Droit international général

The European Parliament on 11 July 2023 adopted its negotiating position on the proposal for a directive on the protection of persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings, also known as strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs).

The Parliament will now start discussions on this basis with the European Council, whose first position has been analysed by Pietro Franzina in a previous post on this blog.

The text resulting from the Council’s general approach departs from the initial proposal (analysed by Marta Requejo in a previous post on this blog), in various respects.

The most significant innovations include the following.

Subject Matter

Parliament specified that the directive poses a set of minimum standards of protection and safeguards against manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings in civil matters, as well as the threats thereof, with cross-border implications brought against natural and legal persons engaging in public participation. No specification on journalists and human rights defenders is provided.

Scope

The scope of the proposed directive should apply to matters of a civil or commercial nature having cross-border implications, including interim and precautionary measures, counteractions or other particular types of remedies available under other instruments, whatever the nature of the court or tribunal. Parliament, then, specified the directive tool as posing minimum requirements. Member States, indeed, may introduce or maintain more favourable provisions than the safeguards provided for in this directive against manifestly unfounded and abusive court proceedings in civil matters. As a result, the implementation of this directive shall in no circumstances constitute grounds for a reduction in the level of safeguards already afforded by Member States in the matters covered by this directive.

Definitions

Parliament clarified the definition of ‘public participation’ to mean any statement or activity by a natural or legal person expressed or carried out in the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and information, academic freedom, or freedom of assembly and association, and preparatory, supporting or assisting action directly linked thereto, on a matter of public interest. This includes complaints, petitions, administrative or judicial claims, the participation in public hearings, the creation, exhibition, advertisement or other promotion of journalistic, political, scientific, academic, artistic, satirical communications, publications or works.

Also the ‘matter of public interest’ is deepened by the Parliament, adding fundamental rights including gender equality, media freedom and consumer and labour rights, as well as the already indicated public health, safety, the environment or the climate. Activities of a person or entity in the public eye or of public interest includes governmental officials and private entities too. Allegations of corruption and fraud are extended, comprising also embezzlement, money laundering, extortion, coercion, sexual harassment and gender-based violence, or other forms of intimidation, or any other criminal or administrative offence, including environmental crime. All activities aimed to protect the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU, the principle of non-interference in democratic processes, and to provide or facilitate public access to information with a view to fighting disinformation are included.

The ‘fully or partially unfounded’ element related to these proceedings is better explained, that is when characterised by elements indicative of a misuse of the judicial process for purposes other than genuinely asserting, vindicating or exercising a right and have as their main purpose to abusively prevent, restrict or penalize public participation. Indications of such a purpose are added and further clarified, as follows. It is added the misuse of economic advantage or political influence by the claimant against the defendant, leading to an imbalance of power between the two parties. Intimidation, harassment or threats on the part of the claimant or his or her representatives can occur before or during the proceedings, as well as any previous history of legal intimidation by the claimant. It is then added also the use in bad faith of procedural tactics, such as delaying proceedings, and choosing to pursue a claim that is subject to the jurisdiction of the court that will treat the claim most favourably, or the discontinuation of the cases at a later stage of the proceedings.

Matters with Cross-Border Implications

The aim is to cover as many cases as possible, working on the cross-border notion in order to enlarge it. Cross-border implications, indeed, occur for the Parliament if the act of public participation is relevant to more than one Member State, either due to the cross-border dimension of the act itself or due to the legitimate interest which the public may take in the matter concerned by the act, including if the act is accessible via electronic means. The other element, i.e. the filing of concurrent or previous proceedings against the same or associated defendants in another Member State, is confirmed by the Parliament.

Application for Procedural Safeguards

Providing expeditious court proceedings is outlined. Member States shall ensure that courts or tribunals seised with an application for procedural safeguards in the proceedings in relation to which the application has been sought using the most expeditious procedures available under national law, taking into account the circumstances of the case, the right to an effective remedy and the right to a fair trial.

According to the Parliament, then, Member States shall (not ‘may’) provide that measures on procedural safeguards in accordance with chapters on early dismissal and remedies can be taken by the court or tribunal seised of the matter ex officio.

Assistance to natural or legal persons engaging in public participation is added. Member States shall ensure that natural or legal persons engaging in public participation have access, as appropriate, to support measures, in particular the following: (a) comprehensive and independent information and advice which is easily accessible to the public and free of charge on procedures and remedies available, on protection against intimidation, harassment or threats of legal action, and on their rights; and (b) legal aid in accordance with Directive 2003/8/EC, and, in accordance with national law, legal aid in further proceedings, and legal counselling or other legal assistance; (c) financial assistance and support measures, including psychological support, for those targeted by abusive court proceedings against public participation.

Third Party Intervention

The third party intervention is strengthened: in addition to widening the audience of interveners, their role is increased. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that a court or tribunal seised of court proceedings against public participation may accept that associations, organisations and other collective bodies, such as trade unions, and any other legal entities which have, in accordance with the criteria laid down by their national law, a legitimate interest in safeguarding or promoting the rights of persons engaging in public participation may take part in those proceedings, either on behalf or in support of the defendant, with his or her approval or to provide information, in any judicial procedure provided for the enforcement of obligations under this directive. This provision is without prejudice to existing rights of representation and intervention as guaranteed by other Union or national rules.

Security

Security for procedural costs, or for procedural costs and damages, is remodelled as security for costs of the proceedings, including the full costs of legal representation incurred by the defendant and damage. Where national law provides for such possibility, security may be granted to the defendant at any stage of the court proceedings.

Early Dismissal

Member States shall (not ‘may’) establish time limits for the exercise of the right to file an application for early dismissal. The time limits shall be also reasonable.

Award of Costs

The claimant who has brought abusive court proceedings against public participation is to be ordered to bear all the costs. Where national law does not guarantee the award in full of the costs of legal representation beyond statutory fee tables, Member States shall ensure that such costs are fully covered by other means available under national law, and, where appropriate, through compensation of damages in accordance with Article 15.

Compensation of Damages

Full compensation for harm is clarified covering material or non-material harm, including reputational harm, without the need to initiate separate court proceedings to that end.

Penalties and National Register

Parliament added that Member States shall ensure that courts or tribunals imposing penalties take due account of: (i) the economic situation of the claimant; (ii) the nature and number of the elements indicating an abuse identified.

In addition, Member states shall take appropriate measures to establish a publicly accessible register of relevant court decisions falling within the scope of this directive, in accordance with Union and national rules on the protection of personal data.

Jurisdiction for Actions Against Third-Country Judgements

Parliament modified this matter, stating that the concerned person shall (not ‘may’) have the right granted under Article 18.

Jurisdiction, Applicable Law and Relations with Union Private International Law Instruments

On jurisdiction matters, a new article has been included stating that in defamation claims or other claims based on civil or commercial law which may constitute a claim under this directive, the domicile of the defendant should be considered to be the sole forum, having due regard to cases where the victims of defamation are natural persons. With the exception of the latter new added Article, this directive then shall not affect the application of the Brussels I bis Regulation.

On the applicable law, in claims regarding a publication as an act of public participation, the applicable law shall be the law of the place to which that publication is directed to. In the event of it not being possible to identify the place to which the publication is directed, the applicable law shall be the law of the place of editorial control or of the relevant editorial activity with regard to the act of public participation. With the exception of the latter new added Article, this directive shall not affect the application of the Rome II Regulation.

Union Register

The Commission shall take appropriate measures to establish a publicly accessible Union register, on the basis of the information provided in accordance with the Article concerning the national register, of relevant court decisions falling within the scope of this directive, in accordance with Union rules on the protection of personal data.

Awareness-Raising

A new addition by the Parliament. Member States shall take appropriate action, including via electronic means, aimed at raising awareness about strategic lawsuits against public participation and the procedural safeguards set out in this directive against them. Such action may include information and awareness-raising campaigns and research and education programmes, where appropriate in cooperation with relevant civil society organisations and other stakeholders.

One-Stop Shop

Parliament included a new article establishing a ‘one-stop shop’ comprising dedicated national networks of specialised lawyers, legal practitioners and psychologists, which targets of SLAPPs can contact, and through which they can receive guidance and easy access to information on, and protection against SLAPPs, including regarding legal aid, financial and psychological support.

Training of Practitioners

To foster prevention of the initiation of SLAPPs and protection of targeted natural or legal persons, it is crucial to promote relevant information, awareness-raising, campaigns, education and training, including on their rights and protection mechanisms. Parliament proposed that, with due respect for the independence of the legal profession, Member States should recommend that those responsible for the training of lawyers make available both general and specialist training to increase the awareness of strategic lawsuits against public participation and the procedural safeguards against them provided for in this directive. Training should also be provided to legal professionals in order to increase awareness of abusive court proceedings and be able to detect them at a very early stage.

Cooperation and Coordination of Services

Member States should take appropriate action to facilitate cooperation between Member States to improve the access of those targeted by manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings against public participation to information on procedural safeguards provided for in this directive and under national law. Such cooperation should be aimed at least at: (a) the exchange of current practices; and (b) the provision of assistance to European networks working on matters directly relevant to those targeted by manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings against public participation.

Deontological Rules for Legal Professionals

Member States shall, with due respect for the independence of the legal profession, encourage the adoption by professional associations of deontological rules that guide the conduct of legal professionals to discourage the taking of abusive lawsuits against public participation, and where appropriate, considering measures to address any violation of those rules.

Data Collection

Member States shall, taking into account their institutional arrangements on judicial statistics, entrust one or more authorities to be responsible to collect and aggregate, in full respect of data protection requirements, data on abusive court proceedings against public participation initiated in their jurisdiction. Data referred to shall include, in particular, many specified criteria.

Transposition into National Law

Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this directive according to the Parliament by 1 years, compared to the 2 years of the original Commission text.

In addition, Member States shall apply this directive also to cases pending before a national court at the time of entry into force of the national rules transposing this directive.

I have reported before on the European Commission’s reasoning to refuse to support the UK’s accession to the Lugano Convention. Leigh Day and Daniel Leader in particular report here on a recent initiative of note: a letter by Dr Yeophantong, Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, has written to the European Commission asking it to explain its refusal to endorse the UK request to join.

Dr Yeophantong suggests the EC recalcitrance “may limit the legal accountability of UK domiciled businesses’ behaviour outside the UK, for which she refers in particular to the expected trend post Brexit, for even UK incorporated business to try and deflect jurisdiction in the UK courts viz claims pursuing these corporations for their or others’ business and human rights record outside the UK. The vehicle for this to happen is of course forum non conveniens. As readers know (otherwise try ‘CSR’ or ‘forum non’ or ‘Article 34’ in the search box), the UK have for a long time applied forum non conveniens, a mechanism not known in the Brussels regime other than in the reduced form of Articles 33-34 Brussels Ia, and not known at all in the Lugano Convention.

As Leigh Day summarise, Dr Yeophantong posed six questions in her letter, including asking Ms Von der Leyen, Commission President:

• • To explain how its refusal to allow the UK to join the treaty conforms to the EU’s support for the UN Guiding Principles;
  • For clarification on the processes within the EU which have led to the UK being refused accession to the Lugano Convention;
  • What process will be used to consider the UK’s request to re-join Lugano, and whether the European Commission is the competent authority to oversee this process; and
  • For an explanation how the Hague Conventions can provide the same protection as the Lugano Convention from the behaviour of UK businesses operating in other countries.

At first sight it may seem odd to ask the EU to justify its actions vis-a-vis a mechanism (forum non) that is part of all of the UK’s common laws: rather, one might say, the obvious target is UK law itself. However politically speaking, it is most certainly correct that EU support for UK Lugano accession would with one swoop pull the carpet from underneath an important mechanism for UK corporations to try and avoid discipline for human rights abuses abroad. This is arguably in line with the EU’s committments under human rights law. Moreover, there is as I suggested here, inconsistency in the Commission’s approach to external judicial cooperation policies of relevance to Lugano.

To be continued.

Geert.

EU private international law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 1.7.

Working Group is concerned that the EC’s refusal to the UK’s accession to the Convention “may limit the legal accountability of UK domiciled businesses’ behaviour outside the UK https://t.co/MLCgbWIUlr

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) July 4, 2023

The author of this post is Lydia Lundstedt, who is a Senior Lecturer at Stockholm University.

The United States has long differed from other countries by applying its trademark law (Lanham Act) to acts of infringement in foreign countries. Indeed, in the seminal case, Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., Inc., 344 U.S. 280 (1952), the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS or Court) upheld the application of the Lanham Act to acts of infringement in Mexico when a U.S. defendant took essential steps in the U.S. and caused consumer confusion in the U.S. and injured the right holder’s reputation in the U.S. and abroad. In Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, decided on 29 June 2023, the Court put an end to this and held that § 1114(1)(a) and §1125(a)(1) (the infringement provisions) of the Lanham Act are not extraterritorial and apply only to infringing uses of protected marks in U.S. commerce.

Facts

Hetronic International, Inc (Hetronic), a U.S. company, manufactures radio remote controls for heavy-duty construction equipment. For many years Hetronic had a distributorship agreement with six foreign related parties (collectively Abitron) to distribute Hetronic’s products in Europe. The relationship soured when Abitron claimed ownership to much of Hetronic’s intellectual property rights and began manufacturing their own products—identical to Hetronic’s—and selling them using Hetronic’s trademarks. Abitron mostly sold its products in Europe, but it also made some sales to buyers in the U.S. Hetronic sued Abitron alleging infringement under the Lanham Act seeking worldwide damages and a global injunction. Abitron argued that the Act could not apply to its foreign sales. The district court rejected this argument and Hetronic was awarded approximately 96 million dollars in damages. Abitron was also enjoined from using Hetronic’s trademarks anywhere in the world. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, apart for narrowing the injunction to the countries in which Hetronic actually markets or sells its products. Abitron appealed to SCOTUS.

SCOTUS

The Court applied its longstanding presumption against extraterritoriality, which holds that, unless the U.S. Congress has clearly instructed otherwise, U.S. legislation applies only within the U.S. territory. The Court recalled that this presumption serves to avoid international discord with foreign countries and recognizes that Congress generally legislates with domestic concerns in mind.

The Court’s modern extraterritoriality framework consists of two steps. First, the Court determines whether there is a clear indication that Congress intended to rebut the presumption with respect to the provision at issue. If the answer is no, step two determines whether the case involves a domestic (permissible) application of the provision or a foreign (impermissible) application of the provision. This involves identifying the statute’s focus and whether the object of the focus is located in the U.S.

While all the justices agreed that the answer at step one was no, the justices were almost evenly divided (5-4) at step two in how to draw the dividing line between a domestic and a foreign application of the Lanham Act’s infringement provisions.

The majority (opinion of the Court) held that the relevant criterion was the location of the conduct, that is, the infringing use of the mark must occur in U.S. commerce. They observed that the Court’s previous precedent, Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., which they called “narrow and fact-bound”, implicated both domestic conduct and a likelihood of domestic confusion so it was not helpful when determining which of the two criteria were relevant. Looking instead to the text and context of the infringement provisions, the majority explained that while the conduct must create a risk of confusion, confusion was not a separate requirement but a necessary characteristic of the infringing use. In addition, the majority reasoned that a conduct criterion was easy for the lower courts to apply and it was consistent with the territorial nature of trademarks enshrined in international law.

In contrast, the concurring justices argued that the relevant criterion was consumer confusion. They maintained that the focus of the statute was protection against consumer confusion in the U.S. In their view, an application of the Lanham Act to activities carried out abroad when there is a risk of confusion in the U.S. was a permissible domestic application.

The concurring justices argued that the Court’s precedents do not require a conduct only criterion. They argued that the focus of a statute can be parties and interests that Congress seeks to protect. In addition, they chided the majority for putting aside Steele v. Bulova Watch, which has guided the lower courts for more than 70 years. They also argued that the majority exaggerated the risk for international discord and that applying the Act when there was a likelihood of U.S. consumer confusion was consistent with the international trademark system.

The justices were unanimous in agreeing that the Court of Appeals’ judgment be vacated.

New Questions

The majority opinion raises questions concerning the localization of infringing use. Indeed, its focus on conduct suggests that the location of the actor is relevant. That said, there was no dispute that the Lanham Act applied to the products that Abitron sold directly into the U.S. But what if the products were delivered abroad but marketed to U.S. buyers? Under European Union law, for instance, an infringing use of a trademark takes place in the EU if an offer for sale of a trade-marked product located in a third State is targeted at consumers in the EU (L’Oréal and others (C-324/09).

Now that the Lanham Act no longer applies to foreign infringing acts, right holders will need to rely on foreign trademarks. As many right holders will undoubtably seek to enforce foreign rights in U.S. courts, the question arises whether the U.S. courts will hear foreign trademark claims. Historically, U.S. courts have been reluctant to hear infringement claims based on foreign registered rights for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or forum non conveniens. It will be interesting to see how SCOTUS rules on these questions in the future.

The latest issue of the Dutch Journal on Private International Law (NIPR) has been published.

 

NIPR 2023 issue 2

 

Editorial

C.G. van der Plas / p. 197

 

Articles

K.C. Henckel, Issues of conflicting laws – a closer look at the EU’s approach to artificial intelligence / p. 199-226

Abstract

While newly emerging technologies, such as Artificial intelligence (AI), have a huge potential for improving our daily lives, they also possess the ability to cause harm. As part of its AI approach, the European Union has proposed several legislative acts aiming to accommodate and ensure the trustworthiness of AI. This article discusses the potential private international law impact of these legislative proposals. In doing so, it – inter alia – addresses how the newly proposed legislative acts interact with existing private international law instruments, such as the Rome II Regulation. In addition, it questions whether there is a need for specific rules on the private international law of AI.

Silva de Freitas, The interplay of digital and legal frontiers: analyzing jurisdictional rules in GDPR collective actions and the Brussels I-bis Regulation / p. 227-242

Abstract

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has provided data subjects with the possibility to mandate representative organizations to enforce rights on their behalf. Furthermore, the GDPR also contains its own jurisdictional scheme for the enforcement of the rights of data subjects. In this context, judicial and scholarly discussions have arisen as to how the procedural provisions contained in the GDPR should interact for properly assigning jurisdiction in GDPR-related collective actions. In this article, I will address this question to argue that both jurisdictional grounds provided by the GDPR are available for representative organizations to file collective actions: the Member State in which the controller or processor is established and the Member State in which the data subjects reside. Furthermore, in order to exemplify the impact of national law on such interaction, I will also assess how some legal provisions contained in the WAMCA may impinge upon the rules on jurisdiction contained in the GDPR.

 

On 6 July 2023 the Court of Justice issued a judgement in BM v LO (C-462/22). The ruling provides guidance as to the interpretation of Article 3(1)(a) of the Brussels II bis Regulation on matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility. Specifically, it refers to the sixth indent of the provision, whereby, in matters relating to divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment, jurisdiction lies with the courts of the Member State in whose territory the applicant is habitually resident if he or she resided there for at least six months immediately before the application was made and is a national of the Member State in question.

It is worth noting that the new Brussels II ter Regulation does not bring any changes to the rules on jurisdiction in matrimonial matters. The interpretation by the Court of Justice of those provisions accordingly remain valid under the recast Regulation.

Factual Background

The request for preliminary ruling originated from the German Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof). The case concerned the divorce of a couple formed by a German husband and a Polish wife, who had married in Poland in 2000. The couple had twin sons born in 2003.

The facts are as follows.

After initially living in Germany for a number of years, the couple moved to Poland into a house they had built, in which the wife still lives today. They are also the joint owners of a dwelling in Warsaw, which they had rented until September 2012, after which it was at their full disposal.

The husband was a senior executive of a pharmaceuticals manufacturer. Since April 2010, he has been employed as the managing director for the Central Europe region, which includes Poland and the Netherlands, but not Germany. His activity is largely characterised by business trips and working from home. His employer provided him with staff accommodation in Aerdenhout (Netherlands), in which he resided on an occasional basis until the end of 2013. The husband has a self- contained dwelling in a house occupied by his parents, in Hamm (Germany).

The husband filed a divorce application with the District Court in Hamm (Germany) in October 2013. He submitted that his habitual residence had been in Hamm since mid-2012 at the latest. He moved out of the house in Poland in June 2012. Since June 2012, he has deepened his relationship with his new cohabiting partner in Hamm and has been caring for his parents. During his stays in Poland, he was limited to having contact with his two sons, which was always tied in with business trips.

The wife challenged the jurisdiction of the German courts and submitted that the husband did not move out of the house in Poland until the beginning of April 2013 and then lived in the jointly owned dwelling in Warsaw. They took turns picking up the two sons from school in Warsaw during the second semester of the 2012/2013 academic year. The husband resided almost exclusively in the Netherlands or Poland between April and November 2013.

The District Court in Hamm (Germany) considered that the German courts lack  jurisdiction, and it dismissed the husband’s application as inadmissible. His appeal on the merits was dismissed also by the Higher Regional Court. The Higher Regional Court concluded that the husband’s habitual residence had been in Germany at the time when he filed his divorce application in October 2013. However, he had not yet been habitually resident in Germany for six months before he filed his divorce application (in April 2013). The husband’s appeal on a point of law, lodged with the referring court, is directed against the decision of the Higher Regional Court.

Preliminary Question

In the case at hand, the doubt concerns the provision of Article 3(1)(a) sixth indent of the Brussels II bis Regulation.

As the applicant was already habitually resident in Germany at the moment of filing a divorce claim, but not necessarily in the period of six month preceding this date, the Bundesgerichtshof decided to address the Court of Justice. The latter rephrased the preliminary question in the following way:

whether the sixth indent of Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that that provision makes the jurisdiction of the court of a Member State to hear an application for the dissolution of matrimonial ties subject to the condition that the applicant, who is a national of that Member State, provides evidence that he or she has acquired a habitual residence in that Member State for at least six months immediately prior to the submission of his or her application, or to the condition that he or she shows that the residence which he or she acquired in that same Member State has become a habitual residence during the minimum period of six months immediately preceding the lodging of his or her application.

In simpler words the doubt in the case at hand is whether the applicant must prove habitual residence from the beginning and throughout that minimum period of six months immediately preceding the application.

The Judgment

The Court of Justice ruled that Article 3(1)(a)

makes the jurisdiction of the court of a Member State to hear an application for the dissolution of matrimonial ties subject to the condition that the applicant, who is a national of that Member State, provides evidence that he or she has acquired a habitual residence in that Member State for at least six months immediately prior to the submission of his or her application.

The Court of Justice reminded that the criteria for jurisdiction listed in Article 3 Brussels IIbis Regulation are objective, alternative and exclusive. While the first to fourth indents of Article 3(1)(a) expressly refer to the habitual residence of the spouses and of the respondent as criteria, the sixth indent of Article 3(1)(a) creates a forum actoris [para. 18-19].

The latter rule seeks to ensure a balance between, on the one hand, the mobility of individuals within the EU, in particular by protecting the rights of the spouse who, after the marriage has broken down, has left the MS where the couple had their shared habitual residence and, on the other hand, legal certainty (in particular legal certainty for the other spouse) by ensuring that there is a real link between the applicant and the MS whose courts have jurisdiction [para. 20].

The Court of Justice explained that, of course, for the purpose of relying on the sixth intend, a spouse must show his habitual residence in the territory of the given Member State at the time of lodging the application [para. 24]. The doubt is whether this habitual residence must be established from the beginning and throughout that minimum period of six months immediately preceding the application [para. 25].

As indicated by the Bundesgerichtshof there is a disagreement as to how the sixth indent of Article 3(1)(a) of the Brussels II bis Regulation are to be interpreted. According to first view, the applicant must have already had habitual residence in the MS of the court at the beginning of the six months period (referred to by the Bundesgerichtshof as “waiting period”). Pursuant to this view in order to exclude manipulation of jurisdiction to the detriment of the respondent, the applicant must prove a sufficiently close connection with the Member State of the court by virtue of habitual residence of a certain duration.

By contrast, according to the second standpoint, periods of mere de facto residence of the applicant must be included in the six-month period, as the commented provisions speaks of “residing” (and not “habitually residing”) in a Member State. Here, the Bundesgerichtshof compares the wording of Brussels II bis Regulation to the HCCH 1970 Divorce Convention, which wording is less ambiguous as to the character of residence. While establishing requirement of indirect jurisdiction, its Article 2(2)(a) provides that the requirement is fulfilled if “the petitioner had his habitual residence there and one of the following further conditions was fulfilled”, for example “such habitual residence had continued for not less than one year immediately prior to the institution of proceedings”.

While, agreeing with the first view (and acknowledging slightly different wording of Article 3(1) in the German version) the Court of Justice underlined that the commented provision must be understood in the light of other provisions of Brussels II bis Regulation. The Court of Justice explained that under Article 3(1)(a) second indent the court of the Member State in which the spouses were last habitually resident, in so far as one of them still resides there has jurisdiction. It is clear that the expression “still resides there” implies a temporal continuity between that residence and the place where the spouses were last habitually resident. As a result, the spouse who remained in the territory of the MS concerned has his or her own habitual residence there [para. 30]. This shows that no distinction should be made between the notion of habitual residence and residence in Article 3.

Only such understanding strikes a fair balance between legal certainty, while preserving the mobility of persons within the European Union and the possibility of obtaining the divorce, without unduly favouring that applicant, even though the forum actoris is a rule already favourable to him [para. 31].

Such strict understandings is needed as the jurisdiction based on the commented provision is not subject either to the agreement of the spouses or to the existence of a particular connection with the place where they lived together, past or present. Hence, requiring the applicant to demonstrate habitual residence in the territory of the Member State of the court seised for at least six months immediately preceding the lodging of the application is based on the need for that applicant to be able to establish a real link with that Member State [para. 33].

If, in contrast, the second view would be the correct one, the sufficiency of the period of habitual residence required of the applicant in the territory of the Member State of the court seised would, by definition, vary from case to case and according to the casuistic assessment of each national court seised [para. 34].

At the same time, the requirement as understood by the Court of Justice does not impose on the applicant any disproportionate burden, which could deter from relying on the commented ground of jurisdiction.

Final Remarks

Given the very favorable to the applicant ground of jurisdiction provided for in Article 3(1)(a) sixth indent of Brussels II bis Regulation, the interpretation provided by the Court of Justice is very reasonable. As suggested by the Bundesgerichtshof in its preliminary question, such interpretation is supported by the fact that the commented rule constitutes a special privileged treatment of the applicant, with the result that there is a need for special protection of the respondent, who in most cases has no connection to the court seised.

In practice, as noticed by the referring court, an ex-post assessment of the question as to whether the residence in the MS was already “habitual” at the beginning of the six-month period might be associated with considerable factual uncertainties and difficulties.

However, such problems are likely to arise only rarely. Usually, a spouse, while separated from the other, leaves the place where the the couple was resident and moves to another MS, which usually entails the return to “home” MS, which is the MS of his / her residence before the marriage or nationality.

Hence, as suggested in the AG’s opinion to IB v FA (C-289/20) it is possible for a spouse to acquire habitual residence almost immediately or at least after a short period of time, with the result that in practice the entire residence in the other MS will constitute habitual residence.

A new volume by Deyan Draguiev on Interim Measures in Cross-Border Civil and Commercial Disputes, based on his PhD thesis supervised by Peter Mankowski, has just been published with Springer.

The blurb reads as follows:

The book focusses on applying a holistic overview of interim measures and associated procedures in the context of cross-border private law (civil and commercial) disputes that are the subject of international litigation and arbitration proceedings. It reexamines key features of said problem and outlines novel findings on interim relief in the area of international dispute resolution. The book analyses the rules of EU law (EU law regulations such as the Regulation Brussels Ibis and the rest of the Brussels regime) as the single system of cross-border jurisdictional rules, as well as the rules of international arbitration (both commercial and investment). In the process, it conducts a complete mapping of interim measures problems and explores the criteria for granting relief under national laws. For this purpose, it includes an extensive comparative law overview of many jurisdictions in Europe, Asia, Africa, the Americas, etc., to reveal common standards for granting interim relief.

Interim relief is a salient problem in dispute resolution, and serious international disputes usually require requests for such measures. This makes a more complete understanding all the more important. For scholars and practitioners alike, there are various ways to seek relief; precisely this complexity calls for a more complex and multilayered analysis, which does not (as is usually the case) adopt the perspective of either litigation or arbitration, but instead weighs the pros and cons and considers the viability and reliability of the different options, viewed from all angles.

Holger Spamann and Daniel Klerman recently conducted a most interesting experiment on judicial behavior in the context of conflict of laws, the results of which have been pre-published by the Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization. They have kindly provided the following summary for the readers of this blog (who may access the full paper here):

Modern American choice of law has been much criticized for giving judges too much discretion. In particular, Brilmayer and others predict that the use of open-ended standards, such as the Restatement Second’s “most significant relationship” test, will enable judges to decide disputes in biased ways, including a bias in favor of plaintiffs. In contrast, critics argue that the more rules-based approach – such as the lex loci delicti principle that prevailed in America before the 1960s and that, in large part, continues to apply in much of the world – would be more predictable and less subject to bias. We designed an experiment involving US federal judges to test whether the modern American, standards-based approach is, in fact, less predictable and more subject to bias. We find that the rules-based approach may constrain more than the modern standards-based approach, although even under seemingly clear rules judicial decisions were less predictable than we expected. Judges under neither the lex loci rule nor that “most significant relationship” standard exhibited a bias towards the more sympathetic party, although we did detect some pro-plaintiff bias under both the rule and the standard. Somewhat surprisingly, we also found that judges who were supposed to apply the modern “most significant relationship” standard tended to decide according to lex loci delicti rule.

On 18 July 2023, The Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg, will host a ‘Talk’ on ‘The Role of Private International Law in the Adjudication of Cross-Border Civil and Commercial Disputes in BRICS: Some Reciprocal Lessons’ from 11 AM – 12.30 PM (CEST) as a part of their ‘Conflict Club’ which is scheduled every Tuesday. The talk will be delivered virtually by Professor Saloni Khanderia, who, as many may know, is the co-author of the leading commentary on Indian Private International Law that was published in 2021 by Hart/Bloomsbury Publications.

The talk will highlight some of the findings of a project being co-coordinated by Dr Stellina Jolly from South Asian University, Delhi (India) and Prof Saloni Khanderia, which analyses the role of private international law in achieving the aims of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) as an economic bloc. The findings of this project will be published in 2024 by Hart/Bloomsbury: Oxford, UK and will comprise insights provided by approximately 20 leading scholars and practitioners from the BRICS region – many of whom are also editors of this blog.  The project has currently received funding from the Max Planck Institute, Hamburg and the OP Jindal Global Univesity, Sonipat, India, in the form of a short-term scholarship and a research grant conferred upon Prof Saloni Khanderia.

While the project endeavours to engage in a holistic analysis of the convergences and divergences in the private international laws of BRICS – concerning jurisdiction, arbitration, the identification of the governing law, the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards, as well as the regulation of family matters, the ‘talk’ in the Conflicts Club on the 18th of July will chiefly focus on the impact of the principles of private international law in civil and commercial matters in fostering economic cooperation among these nations. In doing so, the talk will touch upon some areas where the BRICS governments, courts and arbitral tribunals may share reciprocal lessons to foster trade and commerce not merely among the bloc but also with non-members.

 

Interested participants may contact Prof Saloni Khanderia for the Zoom link using the contact details available here. The talk will be for 30 minutes followed by one hour of discussion. Hope to see many of you on 18 July at 11 AM!

Maastricht Law Series officially released the recent book edited by Dr Cedric Vanleenhove (Assistant Professor of Private International Law at Ghent University and Maître de Conferences at the HEC Management School of the University of Liège) and Dr Lotte Meurkens (Assistant Professor of Private Law at Maastricht University) titled The Recognition and Enforcement of Punitive Damages Judgments Across the Globe – Insights from Various Continents (Eleven, The Hague, 2023).

The description of the book reads as follows:

Thus far, private international law issues relating to punitive damages have mainly been dealt with from the perspective of several European countries. Systematic research into countries outside Europe was lacking up until

now. There is, however, a continuous discussion in various legal systems worldwide on the recognition and enforcement of foreign punitive damages judgments and, in particular, regarding their compatibility with the

public policy of the country of enforcement.

In October 2021, the Maastricht European Private Law Institute (M-EPLI) organised a Roundtable on the recognition and enforcement of punitive damages across the globe. Experts from different continents reflected on the current position in their jurisdiction(s) and exchanged their understandings and ideas in the Roundtable. This resulting book includes an introductory chapter on the status quo of punitive damages enforcement in Europe, followed by country reports from Russia, China, South Korea, the Philippines and Japan, Commonwealth Africa, Mexico and Argentina, and Brazil. In conclusion, overarching insights from the Hague Conference are formulated.

This book provides an invaluable resource for academics, judges, practitioners and policy makers in the field of private international law, punitive damages, and civil law remedies. It gives an overview of the treatment of punitive damages judgments across continents and may serve as a building block for further research.

 

Table of Content

 Prologue

Enforcement of Punitive Damages in Europe: An Overview

Cedric Vanleenhove

Recognition and Enforcement of Punitive Damages in Russia

Vsevolod Chernyy

Punitive Damages in China: Codification, Developments and Global Cooperation

Wenliang Zhang and Yingqi Zhong

Recognition and Enforcement in Korea of Judgments of Foreign Countries Awarding Punitive Damages

Kwang Hyun Suk

Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Awarding Punitive Damages in the Philippines and Japan

Béligh Elbalti

 Enforcement of US Punitive Damages in Commonwealth Africa

Abubakri Yekini and Adeola Adedeji-Adeyemi

 Punitive Damages in Argentina and Mexico – Rethinking the Scope of the Public Policy Exception

María Guadalupe Martínez Alles

 Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Punitive Damages Decisions in Brazil

Erico Bomfim de Carvalho

Towards an International Standard on the Recognition of Punitive Damages? – The Role of the Hague Conference on Private International Law

Marta Pertegás Sender and Francesco Zappatore

 

About the Maastricht Law Series: Created in 2018 by Boom juridisch and Eleven International Publishing in association with the Maastricht University Faculty of Law, the Maastricht Law Series publishes books on comparative, European and International law. The series builds upon the tradition of excellence in research at the Maastricht Faculty of Law, its research centers and the Ius Commune Research School. The Maastricht Law Series is a peer reviewed book series that allows researchers an excellent opportunity to showcase their work.

The readers of this blog are aware of the pending proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on corporate sustainability due diligence. The topic was dealt with in a post that can be found here, and in another post here, with reference to the recommendations by GEDIP, the European Group of Private International Law.

The proposed directive aims to foster sustainable and responsible corporate behaviour throughout global value chains. In-scope companies will be required to identify and, where necessary, prevent, end or mitigate adverse impacts of their activities on human rights.

The next steps for the directive proposal will be the trilogue discussions between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the Commission.

The Views of the European Parliament

On 1 June 2023, the European Parliament, at 1st reading/single position, adopted amendments to the proposal. It could be summarized as follows.

Scope of application

Parliament addressed the threshold criteria to fall within the scope of the directive. The new rules will apply to EU-based companies, regardless of their sector, including financial services, with more than 250 employees and a worldwide turnover over EUR 40 million, as well as to parent companies with over 500 employees and a worldwide turnover of more than EUR 150 million. Non-EU companies with a turnover higher than EUR 150 million, if at least EUR 40 million was generated in the EU will also be included; the same for non-EU parent companies with a turnover exceeding EUR 150 million, from which at least EUR 40 was generated in the EU.

Definitions

Parliament moves in broadening the definition of ‘value chain’, to include the sale, distribution, transport, and waste management of products.

Companies’ Obligations

Parliament, in Article 8b (new), specified that the directive should lay down rules on companies’ obligations regarding actual and potential negative impacts on human rights and the environment that they have caused, contributed to or are directly involved in, with regard to their own activities, and those of their subsidiaries.
Companies would be required to identify and, where appropriate, prevent, bring to an end or mitigate the negative impact of their activities on human rights and the environment, such as child labour, slavery, labour exploitation, pollution, environmental degradation and loss of biodiversity. They should also monitor and assess the impact of their business partners, not only suppliers, but also sales, distribution, transport, storage, waste management and other areas.

Integration of Due Diligence

Companies covered by the Directive should: integrate due diligence into their corporate policies, identify and, where necessary, prioritise, prevent, mitigate, remedy, eliminate and minimise potential and actual adverse impacts on human rights, the environment and good governance; establish or participate in a mechanism for the notification and out-of-court handling of complaints; monitor and verify the effectiveness of actions taken in accordance with the requirements set out in the Directive; communicate publicly on their due diligence and consult relevant stakeholders throughout this process.
Member States should ensure that parent undertakings can take action to help ensure that their subsidiaries falling within the scope of the Directive comply with their obligations.
Companies should apply a due diligence policy that is proportionate and commensurate to the degree of severity and the likelihood of the adverse impact and commensurate to the size, resources and capacities of the company, taking into account the circumstances of the specific case, including the nature of the adverse impact, characteristics of the economic sector, the nature of the company’s specific activities, products, services, the specific business relationship.
In conflict-affected and high-risk regions, companies should uphold their obligations under international humanitarian law and demonstrate heightened, conflict-sensitive due diligence in their operations and business relationships.

Prevention of Potential Negative Impacts

Companies would be required to take the following steps, as appropriate: consider establishing contractual arrangements with partners with whom the company has a business relationship, obliging them to comply with the company’s code of conduct and, where appropriate, a prevention action plan; take necessary modifications, improvements to, withdrawals of or investments in, the company’s own operations, such as into management, production or other operational processes, facilities, products and product traceability, projects, services and skills; adapt business models and strategies, including purchasing practices, including those which contribute to living wages and incomes for their suppliers, in order to prevent potential adverse impacts, and develop and use purchase policies that do not encourage potential adverse impacts on human rights or the environment; take appropriate measures to ensure that the composition, design and commercialisation of a product or service is in line with Union law and does not lead to adverse impacts, be it individual or collective. In this regard, particular attention shall be paid to potential adverse impact on children.

Mitigating Actual Negative Impacts

Where a company has caused or contributed to an actual adverse impact, it should take steps to remedy or contribute to the remedy of that adverse impact and any harm it has caused to people or the environment. Remedial measures, introduced by Parliament, would aim to restore the affected individuals, groups, communities and/or the environment to a situation equivalent to, or as close as possible to, that which existed prior to the adverse impact.

Exchanges with Stakeholders

The new rules would also require companies to engage in dialogue with those affected by their actions, including human rights and environmental defenders. Companies would also be required to regularly monitor the effectiveness of their due diligence policies. To facilitate investor access, information on a company’s due diligence policy should also be available on the European Single Access Point (ESAP).
Employees and their representatives should be informed by their company of its due diligence policy and its implementation.

Guidelines

To provide support to companies or to Member State authorities, the Commission, in consultation with Member States, the European cross-industry and sectoral social partners and other relevant stakeholders, should issue clear and easily understandable guidelines, including general and sector- specific guidance, in order to facilitate compliance in a practical manner. Each Member State should designate one or more national helpdesks for corporate sustainability due diligence.

Combating Climate Change

Companies should implement a transition plan to limit global warming to 1.5°C. Companies, with more than 1 000 employees on average according to Parliament, should have an effective policy in place to ensure that part of any variable remuneration for directors is linked to the company’s transition plan.

Sanctions

Non-compliant companies will be liable for damages and can be sanctioned by national supervisory authorities. According to Parliament, sanctions include measures such as “naming and shaming”, taking a company’s goods off the market, or fines of at least 5% of the previous net worldwide turnover. Non-EU companies that fail to comply with the rules will be banned from public procurement in the EU.

Single Market Clause

Parliament introduced the single market clause. According to the latter, the Commission and the Member States shall coordinate during the transposition of this Directive and thereafter in view of a full level of harmonisation between Member States, in order to ensure a level playing field for companies and to prevent the fragmentation of the Single Market.

Justice Costs, Injunctions and Third-party Intervention

Parliament require Member States in ensuring that: the limitation period for bringing actions for damages is at least ten years and measures are in place to ensure that costs of the proceedings are not prohibitively expensive for claimants to seek justice; claimants are able to seek injunctive measures, including summary proceedings (these shall be in the form of a definitive or provisional measure to cease an action which may be in breach of this Directive, or to comply with a measure under this Directive); measures are in place to ensure that mandated trade unions, civil society organisations, or other relevant actors acting in the public interest can bring actions before a court on behalf of a victim or a group of victims of adverse impacts, and that these entities have the rights and obligations of a claimant party in the proceedings, without prejudice to existing national law.

The Council’s General Approach of November 2022

Previously, on 30 November 2022, the Council of the European Union had adopted its negotiating position, or general approach. It included the following provisions.

Companies Concerned

In relation to companies concerned (see Article 2), the rules of the due diligence directive would still apply to large EU companies and to non-EU companies active in the EU. For EU companies, the criteria that determine whether a company falls within the scope of the directive are based on the number of employees and the company’s net worldwide turnover, whereas in the case of non-EU companies the criterion is related to the net turnover generated in the EU; if a non-EU company fulfils the criterion regarding net turnover generated in the EU, it will fall under the scope of the due diligence directive, irrespective of whether it has a branch or a subsidiary in the EU.
The Council’s text has introduced a phase-in approach regarding the application of the rules laid down in the directive. The rules would first apply to very large companies that have more than 1000 employees and €300 million net worldwide turnover or, for non-EU companies, € 300 million net turnover generated in the EU, 3 years from the entry into force of the directive.

Definitions

The European Council’s draft limits the scope of the due diligence obligations identified by the Commission in the full life-cycle “value chain” approach towards a more narrowed “chain of activities”: the latter covers a company’s upstream and in a limited manner also downstream business partners as it leaves out the phase of the use of the company’s products or the provision of services and excludes the use of a company’s products by its consumers (see Article 3(g)); then, it leaves it up to the Member States to decide whether regulated financial undertakings (including fund managers) shall be included in the scope of the directive.
The Council’s text also strengthens the risk-based approach and the rules on the prioritisation of the adverse impacts to ensure that carrying out due diligence obligations is feasible for companies (see Article 3, points (e) and (f)).

Combating Climate Change

The text of the provision on combating climate change (see Article 15) has been aligned as much as possible with the soon-to-be-adopted Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), including a specific reference to that directive, in order to avoid problems with its legal interpretation, while avoiding broadening the obligations of companies under this Article.
Due to the strong concerns of Member States regarding the provision proposed by the Commission linking the variable remuneration of directors to their contribution to the company’s business strategy and long-term interest and sustainability, this provision has been deleted (Article 15(3)). The form and structure of directors’ remuneration are matters primarily falling within the competence of the company and its relevant bodies or shareholders. Delegations called for not interfering with different corporate governance systems within the Union, which reflect different Member States’ views about the roles of companies and their bodies in determining the remuneration of directors.

Civil Liability

The Council’s text provides more clarity to the conditions of civil liability (see Article 22) with a provision that ensures full compensation for damages resulting from a company’s failure to comply with the due diligence obligations, avoiding unreasonable interference with the Member States’ tort law systems.
The four conditions that have to be met in order for a company to be held liable – a damage caused to a natural or legal person, a breach of the duty, the causal link between the damage and the breach of the duty and a fault (intention or negligence) – were clarified in the text and the element of fault was included.
Furthermore, the right of victims of human rights or environmental adverse impacts to full compensation were expressly provided for in the compromise text. On the other hand, the right to full compensation should not lead to overcompensation, for example by means of punitive damages.
Further, clarifications of the joint and several liability of a company and a subsidiary or a business partner and the overriding mandatory application of civil liability rules were made.
All of these clarifications and precisions allowed to delete the safeguard for companies that sought contractual assurances from their indirect business partners after a strong criticism of this provision due to its heavy reliance on contractual assurances.

Directors’ Duties

Due to the strong concerns expressed by Member States that considered Article 25 to be an inappropriate interference with national provisions regarding directors’ duty of care, and potentially undermining directors’ duty to act in the best interest of the company, the Council’s proposal deletes the director’s duties introduced by the Commission.

Annex I

The Annex I to the proposed directive has undergone significant changes with the main objective of making the obligations as clear and easily understandable for companies as possible, while ensuring a legally sound base. The logic of the Annex I is to list specific rights and prohibitions, the abuse or violation of which constitutes an adverse human rights impact (see Article 3, point (c)) or adverse environmental impacts (see Article 3, point (b)). To better understand how these rights and prohibitions should be interpreted, the Annex I contains references to international instruments that serve as points of reference.
To ensure the legitimacy of referring to international instruments that are legally binding only on the States, and following the overall logic of the Annex I, the Annex I covers only those international instruments that were ratified by all Member States. Overall, the Annex I of the compromise text only refers to such obligations and prohibitions that can be observed by companies, not just by States.
As regards the human rights part of the Annex I, it covers only legally binding international instruments that are recognised as a minimum list of instruments in the international framework. Concerning the environmental part of the Annex I, a limited number of additional specific obligations and prohibitions under international environmental instruments have been added, the violation of which results in an adverse environmental impact.
Moreover, the definitions of adverse environmental and human rights impacts have been clarified. Furthermore, the so-called ‘catch-all clause’ included in the Commission’s proposal has been kept in order to safeguard the indivisibility of human rights, but it has been clarified thoroughly to ensure maximum predictability for companies.

See here for one of the questions I asked one cohort of students in this term’s exam, the other group got this question:

In Case C-81/23 FCA Italy and FPT Industrial, an Austrian court has asked the CJEU the following Q: (I simplified the Q for exam purposes)

Must point 2 of Article 7 of [Brussels Ia] be interpreted as meaning that, in an action for tortious liability against the developer (domiciled in Member State A, Italy) of a diesel engine with a prohibited defeat device…, the “place where the harmful event occurred or may occur” in a case where the vehicle was bought by the applicant domiciled in Member State B (in this case: Austria) from a third party established in Member State C (in this case: Germany) is a) the place where the contract was concluded; b) the place where the vehicle was delivered, or c) the place where the physical defect constituting the damage occurred and, therefore, the place where the vehicle is normally used?

‘Prohibited defeat devices’ are the kind of devices which led for instance to the Volkswagen dieselgate scandal. Their use leads to an artificially low fuel consumption in test circumstances, meaning in reality a car consumes more than the tests indicate. Once this was exposed, the second hand value of these cars plummeted, and owners had been spending much more on petrol for the car than they would have expected.

For your info, under Austrian law, ‘purchase’ (in the sense of acquisition of ownership) consists of the transaction that creates the relationship of obligation (title) and the dispositive transaction (procedure, in particular transfer). In the event of a discrepancy between the place of conclusion of the contract and the place of transfer, ownership is acquired only at the place of the transfer of the movable property. By contrast, under other national laws, French law for example, ownership is transferred, as a general rule, as soon as the contract is concluded.

How do you suggest the CJEU respond to this question? Argue with reference inter alia to relevant CJEU case-law.

I would have expected students to reply along the following lines.

Firstly, as always with these essay questions as indeed with the CJEU’s approach to same, they should remind themselves of the main CJEU lines of interpretation of the relevant provisions of in this case, here: Brussels Ia and in particular Article 7(2). The principles of autonomous interpretation (seeing as A7(2) is engaged reference to CJEU Melzer would have been obvious), of predictability; the need restrictively to apply variations (here: A7(2) forum delicti) to A4 actor sequitur forum rei while at the same time honouring the spirit of CJEU Bier and its distinction between locus delicti commissi and locus damni.

Further on the latter, the question clearly engages with Bier’s locus damni rather than locus delicti commissi (CJEU Kainz useful reference for the latter, and (see also below) lack of clarification of locus delicti commissi in Volkswagen).

Many of the students of course would have heard the echo of CJEU Volkswagen, and reference should have been made to [30] ff ‘place of purchase’ by the downstream acquirer as the way in which the Court identifies locus damni. Here, things get messy (as A7(2) often does) for as the reference indicates, there is no ius commune on the place of purchase, neither European harmonisation. The CJEU bumping into the limits of harmonisation (my students know this as the ‘Truman Show’; CJEU Tessili v Dunlop and Jaaskinen AG in Maison du Whisky /Corman-Collins good references) would have been a good comment to make, with answer a) perhaps having the upper hand (although at this stage I am less interested in a, b or c and more in clear structure and plan of attack; proper reference to case-law; and discussion of the general principles).

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, 2.460.

I asked one group of my students of private international law in the most recent exam session the following question:

In Case C-429/22 VK v N1 Interactive Ltd, an Austrian court has asked the CJEU the following Q:

Is Article 6(1) of [the Rome I Regulation] to be interpreted as meaning that the law of the country in which the consumer has his or her habitual residence is not applicable if the law applicable under Article 4 of the Rome I Regulation, the application of which the applicant seeks and which would be applicable if the applicant lacked consumer status, is more favourable to the applicant?

‘VK’ is a natural person and he is the applicant.

How do you suggest the CJEU should respond to this question? Argue with reference inter alia to relevant CJEU case-law.

I would have expected them to answer along the following lines.

Overall (and perhaps mostly meant for consumption by the students; forgive the rant therefore) of course it is disappointing to see how many students, despite repeated calls to the contrary and despite having 1 hour and 25 minutes to answer the question with a 2-page essay, omit to bring structure to their answer, with an introduction clarifying the plan of attack, a main body arranged alongside preferably underlined or highlighted main arguments and authority, and a conclusion. Instead they reply with a laser shoot of possible approaches without any landscaping in the text.

Now, to the case at hand. Firstly, one should point to the Regulation’s overall goal of predictability (a general theme of course in EU private international law), as illustrated by recital 16 Rome I, yet also, for the specific issue of the protected categories, its goal to protect weaker parties (illustrated by recital 23).

Recital 16 itself indicates the ordinary variation the Regulation allows to the topic of predictability, seeing as it reads

To contribute to the general objective of this Regulation, legal certainty in the European judicial area, the conflict-of-law rules should be highly foreseeable. The courts should, however, retain a degree of discretion to determine the law that is most closely connected to the situation.

That extract should have triggered the student’s attention to the various instances in the Regulation where a court may indeed correct the ordinarily applicable law by reference to a ‘most closely connected law’. In particular, attention should have been paid to the contrast between A6 Rome I, the consumer title, which does not have a ‘most closely connected test’, and that other category of protected parties, employees, who in A8(4) do have a most closely connected exception. A contra legem reading of a ‘most closely connected test’ in A4 would seem to be out off the question and even if it were not out off the question, the most closely connected law need not necessarily reflect the one more favourable to the consumer. This is also illustrated by CJEU Schlecker where the criteria for this determination were not inspired by seeking the greatest protection for the employee.

Students pushing for the alternative (the CJEU might go contra legem in the interest of consumers), would have certainly had to refer to CJEU authority supporting this and would have been most probably been referring to case-law under Brussels Ia to make that point (ex multi in particular Commerzbank (a Lugano case) and Markt24), in turn also referring to recital 7 Rome I for the need for ‘consistency’ between Brussels Ia and Rome I.

Reference can also be made to the protected categories provisions being ‘insulated’, self-sufficient Articles. This is particularly the case of course for Brussels Ia, slightly less so perhaps for Rome I seeing as the latter’s provisions for the protected categories do cross-refer to Article 3.

All in all the most likely direction of travel for the judgment is likely to be a reply in the negative. Finally, however, a good reply would have included an acknowledgment that this might not deter the cleverly litigating consumer from dipping its hands into Article 4 anyways, by reverse engineering or arguing his /her claim as one that does not engage the consumer title: suggesting professional use (with pro inspiratio reference to CJEU Gruber), for instance.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 3.2.5.

 

 

The second issue of the Revue critique de droit international privé of 2023 contains three articles on private international law and numerous casenotes.

In the first article, Sandrine Brachotte (St Louis and Lille Universities) advocates a decolonial approach of private international law (Pour une approche décoloniale du droit international privé). The abstract reads:

This article presents the decolonial approach to private international law, which has recently entered the list of pressing topics for the discipline, not only in colonised countries but also in Europe. In France, the subject may not yet be addressed as such, but it at least appeared in a Ph. D. thesis defended at the Sciences Po Paris Law School in May 2022, entitled “The Conflict of Laws and Non-secular Worldviews: A Proposal for Inclusion”. This thesis argues for an alternative theorisation of the notions of party autonomy, recognition, and international jurisdiction to make them more inclusive of non-occidental worldviews. After having offered a description of the decolonial approach and the current enterprise of decolonisation of private international law, this contribution summarises the essential points of the Ph. D. thesis in this respect and identifies the broader questions that it raises for private international law, especially as regards the notions of “law”, “foreign” and “conflict”.

Dr Brachotte has already presented her work on this blog here.

In the second article, Elie Lenglart (Paris II University) confronts international civil procedure to individualism (Les conflits de juridictions confrontés à l’individualisme). The abstract reads:

Individualism is one the characteristic features of modern legal theories. The emergence of the individualistic approach is profoundly linked to a special perception and evaluation of the reality based of the superiority of the individual. This conception has had decisive consequences in private international law. The impact of this tendency should not be underestimated. Its influence is noticeable in the first place on the determination of international competency of French jurisdictions, both via the provision of available jurisdictions to individuals and via the individuals’ propensity to extend their choices of jurisdictions based on their personal interests. It also influences the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments by imposing the legal recognition of individual statuses under extremely liberal conditions, reorganizing in turn the whole system around the individual.

The article is a follow up on Dr Lenglart’s work on individualism in choice of law theory.

An English version of these two articles will be available on the website of the publisher.

In the third article, David Sindres (university of Angers) offers new reflections on optional jurisdiction clauses.

Finally, a last article is dedicated to recent developments in French immigration law.

The full table of contents is available here.

The author of this post is Willem Visser. He is one of the editors of the Dutch Journal for Consumer Law and Unfair Commercial Practices (Tijdschrift voor Consumentenrecht & handelspraktijken).

In April 2023, the EAPIL Working Group on the Reform of the Brussels I bis Regulation issued a preliminary position paper formulating proposals for reforming the Regulation. On 29 March 2023, the European Commission published a study to support the preparation of a report on the application of the Brussels Ibis Regulation.

In my opinion, consumer protection seems to be only marginally on the radar in these documents. Therefore, I wrote this article, which was published in the Dutch Journal for Consumer Law, where I propose to extend the material scope of the provisions dealing with consumer contracts (Articles 17-19 Brussels I bis Regulation) and to significantly simplify the entire chapter on jurisdiction. A summary of my article and proposals is set out below.

Consumers are protected through EU regulations not only when it comes to their substantive rights (against unfair commercial practices, unfair terms, etc.), but also when it comes to procedural law, in particular the assesment of international jurisdiction in disputes over consumer contracts.

This procedural protection is enshrined in the Brussels I bis Regulation and its predecessors (Regulation No. 44/2001 and the 1968 Brussels Convention). These instruments will be referred to below as ‘the Brussels regime’.

The Brussels regime protects consumers by giving jurisdiction to the courts of their country of residence (Articles 17-19 Brussels I bisRegulation). That seems like a great deal, but in practice there are several limitations to that protection.

First, the consumer protection only applies to consumer contracts and not to any non-contractual obligations invoked by consumers (for example, tort, unjust enrichment and negotiorum gestio). In these types of cases the consumer cannot litigate before the court of his or her domicile, but will probably have to seek the courts of its professional counterparty: the defendant’s domicile. It is not desirable for consumers to be forced to litigate outside their country of residence, because that means extra travel time, litigating in an unfamiliar country and in a different language, with the help of a foreign lawyer, in a procedure that may well be more expensive than in his or her home country. Moreover, it is not always clear – on the basis of the various rulings by the EU Court of Justice – whether an obligation should be qualified as a ‘contractual obligation’ or a ‘non-contractual obligation’. There have been several cases where the natural person was the weaker party and needed protection, but did not get it because of the non-contractual nature of the obligation in question (see the ECJ decisions in Wikingerhof, Kolassa and Deepwater Horizon). I therefore believe that consumer protection in the Brussels Ibis Regulation should not be limited to consumer contracts but should be extended to non-contractual consumer obligations.

Second, the ECJ interpretes the concept of ‘consumer’ restrictively: it “must necessarily be interpreted strictly, in the sense that it cannot be extended beyond the cases expressly mentioned in that Regulation” (amongst others: Poker Player, C-774/19, para. 24). This restrictive approach resulted in a natural person not being able to claim consumer protection under the Brussels regime in the following situations: if he/she was a consumer but transferred his/her rights; in that case, the person to whom the rights have been transferred cannot be considered a ‘consumer’ (C-89/91); if the contract was entered into with a view to an as yet unexercised but future professional activity (C-269/95); if it concerns a class action initiated by a group of consumers (C-167/00); if both parties are consumers (C-508/12); if the consumer does not have a contract with the issuer of the certificates (C-375/13); if the agreement subsequently acquired a professional character (C-498/16); if the contract was concluded for a dual purpose, unless the contract, in view of the context of the transaction – considered as a whole – for which it was concluded, is so distinct from that professional activity that it is evident that it was concluded primarily for private purposes (C-630/17); if there is a claim by a consumer against an airline that is not a party to the transport contract (C-215/18).

So, there are quite a few situations where a natural person is not considered a ‘consumer’, and therefore cannot litigate before the courts of his or her own domicile. This is remarkable, because the European Union ensures “a high level of consumer protection” (Article 38 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights). I believe that in several of the situations mentioned above, there is an unjustified lack of protection. In my opinion, the regime of Article 17-19 Brussels I bis Regulation should therefore be applied less restrictively by entering an assumption into the Regulation that a natural person acts in his capacity as a consumer. It is up to the counterparty to prove that the natural person has unmistakably acted in the context of his or her profession or business.

In addition, I believe that consumer protection should also apply to consumer collective actions. There is no valid reason why the collective nature of a claim should result in a group of consumers no longer being considered a weaker party. At the time the contracts were concluded, the consumers represented had less room to negotiate with their professional counterparty, and thus to that extent still had a weaker position. Moreover, it leads to a divergence between the competent court and the applicable law. Still, collective actions based on a breach of consumer contracts remain governed by the law of the consumers’ country. The freedom to conduct a business, guaranteed in Article 16 of the EU Charter, does not necessitate the exclusion of collective actions from consumer protection. The professional counterparty of the consumer has already had to take into account that individual consumers could bring proceedings against it in their own place of residence. That this is different in the case of a consumer collective action is therefore, in that sense, an unexpected advantage for the counterparty.

Third, in my opinion the ‘targeting requirement’ in Article 17 (1)(c) Brussels I bis Reguliation is not workable in practice. This requirement has given rise to much ECJ case-law and leads to legal uncertainty (see the legal commentary on the Alpenhof judgment). In my opinion, in this digital day and age a consumer contract should only be excluded from consumer protection where the professional would not have to expect litigating in the courts of the consumer’s domicile. This is the case only, when the contract is concluded in a physical sales area or when the consumer cannot get the goods or services delivered in his place of residence under the trader’s terms and conditions.

In light of the above, I conclude that consumer protection under the Brussels regime has not kept pace with substantive consumer law in which consumer protection has become more extensive.

But that’s not the only comment I would like to make on the current Brussels I bis Regulation. The complexity of the chapter on jurisdiction (Chapter II of the Regulation) results even today – more than 50 years after its predecessor, the Brussels Convention, was signed by the the EEC members States – in large numbers of preliminary rulings. The Brussels/Lugano regime accounts for the majority of the 245 preliminary rulings on private international law sources from 2015 to 2022. That means more than 120 questions (128 to be precise) over a 7-year period. In my opinion, that is too much for an instrument that is in place more than 50 years.

Reducing the Court of Justice’s workload is not necessarily a compelling reason to simplify a regime, but it should be borne in mind that behind every case submitted to a court, there are two or more parties who – until the preliminary question is answered – cannot proceed with their legal proceedings. The delay is considerable, since preliminary reference proceedings before the Court of Justice take 16.6 months on average.

I therefore propose to replace the articles which give rise to the largest amount of preliminary questions (Article 7(1) and (2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation) by an article which aligns jurisdiction and applicable law. My proposal is that Article 7(1) and (2) (and perhaps other parts of Article 7) should be replaced by the following rule:

A person domiciled in one Member State may also be sued in another Member State whose laws governs the relevant contractual or non-contractual obligation underlying the claim. Where there are several claims governed by different laws, the courts of the Member State which laws governs the most far-reaching claim shall have jurisdiction.

The advantage of aligning jurisdiction and applicable law is that it improves coherence between the Brussels I bis Regulation and the Rome I and Rome II Regulations (which designate the law that is applicable to a contractual or non-contractual obligation). These Regulations all aim to promote predictability of the outcome of litigation, legal certainty and mutual recognition of judgments.

Simplifying the Brussels regime would give rise to fewer preliminary questions and fewer delays. Preventing delays is one of the objectives of procedural law. As the saying goes: ‘Justice delayed is justice denied’.

I admit that I have not yet thought through all consequences of my proposals, and it is going too far to elaborate all of them in the context of my article. But it seems right to discuss these proposals further and, if possible, to include it as an option in the ongoing review of the Brussels I bis Regulation.

Presta v VLEP (23 june 2023) illustrates the application of the CEJU’s Gruber Logistics (Case C-152/20, 15 July 2021) by the Dutch Supreme Court. In order to determine the law applicable to an individual employment contract under article 8 Rome I, one must compare the level of protection that would have existed in the absence of a choice of law (in this case, Dutch law) with the level of protection offered by the law chosen by the parties in the contract (in this case, the laws of Luxembourg), thereafter, the law of the country offering the highest level of employee protection should be applied.

 

Facts

Presta is a Luxembourg based company. It employs workers of different nationalities who carry out cross-border work in various EU countries. Their employment contracts contain a choice of Luxembourg law.

From 2012 to 2017, Presta provided employees to Dutch companies working in the meat processing industry. This industry has a compulsory (Dutch) pension fund VLEP. Membership in VLEP and payments to the fund are compulsory for the meat processing industry companies, even for the companies, which are not bound by the collective labour agreement.

According to VLEP, Presta falls within the scope of the compulsory membership in the pension fund. Based on this assertion, VLEP sent payment notices to Presta for the period from 2012 to 2017, but Presta left the invoices unpaid.

Proceedings

In 2016, VLEP obtained a writ of execution against Presta for the payment of €1,779,649.86 for outstanding pension premiums, interest, a fine, and costs. Presta objected, filing a claim before a Dutch court. The first instance court dismissed its claim. Presta appealed, but the appellate court has also dismissed its claims, reasoning as follows.

On the one hand, the employment contracts between Presta and the employees contained a choice of Luxembourg law as referred to in Article 8(1) Rome I. Therefore, Dutch law would apply if the parties had not made a choice of law. On the other hand, the employees ‘habitually’ carried out work in the sense of Article 8(2) Rome I Regulation in the Netherlands. Although some factors assessed pointed to Luxembourg, the court considered that these factors carried insufficient weight to apply Article 8(4) Rome I.

Based on this, the court held that Dutch law would apply if the parties had not made a choice of law, but that the employees should not lose the protection of mandatory Dutch law, including the rules which oblige Presta to pay the pension premiums. The court went on to apply the said Dutch rules and confirmed Presta’s obligations to pay VLEP.

EU freedom of services?

On a side note: noteworthy is that one of Presta’s arguments relied on article 56 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) on freedom of services. According to Presta, Dutch rules that oblige to participate in VLEP’s pension scheme constituted a restriction on the freedom to provide services, violating article 56 TFEU. The argument was rejected: as the relevant legal provisions cover all employees working in the meat industry in the Netherlands, excluding workers employed by foreign employers would result in an unjustified difference in their treatment.

Cassation based on Gruber Logistics

Back to Presta’s main argument in cassation: Presta filed a cassation claim, invoking the CJEU ruling of 15 July 2021, C-152/20 Gruber Logistics. In that case, the CJEU has ruled that under Article 8 Rome I Regulation, the court must compare the level of protection that would have existed in the absence of a choice of law with the level of protection offered by the law chosen by the parties in an employment contract. The CJEU has thereby dismissed an interpretation of article 8 Rome I, according to which courts need not to compare the two relevant legal systems, but have to apply, next to chosen law, mandatory law of the country where the employee habitually carries out work. According to Presta, lower courts had to compare the level of employees’ protection provided by the Dutch law to the level of protection under the Luxembourg law.

As the lower courts made no such comparison, the Dutch Supreme Court has followed Gruber Logistics. Presta’s cassation claim has been honoured, and the dispute is referred back to a lower court. It shall have to determine whether the Dutch law or the law of Luxembourg offers a higher level of protection and thereafter apply the law to the dispute.

Presta v VLEP offers an illustration of a dispute in which a national court has followed CJEU’s reasoning in Gruber Logistics. Article 8 Rome I, as interpreted by the CJEU, charges national judges or anyone who needs to define applicable law, with a task that is by no means an easy one. It requires to engage with two legal systems:  identify the relevant sets of rules, determine the parameters of comparison, and make the actual comparison, before drawing conclusions in a specific case. This is a proper comparative law exercise. For example, in this case, may the comparison be limited to specific pension payments? May it be extended to a broader range of issues forming in their entirety high level of protection? Answering such questions requires a rigorous method. Given the various existing methods and diverging views on the proper way(s) to conduct a comparative law study, it can also generate new uncertainties. Meanwhile, the task reconfirms the relevance of comparative law for private international law, and has the potential to offer the highest possible tailor-made solutions.

A late note on ClientEarth v Shell Plc & Ors (Re Prima Facie Case) [2023] EWHC 1137 (Ch) in which Trower J refused to give permission to Client Earth (qualitate qua Shell shareholders) to bring a derivative claim in lieu of Shell, against the corporation’s directors.

The breaches alleged in ClientEarth’s claim are said to arise out of the Directors’ acts and omissions relating to Shell’s climate change risk management strategy as described in relevant corporate documentation. It also alleges breaches relating to the Directors’ response to the order made by the Hague District Court in Milieudefensie v Royal Dutch Shell plc which I reviewed here.

[3]:

The reason the legislation imposes an obligation on a shareholder to obtain permission to bring a derivative claim is that such a claim is an exception to one of the most basic principles of company law: it is a matter for a company, acting through its proper constitutional organs, not any one or more of its shareholders, to determine whether or not to pursue a cause of action that may be available to it. ClientEarth must therefore show that the limited and restricted circumstances in which it is appropriate for the court to authorise it, as a shareholder of Shell, to continue a derivative action against the Directors for breach of duty are present.

Current stage of the process is said to provide a filter for “unmeritorious” or “clearly undeserving” cases, with importantly [5] the applicant having to show that its application establishes a prima facie case before a substantive hearing is held. The substantive application for permission is set out in s.263 of CA 2006, as to which:

i) s.263(2) provides that an application for permission must be refused if the court is satisfied (a) that a person acting in accordance with his duty to promote the success of the company would not seek to continue the claim or (b) / (c) that any act or omission from which the cause of action arises has been authorised or ratified by the company before or since it occurred;

ii) s.263(3) makes provisions for a number of discretionary factors which the court must take into account in reaching its decision – they are (a) whether the member concerned is acting in good faith in seeking to continue the claim, (b) the importance which a person acting in accordance with his duty to promote the success of the company would attach to continuing it, (c) / (d) whether any act or omission from which the cause of action arises would be likely to be authorised or ratified by the company, (e) whether the company has decided not to pursue the claim and (f) whether the act or omission in respect of which the claim is brought gives rise to a cause of action that the member could pursue in his own right rather than on behalf of the company; and

iii) the court is also required by section 263(4) of CA 2006 to have particular regard to any evidence before it as to the views of members of the company who have no personal interest, direct or indirect, in the matter.

[14] The duties relied on by ClientEarth include two of the statutory general duties owed by the Directors to the Company pursuant to s.170 of CA 2006: the duty to promote the success of the Company (s.172 of CA 2006) and the duty to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence (s.174 of CA 2006s).

[16] The duties owed by the Directors are also said to include what are pleaded as six necessary incidents of the statutory duties “when considering climate risk for a company such as Shell”. These are said by ClientEarth to be:

i) a duty to make judgments regarding climate risk that are based upon a reasonable consensus of scientific opinion;

ii) a duty to accord appropriate weight to climate risk;

iii) a duty to implement reasonable measures to mitigate the risks to the long-term financial profitability and resilience of Shell in the transition to a global energy system and economy aligned with the global temperature objective of 1.5°c under the Paris Agreement on Climate Change 2015 (“GTO”);

iv) a duty to adopt strategies which are reasonably likely to meet Shell’s targets to mitigate climate risk;

v) a duty to ensure that the strategies adopted to manage climate risk are reasonably in the control of both existing and future directors; and

vi) a duty to ensure that Shell takes reasonable steps to comply with applicable legal obligations.

[21] ClientEarth is not proposing any specific strategy which it requires the Board to adopt. Instead, it alleges that the Board’s current approach falls outside the range of reasonable responses to climate change risk. [26] ClientEarth needs to show that that the Directors’ current approach falls outside the range of reasonable responses to climate change risk and will cause harm to Shell’s members.

Conflicts lawyers will be interested in the two additional duties which are referred to as the further obligations [22]. They are that, pursuant to the common law of England and Dutch law respectively, a director who is aware of a court order is under a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that the order is obeyed. This is pleaded as a precursor to ClientEarth’s allegation that Shell has failed to comply with the Dutch Order. Shell argue that there is no recognised duty owed by directors to a company in which they hold office to ensure that they comply with the orders of a foreign court and Trower J agrees there is no such authority:  [23] he holds that

while a director of a company is under a legal obligation to take reasonable steps to ensure that an order made by an English court is obeyed, the case on which ClientEarth relied (Attorney-General for Tuvalu v Philatelic Distribution Corpn [1990] 1 WLR 926 at 936E-F) is not authority for the proposition that there is any such duty owed by the directors to the company itself, which is separate or distinct from the duties they owe to the company as codified in Part 10 Chapter 2 of CA 2006. 

and [24]

the nature and extent of the Directors’ duties to Shell are governed by English law as the law of Shell’s incorporation, as to which the underlying point is the same. There is no established English law duty separate or distinct from the general duties owed by the Directors to Shell under CA 2006, which requires them to take reasonable steps to ensure that the order of a foreign court is obeyed, let alone to ensure compliance with that order. It follows that, even if as a matter of Dutch law, the Directors were to owe duties to Shell to take reasonable steps to ensure that the Dutch Order is obeyed, that would be irrelevant to the claims sought to be made in these proceedings, governed as they are by English law. So far as Shell’s potential claims against the Directors are concerned, the only question is whether their response to the Dutch Order rendered them in breach of an English law duty.

No reference here to anything like mutual trust such as by the Dutch courts in Heirs to the Sultan of Sulu v Malaysia.

[25] the judge refers to Lord Wilberforce in Howard Smith Ltd v Ampol Ltd [1974] AC 821 at 832E/F:  “There is no appeal on merits from management decisions to courts of law: nor will courts of law assume to act as a kind of supervisory board over decisions within the powers of management honestly arrived at.” A classic reminder of merits review v judicial review, in other words.

Then follows a discussion of the evidence (I do not think CPR would have allowed expert evidence at this stage nb so the evidence is provided by in-house-experts) put to the court by ClientEarth and the long and the short of it is the judge’s finding [47] that

“the evidence does not support a prima facie case that there is a universally accepted methodology as to the means by which Shell might be able to achieve the targeted reductions referred to in the ETS. This means that it is very difficult to treat what is said as providing a proper evidential basis for alleging that no reasonable board of Directors could properly conclude that the pathway to achievement is the one they have adopted.”

In the light of Shell’s effective abandonment of climate engagement beyond greenwashing (I realise I am not mincing my words here yet the company’s climate reversal under its new CEO is marketed purposely to attract investors), this is imho a wrong approach to the test. It also underscores the tragedy of climate change’s multi-facetted challenges: because of the extent of the challenge, no singular approach is singlehandedly either efficient or sufficient, yet the opponents of climate action use that as a smokescreen to bedazzle judges with a labyrinth of inaction. Industry’s Merchants of Doubt approach has clearly worked here.

As for the Dutch judgment, the judge is not convinced of the nature of what the judgment really orders, and here, too, CPR rules on evidence seem to have put a spanner in the works (prof Toon van Mierlo’s Opinion not being addressed to the court etc: [53]).

[63] the judge adds obiter that in light of the de minimis extent of ClientEarth’s shareholder interest in Shell, some doubt must be cast on its ulterior rather than derivative interest in the claim. [64]

“it seems to me that where the primary purpose of bringing the claim is an ulterior motive in the form of advancing ClientEarth’s own policy agenda with the consequence that, but for that purpose, the claim would not have been brought at all, it will not have been brought in good faith. The reason for this is that it will be clear to ClientEarth that it is using an exceptional procedure in the form of a derivative action, for a purpose other than the purpose for which the legislation has made it available. If, on the evidence adduced by the applicant, that remains an open and unanswered question irrespective of what Shell might say at the substantive hearing, the court cannot be satisfied that ClientEarth is acting in good faith, a situation which will count strongly against a conclusion that it has established a prima facie case for permission.”

I.a. the judge’s approach [65] of the collateral motive of the shareholder I imagine must be appealable as a point of law.

Geert.

Judgment in Client Earth v #Shell is now here

ClientEarth v Shell Plc & Ors (Re Prima Facie Case) [2023] EWHC 1137 (Ch)https://t.co/vYTtbJgc5T #climatelitigation https://t.co/9RS3k2gNtX

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) May 17, 2023

Update 6 July 2023 my thoughts on the funding issue are here.

The Heirs of the Sultan of Sulu v Malaysia at the end of June saw both the Paris Court of Appeal declare as inadmissible (due to late introduction) their appeal against the earlier decision suspending the exequatur, in France, of the final arbitral award (issued in Paris as locus arbitri, but under Spanish law as lex arbitrii) granting them close to 15 billion USD in a saga dating back to colonial times, and the Hague courts (also upon appeal) confirm the unenforceability of the same award in The Netherlands.

The latter judgment found that

a Madrid court judgment of 19 June 2021  annulling the appointment of the sole arbitrator has to be recognised in The Netherlands on the basis of the Dutch Supreme Court’s criteria in Gazprom; of note is the court’s confirmation of the issue not being included in CJEU Marc Rich (and see also CJEU Gazprom), however it also [6.7] emphasises that even outside the scope of Brussels Ia, there is mutual trust between the courts of Member States of the EU;

the relevant agreement at issue (confirmed in 1903) did not include an agreement to arbitrate; and

the stay (in the meantime confirmed by the Paris Court of Appeal: see above) in enforcement of the award by the French courts would likely also lead to the annulment of the award.

The heirs may still consider a further appeal to the French Supreme Court and the award itself has not yet been annulled however the case is notorious in international arbitration and, it is suggested, can only have been this long running due to what is said to be inappropriate third party funding.

Geert.

Confirmation of unenforceability of the Heirs of the Sultan of Sulu v Malaysia #arbitration award in The Netherlandshttps://t.co/w3OLK9xVep pic.twitter.com/7wyOdQOJH3

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) July 4, 2023

Horatia Muir Watt’s latest book has recently been published by Hart in its Hart Monographs in Transnational and International Law, under the title The Law’s Ultimate Frontier: Towards an Ecological Jurisprudence (the subtitle reads A Global Horizon in Private International Law).

Here’s the publisher’s blurb:

This important book offers an ambitious and interdisciplinary vision of how private international law (or the conflict of laws) might serve as a heuristic for re-working our general understandings of legality in directions that respond to ever-deepening global ecological crises. Unusual in legal scholarship, the author borrows (in bricolage mode) from the work of Bruno Latour, alongside indigenous cosmologies, extinction theories and Levinassian phenomenology, to demonstrate why this field’s specific frontier location at the outpost of the law – where it is viewed from the outside as obscure and from the inside as a self-contained normative world – generates its potential power to transform law generally and globally.

Combining pragmatic and pluralist theory with an excavation of ‘shadow’ ecological dimensions of law, the author, a recognised authority within the field as conventionally understood, offers a truly global view. Put simply, it is a generational magnum opus. All international and transnational lawyers, be they in the private or public field, should read this book.

See here for more information. The publisher offers a 20% discount to those buying the book through its website using GLR BE1US for US orders and GLR BE1UK for all other orders.

Thank you Anil Yilmaz, whose reply to a Tweet made me aware of the judgments of end of February in the claim brought by a number of NGOs against Total viz its activities in Uganda. The claim is an ex ante claim brought on the basis of the French statute which introduced the so-called devoir de vigilance or duty of care in the business and human rights sector. It argues that Total’s plan for the Ugandan activities at issue, fail the standard of the Act.

I had earlier flagged the procedural issue in the case and Cédric Helaine has review and links to the judgments here. The court (p.18) notes that the implementing decree which is supposed to detail the requirements of the law, has still not been adopted and that the law itself does not offer a blueprint, a decision tree, a list of indicators, merely indicating that the plan needs to include a ‘reasonable’ list of both pressure points and measures to address these, and that the plan moreover is to be drafted in consultation with stakeholders. In the absence of Government clarification of what this might entail, the court then points out that the reasonable or not character of the plan needs to be assessed by the courts themselves yet (p.20-21) and that a judge in an interlocutory proceeding in particular, can only be asked to discipline those plans which are non-existent, or clearly insufficient (which the judge finds is not the case here), yet cannot be expected to judge the plan’s reasonableness:

S’il entre dans les pouvoirs du juge des référés de délivrer une injonction en application des dispositions susvisées lorsque la société, soumise au régime du devoir de vigilance n’a pas établi de plan de vigilance, ou lorsque le caractère sommaire des rubriques confine à une inexistence  du plan, ou lorsqu’une illicéité manifeste est caractérisée, avec
l’évidence requise en référé, en revanche, il n‘entre pas dans les pouvoirs du juge des référés de procéder à l’appréciation du caractère raisonnable des mesures adoptées par le plan, lorsque cette appréciation nécessite un examen en profondeur des éléments de la cause relevant du pouvoir du seul juge du fond.

The judge concludes that in the case at issue, there is no such obvious shortcoming and that the request therefore is inadmissible given the role of the interlocutory proceedings.

This judgment of course says little on the role of the Act in claims on the merits of duty of care in which Acts such as these play a role (as opposed to claims merely arguing the planning stage is insufficient) however it clearly puts pressure on the French government urgently to produce its more detailed order, and it confirms the need to introduce detail either in these Acts (including in the recently adopted EU Directive) themselves or, swiftly, in executive follow-up. This avoids that judges use trias politica as a way out of having to judge the issues on their merits.

Geert.

Droit de vigilance, #bizhumanrights #mHRDD
French SC in tribunal de conflits role, assigns jurisdiction to civil court of first instance, not the commercial court.
Case may now finally continue on the merits. https://t.co/ERbD6r6Lsm

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) December 16, 2021

On 30 June 2023, the Supreme Court of Poland issued an interlocutory order (II CSKP 1518/22) in a case regarding the enforcement in Poland of a Dutch judgment.

The order provides fresh evidence of how the long-lasting tensions between Poland and EU with respect to rule of law and independence of judiciary in Poland is having an impact on the operation of EU instruments on judicial cooperation (for a recent analysis of those tensions, see M. Taborowski, P. Filipek, Mustard After Lunch? Polish ‘Muzzle Law” before the Court of Justice, on EULawLive).

The Order in a Nutshell

The order of the Supreme Court was given in the framework of proceedings brought against a ruling rendered by the Court of Appeal of Poznań in 2020 (I ACz 444/20, unreported). The latter ruling had dismissed, in turn, an appeal against a District Court decision regarding the enforceability in Poland of a judgment rendered by the Rechtbank Limburg, in the Netherlands.

According to the Supreme Court’s press release, the order was based on Article 1153(24) of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure. The latter provision deals with recognition and enforcement of judgments given in a Member State of the Union pursuant to EU legislation on judicial cooperation in civil matters.

Little is known, at this stage, about the merits of the case. Rather, the decision is interesting for the way in which the Supreme Court decided to approach the issue of the enforceability of the Dutch judgment in Poland. In fact, the Supreme Court decided to stay the proceeding and ask the Ministry of Justice of Poland and the Dutch Judiciary Council (Raad voor de Rechtspraak) for clarifications regarding the independence of Dutch judicial authorities, in general, and – specifically – the magistrate who handed down the judgment.

Reasons Given by the Supreme Court to Justify the Request for Clarification

The Supreme Court justified its request for clarification by referring to a number of EU primary law provisions. These include Article 2 TEU (“which entrusts the courts of the Member States of the EU with the task of ensuring the full application of  EU law in all its Member States as well as the judicial protection of the subjective rights of individuals, and therefore having regard to the need to verify of its own motion (ex officio) the fulfilment of the requirements of effective judicial protection/effective remedy and the existence in the legislation of the Member State of guarantees of judicial independence”) and Article 47(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which provides the relevant standards for the assessment (“in conjunction with the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the TEU, given the imperative for the Supreme Court to follow the interpretation of these provisions made by, inter alia, the Court of Justice”).

The Court also stressed “the principle of consistency and the resulting need for the uniform application of EU law throughout the EU, that is in all Member States and therefore also on the territory of the Kingdom of the Netherlands”.

To corroborate its reasoning, the Supreme Court listed various rulings given by the Court of Justice of the European Union in proceedings against Poland, such as Commission v Poland, C-791/19 and  Commission v Poland, C-204/21, together with rulings concerning the question of independence of judiciary in Poland (A.B. and others, C-824/18).

Nothing in the order or in the press release indicates that the Supreme Court had concerns regarding the independence of the particular Dutch court (or the particular Dutch magistrate) in question, or had reasons to believe that the particular proceedings which resulted in the Dutch judgement were conducted in breach of fundamental procedural guarantees.

Clarification Requested

The Dutch Judiciary Council (Raad voor de Rechtspraak) was asked to provide, inter alia, “copies of documents supporting and relating to the procedure for the appointment of X.Y. [anonymized name of the Dutch magistrate of the judge of the Rechtbank Limburg]”, in particular as regards:

(a) the procedure for his appointment, indicating the competent bodies involved in the appointment procedure, their composition and the functions performed by their members, including an indication of the extent, if any, of the influence of legislative or executive representatives on the judicial appointment, and a copy of the appointment document, a copy of the application for appointment and the opinions, if any, on the candidacy of X.Y. for the office of judge,

(b) information about the competition for the office of judge at the Rechtbank Limburg in which X.Y. participated as a candidate, the number of competing other candidates for the judicial post to which X.Y. was appointed at the Rechtbank Limburg, and the appeal procedure, if any, for candidates who were not recommended by the competent authorities and were not appointed, as well as the evaluation criteria, if any,

(c) assessments of Judge X.Y.’s performance during his judicial service (also possibly prior to his appointment as a judge at the Rechtbank Limburg, if he has held office at another court) and any judicial, investigative or disciplinary proceedings pending against him, or allegations concerning the assessment of his independence and attitude in the performance of his judicial duties and outside his judicial service (insofar as this remains relevant)

(d) any activities of Judge X.Y. of a political nature, including political party affiliation, irrespective of its duration and employment in the legislative or executive branches of government …

The Ministry of Justice of Poland was asked, instead, to provide information, among other things, on the Dutch rules that govern, in relation to the judiciary:

(a) the procedure for nomination to the office of judge considering the constitutional and statutory standard of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and resulting from the case law of the CJEU (…), including the standards in force in this respect in the period before 2019 and currently, with particular regard to the transparency of the criteria and the conduct of the procedure,

(b) the influence of the legislative or executive power on the procedure for the nomination of judges of common courts in the Netherlands and its scope, with particular reference to the Raad voor de Rechtspraak (Council for the Judiciary) and the formal binding nature of its recommendations (opinions) on candidates for the office of judge, and, possibly, disciplinary or other proceedings concerning the disciplinary or criminal liability of a judge,

(c) the avenue of appeal for candidates not appointed to the office of judge,

(d) the composition and method of election of members of the Raad voor de Rechtspraak …