Droit international général

On 17 December 2021, the UNCITRAL RCAPUM Joint Conference, an event celebrating the 2021 UNCITRAL Asia Pacific Day, is scheduled in the University of Macau (Macau SAR) under the title “Conquering the COVID: Enhancing Economic Recovery through Harmonization of Law Governing MSMEs”. This is the annual conference rising from the successful cooperation between the UNCITRAL Regional Centre for Asia and the Pacific (RCAP) and the University of Macau since 2014. The UNCITRAL RCAP-UM Joint Conference 2021 intends to bring together a group of distinguished experts and scholars to analyze contemporary issues related to the current agenda of UNCITRAL impacting MSMEs and the legal instruments resulting from its previous works. The conference will focus on the following tracks: 1. MSMEs formation: simplification of practices in business registration and transformation of business establishment procedures. 2. Creating congenial legal environment for MSMEs in special economic zones through legal harmonization: regional developments including the Guangdong-Macao in-depth Cooperation Zone. 3. MSME Financing: Financial support, access to credit, and sustainable finance for MSMEs & MSE insolvency, further efforts of UNCITRAL to simplify insolvency procedures, and unify insolvency law. 4. Promotion of viable dispute resolution mechanisms for MSMEs through adaptation of arbitration and mediation. 5. Contemporary legal developments facilitating the establishment and the successful operation of the MSMEs.

As the core legal body of the United Nations system in the field of international trade law, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) seeks to progressively harmonize and modernize trade laws by preparing and promoting the adoption and use of legislative and nonlegislative instruments in several key areas of commercial law. UNCITRAL RCAP (Incheon, Republic of Korea) was inaugurated in 2012 to promote the work of UNCITRAL in the Asia-Pacific region and provide technical assistance to the states concerning the implementation and uniform interpretation of UNCITRAL texts, thereby diminishing legal obstacles to global commercial transactions. University of Macau, founded in 1981, is the leading comprehensive public university in Macau. It is a resourceful and ambitious educational institution with unique Sino-European heritage and global connections. In 2017, it was ranked within the top-50 universities in Asia by the Times Higher Education Asia University Rankings. It has also been ranked within the top-100 Asian University Rankings in QS World University Rankings. The Faculty of Law of the University of Macau, responsible for organizing the conference, is the oldest law school in Macau. With its diversemultilingual programs and teaching staff of international background, the Faculty has been playing a vital role in promoting legal education and research in Macau and contributing to the build-up of the local legal system. In addition, the Faculty of Law has also successfully held many high-level international conferences and meetings on a range of legal topics.

The registration for the conference is free of charge. Participants should complete registration in advance and obtain confirmation to secure a place at the conference. The deadline for registration is 15 December 2021.  The conference will be held on 17 December 2021 in a mixed format (online and offline). The speakers and participants from outside Macau are invited to take part in the conference via Zoom. The conference will start at 9:30 a.m. (Macau time) and may end late in the evening to accommodate speakers and participants from different time zones.

FOR MORE INFORMATION AND ENQUIRIES, PLEASE CONTACT US AT LAW.UMUNCITRAL@UM.EDU.MO

New civil procedure rules in Singapore

New civil procedure rules (Rules of Court 2021) for the General Division of the High Court (excluding the Singapore International Commercial Court (‘SICC’)) have been gazetted and will be implemented on 1 April 2022. The reform is intended to modernise the litigation process and improve efficiency.[1] New rules for the SICC have also been gazetted and will similarly come into operation on 1 April 2022.

This update focuses on the rules which apply to the General Division of the High Court (excluding the SICC). New rules which are of particular interest from a conflict of laws point of view include changes to the rules on service out. The new Order 8 rule 1 provides that:

‘(1) An originating process or other court document may be served out of Singapore with the Court’s approval if it can be shown that the Court has the jurisdiction or is the appropriate court to hear the action.

…

(3) The Court’s approval is not required if service out of Singapore is allowed under a contract between the parties.

…’

The current rules on service out is to be found in Order 11 of the Rules of Court. This requires that the plaintiff (‘claimant’ under the new Rules) establish that (1) there is a good arguable case that the action fits within one of the heads of Order 11; (2) there is a serious issue to be tried on the merits; and (3) Singapore is forum conveniens.[2] The heads of Order 11 generally require a nexus to be shown between the parties or subject-matter of the action to Singapore and are based on the predecessor to the UK Civil Procedure Rules Practice Direction 6B paragraph 3.1. The wording of the new Order 8 rule 1(1) suggests a drastic departure from the current Order 11 framework; however, this is not the case.

There will be two alternative grounds of service out: either the Singapore court ‘has the jurisdiction’ to hear the action or ‘is the appropriate court’ to hear the action. The first ground of service out presumably covers situations such as where the Singapore court is the chosen court in accordance with the Choice of Court Agreements Act 2016,[3] which enacts the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements into Singapore law. The second ground of service out i.e. that the Singapore court is the ‘appropriate court’ to hear the action could, on one view, be read to refer only to the requirement under the current framework that Singapore is forum conveniens. However, the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021, which are to be read with the new Rules of Court, make it clear that the claimant still has to show:[4]

‘(a) there is a good arguable case that there is sufficient nexus to Singapore;

(b) Singapore is the forum conveniens; and

(c)  there is a serious question to be tried on the merits of the claim.’

The Practice Directions go on to give as examples of a sufficient nexus to Singapore factors which are substantively identical to the current Order 11 heads.[5] As these are non-exhaustive examples, the difference between the current rules and this new ground of service out is that the claimant may still succeed in obtaining leave to serve out even though the action does not fit within one of the heads of the current Order 11. This is helpful insofar as the scope of some of the heads are uncertain; for example, it is unclear whether an action for a declaration that a contract does not exist falls within the current contractual head of service out[6] as there is no equivalent to the UK CPR PD 6B paragraph 3.1(8).[7] Yet at the same time, the Court of Appeal had previously taken a wide interpretation of Order 11 rule 1(n), which reads:  ‘the claim is made under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap. 65A), the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing Act (Cap. 325) or any other written law’.[8] The phrase ‘any written law’ was held not to be read ejusdem generis[9] and would include the court’s powers, conferred by s 18 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act read together with paragraph 14 of the First Schedule, to ‘grant all reliefs and remedies at law and in equity, including damages in addition to, or in substitution for, an injunction or specific performance.’[10] This interpretation of Order 11 rule 1(n) arguably achieves much the same effect as the new ‘appropriate court’ ground of service out.

The new Order 8 rule 1(3) is to be welcomed. However, it is important to note that a choice of court agreement for the Singapore court which is unaccompanied by an agreement to permit service out of Singapore will still require an application for leave to serve out under the ‘has jurisdiction’ ground (if the Choice of Court Agreements Act is applicable) or the ‘appropriate court’ ground (if the Choice of Court Agreements Act is not applicable).

Other provisions in the new Rules of Court 2021 which are of interest deal with a challenge to the jurisdiction of the court. A defendant may challenge the jurisdiction of the court on the grounds that the court has no jurisdiction to hear the action or the court should not exercise jurisdiction to hear the action. A challenge on either ground ‘is not treated as a submission to jurisdiction’.[11] This seemingly obviates the established common law understanding that a jurisdictional challenge which attacks the existence of the court’s jurisdiction (a setting aside application) does not amount to a submission to the court’s jurisdiction, whereas a jurisdictional challenge which requests the court not to exercise the jurisdiction which it has (a stay application) amounts to a submission to the court’s jurisdiction.[12] Further to that, the provisions which deal with challenges to the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction are worded slightly differently depending on whether the action is commenced by way of an originating claim or an originating application. For the former, Order 6 rule 7(5) provides that ‘The challenge to jurisdiction may be for the reason that –  … (b) the Court should not exercise jurisdiction to hear the action.’ For the latter, Order 6 rule 12(4) elaborates that ‘The challenge to jurisdiction may be for the reason that – … (b) the Court should not exercise jurisdiction because it is not the appropriate Court to hear the action.’ The difference in wording is puzzling because one assumes that the same types of challenges are possible regardless of whether the action is commenced by way of an originating claim or originating application – eg, challenges based on forum non conveniens, abuse of process or case management reasons. Given use of the word ‘may’ in both provisions though, it ought to be the case that the different wording does not lead to any substantive difference on the types of challenges which are permissible.

[1] See media release here.

[2] Zoom Communications v Broadcast Solutions Pte Ltd [2014] 4 SLR 500 (CA).

[3] Cap 39A.

[4] Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021 (To be read with Rules of Court 2021), p 72.

[5] Ibid, pp 72-73.

[6] Rules of Court, Order 11 rule 1(d).

[7] ‘A claim is made for a declaration that no contract exists …’.

[8] Li Shengwu v Attorney-General [2019] 1 SLR 1081 (CA).

[9] Ibid, [168]-[170].

[10] Ibid, [161].

[11] Rules of Court 2021, Order 6 rule 7(6) (originating claim); Order 6 rule 12(5) (originating application.

[12] Zoom Communications v Broadcast Solutions Pte Ltd [2014] 4 SLR 500 (CA).

This post was contributed by Dr. Vito Bumbaca, who is Assistant Lecturer at the University of Geneva

In a ruling of 2 August 2021 (A v. B, C-262/21 PPU), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) clarified that a child who is allegedly wrongfully removed, meaning without consent of the other parent, should not return to his/ her habitual residence if such a removal took place as a consequence of the ordered transfer determining international responsibility based on the Dublin III Regulation. The judgment is not available in English and is the first ever emanating from this Court concerning the Brussels IIA-Dublin III interplay.

The Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (Brussels IIA Regulation) complements the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, and is applicable to 26 EU Member States, including Finland and Sweden. The Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast) (Dublin III), is pertinent for asylum seekers’ applications commenced at least in one of the 31 Dublin Member States (EU/EFTA), comprising Finland and Sweden, bound by this Regulation.

Questions for a CJEU urgent preliminary ruling:

The CJEU was referred five questions, but only addressed the first two.

‘(1) Must Article 2(11) of [Regulation No 2201/2003], relating to the wrongful removal of a child, be interpreted as meaning that a situation in which one of the parents, without the other parent’s consent, removes the child from his or her place of residence to another Member State, which is the Member State responsible under a transfer decision taken by an authority in application of Regulation [No 604/2013], must be classified as wrongful removal?

(2) If the answer to the first question is in the negative, must Article 2(11) [of Regulation No 2201/2003], relating to wrongful retention, be interpreted as meaning that a situation in which a court of the child’s State of residence has annulled the decision taken by an authority to transfer examination of the file, and to take no further action since the mother and child have left the State of residence, but in which the child whose return is ordered, no longer has a currently valid residence document in his or her State of residence, or the right to enter or to remain in the State in question, must be classified as wrongful retention?’

Contents of the CJEU judgment:

In 2019, a married couple, third-State nationals (Iran), both with regard to Brussels IIA and Dublin III respective Member States, moved from Finland to settle in Sweden. Since 2016, the couple had lived in Finland for around three years. In 2019, a child was born in Sweden. The couple was exercising joint custody over the child in conformity with Swedish law. The mother was holding a family residency permit, in both Finland and Sweden, through the father’s employment rights. The approved duration of the mother’s residency right in Finland was around one year longer than in Sweden.

Two months after the child’s birth, the latter and the mother were placed under Swedish residential care (hostel). Essentially, the Swedish administrative decision to uphold this care protective measure was the result of the father’s violence against the mother, so to protect the child from the risks against his development and health, as well as to prevent his wrongful removal to Iran possibly envisaged by his father. Limited contact rights were granted to the father. A residency permit was requested, individually, by the father and the mother based on the family lien – request respectively filed on 21 November and 4 December 2019.

In August 2020, the mother submitted an asylum request, for the child and herself, before the Swedish authorities. The same month, the Finnish authorities declared themselves internationally responsible over the mother’s and child’s asylum request by virtue of article 12(3) of Dublin III – based on the longer duration of the residency permit previously delivered according to Finnish law. In October 2020, the Swedish authorities dismissed the father’s and rejected the mother’s respective residency and asylum requests, and ordered the transfer of the child and his mother to Finland. Taking into account the father’s presence as a threat against the child, the limited contacts established between them, and the father’s residency right in Finland, the Swedish authorities concluded that the child’s separation from his father was not against his best interests and that the transfer was not an obstacle to the exercise of the father’s visitation right in Finland. In November 2020, the mother and the child moved to Finland pursuant to article 29(1) of Dublin III. In December 2020, the father filed an appeal against the Swedish court’s decisions, which was upheld by the Swedish Immigration Tribunal (‘Migrationsdomstolen i Stockholm’), although it resulted later to be dismissed by the Swedish Immigration Authorities, and then rejected by the Immigration Tribunal, due to the child’s relocation to Finland (CJEU ruling, § 23-24).

In January 2021, the father filed a new request before the Swedish authorities for family residency permit on behalf of the child, which was still ongoing at the time of this judgment (CJEU ruling, § 25). During the same month, the mother deposited an asylum application before the Finnish authorities, which was still ongoing at the time of this judgment – the mother’s and child’s residency permits were withdrawn by the Finnish authorities (CJEU ruling, § 26). In April 2021, the Swedish Court (‘Västmanlands tingsrätt’), notwithstanding the mother’s objection to their jurisdiction, granted divorce, sole custody to the mother and refused visitation right to the father – upheld in appeal (‘Svea hovrätt’). Prior to it, the father filed an application for child return before the Helsinki Court of Appeal (‘Helsingin hovioikeus’), arguing that the mother had wrongfully removed the child to Finland, on the grounds of the 1980 Hague Convention. The return application was rejected. On the father’s appeal, the Finnish authorities stayed proceedings and requested an urgent preliminary ruling from the CJEU, in line with article 107 of the Luxembourg Court’s rules of procedure.

CJEU reasoning:

The Court reiterated that a removal or retention shall be wrongful when a child holds his habitual residence in the requesting State and that a custody right is attributed to, and effectively exercised by, the left-behind parent consistently with the law of that State (§ 45). The primary objectives of the Brussels IIA Regulation, particularly within its common judicial space aimed to ensure mutual recognition of judgments, and the 1980 Hague Convention are strictly related for abduction prevention and immediate obtainment of effective child return orders (§ 46).

The Court stated that, pursuant to articles 2 § 11 and 11 of the Brussels IIA Regulation, the child removal to a Member State other than the child’s habitual residence, essentially performed by virtue of the mother’s right of custody and effective care while executing a transfer decision based on article 29 § 1 of the Dublin III Regulation, should not be contemplated as wrongful (§ 48). In addition, the absence of ‘take charge’ request following the annulment of a transfer decision, namely for the purposes of article 29 § 3 of Dublin III, which was not implemented by the Swedish authorities, would lead the retention not to being regarded as unlawful (§ 50). Consequently, as maintained by the Court, the child’s relocation was just a consequence of his administrative situation in Sweden (§ 51). A conclusion opposing the Court reasoning would be to the detriment of the Dublin III Regulation objectives.

Some insights from national precedents:

In the case ATF 5A_121/2018, involving a similar scenario (cf. FamPra.ch 1/2019), the Swiss Federal Court maintained that a child born in Greece, who had lived for more than a year with his mother in Switzerland, had to be returned to Greece (place of the left-behind parent’s residence) based on the established child’s habitual residence prior to the wrongful removal to Switzerland, notwithstanding his pending asylum application in the latter State. Indeed, the Greek authorities had been internationally responsible over the child’s asylum request on the basis of his father’s residence document. However also in that case it was alleged that the father had been violent against the mother and that a judgment ordering the child’s return to Greece, alone or without his mother (§ 5.3), would not have caused harm to the child under the 1980 Hague Convention, art. 13.

In the case G v. G [2021] UKSC 9, involving a slightly different scenario in that no multiple asylum requests were submitted, the UKSC judged that a child, of eight years old born in South Africa, should not be returned – stay of proceedings – until an asylum decision, based on an asylum application filed in England, had been taken by the UK authorities. The UKSC considered that, although an asylum claim might be tactically submitted to frustrate child return to his/ her country of habitual residence prior to wrongful removal or retention, it is vital that an asylum claim over an applicant child, accompanied or not by his/ her primary carer, is brought forward while awaiting a final decision – in conformity with the ‘non-refoulement’ principle pursuant to article 33 of the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.

Comment:

The CJEU ruling is momentous dictum in that it holds the not any longer uncommon intersection of private international law and vulnerable migration, especially with regard to children in need of international protection in accordance with both Brussels IIA and Dublin III Regulations (cf. Brussels IIA, § 9, and Dublin III, article 2 lit. b). The Luxembourg Court clarifies that a child who is allegedly wrongfully removed, meaning without consent of the other parent, should not return to his/ her habitual residence if such a removal took place as a consequence of the ordered transfer determining international responsibility based on the Dublin III Regulation. It is emphasised that, contrary to the Swiss judgment, the child in the instant case did not have any personal attachments with Finland at the time of the relocation – neither by birth nor by entourage – country of destination for the purposes of the Dublin III transfer. Moreover, the ‘transfer of responsibility’ for the purposes of Dublin III should be contemplated as an administrative decision only, regardless of the child’s habitual residence.

It is observed as a preamble that, according to a well-known CJEU practice, a child should not be regarded as to establish a habitual residence in a Member State in which he or she has never been physically present (CJEU, OL v. PQ, 8 June 2017, C-111/17 PPU; CJEU, UD v. XB, 17 October 2018, C-393/18 PPU). Hence, it appears procedurally just that the Swedish courts retained international jurisdiction over custody, perhaps with the aim of Brussels IIA, article 8 – the child’s habitual residence at the time of the seisin, which occurred prior to the transfer to Finland. On that procedural departure, the Swedish courts custody judgment is substantially fair in that the father’s abuse against the mother is indeed an element that should be retained for parental responsibility, including abduction, merits (CJEU ruling, § 48; UKSC judgment, § 62).

However, it is argued here that, particularly given that at the relevant time Sweden was the child’s place of birth where he lived for around 14 months with his primary carer, the Swedish and the Finnish authorities might have ‘concentrated’ jurisdiction and responsibility in one Member State, namely Sweden, ultimately to avoid further length and costs related to the asylum procedures in line with the same Dublin III objectives evoked by the CJEU – namely “guarantee effective access to the procedures for granting international protection and not to compromise the objective of the rapid processing of applications for international protection” (§ 5, Dublin III). Conversely, provided that the child’s relocation was not wrongful as indicated by the Finnish authorities, and confirmed by the CJEU ruling, the Swedish authorities may have opted for the ‘transfer of jurisdiction’ towards the Finnish authorities on the basis of Brussels IIA, article 15(1) lit. b, indicating the child’s new habitual residence (cf. Advocate General’s opinion, § 41) following the lawful relocation (cf. article 15.3., lit. a).

Importantly, concentration of jurisdiction-responsibility over a child seeking international protection in one Member State, in light of the Brussels IIA-Dublin III interplay, would essentially determine a coordinated interpretation of the child’s best interests (cf. Brussels II, § 12, and Dublin III, § 13), avoiding two parallel administrative-judicial proceedings in two Member States whose authorities may not always come to similar views, as opposed to the present case, over such interests (AG’s opinion, § 48). This is particularly true, if the child (non-)return to his/ her habitual residence might likely be influenced, as stated in the CJEU ruling, by his/ her administrative situation, which would potentially have an impact on the international custody jurisdiction determination. An example of controversial outcome, dealing with child abduction-asylum proceedings, is the profoundly divergent opinion arising from the UK and Swiss respective rulings, to the extent of child return in a situation where the mother, primary carer, is or could be subject to domestic violence in the requesting State.

Similarly, the UKSC guidance, in ‘G v. G’, affirmed: “Due to the time taken by the in-country appeal process this bar is likely to have a devastating impact on 1980 Hague Convention proceedings. I would suggest that this impact should urgently be addressed by consideration being given as to a legislative solution […] However, whilst the court does not determine the request for international protection it does determine the 1980 Hague Convention proceedings so that where issues overlap the court can come to factual conclusions on the overlapping issues so long as the prohibition on determining the claim for international protection is not infringed […] First, as soon as it is appreciated that there are related 1980 Hague Convention proceedings and asylum proceedings it will generally be desirable that the Secretary of State be requested to intervene in the 1980 Hague Convention proceedings” (UKSC judgment, § 152-157). Clearly, the legislative solution on a more efficient coordination of child abduction-asylum proceedings, invoked by the UK courts, may also be raised with the EU [and Swiss] legislator, considering their effects on related custody orders.

– Cross posted at the EAPIL blog.

This post was contributed by Dr. Vito Bumbaca, who is Assistant Lecturer at the University of Geneva.

In a ruling of 2 August 2021 (A v. B, C-262/21 PPU), the CJEU clarified that a child who is allegedly wrongfully removed, meaning without consent of the other parent, should not return to his/ her habitual residence if such a removal took place as a consequence of the ordered transfer determining international responsibility based on the Dublin III Regulation. The judgment is not available in English and is the first ever emanating from this Court concerning the Brussels IIA-Dublin III interplay.

The Brussels IIA Regulation complements the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, and is applicable to 26 EU Member States, including Finland and Sweden. The Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast) (Dublin III), is pertinent for asylum seekers’ applications commenced at least in one of the 31 Member States (EU/EFTA), comprising Finland and Sweden, bound by this Regulation.

The CJEU was referred five questions, but only addressed the first two.

(1) Must Article 2(11) of [Regulation No 2201/2003], relating to the wrongful removal of a child, be interpreted as meaning that a situation in which one of the parents, without the other parent’s consent, removes the child from his or her place of residence to another Member State, which is the Member State responsible under a transfer decision taken by an authority in application of Regulation [No 604/2013], must be classified as wrongful removal?

(2) If the answer to the first question is in the negative, must Article 2(11) [of Regulation No 2201/2003], relating to wrongful retention, be interpreted as meaning that a situation in which a court of the child’s State of residence has annulled the decision taken by an authority to transfer examination of the file, and to take no further action since the mother and child have left the State of residence, but in which the child whose return is ordered, no longer has a currently valid residence document in his or her State of residence, or the right to enter or to remain in the State in question, must be classified as wrongful retention?

In 2019, a married couple, third-State nationals (Iran), both with regard to Brussels IIA and Dublin III respective Member States, moved from Finland to settle in Sweden. Since 2016, the couple had lived in Finland for around three years. In 2019, a child was born in Sweden. The couple was exercising joint custody over the child in conformity with Swedish law. The mother was holding a family residency permit, in both Finland and Sweden, through the father’s employment rights. The approved duration of the mother’s residency right in Finland was around one year longer than in Sweden.

Two months after the child’s birth, the latter and the mother were placed under Swedish residential care (hostel). Essentially, the Swedish administrative decision to uphold this care protective measure was the result of the father’s violence against the mother, so to protect the child from the risks against his development and health, as well as to prevent his wrongful removal to Iran possibly envisaged by his father. Limited contact rights were granted to the father. A residency permit was requested, individually, by the father and the mother based on the family lien – request respectively filed on 21 November and 4 December 2019.

In August 2020, the mother submitted an asylum request, for the child and herself, before the Swedish authorities. The same month, the Finnish authorities declared themselves internationally responsible over the mother’s and child’s asylum request by virtue of article 12(3) of Dublin III – based on the longer duration of the residency permit previously delivered according to Finnish law. In October 2020, the Swedish authorities dismissed the father’s and rejected the mother’s respective residency and asylum requests, and ordered the transfer of the child and his mother to Finland. Taking into account the father’s presence as a threat against the child, the limited contacts established between them, and the father’s residency right in Finland, the Swedish authorities concluded that the child’s separation from his father was not against his best interests and that the transfer was not an obstacle to the exercise of the father’s visitation right in Finland. In November 2020, the mother and the child moved to Finland pursuant to article 29(1) of Dublin III. In December 2020, the father filed an appeal against the Swedish court’s decisions, which was upheld by the Swedish Immigration Tribunal (‘Migrationsdomstolen i Stockholm’), although it resulted later to be dismissed by the Swedish Immigration Authorities, and then rejected by the Immigration Tribunal, due to the child’s relocation to Finland (CJEU ruling, § 23-24).

In January 2021, the father filed a new request before the Swedish authorities for family residency permit on behalf of the child, which was still ongoing at the time of this judgment (CJEU ruling, § 25). During the same month, the mother deposited an asylum application before the Finnish authorities, which was still ongoing at the time of this judgment – the mother’s and child’s residency permits were withdrawn by the Finnish authorities (CJEU ruling, § 26). In April 2021, the Swedish Court (‘Västmanlands tingsrätt’), notwithstanding the mother’s objection to their jurisdiction, granted divorce, sole custody to the mother and refused visitation right to the father – upheld in appeal (‘Svea hovrätt’). Prior to it, the father filed an application for child return before the Helsinki Court of Appeal (‘Helsingin hovioikeus’), arguing that the mother had wrongfully removed the child to Finland, on the grounds of the 1980 Hague Convention. The return application was rejected. On the father’s appeal, the Finnish authorities stayed proceedings and requested an urgent preliminary ruling from the CJEU, in line with article 107 of the Luxembourg Court’s rules of procedure.

The Court reiterated that a removal or retention shall be wrongful when a child holds his habitual residence in the requesting State and that a custody right is attributed to, and effectively exercised by, the left-behind parent consistently with the law of that State (§ 45). The primary objectives of the Brussels IIA Regulation, particularly within its common judicial space aimed to ensure mutual recognition of judgments, and the 1980 Hague Convention are strictly related for abduction prevention and immediate obtainment of effective child return orders (§ 46).

The Court stated that, pursuant to articles 2 § 11 and 11 of the Brussels IIA Regulation, the child removal to a Member State other than the child’s habitual residence, essentially performed by virtue of the mother’s right of custody and effective care while executing a transfer decision based on article 29 § 1 of the Dublin III Regulation, should not be contemplated as wrongful (§ 48). In addition, the absence of ‘take charge’ request following the annulment of a transfer decision, namely for the purposes of article 29 § 3 of Dublin III, which was not implemented by the Swedish authorities, would lead the retention not to being regarded as unlawful (§ 50). Consequently, as maintained by the Court, the child’s relocation was just a consequence of his administrative situation in Sweden (§ 51). A conclusion opposing the Court reasoning would be to the detriment of the Dublin III Regulation objectives.

In the case ATF 5A_121/2018, involving a similar scenario (cf. FamPra.ch 1/2019), the Swiss Federal Court maintained that a child born in Greece, who had lived for more than a year with his mother in Switzerland, had to be returned to Greece (place of the left-behind parent’s residence) based on the established child’s habitual residence prior to the wrongful removal to Switzerland, notwithstanding his pending asylum application in the latter State. Indeed, the Greek authorities had been internationally responsible over the child’s asylum request on the basis of his father’s residence document. However also in that case it was alleged that the father had been violent against the mother and that a judgment ordering the child’s return to Greece, alone or without his mother (§ 5.3), would not have caused harm to the child under the 1980 Hague Convention, art. 13.

In the case G v. G [2021] UKSC 9, involving a slightly different scenario in that no multiple asylum requests were submitted, the UKSC judged that a child, of eight years old born in South Africa, should not be returned – stay of proceedings – until an asylum decision, based on an asylum application filed in England, had been taken by the UK authorities. The UKSC considered that, although an asylum claim might be tactically submitted to frustrate child return to his/ her country of habitual residence prior to wrongful removal or retention, it is vital that an asylum claim over an applicant child, accompanied or not by his/ her primary carer, is brought forward while awaiting a final decision – in conformity with the ‘non-refoulement’ principle pursuant to article 33 of the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.

The CJEU ruling is momentous dictum in that it holds the not any longer uncommon intersection of private international law and vulnerable migration, especially with regard to children in need of international protection in accordance with both Brussels IIA and Dublin III Regulations (cf. Brussels IIA, § 9, and Dublin III, article 2 lit. b). The Luxembourg Court clarifies that a child who is allegedly wrongfully removed, meaning without consent of the other parent, should not return to his/ her habitual residence if such a removal took place as a consequence of the ordered transfer determining international responsibility based on the Dublin III Regulation. It is emphasised that, contrary to the Swiss judgment, the child in the instant case did not have any personal attachments with Finland at the time of the relocation – neither by birth nor by entourage – country of destination for the purposes of the Dublin III transfer. Moreover, the ‘transfer of responsibility’ for the purposes of Dublin III should be contemplated as an administrative decision only, regardless of the child’s habitual residence.

It is observed as a preamble that, according to a well known CJEU practice, a child should not be regarded as to establish a habitual residence in a Member State in which he or she has never been physically present (CJEU, OL v. PQ, 8 June 2017, C-111/17 PPU; CJEU, UD v. XB, 17 October 2018, C-393/18 PPU). Hence, it appears procedurally just that the Swedish courts retained international jurisdiction over custody, perhaps with the aim of Brussels IIA, article 8 – the child’s habitual residence at the time of the seisin, which occurred prior to the transfer to Finland. On that procedural departure, the Swedish courts custody judgment is substantially fair in that the father’s abuse against the mother is indeed an element that should be retained for parental responsibility, including abduction, merits (CJEU ruling, § 48; UKSC judgment, § 62).

However, it is argued here that, particularly given that at the relevant time Sweden was the child’s place of birth where he lived for around 14 months with his primary carer, the Swedish and the Finnish authorities might have ‘concentrated’ jurisdiction and responsibility in one Member State, namely Sweden, ultimately to avoid further length and costs related to the asylum procedures in line with the same Dublin III objectives evoked by the CJEU – namely “guarantee effective access to the procedures for granting international protection and not to compromise the objective of the rapid processing of applications for international protection” (§ 5, Dublin III). Conversely, provided that the child’s relocation was not wrongful as indicated by the Finnish authorities, and confirmed by the CJEU ruling, the Swedish authorities may have opted for the ‘transfer of jurisdiction’ towards the Finnish authorities on the basis of Brussels IIA, article 15(1) lit. b, indicating the child’s new habitual residence (cf. Advocate General’s opinion, § 41) following the lawful relocation (cf. article 15.3., lit. a).

Importantly, concentration of jurisdiction-responsibility over a child seeking international protection in one Member State, in light of the Brussels IIA-Dublin III interplay, would essentially determine a coordinated interpretation of the child’s best interests (cf. Brussels II, § 12, and Dublin III, § 13), avoiding two parallel administrative-judicial proceedings in two Member States whose authorities may not always come to similar views, as opposed to the present case, over such interests (AG’s opinion, § 48). This is particularly true, if the child (non-)return to his/ her habitual residence might likely be influenced, as stated in the CJEU ruling, by his/ her administrative situation, which would potentially have an impact on the international custody jurisdiction determination. An example of controversial outcome, dealing with child abduction-asylum proceedings, is the profoundly divergent opinion arising from the UK and Swiss respective rulings, to the extent of child return in a situation where the mother, primary carer, is or could be subject to domestic violence in the requesting State.

Similarly, the UKSC guidance, in ‘G v. G’, affirmed: “Due to the time taken by the in-country appeal process this bar is likely to have a devastating impact on 1980 Hague Convention proceedings. I would suggest that this impact should urgently be addressed by consideration being given as to a legislative solution […] However, whilst the court does not determine the request for international protection it does determine the 1980 Hague Convention proceedings so that where issues overlap the court can come to factual conclusions on the overlapping issues so long as the prohibition on determining the claim for international protection is not infringed […] First, as soon as it is appreciated that there are related 1980 Hague Convention proceedings and asylum proceedings it will generally be desirable that the Secretary of State be requested to intervene in the 1980 Hague Convention proceedings” (UKSC judgment, § 152-157). Clearly, the legislative solution on a more efficient coordination of child abduction-asylum proceedings, invoked by the UK courts, may also be raised with the EU [and Swiss] legislator, considering their effects on related custody orders.

— Cross posted at Conflictoflaws.net.

Thanks to Ilaria Pretelli for the tip-off. 

The XXIInd volume of the Yearbook of Private International Law  (2020/2021) has been released. It contains articles on the most important innovations in multilateral and national private international law by authors from all over the world. The readers will find an analysis on cross-border mobility of union citizens and continuity of civil status by Johan Meeusen as well as how to cope with the obstacles to mobility due to the pandemics (Bernard Haftel) and Brexit (Katarina Trimmings and Konstantina Kalaitsoglou). Two inspiring sections nourish the core of the volume: the editors present the most challenging innovations of Regulation Brussels II ter (EU Regulation 2019/1111), and the consequences of the global reach of the internet for private international law. The National reports section hosts articles on the new Croatian and Uruguayan Private International law Statutes.

The most recent innovations on classical themes of private international law (torts, muslim divorces, the degree of deference by state courts to international commercial arbitral awards, etc.) add to this already rich volume.

Readers are invited to view the table of contents and the foreword by the editors.

 Comparative Procedural Law and Justice (CPLJ) is a global project of the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law, with the support of the Luxembourg National Research Fund (019/13946847), involving more than one hundred scholars from all over the world.

CPLJ is envisioned as a comprehensive study of comparative civil procedural law and civil dispute resolution schemes in the contemporary world. It aims at understanding procedural rules in their cultural context, as well as at highlighting workable approaches to the resolution of civil disputes.

In this framework, the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law will host its 8th CPLJ Webinar on 28 January 2022, 3:00 – 5:45 pm (CET).

The programme reads as follows:

Chair: Loïc Cadiet (University of Paris 1)

3:00 pm John Dashaco (University of Yaoundé II)

Harmonization and Practice of Civil Procedure within the OHADA Sub-Region: Reflection on the Uniform Act on Simplified Recovery Procedure and Measures of Execution

3:30 pm Discussion

4:00 pm Intermission

4:15 pm Sami Bostanji (University of Tunis El Manar)

Droit Processuel Comparé: Regard Général sur les Droits des Pays Arabes (*)

5:00 pm Discussion

5:45 pm Closing of the event

The full programme is available here.

(Image credits:  Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam)

(*) Presentation in French. Consecutive interpretation in English will be provided.

Ralf Michaels, Veronica Ruiz Abou-Nigm and Hans van Loon have edited The Private Side of Transforming our World – UN Sustainable Development Goals 2030 and the Role of Private International Law, recently published by Intersentia.

In 2015, the United Nations formulated 17 ambitious goals towards transforming our world – the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 2030). Their relation to public international law has been studied, but private law has received less attention in this context and private international law none at all. Yet development happens – not only through public action but also through private action, and such action is governed predominantly by private law and private international law. This book demonstrates an important, constructive role for private international law as an indispensable part of the global legal architecture needed to turn the SDGs into reality. Renowned and upcoming scholars from around the world analyse, for each of the 17 SDGs, what role private international law actually plays towards these goals and how private international law could, or should, be reformed to advance them. Together, the chapters in the book bring to the fore the hitherto lacking private side of transforming our world.

An open access online version of this book is also available, thanks to financing by the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law. It is available here through Intersentia Online.

The book comes with a chapter for each Sustainable Development Goals, i.e.: No Poverty; Zero Hunger; Good Health and Well-Being; Quality Education; Gender Equality; Clean Water and Sanitation; Affordable and Clean Energy; Decent Work and Economic Growth; Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure; Reduced Inequalities; Sustainable Cities and Communities; Sustainable Consumption and Production; Climate Action; Life below Water; Life on Land; Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions; Partnership for the Goals.

Contributors include Eduardo Álvarez-Armas (Brunel University London), Vivienne Bath (University of Sydney), Gülüm Bayraktaroğlu-Özçelik (Bilkent University), Klaus D. Beiter (North-West University), Sabine Corneloup (University Paris II Panthéon-Assas), Klaas Hendrik Eller (University of Amsterdam), Nikitas E. Hatzimihail (University of Cyprus), Thalia Kruger (University of Antwerp), Ulla Liukkunen (University of Helsinki), Benyam Dawit Mezmur (University of the Western Cape), Ralf Michaels (Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law / Queen Mary University, London), Richard Frimpong Oppong (California Western School of Law), Fabricio B. Pasquot Polido (Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais), Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm (University of Edinburgh), Jay Sanderson (University of the Sunshine Coast), Tajudeen Sanni (Nelson Mandela University / One Ocean Hub), Geneviève Saumier (McGill University), Anabela Susana de Sousa Gonçalves (University of Minho School of Law), Drossos Stamboulakis (Monash University), Jeannette M.E. Tramhel (Organization of American States), Hans van Loon (Institut de droit international; former Secretary General Hague Conference) and Jinske Verhellen (Ghent University).

On 1 December 2021, the HCCH held an online event focused on contemporary issues relating to the application of the 2005 Choice of Court Convention. The recordings are available at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1pVCqvmzyM&list=PLL3fQvUXrbUH0PwGssTjuJ55qOCiEcgNW

On 8 November 2021, the HCCH Working Group on Preventing and Addressing Illicit Practices in Intercountry Adoption met with a view to developing a Toolkit aimed at preventing and addressing illicit practices in intercountry adoptions made under the 1993 Adoption Convention.
The report of the Group is available at https://assets.hcch.net/docs/35d8530a-b5bd-4330-b2fc-abda099e7f6b.pdf

In a decision of 26 October 2021 (RG 20/04526), the ICCP applies Rome II to acts of unfair competition resulting from the use by a Polish company of a forbidden product to increase the longetivity of fresh fruit salads sold in France :

« Sur la responsabilité de la société FRUCTOFRESH
Sur la loi applicable
94-Conformément à l’article 6 du Règlement CE n° 864 /2007 sur la loi applicable aux obligations non contractuelles, dit Rome II, qui s’applique dans les situations comportant un conflit de lois, aux obligations non contractuelles relevant de la matière civile et commerciale « la loi applicable à une obligation non contractuelle résultant d’un acte de concurrence déloyale est celle du pays sur le territoire duquel les relations de concurrence ou les intérêts collectifs des consommateurs sont affectés ou susceptibles de l’être. »

95- En l’espèce, les actes de concurrence déloyales allégués concernent le territoire français de telle sorte que le droit français dont l’application est commandée par les dispositions du Règlement précité est en conséquence applicable ce que les parties ne contestent pas ».

Résumé : « A judgment from the Créteil Commercial Court of the 4th February 2020, which rejected the unfair competition claim brought by Déli, a French fresh fruits salad distributor against Fructofresh, a Polish company which distributes the same kind of products in France, was partially overturned by the Paris Court of Appeal.

After ascertaining that French law was applicable to these tort claims, the Court decided, based on the exhibits produced that there were enough serious, precise and concurrent elements that Fructofresh had added in their products, between 2013 and 2016, a preservative forbidden by European regulation which is known as velcorin. This preservative allowed said company to extend the preservation period of fruit salads from 10 to 14 days.

The Court did not acknowledge Bharlev’s liability, another competitor, since there was no evidence of the product’s commercialisation. The Court acknowledged the discontinuance of Déli’s claims against the German distributor Drinkstar which sold the preservative to Fructofresh.

The court forbidden the Polish company to commercialise its products containing the prohibited preservative in France, and granted Déli’s claim for financial compensation which was calculated on the loss of profit during the dereferencing period by its client Pomona, which granted the tender to Fructofresh in 2016 ».

Source : https://www.cours-appel.justice.fr/paris/26102021-ccip-ca-rg-2004526-pratiques-anticoncurrentielles

In a decision of 19 October 2021 (RG 20/03074), the ICCP recalled Recital 13 Rome I, and applied its Article 3 in favour of French law (with URDG 758 as part of the contractual rules)

Résumé : « In this case, the ICCP-CA was seized of an appeal against a judgment of the Paris Commercial Court which had sentenced the Egyptian bank SAIB to carry out its obligation of counter-guarantee in favor of the British bank ABC. The British bank, first rank guarantor of an Egyptian importer CDCM, had paid to the French beneficiary Peugeot the amount of the unpaid invoices corresponding to the imported vehicles, and claimed the payment of said amount in execution of its counter-guarantee to the Egyptian bank.

The bank SAID refused to execute the payment, disputing the validity of the guarantee claim on the grounds that some invoices had already been paid and that the amount claimed was therefore incorrect.

The Court, in application of French law, the law chosen by the parties, and of the Uniform Rules of Guarantee on First Demand n° 758 to which the parties had referred to in their agreement, rejected SAIB bank’s exceptions of non-performance in application of the guarantee’s independence from the initial contract, which does not depend on the guarantee’s qualification of either a first demand guarantee or a stand-by letter of credit (SBLC), the Anglo-Saxon variation of the independent guarantee.

The Court held that the bank’s argument to refuse payment actually amounted to reintroduce into the debate, under the guise of the document’s conformity, the contract’s payment exceptions, which are not enforceable (§46).

The Court did not accept the exception of fraud, a new exception on appeal for which the conditions provided for in article 2321 of the French civil code were not met (§51). The decision of the first judges was therefore entirely confirmed »

Source: https://www.cours-appel.justice.fr/paris/19102021-ccip-ca-rg-2003074-jugement-du-tribunal-de-commerce-de-paris-execution-dune-contre

In a decision of 19 October 2021 (RG 20/02342), the ICCP made an interesting application of an accord procédural in favour of the lex fori, which bypasses the application of Rome I in the eyes of the Court.

Résumé : « In this case for liability due to the sudden termination of an established commercial relationship, the ICCP-CA decided that a company which executed a contract signed by its subsidiary after the latter’s liquidation had an established relationship for the entire duration of the commercial relationship. The durability of business was characterized by the continuation of a former relationship. The court ruled that, in consideration of the five year contractual relationship, the six month notice period was sufficient and therefore, there were no sudden termination.

In relation to the alleged termination of the exclusive commercial agency contract, the ICCP-CA held that the continuation of a commercial relationship established after the termination of the contract did not have as an effect to maintain the contractual exclusivity clause, unless ascertained otherwise by the parties, which was not demonstrated by them in this case, the company having terminated said clause before the term of the contract ».

Source: https://www.cours-appel.justice.fr/paris/19102021-ccip-ca-rg-2002342-contrat-distribution-exclusive

On 19 October 2021, HCCH organised an event to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the HCCH 1996 Child Protection Convention. The recordings are available here

Athena Capital Fund Sicav-Fis SCA & Ors v Secretariat of State for the Holy See [2021] EWHC 3166 (Comm) features as defendant the Secretariat of State of the Holy See  (not the Holy See itself), and relates to a fraud and embezzlement claim of property in Chelsea, London.

Defendant says that from the perspective of Claimants, the purpose and intention of bringing these proceedings is to try to influence the criminal process in Italy, and/or the publicity emanating from the criminal process.

For its jurisdictional challenge, defendant argues [81] i) The claim was not a “civil and commercial matter” within the meaning of A1(1) BIa; ii) one of the claimants was not a party to the relevant Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) and could not rely upon it [this was summarily dealt with [88] by suggesting an amendment of claim] and, more forcefully, (iii) Defendant was not a party to the SPA for the purposes of A25 BIa.

Salzedo J justifiably in my view held [84] that

whether the claim is a civil or commercial matter does not turn on the subjective intentions of the claimant as to the ultimate effect that a claim might have on its interests, but on an objective reading of the claim itself and the relief that it seeks from the court. On that basis, it is a claim for declarations against the Defendant concerning the Defendant’s entry into commercial transactions with the Claimants.

and that the transaction was not entered into by the Defendant in the purported exercise of public powers: [86]

The Transaction was one that any private person could have entered into if it had the requisite funds. Nothing that was essential to the Transaction required sovereign powers to enter it and nothing that the Defendant did or purported to do was in the exercise of public authority.

As for the defendant not being a party to the SPA, the context here is whether a party involved in the signing accepted the SPA and its choice of court as an agent of the defendant. The judge, confirming the parties’ consensus, points out that that agency issue befalls to be addressed by English law. It is not said why that is the case however it is of course the result of the amended A25 – as others before it, however, the court does not complete the lex fori prorogati analysis with the recital 20 in fine mandated renvoi. On the agency issue the judge holds there is a good arguable case that the relevant agent did bind the defendant.

Next [103] ff follows a CPR-heavy discussion on the amendment of the claim form, seeing as the claimants erroneously assumed [120] that BIa was not engaged as the Vatican is not party to Brussels Ia. At [123] the conclusion is that the claim form may be amended and that defendants’ time spent in dealing with the service out issues under the common law (a wasted exercise as BIa applied), may be met in the costs order.

Once the A25 point rejected, there would have been a most narrow window for any kind of stay, yet the defendants try anyways, with [129] a series of abuse and case management arguments. One particularly poignant one is that the proceedings would interfere with a criminal proceeding. After discussion the judge [159] dismisses the idea on the facts, seeing as none of the declarations sought would involve any assertion as to what does or does not amount to criminality as a matter of the law of the Vatican State.

[163] ff discusses the abuse of process issue which the defendants, I understand, presented more or less as being integrated into the criminal procedure element, discussed above. That was wise, for abuse of process, while entertained among others in Vedanta, is arguably noli sequitur in a BIa claim. [Support for the alternative view here was sought [172ff] in Messier-Dowty v Sabena SA[2000] 1 WLR 2040]

The case-management stay proper is discussed 192 ff with reference ia to Municipio, and Mad Atelier. The judge in current case is very aware of not re-introducing through the back door what CJEU Owusu shut the front door on. He summarily discussed the possibility anyway, only to reject it.

An interesting case.

Geert.

1/2 Jurisdiction. Fraud, embezzlement re investments by the Holy See.
Held claim is within scope of Brussels Ia; A25 choice of court applies despite claimants' late recourse to that ground; no stay on grounds that proceedings would interfere with foreign criminal proceeding. pic.twitter.com/7OXCsiOkUJ

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) December 1, 2021

Kazuaki Nishioka (visiting Research Fellow at the Law Faculty of the University of Zurich) and Yuko Nishitani (Professor of International Private and Business Law at Kyoto University Graduate School of Law) published a new book on Japanese Private International Law with Hart Publishing series – Studies in Private International Law – Asia.

The volume seeks to be a leading reference on Japanese private international law in English. The chapters systematically cover all the areas of Japanese private international law: commercial matters, family law, succession, cross-border insolvency, intellectual property, competition (antitrust), and environmental disputes.

The analysis does not look only into the traditional conflict of law areas of jurisdiction, applicable law (choice of law), and enforcement, but addresses also the conflict of law questions arising in arbitration and assesses Japanese involvement in the global harmonisation of private international law.

In addition to summarising relevant principles and scholarly views, the authors discuss case law whenever possible, identify deficiencies and anticipate difficulties in the existing law.

The book presents the Japanese conflict of laws through a combination of common and civil law analytical techniques and perspectives, providing readers worldwide with a more profound and comprehensive understanding of the subject.

A table of contents is available here and an extract here.

Bitar v Banque Libano-Francaise S.A.L. [2021] EWHC 2787 (QB) discusses whether a Lebanese bank could be considered to have ‘directed’ its activities at the UK under the CJEU Pammer Alphenhof criteria, thus triggering the consumer section of the (acquired) EU Brussels Ia Regulation.

Kent DJ held it had: claimant’s arguments are at [29] ff, purporting to build evidence of a chain of marketing aimed at the expat Lebanese community. They show the importance of information put on websites, often made to look more glamorous by the addition of elements such as links to England and London in particular.  The judge is on point I find where he dismisses the singular relevance of the use of English etc in a world where every Tom Dick and Harry put that on their website. However he does conclude [65]

the website pages to which I have referred which were visible from the United Kingdom do indeed give the impression to a fair-minded observer—and I would say quite a strong impression—that the Bank was interested in obtaining custom from the expatriate Lebanese community in whichever part of the world not insignificant numbers of those who can be treated as falling within that expression were gathered and that in 2014 did include England. 

Geert.

EU private international law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 2.2.9.2.7, 2.270 ff

Bitar v Banque Libano-Francaise [2021] EWHC 2787 (QB) (20 October 2021)
Unsuccessful application for finding of lack of jurisdiction
Application of retained EU law on consumer contracts, Brussels Ia
Whether Bank 'directed' its activities at the UKhttps://t.co/bLQ9dfI2AV

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) October 25, 2021

Chowdhury v PZU SA [2021] EWHC 3037 (QB) is worth a brief post on the determination of ‘domicile’ for the purposes of the insurance title of Brussels Ia (the very same Title and provisions which I discuss in Betty Tattersal). Ritchie J discusses whether the claimant was ‘resident’ in England and Wales for despite the insurance section talking of ‘domicile’, the Regulation refers for that notion to the residual rules of the Member States; and in England and Wales, domicile for natural persons, for private international law purposes, is determined by their ‘residence’.

The judge held, having summarised all relevant authority, that the earlier finding of residence absolutely stands [72]:

Claimant was a British citizen, with a British passport, who grew up in Worthing and was educated in England, worked in England, had his parents and family in England, had his friends in England, had rented flats in London, in Earls Court and in Putney, had his benefits paid in England, had his property by way of clothes and personal items in England and kept some of those at his parents’ house in Worthing, in his own room there.

That he gave up his rental accommodation in England was entirely due to him seeking medical treatment in Germany on account of the very tort he is suing for. Clearly that could not dislodge his English residence, despite the most likely temporary impact on physical stays in England.

Geert.

Chowdhury v PZU SA [2021] EWHC 3037 (QB) (12 November 2021)
Brussels Ia, jurisdiction under the insurance title, road accident in Poland.
Whether claimant was 'resident' in the UK (held affirmatively).#travellawhttps://t.co/238oD8hIhE

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) November 13, 2021

I am slowly getting through the in-tray with back cases, looking in this post at the UKSC judgment in Kabab-Ji SAL (Lebanon) v Kout Food Group [2021] UKSC 48. There is plenty of analysis on the case already out there, among Gilles Cuniberti and a team of CMS lawyers. I previously discussed the judgment appealed.

The SC dismissed the appeal and the judgment therefore stands: parties’ choice of English law for the underlying contract was found to also be an express choice of the law governing the arbitration agreement. I suggested that finding was optimistic on the facts of the case. Moreover it would seem at odds with the separability line previously towed by the English courts: there may be perfectly valid reasons for having a different lex causae for the underlying contract, the arbitration clause, the lex arbitri and indeed the lex curia. Identity should not be too readily assumed. The SC however would seem to have been swayed by the New York Convention’s call for straightforwardness in enforcement (here lies as the SC notes a difference with previous case-law which concerned the pre-enforcement stage).

Not only is the UKSC approach at odds with the French SC, as I noted in my review of the Court of Appeal judgment. I am also not convinced that for the enforcement stage the SC should insist one keeps things simple whilst at many other stages through its authority it encourages often convoluted argument.

Geert.

Giles Cuniberti on Kabab-Ji SAL (Lebanon) v Kout Food Group [2021] UKSC 48
For my review of the Court of Appeal judgment, and the conflicting French view, see https://t.co/xk2iONVqIt
Re governing law of an #arbitration agreement https://t.co/hnnLZzyxpt

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) October 28, 2021

On 9 December 2021, the CJEU delivered its judgment in HRVATSKE ŠUME d.o.o., Zagreb v. BP EUROPA SE (Case C-242/20).

The main issue before the Court was whether a claim for unjust enrichment fell necessarily within the scope of the jurisdictional rule for contracts (Article 5(1) Brussels I Regulation, today Article 7(1) Brussels I bis Regulation) or the jurisdictional rule for delicts and quasi-delicts (Article 5(3) Brussels I Regulation, today Article 7(2) Brussels I bis Regulation), or whether it could fall in neither and thus fall within the scope of the general rule granting jurisdiction to the courts of the defendants of the domicile.

The Court followed the Advocate-General Conclusions and ruled that a claim for unjust enrichment which was not contractual in nature would not fall necessarily within the scope of the jurisdictional rule for delicts.

The request was referred by the Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske (Cour d’appel de commerce, Croatie). The questions, still on the Brussels I Regulation, were asked in the context of a dispute between a company incorporated under Croatian law, and a company established in Hamburg (Germany), over a sum of money seized on the bank account of the first company and transferred to the assets of the second as part of an enforcement procedure. As this procedure was subsequently invalidated, the applicant in the main proceedings sought restitution of the sum in question on the basis of unjust enrichment.

The first question referred by the Croatian court was:

1. Do actions for recovery of sums unduly paid by way of unjust enrichment fall within the basic jurisdiction established in Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 … in respect of ‘quasi-delicts’, since Article 5(3) thereof provides inter alia:: ‘A person domiciled in a Member State may, in another Member State, be sued … in matters relating to … quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’?

The CJEU ruled that the claim was neither contractual, nor delictual, and thus fell within the scope of the general jurisdictional rule of the domicile of the defendant.

The reasons given by the Court are essentially based on the language of the relevant provisions and, perhaps also on its structure.

First, the Court recognises that claims for unjust enrichment could be related to a contract, and thus be characterised as contractual in character.

The most interesting part of the judgment relates to those claims which are not related to a pre-existing contractual relationship. The Court rules that such claims do not fall within the scope of Article 5(3) / 7(2) either. The main reason given by the Court is that Article 5(3) / 7(2) refers to ‘harmful events’ and thus should be interpreted as applying only where such events are concerned. Yet,

55. 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.

A widely shared view, which was defended by the Commission in this case, was that Article 5(3) / 7(2) was a residual rule, and that all claims based on obligations which would not fall within the scope of Article 5(1) / 7(1) should be considered as delictual for jurisdictional purposes. The view is clearly rejected.

The result is indeed the opposite. While it seemed before this case that most claims based on unjust enrichment would fall within the scope of Article 7(2), the Court suggests that it will amost never be the case. It explains that a claim for unjust enrichment could be related to a contract and characterised as contractual,

Another potential argument supporting the conclusion of the Court is mentioned at the outset, but it is unclear whether it genuinely considers it as important. The Court reiterates that special rules of jurisdiction should be interpreted restrictively. Thus, if a particular claim does not clearly fall within the scope of any of the special rules (e.g. Article 7(1) and (2) Brussels I bis), they should not apply.

The case was also concerned with the scope of the exclusive rule in Article 22(5) Brussels I. The Court found that:

36. In the absence of any application for enforcement, an action for restitution based on unjust enrichment does not come within the scope of Article 22(5) of Regulation No 44/2001.  

The RIDOC 2021: Rijeka Doctoral Conference will be held on Friday 10 December 2021, from 8:30 to 17:30, in 10 sessions (some running parallel), at the University of Rijeka, Faculty of Law and online. The record number of doctoral students and outstanding three-member panels will provide an internationally diverse environment for discussion of various legal topics. Among the topics many of our readers will find something along their interests in conflict of laws, arbitration law, and of course public international law, as the same day we celebrate the international day of human rights.

The special treat is the plenary lecture to be given by the First Advocate General of the CJEU Maciej Szpunar on “The Court of Justice of the European Union and Effects of Research upon its Functioning” which starts at 12:30 at this link.

The programme is available here, and next to each session there is a corresponding link.