Flux des sites DIP

In a recently reported ruling (No 423/2018, in Chronicles of Private Law, 2019, p. 204), the Greek Supreme Court (Άρειος Πάγος) addressed the thorny issues of choice of forum and choice of law agreements relating to agency and distribution. The judgment basically follows the path paved by the CJEU. However, its analysis is noteworthy, allowing hopes for a shift in the established course of action.

A Dutch company entered into a distribution agreement with a Greek company in 2004, followed by an agency agreement in 2007. The agreements included a choice of forum clause granting exclusive jurisdiction to the courts of Amsterdam and a clause stating that the contracts were governed by Dutch law. The Dutch principal terminated the agreements in 2009.

The Greek company started litigation in Athens. The defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the Greek courts on the basis of the choice of court clause. Both first and second instance Greek courts found they lacked jurisdiction.

The claimant filed a (final) appeal before the Supreme Court, arguing that the choice of forum clause was abusive, and contrary as such to public policy. The Greek company submitted, among other things, that it had no real negotiating power with the principal, and that the choice of law clause resulted in the circumvention of Greek mandatory provisions.

The Supreme Court confirmed the lower courts’ finding and dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction. The forum selection clause, the Court noted, was agreed upon as a result of sound negotiations, with no abuse on the part of the Dutch company. A draft of the agreement had been previously submitted to the claimant, who had sufficient time to reflect and did not raise any objections or reservations.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the Greek company had a high turnover and significant profits. Its representatives, the Court noted, were familiar with travelling abroad for discussions and negotiations; hence, any difficulty and increased costs associated with the exclusive jurisdiction of Dutch courts did not make litigation before the latter courts impossible or unreasonably burdensome.

The combined choice of Dutch courts and Dutch law, the Court added, did not affect the validity of the choice of forum clause. A circumvention of Greek mandatory law provisions was not established. No abuse of the principal’s position was evidenced. In any case, Dutch law could not be regarded as completely alien to the case, given that the principal is in fact based in the Netherlands.

The Supreme Court finally approved the Athens Court of Appeal decision not to turn to the choice of law clause for the purposes of assessing the validity of the choice of forum agreement. It relied for this on the ruling of the CJEU in Trasporti Castelletti, where the Court of Justice stated that “the national court seised should be able readily to decide whether it has jurisdiction on the basis of the rules of the [Brussels] Convention [of 1968, the predecessor of the Brussels I bis Regulation], without having to consider the substance of the case”, adding that the “substantive rules of liability applicable in the chosen court must not affect the validity of the jurisdiction clause”.

In a nutshell, the show must go on. In spite of the scepticism voiced in legal scholarship, the foundations of the CJEU ruling in Trasporti Castelletti are too hard to shake, let alone demolish.

Still, the Supreme Court did not refuse to examine the public policy defence raised by the agency, and in fact accepted to discuss the issue of the abusive character of the clause. One may not agree with the result; however the sheer fact that the court dared the step, raises ambitions for a further scrutiny in future cases.

I finish with a suggestion for further reading: Many esteemed colleagues have published notes on the above and subsequent rulings of the Court which followed suit. One of the most recent articles dealing extensively with the issue was authored by Matthias Weller, whose analysis gave me ample food for thought [Matthias Weller, Choice of court agreements under Brussels Ia and under the Hague convention: coherences and clashes, Journal of Private International Law, 2007, 13:1, 91-129, in particular pp. 107-109].

Maud Minois (University Paris Descartes) has published earlier this year a monograph presenting her Research on Characterization in the Private International Law of Obligations (Recherche sur la qualification en droit international privé des obligations).

The author has provided the following English abstract:

Characterization is traditionally presented as a tool used to ensure legal certainty and rationality of law. We observe, however, that this is not necessarily the case in the context of private international law. For a long time, the lex fori characterization has dominated the international scene, so that it may appear as the most suitable model of qualification. But it does reveal certain shortcomings when applied to contract and tort law. The diversification of sources of the law as well as the rise of autonomous characterizations established by the Court of Justice of the European Union add further complexity to the picture. An efficient model for characterization is needed to restore coherence in private international law. In order to elaborate such a model, two axes of study must be explored successively. First, the model must suit the specificities of private international relations. Second, once proof has been offered for the thesis that autonomous characterization best answers this demand, the question of its generalization should be addressed. It appears that an efficient use of the autonomous qualifications can be made not only at the level of European private international law, but on the contrary, can be extended to private international law of conventional as well as of national sources. On the other hand, this model, as it specifically applies to private international relations has no place in substantive law.

More details are available here, including free access to the table of contents and the introduction of the book.

C-500/18 AU v Reliantco was held by the CJEU on 2 April, in the early fog of the current pandemic. Reliantco is a company incorporated in Cyprus offering financial products and services through an online trading platform under the ‘UFX’ trade name – readers will recognise this from [2019] EWHC 879 (Comm) Ang v Reliantco. Claimant AU is an individual. The litigation concerns limit orders speculating on a fall in the price of petrol, placed by AU on an online platform owned by the defendants in the main proceedings, following which AU lost the entire sum being held in the frozen trading account, that is, 1 919 720 US dollars (USD) (around EUR 1 804 345).

Choice of court and law was made pro Cyprus.

The case brings to the fore the more or less dense relationship between secondary EU consumer law such as in particular the unfair terms Directive 93/13 and, here, Directive 2004/39 on markets in financial instruments (particularly viz the notion of ‘retail client’ and ‘consumer’).

First up is the consumer title under Brussels Ia: Must A17(1) BIa be interpreted as meaning that a natural person who under a contract concluded with a financial company, carries out financial transactions through that company may be classified as a ‘consumer’ in particular whether it is appropriate, for the purposes of that classification, to take into consideration factors such as the fact that that person carried out a high volume of transactions within a relatively short period or that he or she invested significant sums in those transactions, or that that person is a ‘retail client’ within the meaning of A4(1) point 12 Directive 2004/39?

The Court had the benefit of course of C-208/18 Petruchová – which Baker J did not have in Ang v Reliantco. It is probably for that reason that the case went ahead without an Opinion of the AG. In Petruchová the Court had already held that factors such as

• the value of transactions carried out under contracts such as CFDs,
• the extent of the risks of financial loss associated with the conclusion of such contracts,
• any knowledge or expertise that person has in the field of financial instruments or his or her active conduct in the context of such transactions
• the fact that a person is classified as a ‘retail client’ within the meaning of Directive 2004/39 is, as such, in principle irrelevant for the purposes of classifying him or her as a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of BIa,

are, as such, in principle irrelevant to determine the qualification as a ‘consumer’. In Reliantco it now adds at 54 that ‘(t)he same is true of a situation in which the consumer carried out a high volume of transactions within a relatively short period or invested significant sums in those transactions.’

Next however comes the peculiarity that although AU claim jurisdiction for the Romanian courts against Reliantco Investments per the consumer title (which requires a ‘contract’ to be concluded), it bases its action on non-contractual liability, with applicable law to be determined by Rome II. (The action against the Cypriot subsidiary, with whom no contract has been concluded, must be one in tort. The Court does not go into analysis of the jurisdictional basis against that subsidiary, whose branch or independent basis or domicile is not entirely clear; anyone ready to clarify, please do).

At 68 the CJEU holds that the culpa in contrahendo action is indissociably linked to the contract concluded between the consumer and the seller or supplier, and at 71 that this conclusion is reinforced by A12(1) Rome II which makes the putative lex contractus, the lex causae for culpa in contrahendo. At 72 it emphasises the need for consistency between Rome II and Brussels IA in that both the law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising out of dealings prior to the conclusion of a contract and the court having jurisdiction to hear an action concerning such an obligation, are determined by taking into consideration the proposed contract the conclusion of which is envisaged.

Interesting.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.8.2.

I currently have a practice interest in all things Cypriot territory hence Local Authority B v X (Mother) & Ors [2020] EWFC 37 caught my eye even more than had it just involved Brussels IIa.

The application concerns a child, T. He is now about 5 years old. He is a British national; both his parents are British nationals. He was born in Kyrenia in the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus (‘TRNC’), and lived there from his birth in early 2014 until late summer 2018 when he travelled with his mother to the Republic of Cyprus, the southern territory of the island, where he remained until 17 October 2018. On that day, he flew to London, again in the company of his mother. On each occasion on which T and his mother travelled, the mother was the subject of a formal deportation order from the relevant territory of the island of Cyprus. On her arrival in the UK the mother was arrested and taken into custody, where she has remained to date. A police protection order was made in relation to T on his arrival in England, and he was placed into foster care, where he, in turn, has remained.

At issue is whether the Family Court in this country can properly exercise jurisdiction in relation to T.  Cobb J notes that the legal issues in the case are complicated by the internal territorial and political division within Cyprus. The United Kingdom, in accordance with its obligations under international law, has not recognised, and does not recognise, the TRNC as a state, yet the Republic of Cyprus is a Member State of the EU. Further discussion of the territorial issues at 7 ff include references to Protocol 10 of Cyprus’ accession Treaty, and CJEU C-420/07 Apostolides v Orams. (Itself linked to [2010] EWCA Civ 9).

The ensuing complicated jurisdictional questions are summarised at 33-34, with at 53 a resulting finding of lack of habitual residence of T in England, and an A13 BIIa jurisdiction. The mother, who argues for habitual residence in Cyprus, agues that BIA per CJEU Orams treats the TRNC as part of the Member State of the Republic of Cyprus, and so should BIIa. They further contend that given the many direct similarities between the language and the purpose of the two regulations, Brussels 1 and BIIa, Orams provides good authority for the argument that T, habitually resident in the TRNC (outside the Government’s effective control) was nonetheless, at the critical point, subject to the provisions of BIIa. At 68ff, Cobb J disagrees.

An interesting judgment for both BIIa and EU external relations law.

Geert.

The German Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshof) rendered an important ruling on jurisdiction and applicable law in claims against internet portals publishing crowd-sourced reviews about businesses on 14 January 2020 (BGH VI ZR 497/18).

Yelp Ireland Ltd., a company incorporated under Irish law, offers a well-known website and application (“app”) providing businesses recommendations. Yelp uses an algorithm to determine how reviews are arranged, distinguishing between “Recommended reviews” and “Currently not recommended reviews.”  When calculating the rating (“stars”) of a business, only “recommended reviews” are taken into account.

Yelp was sued by the owner of a German fitness studio, who complained that this mode of calculation had created a distorted picture of its business because a number of older, more favourable reviews had been ignored. The claim was brought before a German court at the place of business of the claimant.

The issue of jurisdiction was rather straight-forward. The Federal Court had to decide whether the claimant had suffered damage in Germany and could therefore bring the claim under Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation.

Tthe Federal Court started by clarifying that Art. 7(2) Brussel Ibis Regulation also covers violations of personal rights and actions for injunctive relief. Insofar, it referred to the CJEU decision in Bolagsupplysningen, which had held that “a legal person claiming that its personality rights have been infringed by the publication of incorrect information concerning it on the internet and by a failure to remove comments relating to that person can bring an action for rectification of that information, removal of those comments and compensation in respect of all the damage sustained before the courts of the Member State in which its centre of interests is located” (CJEU, Bolagsupplysningen, margin no 44).

The Federal Court applied this standard and ruled that the claimant had its centre of interests in Germany where it carries out the main part of its economic activities. It thus found that it had international jurisdiction over the claim.

Much more arduous was determining the applicable law under Article 4(1) of the Rome II Regulation. This is also the most interesting part of the decision.

The source of the problem is Article 1(2)(g) of the Regulation, which excludes “non-contractual obligations arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating to personality, including defamation” from the scope of the Regulation. It was doubtful whether the business in the present case had claimed such a violation. If it had, the Rome II Regulation would be inapplicable and German Private International Law would govern. The latter uses a different general conflict rule to the Regulation, giving tort victims in all cases a choice between the law of the place of tortious conduct and the place of damage (Art 40(1) Introductory Code to the German Civil Code – Einführungsgesetz zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch (EGBGB)).

Whether companies can be victims of “violations of privacy and rights relating to personality, including defamation” in the sense of the Rome II exclusion is subject to debate in the literature (see e.g. Andrew Dickinson, The Rome II Regulation, OUP 2008, margin no 3.227; Anatol Dutta, IPRax 2014, p. 33, 37). The German Federal Court avoids this point by a “trick”: It deems the submissions made by the claimant as conclusive evidence of an implicit choice of German law. Thus, it would not matter whether the Rome II Regulation applies or not. In both cases, German law would be applicable, either as a result of Article 4(1) of the Rome II or of Article 40(1) of the EGBGB.

Although the decision of the Federal Court provided clarity in the individual case, it did not answer the fundamental question of the scope of the exclusion under Article 1(2)(g) of the Rome II Regulation. In this respect, it is agreed that Article 1(2)(g) of the Regulation must be interpreted autonomously. It therefore does not matter whether national law grants companies personality rights or not.

The wording of Article 1(2)(g) does not differentiate between violations against natural or legal persons. The very term “legal person” and the concept of “legal personality” suggests that corporations may have “personality rights” in the sense of the provision. The decision in Bolagsupplysningen also points in this direction, though it concerned international jurisdiction and not the applicable law.

From a systematic viewpoint, however, the existence of Article 6(1) of the Rome II Regulation means that negative statements made in a commercial context must fall into the Regulation’s scope, as they make out a large part of unfair competition claims. Thus, they cannot be excluded under Article 1(2)(g) of the Regulation, regardless of whether they are brought against a legal or a natural person.

Historically, the exclusion under Article 1(2)(g) can be explained by conflicting views on the implications of the freedom of the press and other media and the freedom of expression for private international law. The Member States could not agree whether to use a connecting factor favouring the publisher’s freedom or the victim’s protection. For this reason, they decided to exclude the violation of personality and privacy rights from the provision’s scope altogether.

This background points to the need of careful construction of Article 1(2)(g) of the Rome II Regulation; the exclusion it contains must not be understood too widely.  An overly broad interpretation would also run against the effectiveness of the harmonised rules.

The proper decision would have been to apply the Rome II Regulation to negative online reviews of legal or other persons’ commercial activities. They should be seen as falling squarely in its scope. This also includes the question of how business ratings are calculated. It is unfortunate that the German Federal Court missed this opportunity for clarification.

In Generali Italia & Ors v Pelagic Fisheries & Anor [2020] EWHC 1228 (Comm) the claimants-insurers commenced these proceedings seeking declarations that they are not liable to the Insureds. Pelagic had already commenced proceedings in Treviso, Italy on the basis of what it claims to be choice of court in favour of Italy. The first instance Italian court stayed the Treviso Proceedings (the insureds have appealed; the appeal is yet to be heard) pending a determination by the English court as to whether the Treviso Policies are subject to an exclusive English jurisdiction clause. The Stay order readers in relevant part:

‘the lis alibi pendens defence which has been raised requires that these proceedings are suspended in order to allow the High Court of London to rule on the exclusive English jurisdiction clause pursuant to art 31.2 of EU Reg 1215/2012. That since, in the light of what is established by the said provisions, it is irrelevant that the Italian Judicial Authority has been seised first, …. Indeed article 31 of the above mentioned regulation represents an exception to the operation of the ordinary rule of priority in matter of lis alibi pendens, in order to allow the judges chosen by the parties in contractual terms (cover notes) to be the first to rule on the validity of the clause itself (according to the law chosen by the parties). In the concerned case all the cover notes, in the special insurance conditions, contain the clause ‘English jurisdiction. Subject to English law and practice”, with consequent waiver to the general insurance conditions provided in Camogli Policy 1988 form”.’

Other parties are part of the proceedings, too – readers best refer to the facts of the case. They clarify that chunks of the proceedings bear resemblance to the kind of split stay scenario applied by the CJEU in C-406/92 The Tatry.

Foxton J refers to the good arguable case test viz Article 25 Brussels Ia of BNP Paribas v Anchorage, recently also further summarised by the Court of Appeal in Kaefer Aislamientos and further in Etihad Airways PJSC v Flöther.

The case essentially puts Article 31 BIa’s anti-torpedo mechanism to the test in related ways as the first instance judge and the Court of Appeal did in Ablynx. There is a dispute between the parties as to whether A31(2) obliges the English Court to stay proceedings unless and until there is a determination in the Treviso Proceedings that the Italian courts do not have jurisdiction. There are 3 core questions: i) Should the English Court proceed to determine whether there is an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of this Court, in circumstances in which Pelagic is contending in Italy that the Italian courts have jurisdiction, or should it await a ruling on jurisdiction in the Treviso Proceedings? ; ii) If it is appropriate to determine the issue, is there an English exclusive jurisdiction agreement in the Treviso Policies for the purposes of Article 25?; iii) Should the Court stay the remainder of the proceedings under Article 30?

At 65 counsel for the insureds take a similar position as Ms Lane did in Ablynx: he argues that the only issue which the High Court should consider is whether it is satisfied that there is a prima facie case that the Italian court has jurisdiction (which he says there is on the basis that the parties agreed that both the English and Italian courts would have jurisdiction) and that if it is so satisfied, it should stay the English proceedings, pending the outcome of Pelagic’s appeal in the Italian proceedings.

Foxton J however at 68 ff highlights the inadequate nature and limitations of A25(4), as also pointed out by the last para of recital 22 which accompanies it: in the face of conflicting choice of court provisions (typically, as a result of overlapping clauses in overlapping contractual relations between the parties), A25(4) loses its power and the more classic lis alibi pendens rules take over. At 70 he points to the ping-pong that threatens to ensue:

in circumstances in which the Italian court has stayed its proceedings to allow the English court to determine if it has exclusive jurisdiction, it would be particularly surprising if the English court was then bound to stay its proceedings pending a decision on jurisdiction by the Italian court. This approach, in which the dispute might become caught in the self-perpetuating politeness of an Alphonse and Gaston cartoon, is not consistent with enhancing “the effectiveness of exclusive choice-of-court agreements” and avoiding “abusive litigation tactics” which Article 31(2) is intended to achieve. It does not matter for these purposes that the decision of the Italian court granting such a stay is presently under appeal.

He holds therefore at 79 that his task is essentially to review whether there is a good arguable case that the Treviso Policies (the ones subject of the English litigation, GAVC) are subject to exclusive jurisdiction agreements in favour of the English court which satisfy the requirements of A25 BIa. At 95 he finds there is such case. At 113 ff he holds obiter he would have stayed the remainder of the claims under A30, had he held in favour of a stay under A31(2).

Fun with conflict of laws.

Geert.

(Handbook of ) European Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.6.7, Heading 2.2.9.5.

Jurisdiction, Brussels IA. Choice of court A25, lis alibi pendens A29/30. https://t.co/F68mMIQ1jC

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) May 18, 2020

A French Décret, allows, for the time of the state of emergency, notarization by a French notary without a need for parties to be physically present. Explanation and analysis is here and (briefly) here. Importantly, the possibility is also open to non-residents of France.  Notaries in France had, unsurprisingly, warned of the risk of fraud, but the Conseil d’Etat approved of the decret.

Austria has a similar rule in sec. 90a of its Notary Act. In Germany, this is not (yet?)possible: Art. 40(1) of the German Notarisation Act requires physical presence of the parties; the greatest distance allowed is, apparently, the way to the parking lot. Estonia has introduced an e-notary for notarisation from abroad, but this is available only in Estonian embassies.

The French and Austrian rules raise interesting private international law questions. Usually, notarization requires physical presence – which is why so many lawyers fly from Germany to France to have contracts notarized. Can they now stay at home? If two French domiciliaries sign a contract electronically while in Switzerland, and notarization happens in France, is this a case of Art. 11(1) Rome I Regulation? That would lead to the odd result that the formal requirements would follow from either Swiss law or from the law applicable to the contract (which need not be French law) and not necessarily the law of the place where the French notary sits. And yet, Art. 11(2) seems inapplicable because the notary is not an agent of the parties. Should it be applicable by analogy? Should there be a special rule for notaries that used to be unnecessary because notarization always requires physical notaries? Or is this another reason to rethink the principle of locus regit actum for internet contracts?

DIFC Courts, the Dubai International Financial Centre’s Courts, is one of the new generation of international commercial courts. Its rulings piggyback unto recognition and enforcement treaties which the UAE concludes with third countries (India being a recent example).

In GFH Capital Ltd v Haigh & Ors [2020] EWHC 1269 (Comm) Henshaw J first of all notes that there is no such treaty between the UK and the UAE hence he considers recognition of the July 2018 DIFC judgment by Sir Jeremy Cooke under common law principles. Helpfully, these principles have been summarised in a January 2013 Memorandum of Guidance as to Enforcement between the DIFC Courts and the Commercial Court, Queen’s Bench Division, England and Wales. Under discussion in the case is mostly the condition that the foreign court be a court of competent jurisdiction; that the foreign judgment be not obtained fraudulently; and that its recognition be not incompatible with English ordre public.

The judgment is an extensive treatment of the relevant principles and therefore suited to comparative materials.

Geert.

Enforcement of @DIFCCourts judgment
Application of common law principles (no releant Treaty with the UAE). https://t.co/VHgkTw7DHG

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) May 20, 2020

Fernando Gascón Inchausti (Complutense University of Madrid) and Burkhard Hess (MPI Luxembourg) have edited The Future of the European Law of Civil Procedure, a book published by Intersentia.

The publisher’s blurb reads:

The European lawmaker is currently overseeing what appears to be a paradigm shift in the way that cross-border litigation is conducted within the European Union. This matter was initially conceptualised from the perspective of international judicial cooperation, based on the notion of mutual trust and mutual recognition. Recent developments, however, have introduced the option of harmonisation as a new regulatory approach.

The first part of the book is focused on the possible methodological approaches at hand. Special emphasis is placed on the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union as a “promoter” of a European Procedural Law (principle of effectiveness and principle of equivalence). The second part assesses to what extend harmonisation is already used: “vertically”, through the regulations on international judicial cooperation, for example the European Account Preservation Order; and “horizontally”, through the promotion of harmonised standards promoted by the directives on intellectual property rights and competition damages (access to information and evidence), or in the directive on trade secrets and in the field of data protection (protection of confidential information). With a view to the future, the final part examines two more recent initiatives: ELI-UNIDROIT and the proposal for a directive on common minimum standards of civil procedure in the EU.

The Future of the European Law of Civil Procedure: Coordination or Harmonisation? clearly outlines the motivations of the various national and institutional players in the regulation of civil procedural law and identifies potential obstacles likely to be encountered along the way that will be useful for every lawyer in the field.

The authors include Dominik Düsterhaus (Court of Justice of the European Union), Stefan Huber (University of Tübingen), Christoph A. Kern (University of Heidelberg), Stephanie Law (MPI Luxembourg), Patricia Llopis Nadal (University of Valencia), Janek T. Nowak (MPI Luxembourg), Marta Requejo Isidro (MPI Luxembourg), Vincent Richard (MPI Luxembourg), Elisabetta Silvestri (University of Pavia), Michael Stürner (University of Konstanz), María Luisa Villamarín López (Complutense University of Madrid), Enrique Vallines García (MPI Luxembourg).

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

William S. Dodge has posted Jurisdiction, State Immunity, and Judgments in the Restatement (Fourth) of US Foreign Relation Law on SSRN. The paper features in the latest issue (vol. 19, issue 1) of the Chinese Journal of International Law.

The abstract reads:

In 2018, the American Law Institute published the Restatement (Fourth) of Foreign Relations Law, which restates the law of the United States governing jurisdiction, state immunity, and judgments. These issues arise with great frequency in international cases brought in US courts, including cases involving Chinese parties. This article provides an overview of many of the key provisions of the Restatement (Fourth). The article describes the Restatement (Fourth)’s treatment of the customary international law of jurisdiction, as well the rules of US domestic law based on international comity that US courts apply when deciding international cases.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic and following a video message of the Secretary General, the Permanent Bureau (PB) of the Hague Conference on Private International Law has developed a COVID-19 Toolkit.

The COVID-19 Toolkit spots situations covered by Hague instruments on which the pandemia may have a particular impact, and compiles references to specific HCCH resources and publications thereto relevant in light of the current global situation. It is designed to assist users of the HCCH Conventions and other instruments in these challenging times and beyond.

The HCCH COVID-19 Toolkit is divided into two main categories: International Child Protection and Family Matters, covering, inter alia, child abduction, family maintenance and intercountry adoption, and International Legal Cooperation, Litigation and Dispute Resolution, concerning, among other things, service of documents and the taking of evidence abroad.

Within each category, a short description is made on the presumable effect of the pandemia, followed by a quick access to the most pertinent instruments or guides connected, such as the Guide to good practice on the “grave risk exception” to prompt return under Article 13(1)(b) of the 1980 Child Abduction Convention.

The PB has expressed its hope that “the Toolkit will continue to encourage the effective operation of the HCCH instruments, ultimately ensuring better access to justice for individuals, families and companies across the globe, as well as facilitating cross-border trade, investment and dispute resolution, even in these uncertain times”.

It is indeed a worthy initiative with a helpful, user-friendly outcome (which, when it comes to putting legal rules into practice, is more than welcome).

In its Judgment of 7 May 2020, delivered in the joined cases C-267/19 and C-323/19 without Advocate General’s Opinion, the Court of Justice provides some further guidance on the implications of its previous case law and most notably of the Judgment in the case C-551/15, Pula Parking (‘Judgment in Pula Parking’).

Just as in the case that led to Judgment in Pula Parking, the requests for a preliminary ruling in the cases in question were lodged in the context of the proceedings on the oppositions to the writs of execution. Put succinctly: under the Croatian law, a notary issues a writ of execution based on an ‘authentic document’. The party against whom enforcement is sought may lodge an opposition to that writ. The court to which the opposition is transferred has jurisdiction to set aside the writ and to annul the measures taken so far. The procedure continues according to the rules applicable to cases of opposition to a payment order.

By way of background, in Judgment in Pula Parking, the Court held, inter alia, that ‘[the Brussels I bis Regulation] must be interpreted as meaning that, in Croatia, notaries, acting within the framework of the powers conferred on them by national law in enforcement proceedings based on an “authentic document”, do not fall within the concept of “court” within the meaning of that [Regulation]’.

The referring court in the present cases indicates that Judgment in Pula Parking receives various interpretation on the national level. It seems that the reading of this Judgment according to which it relates exclusively to enforcement proceedings conducted against a party being a natural person and national of another EU Member State prevails in the Croatian case law.

However, for the referring court, that reading of Judgment in Pula Parking establishes a discriminatory difference in the way in which the Brussels I bis Regulation is applied in Croatia. The referring court seems to understand that Judgment as implying that, in its Member State, notaries are not entitled to issue writs of execution based on an ‘authentic document’ and therefore, the fact that they continue to do so, is at odds with the Regulation.

In view of those explanations, at paragraph 42 the Court clarifies that it understands the request for a preliminary ruling as concerning the question whether Article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 47 of the Charter preclude national legislation entitling the Croatian notaries to issue the writs of execution on the basis of the ‘authentic documents’, which, in light of Judgment in Pula Parking, will not be recognized and/or enforced in other Member States under the scheme of the Brussels I bis Regulation.

At paragraph 43 the Court reaffirms that the writs of execution issued by the Croatian notaries would not benefit from the scheme of the Regulation when it comes to their recognition and/or enforcement. At paragraph 44, the Court reminds that Judgment in Pula Parking does not imply, however, that the Brussels I bis Regulation prevents the notaries from issuing the writs of execution. The references to Judgment in Pula Parking pave the way for the conclusion that neither Article 18 of the TFUE (paragraph 45), nor Article 47 of the Charter (paragraph 53) preclude national legislation entitling the notaries to issue the writs of execution which do not benefit from the recognition/enforcement scheme of the Regulation.

Incidentally, given that according to Judgment in Pula Parking the notaries do not fall within the concept of ‘court’ within the meaning of the Brussels I bis Regulation, paragraph 43 seems to imply that a writ of execution based on a ‘authentic document’ would not be recognized and/or enforced as ‘judgment’ within the meaning of Article 2(a) of the Regulation.

Neither the joined cases in question, nor the case that led to Judgment in Pula Parking offered an opportunity to address the question whether a writ of execution issued by a notary could be enforced under the scheme of the Brussels I bis Regulation as an ‘authentic instrument’ in the sense of Article 2(c) of the Regulation. In any case, an ‘authentic document’ on which a writ of execution is based cannot, in my view, be automatically placed on the same footing as such ‘authentic instrument’. Therefore, a writ of execution would not necessarily have to be an ‘authentic instrument’ based on an ‘authentic instrument’.

For the sake of completeness, AG Bot touched upon a somehow similar question in the context of the Regulation No 805/2004 (Regulation on European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims) in his Opinion in the case C-484/15, Zulfikarpaši. At points 45 to 49, he considered that a writ of execution is not an ‘authentic instrument’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that Regulation because the writ does not concern an uncontested claim. That argumentation is in line with the interpretation that the Court presented in its Judgment in that case and in particular at its paragraph 55. However, such argumentation could most probably not be directly transposed to the Brussels I bis Regulation as this Regulation does not confine its scope solely to uncontested claims.

It is also worth noticing that the Judgment of 7 May 2020 makes a point that exceeds the scope of the inquiry on the implications of Judgment in Pula Parking for the Croatian legal system. At paragraphs 33 et seq., in the part of the Judgment of 7 May 2020 relating to the jurisdiction of the Court, the criteria set in Article 3(1) of the Regulation no 1896/2006 (Regulation on European Order for Payment) in order to define a ‘cross-border case’ within the meaning of that Regulation are referred to in order to establish the existence of an international element that is necessary for the Brussels I bis Regulation to become applicable to a specific case.

The requests for a preliminary ruling in the cases in question can be consulted here and here. For numerous linguistic versions of the Judgment see here (no English version yet).

by Jie (Jeanne) Huang, Sydney Law School

On 19 May 2020, the Supreme Court of New South Wales rendered the judgment in Bao v Qu; Tian (No 2) and decided to enforce a monetary judgment issued by the Qingdao Intermediate People’s Court of Shanghai Province, China. This is the first case at the state of NSW in Australia where a Chinese monetary judgment got enforced.

The Chinese judgment-rendering proceedings

Both plaintiff and the defendants are citizens of China. The two defendants were a couple. The defendants allegedly did not pay loans borrowed from the plaintiff. In 2014, the People’s Court of Laoshan District Qingdao handed down the first-instance judgment for the plaintiff. One defendant appealed. Both defendants were represented in the second-instance trial at the Qingdao Intermediate People’s Court of Shangdong Province (‘Qingdao Court’). The Qingdao Court rendered the final judgment (‘Chinese judgment’) ordering the defendants to pay RMB 2,050,000 plus interest to the plaintiff in 2015. The Chinese judgment was partly enforced in China but largely remained outstanding.

The NSW judgment-enforcement proceedings

The plaintiff applied to enforce the Chinese judgment at the Supreme Court of NSW in 2019 under the common law. The defendants are resident in NSW and were personally served with the court proceedings.

The defendants conceded that the Qingdao Court had jurisdiction, the Chinese judgment was final and conclusive, and they were judgment debtors. However, they alleged that a substantial amount of money had been returned to the plaintiff before the Chinese judgment was rendered. The plaintiff rejected this argument alleging that the defense went to the merits of the Chinese judgment that should not be reviewed by the NSW court at the judgment recognition and enforcement (‘JRE’) proceedings.

The NSW court holds that defendants submitted to the jurisdiction of Chinese court by their procedural conducts. There is no evidence of any step taken to challenge the Chinese judgment in China. The first issue at the NSW proceeding is whether the Chinese judgment is obtained by fraud. Namely, whether the Chinese court was intentionally or recklessly misled into determining the incorrect value of the debt by not being made aware of the alleged repayments. The NSW court held that one of the alleged repayments seemed to have been raised in the Chinese proceedings but ultimately rejected by the Chinese Court. No evidence showed that Chinese Court denied the defendants the opportunity to presenting their case before an impartial tribunal or that the defendants were otherwise not given due notice. There was also no evidence showing that the alleged repayments were not reasonably discoverable at the time of the Chinese proceedings. Further, nothing proved that the alleged repayments had ever occurred or were related to the loans decided in the Chinese judgment. In conclusion, NSW court rejected the alleged repayments and refused to review the merits of Chinese judgment.

The second issue focuses on the legal nature of the punitive interest awarded in the Chinese judgment. The Chinese judgment included two types of interests. The first is the general interest calculated at the ‘benchmark interest rate for the loans in the same type as issued by the People’s Bank of China for the same period’. The second is the punitive interest awarded according to Article 253 of Chinese Civil Procedural Law, being that ‘if the judgment debt was not satisfied by 20 September 2015, then “the interest on the debt during the period of delay in fulfillment shall be paid at the double amount”.’ The court held that no submissions were made that the imposition of Article 253 interest was penal in nature, so it should be awarded.

Comments

1. Reciprocity

China is not listed in the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (cth), so Chinese judgments cannot benefit from the ex parte registration process. Nevertheless, Chinese judgments can be recognized and enforced under the common law in Australia. However, China requires de facto reciprocity. This is demonstrated by a reply issued by the Chinese Supreme People’s Court in 2006, which provides that judgments issued in Australia cannot be recognized and enforced in China because Australia has not offered reciprocity to Chinese judgments.[1] Liu v Ma & anor [2017] VSC 810 is the first Chinese monetary judgment recognized and enforced in the state of Victoria. By Bao, the NSW court also enforced a Chinese monetary judgment. Considering the recent JRE development in Australia, Chinese Supreme People’s Court should review the 2006 reply. De facto reciprocity should have been established between China and Australia (or at least the states of Victoria and NSW). Judgments issued in Australia should be recognized and enforced in China if they do not violate the basic principles of Chinese law and the sovereignty, security and public interest of China according to Article 282 of Chinese Civil Procedure Law.

2. The alleged repayment

According to the NSW court, the Chinese judgment indicates that the Chinese court ‘refuse[d] to consider this request [to reduce the judgment debt as a result of the alleged repayment of RMB 200,000]’ because this claim ‘exceeded the scope of the Appellant’s claim’. The Chinese court’s rejection does not violate natural justice. This is because according to Chinese Civil Procedure Law, an appeal should be brought within 15 days after the first-instance judgment is served. If a party fails to bring a claim within this time period, the party loses its right to appeal. In practice, some appellants may bring an appeal within the time limit without clearly listing the claims and later try to add new claims. This practice goes against the seriousness of appeal. It is also inconsistent with the fairness and efficiency of litigation because the respondent should be served with the new claim and given a reasonable time to prepare the defence. Therefore, as a general principle, Chinese courts do not consider a new claim if it is not raised in the appeal petition.[2]

3. Double interest

Australian courts do not enforce foreign punitive damages that aim to ‘penalise the [ ] defendant and to deter others from failing to comply with the Court’s orders’ (Schnabel v Lui [2002] NSWSC 15 at [176]). However, the courts can enforce punitive damages that were to compensate the plaintiff’s private right due to the defendant’s deliberate and callous conduct and involved no public connotation in the remedy (Benefit Strategies Group v Prider [2004] SASC 365 at [72]).

Article 253 of the Chinese Civil Procedure Law provides that ‘if the party against whom enforcement is sought fails to pay money within the period specified in the judgment, he or she shall pay double interest for the debt for the period of delayed performance.’

The double interest imposed by this provision intends to punish the defendant for the delay of executing the judgment and remedy the plaintiff’s private right. It is not for the public interest of Chinese state. Therefore, the court correctly decided that the double interest should be enforced at the NSW.

[1] Letter of Reply of the Supreme People’s Court on Request for Instructions Re Application of DNT France Power Engine Co., Ltd. for Recognition and Enforcement of Australian Court Judgment [2006] Min Si Ta Zi No 45.

[2] There are few exceptions to this general principle. For example, the respondent agrees to add the new claim to the trial, or the new claim involves a fact which must be investigated by the court rather than the parties and without the finding of this fact, the case cannot be correctly decided.

The most recent issue of the Revue Critique de Droit International Privé is out. It contains three articles and numerous case notes.

In the first article, Roxana Banu (Western Law, Canada) discusses the scholarship of J. Jitta  (L’idéalisme pragmatique de Josephus Jitta (1854-1925)).

 Jitta occupied a very specific intellectual space between universalism and particularism and between state-centric and individualistic theoretical perspectives. His scholarship formed a different, quite radical alternative to the dominant private international law theory and methodology of his time. He rejected the conventional understanding of Savigny’s method of localizing transnational legal matters, fundamentally contested the premise that one could choose a law in disregard of its content, and refused to center private international law’s theory on the concept of state sovereignty. Yet his initially radical ideas evolved in a more pragmatic direction on contact with the great socio-political transformations following the First World War. This progression of his thought provides us with much to learn, while calling at the same time for a critical approach.

In the second article, Vincent Heuzé (University of Paris I) challenges the soundness of the doctrine of overriding mandatory provisions and argues that it is illogical and useless (Un avatar du pragmatisme juridique : la théorie des lois de police).

Pragmatism, as a legal theory, revolves around the refusal “to let itself be enclosed” in any given “system”. Such theory refutes giving in to a model of logical thinking. The triumph of legal pragmatism is best illustrated in private international law by the theory of the overriding mandatory provisions. The latter concept –to the extent its outcome was held as a genuine method– in fact only served as to legitimate a pragmatic legal vision. Indeed, such legal pragmatism theory is necessarily false, not to say useless, to that extent that it is incapable of upholding the solutions she inspired.

Finally, in the third article, Ilaria Pretelli (Swiss Institute of Comparative Law) explores some of the consequences of the Feniks case of the CJEU (case C-337/17).

Four CJEU judgements have up to now clarified the applicability of the Uniform European jurisdiction rules – the Brussels I system – to the modern versions of actio pauliana: the two Reichert cases (cases C-115/88 and C-261/90) had said what the pauliana is not; the recent obiter dictum in Reitbauer (case C-722/17) and, more substantially, Feniks (case C-337/17) have said what it is. In essence, the CJEU confirms that actio pauliana is a claim related to a contract with the consequence that the defendant may be sued both at his domicile – under art. 4-1 Brussels I a – and, alternatively, at the forum of the “obligation in question” – – under art. 7-1 Brussels I a. These two decisions have been discussed and mainly criticized by legal scholars (see for instance these posts here and here). who have voiced the inherent dangers of accepting the risk for the defendant of being attracted in an unpredictable forum. The 2018 decision on Feniks has seemed to open the path to an even greater uncertainty since, of the two contractual relations giving the cause of action to the claimant, the CJEU seem to have given relevance to the one between the creditor and the debtor, thus a relation to which the defendant is formally excluded.

The need to scrutinise the substantial – instead of the purely formal – relation between the defendant and the claimant is at the core of an analysis of Feniks appeared in the first issue of this year’s Revue critique de droit international privé. The circumstances of the case show in an unequivocal manner how involved the defendant appeared to be in the tactical sale operated by the debtor. In this respect, the Spanish forum of the domicile of the defendant might have well created complications suitable for the fraud against the creditor to succeed. The particular structure of the pauliana, constructed to unmask apparently legitimate operations, justifies a departure from a strict and formal interpretation of “predictability”.

The first consequence drawn by the author of the comment concerns the potential comprehensiveness of the alternative fora described in art. 7 Brussels Ia.

The author sees no reasons to discriminate claimants because of the subject of their claim. If an alternative is given in most of civil and commercial matters, why shouldn’t it be given to one or two of these. What is essential, and what the CJEU constantly underlines, is the existence of a narrow connection between the claim and the forum. In Feniks, many elements testified of the narrowness of the connection (the identity of the parties, the language of their pacts etc.).

The second topic of the comment addresses the core problem of trilateral situations that arise from two distinct legal (bilateral) relations: the difficulty of choosing ex ante the “obligation in question” for the effects of art. 7-1 Brussels I a.

As the majority of scholars has rightly pointed out, whenever the defendant is in good faith, it is absolutely unfair to give to the claimant the possibility of suing him or her in front of an unpredictable judge, such as the judge of the unperformed contract to which the defendant has never been part.

Since the pauliana consists in the reaction to a fraudulent, albeit apparently legitimate, contract, its transposition in private international law commands to avoid an aprioristical choice and suggests to give to the judge in question the power to decide which “obligation in question” needs to be taken into account in order to avoid, on the one hand, to manipulate the system in order to uphold the fraud and, on the other hand, that the defendant is sued in a forum for him truly unpredictable.

This solution promotes “good faith” to a connecting factor in line with the existing series of content-oriented and result-selective conflicts rules.

In sum, despite the laconicism of the decisions and the understandable reticence of scholars to accept them, Feniks and Reitbauer have eventually opened the right path for a uniform European jurisdictional rule for the national versions of actio pauliana.

The full table of contents is available here.

AB v EM [2020] EWHC 549 (Fam) concerns for a large part the application of Brussels IIa’s traditional jurisdictional rules (habitual residence etc.) and I shall not comment on those.

Of interest to the blog are, first, at 37 ff the application of the Regulation’s forum non conveniens rules: in that respect, compare with my posts on V v M and W v L. Further, the question whether the order made by the Sunnite Sharia Court of Beirut on 6 February 2019 in proceedings commenced by the mother in Lebanon in November 2018, incorporating and approving an agreement between the parties to these proceedings regarding custody and access with respect to M, capable of recognition in the UK and, if so, what impact should this have on the UK courts’ welfare determination?  The 2019 agreement established that the father would have custody of M and would reside with M in either the United Kingdom, Egypt or some other location of his choosing.

MacDonald J at 71-73, having referred to the spirit of comity, does not hold on what at 73 are briefly refered to as ‘wider criticisms’ of the February 2019 Order, or the allegations of durress in the coming to be of that order. He notes more as a matter of fact that circumstances in the child’s welfare have changed since the Order, and that the father did not at any rate honour elements of the agreement which the Order had confirmed.

No grand statement of principle, therefore. Rather, a measured practical approach.

Geert.

Brussels IIa.
Jurisdiction. Wrongful removal.
Recognition of order made by Sunnite #Sharia Court of Beirut on 6 February 2019 in proceedings commenced by the mother in Lebanon in November 2018, incorporating agreement between parties. https://t.co/72bfIuq3VH

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) March 16, 2020

Thank you Michael Douglas for alerting me to Bao v Qu; Tian (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 588 at the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The judgment does not require an extensive post. I report it because it is a solid application of the recognition and enforcement principles of foreign judgments under the common law of Australia. Hence good material for the comparative conflicts folder.

Geert.

The Court of Justice delivered last week (14 May 2020) its judgment in case C-17/19 (Bouygues travaux publics, Elco construct Bucarest, Welbond armatures), which is about the A 1 certificate (Article 19(2) of Regulation No 987/2009 – see below):

Question: “‘Must [Article] 11 of Regulation [No 574/72] and [Article] 19 of Regulation [No 987/2009] be interpreted as meaning that an E 101 Certificate issued by the institution designated by the competent authority of a Member State, under […] Regulation No 1408/71 … or an A 1 Certificate issued under Article 13(1) of Regulation No 883/2004 … is binding on the courts of the Member State in which the work is carried out when it comes to determining the legislation applicable, not only as regards the social security system but also as regards employment law, where such legislation defines the obligations of employers and the rights of employees, so that, having heard the arguments of the parties, those courts can disregard the abovementioned certificates only if, on the basis of an assessment of specific evidence, collected in the course of the judicial investigation, which supports the conclusion that the certificates were fraudulently obtained or relied on and which the issuing institution failed to take into account within a reasonable time, the said courts make a finding of fraud, comprised, as regards its objective element, by the failure to meet the conditions laid down in either of the aforementioned provisions of Regulations [No 574/72] and [No 987/2009] and, as regards its subjective element, by the intention of the accused person to evade or circumvent the conditions for the issue of that certificate, in order to obtain the advantages attaching thereto?’”

Reminder of some key provisions:

“Regulation No 883/2004
8 Regulation No 1408/71 was repealed and replaced with effect from 1 May 2010 by Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems
[…]
10 Article 13(2)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71 was replaced, in essence, by Article 11(3)(a) of Regulation No 883/2004, which provides that ‘subject to Articles 12 to 16 … a person pursuing an activity as an employed or self-employed person in a Member State shall be subject to the legislation of that Member State’.
11 Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71 was replaced, in essence, by Article 12(1) of Regulation No 883/2004, which provides that ‘a person who pursues an activity as an employed person in a Member State on behalf of an employer which normally carries out its activities there and who is posted by that employer to another Member State to perform work on that employer’s behalf shall continue to be subject to the legislation of the first Member State, provided that the anticipated duration of such work does not exceed [24] months and that that person is not sent to replace another posted person’.
12 Article 14(2)(b) of Regulation No 1408/71 was replaced, in essence, by Article 13(1) of Regulation No 883/2004, which provides:
‘A person who normally pursues an activity as an employed person in two or more Member States shall be subject to:
(a) the legislation of the Member State of residence if he/she pursues a substantial part of his/her activity in the Member State of residence; or
(b) if he/she does not pursue a substantial part of his/her activity in the Member State of residence…’
[…]

Regulation No 987/2009

15 Regulation No 574/72 was repealed and replaced, with effect from 1 May 2010, by Regulation No 987/2009.
16 Article 5(1) of Regulation No 987/2009 provides:
‘Documents issued by the institution of a Member State and showing the position of a person for the purposes of the application of the basic Regulation and of the implementing Regulation, and supporting evidence on the basis of which the documents have been issued, shall be accepted by the institutions of the other Member States for as long as they have not been withdrawn or declared to be invalid by the Member State in which they were issued.’
17 Article 19(2) of Regulation No 987/2009, which partly replaced Article 11(1)(a) and Article 12a(2)(a) and (4)(a) of Regulation No 574/72, provides that ‘at the request of the person concerned or of the employer, the competent institution of the Member State whose legislation is applicable pursuant to Title II of [Regulation No 883/2004] shall provide an attestation that such legislation is applicable and indicate, where appropriate, until what date and under what conditions’. That attestation is issued by means of a certificate (‘the A 1 Certificate’)”.

Response from the Court of Justice: “Article 11(1)(a), Article 12a(2)(a) and (4)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to their families moving within the Community […] and Article 19(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, must be interpreted as meaning that an E 101 Certificate, issued by the competent institution of a Member State, under [Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71] to workers employed in the territory of another Member State, and an A 1 Certificate, issued by that institution, under Article 12(1) or Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems […] to such workers, are binding on the courts or tribunals of the latter Member State solely in the area of social security”.

Source: here

As mentioned in my previous post, the Zeitschrift für Recht und Islam / Journal of Law & Islam issued a Call for Papers and kindly provided the following information:

The Zeitschrift für Recht und Islam / Journal of Law & Islam (ZR&I, previously: GAIR-Mitteilungen) is a scientific journal in co-operation with the Gesellschaft für Arabisches und Islamisches Recht e. V. (GAIR), a non-profit scientific association established in 1997. Its aim is the furthering of mutual understanding of law, legal systems and legal practice between European scholars and those of the Arabic and wider Islamic region.

The annual scientific journal contributes to this aim by publishing contributions on the legal developments in this field, covering theoretical legal debate as well as the practical application of both secular and Islamic laws. The journal gives space to a wide range of perspectives and takes regard of the historical development as well as the interaction of “secular” and Islamic laws in different contexts. Its analyses and debates go beyond the basic principles and outlines of those legal systems, but also address the actual developments, both in aspiration and reality. In addition, it covers key phenomena affecting – or even determining – scientific discourse, legislation and legal practice in the relevant states. This focus does however not confine itself to topics of specific or general regional interest, but also addresses the influence of global develop-ments and tendencies, as well as the legal relations among states.

Accordingly, we invite well-known and junior scholars as well as practitioners to help furthering this mutual understanding and dialogue by submitting publishable manuscripts. In view of imple-menting the aims of our association in a full and broad manner, the editors welcome contributions from specific disciplines, as well as interdisciplinary contributions that address the aspects above. We highly welcome the submission of articles, reports and reviews as well as case reports and comments on cases and legislation to the editorial double peer review process. Submissions must, however, not have been published or submitted for publication elsewhere.

The editors accept submissions in German and English. Please send your contributions to zri@gair.de, enclosing a brief personal description (no detailed curriculum vitae required). We kindly ask you to provide your submissions in the following format:

• submissions should have the formats doc, docx, odt or rtf,
• concerning fonts, we recommend Times New/Beyrut Roman, Arial, Junicode please use Unicode-characters for diacritic purposes
• use footnotes instead of a separate bibliography;

Bibliographical references should include:

1) concerning monographs and miscellanies:

a) Christian Starck (ed.): Constitutionalism, Universalism and Democracy – a Compar-ative Analysis, Studien & Materialien zur Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit 75, 1999.

b) Matthias Herdegen: Constitutional Rights and the Diminishing State, in: Constitu-tionalism, Universalism and Democracy – a Comparative Analysis, Studien & Materialien zur Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit 75, ed. by Christian Starck, 1999, pp. 183–198.

2) concerning articles:

a) William M. Ballantyne: The New Civil Code of the UAE: A Further Reassertion of the Shari?a, in: Arab Law Quarterly 3 (1985), pp. 245–264.

3) concerning internet sources: www.aladalacenter.com (last access 15.10.2017).

Quotes from the Arabic language that go beyond technical terms or short phrases should, in addition to the Arabic original, be provided in transcribed form (using an accepted scientific transcription system such as DMG or Encyclopaedia of Islam) and in translation.

Each submission will be subject to a double peer review procedure by two anonymous colleagues in the relevant area. Once their reports on a submission have been received, the authors will be notified whether their submission is accepted, accepted subject to changes, or rejected. The editors will be overseeing this process and make the final decision on publication. All authors will receive their contribution with editorial changes for a final review prior to publication.

For any queries please contact Sina Nikolajew from the editorial team, as well as the editors Beate Anam, Dr Hatem Elliesie, Kai Kreutzberger and Prof Dr Dr Peter Scholz at zri@gair.de.

Information about the journal (in English) is availabe here.

Volume 11/2019 of the Journal of Law & Islam / Zeitschrift für Recht & Islam (ZR&I) has just been published. The full issue is available online here. It includes case notes and articles devoted to questions of Islamic law and its interaction with other legal systems. Some of the articles are in English or French.

The Journal editors were so kind to provide me with English translations of the German articles:

Zeitschrift für Recht & Islam / Journal of Law & Islam ZR&I Volume 11 (2019)

EDITORIAL ………. (pp. 5 f.)

RECHTSPRECHUNG & URTEILSBERICHTE [CASE LAW & JUDGMENT DISCUSSION] ………. (pp. 5–12)

• Nichtanerkennung einer katarischen Privatscheidung: Anmerkung zu OLG Stuttgart, Beschluss vom 3.5.2019, Az. 3465 E – 519/18 [Non-recognition of a Qatari Private Divorce: Commentary on OLG Stuttgart, Decision of 3.5.2019, Az. 3465 E – 519/18] ………. (pp. 7–9), Peter Scholz
• Nichtanerkennung einer pakistanischen Adoptionsentscheidung: Anmerkung zu OLG Stuttgart, Beschluss vom 21. 1. 2019, Az. 17 UF – 25/18 [Non-recognition of a Pakistani Adoption Decision: Commentary on OLG Stuttgart, Decision of 21. 1. 2019, Az. 17 UF – 25/18]………. (pp. 11 f.), Peter Scholz

ARTIKEL [ARTICLES] ………. (pp. 13–173)

• Targih und madhab: Zur Rolle des targih-Verfahrens bei der Entwicklung der traditionellen islamischen Rechtsschulen [Targih and madhab: Regarding the Status of the targih Procedure in the Development of the Traditional Islamic Law Schools] ………. (pp. 13–37), Ahmed Gad Makhlouf
• Die Hisbollah und die schiitische Frau – ihre religiösen Rechte und entsprechende politische sowie öffentliche Darstellung [Hisbollah and the Shi’i Woman – Her Religious Rights and Corresponding Political aas well as Public Representation] ………. (pp. 39–56), Batol Kobeissi
• Die Fatwa-Praxis des schiitischen Großayatollahs Sayyid Muhammad Husain Fadlallah am Beispiel Masturbation [The Fatwa Practice of the Shi’i Great Ayatollah Sayyid Muhammad Husain Fadlallah Exemplified on Masturbation] ………. (pp. 57–78), Doris Decker
• Zur Geschichte zweier hadite, die häufig in der Diskussion über FGM zitiert werden [On the Historical Derivation of two hadite Commonly Cited in the Discussion about FGM] ………. (pp. 79–104), Thomas Eich
• Die Talaq-Scheidung und das deutsche Recht [Talaq Divorce and German Law] ………. (pp. 105–112), Christian F. Majer
• Zum Straftatbestand der Kindesmisshandlung: Ein Blick auf die Rechtspraxis in Saudi-Arabien [The Criminal Offense of Child Abuse: Reflections on the Legal Practice in Saudi Arabia] ………. (pp. 113–144), Elisa Schweitzer
• The Recognition and Enforcement of German Money Judgments in Turkey………. (pp. 145–151), Hamit Alp Ünlü
• La finance islamique au service de l’économie sociale et solidaire de l’occident [Islamic Finance and its Service for the Social and Solidarity Economy of the Occident] ………. (pp. 153–173), M’hamed Hamidouche & Amina Berkane & Ahmed Berkane

TAGUNGSBERICHTE [CONFERENCE REPORTS] ………. (pp. 175–189)

The Hanafi School: History, Transformations, and Future, 3–5 December 2018, Amsterdam ………. (pp. 175–186), Samy Ayoub

TIF 2019 – Tunisia Investment Forum, 20. und 21. Juni 2019 in Tunis [TIF 2019 – Tunisia Investment Forum, 20 and 21 June 2019 in Tunis] ………. (pp. 187–189), Achim-Rüdiger Börner

REZENSIONEN [REVIEWS] ………. (pp. 191–199)

Rezension zu Adnan Trakic / John Benson / Pervaiz K Ahmed: Dispute Resolution in Islamic Finance. Alternatives to Litigation?, London / New York: Routledge 2019 [Review of Adnan Trakic / John Benson / Pervaiz K Ahmed: Dispute Resolution in Islamic Finance. Alternatives to Litigation?, London / New York: Routledge 2019] ………. (pp. 191–193), Kilian Bälz

Rezension zu Naseef Naeem: Der Staat und seine Fundamente in den arabischen Republiken, Berlin: Deutscher Levante-Verlag 2019 [Review of Naseef Naeem: Der Staat und seine Fundamente in den arabischen Republiken, (The State and its Foundations in Arab Republics), Berlin: Deutscher Levante-Verlag 2019] ………. (pp. 195–199), Achim-Rüdiger Börner

CALL FOR PAPERS ………. (pp. 201–204)

IMPRESSUM [IMPRINTS] ………. (pp. 205 f.)

For further information about the Journal see also its English page zri.gair.de/index.php/en.

The Journal also issued a Call for Papers which I will post seperately.

Jayne Holliday has written Clawback Law in the Context of Succession. The book is part of the Studies in Private International Law series published by Hart Publishing.

The blurb reads:

This book offers a global solution for determining the law applicable to a claim to clawback an inter vivos gift from a third party within the context of a succession. The book aims to identify an appropriate and applicable legal framework which supports legal certainty for cross-border estate planning and protects the legitimate expectations of the relevant parties. This is an area of private international law that has yet to be handled satisfactorily – as can be seen by the inadequate treatment of clawback from third parties in the 1989 Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Succession to the Estates of Deceased Persons, and the 2012 EU Succession Regulation.

More information here.