Conflictoflaws

This Thursday 12 and Friday 13 November, the 2020 International Conference of the Korean Judicial Policy Research Institute (JPRI) will take place. The conference is co-organised by the JPRI, the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT), and the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).

This year’s conference theme is “International Commercial Litigation: Recent Developments and Future Challenges”, with sessions spanning a variety of topics, including international commercial contracts, secured transactions and insolvency, recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, e-litigation and e-service, and the enforcement of arbitral awards and mediation settlement agreements. The full programme is available here.

The sessions will be streamed on the JPRI YouTube Channel.

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

 

I. Introduction

In my last blog post, I made mention of a Nigerian Court of Appeal decision that applied the principle of contract law exclusively to a foreign jurisdiction clause.[1] In that case, applying the principles of Nigerian contract law, the Nigerian Court of Appeal held that the alleged choice of court agreement in favour of Benin Republic was unenforceable because the terms were not clear and unambiguous in conferring jurisdiction on a foreign forum.[2]

The purpose of this blog post is to analyse a more recent Nigerian Court of Appeal decision where the court gave full contractual effect to the parties’ choice of court agreement by strictly enforcing a Dubai choice of court agreement.[3]

II. Facts

Damac Star Properties LLC v Profitel Limited (“Damac”)[4] was the fall out of an investment introduced to the 1st plaintiff/respondent by the 2nd respondent allegedly on behalf of the defendant/appellant wherein the 1st plaintiff/respondent paid a deposit of 350,000.00 US Dollars for 9 apartments in Dubai and being 20% of the total cost of the apartments. The contract between the 1st plaintiff/respondent and defendant/appellant contained an exclusive choice of court clause in favour of Dubai. There was a dispute between the parties as to some of the terms of the contract. This resulted in the defendant/appellant selling the apartments to another buyer. The 1st plaintiff/respondent requested for a refund of the deposit that was paid to the defendant/appellant, but its request was declined. As a result of this, the 1st plaintiff/respondent initiated a suit for summary judgment in High Court, Federal Capital Territory, Nigeria, against the defendant/appellant, and got an order to serve the defendant/appellant through the 2nd respondent, its alleged agent in Nigeria. At this stage, the defendant/appellant did not appear and was unrepresented in proceedings at the High Court. The High Court proceeded to hear the suit and entered judgment against the defendant/appellant with an order to refund the sum of 350,000.00 US Dollars with 10% interest from date of judgment till the judgment sum was fully liquidated. The defendant/appellant applied to the High Court to set aside the judgment, but the court dismissed the application.

III. Decision

The defendant/appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal. The Court of Appeal held on the basis of the exclusive choice of court agreement in favour of Dubai – which it regarded as valid – the lower court should not have assumed jurisdiction.

IV. Judicial Statements in support of Damac

As stated in my last blog post, there is now a trend among appellate Courts in Nigeria (Court of Appeal and Supreme Court) to give choice of court agreements a contractual function. Damac Star Properties LLC (supra) is one of the cases where the Court of Appeal simply gives a choice of court agreement a contractual function without considering whether the choice of court agreement ousted the jurisdiction of the Nigerian courts, or whether Nigeria was the forum conveneins for the action.[5] This point is important, as it appears that there is now some movement in Nigerian jurisprudence towards giving choice of court agreements a contractual function. Given that Nigeria is a common law jurisdiction, it is worth quoting statements from some Nigerian Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges that have given a choice of court agreements a contractual function.

Nnamani JSC opined that: “I think that in the interest of international commercial relations courts have to be wary about departing from fora chosen by parties in their contract. There ought to be very compelling circumstances to justify such a departure.”[6]

Tobi JSC observed: “The bill of lading contains the contractual terms [foreign jurisdiction clause] between the parties and therefore binding on the parties. Parties are bound by the conditions and terms in a contract they freely enter into… The meaning to be placed on a contract is that which is the plain, clear and obvious result of the terms used… When construing documents in dispute between two parties, the proper course is to discover the intention or contemplation of the parties and not to import into the contract ideas not potent on the face of the document… Where there is a contract regulating any arrangement between the parties, the main duty of the court is to interpret that contract and to give effect to the wishes of the parties as expressed in the contract document… The question is not what the parties to the documents may have intended to do by entering into that document, but what is the meaning of the word used in the document… While a contract must be strictly construed in accordance with the well-known rules of construction, such strict construction cannot be aground for departing from the terms which had been agreed by both parties to the contract… It is the law that parties to an agreement retain the commercial freedom to determine their own terms. No other person. Not even the court, can determine the terms of contract between parties thereto. The duty of the court is to strictly interpret the terms of the agreement on its clear wordings… Finally, it is not the function of a court of law either to make agreements for the parties or to change their agreements as made.”[7]

In Conoil Plc v Vitol SA,[8] the Supreme Court Justices were unanimous on the contractual effect of a choice of court agreement. Nweze JSC in his leading judgment stated that: “In all, the truth remains that if parties, enter into an agreement, they are bound by its terms.”[9] Okoro JSC concurred that: “The law is quite’ settled that parties are bound by the contract they voluntarily enter into and cannot act outside the terms and conditions contained in the said contract. When parties enter into a contract, they should be careful about the terms they incorporate into the contract because the law will hold them bound by those terms. No party will be allowed to read into the contract terms on which there has been no agreement. Any of the parties who does so violates the terms of that contract…. Having agreed that any dispute arising from the contract should be settled at the English court, the appellant was bound by the terms of the contract.”[10] Eko JSC also concurred that: “Where parties, fully cognizant of their rights, voluntarily elect and nominate the forum for the resolution of any dispute arising from their contract, with international flavour as the instant, the courts always respect and defer to their mutual wishes and intention. The courts only need to be satisfied that, in their freedom of contract, the parties negotiated and agreed freely to subject their dispute to the laws and country of their choice.”[11]

Owoade JCA held that: “…it is pertinent to observe that as a general rule in the relationship between national law and international Agreements, freely negotiated private international agreement, unsullied by fraud, undue influence or overwhelming bargaining power would be given full effect. This means that, where such contract provides for a choice of forum, such clause would be upheld unless upholding it would be contrary to statute or public policy of the forum in which the suit is brought.”[12]

In Beaumont Resources Ltd v DWC Drilling Ltd,[13] the Court of Appeal Justices were unanimous on the contractual effect of a choice of court agreement. Otisi JCA held that: “…it is settled that, in the absence of fraud, misrepresentation and illegality, parties to an agreement or contract are bound by the terms and conditions of the contract they signed… It is also well established that the Court cannot make contracts for the parties, rewrite the contract or go outside the express terms of the contract to enforce it…”[14] Sankey JCA concurred that: “The Court of law, on the other hand, must always respect the sanctity of the agreement of the parties – the role of the Court is to pronounce on the wishes of the parties and not to make a contract for them or to rewrite the one they have already made for themselves. The judicial attitude or disposition of the Court to terms of agreement freely entered into by parties to contract is that the Court will implement fully the intention of the contracting parties. This is anchored on the reasoning that where the terms of a contract are clear and unambiguous, the duty of the Court is to give effect to them and on no account should it re-write the contract for the parties. In the absence of fraud, duress or misrepresentation, the parties are bound to the contract they freely entered into.”[15]

The above judicial statements are replete with applying the principles of Nigerian contract law to the terms of a choice of court agreement. In essence, parties are bound by the clear and unambiguous terms of a choice of court agreement, which the Nigerian court will strictly enforce.  On this score, Damac is on strong footing and unassailable.

 V. Judicial decisions that might be against Damac

Some of the above stated judicial cases, though giving a choice of court agreement a contractual function also considered whether such agreements oust the jurisdiction of the Nigerian court, and whether Nigeria was the more appropriate forum to resolve such disputes despite the presence of a choice of court agreement. Damac is one of the few Court of Appeal cases that exclusively give a choice of court agreement a contractual function without a consideration of whether it is an ouster clause or the Nigerian Court is the forum conveniens.[16]

           A. Ouster Clause

In the early case of Ventujol v Compagnie Francaise De L ’ Afrique Occidentale,[17] Ames J held that in a contract of employment which was entered into in France to be performed in Nigeria, where the defendant also had agents (in Nigeria), the clause for submission of disputes to a Tribunal de Commerce de Marseilles (a French Court at that time) was an agreement to oust the jurisdiction of the court and of no effect. Similarly, in Allied Trading Company Ltd v China Ocean Shipping Line,[18] the plaintiff sought to recover damages for non-delivery of goods. The defendant entered an unconditional appearance, admitted the goods were lost, and denied liability on the grounds, inter alia, that the court had no jurisdiction since the parties had agreed that all disputes arising under or in connection with the bill of lading should be determined in the People’s Republic of China. It was held, inter alia, that this provision purported to oust the jurisdiction of the Nigerian court entirely and was therefore contrary to public policy. In Sonnar (Nig) Ltd v Partenreedri MS Norwind[19]  Oputa JSC opined  that as a matter of public policy Nigerian Courts “should not be too eager to divest themselves of jurisdiction conferred on them by the Constitution and by other laws simply because parties in their private contracts chose a foreign forum … Courts guard rather jealously their jurisdiction and even where there is an ouster clause of that jurisdiction by Statute it should be by clear and unequivocal words. If that is so, as is indeed it is, how much less can parties by their private acts remove the jurisdiction properly and legally vested in our Courts? Our courts should be in charge of their own proceedings. When it is said that parties make their own contracts and that the courts will only give effect to their intention as expressed in and by the contract, that should generally be understood to mean and imply a contract which does not rob the Court of its jurisdiction in favour of another foreign forum.”[20]

If the above judicial postulations were given literal effect by the Court of Appeal in Damac the exclusive choice of court agreement in favour of Dubai would be regarded as null and void. In effect, treating a choice of court agreement as an ouster clause has the effect of making a choice of court agreement illegal, unlawful or at best unenforceable. Recently, Nweze JSC has interpreted the concept of ouster clause to the effect “that our courts will only interrogate contracts which are designed to rob Nigerian courts of their jurisdiction in favour of foreign fora or where, by their acts, they are minded to remove the jurisdiction, properly and legally, vested in Nigerian courts.”[21] I will interpret Nweze JSC’s statement to mean that where a Nigerian court as a matter of state interest is exclusively vested by statute, the constitution or common law with a subject matter, then no foreign court can have jurisdiction in such matters.[22] Under common law, a clear example of this is a matter relating to immovable property, where the Nigerian court has exclusive jurisdiction. So the implication of this is that the concept of ouster clause has very limited effect in Nigerian jurisprudence. In effect, the choice of court agreement in Damac will likely not be regarded as an ouster clause by the Nigerian Supreme Court.

        B. Brandon Tests

Damac did not consider the application of the Brandon tests in Nigerian jurisprudence. The Brandon test is a form of application of forum non conveniens to choice of court agreements.

Brandon J, in The Eleftheria,[23] delivered a brilliant decision on this subject. The decision provided comprehensive guidelines that the English court should take into account in deciding whether to give effect to a foreign jurisdiction clause. This is often referred to as “the Brandon test” in Nigerian jurisprudence. Nigerian courts have regularly referred to the Brandon test and utilised it with approval in decided cases.[24] The test is stated hereunder as follows (as it has been referred to and applied) in the Nigerian context: 1. Where plaintiffs sue in Nigeria in breach of an agreement to refer disputes to a foreign court, and the defendants apply for a stay, the Nigerian court, assuming the claim to be otherwise within the jurisdiction is not bound to grant a stay but has a discretion whether to do so or not. 2. The discretion should be exercised by granting a stay unless strong cause for not doing it is shown. 3. The burden of proving such strong cause is on the plaintiffs. 4. In exercising its discretion the court should take account of all the circumstances of the particular case. 5. In particular, but without prejudice to (4), the following matters where they arise, may be properly regarded: (a) In what country the evidence on the issues of fact is situated, or more readily available, and the effect of that on the relative convenience and expense of trial as between the Nigerian and foreign courts. (b) Whether the law of the foreign court applies and, if so, whether it differs from Nigerian law in any material respects. (c) With what country either party is connected and how closely (d) Whether the defendants genuinely desire trial in the foreign country, or are only seeking procedural advantages. (e) Whether the plaintiff s would be prejudiced by having to sue in the foreign country because they would (i) be deprived of security for that claim; (ii) be unable to enforce any judgment obtained; (iii) be faced with a time-bar not applicable in Nigeria; or (iv) for political, racial, religious, or other reasons be unlikely to get a fair trial (v) the grant of a stay would amount to permanently denying the plaintiff any redress.

The only reported cases where the plaintiff(s) have successfully relied on the Brandon test is where their claim is statute barred in the forum chosen by the parties.[25] Indeed, the burden is on the plaintiff to show strong cause why Nigerian proceedings should be stayed in breach of a choice of court agreement; if not Nigerian courts will give effect to the choice of court agreement.[26]

In Damac, the plaintiff did not demonstrate strong reasons why the choice of court agreement should not be enforced. So even if the Brandon test was considered by the Court of Appeal, the claimant will not have succeeded.

VI. Some Reservations

There are three reservations I have about the Court of Appeal’s decision in Damac. First, the Court of Appeal should have ordered a stay of proceedings rather than holding that the lower court did not have jurisdiction. This is what is done in other common law countries. There is wisdom in this approach. If it turns out that the claimant cannot institute its claims in Dubai, the Nigerian forum should remain available to promptly institute its actions against the defendant in this case.

Second the Court of Appeal held that jurisdiction can be raised for the first time on appeal. This statement only applies to substantive jurisdiction. Procedural jurisdiction cannot be raised on appeal for the first time. Thus, if it is established that the defendant/appellant did not promptly raise the issue of choice of court in favour of Dubai at the High court, this might be a ground upon which the defendant/appellant can successfully challenge the decision of the Court of Appeal. This is because the issue of choice of court is a procedural matter and a claimant that wants to raise the issue of choice of court agreement must do so promptly, or it will be deemed to have waived its right by submitting to the jurisdiction of the Nigerian court.

Finally, the Court of Appeal made wrong reference to choice of venue rules[27] as applicable, assuming the choice of court agreement in this case is invalid. Choices of venue rules are only applicable to determine the judicial division to institute a matter for geographic convenience. For example, Lagos State has four judicial divisions: Lagos, Ikeja, Epe and Ikorodu. In the event there is a dispute as to which of the judicial divisions should hear a matter, the rules of court are to be relied on.[28] Choice of venue rules do not apply to determine private international law matters as in this case.

VII. Conclusion

Damac is a recent trend among Nigerian courts to give a choice of court agreement a contractual function. Indeed, Damac is one of the few cases where issues of ouster clause and forum non conveniens no longer feature in the judgment of the court. There are good reasons why a choice of court agreement should be strictly enforced contractually. It promotes certainty and enhances the efficacy of international commercial transactions. However, giving contractual enforcement to a choice of court agreement should only be regarded as a general rule and not an absolute rule. Nigerian courts should retain its discretion not to enforce choice of court agreements in deserving cases such as in the interest of justice and the protection of economically weaker parties.

[1]Kashamu v UBN Plc (2020) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1746) 90.

[2] Ibid  114-6.

[3] Damac Star Properties LLC v Profitel Limited (2020) LPELR-50699(CA).

[4] Ibid.

[5]For an extended analysis see generally CSA Okoli and RF Oppong, Private International Law in Nigeria (Hart, 2020) 107 – 125.

[6]Sonnar (Nig) Ltd v Partenreedri MS Norwind (1987) 4 NWLR 520, 541.

[7] Nika Fishing Company Ltd v Lavina Corporation (2008 ) 16 NWLR 509, 542-3.

[8] ( 2018 ) 9 NWLR 463, 489.

[9] Ibid

[10]Ibid 500-1.

[11]Ibid 502.

[12] Captain Tony Nso v Seacor Marine ( Bahamas) Inc ( 2008 ) LPELR-8320 (CA) 12-3.

[13]( 2017 ) LPELR-42814.

[14] Ibid 30.

[15]Ibid 49-50.

[16] See also Megatech Engineering Limited v Sky Vision Global Networks Llc (2014) LPELR-22539 (CA); Kashamu v UBN Plc (2020) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1746) 90; Unipetrol Nigeria Ltd v Prima Alfa Enterprises (Nig) Ltd ( 1986 ) 5 NWLR 532.

[17] (1949) 19 NLR 32.

[18] (1980) (1) ALR Comm 146.

[19](1987) 4 NWLR 520.

[20] Ibid 544-5.

[21] Conoil Plc v Vitol SA ( 2018 ) 9 NWLR 463, 489

[22]See generally CSA Okoli and RF Oppong, Private International Law in Nigeria (Hart, 2020) 117 – 124.

[23]The Owners of Cargo Lately Laden on Board the Ship or Vessel ‘ Elftheria ’ v ‘ The Elftheria ’ (Owners), ‘ Th e Elft heria ’ [1969] 1 Lloyd ’ s Rep 237.

[24] See generally GBN Line v Allied Trading Limited ( 1985 ) 2 NWLR (Pt. 5) 74 ; Sonnar (Nig) Ltd v Norwind (1987) 4 NWLR 520 ; Nika Fishing Company Ltd v Lavina Corporation ( 2008 ) 16 NWLR 509 ; Captain Tony Nso v Seacor Marine ( Bahamas ) Inc ( 2008 ) LPELR-8320 (CA) ; Beaumont Resources Ltd v DWC Drilling Ltd ( 2017 ) LPELR-42814 (CA) .

[25] Sonnar (Nig) Ltd v Norwind (1987) 4 NWLR 520.

[26] Nika Fishing Company Ltd v Lavina Corporation (2008) 16 NWLR 509.

[27] In applying the choice of venue rules of Abuja on matters of contract, it considered where the contract was made, place of performance and residence of the parties as prescribed in the rules of court.

[28] Order 4 of the High Court of Lagos (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019 (formerly Order 2 of the High Court of Lagos (Civil Procedure) Rules 2012).

Jie (Jeanne) Huang, University of Sydney Law School, Australia

 

Changzhou Sinotype Technology Co, Ltd. v. Rockefeller Technology Investments (Asia) VII is a recent case decided by the Supreme Court of California on April 2, 2020. The certiorari to the Supreme Court of the US was denied on 5 October 2020. It is a controversial case concerning the interpretation of the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra Judicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters of November 15, 1965 (the “Hague Service Convention”) for service of process in China.

1. Facts:

Changzhou SinoType Technology Co. (SinoType) is based in China. Rockefeller Technology Investments (Asia) VII (Rockefeller) is an American investment firm. In February 2008, they signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) which provided that:

“6. The parties shall provide notice in the English language to each other at the addresses set forth in the Agreement via Federal Express or similar courier, with copies via facsimile or email, and shall be deemed received 3 business days after deposit with the courier.

7. The Parties hereby submit to the jurisdiction of the Federal and State courts in California and consent to service of process in accord with the notice provisions above.

8. In the event of any disputes arising between the Parties to this Agreement, either Party may submit the dispute to the Judicial Arbitration & Mediation Service in Los Angeles for exclusive and final resolution pursuant to according to [sic] its streamlined procedures before a single arbitrator who shall have ten years judicial service at the appellate level, pursuant to California law, and who shall issue a written, reasoned award. The Parties shall share equally the cost of the arbitration. Disputes shall include failure of the Parties to come to Agreement as required by this Agreement in a timely fashion.”

Due to disputes between the parties, in February 2012, Rockefeller brought an arbitration against SinoType. SinoType was defaulted in the arbitration proceeding. According to the arbitrator, SinoType was served by email and Federal Express to the Chinese address listed for it in the MOU. In November 2013, the arbitrator found favorably for Rockefeller.

Instead of enforcing the award in China according to the New York Convention,[1] Rockefeller petitioned to confirm the award in State courts in California. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1290.4(a) provides that a petition to confirm an arbitral award “shall be served in the manner provided in the arbitration agreement for the service of such petition and notice.” Therefore, Rockefeller transmitted the summons and its petition to SinoType again through FedEx and email according to paragraph 7 of the MOU. SinoType did not appear and the award was confirmed in October 2014. SinoType then appeared specially and applied to set aside the judgment. It argued that the service of the Californian court proceeding did not comply with the Hague Service Convention; therefore, it had not been duly served and the judgment was void.

2. Decision

The California Supreme Court rejected SinoType’s argument.

The Court discerned three principles for the application of the Hague Service Convention. First, the Convention applies only to “service of process in the technical sense” involving “a formal delivery of documents”. The Court distinguished “service” and “notice” by referring to the Practical Handbook on the Operation of the Service Convention, published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (‘Handbook’). The Court cited that

“the Convention cannot—and does not—determine which documents need to be served. It is a matter for the lex fori to decide if a document needs to be served and which document needs to be served. Thus, if the law of the forum states that a notice is to be somehow directed to one or several addressee(s), without requiring service, the Convention does not have to be applied.”[2]

Second, the law of the sending forum (i.e. the law of California) should be applied to determine whether “there is occasion to transmit a judicial or extrajudicial document for service abroad.”

Third, if formal service of process is required under the law of the sending forum, the Hague Convention must be complied for international transmission of service documents.

The court held that the parties have waived the formal service of process, so the Hague Service Convention was not applicable in this case.[3]

3. Comments

The Changzhou Sinotype Technology Co, Ltd has a number of interesting aspects and has been commented such as here, here and here.

First, the Hague Service Convention is widely considered as ‘non-mandatory’ but ‘exclusive’.[4]  Addressing the non-mandatory nature of the Convention, the Handbook states that “the Convention can not—and does not—determine which documents need to be served. It is a matter for the lex fori to decide if a document needs to be served and which document needs to be served.”[5] However, this statement does not necessarily mean, when judicial documents are indeed transmitted from a member state to another to charge a defendant with notice of a pending lawsuit, a member state can opt out of the Convention by unilaterally excluding the transmission from the concept of service. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v Schlunk decided by the Supreme Court of the US and Segers and Rufa BV v. Mabanaft GmbH decided by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands (Hoge Raad) are the two most important cases on the non-mandatory nature of the Convention. Both cases concentrate on which law should be applied to whether a document needed to be transmitted abroad for service.[6] However, Rockefeller is different because it is about which law should be applied to determine the concept of service when the transmission of judicial documents takes place in the soil of another member state. The Handbook provides that the basic criterion for the Convention to apply is “transmission abroad” and “place of service is determining factor”.[7] When judicial documents are physically transmitted in the soil of a member state, allowing another member state to unilaterally determine the concept of service in order to exclude the application of the Convention will inappropriately expand the non-mandatory character of the Convention. This will inevitably narrow the scope of the application of the Convention and damage the principle of reciprocity as the foundation of the Convention. The Hague Convention should be applied to Rockefeller because the summons and petitions were transmitted across border for service in China.

Second, as part of its accession to the Hague Convention, China expressly stated that it does not agree to service by mail.  Indeed, the official PRC declarations and reservations to the Hague Convention make it clear that, with the limited exception of voluntary service on a foreign national living in China by his country’s own embassy or consulate, the only acceptable method of service on China is through the Chinese Central Authority. Therefore, although China has recognized monetary judgments issued in the US according to the principle of reciprocity, the judgment of Changzhou Sinotype Technology Co, Ltd probably cannot be recognized and enforced in China.

The California Supreme Court decision has important implications. For Chinese parties who have assets outside of China, they should be more careful in drafting their contracts because Changzhou Sinotype Technology Co, Ltd shows that a US court may consider their agreement on service by post is a waiver of China’s reservation under the Hague Service Convention. For US parties, if Chinese defendants only have assets in China for enforcement, Changzhou Sinotype Technology Co, Ltd is not a good case to follow because the judgment probably cannot be enforced in China.

 

 

[1] China is a party to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Jun. 10, 1958, 21 U.S.T. 2517, 330 U.N.T.S. 38 (“New York Convention”).

[2] Practical Handbook on the Operation of the Service Convention (4th ed. 2016) par. 54, p. 23, fn. Omitted.

[3] The Court emphasized that their conclusions should be limited to Section 1290.4, subdivision (a): “Our conclusions as to California law are narrow. When parties agree to California arbitration, they consent to submit to the personal jurisdiction of California courts to enforce the agreement and any judgment under section 1293. When the agreement also specifies the manner in which the parties “shall be served,” consistent with section 1290.4, subdivision (a), that agreement supplants statutory service requirements and constitutes a waiver of formal service in favor of the agreed-upon method of notification. If an arbitration agreement fails to specify a method of service, the statutory service requirements of section 1290.4, subdivisions (b) or (c) would apply, and those statutory requirements would constitute formal service of process. We express no view with respect to service of process in other contexts.”

[4] Martin Davies et al., Nygh’s Conflict of Laws in Australia 36 (10th ed. 2020).

[5] Paragraph 54 of the Handbook.

[6] Ibid., paragraphs 31-45, and 47.

[7] Ibid., paragraph 16.

The third issue of 2020 of the Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale (RDIPP, published by CEDAM) was just released. It features:

Ilaria Viarengo, Professor at the University of Milan, Planning Cross-Border Successions: The Professio Juris in the Succession Regulation (in English)

• This article addresses the role of party autonomy in Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 in the context of estate planning, Against this backdrop, the interface between the law governing the succession and property aspects of marriage or of a registered partnership, as provided in the Regulations (EU) No 2016/1103 and 2016/1104, is also analysed. This article also proceeds to examine the optio juris functioning and, in particular, it focuses on, respectively, the object of the choice, the determination of the nationality, whose law may be chosen, and the formal and substantial validity of the agreement. Finally, the protection of close family members in connection with the freedom of choice is taken into account, as the choice of law could be in contrast with the legitimate expectations of family members on the applicability of certain provisions on forced heirship and lead to a law that actually undermines their position.

The following comment is also featured:

Edoardo Benvenuti, PhD Candidate at the University of Milan, La tutela collettiva risarcitoria dei consumatori nelle controversie transfrontaliere: diritto interno e prospettive di armonizzazione (‘Cross-Border Consumer Collective Redress: Domestic Law and Prospects for Harmonisation’; in Italian)

• This article examines some developments in the area of consumer collective redress in the EU, especially in the light of the recent proposal for a Directive on representative actions. In Italy, Law No 31 of 12 April 2019 introduces a new type of class action which triggers some reflections and, in particular, doubts about its congruence with the Directive. The Author examines whether the principles set forth in the proposed Directive are consistent with the protection of consumer collective interests and whether, in matters with cross-border implications, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 is an efficient instrument. Even though some CJEU decisions seem to promote a flexible interpretation of this latter Regulation, its provisions do not encompass collective redress; therefore, a reform is desirable.

In addition to the foregoing, this issue features the following book review by Francesca C. Villata, Professor at the University of Milan: Chris Brummer (ed.), Cryptoassets: Legal, Regulatory and Monetary Perspectives, Oxford University Press, New York, 2019, pp. XIII-441.

 

Today (9 November 2020) ASADIP and UNCITRAL are organising a preparatory conference to the first edition of UNCITRAL Day in Latin America and the Caribbean region (UNCITRAL LAC DAY 2020 – la primera edición del Día de UNCITRAL en América Latina y el Caribe). For more information see here. Free registration here. For other events on UNCITRAL Day click here.

The programme of the XLIII Seminar of the Mexican Academy of Private International and Comparative Law (AMEDIP) is now available here. As previously announced, the XLIII Seminar will take place on 19-20 November 2020 for the first time online.

Among the topics to be discussed are the 1996 HCCH Child Protection Convention, the 1980 HCCH Child Abduction Convention, the 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention, the 2005 HCCH Choice of Court Convention, the HCCH Guide to Good Practice on the Use of Video-link, Human rights and PIL, the brand new T-MEC / US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), digital justice, COVID-19, and alternative dispute resolution.

The meeting will be held via Zoom.

Access details:

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/5554563931?pwd=WE9uemJpeWpXQUo1elRPVjRMV0tvdz09
ID: 555 456 3931
Password:  00000

It will also be transmitted live via AMEDIP’s Facebook page.

Participation is free of charge. The language of the seminar will be Spanish.

For more information, see AMEDIP’s website.

 

Professor Paul Beaumont (University of Stirling), Dr Mihail Danov (University of Exeter) and Dr Jayne Holliday (University of Stirling) are delighted to be able to host the final AHRC funded Research Network workshop in partnership with the Journal of Private International Law.

• Online Workshop via Microsoft teams
• The Link to the event will be provided shortly.
• The workshop is over two days, Thursday 26th November and Friday 27th November

Please note that you are welcome to attend as much or as little of the workshop as you are able.

Programme for Thursday 26 November 2020

Chair – Professor Paul Beaumont (University of Stirling and co-editor of the Journal of Private International Law)

10.00-10.30 The Opportunities of Brexit for the development of Private International Law in the Commonwealth

Speaker – Professor Reid Mortensen (University of South Queensland)

10.30-10.45 Questions and discussion

10.45-11.15 Some Reflections to be drawn from the Pilot Study and Future Research Project/s

Speaker – Dr Mihail Danov (University of Exeter)

11.15-11.30 Questions and Discussion

11.30-11.45 Coffee Break

Chair – Dr Jayne Holliday (University of Stirling)

11.45-12.15 Connecting Factors in Private International Law – a global perspective

Speakers – Professor Susanne Goessl (University of Kiel) and Dr Ruth Lamont (University of Manchester)

12.15-12.30 Questions and Discussion

12.30-14.00 Lunch break

Chair – Dr Mihail Danov

14.00-14.45 Pluses and minuses of the UK being a party to the Lugano Convention after Brexit

Speaker – Professor Fausto Pocar (University of Milan)

14.45-15.00 Questions and discussion

Programme for Friday 27 November 2020

Chair – Professor Jonathan Harris QC (King’s College London, co-editor of the Journal of Private International Law and Serle Court)

10.30-10.50 Keynote speech by Lord Mance former UK Supreme Court Judge

10.50-11.15 Questions and Discussion and Comments by the Chair

11.15-11.45 Resolving Conflicts of Jurisdiction after Brexit at a global level

Speaker – Dr Ardavan Arzandeh (University of Bristol and soon to be National University of Singapore)

11.45-12.00 Questions and Discussion

Chair – Dr Jayne Holliday

12.00-12.30 The Hague Adults Convention 2000 and the role of the UK and the EU in the Hague Conference after Brexit

Speaker – Professor Pietro Franzina (Catholic University, Milan)

12.30-12.45 Questions and Discussion

Lunch Break

Chair – Dr Mihail Danov

15.00-15.30 Private International Law of Arbitration – a global perspective and the impact of Brexit on arbitration in the UK

Speaker – Professor Giuditta Cordero-Moss (University of Oslo)

15.30-15.45 Questions and Discussion

15.45-16.15 The AHRC Research Network on Private International Law: Some reflections on the way ahead for global private international law.

Speaker – Professor Paul Beaumont

16.15-16.30 Questions and Discussion

Professor Paul Beaumont (University of Stirling), Dr Mihail Danov (University of Exeter) and Dr Jayne Holliday (University of Stirling) are delighted to be able to host the third of four public AHRC workshops on Private International Law after Brexit from global, European, Commonwealth and intra-UK perspective.

• Online Workshop via Microsoft teams
• The Link to the event will be provided shortly.
• The workshop is over two days, Thursday 19th November and Friday 20th November

Please note that you are welcome to attend as much or as little of the workshop as you are able.

Programme for 19 November 2020

14:00 – 14:10 – The Workshop and its Context

Professor Paul Beaumont (University of Stirling), AHRC Network on UK Private International Law post Brexit: Project Objectives and Workshop Aims

14:10 – 16:00 – Cross-Border Litigation: Specific Issues in some specific sectors

Chair: Alex Layton QC (King’s College London and Twenty Essex)

Dr Jenny Papettas (University of Birmingham), Cross-Border Motor Claims After Brexit

Professor Yvonne Baatz (Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary University of London), Brexit and Cross-Border Maritime Disputes

Professor Rob Merkin QC (University of Exeter), Cross-Border Dispute Resolution – Insurance Sector: Brexit Implications

Tom Sprange QC (King & Spalding), High-Value Disputes: A US Law Firm’s Perspective on Brexit

Dr Mihail Danov (University of Exeter), Cross-Border Litigation: New Data, Initial Brexit Implications in England and Wales and Long-Term Policy Choices

Questions and discussion

 

Programme for 20 November 2020

10:00 – 12:00 Global and Commonwealth Perspectives on Private International Law in the UK after Brexit (not restricted to commercial law)

Chair: Professor Paul Beaumont

Professor Mary Keyes (Griffith University, Australia), How Brexit may affect Commonwealth PIL: A View from Australia

Dr Christophe Bernasconi (Secretary General of the Hague Conference), A Global Perspective from the HCCH – the global international institution on private international law

Iain Mackie (Macfarlanes), A London Law Firm Perspective on international and commonwealth litigation after Brexit

Questions and discussion

Break

13:30 – 15:00 – EU/EEA and Intra-UK Commercial PIL: Brexit Challenges and Opportunities

Chair: Professor Eva Lein (University of Lausanne, Switzerland)

Alex Layton QC, Interim Remedies

Professor Barry Rodger (University of Strathclyde), Re-designing (or not) the UK landscape in relation to PIL: An Intra-UK perspective on Brexit

Lindsey Clegg (Freeths), Re-designing (or not) the UK landscape in relation to PIL: A Regional Law Firm Perspective on Brexit

Questions and discussion

20-minute break

15:20 – 16:50 – Brexit and Cross-Border Competition Litigation

Chair: Professor Barry Rodger

Omar Shah (Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP), Brexit and Cross-Border Collective Redress

Nick Frey (Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP), Brexit – A Defendant’s Perspective on Competition Litigation

Dr Mihail Danov, Cross-Border Competition Litigation: Brexit Opportunities?

Questions and discussion

16.50 – 17.15 Prof Paul Beaumont and Dr Mihail Danov, Concluding Remarks and Next Steps

Online public AHRC workshops on Private International Law after Brexit from global, European, Commonwealth and intra-UK perspectives

Professor Paul Beaumont (University of Stirling), Dr Mihail Danov (University of Exeter) and Dr Jayne Holliday (University of Stirling) are delighted to be able to host the following AHRC funded Research Network workshop.

How to join the online workshop:

• The event will be held using Microsoft Teams.
• The link for the event is – http://stir.ac.uk/44h
• Or click here on Friday 6th November to join the online workshop.

Any queries please contact Dr Jayne Holliday at j.holliday@stir.ac.uk

The Development of Private International Law in the UK post Brexit

AHRC Research Network Workshop II – Family Law – Programme

Friday 6 November 2020

10.00-10.15 – Welcome and introduction by Dr Jayne Holliday (University of Stirling)

10.15-10.45 – Hague Intercountry Adoption Convention – how it should be interpreted and applied by Laura Martínez-Mora (Secretary, Hague Conference on Private International Law)

10.45-11.00 – Discussion

11.00-11.15 – Break

11.15-11.45 – Private International Law of Family Agreements after Brexit by Alexandre Boiché (French advocate, member of the Experts’ Group on Family Agreements at the Hague Conference on Private International Law)

11.45-12.15 – International Surrogacy and International Parentage – hopes for a global solution by Professor Giacomo Biagioni (University of Cagliari)

12.15-12.30 – Discussion

12.30-13.30 – Break for lunch

13.30-14.00 – Private International Law of Parental Responsibility (Custody and Access) after Brexit by Professor Thalia Kruger (University of Antwerp)

14.00-14.30 – Private International Law of Divorce after Brexit by Dr Máire Ní Shúilleabháin (University College Dublin)

14.30-14.45 Discussion

14.45-15.00 Break

15.00-16.00 – Keynote speech by Lord Justice Moylan ‘International Family Justice – Where are we Going?’

16.00-16.30 – Concluding remarks incorporating some comments on maintenance after by Brexit by Professor Paul Beaumont (University of Stirling)

In preparation of the Conference on the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention on 13/14 September 2021, planned to be taking place on campus of the University of Bonn, Germany, we are offering here a Repository of contributions to the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention. Please email us if you miss something in it, we will update immediately…

We all benefited from your contributions at the Video Pre-Conference Roundtable on 29 October 2020. Our sincere thanks go to all the speakers and participants who pushed further the frontiers of our knowledge and understanding.

Update of 4 November 2020: New entries are printed bold.

Please also check the “official” Bibliograghy of the HCCH for the instrument.

 

1. Explanatory Reports

Garcimartín Alférez, Francisco;
Saumier, Geneviève „Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters: Explanatory Report“, as approved by the HCCH on 22 September 2020 (available here) Garcimartín Alférez, Francisco;
Saumier, Geneviève “Judgments Convention: Revised Draft Explanatory Report”, HCCH Prel.-Doc. No. 1 of December 2018 (available here) Nygh, Peter;
Pocar, Fausto “Report of the Special Commission”, HCCH Prel.-Doc. No. 11 of August 2000 (available here), pp 19-128

 

1. Bibliography

Beaumont, Paul “Forum non Conveniens and the EU rules on Conflicts of Jurisdiction: A Possible Global Solution”, Revue Critique de Droit International Privé 2018, pp 433-447 Beaumont, Paul R. “Judgments Convention: Application to Governments”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 121-137 Blom, Joost “The Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act and the Hague Judgments and Jurisdictions Projects”, Osgoode Hall Law Journal 55 (2018), pp 257-304 Bonomi, Andrea “European Private International Law and Third States”, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 2017, pp 184-193 Bonomi, Andrea “Courage or Caution? – A Critical Overview of the Hague Preliminary Draft on Judgments”, Yearbook of Private International Law 17 (2015/2016), pp 1-31 Bonomi, Andrea;
Mariottini, Cristina M. “(Breaking) News From The Hague: A Game Changer in International Litigation? – Roadmap to the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention”, Yearbook of Private International Law 20 (2018/2019), pp 537-567 Borges Moschen, Valesca Raizer;
Marcelino, Helder “Estado Constitutional Cooperativo e a conficaçao do direito internacional privado apontamentos sobre o ’Judgement Project’ da Conferência de Haia de Direito Internacional Privado”, Revista Argumentum 18 (2017), pp 291-319

(Cooperative Constitutional State and the Codification of Private International Law: Notes on the “Judgment Project” of the Hague Conference on Private International Law) Brand, Ronald A. “The Circulation of Judgments Under the Draft Hague Judgments Convention”, University of Pittsburgh School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 2019-02, pp 1-35 Brand, Ronald A. “Jurisdictional Developments and the New Hague Judgments Project”, “in HCCH (ed.), A Commitment to Private International Law – Essays in honour of Hans van Loon”, Cambridge 2013, pp 89-99 Brand, Ronald A. “New Challenges in Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments”, in Franco Ferrari, Diego P. Fernández Arroyo (eds.), Private International Law – Contemporary Challenges and Continuing Relevance, Cheltenham/Northampton 2019, pp 360-389 Brand, Ronald A. “Jurisdiction and Judgments Recognition at the Hague Conference: Choices Made, Treaties Completed, and the Path Ahead”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 3-17 Çali?kan, Yusuf;
Çali?kan, Zeynep “2 Temmuz 2019 Tarihli Yabanci Mahkeme Kararlarinin Taninmasi ve Tenfizine Iliskin Lahey Anlasmasinin Degerlendirilmesi”, Public and Private International Law Bulletin 40 (2020), pp 231-245

(An Evaluation of 2 July 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters) Clavel, Sandrine; Jault-Seseke, Fabienne “La convention de La Haye du 2 juillet 2019 sur la reconnaissance et l’exécution des jugements étrangers en matière civile ou commerciale: Que peut-on en attendre?”, Travaux du comité français de Droit international privé, Vol. 2018-2020, forthcoming (Version roviso ire de la communication présentée le 4 octobre 2019 available here) Clover Alcolea, Lucas “The 2005 Hague Choice of Court and the 2019 Hague Judgments Conventions versus the New York Convention – Rivals, Alternatives or Something Else?”, Mc Gill Journal of Dispute Resolution 6 (2019-2020), pp. 187-214 Coco, Sarah E. “The Value of a New Judgments Convention for U.S. Litigants”, New York University Law Review 94 (2019), pp 1210-1243 Cuniberti, Gilles “Signalling the Enforceability of the Forum’s Judgments Abroad”, Rivista di diritto internazionale private e processuale (RDIPP) 56 (2020), pp 33-54 de Araujo, Nadia; de Nardi, Marcelo;
Spitz, Lidia “A nova era dos litígios internacionais”, Valor Economico 2019 de Araujo, Nadia;
de Nardi, Marcelo;
Lopes Inez;
Polido, Fabricio „Private International Law Chronicles“, Brazilian Journal of International Law 16 (2019), pp 19-34

  de Araujo, Nadia;
de Nardi, Marcelo „Consumer Protection Under the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 67-79 de Araujo, Nadia;
de Nardi, Marcelo „22ª Sessão Diplomática da Conferência da Haia e a Convenção sobre sentenças estrangeiras: Primeiras reflexões sobre as vantagens para o Brasil da sua adoção“, Revista de la Secretaría del Tribunal Permanente de Revisión 7 No. 14 (2019), páginas 198-221

(22nd Diplomatic Session of The Hague Conference and the Convention on Foreign Judgments: First Reflections on the Advantages for Brazil of their Adoption) Dotta Salgueiro, Marcos “Article 14 of the Judgments Convention: The Essential Reaffirmation of the Non-discrimination Principle in a Globalized Twenty-First Century”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 113-120 Douglas, Michael;
Keyes, Mary;
McKibbin, Sarah;
Mortensen, Reid “The HCCH Judgments Convention in Australian Law”, Federal Law Review 47 (2019), pp 420-443 Efeç?nar Süral Possible Ratification of the Hague Convention by Turkey and Its Effects to the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Public and Private International Law Bulletin 40/2 (2020), pp. 785 et seq. Franzina, Pietro; Leandro, Antonio

  “La Convenzione dell’Aja del 2 luglio 2019 sul riconoscimento delle sentenze straniere: una prima lettura”, Quaderni di SIDIblog 6 (2019), pp 215-231, available at http://www.sidi-isil.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Quaderni-di-SIDIBlog-6-2019.pdf

(The Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition of Foreign Judgments: A First Appraisal) Fuchs, Felix “Das Haager Übereinkommen vom 2. Juli 2019 über die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer Urteile in Zivil- oder Handelssachen“, Gesellschafts- und Wirtschaftsrecht (GWR) 2019, pp 395-399 Garcimartín, Francisco “The Judgments Convention: Some Open Questions”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 19-31 Goddard, David „The Judgments Convention – The Current State of Play”, Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 29 (2019), pp 473-490 He, Qisheng “The HCCH Judgments Convention and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments pertaining to a State”, Global Law Review 3 (2020), pp 147-161 He, Qisheng “Unification and Division: Immovable Property Issues under the HCCH Judgement Convention”, Journal of International Law 1 (2020), pp 33-55 Jacobs, Holger “Der Zwischenstand zum geplanten Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen – Der vorläufige Konventionsentwurf 2016“, Zeitschrift für Internationales Privatrecht & Rechtsvergleichung (ZfRV) 2017, pp 24-30 Jang, Junhyok “The Public Policy Exception Under the New 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 97-111 Jovanovic, Marko Thou Shall (Not) Pass – Grounds for Refusal of Recognition and

Enforcement under the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention, YbPIL 21 (2019/2020), pp. 309 – 332 Jueptner, Eva “The Hague Jurisdiction Project – what options for the Hague Conference?”, Journal of Private International Law 16 (2020), pp 247-274 Kessedjian, Catherine “Comment on the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters. Is the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 a useful tool for companies who are conducting international activities?“, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (NIPR) 2020, pp 19-33 Khanderia, Saloni „The Hague judgments project: assessing its plausible benefits for the development of the Indian private international law”, Commonwealth Law Bulletin 44 (2018), pp 452-475 Khanderia, Saloni “The Hague Conference on Private International Law’s Proposed Draft Text on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments: Should South Africa Endorse it?”, Journal of African Law 63 (2019), pp 413-433 Mariottini, Cristina „Establishment of Treaty Relations under The 2019 Hague Judgments

Convention“, YbPIL 21 (2019/2020), pp. 365-380 Mariottini, Cristina “The Exclusion of Defamation and Privacy from the Scope of the Hague Draft Convention on Judgments, YbPIL 19 (2017/2018), pp 475-486. Meier, Niklaus “Notification as a Ground for Refusal”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 81-95 Nielsen, Peter Arnt “The Hague 2019 Judgments Convention – from failure to success”, Journal of Private International Law 16 (2020), pp 205-246 North, Cara “The 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention: A Common Law Perspective”, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 2020, pp 202-210 North, Cara “The Exclusion of Privacy Matters from the Judgments Convention”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 33-48 Oestreicher, Yoav “ ’We’re on a Road to Nowhere’ – Reasons for the Continuing Failure to Regulate Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, The International Lawyer 42 (2008), pp 59-86 Pasquot Polido, Fabrício B. “The Judgments Project of the Hague Conference on Private International Law: a way forward for a long-awaited solution”, in Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm, Maria Blanca Noodt Taquela (eds.), Diversity and integration in Private International Law, Edinburgh 2019, pp. 176-199 Pertegás Sender, Marta “The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention: Its Conclusion and the road ahead”, in Asian Academy of International Law (publ.), Sinergy and Security: the Keys to Sustainable Global Investment: Proceedings of the 2019 Colloquium on International Law, 2019 Hong Kong, pp 181-190 Pertegás, Marta “Brussels I Recast and the Hague Judgments Project”, in Geert Van Calster (ed.), European Private International Law at 50: Celebrating and Contemplating the 1968 Brussels Convention and its Successors, Cambridge 2018, pp 67-82 Reyes, Anselmo „Implications of the 2019 Hague Convention on the Enforcement of Judgments of the Singapore International Commercial Court”, in Rolf A. Schütze, Thomas R. Klötzel, Martin Gebauer (eds.), Festschrift für Roderich C. Thümmel zum 65. Geburtstag, Berlin 2020, pp 695-709 Ribeiro-Bidaoui, João “The International Obligation of the Uniform and Autonomous Interpretation of Private Law Conventions: Consequences for Domestic Courts and International Organisations”, Netherlands International Law Review 67 (2020), pp 139 – 168 Rumenov, Ilija “Implications of the New 2019 Hague Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments on the National Legal Systems of Countries in South Eastern Europe”, EU and Comparative Law Issues and Challenges Series (ECLIC) 3 (2019), pp 385-4040 Sachs, Klaus;
Weiler, Marcus “A comparison of the recognition and enforcement of foreign decisions under the 1958 New York Convention and the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention”, in Rolf A. Schütze, Thomas R. Klötzel, Martin Gebauer (eds.), Festschrift für Roderich C. Thümmel zum 65. Geburtstag, Berlin 2020, pp 763-781 Saumier, Geneviève “Submission as a Jurisdictional Basis and the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 49-65 Schack, Haimo “Wiedergänger der Haager Konferenz für IPR: Neue Perspektiven eines weltweiten Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommens?“, Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht (ZEUP) 2014, pp 824-842 Schack, Haimo „Das neue Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen“, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 2020, pp 1-96 Shchukin, Andrey Igorevich “Indirect International Jurisdiciton in the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judments of 2019 (Part 1)”, Journal of Russian Law No. 2020-7, pp. 170-186 Silberman, Linda “Comparative Jurisdiction in the International Context: Will the Proposed Hague Judgments Convention be Stalled?”, DePaul Law Review 52 (2002), pp 319-349 Solomon, Dennis “Das Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen von 2019 und die internationale Anerkennungszuständigkeit“, in Rolf A. Schütze, Thomas R. Klötzel, Martin Gebauer (eds.), Festschrift für Roderich C. Thümmel zum 65. Geburtstag, Berlin 2020, pp 873-893 Spitz, Lidia „Refusal of Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments on Public Policy Grounds in the Hague Judgments Convention – A Comparison with The 1958 New York Convention“, YbPIL 21 (2019/2020), pp 333-364 Stein, Andreas „Das Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen 2019 – Was lange währt, wird endlich gut?“, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 2020, pp 197-202 Stewart, David P. „Current Developments: The Hague Conference adopts a New Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”, American Journal of International Law (AJIL) 113 (2019), pp 772-783 Taquela, María Blanca Noodt; Abou-Nigm, Verónica Ruiz “News From The Hague: The Draft Judgments Convention and Its Relationship with Other International Instruments”, Yearbook of Private International Law 19 (2017/2018), pp 449-474 Teitz, Louise Ellen “Another Hague Judgments Convention? – Bucking the Past to Provide for the Future”, Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 29 (2019), pp 491-511 van der Grinten, Paulien;
ten Kate, Noura „Editorial: The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention”, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (NIPR) 2020, pp 1-3 van Loon, Hans “Towards a global Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (NIPR) 2020, pp 4-18 van Loon, Hans “Towards a Global Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”, Collection of Papers of the Faculty of Law, Niš 82 (2019), pp 15-35 van Loon, Hans “Le Brexit et les conventions de La Haye”, Revue Critique de Droit International Privé 2019, pp 353-366 Wagner, Rolf “Ein neuer Anlauf zu einem Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen“, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 2016, pp 97-102 Weidong, Zhu “The Recognition and Enforcement of Commercial Judgments Between China and South Africa: Comparison and Convergence”, China Legal Science 2019-06, pp 33-57 Weller, Matthias “The HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention: New Trends in Trust Management?”, in Christoph Benicke, Stefan Huber (eds.), Festschrift für Herbert Kronke zum 70. Geburtstag, Bielefeld 2020, pp 621-632 Weller, Matthias “The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention – The Jurisdictional Filters of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, Yearbook of Private International Law 21 (2019/2020), pp 279 – 308 Weller, Matthias “Das Haager Übereinkommen zur Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer Urteile”, in: Thomas Rauscher (ed.), Europäisches Zivilprozess- und Kollisionsrecht, Munich, 5th ed., forthcoming Weller, Matthias Die Kontrolle der internationalen Zuständigkeit im Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen 2019, in Christoph Althammer/Christoph Schärtl, Festschrift für Herbert Roth, in Vorbereitung. Wilderspin, Michael;
Vysoka, Lenka “The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention through European lenses”, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (NIPR) 2020, pp 34-49 Xu, Guojian “Comment on Key Issues Concerning Hague Judgment Convention in 2019 “, Journal of Shanghai University of Political Science and Law 35 (2020), pp 1-29 Xu, Guojian “To Establish an International Legal System for Global Circulation of Court Judgments”, Wuhan University International Law Review 5 (2017), pp 100-130 Xu, Guojian “Overview of the Mechanism of Recognition and Enforcement of Judgements Established by HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, China Journal of Applied Jurisprudence No. 2020-02, pp 65-77 Yeo, Terence “The Hague Judgments Convention – A View from Singapore”, Singapore Academy of Law Journal (e-First) 3rd August 2020 (available here) Zhang, Wenliang;
Tu, Guangjian “The 1971 and 2019 Hague Judgments Conventions: Compared and Whether China Would Change Its Attitude Towards The Hague”, Journal of International Dispute Settlement (JIDS), 2020, 00, pp. 1-24 Zhao, Ning “Completing a long-awaited puzzle in the landscape of cross-border recognition and enforcement of judgments: An overview of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, Swiss Review of International and European Law (SRIEL) 30 (2020), pp 345-368

 

On 11 December 2020, from 11 am to 1 pm (MET), the European Association of Private International Law will host the first EAPIL (Virtual) Seminar. Devoted to the impact of Brexit on Private International Law speakers from the United Kingdom and the European Continent will analyze the legal framework that will apply to cross-border cases in the short-term, i.e. as of 1 January 2021 when the transition period provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement has expired. In addition, they will discuss what the future relationship between the EU and the UK could and should look like. Special emphasis will be placed on the question of whether the EU and the UK should strive to adopt a new – bespoke – bilateral agreement (or whether it should simply join existing international conventions).

The speakers of the first session, on civil and commercial matters, will be:

• Alexander Layton (Twenty Essex Street Chambers, London)
• Eva Lein (University of Lausanne)
• Michiel Poesen (KU Leuven)

The second session, on family matters, will feature presentations by:

• Sir Andrew Moylan (Court of Appeal of England and Wales)
• Pietro Franzina (Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milan)
• Anatol Dutta (Ludwig Maximilian University Munich).

The Seminar will take place via Zoom. Information about how to register will be announced in due course.

If you have questions concerning the first EAPIL Seminar or the EAPIL Seminar Series as such please get in touch with the Secretary General of EAPIL, Giesela Rühl, at secretary.general@eapil.org.

 

Background:

The EAPIL (Virtual) Seminar Series was established in October 2020 to contribute to the study and development of (European) Private International Law through English-language seminars on topical issues. It will provide an easily accessible and informal platform for the exchange of ideas – outside the bi-annual EAPIL conferences. At the same time, it will serve as a means for EAPIL members to connect with other EAPIL members and non-members.

 

Many international commercial parties usually provide for a choice of court agreement as a term of their contract. This is done to enhance predictability, certainty and reduction of costs in the event a dispute arises between the parties. Since a choice of court agreement is a term of the contract, does the principle of contract law apply to determine a choice of court agreement? Though this is a matter of controversy in Nigerian law,[1] some recent appellate (Court of Appeal and Supreme Court) cases have  given a foreign choice of court agreement a contractual function.[2]

Kashamu v UBN Plc[3] is a most recent Court of Appeal decision that analyses a foreign choice of court agreement exclusively from the principles of contract law. In this case, The Banque International Du Benin (“BIDB”), a limited financial institution in Benin Republic, granted medium term loan facilities, in different sums, to the Societe d’ Egrenage Industrial De Cotonu du Benin (“SEIC-B”), a private limited company registered in Benin Republic, for construction of its Cotton Ginning factory. The facilities were secured by, inter alia, SEIC-B’s goodwill, factory and land. In addition, the defendant/appellant, the alter ego of SEIC-B, personally guaranteed the facilities in a personal guarantee agreement. The loan agreement between BIDB and SEICB provided that the law and courts of Benin Republic should determine their dispute. However, the guarantee agreement between BIDB and the defendant/appellant did not explicitly provide for a choice of court agreement.

SEIC-B defaulted in the repayment of the loans despite repeated demands. As a result, BIDB appointed the plaintiff/respondent, a public limited financial institution in Nigeria, as its attorney to recover the outstanding facility. Further to the donated power of attorney, the plaintiff/respondent claimed recovery of the debt from the defendant/appellant in the Lagos High Court, Nigeria. The defendant counter-claimed and also challenged the jurisdiction of the Lagos High Court as being the wrong forum to institute the action. The Lagos High Court held that it had jurisdiction.

The defendant/appellant was dissatisfied with this decision and appealed to the Court of Appeal. The defendant/appellant argued that the proper forum for the action was the Courts in Benin Republic, given that the loan agreement between BIDB and SEICB provided that the law and courts of Benin Republic should determine their dispute, He argued that the choice of court agreement in the loan contract should also be incorporated into the guarantee agreement, so that it was the intention of the parties that the courts  of Benin Republic should determine their dispute. He also argued that the execution and performance of the contract were to be in Benin Republic hence the agreement was in French Language.

The plaintiff/respondent argued that the loan agreement and guarantee agreement were distinct. It observed that the parties were bound by the terms in the guarantee agreement. It added that the parties in the guarantee agreement did not agree that the court in Benin Republic would have exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising from it. It asserted that the guarantee agreement was not expressly incorporated in the loan agreement. It opined that the appellant was not privy to the loan agreement and would not take a benefit from or enforce it for want of privity of contract. It claimed that the content of the guarantee agreement was clear and must be given its literal meaning.

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal. In construing the loan and guarantee agreement to determine if the parties chose the courts of Benin Republic, it applied the principles of Nigerian contract law to the effect that courts are allowed to read a document holistically so as to reach and garner harmonious results of its content. In construing a document, the court is enjoined or mandated by law to apply the literal rule as a canon of interpretation, that is, to accord the words employed there in their ordinary grammatical meaning without any embellishment.[4] It then held that for the document of parties to a private contract to confer jurisdiction on a court, the words used must be clear and explicit and devoid of woolliness and ambiguity. In the instant case, the guarantee contract did not precisely confer jurisdiction on the Benin Republic court.[5] It further held that loan contract did not in any way allude to the guarantee to benefit from the doctrine of incorporation by reference. The doctrine of incorporation could not be invoked because of the want of connection between the two documents.[6]

Kashamu’s case demonstrates the recent attitude of some Nigerian appellate courts to treat choice of court agreements as a term of the contract which should be construed strictly according to the literal and ordinary words used in the contract. In effect in the absence of vitiating circumstances, the parties are bound by the terms of a choice of court agreement, and a Nigerian court will not add or subtract from the way the parties drafted the contract. The Court of Appeal’s approach in Kashamu reflected Nigeria’s law that interprets contractual documents strictly. Kashamu is a modern approach that applies the principles of contract law to choice of court agreements.

[1]For an extended analysis see generally CSA Okoli and RF Oppong, Private International Law in Nigeria (Hart, 2020) 107 – 125.

[2]Nika Fishing Company Ltd v Lavina Corporation (2008 ) 16 NWLR 509, 542 (Tobi JSC); Captain Tony Nso v Seacor Marine ( Bahamas) Inc ( 2008 ) LPELR-8320 (CA); Beaumont Resources Ltd v DWC Drilling Ltd ( 2017 ) LPELR-42814 (CA); Kashamu v UBN Plc (2020) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1746) 90.

[3]Kashamu (Ibid)

[4] Kashamu (Ibid) 114-5 (Ogbuinya JCA).

[5] Kashamu (Ibid) 115 (Ogbuinya JCA).

[6] Kashamu (Ibid) 116 (Ogbuinya JCA).

The HCCH and the German Presidency of the Council of the European Union have the pleasure of announcing that registration is now open for HCCH a|Bridged – Edition 2020, which will mark the golden anniversary of the HCCH Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (HCCH Evidence Convention). This year’s edition builds upon the success of HCCH a|Bridged – Edition 2019, which revolved around the theme ‘The HCCH Service Convention in the Era of Electronic and Information Technology’. 

The event will be hosted entirely online on Wednesday 2 December from 2:15 p.m. CET. It will feature a keynote speech by Professor Dr Michael Stürner entitled “50 years of the HCCH Evidence Convention – Facilitating cross-border proceedings” as well as two panels that will discuss the very latest in the cross-border taking of evidence under Chapter I and II of the HCCH Evidence Convention.

Participants will be able to follow the event via a livestream on a dedicated website. While participation is free of charge, the number of registered participants will be limited, and registrations will therefore be handled on a first come, first served basis.

After registration, participants will receive a password which will also enable them to interact with other participants via a chat function and ask questions during the panel discussions. This password will be distributed to registered participants a few days before the conference. We also encourage participants to submit their questions before the meeting, preferably at the time of registration. Please note that the working language of HCCH a|Bridged – Edition 2020 will be English, and there will be no French interpretation. 

The deadline for registrations is Friday 27 November 2020 at 5:00 p.m. CET. A Concept Note, the Programme, and registration information is available on the HCCH website.

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

Issue 4 of RabelsZ is now available online and in print. It contains the following articles:

MAX-PLANCK-INSTITUT FÜR AUSLÄNDISCHES UND INTERNATIONALES PRIVATRECHT, Die Frühehe im Rechtsvergleich: Praxis, Sachrecht, Kollisionsrecht (Early Marriage in Comparative Law: Practice, Substantive Law, Choice of Law), pp. 705–785

Early marriage is a global and ancient phenomenon; its frequency worldwide, but especially in Europe, has declined only in recent decades. Often, early marriage results from precarious situations of poverty, a lack of opportunities and education, and external threats, for example in refugee situations. However the concepts and perceptions of marriage, family, identities, and values in different societies are diverse, as the comparison of regulations and the practice of early marriage in over 40 jurisdictions shows. Even if early marriage appears generally undesirable, for some minors the alternatives are even worse. Some countries set fixed ages for marriage; others use flexible criteria such as physical or mental maturity to determine a threshold for marriage. All, however, until very recently provided for the possibility of dispensation. In Western countries, such dispensations have rarely been sought in the last decades and have consequently been abolished in some jurisdictions; elsewhere they still matter. Also, most countries bestow some legal effects to marriages entered into in violation of age requirements in the name of a favor matrimonii.

Early marriage has an international dimension when married couples cross borders. Generally, private international law around the world treats marriages celebrated by foreigners in their country of origin as valid if they comply with the respective foreign law. Such application is subject to a case-specific public policy exception with regard to age requirements, provided the marriage has some relation to the forum. Recent reforms in some countries, Germany included, have replaced this flexible public policy exception with a strict extension of the lex fori to foreign marriages, holding them to the same requirements as domestic marriages and thereby disabling both a case-by-case analysis of interests and the subsequent remediation of a violation of the forum’s age requirements. As a consequence, parties to a marriage celebrated abroad can be treated as unmarried, meaning they derive no rights and protection from their marriage, and their marriage may be limping – valid in one country, invalid in another.

The extension of domestic age requirements to foreign marriage without exception, as done in German private international law, is problematic in view of both European and German constitutional law. The refusal to recognize early marriages celebrated abroad can violate the European freedom of movement. It can violate the right to marriage and family (Art. 6 Grundgesetz) and the child’s best interests. It can violate acquired rights. It can also violate the right to equality (Art. 3 Grundgesetz) if no distinction is made between the protection of marriages validly entered into abroad and the prevention of marriages in Germany. Such violations may not be justifiable: The German rules are not always able to achieve their aims, not always necessary compared with milder measures existing in foreign laws, and not always proportional.

Edwin Cameron and Leo Boonzaier, Venturing beyond Formalism: The Constitutional Court of South Africa’s Equality Jurisprudence, pp. 786–840

[Excerpt taken from the introduction]: After long years of rightful ostracism under apartheid, great enthusiasm, worldwide, embraced South Africa’s reintegration into the international community in 1994. The political elite preponderantly responsible for the Constitution, the legal profession, and the first democratic government under President Nelson Mandela were committed to recognisablyliberal principles, founded on democratic constitutionalism and human rights.

This contribution is an expanded version of a keynote lecture given by Justice Edwin Cameron at the 37th Congress of the Gesellschaft für Rechtsvergleichung at the University of Greifswald on 19 September 2019.

Chris Thomale, Gerichtsstands– und Rechtswahl im Kapitalmarktdeliktsrecht (Choice-of-court and Choice-of-law Agreements in International Capital Market Tort Law), pp. 841–863

The treatment of antifraud provisions in international securities litigation is a salient topic of both European capital markets law and European private international law. The article sets the stage by identifying the applicable sources of international jurisdiction in this area as well as the situations in which a conflict of laws may arise. It then moves on to give a rough and ready interpretation of these rules, notably construing the “place where the damage occurred”, according to both Art. 7 Nr. 2 Brussel Ibis Regulation and Art. 4(1) Rome II Regulation, as being equivalent to the market where a financial instrument is listed or is intended to be listed. However, as the article sets out in due course, this still leaves plenty of reasonable opportunity for a contractual choice of court or choice of law. This is why the article’s main focus is on creating a possibility to utilize choice-of-court and choice-of-law agreements. This is feasible either in the issuer’s charter or, notably in the case of bonds, in the prospectus accompanying the issuance of a given financial instrument. The article shows that both arrangements satisfy the elements of Art. 25 Brussel Ibis Regulation on choice-of-court agreements and Art. 14(1) lit. b Rome II Regulation on ex ante choice-of-law agreements. 

Moritz Hennemann, Wettbewerb der Datenschutzrechtsordnungen – Zur Rezeption der Datenschutz-Grundverordnung (The Competition Between Data Protection Laws –  The Reception of theGeneral Data Protection Regulation), pp. 864–895

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has granted the European Union an excellent position in the “competition” between data protection laws. This competition goes along with a gradual convergence of data protection laws worldwide, initiated and promoted by the European Union. In this competition, the European Union benefits not only from the so-called Brussels Effect (Bradford), but also from distinct legal instruments: The GDPR rules on the scope of application and on data transfer to non-EU countries are of legal importance in this competition, and the adequacy decision under Art. 45 GDPR creates further de facto leverage for negotiations on free trade agreements with non-EU countries. The European Union has already been able to use this tool as a catalyst for European data protection law approaches. The European Union should, however, refrain from “abusing” its strong position and not press for extensive “copies” of the GDPR worldwide – and thereby create legislative lock-in-effects. Alternative regulatory approaches – potentially even more innovative and appropriate – are to be evaluated carefully by means of a functional and/or contextual comparative approach.

On Youtube you can find the videos of the Annual Conference of the German-Colombian Lawyers Association (DKJV/ACAJ). The conference took place digitally from 29 to 30 October 2020. It dealt with current legal developments in Germany and Colombia with a special focus on Covid-19.

The presentations are in Spanish. They are not only interesting from a comparative point of view. They also they deal with private international law and international procedural law matters.

The program was the following:

• Saludos y bienvenida a los participantes

del Embajador de Colombia en Alemania Hans-Peter Knudsen Quevedo

• Ponencia 1:

Prof. Dr. Dr. h. c. Martin Ibler, Universität Konstanz (Alemania): Últimos límites constitucionales que protegen los Derechos Fundamentales en la lucha contra Covid19

• Ponencia 2:

Prof. Dr. Christian Wolffhügel, Ministerio de Justicia (Colombia): Valoración de las medidas de la Administración Colombiana durante la pandemia Covid19

• Ponencia 3:

Prof. Dr. Bernd Marquardt, Universidad Nacional (Bogotá, Colombia): Corona y el derecho constitucional: Colombia en el contexto latinoamericano

• Ponencia 4:

Prof. Dr. María Julia Ochoa Jiménez, LL.M., Universidad de Antioquia (Medellín, Colombia): El Derecho Internacional Privado en el proyecto de reforma del Código Civil de Colombia

• Ponencia 5:

Prof. Gabriel Barreto Ferro, LL.M., Universidad Santo Tomás; Barreto, Torres & Puig (Bogotá, Colombia): La digitalización de la justicia bajo la influencia de la crisis del Covid19

• Ponencia 6:

Prof. Mauricio Torres Guarnizo, LL.M., Universidad Santo Tomás, Barreto, Torres & Puig (Bogotá, Colombia): Los efectos de la crisis del Covid19 en el Derecho Económico en Colombia

• Ponencia 7:

Prof. Dr. John Zuluaga Taborda, LL.M., Universidad Sergio Arboleda (Bogotá, Colombia): La cooptación del sistema sanitario por parte del poder punitivo. Un análisis del caso colombiano

• Ponencia 8:

Prof. John Jairo Morales Alzate, LL.M., Arbitro Lista A Cámara de Comercio; Conjuez Sección 2 Consejo de Estado y Sala Disciplinaria (Bogotá, Colombia): El arbitraje en Colombia en tiempos de Covid19

• Ponencia 9:

Prof. Dr. Susanne Gössl, LL.M., Universität zu Kiel (Alemania): La legislación de Covid19 en materia civil en Alemania

• Ponencia 10:

Dr. Katharina König, Editorial Nomos (Alemania/Colombia): La admisión de juristas extranjeros como abogados en Colombia de la perspectiva alemana

• Ponencia 10:

Magistrado Prof. Milton Chaves García, Consejo de Estado (Colombia): La Fiscalidad ante la Crisis del Covid19

• Ponencia 11:

Prof. Dr. Michael Stöber, Universität zu Kiel (Alemania): Evolución reciente del Derecho Tributario Alemán con especial atención a las medidas Covid19

• Ponencia 12:

Elisabeth Hincapié Hincapié, LL.M., Harsco Rail Europe GmbH (Alemania): Actuales preguntas sobre el Cumplimiento

The University of Zurich, Switzerland, has asked CoL to publish the following:

The University of Zurich is seeking applications for a Professorship in civil procedure and private law to take effect from the beginning of the Fall Semester 2021 (1 August 2021), or by arrangement.

We are seeking a candidate with an excellent legal track record who is committed to carrying out teaching and research across the whole spectrum of civil procedure law, including from an international and comparative law perspective. Experience in arbitration as well as restructuring and insolvency law is an advantage. This should be reflected in an outstanding dissertation, a habilitation thesis (or equivalent academic achievement) that is complete or at an advanced stage, and additional publications. Depending on the successful candidate’s qualifications, the professorship will take the form of a full or associate professorship. A temporary position as assistant professor with tenure track is possible provided that the candidate’s habilitation thesis is at an advanced stage. In all cases, the professorship will be a full-time position. If an excellent application is submitted, particularly from countries or regions (such as French-speaking Switzerland) that do not require a habilitation thesis to be completed, the requirement for habilitation can be waived if comparable achievements are demonstrated. Applicants must be able to teach in English and, ideally, in French. Applicants without a Swiss background must be willing to familiarise themselves with Swiss civil procedure and private law within a reasonable amount of time and, if necessary, attain the level of German required for teaching and examination. The University of Zurich strives to increase the proportion of under-represented groups – in particular women – in its teaching and research staff, and therefore explicitly encourages applications from these candidates. Further information relating to this job profile can be found below. Please submit your application documents as specified in the following job profile by 9 December 2020 via www.recruiting.ius.uzh.ch. You may be requested to submit hard-copy documents separately at a later point. The relevant member of the appointment committee, Professor Tanja Domej (tanja.domej@rwi.uzh.ch), is available to answer any questions and provide further information.

Further information is here.

Kareem Olatoye and Abubakri Yekini, both lecturers at Lagos State University, Nigeria, recently published an article titled: “Islamic Law in Southern Nigerian Courts: Constitutional Law and Conflicts of Laws Perspectives” (2019/2020) 6 Benin Journal of Public Law 120. The abstract reads as follows:

This article challenges the prevailing views that Islamic law is not applicable in southern part of Nigeria and that the civil courts do not have jurisdiction over matters bordering on Islamic personal law. It argues that these views are wrong as litigants are denied access to justice since no state in the southern part of Nigeria has established Islamic courts. The article further argues that the existing legal frameworks – the Constitution, High Court Laws and Evidence Act – support the recognition and application of Islamic law either as a lex fori or lex causae. Thus, there ought to be no distinction between north and south because Islamic law is not a territorial law. The article suggests a paradigm shift in the Nigerian courts’ approach to Islamic law in Southern Nigeria, particularly, the Southwest which has a near-majority Muslim population. It further suggests the establishment of Islamic law courts or the creation of divisions in the existing civil courts for Islamic law matters to ensure that litigants have access to justice, and Islamic law questions are determined by those learned in that law.

The ELI-Unidroit Model European Rules of Civil Procedure were adopted by the European Law Institute and Unidroit in 2020. It consists of a set of main principles and rules covering a wide array of topics in the area of European civil procedure. It contains 245 rules in twelve parts, dedicated to  general provisions, rules on parties, case management, commencement of proceedings, proceedings preparatory to a final hearing, access to information and evidence, judgment, res iudicata and lis pendens, means of review, provisional and protective measures, collective proceedings and costs.

Aiming at transforming the ALI-Unidroit Principles on Transnational Civil Procedure (2004) to make them suitable for the European regional context, the groundwork was laid at an exploratory workshop in Vienna in October 2013. The project kicked off in 2014, when the first three working groups were established. In the following years, five more working groups dedicated to specific topics were added, and in 2016, the Structure group was tasked with coordinating the work of the different working groups, filling the gaps, and securing a coherent set of model rules to be used by European and national legislators in particular. In collaboration with a task force charged with the (overview of) the translation of the Rules into French, the work was completed in 2020. It was approved by the ELI Council on 15 July and by ELI Membership on 5 August, and approved by the Unidroit Governing Council on 24 September 2020. This project, involving some 45 academics and practitioners participating in the working groups as well as a Steering group, advisory members from all over the world, and European and international institutions as observers, is the most encompassing set of model rules on European Civil Procedure.

A series of conferences and seminars were held over the past years and will be held to discuss the Rules, including an expected celebratory ELI-Unidroit event that had to be postponed due to Covid-19. A Nordic conference organized by the Swedish Network for European Studies and Uppsala University will take place on 15-16 March 2021. More information is available here.

 

Erasmus School of Law of Erasmus University Rotterdam is organizing a mini-webinar on Friday, 6 November 2020 from 11.30-13 hrs CET. You can register for free here until 6 November at 9 am CET.

The ELI-Unidroit Model European Rules of Civil Procedure: soft law shaping the future of European Civil Procedure?

11.20 – 11.30     Welcome and opening

11.30 – 11.50    Xandra Kramer (Erasmus University Rotterdam, Utrecht University)

Creation, main principles, and perspectives of the ELI-Unidroit Model Rules

11.50 – 12.00    Discussion

12.00 – 12.20    Eva Storskrubb (Uppsala University)

Cost Rules in the ELI-Unidroit Model Rules

12.20 -12.40      Masood Ahmed (University of Leicester)

Costs, Management & ADR: an English view on the ELI-Unidroit Model Rules

12.40 – 13.00    Discussion

This webinar is organized in the context of the ongoing ERC project Building EU Civil Justice at Erasmus School of Law (PI: Xandra Kramer), financed by the European Research Council and anticipates the Vici project Affordable Access to Justice, financed by the Dutch Research Council that will kick off in December 2020.

 

On Tuesday, November 3, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its fifth monthly virtual workshop in private international law at 11:00-12:30. Susanne Gössl (Christian Albrecht University Kiel) will speak, in German, about the topic

„Wer oder was bin ich überhaupt? – Zur Zukunft des Personalstatuts unter europäischen Einflüssen
(“Who or What am I Anyway? The Future of the Law Applicable to Natural Persons under European Influence”)

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

This is the fifth such lecture in the series, after those by Mathias Lehmann in June, Eva-Maria Kieninger in July, Giesela Rühl in September, and Anatol Dutta in October. The designated December speaker isMarc-Philippe Weller (Heidelberg). Starting in January 2021,  we plan to alternate between German and English, in order to enable more interested scholars to participate.

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

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

 

C. Wendehorst: Digital Assets in Private International Law

Rights with third party effect (erga omnes rights, rights in rem) in digital assets may exist at four levels: (a) the level of physical manifestation of data on a medium; (b) the level of data as encoded information; (c) the functional level of data as digital content or services; and (d) the level of data as representation of rival assets. As yet, recognized conflict-of-law rules exist only for level (c), which has always been dealt with under international intellectual property law.

As to rights in physical manifestations of data, these may be dealt with under Art. 43 EGBGB where data is stored and accessed only locally. In the case of remote access to data, especially in the case of data stored in the cloud, the law of the state where the controller is located should apply. In the case of two or more controllers located in different states, the location of the server operator (cloud provider) may decide instead, but neither of these connecting factors applies if the facts of the case indicate a closer connection with the law of another state.

Data as encoded information is a non-rival resource. Should a foreign jurisdiction recognise exclusive data ownership rights, these would have to be dealt with under international intellectual property law. For data access rights, portability rights and similar rights the rules on the territorial scope of the GDPR may provide some helpful indications as to the applicable law. However, where such rights arise within a contractual relationship or other specific framework the law applicable to this framework may prevail.

As to crypto assets, uniform conflict-of-law rules would be highly desirable. Subject to further integration of crypto assets into the existing system for intermediated securities, rights in tokens should primarily be governed by the law referred to by conflict-of-law rules specifically addressing crypto assets, including appropriate analogies to such rules. Where no such rules exist, the closest connection must be ascertained by a connecting factor that is sufficiently certain and clearly visible to third parties, such as the law that has visibly been chosen as the applicable law for the whole ledger (elective situs), the location of the issuer (LIMA), or the place of the central administrator (PROPA) or of the sole holder of a private master key (PREMA).

 

R. de Barros Fritz: The new legal tech business model of mass action litigation from the choice of law perspective

In recent years, courts had to increasingly deal with questions of substantive law concerning a new, but in practice already well-established business model of mass action litigation, which is offered by companies such as Financialright Claims and Myright. These are often cases that have links to foreign countries. The present article has therefore taken this opportunity to examine the question of the law applicable to this business model in more detail.

 

P. Hay: Forum Selection Clauses – Procedural Tools or Contractual Obligations? Conceptualization and Remedies in American and German Law

German and American law differ methodologically in treating exclusive forum selection clauses. German law permits parties, subject to limitations, to derogate the jurisdiction of courts and, in the interest of predictability, to select a specific court for any future disputes. The German Supreme Court emphasized in 2019 that, as a contract provision, the clause also gives rise to damages in case of breach. American law historically does not permit parties to “oust” the jurisdiction a court has by law. But the parties’ wishes may be given effect by granting a party’s motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens (FNC) when sued in a different court in breach of the agreement. FNC dismissals are granted upon a “weighing of interests” and in the court’s discretion. The clause, even when otherwise valid, is therefore not the kind of binding obligation, enforced by contract remedies, as in German law. The case law does not give effect to its “dual nature,” as characterized by the German Supreme Court. The latter’s decision correctly awarded attorneys’ fees for expenses incurred by the plaintiff when the defendant had sued (and lost) in the United States in breach of a forum selection clause, especially since German jurisdiction and German law had been stipulated. Application of the “American Rule” of costs most probably would not have shifted fees to the losing party had American law been applied, although the rule is far less stringent today than often assumed.

 

A. Stadler/C. Krüger: International jurisdiction and the place where the damage occurred in VW dieselgate cases

Once again the European Court of Justice had to deal with the question of where to locate the place where the harm or damage occurred (“Erfolgsort”, Article 7 no. 2 Brussels Ibis Regulation) which is particularly difficult to define in case of pure economic loss tort cases. Previous case law of the ECJ resulted in a series of very specific judgments and a high unpredictability of the international jurisdiction. In the Austrian “Dieselgate” case the referring court had doubts whether the Austrian car purchasers who had bought and received their cars in Austria suffered a “primary loss” or only an irrelevant “secondary loss”. The ECJ rightly rejects the idea of a secondary loss and concludes that the place where the (primary) damage occurred is to be located in Austria. The authors criticise that the ECJ – without an obvious reason – emphasises that the case at hand is not about pure economic loss. Although they agree with the court’s finding that the place where the damage occurred was in Austria as the place of acquisition of the cars, they discuss whether in future cases one might have to distinguish between the place where the sales contract was entered into or the place where the defective object became part of the purchasers’ property. The authors reject any detailed approach and advocate in favour of abandoning the principle of ubiquity in cases of pure economic loss. Alternatively, the only acceptable solution is an entire consideration of all relevant facts of the individual case.

 

P.F. Schlosser: Jurisdiction agreements binding also third beneficiaries in contracts?

Even in the context of jurisdiction agreements, the European Court applies the rules protecting the policy holder for the benefit of the “insured”. In this respect the Court’s methodology and result must be approved of. The restriction of the holding as to the consent of the insured and the qualification of the insured as an insurance company are of no practical impact and due to the narrow question referred to the Court. The holding may, however, not be transferred by a reverse argumentation to assignments of rights against consumers or employees to commercial entities.

 

B. Heiderhoff: Article 15 Brussels IIbis Regulation, the Child’s best interests, and the recast

Article 15 Brussels IIbis Regulation provides that the court competent under Article 8 et seq Brussels IIbis Regulation may, under certain prerequisites, transfer the case to a court in another Member State. In the matter of EP./. FO (ECJ C-530/18) the ECJ once more explains the central notion of this rule, being the best interest of the child. The ECJ holds that the competent court must not initiate the transfer on the basis that the substantive law applied by the foreign court is more child friendly – which is, by the way, a rather unrealistic scenario for various reasons. Concerning procedural law, the ECJ points out that different rules may only be taken into account if they “provide added value to the resolution of the case in the interests of the child”. Notwithstanding the ECJ’s fundamental and recurrent statement that the transfer is never mandatory, it still seems reasonable for the competent court to apply a well-balanced, comprehensive approach towards the transfer. Should it deny the transfer to a court that is “better placed to hear the case” on the grounds that the foreign law is “different” or maybe that it even seems to be less in the interest of the child? According to the principle of mutual trust, the author suggests to use the public policy standard and to ignore any differences in the substantive and procedural law, as long as they do not threaten to add up to a public policy infringement. The paper also points out some changes in the new Articles 12 and 13 Brussels IIbis Recast which aim at further specifying the transfer mechanism. The resulting deletion of the comprehensive evaluation of the child’s best interests by the transferring court in para 1 seems unintentional. Thus, the author recommends to keep up the current handling.

 

F. Koechel: Article 26 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation as a Subsidiary Ground of Jurisdiction and Submission to Jurisdiction Through Eloquent Silence

According to the CJEU’s decision, a court may assume jurisdiction based on the entering of an appearance of the defendant only if Articles 4 ff. of the Brussels Ibis Regulation do not already provide for a concurrent ground of jurisdiction in the forum state. This restrictive interpretation complicates the assessment of jurisdiction and limits the scope of the Brussels Ibis Regulation without any substantial justification. On the contrary, a subsidiary application of Article 26 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation is systematically inconsistent with Article 25, which generally privileges the jurisdiction agreed by the parties over any concurrent ground of jurisdiction. In this decision, the CJEU confirms its previous interpretation according to which Article 26 Brussels Ibis Regulation may not be employed as a ground of jurisdiction vis-à-vis a defendant who chooses not to enter an appearance. However, the CJEU does not sufficiently take into account that in the main proceedings the court had requested the defendant to state whether or not he wanted to challenge jurisdiction. The question therefore was not simply if a defendant submits to a court’s jurisdiction by not reacting at all after having been served with the claim. Rather, the CJEU would have had to answer whether a defendant enters an appearance within the sense of Article 26 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation if he does not comply with the court’s express request to accept or challenge jurisdiction. The article argues that the passivity of the defendant may only exceptionally be qualified as a submission to jurisdiction if he can be deemed to have implicitly accepted the court’s jurisdiction.

 

C. Lasthaus: The Transitional Provisions of Article 83 of the European Commission’s Succession Regulation

The European Commission’s Succession Regulation 650/2012 aims to facilitate cross-border successions and intends to enable European citizens to easily organise their succession in advance. In order to achieve this goal, the regulation – inter alia – facilitates the establishment of bilateral agreements as to succession. This is the case not only for agreements made after 17/8/2015 but – under the condition that the testator dies after this date – according to the transitional provisions in Article 83 also for those made prior. Due to these transitional provisions, some formerly invalid agreements made prior to the effective date of the regulation turned valid once the regulation applied. In its judgment, the German Federal Court of Justice (“BGH“) ruled on the legal validity of a formerly invalid bilateral agreement as to succession between a German testator and her Italian partner. This legal review inter alia deals with the distinction between Article 83 para. 2 and Article 83 para. 3 of the Regulation as well as legal aspects concerning the retroactive effect of the transitional provisions.

 

P. Kindler: The obligation to restore or account for gifts and advancements under Italian inheritance law: questions of applicable law and international civil procedure, including jurisdiction and the law applicable to pre-judgment interest

The present decision of the Higher Regional Court of Munich deals with the obligation to restore or account for gifts and advancements when determining the shares of different heirs under Italian law (Article 724 of the Italian Civil Code). Specifically, it addresses a direct debit from the bank account held by husband and wife and payed to the wife alone a few days before the husband’s death. The husband was succeeded on intestacy by his wife and three descendants one of which sued the deceased’s wife in order to obtain a declaratory judgment establishing that half of the amount payed to the wife by the bank is an advancement, received from the deceased during his lifetime, and that such advancement has to be adjusted in the partitioning between the heirs. The article presents the related questions of applicable law under both the European Succession Regulation and the previous conflict rules in Germany and Italy. Side aspects regard, inter alia, the law applicable to interest relating to the judicial proceedings (Prozesszinsen) and how the Court determined the content of the foreign substantive law.

 

P. Mankowski: Securing mortgages and the system of direct enforcement under the Brussels Ibis Regulation

On paper, the Brussels Ibis Regulation’s turn away from exequatur to a system of direct enforcement in the Member State addressed was a revolution. In practice, its consequences have still to transpire to their full extent. The interface between that system and every-day enforcement practice is about to become a fascinating area. As so often, the devil might be in the detail, and in the minute detail at that. The Sicherungshypothek (securing mortgage) of German law now stars amongst the first test cases.

 

E. Jayme: Registration of cultural goods as stolen art: Tensions between property rights and claims of restitution – effects in the field of international jurisdiction and private international law

In 1999, the plaintiff, a German art collector had acquired a painting by the German painter Andreas Achenbach in London. In 2016 the painting was registered in the Madgeburg Lost Art Database according to the request of the defendant, a (probably) Canadian foundation. The painting was owned, between 1931 and 1937, by a German art dealer who had to leave Germany and was forced to close his art gallery in Düsseldorf. The plaintiff based his action on a violation of his property rights. The court dismissed the action: the registration, according to the court, did not violate the plaintiff’s property rights. The case, at first, involves questions of international civil procedure. The court based jurisdiction, according to para. 32 of the German Code of Civil Procedure, on the place of the pretended violation of property, i.e. the seat of the German foundation, which had registered the painting in its lost art register. The European rules were not applicable to a defendant having its seat outside the European community. The author follows the Magdeburg court as to the question of jurisdiction, but criticises the outcome of the case and the arguments of the court for generally excluding the violation of property rights. A painting registered as lost art loses its value on the art market, it cannot be sold. In addition, the registration of a painting as lost art may perhaps violate property rights of the German plaintiff in situations where there has been, after the Second World War, a compensation according to German public law, or where the persons asking for the registration did not sufficiently prove the legal basis of their claim. However, the Magdeburg registration board has developed some rules for cancelling registration based on objective arguments. Thus, the question is still open.

 

I. Bach/H. Tippner: The penalty payment of § 89 FamFG: a wanderer between two worlds

For the second time within only a few years, the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) had to decide on a German court’s jurisdiction for the enforcement of a (German) judgment regarding parental visitation rights. In 2015, the BGH held that under German law the rule regarding the main proceedings (§ 99 FamFG) is to be applied, because of the factual and procedural proximity between main and enforcement proceedings. Now, in 2019, the BGH held that under European law the opposite is true: The provisions in Articles 3 et seq. Brussels IIbis Regulation are not applicable to enforcement proceedings. Therefore, the question of jurisdiction for enforcement proceedings is to be answered according to the national rules, i.e. in the present case: according to § 99 FamFG.

 

D.P. Fernández Arroyo:Flaws and Uncer tain Effectiveness of an Anti-Arbitration Injunction à l’argentine

This article deals with a decision issued by an Argentine court in the course of a dispute between an Argentine subsidiary of a foreign company and an Argentine governmental agency. The court ordered the Argentine company to refrain from initiating investment treaty arbitration against Argentina. This article addresses the conformity of the decision with the current legal framework, as well as its potential impact on the ongoing local dispute. Additionally, it briefly introduces some contextual data related to the evolution of Argentine policies concerning arbitration and foreign investment legal regime.