Agrégateur de flux

Austrian Airlines
Transport
Le simple déroutement d’un vol vers un aéroport proche n’ouvre pas droit à une indemnisation forfaitaire

23 teams from al over the globe are participating in the Pax Moot that is currently ongoing (from 21 to 23 April). The case concerns private international law aspects of the race to a Covid vaccine. It involves the application of various EU and international instruments.

Spectators are welcome at the semifinals and finals on Friday 23 April. You can join by first logging into your own Zoom account and then clicking the link on the schedule to the relevant session. After the final round Ms Pia Lindholm of the European Commission will address the students. Then the winners of the written rounds, the oral rounds and the best pleader will be announced.

Guest Post by Diego A. Zambrano, Assistant Professor of Law, Stanford Law School

For years now, the concept of a “Brussels Effect” on global companies has become widely accepted. A simple version of the story goes as follows: the European Union sets global standards across a range of areas simply by virtue of its large market size and willingness to construct systematic regulatory regimes. That is true, for instance, in technology where European privacy regulations force American companies (including Facebook, Google, and Apple) to comply worldwide, lest they segment their markets. As Anu Bradford has expertly argued, it is also true in environmental protection, food safety, antitrust, and other areas. When companies decide to comply with European regulations across markets, the European Union effectively “exports” its regulatory regimes abroad, even to the United States.

In a forthcoming article, How Litigation Imports Foreign Regulation, I argue that foreign regulators not only shape the behavior of American companies—they also influence American litigation. From the French Ministry of Health to the Japanese Fair Trade Commission and the European Commission, I uncover how foreign agencies can have a profound impact on U.S. litigation. In this sense, the “Brussels Effect” is a subset of broader foreign regulatory influence on the American legal system.

The intersections are rich and varied. For instance, plaintiffs in dozens of pharmaceutical cases in U.S. court are requesting that multinational defendants disclose documents previously produced to foreign regulators. These plaintiffs base their legal cases around findings by, say, the French Ministry of Health rather than the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Similarly, plaintiffs in antitrust cases keep close tabs on enforcement actions by the European Commission, piggybacking on the work of foreign regulators, borrowing foreign theories and documents, and even arguing that foreign regulatory action should bolster cases in U.S. courts. And foreign regulators even submit letters to U.S. district courts, advocating for a particular outcome or objecting to the production of confidential documents.

Take a recent case, In re Zofran, involving allegations that GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) sold the drug Zofran while knowing it caused severe birth defects.  GSK argued that “plaintiffs could offer no evidence that the drug caused birth defects” and that “even the FDA had rejected similar claims.” Plaintiffs’ case was headed for an adverse summary judgment until a key piece of evidence emerged—documents that GSK had produced to the “Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare, including a series of studies showing potential birth defects that defendants had ‘performed specifically to satisfy Japanese regulatory requirements.’”  These documents allowed plaintiffs to dodge FDA findings and defeat a motion for summary judgment.

Or take another example, antitrust cases that piggyback on the foreign agencies. In a recent case alleging a conspiracy by American and foreign banks to fix prices for European sovereign bonds, plaintiffs left no doubt that “they remained ignorant of the conspiracy’s existence until the European Commission’s Statement of Objections put them on notice.”  In other words, a European Commission report triggered a large antitrust case in U.S. court.

Sometimes, plaintiffs draw on foreign regulators precisely because those foreign agencies disagree with U.S. regulators. In one pharmaceutical case, plaintiffs blamed a company for failing to warn of cancer risks, “citing reports from Health Canada, which they argued uncovered ‘new safety information’ that the FDA failed to consider.”

I argue in my article that this phenomenon of private litigation that borrows foreign regulation is widespread and needs more attention. The trend comes, of course, with costs and benefits. On the one hand, drawing on foreign regulators can serve as a “failsafe” when domestic regulators are incompetent or captured. This could audit the work of our underperforming agencies, allowing litigators to compare the FDA with the Taiwanese health agency or the Environmental Protection Agency against European environmental regulators. Moreover, importing regulation can give litigants and courts access to increased expertise and information gathering. And it may even harmonize U.S. and foreign regulations, promoting coherence and regulatory convergence.

Recent litigation involving the Boeing 737 Max crashes demonstrates the promise of imported foreign regulation. Many sources have reported a cozy relationship between Boeing and the Federal Aviation Administration, suggesting a classic case of regulatory capture. Private plaintiffs suing Boeing may thus have difficulty relying on reports from the FAA to support their cases. But Boeing does not wield similar influence over the European Aviation Safety Agency. So, plaintiffs could rely on EASA investigations to establish basic facts against Boeing, allowing the court to leverage the work of a relatively unbiased regulator.

While these benefits seem clear, costs also abound. We may worry, for instance, about empowering foreign regulators that have their own political agendas. Europeans, for one, may be protectionist against American tech companies. This could promote inefficient overregulation of activity that U.S. regulators have deemed appropriate. Foreign regulation could also chill essential domestic innovation. What if the FDA approves a COVID vaccine but private plaintiffs sue the manufacturer based on adverse reports in Japan? In a nightmare scenario, companies in the United States would worry not only about complying with America’s sprawling regulations, but also about litigants trawling foreign countries for regulatory support.

Because it shows both promise but also risks, I recommend a better way to control the use of foreign regulations: Whenever a plaintiff proposes to use a foreign regulatory finding, courts should solicit the opinions of our domestic regulators. These opinions would help courts determine whether foreign regulations are compatible with America’s regulatory regimes. However, agency opinions would not bind courts. Indeed, judges should take these opinions with a grain of salt and be wary of domestic regulatory capture. Even if agencies are unwilling to offer opinions, asking plaintiffs to give notice of their intent to use a foreign regulatory finding would alert domestic regulators of areas where they may be underperforming.

As traditional channels of transnational coordination die out, private parties, courts, and regulators are searching for new ways to promote transnational convergence. Both the Brussels Effect and the phenomenon of regulatory importation are examples of where the legal international order is heading.

Chanel / EUIPO - Huawei Technologies (Représentation d'un cercle contenant deux courbes entrelacées)
Propriété intellectuelle et industrielle
Le Tribunal rejette le recours de Chanel contre l’enregistrement d’une marque de Huawei au motif que les marques figuratives en cause ne sont pas similaires

Juan J. Garcia-Blesa (Fern University) has posted Indeterminacy, Ideology and Legitimacy in International Investment Arbitration: Controlling International Private Networks of Legal Governance? on SSRN.

This article connects the insights of post-realist scholarship about radical indeterminacy and its consequences for the legitimacy of adjudication to the current legitimacy crisis of the international investment regime. In the past few years, numerous studies have exposed serious shortcomings in investment law and arbitration including procedural problems and the substantive asymmetry of the rights protected. These criticisms have prompted a broad consensus in favor of amending the international investment regime and multiple reform proposals have appeared that appeal to the rule of law ideal as an instrument for increasing the acceptability of the international investment system. This article argues that the reliance of such proposals on jurisprudential approaches that fail to adequately accommodate the post-realist indeterminacy critique and take seriously the role of ideology in adjudication renders reform efforts unable to solve the legitimacy problems of the investment regime. The conclusions suggest the need to abandon implausible claims to depoliticization and face the methodological challenges posed by the promise of ideologically balanced assessments advanced by some rule of law theorists. The article finally points at the urgency to reform traditional approaches to doctrinal work in order to increase awareness of critical challenges and open up doctrinal methods to alternative methodological avenues.

The paper is forthcoming in the International Journal for the Semiotics of Law.

The HCCH Permanent Bureau has released today the Legal Guide to Uniform Instruments in the Area of International Commercial Contracts, with a Focus on Sales, a joint publication of the Secretariats of UNCITRAL, UNIDROIT and the HCCH.

It “offers an overview of the principal legislative texts prepared by each organisation, such as the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, the HCCH Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts and the UNIDROIT Principles on International Commercial Contracts”.

It is attached to this post.

legal-guide-uniform-instruments-international-commercial-contractsDownload

Source: https://www.hcch.net/en/news-archive/details/?varevent=796

The Grand Chamber of the CJEU delivered today its judgment in case C‑896/19 (Repubblika v Il-Prim Ministru, intervening party: WY) on the Rule of Law. This important decision is available in all official languages of the European Union (except Irish) as well as in English. Here is the operative part:

“1. The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU must be interpreted as meaning that it may be applied in a case in which a national court is seised of an action provided for by national law and seeking a ruling on the conformity with EU law of national provisions governing the procedure for the appointment of members of the judiciary of the Member State to which that court belongs. Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be duly taken into consideration for the purposes of interpreting that provision.

2. The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU must be interpreted as not precluding national provisions which confer on the Prime Minister of the Member State concerned a decisive power in the process for appointing members of the judiciary, while providing for the involvement, in that process, of an independent body responsible for, inter alia, assessing candidates for judicial office and giving an opinion to that Prime Minister”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=240084&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=4269763

Repubblika
DFON
Les dispositions nationales d’un État membre qui confèrent au Premier ministre un pouvoir décisif dans la nomination des juges, tout en prévoyant l’intervention d’un organe indépendant chargé d’évaluer les candidats et de fournir un avis, ne sont pas contraires au droit de l’Union

Advocate General Kokott’s Opinion in Case C-490/20 V.M.A. v Stolichna Obshtina, Rayon ‘Pancharevo’ was published on 15 April 2021 (the issues raised by this case have been discussed earlier on this blog by Nadia Rusinova: see here). So far, the text of the Opinion is available only in Bulgarian and French.

This post provides a summary in English of the facts and the main reasoning supporting the proposal to the CJEU (NoA: the narrative relating to Article 2 TUE, present in paras. 116 to 132, has not direct reflection in the final proposal; I skip it too).

Facts and Questions

The dispute concerns a married couple consisting of two women, one of whom, V.M.A., is a Bulgarian national, while the other is a national of the United Kingdom. They got married in 2018 in Gibraltar, where same-sex marriage is possible since December 2016, and had a child in Spain. They reside in the same country. The birth was registered according to Spanish Law (Ley del Registro Civil: inscribable facts and acts that affect Spaniards, and those referring to foreigners which occurred in Spanish territory, are recorded in the Civil Registry)., and a birth certificate was issued by the Spanish authorities designating both women as ‘mother’ of the child.

On the basis of the Spanish document V.M.A. applied to the competent Bulgarian authority to issue a birth certificate for her daughter. Such a certificate is, in turn, necessary for obtaining a Bulgarian identity document.

Bulgarian law does not allow marriage or any other form of union with legal effects between persons of the same sex. Parentage is determined by birth; the mother of the child is the woman who gave birth to it (also in the case of assisted reproduction). When the filiation of a child with regard to one of his parents is unknown, any parent can recognize the child. In the event of registration of a birth occurring abroad the information relating to the name of the child, the date and place of birth, the sex and the established filiation are entered in the birth certificate as they appear in the copy or in the Bulgarian translation of the foreign document produced. Should filiation concerning a parent (mother or father) not be established in the foreign document, the field intended for data relating to this parent in the birth certificate in the Republic of Bulgaria will not completed and shall be crossed out.

The municipality of Sofia (Bulgaria) requested V.M.A. to indicate which of the two spouses is the biological mother, stating that the model Bulgarian birth certificate provides only one box for the ‘mother’ and another for the ‘father’, and that each of those boxes may include only one name. Following V.M.A.’s refusal to supply the requested information, the authority rejected her application, arguing the absence of information concerning the biological mother and the fact that the registration of two female parents in a birth certificate is contrary to the public policy of Bulgaria.

V.M.A. brought an action against that decision before the Administrative Court of the City of Sofia, which referred to the CJEU the following questions:

Must Article 20 TFEU and Article 21 TFEU and Articles 7, 24 and 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that the Bulgarian administrative authorities to which an application for a document certifying the birth of a child of Bulgarian nationality in another Member State of the EU was submitted, which had been certified by way of a Spanish birth certificate in which two persons of the female sex are registered as mothers without specifying whether one of them, and if so, which of them, is the child’s biological mother, are not permitted to refuse to issue a Bulgarian birth certificate on the grounds that the applicant refuses to state which of them is the child’s biological mother?

Must Article 4(2) TEU and Article 9 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that respect for the national identity and constitutional identity of the Member States of the European Union means that those Member States have a broad discretion as regards the rules for establishing parentage? Specifically:

–    Must Art. 4(2) TEU be interpreted as allowing Member State to request information on the biological parentage of the child?

–    Must Article 4(2) TEU in conjunction with Article 7 and Article 24(2) of the Charter be interpreted as meaning that it is essential to strike a balance of interests between, on the one hand, the national identity and constitutional identity of a Member State and, on the other hand, the best interests of the child, having regard to the fact that, at the present time, there is neither a consensus as regards values nor, in legal terms, a consensus about the possibility of registering as parents on a birth certificate persons of the same sex without providing further details of whether one of them, and if so, which of them, is the child’s biological parent? If this question is answered in the affirmative, how could that balance of interests be achieved in concrete terms?

Is the answer to Question 1 affected by the legal consequences of Brexit in that one of the mothers listed on the birth certificate issued in another Member State is a UK national whereas the other mother is a national of an EU Member State, having regard in particular to the fact that the refusal to issue a Bulgarian birth certificate for the child constitutes an obstacle to the issue of an identity document for the child by an EU Member State and, as a result, may impede the unlimited exercise of her rights as an EU citizen?

If the first question is answered in the affirmative: does EU law, in particular the principle of effectiveness, oblige the competent national authorities to derogate from the model birth certificate which forms part of the applicable national law?

Relevant EU law

In addition to the provisions mentioned in the request, Articles 2 and 4 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States must be taken into account:

Article 2, Definitions – For the purposes of this Directive: (1) “Union citizen” means any person having the nationality of a Member State; (2) “Family member” means: (a) the spouse; (b) the partner with whom the Union citizen has contracted a registered partnership, on the basis of the legislation of a Member State, if the legislation of the host Member State treats registered partnerships as equivalent to marriage and in accordance with the conditions laid down in the relevant legislation of the host Member State; (c) the direct descendants who are under the age of 21 or are dependants and those of the spouse or partner as defined in point (b); (d) the dependent direct relatives in the ascending line and those of the spouse or partner as defined in point (b); […]

Article 4, Right of exit – 1. Without prejudice to the provisions on travel documents applicable to national border controls, all Union citizens with a valid identity card or passport and their family members who are not nationals of a Member State and who hold a valid passport shall have the right to leave the territory of a Member State to travel to another Member State. […] 3. Member States shall, acting in accordance with their laws, issue to their own nationals, and renew, an identity card or passport stating their nationality. […]

Analysis

Although the Opinion is presented in a very pedagogical way, to ease its understanding it should be explained that the reasoning is based: (a) on the different nature and effects of a certificate of birth of a child and a document stating his personal identity; (b) and on the premise that a person may be a parent (and a child born to a parent) or not, depending on whether such condition is considered for the purposes of family and successions law, or for the purposes of Union law.

AG Kokott carries out her analysis distinguishing two hypothesis: under the first one, the child is not a European citizen; her arguments revolve around the rights conferred to the Bulgarian mother by the legal order of the Union. Under the second hypothesis, the child is a EU citizen; the focus is on her rights. The reason for the separates approaches is that, according to the referring court, the child is a Bulgarian national; however, the assertion was contested by the Bulgarian Government during the hearing, given that Bulgarian nationality is acquired automatically by any person who has at least one Bulgarian parent, and in the present case the identity of the biological mother is not known.

i) The child is not a EU citizen

In the event that the child does not have Bulgarian nationality, she does not enjoy the rights deriving from Article 4 (3) of Directive 2004/38, and from Articles 20 and 21 TFEU, reserved for citizens of the Union. Consequently, the refusal by the Bulgarian authorities to issue a Bulgarian birth certificate designating, like the Spanish one, the applicant in the main proceedings and her wife as the mothers of the child, as well as the refusal to issue a Bulgarian identity document to this child, cannot infringe these rights.

On the contrary, the refusal to issue the requested birth certificate could constitute an obstacle to the right to free movement of the Bulgarian mother, who, according to AG Kokott (based on the information given by the Spanish government at the hearing), has legally acquired the status of mother of the child under Spanish law. If she is not included in this document, she will not be considered the mother of the child within the meaning of Bulgarian family law. In this regard, it should be recalled that according to the CJEU any national measure which is likely to hamper or make less attractive the exercise of the free movement by nationals of the Union may constitute an obstacle to this freedom.

The referring court asks the CJEU whether such obstacle could be justified on the protection of the national identity in the sense of Article 4 (2) TEU. To this AG Kokott answers in the affirmative: first, the Court has already implicitly recognized that the rules governing marriage are part of national identity within the meaning of Article 4 (2) TEU. Secondly, the national identity enshrined in Article 4 (2) TEU is not only one legitimate objective among others which may be taken into account when examining a possible justification for a restriction of the right to free circulation; on the contrary, it possesses a ‘vertical dimension’, that is to say, the Treaties give it a role in the delimitation of competences between the Union and the Member States. Hence, the Court can only exercise a limited control over measures adopted by a Member State for the purpose of safeguarding its national identity; conversely, it cannot apply a proportionality check like it does with ‘simple legitimate objectives’. Such as test will be applied, though, to measures adopted by the Bulgarian authorities in the field of family law provided ‘the fundamental expression of the concept that the Member State concerned intends to protect as part of its national identity’ is not in cause.

In the case at hand the precedent translates as follows:

.- Given that the determination of parentage within the meaning of family law is the sole competence of the Member States, AG Kokott considers that the Republic of Bulgaria is not required to recognize parentage as established in the Spanish birth certificate for the purposes of the application of Bulgarian family and inheritance law. In other words, the obligation to recognize parentage for the purpose of drawing up a birth certificate affects the fundamental expression of the national identity of the Republic of Bulgaria. (NoA: as the inclusion of the applicant in the main proceedings as a mother on the birth certificate necessarily implies recognition of the legal effects of the same-sex marriage for the purposes of determining parentage, one would have expected a clear assertion in the sense that Bulgaria is not obliged to issue such a certificate at all. This is not said in so many words, though, but hinted at a later stage in the Opinion, when the obligation of the Bulgarian to produce a document of identity allowing the child to travel with her mothers, and each of them to travel with the child pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 2004/38, is addressed).

.- By contrast, the Bulgarian authorities must accept the filiation bonds between the Bulgarian applicant and the child, as established in Spain, for the limited purposes of allowing the former to exercise the rights conferred by secondary Union law relating to the free movement of citizens. That is to say, to travel with the kid and to reside in the Member State of origin (Bulgaria), with the members of the family under normal conditions.

ii) The child is a citizen of the Union

Should the applicant acknowledge she is the biological mother of the child, or recognize the child as her own, the girl would automatically be a Bulgarian national, hence a citizen of the European Union. The refusal to deliver a birth certificate will indeed entail negative consequences for her. Would it be a solution to deliver the certificate only indicating the motherhood of the Bulgarian spouse?

In principle, in the light of the potential consequences on the right to free movement, the possibility just mentioned does not convince AG Kokott: equivalent documents concerning the child, but issued in different States, would contain divergent information on her; she would not be able to travel with each of her parents. To the question whether such obstacles could nevertheless be justified, Ag Kokott answers, first, that the refusal to recognize parentage with regard to the British mother, for the purposes of establishing a Bulgarian birth certificate, could indeed be based on the Bulgarian ‘national identity’ within the meaning of Article 4 (2) TEU.  On the contrary, considering that an identity document has no probative function with regard to the filiation of a person (so the AG), the refusal to recognize parentage for the purpose of issuing an identity document in accordance with Article 4 (3) of Directive 2004/38 is not acceptable.

Some Hints to the Bulgarian Authorities

By its fourth question, the referring court asks whether it should reject the model birth certificate under the national legislation in force, and replace it with a model allowing two mothers to be mentioned under the heading ‘parents’. Indeed, the referring court must – in the event that the child has the Bulgarian nationality – solve the practical problem that the establishment of a Bulgarian birth certificate is the prerequisite for issuing an identity document.

Given that, according to the explanations of the Bulgarian government at the hearing, a Bulgarian identity document does not mention the names of the parents, AG Kokott suggests that said document is issued based on a Bulgarian birth certificated designating as ‘mother’ only one of the spouses, provided it is accompanied by a travel document delivered for the purpose of identifying the parents of the child, where both women are mentioned.

And Further

Case C-490/20 raises questions is very similar to those addressed to the CJEU by a Polish court in Case C-2/21, Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich. The latter case concerns the child of a Polish national, married to an Irish woman, who reside together in Spain. Again, the Spanish authorities issued a birth certificate designating the two women as the mother of the child. The referring court asks the Court whether the Polish administrative authorities can refuse to transcribe this birth certificate – the transcription being necessary to enable the child to obtain a Polish identity document- on the grounds that Polish law does not accept the parenthood of same-sex couples, and that the said birth certificate designates persons of the same sex as parents.

The New Zealand Yearbook of International Law (Brill) is an annual, internationally refereed publication. The Editors call for both short notes and commentaries, and longer in-depth articles, for publication in Volume 18 of the Yearbook (2020), which will be published in early 2022.

Notes and commentaries should be between 3,000 to 7,000 words. Articles may be from 8,000 to 15,000 words.

The Editors seek contributions on any current topic in public or private international law. The Editors particularly encourage submissions that are relevant to the Pacific, the Southern Ocean and Antarctica, and New Zealand.

Submissions will be considered on a rolling basis. However, the closing date for submissions for Volume 18 is 15 July 2021.

Contributions must be original unpublished works and submission of contributions will be held to imply this. Manuscripts must be word-processed and in compliance with the fourth edition of the Australian Guide to Legal Citation. The Guide is available online at: http://law.unimelb.edu.au/mulr/aglc/about.

Submissions should be provided in English, using MS Word-compatible word processing software, and delivered by email to the General Editor at james.mehigan@canterbury.ac.nz.