Professor Sophia Tang, Wuhan University (China) and Newcastle University (UK) will give a virtual seminar in the Durham University China Law Centre. The topic is “extraterritorial effects of the Hong Kong National Security Law”.
Webinar: Extraterritorial Effects of the Hong Kong National Security Law Speaker:Prof Zheng TANG (Newcastle Law School) Time:13:00 p.m. Tuesday, October 13 Zoom: https://durhamuniversity.zoom.us/j/96430562639?pwd=NS9lTGlxN3U2T2dzWWIwckJodGFRQT09 Meeting ID?964 3056 2639 Passcode:131767Abstract:
The very controversial Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (“HK National Security Law” hereafter) was promulgated in the 20thsession of the 13th National People’s Congress (NPC) of China on 30 June 2020 and entered into effect in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) at 23:00 on the same day. This law defines four categories of offences and penalties, namely secession, subversion, terrorist activities and collusion with foreign or external elements to endanger national security. Article 38 provides: “This Law shall apply to offences under this Law committed against the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region from outside the Region by a person who is not a permanent resident of the Region.” This article extends jurisdiction of the HK National Security Law to the action of any individuals or organisations in any country, irrespective of their nationality, residence and the law of the countries where the action has taken place. The extraterritorial effect can be summarised as: no nexus or proximity, no double criminality, and no identity requirements. The legal basis for this jurisdiction is the protective principle, which allows a state to regulate extraterritorial conduct by foreigners or non-residents that may jeopardise its vital interests.
In this seminar, we are going to discuss what is protective jurisdiction, whether the extraterritorial effect of the HK National Security Law is justifiable in international law, what the overseas impact of the HK National Security Law would be, especially on the freedom of speech, and how this law could be enforced in practice.
The members of the proposed EAPIL Working Group on International Property Law will host a webinar 20 October 2020, from 12:30 to 2 pm.
The webinar will illustrate the goals and agenda of the Working Group and provide EAPIL members with the possibility to join the discussion on a future European Regulation on International Property Law.
The webinar’s programme is as follows:
The practical details for attending the webinar will be communicated soon on this blog.
Irrecevabilité - Non lieu à renvoi
Situations exist where a judicial document addressed to a person based abroad may be communicated to a lawyer representing that person in the forum State, instead of being served abroad on the addressee himself or herself. This usually applies to service occurring after the act instituting the proceedings has been served on the defendant in conformity with either the Service Regulation or the Hague Service Convention.
In fact, the described situation may also arise in the framework of proceedings brought by a foreign claimant against a defendant based in the forum. In this case, the defendant may reasonably presume that the lawyer signing the claim on behalf of the foreign litigant is eligible for receiving documents related to the case.
While the latter assumption would generally seem to be accurate, the admissibility of service on the lawyer depends on the kind of documents that the latter is in fact allowed to receive on behalf of the client.
In 2019, the Greek Supreme Court issued an interesting ruling on the matter.
The FactsAfter longstanding business collaboration between a Greek company and a Finnish telecommunications giant, a decade of confrontation began in 2010. In a series of proceedings, the parties fought through all court instances.
The first stage was a successful application for a freezing order filed by the Finnish company. An actio pauliana was filed in parallel by the same company, which was dismissed by the Athens Court of First Instance. The appeal lodged by the Finnish company, instead was successful. The losing party filed cassation against the Athens Court of Appeal ruling.
Almost at the same time, the Greek company lodged an application to reverse the freezing order, which was filed to the Supreme Court, in accordance with domestic Civil Procedure Rules (Article 698 of the Code of Civil Procedure).
As in previous stages of the litigation, the document was served on the lawyer representing the Finnish company. The latter did not appear in the hearing.
The RulingThe Supreme Court ruled that the application was inadmissible because it was not served on a lawyer instructed by the foreign company to accept service on its behalf at a business address within the jurisdiction [Supreme Court Nr. 470/2019, unreported]. The reasoning of the court may be summarised as follows:
Almost ten years after the start of litigation, and following a number of hearings where the Finnish company was represented by the same lawyer, the Supreme Court considered that the latter had no powers of representation in a case initiated by his own application, followed by his appearance before the court, and his instruction to serve the freezing order to the losing party.
The ruling of the Supreme Court rests upon a formalistic construction of the law; contradicts to the factual situation of the dispute; causes additional costs to the applicant with no apparent reason; endangers the right to judicial protection, given that service from Greece to Finland is not business as usual.
Last but not least, the Supreme Court did not utter a word about the actual applicable rules, i.e those in the Service Regulation. It failed to take into account Recital 8 of the Preamble and the pertinent case law of the CJEU. Finally, it missed the chance to address the matter to the European Court of Justice, by filing a preliminary request for an issue which continues to puzzle academia and practice alike.
The 2021 winter course of the Hague Academy of International Law will be held online from 11 to 29 January 2021.
One remarkable feature of the Academy’s winter courses is that they jointly cover topics belonging (or traditionally labelled as belonging) to both public and private international law.
The General Course will be delivered by Maurice Kamto under the title International Law and Normative Polycentrism.
Special courses include: Evidence in International Adjudication by Chester Brown, The Protection of Religious Cultural Property in Public and Private International Law by José Angelo Estrella Faria, and The Regulation of the Internet by Inger Österdahl.
The winter course’s full programme is available here.
Registration will open on 8 October 2020. Further information is available on the Academy website.
La Cour de cassation applique le principe selon lequel deux décisions sont inconciliables, au sens de l’article 34 du règlement Bruxelles I, si elles entrainent des conséquences juridiques qui s’excluent mutuellement.
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer