Feed aggregator

The PAX Moot is a specialised moot court competition dedicated to students interested in Transnational Law and Private International Law issues. This year the Pax Moot Round is named after the Alegría Borrás Rodríguez (1943-2020).

The Borrás Round of the competition will require participants to deal with the complexities and nuances of how international conventions and European regulations interact with each other in the context of globalisation as well as situations such as Brexit where certain prior available instruments stop producing their effects. The case is grounded in the present challenging global events – the effects of COVID-19 virus on businesses and individuals, Brexit and environmental actions to reach carbon neutrality. The series of events to discuss involve the application of the Singapore Convention on Mediation and the European Order for Payment procedure.

The competition opens for the registration of the teams on 22 November 2022 and comprises a written and an oral round. The students participating in the PAX Moot will be required to address matters of jurisdiction, service of documents, settlement agreement and recognition of judgment in England.

More information about the competition and its timetable are available here. The rules of the competition are available here.

Two recent articles have been published by International and Comparative Law Quarterly:

TC Hartley, “Basic Principles of Jurisdiction in Private International Law: The European Union, United States and England”

This article consists of a comparative study of the basic principles underlying the rules of jurisdiction in private international law in commercial cases in the law of the European Union, the United States and England. It considers the objectives which these rules seek to achieve (protection of the rights of the parties and respect for the interests of foreign States) and the extent to which these objectives are attained. It takes tort claims, especially in the field of products-liability, as an example and considers which system has the most exorbitant rules. It suggests explanations for the differences found.

F Rielaender, “Aligning the Brussels Regime with the Representatives Action Directive”

European private international law has long been recognised as improperly set up to deal with cross-border collective redress. In light of this shortcoming, it seems unfortunate that the private international law implications of the Representative Actions Directive (Directive (EU) No 2020/1828) have not yet been addressed coherently by the European legislator. This article examines to what extent the policy of promoting collective redress can be supported, even if only partially, through a reinterpretation of the jurisdictional rules of the Brussels Ia Regulation. Furthermore, it discusses which legislative measures need to be adopted to better accommodate collective redress mechanisms within the Brussels regime.

The new edition of the Commentary on EU-Zivilprozessrecht: EuZPR authored by Professor Dr. Dr. h.c. Peter Schlosser, Emeritus at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, and Professor Dr. Dres. h.c. Burkhard Hess, founding Director at the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg, has just been released.

The revised and extended version of the commentary assesses and explains the ever-increasing importance of the coordination of cross-border civil proceedings in the European Area of Civil Justice. In an easy to handle style and with a specific look to the needs of legal practice, the commentary elucidates the entire acquis of the European procedural law in civil and commercial matters. The eminent authors comment the Brussels Ibis Regulation (being the core instrument of judicial cooperation in the Union), the EU-Regulations of the European Order for Payment, of the European Enforcement Order, the Small Claims Regulation and the Regulation establishing a European Account Preservation Order Procedure. The EU-Regulations on the Service of Documents and on the Taking of Evidence are equally commented. With regard to the latter, the commentary already provides valuable guidance on the forthcoming recasts of the upcoming regulations (applicable in 2022).

Extensive references to case law, especially of the European Court of Justice, but also of national courts and the legal literature are the building blocks of the Commentary. The authors equally focus on current challenges such as the ramifications arising from Brexit and the relations to other third states. Overall, this commentary is a must be for legal practitioners and for academics working in this field.

Le Tribunal de l’Union européenne a rendu, le 10 novembre 2021, l’une des décisions les plus structurantes de notre temps dans l’affaire dite Google Shopping. Au-delà du fait qu’il s’agit de la première décision par laquelle la voix des juges de l’Union se fait pleinement entendre sur les nouvelles formes de comportements abusifs observables dans l’économie numérique, l’arrêt est d’une profondeur, d’une modernité et d’une richesse exceptionnelles tant sur le fond du droit de la concurrence, que du point de vue du droit communautaire général et de la technique procédurale.

Sur la boutique Dalloz Économie et politique de la concurrence Voir la boutique Dalloz

en lire plus

The European Parliamentary Research Service of the European Parliament has issued on November 18th, 2021, a Briefing on The United Kingdom’s possible re-joining of the 2007 Lugano Convention.

The summary of the briefing reads as follows:

The 2007 Lugano Convention is an international treaty that regulates the free movement of court judgments in civil cases between the Member States of the EU, on one hand, and the three EFTA states (Switzerland, Norway and Iceland), on the other. The convention effectively extends the regime of quasi-automatic recognition and enforcement of judgments that was applicable between EU Member States at the time under the Brussels I Regulation (No 44/2001).

Whereas the EU rules currently in force regulating the free movement of judgments in civil cases between the EU Member States – the 2012 Brussels I-bis Regulation (1215/2012) – bring about an even higher level of integration and presume, therefore, a very high level of mutual trust between the national judiciaries of the Member States, relations between the EU and EFTA Member States remain at the level of integration prescribed in 2001 by the Brussels I Regulation.

Following the expiry of the transition period provided for by the Withdrawal Agreement between the United Kingdom (UK) and the EU, the UK is no longer bound by either the Brussels I-bis Regulation or the 2007 Lugano Convention. Given the fact that the latter is open not only to EU and EFTA Member States, but also explicitly to third countries, the UK has made a bid to re-join the Lugano Convention. For a third country to become part of this legal regime, all parties to the convention must give their explicit consent. Whereas this has been the case with Switzerland, Norway and Iceland, the European Commission, acting on behalf of the EU as a party to the 2007 Lugano Convention, has indicated that it is not prepared to grant such consent, effectively blocking – for the moment – the UK’s reintegration within the Lugano regime of mutual recognition of civil judgments.

For the Commission, accession to the Lugano regime is bound up with the notion of close economic integration with the EU, presupposing a high level of mutual trust. Participation in the Lugano system should not therefore be offered to any third country that is not part of the internal market.

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

Early bird registration for the conference ends on 30 November 2021. See here for further details.

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

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

Lorsque la résidence habituelle d’un enfant est située en France, les juridictions françaises, même dans le cas où elles ne seraient pas compétentes pour statuer sur le divorce du couple, sont compétentes pour statuer sur la responsabilité parentale et les demandes alimentaires qui en sont l’accessoire.

Sur la boutique Dalloz Code de procédure civile 2022, annoté Droit international privé Droit international privé Les grands textes de droit international privé Voir la boutique Dalloz

en lire plus

The third issue of 2021 of the Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale (RDIPP, published by CEDAM) was just released. It features:

Cristina Campiglio, Professor at the University of Pavia, Conflitti positivi e negativi di giurisdizione in materia matrimoniale (Positive and Negative Conflicts of Jurisdiction in Matrimonial Matters)

Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (Brussels II-bis) provides for a range of alternative grounds for jurisdiction in matrimonial matters and is strongly marked by the favor actoris principle. The system sets the scene not only for forum shopping but also for a rush to the court. However, spouses who have the nationality of different Member States and reside in a Third State remain deprived of the right to an effective remedy before an EU court. Taking a cue from a case currently pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union, this article examines the possible avenues to address these cases of denial of justice, also in light of Art. 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. This analysis is conducted, in particular, with the overarching goal of launching, at a political level, a general reflection on the question of conflicts of jurisdiction and on the opportunity to create a coherent, unified “European system” in which general and special regulations operate in a coordinated manner. 

Fabrizio Marrella, Professor at the Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Forza maggiore e vendita internazionale di beni mobili in un contesto di pandemia: alcune riflessioni (Force Majeure and International Sales of Goods in the Context of a Pandemic: Some Remarks)

For centuries, national legal systems have recognised both the principle pacta sunt servanda and its exceptions, i.e. the rebus sic stantibus and ad impossibilia nemo tenetur principles. However, the manner in which these basic rules operate varies in the landscape of comparative law. The unforeseeable change of circumstances is among the most relevant issues for international contracts. For this reason, international commercial practice has provided some standard solutions. The Vienna Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG) of 11 April 1980 is among the instruments that provide some uniform law solutions: however, these are not satisfactory when compared to modern commercial practice and the potential litigation arising from the Covid-19 pandemic crisis. In this context, legal doctrine on the private international law aspects of force majeure also seems scarce. This article explores some of the most pressing private international law issues arising from the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on cross-border B2B contracts. Notably, it analyses the choice of the lex contractus and its scope in relation to force majeure, addressing issues of causation, penalty clauses, evidence (with particular reference to “force majeure certificates” imposed by some governments), payment, and overriding mandatory rules.

The following comments are also featured:

Marco Argentini, PhD Candidate at the University of Bologna, I criteri di radicamento della giurisdizione italiana nei contratti di trasporto aereo transnazionale (The Criteria for Establishing Italian Jurisdiction in Contracts for International Carriage by Air)

This article analyses the rules to identify the competent courts, in the field of international air carriage contracts, for passenger claims aimed at obtaining the flat-rate and standardised rights provided for in Regulation No 261/2004 and the compensation for further damage under the Montreal Convention. In particular, the jurisdiction over the former is governed by the Brussels I-bis Regulation, whereas the one over the latter is governed by the Convention itself. Since passengers are the weaker contractual party, the article also addresses some remedies to avoid fragmentation of legal actions between courts of different States, as well as the particular case, tackled by the Court of Justice of the European Union, of a flight forming part of a broader package tour.

Claudia Cantone, PhD Candidate at the University “Luigi Vanvitelli” of Campania, Estradizione e limiti all’esercizio della giurisdizione penale extraterritoriale nel diritto internazionale: riflessioni a margine della sentenza della Corte di cassazione n. 30642/2020 (Extradition and Limits to the Exercise of Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction in International Law: Reflections on the Court of Cassation’s Judgment No 30642/2020)

This article builds upon the judgment of the Court of Cassation 22 October 2020 No 30642, delivered in an extradition case towards the United States of America. The decision of the Supreme Court is noteworthy since, for the first time, the Court examines the restrictions imposed by public international law on States in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction outside their territory. Notably, it states that the existence of a “reasonable connection” could justify the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction under international law. In this regard, the Author also analyses the emerging principle of jurisdictional reasonableness in the theory of jurisdiction under international law. Finally, the paper focuses on whether, in extradition proceedings, the judicial authority of the requested State might ascertain the basis of jurisdiction upon which the request is based, taking into consideration the absence of any provision in extradition treaties allowing such assessment.

Curzio Fossati, PhD Candidate at the University of Insubria, Le azioni di private enforcement tra le parti di un contratto: giurisdizione e legge applicabile (Private Enforcement Actions between Parties to a Contract: Jurisdiction and Applicable Law)

This article deals with the main private international law issues of antitrust damage claims between contracting parties, according to the latest rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In particular, these issues concern (a) the validity and the scope of jurisdictions clauses, (b) the determination of jurisdiction under the Brussels I-bis Regulation, and (c) the applicable law under the Rome I and the Rome II Regulations. The article aims at demonstrating that the analysis of these aspects should be preceded by the proper characterization of the damage action for breach of competition law between contracting parties. The conclusion reached is that the adoption of a univocal method to characterize these actions as contractual or non-contractual fosters coherent solutions.

In addition to the foregoing, this issue features the following book review by Francesca C. Villata, Professor at the University of Milan: Matthias HAENTJENS, Financial Collateral: Law and Practice, Oxford University Press, New York, 2020, pp. XXXIX-388.

SpaceNet,Telecom Deutschland,Commissioner of the Garda Síochána
Rapprochement des législations
L’avocat général Campos Sánchez-Bordona rappelle que la conservation généralisée et indifférenciée des données relatives au trafic et des données de localisation afférentes aux communications électroniques n’est autorisée qu’en cas de menace grave pour la sécurité nationale

O’Loan and Scott v MIB and AIG (Fintan O’Loan and Elisabeth Scott v Motor Insurance Bureau and AI Europe SA) involves the same Loi Badinter that was also the subject of Marshall v MIB. I was alerted to the case buy Ian Denham’s post. Judgment is as yet unreported and I am grateful to Ian for having sent me copy.

The contested claim is the one of Ms Scott v AIG. She was the front seat passenger of the hire car, insured by AIG and driven by Mr O’Loan, her partner, when the car was driven into by an uninsured, French registered car. Ms Scott therefore turns to the driver, her partner (in reality, the insurer of the hire car), to have her damage covered under the strict liability (no need to show fault) rule of the French Loi Badinter.

To get to French law however she needs to overcome Article 4(2) Rome II’s provision that in case victim and party claimed to be liable are habitually resident in the same country at the time the damage occurs, the laws of that country apply. A4(3) is the portal to that escape route:

(3) Where it is clear from all the circumstances of the case that the tort/delict is manifestly more closely connected with a country other than that indicated in paragraphs 1 or 2, the law of that other country shall apply. A manifestly closer connection with another country might be based in particular on a pre-existing relationship between the parties, such as a contract, that is closely connected with the tort/delict in question.

It was conceded by both parties [12] that the district judge cut quite a few corners on the A4(3) analysis and Platts J therefore started afresh. Winrow v Hemphill of course was referred to, as was Owen v Galgey (the conclusions of which I disagreed with).

The judge notes (as does the Handbook: para 4.39) that it is important to identify what is meant by “the tort/delict’ in A4(3) before considering whether that tort/delict is more closely connected with a country other than England. A4(3) holds that ‘the tort’ (not individual elements of the tort, such as the event and/or the damage and /or anything singular at all) needs to be ‘more closely connected’.

I disagree with the judge [23] that ‘the tort’ or ‘delict’ clearly refers to the event which caused the damage, or ‘the incident’ [24]. In the case of a tortious obligation ‘the tort’ arguably refers to the classic 3 elements of event, damage, and causal link between the two (all three here clearly referring to France). I do agree it does not refer to the cause of action which arises from the incident [24]. While linguistically speaking that may be caught be ‘the tort’ for it would be one of its consequences, it would also mean that remedies available, or not, for instance would play a role in determining lex causae. Where Rome II envisages such assessment, it says so explicitly: such as in Article 7’s environmental damage rule.

The judge’s reasons for opting for displacement are [30]

I therefore consider the connection with France to be manifestly closer than the connection with England: the collision was in France; it was between two vehicles registered in France; the damage was caused in France in that the initial injury was suffered in France. Further, the circumstances were such that the claim of first claimant is to be dealt with under French law.

That last element is in slight contradiction I find to the judge’s consideration signalled above, that an advance on (remedies available or not under the) lex causae, must not play a role. If that is the case for claimant seeking to overturn A4(2)’s presumption, arguably there must not be a role either for the lex causae of other claims involved in the case.

Of note is the judge’s emphasis on the vehicles both being registered in France. If that is an element, travellers of countries without strict liability rules, might have a strong incentive indeed to hire cars rather than drive their own when driving in EU Member States with strict liability rules such as the Loi Badinter.

Appeal dismissed, for the result is the same (French law applies) even if the route to it was quite different from the first judge.

I do not think the analysis on ‘the tort’ is quite there yet.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 4.5.2 (para 4.39 ff).

Of much note and my review shall be on the blog soon. (There is a queue, plus the posts inevitably are playing snakes and ladders with my day jobs). https://t.co/JxrMg02Sxh

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) November 15, 2021

 

Yesterday (17 November 2021) the Russian Federation signed the HCCH Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention). The HCCH news item is available here.

No declarations were filed. Click here (Depositary’s website).

It should be noted that in order to consent to be bound by the treaty, the Russian Federation would need to deposit an instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval (art. 24(2) of the  HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention). In the meantime, a signatory State has the obligation not to defeat the object and purpose of a treaty prior to its entry into force (art. 18 of the UN Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties).

***

The HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention is not yet in force. In accordance with its article 28: “This Convention shall enter into force on the first day of the month following the expiration of the period during which a notification may be made in accordance with Article 29(2) with respect to the second State that has deposited its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession referred to in Article 24.”

There are currently five signatory States: Costa Rica, Israel, the Russian Federation, Ukraine and Uruguay. The act of signing a treaty does not count towards the timeline specified in article 28 of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention as it is not an instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.

 

The fourth issue of the Journal du droit international for 2021 has just been released. It contains two articles and several case notes relating to private international law issues, including the 2020 annual case-law review of EU private international law supervised by Louis d’Avout (University of Paris II).

In the first article, the International Law Association (ILA) pays tribute to the memory of Philippe Kahn (Hommage à Philippe Kahn, by Catherine Kessedjian, Geneviève Bastid Burdeau, Éric Loquin, Jean-Michel Jacquet, Marie Cornu, Ali Bencheneb & Franck Latty).

The English abstract reads:

Philippe Kahn was above all a researcher, an inventive person, an explorer. The French Branch of the International Law Association paid tribute to him on April 8, 2021. The tribute, in its entirety, is available on Youtube. The texts reproduced here concern only his scientific contributions highlighted by the authors in the various fields that his insatiable curiosity led him to tackle: international contracts, the financing of international trade, cultural heritage and the art market, outer space, to mention just a few aspects of his work.

In the second article, Gwendoline Lardeux (Aix-Marseille University) analyses some difficult private international law issues in real property matters (De certaines hypothèses délicates du droit international privé des immeubles).

The English abstract reads:

The autonomous concepts of European conflict of laws are progressively shaped, litigation after litigation, through Court of justice, as European substantive law as such is lacking. This jurisdiction is therefore referring to International private law goals to choose or reject any qualification. This is clearly the case for the immovable suit. The different regulations on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters provide indeed an exclusive jurisdictional competence to the courts of the situs rei « in proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property or tenancies of immovable property » (see Reg. Brussels I bis, art. 24, 1°, al. 1er). Those both hypotheses are raising difficult legal qualification issues regarding numerous intricate contracts or institutions.

A full table of contents can be downloaded here.

Lorsqu’un recours formé contre une décision de l’Office français de protection des réfugiés et apatrides (OFPRA) ne présente aucun élément sérieux susceptible de remettre en cause sa décision, la Cour nationale du droit d’asile (CNDA) peut le rejeter sans attendre la production d’observations complémentaires annoncées par le requérant.

en lire plus

?Chen Zhi?Wangjing & GH Law Firm, PhD Candidate at University of Macau)

Finality of tribunal’s decision without any challenging system on merits issues has been well established and viewed as one of the most cited benefits of arbitration, which can be found in most influential legal documents such as 1958 New York Convention and UNCIITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (issued in 1985, as revised in 2006).

Nevertheless, among all salient features of arbitration, finality of award is probably the most controversial one. In the investment arbitration, the question has been canvassed at length and has been serving as one of the central concerns in the ongoing reform of investment arbitration.[i] While in commercial arbitration, some practitioners and commentators are also making effort to advocate an appeal system. For example, a report by Singapore Academy of Law Reform Committee in February of 2020 strongly recommended introduction of appeals on question of law into international arbitration seated in Singapore,[ii] and has ignited a debate in this regard.

In legal practice, there are some legislations or arbitration institutions provide approaches allowing for the parties to apply for reconsideration of the award, which can be summarized into 3 categories: 1. The appellate mechanism conducted by state courts; 2. Appellate mechanism within the arbitration proceedings and; 3. Alternative to appellate mechanism by arbitration society.

This article will start by giving a brief introduction about the forgoing systems, and comment on the legitimacy and necessity of appellate mechanism in commercial arbitration.

• Appealing mechanism before the court

1.1 Appellate Mechanism in England

When it comes to appellate mechanism conducted by state courts, the appeal mechanism for question of law as set out in section 69 of 1996 English Arbitration Act(EAA) is one of the most cited exceptions. It is undeniable that Section 69 of EAA constitutes an appellate mechanism in respect of arbitration conducted by judicial institutions. Nevertheless, some clarifications shall be made in this regard:

(1) The appellate mechanism serves as a default rule rather than a mandatory one, which allows parties to contract out of it. Apart from an agreement which explicitly excludes the appellate system, such consensus can be reached by other means. One of the methods is the parties’ agreement on dispensing with reasons for the arbitral award, which is overall a rare practice in the field of international commercial arbitration while frequently used within some jurisdictions and sectors. Another way is the designation of arbitration rules containing provisions eliminating any appeal system, such as arbitration rules of most world renowned arbitration institutions. For instance, Article 26.8 of London Court of International Arbitration Rules(The LCIA Rules) explicitly stipulates that parties waive “irrevocably” their right to appeal, review or recourse to any state court or other legal authority in any form.[iii] Therefore, parties may easily dispense with the right to appeal by reference of arbitration before The LCIA Rules or under its rules.

(2) Albeit parties fail to opt out of such appeals, the court is still afforded with discretion on rejection of a leave to commence such appeal. As provided by Section 69 (3) of EAA, such leave shall be granted only certain standards are satisfied, inter alia, the manifest error in the disputed award or raise of general public importance regarding the debating question.

(3) The competence of the appealing court is confined to review the question of laws and shall not impugned on the factual issue. In other words, any alleged errors in fact finding by tribunal is out of the court’s remit. English courts are tended to reject efforts dressing up factual findings as questions of law, and have set up a high threshold regarding mixed questions of law and fact.[iv]

The abovementioned three factors have enormously narrowed down the scope of appellate system under Section 69 of EAA. Statistics in recent years also reveal the extreme low success rate in both granting of leave and overturning of the outcome. From 2015 to March 2018, more than 160 claims had been filed, while only 30 claims were permitted and 4 claims succeeded.[v] Hence, the finality of arbitration award is overall enshrined in England. Parties can hardly count on the appeal proceedings set forth in Section 69.

1.2 Appellate Mechanism Outside England

Some other jurisdictions have embedded similar appellate system, Canada and Australia employed an opt-out model like Section 69 of EAA.[vi] Other jurisdictions have adopted stringent limits on such appeal. in Singapore, appeal on merits of award is only provided by Arbitration Act governing domestic arbitration and not available in arbitration proceedings under International Arbitration Act. The Arbitration Ordinance of Hong Kong SAR of China provides an opt-in framework which further narrows down the use of appellate mechanism.

Appeal in the court is somehow incompatible with the minimal intervene principle as set out in legislations like UNCITRAL Model Law. Further, it will not only enormously undermine efficiency of arbitration but also make the already-clogged state courts more burdensome. The important consideration about the appeal against question of law in the court is the development of law through cases,[vii] while it is not suitable for all jurisdictions.

• Internal appellate of arbitration institution

Apart from state courts, some arbitration institutions may have the authority to act as appellate bodies under their institutional rules, which can be summarized as “institutional appellate mechanism”. While such system can be observed in the arbitration concerning certain sectors such as the appeal board of The Grain and Feed Trade Association, it is rarely used by institutions open for all kinds of commercial disputes, with exceptions such as The Institute of Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR) and Judicial Arbitration & Mediation Services, Inc (JAMS).[viii]

Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (SCIA) is the first arbitration institution in Mainland China who introduced optional appellate arbitration procedure into its arbitration rules published in December of 2018 (having come into effective since February 2019), enclosed with a guideline for such optional appellate arbitration procedure.

SCIA’s Optional Appellate Arbitration Procedure provides an opt-in appellate system against the merits issue of an award where the below prerequisites are all satisfied: (1) pre-existing agreement on appeal by parties; (2) such appeal mechanism is not prohibited by the law of the seat; (3) the award is not rendered under expedited procedure set out in SCIA Arbitration Rules.[ix]

If all the above conditions are satisfied and one of the dispute parties intend to appeal, the application of appeal shall be filed the appeal within 15 days upon receipt of the disputing award and an appealing body composed of 3 members will be constituted through the appointment of SCIA’s chief. The appealing body is afforded with broad direction to revise or affirm the original award, of whom the decision will supersede the original award.[x]

The SCIA appellate mechanism is a bold initiative, while some uncertainties may arise under the current legal system in Mainland China:

First is the legitimacy of an internal appellate system under current legislation system. Though the current statutes do not contain any provision specifying the institutional legitimacy of an appellate mechanism, while legal risk may arise by breach of finality principle set out in the Article 9 of PRC Arbitration Law, which expressly stipulates that both state court and arbitration institution shall reject any dispute which has been decided by previous award. In this respect, any decision by an appealing system, regardless of whether it is conducted by state court, is likely to be annulled or held unenforceable subsequently. Apparently, SCIA was well aware of such risk and set forth the first prerequisite for the system such that parties may circumvent the risk through designation of arbitral seat.

The second is the risk brought by designation of arbitration seat other than Mainland China while no foreign-related factor is involved. Current law in PRC is silent on the term of arbitration seat, even though the loophole may be well resolved by the new draft of revised Arbitration Law which has been published for public consultation since late July 2021,[xi] it is still unclear whether parties to arbitration without foreign-related factors have the right to designate a jurisdiction other than Mainland China. As per previous cases, courts across the jurisdiction has been for a long time rejecting parties’ right to agree on submission of case to off-shore arbitration institutions provided that no foreign-related factor can be observed in the underlying dispute.[xii]If the same stance keep unchanged in respect of parties’ consent on arbitration seat, parties’ agreement on designating an off-shore seat to avoid the scrutiny will be invalidated and the SCIA appellate mechanism will thereby not be available.

Third is the possibility of contradictory results. In Mainland China, a domestic award is final upon parties and hence enforceable without any subsequent proceedings. With this regard, SCIA’s appellate mechanism may create two contradictory outcomes in one dispute resolution proceeding under the current legal system. If the successful party seeks for enforcement of award by concealing the existence of appeal proceedings, the court will enforce it basing on its text. Even though the court is aware of the appeal proceedings in the course of enforcement, it is not obliged to stay the enforcement in absence of any legal basis. In other words, the appeal mechanism will be meaningless for all parties in case of the launch of enforcement proceedings .

• Alternatives to appealing mechanism

As mentioned above, in Mainland China there is no room for a review on merits system in commercial arbitration under Article 9 of PRC Arbitration Law. This article has been verbatim transplanted into the most recent draft of revised Arbitration Law which has been published for public consultation since late July 2021. Therefore, the much-cited bill brings no assistance in this regard.

With all that said, a few institutions have set up a special system called “pre-decision notification”??????as an alternative to mirror the function of appeal mechanism, which is said to be credited to Deyang Arbitration Commission of Sichuan Province dated back to 2004, according to a piece of news in August 2005 reported by Legal Daily, a nationwide legal professional newspaper run by the Supreme People’s Court.[xiii] Pre-decision notification allows for tribunal to notice parties their preliminary opinions about the case before rendering the final decision, and ask for parties’ comments within fixed duration. Tribunal’s preliminary opinions can be revised by the final award based on comments by parties, occurrence of new fact after deliberation, or merely on the tribunal’s own initiative.

One notable case about the pre-decision notification mechanism is decided by Xi’an Intermediate Court of Shanxi Province dated 18 April of 2018.[xiv] The case concerns an arbitration proceeding administered by Shangluo Branch of Xi’an Arbitration Commission where the tribunal dispatched preliminary opinion to parties at the outset, whilst ruled on the contrary in the final decision. The plaintiff (respondent of the arbitration proceeding) subsequently commenced an annulment proceeding against the award on the basis that the final decision is contradictory with the one set out in pre-decision notice (together with other reasons which were not relevant to the topic of this article), whilst the court refused to set aside the award by simply indicated that the reasons replied upon by plaintiff had no merits, without giving any further comment on such system.

In another noteworthy case which concerns the fact that tribunal ruled adversely after considering parties’ comments on opinion set out in pre-decision notice, in the annulment proceeding, the Guiyang Intermediate Court of Guizhou Province explicitly endorsed the legitimacy of pre-decision notification, by stating that even though it is not regulated in any current legislation, pre-decision notice can be viewed as an investigation method by means of tribunal’s query to the parties, instead of a decision by tribunal. Therefore, the discrepancy between pre-decision opinion and final award does not amount to annulment of the award.[xv]

The abovementioned court decisions are somehow problematic: the pre-decision notification is by no means a mere investigating tool for the tribunal. While the preliminary opinion is made and dispatched, it shall be deemed that the tribunal has taken the stance, which shall be distinguished from tribunal’s query about facts or laws in a neutral and open minded manner which is widely accepted in commercial arbitration.[xvi] Therefore, subsequent comments by parties would constitute a de facto appealing mechanism before the same decision-making body, which will give rise to problems such as postponing the arbitral proceedings and the question of conflict of interest. Moreover, it probably produces unfairness for parties dissatisfying with the preliminary opinion may spare no effort to change the tribunal’s mind by intervening tribunal’s autonomy (even by taking irregular or illegal measures).

Overall, pre-decision notification is a highly controversial practice which received lots of criticisms, and hence does not constitute a mainstream system in China. None of the first-class arbitration institutions (including CIETAC, Beijing Arbitration Commission, Guangzhou Arbitration Commission, etc.) had ever embraced such system in the field of commercial arbitration. Some institutions are seeking to repeal or limit the use of such system. For example, Zunyi Arbitration Commission abolished such system in its rules released in 2018, while other arbitration commissions who are consistently strong champions of this system also opined that it is only used in rare cases with higher controversy and complexity.

Despite of these pitfalls and controversies, the courts’ decisions clearly reveal that pre-decision notification system per se is not necessarily a breach of finality principle set out in arbitration legislation and hence feasible for parties if it is explicitly set out in applicable arbitration rules.

Pre-decision notification has been introduced into investment arbitration in recent years, Beijing Arbitration Commission has incorporated such system into its investment arbitration which was finalized and published in September 2019, which provides that the tribunal shall provide parties with the draft of award and seek for their comments, and may give proper consideration to the parties’ feedback.[xvii] By the language, pre-decision notification will act as a mandatory rule while any investor-state case is being administered by this institution.

4.Comments

Several pertinent issues have been raised with regard to appellate mechanism in arbitration, which can be boiled down to several sub-issues including legitimacy, efficiency and fairness, as well as preference of parties.

4.1 Legitimacy Perspective

According to leading legislations across the world, the competence of state court confined to procedural issues in respect of judicial review over arbitration award, with rare and narrow exceptions such as the public policy set out in UNCITRAL Model Law and New York Convention. With this respect, even though some commentators argue that an appeal on merits is not necessarily a breach of finality and minimal intervene principles set out in UNCITRAL Model Law,[xviii] a mandatory and all-catching appealing system encompassing both factual and legal issues conducted by state court is undeniably incompatible with modern arbitration legislation.

In this respect, an internal appealing mechanism conducted by arbitration institution seems to be less controversial in respect of legitimacy at first glance. While it may also be viewed as a breach of finality of award in the context of some specific legislations such as Article 9 of PRC Arbitration Law.

4.2 Efficiency and Fairness

Finality principle in commercial perceivably enhances the efficiency of dispute resolution by relieving both parties and states from endless and burdensome appealing and reconsidering proceedings, while efficiency is not free from problem while the fairness issue is concerned, giving rise to pertinent considerations about correction of error, enhancement of consistency and the increase of transparency.

Nevertheless, the fairness argument is less convincing in the context of international commercial arbitration in which parties are seeking for a neutral forum in avoidance of local protectionism.[xix] Further, consistency and transparency is less concerned in the context of arbitration which is viewed to be tailored for individual cases while less public concerns are involved, comparing with litigation.

4.3 Preference of Parties

It can be drawn from above analysis that there is no one-standard-fitting all approach for the appeal mechanism in commercial arbitration, in that scenario, parties’ preference shall be taken into account by virtue of the autonomy nature of commercial.

An worldwide survey conducted by Queen Mary University in 2015 provides that 23% of the respondents were in favor of an appeal mechanism in commercial arbitration (compared to 36% approval rate in the same question about investment arbitration),[xx] which reveals a boost about 150% while compared with the rate in 2006 survey (around 9%).In 2018 survey, 14% of the respondents had selected “lack of appeal mechanism on the meritss” as one of the three worst characteristics of arbitration.[xxi]

In a nutshell, statics reveals the increasing demand for appeal system, while it is premature to say that preference for appeal mechanism has been the mainstream in commercial arbitration, it has given rise to concerns by arbitration practitioners and proper response shall be made accordingly.

[i]See Elsa Sardinha, The Impetus for the Creation of an Appellate Mechanism, in Meg Kinnear and Campbell McLachlan (eds), ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal, Oxford University Press 2017, Volume 32 Issue(3) pp. 503 – 527S https://www.sal.org.sg/sites/default/files/PDF%20Files/Law%20Reform/2020%20Report%20on%20the%20Right%20of%20Appeal%20against%20International%20Arbitration%20Awards%20on%20Questions%20of%20Law.pdf

[ii] See Singapore Academy of Law Reform Committee, Report on the Right of Appeal against International Arbitration Awards on Questions of Law February 2020, available at

[iii] Article 26.8 of LCIA Arbitration Rules?coming into effective since October 2020?,available at https://www.lcia.org/Dispute_Resolution_Services/lcia-arbitration-rules-2020.aspx

[iv] See Teresa Cheng, The Search for Order Within Chaos in the Evolution of ISDS, CIArb’s 45th annual Alexander Lecture on 16 January 2020, available at https://www.doj.gov.hk/en/community_engagement/speeches/20200116_sj1.html

[v] Ben Sanderson et al.,Appeals under the English Arbitration Act 1996?available at https://www.dlapiper.com/en/uk/insights/publications/2018/05/appeals-under-the-english-arbitration-act-1996/#:~:text=Section%2069%2C%20meanwhile%2C%20is%20a%20non-mandatory%20provision%20of,the%20English%20courts%20on%20a%20point%20of%20law.

[vi]T. Dedezade, Are You In or Are You Out? An Analysis of Section, 69 of the English Arbitration Act 1996: Appeals on a Question of Law, 2 Intl. Arb. L.J. 56 (2006) available at http://corbett.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Taner-s-69-article.pdf

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] See Rowan Platt, The Appeal of Appeal Mechanisms in International Arbitration: Fairness over Finality?, Journal of International Arbitration , Volume 30 Issue 5 p. 548?2013?

[ix] See Article 68 of SCIA Arbitration Rules(coming into effective since 2019),available at http://scia.com.cn/upload/20201027/5f97bf7833c8c.pdf

[x] See SCIA Guidelines for the Optional Appellate Arbitration Procedure, available at http://www.scia.com.cn/files/fckFile/file/SCIA%20Guidelines%20for%20the%20Optional%20Appellate%20Arbitration%20Procedure.pdf

[xi] See Anton Ware et al., Proposed Amendments to the PRC Arbitration Law: A Panacea?, available at http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2021/09/09/proposed-amendments-to-the-prc-arbitration-law-a-panacea/

[xii] See a seminal case (2013)??????10670? by Beijing 2nd Intermediate Court in January of 2014, which concerns an award rendered in proceedings governed by KCAB, the court rejected enforcement of KCAB award by the reason that the underlying dispute did not have any foreign-related factor, despite of the fact that one party to the proceedings is an enterprise wholly subsidized by Korean citizens.

[xiii] See Li Yongli et al., Enhancing Arbitration Legislation through Pre-Decision Notification. Legal Daily, 16 August 2005, p,12???????????“????”???????????????????2005?8?16??12???

[xiv] 2018 Shan 01 Min Te No. 99?2018??01??99?

[xv] 2016 Qian 01 Min Te No. 48?2016??01??48?

[xvi] Per the common practice and well established principle, tribunals are free to delivery query to parties in respect of both factual finding and ascertaining law (Jura Novit Curia), while it shall be conducted in a manner that being prepared to consider legal positions advanced by the parties, irrespective of questions well known to the tribunal. See: Revista Brasileira de Arbitragem, International Law Association Committee on International Commercial Arbitration Ascertaining the Contents of the Applicable Law in International Commercial Arbitration Report for the Biennial Conference in Rio de Janeiro, August 2008,

[xvii] Article 42.4 of Beijing Arbitration Commission/Beijing International Arbitration Center Rules for International Investment Arbitration?available at https://www.bjac.org.cn/page/data_dl/touzi_en.pdf

[xviii] See Singapore Academy on Law Reform Committee: Report of Appeal Against International Arbitration Awards on Questions of Law, February 2020, available at https://www.sal.org.sg/sites/default/files/PDF%20Files/Law%20Reform/2020%20Report%20on%20the%20Right%20of%20Appeal%20against%20International%20Arbitration%20Awards%20on%20Questions%20of%20Law.pdf

[xix] Noam Zamir ,Peretz Segal, Appeal in International Arbitration—an efficient and affordable arbitral appeal mechanism‘, in William W. Park (ed), Arbitration International, Oxford University Press 2019, Volume 35 Issue 1) p. 84.

[xx] See Queen Mary, 2015 International Arbitration Survey: Improvements and Innovations in International Arbitration, p,8 available at http://www.arbitration.qmul.ac.uk/media/arbitration/docs/2015_International_Arbitration_Survey.pdf

[xxi] See Queen Mary & White Case, 2018 International Arbitration Survey: The Evolution of International Arbitration, p,8 available at http://www.arbitration.qmul.ac.uk/media/arbitration/docs/2018-International-Arbitration-Survey—The-Evolution-of-International-Arbitration-(2).PDF

Facts

An Austrian national (A) was born in 1975 as a woman. In 2010, at A’s request, the Austrian authorities changed A’ first name, and in 2016 A’s gender to “male”. A married a German male national in July 2019 in Berlin. On the same day, A gave birth to their common child there. The German authorities were unsure about how to enter A into the birth register.

Ruling

On 21 January 2021, the Court of Appeal Berlin (Kammergericht) rendered a Solomonic judgment (docket number 1 W 1290/20, published in NJW-RR 2021, p. 387, paywall access here). It ruled that A was to be registered as the child’s mother, but that A’s gender was to be recorded as “male”. This solution was reached through applying a combination of the formal rules governing the birth register, conflict-of-laws rules, and an interpretation of substantive law.

Formal Rules on Civil Status

The Court justified the registration of A as a “mother” by the formal procedural rules governing the German civil status (Personenstandsgesetz) as the lex fori. According to these rules, the person giving birth to the child is to be registered as the mother, independently of their gender. A’s status as a mother would follow from the fact that A had given birth to the child.

Conflict of Laws

The Court also tried to justify this rather formalistic solution by the law applicable to the substantive legal relationship between A and the child. In order to do so, it had to identify the law applicable to kinship.

The Court highlighted that since the child has its habitual residence in Germany, German law applied to the relation of kinship (Article 19(1) 1 of the German Introductory Act to the Civil Code – EGBGB). Yet in addition to habitual residence, German international family law provides further connecting factors with the goal of establishing, as far as possible, a parent-child relationship. In particular, the relationship of descent from a parent can also be derived from the law of the state of this parent’s nationality (see Art 19(1) 2 EGBGB). In the present case, given A’s Austrian nationality, this would lead to Austrian law. Finally, kinship could also be established under the law governing the general effects of the marriage (Art 19(1) 3 EGBGB). Under German conflicts law, the general effects of same-sex marriages are, in the absence of a choice of law by the spouses, submitted to the law where the same-sex marriage is registered (Art 17b(4) EGBGB).  In the present case, this again led to German law. Hence, German and Austrian law apply to questions of kinship, with a preference for the law that is more likely to establish a parent-child-relationship.

Substantive Kinship Law

A substantive problem is that the German Civil Code defines the mother of a child as the “woman who gave birth to the child” (sec. 1591 German Civil Code – BGB). A very similar provision exists under Austrian law (sec. 143 Austrian Civil Code – ABGB). Seemingly, these provisions do not allow a man to be registered as a mother.

However, the German Federal Court had previously held that the role of the mother and the female gender must always be attributed to the person giving birth to the child (Bundesgerichtshof, decision of 6 September 2017 – XII ZB 660/14). It is true that the Act on Transsexuals, on which the Federal Supreme Court had relied, was not applicable given that A had changed its name and gender abroad, i.e., under Austrian law. Nevertheless, the Berlin Court of Appeal followed the precedent set by the Federal Supreme Court. It argued that the notions “mother” and “woman” in sec. 1591 BGB would refer to a specific role in the procreation of the child, and were to be understood in a biological and not in a legal sense. Since A had given birth to the child, A would have to be considered as the mother and consequently also as a “woman” for the purposes of this provision.

The Berlin Court of Appeal also pointed out that A could not be registered as a father, despite being male. A did not meet the necessary requirements to be registered as the child’s father, as he was neither married to the mother at the time of the child’s birth, nor has his paternity been acknowledged or established by the court (sec. 1592 German Civil Code – BGB). Moreover, under German law, every child can only have one father and one mother. As A’s husband had been registered as the father, this role was precluded for A. The Court also pointed out that gender-neutral registration is not foreseen under German law.

In Austria, no special rules exist for transsexual persons as mothers. Yet the Court of Appeal pointed to the Austrian practice under which a woman who had changed her gender before giving birth to a child could be entered into the central civil status register as the mother. The result would be basically the same as under German law.

Substantive Gender Law

With regard to the recording of A’s gender in the birth register, the Berlin Court of Appeal referred to Art 7 EGBGB, which submits questions concerning the legal personality and legal capacity of natural persons to the law of their nationality. This provision would apply, by analogy, also to gender identity. Hence, Austrian law was applicable. The Court remarked that the Austrian authorities had issued a birth certificate for A with the gender “male”. Similar documents had been submitted for purposes of the wedding. The Austrian authorities had also recorded A’s gender as male when registering the child’s birth in the general civil status register. There could therefore be no serious doubt about A’s gender. The Austrian acts and documents would have to be respected in Germany. As a result, a man was registered as a mother.

Assessment

The case illustrates the need for reform to German and Austrian family law. Both still are based on the assumption that the mother of a child is always a woman, which is no longer universally true, as illustrated by the present case. The Berlin Court of Appeal’s distinction between the sex in a biological sense and gender a legal sense can hardly convince when applied in a purely legal context. Where someone is recognised as having a certain gender, this must apply in all legal circumstances. The proper solution therefore would be to define the mother purely functionally as the person giving birth to remove the reference to a “woman” in both sec. 1591 German BGB and sec. 143 Austrian ABGB. This could be best done by a change of the law; in the absence of such reform, an adaptive interpretation is indispensable.

With regard to A’s gender, the Berlin Court of Appeal could have shortened its ruling. It should simply have accepted the Austrian documents on the basis of the CJEU case law that demands the recognition of civil status acts rendered in other Member States (see for the registration of names e.g. CJEU, C-391/09, Runevič-Vardyn and Wardyn). A conflicts analysis was therefore unnecessary in this context.

La Cour de justice de l’Union européenne poursuit la construction de sa jurisprudence sur le temps de travail des sapeurs-pompiers non professionnels.

en lire plus

On 15 November 2021, the JURI committee of the European Parliament held a hearing on EU Private International Law. The focus was on issues that would need to be addressed in a review of the current rules, including as regards Corporate Due Diligence and SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation).

Giesela Rühl (Humboldt University of Berlin, and Secretary General of EAPIL), Geert Van Calster (Leuven University), and Olivera Boskovic (Université Paris Déscartes) took part in the hearing.

The video recording of the hearing can be found here.

Governor of Cloverhill Prison e.a.
Relations extérieures
Les dispositions concernant le régime du mandat d’arrêt européen à l’égard du Royaume-Uni prévues dans l’accord de retrait et concernant le nouveau mécanisme de remise dans l’accord de commerce et de coopération entre l’Union européenne et cet État tiers sont contraignantes pour l’Irlande

Commission / Hongrie
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
En sanctionnant pénalement l’activité d’organisation visant à permettre l’ouverture d’une procédure de protection internationale par des personnes ne remplissant pas les critères nationaux d’octroi de cette protection, la Hongrie a violé le droit de l’Union

Prokuratura Rejonowa w Mińsku Mazowieckim
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Le droit de l’Union fait obstacle au régime en vigueur en Pologne permettant au ministre de la Justice de déléguer des juges dans des juridictions pénales supérieures, délégation à laquelle ce ministre, qui est en même temps le procureur général, peut à tout moment mettre fin sans motivation