Un époux qui partage sa vie entre deux États membres ne peut avoir sa résidence habituelle que dans un seul de ces États.
Sur la boutique Dalloz Code civil 2022, annoté Voir la boutique DallozThis post was written by Amy Held, LL.B., LL.M., LL.M., University of Vienna.
Judgment in Silverman v Ryanair DAC [2021] EWHC 2955 (QB) (10 November 2021) was recently handed down in the Queen’s Bench Division of the English High Court of Justice. The issue for determination was a relatively simple one: whether English or Irish law applied to a claim made under the Montreal Convention. This, however, raised the broader issue of how the Montreal Convention interacts with the choice of law rules of the lex fori; in particular, on matters on which the Montreal Convention is silent. The case is also of significance for aviation practitioners because, in practical terms, it was a determination of whether an airline can disapply the choice of law provisions contained in its own Terms and Conditions.
The FactsThis case concerned a personal injury allegedly sustained whilst embarking a flight from East Midlands Airport in England to the Berlin Schönefeld Airport, in Germany. It was common ground between the Claimant passenger and Defendant airline that the Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (‘the Montreal Convention’) applied to the claim.
Nor was it in issue before the court that Article 33 of the Montreal Convention effectively overrode the jurisdiction element of the dispute resolution clause contained in the Defendant’s Terms and Conditions of Carriage (‘the T&Cs’). Notwithstanding that Clause 2.4 of the T&Cs conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the courts of Ireland (as well as specifying Irish law for matters of interpretation and governing law), Article 33 of the Montreal Convention is a mandatory, self-contained scheme for jurisdiction conferring upon claimants a wide range of choice as to the forum in which to issue their claim. The English courts thereby had jurisdiction pursuant to the Claimant’s choice to issue in the place of his “principal and permanent residence.”
The issue on trial before the judge, Master McCloud (‘the Master’) was, however, the law applicable to quantum. Although Article 17 of the Montreal Convention provides for the question of whether liability is established, the type of damage in respect of which compensation may consequently be recovered is a matter on which the Montreal Convention is silent.
Accordingly, the overarching issue of principle was whether, on matters on which the Montreal Convention is silent, those matters are governed by: (i) the law chosen by the parties; (ii) the lex fori or (iii) the law identified by the forum’s own choice of law rules.
A further key issue was whether: (i) the existence of a contract of carriage between the parties meant the claim fell within the Rome I Regulation on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I); or (ii) notwithstanding such contract, the claim fell within the Rome II Regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II).
Governing Law for Matters on which the Montreal Convention is SilentThe Master considered domestic, international, and CJEU decisions to conclude that silence in an international Convention on a particular matter cannot “sensibly be treated” as overriding the forum’s own choice of law rules. Rather, silence in the Convention must be treated as operating as a ‘pass through’, authorising the forum to apply the law that would govern in the absence of the Convention in question.
Furthermore, it does not make any difference if those choice of law rules apply by virtue of another international Convention: in the present case, the Montreal Convention did not override Rome I and Rome II, which were to be treated as the domestic choice of law rules of the English forum. Under the under the case law of the CJEU itself, the rules of jurisdiction contained in the Brussels regime are only disapplied in favour of the rules of jurisdiction contained in an international Convention where two conflict.
Accordingly, the question of quantum fell to be determined by the law identified by the choice of law rules of the English forum.
Rome I or Rome II? Does the Governing Law Clause Survive?The Master held at [65] that, as a matter of the English choice of law rules, Rome II, not Rome I, applied to the claim. Notwithstanding that a contract of carriage had been entered into by the parties with clear choice of Irish law, the claim did not plead a case of breach of contract, not even one in which the Montreal Convention was incorporated. Rather, the Claimant pleaded a case of breach of the Montreal Convention itself. Given that the Montreal Convention does not require carriage by air to be pursuant to a contract, but encompasses gratuitous carriage, the Montreal Convention should be regarded as implementing its own system of law that encompasses both contractual matters and ‘classically tortious concepts’ such as strict liability for injury. The fact that Rome I provides for claims in arising from contracts of carriage did not mean that a claim under the Convention, framed non-contractually, should invariably be treated as though it were a contractual claim.
As such, the present Montreal Convention claim was most appropriately categorised as a “claim in respect of a non-contractual obligation arising out of a tort or delict in the form of causing injury to the claimant through negligence” within the scope of Rome II.
So, the Law Governing Quantum is…Notwithstanding that, under Article 4(1) of Rome II, claims in tort/delict are generally governed the law of the country in which the damage occurs, the Master considered that the present claim had a ‘manifestly closer connection’ with the law of Ireland within the meaning of Article 4(3) of Rome II. Matters to which the Master gave particular emphasis was (i) a pre-existing relationship between the Claimant and Defendant in the form of the contract of carriage; the facts that such contract of carriage not only (ii) contained a clear choice of law clause; but (iii) selected as governing law the law of the place where the airline itself was domiciled.
Drawing upon academic literature, the Master accordingly concluded at [73] that, for issues of cognisable damage and quantum, English law, as the lex fori, identified Irish law as the governing law.
CommentThis was an unusual case in that the accident occurred in England, the loss was sustained in England, the claim was issued in England…and yet the Claimant sought to apply Irish law to govern the claim. Accordingly, it might be said that, perhaps even more unusually, the Claimant’s case succeeded.
However, it is submitted that the Master correctly applied the relevant legal provisions to reach the correct conclusion: although the accident and damage was sustained in England, the English courts were seised by chance as a matter of the Claimant’s choice under Article 33(2) of the Montreal Convention as the place of his residence. Had the Claimant been resident in another jurisdiction and issued there, the strength of the English nexus would have been greatly reduced. In these circumstances, the application of Irish law would appear rather less incongruous.
The case also raises the question of whether ‘contracts conquer all.’ Prima facie, the conclusion drawn by the Master that Irish law applied appears to lend support to the proposition that, in the EU, a governing law clause in a contract of carriage will ultimately prevail when assessing recoverable damages and quantum for bodily injury within the meaning of Article 17 and other matters on which the Montreal Convention is silent; it does not matter whether Rome I or Rome II applies, as the outcome is the same.
This, however, overlooks one key part of the Master’s reasoning: whether the ‘escape clause’ in Article 4(3) of Rome II applies falls to be determined on a case-by-case basis upon consideration of the issue of ‘manifest connection.’ It cannot be said, therefore, that a contract of carriage containing a choice of law clause will always, without more, displace the general rule under Article 4(1) of Rome II that torts/delicts are governed by the law of the place in which the damage is sustained.
On a practical level, the case is also a useful reminder that although claims brought under the Montreal Convention are not necessarily claims in contract, the Master did not rule out the possibility that a comparable claim could be brought as one of breach of contract. It appears that the matter ultimately turns on the way in which the claimant elects to plead his claim.
This is closely linked to the question of whether an airline can disapply the choice of law clause contained in its own T&Cs. Strictly speaking, the choice of law rule in the present case was not so much ‘disapplied’ as simply not having been engaged by the facts of the case. Characterisation of the claim as a tort/delict meant that the contractual provisions did not apply. On the other hand, had the claim been pleaded and characterised as one for breach of contract, it is highly likely that the governing law clause would have survived to apply.
Heslop v Heslop & Anor [2021] EWHC 2957 (Ch) essentially queries whether Deceased testator actually had any estate or interest in Jamaican Property which she could pass by will.
Under the Moçambique rule (after British South Africa Co v Companhia de Moçambique [1893] AC 602) an English court will not, as a matter of its own limits to jurisdiction, by and large determine matters of title to foreign land. The purpose of the rule is the maintenance of comity and the avoidance of conflict with foreign jurisdictions. The rule has been discussed on the blog before and it finds its EU equivalent of course in Article 24 Brussels Ia.
After considering the rule and the facts of the case, Dray DM holds it is not triggered here for [51-52]
the relief sought (across the two claims) is relief of an in personam nature in a dispute between the two central protagonists, the Second Defendant (the asserted trustee) and the Claimant (the asserted beneficiary) under the asserted trust. The fact that the land in question is situated in Jamaica does not preclude this court from having jurisdiction to hear the claim. The proceedings do not involve any determination of rights in rem. They do not assert a property right which is by its nature enforceable against third parties and they do not purport to bind strangers/third parties. For instance, no possession order, effective against the world at large, is sought (and none could be granted by this court). Neither is any order directed to the Jamaican Land Registry claimed (ditto). The court is only asked to resolve a dispute between those before it, the proceedings being based on an alleged personal (trust) relationship between the Claimant and the Defendants.
Obiter he then [57ff] considers forum non conveniens (argued in fact by neither parties), with the complication [63] that the two claims before the court have not been consolidated and are thus separate claims, albeit proceeding together, and that the first claim was commenced before the end of the Brexit transition period whereas the second claim was commenced afterwards. The judge holds (again: obiter) [68] (seeing also that no consolidation has been sought) that the former claim needs to be assessed viz BIa and the latter viz the post-Brexit rules, [74 ff] that under BIa A24 is not engaged for the same reason as the Moçambique rule, and [72] that if it had been, he would have been minded to follow (with all the necessary caveats Kennedy v National Trust for Scotland‘s reflexive application.
Geert.
EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, para 2.208.
1/2 Moçambique rule re jurisdiction for title to foreign land does not apply to in personam orders viz
trustees of a trust of foreign land
Obiter consideration of forum non, reflexive application A24 BIa, and on joining a pre-#Brexit with a post-Brexit claim under the #WA
— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) November 13, 2021
Mann v Towarzystwo Ubezpieczen Inter Polska SA & Ors [2021] EWHC 2913 (QB) showcases the recalcitrance which parties can still demonstrate to object to service despite the EU Service Regulation 1393/2007, should they have the obstinance, and deep enough pockets, to do so. Daniel Matchett reviews the case here and I am happy to refer.
Master Thornett at 5 is particularly on point when he refers to the need, particularly for professional defendants, to seek advice on E&W CPR early:
I do not find Mr Grochowalski’s emphasis upon the First Defendant being a small niche company in the Polish insurance market and as had no previous experience of a claim against it brought in another jurisdiction relevant. I am satisfied that such a company could and should taken reliable advice to understand about the English proceedings from service in May 2017 if not previously upon their notification by the Claimants’ solicitors. This could have been done by a variety of means…
Of additional note to Daniel’s assessment I find is the jurisdictional challenge dismissed seemingly by Master Brown in 2017 for reasons I understand of the tardiness of the objection, and the unsuccessful current attempt to resurrect it in this later application. One assumes claimant may have argued the contract was a consumer contract, allowing her (and now that she has sadly passed away, her husband) from pursuing the case in her own domicile. An objection to jurisdiction which, going by the little the judgment reveals of the contractual circumstances, may have had some merit had it been brought earlier (I emphasise however I do not have much to go by here).
Geert.
Ia re Service Regulation 1393/2007
Mann v Towarzystwo Ubezpieczen Inter Polska SA & Ors [2021] EWHC 2913 (QB) (01 November 2021)https://t.co/hELuzC3gkG
via @IMTravelLawyer https://t.co/zKRjQodDsZ
— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) November 17, 2021
Technique complexe plus que tremplin pour l’imaginaire, le droit peut s’envisager sous un jour nouveau conciliant l’un et l’autre. La preuve dans ce podcast où le professeur François Ost nous invite à découvrir l’univers merveilleux et fantastique de ses contes juridiques.
The Rijeka Doctoral Conference of 2021, organised by the Faculty of Law of the University of Rijeka features a several presentations dealing with topics within, or related to, private international law.
Session 1C, scheduled to take place on 10 December 2021 at 8.30 CET will be devoted to Private International Law & Intellectual Property Law. Chaired by Oliver Remien (Julius Maximilian University of Würzburg), Elena Alina Onţanu (Tilburg University) and Giulia Priora (NOVA School of Law, Lisbon), the session will host presentations by: Caterina Benini (Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Milan): The Law Applicable to the Choice-of-Court Agreements under the Brussels I bis Regulation; Denisa Docaj (University of Milan): Private International Law Issues Arising from Brexit: The Rule on Lis Pendens and Related Actions in Civil and Commercial Matters; Zuzana Vlachová (Masaryk University): Infringement of Copyright with a Cross-border Element – Applicable Law; Hongqian Zhou (Waseda University): Digital Exhaustion from the Perspective of Consumers and Competition.
Issues of private international law will arguably arise in other sessions, notably Session 2B, on Family & Succession Law, with a presentation by Nazeemudeen Ziyana (University of Aberdeen) on The Use of Adoption in the Context of International Surrogacy Arrangements: A Comparative Analysis, and Session 2C, on Maritime & Aviation Law, with a presentation by María Gorrochategui Polo (University of the Basque Country) on Collective Bargaining and Cross-Border Collective Actions: The Maritime Industry as a Paradigm for Other Land-Based Industries.
Session 4A, scheduled at 15.30, will be devoted to Arbitration Law & Competition Law. Franco Ferrari (NYU School of Law), Stefan Enchelmaier (University of Oxford) and Miguel Verdeguer Segarra (EDEM Escuela de Empresarios & University of Nebrija) will chair the session. Featured presentations include: Gautam Mohanty (Kozminski University, Warsaw): Joinder of Third-Party Funders in International Investment Arbitration; Yihua Chen (Erasmus University Rotterdam): Third-Party Funding in International Arbitration: A Transnational Study of Ethical Implications and Responses; and Denis Baghrizabehi (University of Maribor): Private Enforcement of State Aid Law in Civil Litigation.
Additional information, including the link to join the various sessions, may be found here.
Les dispositions nationales qui permettent au ministre de la Justice de déléguer des juges auprès de juridictions pénales ainsi que de les révoquer, sans critères rendus publics et sans motivation, sont contraires au droit de l’Union et peuvent en outre compromettre la présomption d’innocence.
Rescheduled: “The HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention: Prospects for Judicial Cooperation in Civil Matters between the EU and Third Countries” – Conference on 9 and 10 September 2022, University of Bonn, Germany
In preparation of the Conference on the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention on 9/10 September 2022, planned to be taking place on campus of the University of Bonn, Germany, we are offering here a Repository of contributions to the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention. Please email us if you miss something in it, we will update immediately…
Update of 7 December 2021: New entries are printed bold.
Please also check the “official” Bibliography of the HCCH for the instrument.
I. Explanatory Reports
Garcimartín Alférez, Francisco;
II. Bibliography
Badr, Yehya Ibrahim “The Hague 2019 Convention for the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judicial Decisions: A Comparative Study”, International Journal of Doctrine, Judiciary, and Legislation (IJDJL) 3 (2022), forthcoming (soon available here) Balbi, Francesca “La circolazione delle decisioni a livello globale: il rogetto di convenzione della Conferenza dell’Aia per il riconoscimento e l’esecuzione delle sentenze straniere” (Tesi di dottorato, Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, 2019; available: here) Beaumont, Paul “Forum non Conveniens and the EU rules on Conflicts of Jurisdiction: A Possible Global Solution”, Revue Critique de Droit International Privé 2018, pp 433-447 Beaumont, Paul R. “Judgments Convention: Application to Governments”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 121-137 Beaumont, Paul;(Cooperative Constitutional State and the Codification of Private International Law: Notes on the “Judgment Project” of the Hague Conference on Private International Law)
Brand, Ronald A.
“The Circulation of Judgments Under the Draft Hague Judgments Convention”, University of Pittsburgh School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 2019-02, pp 1-35
Brand, Ronald A.
“Jurisdictional Developments and the New Hague Judgments Project”, in HCCH (ed.), A Commitment to Private International Law – Essays in honour of Hans van Loon, Cambridge 2013, pp 89-99
Brand, Ronald A.
“New Challenges in Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments”, in Franco Ferrari, Diego P. Fernández Arroyo (eds.), Private International Law – Contemporary Challenges and Continuing Relevance, Cheltenham/Northampton 2019, pp 360-389
Brand, Ronald A.
“Jurisdiction and Judgments Recognition at the Hague Conference: Choices Made, Treaties Completed, and the Path Ahead”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 3-17
Brand, Ronald A.
“The Hague Judgments Convention in the United States: A ‘Game Changer’ or a New Path to the Old Game?“, University of Pittsburgh Law Review 82 (2021), pp. 847-880 (available here)
Çaliskan, Yusuf;
Çaliskan, Zeynep
“2 Temmuz 2019 Tarihli Yabanci Mahkeme Kararlarinin Taninmasi ve Tenfizine Iliskin Lahey Anlasmasinin Degerlendirilmesi”, Public and Private International Law Bulletin 40 (2020), pp 231-245 (available here)
(An Evaluation of 2 July 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters)
Celis Aguilar, María Mayela
“El convenio de la haya de 30 de junio de 2005 sobre acuerdos de elección de foro y su vinculación con el ‘proyecto sobre Sentencias’ (y viceversa)”, Revista mexicana de Derecho internacional privado y comprado N°40 (octubre de 2018), pp. 29-51 (available here)
Chai, Yuhong; Qu, Zichao
“The Development and Future of the Hague Jurisdiction Project”, Wuhan University International Law Review 2021-05, pp. 27-52 (online first)
Chen, Wendy
“Indirect Jurisdiction over the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments of Foreign Courts in Compulsory Counterclaims”, Journal of Xingtai University 2019-04, pp. 106-110
Cheng, Xian-ping; Liu, Xian-chao
“On the Application of the Severable Clause in The Hague Judgments Convention”, Harbin Normal University Social Science Journal 2021-05, pp. 30-34
Choi, Sung-Soo
“Review of the several issues of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, Gachon Law Review 14 (2021), pp. 37-68 (available here)
Clavel, Sandrine ; Jault-Seseke, Fabienne
“La convention de La Haye du 2 juillet 2019 sur la reconnaissance et l’exécution des jugements étrangers en matière civile ou commerciale : Que peut-on en attendre ?”, Travaux du comité français de Droit international privé, Vol. 2018-2020, Paris 2021 (Version provisoire de la communication présentée le 4 octobre 2019, available here)
Clover Alcolea, Lucas
“The 2005 Hague Choice of Court and the 2019 Hague Judgments Conventions versus the New York Convention – Rivals, Alternatives or Something Else?”, Mc Gill Journal of Dispute Resolution 6 (2019-2020), pp. 187-214
Coco, Sarah E.
“The Value of a New Judgments Convention for U.S. Litigants”, New York University Law Review 94 (2019), pp 1210-1243
Cong, Junqi
“Reinventing China’s Indirect Jurisdiction over Civil and Commercial Matters concerning Foreign Affairs – Starting from the Hague Judgment Convention” (Master’s Thesis, National 211/985 Project Jilin University; DOI: 10.27162/d.cnki.gjlin.2020.001343)
Contreras Vaca, Francisco José
“Comentarios al Convenio de la Haya del 2 de julio de 2019 sobre Reconcimiento y Ejecución de Sentencias Extranjeras en materia civil y comercial”, Revista mexicana de Derecho internacional privado y comprado N°45 (abril de 2021), pp. 110-127 (available here)
Cui, Zhenghao
“On the Coordination between the Draft Convention on Judicial Sale of Ships and the related Conventions of the Hague Conference on Private International Law”, China Ship Survey 2021-04, pp. 65-68
Cuniberti, Gilles
“Signalling the Enforceability of the Forum’s Judgments Abroad”, Rivista di diritto internazionale private e processuale (RDIPP) 56 (2020), pp 33-54
DAV (German Bar Association)
“Position Paper on the EU’s possible accession to the Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters of the Hague Conference on Private International Law”, Berlin 2020 (available here)
de Araujo, Nadia ; de Nardi, Marcelo ;
Spitz, Lidia
“A nova era dos litígios internacionais”, Valor Economico 2019
de Araujo, Nadia ;
de Nardi, Marcelo ;
Lopes Inez ;
Polido, Fabricio
„Private International Law Chronicles“, Brazilian Journal of International Law 16 (2019), pp 19-34
de Araujo, Nadia ;
de Nardi, Marcelo
„Consumer Protection Under the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 67-79
de Araujo, Nadia ;
de Nardi, Marcelo
„22ª Sessão Diplomática da Conferência da Haia e a Convenção sobre sentenças estrangeiras : Primeiras reflexões sobre as vantagens para o Brasil da sua adoção“, Revista de la Secretaría del Tribunal Permanente de Revisión 7 No. 14 (2019), páginas 198-221
(22nd Diplomatic Session of The Hague Conference and the Convention on Foreign Judgments: First Reflections on the Advantages for Brazil of their Adoption)
de Araujo, Nadia;
De Nardi, Marcelo
“International Jurisdiction in Civil or Commercial Matters: HCCH’s New Challenge”, in Magdalena Pfeiffer, Jan Brodec, Petr B?íza, Marta Zavadilová (eds.), Liber Amicorum Monika Pauknerová, Prague 2021, pp. 1-11
Dlmoska, Fani
“Would the Judgments Convention lead to unification of the ratification and enforcement of foreign judgments in the SEE Countries: The possible impact of the Judgments Convention”, SEELJ Special Edition No. 8 (2021), pp. 81-103
Dordevic, Slavko
“Country Report Serbia”, in GIZ (ed.), Cross-Border Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judicial Decisions in South East Europe and Perspectives of HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention, Skopje 2021, pp. 180-202
Dotta Salgueiro, Marcos
“Article 14 of the Judgments Convention: The Essential Reaffirmation of the Non-discrimination Principle in a Globalized Twenty-First Century”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 113-120
Douglas, Michael;
Keyes, Mary;
McKibbin, Sarah;
Mortensen, Reid
“The HCCH Judgments Convention in Australian Law”, Federal Law Review 47 (2019), pp 420-443
Du, Tao
“Frontiers of Private International Law Around the World: An Annual Review (2019-2020)”, Chinese Review of International Law 2021-04, pp. 103-128 (available here)
Echegaray de Maussion, Carlos Eduardo
“El Derecho Internacional Privado en el contexto internacional actual : Las reglas de competencia judicial indirecta en el Convenio de la Haya de 2 de Julio de 2019 y el accesso a la justicia” Revista mexicana de Derecho internacional privado y comprado N°45 (abril de 2021), pp. 128-139 (available here)
Efeçinar Süral
Possible Ratification of the Hague Convention by Turkey and Its Effects to the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Public and Private International Law Bulletin 40 (2020), pp. 775-798 (available here)
EGPIL/GEDIP
Observations on the possible accession of the European Union to the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition of Foreign Judgments, Text adopted on 9 December 2020 following the virtual meeting of 18-19 September 2020 (available here)
Ermakova, Elena ; Frovola, Evgenia ; Sitkareva, Elena
“International Economic Integration and the Evolution of the Principles of Civil Procedure”, in Elena G. Popkova, Bruno S. Sergi, Modern Global Economic System, Basel 2021, pp. 1589-1597
European Union (EU)/ European Commission
“Proposal for a Council Decision on the accession by the European Union to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”, COM(2021) 388 final (available here)
Fan, Jing
“On the Jurisdiction over Intellectual Property in the Draft Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, Chinese Yearbook of Private International Law and Comparative Law 2018-02, pp. 313-337
Fan, Jing
“Reconfiguration on Territoriality in Transnational Recognition and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Judgments”, Chinese Review of International Law 2021-01, pp. 90-112 (available here)
Farnoux, Étienne
“Reconnaissance et exécution des jugements étrangers en matière civil ou commerciale : À propos de la Convention de La Haye du 2 juillet 2019”, La Semaine Juridique 2019, pp. 1613-1617
Franzina, Pietro; Leandro, Antonio
“La Convenzione dell’Aja del 2 luglio 2019 sul riconoscimento delle sentenze straniere : una prima lettura”, Quaderni di SIDIblog 6 (2019), pp 215-231 (available here)
(The Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition of Foreign Judgments: A First Appraisal)
Fuchs, Felix
“Das Haager Übereinkommen vom 2. Juli 2019 über die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer Urteile in Zivil- oder Handelssachen“, Gesellschafts- und Wirtschaftsrecht (GWR) 2019, pp 395-399
Garcimartín, Francisco
“The Judgments Convention: Some Open Questions”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 19-31
Garnett, Richard
“The Judgments Project: fulfilling Assers dream of free-flowing judgments”, in Thomas John, Rishi Gulati, Ben Koehler (eds.), The Elgar Companion to the Hague Conference on Private International Law, Cheltenham/Northampton 2020, pp. 309-321
Goddard, David
„The Judgments Convention – The Current State of Play”, Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 29 (2019), pp 473-490
Gu, Weixia
“A Conflict of Laws Study in Hong Kong-China Judgment Regionalism: Legal Challenges and renewed Momentum”, Cornell International Law Journal 52 (2020), pp. 591-642
Guez, Philippe;
de Berard, François; Malet-Deraedt, Fleur; Roccati, Marjolaine; Sinopoli, Laurence; Slim, Hadi; Sotomayor, Marcelo; Train, François-Xavier
“Chronique de droit international privé appliqué aux affaires, Revue de droit des affaires internationales – 1 décembre 2018 au 31 décembre 2019”, Revue de Droit des Affaires Internationales 2020, pp. 237-274
Gugu Bushati, Aida
“Country Report Albania”, in GIZ (ed.), Cross-Border Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judicial Decisions in South East Europe and Perspectives of HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention, Skopje 2021, pp. 16-41 (available here)
Guide, Jia
[Foreign Ministry of the People’s Republic of China]
“Address by the Director of the Department of Treaty and Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Jia Guide at the Opening Ceremony of the International Symposium on the Hague Judgment Convention (9 September 2019)”, Chinese Yearbook of International Law 2019, pp. 503-505
He, Qisheng
“The HCCH Judgments Convention and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments pertaining to a State”, Global Law Review 3 (2020), pp 147-161 (available here)
He, Qisheng
“Unification and Division: Immovable Property Issues under the HCCH Judgement Convention”, Journal of International Law 1 (2020), pp 33-55
He, Qisheng
“The HCCH Judgments Convention and International Judicial Cooperation of Intellectual Property”, Chinese Journal of Law 2021-01, pp. 139-155
He, Qisheng
“Latest Development of the Hague Jurisdiction Project”, Wuhan University International Law Review 2020-04, pp. 1-16
He, Qisheng
“ ’Civil or Commercial Matters’ in International Instruments Scope and Interpretation”, Peking University Law Review 2018-02, pp. 1-25 (available here)
He, Qisheng
“A Study on the Intellectual Property Provisions in the ’Hague Convention on Judgment’ – On the Improvement of Transnational Recognition and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Judgments in China”, Journal of Taiyuan University (Social Science Edition) 2020-05, pp. 40-47
Herrup, Paul;
Brand, Ronald A.
“A Hague Convention on Parallel Proceedings”, University of Pittsburgh School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 2021-23, pp. 1-10 (available here)
Jacobs, Holger
“Der Zwischenstand zum geplanten Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen – Der vorläufige Konventionsentwurf 2016“, Zeitschrift für Internationales Privatrecht & Rechtsvergleichung (ZfRV) 2017, pp 24-30
Jacobs, Holger
“Das Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen vom 2. Juli 2019 – Eine systematische und rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung“, Tübingen 2021
Jang, Jiyong
“Conditions and Procedure for Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, Korea Private International Law Journal 2021-01, pp. 399-430
Jang, Junhyok
“The Public Policy Exception Under the New 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 97-111
Jang, Junhyok
“2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”, Korea Private International Law Journal 2019-02, pp. 437-510.
Jang, Junhyok
“Practical Suggestions for Joining the 2019 Judgments Convention and Its Implications for Korean Law and Practice”, Korea Private International Law Journal 2020-02, pp. 141-217
Jovanovic, Marko
Thou Shall (Not) Pass – Grounds for Refusal of Recognition and Enforcement under the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention, YbPIL 21 (2019/2020), pp. 309 – 332
Jueptner, Eva
“The Hague Jurisdiction Project – what options for the Hague Conference?”, Journal of Private International Law 16 (2020), pp 247-274
Jueptner, Eva
“A Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments: why did the Judgments Project (1992-2001) fail?”, (Doctoral Thesis, University of Dundee, 2020)
Kasem, Rouzana
“The Future of Choice of Court and Arbitration Agreements under the New York Convention, the Hague Choice of Court Convention, and the Draft Hague Judgments Convention”, Aberdeen Student Law Review 10 (2020), pp. 69-115
Kessedjian, Catherine
“Comment on the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters. Is the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 a useful tool for companies who are conducting international activities?“, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (NIPR) 2020, pp 19-33
Khanderia, Saloni
„The Hague judgments project: assessing its plausible benefits for the development of the Indian private international law”, Commonwealth Law Bulletin 44 (2018), pp 452-475
Khanderia, Saloni
“The Hague Conference on Private International Law’s Proposed Draft Text on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments: Should South Africa Endorse it?”, Journal of African Law 63 (2019), pp 413-433
Khanderia, Saloni
“The prevalence of ‘jurisdiction’ in the recognition and enforcement of foreign civil and commercial judgments in India and South Africa: a comparative analysis”, Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal 2021
Kindler, Peter
“Urteilsfreizügigkeit für derogationswidrige Judikate? – Ein rechtspolitischer Zwischenruf auf dem Hintergrund der 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention“, in Christoph Benicke, Stefan Huber (eds.), Festschrift für Herbert Kronke zum 70. Geburtstag, Bielefeld 2020, pp 241-253
Kostic-Mandic, Maja
“Country Report Montenegro”, in GIZ (ed.), Cross-Border Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judicial Decisions in South East Europe and Perspectives of HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention, Skopje 2021, pp. 114-137 (available here)
Landbrecht, Johannes
“Commercial Arbitration in the Era of the Singapore Convention and the Hague Court Conventions”, ASA Bulletin 37 (2019), pp. 871-882 (available here)
Lee, Gyooho
“The Preparatory Works for the Hague Judgment Convention of 2019 and its Subsequent Developments in terms of Intellectual Property Rights”, Korea Private International Law Journal 2020-02, pp. 85-140
Liu, Guiqiang
“Limitation Period for the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, China Journal of Applied Jurisprudence 2020-04, pp. 109-124
Liu, Yang; Xiang, Zaisheng
“The No Review of Merit Clause in the Hague Judgments Convention”, Wuhan University International Law Review
2020-05, pp. 44-65
Malachta, Radovan
“Mutual Trust between the Member States of the European Union and the United Kingdom after Brexit: Overview”, in Ji?í Valdhans (ed.), COFOLA International 2020: Brexit and its Consequences – Conference Proceedings, Brno 2020, pp. 39-67 (available here)
Mariottini, Cristina
„Establishment of Treaty Relations under The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention“, YbPIL 21 (2019/2020), pp. 365-380
Mariottini, Cristina
“The Exclusion of Defamation and Privacy from the Scope of the Hague Draft Convention on Judgments, YbPIL 19 (2017/2018), pp 475-486.
Martiny, Dieter
“The Recognition and Enforcement of Court Decisions Between the EU and Third States”, in Alexander Trunk, Nikitas Hatzimihail (eds.), EU Civil Procedure Law and Third Countries – Which Way Forward?, Baden-Baden 2021, pp 127-146
Maude, L. Hunter
“Codifying Comity: The Case for U.S. Ratification of the 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters”, Wisconsin International Law Review 38 (2021), pp. 108-138
Meier, Niklaus
“Notification as a Ground for Refusal”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 81-95
Muir Watt, Horatia
“Le droit international privé au service de la géopolitique : les enjeux de la nouvelle Convention de la Haye du 2 juillet 2019 sur la reconnaissance et l’exécution des jugements étrangers en matière civile ou commerciale”, Revue Critique de Droit International Privé 2020, pp. 427-448
Nielsen, Peter Arnt
“The Hague 2019 Judgments Convention – from failure to success”, Journal of Private International Law 16 (2020), pp 205-246
Nielsen, Peter Arnt
“A Global Framework for International Commercial Litigation”, in Christoph Benicke, Stefan Huber (eds.), Festschrift für Herbert Kronke zum 70. Geburtstag, Bielefeld 2020, pp 415-433
Nishimura, Yuko
“Indirect Jurisdiction at the Place where the Immovable Property is situated in HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, Seinan Gakuin University Graduate School Research Review N°13, pp. 1-20 (available here)
North, Cara
“The 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention: A Common Law Perspective”, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 2020, pp 202-210
North, Cara
“The Exclusion of Privacy Matters from the Judgments Convention”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 33-48
Oestreicher, Yoav
“ ’We’re on a Road to Nowhere’ – Reasons for the Continuing Failure to Regulate Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, The International Lawyer 42 (2008), pp 59-86
Okorley, Solomon
“The possible impact of the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters on Private International Law in Common Law West Africa”, (Master’s Dissertation, University of Johannesburg, 2019; available: here)
Pasquot Polido, Fabrício B.
“The Judgments Project of the Hague Conference on Private International Law: a way forward for a long-awaited solution”, in Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm, Maria Blanca Noodt Taquela (eds.), Diversity and integration in Private International Law, Edinburgh 2019, pp. 176-199
Payan, Guillaume
“Convention de La Haye du 2 juillet 2019 sur la reconnaissance et l’exécution des jugements étrangers en matière civile ou commerciale”, in Hubert Alcarez, Olivier Lecucq (eds.), L’exécution des décisions de justice, Pau 2020, pp 167-183
Pertegás Sender, Marta
“The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention: Its Conclusion and the road ahead”, in Asian Academy of International Law (publ.), Sinergy and Security: the Keys to Sustainable Global Investment: Proceedings of the 2019 Colloquium on International Law, 2019 Hong Kong, pp 181-190 (available here)
Pertegás, Marta
“Brussels I Recast and the Hague Judgments Project”, in Geert Van Calster (ed.), European Private International Law at 50: Celebrating and Contemplating the 1968 Brussels Convention and its Successors, Cambridge 2018, pp 67-82
Pocar, Fausto
“Riflessioni sulla recente convenzione dell’Aja sul riconoscimento e l’esecuzione delle sentenze straniere”, Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale 57 (2021), pp. 5-29
Pocar, Fausto
“Brief Remarks on the Relationship between the Hague Judgments and Choice of Court Conventions”, in in Magdalena Pfeiffer, Jan Brodec, Petr B?íza, Marta Zavadilová (eds.), Liber Amicorum Monika Pauknerová, Prague 2021, pp. 345-353
Poesen, Michiel
“Is specific jurisdiction dead and did we murder it? An appraisal of the Brussels Ia Regulation in the globalizing context of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, Uniform Law Review 26 (2021), pp. 1-13
Popov, Vasiliy
“Grounds for Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Russia”, Issues of Russian Justice 15 (2021), pp. 137-152
Povlakic, Meliha
“Country Report Bosnia and Herzegovina”, in GIZ (ed.), Cross-Border Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judicial Decisions in South East Europe and Perspectives of HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention, Skopje 2021, pp. 42-81 (available here)
Qerimi, Donikë
“Country Report Kosovo”, in GIZ (ed.), Cross-Border Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judicial Decisions in South East Europe and Perspectives of HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention, Skopje 2021, pp. 82-113 (available here)
Qian, Zhenqiu
“On the Common Courts Provision under the Draft Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, Wuhan University International Law Review
2019-01, pp. 59-74 (available here)
Qian, Zhenqiu;
Yang, Yu
“On the Interpretation and Application of the Cost of Proceedings Provision under the Hague Judgment Convention”, China Journal of Applied Jurisprudence 2020-04, pp. 96-108
Reisman, Diana A. A.
“Breaking Bad: Fail –Safes to the Hague Judgments Convention”, Georgetown Law Journal 109 (2021), pp. 880-906
Reyes, Anselmo
„Implications of the 2019 Hague Convention on the Enforcement of Judgments of the Singapore International Commercial Court”, in Rolf A. Schütze, Thomas R. Klötzel, Martin Gebauer (eds.), Festschrift für Roderich C. Thümmel zum 65. Geburtstag, Berlin 2020, pp 695-709
Ribeiro-Bidaoui, João
“The International Obligation of the Uniform and Autonomous Interpretation of Private Law Conventions: Consequences for Domestic Courts and International Organisations”, Netherlands International Law Review 67 (2020), pp 139 – 168
Rumenov, Ilija
“Implications of the New 2019 Hague Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments on the National Legal Systems of Countries in South Eastern Europe”, EU and Comparative Law Issues and Challenges Series (ECLIC) 3 (2019), pp 385-404
Rumenov, Ilija
“Country Report North Macedonia”, in GIZ (ed.), Cross-Border Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judicial Decisions in South East Europe and Perspectives of HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention, Skopje 2021, pp. 138-179 (available here)
Rumenov, Ilija
“The indirect jurisdiction of the 2019 Hague Convention on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil or commercial matters – Is the “heart” of the Convention”, SEELJ Special Edition No. 8 (2021), pp. 9-45
Sachs, Klaus;
Weiler, Marcus
“A comparison of the recognition and enforcement of foreign decisions under the 1958 New York Convention and the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention”, in Rolf A. Schütze, Thomas R. Klötzel, Martin Gebauer (eds.), Festschrift für Roderich C. Thümmel zum 65. Geburtstag, Berlin 2020, pp 763-781
Saito, Akira
“Advancing Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments: Developments of Inter-Court Diplomacy and New Hague Judgments Convention”, Kobe Law Journal 2019-03, pp. 59-110 (available here)
Sánchez Fernández, Sara
“El Convenio de la Haya de Reconocimiento y Ejecución de Sentencias”, Revista Española de Derecho Internacional 73 (2021), pp. 233-252
Saumier, Geneviève
“Submission as a Jurisdictional Basis and the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 49-65
Schack, Haimo
“Wiedergänger der Haager Konferenz für IPR: Neue Perspektiven eines weltweiten Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommens?“, Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht (ZeuP) 2014, pp 824-842
Schack, Haimo
„Das neue Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen“, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 2020, pp 1-96
Senicheva, Marina
“The Relevance and Problems of the Hague Convention of July 2, 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Ratification by the Russian Federation”, Advances in Law Studies 8 (2020), online (available: here)
Shan, Juan
“A study on the Anti-trust Provisions in the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”, Chinese Yearbook of Private International Law and Comparative Law 2019-01, pp. 318-335
Shchukin, Andrey Igorevich
“Indirect International Jurisdiction in the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments of 2019 (Part 1)”, Journal of Russian Law No. 2020-07, pp. 170-186 (available here)
Shchukin, Andrey Igorevich
“Indirect International Jurisdiction in the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments of 2019 (Part 2)”, Journal of Russian Law No. 2020-11, pp. 140-54 (available here)
Shen, Juan
“Further Discussion on the Drafts of the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters and Considerations from Chinese Perspective”, Chinese Review of International Law 2016-06, pp. 83-103 (available here)
Silberman, Linda
“Comparative Jurisdiction in the International Context: Will the Proposed Hague Judgments Convention be Stalled?”, DePaul Law Review 52 (2002), pp 319-349
Silberman, Linda
“The 2019 Judgments Convention: The Need for Comprehensive Federal Implementing Legislation and a Look Back at the ALI Proposed Federal Statute”, NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 21-19 (available here)
Solomon, Dennis
“Das Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen von 2019 und die internationale Anerkennungszuständigkeit“, in Rolf A. Schütze, Thomas R. Klötzel, Martin Gebauer (eds.), Festschrift für Roderich C. Thümmel zum 65. Geburtstag, Berlin 2020, pp 873-893
Song, Jianli
“ ‘Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Civil and Commercial Judgments’ and its influence on my country”, People’s Judicature (Application) 2020-01, pp. 88-92 (available here)
Song, Lianbin; Chen, Xi
“The Judicial Difference and International Coordination of the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Punitive Damages Judgements: Also on China’s Corresponding Measures Under the Frame of HCCH Convention”, Jiang-Huai Tribune 2021-03, pp. 111-113
Spitz, Lidia
„Homologação De Decisões Estrangeiras No Brasil – A Convenção de Sentenças da Conferência da Haia de 2019 e o contrôle indireto da jurisdição estrangeira”, Belo Horizonte 2021
Spitz, Lidia
„Refusal of Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments on Public Policy Grounds in the Hague Judgments Convention – A Comparison with The 1958 New York Convention“, YbPIL 21 (2019/2020), pp 333-364
Stein, Andreas
„Das Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen 2019 – Was lange währt, wird endlich gut?“, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 2020, pp 197-202
Stewart, David P.
„Current Developments: The Hague Conference adopts a New Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”, American Journal of International Law (AJIL) 113 (2019), pp 772-783
Stitz, Olivia
“Comity, Tipping Points, and Commercial Significance: What to expect of the Hague Judgments Convention”, Corporate and Business Law Journal (Corp. & Bus. L.J.) 2 (2021), pp. 203-236 (available here)
Suk, Kwang-Hyun
“Principal Content and Indirect Jurisdiction Rules of the Hague Judgments Convention of 2019”, Korea Private International Law Journal 2020-02, pp. 3-83
Sun, Jin;
Wu, Qiong
“The Hague Judgments Convention and how we negotiated it”, Chinese Journal of International Law 19 (2020) (available here)
Sun, Xiaofei;
Wu, Qiong
“Commentary and Outlook on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”, Journal of International Law 2019-01, pp. 155-164+170
Symeonides, Symeon C.
“Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments: The Hague Convention of 2019”, in Symeon C. Symeonides, Cross-Border Infringement of Personality Rights via the Internet, Leiden 2021, pp. 130-144
Takeshita, Keisuke
“The New Hague Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments: Analysis on its Relationship with Arbitration”, Japanese Commercial Arbitration Journal (JCA) 2020-02, pp. 10-15 (available here)
Takeshita, Keisuke
“The New Hague Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, Japanese Commercial Arbitration Journal
Part 1: JCA 2020-04, pp. 40-45 (available here)
Part 2: JCA 2020-05, pp. 40-45 (available here)
Part 3: JCA 2020-06, pp. 42-49 (available here)
Part 4: JCA 2020-10, pp. 40-46 (available here)
Part 5: JCA 2020-11, pp. 35-41 (available here)
Part 6: JCA 2020-12, pp. 43-48 (available here)
Part 7: JCA 2021-02, pp. 50-56
Part 8: JCA 2021-04, pp. 45-51
Part 9: JCA 2021-07, pp. 46-53
Part 10: JCA 2021-09, pp. 40-46
Part 11: JCA 2021-10, pp. 48-54
Taquela, María Blanca Noodt ; Abou-Nigm, Verónica Ruiz
“News From The Hague: The Draft Judgments Convention and Its Relationship with Other International Instruments”, Yearbook of Private International Law 19 (2017/2018), pp 449-474
Teitz, Louise Ellen
“Another Hague Judgments Convention? – Bucking the Past to Provide for the Future”, Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 29 (2019), pp 491-511
Tian, Hongjun
“The Present and Future of the Recognition and Enforcement of Civil and Commercial Judgments in Northeast Asia: From the Perspective of the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention”, Chinese Yearbook of Private International Law and Comparative Law 2019-01, pp. 300-317
Tian, Xinyue;
Qian, Zhenqiu;
Wang, Shengzhe
“The Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (Draft) and China’s Countermeasure – A Summary on the Fourth Judicial Forum of Great Powers”, Chinese Yearbook of Private International Law and Comparative Law 2018-01, pp. 377-388
Trooboff, Peter D.;
North, Cara; Nishitani, Yuko;
Sastry, Shubha; Chanda, Riccarda
“The Promise and Prospects of the 2019 Hague Convention: Introductory Remarks”, Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting 114 (2020), pp. 345-357
van der Grinten, Paulien;
ten Kate, Noura
„Editorial: The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention”, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (NIPR) 2020, pp 1-3
van Loon, Hans
“Towards a global Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (NIPR) 2020, pp 4-18
van Loon, Hans
“Towards a Global Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”, Collection of Papers of the Faculty of Law, Niš 82 (2019), pp 15-35
van Loon, Hans
“Le Brexit et les conventions de La Haye”, Revue critique de droit international privé (Rev. Crit. DIP) 2019, pp. 353-365
Viegas Liquidato, Vera Lúcia
“Reconhecimento E Homologação De Sentenças Estrangeiras : O Projeto De Convenção Da Conferência da Haia”, Revista de Direito Brasileira 2019-09, pp. 242-256
Wagner, Rolf
“Ein neuer Anlauf zu einem Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen“, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 2016, pp 97-102
Wang, Quian
“On Intellectual Property Right Provisions in the Draft Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, China Legal Science 2018-01, pp. 118-142 (available here)
Wang, Yahan
“No Review of the Merits in Recognizing and Enforcing Foreign Judgments”, China Journal of Applied Jurisprudence 2020-04, pp. 78-95
Weidong, Zhu
“The Recognition and Enforcement of Commercial Judgments Between China and South Africa: Comparison and Convergence”, China Legal Science 2019-06, pp 33-57 (available here)
Weller, Matthias
“The HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention: New Trends in Trust Management?”, in Christoph Benicke, Stefan Huber (eds.), Festschrift für Herbert Kronke zum 70. Geburtstag, Bielefeld 2020, pp 621-632
Weller, Matthias
“The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention – The Jurisdictional Filters of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, Yearbook of Private International Law 21 (2019/2020), pp 279-308
Weller, Matthias
“Das Haager Übereinkommen zur Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer Urteile”, in Thomas Rauscher (ed.), Europäisches Zivilprozess- und Kollisionsrecht, Munich, 5th ed., forthcoming
Weller, Matthias
„Die Kontrolle der internationalen Zuständigkeit im Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen 2019“, in Christoph Althammer/Christoph Schärtl (eds.), Festschrift für Herbert Roth, Tübingen 2021, pp. 835-855
Wilderspin, Michael;
Vysoka, Lenka
“The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention through European lenses”, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (NIPR) 2020, pp 34-49
Wu, Qiong
“The Overview of the 22nd Diplomatic Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law”, Chinese Yearbook of International Law 2019, pp. 337-338
Xie, Yili
“Research on the Intellectual Property Infringment System of the Hague Judgments Convention”, China-Arab States Science and Technology Forum 2021-09, pp. 190-194
Xu, Guojian
“Comment on Key Issues Concerning Hague Judgment Convention in 2019 “, Journal of Shanghai University of Political Science and Law 35 (2020), pp 1-29
Xu, Guojian
“To Establish an International Legal System for Global Circulation of Court Judgments”, Wuhan University International Law Review 2017-05, pp 100-130
Xu, Guojian
“Overview of the Mechanism of Recognition and Enforcement of Judgements Established by HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, China Journal of Applied Jurisprudence No. 2020-02, pp 65-77
Xu, Guojian
“On the Scope and Limitation of the Global Circulation of Court Judgments: An Analysis on the Application Scope of the 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”, Chinese Yearbook of Private International Law and Comparative Law 2019-01, pp. 269-299
Yekini, Abubakri
“The Hague Judgments Convention and Commonwealth Model Law – A Pragmatic Perspective”, Oxford 2021.
Yeo, Terence
“The Hague Judgments Convention – A View from Singapore”, Singapore Academy of Law Journal (e-First) 3rd August 2020 (available here)
Zasemkova, Olesya F.
“ ‘Judicial Convention’ as a New Stage in the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, Lex Russica 2019-10, pp. 84-103 (available here)
Zhang, Chunliang;
Huang, Shan
“On the Common Courts Rules in Hague Judgments Convention – China’s way for the Judicial Assistance under Belt and Road Initiative”, Journal of Henan University of Economics and Law 2020-05, pp. 103-113
Zhang, Lizhen
“On the Defamation Problem in the Hague Judgments Project: Ever In and Now out of the Scope”, Wuhan University International Law Review 2019-01, pp. 41-58 (available here)
Zhang, Wenliang
“The Finality Requirement of Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, Wuhan University Law Review 2020-02, pp. 19-38
Zhang, Wenliang; Tu, Guangjian
“The Hague Judgments Convention and Mainland China-Hong Kong SAR Judgments Arrangement: Comparison and Prospects for Implementation”, Chinese Journal of International Law 20 (2021), pp. 101-135
Zhang, Wenliang;
Tu, Guangjian
“The 1971 and 2019 Hague Judgments Conventions: Compared and Whether China Would Change Its Attitude Towards The Hague”, Journal of International Dispute Settlement (JIDS), 2020, 00, pp. 1-24
Zhang, Zhengyi;
Zhang, Zhen
“Development of the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters and Its Implication to China”, International and Comparative Law Review 2020, pp. 112-131
Zhao, Ning
“Completing a long-awaited puzzle in the landscape of cross-border recognition and enforcement of judgments: An overview of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, Swiss Review of International and European Law (SRIEL) 30 (2020), pp 345-368
Zirat, Gennadii
“Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters: A new Contribution of the Hague Conference on Private International Law to the Unification of International Civil Procedure” Ukrainian Journal of International Law 2020-03, pp. 105-112 (available here)
III. Recordings of Events Related to the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention
HCCH “HCCH a|Bridged: Innovation in Transnational Litigation – Edition 2021: Enabling Party Autonomy with the HCCH 2005 Choice of Court Convention”, 1 December 2021 (full recording available here) UIHJ; HCCH “3rd training webinar on the Hague Conventions on service of documents (1965) and recognition and enforcement of judgements (2019)”, 15/18 March 2021 (full recording available here in French and here in English) ASADIP; HCCH “Conferencia Internacional: Convención HCCH 2019 sobre Reconocimiento y Ejecución de Sentencias Extranjeras”, 3 December 2020 (full recording available here and here) ASIL “The Promise and Prospects of the 2019 Hague Convention”, 25-26 June 2020 (full recording available here and here) JPRI; HCCH; UNIDROIT; UNCITRAL “2020 Judicial Policy Research Institute International Conference – International Commercial Litigation: Recent Developments and Future Challenges, Session 3: Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, 12 November 2020 (recording available here) University of Bonn; HCCH “Pre-Conference Video Roundtable on the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention: Prospects for Judicial Cooperation in Civil and Commercial Matters between the EU and Third Countries”, 29 October 2020 (full recording available here) Department of Justice Hong Kong; HCCH “Inaugural Global Conference – 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention: Global Enforcement of Civil and Commercial Judgments”, 9 September 2019 (recording available here) HCCH “22nd Diplomatic Session of the HCCH: The Adoption of the 2019 Judgments Convention”, 2 July 2020 (short documentary video available here)
First Advocate-General Szpunar opined a the end of October in C-421/20 on the law applicable to a damages suit following infringement of Community Design rights. No English edition of the Opinion is as yet available.
The two parties had earlier been at loggerheads on the jurisdictional issues, see CJEU C-433/16 BMW v Acacia and the provisional measures implications of the relevant Regulation 6/2002 were discussed in Spin Master. Current case not only puts into the spotlight the ‘international’ dimension required to trigger EU conflict of laws (it is in this section that I was pleased to see the AG refer to the 2016 ed of the Handbook), it also discussed the relationship between the core EU Regulations Brussels Ia, Rome I and II on the one hand, and lex specialis on the other, in the case at issue: A82(5) Regulation 6/2002: ‘5. Proceedings in respect of the actions and claims referred to in Article 81(a) and (d) may also be brought in the courts of the Member State in which the act of infringement has been committed or threatened.’ The result of the jurisdictional provisions is a cascade system which is also present in the relevant Trademark Regulation, prompting the AG to seek inspiration in CJEU AMS Neve.
BMW’s action, which was granted by the first instance German courts, seeks not just inductive relief viz Acacia’s distribution of wheel rims in Germany, but also damages for the alleged Community design infringement and (with a view to supporting the damages claim), access to documents, accounts etc. – this will have an immediate echo to readers of the blog I assume of ‘procedural’ issues to which I (and the AG) return below.
A relevant provision in the Community Design Regulation – CDR is Article 88, Applicable law:
1. The Community design courts shall apply the provisions of this Regulation.
2. On all matters not covered by this Regulation, a Community design court shall apply its national law, including its private international law.
3. Unless otherwise provided in this Regulation, a Community design court shall apply the rules of procedure governing the same type of action relating to a national design right in the Member State where it is situated.
A similar reference to national law with renvoi, is present in A89 with respect to ‘sanctions in actions for infringement’. With the inclusion of renvoi (‘a Community design court shall apply its national law, including its private international law’) inevitably reference is made to Rome II for that Regulation forms the applicable private international law in the Member States.
A first question was whether BMW’s requests re access to documentation, may be subject to lex fori processualis – answered in the negative by the AG with reference to CJEU C‑479/12 H. Gautzsch Großhandel , and to CJEU Nintendo. Whether these observations (and authorities) on the procedural issues extends to Rome I /II is not discussed. Readers will be aware that I find that an important question that remains outstanding.
The next issue is whether Rome II and /or the CDR apply at all to the litigation at issue in view of the light ‘international’ touch to the case. In view inter alia of the AG’s own Opinion in Vinyls Italia, he answers in the affirmative. For more detail on the issue please refer to the Opinion however I find among others his point convincing (43) that a restrictive view within the Community Design (and other intellectual property rights litigation) sphere, would hand a means to claimants artificially to split their claims so as to shop for the lex fori in Mozaik fashion. He rejects BMW’s alternative view based on the effet utile of A82(5) CDR.
Up next is the question whether, having established Rome II applies, A8(2) Rome II needs to be applied using AMS Neve or alternatively Nintendo, to determine the ‘country in which the act of infringement was committed’. There is much detail on this in the Opinion (readers may refer to Annette Kur’s paper which also discussed this and is referred to in the Opinion), with the AG I think opting for the Nintendo route – I am not too proud to admit as I have done before, that the specific relation between secondary IPR law and EU conflict of laws, is not my specialty.
Geert.
Opinion Szpunar AG in Acacia v BMW, on the applicable law for damages following infringement of Community Designhttps://t.co/BEGw9uR6yJ
AG opts for country of the initial counterfeit
Humbled to see the 2016 ed of the Handbook cited https://t.co/kC5qt73lwh
— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) October 28, 2021
Which law applies to a tort committed in the Channel Tunnel, at 16 km from the exit on French territory?
This is the question that the Court of Appeal of Douai could have asked, but did not, in a recent judgment of 24 June 2021.
BackgroundThe accident occurred in the middle of the night in January 2015. A truck belonging to a Romanian company took fire while being transported on a train under the Tunnel. The fire damaged four other trucks that an English company also wanted carried under the Tunnel before being brought to Sweden.
The insurers of the English company compensated part of the damage suffered (£ 599,000). The liability of the company managing the Tunnel (France Manche) was limited contractually at 280 000 DTS, i.e. € 356,000. After receiving this payment, the insurers demanded payment from, and then sued the Romanian company in French courts for € 208,000.
French Tort LawThe French court applied French tort law. Article 1242 (formerly 1384), second paragraph, of the French civil code provides for fault based liability of the custodian of any thing causing a fire. The court found, however, that the employee of the Romanian company was not the custodian of the truck when the accident occurred, as he has no control over the truck anymore: he had left it after it was put on the train, to go to a car during the journey under the Tunnel. The custodian had become France Manche, which had control over the truck. The action against the Romanian company was dismissed.
Choice of LawIt does not seem that any of the parties raised the issue of choice of law. Under French choice of law principles, the French court might have raised it ex officio, but was not obliged to.
Pursuant to Article 4 of the Rome II Regulation, the law of the place of the damage should have applied, unless the law of another state was manifestly more closely connected to the tort. The tort was certainly connected to a contract (of carriage), but it was not a contract as between the parties.
So where did the damage occur? It all depends where the border between England and France is.
TreatiesThe issue is governed by the 1986 Canterbury Treaty which provides:
Article 3. FRONTIER AND JURISDICTION
(1) As regards any matter relating to the Fixed Link, the frontier between the United Kingdom and France shall be the vertical projection of the line denned in the Agreement signed at London on 24 June 1982 relating to the delimitation of the Continental Shelf in the area east of 30 minutes West of the Greenwich meridian, ‘ and the respective States shall exercise jurisdiction accordingly, subject to the provisions of paragraph 3 of this Article and any Protocol or particular arrangements made pursuant to Articles 4, 5, 7 and 8 below.
(2) The frontier in the Fixed Link shall be marked by a Joint Commission, composed of representatives of the two States, as soon as possible after the completion of the relevant section of the Fixed Link and in any event before the Fixed Link comes into operation.
(3) If in the construction of the Fixed Link any works carried out from one of the two States extend beyond the line of the frontier, the law that applies in that part which so extends shall, in relation to matters occurring before that part is effectively connected with works which project from the other State, be the law of the first mentioned State.
(4) Rights to any natural resources discovered in the course of construction of the Fixed Link shall be governed by the law of the State in the territory, or in the continental shelf, of which the resources lie.
The Agreement signed at London on 24 June 1982 relating to the delimitation of the Continental Shelf defines precisely the agreed border, with a chart annexed to the Agreement. I was able to find the Agreement, but it misses the chart !
The information available on the internet suggests that the resulting French undersea crossover is much longer than the English one (34 kms v. 17 kms). If that is correct, this means that the accident occurred on French territory.
One cannot help wonder, however, whether the place of the damage could not have equally been England in this case, and how meaningful the place of the damage is in such a case.
Should the law of the place of the damage be displaced in “transit” torts?
Although it was not concluded between the parties, should the contracts concluded by them with the same third party play a role? Should it be a decisive factor which would trigger the operation of the exception clause and lead to the application of the lex contractus?
Sánchez-Bordona AG opined at the end of October on the law applicable to the Peeters /Gatzen suit (of Nk v BNP Paribas fame) in Case C‑498/20 ZK, in his capacity of successor to JM, insolvency practitioner in the insolvency of BMA Nederland BV v BMA Braunschweigische Maschinenbauanstalt AG – ZK v BMA for short. An English version of the Opinion is still not available.
Peeters /Gatzen is a tortious suit brought by a liquidator. In Nk v BNP Paribas the CJEU held it is covered by Brussels Ia, not by the Insolvency Regulation. The obvious applicable law port of call is Rome II. A first point which the AG discusses is a rather important discussion on the lex societatis exception to Rome II. The extent of that exception is important e.g. also for business and human rights cases, for the Peeters /Gatzen suit essentially engages duty of care towards third parties.
The AG emphasises (35) one of my points of attention in the BIa /Rome I/II interplay: that in accepting a certain amount of consistency in interpretation, the courts must nevertheless appreciate each instrument’s autonomy and quite different subject-matter. (46) The reasoning behind the exclusion of the lex societatis from the 1980 Rome Convention is said to be the ambition at the time to harmonise company law across the EU which, as we know from CJEU Daily Mail and all its successors, has still not come true. The AG then refers to the internal /external dimension of corporate relations such as discussed in C‑25/18 Kerr and C‑272/18 Verein für Konsumenteninformation. However he then suggests (51) that the reference to the ‘internal’ dimension of the life of a corporation does not suffice to justify 2 of the examples which Rome II explicitly lists in A1(2)d as being part of the corporate exception: the
personal liability of officers and members as such for the obligations of the company or body and the personal liability of auditors to a company or to its members in the statutory audits of accounting documents.
At (52-53) he then posits his way out of the conundrum, immediately acknowledging that the criterion he suggests may not be easily applicable: all contractual and non-contractual elements for which a specific solution exists which emanates from the relationship between those elements and the internal life and mechanisms of a corporation (whether they relate to the internal workings or the external relations), are covered by one statutory corpus, namely the lex societatis. Put differently, they are excluded insofar as and because their corporate law element absorbs all other. Specifically viz non-contractual obligations, if the relevant rule is so ‘drenched’ with elements specific to the corporate law context that it looses its meaning outside that context, that rule qualifies as being part of the lex societatis exception.
He immediately acknowledges (56) that this kind of litmus test is not easy to apply in practice and suggest (57 ff) to employ the ratio legis of the liability at stake to assist with the exercise. If that ratio lies in the general neminem laedere rule, Rome II is engaged. If that ratio however immediately follows from corporate law considerations, such as a director’s loyalty to the corporation, the exception is engaged. The AG lists examples (63), including the scenario at stake in CJEU OFAB. At (66) the AG concludes, albeit not directly, that the Peeters Gatzen suit in all likelihood is not covered by Rome II and he discusses the other questions in subsidiary fashion.
(67ff) with reference ia to CJEU Lazar the CJEU refers to the tricky characterisation of damage as (in)direct and opts in cases such as these that the direct damage occurs in the insolvent (or otherwise facing liquidity issues) corporation: the diminishing impact on the creditors is indirect, ricochet. Locus damni therefore is The Netherlands if the referring judge finds that the insolvent corporation’s estate is based there. (76) Whomever initiates the suit (the insolvency practitioner and /or the creditors) is irrelevant, as is (80) the fact that some of the creditors are located outside the EU.
(83ff) then follows the discussion of A4(3) Rome II’s escape clause (most recently discussed in Scott v AIG). A pre-existing contractual relationship (which the AG suggests (95ff) may also be called upon by claimants that are not party to that relationship) is just one among many factors that may play a role – not a particularly dominant one: (93-94) particularly where such relationship (such as here, taking the form of a credit facility) is one where choice of law was made: A4(3) RII is directed at situations where the non-contractual relationship has a closer connection to a law other than the locus damni. Lex voluntatis does not necessarily reflect the tort’s closer relationship but rather the parties’ voluntary expression.
An important Opinion.
Geert.
EU Private International Law, 3rd ed 2021, para 4.22., para 4.39 ff.
Opinion Sánchez-Bordona AG re applicable law for the Peeters/Gatzen #insolvency suit (citing ia @JanvonHein1)
Rome II:
scope of application: lex societatis exclusion
A4(1) determining locus damni
A4(3) factors feeding into proper law of the tort analysishttps://t.co/YzZih7VYRQ
— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) October 29, 2021
I did say I was mopping up the queue this week so here’s a post reminding us of the Paris Court of Appeal overturning an earlier judgment which had held that an arbitrator’s liability falls within Brussels Ia. I have analysis and further reference to the first instance judgment here, and Gilles Cuniberti’s approving view on the Court of Appeal’s decision is here.
The ruling means the court of the locus arbitri, the curial seat as agreed between the parties, is the natural home for any subsequent disputes involving liability of the arbitrators. I agree with Gilles that this makes a lot of sense from a consolidation and neutrality point of view. I do not however feel for a moment that it clearly follows from Brussels Ia, including its arbitration recital (which has the trimmings of an encyclopaedia, weighing in at more than half a page and 4 paragraphs).
Geert.
EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 2.2.3.4, para 2.110 ff..
Paris CA holds arbitrator's liability falls within VIa #arbitration exception
For the judgment overruled, see https://t.co/GSKX4qA6W7 https://t.co/sZZLu6FQ6h
— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) June 28, 2021
On 10 December 2021, from 16.30 to 19.00 CET, a webinar in English on The Recommendation of GEDIP Concerning the Private International Law Aspects of the Future EU Instrument on Corporate Due Diligence and Corporate Accountability, will take place, organised by the Interest Group on Private International Law of the Italian Society of International Law (SIDI).
Hans Van Loon, former Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, and Giulia Vallar, of the University of Milan, will intervene.
This is the final event of a series of webinars entitled Private International Law in Europe: New Developments on Corporate Social Responsibility and Private International Law.
Attendance is free. Those wishing to join the webinar are invited to send an e-mail to sidigdipp@gmail.com.
I posted the Tweet below in October, and am posting mostly to report that I do not as yet have more to go by. The suit is against James Finlay and follows in the footsteps of one brought in 2017, pre-Brexit therefore. The 2017 action per CJEU Owusu v Jackson cannot be subject to a forum non conveniens challenge, and I am as yet not aware of an Article 33-34 Brussels IA ‘forum non light’ defence. This new, 2021 action has already been said to be met with a forum non challenge. It will be interesting to see first of all whether the forum non challenge in the latest suit will be impacted by the unavailability in principle of forum non in the 2017 suit; additionally, whether defendants are aiming to have the 2017 suit thrown out on the basis of A33-34 BIa (so far I have not seen indications that they will).
As I point out in the Tweet, had the UK been allowed to join Lugano, forum non would not be available to this newest suit.
Geert.
EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Chapter 7.
An initial 2017 suit it seems under Brussels Ia and a current one under Scottish rules, in the ancestral home of forum non conveniens.
Note had the UK joined Lugano, forum non would not have been an option #bizhumanrights #CSR https://t.co/7mMcwYwegm
— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) October 16, 2021
I am trying to catch up with blog posts this week and Robbins v Buzzfeed UK LTD (Approved) [2021] IEHC 433 goes back to the start of exam time at Leuven (early June). Claimant resides in California and is domiciled in the United States. Defendant has its registered office in London. The proceedings concern articles which were posted in May, June and November 2019 on the website “BuzzFeedNews.com” which related to claims of sexual misconduct, bullying and harassment, by the plaintiff, of certain employees and attendees at his events, alleged to have occurred between the 1980s and 2009 in the United States and in Canada.
Heslin J reviews the usual CJEU suspects, including Shevill and e-Date /Olivier Martinez, with [36] an interesting discussion of the impact of the applicable law. The substantively applicable law will always of course be a national law (additionally, Rome II exempts defamation from its scope of application). The Irish common law requires publication to at least one other, for there to be defamation. This would, so the argument goes, require claimant to prove the extent of consultation so as to establish jurisdiction. The judge holds that Shevill is not authority
for the proposition that, in order to successfully invoke jurisdiction pursuant to Article 7(2), a plaintiff has an obligation to prove publication or that, having regard to the facts in the present case, a plaintiff must prove that articles which he says were defamatory and which were in fact available to readers in this jurisdiction were downloaded or read by specific numbers of persons in this jurisdiction.
However he also holds claimant has proved readership figures of more than 13,000 as at the date the proceedings were instituted. I agree that as the passerelle to applicable law is noli sequitur in the application of A7(2) BIa. However the Mozaik findings in Shevill do mean that if such as here, jurisdiction is only based on locus damni, actual readership does need to be shown. A spanner in those works is CJEU Martinez at 51, where the CJEU uses the term “ accessible”, not the term “ accessed” [42]. In the light of claimant having proven actual downloads, the issue is of no relevance to the case [43] albeit it is yet more discussed and indeed at length, ia [57 ff] with reference to Ryanair v Fleming [2016] 2 IR 254 (a non-BIa case).
[79] a forum non application is of course rejected with reference to CJEU Owusu v Jackson despite a suggestion [83] that the principle in Owusu only applies to A4 BIa domicile jurisdiction.
Geert.
EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 2.2.12.2.5.
The UK Supreme Court in Lloyd v Google [2021] UKSC 50 held a few weeks back. It allowed the appeal, meaning the Court of Appeal‘s judgment is no longer good law and the High Court‘s approach is now the rule. The judgment essentially means that loss of control over private data is not considered ‘damage’ within the data protection Act 1998. The issue is one of statutory interpretation: on its proper interpretation, the SC understands the term “damage” in s. 13 to mean material damage (financial loss for instance) or mental distress, and not just unlawful processing. Loss of control therefore may still play a role in the common law tort of misuse of private information, and ‘damage’ was of course also considered flexibly in the context of consequential losses (Brownlie).
On class actions, the SC’s judgment is a set-back, too, with the judgment [80] holding
What limits the scope for claiming damages in representative proceedings is the compensatory principle on which damages for a civil wrong are awarded with the object of putting the claimant – as an individual – in the same position, as best money can do it, as if the wrong had not occurred. In the ordinary course, this necessitates an individualised assessment which raises no common issue and cannot fairly or effectively be carried out without the participation in the proceedings of the individuals concerned. A representative action is therefore not a suitable vehicle for such an exercise.
Geert.
The UK SC has allowed the appeal in Lloyd v #Google, restoring the first instance judge's narrower concept of damage (viz loss of control of personal data) under UK's implementation of the precursor to the #GDPR https://t.co/U5UToXDITq
For background see https://t.co/LOlbmKOolF pic.twitter.com/XkW97N4vVN
— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) November 10, 2021
You are kindly invited for the online conference on “Human Mobility Becomes ‘Unwanted’ Migration When Meeting Borders: Tactics and Technologies of Migration Management” by Prof. Dr. Helga RITTESBERGER-TILIÇ (Middle East Technical University, Department of Sociology, Ankara, Turkey) on December 8, 2021, Wednesday between 12.30-13.30 (GMT+3). The conference is organised by Bilkent University as a part of the Talks on Migration Series within the Jean Monnet Module on European and International Migration Law. It will be held via zoom, free of charge. Please contact us (Jmmigration@bilkent.edu.tr) for participation.
Biography:
Prof. Dr. Helga RITTESBERGER-TILIÇ is a member of the Department of Sociology at Middle East Technical University (Ankara, Turkey) since 1985. She received her doctorate degree from Essen University, Germany.
She has extensively worked on different aspects of international as well as national migration. She covered a wide field of subthemes such as return migration from Germany, migration to Europe, human trafficking, unacompanied migrant children, foreign domestic women labor in the informal economy in Turkey, integration of Syrian migrants into the Turkish labor market, ‘legal’ foreigners in Turkey as well as rural-to-urban migration processes and urban poverty in the national Turkish context.
Abstract:
Human Mobility becomes ‘unwanted’ Migration When Meeting Borders: Tactics and Technologies of Migration Management
Some researchers might stress a quantitative analysis of numbers of ‘forced’ migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, deportations etc. or we may say the quantification of state categorizations of different types of wanted and unwanted migrants. Others might be more interested in the study of how social relations produce discriminatory practices such as the subjectification of deportees, the role of criminalization and securitization discourses, etc.
The categorization into ‘those migrants, who deserve’ and ‘those, who do not deserve’ to stay, live, and work in a country is part of multiple processes in which a variety of tactics, tools and strategies are employed by different actors on local, regional and global levels. There is a wide range of actors: politicians, civil society organizations, academia, media, migrant solidarity organizations, local people and the migrants themselves. But the underlying assumption that migrants are part of a subordinate inclusion into local and global labor regimes remains.
Among the strategies of migration management changing of border regimes and control mechanisms, closing of borders, policing and an increase in deportation measures can be listed. Migrants were forced to return, stay in hotspot detention camps, find ‘alternative’ routes, or built their self-made camps like in Calais. The migrants trying to pass border crossings and fighting police, pushbacks of crowded boats and death statistics are presented to us, the audience, as a mediatic spectacle. The manifestation of the COVID 19 pandemic can be stressed, referring to changing tactics of ‘re-bordering’ the national borders as purposeful activities in the name of public health emergency on a global scale.
Thus, the process of building borders and the externalization of border regimes should be part of a discussion on ’forced’ migration without forgetting that migrants are disposable labor but also subjective beings.
A series of webinars have taken place since June this year to celebrate European Law Institute’s 10th anniversary. The latest in the series is about the ELI project on the Protection of Adults in International Situations and is scheduled for 7 December 2021, from 18:15 to 19:45 (CET),
The ELI project on adults seeks to encourage the European Union to consider both external action and the enactment of legislation in the field. The final report provides analysis and proposals regarding further issues surrounding the application of the Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 on the International Protection of Adults or otherwise relevant to the protection of adults in international situations. It also includes a checklist intended for practitioners, to encourage the development of private mandates within the ambit of the substantive laws of the Member States.
Confirmed speakers are: Aneta Wiewiórowska-Domagalska (Chair; ELI Executive Committee member; Senior Research Fellow, University of Osnabrück), Pietro Franzina (ELI Project Co-Reporter; Professor at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milano), Richard Frimston (ELI Project Co-Reporter; Consultant, Russell Cooke), Philippe Lortie (First Secretary, Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH)), Pascal Pichonnaz (ELI President; Professor, Faculty of Law of the University of Fribourg), Geraldo Ribeiro (Chair of the HCCH Working Group charged with drafting a practical handbook on the Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 on the International Protection of Adults), Salla Saastamoinen (Director for civil and commercial justice, DG JUST, European Commission) and Adrián Vázquez Lázara (Member of the European Parliament; JURI Committee Chair).
The webinar will also feature a 20–25 minute Q&A session with attendees.
Attendance is free. The registration form is available here.
L’État d’émission doit prévoir dans son droit interne les voies de recours permettant à tout individu de contester la régularité et la nécessité des perquisitions, saisies et audition de témoin par visioconférence, et de demander un redressement approprié en cas de mesure ordonnée ou exécutée illégalement.
Sur la boutique Dalloz Code de procédure pénale 2022, annoté Procédure pénale Procédure pénale Droit pénal. Procédure pénale 2022 Voir la boutique Dalloz
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer