Conflictoflaws

The POAM project (Protection of Abducting Mothers in Return Proceedings) is co-funded by the European Commission. It would have held an Experts’ Workshop in Milan today, but this event has of course been cancelled.

The project partners (the Universities of Aberdeen, Ludwig-Maximilians Munich, JJ Strossmayer Osijek and Milan-Bicocca) wanted to in any event share the project’s reports with the readers of this blog.

POAM explores the intersection between domestic violence and international parental child abduction within the European Union. The project is concerned with the protection of abducting mothers who have been involved in return proceedings under the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention and the Brussels IIa Regulation, in circumstances where the child abduction had been motivated by acts of domestic violence from the left-behind father.  POAM examines the usefulness of the Protection Measures Regulation and the European Protection Order Directive in the context of such return proceedings.

Written by Associate Professor Jie (Jeanne) Huang, Sydney Law School, Jeanne.huang@sydney.edu.au

If a defendant is not present in Australia, Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (“UCPR”) of New South Wales provides that service outside of Australia is permitted if the plaintiff’s claim falls within UCPR Schedule 6 or if a leave is granted under UCPR rule 11.5. If a defendant does not respond within 42 days after being served successfully (rule 11.8), the plaintiff must apply for leave to proceed (rule 11.8AA). A defendant can challenge the jurisdiction of the court and apply to set aside service (rule 12.11). The court has discretion to decide whether to assume jurisdiction (rule 11.6).

AGC Capital Securities v Jaijaifu Modern Agriculture (HK) Limited [2019] NSWSC 62, a case decided by NSW Supreme Court in 2019 provides a test to determine a plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed when no appearance by defendant. The test includes four components: 

1. Whether the defendant has been properly served;
2. Whether the claim in the originating process falls within UCPR Schedule 6;
3. Whether it be demonstrated that there is a real issue to be determined (this requirement as being that the plaintiff has an arguable case being one that would be sufficient to survive an application for summary judgment); and
4. Whether this Court is not a clearly inappropriate forum.

The same test is adopted by Yoon v Lee [2017] NSWSC 1338 and Rossiter v. Core Mining [2015] NSWSC 360.

The application for leave in AGC Capital Securities, Yoon, and Rossiter is not related to UCPR r 11.5.  r 11.5 is to determine whether a leave to serve outside of Australia should be granted. However, these three cases are cases where service outside of Australia has been completed. They are concerned with leaves under r 11.8AA, which provides:

UCPR 11.8AA   Leave to proceed where no appearance by person

(1)  If an originating process is served on a person outside Australia and the person does not enter an appearance, the party serving the document may not proceed against the person served except by leave of the court.

(2)  An application for leave under subrule (1) may be made without serving notice of the application on the person served with the originating process.

R11.8AA does not specify a test. In Australia, the leading case for leave to proceed where no appearance by defendant is Agar v Hyde [2000] HCA 41. In Agar, two rugby players at the NSW brought a personal injury claim against the International Rugby Football Board and several national representatives at the Board, alleging that the Board and its representatives own a duty of care for the plaintiffs. The defendants were served outside of Australia and applied to set aside the service. Agar holds that different tests should be adopted for the plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed where no appearance by defendant and for the defendant’s application to set aside the service.

According to Agar, the test for the plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed when no appearance by defendant should focus on the jurisdictional nexus between the plaintiff’s pleading and the forum and should not consider the merits of the case. The High Court considers:

“is the claim a claim in which the plaintiff alleges that he has a cause of action which, according to those allegations, is a cause of action arising in the State? The inquiry just described neither requires nor permits an assessment of the strength (in the sense of the likelihood of success) of the plaintiff’s claim.” (Agar, para 50)

The Court of Appeal required the plaintiff to establish a good arguable case. However, the High Court held that “[t]he Court of Appeal was wrong to make such an assessment in deciding whether the Rules permitted service out.” (Agar, para 51) Instead, the High Court only requires the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case, saying

“[t]he application of these paragraphs of r1A depends on the nature of the allegations which the plaintiff makes, not on whether those allegations will be made good at trial. Once a claim is seen to be of the requisite kind, the proceeding falls within the relevant paragraph or paragraphs of PT 10 r 1A, service outside Australia is permitted, and prima facie the plaintiff should have leave to proceed.” (Agar, para 51)

PT 10 r 1A is functionally equivalent to the current UCPR Sch 6 although their contents differ to some extent. In contrast, the test of “real issue to be determined” held in AGC Capital Securities, Yoon, and Rossiter is on the merits of the case, which is excluded by Agar.

Regarding the defendant’s application to set aside the service, Agar adopts three common grounds:

• Service is not authorized by the rules (ie, does not fall within UCPR Sch 6 and not otherwise authorised),
• The Court is an inappropriate forum,
• The claim has “insufficient prospects of the success to warrant putting an overseas defendant to the time, expense and trouble of defending the claims.” This requires the Court to assess the strength of the claim and the test is the same for summary judgment lodged by a defendant served locally.

These grounds are not exhaustive. For example, the defendant can apply to set aside the service based on an exclusive jurisdiction clause favouring a foreign court.

However, AGC Capital Securities, Yoon, and Rossiter do not concernthe defendant’s application to set aside the service. Further, the test of “real issue to be determined” in AGC Capital Securities, Yoon, and Rossiter is not the same as the “insufficient prospects of the success” in Agar. The test of “insufficient prospects of the success” has been embedded in UCPR 11.6(2)(c), while AGC Capital Securities, Yoon, and Rossiter are not concerned with this provision. They are brought on r11.8AA.

Comparing Agar on one hand and AGC Capital Securities, Yoon, and Rossiter on the other, the latter cases consider forum non conveniens when determining the plaintiff’s application to proceed where no appearance by defendant. Is this consistent with Agar? This issue should be discussed from two aspects. First, Agar did not consider forum non conveniens under a clearly inappropriate forum doctrine because parties did not raise this issue. Therefore, it may argue that this issue was not considered by High Court in Agar. Second, Agar limits courts’ consideration to jurisdictional nexus with the forum when determining the plaintiff’s application to proceed where no appearance by defendant. Jurisdictional nexus refers to whether the service is authorized by the UCPR. However, broadly, jurisdictional nexus may cover forum non conveniens considerations.

Further, AGC Capital Securities, Yoon, and Rossiter seem to confuse the test for the plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed where no appearance by defendant with the test for the defendant’s application to set aside the service. The test of “real issue to be determined” requires the court to examine the merits of the plaintiff’s claim. This is permitted when determining the defendant’s application to set aside the service. However, when determining the plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed where no appearance by defendant, Agar says the court should not assess the strength of the plaintiff’s claim. Further, the test of “real issue to be determined” is not equivalent to the test of “insufficient prospects of the success” decided by Agar and embedded in UCPR r 11.6.

Could AGC Capital Securities, Yoon, and Rossiter be justified on policy grounds? A proposed argument is that leave to proceed involves leave, which requires an exercise of discretion; and providing leave to proceed in circumstances where there is “no real issue” would be a waste of limited court resources. However, the difficulty of this argument is that it conflates the leave to proceed with the motion for a summary judgment. If the plaintiff only asks a leave to proceed without applying for a summary judgment, there is no ground for the court to consider the test of “no real issue” sua sponte.

Could AGC Capital Securities, Yoon, and Rossiter be distinguished from Agar? In both Yoon and Rossiter, the court issued a summary judgment for the plaintiff. In AGC Capital Securities, the court directed the plaintiff to apply for a default judgment. AGC Capital Securities, Yoon, and Rossiter are proceedings where the defendants make no appearance. However, Agar is a proceeding where the defendant applied to set aside the service. Although Agar considered the test for the plaintiff’s application to proceed where no appearance by defendant, it did so for the purpose of distinguishing this test from the test for the defendant’s application to set aside the service. Therefore, in this aspect, it may argue that AGC Capital Securities, Yoon, and Rossiter are distinguishable from Agar, because they are the cases where the plaintiff applied for both a leave and a summary judgment. Therefore, the real issue for AGC Capital Securities, Yoon, and Rossiter is that the court conflated the test for the plaintiff’s application to proceed where no appearance by defendant and the test for summary judgment.

AGC Capital Securities, Yoon, Rossiter, and Agar also bring up another question: why is the test for a plaintiff’s application for leave when no appearance by defendant and the test for a defendant’s application to set aside the service are different? Or should the tests be the same? In the plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed, is the court supposed to take care of the non-responding defendant? The answer is negative partly because the common-law court is not an inquisitorial court in civil-law countries. More important, if the plaintiff only asks a leave to proceed without applying for a summary judgment, there is no ground for the court to consider whether there is real issue to be determined in the plaintiff’s claim.  

Written by Associate Professor Jie (Jeanne) Huang, Sydney Law School, Jeanne.huang@sydney.edu.au

If a defendant is not present in Australia, Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (“UCPR”) of New South Wales provides that service outside of Australia is permitted if the plaintiff’s claim falls within UCPR Schedule 6 or if a leave is granted under UCPR rule 11.5. If a defendant does not respond within 42 days after being served successfully (rule 11.8), the plaintiff must apply for leave to proceed (rule 11.8AA). A defendant can challenge the jurisdiction of the court and apply to set aside service (rule 12.11). The court has discretion to decide whether to assume jurisdiction (rule 11.6).

AGC Capital Securities v Jaijaifu Modern Agriculture (HK) Limited [2019] NSWSC 62, a case decided by NSW Supreme Court in 2019 provides a test to determine a plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed when no appearance by defendant. The test includes four components: 

1. Whether the defendant has been properly served;
2. Whether the claim in the originating process falls within UCPR Schedule 6;
3. Whether it be demonstrated that there is a real issue to be determined (this requirement as being that the plaintiff has an arguable case being one that would be sufficient to survive an application for summary judgment); and
4. Whether this Court is not a clearly inappropriate forum.

The same test is adopted by Yoon v Lee [2017] NSWSC 1338 and Rossiter v. Core Mining [2015] NSWSC 360.

The application for leave in AGC Capital Securities, Yoon, and Rossiter is not related to UCPR r 11.5.  r 11.5 is to determine whether a leave to serve outside of Australia should be granted. However, these three cases are cases where service outside of Australia has been completed. They are concerned with leaves under r 11.8AA, which provides:

UCPR 11.8AA   Leave to proceed where no appearance by person

(1)  If an originating process is served on a person outside Australia and the person does not enter an appearance, the party serving the document may not proceed against the person served except by leave of the court.

(2)  An application for leave under subrule (1) may be made without serving notice of the application on the person served with the originating process.

R11.8AA does not specify a test. In Australia, the leading case for leave to proceed where no appearance by defendant is Agar v Hyde [2000] HCA 41. In Agar, two rugby players at the NSW brought a personal injury claim against the International Rugby Football Board and several national representatives at the Board, alleging that the Board and its representatives own a duty of care for the plaintiffs. The defendants were served outside of Australia and applied to set aside the service. Agar holds that different tests should be adopted for the plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed where no appearance by defendant and for the defendant’s application to set aside the service.

According to Agar, the test for the plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed when no appearance by defendant should focus on the jurisdictional nexus between the plaintiff’s pleading and the forum and should not consider the merits of the case. The High Court considers:

“is the claim a claim in which the plaintiff alleges that he has a cause of action which, according to those allegations, is a cause of action arising in the State? The inquiry just described neither requires nor permits an assessment of the strength (in the sense of the likelihood of success) of the plaintiff’s claim.” (Agar, para 50)

The Court of Appeal required the plaintiff to establish a good arguable case. However, the High Court held that “[t]he Court of Appeal was wrong to make such an assessment in deciding whether the Rules permitted service out.” (Agar, para 51) Instead, the High Court only requires the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case, saying

“[t]he application of these paragraphs of r1A depends on the nature of the allegations which the plaintiff makes, not on whether those allegations will be made good at trial. Once a claim is seen to be of the requisite kind, the proceeding falls within the relevant paragraph or paragraphs of PT 10 r 1A, service outside Australia is permitted, and prima facie the plaintiff should have leave to proceed.” (Agar, para 51)

PT 10 r 1A is functionally equivalent to the current UCPR Sch 6 although their contents differ to some extent. In contrast, the test of “real issue to be determined” held in AGC Capital Securities, Yoon, and Rossiter is on the merits of the case, which is excluded by Agar.

Regarding the defendant’s application to set aside the service, Agar adopts three common grounds:

• Service is not authorized by the rules (ie, does not fall within UCPR Sch 6 and not otherwise authorised),
• The Court is an inappropriate forum,
• The claim has “insufficient prospects of the success to warrant putting an overseas defendant to the time, expense and trouble of defending the claims.” This requires the Court to assess the strength of the claim and the test is the same for summary judgment lodged by a defendant served locally.

These grounds are not exhaustive. For example, the defendant can apply to set aside the service based on an exclusive jurisdiction clause favouring a foreign court.

However, AGC Capital Securities, Yoon, and Rossiter do not concern the defendant’s application to set aside the service. Further, the test of “real issue to be determined” in AGC Capital Securities, Yoon, and Rossiter is not the same as the “insufficient prospects of the success” in Agar. The test of “insufficient prospects of the success” has been embedded in UCPR 11.6(2)(c), while AGC Capital Securities, Yoon, and Rossiter are not concerned with this provision. They are brought on r11.8AA.

Comparing Agar on one hand and AGC Capital Securities, Yoon, and Rossiter on the other, the latter cases consider forum non conveniens when determining the plaintiff’s application to proceed where no appearance by defendant. Is this consistent with Agar? This issue should be discussed from two aspects. First, Agar did not consider forum non conveniens under a clearly inappropriate forum doctrine because parties did not raise this issue. Therefore, it may argue that this issue was not considered by High Court in Agar. Second, Agar limits courts’ consideration to jurisdictional nexus with the forum when determining the plaintiff’s application to proceed where no appearance by defendant. Jurisdictional nexus refers to whether the service is authorized by the UCPR. However, broadly, jurisdictional nexus may cover forum non conveniens considerations.

Further, AGC Capital Securities, Yoon, and Rossiter seem to confuse the test for the plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed where no appearance by defendant with the test for the defendant’s application to set aside the service. The test of “real issue to be determined” requires the court to examine the merits of the plaintiff’s claim. This is permitted when determining the defendant’s application to set aside the service. However, when determining the plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed where no appearance by defendant, Agar says the court should not assess the strength of the plaintiff’s claim. Further, the test of “real issue to be determined” is not equivalent to the test of “insufficient prospects of the success” decided by Agar and embedded in UCPR r 11.6.

Could AGC Capital Securities, Yoon, and Rossiter be justified on policy grounds? A proposed argument is that leave to proceed involves leave, which requires an exercise of discretion; and providing leave to proceed in circumstances where there is “no real issue” would be a waste of limited court resources. However, the difficulty of this argument is that it conflates the leave to proceed with the motion for a summary judgment. If the plaintiff only asks a leave to proceed without applying for a summary judgment, there is no ground for the court to consider the test of “no real issue” sua sponte.

Could AGC Capital Securities, Yoon, and Rossiter be distinguished from Agar? In both Yoon and Rossiter, the court issued a summary judgment for the plaintiff. In AGC Capital Securities, the court directed the plaintiff to apply for a default judgment. AGC Capital Securities, Yoon, and Rossiter are proceedings where the defendants make no appearance. However, Agar is a proceeding where the defendant applied to set aside the service. Although Agar considered the test for the plaintiff’s application to proceed where no appearance by defendant, it did so for the purpose of distinguishing this test from the test for the defendant’s application to set aside the service. Therefore, in this aspect, it may argue that AGC Capital Securities, Yoon, and Rossiter are distinguishable from Agar, because they are the cases where the plaintiff applied for both a leave and a summary judgment. Therefore, the real issue for AGC Capital Securities, Yoon, and Rossiter is that the court conflated the test for the plaintiff’s application to proceed where no appearance by defendant and the test for summary judgment.

AGC Capital Securities, Yoon, Rossiter, and Agar also bring up another question: why is the test for a plaintiff’s application for leave when no appearance by defendant and the test for a defendant’s application to set aside the service are different? Or should the tests be the same? In the plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed, is the court supposed to take care of the non-responding defendant? The answer is negative partly because the common-law court is not an inquisitorial court in civil-law countries. More important, if the plaintiff only asks a leave to proceed without applying for a summary judgment, there is no ground for the court to consider whether there is real issue to be determined in the plaintiff’s claim.  

In his Opinion delivered today, Advocate General Tanchev presents his take on Article 10 of the Regulation No 1259/2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation (commonly referred to as Rome III Regulation), under which ‘[w]here the law applicable pursuant to Article 5 or Article 8 makes no provision for divorce or does not grant one of the spouses equal access to divorce or legal separation on grounds of their sex, the law of the forum shall apply’.

More specifically, the Opinion deals with the question lodged before the Court of Justice by a Romanian court, concerning the interpretation of the expression ‘the law applicable pursuant to Article 5 or Article 8 [the Rome III Regulation] makes no provision for divorce’.

By its question, the referring court is, in essence, asking whether Article 10 of the Rome III Regulation must be interpreted in a strict sense, meaning that the recourse to the law of the forum can be made only where the foreign law designed as applicable does not recognize any form of divorce, or more broadly – the law of the forum should be applied when the foreign law designed as applicable under the Regulation permits a divorce, but does so in ‘extremely limited circumstances involving an obligatory legal separation procedure prior to divorce, in respect of which the law of the forum contains no equivalent procedural provision’.

Even though the requests for a preliminary ruling concerning Article 10 of the Regulation were already presented in the cases C-281/15, Sahyouni and C-372/16, Sahyouni II (yet, in a different context, relating to the second limb of Article 10 – discrimination through lack of equal access to divorce), ultimately this provision has not been yet interpreted by the Court of Justice. Therefore, alongside the Opinion of AG Saugmandsgaard Øe delivered in the case C-372/16, Sahyouni II, which also addresses this provision, Opinion of AG Tanchev is certainly worthy of attention. While the very question referred to the Court did not seem to pose a particular difficulty, these are the supplementary considerations on the consequences of the proposed interpretation of Article 10 that certainly make this Opinion an interesting read.

Legal and factual context

Seized of a petition for divorce, the first instance court established the jurisdiction of the Romanian courts under Article 3(1)(b) of the Brussels II Regulation due to the common nationality of both spouses.

Since the parties seemingly had not chosen the law applicable to divorce and had been habitually resident in Italy, the first instance court considered that, pursuant to Article 8(a) of the Rome III Regulation, it is the Italian law that governs the grounds of divorce.

Yet, this court observed that, according to the Italian law, the dissolution of marriage can be pronounced only where there had been a legal separation of the spouses and at least three years have passed between this separation and the time at which the court have been seized by the applicant. It seems that in this regard the first instance court referred itself to Article 3(2)(b)of the Law No 898 of 1 December 1970 (Disciplina dei casi di scioglimento del matrimonio), mentioned in the Opinion presented by AG Bot in case C-386/17, Liberato (for multiple linguistic versions of this provision see point 20 of this Opinion).

However, the first instance court considered that since no provision is made for legal separation proceedings under Romanian law, those proceedings must be conducted before the Italian courts and therefore any application to that effect made before the Romanian courts is inadmissible.

The applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of the first instance court. In those circumstances, the second instance court presents its request for a preliminary ruling.

Opinion of Advocate General

According to the Opinion of AG Tanchev, it is manifest that Article 10 of the Rome III Regulation calls for a strict interpretation in the sense that the expression ‘where the law applicable pursuant to Article 5 or Article 8 makes no provision for divorce’ relates only to situations in which the applicable foreign law does not recognise the institution of divorce (see, most notably, point 19 of the Opinion). In order to reach this conclusion, the Opinion delves into literal, systemic, historical and teleological interpretation of the provision in question.

At point 37, the Opinion indicates that ‘[the] Italian law, as the applicable law, does not prohibit divorce; it merely subjects it to certain requirements, which is within its competence regarding its substantive family law’. Therefore, in the present case, there is no room for Article 10 of the Rome III Regulation to apply.

Yet, as mentioned in the introduction, the analysis does not stop here. At points 59 et seq. the Opinion addresses the consequences of the advocated interpretation of Article 10.

At points 62 and 63 the Opinion argues in following terms that the national courts seized of a petition for divorce could have recourse to ‘adaptation’ (see also point 68) :

62.      First of all, pursuant to Section 1 of Chapter II of [the Brussels II bis Regulation], where the court of a Member State is seized of an application for divorce, it cannot decline jurisdiction (contrary to a court seized in the area of parental responsibility, which has discretion to address the courts of another Member State, under Article 15 of that regulation) and it is obliged to rule on that application for divorce.

63.      I agree with the view of the German Government that the Member States participating in the enhanced cooperation implemented by [the Rome III Regulation] must ensure that both divorce and legal separation may be granted by their courts. Therefore, instead of considering that legal separation must first be established or ordered before the Italian courts, the Romanian courts should, to my mind, allow for such a procedure and apply, by analogy, national procedural rules relating to divorces or even adapt foreign (Italian) procedural rules relating to legal separation (in conjunction with Romanian national rules). Otherwise, the provisions of [the Rome III Regulation] would be partially ineffective.

Against this background, at points 65 and 66 the Opinion refers to the solution proposed by the Commission and favoured also by Advocate General:

65.      By way of a concrete solution in the present case, the Commission proposed that the court seized apply the substantive conditions foreseen by the applicable law and forgo the application of any procedural conditions foreseen by that law, in circumstances where the procedural law of the forum does not allow for those procedural conditions to be met. Therefore, if, in a particular case, the substantive conditions for a legal separation order are fulfilled, the forum court may remedy the fact that that court itself cannot grant such an order by waiving that foreign procedural condition.

66.      I concur. In my view, such a solution would be balanced and would correspond to the implicit intention of the Union legislature. First, it would not unduly encourage forum shopping, because it would require the substantive conditions of the applicable law to be fulfilled. The applicant would not be able to avoid those conditions by seizing another court under the very generous rules of [the Brussels II Regulation] and by asking for his or her own law to be applied (parties can avoid those conditions quite easily if they agree on the choice of the law of the forum).

On a side note…

It is although distant from the context of the present request for a preliminary ruling but nonetheless interesting to notice some points that may be inspirational in others contexts and in relation to the issues not covered by this request:

• At point 69, while expressing itself in favour of ‘adaptation’, the Opinion states ‘while [the Rome III Regulation] does not provide specifically for such an adaptation, neither does it expressly prohibit it’. In this regard, the Opinion draws inspiration from the Succession Regulation and from the twin Regulations Nos 2016/1103 and 2016/1104. It is yet to be seen whether these considerations herald the recognition of adaptation as a general (and non-codified) instrument of EU private international law and, therefore, such ‘adaptation’ could occur also in relation to, i.e., the Rome I and II Regulations.

• It is worth mentioning that it can be argued that, at points 62 and 63, the Opinion acknowledges the existence of a link between, on the one hand, the obligation to exercise jurisdiction established under the Brussels II Regulation and, on the other hand, a substantive effect that should be (at least potentially) achievable under the law designed as applicable under Rome III Regulation. It states ‘pursuant to [the Brussels II Regulation], where the court of a Member State is seized of an application for divorce, it cannot decline jurisdiction […] and it is obliged to rule on that application for divorce […]’. Then ‘[the Member States bound by the Rome III Regulation] must ensure that both divorce and legal separation may be granted by their courts’. If anything, it will be interesting to follow the discussion on the implications of such interpretation of these Regulations.

• Before delving into the consequences of the proposed interpretation of Article 10 of the Rome III Regulation, at points 59 to 61, the Opinion clarifies that the considerations relating to that issue are necessary ‘in order to provide the national court with an appropriate [and useful] answer for the purpose of the application of [EU] law in the dispute before it’.
  
  Even though these considerations do not seem vital to answer the preliminary question (what makes them even more worthy of attention –  if this is the case, they do not have to be necessarily addressed in the upcoming judgment), they may also be relevant in this as well as in other contexts for a very specific reason.
  
  Before the first instance court, the applicant seeking divorce invoked Article 12 of the Rome III Regulation. The applicant claimed that the application of Italian law is manifestly incompatible with the public policy of the forum, thus making it necessary to exclude the application of the foreign law (point 15 of the Opinion).
  
  If Article 10 of the Rome III Regulation must be considered lex specialis that overrides Article 12, the fact that the former provision is not relevant in the present case could make space for the latter to apply. One could wonder – as the appellant seemingly did – whether a requirement provided for in by a foreign law could be disapplied as contravening the public policy of the forum.
  
  The Opinion seems to provide some guidance relating to that issue. In fact, it addresses the public policy exception, yet in a different context.
  
  At point 63, the Opinion provides that ‘the Member States participating in the enhanced cooperation implemented by [the Rome III Regulation] must ensure that both divorce and legal separation may be granted by their courts’. At point 64 it argues that ‘the referring court cannot refuse to rule on the application in the main proceedings on the basis of Article 12 of the above regulation (which is reserved for exceptional cases) on the ground that its national law does not provide for legal separation or for procedural rules for legal separation’.
  
  Leaving aside the question whether it could be inferred from the lack of procedural scheme to pronounce legal separation that granting a divorce without the separation itself being pronounced is (or could be) contrary to the public policy of the forum (this is, of course, a distinct issue relating to the law of the forum and to the limits of the concept of public policy under the Rome III Regulation), the Opinion seems to recognize the aforementioned lex specialis relation. However, it also seeks to prevent the excessive reliance on the public policy exception with reference to a simple maladjustment of the law of the forum.

• It seems that the doubts of the referring court result from the fact that the Italian law imposes a requirement that cannot be fulfilled under the Romanian law.
  
  Indeed, on the one hand, according to the information provided by the database managed by European Judicial Network, ‘[i]n Romanian law there is no concept of ‘legal separation’ but only of ‘de facto separation’ and the judicial division of property. This is a situation that must be proven before the court. In the event of the de facto separation having lasted for at least two years, this is a reason for judicially issuing a divorce.’
  
  On the other hand, the Italian law requires a judicial separation to be declared by a judgment that has acquired the force of law or a consensual separation that has been judicially confirmed (Article 3(2)(b)of the Law No 898 of 1 December 1970 read in the light of Article 150 of the Italian Civil Code).

• At point 64, the Opinion seems to take the view that the requirement provided for in the Italian law according to which a separation has to be declared by a judgment or judicially confirmed is a ‘procedural condition’.  It will be interesting to see the evolution of case law and literature as to the classification of similar requirements in different contexts than that of Article 3(2)(b)of the Law No 898 of 1 December 1970 read in the light of Article 150 of the Italian Civil Code.
  
  The question remains open whether such other requirements are also of procedural nature (or, alternatively, even though it might ultimately boil down to the question of terminology: of formal nature or of substantive nature, yet they can be fulfilled only via the procedural framework of the State that imposes them and of the other States that provide for a judicially-pronounced separation, if one takes into account the recognition of a judgment on separation within the divorce proceedings) and, if they are truly of procedural nature, do they fall within the scope of the law designed as applicable under the Rome III Regulation.

In his Opinion delivered today, Advocate General Tanchev presents his take on Article 10 of the Regulation No 1259/2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation (commonly referred to as Rome III Regulation), under which ‘[w]here the law applicable pursuant to Article 5 or Article 8 makes no provision for divorce or does not grant one of the spouses equal access to divorce or legal separation on grounds of their sex, the law of the forum shall apply’.

More specifically, the Opinion deals with the question lodged before the Court of Justice by a Romanian court, concerning the interpretation of the expression ‘the law applicable pursuant to Article 5 or Article 8 [the Rome III Regulation] makes no provision for divorce’.

By its question, the referring court is, in essence, asking whether Article 10 of the Rome III Regulation must be interpreted in a strict sense, meaning that the recourse to the law of the forum can be made only where the foreign law designed as applicable does not recognize any form of divorce, or more broadly – the law of the forum should be applied when the foreign law designed as applicable under the Regulation permits a divorce, but does so in ‘extremely limited circumstances involving an obligatory legal separation procedure prior to divorce, in respect of which the law of the forum contains no equivalent procedural provision’.

Even though the requests for a preliminary ruling concerning Article 10 of the Regulation were already presented in the cases C-281/15, Sahyouni and C-372/16, Sahyouni II (yet, in a different context, relating to the second limb of Article 10 – discrimination through lack of equal access to divorce), ultimately this provision has not been yet interpreted by the Court of Justice. Therefore, alongside the Opinion of AG Saugmandsgaard Øe delivered in the case C-372/16, Sahyouni II, which also addresses this provision, Opinion of AG Tanchev is certainly worthy of attention. While the very question referred to the Court did not seem to pose a particular difficulty, these are the supplementary considerations on the consequences of the proposed interpretation of Article 10 that certainly make this Opinion an interesting read.

Legal and factual context

Seized of a petition for divorce, the first instance court established the jurisdiction of the Romanian courts under Article 3(1)(b) of the Brussels II Regulation due to the common nationality of both spouses.

Since the parties seemingly had not chosen the law applicable to divorce and had been habitually resident in Italy, the first instance court considered that, pursuant to Article 8(a) of the Rome III Regulation, it is the Italian law that governs the grounds of divorce.

Yet, this court observed that, according to the Italian law, the dissolution of marriage can be pronounced only where there had been a legal separation of the spouses and at least three years have passed between this separation and the time at which the court have been seized by the applicant. It seems that in this regard the first instance court referred itself to Article 3(2)(b)of the Law No 898 of 1 December 1970 (Disciplina dei casi di scioglimento del matrimonio), mentioned in the Opinion presented by AG Bot in case C-386/17, Liberato (for multiple linguistic versions of this provision see point 20 of this Opinion).

However, the first instance court considered that since no provision is made for legal separation proceedings under Romanian law, those proceedings must be conducted before the Italian courts and therefore any application to that effect made before the Romanian courts is inadmissible.

The applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of the first instance court. In those circumstances, the second instance court presents its request for a preliminary ruling.

Opinion of Advocate General

According to the Opinion of AG Tanchev, it is manifest that Article 10 of the Rome III Regulation calls for a strict interpretation in the sense that the expression ‘where the law applicable pursuant to Article 5 or Article 8 makes no provision for divorce’ relates only to situations in which the applicable foreign law does not recognise the institution of divorce (see, most notably, point 19 of the Opinion). In order to reach this conclusion, the Opinion delves into literal, systemic, historical and teleological interpretation of the provision in question.

At point 37, the Opinion indicates that ‘[the] Italian law, as the applicable law, does not prohibit divorce; it merely subjects it to certain requirements, which is within its competence regarding its substantive family law’. Therefore, in the present case, there is no room for Article 10 of the Rome III Regulation to apply.

Yet, as mentioned in the introduction, the analysis does not stop here. At points 59 et seq. the Opinion addresses the consequences of the advocated interpretation of Article 10.

At points 62 and 63 the Opinion argues in following terms that the national courts seized of a petition for divorce could have recourse to ‘adaptation’ (see also point 68) :

62.      First of all, pursuant to Section 1 of Chapter II of [the Brussels II bis Regulation], where the court of a Member State is seized of an application for divorce, it cannot decline jurisdiction (contrary to a court seized in the area of parental responsibility, which has discretion to address the courts of another Member State, under Article 15 of that regulation) and it is obliged to rule on that application for divorce.

63.      I agree with the view of the German Government that the Member States participating in the enhanced cooperation implemented by [the Rome III Regulation] must ensure that both divorce and legal separation may be granted by their courts. Therefore, instead of considering that legal separation must first be established or ordered before the Italian courts, the Romanian courts should, to my mind, allow for such a procedure and apply, by analogy, national procedural rules relating to divorces or even adapt foreign (Italian) procedural rules relating to legal separation (in conjunction with Romanian national rules). Otherwise, the provisions of [the Rome III Regulation] would be partially ineffective.

Against this background, at points 65 and 66 the Opinion refers to the solution proposed by the Commission and favoured also by Advocate General:

65.      By way of a concrete solution in the present case, the Commission proposed that the court seized apply the substantive conditions foreseen by the applicable law and forgo the application of any procedural conditions foreseen by that law, in circumstances where the procedural law of the forum does not allow for those procedural conditions to be met. Therefore, if, in a particular case, the substantive conditions for a legal separation order are fulfilled, the forum court may remedy the fact that that court itself cannot grant such an order by waiving that foreign procedural condition.

66.      I concur. In my view, such a solution would be balanced and would correspond to the implicit intention of the Union legislature. First, it would not unduly encourage forum shopping, because it would require the substantive conditions of the applicable law to be fulfilled. The applicant would not be able to avoid those conditions by seizing another court under the very generous rules of [the Brussels II Regulation] and by asking for his or her own law to be applied (parties can avoid those conditions quite easily if they agree on the choice of the law of the forum).

On a side note…

It is although distant from the context of the present request for a preliminary ruling but nonetheless interesting to notice some points that may be inspirational in others contexts and in relation to the issues not covered by this request:

• At point 69, while expressing itself in favour of ‘adaptation’, the Opinion states ‘while [the Rome III Regulation] does not provide specifically for such an adaptation, neither does it expressly prohibit it’. In this regard, the Opinion draws inspiration from the Succession Regulation and from the twin Regulations Nos 2016/1103 and 2016/1104. It is yet to be seen whether these considerations herald the recognition of adaptation as a general (and non-codified) instrument of EU private international law and, therefore, such ‘adaptation’ could occur also in relation to, i.e., the Rome I and II Regulations.
• It is worth mentioning that it can be argued that, at points 62 and 63, the Opinion acknowledges the existence of a link between, on the one hand, the obligation to exercise jurisdiction established under the Brussels II Regulation and, on the other hand, a substantive effect that should be (at least potentially) achievable under the law designed as applicable under Rome III Regulation. It states ‘pursuant to [the Brussels II Regulation], where the court of a Member State is seized of an application for divorce, it cannot decline jurisdiction […] and it is obliged to rule on that application for divorce […]’. Then ‘[the Member States bound by the Rome III Regulation] must ensure that both divorce and legal separation may be granted by their courts’. If anything, it will be interesting to follow the discussion on the implications of such interpretation of these Regulations.
• Before delving into the consequences of the proposed interpretation of Article 10 of the Rome III Regulation, at points 59 to 61, the Opinion clarifies that the considerations relating to that issue are necessary ‘in order to provide the national court with an appropriate [and useful] answer for the purpose of the application of [EU] law in the dispute before it’.

  Even though these considerations do not seem vital to answer the preliminary question (what makes them even more worthy of attention –  if this is the case, they do not have to be necessarily addressed in the upcoming judgment), they may also be relevant in this as well as in other contexts for a very specific reason.

  Before the first instance court, the applicant seeking divorce invoked Article 12 of the Rome III Regulation. The applicant claimed that the application of Italian law is manifestly incompatible with the public policy of the forum, thus making it necessary to exclude the application of the foreign law (point 15 of the Opinion).

  If Article 10 of the Rome III Regulation must be considered lex specialis that overrides Article 12, the fact that the former provision is not relevant in the present case could make space for the latter to apply. One could wonder – as the appellant seemingly did – whether a requirement provided for in by a foreign law could be disapplied as contravening the public policy of the forum.

  The Opinion seems to provide some guidance relating to that issue. In fact, it addresses the public policy exception, yet in a different context.

  At point 63, the Opinion provides that ‘the Member States participating in the enhanced cooperation implemented by [the Rome III Regulation] must ensure that both divorce and legal separation may be granted by their courts’. At point 64 it argues that ‘the referring court cannot refuse to rule on the application in the main proceedings on the basis of Article 12 of the above regulation (which is reserved for exceptional cases) on the ground that its national law does not provide for legal separation or for procedural rules for legal separation’.

  Leaving aside the question whether it could be inferred from the lack of procedural scheme to pronounce legal separation that granting a divorce without the separation itself being pronounced is (or could be) contrary to the public policy of the forum (this is, of course, a distinct issue relating to the law of the forum and to the limits of the concept of public policy under the Rome III Regulation), the Opinion seems to recognize the aforementioned lex specialis relation. However, it also seeks to prevent the excessive reliance on the public policy exception with reference to a simple maladjustment of the law of the forum.

• It seems that the doubts of the referring court result from the fact that the Italian law imposes a requirement that cannot be fulfilled under the Romanian law.

  Indeed, on the one hand, according to the information provided by the database managed by European Judicial Network, ‘[i]n Romanian law there is no concept of ‘legal separation’ but only of ‘de facto separation’ and the judicial division of property. This is a situation that must be proven before the court. In the event of the de facto separation having lasted for at least two years, this is a reason for judicially issuing a divorce.’

  On the other hand, the Italian law requires a judicial separation to be declared by a judgment that has acquired the force of law or a consensual separation that has been judicially confirmed (Article 3(2)(b)of the Law No 898 of 1 December 1970 read in the light of Article 150 of the Italian Civil Code).

• At point 64, the Opinion seems to take the view that the requirement provided for in the Italian law according to which a separation has to be declared by a judgment or judicially confirmed is a ‘procedural condition’.  It will be interesting to see the evolution of case law and literature as to the classification of similar requirements in different contexts than that of Article 3(2)(b)of the Law No 898 of 1 December 1970 read in the light of Article 150 of the Italian Civil Code.

  The question remains open whether such other requirements are also of procedural nature (or, alternatively, even though it might ultimately boil down to the question of terminology: of formal nature or of substantive nature, yet they can be fulfilled only via the procedural framework of the State that imposes them and of the other States that provide for a judicially-pronounced separation, if one takes into account the recognition of a judgment on separation within the divorce proceedings) and, if they are truly of procedural nature, do they fall within the scope of the law designed as applicable under the Rome III Regulation.

 

If a defendant is not present in Australia, Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (“UCPR”) of New South Wales provides that service outside of Australia is permitted if the plaintiff’s claim falls within UCPR Schedule 6 or if a leave is granted under UCPR rule 11.5. If a defendant does not respond within 42 days after being served successfully (rule 11.8), the plaintiff must apply for leave to proceed (rule 11.8AA). A defendant can challenge the jurisdiction of the court and apply to set aside service (rule 12.11). The court has discretion to decide whether to assume jurisdiction (rule 11.6).

AGC Capital Securities v Jaijaifu Modern Agriculture (HK) Limited [2019] NSWSC 62, a case decided by NSW Supreme Court in 2019 provides a test to determine a plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed when no appearance by defendant. The test includes four components:

1.      Whether the defendant has been properly served;

2.      Whether the claim in the originating process falls within UCPR Schedule 6;

3.      Whether it be demonstrated that there is a real issue to be determined (this requirement as being that the plaintiff has an arguable case being one that would be sufficient to survive an application for summary judgment); and

4.      Whether this Court is not a clearly inappropriate forum.

The same test is adopted by Yoon v Lee [2017] NSWSC 1338 and Rossiter v. Core Mining [2015] NSWSC 360.

The application for leave in AGC Capital Securities, Yoon, and Rossiter is not related to UCPR r 11.5.  r 11.5 is to determine whether a leave to serve outside of Australia should be granted. However, these three cases are cases where service outside of Australia has been completed. They are concerned with leaves under r 11.8AA, which provides:

UCPR 11.8AA   Leave to proceed where no appearance by person

(1)  If an originating process is served on a person outside Australia and the person does not enter an appearance, the party serving the document may not proceed against the person served except by leave of the court.

(2)  An application for leave under subrule (1) may be made without serving notice of the application on the person served with the originating process.

R11.8AA does not specify a test. In Australia, the leading case for leave to proceed where no appearance by defendant is Agar v Hyde [2000] HCA 41. In Agar, two rugby players at the NSW brought a personal injury claim against the International Rugby Football Board and several national representatives at the Board, alleging that the Board and its representatives own a duty of care for the plaintiffs. The defendants were served outside of Australia and applied to set aside the service. Agar holds that different tests should be adopted for the plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed where no appearance by defendant and for the defendant’s application to set aside the service.

According to Agar, the test for the plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed when no appearance by defendant should focus on the jurisdictional nexus between the plaintiff’s pleading and the forum and should not consider the merits of the case. The High Court considers:

“is the claim a claim in which the plaintiff alleges that he has a cause of action which, according to those allegations, is a cause of action arising in the State? The inquiry just described neither requires nor permits an assessment of the strength (in the sense of the likelihood of success) of the plaintiff’s claim.” (Agar, para 50)

The Court of Appeal required the plaintiff to establish a good arguable case. However, the High Court held that “[t]he Court of Appeal was wrong to make such an assessment in deciding whether the Rules permitted service out.” (Agar, para 51) Instead, the High Court only requires the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case, saying

“[t]he application of these paragraphs of r1A depends on the nature of the allegations which the plaintiff makes, not on whether those allegations will be made good at trial. Once a claim is seen to be of the requisite kind, the proceeding falls within the relevant paragraph or paragraphs of PT 10 r 1A, service outside Australia is permitted, and prima facie the plaintiff should have leave to proceed.” (Agar, para 51)

PT 10 r 1A is functionally equivalent to the current UCPR Sch 6 although their contents differ to some extent. In contrast, the test of “real issue to be determined” held in AGC Capital Securities, Yoon, and Rossiter is on the merits of the case, which is excluded by Agar.

Regarding the defendant’s application to set aside the service, Agar adopts three common grounds:

• Service is not authorized by the rules (ie, does not fall within UCPR Sch 6 and not otherwise authorised),
• The Court is an inappropriate forum,
• The claim has “insufficient prospects of the success to warrant putting an overseas defendant to the time, expense and trouble of defending the claims.” This requires the Court to assess the strength of the claim and the test is the same for summary judgment lodged by a defendant served locally.

These grounds are not exhaustive. For example, the defendant can apply to set aside the service based on an exclusive jurisdiction clause favouring a foreign court.

However, AGC Capital Securities, Yoon, and Rossiter do not concern the defendant’s application to set aside the service. Further, the test of “real issue to be determined” in AGC Capital Securities, Yoon, and Rossiter is not the same as the “insufficient prospects of the success” in Agar. The test of “insufficient prospects of the success” has been embedded in UCPR 11.6(2)(c), while AGC Capital Securities, Yoon, and Rossiter are not concerned with this provision. They are brought on r11.8AA.

Comparing Agar on one hand and AGC Capital Securities, Yoon, and Rossiter on the other, the latter cases consider forum non conveniens when determining the plaintiff’s application to proceed where no appearance by defendant. Is this consistent with Agar? This issue should be discussed from two aspects. First, Agar did not consider forum non conveniens under a clearly inappropriate forum doctrine because parties did not raise this issue. Therefore, it may argue that this issue was not considered by High Court in Agar. Second, Agar limits courts’ consideration to jurisdictional nexus with the forum when determining the plaintiff’s application to proceed where no appearance by defendant. Jurisdictional nexus refers to whether the service is authorized by the UCPR. However, broadly, jurisdictional nexus may cover forum non conveniens considerations.

Further, AGC Capital Securities, Yoon, and Rossiter seem to confuse the test for the plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed where no appearance by defendant with the test for the defendant’s application to set aside the service. The test of “real issue to be determined” requires the court to examine the merits of the plaintiff’s claim. This is permitted when determining the defendant’s application to set aside the service. However, when determining the plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed where no appearance by defendant, Agar says the court should not assess the strength of the plaintiff’s claim. Further, the test of “real issue to be determined” is not equivalent to the test of “insufficient prospects of the success” decided by Agar and embedded in UCPR r 11.6.

Could AGC Capital Securities, Yoon, and Rossiter be justified on policy grounds? A proposed argument is that leave to proceed involves leave, which requires an exercise of discretion; and providing leave to proceed in circumstances where there is “no real issue” would be a waste of limited court resources. However, the difficulty of this argument is that it conflates the leave to proceed with the motion for a summary judgment. If the plaintiff only asks a leave to proceed without applying for a summary judgment, there is no ground for the court to consider the test of “no real issue” sua sponte.

Could AGC Capital Securities, Yoon, and Rossiter be distinguished from Agar? In both Yoon and Rossiter, the court issued a summary judgment for the plaintiff. In AGC Capital Securities, the court directed the plaintiff to apply for a default judgment. AGC Capital Securities, Yoon, and Rossiter are proceedings where the defendants make no appearance. However, Agar is a proceeding where the defendant applied to set aside the service. Although Agar considered the test for the plaintiff’s application to proceed where no appearance by defendant, it did so for the purpose of distinguishing this test from the test for the defendant’s application to set aside the service. Therefore, in this aspect, it may argue that AGC Capital Securities, Yoon, and Rossiter are distinguishable from Agar, because they are the cases where the plaintiff applied for both a leave and a summary judgment. Therefore, the real issue for AGC Capital Securities, Yoon, and Rossiter is that the court conflated the test for the plaintiff’s application to proceed where no appearance by defendant and the test for summary judgment.

AGC Capital Securities, Yoon, Rossiter, and Agar also bring up another question: why is the test for a plaintiff’s application for leave when no appearance by defendant and the test for a defendant’s application to set aside the service are different? Or should the tests be the same? In the plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed, is the court supposed to take care of the non-responding defendant? The answer is negative partly because the common-law court is not an inquisitorial court in civil-law countries. More important, if the plaintiff only asks a leave to proceed without applying for a summary judgment, there is no ground for the court to consider whether there is real issue to be determined in the plaintiff’s claim.

The European Law Institute‘s (ELI) members on 21 March 2020 approved the Report on the Protection of Adults in International Situations.

This report is the outcome of the work of a team of academics and professionals chaired by Pietro Franzina and Richard Frimston. It sets out the current legal framework on the protection of persons above 18 years old who are not in a position to protect their own insterests (due to an impairment or incapacity).

The Report acknowledges the importance in this field of the Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 on the International Protection of Adults and encourages further ratification of it. The Convention has been ratified by only nine EU Member States (and signed by an additional seven).

After investigating the institutional possiblities of EU action on this topic, the Report also calls for action, both legislative and non-legislative, to complement the Convention. Possible measures include providing a (limited) choice of juridisdiction and securing the effective circulation of private mandates.

The European Law Institute‘s (ELI) members on 21 March 2020 approved the Report on the Protection of Adults in International Situations.

This report is the outcome of the work of a team of academics and professionals chaired by Pietro Franzina and Richard Frimston. It sets out the current legal framework on the protection of persons above 18 years old who are not in a position to protect their own insterests (due to an impairment or incapacity).

The Report acknowledges the importance in this field of the Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 on the International Protection of Adults and encourages further ratification of it. The Convention has been ratified by only nine EU Member States (and signed by an additional seven).

After investigating the institutional possiblities of EU action on this topic, the Report also calls for action, both legislative and non-legislative, to complement the Convention. Possible measures include providing a (limited) choice of juridisdiction and securing the effective circulation of private mandates.

In case you are looking for something to read while many parts of the world are under some form of lockdown, you may be pleased to learn that the conference volume of the 2nd German Conference for Young Scholars in PIL, which took place at University of Würzburg in 2019, has recently been published. It includes nine contributions by young researchers, including two English papers, on the conference theme of PIL between Tradition and Innovation as well as a keynote address by Professor Jürgen Basedow. Further information can be found on the publisher’s website.

What is more, the date and theme for the next iteration of the conference have just been announced. The conference will take place on 18 and 19 March 2021 (when Corona lockdowns will hopefully be no more than a distant memory) at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law in Hamburg and explore the theme of PIL for a better world: Vision – Reality – Aberration?. Further information can be found in the German and English Save-the-Date announcements as well as on the conference website.

In case you are looking for something to read while many parts of the world are under some form of lockdown, you may be pleased to learn that the conference volume of the 2nd German Conference for Young Scholars in PIL, which took place at University of Würzburg in 2019, has recently been published. It includes nine contributions by young researchers, including two English papers, on the conference theme of PIL between Tradition and Innovation as well as a keynote address by Professor Jürgen Basedow. Further information can be found on the publisher’s website.

What is more, the date and theme for the next iteration of the conference have just been announced. The conference will take place on 18 and 19 March 2021 (when Corona lockdowns will hopefully be no more than a distant memory) at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law in Hamburg and explore the theme of PIL for a better world: Vision – Reality – Aberration?. Further information can be found in the German and English Save-the-Date announcements as well as on the conference website.

State immunity in global COVID-19 pandemic: Alters, et. al. v People’s Republic of China, et. al.

By Zheng Sophia Tang and Zhengxin Huo

1. Background

Four American citizens and a company filed the class-action against Chinese government for damages suffered as the result of the COVID-19 pandemic. None of the named plaintiffs were infected by the COVID-19 but they suffered financial loss due to the outbreak. The defendants include the People’s Republic of China, National Health Commission of PRC, Ministry of Emergency Management of PRC, Ministry of Civil Affairs of PRC, Government of Hubei Province and Government of the City of Wuhan. The plaintiff argued that Chinese government knew COVID-19 was dangerous and capable of causing a pandemic yet covered it up for their economic self-interest and caused injury and incalculable harm to the plaintiffs. (here)

2. State Immunity and US Courts’ Jurisdiction

The Defendant is a sovereign state and enjoys immunity from jurisdiction of other countries. Most countries, like the U.S., adopt the restrictive immunity approach, and apply exception to the immunity of a state when the disputed state’s act, for example, relates to commercial activities or commercial assets, or constitutes tort. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) of 1976 provides the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction on an action against a foreign state. (Argentine Republic v Amerada Hess Shipping Corp, 488 US 428) Plaintiffs relied on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) of 1976, 28 U.S.C. §§1602 et seq. §1605 states:
“(a) A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case—
…
(5) …money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death, or damage to or loss of property, occurring in the United States and caused by the tortious act or omission of that foreign state or of any official or employee of that foreign state while acting within the scope of his office or employment; except this paragraph shall not apply to—
(A) any claim based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function regardless of whether the discretion be abused, or
(B)any claim arising out of malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights;”

This is not the first time for China to be sued in the US court under §1605(a)(5) of the FSIA (for example, see Youming Jin et al., v Ministry of State Security et al., 475 F.Supp. 2d 54 (2007); Jin v Ministry of State Security, 557 F.Supp. 2d 131 (2008); Walters v Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, 651 F.2d 280 (2011)), but given the impact of COVID-19 this case probably is the most influential one. The purpose of this provision is to provide the victim the right to claim damages against a foreign state for tortious activities that may be legalised by the foreign law. The U.S. court thus will apply the local law to interpret this provision. Some crucial concepts, such as “tortious act” and “discretionary function”, are interpreted by the relevant US law. (Doe v Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 189 F.Supp. 3d 6 (2016)) However, since the FSIA is a unilateral domestic statute with clear impact in the foreign sovereign and international comity, it is inappropriate to apply the U.S. law, as the national law of a state of equal status, to determine if the foreign state has committed tort. This approach impliedly grants the U.S. and U.S. law the superior position over foreign states and foreign law. If the FSIA aims to protect humanity and basic rights of individuals that are universally recognised and protected, an international law standard instead of U.S. one should be more appropriate.

Anyway, although the U.S. has adopted the restrictive immunity approach and the U.S. standard to protect the tort victim against foreign government, this exception is applied with a high threshold, making the jurisdiction hurdle difficult to cross. Firstly, the alleged tort or omission must occur in the U.S. The Supreme Court in Argentine Republic v Amerada Hess Shipping, 488 US 428 (1989) articulated the “entire tort” rule, holding that the non-commercial tort exception “covers only torts occurring within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States” (Argentine v Amerada, 441) “Entire tort” means only when both tort action and damage occur in the US, jurisdiction may be asserted. (Cabiri v Government of Ghana, 165 F.3d 193 (2d Cir. 1999) Even if the damage caused by COVID-19 occurred in the U.S., the alleged tort conduct of Chinese government were conducted exclusively out of the territory of the U.S. Arguably, the Supreme Court did not consider the situation where tort actions abroad may causing damages in the US in its 1989 judgment. However, there is no authority support extension of jurisdiction to cross-border tort.

Secondly, pursuant to the common law on tort, the plaintiffs should prove the defendants had a duty of care, breached this duty, and the breach caused the foreseeable harm. Chinese government undoubtedly owes the duty of care to Chinese citizens and residents. Does Chinese government owe any duty to non-residents? Such a duty cannot be found in Chinese domestic law. Relevant duties may be found in international conventions. Art 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights states a state member should recognise the right of everyone to enjoy the highest standard of health and should take steps necessary for “(t)he prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases”. (Art 12(2)(c)) This duty applies to nationals and non-nationals alike. (Art 2(2)) However, none of the named plaintiffs in this suit were infected by COVID-19. The damage is sought for the damage to their commercial and business activities instead of physical or mental health. Furthermore, the International Health Regulation 2005 provides the state parties international obligations to prevent spreading of disease, such as thee duty to notify WHO of all events which may constitute a public health emergency of international concern within its territory within 24 hours of assessment of public health information (Art 6(1)) and sharing information (Art 8), but these obligations are not directly owed to individuals and cannot be directly enforced by individuals in ordinary courts. It is thus hard to argue Chinese government owes the plaintiff a duty of care.

Even if the plaintiffs seek damages for personal injury. It is difficult to prove China has breached the duty and the breach “caused” the COVID-19 outbreak in the US or other part of the world. Since COVID-19 is a new virus with many details remaining unknown, it takes time to truly understand the virus and be able to contain the spread of the disease. Therefore, when the first case of “a mysterious pneumonia” was discovered in Wuhan in December 2019, there was no enough knowledge and information to piece together an accurate picture of a yet-to-be-identified new virus, let alone to predict its risk of quick spreading and the later global pandemic. After the first case was identified on 31 December 2019, Wuhan airport started to screen passengers from 3 Jan 2020, WHO issued travel restriction instruction on 5 Jan, and COVID-19 was only identified on 7 Jan. On 8 Jan, the first suspected case was reported in Thailand. It shows that the Chinese government responded quickly and the virus spread out of China before enough information was collected to understand it. After the seriousness of COVID-19 was confirmed, China has adopted the most restrictive measures, including lockdown the City of Wuhan and put the whole country under full or partial quarantine to contain the disease, which was a critical move to slow the spread of the virus to the rest of the world by two or three weeks. It is hard to argue that Chinese government has breached the duty. It is even harder to claim that the conduct of Chinese government caused the outbreak in the US. US confirmed the first case on 21 Jan, evacuated citizens out of Wuhan on 26 Jan and started visa travel ban on Chinese travellers on 8 Feb. Only 10 cases were confirmed in the US by 10 Feb. It suggests that the later outbreak in the US was not caused by the Chinese government. As of now, China is the only country in the whole world which has brought the COVID-19 pandemic back under control.

Finally, a foreign state does no loss immunity under §1605(a)(5) of the FSIA for discretionary conducts. The discretion shield aims to “prevent judicial ‘second-guessing’ of legislative and administrative decisions grounded in social, economic, and political policy through the medium of an action in tort. The exception … protects only governmental actions and decisions based on considerations of public policy.” (Berkovitz v US, 486 U.S. 531, 546-37) Discretion is assessed by a two-limb test. Firstly, if the defendant followed any statute, regulation, or policy specifically prescribing a course of action, the conduct was non-discretionary. Secondly, if, in the absence of regulatory guide, the defendant’s decision was grounded in social, economic, or political goals, such an action is deemed the exercise of discretion. (Berkovitz, 531) An exercise of power contrary to regulatory guidance is not shielded by the discretion exemption. (Doe v Ethiopia, 26) Measures adopted to prevent epidemic are largely discretion-based, which closely related to the local economy and culture.

3. Likely Response from China

As mentioned above, it is not the first case that China was sued before an American court; therefore, the likely response from China can be predicted. A general judgment is that the Chinese government will reiterate its position in case of need that it will accept no suit against it at a domestic American court, and China will not enter into appearance before the American court.

Unlike the U.S., China is one of the few countries that insist on absolute immunity approach. This has been clearly affirmed by the continuous assertion of absolute immunity by its central government in various occasions. (Russell Jackson et al. v People’s Republic of China, 794 F.2d 1490, 1494 (11th Cir. 1986); Memorandum sent by the Chinese Embassy in Washington, DC, in Morris v. People’s Republic of China, 478 F. Supp. 2d 561 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). It is worth mentioning that on 14 September2005, the then Chinese Foreign Minister signed the 2004 United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (not yet in force), which is understood by some observers to be a signal that China is switching to endorse the restrictive approach in relation to the application of the principle of state immunity. Nonetheless, it is still too early to conclude that China has abandoned the absolute doctrine, and has chosen to embrace the restrictive doctrine, insofar as the Standing Committee of the NPC has not ratified the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property so far, and there is no signal to suggest the NPC should do so in the foreseeable future.

In this light, it can be predicted that China will argue that it enjoys immunity from jurisdiction of domestic American court. To be more specific, if the U.S. District Court for the District of Southern Florida authorized the summons directed to the Defendant, China’s possible response may be analysed as follows, depending on specific means of the service of process.

Firstly, if counsel to the Plaintiffs submitted the summons to the Chinese government by mail, a common practice of American lawyers, the Chinese government may choose to ignore it. Service in United States federal and state courts on foreign sovereigns and their agencies and instrumentalities is governed primarily by the FSIA. Since there is no special agreement for service of process between China and the U.S., pursuant to the FSIA, the Hague Service Convention to which both countries are party is the applicable instrument in this case. It is worth noticing that upon accession and ratification of the Hague Service Convention, China notified the Hague Conference on Private International Law of its objection, in accordance with Article 10, sub-paragraph (a) of the Convention, to service of process via postal channels; therefore, service by counsel to the Plaintiffs of a summons on the Defendant via mail will not be effective. Hence, ignoring the request advanced by counsel to the Plaintiffs is the most reasonable option for China.

Second, if the summons is served on the Chinese government through diplomatic channels, China will choose to turn it down by resorting to the Hague Service Convention. Pursuant to Article 13 of the Hague Service Convention, where a request for service complies with the terms of the present Convention, the State addressed may refuse to comply therewith only if it deems that compliance would infringe its sovereignty or security. As China insists on absolute immunity approach, it is logic that China will refuse the request advanced by counsel to the Plaintiffs and returned the documents by Article 13 of the Hague Service Convention.

Last, but not least, as the present development suggests that the U.S. government is blaming China for the spread ofthe COVID-19, accusing China of delaying America’s response, China would probably deem the lawsuit as a part of the American smear campaign to blame it. The possibility that China responds to this case via legal measures is further reduced. Therefore, we submit that there is a big chance that China may not enter into appearance before the court in Florida and would raise diplomatic protest.

State immunity in global COVID-19 pandemic: Alters, et. al. v People’s Republic of China, et. al.

By Zheng Tang and Zhengxin Huo

1. Background

Four American citizens and a company filed the class-action against Chinese government for damages suffered as the result of the COVID-19 pandemic. None of the named plaintiffs were infected by the COVID-19 but they suffered financial loss due to the outbreak. The defendants include the People’s Republic of China, National Health Commission of PRC, Ministry of Emergency Management of PRC, Ministry of Civil Affairs of PRC, Government of Hubei Province and Government of the City of Wuhan. The plaintiff argued that Chinese government knew COVID-19 was dangerous and capable of causing a pandemic yet covered it up for their economic self-interest and caused injury and incalculable harm to the plaintiffs (here)

2. State Immunity and US Courts’ Jurisdiction

The Defendant is a sovereign state and enjoys immunity from jurisdiction of other countries. Most countries, like the U.S., adopts the restrictive immunity approach, and applies exception to the immunity of a state when the disputed state act, for example, relates to commercial activities or commercial assets, or constitutes tort. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) of 1976 provides the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction on an action against a foreign state. (Argentine Republic v Amerada Hess Shipping Corp, 488 US 428) Plaintiffs relied on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) of 1976, 28 U.S.C. §§1602 et seq. §1605 states:
“(a) A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case—
…
(5) …money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death, or damage to or loss of property, occurring in the United States and caused by the tortious act or omission of that foreign state or of any official or employee of that foreign state while acting within the scope of his office or employment; except this paragraph shall not apply to—
(A)any claim based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function regardless of whether the discretion be abused, or
(B)any claim arising out of malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights;”

This is not the first time for China to be sued in the US court under §1605(a)(5) of the FSIA (for example, see Youming Jin et al., v Ministry of State Security et al., 475 F.Supp. 2d 54 (2007); Jin v Ministry of State Security, 557 F.Supp. 2d 131 (2008); Walters v Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, 651 F.2d 280 (2011)), but given the impact of COVID-19 this case probably is the most influential one. The purpose of this provision is to provide the victim the right to claim damages against a foreign state for tortuous activities that may be legalised by the foreign law. The U.S. court thus will apply the local law to interpret this provision. Some crucial concepts, such as “tortuous act” and “discretionary function”, are interpreted by the relevant US law. (Doe v Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 189 F.Supp. 3d 6 (2016)) However, since the FSIA is a unilateral domestic statute with clear impact in the foreign sovereign, it is inappropriate to applying the U.S. law, as the national law of a state of equal status, to determine if the foreign state has committed tort. This approach impliedly grants the U.S. and U.S. law the superior position over foreign states and foreign law. If the FSIA aims to protect humanity and basic rights of individuals that are universally recognised and protected, an international law standard instead of U.S. one should be more appropriate.

Anyway, although the U.S. has adopted the restrictive immunity approach and the U.S. standard to protect the tort victim against foreign government, this exception is applied with the high threshold, making the jurisdiction hurdle difficult to cross. Firstly, the alleged tort or omission must occur in the U.S. The Supreme Court in Argentine Republic v Amerada Hess Shipping, 488 US 428 (1989) articulated the “entire tort” rule, holding that the non-commercial tort exception “covers only torts occurring within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States” (Argentine v Amerada, 441) “Entire tort” means only when both tort action and damage occur in the US, jurisdiction may be asserted. (Cabiri v Government of Ghana, 165 F.3d 193 (2d Cir. 1999) Even if the damage caused by COVID-19 occurred in the U.S., the alleged tort conduct of Chinese government were conducted exclusively out of the territory of the U.S.

Secondly, pursuant to the common law on tort, the plaintiffs should prove the defendants own a duty of care, have breached this duty, and the breach caused the foreseeable harm. Chinese government undoubtedly owes the duty of care to Chinese citizens and residents. Does Chinese government owe any duty to non-residents? Relevant duties can be found in international conventions. Art 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights states a state member should recognise the right of everyone to enjoy the highest standard of health and should take steps necessary for “(t)he prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases”. (Art 12(2)(c)) This duty applies to nationals and non-nationals alike. (Art 2(2)) However, none of the named plaintiffs in this suit were infected by COVID-19. The damage is sought for the damage to their commercial and business activities instead of physical or mental health. Furthermore, the International Health Regulation 2005 provides the state parties the obligation to notify WHO of all events which may constitute a public health emergency of international concern within its territory within 24 hours of assessment of public health information (Art 6(1)), sharing information (Art 8), etc., but these obligations are not directly owed to individuals and cannot be directly enforced by individuals in ordinary courts. It is thus hard to argue Chinese government owes the plaintiff a duty of care.

Even if the plaintiffs seek damages for personal injury. It is difficult to prove China has breached the duty and the breach “caused” the COVID-19 outbreak in the US or other part of the world. Since COVID-19 is a new virus with many details remaining unknown, it takes time to truly understand the virus and be able to contain the spread of the disease. Therefore, when the first case of “a mysterious pneumonia” was discovered in Wuhan in December 2019, there was no enough knowledge and information to piece together an accurate picture of a yet-to-be-identified new virus, let alone to predict its risk of quick spreading and the later global pandemic. After the first case was identified on 31 December 2019, Wuhan airport started to screen passengers from 3 Jan 2020, WHO issued travel restriction instruction on 5 Jan, and COVID-19 was only identified on 7 Jan. On 8 Jan, the first suspected case was reported in Thailand. It shows that the Chinese government responded quickly and the virus spread out of China before enough information was collected to understand it. After the seriousness of COVID-19 was confirmed, China has adopted the most restrictive measures, including lockdown the City of Wuhan and put the whole country under full or partial quarantine to contain the disease, which was a critical move to slow the spread of the virus to the rest of the world by two or three weeks. It is hard to argue that Chinese government has breached the duty. It is even harder to claim that the conduct of Chinese government caused the outbreak in the US. US confirmed the first case on 21 Jan, evacuated citizens out of Wuhan on 26 Jan and started visa travel ban on Chinese travellers on 8 Feb. Only 10 cases were confirmed in the US by 10 Feb. It suggests that the later outbreak in the US was not caused by the Chinese government. As of now, China is the only country in the whole world which has brought the COVID-19 pandemic back under control.

Finally, a foreign state is not liable for tort for discretionary conducts.The discretion shield aims to “prevent judicial ‘second-guessing’ of legislative and administrative decisions grounded in social, economic, and political policy through the medium of an action in tort. The exception … protects only governmental actions and decisions based on considerations of public policy.” (Berkovitz v US, 486 U.S. 531, 546-37) Discretion is assessed by a two-limb test. Firstly, if the defendant followed any statute, regulation, or policy specifically prescribing a course of action, the conduct was non-discretionary. Secondly, if, in the absence of regulatory guide, the defendant’s decision was grounded in social, economic, or political goals, such an action is deemed the exercise of discretion. (Berkovitz, 531) An exercise of power contrary to regulatory guidance is not shielded by the discretion exemption. (Doe v Ethiopia, 26) Measures adopted to prevent epidemic are largely discretion-based, which closely related to the local economy and culture.

3. Likely Response from China

As mentioned above, it is not the first case that China was sued before an American court; therefore, the likely response from China can be predicted. A general judgment is that the Chinese government will reiterate its position in case of need that it will accept no suit against it at a domestic American court, and China will not enter into appearance before the American court.

Unlike the U.S., China is one of the few countries that insist on absolute immunity approach. This has been clearly affirmed by the continuous assertion of absolute immunity by its central government in various occasions. (Russell Jackson et al. v People’s Republic of China, 794 F.2d 1490, 1494 (11th Cir. 1986); Memorandum sent by the Chinese Embassy in Washington, DC, in Morris v. People’s Republic of China, 478 F. Supp. 2d 561 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). A more strong, and persuasive, evidence is a legislative interpretation promulgated by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPC). In the case of FG Hemisphere Associates v Democratic Republic of Congo([2009] 1 HKLRD 410; [2010] 2 HKLRD 66; (2011) 14 HKCFAR 95), the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong (CFA) decided that before deciding on the issue of state immunity, a reference had to be made to the Standing Committee of the NPC pursuant to Article 158 of the Basic Law of Hong Kong. The Standing Committee of NPC gave its answer by issuing a legislative interpretation on 26 August, clarifying that “state immunity concerns whether the courts of a state have jurisdiction over foreign states and their properties”, and “directly relates to the state’s foreign relations and international rights and obligations”. Thus, as the issue of sovereign immunity falls within the realm of foreign affairs, the Chinese central government has the power to decide on this issue, and Hong Kong courts are bound to follow the PRC’s practice in adopting the absolute approach. Consequently, the CFA formally disposed of the case by allowing the appeal by Congo on 8 September 2011. As the Standing Committee of the NPC is China’s national legislature, its legislative decision, therefore, has the legal status of national law.

It is worth mentioning that on 14 September 2005, the then Chinese Foreign Minister signed the 2004 United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, which is understood by some observers to be a signal that China is switching to endorse the restrictive approach in relation to the application of the principle of state immunity. Nonetheless, it is still too early to conclude that China has abandoned the absolute doctrine, and has chosen to embrace the restrictive doctrine, insofar as the Standing Committee of the NPC has not ratified the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property so far, and there is no signal to suggest the NPC should do so in the foreseeable future.

In this light, it can be predicted that China will argue that it enjoys immunity from jurisdiction of domestic American court. To be more specific, if the U.S. District Court for the District of Southern Florida authorized the summons directed to the Defendant, China’s possible response may be analysed as follows, depending on specific means of the service of process.

Firstly, if counsel to the Plaintiffs submitted the summons to the Chinese government by mail, a common practice of American lawyers, the Chinese government may choose to ignore it. Service in United States federal and state courts on foreign sovereigns and their agencies and instrumentalities is governed primarily by the FSIA. Since there is no special agreement for service of process between China and the U.S., pursuant to the FSIA, the Hague Service Convention to which both countries are party is the applicable instrument in this case. It is worth noticing that upon accession and ratification of the Hague Service Convention, China notified the Hague Conference on Private International Law of its objection, in accordance with Article 10, sub-paragraph (a) of the Convention, to service of process via postal channels; therefore, service by counsel to the Plaintiffs of a summons on the Defendant via mail will not be effective. Hence, ignoring the request advanced by counsel to the Plaintiffs is the most reasonable option for China.

Second, if the summons is served on the Chinese government through diplomatic channels, China will choose to turn it down by resorting to the Hague Service Convention. Pursuant to Article 13 of the Hague Service Convention, where a request for service complies with the terms of the present Convention, the State addressed may refuse to comply therewith only if it deems that compliance would infringe its sovereignty or security. As China insists on absolute immunity approach, it is logic that China will refuse the request advanced by counsel to the Plaintiffs and returned the documents by Article 13 of the Hague Service Convention.

Last, but not least, as the present development suggests that the U.S. government is blaming China for the spread of the COVID-19, accusing China of delaying America’s response, China would probably deem the lawsuit as a part of the American smear campaign to blame it. The possibility that China responds to this case via legal measures is further reduced. Therefore, we submit that there is a big chance that China may not enter into appearance before the court in Florida and would raise diplomatic protest.

State immunity in global COVID-19 pandemic: Alters, et. al. v People’s Republic of China, et. al.

By Zheng Sophia Tang and Zhengxin Huo

1. Background

Four American citizens and a company filed the class-action against Chinese government for damages suffered as the result of the COVID-19 pandemic. None of the named plaintiffs were infected by the COVID-19 but they suffered financial loss due to the outbreak. The defendants include the People’s Republic of China, National Health Commission of PRC, Ministry of Emergency Management of PRC, Ministry of Civil Affairs of PRC, Government of Hubei Province and Government of the City of Wuhan. The plaintiff argued that Chinese government knew COVID-19 was dangerous and capable of causing a pandemic yet covered it up for their economic self-interest and caused injury and incalculable harm to the plaintiffs. (here)

2. State Immunity and US Courts’ Jurisdiction

The Defendant is a sovereign state and enjoys immunity from jurisdiction of other countries. Most countries, like the U.S., adopt the restrictive immunity approach, and apply exception to the immunity of a state when the disputed state’s act, for example, relates to commercial activities or commercial assets, or constitutes tort. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) of 1976 provides the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction on an action against a foreign state. (Argentine Republic v Amerada Hess Shipping Corp, 488 US 428) Plaintiffs relied on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) of 1976, 28 U.S.C. §§1602 et seq. §1605 states:
“(a) A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case—
…
(5) …money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death, or damage to or loss of property, occurring in the United States and caused by the tortious act or omission of that foreign state or of any official or employee of that foreign state while acting within the scope of his office or employment; except this paragraph shall not apply to—
(A) any claim based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function regardless of whether the discretion be abused, or
(B)any claim arising out of malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights;”

This is not the first time for China to be sued in the US court under §1605(a)(5) of the FSIA (for example, see Youming Jin et al., v Ministry of State Security et al., 475 F.Supp. 2d 54 (2007); Jin v Ministry of State Security, 557 F.Supp. 2d 131 (2008); Walters v Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, 651 F.2d 280 (2011)), but given the impact of COVID-19 this case probably is the most influential one. The purpose of this provision is to provide the victim the right to claim damages against a foreign state for tortious activities that may be legalised by the foreign law. The U.S. court thus will apply the local law to interpret this provision. Some crucial concepts, such as “tortious act” and “discretionary function”, are interpreted by the relevant US law. (Doe v Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 189 F.Supp. 3d 6 (2016)) However, since the FSIA is a unilateral domestic statute with clear impact in the foreign sovereign and international comity, it is inappropriate to apply the U.S. law, as the national law of a state of equal status, to determine if the foreign state has committed tort. This approach impliedly grants the U.S. and U.S. law the superior position over foreign states and foreign law. If the FSIA aims to protect humanity and basic rights of individuals that are universally recognised and protected, an international law standard instead of U.S. one should be more appropriate.

Anyway, although the U.S. has adopted the restrictive immunity approach and the U.S. standard to protect the tort victim against foreign government, this exception is applied with a high threshold, making the jurisdiction hurdle difficult to cross. Firstly, the alleged tort or omission must occur in the U.S. The Supreme Court in Argentine Republic v Amerada Hess Shipping, 488 US 428 (1989) articulated the “entire tort” rule, holding that the non-commercial tort exception “covers only torts occurring within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States” (Argentine v Amerada, 441) “Entire tort” means only when both tort action and damage occur in the US, jurisdiction may be asserted. (Cabiri v Government of Ghana, 165 F.3d 193 (2d Cir. 1999) Even if the damage caused by COVID-19 occurred in the U.S., the alleged tort conduct of Chinese government were conducted exclusively out of the territory of the U.S. Arguably, the Supreme Court did not consider the situation where tort actions abroad may causing damages in the US in its 1989 judgment. However, there is no authority support extension of jurisdiction to cross-border tort.

Secondly, pursuant to the common law on tort, the plaintiffs should prove the defendants had a duty of care, breached this duty, and the breach caused the foreseeable harm. Chinese government undoubtedly owes the duty of care to Chinese citizens and residents. Does Chinese government owe any duty to non-residents? Such a duty cannot be found in Chinese domestic law. Relevant duties may be found in international conventions. Art 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights states a state member should recognise the right of everyone to enjoy the highest standard of health and should take steps necessary for “(t)he prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases”. (Art 12(2)(c)) This duty applies to nationals and non-nationals alike. (Art 2(2)) However, none of the named plaintiffs in this suit were infected by COVID-19. The damage is sought for the damage to their commercial and business activities instead of physical or mental health. Furthermore, the International Health Regulation 2005 provides the state parties international obligations to prevent spreading of disease, such as thee duty to notify WHO of all events which may constitute a public health emergency of international concern within its territory within 24 hours of assessment of public health information (Art 6(1)) and sharing information (Art 8), but these obligations are not directly owed to individuals and cannot be directly enforced by individuals in ordinary courts. It is thus hard to argue Chinese government owes the plaintiff a duty of care.

Even if the plaintiffs seek damages for personal injury. It is difficult to prove China has breached the duty and the breach “caused” the COVID-19 outbreak in the US or other part of the world. Since COVID-19 is a new virus with many details remaining unknown, it takes time to truly understand the virus and be able to contain the spread of the disease. Therefore, when the first case of “a mysterious pneumonia” was discovered in Wuhan in December 2019, there was no enough knowledge and information to piece together an accurate picture of a yet-to-be-identified new virus, let alone to predict its risk of quick spreading and the later global pandemic. After the first case was identified on 31 December 2019, Wuhan airport started to screen passengers from 3 Jan 2020, WHO issued travel restriction instruction on 5 Jan, and COVID-19 was only identified on 7 Jan. On 8 Jan, the first suspected case was reported in Thailand. It shows that the Chinese government responded quickly and the virus spread out of China before enough information was collected to understand it. After the seriousness of COVID-19 was confirmed, China has adopted the most restrictive measures, including lockdown the City of Wuhan and put the whole country under full or partial quarantine to contain the disease, which was a critical move to slow the spread of the virus to the rest of the world by two or three weeks. It is hard to argue that Chinese government has breached the duty. It is even harder to claim that the conduct of Chinese government caused the outbreak in the US. US confirmed the first case on 21 Jan, evacuated citizens out of Wuhan on 26 Jan and started visa travel ban on Chinese travellers on 8 Feb. Only 10 cases were confirmed in the US by 10 Feb. It suggests that the later outbreak in the US was not caused by the Chinese government. As of now, China is the only country in the whole world which has brought the COVID-19 pandemic back under control.

Finally, a foreign state does no loss immunity under §1605(a)(5) of the FSIA for discretionary conducts. The discretion shield aims to “prevent judicial ‘second-guessing’ of legislative and administrative decisions grounded in social, economic, and political policy through the medium of an action in tort. The exception … protects only governmental actions and decisions based on considerations of public policy.” (Berkovitz v US, 486 U.S. 531, 546-37) Discretion is assessed by a two-limb test. Firstly, if the defendant followed any statute, regulation, or policy specifically prescribing a course of action, the conduct was non-discretionary. Secondly, if, in the absence of regulatory guide, the defendant’s decision was grounded in social, economic, or political goals, such an action is deemed the exercise of discretion. (Berkovitz, 531) An exercise of power contrary to regulatory guidance is not shielded by the discretion exemption. (Doe v Ethiopia, 26) Measures adopted to prevent epidemic are largely discretion-based, which closely related to the local economy and culture.

3. Likely Response from China

As mentioned above, it is not the first case that China was sued before an American court; therefore, the likely response from China can be predicted. A general judgment is that the Chinese government will reiterate its position in case of need that it will accept no suit against it at a domestic American court, and China will not enter into appearance before the American court.

Unlike the U.S., China is one of the few countries that insist on absolute immunity approach. This has been clearly affirmed by the continuous assertion of absolute immunity by its central government in various occasions. (Russell Jackson et al. v People’s Republic of China, 794 F.2d 1490, 1494 (11th Cir. 1986); Memorandum sent by the Chinese Embassy in Washington, DC, in Morris v. People’s Republic of China, 478 F. Supp. 2d 561 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). It is worth mentioning that on 14 September2005, the then Chinese Foreign Minister signed the 2004 United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (not yet in force), which is understood by some observers to be a signal that China is switching to endorse the restrictive approach in relation to the application of the principle of state immunity. Nonetheless, it is still too early to conclude that China has abandoned the absolute doctrine, and has chosen to embrace the restrictive doctrine, insofar as the Standing Committee of the NPC has not ratified the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property so far, and there is no signal to suggest the NPC should do so in the foreseeable future.

In this light, it can be predicted that China will argue that it enjoys immunity from jurisdiction of domestic American court. To be more specific, if the U.S. District Court for the District of Southern Florida authorized the summons directed to the Defendant, China’s possible response may be analysed as follows, depending on specific means of the service of process.

Firstly, if counsel to the Plaintiffs submitted the summons to the Chinese government by mail, a common practice of American lawyers, the Chinese government may choose to ignore it. Service in United States federal and state courts on foreign sovereigns and their agencies and instrumentalities is governed primarily by the FSIA. Since there is no special agreement for service of process between China and the U.S., pursuant to the FSIA, the Hague Service Convention to which both countries are party is the applicable instrument in this case. It is worth noticing that upon accession and ratification of the Hague Service Convention, China notified the Hague Conference on Private International Law of its objection, in accordance with Article 10, sub-paragraph (a) of the Convention, to service of process via postal channels; therefore, service by counsel to the Plaintiffs of a summons on the Defendant via mail will not be effective. Hence, ignoring the request advanced by counsel to the Plaintiffs is the most reasonable option for China.

Second, if the summons is served on the Chinese government through diplomatic channels, China will choose to turn it down by resorting to the Hague Service Convention. Pursuant to Article 13 of the Hague Service Convention, where a request for service complies with the terms of the present Convention, the State addressed may refuse to comply therewith only if it deems that compliance would infringe its sovereignty or security. As China insists on absolute immunity approach, it is logic that China will refuse the request advanced by counsel to the Plaintiffs and returned the documents by Article 13 of the Hague Service Convention.

Last, but not least, as the present development suggests that the U.S. government is blaming China for the spread ofthe COVID-19, accusing China of delaying America’s response, China would probably deem the lawsuit as a part of the American smear campaign to blame it. The possibility that China responds to this case via legal measures is further reduced. Therefore, we submit that there is a big chance that China may not enter into appearance before the court in Florida and would raise diplomatic protest.

By Ennio Piovesani. The author is a PhD Student at the Università degli Studi di Torino and at the Universität zu Köln.

1. Summary

The Italian Government has adopted a series of Decree-Laws [1] introducing measures to fight the emergency caused by the “new” Coronavirus.

These measures include “self-proclaimed” overriding mandatory provisions on the reimbursement of prices paid under transport, package travel and accommodation contracts by specified persons affected by the Coronavirus.

2. Arts. 28 of Decree-Law No. 9/2020 and 88 of Decree-Law No. 18/2020

In particular, on 2.4.3020, the Italian Government adopted Decree-Law No. 9, titled “Urgent measures to support families, workers and businesses, in connection with the epidemiological emergency by COVID-19” [2].

Article 28 of Decree-Law No. 9/2020 provides for “Reimbursement of Travel Tickets and Travel Packages”.

The first paragraph of Article 28 stipulates that, obligations arising from transport and package travel contracts, concluded by specified persons affected by the Coronavirus [3], are to be considered as impossible under Article 1463 of the Italian Civil Code [4].

Paragraphs 2 to 7 of Article 28 establish a specific procedure for obtaining and making the reimbursement of the price paid under the transport or package travel contract covered by the same Article.

The following paragraph 8 “proclaims”:

“The provisions of the present article constitute overriding mandatory provisions within the meaning of Article 17 of Law of 31 May 1995, No. 218 [“Italian PIL Act”] [5, 6] and of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No. 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 17 June 2008 [“Rome 1 Regulation”]”.

On 17.3.2020, the Italian Government has adopted a new Decree-Law (dubbed “Heal Italy”), introducing new measures to fight the emergency caused by the Coronavirus [7].

Art. 88(1) of new Decree-Law No. 18/2020 extends the provisions of Art. 28 of Decree-Law No. 9/2020 to accommodation contracts.

3. Short Comment

As a short comment to the above, I note that it is not the first time that the Italian legislator enacts “self-proclaimed” overriding mandatory provisions [8].

However, as known, it is questionable whether, EU Member States can freely enact similar provisions when they fall within the material scope of Union private international law instruments, such as the Rome 1 Regulation.

In fact, this practice appears to be particularly questionable in cases such as that at issue, where the self-proclaimed overriding mandatory provisions do not appear to be “crucial” for safeguarding public interests within the meaning of Article 9(1) of the Rome 1 Regulation, but rather appear to be exclusively purported to protect private interests (for however widespread they may be).

Notes

[1] In the Italian legal order, a Decree-Law is a provisional act having force of law, adopted in extraordinary cases of necessity and urgency by the Government. A Decree-Law must be “converted” into a Law within a period of 60 days from its publication, or otherwise it loses its effects. See, in particular, Art. 77 of the Costituzione della Repubblica Italiana, Gazzetta Ufficiale No. 298 of 27.12.1947, www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/1947/12/27/047U0001/sg.

[2] Decree-Law of 2.3.2020, No. 9, Misure urgenti di sostegno per famiglie, lavoratori e imprese connesse all’emergenza epidemiologica da COVID-19, Gazzetta Ufficiale, Serie Generale No. 53 of 2.3.2020, www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2020/03/02/20G00026/sg.

[3] See Art. 28(1)(a) to (f) of Decree-Law No. 9/2020.

[4] Article 1463 of the Italian Civil Code, headed “Total Impossibility”, can be translated as follows: “In [case of] contracts with reciprocal performances, the party that is freed due to supervening impossibility of the performance owed cannot demand counter-performance, and must return that which he has already received, in accordance with the rules on undue payment”. See, Royal Decree of 16.3.1942, No. 262, Approvazione del testo del Codice civile, Gazzetta Ufficiale, Serie Generale No. 79 of 4.4.1942, www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/1942/04/04/042U0262/sg.

[5] Law of 31.5.1995, No. 218, Riforma del sistema italiano di diritto internazionale privato, Gazzetta Ufficiale, Serie Generale No. 128 of 3.6.1995, Supplemento Ordinario No. 68, https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/1995/06/03/095G0256/sg.

[6] Article 17 of the Italian PIL Act, is the Italian (autonomous) private international law provision governing overriding mandatory provisions. Article 17, headed “Norms of necessary application”, can be translated as follows: “Norms of necessary application. 1. Italian norms which, considering their object and their objective, must be applied notwithstanding reference to foreign law, prevail over the following provisions”.

[7] Decree-Law of 17.3.2020, No. 18, Misure di potenziamento del Servizio sanitario nazionale e di sostegno economico per famiglie, lavoratori e imprese connesse all’emergenza epidemiologica da COVID-19, Gazzetta Ufficiale, Serie Generale No. 70 del 17.3.2020, https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2020/03/17/20G00034/sg.

[8] See, e.g., Article 32-ter of the Italian PIL Act.

By Ennio Piovesani. The author is a PhD Student at the Università degli Studi di Torino and at the Universität zu Köln.

1. Summary

The Italian Government has adopted a series of Decree-Laws [1] introducing measures to fight the emergency caused by the “new” Coronavirus.

These measures include “self-proclaimed” overriding mandatory provisions on the reimbursement of prices paid under transport, package travel and accommodation contracts by specified persons affected by the Coronavirus.

2. Arts. 28 of Decree-Law No. 9/2020 and 88 of Decree-Law No. 18/2020

In particular, on 2.4.3020, the Italian Government adopted Decree-Law No. 9, titled “Urgent measures to support families, workers and businesses, in connection with the epidemiological emergency by COVID-19” [2].

Article 28 of Decree-Law No. 9/2020 provides for “Reimbursement of Travel Tickets and Travel Packages”.

The first paragraph of Article 28 stipulates that, obligations arising from transport and package travel contracts, concluded by specified persons affected by the Coronavirus [3], are to be considered as impossible under Article 1463 of the Italian Civil Code [4].

Paragraphs 2 to 7 of Article 28 establish a specific procedure for obtaining and making the reimbursement of the price paid under the transport or package travel contract covered by the same Article.

The following paragraph 8 “proclaims”:

“The provisions of the present article constitute overriding mandatory provisions within the meaning of Article 17 of Law of 31 May 1995, No. 218 [“Italian PIL Act”] [5, 6] and of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No. 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 17 June 2008 [“Rome 1 Regulation”]”.

On 17.3.2020, the Italian Government has adopted a new Decree-Law (dubbed “Heal Italy”), introducing new measures to fight the emergency caused by the Coronavirus [7].

Art. 88(1) of new Decree-Law No. 18/2020 extends the provisions of Art. 28 of Decree-Law No. 9/2020 to accommodation contracts.

3. Short Comment

As a short comment to the above, I note that it is not the first time that the Italian legislator enacts “self-proclaimed” overriding mandatory provisions [8].

However, as known, it is questionable whether, EU Member States can freely enact similar provisions when they fall within the material scope of Union private international law instruments, such as the Rome 1 Regulation.

In fact, this practice appears to be particularly questionable in cases such as that at issue, where the self-proclaimed overriding mandatory provisions do not appear to be “crucial” for safeguarding public interests within the meaning of Article 9(1) of the Rome 1 Regulation, but rather appear to be exclusively purported to protect private interests (for however widespread they may be).

Notes

[1] In the Italian legal order, a Decree-Law is a provisional act having force of law, adopted in extraordinary cases of necessity and urgency by the Government. A Decree-Law must be “converted” into a Law within a period of 60 days from its publication, or otherwise it loses its effects. See, in particular, Art. 77 of the Costituzione della Repubblica Italiana, Gazzetta Ufficiale No. 298 of 27.12.1947, www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/1947/12/27/047U0001/sg.

[2] Decree-Law of 2.3.2020, No. 9, Misure urgenti di sostegno per famiglie, lavoratori e imprese connesse all’emergenza epidemiologica da COVID-19, Gazzetta Ufficiale, Serie Generale No. 53 of 2.3.2020, www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2020/03/02/20G00026/sg.

[3] See Art. 28(1)(a) to (f) of Decree-Law No. 9/2020.

[4] Article 1463 of the Italian Civil Code, headed “Total Impossibility”, can be translated as follows: “In [case of] contracts with reciprocal performances, the party that is freed due to supervening impossibility of the performance owed cannot demand counter-performance, and must return that which he has already received, in accordance with the rules on undue payment”. See, Royal Decree of 16.3.1942, No. 262, Approvazione del testo del Codice civile, Gazzetta Ufficiale, Serie Generale No. 79 of 4.4.1942, www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/1942/04/04/042U0262/sg.

[5] Law of 31.5.1995, No. 218, Riforma del sistema italiano di diritto internazionale privato, Gazzetta Ufficiale, Serie Generale No. 128 of 3.6.1995, Supplemento Ordinario No. 68, https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/1995/06/03/095G0256/sg.

[6] Article 17 of the Italian PIL Act, is the Italian (autonomous) private international law provision governing overriding mandatory provisions. Article 17, headed “Norms of necessary application”, can be translated as follows: “Norms of necessary application. 1. Italian norms which, considering their object and their objective, must be applied notwithstanding reference to foreign law, prevail over the following provisions”.

[7] Decree-Law of 17.3.2020, No. 18, Misure di potenziamento del Servizio sanitario nazionale e di sostegno economico per famiglie, lavoratori e imprese connesse all’emergenza epidemiologica da COVID-19, Gazzetta Ufficiale, Serie Generale No. 70 del 17.3.2020, https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2020/03/17/20G00034/sg.

[8] See, e.g., Article 32-ter of the Italian PIL Act.

Dr. Gérardine Goh Escolar, First Secretary at the Hague Conference on Private International Law, has prepared a lecture on the main features of the Hague Conference and its work. The lecture is available in three languages (English, French and Spanish) in the UN Audiovisual Library of International Law.

You can watch the lectures here. 

Dr. Gérardine Goh Escolar, First Secretary at the Hague Conference on Private International Law, has prepared a lecture on the main features of the Hague Conference and its work. The lecture is available in three languages (English, French and Spanish) in the UN Audiovisual Library of International Law.

You can watch the lectures here. 

The Court of Justice of the European Union on 27th February 2020 delivered its judgment in Corporis/Gefion Insurance, Case C-25/19. The case concerned rules surrounding service of documents in a specific, yet increasingly common context.

Corporis is a Polish insurance company, who was assigned damages by the owner of a vehicle following a car accident for the value of 30 euro. Gefion was the Danish insurance company covering the risk related to the accident. Under the Solvency II Directive, insurance undertakings may provide services in other Member States without having there an agency or an establishment – yet, for compulsory motor insurance coverages they must appoint a representative with “sufficient powers to represent the undertaking … including the payment of such claims, and to represent it or, where necessary, to have it represented before the courts and authorities of that Member State in relation to those claims” (Art 152). The Polish representative of Gefion was Crawford Polska.

When Corporis wanted to start judicial proceedings, it served legal documents upon the prospective defendant, in Denmark. Documents were not translated, and the recipient of the documents, according to Art 8 of the Service of Documents Regulation (no. 1393/2007), refused to accept service on the ground that it was in not in the condition to understand the content of the documents.

Polish courts suspended proceedings, requesting Corporis advanced payment for translation for 1.500 euro. Failing such payment, the court dismissed the case.

On appeal, the court of appeal questioned whether the Service of Documents Regulation was applicable, as its recital 8 states that it “should not apply to service of a document on the party’s authorised representative in the Member State where the proceedings are taking place regardless of the place of residence of that party”.

The Court of Justice was thus called to rule on whether the rules on the appointment of representatives contained in the Solvency II Directive and the scope of application of the Service of Documents Regulation as reconstructed in light of its recital extend the competence and duties of said representative to receive service of documents in the language of that specific host State for which he has been appointed.

The Court of Justice has confirmed that the Service of Documents Regulation is not applicable to service of a document on the party’s authorized representative in the Member State where the proceedings are taking place (para 28 f). The applicability of the regulation is set aside in light of its recital 8, according to which it should not be applied “to service of a document on the party’s authorised representative in the Member State where the proceedings are taking place regardless of the place of residence of that party”. This sets the difference from the previous case law of the court, namely the Alder judgment Case C-325/11, where there was no local representative of the foreign defendant, nor a legal obligation to appoint such a representative.

Yet, in the Court’s eye, the non-application of the Service of Documents Regulation in the case at hand does not mean that EU law remains silent in general. The Solvency II Directive creates a harmonized regime for the pursuit of insurance activities between Member States. Amongst its goals, not only the promotion of cross-border services, but the protection of persons as well. The necessity for an insurance undertaking to appoint a representative in a State where it decides to offer services without opening an agency or an establishment is pre-ordered at the protection of persons; even though the Solvency II Directive is silent on the matter, according to the Court, not recognizing the right to victim to serve documents in his own language to the representative with whom it has already taken preliminary steps would, in essence, deprive the provisions of their effet utile.

Interestingly, in terms of legal narrative, the matter is mostly constructed in positive terms. The Court speaks of the “possibility for that representative to accept service” (para 37); it stress the negative consequences of excluding “the powers [of the] representative to accept service of documents” (para 42). Evidently, from the perspective of the foreign insurance company and its representative, this is more a matter of legal obligation to accept service.

The approach and the perspective followed by the Court becomes apparent in the conclusion. The Court does not clearly say that the representative has an obligation to accept service – it says that the rules on appointment in the Solvency II Directive include the power to receive service of documents. An argumentative style that appears to little prejudice to the conclusion: insurance companies now know that when they appoint a representative in another Member State under Artt. 152 Solvency II Directive, persons will have the possibility to serve documents to that representative, and avoid a cross-border service of documents.

The Court of Justice of the European Union on 27th February 2020 delivered its judgment in Corporis/Gefion Insurance, Case C-25/19. The case concerned rules surrounding service of documents in a specific, yet increasingly common context.

Corporis is a Polish insurance company, who was assigned damages by the owner of a vehicle following a car accident for the value of 30 euro. Gefion was the Danish insurance company covering the risk related to the accident. Under the Solvency II Directive, insurance undertakings may provide services in other Member States without having there an agency or an establishment – yet, for compulsory motor insurance coverages they must appoint a representative with “sufficient powers to represent the undertaking … including the payment of such claims, and to represent it or, where necessary, to have it represented before the courts and authorities of that Member State in relation to those claims” (Art 152). The Polish representative of Gefion was Crawford Polska.

When Corporis wanted to start judicial proceedings, it served legal documents upon the prospective defendant, in Denmark. Documents were not translated, and the recipient of the documents, according to Art 8 of the Service of Documents Regulation (no. 1393/2007), refused to accept service on the ground that it was in not in the condition to understand the content of the documents.

Polish courts suspended proceedings, requesting Corporis advanced payment for translation for 1.500 euro. Failing such payment, the court dismissed the case.

On appeal, the court of appeal questioned whether the Service of Documents Regulation was applicable, as its recital 8 states that it “should not apply to service of a document on the party’s authorised representative in the Member State where the proceedings are taking place regardless of the place of residence of that party”.

The Court of Justice was thus called to rule on whether the rules on the appointment of representatives contained in the Solvency II Directive and the scope of application of the Service of Documents Regulation as reconstructed in light of its recital extend the competence and duties of said representative to receive service of documents in the language of that specific host State for which he has been appointed.

The Court of Justice has confirmed that the Service of Documents Regulation is not applicable to service of a document on the party’s authorized representative in the Member State where the proceedings are taking place (para 28 f). The applicability of the regulation is set aside in light of its recital 8, according to which it should not be applied “to service of a document on the party’s authorised representative in the Member State where the proceedings are taking place regardless of the place of residence of that party”. This sets the difference from the previous case law of the court, namely the Alder judgment Case C-325/11, where there was no local representative of the foreign defendant, nor a legal obligation to appoint such a representative.

Yet, in the Court’s eye, the non-application of the Service of Documents Regulation in the case at hand does not mean that EU law remains silent in general. The Solvency II Directive creates a harmonized regime for the pursuit of insurance activities between Member States. Amongst its goals, not only the promotion of cross-border services, but the protection of persons as well. The necessity for an insurance undertaking to appoint a representative in a State where it decides to offer services without opening an agency or an establishment is pre-ordered at the protection of persons; even though the Solvency II Directive is silent on the matter, according to the Court, not recognizing the right to victim to serve documents in his own language to the representative with whom it has already taken preliminary steps would, in essence, deprive the provisions of their effet utile.

Interestingly, in terms of legal narrative, the matter is mostly constructed in positive terms. The Court speaks of the “possibility for that representative to accept service” (para 37); it stress the negative consequences of excluding “the powers [of the] representative to accept service of documents” (para 42). Evidently, from the perspective of the foreign insurance company and its representative, this is more a matter of legal obligation to accept service.

The approach and the perspective followed by the Court becomes apparent in the conclusion. The Court does not clearly say that the representative has an obligation to accept service – it says that the rules on appointment in the Solvency II Directive include the power to receive service of documents. An argumentative style that appears to little prejudice to the conclusion: insurance companies now know that when they appoint a representative in another Member State under Artt. 152 Solvency II Directive, persons will have the possibility to serve documents to that representative, and avoid a cross-border service of documents.

The Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) has announced that the Guide to Good Practice under the Child Abduction Convention: Part VI – Article 13(1)(b) is now available in both English and French.

Article 13(1)(b) of the HCCH Child Abduction Convention sets out: “Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding Article, the judicial or administrative authority of the requested State is not bound to order the return of the child if the person, institution or other body which opposes its return establishes that – b)   there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.”

We expect to post a more detailed comment soon. In the meantime, see our previous post here.

The HCCH news item is available here.