Droit international général

The Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on amending Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies’ (COM(2020) 642 final) (EESC 2020/04962) has been published last Friday at the OJEU (C 123, 9.4.2021, p. 66).

Extracts:

“Conclusions and recommendations

1.1 The EESC welcomes the Commission’s proposal (1) to strengthen the internal review mechanism contained in the Aarhus Regulation (2) and appreciates its potential.

1.2 The EESC supports the four priority actions identified in the Commission’s Communication, namely the Member States’ obligation to fully and correctly transpose access to justice requirements stemming from EU secondary law, the need for co-legislators to include provisions on access to justice in new and revised EU legislation concerning environmental matters, the review by Member States of their own national legislative and regulatory provisions that prevent or undermine access to justice, and the obligation of national courts to guarantee the right of individuals and NGOs to an effective remedy under EU law.

1.3 Nevertheless, the EESC points out to the Commission that its proposal contains loopholes which may be used by institutions to avoid being held accountable.

1.4 Thus for example the EESC does not endorse the Commission’s proposal to exclude EU acts entailing ‘national implementing measures’, because there is a real possibility that this exclusion could nullify or devalue the Commission proposal.

1.5 The EESC is also concerned that allowing civil society organisations (CSOs) to conduct a review only when the implementing measures have been adopted would insulate many, if not most, EU acts and omissions from internal review.

1.6 Despite the arguments set out by the Commission, the EESC notes that non-legally binding EU acts can have significant effects both on the implementation of EU legislation and on its interpretation by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

1.7 The social partners are key players in environmental issues, and the EESC therefore urges that they be explicitly recognised as regards access to justice.

1.8 The EESC stresses that the new Regulation should permit internal review of Commission state aid decisions.

1.9 The EESC considers that protection of CSOs from extra burdens (like additional costs and bureaucratic measures) at both national and EU levels must be properly ensured in order to make judicial review accessible in practice”.

Source: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.C_.2021.123.01.0066.01.ENG&toc=OJ%3AC%3A2021%3A123%3ATOC

The last issue of the Revue critique de droit international privé has been released. It contains several case notes and four articles.

The first article, by Didier Boden (University of Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne), proposes new names and definitions in order to enrich private international law. Pursuant to the author: “Private international law and the other sets of rules of a legal order which touch upon its relations with other legal orders are poorly named and poorly defined”. The article “proposes to remedy that lexical impropriety and that semantic deficiency by presenting a new collection of names and a new collection of definitions”.

The Second article, authored by Frederick T. Davis (Columbia Law School) and Charlotte Gunka (Attorney-at-law, New York Bar), discusses the possibilities offered by the American CLOUD Act, with regard to criminal and digital sovereignty. The abstract reads as follows: “At a time when the Covid-19 crisis has raised awareness over the urgent need for European Member States to enhance their national sovereignty through the European Union, it is essential to go back to the possibilities offered by the U.S. CLOUD Act with regard to criminal and digital sovereignty. The CLOUD Act proposes a reform of current mutual legal assistance mechanisms by establishing access to digital evidence as the benchmark authorizing computer searches outside state borders, regardless of the location of the relevant data. Although this benchmark allows for more extensive extraterritorial application of U.S. criminal proceedings, an analysis of European regulations and legislation currently in force in France and the United Kingdom confirms that the European approach is not so different from the one introduced by the U.S. government. The emergence of the computer world and the acceleration of new technologies have created a “criminal digital space”, ephemeral and borderless, which requires a fundamental transformation of criminal procedures allowing for faster and more efficient international cooperation against transnational crime. This should give an opportunity to Europe, in particular through its new European Public Prosecutor’s Office, to assert its digital sovereignty through the individual fundamental rights that it continues to promote without undermining the security and strategic interests of its Member States”.

The third article, by Vincent Richard (Max Planck Institute Luxembourg) presents the new Regulation (EU) no 2020/1783 adopted on 25 November 2020, which recasts Regulation (EC) no 1206/2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters.

The fourth article, by Thibaut Fleury Graff (University of Rennes) deals with the issues of the rights of foreigners and international migrations.

A full table of contents is available here.

On 8 April 2020, the UK formally applied to accede to the Lugano Convention. The one year period recommended for deciding on this application in Article 72(3) of the Convention has thus expired on 8 April 2021, causing harm for judicial cooperation.

However, things seem to start moving. According to a report in the Financial Times, the European Commission wants to give today (12 April 2021) a positive assessment of the British application, despite its earlier reluctance to grant the UK’s application. This change of mood seems to be the result of technical analysis carried out on the consequences of the British accession or non-accession. The article cites an unnamed EU diplomat who emphasises the Union’s awareness of the “practical benefits of having Britain in a co-operation pact that prevented legal disputes from being unnecessarily messy”.

This is a hopeful sign that judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters may continue after Brexit. But let us not rush to quick conclusions. The final decision on the EU’s position lies with the European Parliament and Council under Articles 81(1), (2) and 218(5), (6)(a)(v) TFEU. It will be particularly interesting how Member States will vote in the Council.

This post was contributed by Bukhard Hess, who is a director of the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg.

Gilles Cuniberti has kindly invited me to comment on the decision of the Paris Tribunal Judiciaire from a German perspective – here are my reflections on this interesting case:

1. Under German law, a contract retaining an arbitrator is a private law contract for services related to arbitration. German law clearly separates the underlying contract with the arbitrator from the procedural functions (including obligations) of the arbitrator within the arbitration proceedings (most recently: Ruckdeschler & Stooß, Die vorzeitige Beendigung der Schiedsrichtertätigkeit, Festschrift Kronke (2020), p. 1517 – 1519). Therefore, the contract retaining an arbitrator falls in the scope of the arbitration exception set out at Article 1(2) of the Brussels Ibis Regulation only provided there is an express arbitration clause in the service contract with the arbitrator. Actions for damages against the arbitrator for the breach of the service contract (based on § 280 and 281 of the German Civil Code) are not ancillary proceedings within the meaning of Recital 12 para 4 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation. The arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdictional powers to decide contractual damage claims brought against an arbitrator. Such claims are, in fact, not related to the arbitration proceedings, the breach of the arbitrator’s duties merely amounting to an incidental issue. In this regard, I agree with the decision of the Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris.

2. Under German law, the service contract with the arbitrator usually establishes contractual relationships with both parties, cf. Schack, Internationales Zivilprozessrecht (8th ed. 2021), para 1461; Schlosser, Recht der Internationalen, privaten Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit (2nd ed. 1989), para 491. Specifically, § 675, 611 and 427 of the BGB apply to this contract (there is a debate whether the contract qualifies as a contract sui generis). The situation is not different when an arbitration organization is involved as the organization concludes the contract with the arbitrators on behalf of the parties (Stein/Jonas/Schlosser, Vor § 1025 ZPO (Commentary, 23rd ed. (2014), para. 17). As I have previously stated, German doctrine clearly distinguishes the contractual relationship between the parties and the arbitrator from the procedural functions (“Amt”) of the arbitrator. The latter is regulated by the lex arbitri and concerns the procedural role of the arbitrator. If the parties do not agree on specific (institutional) rules, § 1034 -1039 of the Code of Civil Procedure apply.

3. If one agrees that the Brussels I bis Regulation applies, the place of performance is to be determined according to its Article 7 no 1b, 2nd indent. When it comes to a contract for the services of an arbitrator, one might consider an agreed place of performance at the seat of the arbitral tribunal (when the parties agreed on the place where the arbitration proceedings take place). Otherwise, the seat of arbitration might be the place where the arbitrators render their services. As Article 7 no 1 places much emphasis on the factual place of performance, much depends on the factual situation – especially in an instance where the arbitral tribunal holds virtual hearings and deliberates online. In this case, one might consider localizing the place of performance at the law office of each individual arbitrator.

In the case at hand, the claim was based on an alleged violation of the duty to disclose a conflict of interests. The assessment of such a violation entailed investigations also regarding the activities of the arbitrator’s law firm, localized at the place of the law firm’s office. However, according to the case law of the ECJ, under Article 7 no 1 the place of the main provision of service – and not the place where the concrete contractual obligation was breached – is decisive for the purposes of establishing jurisdiction (C-19/09 Wood Floor Solutions, cf. Hess, Europäisches Zivilprozessrecht, 2nd ed. 2021, § 6, para 6.56). Consequently, I would agree with the Paris court that the place of performance was Germany.

4. Finally, I would like to address one additional aspect: Does the decision of the French court that located the place of performance in Germany bind the German courts? The ECJ addressed this issue in case C-456/11 (Gothaer Versicherungen, paras 36 et seq.). It held that a German court was bound by a decision of a Belgian court on the validity and the derogative effects of a jurisdiction clause designating the Dutch courts as the competent courts (see Hess, Europäisches Zivilprozessrecht, 2nd ed. 2021, § 6, paras 6.206 – 6.207). In the case at hand, the situation is different as the French court stated that the place of performance of the contract was located in Germany, not in France. However, one might consider that this statement of the Paris court is binding on the parties and might be recognized as binding under Article 36 of the Brussels I bis Regulation in the German proceedings. I am well aware that this effect transcends the current case law under the Brussels I bis Regulation. However, it would be a consequence of Gothaer Versicherungen to assume a binding force of the French judgment rejecting the lawsuit as inadmissible. This binding force would prevent a déni de justice by a German court. Yet, it remains to be seen whether such binding force is compatible with the case law of the ECJ according to which each court of the EU Member States has to assess ex officio whether it has jurisdiction under the Brussels I bis Regulation (C-185/07, Allianz).

Please click here for a link to the registration page. The Facebook page of the events is available here. We have previously announced this event here.

Among the goals pursued by the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law is to promote research and academic exchange with foreign scholars.

In this framework, to assist particularly young scholars further advance their research activity, the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg offers a limited number of scholarships for foreign doctoral candidates to support their research stay at the Institute for up to six months in the calendar year 2022.

Eligibility

To be eligible for the scholarship, applicants must be doctoral candidates carrying out research activity within the Institute’s various areas of research, and intend to be affiliated either to the Department of European and Comparative Procedural Law or the Department of International Law and Dispute Resolution. While proficiency in English is compulsory, the call is also open to doctoral candidates writing their thesis in a language other than English.

Application

To apply, the interested candidates meeting the requirements of the call must submit the following documents, in English: a cover letter (max. 1 page), stating the motivation for their application, the correlation between the topic of their research and the Institute’s areas of research, and the desired time frame for the scholarship stay; an up-to-date curriculum vitae, with an indication of the class of degree awarded (undergraduate and postgraduate, if relevant); a summary of the PhD project (max. 2 pages), including subject, description and work plan; two letters of recommendation (including one from the PhD supervisor, with his/her contact details).

Grant and Benefits

The scholarship is paid in monthly instalments of 1.500 €. The selected applicants will be offered a workstation in the reading room. They will also have the opportunity to participate in the regular scientific events hosted at the Institute, other activities and access to the Institute’s library. During the funding period, the presence of the Scholarship Holder at the Institute is required.

Deadline for Applications

15 May 2021

Application Details

Please follow this link, apply online and upload all required documents.

Contact

Christiane Göbel and Eva Dobay at scholarship@mpi.lu.

On 31 March 2021, the Paris main first instance court (tribunal judiciaire, formerly tribunal de grande instance) ruled on the international jurisdiction of French courts to determine arbitrators’s liability. It held that it was a contractual claim in the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of the Brussels I bis Regulation and declined jurisdiction on the ground that the arbitrator had provided his service in Germany. This post is based on a press release of the court.

Background

The case was concerned with distribution contracts in the automobile industry.  The contracts contained clauses providing for ICC arbitration in Paris under German law. The origin of the parties is unknown, but none of them was French.

After two contracts were terminated, an arbitration was initiated. The parties agreed that the hearings would be held in Germany.

The resulting award, however, was challenged before French courts, and ultimately set aside on the ground that one arbitrator had failed to disclose certain relationships between his law firm and one of the parties to the arbitration.

The arbitrator was sued in Paris for damages.

Arbitration Exception?

The first issue was whether the European law of jurisdiction applied. The Brussels Ibis Regulation includes an “arbitration exception”. Did a claim seeking to establish the liability of the arbitrator fall within it?

The Paris court held that it did not. It ruled that the claim was based on the “arbitration contract” existing between the parties and the arbitrators, and that this contract was distinct from the arbitration. Thus, the Brussels Ibis Regulation applied.

This is the most unconvincing part of the judgment. The proposition that the arbitration contract is unrelated to arbitration is really surprising. Aren’t the obligation of impartiality and independance, and the related disclosure obligation, found in arbitration legislations?

More generally, the distinction established by the European Court of Justice has been between the substantive rights that the arbitration proceedings are meant to settle, and proceedings ancillary to arbitration. So, in Van Uden for instance, the Luxembourg Court explained that proceedings relating to “the appointment or dismissal of arbitrators” fell within the exclusion. Could it really be that proceedings seeking damages for wrongful appointment of arbitrators do not?

Contractual Claim?

Let’s admit, for the sake of the argument, that the Brussels I bis Regulation applied. Was it, then, a contractual claim? The Paris court held so on the basis of the existence of an “arbitration contract” between the arbitrator and the plaintiff.

The existence of such a contract, however, is disputed. It is more or less convincing depending on the particulars of the case, that I do not know. If the parties and the arbitrators had entered into Terms of reference, which should be the case in ICC arbitration, the characterisation made sense.

In other cases, however, the existence of a contractual relationship is less clear, in particular as between a party appointed arbitrator and the party who did not appoint him.

Place of Provision of the Service

If the claim was contractual, the relevant contract was quite clearly a provision of service in the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of the Brussels I bis Regulation. It was therefore necessary to determine the place of the provision of the service.

The court first considered the provisions of the “contract” (it is unclear which contract: the arbitration agreement? the terms of reference?), which stated that “the place of the arbitration is Paris” and “The arbitral award and procedural orders are deemed to be rendered at the place of arbitration, that is Paris”. The court held, however, that these provisions did not reveal the choice of the parties to locate the provision of the services in Paris.

The court then assessed where the arbitrator had actually provided his intellectual service. The court found that it had been provided in Germany. The hearings had been held there, and the deliberations are taken place there. The court declined jurisdiction.

What is Next?

So it seems that the aggrieved party should now sue the arbitrator in Germany.

But will German courts also consider that the claims fall within the scope of the Brussels I bis Regulation and, if not, would they retain jurisdiction?

As announced earlier on this blog, the EAPIL Founding Conference will eventually take place on 2, 3 and 4 June 2022 in Aarhus, hosted by the Aarhus University.

Registration for the conference is now open. See here for further details.

A general presentation of the conference can be found here. See here for the full program as well as for details on venue, travel and accommodation.

For more information, please write an e-mail to Morten Midtgaard Fogt at mmf@law.au.dk.

This post was written by Vito Bumbaca, PhD candidate/ Assistant Lecturer, University of Geneva

The EAPIL blog has also published a post on this topic, click here.

Introduction:

The Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (Brussels IIA Regulation) still applies to the United Kingdom in EU cross-border proceedings dealing with parental responsibility and/ or child civil abduction commenced prior to the 31 December 2020 (date when ‘Brexit’ entered into force). Moreover, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is entitled to exercise its jurisdiction over such proceedings involving the UK.

The decision of the High Court of England and Wales (Family Division, 6 November 2020, EWHC 2971 (Fam)), received at the CJEU on 16 November 2020 for an urgent preliminary ruling (pursuant to article 19(3)(b) of the Treaty of the European Union, art. 267 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union, and art. 107 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice), and the CJEU judgment (SS v. MCP, C-603/20, 24 march 2021) are taken as reference in this analysis.

Question for a CJEU urgent preliminary ruling:

‘Does Article 10 of [Regulation No 2201/2003] retain jurisdiction, without limit of time, in a Member State if a child habitually resident in that Member State was wrongfully removed to (or retained in) a non-Member State where she, following such removal (or retention), in due course became habitually resident?’

Contents of the EWHC (Family Division) judgment:

This judgment involved an Indian unmarried couple with a British daughter, born in England (2017), aged more than three (almost four at the time of the CJEU proceedings). Both parents held parental responsibility over their daughter, the father being mentioned as such in the birth certificate. The mother and the child left England for India, where the child has lived continuously since 2019. The father applied before the courts of England and Wales seeking an order for the return of the child and a ruling on access rights. The mother contested the UK jurisdiction (EWHC 2971, § 19).

The father claimed that his consent towards the child’s relocation to India was temporary for specific purposes, mainly to visit the maternal grandmother (§ 6). The mother contended that the father was abusive towards her and the child and, on that basis, they moved to India (§ 8). Consequentially, she had requested an order (Form C100 ‘permission to change jurisdiction of the child’, § 13). allowing the child’s continuous stay in India. Accordingly, the mother wanted their daughter to remain in India with her maternal grandmother, but also to spend time in England after the end of the pandemics.

In the framework of article 8, Brussels IIA, the Family Division of the Court of England and Wales held that the habitual residence assessment should be fact-based. The parental intentions are not determinative and, in many circumstances, habitual residence is established against the wishes of the persons concerned by the proceedings. The Court further maintained, as general principles, that habitual residence should be stable in nature, not permanent, to be distinguished from mere temporary presence. It concluded that, apart from British citizenship, the child did not have factual connections with the UK. Therefore, according to the Court, the child was habitually resident in India at the time of the proceedings concerning access rights initiated in England (§ 16).

The Family Division extended its analysis towards article 12(3) of the Regulation concerning the prorogation of jurisdiction in respect of child arrangements, including contact rights. For the Court, there was no express parental agreement towards the UK jurisdiction, as a prerogative for the exercise of such jurisdiction, at the time of the father’s application. It was stated that the mother’s application before the UK courts seeking the child’s habitual residence declaration in India could not be used as an element conducive to the settlement of a parental agreement (§ 32).

Lastly, the Court referred to article 10 of Brussels IIA in the context of child abduction while dealing with the return application filed by the father. In practice, the said provision applies to cross-border proceedings involving the EU26 (excluding Denmark and the United Kingdom (for proceedings initiated after 31 December 2020)). Accordingly, article 10 governs the ‘competing jurisdiction’ between two Member States. The courts of the Member State prior to wrongful removal/ retention should decline jurisdiction over parental responsibility issues when: the change of the child’s habitual residence takes place in another Member State; there is proof of acquiescence or ultra-annual inaction of the left-behind parent, holding custody, since the awareness of the abduction. In these circumstances, the child’s return would not be ordered in principle as, otherwise provided, the original jurisdiction would be exercised indefinitely (§ 37).

In absence of jurisdiction under Brussels IIA, as well as under the Family Law Act 1986 for the purposes of inherent jurisdiction (§ 45), the High Court referred the above question to the CJEU.

CJEU reasoning:

The Luxembourg Court confirmed that article 10, Brussels IIA, governs intra-EU cross-border proceedings. The latter provision states that jurisdiction over parental responsibility issues should be transferred to the courts where the child has acquired a new habitual residence and one of the alternative conditions set out in the said provision is satisfied (SS v. MCP, C-603/20, § 39). In particular, the Court observed that article 10 provides a special ground of jurisdiction, which should operate in coordination with article 8 as a ground of general jurisdiction over parental responsibility (§ 43, 45).

According to the Court, when the child has established a new habitual residence in a third State, following abduction, by consequently abandoning his/ her former ‘EU habitual residence’, article 8 would not be applicable and article 10 should not be implemented (§ 46-50). This interpretation should also be considered in line with the coordinated activity sought between Brussels IIA and the Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (§ 56).

Ultimately, the Court maintained that article 10 should be read in accordance with recital 12 of the Regulation, which provides that, as one of its fundamental objectives, parental responsibility issues should be decided by the courts that better suit the principle of factual proximity in the child’s best interests (§ 58). Accordingly, the courts that are closest to the child’s situation should exercise general jurisdiction over parental responsibility. To such an extent, article 10 represents a balance between the return procedure, avoiding benefits in favour of the abductor parent, and the evoked proximity principle, freezing jurisdiction at the place of habitual residence.

The Court further held that if the courts of the EU Member State were to retain jurisdiction unconditionally, in case of acquiescence and without any condition allowing for account to be taken concerning the child’s welfare, such a situation would preclude child protection measures to be implemented in respect of the proximity principle founded on the child’s best interests (§ 60). In addition, indefinite jurisdiction would also disregard the principle of prompt return advocated for in the Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (§ 61).

The Court concluded that insofar as the child’s habitual residence changes to a third State, which is thus competent over parental responsibility, and article 12 of the Regulation is not applicable, the EU courts seised of the matter should apply the rules provided in the bilateral/multilateral instruments in force between the States in question or, on a subsidiary basis, the national Private International Law rules as indicated under article 14, Brussels IIA (§ 64).

Comment:

Considering the findings of fact, the CJEU reasoning and, prior to it, the EWHC judgment, are supported in that the daughter’s habitual residence at the time of the parental de facto separation (EWHC 2971, § 6-10) was in India; and remained there at the relevant date of the father’s application for return and access rights. If we assume, as implicitly reported in the decisions, that the child was aged less than one at the time of the first relocation from England to India, and that she lived more than two years (18 months between 2017-2018 and almost fully 2019-2020, (EWHC 2971, § 25)) within the maternal family environment in India, including prior to the wrongful act, her place of personal integration should be located in India at the above relevant date. Such a conclusion would respect the factual proximity principle enshrined in recital 12 of Brussels IIA, according to which habitual residence is founded on the child’s best interests. Recital 12 constitutes a fundamental objective applicable to parental responsibility, including access rights, and child abduction proceedings. As a result, the courts of the EU26 should be bound by it as a consequence of the Brussels IIA direct implementation.

The CJEU has not dealt with specific decisive elements that, in the case under analysis, would determine the establishing of the child’s habitual residence in India at a relevant time (the seisin under art. 8 and the period before abduction under art. 10 of the Regulation). Considering the very young age (cf. CJEU, SS v. MCP, C-603/20, § 33: ‘developmentally sensitive age’) of the daughter at the time of the relocation, the child’s physical presence corresponding to the mother’s and grandmother’s one as the primary carers prior to the wrongful act (retention) and to the return application, as well as the Indian social and family environment at the time of the seisin, highlighted by the EWHC, should be considered determinative (cf. CJEU, UD v. XB, C-393/18, 17 October 2018, § 57) – the Family Division instead excluded the nationality of the child as a relevant factor. The regularity of the child’s physical presence at an appreciable period should be taken into account, not as an element of temporal permanent character, but as an indicator of factual personal stability. In this regard, the child’s presence in one Member State should not be artificially linked to a limited duration. That said, the appreciable assessment period is relevant in name of predictability and legal certainty. In particular, the child’s physical presence after the wrongful act should not be used as a factor to constitute an unlawful habitual residence (Opinion of Advocate General Rantos, 23 February 2021, § 68-69).

Again, in relation to the child’s habitual residence determination in India, the child’s best interests would also play a fundamental role. The father’s alleged abuse, prior to the relocation, and his late filing for return, following the wrongful retention, should be considered decisive elements in excluding the English family environment as suitable for the child’s best interests. This conclusion would lead us to retain India as the child-based appropriate environment for her protection both prior to the wrongful retention, for the return application, as well as at the seisin, for access rights.

In sum, we generally agree with the guidance provided by the CJEU in that factual proximity should be considered a fulfilling principle for the child’s habitual residence and best interests determination in the context of child civil abduction. In this way, the CJEU has confirmed the principle encapsulated under recital 12, Brussels IIA, overcoming the current debate, which is conversely present under the Hague Convention 1980 where the child’s best interests should not be assessed [comprehensively] for the return application (HCCH, Guide to Good Practice Child Abduction Convention: Part VI – Article 13(1)(b); a contrario, European Court of Human Rights, Michnea v. Romania, no. 10395/19, 7 October 2020). However, it is argued (partly disagreeing with the CJEU statement) that primary focus should be addressed to the mutable personal integration in a better suited social and family environment acquired within the period between the child’s birth and the return application (cf. CJEU, HR, C-512/17, 28 June 2018, § 66; L v. M, 2019, EWHC 219 (Fam), § 46). The indefinite retention of jurisdiction, following abduction, should only be a secondary element for the transfer of jurisdiction in favour of the child’s new place of settlement after the wrongful removal/ retention to a third State. In practice, it is submitted that if the child had moved to India due to forced removal/ retention by her mother, with no further personal integration established in India, or with it being maintained in England, founded on the child’s best interests, the coordinated jurisdictional framework of articles 8 and 10 (and possibly article 12.4) of the Brussels IIA Regulation might have still been retained as applicable (cf. Opinion of Advocate General Rantos, § 58-59; as a comparative practice, see also L v. M, and to some extent Cour de cassation, civile, Chambre civile 1, 17 janvier 2019, 18-23.849, 5°). That said, from now on the CJEU reasoning should be binding for the EU26 national courts. Therefore, article 10 shall only apply to intra-EU26 cross-border proceedings, unlike articles 8 and 12 governing EU26-third State scenarios.

On 15 and 16 April 2021, the GLaw Research Network (Maastricht University) will host an online workshop on Article 47 of the EU Charter and effective judicial protection: The Court of Justice’s perspective.

Senior and junior academics specialising in EU law will discuss various aspects of the impact of Article 47 Charter on the EU constitutional order. On the first day of the workshop, the presentations will cover constitutional aspects of Article 47 of the EU Charter. On the second day, the speakers will discuss the application of this provision in selected EU policy areas.

The principle of effective judicial protection is one of the cornerstones of the EU legal order. Mentioned by the Court of Justice for the first time in the 1980s, and originally emanating from Articles 6 and 13 ECHR, this principle had a pivotal role in ensuring access to adequate remedies to protect the rights deriving from Union law. Since its inception, this principle was linked also to the protection of the rule of law, one of the founding values of the EU. Effective judicial protection is therefore one of the facets of the EU constitutional identity.

Following the entry into force of Lisbon Treaty, this principle has been constitutionalised in Article 19 TEU and Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the latter laying down the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial. Currently, Article 47 of the EU Charter is the most invoked EU Charter provision before national and EU courts. Article 47 Charter has also been at the centre of recent EU jurisprudence on the protection of the rule of law in the EU. This case law has confirmed the pivotal role of effective judicial protection in the EU architecture. It is not an overstatement that Article 47 is almost ‘omnipresent’ in the EU judgments as a result of a growing number of preliminary rulings and direct actions regarding the application of that provision. Novel questions thus arise regarding the impact of Article 47 Charter on the EU constitutional order, which require scientific observation and reflection. 

The full program and details on registration are available here.

On Monday, 12 April 2021, from 14:00 to 15:00 (CET), the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host the first presentations in a new monthly  “Private International Law in Africa” series, chaired by Justin Monsenepwo, the new head of the Africa desk. Professor Jan L Neels (University of Johannesburg) will be speaking on the topic:

“An Introduction to the African Principles of Commercial Private International Law”

The zoom presentation will be followed by an open discussion. All are welcome. After having registered no later than 9 April 2021 using this link you will receive the login details on Friday afternoon. More information and sign-up here.

The “Private International Law in Africa” series intends to discuss new scholarly work on private international law in Africa and advance solutions on how the current framework of that field can be improved on the continent. In an environment of growing international transactions in both civil and commercial matters, private international law can play a significant role in enhancing legal and judicial security and predictability in Africa.

In May 2021 the next speaker will be Dr. Abubakri Yekini (Lagos State University), who will speak on the topic “Enforceability of Jurisdiction Agreements in Nigeria”.

If you want to be invited to these events in the future, please write to veranstaltungen@mpipriv.de.

Shocking, completely unexpected news: Emmanuel Gaillard, the leading scholar and practitioner of international arbitration and a giant in the field, died on April 1, at age 69. Pierre Mayer calls this “an immense loss;” Jean-Dominique Merchet calls him a “star”. Le Monde du droit collected some further reactions from French colleagues. Some eulogies in English are here and here. The International Chamber of Commerce also published a brief statement, as did the International Academy of Comparative Law.

Only two months ago, Gaillard had left  Sherman Sterling, whose international arbitration department he had founded in 1989 and led since then, and founded a spinoff with six other former Shearman Sterling colleagues,  Gaillard Shelbaya Banifatemi. His new law firm, announcing the death, called him “a totem in the world of international arbitration and a source of inspiration for lawyers around the world.” The law firm asks to share memories for a memorial book to be shared with his family and close ones.

Gaillard was well known as a practitioner (his biggest case may have been Yukos, though he had countless others) as well as a scholar (his Hague lectures on the “Legal theory of arbitration”, republished as a book and translated into several languages,, were a crucial step towards a more theoretical understanding of the field.) Most recently, he had been instrumental for OHADA’s decision to let Sherman Sterling draft a new private international law code for the region. The firm’s own statement of that decision is, however, down. The project, if continued, will need to go on without him. RIP.

 

The new issue of the Revue Critique de Droit International Privé (1/2021) is out.

It contains four articles and numerous case notes. The editorial by Horatia Muir Watt (Sciences Po), Dominique Bureau (University of Paris II) and Sabine Corneloup (University of Paris II) will soon be available in English on the Dalloz website (Dans le désordre planétaire…).

In the first article, Didier Boden (University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne) proposes to rethink the private international law lexicon in order to achieve a uniform analysis of the coordination between legal orders (« Erga- » : Contribution sémantique et lexicale à une étude unifiée des relations entre ordres juridiques).

Private international law and the other sets of rules of a legal order which touch upon its relations with other legal orders are poorly named and poorly defined. This article proposes to remedy that lexical impropriety and that semantic deficiency by presenting a new collection of names and a new collection of definitions.

In the second article, Frederick T. Davis (Columbia Law School) and Charlotte Gunka (Lawyer at the New York bar) discusse the possibilities offered by the American CLOUD Act in terms of criminal and digital sovereignty, under a European and global perspective (Perquisitionner les nuages – CLOUD Act, souveraineté européenne et accès à la preuve dans l’espace pénal numérique).

At a time when the Covid-19 crisis has raised awareness over the urgent need for European Member States to enhance their national sovereignty through the European Union, it is essential to go back to the possibilities offered by the U.S. CLOUD Act with regard to criminal and digital sovereignty. The CLOUD Act proposes a reform of current mutual legal assistance mechanisms by establishing access to digital evidence as the benchmark authorizing computer searches outside state borders, regardless of the location of the relevant data. Although this benchmark allows for more extensive extraterritorial application of U.S. criminal proceedings, an analysis of European regulations and legislation currently in force in France and the United Kingdom confirms that the European approach is not so different from the one introduced by the U.S. government. The emergence of the computer world and the acceleration of new technologies have created a “criminal digital space”, ephemeral and borderless, which requires a fundamental transformation of criminal procedures allowing for faster and more efficient international cooperation against transnational crime. This should give an opportunity to Europe, in particular through its new European Public Prosecutor’s Office, to assert its digital sovereignty through the individual fundamental rights that it continues to promote without undermining the security and strategic interests of its Member States.

In the third article, Vincent Richard (MPI Luxembourg) also deals with (digital) evidence in international dispute resolution, but within the European cooperation in civil matters. The author analyses the recast of the “Taking of Evidence” Regulation (La refonte du règlement sur l’obtention des preuves en matière civile).

Regulation (EU) n°2020/1783 adopted on 25 november 2020 recasts Regulation (EC) n° 1206/2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters. Requests for the taking of evidence between Member States shall be transmitted through a decentralised IT system such as e-CODEX. The recast also aims at enhancing the attractiveness of the Regulation by broadening the concept of court and by encouraging direct taking of evidence by the requesting court.

In the fourth article, Thibaut Fleury Graff (University of Rennes) addresses the topical issue of international migration under a legal perspective (Droit des étrangers et des migrations : entre protection de l’ordre public et définitions de la liberté).

 The full table of contents is available here.

Laura Carpaneto, Stefano Dominelli and Chiara Enrica Tuo (all University of Genova) have edited Brussels I bis Regulation and Special Rules – Opportunities to Enhance Judicial Cooperation. The book, which has just been published by Aracne, may be accessed for free here in its entirety.

Contributors include, in addition to the editors themselves, Jean-Sylvestre Bergé, Pierangelo Celle, Silvana Çinari, Chirouette Elmasry, Rosario Espinosa Calabuig, Paula-Carmel Ettori, Giulio Cesare Giorgini, Aida Gugi Bushati, Flutura Kola Tafaj, Rosa Lapiedra Alcami, Guillermo Palao Moreno, Francesco Pesce, Ilaria Queirolo, Isabel Reig Fabado and Jessica Sanchez.

The blurb reads as follows.

The volume collects the results of the EU co-funded Project Enhancing Enforcement under Brussels Ia – EN2BRIa, European Union Justice Programme 2014-2020, JUST-JCOO-AG-2018 JUST 831598. It critically and thoroughly addresses art. 67 Brussels I bis Regulation, which determines the relationships between the Regulation and other EU law instruments governing jurisdiction or the free movement of decisions. Also tackling “indirect” relevant relationships between international civil procedure and material law, the Volume rationalizes the main criticalities examined, and offers Principles, Recommendations and Guidelines to increase capacity of practitioners to address such issues, to improve awareness of stakeholders, and to support uniform application of EU law.

For further information see here.

Andrea Bonomi and Patrick Wautelet have authored an article-by-article commentary, in French, of Regulations 2016/1103 and 2016/1104 on the property regimes of international couples, with the assistance of Ilaria Pretelli, Eva Lein, Guillaume Kessler, Sara Migliorini and Konstantinos Rokas.

The book has just been published by Larcier under the title Le droit européen des relations patrimoniales de couple – Commentaire des Règlements (UE) 2016/1103 et 2016/1104.

The authors have kindly provided the following presentation in English.

Professionals in the area of family law and estate planning are increasingly confronted with cross-border couples and families whose assets may be scattered in different countries. The determination of the law governing the family assets has often become an indispensable step in order to advise spouses or partners about the financial implications of their union, the consequences of a change of residence, or to share out their property in the case of divorce or death. In all these scenarios, it is often necessary to assess the validity and effects of a property agreement entered into in a foreign jurisdiction. And in the case of disputes, the determination of the competent court and of the cross-border effects of a court decision will be crucial. All these questions are made more complex by the fact that most relationships extend over several years, if not decades, by the possible involvement of third parties, and by the connection with other areas of the law.

The European regulations on matrimonial property and on the property consequences of registered partnerships intend to provide answers to some of these problems and to ensure more legal certainty. However, the interpretation of these complex instruments also raises a great number of new and intriguing questions.

This new commentary provides for a very detailed and fine-tuned analysis of the two regulations. The textual and systematic interpretation rests on a solid comparative law background and is enriched by numerous practical examples. Drafted by an international team of experts, it offers a genuinely European reading of the new instruments, taking into account their multiple connections with the other EU regulations in the area of civil justice, notably the Succession Regulation and the Brussels II-terRegulation, as well as the guidance provided by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

This book intends to serve as reference for researchers dealing with two major regulations adopted by the EU. It also aims to stir up the conversation among researchers and policy makers interested in private international law and the economic aspects of family law by pointing to the advantages of the European instruments, while not ignoring the shortcomings and imperfections of two regulations which will guide cross-border activity in family law in the years to come.

For more information, see here.

The Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) is seeking a(n) (Assistant) Legal Officer. The successful candidate will begin work in the field of international commercial and financial law and will gradually also be expected to carry out work in other areas, including family law.

Applications should be submitted by Sunday 2 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). 

I was unaware of a fashion blogosphere war of words and more between Dolce & Gabbana and the founders of Diet Prada until I was asked to comment (in Dutch) on the pending lawsuit in Italy. The suit has an echo of SLAPP – Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.

Among others this post on The Fashion Law gives readers the necessary background and also links to the defendants’ lawyers reply at the jurisdictional level. It is this element of course that triggered the interview request, rather than my admittedly admirable sense of style (with sentences like these, I think I may be in need of a break).

Readers might be surprised to find the legal team discussing A7(2) Brussels Ia’s forum delicti, and CJEU authority such as Bolagsupplysningen seeing as per A6 BIa the Regulation does not apply, rather the Italian residual rules. However as Andrea Bonomi and Tito Ballarino review in the Encyclopedia of Private International Law, Italy has extended the scope of application of BIa to its internal sphere. Hence an interesting discussion of the CJEU case-law on locus damni, centre of interests etc. As well as a probably ill-fated attempt to encourage the Italian courts, in subsidiary fashion, to exercise forum non should the A7(2) arguments fall on deaf ears. Probably futile seeing as the Italian regime does not know a foum non rule, however if BIa is extended, would that not also extend to forum non-light in A33-34? As far as I could tell from the submission, however, no reference was made  to an 33-34 challenge.

Enfin, lots of interesting things to ponder at a different occasion. Happy Easter all.

Geert.

EU Private International Law 3rd ed. 2021, para 2.437 ff.

There is much to be said about the refusal of the courts at Zurich at the end of February, to recognise a September 2020 High Court judgment under the 2007 Lugano Convention. Rodrigo Rodriguez says it all here and I am happy to refer. The guillotine fashion in which the courts rejected application of Lugano 2007 even for a procedure that was initiated before Brexit date 1 January 2021 leaves much to be discussed. As does the question whether the demise of Lugano 2007 might not resurrect Lugano 1988 (Rodrigo points ia to the dualist nature of the UK in his discussion of same).

Whether correct or not in the specific case at issue, the judgment does show the clear bumpy ride ahead for UK judgments across the continent, following the Hard Brexit in judicial co-operation.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed., 2021, Chapter 1, Heading 1.7.

This ruling might, as Rodrigo Rodriguez argues, wrongly apply Lugano A63 'legal proceedings instituted'. Even then it is a clear sign of the bumpy ride ahead for UK courts to maintain their position in international litigation. https://t.co/99xLg0jDTH

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) March 10, 2021

 

A quick note on the suit in The Netherlands against “Norsk Hydro” of Norway, for alleged pollution caused by aluminium production in Brasil. No court decisions or orders are available as yet hence I write simply to log the case. I have put Norsk Hydro in inverted commas for the suit really is against Norsk Hydro subsidiaries incorporated in The Netherlands, who are said to control the Brazilian entities. The jurisdictional basis therefore is A4 BIa. As far as the reporting on the case  indicates, there seems little likelihood of A33-34 BIa’s forum non conveniens light making an appearance seeing as no Brazilian proceedings are reported to be underway which could sink the Dutch proceedings like the High Court did in Municipio de Mariana. That is not to say of course that the defendants might not discover some.

Geert.

EU Private International Law., 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 7.3.1.

1/2 Jurisdictional basis for #NorskHydro suit is A4 BIa: Netherlands is where subsidiaries controlling the local (BRA) entities at issue are headquartered. (Pulling the mother into the bath would require A6 Lugano) https://t.co/JdBWdGWOXM @financialtimes #CSR #bizhumanrights

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) March 1, 2021

Which conflict-of-laws rule is the most appropriate for the blockchain? This fundamental question is part of two parallel targeted consultation papers issued as recently by the European Commission.

One of the consultations covers the Settlement Finality Directive (SFD), while the other concerns the Financial Collateral Directive (FCD). Both regulate the “plumbing” of financial markets (the so-called market infrastructures) and contain conflict-of-laws provisions (see Article 9(2) SFD and Article 9 FCD). Yet, the infrastructures and transactions they target are conventional ones. The Settlement Finality Directive deals with payment and securities settlement systems, in which traditional cash (e.g. euros) and conventional financial instruments (e.g. shares and bonds) are traded. The Financial Collateral Directive concerns collateral provided in either cash or financial instruments.

The question posed by the European Commission is whether these texts also can (and must) be applied to modern digital assets, like cryptocurrencies (e.g. Bitcoin) and tokens, and whether they need to be adapted to them through reform.  Since both directives also contain conflict-of-laws provisions, the relationship of crypto-assets to these regulations raises typical conflict-of-laws questions as well.

Take for example Article 9(2) SFD. Its text speaks about securities “legally recorded on a register, account or centralised deposit system” and submits them to the law of the Member State where this register, account or system is “located”. This raises the following issues: 1. whether a blockchain network is a “register” in this sense; 2. whether crypto assets can be said to be “legally” recorded, despite the lacking legal protections of such assets under most private laws; and 3. where blockchains, which may be distributed potentially on a planetary scale, are located.

Even more doubts are caused by Article 9 FCD. It submits financial collateral arrangements to the law of the country “in which the relevant account is maintained”. Blockchain networks basically operate without any intermediaries and do not feature “accounts” in the proper sense of the word. Even if they would, it would be hard to say where the account is “maintained” given the distributed nature of a blockchain network.

These issues have a certain sense of urgency due to the fact that some EU and EEA Member States have already pressed ahead and created specific rules for crypto assets.

France for instance allows for securities (such as bonds and shares) traded over the counter (OTC) to be issued on blockchain networks (described as “distributed electronic registers” (dispositif d’enregistrement électronique partagé – DEEP)). The condition is that the securities are issued in the French territory and governed by French law, see Art. L211-3 French Code monétaire et financier. The transfer and pledge of such crypto financial instruments is equally governed by French law.

Germany has drafted a bill to allow the issuance of bonds (including covered bonds) and investment participations on the blockchain. Section 32 of the bill provides for the applicability of the law of the country in which the administrator of the register is supervised.

Liechtenstein, an EEA member and as such also bound by the SFD and the FCD, has adopted an Act on Token and TT (Trustworthy Technology) Services Providers, which, by any standard, is one of the most comprehensive and innovative blockchain regulations in the world. The Act is appliable where: 1. the TT provider is headquartered or residing in the Principality; or 2. where the parties expressly chose its provisions, see its Art. 3(2).

These are three different approaches to the conflict-of-laws issues raised with regard to different types of crypto assets. But are those national laws compatible with the SFD and the FCD? Do the SFD and FCD apply at all to crypto assets? If so, are their provisions, including those on the conflict of laws, compatible with the nature of the blockchain? And if they do not apply, should they be extended to them? Some legal consistency and harmony would surely be welcome. The question is if and when the EU legislator will provide it.