Feed aggregator

A new issue of ZEuP – Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht is now available and includes contributions on EU private law, comparative law and legal history, legal unification, private international law, and individual European private law regimes. The full table of content can be accessed here.

The following contributions might be of particular interest for the readers of this blog:

• Anspruchsverjährung im deutsch-spanischen Rechtsverkehr
  David Cuenca Pinkert and Alexander Kronenberg on the statute of limitation in cross-border situations involving Germany and Spain: Against the background of the relevance of the application of foreign law in practice, the article analyses the institute of the statute of limitations under Spanish substantive law and also deals with similarities and differences to German law as well as selective references to conflict of laws and particularities. Due to its practical relevance, the article focuses on the treatment of the limitation period for tortious claims for damages, especially as a result of road traffic accidents.
• EGMR „Klimaseniorinnen“ – Konsequenzen für private Klimaklagen?
  Marc-Philippe Weller and Franka Weckner comments on the decision by the ECtHR in Klimaseniorinnen and discuss the consequences of this decision for climate litigation brought before civil courts.

The third issue of the IPRax (Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts) for 2025 has been published. The following English abstracts have been kindly provided by the editor of the journal. M.F. Müller-Berg, The effects of the new product liability directive on international product liability [German] The concepts of damage, marketing and the person sustaining […]

Le droit de séjour découlant de l’article 20 du Traité sur le fonctionnement de l’Union européenne naît-il en vertu du droit de l’Union européenne ? Et à quel moment ce droit prend-il naissance ? La Cour de justice de l’Union européenne était interrogée sur les droits d’un ressortissant de pays tiers lié à une personne ayant le statut de citoyen de l’Union.

en lire plus

Under Article 10 of the Spanish Law 14/2006 of 26 May 2003 on assisted human reproduction techniques, gestation agreements, for a price or not, by a woman who renounces to motherhood in favour of a party to the contract or of a third party are null and void. As a rule, the parenthood of children born […]

In preparation of the University of Bologna (Ravenna Campus) Summer School on Transnational Litigation, already noted on this blog, a warm-up webinar will take place on 19 May 2025, from 6 to 7 pm CET. The session will feature Marco Pasqua (PhD at Catholic University of the Sacred Heart of Milan) who will speak on […]

RRC Sports
Concurrence
Avocat général Emiliou : les instances dirigeantes du sport sont limitées dans leur autorégulation en cas d’impact significatif sur les matières régies par le droit de l’Union

The Cambridge Law Journal has published, on First View (that is, online before print), an interesting article by Marcus Teo (Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore) on proof of foreign law in English law, titled The Inference of Similarity English courts have long professed to apply a “presumption of similarity” when faced with […]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Written by Catherine Shen, Senior Assistant Director, ABLI

Following successful sessions in 2021, 2022 and 2023, the Singapore-based Asian Business Law Institute (ABLI) and the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) return after a one-year hiatus with their fourth joint webinar, this time on electronic service of documents and remote taking of evidence.

Titled Cross-border Commercial Dispute Resolution – Electronic Service of Documents and Remote Taking of Evidence, the webinar will take place on Thursday 10 July between 5 to 6:10pm (Singapore time) or 11am to 12:10 noon (CEST), and is expected to discuss, among others, electronic transmission of requests under the Service Convention, such as the use of IT for communication among Central Authorities and other competent authorities, service by electronic means across different jurisdictions, and remote taking of evidence by video-link and electronic evidence under the Evidence Convention.

Invited speakers include Melissa Ford, Secretary of HCCH,  Lucinda Orr, Partner of Enyo Law LLP, Justice Anselmo Reyes, International Judge of the Singapore International Commercial Court, and Dr Xu Guojian, Senior Partner of SGLA Law Firm.

More about the webinar and its speakers can be found in the flyer.

For more information or to register, click here. Early bird discount is available till 10 June. Queries about the webinar can be directed to Catherine of ABLI at abli_info@abli.asia.

La Cour de justice de l’Union européenne engage une clarification des critères relatifs à la nécessité et aux modalités de contrôle des actes de procédure du parquet européen par les juridictions nationales, rappelant le principe d’équivalence des recours entre les situations relevant du droit national et celles relevant du droit de l’Union. 

en lire plus

Stevi et The New York Times / Commission
Droit institutionnel
Accès aux documents : la décision de la Commission refusant à une journaliste du New York Times l'accès aux messages textes échangés entre la présidente von der Leyen et le PDG de Pfizer est annulée

Recent legislative initiatives in the United States reflect concerns over the extraterritorial implications of Directive (EU) 2024/1760 on corporate sustainability due diligence (CSDDD). One such initiative consists of a bill titled Prevent Regulatory Overreach from Turning Essential Companies into Targets Act of 2025 (Protect USA Act of 2025), introduced in the US Senate by Senator […]

The European Parliamentary Research Service has recently released a Briefing, by Nikolina Šajn, on the European Commission’s proposal for a regulation on cooperation among enforcement authorities responsible for the enforcement of Directive (EU) 2019/633 on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain. Background The proposal aims at improving farmers’ […]

La jurisprudence des mois de mars et avril 2025 se caractérise par des affaires françaises qui sont moins nombreuses qu’en janvier-février mais qui peuvent présenter un intérêt majeur comme celle relative à la répression des actes sexuels non consenties et par des affaires venues d’ailleurs mettant encore plus en évidence que d’habitude l’importance envahissante dans le contentieux européen de l’article 8 qui consacre le doit au respect de la vie privée et familiale, de la correspondance et du domicile.

en lire plus

It has not yet been reported on this blog that a few months ago an interesting collection of essays, under the title Die Achtung des Fremden – Leerformel oder Leitprinzip im Internationalen Privatrecht? (Deference to the Foreign – Empty Phrase or Guiding Principle of Private International Law?), has been published by Mohr Siebeck. Edited by […]

La France a manqué à ses obligations positives qui lui imposent d’appliquer effectivement un système pénal apte à réprimer les actes sexuels non consentis. La Cour de Strasbourg relève une absence quasi « systémique » de prise en compte des circonstances dans l’appréciation du discernement, du consentement et de la vulnérabilité des victimes mineures. Elle reconnaît par ailleurs la victimisation secondaire d’une des victimes. 

en lire plus

Guest post by Bebizuh Mulugeta Menkir, former Lecturer of Laws in University of Gondar, currently working as a Lawyer and Senior National Consultant for a legal reform project. E-mail: babimulugeta@gmail.com

The Ethiopian legal system is characterized by the absence of codified rules on conflict of laws. Though it cannot be considered as the exact period in which conflict of laws have emerged in Ethiopia, some elements of such rules can be found even in the early 1900s, which is long before the modern codes were developed in 1950s and 1960s.

A book written by Mersehazen Woledekirkos titled “Ye Hayagenawe Keflezemen Mebacha:Ye Zemen Tarik Tezetaye Kayehute ena Kesemahute 1896–1922”[1]  is a record of  historical events that happened in 20th century Ethiopia. One of the records is the “Trade Agreement (1908)” that was signed between Ethiopia and France.  This agreement, among others, regulates the adjudication of disputes between Ethiopian and French nationals/dependents. This short piece aims to briefly discuss the salient conflict of laws rules that are incorporated in this trade agreement.

The 1908 Trade Agreement and Conflict of Laws

The trade agreement between Ethiopia and France was signed on January 10, 1908. In this agreement Ethiopia was represented by Emperor Menelik II and Antony Klobukowski signed on the behalf of France.[2]

This agreement consists of a total of nine articles (sections) covering a range of issues, including custom tax, immigration and security matters in performance of trade between the two nations.[3] Specifically, Article 7 of the agreement stipulates the agreed terms with respect to the adjudication of disputes, of civil as well as criminal nature, that would arise between Ethiopian and French nationals/dependents. In other words this provision was devoted to regulate questions in cases involving a foreign element.

Accordingly to the contemporary conception, it is a foreign element that triggers questions that require the application of conflict of laws. In the trade agreement a foreign element is established based on the nationality of parties to the dispute that the application of rules stated under Art. 7 of the agreement would arise in case when either one or both of the disputant parties are French nationals/dependents.

Though the provision also brought criminal matters within its scope of application, the part concerning civil cases regulates jurisdictional and choice of law matters that are part of conflict of laws.  Regarding jurisdiction, the agreement states that:

Until the Ethiopian legal system is in par with the Europeans, disputes between French nationals (dependents) in civil as well as criminal matters shall be under the jurisdiction of French consulate.[4] (Translation mine)

As it can be inferred from this provision conditionally makes disputes between French nationals/dependents under the exclusive jurisdiction of France, until Ethiopian laws are harmonized with European legal frameworks. Though the provision lacks clarity as to when do Ethiopian laws would be considered to be in par with  the European counterparts, Ethiopian courts wouldn’t claim primary as well as secondary jurisdiction in civil cases over with both of the disputant parties are French nationals/dependents.

However, the jurisdictional stand will be changed when the dispute is between French national (dependent) and Ethiopian national (dependent). This stipulated in the agreement that reads:

If a French national (dependent) brings legal action against Ethiopian citizen (dependent), in civil and criminal matter, it shall be adjudicated by an Ethiopian judge together with a representative from French consulate.[5] (Translation mine)

As per the above quoted provision of the agreement, disputes between an Ethiopian national/dependent and French national/dependent is under the jurisdiction of Ethiopian (specialized) court. This court was later on established in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in the year 1920/21.[6]  While this court is supposed to adjudicate disputes in a bench composed of an Ethiopian judge and a representative from French consulate; and in case of ties between the two the case shall be submitted to the Emperor of Ethiopia, for final decision.[7]

Moreover, the agreement also has a different stand regarding the choice of applicable law in case when the dispute is between an Ethiopian national/dependent and French national/dependent. As such, if one of the parties to the dispute is an Ethiopian national/dependent, the case will disposed according to Ethiopian law.  In this respect, Art 7 of the agreement reads as follows:

If the defendant is an Ethiopian national (dependent), the case shall be adjudicated based on Ethiopian law; which shall also be applicable in case when the defendant is a French national (dependent).[8] (Translation mine)

Generally, according to the trade agreement, legal disputes between French nationals/dependents in Ethiopia are under the jurisdiction of France.  Cases involving disputes Ethiopian national/dependent and French national/dependent are under the jurisdiction of Ethiopian court; that shall resolve the case by applying Ethiopian laws.

However, the trade agreement is silent regarding disputes between French national/dependent and another foreign national/dependent residing in Ethiopia. Here, it is interesting to mention that despite what was clearly stated under article 7 of the trade agreement, the provision was later on started to be applicable to foreigners other than French.[9]

 

[1] Mersehazen Woledekirkos, Ye hayagenawe keflezemen Mebacha:Ye Zemen Tarik Tezetaye kayehute ena Kesemahute 1896–1922 (Amharic), Addis Ababa University Press, 3rd ed. (2016/17)

[2] Id. p.243

[3] Id.

[4] The Trade Agreement, Art 7, paragraph 1 (as stated , Mersehazen supra 1,  p. 243)

[5] Id., Art 7, paragraph 2

[6] Mersehazen, supra1,  p. 242&243

[7] The  Trade Agreement,  Art 7, paragraph 4

[8] Id. Paragraph 3

[9] Mersehazen, supra 1 , p.245

Written by Mayela Celis, Maastricht University

The hearing in the case of Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. et al. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (Mexico) No. 23-1141 took place in March 2025 before the US Supreme Court. We have previously reported on this case here and here. The transcript and the audio files can be found here.

As previously indicated, this is a much-politicized case brought by Mexico against US gun manufacturers. Mexico alleges inter alia that defendants actively assist and facilitate trafficking of their guns to drug cartels in Mexico. Among the claims for relief are: Negligence, public nuisance, defective condition – unreasonably dangerous, negligence per se, gross negligence, unjust enrichment and restitution, violation of CUTPA [Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act], Violation of Mass. G.L. c. 93A [Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act] and punitive damages.

From the perspective of Mexico, this case is of crucial importance because it has a direct impact on its access to US courts to seek justice for all the mayhem that cartels have inflicted using American-made weapons smuggled into Mexico. However, from an American perspective, this case seems to raise many questions and confusion as to how legal standards of proximate cause / aiding and abetting could actually apply, and all of this against the backdrop of the immunity conferred by congress to weapon manufacturers.

Perhaps controversially, counsel for Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. et al. contended as part of his opening argument that (our summary): no case in American history supports Mexico’s theory. And if Mexico is right then every law enforcement organization in America has missed the largest criminal conspiracy in America, and a large beer company is liable for every accident caused by every underage drinker since it knows that teenagers will buy beer, drive drunk and crash. More on this further down.

The proceedings

This case before the US Supreme Court is about overcoming a motion to dismiss. Consequently, it is not about determining which aspects of Mexico’s allegations would survive during the litigation (and some are controversial), as indicated by one of the counsels, but whether they pass this legal hurdle.

The US District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the case under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). But the First Circuit reversed, holding that the PLCAA does not bar this suit as Mexico adequately alleged that defendants have “aided and abetted the knowingly unlawful downstream trafficking  of their guns into Mexico”.

Unsatisfied with the decision, defendants filed a petition for a writ of certiorari before the US Supreme Court, which was granted. The hearing before the US Supreme Court took place on 4 March 2025. No judgment has yet been rendered.

The hearing

Some prominent statutes and case law mentioned

The applicable statute is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms (PLCAA), which is codified in 15 U.S. Code Chapter 105, sections: §?7901. Findings; purposes; §?7902. Prohibition on bringing of qualified civil liability actions in Federal or State court; §?7903. Definitions – 15 U.S. Code § 7903 (5)(A)(iii)).

As its title suggests, section §?7902 sets forth a prohibition on bringing of qualified civil liability actions in Federal or State court, the purpose of which is to protect the Second Amendment.

The predicate exception / aiding and abetting is contained in 15 U.S. Code § 7903 (5)(A)(iii), which states the following:

(5) Qualified civil liability action

(A) In general
The term “qualified civil liability action” means a civil action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other relief, resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include— […]

(iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought, including—

(I)any case in which the manufacturer or seller knowingly made any false entry in, or failed to make appropriate entry in, any record required to be kept under Federal or State law with respect to the qualified product, or aided, abetted, or conspired with any person in making any false or fictitious oral or written statement with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of a qualified product; or

(II)any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18; (our emphasis)

However, other statutes were also alleged to be applicable but the extent to which they were was the subject of controversy. Mention was made to 18 U.S.C. 922, 923, 924 and 18  U.S.C. Section 2 (and other state statutes in the complaint).

Throughout the argument, the Twitter case was mentioned (Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 598 U. S. 471 (2023)). This case is relevant because it deals with aiding and abetting. In its ruling, the Supreme Court held that “Plaintiffs’ allegations that these social-media companies aided and abetted ISIS in its terrorist attack on the Reina nightclub fail to state a claim under 18 U. S. C. §2333(d)(2).”  However, this case deals with a different statute as will be pointed out later in this post.

Among other decisions mentioned are:

• Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York, 559 U. S. 1 (2010). This case is significant because it deals with proximate cause. It concerns the filing of tax reports with respect to the sale of cigarettes online.
• Direct Sales Co. v. United States, 319 U. S. 703 (1943) concerns a manufacturer selling narcotics/morphine to a specific doctor in great quantities, offering them at significant discounts.

Key concepts and some allegations

The hearing revolved around some key concepts: proximate cause, foreseeability, aiding and abetting, knowingly violated, statutory interpretation, predicate exception and immunity.

With regard to the relationship between manufacturers, distributors and retailers, it was pointed out that the licensed manufacturers sell weapons to licensed distributors who then sell them to licensed retailers, a small percentage of whom sell those weapons to straw purchasers, some of whom sell them to other purchasers who transfer them to smugglers, who then transfer them to cartels that in turn do mayhem in Mexico. In the US, there is a tier-distribution chain.

One of the key allegations put forth by Mexico was that manufacturers aided and abetted the retailers because manufacturers knew that they would sell the weapons to straw purchasers. Some retailers were identified in a Washington Post article. However, a comment was made to the effect that if the government ignores which retailers are committing such actions how are the manufacturers supposed to know this fact.

A discussion ensued whether proximate cause related to the violation of the manufacturers and Mexico’s injury or to the retail sellers and Mexico’s injury. However, under the theory that aid and abetting is a form of vicarious liability then it would point to the retail sellers and Mexico’s injury. Interestingly, Justice Sotomayor noticed that the proximate cases are a mess and going into that would be like opening Pandora’s box.

Several cases were discussed including Twitter and Direct Sales and the fact that they relate to a specific violation. While counsel contended that this case is much easier, in many different respects, than the Twitter case, a justice said that Twitter dealt with a different statute. While discussing case law, and in particular a case from 1876 (St Paul Railway), there was a fleeting exchange (a telling jest) between counsel and two justices (Sotomayor and Gorsuch) about the role of the court as a collective body operating across time.

To the question whether the PLCAA’s objective was to bar lawsuits such as this one by foreseeing immunity, it was contended by the counsel for Mexico that this was not the case. Allegations were also made that Mexico is a direct victim and that the actions were foreseeable. Importantly, serial numbers could be erased for some weapons.

Finally, it was noted that 2% of the guns manufactured in the US (about 300,000 -600,000 guns) are likely trafficked into Mexico each year and end up in the cartels. Three models of guns made by the manufacturer seem to target Mexican cartels: the Super El Jefe, the Super El Grito, and the Emiliano Zapata 1911. These are smuggled to Mexico in volume. Whether this mere fact was enough for aiding and abetting was qualified as absurd by the opposite counsel.

Comments

This is a very complex case. Not only are the civil and criminal aspects intertwined but the allegations also concern independent crimes or actions committed by multiple parties before the weapons cross the border and reach Mexico. In addition, very few retailers have been named, and allegedly on the basis of a newspaper article published in the Washington post. Importantly, unlike Twitter and Direct Sales, there is no specific violation identified.

In my view, there is certain hesitancy with regard to this case. In particular, the consequences of this case can be far-reaching. Think for example of the production of baseball bats, knives, prescription medicines and unavoidably, selling beer to teenagers, all of which were mentioned during the hearing.

Having said that, this case has been politicized and emotions run high on both sides of the border. The need for justice is clear and compelling. There is also a growing sympathy for Mexico and for the need to remedy the wrongs committed in its territory.

From a legal perspective, however, we must recall that this case falls within the confines of PLCAA  (and perhaps other statutes) and thus it is a matter of statutory interpretation. With regard to the PLCAA’s predicate exception, it would seem very hard to prove that there are substantial allegations regarding a violation and that manufacturers “knowingly violated” a state or federal statute and that the violation was the “proximate cause of the harm” of Mexico’s injury. Equally difficult is to prove that there are substantial allegations of “aiding and abetting”, which is an example of the predicate exception and should be read as such. Accordingly, the court could rule that there is no prima facie violation (or substantial allegations of a violation) and thus the immunity foreseen by Congress applies. If the court favors this approach, it may not need to go into the analysis of complex concepts such as proximate cause, and in this way, avoid opening Pandora’s box.

 

Photo by Thinkstock on Freeimages.com

A webinar is being jointly organized by the Asian Business Law Institute (ABLI) and the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) to be held on 10 July 2025 from 5:00 to 6:10 PM (Singapore time) / 11:00 AM to 12:10 PM (CEST). The session will focus on two crucial and […]

Commission / Slovénie (Décharge de Bukovžlak)
Environnement et consommateurs
Gestion des déchets : la Cour impose une sanction financière à la Slovénie pour n’avoir pas respecté ses obligations en matière de mise en décharge des déchets

How are overriding mandatory rules to be defined, in particular, how can they be distinguished from other mandatory rules? When shall a court apply overriding mandatory rules of a third country (other than the lex fori and the lex causae)? When should an international arbitral tribunal apply such rules? These questions have been struggled with […]