Droit international général

Hot on the heels of yesterday’s post on e-collars, a short note on yet another trade and animal welfare /biodiversity case. In [2019] EWHC 2951 (Admin) Friends of Antique Cultural Treasures v Secretary of State for the environment, food and rural affairs, Justice Jay (‘Jay J’ even though correct might sound a bit too intimate) upheld the UK’s planned ban on ivory trade, stricter than anything in place elsewhere. As a general rule, the Act interdicts the sale of antique worked ivory, that is to say pre-1947 artefacts, unless one of limited exemptions is applicable.

The discussion engages CITES, pre-emption /exhaustion by harmonised EU law, the environmental guarantee of Article 193 TFEU (albeit not, oddly, the issue of notification to the EC), Article 34 TFEU, and A1P1 ECHR.

On uncertainty, Justice Jay refers to the precautionary principle: at 155: ‘we are in the realm of scientific and evidentiary uncertainty, and the need for a high level of protection. §3.1 of the Commission’s 2017 Guidance makes that explicit. Although the evidence bearing on the issues of indirect causation and demand in Far Eastern markets may be uncertain, statistically questionable, impressionistic and often anecdotal, I consider that these factors do not preclude the taking of bold and robust action in the light of the precautionary principle.’

Rosalind English has analysis here and refers even to Edmund de Waal’s novel The Hare with the Amber Eyes which has been on my reading list after my wife recommended it – this is a good reminder.

Geert.

EU environmental law (with Leonie Reins), Edward Elgar, 2018, p.28 ff., and Chapter 17 (p.308 ff).

I tweeted the judgment the day it was issued, apologies for late succinct review. I wrote a few years back on the legality of use restrictions on goods lawfully marketed in other Member States, and see also my brief review of Amsterdam’s booze bikes here. In [2019] EWHC 2813 (Admin) The Electronic Collar Manufacturers Association v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Morris J upheld the UK Government’s ban on e-collars (a hand-held remote-controlled (not automated: a distinction that matters as Rosalind English points out) e-collar device for cats and dogs, used particularly in dogs for training purposes).

His analysis engages all the right issues in discussing the lawfulness of a ban at 204 ff under Article 34 TFEU (including consultation and commissioned research issues and of course proportionality), less focused than I would have expected perhaps on the fact that these items are lawfully marketed elsewhere in the EU, and indeed A1P1 (Article 1, first Protocol) ECHR. The remainder of the judgment discusses internal UK judicial review. An excellent primer on trade and animal welfare under EU and ECHR law.

Geert.

The Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) has posted the Conclusions & Recommendations of the “International Seminar on the Protection of Children Across Borders: The 1996 HCCH Convention on the Protection of Children” that took place in Rabat, Morocco, in mid-November 2019.

The seminar focused on discussing ways to improve the protection of children across borders in West Africa, in North Africa and in Europe. Two topics of particular interest were discussed: kafala and unaccompanied minors.

With regard to the institution of kafala, the participants “welcomed the opportunity to share information and experiences concerning crossborder kafala cases; in particular, the participants noted that, in States where it is unknown under domestic law, kafala may be recognised or, at the very least and depending on the circumstances, its effects would correspond to the delegation of parental responsibility, guardianship or curatorship, in order to ensure its legal effectiveness across borders. Participants also recognised that kafala and adoption are two very different concepts” (C&R No 9).

The HCCH Child Protection Convention makes explicit reference to the institution of Kafala in Articles 3(e) and 33. Paragraph 3.27 of the Practical Handbook on the Operation of the 1996 Child Protection Convention explains what is understood by Kafala: “The institution of kafala is widely used in some States as a form of care for children when they cannot be cared for by their parents. Under kafala, children are cared for by new families or relatives but the legal link with their birth parents is generally not severed. Kafala can take place across borders but since it is an arrangement which does not constitute an adoption it is not within the scope of the 1993 Hague Intercountry Adoption Convention. However, where used, the institution of kafala clearly constitutes a measure of protection in respect of a child and is therefore expressly within the scope of the 1996 Convention.”

With regard to the protection of unaccompanied and separated children, the participants “recognised the need to implement the “Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children” resulting from Resolution 64/142 adopted by the United Nations General Assembly” (C&R No 11).

The Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference is also working on this topic. In fact, in 2018 the governance body of the Hague Conference mandated to prioritise work on the finalisation of the revisions to a preliminary document relating to the application of the 1996 HCCH Child Protection Convention to unaccompanied and separated children (referred to as Preliminary Document No 7 of the Seventh Meeting of the Special Commission of 2017 on the 1980 and 1996 Conventions). To the best of my knowledge, this document has not yet been released.

Currently only two African States are States parties to the HCCH Child Protection Convention: Lesotho and Morocco. Only Morocco was present at the seminar probably due to its geographic scope.

The HCCH news items is available here.

In [2019] EWCA Civ 2073 the Court of Appeal on Tuesday confirmed the High Court’s analysis of Vedanta. I discuss the High Court’s finding at length here. Best simply to refer to that post – readers of the CA judgment shall read Faux LJ confirming the implications of Vedanta. Note also the discussion on the limited impact of the Singaporean pre-action (particularly disclosure) proceedings: precisely because they were pre-action and not intended to at that stage launch a multiplicity of proceedings.

The Rome II argument was left untouched for appellant conceded that failure on the Vedanta point would sink the appeal.

Geert.

(Handbook of) European private international law, second ed. 2016, Chapter 8, Headings 8.3.1.1., 8.3.2; Chapter 4, Heading 4.4.

Rather than blogging my own piece on this week’s CEPS study, I am happy to reblog the analysis of one of the co-authors of my earlier paper on same. Excellent analysis with which I agree entirely.

BLING

K J Garnett

On the day before Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s new team was voted in by the European Parliament, an independent, Brussels-based, think-thank CEPS published their third report on the Innovation Principle : ‘Study supporting the interim evaluation of the innovation principle’. With von der Leyen promising to tackle climate change and promote a European Green Deal now would be a good time to examine whether the innovation principle fits in with this vision for greater sustainability or whether its true intention is to curb Europe’s strict environmental laws?  

As lawyers we are familiar with general principles and those practicing European law are familiar with the fact that the EU applies a number of general principles : proportionality, subsidiarity, substantive & fundamental human rights, precaution,… Authority for the EU’s legal principles stems from primary law, typically the Treaties themselves or, more rarely, when the CJEU…

View original post 636 more words

Thank you Antonio Pastor for signalling Central Santa Lucia L.C. v. Meliá Hotels International S.A., litigation on which also more background here. The Spanish courts at MAllorca (appeal expected)  have declined jurisdiction  concerning confiscated property in Cuba after the end of suspension of Title III of the Libertad Act (the “Helms-Burton Act”, well known to trade and international lawyers alike) on the basis of sovereign immunity, as Antonio explains.

However as I understand Antonio’s summary (I fear I do not have Spanish to consult the judgment myself), the Court obiter also applied Article 24(1) Brussels Ia reflexively: if Brussels Ia grants exclusive jurisdiction to the courts of the Member State in which the property is situated in proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property or tenancies of immovable property, then EU Courts should decline jurisdiction if that real estate happens to be located ex-EU. Readers will remember the discussions on this issue in one or two earlier postings on this blog.

Interesting, to say the least.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.6.

The Italian Independent Authority for Children and Adolescents (Autorità garante per l’infanzia e l’adolescenza) has just published a book to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Child (CRC).

The book, in Italian, is titled La Convenzione delle Nazioni Unite sui diritti dell’infanzia e dell’adolescenza: conquiste e prospettive a 30 anni dall’adozione (“The 30th Anniversary of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: Achievements and Perspectives”). It consists of chapters dealing with a range of issues surrounding the Convention.

Some of the chapters discuss the relevance of the Convention to the rules of private international law regarding children.

Christophe Bernasconi and Philippe Lortie, respectively Secretary General and First Secretary of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, analysed the impact of the CRC on the work of the Hague Conference in the field of child protection.

Olivia Lopes Pegna, of the University of Florence, wrote a chapter on the techniques used by private international law rules to realise the best interests of the child.

Ester di Napoli discussed the synergies between migration law and private international law, in particular as regards the protection of unaccompanied minors.

The book can be downloaded here for free. The English abstracts of each chapter, kindly provided by Ester di Napoli, are available here.

The First Edition of the Milan Investment Arbitration Pre-Moot  will take place in Milan on February 14-15, 2020, within the frame of the Frankfurt Investment Arbitration Moot Court (FIAC).

For more information, click here.

Written by Chukwuma Okoli, TMC Asser Institute, The Hague

About a decade ago, Oppong lamented a “stagnation” in the development of private international law in Africa. That position is no longer as true as it was then – there is progress. Though the African private international law community is small, the scholarship can no longer be described as minimal (see the bibliograhy at the end of this post). There is a growing interest in the study of private international law in Africa. Why is recent interest on the study of private international law [in Africa] important to Africa? What lessons can be learn’t from other non-African jurisdictions on the study of private international law?

With increased international business transactions and trade with Africa, private international law is a subject that deserves a special place in the continent. Where disputes arise between international business persons connected with Africa, issues such as what court should have jurisdiction, what law should apply, and whether a foreign judgment can be recognized and enforced are keys aspects of private international law. Thus, private international law is indispensable in regulating international commercial transactions.

Currently, there is no such thing as an “African private international law” or “African Union private international law” that is akin to, for example, “EU private international law”. It could, however, be argued that there is such a thing as “private international law in Africa”. The current private international law in Africa is complicated as a consequence of a history of foreign rule, and the fact that Africa has diverse legal traditions (common law, Roman-Dutch law, civil law, customary law and religious law). Many countries in Africa still hang on to what they inherited during the period of colonialism. As colonialism breeds dependence, there has not been sufficient conscious intellectual effort to generate a private international law system that responds to the socio-economic, cultural, and political interests of countries in Africa.

Drawing from comparative experiences, it is opined that a systematic academic study of private international law might create the required strong political will and institutional support (which is absent at the moment) that is necessary to give private international law its true place in Africa.

There has always been private international law in Africa from time immemorial. Africans, like any other persons, migrated from one territory to another (especially within Africa), where the clash of socio-cultural, political, and economic interests among persons in Africa gave rise to private international law problems as we know them today. Some of these disputes between private parties of different nation states may have likely been resolved through war or diplomacy.

The systematic study of private international law as we know it today has largely been academically developed by the Member States of the European Union (EU) and the United States of America (“USA”). The period of industrialization in the 19th century, and the rise of capitalism gave birth to a variety of solutions that could respond to globalization. Indeed, the firm entrenchment of the principle of party autonomy in international dispute settlement in the 20th century was a way of securing the interest of the international merchant who does their business in many jurisdictions. The privatization of international law dispute settlement is what gave birth to the name private international law.

In the international scene, the study of private international law is currently dominated by two major powers: the EU and the US, but the EU wields more influence internationally. The EU operates an integrated private international law system with its judicial capital in Luxembourg. The EU can be described as a super-power of private international law in the world, with The Hague as its intellectual capital. Many of the ideas in the Hague instruments (a very important international instrument on private international law) were originally inspired by the thinking of European continental scholars. As a result of colonization, many countries around the world currently apply the private international law methodology of some Member States of the EU. The common law methodology is applied by many Commonwealth countries that were formerly colonized by the United Kingdom; the civil law methodology is applied by many countries (especially in French-speaking parts of Africa) that were formerly colonized by France and Belgium; and the Roman-Dutch law methodology is applied by many countries that were formerly colonized by Netherlands.

Asia appears to have learnt from the EU and USA experience. Since 2015 till date, private international academics from Asia and other regions around the world have held many conferences and meetings with the purpose of drawing up the principles of private international law on civil and commercial matters, known as “Asian Principles of Private International Law”). The purpose of the principles is to serve as a non-binding model that legislators and judges (or decision makers) in the Asian region can use in supplementing or reforming their private international law rules.

It is important to stress that it is the systematic study of private international law by scholars over the years in the US and Member States in the EU and Asia that created the required political will and institutional support to give private international law it’s proper place in these countries. In Africa, such systematic study becomes especially important in an environment of growing international transactions both personal and commercial. This is what propels the study of private international. It is seldom an abstract academic endeavor given the nature and objectives of the subject

Professor Oppong – a leading authority on the subject of private international law in Africa – has rightly submitted in some of his works that private international law can play a significant role in Africa in addressing issues such as: “regional economic integration, the promotion of international trade and investment, immigration, globalization and legal pluralism.” A systematic study of private international law in Africa will address these some of these challenges that are significant to Africa. Indeed, a solid private international law system in African States can create competition among countries on how to attract litigation and arbitration. This in turn can lead to economic development and the strengthening of the legal systems of such African countries

What should private international law in Africa look like in the future?  Is it possible to have a future “African Union private international law” comparable to that of the European Union? Should it operate in an intra-African way to the exclusion of international goals such as conflicts between non-African countries, and the joint membership or ratification of international instruments such as The Hague Conventions? Should it take into account internal conflicts in individual African states, where different applicable customary or religious laws may clash with an enabling statute or the constitution, or different applicable religious or customary laws may clash in cross-border transactions? In the alternative, should it focus primarily on diverse solutions among countries in Africa, and promote international commercial goals, with less attention placed on African integration?

These questions are not easy to answer. It is opined that private international law in Africa deserves to be systematically studied, and solutions advanced on how the current framework of private international law in Africa can be improved. If such study is devoted to this topic, the required political will and institutional support can be created to give [private international law] proper significance in Africa.

For recent monographs on the subject see generally
CSA Okoli and RF Oppong, Private International Law in Nigeria (Hart, 2020- forthcoming)
P Okoli, Promoting Foreign Judgments; Lessons in Legal Convergence from South Africa and Nigeria (Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, 2019)
AJ Moran and AJ Kennedy, Commercial Litigation in Anglophone Africa: The law relating to civil jurisdiction, enforcement of foreign judgments, and interim remedies (Juta, Cape Town, 2018)
RF Oppong, Private International Law in Ghana (Wolters Kluwer Online, Alphen aan den Rijn, 2017)
M Rossouw, The Harmonisation of Rules on the Recognition and Enforcment of Foreign Judgments in Southern African Customs Union (Pretoria University Law Press, Pretoria, 2016)
E Schoeman et. al., Private International Law in South Africa (Wolters Kluwer Online, Alphen aan den Rijn, 2014)
RF Oppong, Private International Law in Commonwealth Africa (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013)
C Forsyth, Private International Law – the Modern Roman Dutch Law including the Jurisdiction of the High Courts (5th edition, Juta, Landsowne, 2012).

Written by Michael Douglas, Mary Keyes, Sarah McKibbin and Reid Mortensen

Michael Douglas, Mary Keyes, Sarah McKibbin and Reid Mortensen published an article on how the implementation of the HCCH Judgments Convention would impact Australian private international law: ‘The HCCH Judgments Convention in Australian Law’ (2019) 47(3) Federal Law Review 420. This post briefly considers Australia’s engagement with the HCCH, and the value of the Judgments Convention for Australia.

Australia’s engagement with the HCCH

Australia has had a longstanding engagement with the work of the Hague Conference since it joined in 1973. In 1975, Dr Peter Nygh, a Dutch-Australian judge and academic, led Australia’s first delegation. His legacy with the HCCH continues through the Nygh Internship, which contributes to the regular flow of Aussie interns at the Permanent Bureau, some of whom have gone on to work in the PB. Since Nygh’s time, many Australian delegations and experts have contributed to the work of the HCCH. For example, in recent years, Professor Richard Garnett contributed to various expert groups which informed the development of the Judgments Project. Today, Andrew Walter is Chair of the Council on General Affairs and Policy.

Australia has acceded to 11 HCCH instruments, especially in family law where its implementation of HCCH conventions leads the Conference. However, with respect to recent significant instruments, it has lagged behind. For example, in 2016, Australia’s Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department (‘AGD’) recommended accession to the 2005 HCCH Choice of Court Convention through an ‘International Civil Law Act’; it also recommended that the proposed legislation should give effect to the HCCH’s Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts. In November 2016, the Australian Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Treaties supported both recommendations. Despite those recommendations, we are yet to see the introduction of a Bill into Parliament. We remain hopeful that 2020 will see progress.

Australia actively participated in the negotiation of the HCCH Judgments Convention and agreed to the final act. However, it is not a signatory. The mood within the Australian private international law community is that Australia will accede—the question is when. When it does, what would that mean? That is the focus of the article by Douglas, Keyes, McKibbin and Mortensen, who argue that accession ought to be welcomed.

The value of the HCCH Judgments Convention for Australia

Accession to the Judgments Convention would be a positive development for Australia. The Convention expands the grounds for recognising foreign judgments in Australia, especially in the recognition of foreign courts to exercise special jurisdictions giving rise to an enforceable judgment, and the enforcement of non-money judgments.  The proposed grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement broadly align to the current treatment of the defences to recognition and enforcement, and the bases for setting aside registration of foreign judgments, under Australian law. By harmonising Australia’s private international law with that of other Contracting States, the Judgments Convention should provide greater certainty to Australian enterprises engaging in international business transactions with entities from other Contracting States. As an island nation, ensuring certainty for cross-border business is essential to the Australian economy.

For Australia, the primary advantage of the Judgments Convention is the capacity to enforce Australian judgments overseas. A party to cross-border litigation who obtains the benefit of an Australian judgment will have a clearer pathway to obtaining meaningful relief.  The ability to enforce an Australian civil or commercial judgment internationally is extremely limited, with the exception of New Zealand. The Judgments Convention, if implemented in Australia, would both expand and reposition the ability to project Australian judicial power beyond New Zealand. Certainly, the Convention would enhance the ability to enforce judgments of the courts of the other Contracting States to the Convention in Australia. Equally, as a multilateral Convention, the Judgments Convention would enable Australian judgments to circulate among the other Contracting States to the Convention. That would be a most attractive outcome for the Australian judicial system. Non-money judgments, which currently have almost no extraterritorial reach, would become enforceable through the Convention. The recognition of judgments that emerge when Australian courts exercise special jurisdictions dealing with contractual, non-contractual and trust obligations is also a long overdue reform and would see the law relating to the international enforcement of judgments align more closely with the nature of modern commercial litigation. If adopted widely, the Judgments Convention will provide better access to the assets of judgment debtors and to defendants themselves. This will reduce the risks associated with cross-border litigation, and so with it, the risks to cross-border business.

A secondary effect of the implementation of the Judgments Convention is the pressure it may apply to the Australian rules of adjudicative jurisdiction that allow Australian courts to deal with international litigation. There remains a very substantial disparity between the extremely broad adjudicative jurisdictions claimed by Australian courts and the narrow jurisdictions that are allowed to foreign courts by Australian courts considering whether to recognise foreign judgments. The Judgments Convention does not address this disparity, although the recognition of foreign judgments made when courts of origin exercise special jurisdictions somewhat narrows it. Unless the Australian rules of adjudicative jurisdiction are reformed, the enforceability of an Australian judgment in cross-border litigation will require a litigant’s consideration of both the Australian rules of adjudicative jurisdiction and the different Judgments Convention rules of indirect jurisdiction. Ultimately, though, to get an internationally enforceable judgment, it would only be compliance with the Judgments Convention that counted.

In short, this article strongly recommends that Australia should accede to the Judgments Convention in order to modernise and improve Australian law, and to provide better outcomes for Australian judgment creditors. It would be timely for Australia also to refocus and continue its efforts on accession to the Choice of Court Convention.

Sabbagh v Khoury [2019] EWHC 3004 (Comm) evidently builds upon the High Court and Court of Appeal previous judgments. Pro memoria: claimant established jurisdiction against all the defendants she wished to sue in relation to each element of her claim. Following judgment by the Court of Appeal and the refusal of permission to appeal further by the Supreme Court, the defendants had to decide whether to acknowledge service and accept the jurisdiction of the English Courts or to refuse to acknowledge service.

That jurisdiction should be debated at all was the result of claimant wanting to amend her claim, and having earlier been partially granted such permission. At 13: each defendant decided to acknowledge service and accept the jurisdiction of the English Courts but in each case they purported to qualify the terms on which they acknowledged service, hinging particularly on CPR Part 14: Admissions, and suggesting that a “concession” made on claimant’s behalf that certain Share Sale Agreements relied on by the defendants were “existent, valid and effective“, should have an impact on jurisdiction.

It is interesting to see the qualifications verbatim: at 13: ‘Thus in its letter of 26 March 2018, CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP on behalf of the Sabbagh defendants qualified their Acknowledgement of Service as being “… confined to the existing claims set out in the Claim Form, to the limited extent that the Court of Appeal accepted the English court’s jurisdiction over such claims, but subject to the numerous concessions your client has made including but not limited to her explicit abandonment of any claim to be presently entitled to or for delivery up of shares …”. Jones Day, the solicitors then acting for the first defendant similarly qualified his Acknowledgement of Service – see their letter of 26 March 2018. Baker McKenzie qualified the other Khoury defendants’ Acknowledgement of Service as being “… only in respect of the two claims as set out in the Claimant’s Claim Form … and is subject to the numerous concessions the Claimant has made to date …” and added that: “We understand that the Claimant intends to seek to amend her Particulars of Claim and our clients’ position as to whether any such amendment(s), if allowed, impact on the jurisdiction of the court over our clients as regards any claims other than those to which this Acknowledgement of Service is filed is fully reserved, including as to jurisdiction and/or the arbitrability of any such amended claims”. In the circumstances, it is probable that the amendment Baker McKenzie had in mind was one substantially in terms of the draft re-amended Particulars of Claim that had been placed before the Court of Appeal.’

At 21 ff Pelling J discusses the relationship between the amended claim, the earlier findings on jurisdiction, and the ‘concession’, leading at length eventually to hold that there was no impact of the concession on the extent of jurisdiction,

As Pelling J notes at 1 in fine: ‘Even allowing for the value at risk in this litigation all this is obviously disproportionate.’ One assumes the role of various counsel in the alleged concessions made earlier, must have had an impact on the energy with which the issue was advocated.

The case will now proceed to trial, lest there be any other jurisdictional challenges.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.12.1

In Clearlake Shipping Pte Ltd v Xiang Da Marine Pte Ltd [2019] EWHC 2284 (Comm) Andrew Burrows QC essentially halted an attempt by Xiang Da Marine to construct third party proceedings in Singapore so as to avoid choice of court pro England following a series of contracts relating to the chartering of a vessel.

The proceedings, which the interim anti-suit injunctions are restraining, are third party proceedings brought in Singapore by Xiang Da against Clearlake and Gunvor. Those third party proceedings have arisen in relation to an action in Singapore against Xiang Da brought by China-Base Ningbo Group Co Ltd (hereinafter ‘China-Base’). In so far as Xiang Da is liable to pay damages or otherwise suffers loss by reason of the claim brought against it by China-Base, it seeks an indemnity or contribution from Clearlake and Gunvor as third parties. (The claim by China-Base against Xiang Da in Singapore in the meantime has been discontinued. But the third party proceedings remain extant; and those third party proceedings could still be used by Xiang Da to seek to recover loss suffered by reason of the claim brought against it by China-Base.)

The judgment is best consulted for further context; RPC have analysis here, 22 Essex Street here. The judgment is a good reminder of the law on anti-suit injunctions. One can also appreciate that given privity of contract, anti-suit granted viz-a-vis third party proceedings must be treated with caution. Yet restrained application of same is a good way to discipline overly creative proceedings designed simply to circumvent choice of court (and which with respect to the third party involved are vexatious or oppressive).

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.1.

The Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law warmly invites for submitting a proposal for a special issue to be published in the upcoming year’s Volume of the Maastricht Journal. The Maastricht Journal announces deadlines each year for the submission of proposals for a special issue, the next one is on:

20 January 2020

A special issue in the Maastricht Journal can contain up to eight articles plus an introduction and/or conclusion. Each paper is up to 8.000 words in length, including footnotes.

Proposals shall include:

• an introduction to the special issue providing a description of the topic and a motivation why the issue should be published in the Maastricht Journal (up to 4 pages);
• a list of content;
• the confirmation of all authors involved;
• short abstracts (150-200 words) for each paper.

The guest editor(s) should provide for a peer review of the papers. In addition, the members of the Editorial Committee of the Maastricht Journal will review all papers and reserve the right to provide comments or to reject papers.

Please send the relevant documents and/or any questions to the Executive Editors at: maastricht.journal@maastrichtuniversity.nl

 About the Maastricht Journal

The Maastricht Journal is a unique peer refereed journal publishing six issues per year, serving academics and legal practitioners who want to stay informed regarding developments and challenges within the Ius Commune Europaeum. The journal publishes articles, case notes, legal debates, legal developments, commentaries and book reviews by leading academics and professionals in the areas of European and Comparative Law and covers areas of interest in both European Law and in the comparative laws of European states.

More Information: http://journals.sagepub.com/home/maa

Call for papers
Introducing the “European Family” Study on EU family law
2020 Annual Conference of the French Association for European Studies (AFEE) 11 and 12 June 2020
Polytechnic University of Hauts-de-France (Valenciennes)

Summary

Family law, with its civil law tradition, and strong roots in the national cultures of the Member States, does not normally fall within the scope of European law. However, it is no longer possible to argue that Family Law is outside European law entirely. There are many aspects of the family which are subject to European influence, to the point that the outlines of a “European family” are starting to emerge. Union law therefore contains a form of “special” family law which is shared between the Member States and supplements their national family laws. What are the sources and outlines of this special family law and what tools is the Union’s legal order using to construct it? How should this movement towards the Europeanisation of the family be regarded with respect to a civil and sociological approach to the family and the political and legal integration of the Union? And what is the future for the European family law which is being created? All these questions require collective research as part of a multidisciplinary study (the institutional and substantive law of the Union, civil family law, international private law, comparative law, sociology, history, political sciences etc.) on how this special law of the family is gradually becoming part of the Union’s legal order. A call for papers, supplemented by invitations to reputed speakers will bring researchers and practitioners from different disciplines together to throw new light on European family law. There will also be a competition for the best “Letter to the European family” involving proposing a European vision of the family, for junior researchers.

The Scientific Board
• Pr. Elsa Bernard, University of Lille elsa.bernard@univ-lille.fr
• Dr. Marie Cresp, University of Bordeaux marie.cresp@iut.u-bordeaux-montaigne.fr
• Dr. Marion Ho-Dac, Polytechnic University of Hauts-de-France marion.hodac@uphfr.fr

The Scientific Committee
• Pr. Elsa Bernard, University of Lille
• Dr. Marie Cresp, University of Bordeaux
• Pr. Marc Fallon, University of Louvain (UCLouvain)
• Pr. Geoffrey Willems, University of Louvain (UCLouvain)
• Dr. Marion Ho-Dac, Polytechnic University of Hauts-de-France (UPHF)
• Pr. Anastasia Illiopoulou, University of Créteil (UPEC)
• Pr. Sandrine Sana, University of Bordeaux, in delegation at University of French Polynesia

I. Argument
Firstly, the research is intended to highlight the European experience of Family Law and its substantive and private international law aspects. Union family law as a special law side-byside with the diversity of national family laws must then be identified. Secondly the existence of this special family law must be considered: its theoretical and political importance in the Union of today and its future in the Union of tomorrow. Will this special family law remain fragmented alongside the national laws of Member states or will it densify to offer European citizens and residents a common family law?
Two areas of study are recommended, which could be used as a benchmark by researchers by prioritising one of them in their papers.

1.UNDERSTANDING EU FAMILY LAW
As a rule, the family in its material dimension falls outside the scope of Union law because the civil law of the family is not subject to the European courts. Only the rules of international private law expressly enable European lawmakers to pass laws concerning “cross-border” family law (article 81 TFEU). These rules therefore exist for international separation matters and international property law of the family. However, over the years a development has gradually been seen and the basis for a substantive law of the family of a European origin has appeared.

1.1.Content
The aspects of European family law which are shared by the Member States therefore supplement the multiplicity of national laws. They play a role as a special law, which varies depending on its area of intervention (Freedom of Movements, European Civil Service, European Immigration Law, Social Law of the Union, International Private Law etc.).The aim is to present its content in a dynamic and comparative way, not only to gauge its extent and characteristics but also its degree of originality compared to the internal laws of the Member states.

1.2.Tools
The emergence of this special law of the Union, which is still fragmentary and dispersed, is the result of the combination of several factors which must be considered. There is a family dimension within Union law because it structures and regulates numerous aspects of the lives of people on a given territory. Thus the Union’s traditional areas of competence in economic matters affect the lives of Europeans. This influence has increased with the rapid growth in the freedom of movement of people and more globally, the European Area of Freedom, Security and Justice as well as with the growing influence of fundamental rights through the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the recent application of the union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights. As a consequence, the tools used by the Union and its different players are contributing, day by day, to shaping the contours of this EU Family Law.

2. ASSESSING EU FAMILY LAW
European law only affects the family in a fragmented and dispersed way at the present time. European family law is therefore random, because its existence depends on the political choices made by the actors implementing European tools. It is also incomplete because it does not govern all the sociological and legal realities covering the concept and the law of the family. Finally, it is variable because its content differs depending on whether it concerns the family of a European citizen, of a citizen of a third-party state or of a worker, or the family considered from an international private law perspective, giving rise to questions about the relationship between the standards and methods inside the Union’s legal order.

2.1. Significance
The question of significance is then raised i.e. the usefulness, the need but also perhaps the effectiveness of this family law of the Union which is being constructed in the European area. Further clarification of the European conception of the family or families might also be required. The analysis of the significance of European family law will inevitably vary depending on which point of view is adopted: the point of view of national peoples, mobile European citizens, nationals of third-party states living in the Union or aspiring to live there, States or the Union …. Reconciling these points of view also enriches the considerations.

2.2. The future
The development of the family law of the Union in a quantitative (enlarging its area of intervention, relationships with States) and, perhaps above all, qualitative (coordination, harmonization, unification, rationalization, articulation) way would have a certain number of benefits. However, this development would inevitably come up against serious difficulties of a political and a technical nature. The research on the possible deepening of European family law would therefore be twofold: the prospective content of European family law, and its relationship with national family laws.

II. Methods of submission and publication
Legal researchers and practitioners interested in this research project are invited to send their contribution to the members of the Scientific Board (see email addresses above). Collective contributions from researchers in different specialities and/or from different legal cultures are particularly welcome.

Contributions must be in the form of a summary (a maximum of 10,000 characters, spaces included) written in French or English, presenting the chosen theme, the goals and interest of the contribution, the plan and main references (normative, bibliographic etc.) at the heart of the analysis. The contributions will be subject of a selection process by Scientific Committee after they have been anonymized by the Scientific Board.

The contribution may be accompanied by a quick presentation of the writer (maximum 3000 characters spaces included).

The papers will be published in the autumn of 2020.

Contributors are informed that written contributions must be written (in English or French) and sent to the members of the Scientific Board before the conference on 11 and 12 June. Writers will, if they wish, have a short time after the conference in which to make slight adjustments to their original contributions to incorporate new aspects highlighted by other presentations or during the debates.

III. Timetable
Submission of contributions: by 13 January 2020
Reply to contributors: week of 2 March 2020
Delivery of the written contribution: 28 May 2020
Conference dates: 11 and 12 June 2020
Delivery of the final contribution: 22 June 2020
Publication: Autumn 2020

IV. Junior researchers and the competition
Junior researchers are asked to examine the relationship between European law and the family from a new, critical and prospective stand point. The call for papers is therefore open to PhD students, doctors and post-docs under the same conditions.
There is also a competition for the best “Letter to the European Family”, where a short text (maximum 6000 characters including spaces), beginning with “Dear European family” and giving a European vision of the family will be proposed. At a time when the direction European construction should take is constantly being questioned, considerations about the European family could offer a path for political renewal for Europe. The best i.e. the most convincing letter will be read at the end of the conference, and the letter will be published in the conference papers.

The letters received will be submitted to the Scientific Committee for selection after they have been anonymised by the Scientific Board.

The same timetable (see above) applies to contributions to the conference and the same “junior” researcher can submit a contribution as well as a letter.

Appel à communication
Connaissez-vous la « famille européenne » ?
Étude du droit de la famille de l’Union européenne
* * * *
Congrès annuel 2020 de l’Association Française d’Études Européennes (AFEE) 11 & 12 juin 2020
Université Polytechnique Hauts-de-France (Valenciennes)

Résumé
Le droit de la famille, dans sa dimension civiliste, fortement ancrée dans les cultures nationales des États membres, est une matière qui ne relève pas en principe du droit de l’Union européenne. Pourtant, il n’est plus possible d’affirmer que la matière échappe dans son entier au droit de l’Union. De nombreux aspects de la famille sont sous influence européenne, au point que l’on voit se dessiner les contours d’une « famille européenne ». En ce sens, le droit de l’Union contient une forme de « droit spécial » de la famille, partagé par les États membres, qui complète les droits nationaux de la famille.

Quels sont les sources et les contours de ce droit spécial de la famille et quels outils mobilise l’ordre juridique de l’Union pour le construire ? Comment apprécier ce mouvement d’européanisation de la famille au regard tant d’une approche civiliste et sociologique de la famille, que du sens de l’intégration politique et juridique de l’Union ? Et au-delà, quel avenir imaginer pour ce droit européen de la famille en construction ?

Autant de questions qui nécessitent un travail de recherche collective permettant de conduire une réflexion pluridisciplinaire (droit institutionnel et matériel de l’Union, droit civil de la famille, droit international privé, droit comparé, sociologie, histoire, sciences politiques…) sur l’élaboration progressive de ce droit spécial de la famille dans l’ordre juridique de l’Union.

Un appel à communication, complété par l’invitation de personnalités reconnues, permettra de réunir des chercheurs et praticiens d’horizons divers, porteurs d’éclairages renouvelés et innovants en droit européen de la famille. Un concours de la meilleure « Lettre à la famille européenne » consistant à proposer une vision européenne de la famille sera, par ailleurs, ouvert aux jeunes chercheurs.

Direction scientifique
• Elsa Bernard, Professeure de droit public, Université de Lille elsa.bernard@univ-lille.fr
• Marie Cresp, Maître de conférences de droit privé, Université de Bordeaux marie.cresp@iut.u-bordeaux-montaigne.fr
• Marion Ho-Dac, Maître de conférences HDR de droit privé, Université Polytechnique Hauts-de-France marion.hodac@uphfr.fr

Comité scientifique
• Pr. Elsa Bernard, Université de Lille
• Dr. Marie Cresp, Université de Bordeaux
• Pr. Marc Fallon, Université de Louvain (UCLouvain)
• Pr. Geoffrey Willems, Université de Louvain (UCLouvain)
• Dr. Marion Ho-Dac, Université Polytechnique Hauts-de-France (UPHF)
• Pr. Anastasia Illiopoulou, Université de Créteil (UPEC)
• Pr. Sandrine Sana, Université de Bordeaux, en délégation à l’Université de Polynésie française

I. Argumentaire
La recherche vise, dans un premier temps, à mettre en lumière l’acquis européen en matière de droit de la famille, dans ses aspects de droit matériel comme de droit international privé. Le droit de la famille de l’Union, comme droit spécial, à côté de la diversité des droits nationaux de la famille, doit ainsi être identifié. Dans un second temps, c’est l’essence d’un tel droit spécial de la famille qu’il faudra questionner : sa signification théorique et politique dans l’Union d’aujourd’hui, autant que son devenir dans l’Union de demain. Ce droit spécial de la famille a-t-il vocation à demeurer fragmentaire à côté des droits nationaux des États membres ou, au contraire, à se densifier pour offrir aux citoyens et résidents européens un droit commun de la famille ?
Deux axes de réflexion sont suggérés pour mener à bien la recherche ; ils pourraient utilement servir de repère pour les chercheurs proposant une communication, en mentionnant l’axe dans lequel ils entendent s’inscrire prioritairement.

1. Appréhender
le droit de la famille de l’Union La famille, dans sa dimension matérielle, échappe, en principe, au droit de l’Union dans la mesure où le droit civil de la famille ne relève pas des compétences européennes. Seules les règles de droit international privé permettent explicitement aujourd’hui au législateur de l’Union d’adopter des textes relatifs au droit de la famille « transfrontière » (article 81 TFUE). De telles règles existent ainsi en matière de désunion internationale et de droit patrimonial international de la famille. Pourtant, au fil des années, un constat s’est peu à peu imposé : les prémices d’un droit matériel de la famille, de source européenne, sont apparues.

1.1. Contenu
Ces éléments de droit européen de la famille, partagés par les États membres, complètent ainsi la multiplicité des droits nationaux. Ils jouent le rôle d’un droit spécial, à géométrie variable selon ses domaines d’interventions (libertés de circulation, fonction publique de l’Union, droit européen de l’immigration, droit social de l’Union, droit international privé…). L’objectif est alors, dans une perspective dynamique et comparative, de présenter son contenu et de mesurer non seulement son étendue et ses caractéristiques, mais aussi son degré d’originalité par rapport aux droits internes des États membres.

1.2. Outils
L’apparition de ce droit spécial de l’Union, encore parcellaire et éclaté, s’explique par la combinaison de plusieurs facteurs qu’il est proposé d’étudier. Le droit de l’Union recèle en luimême une dimension familiale, en ce sens qu’il structure et règlemente de nombreux aspects de la vie des personnes sur un territoire donné. C’est ainsi, notamment, que les compétences traditionnelles de l’Union en matière économique ont rejailli sur la vie familiale des Européens. L’essor de la libre circulation des personnes et, plus globalement, de l’espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice, n’a fait qu’accroître ce constat, de même que l’influence croissante des droits fondamentaux, à travers tant la jurisprudence de la Cour EDH que l’application plus récente de la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union. Partant, les différents outils mis en œuvre par l’Union et ses différents acteurs contribuent, jour après jour, à façonner les contours de ce droit de la famille de l’Union.

2. Apprécier le droit de la famille de l’Union
La famille n’est, à ce jour, saisie par le droit de l’Union que de manière ponctuelle et fragmentée. Il en résulte que le droit européen de la famille est aléatoire : son existence dépend des choix politiques des acteurs mettant en œuvre les outils européens. Il est également incomplet puisqu’il ne régit pas l’intégralité des réalités sociologiques et juridiques que recouvrent respectivement la notion et le droit de la famille. Il est, enfin, à géométrie variable car le contenu donné à ce droit n’est pas le même selon qu’il s’agit de la famille du citoyen européen, du ressortissant d’État tiers ou du travailleur, ou encore de la famille appréhendée par les mécanismes de droit international privé… Il en résulte par là même un questionnement relatif à l’articulation des normes et des méthodes, en matière familiale, au sein de l’ordre juridique de l’Union.

2.1. Sens
Dans ce contexte, se pose la question du sens, c’est-à-dire de l’utilité, du besoin mais aussi peut-être de l’efficience, de ce droit de la famille de l’Union en construction dans l’espace européen. Pour y répondre, il pourrait être nécessaire de préciser davantage la conception européenne de la famille ou des familles. L’analyse du sens du droit européen de la famille variera nécessairement selon le point de vue adopté : celui des peuples nationaux, des citoyens européens mobiles, des ressortissants d’États tiers vivant dans l’Union ou aspirant à y vivre, des États ou encore de l’Union… La question de la conciliation de ces points de vue s’ajoute alors à la réflexion.

2.2. Devenir
L’évolution future du droit de la famille de l’Union dans un sens quantitatif (élargissement de son domaine d’intervention, rapports avec les États), et peut-être surtout qualitatif (coordination, harmonisation, unification, rationalisation, articulation…) présenterait un certain nombre d’avantages. Dans le même temps, une telle tendance ne manquerait pas de se heurter à de sérieuses difficultés d’abord politiques, puis techniques. S’agissant d’un possible approfondissement du droit européen de famille, la recherche serait double : le contenu prospectif de la matière et son articulation avec les droits nationaux de la famille.

II. Modalités de soumission et de publication
Les chercheurs et praticiens du droit intéressés par ce projet de recherche sont invités à envoyer leur proposition de contribution aux membres de la Direction scientifique (v. adresses e-mails mentionnées ci-dessus). Seront accueillies avec un intérêt particulier les contributions collectives proposées par deux ou trois chercheurs de spécialités et/ou de culture juridique différentes.

Les contributions prendront la forme d’un résumé (max. 10 000 caractères, espaces compris) rédigé en français ou en anglais, présentant le thème retenu, les objectifs et l’intérêt de la contribution, le plan envisagé et les principales références (normatives, bibliographiques…) au cœur de l’analyse.

Les contributions reçues feront l’objet d’une sélection par le Comité scientifique après avoir été anonymisées par la Direction scientifique.

L’envoi de la contribution pourra, à titre facultatif, être accompagné d’une rapide présentation de leur auteur (max. 3 000 caractères espaces compris).

Les actes du colloque sont destinés à être publiés à l’automne 2020.

L’attention des contributeurs est attirée sur le fait que les contributions écrites devront être rédigées (en anglais ou en français) et envoyées aux membres de la Direction scientifique avant le congrès des 11 et 12 juin. Un bref délai sera laissé aux auteurs à l’issue du congrès pour, s’ils le souhaitent, apporter de légères modifications à leur contribution originale afin d’intégrer des éléments nouveaux mis en lumière par d’autres présentations ou lors des débats.

III. Calendrier
Date limite d’envoi des propositions de contribution : 13 janvier 2020
Réponse aux intervenants : semaine du 2 mars 2020
Remise de la contribution écrite : 28 mai 2020
Dates du colloque : 11 et 12 juin 2020
Remise des contributions finales : 22 juin 2020
Publication : automne 2020

IV. Jeune doctrine et concours
La jeune doctrine est invitée à apporter un regard neuf, critique et prospectif sur les relations entre Union européenne et famille. L’appel à communication est ainsi ouvert, aux mêmes conditions (v. ci-dessus), aux doctorants, docteurs et post-doctorants.

Un concours de la meilleure « Lettre à la famille européenne » est également lancé. Il s’agit de proposer un texte court (max. 6000 signes, espaces compris) commençant par « Chère famille européenne », consistant à proposer une vision européenne de la famille. A l’heure où l’on ne cesse de s’interroger sur le sens de la construction européenne, penser la famille européenne pourrait offrir une voie de renouvellement politique pour l’Europe. Une lecture de la meilleure lettre, c’est-à-dire de la plus convaincante et originale, est prévue en clôture du colloque et la lettre sera publiée dans les actes du colloque.

Les lettres reçues seront soumises au processus de sélection par le Comité scientifique après avoir été anonymisées par la Direction scientifique.

Le même calendrier (v. ci-dessus) que pour les contributions au congrès s’applique et un même chercheur « jeune doctrine » peut proposer tout à la fois une contribution et une lettre.

[2019] EWHC 3105 (Fam) P v P is a case which does not have private international law implications – and I am not a family law expert. I simply flag the issues briefly for transgender family law issues do feature repeatedly in PIL scholarship and current case may become a point of reference.

In 1990, when 34 years of age, the applicant ‘AP’ underwent gender re-assignment surgery, transitioning from female to male. It follows that he had lived as a male for nearly 19 years at the point when he married JP who is a woman, and who was born a woman. At the time of the marriage in 2009, AP had not obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate (referred to in the judgment as a ‘GRC’), and his birth certificate had not been changed; his birth certificate showed him still as a female. GRC was not in existence in 1990, at the time of the transition.

In 2017, AP contacted the Department for Work and Pensions (‘DWP’) raising queries about his pension entitlement. He was advised that his marital status could not be recognised. Despite a letter from AP’s general practitioner in 1990 confirming that AP had “now had surgery and other treatment for gender reassignment”, he was still legally female and was so at the time he purported to enter into the marriage with JP. AP understood the advice from the DWP to be that if he wished the marriage to be recognised as lawful, he would have to either obtain a declaration of validity or he would need to ‘re-marry’ her, but legally as a man.

AP therefore applied to the court to have the 2009 marriage declared lawful: “… so that I can continue to remain married to my wife. I do not wish to have my marriage declared void. This would be emotionally very distressing for us both.” 

Cobb J (concluding at 73 in fine that ‘I am conscious that this outcome will be very distressing to AP and JP’) reviews ECHR authority in particular Goodwin v UK (2002), but also the CJEU (MB v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; and C-673/16, Coman v Romania and in the end held that applicant’s Article 8 rights had not been infringed by the refusal of application of lawfulness, at 54 ff and summarising at 65 ff. At 66 he lists a number of initiatives applicant could have taken to make use of the UK’s provision for a legal mechanism for the recognition of the relationship of AP and JP. Absence of said provisions by the UK might have led to a finding of Article 8 ECHR breach – but availability of measures remedying the 1990 absence of GRC seem to have counted heavily to applicant’s disadvantage.

Geert.

Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) 2019 SCC OnLine SC 677

By- Mohak Kapoor

The recent decision of the apex court of Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI, has led to three notable developments: (1) it clarifies the scope of the “public policy” ground for setting aside an award as amended by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act 2015, (2) affirms the  prospective applicability of the act and (3) adopts a peculiar approach towards recognition of minority decisions.

FACTS

The dispute arose out of a contract concerning the construction of a four-lane bypass on a National Highway in the State of Madhya Pradesh, that was entered into by the parties. Under the terms of the contract, the appellant, Ssangyong Engineering, was to be compensated for inflation in prices of the materials that were required for the project. The agreed method of compensation for inflated prices was the Wholesale Price Index (“WPI”) following 1993 – 1994 as the base year. However, by way of a circular, the National Highways Authority of India (“NHAI”) changed the WPI to follow 2004 – 2005 as the base year for calculating the inflated cost to the dismay of Ssangyong. Hence, leading to the said dispute. .

After the issue was not resolved, the dispute was referred to a three member arbitral tribunal. The majority award upheld the revision of WPI as being within the terms of the contract. The minority decision opined otherwise, and held that the revision was out of the scope the said contract. Due to this, Ssangyong challenged the award as being against public policy before Delhi High Court and upon the dismissal of the same, the matter was brought in front of the apex court by way of an appeal.

LEGAL FINDINGS 

The Supreme Court ruled on various issues that were discussed during the proceedings of the matter. The Court held that an award would be against justice and morality when it shocks the conscience of the court. However, the same would be determined on a case to case basis.

The apex court interpreted and discussed the principles stipulated under the New York convention. Under Para 54 of the judgement, the apex court has discussed the necessity of providing the party with the appropriate opportunity to review the evidence against them and the material is taken behind the back of a party, such an instance would lead to arising of grounds under section 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015. In this case, the SC applied the principles under the New York convention of due process to set aside an award on grounds that one of the parties was not given proper chance of hearing. The court held that if the award suffers from patent illegality, such an award has to be set aside.

However, this ground may be invoked if (a) no reasons are given for an award, (b) the view taken by an arbitrator is an impossible view while construing a contract, (c) an arbitrator decides questions beyond a contract or his terms of reference, and (d) if a perverse finding is arrived at based on no evidence, or overlooking vital evidence, or based on documents taken as evidence without notice of the parties.

[2019] EWHC 3107 (Comm) Etihad v Air Berlin (officially: Etihad Airways v Prof Dr Lucas Flöther, who is the insolvency practitioner for Air Berlin) raises the issues of whether the relevant dispute arises in connection with the “particular legal relationship” between the parties, as required by Article 25 Brussels Ia, and the question whether so-called “asymmetric” jurisdiction clauses fall within Article 31 of Brussels Recast, an issue which I reviewed at the time of Commerzbank v Liquimar. (This in the very week that Michiel Poesen and I received copy of Mary Footer’s edited volume on optional choice of court, with our Chapter on Belgium).

Those reading this post and the judgment had better hold on – for this is more than just a quick safety briefing – the required ‘good arguable case’ standard is responsible for the extensive discussion of the issues, perhaps not entirely in line with the instruction for conciseness per the Supreme Court in Vedanta.

Etihad acquired a 2.99% stake in Air Berlin in August 2011 and, in December 2011, increased its shareholding to 29.21% pursuant to an agreement governed by English law and contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the English courts. Between 28 and 30 April 2017, Etihad entered into a number of agreements for the purposes of providing Air Berlin with financial support. One of these was a facility agreement which contains the discussed jurisdiction clause:

33.1 JURISDICTION 

33.1.1 The courts of England have exclusive jurisdiction to settle any disputes arising out of or in connection with this Agreement (including a dispute relating to non-contractual obligations arising from or in connection with this Agreement, or a dispute regarding the existence, validity or termination of this Agreement) (a “Dispute“).

33.2.2 The Parties agree that the courts of England are the most appropriate and convenient courts to settle Disputes and accordingly no Party will argue to the contrary.

33.1.3 This Clause 33 is for the benefit of the Lender only. As a result, the Lender shall not be prevented from taking proceedings relating to a Dispute in any other courts with jurisdiction. To the extent allowed by law, the Lender may take concurrent proceedings in any number of jurisdictions.

In a letter dated 28 April 2017 from Mr James Hogan, the then President and CEO of Etihad Aviation Group PJSC, to the directors of Air Berlin (the “Comfort Letter”), which provided as follows: 

“For the purposes of the finalisation of the financial statements of Air Berlin plc for the year ended 31 December 2016, having had sight of your forecasts for the two years ending 31 December 2018, we confirm our intention to continue to provide the necessary support to Air Berlin to enable it to meet its financial obligations as they fall due for payment for the foreseeable future and in any event for 18 months from the date of this letter. Our commitment is evidenced by our historic support through loans and obtaining financing for Air Berlin”.

In German proceedings, started first, Air Berlin advances two alternative claims against Etihad under German Law: i) A claim for breach of the Comfort Letter on the basis that the Comfort Letter is legally binding. ii) Alternatively, if the Comfort Letter is not legally binding, a pre contractual claim in culpa in contrahendo, on the basis that Etihad used its negotiating power during the negotiations between the parties to avoid providing a clearly binding statement whilst, at the same time, inspiring the trust of Air Berlin that it would adhere to the commitment in the Comfort Letter.

Clearly Air Berlin considers the comfort letter a separate ‘agreement’ or ‘contract’ to which the widely formulated choice of court and law provisions of the Facility Agreement do not apply.

In the English proceedings, Etihad seeks the following declarations:

a) The claims made and declarations sought in the German Proceedings are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English court within Article 25 of the Judgments Regulation, because, on its true construction, they are within the scope of the exclusive jurisdiction clause contained in the 2017 €350m Facility Agreement (the one with the jurisdiction clause discussed above);

b) The claims made and declarations sought in the German Proceedings are governed by English Law on the true construction of the governing law clause in the Facility Agreement, an implied agreement between the same parties and/or the application of Rome I and/or Rome II;

c) The Claimant is not liable for breach of the Comfort Letter, as alleged in the German Proceedings, because that letter, on its true construction, did not create a legally binding promise to provide financial support to Air Berlin;

d) The Claimant is not liable on the basis of culpa in contrahendo, as alleged in the German Proceedings, because the facts and matters relied on in the German Proceedings do not give rise to a cause of action known to English law; and

e) Further, and in any event, the Claimant is not liable to the Defendant as alleged by the Defendant in the German Proceedings.

On Article 25 the list of authority was of course very long. On Article 31, reference was made for background in particular to Commerzbank AG v Liquimar Tankers Management Inc. in which Cranston J supported as I discussed at the time, the cover of asymmetric choice of court by Article 31.

On Article 25, the

I. first point to discuss

was whether the choice of court agreement in the facilities agreement extended to the comfort letter. Etihad puts forward adopting the broad, purposive and commercial approach to interpreting such clauses which it suggests has been mandated by the English authorities, concluding the dispute arises out of or in connection with that agreement. Air Berlin emphasises that application of the standard of proof must take into account the EU law requirement that an exclusive jurisdiction clause under Article 25 must be “clearly and precisely” demonstrated.

At 56 ff Jacobs J first reiterates the jurisdiction clause relied upon, contained in the Facility Agreement, which is expressly governed by English law. Clause 32 of that agreement provides: “This Agreement and all non-contractual obligations arising from or connected with it are governed by English law”. The question of whether, as a matter of contractual interpretation, the clause conferring jurisdiction extends to claims in respect of the Comfort Letter and the related claims advanced in the German proceedings is to be determined by reference to English law. This may surprise uninitiated readers first reading Article 25 and relevant recitals, however to those with conflicts insight it will be well known that Article 25 merely scratches on the surface of the contractual depth of choice of court. 

At 69 he sums up the principles (with reference to Fiona Trust), discusses them at length, and summarises at 102:

(i) the width of the jurisdiction clause in the Facility Agreement, (ii) the fact that the Comfort Letter was part of the overall support package where all relevant agreements between Etihad and Air Berlin were governed by English law with English jurisdiction clauses, (iii) the close connection between the Comfort Letter and the Facility Agreement in terms of the genesis of the Comfort Letter, (iv) Etihad’s good arguable case that the Comfort Letter did not create contractually binding obligations and was ancillary to the Facility Agreement, (v) the absence of any competing jurisdiction clause in any of the agreements within the support package, and the existence of English law and jurisdiction clauses in the relevant agreements as part of that package, and (vi) the reasonable foreseeability of disputes which required consideration of the Comfort Letter in conjunction with the Facility Agreement – all lead to the conclusion that the parties intended disputes arising in relation to the Comfort Letter to fall within the jurisdiction clause of the Facility Agreement.

Conclusion on this issue, at 109: ‘interpreting the jurisdiction agreement in the Facility Agreement as a matter of English law, there is a good arguable case that (i) the jurisdiction clause in the Facility Agreement is applicable to the Comfort Letter and any non-contractual claim in connection therewith, and (ii) the claim commenced by Air Berlin in Germany falls within the scope of that clause.’

On Article 25, the

I. second point to discuss at 110 ff was the requirement in Article 25 for the dispute to arise “in connection with a particular legal relationship” – a condition which Etihad must meet separately from the above conclusion that as a matter of English law, the claims made in Germany fell within the scope of the jurisdiction agreement in the Facility Agreement. Arguments here to some extent overlap with the strength or otherwise of the connection between the Facility Agreement and the Comfort Letter, discussed above. Reference here clearly was made to Airbus and the CJEU in Powell Duffryn. In the latter the CJEU held ‘”This requirement aims to limit the effect of an agreement conferring jurisdiction to disputes originating from the legal relationship in connection with which the agreement was concluded. It seeks to prevent a party from being surprised by the referral to a specified court of all disputes which arise in the relationships which it has with the other party and which may originate in relationships other than that in connection with which the agreement conferring jurisdiction was concluded”. The principles of Powel Duffryn were also followed in the equally seminal CDC case.

At 134 ff Jacobs J dismisses the argument that the way in which a particular claim is formulated in the foreign proceedings is determinative of the issue of whether the dispute arises in relation to a particular relationship. Rather: ‘it is obviously necessary to look at the nature of the claim made in those foreign proceedings. It is clear that what is then required is for the court to consider the substance of the claim that is made.’ At 136 ff he lists the arguments leading him to the conclusion that there is ‘no doubt that the dispute concerning the Comfort Letter can fairly (and certainly to a good arguable case standard) be said to originate from [the borrower /lender] relationship.’

The final issue to consider then was Article 31(2): “2. Without prejudice to Article 26, where a court of a Member State on which an agreement as referred to in Article 25 confers exclusive jurisdiction is seised, any court of another Member State shall stay the proceedings until such time as the court seised on the basis of the agreement declares that it has no jurisdiction under the agreement.”

The issue is therefore whether the jurisdiction clause in the present case is a clause which “confers exclusive jurisdiction” within the meaning of Article 31(2). A related question is whether the English court can properly be described as being “seised on the basis of” such exclusive jurisdiction agreement within the meaning of Article 31 (2). Air Berlin says “no” to both questions (on the first, purely on the basis of the clause being asymmetric), and Etihad says “yes”.

Reference is made to Codere, Commerzbank, leading to a firm finding that the clause is exclusive in casu, for it is (in prof Fentimann’s words) ‘exclusive against a counterparty’ and in Louise Mellett’s words (ICLQ, referenced in the judgment)

‘”In an asymmetric agreement, the borrower has promised not to sue anywhere other than the chosen jurisdiction. The question of whether the other party did or did not agree to do the same does not arise when the bank is seeking to enforce the agreement and should be irrelevant. Thus, the point is not so much that “considered as a whole” [asymmetric agreements] are agreements conferring exclusive jurisdiction, as the judge put it in Commerzbank. Rather, each obligation can be considered on its own; the clause includes a promise by the borrower not to sue in any jurisdiction and that promise is capable of being protected by Article 31(2). Each different obligation necessarily falls to be considered separately and the fact that the bank is not under a similar obligation is neither here nor there.”

(Further scholarship discussed includes Dickinson and Lein, and Ahmed; the Hague Convention is also discussed, with reference to Clearlake, on which I have review forthcoming next Monday: I shall update the link once I have posted).

Reference to the CJEU on the Article 31 issue, requested by Air Berlin, is dismissed, something which may have to be reconsidered by the Court of Appeal. But even on the Article 25 discussion (I am thinking in particular of the relevance or not of the formulation of the claim), more CJEU authority in my view would be welcome.

Geert.

(Handbook of) European Private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Ch.2, Heading 2.2.9, Heading 2.2.9.4.1, Heading 2.2.9.5.

Today UNICEF is celebrating the 30th anniversary of the UN Convention of 20 November of 1989 on the Rights of the Child (UN Convention) with many events worldwide. While it is not a private international law instrument per se, many of the modern family law Conventions of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) give effect to several human rights contained therein. For example, the HCCH Abduction Convention gives effect to Articles 10(2) and 11 of the UN Convention and the HCCH Intercountry Adoption Convention does the same with regard to Article 21 of the UN Convention. Another Hague Convention that contributes to this undertaking is the HCCH Protection of Children Convention.

Others are also joining in the celebrations, such as the European Parliament.

PAX Moot is a specialized moot court competition focused on Transnational Law and Private International Law issues. In this competition, participants will be able to learn and apply first-hand the complexities and nuances of how international Conventions and Regulations interact in the context of globalization. Without pleading on the merits of the case, PAX Moot participants will be given a case geared towards jurisdictional and choice of law disputes. Clear goals will be given to each team as to which preliminary ruling they will be striving to achieve, which will form the primary contention of the moot.

The moot court competition comprises a written round and oral round. The oral round will be scheduled as a 2 full-day event on 27-29 May 2020. The first day of the competition (general rounds) will be held at the University of Antwerp. On the second day, the participating teams will be invited to the EU Commission in Brussels, where the semi-finals and final rounds will be held.  Registration will open on 13 January 2020, and the case will be published at around the same time. The Registration fee is set at 100 Euros per Team.

The organisers, thanks to the JUDGTRUST project co-funded by the European Commission, are able to offer some financial support covering transportation and accommodation costs relating to the oral round for a number of participating teams.

For further information please visit www.paxmoot.com. or email us at info@paxmoot.com.

Sincerely,

PAX Moot Team

A quick note on Hiscox v Weyerhaeuser [2019] EWHC 2671 (Comm), in which Knowles J was asked to continue an anti-suit injunction restraining Weyerhaeuser from continuing proceedings in the US courts and ordering parties to turn to arbitration. He obliged.

In April 2018 Weyerhaeuser filed proceedings in the US District Court (Western District of Washington at Seattle)for a declaratory judgment in respect of certain of its insurance excess policies in the tower of excess liability. Weyerhaeuser sought, among other things, a declaration that there is no valid arbitration agreement applicable to any coverage disputes between itself and various defendant insurers and that the US District Court is the appropriate forum for any such disputes.

Knowles J lists the various proceedings pending in the US however particularly in the light of all parties being established businesses, is not impressed by arguments of comity or fairness to restrain the English courts from further involvement in the matter. He expresses the hope and expectation that the US courts will come to the same conclusion as himself, in light of the contractual provisions.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.1.