Flux des sites DIP

The Editorial Team of CoL wishes all of you a Happy New Year! We will continue trying our best to keep you posted on conflict of law views and news from around the world.

A first moment of interest might be on Tuesday 14/01/2020, 09:30 CET. According to the Judicial Calendar of the European Court of Justice, Advocate General Maciej Szpunar will deliver his Opinion on the Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova (Italy) lodged on 12 October 2018 — LG and Others v Rina S.p.A. and Ente Registro Italiano Navale (Case C-641/18).

The question referred to the ECJ relates to the application of the Brussels I Regulation and it reads (OJ C-25/18 of 21 January 2019):

Should Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 be interpreted — particularly in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and recital 16 of Directive 2009/15/EC (2) — as preventing a court of a Member State from waiving its jurisdiction by granting jurisdictional immunity to private entities and legal persons carrying out classification and/or certification activities, established in that Member State, in respect of the performance of those classification and/or certification activities on behalf of a non-EU State, in a dispute concerning compensation for death and personal injury caused by the sinking of a passenger ferry and liability for negligent conduct?

As is explained in the Request for the Preliminary Ruling

[T]he applicants — relatives of the victims and survivors of the sinking of the Al Salam Boccaccio ’98 ferry in the Red Sea on 2 and 3 February 2006, in which more than 1 000 people lost their lives — filed a lawsuit against the defendants seeking a judgment on their collective and/or joint and several civil liability for all pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses suffered as a result of the disaster in jure proprio or jure successionis and, as a result, the award of compensation in respect of those losses. The applicants submit that the defendants acted negligently when carrying out their classification and certification activities and when adopting decisions and guidelines, thereby rendering the vessel unstable and unsafe and causing it to sink.

The defendants entered an appearance […], challenging the applicants’ claims on various grounds, including in particular — with regard to the present proceedings — the defendants’ immunity from Italian jurisdiction. Briefly, that plea is based on the fact that RINA S.p.A. and RINA ENTE were summonsed in relation to activities carried out as delegates of a foreign sovereign State, the Republic of Panama. Those activities were an expression of the sovereign prerogatives of that delegating foreign State, in whose name and in whose interest the defendants acted.

We will keep you posted…

Happy 2020 reading, all!

At the back of my mind I have a number of interesting examples of the English Courts and English law’s awareness of the relevance of courts and substantive law in regulatory competition. I post them here together by way of illustration.

Sir Vos’ speech on how English law on cryptoassets should develop so as to boost the
confidence of would-be parties to ‘smart’ legal contracts; a further analysis of same by the ‘UK jurisdiction taskforce’, and Outer Temple’s reaction to ditto.

Also however RPC’s review of Davey v Money [2019] EWHC 997 (Ch), in which Snowden J declined to cap a litigation funder’s liability for adverse costs at the amount of funding provided: essentially adding a potential risk to be considered by third-party litigation funders and illustrating that attractive as England may be as a forum for litigation, the sector is not a free for all.

Finally, the English courts are not of course alone in the realisation of the issues: witness this 2017 report by the French Supreme Court: ‘”Le juge et la mondialisation”.

Geert.

International Business Courts: A European and Global Perspective  (eds. Xandra Kramer & John Sorabji), Eleven International Publishing 2019.

Following our previous post announcing the publication of a special issues of Erasmus Law Review on International Business Courts (ELR 2019/1) as well as a book expanding on the topic, we bring to the attention of the readers that the book is open access available here. A paper copy can be ordered here (order form) .

Happy New Year’s reading!

Both publications result from and are financed by the ERC Consolidator project Building EU Civil Justice at the Erasmus School of Law in Rotterdam.

The blurb reads:

In recent years there has been significant growth in international business courts in Europe and across the world. They have been established as expert dispute resolution forums offering procedures in English for international commercial parties. Governments have promoted their development as an integral aspect of broader public policy agendas with the aim to enhance the rule of law and the attractiveness of their jurisdictions as legal and economic hubs. While these courts can be lauded for facilitating international commercial dispute resolution and boosting justice innovation, the development of competition in the international litigation market is a remarkable trend that merits discussion.

International Business Courts provides a comprehensive critical evaluation of the institutional design and procedural rules of established and emerging international business courts. It focuses on major European and global centres. It assesses to what extent these courts, the competition between them and their inter relationship with arbitration, contribute to justice innovation. It considers their impact on access to justice and the global litigation market, as well as their effect on the rule of law.

This book is of interest to legal practitioners, academics and policy makers in the area of civil justice and international business litigation.

[2019] EWHC 3340 (QB) Agbara et al v Shell Nigeria et al (thank you Adeole Yusuf for flagging) illustrates what many a conflict teacher initiates classes with. There is some, but often limited use in obtaining a judgment which subsequently cannot be enforced where the defendant’s funds are. Coppel DJ refused to enter registration of a 2010 Nigerian judgment by which claimants were awarded 15,407,777,246 Naira (approximately £33 million today) in damages in respect of the pollution of land occupied by them following the rupture of a pipeline maintained by Shell in 1969 or 1970.

Brussels Ia does not apply to recognition and enforcement of an ex-EU judgment hence the common law was applied (clearly with due deference to international comity yet the standards of natural justice nevertheless being determined by lex fori, English law). Natural justice was found to have been infringed by the proceedings at issue. This included an impossibility for Shell to cross-examine witnesses and an unusually swift completion of proceedings following the dismissal of a procedural argument made by Shell. Shell’s subsequent bumbling of the appeal via procedural mistake was not found by Coppel DJ to alter the findings of infringement of natural justice.

Obiter the factual mistakes made in the calculation of damages leading to the award and the opaque inclusion of punitive damages were also found to stand in the way of recognition and enforcement.

Geert.

By Nicolás Zambrana-Tévar, LLM, PhD, KIMEP University

A first instance court in Barbastro (Aragón) has ruled that a great number of valuable works of art presently on display at the museum of the Catholic diocese of Lleida (Catalonia) are the property of parishes of the diocese of Barbastro-Monzón and must be immediately returned. In its reasoning, the court has given a lot of weight to the fact that, in the decades long dispute between the two Spanish ecclesiastical entities, the diocese of Lleida had agreed to comply with a 2007 ruling of the Vatican’s Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, the highest administrative court in the Catholic Church, whose decisions may only be overturned by the Pope himself. This case does not only rise the issue of the recognition of “foreign” ecclesiastical decisions or, alternatively, their relevance for state courts but also how indistinguishable is the science of private international law from the study of legal pluralism, i.e. the interaction of various legal systems over the same territory, subjects and subject-matters.

Since the middle ages, a small stripe of land in the Spanish region of Aragón (La Franja de Aragón) was under the religious jurisdiction of the bishop of Lleida. Article IX of the 1953 concordat between Spain and the Holy See already manifested the intention of both parties to the treaty to revise the existing territorial ecclesiastical constituencies to avoid dioceses which did not correspond to existing state provinces. In 1995, following a decision of the Spanish bishops’ conference, the Holy See decided to transfer all the parishes in La Franja to the diocese of Barbastro. Further to this reassignment, the diocese of Barbastro requested that all the works of art which were on display at the diocesan museum of Lleida be returned to the parishes of La Franja, to which they allegedly belonged.

At the beginning of the 20th century, those works of art had been taken to Lleida from the abovementioned parishes, partly due to their state of decay. The basic legal question here was whether the long deceased bishop of Lleida, who had brokered the deal, had bought those works of art a century ago or whether they were only on deposit at the Catalan diocesan museum.

The return of those pieces of art has been a matter of regional – or national – pride for more than twenty five years. For many, this basically ecclesiastical dispute over religious property must be put in the context of recent nationalist aspirations of the Catalan government because many inhabitants of La Franja speak Catalan and this territory is sometimes perceived to be part of Catalonia in much the same way as nationalists refer to other territories in Spain, France or Italy as països catalans. What began as a bitter dispute among bishops has ended as a much bitter dispute between neighbouring regions after their autonomous governments espoused the respective claims, including street demonstrations and endless litigation before Church tribunals and state courts, both civil and administrative. The court records by now have more than 30.000 pages.

The dispute should have ended in 2007 when the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura heard the last possible ecclesiastical appeal against previous rulings of lower canon law courts. The text of this decisions is, of course, in Latin. Thus, the Vatican court ordered the immediate return of the art pieces. Further to this decision and probably compelled by it, the two dioceses signed an agreement in 2008, where the Catalan diocese acknowledged that the legitimate owners of the works of art were the abovementioned parishes of Aragón. Soon afterwards, however, the Lleida bishop went back on his word, apparently when more than 300 letters from the beginning of the 20th century resurfaced, allegedly showing that amounts of money had been paid by the former bishop of Lleida to the parishes of La Franja, following the removal of the art pieces to the diocesan museum of Lleida. This money was allegedly the price paid for them, so the Catalan diocese owned them.

The diocese of Barbastro nevertheless sought to have the 2007 Vatican decision recognised but, in 2010, a Spanish court ruled that the only ecclesiastical decisions which could be recognised and enforced in Spain under the new 1979 concordat were those concerning the nullity of marriages (pp. 6-8). The diocese of Barbastro and the Spanish prosecutor present at the proceedings understood that, nevertheless, the 2007 decision may be recognised under those Spanish domestic law provisions for the recognition of foreign court decisions in the absence of a treaty. The “country” of origin of the 2007 decision was, of course, the Holy See.

The Spanish court did refer to the Holy See as a subject of international law at the level of states. Furthermore, the Catholic Church’s jurisdiction and autonomy within the Spanish territory and over Spanish Catholics was recognised by the Spanish state by means of an international treaty (i.e. the concordat). Part of this autonomy was – in the eyes of the court – the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical tribunals in religious property matters. Ecclesiastical tribunals had therefore jurisdiction to adjudicate in property disputes and to enforce the ensuing decisions internally. Such jurisdiction was acknowledged and respected by the Spanish state, which should not interfere with it and, therefore, an ecclesiastical entity could not request state courts to enforce ecclesiastical decisions because this would represent such an act of interference. Ecclesiastical entities may alternatively bring their property claims before Spanish state courts in the first place, which have in the past decided similar cases applying canon law but, if the dispute had been heard and decided by a Church tribunal, state courts had to remain aloof.

However, last week, the same court which in 2010 had refused to recognise the 2007 Vatican decision has now ruled in favour of the return of the works of art to the parishes of Aragón. The Barbastro court explains (p. 17) that the ecclesiastical rulings were not enough in themselves, as evidence of the property rights of the Aragonese parishes. However, such rulings may in fact be evidence of the testimony provided by the parties to the dispute. Additionally, the settlement agreement made by the two dioceses, further to the Vatican ruling of 2007, should indeed be taken as an admission by the diocese of Lleida that the works of art belong in Aragón. Thus, indirectly, the Vatican decision was being respected.

This use made of a “foreign” ecclesiastical court ruling presents some similarities to the theory of vested rights and estoppel per res iudicattam in a common law context, whereby foreign court decisions may not be recognised as such but their content may be evidence of a new cause of action in new proceedings commenced in the country where recognition is sought. Even though the Spanish court in 2010 and 2019 was equally unwilling to recognise the effects of the ecclesiastical decision because it had been issued by an ecclesiastical tribunal whose autonomy and jurisdiction would be jeopardised if the Spanish court enforced its contents, the first instance court of Barbastro was now in a position to give a lot of weight at least to the declarations that the parties had made during the proceedings at the Vatican, as well as to the settlement agreement that the Vatican decision had brought about.

The Spanish court also made direct use of canon law as evidence of property rights when it found that, for the transfer of ecclesiastical property to have been valid, a special permit from the Holy See would have been needed, which was never sought nor obtained. That Spanish state courts apply canon law is relatively common in, for instance, employment cases – as a way of demonstrating that the relationship between a priest and a bishop is not of an employment nature – or in clergy sex abuse litigation – in order to demonstrate the degree of organizational or supervisory authority of bishops over priests and parishes.

Carlos Santaló Goris, Researcher at the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law and Ph.D. candidate at the University of Luxembourg, offers a summary and an analysis of the CJEU’s judgment in Joined cases C-453/18 and C-494/18 – Bondora.  

Introduction

On 19 December 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) rendered its 10th judgment on Regulation 1896/2006 establishing a European Payment Order (“EPO Regulation”). The EPO Regulation introduced the most successful of the uniform civil procedures at European level, allowing creditors the cross-border recovery of pecuniary claims. In this long awaited judgment (particularly by the Spanish tribunals and academia), the CJEU resolved the following inquiry: can tribunals request additional information from the creditor relating to the terms of the agreement in order to examine ex officio the fairness of the terms of the contract invoked as a basis for a European Payment Order (“EPO”)?

Facts of the case

The judicial proceedings, which led to the preliminary references, were brought before the courts of first instance of Vigo and Barcelona, respectively.

Bondora AS, an Estonian registered company, lodged an application for an EPO before the court of first instance of Vigo. Since the defendant was a consumer, that court requested Bondora to provide “the loan agreement and the determination of the amount of the claim” in order to examine the fairness of the contractual terms on which the application for an EPO was made. Bondora AS refused to do so. It argued that Article 7(2) EPO Regulation of the EPO does not prescribe to creditors the submission of any documentation to issue an EPO. Furthermore, in accordance with Spanish law, creditors do not have provide any documentation when they apply for an EPO (Final Disposition 23, para. 2 Ley 1/2000 de Enjuiciamiento Civil). Conversely, in the view of the court of first instance of Vigo, courts have the power to make such request. This court took into consideration the CJEU decision, C-618/10, Banco Español de Crédito, in which the Court found that the Spanish domestic legislation which precluded the examination of the fairness of the contractual terms during the application for a domestic payment order would “deprive consumers of the benefit of the protection intended by Directive 93/13”. This judgment caused a modification of the Spanish payment order legislation. That reform expressly authorised Spanish judges to assess ex officio the fairness of the terms of the contract between businesses or professionals and a consumer on which the application for a domestic payment order is based.  

In this context, the court of first instance of Vigo decided to refer the following questions to the CJEU:

• Is Article 7(1) of [Directive 93/13] and the case-law interpreting that directive, to be construed as meaning that that article of the directive precludes a national provision, like the 23rd final provision of [the LEC], which provides that it is not necessary to submit documents with the application for a European order for payment and that, where documents are submitted, they will be ruled inadmissible?
•  Is Article 7(2)(e) of [Regulation No 1896/2006] to be construed as meaning that that provision does not preclude a creditor institution from being required to submit documents substantiating its claim based on a consumer loan entered into between a seller or a supplier and a consumer, where the court considers it essential to examine the documents in order to determine whether there are unfair terms in the contract between the parties, thereby complying with the provisions of [Directive 93/13] and the case-law interpreting that directive?

In the same year, Bondora AS requested another EPO against another debtor (XY) before the court of first instance of Barcelona. This court, confronting the same issue as the court of first instance of Vigo, decided to refer the following questions to the CJEU:

• Is national legislation such as paragraph [2] of the 23rd final provision of the LEC, which does not permit a contract or an itemisation of the debt to be provided or required in a claim in which the defendant is a consumer and where there is evidence that the sums being claimed could be based on unfair terms, compatible with Article 38 of the Charter, Article 6(1) [TEU] and Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive [93/13]?
• Is it compatible with Article 7(2)(d) of Regulation [No 1896/2006] to require the applicant, in a claim against a consumer, to specify the itemisation of the debt he is claiming in Section 11 of standard form A [in Annex 1 to Regulation No 1896/2006]? Is it also compatible with that provision to require that the content of the contractual terms on the basis of which the applicant is making a claim against a consumer, beyond the principal subject matter of the contract, be reproduced in Section 11 in order to assess whether they are unfair?
•  If the answer to the second question is negative, is it permissible, under the current wording of Regulation No 1896/2006, to ascertain ex officio, prior to the issue of a European payment order, whether an agreement with a consumer contains unfair terms and if so, on what legal basis may that assessment be carried out?
•  In the event that it is not possible to ascertain ex officio, under the current wording of Regulation No 1896/2006, the existence of unfair terms prior to issuing a European payment order, the Court of Justice is requested to rule on the validity of that regulation in the light of Article 38 of the Charter and Article 6(1) [TEU].

The CJEU decided to reply jointly to both preliminary references.

The CJEU’s Reasoning

After a brief overview of the EPO Regulation as such (paras 34-38), the CJEU proceeded to examine the state-of-the-art of consumer protection against unfair contractual terms under Directive 93/13 (paras 39-44). More specifically, the Court referred to its previous judgement C-176/17, Profi Credit Polska. In that decision, the CJEU found that Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13 precludes national legislation permitting the issue of an order for payment where the court hearing an application for an order for payment does not have the power to examine the possible unfairness of the terms of that agreement (para. 44). In the Courts’ view, the same logic applies to the EPO Regulation. This means that Spanish domestic legislation (the above mentioned Final Disposition 23, para. 2 Ley 1/2000 de Enjuiciamiento Civil), which precludes the submission of documentation by the creditor who applied for an EPO, obstructs the courts’ obligation to review the fairness of the terms of the contract. At this point, the question is whether there is any legal basis within the EPO Regulation that would allow courts to request the necessary documentation to examine the fairness of the contractual terms. The CJEU found the solution in Article 9(1) of Regulation No 1896/2006 (para. 49). This provision allows courts to request that the claimant complete or rectify the application for the EPO, and since Bondora, courts are also entitled to request, “the reproduction of the entire agreement or the production of a copy thereof, in order to be able to examine the possible unfairness of the contractual terms” (para. 50).

On the basis of the reasoning set out above, the CJEU concluded that a tribunal “seised in the context of a European order for payment procedure” would be entitled “to request from the creditor additional information relating to the terms of the agreement relied on in support of the claim at issue, in order to carry out an ex officio review of the possible unfairness of those terms and, consequently, that they preclude national legislation which declares the additional documents provided for that purpose to be inadmissible” (para. 54).

The three viewpoints of the judgment

Bondora is not only interesting for the reasoning behind the judgment as such. This decision is also a good example of the difficulties that could arise from the application and the implementation of a European uniform procedure, as well as the impact that a CJEU judgment could have on the European uniform civil procedures.

• A “very Spanish” preliminary reference

The preliminary reference did not come as a surprise for Spanish courts and academia, which have for a long time debated on this issue. There are certain characteristics of the Spanish legislative framework, which made Spain a more likely jurisdiction to refer these kinds of questions to the CJEU than any other Member State.  

The main reason arises from the differences between the EPO and the Spanish national payment order. The latter is a documentary payment order, meaning that with the application for a preservation order, creditors have to provide documentation that provides the justification of the claim at stake. This contrasts with the EPO, in which creditors have merely to describe evidence supporting the claim (Article 7(1)(e) EPO Regulation). There were occasions when Spanish courts observed EPOs in the light of the rules applicable to domestic law, requesting creditors to provide documentation with the application (e.g. Auto Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Sec. 11.a) de 21 de noviembre 2012 (Auto num. 212/2012, ECLI:ES:APB:2012:7729A)). Furthermore, after the above-mentioned CJEU decision in  C-618/10, Banco Español de Crédito, and the legislative reform that the judgment provoked, disparities between the EPO procedure and the domestic payment order procedure increased, making it difficult for Spanish courts to reconcile both procedures.

Another aspect that has to be taken into consideration is the way the EPO Regulation had been implemented into the Spanish legal system. In the EPO Regulation, as well as the other so-called second-generation procedures, there are many elements to be “fulfilled” by the domestic law of the Member States where they apply. This leaves ground to domestic legislators to approve reforms to these instruments in their respective systems. Concerning the EPO Regulation, the Spanish legislator went a step further than the letter of the Regulation. The Spanish law states explicitly that creditors “do not need to submit any documentation” when they apply for an EPO. This unfortunate wording was one of the grounds on which the creditor, Bondora AS, relied on to avoid submitting the documentation requested by the Spanish courts (para. 22).

All these specific circumstances eventually triggered the preliminary references of this case.

• Balancing opposing interests

Concerning the Court’s reasoning itself, the CJEU tries to find a compromise between the creditors’ and defendants’ interests. As the Court states, one of the purposes of the EPO is “to simplify, accelerate and reduce costs in cross-border disputes concerning uncontested pecuniary claims” (para. 36). Nonetheless, the pursuit of those goals cannot be to the detriment of defendants’ rights. Particularly, in this case, “the nature and significance of the public interest constituted by the protection of consumers” (para. 42) prevails over creditors’ interests.

It appears that the CJEU tries to mitigate the imbalance favouring creditors that a literal reading of the EPO Regulation could provoke. Indeed, if we strictly observe Article 7 of the EPO Regulation, no documentation might be needed to obtain an EPO. Nonetheless, as it was demostrated, that would undermine the position of consumers.

From a broader perspective, this search for a balance is not exclusive to the EPO Regulation. We can also find it in CJEU judgments concerning other uniform civil procedures. For instance, the recent decision on Regulation 655/2014, establishing a European Account Preservation Order (C-555/18, K.H.K. (Saisie conservatoire des comptes bancaires)) is a good example. It seems that the CJEU is trying to mitigate the pro-creditor aspects of these proceedings.

• The EPO procedure post-Bondora

How does Bondora affect the EPO procedure? In the conclusion of the judgment, the CJEU merely acknowledged that courts can request additional documentation in order to assess the fairness of the terms of the contract which serves as a basis of the EPO (para. 56). Nonetheless, observing the whole of the Court’s reasoning, it follows that domestic courts might also be obliged to perform a further examination in order to safeguard consumers’ rights against unfair contractual terms. The CJEU stated that “the national court is required to assess of its own motion whether a contractual term falling within the scope of Directive 93/13 is unfair” (para. 43). Does it mean that every time a creditor indicates in the standard form of the EPO application that the defendant is a consumer, the Court has to examine the fairness of the terms of the agreement between the creditor and the consumer? It seems so. The EPO Regulation only requires creditors the description of the “circumstances invoked as the basis of the claim” and the “description of evidence supporting the claim” (Article 7(1) EPO Regulation). This might not be enough for a court to make a proper assessment of the fairness of the contractual terms. AG Sharpston was of the same view. In the Opinion of this case, she affirmed that “the court’s examination of the merits of the claim based solely on the information included in form A is, on the face of it, rather superficial, which is hardly likely to ensure effective protection of the consumer concerned” (para. 93). Therefore, unless creditors provide the contractual terms by their own motion in an application for an EPO, domestic courts would have to request them on the basis of Article 9(1) of the EPO Regulation. Only in this way would courts be able to assure whether the terms of the agreement are fair or not.

As a consequence of the above, the EPO Regulation, although initially a non-documentary procedure largely inspired by the German payment order, might have turned into something resembling a documentary payment order in those cases when there is involved a contract concluded with a consumer. Whereas Spanish courts might welcome this new approach, in other Member States where payment orders are granted in a more automatic manner, Bondora might be a turning point.

In any case, Bondora has already become a key reference for a proper understanding of the EPO Regulation, a procedure on which the CJEU might still have more to say.  

Under the direction of Professor Eduardo Oteiza (La Plata National University, Argentina) and Professor Burkhard Hess (Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law), the 4th edition of the IAPL–MPI Summer School will take place at the MPI Luxembourg on 27-30 July 2020.

The Summer School aims at bringing together outstanding young post-Doc researchers dealing with international and comparative procedural law as well as with other relevant dispute mechanisms for civil disputes. By way of exception, researchers at the very final stage of their Ph.D. project may also be admitted.

In 2020, the Summer School will focus on the interplay of global tendencies with local traditions in procedural law. This interplay may be analyzed from different perspectives, such as the cross-fertilization in lawmaking processes and between regulatory concepts or the impact of innovative methods and tools in procedural law. The Summer School also intends to reflect on the cultural dimension of litigation and dispute resolution mechanisms and on the role of local culture in shaping the approach to procedural law.

The application form and further information on the Summer School’s research focus are available here.

The deadline for applications is 31 January 2020.

With the festive season approaching, I am happy to give the floor to María Barral Martínez, currently trainee at the chambers of Advocate General Mr Manuel Campos Sánchez-Bordona for her update on Supreme et al v Shape.

On 10 December, the Den Bosch Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on the main proceedings of the Supreme et al. v SHAPE case. The case concerns a contractual dispute between Supreme (a supplier of fuels) and SHAPE (the military headquarters of NATO). Supreme signed several agreements (so-called “BOA agreements”) to supply fuels to SHAPE in the context of a military operation in Afghanistan-ISAF-, mandated by the UNSC. Supreme also signed an escrow agreement with JFCB (Allied Joint Force Command Brunssum, a military headquarters subject to SHAPE´s authority) to cover mutual potential payments after the mission/contract termination. In December 2015, Supreme instituted proceedings in the Netherlands against Shape/JFCB requesting the payment of certain costs. Moreover, Supreme sought, in the context of a second procedure, to levy an interim garnishee order targeting the escrow account in Belgium. The latter proceedings -currently before the Dutch Supreme Court- triggered a reference for a preliminary ruling (case C-186/19 « Supreme Site Services»)  as already commented in an earlier post, related to the Brussels I bis Regulation.

In the judgment on the merits, the Appellate Court addressed the Brussels I bis Regulation as well, albeit briefly. The Appellate Court asked parties whether the reference to the CJEU impacts the proceedings on the merits. Both parties were of the opinion that it was not the case. Moreover, the Court itself considered that since Shape and JFCB only invoked in their defence immunity of jurisdiction the parties had tacitly accepted the Dutch court’s jurisdiction.

In regards to the question of immunity of jurisdiction, the Dutch Appellate Court granted immunity of jurisdiction to Shape and JFCB on the basis of customary international law. It found it was inconclusive that immunity of jurisdiction in respect of Shape and JFCB flows from the provisions of the Protocol on the Status of International Military Headquarters Set up Pursuant to the North Atlantic Treaty (Paris Protocol 1952), or the Agreement on the Status of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Ottawa’s Agreement).

On the role of article 6 ECHR, contrary to what the District Court ruled on the judgment under appeal, the Court of Appeal held that Supreme had a reasonable dispute settlement mechanism available to it to submit its claims. Article 6.1 ECHR therefore would not be breached.  It argued that the judge must perform a case by case analysis in order to determine whether the international organisation offers reasonable alternative means to protect the rights enshrined under article 6.1 ECHR, and if needed set aside the immunity of jurisdiction of the international organisation. The Court concluded that the Release of Funds Working Group, which was agreed by the parties to settle any possible contractual differences, can be considered, under Dutch law, as a reasonable dispute settlement mechanism and therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction.

At the public hearing in C-186/19 held in Luxembourg on 12 December, the CJEU could not hide its surprise when told by the parties that the Dutch Appellate Court had granted immunity of jurisdiction to Shape and JCFB. The judges and AG wondered whether a reply to the preliminary reference would still be of any use. One should take into account that the main point at the hearing was whether the “civil or commercial” nature of the proceedings for interim measures should be assessed in the light of the proceedings on the merits (to which interim measures are ancillary, or whether the analysis should solely address the interim relief measures themselves.

Maria.

written by Veronica Ruiz Abou-Nigm

ASADIP (American Association of Private International Law)

13th Annual Conference – Punta del Este, URUGUAY, 21-22 November 2019

TRANSNATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS OF LAW: Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, arbitral awards and other acts

On 21 and 22 November 2019, the 13thASADIP Annual Conference took place in Punta del Este (Uruguay) with the participation of more than 30 international speakers from several jurisdictions and over 130 attendees, mostly from the Latin American region, but also from North America and Europe. The theme of the conference was the Transnational Effectiveness of Law:Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Arbitral Awards and other Acts;

The then President of ASADIP, Eduardo Vescovi (Uruguay), delivered the welcome speech followed by the inaugural conference on the “Pro-effectiveness principle and transnational access to justice” by Didier Opertti Badán (Uruguay). Following from there, the conference included eight panels (each including several short presentations), a round-table debate (with several participant speakers), and four keynotes (special conferences). Presentations in these various formats were followed by lively discussions with the audience. 

In its thirteenth iteration, the ASADIP annual conference brought together an enthusiastic group of established private international law scholars and practitioners. There were also specific activities catered for the younger generation of scholars, practitioners and research students: these were the ASADIP-CLAEH (Young ASADIP) Conference that took place at the University CLAEH of Punta del Este, on 20thNovember in the afternoon, including panel presentations and a debate; and, as it has been happening for many years at the ASADIP annual conference, a poster contest that took place on the second day of the conference. Several young researchers from Peru, Argentina, Brazil, and France presented their research in front of the evaluation committee, with three of them being awarded prices. For the full list of all the activities, including the specific topics of the panels and keynote addresses, and the names and profiles of all the international speakers and research students presenting, see the full report (in Spanish) here.

Furthermore, on 23 November 2019 the annual ASADIP General Assembly was held, during which the ASADIP Council for the period 2019-2022 was elected. For further information on the new Council members see further here. 

The detail:

First Panel: “Circulation of public documents globally”. Speakers: Paula María All (Argentina), Carmen González (Uruguay), Renata Alvares Gaspar (Brazil) and José Manuel Canelas (Bolivia), mooderated by Eduardo Vescovi (Uruguay).

Second Panel: “International cooperation in transnational family situations”. Speakers: Nieve Rubaja (Argentina), Luciana B. Scotti (Argentina) and Daniel Trecca (Uruguay), moderated by Elizabeth Villalta Vizcarra (El Salvador).

Third Panel: “Transnational Efficacy of Foreign Judgments – Flexibilization of Requirements” Speakers: Claudia Madrid Martínez (Colombia), Taydit Peña Lorenzo (Cuba), Carolina D. Iud (Argentina) and Eduardo Tellechea (Uruguay), moderated Adriana Fernández (Uruguay).

These morning panels were followed by the first Keynote Speech: “New Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters ”by João Ribeiro-Bidaoui (HCCH).

Fourth Panel: “The Hague Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments and its impact on Latin American countries”. Speakers: Marcos Dotta (Uruguay), Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm (UK), Fabricio Bertini Pasquot Polido (Brazil) and Juan Carlos Guerrero (Mexico), moderated by Inez Lopes (Brazil).

Fifth Panel: The last Panel of the first day on “Transnational Effectiveness of Provisional Measures” was moderated by Sebastián Paredes (Argentina), presenting on the subject Cecilia Fresnedo de Aguirre (Uruguay), Eugenio Hernández-Bretón (Venezuela) andThiago Paluma (Brasil).

The second day of the Conference began with the Sixth Panel moderated by Mercedes Albornoz (Mexico). Speakers: Gonzalo Lorenzo Idiarte (Uruguay), María Blanca Noodt Taquela (Argentina) and Roberto Ruiz Díaz Labrano (Paraguay) reflected around the question of “Is it desirable to abolish the exequatur? 

After that, the second keynote speech on the “New OAS Guide on the Law Applicable to International Commercial Contracts in the Americas” was delivered by the Rapporteur of the Guide, José A. Moreno Rodríguez (Paraguay) and Jeannette Tramhel (OAS).

Panel Seven: “Transnational Efficacy of Foreign Arbitral Awards -Impact of the new international arbitration laws in the Río de la Plata”. Speakers: Paul F. Arrighi (Uruguay), María Laura Capalbo (Uruguay), Soledad Díaz (Uruguay), Alejandro Menicocci (Argentina), Guillermo Argerich (Argentina) and Juan Jorge (Argentina), moderated by Juan José Cerdeira (Argentina).

Debate: “Execution of foreign arbitral awards – something to change?”. Participants: Francisco A. Amallo (Argentina), João Bosco Lee (Brazil), Diana Giraldo Montoya (Colombia), Francisco Grob (ICSID) and Jaime Vintimilla (Ecuador), being the moderator María Laura Capalbo (Uruguay).

The third keynote speech on the “New Singapore Convention and the execution of international agreements resulting from cross-border mediation ” was delivered by Luis Ernesto Rodríguez Carrera (Venezuela) and María Verónica Duarte (Uruguay).

Panel Eight: “The transnational effectiveness of arbitral awards versus that of foreign judgments”. Speakers: María Susana Najurieta (Argentina), Julio César Rivera (Argentina), Carlos Odriozola (Mexico) and María Macarena Fariña (Uruguay), moderated by Nicolás Etcheverry (Uruguay).

The conference closed with a keynote speech from Diego P. Fernández Arroyo (France) on the “Role of Private International Law in the Global Era”.

Rachael Mulheron, Asserting personal jurisdiction over non-resident class members: comparative insights for the United Kingdom

The opt-out class action involves a unique participant, viz, the absent class member whose claim is prosecuted by a representative claimant, who does not opt-out of the action nor do anything else in relation to it, and yet who is bound by its outcome. In a cross-border class action, the means by which a domestic court may validly assert personal jurisdiction over absent class members who are resident outside of that court’s jurisdiction remains perhaps the single biggest conundrum in modern class actions jurisprudence. The United Kingdom (UK) legislature requires that non-resident class members compulsorily opt-in to the UK’s competition law class action, in order to demonstrably signify their consent to the jurisdiction of the UK court. However, that legislative enactment is unusual, and becoming even rarer, in modern class actions statutes. The comparative analysis undertaken in this article demonstrates that where that type of statutory provision is not enacted, then the judicially-developed “anchors” by which to assert personal jurisdiction over non-resident class members are multifarious, diverse, and conflicting, across the leading class actions jurisdictions. This landscape yields important lessons for UK law-makers, and strongly suggests that the UK legislature’s approach towards non-resident class members represents “best practice”, in what is a complex conundrum of class actions law.

Richard Garnett, Recognition of jurisdictional determinations by foreign courts

Parties have occasionally sought to use findings on jurisdiction made by a court in one country to preclude re-litigation of the same matter elsewhere. In common law countries the traditional means by which this tactic has been employed is the doctrine of issue estoppel. The aim of this article is to assess the extent to which jurisdictional determinations by foreign courts can have binding effects in other countries.

Ardavan Arzandeh, “Gateways” within the Civil Procedure Rules and the future of service-out jurisdiction in England

For well over 150 years, the heads of jurisdiction currently listed within paragraph 3.1 of Practice Direction B, accompanying Part 6 of Civil Procedure Rules, have played a vital role in the English courts’ assertion of jurisdiction over foreign-based defendants. These jurisdictional “gateways” identify a broad range of factual situations within which courts may decide to entertain claims against defendants outside England. However, the existing general framework for deciding service-out applications is increasingly vulnerable to attack. In particular, the greater prominence of the forum conveniens doctrine, but also problems arising from the gateways’ operation, combine to cast doubt on their continued role (and relevance) in service-out cases. Against this backdrop, the article assesses the case for abandoning the gateway precondition. It is argued that rather than jettisoning the gateways, future revision of the law in this area should aim to minimise ambiguities concerning the gateways’ scope and also ensure that they include only instances which connote meaningful connection between the dispute and England.

Liang Zhao, Party autonomy in choice of court and jurisdiction over foreign-related commercial and maritime disputes in China

Chinese civil procedure law provides the choice of foreign courts through jurisdiction agreements in foreign-related commercial and maritime disputes. In Chinese judicial practice, foreign jurisdiction agreements may be held null and void because of the lack of actual connection between the agreed foreign jurisdictions and the foreign-related disputes. Chinese courts may, therefore, have jurisdiction when China has actual connection with the dispute, in particular when Chinese parties are involved in disputes. However, the actual connection requirement does not apply to Chinese maritime jurisdiction when China has no actual relation with the maritime disputes. Chinese courts also have maritime jurisdiction in other special ways although foreign courts are designated in contract. Conflict of jurisdiction over foreign-related disputes is thus caused. This article analyses how party autonomy is limited by Chinese civil procedure law and how Chinese court exercise jurisdiction when Chinese courts are not chosen by parties. This article argues that the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements should be adopted to replace the actual connection requirement under the Chinese civil procedure law and Chinese courts should respect party autonomy in respect of the choice of foreign court. It is also suggested that Chinese courts shall apply forum non conveniensto smooth the conflict of jurisdiction between Chinese courts and foreign courts.

Maisie Ooi, Rethinking the characterisation of issues relating to securities

This article contends that there is a pressing need to rethink the characterisation of issues relating to securities, both complex and plain vanilla. It will demonstrate that the less than coherent choice-of-law process that exists for securities today is a consequence of courts utilising characterisation categories and rules that had not been designed with securities in mind and applying them in disregard of the new dimensions that securities and their transactions bring to characterisation. These have resulted in rules that do not provide certainty and predictability to participants in the securities and financial markets.
The thesis that this article seeks to make is that a new characterisation category is required that is specific to securities which will encompass both directly held and intermediated securities (possibly also crypto-securities), and address issues of property, contract and corporations together. This will have its own choice-of-law rules which will be manifestations of the lex creationis, the law that created the relevant res or thing that is the subject-matter of the dispute. The convergence of issues traditionally dealt with by separate categories and rules will simplify and make for more coherent choice-of-law for securities.

Chukwuma Samuel Adesina Okoli & Emma Roberts, The operation of Article 4 of Rome II Regulation in English and Irish courts

This article makes a critical assessment of the operation of Article 4 of Rome II in English and Irish courts measuring the extent to which judges of England and Wales (hereafter England) and Ireland are interpreting Article 4 of Rome II in accordance with what the EU legislator intended.

Onyoja Momoh, The interpretation and application of Article 13(1) b) of the Hague Child Abduction Convention in cases involving domestic violence: Revisiting X v Latvia and the principle of “effective examination”

A key interpretation and application issue in the scheme of Article 13(1) b) of the Hague Child Abduction Convention is whether judges should investigate first the merits of the defence before considering whether protective measures are adequate or whether they should first consider the adequacy of protective measures. There is no generally accepted international practice nor is there clear authority on the appropriate or preferred approach. This article argues that judges should always undertake an effective examination of the allegations of domestic violence first before considering whether, if there is merit to the allegations and they are substantiated, adequate protective measures can sufficiently ameliorate the grave risk of harm.

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

H. Schack: The new Hague Judgment Convention

This contribution presents the new Hague Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil or commercial matters adopted on 2 July 2019 by the Hague Conference on Private International Law. This Convention simple with a positive list of accepted bases for recognition and enforcement supplements the 2005 Hague Convention on choice of court agreements. The benefit of the 2019 Convention, however, is marginal, as its scope of application is in many ways limited. In addition, it permits declarations like the “bilatéralisation” in Art. 29 further reducing the Convention to a mere model for bilateral treaties. If at all, the EU should ratify the 2019 Convention only after the US have done so.

F. Eichel: The Role of a Foreign Intervener in Establishing a Cross-Border Case as a Requirement for the Application of European Legislation on Civil Procedure

The Small-Claims Regulation (No. 861/2007) is only applicable in crossborder cases. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) in its judgment in ZSE Energia has decided that the foreign seat of an intervener does not turn an otherwise purely domestic case into a cross-border case. The IPRax article agrees with this decision, but criticizes the reasons given by the ECJ. Without specific need, the ECJ stated that the participation of an intervener would be inconsistent with the Small-Claims Regulation at all, although general procedural issues are governed by the procedural law of the lex fori (cf. article 19 Small-Claims Regulation). In addition, the article analyses the impact of the ECJ’s ruling on other European legal acts such as the European Order for Payment Regulation (No. 1896/2006), the European Account Preservation Order Regulation (No. 655/2014), the Directive on the right to legal aid (RL 2002/8/EC), and the Mediation Directive (RL 2008/52/EC).

C.A. Kern/C. Uhlmann: When is a court deemed to be seised under the Brussels Ia Regulation? Requirements to be met by the claimant and pre-action correspondence

In the aftermath of the VW-Porsche takeover battle, an investor based on the Cayman Islands announced to sue Porsche SE in the High Court of England and Wales. Probably in an attempt to secure a German forum, Porsche initiated a negative declaratory action in the Landgericht Stuttgart. However, the complaint could not be served on the investor for lack of a correct address. The German Federal Supreme Court held that Porsche had not met the requirements of Art. 32 no. 1 lit. a of the recast Brussels I Regulation and asked the lower court to determine whether the „letter before claim“ sent by the investor had already initiated proceedings in England so that parallel proceedings in Germany were barred. The authors agree that Art. 32 no. 1 must be interpreted strictly, but doubt that a „letter before claim“ is sufficient to vest English courts with priority under the Brussels Regulation.

C. Thomale: Treating apartment-owner associations at Private International Law

In its recent Brian Andrew Kerr ./. Pavlo Postnov and Natalia Postnova decision, the CJEU has taken a position on how to handle apartment owners’ obligations to contribute to their association in terms of international jurisdiction and choice of law. The casenote analyses the decision, notably assessing the relationship of international jurisdiction and choice of law, the concept of “services” as contained in the Brussels I Regulation and the Rome I Regulation respectively, as well as the company law exception according to Art. 1 (2) (f) Rome I Regulation.

H. Roth: The Probative Value of Certificates as per Art 54 Brussels I and Art 53 Brussels Ia

According to the European rules on recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, the probative value of both certificates is determined as mere information provided by the court of origin. At the second step of assessing whether there are grounds to refuse recognition (appeal or refusal of enforcement), the court of the member state in which enforcement is sought will have to verify itself the factual and legal requirements for service of process.

M. Brosch: Public Policy and Conflict of Laws in the Area of International Family and Succession Law

The public policy-clause is rarely applied in private international law cases. Relevant case law often concerns matters of international family and succession law. This also applies to two recent decisions of the Court of Appeal in Berlin and the Austrian Supreme Court relating, respectively, to the recognition of a Lebanese judgement on the validity of a religious marriage and the applicability of Iranian succession law. Although systemically coherent, the courts’ findings give rise to several open questions. Furthermore, it is argued that two opposite tendencies can be identified: On the one hand, the synchronisation between forum and ius as well as the prevalence of the habitual residence as connecting factor in EU-PIL leave little room for the application of the public policy-clause. On the other hand, its application may be triggered in areas where the nationality principle still prevails, i.e. in non-harmonised national PIL and PIL rules in bilateral treaties.

E.M. Kieninger: Vedanta v Lungowe: A milestone for human rights litigation in English courts against domestic parent companies and their foreign subsidiary

In Vedanta v Lungowe, a case involving serious health and environmental damage due to emissions into local rivers from a copper mine in Sambia, the UK Supreme Court has affirmed the jurisdiction of the English courts, in relation to both the English parent company and the subsidiary in Sambia. In the view of the Supreme Court, the claim against the parent company has a real issue to be tried and denying access to the English courts would equal a denial of substantive justice. The decision is likely to have consequences not only for the appeal against the Court of Appeal’s denial of access to the English courts in Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell, but also for the development of a more general duty of care of parent companies towards employees and people living in the vicinity of mines or industrial plants run by subsidiaries.

B. Lurger: How to Determine Foreign Legal Rules in Accelerated Proceedings in Austrian Courts

In a rather lengthy proceeding initiated in 2014 in the district court Vienna Döbling the wife claimed maintenance from her husband. The Austrian Supreme Court (OGH) examined the special conditions of the application of foreign law in accelerated proceedings (motion for injunctive relief). The Court first clarified the construction of Art. 5 Hague Maintenance Protocol in relation to a pending divorce proceeding in which Austrian law applied, whereas the habitual residence of the claimant was situated in the United Kingdom. The OGH held that in accelerated proceedings, the question of whether foreign law had to be applied (the choice of law question) can regularly be answered without considerable effort. As the next step, the determination of the content of the foreign law must be undertaken by the lower courts with reasonable means and effort. As in ordinary proceedings, the parties do not have any particular duties to assist the court in this determination. Considering the special circumstances of the case, which consisted in the considerable wealth of the parties and the divorce and maintenance proceedings going up and down the instances in Vienna already for years, the Supreme Court arrived at the conclusion that the application of English law by the Austrian courts was appropriate even in the accelerated proceeding at hand.

The XXV Annual Conference of the Italian Society of International and EU Law (ISIL) on Shared Values and Commons in the International and Supranational Dimension will be hosted at the University of Salento on 18-19 June 2020. The Conference will consist of three sessions on the following topics:

-The respect and promotion of the democratic values and of the rule of law in the international and European legal orders;

-The mandatory principle of environmental conservation, with special emphasis on sustainability;

-The threats to human rights due to the increasing role played by new technologies in contemporary societies.

Papers are accepted for presentation in Italian, English or French. Abstracts (250 words max) and a short bio may be submitted to SIDI2020@unisalento.it by 25 January 2020. The selection process will be completed by the end of February 2020.

More information on this call for papers is available here.

Saloni Khanderia & David Stewart published recently on the Hague Judgments Convention in the following reviews:

• Saloni Khanderia, 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 (Vol. 63, Issue 3/2019)
• David Stewart, 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 (Vol. 113, Issue 4/2019)

In C‑212/18 Prato Nevoso Termo Energy the CJEU held on the not always straightforward concurrent application of the Waste Framework Directive (WFD) 98/2008 and the various Directives encouraging the uptake of renewable energy. It referred i.a. to the circular economy and to precaution.

On the face of it the economic and environmental benefits of the case may seem straightforward. Prato Nevoso operates a power plant for the production of thermal energy and electricity. It applied for authorisation to replace methane as the power source for its plant with a bioliquid, in this case a vegetable oil produced by ALSO Srl, derived from the collection and chemical treatment of used cooking oils, residues from the refining of vegetable oils and residues from the washing of the tanks in which those oils were stored. ALSO has a permit to market that oil as an ‘end-of-waste’ product within the meaning of relevant Italian law , for use in connection with the production of biodiesel, on condition that it has the physico-chemical characteristics indicated in that permit and that the commercial documents indicate ‘produced from recovered waste for use in biodiesel production’.

Prato Nevoso was refused the requested authorisation on the ground that the vegetable oil was not included in a relevant Italian list, which sets out the categories of biomass fuels that can be used in an installation producing atmospheric emissions without having to comply with the rules on the energy recovery of waste. The only vegetable oils in those categories are those from dedicated crops or produced by means of exclusively mechanical processes.

The argument subsequently brought was that the refusal violates Article 6 WFD’s rules on end-of-waste, and Article 13 of the RES Directive 2009/28. That Article essentially obliges the Member States to design administrative procedures in such a way as to support the roll-out of renewable energy.

The CJEU first of all refers to its finding in Tallina Vesi that Article 6(4) of Directive 2008/98 does not, in principle, allow a waste holder to demand the recognition of end-of-waste (EOW) status by the competent authority of the Member State or by a court of that Member State. MSs have a lot of flexibility in administering EOW in the absence of European standards. That the use of a substance derived from waste as a fuel in a plant producing atmospheric emissions is subject to the national legislation on energy recovery from waste, is therefore entirely possible (at 39). A13 of the RES Directive has no impact on that reality: that Article does not concern the regulatory procedures for the adoption of end-of-waste status criteria.

Nevertheless, the MS’ implementation of the RES Directives must not endanger the attainment of the WFD, including encouragement of the circular economy etc. and likewise, the WFD’s waste hierarchy has an impact on the RES’ objectives. A manifest error of assessment in relation to the non-compliance with the conditions set out in Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/98 could be found to be a MS violation of the Directive.

At 43: ‘It is necessary, in this case, to examine whether the Member State could, without making such an error, consider that it has not been demonstrated that the use of the vegetable oil at issue in the main proceedings, in such circumstances, allows the conclusion that the conditions laid down in that provision are met and, in particular, that that use is devoid of any possible adverse impact on the environment and human health.’ At 44:  ‘It is for the national court, which alone has jurisdiction to establish and assess the facts, to determine whether that is the case in the main proceedings and, in particular, to verify that the non-inclusion of those vegetable oils in the list of authorised fuels results from a justified application of the precautionary principle.’

At 45 ff the CJEU does give a number of indications to the national judge, suggesting that no such infringement of the precautionary principle has occurred (including the reality that specific treatment and specific uses envisaged of the waste streams, has an impact on their environmental and public health safety). At 57: It must be considered that the existence of a certain degree of scientific uncertainty regarding the environmental risks associated with a substance — such as the oils at issue in the main proceedings — ceasing to have waste status, may lead a Member State, taking into account the precautionary principle, to decide not to include that substance on the list of authorised fuels’.

An important judgment.

Geert.

Handbook of EU Waste law, 2nd ed. 2015, OUP, 1.166 ff and 1.189 ff.

Written by Jack Wass, Stout Street Chambers, New Zealand

On 5 December 2019, the New Zealand Court of Appeal released a significant decision on jurisdiction over land in cross-border cases.

In Christie v Foster [2019] NZCA 623, the Court overturned the High Court’s decision that the Moçambique rule (named after British South Africa Co v Companhia de Moçambique [1893] AC 602) required that a dispute over New Zealand land be heard in New Zealand (for a case note on the High Court’s decision, see here). The plaintiff sought to reverse her late mother’s decision to sever their joint tenancy, the effect of which was to deprive the plaintiff of the right to inherit her mother’s share by survivorship. The Court found that the in personam exception to the Moçambique rule applied, since the crux of the plaintiff’s claim was a complaint of undue influence against her sister (for procuring their mother to sever the tenancy), and because any claim in rem arising out of the severance was precluded by New Zealand’s rules on indefensibility of title. As a consequence the Court declined jurisdiction and referred the whole case to Ireland, which was otherwise the appropriate forum.

In the course of its decision, the Court resolved a number of important points of law, some of which had not been addressed in any Commonwealth decisions:

First, it resolved a dispute that had arisen between High Court authorities about the scope of the in personam exception, resolving it in favour of a broad interpretation. In particular, the Court disagreed with High Court authority (Burt v Yiannakis [2015] NZHC 1174) that suggested an institutional constructive trust claim was in rem and thus outside the exception.

Second, it held (reversing the High Court) that the Moçambique rule does not have reflexive effect. The rule prevents the New Zealand court from taking jurisdiction over claims in rem involving foreign land out of comity to the foreign court, but does not require the New Zealand court to take jurisdiction over cases involving New Zealand land. Although New Zealand will often be the appropriate forum for a case involving New Zealand land, the court is free to send it overseas if the circumstances require, even if the claim asserts legal title in rem.

Third, the Court confirmed that there is a second exception to the Moçambique rule – where the claim arises incidentally in the administration of an estate. Dicey, Morris and Collins had suggested the existence of this exception for many editions, but it had to be inferred from earlier cases without being properly articulated. The Court expressly found such an exception to exist and that it would have applied in this case.

In the course of its analysis, the Court expressed sympathy for the arguments in favour of abolishing the Moçambique rule entirely. Although the Court did not go that far, it reinforced a trend of the courts restricting the application of the rule and suggested that in the right case, the courts might be prepared to abandon it entirely.

In A v OOO “Insurance Company Chubb” [2019] EWHC 2729 (Comm), Carr J refused an ex parte application for interim relief seeking (i.a.) anti-suit and discontinuation of Russian proceedings, pro agreed arbitration in London. Defendants are domiciled at Russia, France and Switserland. At 33 ff Carr J lists five reasons for refusal, despite as readers will know the English courts’ general willingness to assist arbitration. Three of her reasons jump out: the lack of full and frank disclosure (ia relating to contractual provisions); the lack of immediate urgency requiring ex parte application; and some of the measures sought being more than just interim measures (assessment of that nature required evidence by a Russian law expert on the further continuation, if any, of Russian proceedings following anti-suit).

A good reminder that these applications are neither straightforward nor should be taken for granted.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.1.

On 12 and 13 December 2019, the University of Ljubljana (Slovenia) is the destination of many experts and academics of different national and professional backgrounds who will join in the discussion about various legal aspects of the family property in cross-border situations in EU. The event titled “Best Practices in European Family and Succession Law” is the second public event within the Justice co-funded project PSEFS which stands for “Personalised Solution in Family and Succession Law”. Here is the programme of the event.

The news from the project and more are available at the PSEFS web page.

[2019] EWHC 3196 (Ch) Kinsella et al v Emasan et al is not quite as extensive an analysis on choice of court as Etihad Airways v Prof Dr Lucas Flöther which I review here.  Nevertheless the required ‘good arguable case’ standard is again responsible for the extensive discussion of the issue.

Issues are similar as under A25 BIa – in the case at issue it is the Lugano Convention (Article 23) that is engaged. Teverson M’s analysis is very much a factual, contractual one: the basis of Emasan’s (defendant, domiciled at Switzerland) jurisdiction challenge is that: it is domiciled in Switzerland; an alleged 2002 Agreement was an oral agreement which was not subject to any jurisdiction agreement; that alleged 2002 Agreement was not varied by 2006 and 2007 Deeds in such a way as to bring claims for breaches of its alleged terms within the ambit of the jurisdiction clauses contained in those later Deeds, but was superseded by them; there is no other basis upon which the jurisdiction of the English Courts is established in relation to claims based on the 2002 Agreement.

Whether choice of court was made for the 2002 agreement depended on whether A23 Lugano’s conditions were fulfilled that the agreement be made in writing or evidenced in writing; or in a form which accords with practices which the parties have established between themselves (the lex mercatoria gateway was not relevant at issue).

Every one of the written agreements made to give effect to claimant’s entitlement under the original, oral 2002 Agreement included a jurisdiction clause recognising the jurisdiction of the English Courts. A great deal of emphasis was placed on witness statements. At 101 Master Teverson holds that the agreement on jurisdiction under the 2002 agreement can properly in the circumstances of this case be regarded as evidenced by the jurisdiction clauses in the 2006 and 2007 Deeds.

Geert.

(Handbook of) European Private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Ch.2, Heading 2.2.9

We are happy to officially announce that the European Association of Private International Law (EAPIL) has recently been founded!

An independent and non-partisan organization registered as a non-profit association under the laws of Luxembourg, EAPIL aims to promote the study and development of private international law by fostering the cooperation of academics and practitioners  as well as the exchange of information on the sources of the discipline, its scholarship and practice.

To learn more about EAPIL – and to become a member – please check out the Association’s website.

To learn about the EAPIL founding conference, to be held at the University of Aarhus (Denmark) in May 2020, please visit the official conference website.

The CJEU on Thursday last week largely confirmed Saugmansdgaard ØE’s Opinion which I reviewed here, in C-421/18 Dinant Bar v maître JN, however with different emphasis than the AG. The Court insists that in accordance with Belgian law, registration with the bar association constitutes a legal obligation to which practising as a professional lawyer is subject, and that individuals wishing to practise that profession must be a member of a bar association and must comply with decisions taken by that association, notably as regards the payment of fees.

Disputes concerning those fees then are not civil and commercial and therefore not covered by Brussels I a, unless,

‘in so far as those fees constitute consideration for services freely consented to, including insurance services, which that bar association may have negotiated with a third party with a view to obtaining more advantageous terms for its lawyer members, the obligation to pay those fees would be of a contractual nature and, therefore, an action initiated with a view to ensuring that that obligation is performed would come within the scope of Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation No 1215/2012. It is for the referring court to ascertain whether that is the case in the dispute in the main proceedings’.

The AG had emphasised the factual circumstances of the case, in which the Bar had lowered the fees for maître JN to the very insurance premium only. In most cases of course Bar fees disputes probably will be about more than that and the Court’s approach may lead to split (non)applicability of Brussels Ia, in which payments for services freely consented to will have to be distinguished from those due in return for public service obligations. (Bar councils may wish to split these sums in their yearly invoice).

Geert.

Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.2.2