Droit international général

Posted on behalf of the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH)

The full text of the Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters is now available online. The HCCH released the text of the Convention on its website.

You can it find it here.

Additional information, including the final version of the Explanatory Report to the Convention will be available soon.

The representatives at the Diplomatic Conference at the Hague Convention have issued a provisional text of the Convention here. I am short of time to post a quick scan of the Convention – see some of my earlier posts on same. Also, since the Convention has taken on the format of the Brussels regime, it is of course quite an exercise even just to give a quick overview.

Of interest is that Jane Holliday posted a summary of key positive takeaways by prof Paul Beaumont, who was heavily involved in the drafting i.a. as a representative of the EU. These include the room for asymmetric choice of court (not covered by the Hague choice of court Convention and crucial for many common law jurisdictions); and the blend between the US and the EU regime for forum contractus: Article 5(g):

‘the judgment ruled on a contractual obligation and it was given by a court of the State in which performance of that obligation took place, or should have taken place, in accordance with

(i) the agreement of the parties, or (ii) the law applicable to the contract, in the absence of an agreed place of performance,

unless the activities of the defendant in relation to
the transaction clearly did not constitute a purposeful and substantial connection to that State.

Of note of course is also the carve-out for intellectual property and of ‘unilateral’ sovereign debt restructuring, but also of defamation and of privacy.

Much analysis no doubt to follow, as are complications in reaching a unified interpretation of the Convention once ratified.

Geert.

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

Anna Bizer, doctoral candidate at the University of Freiburg, has kindly provided us with her thoughts on AG Szpunar’s opinion in the case of Glawischnig-Piesczek v Facebook Ireland (C-18/18).

Since the EP-proposal from 2012, the European Union has not shown any efforts to fill the gap still existing in the Rome II Regulation regarding violations of personality rights (Article 1(2)(g)). However, Advocate General Szpunar has just offered some thoughts on the issue in his opinion on the case of Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek v Facebook Ireland Limited (C-18/18) from 18 June 2019.

Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek, an Austrian politician, claimed that a Facebook user had violated her personality right by posting a defamatory comment on the social network. She sued Facebook Ireland for the removal of the publication in question as well as other identical and/or equivalent publications. The commercial court in Vienna granted a corresponding injunction and Facebook Ireland did indeed disable access to the publication – but only in Austria by means of geo-blocking. Hereafter, the Austrian Supreme Court referred various questions to the CJEU regarding the interpretation of Article 15(1) of the e-Commerce Directive (Directive 2000/31) which prohibits the imposition of a general monitoring obligation on host providers. While the details of the responsibility of host providers regarding their users’ activities are certainly interesting, this comment focuses on the territorial dimension of the provider’s obligation to delete certain online content. So, the crucial question is whether an Austrian court may oblige Facebook Ireland to make a user’s comment globally inaccessible or whether the injunction is limited to the respective state of the court.

First of all, the AG addresses the issue of jurisdiction by referring to the CJEU’s eDate decision (C-509/09, C-161/10): „the court of a Member State may, as a general rule, adjudicate on the removal of content outside the territory of that Member State, as the territorial extent of its jurisdiction is universal. A court of a Member State may be prevented from adjudicating on a removal worldwide not because of a question of jurisdiction but, possibly, because of a question of substance.” (para. 86) This statement is, in fact, convincing as the CJEU decided in Bolagsupplysningen (C-194/16, para. 48) that the removal of content is a single and indivisible application which can only be made by a court with “universal” jurisdiction (see our earlier posts here and here).

AG Szpunar further states that the territorial dimension of an injunction cannot be determined by Articles 1, 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights because the original claim was not based on EU law and was therefore outside the scope of the Charter (para. 89). In addition, neither did the claimant invoke the European law on data protection (para. 90) nor does the Brussels Ibis Regulation require that an injunction issued by the court of a Member State also has effects in third states (para. 91). Thus, the AG’s – convincing – result is that EU law does not regulate the question of the territorial scope of an injunction regarding the violation of personality rights (para. 93).

However – and now the interesting part begins – AG Szpunar elaborates on the question of assessing cross-border violations of personality rights in case the CJEU did not agree with the inapplicability of EU law (para. 94-103). These considerations are not based on any legal text as, according to the AG, the question is not regulated by EU law.

Generally, AG Szpunar is not comfortable with a worldwide obligation to remove an online publication, “because of the illegality of that information established under an applicable law, [such an obligation] would have the consequence that the finding of its illegality would have effects in other States. In other words, the finding of the illegal nature of the information in question would extend to the territories of those other States” (para. 80). To avoid this effect, a worldwide obligation of removal could only be justified when all potentially applicable laws agree. Of course, this leads to disadvantages: “should a claimant be required, in spite of the practical difficulties, to prove that the information characterised as illegal according to the law designated as applicable under the conflict rules of the Member State in which he brought the action is illegal according to all the potentially applicable laws?” (para. 97). AG Szpunar leaves this question unanswered and continues to focus on the freedom of information: „the legitimate public interest in having access to information will necessarily vary, depending on its geographic location, from one third State to another. Thus, as regards removal worldwide, there is a danger that its implementation will prevent persons established in States other than that of the court seised from having access to the information.” (para. 99)

To avoid this conflict between the freedom of information and personality rights, AG Szpunar recommends the following: “However, owing to the differences between, on the one hand, national laws and, on the other, the protection of the private life and personality rights provided for in those laws, and in order to respect the widely recognised fundamental rights, such a court must, rather, adopt an approach of self-limitation. Therefore, in the interest of international comity […] that court should, as far as possible, limit the extraterritorial effects of its junctions concerning harm to private life and personality rights. The implementation of a removal obligation should not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the protection of the injured person. Thus, instead of removing the content, that court might, in an appropriate case, order that access to that information be disabled with the help of geo-blocking.” (para. 100) “Those considerations cannot be called into question by the applicant’s argument that the geo-blocking of the illegal information could be easily circumvented by a proxy server or by other means.” (Rz. 101)

First, it is noteworthy that the AG strongly emphasizes the freedom of information. So far, this aspect has been rather neglected in the discussion on violations of personality rights compared to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. However, including freedom of information in the balancing of interest reflects that a publication necessarily requires to be noted by at least one other person to have defamatory effects.

Second, the AG sees the solution in geo-blocking. This solution can of course be considered worthy to be debated further as geo-blocking is already a popular means used amongst host providers. However, it is not clear from the AG’s statement why the risk of circumvention should not be considered, although any order by a court to protect personality rights ought to be effective. In any case, this approach conflicts with the efforts of the European Union to restrict geo-blocking within the internal market (Regulation (EU) 2018/302) and should thus not be supported.

Third, the AG’s approach leads to a rather unsatisfactory result for the claimant. One should not forget how the internet generally and social media especially operate: interesting content will be shared and disseminated again and again. These new publications, however, will not be restricted by geo-blocking unless the host provider actively intervenes.

Fourth, it is doubtful if the AG’s approach is fit for reality: the idea of an approach of self-limitation for the courts based on the question “What is really necessary?” appears rather vague and not helpful for the deciding judges. This question is of a fundamental nature and requires an evaluative assessment. In order to achieve legal certainty, this crucial question of necessity should be answered by the legislature or at least the CJEU and should not be decided on a case-by-case-basis.

Fifth, one has to consider the effects of this proposal in the context of conflict of laws in a technical sense: if a claimant wanted Facebook to delete a publication globally and a court had “universal” jurisdiction according to eDate and Bolagsupplysningen, the court – in accordance with the suggestion of the AG – would have to apply the laws of each state from which the publication is still accessible. To make a long story short: Adopting the AG’s proposal means resurrecting the mosaic approach in conflict of laws! This appears to be a step backwards. Not only are the disadvantages of the mosaic principle in times of the internet commonly known, but also this approach contradicts the CJEU’s rejection of the mosaic principle regarding the question of jurisdiction in actions for the removal of publications (Bolagsupplysningen).

Finally, the question of the direct consequences of this opinion remains. It is likely that the CJEU will follow the first proposal of AG Szpunar that the question of the territorial dimension of an injunction for the violation of personality rights is not regulated by EU law and can thus not be decided by the CJEU. However, the AG’s opinion offers a new and interesting perspective on the issue of cross-border violations of personality rights which might give a boost to achieve international harmonisation.

Prepared by Cara North, external consultant to the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH). This post reflects only personal views.

Today marks a momentous occasion (in the private international law world at least): the conclusion of the Diplomatic Session on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (“Judgments Convention”) (a link to the final text of the Convention will be available soon at www.hcch.net). A Convention that, as noted by the Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (“HCCH”) during his opening remarks for the Session, will be a “gamechanger for cross-border dispute settlement and an apex stone for global efforts to improve real and effective access to justice.”

The origins of the Judgments Convention date back to the early 1990s with a proposal from the United States of America for a mixed convention dealing with the exercise of jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. After many years of hard work on a draft instrument, it was decided that such an instrument was indeed too ambitious, and it was preferable for the HCCH to focus on more specific projects that fell within the remit of that work. The HCCH refocussed its energies on an instrument concerning exclusive choice of court agreements and, with the benefit of the hard work undertaken in the early 1990s, the  Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (“Choice of Court Convention”) was concluded in 2005. That Convention entered in to force in 2015 with Mexico and the European Union becoming Contracting Parties. Since then, Singapore and Montenegro have followed suit and a few other States have either signed the Convention or otherwise indicated their intention to become party to the Convention.

Following the successful conclusion of the Choice of Court Convention, the HCCH once again took stock of potential future projects. In 2012, the train was set in motion for work and negotiations on the Judgments Convention to commence. At first it was decided that the work on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments would be undertaken alongside work on regulating international jurisdiction in civil or commercial matters. However, it was then decided that work would first proceed on drafting an instrument on the recognition and enforcement of judgments, with work on international jurisdiction to follow thereafter.

Some seven years and many meetings later, the Judgments Convention has been concluded. Sharing in the enthusiasm for this long-standing project Uruguay signed the Convention today.

The Objectives and Architecture of the Judgments Convention

Broadly speaking, like the Choice of Court Convention, the objectives of the Judgments Convention are (i) enhancing access to justice and (ii) facilitating cross-border trade and investment by reducing the costs and risks associated with cross-border dealings.

Building on the hard work undertaken in the early 2000s to complete the Choice of Court Convention and with the intention of the Judgments Convention operating as a sister instrument to the Choice of Court Convention, the Judgments Convention took, where appropriate, the basic structure and provisions of the Choice of Court Convention as its starting point. The working method adopted was to depart from the provisions of the Choice of Court Convention only where there was good reason to do so.

With that basic structure and working method in mind, work then focussed on the circumstances in which it would be largely uncontroversial for a civil or commercial judgment rendered in the courts of one Contracting State to be recognised and enforced in the courts of another Contracting State.

A comprehensive overview of the provisions in the Judgments Convention will be found in the forthcoming Explanatory Report to the Judgments Convention. This blog post serves to highlight just some of the key provisions.

A Brief Overview of Some Key Provisions

The Convention is separated into four chapters. Chapter I concerns the scope and definitions. Articles 1 and 2 provide the scope of the Convention (i.e., civil or commercial matters) and Article 2 of the Convention provides a number of exclusions from scope. In some respects, these exclusions mirror the exclusions found in the Choice of Court Convention. There are, however, some notable differences including the exclusion of privacy matters and the exclusion of intellectual property matters (a topic which was the subject of a considerable amount of consultation and discussion), as well as some notable inclusions such as certain tort matters, judgments ruling on rights in rem in immovable property and tenancies of immovable property as well as a very limited number of anti-trust (competition) law matters (emphasis added). Article 3 provides a number of important definitions, including the definition of “judgment”. The Convention provides for the circulation of final judgments, this includes both money and non-money judgments. This is of particular importance because while some jurisdictions recognise and enforce money judgments under national law, the traditional approach under others (e.g., under the common law system) is to decline to enforce non-money judgments.

Chapter II contains several core provisions. Most importantly, it identifies the judgments that are eligible for recognition and enforcement and sets out the process for the recognition and enforcement of those judgments.  In this respect, Article 4 contains the core obligation under the Convention. It provides that “a judgment given by a court of a Contracting State shall be recognised and enforced in another Contracting State in accordance with [Chapter 2 of the Convention].” Article 5 then sets out the categories of judgments that are eligible for recognition and enforcement. It contains an exhaustive list of indirect grounds of jurisdiction. These grounds fall into three broad categories based on (i) the connection between the State of origin and the defendant (e.g., habitual residence in the State of origin), (ii) jurisdiction based on consent (e.g., express consent to the court of origin in the course of proceedings) or (iii) a connection between the claim and the State of origin (e.g., place of performance of the contract).  Some of these grounds are commonly found in regional instruments concerning the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil or commercial matters and/or are under the national law of many jurisdictions, for other jurisdictions the provisions will significantly broaden the basis on which courts will be obliged to recognise and enforce foreign judgments. At this juncture, it should be noted that the Convention, with one exception, does not limit recognition and enforcement under national law in any way. Article 15 of the Convention provides that, subject to Article 6, the Convention does not prevent the recognition or enforcement of judgments under national law. Article 6 contains one exclusive basis of jurisdiction concerning rights in rem in immovable property. It provides that where a judgment ruled on rights in rem in immovable property, that judgment will be recognised and enforced under the Convention if and only if the State of origin is the State in which the property is situated. Article 7(1) contains the specific grounds on which recognition or enforcement may be refused.  There are two categories of grounds (i) based on the way the proceedings took place in the State of origin (e.g., improper notice); or (ii) based on the nature and content of the judgment (e.g., where the judgment is inconsistent with a judgment given by a court of the State in which enforcement is sought).

Articles 8 to 11 provide for specific issues concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention and Articles 12 to 14 concern the process for recognition and enforcement of judgments under the Convention and largely mirror the relevant Choice of Court Convention provisions. As noted above, Article 15 – the last Article in Chapter II – is an important provision in that it cements the basic premise of the Judgments Convention i.e., that it sets the minimum standards for the recognition and enforcement of judgments among Contracting States.

Chapter III deals with general clauses and importantly includes a number of permissible declarations such as (i) declarations with respect to specific matters (Article 18) which enables a State to declare that it will not apply the Convention to a specific matter where that State has a strong interest in doing so (the same provision is found in Article 21 of the Choice of Court Convention); and (ii) declarations with respect to judgments pertaining to States (Article 19). Article 19 enables a State to make a declaration excluding the application of the Convention to judgments which arose from proceedings to which a State was a party, even where the judgment relates to civil or commercial matters.

Finally, Chapter IV of the Convention deals with final clauses, which concern important matters such as the process for ratification of the Convention and the establishment of treaty relations between Contracting States.

What’s next?

With the successful conclusion of the Judgments Convention, the HCCH can once again look to future projects in the area of international civil and commercial litigation. So, what’s next for the work programme of the HCCH in this space?

First, the HCCH is set to resume work on matters relating to jurisdiction. The 2019 Conclusions and Recommendations following the meeting of the Council on General Affairs and Policy (the governing body that sets the work programme of the HCCH) provide that in February 2020 the Experts’ Group will resume its work “addressing matters relating to jurisdiction with a view to preparing an additional instrument”.

Second, as a decision was made to exclude intellectual property matters from the scope of the Convention, the Diplomatic Session invited “the Council on General Affairs and Policy to consider, at its 2020 meeting, what, if any, further work it wishes the HCCH to undertake on the intersection between private international law and intellectual property”. This decision was recorded in the Final Act of the Judgments Convention.

Decades since work commenced in this area, the conclusion of the Judgments Convention is a significant milestone for the HCCH. But more importantly, with the exponential growth in international trade since the commencement of the Judgments Project, and the consequential corresponding increase in the number of transnational commercial disputes, it is now more important than ever for parties engaged in cross-border disputes to have effective access to justice. Once widely ratified, the Convention will go a long way toward enhancing access to justice and facilitating cross-border trade and investment.

Posted for the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH)

Today, the delegates of the 22nd Diplomatic Session of the HCCH signed the Final Act of the 2019 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters – the birth of new treaty and an important day for global justice as well as for the HCCH.

The signing of the Final Act took place during a ceremony in the Great Hall of Justice in the Peace Palace in the presence of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Mr Stef Blok.

The Minister emphasised that the new Convention: “enhances the legal certainty and predictability that is so important in international legal matters…”.

This new Convention will be essential to reducing transactional and litigation costs in cross-border dealings and to promoting international access to justice. It will increase certainty and predictability, promote the better management of transaction and litigation risks, and shorten timeframes for the recognition and enforcement of a judgement in other jurisdictions, providing better, more effective, and cheaper justice for individuals and businesses alike. A true gamechanger in international dispute resolution.

The Secretary General of the HCCH, Dr Christophe Bernasconi, stressed that the 2019 Judgments Convention fills an important gap in private international law. He also reminded delegates that with the signing of the Final Act, the work of promoting the 2019 Judgments Convention has only just begun. Professor Paul Vlas, President of the 22nd Diplomatic Session, echoed this sentiment and reiterated that the fast, wide and effective uptake of the Convention by the international community is its next milestone.

After the signing of the Final Act, Uruguay signed as first State the new 2019 Judgments Convention.

The text of the 2019 Judgments Convention, the HCCH’s 40th global instrument, will be available shortly on www.hcch.net.

Thank you Stephen McConnell for flagging Mitchell v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. (Missouri) and Alani Golanski for doing the same for KGS v Facebook at the Alabama Supreme Court,

Both cases have plenty of scope for comparative analysis viz EU law and non-US common law. Which is why I had pondered them for use in exam essays but in the end did not – they might come in handy at a later stage. 

Readers best refer to the reports linked above for a full picture. In short, Mitchell involves the minimum contacts rule as well as ‘directing activities towards forum residents’: both have clear echos (and differences) in EU jurisdictional rules. On neither ground was specific (what the EU would call ‘special’) jurisdiction upheld.

In the Facebook case, Facebook argument is included on p.10-11. Claimant put forward a case for jurisdiction on p.13-14. She argues i.a. effects doctrine. Bryan J discussed both extensively p.15 ff and held that doing business in Alabama is not sufficient for personal jur., and (p.39) Facebook engagement with complaints not enough for specific jurisdiction.

In both cases the US Supreme Court’s decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb is cited as highly relevant authority.

Geert.

An ordinary case for the recognition of a German order appointing a legal guardian became a sheer nightmare for the applicant. It took her twelve years in total, three decisions in Germany and another six in Greece, for finally being recognized as an appointed legal guardian of her husband…

The case is primarily interesting for German colleagues, given that it concerns the 1961 bilateral treaty on the recognition and enforcement of judgments between the two states; however, it serves as a general pattern for the selection of the proper applicable law in similar cases, irrespective of the nationality of the foreign judgment. More here.

Posted for the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law:

Today, the HCCH finalised the text for a new multilateral treaty: the 2019 HCCH Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters.

The 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention will be a single global framework, enabling the free circulation of judgments in civil or commercial matters across borders. It will be essential to reducing the transactional and litigation costs in cross-border dealings and to promoting international access to justice. It will provide a legal regime that further increases certainty and predictability in cross-border dealings, promotes the better management of transaction and litigation risks, and which shortens timeframes for the recognition and enforcement of a judgement in other jurisdictions.

The 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention will provide better, more effective, and cheaper justice for individuals and businesses alike – a gamechanger in international dispute resolution.

The Final Act will be signed during a ceremony which will take place tomorrow, 2 July 2019, in the Great Hall of Justice in the Peace Palace.

Follow the HCCH on this journey with #2019HCCHDS and #2019HCCHJudgments

Adding to the list of recent German publications on Private International Law, the 3rd edition of Volume VI of the German NomosKommentar BGB has just been published.

The book edited by Heinz-Peter Mansel (University of Cologne) and Rainer Hüßtege (Higher Regional Court of Munich) offers detailed commentary on the Rome I, II, and III Regulations, the Succession Regulation (650/2012), the two new Regulations on matrimonial property regimes and property consequences of registered partnerships (2016/1103 and 2016/1104), and on the 2007 Hague Maintenance Obligations Protocol. The authors include both academics and practitioners, with the book seeking to not only make a contribution to legal scholarship but to also provide guidance for legal practitioners working on cross-border cases.

On 8 July 2019, the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law will host the third conference organized in the framework of the ILA Committee on the Protection of Privacy in Private International and Procedural Law, chaired by Prof. Dr. Dres. h.c. Burkhard Hess. After having tackled, in 2014, the shaping of a new understanding of the right to privacy and its impact on competing fundamental rights and having explored, in 2017, some of the most controversial issues lying at the intersection between private international and data protection law, this conference takes a step forward and explores emerging aspects in the protection of privacy in interconnected digital environments. Gathering international leading experts in this area of the law, the conference defines the current challenges and offers prospective solutions, illustrating the need for either significant adaptations of traditional concepts or the pursuit of innovative solutions.

More details on the event are available here.

Participation in the event is free of charge but registration via email by 3 July is a prerequisite (events@mpi.lu).

For those of you who read German it is great news that volume 2 of the leading German textbook on Private International Law, ‘Internationales Privatrecht’ by Christian von Bar has just been published in a second edition, now authored by Peter Mankowski. The impressive book offers a comprehensive analysis of the current framework of Private International Law concepts and rules in specific areas of law: contractual and non-contractual obligations, law of property, family law, law of succession, personal law of natural persons and company law. The book combines a didactic approach with a far-reaching comparative methodology and admirable in-depth analyses. An indispensable reference guide and source of inspiration for everyone interested in Private International Law! Highly recommended!

Further information and the table of contents can be found here and here.

In July 2018, Professors Claudia Schubert (then University of Bochum, now Hamburg), Yuanshi Bu and Jan von Hein (both University of Freiburg) organised a comparative, Chinese-German symposium on the recent codification of the general principles of Chinese private law and their implications for freedom of contract (including choice of law) in Freiburg. The contributions to this conference have now been published in a special edition of the German Journal of Chinese Law (Zeitschrift für Chinesisches Recht [ZChinR]) Vol. 26 No. 1 (2019). The full issue is available (for subscribers) here. All the articles are in German, but the authors have kindly provided the following English abstracts:

Franz Jürgen Säcker: The Development of Civil Law in Accordance with the Constitutional and Economic Order (§ 1 General Part of the Chinese Civil Code)

The article compares the General Part of the German Civil Code with the General Part of the Chinese Civil Code. The author positively assesses the fundamental-rights-related provisions at the top of the Chinese Civil Code, their serving as ideal guiding principles on interpretative matters. Further, he welcomes the inclusion of intention and fault as relevant bases of obligations. The structure and system of the General Part of the Chinese Civil Code is very similar to that of the German Civil Code. However, legal uncertainties and doubts remain here as well, as shown by the example of regulations on usury.

BU Yuanshi: The Principle of Legal Equality

The legal equality of all civil law subjects in China has been codified in § 2 of the General Part of the People’s Republic of China’s Civil Code. The article conveys the significance of the codification by detailing the difficulties in finding a consensus and agreeing upon a choice of words for § 2 GPCL on the one hand and §§ 4 and 113 GPCL on the other. The purpose and content of the codification are clarified in particular by a comparison to the earlier General Principles of Civil Law. Since the principle of legal equality was already entailed in the General Principles of Civil Law, the main function of § 2 GPCL is one of consolidation. Such a function also appears to be of greater significance in light of China’s legislative history. The codification of § 2 GPCL is criticized with regard to the separation of civil and administrative law. However, a comparison to foreign codifications justifies such a separation. The true significance of § 2 GPCL lays in both its “ripple effect” on other codifications as well as in its justiciability. The principle of legal equality has penetrated into various laws, whereas the application of the principle of equality by courts is still debated in legal literature. Nonetheless, the principle has served as grounds for various judgements, some of which were announced by the SPC itself.

Andreas Engert: Contractual Freedom vs. Contractual Justice – §§ 5 and 6 of the General Part of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China

The article examines the relationship between the principles of contractual freedom and justice as enshrined in the new General Part of the Chinese Civil Code. To this end, it considers the contract theory of German legal scholar Walter Schmidt-Rimpler. According to this theory, contractual freedom is merely a means of creating a “correct” (just) regulation of a contractual exchange between parties. However, the free bargaining process does not guarantee that the resulting contract will be perfectly just. Therefore, it seems obvious at first glance that the contract should be subject to comprehensive judicial review. Schmidt-Rimpler objected to such far-reaching interventions as a serious threat to legal certainty. The article elaborates on this claim in more detail. It thus provides a reason why judicial review of a contract must remain narrowly limited even if freedom of contract is only a means to the end of contractual justice.

ZHANG Shuanggen: The Principle of Good Faith in Chinese Civil Law

The article focuses on two aspects in relation to the topic of good faith. First, the state of the current commentary on the Chinese ATZR is briefly presented and evaluated against the yardstick of German legal commentary. Second, individual questions typical of the commentary on § 7 ATZR and the principle of good faith are addressed, such as whether a “special rights relationship” is a prerequisite for the application of Section § 7 ATZR, and how the relationship between the principle of good faith and other individual legal institutions should be understood.

Claudia Schubert: The Principle of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (§§ 6, 7 AT ZGB)

Good faith and fair dealing is a basic principle in German and Chinese civil law. Whereas the German Civil Code does not expressly regulate the principle and relies instead on a general clause in paragraph 242, Chinese law specifies the principle and its manifestations. In both countries the principle of good faith limits the exercise of rights and creates individual justice on the basis of a balancing of interests. Unlike German law, the Chinese Civil Code includes a separate principle of iustitia commutativa. Therefore, the principle of good faith and fair dealing is not completely congruent in both countries.

FENG Jieyu: Public Law Limitations on the Freedom of Contract – A Commentary on § 8 General Part of the Chinese Civil Code

In § 8 of the General Part of the Chinese Civil Code (GPCC), which originated from § 8 of the General Principles of Chinese Civil Law and § 7 of the Contract Law, illegality and public morality are regulated. Compared to the German BGB, it is a special feature of § 8 GPCC that illegality and immorality are regulated in the same paragraph. This reflects the discussion in China about the relationship between prohibitive legal rules and public morality. As a principle, § 8 GPCC is specified in the field of contract law by § 52 No. 4 and 5 Contract Law. The interpretation of “law” in the sense of § 8 GPCC and § 52 No. 5 Contract Law encountered problems in the application of law. Legal theory and legal interpretations in China seek to limit the scope of legal prohibitions. In order to assess the validity of a contract, recent Chinese theory creates a flexible system comprising eight evaluative elements, e.g. the degree to which a contract has been fulfilled.

WANG Hongliang: Public Morality and Contractual Penalties

This article first discusses the principle of public morality. Any legal transaction which violates public morality is void. Thereafter, it is analysed how the principle of public morality affects the concept of contractual penalties. In the view of the legislature, only penalties having the nature of a sanction are compatible with the principle of public morality. However, penalties having a punitive character are not prohibited, instead being only limited. Thirdly, the article considers how an agreed contractual penalty may be reduced. If the contractual penalty that the parties have agreed to is excessive, the judge can reduce it on application of a party. However, not infrequently the judges in China will apply the principle of public morality to a contractual penalty ex officio. In addition, the article looks at legislative provisions limiting usury and the permissible annual interest rate for loan agreements.

Jan Lieder / Philipp Pordzik: Environmental Protection as a Limitation of the Freedom of Contract

With § 9 of the General Part of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China, an obligation to protect the environment was incorporated into Chinese civil law. Henceforth, when legal entities conduct legal transactions, they must contribute to the conservation of resources and protect the ecological environment. This article considers the extent to which § 9 limits the contractual freedom guaranteed in § 5 of the General Part of the Civil Code. For this purpose, the content and scope of the provision will be subject to a critical-constructive analysis with recourse to comparable provisions in German law.

HE Jian: The Green Principle and Law and Economics in Chinese Civil Law

Article 9 of the General Provisions of the Chinese Civil Code (the green principle) aims not only at protecting the environment but also at preserving resources. Although environmental protection is a crucial part of the green principle, this aspect of the principle can rarely be applied in the context of public law or private law. The notion of preserving resources can be interpreted in different ways. A single dimension interpretation is quite common in practice, but it is erroneous. A comprehensive interpretation is synonymous with a minimization of social costs or a maximization of social wealth and leads to a law and economics approach. This must be the future of the green principle.

Phillip Hellwege: The Role of Common Practices under the General Part of the Chinese Civil Code

According to § 10 of the Chinese General Part of the Civil Code, a court may refer to common practices only where there are gaps in the law. Although on its face an easily grasped provision, its interpretation raises a number of problems. The present contribution formulates an interpretation from a comparative perspective. This viewpoint suggests that § 10 uses the term common practices in the meaning of customary law. Furthermore, it would be preferable to interpret § 10 such that customary law is of equal rank to statutory law, thereby allowing customary law to also trump non-mandatory statutory law.

ZHUANG Jiayuan: Draft-Commentary on § 79 Contract Law – An Excerpt

This article presents an excerpt from a commentary on § 79 Contract Law regarding the assignment of claims. In principle, legal claims constitute an important property asset and therefore can be assigned freely. Such an assignment transfers a legal right, which thus requires the assignor to hold legal title of the transferred claim. Reasons for limiting or prohibiting assignment can stem from the content of the claim at hand, the underlying circumstances or societal policies. In addition, parties often agree on the non-assignability of a certain claim. It is pointed out in this article that a prohibition or limitation of assignment also serves to limit the content of the claim itself. The doctrines of relative validity and similar theories are discussed, with focus also placed on the legal status of an assignor, an assignee and a debtor as well as on liquidity and the interests of third parties.

Jan von Hein: Limitations to Contractual Freedom in Private International Law (§ 12 General Part of the Chinese Civil Code)

Although the principle of territoriality has been codified in section 12, 1st sentence, of the General Part of the Chinese Civil Code (GPCC), it merely serves as a default rule in legal practice because, pursuant to the 2nd sentence of section 12 GPCC, the provisions of the Chinese Act on Private International Law and the judicial interpretation by the Supreme People’s Court take precedence. In the present article, the rules governing party autonomy in Chinese international contract law are compared with their counterparts in the Rome I Regulation and the Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts. Although EU and Chinese PIL differ in some technical details, their general approach to party autonomy and the laws that may be chosen is quite similar. Substantial differences exist with regard to consumer and individual employment contracts, but their practical impact appears to be limited. Insofar, the Hague Principles do not offer any guidance for further harmonisation because their scope is limited to B2B scenarios. Both the EU and the Chinese PIL rules are characterised by gaps and uncertainty as far as foreign overriding mandatory rules are concerned.

ZHU Xiaozhe: Party Autonomy and its Limitation when Determining the Law Applicable Law to Foreign Related Civil Relations

12 of the General Part of the new Chinese Civil Code originates from § 8 of the former General Principles of Civil Law. Specifying an absolute principle of territoriality, and thereby reflecting a traditional emphasis on sovereignty, the provision has been heavily criticized in terms of both theory and its legal application. In the view of the legislature, this problem should be remedied by China’s Code on Private International Law (PIL Code) taking precedence over § 12. China’s PIL Code states that the parties can exercise party autonomy so as to agree on the applicable law before or even after the formation of legal relationships. While the menu of eligible laws traditionally encompassed laws having a “substantial connection”to the case at hand, this requirement has been relaxed in § 7 of the Supreme People’s Court interpretive guidelines. Nonetheless, party autonomy is limited by overriding mandatory rules, public policy and notions of consumer protection.

In [2019] EWHC 1391 (QB) Percival v Moto Novu LLC Murray J considers the ins and outs of Article 38 Brussels Ia.

The dispute arose out of an aborted property transaction in Italy. Mr Teruzzi and Ms Puthod are husband and wife. La Fattoria was a “pass-through” company incorporated under Italian law and owned by Mr Teruzzi and Ms Puthod through which the property at the centre of the dispute was temporarily owned. It has since been dissolved.

By an Assignment of Rights of Judgment dated 28 March 2011 (but signed by the parties on 29 June 2011) and governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (“the 2011 Assignment”), Mr Teruzzi assigned to the respondent, Motu Novu LLC (“Motu Novu”), a Delaware limited liability company, all of his right, title and interest in the Tribunal Judgment and the CA Milan Judgment. There is a dispute between the parties as to whether the 2011 Assignment was also effective to transfer the right, title and interest of Ms Puthod and La Fattoria in those judgments or, if not, whether that fact is relevant to the effectiveness of the registration.

At 8: Title III (the recognition and enforcement Title) involves two stages: i) under Article 39 of the Regulation, a first stage involving only the applicant, who must be an “interested party” and who applies ex parte to the relevant “court or competent authority” listed in Annex II to the Regulation to obtain an order for registration of the foreign judgment in order to permit enforcement locally; and ii) under Article 43 of the Regulation, a second stage, inter partes, during which the respondent (the judgment debtor) has the opportunity to raise certain limited objections by lodging an “appeal” (under English CPR rules this would be an application to set aside the order).

Under Article 44 of the Regulation, the order made on appeal under Article 43 is subject to a single further appeal on a point of law.

At 11: The ex parte stage of the registration process is governed by Articles 38 to 42 of the Regulation. The inter partes stage is governed by Articles 43 to 47. The remainder of section 2 of chapter III of the Regulation, Articles 48 to 52, deals with miscellaneous points that do not arise in this case, other than in relation to Article 48 (undue delay).

The process is further described in detail in the judgment. This is most helpful. Unless one has done one of these oneself, in all Member States the actual procedure is often shrouded in various levels of fog.

Of longer term authority interest is the discussion of the mistake made at an earlier stage, to register all 3 Italian judgments even though under Italian law only one of them was actually enforceable. At 44 Murray J in my view justifiably excuses this error: there is nothing ‘in the Regulation, or otherwise, (that) limits an applicant’s registration of a foreign judgment to the proportion to which he is entitled. I have seen no authority for that proposition.’

What is also of note is the concept of ‘interested party’. At 45:

The term “interested party” is not defined in the Regulation, but a person who is the assignee of a named judgment creditor, even where there are other named judgment creditors, is clearly an interested party. It seems to me fundamentally incompatible with the deliberately limited and mechanical nature of the registration process under chapter III of the Regulation that the registering court or competent authority should be required to enquire into the nature and extent of an applicant’s interest in a judgment, beyond what is necessary to establish prima facie that the applicant is an interested party.

I believe this is right. That the proceedings leading to the Italian Judgment were served on the Original Claimants on 17 January 2011, pre-dating the 2011 Assignment by over two months has therefore become irrelevant (at 48).

Intricate detail of Title III is not often litigated. This judgment is noteworthy.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.16.

Yesterday the Council of the European Union adopted the Council regulation on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction (recast) (Brussels IIa regulation). For more information, see here.

As indicated on the Council’s website, the new rules will apply 3 years after the publication of the regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union.

For an English version of the regulation, see here (dated 24 May 2019). A Spanish version is available here (dated 24 June 2019).

The Institute for International Business Law of the University of Münster (Germany) will be hosting a conference on “Kollisionsrecht 4.0 – Künstliche Intelligenz, smart contracts und Bitcoins als Herausforderungen für das Internationale Privatrecht” on 8 November 2019 in Münster (Germany). The conference will examine the conflict of laws challenges arising from artificial intelligence and blockchain phenomena. Wolfgang Prinz (Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology FIT), will provide the indispensible technical background.

Speakers are Stefan Arnold, Bettina Heiderhoff, Matthias Lehmann, Jan Lüttringhaus, Gerald Mäsch and Michael Stürner. Further information and registration (before October 24th) at https://zivindico.uni-muenster.de/e/kollisionsrecht.

Not all of [2019] EWHC 1579 (Fam) RJ v Tigipko is easily understood. Detail is kept private and proceedings were conducted in camera for evident reasons. The case concerns an earlier order to return a child from the Ukraine, which was followed up by an unsuccessful appeal to the Ukrainian courts to recognise this order under the 1996 Hague convention. Application in England now is to beef up the return order.

What is of interest to the blog is the consideration of action against the maternal grandfather. From the little detail in the judgment one can infer that he is complicit in the parental kidnapping. What exactly is being asked from him is not made clear however it is not quite like an anti-suit but rather (at 21) ‘a mandatory injunction requiring a party to commence and act in a foreign suit in a certain way, which is an order.’ Here, at 20, Mostyn J would seem to be minded to apply CJEU C-159/02 Turner v Grovit to Hague Convention States.

That, I would suggest, is a bold move not supported by either authority or spirit of EU law. Full argument on it will be heard later.

Geert.

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

In [2019] EWHC 960 (Ch) New Look Secured Issuer and New Look Ltd, Smith J at H applies the standing rules on jurisdiction over the scheme and other companies which I also signalled in Algeco and Apcoa (with further reference in the latter post). Against the scheme companies jurisdiction is straightforward: they are England incorporated.  Against the scheme creditors, English courts apply the jurisdictional test viz the Brussels I Recast (‘a’) Regulation arguendo: if it were to apply (which the English Courts have taken no definitive stance on), would an English court have jurisdiction? Yes, it is held: under Article 8 (anchor defendants). (Often Article 25 is used as argument, too).

At 48 Smith J signals the ‘intensity’ issue: ‘In some cases it has been suggested that it may not be enough to identify a single creditor domiciled in the United Kingdom, and that the court should consider whether the number and size of creditors in the UK are sufficiently large: see Re Van Gansewinkel Groep, [2015] EWHC 2151 (Ch) at [51]); Global Garden Products at [25]; Re Noble Group Ltd [2018] EWHC 3092 (Ch) at [114] to [116].’ Smith J is minded towards the first, more liberal approach: at 49. He refers to the liberal anchoring approach in competition cases, both stand-alone (think Media Saturn) and follow-on (think Posten /Bring v Volvo, with relevant links there).

At 51 he also discusses the ‘substantial effects’ test and classifies it under ‘jurisdiction’:

‘As well as showing a sufficient jurisdictional connection with England, it is also necessary to show that the Schemes, if approved, will be likely to have a substantial effect in any foreign jurisdictions involved in or engaged by the Schemes. This is because the court will generally not make any order which has no substantial effect and, before the court will sanction a scheme, it will need to be satisfied that the scheme will achieve its purpose: Sompo Japan Insurance Inc v Transfercom Ltd, [2007] EWHC 146 (Ch); Re Rodenstock GmbH, [2011] EWHC 1104 (Ch) at [73]-[77]; Re Magyar Telecom BV, [2013] EWHC 3800 (Ch) at [16].’ 

This is not quite kosher I believe. If, even arguendo, jurisdiction is established under Brussels Ia, then no ‘substantial effects’ test must apply at the jurisdictional stage. Certainly not vis-a-vis the scheme companies. Against the scheme creditors, one may perhaps classify it is a means to test the ‘abuse’ prohibition in Article 8(1)’s anchor mechanism.

A useful reminder of the principles. And some doubt re the substantial effects test.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd edition 2016, Chapter 5.

The latest issue of the „Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax)“ features the following articles:

S.A. Kruisinga: Commercial Courts in the Netherlands, Belgium, France and Germany – Salient Features and Challenges

A new trend is emerging in continental Europe: several states have taken the initiative to establish a new commercial court which will use English as the language of the proceedings. Other states have provided that the English language may be used in civil proceedings before the existing national courts. Several questions arise in this context. Will such a new international (chamber of the) court only be competent to hear international disputes, or only a specific type of dispute? Will there be a possibility for appeal? Will extra costs be involved compared to regular civil proceedings? Which provisions of the law of procedure will the court be required to follow? These questions will be answered in relation to developments in the Netherlands, Belgium, France and Germany. For example, in Belgium, a draft bill, which is now being discussed in Parliament, provides for the establishment of a new court that is still to be established: the Brussels International Business Court. In the Netherlands, as of 1 January 2019, the Netherlands Commercial Court has been established, which will allow to conduct civil proceedings in the English language.

K. de la Durantaye: Same same but different? Conflict rules for same sex-marriages in Germany and the EU

Conflict rules for same-sex marriages are as hotly disputed as the legal treatment of such marriages in general. The German rules on the topic contain multiple inconsistencies. This is true even after the latest amendments to the relevant statute (EGBGB) entered into force in January 2019. Things become even more problematic when the German rules are seen in conjunction with Rome III as well as the two EU Regulations on matrimonial property regimes and on property consequences of registered partnerships, both of which are applicable since January 29, 2019. Some instruments do treat same-sex marriages as marriages, others – notably the EGBGB – do not. Curiously, this leads to a preferential treatment vis-à-vis opposite-sex marriages. The EU Regulation on matrimonial property regimes does not define the term marriage and provides for participating member states to do so. At the same time, the ECJ extends its jurisdiction on recognition of personal statuses to marriages. Given all these developments, one might want to scrutinize the existing conflict rules for marriages as provided for in the EGBGB.

T. Lutzi: Little Ado About Nothing: The Bank Account as the Place of the Damage?

The Court of Justice has rendered yet another decision on the place of the damage in the context of prospectus liability. In addition to the question of international jurisdiction, it also concerned the question of local competence under Art. 5 No. 3 Brussels I (now Art. 7 No. 2 Brussels Ia) in a case where the claimant held multiple bank accounts in the same member state. The Court confirms that under certain circumstances, the courts of the member state in which these banks have their seat may have international jurisdiction, but avoids specifying which bank account designates the precise place of the damage. Accordingly, the decision adds rather little to the emerging framework regarding the localization of financial loss.

P.-A. Brand: International jurisdiction for set-offs – Procedural prohibition of set-off and rights of retention in domestic litigation where the jurisdiction of a foreign court has been agreed for the claims of the Defendant

The question whether or not a contractual jurisdiction clause entails an agreement of the parties to restrict the ability to declare a set-off in court proceedings to the forum prorogatum has been repeatedly dealt with by German courts. In a recent judgement – commented on below – the Oberlandesgericht München in a case between a German plaintiff and an Austrian defendant has held that the German courts may well have international jurisdiction under Article 26 of the Brussels Ia-Regulation also for the set-off declared by the defendant, even if the underlying contract from which the claim to be set-off derived contained a jurisdiction clause for the benefit of the Austrian courts. However, the Oberlandesgericht München has taken the view that the jurisdiction clause for the benefit of the Austrian courts would have to be interpreted to the effect that it also contains an agreement of the parties not to declare such set-off in proceedings pending before the courts of another jurisdiction. That agreement would, hence, render the set-off declared in the German proceedings as impermissible. The judgment seems to ignore the effects of entering into appearance according to Article 26 of the Brussels Ia-Regulation. That provision must be interpreted to the effect that by not contesting jurisdiction despite a contractual jurisdiction clause for the claim to be set-off, any effects of the jurisdiction clause have been repealed.

P. Ostendorf: (Conflict of laws-related) stumbling blocks to damage claims against German companies based on human rights violations of their foreign suppliers

In an eagerly awaited verdict, the Regional Court Dortmund has recently dismissed damage claims for pain and suffering against the German textile discounter KiK Textilien und Non-Food GmbH („KiK“) arising out of a devastating fire in the textile factory of one of KiK’s suppliers in Pakistan causing 259 fatalities. Given that the claims in dispute were in the opinion of the court already time-barred, the decision deals only briefly with substantial legal questions of liability though the latter were upfront hotly debated both in the media as well as amongst legal scholars. In contrast, many conflict-of-laws problems arising in this setting were explicitly addressed by the court. In summary, the judgment further stresses the fact that liability of domestic companies for human rights violations committed by their foreign subsidiaries or independent suppliers is – on the basis of the existing framework of both Private International as well as substantive law – rather difficult to establish.

M. Thon: Overriding Mandatory Provisions in Private International Law – The Israel Boycott Legislation of Arab States and its Application by German Courts

The application of foreign overriding mandatory provisions is one of the most discussed topics in private international law. Article 9 (3) Rome I- Regulation allows the application of such provisions under very restrictive conditions and confers a discretionary power to the court. The Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt a.M. had to decide on a case where an Israeli passenger sought to be transported from Frankfurt a.M. to Bangkok by Kuwait Airways, with a stop over in Kuwait City. The Court had to address the question whether to apply such an overriding mandatory provision in the form of Kuwait’s Israel-Boycott Act or not. It denied that because it considered the provision to be “unacceptable”. However, the Court was not precluded from giving effect to the foreign provision as a matter of fact, while applying German law to the contract. Since the air transport contract had to be performed partly in Kuwait, the Court considered the performance to be impossible pursuant to § 275 BGB. The judgement of the Court received enormous media coverage and was widely criticized for promoting discrimination against Jews.

C.F. Nordmeier: The inclusion of immoveable property in the European Certificate of Succession: acquisition resulting from the death and the scope of Art. 68 lit. l) and m) Regulation (EU) 650/2012

The European Certificate of Succession (ECS) has arrived in legal practice. The present article discusses three decisions of the Higher Regional Court of Nuremberg dealing with the identification of individual estate objects in the Certificate. If a transfer of title is not effected by succession, the purpose of the ECS, which is to simplify the winding up of the estate, cannot be immediately applied. Therefore, the acquisition of such a legal title in accordance with the opinion of the OLG Nuremberg is not to be included in the Certificate. In the list foreseen by Art. 68 lit. l and m Regulation 650/2012, contrary to the opinion of the Higher Regional Court of Nuremberg, it is not only possible to include items that are assigned to the claimant „directly“ by means of a dividing order, legal usufruct or legacy that creates a direct right in the succession. Above all, the purpose of the ECS to simplify the processing of the estate of the deceased is a central argument against such a restriction. Moreover, it is not intended in the wording of the provision and cannot constructively be justified in the case of a sole inheritance under German succession law.

J. Landbrecht: Will the Hague Choice of Court Convention Pose a Threat to Commercial Arbitration?

Ermgassen & Co Ltd v Sixcap Financials Pte Ltd [2018] SGHCR 8 is the first judicial decision worldwide regarding the Hague Choice of Court Convention. The court demonstrates a pro-enforcement and pro-Convention stance. If other Contracting States adopt a similar approach, it is likely that the Convention regime will establish itself as a serious competitor to commercial arbitration.

F. Berner: Inducing the breach of choice of court agreements and “the place where the damage occurred”

Where does the relevant damage occur under Article 7 (2) of the Brussels I recast Regulation (Article 5 (3) of the Brussels I Regulation), when a third party induces a contracting party to ignore a choice of law agreement and to sue in a place different from the forum prorogatum? The UK Supreme Court held that under Article 5 (3) of the Brussels I Regulation, the place where the damage occurs is not the forum prorogatum, but is where the other contracting party had to defend the claim. This case note agrees, but argues that the situation is now different under the Brussels I recast Regulation because of changes made to strengthen choice of court agreements. Thus, under the recast Regulation, the place where the damage occurs is now the place of the forum prorogatum. Besides the main question, the decision deals implicitly with the admissibility for claims of damages for breach of choice of law agreements and injunctions that are not antisuit injunctions. The decision also raises questions about the impact of settlement agreements on international jurisdiction.

D. Otto: No enforcement of specific performance award against foreign state

Sovereign immunity is often raised as a defence either in enforcement proceedings or in suits against foreign states. The decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia deals with a rarely discussed issue, whether an arbitration award ordering a foreign state to perform sovereign acts can be enforced under the New York Convention. The U.S. court held that in general a foreign state cannot claim immunity against enforcement of a Convention award, however that a U.S. court cannot order specific performance (in this case the granting of a public permit) against a foreign state as this would compel a foreign state to perform a sovereign act. Likewise, enforcement of an interest or penalty payment award has to be denied for sovereign immunity reasons if the payment does not constitute a remedy for damages suffered but is of a nature so as to compel a foreign state to perform a sovereign act. Whilst some countries consider sovereign immunity to be even wider, the decision is in line with the view in many other countries.

A. Anthimos: No application of Brussels I Regulation for a Notice of the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians

The Greek court refused to declare a Notice of the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians in Rhineland-Palatinate enforceable. The Greek judge considered that the above order is of an administrative nature; therefore, it falls out of the scope of application of the Brussels I Regulation.

C. Jessel-Holst: Private international law reform in Croatia

This contribution provides an overview over the Private International Law Act of the Republic of Croatia of 2017, which applies from January 29, 2019. The Act contains conflict-of-law rules as well as rules on procedure. In comparison to the previous Act on Resolution of Conflicts of Laws with Provisions of Other States in Certain Matters which had been taken over after independence from former Yugoslavia in 1991, nearly everything is new. Full EU-harmonization was a key purpose of the reform. The 2019 Act also refers to a number of Hague Conventions. Habitual residence has been introduced as a main connecting factor. Renvoi is as a rule excluded. Many issues are addressed for the first time. For the recognition of foreign judgments, the reciprocity requirement has been abandoned.

G. Ring/L. Olsen-Ring: New Danish rules of Private International Law applying to Matrimonial Property Matters

The old Danish Law on the Legal Effects of Marriage, dating back to the year 1925, has been replaced by a new Law on Economic Relations Between Spouses, which was passed on May 30, 2017. The Law on Economic Relations Between Spouses entered into force on January 1, 2018. There is no general statutory codification of private international law in Denmark. The Law on Economic Relations Between Spouses, however, introduces statutory rules on private international law relating to the matrimonial property regime. The Danish legislature was inspired by the EU Matrimonial Property Regulation, but also developed its own approach. The EU Matrimonial Property Regulation is not applied in Denmark, as Denmark does not take part in the supranational cooperation (specifically the enhanced cooperation) in the field of justice and home affairs, and no parallel agreement has been concluded in international law between the European Union and Denmark. The rules set out in the Danish Law on Economic Relations Between Spouses are based on the principle of closest connection. The main connecting factor is the habitual residence of both spouses at the time when their marriage was concluded or the first country in which they both simultaneously had their habitual residence after conclusion of the marriage. The couple is granted a number of choice-of-law options. In case both spouses have had their habitual residence in Denmark within the last five years, Danish law automatically applies.

A late flag following my much earlier Tweet on [2019] EWHC 325 (Comm) Pipia v BGEO. Moulder J had to consider, as I put it in the tweet, a combination of conflict of laws and EU external relations law. Under CPR 25.12 security for costs must not be sought against parties covered by Brussels Ia or the Lugano Convention. The issue is whether the EU-Georgia association agreement is tantamount to those Conventions.

Article 21 headed “Legal cooperation” specifically refers to the Hague Convention and states that: “1. The Parties agree to develop judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters as regards the negotiation, ratification and implementation of multilateral conventions on civil judicial cooperation and, in particular, the conventions of the Hague Conference on Private International Law in the field of international legal cooperation and litigation as well as the protection of children.” Article 21 merely refers to “developing judicial cooperation” as regards the ratification and implementation of the Hague Convention. The stated aims of the Association Agreement are set out in broad terms in Article 1. They include: “(f) to enhance cooperation in the area of freedom, security and justice with the aim of reinforcing the rule of law and the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms”.

The Association Agreement does not therefore provide for the enforcement of judgments either on a bilateral basis or through the Hague Convention. At 10 Moulder J therefore does not accept that there is any basis on which the Association Agreement can be interpreted as falling within the express terms of CPR 25.13 (2)(a)(ii). (re: residence in BRU1a /Lugano State).

Neither in her view can the general non-discrimination requirement of the Agreement be read to have an impact on the issue.

Geert.

Nice combination of external relations law and PIL.
[2019] EWHC 325 (Comm) Pipia v BGEO.
CPR rules, security for costs. May not be sought against Brussels Ia or Lugano parties. Whether EU-Georgia association agreements qualifies as tantamount (answer: no)https://t.co/nfncju3jet

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) March 11, 2019

In [2019] EWHC 1359 (Comm) National Union of Mineworkers v Organisation Internationale de l’energie et des mines defendant is French-domiciled and represented by its chair, Arthur Scargill. That’s right, many of us whether Brits or not will remember him from the 1970s and 1980 mine strikes.

Of more immediate relevance for the blog is the discussion at 19 ff on jurisdiction and applicable law.

Defendant is an international body to which a number of trade unions are affiliated. Those unions operate in different countries but all represent workers engaged in the fields of mining and/or energy supply. The name the Defendant uses in English is the International Energy and Mineworkers’ Organisation (“the IEMO”) and it is the successor to the International Mineworkers’ Organisation (“the IMO”) following a merger in 1994.

The proceedings relate to the parties’ respective rights in relation to sums recovered by the Defendant from Mr. Roger Windsor in August 2012 after prolonged legal proceedings in the French Republic and in England. Those proceedings were undertaken in the name of the Defendant but funded in part by the Claimant. There is a shortfall between the sums recovered and the amounts of the principal debt and the legal costs of the proceedings. The parties are in dispute as to the distribution of the sums recovered from Mr. Windsor; as to which should bear any shortfall between the sums recovered and the costs incurred in the proceedings; and as to the amounts which each has paid by way of costs in those proceedings.

The underlying indebtedness which resulted in recovery being made against Mr. Windsor derived from a loan of £29,500 which the Claimant made to him in 1984. He was then the Claimant’s Chief Executive Officer and the loan was made by way of assistance with house purchase following the relocation of the Claimant’s headquarters from London to Sheffield in 1983. There was a repayment of that loan in November 1984 but it is common ground that to the extent that there was such a repayment it came from funds which had been lent to Mr. Windsor. In 1986 the right to recover payment from Mr. Windsor (either of the original loan or of the subsequent loan) was assigned to the IMO.

Claimant argues the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction by reason of Articles 7(1) and 25(1)(b) Brussels Ia (by virtue of an agreement made in 1990), and that in any event defendant is to be treated as having accepted that the court has jurisdiction to try this matter (an Article 26 ‘prorogation’, ‘submission’ or ‘voluntary appearance’ in other words).

Eyre J at 24 agrees that submission has taken place: CPR rules (Pt11) provide the details the procedure to be followed by a defendant contesting jurisdiction. Defendant did make an application to the court within 14 days of filing the acknowledgement of service, as requested by CPR 11. However, it expressly accepted that the application was to be regarded as relating to the questions of limitation and of the effect of the Release Agreement. In its application it made extensive reference to Brussels Ia but did so in that context. In particular that material was put forward in support of the contention that the claim was statute-barred either by reference to the Limitation Act 1980 or by reference to the French limitation provisions. There was in other words no wider or more fundamental challenge to the court’s jurisdiction and the realisation probably in hindsight that jurisdiction may not be that straightforward, cannot impact on that original application.

Had there not been submission, interesting discussions could have ensued I suspect on the place of performance of the agreement (unless clear choice of court had been made), England as a forum contractus, and I for one shall be using the case in my classes as a good illustration of the ‘conflicts method’ (looking over the fence)

Attention then turns to the issue of applicable law for the time-barred argument: at 26: ‘Defendant also argued that the proceedings were to be regarded as subject to French law and in particular the French limitation provisions which impose a time limit of three years for claims. The Defendant made reference to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 and the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984. The contention was that French law was applicable because the judgments against Mr. Windsor were obtained in France and then registered in England and Wales. That argument was misconceived. Such an argument might have relevance if the issue were one of the enforcement of the judgments against Mr. Windsor though I make no finding on that question. The current proceedings are not concerned with the enforcement of the judgments against Mr. Windsor but with the distribution of the sums which have been received by the Defendant as a result of the litigation against Mr. Windsor. It follows that the provisions to which the Defendant made reference can have no relevance to the current proceedings. The Defendant made passing reference to the fact that it is domiciled in France but this was not the principal basis of the contention that French law was applicable and without more it would not cause the parties’ dealings to be governed by French law. In those circumstances the parties’ rights and liabilities are to be determined by reference to the law of England and Wales and any questions of limitation are governed by the Limitation Act 1980.‘

I am not privy to the submissions on applicable law, but I am assuming that there must have been some discussion of the impact of the 1980 Rome Convention. Not the Rome I Regulation which would not have applied ratione temporis. That Regulation like Rome II has not altogether straightforward provisions (as I have noted on other occasions) on procedure being covered by the lex contractus. Whether Eyre J classifies the limitation issue as being covered by English law per lex fori or alternatively as lex causae (lex contractus of the 1990 agreement) is not clear.

Back in the 80s I would have never dreamed of bumping into Mr Scargill again in the context of an interesting conflict of laws issue.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 1, Heading 1.3.1, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.7.