EAPIL blog

The Centre of Commercial Law Studies (CCLS) at Queen Mary University London is publishing a new journal, the Transnational Commercial Law Review (ISSN 2515-3838). This is an online fully open access peer-reviewed journal. It is dedicated to publishing academic research and commentary of the highest quality in terms of originality and rigour.

Submissions to the Review are by invitation only and no unsolicited submissions will be considered. The Review will publish research outputs linked with the academic programme of the Institute of Transnational Commercial Law recently established by CCLS in partnership with Unidroit, including the Transnational Commercial Law Lecture Series which will showcase research by eminent researchers in this field, as well as the most high-quality contributions to the CCLS’s New Voices in Commercial Law Seminar Series.

More details can be found here.

On 12 May 2020, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales delivered an interesting decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. World Programming Ltd.

This is a long and complex case, which has reached, inter alia, the European Court of Justice on certain issues of IP law. But the case also raises a number of issues of private international law (see already the reports of Geert van Calster here and here).

In this post, I would like to focus on one particular aspect of last month’s judgment, namely the territoriality of enforcement of judgments, but the case is also concerned with the conditions for issuing anti-enforcement injunctions.

Background

The background of the enforcement issues is a dispute between a U.S. company (SAS) and a UK company (WPL) which resulted in a judgment delivered by a court of North Carolina and ordering WPL to pay about US$ 79 million. The American judgment, however, was denied enforcement in the UK on various grounds, including abuse of process and public policy.

The judgment creditor then initiated enforcement proceedings in a Californian court over assets located in various jurisdictions, including the U.K. The assets were debts of customers of WPL. The Californian enforcement orders required WPL to assign the debts to SAS (the Assignment Orders) and, for debts already paid, to turnover monies already paid to SAS (the Turnover Order).

Affecting Assets, Directly or Indirectly

The Court of Appeal started by recalling the basic principle, which is undoubtedly widely shared, according to which enforcement should be strictly territorial. Accordingly, in principle, the American enforcement orders were found to be exorbitant and infringe the sovereignty of the UK insofar as they affected the debts situated in the UK.

But, the judgment creditor argued, the territoriality principle really applied only to in rem enforcement proceedings. In contrast, the Assignment and Turnover Orders acted in personam. As many readers will know, English courts have a long tradition of using equitable remedies to do indirectly what they recognise they should not do directly. In recent times, the best example has certainly been the power to issue freezing orders with respect to assets situate abroad.

The admissibility of in personam remedies in this context was addressed by Lord Collins in Masri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd (No. 2) in 2008. In this judgment, Lord Collins explained that in personam remedies would only be admissible if three conditions were met.

59. As I have said, the fact that it acts in personam against someone who is subject to the jurisdiction of the court is not determinative. In deciding whether an order exceeds the permissible territorial limits it is important to consider: (a) the connection of the person who is the subject of the order with the English jurisdiction; (b) whether what they are ordered to do is exorbitant in terms of jurisdiction; and (c) whether the order has impermissible effects on foreign parties. 

In the SAS v. WPL case, the Court of Appeal found that there were connections between the English debtor and the U.S., as the WPL was conducting business in the U.S. But it found the foreign orders raised problems insofar as they required positive actions from the English debtor. Finally, the Court of Appeal insisted that the American orders did include any proviso protecting third parties, in particular by assuring them that their position would not be affected unless the American orders were declared enforceable by the court of the situs of the debt (ie here the English court).

The Court concluded:

83. In the circumstances, the proposed Assignment and Turnover Orders can properly be regarded as exorbitant, being contrary to the internationally accepted principle that enforcement of a judgment is a matter for the courts of the state where the asset against which it is sought to enforce the judgment is located.

The Court then moved on to discuss whether it should issue an anti-enforcement injunction.

And the Brussels Ibis Regulation?

It does not seem that the applicability of the Brussels I bis Regulation was raised at any point in this case.

One wonders, however, whether English courts were free to define territoriality of enforcement in a case concerned with enforcement of foreign judgments over assets situated in a Member State. There is no doubt that the jurisdiction of the English courts to rule on such matters was governed by Article 24(5) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, which applies irrespective of the domicile of the parties.

It could be that the Court of Appeal considered that the source of the territoriality principle did not matter, because it is so widely accepted. Lord Justice Males repeated several times that the principle is recognised internationally, and flows from rules of international law. Most unfortunately, however, he did not cite any source of international law in support of his position, but rather other English judges.

The devil is in the details. Everybody can agree on the existence and content of a principle of territoriality of enforcement when one remains at a high level of generality. But the doctrine developed by Lord Collins in Masri is sophisticated, and there is no particular reason indicating that it is representative of customary international law or, more importantly, EU autonomous law under Article 24(5) of the Brussels I bis Regulation.

The Hague Academy of International Law announced the extension of the deadline to apply for the 2021 Centre for Studies and Research (postponement of the 2020 edition) until 1 September 2020. The programme will take place between 16 August and 3 September 2021 and will focus on the topic of Applicable Law Issues in International Arbitration.

The programme description reads:

International arbitration has long been the most successful method for settling all kinds of international commercial disputes, and still is – notwithstanding the surrounding criticism – the leading method for settling disputes between foreign investors and the host state. One of the characteristics of international arbitration is that it to a large extent relies on an international or transnational legal framework. The effects of arbitration agreements and of arbitral awards, as well as the role of the courts regarding arbitration agreements and awards, are regulated in international conventions such as the New York or the ICSID Conventions. Furthermore, although there is room for specificities of national law, commercial arbitration acts are largely harmonised especially through the impact of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Similarly, even if arbitral institutions try to distinguish one from each other by providing for some specific tools, the essential content of arbitration rules does not vary. It can be said, consequently, that the transnational framework of arbitration is intended to create to the extent possible an autonomous system of dispute resolution, which can be applied in a uniform way irrespective of the country in which the proceedings take place or the award is sought enforced. The procedural autonomy of arbitration may also have an impact on how arbitral tribunals relate to the substance of the dispute.

As arbitral awards are final and binding, and domestic courts and ICSID annulment committees do not have the power to review them in the merits, arbitral tribunals enjoy a considerable flexibility in selecting and applying the rules of law applicable to the dispute, even though they are constrained to respect the will of the parties. Legal literature has strongly emphasized that this flexibility creates an expectation of delocalization: both from the procedural and from the substantive point of view, arbitration is described as a method for settling disputes that strives for uniformity on a transnational level and should not be subject to national laws. The autonomy and flexibility of arbitration, however, are not absolute. The international instruments that regulate arbitration either make, in some contexts, reference to national law or call for the application of (general or concrete) international law. Also, they do not cover all aspects of arbitration, thus leaving room for national regulation. Additionally, the restricted role that courts and ICSID ad hoc committees have in arbitration does not completely exclude that national law may have an impact. While court and committee control is not a review in the merits, application of the parameters for validity or enforceability of an award, even where these parameters are harmonised, may depend on national regulation.

Importantly, the definition of what disputes are arbitrable is left to national law. While the scope of arbitrability has been significantly expanded starting from the last two decades of the last century, there are signs now that it may be restricting. The scope of arbitrability may be looked upon as a measure of the trust that the legal system has in arbitration. From another perspective, it may represent the way in which States approach the settlement of international commercial disputes: intending to keep an exclusive power by means of the exclusion of private deciders, or adopting the role of controllers of the regularity of arbitration. As far as investment arbitration is specifically concerned, it is well known that States’ attitudes are diverse and may change from time to time. In both cases, States’ policy choices may have an impact on applicable law issues.

All the foregoing considerations, succinctly exposed, are the frame for the present topic. On such a basis, it is possible to develop two lists of issues to be individually addressed. The first list deals with the fundamental aspects of the topic. Among the issues included therein, some refer to all types of arbitration, while others are rather specific to either commercial or investment arbitration. The second list responds to the fact that the applicable law is not necessarily unitary. Indeed, according to the principle of severability, a different law may apply to the procedural aspects and to the substantive aspects of the dispute, and within these two categories there are further possibilities for severing the applicable law. Thus, one can wonder to which issues is it appropriate to apply international sources of law, to which issues is it appropriate to apply soft sources of law, to which is it appropriate to apply national sources of law, and to which issues is it appropriate to apply (or to create) transnational standards. Or a combination of these sources? On which basis may this selection be made, and what are its effects on the autonomy of arbitration, on the expectations of the parties and on the credibility and legitimacy of arbitration as an out-of-court judicial system that enjoys enforceability?

The Directors of Research, Prof. Giuditta Cordero-Moss (University of Oslo) and Prof. Diego Fernández Arroyo (Sciences Po, Paris), invite applications from researchers including students in the final phase of their doctoral studies, holders of advanced degrees in law, political science, or other related disciplines, early-stage professors and legal practitioners. Applicants should identify the specific topic on which they intend to write. Participants will be selected during the fall of 2020, and will convene at The Hague during the programme period to finalize their papers. The best articles will be included in a book to be published in the fall of 2022.

All applicants are required to register online via the appropriate registration form.

More information about the programmes of The Hague Academy of International Law can be found here.

The Russian journal Pravovedenie has issued a call for papers on Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments: problems and prospects.

Having regard to the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters, the editors seek contributions to be published in a special issue of the journal focusing on the cooperation of States in ensuring access to justice at the stage of recognition and enforcement of foreign decisions.

The deadline for submissions is 1 May 2021.

More details are available here.

Jean-Sylvestre Bergé and Giulio Cesare Giorgini have edited Le sens des libertés économiques de circulation – The sense of economic freedoms of movement, published by Bruylant.

At a time in which economic freedoms of movement (economic law, free trade, international trade and European freedoms of movement) are increasingly being challenged, it is crucial to explore in depth the capacity of disciplines (law, human and social sciences, hard sciences) to question the sense of these freedoms. Different forms of knowledge thus question the conception that their constructions and analyses relate to these freedoms. What directions are being taken? What are the objectives pursued? Are there any gaps between the initial ambitions and the achievements that can be observed today? Bringing together experienced researchers and young researchers in an intergenerational dialogue, this book is original and multidisciplinary, international and comparative in nature. It places the contemporary dynamics of economic law and flow phenomena in a perspective that allows their comprehension through studies organised around clearly identified issues.

The table of contents is can be found here.

See here for more information.

In February 2020, the Spanish Constitutional Court ordered the review of a judgment requiring the actor Christopher Lee to pay 710.000 Euros to the author of a painting that was used to promote a film without the latter’s permission.

The Court considered that the Commercial Court of Burgos (Spain) had violated Lee’s fundamental right to an effective judicial protection, in that it had not heard him nor proceeded to personal service of the judgement at any time prior to issuing an enforcement order against the actor in October 2009.

The controversy relates to the movie Jinnah and, specifically, to one of the posters by which it was promoted. The Commercial Court of Burgos considered that the use of the work “constituted an infringement of exclusive rights” and awarded a compensation to the author of the work.

The  lawsuit had been filed by the painter against a business corporation (The Quaid Project Limited), Mr. Christopher Frank Carandini Lee and Mr. Juan Francisco Aneiros Rodríguez, as representative of the official website of Christopher Lee. The three co-defendants were domiciled in London; neither The Quaid Project Limited nor Mr. Carandini Lee appeared. At the time, only Mr. Aneiros could be personally served at the address established in a contract previously signed with the plaintiff.

The decision against Lee was therefore taken in absentia. It has turned out that the Burgos Court’s attempts to have the claim and the judgment served to the defendant at the addresses provided by the claimant were unsuccessful, and that the Court contented itself with service by publication. After the judgment was delivered, a writ of execution (auto de despacho de ejecución) was granted and certified as a European enforcement order, thus allowing for enforcement to be tried in the United Kingdom (Lee’s place of residence).

According to the Constitutional Court, the absence of personal service led to a violation of Lee’s right of access to justice, for it prevented him from participating in proceedings where his financial obligations were at issue. The Court also expressed doubts regarding the assessment of the damages, which had been made without calling for any expertise. Despite this, the Court in Burgos had considered the figure to be appropriate and in September 2010 had ordered that the defendants’ bank accounts be seized, requesting information for this purpose from different banking entities.

After learning about the proceeding “through a letter” written by the claimant’s lawyers, that reached him “through a London-based office,” in February 2014 Lee asked unsuccessfully for the proceedings to be declared void. The actor passed away in June 2015; an application was filed with the Constitutional Court by his heirs, which in a judgment dated February 24 has ruled in favor of C. Lee.

On the Legal Standing of the Heirs

Before the Constitutional Court, the claimant in the ordinary proceedings contested the legal standing of Lee’s heirs in light of UK succession law, relying in particular on the condition of testamentary executor and manager of the estate of Birgit Lee.

The Constitutional Court dismissed this part of the defense recalling its previous case law based on Article 162.1 b) of the Spanish Constitution and Article 46.1 b) of the Constitutional Court Act, whereby legal standing derives from having “a legitimate interest”. The category is interpreted broadly and granted to any person whose legal stance (“círculo legal”) may be harmed by the violation of a fundamental right, even if the violation does not occur directly against him or her.

The Court went on to add that, in the past, the heirs of a deceased plaintiff had been admitted to take over in an “amparo” appeal for the defense of personality rights. When (like in the case under examination) the ruling on “amparo” entails economic consequences for the estate, the recognition of legal standing to the heirs is even more reasonable.

On the Violation of the Right to a Due Process

The main issue raised by the appellants before the Constitutional Court focused on the violation of the late Lee’s right to a due process, caused by the wrongful application by the Spanish commercial court of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 creating a European Enforcement Order (EEO) for uncontested claims. In this context, the appellants argued first  that only a judicial decision ending the ordinary proceedings, and not the writ of execution can be certified as an EEO. Secondly, in a nutshell, they contested the enforceability of the resolution adopted in absentia, with service having been made by edicts by a court which relied on the informations given by the claimant without further ado.

The Constitutional Court was silent as to the first prong of the complaint. In my view, the appellant was wrong: whereas according to Article 517 Spanish Code of Civil Procedure (Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil) the enforcement title is indeed the decision on the merits, the definition of “resolution” comprises as well the writ of execution which in Spanish procedural law follows and opens up the enforcement procedure itself.

As to the second prong, the Court was requested to examine whether the application made by the Spanish commercial court of the EEO Regulation, granting the EEO based on service by publication, violated the right to effective judicial protection of the defendant. For this purposes, the Constitutional Court started by asserting that the Burgos Court, to the extent it applied rules of European Union law, must have been aware that it was not only bound by Article 24.1 of the Spanish Constitution, but also by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU).

The Constitutional Court focused then on how service had been made, in order to assess whether in the procedure prior to the adoption of the judgement the certification of which is at stake , the rights to a hearing and to self-defense of the debtor had been respected. This examination is reserved for cases in which the non-appearance of the defendant amounts to a tacit admission of the claim or of the facts alleged by the creditor under the law of the Member State of origin, and, as a consequence, the claim may be deemed “uncontested” for the purposes of Regulation No 805/2004. Regarding service without proof of receipt by the debtor (Article 14 of the Regulation), the Regulation describes various admissible modalities, all of which require that the debtor’s domicile is known with certainty. In this way, the Regulation establishes a minimum standard of the right of defense so as to ensure that the non-appearance of the debtor was conscious and voluntary, thus an absence of the intention to challenge the credit can be inferred therefrom.

At this point, the Constitutional Court makes the most important assertion of its judgment, acknowledging the need to assess “whether a notification by edicts made totally ignoring the debtor’s address, which may eventually be valid in our system from the point of view of Article 24.1 [Spanish Constitution], is also valid from the perspective of Article 47 CFREU for the purposes of granting a European Enforcement Order”. It goes on saying that “the answer to this question, taking into account Recital 13 of Regulation 805/2004 and the decision of the Court of Justice (First Chamber) in Case C-292/10, Cornelius de Visser, of 15 March 2012, must be negative. The Court of Justice of the European Union affirms that although a default judgment is among the titles that can be certified as European enforcement orders (Article 3 of the Regulation), this is not the case when it has been issued without determining the domicile of the respondent” (the translation is mine).

In my view, this is not a bad judgment. However, one cannot avoid feeling a little bit dismayed when learning  that one of the defendants, Mr. Juan Aneiros, who could be served at his domicile, was the son-in-law of C. Lee and, as said, the manager of his official website. Difficult to believe that C. Lee could only learn about the process after he had been sentenced to pay, but not before. However, this was for the Constitutional Court to decide; it has spoken and – not unimportat in this tough times for the EU – followed the case law of the CJEU.

By a decision of 13 March 2020, the Munich Court of Appeal, having regard to the expected delay in the processing of a request for service in China, allowed a resident of Germany to effect service by publication on a person of known residence in China, after sending an e-mail for information purposes.

The Facts

The claimant, a resident of Germany [G], had obtained an injunction in Germany. This was served on the respondent (a resident of China) [C] while the latter attended an exhibition in Germany.

Two months later, G filed a motion for the imposition of a fine [an Ordnungsmittelantrag] against C before the Court of First Instance of Munich. Pursuant to § 891 of the German Code of Civil Procedure, the debtor must be heard before such a decision is taken.

G requested to serve the application for the fine by publication, although he was aware of C’s whereabouts. G founded the request upon the serious delay to be expected in case of service through the Chinese judicial assistance channels, based on the Hague Service Convention. The Court of First Instance dismissed the request.

G challenged the decision before the Munich Court of Appeal.

The Ruling

The Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance. It found that G had produced sufficient evidence, presumably emanating from the Munich Court statistics, proving the delay in the processing of requests by the Chinese authorities, i.e. nearly 18 months or more, which would seriously infringe his rights.

In this situation, the court continues, the interests of the creditor in effective legal protection outweigh the interests of the debtor in presenting his case before the Court. It ruled that the creditor must inform the debtor about the application via electronic communication channels known to the creditor and also used by the debtor. The creditor must also inform the debtor about the request for service by publication, and the possibility for the debtor to appoint a representative to receive documents on his behalf in Germany, including English-language translations.

The Court of Appeal also ruled that in view of the short limitation period of only two years provided in Article 9(1) 2 EGStGB (Introductory Law to the German Penal Code), the creditor’s right to legal protection would not be respected if she would be forced to execute the service of documents in China through judicial assistance channels, despite the known problems with this procedure. On the other hand, the debtor’s right to be heard could be violated by granting service by publication before the creditor has been informed by the debtor about the application, the request of service by publication and the possibility of appointing a representative. The final decision on the proper procedure would be left to the Court of First Instance.

Comments

The judgment has been reported (in German) by Benedikt Windau with a note here.

I have mixed feelings about the judgment. On the one hand, I would endorse the innovative idea of involving frequently used communication channels between the parties for information purposes on service of process modalities. This has been also proposed in the preparatory stages of the Service Regulation Recast (which should be published anytime soon). Regrettably, however, it has not been adopted by the competent legislative bodies.

On the other side, the Court is approaching the matter in full defiance of the Hague Service Convention, to which Germany and China are signatories. The ruling is founded upon § 185(3) of the German Code of Civil Procedure, and the interesting part here is the second scenario envisaged in the provision, i.e. when service of process does not raise hopes of success.

Prior to the application of the domestic rule, one would expect a reasoning on how the court by-passed the Service Convention. Surely the Court would have no reason to engage in a detailed analysis if the debtor was indeed of unknown residence. A sheer reference to Article 1(2) of the Convention would suffice. However, notwithstanding the fact that the debtor’s whereabouts were known to the creditor, and without even stating why Article 15 Hague Service Convention was unworthy of any reference, the court followed the course every judge prefers the most, i.e. the application of national rules.

The importance of the Service Convention has been repeatedly underlined in German legal scholarship. The Federal Republic of Germany has made a declaration concerning Article 15 (the six – months rule). In the judgment of the Supreme Court referred by the Munich Court of Appeal, the former ruled against service by publication with regard to a Russian party [BGH NJW-RR 2009, p. 855].

To sum up, the judgment raises (at least) two interesting and rather intriguing questions: If we follow this path: (a) what would be the value of Article 15 in the future? and more broadly, (b) what would be the consequences in a wider dimension? Will other contracting States follow suit?

Place of Performance – A Comparative Analysis is the title of a book authored by Chukwuma Samuel Adesina Okoli. It recently appeared in the Studies in Private International Law series of Hart Publishing.

The blurb reads:

This book provides an unprecedented analysis on the place of performance. The central theme is that the place of performance is of considerable significance as a connecting factor in international commercial contracts. This book challenges and questions the approach of the European legislator for not explicitly giving special significance to the place of performance in determining the applicable law in the absence of choice for commercial contracts. It also contains, inter alia, an analogy to matters of foreign country mandatory rules, and the coherence between jurisdiction and choice of law. It concludes by proposing a revised Article 4 of Rome I Regulation, which could be used as an international solution by legislators, judges, arbitrators and other stakeholders who wish to reform their choice of law rules.

The table of contents and more information are available here.

The University of Lausanne (LL.M. Programme in International Business Law and CEDIDAC), along with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Connection Science Lab and the AI Transparency Institute are inviting abstracts on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Dispute Resolution, or Distributed Ledger Technologies (DLT) and Private International Law (PIL).

Papers of interest on AI and Dispute Resolution might discuss: the impact of AI on decision-making; the impact of AI on access to justice; transparency of arbitral data; control over arbitral data; potential risks to confidentiality in view of AI; personal data protection in arbitration; and, AI and arbitral uncertainty.

Papers of interest on DLT & PIL might discuss: the law applicable to crypto assets; the law applicable to transfers on a blockchain; the law applicable to transfers outside a blockchain; the law applicable to smart contracts; the law applicable to decentralised autonomous organisations; and, jurisdiction and choice of court.

The latter list of topics follows the headings listed in Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, Prel. Doc. 28 of February 2020, Proposal for the Allocation of Resources to Follow Private International Law Implications relating to Developments in the Field of Distributed Ledger Technology, in particular in relation to Financial Technology.

Deadline for papers: 1 February 2021.

More information here.

The author of this post is Vincent Richard, Senior Fellow at the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law.

On 14 May 2020, the CJEU gave a preliminary ruling in Bouygues travaux publics, a case regarding the binding effect of social security certificates issued by the social security authority of a Member State on the courts of another Member State where workers are posted. The judgment was rendered in the context of French criminal proceedings against Bouygues travaux publics for infringements of labour law during the construction of the EPR nuclear power plant in Normandy.

Background

EPR nuclear reactors represent the new generation of nuclear power plants conceived to be safer than current reactors. Construction have started in Finland and France fifteen years ago but both projects ran into costly delays. So far, two reactors have been completed in Taishan, in the Guangdong province of China while the European nuclear plants are still under construction.

The EPR nuclear plants constructed in Olkiluoto in Finland is scheduled for 2021 after a dispute that was concluded with a settlement whereby the Areva-Siemens consortium agreed to pay 450 million euros to the Finnish utility company TVO. Two more reactors are being built at Hinkley Point in England with a starting date scheduled between 2025 and 2027.

Construction of the French EPR reactor started in 2007 in Flamanville in Normandy with a projected cost of 3.3 billion euros. According to French newspapers, completion is now expected for 2023 with a total cost of more than 12 billion euros. The project has faced technical difficulties but it has also run into legal troubles surrounding employment contracts of Eastern European workers.

Criminal Proceedings in France

To complete such a massive project, Bouygues travaux publics formed a limited partnership with two other undertakings and it subcontracted the contract to an economic interest grouping that included, among others, Welbond, a company domiciliated in France. This grouping itself used subcontractors, including Elco, a company established in Romania to supply Romanian workers and Atlanco Ltd, a temporary employment company established in Ireland with a subsidiary in Cyprus and an office in Poland to supply Polish workers.

An investigation by the French nuclear safety authority and then the French police revealed that, between 2008 and 2012, there had been more than one hundred unreported workplace accidents on the construction site, as well as several other infringements of French labour law. Subsequently, Polish workers sued the above-mentioned companies before the labour court of Cherbourg, France, and French prosecutors initiated criminal proceedings against Bouygues, Welbond and their subcontractors before the criminal court in Cherbourg (all decisions in French can be found here).

On appeal, the court of appeal of Caen held that the companies were guilty of the offences of concealed employment and unlawful provision of workers. It ruled that Elco, the Romanian company, could not rely on the European legislation on posting of workers because it had a stable and continuous activity in France. Therefore, the contracts should be characterised as French employment contracts and the company should have complied with French labour law and declared the workers to French authorities prior to their recruitment. Workers were hired in Romania for the sole purpose of working in France and some of them had worked there for more than 24 months. Similarly, Atlanco had hired temporary Polish workers to work in France through its Cypriot branch by making them sign a contract drawn up in Greek. Atlanco never appeared in court but Bouygues and Welbond were held guilty of concealed employment offences for the workers supplied by Atlanco, by not declaring the workers to French authorities. This “declaration prior to recruitment of employees” aims to register workers officially so that the offence of concealed employment be easier to prove in the absence of such declaration.

Question Referred to the CJEU

The main argument of the defendants was to rely on the legal value of the E101 and A1 certificates that they had provided to French authorities. These certificates were required by regulations n. 1408/71 and 574/72 (replaced respectively by regulations n. 883/2004 and 987/2009) on the coordination of social security systems. These forms, issued by the social security authority of the Member State of origin, certify that the worker is covered by the social security of that Member State and thus exclude the application of another social security legislation.

According to CJEU case law in Herbosch Kiere and A-Rosa Flussschiff GmbH, the certificates are binding on both the social security institutions and on the courts of the Member State where the work is carried out. If the authority of this Member State raises doubts as to the correctness of the certificate, the issuing authority in the Member State of origin must re-examine the grounds on which the certificate was issued (Fitzwilliam). In Altun, the CJEU provided for a limited exception whereby a court can disregard the certificate when evidence supports the conclusion that a certificate was obtained fraudulently and only if the issuing authority fails to take that evidence into consideration for the purpose of reviewing the certificate.

In the present case, French lower courts have applied French labour law, whereby employers have to make a declaration to social security authorities prior to recruiting employees. This declaration allows to complete several administrative formalities at once. It aims to register workers officially not only to the social security scheme but also to the occupational health services or retirement schemes. Before the Cour de cassation (which is the French Supreme Court for civil and criminal disputes) the defendants argued that this declaration was not necessary because French authorities were bound by the foreign certificates, and therefore French social security and labour laws do not apply. Unsure about the scope of these certificates, the French Supreme Court asked the CJEU whether the binding effect of the certificates regarding the affiliation to social security extends to the law applicable to the labour obligations of the employer, such as the French declaration prior to recruitment. For the CJEU, the question is tantamount to deciding whether the certificate binds the court of the Member State where employees are working not only in the area of social security, but also in the area of employment law.

Ruling

In its decision, the CJEU stresses that the certificates are designed to facilitate freedom of movement for workers and that Member States should apply the principle of sincere cooperation, laid down in Article 4(3) TEU, which also entails the principle of mutual trust. Consequently, the certificates create a presumption that workers are properly affiliated to the social security scheme of the issuing Member State and this declaration is binding on the Member State where the work is carried out. However, because the certificates are prescribed by the European regulations on the coordination of social security systems, their scope is limited to social security matters, and they do not have a binding effect in employment law matters.

The Court held:

Article 11(1)(a), Article 12a(2)(a) and (4)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005 and Article 19(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, must be interpreted as meaning that an E 101 Certificate, issued by the competent institution of a Member State, under Article 14(1)(a) or Article 14(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998, to workers employed in the territory of another Member State, and an A 1 Certificate, issued by that institution, under Article 12(1) or Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 465/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012, to such workers, are binding on the courts or tribunals of the latter Member State solely in the area of social security.

Comment

This decision is not ground-breaking but it will help the French authorities in their fight against social dumping. If the French Supreme Court considers that the effect of the declaration prior to recruitment are broader than social security legislation, French prosecutors will be able to sue employers before criminal courts for offences of concealed employment if companies do not submit this declaration to French authorities. That being said, in the EPR case, the court of appeal ordered defendants to pay fines ranging from 15.000 to 60.000 euros while the loss to French social security is estimated by French newspapers to be between 10 and 12 million euros.

Overall, the reasoning of the CJEU in this case and in Altun will be familiar to specialists of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. Here, the principle of mutual trust is derived from the principle of sincere cooperation enshrined in Art. 4(3) TEU rather than from the principle of mutual recognition of judgments of Art.67(3) TFUE but its function as an interpretative imperative is the same. Similarly, the CJEU accepted in Altun that mutual trust is not without limit and that there may be exceptional circumstances in which a court is allowed to disregard a legal document issued in another Member State.

Cambridge University Press has just published the second edition of the Concise Commentary on the Rome I Regulation edited by Franco Ferrari.

In addition to Ferrari himself, the authors of the commentary are Markus Altenkirch, Christoph Althammer, Jan Bischoff, Tim W. Dornis, Jan D. Lüttringhaus, Spyros Makris,  Sebastian Omlor, Francesca Ragno, Martin Schmidt-Kessel, Björn Steinrötter, and Felipe Temming.

The blurb reads:

This book offers an updated article-by-article commentary of the Rome I Regulation, applicable in the courts of nearly all European countries to identify the law applicable to international contracts. The commentary is authored by an international group of academics and practitioners, who all have practical experience with international contracts and, thus, were able to focus on the needs of practice. This volume will be not only a reference guide for judges and practitioners alike, but also a crucial resource for academics and researchers.

More information available here.

Bertrand Copigneaux, Nikita Vlasov and Emarildo Bani of IDATE DigiWorld, Nikolay Tcholtchev and Philipp Lämmel of Fraunhofer Institute for Open Communication Systems, Michael Fuenfzig, Simone Snoeijenbos and Michael Flickenschild from Ecorys, and Martina Piantoni and Simona Frazzani from Grimaldi Studio Legale, have written a Study on Blockchain for supply chains and international trade at the request of the European Parliament.

The study was commissioned by the Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA) and managed by the Scientific Foresight Unit, within the Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services (EPRS) of the Secretariat of the European Parliament.

The abstract reads:

This study provides an analysis of blockchain technology in the context of international trade. It analyses the potential impacts of blockchain development and applications in eight use cases for supply chains and international trade. It also provides an analysis of the current legislative framework and existing initiatives.

Based on this analysis, and following a broad consultation of relevant organisations, the study identifies several challenges in international trade documentation and processes, and presents a range of policy options for the European Parliament.

The Study concludes by developing 20 policy options, which are organised in six themes.

Customs facilitation through blockchain

1. The European Commission could act as a bridge between EU customs authorities interested in employing blockchain technology for the digitalisation of customs, with a view to jointly developing further proofs of concept.

2. EU Single Window working groups could run through the blockchain key questions to be addressed within the guidelines developed by the World Economic Forum by means of consultations with authorities, private sector groups and mixed focus groups, to explore whether there is a business case for its development.

3. The European Commission could look to its partners in mutual recognition agreements to explore the possibility of sharing Authorised Economic Operator information via blockchain.

Involvement of small and medium-sized enterprises in the blockchain sphere

4. The European Commission could be encouraged to help SMEs keep abreast of blockchain applications relevant for their particular role in the value chain.

5. Funds could be made available to support collaboration between SMEs as both suppliers of solutions and end-users of global value chains. 

Sustainable trade through blockchain

6. The European Commission could be provided with the budget to scale up the solutions being developed under Blockchain for Social Good, particularly those relating to fair trade.

7. The European Commission could include blockchain technology solutions in the considerations for designing the practical aspects of an EU carbon border tax.

Leadership in standardisation of blockchain technology

8. The European Commission could continue to play a leading role in the standardisation process, continue its close collaboration with international partners and strive to provide a platform to enable the various actors working on pilots and standards to engage with each other in order to avoid fragmentation.

9. The European Commission could make use of the Multi-Stakeholder Platform on ICT Standardisation to further collaborate with various stakeholders on blockchain standardisation.

10. Beyond dialogue with third countries on standardisation, the EU could lead by example and set standards itself by introducing blockchain-based services for example in customs or financial transparency, based on which private actors, third countries, and international standardisation organisations could orient themselves.

11. Support could be given to the work of the European Blockchain Partnership, and collaboration encouraged with the International Association for Trusted Blockchain Applications, in order to work towards a comprehensive ecosystem of international supply chains using blockchain technology.

Evidence-based policymaking in the area of blockchain

12. Parliament could engage more actively in the work already going on at EU level with regard to blockchain technology and international trade by observing relevant organisations such as the European Blockchain Partnership or asking the European Commission for regular updates on their work.

13. Networks, such as the European Blockchain Partnership, the Observatory and others could be promoted. To this end the Parliament could also promote and fund further research in the area, including a mapping of regulatory readiness in the EU, its Member States and international partners.

14. The European Commission could be made aware that solutions should include reporting indicators and specific plans on how results will be measured, communicated and developed into lessons learned. 

15. Progress of work already being done in piloting blockchain at EU level could be monitored closely and support given for setting up future use cases and pilots under the European Blockchain Services Infrastructure and the Connecting Europe Facility.

16. Use could be made of funding schemes for research and business to support the EU’s efforts in the early stage development of blockchain-related projects in trade and supply chains.

17. In the context of the International Association for Trusted Blockchain Applications, the European Commission could be supported and encouraged to establish a public–private partnership in the area of blockchain for international trade and supply chains.

Awareness raising for the use of blockchain

18. Regarding blockchain’s potential to improve efficiency and support EU values such as transparency, fair trade, and social and environmental responsibility, the EU could promote recognition of the technology and its use in trade and supply chains.

19. Successful proof of concepts, pilots and the available building blocks on the Connecting Europe Facility platform could be promoted among Member States, private stakeholders and citizens to increase familiarity among stakeholders with the technology and its uptake.

20. The European Commission and Member States could be encouraged to make use of their roles as members of international organisations such as the World Trade Organization, the World Customs Organization and the United Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business to promote trade digitalisation and the use of blockchain technology.

The Study can be freely downloaded here. A Briefing summarizing the findings of the Study is available here.

On 25 May 2020, the CJEU has resumed its activity. This means hearings will be held again. None is scheduled for June on PIL matters, though.

The decision of the third Chamber (Prechal, Rossi, Malenovský, Biltgen, Wahl) in C-41/19, FX, is expected for 4 June.

The case arises from a request for a preliminary ruling made by the Amtsgericht Köln. It is about a child resident in Poland, who had obtained a decision from the Polish courts establishing the maintenance obligations of her father, resident in Germany. After getting a declaration of the enforceability of the Polish maintenance decision in Germany, the maintenance creditor seeks to have that decision enforced there. The debtor opposes enforcement on the basis that his payment obligations have been largely fulfilled; to this aim, he has lodged an application opposing before the German courts. The key issue raised by the request for a preliminary ruling is whether the German courts have jurisdiction to rule on that application on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations. AG Bobek’s Opinion was published on 27 February 2020. He suggests the CJEU answer in the following terms:

Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, and, in particular, Article 41(1) thereof, should be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the Member State where the enforcement of a maintenance decision given in another Member State is sought have jurisdiction to adjudicate on an application opposing enforcement, in so far as it is intrinsically connected with enforcement proceedings, it does not seek the modification or review of the maintenance decision, and it is based on grounds that could not have been raised before the court that issued the maintenance decision. Those conditions appear to be fulfilled by the application of opposition to enforcement based on the discharge of the debt at issue in the present case, which is nonetheless ultimately for the referring court to verify.

A separate post will appear on this blog concerning the Court’s judgment.

Additionally, two Opinions will be delivered on 18 June 2020, one by AG Szpunar (C-433/19, Ellmes Property Services) and the other by AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona (C-540/19, WV).

The former addresses a request from the Austrian Oberster Gerichtshof on the first subparagraph of Article 24(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation. The OG asks whether the provision is to be interpreted as meaning that “actions brought by a co-owner seeking to prohibit another co-owner from carrying out changes to his property subject to co-ownership, in particular to its designated use, arbitrarily and without the consent of the other co-owners, concern the assertion of a right in rem”. Should the question be answered in the negative, the CJUE should determine Article 7(1)(a) whether concern contractual obligations to be performed at the location of the property.

In C-540/19, the German Bundesgerichthof requests the CJEU to decide whether a public body which has provided a maintenance creditor with social assistance benefits in accordance with provisions of public law can invoke the place of jurisdiction at the place of habitual residence of the maintenance creditor under Article 3(b) of the Maintenance Regulation, in the case where it asserts the maintenance creditor’s maintenance claim under civil law, transferred to it on the basis of the granting of social assistance by way of statutory subrogation, against the maintenance debtor by way of recourse. A good occasion to review C-433/01.

Finally, I would also like to mention AG Hogan’s Opinion on C-454/19, Staatsanwaltschaft Heilbronn, delivered the 4 June 2020. At first sight the questions referred to the Court had little to do with PIL:

(a) Is primary and/or secondary European law, in particular Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, in the sense of a full right of EU citizens to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, to be interpreted as meaning that it also covers national criminal provisions?
(b) If the question is answered in the affirmative: does the interpretation of primary and/or secondary European law preclude the application of a national criminal provision which penalises the retention of a child from his guardian abroad where the provision does not differentiate between Member States of the European Union and third countries?

This notwithstanding, Regulation 2201/2003 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility (Brussels II bis) and the case law of the Court relating thereto are very much present in the Opinion.

The Diesel scandal has produced a wave of litigation word-wide. We are still waiting for the CJEU’s decision on whether claims can be brought in Austria by Austrian purchasers (Case C-343/19). The Advocate General’s opinion in this case has been the subject of an earlier post on this blog.

One of the important issues in the case pending before the CJEU is whether claimants can be expected to sue Volkswagen (VW) at its seat.  VW has its seat in Wolfsburg; thus, the competent court for such claims would be the Regional Court (Landgericht) of Braunschweig (Brunswick). The Braunschweig Regional Court has, however, now introduced a new hurdle for claimants who want to sue VW at its seat.

The Court at VW’s Seat Has Spoken

On 30 April 2020, the Regional Court of Braunschweig gave judgment (docket no 11 O 3092/19) on a case concerning a German debt collection company that had brought a “collective action” based on a number of claims against VW assigned to it by Swiss purchasers who bought cars fitted with the illicit software. The debt collection company was licensed under the German Act on Out-of-Court Legal Services (Rechtsdienstleistungsgesetz – RDG).

The Regional Court dismissed the action on the basis that the company could not dispose of the authorisation necessary under the RDG to pursue the claim, despite being licensed in Germany. It specifically found that neither the company nor its employees had any knowledge of Swiss law. Such expertise was however indispensable for the present case because the Regional Court of Braunschweig assumed that the claims assigned to the company would be governed by Swiss law.

An Overly Simplistic Conflict-of-Laws Analysis

The Regional Court derived the applicability of Swiss law from Article 4(1) of the Rome II Regulation. The court concluded that the place where the damage occurred, which is decisive under this rule, was Switzerland because the purchasers had paid for the cars from Swiss bank accounts.

The Regional Court seems to refer in this respect to the CJEU judgment in Kolassa, which – in the context of international jurisdiction – had considered the place where a bank account is managed as relevant for the localisation of financial loss. However, this judgment concerned the specific situation of prospectus liability, not the sale of cars. It cannot be considered as establishing a general rule, as the CJEU has clarified in its later judgment in Universal Music.

The localisation of loss in the ‘Dieselgate’ cases is much more difficult and intricate, as the Advocate General has pointed out in its conclusions in Case C-343/19. The fact that the cars have been paid from Swiss bank accounts alone will not suffice to establish the applicability of Swiss law. Other circumstances will have to be considered, such as the place of domicile of the purchasers, or the place where they use their cars (see the comment on the AG’s conclusions here).

An Undue Restriction of Access to Justice 

More problematic still is that the Regional Court Braunschweig denied the debt collection company standing to sue VW in Germany on the grounds that it lacks sufficient knowledge of Swiss law. This argument relies on a very restrictive interpretation of German law, which requires debt collection companies to have only general legal expertise; not specific expertise in foreign law. Moreover, the ruling ignores the fact that debt collection companies may instruct experts on Swiss law to advise on certain points of the legal case. Indeed, the court will probably have to do the same were it to try the case, because it also lacks the necessary knowledge of Swiss law (see sec. 293 of the German Code of Civil Procedure).

The judgment raises an unacceptable barrier for the enforcement of foreign claims against VW in Germany. Victims whose claims are based on foreign law cannot use German debt collection companies to advance their claims, as the latter have been found not have the required expertise in foreign law. But they also cannot go via foreign debt collection companies, as these do not have the necessary German license and can only provide “temporarily and occasionally” legal services in this country (sec. 15 German Act on Out-of-Court Legal Services). To instruct a German lawyer will be too burdensome as the purchaser would have to shoulder the litigation risk of losing the case.

It is Now Up to the CJEU

The Regional Court of Braunschweig has set up an additional obstacle for foreign claims in the Diesel scandal. This makes it much more difficult to sue VW at its seat. It is hard not to form the impression that the Regional Court was looking for an efficient way to rid itself of an unattractive case. The case illustrates the difficulties foreign claimants face when bringing an action at VW’s seat. Hopefully, the CJEU will take note of this when it decides whether car purchasers may bring actions against VW abroad.

Christopher Marsden (University of Sussex) has posted Transnational Internet Law on SSRN.

The greatest, and certainly to a Westphalian nation-state-centered universe most revolutionary, challenge for regulation is the increasing co-operation between national, regional and international networks of regulators, to regulate the Internet. Reidenberg coined the term ‘lex informatica’ to explain its transnational legal nature, based on Berman and Kaufman’s analysis of mediaeval lex mercatoria, rather than Jessup’s transnational law. In Part 2, I briefly consider the technical standards that permit Inter-networking and thus the Internet. Part 3 examines how standards – including commercial and legal standards – have created a transnational lex informatica. In Parts 4-5, I focus on two phenomena of the transnational Internet law evolution. The first is governance by contract for all commercial transactions, even those that are ostensibly free of monetary value, in which the contractors are trading private information for advertising revenue. The second is the ‘open Internet’, laws protecting some aspects of network neutrality.

The paper is forthcoming in Peer Zumbansen (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Transnational Law (OUP 2020). It can be downloaded here.

The author of this post is Nadia Rusinova, Lecturer in International/European Private Law at The Hague University of Applied Sciences. This is the sixth in a series of posts aimed to explore the impact of the coronavirus crisis on the phenomena of mobility and exchange that form the constituent elements of private international law, and to discuss the responses that private international law rules provide to the challenges posed by the crisis itself (see the previous contributions by Giovanni Chiapponi, Matthias Lehmann, Tomaso Ferando, Caterina Benini and Aygun Mammadzada). The EAPIL blog welcomes further contributions on such topics, either in the form of comments to the published posts or in the form of guest posts. Those interested in proposing a guest post for publication are encouraged to contact the blog’s editorial team at blog@eapil.org.

Despite the obvious need for extraordinary measures during the pandemic, the restrictions we face as a response to the threat posed by the COVID-19 engage a number of rights, protected under the ECHR (hereinafter, the Convention). Individuals are entitled to fundamental rights protection even – and especially – in case of an emergency. In this sense, we already ask ourselves: are the adopted measures proportionate and targeted, are they required by the exigencies of the situation, are they not inconsistent with other obligations under international law? Do we need new approaches to respond to this unprecedented situation?

The importance of private international law for family issues in an era of globalization is immense and the topic acquires particular significance due to the increasing mobility and internationalization of the child and of the family. The private international law aspects of international child and family law in the context of international child abduction, intercountry adoption, cross-border surrogacy, cross-border relocation, etc. are frequently dealt with in many cross-border cases and these rapid developments must result in the development of uniform guidelines.

Some of the most important are found in the recently published COVID-19 Toolkit of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, also announced in this blog.

With international borders closed and containment measures in place, cross-border movement of people and goods is subject to unprecedented restrictions. In many jurisdictions, children and families remain stranded. Access to government services remains limited. Legal procedures have been delayed or suspended. Without doubt the future judgments and decisions of European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter, the Court) in this context will have an impact on the main issues of private international law, including the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.

This post focuses on the potential impact of the COVID-19 measures on the assessment of Article 8 violations in its family life aspect. As this is a complex question, this post explores an issue of how the State responses can be seen as an interference in the family life and whether the States ensured adequate regard for Article 8 rights in the context of the pandemic. In particular, concrete example of how domestic courts apply the imposed measures in handling remote family law proceedings is discussed, and the compliance of these approaches with the requirements of the Convention is analyzed.

In the present abnormal circumstances, the fundamental principles of substantive law remain unchanged. Therefore, the procedural aspect of Article 8 is in the center of this post as closely linked to the rights and interests protected by Article 6 of the Convention.

Background

The legal aspects of a pandemic of this magnitude is still terra incognita for the domestic courts and understandably, for the Court as well. The only judgment so far, which concerns the impact of influenza quarantine seen as an interference in the family life related to a parent-child contact is Kuimov v Russia (2009).

In this case foster homes’ management refused the father to exercise his rights of access to his child on the ground that an influenza quarantine had been introduced, however the applicant could speak to the child on the telephone during this time. After the quarantine in the foster home was lifted, the father could resume his face-to-face meetings with his child.

In its assessment the Court found that the restrictions on the father’s access to the child were imposed with the “legitimate aim of protecting child’s health and rights”. Moreover, the Court accepted the Governments’ explanation that the access to the foster home was restricted due to a quarantine, which did not last an unreasonably long time – around 7 weeks. In addition, the father was allowed to come and see the child through the glass window on a weekly basis. In the circumstances of the case and regard being had to the States’ margin of appreciation, the Court was of the view that there was no violation of Article 8 on account of the restrictions imposed by the authorities on the applicant’s access to the child, in respect of the period of the quarantine.

Current Context

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, already mid-March it became clear that measures should be taken, and taken fast, by the States in order to protect individual human rights. Further steps need to be taken in the next days, weeks and months, may be even years; we will experience the consequences for long time ahead. The impact of these measures will be widely felt, and some groups will be affected more than others. All in all, these measures entail the broadest mass restriction of liberties our generation have ever seen.

The rights protected by Article 8 of the Convention make no exception. On the contrary – family life and particularly parent-child relationships suffer to a high extent from the rollercoaster we found ourselves in. As a consequence, the domestic courts are called upon to assess, elaborate and reflect on this situation for years ahead. Naturally, this is the rationale behind the multiple derogations to Article 8. Therefore, even adequately taken in order to respond to the threat posed by COVID-19, these measures will have certain implications on the future assessment of Article 8 violations by the Court as well.

This would be completely new perspective when determining what would constitute a breach of Article 8 in the aforementioned context. The Corona crisis places also the question how is the vulnerability of the children needs to be regarded in the current pandemic. The Court will be asked to adjust to this new setting its child-specific human rights approach, developed with the years, taking into consideration three interrelated concepts: the inherent vulnerability of children, the best interests of the child and the circumscribed children’s autonomy which gradually increases with their evolving maturity (see, among others, M. and M. v Croatia, § 171).

The Court has found that the notion of “family life” under Article 8 of the Convention encompasses de facto “family” ties. The existence or non-existence of “family life” for the purposes of Article 8 is essentially a question of fact depending on the existence of close personal ties. The interferences in parent-child relationships could impact not only the “classical” parental responsibility disputes and child abductions, but foster care and adoption cases as well.

As to the derogations from obligations under the Convention, the Council of Europe acknowledges in the document titled Respecting democracy, rule of law and human rights in the framework of the COVID-19 sanitary crisis: A Toolkit for Member States that the measures taken by the States vary depending upon the specific situation in the States concerned.

The large margin of appreciation of States as regards the existence of emergency and of the required measures is unavoidable. As suggested by Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou, the magnitude of this crisis will clearly translate into significant margin of appreciation allowed to the authorities. This in turn means that the Court will apply looser test of proportionality and if the measures go beyond what is necessary under this loose test of proportionality, then violations are possible.

Potential violations of Article 8 have already been voiced in domestic court proceedings over the last few weeks. The Court will likely be asked to deal with similar allegations in the future. It is of course uncertain how the Court will look at these allegations and whether the current crisis will affect the interpretation of the Convention. The Kuimov case, a quarantine with a duration of 7 weeks and a limited local impact can hardly compare to the current global pandemic. Thus, the roles and perspectives of different stakeholders in child law in the private international law sphere at international level (parents – mothers and fathers, judges, the children themselves, other relatives, etc.) need to be reconsidered to respond adequately to this new situation.

States’ responses and domestic courts procedural actions – interference in the family life

If we try to foresee how the future case-law will look, the first question is what can be considered as “interference” in the current situation. The primary purpose of Article 8 is to protect against arbitrary interferences with private and family life, home, and correspondence by a public authority (Libert v France, §§ 40-42). This obligation is of a negative kind, described by the Court as the essential object of Article 8 (Kroon and Others v the Netherlands, § 31). However, Contracting States also have positive obligations to ensure that Article 8 rights are respected including as between private parties (Evans v the United Kingdom [GC], § 75).

In this sense, interference in times of Corona, related to the right of family life under Article 8 are clearly present. Firstly, the application of the general, mainly procedural rules, adopted by the state’s authorities in emergency response to the COVID-19, and secondly, to give example of particular application of these responses – the various approaches taken by courts in determining how to deal remotely with the specific case in the context of the pandemic.

States Emergency Responses

Shortly after the seriousness of the situation became clear, many States responded to the threat posed by the COVID-19 by setting the rule that decisions regarding parental responsibility still apply, with the caution that the exercise of parental rights and right of access has to be respected in the health context. Due to the pandemic, courts are mostly closed and, generally, the only applications that can be reviewed in family matters are international child abduction cases, urgent claims to obtain a restraining order in cases of domestic violence and, in some cases, provisional and protective measures. As to pending and future cases – for instance parental disputes that are not yet introduced to the court but still might be urgent, the hearings that were originally set during the “lockdown period” have generally been cancelled or postponed. Lodging new applications is possible, but they are not immediately entertained.

As an example of the emergency measures adopted in some States, a state of health emergency was declared in France for two months from 24 March 2020 until 24 May 2020. During the lockdown, the courts have been dealing only with international child abduction cases and urgent applications for restraining order in cases of domestic violence. In Spain, precautionary measures under Article 158 of the Spanish Civil Code are available at this time only in urgent cases. Deadlines remain suspended until further notice, but since 15 April 2020, it has been permissible to file new applications with the court. In Italy the suspension has some exceptions, namely in the field of family law matters and protection of vulnerable people:
some Juvenile Tribunal procedures take place, like adoption procedures, foreign children without parents procedures, children brought away from their families, and situations of heavy risk for the child; surprisingly the same procedures in front of the Court of Appeal are not explicitly exempted from suspension.

The Approaches of Domestic Courts

In sum, Europe-wide, the message from the governments is that existing judgments on custody and access must be maintained, except where there is a concrete risk to the child’s health because of one of the parents’ behavior or living environment, which may give an opening to a modification. The difficulty arises from the fact that assessment of all particular claims is far not realistic having in mind the dimensions of the pandemic and the limited resources of the courts to react at this moment.

However, the courts soon recognized that regardless the danger of potential contamination, blanket policy that children should follow their usual visitation regimes is inconsistent with a comprehensive analysis of the best interests of the child. Therefore, the presumption is that existing parenting arrangements and schedules should continue, but subject to whatever modifications may be necessary to ensure that all COVID-19 precautions are adhered to, including strict social distancing.

This approach reflected into recent court decisions, concerning the rights protected by Article 8. The health, safety and well-being of children and families remains the courts’ foremost consideration during COVID-19. In many cases, a parent’s personal risk factors (through employment or associations, for example) required controls with respect to their direct contact with a child. A parent’s lifestyle or behavior in the face of COVID-19 (for example, failing to comply with social distancing; or failing to take reasonable health-precautions) raised sufficient concerns about parental judgment that direct parent-child contact would have to be reconsidered.

Compliance of the interference with the requirements of Article 8

Turning to the question how these interferences are to be assessed in the light of the Convention, we should note that like most Convention rights, Article 8 is not absolute. Article 8(2) enumerates the legitimate aims which may justify proportionate interference by a public authority and potential infringement upon the rights protected in Article 8.

At least three of these justifications in the aforementioned context can well be related with the Corona crisis: public safety, protection of the health, and protection of the rights and freedoms of others. In the present situation the purpose of the measures is clearly to limit the spread of the Coronavirus by imposing certain limitations, and it logically seems to constitute “legitimate aim”.

The Court is however quite succinct when it comes to assessing the existence of a legitimate aim within the meaning of Article 8(2) (S.A.S. v France [GC], § 114). Following the rule established in its case-law, in future cases it will be for the respondent Governments to demonstrate that the interference pursued a legitimate aim (Mozer v the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], § 194). They will need to show that the particular measure in question aimed at protection of public safety, health, and rights and freedoms of others, depending upon the specific situation in the particular country.

Moreover, the States concerned will need to argue the proportionality of these measures, which might be the greater challenge in this situation. As a principle, the restriction impacting upon fundamental rights is unlikely to be proportionate if a less restrictive method could have been used to achieve this legitimate aim. The concept of proportionality in times of pandemic puts great burden on the authorities, requiring them to strike a fair balance between the interests of the individual whose rights are being impinged upon, and the interests of others or of the community. When life is at stake, like now, that is a particularly difficult balance to strike. In the context of the current pandemic the question is: could these measures be less restrictive?

At this point it is almost impossible to determine the proportionality of the emergency responses, because we must primarily assess the legislative choices underlying it. In addition, the national authorities were forced to make initial assessment in days (if not hours), with all the wide margin of appreciation left to them. In this regard, the Court should give leeway to the Contracting States and their policy makers (see this post by Vassilis P. Tzevelekos at Strasbourg Observers for a discussion on this point).

To summarize whether the potential infringement upon Article 8 is necessary in a democratic society in these pandemic times, we should follow the approach of the Court and balance the interests of the State concerned against the rights of the individual.

In leading Article 8 case, the Court clarified that “necessary” does not have the flexibility of expressions as “useful”, “reasonable”, or “desirable” (which would be nowadays very convenient), but implies the existence of a “pressing social need” for the interference in question (Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, § 51). In this context, we should note that if such measures are in principle regarded and announced as a temporary, amended frequently according to the developments and are discontinued as soon as circumstances permit, in pandemic situation with this magnitude the pressing social need such measures to be imposed may be considered as present.

Speaking specifically of the discussed domestic courts’ approaches, of course, the substantial compliance with the Convention cannot be assessed altogether as it would always depend on the unique circumstances of the case. From procedural point of view, of particular interest is the question if the remote or hybrid hearing is sufficiently fair to meet the requirements of Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention. For instance, where lies the balance with the potential delay of the proceedings, in case the remote hearing is considered not suitable in the particular case?

Traditionally, in cases concerning a persons’ relationship with his or her child, there is a duty to exercise exceptional diligence, in view of the risk that the passage of time may result in a de facto determination of the matter (Ignaccolo-Zenide v Romania, § 102; Süß v Germany, § 100, Strömblad v Sweden, § 80) By its nature, a remote hearing, if appropriate at all, can replicate some but not all of the characteristics of a fully attended hearing. The parties should always stay alert to ensure that the dynamics and demands of the remote process do not impinge upon the fundamental principles. Remote hearings also place additional, and in some cases, considerable burdens on the participants – for instance, despite the right of translation is not absolute in the view if the Court, the language barrier appears as greater issue than in the traditional hearings, which in a cross-border context could be decisive.

How in this context to assess if the safeguards of Article 8 and Article 6 have been regarded? There is no straightforward answer, but in the present crisis the assumption must be that such a process is capable of being fair and meets the requirements of both provisions.

First of all, when assessing the suitability of the remote process, the courts must seek to ensure that it does not become overloaded by making distinction between those decisions that must be prioritized and those that must unfortunately wait until proper time is available. In some cases, even when it is much more difficult for the judge to watch the reactions of the parties to the evidence and although this is a general disadvantage of the remote hearing, it cannot be considered as major issue. Overall, the technology could be capable of providing a satisfactory hearing and the judge would understandably continue with remote proceeding, when the urgency is prioritized, even at the expense that at the end the usual basic procedural safeguards may have been in some way overlooked. Despite all this, it seems that this could not be assessed as a violation of Article 8 and 6 in cases when a child has been held in limbo for a long time.

Naturally, the suitability of the remote hearing will be raised (among the other issues) as a complaint before the Court. In its case per case analysis the Court should assess it not only as a separate procedural issue, but also in its interplay with the whole emergency situation.

Different factors should be taken into account, such as whether each of the parties could engage sufficiently with the professional evidence to an adequate degree for the process to be regarded as fair, and whether each of the parties have been able to follow and to understand the court hearing and to instruct their lawyers adequately in a timely manner. Checking that the demands and dynamics of the remote hearing did not encroach upon the central principles of a fair proceedings is crucial.

In these cases it would be good practice already now the domestic courts to discuss it in their arguments, relating to the requirements posed by the Convention (see for a good example the ruling of the Family Court of England and Wales in Re S (a child), § 13). Some pandemic-specific caveats should also be considered, for instance the fact that the highly pressured circumstances in which all the participants are working could lead to a chain reaction in the course of which fundamental legal and procedural principles come to be compromised despite the best intentions of a range of dedicated professionals.

As a conclusion, last months and weeks turned upside down the world as we know it. Governments tried to keep human rights and fundamental freedoms at the heart of measures to combat the pandemic, yet forced to take various emergency actions. At this point we can only guess whether these measures comply with the requirements of the Convention. Now, as the outbreak of COVID-19 slows down, it is probably a good moment to see if human rights are not forgotten in such uncertain times – there is still time to exercise more attentive monitoring of the level of protection and to make better choices.

At its fifty-second session, in 2019, UNCITRAL considered a proposal from the European Union on applicable law in insolvency proceedings (A_CN.9_995_E).

UNCITRAL agreed on the importance of the topic, which complemented the significant work already done by UNCITRAL in the area of insolvency law, in particular cross-border insolvency.

However, UNCITRAL also observed that the subject matter was potentially complex and required a high level of expertise in various subjects of private international law, as well as on choice of law in areas such as contract law, property law, corporate law, securities and banking and other areas on which it had not worked recently. Therefore, UNCITRAL agreed that it was essential to delineate carefully the scope and nature of the work that it could undertake.

UNCITRAL requested the Secretariat to organize a colloquium, in cooperation with other relevant international organizations, with a view to submitting concrete proposals for UNCITRAL’s possible future work on such topic, for consideration by the Commission at its fifty-third session, in 2020. The Colloquium is to be conducted on an informal basis, that is, not as an intergovernmental group.

The Colloquium was to be held in New York on 15 May 2020 (see the draft programme here), in cooperation with the Hague Conference on Private International Law.

Due to the postponement of the Working Group V session originally scheduled for 11-14 May 2020, the Colloquium on Applicable Law in Insolvency Proceedings is also postponed. Information on the new date will be communicated by the UNCITRAL Secretariat when possible.

The author of this post is Aygun Mammadzada, PhD Researcher at the Institute of Maritime Law of the University of Southampton.

Status quo

Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union leaves many uncertainties and puzzling effects on civil justice and cross-border judicial cooperation. Upon its departure on 31 January 2020 the United Kingdom ceased to be a member of the Union while remaining subject to the EU law and rulings of the European Court of Justice throughout the transition period under Article 67 of the Withdrawal Agreement. In less than five weeks – by 1 July 2020, the United Kingdom and European Union should decide whether to extend the transition period up to two years, as permitted by the Agreement. However, that has been ruled out by the United Kingdom, which could be altered by another legislation and it seems hardly a case.

Once the transition period ends, the Brussels I bis Regulation will no longer be applicable to jurisdiction, as well as choice of court agreements and the recognition of judgments between the United Kingdom and the Union.

Absent such an instrument, successful operation of the sphere will mostly depend on either Article 33-34 of the Recast Regulation which are not comprehensive enough or domestic rules which prevent uniformity and certainty due to inevitable varieties. This will significantly affect businesses and individuals. Data suggested that in 2018 the UK was the largest legal services market in Europe (valued at approximately £35 bn in 2018).

On the same line, 75% of over 800 claims which were issued at the Admiralty and Commercial Court involved at least one foreign party and in 53% of the case all parties were international. In 2019, 77% of over 600 such claims were international in nature whilst in half of the cases all parties were international. On the same note, despite the fact that the Member States are taking different measures, such as establishing special commercial courts to attract international commercial parties, there is still not any alternative to the London Commercial Court as a leading global centre for international dispute resolution, as discussed by Giesela Rühl. Nonetheless, without any harmonized legal framework applicable to jurisdiction and the recognition of judgments in cross-border civil and commercial cases, parties to international trade might refrain from linking their transactions to English jurisdiction or avoid English choice of court agreements.

Among other measures, the UK has expressed that enhanced judicial cooperation with the EU is part of its global outlook and it will continue adherence to the existing international treaties, conventions and standards in the field. In this ambit, on 8 April 2020, the UK deposited its request for acceding the Lugano Convention of 2007 (see here a comment by Matthias Lehman).

The Convention is still applicable in regard to the UK during the transition period as part of the EU law. Unlike the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements of 2005 which is also among the UK’s Brexit-related channels, the Lugano Convention is not an open treaty. According to Article 72 of the Convention, the UK can become a member only upon the unanimous consent of all of the contracting parties (EU and EFTA states). This brings many uncertainties about the foreseeable status of the UK’s accession request.

The Lugano Convention is mainly mirroring the Brussels regime and therefore, it might enshrine perspectives of cross-border judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters between the UK and Union. The government perceives the importance of the Convention for the provision of judicial certainty and prevention of multiple court proceedings. Nevertheless, the Convention does not contain new lis pendens provisions that were brought by the Brussels I bis Regulation, hence lacks the same degree of respect to party autonomy and choice of court agreements as ensured by the revised Regulation.

Mastermelt Ltd v Siegfried Evionnaz SA: The relevance of the case

In the recent case of Mastermelt Ltd v Siegfried Evionnaz SA, the High Court decided that the Brussels I bis Regulation does not affect the interpretation of the Lugano Convention. Mr Justice Walksman concluded that unlike the new lis pendens provisions as contained in Article 31(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, the Lugano Convention preserves the “court first seized” rule and therefore, regardless of an exclusive jurisdiction agreement the court first seized shall continue the proceedings and rule on its jurisdiction.

This decision is very timely since it triggers nonequilibrium views on the foreseeable membership of the United Kingdom to the Convention. It confirms continuation of the Gasser scenarios and torpedo actions under the Lugano Convention, furthermore, gives rise to the risk of parallel proceedings and irreconcilable judgments.

Factual background

The dispute arose between Mastermelt Limited (Claimant), an English company, and Siegfried Evionnaz SA (Defendant), a Swiss company, over the quality of Mastermelt’s performance of the reclamation services in 2018.

After Siegfried informed Mastermelt about their intention to commence proceedings in Switzerland on the basis of the exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour the Swiss courts contained in Siegfried’s standard terms and conditions of contract (“STC”), the claimant initiated the English proceedings on 5 February 2019 seeking negative declaratory relief against the defendant. Later, on 23 July 2019, Siegfried instituted the Swiss proceedings in the Zurich Commercial Court against Mastermelt and subsequently, on 24 May 2019, applied the English High Court, for a declaration that it had no jurisdiction.

Mastermelt brought another set of Swiss proceedings for a stay in early 2020, which was rejected by the Zurich Commercial Court on 13 February 2020 and advanced to the Federal Supreme Court. As of the date of the hearing in the English High Court, the Supreme Court had not given any ruling on that.

Issues

The English court considered whether the harmonised version of Article 27 of the Lugano Convention applies and if so, it would have had stayed the proceedings until the Swiss court had decided the question of jurisdiction. Subsequently, the court also decided the question of its own jurisdiction and validity of the exclusive jurisdiction agreement.

Analysis

While considering the proper interpretation of Article 27 of the Lugano Convention the court as a primary point conferred that it was not bound by the Swiss court’s decision on the same issue which was relied upon by Siegfried.

Referring to Protocol No 2 to the Lugano Convention, Mr Justice Walksman paid ‘due account’ to the Swiss judgment, however, refused its binding effect. Drawing on the ‘too remote’ nature of the former to be characterized as res judicata, the judge opposed to the defendant’s contention to apply the CJEU’s decision in Gothaer v Samskip. On this line, the High Court resisted the harmonised interpretation of Article 27 of the Lugano Convention as Article 31(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation and as the first seized court denied staying the proceedings.

Contrary to the defendant’s reasoning, the court determined that although the CJEU’s decision in Gasser was reversed by the new Article 31(2), it was not obsolete and still had limited application outside the Regulation. The court reiterated its conclusion by emphasizing the significance of academic discussion. As stated by Professor Briggs, “the innovation created by 31.2 … does not apply to proceedings within the scope of Lugano II which remains regulated by the original rule of strict temporal priority …”. Professor Joseph also took a similar approach by expressing that “… there is no equivalent provision in the … Convention to Article 31.2 … Therefore, as regards the enforcement of jurisdiction agreements, the court first seized will examine the enforcement of such an agreement, irrespective of whether it is the chosen court…”

These brought continuation of the proceedings and examination of the second issue – jurisdiction of the court first seized. Pursuant to the Convention, if there was an exclusive jurisdiction agreement in the ambit of Article 23 of the Lugano Convention the English court had to dismiss the proceedings in favour of the designated court, otherwise Siegfried’s claim had to be litigated in England as the place of performance according to Article 5.1(a).

Referring to a significant body of the European and English case law (including the CJEU’s rulings in Salotti v Ruwa, Berghoefer v ASA SA, Iveco v Van Hool, Benincasa v Dentalkit and the judgment o the Court Appeal in Deutsche Bank v Asia Pacific), Mr Justice Walksman regarded the existence of an agreement as an independent concept. The court highlighted the reasoning in Powell Duffryn and Aeroflot and stated that a valid agreement should be “clearly and precisely” demonstrated either in a form of “writing” or ‘evidenced in writing’. Moreover, it was asserted that the written form could be evidenced not only in a single document but it could consist of multiple documents such as the seller’s quotation and buyer’s purchase order.

While considering what constituted “writing”, Mr Justice Walksman articulated the tendency of the courts to adopt a flexible approach as in the CJEU’s judgment in Berghoefer and his own earlier decision in R + V Versicherung v Robertson which in turn referred to the decision of the Court of Appeal in 7E Communications v Vertex.

At the same time, he emphasized the importance of the valid agreement in the sense of consent in line with the opinion of the Advocate General Bot in Profit Investment. On this basis it was submitted that an oral agreement of the party to the other party’s STC which included an exclusive jurisdiction agreement would not be sufficient to meet the durability requirement without later written evidence of such putative consent. This view was also supported by academic commentaries and English authorities such as ME Tankers v Abu Dhabi Container Lines [2002] 2 Lloyds 643, Claxton Engineering v TXM [2007] 1WR 2175, Chester Hall v Service Centres [2014] EWHC 2529.

The court admitted that there was a written agreement and manifested consent between the parties on the basis of the purchase orders and STC, which were strongly compelled by prior dealings, later statements and invoices expressly found in the email exchange. It was also maintained that there was “much the better of the argument” satisfying the good arguable case standard for the applicability of Article 23.1(a) and any opposing presumption would be “commercially absurd”.

Upon these observations, Mr Justice Walksman held that the English proceedings had to be dismissed in favour of the exclusively designated Swiss court.

Comments

This decision is of importance for several reasons. It reaffirms the emphasis that has been traditionally placed on party autonomy and authentic consent in English law and practice.  Likewise, it reasserts the exhaustive interpretation of the form requirement of the exclusive jurisdiction agreements within the meaning of the Lugano Convention which might be a useful reference point for the courts post-Brexit provided the UK would have become a member to the framework.

On the other hand, the judgment is particularly sensible at the time of the United Kingdom’s Brexit planning and strategy to continue the Lugano membership. It reveals serious differences between the Brussels I bis Regulation and Convention notwithstanding the equivalent rules existing in both.

Contrary to the remarks favoring the Convention as an “oven ready” option for the United Kingdom, the lack of a mechanism preventing parallel proceedings and irreconcilable judgments frustrates legal certainty, provokes waste of time and expenses, thus, threatens the vital principle of private international law – party autonomy.

Articles 5 and 6 of the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements which enforce parties’ choice and oblige any non-chosen court to stay or dismiss the proceedings, might be helpful in this regard, however only to some limited extent due to its limited scope and application only to the Contracting States, whereas the EFTA states have not ratified the treaty.

In this regard, return of anti-suit injunctions as the measures frequently issued by the English courts in support of exclusive jurisdiction agreements provokes special attention. Indeed, the lack of mutual trust within the Lugano framework might result in the reversal of the West Tankers ruling, however the matter is still uncertain since there has not been any relevant authority for such an implication. All the mentioned points raise considerable doubts over the satisfactory replacement of the Brussels I bis Regulation by the Convention for the post-Brexit UK.

Moreover, unusual obligation to “pay due account” to the case law of other contracting states, as well as the CJEU provided by Protocol No 2 to the Convention broadens skepticism. As indicated by Professor Hess, such language “… does not mean more than looking at the pertinent case-law and giving reasons as to why a deviation is considered to be necessary”. Furthermore, the absence of any sanction upon deviations brings “inherent weakness” of the Protocol and rests its application perspectives solely on “… goodwill and of courtesy of the courts …”.

All these lead to non-uniformity and harbours suspicion against the Convention as a successful post-Brexit means of the UK. These concerns leave further room for discussion about seeking robust solutions and especially reaching a bilateral agreement in this context as advised by Professor Hess. However crucial these items are, they are the subject matter of another study.

All in all, provided the United Kingdom becomes a Contracting State to the Lugano Convention, the Mastermelt ruling alerts the parties to be more careful and get appropriate legal advice while contracting and designating a competent forum for the resolution of their disputes.

The second issue of the Journal du droit international for 2020 is out. It contains one article concerned with private international law and several casenotes.

The article is authored by Djoleen Moya and discusses whether EU choice of law rules allocate normative powers or serve private interests (Conflits intra-européens de lois et conflits de souverainetés). The English abstract reads:

For the past 70 years or so, choice-of-law rules have been considered as rules of private law, dealing primarily with the interests of private persons involved in international situations. This conception, however, is now disputed. According to a growing number of scholars, the solutions deriving from EU law on matters of conflicts of laws would tend to allocate normative powers between Member States and circumscribe their respective legislative sovereignties. In this respect, the Europeanisation of private international law would have reinvented the problem of choice-of-law in terms of conflicts between States, rather than between private persons. On reflection, though, the necessary conditions to consider choice-of-law rules as allocating legislative powers are not met. In particular, the legal regime of choice-of-law rules in EU law looks pretty incompatible with any representation of conflicts of laws as conflicts of sovereignties.

A full table of content of the issue can be accessed here.

In a recently reported ruling (No 423/2018, in Chronicles of Private Law, 2019, p. 204), the Greek Supreme Court (Άρειος Πάγος) addressed the thorny issues of choice of forum and choice of law agreements relating to agency and distribution. The judgment basically follows the path paved by the CJEU. However, its analysis is noteworthy, allowing hopes for a shift in the established course of action.

The Facts

A Dutch company entered into a distribution agreement with a Greek company in 2004, followed by an agency agreement in 2007. The agreements included a choice of forum clause granting exclusive jurisdiction to the courts of Amsterdam and a clause stating that the contracts were governed by Dutch law. The Dutch principal terminated the agreements in 2009.

The Greek company started litigation in Athens. The defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the Greek courts on the basis of the choice of court clause. Both first and second instance Greek courts found they lacked jurisdiction.

The Grounds of Appeal

The claimant filed a (final) appeal before the Supreme Court, arguing that the choice of forum clause was abusive, and contrary as such to public policy. The Greek company submitted, among other things, that it had no real negotiating power with the principal, and that the choice of law clause resulted in the circumvention of Greek mandatory provisions.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court confirmed the lower courts’ finding and dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction. The forum selection clause, the Court noted, was agreed upon as a result of sound negotiations, with no abuse on the part of the Dutch company. A draft of the agreement had been previously submitted to the claimant, who had sufficient time to reflect and did not raise any objections or reservations.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the Greek company had a high turnover and significant profits. Its representatives, the Court noted, were familiar with travelling abroad for discussions and negotiations; hence, any difficulty and increased costs associated with the exclusive jurisdiction of Dutch courts did not make litigation before the latter courts impossible or unreasonably burdensome.

The combined choice of Dutch courts and Dutch law, the Court added, did not affect the validity of the choice of forum clause. A circumvention of Greek mandatory law provisions was not established. No abuse of the principal’s position was evidenced. In any case, Dutch law could not be regarded as completely alien to the case, given that the principal is in fact based in the Netherlands.

The Supreme Court finally approved the Athens Court of Appeal decision not to turn to the choice of law clause for the purposes of assessing the validity of the choice of forum agreement. It relied for this on the ruling of the CJEU in Trasporti Castelletti, where the Court of Justice stated that “the national court seised should be able readily to decide whether it has jurisdiction on the basis of the rules of the [Brussels] Convention [of 1968, the predecessor of the Brussels I bis Regulation], without having to consider the substance of the case”, adding that the “substantive rules of liability applicable in the chosen court must not affect the validity of the jurisdiction clause”.

Comment

In a nutshell, the show must go on. In spite of the scepticism voiced in legal scholarship, the foundations of the CJEU ruling in Trasporti Castelletti are too hard to shake, let alone demolish.

Still, the Supreme Court did not refuse to examine the public policy defence raised by the agency, and in fact accepted to discuss the issue of the abusive character of the clause. One may not agree with the result; however the sheer fact that the court dared the step, raises ambitions for a further scrutiny in future cases.

I finish with a suggestion for further reading: Many esteemed colleagues have published notes on the above and subsequent rulings of the Court which followed suit. One of the most recent articles dealing extensively with the issue was authored by Matthias Weller, whose analysis gave me ample food for thought [Matthias Weller, Choice of court agreements under Brussels Ia and under the Hague convention: coherences and clashes, Journal of Private International Law, 2007, 13:1, 91-129, in particular pp. 107-109].