Droit international général

On 25 May 2022, the European Commission published a set of Questions and Answers (Q&As) to clarify the practical implementation of the new sets of Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs), adopted in June 2021 (Decision 914/2021/EU). Contracts based on the earlier sets of SCCs will no longer be a lawful basis for international data transfers after 27 December 2022 (Q&A No. 22).

As a reminder, SCCs are standardised and pre-approved model data protection clauses that allow controllers and processors to comply with their obligations under EU data protection law. They are based on a triangular relationship, whereby the obligations assumed by the data importer and the data exporter (the parties to the contract) by virtue of their contractual agreement can be enforced by the data subject, acting as a third-party beneficiary.

SCCs are, by definition, incorporated within an international contract between a controller/processor of personal data established in the EU (or subject to the GDPR pursuant to Article 3(2) thereof) and a controller/processor established in a third country and placed beyond the scope of application of the GDPR (cf Q&A No. 24). Owing to their congenital “foreign element”, these contracts must speak the language of private international law (PIL), at least in cases where they are concluded between two commercial entities (see Q&A No. 2 for the potential range of users of the SCCs). In this respect, the Commission’s Q&As bring along welcome clarifications concerning some of most recurrent PIL issues arising out of these clauses, such as those regarding the contents and limits of conflict-of-laws party autonomy and the interplay between these contracts and the legal order (notably, the overriding mandatory rules) of the receiving third country.

While being of certain interest for the private international lawyer, the relationship between local laws (objectively applicable to the data importer) and the SCCs remains extremely complex and it deserves its own blogpost. For this reason, Section A of this blogpost will briefly present the major “PIL innovations” brought along by the 2021 SCCs, focusing solely on choice of law and choice of court clauses. Section B will then point to some unresolved issues that presently find no answer in the Commission’s Q&A (nor elsewhere).

A. Modernised SCCs and PIL: What’s New

The first and most evident innovation brought along in 2021 consists in an attempt at simplification of the regulatory environment. The three distinct sets of SCCs adopted under Directive 95/46 [Decision 2001/497/EC (SCCs for controller to controller transfers), Decision 2004/915/EC (alternative set of SCCs for controller to controller transfers) and Decision 2010/87/EU (transfer of personal data to processors established in third countries)] have been replaced by two sets of SCCs: one concerning the relationship between controllers and processors to fulfil the requirements in Article 28(3) and (4) of the GDPR; one dealing with SCCs as a tool for the transfer of data outside the EEA. The latter present an innovative modular structure consisting of 4 “modules”, covering four transfer scenarios (cf Q&A Nos 21 and 27): transfer from EU-based Controller to Non EU-based Controller (Module 1); transfer from EU-based Controller to Non EU-based Processor (Module 2); transfer from EU-based Processor to Non EU-based Processor (Module 3); transfer from EU-based Processor to Non EU-based Controller (Module 4).

The parties have to combine “general clauses” (that are applicable regardless of the specific transfer scenario) with the module(s) that applies to their specific situation.

For the purposes of the present blogpost, only the SCCs as a tool for the transfer of data outside the EEA will be considered, as specifically concerns the Clauses dealing with applicable law (A.1) and jurisdiction over remedies (A.2).

A.1 Applicable law

The regime governing the choice of the applicable law has undergone significant modifications in the 2021 restyling. To fully grasp these innovations, it is useful to briefly present, at the outset, the previous regime(s) established by the SCCs adopted under Directive 95/46/EC.

– Applicable Law under the Previous SCCs Regime

Concerning applicable law, the previous sets of SCCs clearly regarded international data transfers as a dynamic process, consisting of three distinct strands.

First, the processing of personal data by the data exporter, including the transfer itself, were governed, up to the moment of the transfer, by the objectively applicable data protection law [clause 4 of the SCCs set out by Decision 2001/497/EC; clause I(a) of the SCCs set out by Decision 2004/915/EC; clause 4 of the SCCs set out by Decision 2010/87/EU]. The “objectively applicable data protection law” is, in this context, the Member State law applicable to the EU-established controller by virtue of EU law itself (ie the law determined pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 95/46/EC until 23 May 2016, and by Article 3 GDPR after this date. This law now includes the GDPR-complementing provisions issued by the Member States based on the opening clauses scattered throughout the GDPR, whose spatial scope of application remains uncertain in current law).

Second, the processing of personal data by the data importer, occurring after the transfer to the third country, was seen as a separate processing operation, placed beyond the scope of the direct application of EU law, and governed by the law chosen by the parties to the SCCs. There was not, however, an unrestricted freedom of choice, which was limited to:

(1) the law of the Member State where the data exporter was established [clause 5 (b) first indent of the SCCs set out by Decision 2001/497/EC; clause II(h)(i) of the SCCs set out by Decision 2004/915/EC];

(2) the provisions of an adequacy decision applicable to the third country where the data importer is established, even if such adequacy decision was not applicable ratione materiae to this importer, provided that such provisions were of a nature which made them applicable in the sector of that transfer [cf. Clause 5 (b) second indent of the SCCs set out by Decision 2001/497/EC; clause II (h)(ii) of the SCCs set out by Decision 2004/915/EC];

(3) a (more or less) extensive set of “mandatory data protection principles”, set out in the annexes of the SCCs [clause 5 (b) indent of the SCCs set out by Decision 2001/497/EC; clause II(h)(iii) of the SCCs set out by Decision 2004/915/EC].

Evidently, it is not possible to qualify the choices made under (2) or (3) as a veritable “choice of governing law”: said provisions or principles would have been applied in conjunction with a national law (objectively) applicable to the data importer under local PIL.

Finally, all three sets of SCCs contained a provision entitled “governing law”, whereby “the Clauses shall be governed by the law of the Member State in which the data exporter is established” (respectively clauses 10, IV and 9). The actual scope of this choice of law clause shall be read in the light of what has been said regarding the first two strands of the data processing operation: vis-à-vis the first step, there is no room for party autonomy and the chosen law cannot directly govern the processing operations carried out by the exporter within the EU, including the transfer. The processing of the transferred data by the importer in the third country must also be excluded from the scope of the chosen “governing law”, otherwise the (different) choice eventually made under (2) or (3) above would have been deprived of practical significance. In essence, the law appointed under the clause entitled “governing law” was therefore limited to the “contractual issues” posed by the SCCs (validity, form, nullity, consequences of the total or partial breach etc).

– The 2021 SCCs

The 2021 SCCs did not change the approach with respect to the first strand of the data transfer operation, which remains subject to the “objectively applicable law”, ie the GDPR as eventually complemented by the applicable Member State law (see Clause 2).

With respect to the second strand, the new SCCs took away the possibility of choosing between different alternatives as regards the legal regime applicable to the processing operations carried out by the importer in the third state. The obligations of this party vis-à-vis the exporter and the data subjects are now set out in greater detail in the SCCs themselves, without any specific reference to a national governing law. Clause 4 specifies, in any event, that the SCCs shall “be read and interpreted in the light of the provisions of Regulation (EU) 2016/679”.

Finally, there is, just as in the previous sets of SCCs, a clause (Clause 17) titled “Governing law”, which is quite innovative as compared to its predecessors. Consistently with the “modular structure” of the SCCs, this clause presents different wordings depending on the specific transfer operation at stake.

• For transfers from controller to controller (Module 1), the parties are free to choose the law of one of the EU Member States, subject to the sole requirement that such law allows for third-party beneficiary rights. In particular, neither the clause itself nor the Q&A require an objective connection between the chosen Member State and the transfer operation: the laws of the Member States are deemed perfectly fungible in this respect.
• This unrestricted freedom of choice disappears for Modules 2 (transfer from controller to processor) and 3 (transfers between processors): the law of the Member State where the exporter is established applies in principle, unless it does not allow for third parties beneficiary rights. In that case, the parties must choose the law of another Member States that allows for such rights (again, no objective connection is required).
• Module 4 (transfers from processor to controller) deals with the situation of a non EU-established controller that transfers data to a EU-established processor (eg. outsourcing of payroll services to a EU company). This transfer comes under the scope of EU law once the EU-based processor sends the data back to its controller, established outside the EEA. Given that this data was originally placed under a different (and possibly less protective) legal regime, EU law relaxes some of its requirements and the SCCs allow, in this case, for an unrestricted choice of applicable law (cf. Q&A No. 37). It is uncertain as to whether this unrestricted freedom of choice continues to exist if the data transferred by the processor partially originates in the EU: in this case, in fact, the Q&As specify that the relaxation of other requirements no longer applies (cf. Q&A 44). Despite the silence of the Q&As on this specific point, the same solution seems required as concerns the governing law.

A lingering uncertainty concerns the scope of the governing law and, in particular, the question as to whether it extends to directly regulating the processing operations carried out by the data importer in the third country. According to Q&A No. 37, this law “will govern the application of the SCCs”. It is also stressed that Clause 17 shall be read in conjunction with Clause 4, whereby the interpretation and application of the SCCs should conform to, and should not contradict, the GDPR. Nonetheless, throughout the Q&A, the governing law is mentioned with respect to marginal contractual issues such as formal requirements (Q&A No. 6); the formalisation of the parties’ consent within the docking clause (Q&A No 12); the time limits (Q&A No. 37).

A.2 Jurisdiction over Remedies

With respect to jurisdiction for remedies, the previous sets of SCCs were consistent in that they enabled the data subject who invoked third-party beneficiary rights to sue one or both parties to the contract in the Member State where the data exporter was established, without prejudice to any other substantive or procedural rights he may have had under national or international law.

The new SCCs (Clause 18) are, at once, more detailed and more liberal on this point, insofar as they set out, concerning modules 1, 2 and 3, the general principle whereby “any dispute arising from these Clauses shall be resolved by the courts of an EU Member State”. This provision is particularly important from a systemic point of view, as it makes sure that, irrespective of the law governing the processing activities carried out by the importer, the most important principles of EU data protection law would be enforced in any case as overriding mandatory provisions of the forum.

Clause 18 then requires the parties to expressly designate the court of a Member State: again, the freedom of choice seems unrestricted and no longer dependent on the existence of an objective connection between forum and dispute. Letter (c) of that Clause adds the most important innovation, insofar as it allows the data subject to bring legal proceedings against the data exporter and/or data importer before the courts of the Member State in which he/she has his/her habitual residence. This choice of court agreement extends the procedural rights granted to the data subject by Article 79 GDPR, a provision that opens a ground of jurisdiction solely with respect to actions brought against the EU-established data exporter, jurisdiction for any action brought against the third-country data importer being left, under than provision, to national PIL.

It must be stressed on that Q&A No. 33 contains a somewhat confusing reference to national law, as it states, concerning the forum opened by letter (c), that “such actions can be brought before the competent court of the EEA country (as determined by national law) in which you live …”. Nonetheless, the data subject’s possibility of suing the data importer in the Member State of his/her habitual residence should depend not on the (dubious) existence, in national law, of a forum actoris, but rather on the choice of court agreement resulting from the combined reading of letters (c) and (d) of Clause 18 (the latter stating that “[t]he Parties agree to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of such courts”). A totally different question is knowing whether, and under which conditions, the designated court will enforce this choice of court agreement: in case the Brussels I bis Regulation is not deemed applicable to these contracts (see Section B), the answer to this question will indeed depend on the (non uniform and potentially inconsistent) national laws of the Member States.

A derogatory regime is set in place for Module 4, which allows the parties to designate any court, ie even the court(s) of a third country. In this respect, however, Q&A No. 33 specifies that this shall not affect the procedural rights conferred to the data subject vis-à-vis the data exporter under Article 79 GDPR

B. Modernised SCCs and PIL: What’s Unresolved

Despite the useful clarifications brought along by the Commission Q&As, concerning notably the room for manoeuvre given to the parties to the SCCs regarding choice of law and choice of court agreements, there still exists some major open questions regarding the practical operation of these PIL devices, that are liable to impinge on the effectiveness of SCCs as a tool for the effective protection of European personal data in case of extra-EEA transfers.

It must be remembered that the main purpose of the SCCs is to “provide a comprehensive data protection framework that has been developed to ensure continuity of protection in case of data transfers to data importers that are not subject to the GDPR” (Q&A No. 24). Within this framework, the third-party beneficiary rights granted to the data subject play a pivotal role, as evidenced by the importance attached to them during the choice of the governing law (supra, Section A.1). Third-party beneficiary rights are a key-element of the so-called “private enforcement” of EU data protection law, insofar as they allow the data subject to directly invoke the protection vested by the GDPR and the SCCs both against the importer and the exporter, and to do so before a court in the EU.

Intuitively, the effective ability of the data subject to ground the jurisdiction of such courts and to invoke the application of said law will depend on the procedural treatment of these choice-of-law and choice-of-court agreements in the seised/designated courts. In this respect, the applicability of both the Brussels Ibis and the Rome I Regulations to the SCCs remains controversial, and finds no clarification in the Commission’s Q&As. Conversely, both the SCCs and the Q&As seem to simply assume that these choice-of-law and choice-of-court agreements will be enforced by any court in the EU.

B.1 Civil and Commercial Matters?

The Brussels I bis and the Rome I Regulations (as well as the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements) apply in “civil and commercial matters”. A recent and exhaustive summary of the (uniform) meaning of this expression in EU PIL can be found in the Opinion of AG Szpunar and the judgment rendered by the ECJ in Rina. Regard should be had, in particular, to the need of ensuring that the Regulations are broad in scope (§ 31 of the judgment in Rina) and to the “the elements which characterise the nature of the legal relationships between the parties to the dispute or the subject matter thereof” (§ 32). This assessment aims at excluding that one of the parties (or both) is acting in the exercise of “public” powers, ie “powers falling outside the scope of the ordinary legal rules applicable to relationships between private individuals” (§ 34).

Against this backdrop, it is worth stressing that the SCCs set up by the Commission can be used by the parties (which, in most cases, will be private commercial operators) without the prior approval by a public authority, the competent DPA. The triangular relationship between the data importer, the data exporter and the data subject heavily relies of private contract law. If it is true that these are all factors that may vouch for the inclusion of SCCs within the scope of “civil and commercial matters”, the fact remains that the Commission’s Q&As stress, on many occasions, the specific “nature” of the SCCs and the ensuing limits placed on the parties’ substantive party autonomy: “if the parties change the text of the SCCs themselves (beyond the adaptations mentioned below) they cannot rely on the legal certainty offered by an EU act” (Q&A No. 7, emphasis added). It will likely be for the ECJ to determine whether the specific nature of “EU act” attached to the SCCs and the limitations it entails for ordinary contract law are enough to exclude a characterisation as “civil and commercial matters” for the purposes of EU PIL.

If the Brussels 1bis Regulation was deemed applicable ratione materiae, it would ensure the effectiveness of the above-mentioned choice-of-court agreements throughout the EU. The fact that said agreements are invoked by a third-party beneficiary should not pose any problem in the light of the Gerling case law. Clearly, the Brussels Ibis Regulation would not be applicable to choice of court agreements concluded under Module 4, in cases where jurisdiction is conferred upon a third-state court.

B.2 A “Free” Choice of Governing Law?

The applicability of the Rome I Regulation to the SCCs elicits more substantial doubts.

To begin with, it is uncertain as to whether the choice of law made by the parties under current Clause 17 can be deemed “free” in the sense of Article 3 thereof. Setting aside the non-problematic case of the (unrestricted) freedom of choice available for Module 4, Module 2 and 3 confer very limited leeway: the parties must choose the law of the Member State where the data exporter is established, deviations being admissible solely if this law does not allow for third-party beneficiary rights (it must be added that the unrestricted freedom of choice which follows from this circumstance is at odds with the limitation set by the general rule: a “cascade” list of options or, even better, a rule turned around a “close(st?) connection” with another Member State would have been a more logical complement to the general rule).

As concerns the requirement that the choice of law made under Article 3 of the Rome I Regulation shall be “free”, it is worth stressing that both the Opinion of AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona and the judgment of the Court in Gruber Logistics started from the assumption that a “choice” of law which is actually imposed by law would be incompatible with this provision (respectively, §§ 97-101 of the Opinion and § 39 of the judgment). In the same case, the Court clarified that regulation does not prohibit the use of standard clauses which are pre-formulated by one of the parties (or, it must be assumed, by a third party). In such a case, freedom of choice, within the meaning of Article 3, can be exercised by consenting to such a clause and is not called into question solely because that choice is made on the basis of a pre-formulated clause.

The compatibility of Clause 17 of the SCCs with the Rome I Regulation teeters along the fine line which separates an ex lege imposition of an applicable law and the sheer pre-drafting by the Commission. It must be stressed, in this respect, that SCCs are established through an Implementing Decision of the Commission, but they can be used by the parties on a voluntary basis to demonstrate compliance with data protection requirements (Q&A No. 1). Nonetheless, if the parties choose to resort to these standard clauses, they are not free to amend the wording of Clause 17, besides the exercise of the freedom of choice (if any) explicitly allowed under that provision. If this provision is amended, the parties need to submit their contract to the DPA for prior approval, to be able to proceed with the transfer. It is highly doubtful that a DPA would approve a contract containing, for example, a choice of third-country law for the transfer scenarios corresponding to Modules 1, 2 and 3. In fact, in the Schrems II, the ECJ attached great importance to the safeguards following from the application of the law of the Member State where the exporter is established, when assessing if the protection granted by the former SCCs was “essentially equivalent” to that guaranteed within the Union (§ 138).

B.3 Universal Application v Restrictions to the Freedom of Choice

More fundamentally, it must be determined whether the Rome I Regulation is compatible with the “geographical” restriction of the parties’ freedom of choosing the applicable law. This problem is shared by Modules 1, 2 and 3: the chosen law shall be, in all of these cases, the law of a Member State, whereas a choice of third-country law would be totally admissible under the combined reading of Articles 2 and 3 of the Rome I Regulation. From the standpoint of the general theory of PIL, behind this asymmetry lie irreconcilable philosophical stances as concerns the international interchangeability of (private) laws. The Rome I Regulation starts from the assumption of a perfect interchangeability between all the (private) laws of this world, irrespective of their specific contents, and subject to a sheer ex post control through the gateway of the public policy exception. Conversely, the Commission’s SCCs (and probably the GDPR itself) adopt a more prudential approach based on an ex ante pre-selection of laws (those of the Member States of the EU) which, because of their contents, can be deemed “essentially equivalent” in terms of the protection granted to personal data. Again, this is a thorny issue that the ECJ might likely have to resolve in the near future, considering that, according to the Commission, SCCs are, at present, “the most popular tool” for transferring personal data outside the EEA in accordance with the GDPR (Q&A No. 3).

The Academy of European Law (ERA) will held its Annual Conference on European Family Law on 22-23 September 2022 .

The conference will deal with the new Brussels II Regulation, which is applicable from 1 August 2022, hearing of the child, parentage, surrogacy and double motherhood, as well as recent CJEU case law on international family law.

Speakers include Véronique Chauveau, Dagmar Coester-Waltjen, Gilles Cuniberti, Joanna Guttzeit, Frank Klinkhammer, Carlos de Melo Marinho, James Netto, Marta Requejo Isidro, Caroline Rupp, Nadia Rusinova and Andrea Schulz.

For further information, see here.

Starting from 1 August 2022, the Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 of 29 June 2019 on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction (recast)(Brussels II ter Regulation) became applicable, replacing the Brussels II Regulation.

As nearly two decades has passed since the Brussels II Regulation itself became applicable, it seemed important to record its retirement also on CoL and to welcome its successor. Special thanks need to go to Mayela Celis who rang the bell timely.

For further discussion on the new Regulation and the changes its brings, I am happy to refer our readers to the special volume of Polish quarterly on civil procedure („Polish Civil Procedure”, „Polski Proces Cywilny”), which we brought to your attention a while ago.

Although repealed, the „old” Regulation does not completely loose its relevance. Under Article 100 of the Brussels II ter Regulation, the former is still applicable in particular to the legal proceedings instituted prior to 1 August 2022 and to the decisions given in such proceedings.

So… Exit the Regulation (but not fully), enter the Regulation. Anyway, Long Live to the Latter ?

Canara Bank v MCS International [2022] EWHC 2012 (Comm) is interesting with respect to Cooper J’s discussion of privity of choice of court and law, and the corporate carve-out of retained (post Brexit) Rome I.

Canara (an Indian bank) say that the Guarantee at the core of the issues, with English choice of law and court, was transmitted automatically to MCS France under the French Civil Code as a result of an amalgamation or merger of two French companies, namely the original guarantor and MCS France.

On the impact of Rome I, the judge [53] presumably with parties’ counsel approval, remarks that ‘pursuant to Article 1(2)(e) and (f), Rome 1 does not apply to questions governed by the law of companies or to the issue of whether or not an agent is able to bind a principal in relation to a third party. For both these issues, it is necessary to look to common law principles.’

[88] It is said again that whether an agent is able to bind a principal in relation to a third party is excluded from Rome 1 further to article 1(2)(g), the corporate carve-out. I do not think that is necessarily the case, even in combination with the Article 1(2)(e) carve-out for choice of court. The judge at any rate continues by applying the Dicey Rule 243 that where an agent acts or purports to act on behalf of a principal, their rights and liabilities in relation to each other are in general governed by the law applicable to the relationship or contract between them, with Dicey Rule 244(1) adding a bootstrap /von Munchausen /putative law element:

The issue whether the agent is liable to bind the principal to a contract with a third party, or a term of that contract, is governed by the law which would govern that contract or term, if the agent’s authority were established.”

[89] In light of the foregoing, ‘it was common ground between the parties, and rightly so, that Mr. Maurel’s actual authority on behalf of MIF fell to be determined under French law and the question of whether and to what extent Mr. Maurel was able to bind MIF in respect of the Guarantee given Canara’s knowledge of the resolution is a matter of English law.’

Common English conflict of laws is held to apply to the issue of transfer of a guarantee during the dissolution of a company, and parties agree [76] that whether a corporation has been amalgamated with another corporation is to be determined by the law of its place of incorporation: French law is held to be the relevant law for the dissolved guarantor issue, and expert reports were discussed.

Overall conclusion is [125]

Having considered the issue of good arguable case by reference to each of the issues raised by the parties in relation to the question of whether MCS France was a party to the Guarantee and therefore the jurisdiction agreement contained within it, it seems to me to appropriate to step back and consider whether overall Canara has a good arguable case on whether or not MCS France was a party to that jurisdiction agreement. In this regard, I consider that it does. Even were I to be wrong on one of the issues considered above, the balance of the evidence supports the conclusion that MCS France is a party to the Guarantee and to the jurisdiction agreement contained within it. In circumstances, where the evidence establishes that Canara, MCS France and MCS UK have done business since 2014 on the basis that the Guarantee was binding on MCS France, it would be a surprising conclusion that there was no good arguable case that MCS France was a party to the jurisdiction agreement.

Interesting, if flimsy on the corporate carve-out issue.

Geert.

Guarantee with EN law and jurisdiction clause. Whether it extends to French amalgamated company for purposes of jurisdiction.
Retained Rome I held not to apply on basis of corporate law carve-out.

Canara Bank v MCS International [2022] EWHC 2012 (Comm)https://t.co/jRg4GCW0Yr

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) July 30, 2022

A. Introduction

During the Summer of 2019, I attended one of the two flagship courses organised by the Hague Academy of International Law – the annual Summer Courses on Private International Law.

I quite vividly recall that, during the opening lectures, one of the Professors welcomed the participants at the premises of the Academy, a few steps from the Peace Palace itself, and made an observation that, at that time, seemed as captivating as remote.

As my precise recollection of his words may be far less accurate than the memory of the impression they made on me, I paraphrase: when it comes to education in general, in years to come – he noted – it will be a privilege to be able to benefit from a physical presence of a teacher or professor, being there, in front of you, within the reach of your hand and of your questions.

At that time, just a few months prior to the beginning of the worldwide spread pandemics, even the Professor himself most likely did not realize the extent to which his words would soon prove prophetic.

That was, however, not the sole lecture that I recall vividly.

Among others, Professor Matthias Weller (University of Bonn, one of two general editors of CoL.net) presented his course titled ‘Mutual Trust’: A Suitable Foundation for Private International Law in Regional Integration Communities and Beyond?

The present post is not, however, an account of this Hague experience. It is an account of a different and more recent one that resulted from the lecture of the freshly published Volume 423 of Recueil des Cours of the Hague Academy of International Law and of the Course by M. Weller within its pages.

 

B. Structure of the Course

The Course, in its just published incarnation, is composed of eight chapters.

Details about the Course and the Volume within which it is contained can be found here, on the website of its publisher, Brill. I can also refer the readers to the post on EAPIL by Elena Alina Otanu who also reported about the publication.

Thus, in this post, I will refrain from detailing the content of every Chapter and rather present and discuss its main and/or most interesting themes. Please be warned though that their selection is highly subjective, as there is far more to uncover within the pages of the Volume.

Chapter I (“Introduction”) sets the scene for the analysis provided for in the following Chapters. Here Weller also builds up the main hypothesis of his work (see section C below).

I digress but from a methodological standpoint, the Course is very thoughtful and may serve as an example of how to deal with a matter of comparative private international law that is highly difficult to conceptualise.

The methodological awareness is most visible in Chapter I, as well as in Chapter III (“Regional integration communities and their private international law”), which furtherly explains how the analysis is conducted through the text.

Between those two, lies Chapter II (“Private international law: a matter of trust management”), where the Author explores one of his core ideas that private international law may be conceived as a matter of “trust management”. As this is an innovative paradigm with which the Author approaches his main hypothesis, it calls for some additional exposition and discussion (see section D below).

The Author devotes next four chapters (Chapters IV – VII) to the specific regional integration communities, namely: Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Central African Economic and Monetary Community (OHADA), El Mercado común del sur (MERCOSUR) and EU. Here, I found the Chapter on EU to be highly innovative – at least to my knowledge, this is the first comprehensive attempt to look at the plethora of heavily-discussed private international law mechanics from “trust”-oriented perspective (see section E below).

Chapter VIII (“General conclusions”) closes the book, recaps the Author’s findings and provides food-for-thought for future research in the field.

 

C. Hypothesis under scrutiny in the Course

The Course starts off with a series of references showing the relevance of “mutual trust” for various aspects of functioning of the EU and its legal framework, in particular – for its private international law.

Quoting J. Basedow who stated that the EU is the “experimental laboratory of private international law”, Weller sets the main hypothesis of his work (para. 5): there might be a fundamental relevance of mutual trust to the private international law of any regional community.

To test this hypothesis, the Author delves into analysis of selected “regional integration communities”. Doing so, Weller aims to examine whether and to what extent mutual trust is of relevance for the private international law of those communities, be it as a foundation or guiding principle, triggering more intensive cooperation (in presence of mutual trust) or preventing it (in the lack of it).

The Author also hints the possibility to take his main hypothesis even further, although this aspect does not constitute the focal point of the Course: there might even be something fundamental in “mutual trust” for private international law as it is, also where it does not operate within a framework explicitly created for the purposes of regional integration communities (to use the term employed by the Author, also where it comes to “extracommunity efforts on private international law”, para. 127). Indeed, I would argue that, at present, no system of private international law should be conceived as operating in isolation, blind to the global reach of the situations that it aims to govern.

Back to the Course itself and the hypothesis:

Weller explores and employs, as he puts it, an EU “product” – the notion of “mutual trust” (para. 8), to verify his main hypothesis in the context of various regional integration communities.

The readers should not be misled though. The Course is not built around the idea that the EU private international law, with its concept of ‘mutual trust’, constitutes an ultimate form of private international law system or a pinnacle of achievement of some sorts, and that any other regional integration communities efforts have to be benchmarked against the “EU model”. Far from that.

In fact, Weller uses the concept of “trust”, and its qualified form of “mutual trust” as a tool that allows him to research the main hypothesis of his Course.

Doing so, the Author explicitly refrains from adopting a solely EU-oriented perspective. He goes so far as to state that “not everything that comes from experiments ends up in good results, let alone the best solution for everyone”. “Not even ‘integration’ as such may be considered a priori the most suitable avenue for all states and regions in the world” (para. 8). This becomes even clearer if we read into the Chapter III. Here, the Author goes so far as to call “naive” the belief according to which “progress” boils down to increasing degrees of mutual trust (para. 126).

Also, even where Weller refers to notion of “mutual trust” and calls it at some instances an EU “product”, he also makes it clear that “mutual trust” is not an EU invention: rather, he roots it in the German regional economic community of the nineteenth century, the German Union (paras. 432 and 482).

 

D. Paradigm of the Course: Private international law as a matter of “trust management”

In Chapter II (“Private international law: a matter of trust management”) the Author exposes and explores the paradigm that he proposes and researches in the following Chapters, with regards to selected regional integration communities.

In order to do so, he divides the Chapter into two sections.

In the first section of this Chapter, Weller explores the concept of “trust”: what it is and what purpose it serves, not only in the field of private international law.

The Author manages to seamlessly transit from “trust” as a societal phenomenon, deeply researched and explained both by sociological and economic (think: risk management) theory, with its qualified form (“mutual trust”) that became so crucial for the EU and beyond.

Within the first section, Weller also juxtaposes “trust” to “knowledge” arguing, in essence, that the former allows to act (even) where information is deficient. Trust relates, he explains, to the predictability of the actions of another. He builds up another dichotomy on that observation: in the lack of information, there is a choice between “trust” and “control”, and it is the former that appears to be a better candidate for governance of private international law issues.

In the second section Weller exposes the paradigm he proposes: for him, as mentioned above, private international law may be conceived as a matter of “trust management”. In other terms, as he puts it: to trust or not to trust – this is the question of private international law (para. 123).

To make his point, the Author looks closely at what J. Basedow called the “ultimate and most far-reaching form of judicial cooperation between States” – the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments (para. 40).

He elaborates on various tools of “trust management” with regards to foreign judgments: from “total control” (no effects of foreign judgments at all), through revision au fond, doctrine of obligation, letter rogatory and far-reaching trust with residual control via exequatur proceedings to full faith and credit among federal states and, finally,“full trust”. He argues that all of them represent a specific amount of “trust” that is given to the judicial system of another State, complemented by “control” mechanics of some sorts.

Furthermore, Weller does not shy away from exploring other aspects of private international law through the mutual trust-tinted lens. He addresses also, inter alia, authentication of foreign documents and their service or taking evidence abroad (paras. 85 et seq.), as well as application of foreign law (paras. 104 et seq.).

I digress again: reading initially into first section of Chapter II, I had a (false) impression that the views on trust are too one-sided and do not take into account that both “trust” and “mutual trust” are not (and cannot be) blind to the various circumstances that occur within the framework to which the trust applies.

Trust is first and foremost a societal phenomenon and not a religious one. In this perspective, there is something to say about what distinguishes “trust” from “faith” – the latter is not (or at least should not be) undermined by lack of feedback; it can even “fuel” more faith and intensify it. By contrast, when it comes to “trust”, a systematic lack of positive feedback, replaced by feedback that calls for concern, needs to results into reconsideration as to whether the trust must still be given and the control waived.

My initial false impression was, however, quickly dispersed. Weller recognizes the dynamics of trust too. In the paragraphs that follow, he quotes and comments extensively on one of the key elements of this research, building up on the consideration of K. Lenaerts according to which “mutual trust cannot be confused with blind trust” (para. 90). This becomes even clearer when we read into Chapter VII on EU private international law.

 

E. “Trust management” in EU private international law and beyond

I turn now to aforementioned Chapter VII, devoted to EU private international law or, if we read into this Chapter more attentively, to EU law in general.

Here, Weller discusses extensively the “mutual trust” and human/fundamental rights dynamics and argues that the balance between the former and the latter is nothing else but trust management (para. 360).

He shows, next, that private international law-inspired mechanics of trust management may apply beyond the field of EU private international law. This may seem as an even more perverse turn if we take into account that, as Weller observes, in the context of EU integration, judicial cooperation in civil matters developed in the shadows of judicial cooperation in criminal matters (para. 377).

Interestingly, Weller recognizes that even within the context of EU integration, the EU legislator does not cap the pre-existing trust with legislative framework within which this trust operates. By contrast, at least in some instances (he cites E-commerce and Service Directives), the EU legislator diagnosed a lack of mutual trust and then imposed an obligation of the Member States for mutual recognition as a cure (para. 371).

Then, he goes through various EU private international law provisions and case law pertaining to them in order to explore how the “trust management” is dealt with under EU law.

I mention just one piece of this exploration on public policy, operating under the Brussels I regime as a ground four refusal of enforcement.

Weller mentions the case that resulted in the German Federal Supreme Court judgment of 2018, which accepted the application of public policy exception with regards to a Polish judgment condemning ZDF to publish an apology on its main webpage after it described two concentration camps as being “Polish”. The Supreme Court considered that the obligation for ZDF to publish a preformatted text on its website contradicted freedom of speech and freedom of press as guaranteed under Article 5(1) of the German Basic Law. The enforcement was rejected on the basis of public policy exception.

The case has been extensively discussed in the literature before. However, faithful to the paradigm of the Course, Weller examines the case from trust management perspective.

Adopting this perspective, Weller argues that the German court “could have and would have better enforced just the enforceable parts of the Polish judgment” and “it seems that it would have been under an obligation from EU law to do so in order to maintain the movement of judgment within the EU as far as possible, an obligation that emanates from the effet utile of the Brussels regime (para. 405).

I might add, in line with this contention: if the right of enforcement of a foreign judgment is conceptualized as a right protected under the Charter (and – to be more specific – under its Article 47), then any interference to that right, although “provided for by law” [see: public policy exception of Article 34(1) of the Brussels I Regulation/Article 45(1)(a) of the Brussels I bis Regulation], must respect the requirement resulting from Article 52(1) of the Charter. Thus, if I follow Weller paradigm, also Article 52(1) of the Charter is a “trust management” tool, that calls for proportionate and restricted (only when it is “necessary”) refusal of “trust” in the EU.

 

F. So again, why do I need “mutual trust” when I already have “comity”?

I close this post with another recollection of the Summer Course of 2019: during one of his intervention at the Hague Academy, Weller mentioned that when he had shared with one of his colleagues about this “mutual trust” research, the said colleague had asked: so again, what is the difference between “mutual trust” and “comity”?

According to my account of that conversation, Weller provided, if I recall correctly, an answer that boiled down to the following statement, I paraphrase: while “comity” allows for cooperation between States, over the heads of individuals, the concept of “mutual trust” enables the cooperation between States but with paying a particular attention to the individual; it elevates the individual and his/hers interests to the attitude, where they become a matter of true concern also to the States.

The difference between “mutual trust” and “comity” is furtherly explored in the Course, although I might be accused of reading too much in-between the lines.

On the one hand, in Chapter II, commenting on various tools of “trust management”, the Author mentions the concept of “comity” again. He explains that one of it aspects can be seen as “an abstract trust in the administration of justice by the foreign state from where the judgment emerged – it results from the acknowledgment of the sovereignty and such equality of the foreign state is concretized by the presumption that the administration of justice in the foreign state is equally well placed to produce justice in the particular case at hand”.

On the other hand, in another part of the book, he makes an interesting point: the individuals push a State towards trust, so the States cooperate on behalf of those individual when they enable and supervise judicial cooperation (paras 35 and 72). In yet another part of the book, pertaining to the application of foreign law, the Author even juxtaposes trust-based mechanics, concerned with the rights of the individuals, with the sovereignty-based (“outdated”) concepts of comity (para. 111).

Furthermore, States are, Weller argues, in obligation to optimize their trust management – doing so, they optimize the chances of the individuals when it comes to the enforcement of their rights in cross-border contexts (para. 122).

I concur. But why such obligation exists? Under Weller’s paradigm, the general concept of “comity” cannot be the justification, at least not the “outdated” one. Besides, if we follow Weller on that point, from the perspective of interest of individual, “comity” may be seen as a construct inferior to “mutual trust”.

If we read into text, the Author provides an answer though: the obligation to optimise trust management results from the imperatives of rule of law and of the fundamental right to effective access to justice; as such, it is a matter of constitution guarantees (para. 123 and 444). I might add that there is also something to say about effective protection of fundamental/human rights that underlie the substance of specific rights and/or legal situations shaped under foreign law or within foreign territory. In essence, it is necessary to optimise trust management system also because it allows to ensure recognition and enforcement of rights and legal situations that are rooted in fundamental/human rights.

I tweeted the case on 4 May….slowly I am getting trough the backlog. In Otsuka v GW Pharma [2022] EWHC 1012 (Pat) Karet DJ upheld jurisdiction to hear a dispute about a patent licence in circumstances where the licensee has indicated it will challenge the validity of licensed patents granted outside the UK.

On 7 January 2022 GW commenced proceedings against Otsuka in a state court in New York. There is a significant overlap between the matters raised in the New York claim and the E&W claim (as GW have indicated they will defend it). GW seek a declaration that under the Agreement between the parties none of the relevant patents Covers Epidyolex, including because the patents are invalid. Epidyolex is a drug for the treatment of seizures associated with various conditions or epileptic syndromes. The active ingredient in Epidyolex is cannabidiol (“CBD”).

[47] ff the judge considers the Moçambique rule which means that an English court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim of title to foreign land. In Lucasfilm v Ainsworth the UKSC with some reference to the CJEU’s application of Brussels Ia’s Article 24, held that there is no jurisdiction in proceedings for infringement of rights in foreign land where the proceedings are “principally concerned with a question of the title, or the right to possession, of that property” (including intellectual property). [51] Reference is also made to Chugai Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v UCB Pharma SA and to Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies (UK) Co Ltd.

The judge [73] holds GW’s intended challenge to a foreign patent in this case is not direct in the sense suggested in Chugai and the rule in Moçambique is not engaged. Claim formulation in the US proceedings features as a strong argument in that conclusion. [81] ff a forum non challenge is rejected.

Geert.

EU private international law, 3rd ed. 2021, 2.196 ff.

Jurisdiction upheld in #patent licence dispute with licensee indicating challenge to validity of patents granted outside UK
Moçambique rule applied to IPR
Foreign Act of State doctrine, forum non conveniens

Otsuka v GW Pharma [2022] EWHC 1012 (Pat) https://t.co/RLypWznwbQ

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) May 4, 2022

On 13 September 2022, the French Société de législation comparée will hold a conference on ascertainment of foreign law under the French Draft Code of Private International Law. The full programme of the conference can be found here.

The speakers will discuss the provisions of the draft code on ex officio application and proof of foreign law, which were presented on this blog here.

The new provisions are an attempt to reform proof of foreign law before French courts by seeking inspiration from foreign models, in particular models which involve academic institutions to report to the court on the content of foreign law and models which allow cross examination of expert witnesses on foreign law.

The conference could have been a great opportunity to confront the new provisions with foreign models which do rely on academic institutions or cross examine witnesses in court, but most unfortunately virtually all speakers are French academics and practitioners (the only exception being the director of the Swiss institute of comparative law).

The conference will take place 60 boulevard de la Tour-Maubourg, 75007 Paris, from 5 until 7:30 pm. Attendance is free, but registration is required at emmanuelle.bouvier@legiscompare.com.

In spite of the vacation period, several judgments have been handed down on 1 August 2022.

One of them concerns the interpretation of PIL instruments, namely Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 and Regulation (EC) No 4/2009. The request from the Audiencia Provincial de de Barcelona leading to Case C-501/20, MPA (Habitual residence – Third State), on the hearing of which I reported here, as well as here as regards AG Spuznar’s opinion of last February, has been decided as follows:

1. Article 3(1)(a) of 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, and Article 3(a) and (b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations must be interpreted as meaning that the status of the spouses concerned as members of the contract staff of the European Union, working in the latter’s delegation to a third country and in respect of whom it is claimed that they enjoy diplomatic status in that third State, is not capable of constituting a decisive factor for the purposes of determining habitual residence, within the meaning of those provisions.

2. Article 8(1) of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of determining a child’s habitual residence, the connecting factor of the mother’s nationality and her residence, prior to the marriage, in the Member State of the court seised of an application relating to parental responsibility is irrelevant, whereas the fact that the minor children were born in that Member State and hold the nationality of that Member State is insufficient.

3. Where no court of a Member State has jurisdiction to rule on an application for the dissolution of matrimonial ties pursuant to Articles 3 to 5 of Regulation No 2201/2003, Article 7 of that regulation, read in conjunction with Article 6 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the respondent in the main proceedings is a national of a Member State other than that of the court seised prevents the application of the clause relating to residual jurisdiction laid down in Article 7 to establish the jurisdiction of that court without, however, preventing the courts of the Member State of which the respondent is a national from having jurisdiction to hear such an application pursuant to the latter Member State’s national rules on jurisdiction.

Where no court of a Member State has jurisdiction to rule on an application relating to parental responsibility pursuant to Articles 8 to 13 of Regulation No 2201/2003, Article 14 of that regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the respondent in the main proceedings is a national of a Member State other than that of the court seised does not preclude the application of the clause relating to residual jurisdiction laid down in Article 14 of that regulation.

4. Article 7 of Regulation No 4/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that:

–        where the habitual residence of all the parties to the dispute in matters relating to maintenance obligations is not in a Member State, jurisdiction founded, on an exceptional basis, on the forum necessitatis referred to in Article 7 may be established if no court of a Member State has jurisdiction under Articles 3 to 6 of that regulation, if the proceedings cannot reasonably be brought or conducted in the third State with which the dispute is closely connected, or proves to be impossible, and there is a sufficient connection between the dispute and the court seised;

–        in order to find, on an exceptional basis, that proceedings cannot reasonably be brought or conducted in a third State, it is important that, following an analysis of the evidence put forward in each individual case, access to justice in that third State is, in law or in fact, hindered, in particular by the application of procedural conditions that are discriminatory or contrary to the fundamental guarantees of a fair trial, without there being any requirement that the party relying on Article 7 demonstrate that he or she has been unsuccessful in bringing or has attempted to bring the proceedings in question before the courts of the third State concerned; and

–        in order to consider that a dispute must have a sufficient connection with the Member State of the court seised, it is possible to rely on the nationality of one of the parties.

So far, the decision is available in seven official languages of the EU, although some versions are still labeled as provisional.

EFFORTS (Towards more EFfective enFORcemenT of claimS in civil and commercial matters within the EU) is an EU-funded Project conducted by the University of Milan (coord.), the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law, the University of Heidelberg, the Free University of Brussels, the University of Zagreb, and the University of Vilnius.

The ninth EFFORTS Newsletter has just been released, giving access to up-to-date information about the Project, save-the-dates on forthcoming events, conferences and webinars, and news from the area of international and comparative civil procedural law.

For information, in particular, on the EFFORTS Final Conference (30 September 2022, University of Milan), see also our previous post here.

Finally, regular updates are available via the Project website and the Project’s LinkedIn and Facebook pages.

Project JUST-JCOO-AG-2019-881802
With financial support from the Civil Justice Programme of the European Union

This post is one for the comparative binder. Fong Chak Kwan v Ascentic Limited and Others [2022] HKCFA 12 (many thanks to Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit for alerting me to the judgment) discusses a variety of issues, the one of interest to the blog is the tort gateway for a tort allegedly committed outside of Hong Kong. The ruling on that issue was delivered by Lord Collins, a former UKSC judge who continues to sit in the Hong Kong judicial system (unlike others who have withdrawn from the Hong Kong courts in light of the region’s rule of law issues).

[67] Direct damage was sustained on the Mainland, with indirect damage only in Hong Kong.

The First Instance judge [68] ‘in line with the majority judgments of Lady Hale and Lord Wilson in [UKSC Brownlie] .., and being unpersuaded by the minority view of Lord Sumption, decided that (a) the expression “damage” in Gateway F was not limited to damage which completed the cause of action; (b) the expression was not limited to direct damage as opposed to indirect/consequential damage; (c) where damage was felt in more than one jurisdiction, indirect/consequential damage qualified under Gateway F if it was of some significance; (d) the expression was to be given its ordinary and natural meaning, which embraced indirect/consequential damage; and (e) the consequences of a wide interpretation were sufficiently addressed by the discretion as to forum conveniens.’ 

The Court of Appeal [69] ‘like the judge, held that the reasoning of the majority in Brownlie v Four Seasons Holdings Inc was to be preferred to that of the minority. Damage included all of the heads of damage which might be suffered as a result of tortious conduct, including all the detriment, physical, financial and social which the plaintiff suffered as a result. The natural and ordinary meaning of Gateway F was clear, and there was no basis for drawing a distinction between direct and indirect damage. Nor was there any basis for applying the European jurisprudence on the Brussels Convention and Brussels I Regulations. Finally, the expression “the damage” in Gateway F did not mean that all the damage, or the damage which completed the cause of action, had to be sustained in Hong Kong.’

[74] ff Collins NPJ provides a historic and geographical comparative (Commonwealth) tour d’horizon, confirming the lower courts’ view.

[107]-[108] ‘(I)n the light of the legislative purpose, the natural and ordinary meaning of the word “damage” is just that, and the rule does not distinguish between the damage which completes a cause of action and that which does not, nor does it distinguish between direct or indirect damage, or between physical or financial damage. The question is whether there is a legislative purpose, or a public policy, or an absurd or undesirable result, which justifies a narrower construction, to encompass only direct damage as opposed to indirect damage.’: the judge finds there is no such purpose, policy or result.’

[109] he discusses 3 flows in the reasoning of the alternative reading, which are worth a read. [121] the same safety valve is emphasised as the UKSC did in the majority view in Brownlie: where the exercise of the locus damni gateway leads to unwarranted results, forum non conveniens can come to the rescue.

Geert.

Comparative conflicts
Note 64 ff Collins NPJ on jurisdiction in respect of tort allegedly committed outside of Hong Kong, with extensive reference to UKSC Brownlie https://t.co/Z0a0CPOowB and other jurisdictions https://t.co/oR1H7cR0Oe

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) June 22, 2022

The latest issue of the RabelsZ (Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht) has been published. As always, it contains a number of insightful articles. Here are the authors, titles and abstracts:

Jürgen Basedow, Ulrich Drobnig *25.11.1928 †2.3.2022

Daniel Gruenbaum, From Statehood to Effectiveness: The Law of Unrecognised States in Private International Law

One of the functions of private international law (PIL) is to determine the law that governs a legal relationship. Yet what occurs when the rules designated by PIL emanate from an entity that has not been recognised as a state by the government of the forum? This article aims firstly to identify and describe the major prevailing approaches to applying the law of unrecognised states in contemporary PIL practice. It then critically appraises the principal reasons justifying the application of foreign law despite it emanating from unrecognised states. The article finally argues that applying the law of unrecognised states reveals the potential for PIL to grapple with non-state rules and with interactions of normative orders of all different sorts, regardless of their state pedigree.

Matthias Fervers, Die Drittwirkungen der Forderungsabtretung im Internationalen Privatrecht (Third-Party Effects of Assignments of Claims in Private International Law)

Although Art. 14 Rome I Regulation addresses the relationship between the assignor and the assignee as well as the relationship between the assignee and the debtor, there is still no provision as to the third-party effects of assignments. The question of what law should govern these third-party effects is, correspondingly, a subject of considerable discussion. While some propose that the law governing the assigned claim should be applicable, others suggest that third-party effects should be governed by the law that applies to the contract between the assignor and the assignee; the current prevailing opinion assumes that third-party effects should be governed by the law of the habitual residence of the assignor. This article demonstrates that a limited possibility for a choice of law for assignor and assignee is the most appropriate solution.

Christoph Wendelstein, Der Handel von Kryptowährungen aus der Perspektive des europäischen Internationalen Privatrechts (The Trading of Cryptocurrencies from the Perspective of European Private International Law)

The rules in the Rome I Regulation are used to ascertain the applicable law in cases of trades in cryptocurrencies. However, these are only partially appropriate for a predictable determination of the applicable law. While in B2B and C2C cases of “stationary” trading of cryptocurrencies via Crypto-ATMs the law at the location of the ATM still provides a predictable legal system, this is not the case for online trading with crypto-brokers or via crypto exchanges. Especially in cases of online trading via crypto exchanges, a further complication results from the fact that such platforms allow their users to trade legally under a pseudonym – in line with the historical notion of cryptocurrencies. This may complicate or even prevent the determination of the applicable law. The resulting “vacuum” is to some extent filled by the technical design of the transaction through the use of smart contracts. However, this does not dispense with the question of applicable law. The article examines these and other questions and points out possible solutions de lege lata.

The table of contents in German is available here.

The deceased, living in Germany, leaving as her sole heir her son, who also lives in Germany, owned immovable property in Germany and Lithuania. Her son obtained a European Certificate of Succession from the German authorities, naming him as the sole heir of the deceased’s entire estate. He presented the certificate to the Lithuanian authorities and applied for the immovable property to be recorded in the Real Property Register. They refused to do so on the grounds that the certificate was incomplete, as the European Certificate of Succession submitted did not contain the information required under the Lithuanian Law on the Real Property Register to identify the immovable property by documents to be submitted, in that it did not list the property inherited by the applicant. The heir sought legal redress against this rejection with the Lithuanian courts. Against this background the referring court asked:

Must point (l) of Article 1(2) and Article 69(5) [of Regulation No 650/2012] be interpreted as not precluding legal rules of the Member State in which the immovable property is situated under which the rights of ownership can be recorded in the Real Property Register on the basis of a European Certificate of Succession only in the case where all of the details necessary for registration are set out in that European Certificate of Succession?

AG Szpunar first of all referred to the overall objective of the ESR as spelled out in recital 7 to facilitate the proper functioning of the internal market by removing the obstacles to the free movement of persons who want to assert their rights arising from a cross-border succession (para. 39). In doing so, the Regulation does not harmonise substantive law but has opted for harmonising private international law, choice of law in particular (para. 40) but also provides for the European Certificate of Inheritance, subject to an autonomous legal regime, established by the provisions of Chapter VI (Art. 62 et seq.) of the Regulation.

Article 68 lists the information required in a European Certificate of Succession “to the extent required for the purpose for which it is issued” and this includes “the share for each heir and, if applicable, the list of rights and/or assets for any given heir” (italic emphasis added).

Under a succession law like the German that does not provide for succession other than universal succession it is clear that the estate as a whole, rather than particular assets, is transferred as a totality. AG Szpunar concludes: “That being so, it is not necessary to include an inventory of the estate in the European Certificate of Succession, inasmuch as the situation referred to in point (l) of Article 68 of Regulation No 650/2012 by the phrase ‘if applicable’, the need for a list of assets for any given heir, does not arise” (para. 55). Thus, the phrase “if applicable” is not to be understood solely as a reflection of the wishes of the person applying for a European Certificate of Succession (para. 57). Even though the applicant is required to inform the authority issuing the certificate of its purpose, it is for that authority to decide, based on that information, whether or not an asset should be specified. The Commission Implementing Regulation No 1329/2014 (point 9 of Annex IV to Form V) does not have a bearing on this decision as it can only implement but not modify the Regulation (para. 73).

However, where the situation does not depend upon a national right of succession governed by the principle of universal succession and where the purpose of the certificate can only be achieved by indicating the share of the inheritance for the person in question, “it is most likely that the asset in question should be specified” (para 62). And even if there is no need to list assets (such as under German law), “it should be noted in that regard that, if a European Certificate of Succession is to produce its full effects, a degree of cooperation and mutual trust between the national authorities is required. That may imply that the issuing authority is required, in a spirit of sincere cooperation with the authorities of other Member States, to take account of the requirements of the law governing the register of another Member State, especially if that authority holds relevant information and elements” (para. 65).

Of course, Point (l) of Article 1(2) of the ESR states that “any recording in a register of rights in immovable or movable property, including the legal requirements for such recording, and the effects of recording or failing to record such rights in a register” is excluded from the scope of the regulation. By its judgment in Kubicka, AG Spzunar explained, “the Court found that points (k) and (l) of Article 1(2) and Article 31 of that regulation must be interpreted as precluding refusal, by an authority of a Member State, to recognise the material effects of a legacy ‘by vindication’, provided for by the law governing succession chosen by the testator in accordance with Article 22(1) of that regulation, where that refusal is based on the ground that the legacy concerns the right of ownership of immovable property located in that Member State, whose law does not provide for legacies with direct material effect when succession takes place. As a consequence of that judgment in Kubicka, the German law disputed in the main proceedings was not applied to the transfer of ownership. However, it did not concern real property registration rules. The national property law of a Member State may therefore impose additional procedural requirements, but only inasmuch as any such additional requirements do not concern the status attested by the European Certificate of Succession.” (paras. 77 et seq).

As Advocate General Bot noted in his Opinion in Kubicka, in practice, other documents or information may be required in addition to the European Certificate of Succession where, for example, the information in the certificate is not specific enough to identify the asset the ownership of which must be registered as having been transferred. In the present case, however, AG Szpunar rightly observed, “the Lithuanian authorities have all the information needed for the purpose of making an entry in the Real Property Register: they are able to identify the person to whom the asset in question belongs or belonged and to ascertain, from the European Certificate of Succession, the status of heir of the applicant in the main proceedings”. Thus “the effet utile of the European Certificate of Succession would be undermined if Lithuanian property law were able to impose additional requirements on the applicant” (para. 81).

In other words, even though the contents of a European Certificate of Succession, due to the underlying lex successsionis, may not exactly represent what is required for documentation by the lex registrii of the requested Member State, the overarching principle of the EU’s efforts for integration, namely mutual trust, and, more concretely, the effet utile of the ESR create the obligation of the requested Member State to substitute required documents under its lex registrii as much as functionally possible – a methodical tool that may perhaps be abstractly framed as “extended substitution” and may well develop to a powerful concept for the European Succession Certificate.

Be that as it may, limited to the constellation in question, AG Szpunar concluded:

“Point (l) of Article 1(2), point (l) of Article 68 and Article 69(5) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession preclude the application of provisions of national law pursuant to which an immovable property acquired by a sole heir pursuant to a right of succession governed by the principle of universal succession can only be recorded in the Real Property Register of the Member State in whose territory that asset is located on the basis of a European Certificate of Succession if all the data required under the national law of that Member State to identify the immovable property are included in the certificate.”

The full text of the Opinion is here.

In G I Globinvestment Ltd & Ors v VP Fund Solutions (Luxembourg) SA & Ors [2022] EWHC 1872 (Comm) wealthy Italian investors seek to recover losses which they suffered when investments they had made plummeted in value at the outset of the COVID pandemic. Defendants are in various jurisdictions. Most have accepted jurisdiction, two of them, one based in Luxembourg, the other in Liechtenstein, challenge jurisdiction.

The claim against the Liechtenstein defendant is subject to common law rules, the country not being a party to Lugano. I will leave that further undiscussed here, suffice to say the challenge was unsuccessful.

The claim against the Luxembourg based defendant was issued before Brexit implementation date and subject to Brussels Ia. It claims there is an A25 exclusive choice of court clause in the investment fund’s general subscription terms, and Vineall DJ discusses it with reference to the general A25 outline in PIFSS v Piqtet.

Parties are agreed [64] – wrongly, nota bene, that on formal validity, the question is whether there has been an actual consensus between the parties, clearly and precisely demonstrated, and on material validity, the question is whether the dispute between the parties arose or originated from the particular legal relationship in connection with which the clause was concluded. That is the kind of agreement which would see my students fail a Brussels Ia question.

[65] a further major error is made with the parties seemingly agreeing that ‘whether the claim falls within the scope of the [clause], that question is to be answered according to Luxembourg law’.

The conclusions are [88] that there is no [forum clause] in the in the Subscription Agreement, although there is choice of law clause; 88.2. There is no EJC in the Offering Document; The Offering Document wrongly asserts that there is a jurisdiction clause in the Subscription Agreement; That is insufficient to establish a clearly and precisely demonstrated consensus; no consensus as to jurisdiction is demonstrated: the result of the conflicting documents is a muddle; therefore there is no exclusive jurisdiction clause on which VP Lux can rely.

I have not got the kind of access to the file to say the outcome is factually wrong – the route to it certainly is and simply wrong in law.

The judge also [89] concludes that whether one of the claimants is a consumer who can sue in England and Wales need not be decided:  ‘That issue does not seem to me to be entirely straightforward and since it is not necessary to resolve it in the light of my conclusions about [choice of court] I prefer not to decide it’: why not?: VP Lux contest jurisdiction and it is the judge’s task under Brussels Ia to assess the existence of jurisdiction on any of the Brussels Ia grounds.

Had the judgment been issued in exam season it would have been obvious material for ‘spot the Brussels Ia errors’.

Geert.

 

Unsuccessful jurisdiction challenge which was based ia on Brussels Ia consumer, choice of court sections

G I Globinvestment Ltd & Ors v VP Fund Solutions (Luxembourg) SA & Ors [2022] EWHC 1872https://t.co/UfyToABXz6

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) July 21, 2022

Conventions & Instruments

On 1 July 2022, the HCCH 2007 Child Support Convention and the HCCH 2007 Maintenance Obligations Protocol entered into force for Ecuador. At present, 44 States and the European Union are bound by the Convention, while 30 States and the European Union are bound by the Protocol. More information is available here.

On 8 July 2022, Pakistan deposited its instrument of accession to the HCCH 1961 Apostille Convention. The Convention, which currently has 124 Contracting Parties, will enter into force for Pakistan on 9 March 2023. More information is available here.

On 13 July 2022, Senegal deposited its instrument of accession to the HCCH 1961 Apostille Convention. The Convention, which currently has 124 Contracting Parties, will enter into force for Senegal on 23 March 2023. More information is available here.

 

Meetings & Events

From 4 to 8 July 2022, the Fifth Meeting of the Special Commission on the Practical Operation of the 1993 Adoption Convention was held online, attended by nearly 400 participants representing HCCH Members, Contracting Parties and Observers. The meeting resulted in the adoption of over 50 Conclusions and Recommendations, providing guidance to (prospective) Contracting Parties on a wide range of issues relating to the practical operation of the 1993 Adoption Convention, including the prevention of illicit practices, post-adoption matters, intrafamily adoptions and alternatives to full adoption, technical assistance and the use of technology. More information is available here.

On 27 July 2022, the HCCH and the Asian Business Law Institute co-hosted the webinar “Cross-border Commercial Dispute Resolution – HCCH 2005 Choice of Court and 2019 Judgments Conventions”. More information is available here.

 

Upcoming Events

The inaugural CODIFI Conference will be held online from 12 to 16 September 2022. CODIFI will examine issues of private international law in the Commercial, Digital, and Financial (CODIFI) sectors, highlighting developments in the digital economy and fintech industries as well as clarifying the roles of core HCCH instruments: the 1985 Trusts Convention, the 2006 Securities Convention, and the 2015 Choice of Law Principles. More information is available here.

 

These monthly updates are published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), providing an overview of the latest developments. More information and materials are available on the HCCH website.

The Final Conference of the EFFORTS Project

• Date: Friday, 30 September 2022
• Venue: Università degli Studi di Milano – Sala Napoleonica, Via Sant’Antonio, 12 (Milan, Italy) (remote participation is also available)

The Conference is the final event of the EFFORTS (Towards more EFfective enFORcemenT of claimS in civil and commercial matters within the EU) Project, funded by the European Union and conducted by the University of Milan (coord.), the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law, the University of Heidelberg, the Free University of Brussels, the University of Zagreb, and the University of Vilnius.

The Conference will provide an international forum where academics, policymakers, and practitioners discuss the Project’s key findings and exchange their views on the national implementation of – and the path forward for – the EFFORTS Regulations (i.e., the Brussels I-bis Regulation and the Regulations on the European Enforcement Order, the European Small Claims Procedure, the European Payment Order, and the European Account Preservation Order).

The Conference will tackle, in particular:

• Current challenges in the EU rules on cross-border enforcement of claims
• The interaction between the EFFORTS Regulations and national enforcement procedures
• Future perspectives for the re-drafting of EU rules on cross-border enforcement of claims

The working language is English; simultaneous translation in Italian will be available.

Registration is compulsory. More information is available here.

 

Project JUST-JCOO-AG-2019-881802
With financial support from the Civil Justice Programme of the European Union

Professor Maarit Jänterä-Jareborg has retired after having been professor in private international law at Uppsala University in Sweden for 23 years. To pay her tribute, the anthology Festskrift till Maarit Jänterä-Jareborg (“Essays in Honour of Maarit Jänterä-Jareborg”) has been edited by Margareta Brattström, Marie Linton, Mosa Sayed and Anna Singer.

The anthology contains 22 contributions as well as a bibliography of Jänterä-Jareborg’s extensive writings over the last four decades. Of the essays in the anthology, eleven are written in English, six in Swedish, four in Norwegian and one in French.

Most of the essays deal with private international law issues. Michael Bogdan and Giuditta Cordero-Moss have both written contributions on different aspects of recognition of foreign marriages. Christina Gonzáles Beilfluss and Nigel Lowe have written essays dealing with the new Brussels II Regulation (2019/1111). In addition to the four mentioned contributions, the book contains several more essays dealing with private international law issues.

A sample read including the full table of contents and the Swedish preface written by the editors can be accessed and read here.

The first issue of 2022 of Giustizia Consensuale (published by Editoriale Scientifica) has just been released, and it features:

Andrea Simoncini (Professor at the University of Florence) and Elia Cremona (PhD, University of Siena), Mediazione e Costituzione (Mediation and Constitution; in Italian)

This paper deals with the issue of the constitutional basis of mediation. After describing the currently dominant view which sees mediation as merely a ‘means’ to an end, such as reducing the judicial backlog, and as a complementary tool to in-court proceedings, the authors argue that mediation could be considered as a constitutional ‘end’ in itself. Thus, by promoting the attainment of a more cohesive society, mediation is seen as a way to fulfil the social solidarity obligations as enshrined in the Italian Constitution.

Claudio Cecchella (Professor at the University of Pisa), La negoziazione assistita nelle controversie sulla crisi delle relazioni familiari dopo la riforma con legge n. 206 del 2021 (Lawyer-Assisted Negotiation Procedure in Family Disputes Subsequent to Law No 206 of 2021; in Italian)

This paper analyses the provisions of Law No 206 of 2021 concerning the negotiation process assisted by attorneys in family disputes. The author firstly examines the provisions which entered into force on 22 June 2022, such as the extension of the scope of application of this negotiation process. Secondly, he explores the provisions that will enter into force at a later date, such as the possibility of agreeing to a lump-sum maintenance payment, the provision of legal aid and the right to take evidence during negotiations. While praising this reform, the author strongly criticizes it for not having provided for the minor’s right to be represented and heard during the negotiation process.

Juan F. Herrero (Professor at the University of Zaragoza), Accordarsi o soccombere (Reaching an Agreement or Losing the Case; in Italian)

Settlement rates are still relatively low compared to the percentage of cases that go to trial. Against this backdrop, the Spanish legislator has committed to reversing the trend. After some early efforts that were in vain, the legislator resorted to two instruments: the mandatory mediation attempt as a prerequisite to instituting judicial proceedings (as an alternative to mediation, parties may opt for other extrajudicial dispute resolution methods), and a new scheme for the allocation of judicial costs. The paper investigates correlations between judicial decisions on cost allocation and mandatory or voluntary extrajudicial settlement attempts. Furthermore, it examines the impact of the aforementioned attempts on the determination of judicial costs, with a special focus on relevant case law. Oftentimes, the risk or likelihood of obtaining an unfavourable – or only partially favourable – decision on the allocation of costs prompts the parties to reach an out-of-court settlement. In fact, if it is not the case, the winning party to litigation stands to lose more than they would gain financially.

Stefania Brun (Professor at the University of Trento), ‘Proceduralizzazione’ dei poteri datoriali e mediazione sindacale. Il laboratorio trentennale in materia di licenziamenti collettivi (Trade Union Mediation in Collective Dismissal. A Study of its Application over Three Decades; in Italian)

This article reviews the three-decade history and present-day application of Law No 223 of 1991 on collective dismissal. While providing an overall positive evaluation of this law, the article seeks to examine the role of the judicial and legislative branches in promoting best practices in its application. In this regard, it emphasizes the role of trade union mediation in the phase preceding collective dismissal as an effective means for reducing judicial scrutiny and ensuring greater legal certainty.

Antonio Cassatella (Professor at the University of Trento), Il procedimento amministrativo come strumento di giustizia consensuale. Potenzialità e limiti (Administrative Procedure as a Means to Reach Consensual Justice. Strengths and Limitations; in Italian)

This paper focuses on settlements reached by an individual and the public administration in the course of an administrative procedure as governed by Law No 241 of 1990. According to the author, these types of settlement are only possible if the administrative procedure is not seen as a unilateral exercise of the public administration’s power, but rather as a way of settling disputes between the administration and citizens. The author argues that the administrative procedure can be considered an alternative dispute resolution mechanism from a theoretical point of view. However, Article 11 of the aforementioned law cannot be considered an effective legal basis for settlement between an individual and the public administration due to its intrinsic limitations. Therefore, the author proposes that the Italian legislator reforms Law No 241 of 1990 taking the German and French legislations as a model.

 

Observatory on Legislation and Regulations

Lorenzo Bianchi (PhD, University of Parma), La conciliazione giudiziale tributaria. Criticità applicative e prospettive di riforma (Judicial Conciliation in Tax Disputes. Inherent Limits and Reform Proposals; in Italian)

This paper analyzes the mechanism of judicial conciliation in tax disputes and its relationship with out-of-court dispute resolution tools. The author examines the historical evolution of judicial conciliation and its current regulation. While exploring the main characteristics of tax disputes, particular attention is given to the inherent limits on reaching an agreement between the parties to litigation and the judicial power to promote settlement. In conclusion, the analysis focuses on the recent Italian reform proposals of the judicial proceedings regarding tax disputes and conciliation mechanisms as incentivized by the Next Generation EU plan.

 

Observatory on Practices

Dilyara Nigmatullina (Postdoctoral Researcher at the University of Antwerp) and Ruohan Zhu (Project manager at the Shanghai Arbitration Commission), A Study on the Use of Mediation in Combination with Arbitration. The Experience of East Asia with Focus on Mainland China

The article analyses the results of an empirical study about the current use of mediation in combination with arbitration (combinations) in international commercial dispute resolution. This study follows up the original study conducted by one of the article’s authors in 2014-2015, the results of which suggested the existence of a link between the practitioners’ legal culture and their use of a combination where the same neutral acts as a mediator and an arbitrator. The follow-up study further tests the hypothesis about the existence of the mentioned link by involving practitioners based in the East Asia region, predominantly in mainland China, while those taking part in the original questionnaire practiced in Continental Europe and common law jurisdictions in the Asia Pacific region. The article discusses the results of the follow-up study in the context of the findings of the original study before concluding that these results provide further support to the hypothesis that the use of a combination where the same neutral acts as a mediator and an arbitrator varies throughout the world and can be linked to the practitioners’ legal culture.

Francesca Valastro (Case Manger, Milan Chamber of Arbitration), La mediazione in videoconferenza. Dalla situazione emergenziale agli orizzonti futuri. Dati e note a margine di un’indagine empirica (Online Mediation: From Necessity to the Norm. An Empirical Study; in Italian)

The outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic in March 2020 affected the way mediations in civil and commercial matters were conducted, transforming online mediation into an absolute necessity. Two years on, the world has changed and in this post-Covid time, it would be advisable to assess how the pandemic has affected the practice of mediation. Will mediation return to be conducted face to face or will online mediation be the future? This article presents the results of the empirical research collected through interviews with fifty attorneys assisting clients in mediation and fifty professional mediators of the Mediation Service at Milan Chamber of Arbitration. Based on the analysis of their responses, the author argues that online mediation will have a pivotal role in the post pandemic world. However, further research and analysis is still necessary to develop best practices and guidelines for effectively managing mediation remotely.

In addition to the foregoing, this issue features the following book review by Giuseppe Buffone (Judge, Justice and Home Affairs Counsellor, Permanent Representation of Italy to the European Union, Brussels): Maria MARTELLO, Una giustizia alta e altra. La mediazione nella nostra vita e nei tribunali (Mediation in Our Courts and in Our Daily Lives. An Empowering Alternative), Roma, Paoline Editoriale Libri, 2022, 1-160.

 

 

In Athena Capital Fund SICAV-FIS SCA & Ors v Secretariat of State for the Holy See [2022] EWCA Civ 1051, the Court of Appeal has overturned the High Court’s judgment ordering a stay in a case involving alleged property fraud. I reviewed the first instance judgment here. The judge held the E&W courts did have jurisdiction over the claims but stayed them

because he took the view that the respondent had adopted a neutral position as to whether the appellants were under any liability and because the real dispute was not between the parties to this action but between the appellants and the prosecuting authorities responsible for the conduct of criminal proceedings against the fourth appellant in the Vatican City State.

(Males LJ [1]).

Many of the High Court judgment’s’ findings were not on appeal (such as the erroneous dropping of renvoi in the A25 BIa choice of court analysis).

The Court of Appeal spends a while summarising the earlier judgment, to arrive [54] at the crucial juncture between the Brussels Ia Regulation and case-management stays, with reference to its very recent decisions in Municipio and Nokia and to Article 6 ECHR right of access to courts [59]. Para 59 is crucial and I repeat it here in full

There is, as it seems to me, no reason to doubt that it is only in rare and compelling cases that it will be in the interests of justice to grant a stay on case management grounds in order to await the outcome of proceedings abroad. After all, the usual function of a court is to decide cases and not to decline to do so, and access to justice is a fundamental principle under both the common law and Article 6 ECHR. The court will therefore need a powerful reason to depart from its usual course and such cases will by their nature be exceptional. In my judgment all of the guidance in the cases which I have cited is valuable and instructive, but the single test remains whether in the particular circumstances it is in the interests of justice for a case management stay to be granted. There is not a separate test in “parallel proceedings” cases. Rather, considerations such as the existence of an exclusive English jurisdiction clause and the danger of circumventing a statutory scheme for the allocation of jurisdiction (such as the Judgments Regulation) will be weighty and often decisive factors pointing to where the interests of justice lie.

Males LJ therefore, like others before him, does not rule out a case-management stay even for proceedings covered by Brussels Ia yet puts (among others) that Regulation’s statutory purpose, and the need not to allow it to be circumvented, at the centre ground of the decision on a stay.

[60] ff a succinct background is given to the happiness, or not, of English courts entertaining negative declarations. [74] is the Court of Appeal’s core argument for lifting the stay:

I consider that the judge’s conclusion on what he described as the Secretariat’s “central argument” was mistaken. The Secretariat was not neutral. It follows that the basis on which the judge concluded that, at present, the grant of declarations would serve no useful purpose and therefore exercised his discretion to grant a case management stay was fundamentally flawed. Indeed the circumstances in which he envisaged that the declarations might serve a useful purpose and that the stay might be lifted, that is to say if the Secretariat adopted a partisan position in the criminal proceedings in the Vatican, already existed.

The judge had essentially decided that claimants, given the jurisdictional (for reasons of immunity) unavailability of the real defendants, had picked an ‘innocent bystander’ against whom to seek the negative declaration, the Secretariat, yet the Court of Appeal now finds that the Secretariat is not a neutral bystander at all. There is a real ‘dispute between the appellants and the Secretariat as to whether the appellants are under any civil liability to the Secretariat, for example to pay compensation, as a result of entering into the Transaction.’ [75]

[77] it is conceded that the lifting of the stay means there will be related proceedings going on in E&E, and the Vatican. But that is not found to be a reason to stay the English proceedings.

Geert.

 

For review of the first instance judgment see https://t.co/LcAvK1nua8 https://t.co/G1XIlQ2QlV

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) July 26, 2022

 

 

The new issue of the International & Comparative Law Quarterly (Volume 71, Issue 3) is out. As usually, some of articles concern directly or indirectly questions of private international law. A selection of abstracts is provided below.

The whole issue is available here. Some of the articles are available in open access.

Richard Garnett, Determining the appropriate forum by the applicable law, pp. 589-626

The concepts of jurisdiction and applicable law have been traditionally regarded as separate inquiries in private international law: a court only considers the applicable law once it has decided to adjudicate a matter. While such an approach still generally applies in civil law jurisdictions, in common law countries the concepts are increasingly intertwined. This article examines the relationship between jurisdiction and applicable law in two key areas: applications to stay proceedings on the ground of forum non conveniens and to enforce foreign exclusive jurisdiction agreements. While courts generally apply the principle that jurisdiction and applicable law should coincide where possible, there are circumstances where a court may retain jurisdiction despite a foreign governing law or may ‘trust’ a foreign tribunal to apply the law of the forum. This article seeks to establish a framework by which courts may assess the role of the applicable law in forum determinations.

Ardavan Arzandeh, Brownlie II and the Service-Out Jurisdiction under English Law, pp. 727-741.

FS Cairo (Nile Plaza) LLC v Brownlie (Brownlie II) is arguably the United Kingdom’s highest appellate court’s most significant decision this century on a private international law question. The judgment has ended nearly two decades of debate about the meaning of ‘damage’ sustained in England for the purpose of paragraph 3.1(9)(a) of Practice Direction 6B of the Civil Procedure Rules. In a four-to-one majority ruling, the Supreme Court decided that the provision was to be interpreted widely, such that, in a personal injury claim, any significant harm of any kind suffered by a claimant in England could provide a basis for the service of proceedings on a foreign-based defendant. The article is critical of the majority’s decision, as it is liable to create both immediate and long-term problems in the context of the service-out jurisdiction in England. It also examines the court’s pronouncements on the other question before it concerning proof of foreign law.

Written by Mayela Celis, UNED

On 14 July 2022 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled on the interrelationship between 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 II bis Regulation) and the HCCH 1996 Child Protection Convention. This case concerns proceedings in Sweden and the Russian Federation and deals in particular with the applicability of the perpetuatio fori principle contemplated in Article 8(1) of the Brussels II bis Regulation. The judgment is available here.

Facts

Mother (CC) gave birth to child (M) in Sweden. CC was granted sole custody of the child from birth.

Until October 2019 child resided in Sweden.

From October 2019 child began to attend a boarding school on the territory of the Russian Federation.

Father (VO) brought an application before the District Court of Sweden and several proceedings ensued in Sweden, holding inter alia that Swedish courts have jurisdiction under Article 8(1) of the Brussels II bis Regulation. CC brought an application before the Supreme Court of Sweden asking the court to grant leave to appeal and to refer a question to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling.

Question referred for preliminary ruling

‘Does the court of a Member State retain jurisdiction under Article 8(1) of [Regulation No 2201/2003] if the child concerned by the case changes his or her habitual residence during the proceedings from a Member State to a third country which is a party to the 1996 Hague Convention (see Article 61 of the regulation)?’

Main ruling

Article 8(1) of 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, read in conjunction with Article 61(a) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State that is hearing a dispute relating to parental responsibility does not retain jurisdiction to rule on that dispute under Article 8(1) of that regulation where the habitual residence of the child in question has been lawfully transferred, during the proceedings, to the territory of a third State that is a party to the Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children, signed at The Hague on 19 October 1996 (our emphasis).

Analysis

This is a very welcome judgment as it allows for the proper application of the 1996 Child Protection Convention to a case involving an EU Member State (Sweden) and a Contracting Party to the 1996 Child Protection Convention (the Russian Federation).

At the outset, it should be emphasised that this case deals with the lawful transfer of habitual residence and not with the unlawful transfer (removal or retention) such as in the case of international child abduction. In the latter case both the Brussels II bis Regulation and the 1996 Child Protection Convention provide for the retention of the jurisdiction in the EU Member State / Contracting State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention.

It is also important to clarify that contrary to the Brussels II bis Regulation, the 1996 Child Protection Convention does not adopt the principle of perpetuatio fori when dealing with general basis of jurisdiction (Article 5 of the Convention; see also para. 40 of the judgment). The 1996 Child Protection Convention reflects the view that the concept of habitual residence is predominantly factual and as such, it can change even during the proceedings.

As to the principle of perpetuatio fori, the CJEU indicates:

“By referring to the time when the court of the Member State is seised, Article 8(1) of Regulation No 2201/2003 is an expression of the principle of perpetuatio fori, according to which that court does not lose jurisdiction even if there is a change in the place of habitual residence of the child concerned during the proceedings” (para. 28, our emphasis).

With regard to the interrelationship between these two instruments, the CJEU says:

“In that regard, it should be noted that Article 61(a) of Regulation No 2201/2003 provides that, as concerns the relation with the 1996 Hague Convention, Regulation No 2201/2003 is to apply ‘where the child concerned has his or her habitual residence on the territory of a Member State’” (para. 32).

“It follows from the wording of that provision that it governs relations between the Member States, which have all ratified or acceded to the 1996 Hague Convention, and third States which are also parties to that convention, in the sense that the general rule of jurisdiction laid down in Article 8(1) of Regulation No 2201/2003 ceases to apply where the habitual residence of a child has been transferred, during the proceedings, from the territory of a Member State to that of a third State which is a party to that convention” (para. 33, our emphasis).

In my view, this judgment interprets correctly Article 52 of the 1996 Child Protection Convention, which was heatedly debated during the negotiations, as well as the relevant provisions of the Brussels II bis Regulation. In particular, the formulation in both Article 61(a) of the Brussels II bis Regulation “where the child concerned has his or her habitual residence on the territory of a Member State” and Article 52(2) of the 1996 Child Protection Convention “[This Convention does not affect the possibility for one or more Contracting States to conclude agreements which contain] in respect of children habitually resident in any of the States Parties to such agreements [provisions on matters governed by this Convention]” has been properly considered  by the CJEU as the habitual residence of the child is the Russian Federation.

To rule otherwise would have reduced significantly the applicability of the 1996 Child Protection Convention and would have run counter Articles 5(2) and 52(3) of the referred Convention (see para. 42 of the judgment).

As this judgment only deals with Contracting Parties to the 1996 Child Protection Convention, it only makes us wonder what would happen in the case of bilateral treaties or in the absence of any applicable treaty (but see para. 29 of the judgment).

For background information regarding the negotiations of Article 52 of the 1996 Child Protection Convention see:

–  Explanatory Report of Paul Lagarde (pp. 601-603)

– Article by Hans van Loon, “Allegro sostenuto con Brio, or: Alegría Borrás’ Twenty-five Years of Dedicated Work at the Hague Conference.” In J. Forner Delaygua, C. González Beilfuss & R. Viñas Farré (Eds.), Entre Bruselas y La Haya: Estudios sobre la unificación internacional y regional del derecho internacional privado: Liber amicorum Alegría Borrás (pp. 575-586). Madrid: Marcial Pons, pp. 582-583.