Agrégateur de flux

Droit international privé

Incapacité

Droit international privé

In July 2020, Luxembourg eventually adopted a statute on Civil Liability for Harm related to a Nuclear Accident. The statute imposes strict liability on operators of nuclear installations for any damage that a nuclear accident might cause.

There is, however, no nuclear installation in Luxembourg, and there will not be anytime soon. A constant source of disagreement and discussion between the Grand Duchy and France is the French nuclear power plant of Cattenom, which sits a few kilometers away from the border (France has the curious habit of sitting its nuclear plants on the border with neighbouring states). In other words, the new Luxembourg law is solely concerned with foreign nuclear facilities, and indeed essentially with the one in Cattenom (there are also nuclear plants in Belgium, but farther from the border with Luxembourg).

Cattenom: A view from Luxembourg (Picture: Paperjams News) 1960 Paris Convention

The first question arising from the adoption of this statute is why luxembourg did not join instead the 1960 Paris Convention on Nuclear Third Party Liability (Luxembourg signed the Convention, but did not ratify it). The Luxembourg lawmaker explained that it felt that the goal of the Convention was only to limit the liability of nuclear operators, and that it was therefore not in the interest of a country which did not have any nuclear facilities to join the Convention.

In particular, the Luxembourg lawmaker wanted to avoid the numerous limitation of the liability of nuclear operators laid down by the Convention (maximum amount for compensation, time limits, limitation to certain types of losses), but also the exclusive jurisdiction of the court of the place of the operation of the nuclear facility, which would obviously exclude the jurisdiction of Luxembourg courts.

The Luxembourg lawmaker noted that Austria had also adopted its own legislation, and that the goal was to follow this path. It also noted that major nuclear powers such as the U.S., Russia or Japan never joined the 1960 Convention anyway.

Jurisdiction

Article 5 of the statute provides that Luxembourg courts have jurisdiction to entertain

actions related to nuclear losses resulting from nuclear accidents insofar as the Luxembourg territory, Luxembourg residents or person on Luxembourg territory at the time of the torts are concerned.

Parliamentary procedure in Luxembourg includes a review of bills by an independent body, the Council of State (Conseil d’Etat). In its opinion, the Council of State remarked that the Brussels I bis Regulation applied, and therefore requested (but did not demand) that the provision clarifies that it would only apply subject to the Regulation. The opinion of the Council was not followed.

It is likely that the Regulation would grant jurisdiction to Luxembourg courts anyway on the ground of the place of the damage, but only if direct damage was suffered in Luxembourg. The first draft of the bill expressly provided that it would apply to “losses caused directly or indirectly” by nuclear accidents, but, after the Council of State pointed out that this would be hard to reconcile with the concept of causation under the Luxembourg law of torts (which would apply: see below), the referrence was eventually omitted.

This being said, it is a bit problematic that the Brussels Ibis Regulation could limit the power of a Member State to develop its nuclear policy. This was the goal of the exclusion of public matters from the scope of the Regulation, but in this context it seems quite narrow. The Rome II Regulation allows Member States to adopt overriding mandatory provisions, but who will apply them if the Member States may not grant jurisdiction to their courts to apply them?

Of course, the Regulation would not apply if the defendant was domiciled in a third state (say, Ukraine…).

Picture : Les Echos Applicable Law

Article 6 of the statute provides that “In case of nuclear accidents, actions for civil liability are governed by Luxembourg law“.

Unlike jurisdiction, the Rome II Regulation expressly excludes from its scope nuclear liability. Even if it had not, the statute could certainly have qualified as an overriding mandatory provision.

Enforcement of Luxembourg Judgments Abroad

The statute is silent on the enforcement of Luxembourg judgements abroad. Quite obvious, isn’t it? How could Luxembourg possibly think about regulating enforcement of judgments abroad?

Not as obvious in Luxembourg, it seems. The bill initially included an additional provision stating that “Any judgment from a Luxembourg court which is res judicata cannot be reviewed on the merits“. Fortunately, the Council of State explained in its opinion that it understood that the purpose of the provision was to bind foreign courts, and formally opposed its adoption on the ground that it would violate the sovereignty of foreign states and public international law.

Sovereign Immunity

The statute is silent on sovereign immunity. The initial bill was silent as well, but defined “operators” as including “international organisations” and “states or any other public authority”. The Council of State wondered what was the goal of the drafters of the bill, and whether they genuinely intended that foreign states could be sued in Luxembourg courts and their nuclear policy challenged, and if so on which basis. These express references were eventually omitted from the statute, which defines operators as any person who has a power of decision with respect to, or benefits economically from, a nuclear facility.

Irrespective of whether the final definition of operators excludes states and international organisations (the Nuclear Energy Agency?), it is easy to imagine that private operators could be closely linked to states, and thus appear as emanations of states and benefit from sovereign immunities.

Conclusion: Preparing Future Negotiations? Source: antiatomnetz-trier.de

France and Luxembourg established a Franco-Luxembourg Commission on Nuclear Safety in 1994 which has met 18 times since then. In the last meeting in February 2020, France made clear that Cattenom would not be closed before 2035. The Luxembourg government has long expressed its disagreement with the facility being further maintained in operation.

The Luxembourg press has reported that some Luxembourg politicians hope that the law will increase the costs of neighbouring states, including insurance premiums, to operate nuclear facilities near Luxembourg. Will this change the dynamics of future negotiations between France and Luxembourg?

ClientEarth / BEI
Environnement et consommateurs
Projet Curtis en Espagne : la BEI doit se prononcer sur la demande de réexamen de ClientEarth

The latest issue of the „Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax)“ features the following articles:

 

R. Wagner: Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters after Brexit

Brexit has become a reality. When the UK left the EU on 31 January 2020 at midnight, it entered the transition period stipulated in the UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement. During this period, EU law in the field of judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters applied to and in the United Kingdom. The transition period ended on 31 December 2020. The following article primarily describes the legal situation in the judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters from 1 January 2021.

Addendum: At the time when this contribution was written, the conclusion of a Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the EU and United Kingdom still was uncertain. Meanwhile, the Agreement of 24 December 2020 has come into existence. It is applicable provisionally since 1 January 2021 for a limited period and will be permanently applicable when after ratification it has formally come into force. The Agreement does not envisage any additional provisions on judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters between the United Kingdom and the EU. Therefore, it has to be concluded that the present article reflects the current state of law as established by the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (Rolf Wagner).

 

K. Thorn/K. Varón Romero: Conflict of laws in the “Twilight Zone” – On the reform of German private international law on welfare relationships

With the government draft of 25 September 2020, a comprehensive reform of guardianship and care law is approaching which will fundamentally modernize these areas. This reform also includes an amendment to the autonomous conflict-of-law rules in that area. The most important changes within this amendment concern the provisions of the Introductory Act to the German Civil Code (EGBGB). On the one hand, it includes a methodological change to the relevant Article 24 EGBGB which takes greater account of its role as a merely supplementary provision to prior international treaties and Union law. The authors welcome the changes that this will entail but point out that some clarifications are still needed before the reform is completed, particularly in cases of a change in the applicable law. On the other hand, a new Article 15 EGBGB is intended to create a special conflict-of-law rule for the mutual representation of spouses which is based on the also new substantive rule of Section 1358 of the German Civil Code (BGB) and is designed as a unilateral conflict-of-law rule in favour of domestic substantive law. The authors basically agree with the reasoning for this approach and in addition address questions which remain unresolved even after reading the reasoning, in particular the relationship between Article 15 of the Introductory Act to the Civil Code and the conflict-of-law rules of Union law.

 

 D. Coester-Waltjen: Conflict rules on formation of marriage – Some reflections on a necessary reform

The conflict rule on formation of marriages (Article 13 Introductory Law to the Civil Code) underwent several changes during the last years. In addition, societal conditions and circumstances changed considerably. It seems at least questionable whether the cumulative application of the national law of both prospective spouses in case of a heterosexual marriage and the law of the place of registration in case of a homosexual marriage provides a reasonable solution. The article deals with a possible reform of the conflict rule on formation of marriage and envisages whether a comparable solution might be found for other (registered or factual) relationships.

 

U.P. Gruber: Reflections on the reform of the conflict of laws of the registered life partnerships and other partnerships

Under the current law, the formation of a registered life partnership, its general effects and its dissolution are governed by the substantive provisions of the country in which the life partnership is registered. The article deals with a possible reform of this rule. In particular, it addresses the question whether there can be a convergence of the private international law for marriage and registered partnership. Moreover, the article discusses a conflict-of-law rule for de facto relationships.

 

F. Temming: Payment of wage supplements in respect of annual leave constitute a civil and commercial matter within the scope of Art. 1 Brussels Regulation

In its judgement the CJEU holds that an action for payment of wage supplements in respect of annual leave pay brought by a body competent to organize the annual leave of workers in the construction sector against an employer, in connection – among others – with the posting of workers to a Member State where they do not have their habitual place of work, can be qualified as a “civil and commercial matter” for the purpose of the Brussels Ibis Regulation and, thus, falls within the scope of its Article 1. This can even be the case if the competent body is governed by public law, such as the Construction Workers’ Leave and Severance Pay Fund of Austria (hereinafter “BUAK”), provided that it does not act under a public law prerogative of its own conferred by law. This case note argues that the contested section 33h (2b) of the BUAG does not constitute such a prerogative but rather can be construed according to EU law in such a manner that an Austrian court can fully review the accuracy of a claim relied on by BUAK. The importance of the Korana judgement of the CJEU lies in the fact that it ensures the recognition and enforcement of judgments according to Art. 36 ff. of the Brussels I Regulation in favour of these above mentioned bodies. In so doing the CJEU strengthens the regulatory framework set up by the revised Posting of Workers Directive 96/71/EC. It marks the procedural keystone of a long-standing CJEU jurisprudence enabling a special, however adequate and institutionalised system of granting annual leave in the building sector. At the same time, it sends a clear signal towards the Swiss Federal Court that took a contrary view with respect to Art. 1 of the Lugano Convention 2007.

 

 F. Maultzsch: International Jurisdiction for Liability and Recourse Claims in the Wake of Cum-Ex Transactions

The Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt (OLG Frankfurt a.M.) had to deal with issues of international jurisdiction for liability and recourse actions resulting from so-called cum-ex transactions that failed on a tax-based level. In doing so, the court took position on diverse jurisdictional issues under the Brussels Ibis Regulation. These issues covered the requirements of a sufficient contest of jurisdiction by the defendant in appellate proceedings, a possible jurisdiction under Art. 7 No. 5 Brussels Ibis Regulation for disputes arising out of the operations of a branch, aspects of characterization regarding the forum of the contract (Art. 7 No. 1 Brussels Ibis Regulation), as well as the standards of international jurisdiction for a recourse claim from joint and several liability for tax payments. The following article analyses the findings of the court and discusses, inter alia, the application of Art. 26 Brussels Ibis Regulation in cases of a modification of the matter in dispute.

 

J. Schulte: A reinforced EU trademark through a strengthened alternative forum

The EU trademark has been strengthened when it comes to infringements via internet by the recent ECJ decision in AMS Neve, reviving the alternative forum of the place where an act of infringement has been committed or threatened. The Court ruled out an interpretation not congruent with that in Art. 8 (2) Rome II (applicable law) or Art. 7 no. 2 Brussels Ia (international jurisdiction for national trademarks). Instead, it transferred the EU Trademark Regulation’s substantive law understanding, thus guaranteeing a uniform interpretation of the regulation. Competent are the courts of the Member State where the consumers or traders are located to whom an allegedly infringing advertising or offers for sale are directed. This reverses the unfortunate “Parfummarken”-doctrine of the German Bundesgerichtshof and gives plaintiffs more leeway for choosing a forum and the possibility of bringing actions for infringements of EU and national trademarks simultaneously at the same court.

 

H. Schack: Does Art. 27 Lugano Convention permit requiring a special legitimate interest in actions for negative declaratory relief?

In an antitrust dispute between a Swiss watch manufacturer and a British wholesaler the Swiss Federal Court gives up its former holding (BGE 136 III 523) that a Swiss action for negative declaratory relief required a special legitimate interest. Today, at least in international cases, the plaintiff’s mere interest in fixing the forum is sufficient. That strengthens the attractiveness of Swiss courts in transborder cases.

Eduardo Álvarez-Armas is Lecturer in Law at Brunel University London and Affiliated Researcher at the Université Catholique de Louvain. He has kindly provided us with his thoughts on recent proposals for amending the Rome II Regulation. This is the second part of his contribution; a first one on the law applicable to strategic lawsuits against public participation can be found here.

Over the last few months, the European Parliament´s draft report on corporate due diligence and corporate accountability (2020/2129(INL)) and the proposal for an EU Directive contained therein have gathered a substantial amount of attention (see, amongst others, blog entries by Geert Van Calster, Giesela Rühl, Jan von Hein, Bastian Brunk and Chris Thomale). As the debate is far from being exhausted, I would like to contribute my two cents thereto with some further (non-exhaustive and brief) considerations which will be limited to three selected aspects of the proposal´s choice-of-law dimension.

1. A welcome but not unique initiative (Comparison with the UN draft Treaty)

Neither Article 6a of Rome II nor the proposal for an EU Directive are isolated initiatives. A so-called draft Treaty on Business and Human Rights (“Legally binding instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises”) is currently being prepared by an Open-ended intergovernmental working group on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights, established in 2014 by the United Nation´s Human Rights Council. Just like it is the case with the EP´s proposal, the 2nd revised UN draft Treaty (dated 6th August 2020) (for comments on the applicable law aspects of the 1st revised draft, see Claire Bright´s note for the BIICL here) contains provisions on international jurisdiction (Article 9, “Adjudicative Jurisdiction”) and choice of law (Article 11, “Applicable law”).

Paragraph 1 of the latter establishes the lex fori as applicable for “all matters of substance […] not specifically regulated” by the instrument (as well as, quite naturally, for procedural issues). Then paragraph 2 establishes that “all matters of substance regarding human rights law relevant to claims before the competent court may, upon the request of the victim of a business-related human rights abuse or its representatives, be governed by the law of another State where: a) the acts or omissions that result in violations of human rights covered under this (Legally Binding Instrument) have occurred; or b) the natural or legal person alleged to have committed the acts or omissions that result in violations of human rights covered under this (Legally Binding Instrument) is domiciled”.

In turn, the proposed Article 6a of Rome II establishes that: “[…] the law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising out of the damage sustained shall be the law determined pursuant to Article 4(1), unless the person seeking compensation for damage chooses to base his or her claim on the law of the country in which the event giving rise to the damage occurred or on the law of the country in which the parent company has its domicile or, where it does not have a domicile in a Member State, the law of the country where it operates.” (The proposed text follows the suggestions made in pp. 112 ff of the 2019 Study requested by the DROI committee (European Parliament) on Access to Legal Remedies for Victims of Corporate Human Rights Abuses in Third Countries.)

Putting aside the fact that the material scopes of the EP’s and the UN’s draft instruments bear differences, the EP´s proposal features a more ambitious choice-of-law approach, which likely reflects the EU´s condition as a “Regional integration organization”, and the (likely) bigger degree of private-international-law convergence possible within such framework. Whichever the reasons, the EP´s approach is to be welcomed in at least two senses.

The first sense regards the clarity of victim choice-of-law empowerment. While in the UN proposal the victim is allowed to “request” that a given law governs “all matters of substance regarding human rights law relevant to claims before the competent court”, in the EP´s proposal the choice of the applicable law unequivocally and explicitly belongs to the victim (the “person seeking compensation for damage”). A cynical reading of the UN proposal could lead to considering that the prerogative of establishing the applicable law remains with the relevant court, as the fact that the victim may request something does not necessarily mean that the request ought to be granted (Note that paragraph 1 uses “shall” while paragraph 2 uses “may”). Furthermore, the UN proposal contains a dangerous opening to renvoi, which would undermine the victim´s empowerment (and, to a certain degree, foreseeability). Therefore, if the goal of the UN´s provision is to provide for favor laesi, a much more explicit language in the sense of conferring the choice-of-law prerogative to the victim would be welcomed.

2. A more ambitious initiative (The “domicile of the parent” connection, and larger victim choice)

A second sense in which the EP´s choice-of-law approach is to be welcomed is its bold stance in trying to overcome some classic “business & human rights” conundrums by including an ambitious connecting factor, the domicile of the parent company, amongst the possibilities the victim can choose from. Indeed, I personally find this insertion in suggested Art. 6a Rome II very satisfying from a substantive justice (favor laesi) point of view: inserting that very connecting factor in Art. 7 Rome II (environmental torts) is one of the main de lege ferenda suggestions I considered in my PhD dissertation (Private International Environmental Litigation before EU Courts: Choice of Law as a Tool of Environmental Global Governance, Université Catholique de Louvain & Universidad de Granada, 2017. An edited and updated version will be published in 2021 in Hart´s “Studies in Private International Law”), in order to correct some of the shortcomings of the latter. While not being the ultimate solution for all the various hurdles victims may face in transnational human-rights or environmental litigation, in terms of content-orientedness this connecting factor is a great addition that addresses the core of the policy debate on “business & human rights”. Consequently, I politely dissent with Chris Thomale´s assertion that this connecting factor “has no convincing rationale”. Moreover, I equally dissent from the contention that a choice between the lex loci damni and the lex loci delicti commissi is already possible via “a purposive reading of Art. 4 para 1 and 3 Rome II”. For reasons I have explained elsewhere, I do not share this optimistic reading of Art. 4 as being capable of filling the transnational human-rights gap in Rome II. And even supposing that such interpretation was correct, as draft Art. 6a would make explicit what is contended that can be read into Art. 4, it would significantly increase legal certainty for victims and tortfeasors alike (as otherwise some courts could potentially interpret the latter Article as suggested, while others would not).

Precisely, avoiding a decrease in applicable-law foreseeability seems to be (amongst other concerns) one of the reasons behind Jan von Hein´s suggestion in this very blog that Art. 6a´s opening of victim´s choice to four different legal systems is excessive, and that not only it should be reduced to two, but that the domicile of the parent should be replaced by its “habitual residence”. Possibly the latter is contended not only to respond to systemic coherence with the remainder of Rome II, but also to narrow down options: in Rome II the “habitual residence” of a legal person corresponds only with its “place of central administration”; in Brussels I bis its “domicile” corresponds with either “statutory seat”, “central administration” or “principal place of business” at the claimant´s choice. Notwithstanding the merits in system-alignment terms of this proposal, arguably, substantive policy rationales (favor laesi) ought to take precedence over pure systemic private-international-law considerations. This makes all the more sense if one transposes, mutatis mutandis, a classic opinion by P.A. Nielsen on the three domiciles of a corporation under the “Brussels” regime to the choice-of-law realm: “shopping possibilities are only available because the defendant has decided to organise its business in this way. It therefore seems reasonable to let that organisational structure have […] consequences” (P. A. NIELSEN, “Behind and beyond Brussels I – An Insider´s View”, in P. DEMARET, I. GOVAERE & D. HANF [eds.], 30 years of European Legal Studies at the College of Europe [Liber Professorum 1973-74 – 2003-04], Cahiers du Collège d´Europe Nº2, Brussels, P.I.E.-Peter Lang, 2005, pp. 241-243).

And even beyond this, at the risk of being overly simplistic, in many instances, complying with four different potentially applicable laws is, actually, in alleged overregulation terms, a “false conflict”: it simply entails complying only with the most stringent/restrictive one amongst the four of them (compliance with X+30 entails compliance with X+20, X+10 and X). Without entering into further details, suffice it to say that, while ascertaining these questions ex post facto may be difficult for victim´s counsel, it should be less difficult ex ante for corporate counsel, leading to prevention.

3. A perfectible initiative (tension with Article 7 Rome II)

Personally, the first point that immediately got my attention as soon as I heard about the content of the EP report´s (even before reading it) was the Article 6a versus Article 7 Rome II scope-delimitation problem already sketched by Geert Van Calster: when is an environmental tort a human-rights violation too, and when is it not? Should the insertion of Art. 6a crystallize, and Art. 7 remain unchanged, this question is likely to become very contentious, if anything due to the wider range of choices given by the draft Art. 6a, and could potentially end before the CJEU.

What distinguishes say Mines de Potasse (which would generally be thought of as “common” environmental-tort situation) from say Milieudefensie v. Shell 2008 (which would typically fall within the “Business & Human Rights” realm and not to be confused with the 2019 Milieudefensie v. Shell climate-change litigation) or Lluiya v. RWE (as climate-change litigation finds itself increasingly connected to human-rights considerations)? Is it the geographical location of tortious result either inside or outside the EU? (When environmental torts arise outside the EU from the actions of EU corporations there tends to be little hesitation to assert that we are facing a human-rights tort). Or should we split apart situations involving environmental damage stricto sensu (pure ecological damage) from those involving environmental damage lato sensu (damage to human life, health and property), considering only the former as coming within Art. 7 and only the latter as coming within Art. 6a? Should we, alternatively, introduce a ratione personae distinction, considering that environmental torts caused by corporations of a certain size or operating over a certain geographical scope come within Art. 6a, while environmental torts caused by legal persons falling below the said threshold (or, rarely, by individuals) come within Art. 7?

Overall, how should we draw the boundaries between an environmental occurrence that qualifies as a human-rights violation and one that does not in order to distinguish Art. 6a situations from Art. 7 situations? The answer is simple: we should not. We should consider every single instance of environmental tort a human-rights-relevant scenario and amend Rome II accordingly.

While the discussion is too broad and complex to be treated in depth here, and certainly overflows the realm of private international law, suffice it to say that (putting aside the limited environmental relevance of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU) outside the system of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) there are clear developments towards the recognition of a human right to a healthy or “satisfactory” environment. This is already the case within the systems of the American Convention on Human Rights (Art. 11 of the Additional Protocol to the Convention in the area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) and the African Charter on Human and People´s Rights (Art. 24). It is equally the case as well in certain countries, where the recognition of a fundamental/constitutional right at a domestic level along the same lines is also present. And, moreover, even within the ECHR system, while no human right to a healthy environment exists as such, the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights has recognized environmental dimensions to other rights (Arts. 2 and 8 ECHR, notably). It may therefore be argued that, even under the current legal context, all environmental torts are, to a bigger or lesser extent, human-rights relevant and (save those rare instances where they may be caused by an individual) “business-related”.

Ultimately, if any objection could exist nowadays, if/when the ECHR system does evolve towards a broader recognition of a right to a healthy environment, there would be absolutely no reason to maintain an Art. 6a versus Art. 7 distinction. Thus, in order to avoid opening a characterization can of worms, it would be appropriate to get “ahead of the curve” in legislative terms and, accordingly, use the proposed Art. 6a text as an all-encompassing new Art. 7.

There may be ways to try to (artificially) delineate the scopes of Articles 7 and 6a in order to preserve a certain effet utile to the current Art. 7, such as those suggested above (geographical location of the tortious result, size or nature of the tortfeasor, type of environmental damage involved), or even on the basis of whether situations at stake “trigger” any of the environmental dimensions of ECHR-enshrined rights. But, all in all, I would argue towards using the proposed text as a new Art. 7 which would comprise both non-environmentally-related human-rights torts and, comprehensively, all environmental torts.

Art. 7 is dead, long live Article 7.

 

 

In February 2019, Michael G. Faure (Maastricht University and Erasmus Law School Rotterdam) and Kévine Kindji (Maastricht University) presented to the European Parliament a Study on Cross-border nuclear safety, liability and cooperation in the European Union.

The abstract reads:

This study, commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the PETI Committee, aims at gaining deeper insights into the legal aspects of cross border nuclear safety and cooperation in the European Union. It analyses the legal framework of nuclear safety as well as the liability and insurance schemes for nuclear accidents. The study examines the current liability and insurance framework and formulates possibilities for a further involvement of the EU in the liability regime. Specific attention is paid to citizen and NGO involvement in decision-making concerning nuclear power plants. The study analyses the case law in that respect and formulates various recommendations to improve the regime concerning cross-border nuclear safety, liability and corporation in the EU.

The study can be freely downloaded here.

Le principe d’unité de la famille ne s’applique pas aux enfants des bénéficiaires de la protection subsidiaire.

en lire plus

written by Cristina González Beilfuss and Marta Pertegás Sender

It is with deep sadness that we write these lines to honour the memory of our dear mentor Alegría Borrás. Alegría unexpectedly passed away at the end of last year and, although she had been battling cancer for a while, she continued working as always. For Alegría was a hardworking fighter who sought and found her notorious place in life with determination, courage and borderless efforts. We believe we speak here for so many of Alegría’s alumni who miss her deeply and are determined to pay tribute to her memory with our work and memories.

We both had the great privilege of Alegría’s support for years and decades, from the moment she taught us at the “barracones” of the Law Faculty of the University of Barcelona until the very last day of Alegría’s life. Her death surprised us all on one of those typical “Alegría’s days” of frantic activity and unconditional support to the projects and institutions she believed in.

With this homage, we by no means pretend to recap all her merits and achievements. We are thankful that, while still alive, Alegría received many distinctions and exceptional prizes for all she meant to the (international legal) community.

All those who once met Alegría may inevitably think of her characteristic high voice and strong presence while remembering her. To us, it is her unique insight, tireless professionalism and devoted expertise that made Alegría the exceptional mentor she was.

In every assignment Alegría carried out – regardless the size of the task or its specific context -, Alegría showed profound dedication and daily perseverance. Behind a  joie de vivre  – how can one by the name of Alegría otherwise come across? – there was an exemplary academic rigor and uncountable hours of day and night work.

Alegría will always be remembered as someone who transformed our discipline in recent years. She did so, from her Chair in Barcelona, where many of us first discovered private international law thanks to her teaching. Her classes were enriched by the many anecdotes of places (Brussels, The Hague…) and instances (the GEDIP, l’Institut, the Academy, …) that, back then, sounded like remote laboratories of private international law. Little did we know that we would marvel around the privilege of sharing missions and tasks with Alegría in such venues in the years to follow.

We have indeed witnessed how Alegría contributed, to the approximation of Spain to such poles of uniform private international law. For decades, Alegría wisely brought Spain to any negotiation table on private international law, and she proudly brought the results of such international work back home. We think it is fair to say that, without Alegría, international and European private international law might not have the right channels to permeate into the Spanish legal system. This is not a sporadic success; it requires titanic efforts and perseverance for decades. Actually, for Alegría, her international work was much more than the daily sessions at the Peace Palace or at the Council, the overnight work in committees and working groups or the taxi rides from and to the airport in rainy and grey weather. There was so much more… She made time for beautifully written and detailed reports to the relevant Ministries, for influential contacts with diplomatic posts and, not to forget, for raising awareness among the academic community. Her regular contributions to the Revista Jurídica de Catalunya , to the Revista Española de derecho internacional or to the Anuario español de Derecho internacional privado guided  Spanish lawyers eager to keep track on “what was going on in Brussels or The Hague”. Alegría knew how the machinery of international relations works and used these insights brilliantly to connect Spain to the international legal community, and vice versa.

The readers of Conflictsoflaws.net may associate the name of Alegría Borrás with significant milestones in the development of private international law over the past decades: Alegría was a key delegate of the Hague’s Children Conventions, the Co-Rapporteur of the Child Support Convention, the Rapporteur of the Brussels II Convention, the author of influential work on conflicts of instruments (perhaps we should refer to the “Borrás clause” as shortcut for the “clauses de déconnection”). We are also aware that there is so much more, because, no matter how important her international projects were, Alegría remained truly anchored at home, in her city and her University as a member of the Acadèmia de Legislació i Jurisprudència de Catalunya for example, where she joined efforts with her very good friend Encarna Roca Trias.

Home, for Alegría, was Barcelona,  no matter how often her international work took her away from them. Her family was her greatest pride and her unconditional top priority. A loving wife, mother and grandmother and an example to so many of us who juggle balls in all these roles…

And the University of Barcelona was not only her academic home but also our meeting point. The private international community has lost a great scholar and a formidable person. Alegría, we thoroughly miss you and thank you so much for all you did for us and so many other alumni of yours. Together, we will persevere in our efforts the way you taught us. Rest in peace.

 

 

 

 

 

An e-mail has been sent to those who registered for the second EAPIL Virtual Seminar, on Digital Teaching and Private International Law, scheduled to take place on 27 January 2021 from 5 to 7 p.m. (MET), with the details to join the seminar, via Zoom.

If you have registered, and don’t see our e-mail in your inbox, please check the spam folder.

For further queries, please refer to Susanne Gössl at sgoessl@law.uni-kiel.de.

On Tuesday, February 2, 2021, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its eight monthly virtual workshop in private international law at 11:00-12:30. Since January of this year, we are alternating between English and German language. Dagmar Coester-Waltjen will speak, in German, about the topic “Von der Staatsangehörigkeits-Anknüpfung zur Berufung der lex loci celebrationis im internationalen Eheschließungs- und Partnerschaftsrecht?” (“From Nationality to Lex Loci in Private International Law of Marriage and Civil Union?” The presentation will be followed by open discussion. All are welcome. More information and sign-up here. This is the eight such lecture in the series, after those by Mathias Lehmann in June, Eva-Maria Kieninger in July, Giesela Rühl in September, Anatol Dutta in October, Susanne Gössl in November, Marc-Philippe Weller in December, and Macjiej Szpunar in January. In February, we will again have an English language event – stay tuned! If you want to be invited to these events in the future, please write to veranstaltungen@mpipriv.de

For the first time since the entry into force of the 1968 Brussels Convention and the EU Regulations in the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters, the Greek Supreme Court was called recently to examine an application for recognition and enforcement of an English order awarding alimony to a wife, while at the same time regulating property issues between the spouses.

On 12 June 2020, the Supreme Court [Nr. 662/2020] ordered the reversal of the appellate judgment [Athens Court of Appeal 4789/2018, unreported], which in turn had rejected the husband’s appeal against the first instance decision granting the recognition and declaration of enforceability of the English order [Athens court of 1st Instance 420/2015, unreported].

The Ruling of the Supreme Court

The case at hand concerned an order of the Family Division of the High Court, which was issued upon the request of the wife in the course of divorce proceedings. In particular, the wife requested that she retain the ownership of the family house in London, and that she be granted the amount of ₤ 600.000 as a capitalised maintenance payment, plus 100% of the interests from a Merchant Investors assurance program, whereas the husband would retain the ownership of eight parcels of land in Greece.

The English court granted the request. The judge ruled as follows:

I consider that the wife’s need could be met by an even distribution of the assets listed in the KT list [i.e. the list prepared by the wife’s lawyer] and I therefore intend to issue a financial provision order in the form of a lump sum of 600,000 ₤ payable to the wife…  I am satisfied that the order I issue achieves the purpose of a fair distribution of assets between the parties.

The order to pay the lump sum raised an interesting issue of characterisation with far reaching consequences. It could either be regarded as a maintenance payment, or as distribution of the assets of the spouses, and thus related to their matrimonial property regime.

One of the consequences of the distinction is that separate legal regimes govern the enforcement of maintenance and matrimonial property judgments. Two different regulations apply: either the Maintenance Regulation, which provides for immediate enforcement (abolition of exequatur: Articles 17 et seq.), or the Matrimonial Property Regulation which has retained the ‘traditional’ requirement of a declaration of enforceability (Articles 36 et seq.). In this case, the application was filed prior to the entry into force of both regulations, but separate regimes already applied to each category. The Brussels I Regulation applied to maintenance, resulting in the simplified procedure of articles 38 et seq. Matrimonial property fell outside of the EU framework, and was thus governed by the common law of foreign judgments of the Member States (in Greece, Articles 323 & 905 of the Code of Civil Procedure), i.e. a more conservative regime, which, in addition to the international jurisdiction barrier (Article 323 No. 2), has a different starting point, as it is not bound by the famous principle of mutual trust and free movement of judicial decisions between EU Member States.

The Greek Supreme Court made the following characterisation:

The award of this lump sum does not have a supportive purpose; it does not seek to meet the basic needs of the applicant, so as to be considered a maintenance claim, but has a rather redistributive-compensatory purpose, leading to the distribution of assets between the spouses, as expressly stated in the reasoning of the foreign order.

In view of the above, the Supreme Court ruled that the dispute fell outside the scope of the Brussels I Regulation, pursuant to the exception under article 1 (2) (a) [rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship]. It allowed the appeal, and referred the case for retrial to the appellate court.

The Supreme court cited in support of its decision three judgments of the European Court of Justice, C-143/78, De Cavel, C-25/81, C.H.W. and C- 220/95, van den Boogaard. In van den Boogaard, the ECJ ruled:

a decision rendered in divorce proceedings ordering payment of a lump sum and transfer of ownership in certain property by one party to his or her former spouse must be regarded as relating to maintenance and therefore as falling within the scope of the Brussels Convention if its purpose is to ensure the former spouse’s maintenance.

Courts and scholars in other Member States have already  pointed out that the van den Boogaard ruling did not resolve the issue entirely, granting a margin of discretion to national judges.

Comparative Overview

A search of similar situations and their treatment by national courts of other Member States leads us to a ruling of the German Supreme Court from 2009 [BGH 12.08.2009, NJW-RR 2010, pp. 1 f = IPRax 2011, pp. 187 f]. Confronted with similar facts, the Bundesgerichtshof opted for a solution akin to the Judgment of Solomon: departing from the characterization of the case, it accentuated the dual function of the provision [Doppelfunktionalität der Vorschrift], and granted the request for recognition and declaration of enforceability of the part demonstrating qualitative features of a maintenance claim. Respectively, for the remaining part of the order, it proceeded in the fashion chosen by the Greek Supreme Court.

On the other hand, English scholarship tends to include similar cases under the category of maintenance claims, drawing an additional argument from Annexes I-IV of Reg. 4/2009, while at the same time taking into account the case law of the CJEU, and the possibility of separation, as opted by the German Supreme Court.

In a recent decision, the Swiss Court of Cassation overturned a decision which ruled that the Lugano Convention did not apply to an English Financial Remedy Order, and referred the case to the Zurich Supreme Court for resolving the crucial issue of distinction between maintenance and matrimonial property disputes. A comment on the ruling is available here

The Impact of the Ruling

The withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU does not undermine the importance of the Greek Supreme Court ruling for the future. The intentions of the English legislator are not yet revealed. As  is already widely known, a primary indication does not exist, given that the field of judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters has been left outside the Agreement. The expected accession of the UK to the Lugano Convention has been recorded ad calendas Graecas. However, a specific instrument will continue to govern the enforcement of maintenance judgments. The Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance will substitute EU law in the relations between the UK and Greece. A change of course by the Greek Supreme Court is highly unlikely, however, and financial provision orders will be subject to domestic rules of recognition and enforcement.

It should also be underscored that the issue is not unique to the United Kingdom. Similar systems are to be found in the legislation of other Member States [e.g. the Republic of Ireland, and partly France]. Therefore, fresh applications are not to be ruled out. Prospective applicants are however advised to prepare the file more diligently: English orders are issued on the basis of a judgment. It is therefore considered necessary to produce a translated true copy of the foreign judgment, so that the judge is able to understand the peculiarities of the foreign system, and to decide upon having seen the whole picture in advance.

Szpital Kliniczny im. dra J. Babińskiego Samodzielny Publiczny Zakład Opieki Zdrowotnej w Krakowie
SOPO
La pratique d’un employeur consistant à verser un complément de salaire aux seuls travailleurs handicapés ayant remis une attestation de reconnaissance de handicap après une date qu’il a lui-même fixée est susceptible de constituer une discrimination directe ou indirecte fondée sur le handicap