Agrégateur de flux

Geert van Calster has just published the third edition of the book titled “European Private International Law: Commercial Litigation in the EU” with Hart.

The blurb reads as follows:

This classic textbook provides a thorough overview of European private international law. It is essential reading for private international law students who need to study the European perspective in order to fully get to grips the subject.
Opening with foundational questions, it clearly explains the subject’s central tenets: the Brussels I, Rome I and Rome II Regulations (jurisdiction, applicable law for contracts and tort). Additional chapters explore the Succession Regulation, private international law and insolvency, freedom of establishment, and the impact of PIL on corporate social responsibility. The new edition includes a new chapter on the Hague instruments and an opening discussion on the impact of Brexit.
Drawing on the author’s rich experience, the new edition retains the book’s hallmarks of insight and clarity of expression ensuring it maintains its position as the leading textbook in the field.

 

The purpose of the book is to serve as an introductory text for students interested in EU Private International Law. The book can also be appreciated by non-EU students interested in EU Private International Law since it serves as an introductory text. It contains seven core chapters including the introduction. The full table of contents and introduction are provided free to readers and can be accessed respectively here and here

From what I have read so far in the introduction, this book is highly recommended. It brings the subject of EU Private International Law to the doorstep of the uninitiated and refreshes the knowledge of any expert on Private International Law (“PIL”). Though the core foundation of the book is on EU PIL, it contains some comparisons to other systems of PIL especially in the common law, in order to illustrate. Importantly, the introduction ends with the implications of Brexit for EU PIL and some interesting speculations.

More information on the book can be found here

Noëmie Reichling (PhD, Avocat à la Cour, France) has just published a monograph on Fundamental Principles of Civil Litigation in the European Judicial Area, based on her doctoral thesis: Les principes directeur du procès civil dans l’espace judiciaire européen. Etude à partir du procès civil transfrontalier, PUAM, 2020.

The author has provided the following abstract in English:

Since the Treaty of Amsterdam entered into force on the 1st of May 1999 and the “communitarisation” of judicial cooperation in civil matters, the European Union has adopted many legal instruments relating to cross-border litigation, to the extent that one can now refer to a distinct “European International Private Law”, the governing principles of which have yet to be defined. By comparison, the French Code of Civil Procedure includes an entire chapter devoted to the governing principles applicable to civil trials. Based on a study of the European civil justice area, four governing principles can be identified: the adversarial principle, the principle of the judge’s active role, the principle of urgency and the principle of cross-border dialogue. In prospective terms, it follows that the possibility of these four principles’ being enacted in EU law is a matter worthy of examination. Several obstacles can be identified, none of which appears to be insuperable. Having been recognised as a possibility, such a consecration also seems desirable on the grounds of its several demonstrable advantages. The legal basis and vehicle of the above-mentioned four principles’ legal enshrinement remain to be determined. In this regard, article 81 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pertaining to judicial cooperation in civil matters, could serve as a legal basis. In terms of implementation, this study also argues in favour of regulations over directives.

More details available here.

Extradition

Statuts collectifs du travail

Représentation des salariés

Procédure civile

Statuts collectifs du travail

Nationalité

The Public Institution for Social Security v Al Rajaan & Ors [2020] EWHC 2979 (Comm) engages in lengthy discussion anchor jurisdiction (A6) and choice of court (A23) under the Lugano Convention which of course, albeit with some important mutatis mutandis, echoes Brussels I and Brussels Ia.

Henshaw J summarises the key issues at 74:

i)                    whether the exclusive jurisdiction clauses (‘EJCs’) relied on were agreed between the parties and incorporated into their respective contracts, applying;

a)                  the formal validity requirements set out in Lugano Convention Article 23/Recast Brussels Regulation Article 25, and

b)                 if relevant, the laws governing the contracts i.e. Swiss or Luxembourg law;

ii)                  if so, whether the EJCs satisfy the requirements for material validity under Lugano Convention Article 23/Recast Brussels Regulation Article 25;

iii)                if so, how the EJCs are to be interpreted under their respective governing laws;

iv)                whether, and if so to what extent, the EJCs apply to claims against the applicants;

v)                  if and to the extent that the EJCs apply to only some claims against particular applicants, or apply to some but not all of the applicants, whether this court has jurisdiction over the remainder of the claims pursuant to Lugano Convention Article 6(1)/Recast Brussels Regulation Article 8(1); and

vi)                whether the court should decline jurisdiction over the claims against Pictet Asia and Pictet Bahamas (seeing as they are neither EU or Lugano States domiciled) on forum non conveniens grounds.

 

The judgment is lengthy. These are my highlights:

• At 107 following review of CJEU authority including Refcomp and Hoszig, the finding that the issue of validity of choice of court by incorporation are to be addressed solely by reference to the requirements of what is now A25 BIa and the corresponding provision in Lugano Convention Article 23. This requires real consent which is discussed with reference ia to Profit Investment Sim at 109 ff.
• At 127 ff Henshaw J discusses the issue obiter under Swiss cq Luxembourg law as putative leges contracti for choice of court. At 142 the judge concludes that under Swiss law, as under EU law, it is sufficient, in order to incorporate a jurisdiction agreement into the parties’ contract, that the parties have made a written agreement which incorporates by reference general terms including a jurisdiction clause. Ditto with less discussion under Luxembourg law, at 148.
• At 187 ff: the issue of material validity under EU law. This discussion kicks off with a review of what one of the parties calls the ‘proximity requirement’: per C-214/89 Powell Duffryn (CDC, too, is discussed), the fact that choice of court (only) extends to a ‘particular legal relationship’ (reference here is also made to Etihad, at the time of the judgment this had not yet benefitted from the Court of Appeal‘s judgment). At 201 ff Justice Henshaw takes a broad view:

In principle I would agree that if a jurisdiction clause is not clear, then it may be restrictively construed, consistently with the policy expressed in the relevant EU case law of promoting certainty and avoiding parties being taken by surprise.  On the other hand, I see no reason why parties cannot make a jurisdiction clause in deliberately wide-ranging terms which covers many, or indeed all, of their present and future contractual relationships.  I do not read the Opinion of the Advocate General in Refcomp as indicating the contrary.  Refcomp was essentially concerned with whether a jurisdiction clause could be relied on against a sub-purchaser of goods, and it is notable that the CoJ referred in its judgment to “the principle of freedom of choice on which Article 23(1) is based” (§ 40).  Nor do I read Powell Duffryn as restricting the parties’ ability to choose the scope of the particular legal relationships to which a jurisdiction clause is to apply.

• Whether the claims at issue meet the ‘proximity’ requirements is then discussed at length, under EU law and again, obiter, under Swiss and Luxembourg law, largely leading to a conclusion of lack of jurisdiction in England and Wales for many of the claims.
• Anchor jurisdiction is discussed for some of the claims at 403 ff, leading to a classic discussion of the (CJEU Kalfelis introduced) close connection requirement, and at 418 support for the fragile Court of Appeal finding in Privatbank, that that the word “expedient” in the context of the lis alibi pendens provision in Lugano Convention Article 28 must mean “desirable” as opposed to merely practicable or possible. At 427 the issue of fragmentation of proceedings is discussed: what should the court do where a claimant is required to sue a defendant in an overseas jurisdiction under A23 Lugano in relation to some claims, but seeks to pursue in this jurisdiction (a) connected claims against the same defendant, or (b) connected claims against another defendant, in reliance on A6? Henshaw J concludes the E&W courts should not entertain the accessory claims.
• Forum non is discussed at 480 ff, with the final conclusion being that E&W does not have jurisdiction for any of the claims.

I fully expect there is scope for appeal.

Those criticising the intensity of jurisdiction squabbles will find ammunition in this 497 para judgment.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, big chunks of Chapter 2.

 

Successful jurisdictional challenge engaging both anchor and choice of court jurisdiction under Lugano.
A lengthy judgment which I shall certainly post on soon on the blog. https://t.co/9r3a7zlyxi

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) November 6, 2020

A set of seven articles on the Project IC2BE have been published in the second issue of the Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft (ZVglRWiss 119 (2020), Heft 2), a German periodical, providing information in the area of comparative law with a focus on international business law.

The articles cover a wide array of issues on cross-border debt recovery.

The opening contribution, by Jan von Hein, provides a presentation and illustrates the results of the Project (Informierte Entscheidungen in der grenzüberschreitenden Forderungsdurchsetzung – Vorstellung und Ergebnisse eines internationalen Forschungsprojekts).

Michael Stürner discusses the field of application oft the EU Regulations relating to cross-border debt recovery (Der Anwendungsbereich der EU-Verordnungen zur grenzüberschreitenden Forderungsdurchsetzung). Christian Heinze‘s paper is about the provisional protection of claims in European Civil Procedural Law (Die Sicherung von Forderungen im europäischen Zivilprozessrecht), while Christoph Althammer’s is on the contribution of court organization to the efficiency of cross-border debt recovery (Der Beitrag der Gerichtsorganisation zur Effizienz der grenzüberschreitenden Forderungsdurchsetzung).

The article by Florian Eichel is about the contribution of modern information technology to the efficiency of of cross-border debt recovery (Der Beitrag der modernen Informationstechnologie zur Effizienz der grenzüberschreitenden Forderungsdurchsetzung). Haimo Schack’s is on the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement in European Civil Procedural Law (Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsversagungsgründe im Europäischen Zivilprozessrecht).

Finally, Caroline Meller-Hannich discusses the interface and interaction of European Civil Procedural Law and national law as regards enforcement (Schnittstellen und Wechselwirkungen zwischen dem europäischen Zivilprozessrecht und dem nationalen Vollstreckungsrecht).

MM
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Un mandat d’arrêt européen doit être considéré comme invalide dès lors qu’il n’est pas fondé sur un mandat d’arrêt national ou toute autre décision judiciaire exécutoire ayant la même force

Facebook Ireland e.a.
Principes du droit communautaire
Selon l’avocat général Bobek, l’autorité de protection des données de l’État membre dans lequel est situé l’établissement principal d’un responsable du traitement de données ou un sous-traitant dispose d’une compétence générale pour agir en justice contre des infractions au RGPD pour ce qui concerne le traitement transfrontalier de données

The Jean Monnet Chair in European Civil Procedure, hosted by the Madrid-based IE University, is the first Chair entirely devoted to the study and dissemination of the ELI-UNIDROIT Model Rules of European Civil Procedure.

The Chair is held by Marco de Benito, Professor of Law at IE University, where he teaches comparative civil procedure and international arbitration. Prof. de Benito also fosters reflection and debate on private law and legal history through the Jean Monnet Module in European Private Law.

In its quest to become a genuine area of freedom, security and justice, the EU has developed an ambitious program of normative action in civil procedure. Judicial cooperation has been strengthened. Exequatur has been abolished. Credit has been robustly protected. Sectorial action regularly includes procedural reform. In spite of this considerable acquis, the core procedural systems of states have remained anchored in national traditions. Cutting-edge policy and scholarship have advocated a deeper harmonisation. The Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure adopted by the American Law Institute (ALI) and UNIDROIT in 2004 lighted the path forward. In 2014 the European Law Institute (ELI) and UNIDROIT launched the project ‘From Transnational Principles to European Rules of Civil Procedure’, recently completed with the European Rules of Civil Procedure. Based on that project, in 2017 the European Parliament adopted a resolution requesting the Commission to put forward a proposal for a directive on common minimum standards of civil procedure in the EU.

These projects are the last frontier of civil procedural scholarship. A European proto-civil procedure code shows on the horizon. It will no longer be possible to teach or study civil procedure without making reference to the common rules and categories. The Chair embraces the paradigm shift and offers its grain of sand nationally and internationally.

IE Law School takes inspiration in the old ius commune europæum to teach law as a common language with dialectal expressions. A transnational standpoint is applied systematically. With more than 75% international students, all programmes are taught in English, while also using the original texts in class to the best extent possible. The core course touching upon civil procedure at IE, Litigation I, is dramatically transformed by the current harmonisation endeavours. Litigation I adopts the ELI-UNIDROIT Rules as leitmotif, so that students learn the structure, principles and rules of civil proceedings by reference to the common normative, conceptual and terminological framework. The Rules thus provide the students with a point of reference from which to identify the expression of this or that principle in the law and practice of selected jurisdictions. Like a musical theme with multiple variations, a dialogue between the European Rules and the national laws is established.

Based on that experience, the Chair builds on three more levels: a Study Group (in which students do and comment readings and research); a Faculty Seminar (in which teaching experiences are shared); and the IE Civil Procedure Series, a series of roundtables where students, academics, practitioners, judges, policymakers, from Europe and beyond, can explore the Rules, together with the leaders in the field.

The third issue of the Journal of Private International Law for 2020 features the following articles:

M Teo, “Public law adjudication, international uniformity and the foreign act of state doctrine”

Should courts, when applying foreign law, assess the validity or legality of foreign legislative or executive acts therein? The foreign act of state doctrine answers that question in the negative, but is often criticised as lacking a sound theoretical basis. This article argues, however, that the doctrine remains defensible if reconceptualised as a rule of private international law, which furthers the modest goal of international uniformity within the choice-of-law process. Assessing the validity or legality of foreign legislative and executive acts necessarily requires courts to address questions of foreign public law. Given the fact-specific and flexible nature of public law adjudication, courts cannot answer these questions, and thus cannot carry out such assessments, in a manner that loyally applies foreign law. The doctrine, then, makes the best of a bad situation, by sidestepping that problem with a clear rule of refusal which, if consistently applied, furthers international uniformity.

G Laganière, “Local polluters, foreign land and climate change: the myth of the local action rule in Canada”

This article addresses the jurisdiction of Canadian courts over transboundary pollution. It argues that a tort lawsuit brought by foreign victims of climate change against local greenhouse gas emitters could overcome jurisdictional obstacles, notably the local action rule, and proceed in Canada. The local action rule provides that Canadian courts have no jurisdiction to hear a claim involving foreign land, even when the claim lies solely in tort. It is thought to be a significant jurisdictional obstacle in transboundary environmental disputes involving foreign land. This assumption is misleading. A growing corpus of soft law instruments supports the notion of equal access to the courts of the state of origin for all victims of transboundary pollution. The courts of Canadian provinces have jurisdiction over pollution originating in the province, and the case law is more divided than generally assumed over the effect of the local action rule in tort litigation. The conclusions of this article have important implications for transboundary environmental disputes in Canada and other top greenhouse gas-producing countries. They also highlight a modest but potentially meaningful role for private international law in our global response to climate change.

S Khanderia, “Practice does not make perfect: Rethinking the doctrine of “the proper law of the contract” – A case for the Indian courts”

An international contract calls for the identification of the law that would govern the transaction in the event of a dispute on the matter between the parties. Indian private international law adopts the doctrine of “the proper law of contract” to identify the legal system that will regulate an international contract. In the absence of any codification, the interpretation of the doctrine has been left to the courts. The judiciary adopts the common law tripartite hierarchy, viz., the “express choice”, “implied choice” and “the closest and most real connection” test to determine the proper law. However, the existing case law demonstrates the diverse interpretations given to each of these factors in India in the post-colonial era. The paper examines the manner in which the blind adoption of the decisions of the English courts has considerably hindered the development of Indian private international law. In this regard, the author suggests some plausible solutions to render India more amenable to international trade and commerce – such as the adoption of mechanisms similar to those formulated by its continental counterpart.

KD Voulgarakis, “Reflections on the scope of “EU res judicata” in the context of Regulation 1215/2012”

It is now established in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) that the law pursuant to which the effects of a recognised judgment are determined is that of the Member State where the judgment was rendered. In Case C-456/11 (Gothaer), however, the CJEU deviated from this rule and developed an autonomous (EU) concept of res judicata. The potential for this concept to extend to other jurisdictional determinations by Member State courts has therefore created additional layers of complexity in the area of recognition of judgments. This article seeks to shed light on this topic by drawing conclusions from the Court’s rationale in Gothaer and considering whether a more broadly applicable autonomous concept of res judicata can be consistent with the general system of Regulation 1215/2012 and the CJEU’s previous case law.

K Tan, “All that glisters is not gold? Deconstructing Rubin v Eurofinance SA and its impact on the recognition and enforcement of foreign insolvency judgments at common law”

It was Lord Hoffmann who once spoke of a “golden thread” of modified universalism running throughout English Insolvency Law since the eighteenth century. However, after the UK Supreme Court’s decision in Rubin v Eurofinance SA, that golden thread seems to have lost its lustre. This paper critiques the main premise of the Rubin decision by questioning whether the Supreme Court was correct in holding that there can be no separate sui generis rule for recognising and enforcing foreign insolvency judgments. This article also explores the possible solutions, either through statute or the common law, that could be used to remedy the post-Rubin legal lacuna for recognising and enforcing foreign insolvency judgments.

B Alghanim, “The enforcement of foreign judgments in Kuwait”

This article provides an overview of the rules in Kuwait regarding the enforcement of foreign judgments. This issue is significant due to the fact that foreign litigants still experience significant challenges in successfully enforcing foreign judgments – particularly as such parties have a limited understanding of the manner in which the Kuwaiti courts will interpret the conditions required to enforce such judgments.

An analysis of case law in this area highlights that the reciprocity condition is usually the most significant hurdle for applicants when seeking the enforcement of foreign judgments. Such difficulties have catalysed the Kuwaiti Parliament to introduce an exception to the general rule regarding the reciprocity condition; reform which this article heavily criticises.

PN Okoli, “The fragmentation of (mutual) trust in Commonwealth Africa – a foreign judgments perspective”

Mutual trust plays an important role in facilitating the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. The 2019 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments also reflects some degree of mutual trust, although not explicitly. Commonwealth African countries seem to be influenced by mutual trust but have not yet adopted any coherent approach in the conflict of laws. This incoherence has impeded the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments especially in Africa. This article seeks to understand the principle of mutual trust in its EU context and then compare it with the subtle application of mutual trust in the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Commonwealth Africa. The article illustrates this subtle and rather unarticulated application of mutual trust primarily through decided cases and relevant statutory provisions in the Commonwealth African jurisdictions considered. The article then considers how the subtle application of mutual trust has sometimes resulted in parallel efforts to promote the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and how a proliferation of legal regimes can undermine legal clarity, certainty and predictability. A progressive application of mutual trust will help to ensure African countries maximise the benefits of a global framework on foreign judgments.

A Moran & A Kennedy, “When considering whether to recognise and enforce a foreign money judgment, why should the domestic court accord the foreign court international jurisdiction on the basis that the judgment debtor was domiciled there? An analysis of the approach taken by courts in the Republic of South Africa”

The Roman-Dutch common law of the Republic of South Africa states that a foreign judgment is not directly enforceable there. In order to have a foreign money judgment recognised and enforced, the judgment creditor must, inter alia, demonstrate that the foreign court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter (ie that it had “international jurisdiction”). South African courts have held that the judgment debtor’s being domiciled, at the time of commencement of the proceedings, within the territory of the foreign court confers the said international jurisdiction on that foreign court. This position has been criticised. This paper assesses the validity of that criticism.

RF Oppong, “The dawn of the free and fair movement of foreign judgments in Africa?”

A new book on foreign judgment enforcement in Nigeria and South Africa seeks to ground their foreign judgment enforcement regimes – and perhaps other African countries – on a new theoretical foundation and inform judicial decisions in new directions. In a quest to promote the free movement of judgments, judges are urged to presumptively enforce foreign judgments subject to narrowly defined exceptions. This review article examines the new theory of qualified obligation and some selected issues arising from the discussion, recommendations, and findings of the book.

 

On a personal note, it is a delight to see three articles on the subject of Private International law in Africa published in this issue!