EAPIL blog

The post below was written by Alex Mills, who is Professor of Public and Private International Law at University College London. It is the first contribution to the EAPIL online symposium on the English Law Commission’s proposed reform of the law governing arbitration agreements.

Readers are encouraged to participate in the discussion by commenting on the posts. Those wishing to submit longer analyses are invited to do so by e-mailing Ugljesa Grusic (u.grusic@ucl.ac.uk).

The Law Commission of England and Wales has produced a deeply thoughtful and well-researched Report, which proposes a number of very welcome reforms to the Arbitration Act 1996. Regretfully, however, I have significant reservations about the proposal which is the subject of this Symposium – the adoption of a new choice of law rule for arbitration agreements. This proposal is based on the Second Consultation Paper produced by the Law Commission in March 2023, and this comment draws on my Submission which responded to that Consultation Paper.

The rules for identifying the law applicable to an arbitration agreement have long been the subject of debate. The issue was prominently addressed by the UK Supreme Court in Enka v Chubb [2020] UKSC 38, which acknowledged (at [3]) that it had “long divided courts and commentators, both in this country and internationally”. The decision in Enka v Chubb has, however, strikingly failed to end the division among commentators. I understand why the Law Commission considered it desirable to address this question, because of the importance of the issue and the policy considerations it presents, and because it has been suggested that there is a lack of clarity in the Supreme Court’s judgment in Enka v Chubb. This issue is complex and reasonable arguments can certainly be made on both sides, as indeed acknowledged in the impressive Report and Second Consultation Paper. I am, however, not convinced of the proposal set out in the Report, which is that “the Arbitration Act 1996 be amended to provide that the arbitration agreement is governed by the law of the seat, unless the parties expressly agree otherwise” [Report, 12.77]. In this post I set out what I understand to be the relevant principles, and explain how these broadly support the rule adopted by the Supreme Court in Enka v Chubb, which has also been followed in other common law jurisdictions (such as Singapore and Hong Kong).

A first and well-known key principle is that the law governing the arbitration agreement need not be the same as that governing the remainder of the contract, sometimes referred to as the ‘matrix contract’. This is because of the principle of separability, which allows for a distinct analysis of the arbitration clause’s applicable law.

A second key principle is party autonomy, which is the starting point for analysis of any contractual choice of law issue, and particularly important in arbitration because of its contractual foundations. An agreement as to the law which governs a contract or a clause of a contract must generally be given effect, absent considerations of public policy. Traditionally, a choice of law may be express or implied – if the latter, the search is for factors which demonstrate a real (but undocumented) choice, not a choice which is imputed to the parties as one which they ought to have made.

In the absence of a real choice, it is necessary to consider not the intentions of the parties but the objective factors linking the contract to a particular system of law. Arbitration clauses remain subject to the common law choice of law rule, under which the objective test is sometimes described as a search for the system of law with ‘the closest and most real connection’ to the contract or contractual clause. An arbitration clause will generally be most closely connected to the place where it is to be performed, which is the seat of the arbitration (see further Enka v Chubb, at [120] et seq).

In the law of arbitration, another principle is that of efficiency, but this principle is secondary to that of party autonomy. While the fact that efficiency is generally a goal for parties and for arbitration can assist in interpreting arbitration clauses (see eg Fiona Trust v Privalov [2007] UKHL 40), parties may choose to have their agreements resolved according to inefficient arbitral procedures should they so wish. The law should not interfere with their choices merely because they are thought unwise or undesirable.

On the basis of these clear principles, the law applicable to an arbitration agreement should be governed by the following rule, comprised of three parts in hierarchical order. This is, in essence although not form, the rule set out by the Supreme Court in Enka v Chubb.

Subject to considerations of public policy, an arbitration agreement is governed by:

(i)         The law expressly chosen to govern it;

(ii)        The law implicitly chosen to govern it;

(iii)       The law with which it has its closest and most real connection, which will ordinarily be the law of the seat of the arbitration.

This rule is simple in appearance, although its application may be complex in particular circumstances, as explained further below. The analysis below does not consider the application of public policy, but it remains an important limitation.

The Report proposes to amend the Arbitration Act 1996, to insert the following choice of law rule:

(1) The law applicable to an arbitration agreement is—

(a) the law that the parties expressly agree applies to the arbitration agreement, or

(b) where no such agreement is made, the law of the seat of the arbitration in question.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), agreement between the parties that a particular law applies to an agreement of which the arbitration agreement forms a part does not, of itself, constitute express agreement that that law also applies to the arbitration agreement.

This rule differs from the previous rule in three respects. First, for an express choice to be made, it is necessary that the parties expressly agree that it applies to the arbitration agreement. Second, there is no possibility for an implied choice. Third, in default of a choice, the law of the seat is automatically applied, rather than being the ordinary outcome of the rule.

Under existing law a choice of law for an arbitration agreement may arise in one of three ways.

First, the contract may contain a specific express choice of law agreement for the arbitration clause. In this case, the application of this law to the arbitration clause is self-evidently based on the principles of party autonomy and separability, and is not controversial. This position is maintained in the Law Commission’s proposal.

Second, there may be an implied choice of law for the arbitration agreement. This could arise, for example, where the parties have indicated an understanding that certain statutory provisions which are specific to a governing law will apply to the validity of the arbitration agreement. In this case, the application of the chosen law to the arbitration agreement once again follows straightforwardly as a matter of party autonomy and the principle of separability. One important question in this context is whether a choice of arbitral seat should give rise to an implied choice of law for the arbitration clause. This would certainly be a factor indicating a possible choice of the law of the seat, but it is not generally considered to be a decisive one on its own, as the inquiry is concerned with identifying a real choice made (but not documented) by the parties, and must be attentive to the terms of the contract and other relevant circumstances. This rule would thus in many cases lead to the same outcome as the proposed rule 1(b) in the Report, but would do so not because of a fixed rule of law but because of an implied agreement of the parties. This possibility is rejected in the Law Commission’s proposal.

Third, the matrix contract may contain an express or implied choice of law which should, unless the contrary is agreed, be interpreted to extend to the arbitration clause. This is understood to follow from party autonomy, in combination with the common sense presumption that if parties have made a choice of law for their entire contract, and have not specified a different applicable law for any particular clause of the contract, their choice extends to all of the terms of their contract – including any arbitration agreement (see eg Enka v Chubb, at [43]). This presumption is, however, rebuttable, if there are indications that the parties would not have wanted their choice to cover the arbitration agreement. It is important, however, to understand that this question is about the correct interpretation of the scope of a choice which has been made by the parties. (Here I depart slightly from the reasoning in Enka v Chubb, as I take the view that an express choice of law in the matrix contract which also applies to the arbitration clause is an express, not implied, choice of law for the arbitration clause – see also Report, at [12.34] et seq.) The issue is whether there is evidence which might rebut the common sense presumption. The rule proposed in the Report abolishes the presumption and indeed the possibility of a choice of law in the matrix contract extending to the arbitration agreement, unless it does so specifically and expressly.

There are two main justifications offered for the changes in the Report. The first is that they align with the principle of separability (Report, [12.72]). The analysis of the law applicable to the arbitration agreement is treated as an issue which is entirely unrelated to the contract of which it forms part. It is submitted, however, that this takes separability too far (see eg Enka v Chubb, at [41] and [232] et seq). Separability as a principle rightly ensures that the validity of an arbitration clause is analysed separately from the matrix contract, so that challenges to the validity of the matrix contract do not necessarily undermine the validity of the arbitration clause. This does not, however, require that the arbitration clause be treated as an entirely free-floating agreement, ignoring the context in which it was formed. Indeed, if a choice of law clause in the matrix contract is (as proposed in the Report) deemed to be irrelevant to the arbitration clause, this raises the question whether other clauses in the matrix contract are similarly irrelevant. What if the matrix contract contains an ‘entire agreement’ clause, or a ‘no oral modification’ clause? Are they also irrelevant to the arbitration clause? If not, why is the choice of law singled out, particularly as it may also have interpretive effect?

The second is that the rule proposed in the Report would be more desirable for various policy reasons. The rule would, for example, undoubtedly be clearer and easier to apply than the current position (Report, [12.74]). Applying the rule would also strongly favour the selection of English law to determine the validity of an arbitration agreement with the seat of arbitration in England, which the Report considers to be desirable on various grounds, such as the alignment of the law governing the arbitration agreement and the law governing the arbitration process, and the favourable approach of English law toward arbitration agreements (see Report, [12.16] et seq). It is submitted, however, that these justifications are also not persuasive, as they elevate efficiency and other similar policy considerations above party autonomy. In the absence of an express choice of law specific to the arbitration clause, the fixed rule in the Report in favour of the law of the seat no longer requires but rather excludes an inquiry into what the parties have actually agreed. Contrary to the analysis in the Report (eg, at [12.53], [12.73]), this is a significant constraint on party autonomy. Where parties have chosen a seat for their arbitration, but have (expressly or impliedly) chosen a different governing law for their arbitration clause, the fact that they have thereby chosen different laws for the law governing the arbitration process and the law governing the arbitration agreement may be considered undesirable, and it may be inefficient, but it is submitted that this is not a sufficient reason for the law to disrespect their choice, which is the very foundation of arbitration. The proposed rule also has the undesirable effect that the arbitration agreement and the matrix contract are more likely to be governed by different laws, which raises difficult questions concerning their consistent interpretation and validity (see, eg, Enka v Chubb, at [53] and [235] et seq). There is also a concern that arbitrators will be faced with a difficult choice between applying a law chosen by the parties (for example, through a matrix choice of law agreement, or through an implied choice), which they may consider themselves to be required to do as a matter of their contractual mandate, and applying the law that will be applied by the English courts if their award is challenged.

The Law Commission’s Report is overall an excellent example of law reform, offering carefully crafted and well-reasoned proposals for improvement. On this issue, it makes its case well, and there would undoubtedly be some benefits to the reforms which it proposes. Ultimately, however, I am not persuaded that they are consistent with the core principles that should be guiding the law. A simple and clear rule is often desirable, but in this case it is my view that the complexities of the existing rule simply reflect the complexities of arbitration, which cannot and should not be legislated away.

On 7 September 2023, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled in Case C-590/21, Charles Taylor Adjusting that judgements ordering a party to pay certain sums of money for violating a choice of court agreement are ‘quasi anti suit injunctions’ which violate mutual trust. The courts of Member States are therefore free to consider that such judgements violate public policy and to deny them enforcement under the Brussels I Regulation.

On 3 May 2006, the vessel Alexandros T sank and was lost, along with its cargo, off the bay of Port Elizabeth (South Africa). The companies Starlight Shipping Company and Overseas Marine Enterprises Inc. (‘OME’),  the owner and operator of that vessel, respectively  requested that the insurers of that vessel pay an indemnity on the basis of their contractual liability arising from the occurrence of the insured incident.

After the insurers refused, Starlight initiated proceedings before English courts and before an arbitral tribunal. The parties settled all these actions in several Settlement Agreements, which contained a jurisdiction clause designating English courts. The Settlement Agreements were ratified by several English judgments in 2007 and 2008.

A few years later, Starlight and OME initiated tort actions in Greek courts related to the actions settled in England. One of the defendants in the Greek proceedings was Charles Taylor Adjusting Limited, a legal and technical consultancy which had defended the insurers of the vessel Alexandros T against the claims made by Starlight before the English court, and against the director of that consultancy.

While those actions were pending, the insurers of the vessel and their representatives, including, in particular, Charles Taylor and its director, the defendants in the Greek proceedings, brought actions against Starlight and ΟΜΕ before the English courts seeking a declaration that the actions brought in Greece constituted infringements of the settlement agreements and applying for declarative relief and compensation.

In 2014, the English High Court awarded the applicants compensation in respect of the proceedings instituted in Greece as well as payment of their costs incurred in England on the basis of the content of the settlement agreements and of the jurisdiction clause that they contained.

Charles Taylor and its director then sought recognition and partial enforcement of the 2014 English judgement in Greece.

The Piraeus Court of Appeal found that the 2014 English judgement amounted to a quasi anti suit injunction and should thus be denied recognition and enforcement. The Greek Court of Cassation referred the matter to the CJEU.

The starting point of the reasoning was obviously Turner and the other judgments of the CJEU which have confirmed that anti-suit injunctions are unacceptable under the EU law of jurisdiction: ‘Any injunction prohibiting a claimant from bringing such an action must be seen as constituting interference with the jurisdiction of the foreign court which, as such, is incompatible with that regulation’.

The key issue was to determine whether other forms of assessment of the jurisdiction of courts of other Member States and sanctions of parties wrongly litigating before the courts of Member States could equally interfere with the jurisdiction of those courts.

The CJEU found that, although it did not order any party to discontinue the foreign proceedings, the English judgment still held:

26. … That judgment and those orders nonetheless contain grounds relating to, first, the breach, by Starlight and OME together with the natural persons representing them, of those settlement agreements; second, the penalties for which they will be liable if they fail to comply with that judgment and those orders; and, third, the jurisdiction of the Greek courts in the light of those settlement agreements. Moreover, that judgment and those orders also contain grounds relating to the financial penalties for which Starlight and OME, together with the natural persons representing them, will be liable, in particular a decision on the provisional award of damages, the amount of which is not final and is predicated on the continuation of the proceedings before the Greek courts.

The CJEU ruled that the 2014 English judgment thus interfered with the jurisdiction of Greek courts, and could thus be classified as a quasi anti suit injunction:

27. … While the purpose of that judgment and those orders is not to prohibit a party from bringing or continuing legal action before a foreign court, they may be regarded as having, at the very least, the effect of deterring Starlight and OME, together with their representatives, from bringing proceedings before the Greek courts or continuing before those courts an action the purpose of which is the same as those actions brought before the courts of the United Kingdom, which matter is, in any event, for the referring court to determine.

The CJEU then discussed whether the prohibition to review foreign judgments under the Brussels Regulation prevented the Greek court from denying enforcement to the 2014 English judgment. The CJEU concludes that the Greek Court could rely on the public policy exception to sanction the infringement to the principle that every court is to rule on its own jurisdiction, that other courts should trust the result, and the principle of access to justice.

The rationale for the judgment seems to be twofold. First, the courts of the Member States should not deter litigants from bringing  proceedings before the courts of any other Member State. Second, the courts of the Member States should always refrain from assessing whether the court of other Member States have jurisdiction.

The first reason seems to exclude any interference in proceedings pending before other Member States which could be perceived as exercising pressure on one party to terminate them. It would leave open the possibility to sue after the termination of the proceedings to seek any form of remedy for initiating the foreign proceedings in violation of a choice of court agreement. The second reason, however, would seem to apply even after the foreign proceedings resulted in a judgment.

The broader question is whether it is possible to seek a remedy for abuse of process for seizing wrongly the court of a Member State. For instance, for initiating proceedings in violation of lis pendens. The answer seems to be that such remedy can only be sought in the Member State of the court wrongfully seized, and nowhere else.

London holds the distinction of being a preferred seat for arbitration, making significant developments in English arbitration law of general interest to arbitration specialists and, at times, private international lawyers. Few developments in arbitration law can match the significance of a reform affecting the statute providing a framework for arbitration. This is precisely what the Law Commission of England and Wales is recommending in its final report on the review of the Arbitration Act 1996.

One of the proposals aims to introduce a statutory rule for determining the governing law of an arbitration agreement, which significantly departs from the current common law position. Given the importance of this proposal, the EAPIL blog will host an online symposium on the law governing arbitration agreements from 11 to 13 September 2023.

In this post, I will introduce the Law Commission’s proposals and the symposium.

On 6 September 2023, following an extensive consultation process that included the publication of two consultation papers in September 2022 and March 2023, the Law Commission unveiled its proposals for reforming the 1996 Act (the text of the final report and draft Bill is available here; a summary is available here). These proposals aim to uphold the Act’s core principles, while introducing improvements aimed at enhancing London’s position as a global arbitration centre.

The Law Commission’s major proposals are: codifying an arbitrator’s duty of disclosure; strengthening arbitrator immunity around resignation and applications for removal; introducing the power to make arbitral awards on a summary basis; improving the framework for challenges to awards under section 67 on the basis that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction; adding a new rule on the law governing arbitration agreements; and clarifying court powers in support of arbitral proceedings and emergency arbitrators.

Additionally, the Law Commission proposes several minor corrections, including: allowing appeals from applications to stay legal proceedings; simplifying preliminary applications to court on jurisdiction and points of law; clarifying time limits for challenging awards; and repealing unused provisions on domestic arbitration agreements.

Since private international lawyers are likely more interested in the proposed choice-of-law rule for arbitration agreements and the proposed new relationship between courts and arbitrators regarding jurisdictional challenges, I will focus on these two proposals.

The Rome I Regulation does not cover arbitration agreements, leaving the determination of the law governing arbitration agreements in England to the common law choice-of-law rules for contracts. These rules are well-known: a contract is governed by the law expressly or impliedly chosen by the parties or, in the absence of choice, by the system of law with which the contract is most closely connected. Applying this rule to arbitration clauses can be difficult. Does a broad choice-of-law clause in a matrix contract amount to an express choice of law for the arbitration clause contained therein? If the parties have not expressly chosen the law to govern their arbitration clause, is the choice of law for the matrix contract an indication of implied choice for the arbitration clause? Is the designation of the arbitral seat an indication of such implied choice?

The United Kingdom Supreme Court addressed these questions twice in the past three years in Enka and Kabab-Ji. The court’s majority in Enka (Lord Hamblen, Lord Leggatt, and Lord Kerr) set out the following rules for determining the existence of parties’ choice of law in [170]:

iii) Whether the parties have agreed on a choice of law to govern the arbitration agreement is ascertained by construing the arbitration agreement and the contract containing it, as a whole, applying the rules of contractual interpretation of English law as the law of the forum.

iv) Where the law applicable to the arbitration agreement is not specified, a choice of governing law for the contract will generally apply to an arbitration agreement which forms part of the contract.

v) The choice of a different country as the seat of the arbitration is not, without more, sufficient to negate an inference that a choice of law to govern the contract was intended to apply to the arbitration agreement.

vi) Additional factors which may, however, negate such an inference and may in some cases imply that the arbitration agreement was intended to be governed by the law of the seat are: (a) any provision of the law of the seat which indicates that, where an arbitration is subject to that law, the arbitration agreement will also be treated as governed by that country’s law; or (b) the existence of a serious risk that, if governed by the same law as the main contract, the arbitration agreement would be ineffective. Either factor may be reinforced by circumstances indicating that the seat was deliberately chosen as a neutral forum for the arbitration.

vii) Where there is no express choice of law to govern the contract, a clause providing for arbitration in a particular place will not by itself justify an inference that the contract (or the arbitration agreement) is intended to be governed by the law of that place.

The court also clarified that the law of the seat is ‘generally’ the system of law most closely connected to the arbitration agreement.

Unsurprisingly, consultees said that these rules were complex and unpredictable. This has led the Law Commission to propose a reform of these rules in its second consultation paper.

The proposal has three key elements: 1) retaining express choice; 2) eliminating implied choice; and 3) specifying that the law of the seat applies in the absence of an express choice.

The proposed choice-of-law rule for arbitration agreements reads as follows:

6A Law applicable to arbitration agreement

(1) The law applicable to an arbitration agreement is—

(a) the law that the parties expressly agree applies to the arbitration agreement, or

(b) where no such agreement is made, the law of the seat of the arbitration in question.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), agreement between the parties that a particular law applies to an agreement of which the arbitration agreement forms a part does not, of itself, constitute express agreement that that law also applies to the arbitration agreement.

(3) This section does not apply in relation to an arbitration agreement that was entered into before the day on which section 1 of the Arbitration Act 2023 comes into force.

If a party participates in arbitral proceedings, raises a jurisdictional challenge before the tribunal, and is accorded a fair hearing, should they be allowed to challenge the tribunal’s jurisdiction before a court using the same arguments and evidence? The answer to this question is principally guided by two somewhat conflicting considerations: efficiency and freedom of contract (which, of course, includes a freedom not to be bound by a non-existent or invalid contract).

The UKSC addressed this issue in Dallah. Lord Mance wrote obiter in [26] that:

An arbitral tribunal’s decision as to the existence of its own jurisdiction cannot…bind a party who has not submitted the question of arbitrability to the tribunal. This leaves for consideration the nature of the exercise which a court should undertake where there has been no such submission and the court is asked to enforce an award. Domestically, there is no doubt that, whether or not a party’s challenge to the jurisdiction has been raised, argued and decided before the arbitrator, a party who has not submitted to the arbitrator’s jurisdiction is entitled to a full judicial determination on evidence of an issue of jurisdiction before the English court, on an application made in time for that purpose under s.67 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

Lord Collins and Lord Saville expressed similar views in, respectively, [96] and [159]-[160].

The Law Commission believes that such a de novo rehearing is inefficient and unfair to the party wishing to enforce the arbitration agreement. It proposes to limit when a participating party can raise a jurisdictional challenge before English courts.

Following a very controversial proposal in its first consultation paper, the Law Commission has settled on a proposal that has the following four key elements: 1) it covers situations where a party participates in arbitral proceedings, objects to the tribunal’s jurisdiction, and the tribunal rules on its jurisdiction; 2) the court will not entertain any new grounds of objection, or any new evidence, unless it was not reasonably possible to put them before the tribunal; 3) the court will re-hear evidence only if necessary in the interests of justice; and 4) these limitations are to be introduced through rules of court rather than the 1996 Act itself.

The proposed rules outlining this new relationship between courts and arbitrators regarding jurisdictional challenges, to be inserted in section 67, read as follows:

(3A) Rules of court about the procedure to be followed on an application under this section may, in particular, include provision within subsection (3B) in relation to a case where the application—

(a) relates to an objection as to the arbitral tribunal’s substantive jurisdiction on which the tribunal has already ruled, and

(b) is made by a party that took part in the arbitral proceedings.

(3B) Provision is within this subsection if it provides that—

(a) a ground for the objection that was not raised before the arbitral tribunal must not be raised before the court unless the applicant shows that, at the time the applicant took part in the proceedings, the applicant did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have discovered the ground;

(b) evidence that was not heard by the tribunal must not be heard by the court unless the applicant shows that, at the time the applicant took part in the proceedings, the applicant could not with reasonable diligence have put the evidence before the tribunal;

(c) evidence that was heard by the tribunal must not be re-heard by the court, unless the court considers it necessary in the interests of justice.

From 11 to 13 September 2023, the EAPIL blog will host an online symposium on the law governing arbitration agreements. The focus will be on assessing the Law Commission’s proposal and providing a comparative perspective. Professor Alex Mills (UCL) and Dr Manuel Penades Fons (KCL) will kick off the discussion by assessing the proposed choice-of-law rule for arbitration agreements from a UK perspective on Monday 11 September 2023. More contributions from comparative perspectives will follow on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Readers are encouraged to participate in the discussion by commenting on the posts. Those wishing to submit longer analyses on the law governing arbitration agreements, the relationship between courts and arbitrators, or any other issue relating to the Law Commission’s final report are invited to do so by e-mailing Ugljesa Grusic (u.grusic@ucl.ac.uk).

The editorial team of the EAPIL blog has just become a bit larger! Ugljesa Grusic, an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Laws of UCL, has kindly accepted to join our invitation: thanks a lot, Ugljesa, and welcome!

Please check out Ugljesa’s first post here.

It’s a rather special first post, as it announces an on-line symposium, edited by Ugljesa himself, that will run from Monday to Wednesday next week, on the law applicable to arbitration agreements in light of the recent proposals of the English Law Commission.

The Hague Academy of International Law has made known the programme of the winter course on International Law of 2024.

The course will be opened by Yves Daudet (Hague Academy of International Law) with a lecture on Solidarity in International Law.

The general course, titled On the Interface between Public and Private International Law, will be given by Campbell Mclachlan KC (Victoria University of Wellington).

The special courses will be as follows: Ximena Fuentes (University of Chile), Defying Existing International Law as the Starting Point of the Formation of New Customary Law; Patrícia Galvão Teles (Autonomous University of Lisbon) The Advisory Function of International Courts and Tribunals; Maria Gavouneli (National and Kapodistrian University of Athens) Energy in International Law; August Reinisch (University of Vienna) The Settlement of Disputes Involving International Organizations; Ben Saul (University of Sydney) The Special Regime of International Counter-Terrorism Law; Santiago Villalpando (Office of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization – UNESCO) The Practice of the Law of Treaties since the Vienna Convention.

The directors of studies will be Fuad Zarbiyev (Geneva Graduate Institute) for the English-speaking section, and Paula Wojcikiewicz Almeida (Getulio Varga Foundation Law School in Rio de Janeiro) for the French-speaking session.

All applicants are required to register online. A limited amount of scholarships is available. Registration period for full fee applicants is between 1 May 2023 and 1 October 2023. Selected attendees of the Winter Courses will also be able to participate in the doctoral networking sessions coordinated by Daniëlla Dam-de Jong (Leiden University), additional afternoon lectures, embassy visits, social activities,  and to register for an exceptional event: the “Hours of Crisis“ Simulation Exercise. The competition will be conducted in English only.

More information on the Academy’s programmes may be found here.

The eleventh edition of the treatise on Droit international privé in the Précis Dalloz series, one of the leading texts on private international law in France, has recently been published (January 2023, 1100 pages).

The previous edition was published ten years ago. The new, fully revised edition has been prepared by Pascal de Vareilles-Sommières (Sorbonne Law school, Paris I University), who was the co-author of the previous editions (alongside the late Yvon Loussouarn and Pierre Bourel), and Sarah Laval (Littoral Côte d’Opale University).

The first part, titled “Common rules governing private international law” (Règles générales de droit international privé), focuses on the general theory of private international law, and adopts an original distinction between “identification of the legal source” (i.e. in the three fields of choice of law, jurisdiction and judgments) and “regime of the foreign norm” (i.e. the regime of the international regularity (or lawfulness) of the foreign norm – law and judgment – and then the regime of the implementation of the foreign norm).

The second part, titled “Special rules governing private international law” (Droit international privé special), is concerned with the special rules applicable in the different fields of private law (i.e. persons, family, property, obligations, businesses). Another sign of originality here is that each of the areas presented contains a preliminary development on the “policy of building connecting factors”.

While the treatise’s foreword is insightful and conceived as a “user’s guide”, I thought it would be interesting to directly ask the two authors about some specific features of this revised edition. They kindly agreed to answer some questions for the readers of the EAPIL blog and I thank them very warmly.

– This treatise takes, in your own words, a “neo-Savignian” approach to private international law. What does this mean?

On the one hand, a neo-Savignian approach to PIL focuses, like under the traditional Savignian approach, on the links between a given legal relationship and a particular country, in order to sort out, in favour of this country, the choice-of-law/choice-of-court issues (including issues related with jurisdiction of foreign courts, in case of a dispute over a foreign judgment dealing with the case) arising out of said relationship. Like Savigny, a neo-Savignian advocate believes that one of these links (or one set of links among them) justifies better than others the precedence of the concerned country as to ruling the relationship at stake through its law or its courts. This creed relies on the idea that the authority of a ruler varies depending on the strength of its links with the governed subject.

When enacting a choice-of-law (or choice-of-court) rule, a lawmaker who follows a neo-Savignian approach picks up the link (or set of links) which, in his opinion, is the most relevant for the kind of relationship covered by the created rule – and which appears to him as showing the “seat” (like Savigny used to say) of the legal relationship in a particular country. This link will therefore become the connecting factor in the choice-of-law rule (or the jurisdictional basis in the choice-of-court rule – including, here again, the jurisdictional standards applied to foreign courts, as provided by the foreign judgment regime) covering the legal relationship at stake. And this “seat country” will consequently have (at least in principle) its law and/or the judgments rendered by its courts enforced, for said legal relationship, by the forum (viz, the country whose choice-of-law/choice-of-court rules apply, assuming that the dispute is brought before that country’s courts).

But on the other hand (and conversely to the Savignian approach), our neo-Savignian approach promotes the idea that legal relationships between private persons in an international setting do not necessarily have only one seat in one country – whose law and courts would thus govern this relationship –, but may well have (and actually often have) several “anchors” or relevant connections to different countries, each of whom being a possible seat or “anchorage”. Two important consequences stem from this: (i) in a given case, the seat relevant for adjudicating the dispute may well prove different from the seat relevant for legislating over it; (ii) moreover, since one must think contemporary choice-of-law and choice-of-court rules (including, as aforementioned, those governing foreign judgments) in terms of domestic rather than international sources (at least in principle), the seat of a given relationship may well vary from country to country.

All this shows that, in our early XXI century, reasoning (as used to do Savigny) in terms of “one seat in one country for one kind of relationship” – at least each time this relationship appears in an international setting – is a bit misleading since it does not correspond to the truth of law as it is experienced by the parties. Our neo-Savignian doctrine admits the possibility of plural seats for a given legal relationship and addresses this occurrence through a set of choice-of-law and choice-of-courts rules which are inspired by Savigny’s thought (search of the most relevant links), as adapted to fit the contemporary legal landscape for private law applying in an international context (plurality of relevant fora enacting varied choice of law and choice of court rules). Accordingly, in a given country, the conflict between the countries (taken as lawmakers or as judgment-makers for the case at stake) with which a legal situation is linked, will be won by the one that has the most relevant relationship with the situation, this relevance being determined by a series of private and public considerations.

Far from being merely neutral, the choice-of-law rules appear as the result of a certain policy implemented by the authors of these rules (the “choice-of-law policy”, distinct from the “substantive policy” enacted by the substantive law chosen as applicable and relevant when it comes to sorting out the substantive issue). The same is true, mutatis mutandis, for the choice-of-court rules.

The neo-Savignian approach also repudiates two popular postulates: (i) the postulate according to which countries are not affected by the solution of conflict of laws (since at a minimum, the authority of the sovereign country, taken as a ruler, vis-à-vis the parties to the legal relationship is at stake when sorting out a choice-of-law/choice-of-court issue); and (ii) also the postulate according to which, in a given case, the applicable law and the jurisdiction of courts are basically disconnected from one another; on the contrary, they are both seen as one side of the exercise of one countries’ power to make “law” (broadly speaking: either by enacting a bill, or by rendering a judgment). The originality of the neo-Savignian approach therefore also lies in a sort of presumption that the country whose courts have jurisdiction over a case often ought to be (and actually, quite naturally) the country whose law governs the relationship (jurisdiction of the forum legis).

– Could you concretely illustrate this neo-Savignian approach?

Let us take one example of a multiple-seat private law relationship; it will be provided by the family chapter of PIL, and more especially, the filiation issue (relation of child to father).

Under French law, the choice-of-law rule points to a country as being the correct lawmaker for filiation where it turns out that the child’s mother has the nationality of that country (C. civ., Article 311-14); whereas the jurisdiction rule points to France as being the correct judgment-maker for filiation where the defendant (often the suspected father) is domiciled in France (CPC, Article 42), or, in case he is not, where he is a French citizen (C. civ., Article 15), or even, as a minimum, where the claimant (the child in a filiation proceeding) is a French citizen (C. civ., Article 14). These rules show that French substantive law on filiation will apply before French courts in a dispute brought before French courts each time that (i) the suspected father is domiciled in France, or at least that he, or the child, has French nationality (so that French courts have jurisdiction); and (ii) the mother is French (so that French substantive law governs the case). In such a case, France gets a plenary power to provide for a substantive regime (both through legislature and through court) for the filiation. The seat of the relation of child to father (at least from the French viewpoint) is located in France, both with respect to the substantive law governing the case and to the court having the final word in the dispute.

Let us assume now that the man is Italian, and the child is a US citizen (since he was born within the US territory, where one assumes also here that his French mother lives with him). In that case, Italian courts claim jurisdiction over the case (Italian Act No 218, 1995, Article 37). Assuming that the claimant brings the dispute against the suspected father before Italian courts, these courts should assert jurisdiction on the filiation issue, since for Italy, the judicial seat of the case is in Italy. As to the legislative seat, it will be provided by the Italian choice-of-law rule, under which the law governing filiation is the law of the country of origin (nationality) of the child (Italian Act No 218, 1995, Article 33), here the law of the relevant US state. Hence the Italian court will not apply the French law, even though the child’s mother is French (and notwithstanding the French choice-of-law rule claiming applicability of French law for that reason).

Typically, under our neo-Savignian approach, the filiation proceeding covers a relation that has not one seat in onecountry, but at least three seats in three countries (France, Italy and the United States), and parties to this relationship should be aware of this data when wondering what is the content of the legal regime governing the substantive issues arising out of their case. One should add here that the country where the filiation proceeding is brought would be well advised not to forget this plural-seat data when it comes to addressing the legal issues arising out of this dispute. It is probably so for France, if recognition of enforcement of the Italian judgment is sought there: even though the French choice-of-law rule claims French substantive law being applicable to the filiation issue (since the mother is French), the foreign judgment regime as set up by French case-law does not rule out the Italian judgment for the mere reason that the Italian court did not enforce French law (but rather the law of the relevant state in the USA).

– The formal presentation of private international law solutions in the treatise is inspired by a “trans-systemic/transnational” pedagogy. The aim is to go beyond the particularistic (i.e., French-oriented) approach to the discipline. Could you elaborate on that?

This presentation divides each PIL development into two parts. The first part is more about rhetoric; it sets the problematics, the principles and the interests at stake for each topic, it lists the different considerations that shall be taken into consideration to solve the choice-of-law/choice-of-court issues, and it suggests a solution according to the neo-Savignian approach. These rhetoric parts are not too deeply invaded by legal data from one particular country or another. Accordingly, at that stage, the book rather sticks to a universalist view of PIL.

The second part of the developments on each issue is a presentation of the rules as they exist in some jurisdictions, would these rules stick to the solutions exposed in the first part or would they differ from them. In this second part, the rules are not only French rules, but European and International (Hague Conventions in particular) rules as well. The purpose of this transnational presentation is to depart from a purely French point of view as well as to understand the extent to which French Law solutions are similar to European and International Law solutions. The outcome of this presentation is that, contrarily to other handbooks on the libraries’ shelves, this recast edition is not merely a book on French PIL, but rather a book on PIL as it is conceived and applied by France, by the European Union and by the international community through international conventions (mainly Hague conventions from the Hague Conference for PIL).

The (private international) law of choice-of-court agreements provides us with a good example of this methodology. In the rhetoric part of the presentation on this issue, the book draws on (i) the relation between the lawfulness of choice-of-court agreements and the question whether the jurisdiction rule is binding or non-binding in law, for the parties; and (ii) the considerations influencing the decision whether such a rule ought to be binding in law or not for the parties. Then, in a series of developments on law as it is in force in some jurisdictions, a quick presentation is made regarding French law, EU law (Brussels I bis Regulation) and the Hague convention on choice of court agreements.

– How do you “present” and “represent” in the treatise the Europeanisation of private international law and, ultimately, EU private international law?

To make a long story short, one can say that there are two possible paths that one can follow in order to present the EU as a lawmaker in the field of PIL.

On the one hand, the traditional way tends to look at the EU from the classical public international law viewpoint. EU member-states are sovereign States bound by an international treaty (Treaty of Rome, 1957 – which was ultimately renamed the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by the Treaty of Lisbon, 2007). From that standpoint, EU PIL is fostered by EU institutions and comes into force in the EU member-states through an international treaty. It is on that basis that it becomes part of the law of each member-state and it ought to work as such.

On the other hand, a more unusual analysis of the EU is to see this entity as a political entity having some features of a sovereign State (nevertheless not all of them, so that it cannot claim being a State from the international law standpoint, but, at a maximum, it may qualify as what is sometimes called a “proto-state”). As such, EU PIL in a member-state differentiates from domestic PIL of this member-state, with some consequences like one in the field of characterization, where, for a member-state court, resorting to domestic definitions for interpreting EU legal categories as used in EU PIL regulations is not appropriate (at least in principle). Similarly, the proto-state notion proves useful for the correct understanding of the function of EU PIL, compared to member-state PIL of domestic origin. This last one may be seen as a tool for fixing the ambit of legislative or judiciary action of a member-state. The first one is seen in the book as delineating the outskirts of each member-state’s private law (as made by a legislature or by a court), whether with regards to each other, or even with regards to non-member-states. It may well be used also as a tool for delineating the outskirts of EU private law where it exists, as the case may be. And finally, the proto-state notion is useful to understand another influence of EU law on EU member-state PIL having a domestic origin: to the extent that EU may be seen as a “proto-federal State”, the interference of EU freedom of persons (Article 21 TFEU) on the law of EU member-states, including PIL of domestic origin, appears as one regarding the lawfulness of the legal provisions composing this domestic law.

One must add that the European influence on the PIL of European countries is not limited to EU law, but may come from other organizations or instruments as well, like the Council of Europe. This international organization is much less integrated than the European Union, and for this reason the book does not see it as a proto-state. But of course, this does not prevent us from scrutinizing the possible incidence of the Council of Europe law (and especially the ECHR case-law) on EU (and EU member-state) PIL, particularly through the reshaping of the public policy defence.

– Could you concretely illustrate your “proto-state” approach of EU PIL?

Article 4.1 of Rome II Regulation and Articles 4, 7, and 45 of the Brussels I bis Regulation read as follows, through the proto-State notion as applied to the European Union:

In principle, under Article 4.1 of Rome II regulation, the EU grants (or recognizes) jurisdiction to legislate in matter of non-contractual obligation to any member-state having sovereignty on the territory where the damage occurs. The same jurisdiction to legislate is recognized in principle by EU PIL to any non-EU country exercising sovereignty on this territory. EU member-states are granted jurisdiction to adjudicate a case in non-contractual obligations under the Brussels I.a regulation (article 4 and 7); but countries having rendered a judgment in this subject matter may be seen as providing a regular ground to their judgment, even though they are not a country selected by these articles, and this is so whether they are (i) an EU member-state (since the origin of the EU member-state judgment is not controlled under article 45.3 of Brussels I.a regulation); or (ii) a non-EU country (since EU PIL does not cover recognition and enforcement of non-EU country judgments).

– For the benefit of the private international law community, what are the two or three major issues which, in your book, seem to you to be at the heart of the reflections to be conducted for the private international law of the future? 

The first issue could be a potential harmonization between the answer to the two questions of (i) which law prevails? and (ii) which court has jurisdiction? In France, scholars usually have strong opinions on the separation between these two fields and stick to the postulate that their regulation relies on distinct considerations: whereas the court that has jurisdiction appears to be chosen after purely procedural considerations, the choice of law is usually determined by non-procedural considerations, since the choice-of-law issue may arise outside any proceedings. This presentation neglects the idea that choosing a country’s court instead of another one is not neutral with respect to the outcome of the proceeding and eventually has a strong influence on the solution of the dispute. Therefore, a country exercising a legislative power also has an interest in exercising its judicial power. Taking these elements into consideration might be a good opportunity to review the choice-of-court rules and see to what extent they stick – or could stick – to this approach.

A second issue is about the leeway available to a court when it comes to exercising its jurisdiction over a case presenting relevant links with court’s country. Since the claimant holds a strong sway on the outcome of the proceeding – through the choice of the forum where the dispute is brought –, any country ought to provide its courts with the power to give up the exercise of its jurisdiction over the dispute, each time it turns out that the claimant would have an excessive advantage in suing the defendant before the court of one of the countries whose links with the case are sufficient to trigger its jurisdiction to adjudicate.

A third issue could be the digitalization of international private relations. This digitalization emphasizes the opportunity to depart from a reasoning in terms of mere localization of facts and urges the need to adopt a reasoning in terms of policy advocated for by the choice-of-law/choice-of-court legislature. For these relations, the determination of the applicable law or of the court that has jurisdiction cannot be the result of a search for a country where the facts take place (it is submitted that this country really does not exist), but the result of the comparison between the different public and private interests at stake. Eventually, the relationship arising in a digitalized context has its seat in the country with the most relevant links to it – relevance being here the outcome of an analysis and weighing of the competing interests that one can find, for a country, to be recognized as a ruler (through its laws or courts) for said relationship, and, for the parties to said relationship, that this country be recognized as governing it.

This post was written by Verena Wodniansky-Wildenfeld, University of Vienna.

On 8 March 2023, the German Supreme Court issued a judgment on the paternity of two children. In the case at hand, the validity of the marriage of the mother, which gives rise to the presumption of paternity, had to be determined as a preliminary issue. This was further complicated by the interference of a talaq divorce.

An Iranian-German woman married an Iranian man in Iran in 1996 and was subsequently divorced by a talaq in Iran in 2006. The recognition of this divorce was refused in Germany, as is usual for reasons of public policy in connection with the right to be heard, in 2012 by a decision of a German administrative authority. In 2009, the woman remarried another Iranian man in Iran and gave birth to two children in 2010 and 2013, who have had their habitual residence in Germany ever since. The second husband was registered as the father in the German birth register. The registry office wanted to correct this registration in favour of the first husband, as Section 1592(1) of the German Civil Code (BGB) considers the husband of the mother at the time of the birth as the legal father of the child.

The core issue before the German Supreme Court was the determination of the law applicable to parenthood. In the absence of overriding rules of EU or international law (the Bilateral Treaty between Germany and Iran did not apply because the mother of the children has both German and Iranian nationality), the court turned to national conflicts rules. Article 19(1) of the Introductory Act to the German Civil Code (EGBGB) provides for an alternative connecting factor based either on the law of the child’s habitual residence or, for each parent separately, on his or her nationality. In the case of married persons, parentage may also be determined according to the law governing the general effects of their marriage at the time of birth.

As the children had their habitual residence in Germany, the Court examined parentage in accordance with German substantive law. Accordingly, the children’s father would be the person who was married to the child’s mother at the time of birth.

The question arose to whom the mother was effectively married at the time of birth. The court therefore assessed the validity of the second marriage as a preliminary question. The substantive requirements for marriage are governed by the law of the nationality of each of the spouses (Article 13(1) EGBGB). Accordingly, the second marriage violated from a German viewpoint the prohibition of bigamy (Section 1306 BGB), as the Iranian divorce was not recognised in Germany. For the mother of the child, the second marriage would merely be dissolvable under German law, but not automatically null and void by operation of law (ex lege). For the second husband, who is exclusively of Iranian nationality, Iranian law applies according to Article 13(1) EGBGB, which stipulates that a man must not marry a woman who is already married (Article 1050 Iranian Civil Code), otherwise the marriage is considered to be invalid.

In this respect, the Court first had to decide whether the talaq divorce with the first husband was effective in order to answer the question of the validity of the marriage with the second husband.

The legally binding decision of the German administrative authority not to recognise the talaq divorce has the consequence that it has no legal effect in Germany. A separate conflict-of-laws assessment is therefore not required, at least in cases with a strong national link, as in the present case. The Court therefore correctly assumed that the second marriage of the mother was a violation of the Iranian prohibition of bigamy and therefore null and void, as the divorce had to be considered invalid.

In order to avoid a situation in which the status of the parties to a marriage is in doubt (limping marriage), the “stricter” law that is most opposed to the marriage is generally applied when examining the substantive requirements for marriage. According to this principle, the second marriage would be considered void, as it is considered void under Iranian law. However, this would be a “paradox” result in so far as the marriage would not be null and void under either of the two legal systems when examined individually. Therefore, the Court deviates from the principle of applying the stricter law and, exceptionally, allows the milder German law to decide the consequence. The result is that under German law two marriages existed at the time of birth. The court resolves the subsequent double presumption of paternity by an analogous application of Section 1593 sentence 3 BGB (A child that could be both the child of the former husband and the new husband is to be regarded only as the child of the new husband). Consequently, only the second marriage is decisive, and the second husband was registered as the father of both children.

Although the reasoning of the decision may appear contrived and somewhat forced, the outcome reflects the factual circumstances. The prior legally binding decision not to recognise the divorce and the resulting lack of a conflict-of-laws analysis forces the court to reach deep into its bag of tricks in order not to undermine a presumption of paternity that is effective in both legal systems. Adaptation would normally be the tool of choice in cases where the result of a conflicts analysis is unsatisfactory because the legal consequences would not arise in either jurisdiction. In the case at hand, however, adapting the outcome was not possible due to the interplay between procedural law and substantive law. The procedural effect of the refusal to recognise the divorce must be clearly distinguished from the conflict-of-laws implications. The court is therefore facing the challenge of making corrections at the level of the legal consequences in order to achieve the desired result. Dogmatically as well as methodologically, it is always problematic to put the cart before the horse in this way, and once again the approach taken by the Court is not flawless. Instead of following legal practice, the Court chose the most practical solution in the individual case – which is always where legal practice and science have to part company.

Holidays are over and September 2023 will be a busy month at the Court of Justice also as regards private international law, starting with the delivery of the Opinion by AG Emiliou in case C-90/22, Gjensidige, and of two decisions by the third and the fifth chamber respectively (both formations of five judges) already on Thursday 7.

The request for a preliminary ruling in Gjensidige comes from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania). In the case at hand, the proceedings in cassation focus on the legal provisions governing the significance of an agreement conferring jurisdiction, entered into by the parties to a contract for international carriage, in the context of determining both the jurisdiction of the court hearing the dispute that arose from that contract and the legal consequences of a breach of the lis pendens rules. The national court is asking the following:

Can Article 71 of Regulation No 1215/2012, having regard to Articles 25, 29 and 31 and recitals 21 and 22 thereof, be interpreted as permitting the application of Article 31 of the CMR Convention also in cases where a dispute falling within the scope of both those legal instruments is the subject of an agreement conferring jurisdiction?

Having regard to the legislature’s intention to strengthen the protection of agreements conferring jurisdiction in the European Union, can Article 45(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 1215/2012 be interpreted more broadly, as covering not only Section 6 of Chapter II of that regulation but also Section 7 thereof?

After assessment of the specific features of the situation and the resulting legal consequences, can the term ‘public policy’ used in Regulation No 1215/2012 be interpreted as covering the ground for deciding not to recognise a judgment of another Member State where the application of a specialised convention, such as the CMR Convention, creates a legal situation in which both the agreement conferring jurisdiction and the agreement on the applicable law are not observed in the same case?

One the same day the Court will hand down its judgement in cases C-590/21, Charles Taylor Adjusting,  and C-832/21 Beverage City Polska.

The request for a preliminary ruling in case C-590/21 was lodged by the Areios Pagos (Court of Cassation, Greece). It concerns the interpretation of Article 34(1) and Article 45(1) of the Regulation No 44/2001 (Brussels I), in proceedings on the recognition and enforcement by a court of a Member State of judgments issued by a court of another Member State which have the effect of deterring parties, which had brought proceedings before another court of the former Member State, from continuing the proceedings pending before it. The questions referred read:

(1) Is the expression “manifestly contrary to public policy” in the EU and, by extension, to domestic public policy, which constitutes a ground for non-recognition and non-enforcement pursuant to point 1 of Article 34 and Article 45(1) of Regulation No 44/2001, to be understood as meaning that it extends beyond explicit anti-suit injunctions prohibiting the commencement and continuation of proceedings before a court of another Member State to judgments or orders delivered by courts of Member States where: (i) they impede or prevent the claimant in obtaining judicial protection by the court of another Member State or from continuing proceedings already commenced before it; and (ii) is that form of interference in the jurisdiction of a court of another Member State to adjudicate a dispute of which it has already been seised, and which it has admitted, compatible with public policy in the EU? In particular, is it contrary to public policy in the EU within the meaning of point 1 of Article 34 and Article 45(1) of Regulation No 44/2001, to recognise and/or declare enforceable a judgment or order of a court of a Member State awarding provisional damages to claimants seeking recognition and a declaration of enforceability in respect of the costs and expenses incurred by them in bringing an action or continuing proceedings before the court of another Member State, where the reasons given are that: (a) it follows from an examination of that action that the case is covered by a settlement duly established and ratified by the court of the Member State delivering the judgment (or order); and (b) the court of the other Member State seised in a fresh action by the party against which the judgment or order was delivered lacks jurisdiction by virtue of a clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction?

(2) If the first question is answered in the negative, is point 1 of Article 34 of Regulation No 44/2001, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union, to be understood as constituting a ground for non-recognition and non-enforcement in Greece of the judgment and orders delivered by a court of another Member State (the United Kingdom), as described under [(1)] above, where they are directly and manifestly contrary to national public policy in accordance with fundamental social and legal perceptions which prevail in Greece and the fundamental provisions of Greek law that lie at the very heart of the right to judicial protection (Articles 8 and 20 of the Greek Constitution, Article 33 of the [Astikos Kodikas (Greek Civil Code)] and the principle of protection of that right that underpins the entire system of Greek procedural law, as laid down in [Article 176, Article 173(1) to (3) and Articles 185, 205 and 191] of the [Kodikas Politikis Dikonomias (Greek Code of Civil Procedure)] cited in paragraph 6 of the statement of reasons) and Article 6(1) of the [European Convention on Human Rights], such that, in that case, it is permissible to disapply the principle of EU law on the free movement of judgments, and is the non-recognition resulting therefrom compatible with the views that assimilate and promote the European perspective?

In his Opinion delivered on 23 March 2023, AG Richard de la Tour proposes propose that the Court of Justice answer as follows:

Article 34(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State can refuse to recognise and enforce a decision on the ground that it is contrary to public policy based on the fact that that decision prevents the continuation of proceedings pending before another court of that Member State, in that it awards to one of the parties provisional damages in respect of the costs and expenses incurred by it in bringing those proceedings, where the reasons given are, first, that the subject matter of those proceedings is covered by a settlement duly established and ratified by the court of the Member State delivering that decision, and, second, that the court of the other Member State before which those proceedings were brought lacks jurisdiction by virtue of a clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction.

It is now for judges K. Jürimäe, M. Safjan, N. Piçarra, N. Jääskinen (as reporting judge) and M. Gavalec to decide.

In case C-832/21, Beverage City Polska, the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court for Civil and Criminal Matters of Düsseldorf, Germany), made a request for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 8, point 1, of the Brussels I regulation, in relation to Article 122 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on the European Union trade mark. The main proceedings engaged the owner of a Union trademark, established in the United States, and a distributor and its supplier, respectively domiciled in Germany and Poland, regarding the alleged violation by them of said trademark. The Court of Justice is asked to complete its jurisprudence on the requirements of the special rule established in Article 8, point 1, of Regulation No. 1215/2012, which allows several persons domiciled in different Member States to sue before the courts of the domicile of only one of them, whereas the claims filed before the referring court are directed against several companies and their administrators, against whom the action has been filed not only in their capacity as representatives of such companies, but also in their personal capacity.

AG Richard de la Tour’s Opinion, March 23, 2023 proposes the Court to answer:

Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 …, read in conjunction with Article 122 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 …, must be interpreted as meaning that more than one defendant, domiciled in different Member States, may be sued in the courts for the place where one of them is domiciled that are seised, in the context of infringement proceedings, of claims brought against them by the proprietor of an EU trade mark where the defendants are alleged to have infringed that trade mark in a materially identical manner through each of their acts in a supply chain. It is for the court seised to assess whether there is a risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings, taking into account all the relevant material in the case file.

The decision corresponds to judges E. Regan, D. Gratsias, M. Ilešič (reporting judge), I. Jarukaitis and Z. Csehi.

Three further decisions will be published the following week, i.e. on Thursday 14.

C-632/21, Diamond Resorts Europe e.a., is a Spanish request from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción n.º 2 de Granadilla de Abona on the law applicable to contractual obligations under Regulation No 593/2008 (Rome I) and (to some extent) its predecessor, the 1980 Rome Convention. The succinct presentation  of the facts according to the English summary of the request establishes that an action was brought before the referring Spanish court seeking the annulment of two contracts (of 14 April 2008 and of 28 June 2010) concluded between a UK company and the applicants in the main proceedings, Mr JF and Ms NS, of British nationality. The contracts relate to the purchase of points which enable consumers to use accommodation belonging to the club owned by the defendant in Europe, including Spain. Consumers are not allocated specific accommodation, even for a specified period each year; instead, they are offered a brochure of accommodation and must request availability for each property at a particular time.

These are the questions referred to the Court:

1) Are the 1980 Rome Convention … and Regulation No 593/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations to be construed as applying to contracts in which both parties are United Kingdom nationals?

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative

2) Is Regulation No 593/2008 to be construed as applying to contracts concluded before its entry into force, pursuant to Article 24 of that regulation? If the answer is no, must a club-points-based timeshare contract be treated as falling within the scope of Articles 4(3) or (5) of the 1980 Rome Convention, including where the consumer has chosen the law of a State other than his or her State of habitual residence as the applicable law? Further, if the answer is that such contracts can come under either provision, which set of rules takes priority?

3) Irrespective of the answers to the second question, is a club-points-based timeshare contract to be treated as a contract for the acquisition of rights in rem in immovable property or association-type rights in personam?

– If it is considered that rights in rem are acquired, for the purposes of determining the law applicable, which of Article 4(c) and 6(1) of Regulation No 593/2008 is applicable by way priority, including in the event that the consumer chooses the law of a State other than that of his or her State of habitual residence as the applicable law?

– If it is considered that rights in personam are acquired, are those rights to be treated as a tenancy of immovable property, for the purposes of Article 4(c), or as a provision of services, for the purposes of Article 4(b)? Further, and in any event, is Article 6(1) applicable by way of priority in so far as the contract is with a consumer and/or user, including where the consumer chooses the law of a State other than that of his or her State of habitual residence as the applicable law?

4) In all of the above cases, is national legislation which states that ‘all contracts concerning rights relating to the use of one or more immovable properties situated in Spain during a specified or specifiable period of the year are subject to the provisions of this Law, regardless of the place or the date on which such contracts were concluded’ to be interpreted as being compatible with the provisions governing the applicable law laid down in the 1980 Rome Convention and in Regulation No 593/2008?

No Opinion has been asked for. The Court will decide in a chamber of three judges, namely L. Arastey Sahún, F. Biltgen (as reporting judge) and J. Passer.

On the same day, the same chamber will hand down the judgment in case C-821/21, Club La Costa e.a., corresponding again to a Spanish request; no Opinion precedes the decision. Six questions have been referred to the Court on the Brussels I bis and Rome I Regulations:

In relation to Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 …:

1. In the case of consumer contracts to which Article 18(1) of the Brussels I Regulation is applicable, is it compatible with that regulation to interpret the term ‘the other party to a contract’ used in that provision as encompassing only a person who signed the contract, such that it cannot include natural or legal persons other than those who actually signed the contract?

2. If the term ‘the other party to a contract’ is interpreted as encompassing only a person who actually signed the contract, in situations in which both the consumer and ‘the other party to a contract’ are domiciled outside Spain, is it compatible with Article 18(1) of the Brussels I Regulation to conclude that the international jurisdiction of the Spanish courts cannot be determined by the fact that the group of undertakings to which ‘the other party to a contract’ belongs includes companies that are domiciled in Spain but did not sign the contract or signed different contracts other than that in respect of which a declaration of nullity is sought?

3. If ‘the other party to a contract’, as referred to in Article 18(1) of the Brussels I Regulation, provides evidence that its domicile is established in the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 63(2) of the regulation, is it compatible with that provision to conclude that a domicile so established delimits the option that can be exercised under Article 18(1)? And, in addition to that, is it compatible with that provision to conclude that it does not simply establish a mere ‘presumption of fact’, or that that presumption is overturned if ‘the other party to a contract’ carries on business outside the jurisdiction of its domicile, or that the onus is on ‘the other party to a contract’ to demonstrate that its domicile, as determined in accordance with the provision cited, is the same as the place where it carries on its business?

In relation to Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008:

4. In the case of consumer contracts to which the Rome I Regulation is applicable, is it compatible with Article 3 of that regulation to conclude that clauses determining the applicable law, which are included in the ‘general conditions’ of the contract signed by the parties or which are included in a separate document which is expressly referred to in the contract and is shown to have been provided to the consumer, are valid and applicable?

5. In the case of consumer contracts to which the Rome I Regulation is applicable, is it compatible with Article 6(1) of that regulation to conclude that it can be relied on by a consumer and by the other party to a contract?

6. In the case of consumer contracts to which the Rome I Regulation is applicable, is it compatible with Article 6(1) of that regulation to conclude that, if the conditions laid down therein are satisfied, the law indicated in that provision will in all cases be applied in preference to that indicated in Article 6(3), even though the latter may be more favourable to the consumer in the particular case?

In the main proceedings, Mr NM, a British national domiciled in the United Kingdom, concluded in Spain in 2018 a timeshare contract under Spanish Law 4/2012 of 6 July 2012. Mr NM’s wife, also a British national domiciled in the UK, was a party to the contract as well, as was, through its Spanish branch, the entity Club La Costa (UK) PLC, a British company domiciled in the UK which directs its commercial activities to Spain and other countries, including the UK. The timeshare contract contained a clause according to which it ‘shall be interpreted in accordance with English law and shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts.’ Mr NM brought an action against the other party to the contract, Club La Costa (UK) for a declaration of nullity of that contract before the referring court together with a claim for a refund of payments made PLC. The claim was directed as well against another four companies, three of British nationality and a fourth of Spanish nationality; none of them had participated in the conclusion of the contract at issue in the main proceedings; they had, though, in the conclusion of other contracts in which Club La Costa (UK) PLC was not involved. The disputed issue in the main proceedings is whether the Spanish courts have jurisdiction to hear the claim. It is also necessary to determine what the applicable law is. In this regard, albeit not the subject matter of a question to the Court of Justice, the doubts of the referring court are raised by the fact that under Spanish procedural law, if a foreign law is applicable, the party which invokes that law must confirm the existence and content of that law. Spanish law also lays down rules on the admission of evidence under foreign law.

Finally, the decision by judges L. Arastey Sahún, F. Biltgen (as reporting judge) and J. Passer in case C-393/22, EXTÉRIA, not accompanied by a previous Opinion, will be published on 14 September 2023. Here, the Nejvyšší soud (Supreme Court, Czech Republic) asks the Court in Luxembourg whether Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted ‘as meaning that the concept contract for the provision of services also includes a contract to enter into a future contract (pactum de contrahendo), in which the parties undertook to enter into a future contract that would be a contract for the provision of services, within the meaning of that provision’.

On 31 August 2023, the European Court of Human Rights has handed out its decision regarding application in case C. v. Italie (application no. 47196/21), on the refusal by the Italian authorities to recognize the bond of filiation established by a Ukrainian birth certificate between the child C, born abroad by surrogacy, and her biological father and her mother of intention. Article 8 of the Convention is at stake.

The Court has declared the request admissible (unanimously); it has held, by six votes to one, that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in its procedural aspect in connection with the establishment of parentage between the applicant and L.B.; and has held unanimously that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the refusal to transcribe the applicant’s birth certificate in respect of her intended mother.

The decision is already available in French at HUDOC.

On a related previous ruling against Denmark, with three dissenting opinions (out of seven) see E. Sinander’s post here.

In 2018, L.B. and E.A.M., an Italian heterosexual couple, enter into a surrogacy contract in Ukraine. An embryo from an egg from an anonymous donor and sperm from L.B. was implanted in the uterus of a surrogate mother. The applicant was born in August 2019. A birth certificate was drawn up in Ukraine.

On September 16, 2019, L.B. and E.A.M. asked the civil registrar of the Italian town of V. for the entry into the civil status register of the child’s Ukrainian birth certificate. By decision of 4 December 2019, the civil status office rejected the request on the ground that such a transcription was contrary to public order. On January 14, 2020, L.B. and E.A.M. appealed before the court of V. They requested the transcription of the certificate and, in the alternative, the transcription of the name of the biological father alone. By a decision of March 16, 2020, the court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that taking into account the best interests of the child could not lead to disregard of the principle of incompatibility of surrogacy with public order. L.B. and E.A.M. appealed against this decision and requested, by way of an interim appeal included in the appeal proceedings, the partial transcription of the birth certificate in respect of L.B. In a judgment of June 14, 2021, the Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal.

On 8 June 2022, L.B. asked the civil status office of the municipality of C.S., where he had transferred his residence, to carry out a partial transcription of his daughter’s birth certificate. By a note of July 6, 2022, the civil status office refused the partial transcription on the grounds that the prohibition of surrogacy could not be circumvented.

On the merits, the Strasbourg Court considers that the existence of an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life is beyond doubt. It recalls that such interference infringes Article 8 unless, ‘in accordance with the law’, it pursues one or more of the legitimate aims set out in the second paragraph of this provision and if it is ‘necessary in a democratic society’, the notion of ‘necessity’ implying an interference based on a pressing social need and, in particular, proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (Mennesson v. France, no. 65192/11).

The Court finds that the rejection of the request for the entry in the civil status registers of the applicant’s foreign birth certificate was provided for by law, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 8, surrogacy being prohibited under Italian law. It also finds the condition of legitimate aims is met, in that the interference under examination pursued two of the legitimate aims listed in the second paragraph of Article 8 of the Convention (‘the protection of health’ and ‘the protection of human rights and freedoms of others’).

The interference is, however, not ‘necessary in a democratic society’ to achieve the pursued aims. Here, the Court differentiates:

A. On the establishment of the parent-child relationship between the applicant and her biological father, the Court recalls that, according to its case-law, Article 8 of the Convention requires domestic law to provide for the possibility of recognition of the link between a child, born as a result of surrogacy practiced abroad, and the intending father when the latter is the biological father. In addition, the Court has already noted that the absence of recognition of a parent-child relationship between a child born from surrogacy practiced abroad and the intended parent has negative consequences on several aspects of the right of the child to respect for private life; it also disadvantages the child in as far as it places him in a form of legal uncertainty as to his identity in society. It is in the interest of the child who is in this situation that the duration of the uncertainty as to the establishment of his filiation be as short as possible.

Regarding the case at hand, the Court concludes that the domestic courts dismissed the disputed claims without weighing the various interests at stake and, above all, without considering the requirements of speed and efficiency required in proceedings such as the present one. The Court finds that, in view of the particular circumstances of the case, despite the margin of appreciation afforded to the State the Italian authorities failed in their positive obligation to guarantee the applicant’s right to respect for her privacy to which he is entitled under the Convention. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on this point (see dissenting opinion by Judge Wojtyczek).

B. Regarding the impossibility for the applicant to have the bond which unites her to her intended mother recognized, the Court admits that Italian law does not allow the transcription of the birth certificate for the intended mother. It acknowledges, however, that Italian law guarantees the latter the possibility of legally recognizing the child through adoption. In this regard, the Court notes that, according to the Plenary Assembly of the Italian Court of Cassation, adoption enables the courts seised to assess the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention and the best interests of the child.

In view of the foregoing, the Court is of the opinion that by refusing to transcribe the applicant’s Ukrainian birth certificate into the Italian civil status registers in so far as it designates E.A.M. as her mother, the Respondent State did not, in the circumstances of the case, exceed its margin of appreciation. Therefore, there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention on this point.

The author of this post is Chukwuma Okoli, Assistant Professor in Commercial Conflict of Laws at the University of Birmingham, and Senior Research Associate at the University of Johannesburg.

In a recent article, I explore what should be globally significant in a forum selection agreement as an indicator of the implied choice of law.

This topic is in itself a very old one, dating back to the late 19th century when English judges in Hamlyn & Co v Talisker Distillery (1894) AC 202, 208.explicitly held that in the absence of an express choice of law, a choice of forum agreement would imply the choice of law. The popular Latin maxim for this is: Qui eligit forum vel iudicem eligit ius. Currently, however, this topic is ill-defined, notoriously complex, and a hotly debated issue in theory and practice across the global community.

Indeed, there are two main opposing schools of thought on this topic, the first being that where there is no express choice of law, a forum selection agreement (encompassing a jurisdiction and arbitration agreement) should be decisive or a strong presumption in implying the choice of law. This enhances coherence between the forum and lex fori. Moreover, on pragmatic grounds, it is easier and less expensive for the forum to apply its own law correctly. Conversely, the opposing school of thought argues against a forum selection agreement being decisive or a strong presumption to imply the choice of law. This is on the basis that parties who choose a forum should also choose the law. Failure to choose a law to match a forum selection agreement will negate an implied choice of law; it could either mean that the parties were ignorant of the choice of law or did not intend to apply the law of the chosen forum. Therefore, according to a strict standard, this school of thought requires the corroboration of other indicators to imply a choice of law. In essence, where an express choice of law is absent, the choice of forum alone cannot imply a choice of law, because this wrongly conflates jurisdiction with choice of law.

There are many scholarly works that have commented on this issue, but few have devoted their attention to the topic. Maxi Scherer (2011) and Jan Neels (2016) are the only scholars I have found to dedicate their research to this area. Scherer’s focus is exclusively based on the European Union, whilst Neels is mainly concerned with  a note on the approach of the Indian courts in this regard. Nevertheless, other scholars have discussed the matter in great depth, even though it has not been the main thrust of their research, for example, Manuel Penades Fons (2012), Peter Mankowski (2017), Richard Plender &, Michael Wilderspin, (2019) Michael McParland (2015), and Garth Bouwers. (2021).

However, what is lacking in the previous scholarly works is the commitment to provide clear guidance on global uniform criteria for this issue. My article explicitly departs from a recent study by Garth Bouwers, who proposes a ‘case-by-case basis, avoiding fixed criteria’ in the use of a forum selection agreement as an indicator to imply a choice of law (ibid at at pages 237 & 247) The reason for advancing a clear guide to global uniform criteria is that it should contribute to greater certainty, predictability, and uniformity in this field of law.

The methodology employed, namely, a global comparative perspective, is one that presents all relevant international, regional, and supranational instruments, and selected legal systems in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, the Middle East, and North and South America. The legal systems compared encompass those in the Global North and Global South, including common law, civil law, and mixed legal systems. I consider Symeon Symeonides to be the intellectual godfather of this form of global comparative perspective on choice of law. A decade or so ago, he employed this methodology in his seminal work, which covered around 100 codifications on choice of law. Daniel Girsberger, Thomas Graziano, and Jan Neels also utilised this methodology in an edited work on choice of law in international commercial contracts. Finally, Garth Bouwers applied this methodology in his recent study on tacit choice of law in international contracts.

Based on such a global comparative perspective, my article’s core proposal is that an exclusive forum selection agreement should be a key factor in implying the choice of law. However, except in cases where the forum is chosen on a neutral basis, there should be a general requirement of corroboration with at least one other factor of significance. My proposal is therefore a compromise between the school of thought that insists on the corroboration of a plurality of factors as a requirement, and the other, which rejects this requirement. Therefore, it is a proposal that should not be difficult to sell as a global approach.

However, debate might be unnecessary if parties make an express choice of law in their international contracts. Nevertheless, the reality is that whilst choice of forum agreements are popular worldwide, agreements on an express choice of law are not always entered into. Therefore, this present study is one that should remain pertinent to the theory and practice of international commercial dispute resolution.

The University of Coimbra Institute for Legal Research, UCILeR, Portugal, is an investigation center devoted to the analysis of the legal implications and possible solutions for societal challenges.

Knowing that the family and personal status have been going through profound changes in internal legislations and in the scope of international mobility, the organizing committee of the Seminar on Transatlantic dialogues on PIL: family and personal status on the move (consisting of Dulce Lopes, Guillermo Palao Moreno, Nicolas Nord and Paula Távora Vítor) decided to contribute to the ongoing discussions on those issues, by adding a clear and necessary intercontinental dimension to them.

The Seminar is intended to discuss topics related to novelties in the regulation and recognition of family and personal status, through a series of combined panels from colleagues from Europe and America, ranging from the more general issues such as Family and Personal Status and Registry, Family and Personal Status between Nationality and Habitual Residence, Family and Personal Status and Human Rights and Family and Personal Status and Best Interest of the Child, to the more specific topics on Name in Private International Law (How far should personal autonomy go?), Multiple Parenthood in Private International Law (Socio-affective ties and new family models), Gender in Private International Law (Should sex still be a part of the civil status?) and Poly Amorous Relationships in Private International Law (Going beyond polygamy?). 

Young Researchers are welcome to propose individual or co-authored presentations. These presentations should cover one of the above-mentioned themes or others closely related to them. Paper proposals shall fit into the objectives of the Seminar and will be selected according their innovative approach, academic soundness as well as to their contribution to the development of private international law studies.

Proposals should be submitted no later than 20 September 2023 by e-mail to dulcel@fd.uc.pt and paulavit@fd.uc.pt. The proposals should include: the proposed title; an abstract of no more than 300 words; the participant’s name, function and affiliation; the indication if the paper is to be presented online or on-site.

The submission of paper abstracts and participation in the Seminar is free of charge. UCILeR does not cover expenses.

The conference will be held in a hybrid format – online and on-site – at the University of Coimbra. The papers selected by the conveners will be presented on 12 October 2o23.

Horatia Muir Watt (Sciences Po Law School) has published the lecture that she gave as the 18th Rabel Lecture in November 2022 on Alterity in the Conflict of Laws – An Onthology of the In-Between.

The conflict of laws can serve heuristically to underscore two established but radically opposing models of modernist legal ordering: multilateralism and statutism. Such a prism is helpful if we want to rethink (as we must!) our late-modern legality’s deep epistemological settings in the shadow of the »catastrophic times« to come, whether in terms of environmental devastation or political dislocation. Both phenomena are profoundly linked and indeed constitute two faces of alterity, natural and cultural, from which modernity has progressively taught us to distance ourselves. Importantly, law encodes the conditions that produce these dual somatic symptoms in our contemporary societies. This chasm between nature and culture has produced humanity’s “ontological privilege” over our natural surroundings and a similar claim of superiority of modern (Western) worldviews over “the rest”. In this respect, the main achievement of the moderns, as Bruno Latour wryly observed, has been to universalise the collective blindness and amnesia that allow our “anthropocentric machine” to hurtle on, devastating life in its path and devouring the very resources it needs to survive.

The paper, which is published in free access, is forthcoming in the Rabels Zeitschrift.

The third issue of the Journal du droit international for 2023 was released. It contains three articles and several case notes relating to private international law issues.

In the first article, Sylvette Guillemard (Laval University) analyses the recent French Draft PIL Code based on the Quebec experience in this area (Regard québécois sur le projet de Code de droit international privé français).

A draft of a French private international law code project was presented to the Minister of Justice in March 2022. As soon as it was submitted, it was immediately commented on by various parties; its qualities are admired as much as its shortcomings are pointed out. In 1994, the Quebec legislator adopted a book dedicated to private international law in its new Civil Code. After nearly 30 years, it was able to reveal its flaws and demonstrate its advantages. Therefore, neither too old nor too young, it appeared to us as an excellent object of comparison with the French project. At the end of the exercise, we may conclude that French law can only emerge as the winner of this “operation of shaping the rules [of private international law] into a whole”, to borrow the words of Rémy Cabrillac.

In a second article, Djoleen Moya (Catholic University of Lyon) discusses the evolving role of courts in applying choice of law rules, using divorce law as a case study (Vers une redéfinition de l’office du juge en matière de règles de conflit de lois ? L’exemple du divorce international).

The latest developments in matters of divorce, both in domestic law and in private international law, have largely renewed the question of the obligation for a judge to apply choice-of-law rules. Traditionally, the Cour de cassation considers that in matters of divorce, judges must apply, if necessary ex officio, the applicable conflict rule, because unwaivable rights are concerned. However, this solution is under discussion. First, the qualification of divorce as an unwaivable right is questionable, especially since the admission of a purely private divorce by mutual consent in French law. But above all, the Europeanisation of the applicable choice-of-law rules seems likely to call for a new definition the judges’ procedural obligations. If we add to this the recent reorientation of the Cour de cassation’s position and the solutions stated in the draft Code of Private of International Law, the question undoubtedly calls for a reassessment.

In the third article, Sara Tonolo (University of Padova) examines the role of private international law in fundamental rights disputes in the context of a recent ECtHR case dealing with surrogate motherhood and cross-border recognition of civil status record (Les actes de naissance étrangers devant la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme. À propos de l’affaire Valdís Fjölnisdóttir et autres c/ Islande).

The European Court of Human Rights ruled on the recognition of the filiation status within surrogacy in the Valdís Fjölnisdóttir and others v. Iceland case. This perspective leaves many questions unanswered and prompts further reflection, particularly with regard to the role that private international law can play in the protection of human rights, in the context of the difficult balance between the protection of the right to private and family life and the margin of appreciation reserved to member states.

The table of contents of the issue can be accessed here.

Alfonso Luis Calvo Caravaca (University Carlos III of Madrid), Javier Carrascosa González (University of Murcia), María Asunción Cebrián Salvat (University of Murcia) and Isabel Lorente Martínez (University of Murcia) authored the European Kodex of Private international Law 2023. Cases & materials on European private international law.

The abstract reads:

The authors want this work to be able to operate as an instrument for improving legal quality in the practical application and in the study of private international law in the English language. In this sense, any opinion on “The European Kodex of Private international law” will be very well received, as it will help to outline, polish and improve these materials for the benefit of all legal operators dedicated to private international law and, ultimately, for the benefit of a correct and useful practice of this fascinating sector of law.

It is freely accessible here.

A new anthology titled Applicable Law Issues in International Arbitration has been published in the Hague Academy of International Law’s Centre of Resarch Series.

The book is the result of research undertaken by scholars accepted to the Centre for Studies and Research in International Law and International Relations in 2021.

Giuditta Cordero-Moss and Diego P. Fernández Arroyo were the directors of the research centre.  The two directors have also edited the anthology which includes a selection of 16 works stemming from that research session (authored by Apollin Koagne Zouapet, Ana Coimbra Trigo, Didier Bationo, Wendinkonté Sylvie Zongo, Ali Kairouani, Nicola Strain, Andrea Mackielo, Alexandre Senegacnik, Ludovica Chiussi Curzi, Giulia Vallar, Marco Buzzoni, Yağmur Hortoğlu, Paola Patarroyo, Erik Sinander, Federico Cabona, and Lito Dokopoulou), as well as two chapters written by the specially invited guests Franco Ferrari and Luca Radicati di Brozolo.

In the introduction, the editors reflect on the research results and conclude that “determining the applicable law in arbitration is a manifold task that needs to balance involved interests, which are not necessarily always consistent with each other”.

The table of contents of the anthology can be read here.

On 13 April 2023, the University Paris Dauphine hosted a conference on State Immunity from Enforcement (L’immunité d’exécution de l’Etat).

Speakers included Philippe Théry (Univ. Paris Panthéon-Assas), Louis Perreau-Saussine (Univ. Paris Dauphine), Gilles Cuniberi (Univ. Luxembourg), Sophie Lemaire (Université Paris Dauphine), Nathalie Meyer-Fabre (Avocate au Barreau de Paris), Duncan Fairgrieve (Univ. Paris Dauphine), Fabrizio Marrella (Univ. Ca’ Foscari), David Pavot (Univ. Sherbrooke), Mathias Audit (Univ. Panthéon-Sorbonne), Juliette Morel-Maroger (Univ. Paris Dauphine), Jérôme Chacornac (Univ. Paris Panthéon-Assas), Hélène Tissandier (Univ. Paris Dauphine), Victor Grandaubert (Univ. Paris Nanterre), Renaud Salomon (Cour de cassation).

The videos of the conference of the various sessions of the conference are freely available and can be accessed here.

Florence Guillaume (Professor of Private International Law at the University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland, and Founder of the LexTech Institute) has made available on SSRN a draft version of a paper on Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) Before State Courts. How can private international law keep up with global digital entities? that is forthcoming in a book edited by Madalena Perestrelo de Oliveira and Antonio Garcia on DAO Regulation: Principles and Perspective for the Future.

The abstract reads as follows:

This paper examines civil and commercial disputes involving Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) and the complex questions of private international law that arise. The legal capacity of a DAO to be a plaintiff or defendant in court varies across jurisdictions, highlighting the need to determine the applicable law to a DAO. A distinction must be made between different types of DAOs. There are currently a few jurisdictions, notably in the United States, that have enacted DAO legislation defining a legal status for such entities. Those regulated DAOs are governed by both computer code and company law. In other jurisdictions, existing company structures can be used to offer a legal wrapper to DAOs. However, the vast majority of DAOs currently in existence are constituted and solely governed by code, posing challenges in bringing them before a state court.

The paper explores recent case law and the difficulties in identifying the appropriate party to sue when pursuing a DAO. Using Swiss law as a basis, it examines the qualification of DAOs under private international law and the challenges of anchoring a global digital entity to a specific jurisdiction. The article illustrates these challenges through three types of disputes: governance, contractual, and tort-related. Determining jurisdiction over a DAO-related dispute requires applying private international law rules. Although the paper assumes Swiss courts for convenience, the reasoning can be applied to different legal systems due to the similarities in conflict of jurisdiction rules. However, challenges persist even if a court has jurisdiction and renders a decision, as enforcement may prove difficult, especially on-chain. Additionally, initiating legal proceedings against a DAO presents issues with serving court documents. DAOs offer opportunities for innovative electronic methods of document service, but specific requirements and restrictions exist for international service of documents. Practical difficulties may arise, making it impractical or unattainable to serve court documents on the defendant.

The analysis concludes that state courts currently struggle to ensure reliable access to justice in disputes involving DAOs. As an alternative to state courts, opting for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms, such as Blockchain-based Dispute Resolution (BDR), can offer a simpler and more efficient solution depending on circumstances. In any case, entrusting dispute resolution to a BDR mechanism avoids the complexities associated with state court procedures.

Joseph Singer (Harvard Law School) has posted Conflict of Abortion Laws on SSRN.

The abstract reads:

When a resident of an anti-abortion state goes to a prochoice state to get an abortion, which law applies to that person? To the abortion provider? To anyone who helps them obtain the abortion? Since Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overruled Roe v. Wade, states have passed conflicting laws regarding abortion, and courts will need to determine whether anti-abortion states can apply their laws to persons or events outside their territory either through civil lawsuits or criminal prosecution. This article canvasses the major disputes likely to arise over conflicts of abortion law and the arguments on both sides in those cases. It addresses both common law analysis and the constitutional constraints on application of state law under the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Due Process Clause, and it comes to some conclusions both about what laws should apply in different fact settings and how the choice of law analysis should proceed.

Since Dobbs focused on the “history and tradition” behind rights under the Due Process Clause, and because the constitutional test for “legislative jurisdiction” that regulates when a state can apply its law to a controversy is partly based on the Due Process Clause, we start with the prevalent approaches to conflicts of law available to judges at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791 and when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, focusing on the “comity” approach championed by Justice Joseph Story. We consider also the First Restatement’s vested rights approach in vogue between the end of the nineteenth century and the middle of the twentieth century. We then move to modern choice of law analysis to determine which law applies when a person leaves their state to obtain an abortion. We will consider the Second Restatement’s “most significant relationship” test, the “comparative impairment” approach, the “better law” and “forum law” approaches, as well as the emerging Third Restatement of Conflict of Laws rules being drafted right now by the American Law Institute.

One set of cases involves conduct that is wholly situated within the borders of the anti-abortion state. That state has full authority under the Constitution to regulate its internal affairs and to apply its laws to people who distribute or use anti-abortion medication there or who otherwise assist residents in violating its laws prohibiting or limiting access to abortion. Anti-abortion states have full authority to regulate conduct within their borders. However, the First Amendment protects people who provide information about the availability of abortion services in other states where it is legal, and the constitutional right to travel should protect those who transport someone out of state to get an abortion in a prochoice state or who subsidize the cost of such out-of-state travel.

A second set of cases concerns cross-border torts where conduct in a prochoice state has effects in an anti-abortion state. Courts traditionally apply the law of the place of injury to those cases if it was foreseeable that the conduct would cause the injury there. But there are traditional exceptions to the place of injury rule that should apply in the abortion context when the place of conduct defines the conduct as a fundamental right and immunizes the actor from liability or places a duty or an affirmative privilege on the abortion provider to provide the care. Courts should depart from the place of injury rule in those circumstances when conduct is wholly confined to the immunizing (prochoice) state, and that means that an anti-abortion state cannot legitimately punish an abortion provider in a prochoice state who provides care there in reliance on rules of medical ethics that require the care to be provided. Nothing would violate rule of law norms more severely than placing a person under a simultaneous duty to provide care and a duty not to provide that care. On the other hand, anti-abortion states have full authority to regulate out-of-state conduct that does spill over the border into the anti-abortion state, such as shipping abortion medication to a recipient there. Difficult issues of foreseeability and proximate cause arise when an abortion provider prescribes abortion medication in a prochoice state but knows or suspects that the patient will be taking the medication back to the anti-abortion state to ingest. In some fact settings, the foreseeability issue is significant enough that it may rise to a constitutional limitation on the powers of the anti-abortion state to apply its law to out-of-state conduct or to assert personal jurisdiction over the abortion provider. In other cases, the place of injury has the constitutional authority to apply its law to out-of-state conduct that the actor knows will cause unlawful harm across the border but it may or may not have personal jurisdiction over the nonresident provider.

A third set of cases involve bounty claims, tort survival lawsuits, or wrongful death suits that an anti-abortion state might seek to create by giving claims to one of its residents against the resident who left the state to get the abortion. Such cases may be viewed as “common domicile” cases by the anti-abortion state since both plaintiff and defendant reside in the anti-abortion state. That may tempt the anti-abortion state to apply its laws to an abortion that takes place in another state even though both conduct and injury occurred in a state that privileges the conduct and immunizes the defendant from liability. However, the law of the place of conduct and injury should apply in those cases since the prochoice law is a “conduct-regulating rule,” and choice of law analysis, traditional rules, and constitutional constraints on legislative jurisdiction all require deference to the law of the prochoice state in such cases. Courts sometimes apply the law of the common domicile when the law at the place of conduct and injury is not geared to regulating conduct there, but the opposite is true for laws directed at conduct, and this article will show why prochoice laws that define abortions as a fundamental right are conduct-regulating rules. The same is true for the question of criminal prosecution. An anti-abortion state has no legitimate authority to punish a resident who leaves the state to get an abortion in a state where abortion is protected as a fundamental right.

The paper is forthcoming in the Northeastern University Law Review.

The Department of Private International Law at the University of Groningen is looking for an assistant professor in the field of European private international law to strengthen education and research. Candidates from outside the Netherlands are expressly invited to apply.

The responsibilities include: teaching English language classes on private international law within the existing bachelor- and master programmes; supervising bachelor and master theses in the field of private international law; conducting research within the area of European private international law (in line with the Faculty’s research programme PIPR (Public Interests and Private Relationships); supervising PhD projects together with the Professor of Private International Law; engage in the development of research projects.

Applications must be filed by 31 August 2023, at the end of the day, through a dedicated form.

More information can be found here..

Lawrence Collins (UCL, former Justice of the UK Supreme Court) has posted Reflections on the Law Governing Confidentiality in Arbitration on SSRN.

The abstract reads:

The paper considers the law governing confidentiality in international arbitration, and in particular where there is a binary choice between the law governing the arbitration agreement and the law of the seat of the arbitration. The paper concludes that not only is there no binary choice, but also that the solution may depend upon the forum in which the issue arises, and that it will be only very rarely that the issue will need to be addressed directly.

The paper was published in Brekoulakis et al (eds), Achieving the Arbitration Dream: Liber Amicorum for Professor Julian DM Lew (Wolters Kluwer, 2023).