Feed aggregator

En dépit des mesures prises par le gouvernement pour améliorer la qualité de l’air dans plusieurs zones de France, celles-ci demeurent insuffisantes. En conséquence, l’État doit payer l’astreinte de 10 M€ pour le premier semestre 2021.

en lire plus

Complicités de crimes contre l'humanité

Complicités de crimes contre l'humanité

Complicités de crimes contre l'humanité

A most late flag on Nestlé & Cargill v John Doe at the US Supreme Court, back in June. I reported on the case here and if you follow Lucas’ thread on the case, there is further interesting and impromptu analysis. Readers of the blog may know I have published on the issue before – search tag ‘ATS’ should give you all cases referred to below.

This case reconfirms the mood viz the Alien Tort Statute,  a popular (if not the only!) vehicle for corporate social responsibility litigation: since Kiobel, the USSC has seriously reigned in the scope of application of the ATS. In Nestlé, it would seem to impose a further squeeze on the ATS jurisdictional gateway. In Apartheid and Jesner Bank, ‘aiding and abetting’ by the US corporate headquarters of culpable conduct by their subsidiaries abroad, seemed to be a burden of proof claimants had to meet in order for the action to be admissible under the ATS. In Nestlé the Court in its current composition (sub III of the majority Opinion) suggests that aiding and abetting in that interpretation risks becoming a court-introduced (hence in its view noli sequi) action in tort.

Sub II, the Court is not at all clear what the jurisdictional hurdle might be, except that it is a very high one: ‘Nearly all the conduct that [claimants] say aided and abetted forced labor—providing training, fertilizer, tools, and cash to overseas farms—occurred in Ivory Coast… allegations of general corporate activity—like decisionmaking—cannot alone establish domestic application of the ATS.’ (Interesting contrast here with the UKSC in ia Vedanta).

Not only could one debate whether this decision represents the intention of the ATS (which, even if one applies it in limited fashion, did historically mean to catch at least in part activities outside of the US). One also immediately sees the most unattractive consequence of this judgment: as long as the dirty work is left for foreign affiliates to carry out overseas, one escapes the reach of ATS. As Lucas points out, it is not clear what kind of headquarter engagement could still trigger a suit under the ATS.

There is little solace in the indication that the Court (both in majority opinion and minority concurrence) accepts that corporations are not as such immune from suit under the ATS (which links to the issues currently discussed in Nevsun Resources).

There will be more attempts to further refine the ATS scope. At the same time one imagines claimants will study in even greater detail than before, the possibility to bring the suit under more recent US federal laws with clear extraterritorial intent, such as in the field of corruption of export controls. As past (but now gone) ATS litigation shows, human rights and /or environmental suit need not necessarily label themselves as such.

Nomen non est omen. It is the end goal of human rights or environmental protection or, say, environmental justice which determines a suit’s character, no matter what prima facie subject matter the suit addresses. If one can advance these causes by suing under the by-laws of the World Philately Federation, say, one should have a good go at it.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Chapter 7.

For background to the case see https://t.co/EcFiv6EDgQ https://t.co/gXdWqrR0jB

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) June 17, 2021

The third 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.

In the first article, Guillaume Feld (Avocat, Paris bar) and Guillaume Sauvaget (Associé, PS Consulting) discusse the concept of “dispute boards” as ADR technique in an international context (Les “dispute boards”: originalité, évaluation et perspectives d’un mode alternatif de règlement des différends singulier). 

The English abstract reads:

Original alternative dispute resolution (ADR) technique, dispute boards (known in French as « comités de règlement des différends ») have been conceived in the construction industry in North America in the 1960s-1970s as an empirical answer to the infrastructure projects’ high propensity to disputes and their negative consequences for all involved parties. Initially designed as a permanent body comprising one or more knowledgeable neutrals set up at the project’s inception in order to assist the parties in avoiding and/or overcoming any disagreements and/or disputes which could arise under or in connection the underlying contract, the popularity of dispute boards has grown significantly over the past two decades well beyond the construction industry. Their dual preventive and curative functions as well as their undeniable efficacy explain to the uniqueness of dispute boards which sets them apart from other ADR techniques. While they are not without inconveniencies and risks, dispute boards offer to their users numerous advantages and opportunities which justify their adoption under major international projects in various industries. The purpose of this article is to present : the concept, genesis and development of dispute boards ; their originality, typology and operation ; their advantages and inconveniencies ; their risks and opportunities ; and their possible future.

In the second article, Charlotte Ankaoua (PhD, University of Versailles-St-Quentin-en-Yvelines) analyses the recent caselaw of the CJUE dealing with the ‘Actio Pauliana’ under Brussels I bis Regulation (L’assimilation de l’action paulienne à une action contractuelle selon la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne).

The English abstract reads:

Through two court rulings, the Court of Justice of the European Union rules that the Paulian action is a legal action of a contractual nature within the meaning of Article 7, §1, of the Brussels I bis Regulation, even though the parties are not bound by a freely accepted commitment. The latter thus enshrines the extension of contractual matters undertaken in recent years and which makes the « cause of action » the main criterion of this autonomous concept. While these rulings seem to clarify the Paulian action, a «chameleon » action, the article tends to show that, on the contrary, they can distort it, in particular by undermining the principle of the relative effect of contracts which characterises it.

A full table of contents can be downloaded here.

The Mexican Academy of Private International and Comparative Law (AMEDIP) is holding a webinar on 9 September 2021 at 5:00 pm (Mexico City time – CDT), 12:00 am (CEST time). The topic of the webinar is Rethinking Private International Law (a look through its sources and methods) and will be presented by Professors Luciana B. Scotti and Candela Villegas (in Spanish).

The details of the webinar are:

Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83622646486?pwd=ZzZwbFJ2R1NLaHFxUGNNUnE0M2FHQT09

Meeting ID: 836 2264 6486

Password: BMAAMEDIP

Participation is free of charge.

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

Par un arrêt du 8 juillet 2021, la Cour de cassation revient sur la question classique du déplacement d’un enfant, d’un État vers un autre, par l’un de ses parents malgré l’opposition de l’autre et l’existence d’un droit de garde commun.

en lire plus

On 16 and 17 September 2021 an online course on European Union and Third Countries. Issues on jurisdiction and recognition of foreign judgments will take place as a part of the activities of the European Family Law Module funded by the EU ErasmusPlus programme led by Professor Elisabetta Bergamini of the University of Udine, Italy.

Excellent group of lecturers from different EU Member States will be discussing EU Regulations on jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement when those issues arise in situations connected with third States. The course will offer an overview of different aspects to this issue, having regard to EU rules both on civil and commercial matters and on family and succession matters. The course will be either in Italian or in English. The details of the programme are available in Flyer_E2106_EU_and_Third_Countries.

Participation is free of charge, but registration is required by 13 September here.

This note briefly analyses the recent decision of the Nigerian Supreme Court in BCE Consulting Engineers v Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation[1]on the issue of a foreign company that is not registered in Nigeria having the capacity to sue in Nigeria.

Generally, Section 78 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2020 requires that a foreign company must be registered in Nigeria before it can carry on business in Nigeria. This provision is a carryover of the former Section 54 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 1990, which contains a similar provision.

However, Section 84(b) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020, makes express provisions for a foreign company to sue and be sued in its corporate name or that of its agent (despite the fact that it is not a registered or incorporated company in Nigeria for the purpose of carrying on business (under Section 78). The same provision previously enacted in Section 60(b) of the Company and Allied Matters Act 1990. Section 60(b) of the Company and Allied Matters Act 1990 has been applied by Nigerian courts in some cases prior to the enactment of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2020.

In Companhia Brasileira De Infraestrututira (INFAZ) v Companhia Brasileira De Entrepostos E Commercio (COBEC) (Nig) Ltd,[2] the plaintiff-appellant was a company allegedly registered in accordance with Brazilian law. The plaintiff-appellant was also a shareholder with some Nigerian persons, which constituted the defendant-respondent company. There was a change in the name of the plaintiff-appellant to Companhia Brasileira De Infraestutura Fazendaria, which was allegedly in accordance with Brazilian law. The plaintiff-appellant prayed for the winding-up of the defendant-respondent company. The application was dismissed by the trial court and the appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed as well.  One of the issues for consideration was whether the plaintiff-appellant was competent to sue and be sued in Nigeria.

The Court of Appeal held that by virtue of Section 60(b) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 1990, a foreign company not registered in Nigeria can sue and be sued in Nigerian courts provided that said foreign company was duly incorporated according to the laws of a foreign state recognised in Nigeria. But, if there is a change in the name of that foreign company, evidence of compliance with the law of the land where it was incorporated must be given. In the instant case, the Court of Appeal held that there was no material evidence placed before the court to establish the change of name of the plaintiff-appellant company, and the resolution for change of name in Brazil that was provided before the court was deemed insufficient.[3]

In Edicomsa International Inc and Associates v CITEC International Estates Ltd,[4] the plaintiff-appellant was a foreign company incorporated in the United States of America. However, it was not registered in Nigeria. The plaintiff-appellant was engaged by the defendant-respondent to provide some services. Subsequently, there was a disagreement between the parties on payments due to the plaintiff-appellant, which led to the action before the court. The defendant-respondent, inter alia, challenged the jurisdiction of the trial court on the basis that the plaintiff-appellant was not registered in Nigeria. The trial court upheld the submission of the defendant-respondent. The plaintiff-appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which unanimously allowed the appeal. The majority of the Court of Appeal rightly applied Section 60(b) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 1990 to the effect that the plaintiff-appellant, though not registered in Nigeria, could sue in Nigeria.[5]

In the recent case of BCE Consulting Engineers v Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation[6] the Nigerian Supreme Court did not consider Section 60(b) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 1990 (now Section 84(b) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020), though its final decision was correct. In that case, the claimant/1st appellant claimed that it entered into a consultancy service agreement with the defendant/respondent which the latter unlawfully terminated. The plaintiff/1st appellant therefore filed an action via originating summons in the Federal High Court, Lagos State Judicial Division, seeking declaratory reliefs to that effect. It further claimed the total value of outstanding claims on invoices submitted by it, special and general damages. One of the issues canvassed at the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeal was right when it held that the contract entered into by the claimant-1st appellant a foreign company without incorporation in Nigeria was illegal and unenforceable? The Supreme Court Justices unanimously agreed with Peter-Odilli JSC who held as follows in her leading judgment:

“I agree with learned counsel for the appellants that section 54 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act [Cap C20 LFN 2004][7] does not apply to the facts of this case because the situation before the court in this case is one of a firm registered in Nigeria and entering into contract with the respondent but subsequently to the execution of the contract incorporating itself outside Nigeria as a limited liability company”.[8]

It is submitted that the Supreme Court should also have had regard to Article 60(b) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 1990 (now Section 84(b) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2020) in holding that assuming the claimant-1st appellant was a foreign company that was not registered in Nigeria, it was capable of maintaining an action in Nigeria. This would have put to doubt any question as to the capacity of a foreign company that is not registered in Nigeria to sue or be sued in Nigeria. It would also have made the Supreme Court’s decision exhaustive in this regard.

 

 

[1] (2021) All FWLR (Pt. 1083)  359.

[2](2004) 13 NWLR 376.

[3]Companhia Brasileira De Infraestrututira v Cobec (Nig) Ltd (2004) 13 NWLR 376, 391, 395 (Aderemi JCA, as he then was) (overturned on another point in INFAZ v COBEC (Nig) Ltd (2018) 12 NWLR 127). See also Watanmal (Singapore) Pte Ltd v. Liz Olofin and Company Plc (1997) LPELR-6224(CA) 13 (Musdapher JCA as he then was); NU Metro Retail (Nig) Ltd v. Tradex S.R.L & Anotherr (2017) LPELR-42329(CA) 41-2 (Garba JCA as he then was).

[4](2006) 4 NWLR 114.

[5]Edicomsa International Inc and Associates v CITEC International Estates Ltd (2006) 4 NWLR 114, 125-26 (Rhodes-Vivour JCA, as he then was), 130 (Omage JCA).  See also B.C.N.N. Ltd. v. Backbone Tech. Net. Inc.  (2015) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1480) 511. Cf.  AG Butler (Nig) (Ltd) v The Sanko Steamship Co. Ltd (2020) LPELR -51141 (CA). Cf. Hung & Ors v. EC Investment Co. (Nig) Ltd (2016) LPELR -42125 (CA) (Tur JCA dissenting).

[6] (2021) All FWLR (Pt. 1083)  359

[7] “Subject to sections 56 to 59 of this Act, every foreign company which before or after the commencement of this Act was incorporated outside Nigeria, and having the intention of carrying on business in Nigeria, shall take all steps necessary to obtain incorporation as a separate entity in Nigeria for that purpose, but until so incorporated, the foreign company shall not carry on business in Nigeria or exercise any of the powers of a registered company and shall not have a place of business or an address for service of documents or processes in Nigeria for any purpose other than receipt of notices and other documents, as matters preliminary to incorporation under this Act.” This provision is now contained in Section 78 of the the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2020.

 

[8] ibid, 396.

Ilaria Pretelli (Swiss Institute of Comparative Law; University of Urbino) has posted Three Patterns, One Law – Plea for a Reinterpretation of the Hague Child Abduction Convention to Protect Children from Exposure to Sexism, Mysogyny and Violence against Women on SSRN.

The abstract reads:

The 1980 Hague Convention must be read today in light of the 2011 Istanbul Convention that brings to full light that violence against women is a world-wide phenomenon, and “one of the most serious forms of gender-based violations of human rights in Europe that is still shrouded in silence”. The perspective proposed by this paper allows to break the silence and solve the conundrum of the dilemma on how the return mechanism should operate in practice, in order to ensure full compliance with the best interests of the child. Sexism, misogyny and violence against women may be the premise of child abductions carried out by taking fathers, permeated with a sexist culture, but also by taking mothers fleeing violence. The solution proposed here consists in re-establishing the original distinction of the 1980 Convention, between illicit transfers of a child’s residence and child abductions in the true sense.

Par son arrêt du 15 juillet 2021, la Cour de justice se penche sur la détermination de la juridiction compétente, en application du règlement Bruxelles I bis, en présence d’un préjudice subi par une entreprise ayant acheté des biens à des prix trop élevés en raison d’une entente entre fabricants.

en lire plus

The Hague Academy of International Law has recently published its programmes for the Summer Courses in 2022. The part on public international law will take place from 11 to 29 July 2022, the part on private international law will follow from 1 to 19 August 2022.

This latter part will start with an inaugural lecture by Dominique Hascher, the general course will be given by Louis d’Avout, and special courses will be offered by Marco Frigessi di Rattalma, João Bosco Lee, Ulla Liukkunen, Kermit Roosevelt III, Tiong Min Yeo, and Arnaud Nuyts – a truly impressive global gathering of expertise – highly recommended! Opening of the registration period: November 1st, 2021. Further information can be found here.

A special feature of the 2022 programme will be a conference in memoriam of Emmanuel Gaillard who passed away last year, far too early (for a memorial note on CoL by Ralf Michaels see here). Contributors will be Yas Banifatemi, Diego P. Fernández Arroyo, Dominique Hascher, Horatia Muir Watt, Luca Radicati di Brozolo.

 

 

 

 

More and more participants decide to take part in both parts, which of course is the best of all choices, as the two branches of international law have much in common and the lines more and more blur (again). In addition, most of the global challenges of our time can only be dealt with adequately if tackled in an integrated approach. Therefore, it is with good reason that, following to the two parts on public and private international law courses, the Academy’s Centre for Studies and Research again addresses such a cross-over topic in its programme from 22 August to 9 September 2022: Climate Change and the Testing of International Law. For more information see here.

 

An important publication on the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention has come out: Holger Jacob’s PhD thesis, “Das Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen vom 2. Juli 2019“, supervised by our esteemed colleague Peter Huber, University of Mainz, Germany. The book is certainly the most comprehensive treatise on the subject matter in German language at this moment, and it is highly recommended: thorough analysis and precision invite anyone interested in the topic to study concepts and details of the new core element of the “Hague system” for judicial cooperation in civil matters.

This post was written by Harshal Morwale, in India-qualified international arbitration lawyer working as an associate with a premier Indian law firm in New Delhi; LLM from the MIDS Geneva Program (2019-2020); alumnus of the Hague Academy of International Law. 

Sovereign immunity from enforcement would undoubtedly be a topic of interest to all the commercial parties contracting with state or state entities. After all, an award is only worth something when you can enforce it. The topic received considerable attention in India recently, when the Delhi High Court (“DHC”) ruled on the question of immunity from enforcement in case of commercial transactions (KLA Const Tech v. Afghanistan Embassy). This ruling is noteworthy because India does not have a consolidated sovereign immunity law, and this ruling is one of the first attempts to examine immunity from enforcement.

This post is part I of the two-part blog post. This part examines the decision of the DHC and identifies issues emanating from it. The post also delves into the principles of international law of state immunity and deals with the relevance of diplomatic immunity in the current context. The second part (forthcoming) will explore the issue of consent to the arbitration being construed as a waiver of immunity from enforcement and deal with the problem of whether the state’s property can be attached to satisfy the commercial arbitral award against a diplomatic mission.

DHC: No Sovereign Immunity From Enforcement In Case Of Commercial Transactions

In the case of KLA Const Tech v. Afghanistan Embassy, KLA Const Technologies (“claimant”) and the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in India (“respondent”) entered into a contract containing an arbitration clause for rehabilitation of the Afghanistan Embassy. During the course of the execution of works, a dispute arose between the parties. The claimant initiated the arbitration. An ex parte award was passed in favor of the claimant by the Sole Arbitrator. Since the respondent did not challenge the award, the claimant seeks its enforcement in India in line with Section 36(1) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996, whereby enforcement cannot be sought until the deadline to challenge the award has passed. In the enforcement proceedings, the DHC inter alia focused on immunity from enforcement of the arbitral award arising out of a commercial transaction.

The claimant argued that the respondent is not entitled to state immunity because, in its opinion, entering into an arbitration agreement constitutes “waiver of Sovereign Immunity.” Further, relying on Articles 10 and 19 of the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (“UNCJIS”), the claimant argued that the states cannot claim immunity in case of commercial transactions and the UNCJIS expressly restricts a Foreign State from invoking sovereign immunity against post-judgment measures, such as attachment against the property of the State in case of international commercial arbitration.

After analyzing the claimant’s arguments and relevant case laws, the DHC reached the following decision:

1. In a contract arising out of a commercial transaction, a foreign state cannot seek sovereign immunity to stall the enforcement of an arbitral award rendered against it.
2. No separate consent for enforcement is necessary, and consent to arbitrate is sufficient to wave the immunity. The DHC opined that this ruling is in “consonance with the growing International Law principle of restrictive immunity.”

The DHC ordered the respondent to declare inter alia all its assets, bank accounts in India, etc., by a stipulated date. Since the respondent did not appear and did not make any declaration by that date, the DHC has granted time to the claimant to trace the attachable properties of the respondent.

The decision has been well received in the Indian legal community and has been lauded as a pro-arbitration decision as it promotes prompt enforcement of arbitral awards in India, regardless of the identity of the award-debtor. The decision is also one of the first attempts to define immunity from ‘enforcement’ in India. The existing law of sovereign immunity in India is limited to section 86 of the Indian Civil Procedure Code, which requires the permission of the Central Government in order to subject the sovereign state to civil proceedings in India. Therefore, the DHC’s decision is critical in the development of sovereign immunity jurisprudence in India.

Difference Between Jurisdictional Immunity And Enforcement Immunity Under The UNCJIS

It is worth noting that the DHC did not explicitly address the claimant’s argument regarding the UNCJIS. Regardless, it is submitted that the claimant’s argument relying on articles 10 and 19 of the UNCJIS is flimsy. This is particularly because the UNCJIS recognizes two different immunities – jurisdiction immunity and enforcement immunity. Article 10 of the UNCJIS, which provides for waiver of immunity in case of commercial transactions, is limited to immunity from jurisdiction and not from enforcement. Further, Article 20 of the UNCJIS clearly states that the state’s consent to be subjected to jurisdiction shall not imply consent to enforcement. As argued by the late Professor James Crawford, “waiver of immunity from jurisdiction does not per se entail waiver of immunity from execution.”

Notwithstanding the above, even the DHC itself refrained from appreciating the distinction between immunity from jurisdiction and immunity from enforcement. The distinction is critical not only under international law but also under domestic statutes like the English Sovereign Immunity Act (“UKSIA”). It is submitted that Indian jurisprudence, which lacks guidance on this issue, could have benefitted from a more intricate analysis featuring the rationale of different immunities, the standard of waivers, as well as the relevance of Article 20 of UNCJIS.

Curious Framing Of The Question By The DHC

In the current case, the DHC framed the question of sovereign immunity from enforcement as follows: Whether a Foreign State can claim Sovereign Immunity against enforcement of arbitral award arising out of a commercial transaction? On the face of it, the DHC decided a broad point that the award is enforceable as long as the underlying transaction is commercial. The real struggle for the claimants would be to determine and define which property would be immune from enforcement and which wouldn’t.

The framing of the issue is interesting because the sovereign state immunity from enforcement has generally been perceived as a material issue rather than a personal issue. In other words, the question of state immunity from enforcement has been framed as ‘what subject matter can be attached’ and not ‘whether a particular debtor can claim it in a sovereign capacity’. In one of the case laws analyzed by the DHC (Birch Shipping Corp. v. The Embassy of the United Republic of Tanzania), the defendant had argued that under the terms of the US Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, its “property” was “immune from the attachment.” Further, in the operative part of the judgment, the US District Court stated, “the property at issue here is not immune from attachment.” Unlike the DHC’s approach, the question of immunity from enforcement in the Birch Shipping case was argued and ruled upon as a material issue rather than a personal one.

While the decision of the DHC could have a far-reaching impact, there is a degree of uncertainty around the decision. The DHC ruled that as long as the transaction subject to arbitration is commercial, the award is enforceable. There remains uncertainty on whether this ruling means that all properties of the sovereign state can be attached when the transaction is commercial. Would this also mean diplomatic property could be attached? The DHC still has the opportunity to clarify this as the specific properties of the respondent for the attachment are yet to be determined, and the claimant has been granted time to identify the attachable properties.

Diplomatic Immunity or Sovereign Immunity: Which One Would Apply? 

While state immunity and diplomatic immunity both provide protection against proceedings and enforcements in the foreign court or forum, the subjects of both immunities are different. While sovereign immunity aims to protect the sovereign states and their instrumentalities, diplomatic immunity specifically covers the diplomatic missions of the foreign states. The law and state practice on sovereign immunity are not uniform. On the other hand, the law of diplomatic immunity has been codified by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (“VCDR”). Unlike the UNCJIS, the VCDR is in force and has been adopted by over 190 states, including India and Afghanistan.

Since the party to the contract, the arbitration, and the enforcement proceedings in the current case is an embassy, which is independently protected by the diplomatic immunity, the decision of the DHC could have featured analysis on the diplomatic immunity in addition to the state immunity. Like the UNCJIS, the VCDR recognizes the distinction between jurisdictional and enforcement immunities. Under Article 32(4) of the VCDR, the waiver from jurisdictional immunity does not imply consent to enforcement, for which a separate waiver shall be necessary.

Additionally, the DHC had an opportunity to objectively determine whether the act was sovereign or diplomatic. In Re P (Diplomatic Immunity: Jurisdiction), the English Court undertook an objective characterization of the entity’s actions to determine whether they were sovereign or diplomatic. The characterization is critical because it determines the kind of immunity the respondent is subject to.

In the current case, the contract for works entered into by the embassy appears to be an act undertaken in a diplomatic capacity. Hence, arguably, the primary analysis of the DHC should have revolved around diplomatic immunity. It is not to argue that the conclusion of the DHC would have been different if the focus was on diplomatic immunity. However, the analysis of diplomatic immunity, either independently or together with the sovereign immunity, would have substantially bolstered the significance of the decision considering that the interplay between sovereign and diplomatic immunities under Indian law deserves more clarity.

One might argue that perhaps the DHC did not deal with diplomatic immunity because it was raised neither by the claimant nor by the non-participating respondent. This raises the question – whether the courts must raise the issue of immunity proprio motu? The position of law on this is not entirely clear. While section 1(2) of the UKSIA prescribes a duty of the Court to raise the question of immunity proprio motu, the ICJ specifically rejected this approach in the Case Concerning Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Djibouti v. France) (para 196). Both of these approaches, however, relate to sovereign immunity, and there lacks clarity on the issue in the context of diplomatic immunity.

Conclusion

As noted above, despite being one of the first Indian decisions to deal with state immunity from an international law perspective, the decision leaves several questions open, such as the determination of attachable properties and the relevance of diplomatic immunity in the current context. It remains to be seen what approach the DHC takes to resolve some of these issues in the upcoming hearings.

The next part of the post explores the issue of consent to the arbitration being construed as a waiver of immunity from enforcement. The next part also deals with the problem – whether the state’s property can be attached to satisfy the commercial arbitral award against a diplomatic mission.

 

In June 2021, the Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament issued a Draft Report with recommendations to the Commission on Responsible private funding of litigation.

The Report was accompanied by a Study on Responsible private funding of litigation of the European Added Value Unit (authors: Jérôme Saulnier with Ivona Koronthalyova and Klaus Müller) of the European Parliament, issued in February 2021. Such studies are mandatory for proposals made by the European Parliament under Art. 225 TFEU.

The opinion of the Parliament is that, while Directive (EU) 2020/1828 on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers identifies certain safeguards relating to litigation funding, they are limited to representative actions on behalf of consumers taken under that Directive, and therefore exclude many other types of action or categories of claimants. The Parliament proposes to establish effective safeguards to all types of claims.

Regulatory Scheme

The Parliament proposes first to regulate the activities of litigation funders within the EU by establishing an authorisation system by supervisory autorities. Individual Member States could decide that funding litigation would be prohibited for proceedings in their Member State, or “for the benefit of claimants or intended beneficiaries resident within their Member State”.

Funders should conduct business from a registered office in a Member State, from which they would have to seek the authorisation.

Funding agreements entered into by unauthorised funders would be invalid.

Rules Governing Third Party Funding Agreements

The Parliament then proposes to adopt rules governing the content of third party agreements and disclosure obligations.

In particular, the following mandatory rules would apply:

• Any clause in third party funding agreements granting a litigation funder the power to take or influence decisions in relation to proceedings would have no legal effect.
• Agreements in which a litigation funder is guaranteed to receive a minimum return on its investment before a claimant or intended beneficiary can receive their share, would have no legal effect.
• Absent exceptional circumstances, where a litigation funding agreement would entitle a litigation funder to a share of any award that would dilute the share available to the claimant and the intended beneficiaries to 60% or below of the total award (including all damages amounts, costs, fees and others expenses), such an agreement should have no legal effect.
• Provisions that purport to limit a litigation funder’s liability for costs should have no legal effect.

Applicable Law

While the proposed directive does not include express choice of law rules, it provides that funders would commit to submit funding agreements to the law of the Member State of the intended proceedings “or , if different, of the Member State of the claimant or intended beneficiaries”.

Article 5(1) of the proposed Directive reads:

Member States shall ensure that supervisory authorities only grant or maintain authorisations, whether for domestic or cross-border litigation or other proceedings, to litigation funders who comply with the provisions of this Directive, and who meet, in addition to any suitability or other criteria as may be set out in national law, at least the following criteria: 

(b) they commit to concluding third-party funding agreements subject to the laws of
the Member State of any intended proceedings, or, if different, of the Member
State of the claimant or intended beneficiaries;

So, it seems that the law of the claimant (or intended beneficiaries) should always apply. Since the competence to allow the activity is attributed to the State where the claimant would be resident (see above), it seems that the intent of the drafters of Art. 5(1)(b) was to designate the law of the residence of the claimant (or intended beneficiaries).

The obvious problem with this rule is that there could be several claimant, and that the text expressly contemplates the possibility that there would be intended beneficiaries, who could also have their residence in a different State.

Another problem is that the rule seems to exclude claimants based outside of the EU (would at least a branch in the EU suffice?).

Finally, it would quite remarkable that a Member State prohibits third party funding, but then would have to accept it for claimant based in more permissive States, under the law of those other States.

Overall assessment on choice of law: peut mieux faire.

bpost
DFON
L’avocat général Bobek propose une approche uniforme de la protection de la charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne contre la double incrimination (non bis in idem)