Agrégateur de flux

The Choice of Court Convention is already close to its 5th year of application. Case law is still scarce. A Greek court tackled with the question, whether to apply the Convention or not. It decided that it should apply, but at the end it considered that the agreement was asymmetric, therefore outside the scope of the Convention.

 

THE FACTS

The claimant is a ship owner company registered in Monrovia, Liberia. While the claimant’s ship was on its way to Novorossiysk, Russia, the claimant agreed with a company registered in Hong Kong [defendant], having however a branch in Piraeus, to buy a quantity of petrol, to be delivered at the port of the Russian city. A few days later, both the ship and the fuel were in Novorossiysk. During bunkering, the 1st engineer of the ship requested the interruption of the supply. He was suspicious that petrol was not of the agreed quality. A technical inspection a couple days later proved that the engineer was right. As a result, litigation ensued before the Piraeus courts. The defendant did not challenge the court’s international jurisdiction. At the same time, he filed an interpleader action against the petrol supplier. The latter, a company registered in Monaco, challenged the jurisdiction of the Greek court, by invoking a choice of forum agreement between the parties, stipulated on the invoice issued as a standard term of the deal.

 

THE RULING

The court engaged in a thorough analysis of the issue: It confirmed that the agreement was falling under the scope of the convention both ratione temporis and ratione materiae. The agreement was signed after the entry into force of the Convention (1/10/2015) and concerned a genuinely commercial dispute. It then examined the content of the choice of forum clause, and considered that the agreement was asymmetric, i.e. unilaterally in favor of the seller, and to the detriment of the buyer. As a second step, the court found that the Brussels Ia Regulation was also not applicable, because the conditions provided by Article 25, lit. a – c were not met. Following the above, the court resumed to domestic provisions of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure, in order to establish its international jurisdiction (Article 31, similar actions).

 

COMMENT

The wording of the choice of court clause reads as follows: The contract is governed by English law; the contracting parties accept the exclusive jurisdiction of English courts for the resolution of any dispute related to the present contract [translated by the author]. I don’t think I need to say anything here; there’s nothing asymmetric in this clause. I will just reproduce a passage from the Explanatory Report prepared by Professors Hartley and Dogauchi:

105 Asymmetric agreements. Sometimes a choice of court agreement is drafted to be exclusive as regards proceedings brought by one party but not as regards proceedings brought by the other party. International loan agreements are often drafted in this way. A choice of court clause in such an agreement may provide, “Proceedings by the borrower against the lender may be brought exclusively in the courts of State X; proceedings by the lender against the borrower may be brought in the courts of State X or in the courts of any other State having jurisdiction under its law.”

 

The final point I want to make is that the court shouldn’t go that far with the examination of the matter. As mentioned above, the parties in question were registered in Hong Kong and Monaco. Both countries are not signatory members to the Hague Convention. Hence, the analysis was unnecessary.

 

Conclusion: Bad publicity is still publicity. There are of course drawbacks in the court’s analysis; still, on the other side, it is very fortunate that the court examined the facts from the Hague Convention’s point of view too. The worst case scenario would have been to ignore completely the Convention’s existence, which regrettably occurs occasionally, both for Hague Conventions and sometimes for EU Regulations as well.

 

[Piraeus Court of First Instance nr. 3106/2019, available (in Greek) here]

Today, the ECJ decided in case C-641/18 –  LG and Others v. Rina SpA, Ente Registro Italiano Navale, on the concepts of ‘civil and commercial matters’ and ‘administrative matters’ under Article 1 Brussels I Regulation.

The case arose from the following facts:

14      LG and Others — relatives of the victims and survivors of the sinking of the Al Salam Boccaccio’98 vessel in the Red Sea on 2 and 3 February 2006, in which more than 1 000 people lost their lives — brought an action before the Tribunale di Genova (District Court, Genoa, Italy) against the Rina companies — ship classification and certification societies — whose seat is in Genoa.

15      LG and Others claim compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses stemming from the Rina companies’ civil liability, arguing that the classification and certification operations for the Al Salam Boccaccio’98 vessel, carried out by the Rina companies under a contract concluded with the Republic of Panama, for the purposes of obtaining that State’s flag for that vessel, were the cause of that sinking.

16      The Rina companies contend that the referring court lacks jurisdiction, relying on the international-law principle of immunity from jurisdiction of foreign States. In particular, according to those companies, the classification and certification operations which they conducted were carried out upon delegation from the Republic of Panama and, therefore, are a manifestation of the sovereign powers of the delegating State.

17      According to LG and Others, by contrast, given that the Rina companies have their seat in Italy and the dispute at issue in the main proceedings is civil in nature, within the meaning of Article 1 of Regulation No 44/2001, the Italian courts have jurisdiction under Article 2(1) of that regulation. In addition, LG and Others submit that the plea of immunity from jurisdiction, relied on by the Rina companies, does not cover activities that are governed by non-discretionary technical rules which are, in any event, unrelated to the political decisions and prerogatives of a State.

18      The referring court raises the question of the jurisdiction of the Italian courts in so far as, while it is common ground that the Rina companies have their seat in Italy, it is claimed that they acted upon delegation from the Republic of Panama.

19      In that regard, the referring court refers, in its request for a preliminary ruling, to the case-law of the Corte costituzionale (Constitutional Court, Italy) and of the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation, Italy) concerning immunity from jurisdiction. In accordance with the case-law of those supreme courts, recognition of immunity from jurisdiction is precluded only in respect of the acts of foreign States consisting in war crimes and crimes against humanity or where such recognition undermines the principle of judicial protection.

The Court held that

Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an action for damages, brought against private-law corporations engaged in the classification and certification of ships on behalf of and upon delegation from a third State, falls within the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’, within the meaning of that provision, and, therefore, within the scope of that regulation, provided that that classification and certification activity is not exercised under public powers, within the meaning of EU law, which it is for the referring court to determine. The principle of customary international law concerning immunity from jurisdiction does not preclude the national court seised from exercising the jurisdiction provided for by that regulation in a dispute relating to such an action, where that court finds that such corporations have not had recourse to public powers within the meaning of international law.

The full text of the judgment is here.

The CoL post on the Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar in this case is here.

Autriche / Commission
Aide d'État
L’avocat général Hogan invite la Cour à rejeter le pourvoi de l’Autriche dans une affaire d’aide d’État britannique

Rina
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Les victimes du naufrage d’un navire battant pavillon panaméen peuvent saisir les juridictions italiennes d’une action en responsabilité contre les organismes italiens ayant classifié et certifié ce navire

The Organization of American States (OAS) has announced that it is launching a weekly virtual forum entitled “Inter-American law in times of pandemic”.  It begins on Monday 11 May at 11:00 am (EDT, local time in Washington, D.C.).  The first session “Challenges to Inter-American Law” will be held in Spanish, with no simultaneous interpretation. Registration is free but space is limited. The agenda is available here.

As announced, “the topics to be discussed in relation to the impact of the pandemic in the Americas will include: the challenges to Inter-American law; the importance of access to public information; protection of privacy and personal data; the fight against corruption; legal cooperation against cyber-crime; food security as a specific challenge; the difficulties for private international law; among others.”

The list of virtual fora is available here. On Monday 29 June 2020, a forum will be held on “New Challenges for Private International Law.” Apparently, the sessions will be recorded and will be available on video later on the OAS website.

In addition, the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) has published a COVID-19 Toolkit, which is available in both English and French.

My colleague Hélène Peroz has reported on this interesting judgment delivered on 4 March 4 2020 by the French Supreme Court for private and criminal matters (Cour de cassation).

The Court applied an old principle of the French law of international jurisdiction. Unfortunately, it does not seem that the applicability of EU Regulations of private international law was raised.

Background

A German company sought to enforce an arbitral award against a man domiciled in Algeria. The man jointly owned an immoveable property near Paris, France. The co-owner was his wife, who was also domiciled in Algeria. The German creditor initiated proceedings before the family division of the high court of Paris and applied for a judicial order to divide the property. The goal was to ultimately receive half of the proceeds.

Jurisdiction of French Courts in Family Matters

The Algerian spouses challenged the jurisdiction of the Paris court. They argued that, outside of the scope of international conventions and EU instruments, jurisdiction in family matters lied with the court of the residence of the family pursuant to Article 1070 of the French code of civil procedure.

In a judgment of 18 December 2018, the Paris Court of Appeal accepted the argument and declined jurisdiction on the ground that the family resided in Algeria.

Extending the Application of Domestic Rules of Jurisdiction to International Cases

The French lawmaker has adopted very few rules of international jurisdiction. French courts have thus long held that, in principle, rules of domestic jurisdiction may also be used to define the international jurisdiction of French courts. Article 1070 of the Code of Civil Procedure defines the domestic jurisdiction of French courts in family matters. So the Paris  Court of Appeal had simply applied Article 1070 to assess its international jurisdiction.

The French Supreme Court has long identified two exceptions to the principle of extension of domestic rules of jurisdiction: enforcement and actions related to real property. In both cases, the rule of international jurisdiction has typically been straightforward: French courts have jurisdiction over actions related to enforcement carried out in France and actions related to immovables situated in France. In this judgment, the Court ruled more widely that, while the principle was to extend the application of domestic rules of jurisdiction, it might be necessary to “adapt them to the particular needs of international relations”.

The Court then ruled that it would not be appropriate to apply Article 1070 (and thus grant jurisdiction to the court of the residence of the family) to define the jurisdiction of French court in this case, “both for practical reasons of proximity and pursuant to the effectivity principle”.

The reference to effectivity seems to mean that the court cared about the future enforcement of the decision which, quite clearly, was meant to take place in France, where the apartment is located. Indeed, and although the action was based on a rule of property law, the chances that the property would be attached and sold judicially for the purpose of actually implementing the rule was high.

What about EU Regulations?

It is clear that the French Supreme Court ruled on the understanding that no EU Regulation applied. Was that really the case?

Regulation 2016/1103 on Property Regimes does not apply to proceedings initiated before 29 January 2019. It is unclear, however, whether it would apply should the same case arise today.

The territorial scope of the jurisdictional rules of the Property Regimes Regulation is not limited to actions initiated against defendants domiciled within participating Member States, so the issue would not be so much that the defendants were domiciled in a third state.

Rather, the issue is whether the action was one related to matrimonial property regimes. The property was co-owned by two spouses, but their matrimonial property regime was separation of property. This means that their marriage was not relevant to the action (which was based on a general provision of property law). In fact, Regulation 2016/1103 defines ‘matrimonial property regimes’ as sets of rules ‘concerning the property relationships between the spouses and in their relations with third parties, as a result of marriage or its dissolution’ (Article 3(1)(a), emphasis added). 

So one wonders whether the action would not rather have fallen within the material scope of the Brussels I bis Regulation. Indeed, the CJEU once defined the exception to the scope of the Brussels Convention as covering “any proprietary relationships resulting directly from the matrimonial relationship or the dissolution thereof” (De Cavel, 1979). In the present case, the proprietary relationship between the spouses did not result from their marriage.

And if the case fell within the material scope of the Brussels I bis Regulation, then Article 24 of that Regulation (which applies irrespective of the domicile of the parties) would apply. It is not absolutly clear whether the relevant provision would be Article 24(1) (in rem rights over immoveables) or Article 24(5) (enforcement), but in both cases, it would have granted exclusive jurisdiction to French courts. 

Dalloz Actualité publie le projet de loi « portant diverses dispositions urgentes pour faire face aux conséquences de l’épidémie de covid-19 » qui sera débattu au Conseil des ministres aujourd’hui. L’étude à l’Assemblée, en séance, aura lieu dès le jeudi 14 mai.

en lire plus

In Mastermelt v Siegfried Evionnaz [2020] EWHC 927 (QB), at issue is negative declaratory relief on contractual performance. 

Claimant Mastermelt is an English company specialising in the reclamation of precious metals. The defendant, Siegfried Evionnaz SA (“Siegfried”), is a Swiss company. There is a dispute between the parties over the quality of Mastermelt’s performance. Siegfried’s standard terms and conditions of contract (“STC”) include a clause stating that the governing law is Swiss law and that the Swiss courts have exclusive jurisdiction.

Relevant pending proceedings, are: very shortly after Siegfried had informed Mastermelt that it was going to issue proceedings against Mastermelt in Switzerland, Mastermelt issued the present claim in England on 5 February 2019. It seeks negative declaratory relief against Siegfried. Proceedings were subsequently issued by Siegfried against Mastermelt in the Zurich Commercial Court on 23 July 2019. Meanwhile, on 24 May 2019, Siegfried applied to the High Court in London for a declaration that it had no jurisdiction to try Mastermelt’s claim and so the Claim Form and service should be set aside, alternatively stayed. Further, on 29 January 2020 Mastermelt applied to the Swiss court (1) for a stay of those proceedings pending the UK decision, or (2) for the Swiss proceedings to be limited at that stage to a consideration of the court’s own jurisdiction there and nothing else, or (3) an extension of time for service of a response to Siegfried’s claim. By an order of 4 February 2020, the Swiss court rejected all three applications. On 7 February Mastermelt filed an appeal to the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland which initially suspended enforcement of the Zurich Commercial Court’s decision pending the appeal. However, on 13 February Siegfried objected to any such suspension. The Supreme Court directed Mastermelt to file any response to that objection by 9 March. As far as the English courts know, that has been done but at the moment the Supreme Court has not given its decision on the suspension issue, let alone any substantive appeal, nor has there been any decision yet on the jurisdiction or otherwise of the Swiss court to hear the claim.

Siegfried argues, and has convinced the Swiss courts, that A27 Lugano needs to be applied ‘in harmony’ with A31(2) Brussels Ia: this now provides that regardless of which court was seised first, the court which was the subject of the putative exclusive jurisdiction clause, must decide the question of its jurisdiction first and the other proceedings must be stayed in the meantime. At 13 Waksman J refers to the Swiss court’s reasoning, where it takes an expansionist view of the Lugano Convention‘s protocol no2, that the Lugano States shall take ‘due account’ of each other’s courts decisions. The Swiss court suggests that in principle it should follow CJEU authority in Gasser (which introduced the torpedo mechanism by giving strict interpretation to the lis alibi pendens rule, even in case of choice of court) but that it has reasonable justification to deviate from Gasser given that the judgment has become ‘obsolete’ following A31(2) BIa.

Waksman J is first invited to accept the Swiss court’s reasoning as res iudicata, per CJEU C-456/11 Gothaer. (I did say at the time the CJEU may find its ruling in Gothaer would come back to haunt it). This he finds is a stretch of that authority but also not applicable given the limited findings of the Swiss court at any rate: ‘here the actual and only decision of the Swiss court thus far is simply to refuse to stay its own proceedings’.

He then discusses how A27 Lugano needs to be applied. A first reference is to the Court of Appeal’s most problematic view in Privatbank, to my mind, of applying Article 28 Lugano reflexively to third States. At 23-24 Waksman J distinguishes Privatbank (clearly he cannot hold it no relevant authority should he think so); then holds correctly that Gasser is not entirely obsolete following BIa; and finally at 30 that the harmonised regime per Lugano’s Protocol does not mean that one should now interpret Article 27 Lugano like 31.2 and (b) i Brussels Ia.

I agree most firmly. Note this has Brexit implications: one of the routes post Brexit, as readers know, is for the UK to become part of Lugano. In doing so it will surrender BIa’s forum non-light regime (Articles 33-34) in favour of Lugano which most dedinitely does not have a forum non application – as well as, as is at issue here, re-arming the Italian torpedo.

This leaves the issue of the putative choice of court agreement. England is the forum contractus per Article 5(1)a Lugano, hence will have jurisdiction less choice of court stands. Authority is well-known and recently applied in Pan Ocean, referred to here at 85. After much factual consideration it is accepted to a good arguable case standard that the parties contracted on the basis of the STC for the obligations concerned.

In conclusion therefore the action is stayed.

Quite a few relevant issues here. I for one note the cautious approach of the Court, in handling the Court of Appeal’s Privatbank authority.

Geert.

Handbook of) European Private International Law – 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2.

 

Application for negative declaratory relief on contractual performance.
Jurisdiction.
Lis pendens and choice of court under the Lugano Convention.
Concurrent claim by defendant in Switzerland. https://t.co/F80LoWJvps

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

Par un arrêt du 18 mars 2020, la première chambre civile se penche, pour la première fois, sur deux questions de procédure en matière d’adoption internationale, l’une relative au respect de la compétence des juridictions spécialisées, l’autre concernant la mise en œuvre de la convention de La Haye du 29 mai 1993.

en lire plus

Dans cet arrêt de chambre, la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme conclut à la violation de l’article 3 de la Convention au sujet d’une opération insuffisamment planifiée et d’un usage excessif de la force par le GIPN lors de l’arrestation d’un suspect. 

en lire plus

Tribunal judiciaire de Paris, 23ème chambre correctionnelle

Cour d'appel d'Aix en Provence (chambre 5-7)

Giesela Rühl (Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena & Humboldt-University of Berlin) has posted Private International Law Post-Brexit: Between Plague and Cholera on SSRN.

The abstract reads:

Over the course of the last two decades, the European legislature has adopted a large number of regulations dealing with private international law. As long as the UK was a member of the EU these regulations were also applicable in the UK. However, now that Brexit has actually taken place, they only apply by virtue of the Withdrawal Agreement whereas they will cease to apply as soon as the transition period provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement expires. The following contribution takes this finding as an opportunity to take a closer look at the future relationship between the EU and the UK in private international law. It analyses the corresponding British proposals and argues that the relatively best option for both the UK and the EU would be the adoption of a new bilateral agreement that either provides for continued application of the existing EU instruments or closely replicates these instruments.

The paper is forthcoming in the Revue de Droit Commercial Belge/Tijdschrift voor Belgisch Handelsrecht.

 

In SCOR SE v Barclays [2020] EWHC 133 (Comm), claimant SCOR is a reinsurance company incorporated in France. Covéa, a shareholder of SCOR, made an unsolicited offer to acquire a controlling shareholding in SCOR. Barclays was one of Covéa’s financial advisors and prospective lenders in relation to the Offer. The English proceedings, and related French proceedings, all concern French law claims brought by SCOR against Mr Derez, who was one of its directors, Covéa, and Barclays in connection with the Offer. It is alleged by SCOR that Mr Derez disclosed to Covéa and to its advisors, including Barclays, confidential information, which he obtained in breach of duties he owed to SCOR, and that the information was misused in relation to the Offer.

SCOR has commenced three sets of proceedings: On 29 January 2019, direct criminal proceedings in France. On the same day, the proceedings in England against Barclays. On On 6 February 2019, French proceedings against Monsieur Derez and Covéa. Concealment of breach of trust is the running theme in all 3 proceedings.

An application to stay the French Commercial Court proceedings, which had been made by the Claimant, had been dismissed.

Hancock J had two issues to decide under Article 30 Brussels Ia (at 6). The first was whether the French criminal proceedings, which were first in time, were related to the English Commercial Court action. The second was whether the High Court, as the Court second seised, should stay these proceedings, it being accepted that it had the power to do so under A30. The parties were agreed that, although the civil proceedings which formed part of the criminal action were an “adjunct” to the criminal part of the proceedings, they were nonetheless civil and commercial proceedings within the meaning of the Regulation.

Authority discussed includes of course CJEU C-406/92 The Tatry, however quickly attention focussd on the issue of ‘expediency’ in Article 30. Claimant pointed out that there had been a debate in the authorities as to what was meant by “expedient, with some authorities taking the line that this meant possible or capable, and others suggesting that the relevant synonym was “desirable” ‘. The Court of Appeal in Privatbank v Kolomoisky [2019] EWCA Civ 1709, which I discuss here, settled the issue in the direction of ‘desirable’. However Hancock J then discussed counsel’s reference to Euroeco Fuels (Poland) Limited and others v Sczezin and Swinoujscie Seaports and others [2019] EWCA Civ 1932 which at the time (December 2019) I called at most a ‘lukewarm’ application of Privatbank on this issue.

Hancock J leaves the discussion hanging for in his words at 15, ‘it is uncertain whether expediency in this context is to be treated as meaning desirability, or whether it is a jurisdictional requirement of the grant of a stay that the two cases can in fact be heard together: see Privatbank and cases cited therein, on the one hand, but compare the Euroeco decision on the other. I do not need to decide this question in this case, since my decision would be the same whichever test is applied, and I propose to consider the matter by reference to the test as set out in Privatbank.’

Yet at 24-25  he holds ‘on the basis the application of the test in Sarrio, as interpreted in later cases including in particular Privatbank, that the French criminal proceedings and the English proceedings are related. I move on to consider the exercise of my discretion on this basis.’ Yet ‘Of course, if the actual test is that which may be suggested by the Euroeco case, then the proceedings would not be related, and I would have no discretion to exercise.’

Here I do not follow. No proper decision is made on the authority or not of Privatbank or Euroeco (the latter suggested by counsel for the defence (fellow Bruges Stefan Zweig alumnus) to be at most per incuriam).

At 28 ff then follows a most relevant discussion of the wide nature or not of the discretion to issue a stay, once it has been established the cases are related (Hancock J at 31 deciding at that there is no presumption for a stay in favour of the applicant) deciding at 43 that there is no compelling reason for the stay, on the basis of the factors outlined there, with which I agree.

This is again a most relevant case. The relatedness or not of cases is a most, most crucial issue, including of course in an Article 33-34 context.

Geert.

(Handbook of EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.14.

C’est l’une des conséquences de la crise sanitaire. Les cyberpoliciers de la sous-direction de la lutte contre la cybercriminalité sont en première ligne pour faire face à une délinquance numérique qui espère tirer profit du confinement. Rencontre avec sa cheffe, la contrôleuse générale Catherine Chambon.

en lire plus

Dans un arrêt du 28 avril 2020, la CEDH décide qu’un média qualifiant un parti politique de parti « d’extrême droite » use simplement de sa liberté d’expression garantie par l’article 10 de la Convention européenne, dès lors qu’aucune circonstance ne rattache l’emploi de ce terme à un jugement de valeur.

en lire plus

En application de l’article D. 115-10 du code de procédure pénale, l’ordonnance du juge de l’application des peines retirant le bénéfice du crédit de réduction de peine pour un incident survenu pendant l’incarcération subie sous le régime de la détention provisoire doit intervenir dans les quatre mois à compter de la date à laquelle la condamnation a été ramenée à exécution.

en lire plus

In [2020] EWHC 995 (Comm) Trafigura v Clearlake, Teare J essentially has created a forum necessitatis rule in admiralty, to accomodate the slower availability of the Singapore courts due to Covid19. At 29 ff:

In normal circumstances an Admiralty Court, faced with an application to release a valuable vessel from arrest, would determine whether the security offered was such as to allow the release of the vessel from arrest without delay. In such circumstances there would usually be no need for the court upon which the owner and charterer have conferred jurisdiction to determine disputes between them to find as a fact what security would be judged adequate by the court of the place of arrest to allow the release of the vessel from arrest. For that would in practice be determined by the court of the place of arrest.

But these are not normal circumstances. There is a worldwide Covid 19 pandemic which has disrupted normal life, including the justice system. As a result I was told that the court in Singapore is not able to hear the application to determine the adequacy of the security offered until 18 May 2020. In those circumstances the question arises, or may arise, whether this court should find as a fact whether the security which has been offered to secure the release of the vessel matches that which would be required by the court of the place of arrest or not. That is what this court would have to do, and would have jurisdiction to do, if, unusually, there was no appropriate application before the court of the place of arrest. Those are not the circumstances of this case. There is an appropriate application in Singapore but the result will not be known for almost a month.

At 31 he re-emphasises that comity would ordinarily restrain any jurisdictional temptation. However at 32 he concludes that ‘on the other hand there is a dispute between the owner and charterer. The charterer owes an obligation to the owner to provide security which will secure the release of a valuable vessel from arrest. The owner wishes to enforce that obligation and so to mitigate the losses it is suffering by reason of its inability to trade the vessel. There is therefore a powerful reason for this court, in circumstances where the court of arrest, for understandable reasons, is unable to determine the application for release until 18 May 2020, to exercise the jurisdiction the parties have conferred on it to resolve disputes between owner and charterer.’

Not a jurisdicitional claim out the blue therefore; the choice of court does give England a powerful link to the case.

Geert.

 

 

Jurisdiction and enforcement of foreign judgments are separate issues in private international law. When arising outside of the context of international conventions, they are not necessarily related.

In principle, there is no obligation to enforce foreign judgments on the ground that, if the case had been litigated in the forum, the forum would have retained jurisdiction. Many states apply the same jurisdictional rules to assess whether to retain jurisdiction or to enforce a foreign judgment, but they have no obligation to do so, and many states assess the jurisdiction of foreign courts on a different basis.

The situation might be different in the context of an international convention. This is because the convention has established obligations as between the contracting states.

Where a convention contains both rules of international jurisdiction and recognition of foreign judgments, the issue does not arise. But many conventions only include one category of rules. They provide rules of international jurisdiction but are silent on the enforcement of the resulting judgments or, conversely, only provide rules of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments (as, for instance, the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention).

Where a convention only contains rules of international jurisdiction, should it be considered that contracting states are under no obligation to enforce a judgment rendered by another contracting state on the basis of such rules? That would be quite problematic if the relevant rules of jurisdiction were both exclusive and narrow. A contracting state which would not enforce a foreign judgment might not have jurisdiction under the relevant convention to retain jurisdiction.

There are quite a few of such conventions in the field of international carriage. They include, for instance, the 1929 Warsaw and the 1999 Montreal Conventions for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air.

In Rothmans v. Saudi Arabian Airlines, Mustill J. (as he was then) once gave his view on the reason why these conventions do not include rules on enforcement of judgements. He held:

International conventions of this kind tend to prescribe jurisdiction in narrow terms, on the assumption that the case where the defendant has insufficient assets to satisfy the claims in any of the stipulated countries is catered for by the ready availability of enforcement in other countries which is available via the various conventions on mutual recognition of judgments.

With all due respect, however, it is unclear to which “various conventions on mutual recognition of judgments” the distinguished judge was referring to.

A major issue for interpreting jurisdictional rules contained in international conventions as entailing obligations to enforce the resulting judgments is the strict rules of interpretation of treaties under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. But many of these private law treaties contain their own provisions on interpretation, which certainly derogate from the Vienna Convention.

The issue also arises in the context of the 2001 Cape Town Convention, which contains rules of international jurisdiction, but no rule of enforcement of judgments. In a recent article on Enforcement of Court Decisions Under the Cape Town Convention, I argue that the jurisdictional rules of the Convention should be considered as entailing rules on the enforcement of foreign judgments, and explore what these implicit rules could be.

The abstract of the article reads:

The purpose of this article is to explore the influence of the Cape Town Convention on the enforcement of foreign judgments. Although the issue is not expressly addressed by the Convention, the article argues that the jurisdictional rules of the Convention should be interpreted as entailing an implicit obligation to enforce the resulting judgments. After demonstrating that such conclusion would be consistent with the rules of interpretation of the Convention, the article explains what the regime of the implicit obligation to enforce judgments made under the Convention would be.

The paper, which can freely be downloaded here, was published in the latest issue of the Cape Town Convention Journal.