Agrégateur de flux

Written by Elijah Granet

When a British woman gives birth in a German hospital staffed with British midwives on a contract from the British ministry of defence, what law applies and to what extent? This seemingly simple question took Mrs Justice Foster, in the English and Welsh High Court of Justice, 299 paragraphs to answer in a mammoth judgment released on 24 April: Roberts (a minor) v Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association & Ors [2020] EWHC 994 (QB).   In the course of resolving a variety of PIL issues, Mrs Justice Foster held that the German law of limitations should be disapplied as, on the specific facts of the case, contrary to public policy.

Facts

The British military has maintained a continuous presence in Germany since the end of the Second World War.   In June 2000, Mrs Lauren Roberts, the wife of a British soldier serving in Germany and herself a former soldier, gave birth to her son, Harry, in the Allegemeines Krankenhaus in Viersen (‘AKV’), a hospital in North-Rhine Westphalia.

AKV had been contracted to provide healthcare for British military personnel and their dependents by Guy’s & St Thomas’s Hospital NHS Trust in London, which, in turn, had been contracted  by the British Ministry of Defence (‘MoD’) to procure healthcare services in Germany.  Midwifery care for British personnel and dependents, however, was supplied instead by the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association (‘SSAFA’), a charity.  These British midwives worked under the direction of AKV, taking advantage of the mutual recognition of qualifications under EU law.

Tragically, during the birth, Harry suffered a brain injury which has left him severely disabled.  Mrs Roberts, who brought the action in her son’s name, alleges that negligence on the part of an SSAFA midwife during Harry’s birth caused these injuries. She further alleges that the MoD is vicariously liable for this negligence.  The MoD, in turn, while denying negligence on the midwife’s part, asserts that, regardless, German law  allocated any vicarious liability to AKV.  These allegations have yet to be tried before the court.

The applicable law

Due to unfortunate procedural delays, the case, although begun in 2004, took until 2019 to reach the High Court. This meant that the 2007 Rome II Regulation was inapplicable, and the case instead was governed by English conflicts rules.  The relevant statutory provision was the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions Act).  Section 11 of that Act lays out a general rule of lex loci delicti commissi, but s 12 allows this principle  to be displaced where significant factors connecting a tort or delict to another country mean ‘that it is substantially more appropriate’ to use a law other than that of the location of the tort or delict.  Counsel for Mrs Roberts argued that the s 12 exception should apply, given that inter alia Mrs Roberts was only in Germany at the behest of the Crown, had no familial or personal connections to Germany, moved back to England in 2003, and were being treated by English-trained midwives who were regulated by British professional bodies.

The authoritative  text on English conflicts rules, Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws (15th ed), provides that at para 35-148 that the threshold for invoking s 12 is very high, and that the section is only rarely invoked successfully.  This is reinforced by inter alia  the decision of the English and Welsh Court of Appeal, per Lord Justice Longmore, in Fiona Trust and Holding Corp & Ors v Skarga & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 275.   Mrs Justice Foster (at para 132) ruled (at paras 132–144) that this threshold was not met.  Her Ladyship placed great significance on the fact that the midwives were required to learn basic German, follow the directions of German obstetricians, operate according to the rules of the German healthcare system, and provide care to military personnel who were living in Germany.  Thus, German law was applicable.

The limitation period question

English jurisprudence addresses questions of foreign law as matters  of objective fact to be determined through expert evidence.  This can prove, as it did in this case, to an extremely complex task.  For the purposes of this article, it is sufficient to note that Mrs Justice Foster ultimately found (after extensive discusssion at paras 192–280) that, in light of various decisions of the German Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) on the application of both the old and new versions of §852 of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (German Civil Code), the relevant limitation period of  three years commenced in 2003, meaning that the claim issued in 2004 was within time.

More relevantly for PIL scholars, Her Ladyship also ruled that, in the alternative, any applicable German limitation period was to be disapplied.  In English law, the disapplication of foreign limitation periods is governed by the appropriately-named Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984.  While the general rule is that foreign limitation periods displace English limitations, Section 2(2) allows for the disapplication of foreign limitation periods where their application would ‘conflict with public policy to the extent that its application would cause undue hardship’ to a party.  This is, once again, a deliberately high threshold which is rarely applied; the authoritative English text on limitation, McGee on Limitation Periods (8th ed), provides (at para 25-027) that ‘[j]udges should be very slow indeed to substitute their views for the views of a foreign legislature’.   Similarly, Mr Justice Wilkie, in KXL v Murphy [2016] EWHC 3102 (QB), para 45, warned that the entire system of private international law could collapse if public policy was too readily invoked, and the public policy test should only succeed where the foreign provision caused undue hardship which would be ‘contrary to a fundamental principle of justice’.

After surveying the case law, Mrs Justice Foster concluded, at paras 181–184, that undue hardship must be a ‘detriment of real significance’, whose existence (or lack thereof) must be determined through a careful and holistic evaluation of the particular facts of any given situation.  Thus, the question was not if the German limitation period per se caused undue hardship (and indeed, Mrs Justice Foster held at para 182 that it did not), but rather if the application of an otherwise unobjectionable provision to the unique factual matrix of the case would create undue hardship.  Thus, Mrs Justice Foster ruled (at paras 185–6) that, if (contrary to her findings) the German limitation period commenced in 2001, this would be a disproportionate hardship given the disadvantages Mrs Roberts had as a primigravida unfamiliar with obstetrics who had given birth in a foreign country where she did not speak the language. Furthermore, the highly complex organisational structure of medical care, between the SSAFA, the MoD, and AKV would mean that it would be unjust and disproportionate for the relevant ‘knowledge’  for the purposes of the §852 limitation period to have been said to commence in 2001.

Comment

This case demonstrates the complexities which arise when applying abstract rules of private international law to the realities of human affairs.  Although the (by comparative standards) wide discretion accorded to judges in English law has its critics, in this case, the ability to disapply foreign law where it might lead to an unjust result was able to ensure that the Roberts family, for whom one must have the greatest sympathy, were able to proceed with their claim.  It is hard to disagree with Mrs Justice Foster’s conclusion that, on the facts, it would be a disproportionate hardship on the family. Both the case-law and texts are clear that this discretion should be applied only rarely, given that its overuse would be to the detriment of the principles of legal certainty and English conflicts rules, Roberts demonstrates that the common law preference for flexibility can, if used wisely, avert serious injustice in those rare circumstances where the general rules are insufficient.

The author of this post is Eduardo Álvarez-Armas, Brunel University London and Université Catholique de Louvain.

As announced in this blog, Anne Peters, Sabine Gless, Chris Thomale, and Marc-Philippe Weller have recently published an interesting and topical paper entitled Business and Human Rights: Making the Legally Binding Instrument Work in Public, Private and Criminal Law.

The paper, a must-read for anyone interested in the Business & Human Rights field, is an enlightening assessment of several issues and recent developments in the area, and very valuable in its transversal approach to its themes, from the standpoint of several different branches of law.

However, the point the paper makes on the determination of the law applicable to torts arising from human rights violations before EU Member-State courts is open for discussion.

In this respect, the position sustained in the paper basically interprets Articles 4(1) and (3) of the Rome II Regulation in a manner that “replicates”, in respect of torts stemming out of a violation of human rights, what has been legislatively enacted in respect of environmental torts in Article 7 of the same Regulation: the enshrinement of the theory of ubiquity (with differences/different rationale with respect to Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, but still the theory of ubiquity, nevertheless), assorted with victim’s choice.

The following are some difficulties encountered by the said interpretative proposal.

The effet utile of Article 7

If Articles 4(1) and (3) could be interpreted the way suggested in the paper, what would be the effet utile of Article 7 then? Surely, the arguments put forward in respect of the interpretation of Articles 4(1) and (3) as regards human-rights violations also cover environmental torts, and therefore, there would have been no need to enact Article 7 to begin with (a provision which was very controversial during the Rome II legislative process).

The structure of Article 4 Rome II

As Article 4(3) is an escape clause, Articles 4(1) and (3) are not placed in an alternative/elective position, but are exclusive from each other. If Article 4(3) applies, then Article 4(1) does not (see notably Recital 18 of the Rome II Regulation). Human-rights-violation victims may try to plead Article 4(3) (a closer connection to another legal system) as a “getaway” from Article 4(1) if they believe that their circumstances allow them to do so. However, they cannot plead that they have a choice as such in choice-of-law terms between Articles 4(1) and (3). Having a free choice of applicable law in one´s hands (as environmental victims do in Article 7) is not the same as having to contend and prove a manifestly closer connection, as Article 4(3) would require.

The points put forward on legal arbitrage and race to the bottom in Prof. Weller’s blog reply to my first brief comment are sensible, and they sustain conceiving human-rights violations in supply chains as “complex torts” (“délits complexes”, “distantdeliktze”) where the action/omission takes place in the parent company’s headquarters and the result materializes in the “host country”. Therefore, as suggested, they may potentially sustain attempting to resort to Article 4(3) to plead for the closer connection to the law of the headquarters of the parent company (provided that evidence allows for it), but they do not seem to sustain an “ubiquity + choice by the victim” construction.

Indeed, I largely share Prof. Weller’s arguments on legal arbitrage and race to the bottom in respect of environmental torts (as a preview of an English monograph coming in 2021 in Hart’s Studies in Private International Law, see E. Álvarez Armas, “Contentieux du droit international privé pour responsabilité environnementale devant le juge européen : la détermination du droit applicable comme outil de gouvernance globale environnementale”, Annales de Droit de Louvain, Vol. 77-1/2017, pp. 63-87; and E. Álvarez Armas, “Daños al medioambiente y Derecho Internacional Privado Europeo: ¿Quid de la determinación de la ley aplicable como herramienta de gobernanza global medioambiental?”, Anuario Español de Derecho Internacional Privado, t. XVIII/2018, pp. 193–225). However, the core difference is that Art. 7, as it stands nowadays, structurally allows for these ideas, while Articles 4(1) and (3) do not.

The ratio legis of Article 4 Rome II

If the rationale of Article 4 of the Rome II Regulation was the protection of victims, then, as Articles 4(1) and (3) are general provisions, nothing would hinder any other victim of torts not specifically covered by “special” provisions(Articles 5 and following) from benefiting from the same construction. This would significantly hinder the foreseeability of the applicable law.

However, the policy rationale of Article 4, as the main provision in the Regulation, is not the protection of victims, but “a reasonable balance between the interests of the person claimed to be liable and the person who has sustained damage” and “the foreseeability of court decisions”, as explained by Recital 16 of the Rome II Regulation. More specifically:

[a] connection with the country where the direct damage occurred (lex loci damni) strikes a fair balance between the interests of the person claimed to be liable and the person sustaining the damage, and also reflects the modern approach to civil liability and the development of systems of strict liability.

These ideas can be tracked back to the explanatory memorandum to the Rome II Proposal, where the EU Commission repeatedly refers to “foreseeability” and “certainty” in the determination of the applicable law, explicitly rejects the theory of ubiquity as a potential general solution to be enshrined in the Regulation’s main rule (p. 11 – penultimate paragraph) and concludes (pp. 11-12) that

[t]he rule also reflects the need to strike a reasonable balance between the various interests at stake. The Commission has not adopted the principle of favouring the victim as a basic rule, which would give the victim the option of choosing the law most favourable to him. It considers that this solution would go beyond the victim’s legitimate expectations and would reintroduce uncertainty in the law, contrary to the general objective of the proposed Regulation. The solution in Article [4] is therefore a compromise between the two extreme solutions of applying the law of the place where the event giving rise to the damage occurs and giving the victim the option.

Precisely, as an exception, the explicit ratio legis of Article 7 Rome II (per Recital 25) is not to protect, but even to favour the victim (favor laesi) by allowing her the prerogative of choosing the applicable law.

Overall, the arguments put forward in the paper may sustain de lege ferenda that an Art. 7 bis be added to Rome II, enshrining the theory of ubiquity and victim’s choice in respect of torts arising from the violation of human rights. However, the current text of the Regulation does not seem to comfort the paper´s interpretative proposal.

Anatol Dutta and Wolfgang Wurmnest edited a book on European Private International Law and its ramifications with treaties signed by EU-Member States with third countries. The publication focuses on inheritance matters, i.e. Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 on matters of succession.

The national reports prepared feature Austria, Belgium, Croatia, The Czech Republic, Finland, Sweden, France, Germany and Italy from the EU. Reports from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, North Macedonia and Montenegro, Iran, Switzerland and Turkey, cover some non-EU jurisdictions. The third and last part of the publication features articles from the editors: Prof. Dutta approaches the issue from the perspective of the European Union, whereas Prof. Wurmnest offers a Comparative Report and Policy Perspectives.

The compilation of treaties listed in the Annex, presented in English translation, is undoubtedly giving added value to the book.

The work done by editors and authors, and the future plans of the endeavor, namely to cover wider aspects of European Private International Law, deserves our gratitude for providing us with very interesting material in the field.

More information on the publication is available here.

Continuité du service public européen de la justice : la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne prévoit de reprendre les audiences de plaidoiries à partir du 25 mai 2020

In Strategic Technologies v Procurement Bureau of the Republic of China Ministry of National Defence [2020] EWHC 362 (QB), Carr J i.a. set aside a November 2016 order by Supperstone J granting a certificate under Article 53 Brussels Ia.

Justice Carr adopts the routine approach of former English case-law calling the Brussels regime the ‘Judgments Regulation’. The certificate was issued  in relation to a default judgment issued in 2009 by Claimant, Strategic Technologies against Defendant, the Ministry of National Defence (“the MND”) of the Republic of China (“ROC”), also and better known as Taiwan.

Carr J is right when at 134 ff she rejects the route taken by claimants (and adopted by Supperstone J) that the principle in CJEU C-192/92 Owens Bank v Bracco (that the Brussels Convention does not apply to proceedings for the enforcement of judgments given in civil and commercial matters in non-contracting states) has no application where, as here, the judgment of a non-contracting state (ie Cayman) has become a judgment of a Member State (ie the United Kingdom).

She refers to the clear language in formerly A25 Brussels Convention, now Article 2 Brussels Ia, that for a ruling to be a judgment it must be given by a court or a tribunal of a Member State. Adoption of a judgment by another State is not covered. She notes the CJEU referred to this definition in its Owens Bank v Bracco ruling. She also notes that the St. Vincent judgment in Owens v Bracco had in fact also been registered in England by the time that the House of Lords referred the matter to the CJEU.

Other issues in the judgment are less relevant to the blog. Do note that Taiwan does not call upon sovereign immunity: at 3: ‘The MND is an arm of the government of the ROC. Although it is by its own law a state, the ROC has an unusual status in international, and English, law: although it has all the generally recognised characteristics of statehood, and is often treated as a country, it is not recognised as a state by the United Kingdom and there are no formal diplomatic relations between the two. For the purpose of these proceedings only, and without making any wider concession, the MND does not rely on the State Immunity Act 1978.’ Clearly this case was not considered by Taiwan to be a case to force the recognition issue.

Geert.

 

The sixth edition of Derecho de los Negocios Internacionales, a treatise on international business law authored by José Carlos Fernández Rozas, Rafael Arenas García and Pedro Alberto De Miguel Asensio, was published in March 2020 by the Spanish publisher Iustel.

The new edition is arranged into the following sections: Regulating Cross-Border Business Activities; Intellectual Property, Unfair Competition and Antitrust; Company Law; International Commercial Contracts; Sale of Goods and Transport; Means of Payment, Guarantees and Financing; Distribution Contracts, Transfer of Technology and E-Commerce; Insolvency Proceedings and International Commercial Arbitration.

See here for more information, and here to access the extended table of contents.

Selon la CEDH, portent atteinte au droit au respect à la vie privée la mesure de prélèvement d’un échantillon de salive non explicitement prévue par la loi nationale au moment des faits et la permission donnée par le juge national d’user de la force dans cet objectif en dépit de tout fondement textuel l’autorisant.  

en lire plus

Brexit and its legal consequences was the topic of an earlier post in this blog, suggesting the United Kingdom should join the Lugano Convention. The British government has now taken the first step in this direction.18

The UK’s Application for Accession

On 8 April 2020, the UK deposited an application to accede to the Lugano Convention with the Swiss Federal Council as the depositary of the Convention (Article 69(2) Lugano Convention). In accordance with Article 72(2) of the Lugano Convention, the information was transmitted to the Contracting Parties. Enclosed as Annex A was the information required under Article 72(1) of the Convention, amounting to 41 pages. The necessary French translation (Article 70(2) Lugano Convention) is still missing.

Switzerland requested to convene a meeting of the Standing Committee in accordance with Article 4(2) of Protocol 2 to the Convention. The Signatories of the Convention (the EU, Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland) now have to decide whether to grant the application. According to Article 72(3) Lugano Convention, they shall endeavour to give their consent at the latest within one year.

The Situation During the Transition Period

Already on 30 January 2020, the Swiss Federal Council informed the Signatories of a document it had received titled Annex to the Note Verbale on the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community. The objective of this Annex is to secure the UK’s continued treatment as a party to the Lugano Convention during the transition period, which runs from 1 February 2020 to at least 31 December 2020, subject to a further extension for up to one or two years.

The Annex to the Note Verbale first sets out some principles of the Withdrawal Agreement concluded between the EU and the UK. In particular, it recalls that the “Withdrawal Agreement encompasses international agreements concluded by the Union” (point 4 Annex). In relation to the EU and Euratom, the UK is bound by these international agreements during the transition period (Art 129(1) Withdrawal Agreement). Furthermore, the Withdrawal Agreement provides that the EU notifies parties to international agreements that the UK is treated by the Union as a Member State for the purposes of these international agreements (point 5 Annex).

After recalling these principles, the Annex to the Note Verbale adds the following sentence (point 6 Annex):

It is understood that the principles set out in this Annex also extend to international instruments and arrangements without legally binding force entered into by the Union or Euratom and to international agreements referred to in point 4 above which are provisionally applied.

The Swiss Federal Council has asked the Signatories to consent to the Note Verbale, which the EU has already done. If the other Signatories agree as well, the Lugano Convention could remain binding on all parties during the transition period. Unfortunately, the outcome of the process is unknown, which creates unnecessary uncertainty.

Back to the Past?

The UK’s application to accede to the Lugano Convention is the strongest indication yet that the UK wishes to continue participating in judicial cooperation in Europe. There are important voices against the UK’s accession to the Convention. Without it, though, those seeking legal protection will encounter obstacles in the enforcement of British judgments on the European continent, and vice versa. It therefore seems better the UK’s request would be granted.

A quick note on Granville Technology & Ors v Infineon Technologies AG & Anor [2020] EWHC 415 (Comm) which concerns proceedings brought by three companies who were engaged in the assembly and sale of desktop PCs and notebooks. The claims arise from a price-fixing cartel, the subject of findings by the EC in COMP/38511. The Cartel concerned the market for direct random access memory (“DRAM”) and Rambus DRAM used in the manufacture of PCs and Notebooks.

Both Infineon (domiciled at Germany) and Micron Europe (of England) have pleaded, among other defences, that the Claimants’ claims are time-barred under relevant UK limitation statutes – their arguments were partially upheld. I keep the note very short for seemingly not at issue was either jurisdiction or applicable law. Of note is the classic appearance in anchored competition cases of the group liability argument held in Cooper Tire, Cooper Tire & Rubber Co Europe Ltd v Shell Chemicals UK Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 864 , referred to by Foxton J at 123 (followed by a decision on the need for discovery (held: none here) given the Court of Appeal’s finding in Cooper Tire that anchor defendants have to have been parties or aware of the anti-competitive conduct of their parent company” and that “The strength (or otherwise) of any such case cannot be assessed (or indeed usefully particularised) until after disclosure of documents because it is in the nature of anti-competitive arrangements that they are shrouded in secrecy.”

Geert.

 

 

 

 

 

Follow-on damage suit following #cartel.
Pleas of statute of limitation (time-barred). Reference ia to Cooper Tyre. https://t.co/EefHASBQ8S

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) February 25, 2020

By Radhika Parthasarathy

The advent of the internet has led to mass-communication like no other. Everything one wants is at the tip of our fingers now, thanks to mobile phones, laptops, iPads and the likes. Mass consumerism has seen an exponential increase in the last ten years. If one needs to buy quirky stationery, we have the likes of Amazon and Chumbak online; if one wants to watch the latest episode of Brooklyn Nine-Nine, Netflix does the needful; if we wish to read multiple newspapers, while also saving papers, multiple Apps such as InShorts exist.  Platforms such as these stream large quantities of data across the globe, thus bringing the world closer, but also leading to certain jurisdictional issues in case of litigations. Such activity requires a cross-cutting need and definition of personal jurisdiction.

Personal jurisdiction relates to the jurisdiction of a Court to adjudge a dispute between parties. The general rule is that to exercise such jurisdiction, physical presence is mandatory. As such, jurisdiction in personam is not to be exercised over a person who is not subject to the jurisdiction of courts. This has become a commonly accepted principle domestically and globally. However, the advent of technology and the pervasiveness of the world wide web has led to massive debates in this regard. How is personal jurisdiction then to be adjudicated for matters of cyber torts, or that of defamation that takes place online? In the context of the internet, personal jurisdiction oft refers to and deals with websites or services on the internet that deal with advertisements or promotions of business or brands online in their home State but debate their liability to be litigated within another foreign State. However, courts in the United States, Europe and, India are now determining how to assess and enforce such jurisdiction.[1]

Understanding Personal Jurisdiction: the United States and Europe A.   The United States

In the United States [“the US”], the criteria of “certain minimum contact” with the jurisdiction where the cyber transaction has occurred must be met to assess personal jurisdiction. This aligns with the Long Arm Statute of the United States of America. Traditionally, in International Shoe v. Washington, the Supreme Court held that a defendant may be held liable for such cross-border issues if they have at least a minimum level of contact with the State that seeks to hold them liable and there must be a reasonable expectation of being sued in that State.[2] In this regard, courts in the US have held that mere advertisements on a website are not enough to hold a defendant liable for a cross-border tort and to exercise personal jurisdiction there.[3]

Before this, however, was the iconic case, Calder v. Jones,[4] where the Court, in 1984, held that where an action is targeted at a particular forum, even if there is minimum contact, the “effects” test may be applied. In this case, an article was written and edited in Florida, the article concerned a resident in California and relied on sources in California, and thus, the Court held that the intentional tortious act was “expressly aimed at California”. This test essentially, thus, lays down that where an act is done intentionally, has an effect within the forum state and is directed or targeted at the forum state, then jurisdiction will be satisfied.[5] Thus, the effects test is useful when the exact nature of the defendant’s internet activities need to be assessed vis-à-vis, injury caused to a resident elsewhere, in a different State.[6]

The legal position in the US has been seemingly settled, off late, in this regard in Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com Inc,[7] which rendered the famous Zippo Test. Per the Zippo Test, a finding of jurisdiction would be contingent upon the nature of the website and sought to employ a sliding scale test. It further laid down two important points:

1. The interactive nature of the site, which would aid in quantifying the extent of the damage so caused;
2. The harmful effect within the jurisdiction of the concerned state.

Per Zippo, websites are of three kinds- websites that conduct business over the internet; websites where users exchange information with the host computers; and websites that do little more than present information.[8] However, this has been criticized for not providing enough information on the assessment of the extent of interactivity of the website to justify purposeful availment.[9]

Multiple cases, however, well into the 2000s, yet apply the Calder case. For instance, in Blakey v. Continental Airlines,[10] the minimum contacts test was applied along with the effects test to assess “proper jurisdiction”. This was further cemented by Young v. New Havem Advocate,[11] where two Connecticut newspapers defamed the warden of Virginian prison. Here, the court assessed the issues based on the Calder test once again and opined that proof must be derived that the defendant’s internet activity is expressly targeted at or directed to the forum State. Similarly, in Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et l’antisemitisme,[12] the Calder test was applied once again to establish personal jurisdiction between two French organizations and Yahoo (an American company). Thus, it seems more appropriate to say that Courts in the US, first apply the Zippo Test, but then apply the effects test as laid down in Calder to have a wholly encompassing test.

B.    European Standing

In the European Union [“EU”], the Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters [“Brussels Convention”][13] regulates acts concerning torts, delict and quasi-delict under Art. 5(3) and thereby, a defendant may be sued in the court of the place where the harm has occurred.[14] The leading law on the matter of defamation can be found in Shevill & Ors. v. Presse Alliance S.A.,[15] where a libellous article was published in one place but distributed across multiple jurisdictions. Here, the ECJ devised what came to be known as the mosaic approach and held that the place where the harm has occurred includes:

1. the place where publisher resides, or where the defamatory statement came into existence, or the place of publication;
2. the place of distribution or where the material was read and received.

This approach was also applied in Handelskwekerij G J Bier B. V. v. Mines de Potasse d’Alsace SA, where the Court held that the “place where the harmful event occurred” must be understood as being intended to cover both the place where the damage occurred and the place of the event giving rise to it.[16] However, this approach has led to criticism that it enables forum shopping for the plaintiff.[17] This approach suggests that the plaintiff may choose the more convenient forum under Art. 5(3) as one forum may have a more liberal approach to prove defamation than another.

Article 5(3) was subject to further interpretation in 2011 when the ECJ held that a person may bring an action for liability when their rights have been infringed on the internet before:

1. the courts of the Member State in which the publisher of that content is established; or
2. before the courts of the Member State in which the centre of his interests is based; or
3. the courts of each Member State in the territory of which content placed online is or has been accessible.[18]

This position has since been challenged in the Svensk Handel case, wherein Article 7 of the Brussels Recast Regulation (similar to Article 5(3)) was assessed.[19] Here, while the Court didn’t expressly reject the Mosaic Approach, it did, however, lay down that “the centre of interest” must be located and interpreted broadly to include residence, where the most harm occurs. However, the Court laid down an important safeguard by stating that any order for the takedown of insulting content cannot be initiated in every Member State where the website is accessible. Since the earlier days till now, there seems to be a newfound cogency in the application of personal jurisdiction for defamatory matters in the EU.

Banyan Tree Holdings and the Indian Position

In the case of Banyan Tree Holdings v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy,[20] the plaintiff is part of the hospitality business and has since 1994, used the word mark, “Banyan Tree” which has now acquired a secondary meaning. It also maintains websites that use the mark and are accessible in India. However, in 2007, the defendants began work on Banyan Tree Retreat and hosted a website which directed to a “Banyan Tree” project. The Plaintiffs contended that the use of this mark is dishonest and aimed at encashing on the reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiff. They also claim that it would lead to confusion and deception if such usage was so allowed.

In this case, the Court found that the website of the defendant is accessible in Delhi and is thus, not a passive website, as derived from American laws. Further, the defendant also sent a brochure to Delhi regarding their property’s sale. In this case, parties relied on the holdings and observations of International Shoe Co., the Zippo Test of “sliding scale”, Cybersell Inc. and the effects test in Calder, among multiple other American cases on the same issue. It then discussed cases from Australia and Canada before assessing the Indian Position on the same.

In India, there seems to have been some form of debate on such issues. In a similar factual matrix as Banyan Tree, the Delhi High Court in Casio India Ltd. v. Ashita Tele Systems Pvt Ltd.[21] held that even a mere likelihood of deception on the internet would entertain an actual action for passing off and no actual deception needed to be proven. Thus, the mere accessibility of the website from Delhi could invoke the Court’s jurisdiction. However, in another case,[22] the Court held that the mere accessibility of a website from one jurisdiction may not be enough or sufficient for a court to exercise its jurisdiction.

In Banyan Tree, on an analysis of these positions, Justice Muralidhar found that essential principles developed in other jurisdictions may be seamlessly adopted into our own.[23]  The Court chose to disagree with Casio and held that a passive website, with no intention to specifically target audiences outside the State where the host of the website is located, cannot vest the forum court with jurisdiction.[24] Further, it observed that the degree of the interactivity apart, the nature of the activity permissible and whether it results in a commercial transaction has to be examined while adjudging the “effects” test.[25] Additionally, there is a need to assess whether the Plaintiff can show a prima case that the specific targeting in the forum State by the Defendant resulted in an injury or harm to the Plaintiff within the forum state.[26] The Court thus chose to apply the “effects” test with the “sliding scale” taste, this reconciling the application of the Calder test with the Zippo Test in India.

On the matter of jurisdiction, the Court held that to establish a prima facie case under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [“the CPC”], the Plaintiff will have to establish that irrespective of the passive or interactive nature of the website, it was targeted specifically at viewers in the forum State, which in this case would have been Delhi.[27] They will then have to establish that there has been specific harm or injury caused to it by the Defendant’s actions.

Conclusion: Certainty in India’s Position?

In India’s case, it has become abundantly clear that cross-border defamation will be adjudged as per Section 19 of the CPC, as per the residence of the defendant or where the wrong has been done. Additionally, India also follows the double actionability rule to adjudge applicable law in such matters. However, if the tort is committed outside India, then Section 19 yields to Section 20 of the CPC, and the territorial jurisdiction is adjudged as such.[28] The factors relating to the cause of action and its assessment have been discussed in multiple cases. For instance, online sale of property in a different jurisdiction did not constitute sufficient cause of action for courts in Kerala.[29] However, while the test in Banyan Tree may be quite descriptive, Muralidhar J. opines that it does not lay down a “one size fits all” test,[30] in the sense that while it is foolproof for an online commercial transaction and intellectual property issues, it does not cover the area of torts such as defamation.

In a differing opinion, in World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. M/s Reshma Collection & Ors,[31] the Appellant was a Delaware based company providing the online sale of digital merchandise to customers world over and also in Delhi and held the trademark for the same. Here, the Court held that due to the spontaneous nature of the transactions (offer and acceptance and payment of consideration) over the internet, the cause of action is deemed to have occurred at the place the customer carried out his part of the transaction.[32]

The jurisprudence in such torts is still developing in India and largely follows the double actionability rule. The double actionability rule is the foundation or cross-border torts, particularly, defamation.[33] This rule lays down two points:

1. The act must be “actionable” as a tort in England; and
2. The act must be “non-justifiable” by the law of the place where it was committed. (this was eventually overruled by Boys v. Chaplin)[34]

This rule was further discussed and upheld in Govindan Nair v. Achuta Menon,[35] when the then Raja of Cochin (which was at the time an independent Indian State), sent a communication to the plaintiff excommunicating him from his caste in British India. The High Court applied the rule but dismissed the case as there was no trace of malice. In more recent times, the order in Baba Ramdev and Anr. v. Facebook Inc.,[36] is highly interesting. The allegation here was that a book based on the plaintiff was being circulated on a global basis by social media platforms, such as Facebook. The basic issue here was whether a global takedown order could even be passed by the Court. The Court essentially held that:

1. If the content was uploaded in India, or from IP addresses in India, the content had to be taken down, blocked/ restricted on a global basis;[37]
2. However, if uploaded from outside India, the Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction.[38]

Such exercise of jurisdiction has also been discussed in YouTube v. Geeta Shroff, wherein the Court held that any exercise of jurisdiction must be done assuming that the internet transaction is one akin to a real-life transaction, thereby ensuring that the Court cannot assume extra-territorial jurisdiction on the matter.[39]

Julia Hornle points out that the laws in the US are quite liquid on the point of personal jurisdiction and can be used to adapt to multiple scenarios.[40] However, tests in India have seemingly been fact-specific and not one test that can cover the entirety of actions that take place on the internet. Thus, courts may exercise jurisdiction either very broadly or very narrowly. However, this does not mean that India does not follow any minimum standard. The laws laid down in the US and other common law jurisdictions have gone a long way in establishing India’s position on personal jurisdiction in matters of cyber-transactions. Thus, it is easy to conclude by saying India has given the concept of personal jurisdiction a wide berth and a multi-dimensional interpretation and one can hope to have a “one size fits all” criteria in the foreseeable future, as Courts get better acclaimed with the use of and the advancement of technology in all fields – legal, commercial

[1] TiTi Nguyen, A Survey of Personal Jurisdiction based on Internet Activity: A Return to Tradition, 19 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 519 (2004).

[2] International Shoe v Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)

[3] Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997)

[4] Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984)

[5] Id.

[6] Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion, 514 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir. 2008).

[7] Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119

[8] Id; Christopher Wolf, Standards for Internet Jurisdiction, FindLaw (May 03, 2016), https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/standards-for-internet-jurisdiction.html

[9] No Bad Puns: A different Approach to the Problem of Personal Jurisdiction and the Internet, 116 Harv. L. Rev. 1821, 1833 (2003).

[10] Blakey v. Continental Airlines, 751 A.2d 538 (NJ 2000)

[11] Young v. New Havem Advocate, 315 F 3d 256 (4th Cir, 2003)

[12]Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et l’antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2006)

[13]Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, Regulation 44/2001 (Dec. 22, 2000)

[14] Article 5(3) allows for two jurisdictions – the place of domicile of the defendant OR the place where the harm has occurred; Handelskwekerij G. J. Bier B.V. v Mines de Potasse d’Alsace S.A. (preliminary ruling requested by the Gerechtshof of The Hague) (Case 21/76) [1976] ECR 1735, [1978] QB 708, [1977] 1 CMLR 284.

[15] Shevill & Ors. v. Presse Alliance S.A., Case C-68/93 [1995] 2 W.L.R. 499

[16]  Handelskwekerij G J Bier B. V. v. Mines de Potasse d’Alsace SA, Case 21/76 [1976] E.C.R. 1735

[17] Christopher Forsyth, Defamation under the Brussels Convention: A Forum Shopper’s Charter?, 54(3) Cam. L.J. 515 (1995)

[18] eDate Advertising GmbH and Others v X and Société MGN Limited, Cases C-509/09 and C-161/10

[19] Bolagsupplysningen OÜ Ingrid Ilsjan v. Svensk Handel AB, Case C-194/16, ECJ

[20]Banyan Tree Holdings v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy, CS (OS) No.894/2008 (Nov. 23, 2009) [hereinafter Banyan Tree]

[21] Casio India Co. Limited v. Ashita Tele Systems Pvt. Limited 2003 (27) PTC 265 (Del)

[22] (India TV) Independent News Service Pvt. Limited v. India Broadcast Live Llc And Ors., 2007 (35) PTC 177 (Del.).

[23]Banyan Tree, supra note 20 at ¶38

[24] Id at ¶38

[25] Id at ¶42

[26]Id

[27] Id at ¶45

[28] Sarine Technologies v. Diyora and Bhanderi Corpn., 2020 SCCOnline Guj 140.

[29] Presteege Property Developers v. Prestige Estates Projects Pvt. Ltd., 2008 (37) PTC 413 (SC)

[30] Justice Muralidhar, Jurisdictional Issues in Cyberspace, 6 Ind. J. L & Tech. 1 (2010).

[31] World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. M/s Reshma Collection & Ors, AO (OS) 506/2013 and CM Nos. 17627/2013 & 18606/2013, decided on October 15, 2014.

[32] Id.

[33] Philips v Eyre, 6 L.R. Q.B. 1, 28 (1870, Queen’s Bench).

[34] Boys v. Chaplin, 2 Q.B. 1 (1968, Queen’s Bench).

[35] Govindan Nair v. Achuta Menon, (1915) I.L.R. 39 Mad 433.

[36] Baba Ramdev and Anr. v. Facebook Inc, CS (OS) 27/2019

[37]Id at ¶96(i)

[38] Id at ¶96(ii)

[39] YouTube v. Geeta Shroff, FAO 93/2018

[40] Julia Hörnle, The Conundrum of Internet Jurisdiction and How US Law has Influences the Jurisdiction Analysis in India, 14 Ind. J. L. Tech. 183 (2018).

On 25 and 26 September 2020, the University of Bonn will host a conference titled The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention: Prospects for Judicial Cooperation in Civil Matters between the EU and Third Countries.

The conference focuses on the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters, and is organised by Moritz Brinkmann, Nina Dethloff, Matthias Lehmann, Philipp Reuss and Matthias Weller.

The event is organised in cooperation with the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), the Zentrum für europäisches Wirtschaftsrecht at the University of Bonn and The International Litigation Exchange (ILEX). Dr Christophe Bernasconi, Secretary General of the HCCH, will give a welcome note (via video message), while Dr Ning Zhao, Senior Legal Officer, HCCH, will provide an overview of the genesis of the Convention, and Dr João Ribeiro-Bidaoui, First Secretary, HCCH, will conclude the event with summary remarks.

Speakers include Hans van Loon (Former Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law), Pietro Franzina (Catholic University of Milan), Xandra Kramer (Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam), Wolfgang Hau (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Munich), Francisco Garcimartín Alférez (Autonomous University of Madrid), Colin Brown (to be confirmed) and Andreas Stein (both European Commission), Jan Teubel (German Ministry of Justice), Heiko Heppner (ILEX), Paul Beaumont (University of Stirling), Marie-Elodie Ancel (University of Paris-Est Créteil), Pippa Rogerson (University of Cambridge), Ilija Rumenov (Ss. Cyril and Methodius University), Veronica Ruiz Abou-Nigm (University of Edinburgh), José Angelo Estrella-Faria (Former Secretary General of UNIDROIT, Senior Legal Officer UNCITRAL Secretariat, International Trade Law Division Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations).

The programme of the event can be found here. Looking forward to meeting as many as possible of you in Bonn!

Today, AG Szpunar delivered his Opinion on the request for a preliminary ruling from the hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Court of Appeal of Antwerp, Belgium) on the interpretation of “civil and commercial matters“ according to Article 1(1) Brussels I bis Regulation.

The question was (para. 1o):

“Is an action concerning a claim aimed at determining and stopping unlawful market practices and/or commercial practices towards consumers, instituted by the Belgian Government in respect of Dutch companies which from the Netherlands, via websites, focus on a mainly Belgian clientele for the resale of tickets for events taking place in Belgium, (…) a civil or commercial matter within the meaning of Article 1(1) of [Regulation 1215/2012], and can a judicial decision in such a case, for that reason, fall within the scope of that regulation?“

The relevant Belgium law prohibits, amongst others, the resale of event admission tickets. In addition, the business practice in question falls under the unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices legislation in Belgium. In both cases, the President of the Commercial Court deals with the matter. Actions are brought at the request of the competent minister of the Belgium Government. A variety of measures of relief was sought in the proceedings at hand: (1) a declaration that unfair commercial practices have taken place, (2) an order for cessation of those practices, (3) an order to publicise the court’s decision about the infringement at the expense of the defendants, (4) an order for penalty payments to be made in a fixed amount in respect of every future infringement, and (5) a ruling permitting the fact of such infringement to be certified simply by means of a report drawn up by an official, on oath, of the Algemene Directie Economische Inspectie (Directorate-General for Economic Inspection).

The matter thus was whether or to what extent the expression “civil and commercial matters” in Article 1(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, encompasses proceedings of that kind between the authorities of a Member State and private law entities established in another Member State. Evidently, this matter touches upon the delicate question of a private-public divide which generally is perceived to be more and more blurring (see e.g. Burkhard Hess, The Private-Public Divide in International Dispute Resolution, Recueil des Cours Vol. 388, The Hague 2018). Nevertheless, many instruments of Private International Law of the European Union make use of this divide to delineate their respective material scope of application and it may indeed be assumed that the term „civil and commercial matters“ should be interpreted not only autonomously but also consistently across the respective instruments (para. 41, with reference to the ECJ’s judgment of 28 July 2016, Verein für Konsumenteninformation, C?191/15, EU:C:2016:612, paragraph 39), at least in principle. The ECJ has struggled with this question in the past and has tended towards a broad understanding of civil and commercial matters, see e.g. ECJ, judgment of 9 March 2017, C?551/15, EU:C:2017:193 – Pula Parking, for a comment (mainly on other aspects of the case) on this blog see here; see also the recent Opinion by AG Spzunar in Rina, C?641/18, EU:C:2020:3, reported on this blog here. The judgment in Rina is expected to be handed down on 7 May 2020 – we will keep you posted. The Opinion im Movic seems to continue this tendency:

The following considerations were taken into account: (1) what does the nature of interests of the public authority to issue its request to the court need or not need to be (paras. 24 et seq.); (ii) in what way does the authority’s powers of investigation influence the analysis (paras. 48 et seq.), and (iii) whether the authority is granted special powers not available to private persons (here in particular the power to certify that infringements have occurred) contribute to the analysis (paras. 63 et seq.).

On the basis of this analysis, AG Szpunar proposed (para. 80) that

“proceedings relating to an action brought by the public authorities of a Member State against persons governed by private law established in another Member State, in which a declaration is sought that infringements constituting unfair commercial practices have taken place, together with an order for the cessation of those practices, an order for measures of publicity at the expense of the defendants, and an order for penalty payments to be made in a fixed amount in respect of every future infringement, fall within the scope of ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of that provision. On the other hand, such proceedings do not fall within the scope of that expression in so far as they relate to an action in which the public authorities seek the grant of special powers that go beyond those arising from the rules applicable in relationships between private individuals.“

The full text of the Opinion is available here.

 

Tribunal judiciaire de Saint-Etienne, jugement correctionnel - Chambre des comparutions immédiates

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Pau, 28 janvier 2020

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Paris, 4 décembre 2019 et Cour d'appel de Rennes, 17 février 2020