Feed aggregator

The following announcement has been shared with us by the Child Support Forum.

The Child Support Forum is pleased to invite every interested stakeholder to an open conference deepening the topic of cross-border maintenance recovery by public bodies.

Due to the increase in international mobility of families, the need for immediate child support in case of default of maintenance payment is growing. This support often consists of advance maintenance payments granted by public authorities, which then must be reimbursed by the debtor. The enormous sums of money that states spend on these benefits make the cross-border enforcement of maintenance by public bodies an important political issue.

The first three meetings of the Child Support Forum showed that there is a great need for exchange between the public bodies. On the one hand, they face different hurdles in enforcing their claims due to the diversity of the maintenance support systems. On the other hand, common problems were also identified. The results of this work will be presented.

In a future perspective, it is clear that the tension between the need for more support for children, for an effective recovery of maintenance against debtors, and debtor protection is growing. It will be interesting to discuss to what extent the States make the grant of benefits dependent on the legal possibilities for reimbursement. For example, in the light of the text of the 2007 Convention and of the EU-Maintenance Regulation, public bodies currently have less support from Central Authorities when they seek reimbursement of maintenance support than children do when they claim child maintenance. Thus, the question arises as to whether debtor protection still justifies this legal situation and how maintenance debtors can be protected from double claims when it is no longer the child alone but a public body that seeks the recovery of maintenance payments.

The conference will mark the end of a series of three seminars on the topic of maintenance recovery by public bodies and is intended to provide insight into its socio-political and legal aspects as well as a unique opportunity for exchange with experts from different fields (academics, Central Authorities, public bodies from different countries).

The conference program can be downloaded here.
To register, please click here

As announced in a previous post, a seminar series on the recast of Brussels I bis Regulation, is taking place during the 2023-2024 academic year, both in Paris at the Cour de cassation and online (in French), under the scientific coordination of Marie-Elodie Ancel (University of Paris-Panthéon-Assas) and Pascal de Vareilles-Sommières (University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne).

The third seminar will take place on 26 February 2024 from 16.00 to 18.00 (UTC+1).

It will be devoted to “emerging litigation” in civil and commercial matters, in the context of Brussels I bis Regulation recast. The main topics to be discussed deal with infringements of human rights and the environment as well as class actions.

The list of speakers includes Olivera Boskovic (Paris Cité University), Sabine Corneloup (University of Paris Panthéon Assas), Sandrine Clavel (Paris-Saclay University) and François Mailhé (Picardie-Jules Verne University).

The programme, as well as registration and access details can be found here.

The recording of the previous seminars are available online here and here.

The other seminars will take place from 16.00 to 18.00 (UTC+1) 18 March, 22 April, 30 May and 24 June 2024.

The seminar series is organised by the Research Centre for Private International Law and International Trade (CRDI, University of Paris Panthéon Assas) and the Sorbonne Department Study of International Private Relationships (SERPI, University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne), together with the Société de Législation Comparée (SLC), the French national school for the judiciary (ENM) and the French Supreme Court for civil and criminal matters (Cour de cassation).

By Madeleine Petersen Weiner, Research Fellow and Doctoral Candidate at Heidelberg University

Introduction

On 8 February 2024, Advocate General (AG) Szpunar delivered his Opinion on C-633/22 (AG Opinion), submitting that disproportionate damages for reputational harm may go against the freedom of expression as enshrined in Art. 11 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR). The enforcement of these damages therefore may (and at times will) constitute a violation of public policy in the enforcing state within the meaning of Art. 34 Nr. 1 Brussels I Regulation. The AG places particular emphasis on the severe deterring effect these sums of damages may have – not only on the defendant newspaper and journalist in the case at hand but other media outlets in general (AG Opinion, paras. 161-171). The decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) will be of particular topical interest not least in light of the EU’s efforts to combat so-called “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation” (SLAPPs) within the EU in which typically financially potent plaintiffs initiate unfounded claims for excessive sums of damages against public watchdogs (see COM(2022) 177 final).

The Facts of the Case and Procedural History

Soccer clubs Real Madrid and FC Barcelona, two unlikely friends, suffered the same fate when both became the targets of negative reporting: The French newspaper Le Monde in a piece titled “Doping: First cycling, now soccer” had covered a story alleging that the soccer clubs had retained the services of a doctor linked to a blood-doping ring. Many Spanish media outlets subsequently shared the article. Le Monde later published Real Madrid’s letter of denial without further comment. Real Madrid then brought actions before Spanish courts for reputational damage against the newspaper company and the journalist who authored the article. The Spanish courts ordered the defendants to pay 390.000 euros in damages to Real Madrid, and 33.000 euros to the member of the club’s medical team. When the creditors sought enforcement in France, the competent authorities were disputed as to whether the orders were compatible with French international public policy due to their potentially interfering with freedom of expression.

The Cour de Cassation referred the question to the CJEU with a request for a preliminary ruling under Art. 267 TFEU, submitting no less than seven questions. Conveniently, the AG summarized these questions into just one, namely essentially: whether Art. 45(1) read in conjunction with Arts. 34 Nr. 1 and 45(2) Brussels I Regulation and Art. 11 CFR are to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may refuse to enforce another Member State’s judgment against a newspaper company and a journalist based on the grounds that it would lead to a manifest infringement of the freedom of expression as guaranteed by Art. 11 CFR.

Discussion

The case raises a considerable diversity of issues, ranging from the relationship between the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the CFR, and the Brussels I Regulation, to public policy, and the prohibition of révision au fond. I will focus on whether and if so, under what circumstances, a breach of freedom of expression under Art. 11 CFR may lead to a public policy violation in the enforcing state if damages against a newspaper company and a journalist are sought.

Due to the Regulation’s objective to enable free circulation of judgments, recognition and enforcement can only be refused based on limited grounds – public policy being one of them. Against this high standard (see as held recently in C-590/21 Charles Taylor Adjusting, ECLI:EU:C:2023:633 para. 32), AG Szpunar submits first (while slightly circular in reasoning) that in light of the importance of the press in a democracy, the freedom of the press as guaranteed by Art. 11 CFR constitutes a fundamental principle in the EU legal order worthy of protection by way of public policy (AG Opinion, para. 113). The AG rests this conclusion on the methodological observation that Art. 11(2)CFR covers the freedom and plurality of the press to the same extent as Art. 10 ECHR (ECtHR, Appl. No. 38433/09 – Centro Europa and Di Stefano/Italy, para. 129).

Under the principle of mutual trust, the Regulation contains a prohibition of révision au fond, Art. 45(2) Brussels I Regulation, i.e., prevents the enforcing court from reviewing the decision as to its substance. Since the assessment of balancing the interests between the enforcement creditors and the enforcement debtors had already been carried out by the Spanish court, the AG argues that the balancing required in terms of public policy is limited to the freedom of the press against the interest in enforcing the judgment.

Since the Spanish court had ordered the defendants to pay a sum for damages it deemed to be compensatory in nature, in light of Art. 45(2) Brussels I Regulation, the enforcing court could not come to the opposing view that the damages were in fact punitive. With respect to punitive damages, the law on enforcement is more permitting in that non-compensatory damages may potentially be at variance, in particular, with the legal order of continental states (cf. Recital 32 of the Rome II Regulation). In a laudable overview of current trends in conflict of laws, taking into account Art. 10(1) of the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention, the Résolution de L’Institut de Droit International (IDI) on infringements of personality rights via the internet (which refers to the Judgments Convention), and the case law of the CJEU and the ECtHR (AG Opinion, paras. 142-158), AG Szpunar concludes that, while generally bound by the compensatory nature these damages are deemed to have, the enforcing court may only resort to public policy as regards compensatory damages in exceptional cases if further reasons in the public policy of the enforcing Member State so require.

The crux of this case lies in the fact that the damages in question could potentially have a deterring effect on the defendants and ultimately prevent them from investigating or reporting on an issue of public interest, thus hindering them from carrying out their essential work in a functioning democracy. Yet, while frequently referred to by scholars, the CJEU (see e.g., in C-590/21 Charles Taylor Adjusting, ECLI:EU:C:2023:633 para. 27), and e.g., in the preparatory work for the Anti-SLAPP Directive (see the explanatory memorandum, COM(2022) 177 final; see also Recital 11 of the Anti-SLAPP Recommendation, C(2022) 2428 final), it is unclear what a deterring effect actually consists of. Indeed, the terms “deterring effect” and “chilling effect” have been used interchangeably (AG Opinion, para. 163-166). In order to arrive at a more tangible definition, the AG makes use of the ECtHR’s case law on the deterring effect in relation to a topic of public interest. In doing so, the deterring effect is convincingly characterized both by its direct effect on the defendant newspaper company and the journalist, and the indirect effect on the freedom of information on society in the enforcing state as a whole (AG Opinion, para. 170). Furthermore, in the opinion of the AG it suffices if the enforcement is likely to have a deterring effect on press freedom in the enforcing Member State (AG Opinion, para. 170: “susceptible d’engendrer un effet dissuasif”).

As to the appropriateness of the amount of damages which could lead to a manifest breach of the freedom of the press, there is a need to differentiate: The newspaper company would be subject to a severe (and therefore disproportionate) deterring effect, if the amount of damages could jeopardize its economic basis. For natural persons like the journalist, damages would be disproportionate if the person would have to labor for years based on his or her or an average salary in order to pay the damages in full. It is convincing that the AG referred to the ECtHR’s case law and therefore applied a gradual assessment of the proportionality, depending on the financial circumstances of the company or the natural person. As a result, in case of a thus defined deterring effect on both the defendants and other media outlets, enforcing the decision would be at variance with public policy and the enforcing state would have to refuse enforcement in light of the manifest breach of Art. 11 CFR (AG Opinion, para. 191).

Conclusion

The case will bring more clarity on public policy in relation to freedom of expression and the press. It is worth highlighting that the AG relies heavily on principles as established by the ECtHR. This exhibits a desirable level of cooperation between the courts, while showing sufficient deference to the ECtHR’s competence when needed (see e.g., AG Opinion, para. 173). These joint efforts to elaborate on criteria such as “public participation” or issues of “public interest” – which will soon become more relevant if the Anti-SLAPP Directive employs these terms –, will help bring legal certainty when interpreting these (otherwise partially ambiguous) terms. It remains to be seen whether the CJEU will adopt the AG’s position. This is recommended in view of the deterrent effect of the claims for damages in dispute – not only on the defendants, but society at large.

Litigating in England is expensive. That is why the number of international family law cases is relatively small in this country. However, when an international family law dispute does end up before an English court, it tends to involve very wealthy individuals and can be quite spectacular. One such case is Potanina v Potanin, which concerns a maintenance claim brought by Natalia Potanina against her ex-husband, Vladimir Potanin, “Russia’s richest man” according to Bloomberg.

On 31 January 2024, the UK Supreme Court (Lord Leggatt, Lord Lloyd-Jones and Lady Rose; Lord Briggs and Lord Stephens dissenting) gave a judgment in this case, essentially removing an obscure procedure that had previously precluded respondents from properly arguing their case at the initial stage of deciding whether the applicant should be permitted to make an application for financial relief.

Facts

The parties were born in Russia and are both Russian citizens. They married in Russia in 1983 and lived there throughout their marriage. In the 1990s, the husband accumulated vast wealth, estimated to amount to USD20 billion, primarily comprising an ultimate beneficial interest in the shares of a Russian metal and mining company. The parties divorced in 2014, prompting extensive litigation in Russia, the USA and Cyprus, in which the wife unsuccessfully sought to obtain half of the assets beneficially owned by the husband. Following the divorce, the wife relocated to London, becoming habitually resident in England in 2017. In 2018, she applied for permission to seek maintenance.

Legal Framework

Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 gives English courts the power to order financial relief after an overseas divorce. The court has jurisdiction to do so if either party was habitually resident in England throughout the period of one year before the commencement of proceedings or before the overseas divorce. Before making an order for financial relief, the court must consider whether it would be appropriate for an English court to do so, taking account various factors such as the parties’ connections with England, the country in which they were divorced and any other country. If the court is satisfied that it would be appropriate for it to make an order for financial relief, it has the power to make any order it could make in cases of divorce in England. Section 13 of the Act protects respondents by providing that no application under Part III may be made without the court’s permission, obtained in accordance with rules of court. The court may only grant permission if it considers that there is a “substantial ground” for making an application for financial relief.

Issue

The judge initially granted permission at a without notice (previously called ex parte) hearing. However, the judge subsequently allowed the husband’s application to set aside the order granting permission on the basis that he had been materially misled. The Court of Appeal allowed the wife’s appeal adopting a strict test for when the power to set aside an order granting permission could be exercised: there had to be some “compelling reason” to do so and in practice only where a decisive authority had been overlooked or the court had been misled; furthermore, it had to be be possible to demonstrate such a compelling reason by a “knockout blow”. This test was derived from Lord Collins’s obiter dictum at [33] of Agbaje v Agbaje.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that “If this is indeed how the law presently stands, then I would feel bound to say that, in the eloquent words of Mr Bumble, “the law is an ass.” [30].

This is because the test for when the power to set aside an order granting permission could be exercised violated fundamental principles of procedural fairness. If the husband could not demonstrate by a “knockout blow” that the judge had been misled at the initial without notice hearing, the judge was not entitled to hear any argument from the husband regarding whether the test for granting permission under Section 13 was met or to set aside the permission granted after the without notice hearing. In Potanina, this led to what the court described as a “dystopian” [5], “patently unfair” [31] and “foolish” [32] result that the judge’s initial order granting permission was restored, despite the judge’s later conclusion, after hearing argument from both parties, that the test for granting permission had not been met.

The Supreme Court clarified that there was no requirement to demonstrate a “compelling reason” or that the court had been misled or to deliver a “knockout blow”.

The correct position is that if a court makes an order granting permission under Section 13 after a without notice hearing, the respondent has an absolute unfettered right to apply to set aside the order. At the hearing of such an application, the burden still lies on the applicant to demonstrate a “substantial ground” for making the application for financial relief in England. In this context, the word “substantial” means “solid”.

Because of its conclusion that the judge had not been entitled to reconsider his initial decision, the Court of Appeal failed to address certain grounds of appeal raised by the wife, including the question of applicability and effect of the Maintenance Regulation No 4/2009. As a result, the case was remitted to the Court of Appeal.

Comment

Wealthy individuals like Mrs Potanina bring maintenance claims in England because English courts may be more inclined than those of other countries to equally divide the assets, including those beneficially owned by the spouses. Before the Supreme Court judgment, obtaining permission to seek financial relief was relatively easy, as the initial order granting permission was typically granted without notice and the strict test for setting it aside was usually not met. However, the Supreme Court has now decided that this test was wrong in law. The court addressed a procedural issue, not the merits of the claim, in its judgment. While the judgment cannot put an end to “divorce tourism” in England on its own, it will lead to future cases facing greater scrutiny, allowing respondents to properly argue their case at the initial stage of deciding whether the applicant should be permitted to make an application for financial relief.

Over the past two decades, various jurisdictions around the world have created new specialised domestic courts to resolve international commercial disputes. Located in the Gulf region (Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Qatar), in Asia (Singapore, China, Kazakhstan) and in Europe (Germany, France, the Netherlands), these courts enrich the current landscape of the resolution of international commercial disputes. In particular, they present themselves as alternatives to litigation before ordinary courts, on the one hand, and to international commercial arbitration on the other. 

In a recently published book – edited by Man Yip from Singapore Management University and me – we study international commercial courts from a comparative perspective and through various strands of inquiry. First, we offer a detailed analysis of the reasons for the creation of these courts and examine their jurisdictional, institutional and procedural features. Second, we scrutinise the motivations and/or constraints of jurisdictions that have decided against launching their own versions of ‘international commercial courts’. Finally, and most crucially, we systematically review the impact and the success of these courts addressing questions such as: what are the metrics of success, and is success wholly dependent on size of the docket? What role do the courts play in international commercial dispute resolution? What contributions can we expect from them in the future? Are these courts necessary? In addressing these questions, we hope that the book advances our understanding of the role of international commercial courts in the resolution of cross-border disputes.

The book is the result of comparative study prepared for the General Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law that was held in 2022 in Asunción (Paraguay). It contains 21 national and special reports written by a stellar group of authors:

• Martin Bernet (Bernet Arbitration/ Dispute Management, Switzerland)
• Pamela Bookman (Fordham University, United States)
• Michael Byrne (Dubai International Financial Centre Courts, Dubai),
• Tatiana Cardoso Squeff (Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil)
• Gustavo Cerqueira (University of Côte d’Azur, France)
• Edyta Figura-Góralczyk (Cracow University of Economics, Poland),
• David Foxton (High Court of England and Wales, United Kingdom),
• Hoang Thao Anh (University of Law, Hue University, Vietnam),
• Zhengxin Huo (China University of Political Science and Law, People’s Republic of China)
• Saloni Khanderia (OP Jindal Global University, India)
• Kwan Ho Lau (Singapore Management University, Singapore),
• Seipati Lepele (University of Pretoria, South Africa)
• Claudia Lima Marques (Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil)
• Chien-Chung Lin (National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taiwan)
• Michele Angelo Lupoi (University of Bologna, Italy)
• María Blanca Noodt Taquela (University of Buenos Aires, Argentina),
• Peter Nørgaard (Danish Ministry of Justice, Denmark)
• Maria Panezi (University of New Brunswick, Canada)
• Thomas Riehm (University of Passau, Germany)
• Clement Salung Petersen (University of Copenhagen, Denmark),
• Elsabe Schoeman (University of Pretoria, South Africa)
• Florian Scholz-Berger (University of Vienna, Austria)
• S.I. Strong (Emory University, United States)
• Willem Theus (KU Leuven and UCLouvain, Belgium)
• Quirin Thomas (University of Passau, Germany)
• Geert Van Calster (KU Leuven, Belgium)
• Vu Thi Huong (University of Law, Hue University, Vietnam)
• Marlene Wethmar-Lemmer (University of South Africa)

More information about the book is available here.

From 8 to 10 May, the University of Zagreb, Croatia, is hosting a conference on Cross-Border Dispute Resolution, organized by Dora Zgrabljic Rotar in cooperation with the Universities of Verona, Italy, and Pittsburgh, USA. The conference will take place in Dubrovnik and is primarily aimed at practising lawyers.

More information can be found on the conference flyer.

Bytedance / Commission
Règlement sur les marchés numériques : la demande de ByteDance (TikTok) de suspendre la décision de la Commission la désignant comme contrôleur d'accès est rejetée

I realise Lent has not even kicked off (it does next Wednesday, Valentine’s day) yet the judicial year already has seen a miraculous resurrection. In Skatteforvaltningen v MCML Ltd [2024] EWHC 148 (Comm) (MCML are formerly known as ED&F Man Capital Markets) SKAT did exactly what I suggested they do namely to amend their claim against these defendants to one for deceit.

(I dare say the did not do it upon the blog’s instruction; otherwise a charitable donation might be in order; note here btw for my review of the UKSC judgment in same.)

As Bright J summarises [5], SKAT’s claims at the start of current proceedings were advanced on the basis that the defendants had acted fraudulently. Such claims were, in general (and along with other causes of action), for the tort of deceit. However, in relation to ED&F Man, SKAT did not allege fraud/deceit but only negligent misrepresentation.

[7] On 5 December 2022, SKAT issued fresh proceedings in which ED&F Man was the sole Defendant. SKAT now alleged that ED&F Man knew that the representations in the Tax Vouchers were false or was reckless. SKAT’s claim in these fresh proceedings is for deceit, just as the initial claim against the other defendants which unlike that against ED&F Man, did survive Dicey Rule 3 /the foreign revenue rule.

In my review of the Court of Appeal judgment, under the title “Skat v Solo Capital Partners. When faced with Dicey rule 3, I’ll see your tax claim and raise it to a fraud one.”, I concluded

The title of this piece of course hints at the relevance of claim formulation. It is also exaggerated: SKAT cannot conjure up fraud elements out of nowhere to reinvent a tax claim as one in mere tortious and fraudulent misrepresentation. However it is clear that in cases that are somewhat murky, claim formulation will be crucial to navigate Dicey Rule 3.

I did not suggest that such claim reformulation ought to be tried in the current case for, well, SKAT it would have seemed have spent their powder. Yet this is exactly what SKAT now have done (and given the size of the claim, who can blame them for trying). Yet prima facie the hurdles for such new attempt seem quite formidable:

[33] ff issue estoppel: the arguable identical issue being tried formulated [43]  by defendant’s counsel as “… whether SKAT’s claims for compensation for making tax refunds it was not obliged to make was a foreign revenue claim for the purpose of Dicey Rule 3, now Dicey Rule 20.” That the claim is now in deceit and not negligence arguably does not change that (in light of claimant being the same, and having their cake and eating it).

The judge sees that differently: [48]: “mere similarity and/or a possible inference or deduction is not sufficient to bring into play the doctrine of issue estoppel.”

[50] Henderson v Henderson abuse of process: the fraud claim if it was to be brought at all, could and should have been brought earlier. The discussion on this is lengthy. For their to be abuse, it is necessary both (a) that the claimant could have raised the matter in the earlier proceedings and (b) that the claimant should have done so. A claimant is not lightly to be deprived of the possibility of a genuine claim. Some kind of harassment or serious prejudice is required, and the judge did not find that infringement of the Aldi joinder rule suffices.

The judge adds

1. 1. 1. In reaching this conclusion, I principally have in mind that the court must be cautious about shutting litigants out of their right to justice. The need for caution features prominently in several of the authorities in this area (see paragraph 55 above), and is also required by article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
      2. However, it also seems to me relevant that the case SKAT wishes to bring is one of fraud. The general interests of justice, and the wider interests of society as a whole, are not well served if serious financial fraud is not brought to light. If fraud has been committed, the fraudsters should be exposed.

These latter comments of course do not displace the more detailed analysis of the authorities in the previous paras.

The judge refused permission to appeal which the defendants may of course still seek direct from the Court of Appeal. I would have thought there are some unresolved issues of law at stake here.

Geert.

Surprising resurrection of claim earlier dismissed on jurisdictional grounds
New, requalified claim survives estoppel, Aldi, Henderson v Henderson arguments
Background https://t.co/B5DeTbSxqw

Skatteforvaltningen v MCML Ltd [2024] EWHC 148 (Comm)https://t.co/LPY8pd3wzt

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) February 2, 2024

 

The latest issue of Lex & Forum, the Greek law review on Private International Law, has been published recently. Paris Arvanitakis, the scientific director of the review, has prepared the following editorial:

Private International Law is fundamental in resolving environmental claims that cross national borders, offering vital legal mechanisms for determining jurisdiction, applicable law, and the recognition and enforcement of judgments. This relationship is particularly significant in an increasingly interconnected world, where environmental issues often transcend geographical boundaries, necessitating a cohesive and robust legal approach to address and resolve such multi-faced transnational disputes effectively. These complicated problems, which constitute the main body of the present issue (Focus), were discussed at a workshop, organized by Lex & Forum on 21.9.2023, chaired and introduced (‘Private international law and environmental disputes’) by Professor at the University of Athens and Director of the Hellenic Institute of International and Foreign Law Mr. Mr. Charis Pamboukis, where presentations were made on ‘Climate justice litigation and private international law’, by Mr. Geert Van Calster , Professor at the Catholic University of Leuven, ‘Collective redress in environmental matters’,  by Lecturer at the University of Malta, Mr. Ioannis Revolidis, ‘Climate litigation: procedural issues’, by Assoc. Professor at the International Hellenic University and member of the the Regulatory Authority for Energy, Mr. Komninos Komnios, ‘Environmental claims in cross-border insolvency’, by Professor at the University of Athens, Ms. Elina Moustaira,  and ‘The impact of third party funding in climate change arbitration: a potential game-changer or too much ado for nothing?’ Ms. by Vasiliki Marazopoulou, Dr.Jur.

Τhis issue includes the Preafatio by Mr. Gilles Cuniberti, Professor at the University of Luxembourg and President of EAPIL, on ‘Mutual Trust Excludes Damages for Suing in other Member States in Breach of Jurisdiction Clause’, which refers to the judgment of the CJEU in the Charles Taylor Adjusting decision case, published also here (commented by Dr. jur. K. Voulgarakis, and Dr. jur. S. Karameros).  The case law section also presents the judgments of the CJEU, 30.3.2023, C-34/21, on the non-infringement of personal data through teaching by videoconferencing due to COVID-19 without the consent of teachers (commented by Dr. jur. R. Tsersidou), CJEU, 30.3.2023, M.Y.M., on the possibility of registering a declaration of renunciation of inheritance in a Bulgarian court before the Registrar of the Athens Magistrate’s Court (commented by Dr. jur. N. Zaprianos), the decision of the Austrian Supreme Court of Cassation, 25.2.2021, on the non-violation of public policy when applying a foreign law of succession that does not provide for a reserved portion on legal succession (commented by Dr. jur. N. Zaprianos), and the domestic decisions Court of Appeal Piraeus 682/2022 on international jurisdiction by joinder of parties of companies that have signed successive shipping contracts (commented by Prof. P. Arvanitakis), and Court of First Instance Athens 922/203 on international jurisdiction and applicable law over the submission of a mentally disabled person under guardianship (commented by Ass. Prof. G.-A. Georgiadis). The issue closes with a special feature on “EU & Global Trade Law”, which features the studies of Professor at Columbia University, Mr. Petros Mavroidis, on “The WTO at Crossroads”, and Professors at the Universities of Gedik/Turkey and Rouen, respectively, K. Bozkurt and Ph. Lombaerde, on “The Cause and Consequences of the Hybrid EU-Turkey Trade Regime”.

Lex & Forum renews its scientific appointment with its readers for the next, 12th issue, with the central theme “Cross-border insolvency”.

Au regard de sa jurisprudence bien établie en la matière, la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne considère qu’une décision de classement sans suite prise par le parquet à la suite d’une appréciation « légère » des faits ne peut pas être considérée comme un acquittement définitif au sens de l’article 50 de la Charte des droits fondamentaux. Dès lors, le principe ne bis in idem ne trouvait pas à s’appliquer. 

Sur la boutique Dalloz Le guide pénal - Le guide des infractions 2024 Voir la boutique Dalloz

en lire plus

First Advocate General Szpunar today opined in C‑633/22 Real Madrid Club  de Fútbol, AE v EE, Société Éditrice du Monde SA. The case was triggeredy a Le Monde article which claimed that Real Madrid Club de Fútbol had retained the services of Dr. Fuentès, the head of a blood-doping ring previously uncovered in the cycling world.

Le Monde later published Madrid’s reaction of denial but refused to retract the piece. Spanish courts imposed a damages and costs award of close to  €400,000, and a lower award on the journalists involved.

The Court of Appeal at Paris refused to recognise let alone enforce the judgment, referring to French ordre public. It concluded that the orders to pay an exceptional amount made against a journalist and a media organisation could not fail to have a deterrent effect on their involvement in the public discussion of matters of community interest such as to curtail the media’s ability to perform its information and monitoring role, meaning that the recognition or enforcement of the judgments pronouncing those penalties would be at variance to an unacceptable degree with French international public policy by interfering with freedom of expression.

Real Madrid submit, in essence, that a review of the proportionality of damages may only be undertaken where those damages are punitive in nature and not compensatory; that, by substituting its own assessment of the harm for that of the court of origin, the Court of Appeal had reviewed the foreign judgment, in breach of Articles 34(1) and 36 of the Brussels I Regulation; that it did not take account of the seriousness of the wrongs accepted by the Spanish court; that the economic situation of persons on whom a financial penalty is imposed is not a relevant criterion in assessing whether the penalty was disproportionate; that the assessment of proportionality should not be carried out by reference to national standards.

Colleagues with much greater authority on SLAPPs will no doubt have more impactful analysis soon: this post is a heads-up.

CJEU authority includes of course Krombach, Trade Agency, Meroni and Diageo, as well as Charles Taylor Adjusting aka Starlight Shipping, EcoSwiss and Renault. The AG (50) points out that the relevant authorities hitherto have engaged with procedural law ordre public exceptions, rather than substantive rules such as here fundamental rights.

(48) ff he discusses parties’ right under Article 6 ECHR and 47 of the Charter, to have a judgment enforced abroad. (60) ff follows discussion of the principle of mutual trust (which earlier today also featured in Inkreal).

(77) ff he discusses the authorities (see both blog posts referred to above and Handbook 4th ed. 2.619 ff) and highlights the existence of freedom of expression as a fundamental EU, as opposed ‘simply’ national right within the realm of EU ordre public. (142) ff discusses the issue of punitive awards and (159) ff the freezing effect of awards such as the one at issue. He comes to the conclusion that refusal of recognition not just can but must happen where the freezing effect of a libel award endangers participation in the public debate, linked to the financial absorption capacity of both the outlet and journalist concerned:

“un État membre dans lequel est demandée l’exécution d’une décision rendue dans un autre État membre, portant sur une condamnation d’une société éditrice d’un journal et d’un journaliste pour l’atteinte à la réputation d’un club sportif et d’un membre de son équipe médicale par une information publiée dans ce journal, doit refuser ou révoquer une déclaration constatant la force exécutoire de cette décision lorsque l’exécution de celle-ci conduirait à une violation manifeste de la liberté d’expression garantie à l’article 11 de la charte des droits fondamentaux.” (emphasis added)

“Une telle violation existe lorsque l’exécution de ladite décision engendre un effet dissuasif potentiel s’agissant de la participation au débat sur un sujet d’intérêt général tant des personnes visées par la condamnation que d’autres sociétés de presse et journalistes dans l’État membre requis. Un tel effet dissuasif potentiel se manifeste lorsque la somme globale dont le paiement est demandé est manifestement déraisonnable au regard de la nature et de la situation économique de la personne concernée. Dans le cas d’un journaliste, l’effet dissuasif potentiel se présente, en particulier, lorsque cette somme correspond à plusieurs dizaines de salaires minimums standard dans l’État membre requis. Dans le cas d’une société éditrice d’un journal, l’effet dissuasif potentiel doit s’entendre comme une mise en danger manifeste de l’équilibre financier de ce journal. Le juge de l’État membre requis peut tenir compte de la gravité de la faute et de l’étendue du préjudice uniquement pour déterminer si, en dépit du caractère a priori manifestement déraisonnable de la somme globale d’une condamnation, celle-ci est appropriée pour contrecarrer les effets des propos diffamatoires.”

Of much note in the context of the EU’s discussions on a SLAPP Directive.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed, 2024, 2.619 ff.

Opinion now here https://t.co/jRgZ6ej23U
citing ia @ProfPech, @CunibertiGilles, @burkhard_hess, @Maxime_Barba https://t.co/KJgqOtk80R

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) February 8, 2024

As I had half hoped, half predicted, the CJEU today held differently than its AG had opined in C‑566/22 Inkreal aka Inkreal s. r.  v Dúha reality s. r. o..: 

an agreement conferring jurisdiction by which the parties to a contract who are established in the same Member State agree on the jurisdiction of the courts of another Member State to settle disputes arising out of that contract is covered under Article 25 Brussels Ia, even if that contract has no other connection with that other Member State.

The Court cites in support:

[15] ff: statutory wording: [17]: “the wording of [A25(1)] does not preclude an agreement conferring jurisdiction, by which the parties to a contract who are established in the same Member State agree on the jurisdiction of the courts of another Member State to settle disputes arising out of that contract, from being covered under that provision, even if that contract has no other connection with that other Member State.”

[18] ff: context: ‘civil matters having cross-border implications’ (recital 3) and ‘cross-border litigation’ (recital 26) are mentioned yet the ‘international element’ required is not defined. As the CJEU had already held in C-280/20, ZN v Generalno konsulstvo na Republika Bulgaria v grad Valensia, Kralstvo Ispania [the Bulgarian consulate], an equivalent concept must be used as in the order for payments Regulation. That defines the equivalent concept of ‘cross-border litigation’ as ‘one in which at least one of the parties is domiciled or habitually resident in a Member State other than the Member State of the court seised’. In current case [23] the parties to that dispute are established in a Member State other than the Member State of the court which was seised on the basis of the agreement conferring jurisdiction at issue. Moreover, [24] a question relating to the determination of international jurisdiction clearly arises in the case, more specifically whether the courts having jurisdiction to settle this dispute are those of the Czech Republic, or those of the Slovak Republic as the Member State in which the two parties are established.

Further, [26], the interpretation of A25 must also be carried out in the light of the objectives of respecting the autonomy of the parties and enhancing the effectiveness of exclusive choice-of-court agreements, as referred to in recitals 15, 19 and 22 BIa.

Moreover, [27] ff, both predictability and legal certainty, core BIa objectives, are served by the inclusion of choice of court such as in the case at issue. [29] jurisdiction can readily be considered and [30] the possibility of concurrent proceedings is minimised. [31] should choice of court in these circumstances not be valid, BIa is likely not to apply and the application of residual national PIL is likely to lead to conflicting decisions. [32] ff for courts to have to consider additional elements capable of demonstrating the cross-border impact of the dispute concerned, would create uncertainty rather than remedy it.

[35] application of BIa here also demonstrates mutual trust and increased access to justice.

Finally [36] a parallel with the Hague Choice of Court Convention clearly was not sought, quite the contrary, BIa expressly not including a similar provision illistrates its diverging intention.

An excellent judgment echoing many of my earlier expressed sentiments on the issue and arguments.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed. 2024, 2.30.

In line with my expectation (see https://t.co/rIoSYfk1qS), the CJEU has not followed its AG on the 'international' element required to enable choice of (foreign) court under A25 Brussels Ia
C-566/22 Inkreal https://t.co/k94JgtdT2G

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) February 8, 2024

 

The Rovira i Virgili University of Tarragona will host on 4 and 5 April 2024 a conference titled Conflict of Laws on Rights in Rem in the EU: Status Quo and Proposals for the Future.

The event is part of a research project titled Regime of Rights in Rem over Tangible Property in European Private International Law: Issues of International Jurisdiction and Applicable Law, with Georgina Garriga Suau and Maria Font i Mas as principal investigators.

The conference will feature five panels.

The first four, in English, will be respectively devoted to: Private international law of rights in rem in the U.S. and the European Union (with Christofer A. Whytock and Marta Pertegás Sender as speakers); Proposals for an EU Regulation on applicable law in the field of rights in rem (Francisco J. Garcimartín Alférez and Eva-Maria Kieninger); Questions on the law applicable to rights in rem (Gilles Cuniberti, Afonso Patrâo, Pietro Franzina and Ivana Kunda); Challenges of the rights in rem in the digital era (Ilaria Pretelli, Silvana Canales Gutiérrez and Guillermo Palao Moreno).

The fifth panel, in Spanish, will address a selection of issues relating to cryptoassets, goods in transit and in rem securities in connection with cross-border insolvency proceedings, land registries and cultural property, the speakers being Vésela Andreeva, Josep Maria Fontanellas Morell, Iván Heredia Cervantes, Carmen Parra Rodríguez and Rosa Miquel Sala. The full programe van be found here.

The organisers of the conference have issued a call for presentations on any of the thematic areas covered by the panels. Speakers selected based on the call will be invited to make presentations in person during the conference for approximately ten minutes each. The deadline for submission of communications is open until 4 March 2024. Further information is available here.

Those interested in attending the conference are invited to register by e-mail at pilrightsinrem@urv.cat, specifying whether they plan to attend in person or on-line.

Real Madrid Club de Fútbol
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Premier avocat général Szpunar : la violation manifeste de la liberté d’expression peut constituer un motif de refus de l’exequatur

Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Recevabilité d’une demande ultérieure)
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Un arrêt de la Cour de justice peut constituer un élément nouveau justifiant un nouvel examen au fond de la demande d’asile

On 8 and 9 March 2024 a conference will be held at the University of Augsburg, organized by Tobias Lutzi, to discuss current developments in connection with punitive damages.

In particular, the event aims to critically discuss whether and to what extent the German courts‘ strict refusal to recognize foreign punitive damage awards is still tenable in light of developments both in legal systems that award punitive damages and in legal systems that do not (but may still recognize such awards).

Speakers include Tobias Lutzi, Lukas Rademacher, Jan Lüttringhaus, Phillip Hellwege, Catherine Sharkey, Rachael Mulheron, Eleni Katsampouka, Cedric Vanleenhove, Marko Jovanovic, Leonhard Hübner, André Janssen, Beligh Elbalti, Johannes Ungerer, Wolfgang Wurmnest, Samuel Fulli-Lemaire, Marta Requejo Isidro, Caterina Benini and Min Kyung Kim.

The full programme is available here.

Registration is possible via this link; attendance is free of charge.

Those interested in attending the conference on-line may get in touch with the organisers (tobias.lutzi@jura.uni-augsburg.de) and ask for a video-link.

Au regard de l’importance cruciale de la procédure pour la personne l’ayant initiée, une durée de plus de onze ans pour que soit reconnu le bien-fondé de sa demande en indemnisation après qu’elle a été contaminée par le virus de l’hépatite C est excessive et méconnaît le droit à un délai raisonnable, garanti par l’article 6 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme. 

en lire plus

It has already been announced on this blog that the next EAPIL conference will take place in Wrocław (Poland) between 6 and 8 June 2024, and will be devoted to Private International Law and Global Crises.

Those willing to join the conference may now register for the event through the dedicated conference website. Please note attendance is in person (on-site) only.

The full programme of the conference, together with practical information on travel and accommodation, are also found in the website.

Huge thanks to Agnieszka Frąckowiak-Adamska, Vice-President of the European Association of Private International Law, and her team, for taking care of the event!

The conference speakers include: Raffaele Sabato (European Court of Human Rights), Vincent Kronenberger (Court of Justice of the European Union), Andreas Stein (European Commission), Patrick Kinsch (University of Luxembourg), Veronica Ruiz Abou-Nigm (University of Edinburgh), Iryna Dikovska (Taras Shevchenko National University Kyiv), Tamasz Szabados (ELTE Eötvös Loránd University), Alex Mills (University College London), Matthias Weller (University of Bonn), Eduardo Alvarez Armas (Universidad Pontificia Comillas), Olivera Boskovic (Université Paris Cité), Rui Dias (University of Coimbra), Klaas Eller (University of Amsterdam), and Laura Carpaneto (University of Genova).

For further information: 2024.EAPIL.Wroclaw@uwr.edu.pl.

Ryanair / Commission (KLM II ; COVID-19)
Aide d'État
Aide d’État dans le contexte de la pandémie de Covid-19 : le Tribunal annule l’approbation d’une aide d’État des Pays-Bas s’élevant à 3,4 milliards d’euros en faveur de KLM

Geert De Baere (judge at the General Court of the EU and professor at KU Leuven) and Johan Meeusen (professor at the University of Antwerp) have just published with Larcier-Intersentia a new edition of their handbook, in Dutch, on the law of the European Union: Grondbeginselen van het recht van de Europese Unie.

The book provides an overview of the core elements of EU law, including the Union’s institutional organization and judicial protection, its fundamental principles, sources and decision-making procedures, the internal market, Union citizenship, competition law and external relations.

New in this second edition is a chapter on the European Union’s area of freedom, security and justice, which inter alia covers its historical development, the TFEU’s “general provisions” concerning the area and the specific Treaty provisions concerning its respective subfields. Readers are introduced to, inter alia, the institutional and substantive aspects of the judicial cooperation in civil matters and the Union’s action with respect to private international law.

Further information on the book, and on the simultaneous publication of new editions of Johan Meeusen’s books on the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and other sources of EU law, can be found here.