Flux des sites DIP

The International Max Planck Research School for Successful Dispute Resolution in International Law (IMPRS-SDR) is accepting applications for PhD proposals within the research areas of the Department of International Law and Dispute Resolution and the Department of European and Comparative Procedural Law to fill a total of 5 funded PhD positions at the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural law.

The IMPRS-SDR was established in 2009 to bring together academics and seasoned practitioners with excellent PhD candidates in international dispute settlement to examine and compare international dispute resolution from a legal and interdisciplinary perspective. It is a collaborative effort of several prestigious research institutions in Germany and Luxembourg, namely, the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law, Heidelberg University, the University of Luxembourg, the Max Planck Foundation for International Peace and the Rule of Law gGmbH, and the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law.

In addition to providing a stimulating research environment, the IMPRS-SDR strives to furnish PhD candidates with theoretical and practical insights into the many facets of international dispute resolution.

Selected PhD candidates will receive full-time research contracts of initially two years, with a possible extension. They are embedded in one of the Departments and its activities while also participating in activities organized by the IMPRS-SDR.

For further information on the admission criteria and the application process, as well as to submit your application, please visit: https://www.mpi.lu/imprs-sdr/call-for-applications/2018/ . Closing date for applications is 31 August 2018.

A short post on manufactured nanomaterials and data. (Readers will be aware that although the blog focuses mostly on litigation, I dabble in regulatory research and practice, too. And that nanotechnology regulation has been a consistent interest of mine).

Thank you Lynn Bergeson and Carla Hutton for flagging the study by EUON on data collection and reporting methodology for manufactured nanomaterials. EUON, the European Union’s Observatory for Nanomaterials, is hosted by ECHA – the EU’s Chemicals Agency. The study’s purpose is made clear on p.15 (only) of the report: the overall context is for the regulators to have an overview of the heterogeneous market for nanomaterials. In order to do so, the study measures the reliability etc of existing reports and studies on the nanomaterials market. It concludes that a Delphi study of the existing research would be required.

For those of you with an interest in information flows and the transparency of data, the implications are clear: part of the exercise of regulating new technologies is to know what is out there; and manufacturers’ data clearly are not making it into the public domain in a transparent and coherent manner. Consider alongside this report, for instance the proposed US EPA rule on transparency in regulator science.

Geert.

Former Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), Hans van Loon, has just published a very interesting article on “Principles and building blocks for a global legal framework for transnational civil litigation in environmental matters” in the Uniform Law Review, Vol. 23, Issue 2, June 2018, pp. 298–318.  An abstract is available at https://doi.org/10.1093/ulr/uny020.

He suggests a number of basic structural components – building blocks – for a global legal framework for transnational civil litigation in environmental matters such as: jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement, and judicial and administrative communication and co-operation (pp. 316-318).

Of particular note is the reference to Article 5(1)(j) of the Hague Draft Convention on the Judgments Project, which provides that a judgment is eligible for recognition and enforcement if one of the following requirements is met –

(j) the judgment ruled on a non-contractual obligation arising from death, physical injury, damage to or loss of tangible property, and the act or omission directly causing such harm occurred in the State of origin, irrespective of where that harm occurred.

The author notes the possible challenges that may arise when the harmful event occurred elsewhere (neither in the defendant’s home – Art. 5(1)(a) of the Draft Convention  – , nor in the State of Origin where the act or omission directly causing such harm occurred, see p. 315) and makes recommendations. For more information on this provision and its narrow scope, please refer to the Preliminary Explanatory Report of the Judgments Convention  (paragraph 162bis, pp. 34-35).

Time to tackle the judgments left over from the exam queue. I reviewed Bobek AG’s Opinion in C-27/17 flyLAL here. The CJEU held early July.

Pro memoria: the AG’s suggested for locus damni not place of financial loss, rather the place within the markets affected by the competition law infringement where the claimant alleges loss of sales: damage located in a Mozaik fashion in other words; for locus delicti commissi with full jurisdiction, the AG distinguishes between Article 101 TFEU (place of the conclusion of the agreement) and 102 TFEU (place where the predatory prices were offered and applied); finally with respect to (now) Article 7(5), the activities of a branch: offering the fixed prices or otherwise having been instrumental in concluding contracts for services at those prices suffices for that branch to have participated in the tort.

The Court itself,

• for locus damni reminds us of the findings in Marinari (which tempered the implications of Bier), implying that one needs to decide whether loss of income of the kind alleged by flyLAL may be regarded as ‘initial damage’, or whether it constitutes solely consequential financial damage which cannot, in itself, lead to a forum under Article 7(2). The Court, like the AG, opts for Mozaik, referring inter alia to its judgment in Concurrences: each place where the loss of income consisting in loss of sales occurred, that is to say, the place of the market which is affected by that conduct and on which the victim claims to have suffered those losses, opens up partial jurisdiction. As I noted in my review of the Opinion, this interpretation aids the tortfeasor: locus damni leading to shattered jurisdiction facilitates anti-competitive behaviour.
• for locus delicti commissi, under Article 101 TFEU (cartels), with reference to CDC, the CJEU opts for courts for the place in which the agreement was definitively concluded: this truly is extraordinary for it allows for forum shopping by the cartel participants. For Article 102 TFEU (abuse of dominant position)
  • Prima facie at 52 there is one consolation for those suffering anti-competitive behaviour: the Court holds that the event giving rise to the damage in the case of abuse of a dominant position is not based on an agreement, but rather on the implementation of that abuse, that is to say, the acts performed by the dominant undertaking to put the abuse into practice, in particular by offering and applying predatory pricing in the market concerned. That would seem to suggest full jurisdiction for each of those places where the pricing is offered and applied. However in that para 52 the Court does not verbatim links this to jurisdiction: this it does do in
  • Para 53: ‘If it were to be established that the events giving rise to the main proceedings were part of a common strategy intended to oust flyLAL from the market of flights to and from Vilnius Airport and that those events all contributed to giving rise to the damage alleged, it would be for the referring court to identify the event of most importance in implementing such a strategy out of the chain of events at issue in the main proceedings.‘ Courts holding on jurisdiction must not delve too deep into the substance of the case but still have to employ, without looking too deeply at the merits of the case, the lex causae for the anti-competitive behaviour (per Rome II) to identify that event of most importance. In para 54 too the Court emphasises the need to limit the amount of potential jurisdictions (reference here is also made to Universal Music). I cannot be sure: does the combination of paras 52 and 53 suggest that the Court does not accept jurisdiction for all places where the pricing is offered and applied?
• Finally with respect to Article 7(5), the CJEU at 64 holds that the national courts must in particular review whether the activities carried out by the branch included actual acts of offering and applying the predatory pricing alleged and whether such participation in the alleged abuse of a dominant position was sufficiently significant to be regarded as a close link with the dispute in the main proceedings. Separate accounts are not required to conduct that exercise (at 65).

Essentially therefore the Court firmly pulls the Brussels I Recast’s ‘predictability’ card. This is in the interest of companies behaving anti-competitively. I do not read in this judgment a definitive answer however for as I suggested, the combination of paras 52 ff is simply not clear.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law), 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.11.2

Given that discovery plays an important factor in forum shopping, Hogan J’s very critical comments on the extensive possibilities in Ireland are quite relevant. Arthur Cox have good analysis of [2018] IECA 230 Tobin v MOD here  and I am in general happy to refer.  Those of you interested in comparative litigation really should take a moment to read the Judge’s comments in full. Yet again, it seems to me, a topic for serious PhD (in comparative civil procedure) analysis.

Geert.

Those of us who are familiar with the issue of multilingualism and international courts, will  enjoy the discussion of contractual terms in Wahl AG’s Opinion in C-595/17 Apple v eBizcuss. Not only does the issue entre around the precise implications of the wording of a choice of court provision. The Opinion (not yet available in English) also highlights the difficulty of translating the original English of the contractual term, into the languages at the Court.

Current litigation is a continuation of the earlier spats between Apple and eBizcuss, which led to the Cour de Cassation’s 2015 reversed stance on the validity of unilateral choice of court – which I discussed at the time.

The 2002 Apple Authorized Reseller Agreement (in fact the 2005 version which applied after continuation of the contract) included a governing law and choice of court clause reading

„This Agreement and the corresponding relationship between the parties shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Republic of Ireland and the parties shall submit to the jurisdiction of the courts of the Republic of Ireland. Apple reserves the right to institute proceedings against Reseller in the courts having jurisdiction in the place where Reseller has its seat or in any jurisdiction where a harm to Apple is occurring.” (emphasis added)

Footnote 3 displays the translation difficulty which I refer to above: parties disagree as to the translation of the contractual clause in French: applicant suggest this should read  „et la relation correspondante”, defendant proposes „et les relations en découlant”. The AG suggest to include both for the purposes of his analysis „Le présent contrat et la relation correspondante (traduction de la requérante)/et les relations en découlant (traduction de la défenderesse) entre les parties seront régis par et interprétés conformément au droit de l’Irlande et les parties se soumettent à la compétence des tribunaux de l’Irlande. Apple se réserve le droit d’engager des poursuites à l’encontre du revendeur devant les tribunaux dans le ressort duquel est situé le siège du revendeur ou dans tout pays dans lequel Apple subit un préjudice.” In Dutch: „De door partijen gesloten onderhavige overeenkomst en de bijbehorende betrekking (vertaling van verzoekster)/de hieruit voortvloeiende betrekkingen (vertaling van verweerster) tussen partijen zullen worden beheerst door en worden uitgelegd volgens het Ierse recht, en partijen verlenen bevoegdheid aan de Ierse rechter. Apple behoudt zich het recht voor om vorderingen jegens de wederverkoper aanhangig te maken bij het gerecht in het rechtsgebied waar de wederverkoper is gevestigd of in een land waar Apple schade heeft geleden.”

This translation issue however highlights precisely the core of the discussion: ‘the corresponding relationship’ suggest a narrow reading: the relationship corresponding to the contractual arrangements. Infringement of competition law does not correspond, in my view. ‘La relation correspondante’ displays this sentiment. ‘(L)es relations en découlant’ suggests a wider reading.

In 2012 eBizcuss started suing Apple for alleged anti-competitive behaviour, arguing Apple systematically favours its own, vertically integrated distribution network.

The Cour de Cassation had rebuked the Court of Appeal’s finding of lack of jurisdiction. In its 2015 decision to quash, (the same which qualified the Court’s stance on unilateral jurisdiction clauses) it cited C-352/13 CDC, in which the CJEU held that choice of court clauses are not generally applicable to liability in tort (the clause would have to refer verbatim to tortious liability): the specific para under consideration is para 69 of that judgment in CDC:

‘the referring court must, in particular, regard a clause which abstractly refers to all disputes arising from contractual relationships as not extending to a dispute relating to the tortious liability that one party allegedly incurred as a result of its participation in an unlawful cartel’.

At issue in Apple /eBizcuss is essentially what kind of language one needs for choice of court to include infringement of competition law (for Dutch readers, I have an earlier overview in Jacques Steenbergen’s liber amicorum here).

Wahl AG emphasises (at 56) that it would not be in the spirit of Article 25 Brussels I Recast (which he analyses in extenso in the previous paras) to require parties to include the exact nature of the suits covered by the choice of court agreement. He is right of course – except those suits in my view do need to be contractual unless non-contractual liability has been clearly included: that in my view is the clear instruction of the CJEU in CDC.

The AG then continues the discussion (which will be redundant should the CJEU not follow his lead) as to whether the clause covers both follow-on (a suit for tort once a competition authority has found illegal behaviour) as well as stand-alone (private enforcement: a party claiming infringement of competition law in the absence of an authority’s finding of same) suits. He suggests there should be no distinction: on that I believe he is right.

Geert.

Thank you Chloe Oakshett for flagging [2018] CSOH 45 BN Rendering Limited v Everwarm Ltd, in which the Commercial Court in Edinburgh considered its jurisdiction to enforce an adjudicator’s award. Bone of contention was choice of court (ditto law) in the underlying contracts in favour of the courts at England (and English law). Both parties are domiciled in Scotland. Relevant works had to be carried out in Scotland. The Brussels I Recast Regulation does not formally apply between them: Scots-English conflicts are not ‘international’ within the meaning of that Regulation.

However Lord Bannatyne (at 16) points out that even for intra-UK conflicts, the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgements Act 1982 (per instruction in section 20(5) a) must be interpreted taking into account the Brussels regime and its application by the CJEU. It is in this context that Case 24/76 Colzani resurfaces: ‘real consent’ needs to be established without excess formality.

At 28 Lord Banatyne lists claimant’s arguments:  the party’s contract was not signed by both parties; nevertheless the defender’s subcontract terms and conditions form part of the contract; the subcontract order refers expressly to the defender’s subcontract terms and conditions which includes the jurisdiction exclusion clause and lastly, that express reference meets the test for real consent to the jurisdiction clause.

Put in summary: At 49: Is an express reference in the defender’s subcontract order (sent to the pursuer) to the defender’s subcontract terms and conditions, which contain the jurisdiction clause (which document is unsigned by the pursuer) sufficient to satisfy the test that it is clearly and precisely demonstrated that the parties agreed to the clause conferring jurisdiction on the English courts? Or put another way, in order to satisfy the said test is it not only necessary for there to be an express reference to the defender’s subcontract terms and conditions but for the subcontract order to have been signed by the pursuer to demonstrate that the parties agreed to the clause conferring jurisdiction on the English courts?

The judge considers the answer to the above questions to be question 1, yes and question 2, no – and I believe he is right.

Geert.

The last issue of the Revue critique de droit international privé will shortly be released. It contains several casenotes and an article, authored by Campbell McLachlan who is Professor of Law at Victoria University of Wellington (“Entre le conflit de lois, le droit international public et l’application internationale du droit public : le droit des relations externes des Etats »).

The abstract reads as follows:

The relationships between States and individuals of foreign nationality from the perspective of their constitutional rights and freedoms raise a series of issues that all States must resolve and that sit at the interface of the constitutional order of each of them and the intertional legal system through which they are connected. Today, this interface has progressively become porous, raising legal problems in increasing numbers and with increased frequency. The various responses generated thereby exercise a powerful influence over the legal imaginary, including on the ways in which a legal system represents its own relationship with the rest of the world. The thesis developed here is that such responses belong to a third discipline, in between the two traditional, public and private, branches of international law. This discipline can be called «  the law of external relations », borrowing a term from one of the Restatements of the United States but little used in Europe. In what follows, the possible conceptions of this disciplinary field will be explored, along with its relationship to private international law.

A full table of contents is available here.

By Frédéric Breger, Legal Officer at the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH)

The Permanent Bureau of the HCCH has just released Volume XXII of the Judges’ Newsletter (Summer-Fall 2018) with a Special Focus on “The Child’s Voice – 15 Years Later”.

This “Anniversary” Volume was published in co-operation with Professor Marilyn Freeman (University of Westminster, London, England) and Associate Professor Nicola Taylor (University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand) in the context of their British Academy research grant on the objection of the child under Article 13(2) of the 1980 Child Abduction Convention. It gathers contributions from 25 authors (academics, lawyers, judges, mediators, psychologists…) and covering approximately 15 jurisdictions on the topic of the “objection of the child” exception. The objective of this publication is to share good practices on how to hear children in the context of a child abduction case; it further outlines examples of guidelines and normative work developed across jurisdictions in relation to the voice of the child.

A French version of this Volume will be available in October 2018. All previous volumes of the Judges’ Newsletter are available here.

The Accelerated Route to Fellowship Program is a designed for senior practitioners in the field of dispute resolution procedures. Fellowship is the highest grade of Institute membership and allows the use of the designation FCIArb.The program focuses on applicable laws and procedures for the conduct of efficient arbitration hearings in complex international cases. Satisfactory assessment of performance in role play exercises will permit the candidate to take the award writing examination for qualification as a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, which will be administered as part of the program.

Registration and other details are available here.

July 19, 6pm – 8pm

I reviewed Tanchev AG’s Opinion in C-88/17 Zurich Insurance v Metso here. The CJEU held last week. Like its AG, it upholds the place of dispatch of the goods as being a place of performance under Article 7(1)b, second indent Brussels I Recast. At 21-22: ‘When goods are carried, it is at the place of dispatch that the carrier has to perform a significant part of the agreed services, namely to receive the goods, to load them adequately and, generally, to protect them so that they are not damaged. The incorrect performance of the contractual obligations related to the place of dispatch of goods, such as, inter alia, the obligation to load goods adequately, may lead to incorrect performance of the contractual obligations at the place of destination of the carriage.’

The AG pondered, and rejected, the many intermediate places where the transport was carried out, as places of performance. The Court itself does not entertain this suggestion but clearly sides with the AG in not wanting to expand the list of possible fora to extensively.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.11.1

The new issue of “Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht – The Rabels Journal of Comparative and International Private Law” (RabelsZ) has now available. It contains the following articles:

Lord Reed, Comparative Law in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Peter Mankowski, Über den Standort des Internationalen Zivilprozessrechts -Zwischen Internationalem Privatrecht und Zivilprozessrecht (International Procedural Law: Between Choice of Law and Procedural Law):

International procedural law is the link and the intermediary between choice of law and procedural law. Over the last decades it has developed into a fully grown sub-discipline of its own and of equal rank as choice of law. In fact, for practical purposes it has become even more important than choice of law. International procedural law benefits from its position in the middle and enjoys the best from its two neighbouring worlds of choice of law and procedural law.

Susanne Lilian Gössl, Anpassung im EU-Kollisionsrecht (Adaptation in EU Private International Law):

Adaptation or adjustment has to date received little general attention in EU private international law (EU PIL) despite this tool being of high importance in maintaining the coherence between the EU PIL system and national law. The Brussels Ia Regulation, the Succession Regulation and the Matrimonial/Registered Partnership Property Regimes Regulation explicitly provide for the tool of adaptation. Nevertheless, those provisions only deal with one certain category of that tool, what is termed transposition. In general, adaptation refers to the judge’s discretion to deliberately deviate from a rule in an exceptional case in which two different national laws apply in juxtaposition and the combined application could lead to a contradictory result intended by neither of the two national systems. Adaptation diminishes or eliminates those contradictions. The judge’s discretion to adapt national and EU rules implicates questions about the relationship between EU and Member State competence. The present analysis is the first to address this topic comprehensively. It develops a system to decrease contradictions between EU PIL and national law. As the EU PIL system is still only fragmentary, the analysis is twofold. First, the article analyses the necessity, requirements and means of adaptation in a case that is governed by two EU PIL rules. Second, the article analyses whether the outcome changes if the applicable law is determined by one EU PIL rule and one national PIL rule.

Alexander Hellgardt, Das Verbot der kollisionsrechtlichen Wahl nicht-staatlichen Rechts und das Unionsgrundrecht der Privatautonomie (Fundamental Right of Party Autonomy and the Prohibition Against the Choice of Non-State Law):

Choice of law is a cornerstone of European private international law. However, existing secondary law continues to restrict the choice to state law, excluding non-state law regimes like the Principles of European Contract Law, the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts or detailed standard-form contracts. This article tests the restriction against the principle of party autonomy, which is shown to be a European fundamental right. Party autonomy encompasses the right to choose nonstate law regimes in international cases. Any restriction on the choice of non-state law regimes, therefore, needs to be justified. Where private international law does not impose any restrictions on the choice of law, as is the case in the choice of contract law between commercial parties, there is no apparent justification for excluding the choice of non-state law regimes. Hence, European secondary law has to be interpreted in the light of the fundamental right of party autonomy. This allows commercial parties to choose non-state contract law regimes for their international transactions.

Harald Baum, Andreas M. Fleckner & Mihoko Sumida, Haftung für Pflicht-verletzungen von Börsen – Deutschland und Japan im Vergleich (Liability for Trading Irregularities at Stock Exchanges):

It appears from public records that no German stock exchange, exchange operator, or host state has ever been held liable by a court for trading irregularities at the exchange (such as clearly erroneous executions). The Tokyo Stock Exchange, in contrast, was ordered to pay damages of almost eleven billion yen (roughly 80 million euros) following the Mizuho case. This paper discusses how the issues raised by the Mizuho case would have been handled under German law and compares the results with the decisions of the courts in Japan.

There are in fact many differences between Environment Protection Authority v Grafil Pty Ltd; Environment Protection Authority v MacKenzie [2018] NSWLEC 99 and the CJEU’s Palin Granit; and the regulatory context in NSW is quite different from the EU’s. My title therefore is a crowd pleaser rather than legally sound. Yet some of the issues are similar, hence justifying inclusion in the comparative environmental law /waste law binder (and a good teaser for the W-E).

Samantha Daly and Clare Collett have excellent as well as extensive analysis here and I am happy mainly to refer.

Defendants received materials from recycling depots operated by skip bin companies in Sydney. These materials were recovered fines which had been processed and recycled from building and demolition waste, for which there was no market for re-sale at the time (due to the high volumes of such material produced by the recycling industry). This material was trucked to the Premises by transporters from the recyclers and placed in mounds or stockpiles on the Premises.

Was there a stockpile of ‘waste’? Palin Granit considers similar issues in para 36 in particular.

Geert.

The Faculty of Law at the University of Mannheim is looking for a research fellow (akademische Mitarbeiterin / akademischer Mitarbeiter) at the Chair for Private Law, International and European Business Law (Prof. Dr. Moritz Renner) on a part-time basis (50 %, E 13 TV-L) as of 1 September 2018 or later.

His/her tasks will include supporting the chairholder in research and teaching, especially in the areas of conflict of laws, company law, banking law, and foundations of law.

The research fellow will be given the opportunity to conduct his/her own Ph.D. project under the supervision of the chairholder. The successful candidate holds a first law degree (Erste juristische Prüfung or equivalent) above average (at least “vollbefriedigend”). A very good command of German and English is required, further language skills will be an asset.

The position will be paid according to the salary scale E 13 TV-L. The contract period will be limited according to the Wissenschaftszeitvertragsgesetz.

The University of Mannheim aims at increasing the number of women in academia. Therefore, applications of qualified women are particularly welcome. Candidates with disabilities will be given preference in case of equal qualification.

If you are interested, please send your application (cover letter in German, CV, all relevant documents) by 31 July 2018 to: Professor Dr. Moritz Renner, Universität Mannheim, Lehrstuhl für Bürgerliches Recht, Internationales und Europäisches Wirtschaftsrecht, Schloss, D-68131 Mannheim, LS11@jura.uni-mannheim.de

The job advert in full detail is available here.

[2018] SGHCR 8 Ermgassen v Sixcap Financials to my knowledge is the first recognition and enforcement by any court under the 2005 Choice of Court Convention. Together with the 28 EU Member States (and the EU itself), Singapore, with Mexico, are the 30 States for which the Convention has entered into force.

In his decision for the High Court, Colin Seow AR recognises a High Court ex parte summary judgment, taking the process to the Hague motions: whether the issue is civil and commercial; whether choice of court was concluded in favour of the courts having issued the judgment; and pointing to the UK’s membership of the Convention and to counsel for the plaintiff having been heard at the London High Court hearing: this makes the judgment one on the merits, not just a judgment in absentia (of the defendant: a Singapore-domiciled company). Of note is Seow AR’s flexible approach to the requirement to produce certified copies of the judgment (at 23 ff).

Geert.

On 19-20 November 2018, the conference ‘Challenge Accepted! Exploring Pathways to Civil Justice in Europe’ will take place at the Erasmus School of Law in Rotterdam (under the ERC project Building EU Civil Justice). It will focus on how (1) the use of artificial intelligence in dispute resolution, (2) the privatisation of justice and the multiplication of alternative dispute resolution schemes, (3) the increased possibility of self-representation, and (4) court specialisation, in particular international commercial courts, influence the civil justice system. The panel descriptions are available here.

The full program with a great line-up of speakers and information on registration will follow soon.

A special call for applications for a one-year postdoctoral fellowship aimed at threatened researchers from developing countries (one or two bursaries can be awarded)

The details of the fellowship conditions are available on the web site at the following address:
https://uclouvain.be/en/research/news/call-for-applications-for-one-year-postdoctoral-fellowships.html

The deadline for submitting the application is August 31, 2018 at noon.

Advocate-General Bot opined on 4 July 2018 in the case of C-308/17 Leo Kuhn, domiciled at Vienna, who had purchased through an Austrian bank, Greek sovereign bonds. Pursuant to a forced exchanged /haircut carried out by Greece in March 2012, the bonds were replaced with new bonds with a lower nominal value. Mr Kuhn sued to have the initial borrowing terms enforced.

The Advocate-General is of course aware of the similarities with Fahnenbrock – in which he himself had also opined but was not followed by the Court. He first of all points out the similarities between the service Regulation and the Brussels I Recast (both e.g. limiting their scope of application to ‘civil and commercial’ matters), however also flags the specific recitals (in particular: recital 12) suggesting that in the context of the services Regulation the analysis needs to be done swiftly hence only cases which prima facie fall outside the scope of application (including where they manifestly (see the dictum of Fahnenbrock and para 50 of the AG’s Opinion in Kuhn) are not covered by that Regulation.

Coming next to the consideration of the application of ‘civil and commercial’, the facts of this case reflect very much the hybrid nature of much of sovereign debt litigation. In my view yes, the haircut took place within the wider institutional nature of Greece’s debt negotiations with the EU. Yet the ‘collective action clause’ (CAC) which was not part of the original terms and conditions (there was no CAC in the original lex causae, Greek law, but there is one in the newly applicable lex causae, English law: at 63 of the Opinion), was negotiated with the institutional holders of the bond and crammed down the minority holders like Mr Kuhn (at 66). The AG suggest that this does not impact on the qualification of the changes being ‘immediate and direct’, this being the formula employed by the Court in Fahnenbrock.

I am not so sure of the latter but it will be up to the CJEU to decide.

The Advocate General note bene subsequently ‘completes the analysis’ in case the CJEU disagrees with this view, and finds that if the issue is civil and commercial, it can be litigated under Article 7(1)’s rule on special jurisdiction for contractual obligations (the AG at para 88 ff distinguishes the case from C-375/13 Kolassa (in which the CJEU saw no contractual bond between the issuer of the bonds and the acquirer on the secondary market), the obligation at issue, he suggests, having to be performed in Greece. As for the latter element, the Advocate General does refer for the determination of the place of performance to the initially applicable law: Greek law, leaving the later lex causae, English law, undiscussed.

Whether the Court will follow the AG remains of course to be seen.

Geert.

The decision is available here and further documentation is available in the following blog: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/animal-science-products-inc-v-hebei-welcome-pharmaceutical-co-ltd/. I would also like to refer to previous posts by fellow editors here and here. The US Supreme Court held that: “A federal court determining foreign law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1 should accord respectful consideration to a foreign government’s submission, but the court is not bound to accord conclusive effect to the foreign government’s statements.”

In a nutshell, the US Supreme Court said that the weight to be given to foreign government statements depends on the circumstances of the case. In particular, it notes that “[t]he appropriate weight [a federal court determining foreign law should give to the views presented by a foreign government] in each case, however, will depend upon the circumstances; a federal court is neither bound to adopt the foreign government’s characterization nor required to ignore other relevant materials. No single formula or rule will fit all cases, but relevant considerations include the statement’s clarity, thoroughness, and support; its context and purpose; the transparency of the foreign legal system; the role and authority of the entity or official offering the statement; and the statement’s consistency with the foreign government’s past positions.”

One thing of note is that the US Supreme Court refers to Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v. United States Dist. Court for Southern Dist. of Iowa, 482 U. S. 522, which is a very important case in the context of the Hague Evidence Convention.