EAPIL blog

The author of this post is Michele Grassi, who is a post-doc at the University of Milan.

In 2010, Bechetti Energy Group (‘BEG’) commenced proceedings against Italy before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The applicant complained that Italy had breached its obligations under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) by failing to set aside an arbitral award rendered in a dispute between BEG and Enelpower, despite the apparent lack of impartiality of the arbitrator appointed by the opposing party. In particular, the concerned arbitrator had served as Vice-Chairman and member of the Board of Directors of Enel, Enelpower mother company, and had several professional links with the latter.

In May 2021, the ECtHR rendered its ruling and found that Italy had in fact violated Article 6(1) ECHR. Nonetheless, the Strasbourg Court dismissed the applicant’s request to order the reopening of the domestic proceedings in which Italian courts rejected the appeal for nullity of the arbitral award. They did so on the assumption that

it is in principle for the Contracting States to decide how best to implement the Court’s judgments without unduly upsetting the principles of res judicata or legal certainty in civil litigation.

However, the Court stressed the

importance, for the effectiveness of the Convention system, of ensuring that domestic procedures are in place to allow a case to be revisited in the light of a finding that the safeguards of a fair hearing afforded by Article 6 have been violated.

The Revocation of Final Civil Judgments under Italian Law

Under Italian procedural law, revocation of final civil judgments (and the reopening of the respective proceedings) is only available in a limited number of cases, listed at Article 395 of the Italian code of civil procedure (CPC). This same provision also applies (in part) to arbitral awards pursuant to Article 831 CPC.

Before 2022, revocation was not available in case of breach of the ECHR rights (see the judgments of the Italian Constitutional Court of 26 May 2017 no. 123, and of 27 April 2018 no. 93). The situation has now changed, following a recent reform of the Italian code of civil procedure that introduced, among other things, a new reason for revocation of civil judgments that have been found in breach of the Convention by the ECtHR (Article 391-quater CPC).

Still, the new provision requires that three cumulative – and quite restrictive – conditions be met: (1) The violation must concern a right of status of a natural person; (2) The just satisfaction awarded by the Court pursuant to Article 41 ECHR must not be sufficient to remedy the consequences of the violation; (3) The revocation of the judgment must not affect the rights of third parties (i.e. parties that did not participate in the proceedings before the ECtHR).

Those conditions resemble the requirements for the reopening of domestic proceedings provided by the laws of other States parties to the ECHR (e.g., Article L 452-1 of the French code de l’organisation judiciaire or Article 510 of the Spanish code of civil procedure. See also the recommendation issued by the Committee of Ministers to member States, R(2000)2 of 19 January 2000). Still, the combined application of the above conditions significantly narrows the scope and effectiveness of the Italian remedy. In particular, it is apparent that Article 391-quater CPC cannot be applied in the BEG case, since the violation of the ECHR addressed in the case does not concern a right of status of a natural person.

The Position of the Italian Government

In light of the above, on 3 August 2022, the Italian government submitted an Action Report to the Secretariat of the Committee of Ministers. According to the Report: the Italian State had promptly paid to BEG the “just satisfaction” awarded by the ECtHR judgment (€ 51,400); the domestic civil proceedings that led to the violation of the ECHR had not been reopened, in compliance with the decision of the Court that dismissed the applicant’s request to that end; the Italian State considered to have fully discharged its obligations under Article 46 ECHR; BEG had commenced proceedings in Italy against the Italian government, the opposing party in the arbitral proceedings and the arbitrator concerned, seeking compensation of further damages.

The Position of the Applicant

On 27 January 2023, BEG submitted a Communication pursuant to Rule 9(1) of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of the execution of judgments, whereby it: confirmed that it had commenced proceedings against, inter alia, the concerned arbitrator for compensation of the relevant damages; contested the Italian government’s contention that the judgment only entailed the payment of the amount of just satisfaction awarded by the Court pursuant to Article 41 ECHR; contested the Italian government’s argument that it had no obligation to ensure the reopening of the domestic proceedings, because the Court had dismissed the applicant’s request to that effect; contended that, from a theoretical standpoint, the re-examination or reopening of the domestic proceedings would constitute an appropriate measure of restitutio in integrum to re-establish the situation which would have existed if the violation had not been committed. At the same time, it acknowledged that, under Italian procedural law, it was not possible to reopen the domestic proceedings; requested, as a result, full financial compensation of the damages suffered.

The Effects of the BEG judgment in Italy

The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has not yet issued a final resolution and the supervision process is still pending. Accordingly, for the time being, the decision of Italian courts on the validity of the contested arbitral award still stands as res judicata. The applicant has not sought a revocation of the domestic judgment, as this remedy is not available under Italian procedural law, but it has rather commenced new proceedings, claiming full compensation of the relevant damages. Conversely, the Italian government contends to have fully discharged its international obligation to abide by the final judgment of the ECtHR by paying the just satisfaction awarded by the ECtHR.

One might then question the effectiveness of the ECtHR decision in this case. Following several years of litigation, the applicant is still bound by a decision that has been found in violation of its Convention rights. This is not the place to elaborate on the possible existence of an international obligation of the Italian State to ensure that the domestic proceedings are reopened, despite the ECtHR’s dismissal of the applicant’s claim to that end. I personally think that this is the case, based on the State’s customary law obligation to ensure the cessation of international wrongful acts and to make full reparation for the injury caused. Moreover, in a recent decision against Greece, the same Strasbourg Court held that “the taking of measures by the respondent State to ensure that the proceedings before the Court of Cassation are reopened, if requested, would constitute appropriate redress for the violation of the applicant’s rights” (see Georgiou v Greece, 14 March 2023, app. no. 57378/18).

What is worth mentioning – especially in light of the recent decision of the French Cour de Cassation, reported in the post by Gilles Cuniberti on this blog – are the possible side effects of the BEG judgment, concerning the recognizability of the arbitral award at stake outside Italy. Indeed, according to well established case-law of the ECtHR, requested States shall refuse the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments if the parties’ procedural rights were infringed in the State of origin (see Pellegrini v. Italy, 20 June 2000, app. no. 30882/96; Avotiņš v Latvia, 23 May 2016, app. no. 17502/07; Dolenc v Slovenia, 20 October 2022, app. no. 20256/20). This might explain why the Cour de Cassation did not focus on the possible irreconcilability between the Albanian judgment, whose recognition was sought in France, and the arbitral award between BEG and Enelpower. Nonetheless, it might still be quite contradictory to hold that a foreign decision cannot be enforced due to the party’s attempt to “evade” an award that has been found in violation of the Convention right to fair proceedings.

The European Parliament passed on 15 June 2023 a resolution expressing support for the accession of Ukraine to the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil or commercial matters.

As reported on this blog, the Council of the European Union had already decided on 24 April 2023 that the Union would establish treaty relations with Ukraine under the Convention following the accession of Ukraine.

According to Article 29 of the Convention, accession to the Convention by one State creates treaty relations between that State and the States that have already joined the Convention only if neither of them has notified the depositary that the accession should not have the effect of establishing treaty relations with the other. If a State intends to issue a declaration to that effect, it must do so within 12 months of the ratification or accession of the State concerned. Absent a declaration, the Convention comes into effect between the States in question on “the first day of the month following the expiration of the period during which notifications may be made”. 

The Council of the Union assessed, in its decision of 24 April 2023, that there were no reasons to prevent the accession by Ukraine from creating treaty relations between the Union and Ukraine under the Convention, and accordingly decided that an Article 29 declaration should not be issued.

By its recent resolution, the European Parliament basically expressed the same view.

The resolution does not entail, in itself, any effect on the international plane. Rather, it addresses a concern that relates to the role that the Parliament is entitled to play in the process leading to decisions regarding the establishment of the Union’s treaty relations with third countries.

Pursuant to Article 218(6) TFEU, the conclusion of an international agreement by the European Union requires a Council decision. When it comes to agreements covering fields to which the ordinary legislative procedure applies, including judicial cooperation in civil matters, the Council may only act “after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament”. The decision of 12 July 2022 whereby the Council decided that the Union would accede to the Hague Judgments followed precisely that pattern.

Now, under the current practice of the institutions, no formal procedure in accordance with Article 218(6) TFEU is initiated for the conventions that contain a non-objection mechanism, such as the Judgments Conventions. With respect to these conventions, the Commission only informs the Council and Parliament of any third country’s request to accede to a the convention in question. This means that if the Council decides to take no action regarding the third State’s accession (thus paving the way to the establishment of treaty relations with the latter), the Parliament risks being prevented from expressing its views on the desirability of the establishment of such relations.

In its recent resolution, the Parliament, having recalled that “an international agreement cannot affect the allocation of powers fixed by the Treaties”, stated that “the fact that at international level a silence procedure has been adopted to facilitate accession by third states should be of no consequence for the EU’s internal decision-making process”.

It is thus for the purposes of the internal decision-making process of the EU that the Parliament made use, by this resolution, of its prerogative under Article 218(6) TFEU to make a stance on the establishment of treaty relations between the Union and Ukraine under the Hague Judgments.

That said, the resolution also provided the Parliament with an opportunity to issue a political statement concerning the Union’s relations with Ukraine, in general. In the operative part, the Parliament reiterated its “unwavering solidarity with the people and leadership of Ukraine and its support for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, within its internationally recognised borders”.

The Institute of International Shipping and Trade Law is organising its 18th annual colloquium on 6 and 7 September 2023 in Swansea. The topic of the event this year is on Commercial Disputes- Resolution and Jurisdiction.

Delegates can attend both in person and online. Early bird registration is available by the end of June.

The list of speakers and chairpersons confirmed includes Masood Ahmed, Simon Baughen, Michael Biltoo, William Blair, Ruth Hosking, John A. Kimbell KC, Monica Kohli, George Leloudas, Aygun Mammadzada, Karen Maxwell, Francesco Munari, Brian Perrott, Marta Pertegas Sender, Richard Sarll, David Steward, Andrew Tettenborn and Patricia Živković.

For registration and further info, see here.

This post was written by Felix M. Wilke.

Many papers and posts have already appeared on the EU rule of law crisis, in particular on serious doubts regarding the independence and impartiality of the judiciary in certain Member States. In light of the recent judgment against Poland (C-204/21), more are likely to follow. For the most part, the discussion concerns potential reactions under primary law and the effects the crisis already has had on the European Arrest Warrant. There have been some predictions that the crisis also would affect judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters (e.g. by Frąckowiak-Adamska). Indeed, how could it not? In this post I want to flag some issues and ideas to be fleshed out in a later publication, based on a presentation I gave at the IAPL Summer School 2023. As always, comments are very much welcome.

Mutual Trust and its Limits

It all goes back to mutual trust. According to the CJEU, mutual trust in particular means the presumption that other Member States comply with EU law and with the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Opinion 2/13). If we know or have very good evidence that another Member State’s judiciary is not independent or impartial, and the Member State thus cannot guarantee the right to a fair trial, this assumption seems to have been rebutted. One can hardly do business as usual, i.e. continue to apply instruments like Brussels Ibis that are based on mutual trust as if nothing had changed.

We actually have famous precedent for that from the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters. In LM, the Court of Justice held that the “real risk” of a breach of the fundamental right to an independent tribunal “is capable of permitting the executing judicial authority to refrain, by way of exception, from giving effect to a [European Arrest Warrant]”. Granted, Article 1(3) of the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant contains the express admonition that the Decision does not modify the Member States’ obligation to respect fundamental rights – even though the immediately prior provision of paragraph 2 requires them to execute any European Arrest Warrant based on mutual recognition.

In one area based on mutual trust, then, courts in one Member State can under certain circumstances review whether trust is actually warranted. This has been dubbed “horizontal Solange” (Canor), as opposed to “reverse Solange” (von Bogdandy et al.) and the good old regular “Solange” (Germany’s Constitutional Court). As long as – solange – there are no systemic violations of the rule of law, each Member State should cooperate with the others. So, should we pull a “horizontal Solange” in civil and commercial matters? Should it perhaps be a “modified horizontal Solange”, adjusted to the specifics of civil proceedings?

Horizontal Solange as Part of Public Policy Reservations

One obvious answer is that we have been doing so in civil and commercial matters, anyway. For the Brussels Regime has always contained a public policy reservation (now Art. 45(1)(a) Brussels Ibis). Public policy is the classic tool of trust management (M. Weller). It is accepted that violations of procedural fundamental rights in another Member State can trigger this reservation. While Brussels Ibis lacks a clear statement on fundamental rights like Article 1(3) Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant, the obligation to respect the fundamental rights of the Charter exists as a matter of course when Member States are “implementing” EU law (Article 51(1) of the Charter). Thus, even if the vague Recital 38 Brussels Ibis did not exist, public policy must be interpreted against the backdrop of the Charter. More importantly, even instruments of judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters without a written public policy reservation must be interpreted as allowing a review of potential fundamental rights violations in another Member State.

But to rely on public policy does not come without obstacles. Should the burden of proof rest with the applicant even where there are systemic deficiencies in another Member State? Should an application even be necessary? The seriousness of the rule of law problems and their relation to the public interest might suggest a negative answer, but this would likely ask too much of those tasked with enforcing foreign judgments, in particular non-judicial bodies. And what about the unwritten condition of exhaustion of all remedies in the Member State of origin (Diageo Brands)? Some would say that it does not make sense, period. At least it does not make sense if the foreign judiciary as such does not meet the standards of independence and impartiality. Systemic deficiencies obviate the exhaustion requirement as it itself is based on mutual trust.

Doubts about the Existence of “Courts” and “Judgments”

Speaking of independence and impartiality: Has not the CJEU held in Pula Parking – even though the actual problem was that Croatian notaries did not conduct inter partes proceedings – that these two features characterize “courts” for the purposes of Brussels Ibis? Without them, a national body is no “court”. Without being a “court”, it cannot give “judgments” within the meaning of Article 2(a) Brussels I bis. This calls into question already the scope of application of Chapter III of Brussels I bis (and, thinking it through to the end, also the application of the lis pendens rules). If this is not met, there would be no recognition and enforcement. The result thus would seem to be the same as after a successful application relying on public policy.

The scope of application, however, must be checked ex officio, and a failure to exhaust national remedies in the Member State of origin clearly could not change the nature of body that gave the decision. Hence, the requirements could be quite different from the public policy reservation. On the other hand, again, to require an assessment of the independence and impartiality of other Member States’ bodies in every single case would put the institutions in the Member State addressed in over their heads.

Exploiting Private Parties?

Moreover, one could characterize this approach with some merit as exploiting civil and commercial matters, ultimately: the parties of such matters to address a crisis not of their making. I feel a certain unease about this, and I do not think I am the only one who feels that way. Granted, to make a Member State a less attractive forum could be an effective tool of bringing about change in that State. And it does seem paradoxical to continue to apply an instrument of mutual trust where serious doubt has been cast on this trust.

Yet we can hardly blame a claimant for having pursued her claim in a certain Member State, even less so when jurisdiction in that State was based on entirely uncontroversial grounds, perhaps even on Brussels Ibis itself. To put a stop to EU judicial cooperation in civil matters without an individual violation of the defendant’s/debtor’s fundamental rights also would be questionable from the perspective of the claimant’s/judgment creditor’s fundamental rights. The ECtHR has recognized that the enforcement (even) of foreign judgments is an integral part of the guarantee of Article 6(1) ECHR (Hornsby v. Greece, McDonald v. France, Avotiņš v. Latvia). Then again, if one negated the scope of application of Brussels Ibis, at least national rules of recognition and enforcement could still apply.

Tentative Conclusions

I am inclined to let national bodies operate on the prima facie basis of a foreign “judgment” for now. There is less risk of legitimizing such bodies this way than accepting preliminary references from them (as the CJEU does, C-132/20). A potential gamechanger would be a decision under Article 7(2) TEU. Yes, such a decision seems unlikely. But the inadequacy of solutions under primary law do not imply the necessity of sweeping modifications of the rules for cross-border proceedings.

I would relegate the rule of law issues to the public policy clauses (whether express or implied). This implies court proceedings upon application (typically) of the debtor. The interpretation and application of the public policy reservation must sufficiently accommodate the applicant’s right to a fair trial. For example, if the applicant can establish systemic rule of law violations, she must not have exhausted all remedies in the State of origin. One could also be more liberal with the requirement of “manifest” violations. Additionally, I would advocate for a similar unwritten exception to the lis pendens rules, in line with LM. If there is the “real risk” that a later judgment from another Member State could not be recognized and enforced due to public policy, there is no point in staying one’s own proceedings. It will be hard to establish this real risk, to be sure. But that is not necessarily bad – civil and commercial matters are not the right place to try to solve systemic problems.

Apostolos Anthimos and Marta Requejo Isidro are the editors of The European Service Regulation – A Commentary, on Regulation (EU) No 2020/1784. The book has just been published by Edward Elgar in its Commentaries in Private International Law series.

Presenting a systematic article-by-article commentary on the European Service Regulation (recast), and written by renowned experts from several EU Member States, this book gives balanced and informed guidance for the proper operation of judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters within the EU in the field of cross-border service of documents.

First setting out the origins and evolution of the Regulation, the Commentary proceeds to analyse in forensic detail the relevant case law of both the European Court of Justice and national courts on cross-border service. It moreover points the reader to the pertinent legal scholarship from various EU jurisdictions, and provides a pathway for solving practical problems surrounding the service of documents between Member States of the European Union in civil and commercial proceedings.

Key Features: systematic article-by-article analysis facilitates navigation and reference; integration of the relevant case law ensures a rounded interpretation of the Regulation; practical approach provides tangible guidance for complex cross-border proceedings; renowned team of contributors offer clarity and insight.

Thanks to its in-depth but also practical analysis of each provision of the Regulation, the Commentary will be a valuable resource for judges, scholars and students of European procedural law, as well as for practitioners involved in cross-border civil and commercial litigation.

Contributors include Apostolos Anthimos, Gilles Cuniberti, Stefano Dominelli, Pietro Franzina, Burkhard Hess, Alexandros Ioannis Kargopoulos, Christian Koller, Kevin Labner, Elena Alina Onţanu, Marta Requejo Isidro, Vincent Richard, Andreas Stein, Michael Stürner.

Further information are available here.

In a judgment of 17 May 2023 (Albaniabeg Ambient sh.p.k v. v. Enel Spa), the French supreme court for private and criminal matters (Cour de cassation) denied enforcement in France to an Albanian judgment on the ground that it had been sought for the purpose of evading an arbitral award made beforehand in Italy.

Background

In 2000, Italian company Bechetti Energy Group S.p.a. (‘BEG Italy’) concluded a co-operation agreement with another Italian company, Enelpower SpA, to develop and operate an Albanian hydroelectric power plant. Enelpower was a wholly owned subsidiary — previously an internal division — of ENEL, Italy’s well known power operator

As Enelpower decided not to pursue the project, BEG Italy initiated arbitral proceedings against Enelpower in Italy. The claims of BEG Italy were denied in an award rendered in 2002, which was subsequently declared enforceable in Italy. An action to set aside the award was lodged with Italian courts, in particular on the ground that one arbitrator had a conflict of interest. It was eventually rejected by the Italian supreme court (Cassazione) in 2009.

In the meantime, the Albanian subsidiary of BEG Italy, Albaniabeg Ambient sh.p.k, which had been created for the purpose of the project, initiated proceedings in Albanian courts in 2004 against Enelpower and its mother company, ENEL, Italy’s power operator, of which Enelpower was a wholly owned subsidiary.  It also claimed compensation for the loss sustained as a consequence of the fact that the project would not be pursued. Albaniabeg prevailed and obtained in 2009 a judgment ordering Enelpower and ENEL to compensate Albaniabeg.

Albaniabeg then started to seek enforcement of the Albanian judgment in various jurisdictions, including in France.

French Common Law of Judgments

Albania being outside of the EU, the enforcement of the Albanian judgment in France was governed by the French common law of foreign judgments. It lays down four condition for that purpose. The first is that the foreign court should have jurisdiction. The second is that the foreign judgment comports with French public policy.

The third and most interesting condition for present purposes is that the judgment should not have been obtained for the purpose of evading the application of French law or the making/enforcement of a French judgment (fraude). The condition is rarely applied. This is because the requirement that the foreign has jurisdiction implies that there is a sufficient connection between the dispute and the foreign court, will typically also give a justification to the plaintiff to bring proceedings and the foreign court, and make it very difficult to demonstrate that the sole purpose of the foreign proceedings were to avoid the application of French law or the making/enforcement of a French judgment.

The fourth condition is that there should be no irreconcilable decision in France. More on this later.

Evasion of an Arbitral Award (fraude à la sentence arbitrale)

The judgment of the Cour de cassation is remarkable for two reasons. First, it applies, for the first time to my knowledge, the concept of evasion (fraude) to an arbitral award. Secondly, it actually finds that the foreign judgment was obtained for the purpose of evading the arbitral award, and denies enforcement to the judgment on this ground.

The court agrees with the findings of the court of appeal that the following facts revealed BEG Italy’s willingness to evade the arbitral award: three months before Albaniabeg initiated the proceedings, its shareholdeds changed in order to create the misleading impression that it was autonomous from BEG Italy, which was in any case the only contracting party in the project at that time;  Albaniabeg had initiated the Albanian proceedings right after BEG had lost the arbitration; Albaniabeg was, in essence, alleging the same breaches (though on a delictual ground) and seeking compensation for the same loss.

The judgment of the Cour de cassation is also interesting as, for the first time, it applies the concept of evasion for a purpose other than protecting the application of French law or the integrity of French judicial proceedings.

Irreconcilable Decisions

Another argument which had been raised against the enforcement of the Albanian judgment was that it was irreconcilable with the arbitral award which was made earlier, and thus recognised in France before the Albanian judgment was made.

One important issue raised by this argument was that the parties were not the same in the arbitral and the Albanian proceedings. But there is a long line of authorities in France which have ruled that third parties cannot interfere with arbitral awards.

I have not seen the judgment of the court of appeal, but I understand that the court of appeal had also denied enforcement on this ground. The Cour de cassation, however, does not address the issue in its judgment. One reason is that it sufficed that it would only confirm that one ground for denying enforcement existed. Whether the judgment rendered by the  European Court of Human Rights in this case was another reason is unclear.

European Court of Human Rights

In January 2010, BEG Italy had lodged a complain against Italy before the European Court of Human Right. In a judgment of 20 May 2021, the ECtHR found that Italy had indeed violated Article 6, § 1, of the European Convention on the ground that it had not sanctioned an arbitration where one of arbitrators’ impartiality could be doubted.

The judgment of the Cour  de cassation does not mention this judgment of the ECtHR, and it is unclear whether it influenced its decision in any way.

One reason why it might not have is that, I understand, at the present time, Italy has not revoked its decision not to set aside the arbitral award. BEG had asked the ECtHR to rule on this, but the Strasbourg court refrained from doing so, leaving it to Italy to decide how to best implement its decision (a report on the situation from an Italian perspective, by Michele Grassi, will appear on this blog in the coming days).

Another reason might be that, whether the arbitral award was rendered by an arbitral tribunal which did not meet the standard of impartiality did not change the fact that the Albanian proceedings were initiated for the purpose of evading the arbitral award.

Sarah McKibbin (University of Southern Queensland) and Anthony Kennedy (Serle Court Chambers, London; St Edmund Hall and Somerville College, Oxford) edited a book titled The Common Law Jurisprudence of the Conflict of Laws, with Bloomsbury.

This book presents a collection of leading common law cases in private international law ranging from the 18th to the 21st century. The cases traverse issues of jurisdiction, choice of law and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. Questions of marital validity, domicile, foreign immovable property and choice of law in contract are just some of the topics that this collection examines. The ‘unusual factual situations’ of some 18th- and 19th-century English cases also reveal compelling human interest stories and political controversies worthy of further exploration.
Drawing on a diverse team of contributors, this edited collection showcases the research of eminent conflicts scholars together with emerging scholars from the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Ireland and South Africa.

The table of contents can be accessed here.

Those ordering the book online at www.bloomsbury.com are offered a 20% discount (the codes are GLR BE1UK for UK orders, and GLR BE1US for US orders).

On 31 May 2023, the Commission adopted an implementing decision whereby the European citizens’ initiative (ECI) entitled Effective implementation of the concept of judicial precedent in EU countries shall be registered. The English version can be downloaded here.

The decision has been taken pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2019/788 on the European citizens’ initiative. The Regulation establishes the procedures and conditions required for an initiative inviting the Commission, within the framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens of the Union consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties.

The initiative comes from a small group of persons (according to Article 5 of the Regulation, an initiative must be prepared by at least seven natural persons), whose affiliation is not disclosed on the webpage. The e-mail address of the substitute to the representative of the organisers points to the University of Bucarest.

The objectives of the initiative as expressed by the organisers are the introduction of ‘a mechanism at national level which guarantees mutual recognition of final judicial decisions adopted by courts’ in other Member States and ‘the option of invoking national judicial precedents decided by the courts of the country in question’, with a view to ‘consolidat[ing] a uniform judicial practice among the Member States’.

The mechanism would apply provided that: ‘(a) the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has had occasion to interpret the applicable provisions of EU law’ and that ‘(b) the case in question concerns similar or identical legal questions’. The organisers ask for the mechanism to be ‘actually available to litigants, allowing them to request the recognition of another decision relevant to their case at any stage of the proceedings.’ Furthermore, they consider that ‘a certain degree of flexibility should be ensured in light of the ‘rebus sic stantibus’ clause, making it possible to change the case-law if certain fundamental circumstances have changed.’ In addition, Member States should be ‘obliged to impose  effective, dissuasive and proportionate penalties in cases where the mechanism is not complied with’.

The text of the initiative is available here. Judging from its last paragraph, it has wide ambitions in terms of material scope: ‘Firstly, the initiative is based on Articles 81 and 82(1) TFEU as regards the recognition of judgments with cross-border implications. Secondly, the proposal is based on Article 352 TFEU and potentially Article 114 TFEU, so as to cover all situations which lead to inconsistent application and interpretation of EU [law] that could impede the attainment of EU’s objectives and the proper functioning of its internal market.’

In the absence of further explanations, I am not sure (but curious) about how the future mechanism would relate to already existing EU legal texts on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters.

I fail to see third parties to a decision being granted, as per EU law, a right to requests its recognition in the usual sense of the word; but perhaps there is a new notion of recognition in the making – one providing for ‘precedential’ effect. Or, maybe, what makes the difference between the initiative’s desired mechanism in comparison to the status quo is the prong on ensuring litigants an option to rely ‘on national judicial precedents decided by the courts of the State concerned’, if ‘the State concerned’ is means a Member State other than the one where the court seized sits.

Again, I am not sure this is the correct understanding of the initiative, which at some point states that The mechanism ‘should apply not only to recognising final judicial decisions adopted in other Member States, but also to recognising final judicial decisions adopted in the country in question’ (italics added).

In any event, the future mechanism would only apply subject to three cumulative criteria being met: (i) the final judicial decision at stake applied provisions of Union law; (ii) the CJEU has already interpreted the same relevant provisions of Union law and (iii) the case concerned is governed by similar or identical points of law. First and second conditions do not look like too difficult to identify in a given case; the same can definitely not be claimed for the third one.

As a rule, all statements of support of a citizen’s initiative* shall be collected within a period not exceeding 12 months from a date chosen by the group of organisers (the ‘collection period’). According to Article 8 (1) of Regulation 2019/788, that date must be not later than six months from the registration of the initiative in accordance with Article 6. So far, I have found no indication on how to express support to this particular initiative. Pursuant to Article 11(7) of Regulation 2019/788, the recourse to individual online collection systems will no longer be possible for initiatives registered after the end of 2022; organisers will thus have to use the central online collection system, for which the Commission is responsible. It maybe that further clarification as regards the exact scope of the initiative’s proposed mechanism is to be found there (not to be taken for granted, though: assuming it is technically possible, there is a thin line between simply explaining an initiative and actually amending it).

*In order to ensure that a European citizen’s initiative is representative, a minimum number of signatories coming from each of those Member States is required. This translate into conditions set under Article 3 of the Regulation. Statistics on European Citizen Initiatives presented, registered, and valid, can be found in a recent report of the European Parliament.

Matthias Lehmann (University of Vienna) has made available on SSRN a new paper with the title Who Owns Bitcoin? Private Law Facing the Blockchain.

The abstract reads as follows:

Blockchain, or “distributed ledger” technology, has been devised as an alternative to the law of finance. While it has become clear by now that regulation in the public interest is necessary, for example to avoid money laundering, drug dealing or tax evasion, the particularly thorny issues of private law have been less discussed. These include, for instance, the right to reverse an erroneous transfer, the ownership of stolen coins and the effects of succession or bankruptcy of a bitcoin holder. All of these questions require answers from a legal perspective because the technology ignores them.
Particular difficulties arise when one tries to apply a property analysis to the blockchain. Surprisingly, it is far from clear how virtual currencies and other crypto assets are transferred and acquired. The traditional requirements posed by private law, such as an agreement between the parties and the transfer of possession, are incompatible with the technology. Moreover, the idea of a “void” or “null” transfer is hard to reconcile with the immutability that characterizes the blockchain.
Before any such questions can be answered, it is necessary to determine the law governing blockchain transfers and assets. This is the point where conflict of laws, or “private international law”, comes into play. Conflicts lawyers are used to submitting legal relations to the law of the country with the most significant connection. But seemingly insurmountable problems occur because decentralized ledgers with no physical connecting factors do not lend themselves to this type of “localization” exercise.
The issue of this paper therefore is: How can blockchain be squared with traditional categories of private law, including private international law? The proposal made herein avoids the recourse to a newly fashioned “lex digitalis” or “lex cryptographica”. Rather, it is suggested that the problems can be solved by using existing national laws, supplemented by an international text. At the same time, the results produced by DLT should also be accepted as legally protected and corrected only where necessary under the applicable national rules. In this way, a symbiosis between private law and innovative technology can be created.

Tobias Lutzi (University of Augsburg), Ennio Piovesani (University of Turin), Dora Zgrabljic Rotar (University of Zagreb) edited a book titled Jurisdiction Over Non-EU Defendants – Should the Brussels Ia Regulation be Extended?, with Bloomsbury.

The book is the result of the third project of the EAPIL Young Research Network.

This book looks at the question of extending the reach of the Brussels Ia Regulation to defendants not domiciled in an EU Member State. The Regulation, the centrepiece of the EU framework on civil procedure, is widely recognised as one of the most successful legal instruments on judicial cooperation. To provide a basis for the discussion of its possible extension, this volume takes a closer look at the national rules that currently govern the question of jurisdiction over non-EU defendants in each Member State through 17 national reports. The insights gained from them are summarised in a comparative report and critically discussed in further contributions, which look at the question both from a European and from a wider global perspective. Private international lawyers will be keen to read the findings and conclusions, which will also be of interest to practitioners and policy makers.

The table of contents is available here.

The Council of the European Union adopted on 9 June 2023 a political agreement 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).

Based on this common position, the Council will now start discussions with the European Parliament with a view to settling on the final text of the directive.

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 suggested changes have been presented as underlying a concern for  more balanced solutions, and for increased discretion left to national courts, but have been criticised by some stakeholders as involving a watered-down compromise.

The most significant innovations include the following.

The Council, while agreeing that the future directive should apply only to matters with cross-border implications,  advocates the suppression of the provision in the Commission’s proposal that defined what matters should be considered to have such implications.

According to Article 4 of the proposal, a matter ought to be considered to have cross-border implications “unless both parties are domiciled in the same Member State as the court seised”. The proposal added that, where both parties are domiciled in the same Member State, the matter would still be deemed to have cross-border implications if (a) the act of public participation targeted by the SLAPP “is relevant to more than one Member State”, or (b) the claimant have initiated concurrent or previous proceedings against the same defendants in another Member State.

The rule providing early dismissal of manifestly unfounded claims should, according to the Council, be rephrased as follows: 

Member States shall ensure that courts may dismiss, after appropriate examination, claims against public participation as manifestly unfounded at the earliest possible stage, in accordance with national law.

The proposed rewording includes language that was not in the initial proposal (“after appropriate examination”, “at the earliest possible stage, in accordance with national law”). Conversely, the Council’s text fails to retain the paragraph in the initial proposal according to which “Member States may establish time limits for the exercise of the right to file an application for early dismissal”, provided that such time limits are “proportionate and not render such exercise impossible or excessively difficult”.

The Council further suggests the deletion of the provision in the proposal which asked Member States to “ensure that if the defendant applies for early dismissal, the main proceedings are stayed until a final decision on that application is taken”.

According to the Council, the provision on compensation in the Commission’s proposal should likewise be suppressed (arguably, because it was considered to be unnecessary, in light of the existing law). It read as follows:

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure thata natural or legal person who has suffered harm as a result of an abusive court proceedings against public participation is able to claim and to obtain full compensation for that harm.

The Council also seeks to modify the wording of the provision in the initial proposal whereby Member States should deny recognition to judgments given in a third State in the framework of a SLAPP brought against natural or legal person domiciled in the Union. The amended version of the provision no longer refers to violation of public policy as the reason for non-recognition.

As regards jurisdiction, the text agreed by the Council retains the rule whereby those targeted by a SLAPP brought in a third State should be able to seek compensation in the Member State of the courts of their domicile, for the damages and the costs incurred in connection with the proceedings in the third country, but adds that Member States “may limit the exercise of the jurisdiction while proceedings are still pending in the third country”.

Finally, according to the Council’s general approach, the Member States should be given three years, instead of two as initially contemplated, to implement the directive in their legal systems.

This post was written by Cécile Pellegrini who is Associate Professor at Lyon Catholic University (UCLy). It summarises a contribution to Metaverse and the Law, edited by L. Di Mateo and M. Cannarsa, Edward Elgar Publishing, forthcoming.

The Metaverse Beyond Real Life

Beyond the world as we know it, often referred to by the acronym “IRL” (for “In Real Life”, stands the so-called “Metaverse”, a concept that private international lawyers are only beginning to embrace.

Coined 30 years ago in the prophetic “Snow Crash” dystopic novel by Neil Stephenson, this Janus, both fearsome and full of promises, was described as a “form of human life and communication in a virtual three-dimensional space through a digital avatar”. Since the digital twins of Second Life (i.e. a free access software allowing users to embody virtual characters in a world created by the residents themselves) Metaverse has taken many shapes. Beyond its known main use as an online multiplayer 3D game (such as Fortnite and Roblox) empowered by virtual and augmented reality (“VR” and “AR”), it has already found numerous applications evolving from being “a place” to shop, work, advertise, buy virtual land, be educated or trained, get a doctor’s appointment, get married, attend a court hearing, travel, be entertained, trade and use cryptocurrencies, sell real-world goods virtually or create and use nonfungible tokens (“NFTs”). The list could go on.

Despite its growing importance, highlighted with the recent rebranding of Meta, the Metaverse is neither defined nor  regulated. Attempts to streamline common features differ from one expert to another (for e.g., see here, here and here). However, all retain the persistence of identity and objects, a shared environment, the use of avatars, synchronization, being three-dimensional, interoperability, and a user experience that is interactive, immersive, and social. For now, the word “Metaverse” itself appears as a catchall term for advanced technologies that point to these types of immersive virtual experiences accessible from anywhere in the world. In consequence, it calls for a more precise and common definition, especially in the perspective of its regulation.

The Metaverse Beyond Borders

Considering the international intrinsic nature of Metaverse litteraly located “beyond the universe”, conflict of laws questions are necessarily in order. Especially considering that such a transnational cyberspace is destined to become the privileged place of many international transactions bringing ineluctably their lots of conflicts. In the absence of international substantial regime, conflict of laws rules are called upon to play a decisive part in the identification of the applicable legal regime to those transactions.

The Metaverse or Several Metaverses?

Yet, when trying to consider the applicable law, there is no certainty on whether to address the Metaverse as a whole, the metaverses’ operators (many metaverses’ iterations exist, such as Decentraland, Sandbox, Roblox, or Horizon World) or the various situations arising from, or in the Metaverse. Indeed, a metaverse could either be seen as an online platform or as the future generation of our internet, i.e. the forthcoming Web3, following Web1 (accessing static webpages) and Web2 (interactive social experiences). Web3, which is a work in progress, will be about digital ownership within an open, decentralized environment and orchestrated with tokens. Whether we are looking at one single Metaverse (with a capital letter like “the Internet”) or at several metaverses (with a lower case as it refers to the technology) depends essentially on the metaverses’ interoperability. Several projects are working in that direction (such as Open Metaverse Interoperability Group, the web standardization body W3C, or Metaverse Standards Forum). If the various existing metaverses become interoperable in a close future, it will inter alia  allow for any transaction taking place in a given virtual world to be transferred in another. Enabling users to switch between multiple virtual reality platforms while “carrying” online properties together will become important, as users will be able to seamlessly switch between various platforms. This will facilitate users to engage in various projects that are taking place on multiple platforms. For instance, a user buying virtual items in the form of NFTs and obtaining titles in one virtual world will technically hold the same items in another virtual world. An avatar with a digital identity in one place would be the same in the other, and he/she could go from a work meeting in one virtual place to another.

For now, the single “Metaverse”, called for by all the prophetic dystopias and the Silicon Valley behemoths has given way to many growing virtual worlds unconnected one to another. There might still be a long way to go to develop the necessary access technologies before we can affirm the existence of a global Metaverse but its future existence seems ineluctable. Hence, the applicable legal framework to Metaverse depends on whether we consider the actual various existing metaverses as online platforms or if we take a prospective view, and already consider the upcoming unique “Metaverse”.  Based on those two scenarios, the conflict of laws solutions differ.

Metaverse as a Platform: The Growing Importance of the “Directed Activity Criterion” and its Inadequacy

Most of the metaverses behave like online platforms. As such, they feature a contract-based architecture where accepting general terms and conditions (“GTCs”) is most of the time a prerequisite to access their services. Far from being an extraterritorial creation with its private own rules – as called for by proponents of Lawrence Lessig – such terms and conditions, whenever the contract is concluded with a European user-consumer, may trigger the application of EU protective rules for consumers, regardless of the defendant’s domicile outside the Union.

This scenario is increasingly frequent since the exchange of personal data is deemed equivalent to a price and constitutes consideration (in particular based on Directive (EU) 2019/770 regarding the supply of digital content and digital services, Art. 3.1). As a consequence, the contractual relationship between the services’ provider and the user answers to the European definition of a B2C contract. It will especially be the case when the activity of the platform is directed toward European consumers-users. Such rules are far from being ignored by large players.

For example, Meta’s T&C’s choice of jurisdiction clause conforms with EU consumer protection as it cares to distinguish conditions for businesses from conditions for consumers  especially when they are in the EU. The Brussels I Recast Regulation helds the protective forum of the consumers domicile competent, whenever the contract has been concluded with a person who pursues commercial or professional activities in the Member State of the consumer’s domicile or, by any means, directs such activities to that Member State or to several States including that Member State, (Brussels I Recast, Art. 17 & 18). In the same time, any choice of jurisdiction clause is strictly regulated (Brussels I Recast, Art. 19). A choice of law in Metaverse’s T&C is also limited by the protective rules of Rome I Regulation and especially, Article 6 on Consumer contracts, which also resorts to the “directed activity” criterion as interpreted by the Pammer and Alpenhof case law (see Rome I Reg., Recital 24).

With this view, all the difficulties already encountered to define connecting factors regarding applicable law to online service operators are not new. As an example (outside the B2C legal sphere), we can just think of the difficulty to establish the place of performance of an immaterial service in a metaverse. The “directed activity” criterion can be criticised for its imprecision and growing inadequacy with the development of worldwide websites intended for a global audience. Pushed to the extreme, this criterion becomes completely irrelevant in the case of a unique interoperable Metaverse, that, contrary to a website which can answer to indications as to whether it addresses to a specific national audience, addresses a worldwide audience with no distinction. We can observe that the inadequacy of this “directed activity” criterion is progressively leading to a shift toward “unilateral extraterritorial European protection” (as already noticed on this blog in the context of the Digital Services Act).

EU Regulation of Metaverses’ Platforms Operators

Depending on the metaverse in question and the way it operates, the definition of platform could well be retained for the purposes of applying European Regulations. When they answer the definition, platforms operators are facing growing EU substantial-law regulations with extraterritorial effects, whether it is the P2B platform (see esp. Recital 9), the GDPR (Art. 3), the recent “European constitution for the Internet” combining the DSA (Art. 2.1) and DMA (Art. 1.2), the proposed ePrivacy Regulation (Art. 3.1) or the proposed Data Act (Art 1.2).

These EU instruments follow a strict “marketplace” approach  subjecting every service aimed at people located within EU territory to their provisions, independently of where the service operator is established or administered. This clearly reflects the will of the European legislator to ensure the primacy of EU internal market law and the protection of EU fundamental rights, underpinned by the European values in the digital space. Worldwide service providers aiming at the European market should be held under high European standards such as a high level of consumer protection and personal data protection. But in the future, metaverses’ operators could well be merged into a unique Metaverse and in that case, the question of applicable law will appear somehow differently.

Metaverse Considered as the Future Web3: A Methodology Shift?

No unique legal category applies to Internet as such. EU Private International Law rules rather approach each legal situation/relationship arising out of this “cyberterritory” (see eg here). In that view, it could be considered that determining the law applicable to online situations in the Metaverse merely bring the same difficulties already met with Internet’s situations ‘immateriality’. For example, it is difficult to resort to the “place of provision of service” connecting factor to determine the applicable law to an online contract of provision of service or the use of the “place of the harmful event” connecting factor in order to locate the law of the damage when a tortious situation is committed online that is everywhere at the same time on the globe.

These difficulties are known of PIL experts and sometimes found solutions. In order to answer these new digital situations, conflict of laws rules adapted progressively. In the absence of tangible material elements, the classic solutions have consisted in detaching localisation from material reality. Fictitious location have been favored considering that it remains possible to give a territorial account of immaterial phenomena still marked by some tangible elements. For instance, the difficulties of locating harmful situations in digital spaces has led to shift toward more personal connections as fictional localisations to identify the seat of digital situations. These connections often favor thevictim’s or plaintiff’s center of interests and such a tendency is particularly spreading in the area of cybertorts (see the Roundtable on the method of localisation in digital space). However, such adaptation is reaching its limits. With the upcoming Metaverse, even the few existing tangible connections disappear,with the new underlying use of the blockchain technology, often seen as the bedrock on which Metaverse will rest.

Blockchain as the Metaverse’s Bedrock

The question of how the different blockchains will be able to become technically interoperable is not yet settled, but blockchain technology will contribute to the interoperable development of the Metaverse and to generate a virtual economy where nonfungible tokens (NFTs) are traded. For all the new possibilities it bring, blockchain technology will be the privileged way within metaverses to make all type of transactions, using cryptocurrencies, tokens and associate the later with smart contracts.

The use of crypto-currencies has already given rise to questions about the identification of the applicable law and resulted in Europe in the recent “MICA” Regulation. For crypto assets left out of the text, and in expectation for some States to adopt the recent Unidroit Principles on Digital Assets and Private Law, it is it far from clear how they are acquired and transferred and what law governs such transactions in a transnational Metaverse. Characterisation and transfer of property still need to be addressed and raise many concerns (see the upcoming joint Project between UNIDROIT and HCCH here and the work of the EAPIL Working Group here).

Real conflict of laws difficulty lies with decentralized public blockchains (i.e. open and permissionless as opposed to consortium or private blockchains) that will mostly be in use in the Metaverse. With blockchain, the extensive degree of immateriality undermines the ability to resort to connecting factors actually in use. Seemingly insurmountable problems occur because decentralized ledgers with no physical connecting factors are reluctant to any localisation exercise. Blockchain offers few useful connection points in PIL either through traditional connecting factors or even through the use of fictitious connections. There are no first place of distribution or place of registration. There are also no intermediaries or account providers.

Although, that last affirmation could be nuanced.  Even if it is often claimed that blockchain ‘disintermediates’ the economy, this remains to be seen as, for the time being, more intermediaries (the cryptos and NFTs’ platforms are multipying) have been created by the technology than replaced. Here, one solution would maybe lie in setting obligations on the intermediary secondary platforms creating and exchanging NFTs and giving access to metaverses. However, even this would only partially bring solutions as the usual links to the territory of a State, however tenuous, do not even exist in the case of blockchain where transactions are anonymous.  This is why, behind the avatars, digital civil identity is becoming a major stake for the national sovereignty of States (on that question, see here). Hence, from known difficulties encountered to locate the seat of a situation in the Metaverse as a cyberspace, we move forward to major difficulties regarding the identification of parties to Metaverses’ transactions. With user’s anonymity in public blockchains, the lack of any grip between the situation and any national legal system, seat location becomes completely fictitious. The unseen immateriality, decentralization and anonymity characteristics of blockchain in the Metaverse are therefore calling for a change of regulatory approach.

On 7 March 2023, the Italian Court of Cassation rendered a judgment (No 6723/2023) on the public policy exception as a ground for refusing, pursuant to Articles 45 and 46 of the Brussels I bis Regulation, the recognition and enforcement in Italy of a decision rendered by a Danish Labour Court.

In its judgment, the Court of Cassation addressed (and sometimes dodged) a number of questions concerning the interplay between, on the one hand, the uniform regime of the public policy exception set out by the Brussels I bis Regulation and, on the other hand, Italian procedural law, read in the light of the case law of the CJEU and of the ECtHR.

Facts and Procedure(s)

On 8 December 2017, a Labour Court in Denmark, sitting in a single-judge formation and as a judge of first and last instance, ascertained that a company established in Italy had violated a number of provisions of Danish employment law. Said Italian company had seconded a group of construction workers in Denmark, whose working conditions were regulated by a collective agreement concluded between this company and Danish trade unions.  Subsequently, however, the Italian company breached the obligations stemming therefrom, by omitting to pay salaries, pension insurance contributions, holiday remuneration and other social benefits in accordance with the conditions set by said agreement. Based on these grounds, the Danish Labour Court condemned the company to pay (to the trade unions) a total amount of € 1.900.000,00 ca. This amount was calculated by taking into account the making of budgetary savings unlawfully realized by the company (essentially, by underpaying its workers and omitting to comply with social security obligations) complemented by a 7% increase for deterrence (ca. € 129.000,00). In Danish law, this fine (bod) finds its legal basis in Article 12 of Act. No 106 of 2008.

The Danish trade unions subsequently sought to enforce that judgment in Italy. At this stage, the Italian company filed an application under Articles 45 and 46 of the Brussels I bis Regulation, claiming, inter alia, a breach of the Italian public policy stemming from:

1. an alleged lack of impartiality of the Danish judge, based on the remark that “the majority of the members of the deciding court were designated by one of the trade unions who were parties to the procedure”.
2. the Danish court’s refusal to submit a preliminary reference to the CJEU concerning the interpretation of a number of provisions of (primary and secondary) EU law, deemed relevant for the resolution of the dispute(notably, the freedom to provide services, the principle of non-discrimination based on nationality, Article 12 of the Charter, Article 3 of Directive 96/71/CE and Article 6 of Directive 98/49/CE).
3. the “criminal” nature of the fine (bod) imposed by the Danish Tribunal and/or its non-conformity with the criteria set by the Combined Civil Sections of the Cassation itself for the recognition and enforcement in Italy of punitive damages.

The Italian Court of first instance (Tribunale di Siracusa) refused the recognition and enforcement of the Danish decision, deeming that the sanction inflicted by the Labour Court was indeed criminal in nature, in application of the Engel criteria.

The Court of Appeal of Catania reversed this ruling and granted recognition and enforcement, holding that this sanction aimed at compensating the trade union for a breach of contract, consistently with the ordinary function of civil liability. While the Court of Appeal acknowledged that the 7% increase (bod) might have an inhibiting or repressive purpose, it found it in compliance with the criteria established by the Court of Cassation for the recognition of punitive damage in Italy.

Called by the applicant to assess whether the lower courts had correctly interpreted and applied the law, the Court of Cassation came back to questions 1), 2) and 3), mentioned above.

Unpacking the Cassation’s Ruling

The Cassation’s judgment addresses a number of legal questions, which should be separately assessed.

a. On the Possibility of Raising the Public Policy Exception Ex Officio

This issue was brought to the attention of the Court of Cassation in connection with the alleged lack of impartiality of the Danish judge, who – according to the applicant – had been unilaterally appointed by one of the trade unions who were parties to the dispute (Danish law, it seems, allows the parties to labour disputes to appoint the members of the deciding panel). The fact that the Danish legal order offered no possibility of appealing the decision rendered by this judge constituted, in the applicant’s view, an additional violation of the right to a fair trial, having particular regard to the ‘criminal’ nature of the inflicted sanction

The Court of Appeal had refused to rule on this allegation, deeming that this claim had not been (adequately) substantiated by the applicants in the original application submitted before the court of  first instance. It should therefore be regarded as a new claim raised first the first time on appeal and dismissed as inadmissible. According to the applicant, however, this ground of refusal (contrariety to public policy for the lack of impartiality of the deciding panel) should have been raised ex officio by the first instance judge.

The Court of Cassation briefly considers this line of argument in an obiter, where it acknowledged that this way of reasoning would lead to an additional legal question. It should be determined, in particular, whether the Italian judge

is empowered to raise ex officio a breach of the substantive or procedural public policy of the forum, in application of the domestic procedural rules that usually allow for this possibility (in Italy, Article 112 of the code of civil procedure), or whether, conversely, this ex officio control is precluded by the favor that [the Brussels I Bis] Regulation expresses towards the recognition [of foreign judgments], in that it explicitly requires the party who has an interest in not having that judgment enforced in the forum to take appropriate steps to that end [free translation by the author of this post].

To answer this question, the Court of Cassation would have had to take a stance on the interplay between the uniform procedural regime established (sometimes implicitly) by the Brussels I bis Regulation and the domestic rules of procedure of the forum, as well as on the leeway granted to the latter by the principle of procedural autonomy. Regrettably, the Court of Cassation decided to “dodge” this question. In fact, it continues its reasoning by remarking that: “even admitting that the applicant had properly raised the claim concerning the partiality of the deciding panel at the first instance” (as the company was also alleging), the terms in which this claim was formulated would be too generic and unsubstantiated. This claim was solely grounded in the letter of the Danish law, which allows for the abstract possibility that the trade unions appoint the members of the deciding panel under specific conditions. However, this was not what happened in that concrete case, since the case file evidenced that the judge who issued the contested judgment had been chosen (through a different procedure) among those serving at the Danish Supreme Court. Moreover, it had never been recused by the applicant in the proceedings in the issuing State.

The Court of Cassation also rejected the applicant’s argument whereby the sheer existence of a provision allowing for the appointment of the judicial panel by trade unions who are parties to the dispute could amount to a “structural deficiency” of the Danish legal order. To this end, the Italian Court reminded that the notion of “public policy” under the EU PIL Regulations shall not be construed with reference to purely internal values, but rather according to a broader international perspective. In this vein, the Court of Cassation remarked that many foreign states establish similar systems of judicial appointment and that , in any case,

it is not for the judge called to decide on a cause of non-recognition of a judgment issued by a court of a EU Member State to investigate about systemic deficiencies in legal order of the State of origin (‘structural deficiencies’), in the light of the respect and consideration paid to this State (specifically, Denmark) at the pan-European level.

b. On the Breach of the Obligation to Request a Preliminary Ruling and the Public Policy Exception

This issue was solved in a rather straightforward manner by the Court of Cassation. The applicant claimed that, as the judge of first and last resort, the Danish court should have referred a preliminary question to the CJEU, since the interpretation of a number of provisions of EU law was, in his view, essential for the resolution of the dispute. The non-respect of the obligation established by the CILFIT case law would then result in legal impossibility of recognizing and enforcing the ensuing foreign judgment, this being contrary to the public policy of the requested State.

The Court of Cassation evoked, in this respect, the case law of both the ECtHR and the CJUE. In Ullens dr Schooten, the former held that a national court’s refusal to grant the applicants’ requests to refer to the Court of Justice preliminary questions on the interpretation of EU law, that they had submitted in the course of the proceedings, does not violate Article 6 of the ECHR if this refusal has been duly reasoned. In Consorzio Italian Management, the CJEU specified that

if a national court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law takes the view… that it is relieved of its obligation to make a reference to the Court under the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, the statement of reasons for its decision must show either that the question of EU law raised is irrelevant for the resolution of the dispute, or that the interpretation of the EU law provision concerned is based on the Court’s case-law or, in the absence of such case-law, that the interpretation of EU law was so obvious to the national court or tribunal of last instance as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt (§ 51).

Against this backdrop, the Court of Cassation deemed that the Danish Court had sufficiently explained the reasons behind its refusal to refer a preliminary question to Luxembourg. It also added that this assessment should be made solely on the basis of the reasoning developed in the judgment whose recognition is sought: any further assessment on this point, extending to the correctness of the interpretation given to the Danish provisions and their application to the facts of the case, would amount to a review on the merits, explicitly forbidden under the Brussels regime.

c. On the Allegedly Criminal Nature of the Danish Fine (Bod)

Concerning the disputed nature of the fine inflicted with the judgment whose recognition was sought, the Court of Cassation aligned with the view expressed by the Court of Appeal. It noted that, in the Danish legal order, the bod is characterized as a financial penalty (sanzione pecuniaria) belonging to the toolbox of civil liability. It can be inflicted solely for breaches of collective work agreements and pursues a double objective: on the one hand, strengthening the binding effects of these contracts (whose purpose would be defeated if, in case of non-compliance, the compensation granted by the court was limited to the damage effectively suffered by the trade union) and, on the other hand, fighting social dumping. The Cassation therefore recognizes that the bod combines the functions typically vested in civil liability with a deterrent effect typical of criminal law, aiming at the preservation of the general welfare. However, this “duality of functions” of the bod cannot, as such, serve as a basis to qualify this financial penalty as a criminal sanction.

For the purposes of a correct characterization of a fine as being “criminal” in nature, the Court of Cassation pointed to the judgment No. 43 of 2017 of the Italian Constitutional Court, which in turn refers to the Engel criteria. Accordingly, a fine may be recognized as being criminal in nature – even despite a different explicit characterization in positive law – if (a) it affects the population at large; (2) pursues aims that are not merely reparatory, but also punitive and preventative; (3) has punitive character, its consequences being able to reach a significant level of severity (§ 3.3).

Assessed from this standpoint, the Court of Cassation concluded that the Danish bod could not be regarded as being criminal in nature. Its (partially) “punitive” function should rather be ascribed to the system of civil liability.

In Italy, the recognition of foreign (civil) judgments awarding punitive damages is regulated by a ruling of the Combined Sections of the Court of Cassation of 2017 (No. 16601). Therein, that Court admitted, for the first time, that punitive damages could be compatible with Italian public policy under specific conditions: (1) they shall comply, first and foremost, with the principle of legality and the principle that there must be a legal basis, pursuant to which conduct giving rise to the imposition of punitive damages must be defined beforehand in legislation; (2) secondly, and relatedly, punitive damages damages shall be foreseeable; and (3) their amount should not be disproportionate, ie grossly excessive in nature. Having regard to these criteria, the Cassation concluded that the Danish bod could be recognized in Italy, given that: it found a sufficiently specific legal basis in Danish law (ie in the provisions of Act. No 106 of 2008); the application of these provisions was adequately foreseeable, also as concerns the determination of the amount of the fine, given that Danish courts have issued specific guidelines for these purposes; the damage awarded for “punitive purposes” was not grossly disproportionate in relation to the amount of the prejudice effectively suffered by the trade unions and their members (7% thereof).

Based on these arguments, the Court of Cassation finally gave the green-light to the recognition and enforcement of the Danish judgment in Italy, thus rejecting the claimant’s application under Articles 45 and 46 of the Brussels I bis Regulation.

Edward Elgar Publishing has just published an Advanced Introduction to Cross-Border Insolvency Law, authored by Reinhard Bork (University of Hamburg).

The book is meant both for students who study company, commercial and private international law, and to practitioners who are not specialists of insolvency law. In its approach it provide both in-depth information for advance readers and accessible information for beginners and follows a comparative law approach to explore some of the most important issues of insolvency law.

The blurb of the book reads as follows:

The Advanced Introduction to Cross-Border Insolvency Law provides a clear and concise overview of cross-border insolvency law with particular focus on the rules governing insolvency proceedings that occur between and across countries. Increasingly, such proceedings have an international dimension, which may involve, for example, debtors with assets abroad, foreign creditors, contractual agreements with counterparties in different jurisdictions, or companies with offices or subsidiaries in a different country. The book expertly steers the reader through the complex interactions between national and supra-national rules, international model laws, and the principles that underpin them.

This post was written by Ugljesa Grusic, Associate Professor at University College London. It offers a preview of the upcoming developments relating to Zubaydah v Foreign and Commonwealth Office, a case pending before the UK Supreme Court.

While private international law is no longer regarded as an apolitical field, it is rare for it to become directly entangled in clandestine intelligence operations, secret state deals, and egregious human rights violations. However, the UK Supreme Court is set to hear precisely such a case on 14 and 15 June 2023 in Zubaydah v Foreign and Commonwealth Office. This case is important not only because of its context, but also because it raises a crucial question of private international law. Can reasonable/legitimate expectations, justice, convenience, fairness, and appropriateness, as fundamental principles underlying the application of foreign law, be of practical relevance for determining the applicable law in difficult cases?

Facts

Abu Zubaydah, the first detainee in a CIA black site and the first subject of what the CIA euphemistically refers to as ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’, but what should rightfully be recognised as torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, is currently a ‘forever prisoner’ in Guantánamo. He is suing the UK government for its alleged complicity in the CIA’s wrongful conduct, which itself was part of the US ‘war on terror’.

Claims

Zubaydah is suing the UK government for misfeasance in public office, conspiracy, trespass to the person, false imprisonment, and negligence. The crux of the claims is that the Security Service and the Secret Intelligence Service (better known as, respectively, the MI5 and the MI6) were aware that Zubaydah was being arbitrarily detained at CIA black sites, where he was being subjected to torture and maltreatment during interrogations conducted by the CIA, but nevertheless sent questions with a view to the CIA eliciting information from him, expecting and/or intending (or at the very least not caring) that he would be subjected to such torture and maltreatment. The defendants are neither confirming nor denying these allegations.

Central Issue

The claim is brought in tort. The Rome II Regulation does not apply due to the acta iure imperii exception. Section 15(1) of the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 states that the choice-of-law rules for torts in the Act apply ‘in relation to claims by or against the Crown as [they apply] in relation to claims to which the Crown is not a party’. The lex loci delicti applies pursuant to section 11 of the 1995 Act. However, section 12 provides an escape clause.

In this case, the claimant (respondent in the appeal) aims to plead and establish his claim by reference to English law. On the other hand, the defendants (appellants in the appeal) argue that the laws of Thailand, Poland, Cuba (Guantánamo Bay), Morocco, Lithuania, and Afghanistan (the ‘Six Countries’, where he was allegedly detained, tortured, and mistreated) should govern.

Private international law thus becomes the focal point of the power dynamics at play in this case. Of course, the defendants are not asserting that the MI5 and MI6 officers who sent questions to their CIA counterparts had the specific laws of the Six Countries in mind as governing their actions. Rather, they are arguing that the laws of the Six Countries apply because this would make the claimant’s claim more uncertain and resource intensive and, consequently, more challenging to establish. Lane J accepted the defendants’ argument, but Dame Sharp P, Thirlwall and Males LJJ unanimously allowed the appeal.

Importance of the Case

This case holds importance for private international law for two reasons. Firstly, it highlights the role of private international law in holding the executive accountable and vindicating fundamental rights, particularly in cases involving alleged wrongs arising out of the external exercise of British executive authority. I will not discuss this aspect of the case here, except to say that I have written a whole book on the topic, Torts in UK Foreign Relations, which will be published by Oxford University Press in their Private International Law series on 13 June 2023.

The focus here is on the second important aspect of the case, which involves the reliance by the parties and the courts on reasonable/legitimate expectations, justice, convenience, fairness, and appropriateness, as fundamental principles underlying the application of foreign law, as important factors in the choice-of-law process.

As elucidated by the editors of Dicey, Morris and Collins in paragraph 1-006, ‘The main justification for the conflict of laws is that it implements the reasonable and legitimate expectations of the parties to a transaction or an occurrence.’ In the following paragraphs, the editors further assert that failing to apply foreign law in ‘appropriate cases’ would lead to ‘grave injustice and inconvenience’. As private international lawyers, we recognise these and similar principles as the truths of our field. However, courts rarely delve into the reasons for applying foreign law and the practical relevance of these fundamental principles. It is in the most difficult cases, such as Zubaydah, that courts may have to go back to the drawing board.

Consider a scenario where a person negligently injures a Ruritanian victim while driving in Ruritania. It is well-established that Ruritanian law would govern the tort in such a case. The application of Ruritanian law can be justified based on the reasonable/legitimate expectations of the parties involved. By driving to Ruritania, the tortfeasor submits to Ruritanian law, and the Ruritanian victim naturally expects the application of its own country’s law. Additionally, the application of foreign law can be explained by notions of justice, either as the attainment of individual private justice or the systemic justice derived from the appropriate allocation of regulatory authority among states.

However, do these ideas still hold weight where the victim was forcibly and unlawfully ‘extraordinarily rendered’ from one country to another, where their senses of sight and hearing were deprived during transportation using goggles and earmuffs, and where they were kept unaware of their location by their captors and torturers? What if the defendant accomplice was oblivious and indifferent to the victim’s whereabouts? And what if the objective of the claims is to hold a government accountable and vindicate fundamental rights that are part of the forum state’s bill of rights?

Parties’ Arguments

These are big questions, and I address them all in my new book. Here, I want to limit myself to summarising the parties’ arguments, based on the arguments advanced in the High Court and the Court of Appeal.

The claimant is relying on three arguments. First, the focus should be on the defendants’ alleged tortious conduct of sending questions to the CIA, rather than the conduct of the CIA. Second, the factors connecting the tort to the Six Countries are weak because the claimant had no control or knowledge of his location, the defendants were unaware or indifferent to the claimant’s whereabouts, and the claimant was effectively held in ‘legal black holes’ in the Six Countries, outside any legal system. Third, the factors connecting the tort to England are strong because the relevant conduct occurred in England, it was undertaken for the perceived benefit of the UK, the defendants acted in their official capacity under UK law, and they were subjected to UK criminal and public law.

The defendants are relying on four arguments. The first and second arguments (the relevant conduct; the strength of the relevant factors) present a mirror-image of the claimant’s first two arguments. Third, the escape clause in section 12 of the 1995 Act should be strictly interpreted. Fourth, tortious claims arising out of the external exercise of British executive authority do not require the disapplication of the lex loci delicti and the application of the escape clause, as shown by a string of cases involving the wars in Afghanistan (Mohammed v MoD) and Iraq (R (Al-Jedda) v SoS for Defence; Rahmatullah v MoD), as well as the UK’s participation in the extraordinary rendition, arbitrary arrest, torture, and maltreatment by foreign states (Belhaj v Straw), where English courts refused to apply English law.

While the High Court aligned with the defendants’ arguments, adopting a broad view of the relevant conduct and a narrow interpretation of the escape clause, the Court of Appeal was sympathetic to the claimant’s arguments. The Court of Appeal relied in its decision on reasonable/legitimate expectations, justice, convenience, fairness, and appropriateness, as is clear from these paragraphs:

41. These are strong connections connecting the tortious conduct with England and Wales. They reflect also the parties’ reasonable expectations. While it is true that the claimant himself had no connection with this country, he could reasonably have expected, if he had thought about it during the 20 years in which he has been detained, that the conduct of any country’s security services having to do with him would be governed by the law of the country concerned. As for the Services, they would reasonably have expected that their conduct here would be subject to English law …

42. … This conclusion gives effect to the principles on which the 1995 Act is founded, including the reasonable expectations of the parties, and to the general principle of private international law identified by the Law Commission “that justice is done to a person if his own law is applied”… the Services can hardly say that it would be unfair (or to use the statutory term, inappropriate) for their conduct to be judged by the standards of English law, as distinct from (for example) Lithuanian or Moroccan law.

Conclusion

Zubaydah is now awaiting a decision from the UK Supreme Court, which will determine whether or not English applies. Regardless of the outcome, this case is likely to become a prominent authority on the reasons for applying foreign law and the practical relevance of fundamental principles underlying the application of foreign law.

The hearing at the UK Supreme Court will be streamed live for those interested, scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday, 14 and 15 June 2023. The live stream can be accessed by following the link ‘watch live court sittings’ on the court’s home page.

Luís de Lima Pinheiro (University of Lisbon) has posted Laws Applicable to International Smart Contracts and Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOS) on SSRN.

The abstract reads:

International contracts, legal persons and other external organizations raise choice-of-law problems. Should smart contracts and DAOs in general be considered international? Are the choice-of-law rules in force for State courts and for arbitral tribunals appropriate for the determination of the applicable laws? To provide replies to these questions the present essay starts by general introductions to smart contracts and DAOs and also outlines the Private International Law framework of these realities. Solutions for difficulties on the application of the choice-of-law rules in force and more flexible approaches to address them are proposed.

A book by Alexander DJ Critchley, titled The Application of Foreign Law in the British and German Courts, has been published by Hart in its Studies in Private International Law Series.

This book explores the application of foreign law in civil proceedings in the British and German courts. It focuses on how domestic procedural law impacts on the application of choice of law rules in domestic courts. It engages with questions involved in the investigation and determination of foreign law as they affect the law of England and Wales, Scotland, and Germany. Although the relevant jurisdictions are the focus, the comparative analysis extends to explore examples from other jurisdictions, including relevant international and European conventions. Ambitious in scope, it expertly tracks the development of the law and looks at possible future reforms.

More information is available here.

The Legal High Committee for Financial Markets of Paris issued a report on the work of the international commercial chambers of Paris courts (Bilan du fonctionnement des chambres internationales du tribunal de commerce et de la cour d’appel de Paris) in March 2023.

The report discusses the competitive environment of the Paris international commercial courts, the resources of the courts, how they can be seized, and their procedural rules.

It concludes with 15 propositions for reform. They include:

• Offering to the parties the power to agree on specialised judges assigned to other chambers (than the international commercial chamber) of the commercial court of Paris,
• Reflecting on the possibility to appoint French and foreign lawyers to supplement the international chambers,
• Introducing the possibility to hear private experts retained by the parties
• Allowing the parties to agree on confidential proceedings in cases which could have gone to arbitration.

June 2023 begins at the Court of Justice with the decision in case C-567/21, BNP Parisbas, which will be read on 8 June. The request from the Social Chamber of the Cour de Cassation (France) had been lodged on September 15, 2021. It concerns the interpretation of Regulation 44/2001. The national court referred the following questions:

1. Must Articles 33 and 36 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters 1 be interpreted as meaning that, where the legislation of the Member State of origin of the judgment confers on that judgment authority such as to preclude a new action being brought by the same parties for determining the claims that could have been raised in the initial proceedings, the effects which that judgment has in the Member State in which enforcement is sought preclude a court of that latter State, whose legislation, as applicable ratione temporis, provided in employment law for a similar obligation of concentration of claims, from adjudicating on such claims?

2. If the first question is answered in the negative, must Articles 33 and 36 of Council Regulation No 44/2001 be interpreted as meaning that an action such as a claim of unfair dismissal in the United Kingdom has the same cause of action and the same subject matter as an action such as a claim of dismissal without actual and serious cause in French law, so that the employee’s claims for damages for dismissal without actual and serious cause, compensation in lieu of notice, and compensation for dismissal before the French courts are inadmissible after the employee has obtained a decision in the United Kingdom declaring that there has been an unfair dismissal and making a compensatory award in that respect? Is it necessary in that regard to distinguish between, on the one hand, the damages for dismissal without actual and serious cause that might have the same cause of action and the same subject matter as the compensatory award and, on the other, the compensation for dismissal and compensation in lieu of notice which, in French law, are payable where the dismissal is based on an actual and serious cause, but are not payable in the event of dismissal based on serious misconduct?

3. Likewise, must Articles 33 and 36 of Council Regulation No 44/2001 be interpreted as meaning that an action such as a claim of unfair dismissal in the United Kingdom and an action for payment of bonuses or allowances provided for in the contract of employment have the same cause of action and the same subject matter when those actions are based on the same contractual relationship between the parties?

Advocate General P. Pikamäe had delivered his opinion on 16 February 2023. As of today, no official English translation is available. My own one reads:

1. Articles 33 and 36 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters should be interpreted in the sense that the recognition of a court decision rendered in a Member State, the law of which provides for a rule of concentration of claims prohibiting the same parties from initiating a new action relating to claims which could have been made at the initial instance, does not preclude the court of that second State ruling on such claims, even in circumstances where the law of the Member State in which recognition is invoked provides for a similar obligation of concentration of claims.

2. Articles 33 and 36 of Regulation 44/2001 should be interpreted as meaning that, in the event that the recognition of a decision given in a first Member State is invoked incidentally before a court of a second Member State, claims based on the same employment contract relating to some of the obligations arising from the execution of this contract, and claims based on the obligations arising from the breach of this contract have the same cause but do not have the same object.

A comment by Fabienne Jault-Seseke appeared on this blog.

The case was allocated to the Third Chamber, presided by K. Jürimäe; N. Jääskinen was reporting judge.

On 22 June, Advocate General J. Richard de la Tour will publish his opinion on case C-497/22, Roompot Service. The request comes from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany), and was lodged on 22 July 2022. In a nutshell, the question relates to the relevant criteria to be taken into consideration in order to classify a contract relating to the transfer of short-term use of a bungalow in a holiday park as a lease contract within the meaning of Article 24(1), first sentence, of Regulation 1215/2012, or as a contract relating to the provision of services.

Must the first sentence of Article 24(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 be interpreted as meaning that a contract which is concluded between a private individual and a commercial lessor of holiday homes in relation to the short-term letting of a bungalow in a holiday park operated by the lessor, and which provides for cleaning at the end of the stay and the provision of bed linen as further services in addition to the mere letting of the bungalow, is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the State in which the rented property is situated, irrespective of whether the holiday bungalow is owned by the lessor or by a third party?

The Fourth Chamber will decide, with C. Lycourgos presiding and O. Spineau-Matei reporting.

On the same day, a hearing is taking place on case C-339/22, BSH Hausgeräte. The request for a preliminary ruling has been sent by the Svea hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen (Sweden), and lodged on May 24th, 2022. It comprises three questions on Regulation 1215/2012:

1. Is Article 24(4) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents … irrespective of whether the issue is raised by way of an action or as a defence’ implies that a national court, which, pursuant to Article 4(1) of that regulation, has declared that it has jurisdiction to hear a patent infringement dispute, no longer has jurisdiction to consider the issue of infringement if a defence is raised that alleges that the patent at issue is invalid, or is the provision to be interpreted as meaning that the national court only lacks jurisdiction to hear the defence of invalidity?

2. Is the answer to Question 1 affected by whether national law contains provisions, similar to those laid down in the second subparagraph of Paragraph 61 of the Patentlagen (Patents Law; ‘the Patentlagen’), which means that, for a defence of invalidity raised in an infringement case to be heard, the defendant must bring a separate action for a declaration of invalidity?

3. Is Article 24(4) of the Brussels I Regulation to be interpreted as being applicable to a court of a third country, that is to say, in the present case, as also conferring exclusive jurisdiction on a court in Turkey in respect of the part of the European patent which has been validated there?

In the case at hand, the parties to the main proceedings litigate on a European patent relating to a vacuum cleaner, validated in Austria, Germany, Spain, France, the United Kingdom, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and Turkey. BSH brought an action for infringement of this patent against Electrolux before a Swedish court, who raised an objection of invalidity of the patents in question. The court of first instance has dismissed BSH’s action on the basis of Article 24(4) read together with Article 27 of the Brussles I bis Regulation, insofar as it concerned patents validated in States other than Sweden – with the added element that one of them is a third State. BSH appealed to the referring court.

The case has been allocated to the Fourth Chamber (C. Lycourgos presiding, O. Spineanu-Matei reporting). An opinion will be delivered in due time by Advocate General N. Emiliou.

On 31 May 2023, the European Commission has proposed new rules aimed to ensure that the protection of adults is maintained in cross-border cases, and that their right to individual autonomy, including the freedom to make their own choices as regards their person and future arrangements is respected when they move within the EU.

The proposals, based on Article 81(2) TFEU, cover adults who, by reason of an impairment or insufficiency of their personal faculties, are not in a position to protect their own interests (e.g., due to an age-related disease).

Specifically, In the context of a growing cross-border mobility of people in the EU, this gives rise to numerous challenges. For instance, individuals concerned or their representatives may need to manage assets or real estate in another country, seek medical care abroad, or relocate to a different EU-country. In such cross-border situations, they often face complex and sometimes conflicting laws of Member States, leading to legal uncertainty and lengthy proceedings.

The proposed Regulation, which is meant to apply 18 months after its adoption, introduces a streamlined set of rules that will apply within the EU, in particular to establish which court has jurisdiction, which law is applicable, under what conditions a foreign measure or foreign powers of representation should be given effect and how authorities can cooperate. It also proposes a set of practical tools, including the introduction of a European Certificate of Representation, which will make it easier for representatives to prove their powers in another Member State.

The proposal for a Council Decision provides for a uniform legal framework for protecting adults involving non-EU countries. It obliges all Member States to become or remain parties to the 2000 Protection of Adults Convention in the interest of the Unione. Once the Decision is adopted, the Member States that are not yet party to the Convention will have 2 years to join it. Actually, some Member States have already launched their own ratification process, with the latest to announce (or re-announce) such a move being Italy, just a few days ago.

The approach underlying the package – in short, ensuring that the Hague Adults Convention enters into force for all Member States, and adopting a Regulation aimed to strengthen the operation of the Convention in the relations between Member States – reflects the suggestions that were put forward, inter alia, by the European Law Institute and the European Association of Private International Law, notably through a position paper issued in April last year.

Further analysis of the two proposals will be provided through this blog in the coming weeks.