Droit international général

This post was written by Ottavia Cazzola, a PhD candidate at the University of Barcelona Barcelona participating in Action Grant “Towards Universal Parenthood in Europe (UniPAR)” (JUST-2023-JCOO; Project ID: 101137859). On 4 December 2024, the Spanish Supreme Court issued a decision stating that the recognition of a foreign judgment establishing filiation regarding the commissioning parents […]

A conference will take place on 14 February 2025 from 9 to 18 CET at the University of Vienna in connection with the project of the European Law Institute on Extra-Judicial Administration of Justice in Cross-Border Family and Succession Matters. The event will also be streamed online. With competences in family and succession matters increasingly […]

I have already reported on this blog that in 2024 the Law Commission of England and Wales published a call for evidence to help them identify the most challenging and prevalent issues of private international law that arise from the digital, online, and decentralised contexts in which modern digital assets and electronic trade documents are used. […]

In an increasingly interconnected world, the application of laws by States beyond their territorial borders is an everyday reality. Yet, almost a century after the (still) leading findings by the PCIJ in the Case of the S.S. “Lotus”, the details of the concept of “extraterritoriality” remain elusive, and one can easily get lost in the multitude of national practices, ranging from  “presumptions against extraterritoriality” to be found mostly in federal systems (mostly for sub-units) to “effects doctrines” and the like in certain areas of law such as e.g. (early) in Germany, (later) in the EU’s competition law and today many other jurisdictions, in particular in Asia.

Given this complexity, this latest publication of the Ius Comparatum Series on “Extraterritoriality in Comparative Perspective” edited by Hannah L. Buxbaum offers a great deal of valuable guidance and insights. Featuring the reports from the most recent IACL/AIDC General Congress in Asunción, the volume provides the reader with unique insights by renowned legal scholars into the practices of 14 national jurisdictions (inter alia China, Germany, Japan, Korea, UK, U.S.) and the the European Union (EU). As is explained in the preface to the book:

Much of the vast scholarly literature on extraterritoriality approaches the topic from the outside in, assessing the extraterritorial projection of state law from the perspective of international law and the constraints it places on state authority. The goal of this project is to approach the topic from the inside out. Considering a range of legal systems, the authors investigate the geographic scope that states claim for their own laws, and the mechanisms by which states translate and locally implement principles of international jurisdictional law.

A particularly valuable contribution is Buxbaum’s General Report. It identifies, inter alia, the following important trends: First, international law turns out as increasinlgy irrelevant as a direct constraint on the territorial reach of state law. Second, extraterritoriality to protect local interests is no longer a practice of dominant states alone, as it is more and more widespread. Thus, extraterritoriality can no longer be taken as a synonym for illegitimacy. Third, extraterritoriality more and more occurs to protect international interests or global goods, in particular in criminal law. Each of these findings is further explained and substantiated. The issue of private enforcement, an even more complex and fragmented area of “managing extraterritoriality” is dealt with (“involves the application of local procedural law which injects additional conflict into cases involving  foreign elements on matters including the extent of discovey, the availability of non-compensatory damages, and the use of representative actions, amongst others”) as well as topic of economic sanctions (“one of the most contentious forms of extraterritoriality”). Highly recommended!

Further information as well as a free sample of Part I: General Report will soon be available on the publisher’s website.

The table of contents includes the following contributions:

Part I: General Report

Extraterritoriality in Comparative Context: Defining the Scope of State Law in a Global Era

Hanna L. Buxbaum

Part II: National Reports

Australia

The Extraterritorial Application of Statutes and Regulations

Danielle Ireland-Piper

Brazil

The Extraterritorial Application of Statutes and Regulations

André de Carvalho Ramos / Mariana Sebalhos Jorge

Canada

A Canadian Perspective

John C. Kleefeld

Québec

L’application Extraterritoriale des Lois et Règlements

Frédérique Sabourin

People’s Republic of China

Extraterritoriality in China

Shiping Liao

Germany

Extraterritoriality in Germany

Sören Segger-Piening

Italy

The Extraterritorial Application of Statutes and Regulations

Alessandra Zanobetti

Japan

The Extraterritorial Application of Statutes and Regulations

Hisashi Harata

South Korea

The Extraterritorial Application of Korean Laws

Gyooho Lee

The Netherlands

The Extraterritorial Application of Dutch Statutes and Regulations

Lucas Roorda / Cedric Ryngaert / Timo Zandstra

Romania

The Extraterritorial Application of Statutes and Regulations

Sergiu Popovici

Taiwan

The Legislative Practice of Extraterritoriality in Statutes and Regulations of Taiwan

Rong-Chwan Chen

United Kingdom (UK)

The Extraterritoriality of Statutes and Regulations

Matteo Angelini

United States (USA)

The Extraterritorial Application of Statutes and Regulations

Franklin A. Gevurtz

Vietnam

L’Application Extraterritoriale des Lois et Règlements

Quoc Chien Ngo / Duc Vinh Nguyen

Part III: Special Report

European Union

The Extraterritorial Application of Statutes and Regulations

Lena Hornkohl

Part IV: Appendix

Questionnaire

I reviewed the first instance judgment in Clifford Change v SocGen here. Soc Gen have unsuccessfully appealed, see Clifford Chance LLP & Anor v Societe Generale SA (Rev1) [2025] EWCA Civ 14, with Phillips LJ not taking up much space to do so.

Viz the question whether Clifford Change LLP was bound, he holds [46] that the pleaded basis of the core of SocGen’s appeal on this aspect is that the Judge erred as a matter of interpretation (emphasis in the original) of the Framework Agreements, asserting that the Judge failed to give effect to the true intention of the parties (ditto) to those agreements that all Clifford Chance entities would be bound by their terms. [47] ‘However, it is entirely clear that the Judge did not decide the question of whether CC LLP was bound by the Framework Agreements as a matter of interpretation, but on the basis that SocGen did not have a good arguable case that CC LLP was, or became, a party to them.’

In other words SocGen’s appeal was held to be questioning the judge’s factual findings on authority to bind parties, findings which it was not allowed to challenge in the appeal. Entirely obiter, Phillips LJ does review those findings [57] ff, holding obiter [60] that SocGen has failed to demonstrate that that evaluation was plainly wrong.

On Clifford Chance Europe being bound, the grounds of appeal are as follows ([65-66]):

SocGen first challenges the Judge’s assumption that there is no substantive claim against CC Europe. SocGen points out that the letter of claim addressed to CC Europe asserted a claim on the basis that CC Europe was the “dominus litis”, a French law claim based on the concept that CC Europe had a supervisory role in relation to the conduct of the Goldas Litigation by CC LLP. SocGen further emphasises that the Judge did not have evidence of French law in that regard, and that in any event the pleadings in the French proceedings have not closed. SocGen contends that if CC Europe wishes to obtain a negative declaration in respect of its liability for such a claim, it is contractually obliged to do so in France, where proceedings on the same issue are already underway.

The second challenge is to the Judge’s concern that staying CC Europe’s claim in this jurisdiction would lead to a multiplicity and/or a fragmentation of proceedings. SocGen points out that there is already and will continue to be a multiplicity of proceedings, pointing out that (i) that position was caused by the respondents’ decision to seek negative declarations in England when proceedings were being brought in France; and (ii) such multiplicity was foreseeable by the parties when (contrary to SocGen’s case) CC LLP was implicitly retained separately and on different terms as to governing law than had been agreed between CC Europe and SocGen.

However Phillips LJ holds [67] that the Judge was right to find that there are strong reasons not to stay CC Europe’s claim in E&W:

There is no doubt that SocGen’s primary and substantive claim is against CC LLP, being the firm that was retained in relation to the Goldas Litigation and whose actions or inactions are now alleged to have been negligent. That is apparent from the letter of claim addressed to CC Europe, all the faults and negligence alleged being those in the conduct of the Goldas Litigation by CC LLP. The Judge determined that England is the appropriate forum for determination of that dispute. I accept that the Judge may have gone too far in concluding (at this stage and on the evidence before him) that SocGen does not have a genuine claim against CC Europe under French law. But even if there is some parasitic claim against CC Europe based on a “supervisory” role (SocGen having failed to adduce any evidence as to the existence of such a claim, let alone to explain its nature and effect), it is plainly desirable that it be determined in the same proceedings as the dispute between SocGen and CC LLP, namely, in these proceedings in the appropriate forum. There are strong reasons why CC Europe should not be debarred from seeking a declaration together with CC LLP in England, the effect of staying its claim being to require CC Europe to defend itself separately in France in respect of the very actions of CC LLP which will be the subject of these proceedings.

The first hearing in Soc Gen’s French proceedings took place in March 2024. [68] the Court of Appeal suggests a possible course of action for the French Proceedings, both on behalf of SocGen and the French court itself:

It is true that the French proceedings may continue notwithstanding the Judge’s order, and that may be a result of Clifford Chance entities having bifurcated their contractual relations with SocGen and having then initiated proceedings in this jurisdiction. But that is not a sufficient reason to fragment these proceedings before the plainly appropriate forum. There must be a realistic expectation that SocGen, and indeed the French court, will be reluctant to duplicate in France proceedings in England as to the alleged negligent conduct by English solicitors of Commercial Court proceedings in London.

Geert.

 

The fourth issue of 2024 of the Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale (RDIPP) is out. Along with recent case law and materials, it features five contributions. Francesca C. Villata, On the Track of the Law Applicable to Preliminary Questions in EU Private International Law Silenced, if not neglected, in (most) legislation and practice, […]

Today the Latin American and Caribbean Journal of International Law (LACJIL) was launched at the auditorium of the Hague Academy of the Peace Palace. Among the speakers were Prof. Diego Fernández Arroyo, president of the curatorium of the Hague Academy, and H.E. Leonardo Nemer Caldeira Brant, judge of the International Court of Justice. In addition, a very interesting panel was moderated by the Ambassador of Guatemala to the Kingdom of the Netherlands H.E. Ana Cristina Rodríguez Pineda. The panel was composed of the judge of the International Criminal Court H.E Althea Alexis-Windsor, the Ambassador of Colombia to the Kingdom of the Netherlands H.E. Carolina Olarte Bácares, the Ambassador of Argentina to the Kingdom of the Netherlands H.E. Mario J. A. Oyarzábal and the president of ASADIP Prof. Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm. The purpose of the panel was to discuss the recent legal developments in Latin America and the Caribbean, which included the ASADIP principles on transnational access to Justice (TRANSJUS).

This Journal will deal with international law, including the intersection between public and private international law, arbitration and dispute settlement. This is a great initiative that will provide a new forum to this region, which has 33 States and at least 4 official languages. As indicated during this event, this region is not only receptive to ideas and legal theories but has also an active role in the creation of international law.

The minds behind this groundbreaking idea are H.E. Mario Oyarzábal and Prof. Diego Fernández Arroyo. A balanced team of editors both in terms of geography and gender will be part of this project. Many congratulations!

The language of this publication will be English. The first number is expected to be published in 2026.

 

 

 

The seminar The Lex fori processualis principle at the interface with EU judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters will take place on 24 January 2025 at the University of Milan. The seminar is organized as part of the 4EU+ Visiting Professorships Call, supported by the 4EU+ European University Alliance and co-funded by the Erasmus+ Programme of the European Union.

Hosted by the Department of International, Legal, Historical, and Political Studies of the University of Milan, the seminar will open with welcoming addresses (Antonella Baldi and Marco Pedrazzi) and an introduction (Francesca C. Villata). Bartosz Wolodkiewicz (University of Warsaw), currently a 4EU+ Visiting Professor at the University of Milan, will present the findings of his new book on foreign procedural law in civil judicial proceedings (Obce prawo procesowe w sadowym postepowaniu cywilnym, Wolters Kluwer 2024). Following this, a round table with international scholars will explore various aspects of the lex fori processualis principle, covering topics such as historical perspectives (Carlos Santaló Goris), legal standing (Lenka Válková), burden of proof (Martino Zulberti), ne bis in idem in EU judicial cooperation (Marco Buzzoni), and res judicata in international commercial arbitration (Michele Grassi). The seminar will conclude with a discussion and closing remarks by Elena D’Alessandro (University of Turin).

For more information on the 4EU+ Alliance, follow:
Facebook: 4EUplusAlliance
Instagram: 4euplus_alliance
LinkedIn: 4EUplus

#4EUplusAlliance #EuropeanUniversities #GrowingInMotion

With thanks for the tip-off to Dr Lenka Válková, University of Milan

This post has been written by Yiannis Bazinas, Managing Partner, Bazinas Law Firm, Athens, Greece. The effect of insolvency proceedings on assets located in different jurisdictions is perhaps the most typical issue one encounters in cross-border insolvency cases. Still, under English law, the rather fundamental question of what effect a foreign insolvency has on assets […]

In the wake of the CJEU’s controversial judgment in H Limited (Case C-568/22), which appeared to open a wide backdoor into the European Area of Justice through an English enforcement judgments (surprisingly considered a ‘judgment’ in the sense of Art. 2(a), 39 Brussels Ia by the Court), international law firms had been quick to celebrate the creation of ‘a new enforcement mechanism‘ for non-EU judgments.

As the UK had already completed its withdrawal from the European Union when the decision was rendered, the specific mechanism that the Court seemed to have sanctioned was, of course, short-lived. But crafty judgment creditors may quickly have started to look elsewhere.

In a paper that has just been published in a special issue of the Journal of Private International Law dedicated to the work of Trevor Hartley, I try to identify the jurisdictions to which they might look.

In essence, I make two arguments:

First, I believe that the CJEU’s unfortunate decision can best be explained by the particular way in which foreign decision are enforced in England, i.e. through a new action on the judgment debt. Unlike continental exequatur proceedings, this action actually creates a new, enforceable domestic judgment, albeit through proceedings that closely resemble the former. It follows, I argue, that only judgments that result from a new action based on the judgment debt (rather than a mere request to confirm the enforceability of the foreign judgment) can be considered ‘judgments’ in the sense of Art. 2(a) and the Court’s decision H Limited (which also requires the decision to result from ‘adversarial proceedings’). Among many reasons, I find such a limited reading easier to reconcile with the Court’s earlier decision in Owens Bank (Case C-129/92) than a wider understanding of the decision.

Second, I believe that several European jurisdictions still offer enforcement mechanisms through which third-state judgments could realistically be transformed into European judgments (clearing both the requirement of creating a new judgment and resulting from adversarial proceedings). This applies to Ireland and Cyprus (but not Malta) as well as to the Netherlands (through its so-called verkapte exequatur) and Sweden.

The full paper is available here; a preprint can also be found on SSRN.

The third issue of the Journal of Private International Law features a special issue in honour of Professor Trevor Hartley.

It provides as follows (with other research articles):

Jacco Bomhoff, Uglješa Gruši? & Manuel Penades Fons, “Introduction to the special issue in honour of Professor Trevor Hartley”

Jacco Bomhoff, Uglješa Gruši? & Manuel Penades Fons, “Professor Trevor C Hartley’s Bibliography”

Jacco Bomhoff,  “Law made for man: Trevor Hartley and the making of a “modern approach” in European and private international law”

This article offers an overview and an interpretation of Trevor Hartley’s scholarship in the fields of private international law and EU law. It argues that Hartley’s work, beginning in the mid-1960s and spanning almost six decades, shows striking affinities with two broader outlooks and genres of legal discourse that have roots in this same period. These can be found, firstly, in the approach of senior English judges committed to “internationalising” the conflict of laws in the post-war era; and, secondly, in the so-called “legal process” current of scholarship that was especially influential in American law schools from the late 1950s onwards. Reading Hartley’s writings against these backgrounds can help illuminate, and perhaps to some small extent complicate, two labels he himself has given to his own work: of a “modern approach”, in which “law is made for man, not man for the law”.

Adrian Briggs, “What remains of the Brussels I Regulation in the English conflict of laws?”

The paper argues that whether we are concerned with retained or assimilated EU laws, or with rules of UK law made as close copies of EU laws, initial encouragement to interpret them as though they were still rules of EU law is coming to be, and should be, replaced by a cooler realisation that, as they no longer function in English law as cogs in a great European legal construction, they should be reassessed and repurposed to serve the purposes of domestic law. That will mean, for good or ill, that the tangible and intangible effect of the Brussels I Regulation on English law is less, and will come to be much less, than some had supposed.

Hans van Loon, “A view from the Hague”

This article highlights the crucial role of Trevor Hartley as the principal author of the Explanatory Report of the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention. His exhaustive and crystal-clear explanations, for example on the Convention’s sophisticated rules on intellectual property and its relation to the Brussels I Regulation, are a lasting, indispensable help to its correct interpretation and application. They even shed light on some aspects of the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention. The article also recalls Trevor Hartley’s essential role in the European Group for Private International Law, of which he has been an original member since 1991, most of the time as the only representative of a common-law legal system. Lastly, this contribution praises Trevor Hartley’s exceptional scholarly and pedagogical qualities, as evidenced notably by his widely used International Commercial Litigation.

Linda Silberman, “Trevor Hartley: champion for the Hague Choice of Court Convention”

This article, in tribute to Professor Trevor Hartley, discusses the debate between Gary Born and Professor Hartley about whether countries should ratify the Hague Choice of Court Convention. It also explains how that debate contributed to the conclusions reached by a New York City Bar Committee that was asked by the United States State Department for its views on ratification of the Convention.

 

Alex Mills, “Assessing the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005”

Almost twenty years after the adoption of the Hague Choice of Court Convention 2005, it may be an appropriate moment to reflect on and assess its legacy to date. This article, part of an issue paying tribute to the work of Professor Trevor Hartley, notes a number of different ways in which the legacy of the Convention may be evaluated, particularly appreciating the important role of the Explanatory Report co-authored by Professor Hartley. It argues that the Convention should not be judged merely based on the (admittedly limited, but perhaps growing) number of state parties, but also taking into account its wider influence in a number of different respects which may cast a more positive light on its achievement. These include the importance of the Convention to the Hague Conference on Private International Law, the soft power of the Convention, and the role of the Convention in preserving the enforceability of UK judgments based on exclusive jurisdiction agreements in European Union Member States notwithstanding Brexit.

 

Andrew Dickinson, “Anti-suit injunctions – beyond comity”

This short article considers a theme emerging from Trevor Hartley’s writing on the topic of anti-suit injunctions – the significance of the existence of an international treaty that regulates the circumstances in which the States concerned may or must assert, and may or must decline, jurisdiction with respect to the subject matter of the dispute. It examines, in particular, recent case law extending the reach of the European Union’s prohibition on anti-suit injunctions within the Brussels I regime, and the place of anti-suit injunctions within the framework of the Hague Choice of Court Convention.

 

Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm, “Iconic asymmetries of our times: “super Highways” and “jungle tracks” in transnational access to justice”

Drawing from Hartley’s “Multinational Corporations and the Third World: A Conflict-of-Laws Analysis” where he exposes the “unequal fight” between powerful multinational corporations and the people and communities in “the third world”, suggesting that this is partly a consequence of the deficits of legal infrastructures therein, this brief contribution dwells on the global systemic impact of channelling legal proceedings justiciable in the Global South (GS) to courts in the Global North (GN). It takes a private international law and sustainable development perspective and draws attention to the rhetoric and narratives of interdependence between the “super highways” and the “jungle tracks”- the illustrations used by Hartley. The main argument taken forward in this paper is that to realise private international law’s contribution to SDG 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions) responsivity is necessary in jurisdictional decision making in this context to enhance access to justice for all in the GS.

 

 

Grace Underhill, “Masterstroke or misguided? Assessing the proposed parallel proceedings solution of the Hague Conference on Private International Law and the likelihood of its acceptance in Australia”

A dispute litigated simultaneously in two different jurisdictions wastes time and resources, and risks inconsistent judgments. In March 2024, the Hague Convention on Private International Law’s Working Group on matters related to civil and commercial jurisdiction released its third iteration of draft provisions on parallel proceedings. These provisions represent the groundwork (and one chapter) of a long-awaited international instrument that addresses the assumption and declining of jurisdiction. This article canvasses the proposal’s successes and failures in securing the continuance of litigation in a single forum. To assist, this article selects the example of Australia, against whose judicial practice the compatibility of the Working Group’s proposal is tested. This exercise identifies fundamental inconsistencies between the two schemes. Those (potentially insurmountable) concerns for judicial practice, alongside bureaucratic stagnation in Australia’s policy-making appetite in this area must, it is argued, be balanced against the strong normative influences for Australia’s accession to such an agreement. This invites concern for the acceptance of the proposal, and the broader future of the Jurisdiction Project as a whole.

 

 

Tobias Lutzi, “What remains of H Limited? Recognition and enforcement of non-EU judgments after Brexit: Journal of Private International Law”

In its controversial decision in H Limited, the Court of Justice held that an English confirmation judgment, transforming two Jordanian judgments into an English one, constituted a judgment in the sense of Articles 2(a) and 39 Brussels Ia and, as such, qualified for automatic recognition and enforcement in all Member States. The decision has been heavily criticized for seemingly violating the rule against double exequatur and potentially opening a backdoor into the European Area of Justice. As the particular door in question has already been closed with the UK’s completed withdrawal from the EU, though, crafty judgment creditors will have to look to other Member States. This paper will make an attempt at identifying those jurisdictions to which they might look. For this purpose, it will first argue that for an enforcement decision to fall under Chapter III of the Regulation, two requirements must be fulfilled: It must be a new decision on the judgment debt (rather than a mere declaration of enforceability) and it must have come out of adversarial proceedings. The paper will then look in more detail at a selection of jurisdictions that might fulfil these two requirements.

The latest issue of the Oxford Journal of Legal Studies (Volume 44, Issue 4) features one article of interest to private international lawyers. Georgia Antonopoulou, Forum Marketing in International Commercial Courts?, p. 860-888 Forum selling is a legal term used to describe the practices of courts and judges, geared towards attracting cases, such as increasing the […]

For anyone without a date for Valentine’s Day, we are happy to advertise the following ELI event on de-judicialisation in family and succession matters:

With competences in family and succession matters increasingly moving from courts to other authorities – such as notaries, civil status officers, child protection agencies, judicial officers, advocates, and even private parties – ELI’s Extra-Judicial Administration of Justice in Cross-Border Family and Succession Matters project aims at developing an outline of a harmonised European concept of courts, building on the approach of the Court of Justice of the EU in its recent case law, to ensure a harmonised application of EU instruments to such actors in Member States (for more information on the project, click here). As the trend of ‘de-judicialisation’ continues to grow, the project’s Dissemination Conference offers a valuable opportunity to discuss its implications and to present and reflect on recommendations developed by the ELI to address this shift.

The event will take place on 14 February 2025 from 09:00–18:00 CET at the University of Vienna (Small Ceremonial Hall (Kleiner Festsaal)) and will be streamed online.

ELI will be able to issue a certificate of attendance, when requested, to participants.

Register here. The tentative agenda is available here.

This report was written by Carlos Santaló Goris, postdoctoral researcher at the University of Luxembourg

Recent developments on the application of the EAPO Regulation

On 3 December 2024, the conference ‘European Account Preservation Order: Practical Challenges and Prospects for Reform’ took place at the University of Luxembourg, organized by Prof. Gilles Cuniberti (University of Luxembourg). The conference also served as an occasion to present the book ‘European Account Preservation Order – A Multi-jurisdictional Guide with Commentary’, published by Bruylant/Larcier. The book was co-edited by Dr. Nicolas Kyriakides (University of Nicosia), Dr. Heikki A. Huhtamäki (Huhtamäki Brothers Attorneys Ltd), and Dr. Nicholas Mouttotos (University of Bremen), and offers a comprehensive overview on the application of the European Account Preservation Order (‘EAPO’) at the national level. It contains a report for each Member State where the EAPO Regulation applies, addressing specific aspects of the EAPO procedure that depend on domestic law.

The conference was structured into two panel discussions. The first panel focused on the specific issues regarding the application of the EAPO Regulation identified by practitioners with first-hand experience with this instrument. The second panel discussion explored the potential reform of the EAPO Regulation and which specific changes should be implemented to improve its application. This report aims to offer an overview of the main highlights and outputs of the presentations and discussions of the conference.

First panel discussion: the use of the EAPO application in the practice

The first panel was composed of Dr. Laurent Heisten (Moyse & Associates Law Firm, Luxembourg), Alexandra Thépaut (Étude Calvo & Associés, Luxembourg), and Lionel Decotte (SAS Huissiers Réunis, France) and moderated by Dr. Elena Alina Ontanu (University of Tilburg). This first panel aimed to explore specific issues in the application of the EAPO Regulation from the practice perspective. The discussion was opened by Dr. Laurent Heisten, who indicated that the EAPO is way more complex than the Luxembourgish national provisional attachment order, the saisie-arrêt. He highlighted that the Luxembourgish saisie-arrêt has more lenient prerequisites than the EAPO. In his view, that might explain why creditors often opt for the saisie-arrêt instead of the EAPO.

The complexity of the EAPO compared to the Luxembourgish saisie-arrêt was also remarked by Ms. Alexandra Thépaut. However, she also acknowledged that the EAPO presents some advantages against the Luxembourgish national equivalent procedure. In particular, she referred to the certificate that banks have to issue immediately after the implementation of an EAPO (Article 28). This is something that does not occur with the Luxembourgish saisie-arrêt. Another advantage of the EAPO she referred to is the possibility of obtaining information about the debtors’ bank accounts (Article 14).  The Luxembourgish saisie-arrêt also lacks an equivalent information mechanism.

During the discussion, Prof. Gilles Cuniberti intervened to indicate that using the EAPO could be less costly than relying on equivalent domestic provisional measures. He refers to a specific case in which the creditor preferred to apply for an EAPO in Luxembourg instead of a domestic provisional attachment order in Germany. The reason was that in Germany, the fee for applying for a national provisional measure would be in proportion to the amount of the claim, while in Luxembourg, there is no fee to obtain an EAPO.

A second recurrent issue identified by the panellists was the use of standard forms. In this regard, Mr. Lionel Decotte highlighted while standard forms can seem practical in a cross-border context, they are rather complicated to fill in. Ms. Alexandra Thépaut mentioned finding particularly complex the section on the interest rates of the EAPO application standard form.

Second panel discussion: the future reform of the EAPO Regulation

The second panel focused on the potential reform of the EAPO Regulation. The panellists were Prof. Gilles Cuniberti, Dr. Carlos Santaló Goris, and Dr. Nicolas Kyriakides, and it was moderated by Dr. Nicholas Mouttotos. Prof. Gilles Cuniberti explored the boundaries of the material scope of the EAPO Regulation. He first advocated suppressing the arbitration exception. He explained that it had been adopted by a political decision which was not submitted to the discussion of the expert group. This was most unfortunate, as the rationale for excluding arbitration from the Brussels I bis and other judgment regulations (the existence of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards) was inexistent concerning a remedy belonging to enforcement per se, which was always outside of the scope of the Brussels I bis Regulation.

Prof. Gilles Cuniberti also defended making available the EAPO Regulation in claims regarding matrimonial and succession matters, both expressly excluded from its scope. In his view, there is no reason for these two subject matters to be excluded as the Succession and Matrimonial Property Regimes Regulations, again, only apply to jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments (and choice of law), but do not offer any remedy to attach bank accounts. Lastly, he advocated expanding the use of the EAPO to provisional attachment of financial instruments. This is a potential reform of the EAPO Regulation expressly foreseen in Article 53.

Dr. Carlos Santaló Goris focused on the reform of the EAPO Regulation from the creditors’ perspective.  He observed that national case law on the EAPO shows that creditors with an enforceable title encounter many difficulties satisfying the EAPO’s periculum in mora. This is due to the strict interpretation that courts have of this prerequisite in light of Recital 14 of the Preamble. He also mentioned that there is a pending preliminary reference on the interpretation of the EAPO’s periculum in mora before the European Court of Justice (C-198/24, Mr Green).

Regarding the creditor’s security, he stated that the vague criteria used to calculate the amount of the security is also a source of divergences on how the amount of the security is established from one Member State. He provided the example of Germany, where courts often require 100% of the amount of the claim. This percentage contrasts with other Member States, such as Spain, where the amount of the security represents a much lower percentage of the amount of the claim. Additionally, he also suggested reforming the EAPO to transform it into a true enforcement measure. In his view, creditors with an enforceable title should not only have the possibility of obtaining the provisional attachment of the funds in the debtors’ bank accounts but also the garnishment of those funds.

Finally, Dr. Nicolas Kyriakides explored how to foster the use of the EAPO Regulation across the EU. In his view, it would be necessary to expand the use of the EAPO Regulation to purely domestic cases. He referred to the case of the European Small Claims Procedure and how this instrument served as an inspiration for some national legislators to introduce equivalent domestic procedures. In his view, when judges and practitioners use these equivalent domestic procedures, indirectly they become familiar with the EU civil proceedings on which the equivalent domestic procedure was modeled. This is a way of integrating the EU civil proceedings into the legal practice. Therefore, when judges and practitioners have to apply the EU civil procedures, they already know how to do it. This can result in a more efficient and effective application of these EU instruments. On a second level, Dr. Nicolas Kyriakides identified the legal basis that the EU legislator might have to adopt such kinds of measures. He considered that the EU could invoke Article 81 (Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters), and Article 114 (Harmonization for the Internal Market) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union could serve to harmonize domestic procedural rules within the boundaries of the principles of subsidiarity, proportionality, and procedural autonomy.

The panelists’ presentations were followed by an open discussion with the audience. One of the issues that was addressed during this discussion was the use of the IBAN to determine the location of the bank accounts. Prof. Gilles Cuniberti expressed his concern about the use of the IBAN since nothing prevents a bank from opening an account with an IBAN that does not correspond to the Member State where the account is effectively held.

Waiting for the Commission’s report on the EAPO Regulation

Following Article 53(1) of the EAPO Regulation, the Commission should have elaborated a report on the application of the EAPO by 18 January 2024. This conference offers a glimpse into what might eventually appear reflected in that report. The EAPO Regulation seems still far from being an instrument often relied on by creditors who try to recover a cross-border claim. The conference, which combined a practical and academic analysis of the EAPO regulation, served to identify some of the problems that might be preventing the EAPO from being perceived by creditors as an efficient tool to secure cross-border claims. Initiatives like this conference can help prepare the ground for designing a more effective EAPO procedure.

 

The Mexican Academy of Private International and Comparative Law (AMEDIP) is holding a webinar on Thursday 30 January 2025 at 14:30 (Mexico City time – CST), 21:30 (CET time). The topic of the webinar is: From the Old to the New Private International Law: Contexts, Objectives, Methods and Practice and will be presented by HE Ambassador Mario J. A. Oyarzábal (in Spanish).

The details of the webinar are:

Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83362977786?pwd=VsniAolvT9vCNnbjVl4FdbAqXkOX9E.1

Meeting ID: 833 6297 7786

Password: AMEDIP

Participation is free of charge.

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

Issues 3 and 4 of 2024 of ZEuP – Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht have recently been published. They feature various contributions that may be of interest for the readers of this blog. Specifically, issue 3 includes the following articles and case note. Die Europäisierung des internationalen Erwachsenenschutzes Jan von Hein on the proposal for a […]

While the implementation of Directive (EU) 2024/1069 is underway across EU Member States, and it will have to be done according to the timing already indicated in this blog, attention is increasingly turning to the pressing need to strengthen anti-SLAPPs protections in the Western Balkans. The issue of SLAPPs is a growing concern in this […]

The Société de législation comparée has published a compendium of legal studies on foreign law (Le Droit Étranger). The scholarly works in this 3-volume collection examine the role of foreign law in shaping legal thought and practice, offering insights into its academic contributions, practical applications, and future perspectives. Background Over the last ten years, the […]

An online conference on International Recovery of Maintenance on the Basis of Authentic Instruments is set to take place on 29 January 2025 from 3 to 5 PM CET, hosted by the German Institute for Youth Services and Family Law (DIJuF). Authentic instruments, such as enforceable deeds, allow maintenance debtors to commit to child support […]

Johan Tufte-Kristensen (Copenhagen University) and Mustafa Sert (Gorrissen Federspiel law firm) have authored a new Danish textbook titled International privatret (Private International Law). The book focuses exclusively on choice of law issues, omitting procedural aspects such as jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments. It offers a comprehensive overview of choice of law issues from […]