Droit international général

The European Court of Human Rights delivered on 10 October 2023 a judgment on a matter of paternity involving an international element.

The Facts

I.V., the applicant before the European Court of Human Rights, is a Latvian national living in Riga. In spring 2006 he had a son, born in Latvia, from a relationship. The mother no longer permitted contact between I.V. and his son from January 2007 onwards. Shortly afterwards, I.V. found out that another man had acknowledged paternity and been registered as the boy’s father. I.V. then challenged paternity in the Latvian courts.

While those proceedings in the Latvian courts were ongoing, the mother and child moved to Estonia and the child was adopted in April 2018 by the mother’s new husband. I.V. only learnt of the adoption afterwards and lodged an application in the Estonian courts to have the decision annulled.

The Estonian Supreme Court concluded in 2021 that I.V. did not have standing as the (legally recognised) “father” under Estonian law since his paternity had not yet been confirmed in Latvia. It also explained that, even if I.V.’s paternity were later recognised, that would not retroactively invalidate the consent to adoption of the legal father – that is to say the person registered as the child’s father at the time of the adoption.

Ultimately the Latvian courts recognised Mr I.V.’s paternity and registered him as the father, from the boy’s date of birth to the date of his adoption.

Complaint and Court’s Ruling

Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, I.V. complained that his rights had been ignored in the proceedings allowing his son’s adoption and concerning the request to annul the adoption. He argued in particular that his son’s adoption should never have proceeded without his consent as the biological father.

In its judgment, the Court stressed that what was at stake in the present case was not the responsibility of the Latvian authorities, even though the paternity proceedings had lasted for an exceptionally long time in that country, but that of the Estonian State.

It pointed out that the case at hand had to be assessed as a whole, and that its task was to assess whether the Estonian authorities had struck a fair balance between the competing interests at stake, including both the interests of the applicant as well as those of his son.

However, the Court found that the Estonian authorities had shown a significant lack of diligence in relation to the proceedings concerning the adoption, even though they had to or ought to have been aware of the ongoing paternity proceedings in Latvia, given the Latvian authorities’ request, in January 2018, for judicial cooperation.

Subsequently, the Estonian Supreme Court had rejected the application to annul the adoption solely on formal grounds, without taking into account the particular circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court had found that the applicant did not have standing since his legal paternity had not yet been recognised by a final court judgment in Latvia.

The outcome of the proceedings in Estonia had actually led to the applicant’s legal paternity being recognised by the Latvian courts for a limited period only, that is to say until the date that the child had been adopted in Estonia.

The Court concluded overall that the Estonian authorities had failed to identify and examine the particular circumstances of the case and to assess the various rights and interests of the individuals involved, including those of the applicant, in either set of proceedings (allowing the adoption or concerning the request to annul the adoption). There had therefore been a violation of Article 8.

A symposium titled “Personal Status on the Move” (La circulation du statut personnel), organised by the Société de Législation Comparée (SLC), the International Commission on Civil Status (ICCS), the Law Faculty of University of Côte d’Azur and the Associazione Civilisti Italiani, will take place on 19 January 2024 in Rome at the Corte Suprema di Cassazione.

The main topics covered will be civil status, persons’ identification, the union of persons, parenthood and nationality in a context of international mobility of persons and families.

Speakers (and chairs) include Claudio Scognamiglio (Chairman, Associazione Civilisti Italiani), Gustavo Cerqueira (Chairman, Section Méthodologie comparée du droit civil de la SLC), Nicolas Nord (Secretary General of the International Commission on Civil Status), Francesco Salerno (Università degli Studi di Ferrara), Marion Ho-Dac, Professeur (Université d’Artois), Camille Reitzer (Deputy Secretary General of the International Commission on Civil Status), Giovanni Di Rosa (Università di Catania), Fernand Munschy (Lawyer at the Strasbourg Bar & Université Haute-Alsace), Francesca Bartolini (Università degli Studi Link di Roma), Michele Sesta (Università di Bologna), Lukas Heckendorn Urscheler (Institut suisse de droit comparé), Alessandra Spangaro (Università di Bologna), Enrico Al Mureden (Università di Bologna), Ilaria Pretelli (Institut suisse de droit comparé), Renzo Calvigioni (Associazione Nazionale Ufficiali di Stato Civile e d’Anagrafe, ANUSCA), Gordon Choisel (Université Paris Panthéon-Assas), Mirzia Bianca (Università di Roma La Sapienza), Sylvain Bollée, (Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne), Roberto Senigaglia (Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia), Hugues Fulchiron (Conseiller extraordinaire à la Cour de cassation, France), Sabine Corneloup (Université Paris Panthéon-Assas), Liliana Rossi Carleo (Università di Roma Tre).

Presentations will be held in French and Italian.

Those interested in attending can do so either in-person or on-line.

Attendance is free, but prior registration is required by 12 January 2024, through segreteria.civilistiitaliani@gmail.com.

Additional information, including the full programme of the conference, can be found here.

A link to follow the conference remotely will be provided shortly.

From 11 to 16 December 2023, the first edition of The Hague Academy of International Law’s Advanced Course in Hong Kong was held, co-organised by the Asian Academy of International Law and the Department of Justice of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administration Region. For this programme, the Hague Academy of International Law convened distinguished speakers to deliver lectures on “Current Trends on International Commercial and Investment Dispute Settlement”.

After welcome notes (Adrian Lai, Deputy Secretary General and Co-Convenor of the Advisory Board of the Asian Academy of International Law; Teresa Cheng, Founding Member and Co-Chairman of the Asian Academy of International Law, also on behalf of Christophe Bernasconi, Secretary General of the HCCH; Jean-Marc Thouvenin, Secretary-General of The Hague Academy of International Law; and Lam Ting-kwok Paul, Secretary for Justice of the Government of the Hong Kong SAR) a welcome lunch was offered where a “beggar‘s chicken” was offered, to be hammered out of the bread casing…

In the afternoon the first class, delivered by Natalie Morris-Sharma, Singapore, focused on the UN 2018 Convention on Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (Singapore Convention). Structuring her lecture around the drafting procedure of the new instrument, the former Chairperson provided valuable insights into the deliberations within the Working Group. For instance, the question what form (international treaty, model law, or mere guidelines) the future instrument should take was literally up for debate until the very last session, as some delegations felt that national approaches to enforcing settlement agreements were far too different to justify the adoption of a uniform “hard law” solution. This uncertainty during the discussions is the main reason why the Working Group has taken the unusual course of action to produce not only the Convention but also the amended UNCITRAL 2018 Model Law on International Commercial Mediation. Further in the lecture, it was emphasised that the Singapore Convention has taken a stance on at least one of these differences, the legal nature of the mediated settlement agreement. By providing for the “enforcement” (“relief”) in Articles 3 and 4 which can only be refused on the limited, discretionary grounds contained in Art. 5, the Singapore Convention rejects the traditional view that mediation results in nothing more than a contractual obligation. Finally, the future of the instrument has been discussed, in particular the reasons why the major economic powers (China, EU, USA) have not yet ratified the Convention.

The next morning, Diego Fernández Arroyo started his lecture on investor-state dispute resolution. Using the Euro Disneyland negotiations as an example, in which corporate counsel Joe Shapiro, envisaging the possibility of legal disputes with the French government, pushed relentlessly for the inclusion of an arbitration clause, he first illustrated the practical importance of ISDS. Subsequently, the historical development of this area of law from diplomatic protection to international arbitration was summarised, with particular reference to the highly specialised International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) established under the auspices of the World Bank Group. He stressed that the submission of investment disputes, that involve a public law (global) governance dimension, to essentially the same resolution mechanism as private law commercial disputes is by no means self-evident. On this foundation, Fernández Arroyo finally turned to the contemporary criticism towards the current ISDS practice. He stated, inter alia, that the concerns regarding transparency have been adequately addressed through the adoption of new standards (e.g. Mauritius Convention, UNCITRAL 2014 Rules) and elaborated on the prospects of the Multilateral Investment Court project advocated by the EU.

Then, Franco Ferrari made use of his part of the course on international commercial arbitration to powerfully challenge an overly idealistic understanding of international arbitration. Appealing in particular to the Hong Kong barristers in the room, he initially demonstrated how the loopholes between arbitration and litigation may be strategically utilised in legal practice. While the existence of an arbitration agreement obliges the court to dismiss a claim, it does not prevent filing a lawsuit in the first place. Hence, the resulting fear of publicity or discovery can be used effectively as leverage in settlement negotiations. Thereafter, quite in contrast to the idea of global governance underlying the ISDS frameworks, he reminded the audience of F. A. Mann’s statement: “every arbitration is a national arbitration, that is to say, subject to a specific system of national law”. Along the lines of this famous bon mot, Ferrari highlighted the persistent relevance of the lex loci arbitri by examining, among others, whether the provisions of the UN 1958 Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention) require an “international” or rather a “domestic” reading. In this context, he discussed with the audience the doctrine of delocalisation as promoted in French jurisprudence (e.g. Cass. Civ., 23 mars 1994, Hilmarton, Bull. 1994 I N° 104 p. 79). From the perspective of legal positivism, those approaches, even if striving for a truly transnational understanding, are nevertheless dependent on the applicable domestic legal framework, which is determined by the seat of the respective arbitration.

In the following, the author of these lines focused on the settlement of international disputes before domestic courts. After laying out a foundational theory for designing judicial cooperation in civil matters within a field of “trust” and “control” (“trust management”) in regard to foreign sovereign judicial acts, in particular foreign judgments, to be integrated (or not) into a state’s s own administration of justice, this theory was then applied to the “Hague Package” (Christophe Bernasconi) of instruments on judicial cooperation in civil matters, starting with the HCCH 2019 Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (e.g. when and why and to what extent foreign courts are “courts” in the sense of, inter alia, Art. 4 of the Convention?), touching further upon the ongoing HCCH Jurisdiction Project (currently mainly focusing on parallel proceedings), the HCCH 2005 Choice of Court Agreement Convention, as well as the HCCH Conventions on Service, Taking of Evidence, and the Apostille. This emerging “Hague System” – that is evidently emerging under fundamentally different conditions than the well-established “Brussels System” within the EU’s supranational Area of Freedom, Security and Justice – was contrasted with current escalations of “distrust”, such as e.g. the current trend of antisuit injunctions (ASIs), anti-antisuit injunctions (AASIs) and even anti-anti-antisuit injunctions (AAASIs) in international Standard Essential Patent (SEP) ligitation in respect to setting global FRAND licences, involving domestic courts from all over the world (e.g. China, Germany, India, UK, USA etc.) – an area of law which is – unfortunately – excluded to a large extent from the material scopes of the younger HCCH Conventions.

Jean-Marc Thouvenin added with a fascinating lecture on dispute settlements before the International Court of Justice, and Judge Gao Xiaoli explained the latest developments of dispute resolution in (Mainland) China, in particular the setting and functions of China’s Supreme People’s Court’s International Commercial Court (CICC).

In the afternoon of the last day, the participants, coming from more than 20 nations, received their certificates, and the week concluded with a closing reception in celebration of the Centenary of the Hague Academy against the background of Hong Kong’s skyline.

The Course took place in the chapel of the historic Former French Mission Building, later the seat of Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal. Lectures and participants convened in the former hearing hall of the building which added further inspiration to the vivid and intense discussions about the settlement of international commercial disputes on all avenues and levels, a holistic perspective that some liked to call an “integrated approach” (M. Weller, Festschrift für Herbert Kronke 2020), others a “pluralistic dispute resolution” (“PDR”, see e.g. Wang/Chen, Dispute Res. in the PRC, 2019).

From 15 February 2024 to 17 February 2024, an early career research workshop will be held at Freie Universität Berlin to discuss works in progress on dispute resolution mechanisms and competence-competence in multi-level systems. The workshop invites young researchers working on related topics from all fields of legal research and is open to different methodological approaches to analyse the research questions. The workshop aims to generate a constructive and friendly atmosphere to test working hypotheses and discuss findings.

Further information in the call for abstracts here.

Applications and questions can be addressed to Maren Vogel at maren.vogel@fu-berlin.de.

In March 2023 I gave a talk at the conference of the German Society of International Law. The conference had the title “Colonial Continuities in International Law“ and my presentation focused on  “Continuation of colonialism in contemporary international law? – Foundations, structures, methods from the perspective of PIL“. Thus, I was exploring those foundations, basic structures, and fundamental methods of mainly German Private International Law (PIL) and whether and how they have been influenced by colonialism.

Even though the perspective is mainly one of German PIL one, some of my thoughts might be of interest for a more global community. Therefore, in some upcoming posts I will share some of my findings that will also be published  in the book to the conference (in German).

My general – not surprising – finding ist that the existing PIL, much like the broader German legal system, has been impacted by colonialism. The aim is to reveal these influences without automatically pass judgment on a norm or method influenced by colonialism as inherently negative. The primary goal is to initiate an first engagement with and awareness of this topic and to stimulate a discussion and reflection.

1. State of the Discussion

“Colonialism“ I will understand broadly, referring not only to colonialism in a strict sense, but also including postcolonialism and forms of neocolonialism. Until now, the discussion regarding colonialism, coloniality, or decolonialism within German PIL remains limited. Initial discussions tend to arise within specific areas of PIL, such as migration law, cultural heritage protection law, investment protection law, occasional considerations of supply chain responsibility/human rights protection, and climate change litigation. The broader discussion around fundamental questions and structures within German PIL remains relatively sparse. Initiatives such as the project by the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law in Hamburg drive the discourse on “decolonial comparative law” which is not the same but in practise overlapping with the PIL discourse.

2. Categories of Colonialism in the Upcoming Posts

The attempts to systematize the colonial imprints lead to different categories.

• The first relates to the (sometimes unconscious) implementation and later continuation of the colonial structure in PIL – now and then.
• Another second category deals with structures and values inherent in German or European law, implicitly resonating within the PIL and, thus, expanding those values to people and cases from other parts of the world.
• The third category reveals an imagined hierarchy between the laws of the Global North and Global South.
• Finally, fourth, conflict of laws rules may lead to or at least contribute to exploiting actual North-South power asymmetries. 

3. Intention of the Series

In the next four posts, I would like to present some thoughts on colonial imprints I found in German PIL and sometimes EU PIL. I will not focus on other country’s PIL rules, but I am happy to learn about other systems and similar or very different approaches. 

As aforementioned, I only want to start a discussion and reveal some forms of colonialism in German PIL. I do not want to abolish all norms that are influenced by colonialism or judge them as inherently “bad”. Colonialism might only be one of many influences that shape the rule. Furthermore, I believe we are still at the very very beginning of the debate. Therefore, I welcome any (objective and substantive) discussion about the topic. I especially welcome comments, experiences and ideas from other countries and particularly from countries that are former colonies. 

Written by Hadrien Pauchard (assistant researcher at Sciences Po Law School) In the Airmeex case (Civ. 1re 27 septembre 2023, n°22-15.146, available here), the French Cour de cassation (première chambre civile) had the opportunity to rule on the duty of domestic courts to apply European rules of conflict on their own motion. The decision is a great opportunity to discuss the French approach to the authority of conflict-of-laws rules.

The case concerns allegations of anticompetitive behaviour following a transfer of corporate control. The dispute broke out after two shareholders of the French corporation Airmeex transferred the sole control of the company to the Claimant. The latter, joined by Airmeex, alleged several anti-competitive behaviors on the part of his ex-business partners and seized French courts against the two former shareholders and their related corporations in Turkey. The claim was based on general tort law and on French rules regarding “unfair competition”. The claim covered the Defendants’ acts in Turkey as well as possible infractions in Algeria.

As it happened, none of the parties ever put the question of the applicable law in the debates and neither the trial nor the appeal judges did raise the potential conflict of laws. Indeed, both were content with the straightforward application of the lex fori, i.e. French law on “unfair competition”. The lower court hence dismissed the claim by application of French law. The Claimants then petitioned to the Cour de cassation arguing a violation of the applicable rule of conflict, namely article 6 of the Rome II regulation.

By its decision of September 27, 2023, the French Cour de cassation (première chambre civile) ruled in favour of the petitioners. Upholding its previous Mienta decision (available here in English), it decided that Article 6 of the Rome II regulation was of mandatory application and was applicable to the alleged anticompetitive behaviours. Under these circumstances, the Cour de cassation held that the lower court should have enforced the mandatory rule of conflict of Article 6 Rome II on its own motion. As a consequence it censored the appeal decision insofar as it had applied the lex fori without going through the relevant conflictual reasoning.

Following the Mienta precedent, the Airmeex decision illustrates the renewal of the issue of the authority of conflict-of-laws rules.

The authority of the rule of conflict in French law

The key question in Airmeex concerned the obligation of domestic judges to apply, if necessary on their own motion, European conflict-of-laws rules.

The ex officio powers of national judges belong to the sphere of Member States’ procedural autonomy. However, uncertainty remains as to the scope of this autonomy in relation to European rules of conflict, particularly when the said rules leave no room to parties’ autonomy.

Tackling this issue in Airmeex, the French Court of Cassation upheld in extenso its previous Mienta ruling and stated that “if the Court is not obliged, except in the case of specific rules, to change the legal basis of the claims, it is obliged, when the facts before it so justify, to apply the rules of public order resulting from European Union law, such as a rule of conflict of laws when it is forbidden to derogate from it, even if the parties have not invoked them”.

The Airmeex ruling confirms the existence of French judge’s double hat in relation to conflict-of-laws rules, depending on the source of it.

On the one hand, for European rules of conflict, judges’ obligation is subject to the criterion of imperativeness laid out in Mienta and Airmeex. If the European rule is not mandatory, an a contrario reading of the decision leads to conclude that the French judge does not have an obligation to apply it on its own motion. In the present case, the Cour de cassation deduced the imperative character of the rule of conflict of Article 6 Rome II from the prohibition of derogatory agreements set out in the 4th paragraph of the text (according to which “[t]he law applicable under this Article may not be derogated from by an agreement pursuant to Article 14”). Then, noticing the existence of a conflict in that the disputed facts were notably committed in Algeria and Turkey, the Cour de cassation sanctioned the cour d’appel for not having applied the relevant mandatory provisions of Article 6 of the Rome II regulation.

On the other hand, for French rules of conflict, the classical Belaid–Mutuelle du Mans system (established by case law) remains positive law, distinguishing between the rights which the parties can freely dispose of (droits disponibles, in which case judges are not obliged to apply French conflict-of-laws rules) and the rights which the parties cannot freely dispose of (droits indisponibles, in which case judges are obliged to apply French conflict-of-laws rules, on their own motion if necessary). In any case, courts retain the power to raise the conflict ex officio where the foreign element is flagrant, but their obligation to do so varies according to the nature of the rights disputed – a criterion often criticized for its imprecision.

In both Mienta and Airmeex cases, the derogatory regime of European rules of conflict is justified by a direct reference to the principles of primacy and effectiveness of EU law. Thus, for the Cour de cassation, the European conflict-of-laws rule does not enjoy a special status because it is a conflict-of-laws rule but rather because it is a (mandatory) European rule. Moreover, the criterion of the free disposability of rights was enforced on several occasions after Mienta, confirming that, in the eyes of the Cour de cassation, French judges have two quite distinct “offices”.

While the Airmeex ruling does not innovate in relation to the authority of the European rules of conflict, compared to Mienta, the Cour de cassation has nevertheless slightly modified its motivation. By adding a reference to Article 3 of the French Code civil to those to Article 12 of French Code de procédure civile and the principles of primacy and effectiveness of EU law, the court connects its solution with the general theory of French private international law. It also allows convergence of regimes between the authority of the rule of conflict and the status of foreign law, contemporary case law in the latter domain developing on the ground of the same Article 3.

Despite being two distinct issues, strengthening the status of foreign law is the corollary of reinforcing the authority of conflict-of-laws rules. In France, foreign law is formally considered as a “rule of law” and the establishment of its content is still regulated by the Aubin–Itraco system (also established on case law). This case law imposes a “duty of investigation” according to which the judge who recognizes the applicability of foreign law must “investigate its content, either on its own motion or at the request of the party who invokes it, with the assistance of the parties and personally if necessary, and give the disputed question a solution consistent with positive foreign law”. However, this apparent automaticity in applying foreign law shall not obscure the fundamental difficulties raised by the encounter with “otherness” in its legal form. Critical approaches to comparative law teach that there is an irreducible space separating foreign-law-as-it-is-lived-in-its-country-of-origin and foreign-law-as-it-is-apprehended-by-the-national-judge. This literature could fortunately inspire private international law in developing a procedural framework of hospitality for applying foreign law in its own terms.

Conclusion

The Airmeex and Mienta decisions will only partially content those who advocate for the general obligation of domestic judges to systematically enforce every single European rule of conflict. It will satisfy even less French’ majority scholarship, which considers that any rule of conflict should be obligatory for the judge. Nevertheless, it is in line with the traditional approach of the Cour de cassation that elaborates the authority of conflict-of-laws rules on the basis of substantive considerations.

The draft French Code de droit international privé runs counter to this current trend of the case law. Its Article 9 would impose the mandatory application of every rule of conflict, whatever their source or the nature of the rights in dispute. This question of the “office du juge” in the draft Code renders the pitfalls inherent in the codification process all the more apparent. Despite the generic principle enshrined in Article 9, the project multiplies special norms and exceptions in a quite scattered manner. We can express some reservations as to the interest of rigidifying a matter in which case law has, in spite of repeated resistance from the scholarship, chosen a pragmatic position grounded on substantial considerations, especially when such ossification is based on the hypertrophy of special regimes. Similar flaws appear to jeopardize the draft Code’s provisions on the proof of foreign law (namely Articles 13 and 14).

Although the attempt at codification is commendable and the actual result much honourable, the complex status of conflict-of-laws rules and foreign law seem intrinsically irreconcilable with the simplification and systematization approach inherent in the exercise. It might be fortunate to recognize that, when it comes to foreign law, “l’essentiel est là entre les mains du juge”.

Guest post by Professor Yeo Tiong Min, SC (honoris causa), Yong Pung How Chair Professor of Law, Yong Pung How School of Law, Singapore Management University

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp (formerly known as Merck & Co, Inc) v Merck KGaA (formerly known as E Merck) [2021] 1 SLR 1102, [2021] SGCA 14 (“Merck”), noted previously, is a landmark case in Singapore private international law, being a decision of a full bench of the Court of Appeal setting out for the first time in Singapore law the limits of transnational issue estoppel. It was also the beginning of the deconstruction of the common law on the legal effect to be given to foreign judgments. Without ruling on the issue, the court was not convinced by the obligation theory as the rationale for the recognition of foreign in personam judgments under the common law, preferring instead to rest the law on the rationales of transnational comity and reciprocal respect among courts of independent jurisdictions. There was no occasion to depart from the traditional rules of recognition of in personam judgments in that case, and the court did not do so. However, the shift in the rationale suggested that changes could be forthcoming. While this sort of underlying movements have generally led to more expansive recognition of foreign judgments (eg, in Canada’s recognition of foreign judgments from courts with real and substantial connection to the underlying dispute), the indications in the case appeared to signal a restrictive direction, with the contemplation of a possible reciprocity requirement as a necessary condition for recognition of a foreign judgment, and a possible defence where the foreign court had made an error of Singapore domestic law.

The Republic of India v Deutsche Telekom AG [2023] SGCA(I) 10, another decision of a full bench of the Court of Appeal, provides strong hints of possible future reconstruction of the common law in this important area. While in some respects it signals a possibly slightly more restrictive common law approach towards the recognition of foreign judgments, in another respect, it portends a potentially radical expansion to the common law on foreign judgments.

Shorn of the details, the key issue in the case was a simple one. The appellant had lost the challenge in a Swiss court to the validity of an award against it made by an arbitral tribunal seated in Switzerland. The respondent then sought to enforce the award in Singapore. The question before the Singapore Court of Appeal was whether the appellant could raise substantially the same arguments that had been made before, and dismissed by, the Swiss court. The Court of Appeal formulated the key issue in two parts: (1) whether the appellant was precluded by transnational issue estoppel from raising the arguments; and (2) if not, then whether, apart from law of transnational issue estoppel, legal effect should be given to the judgment from the court of the seat of the arbitration. The second question, in the words of the majority, was:

“whether the decision of a seat court enjoys a special status within the framework for the judicial supervision and support of international arbitration, that is established by the body of law including the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards …, legislation based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration …, and case law.”

On the first issue, the court considered that the principles of transnational issue estoppel were applicable in the case. The majority (Sundaresh Menon CJ, Judith Prakash JCA, Steven Chong JCA, and Robert French IJ) summarised the principles in Merck as follow:

“(a) the foreign judgment must be capable of being recognised in this jurisdiction, where issue estoppel is being invoked. Under the common law, this means that the foreign judgment must:

(i) be a final and conclusive decision on the merits;

(ii) originate from a court of competent jurisdiction that has transnational jurisdiction over the party sought to be bound; and

(iii) not be subject to any defences to recognition;

(b) there must be commonality of the parties to the prior proceedings and to the proceedings in which the estoppel is raised; and

(c) the subject matter of the estoppel must be the same as what has been decided in the prior judgment.”

The court found on the facts that all the elements were satisfied in the case, and thus the appellant was precluded by the Swiss judgment from raising the challenges to the validity of the award in the enforcement proceedings in Singapore.

Mance IJ in a concurring judgment agreed that transnational issue estoppel applied to preclude the appellant from raising the challenges in this case. The application of issue estoppel principles to the international arbitration context is relatively uncontroversial from the perspective of private international law. There was one important distinction, however, between the majority and the concurring judgment on this point. The majority confined its ruling on transnational issue estoppel to a foreign judgment from the seat court, whereas Mance IJ considered transnational issue estoppel to be generally applicable to all foreign judgments in the international commercial arbitration context. Thus, in the view of the majority, the seat court may also enjoy special status for the purpose of transnational issue estoppel. It is not clear what this special status is in this context. At the highest level, it may be that transnational issue estoppel does NOT apply to foreign judgments that are not from the seat court, so that the only foreign judicial opinions that matter are those from the seat court. This will be a serious limitation to the existing common law. At another level, it may be that the rule that the prior foreign judgment prevails in the case of conflicting foreign judgments must give way when the later decision is from the seat court. This would modify the rule dealing with conflicting foreign judgments by giving a special status to judgments from the seat court.

Another notable observation of the majority judgment on the first issue lies in its formulation of the grounds of transnational jurisdiction, or international jurisdiction, ie, the connection between the party sought to be bound and the foreign court that justifies the recognition of the foreign judgment under Singapore private international law. Traditionally, it has been assumed that the common law of Singapore recognises four bases of international jurisdiction: the presence, or residence of the party in the foreign territory at the commencement of the foreign proceedings; or where the party had voluntarily submitted, or had agreed, to the jurisdiction of the foreign court. The majority in this case recognised four possible grounds: (a) presence in the foreign territory; (b) filing of a claim or counterclaim; (c) voluntary submission; and (d) agreement to submit to the foreign jurisdiction. Filing of claims and counterclaims amount to voluntary submission anyway. The restatement of the grounds omit residence as a ground of international jurisdiction. This is reminiscent of a similar omission in the restatement by the UK Supreme Court in Rubin v Eurofinance SA [2013] 1 AC 236, [2012] UKSC 46, which has since been taken as authoritative for the proposition that residence is not a basis of international jurisdiction under English common law. Notwithstanding that the Court of Appeal did not consider the Singapore case law supporting residence as a common law ground, it may be a sign that common law grounds for recognising foreign judgments may be shrinking. This may not be a retrogression, as international instruments and legislation may provide more finely tuned tools to deal with the effect of foreign judgments.

The key point being resolved on the first issue, there was technically no need to rule on the second issue. Nevertheless, the court, having heard submissions on the second issue from counsel (as directed by the court), decided to state its views on the matter. The most controversial aspect of the judgment lies in the opinion of the majority that, beyond the law of recognition of foreign judgments and transnational issue estoppel, there should be a “Primacy Principle” under which judgments from the seat of the arbitration have a special status in the law, as a result of the common law of Singapore developing in a direction that advances Singapore’s international obligations under the transnational arbitration framework. The majority summarised its provisional view of the proposed Primacy Principle in this way:

“By way of summary the Primacy Principle may be understood as follows, subject to further elaboration as the law develops:

(a) An enforcement court will act upon a presumption that it should regard a prior decision of the seat court on matters pertaining to the validity of an arbitral award as determinative of those matters.

(b) The presumption may be displaced (subject to further development):

(i) by public policy considerations applicable in the jurisdiction of the enforcement court;

(ii) by demonstration:

(A) of procedural deficiencies in the decision making of the seat court; or

(B) that to uphold the seat court’s decision would be repugnant to fundamental notions of what the enforcement court considers to be just;

(iii) where it appears to the enforcement court that the decision of the seat court was plainly wrong. The latter criterion is not satisfied by mere disagreement with a decision on which reasonable minds may differ. (As to where in the range between those two extremes, an enforcement court may land on, is something we leave open for development.) “

The Primacy Principle may be invoked if the case falls outside transnational estoppel principles. It may also be invoked even if the case falls within the transnational estoppel principles, if the party relying on it prefers to avoid the technical arguments relating to the application of transnational issue estoppel. However, the principle is only applicable if there is a prior judgment from the court of the seat; parties are not expected proactively to seek declarations from that court.

The Primacy Principle is said to build on the international comity in the specific context of international arbitration, by requiring an enforcement court to treat a prior judgment of a seat court as presumptively determinative of matters decided therein relating to the validity of the award, thus ensuring finality and avoiding inconsistency in judicial decisions, and promoting the effectiveness of international commercial arbitration. The majority also pointed out that the principle is aligned with the principle of party autonomy because the seat is generally expressly or impliedly selected by the parties themselves.

Mance IJ pointed out that the exceptions to the proposed Primacy Principle are very similar to the defences to issue estoppel, except that the exception based on the foreign decision being plainly wrong appears to go beyond the law on issue estoppel. In the elaboration of the majority, this refers to perversity (in the sense of the foreign court disregarding a clearly applicable law, and not merely applying a different choice of law) or a sufficiently serious and material error. In Merck, the Court of Appeal had suggested that a material error of Singapore law may be a ground for refusing to apply issue estoppel, but in principle it is difficult to differentiate between errors of Singapore law and errors generally, insofar as the principle is based on the constitutional role of the Singapore court to administer justice and the rule of law. So, this limitation in the Singapore law of transnational issue estoppel may well be in a state of flux.

Mance IJ disagreed with the majority on the need for, or desirability of, the proposed Primacy Principle. In his view, the case law supporting the principle are at best ambiguous, and there was no need to give any special status to the court of the seat of the arbitration under the law. In Mance IJ’s view, transnational issue estoppel, in the broader sense to include abuse of process (sometimes called Henderson estoppel (Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100; 67 ER 313), under which generally a party should not be allowed to raise a point that in all the circumstances it should have raised in prior litigation), is an adequate tool to deal with foreign judgments, even in the context of international arbitration. The rules of transnational issue estoppel are already designed to deal with the problem of injustice caused by repeated arguments and allegations in the context of international litigation. There is force in this view.  Barring defences, the transnational jurisdiction requirement for the recognition of judgments from the seat court under the common law does not usually raise practical issues because generally the seat would have been expressly or impliedly chosen by the parties and they are generally taken to have impliedly submitted to the jurisdiction of the court of the seat for matters relating to the supervision of the arbitration. Mance IJ also expressed concern about the uncertainty of a presumptive rule subject to defences where the contents of both the rule and defences are still unclear.

The contrasting views in the majority and the concurring judgments on the proposed Primacy Principle are likely to generate much debate and controversy. The Primacy Principle is said to be aligned with the territorialist view of international arbitration found in many common law countries and derived from the primary role that the court in the seat of the arbitration plays in the transnational arbitration framework. Thus, this view is highly unlikely to find sympathy with proponents of the delocalised theory. It will probably be controversial even in common law countries, where reactions similar to that of Mance IJ may not be unexpected.

Under the obligation theory, in personam judgments from a foreign court are recognised because the party sought to be bound has conducted himself in a certain manner in relation to the foreign proceedings leading to the judgment. On this basis, it is difficult to justify the special status of a judgment from the seat court within the principles of recognition or outside it. However, it would appear that, after Merck, while the obligation theory may not have been rejected in toto, it has not been accepted as the exclusive explanation for the recognition of in personam judgments under the common law. On the basis of transnational comity and reciprocal judicial respect, there is much that exists in the current common law that may be questioned, and much more unexplored terrain as far as the legal effect of foreign judgments not falling within the traditional common law rules of recognition is concerned. For example, the UK Supreme Court in Rubin v Eurofinance SA [2013] 1 AC 236, [2012] UKSC 46 had rejected that there were any special rules that apply to in personam judgments arising out of the insolvency context. This line of thinking has already been rejected in Singapore in the light of its adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (Re Tantleff, Alan [2022] SGHC 147; [2023] 3 SLR 250), but it remains to be seen what new rules or principles of recognition will be developed.

The idea that the judgment of the court of the seat (expressly or impliedly) chosen by the parties should have some special status in the law on foreign judgments has some intuitive allure. There is a superficial analogy with the position of the chosen court under the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. As a general rule (though not exclusively), the existence and validity of an exclusive choice of court agreement would be determined by the law applied by the chosen court, and a decision of the chosen court on the validity of the choice of court agreement cannot be questioned by the courts of other Contracting States. The Convention has no application to the arbitration context. However, at least under the common law, the seat of arbitration is invariably expressly or impliedly chosen by the parties, and it will usually carry the implication that the parties have submitted to the jurisdiction of the supervisory court for matters relating to the regulation of the arbitration process. It is also not far-fetched to infer that reasonable contracting parties would intend that court to have exclusive jurisdiction over such matters (C v D [2007] EWCA Civ 1282; [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 239), Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt Ltd v Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd [2018] SGHC 56). But this agreement cannot extend to issues being litigated at the enforcement stage, because naturally, contracting parties would want the freedom to enforce putative awards wherever assets may be found, and the enforcement stage issues frequently involve issues relating to the validity of the arbitration agreement and the award. This duality is the system contemplated under the New York Convention. Whatever other justification there may be for the special status of judgments of the court of the seat, it is hard to find it within the principle of party autonomy.

 

 

The University of Luxembourg will host a conference on Enforcing Arbitral Awards against Sovereigns: Recent Trends and Practice on 10 January 2024. The conference is organised in partnership with Bonn, Steichen and Partners.

The conference will be divided in four parts. The first will discuss the influence of EU law on enforcement. The second will address new issues related to enforcement such as assignment of awards and the influence of the right to property. The third will be concerned with issues relating to attachment of assets, including sovereign immunities and asset tracing. The fourth will discuss States’ international obligations to comply with arbitral awards.

Speakers will include Gary Born (WilmerHale), Nicholas Lawn (Lalive), Ana Stanic (E&U Law Limited), Gilles Cuniberti (University of Luxembourg), Yael Ribco Borman (Gaillard Banifatemi Shelbaya Disputes), Javier Garcia Olmedo (University of Luxembourg), Fabio Trevisan (Bonn Steichen), Laura Rees-Evans (Fietta LLP), Thierry Hoscheit (Supreme Court, Luxemburg), Paschalis Paschalidis (Arendt & Medernach), Philippa Webb (Twenty Essex/ King’s College London), Michaël Schlesinge (Archipel), Luciana Ricart (Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP), Crina Baltag, FCIArb (Stockholm University), Cameron Miles (3 Verulam Buildings), Manuel Casas (Twenty Essex), Loukas Mistelis (Queen Mary University of London/Clyde & Co), Matthew Happold (University of Luxembourg), Laure-Hélène Gaicio (Bonn Steichen).

The full programme can be found here. The event is free of charge, but registration is necessary (here).

The recently published Volume 433 of the Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law includes a course by Salim Moollan (Brick Court Chambers) on Parallel Proceedings in International Arbitration.

The issue of parallel proceedings in international arbitration has been a long-standing and classic problem within the field. Despite this, there have been major developments in practice since the last major academic analysis of the issue in 2006 by the International Law Association and by the Geneva Colloquium on Consolidation of Proceedings in Investment Arbitration, led by Professor Kaufmann-Kohler. With this in mind, now is an opportune moment to re-examine the issue through a fresh theoretical lens and renewed focus on finding practical solutions.

The blog of the European Association of Private International Law has hosted some 300 posts in the course of 2023: 79 of them reported on (and analysed) recent case law, while 64 informed about (and discussed) recent normative developments, at the domestic, European and international level (in 2022, the blog published 75 posts on case law and 38 posts on legislative developments).

Several posts were published to inform the members of the Association, and more generally the blog readers, about the activities of the Association (such as the position papers adopted by the working groups created to discuss the 1980 Child Abduction and the 1996 Child Protection Conventions, and the UNIDROIT draft principles on digital assets) and the Association’s events, including those planned to take place in 2024, including the EAPIL Winter School in Como and the EAPIL Conference in Wroclaw.

More than 60 posts were written by guests, which marks a slight increase compared with 2022. The editors are eager to receive more. So, please, potential guests, don’t hesitate to share with us your submissions! Just write an e-mail to blog@eapil.org.

The number of visitors has increased (+7%), and so has the number of subscribers: there are now more than 700 users who are regularly notified by e-mail of new posts. Our LinkedIn page, where the blog posts are re-published, has also attracted an increased number of “impressions”.

The most read posts, among those published in 2023, include Martina Mantovani’s Private International Law and Climate Change: the “Four Islanders of Pari” Case, Pietro Franzina’s Italian Authorities Claim Jurisdiction to Protect Indi Gregory After English High Court Ruled Life Support Should Be Withdrawn, and Matthias Lehmann’s UNIDROIT Principles on Digital Assets and Private Law Adopted.

Blog readers come from all over the world, with Europe, unsurprisingly, being the continent from which the majority of readers are established. Specifically, Italy, Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, France and Belgium are at the top of the list. The United States is the non-European country where most of the blog readers are based.

Globally, the posts published in 2023 attracted 115 comments. The most commented posts include Erik Sinander’s Qatari State Immunity for Employment Court Procedure in Sweden, Gilles Cuniberti’s London Steamship: English Court Declines to Follow Ultra Vires CJEU Judgment, Matthias Lehmann’s Club La Costa (Part 1): Group-of-Companies Doctrine and Proof of Corporate Domicile under Brussels I bis, and Ugljesa Grusic’s Are English Courts Becoming the World’s Arbitral Policeman?

Many thanks, on behalf of the editorial team of the EAPIL blog, to all those who read our posts (and react to them with comments), those who draw our attention to recent developments and upcoming events, and those who contribute to our work as guests!

And all the best for the New Year!

This international conference will be held on 21 February 2024 at the University of Sydney Law School, Australia. 

Keynote: Justice and injustice in foreign judgments – does terminology matter?

Professor Andrew Dickinson, Oxford University Law School

Other confirmed speakers include:

Arbitration

Professor Luke Nottage, University of Sydney:”Compliance with Alternative Dispute Resolution commitments in international commercial and investment agreements”

Dr. Yang Liu, East China University of Political Science and Law: Unilateral Sanctions as Defenses in Investment Arbitration

Ganesh Sahathevan, Centre For Industrial Research, Melanesian Mambefor Corporation: Remote Sensing Evidence in The Resolution Of Disputes Concerning Non-Compliant Carbon Credit Products

Dr Dan Xie, East China University of Political Science and Law: “The Judicial Interpretation and Application of Due Process Defence under the New York Convention: The Experience of Chinese Courts”

Litigation

Professor Vivienne Bath, University of Sydney

Professor Tao Du, East China University of Political Science and Law: The HCCH Conventions in Chinese Courts

Dr Yan Li, Seoul National University Law Research Institute: “Declining Jurisdiction in China and South Korea: A Mixture of Civil and Common Law Culture in Private International Law?”

Dr Thu Thuy Nguyen, Hanoi Law University: The Barriers for Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Vietnam

International commercial transactions

Professor Bing Ling, University of Sydney

Dapo Wang, Shanghai Jiaotong University: Economic Sanctions and the Trade-Compliance Dilemmas for Chinese Companies

Dr Lemuel Didulo Lopez, RMIT University: “Choice of Forum Clause and the Protection of Weaker Parties: Lessons from Asia”

Stefano Dominelli, University of Genoa, Italy: “Once a Trader, Always a Trader” – Or Maybe not: The EU Law Shaping of the Law of State Immunities

 

Conference registration information can be found here.

If you are a speaker or a member of the University of Sydney’s staff, student body, or alumni, please reach out to law.events@sydney.edu.au to obtain a promotion code.

by Du Tao*/Xie Keshi

On September 1, 2023, the fifth session of the Standing Committee of the 14th National People’s Congress deliberated and adopted the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on Amending the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, which will come into force on January 1, 2024. This amendment to the Civil Litigation Law implements the Party Central Committee’s decision and deployment on coordinating domestic rule of law and foreign-related rule of law, strengthening foreign-related rule of law construction, and among the 26 amendments involved, the fourth part of the Special Provisions on Foreign-related civil Procedure is exclusive to 19, which is the first substantive amendment to the foreign-related civil procedure since 1991.

 

Expand the jurisdiction of Chinese courts over foreign-related civil cases

 

The type of cases the court has jurisdiction over has been revised from “disputes due to contract or other property rights” to “foreign-related civil disputes other than personal status.” Besides, other appropriate connections have been added as the basis of jurisdiction, from the original enumeration to the combination of enumeration and generalization. In addition to providing jurisdiction based on choice-of-court agreements, this revision also adds two categories of exclusive jurisdiction which are the establishment, dissolution, and liquidation of legal persons or other organizations established in the territory of the People’s Republic of China and proceedings brought in connection with disputes relating to the examination of the validity of intellectual property rights granted in the territory of the People’s Republic of China.

 

The above amendments have further expanded the jurisdiction of Chinese courts over foreign-related civil litigation cases, which makes it more convenient for Chinese citizens to sue and respond to lawsuits in Chinese courts and better safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese citizens and enterprises.

 

Add provisions on parallel litigation

 

First, this revision adds a general provision for parallel litigation and a mechanism for coordinating jurisdictional conflicts. Where the parties are involved in the same dispute, one party institutes an action in a foreign court, while the other party institutes an action in a people’s court, or one party institutes an action in both a foreign court and a people’s court, the people’s court which has jurisdiction in accordance with this law may accept the action. If the parties enter into an exclusive jurisdiction agreement and choose a foreign court to exercise jurisdiction, which does not violate the provisions of this law on exclusive jurisdiction and does not involve the sovereignty, security, or public interest of the People’s Republic of China, the people’s court may rule not to accept.

 

Second, this revision adds a new suspension and restoration mechanism for civil and commercial cases accepted by foreign courts after being accepted by Chinese courts. After a people’s court accepts a case in accordance with the provisions of the preceding article, if a party applies to the people’s court in writing for suspending the proceedings on the ground that the foreign court has accepted the case before the people’s court, the people’s court may render a ruling to suspend the proceedings, except under any of the following circumstances: (1) The parties, by an agreement, choose a people’s court to exercise jurisdiction, or the dispute is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of a people’s court. (2) It is evidently more convenient for a people’s court to try the case. If a foreign court fails to take necessary measures to try the case or fails to conclude the case within a reasonable time limit, the people’s court shall resume proceedings upon the written application of the party. If an effective judgment or ruling rendered by a foreign court has been recognized, in whole or in part, by a people’s court, and the party institutes an action against the recognized part in the people’s court, the people’s court shall rule not to accept the action, or render a ruling to dismiss the action if the action has been accepted.

 

Third, this revision adds a new jurisdiction objection mechanism in the principle of inconvenient court. Where the defendant raises any objection to jurisdiction concerning a foreign-related civil case accepted by a people’s court under all the following circumstances, the people’s court may rule to dismiss the action and inform the plaintiff to institute an action in a more convenient foreign court: (1) It is evidently inconvenient for a people’s court to try the case and for a party to participate in legal proceedings since basic facts of disputes in the case do not occur within the territory of the People’s Republic of China. (2) The parties do not have an agreement choosing a people’s court to exercise jurisdiction. (3) The case does not fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of a people’s court. (4) The case does not involve the sovereignty, security, or public interest of the People’s Republic of China. (5) It is more convenient for a foreign court to try the case. If a party institutes a new action in a people’s court since the foreign court refuses to exercise jurisdiction over the dispute, fails to take necessary measures to try the case, or fails to conclude the case within a reasonable period after a people’s court renders a ruling to dismiss the action, the people’s court shall accept the action.

 

The amendments above conform to the international trend, integrate and optimize and further improve the mechanism for handling jurisdictional conflicts, and provide a clearer and more authoritative normative guidance for the people’s courts to coordinate handling jurisdictional conflicts in foreign-related civil and commercial cases in the future.

 

Revise relevant regulations on service of foreign-related documents

First, the limitation that an agent ad litem must have the right to accept service on his behalf in the original Civil Procedure Law is deleted, and it is clear that as long as the agent ad litem entrusted by the person served in this case, they should accept service, so as to curb the phenomenon of parties evading service.

 

Second, this revision adds the provision of “Documents are served on a wholly-owned enterprise, a representative office, or a branch office formed by the recipient within the territory of the People’s Republic of China or a business agent authorized to receive the service of documents”.

 

Third, this revision adds the provision of “[i]f the recipient who is a foreign natural person or a stateless person serves as the legal representative or principal person in charge of a legal person or any other organization formed within the territory of the People’s Republic of China and is a co-defendant with such a legal person or other organization, documents are served on the legal person or other organization”.

 

Fourthly, this revision adds the provision of “[i]f the recipient is a foreign legal person or any other organization, and its legal representative or principal person in charge is within the territory of the People’s Republic of China, documents are served on its legal representative or principal person in charge”.

 

Fifthly, this revision adds the provision of “documents are served in any other manner agreed upon by the recipient unless it is prohibited by the law of the country where the recipient is located”.

 

Last but not least, the time for the completion of service of a foreign-related announcement is shortened from three months after the date of announcement in the original Civil Procedure Law to 60 days after the date of issuance of the announcement, so that the starting point of service of a foreign-related announcement is more clear and the period of the announcement is shorter.

 

The above amendments moderately penetrate the veil of a legal person or an unincorporated organization and provide for alternative service between the relevant natural person and the legal person or unincorporated organization, helping enhance the possibility of successful service and the coping of difficult service in foreign-related cases.

 

Add provisions on extraterritorial investigation and evidence collection

 

On one hand, amended China’s Civil Procedure Law continues the requirement that Chinese courts conduct extraterritorial investigation and evidence collection in accordance with international treaties or diplomatic channels. On the other hand, it adds other alternative ways for Chinese courts to conduct extraterritorial investigation and evidence collection, that is, if the laws of the host country do not prohibit it, Chinese courts can adopt the following methods for investigation and evidence collection: (1) If a party or witness has the nationality of the People’s Republic of China, the diplomatic or consular missions of the People’s Republic of China in the country where the party or witness is located may be entrusted to take evidence on his behalf; (2) Obtaining evidence through instant messaging tools with the consent of both parties; (3) Obtaining evidence in other ways agreed by both parties.

 

This revision enriches the methods of extraterritorial investigation and evidence collection of Chinese courts and brings more convenience to the judicial practice of extraterritorial evidence collection in foreign-related civil litigation, thus raising the enthusiasm of judicial personnel for extraterritorial evidence collection and improving the trial efficiency and quality of foreign-related civil cases.

 

Improve the basic rules on the recognition and enforcement of extraterritorial judgments, rulings, and arbitral awards

 

Amended Chinese Civil Procedure Law provides the circumstances under which a judgment or order with extraterritorial effect is not recognized or enforced and the suspension and restoration mechanism of litigation involving disputes of foreign effective judgments and rulings applied for recognition and enforcement that have been accepted by Chinese courts. Furthermore, it revises the expression of extraterritorial arbitration award determination and expands the scope of Chinese courts to apply for recognition and enforcement of extraterritorial effective arbitration award.

 

Conclusion

 

This revision of China’s Civil Procedure Law focuses on improving the foreign-related civil procedure system. On one hand, the mature provisions in previous judicial interpretations, court meeting minutes, and other documents have been elevated to law, providing a more solid legal basis for the court’s jurisdiction and service of foreign-related cases. On the other hand, it gives a positive response to conflicts in judicial practice and differences in interpretation of existing rules, introduces consensus in practice into legislation, reduces various obstacles for courts to exercise jurisdiction over foreign-related cases, conforms to the trend of international treaties and practices, and clarifies the specific scope of application of various rules. It will better protect the litigation rights and legitimate rights and interests of Chinese parties, better safeguard China’s national sovereignty, security and development interests, and better create a market-oriented, law-based, and internationalized first-class business environment.

 

*Dr. Du Tao, Professor at the East China University of Political Science and Law, Shanghai, China

 

On 14 December 2023, AG Emiliou delivered his opinion in case C‑90/22 (‘Gjensidige’ ADB), which is about Brussels I bis, more precisely Articles 71 and 45, and the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR).

The context: A “dispute arose following a theft of cargo during its transportation from the Netherlands to Lithuania. The insurer concerned claimed compensation from the carrier and it did so in Lithuania, relying on a choice-of-court agreement contained in the contract of carriage.

5. However, at that point in time, the carrier had already initiated judicial proceedings in the Netherlands, with the aim of establishing that its liability in this particular context was limited. Before granting that claim, the Netherlands court affirmed its jurisdiction by applying one of the jurisdictional rules contained in the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (‘the CMR’), despite the choice-of-court agreement referred to above, which, from the point of view of that court, could not exclude the other (alternative) grounds of jurisdiction set out in the CMR.

6. Following recognition by the Lithuanian courts of that judgment, [Gjensidige, an insurance company that had insured the consignment and made an insurance payment] filed an appeal in cassation before the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania, Lithuania), the referring court. It argues that recognition of the judgment of the Netherlands court is at odds with Regulation No 1215/2012, as that regulation establishes, in principle, the exclusivity of the jurisdiction resulting from a choice-of-court agreement.

7. In those circumstances, the referring court wonders, first, which rules of jurisdiction apply. It notes that Regulation No 1215/2012 confers primacy of application to rules laid down in a specialised international convention, such as the CMR. Nevertheless, it doubts whether such precedence may permit a choice-of-court agreement to be disregarded, in view of the enhanced protection accorded to those agreements by Regulation No 1215/2012. Second, it seeks clarification on whether this increased protection must result in the recognition of the judgment of the Netherlands court being refused. Although Regulation No 1215/2012 does not expressly allow for such an approach, the referring court enquires whether broader interpretation thereof is called for so as to safeguard, in essence, the intentions of the parties, as documented in the choice-of-court agreement at issue”.

The opinion: “Article 45(1)(a) and (e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 […] must be interpreted as meaning that the grounds for the refusal of recognition set out therein do not apply to a situation in which the court of origin established its jurisdiction on the basis of one of several rules contained in a specialised convention, within the meaning of Article 71 of Regulation No 1215/2012, which include – but do not classify as exclusive – a choice-of-court agreement, and when the court of origin was not the court designated by the choice-of-court agreement concluded by the parties concerned.

Moreover, Article 45(1)(a) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that an error, when established, as to the determination of the applicable law cannot, per se, lead to the recognition of a judgment being refused on the ground that it is contrary to the public policy of the State addressed”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=280634&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=10873860

The Court of Justice delivered on 23 November 2023 its judgment in case C‑321/22 (ZL, KU, KM v Provident Polska S.A.), which is about Article 7 Directive 93/13 (notably):

“Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13, read in the light of the principle of effectiveness, must be interpreted as precluding a national law which, as interpreted in the case-law, requires, in order for a consumer’s action for a declaration that an unfair term in a contract concluded with a seller or supplier is unenforceable to be upheld, proof of an interest in bringing proceedings, where that interest is regarded as being absent where the consumer may bring an action for the recovery of sums unduly paid, or where the consumer may raise that unenforceability as part of his or her defence to a counter-claim brought against him or her by that seller or supplier on the basis of that term.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=280068&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=10873860

AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona delivered on 23 November 2023 his opinion in case C‑634/22, which is about Article 19 TEU and the abolition of a specialised Court (in that case a criminal one but the opinion seems equally applicable to a civil and commercial Court, hence its inclusion on this blog).

The opinion: “The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a reform of the judicial system of a Member State according to which a specialised criminal court is abolished and its jurisdiction transferred to a different, ordinary, court, and which provides at the same time that the criminal cases being dealt with in the abolished court and in which a hearing has been held will continue to be heard by the formation that had jurisdiction until that time.

Nor does it preclude, in the context of that reform of the judicial system, the reassignment of the judges of the abolished court to other courts with the same rank, on the basis of objective criteria free of any suspicion of arbitrariness”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=juridiction%2Bp%25C3%25A9nale%2Bsuppression%2B&docid=280082&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=10883304#ctx1

The Court of Justice delivered on 16 November 2023 its judgment in case C‑497/22 (EM v Roompot Service BV), which is about Article 24 Brussels I bis.

The context: “On 23 June 2020, EM, made a booking, via the internet on the website of Roompot Service, for a bungalow at the Waterpark Zwartkruis holiday park, situated at Noardburgum (Netherlands), for the period from 31 December 2020 to 4 January 2021 for a group of nine people who were members of more than two different households.

7 The booking was for a total rental price of EUR 1 902.80, which EM paid in full, and included the provision of bed linen and cleaning at the end of the stay

8 The water park has bungalows located directly on a lake, each with a separate jetty. Boats and canoes can be hired for an additional charge.

9 Roompot Service informed EM by email, prior to arrival and at her request, that the waterpark was open during the period of her booking despite the COVID-19 pandemic, but that, due to the rules in force in the Netherlands, it was only possible for her to stay in the accommodation with her family and a maximum of two people from another household in one bungalow. Roompot Service also offered EM the opportunity to rebook her stay for a later date.

10 Since EM did not stay at the accommodation and did not rebook her stay, she was repaid the amount of EUR 300 by Roompot Service.

11 EM brought an action against Roompot Service before the Amtsgericht Neuss (Local Court, Neuss, Germany) seeking repayment of the remainder of the rental price, in the amount of EUR 1 602.80, plus interest and costs. Roompot Service contested the international jurisdiction of the German courts to hear such an action.

12 By judgment of 1 October 2021, the Amtsgericht Neuss (Local Court, Neuss) dismissed the action as unfounded.

13 EM lodged an appeal before the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Regional Court, Düsseldorf, Germany), the referring court.

14 That court is uncertain whether Netherlands courts have exclusive international jurisdiction to hear the case in the main proceedings on the basis of the first subparagraph of Article 24(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012”.

The decision: “The first subparagraph of Article 24(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 […] must be interpreted as meaning that a contract concluded between an individual and a tourism professional by which the latter lets for short-term personal use holiday accommodation situated in a holiday park operated by that professional and including, in addition to the letting of that accommodation, the performance of a range of services in return for a lump sum, does not come within the concept of ‘tenancies of immovable property’ within the meaning of that provision”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=279761&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=10873860

AG Collins delivered on 16 November 2023 his opinion in joined cases C‑345/22 to C‑347/22 (Maersk A/S), which are about Article 25 Brussels I bis.

The context: “Each of these actions is a claim for damages on foot of the partial loss of goods transported by sea. They raise the issue as to the conditions under which a jurisdiction clause in a contract for the carriage of goods by sea evidenced by a bill of lading may be enforced against a third party that subsequently acquired those goods, thereby becoming a third-party holder of that bill of lading”.

The opinion: “(1) Article 25(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 […] must be interpreted as meaning that a jurisdiction clause agreed between a carrier and a shipper which is incorporated in a bill of lading is enforceable against a third-party holder of the bill of lading if, on acquiring that bill, it succeeded to the shipper’s rights and obligations. It is for the court seised of the matter to answer that question in accordance with national substantive law as established by applying its rules of private international law. The rule in that provision that the substantive validity of a jurisdiction clause is to be assessed in accordance with the law of the Member State of the court or courts designated in that clause does not govern the enforceability of a jurisdiction clause incorporated in a bill of lading against a third-party holder of that bill.

(2) Article 25(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a third party to a contract for the carriage of goods by sea concluded between a carrier and a shipper that acquires the bill of lading evidencing that contract is subrogated to all the shipper’s rights and obligations, with the exception of the jurisdiction clause incorporated therein, which is enforceable against it only where it negotiated that clause individually and separately”.

The source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=279783&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=10873860

The Court of Justice delivered on 9 November 2023 its judgment in case C‑598/21 (SP, CI v Všeobecná úverová banka a.s.), which is about Article 7 Directive 93/13 (notably):

“Article 3(1), Article 4(1), Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, read in the light of Articles 7 and 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the judicial review of the unfairness of an acceleration clause contained in a consumer credit agreement does not take account of the proportionality of the option given to the seller or supplier to exercise his or her right under that clause, in the light of criteria relating, in particular, to the extent of the consumer’s failure to fulfil his contractual obligations, such as the amount of the instalments which have not been paid in relation to the total amount of the credit and the duration of the contract, and to the possibility that the implementation of that clause may result in the seller or supplier being able to recover the sums due under that clause by selling, without any legal process, the consumer’s family home”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=279485&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=10873860

AG Pikamäe delivered on 26 October 2023 his opinion in joined cases C‑554/21, C‑622/21 and C‑727/21 (Hann-Invest), which are about Article 19 TEU:

“The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union must be interpreted as not precluding national rules and practices which, at the deliberation stage of court proceedings at second instance concerning a dispute that has been the subject of a decision by the judicial panel seised, provide for:

–      the referral to an enlarged formation by the president of the court or the president of a specialised section, in the light of that decision and where the consistency of the court’s case-law may be or is being undermined, for the purpose of the adoption, by majority vote, of a common position as to the general and abstract interpretation of the applicable legal rule, previously a matter of debate between the parties, which the formation initially seised must take into account for the purpose of resolving the dispute as to the substance;

–      the informing of the president of the court or the president of a specialised division, by a judge responsible for monitoring the case-law of the court, in a situation where the consistency of that case-law may be or is being undermined because the formation seised has maintained its original decision and, pending the adoption of the abovementioned legal position, the suspension of that formation’s decision ruling on the dispute and its notification to the parties”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=279141&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=10873860

Maxence Rivoire (PhD Candidate at the University of Cambridge and an incoming Lecturer in French Law at King’s College London) made available on SSRN his paper on ‘The Law Applicable to the Arbitrability of Registered Intellectual Property Rights’. In 2022 the paper won the Nappert Prize in International Arbitration awarded by McGill University.

The abstract reads as follows:

Although the power of an arbitral tribunal is subject to the will of the parties, some legal systems exclude certain types of intellectual property (IP) disputes from arbitration. This problem is commonly known as ‘arbitrability’. But what law, if any, should international arbitrators apply to arbitrability? This article addresses this question with a special focus on registered IP rights. Part I rejects the conflict rules that have traditionally been suggested to govern arbitrability, including the application of the law governing the arbitration agreement and that of the arbitral seat (lex loci arbitri). Part II argues that arbitrators should instead recognize the existence of a transnational principle whereby contractual, infringement, and ownership disputes are arbitrable. However, due to persisting uncertainty and differences among jurisdictions on the arbitrability of issues relating to the validity of registered IP rights, arbitrators should still give effect to domestic rules in this area. Acknowledging that non-arbitrability rules aim to safeguard the policy objectives of substantive IP laws and to protect the exclusive jurisdiction of national courts. Part III argues that the law applicable to the arbitrability of validity issues should be the law of the country for which IP protection is sought (lex loci protectionis), which corresponds to the law of the country where the IP right is registered. After examining the justification of this principle, Part III also discusses its practical implementation, notably where the dispute concerns IP rights registered in different countries, and where the lex loci protectionis clashes with the lex loci arbitri.

The author proposes a useful framework for international arbitrators who have to deal with conflict of laws relating to the arbitrability of registered IP rights such as patents and trademarks.