Agrégateur de flux

The latest issue of Acta Universitatis Carolinae Iuridica, a periodical edited by the Faculty of Law of the Charles University in Prague, is out.

The issue’s general theme is ‘Thinking Private International Law through European Lenses’. It focuses on comparative private international law, with an emphasis on the European Union. The contributions – some in English, others in French – were put together on the occasion of the annual meeting of the Group européen de droit international privé (GEDIP), which was to take place between 18 and 20 September 2020 in Prague.

Opened by editorials by Monika Pauknerová and Catherine Kessedjian, the issue is made of three main sections.

The first addresses some general issues. It includes contributions by Johan Meeusen (‘The “logic of globalization” versus the “logic of the internal market”: a new challenge for the EuropeanUnion), Giuditta Cordero-Moss (‘The impact of EU law on Norwegian private international law’), Patrick Kinsch (‘La Convention européenne des droits de l’homme et les conflits de lois: synthèse de dix ans de jurisprudence européenne’), and Hans van Loon (‘Strategic Climate Litigation in the Dutch Courts: a source of inspiration for NGOs elsewhere?’).

The second section, on family law, features articles by Michael Bogdan (‘The relevance of family status created abroad for the freedom of movement in the EU’), Etienne Pataut (‘Codifier le divorce international – Quelques remarques sur le projet GEDIP’), and Zuzana Fišerová (Limits of jurisdiction for divorce under the Brussels IIa Regulation from the Czech perspective’).

Finally, the commercial law section hosts contributions by Jan Brodec (‘Applicable law in international insolvency proceedings (focused on the relation of Articles 3 and 7 of the Insolvency Regulation)’), Petr Bříza (‘Czech perspective on the validity of international arbitration clauses contained in an exchange of emails under the New York Convention’) and Magdalena Pfeiffer and Marta Zavadilová (‘Recognition and enforcement of judgments in commercial matters rendered by courts of non-EU countries in the Czech Republic’).

The whole issue can be downloaded here.

The draft Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the EU and the UK has been published. Please find it attached. At first sight, it does not seem to contain any express provisions on civil justice by contrast with criminal justice. Subject to a more thorough reading, and the publication of any separate agreement (like the one on Security of Information or the one on Civil Nuclear), the silence seems deliberate. The presentation of the deal on the UK side seems to confirm this (see https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/agreements-reached-between-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-european-union).

However, one should not forget the following:

“The Withdrawal Agreement remains in place […] the Withdrawal Agreement – and the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland, in particular – will be implemented on 1 January. On 17 December, the EU-UK Joint Committee met to endorse all formal decisions and other practical solutions related to the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement. As part of these mutually agreed solutions, the UK has agreed to withdraw the contentious clauses of the UK Internal Market Bill, and will not introduce any similar provisions in the Taxation Bill” (source: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_20_2531). This sheds some lights in respect of some European Civil Justice / Private International Law instruments, albeit not all.

The Brexit deal (officially the [draft] EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement) was agreed upon, finally, on December 24. Relief in many quarters (except Universities participating in the Erasmus program, which is discontinued in the UK).

But private international lawyers worry what happened to judicial cooperation in civil matters: is there any agreement at all? Peter Bert provides a detailed analysis of all available documents and finds almost no mention, which leads him to think we are facing  a sectoral hard brexit. Other experts on social media do not know more. The Law Society also seems worried. There seems to be no new information on the UK application to join the Lugano Convention, let alone any of the other areas of judicial cooperation. Given the intense discussion on these matters since the day of the Brexit vote, this can hardly be an oversight, but on the other hand it seems strange that such a core issue remained unaddressed.

Any further information or analysis in the comments is welcome.

The case

In a recent decision published October 30th, 2020 (ordinanza 24110/2020) the Italian Supreme Court has applied two provisions of the Brussels Ia Regulation, namely art. 8 n. 1, and art. 7 n. 2, in a context of multiple actions for fraud started by the Italian investors against a number of defendants. The first being a UK based bank for alleged breaches of its duties of control over financial experts who collected money from investors. The others being a UK based financial company and a financial expert who were supposed to invest the collected money by way of establishing trust. As emerges from the order of the Supreme Court, all investments collected in Italy were spent in gambling houses in Italy.

Proceedings were collectively started in Italy against all defendants, who challenged the Italian jurisdiction before the court of first instance, which thus requested the Supreme Court to settle the issue.

Last known domicile of one of the defendants

Following a logical order, the Italian Supreme Court seeks to determine in the first place if one of the defendants is domiciled in Italy. In this regard, the solution of the Court is interesting in that it focuses on the last known domicile of the financial expert, whose actual whereabouts have become unknown. According to the Court, the simple fact that current domicile of the party is unknown, and that consequently service of documents has followed domestic rules for unknown residents, is per se not sufficient to argue that that person is no longer domiciled in Italy. To some extent, even though this decision is not clearly mentioned in the order of the Italian Supreme Court, this conclusion seems consistent with the ratio expressed by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Hypotecní banka a.s. v Lindner (case C-327/10), where it was argued that defendants with unknown domicile are domiciled at their last known domicile for the purpose of the Brussels I(a) Regulation (see para. 42 ff).

Art. 8 n. 1 Brussels Ia Regulation

Having established that Italian jurisdiction exists under art. 4 Brussels Ia Regulation at least in respect to one of the defendants (i.e. the financial expert cooperating with the British financial company who should have been appointed as trustee for the management of the investments), the Italian Supreme Court turns to the analysis of Italian jurisdiction over the UK investment company and the UK Bank under art. 8 n. 1 Brussels Ia Regulation.

The Supreme Court concedes that the special head of jurisdiction is subject to a restrictive interpretation and should not be applied when the different proceedings have different petitum and causa petendi, or where there is no subordination between the actions with no risk of incompatible judgments – the mere ‘inconsistency’ between decisions being insufficient to trigger art. 8 n. 1 Brussels Ia Regulation and derogate from art. 4.

In the case at hand, however, even though the action against the UK bank was contractual in nature for alleged violation of its control duties, and non-contractual in nature against the other parties, the Italian Supreme Court notes how the non-contractual liability of those who have collected the money to unlawfully spend it in gambling houses in Italy is strictly interconnected and intertwined with the contractual conduct of the bank – as proper ex ante controls by this subject might have avoided the investment in favor of companies who had unclear bank operations incompatible with investment activities. Moreover, damaged parties have started proceedings seeking damages collectively against all parties for solidary liability – in the Court’s eye, this renders it fundamental to unitarily address all conducts even though these are grounded on different titles. Again, a solution that appears to be consistent with the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Freeport plc v Olle Arnoldsson, case C-98/06, para. 41).

For these reasons, the Italian Supreme Court argues that the Italian jurisdiction extends from that of the Italian domiciled also to both the British investment company and the British bank.

Art. 7 n. 2 Brussels Ia Regulation

The Italian Supreme Court also addresses the existence of the Italian jurisdiction under art. 7 n. 2 Brussels Ia Regulation. The Court does not however determine at this stage local competence – referring the issue to the court of first instance.

The case deals in concreto with damages following investment frauds – in this sense the only ‘damage’ for the purposes of the provision at hand is financial in nature. The Italian Supreme Court quotes the decision of the European Court of Justice in Volkswagen AG (Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Volkswagen AG, case C-343/19) to support the idea that the place of financial loss might ground the existence of Italian international jurisdiction, as in Italy the investors transferred their sums (thus lost their money).

The Supreme Court additionally argues that the ‘conduct’ can be localized in Italy as well – thus Italian jurisdiction follows. In Italy the sums were allegedly fraudulently collected from investors, and in Italy such sums were allegedly fraudulently used in Italian gambling houses (contrary to contractual indications). With a brief passage, the Court gives a strong value to this specific head of jurisdiction, the place of the ‘harmful conduct’, as it can be used by the plaintiffs to ground their actions superseding uncertainties that could follow the application of art. 8 n. 1 Brussels Ia.

Arbitration community lacked a comprehensive guide in English to move through the multiple and multifaceted connections between arbitration and the Italian legal system: International Arbitration in Italy fills in this gap, addressing both international commercial and investment arbitration.

The book deeply depicts said connections, raising interpretative problems and providing solutions with the view to building a coherent system against the backdrop of the author’s thought about the phenomenon of the arbitration taken as a whole.

This approach qualifies the entire analysis elaborated on in 12 Chapters, which start with the focus on what international arbitration is and what its grounds are, then moving on how arbitration “dialogues” with the different sources of Italian law, and what the principles for the right interpretation of this law are.

The book proceeds on “traditional” topics pertaining to a handbook of international commercial arbitration (the interplay between arbitration and national courts, the arbitration agreement, the arbitral tribunal, the arbitral proceedings, the provisional measures, the law applicable to the merits, the costs of arbitration, the different awards, related challenges, recognition and enforcement) with a closing attention to investment arbitration.

International Arbitration in Italy also includes three useful appendices which gather the main provisions of Italian law on arbitration (1), the rules of arbitration of the Milan Chamber of Arbitration (2) and the list of the Bilateral Investment Treaties in force for Italy (3).

Given its well-balanced theoretical and practical approach, the book will stimulate the scientific debate while helping practitioners to handle even the trickiest cases featuring interactions between international arbitration and Italian law.

Many good wishes for the Holiday Season and the New Year from the Editors of the EAPIL blog!

Blogging will be light in the coming days, but we plan to gradually resume our usual publishing pace on 7 January.

La rédaction de Dalloz actualité suspend quelques jours la publication du journal. 

en lire plus

The critical point in Monday’s judgment in  ING Bank N.V. & Anor v Banco Santander S.A. [2020] EWHC 3561 (Comm), an application for lack of jurisdiction, is whether this is a case about claims which a syndicate of eight lenders, including ING, had against Marme Inversiones 2007 S.L.U (“Marme”) under a loan agreement and related swap agreements (together “the Marme Agreements”) which were entered into between the lenders and Marme in September 2008, or whether it is about the effect of the ongoing liquidation of Marme in Spain on those claims. The Defendant Applicant says the latter, the Claimant Respondents say the former.

Of note is that on 2 January 2020, Sorlinda, whose agreements are at issue, merged into Santander. As a consequence of the merger, Santander assumed all of Sorlinda’s rights and liabilities.

At 4 Cockerill J summarises ‘the field of battle’ (at 4) as follows:

Santander contends that the court should refuse to exercise jurisdiction or order a stay because:

i) The claim falls within the EU Insolvency Regulation on insolvency proceedings (the “Insolvency Regulation”) and is excluded from the scope of the recast Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the “Brussels Regulation”) pursuant to Article 1(2)(b) of the Brussels Regulation.

ii) Even if the Claim does not fall within the exception under Article 1(2)(b), ING cannot rely upon Article 25 of the Brussels Regulation.

iii) As a matter of Spanish law, ING has not established that Sorlinda became liable to ING for Marme’s liabilities.

iv) There are in any event grounds for the Court to refuse to exercise its jurisdiction and/or to order a stay.

ING contends that:

i) The bankruptcy/winding up exclusion in Article 1(2)(b) of the Brussels Regulation does not apply. The Claim is between two solvent entities in relation to contractual payment obligations under the Marme Agreements, and has no effect on Marme or any of its other creditors. The Claim does not derive directly from Marme’s winding up nor is it closely connected with that winding up.

ii) The question of whether or not Santander is bound by the Marme Agreements is a question of English law having appropriate regard to the effect of the relevant “assumption” of Marme’s obligations by Sorlinda (now Santander) as a matter of Spanish law.

iii) There is (at least) a good arguable case that as a consequence of the “assumption” Santander has a direct liability to ING under the Marme Agreements which are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts.

iv) There are no grounds for the Court to refuse to exercise its jurisdiction and/or to order a stay. (GAVC underlining)

She holds that the jurisdictional challenge succeeds on the A25 BIa point, and also on the Insolvency Regulation point. The other grounds (assumption in Spanish Law and case management stay) would have failed.

Arguments in essence concern Brussels Ia’s insolvency exception. Per CJEU Gourdain, an action is related to bankruptcy only if it derives directly from the bankruptcy and is closely linked to proceedings for realising the assets or judicial supervision. Valach and F-Tex is CJEU authority also discussed.

In general, it is the closeness of the link between a court action and the insolvency proceedings that is decisive for the purposes of deciding whether the insolvency exclusion is applicable (CJEU German Graphics). In the absence of substantive EU insolvency law, the CJEU does not push an autonomous interpretation of the concept and defers largely to national insolvency law.

Whether the action is within the scope of BIa therefore requires examination of the national laws at issue, and that is done at length (featuring ia prof Virgós,  whose expert report clearly impressed Mrs Justice Cockerill).

Core of the decision on the insolvency exception, is at 197:

..the nature of the claim is one which is defined by something which took place in the liquidation, and the dispute effectively cannot be expressed without reference to the conduct of the liquidation. Although there is no challenge to the validity of the liquidator’s actions, the proceedings do necessarily require a consideration of the ambit of those powers and the ambit of actions done as part of those powers. The question of to what extent Sorlinda assumed the relevant liability can only be answered by looking at the deal which was struck in the context of the Liquidation Plan (governed by Spanish insolvency law) and the statutory insolvency framework.

The claim is not covered by BIa. English courts do not have jurisdiction over it.

Article 25 BIa is discussed first in fact, at 113 ff. However I would have thought (although Cockerill J suggest quite the reverse) that the A25 arguments must be obiter, with the insolvency exception findings logically coming first. This may be at issue when this judgment is appealed and /or referred to later.

On A25, ING must demonstrate a good arguable case either as to succession to choice of court, or as to specific consent. It was clear that the latter was not established hence discussion focused on novation /succession.  Authority discussed was of course Refcomp, Coreck Maritime, Tilly Russ etc.

This section of the judgment does not have the same clarity as the discussion on insolvency. Much reference is made to the relevance of either Spanish or English law on the issue of privity of choice of court, however this seems to be mostly done with reference to those laws being potential lex contractus (of the underlying contract). Even if the issue is not completely dealt with autonomously by EU law (which is arguable; and would have ended reference to any national laws), discussion of national law arguably should be to lex fori prorogati per the new rule in Brussels Ia (even a putative lex fori prorogati). At any rate, no succession or novation is established.

Something to clear out in my head over the end of year break.

This was most probably my last posting for the year.

Merry Christmas, everyone, and Guten Rutsch. Be safe, and remember this nice thought.

Geert.

European Private International Law, 3rd ed., 2021, Heading 2.2.3.1 (2.73 ff) and Heading 2.2.10.7 (2.355 ff).

Jurisdiction.
Bankruptcy/winding up (#insolvency) exclusion, A1(2)(b) BIa.
Whether it is triggered. Whether if it is not, A25 BIa applies. https://t.co/PbU6pCL9hM

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) December 22, 2020

Elie Lenglart, a lecturer at the University Paris II Panthéon-Assas, gave an online conference on La théorie générale des conflits de lois à l’épreuve de l’individualisme (Individualism and General Choice of Law Theory) on 1 December 2020.

This is the topic of his doctoral thesis, which received the first prize of the French Committee of Private International Law earlier this year.

The English abstract of the work reads:

Individualism is one the characteristic features of modern legal theories. The emergence of individualism has so profoundly altered the meaning of the judicial phenomenon that it may be considered as the decisive factor in the evolution from a classical to a modern conception of the Law. This evolution is the product of a substantial mutation of our vision of the world, inextricably linked to a change of philosophical paradigm. The analysis of this evolution is essential not only to the understanding of the meaning of the Individualism doctrine but also to apprehend its main repercussions. International private Law has also been influenced by this evolution. The Conflict of Laws doctrine is necessarily based on a specific conception of the Law itself. Thus, the emergence of the individualistic approach of the Law undoubtedly has decisive consequences on this field: the methods used to solve conflicts of laws have evolved while the goals have been substantially altered. The Conflict of Laws doctrine is now structured toward the sole analysis of individual interests. This new feature is radically opposed to the balance that characterized the classical approach of Conflict of Laws. In order to reveal the extent of the implications of the Individualism on this field, a study of the concept within the Conflict of Laws doctrine is necessary.

The table of contents of the thesis is available here.

A video of the conference (in French) can be accessed here.

In Owen v Galgey & Ors [2020] EWHC 3546 (QB), Linden J yesterday dealt with the application of Rome II’s common habitual residence exception to A4(1) lex loci damni rule, and with the general escape clause of A4(3).

These cases often involve tragic accidents and injuries and the sec conflict of laws analysis below in no way of course mean any disrespect to claimant and his loved ones.

Claimant is a British citizen who is domiciled and habitually resident in England. He brings a claim for damages for personal injury sustained by him as result of an accident in France (3 April 2018), when he fell into an empty swimming pool which was undergoing works at a villa in France, a holiday home owned by the First Defendant, whose wife is the Second Defendant. They are also British citizens who are domiciled and habitually resident in England, Third Defendant is a company domiciled in France, and the public liability insurer of the First and Second Defendants. Fourth Defendant is a contractor which was carrying out renovation works on the swimming pool at the time of the accident. Fifth Defendant is the public liability insurer of the Fourth Defendant. Fourth and Fifth Defendants are both companies which are domiciled in France.

That French law applies to the claims against Fourth and Fifth Defendant is undisputed. There is however a dispute as to the applicable law in relation to his claims against the First to Third Defendants. These Defendants contend that, by operation of A4(2) Rome II, English law applies because the Claimant and the First and Second Defendants are habitually resident in England. Claimant contends that French law applies by operation of A4(3) Rome II: the ‘manifestly more closely connected’ rule.

Textual argument suggest that on the basis of the text of Recital 18 and A4(2) itself, A4(2) only applies to two party cases and does not apply in multi-party cases. Linden J at 29 notes that this would also correspond with the narrow reading required of A4(2). However he follows of course the authority of Marshall, which I approved of at the time (if only because, if multi-party claims were outside the scope of A42(), it would suffice for either claimant artificially to add a defendant to the claim, or for a defendant similarly to manoeuvre in a second defendant, for A4(2) to become inoperable). A4(2) also applies if more than one party is involved.

On A4(3), then, Marshall, too, is authority and Winrow v Hemphill another rare case that seriously engaged with the issue. In the latter case, Slade J held that the balance was in favour of not applying the escape clause, particularly in view of the period of time of habitual residence in Germany, and subsequent continuing residence in that country (inter alia for follow-up treatment). In the former, Dingemans J did reach a conclusion of applying A4(3) hence lex causae being French law on the grounds I discuss in my post on the case. Here, Linden J discusses the various factors at issue in Winrow v Hemphill and in Marhsall and reaches a conclusion of French law:

In my view it is clear that the tort/delict in the present case is manifestly more closely connected with France. France is where the centre of gravity of the situation is located and the preponderance of factors clearly points to this conclusion. This conclusion also accords with the legitimate expectations of the parties.

The reasons for that are essentially listed at (75  ff)

The tort/delict occurred in France, as I have noted. This is also where the injury or direct damage occurred. The dispute centres on a property in France and it concerns structural features of that property and how the First, Second and Fourth Defendants dealt with works on a swimming pool there. Although these defendants deny that there was fault on the part of any of them, the First and Second Defendants say that the Fourth Defendant was responsible if the pool presented a danger and the Fourth Defendant says that they were. The allegations of contributory negligence/fault also centre on the Claimant’s conduct whilst at the Villa in France.

The First and Second Defendants also had a significant and long-standing connection to France, the accident occurred on their property and the works were carried out by a French company pursuant to a contract with them which is governed by French law. Their insurer, the Third Defendant, is a French company and they are insured under a contract which is governed by French law. The contract was to insure a property in France albeit one which, I accept, applied to claims under English and French law. It is also common ground that the claim against the Fourth Defendant, and therefore against the Fifth Defendant, also a French company, is entirely governed by French law and will require the court to decide whether the Fourth Defendant or, at least by implication, the First and Second Defendants were “custodians” of the property for the purposes of French law.

Whilst it cannot be said at this stage that, by analogy with Marshall, the accident was entirely caused by the Fourth Defendant in particular, the situation in relation to the swimming pool which is said to have been the cause of the accident was firmly rooted in France and it resulted from works which were being carried out by the Fourth Defendant as a result of it being contracted to do so by the First and Second Defendants. The liability of the First and Second Defendants, if any, will be affected by how they dealt with that situation, including by evidence about their dealings with the Fourth Defendant. That situation had no significant connections with England other than the nationality and habitual place of residence of the First and Second Defendants.

The core counterarguments which were dismissed, are (78 ff)

I take the point that the Claimant and the First and Second Defendants were habitually resident in England at the relevant time, that there was a pre-existing relationship between them, and that the Claimant and his family came to be at the Villa as a result of an agreement which was made in England. But, applying an objective test (see Chitty on Contract Volume 1 at paragraph 2-171 in particular), I am not satisfied that this agreement, on the information available at this stage, was contractual in nature. Part of the difficulty in relation to this aspect of the First to Third Defendants’ argument is that there is very little information before the court as to what precisely happened. Looking at the agreed facts in the context of the statements of case and the other materials which I have been shown, however, it appears that the agreement resulted from a casual conversation between social acquaintances in the context of mutual favours having been done in the past. It was informal in nature and it appears that the Claimant offered to do the work as a favour and the First and Second Defendant invited him and his family to the Villa to return that favour.

If I had found that there was a contract, I would also likely have found that it was governed by French law. Although it was entered into in England between British parties, it related entirely to a property in France. Performance of the contract on both sides could only be effected at a particular property in France and was very strongly connected to France in that it involved work on a villa there and a family holiday there. This and the other features of the case would have led me to conclude that [A4(3) Rome I] indicated that there was a manifestly closer connection between the contract and France, although I acknowledge that there is a degree of circularity in this approach. ….

Mr Doherty understandably emphasised that, even if there was no contract with the Claimant, the relationship and the agreement which led to the Claimant and his family being in France were based and made in England. I was also initially attracted by his argument that in effect the Claimant’s complaint is about the way in which the First and Second Defendants fulfilled their side of that agreement. But that is not the claim which he makes, and, in any event, their performance of the agreement was in the form of allowing the Claimant and his family to occupy a villa in France. Nor is this a case in which, for example, the injury occurred whilst the Claimant was carrying out work on the Villa and potential tortious and contractual duties (if the relationship was contractual) therefore arose directly out of the relationship between the parties.

To my mind the tort/delict in this case is much more closely connected to the state of the swimming pool which, as I have said, was part of a property in France and resulted from the French law contract between the First and Second Defendants and the Fourth Defendant. If any of the Defendants is liable, that liability will be closely connected with this contract. This point, taken in combination with the other points to which I have referred, in my view clearly outweighs the existence of any contract with the Claimant relating to the Villa, even if I had found there to be a contractual relationship and even if it was governed by English law.

Similarly, although I have taken into account the nationality and habitual place of residence of the Claimant and the First and Second Defendants, these do not seem to me to alter the conclusion to which I have come. I have also taken into account the fact that the consequences of the accident have to a significant extent been suffered by the Claimant whilst he was in England, but in my view the other factors to which I have referred clearly outweigh this consideration.

Of particular note for future direction on Rome II, is the discussion on existing pre-contractual relations.

This is of course a fact-specific and to a certain extent, discretionary assessment. I also agree there is no limit to the kinds and amount of factors which a judge may take into account when applying the A4(3) exception.

I am minded to disagree with the conclusion reached here, however.  The judge’s assessment is one that echoes a proper law of the tort approach, starting from scratch. But that is not what A4(3) is about: it does not start from scratch; it starts from the clearly stated rule of A4(2), which requires a lot of heavy lifting to be dislodged. The arguments pro upholding the A4(2) presumption listed in 78ff in my view give the finding for sustaining its consequence and hence English law as lex causae, strong foundations indeed which I believe, respectfully of course, the judge did not show enough deference to.

Geert.

European Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 4.5.

Article 4(2) and (3) Rome II Regulation, applicable law for tort. https://t.co/cYGtr7m0jx

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) December 21, 2020

Marta Pertegás (Maastricht University) has posted The 2019 Judgments Convention: the Road Ahead on SSRN.

The abstract reads:

In The Hague and far beyond, the conclusion of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (hereafter, “the Hague Judgments Convention”) in July 2019 was welcomed with a long deep sigh of satisfaction. The successful conclusion of this Convention under the auspices of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (hereafter, “the HCCH”) undoubtedly marks a crucial milestone in the area of international dispute settlement in civil and commercial matters. In this contribution, the author describes the circumstances leading up to the conclusion of the Hague Judgments Convention, as well as the Convention´s most salient features. The author also recommends some actions for the Convention to become truly effective. Indeed, the “road ahead” towards an operational international standard of practical relevance is the next challenge for the private international law global community.

Today, the English High Court in Owen v Galgey [2020] EHWC 3546 (QB) delivered a thorough and interesting decision on Article 4(3) of Rome II Regulation, which is the general escape clause for Rome II. For a complete reading of the decision see here