Droit international général

The CJEU held last week in C-774/19 AB and BB v Personal Exchange International Limited. I propose for the sake of our memories that we call it Personal Exchange International Limited or even PEIL. (No English version of the judgment available at the time of writing).

May an online poker playing contract, concluded remotely over the internet by an individual with a foreign operator of online games and subject to that operator’s general terms and conditions, also be classified as a contract concluded by a consumer for a purpose which can be regarded as being outside his trade or profession, where that individual has, for several years, lived on the income thus obtained or the winnings from playing poker, even though he has no formal registration for that type of activity and in any event does not offer that activity to third parties on the market as a paid service?

The case echoes Schrems, Petruchová and Reliantco and the CJEU refers to the two former extensively.

At 21 the referring court had signalled the linguistic difference in e.g. the Slovenian and the English version of Article 17 BIA (A15 in BI which is discussed in the judgment), where mention is made of elements over and above the  use of ‘professional’ in the other language version (e.g ‘trade and profession’ in the English version). The CJEU at 27 refers to the classic collective authentic force of the various language versions to dismiss paying too much attention to this difference.

With reference to Petruchová, the Court at 23 dismisses the relevance of whether the player’s winnings allow him to earn a living. Since the player does not beforehand know those winnings, the consumer title would become unpredictable which is of course a big no-no.

At 37 ff the intimate knowledge of the market is dismissed, too, with reference to Schrems: for this would make the title too dependent upon the subjective situation of the individual.

At 41 ff the Court does reiterate the dynamic interpretation of the title per Schrems (reminder: that has only so far been held in the direction of losing the protection one once has a consumer).

Finally, the frequency and length of play does not constitute a singularly relevant criterion either (at 46), even if they can be taken into account. However the Court confusingly (and unlike eg in  Salvoni) does here refer to substantive consumer law in which it has held (eg in C‑105/17 Kamenova) that these elements do play some role.

All in all a fairly standard re-emphasis of earlier case-law. The referring court is asked to do the remaining math itself.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, 2.235 ff.

 

 

 

CJEU this morning in PEIL confirms dynamic interpretation of concept of 'consumer' within the meaning of Brussels Ia (as in Schrems).
Extent of knowledge of the market, by the individual, not as such determinanthttps://t.co/w9TfLmGWCj

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) December 10, 2020

The post below was written by Bernard Haftel, who is Professor of Private International Law at the University of Sorbonne Paris Nord.

This is the fifth contribution to the EAPIL online symposium on the ruling of the Court of Justice in the case of Wikingerhof v. Booking.com. The previous posts were authored by Matthias Lehmann, Adrian Briggs, Gilles Cuniberti and Peter Mankowski. 

Readers are encouraged to share their views by making comments to the posts. Those wishing to submit longer contributions for publication are invited to get in touch with the managing editor of the blog, Pietro Franzina, at pietro.franzina@unicatt.it.

With the Wikingerhof ruling of 24 November 2020, the European Court of Justice once again returns to the seemingly endless question of the distinction between matters relating to contract and tort [1] within the meaning of Article 7 of the Brussels I bis Regulation and once again fails to provide a satisfactory solution.

As in the Brogsitter case, the present case dealt with an action between contracting parties based on the breach of rules which are considered, at least in domestic law, to belong to the law of torts. A German hotelier – the now famous Wikingerhof – decided to take action against the well known online platform Booking, established in the Netherlands, seeking an injunction prohibiting certain conducts provided for in Booking’s general terms and conditions. In particular, the plaintiff alleged that Booking had, without its consent, placed a reference to “preferential prices” or “discounted prices”, that it had been deprived of access to the contact information provided by its contracting partners via the platform and that it had made the hotel’s positioning dependent on a specifically high commission.

The difficulty inherent in classifying this type of situations, based on tort provisions but exercised between contracting parties [2], had been singularly aggravated by the famous Brogsitter judgment which had, in this respect, laid down the following rule: an action for liability based on tort rules in national law but brought between contracting parties is a matter of contract “where the conduct complained of may be considered a breach of the terms of the contract, which may be established by taking into account the purpose of the contract”.

Case law subsequent to the Brogsitter judgment had in fact reflected this, in particular with regard to the thorny question of liability actions for termination of established commercial relations, especially when base on French law (former Article 442-6, I, 5° now Article 442-1, II of the French Code de commerce).

Yet, in every respect, even if nothing expressly indicates it, the Wikingerhof judgment constitutes a complete reversal of the Brogsitter judgment (I), reintroducing, in a questionable manner, the distributive approach of the Kalfélis judgment (II) and substituting a new criterion, loosely based on previous case law (III) and consequently raising the question of the durability of certain recent solutions (IV).

I. A Discreet Turnaround

Even if at no time does the Court say so and even if, in his opinion, Advocate General Saugmadsgaard Øe cleverly tries to claim the contrary, the Wikingerhof judgment is a pure and simple repudiation of the Brogsitter case law.

In this respect, the judgment is particularly laconic, which is in stark contrast to the Advocate General’s opinion, simply stating that an action falls within the scope of the matters relating to a contract within the meaning of point 1 of Article 7 “if the interpretation of the contract between the defendant and the applicant appears indispensable to establish the lawful or, on the contrary, unlawful nature of the conduct complained of against the former by the latter” (para. 32), thus taking up a passage along these lines from the Brogsitter judgment (para. 25), and specifying that if the contrary is the case, if it is not necessary to examine the content of the contract, then the action will belong to the matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict within the meaning of point 2 of Article 7 (para. 33).

This presentation must be read in the light of Mr Saugmadsgaard Øe’s opinion, which refers to and distinguishes between two possible interpretations of the Brogsitter judgment. According to a first approach, which he calls “maximalist”, a claim would fall within the scope of contractual matters “if the conduct complained of may be considered a breach of the terms of the contract” (para. 69), whereas, according to a “minimalist” interpretation, a claim would fall within the scope of contractual matters when “the interpretation of the contract between the defendant and the applicant appears indispensable to establish the lawful or, on the contrary, unlawful nature of the conduct complained of against the former by the latter” (para. 70).

It was this second – minimalist – approach that was advocated by the Advocate General and which was adopted by the Court, thus repudiating the maximalist reading.

However, it will not escape anyone’s notice that the quotation illustrating the so-called maximalist reading is in fact the actual operative part of the Brogsitter judgment. Despite the ingenuity of the Advocate General’s approach, it is quite clear that by repudiating the so-called maximalist reading, the Court of Justice has here made a complete reversal, abandoning the contribution of the Brogsitter Case.

There is a notable difference here with the French Cour de Cassation, which is more and more frequently staging its reversals of case law [3], where, out of loyalty to its predecessors or perhaps out of humility, the judges of the Court of Justice never actually say that they are making a case law reversal.

The judgment thus reverts to a distributive logic, typical of the Kalfelis judgment: actions between contractors will be either tortious or contractual, depending on the rules on which they are based.

II. The Principle of a Distributive Approach

Whereas the Brogsitter judgment largely implied an absorption of the tort by the contractual part, i.e. a submission of all actions between contracting parties to the forum of the contract as soon as the conduct complained of could be regarded as a breach of contractual obligations, the present judgment focuses essentially on the nature of the rules on which the application is based, which has three damaging consequences.

Firstly, a dispersal of the dispute. It will often happen that the same contractual dispute will give rise to both tort and contract aspects, especially when the applicable laws will, like English and German law, leave the plaintiff an option in this respect. In such cases, the two aspects of the dispute, which are like two sides of the same coin, will be dealt with by two different courts. It might be tempting to object that Article 4 remains available in this case and allows the entire dispute to be referred to the judge of the defendant’s domicile, but this option is left to the plaintiff’s discretion, which brings us to the second difficulty.

The solution then aggravates the procedural imbalance between the parties. By multiplying the number of judges likely to be competent, here according to the basis of the claim, we multiply the power of the one who has, in practice, control of the option: the plaintiff. This inequality is in itself an anomaly in a trial which is normally based on the principle of equality of arms, and the Advocate General cannot agree with him when he considers that forum shopping is not in itself a problem and only becomes so in the event of abuse (para. 86 et seq.). In our view, Forum shopping, which benefits only one of the parties, is always, inherently bad.

Finally, the solution becomes truly impracticable when the resolution of the dispute depends on both tort and contractual aspects. Let us take the example of an action brought on the basis of a tort but which comes up against the principle of non-cumul [4]. In such a case, the court hearing only the tort aspect will either have to disregard the contractual aspects for which it has no jurisdiction and therefore give an inappropriate decision, or take them into account in dismissing the tort action but not rule on the contractual aspect.

This second solution, advocated by the Advocate General (para. 88), is not more convincing. It must be understood that the court would then have to consider the contractual aspect in its entirety, and thus determine the content of the contract, the extent of the obligations imposed by the stipulations and by the law applicable to it and the position of that law as regards the option or non-cumul question, but could only draw the consequence, in the event of non-cumul, of dismissing the action based on tort and would be obliged to refer the resolution of the contractual aspect to the forum of the contract. Such a solution would be, at the very least, a very poor administration of justice and a great waste of time and, at worst, a source of major inconsistencies. It is enough to imagine that the two successive judges would adopt different positions as to the law applicable to the question of cumulative liability.

It is therefore in many respects unfortunate that the European Court of Justice has decided to return to the distributive approach of the Kalfelis case law.

However, contrary to what the Kalfelis judgment might have suggested, it is not the classification in national law that will determine the nature of the tort or contract, but an autonomous classification and for the purposes of the Regulation, which presupposes a criterion.

However, in this respect, the desire to maintain the appearance of continuity with the Brogsitter case law leads the Court to endorse a largely flawed criterion.

III. The Chosen Criterion

The concern to maintain the illusion of continuity in the case law, and in particular continuity with the Brogsitter judgment, led the Court to uphold what was probably the most questionable point in that decision: the “test” which, in the logic of that judgment, was to determine “where the conduct complained of may be considered a breach of the terms of the contract”. In order to determine whether this is the case, the Brogsitter judgment advocated checking wether “the interpretation of the contract which links the defendant to the applicant is indispensable to establish the lawful or, on the contrary, unlawful nature of the conduct complained of against the former by the latter ” (paras 24 and 25).

This test is particularly questionable because it is completely incapable of taking account of the subtle interweaving of legal rules and contractual provisions, it being furthermore recalled that, as the Advocate General observes, the methods of coordination of the two orders of liability vary from one country to another (paras 55 and 56).

Indeed, the effect of a contract is always to alter the pre-existing legal order, in particular by making unlawful what would have been lawful in the absence of the contract or by making lawful what would have been unlawful in the absence of the contract. Thus, even where the action will be based on an extra-contractual provision in domestic law, it will often be necessary to interpret the contract in order to determine whether or not the conduct complained of was lawful. An example of this is an action brought by the holder of intellectual property rights against his licensee for exceeding the rights granted. The interpretation of the contract is necessary to determine whether or not the rights granted have been exceeded. However, assuming that the rights have been exceeded, illegality would arise from the rules governing the author’s monopoly, in the same way as if there were no contract at all. In this respect, the objections proposed by Mr. Saugmadsgaard Øe, who takes the view that the criterion involving the interpretation of the contract would apply only to the claim and not to any defences, are not really convincing (paras 105 et seq.).

All in all, the other criterion mentioned by the Advocate General, distinguishing between, on the one hand, “the stipulations of a contract and/or rules of law which are applicable because of that contract” and, on the other hand, “rules of law which impose a duty on everyone, independently of any voluntary commitment”, would have seemed infinitely more accurate and more practicable to us.

It corresponds to the idea of “plus contractuel” [5], perfectly expressed by Lord Goff, according to which “the law of tort is the general law, out of which the parties can, if they wish, contract” [6].

It is an approach of this kind that should undoubtedly prevail in matters of conflict of laws, for the application of the Rome I and Rome II Regulations [7].

However, in matters of jurisdiction, the question arises in a different way. The question of jurisdiction often arises at the beginning of the dispute, at a time that necessarily calls for simplicity. In French law, moreover, the question arises concretely in a phase with a single judge – the juge de la mise en état – and it is in this respect necessary to simplify as much as possible the treatment of questions of qualifications. For this reason, as explained above, it is preferable to adopt a global and non-distributive approach, contrary to what might be done for the conflict of laws [8].

IV. The Survival of Intermediate Case Law

This change of course raises a question of scope, in terms of the solutions adopted since the Brogsitter judgment and, at least in part, based on them.

In particular, the European Court of Justice held in a Granarolo case that an action for the termination of commercial relations must be classified as contractual where there is a “tacit contractual relationship” (whatever that is) between the parties. Following the new logic of the Wikingerhof judgment, such a solution could probably not be renewed. In fact, the conduct complained of – i.e. the termination of established commercial relations – is sanctioned by the former Article L. 441-6, I, 5° (now L. 442-1, II) of the French Commercial Code whether or not there is a framework contract binding the parties. This is even its main interest. It is therefore a rule “which imposes a duty on everyone, independently of any voluntary commitment” and, obviously, since it is a mandatory legal obligation, the lawful or unlawful nature of the conduct complained of does not in any way imply an interpretation of the contract which may bind the parties.

This remark reflects on many other hypotheses and in particular the “pratiques restrictives de concurrence” (restrictive practices of competition) which appear in Articles L. 442-1 et seq. of the Commercial Code and similar provisions in other legal systems.

In all these cases, such practices are prohibited in any event, whether or not there is a contract between the parties. In fact, the prohibition of “subjecting or attempting to subject the other party to obligations creating a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties” in Article L. 442-1, I, 2° of the Commercial Code is very similar to the abuse of a dominant position under German law at issue in the commented judgment.

Is it to be inferred from this that, henceforth, all actions based on restrictive practices of competition would necessarily fall within the scope of tort, even between contractors?

And what about actions relating to these unbalanced clauses and seeking their annulment? In the area of conflict of laws, the European Court of Justice has ruled that the assessment of the lawfulness of contractual terms is a matter for the Rome I Regulation, even where the action is brought by a third party to the contract, in this case a consumer protection body. Is this solution obsolete?

Or should a distinction be drawn according to the purpose pursued by the action, holding that an action seeking to have a contractual stipulation declared null and void would be contractual in nature, even where that nullity results from a rule of conduct binding on everyone?

If so, in the event of an action seeking to challenge a clause that is unbalanced, there would then be two competent judges: the forum of the tort for the action for liability stricto sensu and the action for an injunction and the forum of the contract for the annulment, which would add to the dispersion of the litigation.

The judgment provides few answers to all these questions. More than ever, it would be necessary for the Court of Justice to take a higher view and to consider all the solutions that it infers from the qualifications it adopts as a whole.

 

[1] On this matter, see in particular V. Heuzé, “De quelques infirmités congénitales du droit uniforme: l’exemple de l’article 5. 1 de la Convention de Bruxelles du 27 septembre 1968”, Rev. crit. DIP 2000, p. 589 s., M.-E. Ancel, P. Deumier, M. Laazouzi, Droit des contrats internationaux, 2nd ed., 2019, § 106 et s. ; H. Gaudemet-Tallon, M.-E. Ancel, Compétence et exécution des jugements en Europe, 6th ed., 2018, § 186 et seq.; J.-S. Queginer, Le juge du contrat dans l’espace judiciaire européen – Qualification et détermination d’une compétence spéciale, th. Lyon 3, 2012; M. Minois, Recherche sur la qualification en droit international privé des obligations, LGDJ, 2020.

[2] On which see, in particular, S. Bollée, “La responsabilité extracontractuelle du cocontractant en droit international privé », in Mélanges en l’honneur du Professeur Bernard Audit, LGDJ, 2014, p. 119.

[3] For a recent and very clear example, see Cass. civ., 1st, 18 déc. 2019, n° 18-12.327 and n° 18-11.815, D. 2020. 426, note S. Paricard ; ibid. 506, obs. M. Douchy-Oudot; ibid. 843, obs. Régine; AJ fam. 2020.131; ibid. 9, obs. A. Dionisi-Peyrusse ; RTD civ. 2020. 81, obs. A.-M. Leroyer; Dr. fam. 2020, comm. 39, note J.-R. Binet; adde. S. Bollée, B. Haftel, “L’art d’être inconstant – Regards sur les récents développements de la jurisprudence en matière de gestation pour autrui”, Rev. crit. DIP 2020.267.

[4] In some systems, such as French law, where the same fact can theoretically constitute both a tort and a breach of contract, the plaintiff has no choice and can only act on the contractual ground, which is generally referred to as the principle of non-cumul.

[5] J. Huet, Responsabilité délictuelle et responsabilité contractuelle. Essai de délimitation entre les deux ordres de responsabilités, th. Paris II, 1978, especially n° 672; see also B. Haftel, La notion de matière contractuelle en droit international privé – Etude dans le domaine du conflit de lois, th. Paris II, 2008, especially. n° 618 et s.

[6] Henderson v. Merrett Syndicates [1994] 3 All ER 506 [532].

[7] See B. Haftel, op. cit.

[8] On the idea of an independence between the qualifications adopted in the field of jurisdiction and the one to be adopted in the field of conflict of laws, see B. Haftel, “Entre ‘Rome II’ et ‘Bruxelles I’: l’interprétation communautaire uniforme du règlement ‘Rome I'”, JDI 2010, no 3, doctr. 11, and, for the opposite view, see T. Azzi, “Bruxelles I, Rome I, Rome II: regard sur la qualification en droit international privé communautaire”, D. 2009, p. 1621.

Written by Dr. Chukwuma Samuel Adesina Okoli, Post-Doctoral Researcher, T.M.C. Asser Institute and Dr. Richard Frimpong Oppong, Associate Professor, University of Bradford, School of Law

We earlier announced that the editors of Afronomicslaw.org invited Chukwuma and Richard to organise a symposium on Private International Law in Nigeria. The introduction to the symposium has now been published today in Afronomicslaw.org. Other posts on the symposium will be posted daily this week.

This Symposium focuses on the recent publication: Private International Law in Nigeria. For many, Nigeria needs no introduction: it is a federal country consisting of thirty-six states and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. With increased cross-border transactions and investments, the significance of private international law (or conflict of laws) – the body of law that aims to resolve claims involving foreign elements – has become more accentuated than ever. Indeed, private international law rules have sometimes been invoked in resolving disputes with inter-state dimensions within the federation, especially on jurisdiction and choice of law matters. Conflict of laws has also been used to resolve disputes involving internal conflicts between various customary laws and between customary laws and the Nigerian Constitution or enabling statues, especially in the area of family law. In essence, because of its federal structure, private international law is relevant in both the inter-state and international litigation in Nigeria.

Prior to the publication of Private International Law in Nigeria, there was no comprehensive treatise on the subject in Nigeria. The Book aims to fill that academic void: drawing on over five hundred Nigerian cases, statutes, and academic commentaries, the Book examines mainly jurisdiction (in inter-state and international disputes), choice of law, and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and international arbitral awards. It also examines remedies that affect foreign judicial proceedings such as antisuit injunction, and international judicial assistance to serve legal process and take evidence.

This Symposium brings together the reflections of four scholars on the book and explores some of the issues arising therefrom. In the Book, we examine the common law regime for enforcing foreign judgments in Nigeria and reveal the under-developed state of the law. Anthony Kennedy, a barrister at Serle Court, focuses on this aspect of the book to forcefully argue for a “reawakening of the common law action” to enforce foreign judgments. Kennedy is critical, and rightly so, of how the legal profession and the courts have treated the common law regime notwithstanding clear authority from the Supreme Court of Nigeria that the statutory regime for enforcing foreign judgments was not designed to kill of the common law regime. Kennedy argues that by not side-lining the common law regime, Nigeria may be able to partake in the judicial development of the regime that is going on in other parts of the common law world, as well as international projects such as the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters, 2019.

Richard Mike Mlambe, an Attorney and Lecturer at University of Malawi- The Polytechnic, picks up the theme of reform and judicial development of private international law, in a comparative discussion on the bases of jurisdiction in an action to enforce a foreign judgment. Mlambe commends Canada’s “real and substantial connection” basis of international competence. The real and substantial connection test promotes the liberal flow of judgments across borders. Mlambe calls on Nigeria and other common law jurisdictions to join Canada on its “lonely revolution”.

Dr Abubakri Yekini, a Lecturer in Law at Lagos State University, explores the enforceability of jurisdiction agreements in Nigeria drawing on the Book’s discussion which reveals, in the words of Yekini that “it is difficult to give a straight answer on whether jurisdiction agreements are enforced by Nigerian courts” – a state of affairs which he rightly argues creates uncertainties and is not good for international business transactions. Yekini examines three significant challenges to the enforcement of jurisdiction agreements in Nigeria, namely the courts’ mischaracterisation of such agreement as “ouster clauses”; mandatory statutes vesting exclusive jurisdiction in Nigeria courts; and the misapplication of the doctrine of forum non conveniens in cases involving breach of jurisdiction agreement, instead of the strong cause test. Yekini makes an impassioned plea for Nigerian courts to “promote party autonomy”, and a call on Nigeria to become party to the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, 2005.

Orji Agwu Uka, a Senior Associate at Africa Law Practice (ALP), reflects on the state of private international law in Nigeria and calls for its wider study. Indeed, as Uka rightly acknowledges, for more than a decade, scholars have lamented the level of interest in private international law in Africa. Happily, private international law in Africa can hardly now be described as “the Cinderella subject seldom studied [and] little understood”. Uka undertakes a broad but careful review of the book – highlighting various topics examined in the book but focusing especially on the law on jurisdiction in international and inter-state matters. Uka commends Private International Law in Nigeria for filling a significant academic void on the Nigerian legal landscape.

It is our hope that the Book and this Symposium, in addition to being a rich legal resource for lawyers, judges and legislators would spur on further study of private international law in Nigeria, and Africa. Indeed, the Nigerian Group on Private International Law(“NGPIL”) has already been established and “set sail”. NGPIL aims to “(1) to improve the law in Nigeria in matters relating to private international law (“PIL”) (2) to persuade the Nigerian government to accede to the Hague Conventions on PIL (3) to liaise with other experts, groups, and research centres on PIL on a global level (4) to nurture, guide and develop the legal mechanism and framework for PIL in Nigeria (5) to be the collective voice of PIL experts for the Nigerian government, the judiciary, lawyers and other relevant stakeholders and, (6) to improve the links and communication between PIL experts in Africa”. The book: Private International Law in Nigeria will certainly make the work of NGPIL less daunting.

 

 

The following post has been written by Ennio Piovesani, PhD Candidate at the Universities of Turin and Cologne.

While negotiations for an agreement on the future partnership between the EU and the UK are pending, a spectre haunts Europe: reciprocity.

I. The Residual Role of the Requirement of Reciprocity

In some EU Member States, provisions of national-autonomous aliens law enshrine the requirement of reciprocity. Those provisions are largely superseded by exceptions established in international law, including international treaties (so-called “diplomatic reciprocity”). EU (primary and secondary) law establishes broad exceptions concerning EU citizens and legal persons based in the EU.

In the context of EU / UK relations, the Withdrawal Agreement relieves UK nationals and legal persons from the requirement of reciprocity in the EU Member States. However, the scope of the exception established by the Withdrawal Agreement is limited in (personal and temporal) scope. An agreement on the future partnership between the EU and the UK could establish “full reciprocity” (Cf. points 29 and 49 of the Political Declaration accompanying the Withdrawal Agreement). Instead, if new arrangements will not be made, at the end of the transition period, in cases not covered by the Withdrawal Agreement, the method of reciprocity might once more play a residual role in the context of the treatment of UK nationals and legal persons in some EU Member States.

II. German Case-Law on Reciprocity with the UK and Civil Procedure

The spectre of reciprocity, in relations with the UK, was evoked in three recent cases brought before the German courts. The three cases concern provisions of German-autonomous aliens law in the field of civil procedure, which enshrine the requirement of reciprocity.

1. § 110 ZPO (Security for Court Costs)

In particular, two of the mentioned cases concern § 110 ZPO. Pursuant to § 110(1) ZPO claimants not (habitually) residing in the EU (or in the EEA) must provide security for court costs (if the defendant requests so). § 110(2) ZPO provides exceptions to that duty. The claimant is relieved from the duty to provide security if an international treaty so provides (See § 110(2) no 1 ZPO) or if a treaty ensures the enforcement of the decision on court costs (see § 110(2) no 2 ZPO; see also the other exceptions listed in § 110(2), nos 3–5 ZPO).

In 2018 – before the UK’s withdrawal from the EU –, in a case brought before the Düsseldorf Regional Court, a German defendant sought a decision ordering the UK claimant to provide security under § 110 ZPO (Düsseldorf Regional Court, interim judgment of 27 Sept 2018 – 4c O 28/12). The Regional Court dismissed the defendant’s application, since (at that time) the UK was still an EU Member State. The German court thus shun an investigation as to “whether other international treaties might relieve the claimant from the obligation of providing security for costs after the [UK’s] withdrawal”.

Subsequently, in 2019 – after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, during the transition period –, a German defendant sought from the Dortmund Regional Court a decision ordering the claimant seated in London to provide security under § 110 ZPO (Dortmund Regional Court, interim judgment of 15 July 2020 – 10 O 27/20). The Regional Court dismissed the defendant’s application, noting that – in the light of the legal fiction created by the Withdrawal Agreement – the UK must be considered as an EU Member State until the end of 2020. The German court – like the Düsseldorf Regional Court – shun an investigation as to whether treaties other than the Withdrawal Agreement relieve UK claimants – not habitually residing in the EU (or in the EEA) – from the duty of providing security under § 110 ZPO.

It appears that, apart from the Withdrawal Agreement, a treaty establishing diplomatic reciprocity for the purposes of § 110(2) no 1 ZPO does not exist yet (cf. ECJ, judgment 20 Mar 1997 – C-323/95).

2. § 917(2) ZPO (Writ for Pre-Judgment Seizure)

The third case brought before the German courts concerns § 917(2) ZPO. Pursuant to the first sentence of § 917(2) ZPO, a writ for pre-judgment seizure can be issued if the prospective judgment will have to be enforced abroad and if “reciprocity is not granted” (i.e. if an international treaty does not grant that the judgment will be eligible for enforcement in the given foreign country).

In 2019 – before the UK’s withdrawal from the EU –, in a case brought before the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court, a German claimant applied for a writ under § 917 ZPO against a UK defendant (Frankfurt Higher Regional Court, judgment of 3 May 2019 – 2 U 1/19). The Higher Regional Court noted that reciprocity under § 917(2) first period ZPO could have been lacking if, after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, the Brussels Ia Regulation would have not been replaced by new arrangements granting the enforcement of (German) judgments in the UK. This notwithstanding, the German court decided not to issue the writ under § 917(2) first period ZPO, since failure to conclude new agreements replacing the Brussels Ia Regulation was (at that time) unlikely. In fact, the court pointed to the then ongoing negotiations between the EU and UK, namely to Art. 67(II) of the draft Withdrawal Agreement (today’s Art. 67(1)(a) Withdrawal Agreement), providing for the continued application of the Brussels Ia Regulation in the UK.

It appears that, apart from the Withdrawal Agreement, a treaty establishing diplomatic reciprocity with the UK, for the purposes of § 917(2) ZPO, does not exist yet (unless the 1960 Convention between the UK and Germany for reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments – or even the 1968 Brussels Convention – will “revive”). An (albeit limited) exception concerns cases covered by exclusive choice-of-court agreements in favour of German courts falling under the 2005 Hague Convention (in fact, on 28 Sept 2020, the UK has deposited its instrument of accession to the 2005 Hague Convention, which should grant continuity in the application of the same Convention in the UK after the transition period).

III. Conclusion

In conclusion, at the end of the transition period, in cases not covered by the Withdrawal Agreement, unless new arrangements are made, the requirement of reciprocity might play a residual role in the context of the treatment of UK nationals and legal persons in some EU Member States, such as Germany.

This entry is the second of two parts that provide an introduction to the Elgar Companion to the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH). It outlines the editors’ reflections on the 35 Chapters, drawing out some of the key themes that emerged from the Companion, including the HCCH’s contribution to access to justice and multilateralism. Together, Parts I and II offer readers an overview of the structure of the Companion (Part I, published on Conflict-of Laws on 8 December 2o2o) as well as of the core themes as they emerged from the 35 Chapters (Part II).

Both parts are based on, and draw from, the Editors’ Introduction to the Elgar Companion to the HCCH, which Elgar kindly permitted.

General reflections

The contributions in the Companion chronicle the evolution of the HCCH in the last 127 years and provide a deep insight into the operation and workings of the Organisation. In addition, they critically assess the past and current work of the HCCH, as well as providing impetus for possible future directions. The editors Thomas John, Rishi Gulati and Ben Koehler encouraged the authors to use the Companion as a platform for critical reflections and assessments – their familiarity with the HCCH, the Organisation’s work, but also its mandate and capacity, ensures the great value of each individual contribution.

The Companion can be of much interest in three particular ways.

First, it is an academic contribution that provides considered expositions on current and future legal issues in private international law in general. The selection of authors, which are drawn from different regions and legal backgrounds, allowed considering topics from a number of different perspectives. The quality of the contributions will result in the Companion serving a most useful source in the substantive development of private international law. It also will constitute a useful resource for States, judges, legal practitioners, academics, and other public and private international organisations engaged in advancing private international law, not only in terms of gaining an understanding of existing HCCH instruments, but also in their efforts towards legislative and policy reform.

Second, the Companion aims to provide considerable and thorough insight into the workings of the organisation itself, and thus serve well as a comprehensive practical guide to the HCCH. This will appeal to those who wish to gain a better understanding of the HCCH as an Organisation regardless of their familiarity with it. It may also benefit those who have been working with the Organisation for some time and wish to broaden or deepen their understanding further.

Finally, in addition to highlighting the successes of the HCCH, the aim has also been to critically analyse the organisation and its work. Much work has been done by the HCCH, but more is required, and the 35 Chapters reveal four underlying themes.

Theme I: Private international law and access to justice

The first underlying theme that can be observed throughout all contributions is how access to justice values increasingly underpin private international law. Just some examples include the call for enhanced access to documents in multiple languages; better use of technology to improve legal cooperation across borders; the need to enhance access to justice for consumers and international tourists; the impact of the right to a fair trial on access to justice for the employees of international organisations such as the HCCH; the bearing of fair trial rights on civil jurisdiction, such as through the doctrine of forum non conveniens; and ensuring access to justice for vulnerable sections of society.

In all those instances, access to justice is an important value, and in its various manifestations, starts to underpin and shape the development of private international law. This is a positive development. Private international law ought to be more than mere technical rules but should be driven by underlying tangible values that have great practical importance. Access to justice is a laudable tangible value, recognised in Sustainable Development Goal 16 of the UN. Private international law, and in particular the HCCH, could play a significant role in providing and strengthening access to justice at an international level. And there is some indication that the Organisation appreciates that it indeed can play this role, hinting at it in its most recent HCCH Strategic Plan 2019 – 2020. However, its appreciation is limited and mentioned only in the context of the HCCH’s non-normative work.[1] Based on the discussions in the Companion, it seems that the HCCH could – and should – pursue a comprehensive access to justice agenda across its entire normative and non-normative work programme with much more vigour than is currently the case.

Theme II: the interaction between public and private international law

Another theme underpinning the Companion’s contributions is the increased interaction between public and private international law. This theme is discernible in many Chapters, including in those that deal with civil jurisdiction. It transpires that this area is one where public and private international law can especially inform each other. While this interaction is now subject to increased academic scrutiny, the same does not seem to be the case in practice. Thus, it seems important, that the HCCH pays more attention to public international law developments when pursuing its projects, especially in the sphere of the further work on the Judgments Project. Equally, such increased attention to the public realm could mean that the public realm is likely to return the favour, which is equally needed.

Moreover, the interaction between HCCH instruments and human rights treaties, such as the UNCRC and UNCRPD, was evident. With many HCCH international family law instruments concerned with child protection and the protection of other vulnerable persons, this interaction is hardly surprising. But clear interrelationships exist in other spheres as well. For example, modern work environments, which are radically shifting through remote work technology and flexible workplace, the HCCH could also work towards greater cooperation with other international organisations, such as the ILO, to assist in developing international labour standards that better protect the rights of weaker parties, including the rules on civil jurisdiction in employment cases.

Theme III: Hard and soft law instruments

A third theme that emerged was the HCCH’s willingness to adopt soft law instruments as opposed to only facilitate the negotiation of binding international agreements or HCCH Conventions. There is no better example of this than the adoption of the 2015 Choice of Law Principles, which promote party autonomy.

With party autonomy perhaps now constituting a recognised connecting factor in private international law, as is also evident with the adoption of the 2005 Choice of Court Convention underpinned by this same connecting factor, the HCCH has no doubt made an important stride to embrace the potential of soft law instruments to achieve international consensus. Following the adoption of the 2019 Judgments Convention, which was decades in the making, and only successfully negotiated after the failures of the past were recognised, rectified, and compromises made, perhaps soft law instruments could be pursued with greater energy by the HCCH. Ultimately, it will be the experience of the 2015 Choice of Law Principles that will dictate whether more soft law instruments are negotiated under the umbrella of the HCCH.

Theme IV: multilateralism

A fourth theme that emerged is perhaps more subtle: multilateralism. The Companion recalls that the founder of the HCCH, T M C Asser, conceived the first Conference in 1893 not only as a platform which develops unified rules of private international law, but also as a forum in which experts come together and develop these rules in a peaceful and professional setting. This goal has not changed, and multilateral expertise is combined to forge innovative legal solutions to the vexed challenges of a globalized world. And these solutions are adopted by consensus, the decision-making technique which lies at the very heart of the HCCH.

When dealing with the Organisation, it is important to appreciate that it decides on every aspect of its work programme and budget by reaching to the furthest extent possible consensus among its Members.[2] This consensus-based approach has been chosen not without reason. While much effort may be exerted to achieve consensus, and achieving it may take longer, consensus-based decision making ensures the maximum buy-in of the Members in the outcomes produced by the HCCH. This buy-in becomes very clear in the Organisation’s premier decision-making bodies, the Diplomatic Sessions, which adopt the HCCH’s multilateral Conventions; the Council on General Affairs and Policy (CGAP), the “engine room” which determines the Organisation’s annual work programme; and the Council of Diplomatic Representative (CDR), which takes important financial and budgetary decisions. A common saying in all bodies, but also in Working and Experts’ Groups, is: nothing is agreed, until everything is agreed; and everything is agreed by consensus.[3]

This consensus-based approach to the multilateral work of the HCCH has been highly successful for the Organisation. It ensured that the development of private international law rules remained based on expertise and enjoys significant buy-in. But the HCCH is unlikely to be immune from the challenges to building consensus as experienced by other international organisations. Therefore, it will remain important for the HCCH to constantly review and, if necessary, to adapt its consensus-based approach to decision-making. This will be paramount so that the HCCH continues Asser’s vision that a peaceful and professional forum develops multilaterally unified private international law.

Final remarks

Overall, and despite some regions not yet as connected to the HCCH as they perhaps should be, the HCCH is now a global organisation for the unification of private international law. It is the world organisation for legal cooperation. It is 127 years old and going strong. The HCCH is highly relevant and important in an increasingly internationalised world. It is no doubt an organisation with a bright future. At a time when we are witnessing a pushback against multilateralism, the HCCH is an admirable example of the value of international cooperation and how international organisations can improve the day-to-day lives of people and enhance certainty and predictability for cross-border trade and commerce.

However, as the Companion makes apparent, while much has been done, more is required. The editors hope that the Companion will be a contribution to the understanding of the HCCH and the development of the Organisation as well as of private international law.

[1] A possible connection of the non-normative work of the HCCH is not a strategic priority of the HCCH per se but is mentioned in the Context to Strategic Priority 2. See HCCH, Strategic Plan of the HCCH 2019 – 2022 (2019) 5, <https://assets.hcch.net/docs/bb7129a9-abee-46c9-ab65-7da398e51856.pdf> accessed 30 April 2020.

[2] See Statute of the HCCH, Article 8(2) and Rules of Procedure of the HCCH, Rule II.H.3, available <https://www.hcch.net/en/governance/rules-of-procedure>.

[3] The Rules of Procedure of the HCCH have rules to support voting both at meetings, i.e. at Diplomatic Sessions, CGAP and CDR, as well as by distance. See Rules of Procedure of the HCCH, Rule II.H.4 and Rule II.I.6, available <https://www.hcch.net/en/governance/rules-of-procedure>. To the Editors’ knowledge, the HCCH has never taken a decision by vote at a meeting.

The Chinese villages win a lawsuit in China to repatriate a Mummified Buddha Statue hold by a Dutch Collector

—What Role has Private International Law Played?

By Zhengxin Huo, Professor of Law, China University of Polit’l Science and Law; Associate Member of International Academy of Comparative Law; Observer of the UNESCO 1970 Convention. Email: zhengxinh@cupl.edu.cn. The author would like to thank Dr. Meng YU for valuable comments.

1. Introduction

On 4 December 2020, the Sanming Intermediate People’s Court of China’s southeastern Province of Fujian rendered a judgment ordering the Dutch defendants to return a stolen 1,000-year-old Buddhist mummy, known as the statue of Zhanggong-zushi, to its original owner: two village committees in the Province within 30 days after the verdict comes into effect. [1]

This is the first time in history that a Chinese court seized jurisdiction over a case filed by Chinese plaintiffs to repatriate a stolen cultural property illicitly exported. Once published, the judgment has aroused immediate attention both at home and abroad. Given the enormous quantity of Chinese cultural property stolen and illegally exported overseas, the potential influence of the judgment can hardly be overstated. This note focuses on the major legal issues that the Chinese judgment dealt with and attempts to analyse the role of private international law that has played.

 

2. Summary of Facts

Oscar Van Overeem, a Dutch architect, purchased a Buddhist statue for 40,000 Dutch guilders (US $20,500) in 1996 from a collector in Amsterdam who had acquired it in Hong Kong. In 1996, Van Overeem contacted a restorer to repair some chips and cracks in the exterior. When the restorer opened the bottom of the statue, he found two small pillows, and resting on the pillows, the body of a mummified monk. Initial radiocarbon testing found that the body was approximately 900-1000 years old. The statue was taken to the Meander Medical Center in Amersfoort, where a full CT scan was performed and samples taken through endoscopy. The investigative team found scraps of paper on which Chinese characters were written, placed inside the body in the cavities normally containing organs. These identified the Buddhist mummy as the mummy of a monk known as “Zhanggong-zushi”.

 

In 2014, Van Overeem loaned the statue to the Drents Museum in Assen for an exhibition, “Mummy World,” which traveled to the Hungarian Natural History Museum in the spring of 2015. Press reporting on the Hungarian exhibition alerted the Chinese villagers. Based on photographs from Hungary and archival materials in China, the Chinese villagers believe the statue is the one that have held the mummy of the village’s patriarch, Zhanggong Zushi. The statue was enshrined in the Puzhao Temple, jointly owned by the two villages named “Yunchun” and “Dongpu”, and worshiped by the local residents, for over 1,000 years until it went missing in December 1995.

 

After an unsuccessful negotiation, the Committee of Yunchun Village and the Committee Dongpu Village sued Van Overeem to demand the statue’s return both in Fujian Province of China and in Amsterdam of the Netherlands at the end of 2015,[2] fearing that a statute of limitation might bar their case. Three years later, the Amsterdam District Court made a decision on 12 December 12, 2018, [3] ending one chapter in the legal battle over the statue of Zhanggong-zushi, but failed to resolve a controversial situation or illuminate the path forward for the parties, as the Dutch court did not decide anything about the ownership of the parties.[4] It simply determined not to hear the case, based on its finding that the two village committees did not have standing to sue in the Dutch court.[5]

 

Against this background, the lawsuit before the Chinese court is more important in terms of legal analysis. According to the information released by the Sanming Intermediate People’s Court (the Court), it formally filed the case on 11 December 2015, which then served the Dutch defendants by international judicial cooperation. The Court, thereafter, held the hearings on 26 July and 12 October of 2018 respectively, and publicly pronounced the judgement on 4 December 2020.[6] Lawyers of both sides were present both at the hearings and the pronouncement of the judgement. From the perspective of private international law, the following two issues, among others, are particularly worth of concern:

 

(1) Jurisdiction: The Court exercised the jurisdiction over the dispute because the Dutch defendants did not raise an objection to its jurisdiction who responded to the action timely.[7]

(2) Application of Law: Based on the interpretation of “the lex rei sitae at the time that the legal fact occurred” in Article 37 of the Private International Law Act, the Court held that Chinese law, rather than Dutch law, shall govern the ownership of the statue.[8]

 

3. The Jurisdiction of the Chinese Court: Prorogated Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction is the first issue that the Court had to consider when it dealt with the dispute. Under the Civil Procedure Law of China (CPL), the general rule of territorial jurisdiction is that a civil action shall be brought in the People’s Court of the place in which the defendant is domiciled subject to various exceptions grouped together under the title of “special jurisdictions”.[9] As the defendants in the present case are domiciled in the Netherlands,[10] the jurisdiction of the Court depended on “special jurisdictions” among which the jurisdiction on actions on contractual disputes or disputes over property rights is most relevant.

 

In international civil litigation, many cases involve a foreign defendant not domiciled or residing within China. Given the importance of some of such cases, the CPL empowers Chinese courts the jurisdiction over actions involving contract disputes or disputes over property rights against a non-resident defendant if certain conditions are satisfied. Article 265 of the CPL prescribes the following:[11]

In the case of an action concerning a contract dispute or other disputes over property rights and interests, brought against a defendant who has no domicile within the territory of the People’s Republic of China, if the contract is signed or performed within the territory of the People’s Republic of China, or if the object of the action is located within the territory of the People’s Republic of China, or if the defendant has distrainable property within the territory of the People’s Republic of China, or if the defendant has its representative office within the territory of the People’s Republic of China, the People’s Court of the place where the contract is signed or performed, or where the object of the action is, or where the defendant’s distrainable property is located, or where the torts are committed, or where the defendant’s representative office is located, shall have jurisdiction.

 

Therefore, for actions concerning a dispute over property rights brought against a defendant who has no domicile in China, a Chinese Court may exercise jurisdiction if one of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) the property is located in China; (2) the defendant has distrainable property in China; (3) the tort was committed in China; (4)the defendant has its representative office in China.

 

In the case at hand, one can hardly argue that the Court has the jurisdiction under Article 265 of the CPL, as the statue is not located in China when the action was filed, nor did the defendants steal it or purchase it in China, nor do they have distrainable property or representative office in China. However, the Court ruled that its jurisdiction over the case was established pursuant to the prorogated jurisdiction under the CPL regime.

 

Prorogated jurisdiction under the CPL refers to situations where a party institutes proceedings in a court, and the other party implicitly acquiesces to the jurisdiction of that court by responding to the action and not raising an objection to the jurisdiction. That is to say, the defendant’s failure to object is understood as defendant’s consent to the Chinese court’s jurisdiction. Article 127 of the CPL provides as follows:[12]

Where a party raises any objection to jurisdiction after a case is accepted by a people’s court, the party shall file the objection with the people’s court during the period of submitting a written statement of defense. The people’s court shall examine the objection. If the objection is supported, the people’s court shall issue a ruling to transfer the case to the people’s court having jurisdiction; or if the objection is not supported, the people’s court shall issue a ruling to dismiss the objection. Where a party raises no objection to jurisdiction and responds to the action by submitting a written statement of defense, the people’s court accepting the action shall be deemed to have jurisdiction, unless the provisions regarding tier jurisdiction and exclusive jurisdiction are violated.

 

Since the defendant’s failure to object constitutes consent to jurisdiction, it is imperative that defendants, foreign defendants in particular, raise a timely jurisdictional objection. Under Article 127 of the CPL, if a party to a civil action objects to the jurisdiction of a People’s Court, the objection must be raised within the time period prescribed for the filing of answers. According to Articles 125 and 268, defendant shall have fifteen days, or thirty days if residing outside the territory of China, to file his answer upon receipt of plaintiff’s complaint. Thus, if a defendant wants to challenge the People’s Court’s jurisdiction, he must do so within this statutory fifteen-day or thirty-day period.[13]

 

It should be noted that the Dutch defendants in the present case did not raise objection to the jurisdiction of the Court; instead, they had responded to the lawsuit by submitting a written statement of defense represented by two Chinese lawyers, to the surprise of many observers. Hence, jurisdiction of the Court over this case was established under the prorogated jurisdiction of the CPL in an unexpected manner.

 

4. Choice of Law Issue: Lex Rei Sitae = Lex Furti?

One of the most widely accepted and significant rules of private international law today is that, in determining property rights, a court applies lex rei sitae. This rule has been accepted by Chinese private international law, though party autonomy is placed before lex rei sitae by Article 37 of the Private International Law Act. Given that it is very rare that the parties reach agreement on the applicable law after the dispute over the property has occurred, the lex rei sitae plays a de facto decisive role.

 

However, the question of application of the lex rei sitae in specific cases remains open out of diverse possible interpretations of the rule. From the perspective of comparative law, it can be found that many jurisdictions, say England, prefer to apply the law of the place of last transaction,[14] while others, say France, apply the law of place where goods are located at the time of the litigation.[15] As far as China is concerned, its courts has never clarified the meaning of the lex rei sitae in Article 37 of the Private International Law Act; therefore, the outcome of the present action was entirely dependent on the interpretation of this article.

 

The Chinese plaintiffs commenced the action for recover of the stolen statue by arguing, among other things, that they are its owners because bona fide acquisition does not apply to stolen cultural property under the Property Law of China. The Dutch defendants took the stand, claiming to have purchased the statue on good title under Dutch Civil Code. Thus, it had to be decided which of the two laws shall be used in the present case: whether Chinses law or Dutch law shall govern the ownership of the statue. The Court, by resorting to Article 37 of the Private International Law Act, held that title was to be determined by Chinese law.

 

However, the Court acknowledged that the statue was stolen and illicitly exported before the implementation of the Private International Law Act, therefore, it had to decide in the very beginning whether the Act is applicable to the present dispute. To determine the issue, the Court referred to Article 2 of the Judicial Interpretation on the the Private International Law Act issued by the Supreme People’s Court,[16] which states that:

As to a civil relationship involving foreign elements which occurred before the implementation of the Private International Law Act, People’s Court shall determine the governing law according to the choice-of-law rules effective at the time of the occurrence of such relationship. In case no choice-of-law rules existed at that time, the Private International Law Act may be resorted to in order to determine the applicable law.

 

Given the General Principles of Civil Law, the most significant and primary legislation on private international law in China before 2010, is silent on the law applicable to property right,[17] the Court decided it is proper to invoke the Private International Law Act to fill the lacunae pursuant to the above article. The Court then referred to Article 37 of the Private International Law Act of China which provides that “the parties may choose the law applicable to the real rights in movable property; in the absence of such choice, the lex rei sitae at the time when the legal fact occurred applies”.[18] As the parties in the case failed to reach agreement on the applicable law, the Court decided that the ownership of the statue shall be governed by the lex rei sitae at the time when the legal fact occurred.

 

With regard to the meaning of “the time when the legal fact occurred”, the Court stated that it pointed to the time when the statue was stolen, rather than the time when Oscar Van Overeem purchased it in Amsterdam. Summarising the conclusion, the judge stressed that the statue is a cultural property of great historic and religious significance, instead of an ordinary property. As the illicit traffic of cultural property usually creates a number of legal facts which inevitably leads to the proliferation of the lex rei sitae, including the law of the location of a cultural property had been stolen (lex furti), the law of the place of first transaction, the law of the place of last transaction, the law of the place of exhibition, the law of the location of a cultural property at the time of litigation, etc., the judge emphasised the need to spell out the lex rei sitae at the time when the legal fact occurred for the cases of recovering cultural property.

 

The Court stressed that when interpreting the lex rei sitae in a cultural property repatriation case, the object and purpose of international conventions of cultural property should be taken into consideration. It went on to highlight two conventions to which China is a contracting party: Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (“the 1970 Convention”) and Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects (“the 1995 Convention”). As both those conventions are devoting to prohibiting the illicit trafficking of cultural property and facilitating the return of cultural property to its origin nations, the Court concluded that it should interpret the lex rei sitae at the time when the legal fact occurred in the light of their object and purpose.

 

Hence, the Court decided that the lex rei sitae at the time when the legal fact occurred should be understood as the lex furti, i.e., law of the location of a cultural property had been stolen, insofar as such interpretation favours the protection of cultural heritage and facilitates the return of cultural property illicitly trafficked, whereas the place of transaction not only favours the laundering of stolen cultural property but also adds considerable uncertainty to the question of title.

 

The Court then referred to the Property Law of China under which bona fide acquisition does not apply to stolen cultural property. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Chinese village committees retain the title of the statue and demanded the defendants to return it to plaintiffs.

 

5. Concluding Remarks

Under the CPL, judicial proceedings in China occur in two instances, namely, trial and appeal. Therefore, the Dutch defendants are entitled to appeal to the Higher People’s Court of Fujian Province within 30 days. If they do not appeal within the time limit, the judgment will become effective.

 

At the present stage, it is not clear whether the defendants will comply with the judgment or appeal, or simply ignore it. Though as a Chinese, I do hope that the Dutch defendants will return the statue as ordered by the Court; nevertheless, I am afraid that ignoring the Chinese judgment may be one of their reasonable options because of serious obstacles to recognize and enforce this Chinese judgment in the Netherlands.

 

In spite of the uncertainty ahead, one cannot overestimate the significance of this judgment. First of all, as noted in the very beginning, this is the first time that a Chinese court exercises the jurisdiction over case to recover a Chinese cultural property stolen and illicitly exported. Therefore, it is a historic judgment, no matter it will be enforced or not in the future.

 

Second, the Court in the judgement clarified for the first time that “lex rei sitae at the time when the legal fact occurred” in Article 37 of the Private International Law should be interpreted in the light of the object and purpose of the 1970 Convention and the 1995 Convention, so that the lex furti, i.e., Chinese law, shall govern the ownership of cultural property lost overseas. Given the huge number of Chinese cultural property stolen and illicitly exported abroad, the author believes the impact of the judgment is tremendous.

[1] The Committee of Yunchun Village and the Committee Dongpu Village v. Oscar Van Overeem, Design & Consultancy B.V. and Design Consultancy Oscar van Overeem B.V., the Sanming Intermediate People’s Court (2015) Sanmin Chuzi No. 626, Date of judgment: 4 December 2020.

[2] China villagers launch Dutch court bid to retrieve mummy, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40606593, last visited on 8 December 2020.

[3] C/13/609408 / HA ZA 16-558, Court of Amsterdam, 12 December 2018, available at https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2018:8919, last visited on 8 December 2020.

[4] Chinese villagers disappointed about Dutch rejection of mummy Buddha repatriation case, http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-12/14/c_137672368.htm, last visited on 8 December 2020.

[5] Uncertain Future for Golden Statue Holding Buddhist Mummy, https://culturalpropertynews.org/uncertain-future-for-golden-statue-holding-buddhist-mummy/, last visited on 8 December 2020.

[6] http://fjfy.chinacourt.gov.cn/article/detail/2020/12/id/5647265.shtml, last visited on 8 December 2020.

[7] The Committee of Yunchun Village and the Committee Dongpu Village v. Oscar Van Overeem, Design & Consultancy B.V. and Design Consultancy Oscar van Overeem B.V., the Sanming Intermediate People’s Court (2015) Sanmin Chuzi No. 626, Date of judgment: 4 December 2020, p.21.

[8] Id,. at pp. 24-35.

[9] Zhengxin Huo, Private International Law (2017), pp.148-151.

[10] The defendants are Oscar Van Overeem, Design & Consultancy B.V. and Design Consultancy Oscar van Overeem B.V.

[11] Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo Minshi Susongfa [Civil Procedure Law] art. 265 (1991, revised in 2017) (PRC).

[12] Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo Minshi Susongfa [Civil Procedure Law] art. 127 (1991, revised in 2017)(PRC).

[13] Zhengxin Huo, Private International Law (2017), p.157.

[14] E.g., Winkworth v. Christie’s Ltd.[1980] 1 Ch. 496.

[15] Stroganoff-Scerbatoff v. Bensimon, 56 Rev. crit. De dr. int. privé(1967).

[16] See Zhengxin Huo, ‘Two Steps Forward, One Step Back: A Commentary on the Judicial Interpretation on the Private International Law Act of China’ (2013) 43 HKLJ 685, 710.

[17] The General Principles of Civil Law was adopted at the Fourth Session of the Sixth National People’s Congress on April 12, 1986, coming into force on January 1, 1987. It was abolished on January 1, 2021 when the Civil Code of the PRC took effect. For a quite a long period, the GPCL was the most important source of Chinese private international law. Structurally, the GPCL has devoted an entire chapter to regulating the conflict of laws (i.e., Chapter Eight, Application of Laws to Civil Matters Involving Foreign Elements), where nine conflict rules can be found.

[18] Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo Shewai Minshi Falvguanxi Shiyongfa [Act on the Application of Laws over Foreign-related Civil Relationships] art. 37 (2010) (PRC).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tamás Szabados (Eötvös Loránd University) published In Search of the Holy Grail of the Conflict of Laws of Cultural Property: Recent Trends in European Private International Law Codifications, in theInternational Journal of Cultural Property (vol. 27, 2020). The abstract reads as follows.

Most private international laws do not address cultural property specifically but, instead, apply the general lex rei sitae rule also to artifacts. Legal scholarship has revealed the flaws of the rigid application of the lex rei sitae principle to cultural goods and has proposed alternative connecting factors, such as the lex originis principle, to prevent forum and law shopping in this field. Reacting to the criticisms, some of the more recent private international law codifications have decided on the adoption of specific rules on stolen and illegally exported cultural goods that combine the lex rei sitae and the lex originis rules and provide room for the parties’ autonomy. This article draws the conclusion that these more recent legislative solutions do not necessarily promote legal certainty and predictability with regard to the governing law and are far from being a Holy Grail for the conflict of laws of cultural property, whether on a national level or within the European Union.

See here for more information.

Guest post by Franz Kaps, Attorney at law at DLA Piper, Frankfurt am Main

The resurgence of COVID-19 (Coronavirus) cases has been observed in countries around the world after COVID-19 outbreaks were successfully curbed earlier this year. To flatten the curve of the second wave of the pandemic governments again closed “non-essential businesses”, restricted travel and imposed “lockdowns” and “stay-at-home orders”. Beyond the health and human tragedy of the pandemic, it caused the most serious economic crisis since World War II, which also affected commercial contracts. In cases where the COVID-19 virus or government measures have affected commercial contracts, it is necessary to carefully analyse the state of affairs to determine the appropriate remedy.

The ICC Force Majeure Clause

Whether a force majeure clause is applicable in a particular case, and what its consequences would be, depends primarily on the wording of the clause. Courts have held that force majeure clauses are to be interpreted in a narrow sense and that performance under a contract is ordinarily excused only if the event preventing performance is explicitly mentioned in the force majeure clause. However, the state-of-the-art ICC Force Majeure Clause (Long Form) 2020 in Paragraph 3 (e) only presumes an epidemic to be a force majeure event but does not cover pandemics such as COVID-19. The difference between an epidemic and a pandemic is that an epidemic is a disease happening in a particular community. A pandemic, in contrast, is a disease that spreads over a whole country or the whole world. Due to its global spread, COVID-19 is classified as a pandemic.

In order to invoke the force majeure defence Paragraph 1 ICC Force Majeure Clause additionally requires that the party affected by the impediment proves that the following three conditions are met:

1. the impediment is beyond its reasonable control; and
2. the impediment could not reasonably have been foreseen at the time of the conclusion of the contract; and
3. the effects of the impediment could not reasonably have been avoided or overcome by the affected party.

The events enumerated in Paragraph 3 ICC Force Majeure Clause which are presumed to fulfil conditions a) and b) under Paragraph 1 ICC Force Majeure Clause do not explicitly cover pandemics. Consequently, a party claiming a force majeure defence as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic must prove all three conditions.

Whether the impact and governmental measures triggered by COVID-19 are beyond the reasonable control of the parties depends on the specifics of each case. In many cases of mandatory governmental measures it will be relatively straight-forward for a party to argue this successfully.

With regard to the second condition – the reasonable foreseeability of the COVID-19 pandemic according to Paragraph 1 (b) ICC Force Majeure Clause – the point in time when the parties have concluded their contract is crucial. In October 2019, the effects of COVID-19 were less foreseeable than in December 2019, and in any case, as of March 2020, it was at least foreseeable that the COVID-19 virus would in some way interfere with the performance of contractual obligations.

In 2020, countries adopted differentiated approaches to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. These approaches included stay-at-home orders, travel restrictions, closure of non-essential businesses and lockdowns. It is also not yet possible to foresee which government measures will be taken to ensure a flatter curve for the second COVID-19 wave in winter of 2020 and beyond. This is particularly true as countries previously known for their laid-back COVID-19 policies are currently considering changing their policies and are willing to adopt stricter measures in response to the second wave of the COVID-19 virus. Sweden, for example, which was known for its special path without restrictions, mandatory requirements to wear masks, or lockdowns, has now introduced COVID-19 restrictions to contain the spread of COVID-19 and does not rule out local lockdowns. In the US, too, it is very probable that tougher COVID-19 measures will be implemented by the government at the latest when President-elect Biden takes office in January 2021.

Besides government COVID-19 measures, it is difficult for the parties to foresee specific effects of the COVID-19 virus on global supply chains and the performance of their obligations.

With regard to the second wave or further waves of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is therefore difficult for a party to foresee the exact impact of the Covid-19 virus in the individual countries and the various measures taken by the respective governments.

The third requirement under Paragraph 1 ICC Force Majeure Clause, that the effects of the impediment could not reasonably have been avoided or overcome by the affected party, again lacks legal certainty and is subject to the specificities of the case at hand – particularly regarding the reasonable remedies available to the party to eliminate and overcome the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Only if the conditions set out above are fulfilled can a party successfully invoke the force majeure defence pursuant to Paragraph 5 ICC Force Majeure Clause and be relieved from its duty to perform its contractual obligations and from any liability in damages or from any other contractual remedy for breach of contract.

State-of-the-Art Force Majeure Clause

This legal uncertainty regarding the impact of COVID-19 under the modern ICC Force Majeure Clause as well as under other force majeure clauses requires parties to first clarify whether their clause generally covers pandemics. Secondly, in light of the second wave of COVID-19, parties should consider amending their force majeure clauses to include or exclude the novel COVID-19 pandemic as a force majeure event in order to provide legal certainty as to whether a contract must be performed and whether a damage claim for non-performance of contractual obligations exists.

When pandemics are included in a force majeure clause as a force majeure event, an affected party under Paragraph 3 ICC Force Majeure Clause needs only to prove that the effects of the impediment could not reasonably have been avoided or overcome. Parties should therefore consider reviewing and updating their clauses and contemplate including pandemics as a force majeure event. In our globalised world, the next pandemic will spread sooner or later – therefore a lege artis force majeure clause must cover pandemics as a force majeure event. Where a pandemic is included in a force majeure clause, parties should refer to an objective criterion such as a pandemic declared by the World Health Organization to define when pandemics trigger the force majeure consequences. By linking a pandemic to such an objective criterion, disputes as to whether a pandemic in the sense of the force majeure clause exists can be avoided.

Besides updating their force majeure clause parties should consider temporarily modifying their clauses in light of the current second wave of the COVID-19 virus. Parties, when amending their force majeure clause, may decide either to introduce a clause ensuring that effects and governmental measures due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic are not covered by their clause, or opt for a clause encompassing the current COVID-19 pandemic. Which option a party should select is a policy question and depends on the characteristics of the case. A party affected by the COVID-19 pandemic in the performance of its contractual obligations – because, for example, it depends heavily on international supply chains easily disrupted by the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic – should, on the one hand, ensure that the parties incorporate a force majeure clause encompassing the COVID-19 pandemic as a force majeure event. On the other hand, if the risk of non-performance of contractual obligations as a result of the COVID-19 virus is primarily in the risk sphere of the other party, a party may contemplate excluding the COVID-19 pandemic from the scope of the force majeure clause. In any case, a good starting point for future “tailor-made” force majeure clauses – which take into account the parties’ specific needs – is the balanced ICC Force Majeure Clause.

In December 2019 the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) convened experts and stakeholders from around the world to discuss technology developments in cross-border litigation in an a|Bidged event dedicated to the 1965 Service Convention.

The contributions by the various speakers to The HCCH Service Convention in the Era of Electronic and Information Technology are now available in video format online.

Additionally, the discussions of the event resulted in a dedicated publication – a|Bridged – Edition 2019: The HCCH Service Convention in the Era of Electronic and Information Technology. The ebook released on 24 November 2020 can be downloaded from the HCCH website.

The a|Bridged – Edition 2019 focuses on the use of modern technology in the context of the Service Convention. Although the text of the convention itself does not contain specific references to technology in the service of documents, contributors show that the provisions’ neutrality allow them to adjust to new developments and technologies of the present time.

The book is structured in four parts.

The first part – The Prism: The Tech Battle for e-Service – examines all kind of technology supported developments from secured e-mail, electronic submission and transmission platforms to distributed ledger technology and artificial intelligence. These options are discussed from the perspective of appropriate solutions for end-to-end digitisation of transmission and execution procedures to be used under the HCCH Service Convention.

In the second part – The Lab: All Across the World – judicial representatives from different regions (i.e. England and Wales, South Korea, Brazil) discuss how their own national service procedures currently make use of information and communication technology, or are taking steps to develop in this direction in the near future. Solutions already in place or projects that are currently been developed are presented.

The third part – The Open Lab: The Text of Tomorrow – focuses on how the Service Convention could be operating in the future based on technology developments facilitating judicial cooperation, relying on blockchain technology, and options to ‘update’ the applicable provisions.

The fourth part – HCCH Unplugged – addresses specific topics that can arise from the use of information technology in the operation of the HCCH Service Convention such as security of transmissions and data protection, guarantees in the e-service of process, use of electronic email, social media, blockchain and Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) for transmitting and handling legal records, the transmission of scanned documents via cloud computing to be served abroad, and localising the defendant via his email address for direct service purposes.

In Tate v Allianz IARD SA (A Company Incorporated Under the Laws of France) [2020] EWHC 3227 (QB) the E&W courts undoubtedly have jurisdiction on the basis of the insurance Title of BIa. Claimant is a UK national domiciled in the UK. Defendant insurer is domiciled in France. Claimant suffered injury as a pedestrian in Boulogne-sur-Mer when in 1991 he was struck by a bus belonging to a local bus company and insured by the Defendant. He sued in France in 1994.

In the event of deterioration in a claimant’s condition, French law allows a further claim, known as an ‘action en cas d’aggravation’, to be made for additional compensation. That is the claim now pending and in which defendant argues lack of jurisdiction on the basis of lis alibi pendens: the suggested ‘lis’ being the initial, 1994 and by reason of the aggravation element, ‘open’ claim as it were.

Reference by counsel is largely to Gubisch Maschinenfabrik and to The Tatry, Soole J added The Alexandros. On ‘action pending’ he holds that there is no such action. Although the notion must be an autonomous, EU one, nevertheless the impact of the French rules must have an impact. Here, at 57, the action ‘en cas d’aggravation’ is held to be free-standing and not to depend upon any prior order or permission from the court nor require any reservation of right by the claimant. Soole J holds that the French 1994 proceedings have come to an end. They are res judicata and current action is a new one.  There cannot therefore be a risk of irreconcilability, either, regardless of the double actionability rule which the English courts will apply (Rome II not applying as a result of its scope ratione temporis) and of the fact that the assessment of damages will be viewed by them as one of procedure, subject to lex fori (again, given that Rome II does not apply).

At 68 ‘same parties’ and ‘same cause of action’ are dealt with obiter.

Geert.

European Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, 2.512 ff.

 

Application for stay on the basis of lis alibi pendens Articles 29-30 Brussels Ia. Dismissed. Held: no pending action in France. Even if there is, not 'related' to the English proceedings. https://t.co/hWZcn515Mg

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) November 27, 2020

 

In preparation of the Conference on the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention on 13/14 September 2021, planned to be taking place on campus of the University of Bonn, Germany, we are offering here a Repository of contributions to the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention. Please email us if you miss something in it, we will update immediately…

We all benefited from your contributions at the Video Pre-Conference Roundtable on 29 October 2020. Our sincere thanks go to all the speakers and participants who pushed further the frontiers of our knowledge and understanding.

Update of 10 December 2020: New entries are printed bold.

Please also check the “official” Bibliograghy of the HCCH for the instrument.

 

1. Explanatory Reports

Garcimartín Alférez, Francisco;
Saumier, Geneviève „Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters: Explanatory Report“, as approved by the HCCH on 22 September 2020 (available here) Garcimartín Alférez, Francisco;
Saumier, Geneviève “Judgments Convention: Revised Draft Explanatory Report”, HCCH Prel.-Doc. No. 1 of December 2018 (available here) Nygh, Peter;
Pocar, Fausto “Report of the Special Commission”, HCCH Prel.-Doc. No. 11 of August 2000 (available here), pp 19-128

 

1. Bibliography

Balbi, Francesca “La circolazione delle decisioni a livello globale: il progetto di convenzione della Conferenza dell’Aia per il riconoscimento e l’esecuzione delle sentenze straniere” (Tesi di dottorato, Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, 2019; available: here) Beaumont, Paul “Forum non Conveniens and the EU rules on Conflicts of Jurisdiction: A Possible Global Solution”, Revue Critique de Droit International Privé 2018, pp 433-447 Beaumont, Paul R. “Judgments Convention: Application to Governments”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 121-137 Blom, Joost “The Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act and the Hague Judgments and Jurisdictions Projects”, Osgoode Hall Law Journal 55 (2018), pp 257-304 Bonomi, Andrea “European Private International Law and Third States”, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 2017, pp 184-193 Bonomi, Andrea “Courage or Caution? – A Critical Overview of the Hague Preliminary Draft on Judgments”, Yearbook of Private International Law 17 (2015/2016), pp 1-31 Bonomi, Andrea;
Mariottini, Cristina M. “(Breaking) News From The Hague: A Game Changer in International Litigation? – Roadmap to the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention”, Yearbook of Private International Law 20 (2018/2019), pp 537-567 Borges Moschen, Valesca Raizer;
Marcelino, Helder “Estado Constitutional Cooperativo e a conficaçao do direito internacional privado apontamentos sobre o ’Judgement Project’ da Conferência de Haia de Direito Internacional Privado”, Revista Argumentum 18 (2017), pp 291-319

(Cooperative Constitutional State and the Codification of Private International Law: Notes on the “Judgment Project” of the Hague Conference on Private International Law) Brand, Ronald A. “The Circulation of Judgments Under the Draft Hague Judgments Convention”, University of Pittsburgh School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 2019-02, pp 1-35 Brand, Ronald A. “Jurisdictional Developments and the New Hague Judgments Project”, “in HCCH (ed.), A Commitment to Private International Law – Essays in honour of Hans van Loon”, Cambridge 2013, pp 89-99 Brand, Ronald A. “New Challenges in Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments”, in Franco Ferrari, Diego P. Fernández Arroyo (eds.), Private International Law – Contemporary Challenges and Continuing Relevance, Cheltenham/Northampton 2019, pp 360-389 Brand, Ronald A. “Jurisdiction and Judgments Recognition at the Hague Conference: Choices Made, Treaties Completed, and the Path Ahead”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 3-17 Çaliskan, Yusuf;
Çaliskan, Zeynep “2 Temmuz 2019 Tarihli Yabanci Mahkeme Kararlarinin Taninmasi ve Tenfizine Iliskin Lahey Anlasmasinin Degerlendirilmesi”, Public and Private International Law Bulletin 40 (2020), pp 231-245

(An Evaluation of 2 July 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters) Clavel, Sandrine; Jault-Seseke, Fabienne “La convention de La Haye du 2 juillet 2019 sur la reconnaissance et l’exécution des jugements étrangers en matière civile ou commerciale: Que peut-on en attendre?”, Travaux du comité français de Droit international privé, Vol. 2018-2020, forthcoming (Version roviso ire de la communication présentée le 4 octobre 2019 available here) Clover Alcolea, Lucas “The 2005 Hague Choice of Court and the 2019 Hague Judgments Conventions versus the New York Convention – Rivals, Alternatives or Something Else?”, Mc Gill Journal of Dispute Resolution 6 (2019-2020), pp. 187-214 Coco, Sarah E. “The Value of a New Judgments Convention for U.S. Litigants”, New York University Law Review 94 (2019), pp 1210-1243 Cuniberti, Gilles “Signalling the Enforceability of the Forum’s Judgments Abroad”, Rivista di diritto internazionale private e processuale (RDIPP) 56 (2020), pp 33-54 de Araujo, Nadia; de Nardi, Marcelo;
Spitz, Lidia “A nova era dos litígios internacionais”, Valor Economico 2019 de Araujo, Nadia;
de Nardi, Marcelo;
Lopes Inez;
Polido, Fabricio „Private International Law Chronicles“, Brazilian Journal of International Law 16 (2019), pp 19-34

  de Araujo, Nadia;
de Nardi, Marcelo „Consumer Protection Under the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 67-79 de Araujo, Nadia;
de Nardi, Marcelo „22ª Sessão Diplomática da Conferência da Haia e a Convenção sobre sentenças estrangeiras: Primeiras reflexões sobre as vantagens para o Brasil da sua adoção“, Revista de la Secretaría del Tribunal Permanente de Revisión 7 No. 14 (2019), páginas 198-221

(22nd Diplomatic Session of The Hague Conference and the Convention on Foreign Judgments: First Reflections on the Advantages for Brazil of their Adoption) Dotta Salgueiro, Marcos “Article 14 of the Judgments Convention: The Essential Reaffirmation of the Non-discrimination Principle in a Globalized Twenty-First Century”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 113-120 Douglas, Michael;
Keyes, Mary;
McKibbin, Sarah;
Mortensen, Reid “The HCCH Judgments Convention in Australian Law”, Federal Law Review 47 (2019), pp 420-443 Efeçinar Süral Possible Ratification of the Hague Convention by Turkey and Its Effects to the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Public and Private International Law Bulletin 40/2 (2020), pp. 785 et seq. Fan, Jing “On the Jurisdiction over Intellectual Property in the Draft Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, Chinese Yearbook of Private International Law and Comparative Law 2018-02, pp. 313-337 Franzina, Pietro; Leandro, Antonio

  “La Convenzione dell’Aja del 2 luglio 2019 sul riconoscimento delle sentenze straniere: una prima lettura”, Quaderni di SIDIblog 6 (2019), pp 215-231, available at http://www.sidi-isil.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Quaderni-di-SIDIBlog-6-2019.pdf

(The Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition of Foreign Judgments: A First Appraisal) Fuchs, Felix “Das Haager Übereinkommen vom 2. Juli 2019 über die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer Urteile in Zivil- oder Handelssachen“, Gesellschafts- und Wirtschaftsrecht (GWR) 2019, pp 395-399 Garcimartín, Francisco “The Judgments Convention: Some Open Questions”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 19-31 Goddard, David „The Judgments Convention – The Current State of Play”, Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 29 (2019), pp 473-490 He, Qisheng “The HCCH Judgments Convention and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments pertaining to a State”, Global Law Review 3 (2020), pp 147-161 He, Qisheng “Unification and Division: Immovable Property Issues under the HCCH Judgement Convention”, Journal of International Law 1 (2020), pp 33-55 Jacobs, Holger “Der Zwischenstand zum geplanten Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen – Der vorläufige Konventionsentwurf 2016“, Zeitschrift für Internationales Privatrecht & Rechtsvergleichung (ZfRV) 2017, pp 24-30 Jang, Junhyok “The Public Policy Exception Under the New 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 97-111 Jang, Junhyok “2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”, Korea Private International Law Journal 25 (2019), pp. 437-510. Jovanovic, Marko Thou Shall (Not) Pass – Grounds for Refusal of Recognition and

Enforcement under the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention, YbPIL 21 (2019/2020), pp. 309 – 332 Jueptner, Eva “The Hague Jurisdiction Project – what options for the Hague Conference?”, Journal of Private International Law 16 (2020), pp 247-274 Kessedjian, Catherine “Comment on the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters. Is the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 a useful tool for companies who are conducting international activities?“, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (NIPR) 2020, pp 19-33 Khanderia, Saloni „The Hague judgments project: assessing its plausible benefits for the development of the Indian private international law”, Commonwealth Law Bulletin 44 (2018), pp 452-475 Khanderia, Saloni “The Hague Conference on Private International Law’s Proposed Draft Text on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments: Should South Africa Endorse it?”, Journal of African Law 63 (2019), pp 413-433 Mariottini, Cristina „Establishment of Treaty Relations under The 2019 Hague Judgments

Convention“, YbPIL 21 (2019/2020), pp. 365-380 Mariottini, Cristina “The Exclusion of Defamation and Privacy from the Scope of the Hague Draft Convention on Judgments, YbPIL 19 (2017/2018), pp 475-486. Meier, Niklaus “Notification as a Ground for Refusal”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 81-95 Nielsen, Peter Arnt “The Hague 2019 Judgments Convention – from failure to success”, Journal of Private International Law 16 (2020), pp 205-246 North, Cara “The 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention: A Common Law Perspective”, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 2020, pp 202-210 North, Cara “The Exclusion of Privacy Matters from the Judgments Convention”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 33-48 Oestreicher, Yoav “ ’We’re on a Road to Nowhere’ – Reasons for the Continuing Failure to Regulate Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, The International Lawyer 42 (2008), pp 59-86 Okorley, Solomon “The possible impact of the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters on Private International Law in Common Law West Africa”, (Master’s Dissertation, University of Johannesburg, 2019; available: here) Pasquot Polido, Fabrício B. “The Judgments Project of the Hague Conference on Private International Law: a way forward for a long-awaited solution”, in Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm, Maria Blanca Noodt Taquela (eds.), Diversity and integration in Private International Law, Edinburgh 2019, pp. 176-199 Pertegás Sender, Marta “The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention: Its Conclusion and the road ahead”, in Asian Academy of International Law (publ.), Sinergy and Security: the Keys to Sustainable Global Investment: Proceedings of the 2019 Colloquium on International Law, 2019 Hong Kong, pp 181-190 Pertegás, Marta “Brussels I Recast and the Hague Judgments Project”, in Geert Van Calster (ed.), European Private International Law at 50: Celebrating and Contemplating the 1968 Brussels Convention and its Successors, Cambridge 2018, pp 67-82 Qian, Zhenqiu “On the Common Courts Provision under the Draft Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, Wuhan University International Law Review
2019-01, pp. 59-74 Qian, Zhenqiu;
Yang, Yu “On the Interpretation and Application of the Cost of Proceedings Provision under the Hague Judgment Convention”, China Journal of Applied Jurisprudence 2020-04, pp. 96-108 Reyes, Anselmo „Implications of the 2019 Hague Convention on the Enforcement of Judgments of the Singapore International Commercial Court”, in Rolf A. Schütze, Thomas R. Klötzel, Martin Gebauer (eds.), Festschrift für Roderich C. Thümmel zum 65. Geburtstag, Berlin 2020, pp 695-709 Ribeiro-Bidaoui, João “The International Obligation of the Uniform and Autonomous Interpretation of Private Law Conventions: Consequences for Domestic Courts and International Organisations”, Netherlands International Law Review 67 (2020), pp 139 – 168 Rumenov, Ilija “Implications of the New 2019 Hague Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments on the National Legal Systems of Countries in South Eastern Europe”, EU and Comparative Law Issues and Challenges Series (ECLIC) 3 (2019), pp 385-4040 Sachs, Klaus;
Weiler, Marcus “A comparison of the recognition and enforcement of foreign decisions under the 1958 New York Convention and the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention”, in Rolf A. Schütze, Thomas R. Klötzel, Martin Gebauer (eds.), Festschrift für Roderich C. Thümmel zum 65. Geburtstag, Berlin 2020, pp 763-781 Saito, Akira “Advancing Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments: Developments of Inter-Court Diplomacy and New Hague Judgments Convention”, Kobe Law Journal 68(4), pp. 59-110 Saumier, Geneviève “Submission as a Jurisdictional Basis and the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 49-65 Schack, Haimo “Wiedergänger der Haager Konferenz für IPR: Neue Perspektiven eines weltweiten Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommens?“, Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht (ZEUP) 2014, pp 824-842 Schack, Haimo „Das neue Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen“, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 2020, pp 1-96 Senicheva, Marina “The Relevance and Problems of the Hague Convention of July 2, 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Ratification by the Russian Federation”, Advances in Law Studies 8 (2020), online (available: here) Shchukin, Andrey Igorevich “Indirect International Jurisdiction in the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments of 2019 (Part 1)”, Journal of Russian Law No. 2020-7, pp. 170-186 Shchukin, Andrey Igorevich “Indirect International Jurisdiction in the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments of 2019 (Part 2)”, Journal of Russian Law No. 2020-11, pp. 140-54 Shen, Juan “Further Discussion on the Drafts of the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters and Considerations from Chinese Perspective”, Chinese Review of International Law 2016-06, pp. 83-103 Silberman, Linda “Comparative Jurisdiction in the International Context: Will the Proposed Hague Judgments Convention be Stalled?”, DePaul Law Review 52 (2002), pp 319-349 Solomon, Dennis “Das Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen von 2019 und die internationale Anerkennungszuständigkeit“, in Rolf A. Schütze, Thomas R. Klötzel, Martin Gebauer (eds.), Festschrift für Roderich C. Thümmel zum 65. Geburtstag, Berlin 2020, pp 873-893 Spitz, Lidia „Refusal of Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments on Public Policy Grounds in the Hague Judgments Convention – A Comparison with The 1958 New York Convention“, YbPIL 21 (2019/2020), pp 333-364 Stein, Andreas „Das Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen 2019 – Was lange währt, wird endlich gut?“, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 2020, pp 197-202 Stewart, David P. „Current Developments: The Hague Conference adopts a New Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”, American Journal of International Law (AJIL) 113 (2019), pp 772-783 Sun, Xiaofei;
Wu, Qiong “Commentary and Outlook on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”, Journal of International Law 2019-01, pp. 155-164+170 Taquela, María Blanca Noodt; Abou-Nigm, Verónica Ruiz “News From The Hague: The Draft Judgments Convention and Its Relationship with Other International Instruments”, Yearbook of Private International Law 19 (2017/2018), pp 449-474 Teitz, Louise Ellen “Another Hague Judgments Convention? – Bucking the Past to Provide for the Future”, Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 29 (2019), pp 491-511 Tian, Xinyue;
Qian, Zhenqiu;
Wang, Shengzhe “The Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (Draft) and China’s Countermeasure – A Summary on the Fourth Judicial Forum of Great Powers”, Chinese Yearbook of Private International Law and Comparative Law 2018-01, pp. 377-388 van der Grinten, Paulien;
ten Kate, Noura „Editorial: The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention”, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (NIPR) 2020, pp 1-3 van Loon, Hans “Towards a global Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (NIPR) 2020, pp 4-18 van Loon, Hans “Towards a Global Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”, Collection of Papers of the Faculty of Law, Niš 82 (2019), pp 15-35 van Loon, Hans “Le Brexit et les conventions de La Haye”, Revue Critique de Droit International Privé 2019, pp 353-366 Wagner, Rolf “Ein neuer Anlauf zu einem Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen“, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 2016, pp 97-102 Wang, Quian “On Intellectual Property Right Provisions in the Draft Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, China Legal Science 2018-01, pp. 118-142 Weidong, Zhu “The Recognition and Enforcement of Commercial Judgments Between China and South Africa: Comparison and Convergence”, China Legal Science 2019-06, pp 33-57 Weller, Matthias “The HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention: New Trends in Trust Management?”, in Christoph Benicke, Stefan Huber (eds.), Festschrift für Herbert Kronke zum 70. Geburtstag, Bielefeld 2020, pp 621-632 Weller, Matthias “The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention – The Jurisdictional Filters of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, Yearbook of Private International Law 21 (2019/2020), pp 279 – 308 Weller, Matthias “Das Haager Übereinkommen zur Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer Urteile”, in: Thomas Rauscher (ed.), Europäisches Zivilprozess- und Kollisionsrecht, Munich, 5th ed., forthcoming Weller, Matthias Die Kontrolle der internationalen Zuständigkeit im Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen 2019, in Christoph Althammer/Christoph Schärtl, Festschrift für Herbert Roth, in Vorbereitung. Wilderspin, Michael;
Vysoka, Lenka “The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention through European lenses”, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (NIPR) 2020, pp 34-49 Xu, Guojian “Comment on Key Issues Concerning Hague Judgment Convention in 2019 “, Journal of Shanghai University of Political Science and Law 35 (2020), pp 1-29 Xu, Guojian “To Establish an International Legal System for Global Circulation of Court Judgments”, Wuhan University International Law Review 5 (2017), pp 100-130 Xu, Guojian “Overview of the Mechanism of Recognition and Enforcement of Judgements Established by HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, China Journal of Applied Jurisprudence No. 2020-02, pp 65-77 Yeo, Terence “The Hague Judgments Convention – A View from Singapore”, Singapore Academy of Law Journal (e-First) 3rd August 2020 (available here) Zhang, Wenliang;
Tu, Guangjian “The 1971 and 2019 Hague Judgments Conventions: Compared and Whether China Would Change Its Attitude Towards The Hague”, Journal of International Dispute Settlement (JIDS), 2020, 00, pp. 1-24 Zhao, Ning “Completing a long-awaited puzzle in the landscape of cross-border recognition and enforcement of judgments: An overview of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, Swiss Review of International and European Law (SRIEL) 30 (2020), pp 345-368

 

As readers of this blog know, the first EAPIL (Virtual) Seminar, devoted to the impact of Brexit on Private International Law, will take place tomorrow from 11 am to 1 pm (MET). For more information on the event, see here.

Registrations to the Seminar are now closed. The login details have been sent to the registered participants by e-mail this morning (if you can’t find our e-mail, please check your spam folder or get in touch with us at blog@eapil.org).

Just published in Recueil Dalloz: a “cri d’alarme” by Professors Lagarde, Gaudemet-Tallon, Kessedjian, Jault-Seseke and Pataut concerning the fate of the useful International Commission on Civil Status. Here is a translation of their call to action:

The International Commission on Civil Status in Danger[1]

POINT de Vue Recueil Dalloz issue N° 42 of 3 December 2020,  p. 2355 by Paul Lagarde, Professor emeritus Paris I University, Hélène Gaudemet-Tallon, Professor emeritus Paris II University, Catherine Kessedjian, Professor emeritus Paris II University, Fabienne Jault-Seseke, Professor at  Paris Saclay University, and Étienne Pataut, Professor at the Sorbonne Law School

Civil status issues are a crucial element of a person’s identity. Solving these issues is an essential component of the protection of the right to private and family life, and a gateway to everyone’s recognition as a person before the law. This is why many efforts are made, for instance, to promote birth registration[2]. From birth to death, the legal existence of a person is conditioned by civil status.

Recognition of civil status documents from one State to another is fundamental to ensure the continuity of personhood when people cross international borders. International cooperation is essential to allow a correct understanding and interpretation of civil status documents and facilitate their circulation (both regarding their form (instrumentum) and their content (negotium)).

This is the purpose of the International Commission on Civil Status (CIEC/ICSS), an intergovernmental organization created in the aftermath of the Second World War. The five founding States are Belgium, France, Luxembourg, The Netherlands and Switzerland. Although not operating in the spotlights, this organisation has a most respectable track record. It has enabled the adoption of thirty-four conventions and eleven recommendations on birth, name, nationality, gender change, marriage, partnership, refugees, civil status services, among others. Many of these instruments provide for cooperation of competent authorities or facilitate the understanding of civil status acts, in particular by establishing multilingual forms and allowing their electronic transmission. They have been successful and proved to be very useful. Convention No. 16 is a convincing example[3]. It binds twenty-four States, including States that are not members of the ICCS. It abolishes both legalisation and apostille requirements.

At some point, the ICCS had up to seventeen members (including States outside the EU such as Mexico and Turkey). But despite the undoubted success of the ICCS, Member States have withdrawn from the Organisation one after the other. The withdrawal by the Netherlands in 2018 and France in 2019 may deliver the final blow to the ICCS.

These withdrawals are incomprehensible.

It has been suggested that they have budgetary reasons. This seems hardly credible since the annual budgetary contribution of France to the CIEC amounted to € 33,000, whilst a further reduction to € 15,000 had already been agreed. Moreover, the ICCS has recently decided to dispense with the contribution of its members until 2025. So, this, hardly convincing, argument does not hold.

No more convincing is the idea that the European Union, because of EU regulation 2016/1191 ensuring the circulation of civil status documents in the Union (inspired by ICCS’s work), would have taken over ICCS’s mission. EU regulations do not bind third States; yet, due to migration flows, the EU Member States are often faced with questions concerning the civil status of nationals from countries in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, among others.

Moreover, by signing the Global Compact for Migration in 2019, France has committed itself to promote cooperation in the field of international migration. As the Global Compact itself reminds us, this commitment draws from actions to “Improve civil registry systems, with a particular focus on reaching unregistered persons and our nationals residing in other countries, including by providing relevant identity and civil registry documents, strengthening capacities, and investing in information and communications technology solutions, while upholding the right to privacy and protecting personal data…”.

This is precisely the role of the ICCS, currently launched in ambitious electronic communication projects on civil status documents – supported, moreover, by the European Union.  Now is the time for States (and for the European Union, which is now in a position to become itself an ICCS member) to reinvest in the ICCS – and definitely not to give up!

 

[1] For a detailed argument, see H. van Loon, Requiem or transformation? Perspectives for the CIEC / ICCS and its work, Yearbook of private international law, vol. 20 (2018/2019), p. 73-93 (this article predates France’s withdrawal).

[2] See Art 7 (1) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

[3] Convention on the issue of multilingual extracts from civil-status records, signed in Vienna, 8 September 1976. This Convention has, moreover, been reviewed and modernized by Convention No 34, signed in Strasbourg, 14 March 2014.

The author of this post is Michiel Poesen, PhD candidate at KU Leuven.

This post tells a short story about the fate of European private international law’s neutrality paradigm… Our story starts where you probably would not expect it: the 2019 Belgian company law reform.

In 2019, the Belgian legislature reformed the Company Law Code in a bid to attract more investors to Belgium. (For the record, the previous government also launched the idea of offering businesses an interesting venue for transnational litigation–the Brussels International Business Court or BIBC, which did not make it through).

One of the reform’s key elements was to make company law leaner and more flexible. Facilitating this flexibilisation, the legislature also revised the Belgian private international law provisions pertaining to company law. In sympathy with the well-known CJEU case law on the freedom of establishment in the EU, the legislature traded the seat principle for the incorporation principle as the connecting factor for the law applicable to and adjudicatory jurisdiction over companies (Articles 109–110 Code of Private International Law; Article 111 contains a list of legal questions governed by the lex societatis).

Clearly, the incorporation principle gives up on the traditional idea that the connecting factor for companies should be based on a physical element such as the presence of a company’s place of administration (see R Michaels, ‘Globalizing Savigny? The State in Savigny’s Private International Law and the Challenge from Europeanization and Globalization’ in M Stolleis & W Streeck (eds), Aktuelle Fragen zu politischer und rechtlicher Steuerung im Kontext der Globalisierung (Nomos 2007) 142).

Interestingly, the statute provides for one carve-out concerning adjudicatory jurisdiction (I should thank Professor Joeri Vananroye and Professor Stijn De Dier for bringing it to my attention). Claims relating to the personal liability of directors towards third parties can be brought in the Belgian courts if the company has its ‘main establishment’ in Belgium and has a merely formal connection the state where it is incorporated:

… the Belgian courts have jurisdiction over actions concerning the liability of directors of corporations resulting from Article 2:56, §1, of the Corporations and Associations Code towards third parties other than the corporation that arose out of acts committed in the performance of their administrative function, provided that the main establishment of the legal person is in Belgium, while the legal person is incorporated outside if the European Union [or indeed an EFTA state that ratified the Lugano II Convention] and has a merely formal connection to that state [Translation by the author, the authentic text is available in Dutch and French in the Belgian state gazette].

The main establishment ‘is determined by taking into account primarily the place of administration, as well as the centre of its business and activities, and in subsidiary order the statutory seat’ (Article 4, §3 Code of Private International Law, available in English here – although not yet reflecting the 2018 overhaul). This, in fact, is a special tort jurisdiction rule that seeks to shield Belgian residents from companies who operate in Belgium but are incorporated outside of the EU (e.g. for fiscal or organisational purposes).

The Belgian legislature enacted this provision to strike a balance between a company’s freedom to choose the forum pursuant to the incorporation principle and the protection of general interests in Belgium, such as environmental protection or the fight against tax fraud (see here, at 144–145).

Private international lawyers will be interested to know that finding the physical ‘seat’ (Sitz in classical Savignyan terms) of the tortious relationship between a director and a third party, however, was not part of the legislature’s motives. This is quite interesting. For it demonstrates how the legislature sought to balance material interests through the law of conflict of jurisdictions (see Michaels, supra, 140–141).

Hence, the legislature was not enticed by European private international law’s traditional focus on finding the legal relationship’s geographical connection (which one American realist provocatively called ‘transcendental nonsense’ long before the Belgian company law reform; FS Cohen, ‘Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach’ (1935) 35 Columbia Law Review 811).

Written by Fieke van Overbeeke[1]

 

On 1 December 2020 the Grand Chamber of the CJEU ruled in the FNV/Van Den Bosch case that the Posting of Workers Directive(PWD) is applicable to the highly mobile labour activities in the road transport sector (C-815/18). This judgment is in line with recently developed EU legislation (Directive 2020/1057), the conclusion of AG Bobek and more generally the ‘communis opinio’. This question however was far from an ‘acte clair’ or ‘acte éclairé’ and the Court’s decision provides an important piece of the puzzle in this difficult matter.

The FNV/Van Den Bosch case dates back all the way to the beginning of 2014, when the Dutch trade union FNV decided to sue the Dutch transport company Van den Bosch for not applying Dutch minimum wages to their Hungarian lorry drivers that were (temporarily) working in and from its premises in the Netherlands. One of the legal questions behind this was whether the Posting of Workers Directive is applicable to the road transport sector, for indeed if it is, the minimum wages of the Netherlands should be guaranteed if they are more favourable than the Hungarian minimum wages (and they are).

At the Court of first instance, the FNV won the case with flying colours. The Court unambiguously considered that the PWD is applicable to road transport. Textual and teleological argumentation methods tied the knot here. The most important one being the fact that Article 1(2) PWD explicitly excludes the maritime transport sector from its scope and remains completely silent regarding the other transport sectors. Therefore the PWD in itself could apply to the road transport sector and thus applies to the case at hand.

Transport company Van Den Bosch appealed and won. The Court of Appeal diametrically opposed its colleague of first instance, favouring merely the principles of the internal market. The Court of Appeal ruled that it would not be in line with the purpose of the PWD to be applied to the case at hand.

The FNV then took the case to the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad), at which both parties stressed the importance of asking preliminary question to the CJEU in this matter. The Supreme Court agreed and asked i.a. whether the PWD applies to road transport and if so, under which specific circumstances.

The CJEU now cuts this Gordian knot in favour of the application of the PWD to the road transport sector. Just as the Court in first instance in the Netherlands, the CJEU employs textual and teleological argumentation methods and highlights the explicit exception of Article 1(2) PWD, meaning that the PWD in itself could apply to road transport.

As regards to the specific circumstances to which the PWD applies, the CJEU sees merit in the principle of the ‘sufficient connection’ (compare CJEU 19 December 2018, C-16/18 Dobersberger, paragraph 31) and rules:

‘A worker cannot, in the light of PWD, be considered to be posted to the territory of a Member State unless the performance of his or her work has a sufficient connection with that territory, which presupposes that an overall assessment of all the factors that characterise the activity of the worker concerned is carried out.’

So in order to apply the PWD to a specific case, there has to be a sufficient connection between worker and temporary working country. In order to carry out this assessment, the CJEU identifies several ‘relevant factors’, such as the characteristics of the provision of services, the nature of the working activities, the degree of connection between working activities of a lorry driver and the territory of each member state and the proportion of the activities compared to the entire service provision in question. Regarding the latter factor, operations involving loading or unloading goods, maintenance or cleaning of the lorries are relevant (provided that they are actually carried out by the driver concerned, not by third parties).

The CJEU also clarifies that the mere fact that a lorry driver, who is posted to work temporarily in and from a Member State, receives their instructions there and starts and finishes the job there is ‘not sufficient in itself to consider that that driver is “posted” to that territory, provided that the performance of that driver’s work does not have a sufficient connection with that territory on the basis of other factors.’

Finally, it is important to note that the Court provides a helping hand regarding three of the four main types of transport operations, namely transit operations, bilateral operations and cabotage operations. A transit operation is defined by the Court as a situation in which ‘a driver who, in the course of goods transport by road, merely transits through the territory of a Member State’. To give an example: a Polish truck driver crosses Germany to deliver goods in the Netherlands. The activities in Germany are regarded as a ‘transit operation’. A bilateral operation is defined as a situation in which ‘a driver carrying out only cross-border transport operations from the Member State where the transport undertaking is established to the territory of another Member State or vice versa’. To give another example, a Polish truck driver delivers goods in Germany and vice versa. The drivers in those operations cannot be regarded as ‘posted’ in the sense of the PWD, given the lack of a sufficient connection.

By referring to Article 2(3) and (6) of Regulation No 1072/2009, a cabotage operation is defined by the CJEU as ‘as national carriage for hire or reward carried out on a temporary basis in a host Member State, in conformity with that regulation, a host Member State being the Member State in which a haulier operates other than the haulier’s Member State of establishment’. For example, a Polish lorry driver carries out transport between two venues within Germany. According to the CJEU, these operations do constitute a sufficient connection and thus will the PWD in principle apply to these operations.

In short, the CJEU gives a green light for transit- and bilateral operations and a red light for cabotage operations. The CJEU however remains silent regarding the fourth important road transport operation: cross-trade operations. A cross-trade operationis a situation in which a lorry driver from country A, provides transport between countries B and C. The sufficient connection within these operations should therefore be assessed only on a case-by-case basis.

At large, the judgment of the CJEU is in line with the road transport legislation that has been adopted recently (Directive 2020/1057). This legislation takes the applicability of the PWD to road transport as a starting point and then provides specific conflict rules to which transport operations the PWD does and does not apply. Just like the judgement of the CJEU, this legislation determines that the PWD is not applicable to transit- and bilateral operations, whereas the PWD is applicable to cabotage operations. Cross-trade operations did not get a specific conflicts rule and therefore the application of the PWD has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, to which the various identified factors by the Court could help.

All in all, the Gordian knot is cut, yet the assessment of the applicability of the PWD to a specific case will raise considerable difficulties, given de wide margin that has been left open and the rather vague relevant factors that the CJEU has identified. Hard and fast rules however seem to be impossible to impose to the highly mobile and volatile labour activities in the sector, and in that regard the CJEU’s choice of a case by case analysis of a sufficient connection seems to be the lesser of two evils.

***

[1] Fieke van Overbeeke, Legal Counsel at the International Institute for International and Foreign Law – the Netherlands and research fellow at the University of Antwerp – Belgium. On 13 December 2018 successfully defended her PhD on the topic of the applicability of the Posting of Workers Directive to the road transport sector. The PhD (in Dutch) is fully available online. Disclaimer: Fieke van Overbeeke has been a  legal expert on the side of the FNV during the trials in the Netherlands and at the CJEU.

The Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice delivered yesterday (8 December 2020) its judgment in case C‑626/18 (Republic of Poland v European Parliament), which is about the posting of workers, including in relation to Rome I.

Background: “By its application, the Republic of Poland asks the Court, principally, to annul Article 1(2)(a) and (2)(b) and Article 3(3) of Directive (EU) 2018/957 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 June 2018 amending Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services […] (‘the contested directive’), and, in the alternative, to annul that directive in its entirety”.

Relevant part of the case: “the Republic of Poland refers to Article 9 of the ‘Rome I’ Regulation and considers that the contested directive does not constitute a lex specialis, within the meaning of Article 23 of that regulation.

131 On that point, it must be observed that Article 8(1) of the ‘Rome I’ Regulation establishes a general conflict-of-law rule that is applicable to employment contracts, the designated law being the law chosen by the parties to such a contract, and that Article 8(2) of that regulation provides that, where such a choice has not been made, the individual employment contract is to be governed by the law of the country in which or, failing that, from which the employee habitually carries out his or her work, that country not being deemed to have changed if the employee is temporarily employed in another country.

132 However, Article 23 of the ‘Rome I’ Regulation provides for the possibility of derogation from the conflict-of-law rules established by that regulation, where provisions of EU law lay down rules on the law applicable to contractual obligations in certain areas, while recital 40 of that regulation states that the ‘Rome I’ Regulation does not exclude the possibility of inclusion of conflict-of-law rules relating to contractual obligations in provisions of EU law with regard to particular matters.

133 Given both their nature and their content, both Article 3(1) of the amended Directive 96/71, with respect to posted workers, and Article 3(1a) of that directive, with respect to workers who are posted for a period that, in general, exceeds 12 months, constitute special conflict-of-law rules, within the meaning of Article 23 of the ‘Rome I’ Regulation.

134 Further, the drafting process of the ‘Rome I’ Regulation demonstrates that Article 23 of that regulation covers the special conflict-of-law rule previously laid down in Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71, since, in the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (COM(2005) 650 final) of 15 December 2005, the Commission had annexed a list of special conflict-of-law rules established by other provisions of EU law, which mentions that directive.

135 Last, while the Republic of Poland considers that Article 3(1a) of the amended Directive 96/71 does not comply with Article 9 of the ‘Rome I’ Regulation, suffice it to state that the latter article, which must be interpreted strictly, refers to ‘overriding mandatory provisions of the law’ of the Member States, namely mandatory provisions respect for which is regarded as crucial by a country for safeguarding its public interests (judgment of 18 October 2016, Nikiforidis, C‑135/15, EU:C:2016:774, paragraph 41 and 44). There is nothing in the documents submitted to the Court to indicate that Article 3(1a) of the amended Directive 96/71 is contrary to such overriding mandatory provisions of law”.

Source: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=235183&mode=req&pageIndex=1&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&cid=17610010

Guest Post by John Coyle, the Reef C. Ivey II Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of North Carolina School of Law

One tried-and-true way of obtaining personal jurisdiction over a foreign person that otherwise lacks minimum contacts with a particular U.S. state is to require the person to agree ex ante to a forum selection clause.  This strategy only works, however, if the forum selection clause will be enforced by the courts in the chosen state.  To date, scholars have written extensively about the enforceability of “outbound” forum selection clauses that redirect litigation from one court to another.  They have devoted comparatively less attention to the enforceability of “inbound” forum selection clauses that purport to provide a basis for the chosen court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant.

 

In a recent paper, Katherine Richardson and I seek to remedy this deficit.  We reviewed 371 published and unpublished cases from the United States where a state court was asked to assert personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant on the basis of an “inbound” consent-to-jurisdiction clause.  In conducting this review, we documented the existence of several different enforcement frameworks across states.  The state courts in New York, for example, take a very different approach to determining whether such a clause is enforceable than the state courts in Florida, which in turn take a very different approach to this question than the state courts in Utah.

 

These differences in enforcement frameworks notwithstanding, we found that consent-to-jurisdiction clauses are routinely given effect.  Indeed, our data suggest that such clauses are enforced by state courts approximately 85% of the time.  When the courts refuse to enforce these clauses, moreover, they tend to cite just a handful of predictable reasons.  First, the courts may refuse to enforce when the clause fails to provide proper notice to the defendant of the chosen forum.  Second, the courts may conclude that the clause should not be given effect because the parties lack a connection to the chosen forum or that litigating in that forum would be seriously inconvenient.  Third, a clause may go unenforced because it is contrary to the public policy of a state with a close connection to the parties and the dispute.

 

After mapping the relevant terrain, we then proceed to make several proposals for reform.  We argue that the courts should generally decline to enforce consent-to-jurisdiction clauses when they are written into contracts of adhesion and deployed against unsophisticated counterparties.  We further argue that the courts should decline to enforce such clauses in cases where the defendant was never given notice as to where, exactly, he was consenting to jurisdiction.  Finally, we argue that the courts should retain the flexibility to decide whether to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens even when a forum selection clause specifically names the jurisdiction where the litigation is brought.  Each of these reforms would, in our view, produce fairer and more equitable results across a wide range of cases.

 

Although our research focused primarily on state courts, our reform proposals are relevant to federal practice as well.  Federal courts sitting in diversity are required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(1)(a) to follow the law of the state in which they sit when they are called upon to determine whether to enforce a consent-to-jurisdiction clause.  If a given state were to revise or reform its rules on this topic along the lines set forth above, the federal courts sitting in that state would be obliged to follow suit.

The post below was written by Peter Mankowski, who is Professor of Private International Law at the University of Hamburg. Apart from one section, the post is based on the author’s German-language case note in the Lindenmaier Möhring Kommentierte BGH-Rechtspechung. The translation into English was permitted courtesy of C.H. Beck Verlag, München.

This is the fourth contribution to the EAPIL online symposium on the ruling of the Court of Justice in the case of Wikingerhof v. Booking.com. The previous posts, authored by Matthias Lehmann, Adrian Briggs and Gilles Cuniberti, can be found here, here and here. 

Readers are encouraged to share their views by making comments to the posts. Those wishing to submit longer contributions for publication are invited to get in touch with the managing editor of the blog, Pietro Franzina, at pietro.franzina@unicatt.it.

Problem Description

The boundary between contract and tort, between Article 7 pts. (1) and (2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, has been a mine-field for years.

The CJEU has continued to defer it to the detriment of tort and to the benefit of contract (see paradigmatically Brogsitter, paras 24-27, and flightright, paras 59-64; cf. also Holterman Ferho, paras. 70-71, and Feniks, paras 40-49). This generates enormous uncertainty (see only Baumert, EWiR 2014, 435; Slonina, ecolex 2014, 790; Wendenburg/Maximilian Schneider, NJW 2014, 1633; Dornis, GPR 2014, 352; Brosch, ÖJZ 2015, 958; Wendelstein, ZEuP 2015, 624; Reydellet, RLDA 111 [2016], 33; Pfeiffer, IPRax 2016, 111).

According to the CJEU, for a matter to be contractual, it is sufficient that there has been a breach of contractual obligations because it appears essential for the interpretation of the contract to determine whether the conduct at issue in the main proceedings is lawful or unlawful (Brogsitter, paras 24-27).

The national courts struggle with this and in some cases even make express ‘Brogsitter reservations’ (see in particular OGH ÖJZ 2015, 1051 with note Brenn; discussed by Mankowski, EuZA 2016, 368). By submitting its reference, the German Bundesgerichtshof (GRUR 2019, 320 — booking.com) sought certainty and a general decision from the CJEU on how far the CJEU intends to stick to Brogsitter (Mankowski, EWiR 2019, 157, 158). The CJEU has acknowledged and recognised that the concrete reference for a preliminary ruling in Wikingerhof is important in terms of legal policy, as is clearly evidenced by the fact that the Grand Chamber with the President and Vice-President of the CJEU decides, the fullest brass possible below the full plenum (the latter being reserved for rather constitutional matters).

Legal Assessment

Article 7 pt. (2) Brussels I bis Regulation refers to any action seeking to establish liability for damage on the part of the defendant and which does not relate to ‘matters relating to a contract’ within the meaning of Article 7 pt. (1) (Kalfelis, para. 18; Löber, para 19). An autonomous interpretation is required for both ‘contract’ and ‘tort’, which is more abstract from national understandings (paras 30 et seq.).

Both Article 7 pts. (1) and 2 are exceptions to the general jurisdiction of Article 4 Brussels I bis Regulation and are therefore to be interpreted strictly. According to Recital (16) of the Regulation, they are both justified from the point of view of particular proximity to the facts and evidence. An action therefore has as its object ‘matters relating to a contract’ within the meaning of Article 7 pt. (1) if an interpretation of the contract between the applicant and the defendant appears indispensable in order to determine whether the conduct alleged by the applicant against the defendant is lawful or, on the contrary, unlawful (Brogsitter, para. 25).

This is the case, inter alia, of an action based on the provisions of a contract or on legislation applicable under that contract (Holterman Ferho, para. 53, and Kareda, paras 30-33). On the other hand, where an applicant relies on the rules on liability in tort, delict or quasi-delict, that is to say, a breach of a legal obligation, and it does not appear necessary to examine the content of the contract concluded with the defendant in order to assess whether the conduct alleged against the defendant is lawful or unlawful, since that obligation on the defendant exists independently of that contract, an tort falls within the scope of the action within the meaning of Article 7 pt. (2).

In the present case, Wikingerhof relies on an infringement of German antitrust law, which generally prohibits the abuse of a dominant position irrespective of a contract or other voluntary commitment. More specifically, because of Booking.com’s strong position on the relevant market, Wikingerhof had no choice but to conclude the agreement at issue and to be subject to the effects of the subsequent amendments to Booking.com’s General Sales Conditions, even though some of Booking.com’s conduct was unfair.

The central legal question is therefore whether Booking.com has abused a dominant position for the purposes of antitrust law. In order to determine whether the practices alleged against Booking.com are lawful or unlawful under that competition law, it is not essential to interpret the contract between the parties to the main proceedings, since such an interpretation is, at most, necessary in order to establish the existence of those practices (para. 35).

It follows that, subject to verification by the referring court, the action brought by Wikingerhof, in so far as it is based on the statutory obligation not to abuse a dominant position, must be regarded as constituting a tort.

That is consistent with the objectives of proximity and the sound administration of justice pursued by the Brussels I bis Regulation. The court having jurisdiction under Article 7 pt. (2) — in cartel cases, that of the market affected by the alleged anti-competitive conduct — is best placed to rule on the main question of the merits of that allegation, in particular with regard to the collection and assessment of the relevant evidence (para 37 with reference to Tibor-Trans,  para. 34, and VKI v Volkswagen, para. 38).

Contract vs Tort in European International Procedural Law and Conflict of Laws

The CJEU is trying to engineer a cautious move away from Brogsitter without formally abandoning Brogsitter, and indeed by repeating the central statement from Brogsitter. In any event, for antitrust cases Brogsitter should not pass through.

In a very important situation, the CJEU restores its right to jurisdiction in tort. However, the gain in legal certainty is not as great as if a more general statement had been made. This is because the restriction to a specific situation still leaves the initial question open to all other situations. It may even induce the national courts to make even more complicated attempts to reveal, by comparison parallels or divergences with antitrust law for the situations to be assessed by each of them. AG Saugmandsgaard Øe had launched nothing less than a frontal full-force attack on Brogsitter or at least on a ‘maximalist’ reading of Brogsitter (Opinion of 10 September 2020, paras. 74-115).

Yet the CJEU has not endorsed this and has not distanced itself from Brogsitter at the general level. Wikingerhof does not overrule Brogsitter. It does not finally break with Brogsitter (Matthias Lehmann, Wikingerhof: CJEU Reestablishes Equilibrium between Contract and Tort Jurisdiction). It even cites with seeming approval to the Brogsitter formula – yet eventually opts for partially breaking free from that formula, namely for claims based in antitrust law. On the other hand, Wikingerhof does not firmly shut the door to future deviations from Brogsitter in other fields or in general.

In the age of private enforcement in particular, antitrust law is not a good ground for — as the CJEU is now trying to do — dissolving contract law in particular, but not in general.

Civil actions in the field of antitrust, especially since actions for damages or injunctions to use certain General Terms and Conditions will often come from suppliers or customers of the cartel participants or of the dominant enterprise. They therefore operate in the context of contractual relations. The cartel and abuse of power will be reflected in an arrangement of the contractual terms (service, consideration or conditions) favourable to the cartel or dominant undertaking. Antitrust induced nullity of the contract leads to more than one stage. The cartel or abuse of power becomes the background to the contract in question, and vice versa, it becomes almost a preliminary question of the cartel effect or abuse of power. It is therefore precisely in the case of cartels or abuse of power that contracts are the rule, not the exception (see to a similar avail Briggs, Wikingerhof: A View from Oxford).

However: Preliminary questions do not determine the classification of the main question. Nor do they do so with regard to the distinction between the contract and the tort for the main issue. There is no specific qualification for the main question (Pfeiffer, IPRax 2016, 111).

The CJEU’s departure from Brogsitter in antitrust law and the establishment of a tort/delict qualification could possibly give rise to an argumentum a maiore ad minus (tentatively in a similar direction the comment of Simon Horn to Matthias Lehmann’s post on this blog). If one is already moving in antitrust law with its relative proximity to the contract in tort law, it is necessary to move even more safely into tort law in the case of torts less close to the contractual realm.

However, this would be an attempt to assess parallels to, or divergences from, antitrust law by comparing them. Wikingerhof may indicate a reversal of the trend. The previously seemingly unstoppable rise of contract at the expense of tort/delict does not progress any further at least. However, a full reversal of the trend has not yet been completed, but rather requires further probation samples. But Wikingerhof might be some beginning. That tort regains some ground at the expense of contract is not akin to a catastrophe (but cf. Briggs, Wikingerhof: A View from Oxford), but a necessary correction of the previous over-stretching of ‘contract’ by Brogsitter.

If different, but concurring claims in contract and tort happen to exist, the best way to treat them might possibly be the introduction of annex competences rather than re-characterisation or deferring boundaries by characterisation.

Yet this enters another difficult field of striking balances of competing interests right (Mankowski, in: Ulrich Magnus/Mankowski, Brussels I-bis Regulation [2016] Art. 7 notes 34-35). Re-characterizing certain claims in tort as claims in contract if they can be said to be based on a breach of contractual obligations – in essence what Brogsitter boils down to –, and the result that two claims in contract compete would be not more than a bypassing escape strategy (Baumert, EWiR 2014, 435, 436; Kiener/Neumayr, ZFR 2015, 505, 506-507; Mankowski, in: Ulrich Magnus/Mankowski, Brussels I-bis Regulation [2016] Art. 7 note 35).

The CJEU’s Missing Look at the Conflict of Laws

Unfortunately, the CJEU in Wikingerhof completely fails to look at the sister area of conflict of laws as well. The mere existence of Article 6(3) Rome II Regulation and the clear attribution of private antitrust law to the unlawful acts in the realm of conflict of laws have provided very strong arguments for classifying private law specifically in tort/delict.

In that realm, Recitals (7) of the Rome I and Rome II Regulations require that the Brussels I bis Regulation be interpreted as well. Unfortunately, there is no parallel Recital in the Brussels I bis Regulation. At the occasion of the next recast, a future Brussels I ter Regulation should receive such a Recital in order to draw the current missing third line to the interpretation triangle with Rome I and Rome II and make the triangle so obvious that it can no longer be ignored by the CJEU.

Does an Overarching Notion of ‘Contract’ Exist under the Brussels I bis Regulation?

A major part of the discussion subsequent to Wikingerhof, in particular on Conflictoflaws.net, has focused on whether ‘contract’ has the same meaning throughout the entire Brussels I-bis Regulation, i.e. in essence, whether Wikingerhof gets also relevant for insurance, consumer or employment contracts; opinions are divided (see Lutzi, Briggs, Van Calster, Poesen, Álvarez-Armas ).

Undeniably, there is a certain tendency particularly in Králová, paras. 58-63, pointing towards the CJEU tentatively favouring different notions of ‘contract’ for the purposes of Article 7 pt. (1) Brussels I bis Regulation, on the one hand, and Article 17 of the same Regulation, on the other (a then isolated predecessor might be found in Ilsinger, paras 56-57). AG Saugmandsgaard Øe expressed such tendency even more clearly in Wikingerhof (Opinion of 10 September 2020, para. 113).

Furthermore, Brogsitter has some counterparts extending the domain of consumer contracts to claims which under national law might have their fundament in tort (see in particular BGH NJW 2011, 532; BGH NJW 2011, 2809; BGH IPRax 2013, 168, 171; BGH WM 2012, 646; BGH ZIP 2013, 93). Reliantco, decided after Králová, is the current highwater mark (see paras. 58-73). In the background informing Article 17(1) in general, the desire for adequate consumer protection – mandated by Art. 153 TFEU – is a strong and specific influence. Yet ‘contract’ should follow the same concept throughout which is essentially based on economic ideas and categories of voluntary or involuntary creditorship plus cooperating mechanisms and the meeting of the minds (in detail Mankowski, ‘Ein eigener Vertragsbegriff für das europäische Internationale Verbraucherprozessrecht?’, GPR 2021 sub III). ‘Consumer contract’ adds the B2C element to ‘contract’, but is nevertheless based on ‘contract’ (in detail Mankowski, ‘Ein eigener Vertragsbegriff für das europäische Internationale Verbraucherprozessrecht?’, GPR 2021 sub IV).

‘Hotels Can Sue in Germany’: Marketplace Court for Cartel Victims and Danger of Derogation

Broken down from the high and abstract plane to the small change: The poster titles on Wikingerhof in the relevant internet publications have the tenor ‘Hotels can sue in Germany’ (in particular LTO, 24 November 2020; Hamburger Abendblatt, 25 November 2020).

In fact, under Article 7 pt. (2) Brussels I bis Regulation, the Court of Justice of the European Union establishes a market jurisdiction for the victims of the cartel. However, there is no reason why it should apply only to certain sectors, or even only to hotels, and not to all sectors, as Article 7 pt. (2) does not differentiate anywhere according to bananas, nor does Article 6(3) Rome II Regulation in the conflict of laws.

However, the counter-reaction seems obvious for cartels and dominant companies if it has not been implemented proactively for a long time: in its own general terms and conditions for contracts with suppliers or customers, by means of a jurisdiction clause, the courts have exclusive jurisdiction in their own place of residence. This is because Article 7 pt. (2) Brussels I bis Regulation creates only a ground of special jurisdiction and not a ground of exclusive jurisdiction which would bar any derogation. Article 7 pt. (2) gives way to Art. 25 Brussels I bis Regulation, and the Brussels I bis Regulation does not provide protection against derogating choice of court agreements (on antitrust claims and jurisdiction agreements under Article 25 Brussels I bis Regulation / Article 23 Brussels I Regulation, see Cartel Damages Claims, and Apple Sales International; see also Mankowski, EWiR 2015, 687; id., TBH 2020, 45; Stammwitz, Internationale Zuständigkeit bei grenzüberschreitenden Kartelldelikten [2018] pp. 391-437; Pfeiffer, LMK 2018, 412366; C. Krüger/Seegers, WuW 2019, 170; Goffinet/R. Spangenberg, J. dr. eur. 2019, 199).

However, this is not yet the final step in the assessment. The market power of internet portals in particular is a well-known phenomenon and a significant problem. In turn, it has provoked a specific counter-reaction by the European legislator. This counter-reaction is the P2B Regulation, i.e. Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services.

That said, the P2B Regulation only grants protection to business users by means of (unsystematic) individual standards (Nadine Schneider/Kremer, WRP 2020, 1128, 1129; Stefan Ernst, CR 2020, 735, 739), but not comprehensive. It requires transparency and mandatory content in general terms and conditions. On the other hand, it refers only exceptionally to orders for annulment in respect of general terms and conditions, in particular in Article 3(3) P2B Regulation. In particular, it does not lose any word on choice-of-court agreements. This fits with the general line that recent EU special acts for the online sector – e.g. the Geo-Blocking Regulation in its Article 1(6) – in principle respect the Brussels I bis Regulation (see e.g. Recital (9) P2B Regulation).

It is true that the P2B Regulation favours mediation as the preferred method of dispute resolution. However, Art. 12 (5) P2B Regulation expressly states that the P2B Regulation does not affect the enforcement of rights by way of court action. The Brussels I bis Regulation protects its species, namely Articles 15, 19 and 23. However, only typically weaker parties with derogation bans, but not business users within the meaning of the P2B Regulation and small enterprises such as the Wikingerhof Hotel.

The market-based jurisdiction under Article 7 pt. (2) Brussels I bis Regulation, which has now been confirmed by the Court of Justice of the European Union, thus enables cartel victims against foreign internet portals to form a forum actoris, a forum actoris at their own domicile, but is subject to a derogation. In the broad legal policy perspective, de regulatione ferenda it can be considered to include special protection standards for SMEs (small and medium-sized enterprises) in a future Brussels I ter Regulation, i.e. to treat C2SME contracts as a separate category.

This is, however, a new round of the game, to be played in the future, and would in any event be the subject of a major debate which will certainly feature fiercely competing lobbying interests, with an uncertain outcome as to the final result.

The post below, written by Gilles Cuniberti, a professor of Private International Law at the University of Luxembourg, and an editor of this blog, is the third contribution to the EAPIL online symposium on the ruling of the Court of Justice in Wikingerhof v. Booking. The previous posts, authored by Matthias Lehmann and Adrian Briggs, can be found here and here.

Other contributions will follow, the next one being scheduled for later today. Readers are encouraged to share their views by making comments to the posts. Those wishing to submit longer contributions for publication are invited to get in touch with the managing editor of the blog, Pietro Franzina, at pietro.franzina@unicatt.it.

One of the novelties of Wikingerhof is the introduction of a new requirement for the application of the special jurisdictional rules laid down by Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1215/2012: the claimant’s choice to rely on one of those rules.

29 It must therefore be held that the applicability of either point 1 of Article 7 of Regulation No 1215/2012 or point 2 of Article 7 thereof depends, first, on the applicant’s choice whether or not to rely on one of those rules of special jurisdiction and, second, on the examination, by the court hearing the action, of the specific conditions laid down by those provisions.

This is because, the court explains, the scheme of Regulation No 1215/2012 ‘is characterised by the possibility which it confers on the applicant of relying on one of the rules of special jurisdiction laid down by that regulation’ (para. 27).

The purpose of this post is to explore the implications of this requirement.

Which Choice?

If the claimant is offered the possibility to choose, one would think that this is because he has an option. In the context of Article 7, this would seems to mean that courts having jurisdiction on the basis of Article 7(1) and courts having jurisdiction on the basis of Article 7(2) are simultaneously available.

This, however, is hard to conceive.

First, the court held that the rules on special jurisdiction laid down in  Article 7 of the Brussels I bis Reguation “are mutually exclusive in the application of that regulation” (para. 26). This seems to mean that the special rules in Article 7 cannot be applicable at the same time. If one rule is applicable, the application of the other is excluded.

Secondly, the second applicability requirement of the rules in Art 7(1) and (2) is that “the specific conditions lay down by these provisions” are ascertained by the relevant court. The conditions for each of the provisions turn around a single test, which is whether it is indispensable to examine the content of the contract in order to assess the lawfulness of the conduct of the defendant. If it is, Article 7(1) applies, and Article 7(2) does not. If it is not, Article 7(2) applies, and Art 7(1) does not.

So there is no option. The conditions of Article 7(1) or Art 7(2) cannot be met at the same time. Only one of these rules applies (at best).

So what does it mean that the claimant can choose to rely on one or the other?

Whose Choice?

What it could mean is that the claimant could choose an Article 7(1) forum over an Article 7(2) forum irrespective of the respective conditions of application of each of the provisions. In other words, the claimant could derogate from the conditions of applicability and choose one forum which would not have jurisdiction under Article 7.

This interpretation would be surprising, for a number of reasons.

First, as already underscored, the Wikingerhof court held that the second applicability requirement condition is that the court verifies that the conditions for the relevant jurisdictional rule are met. This suggests that it should not retain jurisdiction if these conditions are not met.

Second, while the parties may derogate from jurisdictional rules, this is only possible if both parties agree, whether expressly (choice of court agreement) or implicitly (submission to jurisdiction). There is no reason to favour the claimant in this respect. The Wikingerhof court explained that it is somehow relevant that Wikingerhof chose to rely on (national) tort rules. But why wouldn’t it be relevant that the defendant would choose to rely on (national) contractual defences? It does not seem that Booking did exactly that in that case, but not far: it relied on a choice of court agreement.

Conclusion: Second Order Characterisation

Finally, it is not quite clear why, after insisting that the concepts of ‘matters relating to a contract’ and ‘matters relating to tort’ should receive an autonomous interpretation, and repeating the European definitions of these concepts, the Wikingerhof court found it useful to underscore on which ground of national law the claimant would be seeking to establish liability.

Why should it matter if the conditions to meet are defined at European level? And how could it matter? Would this mean that Article 7(2) would only be available if the substantive claim was delictual in nature under the applicable national law? But, as far as substantive law is concerned, there is no freedom of choice between tort and contractual liability in all legal systems. In France and Luxembourg, there is no choice: contractual liability prevails and excludes tort liability when a given claim could fall within the scope of both kinds of liability.

Ultimately, one wonders whether the possibility of second order characterization was well perceived by the court. As the readers of this blog will know, it is common, and perfectly fine, to make one characterization for private international law purposes, and another for the purpose of applying substantive rules. In the context of the Brussels I bis Regulation, it is equally fine to characterize the claim for jurisdictional purposes pursuant to European concepts, and then to characterize the same claim differently for the purpose of applicable substantive rules.