EAPIL blog

Milana Karayanidi is the author of Rethinking Judicial Jurisdiction in Private International Law, the most recent release in the Hart Publishing’s series Studies in Private International Law.

The abstract reads:

This book explores the theory and practice of judicial jurisdiction within the field of private international law. It offers a revised look at values justifying the power of courts to hear and decide cross-border disputes, and demonstrates that a re-conceptualisation of jurisdiction is needed. Rather than deriving from territorial power of states, jurisdiction in civil and commercial cross-border matters ought to be driven by party autonomy. This autonomy can be limited by certain considerations of equality and critical state sovereign interests. The book applies this normative view to the existing rules of jurisdiction in the European Union and the Russian Federation. These regimes are chosen due to their unique positions towards values in private international law and contrasting societal norms that generate and accommodate these values. Notwithstanding disparate cultural and political ideas, these regimes reveal a surprising level of consistency when it comes to enforcement of party autonomy. There is, nevertheless, room for improvement. The book demonstrates to scholars, policy makers and lawmakers that jurisdiction should be re-centred around the interests of private actors, and proposes ways to improve the current rules.

For further information, see here.

Following the adoption of the Judgments Convention, on 2 July 2019, the Hague Conference on Private International Law has resumed its exploratory work on the possible elaboration of an instrument dealing with jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters (the Jurisdiction Project).

From 18 to 21 February 2020, the Experts’ Group set up for this purpose met in the Hague.

The Group was pleased with the progress made and concluded that matters relating to jurisdiction, including parallel proceedings, warrant further work and study.

The Experts’ Group has recommended to the Council on General Affairs and Policy, which will meet form 3 to 6 Mars 2020, that the Group continue its work.

Triggered by recent events, notably the Dieselgate scandal, collective redress is now back on the EU civil justice agenda (see here). It is also the subject matter of requests for preliminary rulings addressed to the CJEU (see, concerning a situation with cross-border implications, the currently pending case C-709/19, Vereniging van Effectenbezitters).

A conference on the topic, organised by the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law in cooperation with ERA – Academy of European Law, will take place on 16 and 17 April 2020 in Trier.

The conference will: introduce the proposed EU Directive on representative action; provide a platform for debate on topical issues of this key Directive; analyse major case law of the CJEU and national Supreme Courts on collective redress; look at the mismatch of EU law and collective redress; present the most recent hands-on experience with collective redress; debate funding issues, namely contingency fees and third-party funding.

The event is chiefly meant for legal practitioners specialised in the field of consumer law and policy, litigators involved in mass damage cases, representatives of business and consumer organisations, ministry officials, and academics.

For more information please see here.

On 29 January 2020, the Rechtbank Rotterdam (a Dutch court of first instance) ruled on the law applicable to claims by investors against the Brazilian company Petrobas. The case concerns the long-disputed localisation of financial or economic loss under Article 4(1) of the Rome II Regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations. The Dutch court has added a new piece to the puzzle by adopting a market-based approach.

The claims of the investors are related to the so-called Petrolāo scandal (Portuguese for “big oil”, also known as “operation car wash” because it was first exposed by the owner of a car wash service with money exchange), which has shattered Latin America and involves well-known figures, such as the former Brazilian president Lula da Silva.

The allegations centre on money laundering and endemic corruption in Petrobas, which has led to a steep fall in its share price. The investors try to recoup their corresponding losses. The litigation has a global dimension given that Petrobas’ securities are listed around the world, including in Argentina, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain, and the United States (in the form of American Depository Receipts – ADR).

The proceedings before the Rechtbank Rotterdam had been preceded by litigation in the US, where the District Court for the Southern District of New York threw out the claims of investors who had bought securities listed outside the United States as early as 2015. After that, a Dutch foundation (“stichting“) was created to pursue the claims of these investors in the Netherlands. No Petrobas shares were traded there: The choice of venue was entirely attributable to the favourable attitude of the Dutch legal system towards collective actions. By a decision of 19 September 2018, the Rechtbank Rotterdam accepted international jurisdiction over the foundation’s claim against Petrobas. Now it had to decide over the applicable law to the claims of the investors’ litigation vehicle.

The facts underlying the claim stretched over a period of ten years (2004-2014). Due to the inapplicability of the Rome II Regulation to events before 12 January 2009 (see Articles 31 and 32 and the CJEU decision in Homawoo), these were submitted to the Dutch Private International Law, more precisely to the Dutch Act on Conflict of Laws for Torts (Wet Conflictenrecht Onrechtmatige Daad – WCOD).

As Article 3(1) of WCOD refers to the place where the unlawful conduct occurred, the Rotterdam court ruled that Brazilian law applies to the entirety of the facts occurring before 12 January 2009.

Events occurring on or after 12 January 2009 are subject to the Rome II Regulation. To determine the applicable law, the Dutch court looked to Article 4 of Rome II, the first paragraph of which refers to the country in which the damage occurs. Thus, the court was facing the well-known problem of locating purely economic loss.

The court reviewed two decisions of the CJEU in Kolassa and Universal Music (leaving aside Löber). These cases concerned jurisdiction under the Brussels I bis Regulation but had to be consulted as well under the Rome II Regulation under the paradigm of parallel interpretation (see Recital 7 of Rome II).

In Kolassa, the CJEU had to determine the place where the damage occurs in case of investments made on the basis of a misleading prospectus. The CJEU had ruled that the damage occurred at the place of establishment of the bank managing the account from which the investor has payed the securities.

However, the Rotterdam court saw the importance of Kolassa as being severely limited by the decision in Universal Music. In the latter case, the court had held that the Kolossa decision was made in the specific context which gave rise to that judgment and that purely financial damage which occurs directly in the applicant’s bank account cannot, in itself, be qualified as a relevant connecting factor (CJEU, Universal Music, margin nos 37 and 38).

The Rotterdam court in Petrobas instead preferred a completely different approach. In its view, the closest connection of the claim is with the place where the securities acquired by the investors are listed and traded offered. In the opinion of the court, it was there that the investors suffered property damage because their assets were directly affected by an unlawful act. The application of the law in force at this place would also serve the dual objectives of certainty and predictability because the law so identified would be foreseeable for both the issuer and the investors of the securities.

This “market-based theory” has been discussed for quite some time and enjoys strong support in the literature (see e.g. T Arons, (2008) Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht 481, 486; H Kronke, (2000) 286 Recueil des cours 245, 308-12; F Garcimartín Alférez, (2011) Law and Financial Markets Review 449, 453; Sarah Sánchez Fernández, El folleto en las ofertas públicas de venta de valores negociables (OPV) y responsabilidad civil: ley aplicable (La Ley, Madrid: 2015, p. 330–339)).

The market theory’s advantage is that it concentrates the applicable law in one country or – in case of dual listings – in a few jurisdictions. This is especially important in case of collective actions, which would be utterly unmanageable if each claim were governed by the law of the place of the investor’s bank account. While the market-based approach is clearly preferable from a policy perspective, it is less clear whether it can be justified under Art 4(1) Rome II, at least in its current interpretation by the CJEU.

First, it is doubtful whether the investors really suffer direct loss at the place where the securities are listed or traded. Investors usually do not purchase their securities directly on the exchange, but through intermediaries. It is also not sure that the sell them at the exchange after suffering loss – they can equally decide to keep them. The connection to the market where the securities are traded is therefore a more abstract one.

Second, it seems that the Rechtbank Rotterdam overly restricts the importance of the Kolassa decision. After all, this judgment arose from a case of wrong capital markets disclosure, which is  much more similar to the subject matter of Petrobas than the fact pattern in Universal Music, which concerned a failed calculation in a precontractual negotiation. Moreover, in both Kolassa and Petrobas, the investors had voluntarily paid the price of the securities, which afterwards declined in value, while in Universal Music the wrong information tainted the payment by the victim (on this point, see Johannes Ungerer, 24 (2017) Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 448, 452).

In Kolassa, the CJEU decided implicitly against the market-based theory by ruling in favour of the localisation of the invidividual investor’s loss. The reasoning in Universal Music is not different on that point. The Rotterdam Rechtbank would therefore have done well to submit a question for a preliminary ruling, rather than simply trust its own opinion. Such a reference would have helped clarify the authorities of the CJEU in this currently uncertain area of law.

Applying Article 4(1) of Rome II has the further downside that the exception of Article 4(2) of Rome II must be respected, which results in the application of a different law to the claims of those parties that are domiciled in the same country as the defendant (in the case at hand: Brazilian investors). This illogical result could have been avoided by adopting the market theory under the escape clause (Article 4(3) of Rome II). Such an approach would however have its own problems because it could be seen as contradicting the need for a restrictive interpretation of the escape clause.

Overall, the market-based solution suggested by the Rechtbank Rotterdam could be a useful innovation for locating purely economic loss under Rome II. It would have been interesting to see how the CJEU will position itself in this respect. Unfortunately, the court has missed the opportunity to submit a reference for a preliminary ruling. Perhaps a recent submission by the Hoge Raad in the case VEB v BP concerning investor claims under Article 7(2) of Brussels I bis will bring some clarification for the Rome II Regulation as well.

The proceedings of the symposium held in June 2019 on the Paris international commercial chambers were published in a special issue of the Revue Lamy Droit des Affaires which can be freely download on the website of the Paris Court of Appeal.

The presentations were made in French, and the proceedings are written in the same language.

The Court has provided the following summary in English:

A little more than a year after the signature of the procedural protocols establishing the international commercial chambers in the Commercial Court and the Paris Court of Appeal, the symposium was opened to a large audience by Mrs Chantal Arens, First President of the Paris Court of Appeal, who, among other things, announced the forthcoming publication of a bilingual procedural guide before these chambers, with the aim of presenting the proceedings in a detailed and didactic manner, and called for the regulatory consolidation of the jurisdiction of the Paris Court of Appeal.

Mr Gille Cuniberti, Law Professor at the University of Luxembourg and moderator of the roundtables, pointed out that the creation of international commercial chambers forms part of an international competition between courts from which one of the issues at stake is the attractiveness of French law.

After a reminder of the origins of the commercial chambers by Mr Guy Canivet, Honorary First President of the Court of Cassation, and of the options chosen by the Ministry of Justice presented by Mr Thomas Andrieu, Director of Civil Affairs for the French Ministry, Ms Marie-Aimée Peyron, Chairman of the Paris Bar Association, went back on the support of the Paris bar in the creation of these chambers.

Students at the Sciences Po Law school of Paris (Mr Félix Briant, Ms Auriane Clement, Mr Mathieu Larroque, Ms Charlotte Muller) presented the fruit of their work done during one year with the International Commercial Chamber of the Court of Appeal by providing an overview of the choices made abroad in the creation of international commercial courts in Europe and in the world.

This symposium allowed to set out how to access to the international chambers in France, their jurisdiction and the applicable procedure, stressing in particular the desire to give greater importance to predictability in the conduct of the trial, the orality of the proceedings, the possible use of foreign languages and, in particular, the use of the English language.

Mr François Ancel, Ms Fabienne Schaller and Ms Laure Albert, all three judges in the International Commercial Chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal intervened to develop these various points, as have the President of the International Commercial Chamber at the Paris Commercial Court, Mr Philippe Bernard, and Mr François Vaissette, Avocat Général representing the General Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Paris Court of Appeal , which was able to clarify the role of the Public Prosecutor’s Office in these chambers.

Mr Alban Caillemer du Ferrage and Ms Emilie Vasseur, members of the Paris Bar, stressed the important role of the creation of these chambers and the will of the bar to promote the stipulation of clauses conferring jurisdiction to the benefit of the Paris courts (in particular in the choice of ISDA to open its Master Agreement to the jurisdiction of French courts and French law) and inisted also on the judicial administration of evidence and the voluntary appearance of the parties and witnesses.

Finally, scientific insight was given by Ms Marie-Elodie Ancel, Law Professor at the University of Paris Est Créteil on the first decisions handed down by the International Chamber of the Court of Appeal and by Professor François Mailhé, Deputy-Dean of the Faculty of Law and Political Science of the Picardie Jules Verne University, who asked in particular how to meet the needs of economic stakeholders (use of the English language, set up of a procedural timetable; compulsory production of evidence; cross-examination).

During his executive summary, Mr Emmanuel Gaillard, Visiting Professor at the Yale Law School and at the Harvard Law School, called for pursuing the movement initiated by the creation of these chambers, in particular in favour of the use of the English language without translation and by implementing an adequate communication to raise awareness of these chambers, considering that France could usefully offer a high-quality public service of justice within a reasonable time and in accordance with international standards.

The fourth research seminar of the IFITIS Research Project, led by Jean-Sylvestre Bergé, will take place in Nice on 13 March 2020.

The IFITIS Project explores, generally, a phenomenon that the project leaders call “full movement beyond control”.

The expression refers to the movement of persons, goods, services etc. across territories. The phenomenon is understood to have a “full” dimension in that it calls for the attention and action of public and private actors (States, companies, individuals) at local, national and international levels. And it is regarded as “beyond control” in the sense that, in specific or short-term situations, like those of crisis, institutions with responsibility for such movement do not have full control over it.

The seminar, titled Antecedent and Modal Approaches to Circulation, is concerned with the understanding and representations of the notion of movement and with the modalities of movement in different areas of knowledge.

Speakers include Christian Rinaudo (Univ. of Nice), Jeremy Heymann (Univ. Jean Moulin – Lyon 3), Alain Strowel (Catholic Univ. of Louvain), Philippe Billet (Univ. Jean Moulin – Lyon 3), Marina Teller (Univ. of Nice), Jean-Yves Carlier (Catholic Univ. of Louvain), Sophie Robin-Olivier (Univ. Paris 1 – Panthéon Sorbonne) and Jean-Sylvestre Bergé (Univ. of Nice).

See here for further information.

The first issue of the Journal du droit international for 2020 has just been released. It contains two articles and several casenotes relating to private international law.

In the first article, Johanna Guillaumé (University of Rouen) explores the obligation of notaries to apply rules of private international law (L’office du notaire en droit international privé).

The English abstract reads:

The notary is more and more confronted with the presence of foreign elements and, consequently, with the implementation of conflict of law rules. Studies generally focus on the content of these rules and how they are to be implemented. However, this presupposes the resolution of a preliminary question : Is the notary obliged to implement the rules of private international law ? This is the question of the notary’s obligations when faced with a foreign element. No text provides an answer to this question. Case law is also very rare. The article attempts to define the office of the notary in private international law. The analogical approach is first taken, in order to see whether the obligations of the judge or the office of the civil registrar, which are better defined, can be extended to the notary. As the notary does not exercise the judicial mission of the former and does not have the bureaucratic dimension of the latter, the answer is negative. Therefore, only a functional approach can define the obligations of the notary in private international law, that is, an approach which takes into account the obligations that characterize the notarial activity : the obligation to draw up legal and effectives deeds on the one hand, and the obligation to issue instruments on the other. What is the scope of these obligations if there is a foreign element ?

The second article, authored by Guillaume Kessler (University of Chambery), discusses the evolution of the private international law of parentage in new family configurations (Le droit international privé à l’épreuve du renouveau de la filiation).

The abstract reads:

In recent years, parentage law has been undergoing a disruption due to the combined effect of major social and technological developments that have led to the emergence of new family configurations such as co-maternity, multiple parenthood, surrogate motherhood, parentage without sexuality or same-sex adoption. French private international law has not yet really taken note of this renewal and continues to be based on rules that were already open to criticism in their time and that can now be considered obsolete. A change of connecting factor, with a preference given to the law of domicile rather than that of nationality, would be a first step towards resolving some of the difficulties created by this ongoing revolution. The development of the recognition when the status has been established abroad would be a second one. However, the importance of the issue and the complexity of the problems may require an even more radical methodological change and make it necessary to strengthen international cooperation in an area that might seem resistant to multi-state agreements.

A full table of contents can be downloaded here.

On 29 November 2019, the Council of the European Union adopted a general approach regarding the recast of Regulation 1393/2007 on the service of judicial and extrajudicial documents abroad. On 7 February a new Council document was published, featuring the Annexes of the future Recast Regulation.

The new Regulation, which will likely be adopted in the Summer or Autumn of 2020, is not expected to bring about major changes to the current legal landscape.

A comparison is provided below between some key features of the Commission’s proposal of 31 May 2018, on the one hand, and the corresponding solutions envisaged in the compromise text elaborated by the Council, on the other.

1. The Commission proposed to clarify by an additional paragraph in Article 1 that the Regulation does not apply “to service of a document on the party’s authorised representative in the Member State where the proceedings are taking place regardless of the place of residence of that party”, thereby moving to the body of the Regulation what was already stated in Recital 8 of the 2007 Regulation. Concurrently, the Commission envisaged to introduce a new provision – Article 7a – requiring the recipient to appoint a representative for the purpose of service in the forum State for all documents following the one introducing proceedings. The Council took the view that both innovations should be dropped.

2. The Commission Proposal aimed to enhance electronic communication between Transmitting and Receiving Authorities, suggesting the establishment of national IT systems (Article 3a). This provision was partially amended, following the concerns of national delegations with respect to the sustainability of a decentralized mechanism.

3. The Proposal introduced a new provision, aiming at a more active assistance of Member States authorities towards a smoother and more efficient search of the whereabouts of the defendant (Article 3c). The provision underwent minor amendments by the Council.

4. The Proposal added two paragraphs to Article 8. One was meant to extend the delay by which the recipient may refuse service, while the other intended to specify the duty of the court of the forum to examine whether the refusal was founded. The Council’s compromise text retained the former suggestion, while rejecting the latter.

5. The Proposal introduced two additional paragraphs in Article 14 on service by post, suggesting the use of a specific acknowledgment of receipt, and deeming postal service as validly effected when served to adult persons living in the same house with the recipient. The Council rejected the proposed amendments. With reference to Article 14, two additional points should be stressed: first, the wording of the provision has changed in a way that leads to the conclusion that postal service does not have to pass through transmitting authorities / court channels; second, postal service may be resorted to not only for persons domiciled, but also for those who are merely present in the country of destination.

6. The Commission Proposal attempted to pose an obligation to all Member States to provide information on professions or competent persons permitted to effect direct service. The Council deleted this part of the proposal almost in its entirety. The efforts of the Commission towards extending direct service in all Member States met with the adamant refusal of the Council.

7. The Proposal introduced a provision on electronic service (Article 15a). The Council adopted in principle the proposal as Article 14a, slightly modifying its wording. It also stated the obligation of Member States to specify the conditions under which electronic service will be accepted.

8. The Commission proposed two innovations on Article 19, regarding the situation where the defendant fails to enter an appearance: an additional tool of communication for the purposes of Article 19(2), i.e. sending an e-mail or a message to an address or an account known to the court seised, and a streamlined approach to the delay within which an application for relief must be filed with the court (2 years following the date of the judgment). Both proposals were discarded by the Council.

As a general conclusion, it may be stated that the innovative steps proposed by the Commission were met with reservation both by the European Parliament and the Council. What hopefully will improve is the cooperation between Member States authorities in the preliminary field of transmission. This will of course depend on the willingness and preparedness of Member States.

Regarding actual service of process, the situation remains the same. A divide among Member States will continue to exist in regards to direct service; e-service will heavily depend on the conditions set out by Member States; a unified approach regarding the term within which an application for relief was rejected; finally, the obligation of the claimant to serve everything abroad will continue to exist, save for the exceptions provided for by the Regulation (legal representative and unknown residence), confirmed by the CJEU in the Alder case.

The EAPIL founding conference, scheduled to take place in Aarhus on 14, 15 and 16 May 2020, is fast approaching.

We are happy to announce that all law students without a final master degree in law may now register to the conference at a reduced fee of 30 Euros.

The reduced fee gives access to all lunch breaks and the reception.

Those wishing to also take part in the conference dinner are asked to pay for the full dinner fee (50 Euros).

Further information can be found here.

Which rules are more important to determine the protection of weaker parties in financial disputes – the Brussels I bis Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments, or the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID)?

That is, in a nutshell, the question faced by the CJEU in Petruchová v. FIBO Group Holdings, a case decided on 3 October 2019.

Mrs Petruchová, a Czech resident, had entered into a framework agreement with a Cypriot brokerage company, allowing her to conclude highly speculative transactions in the market for foreign exchange (FOREX). The agreement contained a clause giving jurisdiction for any dispute under the contract to Cypriot courts. When a trade went awry, Mrs Petruchová nevertheless sued the brokerage company in the Czech Republic.

The solution seemed straightforward. It seemed obvious that Mrs Petruchová was a consumer in the broad sense, as defined by Article 17(1) of Brussels I bis, given that she had speculated outside her trade and profession for her private account. Under Article 25(4) of Brussels I bis, forum selection agreements with consumers are valid only where they meet the conditions set out in Article 19, which was not the case.

However, there was a nagging problem. MiFID provides for a much more nuanced protection of weaker parties to financial transactions than Brussels I bis. Not only does it distinguish between three different categories of investors (retail investors, professional investors, and eligible counterparties), it also uses different criteria to determine the investor’s sophistication. Among them are the client’s wealth, the number of trades she has previously executed, and any experience she might have in the financial industry. In addition, the investor can to some extent choose to upgrade or downgrade her categorisation.

In Petruchová v. FIBO Group Holdings, the CJEU gave priority to Brussels I bis. It stressed that the knowledge and information that a person possesses in a certain field do not matter for the purposes of determining whether she requires consumer protection (para 55-56). Nor do the value of her transactions, the risks associated with them, or her active conduct (para 59).

The Justices admitted the need for consistency of EU law, which could involve taking into account other legislative provisions when defining the “consumer” (para 61). Yet, the parallel concept of the retail investor in MiFID did not appeal to them. Their ‘killer argument’ was that the definition under MiFID also covers legal persons – a major ‘no-no’ for consumer protection (para 71).

The CJEU also did not follow a parallel to Article 6(4) of the Rome I Regulation on the law applicable to contractual obligations, which the Czech court of first instance had invoked to exclude disputes over financial instruments from the scope of consumer protection. To overcome this point, the CJEU distinguishes between the purposes of Rome I and Brussels I bis (para 64).

Instead of this complex and debatable argument, the Court of Justice could have relied on a proper reading of Article 6(4)(d) of Rome I, which excludes rights and obligations which constitute a financial instrument only “in so far as these activities do not constitute provision of a financial service”. FIBO Group Holdings had clearly rendered a financial service to Mrs Petruchová.

The upshot of the case is that the concept of the consumer in the Brussels Ia Regulation remains uniform and does not differ in financial disputes. This result has the benefit of clarity.

But one may reasonably ask why an investor defined as a ‘professional’ for the purposes of MiFID is permitted to ignore jurisdiction agreements she has entered into. Are not the latter much easier to understand than the obligations under complex financial instruments? Perhaps one could argue that the investor is only a “part professional”: professional in financial matters but an amateur in legal matters, such as forum selection clauses.

Regretfully, the CJEU has not entered into this discussion.

On 10 February 2020, the European Commission announced its intention to open a process of consultation to get feedback from citizen and stakeholders on whether the EU should join the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil or commercial matters (the Hague Judgments Convention). 

In the words of the Commission, the EU has put in place a highly developed internal acquis for the cross-boder recognition and enforcement of judgments, as a necessary complement to its single market. By way of contrast, at the international level the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters has, until recently, not been successfully regulated, even if some bilateral agreements between States exist.

Currently, civil or commercial judgments rendered by courts in the European Union can be recognised and enforced in a third country only in a limited number of situations, namely: (i) based on the 2005 Choice of Court Convention, which has a limited scope; (ii) in Iceland, Norway and Switzerland based on the Lugano Convention; (iii) based on a limited number of bilateral treaties between individual Member States and third States; (iv) based on multilateral treaties related to particular matters; or (v) on the basis of the national law of third States, sometimes subject to reciprocity. 

The Commission believes that the adoption in July 2019 of the Hague Judgments Convention may change the situation just described. Moreover, it claims that a future proposal for EU accession to the Judgments Convention would be in line with the objectives set out in the Political Guidelines for the European Commission (2019-2024), in particular related to “An economy that works for people”.

The policy objectives of the EU accession to the Judgments Convention would be: to enhance access to justice for EU businesses and citizens through a system that facilitates the recognition and enforcement of judgments everywhere in the world where the debtor happens to have assets; to increase legal certainty for those involved in international trade and investment; to reduce costs for businesses and citizens involved in international dealings or in international dispute resolution; to allow the recognition and enforcement of third-country judgments in the EU only where fundamental principles of EU law are respected, such as for instance the right to a fair trial, and which do not affect the EU acquis related to the internal recognition and enforcement of judgments.

As for the policy options, the Commission puts forward the following:

Option 0: Baseline scenario: no policy change. The Union will thus not accede to the Judgments Convention and the current status quo will continue. However, given the EU’s active involvement in these negotiations and the fact that its results reflect EU’s policy interests, this scenario is taken into account mainly as a benchmark in order to assess the other options.

Option 1a: The Union will accede to the Judgments Convention without making any declaration.

Option 1b: The Union will accede to the Judgments Convention, excluding certain matters reflecting the EU’s policy objective of protecting weaker parties, such as consumers, employees or, in matters relating to insurance, the policyholder, the insured or the beneficiary, or/and certain matters falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of EU courts, for instance with regard to disputes relating to tenancies or commercial lease of immovable property.

Option 1c: The Union will accede to the Judgments Convention excluding State entities from the application of the Convention

Option 1d: A combination of options 1b and 1c

The Commission’s preliminary assessment of acceding to the Convention points to a positive outcome in economic terms, coupled with an improvement of growth and investment, thus of employment (the Commission acknowledges nontheless that as trade and investment of companies from outside the EU might also increase, some negative economic impacts in the short term cannot be excluded for EU competitors).

From the point of view of access to justice, signing the Convention would have postive implications as well. In terms of administrative burdens, the Commission is once again optimistic: although some Member States with a simple system for recognition and enforcement would face some negative impact if the new system based on the Judgments Convention is implemented, the Commission believes that such possible negative impacts would be offset by the important economic benefits.

The public consultation on the above-mentioned policy objectives and options, and on the likely impacts of signing the Convention, will be launched in March/April 2020 and run for a minimum period of 12 weeks. It will be available via the Commission’s central public consultations page; the questionnaires will be available in English, French and German but the replies can be made in any of the 24 official languages.

An in-depth Study on the Hague Judgements Convention Draft of November 2017, requested by the JURI Committee of the EU Parliament, to a large extent, still valid under the final version, can be downloaded here; it includes a chapter devoted to the relationship with the EU rules, and policy recommendations on the position of the EU vis-à-vis the Convention. A detailed explanation of the Convention as adopted is provided by A. Bonomi (Professor at the University of Laussane) and C. Mariottini (Senior Research Fellow, Max Planck Institute Luxembourg) at the Yearbook of Private International Law, vol. 20 (2018/2019), pp. 537-567. 

The 12th edition of the leading French treatise on private international law of Prof. Pierre Mayer (Panthéon-Sorbonne University) is out. The book is now primarily updated  by Vincent Heuzé (Panthéon-Sorbonne University) and Benjamin Remy (Cergy Pontoise University).

The book covers all traditional dimensions of the conflict of laws and, in keeping with the French tradition, the law of citizenship and immigration.

More details can be found here.

Maria Caterina Baruffi and Matteo Ortino (both University of Verona) have edited Trending topics in international and EU law: legal and economic perspectives.

The book collects the proceedings of the #TILT Young Academic Colloquium, held in Verona on 23-24 May 2019. The event, targeted to Ph.D. students and early career scholars, was organised by the Law Department of the University of Verona in collaboration with the Ph.D. School of Legal and Economic Studies and the European Documentation Centre.

The volume is divided into four parts, respectively devoted to public international law, including papers on human rights, international criminal law and investment law; private international law ; EU law, both in its general aspects and its policies; and law and economics.

The table of contents can be found here. See here for further information.

Luis de Lima Pinheiro (university of Lisbon) has posted Public Policy and Private International Law – Portugal on SSRN.

The abstract reads:

The present report is aimed at describing the concept, legal framework, and features of the public policy clause in the Portuguese legal order, and at giving an account of the main applications of this clause in modern Portuguese case law and literature (marriage, children, custodianship, succession, contract, non-contractual obligations, property, intellectual property, and corporate).

The report deals mainly with choice of law, but reference is also made to the recognition of foreign judgments, since the public policy features and applications are to a large extent common in both contexts.

Portuguese courts tend to respect the exceptionality of the public policy clause. In recent case law, only a few judgments have deviated from this guideline, namely concerning the right of some heirs to a legal portion of the estate. In the vast majority of situations, the arguments based upon international public policy considerations were not accepted by the courts.

The paper is forthcoming in Public Policy and Private International Law (Olaf Meyer ed., Edward Elgar). It can be downloaded here.

In 2006 a German patient received, in Germany, defective breast implants manufactured by Poly Implant Prothèse SA (‘PIP’), a French undertaking that is now insolvent. The patient seeks compensation before the German courts from Allianz IARD SA, the French insurer of PIP.

In France, manufacturers of medical devices are under a statutory obligation to be insured against civil liability for harm suffered by third parties arising from their activities (see Article L.1142‑2 of the Public Health Code). That obligation led PIP to conclude an insurance contract with Allianz, which contained a territorial clause limiting the cover to damage caused on French territory only. Thus, PIP medical devices that were exported to another Member State and used there were not covered by the insurance contract.

In this context, the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main enquires whether the fact that PIP was insured by Allianz for damage caused by its medical devices on French territory only, to the exclusion of that potentially caused in other Member States, is compatible with Article 18 TFEU and the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality contained therein.

The referring court asked first whether Article 18 has a direct third-party effect; subsidiarily, it asked about an indirect discrimination on the basis of nationality on the side of the competent French authority – as an emanation of the State -, who did not object to the territorial clause mentioned above (two further questions followed, for the case of an affirmative reply to the first one).

AG’s Bobek opinion on the case (case C-581/18) was published on 6 February 2020. It contains principally reflections on the autonomous application of Article 18 TFUE. Additionally, in response to a first point of disagreement among the parties presenting observations, it explores the criteria determining whether a subject matter falls under the scope of application of EU.

Mr. Bobek rejects an interpretation of Article 18 TFEU as an autonomous provision creating enforceable obligations not already laid down by one of the four fundamental freedoms, or specifically provided for in any other instrument of EU law: and this, for structural reasons (as he says, in order to respect the regulatory logic of the internal market). According to Mr. Bobek (at 110), otherwise Article 18 TFEU would be turned

into a limitless provision, by virtue of which any issue, however remotely connected to a provision of EU law, could be harmonised by judicial means. It would furthermore turn regulatory competence within the internal market on its head, generating irreconcilable future conflicts of competence between the Member States.

He goes on to say (at 112) that

it is also clear from the discussion of the present case that if Article 18 TFEU were allowed to operate as a free-standing, substantive obligation in the way implied by the referring court in its questions, its reach would go beyond anything that the free movement case-law ever contemplated, including the case-law on goods pre-Keck. Interpreted in that way, there would be no limit to the scope of Article 18 TFEU: that provision would be turned into a Dassonville formula on steroids. In today’s interconnected world, sooner or later, there is inevitably some sort of interaction with goods, services or persons from other Member States. If that were enough to trigger the independent applicability of Article 18 TFEU, every single rule in a Member State would be caught by that provision.”

And adds later (at 114, 115)

the rules on free movement, as well as Article 18 TFEU, logically only cover the free flow of goods or services across borders, including exit and entry. Unless expressly harmonised by the EU legislature, the rules on their subsequent use are a matter for the Member States where they are used (…). In other words, the fact that goods once came from another Member State is not a sufficient reason to suggest that any matter later concerning those goods is covered by EU law.

From a legal point of view, the opinion is most probably correct (the practical outcome, “vous auriez dû aller vous faire soigner en France”, may be morally regrettable; but an expansive interpretation of Article 18 is not the appropriate way to avoid it). However, I have to admit I do not follow him when he seeks support on PIL arguments. This happens at 113, where he puts forward a possible consequence of an independent applicability of Article 18 TFEU:

To take just one example: imagine that, while drafting this Opinion, I am injured — hopefully not too seriously — because the computer I am typing on explodes. The various parts of the computer are likely to have been produced in a Member State other than Luxembourg, more likely even, in the age of integrated supply chains, in several Member States, if not also third countries. Absent any specific contractual terms concerning applicable law and jurisdiction between the producer of that computer and myself, therefore assuming normal rules on tort (delict) were to apply, the applicable law governing any damages claim is likely to be Luxembourg law, as the law of the State in which the accident occurred. Should I then, if I were to find Luxembourg law unsatisfactory for my damages case, have the possibility of relying on Article 18 TFEU in order to invoke the law of the place of production of the computer, or perhaps even the place of production of any of the components of the computer, and have my claim enforced before a Luxembourg court?

Nor do I understand either, at 115, why his recollection of the statutory doctrine:

If that logic were to be embraced, by a questionable interpretation of Article 18 TFEU, the movement of goods in Europe would become (once again) reminiscent of medieval legal particularism, whereby each product would, like a person, carry its own laws with it. Goods would be like snails, carrying their homes with them in the form of the legislation of their country of origin, to be applicable to them from their production to their destruction.

I was looking for conflict-of-law echoes in the Opinion, thus I was happy to find them; but (surely my fault) I fail to see the link of this line of argument with the case at hand. Anyway, one does not need to agree with each single point of an Opinion to approve of it. And it is always fun to read Mr. Bobek.

As reported earlier in this blog, the Queen Mary University of London will host a series of workshops on Private International Law after Brexit.

The first workshop of the series, scheduled for 28 February 2020, is sold out. The second and third workshop will be held on 1 and 2 April 2020, and will focus on the future development of private international law in the UK in relation to commercial law and family law, respectively.

More on the events can be found here.

On 29 January 2020, the District Court of The Hague dismissed the claim of a Palestinian-Dutch Citizen against the Chief of General Staff and Air Force Chief of the Israeli Army. The popular press has reported that one of the two Israeli generals was Benny Gantz, a recent contender to Benyamin Netanyahou in Israel politics.

The plaintiff was claiming compensation for the consequences of an air strike occurred on 20 July 2014 in the context of the Israeli military operation in the Gaza Strip, Operation Protective Edge. He claimed that the air strike targeted family homes, including one where six of his family members died.

Unsurprisingly, the State of Israel asserted immunity from jurisdiction for the defendants with regards to acts performed in their official capacity. The existence of the functional immunity of foreign officials was not disputed. The only issue was whether an exception existed for international crimes. After noting that the concept of international crime was not well defined, the court explained that it would only assume their existence for the sake of the argument and for assessing whether this would limit the immunity of the defendants.

The Hague Court first noted that both the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) had ruled that States could not be deprived from immunity for serious violations of international human rights law. It further noted that none of the parties had been able to produce either an international or a national case ruling otherwise since then.

The court then rejected the argument of the plaintiff according to which an exception could exist for claims directed against individuals, as opposed to States. The reason was that such developments are limited to prosecutions before international tribunals and do not apply to proceedings before national courts. The court held:

In short, individual responsibility and dual attribution only apply to international courts, which take a fundamentally different position than national courts. Unlike international courts, national courts function in the horizontal relationship between States when prosecuting subjects of foreign States, to which the customary international-law principle of equality of States applies. Unlike for international courts, functional immunity from jurisdiction is the starting point for national courts.

Finally, the court explored whether there might be a limitation of functional immunity from jurisdiction in criminal proceedings before national courts under customary international law.

For that purpose, it assessed whether there was a general State practice and general acceptance that such practice was law. It found that this was not the case. Contrary to courts in other European states (and indeed the ECtHR) which relied on international conventions which are not in force and on explanatory reports which had not even made it into actual provisions of such conventions, the court noted the progressive work on the International Law Commission which introduced such limitations, but found that they were not adopted by consensus, and that it could thus not be said that this work had codified, or was representative of, customary international law.

The court then turned to Dutch opinion and cited a number of declarations of the Dutch government stating that it considered the limitation to exist. The court concluded, however:

The court will not delve deeper into the opinion of the Dutch court and the discussion on the Dutch criminal law practice as alleged by [claimant], as these do not reflect the current status of customary international law. As has been stated above, a limitation to functional immunity from jurisdiction is not accepted under customary international law in the prosecution of international crimes by national courts. The court must apply customary international law and is not bound by the opinion of the Dutch government. 

The court then moved to confront this outcome with the guarantees under Art 6 ECHR and the right of access to court. The Strasbourg court has ruled that the right of access to court is not absolute, and can be restricted for a legitimate purpose and with measures proportionate to that purpose.

The ECtHR has held repeatedly that sovereign immunities have a legitimate purpose. With respect to proportionality, the Strasbourg court has refused to check on states following customary international law and ruled that the proportionality test is met where the rule comports with customary international law.

It was then easy for the Dutch court to rule that, after finding that the alleged limitation to the functional immunity of jurisdiction is not accepted by customary international law, the result was necessarily compliant with the right of access to court.

The only assessment a court must carry out in examining the proportionality requirement is whether or not the functional immunity from jurisdiction for [defendant I] and [defendant II] is in agreement with customary international law. The court has established previously that this is the case. The proportionality requirement has therefore been met.

Finally, the plaintiff had argued that it was impossible for him to bring proceedings in Israel, as “Israeli law, as applied by the Israeli courts, raises all sorts of legal and practical obstacles to Palestians from the Gaza Strip”. He claimed, therefore, that he had no alternative forum to bring his claim, and that the existence of a forum necessitatis was mandated by European human rights law.

The Hague court dismissed the argument by distinguishing the judgment of the ECtHR in Naït-Liman and by ruling that the existence of an alternative forum was only relevant in the context of the immunity of international organisations, and not in the context of State immunity. The cases where the ECtHR insisted on the existence of an alternative forum were indeed all concerned with the immunity of international organisations (the UN, in particular, in Stichting).

An English version of the judgment can be found here.

Intersentia has recently published a monograph by Ayse Nihan Karadayi Yalim (University of Antwerp) on Interpretation and Gap Filling in International Commercial Contracts.

The blurb reads:

With the growth of cross-border business, the rather important but complex and controversial topic of interpretation and gap filling in international commercial contracts receives more and more attention. International legal instruments such as CISG, UNIDROIT Principles, PECL and DCFR provide rules in order to interpret international commercial contracts in a uniform way. However, while these instruments may bring together already existing national concepts, they must of course be understood beyond the domestic concepts and approaches as such. This book is an autonomous comparison across the above-mentioned international legal instruments, with a focus on the rules on interpretation and gap filling that provides the necessary theoretical background and case law to understand the rules in practice. Interpretation and Gap Filling in International Commercial Contracts examines the uniform and harmonised set of rules in their own right; without comparison to national laws, but in their own unique setting of international commercial contracts. It is a practical user guide for both scholars and practitioners.

For more information see here.

The author of this post is François Mailhé (University of Picardy – Jules Verne).

“Nul n’a de droit à l’enfant”, that is, no one has a right to a child. This is the first amendment the French Senate has recently added to the latest reform of the Bioethics Act 1994 under discussion in Parliament this month, and which is intended to introduce Title VII of the First book of the civil code “on filiation”.

The Senate is the higher chamber of Parliament, with members elected by elected officials from local governments. It participates in the discussion of all legislative projects with the National Assembly (lower chamber), but the latter would ultimately prevail in case of conflict.

I reported earlier on the three judgments of the French supreme court for civil and criminal matters (Cour de cassation) which, on 18 December 2019, extended the recognition on foreign surrogacies in France. These judgments were expressly based on an advisory opinion concerning the recognition of legal parent-child relationships between a child born through a gestational surrogacy arrangement abroad and the intended mother, given by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in April 2019.

Surprisingly, the Cour de cassation had gone much further than the ECtHR, though, allowing direct recognition of the filiation for all parents appearing on the birth certificate, while the ECtHR had only required for the recognition of the biological father one.

What happened next is even more surprising if not unique in French legislative history.

On 7 January 2020, the Senate chose to oppose the Cour de cassation case-law, on a private international law issue, to better align French law on the ECHR solution. Amendment No 333 to the Bioethics Act reform would, if passed, create a new article 47-1 of the Code civil, drafted as follows:

Any civil status record or judgment for a French citizen or a foreigner made in a foreign country and establishing the filiation of a child born as a result of a surrogacy agreement shall not be transcribed in the registers in so far as it refers as mother to a woman other than the one who gave birth or when it mentions two fathers.

The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not prevent the partial transcription of this act or judgment or the establishment of a second parent-child relationship under the conditions of Title VIII of this Book [on adoption], where such conditions are met.

The Amendment would in fact bring the French system back to what it was after the rulings rendered by the Cour de cassation in July 2017, and in line with the ECtHR opinion of April 2019. In practice, the biological father would be the only “intended parent” to be recognised as such through direct transcription. His husband or wife would only have a right to adopt the child at a later stage (as long as the procedure of adoption is not unreasonably long, which should not be the case under French law for the adoption of the husband’s child).

As the government backed a similar amendment, though milder than the one eventually adopted, it seems probable the National Assembly will not much alter it.

The change brought about by the rulings of the Cour de cassation of 4 October and 18 December 2019 may therefore be short-lived.

Foreign surrogacy agreements may not be so much welcome in France after all.

In 2009, AGL, a dual Italian-Israeli citizen, and SRL, an Israeli citizen, married in Milan. The spouses, who were both Jews, married religiously.

Jewish religious marriages celebrated in Italy may be given effect in the Italian legal order provided that certain requirements, set forth in an understanding concluded between the Italian government and the Union of the Italian Jewish Communities, are met. The requirements in question basically refer to the marriage process. In particular, a notice of marriage must be filed with the local civil status office prior to celebration, in accordance with the Italian civil code.

In the circumstances, the prior notice and other requirements had not been complied with. As a result, the marriage of AGL and SRL was, from the standpoint of the Italian legal system, a purely religious one.

A few months later, the spouses – who always resided in Israel – seised the Rabbinical Court of Tel Aviv seeking a declaration that their marriage was valid.

Rabbinical Courts are part of the Israeli judiciary. They deal, inter alia, with matters concerning marriage and divorce, parental responsibility and succession. Their rulings have force in the legal system of Israel.

The Tel Aviv Rabbinical Court declared the marriage between AGL and SRL to be valid.

Next, the couple sought to have the Rabbinical Court judgment recognised in Italy. Based on the provisions of the Italian Statute on Private International Law concerning the (automatic) recognition of foreign judgments, they asked the civil status officer of Milan to record the judgment in the civil status registries, so that the marriage could be regarded as producing civil  effects in Italy, as well.

The officer denied the request. He argued that the rules on the recognition of judgments had no role to play in the circumstances. At issue, in his view, was whether the marriage celebrated in Milan in 2009 ought to be given effect in Italy, not whether the Rabbinical Court’s judgment ought to be recognised. The latter, he contended, merely acknowledged that the marriage had taken place and that it had been performed in accordance with the relevant Jewish rules — two circumstances that were already known to Italian authorities and were, as such, uncontroversial.

In any case, the officer contended, the judgment given by the Tel Aviv Rabbinical Court ought to be denied effect in Italy on grounds of public policy. By seeking a judicial statement of the existence of their marriage, the spouses aimed in fact to evade the Italian provisions that determine the conditions subject to which a Jewish religious marriage may be given effect in the Italian legal system.

By a decision of 29 January 2020, the Court of Appeal of Milan, seised of the matter, ruled in favour of the couple.

The Court conceded that the marriage between AGL and SRL was initially, as a matter of Italian law, devoid of civil effects. However, as a result of the Tel Aviv judgment, the marriage had acquired civil effects in the legal system of Israel. Based on this finding, the Court of Appeal found that, contrary to the civil status officer’s opinion, what was at issue was indeed the recognition of the Rabbinical Court’s judgments, and of the civil effects it added to the marriage.

The Court went on to assess whether the conditions contemplated in the Italian Statute on Private International Law for the recognition of foreign judgments were met in the circumstances. It found that the Tel Aviv judgment complied all such conditions. In particular: the judgment originated from the country of residence and nationality of the spouses at the time when the Rabbinical Court was seised; it represented the outcome of fair proceedings; it did not contradict any previous Italian judgment.

Furthermore, the Court observed, the judgment could not be characterised as inconsistent with the ordre public of Italy. The public policy defence, it recalled, operates as an exception and can only be invoked where the recognition of a foreign judgment or the application of a foreign law would be at odds with the fundamental principles of the Italian legal order.

In the Court’s view, this did not occur in the circumstances. The non observance of the Italian rules on the marriage process does not amount, as such, to a violation of the public policy of Italy, as long as it is established that the spouses’ consent was expressed freely by each of them.

The Court noted that the fundamental principles of Italy would rather be challenged if the judgment were denied recognition. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights in Wagner v Luxembourg and other rulings, indicates that family status validly created abroad, insofar as they correspond to an established social reality, cannot be denied recognition unless very strong reasons require otherwise.

— Thanks to Marzia Ghigliazza, family lawyer and mediator in Milan, for drawing my attention to the ruling of the Court of Appeal.