Feed aggregator

The latest issue of the RabelsZ (Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht) has been published. Since 2024, RabelsZ has been an open access publication, with all articles freely available to readers online. The focal point of the first issue of 2025 is international and comparative family law, with contributions critically examining the interactions between […]

En vertu des dispositions de l’article 18 du règlement (UE) n° 2015/848 du 20 mai 2015 relatif aux procédures d’insolvabilité ainsi que des principes édictés en droit français par les articles L. 622-21, I (arrêt des poursuites individuelles) et L. 622-22 du code de commerce (interruption des instances en cours), l’instance en cours en France est interrompue en cas d’ouverture d’une procédure d’insolvabilité sur le territoire d’un autre État membre. Sa reprise demeure subordonnée à la déclaration de la créance du créancier poursuivant au passif de la procédure d’insolvabilité étrangère. L’instance ainsi reprise ne peut alors tendre qu’à la fixation du montant de la créance.

en lire plus

Audience solennelle d'éloges funèbres à la mémoire de M. Uno Lõhmus et de Mme Ena Cremona

Deldits
Principes du droit communautaire
RGPD et transidentité : la rectification de données relatives à l’identité de genre ne peut être subordonnée à la preuve d’un traitement chirurgical

Shuvalov / Conseil
Relations extérieures
Guerre en Ukraine : la Cour de justice confirme les mesures restrictives adoptées contre M. Igor Shuvalov, ancien vice-Premier ministre du gouvernement russe

Louise Ellen Teitz (Roger Williams University School of Law) has posted Harmonizing Private International Law and International Private Law Through Softlaw on SSRN. The abstract of the article, a homage to Symeon Symeonides and set to be published in the Willamette Law Review, reads as follows: This article, prepared for a celebration of the career […]

La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme a conclu à la violation de l’article 2 de la Convention européenne (droit à la vie) dans son volet matériel à la suite du décès de Rémi Fraisse lors des opérations de maintien de l’ordre sur le site de Sivens.

en lire plus

ConflictofLaws.net is happy to announce Saloni Khanderia from Jindal Global Law School as our new General Editor. Saloni joined the blog’s Editorial Board in 2019 and has been an active contributor ever since. She takes over from Jeanne Huang (University of Sydney) and will serve as the blog’s General Editor together with Tobias Lutzi (University of Augsburg).

The Editorial Board is indebted to Jeanne for her over two years of service as General Editor. During her tenure, important changes have been implemented regarding the blog’s operation, including the redesign of our frontpage with the new calendar feature. At the same time, our community has continued to grow to more than 2,5k subscribers of our e-mail newsletter and 5k followers on LinkedIn. We’re deeply grateful for the time and energy she has dedicated to the blog and are delighted that she will stay on the Editorial Board.

Semedo / Parlement
Statut des fonctionnaires
Plainte pour harcèlement visant une ancienne membre du Parlement européen : le constat de harcèlement et la sanction prononcée par la présidente du Parlement sont annulés, au motif que les droits de la défense n’ont pas été respectés

On 4 March 2025, Prof. Thomas Kadner-Graziano presented publicly on line the project of research and the achievements to date of the EAPIL’s Working Group on the Feasibility of a European Private International Law Act (to which I belong). A few days earlier, the EAPIL blog had informed about an article of Prof. K. Boele-Woelki […]

La juridiction de l’État membre du domicile du défendeur demeure compétente pour connaître de l’action principale en contrefaçon d’un brevet délivré ou validé dans un autre État membre, même si le défendeur conteste, par voie d’exception, la validité de ce titre. En revanche, l’article 24, § 4, du règlement (UE) n° 1215/2012 du 12 décembre 2012 dit règlement « Bruxelles I bis », ne s’applique pas et n’attribue aucune compétence exclusive à une juridiction d’un État tiers. Par conséquent, si la validité d’un brevet délivré dans un État tiers est contestée par voie d’exception devant le tribunal de l’État membre du domicile du défendeur saisi de l’action principale en contrefaçon, ce dernier peut, en principe, connaître à la fois de l’exception de nullité et de cette action en contrefaçon.  

en lire plus

Le terme « entreprise », figurant à l’article 83, §§ 4 à 6, du règlement (UE) 2016/679 du Parlement européen et du Conseil, du 27 avril 2016, relatif à la protection des personnes physiques à l’égard du traitement des données à caractère personnel et à la libre circulation de ces données (RGPD), correspond à la notion d’« entreprise », au sens des articles 101 et 102 du Traité sur le fonctionnement de l’Union européenne (TFUE), de sorte que, lorsqu’une amende pour violation du règlement (UE) 2016/679 est imposée à un responsable du traitement de données à caractère personnel, qui est ou fait partie d’une entreprise, le montant maximal de l’amende est déterminé sur la base d’un pourcentage du chiffre d’affaires annuel mondial total de l’exercice précédent de l’entreprise. La notion d’« entreprise » doit également être prise en compte afin d’apprécier la capacité économique réelle ou matérielle du destinataire de l’amende et ainsi vérifier si l’amende est à la fois effective, proportionnée et dissuasive.

en lire plus

Lorsque l’arrêt du Tribunal de l’Union européenne est rendu à la suite d’un débat contradictoire entre certaines parties et par défaut à l’égard d’une autre partie défenderesse défaillante, le recours en opposition n’est ouvert qu’à celle-ci, contre les seuls points du dispositif de cet arrêt qui la concernent. Les autres points du dispositif dudit arrêt qui concernent les parties défenderesses autres que cette partie défenderesse défaillante constituent une décision « mettant fin à l’instance » (…) et ne peuvent faire l’objet d’une opposition ». Dès lors, le pourvoi devant la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne est ouvert.

L’interprétation du contrat étant, d’abord, une recherche de l’intention commune des parties et le contrat lui-même ne contenant aucun principe de couverture intégrale, rien n’impose que l’exclusion de couverture soit interprétée strictement.
 

en lire plus

Commission / Pologne (Contrôle ultra vires de la jurisprudence de la Cour de justice par une cour constitutionnelle)
État de droit : l’avocat général Spielmann considère que le recours de la Commission européenne concernant la Cour constitutionnelle polonaise est fondé

The UK Supreme Court judgment in UniCredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance LLC [2024] UKSC 30, upholding an anti-suit injunction restraining Russian proceedings brought in violation of an arbitration agreement providing for a seat in France, has caused significant interest. We covered it on the EAPIL Blog in a post noting the judgment and in a […]

By Sophia Tang, Wuhan University

 

China’s New Civil Procedure Law adopted in 2023 and taking effect from 1 Jan 2024 introduces significant changes to the previous civil procedure law regarding cross-border litigation. One of the key changes pertains to choice of court agreements. In the past, Chinese law on choice of court agreements has been criticized for being outdated and inconsistent with international common practice, particularly because it requires choice of court clauses to be in writing and mandates that the chosen court must have “practical connections” with the dispute. After China signed the Hague Choice of Court Convention, there was hope that China might reform its domestic law to align with the Hague Convention’s terms and eventually ratify the Convention.

 

The New Civil Procedure Law retains the old provision on choice of court agreements, stating that parties can choose a court with practical connections to the dispute in writing (Article 35). This provision is included in the chapter dealing with jurisdiction in domestic cases, but traditionally, Chinese courts have applied the same requirements to choice of court clauses in cross-border cases.

 

The 2023 Amendment to the Civil Procedure Law introduces Article 277 as a new provision specifically addressing choice of court agreements in cross-border cases. It states that if parties in cross-border civil disputes choose Chinese courts in writing, Chinese courts will have jurisdiction. Notably, this provision does not require that the chosen Chinese courts have practical connections with the dispute. In other words, it may imply that when parties in cross-border disputes choose Chinese courts, Chinese courts will accept jurisdiction regardless of whether they have any connection to the dispute. The removal of the practical connection requirement is intended to encourage overseas parties to choose Chinese courts as a neutral forum for resolving disputes. This is a crucial step in enhancing the international reception of the Chinese International Commercial Court (CICC) and advancing China’s goal of becoming a dispute resolution hub for Belt and Road initiatives.

 

This change aligns with the Hague Choice of Court Convention, which respects party autonomy and reduces the requirements for making parties’ consent to the competent court effective. Additionally, the New Civil Procedure Law prevents Chinese courts from declining jurisdiction based on forum non conveniens (Art 282(2)) or lis pendens (Art 281(1)) when a choice of Chinese court clause exists, consistent with the duty of the chosen state under Article 5(2) of the Hague Choice of Court Convention.

 

However, controversy remains. Since Article 277 explicitly applies to situations where Chinese courts are chosen, it does not address the choice of foreign courts. The New Civil Procedure Law does not include a specific provision addressing the prerequisites for choosing foreign courts. It is likely that the prerequisites for choosing foreign courts will follow the general rule on prorogation jurisdiction in Article 35. Pursuant to this interpretation, if parties choose a foreign court, the choice is valid only if it is made in writing and the chosen court has practical connections with the dispute. This creates an asymmetric system in international jurisdiction, making it easier for parties to choose Chinese courts than foreign courts. It leaves room for Chinese court to compete with a chosen foreign court, which may demonstrate China’s policy to promote the international influence of Chinese courts and to protect the jurisdiction of Chinese courts in China-related disputes.

 

This asymmetric system is barely compatible with the Hague Choice of Court Convention, which is based on reciprocity. If China ratifies the Hague Convention, the asymmetric system cannot function effectively. Under Article 6 of the Convention, a non-chosen court of a Contracting State must suspend or dismiss proceedings. Even if a choice of foreign court clause is invalid under Chinese law, it would not meet any of the exceptional grounds listed in Article 6. The lack of a practical connection with the chosen court cannot be interpreted as leading to a “manifest injustice” or being “manifestly contrary to the public policy” of China.

 

Of course, because the New Civil Procedure Law does not clarify the prerequisites for choosing foreign courts, alternative interpretations are possible. Article 280 provides that if parties conclude an exclusive choice of court clause selecting a foreign court, and this choice does not violate Chinese exclusive jurisdiction or affect China’s sovereignty, security, and public interest, Chinese courts may decline jurisdiction if the same dispute has been brought before them. This suggests that China does not intend to create a significant difference between the choice of foreign and Chinese courts. If this is indeed the legislative intention, one alternative interpretation is that Article 35 should apply exclusively to choice of court clauses in domestic proceedings. In the absence of clear rules governing choice of foreign court clauses in cross-border proceedings, this situation can be analogized to the choice of Chinese courts in such proceedings. Consequently, the same conditions outlined in Article 277 should apply equally to the choice of foreign courts. This interpretation would enhance the law’s compatibility with the Hague Choice of Court Convention.

 

It is not yet clear which interpretation will ultimately be accepted. The Supreme People’s Court (SPC) should provide judicial guidance on this matter. Hopefully, bearing in mind the possibility of ratifying the Hague Choice of Court Convention, the SPC will adopt the second interpretation to pave the way for China’s ratification of the Convention

La Cour de justice de l’Union européenne a été invitée à se prononcer sur la compatibilité avec le principe d’effectivité de l’Union des dispositions d’une réglementation nationale relative à une action groupée en recouvrement, dont l’interprétation par le juge national faisait obstacle à sa mise en œuvre en matière de concurrence. À cet égard, elle considère qu’il appartient au juge national de laisser ces dispositions inappliquées seulement si, à l’issue d’une vérification par ce dernier, il apparaît : d’une part, qu’aucun autre mécanisme d’action collective n’est disponible et, d’autre part, que les conditions de mise en œuvre d’une action individuelle rendent impossible ou excessivement difficile l’exercice du droit à réparation.

en lire plus

S’appuyant sur l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme de 2022, la Cour administrative d’appel de Paris reconnaît sa compétence pour contrôler le refus de rapatriement de Français retenus dans le nord-est de la Syrie en cas de circonstances exceptionnelles.

en lire plus

On Tuesday, 11 March 2025, 12pm CET, ConflictofLaws.net will be hosting an ad-hoc virtual roundtable on the Commission’s Rome II Report.

Everyone interested is warmly invited to join via this Zoom link.

More information can be found here.

Guest post by Danilo Ruggero Di Bella (Bottega Di Bella)

This post delves into the issues stemming from the exclusive jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) on interim relief in relation with the judicial support of the arbitrations administered by the Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre (PMAC).

Risks of divesting State courts of competence on interim measures 

On one hand, article 32(1)(c) UPC Agreement (UPCA) provides for the exclusive jurisdiction of the UPC to issue provisional measures in disputes concerning classical European patents and European patents with unitary effect. Under article 62 UPCA and Rules 206 and 211 of the UPC Rules of Procedure (UPC RoP), the UPC may grant interim injunctions against an alleged infringer or against an intermediary whose services are used by the alleged infringer, intended to prevent any imminent infringement, to prohibit the continuation of the alleged infringement under the threat of recurring penalties, or to make such continuation subject to the lodging of guarantees intended to ensure the compensation of the patent holder. The UPC may also order the provisional seizure or delivery up of the products suspected of infringing a patent so as to prevent their entry into, or movement, within the channels of commerce. Further, the UPC may order a precautionary seizure of the movable and immovable property of the defendant (such its bank accounts), if an applicant demonstrates circumstances likely to endanger the recovery of damages, as well as an interim award of costs. Additionally, under article 60 UPCA, the UPC may order provisional measures to preserve evidence in respect of the alleged infringement and to inspect premises.

On the other hand, PMAC arbitrations can be seated everywhere in the world (Rule 4 PMAC Rules of Operation) and its arbitral awards can be enforced practically everywhere around the world (under the NY Convention). This means that the competent State court for the assistance and supervision of the arbitration may not necessarily coincide with a court of a UPC Contracting Member State. Such State courts play three fundamental functions in support of the arbitral proceedings, including – for what matters here – the issuance of provisional measures (the other two functions being the judicial appointment of arbitrators and the taking of evidence). Normally, the competent State court for the issuance of the provisional measures is the State court at the place where the arbitral award will be enforced or the court at the place where the measures are to be executed (e.g., article 8 of Spain’s Arbitration law which is largely based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration).

Hence, it is difficult to reconcile the exclusive competence of the UPC on interim measures with the world reach of PMAC arbitrations, since a literal interpretation of article 32(1)(c) UPC Agreement would prevent any State courts from issuing any necessary interim measures. Arguably, while such exclusivity granted to the UPC would not prevent PMAC arbitral tribunals from ordering provisional measures, it does exclude the jurisdiction of other State courts for obtaining interim relief. Thus, this may leave the plaintiff with no protection at the outset of the dispute when the panel of a PMAC arbitration is not already in place to entertain the case yet.

This raises the question whether such exclusivity on provisional measures is desirable, especially, where the interim relief is meant to be executed in a jurisdiction beyond the territory of the UPC, where the UPC provisional measure may not be enforceable at all, and the defendant may object the competence of the State court seized of the application on interim relief because of the UPC exclusivity on such measure.

For instance, in case a dispute arises between two parties who had contractually agreed to solve their differences by way of a PMAC arbitration to be seated in London, it may prove difficult for the plaintiff to apply to English courts for an urgent interim relief to be enforced in the UK (for example, to seize certain products suspected of infringing its patent that have landed at Heathrow airport) pending the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. The defendant may indeed argue that English courts are excluded from ordering any interim relief because of article 32(1)(c) UPC Agreement giving the UPC an exclusive jurisdiction on provisional measures. Therefore, the plaintiff may apply to the UPC for such an interim measure. However, since the UK is not a Contracting Member to the UPCA, English courts may not be obliged to enforce the interim relief granted by the UPC. Consequently, the plaintiff seeking such an urgent interim measure may find itself in a situation without an effective legal protection.

In this respect, it is interesting to recall the so-called “long-arm jurisdiction” of the UPC established by article 71b(2) of the Regulation (EU) ? 542/2014 of 15 May 2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 as regards the rules to be applied with respect to the UPC and the Benelux Court of Justice. This article equips the UPC with extraterritorial jurisdiction by enabling the UPC to grant provisional measures against a third-State domiciled defendant, even if the courts of a third State have jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter. In other words, article 71b(2) shows that the UPC may attempt to retain jurisdiction with respect to provisional measures even when another court has jurisdiction on a given case. If we transpose the implications of this provision to an arbitration setting where an arbitral tribunal seated in a third State is entrusted with deciding on the merits of the case, the UPC may still seek to retain jurisdiction with respect to provisional measures pending the constitution of the arbitral panel. In essence, Article 71b(2) corroborates that in principle the UPC can grant provisional measures even when the main proceedings are taking place in a third country. The problem arises when a party seeks to enforce the UPC-ordered provisional measures in such a third country. Indeed, it remains doubtful whether the UPC provisional measure can be enforced in the relevant third State.

On this issue, some UPCA provisions on provisional measures are somehow conscious of the territorial limitations of the UPC jurisdiction. For instance, part of article 61 UPCA – dealing with on freezing orders – is expressly directed at ordering a party not to remove from the UPC jurisdiction any assets located therein (precisely, to avoid that the infringer may escape liability by moving its assets beyond the UPC jurisdiction). However, article 61.1 UPC Agreement in fine seems to intentionally neglect the territorial limits of the UPC jurisdiction by enabling the UPC to order a party not to deal in any assets, whether located within its jurisdiction or not.

Admittedly, article 32 UPCA contains a carve-out to the exclusivity of the UPC competence by providing for the residual competence of the national courts of the Contracting States for any actions which do not fall within the exclusive competence of the UPC. Nevertheless, the various provisional measures available under the UPCA as detailed in its articles 60, 61, 62 (and elaborated further in Rules 206-211 UPC RoP) do not leave much to the residual competence of the national courts of the Contracting States.

Emergency arbitration as procedural solution

To somehow downsize this procedural issue, the adoption by the PMAC of an emergency arbitrator mechanism would be a welcome amendment in line with the best modern practices of international commercial arbitration. As the need for adopting provisional measures often arises at the outset of the arbitral proceedings, an emergency arbitrator – appointed before the arbitral tribunal is constituted – is in the position to order any interim relief. Further, unlike a State court, the arbitrator would not be prevented from adopting such interim relief by the exclusive competence of the UPC on such measures, since the exclusivity is directed only at excluding other State courts. Moreover, the emergency arbitrator’s provisional measure adopted in the form of an interim award may be more likely to be enforced than UPC orders in jurisdictions beyond the territory of the UPC. For example, the Singapore High Court has confirmed in 2022 that a foreign seated emergency arbitrator award was enforceable under the Singapore International Arbitration Act 1994.

This mechanism could be implemented by the PMAC in its arbitration rules. By way of comparison, for instance, article 43 of the WIPO Expedited Arbitration Rules provides for a detailed procedural framework on “Emergency Relief Proceedings.” According to such framework a party seeking urgent interim relief prior to the establishment of the arbitral tribunal can submit a request for such emergency relief to the Arbitration Institution, which within two days appoints a sole emergency arbitrator who may in turn order any interim measure it deems necessary.

Final remarks

With the view of resizing this procedural problem – which originates from the exclusive competence of the UPC on interim relief in relation to PMAC arbitrations seated in third countries where UPC provisional measure may not be enforceable – it is important to remark that the UPCA contains already a self-correcting mechanism. Namely, by providing at article 62 UPCA for the payment of a recurring penalty in case of non-compliance with a given provisional measure, the UPCA gives the applicant for an interim relief a pecuniary alternative that the UPC can order and enforce within its jurisdiction on the assets of the non-compliant defendant. However, the problem may reemerge in case of provisional measures aimed at preserving evidence located in a third country. In this case the payment of a recurring penalty may not serve its purpose and play only a mild deterrent effect. In such cases, the UPC may draw negative inferences from the lack of cooperation of the defendant, although neither the UPCA nor the UPC RoP expressly provide so.