Feed aggregator

I have reported before on the jurisdictional consequences of CJEU Vereniging van Effectenbezitters v BP. In this post for the European Association of Private International Law, I give my views on the impact for applicable law.

Geert.

Blogged.

My view on applicable law in cases of purely economic damage, following #CJEU Vereniging voor Effectenbezitters. https://t.co/U8lijC8sGB

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) June 23, 2021

This is the third post of an online symposium on the recent judgment of the CJEU in Vereniging van Effectenbezitters v. BP after the posts of Matthias Lehmann and of Laura van Bochove and Matthias Haentjens.

The author of this post is Prof. Geert van Calster, who teaches at and is Head of the department of European and International Law of the University of Leuven (Belgium), and an independent legal practitioner at the Brussels Bar.

Leiden University’s Round Table on the consequences of CJEU Vereniging van Effectenbezitters v BP (VvE) provided me with an opportunity not just to talk on the consequences of the ruling for applicable law, but also to discuss those views with an excellent group of scholars. That afternoon’s discussion no doubt has had an impact on some of what I write below, however clearly this post is my own responsibility.

Contractual or non-contractual obligations?

Clearly a first element of note is that the applicable law picture looks entirely different depending on whether one is looking at a contractual (triggering application of the Rome I-Regulation) or non-contractual (meaning Rome II will apply) relationship. The general assumption is that in a case like VvE, Rome II is engaged.

This results firstly from parties claiming jurisdiction on the basis of Brussels IA’s tort gateway, Article 7(2). The suggested parallel between the Brussels Ia and Rome Regulations then indicates that where jurisdiction goes, applicable law needs to follow (below I talk more about that parallel).

Further, there is CJEU case-law making a contractual jurisdictional basis unlikely. In CJEU C-366/13 Profit Investment Sim, the Court held that a choice of court contained in a prospectus produced by the bond issuer concerning the issue of bonds may be relied on against a third party who acquired those bonds from a financial intermediary under quite narrow circumstances only. These circumstances include considerations of applicable national law. In CJEU C-375/13 Kolassa the Court held that, on the facts of the case, there were no indications that there was a contract under either the consumer title or the general Article 7(1) gateway, between the holder of a securities account and Barclays, the issuer of certificates held in that account.

On the other hand, following the CJEU’s much stretched notion of ‘contract’ in C-337/17 Feniks and follow-up case-law, I do not think that the existence of a ‘contract’ between the issuer of the financial instruments and the (very) downstream investor can be entirely ruled out.

In the remainder of this post however I shall assume the majority’s intuition that the applicable law analysis be pursued under the Rome II Regulation.

A reminder: the general rule of Article 4(1) Rome II

The standard applicable law rule to purely economic loss, is included in Article 4(1) Rome II and holds that the applicable law is the

‘law of the country in which the damage occurs irrespective of the country in which the event giving rise to the damage occurred and irrespective of the country or countries in which the indirect consequences of that event occur’

There is no specific rule for purely economic loss as such. However, there may be circumstances in which purely economic loss may be covered by one or two of the specific categories included in Rome II. I am thinking in particular of the product liability rules (with discussions on whether financial instruments may be qualified as a ‘product’ under same), and the rules on unfair competition and infringement of competition law.

Further variations to the rule exist in Article 4 itself, and via the scope of applications, which excepts a number of non-contractual obligations hence giving space for residual, national private international law to take over.

Need for absolute parallel between Rome II and Brussels Ia?

To the degree one assumes that Article 7(2) Brussels Ia’s tort jurisdictional gateway, and Rome II’s rules on applicable law for non-contractual obligations need to be applied in synchronicity, clearly a judgment like VvE will have an important impact on the application of Article 4 Rome II’s general rule.

However the CJEU itself is ambivalent on the need for such parallel. In Kainz, the CJEU specifically rejected the need for consistency between Brussels Ia and Rome II, while in other cases the recital’s encouragement of consistency has had an impact on the court’s rulings.

Once must tread with caution therefore in extending the VvE findings to the applicable law discussion. Those with an interest in doing so will find support in the authorities to talk down the impact of VvE on applicable law.

Echoes of an exception, and a tailor-made lex causae not achieved

First the Finnish and then the UK delegation to the Rome II Committee, actually (unsuccessfully) suggested an exclusion from the scope of application for financial instruments. The UK proposal to that effect would have added to Rome II’s exclusions from the scope of application

“Non-contractual obligations arising out of transactions, such as issuing, admission to trading, offering or marketing, relating to financial instruments, including transferable securities, moneymarket instruments, units in collective investment undertakings, options, futures and other derivatives instruments“

In that discussion reference was also made to the fall-back lex contractus rule for certain financial instruments in Article (4)(1)h of the Rome I Regulation.

When it transpired that the proposal for this exception had the support of neither the EC nor enough Member States, the UK suggested singularity of lex causae by introducing a specific heading for financial instruments in which either the lex loci incorporationis (of the issuer) or the law of the place where the issuer has its primary listing, would be applicable to non-contractual loss.

The former suggestion echoed somewhat the difficulties in establishing the exact scope of Rome II’s corporate law exception (Article 1(2)d Rome II). CJEU Kolassa (a 1980 Rome Convention case) unfortunately failed to bring much clarity on this point.

 National case-law: Petrobas

In Petrobas Rotterdam, the Dutch court identified the locus damni in an investor suit as

the location of the market(s) where the financial instruments are listed and traded.

It emphasised predictability and it conceded a Mozaik effect, including of course application of non-EU laws (in the case at issue, viz the Brazilian and Argentinian investors). This finding might in fact chime with the CJEU in VvE where as other posts on this blog clarify, the

place of statutory duties of information

was upheld as locus damni. This synergy between the finding at the applicable law level in Petrobas, and the jurisdictional criterion in VvE, only applies of course provided all places of listing and trading are subject to such duties.

If one were to apply the ‘law of the place of statutory duties of information’, however, rather like at the jurisdictional level, this would raise the mental twister that this criterion is more akin to locus delicti commissi than locus damni, as Matthias Lehmann has pointed out.

Moreover, like in VvE, such criterion does not help us for unlisted financial instruments.

Finally, Article 4(3)’s ‘manifestly more closely connected’ variation to the lex loci damni rule clearly will give a judge some (but not much: the Article needs to be applied restrictively) room for manoeuvre to identify a different law with more, and intense, affinity to the case.

Help on the horizon? Pending case before the CJEU

As was helpfully pointed out by Tomas Arons at the aforementioned Round Table, in the pending case C-498/20 ZK , in his capacity as liquidator in the bankruptcy of BMA Nederland BV v BMA Braunschweigische Maschinenbauanstalt AG, locus damni considerations in Rome II in a case of purely economic loss (alleged breach of duty of care by a mother holding for allegedly failing to provide its daughter company with adequate financing) are currently sub judice before the CJEU. The judgment in that case will undoubtedly feature VvE and will hopefully clarify the application of Rome II to cases of purely economic loss.

This is the second post of an online symposium on the recent judgment of the CJEU in Vereniging van Effectenbezitters v. BP after the post of Matthias Lehmann. 

The authors of this post are Dr. Laura van Bochove (Assistant Professor at Leiden University) and Prof Dr Matthias Haentjens (Professor of Private Law at Leiden University)

On 3 June 2021, Leiden University hosted a seminar with international experts from the judiciary, law firms, civil service and academia to discuss the recent CJEU judgement in Vereniging van Effectenbezitters v. BP. The discussion clearly showed that the judgment may be interpreted differently. Some experts, including Matthias Lehmann (see here), argued that in VEB/BP, the CJEU refused to localise the Erfolgsort at the place of an investment account and, instead, localised damage at the place of listing. We see some merit in attributing jurisdiction to the court of the place of listing, but we do not think the CJEU has chosen such a radical departure from existing case law. Rather, we believe the CJEU continues to (try to) localize the Erfolgsort, also in cases of financial loss, and may continue to consider as connecting factors in that context the investment account, possibly next to the place of listing.

We believe VEB/BP represents another change in direction. We see that the CJEU introduced ‘foreseeability’ as a relevant consideration when having to determine the place where losses have materialized. This clearly derogates from previous CJEU case law and raises new questions.

Connecting factor #1: bank account

One of the participants to our seminar, Dorine Verheij, once said that when a Dutchman rides his bike on the Champs-Elysees and gets hit by a 2CV, it is clear in which jurisdiction the damage was caused and also where it materialized. This is not so for financial loss. Financial loss, by its very nature, is immaterial and therefore as a matter of logic, not localizable. However, the CJEU has continued to (try to) localize the Erfolgsort in several financial loss cases, including Kronhofer, Kolassa, Universal Music and Löber. This case law has been fiercely criticized in legal literature. In his Opinion in VEB/BP, Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona sided with this critique and suggested to abandon the Erfolgsort in financial loss cases. The CJEU did not follow suit, and we believe this is a strong indication the Court continues to (try to) localize the Erfolgsort, also in cases of financial loss. Moreover, the Court did not explicitly depart from the case law just referred to (ie Kronhofer, Kolassa, Universal Music and Löber). In these cases, the court considered as relevant connecting factors the applicant’s “bank account” (Kolassa, Löber, Universal) as well as “other specific circumstances of that situation” (Löber). In VEB/BP, the Court specifically considered the “investment account” as a possible connecting factor, whilst that it held that this factor was insufficient to attribute jurisdiction in this case.

As one of us has written elsewhere, we believe that when securities have lost value or have become worthless, possibly as a result of misleading information from the issuer of the securities, any losses suffered by the owner of the securities concern those securities specifically. Thus, it is the relevant securities account in which those securities are credited, that is the ‘place’ where the financial loss materializes (wherever that may be), rather than in any bank account from out of which these securities were initially purchased. We therefore believe it is welcome that the Court has now clarified that it is the ‘investment account’ (rather than the bank account) that may be of relevance as a connecting factor when having to determine where to localize financial loss. However, and as we have also argued elsewhere, the localization of an investment account (which we thus understand to be the relevant securities account) is dogmatically and logically impossible, since securities accounts have no physical location. This fact makes a securities account or ‘investment account’ unsuitable for any attribution of jurisdiction.

In the VEB/BP case, however, the Court concluded for other reasons that the ‘investment account’ was not adequate as a connecting factor to attribute jurisdiction to the court of the Member State where the account is held, as it held that as a connecting factor, an investment account could not ‘ensure’ the ‘objective of foreseeability’. Before we turn to discuss foreseeability as a connecting factor, first we will pay attention to the ‘place of listing’, which the Court introduced in VEB/BP as a possible connecting factor.

Connecting factor #2: the place of listing

Which factors should be considered relevant or decisive so as to attribute jurisdiction in a specific case, remains elusive. In Kronhofer, the Court held that the place of the applicant’s domicile may not be sufficient if the relevant investment account is located in another jurisdiction. This judgment did not say, however, which connecting factor would suffice to attribute jurisdiction. When the place of the applicant’s domicile coincides with the relevant investment account, this may suffice, the Court held in Kolassa and Löber. But in Universal Music, the Court dismissed this combination of connecting factors on the ground that the other case law concerned a “specific context” (yet without explaining what the element of distinction was), so that “the ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ may not be construed as being, failing any other connecting factors, the place in a Member State where the damage occurred, when that damage consists exclusively of financial damage which materialises directly in the bank account of the applicant and is the direct result of an unlawful act committed in another Member State.” Arguably, in VEB/BP, the Court found such ‘other connecting factor’ in the place of listing.

More specifically, in paragraph 35 the CJEU held:

“It follows that, in the case of a listed company such as that at issue in the main proceedings, only the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States in which that company has complied, for the purposes of its listing on the stock exchange, with the statutory reporting obligations can be established on the basis of the place where the damage occurred. It is only in those Member States that such a company can reasonably foresee the existence of an investment market and incur liability.”

In isolation, this paragraph appears to provide for a clear jurisdiction rule, attributing jurisdiction on the basis of the place where the damage occurred to the courts of the Member State in which the listed company has complied, for the purposes of its listing on the stock exchange, with the statutory reporting obligations (the place of listing). However, this paragraph [35] must not be considered in isolation, as indicated by the introductory words “[i]t follows that”. These words refer to the previous paragraph [34], where the CJEU held that in the present case, the applicant’s domicile and the place of its investment account would not ensure the objective of foreseeability. In other words, the CJEU held in paragraph [34] that the combination of connecting factors that were considered sufficient for attribution of jurisdiction in Löber and Kolassa, proved inadequate in the present case, as it would not guarantee that the defendant would be able to reasonably foresee where it could be sued.

We think the Court has been most persuasive where it held that in financial loss cases such as VEB/BP, the location of the applicant’s investment account is arbitrary and not reasonably foreseeable for the defendant, ie the issuer of the relevant securities. However, this does not mean that the place of listing can logically be considered as a ‘place where the damage occurred’, as the Court seems to suggest. Neither should this be interpreted to mean that the place of listing suffices, in and by itself, as a connecting factor that can attribute jurisdiction, because the Court gives no indication that it departed from earlier case law.

First, the place of listing is a place where securities are traded. This place has no, if only indirect relevance for the localization of the place “where the alleged damage actually manifests itself” (Löber, cited in VEB/BP, para. 31), ie the place “where the applicant has suffered financial consequences” (VEB/BP, para. 29). An investor commonly orders his investment firm (ie bank or broker), to acquire or sell certain financial instruments. The investment firm may proceed to acquire those instruments, for that investor, on a regulated exchange, but these can also be acquired on other official trading venues such as multilateral trading facilities, organized trading facilities, or even internally settled on the books of the investment firm. This practical reality shows, we think, that the investor does not “suffer financial consequences” on the place of listing (possibly with the exception of the rare instance where the investor itself is an admitted member of an exchange). We therefore think the place of listing may be a relevant connecting factor, but logically in most cases it cannot qualify as an Erfolgsort.

Second, the Court introduced the place of listing only in the context of foreseeability of damage. It did not explicitly (or implicitly) depart from its earlier case law, where other connecting factors were considered adequate as discussed above. Therefore, we consider it likely (but the Court does not make this explicit), that the Court may continue to consider the investment account as the place where financial damage ‘actually manifests itself’, but that this connecting factor was not deemed sufficient in the present case for reasons of foreseeability only. Rather, the Court seemed to imply that the place of the investment account may be considered foreseeable for the defendant only if that defendant’s securities are listed in the same Member State. If anything, this interpretation would accord (better) with Kolassa and Löber.

Relevant circumstance: foreseeability

Whilst we welcome the Court’s dismissal of the investment account as a sole connecting factor in the present case, the CJEU’s introduction of and reliance on ‘reasonable foreseeability’ as a relevant circumstance is not unproblematic, as the CJEU’s interpretation of ‘reasonable foreseeability’ in VEB/BP seems to deviate from its previous case law. In that earlier case law, the threshold for foreseeability is often low, as illustrated in the ‘Dieselgate’ case VKI/Volkswagen. In that case, the CJEU attributed jurisdiction to the courts of the place where the applicants bought their cars from a third party. This third party virtually never was the same as the defendant that equipped the cars with manipulative software. Here, the CJEU held that that the manufacturer ‘by knowingly contravening the statutory requirements imposed on it’ may reasonably expect to be sued in the courts of the place where the car was purchased by the final purchaser, even though this could potentially lead to the jurisdiction of the courts of all EU member states, since the purchases of second-hand or imported cars were not excluded. Similarly, in eDate Advertising, the CJEU readily assumed the foreseeability of the place of damage in case of online infringement of personality rights, which could be anywhere where the content on the website was accessible.

Thus, in VEB/BP the CJEU seemed to have interpreted ‘reasonable foreseeability’ more restrictively and as a ground to deny jurisdiction, whilst in VKI/Volkswagen and eDate Advertising the Court used reasonable foreseeability more liberally and as a ground to attribute jurisdiction. Put differently, on the basis of VKI/Volkswagen and eDate Advertising, one could have expected the CJEU to attribute jurisdiction in VEB/BP to the courts of the Netherlands, as BP directs its activities and communications to investors worldwide. But we would think that the Court’s relatively strict interpretation of ‘foreseeability’ in VEB/BP accords better with the objectives of Brussels Ibis, ie ensuring legal certainty by preventing a multiplicity of courts having jurisdiction. Whether the CJEU will use a similar, strict interpretation of reasonable foreseeability in future cases remains to be seen.

VEB/BP and future case law

The VEB/BP case was eagerly awaited, especially by Dutch investors, multinationals and their lawyers. Should the CJEU have attributed jurisdiction to the Netherlands, this would have allowed other collective actions for investment losses to be opened in the Netherlands, making the Dutch courts an attractive go-to jurisdiction for the recovery of investment losses. This now seems to have been limited to cases where the financial losses were ‘reasonably foreseeable’ to have materialised in the Netherlands. Consequently, the CJEU’s judgment in VEB/BP will also have implications for other pending cases, including VEB’s pending collective action in the Amsterdam court against Volkswagen for misleading information in relation to ‘Dieselgate’.

We believe VEB/BP is to be applauded in view of the objectives of the Brussel Ibis Regulation, as the Court has dismissed the investment account which has always been highly unreliable a connecting factor. However, the Court’s reasoning gives rise to several new questions which does not seem helpful for applicants or defendants, including: has the investment account been permanently dismissed as a connecting factor? (we think not); is the place of listing to be considered as the sole connecting factor in cases concerning listed securities? (we think not); is reasonable foreseeability now to be interpreted strictly? (we are doubtful). It is to be hoped that the CJEU answers these questions in future cases, which will be as eagerly awaited as VEB/BP.

Georgia acceded on 31 May 2021 to the Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters and the Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters. The first one will enter into force for Georgia on 1 January 2022, subject to the Article 28 procedure. The second one will enter into force for Georgia on 30 July 2021.

Source: https://www.hcch.net/en/news-archive/details/?varevent=803

Instruction

Visite domiciliaire et saisie

Chambre de l'instruction - Majeur protégé

 Comparative Procedural Law and Justice (CPLJ) is a global project of the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law, with the support of the Luxembourg National Research Fund (019/13946847), involving more than one hundred scholars from all over the world.

CPLJ is envisioned as a comprehensive study of comparative civil procedural law and civil dispute resolution schemes in the contemporary world. It aims at understanding procedural rules in their cultural context, as well as at highlighting workable approaches to the resolution of civil disputes.

In this framework, the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law will host its 6th CPLJ Webinar on 2 July 2021, 3:00 – 5:15 pm (CEST).

The programme reads as follows:

Chair: Loïc Cadiet (University of Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne)

3:00 pm         Bruno Deffains (University of Paris II Panthéon-Assas / University Institute of France)

            Comparative procedural law and economics

3:30 pm          Discussion

4:00 pm          Intermission

4:15 pm           Remco van Rhee (Maastricht University)

            The use of foreign models of civil procedure in national law reform: ‘Lessons‘ from History?

4:45 pm           Discussion

5:15 pm           End of conference

The full programme is available here.

Participation is free of charge, but registration is required by 29 June 2021 via a short e-mail to events@mpi.lu.

(Image credits:  Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam)

 

Venezuela / Conseil
Relations extérieures
Le Venezuela a bien qualité pour agir contre un règlement qui introduit des mesures restrictives à son égard

Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid
Citoyenneté européenne
Un citoyen de l’Union qui a fait l’objet d’une décision d’éloignement ne peut bénéficier d’un nouveau droit de séjour sur le territoire de l’État membre d’accueil qu’après avoir mis fin à son séjour sur ce territoire de manière réelle et effective

Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone e.a.
Citoyenneté européenne
Les mesures d’exécution d’une décision d’éloignement d’un citoyen de l’Union et des membres de sa famille pour des motifs d’ordre ou de sécurité publics constituent des restrictions au droit de circulation et de séjour, qui peuvent être justifiées lorsqu’elles sont fondées exclusivement sur le comportement personnel de l’individu concerné et respectent le principe de proportionnalité

Latvijas Republikas Saeima (Points de pénalité)
Rapprochement des législations
Le droit de l’Union sur la protection des données s’oppose à la réglementation lettonne obligeant l’autorité de la sécurité routière à rendre accessibles au public les données relatives aux points de pénalité imposés aux conducteurs pour des infractions routières

YouTube et Cyando
Rapprochement des législations
En l’état actuel du droit de l’Union, les exploitants de plates-formes en ligne ne font en principe pas, eux-mêmes, une communication au public des contenus protégés par le droit d’auteur que leurs utilisateurs mettent illégalement en ligne

This post was contributed by Thomas Mastrullo, who is a lecturer at the Sorbonne Law School (Paris 1)

On 31 March 2021, the Legal High Committee for Financial Markets of Paris (“Haut Comité juridique de la Place Financière de Paris” – HCJP) has published a report on the applicable law to companies  (Rapport sur le rattachement des sociétés – see here). This report is of great interest for those who are interested in the evolution of international company law.

Context

For several years, there has been a reflection in France about the conflict-of-law rule in corporate matters.

We know that two theories coexist in international company law: the theory of incorporation, which consists in applying to the company the law of the State where it was incorporated and where its registered office, or statutory seat, is located; the real-seat theory, which submits the company to the law of the State where its head office, or central administration, is localised.

In French law, the conflict-of-law rule in corporate matters is laid down in unilateralist terms, with almost the same drafting, in Article 1837 of the Civil Code (see here) and in Article L. 210-3 of the Commercial Code (see here).

The doctrine is divided on the interpretation of these texts, which have been bilateralized by French Cour de cassation (e.g. Com. 9 mars 1993, n° 91-11.003, Bull. civ. IV, n° 94 ; see here). The traditional view among French writers is that the connecting factor is in principle the real seat, because the statutory seat is not enforceable against third parties in case of dissociation of the registered office and the head office. But the modern view is that the connecting factor is in principle the statutory seat, considering that third parties have an option between the registered office and the head office in case of dissociation.

In this context, by letter dated 18 February 2020, the HCJP was jointly seized by the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of the Economy with a request for a study on the “Opportunity, feasibility and conditions of turning to the theory of incorporation”. This initiative takes place in an environment of increased economic and legal competition: the adoption of the theory of incorporation might strengthen the legal attractiveness and economic influence of France. But the referral letter does not ignore that such a liberal conflict-of-law rule might also encourage opportunistic behaviors by economic actors and departure of French companies abroad.

Several questions were therefore raised in the referral letter: Consequences of adopting the theory of incorporation in terms of attractiveness? Experience of other EU Member States? Compatibility with EU law? Risks of forum and law shopping? Consequences for matters related to company law?

Finally, the letter requested that “the necessary legislative and regulatory changes” be proposed.To meet this demand, a working group was set up under the chairmanship of Professor Hervé Synvet, composed of academics and legal practitioners.

The result of the working group’s reflection is the report under consideration, which is divided into two parts.

Impact of a New Conflict-of-law Rule in Corporate Matters on Other Matters

In the first part, the HCJP studies the impact that the evolution of the French connecting factor in corporate matters would have on other branches of law. Several matters are taken into consideration: tax law, insolvency law, social law, capital market law, regulation of foreign investments, banking and financial law. The conclusion is that the adoption of the theory of incorporation would have little impact on these different branches of the law, and in any case no negative effects likely to prevent a reform. Indeed, these different disciplines have their own conflict-of-law rules and the connecting categories are quite clearly defined in French private international law. In addition, each of these matters has a specific approach to the company seat.

Proposed Reform

In the second part, the working group argues in favor of an evolution of the French conflict-of-law rule. More precisely, it proposes to adopt a new connecting factor relying exclusively on the statutory seat – or registered office, and to abandon any reference to the real seat.

Arguments in favor of the adoption of the connecting criterion by the statutory seat

Several arguments are advanced in support of this proposition.

Firstly, this conflict-of-law rule would be simpler and, as a consequence, more favorable to legal certainty. Indeed, on the one hand, it would eliminate the touchy question of the place of the real seat and, on the other hand, it would guarantee respect for the operators’ choice of the law to rule their company or even their group of companies. Thus, France’s attractiveness might be reinforced. Secondly, the solution is inspired by the comparative private international law (German, Irish, Luxembourg, Dutch, British, Swiss and Delaware law are studied) which reveals a strong tendency towards the generalization of the theory of incorporation or connecting criterion by the registered office. Thirdly, the solution is presented as more suited to the development of EU law which, through the jurisprudence of the CJEU – and in particular the Centros, Uberseering, Inspire Art and Polbud judgments – and some regulations – such as European Regulation n° 2157/2001 on SE (see here), tends to favor the registered office as a connecting factor.

Although it is not unaware of the risk of law shopping, the HCJP considers that this risk should not be overestimated since the laws of the EU’s Member States have “a common base” because of the European directives adopted on corporate matters, which is likely to prevent a “race to the bottom”. Moreover, the transfer of registered office from one Member State to another is still difficult, which is an obstacle to law shopping.

Proposed new texts

The HCJP recommends amending the Civil Code, and in particular Article 1837, and repealing Article L. 210-3 of the Commercial Code.

The new bilateral conflict-of-law rule, applicable to all companies with legal personality, is set out in Article 1837, paragraph 1, of the Civil Code. It provides that the company would be governed by the law of the State in which it has its statutory seat – or registered office. Rather than a reference to the company’s incorporation, this formulation is chosen because it would ensure terminological continuity with the current Article 1837 and would model the French conflict-of-law rule on that of the European Regulation on the SE.

Besides, the HCJP devotes paragraph 2 of Article 1837 to companies without statutory seat. For these companies, the conflict-of-law rule would be inspired from the solutions provided by the Rome 1 Regulation: the applicable law would be the law chosen by the partners or, in the absence of choice, the law of the country with which the company is most closely connected.

The proposed Article 1837 reads:

Article 1837 du Code civil

La société est régie par la loi de l’État dans lequel elle a son siège statutaire.

À défaut de siège statutaire, la société est régie par la loi choisie par ses associés ou, à défaut de choix, par la loi de l’État avec lequel elle présente les liens les plus étroits.  

The HCJP proposes also to introduce a new article 1837-1 of Civil Code devoted to the lex societatis’ scope of application, inspired from Swiss law. The aim is to increase the readability and, as a result, the attractiveness of French law. A list of questions falling within the scope of lex societatis would be drawn, this list being non-exhaustive as suggested by the use of the French adverb “notamment” (which can be translated by “in particular”).

The proposed Article 1837-1 reads:

Article 1837-1 du Code civil

La loi applicable à la société en vertu de l’article précédent régit notamment : a) la nature juridique de la société ; b) la capacité juridique de la société ; c) la dénomination ou la raison sociale ; d) la constitution de la société ; e) la nullité de la société, ainsi que celle des délibérations sociales ; f) la dissolution et la liquidation de la société ; g) les opérations emportant transmission universelle de patrimoine et le transfert du siège statutaire ; h) l’interprétation et la force obligatoire des statuts ; i) la modification des statuts, en particulier la transformation de la société ; j) l’organisation et le fonctionnement de la société, ainsi que sa représentation ; k) les droits et obligations des associés ; l) la preuve, l’acquisition et la perte de la qualité d’associé ; m) la détermination des titres susceptibles d’être émis par la société ; n) la détermination des personnes responsables des dettes sociales et l’étendue de leur responsabilité ; o) la responsabilité civile encourue en cas de violation des règles gouvernant la constitution, le fonctionnement ou la liquidation des sociétés, ou d’obligations statutaires. 

In addition, the HCJP considers the introduction of an Article 1837-2 which includes a substantive rule aiming at protecting “French” contracting parties of foreign companies. More precisely, the legal or statutory restrictions on the capacity or the powers of the representatives of a company under foreign law, which would produce effect in external relations according to the foreign law, would be unenforceable against “French” co-contractors, as long as they are of good faith. This rule aims mainly to protect the co-contractors of companies incorporated outside EU – such as American companies which apply the ultra vires doctrine ; the risk is indeed lower in EU, thanks to the protective regime of directive 2017/1132/UE (see here).

The proposed Article 1837-2 reads:

Article 1837-2 du Code civil  

Les restrictions légales ou statutaires à la capacité juridique ou aux pouvoirs des représentants d’une société de droit étranger concluant un acte juridique en France qui, selon la loi régissant la société, produiraient effet dans ses relations externes, sont inopposables au cocontractant ayant légitimement ignoré ces restrictions. 

In conclusion, the HCJP’s “Report on the connecting factor of companies” appears to be a stimulating contribution for the modernisation of French international company law.

Written by the Asian Business Law Institute and the Permanent Bureau of the HCCH

It was reported previously that the Asian Business Law Institute (ABLI) and the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) were to co-host a webinar titled HCCH 1970 Evidence Convention and Remote Taking of Evidence by Video-link on 1 June.

The session has since been successfully held. The organisers would like to share the summary and key takeaways of the session with readers of this blog. Readers who are interested in learning more about the session and requesting access to the video recording may contact ABLI at info@abli.asia.

On 1 June 2021, the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) and the Singapore-based Asian Business Law Institute co-hosted webinar HCCH 1970 Evidence Convention and Remote Taking of Evidence by Video-link, welcoming attendees from 30 different jurisdictions, including representatives of Central Authorities, HCCH Members, private practitioners, international public service officers and business professionals.

Dr Christophe Bernasconi, Secretary General of the HCCH, opened the webinar with a welcoming address where he underscored that the success of the 1970 Evidence Convention was attributable to not only its simplified transmission procedures and its flexibility to accommodate the needs of different legal traditions, but also the technology-neutral approach adopted by drafters, which has allowed the Convention to remain fit for purpose in the 21st century. Specifically, Dr Bernasconi highlighted that the Convention, with 63 Contracting Parties representing every major legal tradition, facilitated the transmission of thousands of requests for taking of evidence every year and allowed the use of video-link technology in the taking of evidence abroad.

Professor Yun Zhao, Representative of the HCCH Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, was next to speak where he gave an overview of the operation of the Evidence Convention. He explained how the Convention provided, in Chapter I, a main channel of transmission under which a judicial authority in a requesting State may send a Letter of Request directly to a Central Authority in the requested State, before elaborating that the Convention also provided, in Chapter II, a streamlined process for the direct taking of evidence by commissioners or consuls, to which Contracting Parties may object upon or after accession. Professor Zhao pointed to the recently published Guide to Good Practice on the Use of Video-Link under the 1970 Evidence Convention and outlined a plethora of ways in which video-link technology may be used to take evidence abroad, e.g. to facilitate the presence of the parties and their representatives by video-link at the execution of a request or to permit a commissioner located in the State of Origin to take evidence by video-link in the State of Execution.

Following Professor Zhao’s presentation, Mr Alexander Blumrosen, Partner at Polaris Law (Paris), provided a historical account of the use of the Evidence Convention in the United States and the significance of the landmark Supreme Court decision Aérospatiale. He went on to explain in detail, and by reference to his practical experience, how evidence located in France but needed for U.S. civil or commercial proceedings may be taken through a Letter of Request (under Chapter I) or more swiftly through a commissioner (under Chapter II). Mr Blumrosen highlighted that the execution of a Chapter I Letter of Request in France usually took between six weeks and three months, and that under Article 9 of the Convention, foreign counsel may be allowed to participate in the direct or cross examination of witnesses by video-link provided that such participation was expressly requested in the Letter of Request and allowed by local law and practice as it is in France. Mentioning that the taking of evidence by commissioner under Chapter II could be even faster and more flexible, Mr Blumrosen added that once the Central Authority had authorized a commissioner – which could take between one to ten days, depending on the matter – the evidence may be taken immediately either in person in conference room facilities or using video-link, without needing any further intervention or participation by a local judge. He mentioned the increased use of Chapter II discovery in requests from the U.S. over the last ten years, and applauded the qualified Article 23 reservation adopted by France to the Convention that allows for pre-trial discovery but requires requests to be “enumerated limitatively” and to be relevant to the underlying dispute in order to avoid overly broad “fishing expeditions”.

Turning attendees’ attention from France to Singapore was Mr Edmund Kronenburg, Managing Partner of Braddell Brothers LLP, who presented a brief overview of the operation of the Evidence Convention in Singapore by looking at the country’s legal framework. In his view, the popularity of the Convention was likely to increase in the coming years in tandem with Singapore’s efforts to reinforce its dispute resolution hub status. Mr Kronenburg then moderated a lively panel discussion among all panelists, including Mr Blumrosen, Justice Anselmo Reyes of the Singapore International Commercial Court, Dr João Ribeiro-Bidaoui, First Secretary at the HCCH and Professor Zhao.

To conclude the session, Dr Ribeiro-Bidaoui spoke of the salient benefits and main features of another HCCH instrument, the 1965 Service Convention, highlighting that the Service Convention, with 78 Contracting Parties, was accessible to almost 70% of the global citizenship who represents more than 80% of the world’s GDP.?

The Permanent Bureau of the HCCH and ABLI are heartened by the positive feedback received after the webinar. Some Singaporean practitioners who were in the midst of preparing for virtual hearings found the session especially timely. One attendee from the business community commented that although not legally trained, he found the discussions useful in understanding the difficulties involved in multi-jurisdictional legal processes from the perspective of running a multinational business. Attendees joining from outside of Singapore said they benefited most from learning about the implementation of the Evidence Convention in places other than their home jurisdictions. Specifically, Matthijs Kuijpers and Sofja Goldstein from Amsterdam-based law firm Stibbe shared that they found it extremely valuable for their international litigation practice to have judges, practitioners and academics from various jurisdictions exchange and discuss experiences and best practices. In particular, they very much appreciated that the organisers actively engaged practitioners during the session as such engagement helped overcome issues that would inevitably rise over time given that the methods of taking evidence today differ significantly from how it was envisioned when the Convention was drafted.

The organisers thank all attendees for their active participation and warm reception and look forward to having more such opportunities for exchange of ideas and sharing of experiences.

The full version of the key panel discussion takeaways can be read here.

Sur les sujets régaliens, le droit français et le droit européen ne manquent pas de points de frictions. À la suite de l’arrêt La Quadrature du net sur la conservation des données de connexion, et avant un nouvel arrêt sur le temps de travail des militaires, le Sénat a organisé une table ronde, rassemblant autorités françaises (le procureur national anti-terroriste), représentants européens et universitaires. Des débats riches.

en lire plus

The Young Research Network of the European Association of Private International Law (EAPIL) has just launched its latest research project, which is being led by Tobias Lutzi, Ennio Piovesani, and Dora Rotar. The project will focus on the national rules on jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters over non-EU defendants, in light of the report envisioned in Article 79 Brussels Ia Regulation.

As the project will primarily be based on national reports describing the situation in each Member State (structured by a detailed questionnaire), the organizers are currently still looking for participants who would be interested in providing a national report for one of the following Member States: Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden.

The full Call for Participants can be found here.

Non lieu à renvoi