Feed aggregator

Pourvoi c/ déc. Cour d'appel d'Aix en Provence du 25 septembre 2019

The post below was provided by Catherine Shen, Project Manager at the Asian Business Law Institute.

Readers of the EAPIL blog are well aware that in Europe, harmonisation in the field of private international law has been enormously successful with efforts encompassing both the civil and commercial, as well as family, spheres. In relation to foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters, the Brussels I bis Regulation is a double convention comprising of rules on both jurisdiction and foreign judgments. Apart from harmonising the rules under which a court in one European Union (“EU”) Member State would assume jurisdiction, it enables the free circulation of judgments from one EU Member State within the EU.

In Asia, however, harmonisation efforts in this field have been relatively lacking. That was until recently. The Asian Business Law Institute (“ABLI”), set up in 2016 with the aim of promoting the convergence of business laws in Asia, identified among its first batch of projects an undertaking to advance the convergence of foreign judgments recognition and enforcement rules in Asia (“Foreign Judgments Project”).

ABLI released its first publication, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Asia (“Judgments Compendium”) in the beginning of 2018. This compendium contains 15 short and concise country reports which provide lawyers and businesses with an overview of how foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters are recognised in different jurisdictions in Asia and the requirements which would need to be met for a foreign judgment to be enforced in those jurisdictions. The jurisdictions studied are all ten member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations or ASEAN (i.e., Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam) and their major trading partners, including Australia, China, India, Japan and South Korea.

In fact, the Judgments Compendium marks the first time when the rules of several ASEAN member states on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments are made available in the English language. Its release concluded the first phase of ABLI’s Foreign Judgments Project and set the stage for the second phase where both the similarities and the differences of the rules of these 15 jurisdictions are distilled to formulate a set of common principles.

That set of principles has now been released under the title of Asian Principles for the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (“Asian Principles”). This ambitious piece of work is a sequel to the Judgments Compendium and includes a total of 13 principles that among other things, cover the rules on international (or “indirect”) jurisdiction, reciprocity, the enforcement of non-monetary judgments, public policy, due process and inconsistent judgments. Each principle is accompanied by a commentary which fleshes out how the various countries apply that principle and also includes a way forward section, where applicable, to suggest the desired directions of law development.

A detailed write-up on the Asian Principles and the Foreign Judgments Project in general can be found at Adeline Chong, “Moving towards harmonisation in the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment rules in Asia” (2020) 16 Journal of Private International Law 31-68. Associate Professor Chong is the general editor of both the Judgments Compendium and the Asian Principles.

ABLI is delighted to offer all members of EAPIL and all readers of this blog an exclusive discount to purchase both the Judgments Compendium and the Asian Principles. Interested members and readers can enjoy 10% off by following the steps listed at the end of this post.

Both the Judgments Compendium and the Asian Principles are available in PDF softcopies. Three hardcopies remain in stock for the Judgments Compendium. Please contact Catherine Shen, Project Manager of ABLI, for any query at catherine_shen@abli.asia.

How to enjoy your 10% discount as an EAPIL member or EAPIL blog reader (offer ends on 1 March 2021): (1) Go to https://payhip.com/b/e0md (for Judgments Compendium) or https://payhip.com/b/hACJ (for Asian Principles); (2) Click on the purple icon “buy now”; (3) After entering your name and email address, click on “Have a coupon code? Add coupon“ (right below the data protection terms) and enter promo code “EAPIL”, and then proceed to check out; (4) Once payment is processed by PayPal, an email will be sent to your indicated address for you to download the purchased copy instantly.

Please contact Catherine Shen if you wish to pay by credit card instead of PayPal.

A webinar event on “Corporate Due Diligence and Private International Law” organized by the NOVA Centre for Business, Human Rights and the Environment, will hold on February 25, 2021 at 15:00 – 17:30 CET. For more information on the event and how to register see here

by Professor Dr Eva-Maria Kieninger, Chair for German and European Private Law and Private International Law, University of Würzburg, Germany

The Supreme Court’s decision in Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell (2021 UKSC 3) concerns the preliminary question whether English courts have jurisdiction over a joint claim brought by two Nigerian communities against Royal Dutch Shell (RSD), a UK parent company, as anchor defendant, and a Nigerian oil company (SPDC) in which RSD held 30 % of the shares. The jurisdictional decision depended (among other issues that still need to be resolved) on a question of substantive law: Was it “reasonably arguable” that RSD owed a common law duty of care to the Nigerian inhabitants whose health and property was damaged by the operations of the subsidiary in Nigeria?

In the lower instance, the Court of Appeal had not clearly differentiated between jurisdiction over the parent company and the Nigerian sub and had treated the “arguable case”-requirement as a prerequisite both for jurisdiction over the Nigerian sub (under English autonomous law) and for jurisdiction over RSD, although clearly, under Art. 4 (1) Brussels Ia Reg., there can be no such additional requirement pursuant to the CJEU’s jurisprudence in Owusu. In Vedanta, a case with large similarities to the present one, Lord Briggs, handing down the judgment for the Supreme Court,  had unhesitatingly acknowledged the unlimited jurisdiction of the courts at the domicile of the defendant company under the Brussels Regulation. In Okpabi, Lord Hamblen, with whom the other Justices concurred, did not come back to this issue. However, given that from a UK point of view, the Brussels model will soon become practically obsolete (unless the UK will still be able to join the Lugano Convention),  this may be a pardonable omission. It is to be expected that the English courts will return to the traditional common law restrictions on jurisdiction such as the “arguable case”-criterion and “forum non conveniens”.

Although the Supreme Court’s decision relates to jurisdiction, its importance lies in the potential consequences for a parent company’s liability on the level of substantive law: The Supreme Court affirms its previous considerations in Vedanta (2019) and rejects the majority opinion of the CoA which in 2018 still flatly ruled out the possibility of RDS owing a duty of care towards the Nigerian inhabitants. Following the appellants’ submissions, Lord Hamblen minutely sets out where the approach of the CoA deviated from Vedanta and therefore “erred in law”. The majority in the CoA started from the assumption that a duty of care can only arise where the parent company effectively “controls” the material operations of the sub, and furthermore, that the issuance of group wide policies or standards could never in itself give rise to a duty of care. These propositions have now been clearly rejected by the Supreme Court as not being a reliable limiting principle (para 145). In the present judgment, the SC affirms its view that “control” is not in itself a meaningful test, since in practice, it can take many different forms: Lord Hamblen cites with approval Lord Briggs’s statement in Vedanta, that “there is no limit to the models of management and control which may  be put in place within a multinational group of companies” (para 150). He equally approves of Lord Briggs’s considerations according to which “the parent  may incur the relevant responsibility to third parties if, in published materials, it holds itself out as exercising that degree of supervision and control of its subsidiaries, even if in fact it does not do so. In such circumstances its very omission may constitute the abdication of a responsibility which it has publicly undertaken” (para 148).

Whether or not the English courts will ultimately find a duty of care to have existed in either or both of the Vedanta and Okpabi sets of facts remains to be seen when the law suits have been moved to the trial of the substantive issues. Much will depend on the degree of influence that was either really exercised on the sub or publicly pretended to be exercised.

On the same day on which the SC’s judgment was given (12 February 2021), the German Federal Government publicly announced the key features of a future piece of legislation on corporate social resonsibility in supply chains (Sorgfaltspflichtengesetz) that is soon to be enacted. The government wants to pass legislation before the summer break and the general elections in September 2021, not the least because three years ago, it promised binding legislation if voluntary self-regulation according to the National Action Plan should fail. Yet, contrary to claims from civil society (see foremost the German “Initiative Lieferkettengesetz”) the government no longer plans to sanction infringements by tortious liability towards victims. Given the applicability of the law at the place where the damage occurred under Art. 4 (1) Rome II Regulation, and the fact that the UK Supreme Court in Vedanta and Okpabi held the law of Sambia and Nigeria to be identical with that of England, this could have the surprising effect that the German act, which the government proudly announced as being the strictest and most far-reaching supply chain legislation in Europe and the world (!!), would risk to fall behind the law in anglophone Africa or on the Indian sub-continent. This example demonstrates that an addition to the Rome II Regulation, as proposed by the European Parliament, which would give victims of human rights’ violations a choice between the law at the place of injury and that at the place of action, is in fact badly needed.

The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Supreme Site Services v. Shape (Case C‑186/19) did not only raise the issue of the impact of the immunity of enforcement of international organisations on the definition of civil and commercial matters in the meaning of the Brussels I bis Regulation. The main question asked to the CJEU was that of the jurisdiction to lift cross-border provisional attachments under the Brussels I bis Regulation.

Background

The case was concerned with a dispute relating to the supply of fuel by a group of private companies to the headquarters of NATO in Europe (the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, or SHAPE), for the purpose of a mission in Afghanistan. SHAPE is established in Belgium, but it has a regional headquarter in the Netherlands, the Allied Joint Force Command Brunssum (‘JFCB’). In order to guarantee the payment of all the costs related to the supply contracts, JFCB and the private companies signed an escrow agreement, whereby funds were deposited in a bank in Brussels.

After a dispute arose between the parties, the private companies sued JFCB and SHAPE on the merits in a Dutch court in 2015.

In 2016, the plaintiffs applied ex parte to the same Dutch court for an authorisation to carry out a provisional attachment on the monies held by the bank in Brussels. The application was granted and, two days later, was carried out in Brussels by a Belgian enforcement officer (huissier de justice) on the basis of a certificate issued on the ground of Art 53 of the Brussels I bis Regulation. In other words, the Dutch order was directly enforced under the Brussels I bis Regulation.

Jurisdiction to Issue a Cross-Border Attachment

After SHAPE was notified, it challenged the order before the court of origin. Interestingly enough, it does not seem that JFCB was notified, and that it was a party to the interim proceedings. The debate essentially revolved around the immunities of NATO, but there was also an issue of jurisdiction. On which ground could a Dutch court authorise the attachment of monies in Belgium? When the Dutch court of appeal considered the issue, it referred to Article 35 of the Regulation. Is that because, in the absence of JFCB, it considered that it did not have jurisdiction on the merits? If so, its jurisdiction should have been restricted to Dutch territory (see Recital 33 of the Preamble to the Regulation).

Enforcement in Belgium

In addition to the jurisdictional issue, there was an obstacle for enforcing the Dutch order in Belgium. It had been issued ex parte. It was therefore not a decision in the meaning of Article 2 of the Regulation, and it could not benefit from the enforcement regime of the Regulation.

But after the abolition of exequatur, the enforcement of foreign judgments is only to be challenged ex post for grounds listed in Art 45. Violation of the scope of Art 35 is not one of them. Issuance of protective measures ex parte is not either. Was there a remedy for SHAPE in Belgium? Maybe Adrian Briggs is right when he writes that Art 45 should not be read literally, and that other grounds for opposing enforcement should be admissible.

It must be underscored that ex parte provisional measures may not benefit from the Brussels regime, but the Brussels I bis Regulation expressly recognises that national law might allow their enforcement. In this case, after Dutch courts lifted the authorisation on the ground that NATO benefited from an immunity, SHAPE sought a declaration of enforceability of the Dutch judgment on the ground of a 1925 bilateral treaty between Belgium and the Netherlands (that the Brussels instruments have replaced, but not terminated – rings a bell?), because the argument of SHAPE was that its immunity excluded the application of the entire regulation (the argument was rightly rejected by the CJEU).

Jurisdiction to Lift the Provisional Attachment

SHAPE applied to the Dutch court, and the Dutch court of appeal set aside the authorisation and lifted the attachment on the ground of the immunity of SHAPE. The creditors appealed, and, although the issue of jurisdiction was not raised, the Dutch supreme court wondered whether Belgian courts had exclusive jurisdiction to lift an attachment over assets situated in Belgium on the grounds of Article 24(5) (“enforcement of decisions”), and thus referred the case to the CJEU.

The question was framed narrowly, and the CJEU only answered that Article 24(5) did not apply, because the proceedings did “not concern per se the enforcement of judgements in the meaning of Article 24(5)”. The court had just insisted that the provision applies to “proceedings relating to recourse to force, constraint or distrain on movable or immovable property”, so it seems that it considered that an application to lift a provisional attachment could not be considered to relate to use of force.

One must also say that Article 24(5) applies to the enforcement “of decisions”, and that it is unclear which decision would have been enforced in this case, since the proceedings on the merits were pending.

Most unfortunately, the CJEU only answered the question as it had been framed and did not elaborate on the court which would have jurisdiction under the Regulation.

It is submitted that, for a number of reasons, it should be the court which issued the order in the first place. A first reason is that the process of lifting a provisional attachment requires to reconsider and, as the case may, set aside, a judicial order. Under the Regulation, it is hard to see how any other court than the court of origin could be entitled to do so. Another reason is that the court of origin will apply the same rules to decide whether the decision was rightly granted.

Selon la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne, une personne soumise à une enquête administrative pour délit d’initié a le droit de garder le silence lorsque ses réponses pourraient faire ressortir sa responsabilité pour une infraction passible de sanctions administratives présentant un caractère pénal ou sa responsabilité pénale.

en lire plus