Droit international général

The Grand Chamber of the CJEU delivered today its judgment in case C‑700/20 (London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Limited v Kingdom of Spain), which is about Article 34 Brussels I:

“1. Article 34(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 […] must be interpreted as meaning that a judgment entered by a court of a Member State in the terms of an arbitral award does not constitute a ‘judgment’, within the meaning of that provision, where a judicial decision resulting in an outcome equivalent to the outcome of that award could not have been adopted by a court of that Member State without infringing the provisions and the fundamental objectives of that regulation, in particular as regards the relative effect of an arbitration clause included in the insurance contract in question and the rules on lis pendens contained in Article 27 of that regulation, and that, in that situation, the judgment in question cannot prevent, in that Member State, the recognition of a judgment given by a court in another Member State.

2. Article 34(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event that Article 34(3) of that regulation does not apply to a judgment entered in the terms of an arbitral award, the recognition or enforcement of a judgment from another Member State cannot be refused as being contrary to public policy on the ground that it would disregard the force of res judicata acquired by the judgment entered in the terms of an arbitral award”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=261144&text=&dir=&doclang=EN&part=1&occ=first&mode=DOC&pageIndex=0&cid=4584727

AG Szpunar delivered last week (16 June 2022) his opinion in case C‑265/21 (AB, AB-CD v Z EF), which is about Article 5 Brussels I. The opinion is available in the vast majority of EU official languages (save notably German), albeit not in English. Here is the French version:

« 1) L’article 5, point 1, du règlement (CE) nº 44/2001 […] doit être interprété en ce sens que son application présuppose la détermination d’une obligation juridique librement consentie par une personne à l’égard d’une autre et sur laquelle se fonde l’action du demandeur, même lorsque cette obligation ne lie pas directement les parties au litige. Dans le cadre de l’interprétation de cette disposition, la juridiction nationale doit veiller au respect de l’équilibre entre l’objectif de prévisibilité et de sécurité juridique et celui de proximité et de bonne administration de la justice.

2) Aux fins d’apprécier le fondement d’une action en vue de déterminer si elle relève de la « matière contractuelle », au sens de l’article 5, point 1, du règlement nº 44/2001, la juridiction saisie n’est pas tenue d’examiner, au stade de la vérification de la compétence, l’obligation contractuelle ou, le cas échéant, le contenu du ou des contrats en cause. Afin de vérifier si les conditions essentielles de sa compétence sont remplies, cette juridiction identifie uniquement les points de rattachement avec l’État du for justifiant sa compétence en vertu de cette disposition et apprécie tous les éléments dont elle dispose, notamment les allégations pertinentes du demandeur quant à la nature des obligations sur lesquelles se fonde son action et, le cas échéant, les contestations émises par le défendeur. La circonstance que l’action en cause au principal est une action en reconnaissance d’un droit de propriété est sans incidence sur le fait que cette action relève de la « matière contractuelle » et, partant, sur l’application de l’article 5, point 1, du règlement nº 44/2001.

3) L’action en reconnaissance d’un droit de propriété portant sur un bien meuble, lorsqu’elle est fondée sur deux contrats qui ne lient pas directement les parties au litige, relève de la « matière contractuelle », au sens de l’article 5, point 1, du règlement nº 44/2001. Le contrat à prendre en compte pour déterminer le lieu de l’obligation qui sert de base à la demande est le contrat original faisant l’objet du litige ».

Source : https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=261006&pageIndex=0&doclang=fr&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=4632834

This morning, the CJEU has pronounced on the interplay between the Brussels I bis Regulation and arbitration, this time in the context of the recognition in the UK of a judgment given by a Spanish court.

I. Facts

This case C-700/20 results from the event taking place two decades ago. Some of you may recall that in November 2002, the Greek-owned and Bahamas-operated oil tanker Prestige encountered a storm in the seas close to Galicia coast in Spain. Being damaged, the tanker eventually sunk leaving oil spill and causing significant damage to northern coast of Spain and the western coast of France.

The Spanish state and some other parties sought damage compensation, in the context of the criminal proceedings before the Audiencia Provincial de A Coruña commenced against the master, owners, and the London P&I Club, the liability insurer of both the vessel and its owners, in 2003. In 2012, the London P&I Club commenced arbitration proceedings in London seeking a declaration that, pursuant to the arbitration clause in the insurance contract concluded with the owners of the Prestige, the Spanish state was required to pursue its claims in the arbitration proceedings, and that it could not be liable to the Spain in respect of those claims due to the ‘pay to be paid’ clause.

The arbitration was quicker and the award was made in 2013, upheld the claims also limiting the the London P&I Club’s liability up to USD 1 billion. The P&I Club applied to the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court), under Section 66 (1) and (2) of the Arbitration Act 1996, for leave to enforce the arbitral award in that jurisdiction in the same manner as a judgment or order and for a judgment to be entered in the terms of that award. The leave was granted in 2013 along with a judgment in the terms of the award.

The Spanish proceedings ended in 2018 by the judgment of the Tribunal Supremo whereby it confirmed that the master, ship owners and the P&I Club were liable to over 200 parties, including the Spanish state, subject, in the case of the P&I Club, to the contractual limit of liability of USD 1 billion. In 2019, the Audiencia Provincial de A Coruña issued an order setting out the amounts that each of the claimants was entitled to obtain from the respective defendants, entitling the Spanish State to be paid approximately EUR 2.3 billion, subject in the case of the P&I Club to the limit of EUR 855 million. Soon after, the Spanish state made an application to the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, on the basis of Article 33 of the Brussels I Regulation, for recognition of the latter enforcement order. Slightly prior to the expiration of the Brexit transition period, the UK court made a reference for preliminary ruling concerning the Brussels I Regulation, Article 1(2)(d) – exclusion of arbitration, and Article 34(1) and (3) – grounds for refusal of recognition and/or enforcement.

II. The Issues

At issue was whether that recognition or enforcement could be refused on the basis of the existence, in the UK, of a judgment entered in the terms of an arbitral award and the effects of which are irreconcilable with those of the abovementioned judicial ruling (first and second question). And, if not, whether recognition or enforcement may be refused as being contrary to public policy on the ground that it would disregard the force of res judicata acquired by the judgment entered in the terms of an arbitral award (third question).

III. Decision and Reasoning

Not following the opinion of AG Collins delivered in May this year, the CJEU held that a judgment entered by a court of a MS (in this case, UK) in the terms of an arbitral award cannot prevent the recognition there of a judgment given in another MS (in this case, Spain) where a judicial decision resulting in an outcome equivalent to the outcome of that award could not have been adopted by a court of the first MS without infringing the provisions and the fundamental objectives of the Brussels I Regulation. In the case at hand, this means that the Spanish judgment could have been refused recognition and enforcement only if the UK judgment entered by the UK court in the terms of an arbitral award could have been adopted by a UK court without infringing the provisions and the fundamental objectives of that Regulation.
However, the CJEU went on to explain that such fundamental objectives include the principles of free movement of judgments in civil matters, predictability as to the courts having jurisdiction and therefore legal certainty for litigants, sound administration of justice, minimisation of the risk of concurrent proceedings, and mutual trust in the administration of justice (para. 56). It added another requirement –that such judgment should not violate the right to an effective remedy guaranteed in Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (para. 58).

Turning to the facts of the case, the CJEU concludes that the respective UK judgment could not have been rendered on the basis of the Brussels I Regulation without infringing two fundamental rules of the Regulation: first, the rule on the relative effect of an arbitration clause included in an insurance contract which does not extend to claims against a victim of insured damage who bring a direct action against the insurer, in tort, delict or quasi-delict, before the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or before the courts for the place where the victim is domiciled and, second, the rule on lis pendens which coordinates parallel proceedings based on the priority principle favouring the court first seised.

In answering the third question, the CJEU has relied on the opinion of the AG Collins, who stated the EU legislature intended to regulate exhaustively the issue of the force of res judicata acquired by a judgment given previously and, in particular, the question of the irreconcilability of the judgment to be recognised with that earlier judgment by means of Article 34(3) and (4) of the Brussels I Regulation, thereby excluding the possibility that recourse be had, in that context, to the public-policy exception set out in Article 34(1) of that Regulation. Therefore, res judicata cannot be contained in the notion of public policy for the purpose of recognition and enforcement of judgments under Article 34 of the Brussels I Regulation.

Undoubtedly, this judgment will provoke different reactions, but one thing is certain this is a one-hit wonder in UK given that UK is no longer bound by the Brussels regime.

The CJEU judgment has been made availalbe online yet, but the CJEU issued the Press Release.

First Instance where a Mainland China Civil Mediation Decision has been Recognized and Enforced in New South Wales, Australia

 

I Introduction

 

Bank of China Limited v Chen [2022] NSWSC 749 (‘Bank of China v Chen’), decided on the 7 June 2022, is the first instance where the New South Wales Supreme Court (‘NSWSC’) has recognised and enforced a Chinese civil mediation decision (i.e.,?????).

 

II Background

 

This case concerned the enforcement of two civil mediation decisions obtained from the People’s Court of District Jimo, Qingdao Shi, Shandong Province China (which arose out of a financial loan dispute) in Australia.[1]

 

A foreign judgement may be enforced in Australia either at common law or pursuant to the Foreign Judgements Act 1991(Cth).[2] As the People’s Republic of China is not designated as a jurisdiction of substantial reciprocity under the Foreign Judgements Regulation 1992 (Cth) schedule 1, the judgements of Chinese courts may only be enforced at common law.[3]

 

For a foreign judgement to be enforced at common law, four requirements must be met:[4] (1) the foreign court must have exercised jurisdiction in the international sense; (2) the foreign judgement must be final and conclusive; (3) there must be identity of parties between the judgement debtor(s) and the defendant(s) in any enforcement action; and (4) the judgement must be for a fixed, liquidated sum. The onus rests on the party seeking to enforce the foreign judgement.[5]

 

Bank of China Ltd (‘plaintiff’) served the originating process on Ying Chen (‘defendant’) pursuant to r 11.4 and Schedule 6(m) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (‘UCPR’) which provides that an originating process may be served outside of Australia without leave of the court to recognise or enforce any ‘judgement’.[6] Central to this dispute was whether a civil mediation decision constituted a ‘judgement’ within the meaning of schedule 6(m).

 

III Parties’ Submission

 

A Defendant’s Submission

 

The defendant filed a notice of motion seeking for (1) the originating process to be set aside pursuant to rr 11.6 and 12.11 of the UCPR, (2) service of the originating process on the defendant to be set aside pursuant to r 12.11 of the UCPR and (3) a declaration that the originating process had not been duly served on the defendant pursuant to r 12.11 of the UCPR.[7]

 

The defendant argued that the civil mediation decisions are not ‘judgements’ within the meaning of UCPR Schedule 6(m).[8] Moreover, the enforcement of foreign judgment at common law pre-supposes the existence of a foreign judgement which is absent in this case.[9]

 

The defendant submitted that the question that must be asked in this case is whether the civil mediation decisions were judgements as a matter of Chinese law which is a question of fact.[10] This was a separate question to whether, as a matter of domestic law, the foreign judgements ought to be recognised at common law.[11]

 

B Plaintiff’s Submission

 

In response, the plaintiff submitted that all four common law requirements were satisfied in this case.[12] Firstly, there was jurisdiction in the international sense as the defendant appeared before the Chinese Court by her authorised legal representative.[13] The authorised legal representative made no objection to the civil mediation decisions.[14] Secondly, the judgement was final and conclusive as it was binding on the parties, unappealable and can be enforced without further order.[15] Thirdly, there was an identity of parties as Ying Chen was the defendant in both the civil mediation decisions and the enforcement proceedings.[16] Fourthly, the judgement was for a fixed, liquidated sum as the civil mediation decisions provided a fixed amount for principal and interest.[17]

 

In relation to the defendant’s notice of motion, the plaintiff argued that the question for the court was whether the civil mediation decisions fell within the meaning of ‘judgement’ in the UCPR, that is, according to New South Wales law, not Chinese law (as the defendant submitted).[18] On this question, there was no controversy.[19] While the UCPR does not define ‘judgement’, the elements of a ‘judgement’ are well settled according to Australian common law and Chinese law expert evidence supports the view that civil mediation decisions have those essential elements required by Australian law.[20]

 

Under common law, a judgement is an order of Court which gives rise to res judicata and takes effect through the authority of the court.[21] The plaintiff relied on Chinese law expert evidence which indicated that a civil mediation decision possesses those characteristics, namely by establishing res judicata and having mandatory enforceability and coercive authority.[22] The expert evidence noted that a civil mediation decision is a type of consent judgement resulting from mediation which becomes effective once all parties have acknowledged receipt by affixing their signature to the Certificate of Service.[23] The Certificate of Service in respect of the civil mediation decisions in this case had been signed by the legal representatives of the parties on the day that the civil mediation decisions were made.[24] While a civil mediation decision is distinct to a civil judgement (i.e., ?????),[25] a civil mediation decision nonetheless has the same binding force as a legally effective civil judgement and can be enforced in the same manner.[26]

 

The expert evidence further noted that Mainland China civil mediation decisions have been recognised and enforced as foreign judgements in the Courts of British Columbia, Hong Kong and New Zealand.[27] The factors which characterise a ‘judgement’ under those jurisdictions are the same factors which characterise a ‘judgement’ under Australian law.[28]This supports the view that the same recognition should be afforded under the laws of New South Wales.[29]Accordingly, the plaintiff submitted the a civil mediation decision possesses all the necessary characteristics of a ‘judgement’ under Australian law such that service could be effected without leave under schedule 6(m).[30]

 

IV Resolution

 

Harrison AsJ noted that the judgements of Chinese courts may be enforceable at common law and found that all four requirements was satisfied in this case.[31] There was jurisdiction in the international sense as the defendant’s authorised legal representative appeared before the People’s Court on her behalf, the parties had agreed to mediation, the representatives of the parties came to an agreement during the mediation, and this was recorded in a transcript.[32] The parties’ representatives further signed the transcript and a civil mediation decision had been issued by the people’s courts.[33] Moreover, the civil mediation decision was final and binding as it had been signed by the parties.[34] The third and fourth requirements were also clearly satisfied in this case.[35]

 

In relation to the central question of whether the civil mediation decisions constituted  ‘judgements’ in the relevant sense, Harrison AsJ found in favour of the plaintiff.[36] Harrison AsJ first noted that this question should not be decided on the arbitrary basis of which of the many possible translations of ????? should be preferred.[37] Moreover, the evidence of the enforcement of civil mediation decisions as judgements in the jurisdictions of British Columbia, Hong Kong and New Zealand was helpful, though also not determinative.[38]

 

Rather, this question must be determined by reference to whether civil mediation decisions constituted judgements under Australian law as opposed to Chinese law, accepting the plaintiff’s submission.[39] The civil mediation decisions were enforceable against the defendant immediately according to their terms in China without the need for further order or judgement of the People’s Court.[40] The parties could not vary or cancel the civil mediation decisions without the permission of the Jimo District Court.[41] The civil mediation decisions also had the same legal effects as a civil judgement.[42] Therefore, Harrison AsJ concluded that the civil mediation decisions were judgements for the purposes of Australian law as they established res judicata and were mandatorily enforceable and had coercive authority.[43] It then followed that the civil mediation decisions fell within the scope of UCPR schedule 6(m) and did not require leave to be served.[44]

 

V Orders

 

In light of the analysis above, Harrison AsJ held that the Chinese civil mediation decisions were enforceable and dismissed the defendant’s motion.[45] Costs were further awarded in favour of the plaintiff.[46]

 

 

 

Author: Hao Yang Joshua Mok, LLB Student at the University of Sydney Law School

Supervised by Associate Professor Jeanne Huang, Sydney Law School

 

References:

[1]

This is an update on my monthly post on the Court of Justice of the European Union, in order to announce the publication today (Monday 20) of the decision in case C-700/20,  The London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association.

I reported on the facts and the questions referred by the High Court of Justice Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, United Kingdom here, but I believe it worth reproducing them again. The main proceedings are based on a dispute between London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Limited (‘the Insurer’), having its registered office in the United Kingdom, and the Kingdom of Spain; it concerns claims for damages arising from the sinking off the coast of Spain of a vessel carrying fuel oil – the Prestige. The insurance contract contained, inter alia, an arbitration agreement governed by English law.

The Kingdom of Spain asserted its rights to receive compensation from the Insurer under the insurance contract, in the context of criminal proceedings instituted in Spain in 2002. Following a first-instance decision in 2013 and several appeals, the Spanish proceedings culminated in a finding that the Insurer was liable for the loss caused by the shipping accident subject to the limitation of liability provided for in the insurance contract. The Spanish court issued an execution order on 1 March 2019. On 25 March 2019, the Kingdom of Spain applied for recognition and enforcement of that order in the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 33 of the Brussels I Regulation. That application was granted. The Insurer appealed against that decision in accordance with Article 43 of the Brussels I Regulation.

The Insurer, for its part, initiated arbitration proceedings in London in 2012. In the resulting award it was established that the Kingdom of Spain would have to initiate arbitration proceedings in London in order to assert claims under the insurance contract. The Commercial Court of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, before which enforcement of the award was sought under section 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996, entered a judgment in the terms of the award against the Kingdom of Spain in October 2013, which was confirmed on appeal. The Kingdom of Spain took part neither in the arbitration proceedings nor in the judicial proceedings in the United Kingdom.

The referring court asked the Court of Justice the following questions:

(1) Given the nature of the issues which the national court is required to determine in deciding whether to enter judgment in the terms of an award under Section 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996, is a judgment granted pursuant to that provision capable of constituting a relevant “judgment” of the Member State in which recognition is sought for the purposes of Article 34(3) of EC Regulation No 44/2001?

(2) Given that a judgment entered in the terms of an award, such as a judgment under Section 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996, is a judgment falling outside the material scope of Regulation No 44/2001 by reason of the Article 1(2)(d) arbitration exception, is such a judgment capable of constituting a relevant “judgment” of the Member State in which recognition is sought for the purposes of Article 34(3) of the Regulation?

(3) On the hypothesis that Article 34(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 does not apply, if recognition and enforcement of a judgment of another Member State would be contrary to domestic public policy on the grounds that it would violate the principle of res judicata by reason of a prior domestic arbitration award or a prior judgment entered in the terms of the award granted by the court of the Member State in which recognition is sought, is it permissible to rely on Article 34(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 as a ground of refusing recognition and enforcement or do Articles 34(3) and (4) of the Regulation provide the exhaustive grounds by which res judicata and/or irreconcilability can prevent recognition and enforcement of a Regulation judgment?

An opinion by AG Collins was published on May 5, 2022. He proposed the Court of Justice to answer that

“A judgment entered in the terms of an arbitral award pursuant to section 66(2) of the Arbitration Act 1996 is capable of constituting a relevant ‘judgment’ of the Member State in which recognition is sought for the purposes of Article 34(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, notwithstanding that such a judgment falls outside the scope of that regulation by reason of Article 1(2)(d) thereof.”

In practical terms, if followed by the Court of Justice, the Spanish decision would not be recognized in the UK under the Brussels Regulation. Very bad news for the Spanish government and also for all those, many, affected by the heavy oil spill, the worst marea negra ever experienced in Galicia.

The Grand Chamber, with M. Safjan acting as reporting judge, has decided otherwise in a decision already available  in English and French.

On the first and second questions, that she addresses together, the Court of Justice has decided

“Article 34(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a judgment entered by a court of a Member State in the terms of an arbitral award does not constitute a ‘judgment’, within the meaning of that provision, where a judicial decision resulting in an outcome equivalent to the outcome of that award could not have been adopted by a court of that Member State without infringing the provisions and the fundamental objectives of that regulation, in particular as regards the relative effect of an arbitration clause included in the insurance contract in question and the rules on lis pendens contained in Article 27 of that regulation, and that, in that situation, the judgment in question cannot prevent, in that Member State, the recognition of a judgment given by a court in another Member State.”

And on the third

“Article 34(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event that Article 34(3) of that regulation does not apply to a judgment entered in the terms of an arbitral award, the recognition or enforcement of a judgment from another Member State cannot be refused as being contrary to public policy on the ground that it would disregard the force of res judicata acquired by the judgment entered in the terms of an arbitral award.”

I expect the judgement and its reasoning to be very much commented in academic circles.

For the record, Prof. Adrian Briggs very kindly provided this piece of information in a comment to my post: “So far as concerns C-700/20, it should be noted that on March 1, the Court of Appeal, in The Prestige (No 5) [2022] EWCA Civ 238, ruled that the reference should not have been made as a matter of European law, and (in effect) remitted the matter to the judge with its advice that he should withdraw the reference. On March 31 the Supreme Court gave permission to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal.” If I am not wrong, the UKSC decision on the issue will be known this week as well.

Lydia Lundstedt (University of Stockholm) has posted Gtflix TV V Dr: ‘Same Ole Same Ole’ or Has the CJEU Broken New Ground? on SSRN.

In Gtflix Tv v DR, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handed down an important decision confirming the mosaic approach and the accessibility approach to the application of the damage head of jurisdiction to infringements of personality rights on the internet pursuant to Article 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. Pursuant to the mosaic approach, an injured party can bring proceedings in every Member State where the damage occurs but only with respect to the damage taking place in that Member State’s territory. Pursuant to the accessibility approach, the sole criterium for the occurrence of damage in a Member State is that the content that is placed online ‘is or has been accessible’ in that Member State. Both these approaches have been criticised by commentators and resisted by the Member States courts. Nevertheless, the CJEU arguably forges new ground as the decision seems to expand the mosaic and accessibility approaches into the realm of unfair competition law. Lastly, questions remain concerning whether the courts of the Member State where the damage occurred have jurisdiction to order other territorially limited remedies such as geo-blocking measures, in addition to compensation for damage.

For previous reports on this case, see here, here and here.

This is a guest post by Izaak Weaver-Herrera, JD student at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law

Third-party discovery in the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 has often represented a pragmatic, if contentious, tool for international counsel. However, in a decision this week, the U.S. Supreme Court held that § 1782 discovery may be ordered only if the assembled “foreign or international tribunal” is a body which has been conferred governmental or intergovernmental authority. There has already been a wealth of reaction to this decision, including on this site. This post will offer a few additional perspectives.

As a bit of background, ZF Automotive arrived on the Court’s docket as a consolidation of two cases: ZF Automotive US, Inc., et al. v. Luxshare, Ltd. and Alixpartners, LLP, et al., v. the Fund for Protection of Investor’s Rights in Foreign States. Both cases questioned an open aspect of § 1782’s use: whether the phrase “foreign or international tribunal” included private commercial arbitrations between parties of different States and whether it included arbitral panels assembled pursuant to bilateral investment treaties. The Court ruled that since neither panel was conferred governmental authority, § 1782 discovery would be inappropriate in both instances.

Justice Barrett, writing for a unanimous Court, adopted a textual approach to the question. In other words, this was less of a decision on international policy, and more a reflection of what Congress said and meant. The Court paid particular attention to the use of “foreign” and “international” as modifiers to the word “tribunal.” The latter was more critical than the former. The term “[t]ribunal” has peculiar governmental or sovereign connotations, the Court said, “so ‘foreign tribunal’ more naturally refers to a body belonging to a foreign nation than to a tribunal that is simply located in a foreign nation.” Similarly, the Court found that “international tribunal” under the statute more naturally referred to tribunals between nations, rather than arbitral panels composed of or adjudicating issues between nationals of different States.

The Court also reasoned that this understanding of the statute more uniformly aligned with principles underlying both § 1782’s origin and the Federal Arbitration Act. The express purpose of § 1782 was to foster international comity. An overly broad application of § 1782, the Court’s view, would permit the use of district court resources in furtherance of “purely private bodies adjudicating purely private disputes abroad,” positioning the U.S. court system as a persistent presence in potentially limitless international disputes. The Court’s opinion also recognized the tension such a reading would create between the discovery permitted under the FAA. While the FAA restricts discovery to the discretion of arbitration panels, § 1782 permits both the tribunal itself and any “interested person” to submit requests for discovery. Thus, the Court reasoned, a narrower reading of § 1782 also serves to harmonize the scope of arbitration in the United States.

With these observations, the private arbitral tribunal in ZF Automotive was not a “foreign or international tribunal” under § 1782. This was deemed “straightforward.” The Court found the arbitration panel in the Alixpartners dispute more complicated, but ultimately reached the same conclusion. The opinion noted the BIT “simply references the set of rules that govern the panel’s formation and procedure if an investor chooses that forum,” and therefore did not confer permanent sovereign authority on the ad hoc tribunal. Rather, Lithuania simply consented to an arbitration much in the same way two private entities might. Thus, although the Alixpartners tribunal could render a judgment against Lithuania based on its consent in a treaty, it had not been conferred permanent sovereign authority and could not be considered a “foreign or international tribunal.”

The Court did not “foreclose[] the possibility that sovereigns might imbue an ad hoc arbitration panel with official authority.” So although Mixed Claims Commissions of years’ past didn’t quit analogize to modern BIT tribunals, the Court acknowledged that the former may indeed fall on the permissible side of the Court’s new bright line. As international tribunals keep specializing and proliferating (think of the proposed Multilateral Investment Court, or bodies entrusted to handle international criminal law), future questions as to whether a body is “imbued with governmental authority” will for sure arise—but, of course, private commercial arbitration is clearly outside the bounds of section 1782.

The JUDGTUST Project (Regulation BIa: a standard for free circulation of judgments and mutual trust in the EU) conducted by the T.M.C. Asser Instituut in cooperation with Universität Hamburg, University of Antwerp and Internationaal Juridisch Instituut has come to its completion. The findings of the this research are available online here.

The project was animated by the aim to identify best practices and provide guidelines in the interpretation and application of the Brussels I-bis Regulation (also known as Brussels Ia). For this the analysis carried across the EU Member states sought to evaluate to what extent the changes introduced (compared to the Brussels I Regulation) achieved their objective, what are the remaining shortcomings, and how can these be overcome by considering future useful changes. Together with this, the research has analysed how legislative projects at global level – e.g. the Hague Judgment Convention – and political developments – e.g. Brexit – influence the way the Brussels I-bis is applied.

In analysing the interaction between the Brussels I bis Regulation and the other EU private international law instruments, the project combines a primarily comparative legal approach with the use of empirical research methods. The comparative legal research relies on the analysis of legislation, case law of national courts in EU Member States and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), and scholarly writings. This endeavour identifies the difficulties in the application of the Brussels I-bis provisions and best practices in applying the provisions of the Regulation. This is done without neglecting the outcomes of the previous regulation – the Brussels I – and other closely related private international law sources. The empirical research relies on various methods, both qualitative and quantitative. On the basis of a dedicated Questionnaire, the national reporters from EU Member States provided information on relevant domestic case law and legal literature.

With its findings the JUDGTRUST project seeks to enhance the general understanding of the autonomous nature of the EU legal sources. Further it looks to contribute to the uniform interpretation and application of the Regulation and consequently promotes mutual trust and efficiency of cross-border resolution of civil and commercial disputes. Furthermore, the analysis provides suggestions on how to reach a greater degree of consistency of the EU private international law legislation.

The outputs of the Project include various materials available online such as the National Reports, a Consolidated Report, and materials of the Final Conference.

Together with these open access materials a Handbook on the Interpretation and Application of the Brussels I bis is expected in the coming period.

In addition to the comparative and analytical research, the project also contributed to the development of a Moot Court Competition (PAX Moot) for law students. With this the project seeks to contribute to the education of a new generation of practitioners dealing with EU private international law.

Written by Mayela Celis, UNED

Yesterday (15 June 2022) the US Supreme Court rendered its Opinion in the case of Golan v. Saada regarding the HCCH Child Abduction Convention. The decision was written by Justice Sotomayor, click here. For our previous analysis of the case, click here.

This case dealt with the following question: whether upon finding that return to the country of habitual residence places a child at grave risk, a district court is required to consider ameliorative measures that would facilitate the return of the child notwithstanding the grave risk finding. (our emphasis)

In a nutshell, the US Supreme Court answered this question in the negative. The syllabus of the judgment says: “A court is not categorically required to examine all possible ameliorative measures [also known as undertakings] before denying a Hague Convention petition for return of a child to a foreign country once the court has found that return would expose the child to a grave risk of harm.” The Court has also wisely concluded that “Nothing in the Convention’s text either forbids or requires consideration of ameliorative measures in exercising this discretion” (however, this is different in the European Union context where a EU regulation complements the Child Abduction Convention).

While admittedly not everyone will be satisfied with this Opinion, it is a good and well-thought through decision that will make a great impact on how child abduction cases are decided in the USA; and more broadly, on the way we perceive what the ultimate goal of the treaty is and how to strike a right balance between the different interests at stake and the need to act expeditiously.

In particular, the Court stresses that the Convention “does not pursue return exclusively or at all costs”. And while the Court does not make a human rights analysis, it could be argued that this Opinion is in perfect harmony with the current approaches taken in human rights law.

In my view, this is a good decision and is in line with our detailed analysis of the case in our previous post. In contrast to other decisions (see recent post from Matthias Lehmann), for Child Abduction – and human rights law in general – this is definitely good news from Capitol Hill.

Below I include a few excerpts of the decision (our emphasis, we omit footnotes):

“In addition, the court’s consideration of ameliorative measures must be guided by the legal principles and other requirements set forth in the Convention and ICARA. The Second Circuit’s rule, by instructing district courts to order return “if at all possible,” improperly elevated return above the Convention’s other objectives. Blondin I, 189 F. 3d, at 248. The Convention does not pursue return exclusively or at all costs. Rather, the Convention “is designed to protect the interests of children and their parents,” Lozano, 572 U. S., at 19 (ALITO , J., concurring), and children’s interests may point against return in some circumstances. Courts must remain conscious of this purpose, as well as the Convention’s other objectives and requirements, which constrain courts’ discretion to consider ameliorative measures
in at least three ways.

“First, any consideration of ameliorative measures must prioritize the child’s physical and psychological safety. The Convention explicitly recognizes that the child’s interest in avoiding physical or psychological harm, in addition to other interests, “may overcome the return remedy.” Id., at 16 (majority opinion) (cataloging interests). A court may therefore decline to consider imposing ameliorative measures where it is clear that they would not work because the risk is so grave. Sexual abuse of a child is one example of an intolerable situation. See 51 Fed. Reg. 10510. Other physical or psychological abuse, serious neglect, and domestic violence in the home may also constitute an obvious grave risk to the child’s safety that could not readily be ameliorated. A court may also decline to consider imposing ameliorative measures where it reasonably expects that they will not be followed. See, e.g., Walsh v. Walsh, 221 F. 3d 204, 221 (CA1 2000) (providing example of parent with history of violating court orders).

“Second, consideration of ameliorative measures should abide by the Convention’s requirement that courts addressing return petitions do not usurp the role of the court that will adjudicate the underlying custody dispute. The Convention and ICARA prohibit courts from resolving any underlying custody dispute in adjudicating a return petition. See Art. 16, Treaty Doc., at 10; 22 U. S. C. §9001(b)(4). Accordingly, a court ordering ameliorative measures in making a return determination should limit those measures in time and scope to conditions that would permit safe return, without purporting to decide subsequent custody matters or weighing in on permanent arrangements.

“Third, any consideration of ameliorative measures must accord with the Convention’s requirement that courts “act expeditiously in proceedings for the return of children.” Art. 11, Treaty Doc., at 9. Timely resolution of return petitions is important in part because return is a “provisional” remedy to enable final custody determinations to proceed. Monasky, 589 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 3) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Convention also prioritizes expeditious determinations as being in the best interests of the child because “[e]xpedition will help minimize the extent to which uncertainty adds to the challenges confronting both parents and child.” Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U. S. 165, 180 (2013). A requirement to “examine the full range of options that might make possible the safe return of a child,” Blondin II, 238 F. 3d, at 163, n. 11, is in tension with this focus on expeditious resolution. In this case, for example, it took the District Court nine months to comply with the Second Circuit’s directive on remand. Remember, the Convention requires courts to resolve return petitions “us[ing] the most expeditious procedures available,” Art. 2, Treaty Doc., at 7, and to provide parties that request it with an explanation if proceedings extend longer than six weeks, Art. 11, id., at 9. Courts should structure return proceedings with these instructions in mind. Consideration of ameliorative measures should not cause undue delay in resolution of return petitions.

“To summarize, although nothing in the Convention prohibits a district court from considering ameliorative measures, and such consideration often may be appropriate, a district court reasonably may decline to consider ameliorative measures that have not been raised by the parties, are unworkable, draw the court into determinations properly resolved in custodial proceedings, or risk overly prolonging return proceedings. The court may also find the grave risk so unequivocal, or the potential harm so severe, that ameliorative measures would be inappropriate. Ultimately, a district court must exercise its discretion to consider ameliorative measures in a manner consistent with its general obligation to address the parties’ substantive arguments and its specific obligations under the Convention. A district court’s compliance with these requirements is subject to review under an ordinary abuse-of-discretion standard.”

Michael Karayanni (Bruce W. Wayne Professor of International Law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) published the special course he gave at the Hague Academy on The Private International Law of Class Actions: A Functional Approach in Volume 422 of Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law

According to Professor Karayanni, a transnational class action raises fundamental questions of Private International law with regard to the class action court’s jurisdiction over the defendant and the class members, on how to choose the applicable law, and ultimately on how to deal with the judgment if and when it comes up for enforcement or recognition before a foreign court. At times these questions and the complications they give rise to, become part and parcel of the class action court’s consideration whether to certify the class action as such.

In his lectures, Professor Karayanni identifies the major private international problems that are endemic to transnational class actions and discusses how these are handled, principally by courts in the US, Canada, and Israel. In this he offers an analytical legal framework that can better assist us in dealing with the private international law questions pertaining to transnational class action. He does so by identifying three different categories of class actions, with each of them demanding a separate and more surgical treatment: Insubstantial individual claims and negative incentive for individual litigation; Significant individual claims and positive incentive for individual litigation; Significant individual claims and negative incentive for individual litigation – the class action of the disempowered.

The volume also includes the course of Said Mahmoudi (Professor of International Law at Stockholm University) on Self-Defence and “Unwilling or Unable” States.

Further details on the volume are available here.

The conference Sense and Sensibility in Cross-Border Cases: Couples’ Property will gather line of academic and expert speakers from several countries who will present the results of the research carried out so far under the EU Justice project EU-FamPro dedicated to the EU Twin Regulations (2016/1103 and 2016/1104) in addition to some national topics. Please check the conference programme for details.

The conference will take place on 30 June 2022 in a beautiful venue of the Jean Monnet Inter-University Centre in Opatija (Croatia) and online. The conference is open access without charging any fees, but registration for both onsite and online attendance is required here by 20 June 2022.

The conference is organised by the University of Rijeka, Faculty of Law and the Croatian Comparative Law Association in cooperation with the University of Camerino, the University of Ljubljana, the University of Almeria and the Lithuanian Law Institute.

Written by Catherine Shen, ABLI

Following a successful collaboration last year, the Asian Business Law Institute (ABLI) and the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) are joining hands again for a second joint webinar this year on Wednesday 27 July between 3 to 6pm (Singapore time).

Titled Cross-border Commercial Dispute Resolution – HCCH 2005 Choice of Court and 2019 Judgments Conventions, the webinar will comprise two sessions, each devoted to one of the conventions. Attendees have the option of attending one or both sessions.

Invited speakers Sara Chisholm-Batten (Partner, Michelmores LLP), the Honourable Justice David Goddard (Court of Appeal, New Zealand), Justice Anselmo Reyes, (International Judge, Singapore International Commercial Court), Nish Shetty (Partner, Clifford Chance LLP) and Dr Ning Zhao Senior Legal Officer, HCCH) are expected to talk about the practical operations of the Choice of Court Agreements and Judgments Conventions, how they complement each other and whether the recent debate on the Choice of Court Agreements Convention is justified.

For more information or to register, click here. Early bird discount is available till 26 June. Queries about the webinar can be directed to Catherine at info@abli.asia.

The Mexican Academy of Private International and Comparative Law (AMEDIP) is holding a webinar on 16 June 2022 at 3:00 pm (Mexico City time – CDT), 10:00 pm (CEST time). The topic of the webinar is The need for a PIL law for Ecuador and will be presented by Professor Jaime Vintimilla Saldaña (in Spanish).

The details of the webinar are:

Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89189611809?pwd=RXhDeE5Gdlkwd2prWnREeVhVelBudz09

Meeting ID: 891 8961 1809

Password: BMAAMEDIP

Participation is free of charge.

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

The author of this post is Etienne Farnoux, who is a professor of law at the University of Strasbourg. He has recently published his doctoral thesis on the policy considerations that underlie the rules of international jurisdiction, with a special focus on torts (Les considérations substantielles dans le règlement de la compétence internationale des juridictions – Réflexion autour de la matière délictuelle).

The thesis proposes to question the classical locational or proximity-based analysis of international adjudicatory jurisdiction in tort disputes. It is a commonplace idea – one that can be found both in European and national (French) private international law – that the rules of international jurisdiction are based on the geographical localization of the dispute, also known as the principle of proximity. If one thinks of international adjudicatory jurisdiction as being a question of territorial limitation of a State’s adjudicatory authority, it makes sense to rely on the localization of the dispute (or elements thereof) to organize it in a neutral way. The specific jurisdiction rule in matters relating to tort based on the location of the harmful event (art. 7 para. 2 of Brussels I recast regulation) perfectly embodies this locational approach to international judicial jurisdiction.

However, this proximity-based approach is faced with dire difficulties, namely the growing virtualization of entire swathes of human activities and the rise in crossborder private relations. More fundamentally, the vision of international jurisdiction as being based on the principle of proximity pays little attention to the notion that international jurisdiction is an organization by the State of its duty to render justice, be it with regards to crossborder private relations. The thesis opposes the locational analysis with a new approach to international jurisdiction that puts forward the substantive considerations specific to the underlying issue of the dispute, considerations that have remained at least partly hidden until now. In this perspective, the rules of international jurisdiction should reflect policy considerations which can be observed at two levels: at the level of procedural justice and at the level of substantive justice. It is the goal of this work to study the influence of these policy considerations on the rules of international jurisdiction with regards to crossborder tort cases.

As the subtitle indicates, the demonstration focuses on tort matters. Indeed, international litigation relating to civil liability, such as actions for damages against international polluters, transnational corporations responsible for human rights violations, corporations issuing securities on the financial markets, as well as cyber-torts, highlight in a particularly striking manner the need to base jurisdiction on something other than the location of the material elements of the dispute. Although the demonstration focuses particularly on the rules of jurisdiction in tort, it is not limited to them: it allows itself more general incursions into the system of jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters (in French, American and European Union private international law).

The thesis is articulated in two parts: the demonstration of the inadequacy of proximity as a basis for international jurisdiction (first part) leads to an outline of a concept of international jurisdiction based on substantive considerations (second part).

A Critical Assessment of the Principle of Proximity

The first part is devoted to a critical approach of the principle of proximity both from a historical point of view and a functional point of view. It examines each of the objectives pursued by the jurisdiction rules, based on the principle of proximity: evidential effectiveness; foreseeability; administrability of solutions. The weaknesses of the objectives of evidential efficiency and predictability leads to doubts about the role of the location operation in determining international jurisdiction. A study of the case law of the European Court of Justice on the subject of article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation reveals an instrumentalization of the location of the material elements of the dispute. This instrumentalization can be observed from the very beginnings of European case law on torts in the solutions given for complex torts with monolocalized harm (hypothesis of the Mines de Potasse judgment) and plurilocalized harm (hypothesis of the Fiona Shevill judgment) and for torts with continuous harm (hypothesis of the Dumez, Marinari and Kronhofer judgments). In all these cases, territorial location is manipulated, for purely argumentative purposes, so as to arrive at a solution which is not in any way dictated by location. This phenomenon is further accentuated by the growing immateriality of human activities, which can be observed in economic matters and through the figure of cyber-crimes. The loss of materiality of at least part of the elements of the dispute reveals the artificiality of the territorial localization operation and brings to light the balancing of interests at the heart of the jurisdictional question, between the interests of the alleged victim and those of the alleged perpetrator of the harm.

Substantive Considerations Underlying Rules of Jurisdiction

The second part is devoted to the study of this balancing of interests, apprehended through the notion of substantive considerations and made possible by the deconstruction of the principle of proximity. These considerations can be considered at two levels: that of procedural justice and that of truly substantive justice.

At the level of procedural justice, the most striking phenomenon is the decline of the traditional objective of jurisdictional protection of the defendant, around the principle of forum rei, and its progressive reversal in favor of the plaintiff, resulting in the rise of forum actoris. This phenomenon is complex and sometimes ambiguous because of the contradictory orientations adopted, as shown by the contradictory case law interpreting Article 7(2), as well as the difficult question of the regime of international jurisdiction, and in particular the forum non conveniens. At the level of substantive justice, the rise of the promotion of the interests of the plaintiff can be understood when set against the traditional normative and remedial functions of civil liability, both of which militate in favor of the alleged victim (which presupposes the exclusion of actions denying liability). As the case law of the Court of Justice still explicitly refuses to recognize such a protective function to forum delicti, this clarification is necessary and allows to look realistically at avenues for reform.

Looking prospectively, the risk of giving in without restraint to this favor for the claimant, seen in substantive terms as the alleged victim, is to open the way to anarchic forum shopping. A middle way would be to abolish the forum delicti and open a forum victimae instead, the jurisdiction of the alleged victim’s domicile. This forum can be envisaged in two ways. It could be constructed as an ordinary forum in tort, provided that a plausibility check on the alleged victim’s claims is introduced to combat procedural harassment. If this proposal were to be considered too bold, given the persuasive force that the consideration of the defendant’s jurisdictional protection continues to exert, it is possible to conceive of this forum victimae as a forum for the protection of the allegedly weak party. To a certain extent, this seems to be the path taken, albeit implicitly, by the case law of the Court of Justice, notably in the eDate and Kolassa judgments.

This substantive reading of the rule of jurisdiction is transversal and not exclusive of more occasional and more salient incursions of a substantial interest of the forum which will make the rule of jurisdiction subject to the pursuit of a substantive policy. This substantive interest of the forum may take the form of legislative policies (loi de police) or fundamental values (public policy) of the forum. To study the influence of overriding mandatory provisions on the rules of jurisdiction, it is necessary to go beyond the dogma of the independence of legislative and judicial jurisdictions, affirmed in a Monster Cable decision by the French Cour de Cassation. The outcome may be twofold. It may open the possibility, in some cases, of a purposeful correspondence between legislative competence and jurisdictional competence. It also militates in favor of the imperative nature of adjudicatory jurisdiction when an overriding mandatory rule is applicable. However, mandatory rules are not the only substantive elements that have an influence on the determination of international jurisdiction. The fundamental values of the forum are also likely to leave their mark on the rules of jurisdiction. The emergence of the forum of necessity is a cross-cutting example as it concerns access to justice, but other fundamental rights may be affected, notably personal freedom. The violation of such a right could give French courts universal civil jurisdiction to entertain a possible action for damages.

Finally, the thesis moves to draw the consequences of the demonstration beyond the rules of direct international jurisdiction, in the relations between the jurisdictional organizations of different States. In this perspective, the substantive approach to the rules of jurisdiction calls into question the international fungibility of courts, a precondition to a jurisdictional system such as the Brussels system. Whether this fungibility really exists or not is open to debate, and the ambiguous role of the forum delicti – merely justified by location but playing the part of a tool of protection of the claimant – should be put in this context. In this perspective the substantial approach to jurisdiction also helps to conceptualize the debate around the universalization of the Brussels system and the coexistence of several systems of jurisdiction for a single judicial system (Brussels I and national law), as well as the meaning and relevance of the control of indirect jurisdiction.

Some of the conclusions of this thesis have been summarized in English in an article entitled ‘Delendum est Forum Delicti? Towards the jurisdictional protection of the alleged victim in cross-border torts’ published in B. Hess, K. Lenaerts and V. Richard (ed.), The 50th anniversary of the European law of civil procedure, Baden-Baden: Nomos 2020, (259) p. 263 et seq.

The most recent issue of the German Journal of Comparative Law (Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft) has just been published. The editors mourn the loss of Professor Peter Mankowski (1966–2022), who served as an editor of the ZVglRWiss from 2009 to his untimely death. This issue contains an obituary written by his academic pupil, Professor Oliver L. Knöfel (Viadrina). In addition, this issue offers several presentations made at the conference “Access – Lessons from Africa” that was held at the University of Bayreuth as well as articles on international tort and corporate law. Here are the abstracts:

 

Eghosa O. Ekhator: Multinational Corporations, Accountability and Environmental Justice: The move towards subregional litigation in Africa

In the absence of an explicit international framework on the regulation of the crossborder activities of multinational corporations (MNCs), coupled with the barriers to accessing environmental justice through litigation in domestic courts, many victims of environmental injustice now institute cases in foreign jurisdictions especially the home states of the MNCs because they believe they will get justice in those courts. On the other hand, there is plethora of sub-regional institutions that have been relied upon by victims of environmental injustices arising from activities of MNCs in Africa. This article focuses on the reliance on sub-regional judiciaries in Africa by different stakeholders including oil producing communities, individuals, and other relevant stakeholders amongst others. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Court of Justice (ECCJ) is used as the case-study in this article. Nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) in Nigeria have also relied on the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Court of Justice (ECCJ) to seek redress for victims of environmental injustice in Nigeria.

 

Claudia Maria Hofmann: Linkages between access to information and access to health care

Information plays a crucial role when it comes to health care. This article elaborates its enabling function with regard to strengthening the position of patients. To this end, reference is made to the human right to health, which is widely acknowledged in both international and regional human rights instruments. In this article, the interpretation provided by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in its general comment no. 14 on the right to the highest attainable standard of health serves as a basis for identifying the key elements state and non-state actors should take into account when providing health-related information to the public.

 

Victoria Miyandazi: Inequality and Access to Justice: A Focus on the Adjudication of Socio-Economic Rights in Kenya

Kenya’s 2010 Constitution establishes the necessary legal framework for tackling inequalities in the country. The multiple provisions on equality, non-discrimination and socio-economic rights create the impetus for rights-based litigation. Now society wants to claim these rights but there are still many hurdles to do so. Many special interest groups do not have access to lawyers nor the skills to access courts on their own. The growing concern is, therefore, that despite the progressive nature of constitutional provisions that seek to tackle inequalities in the country, they are not by themselves the panacea to the problem of access to justice in the country. Aside from the prohibitive cost of legal representation being a major concern, there are other access to justice challenges that inhibit the poor and marginalised in Kenya from instituting claims in court, and which also affect their chances of succeeding in their claims. This article discusses how an equality-sensitive approach to adjudicating socio-economic rights can help avoid reinforcing inequality and promote equality. It argues that failure to apply such an approach can exacerbate the inequality and access to justice challenges that vulnerable groups already face, especially in times of a crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

Justin Monsenepwo: Decolonial Comparative Law and Legal Transplants in Africa

On the occasion of a communication made in the aftermath of independence, many African scholars wondered whether African law would continue to be influenced by French law. More than five decades after, the mark of the considerable influence European law has in African former colonies is still perceptible. Yet, in a decolonized context, it should not be implied that European nations rank higher than African nations and that the laws of the former colonizers provide better solutions to African problems. To decolonize legal thinking in Africa, this contribution suggests improving the training of African lawyers and rediscovering customary law to take it into account in the development of legal rules in Africa. This would offer several practical benefits; however, the chief benefit is that it would remarkably boost the ability of lawyers and lawmakers in Africa to innovate.

 

Aron Johanson, Andreas Rapp and Anna Vatter: Mosaiktheorie ad absurdum – Örtliche Zuständigkeit im Rahmen des Art. 7 Nr. 2 EuGVVO bei Persönlichkeitsrechtsverletzungen

The article deals with the case law developed by the ECJ on the question of jurisdiction according to article 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation in cases of infringement of personality rights. In particular, the so-called “mosaic approach“ is examined, which the ECJ has consistently applied to solve the problem of such multiple locality cases. The article pays particular attention to the hitherto little-discussed problem of local jurisdiction. It is first shown that the predominant German legal practice in this regard is regularly incompatible with article 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. At the same time, the consistent application of the mosaic approach in the area of local jurisdiction also leads to completely absurd and thus equally unacceptable results. Therefore, the article is rounded off with brief considerations on how local jurisdiction can be determined sensibly and in conformity with European law.

 

Luca Della Tommasina: Genossenschaften und nachrangige Mitgliederdarlehen

The essay deals with Italian cooperative companies and the possibility to extend some sort of equitable subordination rule to the loans granted by their members. The article 2467 of the Italian civil code provides that the loans granted to limited liability companies (società a responsabilità limitata – „S.r.l.”) by any member shall be subordinated to the other creditors of the company if at the time the loan is advanced: (i) there is an excessive imbalance between the company’s indebtedness and the net assets; (ii) or the company’s financial situation would require an equity contribution instead of a loan. In the cooperative companies’ field the problem arises from the convergence of two circumstances. On the one hand the argument that article 2467 is compatible with cooperative firms has been rejected in the Italian case law. On the other hand, in 2017 a reform of cooperative law has excluded the subordination (and more precisely the subordination according to the article 2467) for the amounts that a cooperative company receives from its members as “prestito sociale”. The essay is intended to demonstrate that: (i) the (equitable) subordination is consistent with cooperative firms; (ii) the 2017 reform must therefore be interpreted in a restrictive way. The need to find balanced solutions to the problem seems to be confirmed by the recent developments of the German legal framework.

 

The Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft was founded in 1878 and is Germany’s oldest continuously published periodical on comparative and private international law. Its current editor-in-chief is Professor Dörte Poelzig, M.jur. (Oxon), University of Hamburg. Content is available online either through the website of the Deutscher Fachverlag or via beck online.

 

The arbitration community in particular was eagerly awaiting judgment of the US Supreme Court in ZF Automotive v Luxshare. SCOTUS has now held that the use of the relevant US CPR rule, on assistance of foreign tribunals, does not apply to arbitration.

Matthias Lehmann reviews the judgment here and makes valid points on how the ruling could and perhaps should have gone the other way, particularly in light of the use of ‘international’ and ‘tribunal’. Whatever the merits of the finding, it confirms a limiting approach courts are taking in accepting discovery shopping. This is also testified eg by the Dutch courts’ approach in Kiobel, and the English courts’ approach in Akkurate and, in an alternative view, in Glaxo v Sandoz.

Geert.

Written by Matthias Lehmann, University of Vienna (Austria)

On 13 June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that U.S. courts may not help arbitral tribunals sitting abroad in the taking of evidence. This is because in the opinion of the Court, such an arbitral tribunal is not a „foreign or international tribunal“ in the sense of 28 U.S.C. § 1782, which allows federal district courts to order the production of evidence for use in proceedings before such tribunals.

The decision concerned an institutional and an ad-hoc arbitration. The first, ZF v. Luxshare, was a commercial arbitration between two companies under the rules of the German Arbitration Institution (DIS). The second, AlixPartners v. Fund for Protection of Investors’ Rights in Foreign States, was an investment arbitration involving a disgruntled Russian investor and a failed Lithuanian bank; it was conducted under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.

The opinion, written by Amy Coney Barrett, rejects assistance by U.S. courts in both cases, whether in the pre-arbitration phase or in the main arbitration proceedings. It was unanimously adopted by the Court.

The Supreme Court first relies on a dubious literal interpretation of § 1782. While it does not dispute that arbitral tribunals may be “tribunals”, this would change by the addition of the adjectives “foreign or international”, as this would require that one or several nations have imbued the tribunal with governmental authority. Alas, the drafters of the New York Convention on recognition and enforcement of “foreign” arbitral awards were wrong, and so apparently were the signatories – among them the U.S. As for the term “international”, numerous treatises on “international commercial arbitration” will now supposedly have to be rewritten or newly titled.

The opinion further argues that the “animating purpose” of § 1782 would be “comity” with other nations, and that it would be “difficult to see how enlisting district courts to help private bodies would help that end”. Yet other nations also have an interest in efficient arbitration proceedings, as evidenced by the New York Convention. This is even particularly clear for investment arbitration because of the involvement of a state party, but it is also true in commercial arbitration. What is decisive from the point of view of many countries is that arbitration as a dispute resolution method is equivalent to litigation, and should not be treated less favourably.

The Supreme Court further argues that if § 1782 were to be extended to commercial arbitral “panels”, it would cover everything, including even a university’s student disciplinary tribunal. Yet the absurdity of this argumentum ad absurdum lies not in the inclusion of arbitration in § 1782 but in the extension made by the Court, which was only asked about the former and not about the latter. If need be, it would have been easy to distinguish commercial and investment arbitral tribunals established under national or international rules and covered by international agreements such as the New York Convention from student disciplinary “tribunals” (rather: panels).

Finally, the Court notes that allowing district courts to proffer evidence to a foreign arbitral tribunal would create a mismatch with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which does not foresee such assistance for domestic arbitral tribunals. Yet the solution of this mismatch should have better been left to the legislator, who could either extend the  FAA to discovery or exclude foreign and international arbitral tribunals from the scope of § 1782. At any rate, the worse situation of domestic arbitral tribunals does not seem a sufficient justification to also deprive arbitral tribunals abroad, who may have particular difficulties in gathering evidence in the U.S., of assistance by U.S. courts.

All in all, this is disappointing news from Capitol Hill for international arbitration. Whether on arbitration or abortion, the current Supreme Court seems to be willing to upend legal precedent and to question customary legal terminology. At least for arbitration, the consequences will not be life-threatening, because the practice will be able to adapt. But one can already see the next questions coming to the Supreme Court. How about this one: Are ICSID tribunals imbued with governmental authority?

On 2 June 2022, the Court of Justice of the EU handed down another judgment interpreting the EU Succession Regulation. In the T.N., N.N. case (C-617/20) provisions on the declaration of the waiver of succession were analyzed for the first time. The Opinion to the case was delivered by the AG Szpunar.

Background

The deceased was habitually resident in Germany. When he died, his wife has initiated succession proceedings in Germany, the country of his habitual residence within the meaning of Article 4 of the Succession Regulation. German law, as applicable pursuant to Article 21(1) of the Regulation, perceived the wife and two nephews, resident abroad, namely in the Netherlands, as heirs. The nephews were informed about the succession proceeding by a letter from the German court dated of 19 June 2019. In September 2019 the nephews made a declaration of waiver before the court in the Netherlands. They have informed the German court about these declarations by a letter written in Dutch in December 2019. Copies of declarations were attached.

In January 2020, the German court informed them that it had not been possible to take account of their declaration as documents should have been accompanied by a translation into German. At this stage of the proceeding, pursuant to Article 1944 Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (the German Civil Code), the nephews were deemed to have accepted the succession, as the six months period applicable to cross-border cases, has elapsed before the originals of the declarations were presented.

The higher instance court had doubts whether this is correct and has asked, inter alia, the following preliminary question:

Does a declaration concerning the waiver of succession by an heir before the court of a Member State that has jurisdiction for the place of his or her habitual residence, which complies with the formal requirements applicable there, replace the declaration concerning the waiver of succession to be made before the court of another Member State that has jurisdiction to rule on the succession, in such a way that when that declaration is made, it is deemed to have been validly made (substitution)?

Provisions Subject to Analysis by the CJEU

Along the general rules on jurisdiction and applicable law which apply to “the succession as a whole”, as indicated in Articles 4, 10, 21, 22, 23, the Succession Regulation contains specific rules with respect to declarations which might be made by the heirs or legatees (namely, concerning waiver of the succession, acceptance of the succession and designed to limit the liability of the heir). These rules are analysed by the CJEU in the commented case.

In accordance with Article 13, in addition to the court having jurisdiction in the succession case in general, the courts of the Member State of the habitual residence of any person who, under the lex successionis, may make, before a court, such a declaration, has jurisdiction to receive such declarations where, under the law of that Member State, such declarations may be made before a court. Then, pursuant to Article 28, such declaration is valid as to form where it meets the requirements of either lex successionis (Article 28(a)) or the law of the habitual residence of the heir making this declaration (Article 28(b)).

Reasoning of the Court

The Court of Justice explains the very practical solution provided for in Article 13 which considers the situation of the heirs or legatees in cross-border cases, in particular that it may well happen that they live in another Member State than the one, with which the deceased was connected and therefore has jurisdiction in succession proceedings (based on habitual residence – Article 4, or location of assets – Article 10 and other circumstances). Not to force the heir to travel abroad in order to, for example, simply waive the succession, this Article provides for “an alternative forum of jurisdiction which aims to enable heirs (…) to make their declarations concerning the acceptance or waiver of succession before a court of the Member State in which they have their habitual residence” [para. 37].

Additionally, the rule on alternative jurisdiction is “complemented by a conflict-of-laws rule contained in Article 28” [para. 38], which is “conceived in such a way as to recognise the validity of a declaration concerning the waiver of succession either where the conditions laid down by the law on succession are satisfied (…) or where the conditions laid down by the law of the State of the habitual residence of the heir are satisfied (…)” [para. 39]. The way this rule is construed remine other private international law rules contained in numerous instruments and aimed at favoring a validity (favor validitatis) of a juridical act, for example Article 11(1) of the Rome I Regulation on formal validity of a contract or Article 1 of the HCCH Convention on Form of Wills on formal validity of dispositions of property upon death. Article 28 of the Succession Regulation provides that the declaration made by the heir is valid as long as it conforms with requirements provided for in one of the listed laws (and not cumulatively by both of them)

The Court of Justice also noted that “there is a close correlation between those two provisions, with the result that the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State of the habitual residence of the heir to receive declarations concerning the waiver of succession is subject to the condition that the law on succession in force in that State provides for the possibility of making such a declaration before a court. If that condition is satisfied, all the steps to be carried out before a court of the Member State of the habitual residence of the heir wishing to make such a declaration are determined by the law of that Member State” [para. 40]. Any other understanding of the provision would deprive it of its practical effect.

As the Succession Regulation does not provide for a mechanism for the communication of declarations to the court having jurisdiction, it is the heir or a legatee that should “assume the burden of communicating the existence of those declarations to the authorities responsible for the succession” [para. 47], and therefore, such declaration will “produce legal effects before the court having jurisdiction to rule on the succession, provided that that court has become aware of the existence of that declaration” [para. 39]. It seems however that there is no requirement as to the originality or translation of the declaration that must be strictly applied.

Taking all the above into account the CJEU ruled that:

a declaration concerning the waiver of succession made by an heir before a court of the Member State of his or her habitual residence is regarded as valid as to form in the case where the formal requirements applicable before that court have been complied with, without it being necessary, for the purposes of that validity, for that declaration to meet the formal requirements of the law applicable to the succession.

Conclusion

The understanding of the Succession Regulation presented by the Court of Justice in this judgement is practical and very much in line with the idea of facilitating the lives of heirs and legatees in cross-border cases. As usually happens we tend to be accustomed to rules and procedures of our domestic succession laws, whereas the application of the Regulation requires much more flexibility.

Private International Law Festival

16 to 17 May 2022

Edinburgh, United Kingdom

by Michael Cremer and Samuel Zeh*

After two years of living through a global pandemic, the very first Private International Law Festival from 16 to 17 May 2022, held in Edinburgh, was the first opportunity for many to finally meet other scholars and exchange ideas in person again. The event was hosted by the University of Edinburgh in cooperation with the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law (Hamburg) and organized primarily by Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm (Edinburgh).

As its name implies, the Festival was meant as an opportunity for scholars from all around the world to celebrate the many facets of the discipline. This was reflected in the broad range of presentations, which featured both traditional and novel approaches to Private International Law (PIL). The two-day Festival included seven panels, the Forum Conveniens Annual Lecture at Edinburgh Law School and a book launch. Thematically, it encompassed not only sustainable development, decolonial theory and migration governance, but also Private International Law in Scotland, same-sex relationships and many other topics.

After a welcome by the host Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm who emphasized the overarching goal to celebrate the discipline, the first cluster of the event focused on Private International Law and Sustainable Development. Hans van Loon (Institut de Droit International) gave an overview of the relationship between Private International Law and the UN Sustainable Development Goals 2030. He outlined the challenge of reconciling economic development with sustainability and the contribution PIL can make towards this goal. In the previous year, he had, together with Ralf Michaels and Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm, worked on the project “The Private Side of Transforming our World – UN Sustainable Development Goals 2030 and the Role of Private International Law” which culminated in a Conference and an open-access book publication. As the coordinator of that project, Samuel Zeh (Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg) elaborated on the lessons learned and insights gained in the process. Afterwards, María Mercedes Albornoz (MacCormick Fellow, Edinburgh Law School / CIDE, México) offered a Global South perspective on Sustainable Development and Private International Law. The first thematic panel concluded with Ralf Michaels discussing whether facilitation and regulation as key objectives of PIL can be reconciled with the quest for sustainability.

Ralf Michaels then switched to chair the second panel of the day on Decolonising Law and Private International Law. It was started off by Roxana Banu (Queen Mary University of London) with Reflections on Private International Law’s Colonial History. She made the case for expanding the intellectual history of Private International Law both geographically and in terms of actors, while at the same time situating PIL theories and techniques in a colonial context. Subsequently, Nicole Štýbnarová (University of Helsinki / University of Oxford) elaborated on how Private International Law has transitioned from arguing about transnational marriages from relativist arguments in the 19th century to universalist language and how this transition was sparked by the changing imperial economy. María Julia Ochoa Jiménez (Universidad de Antioquia) addressed PIL in Latin America and explained its neo-colonial character by tracing its historical development. Finally, Sandrine Brachotte (Sciences Po Paris) laid out a method for decolonizing PIL with non-secular worldviews. She suggested a pragmatic approach that goes from specific cases to theory, thereby altering the concepts of Private International Law.

After the lunch break, two panels – chaired by Gerry Maher (University of Edinburgh) and Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm – were dedicated to Private International Law in Scotland in accordance with the location of the Festival. Scholars from several Scottish universities gave an overview of their respective Private International Law curricula and their current topics of research. This included Paul Beaumont and Jayne Holliday (University of Stirling), Justin Borg-Barthet and Patricia Živkovi? (University of Aberdeen), Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm (Edinburgh Law School), Janeen Carruthers and Bobby Lindsay (University of Glasgow). Additionally, Kirsty Hood (The Faculty of Advocates) and Michael Clancy (Law Society of Scotland) emphasized the importance of Private International Law for legal practitioners in Scotland.

Like every grand festival the Private International Law Festival also took place on different stages: The main stage in the Usha Kasera Lecture Theatre at Edinburgh Law School was reserved for the Forum Conveniens Annual Lecture. It was delivered by Máire Ní Shúilleabháin (University College Dublin) on Same-Sex Couples in the Cross-Border Context: Closing the Gaps in the Conflict of Laws. Living up to this title the lecture was a true tour de force as it covered virtually all aspects of the topic. It brought together common law perspectives from Irish, Canadian and UK law with the European regulations and requirements of negative integration and cross-border recognition as established by the judgments of the CJEU. Thus, the lecture sparked an animated debate which was chaired by Carlos Esplugues Mota (Universitat de València) and continued well into the subsequent Forum Conveniens Reception.

The second day of the Festival opened with a cluster on a new project that the panelists are working on: Private International Law and Sustainable Migration Governance. Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm, Jinske Verhellen (Ghent University), Gülüm Özçelik (Bilkent University), Laura Carballo Piñeiro (University of Vigo), Ulla Liukkunen (University of Helsinki) and Hans van Loon presented their findings up until now and future plans for this project. This includes issues such as migrants’ right to legal identity, access to social security schemes in a cross-border context and circular migration.

The topic of migration was also a focus of the second panel of the day, which was chaired by Kasey McCall-Smith (Edinburgh Law School) and offered Interdisciplinary Latin American Perspectives on Coloniality and Migration. Isadora Dutra Badra Bellati (Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg) analyzed a Brazilian Supreme Court decision on the legality of the outsourcing of labor through the lens of decolonial theory. This was followed by Valentina Rioseco (University of Edinburgh) discussing whether the obligation of states to allow entry and stay in international and inter-American human rights law can pave pathways for regular migration. Afterwards, Gabriela García García (University of Aberdeen) spoke about The Latin American Landscape of Migrant Integration and Inclusion and proposed a baseline framework for domains and indicators of integration in Latin America. Next, Nuni Vieira Jorgensen (Queen Mary University of London) shed light on the effects that the closure of land borders has on transnational family arrangements and family reunifications: “protected borders” tend to interrupt care arrangements to the detriment of transborder families. As last speaker on the panel, Marilda Rosado (Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro) gave an overview of initiatives that support migrants in Brazil and foster cooperation.

The next highlight of the Festival was the book launch of the much awaited “Guide to Global Private International Law” (Hart Publishing). The editors, Paul Beaumont and Jayne Holliday, presented the book, which not only provides an overview of PIL from a global perspective, but also offers many suggestions for its further unification. They were joined by multiple contributors, some in the room and some connected virtually, who gave short insights into their chapters and their workflow. Keeping in the spirit of the Festival, this was a true celebration of the hard work and dedication that have gone into compiling this guide.

The last panel of the Festival was chaired by Alex Mills (University College London) and covered New Horizons for Private International Law. First, Nicolas Rennuy (University of York) analyzed the Law of Social Security Coordination and showed how there are multiple links between the field and Private International Law, including the type of conflict rules, the connecting factors, the scope of the rules and conceptions of indirect choice of law. Afterwards, Michael Cremer (Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg) made the case for Private International Law perspectives in patent law, illustrating this through a conflict of laws reconstruction of the right of priority stemming from the 1883 Paris Convention on the Protection of Industrial Property. Next, Rosario Espinosa (Universitat de València) presented her work on Sorority, Equality and Private International Law explaining how Private International Law can be used as a tool to promote equality and solidarity between women. The last contribution was made by Toni Marzal (University of Glasgow) who proposed A Relations-First Approach to Choice of Law and criticized the established positivist perspective that dominates the current understanding of PIL.

Sadly, every celebration must come to an end. The last words of the Festival belonged to the driving force behind it: Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm. It was not before a big applause for her work and effort in organizing the event so quickly and perfectly, that everybody bid farewell.

The Private International Law Festival in Edinburgh was a resounding success. It was itself the perfect example of the multiple facets of Private International Law, that it set out to celebrate. The presentations not only covered an extensive number of different topics, but also displayed both traditional and novel methodologies. They put new topics on the agenda of the discipline, while also shedding new light on existing debates. In addition, the Festival combined truly global projects like the launch of the Guide to Global PIL with the focus on the Scottish perspectives on PIL. At the same time, it also provided the opportunity for intergenerational exchange, with many younger researchers presenting their work and joining the debate.

For many it was the first in person meeting with fellow scholars after the pandemic. The Festival provided a worthy setting for this return. Hopefully, it will become a regular event.

 

* Michael Cremer and Samuel Zeh are both research associates and PhD studens under Ralf Michaels at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg

This post was contributed by Francesco Pesce, who is a professor at the University of Genoa.

The very first meeting of the Hague Conference on Private International Law’s (HCCH) Special Commission (SC) on the Practical Operation of the 2007 Child Support Convention and 2007 Maintenance Obligations Protocol was held from 17 to 19 May 2022. The event was attended by over 200 delegates representing HCCH Members, Contracting Parties and Observers from all regions of the world.

Following an invitation coming from the Secretary General of the HCCH, for the first time EAPIL participated as an Observer to a meeting of the Hague Conference.

The meeting resulted in the adoption of over 80 Conclusions & Recommendations, providing guidance on a wide range of issues relating to the implementation and practical operation of these instruments.

Among other things, the Special Commission took into a specific consideration some issues raised in the Position Paper on Child Support and Maintenance Obligations prepared by the EAPIL Working Group specifically created for that purpose.

More in detail, HCCH Members and Contracting Parties discussed some problems concerning the effective access to legal assistance for children under the Convention, for the recovery of maintenance obligations arising from a parent-child relationship.

Firstly, the interpretation of the concept of ‘residence’ (Article 9) was reaffirmed to be necessarily consistent with Article 53, which prescribes uniformity in the interpretation and application of the Convention, due to its international character. In this perspective, it has been recalled that the intention behind the use of (simple) ‘residence’ is to provide the easiest and the widest access to Central Authorities and make it is as easy as possible to apply for international recovery of child support, so that a child has the possibility to require financial support wherever he or she may be living and should not have to satisfy a strict residence test in order to apply for assistance to receive it (cf. Borrás-Degeling Report, para. 228). Based on this assumption, the SC confirmed that Article 9 does not always indicate a single national Central Authority: when the creditor/child is permanently living in two different Contracting States, then it does not prevent a choice of most appropriate (State, and subsequently) Central Authority to submit the application. The creditor may take into account many factors in making this decision, bearing in mind that support is usually needed for a prolonged period of time. Such a case is considered under para. 7 of the Conclusions & Recommendations, expressly referred to the situation of a child studying abroad, when the debtor habitually resides or has assets in another Contracting Party than the State of either the residence or habitual residence of the creditor.

Secondly, the SC noted that some doubts were raised by the responses to the Questionnaire of August 2019 on the practical operation of the 2007 Child Support Convention, on the concept of ‘creditor’ with reference to the existing difference between those systems where it is the child him/herself who qualifies as ‘creditor’ acting for the protection of his/her own interests (even if procedurally through an adult (parent) acting on his/her behalf) and, on the other hand, those States providing that a dependent child cannot be the creditor, so that the action for the maintenance recovery is brought by the parent on his/her own In this respect, the SC recalled that, in the case where the child is an applicant, information concerning the name of the non-debtor custodial parent should be written under “Other information” in Section 10 of the Recommended Form (cf. Conclusions & Recommendations, para. 8);

Lastly, the SC addressed the issue of family status, with a specific reference to recognition and enforcement of maintenance decisions concerning relationships not provided by the law of the requested State. On this matter, para. 24 of the Conclusions & Recommendations simply reaffirms that, in accordance with Article 19(2) of the 2007 Convention, maintenance obligations arising from these relationships can still be recognised and enforced without recognising such relationships per se. The specific issue of (same-sex) marriages and other relationships – such as cohabitations – that could be equated to marriage in the national law of the State of origin was raised by the Position Paper, but it was not deepened during this first meeting of the SC: in fact, spousal support was not considered a priority at this stage (cf. para. 67).