Feed aggregator

Aldricus – Warna rambut yang cocok dan sesuai dengan warna kulit dapat membantu wajah menjadi lebih berseri dan segar. Untuk kulit wanita Indonesia, memilih warna-warna lembut seperti coklat adalah salah satu pilihan yang paling banyak diminati. Diantara sekian banyak variasi warna coklat untuk pewarna rambut, ada variasi cat rambut coklat yang paling glamor dan membuat tampilan lebih trendy.

Cokelat Gelap Untuk Kesan Natural

Warna rambut paling aman bagi mereka yang pertama kali mewarnai rambut adalah coklat tua. Selain lebih mudah diaplikasikan karena tidak membutuhkan bleaching sebelum diwarnai, dark brown juga cocok untuk semua warna kulit.

Anda dapat mencoba pilihan warna Dark Brown (3) dan Pearly Brown (4.2) dari L`oréal Paris Excellence Crème untuk mendapatkan warna cokelat tua yang cantik. Pilihan warna ini juga cocok untuk Anda yang ingin menutupi uban dan membuatnya terlihat lebih berkilau dan alami.

Cokelat Kemerahan Untuk Tampilan Menawan

Memilih cat rambut coklat kemerahan dapat membantu menambah nuansa pada wajah Anda. Warna ini akan menambah kesan mewah bagi pemilik kulit putih. Warna Light Auburn lebih disukai karena tidak berwarna tetapi memberikan cahaya merah yang mengejutkan saat terkena sinar matahari.

Pilihan warna L`oreal Paris Excellence Crème’s Chocolate Brown (5.35) dan Light Auburn (6.45) bisa menjadi pilihan Anda saat ingin mencoba tampilan berbeda dengan warna coklat kemerahan yang cantik.

Cokelat Terang Untuk Rambut Bergelombang

Jika Anda memiliki rambut bergelombang, warna coklat muda bisa menjadi pilihan warna rambut yang tepat. Warna rambut coklat muda yang dipadukan dengan tekstur rambut bergelombang menciptakan kesan wajah yang lebih hidup.

Pilihan warna ini cocok untuk Anda yang memiliki kulit putih atau cokelat karena akan memberikan kesan segar dan cerah pada wajah. Coba L`oréal Paris Excellence Crème Light Brown (5) untuk tampilan awet muda.

Cokelat Keunguan Untuk Tampilan Anggun

Cat rambut coklat coklat keunguan ini bisa menjadi pilihan jika Anda memiliki warna kulit cerah atau gelap dan ingin tampil lebih gaya namun dengan kesan yang berbeda. Pilihan warna ini sangat cocok untuk wanita dewasa yang tetap ingin terlihat sedikit playful tanpa menghilangkan tampilan dewasanya. Anda bisa mencoba pilihan L’Oreal Paris Excellence Crème’s Purple Brown (4.26) untuk mendapatkan warna rambut yang tepat.

The post Warna Cat Rambut Coklat yang Sedang Tren appeared first on Aldri Blog.

République tchèque / Commission
Droit institutionnel
Le Tribunal accueille partiellement le recours de la République tchèque fondé sur un enrichissement sans cause de la Commission pour autant qu’il vise à la restitution d’un montant équivalent à environ 726 000 euros que cet État membre a dû verser à cette institution dans le contexte du recouvrement de droits antidumping

Fininvest et Berlusconi / BCE
Politique économique
Le Tribunal confirme la décision par laquelle la BCE a refusé l’acquisition d’une participation qualifiée dans Banca Mediolanum par M. Silvio Berlusconi

In July 2018, the French Minister of Justice invited Jean-Pierre Ancel, a former judge of the Cour de cassation (French supreme court for private and criminal matters) to establish a working group for the purpose of reflecting on the codification of French private international law.

In March 2022, the working group handed its work to the Ministry of Justice. It includes a draft code of private international law of 207 provisions, and an explanatory report.

The working group was essentially composed of judges and academics. It included very few members of the bar, and no corporate lawyers (whether from the bar or in house).

National Codification in a Context of EU Harmonisation

As all readers will know, the private international law of EU Member States is dominated by EU legislation. EU Regulations are of universal application in the field of choice law. They occupy a large part of the field of jurisdiction and enforcement of foreign judgments.

Of course, the working group and the draft code recognise this fact, and the working group has abstained to propose rules on issues clearly regulated by EU law.

Nevertheless, one wonders whether it is really worth codifying private international law at national level, and whether it would not be more useful to promote codification at EU level (GEDIP has been reflecting on this for a while and EAPIL has also established a working group).

Interestingly, the Minister of Justice alluded to the issue in its letter inviting judge Ancel to establish the working group (reproduced in annex to the explanatory report). The Minister insisted that a French code would help promoting French law in European and international circles where, the Minister stated, more modern and accessible foreign legislations prevail. This likely explains why the explanatory report states that codification of French private international law will improve the attractiveness of French law.

Presentation of the Code

On 21 October 2022, the French Committee of Private International Law will organise a conference aimed at presenting the draft code.

In the coming weeks, the EAPIL Blog will publish presentations and commentaries of the most salient provisions of the draft code by French and European scholars. The Editors invite readers interested in contributing to this debate to contact them.

Les mois de mars et avril 2022 ont été dominés, du point de vue de l’actualité de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme aussi, par les conséquences de la guerre d’Ukraine. La crise de l’État de droit en Pologne et la crise sanitaire provoquée par la covid-19 ont également occupé le devant de la scène où une apparition spectaculaire du réchauffement climatique a été d’ores et déjà annoncée. Ces brutales accélérations dictées par l’urgence des temps présents ne doivent pas, cependant, occulter d’importantes solutions relatives au pluralisme des médias et à la liberté d’expression sur internet, à la séparation du couple homosexuel, au travail domestique dans les ambassades, à la rétention administrative des mineurs, ou à l’audition libre.

en lire plus

The Pax Moot Borrás Round of 2022 took place in Paris on 4 to 6 May. The preliminary rounds and semi-finals were held at the Universities of Sciences-Pio and Paris-Dauphine; the finals took place at the Commercial Court on the Quai de la Corse.

The University of Ljubljana won the oral rounds, with the University of Ghent as runner-up.

For the written memorials two teams share the winning position: the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore Milano and the Universität Wien.

Santiago García Parga, from Universidad Autónoma de Madrid won the prize for the best pleader.

The European Commission co-funds the moot court.

A web conference regarding the role of the internet and other technologies within the EU and the international legal order will take place on 13 May 2022, organised by the editorial team of Lex & Forum, a quarterly on Private International Law and International Civil and Commercial Litigation.

Symeon Symeonides (Willamette University) will chair the conference. He will also deliver a presentation in English on the infringement of personality rights via the internet.

The conference will be opened by Dan Svantesson (Bond University) with a presentation on Private International Law and the Internet.

The remaining presentations, in Greek, will be delivered by Ioannis Delicostopoulos (University of Athens), on Personality infringements via internet publications within
the EU legal order, Ioannis Revolidis (University of Malta), on International Jurisdiction and the Blockchain – Time for new rules on international jurisdiction?, Nikolaos Zaprianos (Solicitor) on Smart contracts: Selected issues of civil and private international law, and Konstantinos Voulgarakis (Solicitor), on ICOs: Selected issues of jurisdiction and law applicable.

For registration, click here.

Dr Sophie Duroy and Dr Rishi Gulati, both presently members of the KFG Berlin Potsdam Research Group ‘The International Rule of Law – Rise or Decline?’, will be hosting a virtual half-day webinar titled “Global Security and the International Rule of Law: Interdisciplinary Perspectives” on 30 May 2022. The event is free to attend. A program and link to registration is below:

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/global-security-and-the-international-rule-of-law-tickets-331724325387

Two recent private international law articles were published by International and Comparative Law Quarterly:

B Marshall, “Asymmetric Jurisdiction Clauses and the Anomaly created by Article 31(2) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation”

The English Court of Appeal and German Bundesgerichtshof recently decided that Article 31(2) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation applies to asymmetric jurisdiction clauses. This article contends that while this conclusion is sound, separating the ‘clause’ into two ‘agreements’ to reach it is not. This disaggregation prevents a solution to the anomaly that Article 31(2) creates for asymmetric clauses, where a lender sues under its option and the borrower subsequently sues in the anchor court. This article proposes a solution, based on a uniform characterisation of the clause as a whole, which protects the lender’s option and mitigates the risk of parallel proceedings

TD Grant, “Arbitration, Corruption and Post-Award Control in French and English Courts”

In September 2021, the French Cour de Cassation reversed the annulment that the Paris Cour d’appel earlier had granted in regard to an arbitral award in Alexander Brothers v Alstom on grounds of corruption. This brought French courts in line with their English counterparts, at least in that one case, the latter having accepted the Alexander Brothers award as enforceable. Noteworthy beyond the welcome consistency that the recent French judgment imparts in one case, that and other recent judgments cast light on several issues in international arbitration, including the arbitrability of allegations of fraud or corruption, the relevance of evidence of corruption ‘downstream’ from a contract, and the legal effects (if any) on third parties of internal compliance regimes that enterprises adopt in response to national regulatory and enforcement actions in respect of corruption.

 

As announced on this blog, the Journal of Private International Law-Singapore Management University Virtual Conference on Conflicts of Jurisdiction will be held online on 23 to 24 June 2022 (6.00 pm to 10.20 pm Singapore time, 11.00 am to 3.20 pm British Summer Time on each day). The event is supported by the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH).

The conference is intended to support the ongoing work of the HCCH on Jurisdiction.

The speakers are leading private international law scholars and experts, many of whom are directly involved in the ongoing negotiations at the HCCH.

Attendance at the conference is complimentary for academics, government and international organisation officials, Journal of Private International Law Advisory Board members and students. Registration is required.

More information on the conference and the link to register can be found here.

The CJEU a little while back held in C‑498/20 ZK v BMA on the applicable law for the Dutch ‘Peeters Gatzen’ suit, for which I reviewed the AG Opinion here. The suit is  a tortious suit brought by a liquidator. In Nk v BNP Paribas the CJEU held at the jurisdictional level it is covered by Brussels Ia, not by the Insolvency Regulation.

A first issue of note, which I discuss at some length in my earlier post, is whether the liability is carved-out from Rome II as a result of the lex societatis provision. The CJEU confirms the AG’s contextual analysis, without repeating his general criterion, emphasises the need for restrictive interpretation, and specifically for the duty of care holds that liability resulting from a duty of care of a corporation’s bodies and the outside world, is covered by Rome II. This is important for business and human rights litigation, too: [55]

Pour ce qui concerne spécifiquement le manquement au devoir de diligence en cause au principal, il convient de distinguer selon qu’il s’agit du devoir spécifique de diligence découlant de la relation entre l’organe et la société, qui ne relève pas du champ d’application matériel du règlement Rome II, ou du devoir général de diligence  erga omnes, qui en relève. Il appartient à la seule juridiction de renvoi de l’apprécier.

The referring judge will have to decide whether the case engages the duty of care vis-a-vis the wider community (including the collectivity of creditors) however it would seem most likely that it does. If it does, locus damni is held, confirming the AG view, to be The Netherlands if the referring judge finds that the insolvent corporation’s seat is based there. The financial damage with the creditors is indirect only and does not establish jurisdiction.

[44] Should a judge decide that they do not have jurisdiction over the main claim, they also and necessarily have to relinquish jurisdiction over the warranty /guarantee claim against a third party under A8(2) BIa. CJEU Sovag is referred to in support.

Geert.

#CJEU this morning in ZK v BMA on jurisdiction and applicable law for the Peeters Gatzen #insolvency suit.

See my review of the Opinion AG here https://t.co/9eVzlPMQPX
Judgment herehttps://t.co/jtJJXerEld

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) March 10, 2022

Pal v Damen & Anor [2022] EWHC 4697 (QB) is another application (compare Clarke v Kalecinski) of Brussels Ia’s consumer section to cosmetic surgery contracts. Respectfully, the analysis is a botched job.

Claims are both in contract and in tort, as is usual in this type of litigation. Jurisdiction on the basis of the consumer title against the Belgium-based surgeon is undisputed, as is the lack of jurisdiction under Article 7(2)’s tort gateway against the clinic where the surgery was performed, locus damni (direct damage, CJEU Marinari) and locus delicti commissi both being in Belgium. The core question is whether there is a contract between surgeon and /or the clinic and the patient, and whether this is a consumer contract.

The second question needs to be determined first. The clinic essentially provides the hardware for the surgeon, but also ensures patient flow via its website http://www.wellnesskliniek.com which without a doubt meets with the  CJEU Pammer /Alpenhof criteria and therefore ‘directs its activities’ towards the UK. Its general terms and conditions, of which it is somewhat disputed that claimant ticked the relevant box, state ia that the clinic ‘is not party to the treatment agreement between the physician and the patient.’ 

The  expert evidence [25] ff centres around Belgian law. Expert for one of the defendants is their Belgian counsel, and Cook M dismisses his report [55] as not meeting relevant CPR requirements on expert evidence. On the basis of the remaining evidence, the judge finds [59]

the Claimant has established a good arguable case for the existence of a contract for medical treatment and /or medical services between her and the Surgeon and accordingly this Court has jurisdiction over that claim. The Claimant has failed to establish a good arguable case for the existence of a contract for medical treatment and /or medical services against the Clinic and accordingly the Court does not have jurisdiction over that claim.

With respect, the direction of analysis is entirely wrong. The first line of enquiry should have been whether there is a consumer contract with either or both of the Belgian parties, and if there is with one, whether the other party could have been caught in its jurisdictional slipstream. Á la Bonnie Lackey but then in the opposite direction: in Bonnie Lackey the question was whether persons in the immediate orbit of the undisputed ‘consumer’-claimant, may also sue under the consumer title. In current case, the question would be whether those in the immediate vicinity of the business-defendant, may be sued under the consumer title. The existence of a consumer contract is entirely an EU law question, not a Belgian law one.

Next, if the decision were taken that at least one of the parties is not caught by the consumer title, the existence of a ‘contract’ (for the provision of ‘services’) under Article 7(1) would be triggered, as would the forum contractus under Article 7(1)a, with an analysis of where the services were or should have been provided. This, too, is an analysis that requires EU law and EU law alone. [There is no trace in the judgment of a choice of court and /or law which for the former per A25 Brussels Ia may require Belgian law, with renvoi, a lex fori prorogati but even then only for the material ‘consent’ issue].

Belgian law does not come into this analysis at all, unless, potentially and most unlikely, one argues that the A7(1) analysis requires the conflicts method, should a contract for medical services not be caught by Article 7(1)’s ‘provision of services’: in that case, Rome I’s decision tree would be required to determine lex contractus and place of performance. Even then however it is not at all certain that Belgian law would be the outcome of Rome I’s matrix.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, 2.222 ff, 2.385 ff.

Consumer contract re plastic surgery, jurisdiction
Whether contract exists with BE surgeon alone or also his clinic
Odd descent into BE substantive law
'Expert' reports largely held inadmissible
On the blog soon

Pal v Damen & Anor [2022] EWHC 4697 (QB) https://t.co/GgFEsYZrYP

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) May 5, 2022

Strategic lawsuits against public participation, commonly known as ‘SLAPPs’, are a particular form of harassment used primarily against journalists and human rights defenders to prevent or penalise speaking up on issues of public interest.

The term was coined by Professors George W. Pring and Penelope Canan in their book SLAPPs: Getting Sued for Speaking Out (Temple University Press, 1996).

The phenomenon is now well known everywhere, but anti-SLAPP legislation has so far only been enacted in a few countries, such as Australia or Canada. In the Europe Union, action was not officially taken until the assassination of Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia in 2017, who was famous in and outside Malta due to her regular reporting of misconduct by Maltese politicians and politically exposed persons. When she was murdered, more than 40 lawsuits (most for pretended libel) had been filed in Maltese courts; some of them are still pending against her heirs and her family.

The Council of Europe has acknowledged as well the need for a Recommendation on Combating SLAPPs, and is currently working on it (the picture on the right belongs actually to the website of Dunja Mijatović, the Commissioner for Human Rights).

Since February 2018, European MEPs have been calling on the EU Commission to promote anti-SLAPP EU legislation giving investigative journalists and media groups the power to request a rapid dismiss of vexatious lawsuits.

Several EP Resolutions are worth being mentioned in this regard: Resolution of 28 March 2019 on the situation of the rule of law and the fight against corruption in the EU, specifically in Malta and Slovakia (P8_TA(2019)0328); Resolution of 25 November 2020 on strengthening media freedom: the protection of journalists in Europe, hate speech, disinformation and the role of platforms (P9_TA(2020)0320); Resolution of 11 November 2021 on Strengthening democracy and media freedom and pluralism in the EU: the undue use of actions under civil and criminal law to silence journalists, NonGovernmental Organisations (NGOs) and civil society (P9_TA(2021)0451). In all three, the EP condemned the use of SLAPPs to silence or intimidate investigative journalists and other actors, and called on the Commission to present a proposal to prevent them.

Parliament’s move did not fall on deaf ears. The growing number of physical, legal and online threats to and attacks on journalists and other media professionals over the past years was reflected in the Commissions’ 2020 and 2021 Rule of Law Reports.

In September 2021, the Commission presented a Recommendation on ensuring the protection, safety and empowerment of journalists and other media professionals in the European Union.

More important from the regulatory perspective (not in terms of scope, however) is the adoption, on 27 April 2022, of a proposal on a Directive covering SLAPPs in civil matters with cross-border implications. In addition, on the same day the Commission approved a complementary Recommendation to encourage Member States to align their rules with the Directive also for domestic cases and in all proceedings, that is, not only civil matters; it also calls on Member States to take a range of other measures, such as training and awareness raising, to fight against SLAPPs. Both texts, which show a broad political ambition, can be accessed here.

The proposed Directive will have to be negotiated and adopted by the European Parliament and the Council before it can become EU law.

By contrast, the Commission Recommendation is described in the official press release as ‘directly applicable’: in the understanding of the Commission, ‘Member States will need to report on implementation to the Commission 18 months after adoption of the Recommendation’. It should be noted that recommendations are not binding acts (a different thing is that the subject of a recommendation is expected to oblige the suggestions made). Moreover, regarding this particular Recommendation the guideline in the sense of aligning national law with the Directive in domestic cases and for all types of proceedings is impossible to comply with until the Directive as such is enacted.

In this post I only intend to present the general features of the proposal and to highlight three of its rules. A couple of comments will be added as quick reactions to which more learned readers may in turn respond.

General Features of the Proposed Directive

The proposal is based on Article 81(2)(f) TFEU.

1. The Union shall develop judicial cooperation in civil matters having cross-border implications, based on the principle of mutual recognition of judgments and of decisions in extrajudicial cases. Such cooperation may include the adoption of measures for the approximation of the laws and regulations of the Member States.
2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall adopt measures, particularly when necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market, aimed at ensuring …

(f) the elimination of obstacles to the proper functioning of civil proceedings, if necessary by promoting the compatibility of the rules on civil procedure applicable in the Member States.

Resistance on the side of the Council to this legal base will not come as a surprise (by the way: it may be claimed as well that the Commission is acting outside of clear competences regarding the Recommendation: the principle of conferred competences also applies to non-binding activities of the Union).

To the best of my knowledge, the point was not addressed in any of the meetings of the Expert Group against SLAPP. The only reference to Article 81 TFUE seems to be by way of an answer from the Commission to an expert who asked ‘whether the solutions envisaged will introduce procedural schemes that are new and difficult to enact in different Member States’ in the 6th (and final meeting) of the Expert Group. The Commission replied that ‘the legal basis is linked to article 81 of TFEU which deals with civil matters having cross-border implications but as the Directive is not too prescriptive, Member States will be able to implement the provisions in a way which is consistent with their national systems’.

The proposed Directive aims at enabling judges to swiftly dismiss manifestly unfounded lawsuits against natural and legal persons (not only journalists and human rights defenders, but also academics or researchers) on account of their engagement in public participation. It also requests from the Member States that they establish several procedural safeguards and remedies, such as compensation for damages, and dissuasive penalties for launching abusive lawsuits.

The text consists of 39 recitals and 23 articles divided into six chapters. Recitals 1 to 19 provide in-depth explanations of the SLAPP phenomenon and of related notions in plain and accessible language. Recitals 20 to 34 (actually, recitals 14 and 15 too) define the cross-border setting for the purpose of the Directive, and describe the specific procedural tools and remedies at the service of defendants in SLAPP cases. Recitals 35 and 36 deal with the relationship between the proposed Directive and other EU law acts (none on private international law). Numbers 37, 38 and 39 refer to Denmark and Ireland.

Chapter I (article 1 to 4) is labelled ‘General provisions’. Chapter II (articles 5 to 8) comprises so-called common rules on procedural safeguards. Chapter III (articles 9 to 13) addresses the early dismissal of manifestly unfounded court proceedings. Chapter IV (articles 14 to 16) focuses on remedies against abusive court proceedings. Chapter V (articles 17 and 18) include two rules on protection against third-country judgments. Chapter VI is devoted to the typical final provisions.

Most of the rules of the proposed Directive are purely procedural. In this regard, the proposal appears at first sight as a direct intrusion into the procedural autonomy of the Member States. In fact, if the outcome of the negotiations is similar to the draft, Member States will enjoy most of the times a large marge of manoeuvre when transposing the Directive; actually, it is to be expected that they will be able to claim that existing rules in the domestic systems comply already with (some of) its mandates. Indeed, such rules are normally conceived for domestic litigation; however, courts in the Member States do not usually follow different procedural tracks depending on whether the dispute is purely domestic or has cross-border implications. National procedural provisions created with cross-border litigation in mind are the exception. Interestingly, should new rules be created to accommodate the Directive’s terms, they may get extended to domestic procedures as a consequence of the accompanying Recommendation.

Articles 17 and 18 – Protection Against Proceedings Outside the Union

Article 17, ‘Grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement of a third-country judgment’, and Article 18, ‘Jurisdiction for actions against third-country judgments’, may deserve a different assessment, i.e., Member States are likely to need enacting new rules to transpose these provisions. Pursuant to Article 17

Member States shall ensure that the recognition and enforcement of a third-country judgment in court proceedings on account of public participation by natural or legal person domiciled in a Member State is refused as manifestly contrary to public policy (ordre public) if those proceedings would have been considered manifestly unfounded or abusive if they had been brought before the courts or tribunals of the Member State where recognition or enforcement is sought and those courts or tribunals would have applied their own law.

The Directive imposes not only the public policy exception as a ground for non-recognition or enforcement of a third State decision independently of whether the Member State affected is a party to a bilateral or multilateral convention: it establishes as well the conditions for its application. Although with an open-ended clause, the Directive also defines what ‘abusive’ litigation is under Article 3(3), thus limiting the freedom of the Member States to give contents to the public policy exception.

According to Article 18,

Member States shall ensure that, where abusive court proceedings on account of engagement in public participation have been brought in a court or tribunal of a third country against a natural or legal person domiciled in a Member State, that person may seek, in the courts or tribunals of the place where he is domiciled, compensation of the damages and the costs incurred in connection with the proceedings before the court or tribunal of the third country, irrespective of the domicile of the claimant in the proceedings in the third country.

The ground for jurisdiction is a forum actoris based on domicile. Many Member States have given up fora privileging the claimant except in cases of asymmetry of the parties to the litigation, capable of creating procedural imbalances between them. It is submitted that on many SLAPP occasions this will be the case, therefore the head of jurisdiction, albeit exorbitant at first sight, will be justified. However, it should be considered that publishers houses and journals are sometimes involved in these disputes supporting or sharing the side of the journalist or human rights defender. Be it as it may, and more relevant: with the current wording, the forum actoris will work also against defendants domiciled in a Member State, if they have filed a claim with a third State. Article 19 – a compatibility clause regarding the Lugano Convention- does not change this outcome; actually, it creates a (further) situation where the Convention and the Brussels Ibis Regulation will apply differently.

Article 4 – An Enlarged Definition of Cross-border Implications

The Directive includes among other a definition of ‘matters with cross-border implications’, whereby a matter is considered to have such implications unless both parties are domiciled in the same Member State as the court seised. In that case – that is to say, when both parties are domiciled in the Member State of the court seised-, the situation is still cross-border for the purposes of the Directive and the transposing legislation if

(a) the act of public participation concerning a matter of public interest against which court proceedings are initiated is relevant to more than one Member State, or

(b) the claimant or associated entities have initiated concurrent or previous court proceedings against the same or associated defendants in another Member State.

The requirements under (a) will be easy to be met in the era of the internet. As for (b), it describes a situation of lis pendens or of related actions in the sense of the Brussels Ibis Regulation, although only for the purposes of applying the Directive, i.e., without (in principle) any consequence on the rules of Articles 29 to 34 of the Regulation. A ‘without prejudice’ recital would nevertheless be advisable.

Moreover, it is submitted that neither (a) nor (b) should be limited to the involvement of Member States, and that such limitation works against the very aim of the Directive. Moreover, for reasons of consistency relating to Article 18, it would make sense to define ‘cross-border implications’ as including acts of public participation relevant to the Member State of the court seized and third States, as well as the situation of parallel or related litigation in a Member State and a third State. Of course, such extension is likely to increase the doubts as regards the basis of the EU legislative initiative. As an alternative, it can be suggested to the Member States that they adopt national rules similar to the EU ones, to be applied to the situations described above.

— Final note: an open-access paper on strategic litigation (SLAPP and beyond) authored by Prof. B. Hess, MPI Luxembourg, member of the MSI-SLP Committee of Experts on Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation (Council of Europe), will be published in the days to come. An update will follow.

(This post is provided by Zeyu Huang & Wenhui Chi. Mr. Huang practises law as a Shenzhen-based associate at Hui Zhong Law Firm. He holds LLB (Renmin U.), LLM & PhD (Macau U.). Ms. Chi is now working as a legal counsel at the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (SCIA) and the South China International Arbitration Center (Hong Kong) (SCIAHK). She holds BA (PKU), LLM & JD (PKU School of Transnational Law). The authors may be contacted at huangzeyu@huizhonglaw.com or chiwenhui@scia.com.cn.)

 

The People’s Republic of China (hereinafter “China” or “PRC”) deposited its instrument of ratification for the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (hereinafter “CISG”) on 11 December 1986. Since its entry into force in 1988, it is beyond doubt that CISG applies to the territory of Mainland China albeit with some reservations and/or declarations (e.g. Article 96). However, businesspeople, courts, practitioners and scholars are split, uncertain and inconsistent over the issue whether the CISG should extend to Hong Kong and Macau after their returns respectively in 1997 and 1999. [1]

 

This issue stemed from the unclear intentions of China when it submitted the diplomatic notes to the United Nations, which purported to inform the Secretary-General of the status of Hong Kong and Macau in relation to deposited treaties. [2] However, China did not mention CISG in the Diplomatic Notes at all. As a result, whether China had expressed its intention of extending or excluding CISG to Hong Kong and Macau has been subject to inconsistent interpretations and enquires conducted by different non-Hong Kong fora. [3]

 

To solve this problem, China, after seeking the views of Hong Kong SAR Government, determined to actively remove the uncertainty by depositing a declaration of extension of the territorial application of CISG to Hong Kong on 5 May 2022. [4] On and after 1 December 2022, CISG will apply to both Hong Kong and Mainland China. It should be noted that the declaration that China is not bound by Article 1(1)(b) CISG does not apply to Hong Kong. Nevertheless, it remains to be seen whether the Macau SAR government will follow suit on this matter, requesting the Central Government to extend the application of CISG to Macau.

 

Extension of International Treatises Ratified by China to Hong Kong and Macau

 

The issue of whether international treaties ratified by China ‘automatically’ applies to the territory of the Hong Kong and Macau SARs was once hotly debated in the investor-State arbitration cases of Tza Yap Shum v. Peru [5] and Sanum v. Laos-I [6]. Contrary to international tribunals and the Court of Appeal of Singapore’s confirmative and liberal stances, Chinese government and commentators said no. [7] They all insist that China has made its intentions clear in the Diplomatic Notes that the treaty to which China is or will become a party applies to Hong Kong and Macau only after China has decided so and carried out separately the formalities for such application. [8] Moreover, the extension of territorial application to Hong Kong and Macau must be in line with the “One Country, Two Systems” policy and the Basic Laws of Hong Kong and Macau. [9] Accordingly, the PRC Central People’s Government in Beijing has the final say over whether the international treaty to which China is or will be a party applies to Hong Kong and Macau after consulting with the two SARs’ governments.

 

The same problem stays with the applicability of CISG in the Hong Kong and Macau SARs. On the one hand, no mention of CISG in the Diplomatic Notes submitted by China, at least on the side of Hong Kong, demonstrates China’s true intentions in public international law that the CISG shall not apply in the SAR. [10] In this view embraced by some French and US courts, China’s Diplomatic Notes not mentioning CISG qualify as Article 93(1) CISG reservation indicating that CISG does not apply to Hong Kong and Macau. [11] On the other hand, some other foreign courts considered the Diplomatic Notes did not constitute an Article 93(1) CISG reservation and therefore the default rule in Article 93(4) applies, saying that CISG ‘automatically’ applies to all territorial unites of China. [12] This interpretive approach is similar to the confirmative and liberal approach adopted by the tribunals in Tza Yap Shum v. Peru and Sanum v. Laos-I on the issue whether Chinese investment treaty absent in the Diplomatic Notes extends to territory of the Hong Kong and Macau SARs. However, such approach was often criticized as contrary to China’s expressed intentions. [13]

 

What Does It Mean for Hong Kong?

 

Legally speaking, the act of China’s depositing the declaration of extension of CISG to Hong Kong has three implications.

 

Firstly, and most obviously, on and after 1 December 2022 it would be correct for any foreign court or international tribunal to hold that CISG applies to Hong Kong. This will wipe out the “confusion and conflict as to whether or not China’s diplomatic notes for Hong Kong and Macao, deposited in 1997 and 1999 respectively, are sufficient to exclude the application of the CISG” to Hong Kong and Macau under Article 93 CISG. [14] Indeed, they are sufficient; but China has now decided to reverse its previous intention.

 

Secondly, China has impliedly confirmed that the Diplomatic Notes qualify as Article 93(1) CISG reservation, which means CISG would not automatically apply to territorial units of China such as Hong Kong and Macau unless China has determined so. In other words, China’s Central People’s Government has the final say on whether a Chinese international treaty applies to Hong Kong and Macau or not.

 

Thirdly, any construction of the Diplomatic Notes by foreign courts or arbitral tribunals which leads to the ‘automatic’ application of CISG or other international treaties (including Chinese investment agreements) to Hong Kong and Macau would be incorrect and in disregard of China’s true intentions expressed in the Diplomatic Notes. This will possibly prevent foreign courts or investment arbitration tribunals from easily reaching the decision that CISG or Chinese international investment agreement ‘automatically’ applies to Hong Kong and Macau. It also means Hong Kong might need seek the views of Central People’s Government on whether or not to extend Chinese international investment agreement to the Hong Kong SAR, especially in cases where the Hong Kong investors intend to rely on these international instruments to safeguard their rights and interests in investments made overseas.

 

In parallel with the ongoing Reform and Opening-up within and beyond China, China’s accession to CISG has fundamentally shaped the legislative and judicial landscape of codifying Chinese contract law. It is believed that the Ordinance [15] implementing the CISG in Hong Kong would for sure reshape the legislative and judicial landscape of Hong Kong law. [16]

 

Conclusion: Shall Macau Follow Suit?

 

The answer is of course yes. As another major player in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and Greater Bay Area (GBA) in China, Macau is now confronted with the same “confusion and conflict” issue once faced by Hong Kong before 5 May 2022. As mentioned earlier, such “confusion and conflict” as to whether the Diplomatic Notes are sufficient to exclude the application of CISG and other international treaties not mentioned therein to Hong Kong and Macau has been removed. China impliedly reiterated itself through this act of extending CISG to Hong Kong that the Diplomatic Notes are sufficient to do so.

 

Hence, whether CISG or Chinese investment treaty extends to Macau is likewise subject to the final decision of China’s Central People’s Government. Despite divergent opinions and interpretations, Chinese government’s stance has been consistent – CISG or Chinese international investment agreement outside the Diplomatic Notes does not ‘automatically’ applies to Hong Kong and Macau, and such extension needs the Central People’s Government’s final approval. Therefore, according to Article 138(1) of the Macau Basic Law, Macau should follow up on future consultations with the Central People’s Government in Beijing to decide whether the CISG (and Chinese investment treaty) should apply to the Macau SAR, and if so, how they should apply. It is foreseeable that China would probably also deposit another separate instrument of extending the application of CISG to Macau. By then, perhaps we can see the dawn of unifying the sales law as key part of inter-regional private laws within the PRC. 

 

——

Endnotes

[1] See the Department of Justice of Hong Kong, Consultation Paper titled “Proposed Application of The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region” (hereinafter “Consultation Paper”), Consultation Period expired by 30 December 2020, paras. 3.33-3.44. It is available at https://www.gov.hk/en/residents/government/publication/consultation/docs/2020/CISG.pdf.

[2] See United Nations, ‘Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary-General’ (hereinafter “Diplomatic Notes”), China: Notes 2 and 3, which informed the Secretary-General of the status of Hong Kong and Macau in relation to treaties deposited with the Secretary-General. The diplomatic notes laid out the deposited treaties that would respectively apply to Hong Kong and Macau.

[3] See Consultation Paper, supra note 1, paras. 3.38-3.39.

[4] For Press Release, see https://unis.unvienna.org/unis/en/pressrels/2022/unisl327.html.

[5] See Tza Yap Shum v. Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/6, Award, 7 July 2011, where a Hong Kong resident having Chinese nationality relied upon the Peru-China BIT 1994 to bring the ICSID arbitration against Peru.

[6] See Sanum Investments Ltd. v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic, PCA Case No. 2013-13, Decision on Jurisdiction of 13 December 2013, where a Macau-based company invoked the China-Laos BIT 1993 to initiate the UNCITRAL ad hoc arbitration administered by PCA against Laos.

[7] See e.g., PRC Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ‘Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying’s Regular Press Conference on October 21, 2016’, available at https://www.mfa.gov.cn/ce/cegv//eng/fyrth/t1407743.htm; An Chen, ‘Queries to the Recent ICSID Decision on Jurisdiction Upon the Case of Tza Yap Shum v. Republic of Peru: Should China-Peru BIT 1994 Be Applied to Hong Kong SAR under the “One Country, Two Systems” Policy?’ (2009) 10 Journal of World Investment & Trade 829, at 832-844.

[8] See Diplomatic Notes, supra note 2.

[9] See Article 153 of the Hong Kong Basic Law and Article 138 of the Macau Basic Law.

[10] See Consultation Paper, supra note 1, paras. 3.42 (“While it is not disputed that in Hong Kong at least, the CISG should not apply ….”).

[11] See ibid, at para. 3.38. The Consultation Paper cited the following cases: Telecommunications Products Case, Cour de Cassation, Case No. 04-117726, 2 April 2008 (France); Innotex Precision Ltd v Horei Image Products, 679 F. Supp. 2d 1356 (2009) (US); America’s Collectibles Network Inc. v Timlly (HK) Ltd., 746 F. Supp. 2d 914 (2010) (US); Wuhan Yinfeng Data Network Co. Ltd. v Xu Ming (19 March 2003), Hubei High People’s Court (China).

[12] See ibid, at para. 3.39. The Consultation Paper cited the following cases: CNA Int’l Inc. v Guangdong Kelon Electronical Holdings et al. Case No. 05 C 5734 (2008) (US); Electrocraft Arkansas, Inc. v Super Electric Motors Ltd. (2009) 4:09 CV 00318 SWW (US).

[13] See Consultation Paper, supra note 1, para. 3.42. See also Mahdev Mohan & Siraj Shaik Aziz, ‘Construing A Treaty Against States Parties’ Expressed Intentions: Sanum Investments Ltd v Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic’ (2018) 30 Singapore Academy of Law Journal 384.

[14] See Consultation Paper, supra note 1, para. 3.42.

[15] https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap641!en.

[16] For comparison between the CISG and Hong Kong law, see Consultation Paper, supra note 1, para. 2.8.

Invitation by Pietro Franzina

On 29 April 2022, Germany filed an application against Italy before the International Court of Justice. Germany complains that Italy is allowing its courts to entertain claims for compensation for prejudice resulting from war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated between 1943 and 1945 by the Third Reich’s forces in Italy.

Recalling the ruling given by the International Court of Justice itself in 2012, in the case of the Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening), Germany contends that the conduct of Italian authorities amounts to a violation of jurisdictional immunity of Germany as a sovereign State (for a more detailed account of the case, see this post on the EAPIL blog).

A webinar in English, organised by the University of Ferrara and the Catholic University of Milan, will take place on 11 May 2022, between 10.30 am and 12.30 pm, via GoogleMeet, to discuss the various issues surrounding the case.

The speakers include Giorgia Berrino (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia), Serena Forlati (University of Ferrara), Pietro Franzina (Catholic University of the Sacred Geart, Milan), Karin Oellers-Frahm (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law  and International Law, Heidelberg), Riccardo Pavoni (University of Siena), and Pierfrancesco Rossi (LUISS Guido Carli, Rome).

Attendance is free. See here for further details.

On 13 May 2022 the Faculty of Law of the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid will host a conference on the protection of transnational data transfers and the limits of the General Data Protection Regulation (Protección de las transmisiones de datos transfronterizas: los límites del RGPD).

The speakers include: Elena Rodríguez Pineau (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid), Elisa Torralba Mendiola (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid), Diana Sancho (University of Westminster), Gloria González Fuster (Vrije Universiteit Brussel), Pedro A. de Miguel Asensio (Universidad Complutense de Madrid), José I. Paredes Pérez (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid), Alexia Pato (Universitat de Girona), Mayte Echezarreta Ferrer (Universidad de Málaga), Clara I. Cordero Álvarez (Universidad Complutense de Madrid), Alfonso Ortega Giménez (Universidad Miguel Hernández de Elche), Carmen Parra Rodríguez (Universidad Abat Oliba CEU), Luis Lima-Pinheiro (Universidade de Lisboa), Eduardo Álvarez-Armas (Brunel University London).

The conference, in Spanish, can be attended either in person or remotely. Registration ends on 10 May 2022. See here for further details, and here for the full program.

The second issue of the Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly for 2022 was just published. It features the following case notes, articles and book review on private international law:

David Capper, Proving Dissipation in Freezing Orders

J Atmaz Al-Sibaie, Foreign Claims and Foreign Laws

P Devonshire, Clearing the Decks: The Siskina in the Privy Council

M Paterson, Finally laying The Siskina to rest? and expanding the court’s power to grant freezing injunctions

M Teo, Foreign Act of State: Comity or Certainty

A Dickinson, W(h)ither Unjust Enrichment? Border Disputes in the Conflict of Laws (Again)

C Proctor, Book Review on INTERNATIONAL NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. Benjamin Geva, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Toronto, and Sagi Peari, UWA Law School, University of Western Australia. ISBN 978-0-19-882868-6. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2020) xxxi and 252 pp., plus I p. Appendix and 12 pp. Index. Hardback £110.

The Mexican Academy of Private International and Comparative Law (AMEDIP) is holding a webinar on 12 May 2022 at 1:00 pm (Mexico City time – CDT), 8:00 pm (Europe, CEST time). The purpose of this webinar is to showcase the book entitled Private International Law: Practical Cases Resolved and Explained, and will be presented by professors David Carrizo Aguado, María del Carmen Chéliz Inglés and Lucas Andrés Pérez Martín in Spanish.

Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88944671902?pwd=SHdQSGVFOGZHWjl4TDdJTmJ6bUc1dz09

Meeting ID: 889 4467 1902

Password: BMAAMEDIP

Participation is free of charge.

This event will also be streamed live: https://www.facebook.com/AmedipMX

The Private International Law Festival will take place on 16 and 17 May 2022 in Edinburgh.

The topics that will dealt with include: private international law and sustainable development; decolonising law and private international law; private international law in Scotland; forum conveniens annual lecture; private international law and sustainable migration governance; interdisciplinary latam perspectives; a book launch; new horizon for private international law.

This event is free, in person only and open to all but registration is required. To secure your place, please register through Eventbrite here.

Further information is available here.

As reported in a recent post, Germany has on 29 April 2022 instituted proceedings against Italy before the International Court of Justice in relation with the fact that Italy is allowing civil claims to be brought against Germany in connection with violations of international humanitarian law committed by the German Reich between 1943 and 1945, in breach of Germany’s jurisdictional immunity as a sovereign State.

A webinar in English, organised by the Department of Law of the University of Ferrara and the Institute of International Studies of the Catholic University of Milan, will take place on 11 May 2022, between 10.30 am and 12.30 pm, via GoogleMeet, to discuss the issues surrounding both the German application and the Italian decree-law of 30 April 2022, whereby the Italian Government addressed at least part of the concerns underlying the initiative of Germany.

The discussion will also revolve around the views that the two States are expected to put forward during the public hearings that are scheduled to take place on 9 and 10 May regarding the request made by Germany for the indication of provisional measures.

The following, among others, will speak at the webinar: Giorgia Berrino (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia), Serena Forlati (University of Ferrara), Karin Oellers-Frahm (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law  and International Law, Heidelberg), Riccardo Pavoni (University of Siena), and Pierfrancesco Rossi (LUISS Guido Carli, Rome).

Attendance is free. See here for further details.