Feed aggregator

In [2018] EWHC 662 (Comm) Banca Turco Romana, Popplewell J explained his reasons for discontinuing ex parte freezing orders, with reference among others to C-391/95 Van Uden. At 22-23 he discusses the not entirely clear application of the jurisdictional rules of Brussels I, which indicated that that Regulation was engaged either via Article 2 (now 4: domicile in Romania) or 4 (now 6): residual Member State (here: Romanian) jurisdictional rules, which go on to be sheltered under the Brussels I Regulation.

At 20 he refers to the earlier case of ICICI Bank UK plc v Diminco NV [2014] EWHC 3124 (Comm) in which he summarised the English Courts’ requirements for the issuing of ex parte freezing orders where the defendant is neither resident within the jurisdiction nor someone over whom the court has or would assume in personam jurisdiction for some other reason:

‘the court will only grant a freezing order extending to foreign assets in exceptional circumstances. It is likely to be necessary for the applicant to establish at least three things:

(a)        that there is a real connecting link between the subject matter of the measure sought and the territorial jurisdiction of the English court in the sense referred to in Van Uden;

(b)        that the case is one where it is appropriate within the limits of comity for the English court to act as an international policeman in relation to assets abroad; and that will not be appropriate unless it is practical for an order to be made and unless the order can be enforced in practice if it is disobeyed; the court will not make an order even within the limits of comity if there is no effective sanction which it could apply if the order were disobeyed, as will often be the case if the defendant has no presence within the jurisdiction and is not subject to the in personam of the English court;

(c)        it is just and expedient to grant worldwide relief, taking into account the discretionary factors identified at paragraph 115 of the Motorola case. They are (i) whether the making of the order will interfere with the management of the case in the primary court, e.g. where the order is inconsistent with an order in the primary court or overlaps with it; (ii) whether it is the policy in the primary jurisdiction not itself to make to make worldwide freezing/disclosure orders; (iii) whether there is a danger that the orders made will give rise to disharmony or confusion and/or risk of conflicting, inconsistent or overlapping orders in other jurisdictions, in particular the courts of the state where the person enjoined resides or where the assets affected are located; (iv) whether at the time the order is sought there is likely to be a potential conflict as to jurisdiction rendering it inappropriate and inexpedient to make a worldwide order; and (v) whether in a case where jurisdiction is resisted and disobedience may be expected  the court will be making an order which it cannot enforce.”

In Banca Turco discontinuation was ultimately mostly based not on any slip-up of jurisdictional basis, but rather on the absence of full disclosure by the requesting party: at 45: ‘The importance of the duty of disclosure has often been emphasised.  It is the necessary corollary of the court being prepared to depart from the principle that it will hear both sides before reaching a decision, which is a basic principle of fairness.  Derogation from that basic principle is an exceptional course adopted in cases of extreme urgency or the need for secrecy.  If the court is to adopt that procedure where justice so requires, it must be able to rely on the party who appears alone to present the evidence and argument in a way which is not merely designed to promote its own interests, but in a fair and even-handed manner, drawing attention to evidence and arguments which it can reasonably anticipate the absent party would wish to make.  It is a duty owed to the court which exists in order to ensure the integrity of the court’s process.  The sanction available to the court to preserve that integrity is not only to deprive the applicant of any advantage gained by the order, but also to refuse to renew it.’

Geert.

The Law Department of the University of Verona (Italy), in cooperation with the Ph.D. School of Law and Economics and the European Documentation Centre, welcomes submission to the #TILT Young Academics Colloquium, to be held on 23-24 May 2019. It is the first meeting involving early career scholars on trending international and EU law topics to be organised in the unique location of the city of Verona.

The Colloquium falls within the activities of the research project “Trending International Law Topics – #TILT”, supervised by Maria Caterina Baruffi (Full Professor of International Law, University of Verona), which is aimed at deepening the investigation and fostering scientific discussion on trending topics in international and EU law, including also their impact on domestic legal systems. A series of seminars featuring prominent foreign academics and other events have already been organised so far, focusing for example on the relationships between the EU and national legal orders, migration, the EU Regulations in family law matters, the free movement of persons and the protection of fundamental rights.

In this context, the Colloquium represents a further activity dedicated to open issues in international and EU law, but specifically addressed to Ph.D. students and young researchers of any nationality and affiliation, who will be the leading speakers at this event. First, they are expected to present the results of their research, and then, to engage in the debate with the invited international experts acting as chairpersons and discussants.

The Call for Papers “What’s #Trending in International and EU Law” has been issued to select the papers that will be included in the Colloquium’s program. It is directed at advanced Ph.D. students (or within three years of its completion), post-doc research fellows and academics at early stages of their career, who are encouraged to submit proposals (in English) concerning public international law, private and procedural international law, or EU law, including also comparative perspectives, as well as issues related to law and economics.

Interested applicants are invited to submit:

• a proposed title,
• an abstract in English of max. 8000 characters (including spaces),
• 3 keywords,
• a CV

through the Call for Papers Application Form.

The deadline for submission is 15 October 2018 and applicants will be informed of the outcomes by 15 December 2018.

Detailed information about the Call for Papers are available here.

Any inquiry about the #TILT Young Academics Colloquium or the Call for Papers can be directed at this e-mail: trendingtopics.univr@gmail.com.

Non lieu à renvoi

Dear LSGL members,

We are pleased to announce that there will be a winter academic conference on the topic of Global Social Justice, hosted by the Department of Law, Juridicum, at the Stockholm University, Sweden, on Tuesday, 19 February in conjunction with the Dean’s meeting planned for 18 February, 2019. We ask that you send the attached call for papers to any senior and/or junior researchers at your institutions who may be interested in participating on a panel within the topic. Potential themes include:

• The globalization of discrimination protections (e.g., labour/employment discrimination; gender-based discrimination including issues relating to the #MeToo movement)
• Equality in global trade – the roles of the WTO and other international actors
• Environmental law as a guarantor of global social justice
• Corporate social responsibility – An avenue to greater global justice?
• The potential role of digital technology in promoting global social justice

We anticipate having four panels each with three speakers and a moderator, thus accepting 12 papers. The LSGL will pay for two hotel nights for each one of the 12 speakers.
Paper proposals of 300 to 500 words should be submitted no later than 6 October 2018 together with a brief CV. Decisions will be announced by 1 November 2018 and the papers should be ready for circulation no later than 1 February 2019. Please send any inquiries and paper proposals to presidency@lawschoolsgloballeague.com.

Gustavo Moser has authored a new book on choice of law in cross-border sales. He has kindly provided the following summary:

The choice of a governing contract law is a paramount contractual decision. This is because the governing contract law will dictate a contract’s life from beginning to end, thereby attaching legal and economic consequences to each step taken in the course of a contractual relationship. Yet, this choice is seldom subject to an ex anteevaluation by the parties being rather often defer to an ex postverification. Would this be a contracting parties’ behaviour verified in cross-border contracts? If so, what would be the underlying cause(s) of this pattern of conduct?

Despite its acknowledged theoretical importance, it is often suggested that negotiators might dedicate less attention than they should to the particulars of the choice of law clause. Instead, negotiators tend to opt for law that may be convenient for business, or be the result of previous experiences, including, for example, following in a partner’s footsteps, or a successful deal in the past, without further deliberation. Parties may thus simply attribute a “tag” to this experience and evaluate it according to the outcomes achieved in these previous experiences. However, these evaluations may not always be accurate and can be clouded by emotion. Are there rational and non-rational elements involved in this choice? How can we ascertain these elements?

In light of this apparent discrepancy between theory and practice, we decided to investigate further how traders actually choose the law for their deals. We also wanted to find out the reasons for these decisions and the foundations on which these decisions are based. We therefore mapped out and delved into studies and surveys conducted in the past to appreciate the empirical efforts that had been undertaken so far.

Despite their unquestionable importance, scarce information is available in these studies on how this decision is taken, and the main factors informing choice of governing contract law. The alternatives available to improving and optimising this choice are likewise unexplored.

Additionally, the connection and role of law, economics and psychology in decision-making processes is often underexplored and possibly underestimated. Unfortunately, in a dynamic, globalized and complex world of contracts, interdisciplinary approaches are rarely studied. Therefore, there does not seem to be any answer to these practical questions:

• Are contracting parties maximizers of their welfare?
• Are they, generally speaking, self-interested players who seek to reach efficient results?
• Does it depend on the context and external stimuli?
• Do emotions play any role in the choice?
• Can these emotions cloud or enlighten the judgment of these choices? If so, to what extent?
• How can we avoid, control or minimize the effects of these emotional factors?
• How can parties seek to influence and improve choice of governing contract law?

This is how the Global Empirical Survey on Choice of Law (for the purposes of this summary, the Global Empirical Survey) was conceived in 2014. The survey was essentially designed to investigate parties’ concerns regarding choice of law, reveal how and what factors determine the way contracting parties choose the law to govern their agreements, and to assess whether neutral legal frameworks were welcome in addressing these concerns.

The first chapter of the book sets out evidence on the choice of law and include a focus on how negotiators typically approach the subject and what are the main drives and triggers of this decision. We further investigate whether contracting parties are aware of the vast legal market options available and whether they actually enjoy their benefits. The first part also unveil the results of the Global Empirical Survey, which shown a rather clearer picture of the imperfections produced by cognitive limitations while choosing a governing contract law. In the second and third chapters, we map out some of the market distortions and imperfections to which negotiators are (consciously or not) routinely exposed. We also reveal the common psychological triggers that influence decision-making processes and how to identify and better control them to a party’s best advantage. We further shed light on the idiosyncratic contract design and the mechanisms to manage this properly in an international context, all in an attempt to identify and use the appropriate tools to make better decisions and obtain more efficient outcomes.

Readers will subsequently be invited to consider the major market distortions and failures to which contracting parties are routinely exposed.  We demonstrate that, with the increase of market activities and complexity of deals worldwide, parties need to be equipped with the most efficient tools to maximize gains from cross-border contracts, thereby avoiding risks and costly mistakes. With this purpose in mind, we analyse choice of law studies undertaken and offer alternatives to be used in practice, which seek to overcome recurrent complaints, uncertainties and fears when it comes to choosing governing contract law, including potential interplays and intersections with jurisdictional choices. We also attempt to verify the effectiveness of these solutions in light of the evidence presented.

The final chapter of the book concentrates on alternatives to escape “arm-wrestling”, “home turf”, deadlock situations and other tactical scenarios in cross-border contracts. We present and compare alternatives which can be used in international contract settings and then test the effectiveness of the solutions they can provide, taking into account both the legal and economic aspects and contracting parties’ real-life concerns and preferences collected in the earlier chapters. Readers are invited to find out the answers to the following questions: what really matters to contracting parties when drafting choice-of-law clauses? Are there key provisions, “backbones”, legal standards or frameworks that are indeed indispensable? Do contracting parties consider legal and economic choices at all? With this in mind, we aim to offer to legal practitioners tools that enable them to excel and effectively optimise, at a rather even level between parties, the exchange of goods worldwide.

Readers can file this one under ‘exotic’. The title of this piece does not quite give it away yet: this post is a serious post on customs classification.

My wife and I have a more than average size family, ditto therefore also the family car. Our previous version was black. We had parked it a few summers ago on the village square close to the home of one of my sisters in law, a sleepy French hamlet. A local lady came up to me and asked respectfully who had passed away… She mistook our car for a hearse, leading to my brother-in-law suggesting I should put some stickers up saying ‘ceci n’est pas un corbillard’.

Now, to the serious issue: in Case C-445/17 Pilato, the Court of Justice was asked (the case was triggered by a BTI: Binding Tariff Information) how to classify a hearse under the EU’s combined nomenclature: heading 8704 (motor vehicles for the transport of goods); 8705 (special purpose motor vehicles, other than those principally designed for the transport of persons or goods (for example, breakdown lorries, crane lorries, fire fighting vehicles, concrete-mixer lorries, road sweeper lorries, spraying lorries, mobile workshops, mobile radiological units); or 8703 (Motor cars and other motor vehicles principally designed for the transport of persons (other than those of heading 8702), including station wagons and racing cars).

The Italian customs authorities have classified under 8703 – the importer is appealing, I am assuming given the higher tariff attracted by that heading. Arguments are very serious and technical, as one would expect for customs classification: details on separation racks, etc.

The Court held Wednesday last: at 25: the intended use of a product may constitute an objective criterion for classification; at 30: hearses are particularly built and equipped for the transport of coffins, which contain corpses. A human body, even lifeless, cannot be treated in the same way as goods which may be the subject, as such, of commercial transactions. Therefore, the principal use of hearses is for the transport of persons. 8703 it is (the Court gives some more reasons).

Exactly the kind of case which makes trade classes a little lighter a the right time (the best case for that, ever, involved my wife having to classify a shipment of toy replica. Details on that case I fear are strictly for students of my WTO class).

Geert.

C’est aujourd’hui la dernière édition avant une reprise, que nous espérons tonitruante, le 3 septembre.

en lire plus

The Asser Institute in The Hague (the Netherlands) is looking for a Researcher in Private International Law (full time – 38 hours per week).

The successful candidate is expected to start preferably from 1 November 2018 and will be conducting research on the Brussels I bis Regulation as part of a DG JUST research project, among other things. He or she will strengthen the research capacity of the Asser Institute in the area of private international law, working within its Research Strand on adequate dispute settlement, and in the context of the Institute’s Strategic Research Agenda.

Applications must be submitted before 7 September 2018.

Remuneration depends on the actual level of education, experience and knowledge with a maximum of € 4,852.-  gross per month based on a full time equivalent (38 hours). Secondary benefits at Dutch universities are attractive and include 8% holiday allowance and an 8.3% year-end allowance.

Applicants are expected to be fluent in Dutch (preferably native) and English. In addition, applicants should have earned a PhD in private international law and have post-doctoral research experience, among other things.

Further information is available here.

There are many scientific and legal /regulatory angles to the pollution caused by micro and nanoplastics (MNPs). I was pleased to have been invited to be part of a scoping exercise with the European Commissions Group of Chief Scientific Advisors, following which that Group issued its initial statement early July.

MNPs is an issue where the EU undoubtedly can recognise its regulatory leadership – at the same time appreciating that the challenge is of a truly global nature (many of the worst plastics pollution issues are located in river deltas way outside EU borders). At the scientific level, studies particularly in the marine environment show cause for great concern – but not necessarily easy fixes.

I accepted therefore to be part of the SAPEA Consortium (Science Advice for Policy by European Academies) Working Group on MNPs, which will oversee in first instance the collation of the state of the art: from a regulatory as well as a scientific point of view – and subject to tight deadlines.

Autumn should be interesting.

Geert.

La Cour de Luxembourg définit le champ et les effets de l’exemption de la mutagénèse de la directive 2001/18/CE dite « directive OGM », qui régit la dissémination volontaire dans l’environnement d’organismes génétiquement modifiés.

en lire plus

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'assises des Haut-de-Seine, 9 février 2018

Many thanks to Julien Juret for asking me contribute to l’Observateur de Bruxelles, the review of the French Bar representation in Brussels (la Délégation des barreaux de France). I wrote this piece on the rather problematic implications of the GDPR, the General Data Protection Regulation, on jurisdictional grounds for invasion of privacy.

I conclude that the Commission’s introduction of Article 79 GDPR without much debate or justification, will lead to a patchwork of fora for infringement of personality rights. Not only will it take a while to settle the many complex issues which arise in their precise application. Their very existence arguably will distract from harmonised compliance of the GDPR rules.

I owe Julien and his colleagues the French translation (as well as their patience in my late delivery) for I wrote the piece initially in English. Readers who would like to receive a copy of that EN original, please just send me an e-mail.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.8.2.5.

Malgré des versions très différentes, en raison de l’embolie du calendrier législatif, Assemblée et Sénat se sont accordés sur un compromis concernant le projet de loi de lutte contre les violences sexuelles et sexistes. En deça des intentions initiales du gouvernement, il contient plusieurs innovations.

en lire plus