Droit international général

On 31 March 2021, the Paris main first instance court (tribunal judiciaire, formerly tribunal de grande instance) ruled on the international jurisdiction of French courts to determine arbitrators’s liability. It held that it was a contractual claim in the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of the Brussels I bis Regulation and declined jurisdiction on the ground that the arbitrator had provided his service in Germany. This post is based on a press release of the court.

Background

The case was concerned with distribution contracts in the automobile industry.  The contracts contained clauses providing for ICC arbitration in Paris under German law. The origin of the parties is unknown, but none of them was French.

After two contracts were terminated, an arbitration was initiated. The parties agreed that the hearings would be held in Germany.

The resulting award, however, was challenged before French courts, and ultimately set aside on the ground that one arbitrator had failed to disclose certain relationships between his law firm and one of the parties to the arbitration.

The arbitrator was sued in Paris for damages.

Arbitration Exception?

The first issue was whether the European law of jurisdiction applied. The Brussels Ibis Regulation includes an “arbitration exception”. Did a claim seeking to establish the liability of the arbitrator fall within it?

The Paris court held that it did not. It ruled that the claim was based on the “arbitration contract” existing between the parties and the arbitrators, and that this contract was distinct from the arbitration. Thus, the Brussels Ibis Regulation applied.

This is the most unconvincing part of the judgment. The proposition that the arbitration contract is unrelated to arbitration is really surprising. Aren’t the obligation of impartiality and independance, and the related disclosure obligation, found in arbitration legislations?

More generally, the distinction established by the European Court of Justice has been between the substantive rights that the arbitration proceedings are meant to settle, and proceedings ancillary to arbitration. So, in Van Uden for instance, the Luxembourg Court explained that proceedings relating to “the appointment or dismissal of arbitrators” fell within the exclusion. Could it really be that proceedings seeking damages for wrongful appointment of arbitrators do not?

Contractual Claim?

Let’s admit, for the sake of the argument, that the Brussels I bis Regulation applied. Was it, then, a contractual claim? The Paris court held so on the basis of the existence of an “arbitration contract” between the arbitrator and the plaintiff.

The existence of such a contract, however, is disputed. It is more or less convincing depending on the particulars of the case, that I do not know. If the parties and the arbitrators had entered into Terms of reference, which should be the case in ICC arbitration, the characterisation made sense.

In other cases, however, the existence of a contractual relationship is less clear, in particular as between a party appointed arbitrator and the party who did not appoint him.

Place of Provision of the Service

If the claim was contractual, the relevant contract was quite clearly a provision of service in the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of the Brussels I bis Regulation. It was therefore necessary to determine the place of the provision of the service.

The court first considered the provisions of the “contract” (it is unclear which contract: the arbitration agreement? the terms of reference?), which stated that “the place of the arbitration is Paris” and “The arbitral award and procedural orders are deemed to be rendered at the place of arbitration, that is Paris”. The court held, however, that these provisions did not reveal the choice of the parties to locate the provision of the services in Paris.

The court then assessed where the arbitrator had actually provided his intellectual service. The court found that it had been provided in Germany. The hearings had been held there, and the deliberations are taken place there. The court declined jurisdiction.

What is Next?

So it seems that the aggrieved party should now sue the arbitrator in Germany.

But will German courts also consider that the claims fall within the scope of the Brussels I bis Regulation and, if not, would they retain jurisdiction?

As announced earlier on this blog, the EAPIL Founding Conference will eventually take place on 2, 3 and 4 June 2022 in Aarhus, hosted by the Aarhus University.

Registration for the conference is now open. See here for further details.

A general presentation of the conference can be found here. See here for the full program as well as for details on venue, travel and accommodation.

For more information, please write an e-mail to Morten Midtgaard Fogt at mmf@law.au.dk.

This post was written by Vito Bumbaca, PhD candidate/ Assistant Lecturer, University of Geneva

The EAPIL blog has also published a post on this topic, click here.

Introduction:

The Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (Brussels IIA Regulation) still applies to the United Kingdom in EU cross-border proceedings dealing with parental responsibility and/ or child civil abduction commenced prior to the 31 December 2020 (date when ‘Brexit’ entered into force). Moreover, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is entitled to exercise its jurisdiction over such proceedings involving the UK.

The decision of the High Court of England and Wales (Family Division, 6 November 2020, EWHC 2971 (Fam)), received at the CJEU on 16 November 2020 for an urgent preliminary ruling (pursuant to article 19(3)(b) of the Treaty of the European Union, art. 267 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union, and art. 107 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice), and the CJEU judgment (SS v. MCP, C-603/20, 24 march 2021) are taken as reference in this analysis.

Question for a CJEU urgent preliminary ruling:

‘Does Article 10 of [Regulation No 2201/2003] retain jurisdiction, without limit of time, in a Member State if a child habitually resident in that Member State was wrongfully removed to (or retained in) a non-Member State where she, following such removal (or retention), in due course became habitually resident?’

Contents of the EWHC (Family Division) judgment:

This judgment involved an Indian unmarried couple with a British daughter, born in England (2017), aged more than three (almost four at the time of the CJEU proceedings). Both parents held parental responsibility over their daughter, the father being mentioned as such in the birth certificate. The mother and the child left England for India, where the child has lived continuously since 2019. The father applied before the courts of England and Wales seeking an order for the return of the child and a ruling on access rights. The mother contested the UK jurisdiction (EWHC 2971, § 19).

The father claimed that his consent towards the child’s relocation to India was temporary for specific purposes, mainly to visit the maternal grandmother (§ 6). The mother contended that the father was abusive towards her and the child and, on that basis, they moved to India (§ 8). Consequentially, she had requested an order (Form C100 ‘permission to change jurisdiction of the child’, § 13). allowing the child’s continuous stay in India. Accordingly, the mother wanted their daughter to remain in India with her maternal grandmother, but also to spend time in England after the end of the pandemics.

In the framework of article 8, Brussels IIA, the Family Division of the Court of England and Wales held that the habitual residence assessment should be fact-based. The parental intentions are not determinative and, in many circumstances, habitual residence is established against the wishes of the persons concerned by the proceedings. The Court further maintained, as general principles, that habitual residence should be stable in nature, not permanent, to be distinguished from mere temporary presence. It concluded that, apart from British citizenship, the child did not have factual connections with the UK. Therefore, according to the Court, the child was habitually resident in India at the time of the proceedings concerning access rights initiated in England (§ 16).

The Family Division extended its analysis towards article 12(3) of the Regulation concerning the prorogation of jurisdiction in respect of child arrangements, including contact rights. For the Court, there was no express parental agreement towards the UK jurisdiction, as a prerogative for the exercise of such jurisdiction, at the time of the father’s application. It was stated that the mother’s application before the UK courts seeking the child’s habitual residence declaration in India could not be used as an element conducive to the settlement of a parental agreement (§ 32).

Lastly, the Court referred to article 10 of Brussels IIA in the context of child abduction while dealing with the return application filed by the father. In practice, the said provision applies to cross-border proceedings involving the EU26 (excluding Denmark and the United Kingdom (for proceedings initiated after 31 December 2020)). Accordingly, article 10 governs the ‘competing jurisdiction’ between two Member States. The courts of the Member State prior to wrongful removal/ retention should decline jurisdiction over parental responsibility issues when: the change of the child’s habitual residence takes place in another Member State; there is proof of acquiescence or ultra-annual inaction of the left-behind parent, holding custody, since the awareness of the abduction. In these circumstances, the child’s return would not be ordered in principle as, otherwise provided, the original jurisdiction would be exercised indefinitely (§ 37).

In absence of jurisdiction under Brussels IIA, as well as under the Family Law Act 1986 for the purposes of inherent jurisdiction (§ 45), the High Court referred the above question to the CJEU.

CJEU reasoning:

The Luxembourg Court confirmed that article 10, Brussels IIA, governs intra-EU cross-border proceedings. The latter provision states that jurisdiction over parental responsibility issues should be transferred to the courts where the child has acquired a new habitual residence and one of the alternative conditions set out in the said provision is satisfied (SS v. MCP, C-603/20, § 39). In particular, the Court observed that article 10 provides a special ground of jurisdiction, which should operate in coordination with article 8 as a ground of general jurisdiction over parental responsibility (§ 43, 45).

According to the Court, when the child has established a new habitual residence in a third State, following abduction, by consequently abandoning his/ her former ‘EU habitual residence’, article 8 would not be applicable and article 10 should not be implemented (§ 46-50). This interpretation should also be considered in line with the coordinated activity sought between Brussels IIA and the Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (§ 56).

Ultimately, the Court maintained that article 10 should be read in accordance with recital 12 of the Regulation, which provides that, as one of its fundamental objectives, parental responsibility issues should be decided by the courts that better suit the principle of factual proximity in the child’s best interests (§ 58). Accordingly, the courts that are closest to the child’s situation should exercise general jurisdiction over parental responsibility. To such an extent, article 10 represents a balance between the return procedure, avoiding benefits in favour of the abductor parent, and the evoked proximity principle, freezing jurisdiction at the place of habitual residence.

The Court further held that if the courts of the EU Member State were to retain jurisdiction unconditionally, in case of acquiescence and without any condition allowing for account to be taken concerning the child’s welfare, such a situation would preclude child protection measures to be implemented in respect of the proximity principle founded on the child’s best interests (§ 60). In addition, indefinite jurisdiction would also disregard the principle of prompt return advocated for in the Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (§ 61).

The Court concluded that insofar as the child’s habitual residence changes to a third State, which is thus competent over parental responsibility, and article 12 of the Regulation is not applicable, the EU courts seised of the matter should apply the rules provided in the bilateral/multilateral instruments in force between the States in question or, on a subsidiary basis, the national Private International Law rules as indicated under article 14, Brussels IIA (§ 64).

Comment:

Considering the findings of fact, the CJEU reasoning and, prior to it, the EWHC judgment, are supported in that the daughter’s habitual residence at the time of the parental de facto separation (EWHC 2971, § 6-10) was in India; and remained there at the relevant date of the father’s application for return and access rights. If we assume, as implicitly reported in the decisions, that the child was aged less than one at the time of the first relocation from England to India, and that she lived more than two years (18 months between 2017-2018 and almost fully 2019-2020, (EWHC 2971, § 25)) within the maternal family environment in India, including prior to the wrongful act, her place of personal integration should be located in India at the above relevant date. Such a conclusion would respect the factual proximity principle enshrined in recital 12 of Brussels IIA, according to which habitual residence is founded on the child’s best interests. Recital 12 constitutes a fundamental objective applicable to parental responsibility, including access rights, and child abduction proceedings. As a result, the courts of the EU26 should be bound by it as a consequence of the Brussels IIA direct implementation.

The CJEU has not dealt with specific decisive elements that, in the case under analysis, would determine the establishing of the child’s habitual residence in India at a relevant time (the seisin under art. 8 and the period before abduction under art. 10 of the Regulation). Considering the very young age (cf. CJEU, SS v. MCP, C-603/20, § 33: ‘developmentally sensitive age’) of the daughter at the time of the relocation, the child’s physical presence corresponding to the mother’s and grandmother’s one as the primary carers prior to the wrongful act (retention) and to the return application, as well as the Indian social and family environment at the time of the seisin, highlighted by the EWHC, should be considered determinative (cf. CJEU, UD v. XB, C-393/18, 17 October 2018, § 57) – the Family Division instead excluded the nationality of the child as a relevant factor. The regularity of the child’s physical presence at an appreciable period should be taken into account, not as an element of temporal permanent character, but as an indicator of factual personal stability. In this regard, the child’s presence in one Member State should not be artificially linked to a limited duration. That said, the appreciable assessment period is relevant in name of predictability and legal certainty. In particular, the child’s physical presence after the wrongful act should not be used as a factor to constitute an unlawful habitual residence (Opinion of Advocate General Rantos, 23 February 2021, § 68-69).

Again, in relation to the child’s habitual residence determination in India, the child’s best interests would also play a fundamental role. The father’s alleged abuse, prior to the relocation, and his late filing for return, following the wrongful retention, should be considered decisive elements in excluding the English family environment as suitable for the child’s best interests. This conclusion would lead us to retain India as the child-based appropriate environment for her protection both prior to the wrongful retention, for the return application, as well as at the seisin, for access rights.

In sum, we generally agree with the guidance provided by the CJEU in that factual proximity should be considered a fulfilling principle for the child’s habitual residence and best interests determination in the context of child civil abduction. In this way, the CJEU has confirmed the principle encapsulated under recital 12, Brussels IIA, overcoming the current debate, which is conversely present under the Hague Convention 1980 where the child’s best interests should not be assessed [comprehensively] for the return application (HCCH, Guide to Good Practice Child Abduction Convention: Part VI – Article 13(1)(b); a contrario, European Court of Human Rights, Michnea v. Romania, no. 10395/19, 7 October 2020). However, it is argued (partly disagreeing with the CJEU statement) that primary focus should be addressed to the mutable personal integration in a better suited social and family environment acquired within the period between the child’s birth and the return application (cf. CJEU, HR, C-512/17, 28 June 2018, § 66; L v. M, 2019, EWHC 219 (Fam), § 46). The indefinite retention of jurisdiction, following abduction, should only be a secondary element for the transfer of jurisdiction in favour of the child’s new place of settlement after the wrongful removal/ retention to a third State. In practice, it is submitted that if the child had moved to India due to forced removal/ retention by her mother, with no further personal integration established in India, or with it being maintained in England, founded on the child’s best interests, the coordinated jurisdictional framework of articles 8 and 10 (and possibly article 12.4) of the Brussels IIA Regulation might have still been retained as applicable (cf. Opinion of Advocate General Rantos, § 58-59; as a comparative practice, see also L v. M, and to some extent Cour de cassation, civile, Chambre civile 1, 17 janvier 2019, 18-23.849, 5°). That said, from now on the CJEU reasoning should be binding for the EU26 national courts. Therefore, article 10 shall only apply to intra-EU26 cross-border proceedings, unlike articles 8 and 12 governing EU26-third State scenarios.

On 15 and 16 April 2021, the GLaw Research Network (Maastricht University) will host an online workshop on Article 47 of the EU Charter and effective judicial protection: The Court of Justice’s perspective.

Senior and junior academics specialising in EU law will discuss various aspects of the impact of Article 47 Charter on the EU constitutional order. On the first day of the workshop, the presentations will cover constitutional aspects of Article 47 of the EU Charter. On the second day, the speakers will discuss the application of this provision in selected EU policy areas.

The principle of effective judicial protection is one of the cornerstones of the EU legal order. Mentioned by the Court of Justice for the first time in the 1980s, and originally emanating from Articles 6 and 13 ECHR, this principle had a pivotal role in ensuring access to adequate remedies to protect the rights deriving from Union law. Since its inception, this principle was linked also to the protection of the rule of law, one of the founding values of the EU. Effective judicial protection is therefore one of the facets of the EU constitutional identity.

Following the entry into force of Lisbon Treaty, this principle has been constitutionalised in Article 19 TEU and Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the latter laying down the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial. Currently, Article 47 of the EU Charter is the most invoked EU Charter provision before national and EU courts. Article 47 Charter has also been at the centre of recent EU jurisprudence on the protection of the rule of law in the EU. This case law has confirmed the pivotal role of effective judicial protection in the EU architecture. It is not an overstatement that Article 47 is almost ‘omnipresent’ in the EU judgments as a result of a growing number of preliminary rulings and direct actions regarding the application of that provision. Novel questions thus arise regarding the impact of Article 47 Charter on the EU constitutional order, which require scientific observation and reflection. 

The full program and details on registration are available here.

On Monday, 12 April 2021, from 14:00 to 15:00 (CET), the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host the first presentations in a new monthly  “Private International Law in Africa” series, chaired by Justin Monsenepwo, the new head of the Africa desk. Professor Jan L Neels (University of Johannesburg) will be speaking on the topic:

“An Introduction to the African Principles of Commercial Private International Law”

The zoom presentation will be followed by an open discussion. All are welcome. After having registered no later than 9 April 2021 using this link you will receive the login details on Friday afternoon. More information and sign-up here.

The “Private International Law in Africa” series intends to discuss new scholarly work on private international law in Africa and advance solutions on how the current framework of that field can be improved on the continent. In an environment of growing international transactions in both civil and commercial matters, private international law can play a significant role in enhancing legal and judicial security and predictability in Africa.

In May 2021 the next speaker will be Dr. Abubakri Yekini (Lagos State University), who will speak on the topic “Enforceability of Jurisdiction Agreements in Nigeria”.

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

Shocking, completely unexpected news: Emmanuel Gaillard, the leading scholar and practitioner of international arbitration and a giant in the field, died on April 1, at age 69. Pierre Mayer calls this “an immense loss;” Jean-Dominique Merchet calls him a “star”. Le Monde du droit collected some further reactions from French colleagues. Some eulogies in English are here and here. The International Chamber of Commerce also published a brief statement, as did the International Academy of Comparative Law.

Only two months ago, Gaillard had left  Sherman Sterling, whose international arbitration department he had founded in 1989 and led since then, and founded a spinoff with six other former Shearman Sterling colleagues,  Gaillard Shelbaya Banifatemi. His new law firm, announcing the death, called him “a totem in the world of international arbitration and a source of inspiration for lawyers around the world.” The law firm asks to share memories for a memorial book to be shared with his family and close ones.

Gaillard was well known as a practitioner (his biggest case may have been Yukos, though he had countless others) as well as a scholar (his Hague lectures on the “Legal theory of arbitration”, republished as a book and translated into several languages,, were a crucial step towards a more theoretical understanding of the field.) Most recently, he had been instrumental for OHADA’s decision to let Sherman Sterling draft a new private international law code for the region. The firm’s own statement of that decision is, however, down. The project, if continued, will need to go on without him. RIP.

 

The new issue of the Revue Critique de Droit International Privé (1/2021) is out.

It contains four articles and numerous case notes. The editorial by Horatia Muir Watt (Sciences Po), Dominique Bureau (University of Paris II) and Sabine Corneloup (University of Paris II) will soon be available in English on the Dalloz website (Dans le désordre planétaire…).

In the first article, Didier Boden (University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne) proposes to rethink the private international law lexicon in order to achieve a uniform analysis of the coordination between legal orders (« Erga- » : Contribution sémantique et lexicale à une étude unifiée des relations entre ordres juridiques).

Private international law and the other sets of rules of a legal order which touch upon its relations with other legal orders are poorly named and poorly defined. This article proposes to remedy that lexical impropriety and that semantic deficiency by presenting a new collection of names and a new collection of definitions.

In the second article, Frederick T. Davis (Columbia Law School) and Charlotte Gunka (Lawyer at the New York bar) discusse the possibilities offered by the American CLOUD Act in terms of criminal and digital sovereignty, under a European and global perspective (Perquisitionner les nuages – CLOUD Act, souveraineté européenne et accès à la preuve dans l’espace pénal numérique).

At a time when the Covid-19 crisis has raised awareness over the urgent need for European Member States to enhance their national sovereignty through the European Union, it is essential to go back to the possibilities offered by the U.S. CLOUD Act with regard to criminal and digital sovereignty. The CLOUD Act proposes a reform of current mutual legal assistance mechanisms by establishing access to digital evidence as the benchmark authorizing computer searches outside state borders, regardless of the location of the relevant data. Although this benchmark allows for more extensive extraterritorial application of U.S. criminal proceedings, an analysis of European regulations and legislation currently in force in France and the United Kingdom confirms that the European approach is not so different from the one introduced by the U.S. government. The emergence of the computer world and the acceleration of new technologies have created a “criminal digital space”, ephemeral and borderless, which requires a fundamental transformation of criminal procedures allowing for faster and more efficient international cooperation against transnational crime. This should give an opportunity to Europe, in particular through its new European Public Prosecutor’s Office, to assert its digital sovereignty through the individual fundamental rights that it continues to promote without undermining the security and strategic interests of its Member States.

In the third article, Vincent Richard (MPI Luxembourg) also deals with (digital) evidence in international dispute resolution, but within the European cooperation in civil matters. The author analyses the recast of the “Taking of Evidence” Regulation (La refonte du règlement sur l’obtention des preuves en matière civile).

Regulation (EU) n°2020/1783 adopted on 25 november 2020 recasts Regulation (EC) n° 1206/2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters. Requests for the taking of evidence between Member States shall be transmitted through a decentralised IT system such as e-CODEX. The recast also aims at enhancing the attractiveness of the Regulation by broadening the concept of court and by encouraging direct taking of evidence by the requesting court.

In the fourth article, Thibaut Fleury Graff (University of Rennes) addresses the topical issue of international migration under a legal perspective (Droit des étrangers et des migrations : entre protection de l’ordre public et définitions de la liberté).

 The full table of contents is available here.

Laura Carpaneto, Stefano Dominelli and Chiara Enrica Tuo (all University of Genova) have edited Brussels I bis Regulation and Special Rules – Opportunities to Enhance Judicial Cooperation. The book, which has just been published by Aracne, may be accessed for free here in its entirety.

Contributors include, in addition to the editors themselves, Jean-Sylvestre Bergé, Pierangelo Celle, Silvana Çinari, Chirouette Elmasry, Rosario Espinosa Calabuig, Paula-Carmel Ettori, Giulio Cesare Giorgini, Aida Gugi Bushati, Flutura Kola Tafaj, Rosa Lapiedra Alcami, Guillermo Palao Moreno, Francesco Pesce, Ilaria Queirolo, Isabel Reig Fabado and Jessica Sanchez.

The blurb reads as follows.

The volume collects the results of the EU co-funded Project Enhancing Enforcement under Brussels Ia – EN2BRIa, European Union Justice Programme 2014-2020, JUST-JCOO-AG-2018 JUST 831598. It critically and thoroughly addresses art. 67 Brussels I bis Regulation, which determines the relationships between the Regulation and other EU law instruments governing jurisdiction or the free movement of decisions. Also tackling “indirect” relevant relationships between international civil procedure and material law, the Volume rationalizes the main criticalities examined, and offers Principles, Recommendations and Guidelines to increase capacity of practitioners to address such issues, to improve awareness of stakeholders, and to support uniform application of EU law.

For further information see here.

Andrea Bonomi and Patrick Wautelet have authored an article-by-article commentary, in French, of Regulations 2016/1103 and 2016/1104 on the property regimes of international couples, with the assistance of Ilaria Pretelli, Eva Lein, Guillaume Kessler, Sara Migliorini and Konstantinos Rokas.

The book has just been published by Larcier under the title Le droit européen des relations patrimoniales de couple – Commentaire des Règlements (UE) 2016/1103 et 2016/1104.

The authors have kindly provided the following presentation in English.

Professionals in the area of family law and estate planning are increasingly confronted with cross-border couples and families whose assets may be scattered in different countries. The determination of the law governing the family assets has often become an indispensable step in order to advise spouses or partners about the financial implications of their union, the consequences of a change of residence, or to share out their property in the case of divorce or death. In all these scenarios, it is often necessary to assess the validity and effects of a property agreement entered into in a foreign jurisdiction. And in the case of disputes, the determination of the competent court and of the cross-border effects of a court decision will be crucial. All these questions are made more complex by the fact that most relationships extend over several years, if not decades, by the possible involvement of third parties, and by the connection with other areas of the law.

The European regulations on matrimonial property and on the property consequences of registered partnerships intend to provide answers to some of these problems and to ensure more legal certainty. However, the interpretation of these complex instruments also raises a great number of new and intriguing questions.

This new commentary provides for a very detailed and fine-tuned analysis of the two regulations. The textual and systematic interpretation rests on a solid comparative law background and is enriched by numerous practical examples. Drafted by an international team of experts, it offers a genuinely European reading of the new instruments, taking into account their multiple connections with the other EU regulations in the area of civil justice, notably the Succession Regulation and the Brussels II-terRegulation, as well as the guidance provided by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

This book intends to serve as reference for researchers dealing with two major regulations adopted by the EU. It also aims to stir up the conversation among researchers and policy makers interested in private international law and the economic aspects of family law by pointing to the advantages of the European instruments, while not ignoring the shortcomings and imperfections of two regulations which will guide cross-border activity in family law in the years to come.

For more information, see here.

The Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) is seeking a(n) (Assistant) Legal Officer. The successful candidate will begin work in the field of international commercial and financial law and will gradually also be expected to carry out work in other areas, including family law.

Applications should be submitted by Sunday 2 May 2021 (00:00 CEST). For more information, please visit the Recruitment section of the HCCH website.

This post is published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference of Private International Law (HCCH). 

I was unaware of a fashion blogosphere war of words and more between Dolce & Gabbana and the founders of Diet Prada until I was asked to comment (in Dutch) on the pending lawsuit in Italy. The suit has an echo of SLAPP – Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.

Among others this post on The Fashion Law gives readers the necessary background and also links to the defendants’ lawyers reply at the jurisdictional level. It is this element of course that triggered the interview request, rather than my admittedly admirable sense of style (with sentences like these, I think I may be in need of a break).

Readers might be surprised to find the legal team discussing A7(2) Brussels Ia’s forum delicti, and CJEU authority such as Bolagsupplysningen seeing as per A6 BIa the Regulation does not apply, rather the Italian residual rules. However as Andrea Bonomi and Tito Ballarino review in the Encyclopedia of Private International Law, Italy has extended the scope of application of BIa to its internal sphere. Hence an interesting discussion of the CJEU case-law on locus damni, centre of interests etc. As well as a probably ill-fated attempt to encourage the Italian courts, in subsidiary fashion, to exercise forum non should the A7(2) arguments fall on deaf ears. Probably futile seeing as the Italian regime does not know a foum non rule, however if BIa is extended, would that not also extend to forum non-light in A33-34? As far as I could tell from the submission, however, no reference was made  to an 33-34 challenge.

Enfin, lots of interesting things to ponder at a different occasion. Happy Easter all.

Geert.

EU Private International Law 3rd ed. 2021, para 2.437 ff.

There is much to be said about the refusal of the courts at Zurich at the end of February, to recognise a September 2020 High Court judgment under the 2007 Lugano Convention. Rodrigo Rodriguez says it all here and I am happy to refer. The guillotine fashion in which the courts rejected application of Lugano 2007 even for a procedure that was initiated before Brexit date 1 January 2021 leaves much to be discussed. As does the question whether the demise of Lugano 2007 might not resurrect Lugano 1988 (Rodrigo points ia to the dualist nature of the UK in his discussion of same).

Whether correct or not in the specific case at issue, the judgment does show the clear bumpy ride ahead for UK judgments across the continent, following the Hard Brexit in judicial co-operation.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed., 2021, Chapter 1, Heading 1.7.

This ruling might, as Rodrigo Rodriguez argues, wrongly apply Lugano A63 'legal proceedings instituted'. Even then it is a clear sign of the bumpy ride ahead for UK courts to maintain their position in international litigation. https://t.co/99xLg0jDTH

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) March 10, 2021

 

A quick note on the suit in The Netherlands against “Norsk Hydro” of Norway, for alleged pollution caused by aluminium production in Brasil. No court decisions or orders are available as yet hence I write simply to log the case. I have put Norsk Hydro in inverted commas for the suit really is against Norsk Hydro subsidiaries incorporated in The Netherlands, who are said to control the Brazilian entities. The jurisdictional basis therefore is A4 BIa. As far as the reporting on the case  indicates, there seems little likelihood of A33-34 BIa’s forum non conveniens light making an appearance seeing as no Brazilian proceedings are reported to be underway which could sink the Dutch proceedings like the High Court did in Municipio de Mariana. That is not to say of course that the defendants might not discover some.

Geert.

EU Private International Law., 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 7.3.1.

1/2 Jurisdictional basis for #NorskHydro suit is A4 BIa: Netherlands is where subsidiaries controlling the local (BRA) entities at issue are headquartered. (Pulling the mother into the bath would require A6 Lugano) https://t.co/JdBWdGWOXM @financialtimes #CSR #bizhumanrights

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) March 1, 2021

Which conflict-of-laws rule is the most appropriate for the blockchain? This fundamental question is part of two parallel targeted consultation papers issued as recently by the European Commission.

One of the consultations covers the Settlement Finality Directive (SFD), while the other concerns the Financial Collateral Directive (FCD). Both regulate the “plumbing” of financial markets (the so-called market infrastructures) and contain conflict-of-laws provisions (see Article 9(2) SFD and Article 9 FCD). Yet, the infrastructures and transactions they target are conventional ones. The Settlement Finality Directive deals with payment and securities settlement systems, in which traditional cash (e.g. euros) and conventional financial instruments (e.g. shares and bonds) are traded. The Financial Collateral Directive concerns collateral provided in either cash or financial instruments.

The question posed by the European Commission is whether these texts also can (and must) be applied to modern digital assets, like cryptocurrencies (e.g. Bitcoin) and tokens, and whether they need to be adapted to them through reform.  Since both directives also contain conflict-of-laws provisions, the relationship of crypto-assets to these regulations raises typical conflict-of-laws questions as well.

Take for example Article 9(2) SFD. Its text speaks about securities “legally recorded on a register, account or centralised deposit system” and submits them to the law of the Member State where this register, account or system is “located”. This raises the following issues: 1. whether a blockchain network is a “register” in this sense; 2. whether crypto assets can be said to be “legally” recorded, despite the lacking legal protections of such assets under most private laws; and 3. where blockchains, which may be distributed potentially on a planetary scale, are located.

Even more doubts are caused by Article 9 FCD. It submits financial collateral arrangements to the law of the country “in which the relevant account is maintained”. Blockchain networks basically operate without any intermediaries and do not feature “accounts” in the proper sense of the word. Even if they would, it would be hard to say where the account is “maintained” given the distributed nature of a blockchain network.

These issues have a certain sense of urgency due to the fact that some EU and EEA Member States have already pressed ahead and created specific rules for crypto assets.

France for instance allows for securities (such as bonds and shares) traded over the counter (OTC) to be issued on blockchain networks (described as “distributed electronic registers” (dispositif d’enregistrement électronique partagé – DEEP)). The condition is that the securities are issued in the French territory and governed by French law, see Art. L211-3 French Code monétaire et financier. The transfer and pledge of such crypto financial instruments is equally governed by French law.

Germany has drafted a bill to allow the issuance of bonds (including covered bonds) and investment participations on the blockchain. Section 32 of the bill provides for the applicability of the law of the country in which the administrator of the register is supervised.

Liechtenstein, an EEA member and as such also bound by the SFD and the FCD, has adopted an Act on Token and TT (Trustworthy Technology) Services Providers, which, by any standard, is one of the most comprehensive and innovative blockchain regulations in the world. The Act is appliable where: 1. the TT provider is headquartered or residing in the Principality; or 2. where the parties expressly chose its provisions, see its Art. 3(2).

These are three different approaches to the conflict-of-laws issues raised with regard to different types of crypto assets. But are those national laws compatible with the SFD and the FCD? Do the SFD and FCD apply at all to crypto assets? If so, are their provisions, including those on the conflict of laws, compatible with the nature of the blockchain? And if they do not apply, should they be extended to them? Some legal consistency and harmony would surely be welcome. The question is if and when the EU legislator will provide it.

A petition for a writ of certiorari has been filed before the US Supreme Court in a case concerning the HCCH Child Abduction Convention and the grave risk exception (art. 13(1)(b)). The issue at stake is: Whether, upon finding that there is a grave risk that a return would expose a child to physical or psychological harm (or intolerable situation), a district court is required to consider ameliorative measures (in other words, undertakings) to facilitate the (safe) return of the child. For the exact wording of the petition, see below. 

Please note that US courts often use the terms “ameliorative measures” and “undertakings” interchangeably (as stated in the petition).This petition has been docketed as Golan v. Saada, No. 20-1034. This petition and other documents relating to this case have been distributed for the Conference of today – 1 April 2021.

“QUESTION PRESENTED

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction requires return of a child to his or her country of habitual residence unless, inter alia, there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm. The question presented is:

Whether, upon finding that return to the country of habitual residence places a child at grave risk, a district court is required to consider ameliorative measures that would facilitate the return of the child notwithstanding the grave risk finding.”

With regard to this issue, there is indeed a split in the US circuits (as well as state courts). 

According to the petition “The First, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have indicated that, once a district court determines that there is a  grave  risk  that  the  child  will  be  exposed  to  harm,  the  court need not consider any ameliorative measures,” whereas  “the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits require a district court to consider a full range of ameliorative  measures  that  would  permit  return  of  the  child,  even when the court finds that there is a grave risk that a child’s return would expose that child to physical or psychological harm.” This case originated in the Second Circuit.

The split in the US circuits has been acknowledged by practitioners, see for example, James D. Garbolino, Federal Judicial Center, The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction: A Guide for Judges, Second Edition (2015), 137-147 (see in particular p. 143. – but a few different circuits are mentioned, which attest to the confusion of practitioners). Accordingly, in my personal opinion, there is definitely merit in raising this issue before the US Supreme Court.

We will keep you informed as to whether this petition is granted or refused.

(published by Oxford University Press, 2020)

The authors kindly provided the following summary: 

The book marries two fields of law: negotiable instruments and choice-of-law. Bills of exchange, cheques and promissory notes are the main classical negotiable instruments. For centuries, these instruments have played a vital role in the smooth operation of domestic and international commerce, including in transactions between distantly located parties. Through their evolution, fusion, and sophistication, they have remained one of the primary tools for everyday commercial activity, serving as one of the primary methods of payment and credit and one of the cornerstones of the contemporary bank-centred system. The rapid technological progress of payment mechanisms has embraced the traditional institution of negotiable instruments leading to their further adaptation and sophistication in order to meet the challenges of the contemporary reality of frequent mobility of people, goods, and high daily volumes of cross-border transactions and international commerce.

The cross-disciplinary partnership between the authors, one specializing in negotiable instruments and the other in choice-of-law, aims to offer a comprehensive and thorough analysis of the choice-of-law rules applicable to negotiable instruments. The internal structure of negotiable instruments’ law is complex, which has given rise to a popular view favouring the mythological ‘law merchant’,[1] the exclusion of negotiable instruments from the scope of general contract and property law doctrines, and their subsequent exclusion from ordinary choice-of-law analysis.

The central thesis of the book is to challenge this common view. Indeed, the complex structure of negotiable instruments creates a significant challenge for traditional contract and property doctrine and the choice-of-law analysis applicable to them. Yet, in contrast to the common view, the authors argue that the complex case of international negotiable instruments should be analyzed through the lens of traditional contract & property choice-of-law doctrines rather than by crafting new specially designed rules for negotiable instruments.

In order to illustrate this point, consider the – well-known in choice-of-law literature – Giuliano & Lagarde Report (‘The Report’),[2] which has served as a basis for contemporary European Rome Regulations[3] on the question of applicable law. The Report excludes negotiable instruments law from the scope of ordinary choice-of-law analysis.[4]However, one can reassess the three rationales mentioned in the Report to justify negotiable instruments’ law exclusion. First, it makes a point that a negotiable instrument is not a contract.[5] In this book, the authors argue the opposite – from their very origin to their present-day doctrinal analysis, negotiable instruments are very much contracts and carefully follow the essentials of contract law doctrine, alongside the basic elements of tangible property law.[6]

 Second, the Report characterizes a negotiable instrument as a ‘complex contract’.[7] Indeed, in their study the authors provide a precise demarcation of the special nature of the negotiable instrument as a ‘special’ contract to delineate its divergence from the ‘ordinary’ contract; its relation to basic elements of tangible property transfer; and how this divergence affects (if at all) the choice- of- law rules of negotiable instruments, comparatively to choice-of-law rules of ‘ordinary’ contracts and tangible property. While throughout their book the authors show that negotiable instruments present ‘complicated special rules’ that should be analyzed, modified and distinguished from ‘ordinary’ contract law/property law rules, they are very much based on them.

Finally, the Report makes a reference to the existing harmonization processes.[8] In this book, the authors provide a detailed comparative analysis of the various rules in diverse legal systems and they show that they are far from uniform.[9] The authors discuss the various harmonization processes of negotiable instruments,[10] and make some suggestions for possible reforms within the process of international harmonization of the choice-of-law rules,[11] which would capture the challenges of the digital age.[12]  In contrast to the Report, the authors argue that the traditional choice-of-law rules in the areas of contract law and tangible property can serve as a model for such reform of choice-of-law rules of negotiable instruments.

In effect, authors’ call for a redesign of the present choice-of-law rules relating to negotiable instruments finds traces in contemporary literature.  The commentators of one of the leading textbooks in the field have framed the need for a reconsideration of the choice-of-law rules of negotiable instruments in the following terms:

…it must be noted that the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 and much of the case referred to in the following paragraphs is now more than a century old. In that time, the role and significance of bills of exchange in commercial intercourse and the approach of the conflict of laws to freely incurred obligations such as these has changed radically. As the following commentary makes clear, the rules contained in the 1882 Act are neither comprehensive nor easy to understand and apply. A radical overhaul of the law in this area, whether by legislation or international convention, seems long overdue.[13]

In this book, the authors are indeed willing to take up the challenge of a ‘radical overhaul’.  In line with the above-stated quotation, they suggest a radical reorientation of choice-of-law rules. They argue that choice-of-law rules in the area of international negotiable instruments need to be dramatically amended and harmonized.

The contemporary choice-of-law rules within this area of law have originated from flawed premises about the nature of the subject. Further, contemporary rules have left behind the modern development of choice-of-law doctrine. Relying on the foundation of negotiable instruments’ law within the traditional ordinary doctrines of contract and movable property and invoking developments within modern choice-of-law thought, the authors endeavour to challenge the traditional orthodoxy and offer a complete re-examination of the choice-of-law rules of negotiable instruments.

 

[1] See Chapter II.

[2] Report on the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations by Mario Giuliano, Professor, University of Milan, and Paul Lagarde, Professor, University of Paris I, Official Journal C 282, 31/10/1980 P. 0001 – 0050.

[3] Commission Regulation (EC) 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (Rome I), 2008 O.J. (L 177) 6 (EU);  Commission Regulation 864/2007, on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (Rome II), 2007 O.J. (L 199) 40 (EC)

[4] Giuliano & Lagarde Report, sec. 4.

[5] Ibid.

[6] See Chapter I & Chapter II.

[7] Report, sec. 4.

[8] Ibid.

[9] See Chapter I.

[10] See Chapter I & Chapter III.

[11] See Chapters V-VII.

[12] See Chapter VIII.

[13] Lawrence Collins (ed) Dicey, Morris and Collins on the Conflict of Laws (15th edn Sweet & Maxwell 2012) 2077.

 

 

On 24 March 2021 the Court of Justice issued a judgement in the case of SS v MCP, C-603/20 PPU, which concerns interpretation of the jurisdictional rules of Brussels II bis Regulation. The request for a preliminary ruling originated from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Family Division.

The Court decided that a court of a Member State seized of an action relating to parental responsibility cannot base its jurisdiction on Article 10 of the Brussels II bis Regulation in a case of abduction of a child to a third State.

Interestingly, the opinion (commented here by Geert Van Calster from the perspective of the principle of mutual trust) suggested the opposite conclusion, in spite of the fact that both the CJEU and the advocate general relied on the wording of the relevant provisions, their context and objectives, legislative history and relation with international instruments.

Factual Background

SS and MCP are two Indian citizens residing in the UK, where their child P was born in 2017. The couple is not legally married. SS is indicated as the father on the birth certificate, and consequently he has parental responsibility. In October 2018, the mother went to India with the child, where the child stayed with her grandmother. In August 2020 P submitted an application to the referring court, seeking an order for the return of the child to the UK and a ruling on rights of access.

The mother has challenged the jurisdiction of the court, since the child is not habitually resident in the UK. In the opinion of the referring court, the conduct of the mother probably amounts to the child’s wrongful removal (retention) in India. India is not a contracting party to the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

Preliminary Question

The referring court considers that it is necessary to determine whether it has jurisdiction on the basis of Brussels II bis (for its application in the UK for proceedings initiated before the end of transition period see: Note to Stakeholers on Brexit and PIL). Because the child does not have habitual residence in the UK and there is no consent of both parents as to jurisdiction of UK courts, the court has doubts whether it might base its jurisdiction on Article 10 Brussels II bis.

In accordance with this provision in case of a wrongful removal (retention), the courts of the Member State where the child was habitually resident immediately before the wrongful removal (retention) retain their jurisdiction until the child has acquired habitual residence in another Member State and one of alternative additional requirements is met. As the child was wrongfully retained in a third State, the referring court wonders whether Article 10 provides that UK courts retain their jurisdiction … indefinitely.

The Judgement

The CJEU answered strongly in the negative and underlined that:

(…) there is no justification for an interpretation of Article 10 [Brussels II bis] that would result in indefinite retention of jurisdiction in the Member State of origin in a case of child abduction to a third State, neither in the wording of that article, nor in its context, nor in the travaux préparatoires, nor in the objectives of that regulation. Such an interpretation would also deprive of effect the provisions of the 1996 Hague Convention in a case of child abduction to a third State which is a contracting party to that convention and would be contrary to the logic of the 1980 Hague Convention (paragraph 62).

As a result, the jurisdiction of the referring court might be determined in accordance with the applicable international conventions or, in the absence of any such international convention, in accordance with Article 14 Brussels II bis (which requires the presence of the child within the forum).

The Reasoning of the Court

First, the wording of Article 10 Brussels II bis clearly indicates that it applies to intra-EU abductions only (points 38-41), as it talks about “a Member State” and “another Member State”.

Second, as regards the context of Article 10 Brussels II bis, CJEU pointed that it constitutes a special ground of jurisdiction with respect to the general one in matters of parental responsibility laid down in Article 8(1), which provides for the jurisdiction of the Member State, where the child is habitually resident (paragraph 43). This ground of jurisdiction “defeats what would otherwise be the effect of the application of the general ground of jurisdiction (…), in a case of child abduction, namely the transfer of jurisdiction to the Member State where the child may have acquired a new habitual residence, following his or her abduction. Since that transfer of jurisdiction might secure a procedural advantage for the perpetrator of the wrongful act, Article 10 of that regulation provides (…) that the courts of the Member State where the child was habitually resident before the wrongful removal or retention are, nonetheless, to retain their jurisdiction unless certain conditions are met” (paragraph 45).

As a result, if the child has acquired new habitual residence outside the EU, after being wrongfully removed (retained) in a third State, there is no room for the application of the general rule. Hence,  in such case also the rule laid down in Article 10 “loses its raison d’être, and there is not, therefore, any reason to apply it” (paragraph 46). Additionally, as it is a special ground of jurisdiction, it must be interpreted restrictively (paragraph 47).

By the way, it is striking to see absolutely different conclusions drawn from this juxtaposition of Articles 8 and 10 Brussels II bis in the opinion:

Where a child was habitually resident in a Member State, as is the case with the child here, the courts of that Member State are to retain their jurisdiction until that child acquires his or her habitual residence in ‘another Member State’. Since reference is made only to another Member State, it can be inferred from this, in my view, that, where a child is wrongfully removed to, or retained in, a non-Member State, the courts of the Member State in which that child was habitually resident continue to have jurisdiction (paragraph 53 of the opinion)

Third, the CJEU refers to the legislative history of Brussels II bis and reminds that the EU legislature wanted to establish strict rules with respect to child abductions within the EU, whereas abductions to third states are supposed to be covered by international conventions, such as the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention and 1996 Hague Parental Responsibility Convention. It might be noted that 1980 Hague Convention is not referred to in the opinion.

The CJEU points out also that the interpretation of Article 10 Brussels II bis as proposed by the referring court “would have the consequence that, where the child has acquired a habitual residence in a third State which is a contracting party to the 1996 Hague Convention, following an abduction, Article 7(1) and Article 52(3) of that convention would be deprived of any effect” (paragraph 53). It should be noted that Article 7(1) 1996 Hague Convention makes provision (like Article 10 Brussel II bis) “for a transfer of jurisdiction to the courts of the State where the child has acquired a new habitual residence, if certain conditions are satisfied. Those conditions are connected, in particular, to the passage of time together with acquiescence or inaction on the part of the person concerned who holds a right of custody, the child having become settled in his or her new environment” (paragraph 54). This possibility would be precluded if Brussels II bis would allow the courts of a Member State to retain indefinitely their jurisdiction (paragraph 55).

Such retention of jurisdiction, in view of the CJEU, would also be “contrary to Article 52(3) of the 1996 Hague Convention, which prohibits rules agreed between one or more contracting States (…) from affecting, in the relationships of those States with the other contracting States, the application of the provisions of that convention. To the extent that jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility could not be transferred to those courts of contracting States, those relations would necessarily be affected” (paragraph 55).

Additionally, indefinite retention of jurisdiction would be incompatible with one of the fundamental objectives pursued by the regulation, namely the best interests of the child, which gives priority to the criterion of proximity (paragraph 58). This objective requires setting balance between “the need to prevent the perpetrator of the abduction from reaping the benefit of his or her wrongful act” and “the value of allowing the court that is closest to the child to hear actions relating to parental responsibility” (paragraph 59). Interestingly, in the opinion, while referring to the best interest of the child, the objective of “deterring child abductions” seems to be given priority (paragraph 70 of the opinion).

Finally, indefinite retention of jurisdiction, according to the CJEU, would also disregard the logic of the mechanisms established by the 1980 Hague Convention.

If, in accordance with Article 16 of that convention, it is established that the conditions laid down by that convention for return of the child are not satisfied, or if an application under that convention has not been made within a reasonable time, the authorities of the State to which the child has been removed (…) become the authorities of the State of habitual residence of the child, and should, as the courts that are geographically closest to that place of habitual residence, have the power to exercise their jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility. That convention remains applicable, in particular, in relations between the Member States and the other contracting parties (paragraph 61).

Meeting of the Council on General Affairs and Policy

The Council on General Affairs and Policy (CGAP) of the HCCH met online from 1 to 5 March 2021, with over 350 participants. Over the course of five days, HCCH Members reviewed progress made to date and agreed on the work programme for the year ahead. More information is available here.

Several important developments relating to Membership and HCCH Conventions occurred during the meeting:

• Thailand deposited its instrument of acceptance of the Statute, becoming the 88thMember of the HCCH.
• El Salvador applied to become a Member of the HCCH. Following a six-month voting period and provided a majority of votes have been cast in its favour, El Salvador will be invited to become a Member by accepting the Statute of the HCCH.
• Israel signed the HCCH 2005 Choice of Court Convention and the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention. The 2005 Choice of Court Convention, which currently binds 31 States and the EU, will enter into force for Israel only after it deposits an instrument of accession or ratification. Although the 2019 Judgments Convention is not yet in force, Israel is the third signatory to the Convention.

More information on these developments is available here.

Finally, as customary the meeting coincided with the publication of the Annual Report of the HCCH. The 2020 Annual Report can be downloaded or ordered here.

Other Meetings & Events

On 15 and 18 March, the HCCH and the International Union of Judicial Officers co-hosted a webinar on the application of the 1965 Service Convention and the 2019 Judgments Convention aimed at judicial officers and other legal professionals. Recordings of the webinar are available here in English and here in French.

On 18 March, the HCCH and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan co-hosted a webinar on the HCCH 1980 Child Abduction Convention in the Asia Pacific, attended by judges and officials of Central Authorities from 12 countries and regions in the Asia Pacific. More information is available here.

On 30 March, the HCCH participated in the virtual High Level Conference “Protecting Vulnerable Adults across Europe – the Way Forward”, organised by the Ministry of Justice of Portugal, the European Commission and the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights under the auspices of the Portuguese Presidency of the Council of the European Union. The recording of the conference is available here.

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

I am not especially keen on celebrating anniversaries. However, as things stand now in the European Union I thought it worth a short post on the seminal decision of the Court of Justice in case 22/70, AETR (EU:C:1971:32), of 31 March 1971. My attention has been drawn to its fiftieth anniversary.

Let’s celebrate what it meant legally (no political stance here), in terms of strengthening the competences of the (nowadays) Union and, as a consequence, for the uniformity of the legal systems of the Member States.

Background

The case is named after the European Agreement concerning the work of crews of vehicles engaged in international road transport (AETR), done at Geneva on 19 January 1962. The agreement had been signed by five of the six Member States of the EEC and other European States, but could not enter into force, absent the necessary ratifications. Negotiations for the revision of the agreement were resumed in 1967. Similar work undertaken at Community level with regard to standardizing driving and rest periods of drivers of road transport vehicles resulted in Regulation No 543/69 of the Council of 25 March 1969 on the harmonization of certain social legislation relating to road transport. In the course of its meeting on 20 March 1970 the Council, in view of the meeting of the sub-committee on Road Transport of the Economic Commission for Europe of  April 1970 at Geneva, discussed the attitude to be taken by the six Member States of the EEC in the negotiations for the conclusion of a new AETR.

The Member States conducted and concluded the negotiations in accordance with the proceedings of 20 March 1970. The AETR was made available by the secretariat of the Economic Commission for Europe from 1 July 1970 for signature by the Member States. On 19 May 1970 the Commission of the European Communities lodged an application for the annulment of the proceedings of the Council of 20 March 1970 regarding the negotiation and conclusion of the AETR by the Member States of the EEC.

In essence, the Commission disputed the validity of said proceedings on the ground that they involved infringements of the Treaty, more particularly of Articles 75, 228 and 235 concerning the distribution of powers between the Council and the Commission, and consequently the rights which it was the Commission’s duty to exercise in the negotiations on the AETR.

Ruling

The Court ruled actually against the application. This notwithstanding, it also made substantial assertions on the extent of the external competence of the Community:

The Community enjoys the capacity to establish contractual links with third countries over the whole field of objectives defined by the Treaty. This authority arises not only from an express conferment by the Treaty, but may equally flow from other provisions of the Treaty and from measures adopted, within the framework of those provisions, by the Community institutions. In particular, each time the Community, with a view to implementing a common policy envisaged by the Treaty, adopts provisions laying down common rules, whatever form they may take, the Member States no longer have the right, acting individually or even collectively, to undertake obligations with third countries which affect those rules or alter their scope. With regard to the implementation of the provisions of the Treaty, the system of internal Community measures may not be separated from that of external relations.

Consequences in the Domain of PIL

The consequences of the AERT decision on PIL conventions have been profusely analyzed by scholars (see, for instance, The External Dimension of EU Private International Law after Opinion 1/13, edited by P. Franzina). Two Opinions have been rendered directly focusing on the field. In the first one, Opinion 1/03 (EU:C:2006:81), delivered on February 7, 2006, the Court was requested by the Council to answer whether the conclusion of the new Lugano Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters falls entirely within the sphere of exclusive competence of the Community, or within the sphere of shared competence of the Community and the Member States. The second Opinion is Opinion 1/13 (EU:C:2014:2303), of 14 October 2014; the European Commission asked the Court whether the exclusive competence of the European Union encompasses the acceptance of the accession of a non-Union country to the Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction concluded in the Hague on 25 October 1980.

In both cases the Court’s ruling supports the exclusive competence of the Union. This should be enough to proceed without a further Opinion in regard to the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention, or, for that matter, to the accession of the UK to the 2007 Lugano Convention. A trickier question may be, though, whether the Member States are free to update bilateral conventions preexisting the Brussels regime, just as Norway has done (see, implicitly in favor of negative answer, Alex Layton here. I concur).

Written by Marcus Teo (Sheridan Fellow (Incoming), National University of Singapore)

Since Foster v Driscoll [1929] 1 KB 470, common law courts have recognised that contracts made with the intention to commit a criminal offence in a foreign state are unenforceable, even if the contract contemplated an alternative mode or place of performance. However, recent developments in domestic law illegality have sparked debate on whether foreign law illegality too should be reformed in a similar light (see Ryder Industries Ltd v Chan Shui Woo [2016] 1 HKC 323, [36], [52]-[55]; cf Magdeev v Tsvetkov [2020] EWHC 887 (Comm), [331]-[332]). The debate, however, has thus far not considered whether foreign law illegality should expand to bar certain non-contractual claims – a question which the Singapore Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Jonathan Ang v Lyu Yan [2021] SGCA 12 raises.

Lyu Yan wanted to transfer money from China to Singapore. Her bank in Singapore introduced her to Joseph Lim for assistance. Joseph proposed that Lyu transfer Renminbi from Lyu’s Chinese bank account to the Chinese bank accounts of two other individuals, Jonathan Ang and Derek Lim. Jonathan and Derek would then transfer an equivalent sum in Singapore Dollars from their Singapore bank accounts to Lyu’s Singapore bank account. Lyu performed the transfer in China, but received no money in Singapore. She then sued Joseph for breach of contract; and sued Joseph, Jonathan and Derek in tort and unjust enrichment. At first instance, the Singapore High Court ruled against all three defendants. Joseph did not appeal, but Jonathan and Derek did, arguing, inter alia, that Foster barred Lyu’s non-contractual claims against them because Chinese law prohibited their transaction.

Andrew Phang JCA, who delivered the Court’s judgment, dismissed Jonathan and Derek’s appeal. It was undisputed that the transaction, if performed, would have violated Chinese law (See Lyu Yan v Lim Tien Chiang [2020] SGHC 145, [15]-[16]). However, Lyu did not intend to break Chinese law – the facts at their “highest” showed that she thought the transaction contravened Singapore law rather than Chinese law (Jonathan Ang, [18], [20]). Thus, since Foster does not apply if the claimant does not intend to contravene a specific foreign law, it was inapplicable.

Of interest, though, were Phang JCA’s obiter comments: if Lyu had known the transaction contravened Chinese law, would her non-contractual claims be barred? Foster, he noted, was “not applicable in relation to non-contractual claims” ([26]). This was contrasted with the position in domestic law illegality, where an illegality affecting a contract could sometimes also bar other non-contractual claims arising from the contractual relationship ([27]-[28]). Here, Phang JCA referenced Ochroid Trading Ltd v Chua Siok Lui [2018] 1 SLR 363, where the Court of Appeal had held that claims in unjust enrichment (and, potentially, tort) arising from a contractual relationship would be barred if it stultified the policy underlying the law which rendered the contract unenforceable (Ochroid Trading [145]-[159], [168])

Phang JCA then considered whether Foster and Ochroid Trading could be “read together” (Jonathan Ang, [30]) – i.e., whether foreign and domestic law illegality, as separate doctrines, could apply on the same facts. This could only happen when Singapore law was the lex contractus, because, while Foster barred contract claims “regardless of their governing laws”, Ochroid Trading barred only claims governed by Singapore law. If indeed Foster and Ochroid Trading were “read together”, however, “possible difficulties” arose, because it would put a plaintiff with a Singapore law contract in a worse position than a plaintiff with a foreign law contract: the former would potentially have both his contractual and non-contractual claims barred, while the latter would have only his contractual claim barred ([33]). To Phang JCA, this was undesirable, because there was “no principled reason” for this distinction ([34]). While Phang JCA did not attempt to resolve these “difficulties”, he concluded by noting that for both foreign law and domestic law illegality “the concept of policy serves as a limiting factor to ensure that the illegality involved does not inflexibly defeat recovery where such recovery is justified” ([34]) – presumably, then, Phang JCA was noting tentatively that recourse to public policy arguments might help ameliorate the differences between the two classes of plaintiffs he identified.

Phang JCA’s comments in Jonathan Ang raise more questions than answers; this was of course by design, given their tentative and exploratory nature. However, with respect, the correctness of some of the assumptions Phang JCA relied on may be doubted. First, one may only conclude that there is no “principled reason” for treating plaintiffs with Singapore law contracts differently from plaintiffs with foreign law contracts if one accepts that domestic and foreign law illegality share the same “principled” basis. However, Foster’s principled basis remains shrouded in uncertainty: courts and commentators have variously called it a doctrine of public policy, comity and international jurisdiction, but only the first conception of Foster aligns it with domestic law illegality. Second, while it is true that the public policies of the forum limit both domestic and foreign law illegality, those public policies perform that function in different ways in those two contexts. In domestic law illegality, courts ask whether barring the plaintiff’s claim would give effect to the forum’s public policies; but in foreign law illegality, courts ask whether denying recognition of the relevant foreign law, and thus allowing the plaintiff’s claim, would give effect to the forum’s public policies. It follows that public policy arguments may not consistently resolve differences between the two classes of plaintiffs identified by Phang JCA.

At base, the questions posed in Jonathan Ang (and the assumptions they relied on) were only relevant because of Phang JCA’s continued acceptance of one central proposition: that foreign law illegality bars only contractual claims. Yet, this proposition is doubtful; in Brooks Exim Pte Ltd v Bhagwandas Naraindas [1995] 1 SLR(R) 543, Singapore’s Court of Appeal considered Foster in relation to a claim for “money had and received”, and found it inapplicable only because parties there did not intend to breach foreign law (Brooks Exim, [1], [14]). Moreover, the justification for limiting Foster’s rule to contractual claims remains unclear: in Jonathan Ang Phang JCA cited the English High Court’s decision in Lilly Icos LLC v 8PM Chemists Ltd [2010] FSR 4 for it, but there that proposition was simply accepted without argument (Lilly Icos, [266]). A possible justification might be that only in contract claims may parties, by virtue of their ability to choose the governing law, avoid the applicability of the (criminal) law of a foreign state objectively connected to their relationship. This, however, would be a poor justification, since parties have the autonomy to choose the governing law for various non-contractual claims as well. An expressly chosen law, for example, may govern not just parties’ contract, but also claims in unjust enrichment arising from that contractual relationship by virtue of a characterization sub-rule, and potentially also tort claims under an exception to the lex loci delicti rule (or, in Singapore’s context, the double actionability rule). If foreign law illegality exists to prevent parties from avoiding the law of a state objectively connected to their contractual relationship, it should bar all claims arising from that contractual relationship governed by parties’ chosen law, regardless of whether those claims are “contractual” or “non-contractual”.