Droit international général

This post was written by Amy Held and Matthias Lehmann.

Prima facie, it does not seem that anyone need be overly concerned about the post-Brexit relationship between the Rome II Regulation and English law.  However, such complacency overlooks the continued relevance of the Rome II Regulation, as part of UK domestic law, in the English courts by virtue of s 3(1) of the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018, as amended by reg 11 of the The Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations and Non-Contractual Obligations (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. These points were recently highlighted by the High Court of England and Wales in Fetch.AI Ltd v Persons Unknown [2021] EWHC 2254 (Comm).

Background

The First Applicant was an English-registered company which alleged that Persons Unknown had, without authorisation, accessed its account with the Binance Exchange and effected a series of transactions at an undervalue, thereby causing it loss in excess of USD 2.6 million.  Accordingly, the First Applicant sought several court orders in claims for, inter alia, breach of confidence. As the Respondents were without the English jurisdiction or were otherwise in an unknown location, the First Applicant also required permission to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction under CPR rr 3.6 and 3.7.

As summarised in Altimo Holdings and Investment Ltd v Kyrgyz Mobile Tel Ltd [2011] UKPC 7; [2012] 1 W.L.R. 1804, applications to serve out are subject to a three-limb test.  Of these, limb two requires the applicant to show that there is a “good arguable case” against the foreign defendant that falls within the classes of case for which leave to serve out may be given, as set out in PD 6.B para 3.1.  In the present case, HHJ Pelling QC (‘the Judge’) was satisfied that there was a good arguable case for breach of confidence, and that the other limbs of the test were made out.  Permission was therefore granted.

In this post, we examine from an EU perspective the basis upon which the Judge concluded that, applying Rome II, that English law governed the claim. Our fuller analysis, encompassing an analysis of English substantive law, may be found in Amy Held & Matthias Lehmann, ‘Hacked crypto-accounts, the English tort of breach of confidence and localising financial loss under Rome II’ (2021) 10 JIBFL 708.

The Applicability of Rome II

The Judge referred to the Rome II Regulation (sometimes mistakenly as the “Rome Convention”), given its continued application in the UK pursuant to the EU Withdrawal Act 2018; and considered the bases upon which the English cause of action of breach confidence may properly fall within its scope.

The Judge first (correctly, it is submitted) rejected Article 6 Rome II, distinguishing Shenzhen Senior Technology Material Company Limited v Celgard LLC [2020] EWCA Civ 1293 on the basis that this earlier case concerned a claim for breach of confidence arising from an act of unfair competition within the scope of the Trade Secrets (Enforcement, etc) Regulations 2018.  The present case, however, did not concern unfair competition and, in the Judge’s view, Shenzhen Senior Technology Material Company did not form authority for the general proposition under English law and characterisation that all breach of confidence claims fall within Article 6.

The Judge then considered the general rule for tort/delict in Article 4, and found it encompassed a common law claim of breach of confidence.  In doing so, the Judge applied the English characterisation of breach of confidence as a common law tort, rather than the civilian characterisation as a privacy or personality rights falling within the exclusion in Article 1(2)(g) Rome II. 

Localisation

Having thus concluded that Article 4 of Rome II applied, the Judge considered the main issue to be identifying “the law of the country in which the damage occurs.”  In this respect, the Judge considered the decisive issue to be localising the relevant property, i.e., the cryptocurrency.  Citing Ion Science v Person Unknown (Unreported, 21 December 2020) (commentary in A Held, ‘Does situs actually matter when ownership to bitcoin is in dispute?’ (2021) 4 JIBFL 269), the Judge held that the cryptocurrencies were situate at the place where its owner is domiciled.  Given that the First Applicant was domiciled in England, the Judge concluded that the relevant property was situate in England. In his opinion, English law therefore governed the proposed claim. 

Analysis

There are at least two issues with this decision from the perspective of Rome II.

First, the approach taken by the Judge in localising loss by reference to the domicile of the owner is inherently circular: identifying the place of damage with the domicile of the owner of crypto assets begs the question of which law determines ownership over crypto assets. This question cannot be answered by referring (again) to the domicile of the owner without entering a vicious circle.

Second, the decision fails to consider the long-standing line of CJEU caselaw that deals specifically with the question of localising financial and/or pure economic damage under the Brussels Ibis Regulation and its predecessors which, pursuant to Recital 7 of Rome II, is to be followed when Rome II applies. As the CJEU ruled in Kronhofer, the ‘place where the damage occurred’ does not “refer to the place where the claimant is domiciled or where ‘his assets are concentrated’ by reason only of the fact that he has suffered financial damage there.” Although the CJEU has given some scope to consider the place of domicile of the injured party (e.g. in Kolassa and Löber), localising pure economic loss nevertheless entails a multifactorial approach taking into account all the facts of the case.

Conclusion

Fetch.AI demonstrates the potential trend for divergence between the CJEU and the English courts as to the application of EU instruments of private international law. As the decision shows, insufficient attention is given even to pre-Brexit decisions of the CJEU, notwithstanding that they are presently binding “retained case law” pursuant to s 6(3) of the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018 on courts in the UK, except the UK Supreme Court, the High Court of Justiciary in certain circumstances, and where Regulations otherwise provide (s 6(4) European Union Withdrawal Act 2018). Accordingly, greater attention should be paid by UK courts to both the express terms of EU instruments of private international law, and the case law of the CJEU on their interpretation.

I am hoping to tackle some of the pre-Christmas queue this week, kicking off with the Opinion (no English version available) of Pikamae AG in C-568/20 J v H Limited. The case concerns the enforcement of a 2019 decision of the England & Wales High Court [I believe that judgment is Arab Jordan Investment Bank Plc & Anor v Sharbain [2019] EWHC 860 (Comm). The dates do not quite correspond (6 days of) but the amounts and line of argument do].

Clearly the UK were still a Member State at the time. The English decision was based, in turn, on two Jordanian judgments of 2013. It had rejected, on the basis of the English common law (judgments issued outside the EU are not subject to EU recognition and enforcement rules), the arguments against enforcement in the UK. The judge subsequently issued an Article 53 Brussels Ia certificate.

The issue is not whether a judgment merely confirming a non-EU judgment, may be covered by Article 53 Brussels Ia. CJEU Owens Bank has already held they cannot (see Handbook, 3rd ed. 2021, 2.573). The issue is rather whether, exequatur having been abandoned in Brussels Ia, arguments as to whether the judgment in the State of origin be at all covered by Brussels Ia, may be raised by way of an Article 45 objection to recognition and enforcement.

CJEU Diageo Brands, among others, has confirmed the narrow window for refusal of recognition on the basis of ordre public. The AG suggests wrong decisions on the scope of application of BIa, leading to incorrect A53 certificates, may fall within that category. Far from upsetting the principle of mutual trust, he suggests it is a necessary ‘safety valve’, a “soupape de sécurité » (40) which assist with said mutual trust. The AG qualifies the opinion by suggesting the issuing of an A53 certificate for a judgment that merely enforces an ex-EU judgment, is a grave error in the scope of application of the Regulation.

Should the CJEU confirm, discussion of course will ensue as to what are clear errors in the scope of application, or indeed in the very interpretation of Brussels Ia.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed 2021, Heading 2.2.17.1.

Opinion Pikamae AG yday, #CJEU C-568/20
Member State court may refuse recognition of other MS (UK, pre #Brexit) High Court judgment if said judgment merely enforces judgment from a third State, Jordan. Brussels Ia Title 3 'judgments' must emanate from a MShttps://t.co/NkJ6zh9FU9

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) December 17, 2021

To conclude its current research project on the national rules on jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters over non-EU defendants, the Young Research Network of the EAPIL will host a conference in Dubrovnik on 14 and 15 May 2021 (currently planned as an in-person event).

The conference will highlight the findings of the research project and link them to the wider question of whether or not the Regulation should be extended to non-EU defendants. To this end, the panelists will include participants in the research project, other members of the Young Research Network as well as representatives of stakeholders such as the European Commission and the Hague Conference on Private International Law.

Attendance of the conference will be free of charge. Further information will soon be made available on this blog.

The 4th German-speaking Conference for Young Scholars in Private International Law will take place on 23 and 24 February 2023 at the Sigmund Freud University in Vienna.

The theme of the conference will be Deference to the foreign – Empty phrase or guiding principle of private international law?

Here’s the concept:

As part of the legal system, rules of private international law are bound by the principles of their national jurisdiction, but they also open up the national system to foreign rules. Is the claim of deference to the foreign merely an empty phrase or, at best, a working hypothesis, or can it serve as a meaningful guiding principle of private international law? Are there tendencies within or across specific areas of private international law to move away from deference to, and towards a general suspicion against, the foreign? To what extent does (mutual) trust become the basis of deference to the foreign in the process of internationalisation and Europeanisation? What, if any, is the relationship between deference to the foreign and the methods of private international law?

The organisers of the conference (Andreas Engel, Florian Heindler, Katharina Kaesling, Ben Köhler, Martina Melcher, Bettina Rentsch, Susanna Roßbach and Johannes Ungerer) are inviting contributions from all areas of private international law, including but not limited to contract and tort law, company law, family and succession law as well as international procedural law, international arbitration and uniform law.

The written contributions will be published in an edited conference volume. The conference will be held in German, but English presentations are also welcome. The call for papers will be released in spring 2022. Abstracts may be submitted until late Summer 2022.

Further information on the conference is available here.

The author of this post is Marco Buzzoni, Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg.

On 21 December 2021, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) handed out its much-anticipated judgment in Case C-251/20, Gtflix Tv v DR (“Gtflix Tv”), a case dealing with the interpretation of Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation in the context of torts committed through an online publication. In this decision, the Court confirmed that the so-called ‘mosaic approach’ to jurisdiction first established in Shevill applies to an action seeking compensation for the harm allegedly caused by the placement of disparaging comments on the internet. Departing from the Opinion of AG Hogan issued on 16 September 2021 (on the Opinion, see more here), the CJEU held that the courts of each Member State in which those comments are or were accessible have jurisdiction to hear the case, provided that the compensation sought is limited to the damage suffered within the Member State of the court seised.

Far from putting an end to doubts concerning the allocation of jurisdiction under Article 7(2) Brussels I bis, however, the CJEU’s decision in Gtflix Tv will most likely revive the debates on the need to update the current jurisdictional framework applicable to online torts.

Background of the Case

Gtflix Tv — a company established in the Czech Republic and specialised in the production and distribution of adult audiovisual content — brought an action for interim measures (référé) against DR — a director, producer and distributor of similar content domiciled in Hungary — before the President of the tribunal de grande instance de Lyon (Regional Court, Lyon, France).

Before that court, the plaintiff sought the rectification and removal of disparaging comments allegedly made by DR on several websites and forums, and asked for a symbolic compensation for the economic and non-material damage caused to its reputation. The court of first instance dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, and the plaintiff appealed this decision before the cour d’appel de Lyon (Court of Appeal, Lyon). On appeal, the plaintiff increased to EUR 10,000 the provisional sum claimed as compensation for the damage suffered in France. On 24 July 2018, however, the Court of Appeal confirmed the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. The plaintiff subsequently filed an application against the judgment with the French Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation, France), contending that French courts had jurisdiction based on Article 7(2) Brussels I bis.

By a decision dated 13 May 2020 (on this decision, see more here), the Court of Cassation held that the French courts lacked jurisdiction to hear claims seeking the removal and the rectification of the allegedly disparaging statements published on the internet, in light of the CJEU’s judgment in Bolagsupplysningen and Ilsjan. As to the remaining claim for compensation, however, the French court wondered whether the same solution should apply, given the “necessary link of dependence” between this action and the request for rectification and withdrawal. Hence, the Court of Cassation decided to stay the proceedings and referred the following question to the CJEU:

“Must Article 7(2) [Brussels I bis] be interpreted as meaning that a person who, considering that his or her rights have been infringed by the dissemination of disparaging comments on the internet, brings proceedings not only for the rectification of data and the removal of content but also for compensation for the resulting non-material and economic damage, may claim, before the courts of each Member State in the territory of which content published online is or was accessible, compensation for the damage caused in the territory of that Member State, in accordance with the judgment of 25 October 2011, eDate Advertising and Others (C‑509/09 and C‑161/10, EU:C:2011:685, paras 51 and 52), or whether, pursuant to the judgment of 17 October 2017, Bolagsupplysningen and Ilsjan (C‑194/16, EU:C:2017:766, para 48), that person must make that application for compensation before the court with jurisdiction to order rectification of the information and removal of the disparaging comments?”

CJEU’s Analysis

After a relatively lengthy summary of the general canons of interpretation that, according to the Grand Chamber, should guide the jurisdictional rules applicable to extra-contractual liability (paras 20-26), the Court began its decision by recalling the traditional solution according to which Article 7(2) grants jurisdiction to both the courts of the place “where the damage occurred and the place of the event giving rise to it” (para 27). The Court then underscored that the case at hand only required an assessment of whether the alleged damage occurred in France (para 28), and stated that, under existing precedent, parties who wish to vindicate violations of privacy and other personality rights through the internet (including defamation and harm to their commercial reputation) may either:

1. bring an action before the courts of each Member State in which content placed online is or has been accessible and seek compensation only in respect of the damage caused in the Member State of the court seised (Shevill);
2. seek compensation for all the damage allegedly suffered before the courts of the Member State in which the publisher of that content is established or before the courts of the Member State in which the plaintiff’s centre of interests is based (eDate Advertising); or
3. apply for the rectification of incorrect information and the removal of disparaging comments affecting their reputation, but only before the courts competent to rule on the entirety of the damage (Bolagsupplysningen and Ilsjan).

Having thus set the stage for its decision (paras 29-33), the CJEU went on to reject the idea that the “necessary link of dependence” between these claims weighed in favour of the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts competent to rule on the entire damage (paras 34-40). In this respect, the Court held, first of all, that while applications for rectification of information and removal of content are single and indivisible in nature and may therefore warrant the concentration of jurisdiction upon a limited number of courts, no such justification exists for claims of compensation (para 35). Secondly, the Court dismissed the argument that a “necessary link of dependence” exists between applications for injunctive relief and actions for damages, as “their purpose, their cause and their divisibility are different, and there is therefore no legal necessity that they be examined jointly by a single court” (para 36). Thirdly, the Court considered that a concentration of jurisdiction would not always serve the interests of the sound administration of justice (paras 37-40).

Finally, the Grand Chamber concluded its decision by rejecting the argument formulated by AG Hogan according to which, should the Court uphold the mosaic approach to jurisdiction inaugurated in Shevill, the reference to the place where the damage occurred should only be interpreted to cover the Member States where the publication in question is concretely “directed”. Citing its decisions in Pinckney and Hejduk, the Court held, however, the wording of Article 7(2) does not impose any additional condition regarding the determination of the competent court, and that such a restrictive approach could in some cases lead to the de facto exclusion of the option to bring proceedings before the courts of the place where the damage occurred.

Critical Assessment

Contrary to what a first reading of the judgment may suggest, the CJEU’s decision in Gtflix Tv does not simply uphold well-established solutions contained in the conspicuous body of case-law concerning the protection of privacy and personality rights. Indeed, a closer look at the Court’s reasoning reveals that the solution reached by the Grand Chamber was everything but a foregone conclusion.

Firstly, the CJEU’s reliance on its precedents largely ignores AG Hogan’s observation that “[u]nder French law, disparagement does not fall within the scope of infringement of rights relating to the personality” (para 96 of the AG’s Opinion) and that, therefore, the place where the damage occurred should have been determined having regard to the CJEU’s case-law issued in the area of infringement of economic rights. Rather than a mere reiteration of the mosaic approach to jurisdiction, the Grand Chamber’s decision in Gtflix Tv may therefore be regarded as an extension of it to an area of the law where this solution did not obviously apply and to a context, that of internet jurisdiction, that the Court in Shevill had not specifically addressed.

Secondly, the Grand Chamber’s emphasis on the plaintiff’s option to bring an action before the courts of any place where the damage occurred (see paras 39 and 42) stands in stark contrast with some of the CJEU’s most recent decisions under Article 7(2) (on this point, see in particular cases Case C‑800/19, Mittelbayerischer Verlag KG, and C‑709/19, Vereniging van Effectenbezitters, both stressing the need to ensure the predictability of the jurisdictional rule applicable to extra-contractual liability). In this respect, it is rather telling that the Grand Chamber’s summary of the relevant canons of interpretation applicable to Article 7(2) Brussels I bis conveniently omits the oft-cited principle according to which derogations from the general rule set out in Article 4 Brussels I bis should be interpreted restrictively. Undoubtedly, this factor would have nudged against the confirmation of the mosaic approach ultimately upheld by the CJUE.

Finally, the reasons put forward by the Grand Chamber to reject a narrower interpretation of the term “accessibility” favoured by the AG are rather unpersuasive. On the one hand, in fact, the Court’s comparison between the wording of Article 7(2) and Article 17(1)(c) Brussels I bis is quite unconvincing, given the overwhelming weight played by judge-made rules in the law of extra-contractual jurisdiction. On the other hand, the extension of the solution adopted in Pinckney and Hejduk seems especially ill-suited to disputes where, by contrast to cases involving of the protection of copyright, the principle of territoriality does not appear to be particularly pregnant.

All in all, the CJEU’s judgment in Gtflix Tv highlights the need to revisit the jurisdictional provision set out in Article 7(2) Brussels I bis, specifically — but by no means exclusively — with regards to disputes sitting at the intersection of internet jurisdiction and personality rights. Admittedly, legislative reform represents a more palatable solution than the piecemeal approach based on case-law when it comes to the specific challenges posed by the impact of new technologies in this area of the law. In this respect, it will therefore be interesting to see how the Grand Chamber’s decision will be received in the context of the recent initiative promoted by the EU Commission to protect journalists and civil society against SLAPPs, as well as within the broader framework of the upcoming recast of Brussels I bis Regulation.

LANCASTER UNIVERSITY LAW CONFERENCE
Lancaster University, U.K.
3rd June 2022
CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES TO LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY

Call for Abstracts

After the grand success of our three annual international conferences in 2019, 2020 and 2021 we are happy to announce that we will be organizing this year’s annual international conference (virtual) on the broad theme ‘Contemporary Challenges to Law and Criminology’.

It is believed that law acts as a powerful tool for social change. In today’s world, most aspects of human behaviour are regulated by legal rules and principles. From policies affecting the poor to regulating economic and political agendas between powerful nations, law plays an important role in shaping the future for coming generations.

In addition, contemporary criminological issues question some of today’s most pressing social issues, from interpersonal violence, drugs misuse, to crimes against the environment. An unprecedented rise in exclusionary and punitive state policies and practices has produced high levels of contemporary issues in both law and criminology.

In the context of changing socio-political scenarios around the world, there is a need to reevaluate our understanding of applicability of legal rules that can bring about real change and provide opportunity for the betterment of everyone. The question of how to apply ‘law’ is now once again open for debate and we intend to discuss it from broad perspectives.

Lancaster University Law School invites proposals for individual contributions under the broad theme of ‘Contemporary Challenges to Law and Criminology’. The Conference invites academics, Masters, PhD students, early career researchers and practitioners for a one-day virtual conference.

Suggested topics under the theme ‘Contemporary Challenges to Law and Criminology’ for the
conference include, but are not limited to:

Law and Ethics in Business, Finance and Banking

Digital Justice

Social justice and Equality

The Environment and Eco systems

Gender and Sexuality

Drugs Policy, Practice and Usage

Abstracts of no more than 300 words and a short bio of 50 words should be sent to lawpgrconference@lancaster.ac.uk by 31st March 2022.

Selected presenters will be notified by 15th April 2022.

For any queries please contact: lawpgrconference@lancaster.ac.uk or visit

David Walker, Rapporteur of the 24th International Union of Judicial Officers (UIHJ) Congress, has edited the proceedings of the event. The book, published by Bruylant, is titled Cyberjustice, new Opportunities for the Judicial Officer and includes various contributions  (in English and French) dealing with Cyberjustice in line with the expectations of judicial officers. Many articles are dealing with international justice and enforcement (e.g. e-Codex, Hague Convention on Judgments, Service of documents Regulation…) under a digital perspective.

As explained in the foreword by Marc Schmitz, President of the UIHJ, the world is digitising and the current pandemic of COVID-19 even accelerates this process. The judicial officer must consider the digital evolution of justice not only as a challenge but as an opportunity. In particular digital enforcement and digital asset seizure will become common practice in the near future. In this context, there is a need to introduce rules on digital enforcement and seizure of digital assets. These rules need to be harmonised globally. Solutions at national level alone will not be sufficient. The digital world is cross-border. The UIHJ can be one of the pioneers and play a leading role in drafting position papers and making recommendations in the field of digitalisation of enforcement, such as a proposal for a World Code of Digital Enforcement.

The table of contents reads as follows:

Introduction by the President of UIHJ
Word of His Excellency Director General of Dubai Courts
Introduction by the General Reporter

Part I – Excellence and Innovation

Part II – New Technologies – Delivering Efficient Justice

Part III – New technologies and enforcement

Contributors include : Françoise Andrieux, Amna Al Owais, Massimiliano Blasone, Jackson Chen, Gary A. Crowe, Malone da Silva Cunha, Karolien Dockers, Sylvian Dorol, Robert W. Emerson, Luc Ferrand, Natalie Fricero, Patrick Gielen, Alex Irvine, Aída Kemelmajer de Carlucci, Martin Leyshon, Jorge Martinez Moya, Paula Meira Lourenço, Tereza Lungova, Orazio Melita, Yacob Mohamed Ahmed Abdullah, Jérôme Gérard Okemba Ngabondo, Luis Ortega, Guillaume Payan, Iva Peni, Neemias Ramos Freire, Teresa Rodríguez de las Heras Ballell, Dovilė Satkauskienė, Marc Schmitz, Risto Sepp, Rui Simao, Adrian Stoica, François Taillefer, Dimitrios Tsikrikas, Aranya Tongnumtago, Jos Uitdehaag, Sjef van Erp, Jona Van Leeuwen, Pimonrat Vattanahathai, Anna Veneziano, Elin Vilippus, David Walker, Vladimir Yarkov, Ning Zhao.

Full table of contents here and more information here.

Rescheduled: “The HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention: Prospects for Judicial Cooperation in Civil Matters between the EU and Third Countries” – Conference on 9 and 10 September 2022, University of Bonn, Germany

In preparation of the Conference on the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention on 9/10 September 2022, planned to be taking place on campus of the University of Bonn, Germany, we are offering here a Repository of contributions to the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention. Please email us if you miss something in it, we will update immediately…

Update of 12 January 2022: New entries are printed bold.

Please also check the “official” Bibliography of the HCCH for the instrument.

 

I. Explanatory Reports

Garcimartín Alférez, Francisco;
Saumier, Geneviève „Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters: Explanatory Report“, as approved by the HCCH on 22 September 2020 (available here) Garcimartín Alférez, Francisco;
Saumier, Geneviève “Judgments Convention: Revised Draft Explanatory Report”, HCCH Prel.-Doc. No. 1 of December 2018 (available here) Nygh, Peter;
Pocar, Fausto “Report of the Special Commission”, HCCH Prel.-Doc. No. 11 of August 2000 (available here), pp 19-128

 

II. Bibliography

Badr, Yehya Ibrahim “The Hague 2019 Convention for the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judicial Decisions: A Comparative Study”, International Journal of Doctrine, Judiciary, and Legislation (IJDJL) 2 (2021), pp. 427-468 (available here) Balbi, Francesca “La circolazione delle decisioni a livello globale: il rogetto di convenzione della Conferenza dell’Aia per il riconoscimento e l’esecuzione delle sentenze straniere” (Tesi di dottorato, Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, 2019; available: here) Beaumont, Paul “Forum non Conveniens and the EU rules on Conflicts of Jurisdiction: A Possible Global Solution”, Revue Critique de Droit International Privé 2018, pp 433-447 Beaumont, Paul R. “Judgments Convention: Application to Governments”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 121-137 Beaumont, Paul;
Holliday, Jane (eds.) “A Guide to Global Private International Law”, Oxford 2022, forthcoming. Biresaw, Samuel Maigreg “Appraisal of the Success of the Instruments of International Commercial Arbitration vs. Litigation and Mediation in the Harmonization of the Rules of Transnational Commercial Dispute Settlement”, preprint (DOI:10.21203/rs.3.rs-953987/v1). Blanquet-Angulo, Alejandra “Les Zones d’ombre de la Convention de La Haye du 2 Juillet 2019”, Revue Internationale de Droit Comparé (RIDC), 73 (2021), pp. 53-71 Blom, Joost “The Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act and the Hague Judgments and Jurisdictions Projects”, Osgoode Hall Law Journal 55 (2018), pp 257-304 Bonomi, Andrea “European Private International Law and Third States”, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 2017, pp 184-193 Bonomi, Andrea “Courage or Caution? – A Critical Overview of the Hague Preliminary Draft on Judgments”, Yearbook of Private International Law 17 (2015/2016), pp 1-31 Bonomi, Andrea;
Mariottini, Cristina M. “(Breaking) News From The Hague: A Game Changer in International Litigation? – Roadmap to the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention”, Yearbook of Private International Law 20 (2018/2019), pp 537-567 Borges Moschen, Valesca Raizer;
Marcelino, Helder “Estado Constitutional Cooperativo e a conficaçao do direito internacional privado apontamentos sobre o ’Judgement Project’ da Conferência de Haia de Direito Internacional Privado”, Revista Argumentum 18 (2017), pp 291-319

(Cooperative Constitutional State and the Codification of Private International Law: Notes on the “Judgment Project” of the Hague Conference on Private International Law) Borisov, Vitaly Nikolaevich “2019 Hague Judgments Convention: Global Recognition and Enforcement of Civil and Commercial Judgments (Review of the International Conference held in Hong Kong on September 9, 2019), Journal of Foreign Legislation and Comparative Law 2020-03, pp. 166-172 (available here) Brand, Ronald A. “The Circulation of Judgments Under the Draft Hague Judgments Convention”, University of Pittsburgh School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 2019-02, pp 1-35 Brand, Ronald A. “Jurisdictional Developments and the New Hague Judgments Project”, in HCCH (ed.), A Commitment to Private International Law – Essays in honour of Hans van Loon, Cambridge 2013, pp 89-99 Brand, Ronald A. “New Challenges in Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments”, in Franco Ferrari, Diego P. Fernández Arroyo (eds.), Private International Law – Contemporary Challenges and Continuing Relevance, Cheltenham/Northampton 2019, pp 360-389 Brand, Ronald A. “Jurisdiction and Judgments Recognition at the Hague Conference: Choices Made, Treaties Completed, and the Path Ahead”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 3-17 Brand, Ronald A. “The Hague Judgments Convention in the United States: A ‘Game Changer’ or a New Path to the Old Game?“, University of Pittsburgh Law Review 82 (2021), pp. 847-880 (available here) Cai, Ya-qi “Feasibility Study on China’s Ratification of the HCCH Judgment Convention from the Perspective of Indirect Jurisdiction”, Journal of Taiyuan Normal University (Social Science Edition) 2021-04, pp. 74-80 Çaliskan, Yusuf;
Çaliskan, Zeynep “2 Temmuz 2019 Tarihli Yabanci Mahkeme Kararlarinin Taninmasi ve Tenfizine Iliskin Lahey Anlasmasinin Degerlendirilmesi”, Public and Private International Law Bulletin 40 (2020), pp 231-245 (available here)

(An Evaluation of 2 July 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters) Celis Aguilar, María Mayela “El convenio de la haya de 30 de junio de 2005 sobre acuerdos de elección de foro y su vinculación con el ‘proyecto sobre Sentencias’ (y viceversa)”, Revista mexicana de Derecho internacional privado y comprado N°40 (octubre de 2018), pp. 29-51 (available here) Chai, Yuhong; Qu, Zichao “The Development and Future of the Hague Jurisdiction Project”, Wuhan University International Law Review 2021-05, pp. 27-52 (online first) Chen, Wendy “Indirect Jurisdiction over the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments of Foreign Courts in Compulsory Counterclaims”, Journal of Xingtai University 2019-04, pp. 106-110 Cheng, Xian-ping; Liu, Xian-chao “On the Application of the Severable Clause in The Hague Judgments Convention”, Harbin Normal University Social Science Journal 2021-05, pp. 30-34 Choi, Sung-Soo “Review of the several issues of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, Gachon Law Review 14 (2021), pp. 37-68 (available here) Clavel, Sandrine ; Jault-Seseke, Fabienne “La convention de La Haye du 2 juillet 2019 sur la reconnaissance et l’exécution des jugements étrangers en matière civile ou commerciale : Que peut-on en attendre ?”, Travaux du comité français de Droit international privé, Vol. 2018-2020, Paris 2021 (Version provisoire de la communication présentée le 4 octobre 2019, available here) Clover Alcolea, Lucas “The 2005 Hague Choice of Court and the 2019 Hague Judgments Conventions versus the New York Convention – Rivals, Alternatives or Something Else?”, Mc Gill Journal of Dispute Resolution 6 (2019-2020), pp. 187-214 Coco, Sarah E. “The Value of a New Judgments Convention for U.S. Litigants”, New York University Law Review 94 (2019), pp 1210-1243 Cong, Junqi “Reinventing China’s Indirect Jurisdiction over Civil and Commercial Matters concerning Foreign Affairs – Starting from the Hague Judgment Convention” (Master’s Thesis, National 211/985 Project Jilin University; DOI: 10.27162/d.cnki.gjlin.2020.001343) Contreras Vaca, Francisco José “Comentarios al Convenio de la Haya del 2 de julio de 2019 sobre Reconcimiento y Ejecución de Sentencias Extranjeras en materia civil y comercial”, Revista mexicana de Derecho internacional privado y comprado N°45 (abril de 2021), pp. 110-127 (available here) Cui, Zhenghao “On the Coordination between the Draft Convention on Judicial Sale of Ships and the related Conventions of the Hague Conference on Private International Law”, China Ship Survey 2021-04, pp. 65-68 Cuniberti, Gilles “Signalling the Enforceability of the Forum’s Judgments Abroad”, Rivista di diritto internazionale private e processuale (RDIPP) 56 (2020), pp 33-54 DAV (German Bar Association) “Position Paper on the EU’s possible accession to the Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters of the Hague Conference on Private International Law”, Berlin 2020 (available here) de Araujo, Nadia ; de Nardi, Marcelo ;
Spitz, Lidia “A nova era dos litígios internacionais”, Valor Economico 2019 de Araujo, Nadia ;
de Nardi, Marcelo ;
Lopes Inez ;
Polido, Fabricio „Private International Law Chronicles“, Brazilian Journal of International Law 16 (2019), pp 19-34 de Araujo, Nadia ;
de Nardi, Marcelo „Consumer Protection Under the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 67-79 de Araujo, Nadia ;
de Nardi, Marcelo „22ª Sessão Diplomática da Conferência da Haia e a Convenção sobre sentenças estrangeiras : Primeiras reflexões sobre as vantagens para o Brasil da sua adoção“, Revista de la Secretaría del Tribunal Permanente de Revisión 7 No. 14 (2019), páginas 198-221

(22nd Diplomatic Session of The Hague Conference and the Convention on Foreign Judgments: First Reflections on the Advantages for Brazil of their Adoption) de Araujo, Nadia;
De Nardi, Marcelo “International Jurisdiction in Civil or Commercial Matters: HCCH’s New Challenge”, in Magdalena Pfeiffer, Jan Brodec, Petr B?íza, Marta Zavadilová (eds.), Liber Amicorum Monika Pauknerová, Prague 2021, pp. 1-11 Dlmoska, Fani “Would the Judgments Convention lead to unification of the ratification and enforcement of foreign judgments in the SEE Countries: The possible impact of the Judgments Convention”, SEELJ Special Edition No. 8 (2021), pp. 81-103 Dordevic, Slavko “Country Report Serbia”, in GIZ (ed.), Cross-Border Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judicial Decisions in South East Europe and Perspectives of HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention, Skopje 2021, pp. 180-202 Dotta Salgueiro, Marcos “Article 14 of the Judgments Convention: The Essential Reaffirmation of the Non-discrimination Principle in a Globalized Twenty-First Century”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 113-120 Douglas, Michael;
Keyes, Mary;
McKibbin, Sarah;
Mortensen, Reid “The HCCH Judgments Convention in Australian Law”, Federal Law Review 47 (2019), pp 420-443 Du, Tao “Frontiers of Private International Law Around the World: An Annual Review (2019-2020)”, Chinese Review of International Law 2021-04, pp. 103-128 (available here) Echegaray de Maussion, Carlos Eduardo “El Derecho Internacional Privado en el contexto internacional actual : Las reglas de competencia judicial indirecta en el Convenio de la Haya de 2 de Julio de 2019 y el accesso a la justicia” Revista mexicana de Derecho internacional privado y comprado N°45 (abril de 2021), pp. 128-139 (available here) Efeçinar Süral Possible Ratification of the Hague Convention by Turkey and Its Effects to the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Public and Private International Law Bulletin 40 (2020), pp. 775-798 (available here) EGPIL/GEDIP Observations on the possible accession of the European Union to the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition of Foreign Judgments, Text adopted on 9 December 2020 following the virtual meeting of 18-19 September 2020 (available here) Ermakova, Elena ; Frovola, Evgenia ; Sitkareva, Elena “International Economic Integration and the Evolution of the Principles of Civil Procedure”, in Elena G. Popkova, Bruno S. Sergi, Modern Global Economic System, Basel 2021, pp. 1589-1597 European Union (EU)/ European Commission “Proposal for a Council Decision on the accession by the European Union to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”, COM(2021) 388 final (available here) Fan, Jing “On the Jurisdiction over Intellectual Property in the Draft Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, Chinese Yearbook of Private International Law and Comparative Law 2018-02, pp. 313-337 Fan, Jing “Reconfiguration on Territoriality in Transnational Recognition and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Judgments”, Chinese Review of International Law 2021-01, pp. 90-112 (available here) Farnoux, Étienne “Reconnaissance et exécution des jugements étrangers en matière civil ou commerciale : À propos de la Convention de La Haye du 2 juillet 2019”, La Semaine Juridique 2019, pp. 1613-1617 Forner Delaygua, Joaquim-Joan “El Convenio de La Haya de 2 julio 2019 como nuevo marco normativo de las sentencias en materia de contractual comercial”, in Pérez Vera et al. (eds.), El Derecho internacional privado entre la tradición y la innovación – Obra homenaje al Profesor doctor José María Espinar Vicente, Madrid 2020, pp. 307-325 Franzina, Pietro; Leandro, Antonio

  “La Convenzione dell’Aja del 2 luglio 2019 sul riconoscimento delle sentenze straniere : una prima lettura”, Quaderni di SIDIblog 6 (2019), pp 215-231 (available here)

(The Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition of Foreign Judgments: A First Appraisal) Fuchs, Felix “Das Haager Übereinkommen vom 2. Juli 2019 über die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer Urteile in Zivil- oder Handelssachen“, Gesellschafts- und Wirtschaftsrecht (GWR) 2019, pp 395-399 Garcimartín, Francisco “The Judgments Convention: Some Open Questions”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 19-31 Garnett, Richard “The Judgments Project: fulfilling Assers dream of free-flowing judgments”, in Thomas John, Rishi Gulati, Ben Koehler (eds.), The Elgar Companion to the Hague Conference on Private International Law, Cheltenham/Northampton 2020, pp. 309-321 Goddard, David „The Judgments Convention – The Current State of Play”, Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 29 (2019), pp 473-490 Gu, Weixia “A Conflict of Laws Study in Hong Kong-China Judgment Regionalism: Legal Challenges and renewed Momentum”, Cornell International Law Journal 52 (2020), pp. 591-642 Guez, Philippe;
de Berard, François; Malet-Deraedt, Fleur; Roccati, Marjolaine; Sinopoli, Laurence; Slim, Hadi; Sotomayor, Marcelo; Train, François-Xavier “Chronique de droit international privé appliqué aux affaires, Revue de droit des affaires internationales – 1 décembre 2018 au 31 décembre 2019”, Revue de Droit des Affaires Internationales 2020, pp. 237-274 Gugu Bushati, Aida “Country Report Albania”, in GIZ (ed.), Cross-Border Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judicial Decisions in South East Europe and Perspectives of HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention, Skopje 2021, pp. 16-41 (available here) Guide, Jia
[Foreign Ministry of the People’s Republic of China] “Address by the Director of the Department of Treaty and Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Jia Guide at the Opening Ceremony of the International Symposium on the Hague Judgment Convention (9 September 2019)”, Chinese Yearbook of International Law 2019, pp. 503-505 He, Qisheng “The HCCH Judgments Convention and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments pertaining to a State”, Global Law Review 3 (2020), pp 147-161 (available here) He, Qisheng “Unification and Division: Immovable Property Issues under the HCCH Judgement Convention”, Journal of International Law 1 (2020), pp 33-55 He, Qisheng “The HCCH Judgments Convention and International Judicial Cooperation of Intellectual Property”, Chinese Journal of Law 2021-01, pp. 139-155 He, Qisheng “Latest Development of the Hague Jurisdiction Project”, Wuhan University International Law Review 2020-04, pp. 1-16 He, Qisheng “ ’Civil or Commercial Matters’ in International Instruments Scope and Interpretation”, Peking University Law Review 2018-02, pp. 1-25 (available here) He, Qisheng “A Study on the Intellectual Property Provisions in the ’Hague Convention on Judgment’ – On the Improvement of Transnational Recognition and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Judgments in China”, Journal of Taiyuan University (Social Science Edition) 2020-05, pp. 40-47 Herrup, Paul;
Brand, Ronald A. “A Hague Convention on Parallel Proceedings”, University of Pittsburgh School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 2021-23, pp. 1-10 (available here) Jacobs, Holger “Der Zwischenstand zum geplanten Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen – Der vorläufige Konventionsentwurf 2016“, Zeitschrift für Internationales Privatrecht & Rechtsvergleichung (ZfRV) 2017, pp 24-30 Jacobs, Holger “Das Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen vom 2. Juli 2019 – Eine systematische und rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung“, Tübingen 2021 Jang, Jiyong “Conditions and Procedure for Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, Korea Private International Law Journal 2021-01, pp. 399-430 Jang, Junhyok “The Public Policy Exception Under the New 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 97-111 Jang, Junhyok “2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”, Korea Private International Law Journal 2019-02, pp. 437-510. Jang, Junhyok “Practical Suggestions for Joining the 2019 Judgments Convention and Its Implications for Korean Law and Practice”, Korea Private International Law Journal 2020-02, pp. 141-217 Jovanovic, Marko Thou Shall (Not) Pass – Grounds for Refusal of Recognition and Enforcement under the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention, YbPIL 21 (2019/2020), pp. 309 – 332 Jueptner, Eva “The Hague Jurisdiction Project – what options for the Hague Conference?”, Journal of Private International Law 16 (2020), pp 247-274 Jueptner, Eva “A Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments: why did the Judgments Project (1992-2001) fail?”, (Doctoral Thesis, University of Dundee, 2020) Kasem, Rouzana “The Future of Choice of Court and Arbitration Agreements under the New York Convention, the Hague Choice of Court Convention, and the Draft Hague Judgments Convention”, Aberdeen Student Law Review 10 (2020), pp. 69-115 Kessedjian, Catherine “Comment on the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters. Is the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 a useful tool for companies who are conducting international activities?“, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (NIPR) 2020, pp 19-33 Khanderia, Saloni „The Hague judgments project: assessing its plausible benefits for the development of the Indian private international law”, Commonwealth Law Bulletin 44 (2018), pp 452-475 Khanderia, Saloni “The Hague Conference on Private International Law’s Proposed Draft Text on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments: Should South Africa Endorse it?”, Journal of African Law 63 (2019), pp 413-433 Khanderia, Saloni “The prevalence of ‘jurisdiction’ in the recognition and enforcement of foreign civil and commercial judgments in India and South Africa: a comparative analysis”, Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal 2021 Kindler, Peter “Urteilsfreizügigkeit für derogationswidrige Judikate? – Ein rechtspolitischer Zwischenruf auf dem Hintergrund der 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention“, in Christoph Benicke, Stefan Huber (eds.), Festschrift für Herbert Kronke zum 70. Geburtstag, Bielefeld 2020, pp 241-253 Kostic-Mandic, Maja “Country Report Montenegro”, in GIZ (ed.), Cross-Border Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judicial Decisions in South East Europe and Perspectives of HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention, Skopje 2021, pp. 114-137 (available here) Landbrecht, Johannes “Commercial Arbitration in the Era of the Singapore Convention and the Hague Court Conventions”, ASA Bulletin 37 (2019), pp. 871-882 (available here) Lee, Gyooho “The Preparatory Works for the Hague Judgment Convention of 2019 and its Subsequent Developments in terms of Intellectual Property Rights”, Korea Private International Law Journal 2020-02, pp. 85-140 Liu, Guiqiang “Limitation Period for the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, China Journal of Applied Jurisprudence 2020-04, pp. 109-124 Liu, Yang; Xiang, Zaisheng “The No Review of Merit Clause in the Hague Judgments Convention”, Wuhan University International Law Review
2020-05, pp. 44-65 Malachta, Radovan “Mutual Trust between the Member States of the European Union and the United Kingdom after Brexit: Overview”, in Ji?í Valdhans (ed.), COFOLA International 2020: Brexit and its Consequences – Conference Proceedings, Brno 2020, pp. 39-67 (available here) Mariottini, Cristina „Establishment of Treaty Relations under The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention“, YbPIL 21 (2019/2020), pp. 365-380 Mariottini, Cristina “The Exclusion of Defamation and Privacy from the Scope of the Hague Draft Convention on Judgments, YbPIL 19 (2017/2018), pp 475-486. Martiny, Dieter “The Recognition and Enforcement of Court Decisions Between the EU and Third States”, in Alexander Trunk, Nikitas Hatzimihail (eds.), EU Civil Procedure Law and Third Countries – Which Way Forward?, Baden-Baden 2021, pp 127-146 Maude, L. Hunter “Codifying Comity: The Case for U.S. Ratification of the 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters”, Wisconsin International Law Review 38 (2021), pp. 108-138 Meier, Niklaus “Notification as a Ground for Refusal”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 81-95 Muir Watt, Horatia “Le droit international privé au service de la géopolitique : les enjeux de la nouvelle Convention de la Haye du 2 juillet 2019 sur la reconnaissance et l’exécution des jugements étrangers en matière civile ou commerciale”, Revue Critique de Droit International Privé 2020, pp. 427-448 Nielsen, Peter Arnt “The Hague 2019 Judgments Convention – from failure to success”, Journal of Private International Law 16 (2020), pp 205-246 Nielsen, Peter Arnt “A Global Framework for International Commercial Litigation”, in Christoph Benicke, Stefan Huber (eds.), Festschrift für Herbert Kronke zum 70. Geburtstag, Bielefeld 2020, pp 415-433 Nishimura, Yuko “Indirect Jurisdiction at the Place where the Immovable Property is situated in HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, Seinan Gakuin University Graduate School Research Review N°13, pp. 1-20 (available here) North, Cara “The 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention: A Common Law Perspective”, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 2020, pp 202-210 North, Cara “The Exclusion of Privacy Matters from the Judgments Convention”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 33-48 Oestreicher, Yoav “ ’We’re on a Road to Nowhere’ – Reasons for the Continuing Failure to Regulate Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, The International Lawyer 42 (2008), pp 59-86 Okorley, Solomon “The possible impact of the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters on Private International Law in Common Law West Africa”, (Master’s Dissertation, University of Johannesburg, 2019; available: here) Pasquot Polido, Fabrício B. “The Judgments Project of the Hague Conference on Private International Law: a way forward for a long-awaited solution”, in Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm, Maria Blanca Noodt Taquela (eds.), Diversity and integration in Private International Law, Edinburgh 2019, pp. 176-199 Payan, Guillaume “Convention de La Haye du 2 juillet 2019 sur la reconnaissance et l’exécution des jugements étrangers en matière civile ou commerciale”, in Hubert Alcarez, Olivier Lecucq (eds.), L’exécution des décisions de justice, Pau 2020, pp 167-183 Pertegás Sender, Marta “The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention: Its Conclusion and the road ahead”, in Asian Academy of International Law (publ.), Sinergy and Security: the Keys to Sustainable Global Investment: Proceedings of the 2019 Colloquium on International Law, 2019 Hong Kong, pp 181-190 (available here) Pertegás, Marta “Brussels I Recast and the Hague Judgments Project”, in Geert Van Calster (ed.), European Private International Law at 50: Celebrating and Contemplating the 1968 Brussels Convention and its Successors, Cambridge 2018, pp 67-82 Pocar, Fausto “Riflessioni sulla recente convenzione dell’Aja sul riconoscimento e l’esecuzione delle sentenze straniere”, Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale 57 (2021), pp. 5-29 Pocar, Fausto “Brief Remarks on the Relationship between the Hague Judgments and Choice of Court Conventions”, in in Magdalena Pfeiffer, Jan Brodec, Petr B?íza, Marta Zavadilová (eds.), Liber Amicorum Monika Pauknerová, Prague 2021, pp. 345-353 Poesen, Michiel “Is specific jurisdiction dead and did we murder it? An appraisal of the Brussels Ia Regulation in the globalizing context of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, Uniform Law Review 26 (2021), pp. 1-13 Popov, Vasiliy “Grounds for Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Russia”, Issues of Russian Justice 15 (2021), pp. 137-152 Povlakic, Meliha “Country Report Bosnia and Herzegovina”, in GIZ (ed.), Cross-Border Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judicial Decisions in South East Europe and Perspectives of HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention, Skopje 2021, pp. 42-81 (available here) Qerimi, Donikë “Country Report Kosovo”, in GIZ (ed.), Cross-Border Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judicial Decisions in South East Europe and Perspectives of HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention, Skopje 2021, pp. 82-113 (available here) Qian, Zhenqiu “On the Common Courts Provision under the Draft Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, Wuhan University International Law Review
2019-01, pp. 59-74 (available here) Qian, Zhenqiu;
Yang, Yu “On the Interpretation and Application of the Cost of Proceedings Provision under the Hague Judgment Convention”, China Journal of Applied Jurisprudence 2020-04, pp. 96-108 Reisman, Diana A. A. “Breaking Bad: Fail –Safes to the Hague Judgments Convention”, Georgetown Law Journal 109 (2021), pp. 880-906 Reyes, Anselmo „Implications of the 2019 Hague Convention on the Enforcement of Judgments of the Singapore International Commercial Court”, in Rolf A. Schütze, Thomas R. Klötzel, Martin Gebauer (eds.), Festschrift für Roderich C. Thümmel zum 65. Geburtstag, Berlin 2020, pp 695-709 Ribeiro-Bidaoui, João “The International Obligation of the Uniform and Autonomous Interpretation of Private Law Conventions: Consequences for Domestic Courts and International Organisations”, Netherlands International Law Review 67 (2020), pp 139 – 168 Rumenov, Ilija “Implications of the New 2019 Hague Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments on the National Legal Systems of Countries in South Eastern Europe”, EU and Comparative Law Issues and Challenges Series (ECLIC) 3 (2019), pp 385-404 Rumenov, Ilija “Country Report North Macedonia”, in GIZ (ed.), Cross-Border Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judicial Decisions in South East Europe and Perspectives of HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention, Skopje 2021, pp. 138-179 (available here) Rumenov, Ilija “The indirect jurisdiction of the 2019 Hague Convention on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil or commercial matters – Is the “heart” of the Convention”, SEELJ Special Edition No. 8 (2021), pp. 9-45 Sachs, Klaus;
Weiler, Marcus “A comparison of the recognition and enforcement of foreign decisions under the 1958 New York Convention and the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention”, in Rolf A. Schütze, Thomas R. Klötzel, Martin Gebauer (eds.), Festschrift für Roderich C. Thümmel zum 65. Geburtstag, Berlin 2020, pp 763-781 Saito, Akira “Advancing Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments: Developments of Inter-Court Diplomacy and New Hague Judgments Convention”, Kobe Law Journal 2019-03, pp. 59-110 (available here) Sánchez Fernández, Sara “El Convenio de la Haya de Reconocimiento y Ejecución de Sentencias”, Revista Española de Derecho Internacional 73 (2021), pp. 233-252 Saumier, Geneviève “Submission as a Jurisdictional Basis and the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 49-65 Schack, Haimo “Wiedergänger der Haager Konferenz für IPR: Neue Perspektiven eines weltweiten Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommens?“, Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht (ZeuP) 2014, pp 824-842 Schack, Haimo „Das neue Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen“, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 2020, pp 1-96 Senicheva, Marina “The Relevance and Problems of the Hague Convention of July 2, 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Ratification by the Russian Federation”, Advances in Law Studies 8 (2020), online (available: here) Shan, Juan “A study on the Anti-trust Provisions in the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”, Chinese Yearbook of Private International Law and Comparative Law 2019-01, pp. 318-335 Shchukin, Andrey Igorevich “Indirect International Jurisdiction in the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments of 2019 (Part 1)”, Journal of Russian Law No. 2020-07, pp. 170-186 (available here) Shchukin, Andrey Igorevich “Indirect International Jurisdiction in the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments of 2019 (Part 2)”, Journal of Russian Law No. 2020-11, pp. 140-54 (available here) Shen, Juan “Further Discussion on the Drafts of the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters and Considerations from Chinese Perspective”, Chinese Review of International Law 2016-06, pp. 83-103 (available here) Silberman, Linda “Comparative Jurisdiction in the International Context: Will the Proposed Hague Judgments Convention be Stalled?”, DePaul Law Review 52 (2002), pp 319-349 Silberman, Linda “The 2019 Judgments Convention: The Need for Comprehensive Federal Implementing Legislation and a Look Back at the ALI Proposed Federal Statute”, NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 21-19 (available here) Skvortsova, Tatyana Aleksandrovna;
Denyak, Victoria Yurievna “On the issue of Recognition and Enforcement of Court Decisions of a Foreign State in the Russian Federation”, Collection of selected Articles of the International Scientific Conference, Saint Petersburg (2021), pp. 258-261 Solomon, Dennis “Das Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen von 2019 und die internationale Anerkennungszuständigkeit“, in Rolf A. Schütze, Thomas R. Klötzel, Martin Gebauer (eds.), Festschrift für Roderich C. Thümmel zum 65. Geburtstag, Berlin 2020, pp 873-893 Song, Jianli “ ‘Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Civil and Commercial Judgments’ and its influence on my country”, People’s Judicature (Application) 2020-01, pp. 88-92 (available here) Song, Lianbin; Chen, Xi “The Judicial Difference and International Coordination of the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Punitive Damages Judgements: Also on China’s Corresponding Measures Under the Frame of HCCH Convention”, Jiang-Huai Tribune 2021-03, pp. 111-113 Spitz, Lidia „Homologação De Decisões Estrangeiras No Brasil –  A Convenção de Sentenças da Conferência da Haia de 2019 e o contrôle indireto da jurisdição estrangeira”, Belo Horizonte 2021 Spitz, Lidia „Refusal of Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments on Public Policy Grounds in the Hague Judgments Convention – A Comparison with The 1958 New York Convention“, YbPIL 21 (2019/2020), pp 333-364 Stein, Andreas „Das Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen 2019 – Was lange währt, wird endlich gut?“, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 2020, pp 197-202 Stewart, David P. „Current Developments: The Hague Conference adopts a New Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”, American Journal of International Law (AJIL) 113 (2019), pp 772-783 Stitz, Olivia “Comity, Tipping Points, and Commercial Significance: What to expect of the Hague Judgments Convention”, Corporate and Business Law Journal (Corp. & Bus. L.J.) 2 (2021), pp. 203-236 (available here) Storskrubb, Eva “The EU Commission’s Proposal for the EU to Accede to the Hague Judgments Convention”, EU Law Live Weekend Edition No. 75 (2021), pp. 10-16 (available here) Suk, Kwang-Hyun “Principal Content and Indirect Jurisdiction Rules of the Hague Judgments Convention of 2019”, Korea Private International Law Journal 2020-02, pp. 3-83 Sun, Jin;
Wu, Qiong “The Hague Judgments Convention and how we negotiated it”, Chinese Journal of International Law 19 (2020) (available here) Sun, Xiaofei;
Wu, Qiong “Commentary and Outlook on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”, Journal of International Law 2019-01, pp. 155-164+170 Symeonides, Symeon C. “Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments: The Hague Convention of 2019”, in Symeon C. Symeonides, Cross-Border Infringement of Personality Rights via the Internet, Leiden 2021, pp. 130-144 Takeshita, Keisuke “The New Hague Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments: Analysis on its Relationship with Arbitration”, Japanese Commercial Arbitration Journal (JCA) 2020-02, pp. 10-15 (available here) Takeshita, Keisuke “The New Hague Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, Japanese Commercial Arbitration Journal

Part 1: JCA 2020-04, pp. 40-45 (available here)

Part 2: JCA 2020-05, pp. 40-45 (available here)

Part 3: JCA 2020-06, pp. 42-49 (available here)

Part 4: JCA 2020-10, pp. 40-46 (available here)

Part 5: JCA 2020-11, pp. 35-41 (available here)

Part 6: JCA 2020-12, pp. 43-48 (available here)

Part 7: JCA 2021-02, pp. 50-56

Part 8: JCA 2021-04, pp. 45-51

Part 9: JCA 2021-07, pp. 46-53

Part 10: JCA 2021-09, pp. 40-46

Part 11: JCA 2021-10, pp. 48-54

  Taquela, María Blanca Noodt ; Abou-Nigm, Verónica Ruiz “News From The Hague: The Draft Judgments Convention and Its Relationship with Other International Instruments”, Yearbook of Private International Law 19 (2017/2018), pp 449-474 Teitz, Louise Ellen “Another Hague Judgments Convention? – Bucking the Past to Provide for the Future”, Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 29 (2019), pp 491-511 Tian, Hongjun “The Present and Future of the Recognition and Enforcement of Civil and Commercial Judgments in Northeast Asia: From the Perspective of the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention”, Chinese Yearbook of Private International Law and Comparative Law 2019-01, pp. 300-317 Tian, Xinyue;
Qian, Zhenqiu;
Wang, Shengzhe “The Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (Draft) and China’s Countermeasure – A Summary on the Fourth Judicial Forum of Great Powers”, Chinese Yearbook of Private International Law and Comparative Law 2018-01, pp. 377-388 Trooboff, Peter D.;
North, Cara; Nishitani, Yuko;
Sastry, Shubha; Chanda, Riccarda “The Promise and Prospects of the 2019 Hague Convention: Introductory Remarks”, Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting 114 (2020), pp. 345-357 Tsang, King Fung;
Wong, Tsz Wai “Enforcement of Non-Monetary Judgments in Common Law Jurisdictions: Is the Time Ripe?”, Fordham International Law Journal 45 (2021), pp. 379-428 (available here) UIHJ (ed.);
Walker, David (dir.) “The HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention, adding essential components for an effective international legal framework on recognition and enforcement”, in UIHJ (ed.), David Walker (dir.), Cyberjustice, de nouvelles opportunités pour l’huissier de justice / Cyberjustice, New Opportunities for the Judicial Officer – XXIVe Congrès de l’Union Internationale des Huissiers de Justice – Dubai – 22 au 25 Novembre 2021, Bruxelles 2021, pp. 120-133 van der Grinten, Paulien;
ten Kate, Noura „Editorial: The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention”, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (NIPR) 2020, pp 1-3 van Loon, Hans “Towards a global Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (NIPR) 2020, pp 4-18 van Loon, Hans “Towards a Global Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”, Collection of Papers of the Faculty of Law, Niš 82 (2019), pp 15-35 van Loon, Hans “Le Brexit et les conventions de La Haye”, Revue critique de droit international privé (Rev. Crit. DIP) 2019, pp. 353-365 Viegas Liquidato, Vera Lúcia “Reconhecimento E Homologação De Sentenças Estrangeiras : O Projeto De Convenção Da Conferência da Haia”, Revista de Direito Brasileira 2019-09, pp. 242-256 Wagner, Rolf “Ein neuer Anlauf zu einem Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen“, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 2016, pp 97-102 Wang, Quian “On Intellectual Property Right Provisions in the Draft Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, China Legal Science 2018-01, pp. 118-142 (available here) Wang, Yahan “No Review of the Merits in Recognizing and Enforcing Foreign Judgments”, China Journal of Applied Jurisprudence 2020-04, pp. 78-95 Weidong, Zhu “The Recognition and Enforcement of Commercial Judgments Between China and South Africa: Comparison and Convergence”, China Legal Science 2019-06, pp 33-57 (available here) Weller, Matthias “The HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention: New Trends in Trust Management?”, in Christoph Benicke, Stefan Huber (eds.), Festschrift für Herbert Kronke zum 70. Geburtstag, Bielefeld 2020, pp 621-632 Weller, Matthias “The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention – The Jurisdictional Filters of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, Yearbook of Private International Law 21 (2019/2020), pp 279-308 Weller, Matthias “Das Haager Übereinkommen zur Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer Urteile”, in Thomas Rauscher (ed.), Europäisches Zivilprozess- und Kollisionsrecht, Munich, 5th ed., forthcoming Weller, Matthias „Die Kontrolle der internationalen Zuständigkeit im Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen 2019“, in Christoph Althammer/Christoph Schärtl (eds.), Festschrift für Herbert Roth, Tübingen 2021, pp. 835-855 Wilderspin, Michael;
Vysoka, Lenka “The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention through European lenses”, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (NIPR) 2020, pp 34-49 Wu, Qiong “The Overview of the 22nd Diplomatic Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law”, Chinese Yearbook of International Law 2019, pp. 337-338 Xie, Yili “Research on the Intellectual Property Infringment System of the Hague Judgments Convention”, China-Arab States Science and Technology Forum 2021-09, pp. 190-194 Xu, Guojian “Comment on Key Issues Concerning Hague Judgment Convention in 2019 “, Journal of Shanghai University of Political Science and Law 35 (2020), pp 1-29 Xu, Guojian “To Establish an International Legal System for Global Circulation of Court Judgments”, Wuhan University International Law Review 2017-05, pp 100-130 Xu, Guojian “Overview of the Mechanism of Recognition and Enforcement of Judgements Established by HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, China Journal of Applied Jurisprudence No. 2020-02, pp 65-77 Xu, Guojian “On the Scope and Limitation of the Global Circulation of Court Judgments: An Analysis on the Application Scope of the 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”, Chinese Yearbook of Private International Law and Comparative Law 2019-01, pp. 269-299 Yekini, Abubakri

  “The Hague Judgments Convention and Commonwealth Model Law – A Pragmatic Perspective”, Oxford 2021. Yeo, Terence “The Hague Judgments Convention – A View from Singapore”, Singapore Academy of Law Journal (e-First) 3rd August 2020 (available here) Yuzhakov, D.A. “Legal Regulation of the Procedures for Enforcement of Decisions of Foreign Courts in Economic Disputes”, Urgent Issues of the Entrepreneurship Law, Civil Litigation and Arbitration (Perm State University) No. 4 (2021), pp. 119-123 (available here) Zasemkova, Olesya Fedorovna “ ‘Judicial Convention’ as a New Stage in the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, Lex Russica 2019-10, pp. 84-103 (available here) Zasemkova, Olesya Fedorovna “Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in the Context of the Adoption of the « Judicial Convention » 2019”, in Zhuikov V.M., Shchukin A.I. (eds.), Liber Amicorum Natalia Ivanovna Marysheva, pp. 196-211 Zhang, Chunliang;
Huang, Shan “On the Common Courts Rules in Hague Judgments Convention – China’s way for the Judicial Assistance under Belt and Road Initiative”, Journal of Henan University of Economics and Law 2020-05, pp. 103-113 Zhang, Lizhen “On the Defamation Problem in the Hague Judgments Project: Ever In and Now out of the Scope”, Wuhan University International Law Review 2019-01, pp. 41-58 (available here) Zhang, Wenliang “The Finality Requirement of Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, Wuhan University Law Review 2020-02, pp. 19-38 Zhang, Wenliang; Tu, Guangjian “The Hague Judgments Convention and Mainland China-Hong Kong SAR Judgments Arrangement: Comparison and Prospects for Implementation”, Chinese Journal of International Law 20 (2021), pp. 101-135 Zhang, Wenliang;
Tu, Guangjian “The 1971 and 2019 Hague Judgments Conventions: Compared and Whether China Would Change Its Attitude Towards The Hague”, Journal of International Dispute Settlement (JIDS), 2020, 00, pp. 1-24 Zhang, Zhengyi;
Zhang, Zhen “Development of the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters and Its Implication to China”, International and Comparative Law Review 2020, pp. 112-131 Zhao, Ning “Completing a long-awaited puzzle in the landscape of cross-border recognition and enforcement of judgments: An overview of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, Swiss Review of International and European Law (SRIEL) 30 (2020), pp 345-368 Zirat, Gennadii “Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters: A new Contribution of the Hague Conference on Private International Law to the Unification of International Civil Procedure” Ukrainian Journal of International Law 2020-03, pp. 105-112 (available here)

 

III. Recordings of Events Related to the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention

HCCH “HCCH a|Bridged: Innovation in Transnational Litigation – Edition 2021: Enabling Party Autonomy with the HCCH 2005 Choice of Court Convention”, 1 December 2021 (full recording available here) UIHJ; HCCH “3rd training webinar on the Hague Conventions on service of documents (1965) and recognition and enforcement of judgements (2019)”, 15/18 March 2021 (full recording available here in French and here in English) ASADIP; HCCH “Conferencia Internacional: Convención HCCH 2019 sobre Reconocimiento y Ejecución de Sentencias Extranjeras”, 3 December 2020 (full recording available here and here) ASIL “The Promise and Prospects of the 2019 Hague Convention”, 25-26 June 2020 (full recording available here and here) JPRI; HCCH; UNIDROIT; UNCITRAL “2020 Judicial Policy Research Institute International Conference – International Commercial Litigation: Recent Developments and Future Challenges, Session 3: Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, 12 November 2020 (recording available here) University of Bonn; HCCH “Pre-Conference Video Roundtable on the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention: Prospects for Judicial Cooperation in Civil and Commercial Matters between the EU and Third Countries”, 29 October 2020 (full recording available here) Department of Justice Hong Kong; HCCH “Inaugural Global Conference – 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention: Global Enforcement of Civil and Commercial Judgments”, 9 September 2019 (recording available here) HCCH “22nd Diplomatic Session of the HCCH: The Adoption of the 2019 Judgments Convention”, 2 July 2020 (short documentary video available here)

 

The post below was written by Matthias Lehmann, who is Professor of Private International Law at the University of Vienna. It is the fourth contribution to the EAPIL on-line symposium on the ruling of the Court of Justice in the case Hrvatske Sume d.o.o. Zagreb v BP Europa SE. The previous posts were authored by Peter Mankowski, Adrian Briggs and Bernard Haftel. 

Readers are encouraged to share their views by making comments to the posts. Those wishing to submit longer contributions for publication are invited to get in touch with the managing editor of the blog, Pietro Franzina, at pietro.franzina@unicatt.it.

The CJEU decision already reviewed in this blog-post is more than doubtful from a comparative law viewpoint. It ignores the fact that in some legal systems a claim for unjust enrichment may be based on a tort. This is the case, for instance, in German law, where the unlawful interference with another’s rights may lead to a so-called Eingriffskondition (unjust enrichment based on intervention) under sec. 812(1) of the German Civil Code (BGB). It is also true in Swiss law, English law and in the law of most U.S. states, which equally allow restitutionary claims in cases of torts. Even though these are not EU Member States, their laws may apply to claims brought under the Brussels Ibis Regulation. These legal systems illustrate that the gamut of unjust enrichment may cover facts that also sound in tort. Comparative law is infinitely richer than the CJEU accepts. To say that a claim for restitution is never based on a harmful event reminds of the attitude of Palmström in Christian Morgenstern’s poem “The Impossible Fact“: “that which must not be, cannot be”.

A natural reading of the term “quasi-delict” in Art 7(2) Brussels Ibis suggests that it would cover claims for restitution in case of wrongs. The CJEU has chosen a different path by excluding these claims from the scope of the provision altogether.  This follows from a purist understanding of the term “unjust enrichment” which, according to the CJEU, should not overlap with any other legal category. This is remarkable given that the term “unjust enrichment” does not even feature in the Regulation. It is also astounding that the CJEU adopts quite a different approach with regard to Art 7(1) Brussels Ibis: The Court expressly recognises that this head of jurisdiction, which does not even provide an open-ended term like “quasi-contractual”, covers an unjust enrichment claim that “is closely linked to a pre-existing contractual relationship between the parties” (para 51). In effect, while being very open-minded with regard to Art 7(1), the Luxembourg judges are particularly narrow-minded with regard to 7(2). It is the old Kalfelis mistake again: giving priority to contract over tort in matters of jurisdiction.

The CJEU’s grammatical argument for this narrow-mindedness is the mention of “harm” – via the expression “harmful event” – in Art 7(2) Brussels Ibis. From the  provision’s use of this term, the Court concludes that unjust enrichment is excluded because it is not based on the harm of the victim, but on the enrichment of the other party. Yet this ignores that Art 7(2) Brussels Ibis uses the expression “harmful event” not as a definitional element for tort/delict or quasi-delict, but as part of the connecting factor to determine the competent court for those claims. The difference is important because even in case of unjust enrichment a harm may exist. This is illustrated by unjust enrichment based on intervention (Eingriffskondiktion): German law expressly provides that the unjust enrichment in these cases must be “at the cost” (auf Kosten) of the victim. This is merely another way of saying that the victim must suffer a loss, or “harm”.

Thus, the existence of a claim for unjust enrichment does not mean that a place where the harmful event occurred cannot be identified. Retaining the place of harm as the decisive criterion for determining the competent court over claims of Eingriffskondiktion and similar restitutionary claims for torts also makes sense: It offers the victim the benefit of having the same court deciding on the tort and related claims, which is exactly what Art 7(2) Brussels Ibis aims at by mentioning “quasi-delicts”. Using the place of the harmful event as the connecting factor in these cases also does not violate the legal nature of unjust enrichment claims, but merely illustrates the different focus of procedural and substantive law.

One could, however, save the reasoning of the CJEU by creative interpretation. A case could be made for contending that the CJEU did not want to exclude claims such as those mentioned under German, English, Swiss or U.S. state law from the scope of Art. 7(2) Brussels Ibis because it did not rule on them, but on a different type of claims under Croatian law. Arguably, the CJEU adopted an autonomous understanding of “unjust enrichment” independent of national or comparative law, which does not cover cases that require harm as a condition for a restitutionary claim. If in the future the Court would be faced with such a claim, it could allege that this situation was not the same as that of the Hvratske Šume ruling because the latter only concerned “unjust enrichment” in an autonomous European sense. This would then pave the way for qualifying the particular cases of Eingriffskondiktion and similar claims as being “quasi-delicts”.

Even if this creative-restrictive reading of the CJEU’s ruling were rejected, one must not overestimate its impact. The result of excluding cases involving unjust enrichment from Art 7(2) Brussels Ibis do not seem disastrous: The claimant will have to use the base rule of Art 4 Brussels Ibis and sue the defendant at the place of its domicile. This will in most cases coincide with the place where the defendant has acted, and thus with part of the Art 7(2) jurisdiction. And even if not, the place of domicile of the defendant will often be the place where the enrichment has taken place. The domicile of the enriched party could thus function as a kind of “default head of jurisdiction” for unjust enrichment claims.

The damage done by the CJEU is thus rather small in practical terms. It will mainly concern cases in which the party having borne the loss from an unjust enrichment is not the claimant, but the defendant. A case in point is a claim for a negative declaration that no unjust enrichment claim exists. Following the CJEU approach in Folien Fischer, such a claim could be brought at the domicile of the party that is alleging or likely to allege the unjust enrichment, i.e., at the domicile of the party that has suffered rather than benefitted from such enrichment. But this awkward result is the product of the CJEU allowing claims for negative declarations under the Brussels Ibis regime rather than a problem specific to unjust enrichment.

Many thanks to Amy Held, Felix Krysa and Verena Wodniansky-Wildenfeld for their comments on the draft post.

The post below was written by Bernard Haftel, who is Professor of Private International Law at the University of Sorbonne Paris Nord.

This is the third contribution to the EAPIL online symposium on the ruling of the Court of Justice in the case Hrvatske Sume d.o.o. Zagreb v BP Europa SE. The previous posts were authored by Peter Mankowski and Adrian Briggs. 

Readers are encouraged to share their views by making comments to the posts. Those wishing to submit longer contributions for publication are invited to get in touch with the managing editor of the blog, Pietro Franzina, at pietro.franzina@unicatt.it.

It is not my habit to say good things about the decisions of the Court of Justice, but for this New Year, let’s say that this will count as a good resolution.

So let’s be clear : the decision in Hrvatske Sume d.o.o. Zagreb v BP Europa SE on 9 December 2020 seems to be not only a good decision on the very issue at hand, but also indicative of a return to some general orthodoxy, or so we hope (but perhaps this is again the optimism of the beginning of the year speaking).

The solution – which consists in treating claims based on unjust enrichment as being, in principle, neither contractual nor tortious, and therefore subject only to the forum of the defendant’s domicile – seems to us to be in line with the concepts of contractual and tortious matters provided for by the Regulation, with the aims pursued by its rules and with the general logic of the Brussels “system”.

I/ On a conceptual level

On a conceptual level, the question was whether the claim for unjust enrichment corresponded to the central concepts of “matters relating to a contract” or “matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict”. In accordance with the Kalfélis case law[1], the Court of Justice recalls that matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict are subsidiary, covering “any claim which seeks to establish the liability of a defendant and which is not related to contractual matters”. The result was that it was necessary to consider the contractual characterisation beforehand. Does unjust enrichment imply a ‘legal obligation freely entered into by one person in relation to another and on which the claimant’s action is based’? (ECJ 20 janv. 2005, Engler, Case C-27/02, ECJ 14 mai 2009, Ilsinger, Case C-180/06) The Court answers in the negative. More precisely, the Court answers that this is not in principle the case. Unjust enrichment does not in principle imply a contractual basis. In the case under review, the unjust enrichment resulted from the execution of a court decision that was subsequently declared invalid. However, the Court rightly adds, quoting Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Oe, that in some cases enrichment may well have a strong link with a contract. The idea of unjust enrichment is indeed broad and can cover unjust enrichment in the strict sense, but also what french law calls répétition de l’indu (restitution of undue payment) or restitutions following the annulment of a contract. However, it is clear that when unjust enrichment is closely linked to a contract, and typically when it is the consequence of an annulment, the action is contractual in nature (The judgment cites the Profit Investment SIM judgment of 20 April 2016 (Case C 366/13) on pt. 40 in this regard).

The fact remains that unjust enrichment is not, as a matter of principle, contractual in nature outside these cases.

Does this mean that it is a tort, delict or quasi-delict ? This is to question the second criterion laid down by the Kalfélis judgment: for a non-contractual action to fall within the scope of delictual or quasidelictual matters, it must still be an action for liability. In the French version, the term “responsabilité” is used. Coming from the Latin “respondere”, it implies that a person is called upon to answer for the harmful consequences of his actions, whether intentional (delict) or unintentional (quasi-delict). The English word “liability”, coming from the French “lier”, ie bind, goes in the same direction. It involves establishing that a person is bound by his or her actions and must repair the harmful consequences. All the language versions point in the same direction: matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict presuppose an act that has caused damage, which the purpose of the liability action is to repair.

The Court rightly points out that none of these elements are present in the case of an action for unjust enrichment. It is almost the opposite.The act which gives rise to unjust enrichment is generally not an act of the defendant, but of the plaintiff.  In principle, it is not the defendant who is at the origin of the unjust enrichment, but the plaintiff who has enriched him. This fact, then, has not caused damage but, on the contrary, an advantage to the defendant who is then sued for unjust enrichment. Finally, and logically as a consequence of the above, the object of the action is not to call the defendant to account for his actions but to invite him to return the advantage he has received without cause.

Conceptually, and regardless of the language version, unjust enrichment is therefore logically not part of the concept of “tort, delict or quasi-delict”.

II/ On a teleological level

As we know, it is often less conceptual rigour than functional appropriateness that guides the Court of Justice, especially when it is called upon to clarify its qualifications.

The uniform interpretation praised by the Court of Justice is based not so much on conceptual rigour – which in any case would have no real basis in the absence of a sufficiently developed uniform substantive law – as on the aims and objectives of the regulation whose interpretation is at issue.

From this point of view, the solution adopted also appears satisfactory, in two respects.

Firstly, because the criterion applied to torts, delicts and quasi-delicts is simply not applicable to unjust enrichment. Under the terms of Article 5§3, now 7§2, the criterion of jurisdiction is the place where the harmful event occurred. In a case of unjust enrichment, there is no harmful event. There is no event causing damage, but only an event causing enrichment, which will usually be the act of the plaintiff. There is no damage either, but an enrichment, which is not only conceptually the opposite of damage but, moreover, is not materially locatable. Since the criterion is thus inapplicable, the corresponding qualification is for this reason alone manifestly inadequate.

Secondly, the solution here is at odds with that adopted in matters of conflict of laws. In this area, unjust enrichment, like quasi-contracts in general, is a matter for extra-contractual matters and the Rome II Regulation. The idea of consistent interpretation set out in point 7 of the preamble to the Rome I and Rome II Regulations could thus have led to unjust enrichment being placed in the field of Article 7§2. However, on the one hand, the terminology is different, the Rome II Regulation speaking of “non-contractual obligations” while the Brussels Regulations speak of “tort, delict or quasi-delict”. On the other hand, and above all, the consequences of the qualification are not the same. In matters of conflict of laws, the Rome II Regulation provides for specifically appropriate criteria (or at least specifically designed for such cases), which is not the case in matters of jurisdiction. Above all, in matters of jurisdiction, as the judgment under review illustrates, it is quite possible not to qualify at all, because of the general ground of jurisdiction constituted by the defendant’s domicile. Obviously, nothing similar is possible in matters of conflict of laws.

III/ On a systemic level

Finally, the solution also appears satisfactory on a more general level. Not only does the solution highlight the autonomy of the qualifications adopted in the field of conflict of laws and jurisdiction (CJEU 16 Jan. 2014, Kainz, Case C-45/13, CJEU, 28 July 2016, Case C-191/15, VKI c/ Amazon EU), which is an excellent point, but, above all, it restores to its rightful place the principle ground of jurisdiction : the defendant’s domicile.

The Court of Justice systematically repeats that the forum of the defendant’s domicile is the principle, to which the other grounds of jurisdiction, in particular those of Article 7, are only exceptions, which are by nature subject to strict interpretation. This is what led the Court, initially at least, to leave the actio Pauliana unqualified (ECJ, 26 march 1992, Case C-261/90, Reichert II. In a contractual context, the Court now decides that the actio Pauliana falls within the scope af article 7§1, see CJEU, 4 oct. 2018, Feniks, Case C-337/17). However, in recent years, although it has continued to repeat like a mantra that the alternative grounds of jurisdiction in Article 7 are merely derogations from the principle of the forum of the defendant’s domicile, implying a particularly close link, the Court of Justice has tended to extend the scope of these derogations, in particular to matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict. For instance, it has ruled that an action seeking to deny liability falls within the scope of Article 7§2 (CJEU, 25 oct. 2012, Case C-133/11, Fischer), as does an action for an injunction in which a consumer protection association sought to prohibit a trader’s use of unfair terms in contracts with consumers (ECJ, 1st oct. 2002, Case C-167/00, Henkel). However, strictly speaking, none of these actions “sought to bring into play the liability of the defendant”.

It is therefore a return to a certain orthodoxy that the judgment under review implies. A return to the idea that the defendant’s forum is a principle; a principle from which the alternative grounds of jurisdiction in Article 7 derogate only if there is a sufficiently close link between the alternative forum and the dispute, which is clearly not the case in matters of unjust enrichment. On a systemic level, the solution appears equally justified.

So how did we get a decision of the CJEU satisfactory in all respects? In Luxembourg, Santa Claus was obviously two weeks early.

 

[1] ECJ 27 Sept. 1988, Case 189/87, Kalfélis, ECR 1988, p. 5565, the decision already seemed to find that unjust enrichment was excluded from Article 5§3. The principle is regularly recalled, see recently, e.g., CJEU, 28 Jan. 2015, Kolassa, Case C-375/13, CJEU, 24 Nov. 2020, Wikingerhof, C 59/19.

From a technological standpoint, geography is largely irrelevant. Data flows through the internet without regard for political borders or territories. Services, communication, and interaction can occur online between persons who may be in different countries. Illegal activities, like hacking, cyberespionage, propagating terrorist propaganda, defamation, revenge porn, and illegal marketplaces may all be remotely targeted and accessed from various countries. As such, the internet has created an interesting and complex set of challenges for the concept of jurisdiction and conflicts of law. This title takes a comparative approach covering the EU, UK, US, Germany, and China.

Broken into four parts, this book delves into the notion of jurisdiction as it relates to the internet. Part I focuses on the different meanings of the concept of jurisdiction, from a legal and historical perspective, and distinguishing between the different branches of government. It will highlight the challenges created by the internet, including social media and cloud computing. Part II analyses criminal jurisdiction, in regards to both jurisdictions in cybercrime cases and jurisdictional issues relating to criminal investigations (access to the cloud) and enforcement. Part III examines jurisdiction and applicable law in civil and commercial matters, such as e-commerce B2B and B2C contracts, torts typically occurring online, and online defamation and privacy infringement. Finally, Part IV looks at regulatory jurisdiction, examining the power of the executive (whether an arm of government or independent regulator) to apply and enforce national law. It will look at aspects like the provision of online audio-visual media services and online gambling services, both of which are heavily regulated, but which can be easily provided remotely from different jurisdictions. The book concludes by analysing how the concept of jurisdiction should be adapted to ensure the rule of law by nation states and prevent international conflicts between states.

Here’s the link to the book: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/internet-jurisdiction-law-and-practice-9780198806929?cc=gb&lang=en&

Julia Hörnle, Professor of Internet Law, CCLS, Queen Mary University of London[1]

It is now well known that internet users are widely tracked and profiled by a range of actors and the advancements in data science mean that such tracking and profiling is increasingly commercially profitable[2]. This raises difficult questions about how to balance the value of data with individual privacy. But since there is no point in having privacy (or data protection) rights if no redress can be found to vindicate them, it is even more important to investigate how internet users can obtain justice, if their privacy has been infringed. Given the power of Big Tech Companies, their enormous financial resources, cross-jurisdictional reach and their global impact on users’ privacy, there are two main litigation challenges for successfully bringing a privacy claim against Big Tech. One is the jurisdictional challenge of finding a competent court in the same jurisdiction as the individual users.[3] Secondly, the challenge is how to finance mass claims, involving millions of affected users. In privacy claims it is likely that there is significant user detriment, potentially with long-term and latent consequences, which are difficult to measure. This constellation provides a strong argument for facilitating collective redress, as otherwise individual users may not be able to obtain justice for privacy infringements before the courts. In privacy infringement claims these two challenges are intertwined and present a double-whammy for successful redress. Courts in a number of recent cases had to grapple with questions of jurisdiction in consumer collective redress cases in the face of existing provision on consumer jurisdiction and collective redress, which have not (yet) been fully adapted to deal with the privacy challenges stemming from Big Tech in the 21st century.

In Case C-498/16 Max Schrems v Facebook Ireland[4] the Court of Justice of the EU in 2018 denied the privilege of EU law for consumers to sue in their local court[5] to a representative (ie Max Schrems) in a representative privacy litigation against Facebook under Austrian law. By contrast, courts in California and Canada have found a contractual jurisdiction and applicable law clause invalid as a matter of public policy in order to allow a class action privacy claim to proceed against Facebook.[6] In England, the dual challenge of jurisdiction and collective actions in a mass privacy infringement claim has presented itself before the English Courts, first in Vidal-Hall v Google before the Court of Appeal in 2015[7] and in the Supreme Court judgment of Google v Lloyd in November 2021[8]. Both cases concerned preliminary proceedings on the question of whether the English courts had jurisdiction to hear the action, ie whether the claimant was able to serve Google with proceedings in the USA and have illustrated the limitations of English law for the feasibility of bringing a collective action in mass-privacy infringement claims.

The factual background to Vidal- Hall and Lloyd is the so-called “Safari workaround” which allowed Google for some time in 2011-2012 to bypass Apple privacy settings by placing DoubleClick Ad cookies on unsuspecting users of Apple devices, even though Safari was trying to block such third party cookies, used for extensive data collection and advertising. The claimants alleged that this enabled Google to collect personal data, including sensitive data, such as users’ interests, political affiliations, race or ethnicity, social class, political and religious beliefs, health, sexual interests, age, gender, financial situation and location. Google additionally creates profiles from the aggregated information which it sells. The claim made was that Google as data controller had breached the following data protection principles set out in the Data Protection Act 1998 Schedules 1 and 2: 1st (fair and lawful processing), 2nd (processing only for specified and lawful purposes) and 7th (technical and organizational security measures). In particular, it was alleged that Google had not notified Apple iPhone users of the purposes of processing in breach of Schedule 1, Part II, paragraph 2 and that the data was not processed fairly according to the conditions set out in Schedules 2 and 3.

Vidal-Hall[9] concerned the first challenge of jurisdiction and in particular whether the court should allow the serving of proceedings on the defendant outside the jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Rules[10]. For privacy infringement, previous actions had been brought under the cause of action of breach of confidence[11], which is a claim in equity and, thus it was unclear whether for such actions jurisdiction lies at the place of where the damage occurs. The Court of Appeal held that misuse of private information and contravention of the statutory data protection requirements was a tort and therefore, if damage had been sustained within England, the English courts had jurisdiction and service to the USA (California) was allowed.

The second hurdle for allowing the case to proceed by serving outside the jurisdiction was the question of whether the claimant was limited to claiming financial loss or whether a claim for emotional distress could succeed. The Court of Appeal in Vidal-Hall decided that damages are available for distress, even in the absence of financial loss, to ensure the correct implementation of Article 23 of the (then) Data Protection Directive, and in order to comply with Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. The Court therefore found that there was a serious issue to be tried and allowed service abroad to proceed, at which point the case settled.

The more recent English Supreme Court judgment in Lloyd concerned the second challenge, collective redress. As pointed out by Lord Leggatt in the judgment, English procedural law provides for three different types of actions: Group Litigation Orders (CPR 19.11), common law representative actions, and statutory collective proceedings under the Competition Act 1998. Their differences are significant for the purposes of litigation financing in two respects: first the requirement to identify and “sign-up” claimants and secondly, the requirement for individualized assessment of damages. Since both these requirements are expensive, they make collective redress in mass privacy infringement cases with large numbers of claimants impractical.

Group actions require all claimants to be identified and entered in a group register (“opt-in”) and are therefore expensive to administer, which renders them commercially unviable if each individual claim is small and if the aim is to spread the cost of litigation across a large number of claimants.

English statutory law in the shape of the Competition Act 1998 provides for collective proceedings before the Competition Appeal Tribunal in competition law cases only.[12] Since the reforms by the Consumer Rights Act in 2015, they can be brought under an “opt-in” or “opt-out” mechanism. Opt-out means that a class can be established without the need for affirmative action by each and every member of the class individually. The significance of this is that it is notoriously difficult (and expensive) to motivate a large number of consumers to join a collective redress scheme. Human inertia frequently prevents a representative claimant from joining more than a tiny fraction of those affected. For example, 130 people (out of 1.2-1.5 million) opted into the price-fixing case against JJB Sports concerning replica football shirts.[13] Likewise, barely 10,000 out of about 100,000 of Morrison’s employees joined the group action against the supermarket chain for unlawful disclosure of private data on the internet by another employee.[14] Furthermore, s.47C (2) of the Competition Act obviates the need for individual assessment of damages, but limits the requirement to prove damages to the class as a whole, as an aggregate award of damages, as held by Lord Briggs in Merricks v Mastercard[15]. However no such advanced scheme of collective redress has yet been enacted in relation to mass privacy infringement claims.

While the Supreme Court held that Mr Lloyd’s individual claim had real prospect of success, the same could not necessarily be said of everyone in the class he represented. This case was brought as a representative action where Mr Lloyd represented the interests of everyone in England and Wales who used an iPhone at the relevant time and who had third party cookies placed by Google on their device. One of the interesting features of representative actions is that they can proceed on an opt-out basis, like the collective actions under the Competition Law Act. Common law representative actions have been established for hundreds of years and have now been codified in CPR Rule 19.6: “Where more than one person has the same interest in a claim by or against one or more of the persons who have the same interest as representatives of any other person who have that interest”. Thus representative actions are based on the commonality of interest between claimants. The pivotal issue in Lloyd was the degree of commonality of that interest and in particular, whether this commonality must extend to the losses, which claimants have suffered, and proof of damages.

Lord Leggatt in Lloyd emphasized the spirit of flexibility of representative actions. Previous caselaw in the Court of Appeal had held that it was possible for claimants to obtain a declaration by representative action, which declares that they have rights which are common to all of them, even though the loss and amount of damages may vary between them.[16] He held that a bifurcated approach was permissible: a representative action can be brought seeking a declaration about the common interests of all claimants, which can then form the basis for individual claims for redress. Lord Leggatt held that, depending on the circumstances, a representative action could even be brought in respect of a claim for damages, if the total amount of damages could be determined for the class as a whole, even if the amount for each individual claimant varied, as this was a matter which could be settled between the claimants in a second step. He held that, therefore, a representative action can proceed even if a claim for damages was an element of the representative action, as in Lloyd.

Lord Leggatt found that the interpretation of what amounts to the “same interest” was key and that there needed to be (a) common issue(s) so that the “representative can be relied on to conduct the litigation in a way which will effectively promote and protect the interests of all the members of the represented class.”[17] The problem in Lloyd was that the total damage done to privacy by the Safari workaround was unknown.

Lord Leggatt saw no reason why a representative action for a declaration that Google was in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998, and that each member was entitled to compensation for the damage suffered as a consequence of the breach, should fail. However, commercial litigation funding in practice cannot fund actions seeking a mere declaration, but need to be built on the recovery of damages, in order to finance costs. In order to avoid the need for individualised damages, the claim for damages was formulated as a claim for uniform per capita damages. The problem on the facts of this case was clearly that the Safari workaround did not affect all Apple users in the same manner, as their internet usage, the nature and amount of data collected, as well as the effect of the data processing varied, all of which required individualised assessment of damages.

For this reason, the claimant argued that an infringement of the Data Protection Act 1998 leads to automatic entitlement to compensation without the need to show specific financial loss or emotional distress. This argument proved to be ultimately unsuccessful and therefore the claim failed. The Court examined Section 13 of the Data Protection Act 1998, entitling the defendant to compensation for damage, but the court held that each claimant had to prove such damage. The level of distress varied between different members of the represented class, meaning that individual assessment was necessary.

The claimant sought to apply the cases on the tort of misuse of private information by analogy. In this jurisprudence the courts have allowed for an award of damages for wrongful intrusion of privacy as such, without proof of distress in order to compensate for the “loss of control” over formerly private information.[18] Lord Leggatt pointed out that English common law now recognized the right to control access to one’s private affairs and infringement of this right itself was a harm for which compensation is available.

However in this particular case the claim had not been framed as the tort of misuse of private information or privacy intrusion, but as a breach of statutory duty and Lord Leggatt held that the same principle, namely the availability of damages for “loss of control” did not apply to the statutory scheme. He pointed out that it may be difficult to frame a representative action for misuse of private information, as it may be difficult to prove reasonable expectations of privacy for the class as a whole. This may well be the reason that the claim in this case was based on breach of statutory duty in relation to the Data Protection Act. Essentially the argument that “damages” in Section 13 (1) included “loss of control” over private data was unsuccessful. Both Article 23 of the Data Protection Directive and Article 13 made a distinction between the unlawful act (breach of data protection requirements) and the damage resulting, and did not conceive the unlawful act itself as the damage. Furthermore, it was not intended by the Directive or the Act that each and every contravention led to an entitlement to damages. He held that “loss of control” of personal data was not the concept underlying the data protection regime, as processing can be justified by consent, but also other factors which made processing lawful, so the control over personal data is not absolute.

Furthermore, it did not follow from the fact that both the tort of misuse of private information and the data protection legislation shared the same purposes of protecting the right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights that the same rule in respect of damages should apply in respect of both. There was no reason “why the basis on which damages are awarded for an English domestic tort should be regarded as relevant to the proper interpretation of the term “damage” in a statutory provision intended to implement a European directive”.[19] He concluded that a claim for damages under Section 13 required the proof of material damage or distress. He held that the claim had no real prospect of success and that therefore no permission should be given to serve proceedings outside the jurisdiction (on Google in the US).

This outcome of Lloyd raises the question in the title of this article, namely whether the cross-border battle on collective actions in mass privacy infringement cases against Big Tech has been lost, or whether on the contrary, it has just begun. One could argue that it has just began for the reason that the facts underlying this case occurred in 2011-2012, and therefore the judgment limited itself to the Data Protection Act 1998 (and the then Data Protection Directive 1995/46/EC). Since then the UK has left the EU, but has retained the General Data Protection Regulation[20] (“the UK GDPR”) and implemented further provisions in the form of the Data Protection Act 2018, both of which contain express provisions on collective redress. The GDPR provides for opt-in collective redress performed by a not-for-profit body in the field of data protection established for public interest purposes.[21] This is narrow collective redress as far removed from commercial litigations funders as possible. Because of the challenge of financing cross-border mass-privacy infringements claims, this is unlikely to be a practical option. The GDPR makes it optional for Member States to provide that such public interest bodies are empowered to bring opt-out collective actions for compensation before the courts.[22] These provisions unfortunately do not add anything to common law representative actions or group actions under English law. As has been illustrated above, representative actions can be brought on an “opt-out” basis, but have a narrow ambit in that all parties must have the same interest in the claim and Lloyd has demonstrated that in the case of distress this communality of interest may well defeat a claim. For group actions the bar of communality is lower, as it may encompass “claims which give rise to common or related issues of fact or law”[23]. But clearly the downside of group actions is that they are opt-in. Therefore, while English law recognizes collective redress, there are limitations to its effectiveness.

The Data Protection Act 2018 imposes an obligation on the Secretary of State to review the provision on collective redress, and in particular, consider the need for opt-out collective redress, and lay a report before Parliament. This may lead to Regulations setting out a statutory opt-out collective redress scheme for data protection in the future.[24] This Review is due in 2023.

Thus, the GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 have not yet added anything to the existing collective redress. It can only be hoped that the Secretary of State reviews the collective redress mechanisms in relation to data protection law and the review leads to a new statutory collective redress scheme, similar to that enacted in respect of Competition Law in 2015, thereby addressing the challenge of holding Big Tech to account for privacy infringement.[25]

However the new data protection law has improved the provision of recoverable heads of damage. This improvement raises the question, if the issues in Lloyd had been raised under the current law, whether the outcome would have been different. The Data Protection Act 2018 now explicitly clarifies that the right to compensation covers both material and non-material damage and that non-material damage includes distress.[26] Since non-material damage is now included in the Act, the question arises whether this new wording could be interpreted by a future court as including the privacy infringement itself (loss of control over one’s data). Some of the arguments made by Lord Leggatt in Lloyd continue to be relevant under the new legislation, for example that the tort of statutory breach is different from the tort of misuse of private information and that not each and every (minor) infringement of a statute should give raise to an entitlement for damages. Nevertheless it is clear from the new Act that non-material damage is included and that non-material damage includes distress, but is wider than distress. This means that claimants should be able to obtain compensation for other heads of non-material damage, which may include the latent consequences of misuse of personal information and digital surveillance. There is much scope for arguing that some of the damage caused by profiling and tracking are the same for all claimants. A future representative action in an equivalent scenario may well be successful. Therefore, the battle for collective action against Big Tech companies’ in privacy infringement cases may just have begun.

[1] J.hornle@qmul.ac.uk

[2] Shoshana Zuboff The Age of Surveillance Capitalism (2018)

[3] See further J. Hörnle, Internet Jurisdiction Law & Practice (OUP 2021)

[4] ECLI:EU:C:2018:37; discussed further in J. Hörnle fn 1 Chapter 8

[5] Ie the courts of the consumer’s domicile, if the business directed their activities to that state, Art 17 and Art 18 (1) Brussels Regulation on Jurisdiction (EU) 1215/2021

[6] In Re Facebook Biometric Information Privacy Litigation 185 F.Supp.3d 1155 (US District Court N.D. California 2016) and Douez v Facebook [2017] SCC 33; discussed further in J. Hörnle fn 1 Chapter 8

[7] [2016] QB 1003

[8] [2021] 3 WLR 1268

[9] [2015] 3 WLR 409 (CA)

[10] CPR PD 6B para.3.1(9)

[11] Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] 2 WLR 1232 (HL)

[12] Section 47B

[13] The Consumers Association v JJB Sports Plc [2009] CAT 2

[14] Various Claimants v WM Morrisons Supermarkets Plc [2017] EWHC 3113 (QB)

[15] [2021] Bus LR 25, para 76

[16] David Jones v Cory Bros & Co Ltd (1921) 56 LJ 302; 152 LT Jo 70

[17] Paras 71-74

[18] by Mann J affirmed in the Court of Appeal Gulati v MGN Ltd [2017] QB 149

[19] Para 124

[20] Regulation (EU) 2016/679, L119, 4 May 2016, p. 1–88

[21] Art 80 (1)

[22] Arts 79 and 80 (2) in relation to effective judicial remedies

[23] CPR Part 19- Group Litigation Orders, Rules 19.10, 19.11

[24] ss. 189-190

[25] The current government, however seems to march in the opposite direction, see Consultation on reform of data protection law https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/data-a-new-direction

[26] S. 168 (1)

Mahmudov & Anor v Sanzberro & Ors [2021] EWHC 3433 (QB) tackles the issue of libel tourism. As Collins Rice J puts it [3]

underlying the contest of law is a contest of two mainstream policies embodied in modern defamation law: on the one hand, the need for the law to keep up with the borderless realities of the internet, and on the other the need for international libel to be dealt with by the courts best able fairly to do so (or, to put it less neutrally, to prevent ‘libel tourism’).

The case is held under Brussels Ia for the claim was introduced on 31 December 2020, ‘IP completion day’.  Parties mostly seem at loggerheads over the implications of CJEU C-509/09 eDate. Claimants suggest eDate establishes a stand-alone full jurisdictional gateway for the Member State where the aggrieved has his or its centre of interests – CoI. Defendant claims [19]

there is still a binary choice, as per Shevill: to sue either (a) where a defendant is domiciled or (b) where a completed tort (the harmful event) occurred. The effect of eDate, they say, is that claimants taking the second route in their CoI country can now get global relief rather than being limited to compensation for harm arising in that individual state. CoI is not jurisdictional in the pure sense of introducing a freestanding basis for bringing an action somewhere; it is jurisdictional only to the limited or secondary (but nevertheless important) extent of the nature and quantum of the relief that may be sought.

Parties oddly seem in agreement that Shevill v Presse Alliance (No.2) [1996] AC 959 reaffirmed ([11] in Mahumdov]

that what constituted the ‘harmful event’ was to be determined by the national court applying its own substantive law. In other words, the preliminary jurisdictional question for the High Court in a libel case brought against a non-domiciled defendant was whether a claimant could show to the requisite standard that all the components of a tort actionable in the UK were present

I find that debatable to say the least, and in fact that consensus has an important impact on the judge’s final conclusion, which rejects CoI as a stand-alone gateway: [28] the judge sides with the defendants for the claimant’s reading would imply ‘an autonomous meaning of the ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ ‘. The latter, many might argue, must be the implication of the CJEU’s overall application of Brussels Ia. At [34] Napag Trading is offered in support however the judge I feel in Mahmudov should  have made a clearer distinction (as the judge did in Napag Trading) between the EU-governed jurisdictional gateway for tort, and the (England and Wales) governed Civil Procedure Rules test for a ‘good arguable case’. As I note in my review of Napag Trading, these CPR rules may still form a formidable procedural hurdle, however properly distinguishing between them is important, among others for costs reasons.

Geert.

Mahmudov & Anor v Sanzberro & Ors [2021] EWHC 3433 (QB) (17 December 2021)#libel tourism
Held E&W courts do not have jurisdiction per #CJEU Brussels Ia, Shevill, eDate etchttps://t.co/9vP1s5TJZd

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) December 20, 2021

The post below was written by Adrian Briggs QC, who is Professor of Private International Law Emeritus at the University of Oxford. It is the second contribution to the EAPIL online symposium, announced by an earlier post, regarding the ruling of the Court of Justice in the case of Hrvatske Šume. The previous post of Peter Mankowski can be found here. 

The arrival of the decision in C-242/20 Hrvatske Šume in December 2021 was as predictable as it was depressing. So was the omicron variant of covid-19: early December 2021 will not go down as the high point of anyone’s year. Those who have already contributed to this commentary have highlighted the technical shortcomings in the apology for a judgment, and there is no need to repeat their criticisms which are, in my view and in any rational world, unanswerable. Their careful work allows others to paint a more impressionistic picture.

The claimant in the case sustained damage: any consequence arising out of … unjust enrichment, as this is explained in the Rome II Regulation. The reason why the claim was not within Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation will therefore have been that there was no harmful event when the defendant refused to repay a sum which it had no legal basis to retain. Although English is only one of twenty-odd languages, each of which is equally authentic, in what sense is that refusal, assuming it is unjustified in law, not a harmful event ? Consider the child who, sent on a shopping errand, refuses to hand over to her mother the change from the original £10 which the shopkeeper had given her. This refusal is, it seems, not to be understood as a harmful event. That will come as news to many. If while out walking I find a wallet which someone has evidently dropped, and decide to pick it up and keep it, does the claim later brought against me by the owner fall within Article 7(2) ? One would think so; and it makes no difference whether the claim is for the leather folder or the banknotes which it contains. Or take the case in which I attempt to make an electronic transfer of funds to my favourite nephew’s bank account but which, as a result of my incompetent typing, I manage to transfer to a complete stranger (it happens; don’t ask). When I discover my mistake, and the bank, in the modern way of banks, refuses point blank to do anything to help, I am left to sue the intransigent recipient for repayment. Does the claim fall within Article 7(2) ? The answer should be yes, and the proposition that the refusal to repay that which one should not have received and certainly should never have kept is not a harmful event rejected as the nonsense which it certainly is.

In what sense is the refusal to pay over not a harmful event ? The only illumination has to come from bare and conclusory paragraph 55 of the judgment, which says that ‘a claim for restitution based on unjust enrichment is based on an obligation which does not originate in a harmful event. That obligation arises irrespective of the defendant’s conduct, with the result that there is no causal link that can be established between the damage and any unlawful act or omission committed by the defendant’. The proposition that there is no causal link between the damage (which seems to be admitted) and anything the defendant did or didn’t do is apparent only to those who value belief above observation. The damage of which the claimant now complains would not have occurred if the defendant had behaved otherwise: how is that relationship not a causal one ? The Court may say that it depends on the meaning of ‘causal’, which it may do. That, however, is not elaborated by the judgment. So we must try to do it ourselves.

One possible explanation might be that the recipient does me no harm; that I harmed myself and everything which follows is an immaterial consequence of that self-harm. If that is so, it would reflect developments within the judicial exegesis of ‘damage occurring’ as this relates to Article 7(2). Maybe so, but it makes cases of transfer or property as a result of fraud or misrepresentation hard to deal with. If it is suggested that the delayed-refusal to deliver or redeliver is not a harmful event, what of the case in which the person to whom I have lent my bicycle (gratuitously, not for reward) refuses to return it to me ? He did no wrong when I handed it over and he borrowed it, but it would make one rub one’s eyes in disbelief if it were said that his refusal to return it on my demand hand it over was not a wrongful act because I had self-harmed by voluntarily parting with it in the first place.

And so one could continue unto length of days. Not everyone will see the lines as needing to be drawn in the same place as I would locate them, which is, no doubt, exactly as it should be. One should instead ask why the Court has decided to turn its back on Kalfelis and thirty-odd years of general (granted, not universal) assumption that ‘all actions which seek to establish the liability’ of a defendant does not mean what it said, in favour of some abstract and doctrinaire distinction-drawing, which serves no useful purpose at all. It will now require a judge at first instance, perhaps in the remoter regions of the Union where theories of unjust enrichment and waiver of tort are not part of daily discourse, to figure out whether a non-contractual obligation giving rise to a pleaded claim is – as a matter of general European law, rather than within his or her own legal system, as paragraph 40 makes perfectly clear – based on a harmful event. What on earth was the sense of that ?

This is the first contribution to the on-line symposium regarding the ruling of the Court of Justice in the case of Hrvatske Šume. The author is Peter Mankowski, who is Professor of Private International Law at the University of Hamburg. It is based on the author’s case note in German, forthcoming in Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft. The publication of this version is permitted by courtesy of Deutscher Fachverlag, Frankfurt/Main. 

Article 7 of the Brussels I bis Regulation provides for special jurisdiction for contractual claims (point 1) and for tort claims (point 2).

On the other hand, it does not mention any claims for unjust enrichment (alternatively called: restitution). Does this mean that there is no special jurisdiction for claims or unjust enrichment under Article 7 of the Brussels I bis Regulation if point 5 does not apply)?

However, even if the answer was ‘yes’, this would not amount to a denial of justice for creditors in unjust enrichment since they could always avail temselves of the general jurisdiction in the State where the defendant is domiciled under Article 4 (1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation as kind of ‘residual jurisdiction’ (A-G Saugmandsgaard Øe, Opinion of 9 September 2021 in Case C-242/20, para. 80). Actor sequitur forum rei might save the last remains of the day for claimants, thus. It is ‘only’ about additional options for the claimant through special jurisdictional grounds.

The CJEU has so far avoided rendering a fundamental opinion where to place unjust enrichment (in particular in Case C-102/15, Gazdasági Versenyhivatal v Siemens AG Österreich; see, as contrast to A-G Wahl, Opinion of 7 April 2016 in Case C-102/15, paras. 54 to 75) and only occasionally decided on bits pieces (CJEU Case C-611/45, Land Berlin v Ellen Mirjam Sapir, paras. 35 et seq.; CJEU Case C-366/13, Profit Investment SIM SpA v Stefano Ossi, para. 55; CJEU Case C-185/15, Marjan Kostanjevec v F&S Leasing GmbH, paras. 34-40).

Decision of the CJEU in Hrvatske Šume

However, in Hrvatske Šume (Case C-242/20) the CJEU can no longer avoid a more principled approach. A-G Saugmandsgaard Øe had categorically denied, on detailed grounds, that an action for recovery of the property gave rise to liability for damage and therefore ruled out the possibility that it could constitute a tort for the purposes of Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation (A-G Saugmandsgaard Øe, Opinion of 9 September 2021 in Case C-242/20, paras. 56-79). In other words, the CJEU accepts this as key argument (paras. 53-59). That is, however, taking things way to litteral. It does not fit with the concept of ‘damage’ in Article 2(1) of the Rome II Regulation, which is very broad and, in particular, must be broad enough to also cover ‘damage’ in the case of other non-contractual obligations beyond the actual law of tort (see only Mankowski, in: Ulrich Magnus v Mankowski, Rome II Regulation [2019] Article 2 Rome II Regulation note 8), further to the fact that claims for injunctive relief under tort law fall within point 2, too. Oh, and on top of it, it tends to disregard purposive interpretation and hails litteral interpretation instead (Layton, Cuniberti, EAPIL Blog 9 December 2021; Cuniberti [Comment], EAPIL Blog 9 December 2021).

In any event, actions for the recovery of ineffective contractual relationships must be characterised differently (to the same avail van Calster, gavclaw.com 9 December 2021). In their case, the assessment of Article 12(1)(d) of the Rome I Regulation is correct. They must be characterised as contractual, and special jurisdiction at the place of performance of Article 7(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation is therefore open to them (Court of Justice, 20 April 2016, Case C-366/13, para. 55 — Profit Investment SIM SpA v Stefano Ossi; A-G Saugmandsgaard Øe, Opinion of 9 September 2021 in Case C-242/20,  points 48-52; Mankowski, RIW 2017, 322, 324-326; Grušić, [2019] 68 ICLQ 837, 854-859). The CJEU does not hesitate to confirm this (paras. 47-50). Profit Investement is still good law on this point. In so far as the void or ineffective contract is a consumer, insurance or individual employment contract, what is at issue would be the grounds of jurisdiction under the relevant protective regime (A-G Kokott, Opinion of 2 June 2016 in Case C-195/15, points 54 et seq.; OLG Dresden IPRspr. 2007 No 140, p. 394; LG Darmstadt ZIP 2004, 1924, 1925), in accordance with the generalisable principle underpinning Articles 12(1)(e) of the Rome I Regulation and 10(1) of the Rome II Regulation. Moreover, the rules on jurisdiction for other kinds of actions where the recovery of sums paid, i.e. the way back, should be the same as the ones governing the way forward, e.g. those of the Maintenance Regulation in the event of recovery of maintenance overpaid (Mankowski, RIW 2017, 322, 326).

The CJEU had to rule on another specific issue: Do actions for recovery based on unjust enrichment in respect of something obtained in enforcement fall within the scope of (now) Article 24(5) of the Brussels I bis Regulation and fall within exclusive jurisdiction at the place of enforcement? It could be argued that this would result in a substantive revision of enforcement and therefore a sort of extraordinary remedy exists. On the other hand, these are not formally attacks or even appeals against individual enforcement measures. Its success does not create the foreclosure measure as such, but merely revises its economic result. This is rightly not sufficient for the Court of Justice (paras. 31-36). Irrespective of the legal basis used, it is not sufficient if this unjust enrichment (para. 36), a general offence or a specific offence such as § 717(2) of the German ZPO (in more detail Mankowski, in: Rauscher, EuZPR/EuIPR, vol. 1 [5th ed. 2021] Article 24 Brussels I bis Regulation notes 220-223; Philip Schwarz, Enforcement shopping in the European judicial area [2019] pp. 227-245; see also OLG Saarbrücken EuZW 2017, 347 paras. 18-23).

Practical Consequences

The Rome II Regulation recognises unjust enrichment as a separate non-contractual obligation besides and on equal footing with tort; it consequently allocates an own and separate conflict-of-law rule to unjust enrichment in Article 10 of the Rome II Regulation. The Brussels I bis Regulation, on the other hand, makes no mention of unjust enrichment. This leads to a discrepancy (Mankowski, RIW 2017, 322 [322]; van Calster, gavclaw.com 14 September 2021). It can be inferred from the 2007 Rome II Regulation that unjust enrichment is not a tort for its purposes. It is precisely for that reason that it sets up its own system of unjust enrichment, almost in return for compensation. The more recent Brussels I bis Regulation of 2012 does not reflect this either in positive or negative terms, but requires a characterisation for every claim based on unjust enrichment, whether it can be characterised — more or less badly — as contractual or delicate for the purposes of the Brussels I bis Regulation. Its grid has therefore remained rougher and less sophisticated than that of the Rome II Regulation. ‘Non contractual’ does not automatically equate to the narrower ‘tort, delict, or quasi-delict’ of Article 7 point 2 of the Brussels I bis Regulation (A-G Saugmandsgaard Øe, Opinion of 9 September 2021 in Case C-242/20, paras. 76-79; Briggs, EAPIL Blog 10 December 2021; Pacula, conflictoflaws.net, 17 December 2021). In that regard, unjust enrichment continues to be an unfamiliar concept for the law of jurisdiction, as it has ever been since the days of the original 1968 Brussels Convention. However, this is no longer fully in line with the state of play since the Rome II Regulation at the latest. Unfortunately, the CJEU does not correct this judicially. The CJEU in effect treats creditors in unjust enrichment (beyond ineffective contracts) less favourably than creditors in tort by denying them the benefit of a special head of jurisdiction which would be encroachable on them.

The CJEU is focused on the premissae maiores, i.e. on the individual grounds of jurisdiction, the limits of which the CJEU feels bound to examine. Unfortunately, the premissa minor does not get like attention. In particular, it is not possible to see any recourse to the assistance which the doctrine on condictiones would offer (see Mankowski, RIW 2017, 322, 323 et seq.), which in turn already has its roots in Roman law — and thus in a central source of European and Community law. The term ‘interference’ or ‘infringement’, Eingriffskondiktion, or a functional equivalent, does not appear anywhere in the CJEU. In that regard, already the A-G’s Opinion scored less than possible. The A-G and, following, the CJEU celebrate a ‘chracterisation festival’, a Qualifikationsfest (van Calster, gavclaw.com 14 September 2021), without employing the full array of methodological tools. The contention that unjust enrichment could never be attributable to an event harmful in the broad sense and to the conduct of the person liable for the condiction (para. 55), is wrong for it disregards the cases of interference and infringement of another’s rights. Hence, other cases in the future might prompt more distinguishing answers (cf. Miguel de Asensio, pedromiguelasensio.blogspot.com, 13 December 2021). While not all claims in unjust enrichment automatically qualify for Article 7 point (2) of the Brussel I bis Regulation, there might be some instances that do individually (cf. Cuniberti, EAPIL Blog 9 December 2021; Miguel de Asensio, pedromiguelasensio.blogspot.com, 13 December 2021). One future day, a notion of ‘restitution in wrong’ should prevail, properly re-transferring interference and infringement into the realm of Article 7 point 2 of the Brussels I bis Regulation even de regulatione lata (Mankowski, in: Ulrich Magnus/Mankowski, Brussels Ibis Regulation [2nd ed. 2022] Article 7 Brussels Ibis Regulation note 245). Predictability would not be overly impinged by that (to calm the concerns raised by (cf. Sisák, EAPIL Blog 10 December 2021).

However, neither the unconvincing reasoning nor the conclusion raising severe doubts for cases of interference or infringement (see Mankowski, RIW 2017, 322, 326 et seq.) can erase the fact that the CJEU establishes a seemingly clear orientation mark for practical purposes (to the same avail Miguel de Asensio, pedromiguelasensio.blogspot.com 13 December 2021). It would be ill-advised to implement any specific restriction on actions for recovery in natura. This is because such recovery is the primary legal consequence of any claim for enrichment, and a subsidiary shift to compensation for value must not have the effect of changing the jurisdiction of the court, as the primary legal consequence is also the ground for the subsidiary one. Hrvatske Šume conveys the practical message, for the time being: Beyond the realm of ineffective contracts, claims in unjust enrichment can avail them only of general jurisdiction and the special grounds of jurisdiction derived from Article 7 point 5; 8 points 1 and 3 of the Brussels I bis Regulation, but not of the special grounds of jurisdiction derived from Article 7 points 1 and 2 Brussels I bis Regulation. The Kalfelis formula (Athanassios Kalfelis v Bankhaus Schröder Münchmeyer Hengst & Cie) has always been deceptive, and there have always been tertia to contract and tort even in liability cases. Liability is not a binary world. Any perceived suggestion that Article 7 (2) Brussels I bis Regulation, or previously Article 5 point 3 Brussels Convention or Brussels I Regulation, was a residual rule within the realm of special jurisdiction (cf. Cuniberti, EAPIL Blog 9 December 2021; Okoli, EAPIL Blog 9 December 2021) has always been wrong. Sloppy and inaccurate drafting must prompt such important consequences.

Choice of court agreements pursuant to Article 25 of the Brussels I bis Regulation remain possible, ex ante as well as post eventum (Mankowski, RIW 2017, 322, 330). However, ex ante choice of court agreements (also) on claims for enrichment are unlikely to exist outside a contractual environment; they score their highest probality in framework agreements covering all legal relationships between the respective parties.

The reform agenda of the European legislature for a future Brussels Ib Regulation ought to reflect whether unjust enrichment should be blessed with a separate rule on special jurisdiction (Grušić, [2019] 68 ICLQ 837, 854-859; Mankowski, in: Ulrich Magnus/Mankowski, Brussels Ibis Regulation [2nd ed. 2022] Article 7 Brussels Ibis Regulation note 63a). The same applies to claims in negotiorum gestio (see in detail Dornis, in: Mankowski [ed.], Research Handbook on the Brussels Ibis Regulation [2020], p. 64). If these categories of non contractual obligations, well within the realm of the Rome II Regulation, were expressly addressed this would placate the principal questions.

On 9 December 2021, the CJEU ruled in HRVATSKE ŠUME d.o.o., Zagreb v. BP EUROPA SE (Case C-242/20) that the distinction between contracts and torts under Article 7 of the Brussels I bis Regulation is not exclusive, and that claims for unjust enrichment need not be characterised either as contractual or tortious (see the comments by Geert van Calster here and Krzysztof Pacula here).

The Court had established until this case a clear bright line rule. Cases which did not fall within the jurisdictional rule for contracts (Article 7(1)) fell within the jurisdictional rule for torts (Article 7(2)). The ‘tort’ category was thus a residual category which included all liability actions which were not contractual in nature.

Hrvatske Sume changes this, and may have far reaching consequences.

First, as Article 7(2) only applies to ‘torts’ as such, it will now be necessary to positively define the concept of tort in the meaning of that provision. Will it include strict liability rules? Will it include torts which do not require the existence of a damage? Will it include torts which do not strictly require causation between the act of the defendant and the damage suffered by the victim?

Secondly, it will be necessary to identify those concepts which must be distinguished from torts and contracts. One of them is unjust enrichment. What are the others? Other quasi-contracts such as negotiorum gestio? Certain statutory rights? Certain other remedies?

Starting from tomorrow morning, the EAPIL blog will host an online symposium to discuss the above issues. Peter Mankowski will kick off the discussion. More contributions are scheduled for publication later on Monday and on Tuesday.

Readers are encouraged to contribute to the discussion by commenting on the posts. Those wishing to submit longer analyses are invited to do so by writing an e-mail to Pietro Franzina (pietro.franzina@unicatt.it).

Daria Levina (European University Institute) posted on SSRN a paper titled The Law Governing Enforceability of Forum Selection Agreements. The paper was completed to fulfill the requirements for a master of laws degree at Harvard Law School and received the 2018 Addison Brown Prize in conflict of laws.

The abstract reads as follows:

The paper examines approaches to determining the law governing forum selection agreements (“FSA”) in the US, the EU, Germany, and on international level (on example of the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements). It analyses the historical treatment of FSA, as well as its legal features, and shows how they influenced the approaches adopted by the above jurisdictions. It looks at all potentially applicable laws (lex fori, lex causae, lex fori prorogati) and discusses the arguments in favor and against each of them, testing them against the principles of predictability, procedural economy, legal certainty, and regulatory interests of states. The paper adopts comparative approach in order to familiarize with the solutions adopted by different legal systems draw conclusions which might benefit them.

On 17 November 2021, the French Supreme Court for private and criminal matters (Cour de cassation) issued an interesting decision in the field of family law (Cass. Civ. 1re, 17 November 2021, n°20-19.420). The Court held that a bigamous marriage is not automatically void under French law when the spouses are foreign nationals. Indeed, the French choice of law rule on the validity of marriage provides for the application of the law of the spouses’ common nationality (article 202-1 of the Civil Code). Therefore, the lower court is required to designate on its own motion the applicable law to the marriage to assess its validity.

Facts and Issue at Stake

A couple, both Libyan nationals, married in 2000 in Libya. On November 2017, the wife filed a petition for divorce before French court. The lower court ruled that the request for divorce was inadmissible, because the husband was already married in Libya before this marriage. French law prohibits bigamy pursuant to article 147 of the Civil Code. As a result, the lower court had held that the second marriage “has no legal existence” and thus cannot be dissolved by a French court.

The wife appealed to the French Supreme Court based on a traditional conflict-of-law reasoning. She argued that the lower court should have checked whether the personal law of the spouses (as applicable law to marriage pursuant to article 202-1, op. cit.) did authorise bigamy. If so, the second marriage, celebrated abroad, could produce effects in France and thus be dissolved by a French court.

Legal Background

Under French domestic family law, article 147 of the French Civil Code lays down the principle of monogamy. French criminal law punishes a spouse guilty of bigamy (article 433-20 of the Penal Code). At the same time, comparative law reveals that some foreign legal systems allow polygamy. Even if this institution is in sharp contrasts to Western socio-cultural values, the global mobility of persons requires to pay attention to a possible acceptance of such marriages in the French forum.

Remarkably, the French legal system has traditionally adopted a nuanced position, depending on the proximity that the situation of bigamy or polygamy has with the forum. In France, no bigamous or, a fortiori, polygamous marriage can be validly celebrated, even if the second marriage is concluded between the same persons, already married abroad (Civ. 1re, 3 February 2004, n°00-19.838). The situation is different when the bigamy is not “created” in France, but was legally established abroad. The second marriage may then, in certain circumstances, be recognised in France and produce certain effects (e.g. in the field of social security rights or succession). In these latter circumstances, two hypotheses must be distinguished.

Either the national law of one of the spouses (pursuant to article 202-1 of the Civil Code) does not allow bigamy. French law will consider this prohibition as constituting an absolute impediment to marriage prevailing over the more liberal content of the national law of the other spouse. French authorities will therefore refuse to give effect to this marriage in France. For instance, a second marriage, validly celebrated abroad, of a foreign spouse whose personal status admits polygamy, with a French woman, cannot be recognised in France (Civ. 1re, 28 January 2002, n°00-15789).

Or the personal status of the spouses, i.e. their common or own national law, authorises polygamy. The French court may, to a certain extent, recognise the second marriage (and make it produce effects) by attenuating the “eviction” impact of the French fundamental values (effet atténué de l’ordre public). This has been held by the French Supreme Court on several occasions (Civ. 1re, 28 January 1958, Chemouni and more recently Civ. 2e, 14 February 2007, n°05-21.816).

Solution and Legal Reasoning

In the present case, the lower court ruled on a domestic law basis. The case, however, was international and required a conflict-of-law analysis since the parties may not dispose of their rights. It is worth recalling that French PIL does not provide for a systematic mandatory application of choice of law rules. But French courts are required to apply conflict-of-law rules in non-patrimonial matters, such as personal status issues, since the parties may not dispose of their rights. They even have to determine the applicable law ex officio (comp. recently on the context of EU PIL, Civ. 1re, 26 May 2021, n°19-15.102, commented on the blog here and here).

In the absence of French written rules of PIL, the French Supreme Court has traditionally based this solution on article 3 of the French Civil Code. It was the only “international” provision in the Code Napoleon at the time of the judicial development of PIL rules in the French legal system. Unfortunately, it may be confusing for the reader, since article 3 makes no mention whatsoever of the court’s role in conflict-of-law matters. This is a strong point in favour of a (forthcoming?) French PIL codification.

This is the ground on which the French Supreme Court annulled the judgment of the Court of appeal in this case: in the field of marriage, conflict-of-law rules are mandatory. The lower court should have verified, in accordance with the personal law of the spouses pursuant to article 202-1 of the Civil Code, whether the foreign bigamous marriage was valid (so that, in the affirmative, it could be dissolved). At that stage of the reasonning, the French prohibition of bigamy pursuant to article 147 of the Civil Code did not matter.

Assessment

We could maybe regret that the Supreme Court does not provide for the full PIL reasoning in order to be more informative. It will be indeed for the lower court to proceed to the second step of the choice of law analysis. The validity of the foreign marriage could be denied, despite its validity under the applicable law, on the basis of public policy. If the content of  foreign law infringes the fundamental values of French society, a French court may displace it and apply French law instead.

There is, however, a limit mentioned above: in order to protect rights acquired abroad and the permanence of the status of individuals across borders, the effect of public policy may be limited (effet atténué de l’ordre public). This has traditionally been the case in the field of polygamy when it is allowed under the personal status of the spouses (see above). The lower court should thus exclude the eviction of the foreign law despite its sharp cultural difference with French substantive family law and consider the foreign marriage as valid.

In this case, the bigamous marriage should be recognised so that the second wife is allowed to divorce. In other words, as a matter of policy, the private interests of the second wife should prevail. Whether this view would be shared by all Member States in the implementation of the EU PIL instruments on family matters is another matter.

The fifth edition of the treatise of Horatia Muir Watt (Sciences Po Law School) and Dominique Bureau (Paris II University) on French private international law has recently been published.

The treatise, which is one of the leading texts on private international law in France, is divided into two volumes (over 800 p. each). The first volume focuses on the general theory of private international law, and distinguishes between conflits de juridictions (jurisdiction and judgments), conflits de lois (choice of law) and conflits d’autorités (international regime of the action of non judicial authorities and recognition of the acts that they issue).

The second volume is concerned with special rules applicable in the different fields of private law (persons, property, family, obligations, businesses). It ends with a long conclusion which discusses two innovative topics. The first is an attempt to build a general theory of special European law on jurisdiction, judgments and choice of law. The second is an enquiry into whether new forces will lead to a complete reorganisation of the field: environment, digitalisation and the impact of new forms of organisation of business on traditional conceptual categories.

The latest issue of the IPRax (Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts) has been published.

It contains a number of insightful articles and case comments, whose abstracts are provided below.

 

E.-M. Kieninger, Climate Change Litigation and Private International Law

The recent Shell ruling by the District Court of The Hague raises the question whether Carbon Majors could also be sued outside the state of their corporate home and which law would be applicable to claims for damages or injunctive relief. In particular, the article discusses possible restrictions of the right to choose between the law of the state in which the damage occurred and the law of the state in which the event giving rise to the damage took place (Art. 7 No. 2 Brussels Ia Regulation and Art. 7 Rome II Regulation). It also considers the effects of plant permits and the role that emissions trading should play under Art. 17 Rome II Regulation.

 

S. Arnold, Artificial intelligence and party autonomy – legal capacity and capacity for choice of law in private international law

Artificial intelligence is already fundamentally shaping our lives. It also presents challenges for private international law. This essay aims to advance the debate about these challenges. The regulative advantages of party autonomy, i.e. efficiency, legal certainty and conflict of laws justice, can be productive in choice of law contracts involving artificial intelligence. In the case of merely automated systems, problems are relatively limited: the declarations of such systems can simply be attributed to their users. Existence, validity or voidability of choice of law clauses are determined by the chosen law in accordance with Art. 3(5), 10(1) Rome I Regulation. If, however, the choice of law is the result of an artificial “black box” decision, tricky problems arise: The attribution to the persons behind the machines might reach its limit, for such artificial decisions can neither be predicted nor explained causally in retrospect. This problem can be solved in different ways by the substantive law. Clearly, national contract laws will differ substantially in their solutions. Thus, it becomes a vital task for private international law to determine the law that is decisive for the question of attribution. According to one thesis of this article, two sub-questions arise: First, the question of legal capacity for artificial intelligence and second, its capacity for choice of law. The article discusses possible connecting factors for both sub-questions de lege lata and de lege ferenda. Furthermore, it considers the role of ordre public in the context of artificial choice of law decisions. The article argues that the ordre public is not necessarily violated if the applicable law answers the essential sub-questions (legal capacity and capacity for choice of law) differently than German law.

 

M. Sonnentag and J. Haselbeck, Divorce without the involvement of a court in Member States of the EU and the Brussels IIbis- and the Rome III-Regulation

In recent years some Member States of the European Union such as Italy, Spain, France, and Greece introduced the possibility of a divorce without the involvement of a court. The following article discusses the questions whether such divorces can be recognised according to Art. 21 Regulation No 2201/2003 (Brussels-IIbis), Art. 30 Regulation No 2019/1111 (Brussels-IIbis recast) and if they fall within the scope of the Regulation No 1259/2010 (Rome III).

 

W. Hau, Personal involvement as a prerequisite for European tort jurisdiction at the centre of the plaintiff’s interests

The case Mittelbayerischer Verlag KG v. SM gave the ECJ the opportunity to further develop its case law on the European forum delicti under Art. 7 No. 2 Brussels Ibis Regulation for actions for alleged infringements of personality rights on the internet. The starting point was the publication of an article on the homepage of a Bavarian newspaper, which misleadingly referred to “Polish extermination camps” (instead of “German extermination camps in occupied Poland”). Strangely enough, Polish law entitles every Polish citizen in such a case to invoke the “good reputation of Poland” as if it were his or her personal right. The ECJ draws a line here by requiring, as a precondition of Art. 7 No. 2, that the publication contains objective and verifiable elements which make it possible to individually identify, directly or indirectly, the person who wants to bring proceedings at the place of his or her centre of interest. While this approach allows for an appropriate solution to the case at hand, it leaves several follow-up questions open.

 

A. Hemler, Which point in time is relevant regarding the selection of a foreign forum by non-merchants according to § 38(2) German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO)?

38(2) German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) permits the selection of a foreign forum only if at least one party does not have a place of general jurisdiction in Germany. In the case discussed, the defendant had general jurisdiction in Germany only when the claim was filed. However, there was no general jurisdiction in Germany when the choice of forum clause was agreed upon. The Landgericht (district court) Frankfurt a.M. therefore had to decide on the relevant point in time regarding § 38(2) ZPO. Given the systematic structure of § 38 ZPO and the law’s purpose of advancing international legal relations, the court argued in favour of the point in time in which the choice of forum clause was agreed upon. The author of the paper rejects the court’s view: He argues that the systematic concerns are less stringent on closer inspection. More important, however, is the fact that the law also calls for the protection of non-merchants. This can only be sufficiently achieved if the point in time in which the claim was filed is regarded as the crucial one.

 

D. Henrich, News on private divorces in and outside the EU

In two decisions the German Federal Court of Justice (“BGH”) had to deal with the recognition of private divorces (divorces without involvement of a state authority). In the first case (XII ZB 158/18) a couple of both Syrian and German nationality had been divorced in Syria by repudiation. While recognition of foreign public divorces (divorces by a state court or other state authority) is a question of procedure, private divorces are recognized if they are effective according to the applicable law, here the Rules of the Rome III Regulation (Article 17(1) Introductory Act to the Civil Code). Because the couple had no common ordinary residence, the Court applied Article 8 lit. c Rome III Regulation. German Law dominating, the Court denied recognition.

In the second case (XII ZB 187/20) the BGH made a reference for a preliminary ruling of the European Court of Justice regarding the recognition of a divorce in Italy in the register office in front of the registrar. The BGH follows the opinion that in such cases it is the consent of the parties that dissolves the marriage, the divorce being a private one. The BGH questions whether in spite of that the divorce could be recognized according to Sec. 21 Council Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 or, if not, according to Sec. 46 of the Council Regulation.

 

C. Budzikiewicz, On the classification of dowry agreements

Agreements on the payment of a bride’s dowry are a recurring topic in German courts. It usually becomes the subject of a legal dispute in connection with or after a divorce. This was also the case in the decision to be discussed here, in which the applicant demands that her divorced husband pay for the costs of a pilgrimage to Mecca. Since the case has an international connection due to the husband’s Libyan nationality, the Federal Supreme Court first addresses the controversial question of the characterization of dowry. However, since all connection options lead to German law in the present case, the Court ultimately refrains from deciding the question of characterization. It explains that the agreement on the payment of dowry is to be classified under German law as a sui generis family law contract, which requires notarization in order to be effective. The article critically examines the decision. In doing so, it addresses both the question of characterization of dowry and the need for form of agreements on the payment of dowry under German law.

 

E. Jayme and G. Liberati Buccianti, Private Divorces under Italian Law: Conflict of Laws

Divorce, under German law, is only permitted by a decision of a judge, even in cases where a foreign law is applicable which would allow a private divorce based on the agreement of the spouses. Italy, however, has introduced, in 2014, a divorce by private agreement in two procedures: the agreement of the spouses can be submitted to the public prosecutor who, in case he agrees, will send it to the civil registrar, or, secondly, by a direct application of the spouses to the civil registrar of the place where the marriage had been registered.

The article discusses the problems of private international law and international civil procedure, particularly in cases where Italian spouses living in Germany intend to reach a private divorce in Italy. The discussion includes same-sex-marriages of Italian spouses concluded in Germany which are permitted under German law, but not under Italian law, according to which only a “civil union” is possible. The Italian legislator has enacted (2017) a statute according to which the same-sex-marriage concluded by Italian citizens abroad will have the effects of a civil union under Italian law. The question arises of whether the Italian rules on terminating a civil union will have an effect on the spouses marriage concluded in Germany.

The article also discusses the validity of private divorces obtained in Third States which are not members of the European Union, particularly with regard to religious divorces by talaq expressed by the husband, and the problem whether such divorces are compatible with the principles of public policy. The authors mention also the specific problems of Italian law with regard to religious (catholic) marriages concluded and registered in Italy, where a divorce by Italian law is possible which, however, may be in conflict with a nullity judgment of the catholic church.

 

G. Mäsch and C. Wittebol, None of Our Concern? – A Group of Companies‘ Cross-border Environmental Liability Before Dutch Courts

The issue of cross-border corporate responsibility has been in the limelight of legal debate for some time. In its decision of 29 January 2021, the Court of Appeal of The Hague (partially) granted a liability claim against the parent company Royal Dutch Shell plc with central administration in The Hague for environmental damages caused by its Nigerian subsidiary. In particular, the Dutch court had to address the much-discussed question to what extent domestic parent companies are liable before domestic courts for environmental damage committed by their subsidiaries abroad, and whether domestic courts have international jurisdiction over the subsidiary. With this precedent, the number of cross-border human rights and environmental claims is likely to rise in the near future.

 

H. Jacobs, Article 4(2) and (3) Rome II Regulation in a case involving multiple potential tortfeasors

In Owen v Galgey, the High Court of England and Wales engaged in a choice of law analysis in a case involving multiple potential tortfeasors. The claimant, a British citizen habitually resident in England, was injured in France when he fell into an empty swimming pool. In the proceedings before the High Court, he claimed damages from, inter alia, the owner of the holiday home and his wife, both British citizens habitually resident in England, and from a French contractor who was carrying out renovation works on the swimming pool at the material time. The judgment is concerned with the applicability of Article 4(2) Rome II Regulation in multi-party tort cases and the operation of the escape clause in Article 4(3) Rome II Regulation. While the High Court’s view that Article 4(2) requires a separate consideration of each pair of claimants and defendants is convincing, it is submitted that the court should have given greater weight to the parties’ common habitual residence when applying Article 4(3).

 

The table of contents of the issue is available here.