Droit international général

The Court of Justice delivered on 7 April 2022 its judgment in case C‑645/20 (V A), which is about the Succession Regulation:

“Article 10(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 […] must be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State must raise of its own motion its jurisdiction under the rule of subsidiary jurisdiction referred to in that provision where, having been seised on the basis of the rule of general jurisdiction established in Article 4 of that regulation, it finds that it has no jurisdiction under that latter provision”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=257493&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2662053

The Court of Justice delivered on 7 April 2022 its judgment in case C‑568/20 (J v H Limited), which is about Brussels I bis:

“Article 2(a) and Article 39 of [Brussels I bis] must be interpreted as meaning that an order for payment made by a court of a Member State on the basis of final judgments delivered in a third State constitutes a judgment and is enforceable in the other Member States if it was made at the end of adversarial proceedings in the Member State of origin and was declared to be enforceable in that Member State. The fact that it is recognised as a judgment does not, however, deprive the party against whom enforcement is sought of the right to apply, pursuant to Article 46 of that regulation, for a refusal of enforcement on one of the grounds referred to in Article 45”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=257492&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2662053

The Court of Justice delivered on 7 April 2022 its judgement in case C‑236/20 (PG), which is about the working conditions of the Judges of the Peace in Italy. Progressively, with this case and previous ones on working conditions of judges, along with several judgments on the Rule of Law (e.g. touching on the recruitment of judges, or disciplinary proceedings against judges), the Court of Justice is building a European framework of the status of judges.

“1. Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, Clause 4 of the framework agreement on part-time work […] and Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work […] must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which does not provide for an entitlement for magistrates to 30 days’ paid annual leave or to a social security and pension scheme deriving from the employment relationship, such as that provided for ordinary judges, if that magistrate comes within the definition of ‘part-time worker’ within the meaning of the framework agreement on part-time work and/or ‘fixed-term worker’ within the meaning of the framework agreement on fixed-term work and is in a comparable situation to that of an ordinary judge.

2. Clause 5(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work […] must be interpreted as precluding national legislation pursuant to which a fixed-term employment relationship can be renewed a maximum of three times successively, each renewal being for a duration of four years, for a total duration that does not exceed 16 years, and which does not provide for the possibility of penalising in an effective and dissuasive way the abusive continuance of the employment relationship”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=257484&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2654588

AG Collins delivered on 31 March 2022 his opinion in case C‑18/21 (Uniqa Versicherungen AG v VU), which is about the European Order for Payment:

“Articles 16, 20 and 26 of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure do not preclude the adoption, in the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, of a national measure that interrupted the 30-day time limit for lodging a statement of opposition to a European order for payment contained in Article 16(2) thereof”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=256962&text=&dir=&doclang=EN&part=1&occ=first&mode=DOC&pageIndex=0&cid=1171245

The Yong Pung How Professorship of Law Lecture 2022 will be held online on Wednesday 25 May 2022 at 5:00 to 6:30pm Singapore time. The speaker, Professor Yeo Tiong Min, SC (Hon), who holds the Yong Pung How Professorship of Law chair at the Singapore Management University, will speak on ‘ The Effect of Choice of Court Agreements on Third Parties’. The synopsis for the talk is as follows:

“The effect of choice of court agreements on the exercise of jurisdiction of the Singapore court between contracting parties at common law has received clarification in Singapore law in recent years. The position is also clear under the SICC Rules and the Choice of Court Agreements Act. The effect on third parties is less clear. In this lecture, the effect of choice of court agreements on the position of third parties under the legal regimes above will be considered, from the perspective of both conflict of laws and the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act in domestic Singapore law.”

Attendance at the webinar is complimentary. More information and the link to register can be found here.

A series of online seminars has been in launched in December 2021, organised by the team of the Vici project Affordable Access to Justice at the Erasmus School of Law: the general topic is Trends and Challenges in Costs and Funding of Civil Justice.

The next seminar in the series is scheduled for 20 April 2022 (14-16 CET) under the title Austerity policies and litigation costs reforms.

The relationship between access to justice, efficiency of courts, and litigation costs has never been an easy one. Yet, finding a proper equilibrium has never been more challenging than in recent times. The EU economic crises of the last decade and austerity policies deeply impacted justice budgets in several EU Member States and triggered justice reforms, particularly in the area of litigation costs. Building on the experiences of three EU jurisdictions that have been greatly affected by such developments (Greece, Portugal, and Spain), the seminar will assess the impact of austerity measures on access to justice.

The speakers are Panagiotis Perakis (Vice President CCBE), Paula Costa e Silva (Lisbon University) and Fernando Gascón Inchausti (Complutense University of Madrid).

Register here to attend the event.

Aldricus – Salah satu alat make up yang kerap digunakan wanita adalah pensil alis. Ya, dengan alat ini, wanita bisa membentuk alis mereka untuk mempercantik tampilan mata. Namun, tentu, untuk mendapatkan hasil yang maksimal, Anda perlu mengetahui cara memakai pensil alis bagi pemula.

Ya, perlu penerapan pensil alis yang tepat yang nantinya akan mempercantik mata. Tidak hanya itu, dengan mengetahui cara penerapan pensil alis, Anda pun nantinya bisa mengatur ketebalan alis agar lebih padu dengan make up yang digunakan.

Nah, bagaimana cara untuk memakai pensil alis tersebut untuk hasil yang maksimal? Simak ulasannya!

Langkah Memakai Pensil Alis yang Tepat

Ada beberapa langkah yang perlu diketahui dan dilakukan untuk menggunakan pensil alis demi mendapatkan hasil yang maksimal. Beberapa langkah tersebut adalah sebagai berikut:

• Kenal bentuk wajah

Sebelum memulai menggunakan pensil alis, maka Anda perlu mengenali bentuk wajah terlebih dahulu. Ini adalah hal yang sangat mendasar karena bentuk wajah yang berbeda nantinya bisa memiliki karakteristik wajah yang berbeda pula.

• Hindari melewatkan titik penting alis

Terkait cara memakai pensil alis bagi pemula, untuk mendapatkan hasil yang maksimal, Anda perlu mengetahui titik penting alis. Setidaknya, ada tiga buah titik penting untuk menggambar alis yang maksimal yaitu pangkal alis, ujung alis dan ujung mata.

• Sikat rambut alis menjauhi hidung ke arah atas

Langkah selanjutnya yang perlu Anda lakukan adalah menyikat rambut alis ke arah atas menjauhi hidung. Dengan langkah ini, maka finishing pensil alis nantinya akan terlihat lebih natural dan pensil yang digunakan akan terlihat lebih menyatu.

• Memilih shade pensil alis yang pas

Untuk hasil yang maksimal, pilih shade pensil alis yang pas. Warna hitam mungkin masih menjadi favorite. Namun, Anda bisa menggunakan warna lain yang dikombinasikan dengan warna lipstik atau lainnya.

Nah, beberapa poin di atas adalah cara memakai pensil alis bagi pemula yang perlu Anda ketahui. Tentu, untuk mendapatkan hasil yang maksimal, Anda memang harus lebih sering mencoba, terutama untuk melemaskan tangan yang digunakan menggambar alis.

The post Cara Memakai Pensil Alis Bagi Pemula Untuk Hasil yang Menakjubkan  appeared first on Aldri Blog.

Aldricus – Setiap pria tentu saja ingin memiliki rambut yang tidak hanya tampak rapi namun juga terawat dengan baik untuk menarik perhatian. Apalagi dengan banyaknya kesalahan yang terjadi dalam merawat rambut, sebaiknya simak tips perawatan rambut pria terbaik di bawah ini:

Banyaknya Kesalahan dalam Merawat Rambut Pria

Sayang sekali, banyak yang masih melakukan perawatan rambut pria tidak tepat misalnya dengan menggunakan shampoo conditioner bersamaan dengan cara terburu-buru. Selain itu, salah juga terlalu sering melakukan styling rambut bahkan membilas rambut dengan tidak bersih juga bisa berdampak buruk.

Kesalahan inilah yang kemudian membuat rambut para pria cenderung mudah berketombe, lepek dan bahkan menjadi kasar. Maka, untuk menjaga kesehatan rambut para pria harus tahu tips merawat rambut sesuai prosedur.

Tips Untuk Merawat Rambut Bagi Pria yang Tepat

Setelah mengenali beberapa kesalahan yang dilakukan, sebaiknya kenali juga beberapa tips terbaik untuk merawat rambut pria agar tampak lebih sehat. Banyak yang tidak tahu, ternyata ini beberapa tips menarik dan tentu saja mudah dilakukan untuk merawat rambut kesayangan masing-masing:

1. Membatasi Durasi Keramas

Tips yang pertama ini sebaiknya dilakukan mulai dari saat ini dengan mengatur waktu untuk keramas sesuai dengan ketentuan tanpa berlebihan. Mulai dengan keramas sembari mandi setidaknya tiga kali saja dengan jarak dua atau tiga hari dalam kurun satu minggu.

2. Memilih Shampo yang Tepat

Kemudian ada juga tips yang lainnya yang sebaiknya dicoba sekarang dengan menentukan shampo yang memang tepat sesuai dengan jenis rambut masing-masing. Misalnya saja, pahami dahulu jenis rambut yang dimiliki kemudian kenali formula yang diperlukan baik rambut kering ataupun berminyak karena berbeda.

Tanpa harus merasa bingung, para pria Indonesia bisa segera memilih produk shampo dan perawatan rambut yang lainnya yang disediakan CLEAR. Produk Clear Hair Care ini sudah pasti akan membuat rambut selalu tampak berkilau dan mudah diatur tanpa harus berhadapan dengan masalah seperti ketombe.

3. Mencukur Rambut secara Berkala

Selain harus menentukan shampo yang tepat sesuai dengan kebutuhan rambutnya, jangan lupa juga menambahkan produk kondisioner yang tepat untuk rambutnya. Bahkan para pria juga perlu untuk membuat jadwal potong rambut secara rutin setidaknya satu kali dalam kurun waktu tiga bulan.

Demikian beberapa tips yang khusus untuk perawatan rambut pria di atas dan bisa dipraktekkan dengan mudah tanpa harus merasa ribet nantinya. Namun untuk hasil yang lebih baik sesuai dengan harapan yang dimiliki, mari gunakan produk lengkap perawatan khusus rambut pria dari CLEAR.

The post Ini Tips Perawatan Rambut Pria yang Tepat appeared first on Aldri Blog.

Aldricus – Rambut kering dan mengembang adalah salah satu masalah yang paling tidak diinginkan bagi setiap perempuan. Penampilan akan terlihat tidak rapi dan kepercayaan diri pun bisa menurun. Saat mengalami masalah seperti ini, solusinya adalah menggunakan conditioner untuk rambut kering dan mengembang.

Namun sebelum menuju ke solusinya, ada baiknya untuk mengetahui dulu penyebab masalah tersebut. Untuk lebih jelasnya, silahkan simak penjelasan berikut ini:

Penyebab Rambut Kering dan Mengembang

Rambut dapat menjadi kering dan mengembang karena kurangnya produksi minyak di kulit kepala. Meski demikian, ada juga beberapa faktor luar yang dapat menyebabkan hal itu terjadi. Dilansir dari situs Alodokter, berikut ini beberapa hal di antaranya:

1. Terlalu Sering Mencuci Rambut

Mencuci rambut adalah hal penting untuk menjaga kebersihan rambut dan kulit kepala, namun mencucinya terlalu sering justru akan membuat rambut menjadi kering dan rusak. Cucilah rambut sebanyak 1-2 kali seminggu atau ketika dirasa sudah kotor.

2. Tidak Memberikan Perlindungan yang Cukup pada Rambut

Sinar matahari, angin, serta udara panas dan kering dapat merusak rambut, apalagi jika rambut terpapar terlalu lama olehnya. Pasalnya, rambut adalah bagian yang rentan terhadap kandungan polusi di udara serta debu dan bakteri yang terbawa angin.

3. Tidak Menggunakan Conditioner Setelah Keramas

Menjaga kesehatan rambut tidak cukup hanya dengan keramas. Dengan penggunaan conditioner setelah keramas membuat kadar minyak alami di rambut tetap terjaga sehingga membuatnya tetap sehat.

Conditioner juga membantu menjaga kelembaban rambut. Saat ini tersedia berbagai produk conditioner yang diformulasikan khusus untuk mencegah rambut kering dan mengembang.

Rekomendasi Conditioner Terbaik

Sunsilk Soft & Smooth Conditioner adalah conditioner untuk rambut kering dan mengembang terbaik yang paling direkomendasikan. Dilengkapi formula Activ-Infusion yang mengandung Vitamin E, soy milk protein, dan argan oil. Sunsilk Soft & Smooth Conditioner membuat rambut lebih lembut, halus, dan harum hingga 48 jam!

Jaga selalu kesehatan rambut agar tetap tampil percaya diri. Gunakan conditioner untuk rambut kering dan mengembang serta padukan dengan shampo yang cocok dengan karakteristik rambut masing-masing. Lindungi rambut dari paparan sinar matahari dan udara panas dengan mengenakan pelindung kepala saat beraktivitas di luar.

The post Inilah Rekomendasi Conditioner untuk Rambut Kering dan Mengembang Terbaik appeared first on Aldri Blog.

In the framework of the EFFORTS Project, a questionnaire has been drawn up on the digitalization of civil procedures relating to cross-border enforcement.

The questionnaire aims at collecting quantitative and qualitative data on the digitalization of enforcement procedures at the national and European level, with a view to identifying technical solutions and legislative amendments to implement such digitalization.

The questionnaire, together with information on the EFFORTS Project, may be accessed here

The EFFORTS project partners thank you in advance for your time and contribution!

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

This post was contributed by Vincent Richard, who practices with Wurth Kinsch Olinger in Luxembourg.

On 7 April 2022, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in case C‑568/20, J v. H Limited on the recognition in Austria of an English summary order to pay a debt recognised in a third State judgment. The case shows that the prohibition of “double exequatur” can be circumvented by resourceful litigants.

Facts of the Case

H Limited, a banking institution, obtained two judgments in Jordan in 2013 ordering J. to reimburse a loan. These judgments were subsequently presented to the English High Court of Justice which issued an order after summary proceedings stating that the debtor had to pay to the bank, a sum equivalent to what the Jordanian decisions ordered. The decision was issued in March 2019 when the country was still a Member State of the EU. This English summary order is not a direct recognition or enforcement of a foreign judgment but an English decision on the merits taking into account the foreign judgment’s res judicata. Consequently, the English court also issued the certificate referred to in article 53 of Regulation n° 1215/2012 for that summary judgment.

The creditor of judgment then tried to enforce this English summary order in Austria where the debtor resides. This action was successful at first. The Austrian first instance court authorised enforcement of the English order and, on appeal, the Austrian Regional Court of Linz dismissed the debtor’s arguments challenging the decision.

The debtor then appealed on a point of law before the Austrian Supreme Court, which in turn addressed three questions to the Court of Justice. In essence, those three questions aim to determine whether the English summary order issued based on the foreign judgment’s res judicata should be considered as a “judgment” according to Regulation n° 1215/2012 and whether it should be recognised in Austria.

Following the opinion of Advocate General Pikamäe, the Court of Justice declared that the English summary order is indeed a judgment according to art. 2a) and art. 39 of the Brussels I a) Regulation but it leaves open the possibility of challenging the compatibility of the summary order with Austrian public policy.

A Broad interpretation of “judgment” under the Regulation

The Court of Justice underlines that mutual trust implies a broad understanding of the notion of “judgment” in the Regulation. Any decision under national law is considered a judgment under the Regulation as long as the procedure leading to the judgment is adversarial in nature. This criterion is itself interpreted broadly (see C-394/07 Gambazzi and particularly AG Kokott’s opinion in the case). Besides that, article 2a) and chapter III of the Regulation leave no margin of interpretation to exclude judgments because of their content as long as they do not fall within the matters excluded from the scope of the whole regulation defined by article 1.

Consequently, the CJEU declares that the English summary order issued based on two Jordanian judgments is a decision susceptible to be enforced according to Brussels I a).

A Chain Is As Strong as the Weakest Link

At first glance, the decision of the Court of Justice is concerning because it opens the door to forum shopping tactics for foreign judgments creditors. What is peculiar in the case at hand is that the English summary order is barely distinguishable from a judgment enforcing a foreign judgment. And as the French would say “exequatur sur exequatur ne vaut” meaning that the recognition procedure does not apply to a decision that itself recognises a foreign judgment. Only the original foreign decision on the merits may be subject to recognition. This principle is explicitly mentioned by the Austrian Court in its request for a preliminary ruling. The logic of this reasoning is that the court of the requested State may only check that the judgment is eligible for recognition if it can read the judgment itself and not the appreciation of that judgment made by another court. This reasoning is all the more valid within the Brussels I system because it ensures a clear distinction between judgments originating from other Member States, which should be recognised broadly under uniform conditions and judgments originating from third States. For the latter, Member States remain free to define the conditions applicable to recognition and enforcement. Ruling otherwise would allow the creditors of the foreign judgment to try to have their judgment recognised in the State which is the most open to foreign judgments and to then bypass stricter requirements in the Member State where the debtor has assets. In the present case, it could be argued that the English procedure was used as a Trojan horse to enter Austria. However, the Brussels I a) Regulation does not explicitly exclude this scenario.

A Clever Application of Public Policy

The Court of Justice leaves open the possibility of refusing recognition of the English decision by challenging its compatibility with public policy. The Court of Justice states that recognition could be refused if the debtor manages to convince Austrian courts that he was unable to challenge, in the English procedure, the merits of the claim brought forward in Jordan. In essence, this argument amounts to considering that if the English judgment is a genuine English judgment, then there must have been a possibility for an adversarial debate on the merits. In the first part, the CJEU ruled that the English order was a judgment under the Regulation even though it was based on two Jordanian decisions. Therefore, the English judgment must be compatible with the public policy of the requested State regardless of the content of the Jordanian decisions. Or to put it the other way around, if the English proceedings lead to a European decision, then the English proceedings alone must conform to European standards.

A Question of Irreconcilability?

Finally, it must be pointed out that a simpler way to address similar issues would be for the debtor to pre-emptively seek a declaration of non-enforceability of the foreign decision in the Member State of enforcement when this is possible. Then, this decision could be used to block enforcement of the State of origin’s decision under article 45 1) d) of the Regulation on irreconcilable decisions. There may be good reasons why this possibility was not considered in the present case though.

by Wolfgang Hau, University of Munich

This year’s Dispute Resolution Day of the Munich Center for Dispute Resolution on 6 May is dedicated to the above mentioned highly topical issue: Can companies in Germany be held responsible for human rights violations that have occurred somewhere in the global supply chain? Are civil lawsuits and commercial arbitration at all suitable for enforcing international human rights obligations of business enterprises? Such and related questions will be examined and discussed by renowned speakers. The conference will be held in German at the University of Munich. You can find the programme and registration information here:

https://www.mucdr.jura.uni-muenchen.de/munich_dispute_resolution_day/drd-2022-flyer.pdf

 

 

Conference The HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention: Cornerstones – Prospects – Outlook

 

Registration now open!

 

 

Dates:                       Friday, 9 September 2022, and Saturday, 10 September 2022 

Venue:                      Universitätsclub Bonn, Konviktstraße 9, D – 53113 Bonn 

Registration:          sekretariat.weller@jura.uni-bonn.de 

 

Registration fee: € 200.- Young Scholars rate (limited capacity): € 100.- Conference Dinner on 9 September 2022:                         € 50.-

Registration: Please register with sekretariat.weller@jura.uni-bonn.de. Clearly indicate whether you want to benefit from the young scholars’ reduction of the conference fees and whether you want to participate in the conference dinner. You will receive an invoice for the respective conference fee and, if applicable, for the conference dinner. Please make sure that we receive your payment at least two weeks in advance. After receiving your payment we will send out a confirmation of your registration. This confirmation will allow you to access the conference hall and the conference dinner.

Please note: Access will only be granted if you are fully vaccinated against Covid-19. Please confirm in your registration that you are, and attach an e-copy of your vaccination document. Please follow further instructions on site. Thank you for your cooperation.

Further information: https://www.jura.uni-bonn.de/professur-prof-dr-weller/the-hcch-2019-judgments-convention-cornerstones-prospects-outlook-conference-on-9-and-10-september-2022

 

Programme

 

Friday, 9 September 2022

 

8.30 a.m. Registration 9.00 a.m. Welcome notes

Prof Dr Wulf-Henning Roth, Director of the Zentrum für Europäisches Wirtschaftsrecht, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Germany

Dr Christophe Bernasconi, Secretary General of the HCCH

    Part I: Cornerstones

1. Scope of application

Prof Dr Xandra Kramer, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Utrecht University, Netherlands

2. Judgments, Recognition, Enforcement

Prof Dr Wolfgang Hau, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Munich, Germany

3. Indirect jurisdiction

Prof Dr Pietro Franzina, Catholic University of Milan, Italy

4. Grounds for refusal

Dr Marcos Dotta Salgueiro, Adj. Professor of Private International Law, Law Faculty, UR, Uruguay; Director of International Law Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Uruguay

5. Trust management: Establishment of relations between Contracting States

Dr João Ribeiro-Bidaoui, First Secretary, HCCH / Dr Cristina Mariottini, Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for International, European and Regulatory Law Luxemburg

  1.00 p.m.

  Lunch Break

    Part II: Prospects for the World

1. The HCCH System for choice of court agreements: Relationship of the HCCH Judgments Convention 2019 to the HCCH 2005 Convention on Choice of Court Agreements

Prof Dr Paul Beaumont, University of Stirling, United Kingdom

2. European Union

Andreas Stein, Head of Unit, DG JUST – A1 “Civil Justice”, European Commission

3. Canada, USA

Professor Linda J. Silberman, Clarence D. Ashley Professor of Law, Co-Director, Center for Transnational Litigation, Arbitration, and Commercial Law, New York University School of Law, USA

Professor Geneviève Saumier, Peter M. Laing Q.C. Professor of Law, McGill Faculty of Law, Canada

4. Southeast European Neighbouring and EU Candidate Countries

Prof Dr Ilija Rumenov, Associate Professor at Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Skopje, Macedonia 8.00 p.m. Conference Dinner (€ 50.-)

 

Saturday, 10 September 2022

 

9.00 a.m. Part II: Prospects for the World (continued)

 

5. Middle East and North Africa (including Gulf Cooperation Council)

Prof Dr Beligh Elbalti, Associate Professor at the Graduate School of Law and Politics at Osaka University, Japan

6. Sub-Saharan Africa (including Commonwealth of Nations)

Prof Dr Abubakri Yekini, University of Manchester, United Kingdom

Prof Dr Chukwuma Okoli, Postdoctoral Researcher in Private International Law at the T.M.C. Asser Institute, Netherlands

7. Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR)

Prof Dr Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm, Director of Internationalisation, Senior Lecturer in International Private Law, School of Law, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom

8. Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)

Prof Dr Adeline Chong, Associate Professor of Law, Yong Pung How School of Law, Singapore Management University, Singapore

9. China (including Belt and Road Initiative)

Prof Dr Zheng (Sophia) Tang, University of Newcastle, United Kingdom

  1.00 p.m.

  Lunch Break

    Part III: Outlook

1. Lessons from the Genesis of the Judgments Project

Dr Ning Zhao, Senior Legal Officer, HCCH

2. International Commercial Arbitration and Judicial Cooperation in civil matters: Towards an Integrated Approach

José Angelo Estrella-Faria, Principal Legal Officer and Head, Legislative Branch, International Trade Law Division, Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations; Former Secretary General of UNIDROIT

3. General Synthesis and Future Perspectives

Hans van Loon, Former Secretary General of the HCCH

Toni Marzal and George Pavlakos (both from University of Glasgow) posted recently on RSSN their article titled A Relations-First Approach to Choice of Law.

The article forms part of the forthcoming volume Philosophical Foundations of Private International Law edited by Roxana Banu, Michael Green and Ralf Michaels to be published by Oxford University Press. The volume is an outcome of an interdisciplinary project carried under the same title. As underlined by Roxana Banu:

PIL situates virtually every legal topic in a different, transnational and pluralistic context. It is therefore hard to comprehend why a philosophical inquiry has thus been far lacking. We seek to penetrate the long-standing isolation existing between the two disciplines and investigate the many opportunities for mutual enrichment.

The abstract of the article reads as follows:

The question of applicable law remains central in the doctrine and practice of private international law (PIL), raising a host of disagreements around the criteria that govern its determination. Paradoxically, this question is commonly approached through a positivist lens, whilst at the same time being guided by a commitment to individual autonomy. In this paper we propose, against mainstream practice, to frame the issue of applicable law as involving a series of questions about relational morality, which ought to be answered independently of any established legal order, and from a concern for the common good. We will proceed in four parts. First, we will demonstrate that a purely positivist understanding fails to properly account for today’s practice, given its propensity to exclude normative considerations as irrelevant to the determination of legal facts, whilst at the same time resorting to such considerations under the cover of hopelessly circular reasoning – a failure that is particularly manifest in the context of PIL. Second, we will show how current PIL tends to accomplish this operation by smuggling into legal reasoning a pre-institutional notion of individual autonomy, which implicitly guides the determination of applicable law, and is divorced from any considerations of relational morality (as well as from ideals of the common good that are left to the ex-post intervention of institutionalised legal orders). Third, we emphasise the independent value of addressing the question of legal relations in pre-institutional terms and propose a fresh way of understanding the legality of such relations among private parties, on the basis of a revised reading of Savigny and Kantian right, as key to the determination of the applicable law. Finally, we explore the downstream implications of our relations-first approach, by considering the topical question of applicable law to claims against parent/buyer companies for the harm caused by their subsidiaries/providers overseas.

The final conference of the JUDGTRUST project on the application of the Brussels I bis Regulation will take place in the Hague (and on-line) on 21 and 22 April 2022, organised by the Asser Institute with the University of Hamburg, the University of Antwerp and the Internationaal Juridisch Instituut.

The conference concludes a two-year project on the correct and consistent application of the Regulation. The research findings of the project will be presented and the conference will provide an opportunity to share knowledge amongst academics, legal practitioners and legislators on how to achieve a greater consistency among various instruments in order to enhance the legal certainty, predictability and access to justice in cross border legal transactions.

The conference will offer an opportunity to discuss about the interpretation of the Regulation; the difficulties in the application and interpretation of the Regulation by State courts; consistency within the European private international law system, and possible solutions.

Speakers include Michał Gondek (European Commission), Markus Tobias Kotzur (University of Hamburg), Vesna Lazić (Asser Institute, Utrecht University), Burkhard Hess (MPI Luxembourg), David Althoff (The Hague Institute of Private International and Foreign Law), Louise Ellen Teitz (Roger Williams University School of Law, Bristol, Rhode Island), Wolfgang Hau (Ludwig-Maximilians University of Munich), Antonio Leandro (University of Bari), Michiel de Rooij (Asser Institute), Javier Carrascosa González (University of Murcia), Gilles Cuniberti (University of Luxembourg), Fieke van Overbeeke (The Hague Institute of Private International and Foreign Law), Mukarrum Ahmed (University of Lancaster), Jachin Van Doninck (Free University Brussels), Luis de Lima Pinheiro (University of Lisbon), Lisette Frohn (The Hague Institute of Private International and Foreign Law), Beatriz Añoveros Terradas (University of Barcelona), Pontian Okoli (University of Stirling) and Francesca Villata (University of Milan).

The full programme is available here. See here for registration.

Ansgar Ohly (Ludwig Maximilian University Munich) wrote an interesting article addressing matters of jurisdiction and choice of law in trade secrets misappropriation cases. The article entitled Jurisdiction and Choice of Law in Trade Secrets Cases: the EU Perspective has been published in an Edward Elgar Research Handbook on Information Law and Governance edited by Sharon K. Sandeen, Christoph Rademacher and Ansgar Ohly. A version of the paper is now available for free consultation on SSRN.

The abstract reads as follows:

Trade secrecy law is a hybrid between intellectual property and unfair competition law. This makes the characterisation of trade secrecy law for the purposes of private international law difficult. This paper argues that neither the EU conflict of law rules for unfair competition law nor those for IP law can be applied, but that a sui-generis solution is called for.

The paper is structured around two parts: one dedicated to determining jurisdiction in trade secrets cases – Part II – and another to applicable law – Part III.

The analysis is systematic and starts from matters of jurisdiction in tort or contract cases, discussing the Bogsitter case (C-548/12) and Wikingerhof case (C-59/19; the judgment was not yet given by the CJEU), Trade Secrets Directive (Directive (EU) 2016/943), and looking at the place where ‘the harmful event occurs’.

For applicable law, the EU provisions seem to force the courts to address the difficult question of whether the protection of trade secrets is a part of intellectual property or of unfair competition law.

One of the problematic aspects of the analysis is related to the specificity of trade secrecy that usually involves a chain of events which consists of the acquisition, the disclosure, and the use of the information.

All of these acts are separate acts of infringement, but at the same time they are related (see the “cascade of liability” established by Article 4 Trade Secrets Directive).

Hence, the question is whether these acts should be dealt with separately for the purpose of establishing jurisdiction and determining the applicable law or whether the entire dispute should be handled by one forum based on one applicable law or other sui generis solution should be considered.

In the context of the Vici project ‘Affordable Access to Justice’, the project team (Erasmus School of Law) is organising a series of online seminars dedicated to the Trends and Challenges in Costs and Funding of Civil Justice.

The next session is scheduled for Wednesday, 20 April 2022 (14:00-16:00 CET) on the topic: Austerity policies and litigation costs reforms.

The relationship between access to justice, efficiency of courts, and litigation costs has never been an easy one. Yet, finding a proper balance has never been more challenging than in recent times. The EU economic crises of the last decade and austerity policies deeply affected justice budgets in several EU Member States and triggered justice reforms, particularly in the area of litigation costs. Building on the experiences of three EU jurisdictions that have been greatly affected by such developments (namely, Greece, Portugal, and Spain), the seminar will assess the impact of austerity measures on access to justice.

Speakers: Panagiotis Perakis (Vice President CCBE), Paula Costa e Silva (Lisbon University), Fernando Gascón Inchausti (Complutense University of Madrid)

To attend the online event, please register here.

With thanks to Adriani Dori for the tip-off.

Since the Millennium, public interest litigation has become a growing phenomenon in civil courts. Activists and NGOs are filing civil lawsuits, both domestic and cross-border, in order to promote societal and political shifts.

Typical examples are (business and) human rights claims, environmental claims, climate change litigation but also cartel damage claims. Targeted defendants react also developing litigation strategies, such as bringing the disputes to the general public through the media. A currently much discussed example are SLAPP, strategic lawsuits against public participation – libel lawsuits brought against journalists, media and other stakeholders of the civil society in order to deter them from making investigations.

On 8 April 2022, at 4 pm CET, a Max Planck Law curriculum course is taking place under the title Strategic Litigation – A New Phenomenon in Civil Litigation?, where Burkhard Hess (Director, MPI Luxembourg) will present strategic litigation on the basis of actual cases, and analyse the main features of this (not that new?) phenomenon. The class will primarily focus on civil actions but equally look at recent developments at constitutional and international courts, trying to assess whether and to what extent this type of dispute is transforming civil litigation as we know it.

Those wishing to attend are required to register here by 6 April 2022.

In February 2022, a Working Group has been established within the European Association of Private International Law. The task of the Group was to respond to a public consultation launched by the European Commission on the prospect of an EU-wide protection for vulnerable adults, i.e., persons aged 18 or more who are unable to protect their interests because of an impairment or insufficiency of their personal faculties.

The Group presented the preliminary draft of a position paper prepared for this purpose at a webinar on 10 March 2022.

Having taken note of the feedback received from the participants in the webinar and other interested academics, practitioners and stakeholders, the Working Group shared a final draft with the Association’s Scientific Council.

The position paper, as approved by the EAPIL Council and submitted to the European Commission, is available here.

Here are some of the key takeaways of the paper:

1. Private international law has an important role to play in the realisation of the fundamental rights of persons aged 18 and more who are not in a position to protect their interests due to an impairment or insufficiency of their personal faculty.
2. The Union should urgently adopt measures of judicial cooperation aimed to support, in cross-border situations, the exercise of legal capacity by the adults concerned, in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
3. In taking the above measures, the Union should preserve the operation and the prospect of success of the Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 on the International Protection of Adults. To this end, the Union should combine external action and legislation, meaning that the Convention should provide the basic legal framework in this field, common to all Member States, but legislation should be enacted by the Union to strengthen cooperation between Member States and improve the operation of the Convention in their relations.
4. The legal basis for the above measures would be Article 81 TFEU, with the clarification that the protection of adults should not be deemed to fall within the scope of “family law” within the meaning of Article 81(3).
5. The Union has external competence, based on Article 216 TFEU to authorise the Member States that have not yet done so to ratify, or accede to, the Hague Adults Convention “in the interest of the Union”, on the ground that the conclusion of the Convention would be “necessary in order to achieve, within the framework of the Union’s policies, one of the objectives referred to in the Treaties”.
6. The legislation of the Union aimed to improve the Hague Convention regionally should relate, inter alia, to choice of court by the adult concerned and the law applicable to ex lege powers of representation.
7. Specifically, the Union should enact a rule whereby ex lege powers of representation are governed by the law of the (Member) State where the adult concerned has their habitual residence at the time when those powers are relied upon, without prejudice to the application of the provisions on ex lege powers of representation as may be in force in the Member State where the powers are invoked, whenever the provisions themselves are meant to apply regardless of the law specified by conflict-of-laws rules.

On 7 April 2022, the Court will deliver the judgment in C-568/20, H Limited. The request, with three questions, was lodged in November 2020 by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria); it concerns the interpretation of several provisions of Chapter III of the Brussels I bis Regulation, in addition to its Article 2(a). The dispute on the merits focuses on the enforcement of an order based on a decision of the High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England & Wales, Commercial Court (QBD). AG Pikamäe’s opinion, published on December 16, 2021, proposed the following answers to the CJEU:

Articles 45 and 46 of [the Brussels I bis Regulation] should be interpreted as meaning that the court of the Member State addressed, to which an application for refusal of enforcement is made, may grant that application on the grounds that the judgment and the certificate, provided for in Article 53 of that regulation, adopted by the court of the Member State of origin breach the public policy of the Member State addressed, where the error of law relied upon constitutes a manifest breach of a rule of law regarded as essential in the legal order of the European Union and therefore in the legal order of that State. This is the case of an error affecting the application of Article 2(a) and Article 39 of that regulation requiring that the judgment of which enforcement is sought be given in a Member State.

When reviewing whether there has been a manifest breach of public policy in the Member State addressed through failure to comply with a substantive or procedural rule of EU law, the court of that State must take account of the fact that, save where specific circumstances make it too difficult or impossible to exercise the legal remedies in the Member State of origin, the individuals concerned must avail themselves of all the legal remedies available in that Member State with a view to preventing such a breach before it occurs.

The reporting judge is M. Safjan.

The decision on C-645/20, V A et Z A , is scheduled for the same day. The French Court of Cassation had addressed to the Court a single question on the interpretation of Article 10(1)(a) of the Succession Regulation, lodged in December 2020. AG M. Campos Sánchez-Bordona had suggested to reply as follows:

Article 10(1)(a) of [the Succession Regulation] must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where the deceased did not have his last habitual residence in any Member State of the European Union, the court of a Member State in which a dispute in a matter of succession has arisen must declare of its own motion that it has jurisdiction to settle the succession as a whole if, in the light of facts alleged by the parties which are not in dispute, the deceased was a national of that State at the time of his death and was the owner of assets located there.

M. Ilešič was appointed reporting judge.

Easter vacation imposes a break on the publication of decisions and opinions. For PIL purposes, the next one will be the opinion of AG M. Richard de la Tour in C- 604/20 ROI Land Investments, a request from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany), lodged on November 2020. The questions referred concern both jurisdiction and applicable law (the Rome I Regulation) in employment and (maybe, or) consumer matters:

1. Is Article 6(1) read in conjunction with Article 21(2) and Article 21(1)(b) of [the Brussels I bis Regulation] to be interpreted as meaning that an employee can sue a legal person – which is not his employer and which is not domiciled in a Member State within the meaning of Article 63(1) of the [Regulation] but which, by virtue of a letter of comfort, is directly liable to the employee for claims arising from an individual contract of employment with a third party – in the courts for the place where or from where the employee habitually carries out his work in the employment relationship with the third party or in the courts for the last place where he did so, if the contract of employment with the third party would not have come into being in the absence of the letter of comfort?
2. Is Article 6(1) of the [Brussels I bis Regulation] to be interpreted as meaning that the reservation in respect of Article 21(2) of the [the same Regulation] precludes the application of a rule of jurisdiction existing under the national law of the Member State which allows an employee to sue a legal person, which, in circumstances such as those described in the first question, is directly liable to him for claims arising from an individual contract of employment with a third party, as the ‘successor in title’ of the employer in the courts for the place where the employee habitually carries out his work, if no such jurisdiction exists under Article 21(2) read in conjunction with Article 21(1)(b)(i) of the [Regulation]?
3. If the first question is answered in the negative and the second question in the affirmative:

(a) Is Article 17(1) of the [Brussels I bis Regulation] to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘professional activities’ includes paid employment in an employment relationship?

(b) If so, is Article 17(1) of the [Brussels I bis Regulation] to be interpreted as meaning that a letter of comfort on the basis of which a legal person is directly liable for claims of an employee arising from an individual contract of employment with a third party constitutes a contract concluded by the employee for a purpose which can be regarded as being within the scope of his professional activities?

4. If, in answer to the above questions, the referring court is deemed to have international jurisdiction to rule on the dispute:

(a) Is Article 6(1) of [the Rome I Regulation] to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘professional activities’ includes paid employment in an employment relationship?

(b) If so, is Article 6(1) of the Rome I Regulation to be interpreted as meaning that a letter of comfort on the basis of which a legal person is directly liable to an employee for claims arising from an individual contract of employment with a third party constitutes a contract concluded by the employee for a purpose which can be regarded as being within the scope of his professional activities?

The delivery is expected on 28 April 2022. M. Safjan will be the reporting judge.