Droit international général

Yehya Badr, Associate Professor at the Alexandria University, Egypt, published an article “A Cure From Rome for Montreal’s Illness: Article 5 of the Rome I Regulation and Filling the Void in the 1999 Montreal Convention’s Regulation of Carrier’s Liability for Personal Injury”, in (2018) 83 JOURNAL OF AIR LAW AND COMMERCE 83.  The abstract reads:

“An examination of the 1999 Montreal Convention shows that the drafters did not intend to lay down a comprehensive treaty that would organize a carrier’s liability for personal injury to passengers. They opted to achieve a certain level of uniformity through enacting a set of rules that tackled several key issues such as the grounds for a carrier’s liability, the available defenses, and the limits on the recoverable damages. Consequently, some unaddressed issues created a void in the Montreal Convention and were then left without a clear remedy. In this article, a distinction is made between two types of voids: first, the definitional void describes the lack of definition for several key terms used in the Montreal Convention, such as “accident” and “carrier.” Second, the regulatory void describes the lack of rules to address issues such as determining the effect of a passenger’s contributory negligence as a defense for liability and the right of action. This article demonstrates that national courts have resorted either to the forum’s law or the forum’s choice-of-law rules to fill the void in the Montreal Convention. As a result, international uniformity of results cannot be achieved nor is there any predictability. This article recommends the adoption of Article 5 of the Rome I Regulation as a solution to this problem. Doing so would give both parties the freedom to choose a law from a predetermined list, and fill the above mentioned voids, while providing alternative choice-of-law rules if the parties decided not to choose a law to govern their contract for air carriage.”

The full text can be downloaded here.

The last issue of the “Revue critique de droit international privé” will shortly be released.

It contains several casenotes and three articles.

The first one is authored by Gilles Cuniberti and Sara Migliorini. It discusses the issues of private international law raised by the European Account Preservation Order procedure established by Regulation (EU) no 655/2014. After presenting the scope of the Regulation, it addresses the issues of jurisdiction, choice of law, and enforcement of judgments arising under the new instrument.

The second article is authored by Gerald Goldstein. It deals with the « legal certainty exception » under Dutch law.

Born out of a deep internationalist perspective, section 9 of Book 10 of the Civil code of the Netherlands codified a new general exception to the application of a conflict rule. Under this « legal certainty exception », a court may apply a law applicable under the private international law of a foreign State involved, in contravention to the law designated by the Dutch private international law, whenever doing otherwise would constitute an unacceptable violation of the legitimate expectations of the parties or of legal certainty.

The legal certainty exception’s function is to avoid a serious lack of foreseeability possibly leading to a limping situation, stemming from the application of the law normally applicable under the conflict of law rule of the forum. Such a general and exceptional rule based on conflict justice aims to coordinate conflicting systems of private international law by allowing a measure of flexibility into the conflict of law resolution. Taking globalization into consideration, this rule gives a broader role to private parties. Its effect is to allow a court a discretionary power to put the conflict rule into perspective while upsetting the usual hierarchy of private international law principles. Unlike the escape clause, the legal certainty exception will give predominance to foreseeability over proximity. It will designate a law which is not necessarily the law having objectively the closest connection to the situation but the law applicable under the subjective expectations of the parties or the law whose effectivity should not be altered.

In order to limit the disturbing impact of the legal certainty exception due to the discretionary nature of its intervention, cumulative conditions are required. The parties to the relationship must have erroneously, albeit legitimately, believed that a law applied under the private international law of a foreign State involved in such relationship. In addition, to ignore this state of fact would constitute an unacceptable violation of the legitimate expectations of the parties or of legal certainty.

A comparative analysis between the legal certainty exception and other already known notions allows to state that while presenting some similarities with some of them (among them, the conflict of systems theory, the recognition method and a subsidiary unilateral system of conflict of laws) the legal certainty exception keeps its singularity.

The third article is authored by Christian Kohler. It discusses the new German legislation on marriage and private international law.

A full table of contents is available here.

Today, the EU Commission presented its long awaited proposal for a directive on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers (COM (2018) 184/3). The proposal and other related documents are available here. The directive shall appply to domestic and cross-border infringements (Article 2(1), 2nd sentence). With regard to the latter group of cases, the directive “is without prejudice to the Union rules on private international law, in particular rules related to court jurisdiction and applicable law” (Article 2(3)). However, Article 16 sets out some rules relevant for cross-border representative actions. It ensures the mutual recognition of the legal standing of qualified entities designated in advance in one Member State to seek representative action in another Member State. Moreover, it enables qualified entities from different Member States to act jointly within a single representative action in front of a single forum competent under relevant Union and national rules. The pertinent provision reads as follows:

“Article 16
Cross-border representative actions

1. Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that any qualified entity designated in advance in one Member State in accordance with Article 4(1) may apply to the courts or administrative authorities of another Member State upon the presentation of the publicly available list referred to in that Article. The courts or administrative authorities shall accept this list as proof of the legal standing of the qualified entity without prejudice to their right to examine whether the purpose of the qualified entity justifies its taking action in a specific case.

2. Member States shall ensure that where the infringement affects or is likely to affect consumers from different Member States the representative action may be brought to the competent court or administrative authority of a Member State by several qualified entities from different Member States, acting jointly or represented by a single qualified entity, for the protection of the collective interest of consumers from different Member States.

3. For the purposes of cross-border representative actions, and without prejudice to the rights granted to other entities under national legislation, the Member States shall communicate to the Commission the list of qualified entities designated in advance. Member States shall inform the Commission of the name and purpose of these qualified entities. The Commission shall make this information publicly available and keep it up to date.

4. If a Member State or the Commission raises concerns regarding the compliance by a qualified entity with the criteria laid down in Article 4(1), the Member State that designated that entity shall investigate the concerns and, where appropriate, revoke the designation if one or more of the criteria are not complied with.”

Building on the success of the first German Conference for Young Scholars in PIL, which took place almost exactly one year ago at the University of Bonn, a second conference for young scholars in private international law will be held on 4 and 5 April 2019 at the University of Würzburg. Young scholars are invited to submit proposals for presentations in German or English that engage with the conference theme ‘IPR zwischen Tradition und Innovation – Private International Law between Tradition and Innovation’.

Further information on possible approaches to the conference theme can be found in the official Call for Papers; contributions may discuss any aspect of private international law relating to the theme, including questions of international jurisdiction, choice of law, recognition and enforcement, international arbitration, and loi uniforme. Submissions describing the proposed 30-minute talk in no more than 800 words can be made until 1 July 2018. While the conference language will be German, individual submissions may be made (and presented) in German or English.

All accepted contributions will be published in a conference volume.

I thought I had but seemingly had not, flagged Bob Wessels’ timely alert to [2016] COMP 039 Colin King (Supreme Court of Gibraltar). The judgment first of all looks at the temporal scope of application of the Regulation, holding correctly that it is not the filing for bankruptcy which is relevant but rather the time of actual openings of those proceedings. Further, it makes correct application of the various presumptions and definitions vis-a-vis natural persons.

Not a shocking judgment but one which is a good read for a gentle introduction to COMI. And as Bob notes, it was not quite the first to apply the new EIR.

Geert.

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

Thanks to Gustavo Cerqueira for this post.

A new book co-edited by Gustavo Cerqueira and Nicolas Nord has been published:

Contrôle de constitutionnalité et de conventionnalité du droit étranger – Études de droit international privé (Amérique Latine – États-Unis – Europe), Société de législation comparée, Paris, 2017, 285 p.

The application of foreign law is increasingly frequent in the settlement of international disputes, both before the judge and the arbitrator. At the same time, the impact of constitutional and treaty standards on private law is a widespread phenomenon. The question of a dual constitutional and treaty-based review of foreing law by the forum seized inevitably arises. It could be carried out in the light of the hierarchy of the standards of the system of the lex causae, the hierarchy of the forum or even the hierarchy of the State in which the judgment given is intended to be enforced. The operation of the classic mechanisms of private international law and arbitration law is put to the test, both in terms of applicable law and the international effectiveness of decisions.

Because of its innovative nature, this book updates the essential issues of the subject. The national reports show the different approaches to the question of double-checking in Europe (Germany, France, Italy and Switzerland), North America (United States) and Latin America (Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay). More generally, prolegomena contextualize the places and forms of application of foreign law subject to a constitutional and treaty-based review, and explore the figure of otherness in these contextes.

The debates raised during the round tables of the colloquium that gave rise to this book, which was held at the Grand Chamber of the Court of Cassation on 23 September 2016, revealed not only differences of assessment, but also certain convergences worthy of an overall vision of the problem. More than a juxtaposition of systems, the debates provided an opportunity to explore new avenues for resolution. Some of them seek to establish an international cooperation in this area. At a time when we are discussing the adoption of a supranational instrument aimed at strengthening the system for determining and applying foreign law and judicial cooperation in the field of information on the law applicable within the European Union, this book is intended to be the starting point for new reflections.

Informations: http://legiscompare.fr/ecommerce/fr/colloques/408-livre-controle-de-constitutionnalite-et-de-conventionnalite-du-droit-etranger.html

Table of Contents

Préface
Dominique HASCHER

Avant-propos
Gustavo CERQUEIRA et Nicolas NORD

PROLÉGOMÈNES
Lieux et formes d’application du droit étranger soumis à un contrôle de constitutionnalité et de conventionnalité
Jean-Sylvestre BERGÉ

Contrôle de constitutionnalité, contrôle de conventionnalité, et la figure de l’altérité
Julien BOUDON

I. PERSPECTIVES FRANÇAISES

Le conflit hiérarchique étranger de normes devant le juge judiciaire français. Application à la constitutionnalité et à la conventionnalité de la loi étrangère
Pascal de VAREILLES-SOMMIÈRES

Le droit étranger à l’épreuve de la Constitution française et des conventions internationales liant l’ordre juridique français
Hugues FULCHIRON

II. PERSPECTIVES COMPARÉES

Amérique latine : Argentine-Uruguay, Brésil
Les contrôles de constitutionnalité et de conventionnalité du droit étranger
au regard de l’ordre juridique de l’État d’origine – Perspectives argentines et
uruguayennes
Didier OPERTTI BADAN

Les contrôles de constitutionnalité et de conventionnalité du droit étranger en Argentine et en Uruguay
Fernanda MUNSCHY

La conformité du droit étranger à l’ordre constitutionnel et conventionnel de l’État d’origine – Fondements et défis du double contrôle au Brésil
Gustavo CERQUEIRA

La place de la Constitution brésilienne et des conventions liant le Brésil dans le système de contrôle du droit étranger
Gustavo FERRAZ DE CAMPOS MONACO

Amérique du nord : États-Unis d’Amérique

Constitutional and Treaty-based review of foreign law : comparative and U.S. perspectives
Alejandro M. GARRO

Europe : Allemagne-Suisse, Italie
Le droit étranger face à la hiérarchie des normes en droit international privé allemand et suisse
Patrick KINSCH

Le juge italien face au contrôle de constitutionnalité et de conventionnalité du droit étranger
Serena FORLATI

CONCLUSION
Le droit étranger à l’épreuve des contrôles de constitutionnalité et de conventionnalité – Rapport de synthèse
Paul LAGARDE

Professor Zhengxin Huo, China University of Political Science and Law, has provided an interesting note entitled “A Battle over the Chinese Culture Treasure Lost Overseas–to be decided by Private International Law?”. It comments on the forthcoming auction of “Tiger Ying”, an ancient water vessel, which is believed to have been taken during the looting of Beijing’s Old Summer Palace by the British and French forces in 1860, at the Canterbury Auction Galleries in Kent on 10 and 11 April, and the pending proceedings in Amsterdam and Sanming (China) brought by Chinese villagers against a Dutch collector for the return of a stolen 1,000-year-old Buddhist mummy, known as the statue of Zhanggong-zushi. The full text can be found by following A Battle over the Chinese Culture Treasure Lost Overseas.

Professor Huo is Professor of Law, Deputy Dean of International Law Faculty at China University of Political Science and Law; Associate Member of International Academy of Comparative Law; Observer of the UNESCO 1970 Convention. Email: zhengxinh@cupl.edu.cn.

For anyone interested in state immunities against execution, I have prepared a short report about a recent ruling of the Greek Supreme Court, which can be retrieved here

This year’s Forum Conveniens Annual Lecture at the University of Edinburgh will be held on Wednesday 2nd of May, 5.30 – 7 pm.
The speaker is Dr. Alex Mills, Reader in Public and Private International Law at University College London, on the topic: “Party Autonomy in Private International Law: The Privatisation of Global Governance?”
The venue is Raeburn Room, Old College, South Bridge, Edinburgh, EH8 9YL
The event is free but registration is required at https://forum_conveniens_2018.eventbrite.co.uk.

Thank you Klaus Oblin for flagging OGH 7 Ob 183/17p X SE v I SpA (yet again I am happy to grumble that there is really no need to keep B2B litigation anonymous) at the Austrian Supreme Court. At issue is the application of Article 25 Brussels I Recast: when can consent to choice of court be established.

The facts of the case reflect repeated business practice: offers are made and accepted; a business relationship ensues on the basis of which further offers and orders are made; somewhere along the lines reference is made to general terms and conditions – GTCs which include choice of court. Can defendant be considered to have consented?

The Supreme Court, justifiably, lays the burden of proof with the claimant /plaintiff: if the contract is concluded through different offer and acceptance documents, the offer need only reference the terms and conditions containing the agreement conferring jurisdiction only if the other party: can follow-up on this with reasonable diligence; and actually receives the terms and conditions.

I am happy to refer to Klaus’ excellent overview (which also discussed the absence of established business practice between parties: one of the alternatives for showing choice of court). Yet again, the first and foremost quality required of lawyers (here: in-house counsel) emerges: ensure proper filing and compliance with simple procedure. Here: a clear flag of the GTCs in correspondence, and simple follow-up would have sufficed.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.9.

Béligh Elbalti, Associate Professor at Osaka University, Graduate School of Law and Politics, has kindly informed us that the forthcoming volume of the Japanese Yearbook of International Law (Vol. 60, 2017) will feature the following articles and case notes relating to private international law.

Articles

Uniform Law Treaties: Their Reception, Implementation, Success and Failure

Hirao Sano, Introductory Note (pp. 4-9)

Hirao Sano, Going Forward with Uniform Private Law Treaties: A Study in Japan’s Behavioral Pattern (pp. 10-58)

Tomotaka Fujita, When Does Japan Not Conclude Uniform Private Law Conventions? (pp. 59-85)

Souichirou Kozuka, The Selective Reception of Uniform Law in Asia (pp. 86-112)

Tetsuo Morishita, Successes and Failures of Harmonization of Commercial Laws (pp. 113-135)

Unilateralism and Multilateralism in Regulating Cross-border Business Transactions: Part Two

Yoshiaki Nomura, Fall of Extraterritoriality and Resurgence of Choice of Law in Global Securities Litigation (pp. 314-338)

Cases and Issues in Japanese Private International Law

Dai Yokomizo, Recognition of a Foreign Judgment on Children Born Through Surrogate Pregnancy (pp. 399-409)

As it has been the tradition since the creation of the Yearbook in 1959 (former The Japanese Annual of International Law), the forthcoming volume will also include English translations of a number of Japanese Court decisions relating to private international law.

Judicial Decisions in Japan

II. Private International Law

Supreme Court 1st Petty Bench), Judgment, March 10, 2016 (pp. 488-490)
International Adjudicatory jurisdiction over a Tort Claim – Special Circumstances- Defamation – Lis Pendens

Supreme Court 1st Petty Bench), Decision, June 2, 2016 (pp. 490-495)
Locus Standi – Civil Procedure Law – Party Authorized Charge of Litigation – Principle of Representation in Court by Attorney-at-law – Prohibition of Creating Trusts for Litigation

Tokyo High Court, Judgment, November 17, 2014 (pp. 495-498)
International Adjudicatory jurisdiction – Exclusive Choice of Court Agreement – Consumer Contracts – Redemption on Maturity – Alternative Claim for Damages Based on Tort- Article 3.4(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure- Public Policy

Intellectual Property High Court, Decision, March 25, 2015 (pp. 499-506)
Governing Law of Tort Claim – Defamation – International Adjudicatory jurisdiction for Tort Claim International Adjudicatory Jurisdiction Based on a Close Connection with an Anchor Claim

Tokyo District Court, Judgment, March 24, 2014 (pp. 506-509)
International Adjudicatory jurisdiction – Action to Oppose Enforcement of Arbitral Awards – Setoff

Tokyo District Court, Judgment, April 28, 2015 (pp. 509-512)
International Adjudicatory jurisdiction over a Tort Claim – Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights- Place of a Tort

Shizuoka District Court, Judgment, December 2, 2015 (pp. 512-517)
Applicable Law to Parental Authority – Parental Authority Under the Japanese Civil Code – Handing over a Child – Habitual Residence

Fukuoka District Court (Kokura Branch), Decision, December 4, 2015 (pp. 517-520)
Applicable Law to Maritime Lien – Applicable Law to Contractual Obligation Characteristic Performance – Vessel Auction

Kobe District Court, Decision, Janua1y 21, 2016 (pp. 520-522)
Applicable Law to Maritime Lien – Applicable Law to Contractual Obligation – Characteristic Pe1formance- Vessel Auction

Tokyo District Court, Interlocutory Judgment, February 15, 2016 (pp. 523-526)
International Adjudicatory jurisdiction over a Tort Claim – Validity of Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause-Anti-trust (Competition) Law

Tokyo District Court, Decision, September 26, 2016 (pp. 526-533)
Governing Law of Labor Contract – Application of Mandatory Provisions of the Law of the; Most Closely Connected Place to a Labor Contract – The Place Where the Work Should be Provided

More information on the Yearbook (former Annual) and the content of its past volumes is available at http://www.ilajapan.org/jyil/.

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

H.-P. Mansel/K. Thorn/R. Wagner: European conflict of laws 2017: The Dawning of Interstate Treaties

The article provides an overview of developments in Brussels in the field of judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters from December 2016 until December 2017. It summarizes current projects and new instruments that are presently making their way through the EU legislative process. It also refers to the laws enacted at the national level in Germany as a result of new European instruments. Furthermore, the authors look at areas of law where the EU has made use of its external competence. They discuss both important decisions and pending cases before the ECJ as well as important decisions from German courts pertaining to the subject matter of the article. In addition, the article also looks at current projects and the latest developments at the Hague Conference on Private International Law.

S. Huber/S. Geier-Thieme: Jurisdiction for Tort Claims under the European Rules of Jurisdiction in the case of Purely Economic Loss

The preliminary ruling of the ECJ in the case Universal Music concerns a situation where a person entered into an unfavourable contract with a third party due to the negligent behaviour of the alleged tortfeasor. In this context, the ECJ has clarified that the bank account, which the injured party used in order to fulfil the disadvantageous commitment, is not the decisive factor for establishing jurisdiction for a tort claim. This part of the decision is convincing. Otherwise, the claimant would be able to influence the place of jurisdiction by the simple choice between different bank accounts. The Court, however, missed the opportunity to determine the place of jurisdiction in cases of purely economic loss at the place where the primary damage occurred. The ECJ refers to the place where the injured party concluded a settlement agreement with the third party. This settlement agreement, however, only diminished the damage that had already occurred when the injured party had entered into the unfavourable contract with the third person. As such, the obligations that resulted from this contract to the detriment of the injured party constitute the primary damage. Under the rules of international private law, these obligations are situated where the debtor, i.e. the injured party, resides. It is true, that this allows the injured party to bring a claim in the courts of his home country, but such a result seems appropriate in situations as in the present case. The opposite approach of the ECJ leads to legal uncertainty and time-intensive disputes about the question of jurisdiction.

H. Dörner: “One-shotter“ versus „repeat player“ – Elucidation of Art. 13 para. 2 and Art. 11 para. 1 lit. b of the Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

In the opinion of the European Court of Justice, the European “Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters” grants the persons referred to in Art. 13 para. 2 and 11 para. 1 lit. b an additional place of jurisdiction at their own domicile, because this group of persons is in each case the “economically weaker and legally less experienced party”. Since the granting of such a plaintiff’s legal status implies an improvement in procedural law, the idea arises that this is also supposed to compensate for deficiencies in the procedure. The author proposes to describe the relationship of the litigants and the structural inferiority of the respective plaintiffs utilizing the distinction between “one-shotter” and “repeat player” introduced by Marc Galanter. A one-shotter is an “Einmalprozessierer” who only occasionally uses the help of the courts, while the repeat player, as a “Vielfachprozessierer”, repeatedly performs similar processes in a certain area. By adopting this pair of terms, the subject matter can firstly be presented without contradiction and, in particular, the ECJ decision to be discussed here can be classified appropriately. Secondly, the diffuse construct of the “weaker party”, which depends on various variables, is attributed to a single criterion that can be verified empirically and is thus accessible to evidence, namely the extent of the parties’ process activity.

F. Koechel: Art. 26 of the Brussels I Regulation: The relevant moment for the challenge to jurisdiction and the notion of entering of an appearance

It is settled case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union that under Art. 26 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation the defendant may not challenge the jurisdiction of the court seized after he has made the submission which under national law is considered to be his first defence. In response to a request for a preliminary ruling by the Corte di Cassazione, the CJEU has now specified that the defendant may bring the challenge to the jurisdiction of the court seized even simultaneously with his first defence and in the alternative to other objections of procedure. While the CJEU defines the relevant moment for the challenge to jurisdiction autonomously, it does not introduce an autonomous notion of entering of an appearance for the purposes of Art. 26 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation but refers to the “first defence” under the law of the forum State. Therefore, the actual stage in the national proceedings until which the defendant can raise the lack of jurisdiction depends on which procedural act of the defendant is considered to be the first defence by the lex fori. The case law of German civil and labour courts on the matter is inconsistent. While civil courts already consider the defendant’s submissions in writing prior to the oral hearing as a “first defence”, the Regional Court of Aachen recently followed a more restrictive interpretation applied by labour courts, which necessarily require a submission during the contentious oral hearing. As this article argues, both civil and labour courts should consider submissions prior to the oral hearing as possible “first defences” by the defendant. Much rather than the stage of the proceedings, it is the subject of the defendant’s submission, which is decisive for its qualification as an entering of an appearance within the meaning of Art. 26 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation. The defendant should be deemed to have entered an appearance if the plaintiff and the court seized are able to objectively ascertain from the content of the submissions that it is aimed at a contested decision by the court on any question different than jurisdiction or at an amicable settlement with the participation of the court.

M. Gebauer: Can a jurisdiction agreement prevent the right of a defendant to set-off before German courts?

The decision, rendered by the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH), illustrates some of the problems that arise when the BGH is confronted with a claim of a substantive right to set-off by a German based defendant. The case involved a Chinese plaintiff seeking the purchase price of X-ray equipment delivered to a German defendant. The German defendant alleged deficiencies in the equipment and sought damages in an amount exceeding the plaintiff’s initial claim. The contract contained a jurisdiction agreement in favour of the courts of their respective domiciles. The BGH declined jurisdiction with regards to the setoff claim, despite a close connection between the alleged claim and the alleged right to set-off. The author considers a line of German jurisprudence dating back over forty years, in terms of which the BGH has consistently worked on the basis that a jurisdiction agreement in favour of the courts of the parties’ respective domiciles prevents any right of a German domiciled defendant to claim substantive set-off, in so far as the contract does not explicitly and unambiguously allow such a right. The author specifically questions the decision of the BGH in this case, together with its long-standing jurisprudence on the matter, in light of the Brussels I Regulation and wider European Union law, suggesting that the time is ripe for the matter to be re-visited by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the form of a preliminary reference.

W.-H. Roth: Drittstaatliche Eingriffsnormen und Rom I-Verordnung

The application of overriding mandatory provisions of states other than the forum is one of the much-discussed topics in academia, whereas its practical relevance, as yet, seems to be rather limited In the negotiations on the Rome I-Regulation a compromise with the United Kingdom led to Art. 9 (3), allowing for the application of such overriding mandatory provisions only under the very restrictive conditions set forth therein. In its Nikiforidis judgment the Court of Justice of the European Union stresses the exceptional character of Art. 9 vis-à-vis party autonomy and its relevance for legal certainty. Art. 9 (3) is attributed exhaustive character which prevents Member States to take any way around. In contrast, Member States are not precluded to take overriding mandatory rules into account as a matter of fact if provided for by the substantive law applicable to the contract (according to the general rules of the Rome I- Regulation). The principle of sincere cooperation (Art. 4 (3) EUT) does not lead to a different conclusion. It does not authorise the Member States to circumvent the preconditions set forth by Art. 9 Rome I-Regulation. The judgment of the Court is criticised for dealing with this fundamental principle just in a rather formal manner.

M. Makowsky: Land registration of fractional ownership in cases of a foreign matrimonial property regime

Land acquisition by spouses with a foreign matrimonial property regime plays an increasing role in practice. Yet, the land registration often causes difficulties, if the spouses wish the registration of sole or fractional ownership although the matrimonial property regime (regularly) provides for joint property. In this context, the decision of the Higher Regional Court of Munich confirms that the land registry must obtain knowledge of the applicable foreign law ex officio. Contrary to the Court’s opinion, however, an interim order, which obliges the applicant to obtain a legal opinion, should not be regarded as generally inadmissible by law. According to the predominant view, the land registry may only refuse the registration of sole or fractional ownership, if it is convinced that this would make the land register inaccurate with regard to the matrimonial property regime. In case of mere doubts regarding the foreign law, the registration is nonetheless subject to prior clarification. The opposing view of the Court is not convincing. Furthermore, the Higher Regional Court correctly affirms that the acquisition of sole or fractional ownership is possible under the Polish statutory matrimonial property regime. Contrary to the view of the Court, however, the land registry does not have to register sole or fractional ownership only because, in the abstract, the law provides for such an acquisition.

Rechtbank Rotterdam held on 15 March last that 4 ships owned and operated by the Sea Trade concern had to be regarded as waste when they left the port at Rotterdam cq Hamburg (they were eventually beached in a variety of destinations). Not having been notified as waste, their shipment was considered illegal and the concern as well as some of its employees consequently convicted. (Illegal waste shipments being a criminal offense).

The court decided not to refer to the CJEU on the application of the waste definition to ships, as it considered the issue to be acte clair. The court’s review of the legal framework is included in Heading 4.3.4. As such, the analysis does not teach us much about the difficulty of applying the waste definition to international maritime logistics, in particular ship disposal. The court found at a factual level that the owners’ intention to dispose of the ships was clearly established when the ships left the EU, with, it suggested, the facts proving that the intention to dispose was at that moment of such an intensity as to trigger the waste definition.

The court does flag its appreciation for the difficulties. Not only is eventual disposal of hardware such as ships a possibility from the moment of their purchase. Such intention may also be withdrawn, reinstated, modified, at various moments of the ships’ life, fluctuating with market circumstances. Particularly given the criminal nature of the legal discipline here, I find that a very important driver to tread very cautiously and to look for firmer objective factors to establish intent.

Most probably to be continued on appeal.

Geert.

(Handbook of ) EU Waste law, 2nd ed. 2017, para 1.20 ff. Disclosure: I acted as court expert.

An International Symposium on Parental Child Abduction and Mediation in a Globalized World will take place at Stanford Law School on 10 April 2018 (one day only – California, USA). One of the aims of the symposium is to discuss what is happening between the United States and Mexico, one of the busiest borders with respect to  child abduction cases (see the latest statistical survey published by the Hague Conference on Private International Law -HCCH-). Click here for more information on the event and to register.

The event is free and open to the public. Speakers will include Professor Nuria González Martín (UNAM), the former Secretary General of the HCCH Hans van Loon, academics, judges, and Central Authority officials. Click here for the full program.

Thank you Tobias Lutzi for alerting us to the ECtHR drawing the final curtain (legally speaking at least) over the tragic events surrounding the Krombach case. The case is a classic viz ordre public, recognition and enforcement issues. Current decision however relates to the criminal law aspects of the case and the ne bis in idem principle in particular.

The Court declared Krombach’s complaint inadmissible.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.16.1.4.

On March 15 the ECtHR, sitting as the Grand Chamber,decided on the Naït-Litman v. Switzerland case (application no. 51357/07), against the applicant. Independently on whether one agrees or not  with the final outcome, for PIL lawyers and amateurs the judgment is certainly worth reading.

The case concerned the refusal by the Swiss courts to examine Mr Naït-Liman’s civil claim for compensation for the non-pecuniary damage arising from acts of torture allegedly inflicted on him in Tunisia. According to the applicant, he was arrested in April 1992 by the police in Italy, and after being transferred to the Tunisian consulate in Genoa, he was taken to Tunis by Tunisian agents. Mr Naït-Liman alleges that, from 24 April to 1 June 1992, he was detained and tortured in Tunis in the premises of the Ministry of the Interior on the orders of A.K., the then Minister of the Interior. Following the alleged torture, Mr Naït-Liman fled Tunisia in 1993 for Switzerland, where he applied for political asylum; this was granted in 1995.

On 14 February 2001, having learnt that A.K. was being treated in a Swiss hospital, the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against him with the Principal Public Prosecutor for the Republic and the Canton of Geneva. He applied to join these proceedings as a civil party. The Prosecutor dropped the proceedings after finding out that A.K. had left the country some days earlier.

Several years later, on 8 July 2004, the applicant lodged a claim for damages with the Court of First Instance of the Republic and the Canton of Geneva against Tunisia and against A.K. The Court of First Instance declared the claim inadmissible on the ground that it lacked territorial jurisdiction and that the Swiss courts did not have jurisdiction under the forum of necessity in the case at hand, owing to the lack of a sufficient link between, on the one hand, the case and the facts, and, on the other, Switzerland. Mr Naït-Liman lodged an appeal with the Court of Justice of the Republic and the Canton of Geneva, which was rejected on the grounds of immunity from jurisdiction of the defendants. The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the second appeal in 2007, considering that the Swiss courts in any event lacked territorial jurisdiction.

The ECtHR considered that international law had not imposed an obligation on the Swiss authorities to open their courts with a view to ruling on the merits of Mr Naït-Liman’s compensation claim, on the basis of either universal civil jurisdiction in respect of acts of torture or a forum of necessity.

The case is without doubt of interest for CoL and beyond: the methodology employed by the Court is remarkable. A wide comparative legal analysis is conducted, which regarding universal civil jurisdiction encompasses the work of the Institute of International Law on the topic in 2015, and the report drafted by A. Bucher, and takes into account 39 member States of the Council of Europe (Albania, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine and the United Kingdom), as well as certain States which are not members of the Council of Europe. The forum necessitatis prong comprises: the works of both the IIL and the  International Law Association -The Sofia Resolution, 2012, of its former Committee on International Civil Litigation and the Interests of the Public-; eleven of European States (Austria, Belgium, Estonia, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal and Romania) which explicitly recognise either the forum of necessity or a principle bearing another name but entailing very similar if not identical consequences (as in the case of France); Switzerland; and Canada (Quebec) as a non-member States of the Council of Europe. Finally, reference is also made to the forum non conveniens provision in the EU maintenance, succession and matrimonial property regulations.

(Summary here).

This post has been authored by

Dr. Jorg Sladic, Attorney in Ljubljana and Assistant Professor in Maribor (Slovenia)

The most interesting development in European private international law and European insolvency law seems the Croatian AGROKOR case. Rulings of English courts have been reported (see e.g. Prof. Van Calster’s blog, Agrokor DD – Recognition of Croatian proceedings shows the impact of Insolvency Regulation’s Annex A.)[1] However, a new and contrary development seems to be an order by the Slovenian Supreme Court in case Cpg 2/2018 of 14 March 2018.[2] The Slovenian forum refused to grant exequatur to Croatian extraordinary administration as a way of divestiture of insolvent debtor.  Large parts of the order do read as a manual of non-contentious proceedings and deal in assessment of interest in bringing an appeal. However, the part dealing with private international law and European civil procedure has to presented. It will have a wider international effect. It is also interesting that the Slovenian forum refused to contemplate any assessment done by the High Court of Justice of England & Wales in case In the matter of Agrokor dd

and in the matter of the Cross-border insolvency regulations 2006 ([2017] Ewhc 2791 (Ch)).

Facts:

AGROKOR is a huge agro-industrial enterprises in South-Eastern Europe (Croatia, Slovenia, Romania, Serbia and also perhaps some other European jurisdictions) employing more than 50 000 employees. It is also the biggest owner of agricultural lands in that part of Europe. The impacts of Agrokor were discussed by Hogan & Lovell on their website.[3] Agrokor was owned and operated by a local oligarch and is apparently implied in not all to transparent business operations. As a consequence it became insolvent.

Due to huge debts that would actually require a collective insolvency proceedings Croatia adopted the Law on Extraordinary Administration Proceeding in Commercial Companies of Systemic Importance for the Republic of Croatia.[4] The essence of that legislation is summarized in English by the High Court of Justice of England & Wales in case In the matter of Agrokor dd

and in the matter of the Cross-border insolvency regulations 2006 ([2017] Ewhc 2791 (Ch)). The essence of Croatian legislation is the (temporary) suspension of par condicio creditorum in and pari passu clauses in insolvency law. AGROKOR was passed under extraordinary administration suspending the rights of owners and of the board of directors.

The Croatian extraordinary administrator requested the recognition of extraordinary administration under Croatian law also for the assets and subsidiaries in Slovenia in 2017. Upon opposition of creditors (banks as creditors ex iure crediti) the recognition order was vacated. After remedies the case came before the Supreme Court and ended with an unanimous refusal of recognition.

Reasoning:

In this report only points of private international law will be reported. Questions of standing and of interest in bringing proceedings will not be discussed.

Inapplicability of EU private international law

Even though Slovenia and Croatia are nowadays Member States of the EU, the Regulations 1346/200 and 848/2015 are not to be applied, as the Croatian proceedings are not mentioned in the Annex A. Slovenian national international collective insolvency law (Art. 445 – 488 Financial Operations, Insolvency Proceedings and Compulsory Winding-up Act) and the Bilateral Legal Assistance Treaty Between Slovenia and Croatia of 1994 are to be applied (par. 6).

The lis pendens plea

Agrokor argued that an arbitration case is pending in London and that some of the parties in the Slovenian case declared their claims in Croatian proceedings for extraordinary administration. The Slovenian Supreme court dismissed such a plea. The effects of lis pendens on the arbitration in the UK are a matter for UK courts (par. 23). As a consequence the recognition of Croatian extraordinary administration in the UK by the judgement of the High Court of Justice Nr. CR-2017-005571 of 9 November 2017 is of no importance for Slovenian proceedings. However, even if UK law incorporated the UNCITRAL guidelines the High court (judge Paul Matthews) based its argumentation on common law and precedents based on that law. The Slovenian forum completely cut the discussion by a laconic statement according to which understanding and application of devices of insolvency law under [English] common law is quite different from Slovenian civil law legal order (par. 24).

However, lis pendens could be given effect due to parallel pending proceedings in Slovenia and Croatia. The Slovenian Court did not apply the Regulation Brussels Ia (1215/2012) but referred to national Slovenian law. The Slovenian forum explained that the Regulation Brussels Ia is not t be applied by virtue of its exception for bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings (Art. 1(b) Regulation 1215/2012). National Slovenian private international law deals with the exception of lis pendens in Art. 88 Private International Law and Proceedings Act of 1999.[5] The essence of Slovenian international lis pendens is the request to suspend proceedings before a Slovenian forum. Where Slovenian private international law applies, a Slovenian forum will not suspend the proceedings ox officio. In concreto, however, none of the parties in Slovenian set of proceedings requested suspension.

Cross-border effects of substantive consolidation

One of the pleas in appeal was the erroneous application of substantive consolidation under the UNCITRAL model law. Lower courts considered that the substantive consolidation violated the par condicio creditorum principle, i.e. a basic principle of Slovenian insolvency law. Lower courts assessed the Croatian extraordinary administration and concluded that in essence such an administration is to be considered as a substantive consolidation. Substantive consolidation is a treatment of the assets and liabilities of two or more enterprise group members as if they were part of a single insolvency estate.[6] Slovenian insolvency legislation followed the UNCITRAL model law. The Supreme Court did not have any problem incorporating via its own case-law the UNCITRAL Legislative Guide on Insolvency Law. According to the Slovenian forum the Croatian  Law on Extraordinary Administration Proceeding in Commercial Companies of Systemic Importance for the Republic of Croatia indeed incorporated the substantive consolidation in Croatian law. Art. 43 of the said Croatian law namely provides for a systemic measure of substantive consolidation (paras. 29 – 40, especially par. 36). Substantive cross-border consolidation is contrary so Slovenian international ordre public.

The defence of ordre public (paras 41 – 53)

The essence of Slovenian Supreme Court’s reasoning consists of assessment of the compliance with ordre public condition for granting recognition (see on Slovenian legislation in Italian e.g. in Sladi? La Corte suprema slovena si confronta con i danni punitivi, Danno e responsabilità 1/2014, p. 18 et seq.). The national Slovenian law applies the prerequisite of international ordre public, i.e. only foreign decision that could endanger the legal and moral integrity of Slovenian legal order are not recognised. The ordre public defence is the ultimate refuge. However, recognition of foreign proceedings for divestiture of over-indebted debtors where the condition of equal treatment of creditors (par condicio creditorum) is not complied with would not comply with the requirements of Slovenian international ordre public. Slovenia namely protects on the one hand in national insolvency proceedings the equal treatment of creditors. On the other hand it only grants recognition in international insolvency legislation the powers of foreign administrator to conduct the case for the common representation of all creditors (par. 45). The Croatian Law on Extraordinary Administration Proceeding in Commercial Companies of Systemic Importance for the Republic of Croatia is a form of State’s economic intervention or economic protectionism having the aim of protection of commercial companies of systemic importance. The Croatian law interferes in the fundamental principles of collective insolvency law and gives certain creditors privileges to be paid by priority by an administrator’s discretionary decision without any consent of the board of creditors (par. 47). The extraordinary administration is conditioned by the State’s interest and certainly not by the interest of creditors. Creditors do not get nor the benefit of the par condicio creditorum (no equal treatment of creditors in having the same condition vis-a-vis the debtor) and are not paid in equal shares (no pari passu clause) (par. 48).

The Slovenian Supreme Court refused to engage in any assessment of compatibility of Croatian law with the Croatian ordre public (par. 49). However, it remarked that Courts in successor States of Yugoslavia refused to recognise the effects of judicial decisions based on the Law on Extraordinary Administration Proceeding in Commercial Companies of Systemic Importance for the Republic of Croatia. Courts in Montenegro (Supreme Court of Montenegro), Serbia (Commercial court of Appeal), Bosnia (Supreme Court of Bosnia) all concluded that the Croatian Law on Extraordinary Administration Proceeding in Commercial Companies of Systemic Importance for the Republic of Croatia does not deal in insolvency, it is aimed at the protection of State’s interests. The Croatian law is contrary to ordre public of any of those States. Perhaps the said decisions can also be seen as introducing the government interest analysis in South-Eastern Europe?

In the end the Slovenian Supreme Court stressed the importance of the European ordre public. “In the framework of national ordre public also the European ordre public is to be acknowledged next to regional ordre public. [Comment: The order does not clarify what the difference between the European and regional ordre public is]. A Slovenian forum is not empowered to refuse the recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings even though they might be contrary to national ordre public if such a refusal would not be justified or proportional from a European point of view. Slovenia and Croatia are namely both members of European legal area, i.e. members of the EU. However, each State is empowered to set types and conditions of collective insolvency proceedings on their territories. The effects and closing can then be a subject-matter of recognition (both automatic and according to the rules) in other States and also to set interest to be affected by legal consequences of recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings.” Slovenia decided to protect the creditors’ interests, for their equal treatment, as a consequence the refusal of recognition of the extraordinary administration complies with the Slovenian ordre public.

[1]https://gavclaw.com/2018/03/26/agrokor-dd-recognition-of-croatian-proceedings-shows-the-impact-of-insolvency-regulations-annex-a/#comment-69405

[2]Available in Slovenian at http://www.sodisce.si/sodni_postopki/objave/2018031912582798/

[3]https://www.hlbriworkoutblog.com/2017/12/english-recognition-agrokor-insolvency-not-tick-box-exercise/#page=1

[4]The Croatian version available on the webise of the Croatian Official Journal https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2017_04_32_707.html

[5]The translation in Encyclopedia of Private International Law (Jürgen Basedow, Giesela Rühl, Franco Ferrari and Pedro de Miguel Asensio), 2017, p. 3784–3804 reads as: »A court of the Republic of Slovenia will stay the proceedings at the request of a party if other proceedings on the same matter have been initiated before a foreign court between the same parties:

• if the suit in the proceedings conducted abroad was served on the defendant before the service of the suit in the proceedings conducted in the Republic of Slovenia; or if a non-contentious procedure abroad started earlier than in the Republic of Slovenia;
• if it is probable that the foreign decision will be recognized in the Republic of Slovenia, and;
• if reciprocity exists between the two states.«

[6]http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/insolvency/2004Guide.html.

By Frédéric Breger, Legal Officer at the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International law (HCCH) 

In March 2018, the Permanent Bureau of the HCCH relaunched the publication of the Judges’ Newsletter on International Child Protection after almost four years of absence. Volume XXI of the Judges’ Newsletter (Winter-Spring 2018) has now been released on the HCCH website.  

This issue of the Judges’ Newsletter includes a Special Focus on the Seventh meeting of the Special Commission on the Practical Operation of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention and the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention meant to provide an insight into the discussions held during the meeting on a selected range of topics. It reflects, amongst others, the discussions held on topics such as a Draft Guide to good practice on Article 13(1)(b) of the 1980 Convention, addressing delays under the 1980 Convention, the benefits and use of the 1996 Convention in relation to the 1980 Convention, the revision of forms for return and access under the 1980 Convention, recognition and enforcement of protection orders, etc.  

Following the Conclusions and Recommendations adopted at this Special Commission meeting, the Judges’ Newsletter will henceforth be edited in-house and published in electronic format only. All previous volumes of the Judges’ Newsletter are available here. 

Readers of this blog may be interested to learn that the well-known (and, in many ways, quite depressing) Krombach/Bamberski saga appears to have finally found its conclusion with a decision by the European Court of Human Rights (Krombach v France, App no 67521/14) that was given yesterday.

Krombach – who, after having been convicted for killing his stepdaughter, had successfully resisted the enforcement of the French civil judgment in Germany (Case C-7/98 Krombach) and, equally successfully, appealed the criminal sentence (Krombach v France, App no 29731/96), before he had famously been kidnapped, brought to France, and convicted a second time – had brought a new complaint with regard to this second judgment. He had argued that his conviction in France violated the principle of ne bis in idem (as guaranteed in Art 4 of Protocol No 7) since he had previously been acquitted in Germany with regard to the same event.

Yesterday, the Court declared this application inadmissible as Art 4 of Protocol No 7, according to both its wording and the Court’s previous case law, ‘only concerned “courts in the same State”‘ (see the English Press Release).

[35.] … [L]a Cour constate que cette thèse [du requérant] se heurte aux termes mêmes de l’article 4 du Protocole no 7, qui renvoient expressément au « même État » partie à la Convention plutôt qu’à tout État partie à la Convention. …

[36.] La Cour a ainsi jugé avec constance que l’article 4 du Protocole no 7 ne visait que les « juridictions du même État » et ne faisait donc pas obstacle à ce qu’une personne soit poursuivie ou punie pénalement par les juridictions d’un État partie à la Convention en raison d’une infraction pour laquelle elle avait été acquittée ou condamnée par un jugement définitif dans un autre État partie … .

It also pointed out that ‘the fact that France and Germany were members of the European Union did not affect the applicability of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7’ (ibid).

[38.] La Cour estime par ailleurs que la circonstance que la France et l’Allemagne sont membres de l’Union Européenne et que le droit de l’Union européenne donne au principe ne bis in idem une dimension trans-étatique à l’échelle de l’Union européenne … est sans incidence sur la question de l’applicabilité de l’article 4 du Protocole no 7 en l’espèce.

The Strasbourg Court thus appears to have added the final chapter to a case that has occupied the courts in Germany, France, and Luxembourg for almost 35 years, raising some pertinent questions as to mutual trust and judicial corporation in the process.

The first edition of the doctoral seminar in Public, International and European Law of the University of Milan will take place on 15, 16 and 17 October 2018. This year’s topic is Big Data and the Law – New Challenges beyond Data Protection.

The seminar will consist of three panels: (1) Big Data and Public Law: artificial intelligence, algorithmic decision and algorithmic transparency, Big data and Public Health, Big data and Taxation; (2) Big Data and State Jurisdiction (The un-territoriality of Data): how territoriality is challenged by the present day dynamics governing the search and seizure of digitized information; (3) Digitization of Public Administration and Big Data: tools, challenges and prospects of the transition to a digitalized public administration.

Each panel will host presentations by three PhD students, followed by a brief discussion by another PhD student.

The seminar will take place in Gargnano, on the shores of Lake Garda, at the historical Palazzo Feltrinelli.

Interested PhD students are encouraged to submit an 800-word abstract of their presentation, in English, by 30 April 2018. The abstracts should address one of the above issues from a public, international (including private international) or EU law perspective.

See here for further information.