Droit international général

Ludovic Pailler (University of Lyon 3)  has just published a monograph on respect for the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in the European judicial area in civil and commercial matters, based on his doctoral thesis: Le respect de la charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne dans l’espace judiciaire européen en matière civile et commerciale, Pedone, 2021.

The author has provided the following abstract in English:

When the Treaty of Lisbon gave the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union its legally binding force, it gave rise, in article 67, paragraph 1, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, to a legal obligation to respect fundamental rights while building the Freedom, Security and Justice Area. As this legal obligation concerns all the rules of this space, it raises questions in the European Judicial Area in civil and commercial matter where rules coordinating national legal systems are partially resistant to the influence of fundamental rights. Polysemy of the notion of respect make it possible to consider different ways for the Charter and the European Judicial Area law to interact. If the hierarchical principle seems to be the most obvious way to ensure the respect of the Charter, it transpires to be inappropriate by itself and because of the specific context fort the application of the Charter commanded by the European Judicial Area. So, it would be more convenient to substitute the hierarchical principle with a more supple way of interaction, the combination, so as to conform the studied space to the article 67, paragraph 1, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

More details are available here, including a foreword by Fabien Marchadier (University of Poitiers) and Eric Garaud (University of Limoges) and the table of contents (here).

On 12 May, 2021, Advocate General Hogan delivered his opinion in Case C‑124/20 Bank Melli Iran v. Telekom Deutschland GmbH on the interpretation of the EU blocking statute (Regulation 2271/96 of 22 November 1996 protecting against the effects of the extraterritorial application of legislation adopted by a third country).

The context of the case was the newly reinstated sanctions of the U.S. against Iran. The main issue raised in the case was that of the impact of Article 5 of the blocking statute on the right of EU businesses to terminate private contracts.

Article 5 reads:

No person referred to in Article 11 shall comply, whether directly or through a subsidiary or other intermediary person, actively or by deliberate omission, with any requirement or prohibition, including requests of foreign courts, based on or resulting, directly or indirectly, from the laws specified in the Annex or from actions based thereon or resulting therefrom.

Persons may be authorised, in accordance with the procedures provided in Articles 7 and 8, to comply fully or partially (…).

The German branch of Bank Melli Iran had entered into a framework contract with Telekom Deutschland GmbH which allowed Bank Melli to group all its company connections at various sites in Germany under one contract. In the context of this contractual relationship, Bank Melli ordered different services which formed the exclusive basis of its internal and external communication structures in Germany and were therefore indispensable to its business activities.

After the Trump administration decided that the U.S. would withdraw from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action aimed at controlling Iran’s nuclear programme and lifting economic sanctions against Iran, the U.S. reinstated sanctions against Iran in 2018.

In November 2018, ten days after the new U.S. sanctions entered into force, Telekom Deutschland GmbH terminated its contract with Bank Melli. It gave similar notice to four other German based entities with connections with Iran.

Bank Melli brought proceedings against Telekom Deutschland GmbH in a German court based on the infringement of the EU blocking statute and requesting performance of the contract.

The most far reaching proposition of A.G. Hogan is to consider that the effet utile of Article 5 of the Blocking Statute requires a redistribution of the burden of proof. He opined that private parties terminating contracts in circumstances where they might be subject to foreign sanctions should have a duty to demonstrate that they did not do so because of the said sanctions.

Article 5 would therefore establish a duty to give the reasons for terminating the contract. Article 5 would also require that the reason be precise and objective, so that it could be verified that it was not to comply with the foreign sanction legislation.

AG Hogan explained:

89. (…) it (…) follows from the uncompromising terms of the first paragraph of Article 5 of the EU blocking statute that – in principle, at least – an undertaking seeking to terminate an otherwise valid contract with an Iranian entity subject to the US sanctions must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the referring court that it did not do so by reason of its desire to comply with those sanctions.

Should the CJEU follow A.G. Hogan, a first consequence would be that persons subject to the EU regulation could not rely on their freedom of terminate contracts without giving reasons under the law governing the contract. Article 5 of the blocking statute would establish an obligation to give a reason for terminating, or refusing to enter into, a contractual relationship with a person sanctioned by the relevant foreign legislation.

A second consequence would be that contractual clauses granting broad discretion to a contractual party to terminate the contract on vague regulatory grounds would be unenforceable. A.G. Hogan explained:

In particular, in my view, a person referred to in Article 11 of that statute should not be able to invoke a termination clause for force majeure to justify the termination of the contractual relationship without at least demonstrating that the event constituting force majeure is unrelated to the US sanctions legislation listed in the annex to that statute.

Article 5 does not provide sanctions for the obligations that it establishes.

A.G. Hogan concluded that, in principle, it was for each Member State to lay down sanctions for infringements of the provision, and that their margin of discretion would be wide as far as punitive sanctions are concerned.

However, he opined that the margin of discretion of Member States would be very limited for civil sanctions, and that they would be bound to provide full effect to the provision by offering remedies which would put right-holders in the situation they would have been in in the absence of that unlawfulness.

108. Accordingly, I consider that, in the event of a breach of a provision prescribing a rule of conduct which must be complied with on a continuing basis (such as here), the national courts are required to order the infringer to put an end to the breach, on pain of a periodic penalty payment or other appropriate sanction, since only then can the continuing effects of the unlawfulness committed be brought to an end and compliance with EU law fully guaranteed.

The conclusions are long and address a number of other issues.

A.G. Hogan concluded by the following summary:

1) The first paragraph of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 … is to be interpreted as not applying only where an administrative or judicial authority of a country whose laws and regulations are listed in the annex to that regulation has addressed, directly or indirectly, some instructions to a person referred to in Article 11 of that regulation. The prohibition contained in this provision accordingly applies even in the event that an operator complies with such legislation without first having been compelled by a foreign administrative or judicial agency to do so.

2) The first paragraph of Article 5 of Regulation No 2271/96 is to be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of national law under which a person referred to in Article 11 of that regulation may terminate a continuing contractual obligation with a contracting party named on the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List held by the US Office of Foreign Assets Control, without ever having to justify its decision to terminate those contracts.

3) The first paragraph of Article 5 of Regulation No 2271/96 is to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of a failure to comply with the provisions of that article, the national court seised by a contracting party subject to primary sanctions is required to order a person referred to in Article 11 of that regulation to maintain that contractual relationship, even though, first, the second paragraph of Article 5 should be interpreted restrictively, secondly, such an injunction measure is liable to infringe Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and, thirdly, such a person is therefore liable to be severely penalised by the authorities responsible for applying one of the laws referred to in the annex to that regulation.

The Conference “the Office of the Judge and the Conflict-of-Law Rule” (L’office du juge et la règle de conflit de lois) will be held on Monday 17 May 2021 (in French) and will be streamed live via the Cour de cassation website and social media networks.

This Conference is part of the Lecture Series “Thinking about the office of the judge” (Penser l’office du juge) – 2020-2021 (directed by Sylvie Perdriolle, Honorary President of the Chamber, Sylvaine Poillot-Peruzzetto, Judge at the French Cour de cassation, and Lukas Rass-Masson, professor at the University of Toulouse 1 Capitole).

The programme is as follows:

5:00 p.m. – The Office of the Judge and the Nature of the Conflict-of-Law Rule
Nicolas Nord, Secretary General of the International Commission on Civil Status, Co-chairman of the China Section of the Société de législation comparée
Gian Paolo Romano, Professor at the University of Geneva, Co-director of the Yearbook of International Private Law

5:40 p.m. – The Office of the Judge and the European Conflict-of-Law Rule
Lukas Rass-Masson, Professor at the University of Toulouse I Capitole, Director of the European School of Law Toulouse

6:05 p.m. – The Office of the Judge and the Application of the Conflict-of-Law Rule
François Mélin, Judge at the Court of Appeal of Paris

18:30 p.m. – Discussion

Moderators:
François Ancel, President of the International Commercial Chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal
Gustavo Cerqueira, Professor at the University of Nîmes, France

For several years, Greek scholars and practitioners had no access to a periodical in Greek specialized in Private International Law and International Civil Litigation.

Upon the initiative of Prof. Vrellis, a Private International Law Review [Κοινοδίκιον = Koinodikion] was published biannually between 1995-2003. Since then, conflict of laws issues were hosted in law reviews which were concerned generally with civil, commercial and civil procedure law.

Those days are now over! A new quarterly has just been launched by Sakkoulas Publications. ‘Lex & Forum’ is a brand new review, focusing on civil and commercial cross border matters from a European or international perspective.

Lex & Forum will host articles, notes, comments and book reviews in Greek and major European languages; it will publish rulings of international and national courts alike, not limited to the Greek legal order; finally, it will cover developments and report on news in the field of Private International Law.

The first issue contains an article by the Greek Judge at the CJEU, Michail Vilaras, and an extensive focus on judicial cooperation after Brexit, reflecting a webinar, organized earlier this year. The issue also comes with comments on recent rulings rendered by the CJEU (namely C-500/18, Reliantco, C-774/19, Personal Exchange, and C-272/18, VKI), as well as by Greek courts (among them, Supreme Court No 662/2020, and Court of Appeal of Piraeus No 120/2021, reported in this blog here, and here), UK courts [High Court of Justice, Gategroup Guarantee, EWHC 304(Ch)2021], and Swiss courts (Bezirksgericht Zürich, 24 February  2021).

The first issue contains an introductory note drafted by the scientific directors, Mr Arvanitakis, Ordinary Professor at the law faculty of the Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, and Mr Kranis, former Vice President of Areios Pagos, the Hellenic Supreme Court, and ex Vice Minister of Justice. The team of editors consists of academics, judges, staff members of the Ministry of Justice, lawyers, and Phd candidates in the field.

In response to the EU Commission’s formal refusal to allow the UK to accede to the Lugano Convention, a coalation between several NGOs and legal scholars, lead by the European Coalition for Corporate Justice (ECCJ) has issued an open letter, calling upon the EU to reverse this decision. In essence, they argue that a full return to the common-law rules on jurisdiction, including the forum non conveniens doctrine, will reduce access to the UK courts in cases of corporate human-rights abuses, which has only recently been rendered much more attractive by the UK Supreme Court’s decisions in Vedanta v Lungowe [2019] UKSC 20 and Okpabi v Shell [2021] UKSC 3.

The full letter can be found here. It is still open for signatures (via e-mail to christopher.patz[at]corporatejustice.org).

On 17 May 2021 (from 5 to 7 pm CET), the French Supreme Court in civil and criminal matters (Cour de cassation) will host an online seminar (in French) on the respective roles of the court and the parties in the application of conflict-of-laws rules (L’office du juge et la règle de conflit de lois).

The chairmen are François Ancel (President of the International Commercial Chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal, ICCP-CA) and Gustavo Cerqueira (Professor at the University of Nîmes).

Speakers include Gian-Paolo Romano (Professor at the University of Geneva and co-director of the Yearbook of International Private Law), Nicolas Nord (Associate Professor at the University fo Strasbourg and Secretary General of the ICCS), Lukas Rass-Masson (Professor at the University of Toulouse 1, Director of the European school of law Toulouse) and François Mélin (Counsellor at the Paris Cour of Appeal).

The seminar will be streamed live on the website of the French Supreme Court (here).

It is part of a conference series dedicated to the office (role) of courts in different legal contexts and from a multidisciplinary approach.

The Department of Juridical Sciences of the University of Bologna (Italy), Ravenna Campus, is organising a Summer School on Transnational jurisdiction: current issues in civil and commercial matters. This will be held in Ravenna (and online) between 19-23 July 2021.

Given the growing relevance of cross-border litigation, the Summer School is looking to address a variety of issues from a comparative perspective combining theoretical and practical approaches. The topics address issues of jurisdiction, various aspects of private international law (e.g. cross-border service of documents, taking of evidence, arbitration agreements, Brexit, applicable law in non-contractual obligations, corporate social responsibility), available remedies, and the harmonisation of procedural rules.

The Director of the School, Prof. Michele Angelo Lupoi, has invited experts from different jurisdiction (see here) to lecture on several aspects of private international and procedural law. The programme of the Summer School is available here.

The Summer School is aimed at law students as well as law graduates and law practitioners who want to obtain a specialised knowledge in the complex and fascinating area of international civil procedure.

The lectures are likely to be held in a hybrid form – in presence and online – in respect of the applicable rules and advice.

More information about the Summer School and the registration can he found here.

The European Parliament Research Service released today a briefing on Access to Justice in environmental matters.

Context: “During the May plenary session, Parliament is due to vote on a report adopted by its Environment Committee, on a proposal aimed at ensuring EU compliance with its obligations as a party to the 1998 Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters”.

Extract: “In the European Green Deal communication, the Commission committed to consider revising the Aarhus Regulation. In October 2020, it adopted a proposal broadening the scope of the review procedure to include non-legislative acts of general scope (excepting those provisions of such acts for which EU law explicitly requires implementing measures at EU or national level), aligning references to environmental law with the convention’s requirements, and extending the time-frame for the administrative review process.

European Parliament position

Taking into account the ACCC advice from early 2021 on the Commission proposal, the report adopted on 23 April 2021 by Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) would open up the review mechanism to members of the public other than NGOs demonstrating sufficient interest or impairment of a right in accordance with the regulation. The Commission would specify by delegated act the criteria they need to fulfil. During the consideration of a request for review, third parties directly affected by the request (e.g. companies or public authorities) would be able to submit comments to the EU institution or body concerned. The report requires the Commission to adopt guidelines to facilitate the assessment of the compatibility of state aid with relevant provisions of EU law relating to the environment. To limit court proceedings costs, it insiststhat EU institutions and bodies make reasonable cost reimbursement requests when successful in litigation. It awaits a vote at the May plenary session. The vote would set Parliament’s position for negotiations with Council, which adopted its position in December 2020”.

Source: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2021/690593/EPRS_ATA(2021)690593_EN.pdf

On Access to Justice, the EU and the Aarhus Convention, see, for example, E. Guinchard and M.-P. Granger, Sisyphus in Luxembourg, in E. Guinchard and M-P Granger, “The New EU Judiciary”, Kluwer, December 2017. 375, spec. p. 377 in fine ff. (available at https://europeanciviljustice.files.wordpress.com/2021/02/sisyphus-in-luxembourg.pdf

The Court of Justice delivered today its judgment in case C–709/19 (Vereniging van Effectenbezitters v BP plc), which is about Article 7.2 Brussels I bis. The judgment is currently available in all EU official languages (save Irish), albeit not in English. Here is the French version (to check whether an English translation has finally been made available, just click on the link below and change the language version):

« L’article 7, point 2, du règlement (UE) no 1215/2012 […] doit être interprété en ce sens que la survenance directe, sur un compte d’investissement, d’un préjudice purement financier résultant de décisions d’investissement prises à la suite d’informations aisément accessibles sur le plan mondial, mais inexactes, incomplètes ou trompeuses provenant d’une société internationale cotée en bourse ne permet pas de retenir, au titre de la matérialisation du dommage, la compétence internationale d’une juridiction de l’État membre dans lequel est établie la banque ou l’entreprise d’investissement sur le registre de laquelle le compte est inscrit, lorsque ladite société n’était pas soumise à des obligations légales de publicité dans cet État membre ».

Source : https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=AD7594B516888CAD5AB5EBC0D74BD409?text=&docid=241171&pageIndex=0&doclang=fr&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2130484

As I suggested when I reviewed the Advocate-General’s Opinion in C‑709/19 Vereniging van Effectenbezitters, the CJEU was likely to be much more succinct, which has proven true with the judgment this morning (no English version available as yet).

The CJEU ignored of course the AG’s calls fundamentally to reconsider the locus damni introduction in Bier. Yet it re-emphasised its willingness to reign in the repercussions of Bier, insisting places of jurisdiction under Article 7(2) Brussels Ia need to correspond to those with a certain link to the case. Its core reference throughout is its judgment in Lober, itself an odd case for the court did not assign territorial jurisdiction (an issue also sub judice in Volvo Trucks). Clearly Universal Music features heavily, too.

The Court’s instruction in Universal Music, that the mere presence of a bank account in which damages materialise, does not suffice to establish jurisdiction, is expanded in Vereniging van Effectenbezitters with the use of statutory reporting requirements: [35] For listed companies (clearly, an entry for distinguishing: how about those unlisted?), only the courts of the Member States in which they are under a statutory reporting duty with a view to its listing, are reasonably foreseeable to it, as places in which a market in its financial instruments may emerge.

The Court also adds [36] that the collective action nature of the suit is of no relevance. The referring court had asked whether in such suits the domicile of the aggrieved could be dropped as being relevant, however the CJEU insisted that domicile has no stand-alone relevance in purely financial damage at all, even in non-collective action.

To the degree that the existence of such statutory obligations is not exhaustively harmonised across the EU (on that subject, I am no expert), this opens op possibilities of course for Member States to assist its consumers with forum shopping, by expanding reporting requirements. (Albeit such extra requirements may themselves by vulnerable under free movement of establishment and /or services; but now my mind is racing ahead).

The Court’s limiting approach here is in stark contrast with the much wider consequences of its findings on jurisdiction viz material consumer products in  Volkswagen.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, para 2.459

The Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) is seeking a Legal Officer (Maternity Leave Replacement). The successful candidate will work primarily in the field of family law, focusing on the 1980 Child Abduction and 1996 Child Protection Conventions as well as on the Family Agreements project.

Applications should be submitted by Monday 31 May 2021 (00:00 CEST). For more information, please visit the Recruitment section of the HCCH website.

This post is published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference of Private International Law (HCCH).

In December 2020, we reported about the Opinion presented by Advocate Generale Campos Sánchez-Bordona in the case Vereniging van Effectenbezitters, C-709/19. Today, the Court delivered its judgment in this case.

In brief, the request for a preliminary ruling arose out of the proceedings pertaining to a collective action for a declaratory judgment brought by an association against an oil and gas company on behalf of investors who bought, held or sold the ordinary shares through an investment account in the Netherlands. The association argued that this internationally listed company acted unlawfully towards its shareholders inasmuch as it made incorrect, incomplete and misleading statements about the circumstances pertaining to, inter alia, an explosion resulting in an oil spill. It is in this context that the referring court requested the Court of Justice to interpret Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation.

At the request of the Court, in his Opinion of last December, AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona addressed two first preliminary questions. Thus, the third and fourth preliminary questions on international and internal territorial jurisdiction to hear subsequent individual claims of the investors were not addressed in the Opinion.

Ultimately, the third and fourth questions do not receive a definitive answer in the judgment either. The Court held that these questions are inadmissible as they are of hypothetical nature – in the proceedings pending before the referring court, no subsequent individual claim is concerned (paragraphs 38 and 39).

As to the first and second preliminary questions, these are worded as follows:

(1) (a)      Should Article 7(2) of [the Brussels I bis Regulation] be interpreted as meaning that the direct occurrence of purely financial damage to an investment account in the Netherlands or to an investment account of a bank and/or investment firm established in the Netherlands, damage which is the result of investment decisions influenced by globally distributed but incorrect, incomplete and misleading information from an international listed company, constitutes a sufficient connecting factor for the international jurisdiction of the Netherlands courts by virtue of the location of the occurrence of the damage (“Erfolgsort”)?

(b)      If not, are additional circumstances required to justify the jurisdiction of the Netherlands courts and what are those circumstances? Are the additional circumstances [namely, the fact that the international listed company focuses on global investment public, including the investors in the Netherlands, and the association represents a considerable number of investors in this Member State, the fact that the settlement reached by the international listed company with a number of shareholders in the United States of America was not proposed to the investors represented by the association and, lastly, the fact that the shareholders for whom this association is acting include consumers to whom the Brussels I bis Regulation affords special legal protection] sufficient to found the jurisdiction of the Netherlands courts?

(2)      Would the answer to Question 1 be different in the case of a claim brought under Article 3:305a of the BW by an association the purpose of which is to defend, in its own right, the collective interests of investors who have suffered damage as referred to in Question 1, which means, among other things, that neither the places of domicile of the aforementioned investors, nor the special circumstances of individual purchase transactions or of individual decisions not to sell shares which were already held, have been established?

In its judgment, the Court answered together this questions (paragraph 22) and held that Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation must be interpreted to the effect that the direct occurrence, in an investment account, of purely financial damage resulting from investment decisions made on the basis of information which was readily available worldwide, but which was incorrect, incomplete and misleading and emanated from an international listed company, does not allow the international jurisdiction of the court of the Member State in which the bank or investment firm that holds that account is established to be founded on a connection with the place where the damage occurred, where that company was not subject to statutory reporting obligations in that Member State (paragraph 37).

The judgment can be consulted here (the English version is not yet available).

The UNCITRAL National Coordination Committee for Australia (UNCCA) invites you to attend its Seventh Annual May Seminar, to be held online as a webinar. This year we celebrate the 25th anniversary of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce 1996, and the 20th Anniversary of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Signatures 2001.

Both of these Model Laws and the subsequent United Nations Convention on Electronic Communications in International Contracts 2005 have had a profound effect on the regulation of electronic commerce globally. In Australia, all of these developments have been incorporated in the Electronic Transactions Acts passed by the Commonwealth and all States and Territories. During 2020 the relevance of these enactments came to the fore as a result of the COVID pandemic.

In this live, interactive webinar, expert commentators from UNCITRAL and Australia will review the history of these developments in ecommerce, the current state of the law, as well as issues that are being considered for future work nationally and globally.

For more information, see here.

This post was contributed by Dr Nicolas Kyriakides, who is a practising lawyer in Cyprus and an Adjunct Faculty at the University of Nicosia, and Ms Yomna Zentani (LLM, Cantab – Cambridge Trust scholar), who is a future Trainee Solicitor at Clifford Chance LLP.

On 21 April 2021, the English High examined the interplay between the Brussels Recast Regulation (BRR) and the principle of ‘modified universalism’ in international insolvency proceedings in WWRT Ltd v Tyshchenko & Anor ([2021] EWHC 939 (Ch)). It particularly addressed whether proceedings can be stayed on the grounds of modified universalism, despite jurisdiction having been established by Article 4 of the BRR (see also the previous report of G. van Calster).

The claimant, WWRT, brought proceedings against the defendants, Mr Serhiy Tyshchenko and his ex-wife Mrs Olena Tyschchenko on the grounds that they had both carried out extensive fraud on the Ukrainian Bank, JSC Fortuna Bank which was owned by Mr Tyschenko between the years 2011 and 2014. The fraud consisted of the granting of numerous loans to companies with limited commercial activity who had no intention of repaying these loans. This then led to the bank declaring insolvency and being liquidated by which a package of assets consisting of also the disputed loans, was sold to Star Investment One LLC, a Ukrainian Company. The package, along with the rights to them were sold to WWRT in March 2020. WWRT argued that it had now acquired the rights to bring the claim relied upon in the present proceedings and obtained ex parte a worldwide freezing order. Mr and Mrs Tyschenko were both served in England within the court’s jurisdiction.

One of the main arguments centred around Mr Tyschenko’s objection to the court’s jurisdiction. He argued that WWRT’s claims should be stayed under common law so as to prevent WWRT from circumventing the Ukrainian insolvency proceedings opened on 9 December. He submitted that under Ukrainian law, claims such as the one contested in this case should only be adjudicated within the proceedings opened in December and thus must be stayed on the principle of “modified universalism.” The discussion surrounding this principle is of particular interest in this case.

As potentially one of the final cases concerning the Brussels Regulation in England and Wales, we are reminded of the importance of the CJEU judgment in the case of Owusu v Jackson which set out that a finding of jurisdiction under Article 4 would exclude any challenge on forum non conveniens grounds.

Mr Tyschenko was found to be domiciled in England for the purposes of Article 4, however, a further argument was advanced on whether the court may stay these proceedings on the principle of modified universalism. Whilst accepting that Article 4 jurisdiction could not be challenged, a further argument was made by Mr Tyschenko’s legal representation, stating that the court in Owusu did not address the question of whether “…a domestic court could nevertheless stay its proceedings in favour of insolvency proceedings that had already commenced in another Member State.” He went on to state (at [52]) that the principle at work in such a case was not one of forum non conveniens but rather the common law principle of modified universalism, which carries with it the requirement to provide assistance to foreign insolvency proceedings. As stated by Lord Sumption in Singularis Holdings v PriceWaterhouseCoopers [2015], the principle is founded on

the public interest in the ability of foreign courts exercising insolvency jurisdiction in the place of the company’s incorporation to conduct an orderly winding up of its affairs on a worldwide basis, notwithstanding the territorial limits of their jurisdiction.

It was undisputed that a stay on this principle is conceptually different from a stay on forum non conveniens grounds. However, the question that the court had to address was whether this particular distinction could allow the present situation to be distinguished from the rule set out in Owusu and thus allowing a stay of proceedings, despite jurisdiction being founded on Article 4 (formerly Article 2 when Owusu was decided). In other words, whether the particular nature of insolvency proceedings require a different approach to the rule.

The decision on Owusu was reached out of respect for the principle of legal certainty, which the BRR (formerly the Brussels Convention) was built upon and the mandatory nature of Article 4. Allowing a deviation of this rule on the basis of forum non conveniens would have greatly undermined the predictability of the rules of jurisdiction as laid down by the Convention.

Further, insolvency proceedings and their peculiarities were taken out of the scope of the BRR altogether and reflected in other legislation, namely the Recast Insolvency Regulation and the UNICTRAL Model Law on cross-border insolvency. As such, the court reaffirmed the significance of Article 4 and held that a stay could not be granted on the basis of modified universalism. The court subsequently upheld the worldwide freezing injunction.

In the alternative, the defendant suggested that a stay could be granted by the reflexive or analogous application of Article 34 of the BRR. This Article provides that:

1. Where jurisdiction is based on Article 4 … and an action is pending before a court of a third State at the time when a court in a Member State is seized of an action which is related to the action in the court of the third State, the court of the Member State may stay the proceedings if:

(a)  it is expedient to hear and determine the related actions together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings;

(b)  it is expected that the court of the third State will give a judgment capable of recognition and, where applicable, of enforcement in that Member State; and

(c)  the court of the Member State is satisfied that a stay is necessary for the proper administration of justice.

The defendant accepted that “[…] the bankruptcy exclusion in Article 1 of the BRR precludes the express application of Article 34 if the pending action in the third State is in the nature of bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings.” However, he nevertheless contented that the Article could be applied by analogy to this case similarly to how Article 28 of the Lugano Convention was applied by analogy or reflexively to pending proceedings in JSC, Commercial Bank v Kolomoisky [2019] EWCA Civ 1708 §§159-181.

However, the court was not satisfied that the present proceedings were in anyway related to the pending insolvency proceedings in Ukraine (those opened on the 9th of December), to the effect that they would create a risk of irreconcilable judgments. Distinguishing Kolomoisky, the court stated that Article 28 was only given reflexive or analogous effect to the pending proceedings in Ukraine in that particular case in order to “[…] address the problem of the lacuna that would otherwise have arisen from the fact that Article 28 expressly applies only to related actions pending in the courts of different States bound by the Convention.” (at [91])

The reflexive application in Kolomoisky would not subvert the objectives of the Convention but would further its purposes by achieving legal certainty and ensuring that the risk of inconsistent judgments is avoided.

In the current case, the court held that the problem that was trying to be avoided in Kolomoisky when applying Article 28 reflexively, did not arise in this instance. This is because Article 34 of the BRR now specifically addresses proceedings in third States. The defendant’s argument thus attempted to advance a different proposition, distinct from what was advanced in Kolomoisky. The court held that the defendant’s apparent extension of Article 34, namely that it should be applied to proceedings which the defendant accepts as expressly excluded from the scope of the BRR, is not a proper one. The court continued that even in the event Article 34 could be applied by analogy or reflexively, it was not satisfied that the pending insolvency proceedings in Kyiv were related to the extent that they could create a risk of irreconcilable judgments.

Consequently, the proceedings were not stayed on the basis of this argument and the court subsequently upheld the worldwide freezing injunction.

The Mexican Academy of Private International and Comparative Law (AMEDIP) is holding a webinar on 13 May 2021 at 5:00 pm (Mexico City time – CDT), 12:00 am (CEST time). The topic of the webinar is International Judicial Co-operation in Times of Pandemic and will be presented by Professor Carlos Echegaray de Maussion (in Spanish).

The details of the webinar are:

Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87893740067?pwd=L0w4cThOVkFzQ04rZUZvT0lnNGpHZz09

Meeting ID: 878 9374 0067

Password: BMAAMEDIP

Participation is free of charge.

This event will also be streamed live: https://www.facebook.com/AmedipMX

As reported by Pietro Franzina last January, the Standing International Forum of Commercial Courts (SIFoCC), which brings together the commercial courts of several countries across the world, launched the second edition of its Multilateral Memorandum on Enforcement of Commercial Judgments for Money.  Last April, SIFoCC’s Second International Working Group, co-chaired by Sir William Blair and Judge François Ancel, has produced a Commentary to accompany the Multilateral Memorandum setting out an understanding of the procedures for the enforcement of a money judgment by the courts of one jurisdiction obtained in the courts of another jurisdiction, written by judiciaries from across the world.

The Multilateral Memorandum with the commentary is available here. The non-binding character of the Memorandum is highlighted from the outset; so is its purpose , which does not intend to “signal” the enforceability of the judgments of commercial courts, but to explain to how the courts which have contributed to the Memorandum approach requests for the enforcement of judgments of other courts. In turn, the commentary added to the second edition does not purport to state common principles arising form the contributions (see the statement in para. 31, “this seems unnecessary now that the Hague Conference has concluded its work on the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”); it rather describes common themes that arise from the contributions, identifying significant differences of approach and indicating how far the contributions appear to show a tendency towards convergence.

An interesting reading by all means.

The Hague Conference Experts’ Group on the electronic Apostille Programme (e-APP) and New Technologies met last week (3 to 6 May 2021). The Group endorsed key principles and good practices for Contracting Parties in the implementation of the e-APP. They may be found in Annex 1 to the Report from the Chair on the Experts’ Group on the e-APP and New Technologies, made available today at https://assets.hcch.net/docs/b94fadf7-ba82-42d9-bdbb-f8088b040273.pdf

In February 2021, the European Commission launched a study to assess the need for more effective legal protection of vulnerable adults within the European Union. As part of this study, a survey has now been published online for all legal practitioners working in the area: judges, lawyers, notaries, and other relevant authorities. Input from practitioners will be important in shaping any future legislative initiative.

The survey is open until 4 June 2021 and available at the following link: https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/vulnerable_adults_practitioners.

Although the survey is in English, respondents are welcome to submit responses in any of the official EU languages.

For more information, see the survey link above or for more specific questions contact the project team at: < crossborder.adults@milieu.be >.

On 12 April 2021, the Family Court of Namur, Belgium, applied the doctrine of renvoi under Article 34 of the Succession Regulation (the judgment and the commentary of Prof. Jean-Louis Van Boxstael – in French – are available here).

The deceased was born in 1931 in Belgium, but was living in South Korea when he died in 2019. He held both Belgian and Korean nationalities. In 2001, the deceased wrote a will in which he declared that a (Belgian?) foundation would receive all his assets after his death. The plaintiff owned a building in Belgium and had monies on bank accounts. It does not seem that he had children.

The Belgian court was petitioned by the foundation in 2021.

The court found that the deceased was resident in Korea. It retained jurisdiction, however, under Article 10(1) of the Succession Regulation, which provides that where the deceased was not habitually resident in a Member State, jurisdiction can be founded on the nationality of the deceased.

The court found that the deceased being a Belgian national, the court could retain jurisdiction.

Under Article 21 of the Succession Regulation, the applicable law should be, in principle, the law of the last habitual residence of the deceased. The court found that it was Korea. However, it noted that, under Art. 49 of the Korean Conflict of Laws Act, a Korean court would apply the law of the nationality of the deceased.

The deceased, however, was a dual national. The Belgian court referred to Art. 3(2) of the Belgian Code of Private International Law which provides that, in case of dual nationality, Belgian nationality prevails. It thus considered that the deceased was a Belgian national, and that Belgian law was applicable by renvoi from Korean law.

The most interesting issue raised by the case was that of handling the dual nationality of the deceased.

For jurisdiction purposes, Art. 10 provides:

1.   Where the habitual residence of the deceased at the time of death is not located in a Member State, the courts of a Member State in which assets of the estate are located shall nevertheless have jurisdiction to rule on the succession as a whole in so far as: (a) the deceased had the nationality of that Member State at the time of death…

The rule does not refer to the “nationality of the deceased” in general. It refers to a person who has the nationality of a particular Member State. This resolves the issue of dual nationality where one of the nationalities is that of a third state. A rule of the forum provides taking into account the nationality of the relevant Member State. This implicitly excludes taking into account the nationality of the third state, or whether it might be more effective.

For choice of law purposes, Art. 34 provides:

1.   The application of the law of any third State specified by this Regulation shall mean the application of the rules of law in force in that State, including its rules of private international law in so far as those rules make a renvoi: (a) to the law of a Member State

The rule does not address the issue of dual nationality. It only provides to apply foreign choice of law rules if they refer to the law of a Member State.

So, the critical question is to determine the content of the foreign choice of law rule and ascertain whether the foreign rule designates the law of a Member State. It is therefore for the foreign legal system to say how it addresses dual nationality. If, under foreign private international law, local nationality prevails, this means that the foreign choice of law rule does not designate the law of a Member State.

In this case, the Belgian court should have wondered whether a Korean court would prefer Belgian nationality over Korean nationality. Instead, the Belgian court applied Belgian principles.

Maybe the Belgian court should have read the entirety of the Korean Conflict of Laws Act, a translation of which is freely available on the internet. Article 3 of the Act provides:

(1) In case the law of nationality of a party shall govern, if the party has two or more nationalities, the law of the country, which is most closely connected with the party, shall be the law of nationality: if one of the nationalities is the Republic of Korea, then the law of the Republic of Korea shall be the law of nationality…

So it seems that a Korean court would not have applied Belgian law: it would have applied Korean law. The Belgian court rewrote Korean private international law and invented a renvoi which did not exist.

In collaboration with the University of Heidelberg, the Charles University of Prague and the University of Warsaw, the University of Milan is conducting the project ‘From Diversities to Unity through Coordination (EU-DUC)’ within the framework of the 1st Call for joint educational proposal promoted by the 4EU+ European University Alliance.

In this context, from 16 to 18 June 2021, the University of Milan will host the Overcoming Challenges, Addressing Conflicts, Settling Disputes Summer School on EU Business Law. The Summer School is open to students of 4EU+ universities, and it is envisioned to take place in a hybrid (online/in person) mode.

Students can register, from 15 April until 16 May 2021, on Eventbrite. With their registration, they must submit to Prof. Francesca C. Villata (euduc@unimi.it) their CV and a letter of motivation, indicating the order of preference between the 5 interactive modules offered with the Summer School.

More information on the 4EU+ European University Alliance and the Summer School’s Programme are available here.