Agrégateur de flux

The American Society of Comparative Law (ASCL) has just issued a call for proposals for (1) concurrent panels and (2) a works in progress conference to be held in association with the ASCL 2019 Annual Meeting, which will be held at the University of Missouri School of Law between Thursday, October 17, and Saturday, October 19, 2019.  The event is open to ASCL and non-ASCL members.

The theme of the Annual Meeting is “Comparative Law and International Dispute Resolution Processes” and will feature presentations on how comparative law affects various types of cross-border conflict, including litigation, arbitration and mediation.  Concurrent panels and works in progress papers need not fall within this general theme, although of course they may.  Multilingual panel proposals will be considered as part of ASCL’s mission to foster plurilingualism.

Information on the event, including the call for panel proposals and works in progress submissions, is available at

http://law.missouri.edu/faculty/symposia/comparative-law-international-dispute-resolution-processes/  Proposals will be accepted until May 20, 2019.

Thank you Hélène Péroz for flagging 17-19.935 X v AS Monaco at the French Supreme Court, held December 2018. Claimant is a former physiotherapist employed by AS Monaco. His contract included choice of court ex-EU (not further specified in the judgment but one assumes, Monaco. Monaco is one of those micro-States with a complex arrangement with the EU).

The Supreme court first of all addresses the application of France’s jurisdictional rule R. 1412-1 of the Code du Travail. It assigns territorial jurisdiction in principle to the employment courts of the area where the employee habitually carries out the employment, with fall-back options which are similar to yet not quite the same as the provisions of Brussels I Recast:

Art. R. 1412- 1 L’employeur et le salarié portent les différends et litiges devant le conseil de prud’hommes territorialement compétent. Ce conseil est :

1 Soit celui dans le ressort duquel est situé l’établissement où est accompli le travail ;

2 Soit, lorsque le travail est accompli à domicile ou en dehors de toute entreprise ou établissement, celui dans le ressort duquel est situé le domicile du salarié.

Le salarié peut également saisir les conseils de prud’hommes du lieu où l’engagement a été contracté ou celui du lieu où l’employeur est établi. — [ Anc. art. R. 517- 1, al. 1er à 3.]

These provisions cast a slightly wider jurisdictional net than Brussels I Recast. That gap was even wider before Brussels I Recast had extended its jurisdictional reach to parties (the employer, or the business in the case of the consumer title) domiciled ex-EU. It is particularly its existence pre Brussels I Recast for which the provision is ranked among France’s exorbitant jurisdictional rules.

Now, coming to the case at issue. The Supreme Court first of all addresses the nature of the provision as lois de police and severely curtails same in the event of choice of court ex-EU: ‘ce n’est que si le contrat est exécuté dans un établissement situé en France ou en dehors de tout établissement que les dispositions d’ordre public de l’article R. 1412-1 font échec à l’application d’une telle clause.’ Only if the contract is performed in an establishment of the employer in France, or entirely outside such establishment (from the employee’s home or ‘on the road’) does Article R.1412-1 trump choice of court ex-EU. The lower court’s judgment had failed to assess these circumstances and therefore infringes the Article.

One suspects the Court felt it necessary to dot the i’s and cross the t’s on this issue for the natural order of analysis would of course have been to look at Brussels I Recast first: which the Court does after its analysis of the French law, thereby forgiving the lower court its incorrect application of French law. Reportedly the application of Brussels I to the issue is not something the Court has properly done in the past.

Article 21 Brussels I Recast requires assessment of the place of habitual carrying out of the work. Claimant worked mostly from the club’s training ground, which is in Turbie, France, and accompanied the club at fixtures. These however by reason of the football calendar clearly took place in Monaco only one out of two games (see the Count of Luxembourg for similar identification of the relevant criteria). Core of the employment therefore is France, notably in the Nice judicial area and therefore the lower court was right to uphold its jurisdiction.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.8.3.

The proceedings of the 29th edition of the Journée de droit international privé, the conference devoted to private international law topics organised yearly at the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law, have just been published under the title US Litigation Today: Still a Threat For European Businesses or Just a Paper Tiger?.

The volume, edited by Andrea Bonomi and Krista Nadakavukaren Schefer, discusses the current realities of US litigation for foreign companies. It features contributions by Samuel P. Baumgartner, Andrea Bonomi, Thirza Döbeli, William S. Dodge, Susan Emmenegger, Christoph A. Kern, Matthias Lehmann, Eva Lein, Linda J. Silberman, Symeon C. Symeonides, Karen Topaz Druckman, and Thomas Werlen.

For more information, including the table of contents, see here.

The Classical Liberal Institute and Willamette University College of Law invite you to a a symposium on “The Extraterritorial State.” The symposium will be held this Friday and Saturday, January 25th and 26th, in the Hearings Room of the Oregon Civic Justice Center. The symposium is free and open to faculty, students, and the public. The proceedings of the symposium will be published in a forthcoming issue of the Willamette Law Review. Please feel free to attend the entire event, or whichever panels are of most interest. Please find the complete list of presentation topics and schedule below.

Friday, January 25th

Hearings Room, Oregon Civic Justice Center (790 State Street, Salem, Oregon 97301)

9:30 – 10:00am: Registration (Continental breakfast available)

10:00 – 10:15am: Opening Remarks

10:15 – 11:45am: Session 1

Presentation 1: Bill Dodge, “Reasonableness in the Restatement (Fourth) of Foreign Relations Law”

Presentation 2: Frank Gevurtz, “Extraterritoriality and the Fourth Restatement of Foreign Relations Law: Opportunities Lost”

11:45 – 12:00pm: Break

12:00 – 1:30: Session 2

Presentation 3: Maggie Gardner, “Minding the Empagran Gap”

Presentation 4: John Coyle, “Party Autonomy and the Presumption Against Extraterritoriality”

1:30 – 2:15pm: Lunch in the Oregon Civic Justice Center

2:15 – 3:45pm: Session 3

Presentation 5: Andra Burke Robertson, “Conspiracy, and Accomplice Liability under the FCPA”

Presentation 6: Yanbai Andrea Wang, “Exporting American Discovery”

3:45 – 4:00pm: Break

4:00 – 4:45pm: Session 4

Presentation 7: Richard Epstein, “Citizenship, Alienage and Territoriality”

Saturday, January 26th

Hearings Room, Oregon Civic Justice Center (790 State Street, Salem, Oregon 97301)

9:30 – 10:00am: Registration (Continental breakfast available)

10:00 – 11:30am: Session 5

Presentation 8: Kevin Benish, “Whose Law Governs Your Data?: Worldwide Injunctions, Extraterritorial Effects, And The Struggle To Regulate The Internet”

Presentation 9: Symeon Symeonides, “Injuries to Rights or Personality Through the Use of the Internet: Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, and Recognition of Foreign Judgments”

11:30 – 11:45am: Break

11:45 – 1:15pm: Session 6

Presentation 10: Jim Nafziger, “Extraterritorial Enforcement of Judgments: Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Foreign Sovereign Immunity, and the Protection of Cultural Property”

Presentation 11: Aaron Simowitz, “Defining Daimler‘s Domain: Consent, Jurisdiction, and Regulation of Terrorism”

1:15 – 2:00pm: Lunch in the Oregon Civic Justice Center

End of conference.

Thank you Dechert for flagging Case No. 16-00636 Cuzco v Tera (Chapter 11), in which Faris J with great clarity wades in on a motion to dismiss US Chapter 11 jurisdiction in favour of exclusive jurisdiction for the Seoul courts with respect to a Korean company shareholder derivative action.

The case is relevant to insolvency practitioners. More generally however it highlights the need for a court to keep a level heading when wading through to and fro litigation in various States.

A bit of factual detail is required to appreciate the ruling.

Cuzco USA filed a chapter 11 in Hawaii with its sole asset real property in Hawaii. Tera Resources Co., Ltd. (“Tera”), one of Cuzco Korea’s shareholders asserted that the Debtor and its insiders conspired to deprive Cuzco Korea of the value of the real property. Tera commenced an action for fraud, breach of fiduciary duties, piercing the corporate veil, unjust enrichment and imposition of constructive trust.

The defendants moved to dismiss, in favour of the Korean courts – and failed, both on arguments of forum non conveniens and on arguments of there being exclusive jurisdiction for the courts at Seoul. Defendant Mr Lee is purportedly the manager of Cuzco USA and the representative director of Cuzco Korea. Defendant Ms Yang is  shareholder and creditor of Cuzco Korea and an ally of Mr. Lee.

Cuzco USA had proposed, and the court confirmed, a Third Amended Plan of Reorganization. Briefly summarized, the Third Amended Plan provided that Cuzco USA would transfer the Keeaumoku (Hawaii) Property to Newco, a Hawaii limited liability company of which Mr. Lee is the sole member, that Newco would attempt to raise enough money through a refinancing to repay all of Cuzco USA’s creditors in full, and that if the refinancing did not occur by a date certain, Newco would sell the Keeaumoku Property at auction and distribute the proceeds to Cuzco USA’s creditors.

Tera and others filed motions for reconsideration of the order confirming the Third Amended Plan. Tera is a shareholder of Cuzco Korea. It also holds a judgment, entered by a Korean court, against Ms. Yang, and orders from a Korean court that, according to Tera, resulted in the seizure of Ms. Yang’s interests in and claims against Cuzco Korea.

Cuzco USA then moved to modify the Third Amended Plan and replaced it with a Fourth Amended Plan. Briefly summarized, this Plan eliminates the transfer of the Keeaumoku Property to Newco; instead, Cuzco USA will retain the property and either refinance it or sell it at auction. Tera and others vigorously objected to plan confirmation on multiple grounds. The court confirmed the Fourth Amended Plan.

Tera argued (among other things) that the Third Amended Plan was the product of a fraudulent scheme by Mr. Lee, Ms. Yang, and others to divert the equity in Cuzco USA from Cuzco Korea to themselves and to render Tera’s interests in Cuzco Korea worthless.

That Korean law covers governs the right to bring derivative claims on behalf of a Korean corporation is not under dispute between the parties. (It is therefore considered part of the rules on internal organisation which are subject to lex societatis). However Faris J dismissed defendants’ suggestion that the US court should also respect Korea’s jurisdictional rules that such suits be brought in Seoul only.

At B, p.10: US statutes confer subject matter jurisdiction on US courts. Statutes of another nation, such as the South Korean statute on which the moving defendants rely, cannot change the subject matter jurisdiction of a United States bankruptcy court under a United States statute.

Forum non conveniens was dismissed for there is a strong policy that favors centralization of claims against the debtor in the bankruptcy court that outweighs any other interest (at C, p.12). One would have to have strong arguments to push that aside and clearly these were not present here.

Geert.

Thank you Paul Davies for signalling the recent French decree on end of waste – EoW criteria. Such national initiatives are seen by some as being a sign of the failure of relevant provisions of EU Waste law (which suggest the EU should be developing such criteria). An alternative reading may suggest that national initiatives may be better places to read the technical and environmental and pubic health safety requirements at the local level, potentially preparing the way for EU criteria. Relevant procedures under EU law arguably are not the most efficient for the initial development of this type of detailed instrument, as the example of plastics and REACH also shows.

Geert.

Handbook of EU Waste law, 2nd ed. 2015, OUP, 1.166 ff and 1.189 ff.

L’ex-président ivoirien Laurent Gbagbo et son ancien ministre de la jeunesse Charles Blé Goudé étaient poursuivis par la Cour pénale internationale pour crimes contre l’humanité en lien avec la crise postélectorale de 2010-2011, lors de laquelle plus de 3 000 personnes ont perdu la vie. La décision des juges, si elle n’est pas une surprise sur le fond, l’est sur la forme. Et pose des questions sur l’avenir de la Cour.

en lire plus

Servitude

In March 2017, France’s ANSES, the relevant food, environment, and occupational health and safety agency, approved Monsanto’s Roundup Pro 360. That authorisation has now been annulled by the Courts at Lyon – around the same time the story broke of extensive unquestioned copy /pasting by regulators of industry dossiers.

At the beginning of its reasoning the court cites France’s environment charter, to which its Constitution refers. The Charter guarantees everyone in its first Article the right to live in a balanced environment and one with respect for human health. Article 5 entails the precautionary principle, with reference (of course) to scientific assessment and proportionality.

Yet this intro is made for dramatic effect only. The judgment is in fact nothing but a straightforward application of risk assessment requirements on the basis of prevention, not precaution, and a simple observation of infringement of EU law.

At 3 (p.7) the court points out the consequences of the relevant EU authorisation regime. Active ingredients such as glyphosate are authorised (or not; and potentially with conditions) by the EU. Applications in wich these substances are used, by the Member States.

France’s Centre International de Recherche sur le Cancer (CIRC) had classified glyphosate as ‘probably carcinogenic’. Its report on same is referred to by the court as a ‘handbook’, based on peer reviewed studies, the data of which are objectively verifiable as well as replicable. In the other corner, one study referred to by Monsanto (at 7). Relevant EFSA studies only look at the active ingredient and it is these studies upon which ANSES’ decision was based. These studies do not assess the active ingredients’ actual use in preparations such as Roundup Pro 360 which is 41.5% glyphosate. Consequently ANSES quite straightforwardly violates Regulation 1107/2009, particularly its Article 36(6), which prescribes that interaction between the active substance, safeners, synergists and co-formulants shall be taken into account in the evaluation of plant protection products.

The judgment is convincing and straightforward. The road to it was all but easy.

Geert.

EU environmental law (with Leonie Reins), Edward Elgar, soft cover edition 2018, p.28 ff.

Monsieur M. a été condamné en 2015 par le tribunal correctionnel de Paris à une peine de sept ans d’emprisonnement, et à une interdiction définitive du territoire française. Alors qu’il devait être expulsé à l’issue de sa peine, en mars, il a saisi la CEDH en urgence d’un recours suspensif, arguant être menacé par l’État Algérien de traitements contraires à l’article 3 de la Convention, qui interdit les actes de torture, les traitements inhumains et dégradants. La France s’y oppose. À l’avenir, la question risque de se poser à maintes reprises, lorsque des ressortissants algériens condamnés pour terrorisme sortiront de détention.

en lire plus