Agrégateur de flux

Private international lawyers and the ECJ are bound by a love-hate relationship: one single judgment delivered by the latter may sometimes give rise to a fully-fledged conference where, at the end of a lively discussions, the former express harsh criticisms, tepid approval or high praise towards the solution shaped by the Luxembourg Court. But while PIL scholars usually tend to dissect every substantive aspect of the Court’s ruling, little attention is usually paid to the ‘procedural’ context in which such decision has been reached. I admit that, before coming to Luxembourg, I myself took little notice of details such as the existence (or lack of) an AG’s Opinion, the reporting judge assigned to the case or the judicial formation having rendered the decision. However, these arguably are important indicators of the way in which a question concerning EUPIL is treated – both procedurally and substantively – by the Luxembourg Court.

Against this backdrop, it could be interesting, if not useful, to take a broader look at the relationship between the ECJ and EUPIL, going beyond the individual judgment and aimed at assessing preliminary rulings on this subject as a systemic phenomenon. The purpose of this analysis is twofold.

Firstly, it serves to disprove the belief – still held dear by some scholars – that PIL issues are ‘merely technical’ in nature. In fact, these are seldom treated as such in Luxembourg, as evidenced by the overwhelming majority of cases assigned to Chambers of five rather than to a Chamber of three. Moreover, since an Opinion of the AG is delivered in more than half of PIL cases, these often raise ‘new questions of law’, in the sense of Article 20 of the ECJ’s Statute. This finding holds true also with respect to instruments – such as the Brussels Regulations – that are of long-standing application in national courts and frequently interpreted in Luxembourg, thus confirming that, in PIL cases, facts and legal rules tend to combine in ever-changing constellations of interactions.

Secondly, the discussion may be useful in view of eventual future reforms of the ECJ’s internal structure and/or working methods. This Institution is presently coming under growing pressure owing to the ever-increasing number of cases introduced before it on a yearly basis. In 2021, this rise was deemed ‘significant’ and affected mostly the Court of Justice (see the Report ‘Year in Review’, p. 28). The reasons behind this surge of cases are, on the one hand, an increase in the appeals brought against rulings of the General Court (ibid, p. 28) and, on the other hand, the ever-growing number of preliminary references filed by national courts (in 2021, they accounted for the largest share (68%) of new cases brought before the Court: Management Report 2021, p. 6). According to President Lenaerts, the Court is currently engaged in ‘a reflection on how to achieve a rebalancing of the workload between the Court of Justice, composed of one judge per Member State, and the General Court, which, since September, has two judges per Member State’ (Report ‘Year in Review’, p. 5). Since the Court has already tackled – at least partially – the ‘appeals problem’ by introducing a filtering mechanism, this further ‘rebalancing’ might include, in theory, the transfer to the latter of some of the functions currently performed by the former, such has the delivery of preliminary rulings, following a sectoral approach limited to certain subject-matters. The question (purely hypothetical at present) as to whether – and to what extent – the field of civil cooperation in civil matters should be touched by this eventual ‘rebalancing’ should be addressed based on said systemic analysis of the relationship between the ECJ and EUPIL. Its aim is to identify trends – if any – in the adjudication of these cases and to decipher their meaning.

Methodology

The two objectives stated above can be best served with the assistance of empirical legal research. To my knowledge, there is no existing data (institutional or otherwise) that specifically concerns PIL cases brought before the ECJ. The Charts appearing in the following sections are therefore drawn from a repository of cases I compiled myself based on the information which is publicly available on EUR-LEX and Curia, or was made public at the hearing. This repository puts together the requests for preliminary rulings filed and/or decided with respect to EUPIL instruments from January 2015 to August 2022.

For the purposes of this research, ‘EUPIL’ is understood as encompassing the Brussels-Lugano Regime (Regulations 44/2001 and 1215/2012 as well as the Lugano II Convention), the Brussels II Regime (limited to Regulation 2201/2003, since there are presently no cases on Brussels II-ter), the Rome Regulations (593/2008, 864/2007 and 1259/2010); the Succession Regulation and the ‘smaller’ Regulations (EAPO, EPO, EEO, ESC, Service and Evidence I Regulations). The Regulations on matrimonial and registered partnership property issues have been taken into account, but there is currently no request for interpretation concerning them.

The selected time-frame (2015-2022) has been identified based on the (debatable) assumption that the last 7 years could provide for ‘meaningful’ empirical evidence concerning the application of all the above mentioned instruments, including the eldest, the Brussels I Regulation (which still applies to legal proceedings instituted, to authentic instruments formally drawn up or registered and to court settlements approved or concluded until 9 January 2015).

The numerical labels appearing in the Charts refer not to the number of cases filed with the ECJ, but to the number of preliminary references raised with respect to each instrument (e.g. if one case raised questions concerning two different EUPIL instruments, it was counted twice).

General Overview

Overall, there are 245 preliminary references concerning EUPIL instruments in the selected timeframe. Unsurprisingly, the Brussels-Lugano regime accounts, alone, for more than 50% of the total references submitted to the ECJ, followed by Reg. 2201/2003 as a far second (12 %). The Rome Regulations, taken together, make up for another 12 % of the total cases.

A closer look at the geographical origin of the preliminary references confirms that EUPIL preliminary references are not equally distributed across the Member States.

National courts in Germany and Austria have indisputably acquired a leading role as triggers of EUPIL case law and of its evolution over the past 7 years. Rather surprising is the data concerning Luxembourg, where the ‘cross-border dimension’ of cases is almost a daily occurrence. This suggests that there is no necessary correlation between the application rate of EUPIL instruments and the number of preliminary references submitted to the ECJ.

Opinions of the AG and Judicial Formations.

Data from the last seven years shows that a generous majority of EUPIL cases commands an Opinion of the AG. The percentages shown in Chart 5, below, are based on aggregated data concerning all EUPIL instruments, as defined above sub A.

In actual truth, there are perceivable sectoral variations, across the several instruments, with this percentage hovering between a maximum rate of 80 % in the Succession Regulation to a minimum of 33% under the EEO Regulation (except, of course, for the 0% rate that characterizes the Evidence and the ESC Regulations). The Charts below give a good idea of such sectoral variations.

Another good indicator of the relative ‘weight’ of EUPIL cases (and of the importance of the legal questions raised therein) is the number of preliminary references that, owing to their difficulty, their importance for Union Law or the particular circumstances surrounding them, are assigned to the Grand Chamber (cf Article 60 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court).

In this respect, it is apparent from the Charts below that the field of EUPIL is characterized by a relatively low number of Grand Chamber cases (6 cases in total over the last 7 years, ie 3 %). As a reminder, these Grand Chamber cases are:

• Concerning Reg. 1215/2012, C-194/16, Bolagsupplysningen, C-59/19, Wikingerhof (the object of an online symposium on this blog, with comments by Matthias Lehmann, Adrian Briggs, Gilles Cuniberti and Peter Mankowski); C-251/20 Gtflix Tv (commented on this blog by Marco Buzzoni);
• Concerning Reg. 44/2001, C-700/20, London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association (the object of another symposium on this blog, with comments by Adrian Briggs, Gilles Cuniberti, Antonio Leandro and François Mailhé).
• Concerning Reg. 593/2008, C-135/15, Nikiforidis
• Concerning Reg. 2201/2003, C-646/20, Senatsverwaltung für Inneres und Sport, pending.

The vast majority of cases remains assigned to Chambers of five, which is the ordinary formation of the Court. Chambers of three, which are reserved to cases that are either highly technical in nature or of straightforward solution, are less frequent in EUPIL, accounting for around one quarter of the total cases. These are relatively more common under the Brussels I and Ibis Regulation, possibly because of the existence of a long-standing and well-developed body of case law that may better contribute to the straightforward solution of the case.

Interestingly, there is a certain number of cases assigned to a Chamber of three but decided with the support of an AG Opinion. This may, at first (and only at first), seem like a contradiction in terms. As mentioned above, the Opinion of the AG should, in principle, be delivered solely in cases that raise ‘new questions of law’. In practice, however, it is apparent that Opinions have been asked under other circumstances, presumably to help the drafting of the future judgment, or because different approaches to the solution of a case could easily be envisioned. Hence, it is not inconceivable that a case may be, at once, highly technical in nature – thus justifying the deferral to a Chamber of three – and open to different alternative solutions, calling therefore for the advisory assistance of the AG (as it was the case in C-214/17, where AG Szpunar explicitly evokes the doubts expressed by the referring court concerning two alternative approaches to the solution of the question raised, §21-23). Similarly, a case can present a question which is at the same time highly technical in nature, but ‘novel’ in the sense of Article 20 of the Statute, as it might have been the case in C-555/18, concerning the weight to be attached to the requirement of enforceability for the purposes of the uniform definition of ‘authentic instrument’ under the EAPO Regulation (there was, in that case, a target Opinion by AG Szpunar).

The Form of the Decision

Another and more significant pointer to the ‘novelty’ of the legal questions raised by EUPIL cases is the form taken by the decision finally delivered by the ECJ.

It should be reminded that the ECJ usually rules through judgments (arrêts, in French), but it can exceptionally adopt a ‘reasoned order’ where (a) a question referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling is identical to a question on which the Court has already ruled ; or (b) where the reply to such a question may be clearly deduced from existing case-law ; or (c) where the answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling admits of no reasonable doubt (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure). Moreover, where it is clear that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine a case or where a request or an application is manifestly inadmissible, the Court can decide to give a decision by reasoned order without taking further steps in the proceedings (Article 53 (2) Rules of Procedure).

Against this backdrop, the more surprising result is not so much the high number of judgments delivered in EUPIL matters, but rather the extremely low number of Article 99 Orders, even more so with respect to the Brussels I Regulation, which has by now undergone almost two decades of application and interpretations by the Luxembourg Court, and could itself profit from the interpretive rulings previously rendered under the 1968 Brussels Convention according to the 1971 Protocol.

Considering the high recurrence rate of questions concerning the interpretation of certain specific provisions of the Brussels Regulations, such as those dealing with the heads of jurisdiction in contractual matters and torts, consumer contracts and exclusive or prorogated jurisdiction, the low number of Article 99 Orders means, in practice, that the application of such provisions to concrete facts continues to give rise to new scenarios, with respect to which existing case law provides for an answer that is either partial, incomplete or open to further interpretation.

Informal Specialization

The final aspect considered by this empirical research relates to the (only apparent) lack of internal specialization within the ECJ, in the sense that this Institution is not formally divided into Chambers dedicated to specific subject-matters. Each of the Chambers of the Court, whatever the judicial formation, can in fact hear cases relating to any matter that falls within the jurisdiction thereof. Considering the wide scope of EU law and in the light of the current challenges brought by the inflating number of new cases, this lack of specialization of the Court’s Chambers could be seen as a hindrance to the Institution’s efficiency. Again, this conclusion must be nuanced, if not completely set aside, based on the analysis of the Court’s case law. Despite the lack of institutional specialized Chambers, the Court has developed an internal system for the allocation of cases among reporting judges and AGs which favours, at once, informal specialization and flexibility. Concerning the latter, the internal allocation of cases must be flexible enough to accommodate the contingent organizational needs of an Institution of such size, such as, for example, the need of ensuring an equal distribution of cases and expedited treatment of PPU cases or of avoiding national or other kinds of bias. Concerning specialization, existing case law clearly shows that certain judges and AGs that have been consistently entrusted, over the time, with EUPIL cases.

(***Note of the Author: data about Reporting Judges are incomplete, as this information is not disclosed with respect to cases that have been withdrawn and removed from the register. The Order of the President only mentions the designated AG***)

Obviously, this is not to say that the final decision on the case will reflect exclusively or even predominantly the individual views of these judges. Rather, this decision will always be the result of the collective will emerged from the discussion within the Chamber (of five or of three judges). This informal specialization of the Reporting Judge and of the AGs ensures nonetheless the efficient working of the Institution at the initial stage of the proceedings, concerned with the preliminary analysis of the case geared towards the identification of the appropriate judicial formation and of other procedural needs (eg. the need for further written clarifications or for an oral hearing). It could also favour, over time, a certain consistency in the (procedural and substantive) approach adopted with respect to recurrent issues, thus enhancing the overall coherence of the Court’s case law in EUPIL.

M. Savvas Papasavvas est réélu vice-président du Tribunal de l’Union européenne

M. Marc van der Woude est réélu président du Tribunal de l’Union européenne

Building on the very successful conferences held in Aberdeen (2005), Birmingham (2007), New York (2009), Milan (2011), Madrid (2013), Cambridge (2015), Rio (2017) and Munich (2019), we are pleased to announce that the Journal of Private International Law will be holding its 9th Conference at the Singapore Management University from 3 to 5 August 2023.

We now invite abstracts for the conference. Please submit an abstract if you would like to make a presentation at the conference and you are willing to produce a final paper that you will submit for publication in the Journal. Abstracts should be up to 500 words in length and should clearly state the name(s) and affiliation(s) of the author(s).

They can be on any subject matter that falls within the scope of the Journal and can be offered by people at any stage of their career, including postgraduate students. Presentation at the conference will depend on whether your abstract is selected by the Editors of the Journal (Professor Jonathan Harris KC of King’s College, London and Professor Paul Beaumont FRSE of the University of Stirling) and the conference organiser (Associate Professor Adeline Chong, Singapore Management University). The subsequent article should be submitted to either of the editors of the Journal before the end of 2023. Publication in the Journal will be subject to the usual system of refereeing by two experts in the field.

There will be a mixture of plenary (Friday) and parallel panel sessions (Thursday afternoon and Saturday morning). Please indicate on the abstract whether you are willing to present in either or are only willing to do so in one or the other. A willingness to be flexible maximises our ability to select your paper.

The Conference will be held in the Yong Pung How School of Law, Singapore Management University. Please see here for up-to-date information on travel requirements to enter Singapore.

Speakers will not be expected to pay a conference fee but will be expected to pay their expenses in relation to their attendance at the conference in Singapore. Details about options for accommodation and the conference dinner on the Friday evening will be made available on the conference webpage . Please send your abstract to the following email address by Friday 16 December 2022: jpil2023@smu.edu.sg.

Today (16 September 2022) the Russian Federation has ceased to be a High Contracting Party to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This means, inter alia, that applications against the Russian Federation will no longer be entertained by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

However, the Resolution of the ECtHR of 22 March 2022 clarified that “The Court remains competent to deal with applications directed against the Russian Federation in relation to acts or omissions capable of constituting a violation of the Convention provided that they occurred until 16 September 2022.” To view the full resolution, click here. The news item is available here.

The Russian Federation had ceased to be a member of the Council of Europe on 16 March 2022. See here.

We have previously reported on the increasing interaction between the ECHR and Private International Law. This is particularly so in surrogacy and international child abduction cases. See for example a judgment regarding international child abduction rendered by the ECtHR earlier this year, where no violation of article 8 of the ECHR was found against Russia: Case of P.D. v. Russia (Application no. 30560/19). But see Thompson v. Russia (Application no. 36048/17) where a violation of article 8 of the ECHR was indeed found.

For more information about this interaction, click here.

Undoubtedly, today is a sad day for human rights law.

Olaf Meyer (Frankfurt University of Applied Sciences) edited a book titled Public Policy and Private International Law – A Comparative Guide with Edward Elgar Publishing, part of the Elgar Comparative Guides.

Bearing in mind that the public policy exception in private international law is designed to provide a national backstop in the application of foreign laws, this book provides detailed and practical comparative coverage of the use of public policy in the context of private international law across a number of important jurisdictions spanning three continents. As well as explaining the basic theoretical framework of the public policy exception in private international law, this book drills down into the practical application of such rules, giving an overview of these jurisdictions’ legal and policy stances on current issues including: punitive damages, surrogacy, same-sex marriage, gender-based discrimination, Islamic law, and adoption to name a few. This approach serves to highlight both the differences and the similarities in approach.

Contributors include John F. Coyle, Luís de Lima Pinheiro, Anita Duraković, Pietro Franzina, Andreas Furrer, Florian Heindler, Madina Kassenova, Svenja Langenhagen, Qiao Liu, Peter Mankowski, Ulf Maunsbach, Louise Merrett, Zlatan Meškić, Olaf Meyer, Alberto Muñoz Fernández, Cécile Pellegrini, Réka Somssich, Dirk Trüten, Bea Verschraegen, Wolfgang Wurmnest, Candan Yasan-Tepetaş, Fang Yu, Maciej Zachariasiewicz and Nicolás Zambrana-Tévar.

For further information, see here.

La Cour de cassation fait application de la solution dégagée par un arrêt de la Cour de justice du 21 décembre 2021 en matière de compétence en cas d’atteinte portée à des droits par la diffusion de propos dénigrants sur Internet.

en lire plus

Renouvellement partiel et entrée en fonctions de trois nouveaux membres du Tribunal

Under the auspices of the EU Justice project E-training on EU Family Property Regimes, shortly known as EU-FamPro, the project partners organise a conference COUPLES’ PROPERTY WITH CROSS-BORDER IMPLICATIONS: Uniting Academic Discussions and Practical Concerns, followed by the seminar on Practical Challenges in the Application of the Twin Regulations. The conference and the seminar are due to take place on 19 September 2022 at the University of Almeria, Spain.

The programme of the event is now available here.

The event will be held in hybrid format. You may join the event via Zoom by clicking on this link.

Some of our readers will be interested to know that University of Rijeka, Faculty of Law announced this year’s call for applications to the Rijeka Doctoral Conference: RIDOC 2022. Receiving applications on any legal or related topic of doctoral research, the conference traditionally hosts at least one session in private international law. Applications should be sent to ridoc@pravri.hr by 5 October. The conference is scheduled for 9 December 2022 in the hybrid format, but hopefully many of the participants will be able to attend onsite.

Fenix International
Fiscalité TVA
Selon l’avocat général Rantos, la disposition du règlement d’exécution de la directive TVA prévoyant qu’une plate-forme intermédiaire en ligne est, en principe, redevable de la TVA est valide

FTI Touristik (Voyage à forfait aux Îles Canaries) et C 407/21 UFC - Que choisir et CLCV
Rapprochement des législations
Tourisme en temps de pandémie : selon l’avocate générale Medina, si les opérateurs touristiques ne sont pas en mesure d’honorer les termes d’un contrat de voyage à forfait, la pandémie ne les exonère pas de l’obligation de réduire le prix et, en cas d’annulation, de procéder à un remboursement en argent, à moins de prouver l’existence de difficultés exceptionnelles

HA.EN.
Fiscalité TVA
Une pratique administrative fiscale nationale privant les assujettis ayant acquis un bien immeuble dans le cadre d’une procédure de vente forcée de leur droit à déduction de TVA est, en l’absence d’une fraude ou abus de droit, contraire au droit de l’Union

Fossil (Gibraltar)
Aide d'État
Imposition des sociétés à Gibraltar : les autorités nationales en charge de la récupération d’une aide qualifiée d’illégale peuvent appliquer une disposition nationale en vue de prévenir la double imposition

Georgina Garriga Suau and Christopher Whytock have recently published a paper on SSRN, entitled “Choice of Law for Immovable Property Issues: New directions in the European Union and the United States”.

Building on a comparative assessment of recent developments in US and EU private international law (PIL), the paper address the changing fate of lex rei sitae conflict-of-law rule, which went from being the cornerstone of the PIL regime for issues about immovable property to see its scope of application substantially reduced over the last years.

In the US, the current drafts of the Third Restatement limits the scope of application of the lex rei situs to “core immovable property issues”, to the exclusions of other ancillary matters that were subsumed under this rule according to the First and Second Restatement, such as succession and matrimonial property issues involving immovables, and even issues concerning contracts for the transfer of immovable property interests. Behind the retrocession of this rule lies a different and more holistic approach to the appraisal of the policies underpinning the laws governing matrimonial property regimes, successions and contracts: these are usually not policies about immovables as such, meaning a State other than that where the immovables are located will likely have a stronger interest in having its law applied to these issues, considered as an inseparable whole.

The authors give evidence of a similar trend in EU PIL. Although the lex rei sitae conflict-of-law rule is maintained, in principle, by the Rome I Regulation with respect to contracts relating to a right in rem in immovable property, later on it did not find its way in either the Succession Regulation or the Matrimonial Property Regulation, both axed on the connecting factor of habitual residence.

Similarly, the Registered Partnership Regulation does not adopt the lex rei sitae conflict-of-law rule, even when the issues covered by it arise in relation to immovable property. All these Regulations favour the unity of the applicable law, extending their conflict-of-law rules to the issues that are within their scope regardless of the property’s location and regardless of whether it is characterized a movable or immovable property.

They do, nonetheless, indirectly allow for the “survival” of the lex rei sitae conflict-of-law rule, insofar as they exclude from their scope (and delegate to national PIL) certain core immovable property issues, namely, the nature of rights in rem  and the recording o immovable property rights in a register, including the legal requirements for recording and the effects of recording or failing to record. Such exclusions (which are narrowly interpreted by the ECJ) pose the problem of defining such “core immovable property issues”.

According to the authors, these include, that these issues include, at a minimum, issues about permissible interests in immovable property and about the requirements for and effects vis-à-vis third parties of recording immovable property transfers in immovable property registries. On this point, there is certainly room for enhancing coherence among the several EU Regulations and improving legal certainty as concerns the EU’s understanding of “rights in rem in immovable property”. This challenge is currently being tackled by several academic initiatives, that are briefly discussed by Garriga Suau and Whytock.

The authors conclude that the comparative analysis of EU and US PIL reveals that similar reasons lie behind the “shrinking” scope of application of the lex rei sitae conflict-of-law rule, relating mostly to the objective of avoiding fragmentation a corpus of property in the case of matrimonial property/succession issues, and in those contexts as well as in the context of contractual matters, avoiding the need to characterize issues as involving either immovable property or movable property. Another underlying reason is, in both legal systems, a shift in the interest analysis that underpins the conception of conflict-of-law rules in those matters, which now tends to attach less weight to the sheer location of property, to the benefit of other interests that can usually be better ensured through the application of a law other than the lex rei sitae.

From the intersection of conflict of laws, archaeology, and indigenous studies, this multidisciplinary webinar will explore legal and practical challenges and solutions in repatriating cultural heritage in Australia, China, the EU, and the USA.

Examples include an Australian repatriation project with the Anindilyakwa Land Council and Traditional Owners on Groote Eylandt, the world-wide Return of Cultural Heritage (RoCH) program established by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, legal battles in repatriating the Chinese statue of Zh?ng G?ng Z? Sh? (a budda statue with a mummy inside), sovereign immunity issues in recovery of World War II-era stolen art and other heritage, and participation of local communities in protecting and repatriating cultural heritage.

Speakers (listed in the surname alphabetic order):

• Dr. Evelien Campfens, member of the International Law Association Cultural Heritage Law Committee based at Leiden University, the Netherlands, and former director to the Dutch Restitutions Committee for Nazi looted art
• Professor Anne (Annie) Clarke, Chair of Archaeology Discipline and Member of Museum and Heritage Studies Program, the University of Sydney, Australia
• Professor Zheng Xin Huo, China University of Political Science and Law, China
• Professor Charles T. Kotuby Jr., University of Pittsburgh School of Law and Honorary Professor of Law, Durham Law School, the USA and UK
• Mr. Craig Ritchie, an Aboriginal man of the Dhunghutti and Biripi nations and the Chief Executive Officer at the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS), Australia

Moderator:

• Associate Professor Jie (Jeanne) Huang, the University of Sydney Law School and Co-Director of Center for Asian and Pacific Law

Webinar via Zoom: Wednesday 21 September 6.00-7.15 pm (AEST)

Once registered, you will be provided with Zoom details closer to the date of the webinar.

 

If interested, please register here.

 

This webinar is jointly presented by the American Society of International Law Private International Law Interest Group, Centre for Asian and Pacific Law and the Center for International Law at the University of Sydney Law School.

The Australian Institute of International Affairs (AIIA) and the Australian Branch of the ILA are pleased to present the 2022 Peter Nygh Hague Conference Internship. The award will support a postgraduate student or graduate of an Australian law school to undertake an internship with The Hague Conference on Private International Law in the Netherlands by providing funds to cover the cost of travel to the Netherlands and a contribution towards living expenses.

 

Applications for the 2023 Nygh Internship are now open, and will close on 30 September 2022. More information about the award and how to apply is available here, and below.

 

The Internship

The award will provide a postgraduate student or graduate with the opportunity to work with some of the leading private international law practitioners in the world. With over 80 members (including the European Union) representing all major regions and legal systems, The Hague Conference is a global intergovernmental organisation that aims for the ‘progressive unification’ of the various State private international law rules.

Activities of The Hague Conference are coordinated by a multinational Secretariat – the Permanent Bureau – located in The Hague. The successful intern will work for 5 to 6 months under the direction of the Secretariat, assisting with research, translation and preparation of meetings in accordance with the needs of the lawyers of the Permanent Bureau.

 

How to apply

Please send a letter of application addressed to the Peter Nygh Hague Conference Internship Board (nygh.internship@internationalaffairs.org.au) or to c/- Ms Nicola Nygh, Resolve Litigation Lawyers, level 18, 126 Phillip Street, Sydney NSW 2000.

The letter should include:

• the applicant’s reasons for applying for the Peter Nygh Hague Conference Internship;
• the benefits which the applicant expects are to be derived from the internship and the contribution which the applicant expects to make to the work of The Hague Conference;
• the applicant’s career ambitions and how the internship will relate to those ambitions;
• a description of the applicant’s current research, if applicable; and
• the dates when the applicant would be available to undertake the internship (Note: The applicant must be available to undertake the internship for 5 to 6 months. The preferred start date is the beginning of January 2023 and the preferred end date is the end of June 2023. The start date, and indeed whether the internship can be undertaken in 2023, may vary depending on what travel restrictions are in place at the time).

The award is for a lump sum amount, and the successful candidate will need to accept the risks and increased costs of travelling during the COVID-19 pandemic, including limited and more expensive flights (in particular into and out of Australia), government restrictions on travel, and quarantine regimes for travellers.

 

Please also enclose the following:

• the applicant’s up-to-date résumé;
• the applicant’s most recent academic transcript;
• two letters of reference for the applicant (including at least one academic reference), with contact details of referees;
• a copy of research work by the applicant in a field relevant to the work of The Hague Conference; and
• any other proof of the applicant’s legal and linguistic abilities and knowledge. Knowledge of French would be an asset but is not required. Knowledge of any other languages may also be an advantage.

The Hon Dr Peter Nygh AM

The Peter Nygh Hague Conference Internship has been established in memory of the late Hon Dr Peter Nygh AM, a leading international lawyer, former judge of the Family Court of Australia and former President of the ILA (Australian Branch). Dr Nygh began his 25 year association with The Hague Conference as a member of Australia’s delegation in 1975. During this time, Dr Nygh helped to draft the Convention on the Celebration and Recognition of the Validity of Marriages as well as the Convention on the Law Applicable to Matrimonial Property Regimes, work which contributed to his appointment to the Family Court of Australia. After his retirement from the bench, Dr Nygh returned to The Hague Conference and between 1994 and his death in 2002 he contributed in many ways, including serving as co-rapporteur on The Hague ‘judgments project’ from 1996 and representing Australia in the negotiations that led to the Convention on the Protection of Children. In his later years Dr Nygh spent extended periods in The Hague without remuneration or payment of his expenses, yet his work did not go unrecognised. He was awarded the Centenary Medal by the Australian Government as well as the Order of Australia, partly in recognition of his outstanding and longstanding contribution to private international law, and in particular his representation of Australia at The Hague Conference.

The Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) is offering several three- to six-month legal internships at its office in the Hague from January to June 2023.

The selected interns are expected to conduct research together with the HCCH legal team the following areas of activity of the organisation:

Family and Child Protection Law (at least three interns):

• 2000 Protection of Adults Convention and 2007 Child Support Convention and Protocol
• 1993 Adoption Convention and Parentage / Surrogacy Project
• 1980 Child Abduction Convention (incl. Malta Process and related Working Party on Mediation) and 1996 Child Protection Convention

Transnational Litigation, Legal Cooperation, and Commercial and Financial Law (at least three interns):

• 1961 Apostille Convention (incl. e-APP)
• 1985 Trusts Convention, 2006 Securities Convention and Digital Economy (incl. DLT) Project
• 2005 Choice of Court Convention, 2019 Judgments Convention, Jurisdiction Project, and 2015 Choice of Law Principles
• 1965 Service Convention, 1970 Evidence Convention, and 1980 Access to Justice Convention

Application Requirements

The HCCH Internship Programme is open to those currently studying law at the Bachelor, Masters, J.D, and PhD. level and to those who have already been awarded a law degree or Masters.

The intern should speak at least one of the two official languages of the HCCH, English and French. Knowledge of the other official language is an asset. Knowledge of any other languages may also be an advantage.

Prospective applicants should complete an online application form (available here) and submit the following supporting documentation:

1. a letter of motivation (two pages maximum)
2. a curriculum vitae (CV)
3. a transcript of academic records or statement of academic results
4. an academic writing sample (an excerpt of any of your essays or papers in either English or French)
5. at least one letter of recommendation

The applications can be submitted until 18.00 hours (CEST), Friday 23 September 2022.

Additional information

More information about the internship and the application and selection process can be found here.

QBE Europe SA/NV v Generali Espana De Seguros Y Reaseguros [2022] EWHC 2062 (Comm) is not a surprising judgment of course. I flagged it on Twitter early August and I post it here for the sake of blog completeness.

The judgment grants an urgent anti-suit injunction (ASI) to restrain proceedings brought by the Defendant (Generali) against QBE UK in Spain, and to prevent Generali from commencing similar proceedings against QBE Europe. The proceedings in Spain assert a direct claim against QBE UK under a Spanish statute, by reference to a liability insurance policy. The judgment is exactly the kind of ASI outlawed by CJEU West Tankers and will reinforce the position of London in the arbitration market.

Geert.

Move over CJEU West Tankers….
Anti-suit injunction viz Spanish proceedings granted to protect #arbitration in London. Discusses ia nature of claim in SP proceedings

QBE Europe SA/NV v Generali Espana De Seguros Y Reaseguros [2022] EWHC 2062 (Comm) https://t.co/LwzrDzzNXv

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) August 1, 2022

Google et Alphabet / Commission (Google Android)
Concurrence
Le Tribunal confirme dans une large mesure la décision de la Commission selon laquelle Google a imposé des restrictions illégales aux fabricants d’appareils mobiles Android et aux opérateurs de réseaux mobiles, afin de consolider la position dominante de son moteur de recherche