EAPIL blog

La sustracción internacional de menores en el espacio jurídico europeo (International Child Abduction in the European Union), a monograh by PIL Assistant Professor Maria González Marimón (University of Valencia), has just been released by the Spanish publishing house Tirant Lo Blanch.

The book covers the landscape of sources in force the European Union, in an area characterized by the confluence of instruments of different origin and scope, some of which have recently undergone relevant changes.

It claims that a redefinition of the legal framework and of the interfaces among instruments is needed in order to adapt to new societal patterns as well as to currently prevailing values, in particular to the central role of children rights and to the principle of their best interests.

In addition, after a thorough, critical analysis of the novelties of Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 of 25 June 2019 on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction (recast) (Brussels II ter Regulation), it argues that the opportunity has been lost of getting rid of the “overriding mechanism” under Article 29 of said Regulation.

The author has kindly provided the following summary of the contents and main thesis of the book:

International child abduction provides a paradigmatic example of the complexity of cross-border cases involving children. The profound societal changes of recent decades (the consolidation of different family models, the preponderance of a children rights-centered approach to the detriment of a parents’ rights-centered paradigm) are prompting to rethink and to reshape the legal framework of child abduction.

The EU traditional response to international child abduction can indeed be described as a complicated and fragmented body of legal sources: judges and practitioners in the field needed (and need) to have in mind the EU rules on the matter together with those of the 1980 Hague Convention, and, punctually, also the 1996 Hague Convention. The EU legislator, aware of the complexity and practical difficulties of the Brussels II bis rules on international child abduction, has tried to improve and refine them in the recast Regulation of 2019 . The obvious first sign of improvement is the completely new Chapter III, focused on international child abduction. This shift in the structure of the Regulation is accompanied by a welcomed explanation of its relationship to the 1980 Hague Convention. Also regarding the return procedure, the Brussels II ter Regulation introduces some (albeit not far-reaching) developments for its functioning in practice.

A further group of rules in the new Regulation reflects the EU legislator’s  commitment to adapting international child abduction rules to new social realities while pushing the children’s rights to the forefront. In this regard, worth noting provisions are the ones related to the age of the child; to reinforcing the child’s right to express his or her views in return proceedings; to the new faculty granted to the courts to guarantee the contact of the child with the parent requesting return; to the promotion of the child’s “safe return”; or to fostering ADR mechanisms to solve the disputes.

In contrast to the progresses alluded to, the EU legislator has missed the opportunity to do away with the very much questioned so-called “overriding mechanism”. Following this special procedure, the last word in relation to the return of a wrongfully removed or retained child is given to the court having jurisdiction under the Regulation; its decision prevails over any non-return previous one adopted by the court of another Member State pursuant to Article 13 of the 1980 Hague Convention. In principle, this priority is reinforced by the elimination of the exequatur requirement, without any ground of refusal of the return decision.

To the extent the “overriding mechanism” has been a source of headaches for legal operators and practitioners, it was legitimate to claim it should be dropped, and regrettable that it has not. A comparison of the respective case law of the CJEU and the ECtHR adds relevance to the matter. In the event of exceptional circumstances questioning the convenience of enforcing the privileged decision (i.e., the one of the court competent according to the Regulation), the Luxembourg Court has reacted backing up the system. By contrast, the ECtHR’s case-law on international child abduction supports a more substantive approach by recalling the need to assess the best interests of the child concerned in each particular case.

The awareness of the Strasbourg case law had led to the conviction that, in order to achieve the European legal integration objective while simultaneously protecting each individual child, a model flexible and predictable at a time was of the essence. In this regard, abolishing the exequatur for all decisions on parental responsibility, but maintaining certain safeguards at the enforcement procedure so as to allow for the assessment of the best interests of the child in the individual case, would strike a delicate, but adequate, balance between the free movement of judgments and the best interests of each child.

In fact, this is precisely the subtle equilibrium reflected in the Brussels II ter Regulation. In spite of retaining the privileged regime for return decisions resulting from the “overriding mechanism”, the Regulation actually tries to temper one of its most controversial aspects identified in practice, namely the automatism of the model, which had proven too rigid. Two are the ways to this aim: first, the possibility of modification and revocation of the certificate; secondly, a new cause of suspension – and even refusal – of the enforcement, in the event of an exceptional change of circumstances linked to the best interest of the child.

The amendment of the old “overriding mechanism” has great relevance from the perspective of the debate between the elimination of exequatur, on the one hand, and the adequate protection of children’s fundamental rights and of the best interests of the child when enforcement is seized, on the other. The new Regulation gives room to the evaluation of the judge in the requested Member State. By doing so, it can be said that the EU legislator deconstructs the model of abolition of the exequatur “in absolute terms”. Still, despite its foreseeable advantages, the system is not free of doubts regarding its future application: divergent doctrinal and jurisprudence interpretations are to be expected; also, there is a risk of abuse in the practice of the already mentioned cause for suspension (or even refusal) at the enforcement stage.

In conclusion, notwithstanding the continuity of the “overriding mechanism”, and, we insist, the lost opportunity to do away with it, the new international child abduction rules strike a better balance in the allocation of competences between the Member State with competence on the substance of the matter and the Member State in which the child is wrongfully located. It equally achieves a better compromise in relation to the assumption of the principle of the best interests of the child, and the interplay between the child’s immediate return and its exceptions. We will see whether the new rules, coupled with the reinforcement of communication and cooperation between the authorities involved, lead to strengthen the climate of trust among the judiciary of the Member States, and, in the end, to a better protection of children in EU cross-border cases.

The French Committee of Private International Law has launched the 8th edition of the Committee’s Doctoral Dissertation Award.

Eligible PhD dissertations are those written in French and defended between 15 January 2022 and 7 January 2023.

The application procedure is explained here.

The deadline for submissions is 1 March 2023.

In a post published on this blog in 2022, I addressed the relationship between private international law (PIL) and strategic climate change litigation, focusing on claims brought or supported by children and youth applicants. In those disputes, where plaintiffs are mostly seeking to hold States accountable for the violations of international and/or constitutional law, private international law was bound to have very little, if anything, to contribute.

However, in the same blog post, I also pointed at some developments in the “underworld” of climate change litigation, hinting to the emergence of new court strategies, whereby climate activists (not necessarily children or youth) direct their claims towards big transnational corporations, following in the footsteps of Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell plc.

“Private” claims of this kind are bound to speak the language of PIL, at least in cases where a foreign element is involved.

Recent developments in the field of climate change litigation confirm this trend. The Four Islanders of Pari case borrows the ordinary tools of private law (tortious liability) in order to hold a foreign transnational corporation accountable for its overall CO2 emissions. This case is particularly interesting for two reasons. First, owing to its timing and the kind of damage alleged by the applicants, this case fits in a wider context of litigation, which is presently involving (or trying to involve) several international bodies and tribunals, thus evidencing a certain complementarity of action, or at least a commonality of end-goals, between private and public international law (A). Second, from the specific standpoint of PIL, this case differs from its predecessors (notably from Luciano Lliuya v. RWE AG) for being beyond the scope of application of EU PIL, the conflict of laws issues raised therein being governed by domestic (Swiss) PIL (B).

It is probably not incorrect to read the Four Islanders of Pari case as one small piece of a bigger puzzle, consisting of a fully-fledged courtroom fight against sea level rise, ie one of the most immediate consequences of climate change. Unsurprisingly, this fight is presently carried out primarily by low-lying insular States and their inhabitants: owing to their specific conformation, these islands (mostly situated in the Pacific area) are particularly vulnerable to the short-term effects of climate-change on sea levels, which are exposing them to the risk of recurrent flooding, fresh water salinization and, eventually, (total or partial) disappearance by the year 2050, or sooner.

Against this backdrop, a group of small insular States (eventually supported by a group of like-minded States) have promoted, or is seeking to promote, initiatives before two major international tribunals. In October 2022, a group of States led by Vanuatu announced the preparation of a draft Resolution, intending to prompt the UN General Assembly to seek an advisory opinion from the ICJ “on the obligations of States in respect of climate change”.

The text of the Draft Resolution was circulated among all UN member States at the end of November 2022, with a view to putting it to a vote in early 2023. In parallel with these developments, on 12 December 2022, the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law (representing Barbuda, Tuvalu and Palau) has submitted another request for an advisory Opinion to a different international tribunal, the ITLOS.

In both cases, the advisory Opinions seek to clarify the climate change-related legal obligations placed upon States by a rich body of public international law, including the UN Charter, the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Paris Agreement, the UNCLOS, and rules of general international law, such as the duty of due diligence, the rights recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the principle of prevention of significant harm to the environment. For evident reasons, a special emphasis is placed on the protection of the marine environment, on the specific vulnerability of Small Island developing States and on the interests of future generations.

Although non-binding, such advisory Opinions may entail authoritative statements of law with legal effects (see ITLOS, Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean, paras. 202-205) and carry great legal weight and moral authority, thus contributing, in their way, to the elucidation and development of international law (ICJ). They could be, in particular, a preliminary step in the quest for greater accountability of international actors vis-à-vis the protection and the restoration of a viable (marine) environment.

Besides the actions undertaken directly by States, the inhabitants of small Pacific islands have been equally active before  judicial or quasi-judicial international bodies.

Among the first initiatives undertaken under the aegis of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), there is a communication to the UN Human Rights Committee (UNCHR) filed in 2015 by a citizen of Kiribati. Claiming that climate change had turned its place of origin in an “untenable and violent environment” , which forced him and his family to migrate, the author of the Communication contested New Zealand’s decision to deny the refugee status. While unsuccessful on the merits (the UN Committee found the denial issued by New Zealand’s authorities was not clearly arbitrary and did not amount to a manifest error or a denial of justice), this initiative is still producing systemic effects for climate asylum-seekers worldwide (see, for example, a recent judgment of the Italian Court of Cassation, quoting the View adopted by the UNHRC).

More recently, a group of Islanders of the Torres Strait filed another Communication with the UNHRC, alleging the violation, by Australia, of a number of ICCPR provisions. They put forth, in particular, Australia’s failure to adopt adequate adaptation measures to protect their lives and way of life, their homes and their culture against the threats posed by sea level rise. In September 2022, the UNCHR found a violation of Article 17 (right to private and family life) and of Article 27 (protection of minorities) of the ICCPR. It ordered the respondent State to pay adequate compensation for the harm suffered by the plaintiffs and to conceive and implement effective measures to secure the communities’ continued safe existence on their respective islands, in meaningful consultations with the communities’ members.

Most interestingly for the readers of this blog, however, public international law has not been the only weapon brandished by the inhabitants of small island States in the fight against rising sea levels.

Within the framework of this broader effort to counter the effects of climate change, small State islanders have not neglected the “private side” of court litigation, ie the disputes between private entities before national (civil) courts.

In August 2022, four residents of the island of Pari (Indonesia) introduced a request for conciliation before the Justice of the Peace of the Canton of Zug (Switzerland). This is a preliminary step mandated by the Swiss Civil Procedure Code for pursuing a civil action (Article 198 Swiss CCP).

The claim is directed towards Holcim, a corporation established in Switzerland and specialized in cement-production activities. Holcim figures among the so-called Carbon Majors, ie the hundred or so companies that account for more than 70% of global greenhouse gas emissions since the dawn of the industrial age (see also here). More specifically, the plaintiffs are trying to establish a direct correlation between Holcim’s significant pro-rata contribution to such emissions (0.42% of global industrial CO2 emissions since 1750: source) and the adverse effects suffered by the local ecosystem on Pari Island. For these purposes, these plaintiffs are supported by a wide transnational networks of NGOs, whose alliances straddle the North-South divide [HEKS/EPER (Switzerland); ECCHR (Germany); Walhì (Indonesia)].

Reporting on this case is rather difficult, as no procedural documents have been made available to the general public yet. The analysis below is based on the information provided by the website dedicated to the case, which does not, however, provide for a comprehensive summary of the complaint. As mentioned above, this case is interesting for two main reasons: the type of relief sought by the claimants and the PIL issues raised therein.

According to what we presently know about the case, four Indonesian claimants “are demanding justice on behalf of the island of Pari, which is facing imminent ruin, and are taking Holcim to court”. The income and subsistence of these plaintiffs is highly dependent on fishing and tourism, ie activities that are severely affected by the rise in sea levels, which has reached a 20 cm increase globally and which threatens the very existence of the island over the next 30 years (see here).

Holcim is asked, inter alia, to “provide proportional compensation for the climate-related damage the plaintiffs have already suffered in Pari Island”. The claim is therefore based, in all probability, on the general rule on civil liability, likely interpreted in the light of international human rights law. Claims of this kind, based on extra contractual liability or a general duty of care, are not new to climate change litigation against States (see, for example A Sud v Italy) or private corporations (Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell plc or Luciano Lliuya v. RWE AG). However, according to the database of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, the Swiss case “is novel and unprecedented ” as it combines compensation (the Lliuya approach) and reduction of GHGs (the Milieudefensie approach).

In fact, in addition to the demand for compensation, the action brought by the four islanders of Pari seeks to compel Holcim to cut CO2 emissions by 43% by 2030, compared to 2019 figures (or to reduce their emission according to the recommendations of the climate science in order to limit global warming to 1.5°C) and to contribute towards adaptation measures on Pari Island. This reference to the 1.5° threshold (set by the Paris Agreement) is an obvious hint of that the case is partly based, or at least relies on, obligations defined by public international law. It thus evidences a certain “confluence” of public and private international law. This request for injunctive relief additionally serves to highlight the commonalities that exist between the Four Islanders of Pari case and the claims advanced by the litigation directed towards States in varied fora around the globe (see again this post).

While being the first case of this kind in Switzerland, the Four Islanders of Pari closely reminds of the German Luciano Lliuya v. RWE AG. Therein, a Peruvian farmer (supported by the NGO Germanwatch) is suing a German electricity company based on its estimated contribution to global industrial greenhouse gas emissions since the beginning of industrialization. These emissions, it is contended, have contributed to the melting of mountain glaciers near Huaraz, and to the correlated rise in the water level of a glacial lake located above his town. As a consequence, his property is currently threatened by floods.

There is, however, an important difference between the two cases. While Lliuya falls within the scope of application of the Brussels I bis and the Rome II Regulations, the Four Islanders of Pari will be entirely governed by the 1987 Swiss Act on PIL (SwAPIL). This vouches for some caution in assessing the translatability to the latter of the “lessons” thus far learned from the former.

The first lesson derivable from Lliuya is that establishing jurisdiction in this kind of cases is a relatively straightforward matter, based on the widely accepted principle of actor sequitur forum rei. Suing in the place of domicile of the defendant under Article 4 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation, as interpreted in Owusu, guarantees access to a (European) forum. The same conclusion seems to apply, prima facie, within the different framework of the SwAPIL. Its Article 2, which functionally corresponds to Article 4 of Regulation 1215/2012, does not enable the seized court to exercise any discretion in deciding whether or not to hear the case (see Goldwin p. 137, a contrario). Pragmatically, the fact that (economically disadvantaged) third state plaintiffs might be required to pay court fees or warranties in order to access the local forum should not be particularly problematic from the standpoint of the right to a court, in cases where litigation is supported by external funding through NGOs or by other means (eg crowdfunding).

The progression of Lliuya before German courts additionally shows that jurisdiction is particularly important as it indirectly determines the applicable procedural law, governing fundamental issues such as the admissibility of the action or the justiciability of the claim. Moreover, in cases like Lliuya or the Four Islanders of Pari, other procedural issues such as the burden of proof, the means and the standard of evidence will play a pivotal role in determining the chances of failure or of success of the action. This means that the choice of forum remains a cornerstone in the litigation strategy of climate change cross-border cases.

Concerning the applicable law, the SwAPIL does not provide for a specific conflict of law rule for environmental damage, along the lines of Article 7 Rome II. As well known, the latter sets out a policy-oriented rule of conflict empowering the person(s) seeking compensation for damage, who is given the choice between the law of the State where the event giving rise to the damage occurred and the law of the State in which the damage occured.

From the standpoint of PIL, the determination of the applicable law might indeed be the major point of contention in the Four Islanders of Pari case, in the light of the very different choice made in this respect by the Swiss legislator. Article 133 SwAPIL provides, at its 2nd paragraph, that where the parties to the dispute are not habitually resident in the same State, torts are governed by the law of the State where the tort was committed (l’État dans lequel l’acte illicite a été commis/das Recht des States…in dem die unerlaubte Handlung begangen worden ist/ il diritto dello Stato in cui l’atto è stato commesso). However, when “the result” occurred in another State, the law of such state applies if the tortfeasor should have foreseen that the result would have occurred there. (English translation provided by Dutoit, p. 595). Therefore, SwAPIL seems to contemplate the well-known alternative between place of the event giving rise to damage and place of the damage, similarly to EU PIL, but it does not confer any choice upon the alleged victim. Conversely, the foreseeability clause set out by the second part of Article 133 SwAPIL, 2nd paragraph, raises a new problem in terms of burden of proof, in relation to which Swiss legal scholarship is divided (Dutoit, p. 595-6).

Unfortunately, as the procedural documents of the Four Islanders of Pari case have not been made available online, it is impossible to properly assess the precise petitum and to determine whether, and to what extent, the tort alleged by the Islanders is Distanzdelikt, or even a ubiquitous tort. There are many factual elements that might be relevant in this respect, such as the place where Holcim is headquartered (as the place where the main decisions in terms of environmental sustainability and green policies are taken); the concrete places (likely scattered around the world) in which Holcim is undertaking its material production activities; and Indonesia, as the place where the specific damage alleged by the plaintiffs materialized (provided that this was foreseeable by Holcim). The possibility of triggering the escape clause under Article 15 SwAPIL must also be taken into account (ie. the application of the law of the State with which the case presents “a much closer” connection). It would be interesting to know whether, in concreto, the plaintiffs are pleading for the applicability of Swiss or a foreign law.

The Four Islanders of Pari case is still at its very initial stage and deserves to be monitored closely in the near future. Its very existence confirms, however, that private international law is becoming and will become increasingly important in strategic climate change litigation, when this is directed towards private companies such as the Carbon Majors. In a way, disputes of this kind may be seen as complementary to the initiatives undertaken under the aegis of public international law by particularly affected States. There is, in particular, a commonality of objectives, despite the obvious difference in both legal petita and remedies brought before national and international courts.

Another interesting lead to be followed in the future concerns the role played by PIL in cases brought by EU-based claimants against EU-based corporations, based on allegations of false or misleading advertisement. Cases of this kind, which are mushrooming throughout the world’s jurisdictions, may seem purely domestic at a first glance. However, the fact that plaintiff and defendant are, in most cases, domiciled/established in the same State does not exclude, as such, the possibility that the “affected market” may extend beyond national borders, especially where the defendant is a big transnational corporations operating worldwide.

An example of such cases might be the recent FossielVrij NL v. KLM, where a group of environmental organizations is suing (in the Netherlands) the national airline KLM, owing to its ‘Fly Responsibly’ advertisement campaign (which is based on allegedly false claims of “climate neutrality” or “CO2ZERO”).

The (unofficial English translation of the) application is regrettably very concise as concerns the reasoning on jurisdiction and (especially) applicable law. It merely states  that “since both [the applicant] and KLM have their registered offices in the Netherlands, the Dutch court is competent to take cognizance of this dispute. As a result, Dutch law will also apply to the claims of Fossil Free against the defendant”.

While acknowledging, in the application, the wide reach of the Fly Responsibly campaign (here, § 179 : “The campaign will be rolled out worldwide on 13 December in a number of vital, fast-growing markets, the UK, Norway, Sweden, Germany, the US, Canada, Brazil and China”), implemented through TV ads, physical ads at Schiphol Airport, online “banner” ads on KLM websites, marketing emails and targeted ads on social media platforms (here, § 183), the application does not elaborate further on the relationship between the specific claim, the Rome II Regulation and the several options opened under its Article 6.

Cases of this kind also deserve to be closely followed by the private international lawyer.

The University of Coimbra will host, on 27 and 28 January 2023, a conference in English on the Brussels II ter Regulation.

The speakers include Antonio Fialho, Cristina González Beilfuss, Dário Moura Vicente, Geraldo Rocha, João Gomes de Almeida, Maria dos Prazeres Beleza, Paula Távora Vitor, Philippe Lortie, Pietro Franzina, Rosa Lima Teixeira, and Samuel Fulli-Lemaire.

Chandra Gracias, Dulce Lopes, Helena Mota, Rui Dias and Rui Moura Ramos will serve as discussants.

For further information, including the full programme, see here.

The monthly program of the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding private international law, as of today, is as follows.

On 12 January 2023, Advocate General  Emiliou will deliver his opinion in case C-638/22 PPU, Rzecznik Praw Dziecka e.a., on the suspension of a Hague return decision. A hearing had taken place last December. The related entry in the blog offers a summary of the facts and reproduces the questions before the Court of Justice.

Two hearings are scheduled for the same day. The first one, in case C-87/22, IT, concerns child abduction. The Regional Court of Korneuburg (Austria), asks the Court the following

1. Must Article 15 of [the Brussels II bis Regulation] be interpreted as meaning that the courts of a Member State having jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter, if they consider that a court of another Member State, with which the child has a particular connection, would be better placed to hear the case, or a specific part thereof, may request such a court to assume jurisdiction even in the case where that other Member State has become the place of habitual residence of the child following wrongful removal?
2. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Must Article 15 of [the Brussels II bis Regulation] be interpreted as meaning that the criteria for the transfer of jurisdiction that are set out in that article are regulated exhaustively, without the need to consider further criteria in the light of proceedings initiated under Article 8(f) of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction?

The children V and M were born in Slovakia; like their parents, they have Slovakian nationality. Under Slovak law, the two parents have joint custody of the two children. Both parents work in Bratislava. After the children were born, the family initially lived in Slovakia and moved to Austria in spring 2014. Since 2017, the kids have been attending school in Bratislava. They speak only a few words of German. Their mother tongue is Slovak and they communicate with their parents and grandparents in that language.

The parents separated in January 2020. Since July 2020, the children have been living with their mother in Bratislava.

At the same time as an application for return under Article 8(f) of the 1980 Hague Convention, which had been brought before the Okresný súd Bratislava I (District Court Bratislava I), the father applied to the District Court, Bruck an der Leitha (Austria), for the transfer of custody of both children to him alone. In the alternative, he asked for the granting to him of primary care of the children with joint custody being retained, as well as for the transfer of temporary custody to him alone until the custody proceedings have been concluded, claiming in essence that the mother had endangered the welfare of the children by unlawfully removing them from Austria to Slovakia. He submits that she had pulled the children out of their social integration.

The mother opposed the father’s applications for custody and raised the plea of lack of international jurisdiction on the ground that the children had been habitually resident in the Slovak Republic throughout the period in question. They attended school, had their medical appointments and engaged in their recreational activities in that country, and it was only for meals and overnight stays that the children stayed in the house in Hainburg an der Donau, where they had not been socially integrated.

By order of 4 January 2021, the District Court, Bruck an der Leitha, refused the father’s application on the ground of lack of international jurisdiction. By order of the Regional Court, Korneuburg, sitting as the court ruling on appeals on the merits, of 23 February 2021, the appeal brought by the father against the order of 4 January 2021 was upheld and the contested order was amended to the effect that the mother’s plea of lack of international jurisdiction was rejected. That decision of that court was confirmed by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austrian Supreme Court) of 23 June 2021.

On 23 September 2021, the mother applied to the District Court, Bruck an der Leitha, for it to request a court in the Slovak Republic, to assume jurisdiction in accordance with Article 15(5) of Regulation 2201/2003, or, in the alternative, to fulfil the request of its own motion in accordance with Article 15(1)(b) and 15(2)(b) of that regulation, on the grounds that, in addition to the return proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention before the District Court Bratislava I, and before the District Court Bratislava V, several sets of proceedings were pending before courts of the Slovak Republic, which had been instituted by both the father and the mother, and those courts had already taken extensive evidence and the courts of the Slovak Republic were for that reason better placed to rule on the parental responsibility for the two children. The father opposed the mother’s application.

By the order now being contested, the District Court, Bruck an der Leitha, requested the District Court Bratislava V, in accordance with Article 15(1)(b) of the Brussels II bis Regulation to assume jurisdiction in the proceedings concerning the custody of the two children and the father’s right of access to his children. The father has appealed against that order. The mother requests that the appeal be dismissed. Moreover, she requests that the matter be brought before the Court of Justice for an interpretation of Article 15 of the Regulation.

The second hearing corresponds to case C-832/21, Beverage City Polska, a request from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) on the interpretation of Article 122 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark, in conjunction with Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels I bis). In the litigation on the merits,  the applicant has taken the view that there is an infringement of its EU trade marks and brought an action against four defendants before the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Regional Court, Düsseldorf), for injunctive relief throughout the European Union and – later limited to acts in Germany – for information, the disclosure of accounts and a declaration of liability for damages. The third and fourth defendants argued, inter alia, that there is a lack of international jurisdiction over the action brought against them. The court refers the following question to the Court of Justice:

Are claims ‘so closely connected’ that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to prevent irreconcilable judgments, within the meaning of Article 8(1) of the [Brussels I bis Regulation], where, in infringement proceedings for infringement of an EU trade mark, the connection consists in the fact that the defendant domiciled in a Member State (here, Poland) supplied the goods which infringe an EU trade mark to a defendant domiciled in another Member State (here, Germany) whose legal representative, against whom infringement proceedings have also been brought, is the anchor defendant, if the parties are connected to each other only through the mere supply relationship beyond which there is no legal or factual connection?

None of the cases has been assigned to the Grand Chamber, therefore the hearings will not be broadcast.

In a judgment of 7 September 2022, the French supreme court for private and criminal matters (Cour de cassation) addressed several issues arising out of applications to declare enforceable judgments wrongfully filed under the Brussels I Regulation.

While the Brussels I bis Regulation does not provide for a declaration of enforceability of judgments anymore, the Succession and Matrimonial Property Regulations still do.

In 1997, the European Commission granted € 132,000 to an agency for local democracy in Croatia to offer training to local officials. With the grant came various reporting obligations to the Commission within 18 months. The individual who received the grant did not comply with them. The European Commission sued him in Croatian courts and obtained in April 2012 a judgement from a Croatian court ordering restitution of the monies.

As the debtor had relocated in France, the Commission sought to enforce the Croatian judgment in France under the Brussels I Regulation. It obtained a certificate from the Croatian court in 2014, and, in 2015, a declaration of enforceability of the judgment from an officer of a French court.

The debtor appealed to the court of appeal of Colmar (France), which declared the application for a declaration of enforceability inadmissible, on the ground that it fell outside of the scope of the Brussels I Regulation.

It is not always easy to navigate the rules on the scope of EU regulations, including, it seems, for the European Commission itself…

Croatia acceded to the European Union and to the Brussels I Regulation in 2013. In this case, therefore, not only had the proceedings been initiated before Croatia acceded, but the judgment had also been rendered the year before.

The transitional provisions in the Brussels I Regulation (Article 66) provide that, for the rules on recognition and enforcement of judgments to apply, the judgment should, at the very least, have been made after the entry into force of the Regulation, depending, in particular, on whether the Lugano Convention applied before the entry into force of the Regulation (Article 66(2)).

An interesting question was that of the powers of the French Court of Appeal. The first instance French authority had declared the Croatian judgment enforceable on the basis of the Brussels I Regulation. The power of the Court of Appeal was defined by Article 45(1) of the Regulation, which provides:

The court with which an appeal is lodged under Article 43 or Article 44 shall refuse or revoke a declaration of enforceability only on one of the grounds specified in Articles 34 and 35. (…)

As most readers will know, the grounds in arts 34 and 35 do not include that the judgment did not fall within the scope of the Regulation. Indeed, the Cour de cassation recalled that the CJEU ruled in Case C-139/10 (Prism Investments BV) that a declaration of enforceability could only be revoked on the grounds in Articles 34 and 35.

Interpreted literally, this would mean that a court of appeal could not review the first instance decision in so far as it would have found wrongly that the regulation applied.  As Adrian Briggs wrote in his treatise on Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments, Article 45(1) should “not be taken completely seriously”.

The Cour de cassation rules that Article 45 should be interpreted as limiting the power of the court of appeal to the verification of the existence of a ground in Articles 34 and 35 and the applicability of the regulation (the court suggests that this also flows from the case law of the CJEU).

While it seems clear that the court of appeal should have the power to review the applicability of the Regulation, it is unclear whether this should be considered as mandated by Article 45. If the Regulation does not apply, Article 45 should not either. The remedy should thus be, rather, that the action seeking a declaration of inadmissibility under the Regulation should be declared as inadmissible, for the Regulation would not apply.

After the European Commission was reminded about the date Croatia acceded to the EU, it logically decided that it would thus seek to enforce the Croatian judgment under the French common law of judgments.

The debtor, however, argued that the judgment of the Court of appeal dismissing the first action under the Brussels I Regulation was res judicata, and that the European Commission could not relitigate the case under a different regime.

Under French law, res judicata extends to all arguments which could have been raised in the first proceedings. This, in effect, means parties to French proceedings are under an obligation to raise immediately all possible arguments in support of their claim. In this case, the European Commission would only be given one chance to demonstrate its mastery of the law of foreign judgments.

The Cour de cassation, however, rules that, in the context of an appeal under Article 43 of the Regulation, the European Commission could not have made any argument under the French common law of judgments. As a result, the judgment of the court of appeal should not prevent the Commission from making these arguments in a new action.

The Young Property Lawyers’ Forum (YPLF) invites junior researchers to submit proposals for presentations given at its 12th annual meeting, to take place at the European Legal Studies Institute, University of Osnabrück, Germany, on 1 and 2 June 2023.

The theme of this year’s conference is Property Law and Its Boundaries and it can be dealt with from a wide range of perspectives, including but not limited to, doctrinal, theoretical, and comparative. Topics can cover, e.g., core areas of property law doctrine, intellectual property, or property law’s intersections with environmental law, family law, criminal law, administrative law, etc.

Junior researchers (graduate level up to 5 years after conferral of doctoral degree) are invited to submit abstracts of presentations to be given at the conference. Abstracts can be of completed (but unpublished) drafts and, in keeping with the YPLF’s mission as an informal network to exchange ideas, abstracts on works in progress are encouraged.

Abstracts should be sent via email to yplf@yplf.net by 1 February 2023.

The call for papers can be found here. For more information on the conference, see here.

How did things go with the EAPIL blog in 2022? The following statistics provide some answers.

About 315 posts have been published over the last twelve months. More than 80 of these consisted of reports of, or comments on, court rulings (we mostly covered rulings by the Court of Justice of the European Union, but we also dealt with rulings given by the European Court of Human Rights and by domestic courts). Some 40 posts were about new or contemplated normative texts. The remaining posts mostly concerned new scholarly works or upcoming academic events.

No less than 40 posts were authored by guests, rather than the blog’s permanent editors. The EAPIL blog aims to foster dialogue among anybody interested in private international law, so new inputs are always welcome! For inquiries and submissions, please write an e-mail to blog@eapil.org or to pietro.franzina@unicatt.it.

The aggregate number of visits and “unique visitors” has increased, compared with last year (+2,8% and +19%, respectively). Interaction with readers remained intense in 2022, as attested by the comments that the blog’s posts attracted (120 in total). The number of subscribers, i.e., those who asked to be notified of new posts, raised to 600, i.e., about 170 more than one year ago.

Our Twitter account and LinkedIn profile also witnessed an increase in interactions.

The three most read posts, among those published in 2022, were Jurisdictional Immunities: Germany v. Italy, Again, on the proceedings instituted by Germany against Italy before the International Court of Justice in April;  Humpty-Dumpty, Arbitration, and the Brussels Regulation: A View from Oxford, by Adrian Briggs, concerning the ruling of the Court of Justice in the case of London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Assistance Association Ltd v Spain; and Marco Buzzoni’s CJEU Adds a New Piece to the ‘Mosaic’ in Gtflix Tv.

The posts that attracted the highest number of written comments were Martina Mantovani’s Notaries and EU PIL: Taking Stock of 5 Years of Case Law, Felix Wilke’s The Silent Death of Conflict-of-Law Provisions in EU Directives?, and Erik Sinander’s Danish Supreme Court: No Tort Liability under Danish Law for Green Desert Operation in Iraq.

Many thanks to all readers, guests and commenters for feeding the exchanges.

2023 will be a year of innovations regarding the blog – and, generally, the website – of the European Association of Private International Law (various improvements are currently being studied, and will be announced in due course). The support of the blog’s community will be more important than ever!

With all best wishes for the New Year from the editors!

Ronán Feehily authored International Commercial Mediation – Law and Regulation in Comparative Context, recently published by Cambridge University Press.

In this comprehensive comparative study, Ronán Feehily analyses the legal and regulatory issues surrounding international commercial mediation and discusses their implications in a range of settings. While existing literature tends to cover mediation in general, Feehily places the commercial mediation process in its legal and regulatory context, offering an original contribution to the field. The book identifies the controversies that arise from the mediation process across numerous jurisdictions and discusses them in detail. Comparing the mediation process in Europe, North America and Australia, as well as other common, civil and ‘mixed’ jurisdictions, Feehily demonstrates where systemic differences are transcended and where they are significant. Organised systematically and written in an accessible style, Feehily offers an international, holistic guide to the commercial mediation process.

More information available here.

Naivi Chikoc Barreda (University of Ottawa) authored a book titled Succession internationale et dispositions spéciales de la lex rei sitae – Contribution à l’étude de l’impérativité internationale en matière successorale, published by L’Harmattan.

The English summary reads as follows:

While the unity of the applicable law has unquestionably dominated the history of the harmonization of conflict rules in matters of succession, from the first Hague conventions drafts to Regulation (EU) No 650/2012, its scope has always been nuanced by the special rules of the lex situs. These derogatory provisions have borrowed several techniques of intervention. Initially associated with the public policy clause, their admissibility subsequently transited through a substantially oriented choice-of-law rule, before crystallizing in an atypical clause for the application of overriding mandatory provisions. 

These special rules challenge the conceptual premises of a pyramidal understanding of the “lois de police” built on the paradigm of the domestic mandatory rule. This first monograph on the subject proposes a reflection on the “contradictions” at the heart of the traditional notion of “lois de police”, confronted with the particularities of the succession concerning assets subject to economic, family or social purposes, the conservation of which is often ensured by substantive rules respecting the deceased’s individual autonomy.

The EAPIL blog goes on “Winter Break mode”, meaning that only few posts will be published over the next few days. But stay tuned: blogging will resume as usual on 9 January 2023.

We wish you all the best for the festive season!

Almost six years have passed since 18 January 2017, when Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) procedure to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters became applicable in full.

A conference will be held in Milan, at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, on 3 March 2023, from 9.45 to 17, to discuss the operation of the EAPO Regulation in light of practice and case law.

Speakers include Gilles Cuniberti (University of Luxembourg), Elena D’Alessandro (University of Torino), Fernando Gascón Inchausti (Complutense University, Madrid), Katharina Lugani (Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf), Antonio Leandro (University of Bari), Raffaella Muroni (Catholic University of the Sacred Heart), Elena Alina Ontanu (Tilburg University), Carlos Santalò Goris (Max Planck Institute, Luxembourg), María Luisa Villamarín López (Complutense University, Madrid), and Caterina Benini (Catholic University of the Sacred Heart).

The conference will also offer an opportunity to present an article-by-article commentary of the EAPO Regulation, edited by Elena D’Alessandro and Fernando Gascón Inchausti, recently published by Edward Elgar in its Commentaries in Private International Law series. Augusto Chizzini (Catholic University of the Sacred Heart) and Luca Radicati di Brozolo (former professor of the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, now partner at ArbLit, Milan) will exchange views on this work.

Some of the presentations will be delivered in English, others in Italian, with simultaneous interpretation.

Attendance is free, but prior registration is required. Details regarding registration will be provided in early January 2023, together with the detailed programme of the event.

For information, please write an e-mail to Pietro Franzina at pietro.franzina@unicatt.it.

The programme for the fourth German Conference for Young Scholars in Private International Law has been released.

The conference will be held at the Sigmund Freud University in Vienna, 23-24 February 2023.

The speakers will present papers in German and English on different aspects of the general topic “Deference to the foreign – empty phrase or guiding principle of private international law?”.

The keynote speech will be delivered by Professor Horatia Muir Watt (Sciences Po) and a panel discussion will provide practical insights.

Please register here in order to participate. Attendance will be in-person only, free of charge. The organisers can be contacted at ipr@sfu.ac.at.

Nazia Yaqub (Leeds Beckett University, UK) authored a book titled Parental Child Abduction to Islamic Law Countries – A Child Rights Analysis of the Legal Framework, published by Hart / Bloomsbury in its Studies in Private International Law.

As the world becomes smaller, family law is becoming truly global, giving rise to more and more questions for private international law. This book looks at the sensitive and complex question of child abduction, with a unique child rights perspective. Taking Islamic law as its case study, it delves into child abduction in key jurisdictions from Iran to Saudi Arabia and Libya to Pakistan. Rigorous doctrinal analysis is enhanced by empirical insights, namely interviews with abductees, parents and professionals. It is an excellent guide to a complicated field.

 The table of contents can be accessed here.

The proceedings of the Conference on the Notary’s Role in Private International Law (L’office du notaire en droit international privé) which took place on 25-26 November 2021 in Toulouse University, have been published by Dalloz.

The book, edited by Estelle Gallant, contains eighteen contributions (in French) from experts of private international law, scholars or practitioners, namely.

Contriibutors form academia include: Hugues Kenkack (Toulouse), Fabienne Jault-Seseke (Paris-Saclay), Patrick Wautelet (Liège), Pierre Callé (Paris-Saclay), Christine Bidaud (Lyon 3), Hugues Fulchiron (Lyon 3), Eric Fongaro (Bordeaux), Michel Farge (Grenoble-Alpes), A. d’Abbadie d’Arrast (Toulouse), Hélène Péroz (Nantes), Nathalie Joubert (Bourgogne-Dijon), Sara Godechot-Patris (Paris-Est Créteil), Sandrine Clavel (Paris-Saclay), Marc Nicod (Toulouse), Lukas Rass-Masson (Toulouse), Estelle Gallant (Toulouse) & Cyril Nourissat (Lyon 3).

The following authors are either notaries or legal practitioners working with notaries: Caroline Deneuville (Paris), Richard Crône (Paris), François Tremosa (Toulouse), Mariel Revillard, Marion Nadaud (Bordeaux).

The volume deals with three main topics: (1) the notary as an authority in private international law; (2) Reception and circulation of documents; (3) the drawing up of documents. It is complemented by sectoral analyses on divorce, matrimonial property regimes and international succession, and by concluding remarks on the main findings of the research.

The blurb (originally in French) reads:

The main objective of the research is to identify precisely the instruments and rules or methods of private international law the notary has to use and implement in his European and international notarial practice, whether he is drawing up or receiving deeds in his office, or circulating them across borders, in the European Union or outside the Union.

Against this background, the book’s contributions are drawing up the contours of the notary’s role in private international law, analysing and discussing its foundations, consequences and challenges.

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

Michiel Poesen has published an interesting article in the Common Market Law Review (issue 6 of 2022), titled Civil Litigation Against Third-Country Defendants in the EU: Effective Access to Justice as a Rationale for European Harmonization of the Law of International Jurisdiction.

The abstract reads:

The European Union has taken on an active role in harmonizing the law of international jurisdiction over civil and commercial court disputes. However, the jurisdictional rules contained in the key instrument in the area – the Brussels Ia Regulation – only apply to disputes involving EU-based defendants, save for a few exceptions where defendants domiciled in third countries are also covered. This article will explore the rationale for harmonizing the law of jurisdiction applicable to third-country defendants. This central theme is of particular interest, since further harmonization is once again on the EU’s agenda because of the upcoming revision of the Brussels Ia Regulation. The article will outline that proposals for harmonization are rooted in the aspiration to further effective access to justice. Moreover, it will demonstrate that far from a readily implementable programme, furthering access to justice is a multifaceted aim, the pursuit of which potentially has profound ramifications for the EU rules on civil jurisdiction.

As reported on this blog by Marco Pasqua, the European Commission adopted on 18 October 2022 its 2023 Work Programme, listing the legislative proposals, including in the area of private international law, that the Commission itself regarded as a priority.

On 15 December 2022, the Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission signed a Joint Declaration on EU legislative priorities for 2023 and 2024. The document, as indicated in the official press release, “sets out a shared European vision for a stronger and more resilient Europe in the face of Russia’s unprovoked, brutal aggression against Ukraine and its wide-ranging impact – all the while tackling other serious challenges such as the climate crisis and economic headwinds”.

The joint declaration is accompanied by a working document, which lists 164 “key legislative proposals”, that the three institutions agreed to prioritise.

Some of these proposals either primarily relate to private international law or include provisions that have, or may have, significant private international law implications.

These include the proposal for a Directive on adapting non-contractual civil liability rules to artificial intelligence; the proposal for a Directive harmonising certain aspects of insolvency law; the proposal for a Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence; the proposal for a Directive on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings (SLAPPs); the proposal for a Regulation on the digitalisation of judicial cooperation and access to justice in cross-border civil, commercial and criminal matters; and the proposal for a Regulation on the law applicable to the third-party effects of assignments of claims.

The recently adopted proposal for a Regulation aimed at harmonising at EU level the rules of private international law relating to parenthood (which Marta Requejo presented here) is not among those listed in the document.

There is also no reference to the expected developments regarding the international protection of adults.

The latest issue of the RabelsZ (Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht) has been published. As always, it contains a number of insightful articles. Here are the authors, titles and abstracts:

Moritz Renner and Torsten Kindt, Internationales Gesellschaftsrecht und Investitionsschutzrecht (Conflict of Corporate Laws and International Investment Law)

The withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU has revived the debate on the conflict of corporate laws. Much attention has recently been given to the new generation of EU free trade agreements, such as the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, but their impact on conflicts in the field of corporate law remains unclear. This article proposes that the conflict-of-law effects of these agreements can be fully understood only in the light of their common background in international investment law. Building upon an analysis of the role of treaties in Germany’s conflict-of-law system and of the multiple intersections between the conflict of corporate laws and international investment law in general, the article demonstrates that the newest EU free trade agreements imply in particular the application of a restricted conflict-of-law theory of incorporation on foreign corporations originating from the respective signatory states. While the agreements’ effects on conflicts in the corporate law arena are not as far reaching as those of the EU’s freedom of establishment, they nevertheless further narrow the remaining scope of application of the traditional seat theory underlying Germany’s autonomous rules on conflicts vis-à-vis corporate law.

Tobias Lutzi and Felix M. Wilke, Brüssel Ia extendenda est? – Zur Zukunft der internationalen Zuständigkeit deutscher Gerichte in Zivil- und Handelssachen nach Ausweitung der EuGVVO (Brussels I bis extendenda est? On the Future of the International Jurisdiction of German Courts in Civil and Commercial Matters after an Extension of the Regulation)

With the expiry of the deadline of art. 79 Brussels I bis, the academic debate on a possible further extension of the Regulation to situations involving non-EU defendants is (again) gaining momentum. The present study aims to contribute to this discussion. It compares the relevant German rules on international jurisdiction over non-EU defendants with those of the Brussels I bis Regulation in order to be able to assess the consequences of a possible extension from a German perspective. The study reveals that even replacing the national rules in their entirety would not amount to a radical change. In particular, the addition of typified places of performance under art. 7 no. 1 lit. b Brussels I bis to the forum contractus and the availability of a common forum for joint defendants under art. 8 no. 1 Brussels I bis would constitute welcome improvements of the current framework. The loss of jurisdiction based on the presence of assets under § 23 ZPO would arguably be a disadvantage if not properly compensated for, e.g. through a forum necessitatis provision. The biggest advantage, though, would most likely be the harmonization of the law of international jurisdiction across the EU – which, from a German perspective, would come at a rather reasonable price.

Ulla Liukkunen, Decent Work and Private International Law (Open Access)

This article examines the decent work objective set by the ILO and UN Agenda 2030 from the point of view of private international law. It conceptualizes decent work, arguing that inclusivity of protective safeguards and structures in cross-border situations is essential to achieving the objective, and that the need for inclusivity draws attention to the relationship between labour law and private international law. The analysis offered also introduces a migration law-related perspective on decent work and the private international law of employment contracts and labour relations more generally. It is argued that understanding that the idea of inclusivity is embedded in the decent work objective brings up a global dimension which calls for uniform regulatory solutions at the international level. Decent work could be coupled relatively easily with the need for a revival of the private international law of labour relations and for developing a labour rights-based approach in private international law. It also connects private international law’s protective normative frameworks to the body of international labour standards.

Adrian Hemler, Virtuelle Verfahrensteilnahme aus dem Ausland und Souveränität des fremden Aufenthaltsstaats – Zugleich ein Beitrag zum Verhältnis des Völkerrechts zum Kollisionsrecht (Virtual Participation in Court Proceedings from Abroad and Its Effects on the Sovereignty of the Foreign State of Residence – With Consideration of the Relationship Between Public International Law and the Conflict of Laws)

Most German-speaking scholars and some German courts consider participation in virtual court proceedings from a foreign state of residence to be a violation of foreign sovereignty. This essay stakes out a contrary position. In reaching this conclusion, it focuses on the distinction between the exercise of state power abroad and the exercise of state power regarding foreign facts. Especially with regards to extraterritorial legislation, it is argued that the law’s scope of sovereign validity remains territorial even if its scope of application covers facts abroad. The discussion also shows how this distinction is equally applicable to court judgments that concern foreign elements. Furthermore, the article discusses the nature of public international law principles regarding extraterritorial legislation and their relationship to national conflict of laws provisions. Also considered is how the sovereignty principle ought to be understood in cyberspace. Having established this theoretical foundation, it is concluded that regardless of the procedural role of the respective party, participation in virtual court proceedings from a foreign state of residence does not amount to a violation of foreign sovereignty.

Corinna Coupette and Dirk Hartung, Rechtsstrukturvergleichung (Structural Comparative Law) (Open Access)

Structural comparative law explores the similarities and differences between the structures of legal systems. Theoretically grounded in systems theory and complexity science, it models legal systems as networks of documents, organizations, and individuals. Using methods from network analysis, structural comparative law measures these networks, assesses how they change over time, and draws quantitative comparisons between multiple legal systems. It differs from other approaches in its assumptions, its methods, and its goals, in that it acknowledges the relevance of dependencies between system entities and borrows more heavily from data science than from econometrics. Structural comparative law constitutes a novel addition to the comparatist’s toolbox, and it opens myriad opportunities for further research at the intersection of comparative law and data science.

Arseny Shevelev and Georgy Shevelev, Proprietary Status of the Whole Body of a Living Person

This article is a reaction to the growing economic significance of the living human body as well as its legal status. In this paper, we argue that ownership in the human body most effectively guarantees the autonomy of the human will as to the use and disposal of one’s own body, but classical ownership theory is unable to fully ensure the autonomy of the human will, since it risks reviving the institution of slavery. We will demonstrate that theories establishing rights to the body other than ownership rights are limited in content and are inherently inconsistent. At the end of the article, we will propose an abstract ownership theory that allows for the exercise of maximum freedom to dispose of the human body while one is alive and which will be devoid of the flaws of the preceding theories.

The table of contents in German is available here.

On 2 November 2022, the UK Supreme Court delivered its judgment in The Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association – Forces Help and another (Respondents) v Allgemeines Krankenhaus Viersen GmbH (Appellant).

The issue at stake was whether the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978, which regulates whether a person liable from a damage may recover contribution from any other person liable, has overriding effect, and thus applies irrespective of the law governing the claim. The Rome II Regulation did not apply ratione temporis.

Mr Roberts suffered brain damage at birth in the Viersen General Hospital (AKV) in Germany in June 2000. Mr Roberts claims that this occurred as a result of the negligence of the attendant midwife, who was employed by the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association Forces Help (SSAFA). He also sued the Ministry of Defence (MoD), which will indemnify SSAFA against any liability.

SSAFA and MoD have brought a claim against AKV for contribution if Mr Roberts’ claim against them succeeds. The basis for this contribution claim is the 1978 Act. The parties agree that the law governing the contribution claim is German law and under German law, the claim would be time-barred. However, if the 1978 Act has overriding effect and if SSAFA/MoD can show that AKV is liable under it, their contribution claim will be in time.

The High Court considered this issue as a preliminary issue before the rest of Mr Roberts’ claim is decided. The High Court decided that the 1978 Act does have overriding effect and therefore SSAFA/MoD’s contribution claim against AKV is not time-barred. The Court of Appeal agreed. AKV now appeals to the Supreme Court.

The Court allowed the appeal on the grounds which were summarised in the Press Summary as follows.

The 1978 Act does not provide expressly that it has overriding effect. It does not provide that the 1978 Act applies irrespective of the foreign law otherwise applicable to the contribution claim. The question is whether such an intention must be implied from the provisions of the statute [38]. Three statutory provisions were identified variously by the Court of Appeal as supporting overriding effect: sections 1(6), 2(3)(c) and 7(3). The Supreme Court, however, considers these provisions equivocal. Their efficacy is not dependent upon overriding effect [39]-[48]. In particular, even in the absence of overriding effect, section 1(6) will be effective in many situations such as where the parties to the contribution claim are in a special relationship governed by the law of England and Wales [43].

Nothing in the admissible Parliamentary materials or the legislative history supports the view that the legislation was intended to have overriding effect [49] – [51]. However, the Bill was a Law Commission Bill and statements by the Commission in other reports suggest it was not intended to have overriding effect [52]-[55]. The weight of academic commentary strongly favours the view that the 1978 Act does not have overriding effect [73]-[79].

A line of authorities supports overriding effect. In a number of these cases overriding effect was assumed, was not directly in point and was not argued [56]-[60]. Arab Monetary Fund v Hashim (No 9) provides direct support for overriding effect, but the reasoning is open to the criticism that it is circular [61]-[68].

In coming to the conclusion that the 1978 Act was not intended to have overriding effect, the Supreme Court is influenced in particular by two considerations. First, there will be many situations in which a contribution claim will be governed by the law of England and Wales, notwithstanding the fact that the underlying liabilities are governed by a foreign law [82]. Secondly, it is difficult to see why Parliament should have intended to confer a statutory right of contribution whenever the party from whom contribution is sought can be brought before a court in this jurisdiction, regardless of the law with which the contribution claim has its closest connection. A failure of foreign law to provide for contribution claims is not a defect requiring remedy by legislation in this jurisdiction. Moreover, it would seem contrary to principle for the law of England and Wales to be applied if the contribution claim were most closely connected to a foreign system of law [83].

Under the Rome II Regulation, the law governing the claim satisfied by a person liable to the victim also governs the right of that person to seek “compensation” from other persons liable to the victim of the same claim. The Rome II Regulation, however, did not apply in this case.

The judgement eventually concludes that German law should also apply to the contribution claim in a reasoning in three steps.

The first is that, although issues of contribution used to be perceived as issues of procedure, it is now widely considered in the British common law world that it is one of substance.

The second is that the issue should be characterised as closely analogous to a restitutionary or quasi-contractual claim, and that the applicable law should be the law with which this claim is the most closely connected. In the present case, given that the claims of each person liable to the victim was governed by German law, that law would be German law as well. But Lord Lloyd-Jones explains that this could have been otherwise if there had been a special relationship between the two liable persons.

The third is that the statutes with overriding effects should be identified by assessing whether the terms of the relevant legislation cannot be applied or its purpose achieved unless it is overriding, and the legislative policy would be so significant that the statute should override the application of foreign law.

The main difference between the English rule and the Rome II Regulation is now, it seems to me, that the English rule relies on a more flexible test which, in certain cases, could lead to the application of a law other than the law governing the claim of the victim. This was critical in this case, as a particular provision of the 1978 Act somewhat required that there be cases were the law of the claim of the victim would be different from the law governing the contribution claim.

Section 1(6) of the 1978 Act provides:

References in this section to a person’s liability in respect of any damage are references to any such liability which has been or could be established in an action brought against him in England and Wales by or on behalf of the person who suffered the damage; but it is immaterial whether any issue arising in any such action was or would be determined (in accordance with the rules of private international law) by reference to the law of a country outside England and Wales.

The answer of the Court is that, for this provision to make sense, it must be possible that English law sometimes applies where foreign law governs the claim of the victim. The example given is a case where a special relationship existed between the two persons liable.

On 24 November 2022, the Court of Justice delivered an interesting judgment on the validity of a digital jurisdictional clause, i.e. the general terms and conditions containing the clause was accessible from a hypertext link mentioned in the written contract (C-358/21, Tilman, already commented here by Krzysztof Pacula and here by Geert Van Calster). In a nutshell, the Court held that such a clause is valid based on the formal requirements laid down in the Lugano II Convention (and, by analogy, in Brussels I bis Regulation) ensuring the parties’ consent to the clause, without the need for a click-wrapping system. Here lies the very point that differentiates the present case from previous ones (in particular C-322/14, Jaouad El Majdoub).

A dispute arose between Tilman, a Belgian-based company and one of its clients, Unilever, established in Switzerland, concerning unpaid invoices. Unilever challenged the international jurisdiction of the Belgian courts seized by Tilman, relying on a jurisdiction clause in favour of the English court. This clause appeared in Unilever General Terms and Conditions (GTC) but these were not directly attached to the main contract; instead, they were only accessible on the Internet via a hypertext link mentioned in the contract. Plus, the hypertext link did not directly give access to the GTC but to a website, access to which allows those general terms and conditions to be viewed.

Before the Belgian Court of cassation, Tilman invoked a violation of the formal requirements of the Lugano II Convention – which corresponds to Article 23 of Regulation 44/20021 Brussels I – with regard to the jurisdictional clause and, therefore, the invalidity of the clause for lack of informed consent on its part.

In this context, the Belgian court asked the Court of justice whether, under Article 23, §1, a) and §2, of the Lugano II Convention, consent to a jurisdiction clause can be deduced from a hyperlink inserted in a written contract, without any ‘obligation’ to click on that link.

The Court answered positively, confirming that business life is increasingly digital, including in its ‘legal dimension’, and that the main principles of contract law must thus adapt to it. This is the case of consent which is seen as genuine even in the digital sphere.

The decision of the Court of justice provides for a three-steps response.

Since the jurisdictional clause was stipulated in favour of the English court, the Court could not ignore the question of the geographical and temporal scope of the Lugano II Convention. After Brexit, the United Kingdom was refused access to the Lugano Convention (see also here and here). The applicable instrument for assessing the validity of the clause could be determined either at the date of its conclusion or at the date of the judicial proceedings. Since the issue at stake here was Brexit, i.e. the modification in time of the scope of application of EU law (including the Lugano II Convention), the Court of Justice chose the second option (for a discussion on this question, see here).

The Court rules that the legal action – the jurisdiction clause producing effects only on the date of the judicial proceedings (see Case Sanicentral, 25/79, point 6) – was brought before 31 December 2020, the termination date of the transitional period provided for in Article 126 of the UK withdrawal agreement. The latter text maintains the application of Union law, including the law on judicial cooperation in civil matters and the international agreements such as the Lugano II Convention. Therefore, the convention is applicable in the present case. The issue will be more difficult in the future (cf. here about a Swiss decision refusing the application of the Convention); in particular, the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements should be considered.

As regards the interpretation of the Lugano II Convention, the Court recalls, in a very classical way, that it must follow the principles laid down by the previous caselaw concerning the provisions at issue contained in other instruments, including the Brussels Convention and the Brussels I and Ia Regulations, insofar as these provisions are drafted in similar terms.

In order to be valid, a jurisdiction clause must be concluded, inter alia, “in writing or orally with written confirmation” (Article 23, §1). The objective is to ensure that the parties’ consent to the clause is genuine. In case of a dispute, the assessment is left to the court on the basis of this EU substantive rule. In the context of the information society and e-commerce, proof of consent may also be based on “electronic means which provides a durable record of the agreement”. This is an expression of the principle – which is becoming more and more widespread in comparative and EU contract law – of assimilating electronic transmission to written form, with a view to simplifying the conclusion of online contracts. However, according to European caselaw, this does not imply that the clause conferring jurisdiction and the GCT mentioning it are “actually” recorded permanently by the parties (see point 44 of the judgment). This nuance is crucial. In order for electronic transmission to offer the same guarantees as the paper format, in particular as regards evidence, there mere “possibility” to save and print the information before the conclusion of the contract is seen as sufficient.

In the present case, the Court of Justice notes that the jurisdiction clause is stipulated in the GTC explicitly mentioned in the written contract concluded between the parties. This procedure complies with EU law, but it must be ensured that the GTC containing the jurisdiction clause have actually been “communicated” to the contracting party, here Tilman, the Belgian company. This is in principle the case, according to previous case law, “if that information is accessible by means of a screen”. Here, the written contract provided for a hypertext link to an Internet site where the general conditions could be accessed. It is therefore necessary, according to the Court, “that hypertext link functions and can be activated by a party exercising ordinary diligence”. The Court adds that it “equates a fortiori to evidence of communication of that information”.

This analysis is relevant, but it is unclear why it is an a fortiori reasoning. Viewing general conditions on a screen expresses the fact that digital access is effective. This is not the case in the presence of a hypertext link, as long as it has not been clicked on. And then, a key practical issue is how to prove that the link does not function: by taking a photo of the screen (screenshot) which displays an ‘error message’ after the hyperlink has been clicked on?

According to the Court, it is irrelevant that Tilman, the co-contractor, did not have a box to tick on the page of the website to express acceptance of those terms and conditions, nor that the page containing those terms and conditions did not open automatically when the website was accessed. The Court implicitly applies here a proportionality test between the requirement of informed consent and the objective of not hindering commercial exchanges. It is therefore up to the party who is invited to consult the GTC online to do so. A “click” and a reading online, on a screen, are no more demanding in a hyperconnected society than reading a paper document in an annex to a contract.

Finally, the Court allows itself an obiter dictum by referring to points b) and c) of Article 23, §1, in order to clearly situate the case in “international trade”. For the record, these provisions validate jurisdiction clauses concluded in a form consistent with international commercial practice, reinforcing the private autonomy of the economic operators. I am not convinced however that this adds anything to the interpretation and especially that it corresponds (i.e. using a hypertext link to refer to the GTC including a court agreement) to the very concept of usage of international trade. But this is an open question.

This solution must be approved for at least three reasons.

Firstly, outside the digital paradigm, economic operators are supposed to be aware of the GTC of the contract and in particular of the jurisdictional clause they contain. Indeed, the GTC are an important criterion for the financial balance of the commercial agreement.

Secondly, in line with its previous case law, the Court of justice follows a different analysis of contractual consent in B2B contracts than in B2C relationships. The formal requirements laid down in EU secondary law on B2C distance contracts cannot be transposed, by analogy, to the B2B context (see point 37, C-322/14, Jaouad El Majdoub).

Thirdly, the Court’s reading of Article 23(2) is part of a more global European political and legislative context: that of the emerging ‘digital by default principle’. In the e-Government strategy, it means that delivering services digitally is the preferred option through a single contact point (see here). According to the European Commission, the same should progressively apply in the judicial cooperation in civil matters. In its 2020 Communication on Digitalisation of justice in the European Union, the Commission proposed to make “the digital channel the default option in EU cross-border judicial cooperation” (point 3.2 and see here for an update on the topic). Reading this ambition for EU Civil Justice together with the “Brussels/Lugano Regime” (as interpreted in the present case), it shows that the EU legal system is working on providing a coherent framework for international economic exchanges in the digital ecosystem.