EAPIL blog

Ansgar Ohly (Ludwig Maximilian University Munich) wrote an interesting article addressing matters of jurisdiction and choice of law in trade secrets misappropriation cases. The article entitled Jurisdiction and Choice of Law in Trade Secrets Cases: the EU Perspective has been published in an Edward Elgar Research Handbook on Information Law and Governance edited by Sharon K. Sandeen, Christoph Rademacher and Ansgar Ohly. A version of the paper is now available for free consultation on SSRN.

The abstract reads as follows:

Trade secrecy law is a hybrid between intellectual property and unfair competition law. This makes the characterisation of trade secrecy law for the purposes of private international law difficult. This paper argues that neither the EU conflict of law rules for unfair competition law nor those for IP law can be applied, but that a sui-generis solution is called for.

The paper is structured around two parts: one dedicated to determining jurisdiction in trade secrets cases – Part II – and another to applicable law – Part III.

The analysis is systematic and starts from matters of jurisdiction in tort or contract cases, discussing the Bogsitter case (C-548/12) and Wikingerhof case (C-59/19; the judgment was not yet given by the CJEU), Trade Secrets Directive (Directive (EU) 2016/943), and looking at the place where ‘the harmful event occurs’.

For applicable law, the EU provisions seem to force the courts to address the difficult question of whether the protection of trade secrets is a part of intellectual property or of unfair competition law.

One of the problematic aspects of the analysis is related to the specificity of trade secrecy that usually involves a chain of events which consists of the acquisition, the disclosure, and the use of the information.

All of these acts are separate acts of infringement, but at the same time they are related (see the “cascade of liability” established by Article 4 Trade Secrets Directive).

Hence, the question is whether these acts should be dealt with separately for the purpose of establishing jurisdiction and determining the applicable law or whether the entire dispute should be handled by one forum based on one applicable law or other sui generis solution should be considered.

Since the Millennium, public interest litigation has become a growing phenomenon in civil courts. Activists and NGOs are filing civil lawsuits, both domestic and cross-border, in order to promote societal and political shifts.

Typical examples are (business and) human rights claims, environmental claims, climate change litigation but also cartel damage claims. Targeted defendants react also developing litigation strategies, such as bringing the disputes to the general public through the media. A currently much discussed example are SLAPP, strategic lawsuits against public participation – libel lawsuits brought against journalists, media and other stakeholders of the civil society in order to deter them from making investigations.

On 8 April 2022, at 4 pm CET, a Max Planck Law curriculum course is taking place under the title Strategic Litigation – A New Phenomenon in Civil Litigation?, where Burkhard Hess (Director, MPI Luxembourg) will present strategic litigation on the basis of actual cases, and analyse the main features of this (not that new?) phenomenon. The class will primarily focus on civil actions but equally look at recent developments at constitutional and international courts, trying to assess whether and to what extent this type of dispute is transforming civil litigation as we know it.

Those wishing to attend are required to register here by 6 April 2022.

In February 2022, a Working Group has been established within the European Association of Private International Law. The task of the Group was to respond to a public consultation launched by the European Commission on the prospect of an EU-wide protection for vulnerable adults, i.e., persons aged 18 or more who are unable to protect their interests because of an impairment or insufficiency of their personal faculties.

The Group presented the preliminary draft of a position paper prepared for this purpose at a webinar on 10 March 2022.

Having taken note of the feedback received from the participants in the webinar and other interested academics, practitioners and stakeholders, the Working Group shared a final draft with the Association’s Scientific Council.

The position paper, as approved by the EAPIL Council and submitted to the European Commission, is available here.

Here are some of the key takeaways of the paper:

1. Private international law has an important role to play in the realisation of the fundamental rights of persons aged 18 and more who are not in a position to protect their interests due to an impairment or insufficiency of their personal faculty.
2. The Union should urgently adopt measures of judicial cooperation aimed to support, in cross-border situations, the exercise of legal capacity by the adults concerned, in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
3. In taking the above measures, the Union should preserve the operation and the prospect of success of the Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 on the International Protection of Adults. To this end, the Union should combine external action and legislation, meaning that the Convention should provide the basic legal framework in this field, common to all Member States, but legislation should be enacted by the Union to strengthen cooperation between Member States and improve the operation of the Convention in their relations.
4. The legal basis for the above measures would be Article 81 TFEU, with the clarification that the protection of adults should not be deemed to fall within the scope of “family law” within the meaning of Article 81(3).
5. The Union has external competence, based on Article 216 TFEU to authorise the Member States that have not yet done so to ratify, or accede to, the Hague Adults Convention “in the interest of the Union”, on the ground that the conclusion of the Convention would be “necessary in order to achieve, within the framework of the Union’s policies, one of the objectives referred to in the Treaties”.
6. The legislation of the Union aimed to improve the Hague Convention regionally should relate, inter alia, to choice of court by the adult concerned and the law applicable to ex lege powers of representation.
7. Specifically, the Union should enact a rule whereby ex lege powers of representation are governed by the law of the (Member) State where the adult concerned has their habitual residence at the time when those powers are relied upon, without prejudice to the application of the provisions on ex lege powers of representation as may be in force in the Member State where the powers are invoked, whenever the provisions themselves are meant to apply regardless of the law specified by conflict-of-laws rules.

On 7 April 2022, the Court will deliver the judgment in C-568/20, H Limited. The request, with three questions, was lodged in November 2020 by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria); it concerns the interpretation of several provisions of Chapter III of the Brussels I bis Regulation, in addition to its Article 2(a). The dispute on the merits focuses on the enforcement of an order based on a decision of the High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England & Wales, Commercial Court (QBD). AG Pikamäe’s opinion, published on December 16, 2021, proposed the following answers to the CJEU:

Articles 45 and 46 of [the Brussels I bis Regulation] should be interpreted as meaning that the court of the Member State addressed, to which an application for refusal of enforcement is made, may grant that application on the grounds that the judgment and the certificate, provided for in Article 53 of that regulation, adopted by the court of the Member State of origin breach the public policy of the Member State addressed, where the error of law relied upon constitutes a manifest breach of a rule of law regarded as essential in the legal order of the European Union and therefore in the legal order of that State. This is the case of an error affecting the application of Article 2(a) and Article 39 of that regulation requiring that the judgment of which enforcement is sought be given in a Member State.

When reviewing whether there has been a manifest breach of public policy in the Member State addressed through failure to comply with a substantive or procedural rule of EU law, the court of that State must take account of the fact that, save where specific circumstances make it too difficult or impossible to exercise the legal remedies in the Member State of origin, the individuals concerned must avail themselves of all the legal remedies available in that Member State with a view to preventing such a breach before it occurs.

The reporting judge is M. Safjan.

The decision on C-645/20, V A et Z A , is scheduled for the same day. The French Court of Cassation had addressed to the Court a single question on the interpretation of Article 10(1)(a) of the Succession Regulation, lodged in December 2020. AG M. Campos Sánchez-Bordona had suggested to reply as follows:

Article 10(1)(a) of [the Succession Regulation] must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where the deceased did not have his last habitual residence in any Member State of the European Union, the court of a Member State in which a dispute in a matter of succession has arisen must declare of its own motion that it has jurisdiction to settle the succession as a whole if, in the light of facts alleged by the parties which are not in dispute, the deceased was a national of that State at the time of his death and was the owner of assets located there.

M. Ilešič was appointed reporting judge.

Easter vacation imposes a break on the publication of decisions and opinions. For PIL purposes, the next one will be the opinion of AG M. Richard de la Tour in C- 604/20 ROI Land Investments, a request from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany), lodged on November 2020. The questions referred concern both jurisdiction and applicable law (the Rome I Regulation) in employment and (maybe, or) consumer matters:

1. Is Article 6(1) read in conjunction with Article 21(2) and Article 21(1)(b) of [the Brussels I bis Regulation] to be interpreted as meaning that an employee can sue a legal person – which is not his employer and which is not domiciled in a Member State within the meaning of Article 63(1) of the [Regulation] but which, by virtue of a letter of comfort, is directly liable to the employee for claims arising from an individual contract of employment with a third party – in the courts for the place where or from where the employee habitually carries out his work in the employment relationship with the third party or in the courts for the last place where he did so, if the contract of employment with the third party would not have come into being in the absence of the letter of comfort?
2. Is Article 6(1) of the [Brussels I bis Regulation] to be interpreted as meaning that the reservation in respect of Article 21(2) of the [the same Regulation] precludes the application of a rule of jurisdiction existing under the national law of the Member State which allows an employee to sue a legal person, which, in circumstances such as those described in the first question, is directly liable to him for claims arising from an individual contract of employment with a third party, as the ‘successor in title’ of the employer in the courts for the place where the employee habitually carries out his work, if no such jurisdiction exists under Article 21(2) read in conjunction with Article 21(1)(b)(i) of the [Regulation]?
3. If the first question is answered in the negative and the second question in the affirmative:

(a) Is Article 17(1) of the [Brussels I bis Regulation] to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘professional activities’ includes paid employment in an employment relationship?

(b) If so, is Article 17(1) of the [Brussels I bis Regulation] to be interpreted as meaning that a letter of comfort on the basis of which a legal person is directly liable for claims of an employee arising from an individual contract of employment with a third party constitutes a contract concluded by the employee for a purpose which can be regarded as being within the scope of his professional activities?

4. If, in answer to the above questions, the referring court is deemed to have international jurisdiction to rule on the dispute:

(a) Is Article 6(1) of [the Rome I Regulation] to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘professional activities’ includes paid employment in an employment relationship?

(b) If so, is Article 6(1) of the Rome I Regulation to be interpreted as meaning that a letter of comfort on the basis of which a legal person is directly liable to an employee for claims arising from an individual contract of employment with a third party constitutes a contract concluded by the employee for a purpose which can be regarded as being within the scope of his professional activities?

The delivery is expected on 28 April 2022. M. Safjan will be the reporting judge.

On 31 March 2022, the EU Commission disclosed that it has been working on a proposal for a bilateral treaty to be concluded with the UK focused on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.

The purpose of the treaty would be to facilitate the circulation of judgments between the EU and the UK. It would not be a double convention and thus would not include rules governing the (direct) jurisdiction of the courts of the Contracting States.

At the present time, the material scope of the treaty would be limited to civil and commercial matters. It would not, therefore, extend to family law.

The (indirect) jurisdiction of the foreign court would be assessed by a single flexible text. Foreign courts would be considered to have jurisdiction if there was a meaningful connection between the foreign court and the dispute. The French presidency might have pushed for adopting this test, which is currently applied in the French common law of foreign judgments.

In addition, a provision of the treaty would clarify that the test would not be satisfied if the foreign court had retained jurisdiction on the basis of a number of exorbitant rules of jurisdiction that would be identified. This list seems to be clearly inspired for the red list of the Brussels instruments.

The public policy clause is probably the most innovative provision of the treaty. It would be applicable in principle, unless “actual mutual trust” could be found to exist between the relevant EU Member State and the UK.

A provision would then identify cases where such “actual mutual trust” would be presumed.

This would be the case for all judgments circulating between France and the UK, because France participates in the 6 Nations Rugby Championship (so-called “scrum proviso”).

The scrum proviso would apply between Italy and the UK for judgments rendered 32 days after Italy would win its first Championship or would win in Twickenham by more than 20 points.

More details on the draft treaty are available here.

The author of this post is Martina Mantovani, Phd Candidate at the University Panthéon-Assas.

Climate change litigation has increased dramatically since 2015, the year of the Paris Agreement. A 2021 Report drafted by the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment inventoried more than 1.000 new cases brought to court over the past six years. Among these, a specific type of disputes is gaining considerable momentum: those initiated by children and youth applicants.

While youth-led climate change litigation may at first appear rather “niche”, a closer look at the number and types of cases brought in the name of children demonstrates that this phenomenon is all but negligible for its size, its geographical scope, and its impact on domestic legal systems. A blog post authored by Lorenzo Gradoni and myself for Verfassungsblog and Völkerrechtsblog examines this strand of climate change litigation in a North-South perspective, offering insights on its origin, actors, drivers and prospects.

From the standpoint of the private international lawyer, it is worth remarking that just one of out of the 76 judicial complaints of this kind speaks the language of conflicts of laws. Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell plc., decided by the Hague District Court in May 2021, is a class action brought by seven NGOs – including Young Friends of the Earth – and 17,379 individuals against a private corporation having its principal place of business in the Netherlands. The case raised the question as to whether a private company can violate a duty of care and human rights obligations by failing to take adequate action to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Before moving on to the merits of a case that presented several cross-border elements, the Hague District Court had to assess its own jurisdiction over the defendant and to identify the applicable law. The Brussels I bis and the Rome II Regulation were deemed applicable to the case at hand.

Considering the outcome of this case – a big victory for the plaintiffs – one may wonder why only 1.3 per cent of the examined cases borrows private international law (PIL) techniques to advance the fight against climate change. The marginal role played by PIL until now may seem surprising, especially when compared to the much bigger part reserved to public international law, whose arguments and discourse feature in most of the domestic complaints and star in some prominent cases brought before the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), with a possible debut before the International Court of Justice.

This post sheds some light on the broader phenomenon of youth-led climate change litigation, while addressing at once the plausible reasons behind the performance gap between private and public international law in this field.

Why choosing children and youth as applicants? That’s among the burning questions raised by youth-led climate change litigation. And, indeed, the background of the cases belonging to this trend suggests that we are faced, in this regard, with a strategic move made by the promoters of this litigation. Even though most of the examined cases have been filed by children and youth in their own name, these received substantial support (not only legal, but often also organisational and financial) from several NGOs, who place a special emphasis on their role as initiators of strategic litigation.

The American NGO Our Children’s Trust (OCT) deserves a special mention, being the undisputed forerunner of this kind of litigation. Having brought, since 2011, a great number of actions in the US and consistently acting as an advisor in high-profile cases brought in other jurisdictions,  OCT defines itself as “a non-profit public interest law firm that provides strategic, campaign-based legal services to youth from diverse backgrounds to secure their legal rights to a safe climate”. The “highly strategic legal campaign” this organization is leading “includes targeted media, education, and public engagement work to support the youths’ legal actions”. In the same vein, the Centre for Environmental Rights, who is behind the first South African youth-led constitutional case, “engages in strategic litigation, advocacy, and supports community groups in defending their right to a healthy environment though training and other support initiatives”. Plan B, the initiator of several youth-led climate change cases in the UK, “has been established to support strategic legal action against climate change” with a view to “harnessing market forces towards a better future for us all”. (All italics of this paragraph are added for emphasis). ​ ​​

Strategy is the deliberate search for a plan of action that will develop a competitive advantage and compound it, with a view to facilitate the achievement of the envisioned objectives. These goals emerge with particular clarity from the definition of “strategic litigation” given by the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, i.e.,  lawsuits “where the claimants’ motives for bringing the cases go beyond the concerns of the individual litigant and aim to bring about some broader societal shift”, such as “advancing climate policies, creating public awareness, or changing the behaviour of government or industry actors” (here, at 12).

When thinking in terms of legal strategy, child and youth applicants may bring along an important competitive advantage, insofar as they can advance specific arguments both on the merits and on procedural grounds that would be either unavailable or not as compelling if put forth by adults (more on this later). But there could be more to youth applicants than sheer legal advantages. In our blogpost, Lorenzo and I suggest that youth-led litigation may be a sophisticate implementation of a broader strategy that straddles law and behavioural sciences, as expressed by Lovejoy’s Law, a presumptive law of social psychology named, curiously enough, after Helen Lovejoy, the Reverend’s wife in The Simpsons. According to Lovejoy’s Law, the love for children is likely to be invoked as an emotional trump card when opponents in a political dispute run out of rational arguments. Said otherwise, it is hard(er) to say no to children, and adults might be more willing to make compromises for the sake of their kids than they would normally make for their own good. Youth-led litigation might therefore create higher engagement, both in the members of the presiding court and in the general public, in keeping with the strategies pursued by the promoting NGOs.

None of the above explains why youth-led litigation has not embraced PIL in the fight against climate change. On the contrary, such omission remains baffling for two reasons.

First, the effects of Lovejoy’s law, if any, could be felt in a trial against a private multinational corporation just as well as in an action against a sovereign state, a type of action which is vastly prevalent in current youth-led climate change litigation. In this respect, it is interesting to note that the complaint in Milieudefensie evokes this Lovejoyan motive, when it affirms that “[c]limate change is an urgent issue. Not only are we already confronted with the consequences every day at present but our children’s future is at stake too. […] Milieudefensie senses that responsibility and it, therefore, makes climate justice the central theme of this new General Policy Plan (here, § 153). The action brought against Royal Dutch Shell aimed at implementing said Plan (at § 154).

Second, PIL has traditionally given the nod to strategic litigation, forum shopping being, according to some scholars, among the most unforgettable notions of this field of law, that keeps lingering even in the minds of those who are largely uninterested in the subject (here, at 49).

The absence of PIL from the toolbox of youth-led climate change litigation has seemingly little to do with the alleged inability of this field of law of addressing global governance issues in a meaningful way. Rather, the explanation appears more “down to earth”, one may say, insofar as it may stem, on the one side, from the particular way in which this strategy is conceived and implemented at the global level and, on the other side, from the current state of climate change legislation.

As for the latter, the statements made by ClientEarth – one of the most important NGOs in the field – are particularly revealing of the dissatisfaction with the current state of climate change legislation. In a section named “How we work”, this NGO distinguishes between “shaping” and “enforcing the law”, suggesting that much works needs to be done on both accounts. This explains why most of the efforts made until aims at filling the gaps of the extant legal framework, either by holding states accountable for commitments made in international agreements (rather than in ad hoc national legislation) or by proposing innovative and expansionist readings of traditional legal notions of domestic (constitutional) law, with a view to deploying them in relation to the “new” problems created by climate change (e.g. the use of the public trust doctrine in the US: see here, at 875). In the words of ClientEarth, the promoters of this litigation: “know how to use the legal system as a lever of change, how to enforce it and how to win” and thy do “not shy away from challenging governments and businesses in court”.

Lawsuits of this kind are situated at the crossroads between “shaping” and “enforcing” domestic laws. This is evidenced (a) firstly, by the lack of global consensus, among the applicants, on very important aspects of such litigation, such as the criterion for apportioning the burden of mitigating measures among states and, (b) secondly, by the emphasis placed by NGOs on the efforts made to adopt, for the purposes of human rights-based litigation, a common (ie global) scientific standard regarding emission reductions, on the assumption that such standard is not satisfactorily embodied in current laws (correspondence with NGOs on file with the author). Against this backdrop, choosing to pursue the action against states seems the most logical way forward, fuelled by the hope of triggering Neubauer-like scenarios, whereby a big win in a (constitutional) forum is followed by a wide-ranging adaptation of existing legislation. Once the desired scientific standard is enshrined in domestic laws, cases against non-compliant businesses may be less cumbersome and become a more straightforward expression of a strategy based on the sheer “enforcement of laws”, in its “public” and “private” variations.

The main reason for the absence of PIL from youth-led climate change litigation lies, precisely, in the choice of defendant made by the “first generation” of claims. A case – even a civil claim – brought against a state in relation to its (sovereign) environmental policy choices will never give rise to issues of jurisdiction, understood as the identification of the competent (state) courts. In fact, this sovereign will have to be summoned before its own courts, in order to prevent the use of state immunity as a foreseeable defence. In the same vein, when the claim questions the quality or the adequacy of a state’s legislation, or invokes the responsibility of said state in relation to an alleged violation of its obligations or duties of care, there is no real issue of applicable law. This will always be the law of the defendant state, eventually read in the light of pertinent international norms. In other words, PIL has not much to say on these matters, the international fungibility between (state) courts and between (state) laws that lies at its core being plainly and incurably lacking in cases presenting this specific conformation.

This is not to say that PIL will not play any role in the future. A closer look at the genesis and conception of the litigation strategy behind the youth-led cases brought until now reveals its highly experimental nature. This strategy is built on a process of trial and error: small and bigger changes are tried and tested, on an experimental basis, in subsequent cases, those that are beneficial being gradually transposed and tested in other jurisdictions. A similar pattern will likely be replicated as regards the choice of defendants: in this sense, the win in Milieudefensie may pave the way to other youth-led climate change cases brought against oil and gas corporations.

Intimations of a change in this direction come directly from the world of NGOs. The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation is “the world’s largest philanthropy that focuses specifically on improving children’s lives” and counts “climate change” among its priorities. It is currently among the major funders of youth-led climate change litigation, that it backs with a $ 83,6 million grant. More precisely, a $ 26,4 million grant is tied to the “ClientEarth Phase III” project, which supports “strategic litigation to accelerate Europe’s low carbon transition and secure Europe’s climate leadership by putting it on a Paris-aligned trajectory”, and $ 21,9 millions are allocated to the File project, which supports similar litigation “in multiple jurisdictions”. It is also worth stressing that the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation has recently been the recipient of some criticism: despite having being created to improve “the lives of children in developing countries who live in poverty”, this organisation has, more recently, allegedly “been used … to pass money towards environmentalist campaigns and other foundations pushing for legal action against energy companies due to the cost of climate change”.

The assumption underpinning this criticism is, at best, debatable: legal actions against energy companies in rich countries might well have indirect beneficial effects on the lives of children in developing countries. However, what is important for the purpose of this blogpost is the acknowledgment of a shift in the flow of funds, that seems to favour, at present, litigation directed against private corporations. Consequently, PIL will play an increasingly important role: owing to a variety of factors – such as the breadth of the activity of transnational corporations, the geographical complexities of their corporate structure, the origin of the applicants, the ubiquity of the damage caused by CO2 emissions, etc – these cases will likely present a “foreign element”, triggering questions about jurisdiction, applicable law and, why not, enforcement of foreign civil judgments.

It is hard to foresee whether this prospective “private strand” of climate change litigation will turn out to be similar to the cases directed against states In cases brought against states before constitutional and international courts, child and youth applicants may be in a more favourable position when arguing both on the merits of the case and on its admissibility.

Concerning admissibility, child applicants might more convincingly plead for the setting aside of the requirement of the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies. While the CRC decisions in Sacchi may disprove this assumption, this is what the lawyers in Duarte Agostinho are trying to advance (here, § 40), given that, in applying this rule, the ECtHR has traditionally paid due regard to the “personal circumstances of the applicant” in order to prevent disproportionate obstacles to the effective exercise of the right of individual application under Article 34 of the Convention (here § 109 and 111). Concerning the merits, child and youth applicants may invoke, first, a principle of non-discrimination, whereby they shall be entitled to the same level of protection of fundamental rights afforded to prior and present generations of adult citizens. Second, they may allege a specific kind of damage. According to the constitutional complaint in Held v Montana, § 231, owing to their “unique physiological characteristics and vulnerabilities, and lack of autonomy and dependency on caregivers” children are “more vulnerable to rights violations”. Being“at a critical development stage in life, as their capacities evolve and their physiological and psychological maturity develops more rapidly than at any other time in life”, youth and children form part of “a separate suspect, or quasi-suspect, class in need of extraordinary protection“. While being specific to a constitutional complaint made under the equal protection clause, arguments of a similar kind could be also invoked within the framework of an action, such as the one put forth by Milieudefensie, aiming at imposing a “duty of care” upon corporations. This should therefore be especially stringent and more compelling vis-à-vis children and youths, as a special class of individuals in need of extraordinary protection.

One should also ask whether, in a lawsuit brought against a corporation, PIL would grant child and youth applicants any kind of comparable favor that is, one that would place them in a better position than an adult filing a comparable claim. In current law, the answer is in the negative. Concerning access to justice, only a few EU Regulations in the field of parental responsibility manifest a certain favor for the child as such, insofar as the sheer presence of the child on the territory of a Member State may, in exceptional circumstances, justify the exercise of jurisdiction by the authorities of that state (e.g. Article 11 of the Brussels IIter Regulation). Outside this particular case, the mere quality of being a child cannot be invoked to bend, in any way, the uniform rules of jurisdiction set by the EU legislator, ie to open a forum in Europe when there is none. The CJEU has confirmed, in case C-393/18 PPU, that the particular vulnerability of the child, deriving from his lack of decisional autonomy and his dependency vis-à-vis his caregivers, cannot serve as a basis for an extensive interpretation of the grounds of jurisdiction established by EU law.

This same argument should apply, a fortiori, in civil and commercial matters, which youth-led climate change litigation belongs to. Here, the principle of the best interests of the child is no longer at the forefront, and there is no detectable favor for younger applicants. As far as the Brussels Ibis and the Rome II Regulations are concerned, child and youth applicants are in the exact same position as an adult bringing a comparable claim. It is equally unlikely that the condition of dependency of the child vis-à-vis the caregivers could warrant the opening of a forum of necessity under domestic rules of PIL, on the basis that “proceedings abroad are impossible or cannot reasonably be required” (cf art. 3 of the Swiss law on PIL).

Nonetheless, there are good reasons to suspect that an increasing number of youth-led climate change cases against corporations will land in Europe in the near future. In fact, despite the neutral attitude adopted by PIL vis-à-vis child applicants, the procedural framework set out by EU law remains remarkably advantageous for the plaintiffs.

First, these could profit from the “hard-and fast” logic underpinning the rules of the Brussels Ibis Regulation, that makes establishing jurisdiction vis-à-vis a corporate defendant having its statutory seat, its central administration or its principal place of business in the EU a relatively straightforward affair, as evidenced by cases such as Luciano Lliuya v. RWE AG or Milieudefensieitself. Youth-led climate change litigation could also follow the trail blazed by the cases on social corporate responsibility and learn from this experience in order to attract, in that same European forum, eventual subsidiaries domiciled in third states. Second, in terms of applicable law, the EU legal framework might be particularly appealing in the light of the policy-oriented rule of conflict set out by Art. 7 of the Rome II Regulation, that grants the plaintiffs a choice between the law of the country where the damage occurred and that of the country of the unlawful event. This could point, in most cases, to the applicability of the law of a Member State, embodying the European acquis on environmental law and abiding to a fairly high standard of protection.

A thorough analysis of the advantages (and potential inconveniences) underpinning the rules of EU PIL is beyond the scope of this blog post. I formerly discussed the possible strategies employed to “open” a forum in the EU based on the Brussels Ibis Regulation here. For the rest, I gladly refer to the overview given here by Eduardo Álvarez-Armas. It should just be added that the recently published Proposal for a Directive on corporate sustainability due diligence might bring along a new, unprecedented advantage for child applicants who succeed in seizing a court in the EU. The proposed Directive – which purports to effectively contribute to combating climate change: cf Recital 50 – seeks to introduce, inter alia, a uniform rule on civil liability for the violation of the (also uniform) obligations of due diligence set out by the proposed instrument. This rule would be applicable also to companies established outside the EU “where 80-90 % of the harm of EU production may occur”, provided that the turnover criterion set out in Art. 2(2) of the proposed Directive is complied with (see here, at 8). Equally remarkable is the fact that the rule on civil liability shall be “of overriding mandatory application in cases where the law applicable to claims to that effect is not the law of a Member State” (Art. 22 (5) of the Proposal). This civil liability rule will therefore complement the law identified under Art. 7 of the Rome II Regulation, in cases where the latter provision will not, due to the specific features of the harmful event, point to the law of a Member State. This plaintiff-friendly legal framework, coupled with the existence of child-specific and geographically targeted funding within the framework of the ClientEarth Phase III project, will likely turn Europe into the hub of youth-led climate change litigation against corporations in the coming years.

The author of this post is Julian Henrique Dias Rodrigues, lawyer in Lisbon.

On 27 January 2022, the Lisbon Court of Appeal gave a decision concerning the (non) recognition in Portugal of notarial deeds attesting a de facto union.

A suit for recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment (“ação especial de revisão de sentença estrangeira”) was filed in Lisbon in November 2021 by a Portuguese citizen and a British citizen, based on a Declaration of de facto union signed earlier that year before a notary public in London, where the couple lived.

The couple claimed that the above deed corresponds, under English law, to a judgement, and that it confers on the authors of the declaration the status of a relationship equivalent to that of spouses under English law.

The Portuguese Court analyzed the English Civil Partnership Act of 2004 (CPA).

For the Court, the civil partnership corresponding to the Portuguese de facto union is formalised by means of registration before a registry office, which results in the signature of a civil partnership document before the registry officer, with the presence of two witnesses (Article 2, Section 2, of the CPA).

The decision highlights that, under English law, a simple civil partnership agreement does not have any legal force (“does not under the law of England and Wales have effect as a contract giving rise to legal rights”, as stated in Article 75 of the CPA).

The Court acknowledged that it had previously recognized a public deed of de facto union of Brazilian origin. However, according to the reporting magistrate “[t]he legal situation brought in these proceedings is not analogous to the união estável recognized in Brazil. The English legal institute equivalent to the Brazilian stable union, foreseen and regulated in the United Kingdom, is the civil partnership”.

Relying on English legislation and case-law, the Court concluded that the document does not produce legal effects in the English legal order that go beyond the mere evidential force of the declaration. The legal significance of a partnership does not arise from it. That formal declaration is merely an additional element which the authority deciding whether or not to grant a claim based on the partnership will take into account in deciding in favour of the applicant.

In the Court’s view, the Deed in question was something different than a “civil partnership” under British law. For this reason, the Court refers to civil partnership to underline the difference between the situation created by the Deed and the situation of parties to a civil partnership agreement under UK law.

Returning to the Brazilian example, the judgment highlights that

contrary to what happens in Brazil, where the marriage and the ‘união estável’ can be dissolved by notarial deed, in the United Kingdom the divorce and the dissolution of the civil partnership need the intervention of a court according to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, and as for the dissolution of the civil partnership, article 37 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004.

In conclusion, the Lisbon Court of Appeal rejected the request as it considered that the “statutory declaration” is not equivalent in the United Kingdom – or in Portugal – to a judgement or judicial decision, not producing the respective effects.

The Lisbon Court of Appeal issued between 2019 and 2021 a series of judgments admitting the recognition of a public deed of de facto unions established in Brazil, by means of the suit of recognition of foreign judgment. However, there is no consensus on the matter.

In most cases the requests for recognition are made in the context of the acquisition of Portuguese nationality by the de facto union.

At least three judgments of the Supreme Court of Justice (“Supremo Tribunal de Justiça – STJ”) contradict the trend of the Lisbon Court of Appeal (Case 106/18.0YRCBR.S on February 2019, Case 559/18.6YRLSB.S1 on March 2019 and Case 249/18.0YPRT.S2 on December 2019).

For the STJ “the applicants declaration in a Public Declaratory Deed of De Facto Union, before a foreign administrative authority (notary public) that they live in a de facto union since July 2013, should not be considered as covered by the provision of Article 978 no 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure, and cannot be revised and confirmed to produce effects in Portugal” (Case 249/18.0YPRT.S2).

However the divergence remains open in the STJ itself.

By a ruling of 8 September 2020 the Court granted recognition to a declaration of a de facto union, issued before a notary public, and stating “The contracting parties expressly recognize the fact that they have been living as if they were married since January 2005” and that “they have said so, I, the undersigned, have requested and drawn up this instrument, which, having been read aloud and found to be in conformity, they have accepted, granted and signed, together with the witnesses, present at all acts” (Case No. 1884/19.4YRLSB.S1).

To reach this understanding, the reporting magistrate observed that

the Brazilian ‘união estável’ is a fact and not a legal act. The intervention of the public official foreseen in the legal system is constitutive, in the sense of producing effects in the legal order, namely the declarative one of the verification of the situation of de facto union.

As seen above, the matter is likely to continue to be the object of controversy among Portuguese courts.

In this post, Marylou Françoise presents her doctoral work on the role of courts in choice of law from an EU law perspective (‘L’office du juge en conflit de lois : Étude en droit de l’Union européenne’). This is a important issue for all EU PIL experts and obviously a recurring topic in France (see here, here, here and here).

This work raises a topical issue at the crossroad of private international law, EU law, and civil procedure. It aims at rethinking the national procedural system of EU Member States to accommodate more efficiently European choice-of-law rules. The status of EU choice-of-law rules before national courts can legitimately be questioned in the light of the objectives pursued by these rules.

EU choice-of-law rules are part of a specific policy of the European Union based on Article 81 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. According to this provision, the EU has the competence to develop judicial cooperation in civil matters having cross-border implications. The main goals are to encourage accessibility to justice for European citizens, to offer a predictable justice based on clear articulation of national provisions and to achieve international harmony of solutions. In this context, the European regulations applicable to conflict-of-laws are adopted to ensure that the same national law is designated irrespective of the national court hearing the case. Thus, EU choice-of-law rules have a functional nature. To achieve their goal, they need to be applied uniformly. Yet, there is no common procedural framework along with the European regulations in conflict-of-laws matter. Their uniform application depends on various national procedural provisions of the Member States.

According to the Latin maxim forum regit processum, the procedural status of choice-of-law rules depends on the national law of the court hearing the case. Several studies, including the study conducting by the Swiss institute of comparative law, have shown the diversity of national procedural provisions. The French system is particularly complex because it requires that courts distinguish between rights according to their availability (i.e. whether the parties may dispose of their rights). On 26 may 2021, the French supreme court for private and criminal matters added a new criterion that requires to apply ex officio EU choice-of-law rules when they are mandatory. For the first time (to the best of our knowledge), a national court made a distinction between conflict-of-law rules according to their European origin. If this ruling has to be welcomed according the EU principles of primacy and effectiveness to which the French court referred, the regime of the conflict-of-laws rules becomes more complex : only the choice-of -law rules which do not allow a derogation shall be applied ex officio. Yet, the vast majority of EU choice-of-law rules may be derogated from.

The French system reflects the complexity to define the procedural status of the European conflict-of-laws. More broadly, according to the national court hearing the case, the application of EU choice-of-law rules become unpredictable. The ex officio implementation of EU law directly depends on the competent court. This seems to be in complete contradiction with the purpose of EU choice-of-law rules. The unpredictable nature of the choice-of-law rule is strengthened by the lack of a European corrective mechanism.

The principle of procedural autonomy of EU Member States allows them to adopt procedural provisions to implement EU law. However, this principle is bounded by two conditions : equivalence and effectiveness ( see the Comet and SpA San Giorgio cases). These requirements are generally used by the European Court of justice to limit the autonomy of Member States. Regarding the ex officio application of EU provisions, the Court provides for a flexible approach. In its Van Schijndel case, the Court of justice held

Community law does not require national courts to raise of their own motion an issue concerning the breach of provisions of Community law where examination of that issue would oblige them to abandon the passive role assigned to them by going beyond the ambit of the dispute defined by the parties themselves and relying on facts and circumstances other than those on which the party with an interest in application of those provisions bases his claim.

In other words, national courts shall apply ex officio the European provision only if the parties ask for it. An exception is made for certain provisions in consumer law (see the Pannon case). The Court justifies this specific position by the public interest attached to European consumer provisions.

Against this background, the control of the procedural autonomy of the Members States led by the ECJ is not sufficient to establish an efficient system of conflict-of-laws. The intervention of the EU is clearly incomplete to pursue the goal of a European civil justice area. Therefore, how can EU choice-of-law rules achieve international harmony of solutions if there is no common provisions to support their application ? In this context, a new framework should be drawn up to ensure a uniform application of EU choice-of-law rules.

Firstly, it is necessary to analyse the EU acquis regarding the application of choice-of-law rules, in particular the overriding mandatory provisions, in cross-border situations and the parties’ freedom to choose the applicable law. The application of national mandatory rules is generally strictly controlled by the European Court of justice (see the Nikiforidis case). At the same time, the identification of EU mandatory provisions is confusing (see the Unamar and Da silva cases). Then, the possibility for the parties to choose the applicable law is widely accepted by European conflict of laws rules (in contractual and non-contractual matters) – except for articles 6-4 and 8 of the Rome II Regulation. EU choice-of-law rules become optional for both the parties and courts. Indeed, if the European provisions allow a derogation, they are not compulsory for the judge according to national procedural systems. These two examples illustrate that EU law is already influencing the national application of EU choice-of-law rules. However, this influence is incomplete and flawed. The procedural status of the European rule depends on the interpretation by national courts of the mandatory nature of a law or of the existence of a choice of law agreement by the parties.

EU choice-of-law rules must be applied consistently. They should have a uniform procedural status. The latter can depend neither on the substantive nature of the respective rights, nor on the national interpretation of the mandatory nature of the rule. EU choice-of-law rule must be mandatory for national courts. This solution may be seen as radical in particular since the freedom of the parties is a key component of civil procedure. It could also generate an increase of procedural costs because of the recurrent application of foreign laws. That is why this obligation to apply the choice of law rule ex officio should be limited. Party autonomy wit respect to the applicable law should be maintained but it should be exercised after the ex officio application of the choice of law rule by the court. This private choice must also be strictly framed by the choice-of-law rules themselves. The material scope of the procedural choice should comply with the individual choice allowed by the EU regulations and the procedural choice should be express. In other words, the EU choice-of-law rules should be applied automatically by the Court and parties should be informed of the potential application of foreign law.

This proposition can be loudly criticised according to the civilian procedural system. National courts cannot be a substitute for negligent litigants and several questions arise. How much litigation will cost ? How long it will last ? Are national courts well trained in European private international law ? Can they have an easy access to foreign law ?

At the same time, these arguments seem outdated. EU law is now part of national law in the Member State. The rise of international disputes requires full awareness of EU provisions and a close collaboration between EU judicial systems.

The uniform application of EU choice-of-law rules is the only way to achieve the objective of a European civil justice area. In this context, the PhD dissertation concludes by providing a proposal for a European regulation on a common procedural frame in choice of law. This proposal – based on Article 81-1 and Article 81-2 c), e) and f) of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union – could be included into the existing regulations on choice of law. It could also appear in a future European code of private international law or in a regulation on procedural aspects of choice of law rules.

This proposal finally requires an inevitable adaptation in practice. Judicial practitioners, such as judges and lawyers, must be trained in European private international law. The ex officio application of EU conflict-of-law rule would be a revolution for many national procedural systems. But it seems to be a necessary evolution for the European judicial system.

In 2019 in Würzburg a group of young researchers from several EU Member States met for a comparative Private International Law project and to create what later became the EAPIL Young Research Network.

The first project, initiated by Susanne Lilian Gössl (Germany) and  Martina Melcher (Austria), dealt with the national implementation of the CJEU/ECtHR case law regarding the so-called “recognition of status”.

The results, a comparative report and most of the national reports, of this project have now been published in the latest issue of the open-access journal Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional.

The issue comes with national reports from Austria (Florian Heindler and Martina Melcher), Belgium (Sarah Den Haese), Baltic States (Katažyna Bogdzevič and Natalja Žitkevitš), Croatia (Tena Hoško), France (Marion Ho-Dac), Germany (Susanne Lilian Gössl), Hungary (Tamás Szabados), Italy (Marta Giacomini and Martina Vivirito Pellegrino), the Netherlands (Tess Bens and Mirella Peereboom-Van Drunick), Poland (Natalja Žitkevitš) and Spain (María Asunción Cebrián Salvat and Isabel Lorente Martínez)

A report from Sweden, by Laima Vaige, will be published in the forthcoming issue, in Autumn 2022.

Several French learned societies (International Arbitration Institute, Comité français de l’arbitrage, Comité français de droit international privé, French Branch of the International Law Association, Société de législation comparée) will pay a tribute to Emmanuel Gaillard in a conference held in the Grand Amphithéâtre of the Sorbonne in Paris on 15 April 2022.

The conference Emmanuel Gaillard Theory in Action will feature testimonials of a variety of professionals and discussions of some of the theories promoted by Emmanuel Gaillard, including the arbitral legal order and the boundaries of private international law.

The sudden passing of Professor Emmanuel Gaillard on 1 April 2021 came as a shock for the legal world. One year later, five learned societies, of which Professor Gaillard had been an active member, on whose governing board he had served or which he had founded, are endeavouring to pay tribute to his manifold contributions to the world of law as well as the depth of his thinking, in arbitration law and beyond. The testimonials, analyses and discussions that will be shared during this event will highlight Professor Gaillard’s ability to combine theory and practice. Though he is no longer with us, he will forever remain an inspiration to generations of lawyers, as they strive to carry forth his legacy: theory in action.

The full programme of the conference is available here. Registration to the conference is possible here.

Gaillard was a prolific author, who wrote many books and articles. He also liked to draw, and made some drawings which aptly summarise some of his theories.

Guillaume Laganière – Professor of Law at the Université du Québec à Montréal – has recently published a monograph (based on his doctoral dissertation) titled Liability for Transboundary Pollution at the Intersection of Public and Private International Law. The book was published by Hart Publishing within its series Hart Monographs in Transnational and International Law.

The publisher informs that:

This book focuses on how public and private international law address civil liability for transboundary pollution. In public international law, civil liability treaties promote the implementation of minimum procedural standards in domestic tort law. This approach implicitly relies on private international law to facilitate civil litigation against transboundary polluters. Yet this connection remains poorly understood. Filling the gap, this book engages in a meaningful dialogue between the two areas and explores how domestic private international law can reflect the policies developed in international environmental law. It begins with an investigation of civil liability in international environmental law. It then identifies preferable rules of civil jurisdiction, foreign judgments and choice of law for environmental damage, using Canadian private international law as a case study and making extensive references to European law. Liability for transboundary pollution is a contentious issue of the law, both in scholarship and practice: international lawyers both private and public as well as environmental lawyers will welcome this important work.

Table of contents may be consulted here.

The EAPIL founding conference is fast approaching! The conference will take place onsite in Aarhus on 2, 3 and 4 June 2022.

Those wishing to attend, are invited to register by 14 April 2022 at the latest. Please do so by filling the form available here. 

Registration fee is 100 Euros. Furthermore, you are very welcome to sign up for the conference dinner.

Law students without a final master degree in law can participate at a fee of 30 Euros (conference, including lunch and reception) and must register on the above link. If students wish to participate in the conference dinner, the separate conference dinner fee applies (see the registration link).

Participants who have previously chosen to transfer their registration/fee to the 2021 conference have been contacted directly by e-mail and offered to transfer their registration to 2022 or be reimbursed.

As there are other events in Aarhus during the days of the conference, it is strongly recommended that hotel reservations are made soon. Here are some suggestions in this regard.

This post was contributed by Guillaume Payan, who is Law Professor at the University of Toulon.

Under the direction of its president, Marc Schmitz, the International Union of Judicial Officers (UIHJ) has edited a code, published by Bruylant, on digital enforcement (Global Code of Digital Enforcement). This Global Code was officially presented at the 24th World Congress of this organisation, held in Dubai in November 2021 (as announced here).

The result of the work of the Scientific Council of the UIHJ, this Global Code is an extension of the Global Code of Enforcement published in 2015, dealing with very current issues related to the dematerialization of debtors’ assets.

As designed by the UIHJ, the Global Code of Digital Enforcement is not legally binding. Nevertheless, there is reason to think that it will have concrete consequences in national law and on the work of intergovernmental organisations. It promotes a balanced enforcement system, by defining global enforcement standards that respect fundamental rights.

Although it essentially provides for substantive rules, the issues of private international law are not ignored, in particular regarding the applicable law to enforcement and the international jurisdiction of enforcement agents.

One of the great interests of this publication is to address the interaction between enforcement procedures and the digitalisation of Justice from all its angles. Thus, not only are dematerialised enforcement procedures considered, but also the use of enforcement procedures on digital assets. As such, the issue of the seizure of crypto-assets is dealt with in a very timely manner.

Available in both French and English, the Global Code of Digital Enforcement is structured in 7 parts, which are preceded by a Preamble which clearly sets out the context of the work (“Enforcement in the digital age”).

The first two articles relate to “respect for fundamental rights” and respect for “the ethical principles of digital use”, such as respect for human dignity, non-discrimination or even respect for personal data. This choice must be approved because digitalisation should only be considered as a tool in the service of rights that are prior and superior to it. In other words, this digitalisation should not be an end in itself and can only be conceived with respect for human rights. There are also a series of guarantees aimed at protecting against the risks associated with the use of artificial intelligence. For example, the code establishes a right to appeal to a judge in order to sanction an irregularity, to control the proportionality of an enforcement measure or to compensate a damage. In addition, there are obligations imposed on various parties (e.g. foreign enforcement agents, debtors, third parties) to cooperate in enforcement.

The principle is that identified and accessible digital assets are seized in accordance with the law of their location, in compliance with the principle of territoriality of enforceability. With regard to unidentified or inaccessible digital assets, it is recommended to apply the law of the State that controls or ordered the enforcement.

The main idea here is to allow enforcement agents to use digital tools to carry out their activities. With good reason, the question of access to information on the debtor’s assets is considered in a comprehensive manner (in particular, access to dematerialised registers and the use of drones).

After outlining the general principles (such as the creation of dematerialised seizures, while maintaining physical non-digital seizures), the focus here is also on electronic access to data. To ensure efficiency, the possibility of electronic auctions is established. The rights of the parties are nevertheless preserved based on provisions relating to the security of digital procedures (e.g. secure cross-border communication).

In order to be able to carry out enforcement on digital assets, the procedures for locating and seizing them must be adapted. In this regard, it is specified, for example, that national laws should define seizure procedures adapted to digital assets and regulate their legal regime.

Artificial intelligence is intended to help enforcement agents to assess the appropriate enforcement measures. While guaranteeing the right to appeal to a judge to compensate any damage suffered during an automated enforcement, it is important to allow the enforcement agents the possibility of setting up a “smart enforcement” mechanism. The use of blockchain technology is also key for the enforcement agents, together with the debtor and the creditor, to set up an automated process of compulsory enforcement, particularly when payments are made by cryptocurrency.

Access to crypto-assets and the procedure for seize crypto-assets are successively detailed. For example, it is recommended to create a national crypto-assets register and an obligation for the debtor to declare his crypto-assets to the enforcement agent in charge of enforcement. In addition, a distinction is made between the seizure of crypto-assets in the hands of a third party (e.g. exchange platform) or the seizure in the hands of the debtor.

The VIII Congress of Private International Law of the University Carlos III of Madrid will take place on 12 and 13 May 2022. It will be devoted to Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction.

Those interested in presenting a paper are invited to submit the title of the paper and an abstract of a maximum of 800 words before 10 April 2022 at Congresodipr@uc3m.es.

The selected papers may also be published in the online journal Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional.

Further information on the Congress is available here.

Stefan Grundmann (Professor of Transnational Law and Theory at the European University Institute, Florence, and Professor of Private and Business Law at Humboldt-University, Berlin) and Mateusz Grochowshi (Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg, Assistant Professor at the Institute of Law Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, and Fellow at the Information Society Project, Yale Law School) edited a book on European Contract Law and the Creation of Norms that has just been published with Intersentia.

The works contained in this volume sketch a broad landscape of sources of modern contract law, with a particular focus on European private law rules. With this the contributions seek to provide a better understanding of the identity of present-day contract law through an analysis of the multitude of social and economic dynamics that shape the normative landscape.

The blurb of the book reads as follows:

The book provides a broad and topical perspective of the sources of modern contract law. It examines the creation of contract law as a multi-pronged occurrence that involves diverse types of normative content and various actors. The book encompasses both a classical perspective on contract law as a state-created edifice and also delves into the setting of contractual rules by non-state actors. In so doing, the volume thoroughly analyses present-day developments to make sense of shifting attitudes towards the overall regulatory paradigm of contract law and those that reshape the classic view of the sources of contract law. The latter concerns, in particular, the digitalisation of markets and growing trends towards granularisation and personalisation of rules.

The book builds on the EU private law perspective as its primary point of reference. At the same time, its reach goes far beyond this domain to include in-depth analysis from the vantage points of general contract theory and comparative analysis. In so doing, it pays particular attention to theoretical foundations of sources of contract law and values that underpin them. By adopting such diversified perspectives, the book attempts to provide for a better understanding of the nature and functions of present-day contract law by capturing the multitude of social and economic dynamics that shape its normative landscape.

The volume gathers a unique and distinguished group of contributors from the EU, USA and Israel. They bring research experience from various areas of private law and contribute with diverse conceptual perspectives.

A summary of contents is available here.

The Charles De Visscher Center for International and European Law (CeDIE, UCLouvain, Belgium) will host a conference on Surrogacy and Private International Law, on 31 March 2022.

The conference aims at discussing the theoretical and practical debates on surrogacy, by presenting both the rules of domestic law (including a comparative law approach) and the rules of private international law, with an emphasis on the latter. It will also provide for an opportunity to revisit some of the issues related to the ethical and human rights implications of surrogacy.

Speakers will include legal and medical practitioners as well as academics.

Geneviève Schamps (Professeure, UCLouvain), Jehanne Sosson (Professeure, UCLouvain, avocat), Hugues Fulchiron (Professeur, Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3, Juge, Cour de cassation française), Patrick Wautelet (Professeur, ULiège), Petra Hammje (Professeure, Université de Nantes), Michelle Giroux (Professeure, Université d’Ottawa), Geoffrey Willems (Professeur, UCLouvain), Julie Mary (Assistante et doctorante, UCLouvain) , Amélie Panet (Maître de conférences, Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3),Catherine de Bouyalski (Avocate au barreau de Bruxelles), Nicolas Gendrin (Juge, Tribunal de la famille de Namur), Florence Anciaux Henry de Faveaux (Conseiller, Cour d’appel de Mons), Géraldine Mathieu (Maître de conférences, Université de Namur & ULiège), Sylvie Sarolea (Professeure, UCLouvain, avocate), Caroline Mecary (Avocate aux barreaux de Paris & du Québec), Candice Autin (Médecin gynécologue, Responsable du centre de Procréation Médicalement Assistée au CHU Saint-Pierre), Jean-Philippe Cobbaut (Professeur, Université catholique de Lille & UCLouvain) and Jean-Yves Carlier (Professeur, UCLouvain & ULiège, avocat). 

The working language will be French.

The full programme is available here. Online registration is open here.

As announced a few days ago on this blog, a dedicated page has been created in the website of the European Association of Private International Law to collect information about funding or other opportunities offered to refugee scholars and scientists. Some opportunities are available to refugee scholars from any country, others to refugee scholars from Ukraine only, others still to refugee scholars from Ukraine, Russia and Belarus.

The page is constantly updated. The latest update is now on-line.

Those aware of additional funding opportunities (including opportunities for remunerated work to be carried remotely from Ukraine or other places) are invited to get in touch with the Secretary General at secretary.general@eapil.org.

The editors of the Italian Review of International and Comparative Law (IRIC) welcomes papers from scholars and practitioners at all stages of their career for the Volume 1 of 2023.

Papers may cover any topic, under public international law, private law and comparative law, of the issues related to the interaction between the EU legal order and international arbitration, including:
– The influence of EU law on the concept of arbitrability.
– The exclusion of commercial arbitration from the Bruxelles I-bis Regulation.
– The legal consequences of Brexit on international arbitration in Europe.
– The circulation of judgments concerning international arbitration within the EU;
– The future evolution of ISDS in the EU.
– The regulation of international investments between the EU, its Member States and third countries.
– Treaty law issues concerning the validity and the effectiveness of intra-EU bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and the use of public international law by the CJEU.
– The fate of the 1994 Energy Charter Treaty.
– The application of EU law by international arbitrators.
– International investment law before EU Member States domestic courts.
– The enforcement of arbitral decisions concerning intra-EU BITs in EU and third countries.
– EU law as a form of public policy precluding the enforcement of arbitral decisions.
– The potential effects of the CJEU’s decisions concerning international commercial arbitration or ISDS.

Papers containing also a reference to Italy, or the Italian practice will be particularly appreciated.

The selection of papers will be based on the submission of abstracts of max. 1.000 words to iricsubmissions@gmail.com by 1 April 2022. Selected authors will be informed by 30 April 2022.

Final papers will have to be submitted by 15 September 2022 and may have the forms of essays, comments, case notes, recent developments and review essays; each of the latter has a different range of words allowed. Submitted abstracts will have to mention the tentative title of the paper and the form expecred to be used.

Further information available here.

Mathilde Codazzi, who is a master student at the university Paris II Panthéon-Assas, contributed to this post.

In a judgment of 3 November 2021, the French Supreme Court for private and criminal matters (Cour de cassation) confirmed the evolution of the French law of Sovereign Immunities after a statutory intervention in 2016 and its alignment on the 2004 UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities.

A Dutch judgment from 27 September 2000 ordered a public Iraqi company, Rasheed Bank, to pay various amounts to Citibank, an American company. On this ground, Citibank carried out a protective measure on Rasheed Bank’s accounts in France, which was later converted into an attachment procedure after the Dutch judgment was declared enforceable by French courts. The Iraqi company seized French courts to challenge the conversion.

There were two main issues arising in this case:

• Whether Article 19 of the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities required a connection between the assets attached and the claim, in addition to a connection between the goods and the entity against which the claim was brought, and
• Whether the creditor had to prove that the State voluntarily intended to allocate its property to a government non-commercial purpose,

Article 19(c) of the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property (2004) provides that post-judgment measures of constraint may only be taken if and to the extent that (…) “it has been established that the property is specifically in use or intended for use by the State for other than government non-commercial purposes and is in the territory of the State of the forum, provided that post-judgment measures of constraint may only be taken against property that has a connection with the entity against which the proceeding was directed”.

In a judgment of 17 October 2019, the Paris Court of Appeal upheld the conversion of the protective measure into an attachment procedure. After recalling the content of Article 19 of the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities, the Court of Appeal ruled that there must be a connection between the assets attached, which must be linked to a private law transaction, and the entity against which the claim was brought. It then ruled that requiring a connection between the assets attached and the claim would be contrary to Article 6(1) of the ECHR and the right of access to justice, as it would disproportionately infringe the creditor’s right to enforce judgments, without pursuing a legitimate purpose.

The Court of Appeal also held that Article 19 of the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities does not require the creditor to demonstrate the State’s will to allocate the attached assets to a commercial purpose. It recalled the principle of unattacheability of State assets and that the burden of proof lies on the creditor, before finding that in light of the circumstances, the assets deposited on the accounts were to be allocated to ends other than government non-commercial purposes: the cash-deposit account was opened at a time where Rasheed Bank presented itself as independent from the Iraqi State and frequently performed commercial transactions, a use that cannot have changed since due to the freezing of Iraqi assets in 1990.

Rasheed Bank challenged this judgment on several grounds.

First, it argued that although Article 19 of the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities does not require a connection between the attached assets and the creditor’s claim to allow the seizure, it does not prohibit it either. According to the Iraqi public company, the Court of Appeal failed to give adequate reasons by ruling that requiring a link between the attached assets and the claim was contrary to Article 6(1) of the ECHR. Rasheed Bank claimed that since the UN Convention of Jurisdictional Immunities reflects customary international law, the Court of Appeal could not rule the requirement of a connection between the attached assets and the claim contrary to Article 6(1) of the ECHR without first verifying whether requiring this connection would be contrary to customary international law. It also sustained that the right to have access to justice of Article 6(1) ECHR may be restricted by a limitation whose purpose is legitimate and which is proportionate to this purpose; according to Rasheed Bank, the Court of Appeal’s reasoning lacks a legal basis as it failed to indicate how requiring a connection between the attached assets and the claim would infringe the creditor’s right to enforce judgments without pursuing a legitimate purpose.

Second, Rasheed Bank argued that by virtue of customary international law, in order to attach specifically used assets or assets used for other than government non-commercial purposes, the creditor must demonstrate the will of the State or of its emanation to allocate the attached assets to a commercial purpose.

The Supreme Court upheld entirely the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

It ruled that customary international law, as codified by Article 19 of the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities, provides that apart from the situations where the State has expressly consented to post-judgment measures of constraint or allocated or earmarked property for the satisfaction of the claim, his property or that of its emanations located on the territory of the forum may only be seized, pursuant to a judgment or an arbitral award, if it is “specifically in use or intended for use by the State for other than government non-commercial purposes” and have “a connection with the entity against which the proceeding was directed”. Hence the Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal had rightly ruled that the taking of post-judgment enforcement measures does not require a connection between the attached assets and the claim: they must only be connected to the entity against which the measures are carried out.

The Supreme Court also ruled that the Court of Appeal rightly inferred from the circumstances that the assets were not destined to a government non-commercial use, without shifting the burden of proof. It held that the account seized, because it was opened in the course of commercial transactions, was by nature intended to serve  ends other than non-commercial purposes.

The judgment must be viewed in the light of the recent reform of the French law of sovereign immunities.

Until 2016, the French law of immunities was entirely judge made. The leading case was Eurodif, where the Cour de cassation had ruled in 1984 that the scope of the immunity of enforcement of foreign states extended to all assets which did not have a connection with the commercial activity which gave rise to the claim. In other words, a claim arising from the trade of grain by a state could not be satisfied on assets affected to the oil activities of a state.

In 2016, the French Parliament adopted statutory provisions replicating Article 19 of the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities. These provisions are found in the French Code of civil enforcement proceedings (Code des procédures civiles d’exécution), in particular in Art. L. 111-1-2.

This case, however, did not fall within the temporal scope of these statutory provisions. This likely explains why the Court did not simply refer to them (as the Court of Appeal had), but rather applied directly Article 19 as customary international law. While many provisions of the Convention certainly reflect customary international law, whether Article 19 actually does is unclear, but the Cour de cassation has long shown that it has no intention of embarking into any nuanced analysis in this respect.

They key question arising in this case was whether Article 19 necessarily excludes the rule in Eurodif. The argument of the appeal was that Article 19 was silent, and thus neutral in this respect, and that the Court could have kept this long standing requirement. The argument is rejected, and the court rules that the old requirement of a connection between the attached assets and the claim is obsolete.

The Institute for Private International and Comparative Law of the University of Cologne, directed by Heinz-Peter Mansel, is looking to appoint one to two Research Assistant(s) (Wissenschaftliche/r Mitarbeiter/in) on fixed-term contracts for two years, with contract extension possible, based in Cologne. The successful candidate(s) can be appointed full time (39.83 hrs/week) or part-time (19.92 hrs/week), with the latter option allowing for the completion of a PhD thesis. A German State Exam in law with above-average marks is required. Proficiency in Dutch, Italian, Spanish or French an advantage.

Interested candidates are invited to send their application by 25 March 2022.

See here for further information.