Feed aggregator

Avocat

Détention provisoire

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Paris, 4 décembre 2019 et Cour d'appel de Rennes, 17 février 2020

Conseil des prudhommes de Paris, Section industrie, Chambre 1

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Fort-de-France, 9 avril 2020

Mandat d'arrêt européen

Cour d'assises

Action civile

A new volume in the series of Ius Comparatum – Global Studies in Comparative Law has been recently published by Springer. The volume was edited by Prof. Catherine Kessedjian, Université Panthéon-Assas Paris II Paris, France, and Prof. Humberto Cantú Rivera, School of Law University of Monterrey, Mexico.

The book addresses one of the core challenges in the corporate social responsibility (or business and human rights) debate: how to ensure adequate access to remedy for victims of corporate abuses that infringe upon their human rights. However, ensuring access to remedy depends on a series of normative and judicial elements that become highly complex when disputes are transnational. In such cases, courts need to consider and apply different laws that relate to company governance, to determine the competent forum, to define which bodies of law to apply, and to ensure the adequate execution of judgments. The book also discusses how alternative methods of dispute settlement can relate to this topic, and the important role that private international law plays in access to remedy for corporate-related human rights abuses.

This collection comprises 20 national reports from jurisdictions in Europe, North America, Latin America and Asia, addressing the private international law aspects of corporate social responsibility, most of which were prepared for the Fukuoka Conference of the
International Academy of Comparative Law in the summer of 2018. They were last
updated in February 2019 for this publication. The model questionnaires, in French
and English, are included after the national reports.

The book draws two preliminary conclusions: that there is a need for a better understanding of the role that private international law plays in cases involving transnational elements, in order to better design transnational solutions to the issues posed by economic globalisation; and that the treaty negotiations on business and human rights in the United Nations could offer a forum to clarify and unify several of the elements that underpin transnational disputes involving corporate human rights abuses, which could also help to identify and bridge the existing gaps that limit effective access to remedy. Adopting a comparative approach, this book appeals to academics, lawyers, judges and legislators concerned with the issue of access to remedy and reparation for corporate abuses under the prism of private international law.

The list of contributors is the following:

Joost Blom Peter A. Allard School of Law, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Angelica Bonfanti Dipartimento di Diritto pubblico italiano e sovranazionale, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milano, Italy
Andrea Bonomi University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
Nicolas Bueno University of Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland
Humberto Cantú Rivera School of Law, University of Monterrey, Monterrey, Mexico
Nicolás Carrillo Santarelli Universidad de La Sabana, Bogotá, Colombia
Si Chen Faculty of Law, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
Steven Comerford U.S. State Department, Washington, DC, USA
Juan Ignacio Contardo Universidad Diego Portales, Santiago, Chile
Anne Danis-Fatôme Université de Brest, Brest, France
Mafalda de Sá Faculty of Law, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
Marilda Rosado de Sá Ribeiro Universidad do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Katrin Deckert Université Paris-Nanterre, Paris, France
Siel Demeyere KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Liesbeth F. H. Enneking Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Monika Feigerlová Institute of State and Law, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic
Leonhard Hübner Institut für ausländisches und internationales Privat- und Wirtschaftsrecht, Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
Luca Kaller Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht, Hamburg, Germany
Milana Karayanidi Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Washington, DC, USA
Catherine Kessedjian Université Panthéon-Assas Paris II, Paris, France
William Fernando Martínez Luna Universidad Jorge Tadeo Lozano, Bogotá, Colombia
Kasey McCall-Smith Public International Law, Edinburgh Law School, University of Edinburgh, UK
María Susana Najurieta Universidad de Buenos Aires, Viamonte, Argentina
Chien Quoc Ngo Foreign Trade University, Hanoi, Vietnam
Marie Laure Niboyet Université Paris-Nanterre, Paris, France
Monika Pauknerová Institute of State and Law, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic
Rui Pereira Dias Faculty of Law, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm Edinburgh Law School, University of Edinburgh, UK
Martijn W. Scheltema Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Judith Schönsteiner Universidad Diego Portales, Santiago, Chile
Inês Serrano de Matos Faculty of Law, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
Laurence Sinopoli Université Paris-Nanterre, Paris, France
Zeynep Derya Tarman Department of Private International Law, Koc University Law School, Istanbul, Turkey
Hien Thi Tran CSR Research Group, Foreign Trade University, Hanoi, Vietnam
Guangjian Tu Faculty of Law (FLL), University of Macau, Taipa, Macau, China
Geert Van Calster Department of International and European Law, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Florencia S. Wegher Osci Escuela de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales, Universidad Nacional del Litoral, Santa Fe, Argentina
Marc-Philippe Weller Institut für ausländisches und internationales Privat- und Wirtschaftsrecht, Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
Dai Yokomizo Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan

More information about this series may be found here.

by Ralf Michaels and Jakob Olbing

Note: This repository will stay permanent at www.conflictoflaws.net/corona.
Please send additions to olbing@mpipriv.de

The coronavirus has created a global crisis that affects all aspects of life everywhere. Not surprisingly, that means that the law is affected as well. And indeed, we have seen a high volume of legislation and legal regulations, of court decisions, and of scholarly debates. In some US schools there are courses on the legal aspects of corona. Some disciplines are organizing symposia or special journal issues to discuss the impact of the pandemic on the respective discipline.

Private international law has not (yet?) consolidated discussions of the relevance of the crisis for the field, and of the field for the crisis (though the new EAPIL blog is running a very valuable series). But of course, private international law matters are crucial to countless issues related to the epidemic – from production chains through IP over possible vaccines to mundane questions like the territorial application of lockdown regulations.

Knowledge of these issues is important. It is important for private international lawyers to realize the importance of our discipline. But it is perhaps even more important for decision makers to be aware of both the pitfalls and the potentials of conflicts of law.

This site, which we hope to update continually, is meant to be a place to collect, as comprehensively as possible, sources on the interaction of the new coronavirus and the discipline. The aim is not to provide general introductions into private international law, or to lay out sources that could be relevant. Nor is this meant to be an independent scholarly paper. What we try to provide is a one-stop place at which to find private international law discussions worldwide regarding to coronavirus.

For this purpose, we limit ourselves to the discipline as traditionally understood—jurisdiction, choice of law, recognition and enforcement, international procedure. Coronavirus has other impacts on transnational private law and those deserve attention too, but we want to keep this one manageable.

Please help make this a good informative site. Please share any reference that you have – from any jurisdiction, in any legislation – and we will, if possible, share them on this site. Please contact olbing@mpipriv.de

General

Early in the pandemic, Mathias Lehmann discusses the role of private international law on a number of issues – the impact of travel restrictions on transportation contracts, contract law issues for canceled events, canceled or delayed deliveries, but also liability for infections.

A group of Brazilian scholars organized an online symposium on Private International Law & Covid-19. Mobility of People, Commerce and Challenges to the Global Order. The videos are here. (Note: the last session is still forthcoming on May 22).

The Secretary General of the Hague Convention provided an online message from his home.

State Liability

In the United States, several suits have been brought in Florida (March 12), Nevada (March 23) and Missouri (April 21) against China, which plaintiffs deem responsible for the uncontrolled spread of the virus, which later caused massive financial damage and human loss in the United States. Not surprisingly officials and scholars in China were extremely critical (see here and here). But

legal scholars, including Chimène Keitner and Stephen L. Carter, also think such suits are bound to fail due to China’s sovereign immunity, as do Sophia Tang and Zhengxin Huo. Hiroyuki Banzai doubts that the actions can succeed since it will be difficult to prove a causal link between the damages and the (in-) actions by the Chinese Gorvernment. Lea Brilmayer suspects that such a claim will fail since it would be unlikely, that a court will assume jurisdiction. Tom Ginsburg lays out the legal issues in an interview in German.

A Republican Representative is introducing two House Resolutions urging the US Congress to waive China’s sovereign immunity in this regard; such a waiver has also been proposed by a Washington Post author. The claim has also found support by Fox News.

Interestingly, there is also a reverse suit by state-backed Chinese lawyers against the United States for covering up the pandemic. Guodong Du expects this will likewise be barred by sovereign immunity.

In the UK, the conservative Henry Jackson Society published a report suggesting that China is liable for violating its obligations under the International Health Regulations. The report discusses ten (!) legal avenues towards this goal, most of them in public international law, but also including suits in Chines, UK and US courts (pp 28-30). Sovereign immunity is discussed as a severe but not impenetrable barrier.

Contract Law

Both the pandemic itself and the ensuing national regulations impede the fulfilment of contracts. Legal issues ensue. One of these is force majeure and its application to international contracts. Most contributions suggest to apply for force majeure certificates which are as to now offered by China, Russia. How such a certificate can influence contractual obligations under English and New York Law is shown by Yeseung Jang. The German perspective is given by Philip Reusch and Laura Kleiner, further the South Korean and the Common Law perspective on force majeure have been published. Victoria Lee, Mark Lehberg, Vinny Sanchez and James Vickery go beyond force majeure implications on contracts in their expert analysis. William Shaughnessy presents issues which might occur in international construction contracts.

Ennio Piovesani discusses whether Italian decree-laws enacted in view of the pandemic can operate as overriding mandatory rules and whether that would be compatible with EU law. Aposotolos Anthimos adds the Greek perspective to the discussion. Matthias Lehmann considers more broadly possible private international law issues and responses under European law.

The crisis hits in particular global value and production chains. Impacts are discussed by Tomaso Ferando, by Markus Uitz and Hemma Parsché and by Anna Beckers, though neither focuses specifically on private international law.

Caterina Benini explains a new Italian mandatory rule providing a minimum standard of protection for employees.

Tort

In Austria, a consumer protection association is considering mass litigation against the Federal State of Tyrolia and local tourist businesses based on their inaction in view of the spreading virus in tourist places like Ischgl. A questionnaire is opened for European citizens. Jos Hoevenars and Xandra Kramer discuss the potential of similar actions in the Netherlands under the 2005 Collective Settlement Act, WCAM.

An extensive overview about damages and Corona under Indian international tort law is given by Saloni Khanderia.

General implications of the coronavirus on product liability and a possible duty to warn costumers, without specific reverence to conflict of laws.

Family Law

Implications also exist in family law, for example regarding the Hague Abduction Convention. In an Ontario case (Onuoha v Onuoha 2020 ONSC 1815), concerning children taken from Nigeria to Ontario, the father sought to have the matter dealt with on an urgent basis, although regular court operations were suspended due to Covid-19. The court declined, suggesting this was “not the time” to hear such a motion, and in any way international travel was not in the best interest of the child. For discussion see here.

A recent webinar also discussed the impact on the Hague Abductions Convention.

A general overview of abduction in times of corona was published by Nadia Rusinova.

Economic Law

The crisis puts stress on global trade and therefore also economic law. Giesela Ruehl discusses developments in the competition laws of various countries (though with no explicit focus on conflict of laws issues).

Dispute Resolution

Regulations against social contact and lockdowns make physical presence in court rooms impossible and thereby put pressure on courts. Some courts suspend their activities except for urgent matters (one international abduction case in which this becomes prevalent is discussed in the family law section.) Developments in Italy are discussed here, developments in English law here.

Another possibility is the move to greater digitalization, as discussed comparatively by Emma van Gelder, Xandra Kramer and Erlis Themeli. The Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) published a Guide to Good Practice on the Use of Video-Link under the 1970 Evidence Convention, discussed also with reference to Corona by Mayela Celis.

The EU gives information about the “impact of the COVID-19 virus on the justice field” concerning various means of dispute resolution.

A US project guided by Richard Suskind collects cases of so-called “remote courts” worldwide.

Non lieu à renvoi

Irrecevabilité

A bit more than a month ago, the Supreme Court of California rendered its decision on a case concerning the (non-)application of the 1965 Hague Service Convention. The case has been thoroughly reported and commented before and after  the ruling of the Supreme Court. I will refrain from giving the full picture of the facts; I will focus on the central question of the dispute.

THE FACTS

The parties are U.S. and Chinese business entities. They entered into a contract wherein they agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of California courts and to resolve disputes between them through California arbitration. They also agreed to provide notice and “service of process” to each other through Federal Express or similar courier. The exact wording of the clause in the MOU reads as follows:

“6. The Parties shall provide notice in the English language to each other at the addresses set forth in the Agreement via Federal Express or similar courier, with copies via facsimile or email, and shall be deemed received 3 business days after deposit with the courier.

“7. The Parties hereby submit to the jurisdiction of the Federal and State Courts in California and consent to service of process in accord with the notice provisions above”.

ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS

An agreement between the companies was eventually not reached, which was reason for Rockefeller to initiate arbitration proceedings. All materials were sent both by email and Federal Express to the Chinese’s company address listed in the MOU. The latter did not appear. The arbitrator awarded Rockefeller the amount of nearly 415 million $. The decision was sent to Sinotype by e-mail and Federal Express.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

In accordance with the Civil Procedure Code of the State of California [§ 1285.  Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award…], Rockefeller petitioned the award to be confirmed. The same ‘service’ method was used by the petitioner, i.e. e-mail and Federal Express. Again, Sinotype did not take part in the proceedings.

At a later stage, Sinotype became active, and filed a motion to set aside the default judgment for insufficiency of service of process. In particular, it asserted that it did not receive actual notice of any proceedings until March 2015 and argued that Rockefeller’s failure to comply with the Hague Service Convention rendered the judgment confirming the arbitration award void. The motion was denied by the Los Angeles County Superior Court; the Court of Appeal reversed; finally, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate decision.

THE RULINGS

The first instance court confirmed that the Service Convention was in principle applicable, however, the agreement between the parties to accept service by mail was valid and superseded the Convention. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment, stating exactly the opposite, namely that the Service Convention supersedes private agreements. In light of China’s opposition to service by mail, the agreed method of communication was considered inadequate for the purposes of the Convention. The Supreme Court held yet again the opposite, because the parties’ agreement constituted a waiver of formal service of process under California law in favor of an alternative form of notification; hence, the Convention does not apply.

COMMENT

I place myself next to the commentators of the case: It is true that the Service Convention does not apply in the course of arbitration proceedings. There is convincing case law to support this view from different jurisdictions in different continents (example here). However, in the case at hand, the issue at stake was the use of a method not permitted by the Convention in court proceedings. It was lawfully agreed to send all documents by e-mail or FedEx during arbitration. Nowadays, this has become standard procedure in international commercial arbitration. However, a multilateral convention may not succumb to the will of the parties. If a contracting state refuses to accept postal service within the realm of litigation, the parties have no powers to decide otherwise. The best option would be, as already suggested, to oblige a party to appoint a service agent. This enables service within the jurisdiction, as already decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk case. In a similar fashion, the CJEU consolidated the same position in the Corporis Sp. z o.o. v Gefion Insurance A/S case, following its ruling in the case Spedition Welter GmbH v Avanssur SA.

Finally, returning to the EU, postal service would not require any agreement between the parties; Article 14 of the Service Regulation stipulates service by mail as an equivalent means of service between Member States. In addition, service by e-mail is scheduled to be embedded into the forthcoming Recast of the Regulation under certain requirements which are not yet solidified.

Avocat

Détention provisoire