Droit international général

Summer has come! The blog will remain open, but blogging will be lighter in the coming weeks.

We will resume our usual 5-post-a-week pace at the end of August.

We wish our readers and all EAPIL Members all the best for their holidays.

Stay safe, and enjoy the break!

Aldricus – Apakah anak Anda kerap bolak-balik ke kamar mandi untuk kencing? Kemungkinan ada keadaan tertentu yang menjadi pemicunya. Untuk ketahui langkah menangani kerap buang air kecil pada anak, Anda perlu pahami dahulu pemicu anak kerap kencing. Dengan begitu, pengatasan terbaik bisa dicari.

Bila anak kerap kencing sesudah dia minum banyak air, ini tentu saja dipandang normal. Tetapi, jika Sang Kecil kerap buang air kecil saat sedikit minum air, kemungkinan ada keadaan tertentu yang menjadi pemicunya.Berikut beragam pemicu anak kerap buang air kecil dan langkah menanganinya yang dapat Anda kerjakan.

1. Terburu-buru saat buang air kecil

Jika anak terburu-buru saat buang air kecil, kemungkinan masih tetap ada urine yang masih ada dalam kandungan kemihnya. Keadaan ini dikenali sebagai voiding dysfunction.Voiding dysfunction umumnya terjadi saat anak sedang main dengan beberapa temannya hingga dia tergesa-gesa saat buang air kecil. Hasilnya, urine yang sisa dalam kandungan kemihnya akan membuat Sang Kecil kembali lagi ke kamar mandi untuk kencing.Bila ini kasusnya, langkah menangani kerap buang air kecil pada anak yang dapat Anda kerjakan ialah minta anak tidak untuk terburu-buru saat kencing hingga urine di kandungan kemih dapat dikeluarkan seutuhnya.

2. Peradangan pada organ intim

Peradangan pada organ intim dapat menjadi pemicu anak kerap buang air kecil. Bila terjadi pada anak wanita, keadaan ini dikatakan sebagai vulvovaginitis. Saat itu, permasalahan ini dikenali sebagai balanitis bila terjadi pada anak lelaki.Ke-2 keadaan ini umumnya terjadi bila anak-anak tidak bersihkan organ intimnya dengan baik. Disamping itu, mandi dalam bak yang penuh busa bisa juga jadi pemicunya.Vulvovaginitis ialah permasalahan yang umum terjadi pada anak wanita.

3. Diabetes tipe 1

Walau jarang ada, diabetes type 1 bisa menjadi pemicu anak kerap buang air kecil. Dokter biasanya akan lakukan analisis lebih dulu untuk pastikan apa diabetes type 1 sebagai pemicu anak kerap kencing.Bila memang keadaan anak kerap kencing disebabkan penyakit ini, umumnya urine yang dikeluarkan bisa banyak. Sang Kecil akan berasa haus terlalu berlebih (polidipsia) hingga dia bisa banyak minum.

4. Diabetes insipidus

Diabetes insipidus ialah pemicu sangat jarang dari anak kerap buang air kecil. Tipe diabetes ini terjadi karena ada permasalahan pada hormon antidiuretik (hormon yang membuat ginjal mempernyerap air).Keadaan ini membuat ginjal tidak dapat simpan air hingga badan akan kehilangan cairan. Hasilnya, anak akan berasa haus terlalu berlebih dan kerap bolak-bolak ke kamar mandi untuk kencing.

Penyembuhan diabetes insipidus akan dilandasi oleh macamnya. Misalkan, dokter akan mereferensikan pasien diabetes insipidus sentra untuk minum air semakin banyak dan konsumsi obat desmopressin untuk gantikan hormon antidiuretik yang lenyap.Sedang, untuk pasien diabetes insipidus nefrogenik, dokter akan mereferensikan skema makan rendah garam untuk kurangi jumlah urine yang dibuat ginjal. Dokter akan menyarakankan untuk minum cukup air buat menghindar dehidrasi.

5. Infeksi saluran kemih

Infeksi aliran kemih bisa juga mengakibatkan anak kerap kencing. Tanda-tanda infeksi aliran kemih yang perlu dicurigai berbentuk merasa sakit saat kencing, urine berdarah atau kotor, demam, ngilu punggung, sampai mual.Langkah menangani kerap buang air kecil pada anak yang disebabkan karena infeksi aliran kemih akan berbeda. Dokter akan lakukan analisis lebih dulu untuk cari tahu apa pemicunya.Bila pemicunya ialah bakteri, karena itu dokter bisa mereferensikan obat antibiotik. Tetapi, bila virus atau jamur yang menjadi pemicunya, karena itu dokter akan memberi resep obat antivirus dan antijamur.

The post Cara Mengatasi Sering Buang Air Kecil pada Anak appeared first on Aldri Blog.

Since 2016, the European General Data Protection Regulation has been one of the most popular topics of discussion, academic and otherwise. While the PIL discussion has mostly focused on the unilateral conflicts rule in Article 3 of the Regulation, which defines its “external” scope of application, some scholars – like Martina Mantovani on this blog – have pointed out that despite providing a unified regime that applies across the Union, the Regulation’s repeated deference of specific questions to the laws of the Member States still requires a certain degree of “internal” coordination. On this aspect of the Regulation, Merlin Gömann has just published an impressive volume of over 800 pages (in German), offering what easily constitutes the most comprehensive treatment of the problem to date.

In essence, Gömann tries to work out how (and by whom) this coordination can (and must) be achieved according to primary EU law. He comes to the conclusion that the respective scopes of the national laws implementing the Regulation cannot be determined by unilateral conflict rules of the Member States but need to be derived from the Regulation itself. Accordingly, the conflict rules contained in many national laws implementing the Regulation are in violation of primary EU law (also explained in some more detail here).

According to the author, the necessary coordination between national laws must instead be achieved by applying Art. 3 GDPR by analogy. Gömann carefully explains the consequences of his proposition on more than 200 pages – including the somewhat surprising fact that national data-protection authorities might be required to apply the substantive data-protection laws of another Member State. And if this weren’t enough of an academic achievement already, Gömann concludes his book by also developing specific propositions on how the GDPR could be reformed in order to provide a proper system of coordination between the residual national laws.

Advocate General Pikamäe delivered on 14 July 2021 his opinion in case C‑262/21 PPU (A v B), which is about the impact of a transfer decision under Regulation no 604/2013 on the term “wrongful removal or retention” under Article 2 Brussels II bis. The opinion is currently available only in Finn and French. Here is the French version (to check whether an English translation has finally been made available, just click on the link below and change the language version):

« Le règlement (CE) no 2201/2003 […] doit être interprété en ce sens que la situation, telle que celle au principal, dans laquelle un enfant et sa mère se sont rendus et maintenus dans un État membre en exécution d’une décision de transfert prise par l’autorité compétente de l’État membre d’origine conformément au règlement (UE) no 604/2013 du Parlement européen et du Conseil, du 26 juin 2013, établissant les critères et mécanismes de détermination de l’État membre responsable de l’examen d’une demande de protection internationale introduite dans l’un des États membres par un ressortissant de pays tiers ou un apatride ne saurait être considérée comme un déplacement ou un non-retour illicites, au sens de l’article 2, point 11, du règlement no 2201/2003, sauf s’il est établi que, sous le couvert d’une demande de protection internationale formée pour l’enfant, la mère a commis une voie de fait afin de contourner les règles de compétence judiciaire prévues par le règlement no 2201/2003, ce qu’il appartient à la juridiction de renvoi de vérifier au regard de l’ensemble des circonstances particulières du cas d’espèce ».

Source : https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=244107&pageIndex=0&doclang=fr&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2220107

The Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice delivered yesterday (15 July 2021) an important decision in case C‑791/19 on the Rule of Law in Poland:

“1.  Declares that:

– by failing to guarantee the independence and impartiality of the Izba Dyscyplinarna (Disciplinary Chamber) of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland), which is responsible for reviewing decisions issued in disciplinary proceedings against judges […];

– by allowing the content of judicial decisions to be classified as a disciplinary offence involving judges of the ordinary courts […];

– by conferring on the President of the Izba Dyscyplinarna (Disciplinary Chamber) of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court) the discretionary power to designate the disciplinary tribunal with jurisdiction at first instance in cases concerning judges of the ordinary courts […] and, therefore, by failing to guarantee that disciplinary cases are examined by a tribunal ‘established by law’; and

– by failing to guarantee that disciplinary cases against judges of the ordinary courts are examined within a reasonable time (second sentence of Article 112b § 5 of the Law on the organisation of the ordinary courts), and by providing that actions relating to the appointment of defence counsel and the taking up of the defence by that counsel do not have a suspensory effect on the course of the disciplinary proceedings (Article 113a of that law) and that the disciplinary tribunal is to conduct the proceedings despite the justified absence of the notified accused judge or his or her defence counsel (Article 115a § 3 of the same law) and, therefore, by failing to guarantee respect for the rights of defence of accused judges of the ordinary courts,

the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU;

2.      Declares that, by allowing the right of courts and tribunals to submit requests for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union to be restricted by the possibility of triggering disciplinary proceedings, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second and third paragraphs of Article 267 TFEU”

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=244185&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2220107

The European Commission adopted today a proposal for the EU’s accession to the Hague 2019 Judgement Convention. The proposal is available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/proposal_eu_accession_judgments_convention_and_annex_en.pdf

The Court of Justice delivered yesterday (15 July 2021) its decision in case C‑30/20 (RH v AB Volvo, and alii), which is about Article 7(2) Brussels I bis and the private enforcement of competition law

“Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 […] must be interpreted as meaning that, within the market affected by collusive arrangements on the fixing and increase in the prices of goods, either the court within whose jurisdiction the undertaking claiming to be harmed purchased the goods affected by those arrangements or, in the case of purchases made by that undertaking in several places, the court within whose jurisdiction that undertaking’s registered office is situated, has international and territorial jurisdiction, in terms of the place where the damage occurred, over an action for compensation for the damage caused by those arrangements contrary to Article 101 TFEU”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=244190&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2220107

The Court of Justice delivered yesterday (15 July 2021) its decision in joined Cases C‑152/20 and C‑218/20 (DG, EH v SC Gruber Logistics SRL (C‑152/20), and Sindicatul Lucrătorilor din Transporturi, DT v SC Samidani Trans SRL (C‑218/20)), which is about the law applicable to employment contracts:

“1. Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 […]  must be interpreted as meaning that, where the law governing the individual employment contract has been chosen by the parties to that contract, and that law differs from the law applicable pursuant to paragraphs 2, 3 or 4 of that article, the application of the latter law must be excluded with the exception of ‘provisions that cannot be derogated from by agreement’ under that law within the meaning of Article 8(1) of that regulation, provisions that can, in principle, include rules on the minimum wage.

2. Article 8 of Regulation No 593/2008 must be interpreted as meaning that:

–  first, the parties to an individual employment contract are to be regarded as being free to choose the law applicable to that contract even if the contractual provisions are supplemented by national labour law pursuant to a national provision, provided that the national provision in question does not require the parties to choose national law as the law applicable to the contract, and

– secondly, the parties to an individual employment contract are to be regarded as being, in principle, free to choose the law applicable to that contract even if the contractual clause concerning that choice is drafted by the employer, with the employee merely accepting it”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=244192&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2220107

The CJEU held yesterday in C-30/20 Volvo Trucks. I reviewed Richard de la Tour AG’s Opinion here.

After having noted the limitation of the questions referred to locus damni [30]  (excluding therefore the as yet unsettled locus delicti commissi issues) the CJEU confirms first of all [33] that Article 7(2) clearly assigns both international and territorial jurisdiction. The latter of course subject to the judicial organisation of the Member State concerned. If locus damni x has no court then clearly the Regulation simply assigns jurisdiction to the legal district of which x is part. However the Court does not rule out [36] per CJEU Sanders and Huber that a specialised court may be established nationally for competition law cases.

The Court then [39] applies C‑343/19 Volkswagen (where goods are purchased which, following manipulation by their producer, are of lower value, the court having jurisdiction over an action for compensation for damage corresponding to the additional costs paid by the purchaser is that of the place where the goods are purchased) pro inspiratio: place of purchase of the goods at artificially inflated prices will be locus damni, irrespective of whether the goods it issue were purchased directly or indirectly from the defendants, with immediate transfer of ownership or at the end of a leasing contract [40].

The Court then somewhat puzzlingly adds [40] that ‘that approach implies that the purchaser that has been harmed exclusively purchased goods affected by the collusive arrangements in question within the jurisdiction of a single court. Otherwise, it would not be possible to identify a single place of occurrence of damage with regard to the purchaser harmed.’

Surely it must mean that if purchases occurred in several places, Mozaik jurisdiction will ensue rather than just one locus damni (as opposed to the alternative reading that locus damni jurisdiction in such case will not apply at all). However the Court then also confirms [41 ff] its maverick CDC approach of the buyer’s registered office as the locus damni in the case of purchases made in several places.

Here I am now lost and the simply use of vocabulary such as ‘solely’, ‘additionally’ or ‘among others’ would have helped me here. Are we now to assume that the place of purchase of the goods is locus damni only if there is only one place of purchase, not if there are several such places (leaving a lot of room for Article 7(2) engineering both by cartelists and buyers); and that, conversely, place of registered office as locus damni only applies in the event of several places of purchase, therefore cancelling out the classic (much derided) Article 7(2) Mozaik per Shevill and Bier – but only in the event of competition law infringement? This, too, would lead to possibility of forum engineering via qualification in the claim formulation.

I fear we are not yet at the end of this particular road.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 2.2.12.2.8.

Just out #CJEU Volvo Trucks https://t.co/fkCqdk015C
Location of damage in competition law follow-on damages suits: locus damni A7(2) BIa.
Seems to confirm AGs opinion which I reviewed here https://t.co/CvpU5bFR2U More analysis soon.

— Geert van Calster (@GAVClaw) July 15, 2021

 

According to a press release, the EU Commission has proposed for the EU to join the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention. So far, the Convention has been signed, but not yet ratified, by three states (Israel, Ukraine, Uruguay).

The full statement reads as follows:

International Justice: The Commission proposes for the EU to join the Hague Judgments Convention

Today, the Commission has adopted a proposal for the EU’s accession to the Hague Judgement Convention, an international treaty that facilitates the recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters in foreign jurisdictions. Didier Reynders, Commissioner for Justice, said: “Having one’s rights enforced in a country outside of the EU can be very cumbersome, both for private persons and for businesses. The EU joining the Hague Judgments Convention would improve legal certainty and save citizens and companies time and money. The average length of proceedings would decrease considerably.” Currently, EU citizens and businesses that want to have a judgment given in the EU to be recognised and enforced in a non-EU country face numerous legal issues due to the absence of an international framework. This legal uncertainty as well as the associated costs may cause businesses and citizens to give up on pursuing their claims or decide not to engage in international dealings altogether. The Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters, adopted in July 2019, offers a comprehensive legal framework with clear rules as to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. The Commission’s proposal will now have to be adopted by the Council, with the European Parliament’s consent, for the EU to join the Convention. More information on the International Cooperation on Civil Justice is available here. (For more information: Christian Wigand – Tel.: +32 229 62253; Katarzyna Kolanko – Tel.: +32 229 63444; Jördis Ferroli – Tel.: +32 229 92729)

According to Frank Woud (e-CODEX Community and External Relations Manager, Ministry of Justice and Security, The Netherlands):

The full potential of the European e-commerce market has not yet been reached. While consumers feel safer buying from online stores within the borders of their own country rather than from other European countries, European traders experience a range of challenges of their own, such as the lack of a level playing field and the overwhelming complexity of the legal and judicial system. Justice is the sine qua non for trade, and e-commerce will only be able to reach its full potential in Europe when justice permeates the digital realm. e-CODEX, the digital platform for cross-border legal data exchange within the European Union (EU), plays an important role in this regard. The mission of e-CODEX is to make cross-border justice accessible for all citizens and businesses within the EU.

To further this pursuit, e-CODEX hosted on 25 November 2020 an online roundtable discussion about e-justice as an enabler for cross-border e-commerce in Europe. The webcast of the roundtable discussion can be viewed here.

The e-Commerce Meets Justice White Paper is a representation of the facts and opinions expressed by the panel members. The panel was composed of Margarita Touch (Information Officer at DG JUST), Luca Cassetti (Secretary General of Ecommerce Europe), Marco Velicogna (Researcher at Institute of Legal Informatics and Judicial Systems of the National Research Council of Italy), and Hans van Grieken (Senior Technology Researcher at Capgemini, Gartner and Deloitte).

Their contributions to the White Paper discuss: e-commerce and developments triggered by the pandemic, the SMEs heavy reliance on platforms for cross-border e-commerce, the legal aspects of inter-European e-commerce, alternative dispute resolution means, and the role of e-justice in supporting cross-border e-commerce and building consumers’ trust.

More information on e-CODEX can be found here.

 

Problemy Prawa Prywatnego Mi?dzynarodowego is the leading Polish periodical in the field of private international law. While most of its articles are in Polish, Vol. 26 (2020) offers a treat to those of us not fluent in Polish: a collection of articles, most in English (one in French, three in Polish), by leading European scholars, and dedicated to one topic: EU Regulation 650/12 of 4 July 2012, the Succession Regulation. The contributions emerge from a conference held in Katowice in 2019 (a conference report is included). What makes the treat particularly sweet: the whole issue, as well as the individual articles, are available online!

Here is the table of contents:

 

Foreword Maciej Szpunar 7-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31261/PPPM.2020.26.01   PDF (English) STUDIA La réserve héréditaire dans le re`glement 650/2012 sur les successions Paul Lagarde 9-14 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31261/PPPM.2020.26.02   PDF (Français (France)) “Member States” and “Third States” in the Succession Regulation Jürgen Basedow 15-25 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31261/PPPM.2020.26.03   PDF (English) Application of the Succession Regulation by German courts — Selected Issues Christian Kohler 27-43 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31261/PPPM.2020.26.04   PDF (English) The Notion of “Court” under the Succession Regulation Michael Wilderspin 45-56 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31261/PPPM.2020.26.05   PDF (English) The Capacity and the Quality of Heir. Possible Interaction with Preliminary Questions Stefania Bariatti 57-70 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31261/PPPM.2020.26.06   PDF (English) The Regulation on Matrimonial Property and Its Operation in Succession Cases — Its Interaction with the Succession Regulation and Its Impact on Non-participating Member States Andrea Bonomi 71-89 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31261/PPPM.2020.26.07   PDF (English) The Influence of Bilateral Treaties with Third States on Jurisdiction and Recognition of Decisions in Matters on Succession — Polish Perspective Piotr Rylski 91-105 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31261/PPPM.2020.26.08   PDF (English) The Principle of a Single Estate and Its Role in Delimiting the Applicable Laws Krzysztof Pacu?a 107-123 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31261/PPPM.2020.26.09   PDF (English) Highlights and Pitfalls of the EU Succession Regulation Maksymilian Pazdan, Maciej Zachariasiewicz 125-187 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31261/PPPM.2020.26.10   PDF (English) Prawo w?a?ciwe dla czynno?ci prawnych zwi?zanych z zarz?dem sukcesyjnym Jacek Górecki 189-208 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31261/PPPM.2020.26.11   PDF GLOSY Glosa do postanowienia S?du Najwy?szego z dnia 23 marca 2016 r., sygn. akt: III CZP 112/15 Agata Kozio? 209-221 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31261/PPPM.2020.26.12   PDF Kolizyjnoprawna problematyka skuteczno?ci przelewu wierzytelno?ci wobec osób trzecich Glosa do wyroku Trybuna?u Sprawiedliwo?ci Unii Europejskiej z dnia 9 pa?dziernika 2019 r. w sprawie BGL BNP Paribas SA c/a TeamBank AG Nürnberg (C?548/18) Witold Kurowski 223-236 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31261/PPPM.2020.26.13   PDF VARIA Honorary Doctorate for Professor Paul Lagarde and the meeting of the European Group for Private International Law Maciej Szpunar, Maciej Zachariasiewicz, Krzysztof Pacu?a 237-240 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31261/PPPM.2020.26.14   PDF (English) Report from the conference ”Application of the Succession Regulation in the EU Member States”, Katowice 12 September 2019 Krzysztof Pacu?a 241-252 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31261/PPPM.2020.26.15   PDF (English)

 

Membership in the European Association of Private International Law entails the payment of a (small) annual fee. Fees are due on 31 January every year.

For more information (and practical details on how to pay), please visit this page.

Most of the 336 current members have already paid their fees for 2021. Those who haven’t are invited to do so as soon as practical. Thank you!

For any queries concerning the fees, please write an e-mail to the EAPIL Treasures, Apostolos Anthimos, at treasurer@eapil.org.

Matthias Lehmann (University of Vienna) has posted National Blockchain Laws as a Threat to Capital Markets Integration on SSRN. The paper, which appeared in the European Banking Institute Working Paper Series 2021, analyses the legislation adopted by a number of countries in Europe and the US for dealing with crypto assets and distributed ledger technology for investment purposes, the risks of fragmentation and divergent rules, and regional solutions towards a harmonised approach.

The abstract reads as follows:

Various states have started providing private law frameworks for blockchain transfers and crypto assets. The first acts have been adopted by France and Liechtenstein, while a commission of the British government sees no difficulties in extending property protection under the Common law to crypto assets. In the US, an amendment to the Uniform Commercial Code has been suggested, which has not stopped some States going their own, different way. The aim in all cases is to promote the use of modern distributed ledger technology and enhance investor protection. While these initiatives will increase legal certainty, they differ significantly. This has an important downside: there is a strong risk that the blockchain will be made subject to diverging legal rules. Similar to the world of intermediated securities, various national laws will need to be consulted to determine the rights and privileges of investors. This may increase transaction costs, thwart interoperability and produce thorny conflict-of-laws problems. Markets risk being fragmented into national segments, with an inevitable diminution of their depth and liquidity. As a remedy, this article suggests developing uniform rules for the blockchain. Before national legislators and judges once again divide the world through idiosyncratic rules, the private law of crypto assets should be harmonised to the highest degree possible. Uniform rules should ideally be forged at the global level, by fora like the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT), the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), and the Hague Conference on Private International Law. In the absence of world-wide rules, uniformisation of private law should take place at the regional level, for instance by the European Union. The article makes specific suggestions as to how this can be achieved and what the content of those rules should be.

On Thursday, 15 July from 15.30-17.30 CET the seminar European Civil Justice in Transition: Past, Present & Future will take place, organized by Erasmus School of Law in the context of the ERC project Building EU Civil Justice. You can register here.

In this last seminar of a series of six, key experts on European civil justice will share their views on current and future issues, including digitisation, collective redress, the Brussels I-bis reform, private and public justice, the funding of civil justice and the role of civil justice in today’s society.

Thursday, 15 July (15.30-17.30 CET) – Program

15.15 Waiting room opens

15.30 Opening

15.35-15.45 Xandra Kramer (Erasmus University Rotterdam/Utrecht University)

Introduction – Past, present and future: Highlights of European civil justice

15.45-16.00 Burkhard Hess (Max Planck Institute Luxembourg )

Reforming the Brussels Ibis Regulation in January 2022 – taking up the next reform step

16.00-16.15 John Sorabji (University College London; Barrister, 9 St John Street)

Digitisation and the development of Integrated Dispute Resolution

16.15-16.30 Eva Storskrubb (Uppsala University/Erasmus University Rotterdam)

Trust and Quality in Civil Justice

16.30-16.45 Alan Uzelac (University of Zagreb)

It’s better to burn out than to fade away: is civil justice here to stay?

16.45-17.30 Comments & discussion (moderated by Xandra Kramer and Alexandre Biard, Erasmus University Rotterdam)

 

On 20 July 2021, the University of Milan will host the (on-line) Annual Conference of the EU-funded project Jean Monnet Module on Multilevel, Multiparty and Multisector Cross-Border Litigation in Europe.

This year’s topic, Incentives and Challenges to Transnational Access to Justice, will be discussed in the framework of two roundtables concerning, respectively, Third-party Funding in International Dispute Resolution and E-Justice in International Dispute Resolution.

The complete programme is available here. Registrations are open until 15 July 2021, through this form.

Eastern Pacific Chartering Inc v Pola Maritime Ltd [2021] EWHC 1707 (Comm) is a highly unusual case which shows that dormant Conventions can be awoken from their slumber.  I merely dabble in EU external relations law, I am no expert in it. The application of that law in the context of private international law is an issue I have tasked one or two students with – let’s just say they find it challenging.

On the specific issue at hand, parties agree that consequential to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (Gibraltar) Order 1997, matters of jurisdiction between the E&W Courts and the Supreme Court of Gibraltar are governed by the Brussels Convention 1968 and that this remains the case notwithstanding Brexit. That core issue of external relations law pre and post Brexit is therefore not sub judice. One imagines that had it been, it could have led to extensive to and fro, among others within the context of the UK having revoked the 1968 Convention per the jurisdiction and Judgments Exit Regulations SI 2019/479, and of the Withdrawal Agreement.

In July 2020, claimant had a ship arrested in Gibraltar, with the purpose to serve as security for claims under a charterparty between both, claims that were to be brought in London, consistently with an exclusive jurisdiction clause in the charterparty. Roberston DJ classifies that action as one for provisional measures under Article 24 Convention (35 of the Brussels Ia Regulation).  The legality of that arrest (which ended upon claimant releasing it) continues to be disputed (ia viz the actual ownership of the ship).

Claimant (not domiciled in a 1968 Convention Contracting State) now sues  in E&W (pursuant to the choice of court) Defendant (domiciled at Cyprus) for outstanding monies. In current proceedings it applies to dismiss and strike out that part of the Defendant’s counterclaim at the E&W courts which seeks to advance claims in tort based on the alleged wrongful Gibraltar arrest.  In essence claimant submits that the High Court court has no jurisdiction to try the Defendant’s tort claims and should decline jurisdiction in favour of the Supreme Court of Gibraltar.

After a swipe [18 ff] at both parties having engaged, without court approval, experts on Gibraltarian law (which, she holds, bear no relevance for the jurisdictional issues anyways), Roberston DJ proceeds to discuss the lis pendens issue.

Defendant’s primary case is that, on the facts of this case, Article 17 Convention (A25 BIa) applies to confer jurisdiction, because the exclusive jurisdiction clause is broad enough to cover the tort claims. The Defendant’s fallback position is that, if that is wrong, the Court nevertheless has jurisdiction in respect of its counterclaims, not on the basis of A5(3) Convention (the Claimant (defendant on the counterclaim) not being domiciled in a Convention State) either because that necessarily follows from the Claimant’s decision to litigate its own claims here, or because Claimant has taken steps since service of the Defence and Counterclaim which waived any right to object to jurisdiction in respect of the counterclaims.

The discussion revolves around the contractual and statutory interpretation of the action radius of choice of court. This also involves the classic issue of tort claims between contractual parties (compare Wikingerhof) with the judge opting for the one stop shop approach (distinguishing ia Ryanair Ltd v Esso Italiana Srl [2015] 1 All ER (Comm) 152): 42: ‘there is a clear causal connection [between the contractual and tort claims, GAVC], which seems to be sufficient for the purposes of a clause worded “in connection with“.’ In conclusion: [52]: ‘whether damages are recoverable for an allegedly wrongful arrest made in seeking security for claims under the charter, ..is a claim “in connection with” the charter’ hence the E&W courts have jurisdiction. [39]: this ‘allows a single accounting, as regards the overall financial position of the parties as a result of the legal relationship created between them by the charter, and their dispute about what rights and obligations properly flow from that legal relationship.’

Obiter jurisdiction on the alternative grounds, under English residual rules, is also accepted (with the interesting note of the absence, in the Convention, of a gateway for counterclaims, in contrast with Brussels I and Brussels Ia).

Coming then to lis pendens under Article 21 Convention, this is dismissed. [70] The arrest claim plainly does not involve either the same cause of action or the same object as the Defendant’s tort claims seeking to recover damages for wrongful arrest, which are advanced solely by way of counterclaim in E&W. The factual and legal foundation for that counterclaim needs, on any view, to travel substantially beyond the matters the Claimant relies on for its own cause of action and the object of the counterclaim is to recover damages.

Neither [73] is an acknowledgment of service in the Gibraltar arrest proceedings does not amount to a submission to that jurisdiction which would preclude the Defendant from raising its distinct tort claims in E&W.

A stay on ‘related proceedings’ (Article 22 Convention) is also rejected for the reasons listed at [83]. Core reference here is Research in Motion v Visto [2007] EWHC 900 (Ch).

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Chapter 1 Heading 1.7, Chapter 2 para 2.375, 2.469.

Eastern Pacific Chartering v Pola Maritime [2021] EWHC 1707 (Comm)
Interesting and unusual case involving the UK and Gibraltar and applying the 1968 Brussels Convention (!)
Lis pendens, choice of court (charterparty), whether issues arises out of samehttps://t.co/eNp2jpl4Zw

— Geert van Calster (@GAVClaw) June 28, 2021

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) can be defined as lawsuits intended to intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense, until they abandon their criticism or opposition.

Some jurisdictions have already passed anti-SLAPP laws. In its Action plan for democracy, of 2020, the Commission had already announced its intention to present an initiative to protect journalists and civil society against SLAPPs in 2021. An Expert group was created in December 2020.

The topic is of course not new. It has gained momentum again – possibly following the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia in October 2017- also at the Council of Europe, and within the civil society (see, for instance on the need for a EU legislative proposal to protect public watchdogs from legal harassment  here and here.)

On 5 July 2020, a study commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the JURI Committee on SLAPP and PIL instruments was published, authored by J. Borg-Barthet (who is one of the members of the Expert Group mentioned above), Benedetta Lobina and Magdalena Zabrocka.

The document analyses legal definitions of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP), assesses the compatibility of anti-SLAPP legislation with EU law, and recommends that an anti-SLAPP Directive be adopted.

Of special interest for PIL is that it also recommends that the Brussels I bis Regulation and Rome II Regulation be recast to limit the incidence of SLAPPs. The final conclusion in this regard reads as follows:

In addition to the adoption of an anti-SLAPP Directive, it is recommended that the Brussels Ia Regulation be recast with a view to adopting a bespoke rule concerning defamation claims and thereby to distinguish jurisdiction in defamation cases from ordinary torts. To this end, it is recommended that jurisdiction should be grounded in the forum of the defendant’s domicile unless the parties agree otherwise. This would enable public interest speakers to foresee where they will be expected to defend themselves, and would be in keeping with the core values of the Brussels Ia Regulation, namely predictability and the limitation of forum shopping.
Greater predictability as to the outcomes of choice of law processes is also needed to dissuade meritless litigation intended to suppress public participation. Accordingly, it is recommended that a new rule be included in the Rome II Regulation which would harmonise national choice of law rules in defamation cases. It is recommended that this rule should focus on the closest connection with the publication and its audience, namely the law of the place to which the publication is directed.

I  expect comments – here or elsewhere- to both proposals and their underlying rationale.

The first impression is a little bit disappointing. The proposal regarding the applicable law is a general one for defamation cases, i.e., it is not SLAPP-specific. On jurisdiction, I would be cautious to spouse the assertion on page 39:

(…), the Court of Justice has developed a body of case law whose net effect is to afford further opportunities for forum shopping and vexatious litigation strategies in defamation cases, particularly where the claimed defamatory content is posted online.

Moreover  a solution which entails giving up eDate and Martinez looks unrealistic to me (in this regard, though, C-800/19 is worth considering; the Opinion was available in February 2021). Vexatious claims have always existed. The lis pendens and related actions rules provide a solution at the jurisdictional level for a plurality of claims within the EU: a word on why they would (or not) be fit in an anti-SLAPP scenario is missing. In addition, and more important, the Brussels regime does not prevent reacting against vexatious claims with the procedural tools available at the national level, such as abuse of process. That is why I am not convinced either by the following sentence, on page 42:

‘In particular, judgments concerning the deployment of antisuit injunctions reveal a Court that is reluctant to replace the ex ante general analysis deployed by the legislator with its, or a national court’s, judgement of the merits of jurisdictional justice in individual cases‘

Even if the bottom line was correct, antisuit injunctions would not have provided the pertinent example.

Beyond the EU borders, with the exception of Articles 33 and 34 of the Brussels I bis Regulation, which have no parallel in the Lugano Convention, the situation is left to the Member States; simultaneous proceedings before the courts of the UK and the USA is simply a situation that cannot be solved by the European lawmaker.

There is indeed a need to balance the interests of the claimants and of the defendant (the target of the strategic lawsuit) also in relation to international jurisdiction and to the conflict of law rule.

In my opinion, achieving the goal requires a more grounded examination; also, and mainly, to acknowledge that the problem is to be addressed at a different level – something that the Study does in its 5th part devoted to an anti-SLAPP directive.

But, just like the authors say, the adoption and implementation of such a directive may take too long. The time to react is now, and it is not imperative (not even for reasons of distribution of competences) to wait for Brussels to take the lead.

(Photo: The use of SLAPPs © Image used under the license of Adobe Stock)

This post was contributed by Alexia Pato, who is Postdoc Research Fellow at the University of McGill (Montreal, Canada).

The present post provides an overview of the legal initiatives on artificial intelligence (AI) recently launched at the EU level and the questions they generate from a private international law (PIL) perspective.

The analysis starts with the 2021 Proposal for a Regulation on harmonised rules on AI and continues with the EU Parliament’s detailed recommendations for drawing up a Regulation on liability for the operation of AI systems.

Overview of the Proposed AI Regulation

On 21 April 2021, the EU Commission published its much-awaited Proposal for a Regulation laying down harmonised rules on AI, following explicit requests from the Council and the Parliament (see, in particular, the AI-related resolutions of the Parliament of October 2020 on ethics, civil liability and intellectual property). The proposed Regulation’s goal is to promote the free movement of AI-related goods and services, while ensuring the protection of fundamental rights.

If enacted, the Regulation would create a horizontal regulatory framework for the development, placement on the market and use of AI systems in the Union, depending on the risks that those systems generate for people’s health and safety or fundamental rights. In particular, Article 5 forbids AI practices which create an unacceptable risk (some exceptions may nevertheless apply). The prohibition extends to AI systems deploying subliminal techniques beyond a person’s consciousness to induce a particular behaviour and to those exploiting the vulnerabilities of a group of people (e.g., a doll integrated with a voice assistant that encourages children to play dangerous games in order to maximise their fun).

Real-time remote biometric identification (e.g., facial recognition) and social scoring are deemed to create an unacceptable risk as well. As regards high-risk AI systems (Title III), they must undergo an ex ante conformity assessment in order to be placed on the EU market (Articles 19 and Title III, Chapter 5).

The proposed Regulation imposes a series of requirements in relation to data, documentation and recording keeping, transparency and information to users, human oversight, robustness, accuracy and security (Articles 8 to 15). Examples of high-risk AI systems include medical assistants (e.g., IBM’s Watson assistant), chatbots and automated recruitment applications. Lastly, AI systems which create a low or minimal risk are permitted.

For a general assessment of the Proposal, see the CEPS Think Thank with Lucilla Sioli (DG CONNECT) available here, as well as the Ars Boni podcast available here.

The Extraterritorial Reach of EU law

As Article 2 of the proposed AI Regulation would confer the Regulation an extraterritorial reach, PIL questions emerge. In particular, the EU rules on AI are meant to apply to (1) providers placing AI systems on the EU market or putting them into service there, irrespective of their place of establishment; (2) users located in the EU; (3) providers and users located in a third state, when the output produced by the AI system is used – but not marketed – in the EU.

Remarkably, Article 2 bypasses the traditional choice of law methodology and unilaterally delineates the Regulation’s territorial scope of application.

This legislative technique has been used on other occasions: the most recent example is perhaps Article 3 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Literature on the latter provision shows that the extraterritorial application of laws creates a fertile ground for overlaps and high compliance costs. The same observation could apply to AI if other states chose to exercise their (legislative) jurisdiction extraterritorially. How private (or public) international law will tackle that concern remains to be seen.

Moreover, interpretative issues are likely to arise, as the wording of Article 2 is vague. In particular, when is a user “located” in the EU – does the temporary presence on the territory trigger the application of the Regulation? What is the “output” of an AI system? And finally, when is an AI system “placed on the EU market” or “put into service” there?

The Law Applicable to Civil Liability

It is acknowledged that the misuse of AI systems may be harmful, despite the great potential of technologies to significantly improve our lives in many sectors. Traffic accidents involving either autonomous – i.e. driverless – or driver-assist vehicles are a telling example in that regard.

Currently, the law applicable to civil liability in such a scenario essentially depends on the actors involved – the driver, the manufacturer of the car, the designer of the software, etc. Several PIL systems applying different connecting factors might come into play, namely the Rome II Regulation, the 1971 Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Traffic Accidents and the 1973 Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Products Liability. Considering the fact that national civil liability regimes vary (sometimes significantly) from one state to another, the outcome of a case might be different depending on the court seized.

For a thorough PIL analysis, see T. Kadner Graziano, “Cross-Border Traffic Accidents in the EU – The Potential Impact of Driverless Cars” (Study for the JURI Committee, 2016), available here.

The EU Commission announced that a new piece of legislation addressing civil liability should soon complement the proposed AI Regulation, following the EU Parliament’s detailed recommendations for drawing up a regulation on liability for the operation of AI systems. If followed by the Commission and adopted, the text would partially harmonise national laws on civil liability in the EU. These shall however not be replaced; only adjustments would be provided.

The object of the future Regulation is to hold the operators of high-risk AI systems strictly liable, while operators of other AI systems would be subject to a fault-based liability regime. Finally, the drafting of the future Regulation should go hand in hand with the necessary review of the Product Liability Directive in order to build up a consistent liability framework in the EU.

According to Article 2 of the Parliament’s Draft Proposal, the liability rules enacted at the EU level would apply “on the territory of the Union where a physical or virtual activity, device or process driven by an AI system has caused harm or damage to the life, health, physical integrity of a natural person, to the property of a natural or legal person or has caused significant immaterial harm resulting in a verifiable economic loss”.

I find the wording of this provision unclear: shall the future Regulation apply where a court of a Member State is seized with a dispute involving damages caused by AI systems (as the terms “on the territory of the Union” suggests) or must the damage, the operator, the activity or the victim additionally be located in the EU?

Additionally, even though the future Regulation bypasses the Rome II Regulation according to Article 27 of the latter, traditional choice of law rules would still be needed to designate the law applicable to questions falling out of the future Regulation’s scope (such as the law applicable to multiple liability where non-operators are involved, just to mention one example). Fragmentation would therefore not be completely avoided.

For an analysis of the Draft Proposal from a PIL perspective, see J. von Hein, “Liability for Artificial Intelligence in Private International Law” (online presentation, 25 June 2020), available here.

Conclusion

The interaction of AI with the PIL field brings interesting research questions on the table for legal scholars. As things currently stand, however, the EU’s legislative initiatives do not overcome the sempiternal difficulties experienced in PIL, namely the fragmented application of laws, and the difficulty to manage interactions between multiple legal texts because of their overlapping and extraterritorial effect.

The last issue of the Revue Critique de Droit International Privé has been released. It contains eight articles and several case notes.

The editorial (authored by Horatia Muir Watt, Dominique Bureau and Sabine Corneloup) and five of the articles deal with the reserved share (réserve héréditaire) in international successions. These five articles are authored by: Paul Lagarde (« Une ultime (?) bataille de la réserve héréditaire »), Cécile Pérez (« Quelques observations relatives à la réserve héréditaire dans le projet de loi confortant le respect des principes de la République »), Diane Le Grand de Belleroche (« Contre le retour du droit de prélèvement en droit français : une vue de la pratique du droit international »), Suzel Ramaciotti (« Le prélèvement compensatoire du projet d’article 913 du code civil à l’épreuve des exigences européennes et constitutionnelles »), and Nathalie Joubert (« Droit de prélèvement, réserve héréditaire, protection des héritiers contre les discriminations, quelle méthode ? »).

The sixth article, authored by Christelle Chalas and Horatia Muir Watt deals with the international jurisdiction of courts in matters relating to the environnemental responsibility of multinational companies.

In the seventh article, Vincent Richard presents the recast of the regulation on the service of judicial and extrajudicial documents.

The eighth article, by Christine Budzikiewicz, discusses the reform of international adoption law in Germany.

A full table of contents is available here.