Flux des sites DIP

Two conferences on private international law have been announced for Brazil. From March 13-16, the University of Brasilia will organize a conference on the topic of “Challenges to Private International Law in contemporary society” (Program here.) Prior to that, I will teach a graduate mini-course on comparative law and private international law on March 11-13. Sign-up information for both is on the linked sites.

And then, on March 15-17, the 3rd international law conference RIBAMAR at the Universidade Estadual do Maranhão will discuss “Emerging Topics in Private International Law.” The program is here, instructions for signing up here.

Exciting to see that the energy is sustained n Brazil, after the JPIL conference in 2017 in Rio de Janeiro.

Case C‑149/18 Martins v Dekra Claims gave the Court of Justice an opportunity (it held end of January) essentially to confirm its Unamar case-law, specifically with respect to limitation periods.

The Portuguese claimant’s vehicle was damaged in an accident in Spain in August 2015. He issued proceedings in Portugal in November 2016 to recover his uninsured losses. Under Portuguese law, the lex fori, the limitation period is 3 years. Under Spanish law, the lex causae per Rome II, limitation is fixed at 1 year.

The Court first of all re-emphasises the importance of co-ordinated interpretation of Rome I and II, here with respect to the terminology of the two Regulations which in the French version in particular differs with respect to the use of the term ‘lois de police’ (Article 9 Rome I) and ‘dispositions impératives dérogatoires’  (Article 16 Rome II). The lois de police of Rome I (albeit with respect to the Rome Convention 1980) had already been interpreted in Unamar, leading to the first of the two conditions discussed below.

The Court effectively held there is little limit content-wise to the possibility for courts to invoke the lois de police /overriding mandatory law provision of Article 9 Rome II. Despite Article 15 Rome II verbatim mentioning limitation periods as being covered by the lex causae (but see the confusion on that reported in my post on Kik this week), limitation periods foreseen in the lex fori may be given priority.

This is subject to two conditions:

firstly, the national court cannot interpret any odd lex fori provision as being covered by the lois de police exception: here the Court re-emphasises the Rome I /II parallel by making the Unamar test apply to Rome II: at 31: ‘the referring court must find, on the basis of a detailed analysis of the wording, general scheme, objectives and the context in which that provision was adopted, that it is of such importance in the national legal order that it justifies a departure from the applicable law.’ Here, the fact that limitation periods are mentioned in so many words in Article 15, comes into play: at 34: given that express reference, the application of the overriding mandatory law exception ‘would require the identification of particularly important reasons, such as a manifest infringement of the right to an effective remedy and to effective judicial protection arising from the application of the law designated as applicable pursuant to Article 4 of the Rome II Regulation.’

secondly, and of course redundantly but worth re-emphasising: the rule at issue must not have been harmonised by secondary EU law. As Alistair Kinley points out, the Motor Insurance Directive (MID) 2009/103 is currently being amended and a limitation period of minimum 4 years is being suggested – subject even to gold plating. That latter prospect of course opens up all sorts of interesting discussions particularly viz Article 3(4) Rome I.

Geert.

(Handbook of) European Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 3, Heading 3.2.8, Heading 3.2.8.3.

The meaning of submission was the central question, though by no means the only one, in the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Barer v Knight Brothers LLC, 2019 SCC 13 (available here).  Knight sought enforcement of a Utah default judgment against Barer in Quebec.  The issue was governed by Quebec’s law on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, which is set out in various provisions of the Civil Code of Quebec (so much statutory interpretation analysis ensued).  Aspects of the decision may be of interest to those in other countries that have similar provisions in their own codes.

The court held that the Utah decision was enforceable in Quebec.  Seven judges (Gascon J writing the majority decision) held that Barer had submitted to the Utah court’s jurisdiction.  Two judges held that he had not.  One of them (Brown J) held that the Utah court had jurisdiction on another basis, and so concurred in the result, while the other (Cote J) held it did not, and so dissented.

The majority held that in his efforts to challenge the Utah’s court’s jurisdiction, Barer had presented substantive arguments going to the merits of the dispute (para 6).  It analysed various possible steps in a foreign proceeding that either would or would not constitute submission (paras 59-63).  It was invited by Barer to consider the “save your skin” approach to submission, which would recognize that a defendant who both challenged jurisdiction and raised substantive arguments would not be taken to have submitted.  It rejected that approach (para 68).  Its core concern was to protect “the plaintiff’s legitimate interest in knowing at some point in the proceedings, whether or not the defendant has submitted to the jurisdiction” (para 62).  It added that “plaintiffs who invest time and resources in judicial proceedings in a jurisdiction are entitled to some certainty regarding whether or not the defendants have submitted to the court’s jurisdiction” (para 67).

The majority acknowledged that in a case in which the process of the foreign forum required the raising of a substantive argument alongside a jurisdictional challenge, this could affect the determination of whether the defendant had submitted (para 75).  But this was not such a case: the defendant had not established, as a factual matter, that this was such a feature of the Utah procedure (paras 75 and 78).  Accordingly, the fact that Barer had raised a defence on the merits – that a pure economic loss rule barred the claim against him – amounted to submission (para 71).

In dissent, Justice Cote finds the majority’s test for submission to be “too strict” (para 212).  She urged a “more flexible approach” which would allow a defendant to raise substantive arguments alongside a jurisdictional challenge (para 213).  In her view, if “a broad range of arguments may convince a Utah court that it lacks jurisdiction over a matter … A defendant must be allowed to present those arguments” (para 219).  While Gascon J put the onus of showing that the Utah process required raising substantive arguments at a particular time on the defendant, Cote J put that onus on the plaintiff, the party seeking to enforce the foreign judgment (para 223).

Brown J’s concurring decision did not comment at any length on the test for submission.  He held that “I agree with my colleague Cote J. that Mr. Barer has not submitted to the jurisdiction of the Utah court merely by presenting one argument pertaining to the merits of the action in his Motion to Dismiss” (para 146; emphasis in original).  This is consistent with Cote J’s approach to the meaning of submission.

There is a further interesting dimension to the reasons.  Cote J held, in the alternative, that even if Barer had submitted, the plaintiff also had to show a real and substantial connection between the dispute and Utah before the judgment could be enforced (para 234).  This engaged her in a complex argument about the scheme and wording of the Civil Code.  Having identified this additional legal requirement, she held this was a case in which the submission itself (if established) was not a sufficiently strong connection to Utah and so the decision should nonetheless not be enforced (para 268).  In contrast, Brown J held that there was no separate requirement to show such a connection to Utah (paras 135 and 141-42).  Showing the submission was all that was required.  The majority refused to resolve this interpretive dispute (para 88), holding only that on the facts of this case Barer’s submission “clearly establishes a substantial connection between the dispute and the Utah court” (para 88).

The judges disagreed about several other aspects of the case.  Put briefly and at the risk of oversimplification, Brown J relied primarily on the notion that all parties and aspects of the dispute should have been before the Utah court.  Barer was sufficiently connected with various aspects of the dispute, over which Utah clearly did have jurisdiction, that its jurisdiction over him was proper (see paras 99, 154 and 161-62).  Neither Cote J nor Gascon J agreed with that approach.  There are also disputes about what types of evidence are proper for establishing the requirements for recognition and enforcement and what law applies to various aspects of the analysis.

In a small tangent, the majority decision criticized the “presumption of similarity” doctrine for cases in which the content of foreign law is not properly proven and it offered a more modern explanation of why forum law is applied in such cases (para 76).

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

H.-P. Mansel/K. Thorn/R. Wagner: European conflict of laws 2018: Final Spurt!

This article provides an overview of developments in Brussels in the field of judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters from January 2018 until December 2018. It provides an overview of newly adopted legal instruments and summarizes current projects that are presently making their way through the EU legislative process. It also refers to the laws enacted at the national level in Germany as a result of new European instruments. Furthermore, the authors look at areas of law where the EU has made use of its external competence. They discuss both important decisions and pending cases before the CJEU as well as important decisions from German courts pertaining to the subject matter of the article. In addition, the article treats current projects and the latest developments at the Hague Conference of Private International Law.

C. Kohler: Lis pendens of a complaint seeking to join a civil claim for damages to criminal proceedings before the investigating magistrate

Case C-523/14 raised the issue whether a complaint seeking to join a civil claim for damages to criminal proceedings before the investigating magistrate is lis pendens in respect of subsequent proceedings brought in another Member State involving the same cause of action. The ECJ held at the outset that such a complaint falls within the scope of Regulation No 44/2001 in so far as its object is to obtain monetary compensation for harm allegedly suffered by the complainant. On the point of lis pendens the ECJ ruled that under Art. 27(1) of the Regulation proceedings are brought when the complaint seeking to join the civil action has been lodged with an investigating magistrate, even though the judicial investigation of the case at issue has not yet been closed. The Court further held that according to Article 30 of the Regulation, where the complaint seeking to join a civil action is initiated by lodging a document which need not, under the applicable national law, be served before that lodging, the relevant time for holding the investigating magistrate to be seised is the time when the complaint was lodged. The author approves the ECJ’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of Regulation No 44/2001. However, he considers that the rule which gives jurisdiction to the court seised of criminal proceedings to rule on a civil claim for damages deserves criticism. That rule is an alien element within the Brussels-Lugano system which favours the plaintiff whereas the defendant may be sued in exorbitant jurisdictions and cannot oppose the recognition and enforcement of the civil judgment given by the criminal court.

S. Kurth: Determining the habitual residence of a testator who alternately lived in two states

The article critically analyses the decision of the German Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Hamm (reference number: 10 W 35/17) on the interpretation and application of the habitual residence concept to establish jurisdiction under Art. 4 (EU) Regulation No 650/2012. The Court relies on the concept to determine the habitual residence of a German testator who for several decades spent extended periods of time on the Spanish Costa Brava and in the German backcountry. The author argues for an autonomous interpretation of the Regulation and expresses regret over the approach taken by which the “habitual residence of the deceased” as the connecting factor under the Regulation is construed in line with national law. Moreover, the article examines the two definitions of habitual residence used by the Court and demonstrates that on closer scrutiny none of them is persuasive in light of the established canons of interpretation. The author argues to instead define the habitual residence of the deceased as the place where he is primarily integrated as well as regularly and consistently spends time. Further, the article criticises the Court’s findings on circumstantial evidence and, among others, demonstrates the importance of the deceased’s re-lationships with family and friends as pieces of circumstantial evidence neglected by the Court.

D. Coester-Waltjen: Marriages of Minors – Against the Legislative Furore

The German law against “child marriages” of 2017 was the subject matter of some recent court decisions. The German Supreme Court doubts in its decision the constitutionality of the “Law against Child Marriages” regarding the invalidation of marriages validly formed under the applicable foreign law, but void under the new German law in case one of the spouses was below the age of fourteen at the time of formation. The other cases concerned marriages each validly formed under the applicable law by two EU citizens in their respective home country. Since the bride in both cases was only 16, respectively 17 years old, the new German law obliges the German courts to invalidate these marriages, unless under extraordinary circumstances such invalidation would cause extreme hardship to the still minor spouse (or the spouse has reached majority and wants to stay in the marriage). Only in those cases, by way of exception, no invalidation should take place. Despite the pitfalls of the new law the courts succeed in reaching a sensible and adequate result. This article analyses how the courts struggle with the interpretation of the relevant provisions. Emphasis is placed on the European dimension of the topic as well as on the constitutional aspects in the relevant situations.

C. Benicke: The need for Adaptation (Anpassung) to cure deficiencies in the protection of the child’s financial interests caused by the parallel application of German inheritance law and English child custody law

The decision of the Munich Higher Regional Court raises the question of the extent of the father’s power of representation for his minor son under English law when he sells the interest in a German partnership which the son has inherited under German law. The parallel application of English law for the parental responsibility issues on the one hand and of German law as inheritance law for the acquisition of the partnership interest on the other hand leads to a legal gap in respect to the provisions aiming at the protection of the child’s financial interests. As German law regulates this issue in its child custody law through provisions limiting the extent of the parents’ powers to act as legal representatives, and English law protects the child’s interests in its inheritance law through provisions about the administration of the estate, neither of these provisions are invoked by the relevant choice of law rules. This raises the question of adaptation (Anpassung) as an instrument of private international law to avoid outcomes that are inconsistent with both legal orders at stake.

L. Rademacher: Multilocal Torts, Favor Laesi, and Renvoi

In the case of a multilocal tort, the defendant commits the tortious act in a state different from the state in which the claimant suffers the resulting injury. In such a scenario, identifying the applicable law can prove difficult. Under Art. 4 para. 1 Rome II Regulation, the defendant’s liability is determined by the law of the state in which the claimant was injured. By contrast, Art. 40 para. 1 sent. 1 EGBGB (Introductory Act to the German Civil Code) relies on the location of the defendant’s tortious act as the relevant connecting factor. The injured party, however, can demand the application of the law of the state where the injury was sustained according to Art. 40 para. 1 sent. 2 EGBGB. Since the codification of German international tort law in 1999, it has been in dispute whether in the case of a multilocal tort the references in Art. 40 para. 1 EGBGB encompass a foreign legal system’s conflict-of-laws rules or refer to foreign substantive law only. This case note, on the occasion of a decision of the Higher Regional Court of Hamm, critically evaluates the arguments for and against the acceptance of renvoi in this context. Contrary to the court, it argues in favour of a reference that includes foreign private international law. It is submitted that only this view can be reconciled with the general rule on renvoi laid down in Art. 4 EGBGB and with the absence of a strict notion of favor laesi in Art. 40 para. 1 EGBGB.

P. Hay: Foreign Law as Fact in American Litigation – Foreign Government’s Interpretation of Its Own Law is Not Conclusive

The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed unanimously that foreign law is to be treated as fact, not law, in federal civil litigation. In determining the content and in interpreting foreign law, the lower court may consider all relevant materials. The interpretation of the foreign government of its own law is to be received with respect under principles of comity, but it is not conclusive. The Court reversed and remanded an appellate court’s decision that had concluded that courts were “bound to defer” to the “reasonable” interpretation of the Chinese government of its own law. The Supreme Court ruled that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1 does not go this far, but continues to embody the traditional American fact-orientation with regard to foreign country law.

M. Stürner/A. Hemler: Recognition of a French astreinte in California

The French astreinte is a private penalty payable to the creditor designed to bend the debtor’s will. In the case discussed, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit examines the enforceability of a French judgement condemning Californian editor Wofsy to pay an astreinte in favour of French publisher de Fontbrune. First, the Court of Appeals considers the determination of foreign law in accordance with Rule 44.1 FRCP, which permits the decision on foreign law using “any relevant material or source”, thus classifying it as “question of law”. Given this explicit departure from the question of fact doctrine, the Court of Appeals holds that the ascertaining of foreign law is permitted outside the pleading stage as well. Since foreign penal judgements are not enforceable under Californian law, the Panel also examines whether the astreinte is punitive in nature. In view of its characterisation as predominantly inter partes and its connection to the fulfilment of the debtor’s obligation, the Court of Appeals concludes that the enforcement of the astreinte in question cannot be denied.

With the accession of Guyana, the HCCH Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“Child Abduction Convention”) has reached the milestone of 100 Contracting Parties.

For acceding States, it is important to bear in mind that a bilateralisation regime applies. Under Article 38(4) of the Child Abduction Convention, an accession “will have effect only as regards the relations between the acceding State and such Contracting States as will have declared their acceptance of the accession. Such a declaration will also have to be made by any Member State ratifying, accepting or approving the Convention after an accession [see Art. 37 of the Convention]. Such declaration shall be deposited at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands; this Ministry shall forward, through diplomatic channels, a certified copy to each of the Contracting States.”

It is therefore of great importance that ratifying States and previous acceding States accept the accession of new States.

A useful excel sheet of the acceptances of accessions under this Convention is available here.

The HCCH news item is available here.

The University of Genoa, together with the Universities of Antwerp and Ghent, Missing Children Europe, Child Focus, Centrum IKO and MIKK has launched a research study, co-financed by the European Commission, for the promotion of  child-friendly justice and the enhancement of the well-being of children in international child abductions cases – VOICE.

On 14 March (10.00 – 18.30) and 15 March (9.30 – 13.00) 2019, the VOICE team is organising an interactive seminar to report on some of the research results and provide a discussion among academics and practitioners.

The seminar will focus on the existing legal framework concerning international child abduction and on the hearing of the child from a practical and interdisciplinary point of view. The aim is to provide the tools necessary to evaluate and pursue the best interests of the child.

The programme is available here.

Registration is required at the following link: Registration training VOICE

The event includes a contribution of 25 euros, which can be paid locally or by bank transfer to the organizing body, as follows:

Bank:                    ING Belgium, Avenue Marnix, 24, 1000 Brussels – Belgium

Recipient:           Missing Children Europe

IBAN:                    BE43 310 165 832 401
BIC:                       BBRUBEBB

Following the signature of Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms on March 2, 2017, the Hellenic Republic proceeded yesterday to its ratification. Article 1 of Law 4569/2019 reproduces the English version of the Protocol, coupled with a Greek translation. Articles 2-4 regulate formal issues, such as the procedure for submitting a request for advisory opinion (Article 1), the necessary content of the request and the latter’s notification to the parties (Article 3), and issues concerning the stay and reopening of national  proceedings (Article 4).

Jonas Poell, Julianne Hughes-Jennett, Peter Hood and Lucja Nowak reported and succinctly reviewed Case No. 7 O 95/15 Jabir and Others v Kik early January – the ‘next week’ promise in my Tweet below turned out a little longer.

Survivors of a fire in a Pakistani textile supplying factory are suing Germany-based KIK as the “main retailer” of the merchandise produced in the Pakistani premises. Jurisdiction evidently is easily established on the basis of Article 4 Brussels Ia.

As Burkhard Hess and Martina Mantovani note here, claimants are attempting to have KIK held liable for not having promoted and undertaken, in practice, the implementation of “adequate safety  measures” in the Pakistani factory (producing clothes), thus breaching an engagement  they undertook in a Code of Conduct applicable to its relationship with its contractual  counterpart.

Prof Hess and Ms Mantovani’s paper ‘Current developments in forum access: Comments on jurisdiction and forum non conveniens European Perspectives on Human Rights Litigation’ incidentally is an excellent stock taking on the issues surrounding mass tort (human rights) litigation.

The Dortmund court held that the case is time-barred under Pakistani law which was the lex causae per Rome II, Regulation 864/2007. Now, I have not had access to the full ruling (lest the 3 page ruling linked above is precisely that – which I am assuming it is not), so a little caveat here, however the court’s discussion of limitation periods is startlingly brief. Article 15 Rome II includes ‘the manner in which an obligation may be extinguished and rules of prescription and limitation’ in the scope of application of the lex causae’. Yet as the development inter alia of relevant English statute shows (discussed ia by Andrew Dickinson in his Rome II book with OUP), there are a multitude of issues surrounding statutes of limitation. One of them being Article 1(3) Rome II’s confirmation that evidence and procedure is not within its scope, another Article 26’s ordre public exception which certainly may have a calling here.

I have reported before on the difficult relationship between A1 and A15 in Spring v MOD and in PJSC Tatneft v Bogolyubov.

The court at Dortmund also rejects the argument that parties’ settlement negotiations before the claims were filed amount to choice of (German) law per Article 14(1). That would have triggered the 3 year German limitation period as opposed to the 2 year Pakistani one. Dr Jungkamp, the chamber president, argues that parties did not have any reflection on the Pakistani (or indeed German) limitation period in mind when they corresponded on the ex gratia out of court settlement, hence excluding the intention (animus contrahendi) required to speak of choice of law. I would suggest that is a bit of a succinct analysis to conclude absence of choice of law. Parties need not be aware of all implications of such choice for it to be validly made.

Appeal is possible and, I would suggest, warranted.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 4, Heading 4.7, Heading 4.8, Chapter 8, Heading 8.3.

Dortmund court found that the claims are time-barred under Pakistani law, which was applicable to the case pursuant to the Rome II Regulation.
Quite a few Rome II issues here. I have a blog post focusing on the conflicts issues forthcoming next week. https://t.co/dkcKLvugoa

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) January 12, 2019

The last issue of the Revue critique de droit international privé has been released. It contains several casenotes and one article, authored by Professor Paul Lagarde (“La codification du droit international privé monégasque”).

The abstract reads as follows:

“The princedom of Monaco has just given itself a brand-new legislation, a more or less complete codification of its private international law. In doing so, it joins the trend that has developed, particularly in Europe, since the latter part of the twentieth century and for which the model (under all meanings of the term) was the Swiss Act of 18th December 1987”.

A full table of contents is available here.

The Hague Conference has posted its annual report 2018, in traditional pdf and even more traditional paper format. Much space is taken up by reminiscences of the 125th anniversary , including the publication of several speeches. Beyond that are reports of other events, as well as general information, some more useful (new ratifications and accessions in 2018), some perhaps less so (the number of followers on twitter).

The recognition of surnames determined abroad by virtue of a judgment or an administrative act has never attracted the attention of academics in Greece. The frequency of appearance concerning reported judgments is also scarce. In practice however, applications are filed regularly, mostly related with non EU-Member States. Until recently, recognition was granted by courts of law, save some minor exceptions, where the public order clause was invoked to deny recognition. A ruling of the Thessaloniki Court of Appeal from 2017 brings however an unexpected problem to surface.

I. The legal status in Greece

Name and surname issues are regulated by a decree published in 1957, as amended. For a person to change her/his name, there are certain requirements and an administrative procedure to be followed. The applicant has to prove the existence of a reason, such as psychological problems due to cacophonous sound of the surname, its pronunciation difficulty or hilarious meaning, its bad reputation or connotation, the lack of any contact with the applicant’s father, whose last name she/he uses, etc. In case of acceptance, the competent Mayor issues an act, granting the right of the petitioner to carry the new surname.  If the application is dismissed, the applicant may file a recourse before the General Secretary of the territorially competent Decentralized Administration unit. The Council of State, i.e. the highest administrative court in Greece, serves as the last resort for the applicant.

II. The treatment of foreign judgments / administrative acts

The above decree does not regulate the situation where a person of double nationality (one of which is of course Greek) requests the registration of a foreign judgment or administrative act, whereupon a change of surname has been determined. Being confronted with relevant petitions, the Greek administration sought the assistance of the Legal Council of State, i.e. an advisory body at the service of state authorities. By virtue of a legal opinion issued in 1991, the Legal Council stated that registration may not take place prior to court recognition of the foreign judgment, pursuant to standard procedures provided for by the Greek Code of Civil Procedure [= GCCP]. In this fashion, the ball was sent to the courts.

III. The practice of the courts

Until recently, Greek courts reacted in a rather formal and simplistic way: Reference to the applicable provisions of the GCCP, presentation of facts, brief scrutiny on the merits and the documents produced, and recognition was granted. There are two exceptions to the rule. The first one is a reported case from 1996 [Athens 1st Instance Court Nr. 4817/1996, published in: Hellenic Justice 1997, p. 452], where a court order by the Supreme Court of Queensland was denied recognition, because it was based on the applicant’s wish to give up his surname and acquire a new one, without any examination by the Australian court. The Greek court invoked the public policy clause, stating that the issue goes beyond private autonomy, and is differently regulated in Greece. The same outcome appeared 32 years later in the course of an application for the recognition of an act issued by the Civil Registry of Suchoj Log, Sverdlovsk Oblast: In a ruling from last year, the Thessaloniki 1st Instance Court refused recognition on public policy grounds, because the procedure followed in Russia contravened mandatory rules of Greek law on the change of surnames [Thessaloniki 1st Instance Court Nr. 8636/2018, unreported].

A different stance was however opted by the Piraeus Court of Appeal with respect to an act issued by the Mayor of Vienna: After quashing the first instance decision, which dismissed the application as legally unfounded, the appellate court stayed proceedings, requesting a legal opinion on the procedure followed for the change of surnames pursuant to Austrian law. Upon submission of the legal opinion, the court proceeded to a brief analysis, whose outcome was the recognition of the Austrian act. In particular, the court confirmed that the procedure followed was in accordance with Austrian law [Bundesgesetz vom 22. März 1988 über die Änderung von Familiennamen und Vornamen (Namensänderungsgesetz – NÄG)]. Hence, no public policy reservations were in place [Piraeus Court of Appeal Nr. 141/2017, unreported].

IV. The Game Changer

The complacency era though seems to be over: In a judgment of the Thessaloniki CoA issued end 2017, things are turning upside-down. The application for the recognition of a registration made by the Civil Registry of Predgorny, District of Stavropol, was denied recognition, this time not on public order grounds, but on lack of civil courts’ jurisdiction. The court stated that the recognition of a foreign administrative act may not be examined by a civil court, if the subject matter at stake (change of surname) is considered to be an administrative matter according to domestic law. Bearing in mind that the change of surname is a genuinely administrative procedure in Greece (see under I), civil courts have no jurisdiction to try such an application.

V. Repercussions and the way ahead

What would be the consequences of this ruling in regards to the overall landscape?

First of all, there could be a sheer confusion in practice: If the administration demands court recognition, and courts decline their jurisdiction, stagnation is at the gates. A ping pong game will start between them, and the ball will be the poor applicant, trapped in the middle. Needless to say, there is no other judicial path for recognition. The Code of Administrative Procedure does not contain any provisions on the matter.

Secondly, is it to be expected that the same stance will prevail with respect to judgments or administrative acts coming from EU Member States? A spillover effect is not to be excluded. Courts seem to be encapsulated in their national niche. It is remarkable that no reference is made to the case law of the CJEU, even in the case regarding the Austrian Mayor’s act.

Therefore, an intervention by the legislator is urgently needed, otherwise we’re heading for stormy weather.

The Swiss Institute of Comparative Law has just published the proceedings from its 30th Private International Law Day, which focused on digital platforms and their implications for the conflict of laws. The following teaser, as well as the volume’s table of contents, have been kindly provided by its editor and main organiser of the conference, Ilaria Pretelli:

Since its creation in the early 1990s, the World Wide Web has intensified its role and skills at too speedy pace for any sober reflection in human sciences.

The exponential rise of tech oligopolies is also a consequence of the “statelessness” of the platform economy, a circumstance that explains the great interest of the subject for lawyers and the choice of this topic for the 30th day conference in Private International Law of the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law, held on June 28th, 2018 whose proceedings, enriched by further contributions, are collected in the 86th volume of its red series.

The disruptive potential of the platform economy challenges traditional approaches based on the bilateral legal relationship and its geographical location.

It is worth asking whether the basic principles of private international law can be adapted to the immateriality of the digital space, whether a new revolution in the theory of private international law can be expected, or whether private international law is an inapt tool for platform governance and the only promising way is that of a multilateral and harmonising approach.

Collecting the proceedings of the conference, the 86th volume of our red series aims to contribute, through a multidisciplinary analysis, to the collective effort to build a legal theory adapted to digital platforms.

By presenting the first national and supranational responses to the challenges of the platform economy – still disordered and sometimes contradictory – the book attempts to synthesise the main trends in the legal developments that are forthcoming in various legal fields, with a focus on the need to protecting weak parties (workers, consumers, small and medium businesses).

Gloucester Resources v Minister for planning [2019] NSWLEC 7 is perfect material for my international environmental law classes at Monash come next (Australian) winter (September). Proposition is a permit for an open cut coal mine. Consent was refused on the basis of 3 reasons: the creation and operation of an open cut coal mine in the proposed location is in direct contravention of each zone’s planning objectives; the residual visual impact of the mine would be significant throughout all stages of the Project; and the Project is not in the public interest. Refusal was evidently appealed.

Preston CJ, the Chief Judge of the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales delivered serious support for an internationally engaged Australian (New South Wales) climate law approach. Although he did cite the Paris Agreement (439 ff: providing context to Australia and NSW’s future challenges; and including an interesting discussion on the balanced measures that might be needed to achieve Australia’s Paris Goals, refuted at 534 ff) and the UNFCCC, he did not need Paris, Kyoto, UNFCCC or anything else ‘international’ to do so. He applied the NSW principle of ‘ecologically sustainable development’ (ESD; a notion which often rings tautologically to my ears).

A blog post cannot do justice to a 700 para judgment – Note the following paras:

At 694 ‘Acceptability of proposed development of natural resource depends not on location of natural resource but on sustainability. One of the ESD principles is sustainable use– exploiting natural resources in manner which is ‘sustainable’ ‘prudent’ ‘rational’ ‘wise’ ‘appropriate’

At 696 ‘In this case, exploitation of coal resource in Gloucester valley would not be sustainable use and would cause substantial environmental and social harm. The Project would have high visual impact over the life of the mine of about two decades. The Project would cause noise, air and light pollution that will contribute to adverse social impacts. Project will have significant negative social impacts; access to and use of infrastructure, services and facilities; culture; health and wellbeing; surroundings; and fears and aspirations…The Project will cause distributive inequity, both within the current generation and between the current and future generations.’

At 514: rejection of the relevance of the limited impact which the project will have on Australia’s GHG emissions overall, with reference to US (EPA v Massachusetts) and the Dutch Urgenda case.

No doubt appeal will follow – a case to watch.

Geert.

After years in the making, the revised HCCH draft Guide to Good Practice on Article 13(1)(b) of the Child Abduction Convention has been completed and is accessible here. It has been submitted to the governance body of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (i.e. the Council on General Affairs and Policy) for approval.

There are five exceptions under the Child Abduction Convention and this is one of them; see also Arts 12(2), 13(1)(a), 13(2) and 20 of the Convention. Under this exception, the judicial or administrative authority of the requested State may refuse to return the child to his or her State of habitual residence following a wrongful removal or retention.

According to the latest survey of the Hague Conference of applications made in 2015, the refusals on the basis of Article 13(1)(b) of the Child Abduction Convention amount to 18% of the total judicial refusals. Thus, this is the most frequently raised exception. Other grounds for judicial refusal relate to the scope of the Convention (such as the lack of habitual residence or rights of custody). See the survey available here (p. 15).

Article 13(1)(b) contains the following three different types of risk:

• a grave risk that the return would expose the child to physical harm;
• a grave risk that the return would expose the child to psychological harm; or
• a grave risk that the return would otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.

Particularly useful for practitioners are the examples of assertions that can be raised under this exception, which include but are not limited to (see paras 53-77):

• Domestic violence against the child and / or the taking parent
• Economic or developmental disadvantages to the child upon return
• Risks associated with circumstances in the State of habitual residence
• Risks associated with the child’s health
• The child’s separation from the taking parent, where the taking parent would be unable or unwilling to return to the State of habitual residence
• Separation from the child’s sibling(s)

In my opinion, the Child Abduction Convention, and in particular this exception, can no longer be interpreted in a vacuum and one should also look to the human rights case law which is quickly developing in this area (in addition to the applicable regional regulations).

Please see the the last issue of 2018 of the Belgian Journal of Private International Law here.

Besides the latest judgments by the Court of Justice of the European Union, it also contains case law of the Belgian Constitutional Court and courts of appeal. The cases are in Dutch or French.

The judgment of the Constitutional Court (of 11 October 2018) concerned the response to a question posed to this court by the Commercial Court of Liège (p. 14 pof the issue). It involved the so-called cautio judicatum solvi. The question was whether the fact that only foreign national plaintiffs can be requested to give a warranty for costs infringes the Belgian Constitution, particularly its Articles 10 and 11 guaranteeing equality and prohibiting discrimination. The Court referred to the limitations that the Court of Justice of the EU had already set to the application of the cautio (it cannot be used against EU citizens). Moreover, the provision only applies in the absence of international conventions eliminating the cautio.The issue in this case was that Belgian plaintiffs living abroad (in Ecuador in the current instance), even if they have no assets in Belgium cannot be subjected to such warranty. The court found that the cautia juricatum solvi (Art. 851 of the Code of Civil Procedure) infringes the Constitution. The differentiation in treatment is not justifiable as it is not the plaintiff’s nationality but his or her residence outside Belgium and lack of property in Belgium that can cause the defendant to fear that he or she will not be able to recover costs. The Court left the provision intact and gave the legislator until 31 August 2019 to fix it.

* In the meantime, on 24 Januari 2019, a legislative proposal was submitted to delete the cautio judicatum solvi from the Code of Civil Procedure.

Other judgments deal with the attribution of Belgian nationality, with parentage and with the recognition of marriages.

A judgment by the Court of Appeal of Brussels (judgment of 10 August 2018) addresses the recognition of the parentage of twins born out of a surrogate mother in California (p. 15 of the issue). The Californian judgment establishing the parentage of two men (one Belgian and one French) was at issue. The Court of appeal recognised the Californian judgment, thus recognising both fathers as parents. The Court considered two grounds for refusal (under Art. 25 of the Belgian Code of Private International Law). First  it found that the recognition of the judgment would not amount to a result that was manifestly contrary to public policy. The Court on the other hand found that the intending fathers did attempt to evade the law that would have been applicable, i.e. Belgian law as the intended father whose parentage was at issue had Belgian nationality (and this law governs parentage according to Art. 62 of the Belgian Code of Private International Law).  However, the Court, after considering the particular situations of the children and the facts surrounding the case, found that the best interests of the children had the result that the parentage should be recognised in this case.

* See also the case note (in French) by Patrick Wautelet entitled “De l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfantcomme facteur de neutralisation de la fraude à la loi” (On the best interests of the child as a neutralising factor for evasion of the law) at p. 61 of the issue.

The enactment of Regulations 2016/1103 and 2016/1104, implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes and of the property consequences of registered partnerships, represents a significant step forward in the development of a European Private International Law in the field of Family and Successions Law.

The application of the application of these instruments from January the 29th 2019, is also going to deeply affect the autonomous Private International Law systems of those Member States which participate in such enhance cooperation proceeding.

A selected group of Spanish academics and legal practitioners (including, Lawyers, Judges, Notaries and Land Registers) published a profound analysis of those Regulations, as well as their coordination with other instruments in the field of Judicial Cooperation in Civil matters and its interaction with national provisions from participating Member States: see here.)

This book constitutes the first Spanish Commentary devoted to Regulations 2016/1103 and 2016/1104, prepared by the same experienced group of specialists, edited by Profs. Iglesias Buhigues and Palao Moreno (University of Valencia), who previously edited an aclaimed Commentary to the EU Successions Regulation 650/2012 (see  here).

The U.S. Supreme Court is well-known for its liberal pro-arbitration policy. In The Arbitration-Litigation Paradox, forthcoming in the Vanderbilt Law Review, I argue that the U.S. Supreme Court’s supposedly pro-arbitration stance isn’t as pro-arbitration as it seems.  This is because the Court’s hostility to litigation gets in the way of courts’ ability to support arbitration—especially international commercial arbitration.

This is the arbitration-litigation paradox in the United States: On one hand, the U.S. Supreme Court’s hostility to litigation seems to complement its pro-arbitration policy. Rising barriers to U.S. court access in general, and in particular in transnational cases (as I have explored elsewhere), seems consistent with a U.S. Supreme Court that embraces arbitration as an efficient method for enforcing disputes. Often, enforcement of arbitration clauses in these cases leads to closing off access to courts, as Myriam Gilles and others have documented.

But there’s a problem. As is perhaps obvious to experts, arbitration relies on courts—for enforcing arbitration agreements and awards, and for helping pending arbitration do what it needs to do.  So closing off access to courts can close access to the litigation that supports arbitration.  And indeed, recent Supreme Court cases narrowing U.S. courts’ personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants have been applied to bar arbitral award enforcement actions. Courts have also relied on forum non conveniens to dismiss award-enforcement actions.

That’s one way in which trends that limit litigation can have negative effects on the system of arbitration.  But there’s another way that the Court’s hostility to litigation interacts with its pro-arbitration stance, and that’s in the arbitration cases themselves.

The Supreme Court has a busy arbitration docket, but rarely hears international commercial arbitration cases. Instead, it hears domestic arbitration cases in which it often states that the “essence” of arbitration is that it is speedy, inexpensive, individualized, and efficient—everything that litigation is not.

(As an aside, this description of the stark distinction between arbitration and litigation is widely stated, but it’s a caricature. The increasingly judicialized example of international commercial arbitration shows this is demonstrably false. As practiced today, international commercial arbitration can be neither fast, nor cheap, nor informal.)

But in the United States, arbitration law is mostly trans-substantive. That means that decisions involving consumer or employment contracts often apply equally to the next case involving insurance contracts or international commercial contracts.

In the paper, I argue that the Court’s tendency to focus on arbitration’s “essential” characteristics, and to enforce these artificial distinctions between arbitration and litigation, can be harmful for the next case involving international commercial arbitration. It could undermine the likelihood of enforcement of arbitration awards where the arbitral procedure resembled litigation or deviated from the Court’s vision of the “essential virtues” of arbitration.

To prevent this result, I argue that any revisions of the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act should pay special attention not only to fixing the rules about consumer and employment arbitration, but also to making sure that international commercial arbitration is properly supported. In the meantime, lower federal courts should pay no heed to the Supreme Court’s seeming devotion to enforcing false distinctions between arbitration and litigation, particularly in the international commercial context.

The 2018 draft of a Hague Judgments Convention adopts a framework based largely on what some have referred to as “jurisdictional filters.” Article 5(1) provides a list of thirteen authorized bases of indirect jurisdiction by which a foreign judgment is first tested. If one of these jurisdictional filters is satisfied, the resulting judgment is presumptively entitled to circulate under the convention, subject to a set of grounds for non-recognition that generally are consistent with existing practice in most legal systems. This basic architecture of the Convention has been assumed to be set from the start of the Special Commission process, and will be key to the Convention’s acceptability to countries which might ratify or accede to any final Convention. An alternative approach to convention architecture, which would allow the test for judgment circulation to be built on as few as four rules, was considered and passed over in the earlier Working Group which preceded the Special Commission process.

Ronald Brand’s new article discusses the advantages and disadvantages of each of the 2018 draft Convention text as well as the alternative approach. It then suggests that, no matter which approach one considers to be better, the 2019 Diplomatic Conference should begin with an awareness of both options, and an understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of each, and move forward with a clear decision that the option chosen is the best alternative. Such consideration may (1) lead to the conclusion that the choices already made are the best for a multilateral treaty; (2) result in a determination that an alternative approach is a better option; or (3) demonstrate that one approach works best for some legal systems while another approach works best for other legal systems – leading to dual texts that could form the bases for differing bilateral and multilateral treaty relationships across the globe, while still improving the global framework for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.

It is available here

Prof. Dr. Marta Requejo Isidro (Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law) recently posted a new paper in the MPILux Research Paper Series, titled International Commercial Courts in the Litigation Market.

Here is an overview provided by the author.

The expression “international commercial courts” refers to national judicial bodies set up in the last fifteen years in several jurisdictions throughout the world -Asia, Middle East, Europe- to suit the specific demands of international commercial litigation. The courts and the proceedings before them share unique features often imported from the common law tradition and the arbitration world, with a view to providing a dispute resolution mechanism tailored to the subject-matter. This notwithstanding there is no single model of international commercial court: on the contrary, each of them presents distinctive characteristics, which determine their greater or lesser capacity to fulfil the objective of serving international commercial litigation. By way of example: in their origin the courts of Dubai and Abu Dhabi were created not so much to reproduce a successful model of international commercial litigation, as to separate – and complement at the same time – the local legal system of the Emirates, based on Sharia and the tradition of civil law and with Arabic as the official language. In the wish to capture in as much as possible the advantages of international arbitration, parties before the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts are given the possibility of “converting” a DIFC Court’s decision into an arbitral award; no other court offers this chance. The authorization to use English as the language of the process varies from court to court in Continental Europe. In the Old Continent only the (still pending) Brussels International Business Court would be staffed with foreign judges.

This paper summarizes the main traits of several international commercial courts prior to exploring their relationship with international arbitration, on the one hand, and among them, on the other, at a time when the term “litigation market” is used matter-of-factly, and the “competition” among dispute resolution mechanisms is regarded as an incentive for the improvement within justice systems at a global level. In this context, elements such as the language of the process, the possibility of being represented by a foreign lawyer, the facilities to apply English law to the merits of the case, or the existence of a network of instruments for the enforcement of decisions abroad, may prove decisive in the choice of the users to file a claim with an international commercial court (and which one among them), or going to arbitration.

Thank you Hélène Péroz (by now a firmly established reliable source for French PIL case-law) for alerting me to French Supreme Court Case no. 17-28.555, judgment issued late January.

The criminal courts at Geneva have condemned claimant, domiciled at France, to pay a criminal fine of 3,600.00 Swiss Francs, a well as 36,000.00 Swiss Francs towards defendant’s legal fees. The latter were incurred given that defendant in current legal proceedings had entered a civil claim in the Swiss criminal proceedings: a claim which the Geneva judge ordered to be settled through the Swiss courts in civil cases.

Upon fighting the request for exequatur, claimant first of all argues that the French courts’ acceptance of exequatur via the Lugano Convention is outside the scope of that Convention. The matter, he argues, is not civil or commercial seeing as the civil claim was not even entertained.

This of course brings one to the discussion on the scope of application of Lugano (and Brussels Ia) and the perennial difficulty of focusing on nature of the claim v nature of the underlying facts and exercised powers. Now, for civil claims brought before criminal courts there is not so much doubt per se, seeing inter alia that Article 7(3) Brussels Ia (Article 5(4) Lugano 2007) has a specific head of jurisdiction for such civil claims. Claimant’s point of argument here evidently is that this should not cover this particular claim seeing as the legal representation at issue turned out to be without purpose. Not being privy to the discussions that took place at the Geneva court, I evidently do not know the extent of discussion having taken place there (there is no trace of it in the Supreme Court judgment) however one assumes that the Geneva proceedings in theory could have dealt with the civil side of the litigation yet for a factual or legal reason eventually did not. Over and above the intensity of discussions being difficult to employ as a decisive criterion, one can also appreciate the difficulty in separating the civil from the criminal side of the argument made by defendant’s lawyers.

Of perhaps more general interest is the Supreme Court’s rebuke of the lower courts’ treatment of ordre public. Exequatur was granted because, the lower courts had held, the judge in the substantial proceedings has the sovereign right to establish costs under the relevant national procedure. This, it was suggested by these lower courts, shields it from ordre public scrutiny – a clear misunderstanding of the ordre public test. Part of the ordre public considerations had also been that the relative slide in the strength of the Swiss Franc v the Euro, and the generally higher costs of living in Switzerland, put the cost award in perspective. Moreover the judges found that there was insufficient information on the length of the proceedings in Switserland, and the complexity of the arguments. That, however, is exactly the kind of data which the judge in an exequatur assessment ough to gauge.

Geert.

(Handbook of) European Private International Law, 2n ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.2.2.