EAPIL blog

On 1 July 2021, the ERC Building EU Civil Justice team at Erasmus University will be organising an online seminar (the fourth in a series of seminars dedicated to EU Civil Justice) that will be discussing the private law aspects of climate litigation touching upon the recent case law such as milieudefensie/Shell case. This case marks a turn in climate change litigation by targeting mainly the responsibilities of governments in curtailing the effects of climate change to suing corporations.

The seminar moderated by Jos Hoevenaars will bring together renown speakers on the topic Prof. Chantal Mak, Prof. Geert van Calster and Sanne Biesmans. They will discuss the implications of recent climate litigation in the context of private international law, fundamental rights and corporate liability.

Click here to register. More information on the coming two seminars can be found here.

In a judgment of 22 June 2021, the Paris Court of Appeal ruled that that liability claims against arbitrators fall within the arbitration exception of the Brussels Ibis Regulation and retained jurisdiction on the basis of French national rules of jurisdiction. It allowed the appeal loged against the judgment of 31 March 2021 which had ruled otherwise and declined jurisdiction.

Background

In this case, a Qatari company had entered into a distributorship agreement with the Emirati subsidiary of the Volkswagen group (VW). The contract provided for ICC arbitration in Paris and the application of German law. After the VW subsidiary terminated the contract, the Qatari company initiated arbitration proceedings before the ICC.

The Qatari company was advised to appoint as an arbitrator a German lawyer from a Stuttgart law firm. The German arbitrator did not disclose that his firm had worked previously for a bank of the VW group. The German arbitator did not disclose either that, after the arbitration started, his firm accepted work from another subsidiary of the VW Group, Porsche.

The parties and the arbitrators agreed that the hearing would be held in Frankfurt. The arbitators met in Germany.

After the Qatari company lost the arbitration on all accounts, including the fees of the arbitrators and of the VW company party to the arbitration, the Qatari company initiated annulment proceedings in Paris courts. It eventually prevailed, when the French supreme court for civil and criminal matters (Cour de cassation) found in a judgment of 3 October 2019 that the German arbitrator had violated his duty of disclosure when he failed to disclose the new work that his firm had accepted from Porsche (the previous work was considered by the court to be notorious in German legal circles).

The Qatari company sued the arbitrator in Paris for reimbursement of the fees of the arbitral tribunal that the plaintiff was ordered to pay by the award (€ 270 000), the fees incurred (by both parties it seems) in the arbitration (€ 2.6 million) and the balance of the fees incurred in the proceedings before French courts to set aside the award (€ 100 000).

Arbitration Exception

Contrary to the first instance court, the Paris Court of Appeal finds that liability claims against arbitrators fall within the arbitration exception of the Brussels I bis Regulation.

The Court explains that a liability claim based on a violation of the disclosure duty of an arbitrator is closely related to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal and to the arbitration, as it aims at assessing whether the arbitrator performed properly his “mission”, in accordance with the obligations resulting from the arbitration contract.

As I had already underlined in my previous post, I was not convinced by the idea that, because of the existence of a contract between the parties and the arbitrators, a liability claim based on this contract is unrelated to the arbitration proceedings. The duty to disclose is provided by the lex arbitri, and the arbitration contract, which will typically be implied, will not define the regime of this duty (in this case, the terms of reference are essentially silent on the duty to disclose).

More importantly, the Paris Court rightly points to Recital 12 of the Brussels I bis Regulation, which states that

This Regulation should not apply to any action or ancillary proceedings relating to, in particular, the establishment of an arbitral tribunal, the powers of arbitrators, the conduct of an arbitration procedure or any other aspects of such a procedure, nor to any action or judgment concerning the annulment, review, appeal, recognition or enforcement of an arbitral award.

It is beyond doubt that an action to dismiss an arbitrator for violating his duty to disclose would fall within the arbitration exception. Why then wouldn’t an action aimed at sanctioning such violation by the award of damages? All actions sanctioning the (improper) “establishment” of an arbitral tribunal should fall within the arbitration exception.

French National Rules of Jurisdiction

After finding that the Brussels I bis Regulation does not apply, the court logically applies its national rules of jurisdiction. It finds that the claim is contractual in nature, which is uncontroversial under French law, as the existence of a contract excludes tort claims (principe de non-cumul).

Remarkably, the French rule is pretty much the same as Article 7(1)(b) of the Brussels Ibis Regulation. Article 46 of the French Code of Civil Procedure provides for the jurisdiction of the courts of the domicile of the defendant or the courts of the place where the services were provided. But the French court had no reason to follow the interpretation of the CJEU in this context, and to rely on a factual assessment of where the services were actually provided.

Instead, the court rules that the service provided by arbitrators is not merely contractual, but is also partly adjudicatory. As a consequence, the court finds that the services were provided at the place of the seat of the arbitration, and that the place where the hearings were held, or the arbitrators might have reflected on the case, is irrelevant.

What’s in a Seat?

Beyond the technicalities and the details of the applicable rules, the outcome of the case is that the propriety of the actions of the German arbitrator will be assessed by a French court, and not by the home court of both the respondent in the arbitration and the arbitrator. This is critical.

The promise of international commercial arbitration is to offer neutrality of adjudication. This is achieved by 1) appointing neutral and independent arbitrators and 2) by choosing a neutral seat for the arbitration. One of the most important consequences of the choice of the seat is to grant jurisdiction to supervise the arbitration proceedings. A neutral seat means, inter alia, neutral courts to decide about the fairness of the arbitration proceedings.

In this case, the German arbitrators, the German lawyers, and the respondent wanted that the arbitration physically take place in Germany. That was fine as long as this choice was only about convenience, and did not have any legal consequence.

The dramatic consequence of the first instance decision was that the choice of the venue triggered legal consequences: it could change the jurisdiction to supervise the arbitration, which the French court was happy to transfer to a German court, i.e. the home court of the arbitrator, of Porsche, of VW.

The bargain of the Qatari party was that it would not litigate against the largest German company before an arbitral tribunal seated in Germany, and even less in a German court.

The case exemplifies why the courts of the seat of the arbitration should retain jurisdiction on the sole ground that they are the courts of the seat of the arbitration.

Andrew Dickinson and Edwin Peel are the editors of A Conflict of Laws Companion – Essays in Honour of Adrian Briggs, which was just published by Oxford University Press.

The book is a collection of 13 essays written by scholars and practionners, including three members of the highest courts of common law jurisdictions, who all did either the BCL or a DPhil at Oxford with or under guidance from Adrian Briggs.

The book is a tribute to a teacher and scholar that one of the contributors presents as Oxford’s third giant in the conflicts field in succession to A V Dicey (to 1922) and J H C Morris (to 1984). In the foreword of the book, Lord Mance notes that, “on the top of all this (…) Adrian Briggs has managed a busy Temple practice (including at the highest levels cases such as Rubin v Eurofinance, The Alexandros T and Enka v OOO Chubb, all discussed in the book) as well as featuring in and contributing valuably to the work of Parliamentary and other committees.”

The list of the contributions and their authors can be found here. They examine, inter alia, again in the words of Lord Mance:

– how far conflicts principles serve private interests of consent and obligation and how far statist interests;
– the proper understanding of comity, which Briggs roots in territoriality;
– the concept of the natural forum, to the development of which the young Briggs contributed so significantly (as recorded by Lord Goff in The Spiliada in 1986);
– the extent to which jurisdiction needs to be defined in England or in overseas jurisdictions both by gateways for service out and within these by discretion;
– the scope and operation of the EU rule regarding joinder of co- defendants (Art 8(1) of Brussels 1) in the light of the ‘sorry mess’ made by the Court of Justice in this area in and after Owusu v Jackson;
– the extent to which the anti- suit injunction can really be justified as directed purely in personam;
– the extent to which recognition of a foreign decision may, consistently with principles of comity and territoriality, be refused where it was in English eyes clearly obtained in breach of an English choice of jurisdiction clause; and
– as a final example close to Adrian Briggs’ heart, the extent to which such a breach may, where necessary as a fall- back, be redressed by the tool of a damages claim, a course recently sanctioned at highest judicial levels in The Alexandros T.

On a personal note, I should add that Adrian Briggs also supervised the work of numerous doctoral students visiting Oxford to delve into the intricacies of the common law. I was fortunate to be one of them 25 years ago (and to learn that, yes, it was necessary to read Australian scholars to understand equitable remedies). He was also ready to participate to the defence of doctoral theses in Paris and Luxembourg.

In a memorable post that he wrote for this blog on the recent case of the CJEU in Wikingerhof, he concluded: “Brexit, Covid, and now Wikingerhof. What a wretched year. We are only one horse short of an Apocalypse.” One hopes that this horse is not his retirement from Oxford, and that, to avoid any Apocalypse, he will continue to write, including on this blog.

This post has been drafted by Dr. Felix M. Wilke, University of Bayreuth, Germany.

A new contestant has entered the ongoing debate about the law applicable to Electronic Securities and/or in the blockchain context. On 10 June 2021, the new German Act on e-Securities (Gesetz zur Einführung von elektronischen Wertpapieren, eWpG) entered into force. Its § 32 contains a special conflict-of-laws rule.

The following is a sketch of my first impressions and potential implications of the new rule. Any input is very much welcome!

The German E-Securities Act in General

The substantive scope of the eWpG somewhat belies its broad title. Far from being about all types of e-securities one can imagine, it only concerns bearer bonds (§ 1 eWpG). The act introducing the eWpG, however, also contains changes to the Capital Investment Code (Kapitalanlagegesetzbuch, KAGB), providing for the possibility of issuing electronic shares in investment funds.

It should also be noted that the e-Securities Act is no genuine piece of blockchain legislation. The word “blockchain” does not appear in it. The Act is not limited to securities recorded in a blockchain, nor would all blockchains necessarily meet the requirements of the Act.

Indeed, parts of the act merely concern centralized registers for e-securities to be maintained, e.g., by central securities depositories. Here, the main difference to current practice seems to consist in dispensing with the need for the depository to safekeep even only one paper (global) certificate.

Yet when other parts of the eWpG mention registers which are supposed to be decentralized as well as forgery-proof (sic) and to offer protection against any subsequent modification of recorded information (§§ 16(1), 4(11) eWpG), it becomes obvious that blockchain/distributed ledger technology can play an important role for so-called “crypto securities”. If one looks closely at the changes to the KAGB, one comes across an opening for distributed ledger technology for shares in investment funds, as well: § 95(5) KAGB.

Core aspects of the Act are the publicity, the contents, and the conditions for changes of registers for e-securities. A litany of (technical) details are delegated to the German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection and the German Federal Ministry of Finance. One provision that will certainly raise an eyebrow or two is § 2(3) eWpG: It sets forth that e-securities are to be considered “things” within the meaning of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, BGB). Thus, in principle, the rules for corporeal objects will apply to an incorporeal asset.

The New Conflict-of-Laws Rule

32 eWpG concerns the applicable law. I would tentatively translate it as follows, sticking closely to the structure and word order of the German original:

(1) To the extent that § 17a Securities Account Act does not apply, rights regarding an e-security and dispositions about an e-security are governed by the law of the State under whose supervision the register office is in whose e-securities register the e-security is recorded.

(2) If the register office is not under supervision, its seat is decisive. If the seat of the register authority cannot be determined, the seat of the issuer of the e-security is decisive.

The Subject Matter

32 eWpG applies to rights regarding and dispositions about e-securities. Due to the limitation of the entire Act, one might assume that the conflict-of-laws rule will only apply to electronic bearer bonds (under German law). Yet as the provision has clearly been designed as an omnilateral provision, and considering that the definition of an e-security is much broader (§ 2 eWpG), it is conceivable that the conflict-of-laws rule encompasses more securities than that the Act in which it is found. This, of course, would be a phenomenon well-known to private international law scholars, but perhaps not-so-well-known in other circles.

In any case, the express reference to § 17a Security Account Act (Gesetz über die Verwahrung und Anschaffung von Wertpapieren, DepotG) has a limiting effect – whose impact is not obvious. The bill had not included this proviso.

§ 17a DepotG is Germany’s transposition of Article 9(2) of the Settlement Finality Directive (SFD). If the rule(s) of SFD were to be interpreted broadly to encompass modern digital assets (not an easy task: see Matthias Lehmann’s thoughts on this blog), a rule like Germany’s would likely have to be interpreted in conformity with the SFD. Not that we did not already have enough discussions about § 17a DepotG, including about its conformity with the SFD, in the first place…

What is more, the Security Account Act itself was changed along with the introduction of the eWpG, extending the meaning of securities for the purposes of the former to e-securities under the latter. This should affect the scope of § 17a DepotG, shaping the understanding of § 32 eWpG in turn.

My first idea is that § 17a DepotG will be the relevant conflict-of-laws provision for e-securities in a collective deposit, and that § 32 eWpG will apply to the rest.

The Connecting Factors

The law of the State with supervision over the respective e-securities register office governs rights in and dispositions about an e-security under paragraph 1.

At first sight, this might seem to be a rather easy rule. I would submit, however, that it actually implicates a tricky analysis. In order to correctly apply the rule, one seems to have to look for (typically unilateral) rules of competence for financial supervision authorities.

First, it will not always be easy even to ascertain the respective rules (at least for foreign States).

Second, their connecting factors are likely to differ from State to State: e.g. seat of an institution to be supervised vs. place where it carries out business activities. This could lead to an accumulation of applicable laws that somehow would have to be resolved.

And what if a foreign register without State supervision is at issue? Under the bill, this was an open question. The final version now has a second paragraph, making the seat of the register office a subordinate connecting factor. But why does the provision not again refer to “State” supervision?

If the seat of the register office cannot be determined, either (also in cases where there is no register office?), the second clause of the second paragraph employs the seat of the issuer of the e-security as the connecting factor. The substantive part of the eWpG contains a similar approach, in that the issuer of an e-security will be treated as the register office if the issuer does not designate such an office in relation to the bearer (§ 16(2) cl. 2 eWpG).

Outlook

The new Act and its conflict-of-laws rule offer plenty of food for thought. Expect the first articles and even rule-for-rule commentaries to pop up in the near future. Because of the obvious connections between the conflict-of-laws rule to the substantive provisions of the Act, it will not always be easy to tell apart where private international law is supposed to be limited and where it can strike out on its own.

In spite of the numerous studies and decades of analysis, the interface between private international law and human rights keeps scholars busy.

No surprise, thus, that the (current) 4th Commission of the Institut de Droit International is presenting a new Draft Resolution next August, on the occasion of the IDI biannual meeting, held on line.

The Resolution, whose reporter is Fausto Pocar, will be based on the preparatory documents – including the
Report of Jürgen Basedow, Rapporteur until The Hague session in 2019 -, the previous draft resolutions, the written proposals of amendments submitted at The Hague that could not be discussed, and the plenary discussions as they result from the minutes of the Hague session.

The text in its version of 27 January 2021, is available on line. It is preceded by a thorough introduction to the work done until that date and to the general and specific issues dealt with. For a proper understanding of the Draft Resolution, it is worth noting that it addresses, without necessarily espousing, the two main points of criticism at the Hague session: “the Draft Resolution then discussed did not capture sufficiently the relationship between private international law and the public international law dimension of human rights protection, sometimes indulging in technical descriptions of private international law issues that had no or a too limited human rights component”; and “it was observed that the consideration of human rights in that Draft Resolution might appear to the reader exceedingly influenced by western values rather than focused on a global vision which would better suit an Institute’s Resolution” (NoA: Having read the documents available online regarding the first draft resolution I personally fail to understand the first reproach, but I am probably too much familiar with PIL technicalities myself. No opinion on the second ground for criticism).

The current Draft Resolution consists of 20 provisions. In a nutshell, like the former one it addresses the impact of human rights on international jurisdiction, applicable law and recognition: the tripartite division typical to cross-border settings underlies indeed the narrative of the Resolution – although not in the unsophisticated way I am describing it. Also like the former text, the present one includes provisions devoted to specific heterogeneous areas (name, identity, marriage, parentage, property, corporate social responsibility…), to explicitly tackle human rights concerns germane to each area. By way of example: under the heading “Marriage” the following is written:

(1) Child marriage and marriage agreed upon in the absence of the free and full consent of the two spouses infringe upon human rights and shall not be recognized

Or, under the heading “Protection of property”:

(2) Where a change of the applicable law resulting from private international law is conducive to the loss of such right, the forum State shall grant the holder an equivalent right to the extent possible.

The Resolution is short; so are its articles, separately taken. The wording is clear, attention is paid to stay in the realm of PIL and, I believe, to avoid assertions that may not be palatable to the IDI majority of Public International Law members. The scholarly distinction still exists (not only at the IDI), whether one likes it or not, and the gap does not seem to be without consequences.

I fear human rights activists will feel a little bit deceived by the Draft Resolution, should it be adopted as it stands. It may indeed be in the nature of this kind of document not to be too ambitious. This one remains to a large extent programmatic; it defers to other instruments or fora; it openly prefers to promote the accession to, and the respect of existing international conventions instead of coming up with detailed, statutory-like proposals. It is soft in the proper sense of the word. However, to my mind, it is no less relevant because of this character, which is obviously a conscious choice following in-depth analysis and reflections. It may be the only one possible to date.

– Picture: Session of The Hague 2019. ©Marieke Wijntjes)

This is the third post of an online symposium on the recent judgment of the CJEU in Vereniging van Effectenbezitters v. BP after the posts of Matthias Lehmann and of Laura van Bochove and Matthias Haentjens.

The author of this post is Prof. Geert van Calster, who teaches at and is Head of the department of European and International Law of the University of Leuven (Belgium), and an independent legal practitioner at the Brussels Bar.

Leiden University’s Round Table on the consequences of CJEU Vereniging van Effectenbezitters v BP (VvE) provided me with an opportunity not just to talk on the consequences of the ruling for applicable law, but also to discuss those views with an excellent group of scholars. That afternoon’s discussion no doubt has had an impact on some of what I write below, however clearly this post is my own responsibility.

Contractual or non-contractual obligations?

Clearly a first element of note is that the applicable law picture looks entirely different depending on whether one is looking at a contractual (triggering application of the Rome I-Regulation) or non-contractual (meaning Rome II will apply) relationship. The general assumption is that in a case like VvE, Rome II is engaged.

This results firstly from parties claiming jurisdiction on the basis of Brussels IA’s tort gateway, Article 7(2). The suggested parallel between the Brussels Ia and Rome Regulations then indicates that where jurisdiction goes, applicable law needs to follow (below I talk more about that parallel).

Further, there is CJEU case-law making a contractual jurisdictional basis unlikely. In CJEU C-366/13 Profit Investment Sim, the Court held that a choice of court contained in a prospectus produced by the bond issuer concerning the issue of bonds may be relied on against a third party who acquired those bonds from a financial intermediary under quite narrow circumstances only. These circumstances include considerations of applicable national law. In CJEU C-375/13 Kolassa the Court held that, on the facts of the case, there were no indications that there was a contract under either the consumer title or the general Article 7(1) gateway, between the holder of a securities account and Barclays, the issuer of certificates held in that account.

On the other hand, following the CJEU’s much stretched notion of ‘contract’ in C-337/17 Feniks and follow-up case-law, I do not think that the existence of a ‘contract’ between the issuer of the financial instruments and the (very) downstream investor can be entirely ruled out.

In the remainder of this post however I shall assume the majority’s intuition that the applicable law analysis be pursued under the Rome II Regulation.

A reminder: the general rule of Article 4(1) Rome II

The standard applicable law rule to purely economic loss, is included in Article 4(1) Rome II and holds that the applicable law is the

‘law of the country in which the damage occurs irrespective of the country in which the event giving rise to the damage occurred and irrespective of the country or countries in which the indirect consequences of that event occur’

There is no specific rule for purely economic loss as such. However, there may be circumstances in which purely economic loss may be covered by one or two of the specific categories included in Rome II. I am thinking in particular of the product liability rules (with discussions on whether financial instruments may be qualified as a ‘product’ under same), and the rules on unfair competition and infringement of competition law.

Further variations to the rule exist in Article 4 itself, and via the scope of applications, which excepts a number of non-contractual obligations hence giving space for residual, national private international law to take over.

Need for absolute parallel between Rome II and Brussels Ia?

To the degree one assumes that Article 7(2) Brussels Ia’s tort jurisdictional gateway, and Rome II’s rules on applicable law for non-contractual obligations need to be applied in synchronicity, clearly a judgment like VvE will have an important impact on the application of Article 4 Rome II’s general rule.

However the CJEU itself is ambivalent on the need for such parallel. In Kainz, the CJEU specifically rejected the need for consistency between Brussels Ia and Rome II, while in other cases the recital’s encouragement of consistency has had an impact on the court’s rulings.

Once must tread with caution therefore in extending the VvE findings to the applicable law discussion. Those with an interest in doing so will find support in the authorities to talk down the impact of VvE on applicable law.

Echoes of an exception, and a tailor-made lex causae not achieved

First the Finnish and then the UK delegation to the Rome II Committee, actually (unsuccessfully) suggested an exclusion from the scope of application for financial instruments. The UK proposal to that effect would have added to Rome II’s exclusions from the scope of application

“Non-contractual obligations arising out of transactions, such as issuing, admission to trading, offering or marketing, relating to financial instruments, including transferable securities, moneymarket instruments, units in collective investment undertakings, options, futures and other derivatives instruments“

In that discussion reference was also made to the fall-back lex contractus rule for certain financial instruments in Article (4)(1)h of the Rome I Regulation.

When it transpired that the proposal for this exception had the support of neither the EC nor enough Member States, the UK suggested singularity of lex causae by introducing a specific heading for financial instruments in which either the lex loci incorporationis (of the issuer) or the law of the place where the issuer has its primary listing, would be applicable to non-contractual loss.

The former suggestion echoed somewhat the difficulties in establishing the exact scope of Rome II’s corporate law exception (Article 1(2)d Rome II). CJEU Kolassa (a 1980 Rome Convention case) unfortunately failed to bring much clarity on this point.

 National case-law: Petrobas

In Petrobas Rotterdam, the Dutch court identified the locus damni in an investor suit as

the location of the market(s) where the financial instruments are listed and traded.

It emphasised predictability and it conceded a Mozaik effect, including of course application of non-EU laws (in the case at issue, viz the Brazilian and Argentinian investors). This finding might in fact chime with the CJEU in VvE where as other posts on this blog clarify, the

place of statutory duties of information

was upheld as locus damni. This synergy between the finding at the applicable law level in Petrobas, and the jurisdictional criterion in VvE, only applies of course provided all places of listing and trading are subject to such duties.

If one were to apply the ‘law of the place of statutory duties of information’, however, rather like at the jurisdictional level, this would raise the mental twister that this criterion is more akin to locus delicti commissi than locus damni, as Matthias Lehmann has pointed out.

Moreover, like in VvE, such criterion does not help us for unlisted financial instruments.

Finally, Article 4(3)’s ‘manifestly more closely connected’ variation to the lex loci damni rule clearly will give a judge some (but not much: the Article needs to be applied restrictively) room for manoeuvre to identify a different law with more, and intense, affinity to the case.

Help on the horizon? Pending case before the CJEU

As was helpfully pointed out by Tomas Arons at the aforementioned Round Table, in the pending case C-498/20 ZK , in his capacity as liquidator in the bankruptcy of BMA Nederland BV v BMA Braunschweigische Maschinenbauanstalt AG, locus damni considerations in Rome II in a case of purely economic loss (alleged breach of duty of care by a mother holding for allegedly failing to provide its daughter company with adequate financing) are currently sub judice before the CJEU. The judgment in that case will undoubtedly feature VvE and will hopefully clarify the application of Rome II to cases of purely economic loss.

This is the second post of an online symposium on the recent judgment of the CJEU in Vereniging van Effectenbezitters v. BP after the post of Matthias Lehmann. 

The authors of this post are Dr. Laura van Bochove (Assistant Professor at Leiden University) and Prof Dr Matthias Haentjens (Professor of Private Law at Leiden University)

On 3 June 2021, Leiden University hosted a seminar with international experts from the judiciary, law firms, civil service and academia to discuss the recent CJEU judgement in Vereniging van Effectenbezitters v. BP. The discussion clearly showed that the judgment may be interpreted differently. Some experts, including Matthias Lehmann (see here), argued that in VEB/BP, the CJEU refused to localise the Erfolgsort at the place of an investment account and, instead, localised damage at the place of listing. We see some merit in attributing jurisdiction to the court of the place of listing, but we do not think the CJEU has chosen such a radical departure from existing case law. Rather, we believe the CJEU continues to (try to) localize the Erfolgsort, also in cases of financial loss, and may continue to consider as connecting factors in that context the investment account, possibly next to the place of listing.

We believe VEB/BP represents another change in direction. We see that the CJEU introduced ‘foreseeability’ as a relevant consideration when having to determine the place where losses have materialized. This clearly derogates from previous CJEU case law and raises new questions.

Connecting factor #1: bank account

One of the participants to our seminar, Dorine Verheij, once said that when a Dutchman rides his bike on the Champs-Elysees and gets hit by a 2CV, it is clear in which jurisdiction the damage was caused and also where it materialized. This is not so for financial loss. Financial loss, by its very nature, is immaterial and therefore as a matter of logic, not localizable. However, the CJEU has continued to (try to) localize the Erfolgsort in several financial loss cases, including Kronhofer, Kolassa, Universal Music and Löber. This case law has been fiercely criticized in legal literature. In his Opinion in VEB/BP, Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona sided with this critique and suggested to abandon the Erfolgsort in financial loss cases. The CJEU did not follow suit, and we believe this is a strong indication the Court continues to (try to) localize the Erfolgsort, also in cases of financial loss. Moreover, the Court did not explicitly depart from the case law just referred to (ie Kronhofer, Kolassa, Universal Music and Löber). In these cases, the court considered as relevant connecting factors the applicant’s “bank account” (Kolassa, Löber, Universal) as well as “other specific circumstances of that situation” (Löber). In VEB/BP, the Court specifically considered the “investment account” as a possible connecting factor, whilst that it held that this factor was insufficient to attribute jurisdiction in this case.

As one of us has written elsewhere, we believe that when securities have lost value or have become worthless, possibly as a result of misleading information from the issuer of the securities, any losses suffered by the owner of the securities concern those securities specifically. Thus, it is the relevant securities account in which those securities are credited, that is the ‘place’ where the financial loss materializes (wherever that may be), rather than in any bank account from out of which these securities were initially purchased. We therefore believe it is welcome that the Court has now clarified that it is the ‘investment account’ (rather than the bank account) that may be of relevance as a connecting factor when having to determine where to localize financial loss. However, and as we have also argued elsewhere, the localization of an investment account (which we thus understand to be the relevant securities account) is dogmatically and logically impossible, since securities accounts have no physical location. This fact makes a securities account or ‘investment account’ unsuitable for any attribution of jurisdiction.

In the VEB/BP case, however, the Court concluded for other reasons that the ‘investment account’ was not adequate as a connecting factor to attribute jurisdiction to the court of the Member State where the account is held, as it held that as a connecting factor, an investment account could not ‘ensure’ the ‘objective of foreseeability’. Before we turn to discuss foreseeability as a connecting factor, first we will pay attention to the ‘place of listing’, which the Court introduced in VEB/BP as a possible connecting factor.

Connecting factor #2: the place of listing

Which factors should be considered relevant or decisive so as to attribute jurisdiction in a specific case, remains elusive. In Kronhofer, the Court held that the place of the applicant’s domicile may not be sufficient if the relevant investment account is located in another jurisdiction. This judgment did not say, however, which connecting factor would suffice to attribute jurisdiction. When the place of the applicant’s domicile coincides with the relevant investment account, this may suffice, the Court held in Kolassa and Löber. But in Universal Music, the Court dismissed this combination of connecting factors on the ground that the other case law concerned a “specific context” (yet without explaining what the element of distinction was), so that “the ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ may not be construed as being, failing any other connecting factors, the place in a Member State where the damage occurred, when that damage consists exclusively of financial damage which materialises directly in the bank account of the applicant and is the direct result of an unlawful act committed in another Member State.” Arguably, in VEB/BP, the Court found such ‘other connecting factor’ in the place of listing.

More specifically, in paragraph 35 the CJEU held:

“It follows that, in the case of a listed company such as that at issue in the main proceedings, only the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States in which that company has complied, for the purposes of its listing on the stock exchange, with the statutory reporting obligations can be established on the basis of the place where the damage occurred. It is only in those Member States that such a company can reasonably foresee the existence of an investment market and incur liability.”

In isolation, this paragraph appears to provide for a clear jurisdiction rule, attributing jurisdiction on the basis of the place where the damage occurred to the courts of the Member State in which the listed company has complied, for the purposes of its listing on the stock exchange, with the statutory reporting obligations (the place of listing). However, this paragraph [35] must not be considered in isolation, as indicated by the introductory words “[i]t follows that”. These words refer to the previous paragraph [34], where the CJEU held that in the present case, the applicant’s domicile and the place of its investment account would not ensure the objective of foreseeability. In other words, the CJEU held in paragraph [34] that the combination of connecting factors that were considered sufficient for attribution of jurisdiction in Löber and Kolassa, proved inadequate in the present case, as it would not guarantee that the defendant would be able to reasonably foresee where it could be sued.

We think the Court has been most persuasive where it held that in financial loss cases such as VEB/BP, the location of the applicant’s investment account is arbitrary and not reasonably foreseeable for the defendant, ie the issuer of the relevant securities. However, this does not mean that the place of listing can logically be considered as a ‘place where the damage occurred’, as the Court seems to suggest. Neither should this be interpreted to mean that the place of listing suffices, in and by itself, as a connecting factor that can attribute jurisdiction, because the Court gives no indication that it departed from earlier case law.

First, the place of listing is a place where securities are traded. This place has no, if only indirect relevance for the localization of the place “where the alleged damage actually manifests itself” (Löber, cited in VEB/BP, para. 31), ie the place “where the applicant has suffered financial consequences” (VEB/BP, para. 29). An investor commonly orders his investment firm (ie bank or broker), to acquire or sell certain financial instruments. The investment firm may proceed to acquire those instruments, for that investor, on a regulated exchange, but these can also be acquired on other official trading venues such as multilateral trading facilities, organized trading facilities, or even internally settled on the books of the investment firm. This practical reality shows, we think, that the investor does not “suffer financial consequences” on the place of listing (possibly with the exception of the rare instance where the investor itself is an admitted member of an exchange). We therefore think the place of listing may be a relevant connecting factor, but logically in most cases it cannot qualify as an Erfolgsort.

Second, the Court introduced the place of listing only in the context of foreseeability of damage. It did not explicitly (or implicitly) depart from its earlier case law, where other connecting factors were considered adequate as discussed above. Therefore, we consider it likely (but the Court does not make this explicit), that the Court may continue to consider the investment account as the place where financial damage ‘actually manifests itself’, but that this connecting factor was not deemed sufficient in the present case for reasons of foreseeability only. Rather, the Court seemed to imply that the place of the investment account may be considered foreseeable for the defendant only if that defendant’s securities are listed in the same Member State. If anything, this interpretation would accord (better) with Kolassa and Löber.

Relevant circumstance: foreseeability

Whilst we welcome the Court’s dismissal of the investment account as a sole connecting factor in the present case, the CJEU’s introduction of and reliance on ‘reasonable foreseeability’ as a relevant circumstance is not unproblematic, as the CJEU’s interpretation of ‘reasonable foreseeability’ in VEB/BP seems to deviate from its previous case law. In that earlier case law, the threshold for foreseeability is often low, as illustrated in the ‘Dieselgate’ case VKI/Volkswagen. In that case, the CJEU attributed jurisdiction to the courts of the place where the applicants bought their cars from a third party. This third party virtually never was the same as the defendant that equipped the cars with manipulative software. Here, the CJEU held that that the manufacturer ‘by knowingly contravening the statutory requirements imposed on it’ may reasonably expect to be sued in the courts of the place where the car was purchased by the final purchaser, even though this could potentially lead to the jurisdiction of the courts of all EU member states, since the purchases of second-hand or imported cars were not excluded. Similarly, in eDate Advertising, the CJEU readily assumed the foreseeability of the place of damage in case of online infringement of personality rights, which could be anywhere where the content on the website was accessible.

Thus, in VEB/BP the CJEU seemed to have interpreted ‘reasonable foreseeability’ more restrictively and as a ground to deny jurisdiction, whilst in VKI/Volkswagen and eDate Advertising the Court used reasonable foreseeability more liberally and as a ground to attribute jurisdiction. Put differently, on the basis of VKI/Volkswagen and eDate Advertising, one could have expected the CJEU to attribute jurisdiction in VEB/BP to the courts of the Netherlands, as BP directs its activities and communications to investors worldwide. But we would think that the Court’s relatively strict interpretation of ‘foreseeability’ in VEB/BP accords better with the objectives of Brussels Ibis, ie ensuring legal certainty by preventing a multiplicity of courts having jurisdiction. Whether the CJEU will use a similar, strict interpretation of reasonable foreseeability in future cases remains to be seen.

VEB/BP and future case law

The VEB/BP case was eagerly awaited, especially by Dutch investors, multinationals and their lawyers. Should the CJEU have attributed jurisdiction to the Netherlands, this would have allowed other collective actions for investment losses to be opened in the Netherlands, making the Dutch courts an attractive go-to jurisdiction for the recovery of investment losses. This now seems to have been limited to cases where the financial losses were ‘reasonably foreseeable’ to have materialised in the Netherlands. Consequently, the CJEU’s judgment in VEB/BP will also have implications for other pending cases, including VEB’s pending collective action in the Amsterdam court against Volkswagen for misleading information in relation to ‘Dieselgate’.

We believe VEB/BP is to be applauded in view of the objectives of the Brussel Ibis Regulation, as the Court has dismissed the investment account which has always been highly unreliable a connecting factor. However, the Court’s reasoning gives rise to several new questions which does not seem helpful for applicants or defendants, including: has the investment account been permanently dismissed as a connecting factor? (we think not); is the place of listing to be considered as the sole connecting factor in cases concerning listed securities? (we think not); is reasonable foreseeability now to be interpreted strictly? (we are doubtful). It is to be hoped that the CJEU answers these questions in future cases, which will be as eagerly awaited as VEB/BP.

This post was contributed by Thomas Mastrullo, who is a lecturer at the Sorbonne Law School (Paris 1)

On 31 March 2021, the Legal High Committee for Financial Markets of Paris (“Haut Comité juridique de la Place Financière de Paris” – HCJP) has published a report on the applicable law to companies  (Rapport sur le rattachement des sociétés – see here). This report is of great interest for those who are interested in the evolution of international company law.

Context

For several years, there has been a reflection in France about the conflict-of-law rule in corporate matters.

We know that two theories coexist in international company law: the theory of incorporation, which consists in applying to the company the law of the State where it was incorporated and where its registered office, or statutory seat, is located; the real-seat theory, which submits the company to the law of the State where its head office, or central administration, is localised.

In French law, the conflict-of-law rule in corporate matters is laid down in unilateralist terms, with almost the same drafting, in Article 1837 of the Civil Code (see here) and in Article L. 210-3 of the Commercial Code (see here).

The doctrine is divided on the interpretation of these texts, which have been bilateralized by French Cour de cassation (e.g. Com. 9 mars 1993, n° 91-11.003, Bull. civ. IV, n° 94 ; see here). The traditional view among French writers is that the connecting factor is in principle the real seat, because the statutory seat is not enforceable against third parties in case of dissociation of the registered office and the head office. But the modern view is that the connecting factor is in principle the statutory seat, considering that third parties have an option between the registered office and the head office in case of dissociation.

In this context, by letter dated 18 February 2020, the HCJP was jointly seized by the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of the Economy with a request for a study on the “Opportunity, feasibility and conditions of turning to the theory of incorporation”. This initiative takes place in an environment of increased economic and legal competition: the adoption of the theory of incorporation might strengthen the legal attractiveness and economic influence of France. But the referral letter does not ignore that such a liberal conflict-of-law rule might also encourage opportunistic behaviors by economic actors and departure of French companies abroad.

Several questions were therefore raised in the referral letter: Consequences of adopting the theory of incorporation in terms of attractiveness? Experience of other EU Member States? Compatibility with EU law? Risks of forum and law shopping? Consequences for matters related to company law?

Finally, the letter requested that “the necessary legislative and regulatory changes” be proposed.To meet this demand, a working group was set up under the chairmanship of Professor Hervé Synvet, composed of academics and legal practitioners.

The result of the working group’s reflection is the report under consideration, which is divided into two parts.

Impact of a New Conflict-of-law Rule in Corporate Matters on Other Matters

In the first part, the HCJP studies the impact that the evolution of the French connecting factor in corporate matters would have on other branches of law. Several matters are taken into consideration: tax law, insolvency law, social law, capital market law, regulation of foreign investments, banking and financial law. The conclusion is that the adoption of the theory of incorporation would have little impact on these different branches of the law, and in any case no negative effects likely to prevent a reform. Indeed, these different disciplines have their own conflict-of-law rules and the connecting categories are quite clearly defined in French private international law. In addition, each of these matters has a specific approach to the company seat.

Proposed Reform

In the second part, the working group argues in favor of an evolution of the French conflict-of-law rule. More precisely, it proposes to adopt a new connecting factor relying exclusively on the statutory seat – or registered office, and to abandon any reference to the real seat.

Arguments in favor of the adoption of the connecting criterion by the statutory seat

Several arguments are advanced in support of this proposition.

Firstly, this conflict-of-law rule would be simpler and, as a consequence, more favorable to legal certainty. Indeed, on the one hand, it would eliminate the touchy question of the place of the real seat and, on the other hand, it would guarantee respect for the operators’ choice of the law to rule their company or even their group of companies. Thus, France’s attractiveness might be reinforced. Secondly, the solution is inspired by the comparative private international law (German, Irish, Luxembourg, Dutch, British, Swiss and Delaware law are studied) which reveals a strong tendency towards the generalization of the theory of incorporation or connecting criterion by the registered office. Thirdly, the solution is presented as more suited to the development of EU law which, through the jurisprudence of the CJEU – and in particular the Centros, Uberseering, Inspire Art and Polbud judgments – and some regulations – such as European Regulation n° 2157/2001 on SE (see here), tends to favor the registered office as a connecting factor.

Although it is not unaware of the risk of law shopping, the HCJP considers that this risk should not be overestimated since the laws of the EU’s Member States have “a common base” because of the European directives adopted on corporate matters, which is likely to prevent a “race to the bottom”. Moreover, the transfer of registered office from one Member State to another is still difficult, which is an obstacle to law shopping.

Proposed new texts

The HCJP recommends amending the Civil Code, and in particular Article 1837, and repealing Article L. 210-3 of the Commercial Code.

The new bilateral conflict-of-law rule, applicable to all companies with legal personality, is set out in Article 1837, paragraph 1, of the Civil Code. It provides that the company would be governed by the law of the State in which it has its statutory seat – or registered office. Rather than a reference to the company’s incorporation, this formulation is chosen because it would ensure terminological continuity with the current Article 1837 and would model the French conflict-of-law rule on that of the European Regulation on the SE.

Besides, the HCJP devotes paragraph 2 of Article 1837 to companies without statutory seat. For these companies, the conflict-of-law rule would be inspired from the solutions provided by the Rome 1 Regulation: the applicable law would be the law chosen by the partners or, in the absence of choice, the law of the country with which the company is most closely connected.

The proposed Article 1837 reads:

Article 1837 du Code civil

La société est régie par la loi de l’État dans lequel elle a son siège statutaire.

À défaut de siège statutaire, la société est régie par la loi choisie par ses associés ou, à défaut de choix, par la loi de l’État avec lequel elle présente les liens les plus étroits.  

The HCJP proposes also to introduce a new article 1837-1 of Civil Code devoted to the lex societatis’ scope of application, inspired from Swiss law. The aim is to increase the readability and, as a result, the attractiveness of French law. A list of questions falling within the scope of lex societatis would be drawn, this list being non-exhaustive as suggested by the use of the French adverb “notamment” (which can be translated by “in particular”).

The proposed Article 1837-1 reads:

Article 1837-1 du Code civil

La loi applicable à la société en vertu de l’article précédent régit notamment : a) la nature juridique de la société ; b) la capacité juridique de la société ; c) la dénomination ou la raison sociale ; d) la constitution de la société ; e) la nullité de la société, ainsi que celle des délibérations sociales ; f) la dissolution et la liquidation de la société ; g) les opérations emportant transmission universelle de patrimoine et le transfert du siège statutaire ; h) l’interprétation et la force obligatoire des statuts ; i) la modification des statuts, en particulier la transformation de la société ; j) l’organisation et le fonctionnement de la société, ainsi que sa représentation ; k) les droits et obligations des associés ; l) la preuve, l’acquisition et la perte de la qualité d’associé ; m) la détermination des titres susceptibles d’être émis par la société ; n) la détermination des personnes responsables des dettes sociales et l’étendue de leur responsabilité ; o) la responsabilité civile encourue en cas de violation des règles gouvernant la constitution, le fonctionnement ou la liquidation des sociétés, ou d’obligations statutaires. 

In addition, the HCJP considers the introduction of an Article 1837-2 which includes a substantive rule aiming at protecting “French” contracting parties of foreign companies. More precisely, the legal or statutory restrictions on the capacity or the powers of the representatives of a company under foreign law, which would produce effect in external relations according to the foreign law, would be unenforceable against “French” co-contractors, as long as they are of good faith. This rule aims mainly to protect the co-contractors of companies incorporated outside EU – such as American companies which apply the ultra vires doctrine ; the risk is indeed lower in EU, thanks to the protective regime of directive 2017/1132/UE (see here).

The proposed Article 1837-2 reads:

Article 1837-2 du Code civil  

Les restrictions légales ou statutaires à la capacité juridique ou aux pouvoirs des représentants d’une société de droit étranger concluant un acte juridique en France qui, selon la loi régissant la société, produiraient effet dans ses relations externes, sont inopposables au cocontractant ayant légitimement ignoré ces restrictions. 

In conclusion, the HCJP’s “Report on the connecting factor of companies” appears to be a stimulating contribution for the modernisation of French international company law.

The EAPIL’s Young Research Network has just launched its latest research project, which is being led by Tobias Lutzi, Ennio Piovesani, and Dora Rotar. The project will focus on the national rules on jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters over non-EU defendants, in light of the report envisioned in Article 79 Brussels Ia Regulation.

As the project will primarily be based on national reports describing the situation in each Member State (structured by a detailed questionnaire), the organizers are currently looking for participants who would be interested in providing a national report for one of the following Member States: Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden.

The full Call for Participants can be found here.

If you are a junior researcher (below full professor) or practitioner under the age of 45 and would like to receive information about similar projects before they are posted publicly, you can join the EAPIL Young Research Network by simply filling out this form.

The first issue of 2021 of the Netherlands Journal of Private International Law (Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht – NIPR) has been published. More information about the review is available here.

The following articles are included in the issue:

R. Vriesendorp, W. van Kesteren, E. Vilarin-Seivane and Sebastian Hinse on Automatic recognition of the Dutch undisclosed WHOA procedure in the European Union

On 1 January 2021, the Act on Court Confirmation of Extrajudicial Restructuring Plans (‘WHOA’) was introduced into the Dutch legal framework. It allows for extrajudicial debt restructuring outside of insolvency proceedings, a novelty in the Netherlands. If certain requirements – mostly relating to due process and voting – are met, court confirmation of the restructuring plan can be requested. A court-confirmed restructuring plan is binding on all creditors and shareholders whose claims are part of that plan, regardless of their approval of the plan. WHOA is available in two distinct versions: one public and the other undisclosed. This article assesses on what basis a Dutch court may assume jurisdiction and if there is a basis for automatic recognition within the EU of a court order handed down in either a public or an undisclosed WHOA procedure.

T. Arons, Vaststelling van de internationale bevoegdheid en het toepasselijk recht in collectieve geschilbeslechting. In het bijzonder de ipr-aspecten van de Richtlijn representatieve vorderingen (in English, Determination of international jurisdiction and applicable law in collective dispute resolution. In particular, the PIL aspects of the Representative Actions Directive)

The application of international jurisdiction and applicable law rules in collective proceedings are topics of debate in legal literature and in case law. Collective proceedings distinguish in form between multiple individual claims brought in a single procedure and a collective claim instigated by a representative entity for the benefit of individual claimants. The ‘normal’ rules of private international law regarding jurisdiction (Brussel Ibis Regulation) and the applicable law (Rome I and Rome II Regulations) apply in collective proceedings. The recently adopted injunctions directive (2020/1828) does not affect this application. Nonetheless, the particularities of collective proceedings require an application that differs from its application in individual two-party adversarial proceedings. This article focuses on collective redress proceedings in which an entity seeks to enforce the rights to compensation of a group of individual claimants. Collective proceedings have different models. In the assignment model the individual rights of the damaged parties are transferred to a single entity. Courts have to establish its jurisdiction and the applicable law in regard of each assigned right individually. In the case of a collective claim brought by an entity (under Dutch law, claims based on Art. 3:305a BW) the courts cannot judge on the legal relationships of the individual parties whose rights are affected towards the defendant. The legal questions common to the group are central. This requires jurisdiction and the applicable law to be judged at an abstract level.

C. Bright, M.C. Marullo and F. J. Zamora Cabot, Private international law aspects of the Second Revised Draft of the legally binding instrument on business and human rights

Claimants filing civil claims on the basis of alleged business-related human rights harms are often unable to access justice and remedy in a prompt, adequate and effective way, in accordance with the rule of law. In their current form, private international law rules on jurisdiction and applicable law often constitute significant barriers which prevent access to effective remedy in concrete cases. Against this backdrop, the Second Revised Draft of the legally binding instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises has adopted a number of provisions on private international law issues which seek to take into account the specificities of such claims and the need to redress the frequent imbalances of power between the parties. This article analyses the provisions on jurisdiction and applicable law and evaluate their potential to ensure effective access to remedy for the claimants.

B. Van Houtert, Jurisdiction in cross-border copyright infringement cases. Rethinking the approach of the Court of Justice of the European Union (dissertation, Maastricht University, 2020): A summary

The starting point of this research are the three rulings in the Pinckney, Hi Hotel, and Pez Hejduk in which the CJEU particularly focused on the interpretation of ‘the place where the damage occurred or may occur’ – the Erfolgsort – for determining jurisdiction according to Article 7(2) Brussels Ibis. The Court developed three criteria for jurisdiction in cross-border copyright infringements cases: (1) the state of the court seised should protect the copyright relied on, the so-called locus protectionis criterion, (2) the ‘likelihood of damage’ criterion which means that it should be likely that the damage may occur in the state where the court is located, and (3) court’s jurisdiction will be territorially limited to assess the damage caused within the forum state. The dissertation proceeds to demonstrate the need to rethink the CJEU’s approach to jurisdiction in cross-border copyright infringement cases. Based on common methods of interpretation, the author examines the leeway that the CJEU has regarding the interpretation of Article 7(2) Brussels Ibis in cross-border copyright infringement cases. She also examines alternative approaches to jurisdiction in cross-border copyright infringement cases adopted by scholars and courts of EU Member States and states of the United States of America distilling three main approaches: the ‘copyright holder’s centre of interests’ approach; the ‘substantial damage’ approach; and the ‘directed activities’ approach. The last part of the dissertation suggests that a combined approach to jurisdiction can be adopted in the recast of the Brussels Ibis Regulation or a future EU Copyright Regulation. Van Houtert considers that the proposals can also be adopted at the international level as they satisfy common principles of private international law and copyright law. Additionally, several global issues are considered in the analysis carried out such as copyright havens, online piracy, the cross-border flow of information, international trade, and the trend of competing jurisdictional claims.

N. Touw, The Netherlands: a forum conveniens for collective redress? (Conference Report)

On the 5th of February 2021, the seminar ‘The Netherlands: a Forum Conveniens for Collective Redress?’ took place. The starting point of the seminar is a trend in which mass claims are finding their way into the Dutch judicial system. To what extent is the (changing) Dutch legal framework, i.e. the applicable European instruments on private international law and the adoption of the new Dutch law on collective redress, sufficiently equipped to handle these cases? And also, to what extent will the Dutch position change in light of international and European developments, i.e. the adoption of the European directive on collective redress for consumer matters, and Brexit? In the discussions that took place during the seminar, a consensus became apparent that the Netherlands will most likely remain a ‘soft power’ in collective redress, but that the developments do raise some thorny issues. Conclusive answers as to how the current situation will evolve are hard to provide, but a common ground to which the discussions seemed to return does shed light on the relevant considerations. When legal and policy decisions need to be made, only in the case of a fair balance, and a structural assessment thereof, between the prevention of abuse and sufficient access to justice, can the Netherlands indeed be a forum conveniens for collective redress.

On 14 June 2021, the Research Service of the European Parliament released a briefing paper related to the proposal for a regulation on a computerised system for communication in cross-border civil and criminal proceedings (e-CODEX system), authored by Rafał Mańko (EP Research Service).

The abstract reads:

The e-CODEX system is the digital backbone of EU judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters. e-CODEX comprises a package of software products that allow the setting up of a network of access points for secure digital communication between courts and between citizens and the courts, while also enabling the secure exchange of judicial documents.

The project, which was launched in 2010 with EU grant funding, is managed by a consortium of Member States and other organisations and is coordinated by the Ministry of Justice of the German Land of North Rhine-Westphalia. Even though it is currently used by 21 Member States, e-CODEX lacks a clear, uniform and EU-wide legal basis. To remedy this situation, on 2 December 2020 the Commission put forward a proposal for an e-CODEX legal instrument (a regulation) to formally establish the e-CODEX system at EU level. The management of the project would be entrusted to eu-LISA (the EU Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice).

Within the European Parliament, the LIBE and JURI committees are jointly in charge of the file, and the draft report is expected shortly.

The Briefing can be freely downloaded here.

Thanks to Jorg Sladic for the tip-off.

Professor Jürgen Basedow does not need any introduction.

A volume published by Intersentia, titled EU Private Law. Anatomy of a Growing Legal Order, summarises, updates and completes studies he has published since the late 1980s. It exists as e-book (although this is not a book to read on the screen, but to hold in the hands).

EU law covers numerous sectors of private law and is still expanding. Due to its fragmentary nature, most legal literature addresses specific areas such as EU labour law, EU company law, EU private international law, EU consumer law, etc. In contrast, this book presents an innovative approach in its analysis of EU private law, considering its continuous expansion as an ongoing process and interrogating some central questions: What is private law in the framework of the EU? How does EU private law relate to traditional concepts of private law? What is the impact on horizontal relations of the law of the Union which was established with a view to the integration of peoples in Europe? Is the frequent reference to the policy orientation of EU law sufficient to overcome the differences between public and private law?

Like the growth rings of a tree the numerous acts and judgments of EU private law feed from the trunk and the roots, which developed in the vertical relations between the Union and the Member States. The foundations of EU law, which often have a background in legal history, comparative experience and public international law, impact upon horizontal relations in a manner previously unknown in national systems of private law.

Across ten parts grouped in four books devoted to foundations, principles, enforcement and implementation, respectively, as well as the external dimension, the author elaborates on the peculiarities of EU private law as compared to the traditional analysis of private law in any given national legal system. The author traces throughout the book the origins of legal principles and rules in comparative law, legal history and public international law and their application and development in EU private law instruments and the judgments of the CJEU. This comparison helps to strengthen our understanding of those peculiarities and paves the way for a comprehensive critical assessment of the state of EU private law today.

The table of contents is accessible at the website of Intersentia.

A book like this one is good news for academia.

The new issue of Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale (Volume 57, Issue 1/2021) is out.

It features three articles, two in Italian, the other in English, whose abstracts are provided below.

Fausto Pocar, Riflessioni sulla recente convenzione dell’Aja sul riconoscimento e l’esecuzione delle sentenze straniere (Reflections on the Recent HCCH Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments)

The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters, concluded on 2 July 2019 in the framework of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, signifies a further, albeit partial, step in the context of the more ambitious project, initiated over twenty-five years ago, aimed at achieving a so-called “double” convention on jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil or commercial matters. Through the careful consideration of the salient features of the Convention – some of which appear to be innovative in character, whereas others evoke more solutions – as well as of the interactions that the Convention’s adoption (and possible entry into force) entails in the existing multilateral treaty landscape, including the 2005 HCCH Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, the Author offers a dynamic and contextualized reading of the new instrument, emphasizing its lights and shadows, and illustrating the underlying interests surrounding the Convention’s possible ratification by the European Union.

Federica Favuzza, Riflessioni in margine all’entrata in vigore del c.d. SOFA dell’Unione Europea (Reflections on the Entry into Force of the EU SOFA)

On 1 April 2019, the 2003 Status of Forces Agreement between the EU Member States finally entered into force. This international agreement applies within the territory of the EU and aims to define the legal status of individuals and entities involved in the preparation and execution of the tasks referred to in Art. 42 TEU, i.e. in the context of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). After examining its scope of application, the Author provides an overview of some of the main legal issues that the Agreement raises in respect of the exercise of criminal and civil jurisdiction. The analysis highlights the drafters’ deference to the approach and wording of the NATO SOFA. This choice is understandable, especially considering that individuals and entities involved in the CSDP are often also deployed in NATO context. However, in the Author’s view, it risks reproducing in the context of the EU some known difficulties and critical issues arisen in nearly 70 years of practice in the interpretation and application of the NATO SOFA.

Caterina Benini, Remarks on the Commission’s Proposal on the Law Applicable to the Third-Party Effects of Assignment of Claims [in English]

The paper provides an overview of the European Commission’s proposal on the law applicable to the third-party effects of the assignment of claims. The Proposal, based on a sensitive balance between the interests of the factoring and the securitisation industries, fosters the foreseeability of the applicable law and the harmony of solutions. The combination of the law of the assignor as general rule with the law of the assigned claim as exception is consistent with the solution adopted at the international level and fits the property interests underlying the assignment of claims. Normative consistency with the Insolvency Regulation is depicted as one of the main goals of the Proposal. However, due to the mismatches between the connecting factors adopted in the two instruments, such goal risks to remain only on paper. To avoid this, the present article suggests localising the assignor’s habitual residence at the company’s registered office under the COMI notion adopted under the Insolvency Regulation.

The issue also contains a review, by Francesca Clara Villata, of Felix M. Wilke’s A Conceptual Analysis of European Private International Law. The General Issues in the EU and its Member States.

The table of contents of the issue is available here.

The author of this post is Estelle Gallant, professor of private law at the University of Toulouse 1 Capitole.

In a judgment of 27 January 2021 the French Supreme Court for civil and criminal matters (Cour de cassation) applied the Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 on the International Protection of Adults (the ‘Adults Convention’) in a case concerned with a mandate in case of incapacity. More specifically, the issue was the content of the distinction between the conditions of validity of the mandate and its manner of exercise.

The Adults Convention

Currently applicable in 13 States (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Latvia, Monaco, Portugal, Switzerland and the United Kingdom), the 2000 Hague Convention takes into consideration a particular mechanism enabling an adult to organise in advance his or her personal or property protection for the time when he or she is no longer able to provide it. This legal form of mandate in case of incapacity, which was well known in North America and not very widespread in Europe at the time the Convention was drafted, is now more common in Europe. It exists in French law in the form of the “future protection mandate” and in Swiss law in the form of the “mandate for incapacity”. The mandate in case of incapacity is governed in the Adults Convention by Articles 15 and 16.

Article 15 refers to “powers of representation granted by an adult, either under an agreement or by a unilateral act, to be exercised when such adult is not in a position to protect his or her interests”. The adult thus entrusts a person or an institution of his or her choice with powers of representation for the future in the event that he or she is unable to protect his or her interests. Such mandate may take the form of an agreement, but also of a unilateral legal act. It may concern the management of property and affairs, but also the protection of the person, his or her care or the decisions to be taken at the end of life, in order to put an end to over-treatment for example. Generally speaking, the legislation establishing this mandate in case of incapacity makes the starting point of the mandate’s effects depend on a judicial and/or medical finding of incapacity.

Article 15(1) of the Convention designates the law of the adult’s habitual residence at the time the instrument is drawn up as applicable to mandates in case of incapacity. Article 15(2) also offers the adult the possibility of choosing the applicable law among three: a) his or her national law, b) the law of a former habitual residence, c) the law of the place where his or her property is located. Irrespective of how it is designated, the applicable law applies to “the existence, extent, modification and extinction of powers of representation” granted by the adult. However, the manner of exercise the powers conferred by the mandate is governed by the law of the State where it is exercised, according to Article 15(3). It follows that whenever the mandate is to be implemented in a State other than the one whose law is applicable, the manner of exercise the mandate will be governed by a different law than the one governing the mandate.

The Ruling – Distinguishing between Validity and Exercise of Mandates

This was the issue raised by the case before the Cour de cassation. A mandate in case of incapacity had been established in Switzerland, where the adult had his habitual residence, before moving to France. As he wished to implement the mandate in France, one of his sons obtained that the mandate be verified formally and “stamped” by an officer of the court (visé par le greffier du Tribunal) in accordance with French procedure. However, another son of the grantor brought proceedings to challenge the implementation of the mandate. He won before the court of appeal of Pau, which annulled the clerk’s stamping on the grounds that it should not have been granted because the mandate did not include any means of controlling the representative of the adult.

The son who had obtained the stamping appealed to the Cour de cassation, which allowed the appeal. The Court held that by requiring that the clerk’s stamping be granted only if the mandate expressly provided any arrangements with respect to the control of the representative, the court of appeal had actually imposed conditions which were not concerned with the implementation of the mandate, but with its validity.

According to the Cour de Cassation, the implementation in France of a Swiss mandate in case of incapacity could not be subject to a condition of validity of French law that was not imposed by Swiss law. The provisions of the Adults Convention are thus perfectly respected: they imply making a distinction between conditions of validity and manner of exercise of mandates in case of incapacity.

The post you are reading is the 500th post of the blog of the European Association of Private International law since the blog was launched in November 2019.

How have things gone for the blog over this time? The statistics below provide some answers.

Blog Subscribers

The number of those who wish to be notified by e-mail of new new posts has steadily grown over the months. They currently exceed 540.

Views

How many people come and visit us? The figure below shows the number of times a unique visitor has viewed the blog or any of its posts. To date, views exceed 170.000 in the aggregate.

Geo Stats

Where do our readers come from? The color gradation in the maps below shows the countries where blog visitors are based: the greener the country, the larger its share of the overal blog viewers.  

World

Europe

Top 10 – World Countries
Germany: 10,55%
Italy: 10,22%
Luxembourg: 9,66%
Netherlands: 7,86%
United Kingdom: 7,83%
France: 7,32%
Spain: 6,17%
United States: 4,56%
Belgium: 4,13%
Poland: 2,94%

Post Categories

Posts are grouped, according to their content, into different categories. The five categories with the most posts are, in order, scholarship, case law, normative texts, views and comments and conferences and academic events.

Comments

The aim of the EAPIL blog is not just to inform readers but also to foster debate on any issues relating to private international law, consistent with the goals of the Association. Readers’ comments are crucial to that. They are very welcome! So far, blog posts have received more than 230 comments.

The Most Commented Post

The post that has received the most comments is French Supreme Court Redefines Territoriality of Enforcement over Debts, by Gilles Cuniberti, published on 18 March 2021. It discussed two judgments delivered by the French Supreme Court for civil and criminal matters which extended the reach of French attachments to any claims owed to third parties established in France, irrespective of whether the third party had its headquarters in France or abroad, and irrespective of the situs of the debt. It attracted 14 comments.

Guest Posts

While most of the posts are written by the blog editors, the blog regularly hosts contributions by academics and practitioners form outside the team. So far, the blog has welcomed posts from specialists based in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland and United Kingdom. Those willing to submit a guest post, are invited to write an e-mail to blog@eapil.org.

And don’t forget: the blog, and the Association generally, is active on social media too. So, join us also on Twitter (@eapilorg) and LinkedIn!

The Milan Law Review (MLR), run by the Faculty of Law of the State University of Milan, is a multidisciplinary and multilingual law journal, published on a six-monthly basis in open access mode.

The editors of the journal are calling, inter alia, for articles on topics in the field of public and private international law, either in Italian or in English.

Interested authors will find more information here.

Papers intended for the next issue shall be submitted by 31 October 2021.

The following post was written by Paul Eichmüller (Vienna).

Although rules concerning the use of a name of natural persons have been liberalised in the member states of the European Union to a large extent after the CJEU’s famous decisions in C-148/02, Garcia Avello, and C-535/06, Grunkin and Paul, there still remain areas where national name law remains untouched. The Austrian Supreme Court has shown in its latest decision from 20 April 2021 that even for citizens of two member states, the conflict of laws rules for name matters may not generally be affected by CJEU judicature.

Facts

The parties of the case in question were the unmarried German mother and the Italian father of a son with German-Italian dual citizenship. After the child had been born in Germany – where he acquired his mother’s surname, as is usual under German law if the parents are unmarried – the boy and his mother moved to Austria. There, the father brought a request in court to change the child’s surname to a compound name consisting of both the mother’s and the father’s surnames. The mother, however, wanted her son to retain his current surname.

Legal Procedure

The Austrian courts of first and second instance concordantly dismissed the father’s request to change the child’s surname. Under Austrian law, the law applicable to name disputes follows the personal statute, which in turn is determined by a person’s citizenship (§§ 13, 9 IPRG). In cases of dual nationality – neither nationality being Austrian – the “effective nationality” (i.e. the nationality of the state to which the person has the closest link) determines the personal statute (§ 9(1) sentence 3 IPRG).

The courts concluded that the link to Germany had in this case been stronger, as the boy had been born in Germany and lived in a household with his German mother. German law, which accepts the renvoi (Article 10(1) EGBGB), does not provide for a change of the child’s surname against the will of the other parent unless the well-being of the child is affected, so that the request was denied.

The Decision by the Austrian Supreme Court

The Austrian Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ decisions. It found no fault in how the previous instances had determined the applicable law. More importantly, it also ruled that this outcome was compatible with the CJEU’s rulings on European name disputes. According to the CJEU in Garcia Avello and Grunkin and Paul, Articles 18 and 20 TFEU merely require that EU citizens that lawfully use a name in one member state are allowed to use this name also in other member states. However, in the present case, the child in the case at hand had precisely not yet acquired a different name in Italy. Additionally, the father even conceded that under Italian law, a child may alternatively bear the surname of one parent or a compound name of both parents’ surnames. Thus, there were no objections from a perspective of European law, as neither freedom of movement was restricted nor was there discrimination on the basis of citizenship, and the request was dismissed.

Assessment

Without explicitly stating it, the Austrian Supreme Court made one point very clear in its judgment: the EU fundamental freedoms as interpreted by the CJEU in Garcia Avello and Grunkin and Paul do not impose on the member states the duty to determine the law on name disputes in a different way. Only the recognition of legal facts or acts from other member states, but not the identification of the applicable law is affected by the freedoms.

EU primary law requires that a name legally borne or acquired in another member state may also be borne in all other member states. It does, however, not impose a specific conflict-of-laws rule. Therefore, the law that determines whether and under which circumstances the name (even of a dual citizen) can be changed in another member state is not affected.

As the desired name is not legally borne in the other state, it remains merely hypothetical and thus is not subject to the fundamental freedoms. Whether the father could have changed his son’s name without the consent of the mother under Italian law was therefore not even assessed by the Supreme Court, as it deemed it not of importance.

As conflicts issues with regard to the change of name are concerned, each state is thus free to apply its own national rules of private international law. However, as most states offer the possibility to apply for a name change in their home state anyway, this issue will mainly arise in parental disputes. Like in the case at hand, one parent may wish to change the name of a child living in a different country against the will of the other parent and thus might bring an action in the family court at the child’s habitual residence pursuant to Article 8 of the Brussels II bis Regulation. When posed with the question of whether a change of name is possible, this court can then – free from obligations of EU primary law – assess the possibility of the name change according to its very own (private international) law.

The University of Manchester Law School is seeking to recruit a Lecturer in Conflicts of Law.

The new appointment is meant to enhance teaching and research in Conflict of Laws, comparative private law and or commercial litigation at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels. This post will be available from 1 September 2021.

The candidate must fulfill the following requirements:

• have a relevant PhD (or equivalent) and demonstrate the ability to produce high quality publications, meet flexible curricular and teaching needs, and demonstrate capability to contribute organisationally to the wider School community.
• have experience of delivering research-informed teaching at an institution of higher learning or should be able to demonstrate the clear potential to do so.

The deadline for the applications is 17 June 2021.

Enquiries about the vacancy, shortlisting and interviews should be addressed to Professor Yenkong Hodu (yenkong.ngangjohhodu@manchester.ac.uk). Blended working arrangements may be considered.

More information about the vacancy can be found here.

The new issue of International & Comparative Law Quarterly (Volume 70, Issue 2) is out. Some of the articles relate to private international law. Their abstracts are provided below. The whole issue is available here.

P. Giliker, Codification, Consolidation, Restatement? How Best to Systemise the Modern Law of Tort

The law of tort (or extra or non-contractual liability) has been criticised for being imprecise and lacking coherence. Legal systems have sought to systemise its rules in a number of ways. While civil law systems generally place tort law in a civil code, common law systems have favoured case-law development supported by limited statutory intervention consolidating existing legal rules. In both systems, case law plays a significant role in maintaining the flexibility and adaptability of the law. This article will examine, comparatively, different means of systemising the law of tort, contrasting civil law codification (taking the example of recent French proposals to update the tort provisions of the Code civil) with common law statutory consolidation and case-law intervention (using examples taken from English and Australian law). In examining the degree to which these formal means of systemisation are capable of improving the accessibility, intelligibility, clarity and predictability of the law of tort, it will also address the role played by informal sources, be they ambitious restatements of law or other means. It will be argued that given the nature of tort law, at best, any form of systemisation (be it formal or informal) can only seek to minimise any lack of precision and coherence. However, as this comparative study shows, further steps are needed, both in updating outdated codal provisions and rethinking the type of legal scholarship that might best assist the courts.

C. Harris, Incidental Determination In Determinations in Proceedings under Compromissory Clauses

A dispute brought before an international court or tribunal pursuant to a compromissory clause in a specific treaty may involve issues under rules of international law found outside of the treaty in question. In what circumstances can a court or tribunal determine such external issues? At present, there is no clear answer to this question. This article sets out a framework for how courts and tribunals exercising jurisdiction under compromissory clauses could approach external issues.

M. Teo, Narrowing Foreign Affairs Non-Justiciability

The UK Supreme Court’s decision in Belhaj v Straw defined foreign affairs non-justiciability and unearthed its constitutional foundations. However, two decisions since Belhaj—High Commissioner for Pakistan v Prince Muffakham Jah and The Law Debenture Trust Corpn plc v Ukraine—have called Belhaj into doubt, narrowing non-justiciability to give effect to ordinary private law rights. This article analyses these decisions and argues that their general approach of subjecting issues involving transactions between sovereign States to private international law’s framework is desirable, because the constitutional foundations of non-justiciability identified in Belhaj are shaky. Yet, it is suggested that private international law itself may require courts to exercise judicial restraint on these issues, given its goal of upholding the efficient resolution of international disputes in appropriate fora.

The issue also contains review, by M. Chen-Wishart, Y. Wu, of Contract Law in Japan by H. Sono, L. Nottage, A. Pardieck and K. Saigusa, Wolters Kluwer: Alphen aan den Rijn 2018.

Mary Keyes (Griffith University) has posted Women in Private International Law on SSRN.

The abstract reads:

There has been almost no consideration of the position of women in private international law. There is very little published research applying a feminist analysis to, or even considering the position of women in, private international law. This field gives almost no attention to the particular interests, positions and experiences of women as subjects of the law, or the contribution of women as makers of the law. In the common law, private international law was largely developed in the 19th century, by male judges who were strongly influenced by commentary written exclusively by men. This chapter establishes that the apparently gender-neutral nature of private international law conceals profoundly ingrained assumptions about gender, in which the masculine is represented as a rational and sophisticated businessman, and the feminine is represented as a legally incapable wife. It then considers the gendered dimension of private international law in international family law, referring in particular to the regulation of international child abduction, international family property agreements, and international commercial surrogacy. Each of these examples demonstrates the differential impact of the law on women, indicating the need for greater awareness of and attention to gender. It concludes that while there have been some advances recently, particularly in terms of increased representation of women in making and commenting on private international law, there remains a great need for further research into the position of women as legal subjects and law-makers in this field.