Flux des sites DIP

Serena Forlati and Pietro Franzina edited a book on the Universal Civil Jurisdiction, which was published by Brill a couple of days ago. The book features contributions prepared by colleagues  from four different European countries and eight universities.

The contributions included are the following:

• ‘The Case of Naït-Liman before the European Court of Human Rights – A Forum Non Conveniens for Asserting the Right of Access to a Court in Relation to Civil Claims for Torture Committed Abroad?’ (Andrea Saccucci, University of Campania);

 

• ‘The Role of the European Court of Human Rights in the Development of Rules on Universal Civil Jurisdiction – Naït-Liman v Switzerland in the Transition between the Chamber and the Grand Chamber’ (Serena Forlati, University of Ferrara);

 

• ‘The Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights – Lessons from the Naït-Liman Case’ (Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Queen Mary University);

 

• ‘Public International Law Constraints on the Exercise of Adjudicatory Jurisdiction in Civil Matters’ (Lucas Roorda and Cedric Ryngaert, University of Utrecht);

 

• ‘Universal Civil Jurisdiction and Reparation for International Crimes’ (Beatrice I. Bonafè, University of Rome La Sapienza);

 

• ‘Limitations to the Exercise of Civil Jurisdiction in Areas Other Than Reparation for International Crimes’ (Fabrizio Marongiu Buonaiuti, University of Macerata);

 

• ‘Residual Jurisdiction under the Brussels I bis Regulation – An Unexpected Avenue to Address Extraterritorial Corporate Human Rights Violations (Mariangela La Manna, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milan);

 

• ‘The Law Applicable to the Civil Consequences of Human Rights Violations Committed Abroad’ (Patrick Kinsch, University of Luxembourg);

 

• ‘The Changing Face of Adjudicatory Jurisdiction’ (Pietro Franzina, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milan).

More info available here.

A corrigendum to Brussels I bis in some linguistic versions has been published yesterday (15 October 2020) in the OJEU (L 338). It relates to the Czech, French and Polish versions of the Regulation. Here is the French version:

« Page 23, article 34, paragraphe 1, point c):

au lieu de: «c) la juridiction de l’État tiers concernée est convaincue que le sursis à statuer est nécessaire pour une bonne administration de la justice.»

lire: «c) la juridiction de l’État membre est convaincue que le sursis à statuer est nécessaire pour une bonne administration de la justice ».

It is an alignment with other linguistic versions.

Source : https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2020.338.01.0013.01.FRA&toc=OJ:L:2020:338:TOC

EUFams II is a study funded by the European Commission with the objective of assessing the functioning and the effectiveness of European family and succession law. The project is coordinated by the Institute for Comparative Law, Conflict of Laws and International Business Law at Heidelberg University (Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Thomas Pfeiffer). Project partners are the Universities of Lund, Milan, Osijek, Valencia and Verona as well as the MPI Luxembourg.

The project will come to a close with an Online Final Conference on Friday, 30 October from 9.30 until 13.00 h. The conference is open to the general public and can be accessed without pre-registration and free of charge. It will cover a wide range of topics in the field of European family and succession law presented by speakers from across Europe.

A detailed program and the access link can be found in the conference leaflet.

More information on EUFams II and its research outputs can be found on the project website and in previous posts on conflictoflaws.net here and here.

This project was funded by the European Union’s Justice Programme (2014-2020). The content of this study represents the views of the authors only and is their sole responsibility. The European Commission does not accept any responsibility for use that may be made of the information it contains.

Ilaria Viarengo and Francesca Villata (both University of Milan) have edited Planning the Future of Cross Border Families – A Path Through Coordination, which has just been published by Hart.

This book is built upon the outcomes of the EUFam’s Project, financially supported by the EU Civil Justice Programme and led by the University of Milan. Also involved are the Universities of Heidelberg, Osijek, Valencia and Verona, the MPI in Luxembourg, the Italian and Spanish Family Lawyers Associations and training academies for judges in Italy and Croatia. The book seeks to offer an exhaustive overview of the regulatory framework of private international law in family and succession matters. The book addresses current features of the Brussels IIa, Rome III, Maintenance and Succession Regulations, the 2007 Hague Protocol, the 2007 Hague Recovery Convention and new Regulations on Property Regimes. The contributions are authored by more than 30 experts in cross-border family and succession matters. They introduce social and cultural issues of cross-border families, set up the scope of all EU family and succession regulations, examine rules on jurisdiction, applicable law and recognition and enforcement regimes and focus on the current problems of EU family and succession law (lis pendens in third States, forum necessitatis, Brexit and interactions with other legal instruments). The book also contains national reports from 6 Member States and annexes of interest for both legal scholars and practitioners (policy guidelines, model clauses and protocols).

Authors include Christian Kohler, Thomas Pfeiffer, Rosario Espinosa Calabuig, Diletta Danieli, Mirela Župan, Martina Drventic, Carmen Azcárraga Monzonís, Pablo Quinzá Redondo, Guillermo Palao Moreno, Thalia Kruger, Jacopo Re, Stefania Bariatti, Elena D’Alessandro, Cristina González Beilfuss, Maria Caterina Baruffi, Paul Beaumont, Patrick Kinsch, Laura Carballo Pineiro, Andrea Schulz, Hrvoje Grubišic, Cinzia Peraro, and Marta Requejo Isidro.

More information here.

Case C‑629/19 Sappi Austria Produktions-GmbH & Co. KG and Wasserverband ‘Region Gratkorn-Gratwein’ v Landeshauptmann von Steiermark in which the CJEU held on Wednesday is in my off the cuff view (I did not research it in the recent case-law) the first case where the CJEU specifically mentions the objectives of the circular economy to support its interpretation of the core definition of ‘waste’ in the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98.

Sappi operate a large industrial paper and pulp production plant in Gratkorn (Austria). On that site is also a sewage treatment plant, operated jointly by Sappi and the Wasserverband, which treats waste water from paper and pulp production as well as municipal waste water. During the treatment of that waste water, which is required by national law, the sewage sludge in question in the main proceedings arises. That sludge is therefore made up of both substances from industrial waste water and substances from municipal waste water. Sewage sludge which is produced in the sewage treatment plant is then incinerated in a boiler of Sappi and in a waste incineration plant operated by the Wasserverband, and the steam reclaimed for the purposes of energy recovery is used in the production of paper and pulp.  hat authority found that, admittedly, the majority of the sewage sludge used for incineration, namely 97%, originated from a paper production process and that this proportion could be regarded as having ‘by-product’ status within the meaning of Paragraph 2(3a) of the AWG 2002. However, that does not apply to the proportion of sewage sludge arising from municipal waste water treatment. That sewage sludge remains waste. Since there is no de minimis limit for the classification of a substance as ‘waste’, the authority assumed that all the sewage sludge incinerated in the industrial plants of Sappi and of the Wasserverband must be classified as ‘waste’.

The CJEU first of all holds that there is no relevant secondary law which provides the kinds of qualitative criteria for sewage sludge to meet with the objectives of the WFD. If there were such laws, and the sludge meets their requirements, it would be exempt form the WFD. It then reminds the referring court, of course, of the extensive authority on the notion of waste (most recently C-624/17 Tronex) yet is happy to provide the national Court with input into the application in casu.

In principle, the sludge is waste, the Court holds: it is a residue from waste water treatment and it is being discarded.

However, the referring judge suggests that the sludge may meet the requirements of A6(1) WFD as being fully ‘recovered’ before it is used in the incineration process. It is there that the CJEU refers to the circular economy: at 68:

it is particularly relevant that the heat generated during the incineration of the sewage sludge is re-used in a paper and pulp production process and that such a process provides a significant benefit to the environment because of the use of recovered material in order to preserve natural resources and to enable the development of a circular economy.

Per C‑60/18 Tallinna Vesi, the recovery of sewage sludge entails certain risks for the environment and human health, particularly linked to the potential presence of hazardous substances. For the sludge at issue here not to be waste, presupposes that the treatment carried out for the purposes of recovery makes it possible to obtain sewage sludge with a high level of protection of the environment and human health, such as required by the WFD, which is, in particular, free from any dangerous substance. For that purpose, it is necessary to ensure that the sewage sludge in question in the main proceedings is harmless (at 66). The CJEU concludes, at 67

It is for the referring court to determine whether the conditions laid down in Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/98 are already met before the sewage sludge is incinerated. It must in particular be determined, as appropriate, on the basis of a scientific and technical analysis, that the sewage sludge meets the statutory limit values for pollutants and that its incineration does not lead to overall adverse environmental or human health impacts.

There are as yet no EU standards for the full recovery of sewage sludge, hence the ball of end of waste status is once again in the Member States’ court.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Waste law, 2nd ed. 2015, Oxford, OUP, Chapter 1, 1.149 ff.

On 2 September 2020, the French Supreme Court for private and criminal matters (Cour de cassation) issued an interesting decision on both service of judicial documents and international jurisdiction (Cass., First Civil Chamber, 2 September 2020, no. 19-15.337, unreported).

Although elementary at first view, the case provides a good opportunity to discuss the global understanding and acceptance of European private international law rules by French courts.

Facts and Legal Issues at Stake

Private investors living in France suffered financial losses following financial services contracts concluded with a company governed by English law, established in London. They sued the company before French courts. Despite an agreement conferring jurisdiction in favour of English courts provided for in the general conditions, the Parisian tribunal accepted its jurisdiction. The Parisian Court of appeal confirmed the judgement. The company appealed to the French Supreme Court.

First, the company disputed, on the basis of (inter alia) the Service of documents Regulation, the validity of the writ of summons which was served to the branch manager of the company in France, pursuant domestic procedural rules and not at its head office in London. Second, the company challenged the French jurisdiction by virtue of the jurisdiction clause, pursuant Brussels I bis Regulation, while the first judges had applied the French jurisdictional rules to invalidate the clause.

Were these two EU regulations the relevant legal basis in this case, instead of the domestic PIL rules?

Response of the French Supreme Court

Responding to the first litigious item, the French Supreme Court precludes the application of the Service of documents Regulation and confirms the decision of the Court of appeal. The presence in France of a representative of the foreign company eliminates the cross-border dimension of the transmission of documents. Therefore, the transmission of the writ of summons to the branch manager of the company in France was valid since it complied with French domestic procedural law. Then, regarding the competent jurisdiction, the validity of the agreement conferring jurisdiction shall be assessed pursuant Brussels I bis Regulation and not pursuant to national PIL. EU law prevails on national rules. The French Supreme Court invalidates the decision of the Parisian Court of appeal on that latter ground.

Assessment

Behind these two legal issues, the case deals with the articulation between EU and national PIL rules. Despite the well-known principle of primacy of EU law, French judges still have difficulties to implement EU PIL. More globally, they are maybe not fully aware of the multilevel sources in the field and, in particular, how their articulation works

But why? How could we explain this “judicial malfunction” regarding EU PIL? Without being dramatic, nor prophetic, I would like to suggest two possible lines of thought.

 On the Service of Documents Regulation

The non-application of the Service of documents Regulation is not surprising regarding the case law of the French Supreme Court. The Commercial Chamber of the Court ruled exactly the same in 2012, regarding another London-based company having a representative in France (Comm. Chamber, 20 November 2012, no. 11-17.653). Domestic procedural rules on service of documents regain the upper hand thanks to the legal representation ad agendumin France. But the French Supreme Court does not give any explicit grounds for its ruling regarding EU law. The European Regulation is set aside without consistent legal explanations. It surely contributes to the lack of awareness of French judges regarding EU PIL instruments in procedural and cooperation matters.

Some scholars have mentioned an implicit reference to recital 8 of the Regulation, which lays down that it “should not apply to service of a document on the party’s authorised representative in the Member State where the proceedings are taking place regardless of the place of residence of that party”. Recital 8 should provide for a kind of subsidiarity of the European regime on cross-border transmission of documents, vis-à-vis national rules.

However, the European Court of Justice had the opportunity to clarify the scope of this recital in Adler (C-325/11). The ECJ ruled that

from a systematic interpretation of the regulation […] [it] provides for only two circumstances in which the service of a judicial document between Member States falls outside its scope, namely (i) where the permanent or habitual residence of the addressee is unknown and (ii) where that person has appointed an authorised representative in the Member State where the judicial proceedings are taking place (para 24).

In order to support a uniform application of the regulation, the circumstances in which a judicial document has to be served in another Member State should not be conducted by reference to the national law of the Member State in which the proceedings take place (see paras 26-27). This is, however, the core reasoning of the French Supreme Court.

When should it be considered that the litigant (here the London-based company) has appointed an “authorised representative”? Should the manager of the branch of the company be considered a “representative” within the meaning of the Service of documents Regulation? In the end, the French Supreme Court could have referred a question to the Court of Justice. Its ruling takes the opposite direction.

At least, it shows that a legal explanation from the French Supreme Court of its solution would have not been superfluous.

On the Brussels I bis Regulation

On the contrary, when explaining why French PIL rules are not the relevant legal basis to control the validity of the prorogation, the French Supreme Court  takes a true educational approach towards  the lower courts (see already Civ. First Chamber, 23 January 2008, no. 06-21.898 under Article 23 of Brussels I regulation). The validity of the agreement conferring jurisdiction had to be assessed under Article 25 of the Brussels I bis Regulation, applicable to prorogations of jurisdiction in favour of the national Court of an EU Member State (including the UK at the time of the dispute) in civil and commercial matters.

Why did the lower courts did not apply EU PIL? Quite ironically, the absence of French PIL codification can be an explanation for the faulty reasoning of the lower courts. It should be recalled that the French rules of international jurisdiction do not formally exist. They are the result of an extension of the domestic territorial jurisdiction rules into international disputes (see Civ. First Civil Chamber, 30 October 1962, Scheffel). This could explain why the lower courts applied the French Civil Procedural Code, mixing up domestic and international disputes, and the related applicable procedural rules.

Such a basic legal mistake grounded on the oversight of EU PIL requires all the attention of the French expert group on French PIL codification recently created by the French Ministry of Justice. A future Code should probably recall that the validity of an agreement conferring jurisdiction in a cross-border relationship has to be assessed pursuant supra-national sources, in particular the 2005 Hague Convention and the Brussels I bis Regulation and, by default only, pursuant national PIL rules. Clarity regarding multilevel sources in PIL (and their articulation) is crucial for operational legal practice.

Last but not least, Brexit will add more complexity in such a case as it will require applying the 2005 Hague Convention instead of the Brussels I bis Regulation. The London-based company will have to be regarded as located in a third State which is a Contracting Party to the Convention (Article 26(6) of the 2005 Hague Convention).

French courts, get ready!

In Selecta Finance UK Ltd, Re [2020] EWHC 2689 (Ch) Johnson J considered the jurisdictional issues for schemes of arrangement in a touch more detail than recently has been the regular method in both convening and sanctioning hearings.

Selecta Finance UK Limited is a most recent addition to the ‘Selecta’ group , having been established only on 13 August 2020. (Selecta is said to be the leading provider of unattended self-service coffee and convenience food in Europe).  The Scheme concerns three series of senior secured Notes (“the Existing SSNs“), which have an aggregate principal amount of €1.24 billion plus CHF 250 million. The Existing SSNs were issued originally not by the Company but by Selecta Group BV, its parent company incorporated in the Netherlands. They were issued pursuant to a Trust Deed dated 2 February 2018 , and were originally governed by New York law and subject to a provision for the New York Courts to have exclusive jurisdiction.

With reference to authority, Johnson J accepts that the relevant parties in interest who qualify as the Scheme Creditors are the ultimate beneficial owners of the Existing SSNs. By 14 September 2020, the Existing SSN Holders holding a majority by value of the Existing SSNs had provided their consent to (among others) the following key changes to the terms of the SSNs:  i) Amendment of the governing law provisions of the Trust Deed so that the Existing SSNs are governed by English rather than New York law. ii) Amendment of the jurisdiction provisions of the Trust Deed so that the Existing SSNs are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English Court in relation to any proceedings commenced by an obligor of the Existing SSNs, and the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the English Court in relation to other proceedings; iii) Accession of the Company to the Trust Deed as a co-issuer of the Existing SSNs.

At 18 it is said that an expert report on US and New York law confirms that the amendments to the governing law and jurisdiction clauses of the Trust Deed are valid under New York law and would be regarded as effective in any United States court applying that law.

The relevance of that finding for unwilling SSNs beneficiaries, I would argue, is not undisputedly established under Article 10 and Article 3(2) Rome I.

 

The Company then entered into a Supplemental Trust Deed on 14 September 2020 and thereby became a co-issuer of the Existing SSNs under the Trust Deed. As Johnson J notes at 44: it is only by means of the Supplemental Trust Deed that the Company became co-issuer of the Existing SSNs, and that the governing law and jurisdiction provisions were changed so as to refer to English law and jurisdiction.

It is clear that a jurisdictional link with England & Wales has been established specifically for the purpose of a company taking advantage of the scheme provisions in English law. With reference to Newey J in Re Codere Finance (UK) Ltd [2015] EWHC 3778 (Ch) which I reviewed here, this is held to be ‘good forum shopping’.

Article 25 Brussels Ia jurisdiction is only possible by means of the amendments to the Trust Deed effected via the Supplemental Trust Deed, as I also noted above. As I suggest there, had there been recalcitrant minority Note holders objecting to the change in court and law clause, I think the Scheme would not have been jurisdictionally home and dry on A25 choice of court grounds.

The next classic consideration is under Article 8(1)’s anchor defendant mechanism seeing as jurisdiction against the company is established per Article 4.

At 53 reference is made to Snowden J. who in Van Gansewinkel has suggested that in determining whether A8(1) applies, the Court is required to consider whether the “numbers and size of the scheme creditors domiciled in [the UK]” are “sufficiently large“: the result of that instruction is that applicants tend to point out the (debt) size of the creditors so domiciled, even if in DTEK Newey J held that size and number are irrelevant, ditto in Lecta Paper and Swissport Fuelling.

At 54 comes Johnson J’s obiter, useful finding:

Speaking for myself, I incline to the view that the presence of a single creditor is a necessary, but not of itself a sufficient, condition to the operation of Art. 8. I say that because in terms the power conferred by Art. 8 is engaged where “any one of” a number of defendants is domiciled in England & Wales, but even then the power is to be exercised only in cases where the language of the proviso in Art. 8 is satisfied – i.e., where the claims against the various defendants are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings. I did not hear detailed argument on the meaning of this language, and in any event the application before me was uncontested, and so I express my view on it somewhat tentatively; but tentatively it seems to me that the question of expediency posed by the proviso is rather less about the geographical distribution in terms of number and size of the prospective defendants, and is rather more about the expediency in case management terms of connected claims being resolved in one place, even if only one anchor defendant is domiciled there. The argument in this case is that it is expedient for the claims against all EU domiciled Scheme Creditors to be resolved in one place, i.e. in England & Wales, because such claims all relate to the reorganisation of their indebtedness vis-à-vis the Company, and these Courts are best placed to resolve such questions given the separate jurisdiction they exercise over the Company under CA Part 26. Indeed, they may be uniquely placed to do so.

Opposition to the Scheme’s jurisdiction tends to evaporate once it gets to the convening and hearing stage. This is typically because the opposing creditors tend to by that stage be converted to the necessity of restructuring and the unattractiveness of having to pursue debt collection against a corporation in serious financial difficulty. As a result nearly all precedent is first instance only.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd edition 2016, Chapter 2, Chapter 5. Third edition forthcoming February 2021.

Scheme of arrangement. Rare more detailed consideration of A8(1) BIA jurisdiction (upheld) by Johnson J.
Conclusions on A25 'good forum shopping' remain shaky in my view given change of choice of court and law provisions from New York to English law and court. https://t.co/yL2edW1tMc

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) October 14, 2020

In a judgment of 3 June 2020, the Paris Court of Appeal ruled that sanctions issued by the Security Council of the United Nations (UN) or by the European Union (EU) are international mandatory rules which define French public policy. As a result, the court ruled that, in principle, an arbitral award violating such sanctions could be set aside by a French court.

In contrast, the court ruled that unilateral sanctions issued by the United States of America do not constitute French public policy. As French authorities have expressed their hostility against them, US sanctions obviously cannot be regarded as defining the most important values of the French state. An arbitral award failing to take them into consideration might not, therefore, be challenged before French courts.

Background

The case was concerned with a gas storage contract to be performed in Yort-E-Shah, Iran. The initial contract was concluded in 2002 between an Iranian and a French company.  A number of letters of credit had been issued by various banks to guarantee the  performance of the contract. In 2008, a dispute arose between the parties. The Iranian party alleged various contractual breaches, terminated the contract and called the guarantees. The French party initiated proceedings before French courts to enjoin the banks from paying under the letters of credit, which were eventually dismissed (see the judgment of the French Supreme Court here).

The French party then initiated arbitration proceedings before an ICC tribunal in Paris arguing that the termination of the contract was illegal. The Iranian party made counterclaims. The tribunal allowed claims from both parties and, after setting them off, ultimately found in favour of the Iranian company.

The French company then initiated proceedings before French courts, arguing inter alia that the award was contrary to French public policy for failing to take into account applicable sanctions and should thus be set aside.

UN Sanctions

The first argument was that the arbitral tribunal had failed to apply UN Resolutions no 1737 of 23 December 2006, no 1747 of 24 March 2007 and no 1803 du 3 mars 2008. The Iranian party challenged the relevance of the UN resolutions for defining French public policy, arguing that UN resolutions are not directly applicable in France, were not implemented in the French legal order, and thus could not be considered as defining French public policy.

The court recognised that the UN resolutions were not directly applicable in France, and that they could not be characterised as French international mandatory rules. However, the court held that they were either foreign international mandatory rules, or  “genuinely international mandatory rules”. The court concluded by adding that, in any case, the objectives pursued by the UN, peace and international security, were essential values to the French state. In principle, therefore, arbitral awards violating UN sanctions would not comport with French public policy and could be set aside on this ground.

This wealth of reasons might reveal that none of them was particularly convincing.

The most unconvincing argument was certainly to distinguish between foreign international mandatory rules and mandatory rules of the forum. The purpose of the distinction is to grant discretion to courts to apply mandatory rules protecting the interests of foreign states. It seems hard, and pretty artifical, to establish a link between UN sanctions and certain states, but not others. A formalistic way of doing this would be to argue that UN sanctions would be non foreign mandatory rules only in the states which have not implemented them. Is that what the court means? If so, it should tell which foreign implementing legislation it is actually considering. And what if UN sanctions are not directly applicable in the vast majority of states? Are they foreign to everybody?

The concept of “genuinely international” mandatory rules (lois de police réellement internationales) is a reference to the idea that while arbitrators have no forum, and cannot be considered as more specifically bound by the mandatory rules of any given state, they should consider that they are the guardians of a genuinely international public policy composed of norms recognised as being of the utmost importance at a global level. The doctrine of “genuinely international public policy” (ordre public réellement international), or “genuinely international mandatory rules”, is a correction of the consequences of the delocalisation of arbitration promoted by the French law of arbitration. The reference to this doctrine in the context of court proceedings, however, raises a number of issues. First, the court implies that arbitral tribunals should be compelled to apply a rule which is not a French international mandatory rule, and that French courts would thus have no obligation to apply if the case was litigated in France. Second, while one can conceive that arbitrators do not have a forum and are thus not bound by the international mandatory rules of the seat of the arbitration, a French court does have a forum, and should thus care about French public policy.

Finally, the court explained that UN resolutions should be considered as defining French public policy because of the importance of the purpose that they served. The court ruled:

the aforementioned resolutions, in so far as they are intended to contribute to the maintenance or restoration of international peace and security, embody rules and values whose disregard must be considered to be incompatible with the French legal system and which therefore fall within the French concept of international public policy

International mandatory rules are defined by the importance of the purpose that they serve, so establishing the purpose of UN Resolutions in this context was no doubt important. Yet, one wonders whether the sole purpose of norms could make them international mandatory provisions irrespective of their enforceability in the relevant legal order.

EU Sanctions

The characterisation of EU sanctions contained in Regulations (EC) no 423/2007, (EU) no 961/2010 (EU) no 267/2012 was much simpler. EU regulations are directly applicable in all Member states. The court thus found that these regulations are French international mandatory rules and, because they contribute to the maintenance or restoration of international peace and security, also define French international public policy. In this context, the reference to the purpose of EU Regulations was aimed at distinguishing those EU regulations which would qualify as international mandatory provisions and those which would not.

US Sanctions

Finally, the court turned to US sanctions and ruled that they did not define French public policy. The court insisted that its role was to assess French public policy. For this purpose, it was highly relevant that the French state had repeatedly expressed through members of its government its opposition to the policy of the US to use unilateral sanctions, calling them unjustifiable and violations of international law. French authorities were working with other Member States to reinforce the economic sovereignty of the EU, in particular by reflecting on extending the scope of the EU blocking regulation (and possibly the French blocking statute). Thus, US sanctions clearly did not define French public policy

Conclusion

After elaborating quite extensively on the characterization of international sanctions as international mandatory rules, the court found that neither the UN Resolutions, nor the EU Regulations applied in the particular case, and that there had not been any actual violation of French public policy. It seems clear, therefore, that the court wanted to signal its doctrine and clarify that, while it would expect arbitrators to take into account UN and EU sanctions, it would participate in the effort of the French state to resist US unilateralism in this respect.

As I seem to be in a comparative mood today, thank you Jan Jakob Bornheim for flagging [2020] NZHC 2560 Lange v Lange. The case is further discussed by Jack Wass here – at the time of writing I only have Jack’s review to go on for the actual decision appears to be as yet unpublished.

TTPA 2010 follows the model of the more recent Hague Judgments Convention: recognition and enforcement of a judgment may be refused if it infringes jurisdictional rules detailed in the Act. For the case at issue, s 61(2)(c) of the TTPA is engaged. It requires the court to set aside registration of a judgment if it was “given in a proceeding the subject matter of which was immovable property” located outside Australia.

The determining concern is whether the New Zealand property was “in issue” (the words which Jack uses and which presumably Gault J employed; the Act itself uses ‘proceeding subject matter of which is’; compare with Brussels Ia’s ‘proceedings which have as their object’) in the proceedings. Gault J, citing authority, finds that a judgment setting aside a fraudulent disposition is not rendered unenforceable simply because the debt concerned the sale of New Zealand land. (A further appeal to ordre public was refused; for that to be successful, the result of recognition must, Jack notes, “shock the conscience” of the ordinary New Zealander” (Reeves v OneWorld Challenge LLC [2006] 2 NZLR 184 (CA) at [67].

Obvious comparative pointers with EU conflicts law are Webb v Webb, Weber v Weber, Schmidt v Schmidt, Komu v Komu etc.: readers will know that Article 24(1) Brussels Ia typically involves feuding family members.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.6 . Third edition forthcoming February 2021.

A short note for the benefit of comparative contract lawyers who may find some interesting material when looking into the failed LVMH /Tiffany acquisition. That acquisition agreement (see SEC filing here)  is subject to the laws of Delaware other than claims against the financiers which are subject to the laws of New York (s.10.5). As readers might be aware, LVMH would seem to argue not that the Pandemic is a Material Adverse Effect which invalidates the merger. Rather, that Tiffany’s handling of its business in the pandemic is a MAE.

Of interesting comparative note therefore is Travelport Ltd & Ors v WEX Inc [2020] EWHC 2670 (Comm) where Cockerill J preliminarily discusses  the proper construction of, and burden of proof in relation to, the MAE definition contained in a Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) dated 24 January 2020. The substantive issues will be dealt with before her at a later stage.

Geert.

(Preliminary) findings of comparative relevance to #LVMH #Tiffany merger (which is subject to the laws of Delaware: see https://t.co/uxmBf2XeSY)
Proper construction of, and burden of proof re definition of Material Adverse Effect contained viz #Covid19 in SPA under English law. https://t.co/8l6N42YyTZ

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) October 12, 2020

Serena Forlati (University of Ferrara) and Pietro Franzina (Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milan) are the editors of a collection of essays titled Universal Civil Jurisdiction – Which Way Forward? which has been just published by Brill.

Enabling the victims of international crimes to obtain reparation is crucial to fighting impunity. In Universal Civil Jurisdiction – Which Way Forward? experts of public and private international law discuss one of the key challenges that victims face, namely access to justice. Civil courts in the country where the crime was committed may be biased, or otherwise unwilling or unable to hear the case. Are the courts of other countries permitted, or required, to rule on the victim’s claim? Trends at the international and the domestic level after the Naït-Liman judgment of the European Court of Human Rights offer a nuanced answer, suggesting that civil jurisdiction is not only concerned with sovereignty, but is also a tool for the governance of global problems.

Opened by a foreword by Giorgio Gaja (University of Florence, Judge at the International Court of Justice), the book features contributions by the editors themselves as well as by Beatrice I. Bonafè (University of Rome La Sapienza), Malgosia Fitzmaurice (Queen Mary University), Patrick Kinsch (University of Luxembourg), Mariangela La Manna (Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milan), Fabrizio Marongiu Buonaiuti (University of Macerata), Lucas Roorda and Cedric Ryngaert (both University of Utrecht), and Andrea Saccucci (University of Campania).

See here for more information, including the full table of contents.

The Council has made available today its 8 October 2020 Conclusions “Access to Justice – Seizing the Opportunities of Digitalisation”. There are attached to this post.

council-conclusions-access-to-justice-e28093-digitalisationDownload

HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention Repository

In preparation of the Video Roundtable by the University of Bonn and the HCCH on 29 October 2020, we are offering here a Repository of contributions to the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention. Please email us if you miss something in it, we will update immediately…

Update of 13 October 2020: New entries are printed bold.

Please also check the “official” Bibliograghy of the HCCH for the instrument.

1. Explanatory Reports

Garcimartín Alférez, Francisco;
Saumier, Geneviève „Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters: Explanatory Report“, as approved by the HCCH on 22 September 2020, Pre-Publication available here Garcimartín Alférez, Francisco;
Saumier, Geneviève “Judgments Convention: Revised Draft Explanatory Report”, HCCH Prel.-Doc. No. 1 of December 2018 (available here) Nygh, Peter;
Pocar, Fausto “Report of the Special Commission”, HCCH Prel.-Doc. No. 11 of August 2000 (available here), pp 19-128

 

1. Bibliography

Beaumont, Paul “Forum non Conveniens and the EU rules on Conflicts of Jurisdiction: A Possible Global Solution”, Revue Critique de Droit International Privé 2018, pp 433-447 Beaumont, Paul R. “Judgments Convention: Application to Governments”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 121-137 Blom, Joost “The Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act and the Hague Judgments and Jurisdictions Projects”, Osgoode Hall Law Journal 55 (2018), pp 257-304 Bonomi, Andrea “European Private International Law and Third States”, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 2017, pp 184-193 Bonomi, Andrea “Courage or Caution? – A Critical Overview of the Hague Preliminary Draft on Judgments”, Yearbook of Private International Law 17 (2015/2016), pp 1-31 Bonomi, Andrea;
Mariottini, Cristina M. “(Breaking) News From The Hague: A Game Changer in International Litigation? – Roadmap to the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention”, Yearbook of Private International Law 20 (2018/2019), pp 537-567 Borges Moschen, Valesca Raizer;
Marcelino, Helder “Estado Constitutional Cooperativo e a conficaçao do direito internacional privado apontamentos sobre o ’Judgement Project’ da Conferência de Haia de Direito Internacional Privado”, Revista Argumentum 18 (2017), pp 291-319

(Cooperative Constitutional State and the Codification of Private International Law: Notes on the “Judgment Project” of the Hague Conference on Private International Law) Brand, Ronald A. “The Circulation of Judgments Under the Draft Hague Judgments Convention”, University of Pittsburgh School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 2019-02, pp 1-35 Brand, Ronald A. “Jurisdictional Developments and the New Hague Judgments Project”, “in HCCH (ed.), A Commitment to Private International Law – Essays in honour of Hans van Loon”, Cambridge 2013, pp 89-99 Brand, Ronald A. “New Challenges in Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments”, in Franco Ferrari, Diego P. Fernández Arroyo (eds.), Private International Law – Contemporary Challenges and Continuing Relevance, Cheltenham/Northampton 2019, pp 360-389 Brand, Ronald A. “Jurisdiction and Judgments Recognition at the Hague Conference: Choices Made, Treaties Completed, and the Path Ahead”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 3-17 Çali?kan, Yusuf;
Çali?kan, Zeynep “2 Temmuz 2019 Tarihli Yabanci Mahkeme Kararlarinin Taninmasi ve Tenfizine Iliskin Lahey Anlasmasinin Degerlendirilmesi”, Public and Private International Law Bulletin 40 (2020), pp 231-245

(An Evaluation of 2 July 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters) Clavel, Sandrine; Jault-Seseke, Fabienne “La convention de La Haye du 2 juillet 2019 sur la reconnaissance et l’exécution des jugements étrangers en matière civile ou commerciale: Que peut-on en attendre?”, Travaux du comité français de Droit international privé, Vol. 2018-2020, forthcoming (Version provisoire de la communication présentée le 4 octobre 2019 available here) Coco, Sarah E. “The Value of a New Judgments Convention for U.S. Litigants”, New York University Law Review 94 (2019), pp 1210-1243 Cuniberti, Gilles “Signalling the Enforceability of the Forum’s Judgments Abroad”, Rivista di diritto internazionale private e processuale (RDIPP) 56 (2020), pp 33-54 de Araujo, Nadia; de Nardi, Marcelo;
Spitz, Lidia “A nova era dos litígios internacionais”, Valor Economico 2019 de Araujo, Nadia;
de Nardi, Marcelo;
Lopes Inez;
Polido, Fabricio „Private International Law Chronicles“, Brazilian Journal of International Law 16 (2019), pp 19-34

  de Araujo, Nadia;
de Nardi, Marcelo „Consumer Protection Under the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 67-79 de Araujo, Nadia;
de Nardi, Marcelo „22ª Sessão Diplomática da Conferência da Haia e a Convenção sobre sentenças estrangeiras: Primeiras reflexões sobre as vantagens para o Brasil da sua adoção“, Revista de la Secretaría del Tribunal Permanente de Revisión 7 No. 14 (2019), páginas 198-221

(22nd Diplomatic Session of The Hague Conference and the Convention on Foreign Judgments: First Reflections on the Advantages for Brazil of their Adoption) Dotta Salgueiro, Marcos “Article 14 of the Judgments Convention: The Essential Reaffirmation of the Non-discrimination Principle in a Globalized Twenty-First Century”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 113-120 Douglas, Michael;
Keyes, Mary;
McKibbin, Sarah;
Mortensen, Reid “The HCCH Judgments Convention in Australian Law”, Federal Law Review 47 (2019), pp 420-443 Efeçinar Süral, Ceyda
Possible Ratification of the Hague Convention by Turkey and Its Effects to the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Public and Private International Law Bulletin 40/2 (2020)
Franzina, Pietro; Leandro, Antonio

  “La Convenzione dell’Aja del 2 luglio 2019 sul riconoscimento delle sentenze straniere: una prima lettura”, Quaderni di SIDIblog 6 (2019), pp 215-231, available at http://www.sidi-isil.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Quaderni-di-SIDIBlog-6-2019.pdf

(The Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition of Foreign Judgments: A First Appraisal) Fuchs, Felix “Das Haager Übereinkommen vom 2. Juli 2019 über die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer Urteile in Zivil- oder Handelssachen“, Gesellschafts- und Wirtschaftsrecht (GWR) 2019, pp 395-399 Garcimartín, Francisco “The Judgments Convention: Some Open Questions”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 19-31 Goddard, David „The Judgments Convention – The Current State of Play”, Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 29 (2019), pp 473-490 He, Qisheng “The HCCH Judgments Convention and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments pertaining to a State”, Global Law Review 3 (2020), pp 147-161 He, Qisheng “Unification and Division: Immovable Property Issues under the HCCH Judgement Convention”, Journal of International Law 1 (2020), pp 33-55 Jacobs, Holger “Der Zwischenstand zum geplanten Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen – Der vorläufige Konventionsentwurf 2016“, Zeitschrift für Internationales Privatrecht & Rechtsvergleichung (ZfRV) 2017, pp 24-30 Jang, Junhyok “The Public Policy Exception Under the New 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 97-111 Jovanovic, Marko Thou Shall (Not) Pass – Grounds for Refusal of Recognition and

Enforcement under the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention, YbPIL 21 (2019/2020), pp. 309 – 332 Juepter, Eva “The Hague Jurisdiction Project – what options for the Hague Conference?”, Journal of Private International Law 16 (2020), pp 247-274 Kessedjian, Catherine “Comment on the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters. Is the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 a useful tool for companies who are conducting international activities?“, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (NIPR) 2020, pp 19-33 Khanderia, Saloni „The Hague judgments project: assessing its plausible benefits for the development of the Indian private international law”, Commonwealth Law Bulletin 44 (2018), pp 452-475 Khanderia, Saloni “The Hague Conference on Private International Law’s Proposed Draft Text on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments: Should South Africa Endorse it?”, Journal of African Law 63 (2019), pp 413-433 Mariottini, Cristina „Establishment of Treaty Relations under The 2019 Hague Judgments

Convention“, YbPIL 21 (2019/2020), pp. 365-380 Mariottini, Cristina “The Exclusion of Defamation and Privacy from the Scope of the Hague Draft Convention on Judgments, YbPIL 19 (2017/2018), pp 475-486. Meier, Niklaus “Notification as a Ground for Refusal”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 81-95 Nielsen, Peter Arnt “The Hague 2019 Judgments Convention – from failure to success”, Journal of Private International Law 16 (2020), pp 205-246 North, Cara “The 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention: A Common Law Perspective”, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 2020, pp 202-210 North, Cara “The Exclusion of Privacy Matters from the Judgments Convention”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 33-48 Oestreicher, Yoav „ ’We’re on a Road to Nowhere’ – Reasons for the Continuing Failure to Regulate Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, The International Lawyer 42 (2008), pp 59-86 Pertegás Sender, Marta “The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention: Its Conclusion and the road ahead”, in Asian Academy of International Law (publ.), Sinergy and Security: the Keys to Sustainable Global Investment: Proceedings of the 2019 Colloquium on International Law, 2019 Hong Kong, pp 181-190 Pertegás, Marta “Brussels I Recast and the Hague Judgments Project”, in Geert Van Calster (ed.), European Private International Law at 50: Celebrating and Contemplating the 1968 Brussels Convention and its Successors, Cambridge 2018, pp 67-82 Ribeiro-Bidaoui, João “The International Obligation of the Uniform and Autonomous Interpretation of Private Law Conventions: Consequences for Domestic Courts and International Organisations”, Netherlands International Law Review 67 (2020), pp 139 – 168 Rumenov, Ilija “Implications of the New 2019 Hague Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments on the National Legal Systems of Countries in South Eastern Europe”, EU and Comparative Law Issues and Challenges Series (ECLIC) 3 (2019), pp 385-4040 Saumier, Geneviève “Submission as a Jurisdictional Basis and the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 49-65 Schack, Haimo “Wiedergänger der Haager Konferenz für IPR: Neue Perspektiven eines weltweiten Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommens?“, Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht (ZEUP) 2014, pp 824-842 Schack, Haimo „Das neue Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen“, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 2020, pp 1-96 Silberman, Linda “Comparative Jurisdiction in the International Context: Will the Proposed Hague Judgments Convention be Stalled?”, DePaul Law Review 52 (2002), pp 319-349 Spitz, Lidia „Refusal of Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments on Public Policy Grounds in the Hague Judgments Convention – A Comparison with The 1958 New York Convention“, YbPIL 21 (2019/2020), pp 333-364 Stein, Andreas „Das Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen 2019 – Was lange währt, wird endlich gut?“, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 2020, pp 197-202 Stewart, David P. „Current Developments: The Hague Conference adopts a New Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”, American Journal of International Law (AJIL) 113 (2019), pp 772-783 Taquela, María Blanca Noodt; Abou-Nigm, Verónica Ruiz “News From The Hague: The Draft Judgments Convention and Its Relationship with Other International Instruments”, Yearbook of Private International Law 19 (2017/2018), pp 449-474 Teitz, Louise Ellen “Another Hague Judgments Convention? – Bucking the Past to Provide for the Future”, Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 29 (2019), pp 491-511 van der Grinten, Paulien;
ten Kate, Noura „Editorial: The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention”, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (NIPR) 2020, pp 1-3 van Loon, Hans “Towards a global Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (NIPR) 2020, pp 4-18 van Loon, Hans “Towards a Global Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”, Collection of Papers of the Faculty of Law, Niš 82 (2019), pp 15-35 van Loon, Hans “Le Brexit et les conventions de La Haye”, Revue Critique de Droit International Privé 2019, pp 353-366 Wagner, Rolf “Ein neuer Anlauf zu einem Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen“, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 2016, pp 97-102 Weidong, Zhu “The Recognition and Enforcement of Commercial Judgments Between China and South Africa: Comparison and Convergence”, China Legal Science 2019-06, pp 33-57 Weller, Matthias “The HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention: New Trends in Trust Management?”, in Christoph Benicke, Stefan Huber (eds.), Festschrift für Herbert Kronke zum 70. Geburtstag, Bielefeld 2020, pp 621-632 Weller, Matthias “The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention – The Jurisdictional Filters of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, Yearbook of Private International Law 21 (2019/2020), pp 279 – 308 Weller, Matthias “Das Haager Übereinkommen zur Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer Urteile”, in: Thomas Rauscher (ed.), Europäisches Zivilprozess- und Kollisionsrecht, Munich, 5th ed., forthcoming Weller, Matthias Die Kontrolle der internationalen Zuständigkeit im Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen 2019, in Christoph Althammer/Christoph Schärtl, Festschrift für Herbert Roth, in Vorbereitung. Wilderspin, Michael;
Vysoka, Lenka “The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention through European lenses”, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (NIPR) 2020, pp 34-49 Xu, Guojian “Comment on Key Issues Concerning Hague Judgment Convention in 2019 “, Journal of Shanghai University of Political Science and Law 35 (2020), pp 1-29 Xu, Guojian “To Establish an International Legal System for Global Circulation of Court Judgments”, Wuhan University International Law Review 5 (2017), pp 100-130 Xu, Guojian “Overview of the Mechanism of Recognition and Enforcement of Judgements Established by HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, China Journal of Applied Jurisprudence No. 2020-02, pp 65-77 Yeo, Terence “The Hague Judgments Convention – A View from Singapore”, Singapore Academy of Law Journal (e-First) 3rd August 2020 (available here) Zhao, Ning “Completing a long-awaited puzzle in the landscape of cross-border recognition and enforcement of judgments: An overview of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, Swiss Review of International and European Law (SRIEL) 30 (2020), pp 345-368

 

by José Antonio Briceño Laborí, Professor of Private International Law, Universidad Central de Venezuela y Universidad Católica Andrés Bello

The Master’s Program in Private International Law and Comparative Law at the Universidad Central de Venezuela started on October 1st a series of conferences titled “Master Classes – Selected Topics on Private International Law” held in the Aula Maekelt (Maekelt Classroom), named in honor of the beloved late professor Tatiana B. de Maekelt. The conferences will be held in Spanish (unless otherwise indicated), every fifteen days through the application Google Meet (or other virtual conference application).

The Master Classes were inaugurated with a lecture by Professor Eugenio Hernández-Bretón titled “Scope of territorial application of data protection laws: a ‘revived’ conflict of laws?” where professor Hernández-Bretón explained the problems posed by the territoriality of data protection laws and how they can be solved through the principles of Private International Law. This opened a fruitful discussion among the attendees.

The next lecture will be held on October 15 at 4:00 p.m. (Venezuelan Time) by Professor Andrés Carrasquero Stolk on the subject “Enforcement immunity from judgements and awards against Venezuela”. If you want to attend this Master Class you can email the Master’s Program at mdipr.ucv@gmail.com, where they will give you all the information.

To stay current on the future activities of the Master’s Program, you can follow it on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and LinkedIn.

  

TABLE OF CONTENTS

________________

Foreword …………………………………………………………………………………………… xi

Abbreviations …………………………………………………………………………………… xiii

Doctrine

Janeen CARRUTHERS

Discerning the Meaning of “Habitual Residence of the Child” in

UK Courts – A Case for the Oracle of Delphi ……………………………………… 1

Christian KOHLER

The EU Succession Regulation before the German Courts 2016-2019 ….. 37

Mihail DANOV

Cross-Border Litigation – New Data, Initial Brexit Implications in

England and Wales and Long-Term Policy Choices …………………………… 57

Nikitas E. HATZIMIHAIL

On the Doctrinal Beginnings of the Conflict of Laws ……………………….. 101

Interim Measures in International Commercial Litigation

Proceedings of the SICL’s 31st Private International Law Day –

Lausanne, 23 May 2019

Andrea BONOMI

Interim Measures at the Crossroads of International Litigation and

Arbitration – Some Remarks on Concurrent Jurisdiction and Cross-

Border Enforcement ……………………………………………………………………… 137

Alexander LAYTON

Interim Measures in English Law and their Circulation …………………….. 159

Sandrine GIROUD / Noémie RAETZO

The Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Interim Measures

in Switzerland ……………………………………………………………………………… 175

Ilaria PRETELLI

The Law Applicable to Provisional and Protective Measures – With

a Focus on the EU System of Ancillary Reliefs ………………………………… 197

Gilles CUNIBERTI

Jurisdiction to Grant Interim Measures in Support of Arbitration –

The Influence of European Law …………………………………………………….. 225

Laurent HIRSCH

Swiss Practice of Interim Relief in International Arbitration ……………… 237

Karim EL CHAZLI / Ahmed HABIB

Interim Measures in International Arbitration – An Arab Perspective …. 259

viii

The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention

Matthias WELLER

The Jurisdictional Filters of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention ….. 279

Marko JOVANOVIC

Thou Shall (Not) Pass – Grounds for Refusal of Recognition and

Enforcement under the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention ………………. 309

Lidia SPITZ

Refusal of Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments on

Public Policy Grounds in the Hague Judgments Convention –

A Comparison with The 1958 New York Convention ……………………….. 333

Cristina M. MARIOTTINI

Establishment of Treaty Relations under The 2019 Hague Judgments

Convention ………………………………………………………………………………….. 365

National Reports

Yitshak COHEN

International Jurisdiction of the Rabbinical Courts in Claims for

Divorce in Israel ………………………………………………………………………….. 381

Florence GUILLAUME

The Connecting Factor of the Place of Celebration of Marriage in

Swiss Private International Law …………………………………………………….. 399

Yin LIU

Recognition of Foreign Same-Sex Unions in China ………………………….. 425

Richard Frimpong OPPONG / Sam TECLE

The lex loci delicti Rule in Canadian Conflict of Laws ……………………… 457

Eduardo PICAND ALBÓNICO

Law of Succession to Estates of Deceased Persons in Chilean Private

International Law …………………………………………………………………………. 489

Court Decision

Wolfgang FABER

Foreign Proprietary Security Rights Failing to Comply with National

Publicity Standards to Be Accepted? On Case No. 3 OB 249/18S of the

Austrian Supreme Court of Justice …………………………………………………. 509

ix

Forum

Pascal FAVROD-COUNE

The Legal Position of the Weaker Party in B2B Relationships with

Online Platforms in the European Union – An Analysis of Dispute

Resolution Mechanisms in Regulation (EU) 2019/1150…………………….. 523

Maria Chiara MARULLO

“Almost” Universal Jurisdiction …………………………………………………….. 549

Adeline MICHOUD

Public Policy Exceptions in U.S. and European Private International

Law – An Ultimate Fortress for Social and Environmental Standards? 569

Chukwuma Samuel Adesina OKOLI

Choice of Law in The European Union – Common Law Procedure and

Evidence …………………………………………………………………………………….. 589

Sven RIVA

Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) in the Swiss

Legal Order …………………………………………………………………………………. 601

Cassius Jean SOSSOU BIADJA

Bridging the Gap in the OHADA Treaty with Respect to the

Interpretative Role of the CCJA in Arbitration Matters ……………………… 639

Index ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 663

In Case C‑471/18 P in which Tanchev AG Opined last month, Germany is asking the CJEU to set aside judgment in  T‑283/15 Esso Raffinage v ECHA by which the General Court annulled entitled a European Chemical Agency (‘ECHA’)  letter entitled ‘Statement of Non-Compliance following a Dossier Evaluation Decision under  [REACH]’. The letter concerned the outcome of ECHA’s compliance check of Esso Raffinage’s registration dossier for a particular chemical substance. The main thrust of its appeal is that the REACH Regulation does not provide for further examination by ECHA of the conformity of the information submitted with the first compliance check decision, and that this matter falls within the competences of the Member States pursuant to the REACH enforcement provisions. In support of its position, it argues that a registrant must conduct animal testing specified in the Evaluation Decision, and cannot submit adaptations at that stage.

Esso and ECHA find themselves in an unusual alliance with animal rights activists who argue that a registrant must be able to submit adaptations in lieu of performing animal testing specified in a first compliance check decision.

The case mostly concerns the respective competences of Member States and ECHA under Reach, I highlight it here for the AG’s emphasis on the relevance of animal welfare in the Regulation: consideration of animal welfare through the reduction of animal testing is one of the objectives pursued by the REACH Regulation. At 158: ‘Viewed more broadly, as indicated by Esso Raffinage and [NGO], the promotion of animal welfare and alternative methods to animal testing in the REACH Regulation reflects Article 13 TFEU, pursuant to which, in formulating and implementing the European Union’s policies, the European Union and the Member States are to pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals.’

Animal welfare has come a long way since Michael Rose and I submitted it in CJEU C-1/96 Compassion in World Farming.

Geert.

 

For those interested in #AnimalWelfare & #REACH
Tanchev AG Opinion yday re allocation of competences between #ECHA and MS in assessing conformity of registration dossiers with #REACH.
Broader implications for the promotion of animal welfare under EU lawhttps://t.co/wxaJIxOfV1

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) September 25, 2020

Stephen Park (University of Connecticut School of Business) and Tim Samples (University of Georgia School of Business) have posted Distrust, Disorder, and the New Governance of Sovereign Debt on SSRN.

The unique characteristics of sovereign debt finance provide fertile ground for opportunistic behavior and intractable disputes. Lacking reliable contractual enforcement mechanisms and formal bankruptcy procedures, the sovereign debt restructuring process is hampered by fragmentation, costly standoffs, and unpredictable outcomes. The result is a non-system of ad hoc, decentralized negotiations and litigation that some fear is perpetually at risk of falling apart. To address these concerns, recent years have seen renewed efforts to fix sovereign debt through soft law, public-private collaboration, and informal governance mechanisms, which this Article collectively refers to as sovereign debt governance. This Article focuses on one of the most prominent proposed reforms in sovereign debt governance: the use of creditor committees to facilitate engagement between a sovereign debtor and its private external creditors. Notwithstanding the uniqueness of sovereign debt in international law and financial regulation, we explain how the debtor-creditor relationship reflects a fundamental governance challenge amidst individual distrust and collective disorder. This suggests that the sovereign debt restructuring process can be improved by reforming the procedural rules and institutional frameworks that govern debtor-creditor engagement. To assess this proposition, we examine the use of creditor committees in the current era of sovereign debt, focusing on factors that influence the conduct of debtors and their creditors vis-à-vis each other. Drawing on our observations, we consider the potential value and limitations of creditor committees in the context of sovereign debt governance.

The paper is forthcoming in the Harvard International Law Journal.

On 11 September 2020, the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs presented a draft report with recommendations to the Commission on corporate due diligence and corporate accountability. This report has already triggered first online comments by Geert van Calster and Giesela Rühl; the present contribution aims both at joining and at broadening this debate. The draft report consists of three proposals: first, a directive containing substantive rules on corporate due diligence and corporate accountability; secondly, amendments to the Brussels Ibis Regulation that are designed to grant claimants from third states access to justice in the EU Member States; and thirdly, an amendment to the Rome II Regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations. The latter measure would introduce a new Art. 6a Rome II, which codifies the so-called principle of ubiquity for business-related human rights claims, i.e. that plaintiffs are given the right to choose between various laws in force at places with which the tort in question is closely connected. While the basic conflicts rule remains the place of damage (lex loci damni) under Art. 4(1) Rome II, Art. 6a of the Rome II-draft will allow plaintiffs to opt for the law of the country in which the event giving rise to the damage occurred (the place of action or lex loci delicti commissi in the narrow sense), the law of the country in which the parent company has its domicile, or, where it does not have a domicile in a Member State, the law of the country where it operates.

The need for having a conflicts rule on the law applicable to business-related human rights claims derives from the fact that the draft report proposes a directive which only lays down minimum requirements for corporate due diligence concerning human rights, but which does not contain an independent set of rules on civil liability triggered by a violation of such standards. Thus, domestic corporate and tort laws will continue to play an important role in complementing the rules of the directive once they have been transposed into domestic law. In theory, this problem might be avoided by trying to pass a wholesale EU Regulation containing both rules on corporate due diligence as well as on related issues of civil liability. The EU has already passed the Regulations on Timber and Conflict Minerals, which deal with fairly specific issues and which are limited in their scope. Taking into account, however, that both domestic corporate law and tort law are very intricate bodies of law, the EU legislature so far has, in the overwhelming number of cases, opted for the less intrusive and more flexible instrument of a directive (see, e.g., the Directive [EU] 2017/1132 relating to certain aspects of company law or the Product Liability Directive). The regulatory choice made in the draft report is thus fully consistent with established modes of EU legislation and the principle of subsidiarity.

The fundamental conflicts problem arising in cross-border human-rights litigation is well-known: Art 4(1) Rome II leads to the application of the law in force at the place of damage, which is frequently located in a third world country having a “weak legal system and enforcement (cf. Recital 2 of the draft directive). Starting a suit in such a forum frequently results not in a “home-court advantage” for plaintiffs, but rather diminishes their prospects of success. Insofar, suing a multinational corporation in the EU becomes attractive. While the hurdle of international jurisdiction can be surmounted rather easily in most cases, e.g. by suing the defendant at its general jurisdiction (Art. 4(1) Brussels Ibis), a Member State court will nevertheless, under Art. 4(1) Rome II, apply a third state law. In the discussion about domestic due diligence laws, the widely preferred, if not the only viable solution so far has consisted in characterising such laws as being of an overriding mandatory nature within the meaning of Art. 16 Rome II, thus ensuring their application in spite of the otherwise applicable tort law. Seen from the national perspective, this is of course a sound approach because a Member State legislature simply has no mandate to tinker with the Rome II Regulation itself. Once the question of corporate due diligence and liability is answered at the EU level itself, however, there is no practical need for limiting the doctrinal discussion to a unilateral approach within the narrow framework of Art. 16 Rome II. In light of this fact, it is not surprising that the draft report explores another conflicts tool that has been developed in order to strengthen the protection of weaker parties or general interests, i.e. the principle of applying the law more favourable to a party in a given case. This approach, which nowadays mostly consists in letting the plaintiffs choose which law they consider more favourable to them, is well-known, for example, in the domestic PIL codes of Italy and Germany. In those countries, it even is the general rule in international tort law – a hardly convincing solution, because the victim is not the weaker party in every case (for an in-depth treatment of this issue, see here). Therefore, the more modern Rome II Regulation opted for a more differentiating approach: lex loci damni is the general rule (Art. 4(1) Rome II), whereas the principle of ubiquity – i.e. that a tort may be located in more than one place – is only codified in groups of cases where a specific interest legitimises deviating from this rule: first, environmental damage (Art. 7 Rome II), and secondly, multi-state cases involving cartel damages (Art. 6(3) Rome II). Moreover, while Rome II is not applicable to violations of personality rights, the CJEU’s case law on Art. 7(2) Brussels Ibis has frequently been emulated in domestic conflicts law as well. In sum, the principle of ubiquity has always remained a part of the doctrinal toolbox of EU choice of law.

Insofar, the question must be answered as to whether the ubiquity approach has major advantages compared with the mandatory rule approach. The first factor in favour of applying the principle of ubiquity to business-related human rights claims as well is that it considerably reduces the need for the frequently difficult delineation between human rights violations (Art. 6a Rome II draft) and environmental damages (Art. 7 Rome II). Thus, intricate problems of characterisation and, if necessary, adaptation, are avoided at the outset. In addition, tortious human rights claims may also be rooted in a violation of ILO labour standards (see the definition of “human rights risk” in Art. 3 of the proposed directive). In light of the fact that Art. 8(1) Rome I favours the employee as well by providing for an alternative connection of contractual claims, having a favor laboratoris for labour-related human-rights claims fits into the normative framework of EU law, too.

A second advantage is that the ubiquity approach respects party autonomy (Art. 14 Rome II), whereas the parties could not derogate from a truly mandatory rule (Art. 16 Rome II). Thus, the ubiquity approach facilitates settlements, particularly in human rights cases that involve a large number of claimants.

Thirdly, claimants from the Global South are frequently compelled by the “weak legal systems and enforcement“ of their home country to seek their fortune abroad rather than by weaknesses of their own substantive laws. In many former colonies, the Common Law or the French Code Napoléon are still in force (with modifications) and would in principle allow a successful suit based on a tortious claim. In this regard, giving claimants the option to sue a company in a Member State, while at the same time applying their own law if they so wish, avoids a paternalistic, neo-colonialist stance that rests on the implicit assumption that our Western laws are inherently better than those of developing countries.

A fourth factor arguing for giving plaintiffs the right to choose the applicable law is that the mandatory rule approach will frequently not sufficiently cover the risks inherent in cross-border litigation. In the German Rana Plaza case, the claims of the plaintiffs failed because, under the law of Pakistan, they were barred by the statute of limitations, which was extremely short (just one year) compared with German standards, particularly for a cross-border case (see OLG Hamm NJW 2019, 3527). In light of the CJEU case law on Art. 16 Rome II, however, German limitation periods could hardly be characterised as being of an overriding mandatory nature (ECLI:EU:C:2019:84). Under Art. 6a Rome II-draft, the claimants could simply have chosen German law to govern their case.

On the other hand, the ubiquity approach has been criticised as leading to an impairment of foreseeability because the question of the applicable law remains unanswered until the plaintiffs have made their choice. However, under the mandatory rule approach as well, foreseeability of the applicable law is not necessarily guaranteed. Only a Member State court would apply the due diligence standard as a part of its own lex fori (Art. 16 Rome II), but a company would always face the risk of being sued in a third state where it would not be ensured that a local court would take a foreign mandatory rule into account. Even among the Member States, such a courtoisie could not be taken for granted because, unlike Art. 9(3) Rome I, the Rome II Regulation contains no rule on the applicability of foreign overriding mandatory rules. One might argue that this concern is purely academic because the proposed directive would harmonise the standards of corporate due diligence in the EU anyway. Yet this would be a serious error because the proposal (Art. 1(1) subpara. 2) only establishes minimum requirements.

Thus, the advantages inherent in the ubiquity approach clearly outweigh those of the mandatory rule approach. Nevertheless, it is certainly true that there can be too much of a good thing. Allowing the plaintiffs to choose between four different laws is hardly practical and sets up a very dangerous liability trap for lawyers who would have to perform extremely difficult studies in comparative law before advising their clients on where to sue a defendant. Thus, the number of options should simply be reduced to two: either the place of damage or the habitual residence of the defendant.

The latter option should refer to the habitual residence of a corporation because this is the connecting factor commonly used in the Rome II Regulation (Art. 23 Rome II). There is no practical need to replace it with “domicile” which is a concept deployed in European civil procedure (Art. 63 Brussels Ibis), but not in EU choice-of-law Regulations.

In sum, Article 6a Rome II-draft certainly leaves room for further refinement, but its basic approach rests on a sound doctrinal rationale and has major practical advantages compared with the mandatory rule model so far favoured in domestic due diligence laws. Thus, the EP draft deserves an appropriate and thorough consideration rather than a hasty judgment.

The third issue of the Journal du Droit International for 2020 includes three articles concerned with private international law and several case notes.

In the first article, Caroline Devaux (University of Nantes) offers an analysis of the 2018 Singapore Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (Entrée en vigueur de la Convention de Singapour : de nouveaux horizons pour la médiation commerciale internationale). The English abstract reads:

The United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation was adopted on 20 December 2018 under the auspices of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and will enter into force on 12 September 2020. By establishing an international mechanism for the recognition and enforcement of mediated settlement agreements, the Singapore Convention aims to encourage the use of international commercial mediation in the same way that the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards had facilitated the growth of international commercial arbitration. If successful, the Singapore Convention could transform dispute settlement in the field of international trade.

In the second article, Etienne Thomas discusses the procedure for the return of the child under the Brussels 2 ter Regulation (La procédure de retour de l’enfant à l’aune du règlement Bruxelles 2 ter).

On the 25th of June 2019, the Council of the European Union adopted the regulation Brussels 2 ter, amending substantially the regulation Brussels 2 bis. Like its predecessor, regulation Brussels 2 ter complements, within the European Union, the regime of The Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. It also rectifies some dysfunctions attributed to regulation Brussels 2 bis while restoring balance in the relations between the judge of the Member state of origin of the child and the judge of the Member state of execution of the return decision. Since the end of the 1990s, the Council used its best endeavours to deepen the cooperation between Member states in child abduction cases. However, the number of cases is still high. In this regard, the central issue remains, i.e. the end of judicial imbroglios, in the obvious interest of the child.

Finally, Elodie Kleider explores certain issues related to the divorce of French residents working in Switzerland (Travailler en Suisse et divorcer en France : le partage du deuxième pilier, compétence exclusive des juridictions suisses).

Since the revision of 19 June 2015 came into force, Swiss courts have exclusive jurisdiction in divorce cases, to rule upon claims for the allocation of occupational pension against Swiss pension funds (2E pillar) and will apply Swiss law. As a result, French decrees that resolved the issue by taking those assets into account when calculating the compensatory allowance will not be recognized in Switzerland anymore.

The full table of contents is available here.

(This is another version of views for the recent Chinese case on international commercial arbitration provided by Chen Zhi, a PhD candidate in the University of Macau, Macau, PRC)

On 6 August 2020, Guangzhou People’s Intermediate Court (“Guangzhou court”) handed down a ruling on a rare case concerning the enforcement of an award rendered by International Commercial Court of Arbitration (“ICC”) in China,[1] which have given rise to heated debate by the legal community in China. This case was thought to be of great significance by many commentators because it could open the door for enforcement of arbitral awards issued by foreign institution with seat of proceeding in China, and demonstrates the opening-up trend for foreign legal service.
[1]Brentwood Industries Inc. v. Guangdong Faanlong Co, Ltd and Others 2015 Sui Zhong Min Si Fa Chu No.62?

Backgrounds of the facts
The plaintiff, Brentwood Industries, Inc. a USA based company, entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement (“SPA”) along with a Supplementary Agreement with three Chinese companies (collectively, “Respondents”) in April 2010. Article 16 of Sale and Purchase Agreement provided as follow:
Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this contract shall be settled by amicable negotiation between the parties. If such negotiations fail to resolve the dispute, the matter shall be referred to the Arbitration Commission?sic?of International Chamber of Commerce for arbitration at the project site in accordance with international practice. The award thereof shall be final and binding on the Parties. The costs of the arbitration shall be borne by the losing party, unless the Arbitration Commission?sic?decides otherwise. The language of the arbitration shall be bilingual, English and Chinese.

According to Article 3 of Supplementary Agreement, the project site was in Guangzhou.
On 29 May 2011, Brentwood submitted an application to Guangzhou Court, seeking for nullification of the arbitration clause in SPA. The Guangzhou Court handed down a judgement in early 2012 rejecting Brentwood’s application and confirming the validity of the arbitration clause.
Because the ICC does not have an office in Guangzhou, Brentwood subsequently commenced an arbitration proceeding before Arbitration Court of International Chamber of Commerce Hong Kong Office on 31 August of 2012. In the course of proceeding, all three respondents participate in the arbitration presenting their written defenses, and among them, one respondent also raised objection of jurisdiction of the ICC Court to handle the case. The ICC Court decided that the jurisdiction issue shall be addressed by a sole arbitrator after giving all parties equal opportunities to present their arguments. Hence, with the consensus of all parties, the ICC Court appointed a sole arbitrator on 10 January of 2013.

On 3rd April 2013, the case management conference was held in Guangzhou and each party appeared and agreed upon the Term of Reference. After exchange of written submissions and hearing (all attended by all parties), the arbitrator rendered Final Award with the reference No. 18929/CYK (the Final Award) on 17 March 2014.

Enforcement proceeding and judgment
Brentwood sought to enforce the Final Award before the Guangzhou Court, mainly on the basis of non-domestic award as prescribed in Article 1(1) of the “New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958, which China is a signatory party (“New York Convention”). To increase its options in obtaining enforcement, Brentwood also invoked the Arrangement on Reciprocal Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Between SPC and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government, in the event the court regards the award as Hong Kong award because conducted by the ICC Hong Kong Office.
The Respondents raised their own objections respectively, which can be summarized to four main points:
(1) non-domestic award under New York Convention was not applicable to the PRC because it had declared reservation on this matter;
(2) the arbitration clause was invalid because the ICC Court was not an arbitration institutions formed in accordance with Article 10 of the PRC Arbitration Law (revised in 2017);
(3) there are substantive errors in the Final Award;
(4) the arbitrator exceeded its power in the Final Award.

The Guangzhou Court ruled that the arbitration clause was valid and its validity had been confirmed in previous case by the same court. As for the nationality and enforceability of the Final Award, the court opined that it shall be regarded as a domestic award which can be enforced in accordance to Article 273 of Civil Procedural Law (revised in 2012), and stipulated that the awards by foreign-related arbitration institutions in China were enforceable before competent intermediated courts. Based on the above reasoning, the court stated that Brentwood had invoked the wrong legal basis, and it refused to amend its claim after the court asked clarification multiple times. Hence, the court concluded that the case shall be closed without enforcing the Final Award, while Brentwood had the right to file a new enforcement proceeding with correct legal basis.

China’s Stance to domestic award by foreign institutions
There is no law directly applicable to awards issued by foreign institution with seat in China. The current legislation divided awards into three categories:
(1) domestic award rendered by Chinese arbitration institutions, which is governed by the Arbitration Law and Civil Procedure Law.
(2) foreign-related award made by Chinese institutions, which is enforceable under Article 273 of Civil Procedure Law.
(3) awards made offshore, which are governed by international conventions (i.e. New York Convention), judicial arrangements and Supreme People Court’s judicial interpretation depending on the place of arbitration.

The problem arises mainly because of the conflict between Chinese law and international conventions. Unlike the common practice in international arbitration across the world, which decides the nationality of award and competent court for remedies thereof based on the seat of arbitration proceeding, Chinese law traditionally relied upon the nationality of arbitration institutions instead. The term “arbitration seat” was not embedded in the legislation framework until the SPC’s Interpretation on Application of Arbitration Law in 2006, and Supreme People’s Court only begins to decide the nationality of award based on the seat since 2009.[2]
Due to the lacuna in law, there is no remedy for such China seated foreign award, and therefore parties may face enormous legal risks: on one hand, such award cannot be enforced by any Chinese court if the losing party refuse to perform it voluntarily, on the other hand, the party who is dissatisfactory with the award or arbitration proceeding has no way to seek for annulment of the award.
In 2008, Ningbo Intermediate Court ruled on a controversial case concerning the enforcement of an ICC award rendered in Beijing,[3] granting enforcement by regarding the disputed award as “non-domestic” award as prescribed in the last sentence of the Article 1(1) of New York Convention, under which the member states may extend the effect of Convention to certain type of award which is made inside its territory while is not considered as domestic for various reasons. It shall be noted that the method used by Ningbo Court is problematic and have given rise to heavy criticisms,[4] because China had filed the reservation set out in Article 1(3) of New York Convection confirming that it will apply the Convention to the “recognition and enforcement of awards made only in the territory of another Contracting State”. In other words, said non-domestic award approach shouldn’t be use by Chinese courts.
With this respect, the approach employed in Brentwood seems less controversial because it does not concern a vague and debatable concept not included in current law. Moreover, by deciding the nationality of award based on the seat of arbitration instead of the base of institution, the Guangzhou Court is actually promoting the reconciliation of Chinese law with New York Convention.

[2]See Article 16 of SPC’s Interpretation on Several Questions in Application of Arbitration Law Fa Shi 2006 No.7, see also SPC’s Notice on Matters of Enforcing Hong Kong Award in Continental China Fa 2009 No. 415. As cited in Gao Xiaoli, The Courts Should Decide the Nationality of Arbitral Award by Seat Instead of Location of Arbitration Institution, People’s Judicature (Volume of Cases), Vol.2017 No. 20, p. 71.
[3] Duferco S.A. v. Ningbo Art & Craft Import & Export Corp. 2008 Yong Zhong Jian No.8.
[4] Author Dong et al, Does Supreme People’s Court’s Decision Open the Door for Foreign Arbitration Institutions to Explore the Chinese Market?, available at http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2014/07/15/does-supreme-peoples-courts-decision-open-the-door-for-foreign-arbitration-institutions-to-explore-the-chinese-market/

Comments
Brentwood decision does not appear out of thin air, but contrarily, it is in line with the opening-up trend in the judicial practice of commercial arbitration in China started in 2013. At that time, the Supreme People’s Court ruled on the landmark Longlide case by confirming the validity of arbitration agreement which require arbitration proceeding conducted by foreign arbitration in China.[5]This stance has been followed and further developed by the First Intermediate Court of Shanghai in the recent Daesung Industrial Gases case,[6]. In this case, a clause providing “arbitration in Shanghai by Singapore International Arbitration Center” was under dispute by two respondents who alleged that foreign based institutions were prohibited from managing arbitration proceeding in China. However the court viewed this assertion as lacking of legal basis in Chinese law, and was contradictory to the developing trend of international commercial arbitration in the PRC.
In addition, local administrative authorities have shown firm stance and laudable attempt to promote the opening-up policy by attracting foreign institutions to carry out business in China. In late 2019, the justice department of Shanghai adopted new policies permitting foreign arbitration bodies to setup branch and carry out business in Lingang Free Trade Pilot Zone, and to set up detailed rules for registration and supervision in this regard.[7] On 28 August of 2020, the State Council agreed to a new proposal jointly by the Beijing government and the Ministry of Commerce on further opening up service industry, allowing world-renowned offshore arbitration institutions to run business in certain area of Beijing after registration at the Beijing justice department and the PRC Justice Ministry. This goes even further than Shanghai’s policy by stipulating that competent authorities shall support preservations for arbitration proceeding, increasing the reach of foreign institution on local justice system.[8]
Nevertheless, there are still lots of works to be done for the landing of foreign institutions:
First, as the lacuna in the law still exists, the judicial policy will continue to be “uncertain, fraught with difficulty and rapidly evolving” in this regard, as described by the High Court of Singapore. [9] Because Article 273 of Civil Procedural Law does not contain award by foreign institution stricto senso, and Guangzhou Court applied it only on analogous basis, this approach is more likely to be an expedient measure by taking into account surrounding circumstances (i.e. the validity of arbitration clause in dispute had been confirmed by the court itself, and all respondents had actively participated in the arbitration proceeding), instead of corollary of legal terms. Further, albeit the decision in Brentwood case is consistent with SPC’s opening-up and arbitration friendly policy, no evidence shows its legal validity was endorsed by SPC like that in Longlide case. Therefore, it is doubtful whether this approach will be employed by other courts in future.
Second, even though the validity and enforceability issues have been settled, the loophole in law concerning auxiliary measures (i.e. interim relief, decision of jurisdiction, etc.) and annulment proceeding remains unsolved, which will probably be another obstruction for foreign institution to proceed with arbitration proceeding in Continental China. The above mentioned proposal by Beijing government provides a good example in this respect, while this problem can only be fully settled through revision of law.

Third, the strict limitations on the content of arbitration agreement remain unchanged. Arbitration agreements providing ad hoc proceeding is still invalid by virtue of the law. Moreover referring dispute without foreign-related factor to foreign institutions is also unacceptable under current judicial policy, even for exclusively foreign-owned enterprises. These limitations have been heavily criticized by legal practitioners and researchers over the years, however whilst the above issues have been formally lifted, the arbitration agreement shall be well drafted in terms of both arbitration institution and the seat of arbitration.

[5] Longlide Packaging Co. Ltd. v. BP Agnati S.R.L. (SPC Docket Number: 2013-MinTa Zi No.13).
[6] Daesung Industrial Gases Co., Ltd.&Another v. Praxair (China) Investment Co., Ltd 2020 Hu 01 Min Te No.83.
[7] See: Measures for the Establishment of Business Bodies by Offshore Arbitration Institutions in the New Lingang Area of the Pilot Free Trade Zone of China (Shanghai) available at http://sfj.sh.gov.cn/xxgk_gfxwj/20191020/3fbcd61ef43147379c5841e28bdf6007.html
[8] See Article 8 of State Council’s Instruction on the Work Plan for the Construction of a National Demonstration Zone for Expanding and Opening Up Beijing’s Services Industry in a New Round of Comprehensive Pilot Project?available at http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2020-09/07/content_5541291.htm?trs=1
[9] BNA v BNB [2019] SGHC 142 para.116.