Agrégateur de flux

Yanukovych / Conseil
Relations extérieures
Le Tribunal annule les actes du Conseil de 2019 sur la prorogation du gel de fonds infligé à M. Viktor Yanukovych, ancien président de l’Ukraine, et à son fils, M. Oleksandr Yanukovych

Mary Keyes (Griffith University) has posted Women in Private International Law on SSRN.

The abstract reads:

There has been almost no consideration of the position of women in private international law. There is very little published research applying a feminist analysis to, or even considering the position of women in, private international law. This field gives almost no attention to the particular interests, positions and experiences of women as subjects of the law, or the contribution of women as makers of the law. In the common law, private international law was largely developed in the 19th century, by male judges who were strongly influenced by commentary written exclusively by men. This chapter establishes that the apparently gender-neutral nature of private international law conceals profoundly ingrained assumptions about gender, in which the masculine is represented as a rational and sophisticated businessman, and the feminine is represented as a legally incapable wife. It then considers the gendered dimension of private international law in international family law, referring in particular to the regulation of international child abduction, international family property agreements, and international commercial surrogacy. Each of these examples demonstrates the differential impact of the law on women, indicating the need for greater awareness of and attention to gender. It concludes that while there have been some advances recently, particularly in terms of increased representation of women in making and commenting on private international law, there remains a great need for further research into the position of women as legal subjects and law-makers in this field.

 

Election or political party disputes often feature before Nigerian courts. In Nigeria jurisdiction in matters of conflict of laws (called “territorial jurisdiction” by many Nigerian judges) also applies to matters of disputes between members of a political party in the inter-state context.[1]

In Oshiomhole v Salihu (No. 1)[2] (reported on June 7, 2021), one of the issues for determination was whether the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja possessed territorial jurisdiction to handle a dispute between members of Nigeria’s ruling political party. The 1st defendant/appellant was at the time the National Chairman of the 2nd defendant/appellant (the ruling party in Nigeria). It was alleged by some Members of the party that he had been suspended at the ward level in Edo State and he was thus disqualified from holding the position of National Chairman. The 1st defendant/appellant, inter alia, filed a preliminary objection to the suit and argued that the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory did not possess territorial jurisdiction because the cause of action arose in Edo State where he was alleged to have been suspended as the National Chairman. The Court of Appeal (per Onyemenam JCA in his leading judgment) dismissed the preliminary objection and held as follows:

 

“The issue herein is straightforward. Order 3 rule 4 of the High Court of Federal Capital Territory (Civil Procedure) Rules 2018 provides that:

“All other suits shall where the defendant resides or carries on business or where the cause of action arose in the Federal Capital Territory, be commenced and determined in the High court of Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.”

By this Rule, apart from the matters that fall under Order 3 Rules 1 & 2 of the High Court of Federal Capital Territory (Civil Procedure) Rules 2018, the High Court of Federal Capital Territory, Abuja shall have territorial jurisdiction where:

1. The defendant resides within the Federal Capital Territory or
2. The defendant carries on business within the Federal Capital Territory or
3. The cause of action arose within the Federal Capital Territory or

In either of the three circumstances stated above, the High Court of Federal Capital Territory, Abuja shall have territorial jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit. The appellants’ contention herein is that the cause of action arose in Edo State and not in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja and as such the High court of Federal Capital Territory, Abuja lacks the jurisdiction to hear the suit. This argument is one third percent correct for the simple fact that, where cause of action arose is not the sole source of territorial jurisdiction of the High court of Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. In the instant case, the office of the 1st appellant as National Chairman of the 2nd appellant; as well as the Registered office and Secretariat of the 2nd appellant are both within the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. This makes the High court of Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, have territorial jurisdiction over the suit filed by the respondents under Order 3 rule 4(1) of the High Court of Federal Capital Territory(Civil Procedure) Rules, 2018…

I therefore hold that the trial court has the territorial jurisdiction to hear the respondent’s suit and resolve the issue in favour of the 1st – 6th respondents.”[3]

 

The above rationale for the Court of Appeal’s decision of Onyemenam JCA in his leading judgment is clearly wrong. Order 3 rule 4 of the High Court of Federal Capital Territory (Civil Procedure) Rules 2018 is a choice of venue rule for allocating jurisdiction as between the judicial division of the Federal Capital Territory for the purpose of geographical and administrative convenience. It cannot and should not be used to resolve inter-state matters of conflict of laws. It is submitted that the better view is stated by the Court of Appeal in Ogunsola v All Nigeria Peoples Party,[4] where Oduyemi JCA in his leading judgment at the Court of Appeal, rightly held that:

“Where the dispute as to venue is not one between one division or another of the same State High Court or between one division or the other of the F.C.T. Abuja High Court, but as between one division or the other of the F.C.T Abuja High Court, but as between the High Court of one State in the Federation and the High Court of the F.C.T. then the issue of the appropriate or more convenient forum is one to be determined under the rules of Private International Law formulated by courts within the Federation.”[5]

In Oshiomhole (supra) the opportunity was missed to apply and develop jurisdictional conflict of law rules for disputes between members of a political party in Nigeria. The  result of the decision reached in Oshiomhole (supra) in applying choice of venue rules through Order 3 rule 4 of the High Court of Federal Capital Territory (Civil Procedure) Rules 2018 will conflate with the principles of Nigerian private international as the defendants were resident in the State they were sued. So the Court of Appeal in Oshiomhole (supra) incorrectly reasoned its way to the right conclusion – the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory had jurisdiction in this case.

Unfortunately, in recent times the Supreme Court of Nigeria has held that the High Court of a State cannot establish jurisdiction over a cause of action that occurs in another State – the strict territorial jurisdiction approach.[6] This approach has also been applied to disputes between members of a political party.[7] This approach is also wrong as it ignores the principles of traditional Nigerian common law conflict of laws. It also leads to injustice and unduly circumscribes the jurisdiction of the Nigerian court, which ultimately makes Nigerian courts inaccessible and unattractive for litigation. Nigerian courts should have jurisdiction as of right once a defendant is resident or submits to the jurisdiction of the Nigerian court. In Oshiomhole (supra), if the strict territorial jurisdiction approach was applied, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja would not have had jurisdiction because the cause of action arose in Edo State.

In summation, applying the right principle of private international law, the Court of Appeal in Oshiomhole (supra) reached the right decision (residence of the defendant) through an incorrect reasoning of relying on Order 3 rule 4 of the High Court of Federal Capital Territory (Civil Procedure) Rules 2018, which is choice of venue rule for judicial divisions within a State. If the recent Supreme Court cases, which apply the strict territorial jurisdiction approach was applied in this case, Oshiomhole (supra) would be per incuriam and, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja would not have had jurisdiction because the cause of action arose in Edo State.

 

[1]Ogunsola v All Nigeria Peoples Party (2003) 9 NWLR (Pt. 826) 462, 480.

[2] (2021) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1778) 237.

[3]Oshiomhole v Salihu (No. 1) (2021) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1778) 237, 275-6.

[4](2003 ) 9 NWLR (Pt. 826) 462, 480 .

[5] Ogunsola v All Nigeria Peoples Party (2003 ) 9 NWLR (Pt. 826) 462, 480 .

[6] Capital Bancorp Ltd v Shelter Savings and Loans Ltd (2007) 3 NWLR 148; Dairo v Union Bank of Nigeria Plc (2007) 16 NWLR (Pt 1059) 99,

[7]Mailantarki v Tongo & Ors (2017) LPELR-42467; Audu v. APC & Ors (2019) LPELR – 48134.

 

Le 31 mai dernier, l’exécutif a promulgué un décret venant préciser les contours de la procédure de signalement aux procureurs européens délégués, les modalités d’exercice par le procureur européen délégué de sa compétence ainsi que le déroulement des procédures qu’il suit.

en lire plus

In C-280/20, ZN v Generalno konsulstvo na Republika Bulgaria v grad Valensia, Kralstvo Ispania [the Bulgarian consulate], the CJEU last week essentially confirmed CJEU C-154/11 Mahamdia. ZN is a Bulgarian national residing in Sofia who holds a permit to reside in Spain, where she provided services relating to the activity of the Consulate General. ZN brought an action in Bulgaria against the Consulate General seeking, first, recognition of her employment relationship and, second, payment of compensation in lieu of paid annual leave not taken during a period in which she provided services concerning the receipt of documents. The Consulate General contests the jurisdiction of the Bulgarian courts and invokes the jurisdiction of the Spanish courts as the courts of ZN’s place of employment. The referring court has doubts as to the existence of cross-border implications in so far as the dispute at issue in the main proceedings concerns a Bulgarian employee and a Bulgarian employer, and the fact that their legal relationship is closely connected with the Republic of Bulgaria.  It also notes that Bulgarian law expressly provides that, in the case of contracts concluded between a Bulgarian employer established abroad and a Bulgarian national working abroad, any disputes may be examined only by the Bulgarian courts.

In Mahamdia the Court first of all applied the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and held that an embassy often acts iure gestionis, not iure imperii, and that under the Vienna rules, the EU is perfectly entitled to apply the Regulation given that it applies to ‘civil and commercial’ matters. In that vein, an embassy may very well have to be regarded as an ‘establishment’ within the meaning of Article 20(2) (on employment contracts). In ZN, the Court [28-29] suggests that services in connection with the receipt of documents in files opened at the consulate by Bulgarian nationals and the management of those files, do not fall within the exercise of public powers and do not risk interfering with the security interests of the Republic of Bulgaria. Hence it strongly suggests the issue is a ‘civil and commercial one’, leaving final determination of same to the referring court. I would intuitively have thought that processing documents at a country’s consulate quite au contraire, does engage closely with diplomatic functions that must be qualified as iure imperii, particularly seeing as before said processing one is likely not to have knowledge of the documents’ content.

On the issue of ‘international element’ required to trigger Brussels Ia, the Court per Mahamdia considers a consulate to be an ‘establishment’ of one Member State in another Member State. Hence one of the parties to the dispute must be considered to be domiciled or habitually resident in a Member State other than that of the court seised [37]: the cross-border element is clearly present, which will not surprise many of us. One also assumes that the  aforementioned Bulgarian rule on exclusive jurisdiction for employment disputes between Bulgarians even with an international element present, does not meet with EU law requirements.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, para 2.35, para 2.128.

 

Non lieu à renvoi

Secret professionnel

Fichiers et libertés publiques

Discrimination

This post was drafted by Paul Eichmüller and Matthias Lehmann.

Almost six years after the Volkswagen Dieselgate scandal became public, the issue of international jurisdiction for damage claims arising from the fraud is still creating headaches. In a recent decision from 24 March 2021, the Austrian Supreme Court decided a case that was in many respects similar to the one giving rise to the much discussed ECJ judgment of C-343/19, VKI/VW – yet, there was one important difference: the car was transported to another country after its purchase.

Facts

Like in previous cases, the Austrian Supreme Court had to decide on a damage claim resulting from the sale of a car produced by a member of the VW group. The claimant was resident in Austria but had acquired the car directly from the manufacturer in Germany, where the vehicle was also handed over to the buyer. He then paid the price from his Austrian bank account and imported the car to Austria, where he continued to use it. The manufacturer’s representative had been aware of this intention at the time when the contract was concluded. After the discovery of the emission fraud scandal, the buyer brought a claim for damages against the manufacturer in Austrian courts, claiming compensation for the decreased value of the car due to the fraud.

The courts of first and second instance both declined international jurisdiction since the car had been bought and handed over in Germany. They argued that for the sale of movable goods, the place where the damage occurs in the sense of Article 7(2) Brussels I bis Regulation should always be located where a good is handed over, and not in the country of (intended) habitual use.

The Decision by the Austrian Supreme Court

The Austrian Supreme Court agreed with the legal opinion of the lower courts. It cited the CJEU ruling in C-343/19, VKI/VW, according to which the damage occurs at the place of purchase (see para 37). As in its view the damage had already occurred in the moment of the purchase in Germany, the Austrian Supreme Court concluded that the subsequent transport to Austria – be it with the previous knowledge or even the consent of the seller – could not change the competent court.

Neither did the fact that the payment was effected from an Austrian bank account establish jurisdiction of Austrian courts change the analysis in the eyes of the Austrian Supreme Court. It distinguished the CJEU judgment in C-304/17, Löber, on the ground that the damage materialised in a tangible object and not in a bank account.

The buyer’s final argument was based on the fact that the seller had allegedly directed his activity to Austria and thus, the applicable law to the contract would be Austrian law pursuant to Art 6(1)(b) Rome I Regulation. However, this argument was rejected on purely procedural grounds.

Austrian courts thus lacked jurisdiction and the claim was rejected. The Supreme Court did not deem a request for a preliminary ruling necessary, as it considered it a case of the acte éclairé doctrine.

Assessment

The judgment by the Austrian Supreme Court is a logical next step from the CJEU ruling in VKI/VW. The latter gave precedence to the place of purchase, citing the interest of legal certainty, the need for the court to determine the market conditions at this place and the competitive relations or collective consumer interests that may be affected there as the main reasons. These considerations force the conclusion that the damage occurs at the place of purchase irrespective of where the car is subsequently used. This new ruling results from the CJEU using a single connecting factor in VKI/VW instead of weighing a number of different factors. Assigning jurisdiction to the courts of Germany may pose a disadvantage for some customers, but they must be aware that a purchase in a foreign country may also have legal side-effects.

Louis Perreau-Saussine and Sophie Lemaire (Université Paris Dauphine) are the editors of a new book on International Mandatory Rules in International Business Law (L’impérativité en droit international des affaires : questions d’actualité).

Contributors include Pierre Mayer, Louis Perreau-Saussine, Sophie Lemaire, Mathias Audit, Patrick Mathet, Hubert de Verdelhan, Stéphanie Francq, Andrea Bonomi, Martine Behar-Touchais, Juliette Morel-Marroger, Tristan Azzi, Etienne Pataut.

The book collects the proceedings of a conference held at the Cour de cassation in Paris on February 2018. Videos of the conference are freely available here.

 

On 7 June 2021, the Council of the European Union has adopted a political document titled Conclusions on the Protection of Vulnerable Adults across the European Union.

The document sets out the views of the Council in this area with respect to both civil and criminal matters.

As regards civil matters, the document stresses the importance of the Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 on the international Protection of Adults, which is currently in force for ten Member States, and some third countries, such as Switzerland and the UK (albeit only with respect to Scotland).

The Council invites the Member States for which the Hague Convention is already in force to promote greater awareness of the  Convention among courts and practitioners.

Member States that are engaged in procedures procedures to ratify the Convention, are invited to advance such procedures with a view to finalising the ratification as swiftly as possible, in particular in view of the 2022 Special Commission on this Convention organised by the Hague Conference on Private International Law.

Finally, the Council invites all other Member States to commence and/or advance domestic consultations on a possible ratification of the Convention as swiftly as possible.

The document highlights the relevance of the (international) protection of adults, as understood by the Convention, to the implementation of the EU Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2021-2030).

It also notes that both the number and proportion of older people are growing across Europe. According to the Ageing Report 2021 issued by the European Commission on 20 November 2020, the total population of the EU is projected to decline in the long term, and the age structure will change significantly in the coming decades. The EU population is projected to decline from 447 million people in 2019 to 424 million in 2070 and, during this period, Member States’ populations will age dramatically given the dynamics in fertility, life expectancy and migration. The median age is projected to rise by five years over the coming decades.

A significant number of adults – the document observes – face limitations. Eurostat expects a fifth of the EU population to have some form of disability by 2050. Many of these adults are or will become vulnerable and, by virtue of the multiple barriers that are still in place for persons with a serious mental and/or physical disability, are not or will not be in a position to protect their own interests without adequate support.

This situation impacts the legal capacity of vulnerable adults, who face challenges and difficulties in protecting their rights, defending their interests and accessing justice, both in national and in cross-border situations. In cross-border situations, for instance in the case of citizens residing in a State other than that of their nationality, these existing difficulties may be exacerbated by additional obstacles with respect to language, representation or access to the judicial system and to public services in general.

Today, there are no uniform private international law rules applicable in the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters regarding the protection of vulnerable adults in cross-border situations across the EU, and there are disparities between Member States’ laws on jurisdiction, applicable law, and the recognition and enforcement of protection measures.

The Council acknowledges in its Conclusions that diversity of the rules on these issues might impair the exercise of the right of vulnerable adults to move freely and reside in the Member State of their choice, and might also hinder the possibility for these citizens to obtain adequate protection regarding the administration of their property in a cross-border context.

The document further recalls that the right to self-determination is a fundamental right, and powers of representation through which an adult has made arrangements in advance for his or her care and/or representation should be respected within the EU. The Hague Convention, among other things, ensures that such a power of representation has legal force in a Contracting Party.

Finally, the Council takes note that at the ‘High-Level Conference on the protection of vulnerable adults across Europe: the way forward’, held on 30 March 2021, some panelists stressed that, while it is important to build experience and assess the results of implementing the 2000 Hague Convention, the EU should be more ambitious and go further in seeking the approximation of private international law rules to ensure the effective protection of vulnerable adults on the basis of the principle of mutual recognition.

The Conclusions, however, do not include any indication as to whether and when the political institutions of the Union might consider the adoption of such additional measures.

Un arrêt du 26 mai 2021 de la première chambre civile relance le débat sur l’office du juge face aux règles de conflit de lois.

en lire plus

Published in the Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal by Saloni Khanderia, Alexander von Humboldt Fellow (Experienced Researcher), Chair for Civil Law, International Private Law and Comparative Law, Ludwig Maximilian University, München and Professor of Law, OP Jindal Global University, Sonipat, India.

The article provides a comparative analysis of the mechanism to determine the ‘international jurisdiction’ of a court in the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters in Indian and South African private international law. It examines the theoretical bases for executing foreign judgments in these jurisdictions and the grounds on which a foreign court will be considered as ‘internationally competent’ under the private international laws of these BRICS jurisdictions. Accordingly, it demonstrates how the rules to ascertain the competency of the foreign forum in these jurisdictions are narrow and, consequently, impede the free movement of judgments and prevents access to justice. The article highlights some plausible ways to improve the free movement of judgments and access to justice in India and South Africa. In particular, it suggests the endorsement of the Hague Conventions on the Choice of Court Agreements and the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters.

The full text of the article may be found here.

The conference titled Child-friendly procedures in cases of international child abduction will take place online on 24 and 25 June 2021. The conference will present the results of research conducted with the INCLUDE project on what is considered to be ‘good practice’ for professionals in a context of child abduction as seen by children themselves. You can consult the agenda of the conference here, and register for it here.

The INCLUDE project, as explained by its coordinators, aims to enhance the wellbeing of children at all stages of an international child abduction by providing guidelines and good practices to legal and other professionals.

The deliverables of the project (including an International Child Abduction – Legal Framework and Literature Study) are available on the project’s website.

The University of Szeged Faculty of Law and the ELKH Centre for Social Sciences, Institute for Legal Studies are organizing an international online conference: “Cross-Border Litigation in Central-Europe: EU Private International Law before National Courts”. The conference will present the main results of the EU-funded CEPIL research project (“Cross-Border Litigation in Central-Europe: EU Private International Law before National Courts”, 800789 — CEPIL — JUST-AG-2017/JUST-JCOO-AG-2017). The CEPIL project inquires whether EU PIL functions optimally in the CE Member States in order to secure “a Europe of law and justice”. It examines whether EU PIL instruments are applied in CE Member States in a correct and uniform manner, whether Member State courts deal appropriately with disputes having a cross-border element and whether the current legal and institutional architecture is susceptible of securing legal certainty and an effective remedy for cross-border litigants. The project’s research output will be published by Kluwer International.

The online conference will take place via Microsoft Teams on July 6, 2021. The full programme of the event is available here. Participation is free but online registration is kindly requested to receive the link to the conference, which will be emailed shortly before the event.