EAPIL blog

José R. Mata Dona (Independent Practitioner and Member of the Brussels and Caracas Bars) and Nikos Lavranos (Guest Professor at the Free University of Brussels and Secretary-General of the European Federation for Investment Law and Arbitration) are the editors of International Arbitration and EU Law, which has been published by Edward Elgar Publishing in the Elgar Arbitration Law and Practice Series.

The blurb reads as follows:

This book examines the intersection of EU law and international arbitration based on the experience of leading practitioners in both commercial and investment treaty arbitration law. It expertly illustrates the depth and breadth of EU law’s impact on party autonomy and on the margin of appreciation available to arbitral tribunals.

 It contains an analysis of the relevance of EU law on the validity of international agreements to arbitrate; consideration of the impact of EU law on challenges, recognition and enforcement of international commercial awards, and the relationship between anti-suit relief, EU law and the New York Convention; a discussion of selected areas of intersection between EU law and international commercial arbitration, including the ECtHR, consumer protection, damages, competition damages, GDPR, commercial agency and others; an introduction to the complex areas in which the EU regime and international investment arbitration laws intertwine, through a review of the development of the EU’s investment policy; an examination of the impact of EU law on specific issues in international investment arbitration including the Energy Charter Treaty, procedural issues (both ICSID and non-ICSID), damages, taxation, and the proposed Multilateral Investment Court; an appraisal of the potential of International Commercial Mediation and its interrelations with EU law.

Contributors include N. Bassiri, G.A. Bermann, A. Blumrosen, C. Brower, L. Capiel, S. Castagna, D. Chochitaichvili, O. Cojo, Q. Declève, M. Feria-Tinta, A.-K. Grill, E. Hay, B.R. Hoebeke, D. Ingle, T. Kalliokoski, S.J. Lamb, E. Martin, D. Overduin, R. Price, F. Rosenfeld, A. San Román Rivera, J.M. Sánchez Pueyo, S.I. Strong, J. Sullivan, I. Van Damme, M.-C. Van den Bossche, O. van der Haegen, P. Wiliński, B. Williams, H. Wöss, P. Živković.

More information is available here.

On 20 April 2021 the Commercial Court number 17 of Madrid granted provisional measures forbidding FIFA and UEFA (and any other associated football body) to adopt, for the duration of the main proceedings any type of determination against the Super League or against the teams or players participating in the projected new European competition.

The day before, the Super League backers had sent a 6 page letter to FIFA and UEFA calling for cooperation, but also warning that they had taken legal action to prevent any efforts to block their project.

The Mirror reported that the letter reads as follows:

We are concerned that FIFA and UEFA may respond to this invitation letter by seeking to take punitive measures to exclude any participating club or player from their respective competitions.

We hope that is not your response to this letter and that, like us, your organisations will recognise the immediate benefits of the competition established by SLCo.

We also seek your cooperation and support on how the competition can be brought within the football ecosystem and work with us to achieve that objective.

Your formal statement does, however, compel us to take protective steps to secure ourselves against such an adverse reaction, which would not only jeopardise the funding commitment under the grant but, significantly, would be unlawful.

For this reason, SLCo has filed a motion before the relevant courts in order to ensure the seamless establishment and operation of the competition in accordance with applicable laws.

We invite you to attend on an urgent basis discussion with us regarding the details of the competition and how it can best be accommodated within the football ecosystem.

The Spanish Order

The decision orders the aforementioned bodies to refrain from any action that may affect the launch of the competition or supposes a veto to the participation of the founding clubs in the competitions in which they are currently playing, until the court has fully considered the case. In the event that, prior to the decision on the precautionary measures, any such action has already been carried out, FIFA and UEFA shall take the necessary steps to remove it and to leave it immediately without effect.

While the latest developments – the announcement of the  suspension of the activities of the Super League, triggered by the opposition the initiative has met – have likely rendered the judicial order moot, it is still worth having a look into its background and reasoning. Just like it does, I will use the present tense to report.

The Parties

The applicant is European Super League Company S.L. (in what follows, ‘ESLC’), a limited liability company whose members are: Real Madrid club de fútbol ; Associazione Calcio Milan ; Fútbol Club Barcelona ; Club Atlético de Madrid; Manchester United Football Club ; Football Club Internazionale de Milano S.P.A. ; Juventus Football club; The Liverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds Limited ; Tottenham Hostpur Football Club;  Arsenal Football Club ; Manchester City Football Club ; and Chelsea FC Plc.

ESLC is the sole owner of the Super League, and the parent company of three other companies in charge of the management and supervision of the ELSC. The Super League aims to become the first European competition outside of UEFA, to be held annually with the aim of maximizing the chances of competing for footballers and clubs of the highest sporting level. Such competition would not prevent participating clubs from participating in their respective national competitions and domestic leagues.

The American investment banking JPMorgan Chase is the major financial backer of the Super League.

The precautionary measures are requested against FIFA and UEFA, two private bodies enjoying a monopoly over the authorisation and organisation of international professional football competitions. The following provisions of the FIFA Statutes are quoted:

Article 22, which requires regional confederations to ensure that international leagues or other similar organisations of clubs or leagues are not formed without FIFA’s consent or approval

Article 61 : FIFA, its member associations and the confederations are the original owners of all of the rights emanating from competitions and other events coming under their respective jurisdiction, without any restrictions as to content, time, place and law. These rights include, among others, every kind of financial rights, audiovisual and radio recording, reproduction and broadcasting rights, multimedia rights, marketing and promotional rights and incorporeal rights such as emblems and rights arising under copyright law

Article 68 : FIFA, its member associations and the confederations are exclusively responsible for authorising the distribution of image and sound and other data carriers of football matches and events coming under their respective jurisdiction, without any restrictions as to content, time, place and technical and legal aspects

Article 71 : FIFA, the confederations and the national federations, enjoy exclusive competence to issue prior authorisation to organise international competitions and expressly prohibits the possibility of holding matches and competitions which are not previously authorised by FIFA, the member national federations or by confederations

Article 72 : Players and teams affiliated to member associations or provisional members of the confederations may not play matches or make sporting contacts with players or teams that are not affiliated to member associations or provisional members of the confederations without the approval of FIFA.

Those provisions are taken up in Articles 49 to 51 of UEFA’s Articles of Association. As a consequence, UEFA is conferred a monopoly on the organisation of international competitions in Europe; international competitions in Europe which have not previously been authorised by UEFA are not allowed.

The monopoly for the organisation and authorisation of international competitions was ratified by FIFA and UEFA on a Declaration of 21 January 2021.

The Claims

Based on Article 102 TFEU, the applicant seeks a declaration of abuse of a dominant position by FIFA and UEFA on the internal football market. Under Article 101 TFEU, it requests a declaration related to the violation of free competition in the internal football market, carried out by UEFA and FIFA through the imposition of unjustified and disproportionate restrictions. It asks as well for injunctive relief: the anti-competitive behaviour of FIFA and UEFA and its future repetition shall be prohibited. Finally, it applies for the removal of the effects of any measure or action that the defendants may have carried out already, directly or indirectly.

The Facts

From the documents accompanying the request for precautionary measures, the Commercial Court infers (among other) that:

.- Several professional football clubs have set up a new professional football competition called “Super League”. They have communicated the creation of said competition to FIFA and UEFA, organizations that until now exclusively organized international professional football competitions.

.- Following that communication FIFA and UEFA made a statement expressing their refusal to recognise the creation of a European Super League restricted to certain clubs. According to the declaration, any player or club participating in that competition would be foreclosed from competitions organised by FIFA and the confederations; all competitions must be organised or recognised by the competent body. The statement was confirmed by another one of 18 April 2021 issued by UEFA, the English Football Association and Premier League, the Real Federación Española de Fútbol, the Italian Federation of football and the Italian league Serie A. A warning regarding the adoption of disciplinary measures in respect of clubs and players participating in the creation of the European Super League accompanied the statement.

.- The European association of professional football leagues published a declaration of unanimous support to FIFA and UEFA in order to coordinate the necessary measures preventing the start-up of the new “Super League” competition and / or to adopt the announced disciplinary measures by FIFA and UEFA. Should those measures be adopted, the clubs and / or players that participated in the Super League would be prevented from participating in the soccer Eurocup of June 2021, the Olympic Games in July 2021, and the World Cup in 2022.

In light of the foregoing, the applicant submits that the monopoly exercised by FIFA and UEFA regarding the organization and management of national and international soccer competitions, as well as the exclusivity in the management of economic returns derived from said competitions, together with the sanctions announced by those private organizations, prevent the existence of free competition in the market of sports competitions. Should FIFA and UEFA implement said measures, the European Super League project would fail due to the impossibility of fulfilling the aforementioned condition of compatibility. In addition, the investments and financial contributions by J.P. Morgan would be lost.

It is also submitted that said measures would affect trade between Member States and constitute an infringement of the following community freedoms:

.- The freedom to provide services regulated in article 56 TFEU by preventing the provision of services by the ESLC.

.- The free movement of workers under Article 45 TFEU, by preventing players from providing their services through participation in the European Super League.

.- The freedom of establishment of Article 49 TFEU, by preventing the creation of the three companies that would be in charge of the management and supervision of the ELSC.

.-The freedom of movement of capital and payments regulated in Article 63 TFEU, preventing intra-community movements of payment and capital linked to the European Super League.

Analysis and Findings of the Court

The conditions required to grant provisional measures are satisfied: Article 728 of the Spanish Civil Procedure Code (LEC) – fumus boni iuris ; periculum in mora ; Article 733.2 of said Code – conditions to grant provisional measures inaudita parte.

Article 101 and 102 TFUE apply to the merits.

Fumus boni iuris

It is established (for the purposes of grounding provisional relief) that FIFA and UEFA have abused their dominant position. FIFA and UEFA Statutes subject the creation of alternative sports competitions to the authorization of said private bodies, and allow disciplinary measures to be applied against football clubs that do not request such permission. The prior authorization is not dependent on any type of limit or objective and transparent procedure; it relies on the discretionary power of both private bodies, which, due to the monopoly in the organization of competitions and the exclusive management of the economic returns derived from sports competitions, have a clear interest in rejecting the organization of the aforementioned competitions.

De facto, such actions by FIFA and UEFA imply unjustified and disproportionate restrictions to competition in the internal market. The statutory rules of FIFA and UEFA do not include provisions guaranteeing objectives of general interest in granting prior authorization to the organization of football competitions. Nor do they contain objective and transparent criteria to avoid discriminatory effects, or conflicts of interest, with FIFA and UEFA in the denial of authorization to organize alternative sports competitions by the clubs integrated in the federations affiliated with said private bodies.

Moreover, an abuse of dominance position can be inferred from Articles 67 and 68 of the Statutes of FIFA, in that they oblige the clubs to assign the commercial rights of the sports competitions in which they participate.

Periculum in mora

In the course of the proceedings FIFA and UEFA could adopt disciplinary measures as announced in the statement referred to above, which the consequence that the European Football Super League could not be implemented. This would cause irreparable harm to clubs and players called upon to participate in the Super League ; it would also prevent the enforcement of any judgment on the merits for the claimants. Moreover, the imposition of some of the disciplinary sanctions announced by FIFA and UEFA would seriously compromise the financing of the Super League, having regard to the conditions laid down in the shareholders’ and investment agreement of the founding clubs of the European Football Super League.

Proportionality and suitability

The provisional measures requested are proportionate and suitable to guarantee the protection sought. They prevent actions on the side of FIFA and UEFA that could render ineffective any protection granted in a future judgment. The measures requested are intended to protect free competition in the relevant market, and to impede the adoption of measures by FIFA and UEFA, such as those already announced, which for the reasons already explained would definitively thwart the implementation of the European Football Super League project.

Inaudita parte

The interim relief requested must be adopted inaudita parte. The defendants having publicly announced the imminent adoption of measures restricting free competition; it is therefore urgent to adopt the relief applied for without hearing the other parties. Regard should be paid to the next celebration of the semi-finals of the competition organized by UEFA, the “UEFA Champions League”, where up to three of the founding clubs of the European Football Super League participate. The adoption of the disciplinary measures announced by FIFA and UEFA could compromise the participation of those football clubs in the competition; the negative impact on free competition, latent in the provisions of the FIFA and UEFA Statutes above mentioned would thus crystalize, causing irreparable damage of an economic and sporting nature to the clubs and players affected.

The fact that FIFA and UEFA have their domiciles abroad and the need to seek legal assistance to serve the present proceeding, with the consequent greater delay in the summons of the parties to a hearing in a near period of time, further evidence the need to grant the measures inaudita parte.

Caution under Article 728.3, para 2 LEC

For the measure to be granted, the applicant has to provide a bank guarantee of 1,000,000 euros.

 

Final note : No appeal is possible against the decision.

The latest edition of the Spanish journal La Ley (No 90 March 2021) contains an interesting article about the contract concluded by the European Commission with AstraZeneca for the provision of COVID-19 vaccines. It is authored by Sixto Sánchez Lorenzo, the renowned expert on private international law at the University of Granada. The author deals with the liability of AstraZeneca for the failure to deliver enough jabs, leaving aside possible tortious and product liability suits for the vaccines alleged side effects.

The author argues that the agreement is a binding contract subject to the condition that a vaccine will be developed by the pharmaceutical company. In his view, the Commission acted both as a party and as an agent for (“on behalf of”) the Member States, which are therefore also parties to the contract. This will give them standing in court should they intend to sue the company. According to Sixto Sánchez Lorenzo, the Member States could bring claims individually and need not necessarily act together.

As for jurisdiction, he notes the contract’s jurisdiction clause in favour of the Belgian courts. The author considers this clause to be binding under Art 25 Brussels Ibis Regulation. He puts emphasis on the civil and commercial nature of the agreement, which clearly brings it within the Regulation’s scope. The Commission Implementing Regulation, which allows Member States under certain conditions to restrict the export of vaccines, does not change this characterisation.

In case the choice-of-court agreement would be inexistent or invalid, the courts of the state of incorporation and headquarters (in this case: Sweden) would have general jurisdiction for any claim against the company (Art 4, 63 Brussels Ibis Regulation). The author also points to the jurisdiction of the courts at the place of contractual performance (Art 7(1)(b) Brussels Ibis Regulation). In the event of a collective action brought by the Commission and the Member States, he discusses a possible parallel to the Color Drack case, where the CJEU ruled that in case of multiple places of performance jurisdiction lies with the courts at the “principal place of delivery”. These questions are however merely speculative given the contract’s jurisdiction clause in favour of the Belgian courts.

Regarding the applicable law, the contract stipulates a choice of Belgian law, which the author considers binding according to Art 3 Rome I Regulation. By virtue of this choice-of-law clause, the Vienna Sales Convention (CISG) would govern the entire contractual relation (Art 1(1)(b) CISG), including with those States that have not signed the CISG (Malta and Ireland).

With respect to the substantive law, the crucial question of course is whether AstraZeneca is liable under the contract with the Commission and the Member States, or whether it can invoke the priority of other contracts it has entered into with other parties, such as the UK. Sixto Sánchez Lorenzo refers to Art 28 CISG and the Belgian lex fori for a solution. As he underlines, Belgian law allows a claim for specific performance, contrary to the general position of the Common law.

But what if the company cannot deliver because it cannot produce enough quantities of the vaccine? Sixto Sánchez Lorenzo outrightly discards the exception to liability under Art 79 CISG because the shortage of vaccine would be the result of the dealings of AstraZeneca and not of a force majeure. Rather, the likely solution would be a proportional or “pro rata” condemnation.

This is an insightful article written by one of the masters of the profession. It is possible that the question of liability for non-performance will remain theoretical given the recent banning of AstraZeneca in various Member States. But nevertheless, other suits may arise, for which the article provides useful information.

 

 

 

 

 

Juan J. Garcia-Blesa (Fern University) has posted Indeterminacy, Ideology and Legitimacy in International Investment Arbitration: Controlling International Private Networks of Legal Governance? on SSRN.

This article connects the insights of post-realist scholarship about radical indeterminacy and its consequences for the legitimacy of adjudication to the current legitimacy crisis of the international investment regime. In the past few years, numerous studies have exposed serious shortcomings in investment law and arbitration including procedural problems and the substantive asymmetry of the rights protected. These criticisms have prompted a broad consensus in favor of amending the international investment regime and multiple reform proposals have appeared that appeal to the rule of law ideal as an instrument for increasing the acceptability of the international investment system. This article argues that the reliance of such proposals on jurisprudential approaches that fail to adequately accommodate the post-realist indeterminacy critique and take seriously the role of ideology in adjudication renders reform efforts unable to solve the legitimacy problems of the investment regime. The conclusions suggest the need to abandon implausible claims to depoliticization and face the methodological challenges posed by the promise of ideologically balanced assessments advanced by some rule of law theorists. The article finally points at the urgency to reform traditional approaches to doctrinal work in order to increase awareness of critical challenges and open up doctrinal methods to alternative methodological avenues.

The paper is forthcoming in the International Journal for the Semiotics of Law.

Advocate General Kokott’s Opinion in Case C-490/20 V.M.A. v Stolichna Obshtina, Rayon ‘Pancharevo’ was published on 15 April 2021 (the issues raised by this case have been discussed earlier on this blog by Nadia Rusinova: see here). So far, the text of the Opinion is available only in Bulgarian and French.

This post provides a summary in English of the facts and the main reasoning supporting the proposal to the CJEU (NoA: the narrative relating to Article 2 TUE, present in paras. 116 to 132, has not direct reflection in the final proposal; I skip it too).

Facts and Questions

The dispute concerns a married couple consisting of two women, one of whom, V.M.A., is a Bulgarian national, while the other is a national of the United Kingdom. They got married in 2018 in Gibraltar, where same-sex marriage is possible since December 2016, and had a child in Spain. They reside in the same country. The birth was registered according to Spanish Law (Ley del Registro Civil: inscribable facts and acts that affect Spaniards, and those referring to foreigners which occurred in Spanish territory, are recorded in the Civil Registry)., and a birth certificate was issued by the Spanish authorities designating both women as ‘mother’ of the child.

On the basis of the Spanish document V.M.A. applied to the competent Bulgarian authority to issue a birth certificate for her daughter. Such a certificate is, in turn, necessary for obtaining a Bulgarian identity document.

Bulgarian law does not allow marriage or any other form of union with legal effects between persons of the same sex. Parentage is determined by birth; the mother of the child is the woman who gave birth to it (also in the case of assisted reproduction). When the filiation of a child with regard to one of his parents is unknown, any parent can recognize the child. In the event of registration of a birth occurring abroad the information relating to the name of the child, the date and place of birth, the sex and the established filiation are entered in the birth certificate as they appear in the copy or in the Bulgarian translation of the foreign document produced. Should filiation concerning a parent (mother or father) not be established in the foreign document, the field intended for data relating to this parent in the birth certificate in the Republic of Bulgaria will not completed and shall be crossed out.

The municipality of Sofia (Bulgaria) requested V.M.A. to indicate which of the two spouses is the biological mother, stating that the model Bulgarian birth certificate provides only one box for the ‘mother’ and another for the ‘father’, and that each of those boxes may include only one name. Following V.M.A.’s refusal to supply the requested information, the authority rejected her application, arguing the absence of information concerning the biological mother and the fact that the registration of two female parents in a birth certificate is contrary to the public policy of Bulgaria.

V.M.A. brought an action against that decision before the Administrative Court of the City of Sofia, which referred to the CJEU the following questions:

Must Article 20 TFEU and Article 21 TFEU and Articles 7, 24 and 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that the Bulgarian administrative authorities to which an application for a document certifying the birth of a child of Bulgarian nationality in another Member State of the EU was submitted, which had been certified by way of a Spanish birth certificate in which two persons of the female sex are registered as mothers without specifying whether one of them, and if so, which of them, is the child’s biological mother, are not permitted to refuse to issue a Bulgarian birth certificate on the grounds that the applicant refuses to state which of them is the child’s biological mother?

Must Article 4(2) TEU and Article 9 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that respect for the national identity and constitutional identity of the Member States of the European Union means that those Member States have a broad discretion as regards the rules for establishing parentage? Specifically:

–    Must Art. 4(2) TEU be interpreted as allowing Member State to request information on the biological parentage of the child?

–    Must Article 4(2) TEU in conjunction with Article 7 and Article 24(2) of the Charter be interpreted as meaning that it is essential to strike a balance of interests between, on the one hand, the national identity and constitutional identity of a Member State and, on the other hand, the best interests of the child, having regard to the fact that, at the present time, there is neither a consensus as regards values nor, in legal terms, a consensus about the possibility of registering as parents on a birth certificate persons of the same sex without providing further details of whether one of them, and if so, which of them, is the child’s biological parent? If this question is answered in the affirmative, how could that balance of interests be achieved in concrete terms?

Is the answer to Question 1 affected by the legal consequences of Brexit in that one of the mothers listed on the birth certificate issued in another Member State is a UK national whereas the other mother is a national of an EU Member State, having regard in particular to the fact that the refusal to issue a Bulgarian birth certificate for the child constitutes an obstacle to the issue of an identity document for the child by an EU Member State and, as a result, may impede the unlimited exercise of her rights as an EU citizen?

If the first question is answered in the affirmative: does EU law, in particular the principle of effectiveness, oblige the competent national authorities to derogate from the model birth certificate which forms part of the applicable national law?

Relevant EU law

In addition to the provisions mentioned in the request, Articles 2 and 4 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States must be taken into account:

Article 2, Definitions – For the purposes of this Directive: (1) “Union citizen” means any person having the nationality of a Member State; (2) “Family member” means: (a) the spouse; (b) the partner with whom the Union citizen has contracted a registered partnership, on the basis of the legislation of a Member State, if the legislation of the host Member State treats registered partnerships as equivalent to marriage and in accordance with the conditions laid down in the relevant legislation of the host Member State; (c) the direct descendants who are under the age of 21 or are dependants and those of the spouse or partner as defined in point (b); (d) the dependent direct relatives in the ascending line and those of the spouse or partner as defined in point (b); […]

Article 4, Right of exit – 1. Without prejudice to the provisions on travel documents applicable to national border controls, all Union citizens with a valid identity card or passport and their family members who are not nationals of a Member State and who hold a valid passport shall have the right to leave the territory of a Member State to travel to another Member State. […] 3. Member States shall, acting in accordance with their laws, issue to their own nationals, and renew, an identity card or passport stating their nationality. […]

Analysis

Although the Opinion is presented in a very pedagogical way, to ease its understanding it should be explained that the reasoning is based: (a) on the different nature and effects of a certificate of birth of a child and a document stating his personal identity; (b) and on the premise that a person may be a parent (and a child born to a parent) or not, depending on whether such condition is considered for the purposes of family and successions law, or for the purposes of Union law.

AG Kokott carries out her analysis distinguishing two hypothesis: under the first one, the child is not a European citizen; her arguments revolve around the rights conferred to the Bulgarian mother by the legal order of the Union. Under the second hypothesis, the child is a EU citizen; the focus is on her rights. The reason for the separates approaches is that, according to the referring court, the child is a Bulgarian national; however, the assertion was contested by the Bulgarian Government during the hearing, given that Bulgarian nationality is acquired automatically by any person who has at least one Bulgarian parent, and in the present case the identity of the biological mother is not known.

i) The child is not a EU citizen

In the event that the child does not have Bulgarian nationality, she does not enjoy the rights deriving from Article 4 (3) of Directive 2004/38, and from Articles 20 and 21 TFEU, reserved for citizens of the Union. Consequently, the refusal by the Bulgarian authorities to issue a Bulgarian birth certificate designating, like the Spanish one, the applicant in the main proceedings and her wife as the mothers of the child, as well as the refusal to issue a Bulgarian identity document to this child, cannot infringe these rights.

On the contrary, the refusal to issue the requested birth certificate could constitute an obstacle to the right to free movement of the Bulgarian mother, who, according to AG Kokott (based on the information given by the Spanish government at the hearing), has legally acquired the status of mother of the child under Spanish law. If she is not included in this document, she will not be considered the mother of the child within the meaning of Bulgarian family law. In this regard, it should be recalled that according to the CJEU any national measure which is likely to hamper or make less attractive the exercise of the free movement by nationals of the Union may constitute an obstacle to this freedom.

The referring court asks the CJEU whether such obstacle could be justified on the protection of the national identity in the sense of Article 4 (2) TEU. To this AG Kokott answers in the affirmative: first, the Court has already implicitly recognized that the rules governing marriage are part of national identity within the meaning of Article 4 (2) TEU. Secondly, the national identity enshrined in Article 4 (2) TEU is not only one legitimate objective among others which may be taken into account when examining a possible justification for a restriction of the right to free circulation; on the contrary, it possesses a ‘vertical dimension’, that is to say, the Treaties give it a role in the delimitation of competences between the Union and the Member States. Hence, the Court can only exercise a limited control over measures adopted by a Member State for the purpose of safeguarding its national identity; conversely, it cannot apply a proportionality check like it does with ‘simple legitimate objectives’. Such as test will be applied, though, to measures adopted by the Bulgarian authorities in the field of family law provided ‘the fundamental expression of the concept that the Member State concerned intends to protect as part of its national identity’ is not in cause.

In the case at hand the precedent translates as follows:

.- Given that the determination of parentage within the meaning of family law is the sole competence of the Member States, AG Kokott considers that the Republic of Bulgaria is not required to recognize parentage as established in the Spanish birth certificate for the purposes of the application of Bulgarian family and inheritance law. In other words, the obligation to recognize parentage for the purpose of drawing up a birth certificate affects the fundamental expression of the national identity of the Republic of Bulgaria. (NoA: as the inclusion of the applicant in the main proceedings as a mother on the birth certificate necessarily implies recognition of the legal effects of the same-sex marriage for the purposes of determining parentage, one would have expected a clear assertion in the sense that Bulgaria is not obliged to issue such a certificate at all. This is not said in so many words, though, but hinted at a later stage in the Opinion, when the obligation of the Bulgarian to produce a document of identity allowing the child to travel with her mothers, and each of them to travel with the child pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 2004/38, is addressed).

.- By contrast, the Bulgarian authorities must accept the filiation bonds between the Bulgarian applicant and the child, as established in Spain, for the limited purposes of allowing the former to exercise the rights conferred by secondary Union law relating to the free movement of citizens. That is to say, to travel with the kid and to reside in the Member State of origin (Bulgaria), with the members of the family under normal conditions.

ii) The child is a citizen of the Union

Should the applicant acknowledge she is the biological mother of the child, or recognize the child as her own, the girl would automatically be a Bulgarian national, hence a citizen of the European Union. The refusal to deliver a birth certificate will indeed entail negative consequences for her. Would it be a solution to deliver the certificate only indicating the motherhood of the Bulgarian spouse?

In principle, in the light of the potential consequences on the right to free movement, the possibility just mentioned does not convince AG Kokott: equivalent documents concerning the child, but issued in different States, would contain divergent information on her; she would not be able to travel with each of her parents. To the question whether such obstacles could nevertheless be justified, Ag Kokott answers, first, that the refusal to recognize parentage with regard to the British mother, for the purposes of establishing a Bulgarian birth certificate, could indeed be based on the Bulgarian ‘national identity’ within the meaning of Article 4 (2) TEU.  On the contrary, considering that an identity document has no probative function with regard to the filiation of a person (so the AG), the refusal to recognize parentage for the purpose of issuing an identity document in accordance with Article 4 (3) of Directive 2004/38 is not acceptable.

Some Hints to the Bulgarian Authorities

By its fourth question, the referring court asks whether it should reject the model birth certificate under the national legislation in force, and replace it with a model allowing two mothers to be mentioned under the heading ‘parents’. Indeed, the referring court must – in the event that the child has the Bulgarian nationality – solve the practical problem that the establishment of a Bulgarian birth certificate is the prerequisite for issuing an identity document.

Given that, according to the explanations of the Bulgarian government at the hearing, a Bulgarian identity document does not mention the names of the parents, AG Kokott suggests that said document is issued based on a Bulgarian birth certificated designating as ‘mother’ only one of the spouses, provided it is accompanied by a travel document delivered for the purpose of identifying the parents of the child, where both women are mentioned.

And Further

Case C-490/20 raises questions is very similar to those addressed to the CJEU by a Polish court in Case C-2/21, Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich. The latter case concerns the child of a Polish national, married to an Irish woman, who reside together in Spain. Again, the Spanish authorities issued a birth certificate designating the two women as the mother of the child. The referring court asks the Court whether the Polish administrative authorities can refuse to transcribe this birth certificate – the transcription being necessary to enable the child to obtain a Polish identity document- on the grounds that Polish law does not accept the parenthood of same-sex couples, and that the said birth certificate designates persons of the same sex as parents.

Daniel Girsberger, Thomas Kadner Graziano and Jan L. Neels are the editors of Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts, which has been published by Oxford University Press in the Oxford Private International Law Series.

The blurb reads as follows.

Although the possibility of making a choice of law in respect of international commercial contracts has become widely accepted, national law still diverges in many respects with regard to the scope and relevance of, and the limitations on, party autonomy, leading to uncertainty in international commercial relations. This book compares the Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts (2015) with national, regional, supranational, and international rules on choice of law around the world in order to chronicle the divergent approaches which exist today.

The work is introduced by a comprehensive comparative report which sets out the similarities and differences between the featured national, regional, supranational, and international rules, comparing such rules with those of the Hague Principles, thereby initiating a discussion on further harmonization in the field. Another report focuses on the application of the Hague Principles in the context of international commercial arbitration. Dedicated chapters analyse the Hague Principles from a historical, theoretical, and international organizational point of view. Finally, examining each jurisdiction in detail, the book presents sixty national and regional article-by-article commentaries on the Hague Principles written by experts from all parts of the world. This dedicated and in-depth global comparative study of national, regional, supranational, and international rules provides a definitive reference guide to the key principles in respect of choice of law for international commercial contracts.

A webinar will take place on 4 May 2021 at 2 pm CEST to launch the book. Prior registration (here) is required.

See here for more information on the book.

The Spanish online journal Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional, edited by the University Carlos III of Madrid under the directorship of Professors Calvo Caravaca and Castellanos Ruiz, and bearing the quality seal of the Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology (FECyT), has just released the first issue of 2021 (volume 13).

As usual, the journal is composed of four sections: Estudios (in-depth scientific analysis of topics related to Private International law, Uniform law and Comparative law); Varia (comprising shorter studies and notes on case law); Congresos; and Reseñas (book reviews). The whole content is open-access.  Most of the contributions of this issue are written in Spanish, all of them with a summary in English.

Under the heading Estudios the current issue comprises 27 articles. Among the many topics addressed are the following: Brexit and its impact for cross-border litigation in contractual and insolvency matters; family law, in particular in relation to child abduction (but not only); the protection of personality rights in cross-border settings; Covid-19 and its legal consequences on international contracts; competition law (commercial practices based on big data and algorithms, but also the liability of subsidiaries for antitrust infringements of the parent company); legal and bioethical implications of artificial intelligence; smart contracts and lex cryptographia.

Under Varia, this issue of CDT compiles notes to all recent decisions of the CJEU on PIL – maintenance, successions, contract and tort-, together with annotations to Spanish decisions on appeal or second appeal addressing PIL issues.

The second issue will be published in October; contributions should follow the guidelines for authors and are accepted until June. All submissions are peer reviewed.

The public policy exception is used as a shield to protect fundamental domestic values in case of a contradiction between the applicable foreign law and fundamental principles of justice of the forum. Alongside the public policy exception, the instrument of “overriding mandatory provisions” – or “public policy rules” – was established in the middle of the 20th century and is today codified in many acts of European Private International Law (see e.g. Article 9 of the Rome I Regulation). Overriding mandatory provisions are rules of outstanding importance for public order, which the legislator intends to be respected even where a case is governed by foreign law under ordinary conflict-of-laws rules.

The Book

In his PhD thesis Die Methodik der ‘Eingriffsnorm im modernen Kollisionsrecht, published in German and recently honoured with the prestigious Gerhard Kegel Prize, Adrian Hemler describes the problem of applying of overriding mandatory provisions as a symptom of numerous fundamental uncertainties in the doctrines of PIL. In his view, the theory of overriding mandatory provisions obscures the fact that PIL needs further differentiation through conflicts-of-laws rules yet to be developed. Based on this, he sees the function of the public policy exception as a safeguard of the supremacy of constitutional law. In sum, he traces overriding mandatory provisions back to the well-known principle lex specialis derogat legi generali, while also basing the public policy exception on the principle lex superior derogat legi inferiori.

Flash Back

The thesis opens with an in-depth historical analysis. Hemler points out that the distinction between the “positive” enforcement of individual rules through overriding mandatory rules on the one hand and the “negative” protection of fundamental principles through the public policy exception on the other hand has not been made until the second half of the 20th century. In addition, he shows how overriding mandatory provisions have been gradually isolated as rules that seemingly do not fit into the ordinary system of “neutral” conflicts-of-laws rules.

Overriding Mandatory Rules and Public Law

Hemler demonstrates that the isolation of overriding mandatory provisions arises from the tendency to implicitly identify these rules with national public law. He shows how this equation leads to the application of principles (seemingly) governing conflicts of public law rules. Up to now, it was widely assumed that the application of foreign public law would impossible, as it would amount to allowing a foreign state to exercise power on the national territory of another. Hemler criticises this assumption by explaining the general methodology of conflicts-of-laws rules. Following a theory developed by Boris Schinkels, he divides each legal rule analytically into a “rational” and an “imperative” element. The rational element describes a universal idea needed for the proper resolution of a legal conflict. An example of the rational element is the written form requirement for certain contracts, e.g. those concerning the transfer of land. The imperative element, in contrast, describes the state’s order to apply the rule. In the example of the written form requirement, the imperative element would be the legislator’s intent relating to the enforcement of the requirement to all land situated on its country’s territory.

Within this structure of legal provisions, Hemler views the position of autonomous conflicts-of-laws rules as follows: Since citizens have a right to decide for themselves which rules are to be applied in their country, its courts cannot just bow to the will of another state. On the other hand, it would go too far to exclude the application of foreign law altogether. Rather, the forum issues its own imperative command regarding any rules of foreign law, which leads to the exclusive applicability of the foreign rule’s rational element. The disregard of the foreign imperative is a direct consequence of the modern, autonomous structure of conflicts of laws. Hence, courts only transpose the foreign “idea of what ought to be” without any elements of foreign sovereignty. This isolated application of the foreign rational element and its combination with a domestic imperative element leads to the creation of a domestic legal norm with a foreign ratio (a “synthesised” legal norm, so to speak).

Since the applied foreign rational element is stripped of any element of the exercise of foreign sovereignty, Hemler argues that the application of foreign law does not conflict with the sovereignty of the court’s country or that of a third country whose law is applicable under ordinary rules of private international law. Hence his conclusion that courts may apply foreign public law without any restrictions, especially without the need of the foreign law being “neutral” or “pre-state”.

No Need for Special Conflicts Rules Regarding Overriding Mandatory Provisions

Going further, Hemler shows that there are no convincing reasons to treat overriding mandatory provisions differently from other norms. In particular, he opines that these provisions do not call for a separate system of conflicts-of-laws rules. Hemler shows that the whole category of overriding mandatory provisions can be dispensed with and that one should instead focus on the development of a more differentiated set of conflicts-of-laws rules. He explains in detail how such special conflicts-of laws-rules are to be developed.

A New Understanding of the Public Policy Exception

His findings allow Hemler to shed also some light on the public policy exception. Given that every application of foreign law leads to a synthesised legal norm of the forum, he concludes that the public policy exception can actually be understood as a constitutional control device regarding “synthesised” law. In Hemler’s view, such an understanding facilitates the inclusion of numerous new phenomena into the methodology of private international law.

Conclusion

As this short overview demonstrates, this is a though-provoking book. Overriding mandatory provisions have so far played the role of a black box in private international law. After many failed attempts to “domesticise” these rules, this is the most serious theory to integrate these rules into the edifice of conflict-of-laws theory. Particularly striking is the breadth of the author’s perspective, which is not limited to overriding mandatory rules, but also includes the role of constitutional law, public law in general as well as the public policy exception. For the interested reader, this book is a good reason to brush up their German or start to learn it!

As announced in this blog (here), Jean-Sylvestre Bergé (University of Côte d’Azur and French University Institute) has just published a monograph titled “Situations in Movement and The Law – A Pragmatic Epistemology” (Les situations en mouvement et le droit – Essai d’une épistémologie pragmatique, Dalloz, 2021).

The author has provided the following abstract in English:

The ambition underpinning this text is to establish a pragmatic epistemology for each time the law faces situations in movement. 

The movement of goods and persons across territories and through space, understood in its broadest sense, challenges the law in its primary task of locking situations into predefined legal frameworks, whether at a local, national, European, international or global level (laws on the freedom of movement, transport, trade, mobility, flows, international or European situations, etc.). 

This reflection is all the more important given that phenomena in movement now come in extreme forms with the increasingly observed hypothesis of circulation provoked by humans but completely out of their control (greenhouse gas emissions, spread of products and organisms of all kinds, pandemics, and the circulation of information, persons, data, capital, waste, etc.). 

What we know and don’t know about the law on circulation and its control merit discussion. 

A renewed approach to the assumptions about and mechanics of situations in movement is perhaps needed. All sorts of antecedents – magical, liberal, social, ontological, fundamental and modal – potentially at work allow us to lay down the terms and stakes of how we address the risk, most often denied or minimised, of losing control over flows. 

This essay is intended for both legal scholars and practitioners. It may also appeal to anyone from other disciplines interested in the way in which the law can be understood through its approach to dynamic phenomena, from the smallest to the largest scale. 

More information here.

The author of this post is Nadia Rusinova, Lecturer in International/European Private Law at The Hague University of Applied Sciences.

In October 2020, the Administrative Court of the City of Sofia in Bulgaria requested a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in a case concerning the refusal by the Sofia municipality to issue a birth certificate for a child, born in Spain, whose birth was attested by a Spanish birth certificate naming V.M.A. and K.D.K., who are both females, as the child’s mothers.

The case, which is registered as C-490/20, V.M.A. v. Stolichna Obsthina, Rayon ‘Pancharevo’ (Sofia municipality, ‘Pancharevo’ district), poses a question of great importance, and one that has been often asked, including in a recent report prepared for NELFA, the Network of European LGBTIQ* Families Associations: may EU law require an EU Member State to recognize the legal ties between the children and both of their same-sex parents as these have already been legally established elsewhere?

This question remains unanswered to date. It is clear that if the host Member State does not legally recognize the familial ties already enjoyed by the members of a same-sex family moving to its territory from another Member State, this can amount not only to a breach of the free movement of persons provisions. Such failure will amount also to violation of Article 8 and possibly of Article 14 ECHR, as it constitutes breach of the right to private life of the parents, and breach of their and the child’s right to family life.

In the present case – C-490/20 – one hearing of four hours already took place on 9 February 2021, and opinion of AG is expected on 15 April 2021. Therefore, clarity will be provided soon and this post does not have the purpose to predict what the outcome of this case will be.

The aim is rather to provide some insights in the light of the Bulgarian legislation, case law and administrative authorities approaches, to define where the main problem lies and to explain why it appears impossible for the Bulgarian authorities to register same-sex parents in the birth act of the child.

It will also argue that the problem is not only the registration as such, but also the refusal to recognize parentage, established abroad, which constitutes important private international law issue with severe consequences for the parents and the child.

Facts of the Case and the Request for Preliminary Ruling

V.M.A. is a Bulgarian national married to a UK national, K.D.K. They are both females. The couple resides in Spain and have entered into a civil marriage in Gibraltar, United Kingdom, on 23 February 2018. On 8 December 2019, a child, S.D.K.A., was born to them and a Spanish birth certificate was issued, mentioning both V.M.A. and K.D.K. as ‘mother’. In January 2020 V.M.A. requested Sofia municipality, ‘Pancharevo’ district, to issue a Bulgarian birth certificate for the child S.D.K.A.

The authorities requested evidence of the child’s parentage with respect to the biological mother. V.M.A. responded she was not required to do so in accordance with Bulgarian law. On 5 March 2020, Sofia municipality, ‘Pancharevo’ district in a letter refused to issue a Bulgarian birth certificate on the grounds that there is lack of sufficient information regarding its biological mother, and that the registration of two female parents on a child’s birth certificate is inadmissible, as same-sex parentage (as well as same-sex marriages) is currently not permitted in the Republic of Bulgaria and such a registration was contrary to public policy.

V.M.A. appealed the refusal before the Administrativen sad Sofia grad (Administrative Court of the City of Sofia), stating that the refusal to issue a Bulgarian birth act infringes both substantive and procedural law. This Court referred to the ECJ and requested preliminary ruling, formulating four interrelated questions on how the EU law on the discretion on rules for establishing parentage and registration of birth acts should be interpreted.

The Acquisition of Bulgarian Nationality in Respect to the Child

Several organizations, including ILGA EUROPE assumed that the child had been deprived of Bulgarian, and therefore European citizenship, and was at risk of statelessness. So, the first and most important question is did the child acquire Bulgarian nationality, or she has been deprived of it and there is a risk of statelessness?

To answer, we need to take closer look at the referring court’s arguments. The court says that

The failure to issue a Bulgarian birth certificate does not constitute a refusal of Bulgarian nationality. The minor is a Bulgarian national by operation of law notwithstanding the fact that she is currently not being issued with a Bulgarian birth certificate.

Stating that the refusal itself does not preclude acquisition of Bulgarian nationality for the child, the court implies that the parentage is established as it is in the Spanish birth certificate. This conclusion might well be on first glance questionable. Is the recognition of the parent-child relationship, established abroad, prerequisite for acquiring Bulgarian citizenship? The answer is likely to be negative and the court assessed it correctly.

Obviously, the acquisition of Bulgarian nationality in this case is by descent (jus sanguinis), as the child is born on the territory of Spain and jus soli cannot be applied. According to Article 8 of the Law on Bulgarian Nationality, Bulgarian national of origin is anyone to whom at least one parent is a Bulgarian citizen.‎ This provision is in accordance with the Council of Europe European Convention on Nationality, which ensure that children acquire nationality ex lege if one of its parents possesses, at the time of the birth of these children, the nationality of that State Party, subject to any exceptions which may be provided for by its internal law as regards children born abroad.

This provision should not be interpreted restrictively. States have to decide whether they want to restrict the acquisition of the nationality by parentage in cases of birth abroad, and Bulgaria did not explicitly envisage any restrictions in this regard, neither the domestic law requires formal recognition of familial links. As a result, the child indeed acquired Bulgarian nationality at the time of its birth by operation of law. The recognition of the parentage appears irrelevant and the fact that the applicable Bulgarian law does not allow this same-sex couple and their child to legally establish their familial links does not change the origin as such.

What Exactly the Refusal Concerns – Recognition of Legal Parentage, or Registration of Birth Act in the Civil Registry?

Interestingly enough, it appears that in the present case the parentage is in some way technically recognized for purposes of nationality, to a high extend due to the existence of harmonized domestic and international legislation. This same parentage however is not recognized for the purpose of establishing legal parent-child relationship in the Bulgarian legal order, which poses the question where the main issue lies – is it conflict of laws, or pure administrative formality?

It is appropriate to clarify that recognition of a foreign civil status, its registration, and issuance of civil status certificates are three separate issues. The first one – recognition of a foreign civil status – falls within the scope of the private international law and is therefore a legal problem, and the latter two are merely administrative services. Naturally, a civil status cannot be registered if it is not firstly recognized.

Here it would be useful to provide brief explanation on one purely linguistic issue, which however might majorly impair the translation and contribute to the confusion. In Bulgarian “issuance of birth act” means the act of registration or transcription of the (foreign) birth act in the civil registry, and at the same time this expression is used to describe the administrative service to provide the entitled person with the birth certificate (in Bulgaria the birth certificates are only issued on paper, not digitally). In this sense, “birth act” and “birth certificate” in Bulgarian in many cases even in the legal literature are used interchangeably, which in the present case can impede the correct interpretation of the legal issue.

From this perspective there is one very important question to be answered. What exactly the refusal pertains to – to the recognition of legal parentage, or to the registration of birth act in the Bulgarian civil registry? According to the official translation, the Administrative Court in its first question to the CJEU uses the expression “refusal to issue a Bulgarian birth certificate”, but the issuance of birth certificate, as pointed above, is a simple administrative service, which has its grounds on and respectively follows the registration of the birth act in the civil registry, which on its turn is based and follows the recognition of the parentage. In this sense, if Bulgarian birth certificate is issued or not cannot be the main problem that needs solution.

In para 23 and 26 the Administrative Court states that

only the legislature is in a position to exercise its sovereignty and decide whether a child’s parentage can be determined not only from one mother but from two mothers and/or fathers […] The issue before the Administrative Court of the City of Sofia […] relates to two persons of the same sex being recognized as mothers of a child of Bulgarian nationality born in another Member State by having their names included on the child’s Bulgarian birth certificate. Unlike in Coman, this question is linked to the method of establishing the parentage of a Bulgarian national.

The doubts of the Court here clearly refer to the recognition of parentage, which in this case appears to be problematic under the Bulgarian domestic law.

What then the authorities actually refused – the recognition of familial link, or its registration? The short answer is both, simply because recognition of established parentage under the Bulgarian law is done throughregistration of the birth act. There is no separate procedure to recognize the legal parentage before the registration of the birth act. The competent authorities are the administrative ones – according to the Ordinance on the functioning of the system for civil registration, the civil status officers in the respective municipality department are responsible for this registration, and therefore for the actual recognition of the familial ties, which is a prerequisite for the registration. This way the recognition occurs simultaneously with the registration, and the assessment of these two different in their substance issues – the private international law matter of recognition and the administrative matter of registration – are solely in the hands of the civil registry officers.

The Inconsistent Approach of the Bulgarian Authorities in Recognizing and Registering Same-sex Parentage

It must be noted that entering of two same-sex parents in the birth act, as pointed in the request to the CJEU, is just not possible under the Bulgarian law. Only one approved model of birth act and certificate, which comply with the Bulgarian legislation, exists, and the data on the child’s parents is divided into two columns – “mother” and “father”, respectively. In this sense, the administrative authority cannot technically issue a birth act, to the extent that it does not provide for entry of two mothers.

Due to the legislative imperfections, mentioned above, the discussed three issues – recognition of foreign civil status, its registration, and the issuance of civil status acts and certificates – are not treated as separate matters by the courts in the Bulgarian case law. Examples from the recent years of different instances, including the Supreme Administrative Court of Bulgaria, show that the authorities often mix all three and do not provide arguments in respect to their different natures in their court acts. One thing is consistent – the absolute refusal to recognize same-sex parentage, which is however reached by various ways and accompanied by various reasons.

One of the inconsistencies concerns the following question: Is the refusal to register birth of a child to same sex parents in the civil registry an “individual administrative act” within the meaning of the Administrative Procedural Code (APC), which would make its appeal admissible? According to one of the judgments, the refusal, incorporated in a letter, is indeed an administrative act within the meaning of Article 21, para. 3 of the APC, and appeal before the competent court is procedurally admissible. The reasoning is that it contains a statement of sovereign will – a refusal to issue a birth act.

This approach is endorsed by the Supreme Administrative court, confirming that refusal to issue a birth act is a refusal to perform an administrative service and therefore constitutes an individual administrative act within the meaning of the abovementioned provision. This would be the correct interpretation of the law, providing the parties with the possibility for judicial review.

On the contrary, in another judgment (which concerns different-sex parents but the same legal issue, i.e. recognition of parentage and issuance of Bulgarian birth act) the court holds that such decision does not constitute an administrative act, subject to judicial review under APC.

Surprisingly, the appeal is therefore dismissed on the following grounds:

By its legal nature, the recognition of an act of a foreign authority constitutes a declarative statement by the authority concerned to respect the legal effects of that act … In its declaratory content, the contested act includes only‎‎ ‎‎a statement of disregard for the legal consequences – the declaratory effect of the foreign act.‎ The refusal at hand does not constitute an individual administrative act within the meaning of Article 21(1) of the APC and is not subject to judicial review.

For the parties here there is no possibility to appeal and the only way left, as the Court mentions in this act, is to follow the procedure enshrined in Article 118 para 2 of the Private International Law Code – to bring legal action before the Sofia City Court to rule on this dispute over the conditions for recognition of a foreign decision.

Other inconsistency concerns the Courts’ approach in case of judicial review of the refusal to register birth of a child to same-sex parents in the civil registry. Once admitted to appeal, the courts interpret the law differently and offer substantively different solutions, of course all with the same result – endorsing the refusal.

In the majority of the cases the Court would hold as a ground for refusal that the registration of two same-sex parents is contrary to the public policy (which will be discussed below). As an example, the Supreme Administrative Court holds in one of the judgments that:

The opinion is fully shared that according to the Bulgarian legislation it is inadmissible to register two female parents, as same-sex marriages in the Republic of Bulgaria are currently inadmissible.

The same issue is pointed by the administrative authority in Case C-490/20 – according to the defendant, entry of two female parents is inadmissible as same-sex marriages in the Republic of Bulgaria at the moment are inadmissible, and such an entry would be contrary to the public policy.

In case No. 2784/2020 the Administrative Court-Sofia City takes even more surprising recourse, placing the marriage of the parents as pre-condition to the recognition of the legal parentage. It concerns a child born in USA; the parents are two mothers in same-sex relationship and they request respectively the birth (not the marriage) to be registered in Bulgaria. The refusal to register the act followed shortly and the administrative actis reasoned as follows:

it is not clear from the submitted birth certificate who is the mother is and who is the father of the child, as only “parents” are present in the foreign birth act […] From the submitted documents it is not clear as well whether the marriage between the parents is recognized in the manner prescribed by law, respectively whether its execution is allowed.

In subsequent appeal the Court endorses this approach:

A birth certificate, in which two people are entered as parents, without determining which of these persons is the mother, respectively the father of the child, makes it impossible for the administrative body to fulfill its obligations, resp. to issue a birth act. In this case it is also important to recognize in the appropriate order the marriage between L. E. M. and V. M. M. … there must be a valid and recognized by the competent authority marriage between L. E. M. and V. M. M. so that the child is Bulgarian citizen, and then it to be subject to civil registration.

These examples show that for one or another reason, entering same-sex parents in the birth act is inadmissible for the Bulgarian authorities. But what is the correct action? The conflict comes from the fact that there is no provision allowing the administrative authority to simply refuse registration. Such possibility is not mentioned at all in the applicable Ordinance, where the options are exhaustively listed:

Art. 10. (1) The civil status official shall obligatorily verify the data for the parents, entered in the received notice for birth, with the data in the register of the population, including the determined origin from father. In case of ascertained incompleteness or discrepancies, the civil status official has the right to supplement or correct the birth notification with data from the population register, as well as to determine the origin according to the Family Code. When the origin of a parent (mother and / or father) is not established, when compiling the birth certificate, the relevant field intended for the data for this parent shall not be filled in and crossed out.

Analyzing this provision, we should therefore conclude one more time that since there is no option to refuse registration of the birth act, the main issue in case C-490/20 remains to be refusal of recognition of parentage, which is already established by foreign civil act. However, in the cases pointed above, the administrative authorities have chosen exactly to refuse registration, despite it remains unclear where they derive this option from. In the cases when they (correctly) did not refuse registration, they pursued the only option left under the abovementioned provision, which is even more inappropriate – the origin of the child to be established in relation only to his/her mother. In this case the administrative authority accepts that the origin of the father has not been established as it does not comply with the Bulgarian legislation, and applies the provision of Article 12(3) ‎‎of the Ordinance by not filling in the corresponding field on the birth act intended for the data of that parent. Not including the provided particulars would not lead to its illegality. Such solution is offered by the Administrative Court here and endorsed by the Supreme Administrative court.

This is exactly the reason why the administrative authorities in Case C-490/20 initially obliged the applicants to provide information which one of the same-sex parents is the biological mother. In case the mothers would have provided such information, the authorities would have recognized only the parentage established in respect to the biological mother and would have left empty the space intended to enter the father of the child. In this case the child would have been with status “father unknown”.

The problematic nature of such approach is clear and it would for sure violate the right to respect for family life not only of the both mothers, but mostly of the child. The Supreme Administrative Court, foreseeing the problems that can arise from this quite imperfect solution, even goes further and suggests in the future the interested parties to take action and conduct a procedure under Article 118(2) of the Private International Law Code. Following this suggestion, in the course of this judicial procedure the parties are supposed to clarify the issues related to the completion of the information missing in the act issued by the municipal authorities, which would only lead to additional lengthy, and expensive court battles with unclear outcome.

The Application of the Public Policy Exception by the Bulgarian Authorities

The main issue pointed by the administrative authority in Case C-490/20 as ground for refusal is that entry of two female parents appears inadmissible, as same-sex marriages in the Republic of Bulgaria at the moment are inadmissible, and such an entry would be contrary to the public policy.

The legal basis for this assessment is a general provision. Article 117(5) of the International Private Law Code of Bulgaria states that decisions and acts of foreign courts and other bodies are recognized and declared enforceable, if this is not contrary to Bulgarian public policy. However, as pointed here, CJEU leans towards a strict interpretation of the public-policy exception in matters of conflict of laws. Several questions then remain unanswered, when analyzing how the Bulgarian authorities assessed the contradiction between entering same-sex parents in the birth act and Bulgarian public policy. Where is the direct link between joint parentage of same-sex couple and the ban for same-sex marriages in regard to the public policy exception? Why the authorities avoid clear reasoning in this direction and resort to ambiguous arguments? Based on which concrete arguments the public policy does not allow same-sex couple to be legal parents to a child?

The “Bulgarian public policy” in this regard is an issue that remains unspecific. It is discussed in the light of same-sex marriage for example in case No 7538/2017, Administrative Court Sofia City. The Court states that even if the marriage between same-sex Bulgarian citizens does not contradict the law of the country in which it is concluded, this marriage contradicts the Bulgarian “public order”. “Public order” is defined as mandatory norms and principles in the administration of justice, which have universal significance, not taking into account a contradiction of a specific legal norm, but a contradiction that would lead to a violation of the public and personal interest of the citizens, and to violation of basic values ​​in society. However, the Court refrains from pointing any particular arguments and again refers to the legislative restrictions.

The constitutional ban on same sex marriages naturally would lead to refusal to recognize and register this particular marriage, but might have as direct consequence only the impossibility to apply the pater estpresumption to the children born to this marriage as contrary to the public policy. If the public policy exception is to be applied by the administrative or judicial authority in cases like C-490/20, then specific argumentation must be provided. Such argumentation to the best of my knowledge is not yet provided in any Bulgarian case law, neither it exists in whatever practical directions or ordinances that civil registration officers can use for reference.

In regard to the constitutional identity and national identity as separate grounds to justify the refusal of recognition of the same-sex parentage, indeed as pointed in the request for preliminary ruling the Bulgarian constitutional tradition and Bulgarian family and inheritance law should be considered. This is of course true, but here balance must be sought as the negative views on LGBTQ rights in Bulgaria are incredibly persistent and, in some way, seen as traditional.

Conclusion

In several EU Member States same-sex couples are neither allowed de facto to become joint parents of a child nor can they be legally recognized as joint legal parents. In these legal systems same-sex couples and their children are not allowed to legally establish their familial links, and Bulgaria is to this date one of them. Case with the same subject – A.D.-K. and others v. Poland, Application no. 30806/15, is currently pending before the ECtHR and communicated on 26 February 2019. There is not much to add, but only to hope that the laws of all Member States will in the near future be applied in a non-discriminatory manner and with respect for fundamental rights, especially when they have a direct impact on the enjoyment of EU citizenship.

The following text has been kindly provided by professors Toshiyuki Kono, Pedro de Miguel Asensio and Axel Metzger.

The International Law Association’s Committee on Intellectual Property and Private International Law has finished its work with the adoption and publication of the Kyoto Guidelines on Intellectual Property and Private International Law.

The Guidelines are the outcome of an international cooperation of a group of 36 scholars from 19 jurisdictions lasting for ten years under the auspices of ILA. The Kyoto Guidelines have been approved by the plenary of the ILA 79th Biennial Conference, held (online) in Kyoto on 13 December 2020.

The Guidelines provide soft-law principles on the private international law aspects of intellectual property, which may guide the interpretation and reform of national legislation and international instruments, and may be useful as source of inspiration for courts, arbitrators and further research in the field. Different from older regional projects, the Kyoto Guidelines have been prepared by experts from different world regions.

The Guidelines have now been published with extended comments as a special issue of the Open Access journal JIPITEC.

The ILA Committee on Intellectual Property and Private International Law was created in November 2010. Its aim was to examine the legal framework concerning civil and commercial matters involving intellectual property rights that are connected to more than one State and to address the issues that had emerged after the adoption of several legislative proposals in this field in different regions of the world. The work of the Committee was built upon the earlier projects conducted by the Hague Conference of Private International Law as well as several academic initiatives intended to develop common standards on jurisdiction, choice of law and recognition and enforcement of judgments in intellectual property matters.

In the initial stages of the activities of the Committee it was agreed that its overall objective should be to draft a set of model provisions to promote a more efficient resolution of cross-border intellectual property disputes and provide a blueprint for national and international legislative initiatives in the field. Therefore, the focus of its activities has been the drafting of a set of guidelines with a view to provide a valuable instrument of progress concerning private international law aspects raised by intellectual property.

Furthermore, the Committee conducted a number of comparative studies and monitored the developments in different jurisdictions around the world.

The Committee also worked in collaboration with several international organizations, particularly the World Intellectual Property Organization and the Hague Conference on Private International Law.

The final text of the Guidelines consists of 35 provisions, which are divided in four sections: General Provisions (Guidelines1-2), Jurisdiction (3-18), Applicable Law (19-31) and Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments (Guidelines 32-35).

As suggested by the term “Guidelines”, this instrument contains a set of provisions intended to guide the application or reform of private international laws in this field. The Guidelines restate certain well-established foundational principles such as the lex loci protectionis rule and aspire to provide concrete solutions for pressing contemporary problems, in areas such as multi-state infringements and cross-border collective copyright management.

In order to make explicit the influence of the previous projects in the field and to facilitate the comparison with them, the short comments are preceded by the reference to the similar provisions adopted previously in the ALI Principles (American Law Institute, Intellectual Property: Principles Governing Jurisdiction, Choice of Law and Judgments in Transnational Disputes, ALI Publishers, 2008), CLIP Principles (European Max Planck Group on Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property, Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property (Text and Commentary), OUP, 2013), Transparency Proposal (Japanese Transparency Proposal on Jurisdiction, Choice of Law, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Intellectual Property, see the English text in J. Basedow, T. Kono and A. Metzger (eds.), Intellectual Property in the Global Arena – Jurisdiction, Applicable  Law, and the Recognition of Judgments in Europe, Japan and the US, Mohr Siebeck, 2010, pp. 394-402) and Joint Korean-Japanese Principles (Joint Proposal by Members of the Private International Law Association of Korea and Japan, see The Quarterly Review of Corporation Law and Society, 2011, pp. 112-163).

As an additional instrument to facilitate the uniform interpretation of the Guidelines, the Committee has prepared a set of extended comments to all the provisions.

The Guidelines have now been published together with extended comments written by members of the ILA Committee which explain the background and application of the Guidelines.

Oft expectation fails, and most oft there
Where most it promises…

William Shakespeare

Yesterday has been an emotional rollercoaster for those interested in European judicial cooperation. After initial reports in the Financial Times about an impending recommendation in favour of the UK’s accession to the Lugano Convention, the journal later reported that the Commission has (again) changed its mind. It now opposes the UK’s application to join the Convention.

Apparently, the decision was made behind closed doors. The only formal ground reported is the missing membership of the post-Brexit UK in either the European Economic Area (EEA) or the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), to which all other members of the Lugano Convention are parties. This is however a specious argument because judicial cooperation has a much further reach than economic cooperation and builds on other criteria, such as trust in the quality of the other state’s judiciary (see Matthias Lehmann and Eva Lein, ‘L’espace de justice à la carte? La coopèration judiciaire en Europe à géométrie variable et à plusieurs vitesses’, in: Marie-Elodie Ancel et al. (eds.), Le Droit à L’Èpreuve des Siècles et des Frontières – Mélanges en l’honneur du Professeur Bertrand Ancel, Paris 2018, p. 1093 – 1120).

It is to be hoped that this is not the end of the story. The Commission has merely issued a recommendation; the final decision lies with the European Parliament and the Council. Even though especially France seems to be very reserved about the British accession, it remains to be seen how these bodies will act. Moreover, the Lugano Convention’s Art 72(3) only says that the signatories “shall endeavour” to give their consent within one year after an application to join, without setting any hard deadline. The EU thus has ample time to make up its mind. Should it reject the UK’s application, the latter is free to file it again under more favourable political conditions.

The above quote, by the way, is from Shakespeare’s play “All’s Well That Ends Well”. Let us hope that this will also be true for the UK and the Lugano Convention.

In a recent ruling (No 120 of 23 February 2021, unreported) the Court of Appeal of Piraeus was asked to determine whether, for the purposes of exequatur under Regulation No 44/2001 (Brussels I), a Maltese ship mortgage is considered an authentic instrument.

The issue had the following practical ramifications. A classification of the mortgage as an authentic instrument for the purposes of the Regulation would entail that immediate enforcement ought to be stayed by virtue of Article 37 as a result of the lodging of an appeal. Instead, if the ship mortgage were seen as falling outside the scope of the Regulation, domestic law would apply, which does not provide for an automatic stay of execution if the debtor challenges the enforceability of the foreign title.

The Facts

A Greek bank granted in 2011 a loan of nearly 12 million Euros to a company seated in La Valetta (Malta). In oder to secure the bank’s claim, a mortgage was registered on a ship belonging to the debtor, registered in Malta. Due to delays in payment, the bank seised the Court of First Instance of Piraeus seeking a declaration of enforceability of the ship mortgage. It relied for this on Article 905 Greek Code of Civil Procedure.

The court granted the application. The company filed a third-party opposition, i.e. the remedy available under Greek law, arguing that the court had failed to apply the Brussels I Regulation. The move was successful. The bank appealed.

Legal Framework

Article 57(1) of the Brussels I Regulation reads as follows:

A document which has been formally drawn up or registered as an authentic instrument and is enforceable in one Member State shall, in another Member State, be declared enforceable there, on application made in accordance with the procedures provided for in Articles 38, et seq. The court with which an appeal is lodged under Article 43 or Article 44 shall refuse or revoke a declaration of enforceability only if enforcement of the instrument is manifestly contrary to public policy in the Member State addressed.

The Report by Jenard and Möller on the 1988 Lugano Convention  1988 (para. 72) posed the following conditions for the application of Article 50 of the Lugano Convention, which addresses the same issue as Article 57 of the Brussels I Regulation (formerly, Article 50 of the 1968 Brussels Convention):

The authenticity of the instrument should  have  been  established  by a public  authority; this  authenticity  should  relate to  the  content  of  the  instrument  and  not  only,  for  example,  the  signature; the  instrument  has to be enforceable  in  itself  in  the  State in  which  it originates.

In Unibank, the CJEU ruled as follows:

An acknowledgment of indebtedness enforceable under the law of the State of origin whose authenticity has not been established by a public authority or other authority empowered for that purpose by that State does not constitute an authentic instrument within the meaning of Article 50 of the [1968 Brussels Convention].

Maltese law regulates the matter under Chapter 234 of the Merchant Shipping Act. Article 38(1) provides that:

A registered ship or a share therein may be made a security for any debt or other obligation by means of an instrument creating the security (in this Act called a “mortgage”) executed by the mortgagor in favour of the mortgagee in the presence of, and attested by, a witness or witnesses.

Article 41(2) states that

A registered mortgage shall be deemed to be an executive title for the purposes of Article 253 of the Code of Organization and Civil procedure.

The latter provision, in turn, regards the following as enforceable titles:

… (b) contracts received before a notary public in Malta, or before any other public officer authorised to receive the same where the contract is in respect of a debt certain, liquidated and due, and not consisting in the performance of an act.

The Ruling

The company submitted a legal opinion signed by a foreign lawyer, according to which a ship mortgage is considered as a ‘public deed’, given that it was received in accordance with the law by a public functionary, entrusted to give full faith and credit to the document in question. In addition, the authenticity of the signature of the ship registrar had been certified by an apostille pursuant to the Hague Apostille Convention, which referred to the ship mortgage as a public deed.

The company referred also to the Scottish public register of deeds as an example of authentic instrument, in order to convince the court to consider the ship mortgage as an authentic instrument for the purposes of the Brussels I Regulation.

The Court of Appeal of Piraeus granted the bank’s appeal. Relying on Article 57 of the Brussels I Regulation, the Jenard-Möller Report and the judgment of the Court of Justice in Unibank, it noted that an authentic instrument is a document which has been formally drawn up or registered as such.

In addition, Che court emphasized on the lack of any involvement of the Register of Ships in regards to the content of the mortgage. Contrary to the first instance judgement, the court considered that the mere registration in the Valetta ship registry does not suffice. The act of the Register of Ships does not attribute the nature of an authentic instrument to a document drawn and signed by two private parties.

The Court made extensive reference to the opinion of the Advocate General La Pergola in the Unibank case, stating that the authenticity of the document’s content had not been examined by the registrar. In other words, the sole registration without any examination of the content, does not attribute to the ship mortgage the nature of an authentic instrument. It is just a formal procedure for the purposes of solemnity and publicity.

In addition, the Court of Appeal clarified that the reference of the registrar to the document as a public deed does not hinder the court to examine the ship mortgage from the Regulation’s point of view.

Comments

The core issue is whether the procedure followed for the registration of a Maltese ship mortgage entails any participation of a public authority, i.e. the decisive factor according to the Court of Justice in Unibank.

The Court of First Instance answered in the affirmative, whereas the Court of Appeal took the opposite view.

The judgment demonstrates the variety of legal documents balancing between the private and public divide. It serves as an additional example for the interpretation of Article 57 Brussels I Regulation and Article 58 Brussels I bis Regulation.

On 8 April 2020, the UK formally applied to accede to the Lugano Convention. The one year period recommended for deciding on this application in Article 72(3) of the Convention has thus expired on 8 April 2021, causing harm for judicial cooperation.

However, things seem to start moving. According to a report in the Financial Times, the European Commission wants to give today (12 April 2021) a positive assessment of the British application, despite its earlier reluctance to grant the UK’s application. This change of mood seems to be the result of technical analysis carried out on the consequences of the British accession or non-accession. The article cites an unnamed EU diplomat who emphasises the Union’s awareness of the “practical benefits of having Britain in a co-operation pact that prevented legal disputes from being unnecessarily messy”.

This is a hopeful sign that judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters may continue after Brexit. But let us not rush to quick conclusions. The final decision on the EU’s position lies with the European Parliament and Council under Articles 81(1), (2) and 218(5), (6)(a)(v) TFEU. It will be particularly interesting how Member States will vote in the Council.

This post was contributed by Bukhard Hess, who is a director of the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg.

Gilles Cuniberti has kindly invited me to comment on the decision of the Paris Tribunal Judiciaire from a German perspective – here are my reflections on this interesting case:

1. Under German law, a contract retaining an arbitrator is a private law contract for services related to arbitration. German law clearly separates the underlying contract with the arbitrator from the procedural functions (including obligations) of the arbitrator within the arbitration proceedings (most recently: Ruckdeschler & Stooß, Die vorzeitige Beendigung der Schiedsrichtertätigkeit, Festschrift Kronke (2020), p. 1517 – 1519). Therefore, the contract retaining an arbitrator falls in the scope of the arbitration exception set out at Article 1(2) of the Brussels Ibis Regulation only provided there is an express arbitration clause in the service contract with the arbitrator. Actions for damages against the arbitrator for the breach of the service contract (based on § 280 and 281 of the German Civil Code) are not ancillary proceedings within the meaning of Recital 12 para 4 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation. The arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdictional powers to decide contractual damage claims brought against an arbitrator. Such claims are, in fact, not related to the arbitration proceedings, the breach of the arbitrator’s duties merely amounting to an incidental issue. In this regard, I agree with the decision of the Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris.

2. Under German law, the service contract with the arbitrator usually establishes contractual relationships with both parties, cf. Schack, Internationales Zivilprozessrecht (8th ed. 2021), para 1461; Schlosser, Recht der Internationalen, privaten Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit (2nd ed. 1989), para 491. Specifically, § 675, 611 and 427 of the BGB apply to this contract (there is a debate whether the contract qualifies as a contract sui generis). The situation is not different when an arbitration organization is involved as the organization concludes the contract with the arbitrators on behalf of the parties (Stein/Jonas/Schlosser, Vor § 1025 ZPO (Commentary, 23rd ed. (2014), para. 17). As I have previously stated, German doctrine clearly distinguishes the contractual relationship between the parties and the arbitrator from the procedural functions (“Amt”) of the arbitrator. The latter is regulated by the lex arbitri and concerns the procedural role of the arbitrator. If the parties do not agree on specific (institutional) rules, § 1034 -1039 of the Code of Civil Procedure apply.

3. If one agrees that the Brussels I bis Regulation applies, the place of performance is to be determined according to its Article 7 no 1b, 2nd indent. When it comes to a contract for the services of an arbitrator, one might consider an agreed place of performance at the seat of the arbitral tribunal (when the parties agreed on the place where the arbitration proceedings take place). Otherwise, the seat of arbitration might be the place where the arbitrators render their services. As Article 7 no 1 places much emphasis on the factual place of performance, much depends on the factual situation – especially in an instance where the arbitral tribunal holds virtual hearings and deliberates online. In this case, one might consider localizing the place of performance at the law office of each individual arbitrator.

In the case at hand, the claim was based on an alleged violation of the duty to disclose a conflict of interests. The assessment of such a violation entailed investigations also regarding the activities of the arbitrator’s law firm, localized at the place of the law firm’s office. However, according to the case law of the ECJ, under Article 7 no 1 the place of the main provision of service – and not the place where the concrete contractual obligation was breached – is decisive for the purposes of establishing jurisdiction (C-19/09 Wood Floor Solutions, cf. Hess, Europäisches Zivilprozessrecht, 2nd ed. 2021, § 6, para 6.56). Consequently, I would agree with the Paris court that the place of performance was Germany.

4. Finally, I would like to address one additional aspect: Does the decision of the French court that located the place of performance in Germany bind the German courts? The ECJ addressed this issue in case C-456/11 (Gothaer Versicherungen, paras 36 et seq.). It held that a German court was bound by a decision of a Belgian court on the validity and the derogative effects of a jurisdiction clause designating the Dutch courts as the competent courts (see Hess, Europäisches Zivilprozessrecht, 2nd ed. 2021, § 6, paras 6.206 – 6.207). In the case at hand, the situation is different as the French court stated that the place of performance of the contract was located in Germany, not in France. However, one might consider that this statement of the Paris court is binding on the parties and might be recognized as binding under Article 36 of the Brussels I bis Regulation in the German proceedings. I am well aware that this effect transcends the current case law under the Brussels I bis Regulation. However, it would be a consequence of Gothaer Versicherungen to assume a binding force of the French judgment rejecting the lawsuit as inadmissible. This binding force would prevent a déni de justice by a German court. Yet, it remains to be seen whether such binding force is compatible with the case law of the ECJ according to which each court of the EU Member States has to assess ex officio whether it has jurisdiction under the Brussels I bis Regulation (C-185/07, Allianz).

Among the goals pursued by the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law is to promote research and academic exchange with foreign scholars.

In this framework, to assist particularly young scholars further advance their research activity, the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg offers a limited number of scholarships for foreign doctoral candidates to support their research stay at the Institute for up to six months in the calendar year 2022.

Eligibility

To be eligible for the scholarship, applicants must be doctoral candidates carrying out research activity within the Institute’s various areas of research, and intend to be affiliated either to the Department of European and Comparative Procedural Law or the Department of International Law and Dispute Resolution. While proficiency in English is compulsory, the call is also open to doctoral candidates writing their thesis in a language other than English.

Application

To apply, the interested candidates meeting the requirements of the call must submit the following documents, in English: a cover letter (max. 1 page), stating the motivation for their application, the correlation between the topic of their research and the Institute’s areas of research, and the desired time frame for the scholarship stay; an up-to-date curriculum vitae, with an indication of the class of degree awarded (undergraduate and postgraduate, if relevant); a summary of the PhD project (max. 2 pages), including subject, description and work plan; two letters of recommendation (including one from the PhD supervisor, with his/her contact details).

Grant and Benefits

The scholarship is paid in monthly instalments of 1.500 €. The selected applicants will be offered a workstation in the reading room. They will also have the opportunity to participate in the regular scientific events hosted at the Institute, other activities and access to the Institute’s library. During the funding period, the presence of the Scholarship Holder at the Institute is required.

Deadline for Applications

15 May 2021

Application Details

Please follow this link, apply online and upload all required documents.

Contact

Christiane Göbel and Eva Dobay at scholarship@mpi.lu.

On 31 March 2021, the Paris main first instance court (tribunal judiciaire, formerly tribunal de grande instance) ruled on the international jurisdiction of French courts to determine arbitrators’s liability. It held that it was a contractual claim in the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of the Brussels I bis Regulation and declined jurisdiction on the ground that the arbitrator had provided his service in Germany. This post is based on a press release of the court.

Background

The case was concerned with distribution contracts in the automobile industry.  The contracts contained clauses providing for ICC arbitration in Paris under German law. The origin of the parties is unknown, but none of them was French.

After two contracts were terminated, an arbitration was initiated. The parties agreed that the hearings would be held in Germany.

The resulting award, however, was challenged before French courts, and ultimately set aside on the ground that one arbitrator had failed to disclose certain relationships between his law firm and one of the parties to the arbitration.

The arbitrator was sued in Paris for damages.

Arbitration Exception?

The first issue was whether the European law of jurisdiction applied. The Brussels Ibis Regulation includes an “arbitration exception”. Did a claim seeking to establish the liability of the arbitrator fall within it?

The Paris court held that it did not. It ruled that the claim was based on the “arbitration contract” existing between the parties and the arbitrators, and that this contract was distinct from the arbitration. Thus, the Brussels Ibis Regulation applied.

This is the most unconvincing part of the judgment. The proposition that the arbitration contract is unrelated to arbitration is really surprising. Aren’t the obligation of impartiality and independance, and the related disclosure obligation, found in arbitration legislations?

More generally, the distinction established by the European Court of Justice has been between the substantive rights that the arbitration proceedings are meant to settle, and proceedings ancillary to arbitration. So, in Van Uden for instance, the Luxembourg Court explained that proceedings relating to “the appointment or dismissal of arbitrators” fell within the exclusion. Could it really be that proceedings seeking damages for wrongful appointment of arbitrators do not?

Contractual Claim?

Let’s admit, for the sake of the argument, that the Brussels I bis Regulation applied. Was it, then, a contractual claim? The Paris court held so on the basis of the existence of an “arbitration contract” between the arbitrator and the plaintiff.

The existence of such a contract, however, is disputed. It is more or less convincing depending on the particulars of the case, that I do not know. If the parties and the arbitrators had entered into Terms of reference, which should be the case in ICC arbitration, the characterisation made sense.

In other cases, however, the existence of a contractual relationship is less clear, in particular as between a party appointed arbitrator and the party who did not appoint him.

Place of Provision of the Service

If the claim was contractual, the relevant contract was quite clearly a provision of service in the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of the Brussels I bis Regulation. It was therefore necessary to determine the place of the provision of the service.

The court first considered the provisions of the “contract” (it is unclear which contract: the arbitration agreement? the terms of reference?), which stated that “the place of the arbitration is Paris” and “The arbitral award and procedural orders are deemed to be rendered at the place of arbitration, that is Paris”. The court held, however, that these provisions did not reveal the choice of the parties to locate the provision of the services in Paris.

The court then assessed where the arbitrator had actually provided his intellectual service. The court found that it had been provided in Germany. The hearings had been held there, and the deliberations are taken place there. The court declined jurisdiction.

What is Next?

So it seems that the aggrieved party should now sue the arbitrator in Germany.

But will German courts also consider that the claims fall within the scope of the Brussels I bis Regulation and, if not, would they retain jurisdiction?

As announced earlier on this blog, the EAPIL Founding Conference will eventually take place on 2, 3 and 4 June 2022 in Aarhus, hosted by the Aarhus University.

Registration for the conference is now open. See here for further details.

A general presentation of the conference can be found here. See here for the full program as well as for details on venue, travel and accommodation.

For more information, please write an e-mail to Morten Midtgaard Fogt at mmf@law.au.dk.

On 15 and 16 April 2021, the GLaw Research Network (Maastricht University) will host an online workshop on Article 47 of the EU Charter and effective judicial protection: The Court of Justice’s perspective.

Senior and junior academics specialising in EU law will discuss various aspects of the impact of Article 47 Charter on the EU constitutional order. On the first day of the workshop, the presentations will cover constitutional aspects of Article 47 of the EU Charter. On the second day, the speakers will discuss the application of this provision in selected EU policy areas.

The principle of effective judicial protection is one of the cornerstones of the EU legal order. Mentioned by the Court of Justice for the first time in the 1980s, and originally emanating from Articles 6 and 13 ECHR, this principle had a pivotal role in ensuring access to adequate remedies to protect the rights deriving from Union law. Since its inception, this principle was linked also to the protection of the rule of law, one of the founding values of the EU. Effective judicial protection is therefore one of the facets of the EU constitutional identity.

Following the entry into force of Lisbon Treaty, this principle has been constitutionalised in Article 19 TEU and Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the latter laying down the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial. Currently, Article 47 of the EU Charter is the most invoked EU Charter provision before national and EU courts. Article 47 Charter has also been at the centre of recent EU jurisprudence on the protection of the rule of law in the EU. This case law has confirmed the pivotal role of effective judicial protection in the EU architecture. It is not an overstatement that Article 47 is almost ‘omnipresent’ in the EU judgments as a result of a growing number of preliminary rulings and direct actions regarding the application of that provision. Novel questions thus arise regarding the impact of Article 47 Charter on the EU constitutional order, which require scientific observation and reflection. 

The full program and details on registration are available here.

The new issue of the Revue Critique de Droit International Privé (1/2021) is out.

It contains four articles and numerous case notes. The editorial by Horatia Muir Watt (Sciences Po), Dominique Bureau (University of Paris II) and Sabine Corneloup (University of Paris II) will soon be available in English on the Dalloz website (Dans le désordre planétaire…).

In the first article, Didier Boden (University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne) proposes to rethink the private international law lexicon in order to achieve a uniform analysis of the coordination between legal orders (« Erga- » : Contribution sémantique et lexicale à une étude unifiée des relations entre ordres juridiques).

Private international law and the other sets of rules of a legal order which touch upon its relations with other legal orders are poorly named and poorly defined. This article proposes to remedy that lexical impropriety and that semantic deficiency by presenting a new collection of names and a new collection of definitions.

In the second article, Frederick T. Davis (Columbia Law School) and Charlotte Gunka (Lawyer at the New York bar) discusse the possibilities offered by the American CLOUD Act in terms of criminal and digital sovereignty, under a European and global perspective (Perquisitionner les nuages – CLOUD Act, souveraineté européenne et accès à la preuve dans l’espace pénal numérique).

At a time when the Covid-19 crisis has raised awareness over the urgent need for European Member States to enhance their national sovereignty through the European Union, it is essential to go back to the possibilities offered by the U.S. CLOUD Act with regard to criminal and digital sovereignty. The CLOUD Act proposes a reform of current mutual legal assistance mechanisms by establishing access to digital evidence as the benchmark authorizing computer searches outside state borders, regardless of the location of the relevant data. Although this benchmark allows for more extensive extraterritorial application of U.S. criminal proceedings, an analysis of European regulations and legislation currently in force in France and the United Kingdom confirms that the European approach is not so different from the one introduced by the U.S. government. The emergence of the computer world and the acceleration of new technologies have created a “criminal digital space”, ephemeral and borderless, which requires a fundamental transformation of criminal procedures allowing for faster and more efficient international cooperation against transnational crime. This should give an opportunity to Europe, in particular through its new European Public Prosecutor’s Office, to assert its digital sovereignty through the individual fundamental rights that it continues to promote without undermining the security and strategic interests of its Member States.

In the third article, Vincent Richard (MPI Luxembourg) also deals with (digital) evidence in international dispute resolution, but within the European cooperation in civil matters. The author analyses the recast of the “Taking of Evidence” Regulation (La refonte du règlement sur l’obtention des preuves en matière civile).

Regulation (EU) n°2020/1783 adopted on 25 november 2020 recasts Regulation (EC) n° 1206/2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters. Requests for the taking of evidence between Member States shall be transmitted through a decentralised IT system such as e-CODEX. The recast also aims at enhancing the attractiveness of the Regulation by broadening the concept of court and by encouraging direct taking of evidence by the requesting court.

In the fourth article, Thibaut Fleury Graff (University of Rennes) addresses the topical issue of international migration under a legal perspective (Droit des étrangers et des migrations : entre protection de l’ordre public et définitions de la liberté).

 The full table of contents is available here.