Droit international général

Within the context of the service of documents Regulation (1393/2007) but with no less relevance for the Jurisdiction Regulation, the Court held last week on the qualification of an action by (German) holders of Greek bonds, against the Greek State, for the involuntary shave they took on those bonds. I reviewed Bot AG’s Opinion here. He had suggested that in the case at issue, the Greek State, with its retroactive insertion of the collective action clause in the underlying contract, exercised acta uire imperii with direct intervention in the contract itself. Not an abstract, general regime (such as a change in overall tax) which only has an impact on said contract at arm’s length.

The ECJ disagreed. Its finding may be distinguishable, in that it emphasises (at 40 and 44 in particular) that for the service of documents Regulation, things need to move fast indeed and hence interpretation even of core concepts of the Regulation needs to proceed swiftly: ‘in order to determine whether Regulation No 1393/2007 is applicable, it suffices that the court hearing the case concludes that it is not manifest that the action brought before it falls outside the scope definition of civil and commercial matters.‘ (at 49) However in the remainder of the judgment it does refer to precedent in particular under the Brussels I Regulation, hence presumably making current interpretation de rigueur for European civil procedure generally.

As noted in my earlier review, Bot AG opined that the Greek State’s intervention in the contracts was direct and not at a distance from the contract. The Court on the other hand essentially emphasised (at 57) that even though the Greek State, with its retroactive insertion of the collective action clause in the underlying contract, enabled the subsequent vote by the majority of the bondholders (to the dismay of the outvoted applicants), it was the vote, which led directly and immediately to changes to the financial conditions of the securities in question and therefore caused the damage alleged by the applicants – not the Act which enabled it. Not acta iure imperii therefore and hence European civil procedure is applicable.

I need to ponder this a bit further however at first sight the ‘direct and immediate’ effect test brings back soar memories of the ‘primarily aimed at’ test in WTO law, which took some time for the Appellate body to shake off. A bit of a leap, I know, but the trade lawyers among you will know what I mean. Applicants in the case at issue may be left arguing that identifying the Greek State’s intervention as the cause of the change in law, is no application of the butterfly effect (an extremely remote event which is being blamed for downstream effects) but rather an elephant in the Greek bond market room.

‘Direct and immediate effect’ may become an important consideration in the ECJ’s application of ‘civil and commercial’ in EU civil procedure law.

Geert.

 

Il Centro di Studi Giuridici Europei dell’Università di Urbino “Carlo Bo” organizza, in collaborazione con l’Istituto svizzero di diritto comparato, il 57ème Séminaire de Droit Comparé et Européen.

L’iniziativa, che si svolgerà tra il 17 e 29 agosto 2015 ad Urbino, vedrà succedersi lezioni e conferenze, oltre agli interventi di notai italiani e lussemburghesi.

Questo il programma delle lezioni: Marie-Elodie Ancel (Univ. Paris-Est Créteil, Paris XII), Œuvres des arts appliqués: emprise et limites du principe européen de nondiscrimination; Eleonora Ballarino (Foro di Milano),  Law and practice in International Contract Law: Case studies in Oil & Gas Contracts; Francesca Bologna (Foro di Venezia), La protection des données personnelles en France et en Italie à l’aune du droit européen; Robert Bray (Parlamento europeo), L’immunità parlamentare a livello europeo; Georges Cavalier (Univ. Jean Moulin, Lyon 3), Comparative and European taxation. Comparative tax incentives for research & Development (R&D); Tuto Rossi (Univ. Friburgo), Contratti complessi in diritto internazionale privato; Martin Svatoš (FORARB Arbitration), Les questions contemporaines dans le domaine de l’arbitrage international: L’interaction avec la médiation et autres MARC; Chris Tomale (Univ. Heidelberg), A la recherche d’une coordination des compétences universelles civiles entre l’Union européenne et les Etats tiers.

Le conferenze vedranno gli interventi di:  Alessandro Bondi (Univ. Urbino), Le droit pénal européen 2.0; Andrea Giussani (Univ. Urbino) La direttiva sulle azioni di risarcimento del danno antitrust; Luigi Mari (Univ. Urbino), Il diritto internazionale privato sammarinese; Alexander R. Markus (Univ. Berna), Le Règlement Bruxelles I bis et la Convention de Lugano; Paolo Morozzo della Rocca (Univ. Urbino), La filiazione tra bilanciamento dei diritti e ordine pubblico; Cyril Nourissat  (Univ. Jean Moulin, Lyon 3), Le 17 août 2015: une révolution pour les successions internationales?; Ilaria Pretelli (Ist. Svizzero di diritto comparato), Le misure provvisorie nella rifusione del regolamento Bruxelles I.

A chiudere il seminario sono previsti gli interventi, sul tema dell’attività notarile in Europa, dei notai Paolo Pasqualis (Fondazione Italiana del Notariato), Elisabetta Bergamini (Univ. Udine) e Corrado Malberti (Univ. Lussemburgo).

Le iscrizioni, aperte sino al 1° agosto 2015 dovranno essere inoltrate all’indirizzo email seminaire@uniurb.it inviando la domanda compilata e sottoscritta reperibile qui.

Maggiori informazioni sono disponibili a questo indirizzo. Il flyer dell’iniziativa è qui consultabile.

The summer Séminaire de Droit Comparé et Européen is a common venture of Italian and French jurists taking place in Urbino (Italy) since 1959 – this edition makes therefore the number 57. The underlying idea is to provide for a place and time for the gathering of jurists, mainly, but not only, from European countries, and thus contribute to the development of knowledge of Comparative,  International (both public and private) and European law.

This year’s seminar will be held in August, 17th to 29th, counting with speakers from various countries and institutions, among which Prof. M.E. Ancel, C. Nourissat, A. Giussani, A.R. Markus, L. Mari or I. Pretelli. Practitioners -lawyers, mediators, arbitrators and notaries- are also involved. Presentations may be in French, English or Italian; a summarized translation may be asked for.

The whole program as well as email addresses for further information is downloadable here.

 

 

Si svolgerà a Monaco di Baviera, il 23 giugno 2015, un incontro di studio dal titolo The EU Regulation no. 650/2012: the European way in cross-border successions.

L’evento si colloca nella cornice del progetto Towards the Entry into Force of the Succession Regulation: Building Future Uniformity upon Past Divergencies, coordinato dall’Università di Milano e finanziato dall’Unione europea.

Interverranno, fra gli altri, Peter Kindler (Univ. Ludwig Maximilan, Monaco), Ilaria Viarengo (Univ. Milano), Dan Andrei Popescu (Univ. Babeş-Bolyai, Cluj) e Francesco Pesce (Univ. Genova).

Maggiori informazioni a questo indirizzo.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal has upheld an interlocutory injunction made against Google Inc., a non-party, in litigation between Equustek Solutions Inc. and Datalink Technologies Gateways Inc.  The decision is available here.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had counterfeited their product.  In an effort to prevent the defendants from selling the counterfeit product, which was being done over the internet, the plaintiffs sought and obtained an interlocutory injunction against Google Inc., a Delaware corporation based in California, ordering it to exclude a list of certain web sites from search results.  The aim was to stop customers from finding the defendants.  Google Inc. appealed the injunction on several grounds.

The court concluded that it had in personam jurisdiction over Google Inc. because it conducted business in the province: it advertised to residents of British Columbia and it actively obtained data for use in its search engines in British Columbia.  It held that the fact that Google Inc. was a non-party did not prevent the making of the injunction as against it.  It also held that the fact that the injunction had extraterritorial effects, requiring Google Inc. to take steps outside British Columbia, was not a valid objection.  On these issues the court reviewed several leading United Kingdom cases, including The Siskina, Channel Tunnel Group and South Carolina Insurance.  It also commented favourably on the recent decision in Cartier International AG v British Sky Broadcasting Limited, [2014] EWHC 3354 (Ch.).  Key Canadian authorities relied on include MacMillan Bloedel, BMWE and Minera Aquiline Argentina.

The decision is likely to be important on the question of what it means to carry on business over the internet.

On 11 June 2015, the European Union deposited its instrument of approval of the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements.

Two declarations are appended to the instrument of approval: a declaration under Article 30 (i.e. a declaration regarding the competences exercised by a Regional Economic Integration Organisation, to be made when such an Organisation accedes to the Convention without its Member States), and a declaration regarding the succession of the European Union to the European Community.

The move of the European Union paves the way to the entry into force of the Convention. Pursuant to Article 31(1), the Convention shall in fact “enter into force on the first day of the month following the expiration of three months after the deposit of the second instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession”. The first of these instruments was the instrument of ratification deposited by Mexico in 2007.

The Convention will thus enter into force for Mexico and the European Union on 1 October 2015.

On 11 June 2015, the European Union deposited its instrument of approval of the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements.

Two declarations are appended to the instrument of approval: a declaration under Article 30 (i.e. a declaration regarding the competences exercised by a Regional Economic Integration Organisation, to be made when such an Organisation accedes to the Convention without its Member States), and a declaration regarding the succession of the European Union to the European Community.

The move of the European Union paves the way to the entry into force of the Convention. Pursuant to Article 31(1), the Convention shall in fact “enter into force on the first day of the month following the expiration of three months after the deposit of the second instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession”. The first of these instruments was the instrument of ratification deposited by Mexico in 2007.

The Convention will thus enter into force for Mexico and the European Union on 1 October 2015.

La Camera dei Deputati ha approvato in via definitiva, l’11 giugno 2015, il disegno di legge di legge che prevede l’autorizzazione alla ratifica della Convenzione sulla competenza, la legge applicabile, l’efficacia delle decisioni e la cooperazione in materia di responsabilità genitoriale e di misure di protezione dei minori, fatta all’Aja il 19 ottobre 1996, nonché l’esecuzione della Convenzione nell’ordinamento italiano (sull’iter del provvedimento, si veda da ultimo questo post).

Il voto dell’aula interviene a pochi giorni di distanza dalla seduta delle commissioni riunite Giustizia e Affari esteri, svoltasi il 4 giugno 2015, nel corso della quale è emerso l’orientamento di procedere senza ulteriori indugi all’approvazione del testo sortito dal Senato, risultante dallo stralcio delle norme di adattamento ordinario e di integrazione del diritto interno ivi previste (atto Camera 1589-B), salva “la necessità che da parte del Governo venga assunto un impegno concreto affinché l’eventuale approvazione del testo trasmesso dal Senato sia accompagnata da una futura ma non lontana approvazione del disegno di legge che contiene le norme di attuazione interna”.

I have delayed reporting on this initiative for exam reasons. The Belgian Parliament is currently debating a private members’ proposal for statute to address so-called ‘vulture funds’. These funds are described by the financial dictionary as ‘A fund that buys distressed debt of commercial companies or sovereign nations at a cheap price and then often sues them for the entire value of the debt. The resemblance to vultures is because these funds profit from the debt of failing companies or poor nations.‘

The text of the proposal (in Dutch and French) is available here. Vulture funds litigation is generally called immoral in the proposal. Reference is made to a number of high-profile recent judgments where vulture funds have been given approval by various courts worldwide, to seek redress against assets held by the sovereign nations concerned, or indeed their creditors. Particularly sore is the enforcement sought against funds destined for development aid.

The proposal essentially defines ‘vulture funds’ and then suggests that recognition and enforcement of relevant judgments or arbitral awards, regardless of the law applicable to the underlying relationship with the government concerned, is considered to be contrary to Belgian ordre public international, hence unenforceable. The proposal as it stands now adds (probably superfluously) that relevant EU (read: the Brussels I recast Regulation) and international (read especially: the 1958 New York Convention) law takes priority.

The part of the proposal that is bound to attract attention is the attempt at defining the ‘vulture’ in vulture funds. Frits Bolkestein for instance (former EU Commissioner) has remarked that buying up ‘bad debt’ need not always be morally reprehensible (I would suggest it is not that part of the fund’ activities which has attracted the Belgian Parliament’s attention). The enforcement /recognition part of the proposal is interesting because it applies ordre public in a categorical manner, rather than in the ad hoc application which both EU law and residual Belgian conflicts law (the Belgian Private International Law Act) ordinarily call for. For residual Belgian law, this is probably Parliament’s prerogative. However for EU law (and the New York convention), a general apprehension against vulture funds may not qualify as a proper exercise of the ordre public exception. Courts at the least may wish formally to disregard the act when the judgment /award concerned is covered by Brussels I cq. New York; however they can point to the sentiment expressed in the Act, to support incompatibility with Belgian ordre public when tested against an individual case.

The drafters are aware that this initiative may be a drop in the ocean. Reference is made to other, national initiatives (France, UK, US) which may point to an emerging pattern of anti-vulture funds sentiment. Indeed the realities of forum shopping mean that vulture funds action will migrate away from the Belgian legal order. On the other hand, Belgium’s safe harbour may also mean that relevant assets will seek refuge there. All of course, presuming the initiative will actually be adopted by Parliament.

Geert. Disclosure: I advised the MPs concerned on the technical aspects of the recognition and enforcement leg of the proposal. [My advice may or may not have been followed ].

Michel José Reymond, La compétence internationale en cas d’atteinte à la personnalité par Internet, Schulthess, 2015, ISBN 9783725585328, pp. 387, Euro 82,10.

[Dal sito dell’editore] Quel tribunal est compétent pour juger d’un cas d’atteinte à la personnalité commise sur le réseau Internet? Le cas échéant, quel droit sera applicable? Avec en toile de fond la rencontre entre la territorialité des principes du droit international privé et l’ubiquité du réseau Internet, ce travail présente, compare et analyse les différentes approches qu’ont adoptées les juges confrontés à cette problématique; il aboutit sur une proposition permettant, pour ce qui concerne la compétence, de mieux prendre en compte les caractéristiques de la publication par Internet. Il met également le doigt sur les difficultés ressenties par le législateur communautaire à résoudre la question du droit applicable à ces atteintes, et examine à cet effet plusieurs des règles de conflit proposées lors de ses travaux.

Il sommario è disponibile qui. Ulteriori informazioni a questo indirizzo.

    La 16ème édition du Concours Serge Lazareff ( Concours International d'Arbitrage francophone de Montpellier )   s'est achevée le vendredi 22 mai 2015 à la Faculté de droit et de science politique de Montpellier.     Le...

        Entré directement à la 6e place en 2014, puis classé 3e en 2015,   le D.U. Contentieux international des affaires a atteint la 2e place en 2016 dans le Top 10 des Masters en droit européen et international d...

  Entré directement à la 6e place en 2014, le D.U. Contentieux international des affaires   a atteint la 3e place en 2015 dans le Top 10   des Masters en droit européen et international des affaires établi par le groupe SMBG.   Le...

Si terrà a Roma l’11 settembre 2015 un incontro dal titolo Towards a transnational approach for choice-of-law clauses.

L’evento è organizzato organizzato dal Comitato Nazionale italiano della Camera di Commercio Internazionale e dall’Associazione Italiana per l’Arbitrato.

Tra i relatori, Massimo Benedettelli (Univ. Bari), Piero Bernardini (Associazione Italiana per l’Arbitrato), Fabio Bortolotti (Buffa, Bortolotti e Mathis), Andrea Carlevaris (Corte Internazionale di Arbitrato), Filip De Ly (Erasmus Univ.), Maria Beatrice Deli (Univ. Molise e Comitato Nazionale italiano della Camera di Commercio Internazionale), Yves Derains (Derains & Gharavi), José Angelo Estrella Faria (Unidroit), Franco Ferrari (Univ. Verona e New York Univ.), Marcel Fontaine (Univ. Catholique de Louvain), Luca Radicati di Brozolo (Univ. Cattolica di Milano), Anna Veneziano (Unidroit).

Il programma completo può leggersi qui, assieme alle informazioni relative all’iscrizione.

Il sequestro europeo di conti bancari – Regolamento (UE) n. 655/2014 del 15 maggio 2014, a cura di Pietro Franzina e Antonio Leandro, con scritti di Pietro Franzina, Lidia Sandrini, Elena D’Alessandro e Antonio Leandro e prefazione di Fausto Pocar, Giuffrè, 2015, pp. XIV+186, ISBN 9788814207235, Euro 22.

[Dal sito dell’editore] L’Unione europea si è posta l’obiettivo di assicurare un’efficace tutela del credito nelle situazioni a carattere internazionale. Il regolamento (UE) n. 655/2014, applicabile dal 18 gennaio 2017, viene ad integrare gli strumenti rivolti a questo scopo dando vita ad un’ordinanza europea di sequestro conservativo dei conti bancari (OESC). L’innovativo provvedimento, reso dal giudice nazionale competente per il merito all’esito di una procedura uniforme semplificata e non contraddittoria, potrà essere fatto valere, senza bisogno di exequatur, in tutti gli Stati membri dell’Unione vincolati dal regolamento. In pratica, il creditore di una somma di denaro – sia esso un’impresa, un consumatore oppure una persona fisica a cui sia dovuta una prestazione alimentare – disporrà di uno strumento particolarmente agevole per aggredire in via cautelare, ovunque in Europa, gli averi bancari del debitore. Questo volume si propone di fornire una prima lettura del regolamento, analizzando in particolare, nella prospettiva della attuazione delle nuove norme in Italia, le questioni suscettibili di insorgere nell’ambito del procedimento per il rilascio dell’OESC, quelle riguardanti la tutela assicurata tanto al debitore quanto ai terzi e quelle relative alla circolazione dell’OESC in seno allo spazio giudiziario europeo. 

Il sommario del volume si può scaricare a questo indirizzo.

Maggiori informazioni sono disponibili qui.

Si svolgerà a Firenze il 5 giugno 2015, organizzato dal locale Consiglio notarile, un convegno dal titolo Profili di diritto internazionale dell’attività notarile. Si parlerà di successioni, regimi patrimoniali e maggiorenni vulnerabili.

Tra i relatori, Jacopo Re (Univ. Milano), Franco Salerno Cardillo (notaio in Palermo) e Daniele Muritano (notaio in Empoli).

Maggiori informazioni a questo indirizzo.

Isidoro Antonio Calvo Vidal, El certificado sucesorio europeo, La Ley, 2015, ISBN 9788490204108, pp. 364, Euro 42,93.

[Dal sito dell’editore] A partir de la fecha de su aplicación plena, el 17 de agosto de 2015, el Reglamento (UE) nº 650/2012 del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo de 4 de julio de 2012 relativo a la competencia, la ley aplicable, el reconocimiento y la ejecución de las resoluciones, a la aceptación y la ejecución de los documentos públicos en materia de sucesiones mortis causa y a la creación de un certificado sucesorio europeo, determina el nuevo marco de las sucesiones internacionales en la Unión Europea, constituyendo un hito de especial relieve en la construcción de la Europa de los ciudadanos. El Reglamento incide directamente en la aplicación del derecho de sucesiones en los Estados miembros, tanto a la hora de abordar una planificación sucesoria, a través del otorgamiento del testamento o de otra disposición mortis causa, como al tiempo de llevar a cabo el desenvolvimiento de una sucesión ya causada. En España supone además la incorporación de novedades tan importantes como la posibilidad de la elección de la ley aplicable a la sucesión o la fijación de la residencia habitual como punto de conexión subsidiario en orden a la determinación de la misma. Pero es el certificado sucesorio europeo, el nuevo «pasaporte» de los herederos en Europa, el que puede considerarse como uno de los logros más importantes del nuevo instrumento comunitario, al permitir a herederos, legatarios, ejecutores testamentarios o administradores de la herencia probar fácilmente su cualidad, así como ejercer los derechos o las facultades respectivas, en los Estados miembros. A partir de estas consideraciones, esta monografía ofrece al lector, desde la reflexión teórica y la visión práctica de su autor, un acercamiento a los principales elementos que van a regir el inmediato tratamiento de las sucesiones transfronterizas en la Unión Europea.

Maggiori informazioni a questo indirizzo.

On 8 and 9 October 2015, the Academy of European Law (ERA) will host a conference entitled How to Handle International Commercial Cases.

The conference aims to cast light on the latest developments regarding commercial dispute resolution. It will focus on the recent case law in the area of European civil procedure and on the forthcoming changes in the field of EU private international law. This last topic will be devoted, in particular, to the imminent entry into force of the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements, the recast of the EU Insolvency Regulation, the revision of the European Small Claims Procedure, and Regulation No 655/2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure.

Further information on the conference available here.

I have reported elsewhere (In Dutch – I am hoping for some time at some point to write something similar in English; see in particular para 23) on the fact that the conjunctive ‘or’ has been dropped in all language versions of Article 19 of the Brussels I recast:

The provisions of this Section may be departed from only by an agreement:

• which is entered into after the dispute has arisen;
• which allows the consumer to bring proceedings in courts other than those indicated in this Section; or
• which is entered into by the consumer and the other party to the contract, both of whom are at the time of conclusion of the contract domiciled or habitually resident in the same Member State, and which confers jurisdiction on the courts of that Member State, provided that such an agreement is not contrary to the law of that Member State.

This contrast with the similar proviso on choice of court in employment contracts, Article 23:

The provisions of this Section may be departed from only by an agreement:

• which is entered into after the dispute has arisen; or
• which allows the employee to bring proceedings in courts other than those indicated in this Section.

I have suggested, with others, that much as I do not understand why the conjunctive has been dropped, its deletion, combined with its being kept in Article 23, means that for consumer contracts, choice of court pre the dispute are now simply impossible under the Regulation, while being maintained for employment contracts. I was also puzzled as to why such an important change was not discussed at all in the run-up to the recast.

A little bird at the European Commission (one high up the conflicts tree) now tells me that what has happened in reality, is quite different. Reportedly the ‘juristes-linguistes’ took it upon them to correct an apparent linguistic mistake in the previous version of the Regulation (indeed one going back to the Brussels Convention): there ought not to be a conjunctive when listing more than one, non-cumulative alternative. That would also explain the difference with Article 23, where there are only 2 alternatives.

This clears up the legislative intent. It does not to me, at least, clear up the linguistic confusion. We may have been grammatically wrong under the previous format (I cannot judge the correctness of that in all these language versions). However at least we were legally certain. Being fully respectful of grammatical correctness myself (punctuation jokes never fail to amuse me), I am not sure which one to prefer in this instance.

Geert.

The programme of the 10th Annual Conference of the Journal of Private International Law, which will take in place in Cambridge from 3 to 5 September 2015, is available here.

As in the previous editions, there will be a plenary session (on 4 September) and a number of panels devoted to specific issues (Family, Tort, Internet, Succession, Arbitration, Theory, Enforcement of judgments, Contracts, Practice, Insolvency, Jurisdiction).

For more information, click here.