Flux des sites DIP

In March 2023, Professor Bernd Waas, Chair of Labour Law at Goethe University Frankfurt, organised an event under the auspices of the European Centre of Expertise on EU private international law of employment. The event was an expert meeting, whose aim was to provide the European Commission with academic expertise on this particular topic, thus […]

The rules regarding service outside the jurisdiction are about to change for the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

In a March notice to practitioners, the Chief Justice informed the profession that the Supreme Court Amendment Rules 2024 (WA) (Amendment Rules) were published on the WA legislation website on 26 March 2024.

The Amendment Rules amend the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) (RSC). The primary change is the replacement of the current RSC Order 10 (Service outside the jurisdiction) while amending other relevant rules, including some within Order 11 (Service of foreign process) and Order 11A (Service under the Hague Convention).

The combined effect of the changes is to align the Court’s approach to that which has been applicable in the other State Supreme Courts for some years.

The changes will take effect on 9 April 2024.

Background

The rules as to service outside the jurisdiction are important to cross-border litigation in Australian courts. Among other things, the rules on service provide the limits to the court’s jurisdiction in personam: Laurie v Carroll (1957) 98 CLR 310, 323.

Whether a litigant has a judicial remedy before a court with respect to a person located outside of that court’s territorial jurisdiction will depend on that court’s rules as to service, among other things.

‘[C]ivil jurisdiction is territorial’: Gosper v Sawyer (1985) 160 CLR 548, 564 (Mason and Deane JJ). So historically, the rules on service would authorise ‘service out’ when there was an appropriate connection between the subject matter of the claim and the court’s territory. For example, a court would have the requisite connection to a contract dispute where the contract was made in the forum jurisdiction, even though the defendant in breach was located outside the jurisdiction.

The requisite connection to forum territory sufficient to justify a court’s extra-territorial jurisdiction over a person not within the forum would depend on the rules of that particular court.

State Supreme Courts’ approaches to ‘long-arm jurisdiction’ depend on where the defendant is located. If within Australia, the rules are effected by the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth) as modified by the rules of the forum court. Within New Zealand, the rules are in the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth)—legislation in the spirit of the Hague Conference on Private International Law—as modified by the rules of the forum court. Defendants in any other foreign country are captured by the rules of the forum court. The same goes for the Federal Court of Australia via the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth); see Overseas Service and Evidence Practice Note (GPN-OSE).

In characteristically Western Australian fashion, the Supreme Court of Western Australia has historically taken a unique approach to service out as compared to other State Supreme Courts of the Federation. As Edelman J explained in Crawley Investments Pty Ltd v Elman [2014] WASC 233, [45], the Western Australian rules have derived from Chancery practice, whereas the approach under the historical Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW) pt 10—underpinning leading authorities like Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552—was quite different. See Agar v Hyde, CLR 572 [16].

The key difference was that the Supreme Court of WA had retained a need for leave to serve outside of the jurisdiction in advance, together with leave to have the writ issued, for persons outside Australia and not in New Zealand: see historical RSC O r 9 and O 10 r 4. Previously, the Federal Court was somewhat similar by also requiring leave, until it took a new approach from January 2023.

Some years ago, the Council of Chief Justices’ Rules Harmonisation Committee agreed to harmonise the rules as to service out as between Australia’s superior courts. New South Wales took the step of giving effect to what were then ‘new rules’ back in 2016. I discussed those changes with Professor Vivienne Bath: Michael Douglas and Vivienne Bath, ‘A New Approach to Service Outside the Jurisdiction and Outside Australia under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules’ (2017) 44(2) Australian Bar Review 160. Other States took the same approach.

In comparison to WA, the ‘new approach’ of the eastern States’ courts required very little connection between the forum jurisdiction and the subject matter of the dispute. For example, the Supreme Court of NSW could claim jurisdiction over a claim involving a tort occurring outside Australia provided there was just some damage occurring in Australia (not occurring in New South Wales—occurring in Australia): see Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) sch 6(a). Damage in the forum was not enough in the Supreme Court of WA: the tort had to occur in Western Australia (not just occurring in Australia): see historical RSC O 10 r 1(1)(k).

Through the Amendment Rules, the Supreme Court of WA is finally giving effect to what was agreed by the Rules Harmonisation Committee.

The changes

The changes for practice in the Supreme Court of Western Australia are significant in a number of respects. The full impact of the changes will require further pondering. The following is immediately apparent.

First, RSC Order 10 has been replaced with most significant impact for cases where the person to be served is outside Australia and not in New Zealand: see the new RSC O 10 div 3.

Second, service outside Australia is now possible without leave in the same circumstances that service would be permitted without leave in other ‘harmonised’ jurisdictions, like the Supreme Court of NSW. See the new RSC O 10 r 5.

Third, even if the circumstances do not satisfy the very broad pigeonholes of connection specified by the new RSC O 10 r 5, service outside Australia is still permissible with leave if the claim has a real and substantial connection with Australia, and Australia is an appropriate forum (which oddly means not a clearly inappropriate forum per the Australian doctrine of forum non conveniens—a whole other conundrum), among other things: see the new RSC O 10 r 6(5).

A remaining issue is the interaction between the new RSC O 10 and RSC OO 11 and 11A, particularly as regards service in accordance with the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters. The latter order deals with service under the Hague Convention, but it is not clear if the Hague Convention procedure for service out displaces the autochthonous procedure for service out under RSC O 10, or merely prescribes the manner or mode of service in convention countries as opposed to impacting substantive bases for whether long-arm jurisdiction is warranted.

The relationship between the historical OO 10, 11 and 11A has been one for debate, as recognised by my co-author Bell CJ in chapter 3 of the latest edition of Nygh’s Conflict of Laws in Australia: see [3.27]. The situation remains confusing. I am still confused. I look forward to becoming less confused after conferring with more learned colleagues.

Comment

The changes will likely be welcomed by the profession. They make cross-border litigation easier in Western Australia. They will make life easier for ‘foreign’ east-coast practitioners trying to dabble at practice in WA.

But I expect they will be lamented by many in the private international law community. Most academics I know subscribe to the Savigny orthodoxy that forum shopping is bad, and courts should only seize themselves of jurisdiction when they have a genuine, or real and substantive, territorial connection to the subject matter of the dispute. I know Professor Reid Mortensen will criticise these changes as ‘exorbitant’ and contrary to principle. I disagree with Reid (to hell with multilateralism—Australia first!) but I respect the arguments to the contrary. We can all agree: these changes reaffirm Australia’s unique willingness to exercise jurisdiction in a way that many foreign courts would consider exorbitant.

Within the framework of the Jean Monnet Module CoME CircLE, the University of Udine, in cooperation with a consortium of European universities, now including University of Essex , De Montfort University of Leicester, University of West Timisoara, East Anglia University, University of Rijeka, University of Belgrade and University of Szeged, organizes the 17th edition of […]

Eva Jueptner (University of Dundee) has kindly shared a presentation of her book titled A Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments: Why did the Judgments Project (1992–2001) Fail? published by Intersentia in 2024. A Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments – Why did the Judgments Project (1992 -2001) Fail? provides the first comprehensive analysis of […]

Following the publication of two seminal books on the recently adopted HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention (Mattias Weller et al. (eds), The HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention – Cornerstones, Prospects and Outlooks (Hart, 2023) and Ronald A. Brand et al, The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention (OUP, 2023), Eva Jueptner’s newly published work delves into the extensive history of this project, which has now moved on to address issues of international (direct) jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters (for details on the ongoing “Jurisdiction Project”, see here). Entitled “A Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments – Why did the Judgments Project (1992-2001) Fail?” Jueptner’s book attempts to shed light on the root causes of the original project’s setbacks.

Undoubtedly, this book is not the first foray into exploring the issue of the project’s failure, which was initiated in 1992, and proposing lessons to be gleaned from past experiences (whether through books, articles, or book chapters). However, it stands out as the first comprehensive volume devoted to this crucial subject. Consisting of an Introduction and nine Chapters, each chapter title – with the exception of Chapters 1 and 9 – is posed as a question. Chapter 9 serves as a concluding reflection, presenting “Lessons (to be) Drawn from the Failure of the Judgments Project.”

The book’s complete table of contents is available here.

 

The book’s description reads as follows:

A Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments (1992–2001): Why did the Judgments Project Fail? provides the first comprehensive analysis of the question of why the original Judgments Project of the Hague Conference on Private International Law failed in 2001. The ‘Judgments Project’, sometimes referred to as the holy grail of private international law, was a remarkable and important undertaking. Its purpose was to create a global regime to secure the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters, as well as globally applicable rules on international direct jurisdiction, determining which national courts can hear international civil and commercial proceedings. Key players in the project included the member states of the European Community and the United States of America.

 By applying an interdisciplinary approach of legal analysis and project management, the book demonstrates that the preparation and management of the pre-negotiation phase of the project were not commensurate to the complexity of the endeavour, which is likely to have contributed substantially to the discontinuation of the project. The patterns of previous successful Hague Conference project management, as demonstrated by the work on the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention and the 1993 Intercountry Adoption Convention, are also analysed, with the perspective that these patterns, which comprised an assessment of the need for and the desirability of new convention projects, as well as their technical and political feasibility, were largely absent from the Hague Judgments Project.

 Determining why the Hague Judgments Project failed is important not only from the perspective of legal history, but also for future efforts to unify grounds of jurisdiction on a global level. As this book shows, unifying grounds of jurisdiction on a global level is not an impossible undertaking. Rather, in order to create a successful instrument on jurisdiction, it is vital that the right lessons are drawn from the failed Judgments Project. This book will therefore be of interest for policymakers and legal scholars working on the unification of rules of international direct jurisdiction and rules concerning the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters. By illustrating that the failure to adopt an approach guided by sound project management principles is likely to have contributed to the failure of the negotiations, this book also contributes to the literature on international relations and successful treaty-making at international conferences and in international organisations.

 

About the Author

Dr Eva Jueptner is a Lecturer in Law and Baxter Fellow at the University of Dundee (Scotland, United Kingdom). Prior to joining the University, Eva worked at the Institute for Private International Law and Civil Procedure at the University of Bern (Switzerland). Eva’s research focuses on private international law in general, and on issues of international jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters in particular.

This post was written by Mathilde Codazzi, who is a doctoral student at the University Paris II Panthéon-Assas. In a judgment of 13 December 2023, the French Cour de cassation ruled that Italian decisions establishing parentage of an adult child in her 50s could be granted exequatur for it was not contrary to French international […]

In spite of what the focus of academic discourse sometimes seems to suggest, the area of judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters within regional integration communities is by no means limited to the European Union and perhaps MERCOSUR. To the contrary, initiatives such as the Nigeria Group on Private International Law (NGPIL) and the Uniform Acts developed within the framework of the Organisation pour l’harmonisation en Afrique du droit des affaires (OHADA), as well as the legal assistance instruments long established by the League of Arab States (LAS) along the Mediterranean coast, as well as the Communauté économique et monétaire d’Afrique centrale (CEMAC) and its 2004 Accord on judicial cooperation are striking evidence of a keen interest in Private International Law on the African continent as well (for a comparative perspective see M. Weller, ‘Mutual Trust’: A suitable foundation for private international integration communities and beyond?, RdC 423 (2022), Chapter V, paras. 224-281).

So far, however, no successful attempt seems to have been made to pursue legal integration at a continental level. In the following, we would like to modestly point out two recent developments that might have a potential to make a difference in this respect.

First, the HCCH has endorsed the establishment of a Regional Office in Africa during GCAP 2024. In particular, the Kingdom of Morocco stated that it will submit a proposal for the establishment and hosting of such a PB subdivision next year (C&D 64). After several unsuccessful attempts,[1] a physical presence in Africa, which will likely also extend to the Arabian Peninsula, represents a major step towards the involvement of African States in the HCCH while increasing the global visibility of the world organisation for judicial cooperation. Indeed, multilingual Morocco, at the crossroads of North Africa with both Europe and the Arab world, seems to be a good location for such an endeavour.

Second, the African Union (AU) appointed Prof. Hajer Gueldich, Université de Carthage, as legal counsel to the Union in February 2024. In this role, the former chairperson of AUCIL will examine, among other things, how legal cooperation between the Member States might be improved and what degree of judicial integration is feasible within the framework of the African Union. This ambitious project is a manifestation of Aspiration 3 of the Agenda 2063: “The continent’s population will enjoy affordable and timely access to independent courts and judiciary that deliver justice without fear or favour”.

This could well be the beginning of a fruitful consolidation of legal cooperation structures on the African continent (AU) and the successful integration of this world region into the context of interregional and global judicial cooperation (HCCH).

[1] See HCCH Prel. Doc. No. 6 of 2015 – Africa Strategy, paras 7 and 10.

Third International Seminar on Rights In Rem in the European Union “Conflict of Laws on rights in rem in the EU: Status Quo and Proposals for the Future” is the closing dissemination activity within the project PID2020-112609GB-I0 Property Rights System over Tangible Goods in the Field of European Private International Law: Aspects of International Jurisdiction and Applicable Law, funded by the Spanish Government.

The seminar aims to offer discussions on various aspects of the conflict of laws rules concerning rights in rem. The debate is particularly relevant at a time when more and more academic associations (GEDIP and EAPIL) and other actors in private international law advocate for a legislative proposal by the European Union in this field. The rich conference programme will surely be of interest to many, and infromation about the venue and registration is available at the conference webpage.

This seminar is organised by the Rovira i Virgili University (Tarragona), the University of Barcelona and the University of Lleida, as well as the First and the Second seminars.

The latest issue of the IPRax (Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts) has been published. The following abstracts have been kindly provided by the editor of the journal. H.-P. Mansel, K. Thorn and R. Wagner, European Conflict of Law 2023: Time of the Trilogue This article provides an overview of developments in Brussels in the […]

The first issue of the Chinese Journal of Transnational Law (Vol.1 Issue 1, 2024) was recently published by SAGE. It includes three articles relevant to private international law.

Consensus and Compulsion: The Extra-territorial Effect of Chinese Judicial and Specially-Invited Mediation in Common Law Countries, Jie (Jeanne) Huang
This article conducts exhaustive research on case law in major common law jurisdictions (Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Singapore, the UK, and the US) regarding the recognition and enforcement of Chinese judicial mediation decisions (MTS). In contrast to the rich literature criticizing the systematic deficiency of Chinese judicial mediation where an adjudicator plays the dual role of mediator and judge in the same case and the consequent injustice to the parties, the deficiency is not an issue currently in recognition and enforcement of MTS in common law jurisdictions. Why is this so and what would be the future trend? Answering these questions, this article explores the recent expansion from judicial mediation to Specially-Invited Mediation at the people’s courts in China and discusses whether the features of Specially-Invited Mediation impact the recognition and enforcement of MTS at the common law jurisdictions. It also addresses controversies on applicable law, challenges to the enforceability of civil liability clauses, debates on the finality of MTS, and recognition and enforcement of MTS under China’s judicial assistance agreements, the Hague Choice-of-Court Convention, the Hague Judgments Convention, and the Singapore Mediation Convention.

Procedural Estoppel in International Commercial Arbitration Proceedings, Ilias Bantekas
This article argues that arbitral practice has effectively given rise to a general principle whereby the parties to arbitral proceedings are deemed to have waived rights arising from a procedural rule where they have failed to timely raise an objection against a procedural irregularity. Tribunals do not refer to such a process as abuse of right, or procedural estoppel, but as a tacit waiver of procedural rights. Even so, the effects are the same. This rule is well enshrined in article 4 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. There is a line of domestic case law suggesting that the presumption in favour of the waiver does not apply where the party in question had no knowledge of the facts giving rise to the breach; where failure to apply it was not predicated on bad faith and/or; where the delay in exercising the right was not significant.

Consumer Jurisdiction and Choice of Law Rules in European and Chinese Private International Law, Zhen Chen
This article compares consumer jurisdiction and choice of law issues in China and the EU. It aims to answer the following questions. What is the notion of consumer? Are farmers, package travel tourists and timeshare tourists consumers? Are dual-purpose contracts consumer contracts? Is a consumer jurisdiction rule needed in China and if yes, under what ground and with what conditions? Is choice of court agreement in consumer contracts valid? How to limit the exercise of party autonomy and what role mandatory provisions may play? Shall consumer contract and tort claims be subject to the same applicable law? Based on a comparative analysis with European law, this article concludes that to improve cross-border consumer protection, China should reform its law to include package travel contracts and timeshare contracts into consumer contracts and determine the nature of dual-purpose contracts pursuant to their primary purpose. Moreover, the current limitation on party autonomy should be lifted by providing freedom to both parties and relying on mandatory provisions as a safety valve. The consumer choice of law rule and its interaction with the general contract choice of law and tort choice of law rule needs to be reexamined.

The UNCITRAL secretariat is pleased to announce that the inaugural edition of the UNCITRAL Days in the Arab Sates is planned for 2024!

The UNCITRAL Days activities comprise academic gatherings organized with universities and institutions of higher learning in the region, which discuss and consider issues arising in UNCITRAL’s areas of work, i.e. the progressive harmonization and modernization of international commercial law through the adoption, use and implementation of legal texts. The events seek to raise awareness of UNCITRAL instruments and the of legal harmonization amongst the next generations of academics and policymakers.

This series of events will be held between 15 April – 31 December 2024 under the following theme: “The role of UNCITRAL in the modernization of international trade law in the Arab States”.

Information regarding the organization of an event within the framework of the UNCITRAL Days in the Arab States in 2024 can be found in the attached document in Arabic and English language.

If your institution is interested in organizing an event, simply fill out the form available at https://forms.office.com/e/nZifBytPsC or by scanning the QR code below.

The secretariat will contact you afterwards to discuss practicalities.

by Salih Okur (University of Augsburg)

On 8 and 9 March, scholars from more than a dozen different jurisdictions followed the invitation of Tobias Lutzi to discuss recent trends in punitive damages at the University of Augsburg, Germany. Despite an unfortunate combination of rail and flight strikes, only a small number of participants were ultimately unable to make it to Augsburg. While their presence was dearly missed, the option of participating in the conference online meant that nothing stood in the way of more than 50 scholars of private and private international law devoting the next 26 hours to critically discuss whether and to what extent a strict refusal to recognise foreign punitive damage awards – as notably upheld in Germany – was still tenable in light of international developments.

The conference contained five panels overall, which were split into three blocks. It was kicked off by Tobias Lutzi and Marc Lendermann (Federal Ministry for Digital and Transport, Germany), who underlined the continued relevance of punitive damages as a research topic, despite the German Federal Court of Justice’s landmark decision from 1992 (BGHZ 118, 312), which appears to have stopped claimants from seeking enforcement of punitive damage awards in Germany. It evidently has not stopped claimants from seeking enforcement of punitive damage awards in other civil law legal systems. As the conference would highlight on the second day, some legal systems, including Italy, France, and South Korea, which originally refused to recognise foreign decisions on grounds similar to those of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH), have abandoned their strict refusal and adopted a more nuanced approach. This constant flow of international change and developments alone makes it worthwhile to keep the academic conversation going.

The first block then focused on the origin, scope, and, particularly, on the purpose of punitive damage awards. In his paper on “Compensation, Punishment, and the Idea of Private Law”, Lukas Rademacher (University of Kiel) explained the idea of punitive damages and its compatibility with German private law. Rademacher took a closer look at the BGH’s landmark decision from 1992, which deemed the concept of punitive damages intolerable in Germany mainly because its function to punish and deter doesn’t fall in the scope of German private law’s concept of strict compensation; punishment and deterrence are entirely reserved for criminal law. Rademacher then analysed whether punitive elements could be found in German tort law. He identified damage awards for pain and suffering and loss of personality as potential examples of over-compensatory remedies in German private law. Rademacher explained that these awards, when not relating to an actual loss, still serve semi-compensatory interests, especially the idea of satisfaction. In contrast to punitive damages, these interests aren’t objective sanctions detached from compensation, as they are still a means to restore an infringed right and restore equality between the tortfeasor and the injured party.

Subsequently, Jan Lüttringhaus (University of Hanover) focused on “Punitive Damages and Insurance”, picking up the BGH’s concerns regarding the insurability of punitive damage awards (which the Court deemed an incalculable and uninsurable risk). Lüttringhaus immediately dismissed these concerns, as the numbers necessary for insurability exist. According to him, data on punitive damages is well documented, delivering the required statistical data on frequency and severity of loss, which allows the inference of an average loss and therefore an adequate premium. Lüttringhaus then addressed the much more fundamental question of whether punitive damages should be insurable, as this could impede their punishing and deterrent character. On the other hand, insurability could guarantee payment where the defendant lacks the financial capacity, and the punitive and deterrent effect could still be achieved by imposing higher premiums and the tortfeasor having difficulties finding a new insurer.

Catherine Sharkey (New York University) then shifted the conference’s focus away from the stereotypical punitive damage award for intentional malicious conduct and shed light on the question, “Who’s Afraid of Punitive Damages for Product Liability?”. She observed that punitive damages in the U.S. are awarded much more often against corporations and businesses for not keeping up with safety standards than against individuals for intentional malicious conduct. Thus, it seems hard to sustain the idea of retribution when discussing punitive damages, as with corporations and businesses, there is “no soul to damn and no body to kick”. Sharkey explained that the idea of societal deterrence and compensation was taking on a more predominant role. This paradigm shift could also be observed in proposals to focus more on what is necessary to achieve adequate deterrence when deciding on whether and how much to award in cases in which punitive damages are a possibility. This idea of social deterrence was further perpetuated, according to her, when considering that many states have implemented split recovery statutes for product liability cases that direct 50 % to 75 % of punitive damage awards to the respective state or a designated fund.

Concluding the first panel (and day) of the conference, Rachel Mulheron (Queen Mary University) shared her insights into “Punitive Damages in English Law”. She pointed out that although parliament abolished punitive damages in certain areas of law (e.g. through the Law Reform Act 1934 and the Competition Act 1998), this has not prevented English courts from awarding punitive damages for common law torts such as defamation and trespass to the person, as has been established in Rookes v. Barnard [1964] AC 1129. Still, English courts seem to struggle to differentiate between compensatory and punitive damage awards. While the Court of Appeal in John v. MGN Ltd. [1997] QB 586 expressly allocated the purpose of vindication to the compensatory limb of defamation cases, the Privy Council in A v. Bottril [2002] UKPC 44 ruled that one function of punitive damages was vindication. Beyond that, punitive damages are not readily available for negligence and privacy torts, as there are lingering uncertainties identifying the requisite trigger for punitive damages.

After the foundation was laid on the first day of the conference, the second day opened with a panel on the public policy exception to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. Cedric Vanleenhove (University of Ghent) gave a paper on “Punitive Damages and Public Policy”. He argued that punitive damages seem to be one of the few legal institutions showing a sharp contrast between common law and civil law jurisdictions. The central mechanism for the rejection of common law punitive damage awards is the public policy exception representing the fundamental values of a society, keeping away foreign judgements if they are manifestly unacceptable when measured against domestic legal standards. In search of the “right” approach regarding the enforcement of punitive damage awards, Vanleenhove emphasised legal coherence: the more the private law of a state derogates from full compensation and allows punitive-like damage awards, the harder it appears to sustain the argument that full compensation is part of public policy. Vanleenhove also examined the relevance of the label given to damage awards. Due to the prohibition of révision au fond, the court of enforcement might feel bound to the court of origin’s compensatory label even if the awarded damages are excessive. As could be seen in the Spanish Real Madrid case currently pending at the Court of Justice, excessive compensatory damages might trigger the public policy exception if the enforcement would give rise to a manifest breach of fundamental rights. French courts, on the other hand, seemed to apply a rather general proportionality test.

In the second paper of the day, Marko Jovanovi? (University of Belgrade) took a closer look at “The Public Policy Exception in the 2019 Hague Judgements Convention” and compared it to similar exceptions in other instruments. Comparing the public policy exception of the 2019 HCCH Judgements Convention with the 1971 HCCH Judgements Convention, the 2005 HCCH Choice of Court Convention, and the Brussels I Recast Regulation, it stands out that all of them require a manifest incompatibility to trigger the respective exception. Only the 1958 New York Convention seems to waive the high threshold of a manifest incompatibility. Nevertheless, academics as well as practitioners agree on applying this exception restrictively. These high hurdles for triggering the public policy exception speak in favour of its application only to extreme cases. However, Jovanovi? reported that some national jurisdictions misused the public policy exception as a barrier against undesirable decisions. As for most of these legal frameworks, there is no international court that oversees the uniform application, so internationalisation seems like a distant goal according to Jovanovi?, no matter how desirable it may be.

After this introduction to the public policy exception, the conference entered its third block on the exception’s actual application to punitive damages awards. The first panel was dedicated to the Netherlands (André Janssen (Radboud University)), Japan (Beligh Elbalti (University of Osaka)) and Germany (Johannes Ungerer (University of Oxford)), all of which still refuse recognition and enforcement of foreign punitive damage awards.

Before going into detail as to why Dutch courts maintain this position, Janssen presented provisions of the Dutch civil code that seem to show punitive elements, e.g., the injured person being entitled to damages for losses, which do not consist of pecuniary damages, if the tortfeasor had the intention of causing such losses. While many Dutch authors recognise punitive elements in these provisions, the Dutch Supreme Court does not share this view and denies the existence of punitive elements. Interestingly, in 2012, the Rechtbank Amsterdam enforced 5,000 € worth of punitive damages, arguing that the fact that Dutch law doesn’t recognise punitive damages does not mean that they are contrary to Dutch public policy. However, in the Hof’s Hertogenbosch case from 2021, a Dutch court denied recognition and enforcement of a punitive damage award because its character was incompatible with the fundamental nature of Dutch liability and compensation law, and beyond that, the award of $250,000 in that case was seen as disproportionate to the compensatory part.

The Japanese Supreme Court, in its Kyogo decision, reached the same conclusion as to the incompatibility of punitive damages with Japanese public policy. The court argued that the purpose of punitive damages was the same as that of criminal law, whereas Japanese tort law seeks only to restore the actual loss suffered by the victim. Based on this fundamental difference, foreign punitive damage awards are considered incompatible with the Japanese civil law system. Although the Supreme Court allowed for partial recognition and enforcement of the compensatory part, claimants cannot enforce the punitive part in the country of origin and eventually enforce the compensatory part in Japan, as Japanese courts then treat the punitive part of the decision as non-existent. Furthermore, Elbalti reported that in the academic debate, it remained unclear whether punitive damages are incompatible with Japanese public policy per se or if aspects of proportionality should be of relevance.

Finally, Ungerer argued that Germany’s rejection of foreign punitive damage awards was the result not of fear but rather of a principled approach. He emphasised the protection of German creditors as enforcing excessive punitive damage awards entails the risk of draining the defendant’s assets at the expense of domestic creditors. He also noted the risk of the defendant who faces a punitive damage award becoming insolvent, potentially leading to the claims of all the other creditors becoming worthless. Ungerer further stressed that Germany’s practice of awarding damages for immaterial losses while simultaneously rejecting foreign punitive damage awards does not make Germany guilty of a double standard, as those awards still observe a compensatory relation and limitation, similar to the point made by Rademacher on the first day of the conference. So, according to Ungerer, Germany’s rejection of enforcing punitive damages can be seen as an unafraid and principled measure.

The last panel of the conference was dedicated to France (Samuel Fulli-Lemaire (Université de Strasbourg)), Italy (Caterina Benini (Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore)) and South Korea (Min Kyung Kim (Incheon District Court)), all of which have recently started to recognise and enforce punitive damage awards under certain circumstances.

Fulli-Lemaire clarified that France was never that afraid of punitive damages. Up until the landmark decision of the Cour de Cassation in 2010, there had been strong academic support for the recognition and enforcement of punitive damage awards. Still, in 2010, the Cour de Cassation, in its Fontaine Pajot case, made clear that this support is not without exception. The public policy exception might still trigger when the amount of punitive damages awarded is disproportionate to the loss sustained and to the severity of the breach of duty. Unfortunately, the Cour de Cassation did not give further guidelines regarding the proportionality test. On top of that, it remains unclear what even qualifies as an award for punitive damages and whether the French courts are bound by the qualifications of the original court. Fulli-Lemaire stressed that one must always keep in mind the prohibition of révision au fond, though.

In contrast to France, Benini reported that Italy was indeed once scared of punitive damages, e.g. when the Italian Supreme Court rejected recognition and enforcement of an Alabamian judgement in 2007, arguing that punitive elements were alien to Italian civil liability. Ten years later, in 2017, the Italian Supreme Court held that the evolution of civil liability, though, still predominantly serving compensation, led to also considering punitive and deterrent purposes. Thus, punitive damages were not ontologically incompatible with Italian public policy. Again, there are conditions the foreign award must comply with in order not to trigger the Italian public policy exception. Namely, the punitive damage award must be reconcilable with the legality (typicality and predictability) and proportionality principles. In Italy, the courts apply the proportionality test by comparing the amount of punitive damages to compensatory damages as well as the severity of the wrongdoer’s conduct.

Similarly to Italy, South Korean courts also rejected the enforcement of punitive damage awards, as the principle of full compensation was part of South Korean public policy. Kim describes that in 2011, the South Korean legislator began introducing acts providing treble, quadruple, and even quintuple damages, softening up the principle of full compensation in South Korean private law. With this in mind, in 2022, the Korean Supreme Court recognised that, at least when the cause of damages in a foreign judgement falls within the purview of this Korean legislation, it was difficult to justify a manifest incompatibility with fundamental principles of South Korean private law, – very much in line with Vanleenhove’s previous call for legal coherence. It remains unclear, though, whether South Korea will eventually overcome its fear of punitive damages more broadly and resort to a more generous proportionality test, similar to France and Italy.

Overall, the conference aptly demonstrated that there is still a lot of comparative legal research to be done in the field of punitive damages. The conference proceedings, which will be published by Mohr Siebeck and will contain extended versions of the papers, will certainly contribute to this endeavour.

First Advocate General Szpunar Opined last week in Case C-86/23 E.N.I., Y.K.I. v HUK-COBURG-Allgemeine Versicherung AG – let’s call that case HUK-Coburg. The case concerns the application of Article 16 Rome II’s lois de police aka lois d’application immédiate aka overriding mandatory provisions.

A claim is issued for compensation submitted by private individuals, who are Bulgarian nationals, in accordance with compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, against an insurance company for non-material damage caused by the death of their daughter in a road traffic accident in Germany.

The core issue to determine by the CJEU is the concept of overriding mandatory provisions in Article 16 Rome II and in particular the determination of the criteria for classifying rules safeguarding individual rights and freedoms as ‘overriding mandatory provisions’. This echos the discussion in Unamar, where the Brussels Court of Appeal eventually held that the relevant Belgian provisions only serve the interests of private parties, not of the Belgian public legal order, hence there can be no question of application of the lois de police exception (current Opinion suggests ‘only’ as the key word in the Court of Appeal’s analysis). The current discussion by the AG also echoes the facts in Lazar.

Contrary to German law (28), Bulgarian law (lex fori) (29) provides that compensation for non-material damage is determined by the court giving judgment on the basis of fair criteria. That court points out that, under Bulgarian law, compensation is payable for all mental pain and suffering endured by parents on the death of their child as a result of an unlawfully and culpably caused road traffic accident. It is not necessary for the harm to have resulted indirectly in pathological damage to the health of the victim.

(32) The mere fact that, by applying the lex fori, there would be a different outcome with regard to the amount of compensation from that which would have been reached by applying the lex causae is not sufficient to conclude that the Bulgarian provision at issue may be classified as an ‘overriding mandatory provision’ within the meaning of Article 16 of the Rome II Regulation, provided, the AG adds,  that the application of the lex causae is compatible with considerations of justice.

(36) Over and above CJEU Unamar, the Court also in Da Silva Martins explored the concept and the criteria. (42) ff the AG recalls the general principles, and (56) he points to recital 32 Rome II’s reference to ‘‘considerations of public interest’. The AG is absolutely right in opining that safeguarding individual interest may absolutely contribute to the protection of public interest. His argument (60) is common sense and absolutely right:

A first argument is linked to the interplay of collective and individual interests. Thus, in the field of tort law, the rules that a Member State establishes in order to protect a category of persons who have sustained damage, by modifying, in particular, the burden of proof or by establishing a minimum threshold for compensation, could have the principal objective to restore the balance between the competing interests of private parties. Indirectly, they could therefore also contribute to safeguarding the social and economic order of the Member State by reducing the impact of accidents on public resources.

On the basis of CJEU authority as outlined, the AG concludes that the case at issue may absolutely lead to the court seised applying Bulgarian law however only if

it finds, on the basis of the existence of sufficiently close links with the country of the forum and a detailed analysis of the terms, general scheme, objective and context of the adoption of that directive, that it is of such importance in the national legal order that it justifies a departure from the applicable law designated pursuant to Article 4 [Rome II].

A good opinion which I hope will be followed by the Court.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed. 2024, 4.87 ff.

First AG Szpunar this morning in C‑86/23 HUK-Coburg
Applicable law
Criteria for classifying rules safeguarding individual rights and freedoms as ‘overriding mandatory provisions’ viz A16 Rome II
citing ia @KrzysztofPacula, Bonomi, Wauthelet, Francqhttps://t.co/M0qXbb8aCu

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) March 21, 2024

In his Opinion in C-774/22 JX v FTI Touristik, Advocate General Emiliou in my opinion is spot on for both core elements of the case. A consumer domiciled in Germany issues a claim against a tour operator also established in Germany in relation to a contract for a package of travel services booked by that consumer for a trip abroad. Does Brussels Ia apply and does the consumer title of the Regulation assign territorial as well as national jurisdiction?

The trip is sold as a package holiday. That is relevant, for the consumer title does not apply to mere contracts of transport. The consumer in the case at issue suggests that the operator failed in its duties under the Package Travel Directive to inform ia re visa requirements and brings a case in his domicile, Nuremberg (as opposed to Munich, the defendant’s domicile).

The AG is absolutely right to spend a mere two paras on the territorial jurisdiction issue. The answer follows from the very wording of the consumer title. (18):

The referring court’s doubts concerning the function of the forum actoris rule for consumers call for a swift response. It stems from the very wording of Article 18(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation. A comparison of the two provisions it contains is enlightening in that regard. The forum rei rule refers to the ‘courts of the Member State’ in which the professional is domiciled. By contrast, the forum actoris rule refers to the ‘courts for the place’ where the consumer is domiciled. That terminological difference is not trivial. It is designed precisely to indicate that, whereas the first rule merely confers international jurisdiction on the courts system of the designated State, taken as a whole, the second rule gives both international and territorial jurisdiction to the court for the locality of the consumer’s domicile, irrespective of the allocation of jurisdiction otherwise provided for by the rules of procedure of that State.

On the next issue, the international element, the AG refers to the discussion in German scholarship on ‘false internal cases’ (unechteInlandsfälle). Does the foreign destination of the trip give the contractual relationship an international character? (29) ff he finds support in the broad conception of the international element in BIa generally. Owusu of course, Lindner, ZN v Bulgarian Consulate, IRnova and most recently Inkreal are all relevant authority.

(33) The AG refers to some clear examples of what the majority view would call unechteInlandsfälle which without a doubt however are caught by Brussels Ia:

For instance, where a court of a Member State is called upon to determine a case which, on the one hand, involves two litigants domiciled in that State but, on the other, relates to a tort that took place abroad, or the tenancy of an immovable property located in another country, the Brussels I bis Regulation applies.

Emiliou AG is not a fan of ZN v Bulgarian Consulate not because it viewed the case as being international but rather because it relies too much on the definition of ‘international’ in the European Order for Payment Regulation 1896/2006 (respective domiciles of the parties and the seat of the court seised). (38-39)

On the one hand, Regulation No 1896/2006 was adopted to tackle the difficulties faced by creditors seeking to recover uncontested claims from debtors in other Member States. It is aimed at simplifying and speeding up the recovery of such claims, through the creation of a uniform procedure allowing a creditor to obtain, from a court of a Member State, a judicial decision on such a claim, which can easily be enforced in the Member State where the debtor’s assets are located, while guaranteeing a level playing field in terms of rights of defence throughout the European Union. The definition of ‘cross-border case’ given in that regulation – based on the respective domiciles of the parties and the seat of the court seised – has a certain logic in that context. Where the parties are domiciled in the same State, the remedies provided by the courts of that State, under its procedural law, are usually sufficient to ensure that the creditor swiftly recovers his or her claim. Therefore, the procedure laid down in that regulation is not necessary.

On the other hand, the Brussels I bis Regulation purports to unify the rules of conflicts of jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters. That definition is too narrow and, thus, ill-suited for that purpose. As explained in points 32 and 33 above, questions of international jurisdiction may arise even where the litigants are domiciled in the same Member State and the courts of that State are seised. Moreover, that instrument also contains rules on recognition and enforcement of judgments given by the courts of the Member States. To be fit for purpose, those rules must apply whenever the authorities of a Member State are required to recognise or enforce a decision delivered by a court of another Member State, even where it concerns an internal dispute between two persons domiciled in the latter State. That definition also does not accommodate that situation.

(41) the AG insists the CJEU no longer refer to the OFP Regulation in interpreting Brussels Ia:

I urge the Court to refrain, in the future, from referring to Regulation No 1896/2006 in that context. Should the Court wish to draw inspiration from, and to ensure consistency with, other instruments on that issue, [Rome I and Rome II] fit the bill better, as will be seen below.

(I have in the past voiced concern with too much BIa /RI and II parallel as has the CJEU itself in Kainz).

More in general though and away from purposive construction in light of other PIL instruments, the AG opines straightforwardly that the destination of the trip constitutes a relevant ‘international element’ for the purposes of BIa.

The place of destination of the trip is also the place where, under the package travel contract, (most of) the services were provided or should have been provided to the traveller (the flight would land nearby, the hotel be situated there, and so on). In other words, that contract was, or should have been, essentially performed there. In my view, where a court of a Member State is called upon to determine a dispute related to the performance of a contract, and the place of performance is in a foreign country, that factor is ‘such as to raise questions relating to the determination of the international jurisdiction of that court’. (Reference to Richard de la Tour AG in Inkreal).

CJEU Lindner at the jurisdictional level echoes in (45) in the AG’s reference to Rome I:

An analogy can also be made, in my view, with the Rome I Regulation and the relevant case-law of the Court. Similar to the Brussels I bis Regulation with respect to jurisdiction, that instrument determines the law applicable to a contract where the situation ‘involv[es] a conflict of laws’. In that regard, it stems from the case law of the Court that the rules of the Rome I Regulation are applicable to any contractual relationship with a ‘foreign element’. Indeed, it is only where such a contract has connections with a country (or countries) other than that of the court seised that that contract could potentially be governed by different, conflicting national laws, and that court may wonder which law to apply in order to resolve a dispute. Pursuant to the same case law, that concept of ‘foreign element’ is not limited to the respective domiciles of the contracting parties. The fact that the contract is to be performed in another country constitutes such an ‘element’.  A connection of that kind obviously ‘involv[es] a conflict of laws’. The court seised can contemplate the possibility that the law of the country of performance could apply instead of its own. [Much appreciated reference in footnote to the 2nd ed of the Handbook, 2016, GAVC]. Thus, the rules of that regulation are necessary to resolve that conflict.

The somewhat convoluted reasoning by which the CJEU came to international element in Maletic (where the Court could just as well simply had referred to the foreign destination of the trip) is explained by the AG (49) by the fact that the real difficulty in that case was on which party to anchor the forum solutionis analysis.

(56) In further support comes Article 18(1)s’ ‘regardless of the domicile of the other party’, clearly designed with third States parties in mind, is broad enough to capture  the situation where the supplier is domiciled in the same the Member State as the consumer.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed 2024, 2.22 ff and 2.233 ff.

1/2 Emiliou AG Thurs in C‑774/22 JX v FTI Touristik
Both spot on imo:
consumer title Brussels Ia applies to contract btw consumer and tour operator domiciled in same MS but with trip abroad;
consumer title forum actoris determines national as well as territorial jurisdiction

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) March 9, 2024

In competition law there is a strong presumption of attributability of daughter’s action to the mother corporation as I discussed ia in my post on CJEU C-508/11 P ENI (references to further case-law there). In general in competition law there is a strong emphasis on the concept of an ‘economic unit’ which readly looks beyond the legal fiction of separate corporate personality.

In C‑425/22 MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. v Mercedes-Benz Group AG (let’s shorten that to ‘MOL v Mercedez-Benz) Emiliou AG opined that for the purposes of Article 7(2) Brussels Ia jurisdiction a parent company cannot rely on the competition law concept of an economic unit in order to establish the jurisdiction of the courts where it has its registered seat to hear and determine its claim for damages for the harm suffered by its subsidiaries.

(14) Applicant is a company established in Hungary. It has a controlling interest in companies belonging to the MOL group. It is either the majority shareholder or holds another form of exclusive controlling power over a number of companies, such as MOLTRANS, established in Hungary; INA, established in Croatia; Panta and Nelsa, established in Italy; ROTH, established in Austria; and SLOVNAFT, established in Slovakia. During the infringement period identified by the relevant Commision Decision (the Trucks Cartel)

The AG of course refers to Bier, Dumez France (direct damage in one person rules out an extra A7(2) forum for the third party (mother corporation) victim of indirect damage), and other core cases on A7(2) which this blog frequently refers to and /or has discussed:

C‑352/13 CDC: A7(2) locus delicti commissi for cartels is the court of the place where the cartel was definitively formed, confirmed in flyLAL and criticised by me inter alia here;

C‑352/13 CDC (holding ia that A7(2) locus damni for infringement of cartel is the victim’s registered seat); that solution too as the AG notes (44) was met by criticism both by Bobek AG in his Opinion in flyLAL and by scholarship;

C-30/20 Volvo: more emphasis Emiliou AG suggests on the link between the market affected by the anticompetitive conduct and the place where the claimants allege to have suffered harm; in my post on the case I point out the CJEU’s fuzziness on the issue;

He also distinguishes CJEU Tibor Trans‘ distinct view on (in)direct damage as follows (36-37) – footnotes omitted:

36. It is true, as the applicant notes, that in the judgment in Tibor-Trans (which related to the same collusive behaviour as that established in the Commission Decision at issue in the present case), the Court distinguished that case from the scenario in Dumez. The particularity of the facts in Tibor-Trans was that the applicant in that case, an end user of the trucks, did not purchase any trucks from the defendant directly, but did so through a dealership. However, that did not prevent the Court from finding that the applicant’s claim in that case concerned direct damage, because that damage was found to be the immediate consequence of an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, given that the overcharge resulting from the collusive agreement was passed on to that applicant by the dealers.

37. Such passing-on may occur within a supply chain where the alleged victim acquires the goods (or services) which have been subject to a cartel. That, however, is not claimed to have occurred in the case in the main proceedings. Instead, the applicant appears to present the initial harm suffered by its subsidiaries as its own.

(52) The AG points out that the distinguishing feature here is that the applicant’s registered seat is situated outside the affected market. (57) Applicant seeks to extend the application of the registered seat connecting factor to establish jurisdiction in relation to its claim in which it seeks compensation for harm suffered solely by other members of its economic unit.

Emiliou AG does not believe the competition law concept can simply be extended for jurisdictional services, referring also to Szpunar AG’s Opinion in C‑632/22 (service of documents) on which see prof Matthias Weller here. For his extensive arguments based on A7(2)’s requirement of proximity, predictability of forum, Gleichlauf (less convincing imo), and that BIa’s jurisdictional rules guarantee efficient enforcement (particularly in A4 domicile jurisdiction), see the Opinion.

His final conclusion is that (98)

the term ‘the place where the harmful event occurred’, within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012, does not cover the registered office of the parent company that brings an action for damages for the harm caused solely to that parent company’s subsidiaries by the anticompetitive conduct of a third party, and where it is claimed that that parent company and those subsidiaries form part of the same economic unit.

As my colleague Joeri Vananroye summarises the Opinion:

“In corporate law terms: yes to outsider veil piercing, no to insider reverse veil piercing. Outsiders may disregard legal structure and go for economic reality; but not those who set up that structure. See also: rules on derivate damages.”

Blame Bier /Mines de Potasse d’Alsace for this complex set of rules and distinguishing.

Geert.

EU private international law, 4th ed. 2024, 2.438 ff.

 

Emiliou AG, A7(2) BIa
Parent company cannot rely on competition law concept of economic unit to establish jurisdiction where it has its registered seat, re claim for damages for the harm suffered by its subsidiaries.

MOl v Mercedes-Benz https://t.co/MC376UYiX0

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) February 14, 2024

On 26 April 2024, a half-day conference will be held at 9 am CET, organized by the Centre for Private International Law at the School of Law, University of Aberdeen, in collaboration with the Faculty of Law, University of Ljubljana. The conference aims to explore crucial topics within the realm of private international law. The […]

Augustin Gridel (University of Lorraine) has kindly prepared a presentation in English of his monograph titled Marchés et instruments financiers en droit international privé (Financial Markets and Financial Instruments in Private International Law), published by Bruylant in 2023. The aim of this book is to describe the relationship between the law of financial markets and […]

On Tuesday, April 9, 2024, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its 43rd monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 11:00-12:30 (CEST). Bettina Heiderhoff (Universität Münster) will speak, in German, about

Interfaces between Migration Law and International Family Law

The presentation will be followed by an open discussion. All are welcome. More information and sign-up here.

If you want to be invited to these events in the future, please write to veranstaltungen@mpipriv.de.

On 19 March 2024, the Council of the European Union approved the position of the European Parliament at first reading on the proposal for a directive on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings, also known as Strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs. The directive has thereby […]

The Council of the European Union on 15 March 2024 reached a final deal on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on corporate sustainability due diligence (see here and here for previous analysis on the proposal hosted on this blog). The deal comes after a series of meetings […]