Agrégateur de flux

The latest issue of the Journal of Private International Law (Volume 21, Issue 1) features eight articles. Pietro Franzina, Cristina González Beilfuss, Jan von Hein, Katja Karjalainen & Thalia Kruger, Cross-border protection of adults: what could the EU do better?, 1-29 On 31 May 2023 the European Commission published two proposals on the protection of adults. […]

The author of this post is Federica Sartori, PhD student at the University of Pavia. A pending case, Tatrauskė (C-789/23), offers the Court of Justice an opportunity to rule on the relationship between the EU citizens’ right to free movement and residence under Article 21 TFEU and national legislation on the registration of marriage property […]

In Sinclair v Venezia Turismo, 2025 SCC 27 (available here) the Supreme Court of Canada has, by 5-4 decision, held that the Ontario court does not have jurisdiction to hear claims by Ontario residents against three Italian defendants in respect of a tort in Italy.  The Sinclair family members were injured in a gondola collision in Venice that they alleged was caused by the Italian defendants.  But there were several connections to Ontario.  The trip to Italy had been booked by Mr Sinclair using a premium credit card’s concierge and travel agency service [4, 156] and the gondola ride had been arranged through that service [15, 160].  The card was with Amex Canada and one or more contracts connected to the gondola ride had been made in Ontario.  The Sinclairs were also suing Amex Canada and the travel service for carelessness in making the arrangements with the Italian defendants, and those defendants attorned in Ontario [167, 172].  A core overall issue, then, was whether the plaintiffs would be able to pursue all of their claims arising from the gondola collision, against various defendants, in one legal proceeding in Ontario.

For assumed jurisdiction, Canadian common law requires that the plaintiff establish a presumed connecting factor (PCF) in respect of each defendant.  Once established, the defendant can rebut the PCF by showing that it does not point to a real relationship, or only a weak relationship, with the plaintiff’s chosen forum [7, 49, 202, 216].  It is well established that damage sustained by the plaintiff abroad, and continuing to be suffered in the forum, is not a PCF.  While less clear, the better view of the law is that the defendant’s being a “proper party” to a proceeding advanced against a local defendant is not a PCF.  So neither of these routes to jurisdiction, familiar in some legal systems, was available despite their fitting the facts.

Canadian courts have held that the fact that a contract connected with a tort was made in the forum is a PCF.  This is controversial because many have questioned the strength of this connection, based as it is on the place of making a contract, but it has been repeatedly endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada.  Sinclair turned on whether this PCF had been established and if so rebutted [1, 51, 146].  The majority (decision written by Justice Cote) found the defendants had rebutted the PCF; the dissent (decision written by Justice Jamal) found not.

The reasons are a challenging read.  The majority and dissent disagree on many discrete points (including the standard of review and the standard of proof).  Many of these are essentially factual.  Because they do not see the facts the same way, it is hard to compare the legal analysis.  A key example is on the issue of what contract(s) had been made in Ontario.  The majority is not overly satisfied that any contract had been, but is prepared to accept that Mr Sinclair’s cardmember agreement was made in Ontario [102-103].  That contract is in a loose sense connected with the tort in Italy, but it is easy to see how one might think this is at best a very weak link [9].  In contrast, the dissent has no issue with the cardmember agreement having been made in Ontario [253, 259] and finds an additional contract also made in Ontario in respect of arranging the specific gondola ride [268].  That second contract is more closely linked to the tort and so the rebuttal analysis would be expected to differ from that relating to the cardmember agreement.  The majority does not find any such second contract at all: it sees this as a reservation made to arrange that the gondola be available, which is not a separate contract but rather a part of the way Amex Canada performs its service obligations under the cardmember agreement [105-107].

The result of the appeal is highly fact-specific.  But some useful general points can be extracted from the reasons.  First, the decision may add to our understanding of the test for when a contract made in the forum is “connected” to the tort.  In Lapointe (available here) the court had said that this is satisfied if “a defendant’s conduct brings him or her within the scope of the contractual relationship” AND “the events that give rise to the claim flow from the relationship created by the contract” [58, 215].  I confess to having had trouble understanding what the former aspect means.  What is it to be brought within the scope of the contractual relationship?  Is this a factual or legal question?  In what way would the Italian defendants be brought within the scope of the cardmember agreement (this does not seem possible) or even the second contract between Amex Canada and Carey International to arrange a gondola?  Do they get brought within the scope just because they end up being the relevant gondola providers?  Anyway, in this case, both the majority and the dissent seem to focus all of their analysis of whether the contract is connected to the tort on the second aspect: whether the tort “flows” from the earlier contract (a pretty easy test to meet here for all contracts involved) [128, 246].

Second, the judges engage in a lively debate about the standard of establishing a PCF.  This is understandable given the extent to which they disagree about the facts.  But their debate ends up being inconclusive.  For the majority see [59] to [62] and the conclusion that this is not an appropriate case to develop the law on this point (so these paragraphs, then, are markers for arguments parties might make in future cases in which the law might be developed).  For the dissent see [224] to [236] and the conclusion that what it considers the status quo on the issue remains the law (yet this is in dissent).  There may be common ground, since in both discussions care is taken, at least in places, to refer specifically to the distinction between disputes about facts and disputes about the application of the law to those facts.  A standard of proof, whether a balance of probabilities or a good arguable case, must be about facts and not law.  It does not make sense to talk about the standard of proof for establishing a point of law or satisfying a legal test.

Third, few Canadian cases have provided a detailed analysis of how the rebuttal of a PCF works, so this case is most welcome on that specific issue.  The majority offers some general considerations that feed into the analysis [67-72].  It also rejects the contention that rebuttal is a “heavy” burden on the defendant [74].  It calls the rebuttal “a shift in burden and perspective, not a shift in difficulty” [74, quoting the intervener BC Chamber of Commerce].  This language is likely be repeated quoted in subsequent decisions.  The majority also says that the PCF and rebuttal stages work in tandem and are complementary [74-75].  This reflects the idea that if the PCF is broad, there should be more scope for rebuttal, and if the PCF is narrow, less so.  The dissent does not disagree with this stated approach to the rebuttal analysis [see 217].  However, the judges disagree about whether the defendant’s reasonable expectations of where it might be sued can be considered as part of the rebuttal analysis.  The dissent says no [218, 291].  The majority says yes [71-72].

Finally, on the broader question of how willing courts should be to take jurisdiction over a defendant on grounds of efficiency, access to justice and avoidance of multiple proceedings, most comments from the judges are indirect.  The majority stresses the importance of “fairness” to defendants [45].  It rejects “bootstrapping” and insists that a PCF must be shown for each defendant [63].  It cautions against a jurisdiction analysis that considers “the factual and legal situation writ large” [63].  In contrast, the dissent sees the proceeding as one that “claims inseparable damages for these integrally related torts” [281] and rejects focusing on the collision as something separate from other facts and claims [249].  More directly, it states “[i]n a case alleging multiple torts, as in this case, or a case raising claims under multiple heads of liability, focussing on the dispute as a whole ensures that a court does not inappropriately hear only part of the case in the forum while leaving related claims to be heard in the extra-provincial or foreign court” [244].  In doing so it quotes the notorious para 99 of Club Resorts (available here), language that continues to trouble courts more than a decade later.  After Sinclair, are we closer to a principled answer for cases with related claims against multiple defendants?  By focusing on the narrow and specific questions raised by the particular PCF at issue, including identifying whether and where certain contracts were made, the broader debate is being conducted covertly rather than in the open.

 

The EAPIL blog will be publishing fewer posts than usual in the course of August. As in previous years, there will be no more than two or three posts per week until 25 August, when we plan to resume our usual pace. Potential guests are encouraged to keep submitting their proposals at blog@eapil.org, in the […]

A collection of essays titled Europäisierung des Zivilrechts, edited by Guido Kosmehl, Steffen Pabst and István Varga, has been published by C.H. Beck to celebrate the 70th birthday of Thomas Rauscher. It comes with some thirty contributions, mostly in German, dealing with a variety of topics in the area of private law and private international […]

The Australian Institute of International Affairs and the Australian Branch of the International Law Association call for applications for the 2026 Peter Nygh Hague Conference Internship.

Awarded annually, the Nygh internship offers a postgraduate student or graduate of an Australian law school the exciting opportunity to undertake a 6-month internship with The Hague Conference on Private International Law, in the Netherlands.

The successful applicant will have the chance to work with some of the world’s leading private international law practitioners and will receive funding to assist with travel costs and living expenses.

Previous Nygh interns have worked on projects in fields including: family law; evidence and access to justice; cross border flow of personal data; migration; civil liability for trans-boundary harm and commercial dispute resolution. For many interns, the opportunity to observe the negotiation of an international convention first-hand has been a highlight of their internship, all whilst living and working in the Netherlands.

English, French and Spanish are the three working languages of the Hague Conference and Australian law graduates and final year law students with French and/or Spanish language skills are encouraged to apply for the internship.

The Peter Nygh Hague Conference Internship was established in memory of the late Hon Dr Peter Nygh AM, a renowned international lawyer and former judge of the Family Court of Australia.

Applications for the 2026 Nygh Internship have been extended to close on 14 August 2025. For further information and application instructions visit: Peter Nygh Hague Conference Internship – Australian Institute of International Affairs or email Nicola Nygh at nicola.nygh@rllawyers.com.au

Royal Football Club Seraing
Football : la Cour consacre le droit, notamment pour les clubs et les joueurs, d’obtenir un contrôle juridictionnel effectif des sentences arbitrales rendues par le Tribunal arbitral du sport

Alace
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Protection internationale : la désignation d’un pays tiers comme « pays d’origine sûr » doit pouvoir faire l’objet d’un contrôle juridictionnel effectif

The Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth
Principes du droit communautaire
Droit d’asile : un État membre ne peut invoquer un afflux imprévisible de demandeurs de protection internationale pour se soustraire à son obligation de couvrir les besoins fondamentaux des demandeurs d’asile

BAJI Trans
Le principe de l’application rétroactive de la loi pénale plus favorable s’étend à une sanction qualifiée d’administrative en droit national lorsqu’elle est de nature pénale au sens du droit de l’Union

Volkswagen (Droit à réparation adéquate)
Rapprochement des législations
Un constructeur automobile ne peut pas s’exonérer de sa responsabilité pour un dispositif d’invalidation illicite du fait de l’existence d’une réception CE par type

The following announcement was kindly shared with us by Fabienne Jault-Seseke

Created with the support of LexisNexis, the Review Perspectives contentieuses internationales (PCI) is a biannual academic journal dedicated to the globalization of international litigation in both its public and private aspects. Each issue features a thematic dossier, complemented by several articles outside the main topic (Varia), as well as brief focus pieces addressing current events relevant to political or regulatory developments impacting international disputes (Focus).

The editorial committee, which ensures the scientific and operational direction of the Review, is composed of Sandrine Clavel, Patrick Jacob, and Fabienne Jault-Seseke (professors at Université Paris-Saclay, UVSQ).

Three issues have already been published and are available open access.

Issue 3 was released a few weeks ago.

It features a dossier dedicated to the Real Madrid / Le Monde case, following the decisions of the Court of Justice and the French Court of Cassation. Articles in this dossier were written by Fabienne Jault-Seseke, Julie Traullé, Marie Dugué and Laura Vitale, Ana Quinones, Olivera Boskovic, and Fabien Marchadier.

The issue also contains an article in English by Gilles Cuniberti on the international attractiveness of specialized commercial courts: “Assessing the International Attractiveness of Commercial Courts: Will Paris Eat London’s Lunch?”

A recent decision by the French Court of Cassation enabled Marylou Françoise to write a study devoted to the seising of the Judge in International Disputes.”

The issue concludes with presentations of:

• The Arbitration Act 2025, by Thomas Clay,
• The report on the application of the recast Brussels I Regulation: “To revise or not to revise?” by Sandrine Clavel,
• The order issued by the ICJ in the Sudan v. United Arab Emirates case: a brake on the Court’s openness, by Patrick Jacob.

France / CWS Powder Coatings e.a.
Rapprochement des législations
La Cour de justice confirme l’annulation de la classification du dioxyde de titane sous certaines formes de poudre comme substance cancérogène

A new volume coming out of the Programme in European Private Law for Postgraduates (PEPP) has just been published as part of the Scritti di diritto privato europeo ed internazionale series.

The table of contents can be found here; the full volume is available open access here.

Banca Mediolanum
Fiscalité
Fiscalité : une réglementation nationale prévoyant d’imposer dans une mesure supérieure à 5 % de leur montant les dividendes que les intermédiaires financiers perçoivent, en tant que sociétés mères, de leurs filiales résidant dans d’autres États membres est contraire au droit de l’Union

Veracash
Libre circulation des capitaux
Services de paiement : l’utilisateur d’une carte de paiement est privé du droit d’obtenir le remboursement d’une opération de paiement non autorisée dont il a eu connaissance s’il tarde à la signaler à son prestataire de manière intentionnelle ou gravement négligente

Daka
Indépendance des juges : la double affectation des juges à la Cour suprême polonaise est compatible avec le droit de l’Union

Adrar
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Avocat général Spielmann : le juge qui contrôle la légalité du placement en rétention d’un ressortissant d’un pays tiers en séjour irrégulier doit vérifier que le principe de non-refoulement ne s’oppose pas à son éloignement

Today (1 August 2025), the Arbitration Act 2025 comes into force. This is provided by the Arbitration Act 2025 (Commencement) Regulations 2025. The Act applies to arbitration proceedings commenced on or after today, as well as to court proceedings in connection with arbitration that falls within the temporal scope of the Act (section 17(4)(a)). The […]

Conventions & Instruments

On 1 July 2025:

• The 2019 Judgments Convention entered into force for the United Kingdom. At present, 33 HCCH Members are either bound by the 2019 Judgments Convention or a Contracting Party for which the Convention has not entered into force yet (Albania, Andorra, and Montenegro). More information is available here.
• The 1996 Child Protection Convention entered into force for El Salvador. The Convention currently has 57 Contracting Parties. More information is available here.
• The 2007 Child Support Convention entered into force for Colombia. At present, 55 States and the European Union are bound by the 2007 Child Support Convention. More information is available here.
• The 2005 Choice of Court Convention entered into force for Bahrain. At present, 37 States and the European Union are bound by the 2005 Choice of Court Convention. More information is available here.

On 5 July 2025, the 1970 Evidence Convention entered into force for the Philippines. The Convention currently has 69 Contracting Parties. More information is available here.

On 24 July 2025, the Republic of Moldova acceded to the 1970 Evidence Convention. The Convention currently has 69 Contracting Parties. More information is available here.

 

Publications

On 22 July 2025, the Permanent Bureau announced the publication of the fifth editions of the Practical Handbooks on the Operation of the 1965 Service and 1970 Evidence Conventions. Incorporating recent developments, court decisions, and practical examples provided by experts from around the world, as well as updates from the meeting of the Special Commission held in July 2024, the fifth editions of the Handbooks are essential resources for anyone involved in the implementation and operation of the 1965 Service and 1970 Evidence Conventions. More information is available here.

 

Meetings & Events

On 10 July 2025, the Permanent Bureau of the HCCH and the Asian Business Law Institute co-hosted the webinar “Cross-border Commercial Dispute Resolution – Electronic Service of Documents and Remote Taking of Evidence”. More information is available here.

On 11 July 2025, the first meeting of the Working Group dedicated to the Model Forms for Chapter II of the 1970 Evidence Convention was held online, hosted by the Permanent Bureau. More information is available here.

 

Other Developments

On 9 July 2025, the premises of the HCCH’s Regional Office for Africa, hosted by the Kingdom of Morocco, were officially opened in Rabat. More information is available here.

On 10 July 2025, the Permanent Bureau of the HCCH announced several developments with regard to the HCCH’s International Child Abduction Database (INCADAT), including the launch of its new notification service. More information is available here.

 

These monthly updates are published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), providing an overview of the latest developments. More information and materials are available on the HCCH website.