Flux des sites DIP

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

D. Martiny: Virtual currencies, particularly Bitcoins, in private international law and in the international law of civil procedure

Virtual currencies like Bitcoins are substitute currencies that are not issued by a state and that are limited in supply. Whereas the discussion in substantive law on the classification of virtual currencies and Distributed Ledger Technology is in full progress, there is no established approach in private international law as to blockchain, smart contracts or tokens. Also, Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) have to be classified. An examination of these digital techniques leads to a classification as a contractual obligation. Contracts which have as their object virtual currency units are, in general, subject to the Rome I Regulation. Currency is mainly a matter of the law governing the contract. Domestic finance market restrictions under the German Banking Act (Kreditwesengesetz – KWG) can intervene as overriding mandatory rules under Article 9(2) Rome I Regulation. Additionally, foreign rules may be taken into account (Article 9(3) Rome I Regulation). Jurisdiction for contractual matters is determined by the place of performance or the place of the harmful event (Article 7 No. 1, 2 Brussels I Recast).

A.S. Zimmermann: Blockchain-Networks and Private International Law – or: the Savignian seat-doctrine and decentralized legal relations

The ubiquitous availability of the world wide web fundamentally changed international commerce. The legal system has proven to be surprisingly flexible in dealing with the issue of digitalisation and has hence provided reasonable solutions for several problems of the modern era. The field of Private International Law is particularly challenged by the decentralism of the digitalised world. However, as the case of blockchain-networks illuminates, the classic Savignian paradigm of Private International Law is capable of coping with new phenomena and allocating them to an appropriate legal framework.

M. Lieberknecht: The blocking regulation: private international law as an instrument of foreign policy

The EU has updated its blocking statute in order to shield European businesses from the extraterritorial reach of the reactivated U.S. secondary sanctions against Iran. The present article provides an analysis of the blocking regulation’s impact on matters of private law. Concerning the issue of overriding mandatory provisions, the Regulation adds little but emphasis to the pre-existing approach. It prohibits EU-based parties to comply with the U.S. sanctions, thereby forcing them into a “catch-22” situation, which bears a particular risk of managerial liability. Indirectly, this prohibition produces lopsided results under substantive German law, while potentially nullifying prevalent contractual solutions. Finally, the article assesses the legal nature and substantive scope of the clawback provision which allows for the recovery of sanction-related damages. It concludes that, while such a claim may have some potential to trigger litigation between private parties, it fails to fulfil its actual purpose, which is to neutralize the overall effects of U.S. sanctions. The same holds true for the Regulation as a whole: It not only offers weak protection, but exposes private parties various additional legal risks and restraints.

S. Bajrami/M. Payandeh: The Recognition of Foreign Judgments under Private International Law in Light of the Duty of Non-Recognition under International Law

For the recognition of foreign judgments under private international law, the question of the legality of the foreign judgment under international law is usually irrelevant. Private international law attributes recognition to foreign judgments based on factual and effective sovereign power regardless of whether the judgment has been issued by a state that is internationally not recognized or whether the judgment constitutes the exercise of jurisdiction over a territory over which the state may not exercise jurisdiction. This approach under private international law is, however, called into question when the foreign judgment constitutes an exercise of jurisdiction which is the consequence of a violation of the prohibition of the use of force under international law, as in the case of the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol by Russia. In such cases, customary international law constitutes a duty of non-recognition of the illegal situation. The present contribution analyses this conflict from the perspective of international law and comes to the conclusion that the recognition of foreign judgments, in general, is in conformity with the duty of non-recognition under international law.

M. Gebauer: Classification of section 1371 para 1 of the German Civil Code as a rule falling within the scope of succession law in terms of the EU Succession Regulation and the consequential classification of the rule under the German-Turkish bilateral succession treaty

The CJEU recently classified section 1371 para 1 of the German Civil Code as a rule falling within the scope of inheritance law in terms of the European Succession Regulation. The article analyses the consequences of this classification beyond EU law for cases governed by the German-Turkish bilateral succession treaty and its interpretation by German courts. Presumably, German courts will feel obligated to classify the German substantive rule in the same way under the bilateral succession treaty when it has to be applied in combination with EU conflict rules on matrimonial property regimes.

J.A. Bischoff: Much ado about nothing? The future of investment arbitration after Achmea v. Slovakia

In his judgment dated March 6, 2018, the CJEU held investment arbitration proceedings incompatible with Art. 267, 344 TFEU where they arise from a bilateral investment treaty between two member states and where the seat of the arbitration is located in the European Union. The court did not concur with the Opinion of the Advocate General dated September 19, 2017. Although the judgment will promote legal certainty as far as intra-EU bilateral investment treaties are concerned, it creates new questions for the Energy Charta Treaty as well as bilateral investment treaties with third countries. Where an arbitration’s seat is located outside the EU or where the ICSID Arbitration Rules apply, the judgment can create a divergent execution practice.

D. Looschelders: International jurisdiction for the termination of co-ownership in cases regarding matrimonial property regimes

The ECJ has recently decided over the international jurisdiction for the termination of co-ownership in undivided shares in two cases. In the Komu case, which concerned a legal dispute between the co-owners of two immovable properties located in Spain with regard to the termination of the co-ownership, the ECJ affirmed the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which the immovable properties are situated. In the Iliev case, however, the ECJ concluded that a dispute between former spouses relating to the division of a movable property acquired during the marriage concerns „matrimonial property regimes“ and therefore, according to Art. 1(2)(a) Brussels Ibis Regulation, does not fall within the scope of the Brussels Ibis Regulation. The article analyses the decisions and outlines the tension between the law of immovable property and the law of matrimonial property. The future legal situation according to the European Regulation on Matrimonial Property Regimes and the parallel problem under the European Succession Regulation are discussed, too. Overall, the author notes a tendency of the European conflict of laws Regulations to give precedence to the law applicable to matrimonial property regimes and succession over the application of the law of the Member State in which the property is located.

A. Wolf: Arbitration clauses and actions for cartel damages before German courts

The German District Court Dortmund dismissed an action for damages caused by an infringement of Art. 101 TFEU in the context of the so-called „Schienenkartell“. The Court found that the arbitration agreements which the parties had agreed on during their contractual relationship covered such actions so that German courts had no jurisdiction on this matter. Therefore, the Court interpreted the arbitration agreements under German law in a broad sense. Furthermore, it denied to apply the EU principle of effectiveness relating to the exercise of claims for damages in national procedures. With regard to arbitration clauses it also rejected to follow the Court of Justice in its CDC-judgment on a narrow interpretation of jurisdiction clauses in terms of Art. 25 Brussels I recast.

L. Rademacher: Procedural Consumer Protection Against Attorneys

In a world of open societies, legal advice in cross-border cases is in constantly increasing demand by both businesses and consumers. Skilful counselling on foreign law, however, can prove difficult to obtain from domestic attorneys, especially for consumers. In consequence, consumers may decide to retain a lawyer educated and located in the relevant foreign legal system. When problems arise in the relationship between the domestic consumer client and the attorney situated abroad, the internationally competent court has to be determined. In favour of the consumer client, the consumer protection rules of international procedural law apply under the territorial-situational requirements of Art. 15 sec. 1 lit. c Brussels I Regulation 2001 / Art. 17 sec. 1 lit. c Brussels Ibis Regulation 2015 / Art. 15 sec. 1 lit. c Lugano Convention 2007. This case note reviews two judicial rulings – one by the Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, the other by the Federal Court of Justice – dealing with these requirements in light of the guidelines provided by the European Court of Justice. The pivotal issues concern an attorney’s activities in the state of the consumer client’s domicile falling within the scope of a contract between the attorney and a client as well as an attorney’s direction of activities to the state of the client’s domicile.

H. Roth: Accumulative basic requirements of the recognition of foreign decisions according to § 109 sec. 1 no. 2 FamFG are an orderly notification and the possibility to arrange an effective defense of the defendant

The Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Stuttgart interprets § 109 sec. 1 no. 2 FamFG (= Act on the Procedure in Family Matters and the Matters of Non-contentious Jurisdiction) in accordance with § 328 sec. 1 no. 2 ZPO (= German Civil Procedure Code) and therefore in conscious deviation to the basic assumptions of the European secondary law (e.g. Art. 45 sec. 1 lit. b Brussels Ia Reg.). Accumulative basic requirement of the recognition of foreign decisions according to § 109 sec. 1 no. 2 FamFG are an orderly notification and the possibility to arrange an effective defense of the defendant.

P. Ostendorf: Requirements for a genuine international element in the event of a choice of law in accordance with European Private International Law

In accordance with Art. 3 (3) Rome Convention (respectively its successor instrument, the Rome I Regulation), the parties can, in case of a purely domestic contract, not escape the mandatory provisions of their home jurisdiction by way of either the choice of a foreign law and/or a foreign forum. English courts recently had to determine whether interest rate swaps concluded by an Italian bank and an Italian municipality (providing for the application of English law and an English forum) might fall outside the ambit of Art. 3 (3) Rome Convention due to sufficient international elements of the transaction. Contrary to the High Court, the Court of Appeal (by now confirmed by the UK Supreme Court) has answered this question in the affirmative, given that the bank had utilized a standard form contract drafted by a private international association not linked to any particular country and had also entered into a back to back transaction with a foreign bank. This understanding appears misconceived against the background of a contextual and teleological interpretation of Art. 3 (3) Rome Convention.

Z. Meški?/A. Durakovi?/J. Alihodži?: Bosnia and Herzegovina as a Multi-unit State
Bosnia and Herzegovina comprises two entities, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska, and the District Br?ko, which have almost comprehensive competences in private law. Therefore, in addition to rare legislation in private law on the national level, there are three partial legal orders in private law in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The following paper presents some of the differences between the partial legal orders and explains the development of interlocal conflict rules in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which took place independently of private international law. For family, status and succession matters there is a uniform act on interlocal conflicts of laws, whereas in other areas of private law no uniform regulation exists. The solutions on interlocal conflicts of laws in the most relevant areas of private law have been analysed critically.

The new issue of “Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht – The Rabels Journal of Comparative and International Private Law” (RabelsZ) is now available. It contains the following articles (summaries provided for non-English language) :

Mathias Reimann,European Advantages in Global Lawyering, pp. 885-921

Jürgen Basedow, The Hague Conference and the Future of Private International Law – A Jubilee Speech, pp. 922-943

Nadjma Yassari, Staatszerfall und Internationales Privatrecht (Failing States and Private International Law), pp. 944-971

Conflict-of-law rules generally refer to the law of a foreign state. If, however, such state is in a condition of disarray and potential dissolution, tricky questions arise. Which normative orders are meant by the term “law”? Is a failing state still a state? This article shows that for the sake of regulating private relations, the focus must be placed on the factually operative norms, regardless of whether the non-state entity from which those norms have emanated is recognized under public international law. This hypothesis is tested in relation to the example of Syria. Ravaged by a fierce civil war since 2011, Syria has seen the emergence of new power entities competing not only over territory but also over legal authority.

Whereas the standard connecting factors of private international law (i.e. normative factors such as nationality, or geographic locating factors such as habitual residence) operate in their usual manner in a failing state with only minor adaptation, more serious problems arise with regard to the detection and interpretation of the factually operative law and its application in a concrete case. Where the relevant norms cannot be found or where a meaningful interpretation and application of those norms  cannot be supported,  a solution – it is argued – must be sought on the level of private international law rather than on the level of substantive law. In particular, the application of lex fori should be considered only where all other options have been exhausted.

Tamás Szabados, The New Hungarian Private International Law Act: New Rules, New Questions, pp. 972-1003

A call for papers has been issued in view of the third edition of the multidisciplinary, international and comparative doctoral sessions on the study of movement phenomena, scheduled to take place in Nice on 23 and 24 May 2019.

The event, part of the IFITIS Project led by Jean-Sylvestre Bergé, is organised under the auspices of the Academic Institute of France (IUF), the Côte d’Azur University and the Law, Economics and Management Research Group of the French National Centre for Scientific Research, in partnership with the International Economic Law Association (AIDE).

This edition’s topic is The Meaning of Economic Freedoms of Movement. The aim is to discuss the ability of different disciplines (law, economics, management, philosophy, sociology, history and computer science) to question the meaning (reasons for being, justifications, purposes) of economic freedoms of movement (free trade, international trade and European freedoms of movement).

Interested scholars are invited to submit their proposals by 31 January 2019.

For further information, see here.

The University of Milan will recruit a postdoctoral researcher in Private International Law, starting in March 2018, for a duration of 24 months (renewable once).

The researcher will work on the project ‘Cross-border Disputes in Civil and Commercial Matters and New Technologies’.

Eligible candidates must hold a doctorate in law (preferably private international law or international civil procedural law) or have comparable research experience. They must have an excellent command of English. Good command of Italian is an additional asset. Additional accommodation funding for candidates relocating from abroad is available.

Deadline for applications: 19 November 2018.

More information can be found here.

In 2018, not only the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL) celebrates a round birthday, but also the two most important regimes for cross-border cooperation in civil and commercial litigation and arbitration – the Brussels Regime (1968), to which the United Kingdom acceded 40 years ago, and the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958). Thus, Professor Eva Lein (Lausanne) has convened an event at the BIICL in order to take stock and assess the effects and benefits of both regimes for citizens, businesses, lawyers and courts. Moreover, the participants will try to look into the post-Brexit future. The conference will take place at the BIICL on 29th November, 2018. For the full programme, a list of speakers and further details on registration, please click here.

The programme of the XLI Seminar of the Mexican Academy of Private International and Comparative Law (AMEDIP) is now available here.

American Association of Private International Law (ASADIP) is holding its Annual Conference on 8 and 9 November 2018 in Santa Cruz, Bolivia. The main focus of the conference will be family law. More information is available here (incl. programme).

My review of Wahl AG’s Opinion gives readers necessary detail on C-595/17 Apple v eBizcuss. In 2012 eBizcuss started suing Apple for alleged anti-competitive behaviour, arguing Apple systematically favours its own, vertically integrated distribution network. Can choice of court in their original contract cover the action (meaning the French courts would not have jurisdiction).

The Court says it can, both for Article 101 TFEU (cartels) and for 102 TFEU actions (abuse of dominant position), but particularly for the latter. In both cases the final say rests with the national courts who are best placed to appreciate the choice of court provisions in their entire context.

For Article 101 TFEU actions, the window is a narrow one (at 28: ‘the anti‑competitive conduct covered by Article 101 TFEU, namely an unlawful cartel, is in principle not directly linked to the contractual relationship between a member of that cartel and a third party which is affected by the cartel’). For Article 102 TFEU, as noted by other, it is wider (‘the anti‑competitive conduct covered by Article 102 TFEU, namely the abuse of a dominant position, can materialise in contractual relations that an undertaking in a dominant position establishes and by means of contractual terms’). The overall context of appreciation is that of predictability: at 29 (referring to CDC): ‘in the context of an action based on Article 102 TFEU, taking account of a jurisdiction clause that refers to a contract and ‘the corresponding relationship’ cannot be regarded as surprising one of the parties.’

Geert.

 

 

By Friederike Henke, Advocaat & Rechtsanwältin at Buren in Amsterdam

The international demand for English language dispute resolution is increasing as the English language is commonly used in international trade and contracts as well as correspondence, not only between the trading partners themselves, but also by international parties, their legal departments and their advisors. Use of the English language in legal proceedings is expected to save time and money for translations and language barriers in general.

We would like to note that Dutch courts tend to allow parties to provide exhibits in the English language and often allow parties to conduct hearings in English, at least in part. Moreover, the district courts in Rotterdam and The Hague offer the possibility for proceedings in certain types of cases to be held in English: maritime, transportation and international trade cases in Rotterdam and intellectual property rights cases in The Hague. The courts render their judgments in the Dutch language with an English summary.

In order for the Dutch courts to be able to render valid and binding judgments in the English language, the Dutch code of civil procedure needs to be amended.

Netherlands Commercial Court: draft legislation
As mentioned in earlier posts on this blog (see here) in the Netherlands, legislation is on its way for the introduction of English language courts for the settlement of commercial disputes:  the Netherlands Commercial Court (“NCC”) and the Netherlands Commercial Court of Appeal (“NCCA”).

On 8 March 2018, the Dutch parliament adopted the draft legislation, following which it was expected to be approved by the Dutch senate soon. However, to date, despite earlier optimism, the legislation has not yet been passed. The (draft) rules of procedures are ready though (see here)  and the judges have been selected as well. The courts are now expected to open their doors in 2019.

In anticipation to the adoption and effectiveness of the draft legislation, this post offers an overview of the key characteristics of the proceedings with the NCC and NCCA.

The NCC and NCCA: structure and location
The NCC and NCCA will be imbedded in the ordinary judiciary. The NCC will thus be a chamber of the Amsterdam district court and the NCCA will be a chamber at the Amsterdam court of appeals. Any appeal from a judgment by the NCC will go to the NCCA. An appeal (cassation) from the NCCA to the highest court of the Netherlands (Hoge Raad) will take place in the Dutch language.

The judges of the NCC and NCCA who have already been selected, will be from the ordinary judiciary. No lay judges will be appointed. The selected judges (six for each instance) are judges who have vast experience in commercial disputes and excellent language skills.

Situating the chambers with the courts of Amsterdam has mostly practical reasons: Amsterdam is the financial capital of the Netherlands and a lot of international companies have their corporate seats there. Also, practical reasons have been mentioned: Amsterdam is easy to reach and internationally active law firms have their offices in Amsterdam.

The NCC procedure
Proceedings with the NCC and NCCA will in principle be held in the English language. All legal documents will be in English. Evidence may be handed in in the French, German or Dutch language, without a translation being required. The court hearing will be held in English and the judgment will be rendered in English.

In addition to the NCC’s rules of procedure, the NCC will apply Dutch procedural law and the substantive rules of Dutch private international law. The proceedings will be paperless and legal documents will be submitted electronically.

According to article 1.2.1 of the NCC’s draft rules of procedure, an action may be initiated in the NCC in case the following three requirements have been met:

1. the action is a civil or commercial matter within the autonomy of the parties and is not subject to the jurisdiction of the cantonal court (kantongerecht, the court for small claims) or the exclusive jurisdiction of any other chamber or court;
2. the matter has an international aspect;
3. the parties to the proceedings have designated the Amsterdam District Court as the forum to hear their case or the Amsterdam District Court has jurisdiction to hear the action on other grounds; and
4. the parties to the proceedings have expressly agreed that the proceedings will be in English and will be governed by the NCC’s rules.

The NCC has jurisdiction in any commercial case, regardless the legal ground. So it may hear both contractual disputes – claims for performance or breach of contract, rescission of a contract, termination or damages – as well as claims for unlawful acts.

In line with the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU, the internationality requirement is to be interpreted broadly. Only if all relevant aspects of a case refer to one case, it will thus be considered an internal dispute. An international aspect can e.g. be that one of the parties has its seat outside of the Netherlands or was incorporated under foreign law, that the contract language is not Dutch or a foreign law applies to the contract, that more than 50% of the employees works outside of the Netherlands, etcetera.

The NCC is only competent if the Parties have agreed to submit their dispute to the competence of the NCC. Such agreement may be done in a contractual choice of forum, but parties may also agree on such forum choice after a dispute has arisen. The NCC’s rules of procedure contain a template clause for a forum choice in Annex I:

“All disputes arising out of or in connection with this agreement will be resolved by the Amsterdam District Court following proceedings in English under that Court’s Rules of Procedure of the Chamber for International Commercial Matters (“Netherlands Commercial Court” or “NCC”). Application for provisional measures, including protective measures, available under Dutch law may be made to the NCC’s Preliminary Relief Judge in proceedings in English in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the NCC.”

Court fees
The court fees for proceedings with the NCC will amount to EUR 15,000.- for substantive proceedings and EUR 7,500.- for summary proceedings. The court fees for proceedings with the NCCA will amount to EUR 20,000.- for substantive proceedings and EUR 10,000.- for summary proceedings.

When compared to other courts in the Netherlands, the court fees for the NCC and NCCA are relatively high. In comparison: the highest court fee for cases in first instance currently amount to EUR 3,946.- and for appeal cases to EUR 5,270.-. Within the international playing field, the NCC and NCCA courts fees are however relatively low, especially when compared to arbitration.

 

This study, commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the Committee on Legal Affairs, authored by Marta Requejo Isidro, Tim Amos, Pedro de Miguel Asensio, Anatol Dutta and Mark Harper, explores the possible legal scenarios of judicial cooperation between the EU and the UK at both the stage of the withdrawal and of the future relationship in the area of family law, covering the developments up until 5 October 2018. More specifically, it assesses the advantages and disadvantages of the various options for what should happen to family law cooperation after Brexit in terms of legal certainty, effectiveness and coherence. It also reflects on the possible impact of the departure of the UK from the EU on the further development of EU family law. Finally, it offers some policy recommendations on the topics under examination.

The Slovenian Branch of the International Law Association invites abstract submissions for consideration for the ILA Regional Conference Slovenia 2019. The conference will be held in Portorož (Slovenia) on 27-30 June 2019.

The the conference is themed “Migration/international legal regulation” and abstracts from both public and private international law perspectives are welcome. Deadline for submitting abstracts is 11 January 2019 and completed papers are due by 30 August 2019. Contact is available at papers@ilaslovenia2019.com.

More details is available here.

By Diana Kostina

The recent Court of Appeal judgment in Alexander Vik and Deutsche Bank AG [2018] EWCA Civ 2011confirmedthat contempt of court applications for alleged non-compliance with a court order can be served on a party outside the jurisdiction of England and Wales. The Court of Appeal’s judgment also contains a useful reminder of the key principles governing the powers of English courts to serve defendants outside of the jurisdiction.

Background

This Court of Appeal’s judgment is the latest development in the litigation saga which has been ongoing between Deutsche Bank (‘the Bank’) and Alexander Vik, the Norwegian billionaire residing in Monaco (‘Mr Vik’) and his company, Sebastian Holdings Inc (‘the Company’). The Bank has been trying to enforce a 2013 judgment debt, which is now estimated to be around US $ 320 million.

Within the enforcement proceedings, the English court made an order under CPR 71.2 requiring Mr Vik to appear before the court to provide relevant information and documents regarding the assets of the Company. This information would have assisted the Bank in its efforts to enforce the judgment against him. Although Mr Vik did appear in court, the Bank argued that he had deliberately failed to disclose important documents and lied under oath. Accordingly, the Bank argued that Mr Vik should be held in contempt of court by way of a committal order.

To obtain a committal order, the Bank could have applied under either CPR 71.8 or CPR 81.4. The difference is that the former rule provides for a simple and streamlined committal procedure, while the latter is more rigorous, slow, and — as accepted by courts — possibly extra-territorial. The Bank filed an application under CPR 81.4, and the court granted a suspended committal order. The Bank then sought to serve the order on Mr Vik in Monaco.

High Court decision

The Judge at first instance, Teare J, carefully considered the multi-faceted arguments. Teare J concluded that permission should not be required to serve the committal order on Mr Vik, because the debtor was already subject to the incidental jurisdiction of the English courts to enforce CPR 71 order. A similar conclusion could be reached by relying on Article 24(5) of the Brussels Recast Regulation (which provides that in proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments, the courts of the member state shall have exclusive jurisdiction regardless of the domicile of the parties). However, if the Bank had needed permission to serve the committal order outside the jurisdiction, then his Lordship concluded that the Bank could not rely on the gateway set out in PD 6B 3.1(10) (which provides that a claim may be served out of the jurisdiction with the permission of the court where such claim is made to enforce a judgment or an arbitral award). Both parties appealed against this judgment.

Court of Appeal decision

The Court of Appeal, largely agreeing with Teare J, made five principal findings.

(1) The court found it ironic that Mr Vik argued that CPR 71.8 (specific ground), rather CPR 81.4 (generic ground) applied to the alleged breach of CPR 71.2, since CPR 81.4 offered greater protections to the alleged contemnor. The likely reason for this “counter-intuitive” step was that the latter provision was extra-territorial. The Court of Appeal confirmed that CPR 71.8 is not a mandatory lex specialis for committal applications relating to a breach of CPR 71.2, and that the Bank was perfectly entitled to rely on CPR 81.4.

(2) The Court of Appeal agreed with the findings of Teare J that the court’s power to commit contemnors to prison is derived from its inherent jurisdiction. The CPR rules only provide the technical steps to be followed when this common law power is to be exercised. It followed that it did not make much difference which rule to apply –  either the broader CPR 81.4 or the narrower CPR 71.8. Thus, if the Bank had made the committal application under CPR 71.8, the application would have had an extra-territorial effect.  

(3) Mr Vik sought to challenge Teare J’s finding that he should be deemed to be within the jurisdiction in the contempt of court proceedings, because they are incidental to the CPR 71.2 order in which he participated. Instead, he argued, such proceedings were distinguishably “new”, and would require permission to serve outside the jurisdiction.  The Court of Appeal disagreed and confirmed that the committal order was incidental as the means to enforce the CPR 71.2 order. Therefore, in the light of the strong public interest in the enforcement of English court orders, it was not necessary for the Bank to obtain permission to serve the committal order outside the jurisdiction.

(4) Teare J observed that Article 24(5) of the Brussels Recast Regulation meant that that permission to serve Mr Vik outside of the jurisdiction was not required. Article 24(5) confers exclusive jurisdiction on the courts of the Member State in which the judgment was made and to be enforced by, regardless of the domicile of the parties. The Court of Appeal (in obiter) was generally supportive of this approach, opining that the committal application in the case at hand was likely to fall within Article 24(5) of the Brussels Recast Regulation. However, the careful and subtle wording of Article 24(5) implied that this conclusion might be subject to further consideration on a future occasion.

(5) Under CPR 6.36, a claimant may serve a claim form out of the jurisdiction with the permission of the court where the claim comes within one of the “gateways” contained in PD 6B. The relevant gateway in the Mr Vik’s case was to be found at PD 6B, para 3.1(1), as a claim made to enforce a judgment. Teare J was of the view that the Bank could not rely on this gateway to enforce the committal order. The Court of Appeal was reluctant to give a definitive answer on this point, even though “there may well be considerable force” in the Teare J’s approach. Thus, it remains unclear whether the CPR rules regulating service outside the jurisdiction would apply to the CPR 71 order and the committal order.

The importance of the judgment

This Court of Appeal’s judgment serves as an important reminder for parties who are involved in the enforcement of English judgment debts. Rather than giving a short answer to a narrow point of civil procedure, the judgment contains an extensive analysis of English and EU law. The judgment highlights the tension between important Rule of Law issues such as “enforcing court orders on the one hand” and “keeping within the jurisdictional limits of the Court, especially as individual liberty is at risk, on the other” (Court of Appeal judgment, at para. 1).

The judgment demonstrates the broad extra-territorial reach of the English courts. It also confirms the English court’s creditor-friendly reputation. The findings on the issues of principle may be relevant to applications to serve orders on defendants out of the jurisdiction in other proceedings, for instance worldwide freezing orders or cross-border anti-suit injunctions.

Nevertheless, the judgment demonstrates the need for clear guidance on the jurisdictional getaways to serve out of the jurisdiction for contempt of court. In giving judgment, Lord Justice Gross carefully suggested that the Rules Committee should consider implementing a specific rule permitting such service on an officer of a company, where the fact that he is out of the jurisdiction is no bar to the making of a committal application.

Another issue that seems subject to further clarification is whether a committal order or a provisional CPR 71 order are covered by the Brussels Recast Regulation. A definitive answer to this question becomes particularly intriguing in the light of Brexit.

A conference, organised by IACPIL – Interdisciplinary Association of Comparative and Private International Law, will take place in Vienna on 29 November 2018 under the title Receivables and Securities in Private International Law.

The aim of this half-day conference is to discuss the proposal of the European Commission on the law applicable to third-party effects of transactions in securities and assignment and the relevant issues arising in cross-border securities and receivables finance transactions.

Speakers from the Commission, academia and law practice will address issues arising in the context of cross-border security trading, assignment and subrogation, factoring, securitisation, and similar transactions both in the light of the relevant EU proposal, national law and uniform law instruments, such as the UN Assignment of Receivables Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law on Secured Transactions. The advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches will be discussed from a comparative law perspective, with a focus on current challenges and opportunities arising from the digitalisation of trade and Brexit.

Registration is required by 25 November 2018.

The full programme is available here, together with further practical information.

Dear Colleagues,
We are pleased to invite you to attend the International Investment and Trade Agreements: Recent Developments and Problems Conference to be hosted by the University of Marmara, School of Law, Department of Private International Law, and Economic Development Foundation (IKV).
The main goal of the conference is to discuss recent developments in the field of international investment and trade law.
We are looking forward to welcoming our colleagues from all around the world to participate in this international meeting.
Venue: TOBB PLAZA, Levent, the European Side of Istanbul, Turkey.
Date: 25th October 2018.
Further information: http://etkinlik.marmara.edu.tr/uluslararasiyatirim
Yours Sincerely,
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mustafa Erkan
Conference Co-Chair

On October 5th, The Cour de Cassation, the highest court in France for private law matters, requested an advisory opinion of the ECtHR (Ass. plén. 5 octobre 2018, n°10-19053). It is the first time a Contracting State applies to the ECtHR for an advisory opinion on the basis of Protocol n° 16 which entered into force on August 1st, 2018. The request relates to the legal parentage of children born to a surrogate mother. More specifically, it concerns the intended mother’s legal relationship with the child.

The Mennesson case is again under the spotlight, after 18 years of judicial proceedings. Previous developments will be briefly recalled, before the Advisory opinion request is summarized.

Previous developments in the Mennesson case:

A French couple, Mr and Mrs Mennesson, went to California to conclude a surrogacy agreement. Thanks to the surrogate mother, twins were born en 2000. They were conceived with genetic material from the intended father and eggs from a friend of the couple. The Californian Supreme Court issued a judgment referring to the couple as genetic father and legal mother of the children. Birth certificates were issued and the couple asked for their transcription into the French civil status register.

French authorities refused the transcription, arguing that it would be contrary to public policy. Surrogate motherhood, in particular, is forbidden under article 16-7 of the Civil Code. Such agreements are then considered void and resulting foreign birth certificates establishing parentage are considered contrary to public policy (Cass. Civ. 1ère, 6 avril 2011, n°10-19053).

As a last resort, The Mennesson family brought a claim before the ECtHR. They claimed that the refusal to transcribe the birth certificate violated their right to respect for private and family life. While the Court considered that the parent’s right to family life was not infringed, it ruled that the refusal to transcribe the birth certificates violated the children’s right to identity and was not in their best interest. As a consequence, it ruled that the refusal to establish the legal parentage of the indented parents was a violation of the children’s right to private life, particularly so if the indented father was also the biological father.

After the ECtHR ruling: the French landscape

After the ECtHR ruling, the Cour de Cassation softened its position. In 2015, sitting in Assemblée plénière, it ruled that the mere fact that a child was born of a surrogate mother did not in itself justify the refusal to transcribe the birth certificate, as long as that certificate was neither unlawful nor forged, nor did it contain facts that did not correspond to reality (Ass. plén., 3 juillet 2015, n° 14-21323 et n°15-50002).

As a consequence, the Court only accepted the transcription of foreign birth certificate when the intended father is also the biological father. When it came to the other intended parent, the Cour de Cassation refused the transcription. By so doing, the Cour de Cassation reiterates its commitment to the Mater semper certa principle as the sole basis of its conception of motherhood. Meanwhile, in 2017, the Cour de Cassation signalled that the genetic father’s spouse could adopt the child if all the requirements for adoption were met and if it was in the best interest of the child (Cass. Civ. 1ère, 5 juillet, 2017, n°15-28597, n°16-16455, and n°16-16901 ; 16-50025 and the press release)

However, the Mennessons’ fight was not over yet. Although according to the latest decisions, it looked like both Mr and Mrs Mennesson could finally establish their kinship with the twins, they still had to overcome procedural obstacles. As the Cour de Cassation had refused the transcription in its 2011 judgment which had become final, the parents were barred from applying for it again. As pointed out by the ECtHR in the Foulon and Bouvet v. France case (21/07/2016, Application n°9063/14 and 10410/14), French authorities failed to provide an avenue for the parties involved in cases adjudicated before 2014 to have them re-examined in the light of the subsequent changes in the law. Thus, France was again held to be in violation of its obligations under the Convention. (See also Laborie v. France, 19/01/2017, Application n°44024/13).

In 2016, the legislator adopted a new procedure to allow for the review of final decisions in matter of personal status in cases where the ECtHR had ruled that a violation of the ECHR had occurred. The review is possible when it appears that the consequences of the violation of the Convention are serious and that the just satisfaction awarded on the basis of article 41 ECHR cannot put an end to the violation (see articles L.452-1 to L.452-6 of the Code de l’organisation judiciaire). 

Current situation:

Taking advantage of this new procedure, the Mennesson family asked for a review of their situation. They claimed that the refusal to transcribe the birth certificates was contrary to the best interest of the children. They also argued that, as it obstructed the establishment of parentage, it amounted to a violation of article 8 ECHR. Moreover, they argued that the refusal to transcribe the birth certificates on the ground that the children were born of a surrogate mother was discriminatory and infringed article 14 ECHR.

Sitting again in Assemblée plénière, the Cour de Cassation summarized its previous case law. It concluded that while the issue of the transcription of the father biological parentage is settled, the answer is less certain regarding the intended mother. The Court wondered if its refusal to transcribe the birth certificate as far as the intended mother is concerned is consistent with the State margin of appreciation under article 8. It also wondered whether it should distinguish between cases where the child is conceived with the genetic material of the intended mother and cases where it is not. Finally, it raised the issue of whether its approach of allowing the intended mother to adopt her husband’s biological child was compatible with article 8 ECHR.

After pointing out the uncertain compatibility of its reasoning with ECtHR case law, the Court chose to request an advisory opinion from the ECtHR. Protocol 16 allows Contracting States to apply to the ECtHR for its advisory opinion “on questions of principles relating to the interpretation or application of the rights and freedom defined in the Convention or the protocols thereto” (Protocol 16 art.1).

Thus, the Cour de Cassation asked the ECtHR the two following questions:

• By refusing to transcribe into civil status registers the birth certificate of a child born abroad from a surrogate mother inasmuch as it refers to the intended mother as the “legal mother”, while the transcription has been accepted when the intended father is the biological father of the child, does a State Party exceed its margin of appreciation under article 8 ECHR? In this respect, is it necessary to distinguish between whether or not the child is conceived with the gametes of the intended mother?
• If the answer to one of the two preceding questions is in the affirmative, does the possibility for the intended mother to adopt her husband’s biological child, which constitutes a mean of establishing parentage open to her, comply with the requirements of article 8 of the Convention?

As the Cour de Cassation indicates on the press release accompanying the request of an advisory opinion, it seized the opportunity of initiating a judicial dialogue between national jurisdictions and the ECtHR. However, it looks more like a sign of caution on the part of the French court, in a particularly sensitive case. Depending on the answer it receives, the Cour de Cassation will adapt its case law.

Although Protocol n°16 does not refer to a specific deadline, the Explanatory report indicates that it would be appropriate for the ECtHR to give high priority to advisory opinion proceedings.

Thus, it looks like the Mennesson saga will be continued soon…

 

[2018] EWCA Civ 2167 Sophocleous v Foreign Secretary et al is a good reminder that conflicts rules past have a tendency not to be so easily forgotten. And in the case of the English law, one or two of them may well be revived post-Brexit (with the usual caveats). Judgment in first instance was [2018] EWHC 19 (QB) which is reviewed here.

Longmore J: ‘The common law private international rule used by the courts to determine liability in an English court in respect of foreign torts (usually referred to as the double actionability rule) was prospectively abolished by the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 (“the 1995 Act”) for all torts except defamation. But it casts a long shadow because section 14(1) of the 1995 Act expressly provides that its provisions do not apply to “acts or omissions giving rise to a claim which occur before the commencement” of the relevant Part of the Act. The 1995 Act has itself been largely superseded by the provisions of the Rome II Convention (sic) but that likewise only applies to events occurring after its entry into force.

Claimants seek damages for personal injuries sustained in Cyprus, as a result of alleged assaults perpetrated in Cyprus by members of the UK armed forces, seconded British police officers and servants or agents of the then Colonial Administration. The appeal relates to alleged torts committed during the Cyprus Emergency sixty years ago between 1956 and 1958. Accordingly the old common law rule of double actionability applies. In the last edition of Dicey and Morris, Conflict of Laws published before the 1995 Act (12th edition (1993)) the double actionability rule was stated as follows in rule 203:

“(1) As a general rule, an act done in a foreign country is a tort and actionable as such in England, only if it is both

a) actionable as a tort according to English law, or in other words is an act which, if done in England, would be a tort; and

b) actionable according to the law of the foreign country where it was done.

(2) But a particular issue between the parties may be governed by the law of the country which, with respect to that issue, has the most significant relationship with the occurrence and the parties.”

The last element is known as the “flexible exception” – of note is that the exception can apply to the whole of the tort of only part of the legal issues it provokes: depecage, therefore, is possible.

In fact whether Cypriot law is lex causae is first of all relevant for determining whether the claim has exceeded the statute of limitation: again in the words of Longmore J: ‘the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984 (“1984 Act”) governs limitation in claims where the law of any other country is to be taken into account. Section 1 provides that where foreign law falls to be taken into account in English proceedings that includes the foreign law of limitation, unless the law of England and Wales also falls to be taken into account, in which event the limitation laws of both countries apply, the effective limitation period being the shorter of the two. However, section 2 provides an exception: where the outcome under section 1 would conflict with public policy, section 1 is disapplied to the extent that its application would so conflict. By section 2(2) the application of section 1 conflicts with public policy “to the extent that its application would cause undue hardship to a person who is, or might be made, a party to the action or proceedings …”. It is therefore necessary to determine whether foreign law falls to be taken into account; this has to be determined in accordance with rules of private international law.’

To settle the issue the locus delicti commissi needs to be determined (the double actionability rule is only relevant where the tort is actionable according to the law of the foreign country where it was done). This is clearly Cyprus: at 21: ‘..there is only one tort. If that tort was committed by the primary actor in Cyprus, the fact that a person jointly liable for the commission of the tort was elsewhere when he gave the relevant assistance makes no difference to the fact that the tort was committed in Cyprus.’

On whether the flexible exception for determining lex causae as a whole applies (reminder: here relevant only for the issue of limitation), Longmore J disagrees with Kerr J, the judge in the first instance case at the High Court. The flexible exception remains an exception and must not become the rule. At 56 (after lengthy reflection of various arguments brought before him): ‘In the case at issue there are no “clear and satisfying grounds” required by Lord Wilberforce at page 391H of Boys v Chaplin for departing from the general rule of double actionability. There is a danger that if the exception is invoked too often it will become the general rule to give primacy to English law rather than law of the place where the tort was committed. That would not be right.’

And at 63, he agrees with Kerr J that the flexible exception does not apply singularly to the issue of limitation.

Conclusion: both the law of Cyprus and the law of England and Wales apply for the purpose of determining limitation. The remainder of the issues are to be held later.

Fun with conflicts – albeit evidently on not a very happy topic.

Geert.

 

 

On 28 and 29 March 2019, the international conference ‘Families Beyond Borders. Migration with or without private international law’ will take place in Ghent at the Faculty of Law of Ghent University (Belgium). The conference, organised by Jinske Verhellen, will focus on the challenging interactions between private international law, migration law and human rights law.

Speakers will deal with legal problems encountered by refugees and migrants with regard to their personal status acquired in one country and taken along to another country. How do people prove their family ties? How can families be reunited? How do unaccompanied refugee and migrant children prove their minority? How do asylum and migration authorities assess foreign documents that relate to the personal status of refugees? What happens if no (authentic) documents can be presented? How to combat fraud relating to personal status documents in an efficient manner without depriving migrants of their right to family life? These are just some questions that will be discussed.

The conference will put the spotlight on the ‘people’ (subject of all kinds of legal procedures). Therefore, the programme will be centred around three groups of people: persons in need of international protection, refugee and migrant children, migrants and their families. Both academics and experts with experience from the field will take and share the floor.

Ghent University is very honoured to welcome the following keynote speakers: Prof. James C. Hathaway (University of Michigan Law School) and Judge Ksenija Turkovi? (European Court of Human Rights).

Confirmed speakers and rapporteurs are: Prof. Laura Carpaneto (University of Genoa), Prof. Sabine Corneloup (Université Paris II), Judge Martina Erb Klünemann (Family Court Germany, EJN and International Hague Network of Judges), Katja Fournier (Coordinator Platform Minors in Exile), Dr. Susanne Gössl (University of Bonn), Steve Heylen (President European Association of Civil Registrars), Prof. Maarit Jänterä-Jareborg (Uppsala University), Prof. Fabienne Jault-Seseke (Université Versailles), Prof. Thalia Kruger (University of Antwerp), Lise Van Baelen (Restoring Family Links Officer, Belgian Red Cross), Dr. Hans van Loon (former Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law), Prof. Jinske Verhellen (Ghent University) and Prof. Patrick Wautelet (Université de Liège).

Prof. Jean-Yves Carlier (Université catholique Louvain) will draw the conference conclusions.

The full program and information on registration will soon be available here.

The Dickson Poon School of Law at King’s College London is holding an inaugural Memorial Lecture to honour the memory of Professor Robin Morse, who died last year. He was widely admired both within King’s (where he served as Dean of the School of Law) and beyond it for his scholarship and dedication to teaching, especially of the conflict of laws.   The lecture will be given by Lord Collins of Mapesbury on “Justiciability and the Conflict of Laws” on Wednesday 7 November 2018 in the Safra Lecture Theatre on KCL’s Strand Campus, and will begin promptly at 6.30pm. It will be followed by a reception.   Attendance is free, but numbers are limited and registration is required. You can sign up here.

The latest volume of the Yearbook of Private International Law has just been released; the full table of contents can be found here.

The following teaser has been kindly provided by Ilaria Pretelli:

This XIX Yearbook revisits classical questions such as forum non conveniens and exception clauses, foreign overriding mandatory provisions, reciprocity etc., at the same time presenting contributions discussing very specific and technical problems, as that of the law applicable to the right of recourse in the field of liability insurance law, that of the recognition of punitive damages in the EU or international insolvency in the banking sector.

A special section is devoted to some of the difficult questions addressed by the European regulations on matrimonial property and the property effects of registered partnerships that will soon enter into force.

A juicy special section is devoted to cultural property and heritage, including obstacles to claims for the restitution of looted art and new mechanisms leading to the proper resolution of cultural property-related disputes. Both contributions forming this section observe a gradual transition in the judicial practice and the slow but steady development of a body of transnational rules forming a true lex culturalis.

One of the truly first codifications of the latter is offered by the new Hungarian Private International Law Act, presented in the National Reports Section.

The need to adapt private international law legislation has led to a sectorial reform in New Zealand, where the traditional, and indeed discriminatory, double actionability rule has now disappeared in favour of a more modern solution, clearly inspired by European Union regulations.

The National Reports further include an essay on how Russian authorities implement both the 1996 Hague Children’s Convention and the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention, with a detailed review of Russian case-law grappling with such notions as a child’s residence, removal and retention, or the legitimate reasons to refuse return of the child.

Another paper features the first English-language contribution on Mongolian private international law – trade, commerce, family and people-to-people relationships between Mongolians and other State communities being constantly on the rise. Turkish law is once again present through a meticolous account of jurisdiction agreements and the favour they increasingly enjoy both in Turkish adjudication and academia.

Two papers on international surrogacy offer French and Italian perspectives, as these countries were involved in the Mennesson, Labassée and Paradiso ECtHR cases.

Those who are curious as to “What’s new” in terms of work-in-progress of The Hague Convention on Judgments will devour the section devoted to relevant contributions with articles on the exclusion of privacy and the relationship with other existing multilateral instruments, in particular certain instruments in force in Latin America.

The Center for Transnational Litigation, Arbitration and Commercial Law at the New York University School of Law will host a conference, on 15 and 16 November 2018, titled The Continuing Relevance of Private International Law and Its Challenges.

The conveners are Franco Ferrari (New York University, Executive Director of the Center for Transnational Litigation, Arbitration and Commercial Law) and Diego P. Fernández Arroyo (Science Po, Paris).

Speakers include George A. Bermann (Columbia University), Andrea Bonomi (Lausanne University), Ronald A. Brand (University of Pittsburgh), Hannah L. Buxbaum (Indiana University, Bloomington), Giuditta Cordero-Moss (Oslo University), Horacio Grigera Naón (Director, Center on International Commercial Arbitration, Washington College of Law, American University, Washington DC), Burkhard Hess (Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law), Matthias Lehmann (Bonn University), Hans van Loon (Former Secretary-General, Hague Conference on Private International Law), Ralf Michaels (Duke University), Yuko Nishitani (Kyoto University), Francesca Ragno (Verona University), Mathias W. Reiman (University of Michigan), Kermit Roosevelt (University of Pennsylvania), Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm (University of Edinburgh), Linda J. Silberman (New York University), Symeon C. Symeonides (Willamette University) and Louise Ellen Teitz (Roger Williams University).