Feed aggregator

Laura Carpaneto, Stefano Dominelli and Chiara Enrica Tuo (all University of Genova) have edited Brussels I bis Regulation and Special Rules – Opportunities to Enhance Judicial Cooperation. The book, which has just been published by Aracne, may be accessed for free here in its entirety.

Contributors include, in addition to the editors themselves, Jean-Sylvestre Bergé, Pierangelo Celle, Silvana Çinari, Chirouette Elmasry, Rosario Espinosa Calabuig, Paula-Carmel Ettori, Giulio Cesare Giorgini, Aida Gugi Bushati, Flutura Kola Tafaj, Rosa Lapiedra Alcami, Guillermo Palao Moreno, Francesco Pesce, Ilaria Queirolo, Isabel Reig Fabado and Jessica Sanchez.

The blurb reads as follows.

The volume collects the results of the EU co-funded Project Enhancing Enforcement under Brussels Ia – EN2BRIa, European Union Justice Programme 2014-2020, JUST-JCOO-AG-2018 JUST 831598. It critically and thoroughly addresses art. 67 Brussels I bis Regulation, which determines the relationships between the Regulation and other EU law instruments governing jurisdiction or the free movement of decisions. Also tackling “indirect” relevant relationships between international civil procedure and material law, the Volume rationalizes the main criticalities examined, and offers Principles, Recommendations and Guidelines to increase capacity of practitioners to address such issues, to improve awareness of stakeholders, and to support uniform application of EU law.

For further information see here.

Andrea Bonomi and Patrick Wautelet have authored an article-by-article commentary, in French, of Regulations 2016/1103 and 2016/1104 on the property regimes of international couples, with the assistance of Ilaria Pretelli, Eva Lein, Guillaume Kessler, Sara Migliorini and Konstantinos Rokas.

The book has just been published by Larcier under the title Le droit européen des relations patrimoniales de couple – Commentaire des Règlements (UE) 2016/1103 et 2016/1104.

The authors have kindly provided the following presentation in English.

Professionals in the area of family law and estate planning are increasingly confronted with cross-border couples and families whose assets may be scattered in different countries. The determination of the law governing the family assets has often become an indispensable step in order to advise spouses or partners about the financial implications of their union, the consequences of a change of residence, or to share out their property in the case of divorce or death. In all these scenarios, it is often necessary to assess the validity and effects of a property agreement entered into in a foreign jurisdiction. And in the case of disputes, the determination of the competent court and of the cross-border effects of a court decision will be crucial. All these questions are made more complex by the fact that most relationships extend over several years, if not decades, by the possible involvement of third parties, and by the connection with other areas of the law.

The European regulations on matrimonial property and on the property consequences of registered partnerships intend to provide answers to some of these problems and to ensure more legal certainty. However, the interpretation of these complex instruments also raises a great number of new and intriguing questions.

This new commentary provides for a very detailed and fine-tuned analysis of the two regulations. The textual and systematic interpretation rests on a solid comparative law background and is enriched by numerous practical examples. Drafted by an international team of experts, it offers a genuinely European reading of the new instruments, taking into account their multiple connections with the other EU regulations in the area of civil justice, notably the Succession Regulation and the Brussels II-terRegulation, as well as the guidance provided by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

This book intends to serve as reference for researchers dealing with two major regulations adopted by the EU. It also aims to stir up the conversation among researchers and policy makers interested in private international law and the economic aspects of family law by pointing to the advantages of the European instruments, while not ignoring the shortcomings and imperfections of two regulations which will guide cross-border activity in family law in the years to come.

For more information, see here.

Accès au juge et prévisibilité du droit

The Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) is seeking a(n) (Assistant) Legal Officer. The successful candidate will begin work in the field of international commercial and financial law and will gradually also be expected to carry out work in other areas, including family law.

Applications should be submitted by Sunday 2 May 2021 (00:00 CEST). For more information, please visit the Recruitment section of the HCCH website.

This post is published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference of Private International Law (HCCH). 

I was unaware of a fashion blogosphere war of words and more between Dolce & Gabbana and the founders of Diet Prada until I was asked to comment (in Dutch) on the pending lawsuit in Italy. The suit has an echo of SLAPP – Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.

Among others this post on The Fashion Law gives readers the necessary background and also links to the defendants’ lawyers reply at the jurisdictional level. It is this element of course that triggered the interview request, rather than my admittedly admirable sense of style (with sentences like these, I think I may be in need of a break).

Readers might be surprised to find the legal team discussing A7(2) Brussels Ia’s forum delicti, and CJEU authority such as Bolagsupplysningen seeing as per A6 BIa the Regulation does not apply, rather the Italian residual rules. However as Andrea Bonomi and Tito Ballarino review in the Encyclopedia of Private International Law, Italy has extended the scope of application of BIa to its internal sphere. Hence an interesting discussion of the CJEU case-law on locus damni, centre of interests etc. As well as a probably ill-fated attempt to encourage the Italian courts, in subsidiary fashion, to exercise forum non should the A7(2) arguments fall on deaf ears. Probably futile seeing as the Italian regime does not know a foum non rule, however if BIa is extended, would that not also extend to forum non-light in A33-34? As far as I could tell from the submission, however, no reference was made  to an 33-34 challenge.

Enfin, lots of interesting things to ponder at a different occasion. Happy Easter all.

Geert.

EU Private International Law 3rd ed. 2021, para 2.437 ff.

There is much to be said about the refusal of the courts at Zurich at the end of February, to recognise a September 2020 High Court judgment under the 2007 Lugano Convention. Rodrigo Rodriguez says it all here and I am happy to refer. The guillotine fashion in which the courts rejected application of Lugano 2007 even for a procedure that was initiated before Brexit date 1 January 2021 leaves much to be discussed. As does the question whether the demise of Lugano 2007 might not resurrect Lugano 1988 (Rodrigo points ia to the dualist nature of the UK in his discussion of same).

Whether correct or not in the specific case at issue, the judgment does show the clear bumpy ride ahead for UK judgments across the continent, following the Hard Brexit in judicial co-operation.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed., 2021, Chapter 1, Heading 1.7.

This ruling might, as Rodrigo Rodriguez argues, wrongly apply Lugano A63 'legal proceedings instituted'. Even then it is a clear sign of the bumpy ride ahead for UK courts to maintain their position in international litigation. https://t.co/99xLg0jDTH

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) March 10, 2021

A quick note on the suit in The Netherlands against “Norsk Hydro” of Norway, for alleged pollution caused by aluminium production in Brasil. No court decisions or orders are available as yet hence I write simply to log the case. I have put Norsk Hydro in inverted commas for the suit really is against Norsk Hydro subsidiaries incorporated in The Netherlands, who are said to control the Brazilian entities. The jurisdictional basis therefore is A4 BIa. As far as the reporting on the case  indicates, there seems little likelihood of A33-34 BIa’s forum non conveniens light making an appearance seeing as no Brazilian proceedings are reported to be underway which could sink the Dutch proceedings like the High Court did in Municipio de Mariana. That is not to say of course that the defendants might not discover some.

Geert.

EU Private International Law., 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 7.3.1.

1/2 Jurisdictional basis for #NorskHydro suit is A4 BIa: Netherlands is where subsidiaries controlling the local (BRA) entities at issue are headquartered. (Pulling the mother into the bath would require A6 Lugano) https://t.co/JdBWdGWOXM @financialtimes #CSR #bizhumanrights

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) March 1, 2021

Which conflict-of-laws rule is the most appropriate for the blockchain? This fundamental question is part of two parallel targeted consultation papers issued as recently by the European Commission.

One of the consultations covers the Settlement Finality Directive (SFD), while the other concerns the Financial Collateral Directive (FCD). Both regulate the “plumbing” of financial markets (the so-called market infrastructures) and contain conflict-of-laws provisions (see Article 9(2) SFD and Article 9 FCD). Yet, the infrastructures and transactions they target are conventional ones. The Settlement Finality Directive deals with payment and securities settlement systems, in which traditional cash (e.g. euros) and conventional financial instruments (e.g. shares and bonds) are traded. The Financial Collateral Directive concerns collateral provided in either cash or financial instruments.

The question posed by the European Commission is whether these texts also can (and must) be applied to modern digital assets, like cryptocurrencies (e.g. Bitcoin) and tokens, and whether they need to be adapted to them through reform.  Since both directives also contain conflict-of-laws provisions, the relationship of crypto-assets to these regulations raises typical conflict-of-laws questions as well.

Take for example Article 9(2) SFD. Its text speaks about securities “legally recorded on a register, account or centralised deposit system” and submits them to the law of the Member State where this register, account or system is “located”. This raises the following issues: 1. whether a blockchain network is a “register” in this sense; 2. whether crypto assets can be said to be “legally” recorded, despite the lacking legal protections of such assets under most private laws; and 3. where blockchains, which may be distributed potentially on a planetary scale, are located.

Even more doubts are caused by Article 9 FCD. It submits financial collateral arrangements to the law of the country “in which the relevant account is maintained”. Blockchain networks basically operate without any intermediaries and do not feature “accounts” in the proper sense of the word. Even if they would, it would be hard to say where the account is “maintained” given the distributed nature of a blockchain network.

These issues have a certain sense of urgency due to the fact that some EU and EEA Member States have already pressed ahead and created specific rules for crypto assets.

France for instance allows for securities (such as bonds and shares) traded over the counter (OTC) to be issued on blockchain networks (described as “distributed electronic registers” (dispositif d’enregistrement électronique partagé – DEEP)). The condition is that the securities are issued in the French territory and governed by French law, see Art. L211-3 French Code monétaire et financier. The transfer and pledge of such crypto financial instruments is equally governed by French law.

Germany has drafted a bill to allow the issuance of bonds (including covered bonds) and investment participations on the blockchain. Section 32 of the bill provides for the applicability of the law of the country in which the administrator of the register is supervised.

Liechtenstein, an EEA member and as such also bound by the SFD and the FCD, has adopted an Act on Token and TT (Trustworthy Technology) Services Providers, which, by any standard, is one of the most comprehensive and innovative blockchain regulations in the world. The Act is appliable where: 1. the TT provider is headquartered or residing in the Principality; or 2. where the parties expressly chose its provisions, see its Art. 3(2).

These are three different approaches to the conflict-of-laws issues raised with regard to different types of crypto assets. But are those national laws compatible with the SFD and the FCD? Do the SFD and FCD apply at all to crypto assets? If so, are their provisions, including those on the conflict of laws, compatible with the nature of the blockchain? And if they do not apply, should they be extended to them? Some legal consistency and harmony would surely be welcome. The question is if and when the EU legislator will provide it.

La rédaction de Dalloz actualité fait une petite pause le lundi de Pâques. 

en lire plus

Renvoi

Renvoi

A petition for a writ of certiorari has been filed before the US Supreme Court in a case concerning the HCCH Child Abduction Convention and the grave risk exception (art. 13(1)(b)). The issue at stake is: Whether, upon finding that there is a grave risk that a return would expose a child to physical or psychological harm (or intolerable situation), a district court is required to consider ameliorative measures (in other words, undertakings) to facilitate the (safe) return of the child. For the exact wording of the petition, see below. 

Please note that US courts often use the terms “ameliorative measures” and “undertakings” interchangeably (as stated in the petition).This petition has been docketed as Golan v. Saada, No. 20-1034. This petition and other documents relating to this case have been distributed for the Conference of today – 1 April 2021.

“QUESTION PRESENTED

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction requires return of a child to his or her country of habitual residence unless, inter alia, there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm. The question presented is:

Whether, upon finding that return to the country of habitual residence places a child at grave risk, a district court is required to consider ameliorative measures that would facilitate the return of the child notwithstanding the grave risk finding.”

With regard to this issue, there is indeed a split in the US circuits (as well as state courts). 

According to the petition “The First, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have indicated that, once a district court determines that there is a  grave  risk  that  the  child  will  be  exposed  to  harm,  the  court need not consider any ameliorative measures,” whereas  “the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits require a district court to consider a full range of ameliorative  measures  that  would  permit  return  of  the  child,  even when the court finds that there is a grave risk that a child’s return would expose that child to physical or psychological harm.” This case originated in the Second Circuit.

The split in the US circuits has been acknowledged by practitioners, see for example, James D. Garbolino, Federal Judicial Center, The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction: A Guide for Judges, Second Edition (2015), 137-147 (see in particular p. 143. – but a few different circuits are mentioned, which attest to the confusion of practitioners). Accordingly, in my personal opinion, there is definitely merit in raising this issue before the US Supreme Court.

We will keep you informed as to whether this petition is granted or refused.

(published by Oxford University Press, 2020)

The authors kindly provided the following summary: 

The book marries two fields of law: negotiable instruments and choice-of-law. Bills of exchange, cheques and promissory notes are the main classical negotiable instruments. For centuries, these instruments have played a vital role in the smooth operation of domestic and international commerce, including in transactions between distantly located parties. Through their evolution, fusion, and sophistication, they have remained one of the primary tools for everyday commercial activity, serving as one of the primary methods of payment and credit and one of the cornerstones of the contemporary bank-centred system. The rapid technological progress of payment mechanisms has embraced the traditional institution of negotiable instruments leading to their further adaptation and sophistication in order to meet the challenges of the contemporary reality of frequent mobility of people, goods, and high daily volumes of cross-border transactions and international commerce.

The cross-disciplinary partnership between the authors, one specializing in negotiable instruments and the other in choice-of-law, aims to offer a comprehensive and thorough analysis of the choice-of-law rules applicable to negotiable instruments. The internal structure of negotiable instruments’ law is complex, which has given rise to a popular view favouring the mythological ‘law merchant’,[1] the exclusion of negotiable instruments from the scope of general contract and property law doctrines, and their subsequent exclusion from ordinary choice-of-law analysis.

The central thesis of the book is to challenge this common view. Indeed, the complex structure of negotiable instruments creates a significant challenge for traditional contract and property doctrine and the choice-of-law analysis applicable to them. Yet, in contrast to the common view, the authors argue that the complex case of international negotiable instruments should be analyzed through the lens of traditional contract & property choice-of-law doctrines rather than by crafting new specially designed rules for negotiable instruments.

In order to illustrate this point, consider the – well-known in choice-of-law literature – Giuliano & Lagarde Report (‘The Report’),[2] which has served as a basis for contemporary European Rome Regulations[3] on the question of applicable law. The Report excludes negotiable instruments law from the scope of ordinary choice-of-law analysis.[4]However, one can reassess the three rationales mentioned in the Report to justify negotiable instruments’ law exclusion. First, it makes a point that a negotiable instrument is not a contract.[5] In this book, the authors argue the opposite – from their very origin to their present-day doctrinal analysis, negotiable instruments are very much contracts and carefully follow the essentials of contract law doctrine, alongside the basic elements of tangible property law.[6]

 Second, the Report characterizes a negotiable instrument as a ‘complex contract’.[7] Indeed, in their study the authors provide a precise demarcation of the special nature of the negotiable instrument as a ‘special’ contract to delineate its divergence from the ‘ordinary’ contract; its relation to basic elements of tangible property transfer; and how this divergence affects (if at all) the choice- of- law rules of negotiable instruments, comparatively to choice-of-law rules of ‘ordinary’ contracts and tangible property. While throughout their book the authors show that negotiable instruments present ‘complicated special rules’ that should be analyzed, modified and distinguished from ‘ordinary’ contract law/property law rules, they are very much based on them.

Finally, the Report makes a reference to the existing harmonization processes.[8] In this book, the authors provide a detailed comparative analysis of the various rules in diverse legal systems and they show that they are far from uniform.[9] The authors discuss the various harmonization processes of negotiable instruments,[10] and make some suggestions for possible reforms within the process of international harmonization of the choice-of-law rules,[11] which would capture the challenges of the digital age.[12]  In contrast to the Report, the authors argue that the traditional choice-of-law rules in the areas of contract law and tangible property can serve as a model for such reform of choice-of-law rules of negotiable instruments.

In effect, authors’ call for a redesign of the present choice-of-law rules relating to negotiable instruments finds traces in contemporary literature.  The commentators of one of the leading textbooks in the field have framed the need for a reconsideration of the choice-of-law rules of negotiable instruments in the following terms:

…it must be noted that the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 and much of the case referred to in the following paragraphs is now more than a century old. In that time, the role and significance of bills of exchange in commercial intercourse and the approach of the conflict of laws to freely incurred obligations such as these has changed radically. As the following commentary makes clear, the rules contained in the 1882 Act are neither comprehensive nor easy to understand and apply. A radical overhaul of the law in this area, whether by legislation or international convention, seems long overdue.[13]

In this book, the authors are indeed willing to take up the challenge of a ‘radical overhaul’.  In line with the above-stated quotation, they suggest a radical reorientation of choice-of-law rules. They argue that choice-of-law rules in the area of international negotiable instruments need to be dramatically amended and harmonized.

The contemporary choice-of-law rules within this area of law have originated from flawed premises about the nature of the subject. Further, contemporary rules have left behind the modern development of choice-of-law doctrine. Relying on the foundation of negotiable instruments’ law within the traditional ordinary doctrines of contract and movable property and invoking developments within modern choice-of-law thought, the authors endeavour to challenge the traditional orthodoxy and offer a complete re-examination of the choice-of-law rules of negotiable instruments.

[1] See Chapter II.

[2] Report on the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations by Mario Giuliano, Professor, University of Milan, and Paul Lagarde, Professor, University of Paris I, Official Journal C 282, 31/10/1980 P. 0001 – 0050.

[3] Commission Regulation (EC) 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (Rome I), 2008 O.J. (L 177) 6 (EU);  Commission Regulation 864/2007, on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (Rome II), 2007 O.J. (L 199) 40 (EC)

[4] Giuliano & Lagarde Report, sec. 4.

[5] Ibid.

[6] See Chapter I & Chapter II.

[7] Report, sec. 4.

[8] Ibid.

[9] See Chapter I.

[10] See Chapter I & Chapter III.

[11] See Chapters V-VII.

[12] See Chapter VIII.

[13] Lawrence Collins (ed) Dicey, Morris and Collins on the Conflict of Laws (15th edn Sweet & Maxwell 2012) 2077.

On 24 March 2021 the Court of Justice issued a judgement in the case of SS v MCP, C-603/20 PPU, which concerns interpretation of the jurisdictional rules of Brussels II bis Regulation. The request for a preliminary ruling originated from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Family Division.

The Court decided that a court of a Member State seized of an action relating to parental responsibility cannot base its jurisdiction on Article 10 of the Brussels II bis Regulation in a case of abduction of a child to a third State.

Interestingly, the opinion (commented here by Geert Van Calster from the perspective of the principle of mutual trust) suggested the opposite conclusion, in spite of the fact that both the CJEU and the advocate general relied on the wording of the relevant provisions, their context and objectives, legislative history and relation with international instruments.

SS and MCP are two Indian citizens residing in the UK, where their child P was born in 2017. The couple is not legally married. SS is indicated as the father on the birth certificate, and consequently he has parental responsibility. In October 2018, the mother went to India with the child, where the child stayed with her grandmother. In August 2020 P submitted an application to the referring court, seeking an order for the return of the child to the UK and a ruling on rights of access.

The mother has challenged the jurisdiction of the court, since the child is not habitually resident in the UK. In the opinion of the referring court, the conduct of the mother probably amounts to the child’s wrongful removal (retention) in India. India is not a contracting party to the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

The referring court considers that it is necessary to determine whether it has jurisdiction on the basis of Brussels II bis (for its application in the UK for proceedings initiated before the end of transition period see: Note to Stakeholers on Brexit and PIL). Because the child does not have habitual residence in the UK and there is no consent of both parents as to jurisdiction of UK courts, the court has doubts whether it might base its jurisdiction on Article 10 Brussels II bis.

In accordance with this provision in case of a wrongful removal (retention), the courts of the Member State where the child was habitually resident immediately before the wrongful removal (retention) retain their jurisdiction until the child has acquired habitual residence in another Member State and one of alternative additional requirements is met. As the child was wrongfully retained in a third State, the referring court wonders whether Article 10 provides that UK courts retain their jurisdiction … indefinitely.

The CJEU answered strongly in the negative and underlined that:

(…) there is no justification for an interpretation of Article 10 [Brussels II bis] that would result in indefinite retention of jurisdiction in the Member State of origin in a case of child abduction to a third State, neither in the wording of that article, nor in its context, nor in the travaux préparatoires, nor in the objectives of that regulation. Such an interpretation would also deprive of effect the provisions of the 1996 Hague Convention in a case of child abduction to a third State which is a contracting party to that convention and would be contrary to the logic of the 1980 Hague Convention (paragraph 62).

As a result, the jurisdiction of the referring court might be determined in accordance with the applicable international conventions or, in the absence of any such international convention, in accordance with Article 14 Brussels II bis (which requires the presence of the child within the forum).

First, the wording of Article 10 Brussels II bis clearly indicates that it applies to intra-EU abductions only (points 38-41), as it talks about “a Member State” and “another Member State”.

Second, as regards the context of Article 10 Brussels II bis, CJEU pointed that it constitutes a special ground of jurisdiction with respect to the general one in matters of parental responsibility laid down in Article 8(1), which provides for the jurisdiction of the Member State, where the child is habitually resident (paragraph 43). This ground of jurisdiction “defeats what would otherwise be the effect of the application of the general ground of jurisdiction (…), in a case of child abduction, namely the transfer of jurisdiction to the Member State where the child may have acquired a new habitual residence, following his or her abduction. Since that transfer of jurisdiction might secure a procedural advantage for the perpetrator of the wrongful act, Article 10 of that regulation provides (…) that the courts of the Member State where the child was habitually resident before the wrongful removal or retention are, nonetheless, to retain their jurisdiction unless certain conditions are met” (paragraph 45).

As a result, if the child has acquired new habitual residence outside the EU, after being wrongfully removed (retained) in a third State, there is no room for the application of the general rule. Hence,  in such case also the rule laid down in Article 10 “loses its raison d’être, and there is not, therefore, any reason to apply it” (paragraph 46). Additionally, as it is a special ground of jurisdiction, it must be interpreted restrictively (paragraph 47).

By the way, it is striking to see absolutely different conclusions drawn from this juxtaposition of Articles 8 and 10 Brussels II bis in the opinion:

Where a child was habitually resident in a Member State, as is the case with the child here, the courts of that Member State are to retain their jurisdiction until that child acquires his or her habitual residence in ‘another Member State’. Since reference is made only to another Member State, it can be inferred from this, in my view, that, where a child is wrongfully removed to, or retained in, a non-Member State, the courts of the Member State in which that child was habitually resident continue to have jurisdiction (paragraph 53 of the opinion)

Third, the CJEU refers to the legislative history of Brussels II bis and reminds that the EU legislature wanted to establish strict rules with respect to child abductions within the EU, whereas abductions to third states are supposed to be covered by international conventions, such as the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention and 1996 Hague Parental Responsibility Convention. It might be noted that 1980 Hague Convention is not referred to in the opinion.

The CJEU points out also that the interpretation of Article 10 Brussels II bis as proposed by the referring court “would have the consequence that, where the child has acquired a habitual residence in a third State which is a contracting party to the 1996 Hague Convention, following an abduction, Article 7(1) and Article 52(3) of that convention would be deprived of any effect” (paragraph 53). It should be noted that Article 7(1) 1996 Hague Convention makes provision (like Article 10 Brussel II bis) “for a transfer of jurisdiction to the courts of the State where the child has acquired a new habitual residence, if certain conditions are satisfied. Those conditions are connected, in particular, to the passage of time together with acquiescence or inaction on the part of the person concerned who holds a right of custody, the child having become settled in his or her new environment” (paragraph 54). This possibility would be precluded if Brussels II bis would allow the courts of a Member State to retain indefinitely their jurisdiction (paragraph 55).

Such retention of jurisdiction, in view of the CJEU, would also be “contrary to Article 52(3) of the 1996 Hague Convention, which prohibits rules agreed between one or more contracting States (…) from affecting, in the relationships of those States with the other contracting States, the application of the provisions of that convention. To the extent that jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility could not be transferred to those courts of contracting States, those relations would necessarily be affected” (paragraph 55).

Additionally, indefinite retention of jurisdiction would be incompatible with one of the fundamental objectives pursued by the regulation, namely the best interests of the child, which gives priority to the criterion of proximity (paragraph 58). This objective requires setting balance between “the need to prevent the perpetrator of the abduction from reaping the benefit of his or her wrongful act” and “the value of allowing the court that is closest to the child to hear actions relating to parental responsibility” (paragraph 59). Interestingly, in the opinion, while referring to the best interest of the child, the objective of “deterring child abductions” seems to be given priority (paragraph 70 of the opinion).

Finally, indefinite retention of jurisdiction, according to the CJEU, would also disregard the logic of the mechanisms established by the 1980 Hague Convention.

If, in accordance with Article 16 of that convention, it is established that the conditions laid down by that convention for return of the child are not satisfied, or if an application under that convention has not been made within a reasonable time, the authorities of the State to which the child has been removed (…) become the authorities of the State of habitual residence of the child, and should, as the courts that are geographically closest to that place of habitual residence, have the power to exercise their jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility. That convention remains applicable, in particular, in relations between the Member States and the other contracting parties (paragraph 61).

Le 10 mars 2021, le Parlement européen adopte une résolution « contenant des recommandations […] sur le devoir de vigilance et la responsabilité des entreprises » (Résolution du Parlement européen du 10 mars 2021 contenant des recommandations à la Commission sur le devoir de vigilance et la responsabilité des entreprises [2020/2129(INL)]). Plaidoyer en faveur d’un dispositif européen contraignant, celle-ci est accompagnée d’un projet de directive ambitieux.

en lire plus

The Council on General Affairs and Policy (CGAP) of the HCCH met online from 1 to 5 March 2021, with over 350 participants. Over the course of five days, HCCH Members reviewed progress made to date and agreed on the work programme for the year ahead. More information is available here.

Several important developments relating to Membership and HCCH Conventions occurred during the meeting:

• Thailand deposited its instrument of acceptance of the Statute, becoming the 88thMember of the HCCH.
• El Salvador applied to become a Member of the HCCH. Following a six-month voting period and provided a majority of votes have been cast in its favour, El Salvador will be invited to become a Member by accepting the Statute of the HCCH.
• Israel signed the HCCH 2005 Choice of Court Convention and the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention. The 2005 Choice of Court Convention, which currently binds 31 States and the EU, will enter into force for Israel only after it deposits an instrument of accession or ratification. Although the 2019 Judgments Convention is not yet in force, Israel is the third signatory to the Convention.

More information on these developments is available here.

Finally, as customary the meeting coincided with the publication of the Annual Report of the HCCH. The 2020 Annual Report can be downloaded or ordered here.

On 15 and 18 March, the HCCH and the International Union of Judicial Officers co-hosted a webinar on the application of the 1965 Service Convention and the 2019 Judgments Convention aimed at judicial officers and other legal professionals. Recordings of the webinar are available here in English and here in French.

On 18 March, the HCCH and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan co-hosted a webinar on the HCCH 1980 Child Abduction Convention in the Asia Pacific, attended by judges and officials of Central Authorities from 12 countries and regions in the Asia Pacific. More information is available here.

On 30 March, the HCCH participated in the virtual High Level Conference “Protecting Vulnerable Adults across Europe – the Way Forward”, organised by the Ministry of Justice of Portugal, the European Commission and the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights under the auspices of the Portuguese Presidency of the Council of the European Union. The recording of the conference is available here.

These monthly updates are published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), providing an overview of the latest developments. More information and materials are available on the HCCH website.