Small Claims Procedure (ESCP) has served the main purpose of the EU legislature to establish a legal framework to improve access to justice for creditors of cross-border small claims through a simplified, expedited and inexpensive redress mechanism. This article first analyses the implementation of the ESCP in Italy and Belgium. These two countries were chosen because of the authors’ research on the Small Claims Analysis Net (SCAN) Project (The SCAN Project was initiated in 2018 as a two-year project with the fundamental aim of evaluating the efficiency of the European Small Claims Procedure within several EU Member States (France, Belgium, Italy, Slovenia, and Lithuania), besides raising awareness of this procedure among consumers and other judicial stakeholders. For the conducted activities as part of the SCAN project, see http://www.scanproject.eu accessed on 24 February 2021). The second part of this article deals with the impact of this regulatory instrument on access to justice for citizens, in view of the principle of judicial efficiency. Finally, this article focuses on the possibility of using this instrument for collective redress, on the one hand, and linking this procedure to online dispute resolution, on the other.

Agne Limante, “Prorogation of jurisdiction and choice of law in EU family law: navigating through the labyrinth of rules”

This article focuses on the scope of party autonomy in EU family regulations, especially in cases of marriage dissolution with an international element. Through the lens of a case study, the author analyses whether provisions allowing party autonomy in EU family regulations are consistent and wide enough to enable parties to find a solution that best fits their interests. The paper concludes that the advantages of party autonomy in private international family law outweigh the associated risks which should be mitigated by safeguarding measures.

Jan L. Neels, “Characterisation and liberative prescription (the limitation of actions) in private international law – Canadian doctrine in the Eswatini courts (the phenomenon of dual cumulation)”

The via media technique of characterisation in private international law, as proposed by the Canadian author Falconbridge, was – over a period of three decades – gradually adopted by the courts in Lesotho, South Africa, Zimbabwe, and, more recently, Eswatini. In a particular dispute, which is used as angle of incidence for the discussion below, the High Court of Swaziland (now Eswatini) applied the rules of the lex fori pertaining to liberative prescription (the limitation of actions) against the background of the via media technique. The decision was overruled by the Supreme Court of Eswatini, which – using the same technique – applied the proper law of the contract in this regard. In this contribution, the Canadian doctrine and its application by the Eswatini and other Southern African courts is critically discussed. The scenario in the Eswatini cases provides an example of what the author calls the phenomenon of dual cumulation. He attempts to provide guidance for the development of Southern African private international law in this regard beyond the via media technique.

Richard Garnett,  “Internationalism in New Zealand conflict of laws”

Internationalism has long been regarded as an important goal of any national conflict of laws system. The three main branches of the subject – jurisdiction, choice of law and recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments – should be developed in a manner sympathetic to the needs of international trade and interaction and allow for recognition of foreign interests. In exceptional cases, however, local public policy should also be available to protect private rights. Internationalism is a major theme in the recent book, The Conflict of Laws in New Zealand. This article assesses the state of internationalism in New Zealand conflict of laws and the contribution of the book to the issue.

The Organization of American States (OAS) is hosting a webinar entitled updated principles on privacy and the protection of personal data of the Inter-American Juridical Committee today at 10 am (DC time), 4 pm CEST time – in Spanish. More information is available here.

In its judgments delivered in the cases WB, C-658/17 and E.E., C-80/19, the Court of Justice already addressed the question whether a notary dealing with succession-related matters is a “court” for the purposes of the Succession Regulation. In these cases, however, the requests for a preliminary ruling originated from the proceedings pending before the national courts.

By contrast, in the case OKR, C-387/20, the request for a preliminary ruling is brought before the Court by a Polish notary [or, to be more specific, by a notarial clerk/assistant (fr. “clerc de notarie”, pl. “zast?pca notarialny”), yet this nuance does not seem to affect the outcome of the case at hand].

The case itself concerns a Ukrainian national living in Poland who is the joint owner of an estate situated in that Member State. A Polish notary is requested to draw up a notarial will which would contain a choice-of-law clause opting for Ukrainian law and modify the legal order of succession. The notary refuses to perform the notarial act on the ground that the choice of Ukrainian law in the will would be unlawful.

The refusal to perform the notarial act in question is challenged by an appeal brought by the interested party: under Polish law, such appeal is lodged through the refusing notary who may still perform the notarial act, if he or she deems the appeal justified. In the request for a preliminary ruling it is argued that within this framework the notary acts as an authority of first instance.

On its merits, the request for a preliminary ruling revolves around the choice of law under Article 22 of the Succession Regulation and a bilateral agreement with Third State that takes precedence over the Regulation and does not explicitly provide for choice of law in matters of succession.

However, as noted by Carlos Santaló Goris in his outline of the request for a preliminary ruling, the case provokes a no less intriguing question whether a Polish notary faced with an appeal is a “court” within a meaning of Article 267 TFEU and as such can submit a preliminary reference to the Court.

That question is addressed by the Court in its order delivered early this September. It receives a negative answer and, as a consequence, the request for a preliminary ruling lodged by a notary is considered to be inadmissible.

Even a cursory reading of the order reveals that, for the Court, a notary faced with an appeal against his or her refusal is not deciding a legal dispute and is not delivering a decision of judicial nature. Therefore, according to the Court, the notary is not engaged in exercise of a judicial function: he or she only confirms the refusal to perform a notarial act or performs the notarial act accordingly to the initial request of the interested party (paragraphs 25 and 28).

Those findings lead to the conclusions that, “for the purposes of the present reference for a preliminary ruling”, a notary (scil. a notarial clerk/assistant) cannot be classified as a “court” within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU (paragraph 34).

It is noteworthy that in this order the Court makes it clear that the notion of “court” in the meaning of Article 3(2) of the Succession Regulation is broader in scope than the notion of “court” in the sense of Article 267 TFEU (paragraph 31).

The order is available here (no English version yet).

Last week Costa Rica signed the HCCH Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (2019 HCCH Judgments Convention). The HCCH news item is available here.

It should be noted that in order to consent to be bound by the treaty, Costa Rica would need to deposit an instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval. In the meantime, a signatory State has the obligation not to defeat the object and purpose of a treaty prior to its entry into force (article 18 of the UN Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties).

Costa Rica made the following declaration: “in accordance with article 14, paragraph 3, of the Convention, the Republic of Costa Rica declares that it shall not apply Article 14, paragraph 1, of the Convention.”

Article 14(1) of  the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention states the following:  “No  security,  bond  or  deposit,  however  described,  shall  be  required  from  a  party  who  in  one Contracting State applies for enforcement of a judgment given by a court of another Contracting State on the sole ground that such party is a foreign national or is not domiciled or resident in the State in which enforcement is sought.” Article 14(3) of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention allows States to file a declaration stating that they will not apply Article 14(1).

In this regard, it should be noted that many HCCH Conventions contain a similar provision. This is particularly the case of the  HCCH 1980 Access to Justice Convention, whose objective is precisely, as its name suggests, to promote access to justice by ensuring that “the mere status as an alien or the absence of residence or domicile in a State are not grounds for discrimination with regard to access to justice in that State” (HCCH outline of this Convention).

The HCCH 1980 Access to Justice Convention strikes the right balance by eliminating such a requirement and at the same time allowing the enforceability of orders for costs (Chapter II, arts 14-17). The latter is somewhat similar to Article 14(2) of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention and undoubtedly was a source of inspiration during the negotiations.

The interesting fact is that Costa Rica is a party to the HCCH 1980 Access to Justice Convention. Thus, Costa Rica is not allowed to impose any security, bond or deposit on the basis of a person being a foreign national or of not having his or her domicile or residence in Costa Rica if the conditions of Article 14 of the HCCH 1980 Access to Justice Convention are met, at least in its relations with the Contracting States to the said Convention.

Nevertheless, the declaration of Costa Rica underlines the fact that some States continue to impose such a requirement (although admittedly this requirement is fading away in some regions of the world). And thus the promotion of the HCCH 1980 Access to Justice Convention and all other HCCH Conventions that promote the principle of non-discrimination continue to be all the more relevant.

***

The HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention is not yet in force. In accordance with its article 28: “This Convention shall enter into force on the first day of the month following the expiration of the period during which a notification may be made in accordance with Article 29(2) with respect to the second State that has deposited its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession referred to in Article 24.”

There are currently four signatory States: Costa Rica, Israel, Uruguay and Ukraine. The act of signing a treaty does not count towards the timeline specified in article 28 of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention as it is not an instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.

Further to CoL’s posts on recent case law of the ECJ last week, we allow ourselves to draw CoL readers’ attention to the judgment of the ECJ of 9 September 2021, C-422/20 – RK ./. CR, on the interpretation of jurisdictional provisions of the European Succession Regulation (ESR), upon reference by the Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) of Cologne, Germany. Neither the ECJ’s judgment, nor AG Maciej Szpunar’s Opinion of 8 July 2021 is yet available in English translation. The following summary draws on the original German texts.

The referring national court asked (1) whether it is required, for a declaration of lack of jurisdiction by the court previously seised as provided for in Article 7(a) ESR, that the latter court expressly declines jurisdiction, or whether an implicit declaration suffices if it is clear by interpretation that that court has in fact declined jurisdiction? The national court further asked (2) whether the court of a Member State whose jurisdiction is to emerge from a declaration of lack of jurisdiction by another Member State court is entitled to examine whether the conditions for such a declaration were in fact fulfilled. In particular, the referring court asked (a) whether the second court may examine whether the testator validly chose the applicable law in accordance with Article 22 ESR, whether (b) a request for a declaration of lack of jurisdiction, as required by Article 6(a) ESR has been brought by one of the parties in the first proceedings, and (c) whether the first court correctly assessed that the courts of the Member State of the chosen law are better placed to rule on the succession. In a last question, the referring court asked (3) whether Articles 6(a) and 7(a) ESR are applicable if the testator has not made an express or implied choice of law in a testamentary disposition before 17 August 2015 but the law applicable to the succession may be inferred from Article 83(4) ESR.

The ECJ held that (1) no express declaration of lack of jurisdiction is required under Article 6(a) ESR, as long as the first court’s intention can be clearly inferred from its decision, that (2) the second court has no competence to review the first court’s declaration of lack of jurisdiction and (3) that Articles 6(a) and 7(a) ESR remain applicable if the applicable law may only be inferred from Article 83(4) ESR.

As to the first question, the Court made clear that certain differences in the Spanish language version of the ESR in Article 6(a) – “abstenerse de conocer” (in translation something like: “abstain from assuming jurisdiction”) – on which the Spanish first court had relied – are of no relevance for the autonomous interpretation of the ESR, to be exercised acccording to general and well established principles in light of all of its language versions and its objectives (para. 30). These do not require any particular form for a declaration under Article 6(a), and requiring such a form would jeopardize the objective of the ESR as laid down in Recital 27 Sentence 1, i.e. “to ensure that the authority dealing with the succession will, in most situations, be applying its own law”.

In relation the second question, the Court made reference to AG Spzunar’s Opinion (para. 39) and confirmed the latter’s finding that no second review may take place of the first court’s decision under Article 6(a) ESR (paras. 40 et seq.), not least because such as decision is a “decision” in the sense of Article 3(1) (g) ESR that falls within the scope of Chapter IV of the ESR on the recognition of decisions of the courts of other Member States (para. 42). The Court concludes that the first court’s decision under Article 6(a) ESR is binding for the second court both in its result – declaration of lack of jurisdiction – as well as in relation to its underlying findings about the conditions that Article 6(a) ESR requires. In the latter respect the Court made expressly reference to its earlier judgment of 15 November 2012, C-456/11 – Gothaer Versicherung, which means that its notion of a European res iudicata developed there is to be extended to the type of conditions found fulfilled by the first court here: “Any other interpretation would jeopardize the principles of mutual recognition and mutual trust on which the system of the ESR grounds” (para. 45, translation is my one).

For answering the third question the Court explained that Article 83(4) ESR contains a presumption of a choice of law by the testator that is to be attributed the same effects as a choice of law directly undertaken under the ESR (para. 53).

Written by Alexander A. Kostin, Senior Research Fellow at the Private Law Research Centre (Moscow, Russia) and counsel atAvangard law firm

and Valeria Rzyanina, junior associate, Avangard Law Firm

The Decree of the Arbitrazh (Commercial) Court of the Volga District of December 23, 2019 N F06-55840 / 2019 docket numberN A12-20691 / 2019, addresses service of process on the Russian party by the Cypriot court by e-mail and thus the possibility of further recognition of a foreign judgment.

1. Factual background

1.1. Within the framework of the court proceedings, the Russian party (the defendant in the Cypriot proceedings) was notified by the Cypriot court by sending a writ of service of process to the known e-mail addresses of the defendant. In order to substantiate the manner of service, the Cypriot court referred to Art. 9 of Decree 5 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (Cyprus), according to which “In any case, when the court considers that, for any reason, the service provided for in Rule 2 of this Decree will not be timely or effective, the court may order a substitute for personal service, or other service, or substitute for a notice of service in any way that will be found to be fair and correct in accordance with the circumstances”.

1.2. After the default judgment of the Cypriot court was rendered, an application for its recognition was lodged with the Arbitrazh Court of the Volgograd Region. In addressing the issue of compliance with the notification rules, the Russian court referred to paragraph 2 of Art. 24 of the Treaty on Legal Assistance of the USSR-Cyprus 1984 on civil and family matters, according to which judgments are recognized and enforced if the party against whom the judgment was made, who did not appear and did not take part in the proceedings, was promptly and duly notified under the laws of the Contracting Party in the territory of which the judgment was made. The foreign judgment in question was recognized and enforced by the Russian court based on the fact that the proper manner of the notification was confirmed by the opinion of experts under Cypriot law. The Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of March 27, 2020 N 306-ES20-2957 in case N A12-20691 / 2019 left the acts of the lower courts unchanged.

2. Analysis of the Decree of the Arbitration Court of the Volga District of December 23, 2019 N F06-55840 / 2019 in the case N A12-20691 / 2019

2.1. At first glance the logic of the Supreme Court and lower courts appears to be flawless. Nevertheless we find it important to correlate the provisions of paragraph 2 of Art. 24 of the 1984 Legal Aid Treaty with the provisions of Art. 8 of the Treaty. Article 8 requires that: “the requested institution carries out the service of documents in accordance with the rules of service in force in its state, if the documents to be served are drawn up in its language or provided with a certified translation into this language. In cases where the documents are not drawn up in in the language of the requested Contracting Party and are not provided with a translation, they are handed over to the recipient if only he agrees to accept them. ”

2.2. In this regard, it should be taken into account that when using the wording “notified under the laws of a Contracting Party,” the Treaty States simultaneously tried to resolve the following situations:

1) where the parties were in the state of the court proceedings at the time of the consideration of the case. In this case, the national (“domestic”) law of the State in which the dispute was resolved shall apply;

2) where the parties were in different states at the time of the consideration of the case. In this case, the provisions of the relevant international treaty shall apply, since the judicial notice is [a] subject to service in a foreign state and, therefore, it affects its sovereignty.

2.3. In this regard, attention should be paid to the fact that under the doctrine and case law of the countries of continental law, the delivery of a judicial notice is considered as an interference with the sovereignty of the respective state. The following are excerpts from case law. Excerpts from legal literature are provided for reference purposes:

1. a) “The negotiating delegations in The Hague faced two major controversies: first, some civil law countries, including Germany, view the formal service of court documents as an official act of government; accordingly, they view any attempt by a foreign plaintiff to serve documents within their borders as an infringement on their sovereignty ” – Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694 (1988);
2. b) “The exclusive competence to carry out acts of state power on its own territory follows from the sovereignty of states. As a rule, a state cannot perform actions of this kind within the borders of another state without violating its sovereignty and, therefore, without violating international law. An act is compatible with this right only if it is permitted by a specific international regulation, for example, if it is agreed in a treaty concluded between the states concerned, or if it is unilaterally accepted by the state in which it is carried out. When the notification is given abroad without permission under international law, this notification is invalid under Swiss domestic law due to its supremacy – Decision of the Swiss Federal Court of 01.07.2008 in case No. BGer 4A_161 / 2008.
3. c) “According to the traditional German law approach, delivery is considered to be an act of sovereignty.”- Rasmussen-Bonne H-E., The pendulum swings back: the cooperative approach of German courts to international service of process P. 240;
4. d) “From prospective of the Japanese state, certain judicial acts of foreign courts, such as the service of court notices and the receipt of evidence, are considered as a manifestation of sovereignty.”- Keisuke Takeshita, “Sovereignty and National Civil Procedure: An Analysis of State Practice in Japan,” Journal of East Asia and International Law 9, no. 2 (Autumn 016): 361-378

2.4. In light of the above, the interpretation of the Treaty on Legal Assistance of the USSR-Cyprus 1984, according to which a party located in the territory of Russia is subject to notification in accordance with Art. 8 of the Treaty, seems to be preferable.

We welcome further discussion on this intricate matter.

Written by Alexander A. Kostin, Senior Research Fellow at the Private Law Research Centre (Moscow, Russia) and counsel atAvangard law firm

and Valeria Rzyanina, junior associate, Avangard Law Firm

(This is a synopsis of an article published  in the Herald of Civil Procedure Law Journal N 1/2021 in Russian)

 Issues concerning cross-border insolvency rarely arise in Russian case law. For this reason, the Decree of the Arbitrazh Court of the Moscow District dated 22.11.2018 docket number N A40-39791 / 2018 is of particular interest to both practitioners and academics.

1. The factual background of case No. ?40-39791 / 2018

A bankruptcy procedure had been introduced at a German court against the Russian individual having the status of an individual entrepreneur under German law. After the opening of this procedure in Germany, the Russian debtor donated an apartment in Moscow to her daughter.

As a consequence of the said acts the bankruptcy trustee of the Russian debtor brought an action before the Moscow Arbitrazh (Commercial) Court, requesting the following relief: 1) to recognize the judgment of the German court opening the bankruptcy proceedings; 2) to set aside the agreement for donation of the apartment; 3) to enforce the judgment of the German court by prohibiting the alienation of this immovable property upon the completion of the bankruptcy procedure in Germany; 4) to attach the said immovable property in Russia.

On 01.10.2018 the Moscow Arbitrazh (Commercial) Court (First instance) dismissed the claim relating to the setting aside of the agreement of donation on the ground that that application was not heard by the German court and consequently it could not be resolved within the framework of the procedure for recognition of the German  judgment. The court of First instance specifically held that the question relating to the validity of the agreement of donation should be resolved in separate proceedings to be brought before the Russian courts.

In further proceedings the Moscow Arbitrazh (Commercial) Court (First instance) recognized the judgment of the German court on the opening of the bankruptcy proceedings (decision of 07.12.2018). With reference to Art. 343 of the German Bankruptcy Ordinance and the Russian case Law (docket number No. A56-22667 / 2007), the Russian court acknowledged the existence of reciprocity in relation to the recognition of Russian court judgments in Germany as prescribed by the German Federal Law “On insolvency (bankruptcy)”. The Russian court made an express finding that the foreign court order did not violate the exclusive jurisdiction  over bankruptcy matters, because the debtor’s activities as an individual entrepreneur are regulated by the law of the Federal Republic of Germany (Article 1201 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation – “The law applicable to determination of the ability an individual to engage in entrepreneurial activity”).

However, the Moscow Arbitrazh (Commercial) Court (1-st instance) rejected the part of the foreign insolvency judgment relating to the prohibition of the debtor to dispose of immovable property until the completion of the insolvency proceedings. In the court’s opinion, in this  respect the exclusive competence of the Russian courts and the public order of the Russian Federation had been violated (Article 248 of the Arbitrazh [Commercial] Procedure Code of the Russian Federation). At the same time, the court of first instance also noted that the bankruptcy trustee is entitled to institute separate bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor in order to set aside the agreement for donation of the apartment before the Russian courts.

2. Analysis of case ?40-39791 / 2018

The key question in this situation concerns the correct procedure for setting aside the transaction for the transfer of the immovable property as the restitution of the proper value is dependent on the said action. In turn  the success of the said action depends on the following issues: 1) procedural capacity of a bankruptcy trustee, including the issue whether the recognition of a foreign judgment is a prerequisite for granting procedural capacity to a foreign bankruptcy trustee; 2) the law applicable to avoidance of the donation agreement.

2.1.          Procedural capacity of a foreign bankruptcy trustee.

In view of the fact that the foreign bankruptcy trustee is regarded as the legal representative of the debtor, his/her powers (including the power to bring an action) are recognized if the corresponding limitation of the capacity of the debtor is recognized in its turn.

Under Art. 1197 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the legal capacity of an individual is governed by his personal law (lex personalis).The personal law of an individual refers to the law of the country of his/her nationality (clause 1 of article 1195 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). Consequently, the personal law of a Russian national is the law of the Russian Federation.

In the present situation, the legal capacity of the Russian debtor had been limited by a foreign judgment. In this case, the legal effect of the  foreign judgment on limitation of capacity  did not fall within the scope of the applicable substantive law since the judgment was not rendered by the country of his/her nationality. For that reason, the bankruptcy trustee’s legal capacity (including procedural capacity) could not be recognized by virtue of the Russian national conflict of laws rule.

In its turn the possibility of recognition of the foreign judgment on the opening of bankruptcy proceedings is questionable for the following reasons. Although in the present matter the Moscow Arbitrazh (Commercial) Court argues that the capacity of the debtor shall be governed by the German law as the law of the country where the defendant was doing business (Art. 1201 of the Russian Civil Code) it needs to be noted that the capacity of the person to conduct business-related  activities  arises from  general civil legal capacity (Art. 1195-1197 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). Taking into account the above, the said judgment on the opening of the insolvency proceedings appears to be in  conflict with the Russian public order.

2.2.          Law applicable to avoidance of the donation agreement.

In order to establish that the agreement for donation of the apartment is void the bankruptcy trustee referred to the fact that the apartment forms an integral part of the bankruptcy estate pursuant to paragraph 1 of Art. 35 of the German Insolvency Ordinance, as well as under clause 1 of Art. 213.25 of the  Federal Law “On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)”. With reference to the fact that the agreement for donation of the apartment was concluded after the  commencement of  foreign bankruptcy proceedings against the Russian debtor, the trustee argued that the transaction should be deemed void under Art. 61.2. of The Federal Law “On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)” as  a “suspicious transaction”.

In our view application of Art. 61.2. of The Federal Law “On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)” to invalidate the debtor’s agreements within the framework of a foreign insolvency does not seem to be entirely justified due to the following. Due to the fact that the bankruptcy procedure against the Russian debtor had been opened by a German court, the legal consequences of this procedure should also be determined by German law. Another question is whether these legal consequences are recognized in the Russian Federation). In this case, the fact of initiation of bankruptcy proceedings against a Russian national at a foreign court does not provide grounds for the application of Russian bankruptcy law.

In our view the following ways to set aside the agreement within the framework of the foreign insolvency exist.

Primarily, it appears that the donation agreement entered into after the commencement of foreign insolvency proceedings may be regarded as a void transaction under the Russian law due to the fact that it was intended to defraud  creditors (Articles 10 and 168 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

Secondly, it could be argued that the recognition of a foreign bankruptcy entails that the effects of that foreign bankruptcy also apply to all actions that took place in the territory of Russia, including the possibility to apply foreign bankruptcy grounds to avoid contracts. However, this line of argument may not be entirely in line with the provisions of the Russian Civil Code under which Russian law applies to contracts in relation to land plots, subsoil plots and other real estate located in the territory of the Russian Federation (paragraph 2 of Art. 1213 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

Conclusion

The Decree of the Arbitrazh (Commercial) Court of the Moscow District dated 22.11.2018 docket number N A40-39791 / 2018 as well as other court findings represent an interesting interplay between the legal provisions relating to the recognition of foreign insolvency and the application of Russian law for avoidance of the debtor’s transactions. In the present matter the Russian court clearly ruled in favor territoriality of foreign insolvency proceedings. However, we remain hopeful that one day the approach will change and the Russian courts will uphold the principle of universality of foreign insolvency.

On Thursday 14 October 2021 an online M-EPLI roundtable will take place on private international law issues relating to the recognition and enforcement of foreign (mostly US) punitive damages judgments in countries outside of Europe.

The event is organised by Lotte Meurkens and Cedric Vanleenhove and the Maastricht European Private Law Institute.

On Friday, 24 September 2021, the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law will host the EFFORTS National Exchange Seminar for France and Luxembourg (online).

This Seminar is organised in the framework of the EFFORTS project (Towards more effective enforcement of claims in civil and commercial matters within the EU), which tackles the Brussels I-bis Regulation and the Regulations on the European Enforcement Order, the European Small Claims Procedure, the European Payment Order, and the European Account Preservation Order. The Project investigates, in particular, the implementation of these Regulations in the national procedural law of Belgium, Croatia, France, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, and Luxembourg, and is conducted by a consortium comprising the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg, the Universities of Milan (coord.), Heidelberg, Zagreb, Vilnius, and the Free University of Brussels.

The programme of the Seminar is available here.

Participants are kindly requested to pre-register by sending an email including their full name, title and affiliation to secretariat-prof.hess@mpi.lu at the latest by Sunday, 19 September 2021.

More information on EFFORTS and its research outputs are available via the project website and in various newsletters previously posted here, here, and here.

On the EFFORTS German Exchange Seminar, see the previous announcement here.

This Project was funded by the European Union’s Justice Programme (2014-2020). The content of this study represents the views of the authors only and is their sole responsibility. The European Commission does not accept any responsibility for use that may be made of the information it contains.

Project JUST-JCOO-AG-2019-881802
With financial support from the Civil Justice Programme of the European Union

This post was written by Harshal Morwale, an India-qualified international arbitration lawyer working as an associate with a premier Indian law firm in New Delhi; LLM from the MIDS Geneva Program (2019-2020); alumnus of the Hague Academy of International Law. 

Recently, the issue of foreign sovereign immunity became a hot topic in India due to the new judgment of the Delhi High Court (“DHC”) in the case of (KLA Const Tech v. Afghanistan Embassy). The previous part of the blog post analyzed the decision of the DHC.  Further, the post focused on the relevance of the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property. The post also explored the interplay between state immunity and diplomatic immunity.

This part focuses on two further issues which emanate from the decision of the DHC. Firstly, the post deals with the impact of the consent to arbitrate on immunity from enforcement. Then, the post explores the issue of attachment of state’s property for satisfying the commercial arbitral award against a diplomatic mission.

Consent to Arbitrate: Waiver Of Immunity From Enforcement?

As highlighted in the last post, one of the main arguments of the KLA Const Technologies (“claimant”) was that the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan’s (“respondent”, “Embassy”) consent to arbitrate resulted in the waiver of the sovereign immunity. The DHC accepted the argument and ruled that a separate waiver of immunity is not necessary to enforce an arbitral award in India as long as there is consent to arbitrate. The DHC also stated that this position is in consonance with the growing International Law principle of restrictive immunity while referring to the landmark English case (Trendtex Trading Corp. v. Central Bank of Nigeria).

However, there’s more to the issue than what catches the eye. First of all, the Trendtex case was decided before the English Sovereign Immunity Act (“UKSIA”) came into effect. Therefore, the DHC could have examined the relevant provisions under UKSIA and the more recent cases to track the jurisprudential trend on sovereign immunity under English law. For example, Section 13(2) of the UKSIA recognizes the difference between jurisdictional immunity and immunity from enforcement and requires an express waiver of immunity from enforcement. Even the ICJ has noted the requirement of an express waiver of immunity from enforcement in the Jurisdictional Immunities case. (para 118).

Furthermore, there was an opportunity to undertake a more detailed cross-jurisdictional analysis on the issue.  In fact, the issue of arbitral consent as a waiver of immunity from enforcement was dealt with by the Hong Kong Courts in FG Hemisphere v. Democratic Republic Of The Congo. Reyes J, sitting in the Court of First Instance, ruled that consent of the state to arbitrate does not in itself imply the waiver of immunity from enforcement. The ruling on the issue was confirmed by the majority decision of the Court of Final Appeal. The position has also been confirmed by scholars.

However, this position is not the settled one. The DHC’s decision is in line with the approaches adopted in France (Creighton v. Qatar), Switzerland (United Arab Republic v. Mrs. X) that no separate waiver of immunity from enforcement would be required in the existence of an arbitration agreement.

However, the decision made no reference to the reasoning of the cases from these jurisdictions. Regardless of the conclusion, the DHC’s decision could have benefited from this comparative analysis, and there would have been a clearer answer as to the possible judicial approaches to the issue in India.

 Attachment of State’s Property for Satisfying an Award Against A Diplomatic Mission

In the current case, the DHC ordered the respondent to declare not only its assets and bank accounts in India but also all its commercial ventures, state-owned airlines, companies, and undertakings in India, as well as the commercial transactions entered into by the respondent and its state-owned entities with the Indian companies.

It is not entirely clear whether the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan’s (“Afghanistan”) properties and commercial debts owed by private Indian companies to the state-entities of Afghanistan would be amenable to the attachment for satisfying the award against the Embassy. To resolve the issue of attaching Afghanistan’s property to fulfill the liability of the Embassy, a critical question needs to be considered – while entering into the contract with the claimant, was the respondent (Embassy) acting in a commercial capacity or as an agent of the state of Afghanistan?

The contract between the claimant and the respondent was for the rehabilitation of the Afghanistan Embassy. The DHC found that the respondent was acting in a commercial capacity akin to a private individual. Additionally, there’s no indication through the facts elaborated in the judgment that the contract was ordered by, or was for the benefit of, or was being paid for by the state of Afghanistan. In line with these findings, it can be concluded that the contract would not be a sovereign act but a diplomatic yet purely commercial act, independent from the state of Afghanistan. Consequently, it is doubtful how the properties of state/state-entities of Afghanistan can be attached for fulfilling the award against the Embassy.

The attachment of the state’s property to fulfill the liability of the Embassy would break the privity of contract between the claimant and the respondent (Embassy). According to the privity of contract, a third party cannot be burdened with liability arising out of a contract between the two parties. Therefore, the liability of the Embassy cannot be imposed on the state/state-entities of Afghanistan because they would be strangers to the contract between the claimant and the respondent.

That said, there are a few well-known exceptions to the principle of privity of contract such as agency, third party beneficiary, and assignment. However, none of these exceptions apply to the case at hand. It is accepted that an embassy is the agent of a foreign state in a receiving state. However, in this case, the contract was entered into by the Embassy, in its commercial capacity, not on behalf of the state but in the exercise of its diplomatic yet commercial function. Afghanistan is also not a third-party beneficiary of the contract as the direct benefits of the contract for the rehabilitation of the Afghanistan Embassy are being reaped by the Embassy itself. Additionally, there is no indication from the facts of the case as to the assignment of a contract between the state of Afghanistan and the Embassy. Therefore, the privity of contract cannot be broken, and the liability of the Embassy will remain confined to its own commercial accounts and ventures.

In addition to the above, there also lacks guidance on the issues such as mixed accounts under Indian law. Regardless, the approach of the DHC remains to be seen when the claimant can identify attachable properties of the respondent. It also remains to be seen if the respondent appears before the DHC and mounts any sort of defence.

Conclusion

There remains room for growth for Indian jurisprudence in terms of dealing with issues such as immunity from the enforcement of arbitral awards. An excellent way to create a more conducive ecosystem for this would be to introduce stand-alone legislation on the topic as recommended by the Law Commission of India in its 176th report. Additionally, the issues such as the use of state’s properties to satisfy the commercial liability of diplomatic missions deserve attention not only under Indian law but also internationally.

(The views expressed by the author are personal and do not represent the views of the organizations he is affiliated with. The author is grateful to Dr. Silvana Çinari for her feedback on an earlier draft.)

Originally posted today on NGPIL website

The Nigeria Group on Private International Law “(NGPIL”) invites submissions for next year’s NGPIL Conflict of Law’s Competition. The winner will be awarded for the best essay on any aspect of Nigerian conflict of laws. Entries will be accepted from the following: an undergraduate and/or postgraduate scholar studying in Nigeria, or any Nigerian lawyer five years call or below practicing and residing in Nigeria. The essay should be unpublished at the time of submission. Submitted essays should be in the English language. Submitted essays should also be within five to ten thousand words. Competitors may be citizens of any nation, age or gender but must be an undergraduate and/or postgraduate scholar studying in Nigeria, or any lawyer below five years post-call experience practicing and residing in Nigeria. They need not be Members, or on the Participant’s list of NGPIL.

The prize is 300 GBP, and the winner of the competition will be encouraged to publish the paper in any high-quality peer reviewed journal on private international law (conflict of laws). The prize is sponsored by and will be awarded by NGPIL based upon the assessment of NGPIL.

Submissions to the Prize Committee must be received no later than January 10, 2022. Entries should be submitted by email in Word or pdf format. The winner will be announced no later than 2 months after the deadline. Decisions of the NGPIL on the winning essay and on any conditions relating to this prize are final. Submissions and any queries should be addressed by email to ngpilaw@gmail.com. All submissions will be acknowledged by e-mail.

The second thematic volume in the series Studies in Private International Law – Asia looks into direct jurisdiction, that is, the situations in which the courts of 15 key Asian states (Mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and India) are prepared to hear a case involving cross-border elements. For instance, where parties are habitually resident abroad and a dispute has only some, little or no connection with an Asian state, will the courts of that state accept jurisdiction and hear the case and (if so) on what conditions? More specifically, the book’s chapters explore the circumstances in which different Asian states assume or decline jurisdiction not just in commercial matters, but also in other types of action (such as family, consumer and employment disputes).

The Introduction defines terminology and identifies similarities in the approaches to direct jurisdiction taken by the 15 Asian states in civil and commercial litigation. Taking its cue from this, the Conclusion assesses whether there should be a multilateral convention or soft law instrument articulating principles of direct jurisdiction for Asia. The Conclusion also discusses possible trajectories that Asian states may be taking in respect of direct jurisdiction in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and the political tensions currently besetting the world. The book suggests that enacting suitable rules of direct jurisdiction requires an Asian state to strike a delicate balance between affording certainty and protecting its nationals. At heart, direct jurisdiction involves sometimes difficult policy considerations and is not just about drawing up lists of jurisdictional grounds and exceptions to them.

For further information please visit: https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/direct-jurisdiction-9781509936427/

This Thursday, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in the case UM, C-277/20, where it clarifies whether a donation mortis causa may fall within the scope of the notion of “agreement as to succession” in the sense of the Succession Regulation.

The request for a preliminary ruling in this case arises out of proceedings in Austria on the inscription in the land registry of the property right to real estate situated in that Member State. The requested inscription is supposed to be made on the basis of a contract of donation mortis causa in respect to that real estate, entered into between two German nationals habitually resident in Germany. Prior to the request for the inscription, the succession proceedings have been opened before a German court for the last place of residence of the donor.

Before the Austrian courts, the request for the inscription of the propriety right have been already rejected by two instances and ultimately the Oberster Gerichtshof referred to the Court the preliminary questions that read as follows:

Is Article 3(1)(b) of [the Succession Regulation] to be interpreted as meaning that a contract of donation mortis causa entered into between two German nationals habitually resident in Germany in respect of real estate located in Austria, granting the donee a right having the character of an obligation against the estate to registration of his title after the donor’s death pursuant to that contract and the donor’s death certificate, that is without the intervention of the probate court, is an agreement as to succession within the meaning of that provision?

If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative: Is Article 83(2) of [The Succession Regulation] to be interpreted as meaning that it also regulates the effect of a choice of applicable law made before 17 August 2015 for a contract of donation mortis causa that is to be qualified as an agreement as to succession within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of [the Succession Regulation]?

In his Opinion presented this July, AG Richard de la Tour considered that Article 3(1)(b) of the Succession Regulation must be interpreted to the effect that the notion of “agreement as to succession” includes donation contracts inter vivos, by which, in favor of the donee, the transfer of the ownership of one or several assets even only partially accounting for the hereditary estate of the donor does not take place until the death of the donor.

In its judgments, the Court also pronounces itself in favour of the interpretation according to which a contract of donation mortis causa is to be qualified as an “agreement as to succession”.

The reasoning of the Court commences with the juxtaposition of exclusion from the scope of the application of the Succession Regulation provided for in its Article 1(2)(g) [“shall be excluded (…) property rights (…) created or transferred otherwise than by succession, for instance by way of gifts”], on the one hand, and definition of the notion of “agreement as to succession” in the sense of Article 3(1)(b) of the Succession Regulation [“an agreement resulting from mutual wills, which, with or without consideration, creates, modifies or terminates rights to the future estate or estates (…)], on the other hand (paragraph 27).

The Court stresses then the importance of autonomous and uniform interpretation of the notions of the Succession Regulation (paragraph 29) and contends that the very wording of the definition of the notion of “agreement as to succession” indicates that this notion covers also transfers relating to future estates (paragraph 30).

By contrast, the second preliminary question is answered in the negative. For the Court, as nothing indicates that a choice of law applicable have been made to succession as a whole, Article 83(2) of the Succession Regulation is not applicable to the case at hand. As such, the choice made solely with regards to the agreement as to succession is not governed by Article 83(2) (paragraph 39).

The judgment can be found here (in German and French so far).

AG Saugmandsgaard Øe observes in his Opinion presented today in the case HRVATSKE ŠUME, C-242/20, the Court of Justice has already faced requests for a preliminary ruling where arose a question on qualification of an action for unjust enrichment for the purposes of the Brussels I Regulation. He notes that no conclusive finding has been made so far as to its qualification as a “matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict” in the sense of Article 5(3) of the Regulation (point 4). By contrast, the present case is supposed to create an opportunity to provide a definitive conclusion to the jurisprudential saga in question.

It is noteworthy that the case itself presents a nuance: the unjust enrichment is said to have occurred in enforcement proceedings which were carried out, although they should not have been, and now reimbursement of the amount which was unjustly levied in enforcement proceeding is being sought before the Croatian courts. The nuance is addressed in the second preliminary question.

At the request of the Court, the Opinion does, however, elaborate only on the first preliminary question that reads as follows:

Do actions for recovery of sums unduly paid by way of unjust enrichment fall within the basic jurisdiction established in the [Brussels I Regulation] in respect of “quasi-delicts” since Article 5(3) thereof provides inter alia: “A person domiciled in a Member State may, in another Member State, be sued … in matters relating to … quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur”?

In his Opinion, AG Saugmandsgaard Øe proposes to take a step back and view the preliminary question in a broader perspective. For him, it is necessary to determine, in the first place, whether an action for unjust enrichment falls within the scope of Article 5(1) of the Brussels I Regulation and, only in the negative, in the second place, whether it fall within the scope of Article 5(3) of the Regulation (point 26). He established therefore an order of preference when it comes to the contract/tort distinction under the Regulation.

Having adopted that approach, he concludes that an action for unjust enrichment is not a “matter relating to a contract” in the sense of Article 5(1) of the Brussels I Regulation, save where it is closely connected with a preexisting (or alleged to exist) contractual relationship (points 44-52). Nor it is a “matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict” within the meaning of Article 5(3) of the Regulation (point 79).

The Opinion contains an in-depth discussion on the parallels with the Rome I/Rome II Regulations and, in this regard, the outcome of the reasoning followed by AG Saugmandsgaard Øe may bring to mind the one that AG Bobek proposed in the context of actio pauliana in his Opinion delivered in the case Feniks, C-337/17.

The Opinion of AG Saugmandsgaard Øe is available here (no English version so far).

At least from the perspective of private international law, this Thursday can easily go down in history as one of the busiest days in the Court of Justice agenda. Its complete outline can be found here, due to courtesy of Marta Requejo Isidro. Stay tuned also for our next updates on the cases of this morning.

The present post concerns the Opinion presented by AG Rantos in the case TOTO, C-581/20. At the request of the Court, the analysis provided for in the Opinion is limited to the second preliminary question on the interpretation of Article 35 of the Brussels I bis Regulation. The second question reads as follows:

After the right to make an application for provisional/protective measures has been exercised and the court having jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter has already ruled on that application, is the court seised of an application for interim relief on the same basis and under Article 35 of [the Brussels I bis Regulation] to be regarded as not having jurisdiction from the point at which evidence is produced that the court having jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter has given a ruling on that application?

In essence, the question seeks to establish whether a Bulgarian court not having jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter is precluded from pronouncing provisional/protective measures under Article 35 of the Brussels I bis Regulation in a situation where a Polish court having jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter has already given a ruling on an application for identical provisional/protective measures and rejected the application.

In brief, AG Rantos argues that in a situation described in the preliminary question the court not having jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter should not pronounce the provisional/protective measures.

In general terms, the Opinion contends that the rules on litispendence provided for in Article 29 of the Brussels I bis Regulation do apply in the context of proceedings for provisional/protective measures. Such finding of a general nature seems to suggest that the court subsequently seized under Article 35 of the Regulation with an identical application for provisional/protective measures should not give a ruling on that application (point 50).

The Opinion then goes on to elaborate on the more specific elements of the case at hand which seemed to inspire the second preliminary question: firstly, the impact of the choice of court clause in favour of the Polish courts on the applicability of Article 35 of the Regulation (in other terms: whether the Polish courts have exclusive jurisdiction also as to the provisional/protective measures); secondly, the actual connection between the measures sought and the territory of Bulgaria (the question being left open for the referring court to asses, point 74); thirdly, the relevance, before the Bulgarian court, of the Polish court decision refusing the provisional/protective measures (point 54).

Concerning the last element, AG Rantos observes that it is not clear whether the ruling of a Polish court refusing to grant provisional/protective measures is final or not (point 76). Thus, he elaborates on these two different hypothesis. In essence, according to the Opinion, the court subsequently seized should not give ruling on the application for provisional/protective measures [either because in a mutual trust oriented manner it should refrain from doing so because such ruling would be irreconcilable with a previous definitive ruling handed down by a Polish court (point 79) or – in the absence of such definitive ruling – because the rules on litispendence require the court subsequently seized to decline jurisdiction in favour of court previously seized (point 88)].

The Opinion is available here (no English version so far).

On Friday 17 September 2021, the Institute for Comparative Law, Conflict of Laws and International Business Law of Heidelberg University (Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Thomas Pfeiffer) will host the EFFORTS German Exchange Seminar. This half-day online conference is held within the framework of the project “EFFORTS – Towards more effective enforcement of claims in civil and commercial matters within the EU”, funded by the European Commission and conducted by the University of Milan (coord.), the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law, Heidelberg University, the Free University of Brussels, the University of Zagreb, and the University of Vilnius.

The program for the German Exchange Seminar is available here (PDF, in German). Participation is free of charge. Participants are kindly requested to pre-register by sending an email to sekretariat.pfeiffer@ipr.uni-heidelberg.de.

The EFFORTS-project tackles in particular the European Enforcement Order Regulation, the European Payment Order Regulation, the European Small Claims Regulations and the European Account Preservation Order Regulation. Ultimately, it aims to assess the functioning and the effectiveness of cross-border enforcement within the EU. More information on EFFORTS and its research outputs can be found on the project website and in various newsletters previously posted on conflictoflaws.net here, here, and here.

This project was funded by the European Union’s Justice Programme (2014-2020). The content of this study represents the views of the authors only and is their sole responsibility. The European Commission does not accept any responsibility for use that may be made of the information it contains.

Project JUST-JCOO-AG-2019-881802
With financial support from the Civil Justice Programme of the European Union

The Faculty of Law at Ozyegin University is organizing its first online Private International Law Symposium on the theme of “Current Issues in Private International Law – MENA & EU”.

The symposium aims to bring together MENA and EU scholars working in the field of private international law field. The symposium is to be held on 19 November 2021.

The organizers are pleased to invite interested persons to submit abstracts of papers relating to the themes of the symposium by 20 September 2021.

All necessary details about the event can be found here: https://events.ozyegin.edu.tr/tr?myozu=1#/0/detail/17152/current-issues-in-private-international-law-mena-eu-call-for-papers

Any inquiries should be directed to Mrs. Jocelyne Alayan at jocelyne.alayan@ozyegin.edu.trseminar_pil@ub.ac.id.

The Mexican Academy of Private International and Comparative Law (AMEDIP) is holding a webinar on 9 September 2021 at 5:00 pm (Mexico City time – CDT), 12:00 am (CEST time). The topic of the webinar is Rethinking Private International Law (a look through its sources and methods) and will be presented by Professors Luciana B. Scotti and Candela Villegas (in Spanish).

The details of the webinar are:

Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83622646486?pwd=ZzZwbFJ2R1NLaHFxUGNNUnE0M2FHQT09

Meeting ID: 836 2264 6486

Password: BMAAMEDIP

Participation is free of charge.

This event will also be streamed live: https://www.facebook.com/AmedipMX

On 16 and 17 September 2021 an online course on European Union and Third Countries. Issues on jurisdiction and recognition of foreign judgments will take place as a part of the activities of the European Family Law Module funded by the EU ErasmusPlus programme led by Professor Elisabetta Bergamini of the University of Udine, Italy.

Excellent group of lecturers from different EU Member States will be discussing EU Regulations on jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement when those issues arise in situations connected with third States. The course will offer an overview of different aspects to this issue, having regard to EU rules both on civil and commercial matters and on family and succession matters. The course will be either in Italian or in English. The details of the programme are available in Flyer_E2106_EU_and_Third_Countries.

Participation is free of charge, but registration is required by 13 September here.