Droit international général

One Afghanistan-based company sues another in commercial court in Afghanistan. The plaintiff wins at trial. The Afghanistan Supreme Court reverses. It orders the parties to resolve their dispute in the United States. The plaintiff files suit in the United States. Chaos ensues.

This may sound like an unlikely scenario. It is, however, a concise description of the facts presented in Nawai Wardak Transportation Co. v. RMA Grp. Afghanistan Ltd, No. 350393 (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). This case is noteworthy for a number of reasons. It offers insights into best drafting practices for choice-of-court clauses. It illustrates how U.S. courts decide whether these clauses should be enforced. And it suggests that the Afghanistan Supreme Court takes the principle of party autonomy pretty seriously.

In July 2012, the United States Agency for International Development (“USAID”) contracted with Aircraft Charter Solutions (“ACS”) to perform aircraft flight operations out of Kabul International Airport in Afghanistan. ACS entered into a contract with RMA Afghanistan (“RMA”), an Afghanistan-based company, to supply fuel to locations throughout Afghanistan. RMA, in turn, entered into a contract with Nawai Wardak Transportation Company (“NWTC”), another Afghanistan-based company, to supply fuel in support of the contract between USAID and ACS. The contract between RMA and NWTC contained the following provision:

The parties irrevocably agree that the courts of the United States of America shall have exclusive jurisdiction to settle any dispute or claim that arises out of or in connection with this Agreement or its subject matter or formation (including non-contractual disputes or claims).

Roughly a year after the RMA-NWTC contract was signed, a dispute arose. NWTC demanded payment. RMA refused. NWTC brought a suit against RMA in commercial court in Afghanistan and won a judgment. The Supreme Court of Afghanistan reversed the judgment of the lower court. It concluded that the case should have been dismissed because the parties had previously agreed in their choice-of-court clause to litigate all disputes in the United States.

Undeterred, NWTC filed suit against RMA in state court in Michigan. RMA immediately moved to dismiss the Michigan lawsuit on the grounds that the state court lacked personal jurisdiction over it. It argued that it had only consented to suit in federal court via the choice-of-court clause. It pointed out that that clause referred to the courts “of” the United States of America. It then argued that this language necessarily excluded state courts because these courts were only “of” the State of Michigan. They were not courts of the United States as a whole.

NWTC responded to this argument by pointing out that the case could not be heard in federal court because those courts lacked subject-matter jurisdiction on the facts presented. If the clause were interpreted the manner suggested by RMA, the plaintiff contended, then the choice-of-court clause would be rendered a nullity because no court in the United States could hear the claim and it would be deprived of a remedy altogether.

The state trial court in Michigan ruled in favor of RMA and dismissed the case. This decision was then appealed to the Court of Appeals of Michigan. That court acknowledged that “the dictionary definition of ‘of’ supports that, while Michigan courts may be in the United States, they are not of the United States.” The court then went on to conclude, however, that dictionary definitions are not conclusive:

We are not constrained to follow dictionary definitions when interpreting a contract, and the effect of interpreting the forum-selection clause to refer exclusively to federal courts is to deprive both parties of a forum in which to resolve their contract disputes. In other words, for either party to have had a legal remedy for the other party’s failure to perform under the subcontract, the parties must have intended “courts of the United States of America” as a geographical designation encompassing both federal and state courts. Any other reading of the forum-selection clause would render it nugatory, which is to be avoided when interpreting contracts.

The court of appeals then considered the defendant’s argument that if the clause was interpreted to refer to any state court in the United States, it would become so “overbroad and so lacking in specificity” that “enforcing it would be unreasonable and unjust.” The court held that this argument had not been fully developed in the proceedings below. Accordingly, it remanded the case for further consideration by the lower court.

This case presents a number of interesting issues relating to choice-of-court clauses. The first has to do with contract drafting. As a matter of best practice, it is better to name a specific U.S. state in which a suit must be brought rather than the United States as a whole. If the clause selects the nation as a whole, however, it is better to select the courts “in” in the United States rather than courts “of” the United States to make clear that the suit may be brought in either state or federal court.

The second issue relates to clause enforcement. U.S. courts routinely decline to give effect to choice-of-court clauses selecting courts that lack subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the dispute. If the chosen forum lacks the power to resolve the case, these courts reason, the parties may sue wherever they want. The Court of Appeals of Michigan recognized this fact and rightly rejected the defendant’s arguments that would have produced a contrary result.

The third issue relates to the need for specificity in identifying the chosen forum. Under ordinary circumstances, a clause selecting the courts of “any” U.S. state would not be enforceable because it does not clearly identify where the suit may proceed. In the unique facts presented in the case described above, however, the lack-of-specificity argument is unlikely to carry the day because, if accepted, it would result in no court being able to hear the dispute.

Finally, it is important to note that the State of Michigan has adopted a statute that clearly spells out when its courts should and should not give effect to choice-of-court clauses. This is unusual. Only three other U.S. states—Nebraska, New Hampshire, and North Dakota—have adopted similar statutes based on the Model Choice of Forum Act. Judges in the remaining U.S. states apply judge-made common law to decide the issue of enforceability. The Michigan approach has a lot of recommend to it because it provides a clear, concise, and unchanging set of factors for the courts to consider when analyzing this issue.

The American Association of Private International Law (ASADIP) will be holding its annual XIV conference entitled “Private International Law and Modern Technologies” on 4-5 November 2021 for the first time online.

There is a full website dedicated to this conference, click here.

The Conference will be mostly in Spanish (with a few exceptions) but simultaneous English-Spanish interpretation will be provided on the first day of the conference, which has been made possible thanks to the Organization of American States (OAS).

The programme is available here. Many international organisations will take part of this conference, notably the OAS, UNCITRAL, HCCH, and UNIDROIT.

The Conference has many interesting panels but perhaps it is worth noting the one taking place on Thursday 4 November at 14:15 – 16:00 h (Argentinean time, 18:15 – 20:00 CET time) – PANEL II – “Blockchain, contratos inteligentes y Derecho internacional privado” (Blockchain, intelligent contracts and Private International Law), where Giesela Rühl, a conflictoflaws.net editor and former general editor, will be participating along with Matthias Lehmann, Luis Ernesto Rodríguez Carrera and Alfonso Ortega Giménez. As previously indicated, simultaneous English-Spanish interpretation will be provided on that day.

The Conference is free of charge and no previous registration is required. The platform that will be used is KUDO and there are four links that have been provided to join the conference, one for each session. Participants will be allowed as “spectators” and their cameras and microphones will be deactivated but it will nonetheless be possible to use the chat function with the moderator to ask questions.

To join each session, participants must click on the provided link (for the specific session) and enter their full name and their professional affiliation. For more information on how to join, click here and see below.

First session (morning) / Thursday 4 November
Hora: 9:45 am a 1:00 pm (Horario Argentina)
https://live.kudoway.com/br/110112440372
Meeting ID: 110112440372

Second session (afternoon) / Thursday 4 November
Hora: 2:15 pm a 5:30 pm (Horario Argentina)
https://live.kudoway.com/br/110111239295
Meeting ID: 110111239295

Third session (morning) / Friday 5 November
Hora: 9:45 am a 2:00 pm (Horario Argentina)
https://live.kudoway.com/br/110115267689
Meeting ID: 110115267689

Fourth Session (afternoon) / Friday 5 November
Hora: 3:00 pm a 5:30 pm (Horario Argentina)
https://live.kudoway.com/br/110115948325
Meeting ID: 110115948325

On 27 October 2021, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom delivered its ruling in Kabab-Ji SAL (Lebanon) (Appellant) v Kout Food Group (Kuwait) (Respondent) ([2021] UKSC 48).

At issue was again the law applicable to arbitration agreements. In Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v OOO “Insurance Company Chubb“, the court had addressed the issue of the law governing the validity and scope of an arbitration agreement before any arbitration had taken place. This case is concerned with the question of which law governs the validity of the arbitration agreement in the different context where the arbitration has already taken place and enforcement proceedings are brought in England.

The appellant (“Kabab-Ji”), a Lebanese company, entered into a Franchise Development Agreement (“FDA”) with Al Homaizi Foodstuff Company (“Al Homaizi”), a Kuwaiti company, granting Al Homaizi a licence to operate its restaurant franchise in Kuwait for ten years. In 2005, Al Homaizi became a subsidiary of the respondent, Kout Food Group (“KFG”), following a corporate reorganisation. A dispute arose under the FDA and linked Franchise Agreements, which Kabab-Ji referred to arbitration under the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris. The arbitration was commenced against KFG only, not Al Homaizi.

KFG argued that it was not a party to the FDA, the arbitration agreements contained in the FDA, or the Franchise Agreements, and that they took part in the arbitration under protest. The majority arbitrators found that, applying French law, KFG was a party to the arbitration agreements. They also found that, applying English law, KFG was an additional party to the FDA by “novation by addition” and was in breach of the FDA and linked agreements. They made an award against KFG for unpaid licence fees and damages in the principal sum of US$6.7 million. KFG applied to the Paris Court of Appeal to set aside the award. Soon afterwards, Kabab-Ji issued proceedings in the Commercial Court in London to enforce the award. KFG made a cross application for an order that recognition and enforcement be refused.

On a trial of preliminary issues relating to the FDA (which would be determinative of the like issues arising under the linked agreements), the Commercial Court held that the validity of the arbitration agreement in the FDA was governed by English law and that, subject to a point left open, as a matter of English law KFG was not a party to the FDA or the arbitration agreement. The court postponed making a final decision on enforcement pending the decision of the Paris Court of Appeal. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeal which upheld the judge’s decision, save that it held that the judge should have made a final determination. It held that that there was no real prospect of it being shown that KFG became a party to the arbitration agreement and that summary judgment should be given refusing recognition and enforcement of the award.

Kabab-Ji appeals to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court unanimously dismisses the appeal on all issues. It holds: (i) that the arbitration agreement is governed by English law (the “choice of law issue”); (ii) that in English law there is no real prospect of a court finding that KFG became a party to the arbitration agreement (the “party issue”); and (iii) that, procedurally, the Court of Appeal was right to give summary judgment refusing recognition and enforcement of the award (the “procedural issue”). Lord Hamblen and Lord Leggatt give the sole joint judgment, with which the other Justices agree.

On the choice of law issue, the Court rules that the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards is governed by the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (“the Convention”), which contains provisions that have been transposed into English law by Part II of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the “1996 Act”). This provides a limited and exclusive list of grounds on which the recognition and enforcement of an award may be refused. The grounds relevant to this case are (i) that the award is based on an invalid arbitration agreement and (ii) that the award has been set aside or suspended by the competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, it was made. Because the Paris Court of Appeal, the competent authority in this case, has not annulled the award, KFG’s only ground for resisting enforcement is the alleged invalidity of the arbitration agreement [10]-[16].

As discussed in the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v OOO “Insurance Company Chubb“ [2020] USKC 38 at para 128, Article V(1)(a) of the Convention establishes two uniform international conflict of laws rules. First, that the validity of the arbitration agreement is governed by “the law to which the parties subjected it” – i.e. the law chosen by the parties. Second, where no law is chosen, the applicable law is that of “the country where the award was made” – generally the place of the arbitration seat. When assessing whether an agreement exists or is valid the Court uses the law that would apply if it exists or is valid [26]-[27]. As stated in Enka at para 129, a general choice of law to govern a contract containing an arbitration clause will normally be a sufficient “indication” of the law to which the parties subjected the arbitration agreement for the purposes of Article V(1)(a) [35]-[36]. The principles for identifying the applicable law should be the same whether the question is raised before or after an award has been made.

Applying these principles to the present case, the effect of the relevant clauses in the FDA is plain. The FDA’s governing law clause provides that “this Agreement” shall be governed by English law and this clearly extends to the arbitration agreement [39].

Kabab-Ji advanced two arguments against this conclusion. First, that a reference in the FDA to the arbitrator applying “principles of law generally recognised in international transactions” (i.e. UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts) meant that the arbitration clause was governed by a composite of national law and international principles, which did not qualify as “law” for the purposes of the Convention and the 1996 Act. The present case, however, is concerned with what law governs the validity of the arbitration agreement, not the rules of law to be applied by the arbitrators to the merits of the dispute [40-48]. Second, that because the parties should be presumed to intend that the arbitration agreement will be valid and effective, where applying English law would invalidate that agreement, one should infer that the choice of English law does not extend to it. The validation principle, however, is a principle of contractual interpretation which presupposes that an agreement has been made. It does not apply to questions of validity in the expanded sense in which that concept is used in article V(1)(a) of the Convention and section 103(2)(b) of the 1996 Act to include an issue about whether any contract was ever made between the parties to the dispute [49-52].

Magdalena Pfeiffer, Jan Brodec, Petr Bříza and Marta Zavadilová have edited a collection of essays in honour of professor Monika Pauknerová, recently published by Wolters Kluwer.

The 47 contributions in this liber amicorum cover a broad range of issues in the field of private international law and international trade law. Some are written in English, others in Czech and in Slovak.

Contributos include Nadia de Araujo and Marcelo De Nardi, Jürgen Basedow, Paul Beaumont and Jayne Holliday, Alexander J. Bělohlávek, Karel Beran, Michael Bogdan, Jan Brodec, Petr Bříza, Giuditta Cordero-Moss, Elizabeth B. Crawford and Janeen M. Carruthers, Stanislava Černá, Lucie Dolanská Bányaiová, Kateřina Eichlerová, Richard Fentiman, Zuzana Fišerová, Cristina González Beilfuss, Trevor Hartley, Elena Júdová, Zdeněk Kapitán, Catherine Kessedjian, Zdeněk Kühn, Ivana Kunda, Tuula Linna, Alena Macková and Filip Crnčević, Peter Mankowski, Milan Müller, Hans Ulrich Jessurun d’Oliveira, Jan Ondřej, Daniel Patěk, Marta Pertegás Sender, Magdalena Pfeiffer, Fausto Pocar, Helena Prášková, Ilaria Pretelli, Elena Rodríguez Pineau, Naděžda Rozehnalová, Květoslav Růžička, Pavel Simon, Michal Skřejpek, Josef Staša, Pavel Svoboda, Pavel Šturma, Zbyněk Švarc, Michal Tomášek, Aukje A.H. van Hoek, Spyridon Vrellis, and Marta Zavadilová.

The full table of contents can be found here.

See here for more information.

Written by Huiyin Zhang, PhD Candidate at the Wuhan University Institute of International Law

China enacted the Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) at the 30th Session of the Standing Committee of the 13th National People’s Congress on August 20, 2021. This is the first comprehensive national law in China concerning personal information protection and regulating the data processing activities of entities and individuals. PIPL, the Cyber Security Law (came into force on June 1, 2017) and Data Security Law (promulgated on September 1, 2021) constitute the three legal pillars of the digital economy era in China.

PIPL includes eight chapters and 74 articles, covering General Provisions, Rules for Processing Personal Information, Rules for Cross-border Provisions of Personal Information, Rights of Individuals in Activities of Processing Personal Information, Obligations of Personal Information Processors, Departments Performing Duties of Personal Information Protection, Legal Liability and Supplementary Provisions. This note focuses on its extraterritorial effect.

1.Territorial Scope

Article 3 of the PIPL provides:

“This Law shall apply to activities conducted by organizations and individuals to control the personal information of natural persons within the territory of the People’s Republic of China.

This Law shall also apply to activities outside territory of the People”s Republic of China to handle the personal information of natural persons within the territory of the People’s Republic of China under any of the following circumstances:

a . personal information handling is to serve the purpose of providing products or services for natural persons within the territory of the People’s Republic of China;

1. personal information handling is to serve the purpose of analyzing and evaluating the behaviors of natural persons within the territory of the People’ s Republic of China; or
2. having other circumstances as stipulated by laws and administrative regulations.”

According to paragraph 1 of Art 3, PIPL applies to all data processing activities of personal information carried out in China. If foreign businesses processes or handles the personal information within the territory of China, in principle, they shall comply with the PIPL. It indicates that this clause focuses on the activities of processing or handling personal information in the territorial of China, especially the physical link between the data processing or handling activities and Chinese territory.

According to paragraph 2 of Art 3, the PIPL shall be applicable to activities outside the territory of China in processing or handling the personal information within China under some circumstances. As provided in Art 53, “personal information handlers outside the borders of the People’ s Republic of China shall establish a dedicated entity or appoint a representative within the borders of the People’ s Republic of China to be responsible for matters related to the personal information they handle”. Notably, this clause focuses on the physical location of the data processors or handlers rather than their nationality or habitual residence.

PIPL has extraterritorial jurisdiction to data processing or handling activities outside the territorial of China under 3 circumstances as provided in paragraph 2 of Art 3 of the PIPL. This is the embodiment of the effect principle, which derives from the objective territory jurisdiction and emphasizes the influence or effect of the behavior in the domain. If the purpose is to provide products or services to individuals located in China, or to analyze the behaviors of natural person in China, the PIPL shall be applicable. Crucially, the actual “effect” or “influence” of data processing or handling is emphasized here, i.e. when it is necessary to determine what extent or what requirements are met of the damage caused by the above-mentioned data processing or handling activities outside the territorial of China, Chinese courts may reasonably exercise the jurisdiction over the case. Obviously, it reflects the consideration of the element of “brunt of harm”. However, if the “effect” or “influence” is not specifically defined and limited, there will be a lot of problems. It is important to figure out exactly whether data processors or handlers outside the territorial of China are aware of the implications of their actions on natural person within China and whether the “effect” or “influence” of the data-processing behaviors are direct, intentional and predictable.

The PIPL explicitly states its purported extraterritorial jurisdiction for the first time and insists on the specific personal jurisdiction and the effect principle. It is mainly because the PIPL is formulated “in order to protect personal information rights and interests, standardize personal information handling activities, and promote the rational use of personal information”, but in the process of legal protection of personal information of natural person, there are a lot of challenges, such as the contradiction between the application of traditional jurisdiction, the virtual nature of personal information and so on. In this sense, all jurisdiction of the PIPL, whether territorial jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction or effect principle, are all further supplements for the existing personal information protection regime previously provided.

2.PIPL and GDPR: a Comparative Study

The provisions on jurisdiction of GDPR are mainly concentrated in Art 3 and Art 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 of preambular 2. In Art 3, paragraph 1 and 2 identified “establishment principle” and “targeting principle” and paragraph 3 provides “This regulation applies to the processing of personal data by a controller not established in the Union, but in a place where Member State law applies by virtue of public international law”.

A. Establishment Principle

Under paragraph 1 of Art 3, GDPR applies to “the processing of personal data in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or a processor in the Union, regardless of whether the processing takes place in the Union or not.” It set the “establishment criterion”, which has the dual characteristics of territorial jurisdiction and extraterritorial jurisdiction.

Compared with establishment criterion in GDPR, the PIPL indicates that personal information handlers outside the territorial of China shall establish a dedicated entity or appoint a representative within China as previously mentioned. It highlights the significance and necessity of establishing an entity when foreign data handlers process the personal information of national persons outside China under circumstance in paragraph 2 of Art3 of PIPL.

B. Targeting Principle

Compared with targeting criterion in GDPR, PIPL has many differences. Paragraph 2 of Art 3 of the GDPR clearly states that for data processors and controllers that do not have an establishment in the EU, GDPR will apply in two circumstances. Firstly, as stated in Art 3 of GDPR, the processing activities relate to “the offering of goods or services, irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required, to such data subjects in the Union” (Art 2 GDPR). It seems too abstract to give the definition and processing method of data processor and controller’ s behavior intention. Art 23 of the GDPR provides the clarification that “it should be ascertained whether it is apparent that the controller or processor envisages offering services to data subjects in one or more Member States in the Union.” The key factor to assess whether the processor or controller “targets” the EU is whether the behaviour of the offshore data processors or controllers indicates their apparent intention to provide goods or services to data subjects in the EU. This is an objective subjective test.

In contrast, Art 3 of the PIPL states that the law shall apply when the data processor processes personal information “to serve the purpose of providing products or services for natural persons within the territory of the People’ s Republic of China”. It indicates that the purpose of data processor or controller outside China is to provide a product or service to a domestic natural person in China. The key to the application is not only about whether it has purpose, but also about whether they have processed personal information of a natural person in China.

Secondly, the procession activities are in related to “the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the Union”. It requires both the data subject and the monitored activity be located within the EU. “Monitoring” shall be defined in accordance with Article 24 of the GDPR preamble. This provision does not require the data processors or controllers to have a corresponding subjective intent in the monitoring activity, but the European Data Protection Board ( Hereinafter referred to as EDPB) pointed out that the use of the term “monitoring” implied that the data controllers or processors had a specific purpose, namely to collect and process the data. Similarly, Art 3 of the PIPL also applies to activities outside China dealing with personal information of natural persons within China, if the activities are to analyse and evaluate the acts of natural persons within China. The meaning of “analysis and evaluation” here is very broad and seems to cover “monitoring” activities under the GDPR.

Furthermore, paragraph 3 of Art 3 of the GDPR provides: “This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data by a controller not established in the Union, but in a place where Member State law applies by virtue of public international law.” It suggests that the data processor or controller does not have an establishment in the territory of the EU and there is no circumstances under paragraph 2 of Art 3 of the GDPR. Due to that the international law applies EU member state law in the area where the numerical controller is located, this law shall apply. This condition is primarily aimed at resolving the issue of extraterritorial jurisdiction over data processing or controlling that takes place in EU without an establishment. This condition is similar to Directive 95/46 of the European Parliament and the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. The similar condition is not included in the PIPL, which instead shall apply to other circumstances “as stipulated by laws and administrative regulations”.

C. Passive personality principle

Under the passive personality principle, a state has prescriptive jurisdiction over anyone anywhere who injures its nationals or residents. As previously mentioned, paragraph 2 of Art 3 of the GDPR states that although the personal data processors or controllers are not established in the EU, EU still applies the laws of member states in accordance with public international law. Art 25 of the preamble of GDPR provides examples of such situations which may include a Member State’s diplomatic mission or consular post.

To some extent, GDPR includes all the personal data processing activities involving natural persons situated in the EU area into its jurisdiction, which is a variation of the passive nationality principle. It is because EU treats the individual data right as a fundamental human right and aims to establish a digital market of the unified level of protection. PIPL adopts the similar practice by adopting the passive nationality principle to protect Chinese citizens and residents.

3.Conclusion

The promulgation of PIPL shows that China recognizes the extraterritorial effect of data protection law. The exploration of legislation not only has the meaning of localization, but also contributes to the formulation of data rules for the international community. It marks an important step towards China’ s long-term goal of balancing the preservation of national sovereignty, the protection of individual rights and the free flow of data across borders.

This is a case note on the very recent Nigerian Court of Appeal’s decision that recognised the immunity of the President of the Commission of ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States) from being impleaded in Nigerian courts.[1]

In Nigeria, the applicable law in respect of diplomatic immunities and privileges is the Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Act, which implements aspects of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 (the “Vienna Convention”). Under the Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Act, foreign envoys, consular officers, members of their families, and members of their official and domestic staff are generally entitled to immunity from suit and legal process.[2] Such immunities may also apply to organisations declared by the Minister of External Affairs to be organisations, the members of which are sovereign powers (whether foreign powers or Commonwealth countries or the Governments thereof).[3]

Where a dispute arises as to whether any organisation or any person is entitled to immunity from suit and legal process, a certificate issued by the Minister stating any fact relevant to that question shall be conclusive evidence of that fact.[4]

In a very recent case the claimant/respondent who was a staff of the Commission of ECOWAS sued the defendant/appellant in the National Industrial Court in Nigeria for orders declaring his suspension from office by the Commission unlawful and a violation of ECOWAS Regulations, and damages from the defendant/appellant for publishing what the claimant/respondent considered a “libelous” suspension letter. The defendant/appellant responded to the suit with a statement of defence and equally filed a motion of notice objecting to the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court on grounds of diplomatic immunity he enjoys from proceedings in municipal courts of Nigeria by virtue of the Revised Treaty of ECOWAS, General Convention on Privileges and Immunities of ECOWAS and the Headquarters Agreement between ECOWAS and the Government of the Republic of Nigeria. He also placed reliance on Principles of Staff Employment and ECOWAS staff Regulations. In addition he attached a certificate from Nigeria’s Minister of Foreign Affairs which acknowledged his diplomatic immunity.

The trial court (Haastrup J) held that it had jurisdiction and dismissed the preliminary objection of the defendant/appellant. It relied on Section 254C (2)[5] of the 1999 Constitution (as amended in 2011)  and Order 14A Rule 1 (1)[6] of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria(Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017 to hold that the National Industrial Court had jurisdiction to resolve all employment matters in Nigeria, including cases that have an international element.

The Nigerian Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal. Ugo JCA in his leading judgment held as follows:

“So this Certificate of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nigeria attached to the affidavit of Chika Onyewuchi in support of appellant’s application/objection before the trial National Industrial Court for the striking out of the suit is sufficient and in fact conclusive evidence of the immunity claimed by appellant. That also includes the statement of the Minister in paragraph 2 of the same certificate that the ECOWAS Revised Treaty of 1993 was “ratified by the Federal Republic of Nigeria on 1st July, 1994,” thus, putting paid to the trial Judge’s contention that appellant needed to prove that the said treaty was ratified by Nigeria for him to properly claim immunity.
Even Section 254C(2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which states that ‘Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Constitution, the National Industrial Court shall have the jurisdiction and power to deal with any matter connected with or pertaining to the application of any international convention, treaty or protocol of which Nigeria has ratified relating to labour, employment, workplace, industrial relations or matters connected therewith,’ does not by any means have the effect of conferring jurisdiction on the National Industrial Court over diplomats. In fact Section 254C(2) of the 1999 Constitution, as was correctly argued by Mr. Obi, only confers on the National Industrial Court power to apply international conventions, protocols and treaties ratified by Nigeria relating to labour, employment, workplace, industrial relations and matters connected therewith while exercising its jurisdiction over persons subject to its jurisdiction. Diplomats who enjoy immunity from Court processes from municipal Courts in Nigeria like the Respondent are not such persons. Incidentally, the apex Court in African Reinsurance Corporation v. Abate Fantaye (1986) 3 NWLR (PT 32) 811 in very similar circumstances conclusively put to rest this issue of immunity from proceedings in municipal Courts enjoyed by persons like appellant. That case was cited to the trial Judge so it is surprising that she did not make even the slightest reference to it in expanding her jurisdiction to appellant who has always insisted, correctly, on his immunity. In truth, the lower Court did not simply expound its jurisdiction but attempted to expand it too. A Court is competent when, among others, the subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction and there is no feature in the case which prevents the Court from exercising its jurisdiction…
Appellant’s diplomatic status and his consequent immunity from proceedings in the Courts of this country was such a feature that prevented the National Industrial Court from exercising jurisdiction over him and Suit No. NICN/ABJ/230/2019 of respondent; it was therefore wrong in holding otherwise and dismissing his preliminary objection…”[7]

Adah JCA in his concurring judgment held as follows:

“The Appellant, being an international organization enjoys immunity from suit and legal process, both by virtue of Section 11 and 18 of the 1962 Act, and Certificate issued by the Minister of External Affairs. Where a sovereign or International Organization enjoys immunity from suit and legal process, waiver of such immunity is not to be presumed against it. Indeed, the presumption is that there is no waiver until the contrary is established. Thus, waiver of immunity by a Sovereign or International Organization must be expressly and positively done by that Sovereign or International Organization.

In the instant case, the appellant from the record before the Court is an international organization. The Foreign Affairs Minister of Nigeria had given a certificate to indicate the immunity of the appellant. Exhibit CA issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 16th January, 2020 in paragraphs 2 and 3 thereof state as follows:

“2. The ministry of Foreign Affairs wishes to reaffirm the status of the ECOWAS Commission as an international organization and the immunity and privileges of the Commission and its staff members with exception of Nigerians and holders of Nigeria permanent residency from Criminal, Civil and Administrative proceedings by virtue of ECOWAS Revised Treaty by of 1993, which was ratified by the Federal Republic of Nigeria on 1st July, 1994.
3. The Headquarters Agreement between the ECOWAS Commission and the Federal Republic of Nigeria also confers immunity on officials and other employees of ECOWAS by virtue of Article VII (3) (C) of the Agreement.”

It is very clear therefore, that the appellant is covered by the Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Act and is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Municipal Courts. The fact that their base is in Nigeria or that Nigeria is the Host Country of the appellant does not make the appellant subserviate to the jurisdiction of Nigerian Courts. It is therefore, the law as stated lucidly in the leading judgment of my learned brother that the lower Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim against the appellant…”[8]

This is not the first time Nigerian courts have dealt with the issue of impleading a diplomat or foreign sovereign before the Nigerian court.[9] The decision of the trial judge was surprising in view of the weight of authorities from the Nigerian Supreme Court and Court of Appeal on the concept of diplomatic immunities in Nigeria. The claimant/respondent may have argued that matters of employment qualify as waiver of diplomatic immunity, but this position has never been explicitly endorsed by Nigerian courts. The Supreme Court of Nigeria has only accepted the concept of waiver in situations where the person claiming immunity entered into commercial transactions with the claimant.[10]

Looking at the bigger picture how does an employee who has been unfairly dismissed by a diplomatic organisation gain access to justice in Nigerian and African courts? Should the law be reformed in Nigeria and African countries to take into account the interest of employees as weaker parties?

[1] President of the Commission of ECOWAS v Ndiaye (2021) LPELR-53523(CA).

[2]Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Act, Cap D9 LFN 2004 ss 1, 3-6.

[3]ibid, ss 11 and 12.

[4]ibid, s 18.

[5] ‘Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Constitution, the National Industrial Court shall have the jurisdiction and power to deal with any matter connected with or pertaining to the application of any international convention, treaty or protocol of which Nigeria has ratified relating to labour, employment, workplace, industrial relations or matters connected therewith.’

[6] It provides that:

1.—(1) Where an action involves a breach of or non-compliance with an international protocol, a convention or treaty on labour, employment and industrial relations, the Claimant shall in the complaint and witness statement on oath, include,

(a) the name, date and nomenclature of the protocol, convention or treaty ; and

(b) proof of ratification of such protocol, convention or treaty by Nigeria.

(2) In any claim relating to or connected with any matter, the party relying on the International Best Practice, shall plead and prove the existence of the same in line with the provisions relating to proof of custom in the extant Evidence Act.”

[7] President of the Commission of ECOWAS v Ndiaye (2021) LPELR-53523(CA) 19-20.

[8] Ibid 24-26.

[9] See generally RF Oppong and CSA Okoli, Private International Law in Commonwealth Africa (2nd edition) (chapter 7).

[10]African Reinsurance Corporation v JDP Construction (Nig) Ltd (2007) 11 NWLR 224, 234-5 (Akintan JSC)..

The University of Turin and ILO International Training Centre’s Master in International Trade Law are pleased to announce the 2021/2022 Programme’s inaugural keynote. The event will take place on 5 November 2021, from 3.00 to 5.00 P.M. CET, on Zoom (at the following link: https://itcilo-org.zoom.us/j/85085505961?pwd=U2dLRitJTzUzYzlJUHAyM0NzclNydz09#success). The keynote will deal with ‘Gender and Trade Law’ and it will be delivered by Amrita Bahri, Assistant Professor, ITAM; Co-Chair, WTO Chair Program; Trade and Gender Consultant, International Trade Centre.

Please see the event’s flyer below:

This post was written by Felix M. Wilke, University of Bayreuth, Germany.

The most relevant aspects were squarely in the sights of European Court of Justice. As it states in para 53 of the judgment: “relating to the predictability of the rules of jurisdiction and to the risk that consumers might ‘take the forum of protection with them’, it must be borne in mind that…” But the Court proceeds to brush aside these valid concerns in merely one and a half, partially enigmatic sentences. The rest of the judgment consists in more formal arguments that fail to engage with the interests at stake.

But let us start at the beginning. Case C-296/20, Commerzbank v. E.O., started in German courts in 2016 when a consumer had not settled his current account with a branch of Commerzbank in Dresden (Germany). The bank alleged a debit balance in its favour of almost 5,000 € and sued the consumer before the Local Court of Dresden. At the time of conclusion of the contract, the consumer had had his domicile in Dresden as well. In the meantime, however, he had moved to Switzerland. The Local Court dismissed the action due to lack of jurisdiction. The Regional Court of Dresden upheld this judgment. On appeal, the German Federal Supreme Court decided to refer two questions to the Court of Justice regarding the application of the rules for jurisdiction over consumer contracts of the Lugano II Convention in situations where a consumer relocates to another State bound by the Convention after the conclusion of a contract. The Federal Supreme Court later withdrew one of the questions in light of the Court of Justice’s decision in mBank.

The case, thus, essentially is about whether (or, at least, under which additional conditions) a consumer can rely on the forum of protection of Art. 16(2) Lugano II even after moving abroad after the conclusion of the contract. Under that provision, which of course corresponds to Art. 18(2) Brussels Ibis Regulation, the courts of the State in which the consumer is domiciled have exclusive jurisdiction concerning contracts meeting the requirements of Art. 15 Lugano II. “Domicile” in Art. 18(2) Brussels Ibis/Art. 16(2) Lugano II designates the consumer’s domicile at the date on which the court action is brought (mBank). Hence, a change of the consumer’s domicile would force the other party to sue wherever the consumer’s new domicile is, as, in particular, the application of Art. 5(1) Lugano II/Art. 7(1) Brussels Ibis would be barred. In this sense, consumers would not only take their belongings with them when they move, but also the forum of protection.

For jurisdictional instruments based on the idea of predictability, this consequence is not obviously appropriate. The only way to avoid it seems to lie in Art. 15 Lugano II, as the temporal dimension of Art. 16(2) Lugano II had already been set in stone in mBank. The German Federal Supreme Court indicated that it wanted to read Art. 15(1)(c) Lugano II – the category of contracts where the trader “pursues” or “directs” its activities in/to the State of the consumer’s domicile – in such a way as to condition its application on the trader’s intention to establish commercial relations with consumers from one or more other States. In situations where the trader and the consumer have a domicile in the same State at the conclusion of the contract, Art. 15 Lugano II would not (regularly) apply. It should be noted that this approach would not help traders who do conclude a consumer contract in a cross-border situation and whose contractual partner then relocates to yet another (Contracting/Member) State. A more general way out would have been to condition Art. 16(2) Lugano II upon the trader pursuing his trade or profession in the State of the consumer’s new domicile or directing this activity to it. This, in fact, was the gist of the question withdrawn later because of mBank. In my opinion, however, the answer was not necessarily preordained – a view apparently shared by Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona. He proposed a quite similar additional criterion as an alternative to his main opinion in Commerzbank, having pointed out that the Court had avoided to face this issue by reformulating the questions in mBank in a rather restrictive manner.

The Court now seems to close the door to such approaches. The judgment is limited to the interpretation of Art. 15(1)(c) Lugano II for situations of initially purely internal consumer contracts. The proposal by the Advocate General just mentioned does not appear anywhere. The Court relies, first, on the wording of the provision, noting that it contains no indication of any additional condition. This comes as no surprise, for otherwise there would not really have been much to refer to the Court. Second, the Court talks about its case-law concerning consumer jurisdiction pursuant to Brussels I(bis), including mBank. Indeed, the Court appears to have had no qualms about applying the pertinent provisions to circumstances that began as purely internal situations. But it never faced the present question head-on because it was always concerned with special features of the other cases.

The Court also refers to Art. 17(3) Lugano II, noting that it presupposes a purely internal situation at the time of the conclusion of the contract. The nod to the Advocate’s General opinion in this context (para 51) strikes me as disingenuous (or sloppy), though. For the Advocate General actually concluded that Art. 17(3) Lugano II cannot be used as an argument in favour of the interpretation preferred by the Court.

Finally, the Court addresses the lingering issue of predictability. I am at a loss what to make of its point that “the rule of the jurisdiction of the court [actually: the courts of the State] of the consumer’s domicile, notwithstanding any change of domicile, is … the result of the process of legislative integration”. It seems to be an obvious petition principii. By the way, the German version has “normative integration” here, which arguably is less circular but also opaquer. The following argument is much easier to understand and somewhat more persuasive: International jurisdiction of the courts of the consumer’s (current) domicile corresponds to the general rule of Art. 2(1) Lugano II (Art. 4(1) Brussels Ibis). The Court seems to say that having to sue at the defendant’s domicile can never be an unpredictable rule as actor sequitur forum rei is the basic principle of Lugano II. Yet the Court fails to mention that Art. 2(1) Lugano II does not exclude jurisdiction under Art. 5 Lugano II as Art. 16(2) Lugano II does. This could be a relevant difference.

Even if one accepts this final line of reasoning and thus considers Commerzbank to have come out the right way, there is one more layer to the problem: Art. 16(1) Lugano II. Here, the consumer has a forum actoris. Arguments referring to Art. 2(1) Lugano II do not work in this context. How should a trader foresee that a consumer can sue him before the courts of the latter’s new domicile? I still think the answer should be: only if the trader pursues his trade or profession in the State of the consumer’s new domicile or directs this activity to it. Then, the trader at least has an abstract idea that, one day, he might have to appear before the Courts of that State. But, after Commerzbank, this would mean to interpret Art. 15(1)(c), 16(1) Lugano II differently than Art. 15(1)(c), 16(2) Lugano II. In light of the Court’s arguments outlined above, this has not exactly become more likely.

Cavanagh J (unusually assisted by Brown J, who has extensive experience in cost orders) last week in Thomas & Ors v PGI Group Ltd [2021] EWHC 2776 (QB) refused to grant a ‘Capped Cost Order’ or CCO (these also exist for judicial review proceedings and in arbitration). This application for a CCO was reportedly the first made under CPR 3.19.

In the case, brought before Brexit date under Article 4 Brussels Ia, a group of Malawi claimants are suing tea company Lujeri’s English parent company PGI alleging complicity in exploitation and abuse, including sexual abuse.  Claimants allege the Defendant owed a duty of care to them on the basis that it promulgated relevant policies, standards and guidelines, that it exercised supervision and control over Lujeri, and/or that it held itself out as exercising such supervision and control. The Claimants further allege that the Defendant breached that duty of care and that they suffered loss and damage as a result.

English proceedings against Lujeri were dropped following claimants’ admission that they were unlikely to meet a jurisdiction challenge against same on the basis of Malawi being the natural forum for that claim [14]. The defendant does not resist A4 jurisdiction, acknowledges the UK is the natural forum for the claims against it, that there is no abuse of process (neither in my view have any place in A4 jurisdiction) and that the case is at least arguable.

Had the CCO been granted, it would have the effect of limiting the future costs recoverable by the Claimants, should they ultimately be successful, to £150,000 (or thereabouts). It would not impact the recoverable costs of the defendants if they are successful, although [25] they are unlikely to be able to recover any. As the judge notes [13] even if the core claim is successful, compensation will be far below parties’ legal costs in the case. The non-financial, ‘vindication’ [13] objectives are more important.

Despite defendants’ acknowledgment that a jurisdiction challenge is effectively impossible under A4 (A33-34 do not seem engaged), their arguments for a CCO [28 ff] are forum non via the backdoor:

Whilst not disputing that the Claimants are entitled to bring these proceedings against the Defendant in England, the Defendant submits that it is still open to the Claimants to bring proceedings in Malawi against Lujeri, their former, or, in some cases, their current, employer, and, indeed, against the Defendant. The Defendant submits that it would be more appropriate for the Claimants to bring their claims against Lujeri, in Malawi, especially as such claims would be advanced on the simple and straightforward basis of vicarious liability, rather than on the basis of a more complicated claim against the UK-domiciled parent company.

At 43 claimants make the obvious point that this is a ‘(lightly) disguised attempt to strike out these proceedings on the basis that they are an abuse of process, or that England is a forum non conveniens’.

At 72 the judge holds that claimants are right that it would not be appropriate, having regard to the CPR required principle of proportionality [‘the overriding objective [of the CCO, GAVC] of enabling the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost’] to cap the costs at a figure that is less than the minimum costs that are required for them to litigate their claims effectively in the High Court. Costs in other words cannot be disproportionately incurred if they are below the amount that is required by the party to litigate its claims effectively, unless [74] parties’ costs are out of proportion to the potential benefits to the Claimant of the litigation’ – quod non in casu: [79]: ‘The sums that are likely to be recoverable, though small by English standards, are very significant for poor Malawian plantation workers, and they may indeed be life-changing. I accept the Claimants’ submission that in any event, the Claimants’ objectives in bringing these proceedings are not entirely, or even principally, about money.’

At 82-83 the resurrected forum non arguments feature again,  with the judge holding

In any event, in the present case, one of the parties, the Defendant, is domiciled in England. It is a matter of public importance in this country whether a company that is domiciled here is in breach of a duty of care to workers on plantations in Malawi, owned by a subsidiary company. CPR 44.3(5)(e) states that the extent to which a claim is in the public interest is a matter to be taken into account when considering proportionality.

That is an important consideration for future CCOs, outside the Brussels Ia context and indeed an argument that would feed into an A33-34 analysis, too.

At 91 ff the judge reinforces his findings on the basis of access to justice:

‘I think that it is highly significant, in this regard, that the imposition of a CCO would almost certainly have the effect of forcing the Claimants to abandon their claims…

this is not a case in which a wealthy Claimant is deliberately pursuing a low-value claim, at great expense, in order to harass the Defendant, or to cause as much unnecessary cost to the Defendant as possible. Rather, this is a case in which extremely poor Claimants are pursuing a relatively low-value claim for a number of legitimate reasons, only one of which is the prospect of damages.

This is an important finding, both under A4 Brussels Ia and beyond it, under residual English conflicts rules.

Geert.

European Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Chapter 7.

1/2 Thomas & Ors v PGI [2021] EWHC 2776 (QB)
Important judgment for #bizhumanrights #csr litigation
Failed application for Capped Cost Order CCO
Judge holds ia that it would not be in the interest of justice to award corporate defendant CCO which would effectively halt… pic.twitter.com/ZAbXSJ6ea3

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

Under the auspices of the project “Time to Become Digital in Law” (DIGInLaw), funded by the Erasmus+ Partnerships for Digital Education Readiness, the University of Aberdeen organizes a PhD Book Club titled European Private International Law in a Digital World, in collaboration with the Universities of Osijek, Zagreb, and Milan.

The PhD Book Club will be held online on 8 December 2021. The goal of the book club is to raise awareness and expand knowledge through a discussion on contemporary private international law issues that stem from digitalization.

Participants can choose among the following discussion panels:

• Topic 1 – Jurisdiction in Digital World: Focus on the Extraterritorial Effects of the General Data Protection Regulation and the EU Commission’s Proposal AI Act: 10.00 – 11.30 UK time
• Topic 2 – Cross-Border Family Law in Digital World: Judicial & Administrative Co-operation and the Use of High-Risk AI Tools in Cross-Border Family Litigation: 12.30 – 14.00 UK time

The reading list will be distributed in advance to allow participants to prepare for discussion, which will be moderated by law professors and lecturers from the above-mentioned universities. All PhD researchers are eligible to apply. Please follow the registration link available on the event webpage here.

The Time is Ripe? Proposed Regulation of Third Party Litigation Funding in the European Union

Written by Adrian Cordina, PhD researcher at Erasmus School of Law, project member of the Vici project ‘Affordable Access to Justice’ which deals with costs and funding of civil litigation, financed by the Dutch Research Council (NWO).

The question of how to fund litigation is an essential precondition for civil justice systems. While in some countries like Australia third party litigation funding (TPLF) has been developing for decades, in Europe too TPLF is now on the rise, particularly in international arbitration and collective actions. This has also caught the attention of the European legislator.

On the 17th of June 2021 the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs published a Draft Report with recommendations to the Commission on Responsible Private Funding of Litigation (TPLF). This follows the February 2021 European Parliament Research Service Study on the same matter. TPLF is the funding of litigation by an external third party in return for a share of the proceeds in case of success and is a growing commercial practice. The Draft highlights that TPLF in the EU is however currently operating in a ‘regulatory vacuum’, as it is not only present in consumer collective redress cases, in which case specific funding rules have already been enacted through the Directive (EU) 2020/1929 on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers [Representative Actions Directive  (RAD)].

While recognising the role TPLF plays in facilitating access to justice where otherwise not available due to the costs and risks of litigation, the Draft attempts to provide proposals on how to tackle the risks and concerns TPLF gives rise to. It focuses especially on the conflicts of interest between the litigation funders and the claimants, more specifically on the economic interest of the funder, which could drive the funder to demand excessive shares of the proceeds and to control the litigation process.

Similarly to the RAD, the Draft contains recommendations that it should be ensured that decisions in the relevant legal proceedings, including decisions on settlement, are not influenced in any way by the litigation funders and that courts or administrative authorities be empowered to require disclosure of information on third-party litigation funding.

Amongst the main recommendations which go beyond the funding rules in the RAD is that of establishing a system of supervisory authorities in each Member State which permits TPLF. These would grant authorisations and require that litigation funders comply with minimum criteria of governance, transparency, capital adequacy and observance of a fiduciary duty to claimants. Article 5 also proposes that third-party funding agreements need to comply with the laws of the Member State of the litigation proceedings or of the claimant, which could create problems if claimants and/or intended beneficiaries are from different Member States, from outside the EU or if one Member State prohibits TPLF in cross-border litigation.

It also contains recommendations on funding agreements being worded transparently, clearly and in simple language, on capping the return rate to the litigation funder at 40%, and on, subject to exceptions, preventing litigation funders from withdrawing funding midway through proceedings.

The debate on TPLF in Europe has only in recent years started to take the limelight in civil justice academia (see e.g. Kramer & Tillema 2020; Tzankova & Kramer 2021). That this topic is garnering attention is also evidenced by the September 2021 survey commissioned by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform on Consumer Attitudes on TPLF and its regulation in the EU. While the complex matter of TPLF is in need of further research and reflection, considering developments in legal practice perhaps now indeed the time is also ripe for regulatory discussions.

GD Goenka University, Gurugram is part of the GD Goenka Group. GD Goenka University was established in 2013 under the Haryana Private Universities (Amendment) Act, 2013. The GD Goenka University School of Law offers Law Degree Programs at Undergraduate, Post Graduate and Doctoral levels and strives to open new vistas in the arena of law through clinical legal studies and research. With an objective to raise the standards of clinical legal education in India, the GD Goenka University, School of Law regularly hosts Moot Court Competitions and encourages law students from various Law Schools and Universities from across India and world to learn the art and skills of advocacy.

In November 2020, School of law, GD Goenka University successfully organized an arbitration moot court competition “GD Goenka – CIArb (India) International Virtual Commercial Arbitration Competition 2020” in association with CIArb (India) Chapter. The University is now organising the Fifth edition of  “GD Goenka – CIArb (India) International Virtual Commercial Arbitration Competition 2021″ in association with CIArb (India) Chapter on 20th-21st November. The event is expected to have participation from various Law Schools and Universities from across India & abroad.

The Registration for the Competition is open. The registration fee is USD 11 /- only.

You would also be pleased to know the Prizes for winners in various categories-

Winners- Rs 70,000/- (USD 935/-)

Runners Up- Rs 40,000/- (USD 534/-)

Best Speaker Male & Female- Rs 10,000/- each. (USD 133/- each)

Best Memorial- Rs 10,000/- (USD 133/-)

The link to the registration form, posters and brochure is found below.

Registration Form- https://forms.gle/ZwJpZKmsPNDJiwMN6

With Warm Regards,

Prof. (Dr.) Tabrez Ahmad,

Vice Chancellor GD Goenka University &

Dean School of Law

The INSOL Europe Academic Forum (IEAF) is inviting submission for its 17th annual conference, taking place from 2-3 March 2022 in Dublin (Ireland). Expressions of interest are invited for the delivery of research papers within the overall academic conference’s theme: “The Emerging New Landscape of European Restructuring and Insolvency”

The theme is intended to focus on, inter alia, the following overall topics:

• Reflections on the 2019/1023 Directive as such, and on further harmonization of insolvency laws in the EU;
• Reports on national implementations of the 2019/1023 Directive in the EU Member States, including related changes to insolvency and company laws;
• Cross-border issues relating to the new restructuring frameworks;
• The longer-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on insolvency and restructuring laws in the EU and elsewhere;
• Digital assets and data in the context of insolvency proceedings and the new restructuring frameworks.

Conference methodology

In line with practice established in our past academic conferences, the intention for this year’s conference is to have research papers that challenge existing approaches, stimulate debate and ask, and attempt to answer, comparative and interdisciplinary questions about the above-mentioned topics. Accordingly, proposals are invited that do more than just outline a topic of interest in respect of any given jurisdiction, but seek to understand, analyse and critique the fundamentals of insolvency and restructuring systems in ways that are relevant across jurisdictions and across fields of academic inquiry. All contributions must be in English.

Presenting at the IEAF conference

Expressions of interest in delivering papers within the conference theme should be sent by email on or before 6 December 2021 to the INSOL Europe Academic Forum’s Secretary. Authors of papers selected for presentation will benefit from a waiver of the participation fee for the academic conference, however, they will be responsible for their own travel and accommodation costs. A limited number of travel grants will be available to junior scholars invited to present.

For further information, see: www.insol-europe.org/academic-forum-events

Tulane University School of Law and The American College of Trust and Estate Counsel’s Legal Education Committee are organizing the 9th academic symposium financially supported by The ACTEC Foundation. The symposium, Conflict of Laws in Trusts and Estates will be held at the Tulane University School of Law on Friday, October 21, 2022. The keynote address will be given by Professor Jeffrey Schoenblum of Vanderbilt University Law School.

Among the objectives of this symposium are the following:

• To bring together prominent and up-and-coming scholars for the discussion of important issues in conflict of laws;
• To spur leading-edge research on conflict of laws in trusts and estates;
• To encourage professors of trusts and estates to incorporate and consider issues of conflict of laws in their scholarship and teaching;
• To promote collaborations and exchanges between conflict-of-laws scholars and scholars of trusts and estates.

Papers presented at the symposium will consist of papers selected from this Call for Papers and papers from invited speakers. The papers will be published in the Tulane Law Review.

If you would like to be considered to present a paper, please submit an abstract of your paper to Ron Scalise by email (rscalise@tulane.edu) by November 1, 2021. Those chosen to participate  in the symposium will be notified no later than December 1, 2021. Symposium speakers will be required to submit a draft of their papers by August 15, 2022, so that the panel commentators will have sufficient time to prepare their commentary.

Symposium speakers will be reimbursed for their travel expenses (economy airfare, the cost of ground transportation, and up to two nights’ hotel stay). Speakers will be invited to dinner on the evenings of Thursday, October 20, 2022, and (for speakers staying Friday evening) Friday, October 21, 2022.

Breakfast and lunch will be provided to speakers and attendees on Friday, October 21, 2022, courtesy of The ACTEC Foundation.

Questions about the symposium or this call for papers should be directed to Ron Scalise at the email address above.

This symposium was made possible through the financial support of The ACTEC Foundation, https://actecfoundation.org.

Under the auspices of the project “Time to Become Digital in Law” (DIGInLaw), funded by the Erasmus+ Partnerships for Digital Education Readiness, the University of Aberdeen organizes in collaboration with the Universities of Osijek, Zagreb, and Milan, a PhD Book Club – European Private International Law in a Digital World.

The PhD Book Club will be held online on 8 December 2021. The goal of the book club is to raise awareness and expand knowledge through a discussion on contemporary private international law issues that stem from digitalization.

Participants can choose to join one or both of the following discussion panels:

10.00 – 11.30 UK time – Topic 1 – Jurisdiction in Digital World: Focus on the Extraterritorial Effects of the General Data Protection Regulation and the EU Commission’s Proposal AI Act 

12.30 – 14.00 UK time – Topic 2 – Cross-Border Family Law in Digital World: Judicial & Administrative Co-operation and the Use of High-Risk AI Tools in Cross-Border Family Litigation

The reading list will be distributed in advance to allow participants to prepare for discussion, which will be moderated by law professors and lecturers from the above-mentioned universities. All PhD researchers are eligible to apply. Please follow the registration link available on the event webpage here: https://www.abdn.ac.uk/law/events/16837/

This is an update on my previous blog post here

Capacity to sue and be sued is an important aspect of conflict of laws. It connects very well with the issue of access to justice. For example if a foreign company that does business with a Nigerian company cannot sue in Nigeria it can result in injustice, and lead to loss of confidence in doing transactions with parties located in the Nigerian legal system.

Why is the above topic important? Having undertaken further research, it can be said that Nigerian court decisions are not consistent on the issue of capacity of a foreign company to sue and be sued in Nigeria. The latest reported authoritative source from the Nigerian Supreme Court is that by virtue of Section 54 and 55 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2004 Cap C20 (now Section 78 and 79 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020), a foreign company that carries on business in Nigeria without being registered as a Nigerian company carries out an illegal and void transaction, and thus such a contract cannot be enforced in Nigerian courts.[1] In effect, the provision of Section 60(b) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2004 Cap C20 (now Section 84(b) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020) cannot avail the foreign company in granting it the capacity to sue in Nigeria to enforce a contract where it carries on business in Nigeria without registering as a foreign company.[2] It is only where the foreign company that is not registered in Nigeria enters into a contract with a Nigerian company, while not doing business in Nigeria, will such a contract be enforceable in Nigeria.[3] The key word is thus doing business in Nigeria in determining whether a foreign company that is not registered in Nigeria can sue or be sued in Nigeria. This decision has now been confirmed by a very recent Court of Appeal decision, though in the instant case it was held that the foreign company had a Nigerian subsidiary and it was not carrying out business in Nigeria (it was a single transaction), so the contract was enforceable in Nigeria.[4]

Yet this current position of Nigerian law is strange and appears to contrast with the law in other common law countries including common law African countries. The recent position of the Nigerian Supreme Court also appears to contrast with previous decisions of Nigerian appellate courts that held that foreign companies could sue and be sued in Nigeria irrespective of whether they are carrying on business in Nigeria.[5]

This aspect of law requires further reflection as it is now an important and controversial aspect of Nigerian law. Dr Abubakri Yekini and I plan to write a full blown article on this interesting subject. Please stay tuned!

[1] Citec Intl Estates Ltd. v. E. Intl Inc. and Associates (2018) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1606) 332, 357 – 364 (Eko JSC)

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Mocoh SA & Anor v. Shield Energy Ltd & Anor (2021) LPELR-54559(CA).

[5]INFAZ v COBEC (Nig) Ltd (2018) 12 NWLR Pt. 1632) 127; Bank of Baroda v Iyalabani Company Ltd (2002) 13 NWLR 551. See also Watanmal (Singapore) Pte Ltd v. Liz Olofin and Company Plc (1997) LPELR-6224(CA) 13 (Musdapher JCA as he then was); NU Metro Retail (Nig) Ltd v. Tradex S.R.L & Another (2017) LPELR-42329(CA) 41-2 (Garba JCA as he then was).

This post is by Emilia Beuger (LL.M. Utrecht), JD Candidate at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.

As noted in an earlier post on this site, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation on September 30, 2021. Below is a more detailed discussion of the issues at play in this case.

This case originated in the state of California and was then appealed to the Ninth Circuit before filing a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States. The central legal issue concerns the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), whose application and interpretation has been split across Circuit Courts.

The issue before the Supreme Court is whether a federal court hearing state law claims brought under the FSIA must apply the forum state’s choice-of-law rules to determine what substantive law governs the claims at issue, or whether it may apply federal common law. The state law is California’s choice-of-law test and the federal common law’s choice-of-law test is set forth in the Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws. The FSIA does not have an express choice of law provision.

Background

The Cassirer family has sought to recover a painting that was stolen from Lilly Cassirer by the Nazis in 1939, and it was subsequently smuggled into the United States and traded privately. This was unbeknownst to Lilly, who brought proceedings in the United States Court of Restitution Appeals under the assumption that the painting had been lost or destroyed. The Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation (TBC) purchased the painting in 1993. TBC is a public foundation, and it is considered an agency or instrumentality of the Kingdom of Spain. In 2000, Lilly’s grandson Claude Cassirer learned that TBC had possession of the painting and requested both Spain and TBC for the painting’s return. Spain refused. Claude filed suit against Spain and TBC in 2005. Spain was voluntarily dismissed as a party in 2011.

Claude passed away in 2010, and his children David and Ava, as well as the United Jewish Federation of San Diego County, were substituted as plaintiffs. Ava’s estate was substituted as a plaintiff after she passed away in 2018.

Issues and Arguments

A series of different proceedings have occurred since the original filing in 2005. The Ninth Circuit found that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies to the dispute because the painting was stolen by Germany in violation of international law.

The most recent case in the district court in 2015 was a result of the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment on the choice-of-law and its application. The district court found for TBC. Even though the buyer prior to TBC had not purchased the painting in good faith and did not pass good title to TBC, TBC lacked actual knowledge under Spanish law. Because TBC lacked actual knowledge under Spanish law, TBC was allowed to keep the stolen painting.

Cassirer’s theory on appeal was that the district court should have applied California law, not Spanish law. Under California law, a thief cannot pass title to anyone, even if there was a good faith purchaser (i.e. who TBC claims to be in this case). Therefore, if California law had been applied in this case, the outcome would have been different.

Key to both sides arguments is that the FSIA provides: “foreign state shall be liable in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances.” 28 U.S.C. § 1606.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court, affirming the application of federal common law to the choice-of-law analysis under the FSIA, but remanded because the Ninth Circuit felt that the district court did not properly apply the Spanish law. Cassirer argues that this contrasts with other Circuit Courts, such as the Second, Fifth, Sixth and D.C. Circuits, who have applied the law of the forum state to the choice-of-law analysis for claims under the FSIA.

In Cassirer’s petition, he cites cases across the Second, Fifth, Sixth, and D.C. Circuits that say the law of the forum state should be applied, not federal common law. The decision to apply federal common law by the Ninth Circuit turned on the wording of past precedents that show that the court may “prefer” to apply it. In contrast, the Second Circuit has interpreted that the FSIA is a “pass-through” for the application of state law to be controlling when there is an issue of choice-of-law. If the goal of the FSIA is to apply the same laws to foreign states and private individuals, then the application must be done with the law that the court would use if the court was dealing with two private parties. Cassirer argues that the application of California’s choice-of-law test would have led to the application of California law because the state law interest of California would be more impaired than if the Spanish law was chosen to be applied in this case.

The Ninth Circuit’s approach, Cassirer argues, would lead to an inconsistency within the liability standards for foreign states and private individuals because the law applied in the state court would be different than the law applied if the suit was brought in federal court. Additionally, Cassirer puts forth public policy arguments. Because there is a split in the Circuit Courts, Cassirer argues that the Supreme Court should hear this case.

While Cassier argues that both tests would have warranted application of California law, TBC argues that both tests would have warranted application of Spanish law.

TBC filed a response to Cassirer’s Petition, arguing that while there may be a split amongst the Circuits, the split is a shallow one. TBC also argues that the outcome(s) will almost always be the same, no matter what choice-of-law test is applied. Public policy arguments are also advanced by TBC that the FSIA’s goal of holding foreign sovereigns accountable and that foreign sovereigns are to be dealt with differently than individuals, specifically at the federal level. Additionally, the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit rests on a federal question, not a diversity matter, so the Ninth Circuit should apply the federal common law test.

Briefs will be filed later this year and early next year.

The Supreme Court is slated to hear arguments during its 2021 Term.

This book celebrates the work and scholarship of Professor Giorgio Bernini, Honorary President of ICCA, who held the chair of European Union Law, Arbitration and International Commercial Law at the University of Bologna for almost 30 years. A very successful international lawyer, he was the Italian Minister of Foreign Trade and a Member of the Italian Antitrust Authority. Bernini has built a long career in the study and practice of arbitration with a record of 450 cases. The book is divided into an introduction and two parts, to highlight many of Bernini’s contributions to the Law.

In a special introductory section of the book, entitled ‘portraits of a pioneer’, some authors offer specific references to some of his many activities in the field: from the ICC Institute of World Business Law to the International Council for Commercial Arbitration, from the Italian Arbitration Association to his professional life as an international lawyer. Then, in the first part of the book, essays on Contract Law and International Trade Law have been collected. The second part is dedicated to arbitration in its many dimensions: domestic, international, commercial and investment Law.

The contributors are amongst the most highly qualified publicists of the various Nations, with the highest academic credentials and proven experience in the field: Yves Derains, Lise Bosman, Maria Beatrice Deli, Antonio Fraticelli, Guido Alpa, Alfonso-Luis Calvo Caravaca, Javier Carrascosa González, Roberto Ceccon, Gabriele Crespi Reghizzi, Abdel Hamid El Ahdab, H. Ercüment Erdem, Marcel Fontaine, Roy Goode, Kaj Hober, Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, Fausto Pocar, Stefano Azzali, Ronald A. Brand, Sergio M. Carbone, Dominique Carreau, Claudio Consolo, Giorgio De Nova, Donald Francis Donovan, Romain Zamour, Ugo Draetta, José Carlos Fernandez Rozas, Emmanuel Gaillard, Maria Chiara Malaguti, Eleonora Finazzi Agrò, Fabrizio Marrella, Margaret L. Moses, William W. Park, Hassan Rahdi, Christoph Schreuer, Nicola Soldati, Shengchang Wang.

For further information please visit here:

The latest issue of RabelsZ has just been published online. It contains the following contributions:

Jaakko Husa: Merging International Law and Comparative Law – Balancing Between Normative and Non-Normative, Volume 85 (2021) / Issue 4, pp. 745-774 (30), https://doi.org/10.1628/rabelsz-2021-0045

The relationship between comparative law and public international law is paradoxical. These fields are in principle close to each other but remote in practice. The emergence of comparative international law has changed the situation as it invites comparative law scholars to enter into discussion on international law. This article provides a critical analysis on the possibilities for comparative law in the field of international law. It discusses and explains why a non-normative understanding of comparative international law works well together with the pluralist conception of comparative law, and why a normative understanding of comparative international law is incompatible with it. This article explains why comparative law scholars do not welcome the use of comparative law for international law purposes with open arms.

Malte Kramme: Mehr als ein Qualifikationsproblem: Zum Verhältnis von Verbrauchervertrags- und Geschäftsfähigkeitsstatut, Volume 85 (2021) / Issue 4, pp. 775-810 (36), https://doi.org/10.1628/rabelsz-2021-0046

More than a Problem of Characterization: The Relationship Between Consumer Contract Law and the Law of Capacity. – The EU regulations in the area of private international law largely exclude legal capacity. The law applicable to questions of capacity is determined by the applicable national conflict-of-law rules. This raises the question of the scope of the law of capacity and how it is to be distinguished from neighbouring fields of law. In particular, drawing this distinction vis-à-vis contract law presents difficulties in cases involving consumers. Both consumer law and the law of capacity place the protection of the weaker party in the foreground. Distinguishing the law of capacity from neighbouring fields of law is therefore more than a mere problem of characterization: it is a matter of not undermining the level of protection sought by the different fields of law in cross-border cases. In this paper, a proposal is made as to how the boundaries of the law of capacity can be determined in relation to contract law, taking into account this intended protection of the weaker party.

Jürgen Samtleben, Gonzalo A. Lorenzo Idiarte: Das Allgemeine Gesetz des Internationalen Privatrechts von Uruguay, Volume 85 (2021) / Issue 4, pp. 811-851 (41), https://doi.org/10.1628/rabelsz-2021-0047

The Uruguayan General Law of Private International Law. – Uruguay has always been a center for private international law. The Montevideo Congress, held in 1888 and 1889 at Uruguay’s invitation – before the Hague Conference on Private  International Law – was of instrumental significance for the development of private international law in Latin America. Uruguay has consistently played an active role in preparing the inter-American specialized conferences on private international law and in propagating bilateral PIL treaties. The new private international law legislation underway since the end of the last century does not break with tradition completely, but seeks to develop it further adapting it to present-day demands. Some major features of the reform bear emphasis: a comprehensive regulation of the general rules of private international law, refinements to the contours of international family law, a recasting of international contracts law based on party autonomy,  and detailed rules on the exercise of jurisdiction by national courts in international disputes.

For a German translation of the Uruguayan General Law of Private International Law of 27 November 2020 by Samtleben, see: Volume 85 (2021) / Issue 4, pp. 907-925 (19), https://doi.org/10.1628/rabelsz-2021-0052

Issue 4/2021 also includes the following contributions originating in the Symposium “The Code of Capital”, held at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law in Hamburg on 11 May 2021:

• Ralf Michaels: Vorwort zum Symposium, Volume 85 (2021) / Issue 4, pp. 852-853 (2), https://doi.org/10.1628/rabelsz-2021-0048

• Hans-Bernd Schäfer: Nationalreichtum und private Armut durch Zivilrecht? – Eine Besprechung des Buchs »The Code of Capital« von Katharina Pistor, Volume 85 (2021) / Issue 4, pp. 854-875 (22), https://doi.org/10.1628/rabelsz-2021-0049

• Katharina Pistor: Recht und Ökonomie im Spannungsfeld verschiedener Schulen – Eine Replik auf Hans-Bernd Schäfers Buchbesprechung, Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht (RabelsZ), Volume 85 (2021) / Issue 4, pp. 876-889 (14), https://doi.org/10.1628/rabelsz-2021-0050

• Ralf Michaels: Der Code des Kapitals und seiner Portabilität – Anmerkungen zu Katharina Pistor, Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht (RabelsZ), Volume 85 (2021) / Issue 4, pp. 890-906 (17), https://doi.org/10.1628/rabelsz-2021-0051

Pilar Jimenez Blanco (University of Oviedo) has published a monograph on cross border matrimonial property regimes (Regímenes Económicos Matrimoniales Transfronterizos).

The book is an in-depth study of Regulation 2016/1103 of 24 June 2016 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes.

The author has kindly provided the following abstract in English:

Regulation (EU) No 2016/1103 is the reference Regulation in matters of cross-border matrimonial property regimes. This book carries out an exhaustive analysis of the Regulation, overcoming its complexity and technical difficulties.

The book is divided in two parts. The first is related to the applicable law, including the legal matrimonial regime and the matrimonial property agreement and the scope of the applicable law. The second part is related to litigation, including the rules of jurisdiction and the system for the recognition of decisions. The study of the jurisdiction rules is ordered according to the type of litigation and the moment in which it arises, depending on whether the marriage is in force or has been dissolved by divorce or death. The conclusions include an overview of the guiding principles of the Regulation and specific solutions for different problems related to matrimonial property regimes (such as the treatment of prenuptial agreements, effects in respect of third parties, the relationship between the matrimonial property regimes or the civil liability of the spouses).

The study merges the rigorous interpretation of UE rules with practical reality and includes case examples for each problem area. The book is completed with a lot of references on comparative law, which show the different systems for dealing with matters of the matrimonial property regime applied in the Member States. It is, therefore, an essential reference book for judges, notaries, lawyers or any other professional who performs legal advice in matrimonial affairs.

The table of contents can be accessed here.