Droit international général

On October 5th, The Cour de Cassation, the highest court in France for private law matters, requested an advisory opinion of the ECtHR (Ass. plén. 5 octobre 2018, n°10-19053). It is the first time a Contracting State applies to the ECtHR for an advisory opinion on the basis of Protocol n° 16 which entered into force on August 1st, 2018. The request relates to the legal parentage of children born to a surrogate mother. More specifically, it concerns the intended mother’s legal relationship with the child.

The Mennesson case is again under the spotlight, after 18 years of judicial proceedings. Previous developments will be briefly recalled, before the Advisory opinion request is summarized.

Previous developments in the Mennesson case:

A French couple, Mr and Mrs Mennesson, went to California to conclude a surrogacy agreement. Thanks to the surrogate mother, twins were born en 2000. They were conceived with genetic material from the intended father and eggs from a friend of the couple. The Californian Supreme Court issued a judgment referring to the couple as genetic father and legal mother of the children. Birth certificates were issued and the couple asked for their transcription into the French civil status register.

French authorities refused the transcription, arguing that it would be contrary to public policy. Surrogate motherhood, in particular, is forbidden under article 16-7 of the Civil Code. Such agreements are then considered void and resulting foreign birth certificates establishing parentage are considered contrary to public policy (Cass. Civ. 1ère, 6 avril 2011, n°10-19053).

As a last resort, The Mennesson family brought a claim before the ECtHR. They claimed that the refusal to transcribe the birth certificate violated their right to respect for private and family life. While the Court considered that the parent’s right to family life was not infringed, it ruled that the refusal to transcribe the birth certificates violated the children’s right to identity and was not in their best interest. As a consequence, it ruled that the refusal to establish the legal parentage of the indented parents was a violation of the children’s right to private life, particularly so if the indented father was also the biological father.

After the ECtHR ruling: the French landscape

After the ECtHR ruling, the Cour de Cassation softened its position. In 2015, sitting in Assemblée plénière, it ruled that the mere fact that a child was born of a surrogate mother did not in itself justify the refusal to transcribe the birth certificate, as long as that certificate was neither unlawful nor forged, nor did it contain facts that did not correspond to reality (Ass. plén., 3 juillet 2015, n° 14-21323 et n°15-50002).

As a consequence, the Court only accepted the transcription of foreign birth certificate when the intended father is also the biological father. When it came to the other intended parent, the Cour de Cassation refused the transcription. By so doing, the Cour de Cassation reiterates its commitment to the Mater semper certa principle as the sole basis of its conception of motherhood. Meanwhile, in 2017, the Cour de Cassation signalled that the genetic father’s spouse could adopt the child if all the requirements for adoption were met and if it was in the best interest of the child (Cass. Civ. 1ère, 5 juillet, 2017, n°15-28597, n°16-16455, and n°16-16901 ; 16-50025 and the press release)

However, the Mennessons’ fight was not over yet. Although according to the latest decisions, it looked like both Mr and Mrs Mennesson could finally establish their kinship with the twins, they still had to overcome procedural obstacles. As the Cour de Cassation had refused the transcription in its 2011 judgment which had become final, the parents were barred from applying for it again. As pointed out by the ECtHR in the Foulon and Bouvet v. France case (21/07/2016, Application n°9063/14 and 10410/14), French authorities failed to provide an avenue for the parties involved in cases adjudicated before 2014 to have them re-examined in the light of the subsequent changes in the law. Thus, France was again held to be in violation of its obligations under the Convention. (See also Laborie v. France, 19/01/2017, Application n°44024/13).

In 2016, the legislator adopted a new procedure to allow for the review of final decisions in matter of personal status in cases where the ECtHR had ruled that a violation of the ECHR had occurred. The review is possible when it appears that the consequences of the violation of the Convention are serious and that the just satisfaction awarded on the basis of article 41 ECHR cannot put an end to the violation (see articles L.452-1 to L.452-6 of the Code de l’organisation judiciaire). 

Current situation:

Taking advantage of this new procedure, the Mennesson family asked for a review of their situation. They claimed that the refusal to transcribe the birth certificates was contrary to the best interest of the children. They also argued that, as it obstructed the establishment of parentage, it amounted to a violation of article 8 ECHR. Moreover, they argued that the refusal to transcribe the birth certificates on the ground that the children were born of a surrogate mother was discriminatory and infringed article 14 ECHR.

Sitting again in Assemblée plénière, the Cour de Cassation summarized its previous case law. It concluded that while the issue of the transcription of the father biological parentage is settled, the answer is less certain regarding the intended mother. The Court wondered if its refusal to transcribe the birth certificate as far as the intended mother is concerned is consistent with the State margin of appreciation under article 8. It also wondered whether it should distinguish between cases where the child is conceived with the genetic material of the intended mother and cases where it is not. Finally, it raised the issue of whether its approach of allowing the intended mother to adopt her husband’s biological child was compatible with article 8 ECHR.

After pointing out the uncertain compatibility of its reasoning with ECtHR case law, the Court chose to request an advisory opinion from the ECtHR. Protocol 16 allows Contracting States to apply to the ECtHR for its advisory opinion “on questions of principles relating to the interpretation or application of the rights and freedom defined in the Convention or the protocols thereto” (Protocol 16 art.1).

Thus, the Cour de Cassation asked the ECtHR the two following questions:

• By refusing to transcribe into civil status registers the birth certificate of a child born abroad from a surrogate mother inasmuch as it refers to the intended mother as the “legal mother”, while the transcription has been accepted when the intended father is the biological father of the child, does a State Party exceed its margin of appreciation under article 8 ECHR? In this respect, is it necessary to distinguish between whether or not the child is conceived with the gametes of the intended mother?
• If the answer to one of the two preceding questions is in the affirmative, does the possibility for the intended mother to adopt her husband’s biological child, which constitutes a mean of establishing parentage open to her, comply with the requirements of article 8 of the Convention?

As the Cour de Cassation indicates on the press release accompanying the request of an advisory opinion, it seized the opportunity of initiating a judicial dialogue between national jurisdictions and the ECtHR. However, it looks more like a sign of caution on the part of the French court, in a particularly sensitive case. Depending on the answer it receives, the Cour de Cassation will adapt its case law.

Although Protocol n°16 does not refer to a specific deadline, the Explanatory report indicates that it would be appropriate for the ECtHR to give high priority to advisory opinion proceedings.

Thus, it looks like the Mennesson saga will be continued soon…

 

[2018] EWCA Civ 2167 Sophocleous v Foreign Secretary et al is a good reminder that conflicts rules past have a tendency not to be so easily forgotten. And in the case of the English law, one or two of them may well be revived post-Brexit (with the usual caveats). Judgment in first instance was [2018] EWHC 19 (QB) which is reviewed here.

Longmore J: ‘The common law private international rule used by the courts to determine liability in an English court in respect of foreign torts (usually referred to as the double actionability rule) was prospectively abolished by the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 (“the 1995 Act”) for all torts except defamation. But it casts a long shadow because section 14(1) of the 1995 Act expressly provides that its provisions do not apply to “acts or omissions giving rise to a claim which occur before the commencement” of the relevant Part of the Act. The 1995 Act has itself been largely superseded by the provisions of the Rome II Convention (sic) but that likewise only applies to events occurring after its entry into force.

Claimants seek damages for personal injuries sustained in Cyprus, as a result of alleged assaults perpetrated in Cyprus by members of the UK armed forces, seconded British police officers and servants or agents of the then Colonial Administration. The appeal relates to alleged torts committed during the Cyprus Emergency sixty years ago between 1956 and 1958. Accordingly the old common law rule of double actionability applies. In the last edition of Dicey and Morris, Conflict of Laws published before the 1995 Act (12th edition (1993)) the double actionability rule was stated as follows in rule 203:

“(1) As a general rule, an act done in a foreign country is a tort and actionable as such in England, only if it is both

a) actionable as a tort according to English law, or in other words is an act which, if done in England, would be a tort; and

b) actionable according to the law of the foreign country where it was done.

(2) But a particular issue between the parties may be governed by the law of the country which, with respect to that issue, has the most significant relationship with the occurrence and the parties.”

The last element is known as the “flexible exception” – of note is that the exception can apply to the whole of the tort of only part of the legal issues it provokes: depecage, therefore, is possible.

In fact whether Cypriot law is lex causae is first of all relevant for determining whether the claim has exceeded the statute of limitation: again in the words of Longmore J: ‘the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984 (“1984 Act”) governs limitation in claims where the law of any other country is to be taken into account. Section 1 provides that where foreign law falls to be taken into account in English proceedings that includes the foreign law of limitation, unless the law of England and Wales also falls to be taken into account, in which event the limitation laws of both countries apply, the effective limitation period being the shorter of the two. However, section 2 provides an exception: where the outcome under section 1 would conflict with public policy, section 1 is disapplied to the extent that its application would so conflict. By section 2(2) the application of section 1 conflicts with public policy “to the extent that its application would cause undue hardship to a person who is, or might be made, a party to the action or proceedings …”. It is therefore necessary to determine whether foreign law falls to be taken into account; this has to be determined in accordance with rules of private international law.’

To settle the issue the locus delicti commissi needs to be determined (the double actionability rule is only relevant where the tort is actionable according to the law of the foreign country where it was done). This is clearly Cyprus: at 21: ‘..there is only one tort. If that tort was committed by the primary actor in Cyprus, the fact that a person jointly liable for the commission of the tort was elsewhere when he gave the relevant assistance makes no difference to the fact that the tort was committed in Cyprus.’

On whether the flexible exception for determining lex causae as a whole applies (reminder: here relevant only for the issue of limitation), Longmore J disagrees with Kerr J, the judge in the first instance case at the High Court. The flexible exception remains an exception and must not become the rule. At 56 (after lengthy reflection of various arguments brought before him): ‘In the case at issue there are no “clear and satisfying grounds” required by Lord Wilberforce at page 391H of Boys v Chaplin for departing from the general rule of double actionability. There is a danger that if the exception is invoked too often it will become the general rule to give primacy to English law rather than law of the place where the tort was committed. That would not be right.’

And at 63, he agrees with Kerr J that the flexible exception does not apply singularly to the issue of limitation.

Conclusion: both the law of Cyprus and the law of England and Wales apply for the purpose of determining limitation. The remainder of the issues are to be held later.

Fun with conflicts – albeit evidently on not a very happy topic.

Geert.

 

 

On 28 and 29 March 2019, the international conference ‘Families Beyond Borders. Migration with or without private international law’ will take place in Ghent at the Faculty of Law of Ghent University (Belgium). The conference, organised by Jinske Verhellen, will focus on the challenging interactions between private international law, migration law and human rights law.

Speakers will deal with legal problems encountered by refugees and migrants with regard to their personal status acquired in one country and taken along to another country. How do people prove their family ties? How can families be reunited? How do unaccompanied refugee and migrant children prove their minority? How do asylum and migration authorities assess foreign documents that relate to the personal status of refugees? What happens if no (authentic) documents can be presented? How to combat fraud relating to personal status documents in an efficient manner without depriving migrants of their right to family life? These are just some questions that will be discussed.

The conference will put the spotlight on the ‘people’ (subject of all kinds of legal procedures). Therefore, the programme will be centred around three groups of people: persons in need of international protection, refugee and migrant children, migrants and their families. Both academics and experts with experience from the field will take and share the floor.

Ghent University is very honoured to welcome the following keynote speakers: Prof. James C. Hathaway (University of Michigan Law School) and Judge Ksenija Turkovi? (European Court of Human Rights).

Confirmed speakers and rapporteurs are: Prof. Laura Carpaneto (University of Genoa), Prof. Sabine Corneloup (Université Paris II), Judge Martina Erb Klünemann (Family Court Germany, EJN and International Hague Network of Judges), Katja Fournier (Coordinator Platform Minors in Exile), Dr. Susanne Gössl (University of Bonn), Steve Heylen (President European Association of Civil Registrars), Prof. Maarit Jänterä-Jareborg (Uppsala University), Prof. Fabienne Jault-Seseke (Université Versailles), Prof. Thalia Kruger (University of Antwerp), Lise Van Baelen (Restoring Family Links Officer, Belgian Red Cross), Dr. Hans van Loon (former Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law), Prof. Jinske Verhellen (Ghent University) and Prof. Patrick Wautelet (Université de Liège).

Prof. Jean-Yves Carlier (Université catholique Louvain) will draw the conference conclusions.

The full program and information on registration will soon be available here.

The Dickson Poon School of Law at King’s College London is holding an inaugural Memorial Lecture to honour the memory of Professor Robin Morse, who died last year. He was widely admired both within King’s (where he served as Dean of the School of Law) and beyond it for his scholarship and dedication to teaching, especially of the conflict of laws.   The lecture will be given by Lord Collins of Mapesbury on “Justiciability and the Conflict of Laws” on Wednesday 7 November 2018 in the Safra Lecture Theatre on KCL’s Strand Campus, and will begin promptly at 6.30pm. It will be followed by a reception.   Attendance is free, but numbers are limited and registration is required. You can sign up here.

The latest volume of the Yearbook of Private International Law has just been released; the full table of contents can be found here.

The following teaser has been kindly provided by Ilaria Pretelli:

This XIX Yearbook revisits classical questions such as forum non conveniens and exception clauses, foreign overriding mandatory provisions, reciprocity etc., at the same time presenting contributions discussing very specific and technical problems, as that of the law applicable to the right of recourse in the field of liability insurance law, that of the recognition of punitive damages in the EU or international insolvency in the banking sector.

A special section is devoted to some of the difficult questions addressed by the European regulations on matrimonial property and the property effects of registered partnerships that will soon enter into force.

A juicy special section is devoted to cultural property and heritage, including obstacles to claims for the restitution of looted art and new mechanisms leading to the proper resolution of cultural property-related disputes. Both contributions forming this section observe a gradual transition in the judicial practice and the slow but steady development of a body of transnational rules forming a true lex culturalis.

One of the truly first codifications of the latter is offered by the new Hungarian Private International Law Act, presented in the National Reports Section.

The need to adapt private international law legislation has led to a sectorial reform in New Zealand, where the traditional, and indeed discriminatory, double actionability rule has now disappeared in favour of a more modern solution, clearly inspired by European Union regulations.

The National Reports further include an essay on how Russian authorities implement both the 1996 Hague Children’s Convention and the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention, with a detailed review of Russian case-law grappling with such notions as a child’s residence, removal and retention, or the legitimate reasons to refuse return of the child.

Another paper features the first English-language contribution on Mongolian private international law – trade, commerce, family and people-to-people relationships between Mongolians and other State communities being constantly on the rise. Turkish law is once again present through a meticolous account of jurisdiction agreements and the favour they increasingly enjoy both in Turkish adjudication and academia.

Two papers on international surrogacy offer French and Italian perspectives, as these countries were involved in the Mennesson, Labassée and Paradiso ECtHR cases.

Those who are curious as to “What’s new” in terms of work-in-progress of The Hague Convention on Judgments will devour the section devoted to relevant contributions with articles on the exclusion of privacy and the relationship with other existing multilateral instruments, in particular certain instruments in force in Latin America.

The Center for Transnational Litigation, Arbitration and Commercial Law at the New York University School of Law will host a conference, on 15 and 16 November 2018, titled The Continuing Relevance of Private International Law and Its Challenges.

The conveners are Franco Ferrari (New York University, Executive Director of the Center for Transnational Litigation, Arbitration and Commercial Law) and Diego P. Fernández Arroyo (Science Po, Paris).

Speakers include George A. Bermann (Columbia University), Andrea Bonomi (Lausanne University), Ronald A. Brand (University of Pittsburgh), Hannah L. Buxbaum (Indiana University, Bloomington), Giuditta Cordero-Moss (Oslo University), Horacio Grigera Naón (Director, Center on International Commercial Arbitration, Washington College of Law, American University, Washington DC), Burkhard Hess (Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law), Matthias Lehmann (Bonn University), Hans van Loon (Former Secretary-General, Hague Conference on Private International Law), Ralf Michaels (Duke University), Yuko Nishitani (Kyoto University), Francesca Ragno (Verona University), Mathias W. Reiman (University of Michigan), Kermit Roosevelt (University of Pennsylvania), Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm (University of Edinburgh), Linda J. Silberman (New York University), Symeon C. Symeonides (Willamette University) and Louise Ellen Teitz (Roger Williams University).

Last year the New Zealand singer Lorde cancelled a concert in Tel Aviv following an open letter by two New Zealand-based activists urging her to take a stand on Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine. A few weeks later, the two activists found themselves the subject of a civil claim brought in the Israeli court. The claim was brought by the Israeli law group Shurat HaDin, on behalf of three minors who had bought tickets to the concert, pursuant to Israel’s so-called Anti-Boycott Law (the Law for the Prevention of Damage to the State of Israel through Boycott). The Israeli court has now released a judgment upholding the claim and ordering the activists to pay NZ$18,000 in damages (plus costs).

Readers who are interested in a New Zealand perspective on the decision may wish to visit The Conflict of Laws in New Zealand, where I offer some preliminary thoughts on the conflict of laws issues raised by the judgment. In particular, the post addresses – from a perspective of the New Zealand conflict of laws – the concern that the judgment represents some kind of jurisdictional overreach, before discussing the enforceability of the judgment in New Zealand (and elsewhere).

The Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law has made available two reports for the attention of its governance Council (i.e. the Council on General Affairs and Policy): the Report of the Experts’ Group on the Parentage / Surrogacy Project and the Report of the Experts’ Group on the Co-operation and Access to Justice for International Tourists.

The Group on Parentage/Surrogacy Project will need to meet one more time early next year to reach final Conclusions on future work. In particular, the Group established possible methods to ensure cross-border continuity of legal parentage both established by and in the absence of a judicial decision.

Importantly,  “[t]he Group recalled that the absence of uniform PIL rules on legal parentage can lead to limping parentage across borders in a number of cases and can create significant problems for children and families. The Group further recalled that uniform PIL rules can assist States in resolving these conflicts and can introduce safeguards for the prevention of fraud involving public documents, while ensuring that the diverse substantive rules on legal parentage of States are respected. Any new instrument should aim to provide predictability, certainty and continuity of legal parentage in international situations for all persons involved, taking into account their fundamental rights, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and in particular the best interests of children. The Group agreed that any international instrument would need to be developed with a view to complementing the existing Hague Family Conventions and to attracting as many States as possible.”

Regarding the Group on the Tourism Project, it should be noted that it is currently exploring the need for an international instrument on the co-operation and provision of access to justice for international tourists. The Group concluded that “[t]he Experts’ Group recommends to the CGAP that it mandates the Experts’ Group to continue its work, with a view to assessing the need for, the nature (soft law and hard law options) and the key elements of, a possible new instrument. The composition of the Experts’ Group should remain open, and, if possible, also include representatives of Stakeholders, such as the UNWTO, as well as representatives of relevant organisations and private international law experts.” It was noted that the Consultant will finalise his draft (substantive) Report, which will be circulated at the end of this year.

The aide-mémoire of the Chair of the Tourism Project noted: “[i]f a new instrument were to be developed, the Experts identified a number of possible expected values such instrument might add. These included that tourists might be able to obtain appropriate information, including in a language they understand, to ascertain and understand their rights, and the potentially available options to seek redress. It might also provide co-operation mechanisms among suitable bodies that can work in a concerted manner to facilitate the resolution of complaints, with a view to guaranteeing access to justice in the broadest sense, including through alternative dispute resolution, in a non- discriminatory way. The instrument might also have a preventive effect. Finally, it might create an official record of the complaint, including for subsequent use abroad.”

In March 2019, the HCCH governance Council will determine whether work on these two subjects will go forward.

For the second time, the Society of Legal Scholars (SLS) conference, held this September at Queen Mary University of London, ran a conflict of laws section (more papers on conflict of laws given in other sections here, look for “conflict of laws”). Michael Douglas provides a charming report. Hopefully this is a sign of increased appreciation of conflict of laws as a scholarly discipline.

The latest issue of Cuadernos de Derecho Internacional, a journal published half-yearly and chiefly devoted to private international law, is now available on-line here.

It includes more than forty articles, written in Spanish, English and Italian, on topics such as actions for damages resulting from acts restricting free competition, the law applicable to divorce, dispute settlement clauses in maritime contracts and party autonomy under the EU regulations on matrimonial property regimes and the property consequences of registered partnerships.

Csongor István Nagy (University of Szeged, Faculty of Law) has posted on SSRN a paper titled Intra-EU Bilateral Investment Treaties and EU Law after Achmea: ‘Know Well What Leads You Forward and What Holds You Back’, which appeared in 19(4) German Law Journal 2017, pp. 981-1016.

The abstract reads as follows.

This paper analyzes the compatibility of intra-EU bilateral investment treaties – intra-EU BITs – with EU law. The status and validity of intra-EU BITs gave rise to a heated debate in Europe, which culminated in the CJEU’s recent controversial judgment in Achmea. This Article demonstrates that although the CJEU approached intra-EU BITs from the angle of federalism – where they are both redundant and illegitimate – the reality is that EU law does not provide for the kind of protection afforded by BITs. The paper gives both a positivist and a critical assessment of the Achmea ruling. It argues that the judgment should be construed in the context of the underlying facts and, hence, notwithstanding the CJEU’s apparently anti-arbitration attitude, its holding is rather narrow. It gives an alternative theory on intra-EU BITs’ fit in the EU internal market – based on European reality – showing that the complete invalidation of intra-EU BITs is flawed because the overlap between BITs and EU law is merely partial: BITs address a subject EU law does not. This Article’s central argument is that intra-EU BITs accelerate the internal market and, hence, their suppression does not lead the European integration further, but holds it back. Finally, this Article argues that the prevailing pattern of investment protection is a global scheme that cannot be arrested through regional unilateralism as essayed by the CJEU.

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

This is a special edition for the celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the Brussels Convention of 1968, composed of fourteen articles from all over Europe.

The articles are authored by Hélène Gaudemet-Tallon (“La convention de Bruxelles du 27 septembre 1968: 50 ans”); Jürgen Basedow (“L’espace judiciaire européen et ses voisins”); Paul Beaumont, (“Forum non conveniens and the EU rules on Conflicts of Jurisdiction: A Possible Global Solution”); Andrea Bonomi (“50 ans de Convention de Bruxelles: ce n’est qu’un début, continuons le combat!”); Francisco Garcimartín (“Brussels I instruments: past, present and… future”); Trevor C. Hartley (“The Brussels Convention in International Perspective”); Alex Mills (“The Brussels Convention 1968: A Code and a Concept”); Rui Manuel Moura Ramos (“La Convention de Bruxelles, un demi-siècle après”); Charalambos Pamboukis, “La Convention de Bruxelles: une convention constituante et un système de conflit de juridictions fédéral?”); Monika Pauknerová (“Reflections on the Brussels Convention from the Czech perspective”); Fausto Pocar (“La longue marche de Bruxelles I: un parcours encore inachevé?”); Peter Schlosser (“Observations autour du cinquantième anniversaire de la Convention de Bruxelles”); Symeon C. Symeonides (“The Brussels Convention Fifty Years Later: A View from Across the Atlantic”); and Maciej Szpunar (“Droit international privé de l’Union: cohérence des champs d’application et/ou des solutions?”).

A full table of contents is available here.

On 26-27 November, a Conference entitled From Transnational Principles to European Rules of Civil Procedure will be held in Trier (Germany). This conference is being organised by the European Law Institute (ELI) and the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT), in cooperation with the Academy of European Law (ERA). Please click here for more information, including the programme of the conference.

As some of you may know, ELI and UNIDROIT are currently working on a joint project entitled “From Transnational Principles to European Rules of Civil Procedure.” It builds upon an instrument produced jointly by the ALI (American Law Institute) and UNIDROIT entitled “Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure” and aims at the regional development of those Principles.

There are currently 8 working groups on different aspects of civil procedure, in addition to an overarching working group dealing with structure. For further information about the background of this project, click here.

As indicated on the conference’s website: “[t]his public Conference aims at presenting the advanced results achieved by the project’s current and former working groups. Participants of the Conference will have a chance to get a sense of the whole project as the work is drawing to an end with an estimated date in spring 2019. Members of the project as well as other esteemed experts in the field of civil procedure will present the achievements and challenges of the work of the respective working groups and stimulate a discussion on selected pressing legal issues in the area of civil procedure.”

Warby J in  [2018] EWHC 2599 (QB) Lloyd v Google (a class action suit with third party financing) considers, and rejects, jurisdiction against Google Inc (domiciled in the US) following careful consideration (and distinction) of the Vidal Hall (‘Safari users) precedent.

Of note is that the jurisdictional gateway used is the one in tort, which requires among others an indication of damage. In Vidal Hall, Warby J emphasises, that damage consisted of specific material loss or emotional harm which claimants had detailed in confidential court findings (all related to Google’s former Safari turnaround, which enabled Google to set the DoubleClick Ad cookie on a device, without the user’s knowledge or consent, immediately, whenever the user visited a website that contained DoubleClick Ad content.

In essence, Warby J suggests that both EU law (reference is made to CJEU precedent under Directive 90/314) and national law tends to suggest that “damage” has been extended in various contexts to cover “non-material damage” but only on the proviso that “genuine quantifiable damage has occurred”.

Wrapping up, at 74: “Not everything that happens to a person without their prior consent causes significant or any distress. Not all such events are even objectionable, or unwelcome. Some people enjoy a surprise party. Not everybody objects to every non-consensual disclosure or use of private information about them. Lasting relationships can be formed on the basis of contact first made via a phone number disclosed by a mutual friend, without asking first. Some are quite happy to have their personal information collected online, and to receive advertising or marketing or other information as a result. Others are indifferent. Neither category suffers from “loss of control” in the same way as someone who objects to such use of their information, and neither in my judgment suffers any, or any material, diminution in the value of their right to control the use of their information. Both classes would have consented if asked. In short, the question of whether or not damage has been sustained by an individual as a result of the non-consensual use of personal data about them must depend on the facts of the case. The bare facts pleaded in this case, which are in no way individualised, do not in my judgment assert any case of harm to the value of any claimant’s right of autonomy that amounts to “damage”…”

The judgment does not mean that misuse of personal data cannot be disciplined under data protection laws (typically: by the data protection authorities) or other relevant national courses of action. But where it entails a non-EU domiciled party, and the jurisdictional gateway of ‘tort’ is to be followed, ‘damage’ has to be shown.

Geert.

 

The Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law is offering three full-time positions at the Research Department of European and Comparative Procedural Law, two for Research Fellows in EU Procedural Law (PhD candidate) and one for a Senior Research Fellow. The contracts are on a fixed-term basis for 24 months with the possibility of a contract extension.

Positions:

The Institute is looking for a highly motivated Senior Research Fellow who would join the Department of European and Comparative Procedural Law led by Prof. Dr. Dres. h.c. Hess and composed by a team of five senior research fellows and 15 research fellows. The Department conducts scientific research in three areas: European civil procedural law, comparative procedural law and dispute resolution in the cross-roads between private and public international law.

The Research Fellow will conduct legal research and cooperate at the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg within the Project “EUFam’s II – Facilitating cross-border family life: towards a common European understanding)” which aims (i) at assessing the effectiveness of the functioning ‘in concreto’ of the EU Regulations in family matters, as well as the most relevant Hague instruments in this field of law along with Regulation (EU) 2016/1191 on public documents; and (ii) at identifying the paths that lead to further improvement of such effectiveness. Moreover, the Project will focus on the impact of the arrival of refugees in Europe as well as of the Brexit phenomenon in the field of European Family Law.

The successful candidate will have the great opportunity to contribute to the development of the Department of European Comparative Procedural Law led by Prof. Dr. Dres. h. c. Burkhard Hess and, in parallel, work on her/his PhD project.

The Research Fellow is expected to assist in the achievement of the objectives of the Project on a part-time basis during the two years of duration of the project, namely by carrying out and developing legal research with a view to contributing to the drafting of the Project’s Final Study and by participating in the presentation of the scientific outcomes of the Project.

In addition, the successful candidate is expected to write her/his PhD thesis and perform the major part of her/his PhD research work in the premises of the institute in Luxembourg, but also in close collaboration with her/his external supervisor and with the university or institution delivering her/his PhD diploma. A supervision of a PhD-thesis by Professor Hess will also be possible.

Profiles:

Senior Research Fellow: Applicants must have earned a degree in law and hold a PhD degree by the time they join the MPI, preferably in a topic falling within the scope of European Procedural Law in civil and commercial matters. The successful candidate shall possess a strong interest and aptitude for legal research and have a high potential to develop excellence in academic research.

Her/his CV must portray a consolidated background in EU international procedural law or in comparative procedural law: prior publications in this field of the law shall be highly regarded in the selection process. An interest in Family law is an asset. Full proficiency in English (and other foreign language) is compulsory (written and oral).

Research Fellow: Applicants are required to have obtained at least a Master degree in Law with outstanding results and to have knowledge of domestic procedural and European procedural law, in particular linked to family matters. According to the academic grades already received, candidates must rank within the top 10 %.

The successful candidates should demonstrate a great interest and curiosity for fundamental research and have a high potential to develop excellence in academic research. Proficiency in English is compulsory (in written and oral); further language skills (in French notably) are of advantage.

All applications are to be made online until 30th October 2018 via the following links:

• Senior Research Fellow
• Research Fellow

For further information see here.

The University of Lyon III will host the conference “La circulation des personnes et de leur statut dans un monde globalisé” on 11 and 12 October 2018.

After a short introduction on the stakes and the historical aspects of the law on such movements, the first day will address the principles governing those movements (Human rights, EU rights, party autonomy and the States’ interests) and day two the diverse methods, traditional or in test, to regulate them (Conflict of laws v. Recognition ; Impacts of public order, fraud and abuse of rights; Documents, constitution, absence and effects).

The conference is also remarkable by its panels since more than 60 scholars and professionals (lawyers, notary public, international organizations) from 7 nationalities are announced lead by Profs. Hugues Fulchiron (Lyon III), Hélène Gaudemet-Tallon (Paris II), Jean Foyer (Paris II), Paul Lagarde (Paris I), Hans van Loon (Former Sec. Gen. of the Hague Conference) and Horatia Muir Watt (Science Po.).

Publication of all the interventions is also planned. More information is available here

The Working Group of Young Scholars in Public International Law and the German Society of International Law are pleased to invite the submission of papers for a conference on

Cynical International Law?
Abuse and Circumvention in Public and Private International Law as well as European Law

6 – 7 September 2019, Freie Universität Berlin.

Contributions on public and private international law as well as European law, also from an interdisciplinary perspective, are welcome. The conference seeks to be a forum for dialogue between young and established scholars. Young scholars’ contributions will be commented on by established scholars.

The call for papers is available here.

Anonymized abstracts in German or English (max. 500 words) should be submitted by 31 January 2019 via the application form on the conference website.

Dear Colleague,

We are pleased to invite you to attend the Contractual Issues in Private International Law Conference to be hosted by the University of Marmara, School of Law, Department of Private International Law, Sultanahmet campus in the European side of Istanbul, Turkey on the 11th October 2018.
If you need any further information about the conference, please follow the link below:
http://etkinlik.marmara.edu.tr/contractsinpil

Yours Sincerely,
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mustafa Erkan
Conference Co-Chair

Popplewell J held in [2018] EWHC 822 (Comm) Reliance v India in April. This post therefore is not a claim to speedy reporting (Allen & Overy have excellent review here). Rather, a quick note on the various implications of the holding in wider context.

The Act of State doctrine (in its narrow sense) essentially holds that courts should not question the validity of acts taken by a foreign government within that government’s territory.

Claimant (at 110) ‘submitted that even if non-justiciable in an English court, (one of the relevant claims, GAVC)…is arbitrable; the basis for the doctrine of foreign act of state, to the extent that it applies, is that one sovereign state should not sit in judgment on the acts of another; unlike a court, an arbitral tribunal is not an organ of a sovereign state; therefore its determination of the validity of the conduct of a sovereign party would not entail one sovereign calling into question the conduct of another; because the rationale for the foreign act of state doctrine does not apply to arbitration, what would in court be a non-justiciable issue can nevertheless be adjudicated upon by arbitrators.’

Popplewell J disagreed in what I understand to be a first formal finding on the subject: at 111 and in discussing relevant authority:

‘whilst some aspects of the foreign act of state doctrine have as their basis the exercise of “judicial self-restraint” (leading to some suggesting it is an expression of comity, GAVC), those are not the aspects of the doctrine which are relevant to the current issue… the principle that the validity and effectiveness of legislative and executive acts of a sovereign state in relation to property within its jurisdiction is not justiciable..is a hard-edged principle of English private international law, and (the majority of authority suggests, GAVC) that its rationale derives from the very concept of sovereignty which recognises the power and right of a state to determine the property rights of those whose property is situate within its territory.’

At 113: ‘there is no good reason why the principle should be any less applicable in arbitration than in litigation before an English court. It does not depend upon the tribunal itself being an organ of a sovereign state or exercising sovereign functions: it depends upon a general principle of English private international law which recognises the sovereignty of nations within recognised spheres, a principle to which arbitration tribunals, no less than courts, are required to give effect when applying English private international law principles.’

The case is an excellent illustration of the now very diverse and not always integrated international dispute resolution landscape. A case like Reliance could have conceivably ended up in BIT arbitration – which as readers will know has its own extensive challenges with domestic regulatory autonomy and the space for investment tribunals to challenge the legality and at the least the proportionate impact of States exercising sovereign regulatory functions.

This leaves two further dispute settlement channels: the use of the courts in ordinary and the use of ‘standard’ commercial arbitration (outside the BIT context), which is what was employed here. As the judgment shows, the former (courts in ordinary) have kept some control over the latter.

Lucia Raimanova and Matej Kosalko signal that classic choice of law rules combined with contractual party autonomy empowers parties to steer the litigation away from issues that a party might wish to avoid: particularly, by opting for the most interesting lex contractus (and, I would add, potentially varying same en parcours de route, to respond to changes in case-law or statutory law), and by having the State concerned sign away its right to invoke the Act of State doctrine (much like the similar contractual surrender of sovereign immunity).

International litigation is seldom confined to singular lines of analysis.

Geert.

 

An essay about the European narrative. A long read – well worth it.

EU Perspectives

KJ Garnett

Brexit and Trump have opened up a new world of understanding that I hitherto grasped but was unable to define. For the past ten years many, myself included, were aware something was amiss. We knew that media coverage of the EU in the UK was based on lies and misleading information. For years euperspectives has been calling for a new European media to counter the underlying current of resentment, mockery, irrational hate and quite frankly downright ignorance towards the EU at the heart of the British media and in influential political circles. I tried in vain to draw a link between negative media coverage and the potential of great harm to the EU and ordinary citizens. Not very successfully. Like a patient who complains of chronic back-pain but who in the absence of a medical diagnosis is told their symptoms are all in the head so too my…

View original post 5,644 more words