Feed aggregator

Before the judicial holiday, several decisions will be delivered regarding EU instruments on private international law.

The decision of the 1st Chamber (Bonichot, Safjan, Bay Larsen, Toader, Jääskinen) in C-343/19, Verein für Konsumenteninformation, regarding Article 7.2 of the Brussels I bis Regulation, is due on 9 July 2020. M. Safjan is the reporting judge; AG Campos’s Opinion was published on 4 April.

One week later the 1st Chamber will read the judgments in C-73/19, Movic e.a., C-80/19, E.E., and C-249/19, JE. C. Toader acts as reporting judge in C-73/19, on the meaning of “civil and commercial matters” in the Brussels I bis Regulation; see here AG Szpunar’s Opinion, of 23 April 2020. Judge Toader is the reporting judge as well in C-80/19, which addresses several aspects of the Succession Regulation; the Opinion by AG Campos, of 26 March 2020, has not yet been fully translated into English (here the French version; the original is in Spanish). C-249/19 benefited from AG Tanchev’s Opinion, also of 26 March 2020; the Court was asked to rule on the Rome III Regulation on the law applicable to divorce. R. Silva de Lapuerta is the reporting judge.

The same day, the judgment in C-253/19 (9th Chamber: Rodin, Jürimäe, Piçarra, with Jürimäe as reporting judge) will be delivered, addressing the COMI under the new Insolvency Regulation. AG Szpunar’s Opinion was published on 30 April 2020.

The Court’s activity resumes on 1 September 2020. Next date for a PIL judgment is September 3 (C-186/19, Supreme Site Services e.a.; see the Opinion by AG Oe here).

La cour d’assises spécialement composée de Paris juge Tyler Vilus, 30 ans, pour association de malfaiteurs terroriste criminelle, direction d’une entreprise terroriste et meurtres en bande organisée terroriste. Son procès se déroule du 25 juin au 3 juillet. Il encourt la réclusion criminelle à perpétuité.

en lire plus

In 2017 drivers working under contract for Uber in Ontario launched a class action.  They alleged that under Ontario law they were employees entitled to various benefits Uber was not providing.  In response, Uber sought to stay the proceedings on the basis of an arbitration clause in the standard-form contract with each driver.  Under its terms a driver is required to resolve any dispute with Uber through mediation and arbitration in the Netherlands.  The mediation and arbitration process requires up-front administrative and filing fees of US$14,500.  In response, the drivers argued that the arbitration clause was unenforceable.

The Supreme Court of Canada has held in Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller, 2020 SCC 16 that the arbitration clause is unenforceable, paving the way for the class action to proceed in Ontario.  A majority of seven judges held the clause was unconscionable.  One judge held that unconscionability was not the proper framework for analysis but that the clause was contrary to public policy.  One judge, in dissent, upheld the clause.

A threshold dispute was whether the motion to stay the proceedings was under the Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17 or the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Sch. 5.  Eight judges held that as the dispute was fundamentally about labour and employment, the ICAA did not apply and the AA was the relevant statute (see paras. 18-28, 104).  While s. 7(1) of the AA directs the court to stay proceedings in the face of an agreement to arbitration, s. 7(2) is an exception that applies, inter alia, if the arbitration agreement is “invalid”.  That was accordingly the framework for the analysis.  In dissent Justice Cote held that the ICAA was the applicable statute as the relationship was international and commercial in nature (paras. 210-18).

The majority (a decision written by Abella and Rowe JJ) offered two reasons for not leaving the issue of the validity of the clause to the arbitrator.  First, although the issue involved a mixed question of law and fact, the question could be resolved by the court on only a “superficial review” of the record (para. 37).  Second, the court was required to consider “whether there is a real prospect, in the circumstances, that the arbitrator may never decide the merits of the jurisdictional challenge” (para. 45).  If so, the court is to decide the issue.  This is rooted in concerns about access to justice (para. 38).  In the majority’s view, the high fees required to commence the arbitration are a “brick wall” on any pathway to resolution of the drivers’ claims.

The majority then engaged in a detailed discussion of the doctrine of unconscionability.  It requires both “an inequality of bargaining power and a resulting improvident bargain” (para. 65).  On the former, the majority noted the standard form, take-it-or-leave-it nature of the contract and the “significant gulf in sophistication” between the parties (para. 93).  On the latter, the majority stressed the high up-front costs and apparent necessity to travel to the Netherlands to raise any dispute (para. 94).  In its view, “No reasonable person who had understood and appreciated the implications of the arbitration clause would have agreed to it” (para. 95).  As a result, the clause is unconscionable and thus invalid.

Justice Brown instead relied on the public policy of favouring access to justice and precluding an ouster of the jurisdiction of the court.  An arbitration clause that has the practical effect of precluding arbitration cannot be accepted (para. 119).  Contractual stipulations that prohibit the resolution of disputes according to law, whether by express prohibition or simply by effect, are unenforceable as a matter of public policy (para. 121).

Justice Brown also set out at length his concerns about the majority’s reliance on unconscionability: “the doctrine of unconscionability is ill-suited here.  Further, their approach is likely to introduce added uncertainty in the enforcement of contracts, where predictability is paramount” (para. 147).  Indeed, he criticized the majority for significantly lowering the hurdle for unconscionability, suggesting that every standard-form contract would, on the majority’s view, meet the first element of an inequality of bargaining power and therefore open up an inquiry into the sufficiency of the bargain (paras. 162-63).  Justice Brown concluded that “my colleagues’ approach drastically expands the scope of unconscionability, provides very little guidance for the doctrine’s application, and does all of this in the context of an appeal whose just disposition requires no such change” (para. 174).

In dissent, Justice Cote was critical of the other judges’ willingness, in the circumstances, to resolve the issue rather than refer it to the arbitrator for decision: “In my view, my colleagues’ efforts to avoid the operation of the rule of systematic referral to arbitration reflects the same historical hostility to arbitration which the legislature and this Court have sought to dispel. The simple fact is that the parties in this case have agreed to settle any disputes through arbitration; this Court should not hesitate to give effect to that arrangement. The ease with which my colleagues dispense with the Arbitration Clause on the basis of the thinnest of factual records causes me to fear that the doctrines of unconscionability and public policy are being converted into a form of ad hoc judicial moralism or “palm tree justice” that will sow uncertainty and invite endless litigation over the enforceability of arbitration agreements” (para. 237).  Justice Cote also shared many of Justice Brown’s concerns about the majority’s use of unconscionability: “I am concerned that their threshold for a finding of inequality of bargaining power has been set so low as to be practically meaningless in the case of standard form contracts” (para. 257).

The decision is lengthy and several additional issues are canvassed, especially in the reasons of Justice Cote and Justice Brown.  The ultimate result, with the drivers not being bound by the arbitration clause, is not that surprising.  Perhaps the most significant questions moving forward will be the effect these reasons have on the doctrine of unconscionability more generally.

Non lieu à statuer

Non lieu à renvoi

Non lieu à renvoi

Iacyr de Aguilar Vieira and Gustavo Cerqueira have edited a volume on the CISG in the Americas (La Convention de Vienne en Amerique).

From the foreword of the book:

On the occasion of the Vienna Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods’ 40th anniversary, its success can be evidenced by its influence in America. In fact, 19 out of the 93 member-States are found in this vast continent.

To celebrate its 40th anniversary, the Latin American section of the Société de législation comparée sought to present the Convention’s current state of application in different American countries, as well as to measure its influence on domestic sales laws.

As court decisions and scholarly writing multiply with the ratification of the Convention by American States, this presentation seeks to offer a better understanding of how the Convention is being applied and, through that, support the efforts for its uniform application. A comparative approach concludes the book. This initiative seeks not only to oppose the attempts that can be found in domestic cases to interpreting the Convention differently, but also, and on a more positive note, to promote the Convention as a model for the regulation of sales in America and Europe.

Concerning the more specifics private international law issues, the numerous analyses related to the applicability of the Convention and to the subsidiary application of national law offer very interesting insights into the conflict of laws systems of Contracting States in this part of the world. On this point, the contributions of G. Argerich (Argentina), F. Pignatta (Brazil), D. Rojas Tamoyo (Colombia), M. Paris Cruz (Costa Rica), R. A. Williams Cruz (Honduras), E. Hernández-Bretón and C. Madrid Martinez (Venezuela) will be particularly instructive.

Thus, this book is the perfect occasion to compare the Vienna Convention’s implementation in American States and to benefit from the view of American scholars on this universal instrument for the uniformization of sales of goods.

It is meant both for scholars and lawyers in the field of international commerce.

The table of contents can be downloaded here. More details are available here.

Save the date

The conference Frontiers in Civil Justice will take place at Erasmus University Rotterdam on 16 and 17 November 2020. The conference will address four key issues in civil justice, which require a deeper and renewed reflection in light of their contribution of facilitating access to justice. These are the shaping of the interaction between formal and informal justice, the digitalization of consumer dispute resolution (ODR), the collectivizing and monetizing of civil litigation and efforts of bringing justice closer to citizens. The conference will bring together academics, policymakers, practitioners and representatives of civil society to critically reflect on the opportunities and possible drawbacks ensuing from these paramount developments.

The outline of the conference, including confirmed keynote speakers, is avaible here. Further details will be made available soon.

Call for papers

For the last part of the conference we welcome abstracts on the topic ‘Innovations in Civil Justice – Bringing Justice Closer to Citizens’. Please send your abstract of max. 500 words before 31 July. Further details can be found here.

This conference is organised by Erasmus School of Law in the context of the ERC-Consolidator Research Project ‘Building EU Civil Justice: Challenges of Procedural Innovations – Bridging Access to Justice’. More information at: www.euciviljustice.eu.

En plaçant en rétention administrative avant de les éloigner vers les Comores deux enfants entrés illégalement à Mayotte, la France a commis de multiples violations de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme.

en lire plus