EAPIL blog

On 13 July 2023, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled in case C-87/22 that the court of a Member State where children were wrongfully removed by one of their parent can be requested to assume jurisdiction as a better place court than the court of their formal habitual residence, but that an application for return of the child suspends such decision.

Background

The case was concerned with the custody of two children born in 2012 from a couple of Slovak nationals in Slovakia. In 2014, the family moved to Austria, where the children went to daycare and then school for a few years. In 2017, however, the children started going to school in Slovakia, commuting daily from Austria. As the result, they spoke only limited German.

In 2020, the couple separated, and the mother took the children to Slovakia with her without the father’s consent.

The father sought an order for the return of the children under the 1980 Convention in Slovakia, and brought proceedings for custody of the children in Austria under the Brussels II bis Regulation.

The mother challenged the jurisdiction of the Austrian court on the ground that their habitual residence had been in Slovakia, where they went to school and were socially integrated. She won in first instance, but lost in appeal.

Transfer of the Case to the Place of Wrongful removal?

After loosing on jurisdiction, the mother then applied to the Austrian court for a transfer of the case to Slovakia as a better placed court under Article 15 of the Regulation.

She argued that Slovakian courts were better placed because multiple proceedings were pending in Slovakia (initiated by both parents), and extensive evidence was already available in these proceedings. The Austrian court granted the application in first instance, adding that because the children did not speak German, hearing them in Austrian proceedings would result in additional costs as interpreters would have to be involved.

The appeal court, however, saw a problem with the fact that the children had been wrongfully removed to Slovakia, and wondered whether this was a bar to resorting to Article 15. It referred the matter to the CJEU.

Judgment

The CJEU answers that the court of a Member State where a child was wrongfully removed could be transferred a case under Article 15 as a better placed court, but that an application for return of the child lodged with the competent authorities of the Member State of removal suspends any decision of transfer under Article 15.

This is a remarkable solution. As the judgement recalls, a major objective of the Regulation is to deter parents from removing wrongfully children to other Member States. This is why the return procedure exists, which should lead to a return of the child to the State where s/he was habitually resident. This is also why Article 10 of the Brussels II bis Regulation maintains the jurisdiction of the court of the old habitual residence of the child even if the removal results in a new habitual residence in another State (unless the parents have somehow consented to the removal).

Yet, the CJEU notes that, in practical terms, the court which might be considered as a better placed court under Article 15 will precisely be the court of the State where the child will have been wrongfully removed. Recall that, unlike doctrines such as forum non conveniens, the better placed court doctrine under the Brussels II Regulation is only available to transfer a case to a court which does not have jurisdiction under the Regulation.

The CJEU concludes, therefore, that Article 15 must be considered, in principle, to be available even for transfer to a court of the place of wrongful removal. The Court insists that given that one of the three prongs of the test to decide on a transfer is the best interests of the child, the decision should ultimately be “a balanced and reasonable assessment, in the best interests of the child, of all the interests involved, which must be based on objective considerations relating to the actual person of the child and his or her social environment”.

The CJEU then moves to the test for deciding a transfer under Article 15. It rules that the test remains the same in the context of a potential transfer to the court of the place of wrongful removal but that the existence of an application for return of the child suspends the decision for the six weeks time period for ruling on the application.

Assessment

The case was quite remarkable, in so far as the children were not well integrated, if at all, in the place of their habitual residence.

The judgement, however, addresses the issue from a general standpoint, and it is hard to avoid concluding that it might give additional hopes to parents that their strategy to abduct children might succeed, including in more common cases of child abduction from a country where they are socially integrated to another where they are not. The filing of an application for return of the child will, however, be an even more important move for the parent fighting against the removal and likely the transfer.

The important point that should be underlined, and which is an important safeguard, is that the decision will ultimately be made by the court of the original habitual residence. It is this court which will have to make the assessment of whether a transfer might be beneficial. The court of the place of wrongful removal may also request a transfer, but it will still have to be allowed by the court of the original habitual residence (see Article 13 of the Brussels II ter Regulation).

A collection of essays on the Hague Judgments Convention of 2 July 2019 has recently been published by Hart, in its Studies in Private International Law Series, under the title The HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention – Cornerstones, Prospects, Outlook.

Edited by Matthias Weller, João Ribeiro-Bidaoui, Moritz Brinkmann and Nina Dethloff, the book has been presented and discussed at conference that wtook place at the University of Bonn on 9 and 10 June 2023.

This book analyses, comments and further develops on the most important instrument of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH): the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention. The HCCH Convention, the product of decades of work, will have a transformative effect on global judicial cooperation in civil matters. This book explores its ‘mechanics’, i.e. the legal cornerstones of the new Convention (Part I), its prospects in leading regions of the world (Part II), and offers an overview and comment on its outlook (Part III). Drawing on contributions from world-leading experts, this magisterial and ambitious work will become the reference work for law-makers, judges, lawyers and scholars in the field of private international law.

The contributors include Paul Beaumont, João Bidaoui-Ribeiro, Adeline Chong, Marcos Dotta Salgueiro, Beligh Elbalti, José Angelo Estrella-Faria, Pietro Franzina, Wolfgang Hau, Xandra Kramer, Cristina Mariottini, Chukwuma Okoli, Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm, Ilja Rumenov, Geneviève Saumier, Linda Silberman, Andreas Stein, Zheng Tang, Hans van Loon, Abubakri Yekini, Lenka Visoka, and Ning Zhao.

For more information, including the table of contents, see here.

The first issue of 2023 of the Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale (RDIPP) is out. In addition to recent case law and other materials, it features three contributions.

Francesco Salerno, L’impatto della procedura di interpretazione pregiudiziale sul diritto internazionale privato nazionale (The Impact of the Preliminary Rulings of the Court of Justice on National Private International Law)

The European Court of Justice’s uniform interpretation of private international law concerns mainly – even though not only – the EU Regulations adopted pursuant to Art 81 TFEU: in the context of this activity, the Court also takes into account the distinctive features of EU Member States. The increasing number of autonomous notions developed by the Court greatly enhanced the consistency and the effectiveness of the European rules. Against this background, the Italian judicial authorities implemented such a case-law even when it ran counter well-established domestic legal principles. Moreover, the European institutions rarely questioned the case-law of the Court, but when they did so, they adopted new rules of private international law in order to “correct” a well-settled jurisprudential trend of the Court.

Cristina Campiglio, La condizione femminile tra presente e futuro: prospettive internazionalprivatistiche (The Status of Women between Present and Future: Private International Law Perspectives)

One of the Goals of the U.N. 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is gender equality (Goal 5), which can also be achieved through the elimination of “all harmful practices, such as child, early and forced marriage” (Target No 3) and the protection of women reproductive rights (Target No 6). This article addresses these two issues in a conflict-of-laws perspective, identifying the legal mechanisms through which legal systems counter the phenomenon of early marriages celebrated abroad and tackle the latest challenges related to the so-called reproductive tourism. After analyzing the role played by public policy exceptions and by the principle of the best interest of the child, it summarizes the Court of Justice’s case-law on the recognition of family situations across borders. In fact, the recognition of the possession of an EU status – meeting the social need to have a personal status which accompanies individuals anywhere within the EU area – is gaining ground. Such status is a personal identity merely functional to the exercise of EU citizens’ freedom of movement (Art 3(2) TEU, Art 21 TFEU and Art 45 EU Charter of Fundamental Rights). The result is the possession, by EU citizens, of a split personal identity – one functional to circulation, while the other one to its full extent – whose compatibility with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights principles and with the ECHR may be called into question.

Marco Farina, I procedimenti per il riconoscimento e l’esecuzione delle decisioni straniere nella recente riforma del processo civile in Italia (Proceedings for the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in the Recent Italian Reform of Civil Procedure)

In this article, the author comments on the new Art. 30-bis of Legislative Decree No 150/2011, introduced by Legislative Decree No 149/2022 reforming Italian civil procedure and aimed at regulating “proceedings for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments provided for by European Union law and international conventions”. The author analyses the new provision, focusing on the different procedural rules applicable, depending on the relevant EU Regulation or international convention concerned, to the proceedings that the EU Regulations listed in Art. 30-bis of Legislative Decree No 150/2011 provide for obtaining the recognition and enforcement of the judgments rendered in a Member State other than the one in which they were rendered. In commenting on this new provision, the author offers a reasoned overview of the problems generated by it with the relative possible solutions.

Some EAPIL members are reporting they receive e-mails allegedly sent on my behalf requesting help for the Association.

These e-mails were not sent either by me or any EAPIL official.

Please ignore them.

 

 

The European Parliament on 11 July 2023 adopted its negotiating position on the proposal for a directive on the protection of persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings, also known as strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs).

The Parliament will now start discussions on this basis with the European Council, whose first position has been analysed by Pietro Franzina in a previous post on this blog.

The text resulting from the Council’s general approach departs from the initial proposal (analysed by Marta Requejo in a previous post on this blog), in various respects.

The most significant innovations include the following.

Subject Matter

Parliament specified that the directive poses a set of minimum standards of protection and safeguards against manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings in civil matters, as well as the threats thereof, with cross-border implications brought against natural and legal persons engaging in public participation. No specification on journalists and human rights defenders is provided.

Scope

The scope of the proposed directive should apply to matters of a civil or commercial nature having cross-border implications, including interim and precautionary measures, counteractions or other particular types of remedies available under other instruments, whatever the nature of the court or tribunal. Parliament, then, specified the directive tool as posing minimum requirements. Member States, indeed, may introduce or maintain more favourable provisions than the safeguards provided for in this directive against manifestly unfounded and abusive court proceedings in civil matters. As a result, the implementation of this directive shall in no circumstances constitute grounds for a reduction in the level of safeguards already afforded by Member States in the matters covered by this directive.

Definitions

Parliament clarified the definition of ‘public participation’ to mean any statement or activity by a natural or legal person expressed or carried out in the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and information, academic freedom, or freedom of assembly and association, and preparatory, supporting or assisting action directly linked thereto, on a matter of public interest. This includes complaints, petitions, administrative or judicial claims, the participation in public hearings, the creation, exhibition, advertisement or other promotion of journalistic, political, scientific, academic, artistic, satirical communications, publications or works.

Also the ‘matter of public interest’ is deepened by the Parliament, adding fundamental rights including gender equality, media freedom and consumer and labour rights, as well as the already indicated public health, safety, the environment or the climate. Activities of a person or entity in the public eye or of public interest includes governmental officials and private entities too. Allegations of corruption and fraud are extended, comprising also embezzlement, money laundering, extortion, coercion, sexual harassment and gender-based violence, or other forms of intimidation, or any other criminal or administrative offence, including environmental crime. All activities aimed to protect the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU, the principle of non-interference in democratic processes, and to provide or facilitate public access to information with a view to fighting disinformation are included.

The ‘fully or partially unfounded’ element related to these proceedings is better explained, that is when characterised by elements indicative of a misuse of the judicial process for purposes other than genuinely asserting, vindicating or exercising a right and have as their main purpose to abusively prevent, restrict or penalize public participation. Indications of such a purpose are added and further clarified, as follows. It is added the misuse of economic advantage or political influence by the claimant against the defendant, leading to an imbalance of power between the two parties. Intimidation, harassment or threats on the part of the claimant or his or her representatives can occur before or during the proceedings, as well as any previous history of legal intimidation by the claimant. It is then added also the use in bad faith of procedural tactics, such as delaying proceedings, and choosing to pursue a claim that is subject to the jurisdiction of the court that will treat the claim most favourably, or the discontinuation of the cases at a later stage of the proceedings.

Matters with Cross-Border Implications

The aim is to cover as many cases as possible, working on the cross-border notion in order to enlarge it. Cross-border implications, indeed, occur for the Parliament if the act of public participation is relevant to more than one Member State, either due to the cross-border dimension of the act itself or due to the legitimate interest which the public may take in the matter concerned by the act, including if the act is accessible via electronic means. The other element, i.e. the filing of concurrent or previous proceedings against the same or associated defendants in another Member State, is confirmed by the Parliament.

Application for Procedural Safeguards

Providing expeditious court proceedings is outlined. Member States shall ensure that courts or tribunals seised with an application for procedural safeguards in the proceedings in relation to which the application has been sought using the most expeditious procedures available under national law, taking into account the circumstances of the case, the right to an effective remedy and the right to a fair trial.

According to the Parliament, then, Member States shall (not ‘may’) provide that measures on procedural safeguards in accordance with chapters on early dismissal and remedies can be taken by the court or tribunal seised of the matter ex officio.

Assistance to natural or legal persons engaging in public participation is added. Member States shall ensure that natural or legal persons engaging in public participation have access, as appropriate, to support measures, in particular the following: (a) comprehensive and independent information and advice which is easily accessible to the public and free of charge on procedures and remedies available, on protection against intimidation, harassment or threats of legal action, and on their rights; and (b) legal aid in accordance with Directive 2003/8/EC, and, in accordance with national law, legal aid in further proceedings, and legal counselling or other legal assistance; (c) financial assistance and support measures, including psychological support, for those targeted by abusive court proceedings against public participation.

Third Party Intervention

The third party intervention is strengthened: in addition to widening the audience of interveners, their role is increased. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that a court or tribunal seised of court proceedings against public participation may accept that associations, organisations and other collective bodies, such as trade unions, and any other legal entities which have, in accordance with the criteria laid down by their national law, a legitimate interest in safeguarding or promoting the rights of persons engaging in public participation may take part in those proceedings, either on behalf or in support of the defendant, with his or her approval or to provide information, in any judicial procedure provided for the enforcement of obligations under this directive. This provision is without prejudice to existing rights of representation and intervention as guaranteed by other Union or national rules.

Security

Security for procedural costs, or for procedural costs and damages, is remodelled as security for costs of the proceedings, including the full costs of legal representation incurred by the defendant and damage. Where national law provides for such possibility, security may be granted to the defendant at any stage of the court proceedings.

Early Dismissal

Member States shall (not ‘may’) establish time limits for the exercise of the right to file an application for early dismissal. The time limits shall be also reasonable.

Award of Costs

The claimant who has brought abusive court proceedings against public participation is to be ordered to bear all the costs. Where national law does not guarantee the award in full of the costs of legal representation beyond statutory fee tables, Member States shall ensure that such costs are fully covered by other means available under national law, and, where appropriate, through compensation of damages in accordance with Article 15.

Compensation of Damages

Full compensation for harm is clarified covering material or non-material harm, including reputational harm, without the need to initiate separate court proceedings to that end.

Penalties and National Register

Parliament added that Member States shall ensure that courts or tribunals imposing penalties take due account of: (i) the economic situation of the claimant; (ii) the nature and number of the elements indicating an abuse identified.

In addition, Member states shall take appropriate measures to establish a publicly accessible register of relevant court decisions falling within the scope of this directive, in accordance with Union and national rules on the protection of personal data.

Jurisdiction for Actions Against Third-Country Judgements

Parliament modified this matter, stating that the concerned person shall (not ‘may’) have the right granted under Article 18.

Jurisdiction, Applicable Law and Relations with Union Private International Law Instruments

On jurisdiction matters, a new article has been included stating that in defamation claims or other claims based on civil or commercial law which may constitute a claim under this directive, the domicile of the defendant should be considered to be the sole forum, having due regard to cases where the victims of defamation are natural persons. With the exception of the latter new added Article, this directive then shall not affect the application of the Brussels I bis Regulation.

On the applicable law, in claims regarding a publication as an act of public participation, the applicable law shall be the law of the place to which that publication is directed to. In the event of it not being possible to identify the place to which the publication is directed, the applicable law shall be the law of the place of editorial control or of the relevant editorial activity with regard to the act of public participation. With the exception of the latter new added Article, this directive shall not affect the application of the Rome II Regulation.

Union Register

The Commission shall take appropriate measures to establish a publicly accessible Union register, on the basis of the information provided in accordance with the Article concerning the national register, of relevant court decisions falling within the scope of this directive, in accordance with Union rules on the protection of personal data.

Awareness-Raising

A new addition by the Parliament. Member States shall take appropriate action, including via electronic means, aimed at raising awareness about strategic lawsuits against public participation and the procedural safeguards set out in this directive against them. Such action may include information and awareness-raising campaigns and research and education programmes, where appropriate in cooperation with relevant civil society organisations and other stakeholders.

One-Stop Shop

Parliament included a new article establishing a ‘one-stop shop’ comprising dedicated national networks of specialised lawyers, legal practitioners and psychologists, which targets of SLAPPs can contact, and through which they can receive guidance and easy access to information on, and protection against SLAPPs, including regarding legal aid, financial and psychological support.

Training of Practitioners

To foster prevention of the initiation of SLAPPs and protection of targeted natural or legal persons, it is crucial to promote relevant information, awareness-raising, campaigns, education and training, including on their rights and protection mechanisms. Parliament proposed that, with due respect for the independence of the legal profession, Member States should recommend that those responsible for the training of lawyers make available both general and specialist training to increase the awareness of strategic lawsuits against public participation and the procedural safeguards against them provided for in this directive. Training should also be provided to legal professionals in order to increase awareness of abusive court proceedings and be able to detect them at a very early stage.

Cooperation and Coordination of Services

Member States should take appropriate action to facilitate cooperation between Member States to improve the access of those targeted by manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings against public participation to information on procedural safeguards provided for in this directive and under national law. Such cooperation should be aimed at least at: (a) the exchange of current practices; and (b) the provision of assistance to European networks working on matters directly relevant to those targeted by manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings against public participation.

Deontological Rules for Legal Professionals

Member States shall, with due respect for the independence of the legal profession, encourage the adoption by professional associations of deontological rules that guide the conduct of legal professionals to discourage the taking of abusive lawsuits against public participation, and where appropriate, considering measures to address any violation of those rules.

Data Collection

Member States shall, taking into account their institutional arrangements on judicial statistics, entrust one or more authorities to be responsible to collect and aggregate, in full respect of data protection requirements, data on abusive court proceedings against public participation initiated in their jurisdiction. Data referred to shall include, in particular, many specified criteria.

Transposition into National Law

Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this directive according to the Parliament by 1 years, compared to the 2 years of the original Commission text.

In addition, Member States shall apply this directive also to cases pending before a national court at the time of entry into force of the national rules transposing this directive.

The author of this post is Lydia Lundstedt, who is a Senior Lecturer at Stockholm University.

The United States has long differed from other countries by applying its trademark law (Lanham Act) to acts of infringement in foreign countries. Indeed, in the seminal case, Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., Inc., 344 U.S. 280 (1952), the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS or Court) upheld the application of the Lanham Act to acts of infringement in Mexico when a U.S. defendant took essential steps in the U.S. and caused consumer confusion in the U.S. and injured the right holder’s reputation in the U.S. and abroad. In Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, decided on 29 June 2023, the Court put an end to this and held that § 1114(1)(a) and §1125(a)(1) (the infringement provisions) of the Lanham Act are not extraterritorial and apply only to infringing uses of protected marks in U.S. commerce.

Facts

Hetronic International, Inc (Hetronic), a U.S. company, manufactures radio remote controls for heavy-duty construction equipment. For many years Hetronic had a distributorship agreement with six foreign related parties (collectively Abitron) to distribute Hetronic’s products in Europe. The relationship soured when Abitron claimed ownership to much of Hetronic’s intellectual property rights and began manufacturing their own products—identical to Hetronic’s—and selling them using Hetronic’s trademarks. Abitron mostly sold its products in Europe, but it also made some sales to buyers in the U.S. Hetronic sued Abitron alleging infringement under the Lanham Act seeking worldwide damages and a global injunction. Abitron argued that the Act could not apply to its foreign sales. The district court rejected this argument and Hetronic was awarded approximately 96 million dollars in damages. Abitron was also enjoined from using Hetronic’s trademarks anywhere in the world. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, apart for narrowing the injunction to the countries in which Hetronic actually markets or sells its products. Abitron appealed to SCOTUS.

SCOTUS

The Court applied its longstanding presumption against extraterritoriality, which holds that, unless the U.S. Congress has clearly instructed otherwise, U.S. legislation applies only within the U.S. territory. The Court recalled that this presumption serves to avoid international discord with foreign countries and recognizes that Congress generally legislates with domestic concerns in mind.

The Court’s modern extraterritoriality framework consists of two steps. First, the Court determines whether there is a clear indication that Congress intended to rebut the presumption with respect to the provision at issue. If the answer is no, step two determines whether the case involves a domestic (permissible) application of the provision or a foreign (impermissible) application of the provision. This involves identifying the statute’s focus and whether the object of the focus is located in the U.S.

While all the justices agreed that the answer at step one was no, the justices were almost evenly divided (5-4) at step two in how to draw the dividing line between a domestic and a foreign application of the Lanham Act’s infringement provisions.

The majority (opinion of the Court) held that the relevant criterion was the location of the conduct, that is, the infringing use of the mark must occur in U.S. commerce. They observed that the Court’s previous precedent, Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., which they called “narrow and fact-bound”, implicated both domestic conduct and a likelihood of domestic confusion so it was not helpful when determining which of the two criteria were relevant. Looking instead to the text and context of the infringement provisions, the majority explained that while the conduct must create a risk of confusion, confusion was not a separate requirement but a necessary characteristic of the infringing use. In addition, the majority reasoned that a conduct criterion was easy for the lower courts to apply and it was consistent with the territorial nature of trademarks enshrined in international law.

In contrast, the concurring justices argued that the relevant criterion was consumer confusion. They maintained that the focus of the statute was protection against consumer confusion in the U.S. In their view, an application of the Lanham Act to activities carried out abroad when there is a risk of confusion in the U.S. was a permissible domestic application.

The concurring justices argued that the Court’s precedents do not require a conduct only criterion. They argued that the focus of a statute can be parties and interests that Congress seeks to protect. In addition, they chided the majority for putting aside Steele v. Bulova Watch, which has guided the lower courts for more than 70 years. They also argued that the majority exaggerated the risk for international discord and that applying the Act when there was a likelihood of U.S. consumer confusion was consistent with the international trademark system.

The justices were unanimous in agreeing that the Court of Appeals’ judgment be vacated.

New Questions

The majority opinion raises questions concerning the localization of infringing use. Indeed, its focus on conduct suggests that the location of the actor is relevant. That said, there was no dispute that the Lanham Act applied to the products that Abitron sold directly into the U.S. But what if the products were delivered abroad but marketed to U.S. buyers? Under European Union law, for instance, an infringing use of a trademark takes place in the EU if an offer for sale of a trade-marked product located in a third State is targeted at consumers in the EU (L’Oréal and others (C-324/09).

Now that the Lanham Act no longer applies to foreign infringing acts, right holders will need to rely on foreign trademarks. As many right holders will undoubtably seek to enforce foreign rights in U.S. courts, the question arises whether the U.S. courts will hear foreign trademark claims. Historically, U.S. courts have been reluctant to hear infringement claims based on foreign registered rights for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or forum non conveniens. It will be interesting to see how SCOTUS rules on these questions in the future.

On 6 July 2023 the Court of Justice issued a judgement in BM v LO (C-462/22). The ruling provides guidance as to the interpretation of Article 3(1)(a) of the Brussels II bis Regulation on matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility. Specifically, it refers to the sixth indent of the provision, whereby, in matters relating to divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment, jurisdiction lies with the courts of the Member State in whose territory the applicant is habitually resident if he or she resided there for at least six months immediately before the application was made and is a national of the Member State in question.

It is worth noting that the new Brussels II ter Regulation does not bring any changes to the rules on jurisdiction in matrimonial matters. The interpretation by the Court of Justice of those provisions accordingly remain valid under the recast Regulation.

Factual Background

The request for preliminary ruling originated from the German Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof). The case concerned the divorce of a couple formed by a German husband and a Polish wife, who had married in Poland in 2000. The couple had twin sons born in 2003.

The facts are as follows.

After initially living in Germany for a number of years, the couple moved to Poland into a house they had built, in which the wife still lives today. They are also the joint owners of a dwelling in Warsaw, which they had rented until September 2012, after which it was at their full disposal.

The husband was a senior executive of a pharmaceuticals manufacturer. Since April 2010, he has been employed as the managing director for the Central Europe region, which includes Poland and the Netherlands, but not Germany. His activity is largely characterised by business trips and working from home. His employer provided him with staff accommodation in Aerdenhout (Netherlands), in which he resided on an occasional basis until the end of 2013. The husband has a self- contained dwelling in a house occupied by his parents, in Hamm (Germany).

The husband filed a divorce application with the District Court in Hamm (Germany) in October 2013. He submitted that his habitual residence had been in Hamm since mid-2012 at the latest. He moved out of the house in Poland in June 2012. Since June 2012, he has deepened his relationship with his new cohabiting partner in Hamm and has been caring for his parents. During his stays in Poland, he was limited to having contact with his two sons, which was always tied in with business trips.

The wife challenged the jurisdiction of the German courts and submitted that the husband did not move out of the house in Poland until the beginning of April 2013 and then lived in the jointly owned dwelling in Warsaw. They took turns picking up the two sons from school in Warsaw during the second semester of the 2012/2013 academic year. The husband resided almost exclusively in the Netherlands or Poland between April and November 2013.

The District Court in Hamm (Germany) considered that the German courts lack  jurisdiction, and it dismissed the husband’s application as inadmissible. His appeal on the merits was dismissed also by the Higher Regional Court. The Higher Regional Court concluded that the husband’s habitual residence had been in Germany at the time when he filed his divorce application in October 2013. However, he had not yet been habitually resident in Germany for six months before he filed his divorce application (in April 2013). The husband’s appeal on a point of law, lodged with the referring court, is directed against the decision of the Higher Regional Court.

Preliminary Question

In the case at hand, the doubt concerns the provision of Article 3(1)(a) sixth indent of the Brussels II bis Regulation.

As the applicant was already habitually resident in Germany at the moment of filing a divorce claim, but not necessarily in the period of six month preceding this date, the Bundesgerichtshof decided to address the Court of Justice. The latter rephrased the preliminary question in the following way:

whether the sixth indent of Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that that provision makes the jurisdiction of the court of a Member State to hear an application for the dissolution of matrimonial ties subject to the condition that the applicant, who is a national of that Member State, provides evidence that he or she has acquired a habitual residence in that Member State for at least six months immediately prior to the submission of his or her application, or to the condition that he or she shows that the residence which he or she acquired in that same Member State has become a habitual residence during the minimum period of six months immediately preceding the lodging of his or her application.

In simpler words the doubt in the case at hand is whether the applicant must prove habitual residence from the beginning and throughout that minimum period of six months immediately preceding the application.

The Judgment

The Court of Justice ruled that Article 3(1)(a)

makes the jurisdiction of the court of a Member State to hear an application for the dissolution of matrimonial ties subject to the condition that the applicant, who is a national of that Member State, provides evidence that he or she has acquired a habitual residence in that Member State for at least six months immediately prior to the submission of his or her application.

The Court of Justice reminded that the criteria for jurisdiction listed in Article 3 Brussels IIbis Regulation are objective, alternative and exclusive. While the first to fourth indents of Article 3(1)(a) expressly refer to the habitual residence of the spouses and of the respondent as criteria, the sixth indent of Article 3(1)(a) creates a forum actoris [para. 18-19].

The latter rule seeks to ensure a balance between, on the one hand, the mobility of individuals within the EU, in particular by protecting the rights of the spouse who, after the marriage has broken down, has left the MS where the couple had their shared habitual residence and, on the other hand, legal certainty (in particular legal certainty for the other spouse) by ensuring that there is a real link between the applicant and the MS whose courts have jurisdiction [para. 20].

The Court of Justice explained that, of course, for the purpose of relying on the sixth intend, a spouse must show his habitual residence in the territory of the given Member State at the time of lodging the application [para. 24]. The doubt is whether this habitual residence must be established from the beginning and throughout that minimum period of six months immediately preceding the application [para. 25].

As indicated by the Bundesgerichtshof there is a disagreement as to how the sixth indent of Article 3(1)(a) of the Brussels II bis Regulation are to be interpreted. According to first view, the applicant must have already had habitual residence in the MS of the court at the beginning of the six months period (referred to by the Bundesgerichtshof as “waiting period”). Pursuant to this view in order to exclude manipulation of jurisdiction to the detriment of the respondent, the applicant must prove a sufficiently close connection with the Member State of the court by virtue of habitual residence of a certain duration.

By contrast, according to the second standpoint, periods of mere de facto residence of the applicant must be included in the six-month period, as the commented provisions speaks of “residing” (and not “habitually residing”) in a Member State. Here, the Bundesgerichtshof compares the wording of Brussels II bis Regulation to the HCCH 1970 Divorce Convention, which wording is less ambiguous as to the character of residence. While establishing requirement of indirect jurisdiction, its Article 2(2)(a) provides that the requirement is fulfilled if “the petitioner had his habitual residence there and one of the following further conditions was fulfilled”, for example “such habitual residence had continued for not less than one year immediately prior to the institution of proceedings”.

While, agreeing with the first view (and acknowledging slightly different wording of Article 3(1) in the German version) the Court of Justice underlined that the commented provision must be understood in the light of other provisions of Brussels II bis Regulation. The Court of Justice explained that under Article 3(1)(a) second indent the court of the Member State in which the spouses were last habitually resident, in so far as one of them still resides there has jurisdiction. It is clear that the expression “still resides there” implies a temporal continuity between that residence and the place where the spouses were last habitually resident. As a result, the spouse who remained in the territory of the MS concerned has his or her own habitual residence there [para. 30]. This shows that no distinction should be made between the notion of habitual residence and residence in Article 3.

Only such understanding strikes a fair balance between legal certainty, while preserving the mobility of persons within the European Union and the possibility of obtaining the divorce, without unduly favouring that applicant, even though the forum actoris is a rule already favourable to him [para. 31].

Such strict understandings is needed as the jurisdiction based on the commented provision is not subject either to the agreement of the spouses or to the existence of a particular connection with the place where they lived together, past or present. Hence, requiring the applicant to demonstrate habitual residence in the territory of the Member State of the court seised for at least six months immediately preceding the lodging of the application is based on the need for that applicant to be able to establish a real link with that Member State [para. 33].

If, in contrast, the second view would be the correct one, the sufficiency of the period of habitual residence required of the applicant in the territory of the Member State of the court seised would, by definition, vary from case to case and according to the casuistic assessment of each national court seised [para. 34].

At the same time, the requirement as understood by the Court of Justice does not impose on the applicant any disproportionate burden, which could deter from relying on the commented ground of jurisdiction.

Final Remarks

Given the very favorable to the applicant ground of jurisdiction provided for in Article 3(1)(a) sixth indent of Brussels II bis Regulation, the interpretation provided by the Court of Justice is very reasonable. As suggested by the Bundesgerichtshof in its preliminary question, such interpretation is supported by the fact that the commented rule constitutes a special privileged treatment of the applicant, with the result that there is a need for special protection of the respondent, who in most cases has no connection to the court seised.

In practice, as noticed by the referring court, an ex-post assessment of the question as to whether the residence in the MS was already “habitual” at the beginning of the six-month period might be associated with considerable factual uncertainties and difficulties.

However, such problems are likely to arise only rarely. Usually, a spouse, while separated from the other, leaves the place where the the couple was resident and moves to another MS, which usually entails the return to “home” MS, which is the MS of his / her residence before the marriage or nationality.

Hence, as suggested in the AG’s opinion to IB v FA (C-289/20) it is possible for a spouse to acquire habitual residence almost immediately or at least after a short period of time, with the result that in practice the entire residence in the other MS will constitute habitual residence.

The readers of this blog are aware of the pending proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on corporate sustainability due diligence. The topic was dealt with in a post that can be found here, and in another post here, with reference to the recommendations by GEDIP, the European Group of Private International Law.

The proposed directive aims to foster sustainable and responsible corporate behaviour throughout global value chains. In-scope companies will be required to identify and, where necessary, prevent, end or mitigate adverse impacts of their activities on human rights.

The next steps for the directive proposal will be the trilogue discussions between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the Commission.

The Views of the European Parliament

On 1 June 2023, the European Parliament, at 1st reading/single position, adopted amendments to the proposal. It could be summarized as follows.

Scope of application

Parliament addressed the threshold criteria to fall within the scope of the directive. The new rules will apply to EU-based companies, regardless of their sector, including financial services, with more than 250 employees and a worldwide turnover over EUR 40 million, as well as to parent companies with over 500 employees and a worldwide turnover of more than EUR 150 million. Non-EU companies with a turnover higher than EUR 150 million, if at least EUR 40 million was generated in the EU will also be included; the same for non-EU parent companies with a turnover exceeding EUR 150 million, from which at least EUR 40 was generated in the EU.

Definitions

Parliament moves in broadening the definition of ‘value chain’, to include the sale, distribution, transport, and waste management of products.

Companies’ Obligations

Parliament, in Article 8b (new), specified that the directive should lay down rules on companies’ obligations regarding actual and potential negative impacts on human rights and the environment that they have caused, contributed to or are directly involved in, with regard to their own activities, and those of their subsidiaries.
Companies would be required to identify and, where appropriate, prevent, bring to an end or mitigate the negative impact of their activities on human rights and the environment, such as child labour, slavery, labour exploitation, pollution, environmental degradation and loss of biodiversity. They should also monitor and assess the impact of their business partners, not only suppliers, but also sales, distribution, transport, storage, waste management and other areas.

Integration of Due Diligence

Companies covered by the Directive should: integrate due diligence into their corporate policies, identify and, where necessary, prioritise, prevent, mitigate, remedy, eliminate and minimise potential and actual adverse impacts on human rights, the environment and good governance; establish or participate in a mechanism for the notification and out-of-court handling of complaints; monitor and verify the effectiveness of actions taken in accordance with the requirements set out in the Directive; communicate publicly on their due diligence and consult relevant stakeholders throughout this process.
Member States should ensure that parent undertakings can take action to help ensure that their subsidiaries falling within the scope of the Directive comply with their obligations.
Companies should apply a due diligence policy that is proportionate and commensurate to the degree of severity and the likelihood of the adverse impact and commensurate to the size, resources and capacities of the company, taking into account the circumstances of the specific case, including the nature of the adverse impact, characteristics of the economic sector, the nature of the company’s specific activities, products, services, the specific business relationship.
In conflict-affected and high-risk regions, companies should uphold their obligations under international humanitarian law and demonstrate heightened, conflict-sensitive due diligence in their operations and business relationships.

Prevention of Potential Negative Impacts

Companies would be required to take the following steps, as appropriate: consider establishing contractual arrangements with partners with whom the company has a business relationship, obliging them to comply with the company’s code of conduct and, where appropriate, a prevention action plan; take necessary modifications, improvements to, withdrawals of or investments in, the company’s own operations, such as into management, production or other operational processes, facilities, products and product traceability, projects, services and skills; adapt business models and strategies, including purchasing practices, including those which contribute to living wages and incomes for their suppliers, in order to prevent potential adverse impacts, and develop and use purchase policies that do not encourage potential adverse impacts on human rights or the environment; take appropriate measures to ensure that the composition, design and commercialisation of a product or service is in line with Union law and does not lead to adverse impacts, be it individual or collective. In this regard, particular attention shall be paid to potential adverse impact on children.

Mitigating Actual Negative Impacts

Where a company has caused or contributed to an actual adverse impact, it should take steps to remedy or contribute to the remedy of that adverse impact and any harm it has caused to people or the environment. Remedial measures, introduced by Parliament, would aim to restore the affected individuals, groups, communities and/or the environment to a situation equivalent to, or as close as possible to, that which existed prior to the adverse impact.

Exchanges with Stakeholders

The new rules would also require companies to engage in dialogue with those affected by their actions, including human rights and environmental defenders. Companies would also be required to regularly monitor the effectiveness of their due diligence policies. To facilitate investor access, information on a company’s due diligence policy should also be available on the European Single Access Point (ESAP).
Employees and their representatives should be informed by their company of its due diligence policy and its implementation.

Guidelines

To provide support to companies or to Member State authorities, the Commission, in consultation with Member States, the European cross-industry and sectoral social partners and other relevant stakeholders, should issue clear and easily understandable guidelines, including general and sector- specific guidance, in order to facilitate compliance in a practical manner. Each Member State should designate one or more national helpdesks for corporate sustainability due diligence.

Combating Climate Change

Companies should implement a transition plan to limit global warming to 1.5°C. Companies, with more than 1 000 employees on average according to Parliament, should have an effective policy in place to ensure that part of any variable remuneration for directors is linked to the company’s transition plan.

Sanctions

Non-compliant companies will be liable for damages and can be sanctioned by national supervisory authorities. According to Parliament, sanctions include measures such as “naming and shaming”, taking a company’s goods off the market, or fines of at least 5% of the previous net worldwide turnover. Non-EU companies that fail to comply with the rules will be banned from public procurement in the EU.

Single Market Clause

Parliament introduced the single market clause. According to the latter, the Commission and the Member States shall coordinate during the transposition of this Directive and thereafter in view of a full level of harmonisation between Member States, in order to ensure a level playing field for companies and to prevent the fragmentation of the Single Market.

Justice Costs, Injunctions and Third-party Intervention

Parliament require Member States in ensuring that: the limitation period for bringing actions for damages is at least ten years and measures are in place to ensure that costs of the proceedings are not prohibitively expensive for claimants to seek justice; claimants are able to seek injunctive measures, including summary proceedings (these shall be in the form of a definitive or provisional measure to cease an action which may be in breach of this Directive, or to comply with a measure under this Directive); measures are in place to ensure that mandated trade unions, civil society organisations, or other relevant actors acting in the public interest can bring actions before a court on behalf of a victim or a group of victims of adverse impacts, and that these entities have the rights and obligations of a claimant party in the proceedings, without prejudice to existing national law.

The Council’s General Approach of November 2022

Previously, on 30 November 2022, the Council of the European Union had adopted its negotiating position, or general approach. It included the following provisions.

Companies Concerned

In relation to companies concerned (see Article 2), the rules of the due diligence directive would still apply to large EU companies and to non-EU companies active in the EU. For EU companies, the criteria that determine whether a company falls within the scope of the directive are based on the number of employees and the company’s net worldwide turnover, whereas in the case of non-EU companies the criterion is related to the net turnover generated in the EU; if a non-EU company fulfils the criterion regarding net turnover generated in the EU, it will fall under the scope of the due diligence directive, irrespective of whether it has a branch or a subsidiary in the EU.
The Council’s text has introduced a phase-in approach regarding the application of the rules laid down in the directive. The rules would first apply to very large companies that have more than 1000 employees and €300 million net worldwide turnover or, for non-EU companies, € 300 million net turnover generated in the EU, 3 years from the entry into force of the directive.

Definitions

The European Council’s draft limits the scope of the due diligence obligations identified by the Commission in the full life-cycle “value chain” approach towards a more narrowed “chain of activities”: the latter covers a company’s upstream and in a limited manner also downstream business partners as it leaves out the phase of the use of the company’s products or the provision of services and excludes the use of a company’s products by its consumers (see Article 3(g)); then, it leaves it up to the Member States to decide whether regulated financial undertakings (including fund managers) shall be included in the scope of the directive.
The Council’s text also strengthens the risk-based approach and the rules on the prioritisation of the adverse impacts to ensure that carrying out due diligence obligations is feasible for companies (see Article 3, points (e) and (f)).

Combating Climate Change

The text of the provision on combating climate change (see Article 15) has been aligned as much as possible with the soon-to-be-adopted Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), including a specific reference to that directive, in order to avoid problems with its legal interpretation, while avoiding broadening the obligations of companies under this Article.
Due to the strong concerns of Member States regarding the provision proposed by the Commission linking the variable remuneration of directors to their contribution to the company’s business strategy and long-term interest and sustainability, this provision has been deleted (Article 15(3)). The form and structure of directors’ remuneration are matters primarily falling within the competence of the company and its relevant bodies or shareholders. Delegations called for not interfering with different corporate governance systems within the Union, which reflect different Member States’ views about the roles of companies and their bodies in determining the remuneration of directors.

Civil Liability

The Council’s text provides more clarity to the conditions of civil liability (see Article 22) with a provision that ensures full compensation for damages resulting from a company’s failure to comply with the due diligence obligations, avoiding unreasonable interference with the Member States’ tort law systems.
The four conditions that have to be met in order for a company to be held liable – a damage caused to a natural or legal person, a breach of the duty, the causal link between the damage and the breach of the duty and a fault (intention or negligence) – were clarified in the text and the element of fault was included.
Furthermore, the right of victims of human rights or environmental adverse impacts to full compensation were expressly provided for in the compromise text. On the other hand, the right to full compensation should not lead to overcompensation, for example by means of punitive damages.
Further, clarifications of the joint and several liability of a company and a subsidiary or a business partner and the overriding mandatory application of civil liability rules were made.
All of these clarifications and precisions allowed to delete the safeguard for companies that sought contractual assurances from their indirect business partners after a strong criticism of this provision due to its heavy reliance on contractual assurances.

Directors’ Duties

Due to the strong concerns expressed by Member States that considered Article 25 to be an inappropriate interference with national provisions regarding directors’ duty of care, and potentially undermining directors’ duty to act in the best interest of the company, the Council’s proposal deletes the director’s duties introduced by the Commission.

Annex I

The Annex I to the proposed directive has undergone significant changes with the main objective of making the obligations as clear and easily understandable for companies as possible, while ensuring a legally sound base. The logic of the Annex I is to list specific rights and prohibitions, the abuse or violation of which constitutes an adverse human rights impact (see Article 3, point (c)) or adverse environmental impacts (see Article 3, point (b)). To better understand how these rights and prohibitions should be interpreted, the Annex I contains references to international instruments that serve as points of reference.
To ensure the legitimacy of referring to international instruments that are legally binding only on the States, and following the overall logic of the Annex I, the Annex I covers only those international instruments that were ratified by all Member States. Overall, the Annex I of the compromise text only refers to such obligations and prohibitions that can be observed by companies, not just by States.
As regards the human rights part of the Annex I, it covers only legally binding international instruments that are recognised as a minimum list of instruments in the international framework. Concerning the environmental part of the Annex I, a limited number of additional specific obligations and prohibitions under international environmental instruments have been added, the violation of which results in an adverse environmental impact.
Moreover, the definitions of adverse environmental and human rights impacts have been clarified. Furthermore, the so-called ‘catch-all clause’ included in the Commission’s proposal has been kept in order to safeguard the indivisibility of human rights, but it has been clarified thoroughly to ensure maximum predictability for companies.

The second issue of the Revue critique de droit international privé of 2023 contains three articles on private international law and numerous casenotes.

In the first article, Sandrine Brachotte (St Louis and Lille Universities) advocates a decolonial approach of private international law (Pour une approche décoloniale du droit international privé). The abstract reads:

This article presents the decolonial approach to private international law, which has recently entered the list of pressing topics for the discipline, not only in colonised countries but also in Europe. In France, the subject may not yet be addressed as such, but it at least appeared in a Ph. D. thesis defended at the Sciences Po Paris Law School in May 2022, entitled “The Conflict of Laws and Non-secular Worldviews: A Proposal for Inclusion”. This thesis argues for an alternative theorisation of the notions of party autonomy, recognition, and international jurisdiction to make them more inclusive of non-occidental worldviews. After having offered a description of the decolonial approach and the current enterprise of decolonisation of private international law, this contribution summarises the essential points of the Ph. D. thesis in this respect and identifies the broader questions that it raises for private international law, especially as regards the notions of “law”, “foreign” and “conflict”.

Dr Brachotte has already presented her work on this blog here.

In the second article, Elie Lenglart (Paris II University) confronts international civil procedure to individualism (Les conflits de juridictions confrontés à l’individualisme). The abstract reads:

Individualism is one the characteristic features of modern legal theories. The emergence of the individualistic approach is profoundly linked to a special perception and evaluation of the reality based of the superiority of the individual. This conception has had decisive consequences in private international law. The impact of this tendency should not be underestimated. Its influence is noticeable in the first place on the determination of international competency of French jurisdictions, both via the provision of available jurisdictions to individuals and via the individuals’ propensity to extend their choices of jurisdictions based on their personal interests. It also influences the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments by imposing the legal recognition of individual statuses under extremely liberal conditions, reorganizing in turn the whole system around the individual.

The article is a follow up on Dr Lenglart’s work on individualism in choice of law theory.

An English version of these two articles will be available on the website of the publisher.

In the third article, David Sindres (university of Angers) offers new reflections on optional jurisdiction clauses.

Finally, a last article is dedicated to recent developments in French immigration law.

The full table of contents is available here.

The author of this post is Willem Visser. He is one of the editors of the Dutch Journal for Consumer Law and Unfair Commercial Practices (Tijdschrift voor Consumentenrecht & handelspraktijken).

In April 2023, the EAPIL Working Group on the Reform of the Brussels I bis Regulation issued a preliminary position paper formulating proposals for reforming the Regulation. On 29 March 2023, the European Commission published a study to support the preparation of a report on the application of the Brussels Ibis Regulation.

In my opinion, consumer protection seems to be only marginally on the radar in these documents. Therefore, I wrote this article, which was published in the Dutch Journal for Consumer Law, where I propose to extend the material scope of the provisions dealing with consumer contracts (Articles 17-19 Brussels I bis Regulation) and to significantly simplify the entire chapter on jurisdiction. A summary of my article and proposals is set out below.

Consumers are protected through EU regulations not only when it comes to their substantive rights (against unfair commercial practices, unfair terms, etc.), but also when it comes to procedural law, in particular the assesment of international jurisdiction in disputes over consumer contracts.

This procedural protection is enshrined in the Brussels I bis Regulation and its predecessors (Regulation No. 44/2001 and the 1968 Brussels Convention). These instruments will be referred to below as ‘the Brussels regime’.

The Brussels regime protects consumers by giving jurisdiction to the courts of their country of residence (Articles 17-19 Brussels I bisRegulation). That seems like a great deal, but in practice there are several limitations to that protection.

First, the consumer protection only applies to consumer contracts and not to any non-contractual obligations invoked by consumers (for example, tort, unjust enrichment and negotiorum gestio). In these types of cases the consumer cannot litigate before the court of his or her domicile, but will probably have to seek the courts of its professional counterparty: the defendant’s domicile. It is not desirable for consumers to be forced to litigate outside their country of residence, because that means extra travel time, litigating in an unfamiliar country and in a different language, with the help of a foreign lawyer, in a procedure that may well be more expensive than in his or her home country. Moreover, it is not always clear – on the basis of the various rulings by the EU Court of Justice – whether an obligation should be qualified as a ‘contractual obligation’ or a ‘non-contractual obligation’. There have been several cases where the natural person was the weaker party and needed protection, but did not get it because of the non-contractual nature of the obligation in question (see the ECJ decisions in Wikingerhof, Kolassa and Deepwater Horizon). I therefore believe that consumer protection in the Brussels Ibis Regulation should not be limited to consumer contracts but should be extended to non-contractual consumer obligations.

Second, the ECJ interpretes the concept of ‘consumer’ restrictively: it “must necessarily be interpreted strictly, in the sense that it cannot be extended beyond the cases expressly mentioned in that Regulation” (amongst others: Poker Player, C-774/19, para. 24). This restrictive approach resulted in a natural person not being able to claim consumer protection under the Brussels regime in the following situations: if he/she was a consumer but transferred his/her rights; in that case, the person to whom the rights have been transferred cannot be considered a ‘consumer’ (C-89/91); if the contract was entered into with a view to an as yet unexercised but future professional activity (C-269/95); if it concerns a class action initiated by a group of consumers (C-167/00); if both parties are consumers (C-508/12); if the consumer does not have a contract with the issuer of the certificates (C-375/13); if the agreement subsequently acquired a professional character (C-498/16); if the contract was concluded for a dual purpose, unless the contract, in view of the context of the transaction – considered as a whole – for which it was concluded, is so distinct from that professional activity that it is evident that it was concluded primarily for private purposes (C-630/17); if there is a claim by a consumer against an airline that is not a party to the transport contract (C-215/18).

So, there are quite a few situations where a natural person is not considered a ‘consumer’, and therefore cannot litigate before the courts of his or her own domicile. This is remarkable, because the European Union ensures “a high level of consumer protection” (Article 38 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights). I believe that in several of the situations mentioned above, there is an unjustified lack of protection. In my opinion, the regime of Article 17-19 Brussels I bis Regulation should therefore be applied less restrictively by entering an assumption into the Regulation that a natural person acts in his capacity as a consumer. It is up to the counterparty to prove that the natural person has unmistakably acted in the context of his or her profession or business.

In addition, I believe that consumer protection should also apply to consumer collective actions. There is no valid reason why the collective nature of a claim should result in a group of consumers no longer being considered a weaker party. At the time the contracts were concluded, the consumers represented had less room to negotiate with their professional counterparty, and thus to that extent still had a weaker position. Moreover, it leads to a divergence between the competent court and the applicable law. Still, collective actions based on a breach of consumer contracts remain governed by the law of the consumers’ country. The freedom to conduct a business, guaranteed in Article 16 of the EU Charter, does not necessitate the exclusion of collective actions from consumer protection. The professional counterparty of the consumer has already had to take into account that individual consumers could bring proceedings against it in their own place of residence. That this is different in the case of a consumer collective action is therefore, in that sense, an unexpected advantage for the counterparty.

Third, in my opinion the ‘targeting requirement’ in Article 17 (1)(c) Brussels I bis Reguliation is not workable in practice. This requirement has given rise to much ECJ case-law and leads to legal uncertainty (see the legal commentary on the Alpenhof judgment). In my opinion, in this digital day and age a consumer contract should only be excluded from consumer protection where the professional would not have to expect litigating in the courts of the consumer’s domicile. This is the case only, when the contract is concluded in a physical sales area or when the consumer cannot get the goods or services delivered in his place of residence under the trader’s terms and conditions.

In light of the above, I conclude that consumer protection under the Brussels regime has not kept pace with substantive consumer law in which consumer protection has become more extensive.

But that’s not the only comment I would like to make on the current Brussels I bis Regulation. The complexity of the chapter on jurisdiction (Chapter II of the Regulation) results even today – more than 50 years after its predecessor, the Brussels Convention, was signed by the the EEC members States – in large numbers of preliminary rulings. The Brussels/Lugano regime accounts for the majority of the 245 preliminary rulings on private international law sources from 2015 to 2022. That means more than 120 questions (128 to be precise) over a 7-year period. In my opinion, that is too much for an instrument that is in place more than 50 years.

Reducing the Court of Justice’s workload is not necessarily a compelling reason to simplify a regime, but it should be borne in mind that behind every case submitted to a court, there are two or more parties who – until the preliminary question is answered – cannot proceed with their legal proceedings. The delay is considerable, since preliminary reference proceedings before the Court of Justice take 16.6 months on average.

I therefore propose to replace the articles which give rise to the largest amount of preliminary questions (Article 7(1) and (2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation) by an article which aligns jurisdiction and applicable law. My proposal is that Article 7(1) and (2) (and perhaps other parts of Article 7) should be replaced by the following rule:

A person domiciled in one Member State may also be sued in another Member State whose laws governs the relevant contractual or non-contractual obligation underlying the claim. Where there are several claims governed by different laws, the courts of the Member State which laws governs the most far-reaching claim shall have jurisdiction.

The advantage of aligning jurisdiction and applicable law is that it improves coherence between the Brussels I bis Regulation and the Rome I and Rome II Regulations (which designate the law that is applicable to a contractual or non-contractual obligation). These Regulations all aim to promote predictability of the outcome of litigation, legal certainty and mutual recognition of judgments.

Simplifying the Brussels regime would give rise to fewer preliminary questions and fewer delays. Preventing delays is one of the objectives of procedural law. As the saying goes: ‘Justice delayed is justice denied’.

I admit that I have not yet thought through all consequences of my proposals, and it is going too far to elaborate all of them in the context of my article. But it seems right to discuss these proposals further and, if possible, to include it as an option in the ongoing review of the Brussels I bis Regulation.

Horatia Muir Watt’s latest book has recently been published by Hart in its Hart Monographs in Transnational and International Law, under the title The Law’s Ultimate Frontier: Towards an Ecological Jurisprudence (the subtitle reads A Global Horizon in Private International Law).

Here’s the publisher’s blurb:

This important book offers an ambitious and interdisciplinary vision of how private international law (or the conflict of laws) might serve as a heuristic for re-working our general understandings of legality in directions that respond to ever-deepening global ecological crises. Unusual in legal scholarship, the author borrows (in bricolage mode) from the work of Bruno Latour, alongside indigenous cosmologies, extinction theories and Levinassian phenomenology, to demonstrate why this field’s specific frontier location at the outpost of the law – where it is viewed from the outside as obscure and from the inside as a self-contained normative world – generates its potential power to transform law generally and globally.

Combining pragmatic and pluralist theory with an excavation of ‘shadow’ ecological dimensions of law, the author, a recognised authority within the field as conventionally understood, offers a truly global view. Put simply, it is a generational magnum opus. All international and transnational lawyers, be they in the private or public field, should read this book.

See here for more information. The publisher offers a 20% discount to those buying the book through its website using GLR BE1US for US orders and GLR BE1UK for all other orders.

On 30 June 2023, the Supreme Court of Poland issued an interlocutory order (II CSKP 1518/22) in a case regarding the enforcement in Poland of a Dutch judgment.

The order provides fresh evidence of how the long-lasting tensions between Poland and EU with respect to rule of law and independence of judiciary in Poland is having an impact on the operation of EU instruments on judicial cooperation (for a recent analysis of those tensions, see M. Taborowski, P. Filipek, Mustard After Lunch? Polish ‘Muzzle Law” before the Court of Justice, on EULawLive).

The Order in a Nutshell

The order of the Supreme Court was given in the framework of proceedings brought against a ruling rendered by the Court of Appeal of Poznań in 2020 (I ACz 444/20, unreported). The latter ruling had dismissed, in turn, an appeal against a District Court decision regarding the enforceability in Poland of a judgment rendered by the Rechtbank Limburg, in the Netherlands.

According to the Supreme Court’s press release, the order was based on Article 1153(24) of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure. The latter provision deals with recognition and enforcement of judgments given in a Member State of the Union pursuant to EU legislation on judicial cooperation in civil matters.

Little is known, at this stage, about the merits of the case. Rather, the decision is interesting for the way in which the Supreme Court decided to approach the issue of the enforceability of the Dutch judgment in Poland. In fact, the Supreme Court decided to stay the proceeding and ask the Ministry of Justice of Poland and the Dutch Judiciary Council (Raad voor de Rechtspraak) for clarifications regarding the independence of Dutch judicial authorities, in general, and – specifically – the magistrate who handed down the judgment.

Reasons Given by the Supreme Court to Justify the Request for Clarification

The Supreme Court justified its request for clarification by referring to a number of EU primary law provisions. These include Article 2 TEU (“which entrusts the courts of the Member States of the EU with the task of ensuring the full application of  EU law in all its Member States as well as the judicial protection of the subjective rights of individuals, and therefore having regard to the need to verify of its own motion (ex officio) the fulfilment of the requirements of effective judicial protection/effective remedy and the existence in the legislation of the Member State of guarantees of judicial independence”) and Article 47(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which provides the relevant standards for the assessment (“in conjunction with the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the TEU, given the imperative for the Supreme Court to follow the interpretation of these provisions made by, inter alia, the Court of Justice”).

The Court also stressed “the principle of consistency and the resulting need for the uniform application of EU law throughout the EU, that is in all Member States and therefore also on the territory of the Kingdom of the Netherlands”.

To corroborate its reasoning, the Supreme Court listed various rulings given by the Court of Justice of the European Union in proceedings against Poland, such as Commission v Poland, C-791/19 and  Commission v Poland, C-204/21, together with rulings concerning the question of independence of judiciary in Poland (A.B. and others, C-824/18).

Nothing in the order or in the press release indicates that the Supreme Court had concerns regarding the independence of the particular Dutch court (or the particular Dutch magistrate) in question, or had reasons to believe that the particular proceedings which resulted in the Dutch judgement were conducted in breach of fundamental procedural guarantees.

Clarification Requested

The Dutch Judiciary Council (Raad voor de Rechtspraak) was asked to provide, inter alia, “copies of documents supporting and relating to the procedure for the appointment of X.Y. [anonymized name of the Dutch magistrate of the judge of the Rechtbank Limburg]”, in particular as regards:

(a) the procedure for his appointment, indicating the competent bodies involved in the appointment procedure, their composition and the functions performed by their members, including an indication of the extent, if any, of the influence of legislative or executive representatives on the judicial appointment, and a copy of the appointment document, a copy of the application for appointment and the opinions, if any, on the candidacy of X.Y. for the office of judge,

(b) information about the competition for the office of judge at the Rechtbank Limburg in which X.Y. participated as a candidate, the number of competing other candidates for the judicial post to which X.Y. was appointed at the Rechtbank Limburg, and the appeal procedure, if any, for candidates who were not recommended by the competent authorities and were not appointed, as well as the evaluation criteria, if any,

(c) assessments of Judge X.Y.’s performance during his judicial service (also possibly prior to his appointment as a judge at the Rechtbank Limburg, if he has held office at another court) and any judicial, investigative or disciplinary proceedings pending against him, or allegations concerning the assessment of his independence and attitude in the performance of his judicial duties and outside his judicial service (insofar as this remains relevant)

(d) any activities of Judge X.Y. of a political nature, including political party affiliation, irrespective of its duration and employment in the legislative or executive branches of government …

The Ministry of Justice of Poland was asked, instead, to provide information, among other things, on the Dutch rules that govern, in relation to the judiciary:

(a) the procedure for nomination to the office of judge considering the constitutional and statutory standard of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and resulting from the case law of the CJEU (…), including the standards in force in this respect in the period before 2019 and currently, with particular regard to the transparency of the criteria and the conduct of the procedure,

(b) the influence of the legislative or executive power on the procedure for the nomination of judges of common courts in the Netherlands and its scope, with particular reference to the Raad voor de Rechtspraak (Council for the Judiciary) and the formal binding nature of its recommendations (opinions) on candidates for the office of judge, and, possibly, disciplinary or other proceedings concerning the disciplinary or criminal liability of a judge,

(c) the avenue of appeal for candidates not appointed to the office of judge,

(d) the composition and method of election of members of the Raad voor de Rechtspraak …

The University of Kiel will host a conference on EU Insolvency Law and Third Countries: Which Way(s) Forward? on 26-28 October 2023. A special forum for young scholars is scheduled to take place on 26 October 2023 .

The conference is part of a coordinated research project on this topic endorsed by Uncitral and conducted in cooperation with representatives of the European Commission and the Hague Conference on Private International Law.

The goal of the conference, and of the underlying research project in general, is not so much to analyse the law as it stands today, but to discuss ideas how to further develop rules on coordination of EU insolvency law with insolvency law or insolvency proceedings in non-EU countries (e.g. the UK, Switzerland, the US, China and others).

The conference will be organized in a hybrid format, in presence in Kiel and online via Zoom. The deadline for registrations for the conference is 1 October 2023. The deadline to propose papers for oral presentations is 31 July (15 September for the Young Researchers Forum).

Further info on the project and the conference is available here.

Queries can be addressed to the organisers of the conference, Alexander Trunk and Jasnica Garašić, at office-eastlaw@law.uni-kiel.de or at intins@law.uni-kiel.de.

On 30 June 2023, the European Commission presented a proposal for a Council decision on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the United Nations Convention on the International Effects of Judicial Sales of Ships, adopted on 7 December 2022, also known as the Beijing Convention on the Judicial Sale of Ships.

The Convention sets out a uniform regime for giving effect to judicial sales internationally, while preserving domestic law governing the procedure of judicial sales and the circumstances in which judicial sales confer clean title, that is, title free and clear of any mortgage or charge. By ensuring legal certainty as to the title that the purchaser acquires in the ship, the Convention aims to maximize the price that the ship is able to attract in the market and the proceeds available for distribution among creditors, and to promote international trade.

The key rule of the Convention is that a judicial sale  in one State Party which has the effect of conferring clean title on the purchaser has the same effect in every other State Party, subject only to a public policy exception. Various provisions are found in the Convention which establish how a judicial sale is given effect after completion, including a requirement that the ship registry deregister the ship or transfer registration at the request of the purchaser, and a prohibition on arresting the ship for a claim arising from a pre-existing right or interest (i.e. a right or interest extinguished by the sale). To support the operation of the regime and to safeguard the rights of parties with an interest in the ship, the Convention provides for the issuance of two instruments: a notice of judicial sale and a certificate of judicial sale. It also establishes an online repository of those instruments which is freely accessible to any interested person or entity.

The Council decision that the Commission proposing is based on Article 81(2)(a) and (b) of the Treaty in the Functioning of the European Union, on the recognition and enforcement of judgments and the cross-border service of documents, in conjunction with Article 218(5) (concerning the conclusion of international agreements by the Union). In fact, some of the matters dealt with in the Beijing Convention affect the Brussels I bis Regulation and the Recast Service Regulation. The conclusion of the Convention comes, for those aspects, with the purview of the exclusive external competence of the Union.

The other matters covered by the Convention do not fall under that competence (the Convention includes provisions that deals with other issues of private international law, including jurisdiction, but they do not affect the operation of existing EU legislation). This means that that Member States should join the Convention alongside the Union, in order to ensure the full application of the Convention between the Union and third states.

Before the judicial holiday starting mid July the Court will deliver (as of today) decisions on two private international law cases and hold a hearing on another one.

The first decision is scheduled for on 6 July 2023. It corresponds to case C-462/22, BM, on a request from the German Bundesgerichtshof for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 3(1)(a) of the Brussels II bis Regulation on matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility. The question reads:

Does the waiting period of one year or six months under the fifth and sixth indents, respectively, of Article 3(1)(a) of the [Brussels II bis Regulation] begin to run with respect to the applicant only upon establishment of his or her habitual residence in the Member State of the court seised, or is it sufficient if, at the beginning of the relevant waiting period, the applicant initially has mere de facto residence in the Member State of the court seised, and his or her residence becomes established as habitual residence only subsequently, in the period before the application was made?

The proceedings concern the divorce of an individual of German nationality, and his wife, who is a Polish national. They married in Poland in 2000, and have twin sons born in 2003. The couple moved to Poland in the mid-2000s, into a house in Konstancin-Jeziorna in which the wife still lives today. They are also the joint owners of a dwelling in Warsaw.

The husband was a senior executive of a pharmaceutical manufacturer. Since April 2010, he has been employed as managing director for the Central Europe region, which includes Poland and the Netherlands, but not Germany. His activity is largely characterised by business trips and working from home. He resided on an occasional basis until the end of 2013 in the Netherlands; he also has a self-contained dwelling in a house occupied by his parents, in Hamm (Germany). He moved out of the house in Poland in June 2012, and since then, he has deepened his relationship with his new cohabiting partner in Hamm and has been caring for his sick parents. During his stays in Poland, which were always tied in with business trips, he was limited to having contact with his two sons.

On 27 October 2013, the husband filed a divorce application with the Amtsgericht Hamm (District Court, Hamm) submitting that his habitual residence had been there since mid-2012 at the latest.

The wife challenged the international jurisdiction of the German courts claiming that the husband did not move out of the house in Konstancin-Jeziorna until the beginning of April 2013, then lived in the jointly owned dwelling in Warsaw, and resided almost exclusively in the Netherlands or Poland between April and November 2013.

On 19 November 2013, she filed her own divorce application in Poland, with the Sad Okręgowy w Warszawie (Regional Court, Warsaw).

The Amtsgericht Hamm (District Court, Hamm) considered that the German courts lack international jurisdiction, and it dismissed the husband’s application as inadmissible. On appeal, the Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) held that according to the fifth and sixth indents of Article 3(1)(a) of the Brussels II bis Regulation, an applicant must have already established his or her habitual residence in the Member State of the court six months (or, respectively, one year) before the filing of the divorce application. A mere de facto residence in the Member State of the court is not sufficient for the commencement of the waiting period. The husband contests this interpretation.

L.S. Rossi is reporting judge; the decision will be taken by a chamber of five judges.

The second ruling, in case C-87/22, TT, also concerns the Brussels II bis Regulation. It is scheduled for Thursday 13. The referring court – the Regional Court Korneuburg (Austria) – asks the following:

1. Must Article 15 of [the Brussels II bis Regulation] be interpreted as meaning that the courts of a Member State having jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter, if they consider that a court of another Member State, with which the child has a particular connection, would be better placed to hear the case, or a specific part thereof, may request such a court to assume jurisdiction even in the case where that other Member State has become the place of habitual residence of the child following wrongful removal?

2. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, must Article 15 of [the Brussels II bis Regulation] be interpreted as meaning that the criteria for the transfer of jurisdiction that are set out in that article are regulated exhaustively, without the need to consider further criteria in the light of proceedings initiated under Article 8(f) of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction?

I summarized the facts of the case here. AG P. Pikamäe’s opinion was published in March. No English translation is available. He proposed the Court to answer that (my translation):

1. Article 15 of [the Brussels II bis Regulation] must be interpreted in the sense that, pursuant to Article 15(1)(b) of the Regulation, the court of a Member State, whose jurisdiction to rule on the custody of a minor is based on Article 10 of that Regulation, as the court of the Member State in which that minor had his habitual residence immediately before his wrongful removal, is empowered to request, exceptionally, the court of the Member State to which one of the parents wrongfully transferred the minor and in which he resides with him to exercise jurisdiction, provided it has duly ascertained, in view of the specific circumstances of the case, that the referral meets the three cumulative requirements established in Article 15 (1) of the same Regulation, among which the essential one that the referral responds to the best interests of the minor in question.

2. Article 15(1) of [the Brussels II bis Regulation] must be interpreted in the sense that, on the one hand, the requirements provided for in said provision are exhaustive and, on the other, the existence of a request for the return of a minor filed pursuant to article 8, first and third paragraphs, letter f), of the Convention on civil matters of international child abduction, made in The Hague on October 25, 1980, on which a final resolution has not yet been adopted, does not preclude the applicability of article 15 of said Regulation. However, the existence of such a claim for restitution is a factual circumstance that may be taken into account by the competent court when assessing the requirements, provided for in Article 15 (1), of the aforementioned Regulation, relating to the existence of a court better placed to hear the matter and to respect the best interests of the minor in case of referral to the court of another Member State with which the minor has a special relationship.

L.S. Rossi acts as reporting judge in a chamber of five judges (the same as in case C-462/22).

Finally, a hearing is taking place on Thursday 13 as well, in case C-394/22, Oilchart International, on the Brussels I bis Regulation and insolvency. The ruling has been requested by the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Court of Appeal Antwerp, Belgium). The underlying facts are the following. OW Bunker (Netherlands) BV (‘OWB NL’) is one of the companies of the Danish OWB Group. On the instructions of OWB NL, Oilchart International NV appellant supplied fuel to the ocean-going vessel Ms Evita K in the port of Sluiskil (the Netherlands), and issued an invoice  which remained unpaid due to the insolvency of OWB NL.

As Oilchart International NV, following the insolvency of OWB NL, had had a number of vessels attached in an effort to obtain payment for the fuel supplied, he had obtained bank guarantees from the ship owners concerned in order to effect a release of that attachment. Those guarantees provided that they could be invoked on the basis of ‘a court ruling or an arbitral award handed down in Belgium against either OWB NL’ or the ship owner.

It is alleged that, prior to the insolvency, ING Bank NV (‘ING’), together with others, had granted a loan. As security, the various entities of the OWB group, including OWB NL, had allegedly assigned their current and future claims on end customers to ING. ING intervened in the proceedings and sought to prohibit the invocation of the bank guarantees or other securities relating to the bunkered vessel before the conclusion of the insolvency proceedings relating to OWB NL.

The court at first instance declared the appellant’s claim against OWB NL inadmissible. With regard to ING’s claim, the court declared that it lacked international jurisdiction. On appeal, the referring court finds that, by not entering an appearance on the first day of the hearing, as was the case at first instance, the respondent OWB NL is deemed to have challenged the court’s international jurisdiction under Article 28(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation.

The referring court asks:

(a) Must Article 1(2)(b) of the [Brussels I bis Regulation] in conjunction with Article 3(1) of the Insolvency Regulation (Regulation No 1346/2000) be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings’ in Article 1(2)(b) of the Brussels Ia Regulation includes also proceedings in which the claim is described in the summons as a pure trade receivable, without any mention of the respondent’s previously declared bankruptcy, whereas the actual legal basis of that claim is the specific derogating provisions of Netherlands bankruptcy law (Article 25(2) of the Wet van 30 september 1893, op het faillissement en de surséance van betaling (Law of 30 September 1893 on bankruptcy and suspension of payment; ‘NFW’)) and whereby: it must be determined whether such a claim must be considered a verifiable claim (Article 26 NFW in conjunction with Article 110 thereof) or an unverifiable claim (Article 25(2) NFW); it appears that the question whether both claims can be brought simultaneously and whether one claim does not appear to exclude the other, taking into account the specific legal consequences of each of those claims (inter alia, in terms of the possibilities of calling for a bank guarantee deferred after the bankruptcy), may be determined in accordance with the rules specific to Netherlands bankruptcy law?

And further

(b) Can the provisions of Article 25(2) [NFW] be regarded as compatible with Article 3(1) of the Insolvency Regulation, in so far as that legislative provision would allow such a claim (Article 25(2) NFW) to be brought before the court of another Member State instead of before the insolvency court of the Member State in which the bankruptcy was declared?

The case has been allocated to a chamber of five judges, with F. Biltgen as reporting judge. It will be accompanied by an opinion by AG L. Medina.

The readers of the blog are aware of the European Commission proposal for a Regulation on the digitalisation of judicial cooperation and access to justice in cross-border civil, commercial and criminal matters and, and the associated proposal for a Directive amending several existing directives with a view to improving digitalisation and ensuring secure, reliable and time-efficient communication between courts and competent authorities.

Presented in December 2021, the two proposals aim to ensure access to justice in the EU including in the events of force majeure, such as pandemics, and adapt judicial cooperation between Member States for such situations.

On 28 June 2023, Parliament and Council negotiators reached an agreement on the use of digital technology in the judicial cooperation among Member States. Negotiators of the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) agreed with Council negotiators on its future shape. The agreement, once formally approved by the Council, will be confirmed by a vote in the European Parliament.

The Parliament press note, which provides few details, highlights two aspects: one relating to electronic documents and videoconferencing, the other regarding inclusive digitalisation.

In relation to electronic documents and videoconferencing, the proposed legislation enables the use of digital technology for exchange of information, documents, payments of fees and videoconferencing. Communication between citizens, companies and national authorities would be ensured by an IT system, created and maintained by the European Commission and financed through the Digital Europe Programme with an access point in each Member State. The European e-Justice portal will provide information to individuals and companies on their rights and the European electronic access point will enable their direct communication with authorities.

Inclusive digitalisation refers to efforts to ensure that digitalisation does not lead to exclusion and is implemented in a way to ensure right to a fair trial for everyone. Equivalent access for people with disabilities is also stressed.

The Council press note specifies that the new rules, once adopted, will improve cross-border judicial procedures by:
-allowing parties and other relevant persons in civil, commercial and criminal hearings to participate by means of videoconferencing or other distance communication technology;
-establishing a European electronic access point through which natural and legal persons can file claims, send and receive relevant information, and communicate with the competent authorities;
-accepting electronic communication and documents from natural and legal persons;
-recognising documents with electronic signatures or seals;
-promoting the payment of fees through electronic means.

Negotiators further agreed on the need for additional training for justice professionals when it comes to the use of digital tools such as videoconferencing and the IT system and encouraged Member States to share their best practices on the use of digital tools.

Should a foreign judgment entail in the requested State the res judicata effect that it has in the country of origin? Or should one rather substitute the foreign procedural effects of the judgment to fit with the law of the country where recognition is sought?

This issue was put to the test for the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in its judgment of 8 June 2023 in the French-English employment law matter BNP Paribas v. TR, C-567/21.

Claiming unfair dismissal, an employee first filed a lawsuit in England. After having been successful there, the employee claimed further compensation for the same dismissal in French courts. According to the CJEU’s judgment, the extent of res judicata under the Brussels I Regulation shall follow the country of origin of the judgment. However, not all national procedural rules can be characterised as res judicata rules with international effect. Only rules concerning the ‘authority and effectiveness’ can have international res judicata effect according to the CJEU’s judgment.

In previous posts for this blog, Fabienne Jault-Seseke has reported on the questions referred to by the CJEU and criticised the opinion of Advocate General Priit Pikamäe. François Mailhé has also written in this blog about a parallel French Cour de Cassation case where questions regarding res judicata were referred to the CJEU. That case (Recamier v. BR, C-707/21) is still pending before the CJEU. As the discussion of res judicata in EU private international law can easily be deepened, the following post will focus on the judgment of the CJEU in the BNP Paribas case only.

Facts

In 1998, the French bank BNP Paribas hired an employee to work for the bank in London. That employment contract was governed by English law. In 2009, the parties entered a new employment contract to regulate the secondment of the employee to Singapore. The new employment contract was governed by French law. After a little more than a year in Singapore, the employee was relocated back to London. The relocation was regulated with an amendment to the French employment contract.

A few years after the return to London, the employee was dismissed for serious misconduct that had taken place during his secondment to Singapore. The dismissal was challenged by the employee, who brought an action in an English court claiming compensation for unfair dismissal. In its judgment, the English court held that the claim was well founded. In the English judgment, it was clear that the employer had taken disciplinary measures based on French law. Under English law, which was agreed to be applied by the parties in the case, those measures were unlawful. Consequently, the bank was ordered to pay a compensatory award of GBP 81,175.

Two months after the English judgment was delivered, the employee initiated new legal proceedings against the bank demanding additional compensation for the same dismissal that the English court had based its judgment on. The new lawsuit was filed in a French labour court. With reference to res judicata due to the English judgment, the French labour court held that the claims were inadmissible. This decision was appealed and the French court of appeal came to a different conclusion. Holding that the claim settled by the English court was limited in scope, the French court of appeal stated that the claims made in France were not precluded on the grounds of res judicata. Even if res judicata generally means that a legally settled matter is precluded and cannot be litigated again, there are different understandings of the concept in different jurisdictions. As the case was brought to the French Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation), the private international law issue of the law applicable to res judicata was referred to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling.

Judgment

First, the CJEU held that the old 2001 Brussels I Regulation (44/2001) was applicable in the case, as the English judgment was given in a legal proceeding instituted before 10 January 2015. According to the transitional provisions in article 66(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation (1215/2012), it is that date that is decisive in the application of the two regulations.

As regards judgments delivered in other member states, the main principle of the Brussels I Regulation is that such judgments shall be recognised and enforced in all other member states. However, as the CJEU noted in its judgment, the notion of ‘recognition’ is not defined in the regulation. Recognition of judgments in the EU rests on the principle of mutual trust. Therefore, a judgment from another member state may not be reviewed in substance. With reference to this line of purposive and systematic argumentation, as well as to the fact that the explanatory report from 1979 (the Jenard report) explicitly stated that judgments shall have the ‘authority and effectiveness accorded to them in the State in which they were given’, the CJEU held that it is the law in the country of origin of the judgment that determines the extent of res judicata.

Even if it is the law in the country of origin of the judgment that determines the extent of res judicata, the CJEU noted in its judgment that national procedural rules must be classified (characterised) as res judicata rules for this choice of law rule to be applicable. In the case at hand, the issue was whether an English procedural rule that required the parties to centralise all their claims relating to the same legal relationship to a single procedure was a res judicata rule with an inadmissibility effect for the subsequent French procedure. In its judgment, the CJEU stated that one must – as a legal test of whether a national procedural rule is a res judicata rule – assess whether the national procedural rule ‘concerns the authority and effectiveness’ of the judgment (para. 49). Using this legal test, the CJEU held that the English rule on centralisation of claims served the interest of sound administration of justice rather than being intended to govern the authority and effectiveness of a judgment. Therefore, the English rule was not considered to be a res judicata rule that should have any inadmissibility effect for the subsequent French procedure.

Analysis

By its judgment, the CJEU has confirmed that res judicata follows the law of the country where the judgment was delivered. This is the same principle as delivered already in Hoffman, 145/86. It is not the choice of law rule that is new in the BNP Paribas case, but the characterisation methodology that the CJEU seems to embrace. What is special to characterisation in private international law is that the issue itself contains a choice of law problem.

Traditionally, a legal notion should either follow the law where the issue arose (lex causae) or the law of the forum (lex fori). In setting an autonomous legal test for what national procedural rules can be characterised as res judicata rules, the CJEU has chosen a lex fori approach to the issue of characterisation for determining what aspects of res judicata that follow from the country of origin. Ultimately, this approach will improve foreseeability and harmonisation.

However, until the framework of the notion is known, it may be hard to assess what really is a national procedural rule that has international res judicata effect. Perhaps further guidance will be given already in the forthcoming Recamier case mentioned above.

A big thank you to those among the members of the European Association of Private International Law – actually, the vast majority of members – who have already paid their fees for 2023!

And a kind request to the others: please take a moment to pay your fees, too!

The amount is reasonable and has remained unchanged since the Association was set up. You may pay by bank transfer, or use PayPal. The details are available here.

Don’t forget that, according to the Statutes of the Association, membership begins upon admission and only ends by termination on the part of the member concerned. Put in another way, once you have become a member, you retain that status (and are expected to pay your fees) until you let us know you do not wish to stay with us any longer.

Thank you!

The latest issue of the RabelsZ (Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht) has been published. As always, it contains a number of insightful articles, this time also many in English language. Here are the authors, titles and abstracts:

Eva-Maria Kieninger, Ralf Michaels, Jürgen Basedow * 29.9.1949 † 6.4.2023

Felix Berner, Implizite Qualifikationsvorgaben im europäischen Kollisionsrecht (Implicit Characterization in European Conflict of Laws)

Most German scholars assume that problems of characterization in European choice of law are to be resolved by means of functional characterization. This essay challenges that assumption. Quite often, European choice-of-law rules themselves require a certain treatment of a characterization problem. This can follow from the rules or recitals of European regulations. In such cases, the required approach is more or less explicitly given. However, the required analysis can also be implicitly established, especially when it is derived from the purpose of certain choice-of-law rules. The approach towards characterization is of both practical and theoretical significance. In practice it determines the outcome of a characterization inquiry. On a theoretical level, the approach towards characterization embodies a conceptual change: The more rules on characterization there are, the more the classic problem of characterization is marginalized. Questions of characterization turn into questions of “simple statutory interpretation”.

Frederick Rieländer, Die Anknüpfung der Produkthaftung für autonome Systeme (The Private International Law of Product Liability and AI-related Harm)

As the EU moves ahead with extensive reform in all matters connected to artificial intelligence (AI), including measures to address liability issues regarding AI-related harm, it needs to be considered how European private international law (PIL) could contribute to the EU’s objective of becoming a global leader in the development of trust-worthy and ethical AI. To this end, the article examines the role which might be played in this context by the conflict-of-law rule concerning product liability in Article 5 of the Rome II Regulation. It shows that the complex cascade of connecting factors in matters relating to product liability, although providing legal certainty for market players, fails to consistently support the EU’s twin aim of promoting the up-take of AI, while ensuring that injured persons enjoy the same level of protection irrespective of the technology employed. Assessing several options for amending the Rome II Regulation, the article calls for the introduction of a new special rule concerning product liability which allows the claimant to elect the applicable law from among a clearly defined number of substantive laws. Arguably, this proposal offers a more balanced solution, favouring the victim as well as serving the EU’s policies.

Tim W. Dornis, Künstliche Intelligenz und internationaler Vertragsschluss (Artificial Intelligence and International Contracting)

Recently, the debate on the law applicable to a contract concluded by means of an AI system has begun to evolve. Until now it has been primarily suggested that the applicable law as regards the “legal capacity”, the “capacity to contract” and the “representative capacity” of AI systems should be determined separately and, thus, that these are not issues falling under the lex causae governing the contract. This approach builds upon the conception that AI systems are personally autonomous actors – akin to humans. Yet, as unveiled by a closer look at the techno-philosophical foundations of AI theory and practice, algorithmic systems are only technically autonomous. This means they can act only within the framework and the limitations set by their human users. Therefore, when it comes to concluding a contract, AI systems can fulfill only an instrumental function. They have legal capacity neither to contract nor to act as agents of their users. In terms of private international law, this implies that the utilization of an algorithmic system must be an issue of contract conclusion under art. 10 Rome I Regulation. Since AI utilization is fully subject to the lex causae, there can be no separate determination of the applicable law as regards the legal capacity, the capacity to contract or representative capacity of such systems.

Peter Kutner, Truth in the Law of Defamation

This article identifies and examines important aspects of truth as a defence to defamation liability in common law and “mixed” legal systems. These include the fundamental issue of what must be true to establish the defence, whether the defendant continues to have the burden of proving that a defamatory communication is true, the condition that publication must be for the public benefit or in the public interest, “contextual truth” (“incremental harm”), and the possibility of constitutional law rules on truth that are different than common law rules. The discussion includes the emergence of differences among national legal systems in the operation of the truth defence and evaluation of the positions that have been adopted.

The table of contents in German is available here.

It has already been reported on this blog that EU Commission has launched infringement procedure against Poland for failure to fulfil its obligations under the Brussels II bis Regulation.

As stated by the Commission, this “infringement case concerns the non-conformity of the Polish law with the Brussels IIa Regulation, specifically the provisions relating to the enforcement of judgments or orders that require the return of abducted children to their place of habitual residence”.

Apart from the very general statement that “there is a systematic and persistent failure of Polish authorities to speedily and effectively enforce judgments ordering the return of abducted children to other EU Member States” no further information is unfortunately made publicly available.

The expression “enforcement of judgments or orders that require the return of abducted children” might relate to two kinds of situations: when a court of the country to which the child was abducted (Poland) decides that the child should be returned to the country of the child’s habitual residence (another EU Member State), or at a later stage of the procedure when a court of the country of the child’s habitual residence (another EU Member State) orders a return after the non-return decision was given in the country to which the child was abducted (Poland).

Enforcement of a Return Decision Handed Down in Poland

Article 11(3) Brussels II bis Regulation requires the court to which an application for return of a child is made to act expeditiously, using the most expeditious procedures available in national law. For this purpose, the general six weeks period was established.

The Practice Guide to Brussels IIa Regulation explains in more details how to understand the six-week period:

With regard to decisions ordering the return of the child, Article 11(3) does not specify that such decisions, which are to be given within six weeks, shall be enforceable within the same period. However, this is the only interpretation which would effectively guarantee the objective of ensuring the prompt return of the child within the strict time limit. (…) Member States should seek to ensure that a return order issued within the prescribed six-week time limit is “enforceable”.

Hence, it follows from the above that, in general, the procedure itself should be expeditious, and if the court hands down a return order, it should be enforceable within the six-week period… and successfully enforced.

Without going into details of the civil procedure in Poland concerning child abduction cases (which was meticulously described by J. Pawliczak, Reformed Polish court proceedings for the return of a child under the 1980 Hague Convention in the light of the Brussels IIb Regulation, JPIL 2021/3, available in open access), it might be indicated, as an example, that child abduction decisions might be subject to appeal and then, since 2018, to cassation appeal to the Supreme Court. The cassation appeal may be filed by designated authorities only, namely General Prosecutor, Commissioner for Children (Rzecznik Praw Dziecka) and Ombudsman (Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich) within 4 months period since the order became final (Article 5191 § 21 and § 22 Code of Civil Procedure). This period seems quite long as for the requirement of “expeditiousness”, especially when compared to the general one, applicable to all other cassation appeals, which is two months.

Additionally, in 2022 the Civil Procedure Code was amended to provide for the suspension for two months of the enforceability of the return order on the application of one of the above mentioned designated authorities filed within two weeks since the order become final (Article 388(1) § 1 and § 2 Code of Civil Procedure), and its automatic prolongation if the designated authority indeed filed later a cassation appeal (Article 388(1) § 3 Code of Civil Procedure). This suspension of enforceability was found incompatible with Brussels II bis Regulation in a recent judgement given by the Court of Justice of the EU in February 2022 in Rzecznik Praw Dziecka case (C‑638/22 PPU).

Enforcement in Poland of a Decision Given in the Country of the Child’s Habitual Residence

Pursuant to Article 11(8) Brussels II bis Regulation, even if a judgement of non-return was handed down in the country to which the child was abducted, any subsequent judgment which requires the return of the child issued by a court having jurisdiction under the regulation becomes enforceable in accordance with Section 4 of Chapter III. Article 42(1) Brussels II bis Regulation requires that such an enforceable judgment must be recognised and enforceable in another Member State without the need for a declaration of enforceability and without any possibility of opposing its recognition if the judgment has been certified in the Member State of origin in accordance with the regulation.

In Rinau case (C-195/08), the Court of Justice of the EU, underlined that:

an application for non‑recognition of a judicial decision is not permitted if a certificate has been issued pursuant to Article 42 of the Regulation. In such a situation, the decision which has been certified is enforceable and no opposition to its recognition is permitted.

In accordance with Article 598(14) § 1 Code of Civil Procedure, general rules on enforcement of foreign judgements are applicable to recognition and enforcement of a return order given in another EU Member State. These general rules provide, among others, that a decision on enforcement may be subject to appeal and then cassation appeal (this “particularity” of the procedure was already signaled on this blog in a previous post). It seems that the non-return order should be subject to special provisions allowing for the full effectiveness of Article 42(1) Brussels II bis Regulation.

The above shows that there are provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure which give rise to doubts as to their compatibility with Brussels II bis Regulation (and the new Brussels II ter Regulation equally). The question remains open whether and when Poland will be willing to address them.