Agrégateur de flux

The next meeting of the Council on General Affairs and Policy (CGAP) of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) is scheduled to take place on 4-7 March 2025. According to the meeting’s draft agenda, the CGAP will deal, among other things, with the project on Voluntary Carbon Markets (VCMs), following last year’s meeting, […]

This post has been written by Michiel Poesen, lecturer in private international law at the University of Aberdeen. The author asks the question whether the territorial scope of the European AI Act and the Revised Product Liability Directive are consistent. Both instruments are intended to work in tandem. While the former sets out the obligations […]

The European Law Institute (ELI) Extra-Judicial Administration of Justice in Cross-Border Family and Succession Matters project is organising its dissemination conference in Vienna on 14 February. At this all-day event (9.00 to 18.00) experts will present their country reports, comparative findings and policy recommendations, in order to discuss these with the audience.

The project investigated the phenomenon that family and succession law matters are increasingly submitted to other authorities than courts. It seeks a to establish a harmonised concept of “courts” in the EU, taking into account the CJEU case law.

More information and the registration form are available on the ELI website.

ASG 2
Concurrence
Réparation du préjudice causé par une entente : une réglementation nationale empêchant une action groupée en recouvrement peut enfreindre le droit de l’Union

Engagement solennel de la présidente et des membres de la Commission européenne devant la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne

Monika Wałachowska (Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń), Mariusz Fras (University of Silesia, Katowice) and Pierpaolo Marano (University of Malta) edited Insurance in Private International Law. Insurance and Reinsurance in Private International Law, Jurisdiction and Applicable Law with Springer. The book is part of the AIDA Europe Research Series on Insurance Law and Regulation. Structured into two […]

On Tuesday, February 4, 2025, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. (CET). Professor Pietro Franzina (Catholic University of the Sacred Heart) will speak, in English, about the topic

“EU Private International Law at a Time of ‘Broken Multilateralism’ and Growing Geo-Political Tensions”

 

Multilateralism is in crisis. The role of world organisations in international politics and law-making is increasingly being questioned, as some key actors in the global arena no longer consider cooperation and collective action the best way to address common concerns. While multilateralism is not obsolete, let alone ‘dead’, as some claim, there is a growing consensus that current governance schemes need profound reconsideration. The EU, multilateralism’s staunchest defender, is especially exposed to these developments. While the evolution of multilateralism is set to affect all areas of international cooperation, each field has, arguably, its specificities. What features does cooperation in the field of private international law display in this regard? How can the crisis of multilateralism influence the way in which the EU deals with judicial cooperation, be it through its legislation, in the relations with its neighbours and at the global level? What structural changes are under way in global fora, such as the HCCH, and what is their impact on the EU’s own agenda and methods of work?

 

The presentation will be followed by open discussion. All are welcome. More information and sign-up here.

If you want to be invited to these events in the future, please write to veranstaltungen@mpipriv.de.

This post was written by Ottavia Cazzola, a PhD candidate at the University of Barcelona Barcelona participating in Action Grant “Towards Universal Parenthood in Europe (UniPAR)” (JUST-2023-JCOO; Project ID: 101137859). On 4 December 2024, the Spanish Supreme Court issued a decision stating that the recognition of a foreign judgment establishing filiation regarding the commissioning parents […]

La prochaine édition sera publiée le mardi 28 janvier 2025

en lire plus

A conference will take place on 14 February 2025 from 9 to 18 CET at the University of Vienna in connection with the project of the European Law Institute on Extra-Judicial Administration of Justice in Cross-Border Family and Succession Matters. The event will also be streamed online. With competences in family and succession matters increasingly […]

En cas d’atteinte alléguée à la liberté d’expression, il appartient au juge, après s’être assuré, dans l’affaire soumise, du lien direct entre le comportement incriminé et la liberté d’expression sur un sujet d’intérêt général, de vérifier le caractère proportionné de la déclaration de culpabilité, puis de la peine. Un tel contrôle nécessite un examen d’ensemble, devant prendre en compte, entre autres éléments, les circonstances des faits, la gravité du dommage ou du trouble éventuellement causé. 

en lire plus

I have already reported on this blog that in 2024 the Law Commission of England and Wales published a call for evidence to help them identify the most challenging and prevalent issues of private international law that arise from the digital, online, and decentralised contexts in which modern digital assets and electronic trade documents are used. […]

In an increasingly interconnected world, the application of laws by States beyond their territorial borders is an everyday reality. Yet, almost a century after the (still) leading findings by the PCIJ in the Case of the S.S. “Lotus”, the details of the concept of “extraterritoriality” remain elusive, and one can easily get lost in the multitude of national practices, ranging from  “presumptions against extraterritoriality” to be found mostly in federal systems (mostly for sub-units) to “effects doctrines” and the like in certain areas of law such as e.g. (early) in Germany, (later) in the EU’s competition law and today many other jurisdictions, in particular in Asia.

Given this complexity, this latest publication of the Ius Comparatum Series on “Extraterritoriality in Comparative Perspective” edited by Hannah L. Buxbaum offers a great deal of valuable guidance and insights. Featuring the reports from the most recent IACL/AIDC General Congress in Asunción, the volume provides the reader with unique insights by renowned legal scholars into the practices of 14 national jurisdictions (inter alia China, Germany, Japan, Korea, UK, U.S.) and the the European Union (EU). As is explained in the preface to the book:

Much of the vast scholarly literature on extraterritoriality approaches the topic from the outside in, assessing the extraterritorial projection of state law from the perspective of international law and the constraints it places on state authority. The goal of this project is to approach the topic from the inside out. Considering a range of legal systems, the authors investigate the geographic scope that states claim for their own laws, and the mechanisms by which states translate and locally implement principles of international jurisdictional law.

A particularly valuable contribution is Buxbaum’s General Report. It identifies, inter alia, the following important trends: First, international law turns out as increasinlgy irrelevant as a direct constraint on the territorial reach of state law. Second, extraterritoriality to protect local interests is no longer a practice of dominant states alone, as it is more and more widespread. Thus, extraterritoriality can no longer be taken as a synonym for illegitimacy. Third, extraterritoriality more and more occurs to protect international interests or global goods, in particular in criminal law. Each of these findings is further explained and substantiated. The issue of private enforcement, an even more complex and fragmented area of “managing extraterritoriality” is dealt with (“involves the application of local procedural law which injects additional conflict into cases involving  foreign elements on matters including the extent of discovey, the availability of non-compensatory damages, and the use of representative actions, amongst others”) as well as topic of economic sanctions (“one of the most contentious forms of extraterritoriality”). Highly recommended!

Further information as well as a free sample of Part I: General Report will soon be available on the publisher’s website.

The table of contents includes the following contributions:

Part I: General Report

Extraterritoriality in Comparative Context: Defining the Scope of State Law in a Global Era

Hanna L. Buxbaum

Part II: National Reports

Australia

The Extraterritorial Application of Statutes and Regulations

Danielle Ireland-Piper

Brazil

The Extraterritorial Application of Statutes and Regulations

André de Carvalho Ramos / Mariana Sebalhos Jorge

Canada

A Canadian Perspective

John C. Kleefeld

Québec

L’application Extraterritoriale des Lois et Règlements

Frédérique Sabourin

People’s Republic of China

Extraterritoriality in China

Shiping Liao

Germany

Extraterritoriality in Germany

Sören Segger-Piening

Italy

The Extraterritorial Application of Statutes and Regulations

Alessandra Zanobetti

Japan

The Extraterritorial Application of Statutes and Regulations

Hisashi Harata

South Korea

The Extraterritorial Application of Korean Laws

Gyooho Lee

The Netherlands

The Extraterritorial Application of Dutch Statutes and Regulations

Lucas Roorda / Cedric Ryngaert / Timo Zandstra

Romania

The Extraterritorial Application of Statutes and Regulations

Sergiu Popovici

Taiwan

The Legislative Practice of Extraterritoriality in Statutes and Regulations of Taiwan

Rong-Chwan Chen

United Kingdom (UK)

The Extraterritoriality of Statutes and Regulations

Matteo Angelini

United States (USA)

The Extraterritorial Application of Statutes and Regulations

Franklin A. Gevurtz

Vietnam

L’Application Extraterritoriale des Lois et Règlements

Quoc Chien Ngo / Duc Vinh Nguyen

Part III: Special Report

European Union

The Extraterritorial Application of Statutes and Regulations

Lena Hornkohl

Part IV: Appendix

Questionnaire

I reviewed the first instance judgment in Clifford Change v SocGen here. Soc Gen have unsuccessfully appealed, see Clifford Chance LLP & Anor v Societe Generale SA (Rev1) [2025] EWCA Civ 14, with Phillips LJ not taking up much space to do so.

Viz the question whether Clifford Change LLP was bound, he holds [46] that the pleaded basis of the core of SocGen’s appeal on this aspect is that the Judge erred as a matter of interpretation (emphasis in the original) of the Framework Agreements, asserting that the Judge failed to give effect to the true intention of the parties (ditto) to those agreements that all Clifford Chance entities would be bound by their terms. [47] ‘However, it is entirely clear that the Judge did not decide the question of whether CC LLP was bound by the Framework Agreements as a matter of interpretation, but on the basis that SocGen did not have a good arguable case that CC LLP was, or became, a party to them.’

In other words SocGen’s appeal was held to be questioning the judge’s factual findings on authority to bind parties, findings which it was not allowed to challenge in the appeal. Entirely obiter, Phillips LJ does review those findings [57] ff, holding obiter [60] that SocGen has failed to demonstrate that that evaluation was plainly wrong.

On Clifford Chance Europe being bound, the grounds of appeal are as follows ([65-66]):

SocGen first challenges the Judge’s assumption that there is no substantive claim against CC Europe. SocGen points out that the letter of claim addressed to CC Europe asserted a claim on the basis that CC Europe was the “dominus litis”, a French law claim based on the concept that CC Europe had a supervisory role in relation to the conduct of the Goldas Litigation by CC LLP. SocGen further emphasises that the Judge did not have evidence of French law in that regard, and that in any event the pleadings in the French proceedings have not closed. SocGen contends that if CC Europe wishes to obtain a negative declaration in respect of its liability for such a claim, it is contractually obliged to do so in France, where proceedings on the same issue are already underway.

The second challenge is to the Judge’s concern that staying CC Europe’s claim in this jurisdiction would lead to a multiplicity and/or a fragmentation of proceedings. SocGen points out that there is already and will continue to be a multiplicity of proceedings, pointing out that (i) that position was caused by the respondents’ decision to seek negative declarations in England when proceedings were being brought in France; and (ii) such multiplicity was foreseeable by the parties when (contrary to SocGen’s case) CC LLP was implicitly retained separately and on different terms as to governing law than had been agreed between CC Europe and SocGen.

However Phillips LJ holds [67] that the Judge was right to find that there are strong reasons not to stay CC Europe’s claim in E&W:

There is no doubt that SocGen’s primary and substantive claim is against CC LLP, being the firm that was retained in relation to the Goldas Litigation and whose actions or inactions are now alleged to have been negligent. That is apparent from the letter of claim addressed to CC Europe, all the faults and negligence alleged being those in the conduct of the Goldas Litigation by CC LLP. The Judge determined that England is the appropriate forum for determination of that dispute. I accept that the Judge may have gone too far in concluding (at this stage and on the evidence before him) that SocGen does not have a genuine claim against CC Europe under French law. But even if there is some parasitic claim against CC Europe based on a “supervisory” role (SocGen having failed to adduce any evidence as to the existence of such a claim, let alone to explain its nature and effect), it is plainly desirable that it be determined in the same proceedings as the dispute between SocGen and CC LLP, namely, in these proceedings in the appropriate forum. There are strong reasons why CC Europe should not be debarred from seeking a declaration together with CC LLP in England, the effect of staying its claim being to require CC Europe to defend itself separately in France in respect of the very actions of CC LLP which will be the subject of these proceedings.

The first hearing in Soc Gen’s French proceedings took place in March 2024. [68] the Court of Appeal suggests a possible course of action for the French Proceedings, both on behalf of SocGen and the French court itself:

It is true that the French proceedings may continue notwithstanding the Judge’s order, and that may be a result of Clifford Chance entities having bifurcated their contractual relations with SocGen and having then initiated proceedings in this jurisdiction. But that is not a sufficient reason to fragment these proceedings before the plainly appropriate forum. There must be a realistic expectation that SocGen, and indeed the French court, will be reluctant to duplicate in France proceedings in England as to the alleged negligent conduct by English solicitors of Commercial Court proceedings in London.

Geert.

 

The fourth issue of 2024 of the Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale (RDIPP) is out. Along with recent case law and materials, it features five contributions. Francesca C. Villata, On the Track of the Law Applicable to Preliminary Questions in EU Private International Law Silenced, if not neglected, in (most) legislation and practice, […]

La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme estime que le recours contentieux ouvert contre les techniques de recueil de renseignement prévu devant le Conseil d’État est bien « un recours effectif ». 

en lire plus

Today the Latin American and Caribbean Journal of International Law (LACJIL) was launched at the auditorium of the Hague Academy of the Peace Palace. Among the speakers were Prof. Diego Fernández Arroyo, president of the curatorium of the Hague Academy, and H.E. Leonardo Nemer Caldeira Brant, judge of the International Court of Justice. In addition, a very interesting panel was moderated by the Ambassador of Guatemala to the Kingdom of the Netherlands H.E. Ana Cristina Rodríguez Pineda. The panel was composed of the judge of the International Criminal Court H.E Althea Alexis-Windsor, the Ambassador of Colombia to the Kingdom of the Netherlands H.E. Carolina Olarte Bácares, the Ambassador of Argentina to the Kingdom of the Netherlands H.E. Mario J. A. Oyarzábal and the president of ASADIP Prof. Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm. The purpose of the panel was to discuss the recent legal developments in Latin America and the Caribbean, which included the ASADIP principles on transnational access to Justice (TRANSJUS).

This Journal will deal with international law, including the intersection between public and private international law, arbitration and dispute settlement. This is a great initiative that will provide a new forum to this region, which has 33 States and at least 4 official languages. As indicated during this event, this region is not only receptive to ideas and legal theories but has also an active role in the creation of international law.

The minds behind this groundbreaking idea are H.E. Mario Oyarzábal and Prof. Diego Fernández Arroyo. A balanced team of editors both in terms of geography and gender will be part of this project. Many congratulations!

The language of this publication will be English. The first number is expected to be published in 2026.

 

 

 

The seminar The Lex fori processualis principle at the interface with EU judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters will take place on 24 January 2025 at the University of Milan. The seminar is organized as part of the 4EU+ Visiting Professorships Call, supported by the 4EU+ European University Alliance and co-funded by the Erasmus+ Programme of the European Union.

Hosted by the Department of International, Legal, Historical, and Political Studies of the University of Milan, the seminar will open with welcoming addresses (Antonella Baldi and Marco Pedrazzi) and an introduction (Francesca C. Villata). Bartosz Wolodkiewicz (University of Warsaw), currently a 4EU+ Visiting Professor at the University of Milan, will present the findings of his new book on foreign procedural law in civil judicial proceedings (Obce prawo procesowe w sadowym postepowaniu cywilnym, Wolters Kluwer 2024). Following this, a round table with international scholars will explore various aspects of the lex fori processualis principle, covering topics such as historical perspectives (Carlos Santaló Goris), legal standing (Lenka Válková), burden of proof (Martino Zulberti), ne bis in idem in EU judicial cooperation (Marco Buzzoni), and res judicata in international commercial arbitration (Michele Grassi). The seminar will conclude with a discussion and closing remarks by Elena D’Alessandro (University of Turin).

For more information on the 4EU+ Alliance, follow:
Facebook: 4EUplusAlliance
Instagram: 4euplus_alliance
LinkedIn: 4EUplus

#4EUplusAlliance #EuropeanUniversities #GrowingInMotion

With thanks for the tip-off to Dr Lenka Válková, University of Milan

This post has been written by Yiannis Bazinas, Managing Partner, Bazinas Law Firm, Athens, Greece. The effect of insolvency proceedings on assets located in different jurisdictions is perhaps the most typical issue one encounters in cross-border insolvency cases. Still, under English law, the rather fundamental question of what effect a foreign insolvency has on assets […]

In the wake of the CJEU’s controversial judgment in H Limited (Case C-568/22), which appeared to open a wide backdoor into the European Area of Justice through an English enforcement judgments (surprisingly considered a ‘judgment’ in the sense of Art. 2(a), 39 Brussels Ia by the Court), international law firms had been quick to celebrate the creation of ‘a new enforcement mechanism‘ for non-EU judgments.

As the UK had already completed its withdrawal from the European Union when the decision was rendered, the specific mechanism that the Court seemed to have sanctioned was, of course, short-lived. But crafty judgment creditors may quickly have started to look elsewhere.

In a paper that has just been published in a special issue of the Journal of Private International Law dedicated to the work of Trevor Hartley, I try to identify the jurisdictions to which they might look.

In essence, I make two arguments:

First, I believe that the CJEU’s unfortunate decision can best be explained by the particular way in which foreign decision are enforced in England, i.e. through a new action on the judgment debt. Unlike continental exequatur proceedings, this action actually creates a new, enforceable domestic judgment, albeit through proceedings that closely resemble the former. It follows, I argue, that only judgments that result from a new action based on the judgment debt (rather than a mere request to confirm the enforceability of the foreign judgment) can be considered ‘judgments’ in the sense of Art. 2(a) and the Court’s decision H Limited (which also requires the decision to result from ‘adversarial proceedings’). Among many reasons, I find such a limited reading easier to reconcile with the Court’s earlier decision in Owens Bank (Case C-129/92) than a wider understanding of the decision.

Second, I believe that several European jurisdictions still offer enforcement mechanisms through which third-state judgments could realistically be transformed into European judgments (clearing both the requirement of creating a new judgment and resulting from adversarial proceedings). This applies to Ireland and Cyprus (but not Malta) as well as to the Netherlands (through its so-called verkapte exequatur) and Sweden.

The full paper is available here; a preprint can also be found on SSRN.