Flux des sites DIP

In Brogsitter, the CJEU held that the fact that one contracting party brings a civil liability claim against the other is not sufficient to consider that the claim concerns ‘matters relating to a contract’ within the meaning of Article 7(1) Brussels I Recast. That is the case only where the conduct complained of may be considered a breach of contract, which may be established by taking into account the purpose of the contract, which will in principle be the case only where the interpretation of the contract which links the defendant to the applicant is indispensable to establish the lawful or, on the contrary, unlawful nature of the conduct complained of against the former by the latter. 

At the end of December, Kokott AG Opined in C-196/15 Granarolo (even now, early April, the English version was not yet available) effectively applying Brogsitter to the case at hand: an action for damages for the abrupt termination of an established business relationship for the supply of goods over several years to a retailer without a framework contract, nor an exclusivity agreement. Ms Kokott (at 17) points out that unlike Brogsitter, there is no forceful link with the contractual arrangements between parties which would be the foundation for jurisdiction on the basis of contractual (non) performance (which there would have been had there been a framework relation between the parties). Rather, the soure for a claim between the parties is a statutory provision (it is not specifically identified: however presumable it relates to unfair commercial practices) that existing business relations cannot be abruptly halted without due cause.

Article 7(2) therefore should determine jurisdiction (over and above Article 4).

Geert.

(Handbook of) European Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.11.2, Heading 2.2.11.2.9

The following announcement has been kindly provided by Professor Dr. Christoph Kumpan, University of Halle-Wittenberg:

Professor Dr. Christoph Kumpan, University of Halle-Wittenberg, is looking to hire a highly skilled and motivated individual to work as a part-time (50%) research assistant beginning June 2016 or sooner. Applications should be submitted no later than April 15, 2016.

The position will entail close collaboration on a number of new and ongoing projects, focusing primarily on research on financial regulation.
The duties include reviewing English articles, editing English texts and the support in research and teaching, as well as teaching your own classes in English (2 hours per week), preferably in the areas of private law business/financial law.

This position is expected to last two years. The work location is Halle, Germany, a city close to Berlin, Germany.

Education:

a university degree, preferably in law (JD)
preferably, knowledge of financial law / securities regulation

Competencies:

knowledge of English (native speaker or equivalent language skills)
experience with reviewing and editing legal texts
interest in business law
ability to work in a team as well as independently

Hours/week: 20
Pay Frequency: Monthly
Payment: around 1.700 Euro (approx. 1.200 Euro net) per month
Possibility to obtain a doctoral degree (if faculty’s requirements are met)

Required Job Seeker Documents: Resume, Cover Letter, complete transcripts.
The cover letter should include: A brief description of your career/study goals. A description of your experience with reviewing/editing legal texts. A brief description of any prior research assistance experience, or any other experience with legal research (e.g., thesis).

The University is committed to a policy of equal opportunity. Candidates with disabilities will be preferred in cases where they have the same qualifications as others.

If you are interested in this position, please send your application with the reference no. “Reg.-Nr. 3-1109/16-H” by April 15, 2016, preferably, via email to sekretariat.kumpan@jura.uni-halle.de

or to:
Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Juristische und Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät, Juristischer Bereich, Lehrstuhl für Bürgerliches Recht, Wirtschaftsrecht, Internationales Privatrecht und Rechtsvergleichung, Universitätsplatz 3-5, 06099 Halle (Saale).

For more information (in German) see http://www.verwaltung.uni-halle.de/dezern3/Ausschr/16_308.pdf.
For further enquiries, please contact Professor Dr. Kumpan: sekretariat.kumpan@jura.uni-halle.de

As explained in a previous post from a few years back, if the Justices of the United States Supreme Court are considering whether to grant a petition for certiorari and review a decision from the Courts of Appeals, and they think the case raises issues on which the views of the federal government might be relevant—but the government is not a party—they will order a CVSG brief. “CVSG” means “Call for the Views of the Solicitor General.” In the past two months, the Court ordered CVSG briefs in two new cases concerning matters of private international law, sovereign immunity and international arbitration.

If the issues are interesting to the Justices of the Supreme Court, and are about to be addressed by the U.S. Executive branch, then they should, ipso facto, be interesting to the practicing bar as well. The fact that each of these cases involve claims being made against foreign sovereigns makes them even more interesting for international dispute resolution lawyers steeped in the crossroads of litigation, commercial and investment arbitration. Below is a brief review of these two cases and the interesting issues being raised.

The first case is Belize Social Development Ltd. v. Government of Belize. It involves the relatively uncommon juxtaposition of arbitration award enforcement and the doctrine of forum non conveniens. In that case, a private company had a contractual dispute with the government of Belize, and obtained an arbitration award of $38 million. It then sought to confirm the award in the United States. Belize defended on numerous grounds, including by arguing that the arbitration exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act did not apply because the contract was entered without proper legal authority in Belize, and by asserting that the New York Convention does not mandate recognition and enforcement where, as here, the dispute was not purely a “commercial” one, but rather promised favorable tax treatments. These defenses were dismissed by the D.C. Circuit; Ted Folkman has discussed that decision on Letters Blogatory.

The other unsuccessful defense raised by the debtor is now the subject of a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court. The basic question is whether a party may dismiss a petition to recognize and enforce an arbitration award under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The District Circuit held that a foreign forum is per se inadequate—and thus ineligible as a forum conveniens—because the focus of a recognition and enforcement action (viz. U.S.-based assets) cannot be reached by a foreign court. The D.C. Circuit affirmed this holding without any explication. This holding plainly splits from the Second Circuit, which has affirmed the forum non conveniens dismissal of recognition and enforcement actions when the alternative forum has some assets of the debtor, and thus offers the possibility of a remedy. This case is complicated by the fact that the Belize Supreme Court has issued an injunction against enforcement proceedings, and the Caribbean Court of Justice has held that the Award convenes public policy.

The decision below and the parties’ briefs before the Court can be found here.

The second case is Helmerich & Payne Int’l Drilling Co. et al v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. This case concerns the a lawsuit by a U.S. company regarding breaches of contract by PdVSA and the expropriation of its assets in Venezuela. The claims were brought under both the expropriation and commercial activity exceptions to the FSIA; the District Court permitted the claims to proceed under the latter but not the former. The D.C. Circuit flipped those conclusions, allowing the expropriation but not the contract claims to proceed, and remanded the case. Both sides have filed crossing petitions for a writ of certiorari, presenting the following questions.

(1) Whether, under the third clause of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, a breach-of-contract action is “based … upon” any act necessary to establish an element of the claim, including acts of contract formation or performance, or solely those acts that breached the contract;

(2) whether, under Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, a breaching party’s failure to make contractually required payments in the United States causes a “direct effect” in the United States triggering the commercial activity exception where the parties’ expectations and course of dealing have established the United States as the place of payment, or only where payment in the United States is unconditionally required by contract.

(3) Whether, for purposes of determining if a plaintiff has pleaded that a foreign state has taken property “in violation of international law,” the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act recognizes a discrimination exception to the domestic-takings rule, which holds that a foreign sovereign’s taking of the property of its own national is not a violation of international law;

(4) whether, for purposes of determining if a plaintiff has pleaded that “rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue,” the FSIA allows a shareholder to claim property rights in the assets of a still-existing corporation; and

(5) whether the pleading standard for alleging that a case falls within the FSIA’s expropriation exception is more demanding than the standard for pleading jurisdiction under the federal-question statute, which allows a jurisdictional dismissal only if the federal claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

The decision below and the parties briefs before the Court can be found here and here.

What the Solicitor General says about these issues and whether the Court takes the cases will not be known until the next Term, which begins in October.

The following announcement has been kindly provided by Professor Dr. Christoph Kumpan, University of Halle-Wittenberg:

Professor Dr. Christoph Kumpan, University of Halle-Wittenberg, is looking to hire a highly skilled and motivated individual to work as a part-time (50%) research assistant beginning May 2016. Applications should be submitted no later than April 15, 2016.

The position will entail close collaboration on a number of new and ongoing projects, focusing especially on research on private law, international private law and business law.
The duties include the support in research and teaching in private law and private international law, as well as teaching your own classes (2 hours per week, in English or German), in particular in the areas of private law and/or private international law.

This position is expected to last three years. The work location is Halle, Germany, a city close to Berlin, Germany.

Education:

a university law degree (e.g., JD)

Competencies:

knowledge of English required, preferably also Spanish or French
knowledge of German of advantage
knowledge of private international law
ability to work in a team as well as independently

Hours/week: 20
Pay Frequency: Monthly
Payment: around 1.700 Euro (approx. 1.200 Euro net) per month
Possibility to obtain a doctoral degree (if faculty’s requirements are met)

Required job seeker documents: resume, cover letter, complete transcripts.
The cover letter should include: A brief description of your career/study goals. A brief description of any prior research assistance experience, or any other experience with legal research (e.g., thesis).

The University is committed to a policy of equal opportunity. Candidates with disabilities will be preferred in cases where they have the same qualifications as others.

If you are interested in this position, please send an application with the reference no. “Reg.-Nr. 3-1107/16-H” by April 15, 2016, preferably, via email to sekretariat.kumpan@jura.uni-halle.de

or to:
Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Juristische und Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät, Juristischer Bereich, Lehrstuhl für Bürgerliches Recht, Wirtschaftsrecht, Internationales Privatrecht und Rechtsvergleichung, Universitätsplatz 3-5, 06099 Halle (Saale).

For more information (in German) see http://www.verwaltung.uni-halle.de/dezern3/Ausschr/16_310.pdf.
For further enquiries, please contact Professor Dr. Kumpan: sekretariat.kumpan@jura.uni-halle.de

Editors Andrea Bjorklund, John Gaffney, Fabien Gélinas and Herfried Wöss have prepared a new TDM special, which undertakes a broad-ranging study of CETA as an indicator of the evolution of EU trade and investment policy and of the kinds of tensions and innovations that can be expected to arise as a new generation of twenty-first century trade and investment agreements emerges. The special starts off with an introduction by Professor Pieter Jan Kuijper; The Honourable L. Yves Fortier and Judge Stephen Schwebel.

You can view the table of contents of the TDM CETA special here

As many will know, in September 2015 the University of Cambridge hosted the Journal of Private International Law Conference (see here).  Video of the four plenary sessions has now been uploaded to YouTube.  The videos can be accessed through these links: first plenary, second plenary, third plenary, fourth plenary.

RPC and Sarah Shaul it seems, like me, are hoovering up database backlog – once again thank you to their excellent blog for alerting me to Banque Cantonale de Genève v Polevent. Other than the direct impact for the interpretation of Rome II‘s Article 10, and its relation with Article 4’s general rule, an important lesson from the case to me seems to be, yet again, the relevance of the articulation of claims, for the determination of jurisdiction.

Facs are as follows (at 2 ff). Claimant (“BCGE”) is a bank in Geneva. On 24 March 2104 a man calling himself Mr. Dumas telephoned BCGE and asked to speak to Yvan Nicolet of the accounting department. He was not in the office and so the call was taken by Jacqueline Konrad-Bertherin. Mr. Dumas asked her to send a confidential message to what he said was the private mail address of Eric Bourgeaux, the deputy CEO of BCGE. She did so and received a reply from someone claiming to be Mr. Bourgeaux instructing her to pay Euro 6,870,058 from BCGE to the Natwest Bank in London in favour of Polevent Limited. She did so. She believed she had been instructed to do so by Mr. Bourgeaux; but she had not been. The fraud was discovered and repayment was requested later that day.

Shortly before the fraud Natwest had been advised of a freezing order against Polevent in favour of an Italian company Enoi SpA (“Enoi”). The funds were therefore frozen in Polevent’s account with Natwest. BCGE has claimed damages from Polevent for deceit. BCGE accepts that that claim is governed by the law of Geneva. It has also advanced a claim against Polevent in restitution on the basis that the sum was paid by mistake. It claims that since Polevent must have realised that the sum was paid by mistake the conscience of Polevent was affected such that a constructive trust arises thereby providing BCGE with a proprietary claim in respect of the frozen funds. BCGE says that this proprietary claim is governed by English law.

Enoi is another creditor of Polevent. Enoi maintains that BCGE’s claim for restitution, in common with the claim is in deceit, is governed by the law of Geneva which does not recognise a proprietary claim. The resulting dispute is therefore between two creditors of Polevent. That company is in liquidation and has taken no part in this dispute.

The only preliminary issue which the High Court was asked to adjudicate on is worth repeating in full:

“On the basis of the facts as pleaded in the Amended Particulars of Claim and on the basis that the claim set out at paragraph 13 of the Amended particulars of Claim is governed by the law of Geneva, are the claims set out at paragraph 15 of the Amended particulars of Claim governed by English law or by the law of Geneva ? ”

One can appreciate why two different claims were formulated here.

For the claim in damages for deceit, BCGE accept Geneva law applies. The claim for restitution on the basis of unjust enrichment, however, is covered in its view by Article 10(3) Rome II: the law of the place in which the unjust enrichment took place, this being England, hence allowing for the existence of a constructive trust and priority in the pecking order following Polevent’s insolvency.

Enoi argue that the claim in restitution, like the claim in damages, is covered by the law of Geneva: at 9:

The submission of counsel for Enoi is that the law governing the claim in restitution is the law of Geneva by reason of Article 4(1) of Rome II. The claim arises out of the tort/delict of fraud and so the governing law is that of the place in which the damage occurred, namely, Geneva. Alternatively, the governing law is the law of Geneva pursuant to Article 10(1) on the grounds that the unjust enrichment concerns a relationship arising out of a tort/delict such that the governing law is that which governs that relationship, namely, the law of Geneva. In the further alternative the governing law is the law of Geneva pursuant to Article 10(4) on the grounds that the obligation arising out of the unjust enrichment is manifestly more closely connected with Geneva.

Both parties of course reverse engineer their governing law arguments: being aware of the attraction of one State’s laws over the other, counsel brief is to convince the court that the matter is characterised so that it leads to the warranted applicable law.

Enoi suggest that BCGE in reality have one claim only: one in fraud, a tort, it argues, from which the claim in unjust enrichment follows in a dependent fashion. Teare J disagrees (at 13). A claim in restitution need not be fault-based. It is a separate claim, to which Article 10’s regime applies (in the end leading to a finding of English law).

The judgment is in fact quite short. Its crucial implication to me would seem to be that BCGE has won the day by formulating two separate heads of action. Teare J acknowledges that his view may be an ‘unduly English law’ view, in other words, that he read the formulation of two claims at face value, as being two separate claims, because English law recognises non-fault based unjust enrichment. Regardless of the fact that other States, including European States, do so too, the obvious question is whether the EU’s qualification would be the same. The concept of unjust enrichment, like the concept of tort, necessarily needs to be an ‘autonomous’ one. Yet without much guidance in the preparatory works of Rome II on this concept, who can blame national law for filling in the blanks?

Geert.

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

Thomas Bauermann, Der Anknüpfungsgegenstand im europäischen Internationalen Lauterkeitsrecht, Mohr Siebeck, 2015, ISBN 9783161539084, pp. 332, Euro 69.

[Dal sito dell’editore] – For the first time, Article 6 of the Rome II Regulation contains uniform European provisions on the private international law of unfair competition. This poses particular problems since there are huge differences in EU member states’ understanding of unfair competition law. Against this background, Thomas Bauermann examines the autonomous European concept of unfair competition and its characteristics.

Maggiori informazioni disponibili a questo indirizzo.

Il 14 e il 15 aprile 2016 si terrà il decimo seminario internazionale di diritto internazionale privato della Universidad Complutense di Madrid.

Si parlerà degli sviluppi del diritto internazionale privato spagnolo, delle recenti codificazioni nazionali del diritto internazionale privato e del diritto internazionale privato dell’Unione europea.

Interverranno, fra gli altri, Miguel Virgós Soriano (Univ. Autónoma de Madrid), Bertrand Ancel (Univ. Paris II-Assas), Alegría Borrás (Univ. Barcellona), Jürgen Basedow (Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law), Christian Heinze (Univ. Leibniz, Hannover), Elena D’Alessandro (Univ. Torino), Roberto Baratta (Univ. Macerata) e Thalia Kruger (Univ. Antwerpen).

Il programma completo ed ulteriori informazioni sono reperibili a questo indirizzo.

Steadman Jean, Sprague Steven, Common Law Contract Law. A Practical Guide for the Civil Law Lawyer, Wolters Kluwer, 2015, pp. 896, ISBN 9788821751547, Euro 81.

[Dal sito dell’editore] – Il testo costituisce una guida pratica alla disciplina dei contratti nell’ambito del sistema common law e si rivolge a tutti gli operatori del settore legale che, per loro origine e formazione, fanno riferimento al sistema del diritto civile e si occupano di operazioni, transazioni e contratti regolati dal diritto inglese o americano qualunque sia l’oggetto del contratto o la nazionalità delle parti. Vengono analizzati gli istituti fondamentali del sistema common law in Inghilterra, Galles e Stati Uniti d’America, evidenziandone i tratti comuni e fornendo una dettagliata spiegazione delle principali differenze esistenti tra i due sistemi giuridici. Numerosi esempi consentono al lettore di meglio comprendere come la prassi contrattualistica trovi reale applicazione nella quotidiana pratica legale. Ogni capitolo è corredato da specifiche note esplicative. Sono presenti un dettagliato glossario e una checklist delle principali tipologie contrattuali.

Ulteriori informazioni sono disponibili a questo indirizzo.

The Max Planck Institute Luxembourg, heading an international consortium, is undertaking a European Commission-funded Study (JUST/2014/RCON/PR/CIVI/0082) on the laws of national civil procedure of the 28 Member States and the enforcement of European Union law.

The Study has two strands: the first deals with the impact of national civil procedure on mutual trust and the free circulation of judgments within the 28 Member States of the EU and the second deals with the impact of national civil procedure on the enforcement of consumer rights derived from EU law. Accordingly, the Consortium has prepared two online tools, aimed at gathering information, opinions and experiences (both available in six language versions):

• Questionnaire focusing on the impact of national procedures on mutual trust and the free circulation of judgments:
  English
  French
  German
  Italian
  Polish
  Spanish

• Questionnaire focusing on the impact of national procedures on the enforcement of EU consumer rights:
  English
  French
  German
  Italian
  Polish
  Spanish

We would encourage consumers, lawyers, judges, academics, consumer protection associations, businesses, business/trade associations, dispute resolution facilitators, and those working in other legal professions (including bailiffs, court clerks, registrars, notaries and so on) to respond to the questionnaire for one or both strands of the study.

If you agree, and wish to share more information with us on any of the topics covered by the Study, it will be possible to provide us with your contact details at the end of the survey.

Please feel free to share widely the links to this webpage and to the questionnaires within your own networks.

I have reported before on various schemes of arrangement which the English Courts gave the go-ahead even when they concerned non-English companies (I should flag that in two of those, Apcoa and Van Gansewinkel, I acted as expert). Thank you Arie van Hoe for bringing Indah Kiat to my attention some weeks ago.

Indah Kiat is a Dutch BV seeking an order convening a single meeting of its scheme creditors to consider and if thought fit approve a scheme of arrangement pursuant to Part 26 of the Companies Act 2006. The application is strenuously opposed by one of the Scheme Creditors, APP Investment Opportunity LLC (“APPIO”), which contests the jurisdiction of the court to entertain or sanction the Scheme. Such opposition is different from the other schemes which I mention in my previous postings.

In the first instance, APPIO simply seeks an adjournment of the Scheme Company’s application on the grounds that inadequate notice has been given to Scheme Creditors. However, it also raises a significant number of other issues concerning the adequacy of the evidence and disclosure by the Scheme Company, together with questions concerning the procedure and scope of the court’s jurisdiction to sanction creditor schemes for foreign companies in relation to debts governed by foreign law.

The Scheme Company is a special purpose vehicle which was incorporated for financing purposes in the Netherlands. It sought the COMI way to enable English courts to obtain jurisdiction over the scheme. English jurisdiction, required to carry out the Scheme, usually rests on either one of two legs: COMI, or making English law the governing law of the underlying credit agreements (if necessary by changing that governing law en route).

The COMI route to jurisdiction in many ways defies the proverbial impossibility of having one’s cake and eating it. For the establishment of a company’s centre of main interests, the courts and practice tend to refer to the EU’s Insolvency Regulation. Yet that schemes of arrangement do not fall under the Insolvency Regulation is a crucial part of the forum shopping involved in attracting restructuring advice to the English legal market. This is especially so for the aforementioned second route to jurisdiction (a change in governing law). however it is also true for the first form. Snowden J refers to that at para 85-86 of his judgment.

Indah Kiat has effected its change of COMI (rebutting the presumption of COMI being at its registered seat) by notifying its creditors via a number of clearing houses for the Notes concerned. APPIO contest that this notification sufficed for change in COMI. There are not enough relevant facts in the judgment to consider this objection thoroughly, however APPIO’s misgivings would not seem entirely implausible.

Snowden J notes that whilst protesting the jurisdiction, in the first instance APPIO simply seeks an adjournment of the convening hearing on the grounds that inadequate notice has been given of it to Scheme Creditors. It contends that given the complex nature of the Scheme and the factual background, there is no justification for an urgent hearing of the application. The Court agreed and the convening hearing (different from the sanction hearing, which follows later) was adjourned until 3 March. Snowden J further gave extensive argument obiter as to why the Scheme’s information was insufficient in the form as it stood at the hearing.

He then revisits (82 ff) the jurisdictional issue, which I have already signalled above: what role exactly COMI should play, how the Brussels I recast intervenes, what the impact is of likely recognition of the sanction (if any) in Indonesia, The Netherlands, and the US; and what if any role the relevant US judgments in the case should play: there will be plenty of points for discussion at the convening and sanction hearing. (I mentioned above that the convening hearing was scheduled around 3 March; I have not heard from the case since however if anyone has, please do let me know).

I do not think Indah Kiat has made the jurisdictional hurdle higher for Schemes of Arrangement involving foreign companies. Rather, the fierce opposition of an important creditor has brought jurisdictional issues into sharper perspective than had been the case before.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, Chapter 5, Heading 5.4.2).

Kohärenz im Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrecht der Europäischen Union, a cura di Jan von Hein e Giesela Rühl, Mohr Siebeck, 2016, pp. XVII+389, ISBN 9783161533501, Euro 79.

[Dal sito dell’editore] – Since adopting the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997, the European Union has enacted a large number of regulations in the field of Private International Law and International Civil Procedure. Resultant reconciliation and coordination problems were the subject of a 2014 conference in Freiburg im Breisgau. The findings presented here shed light on incoherences, describe the requirements for a more coherent regulation and discuss perspectives for a future European codification in the field of Private International Law.

L’indice ed un estratto del volume sono disponibili qui. Ulteriori informazioni sono reperibili a questo indirizzo.

Hendric Labonté has authored a book entitled “Forderungsabtretung International. Art. 14 Rom I-Verordnung und seine Reform” (International Assignments. Art. 14 Rome I Regulation and its Reform). The volume has been published by Mohr Siebeck. It is written in German.

The official abstract reads as follows:

The commercial significance of assignments, especially in an international context, requires a straightforward conflict of laws provision. However, art. 14 Rome I does not provide enough certainty, particularly when it comes to third party effects. These should be entirely determined by the law of the underlying debt.

More information is available on the publisher’s website.

Il fascicolo di gennaio 2016 della rivista La Ley: Unión Europea contiene alcuni contributi su temi internazionalprivatistici.

In particolare, Angel Espiniella Menéndez è autore di uno scritto, dedicato al regolamento 2015/2421, che modifica il regolamento n. 861/2007, sulle controversie di modesta entità, intitolato La reforma de los procesos europeos monitorio y de escasa cuantía.

Appaiono altresì un commento di Santiago Álvarez Gonzáles alla sentenza pronunciata dalla Corte di giustizia il 19 novembre 2015 nella causa C-455/15, PPU, intitolato Traslado ilícito de menores, competencia judicial internacional y orden público, e un commento di María Jesús Elvira Benayas alla sentenza Corte di giustizia del 16 settembre 2015 nella causa C-519/13, Alpha Bank, intitolata El uso de los formularios (en la notificación internacional conforme al Reglamento 1393/2007) y la tutela judicial efectiva.

L’indice completo della rivista è disponibile qui.

The following announcement has been kindly provided by Dr. Susanne Lilian Gössl, LL.M., University of Bonn:

Call for Papers

On 6th and 7th April 2017, for the first time a young scholars’ conference in the field of Private International Law (PIL) will be held at the University of Bonn.

The general topic will be

Politics and Private International Law (?)

We hereby invite interested junior researchers to send us their proposals for conference papers. We envisage presentations of half an hour each in German language with subsequent discussion on the respective subject. The presented papers will be published in a conference transcript by Mohr Siebeck.

Procedure

If we have stimulated your interest we are looking forward to your application to

nachwuchs-ipr(at)institut-familienrecht.de

until 30 June 2016, 12 a.m. CET (deadline!).

The application shall include an exposé of maximum 1,000 words in German language and shall be composed anonymously that is without any reference to the authorship. The author including his/her position or other affiliation shall be identifiable from a separate file.

Selection decisions will be communicated in October 2016.

For organisational reasons, a preliminary version of the paper (to measure 35,000 to 50,000 characters including footnotes) and the core statements must be received by not later than 31 March 2017.

Topic:

For our purposes, we explicitly understand PIL in a broader sense: international jurisdiction and procedure, the law of the international settlement of disputes (including ADR) as well as uniform law and comparative law and the comparison of legal cultures are included insofar as they allude to cross-border questions.

Ever since Savigny, conflict of laws rules have traditionally been perceived as “unbiased” or “value-neutral” in Central Europe as they are solely supposed to coordinate the applicable substantive law. However, during the second half of the past century the opinion that conflict of law rules may also strengthen or prevent certain results of substantive law has become prevalent. In the U.S., such discussion led to a partial abolition of the “classical” PIL in favour of balancing the individual governmental interests as to the application of their respective substantive law provisions (so called governmental interest analysis). But other legal systems have also explicitly or indirectly restricted classical PIL in some areas in favour of governmental interests. Our conference is dedicated to the various possibilities and aspects of this interaction between PIL and politics as well as to the advantages and disadvantages of this interplay.

Possible topics or topic areas are:

General questions:

• “Politicisation” of PIL on the national, European and international level, or the political target of “value-free” PIL rules (?)
• “Politicisation” of comparative law (?)
• Convergence of PIL and Public International Law, especially the protection of fundamental rights and human rights by means of PIL
• Uniform applicable law or harmonisation of PIL
• PIL in day-to-day application of law – theory and reality (?)
• General instruments of PIL to enforce political targets: overriding mandatory rules, public policy, forum non conveniens, extensive/narrow jurisdiction …
• Allocative functions of PIL and International Civil Procedure Law
• Users, stakeholders and their interests in cross-border questions: parties, attorneys, judges, notaries, experts etc.
• Protection by formal requirements or third parties’ obligations to cooperate (e.g. notarial recording of the choice of law agreement)
• Parties’ or courts’ expenses due to the application of foreign law
• Regulatory competition, e.g. in order to establish a national venue of arbitration
• Forum shopping and locational advantages through low standards of protection (e.g. regarding data protection law, copyright law, family law or consumer protection law)
• Issues of competences as regards European PIL rules
• Extraterritorial application of national (private) law (Kiobel, Bodo Community)

Business Law:

• Financial crisis, e.g. resolution of globally operating banks
• Gender Quotas of in Corporate Law, e.g. application of German law on foreign companies or comparison between international regulatory models
• Protection of competition in case of worldwide groups operating, e.g. Google antitrust proceedings by FTC and EU Commission
• Law on co-determination within the European context, e.g. questions referred for a preliminary ruling by KG (Court of Appeal in Berlin) and LG Frankfurt
• Worker protection

Family and Inheritance Law:

• Protection of minors, i.e. regarding repatriation of children or international adoptions: successful legal unification (?)
• Cross-border protection of adults
• Application of religious law and judgements of religious courts

Consumer protection:

• Consumer protection and market freedom (i.a. in the Internet)
• Special jurisdiction, party autonomy and the enforcement of minimum standards in substantive law

Internet and new media:

• Territoriality of rights to ubiquitous goods (e.g. copyright law and data protection rules) and cross-border trade
• Copyright Law and “Fair Use”
• Data protection/privacy and freedom of information

Other recent focal points:

• Migration and refugee crisis, e.g. the determination of the law of the person between integration or preservation of cultural identity
• Environmental protection, e.g. enforcement of titles from class actions or international litigation regarding mass damages
• Protection of cultural property – issues regarding ownership and repatriation

For more information, please visit https://www.jura.uni-bonn.de/en/institut-fuer-deutsches-europaeisches-und-internationales-familienrecht/pil-conference/.

If you have any further questions, please contact Dr. Susanne Gössl, LL.M. (sgoessl(at)uni-bonn.de).

We are looking forward to thought-provoking and stimulating discussions!

Yours faithfully,

Susanne Gössl
Rafael Harnos
Leonhard Hübner
Malte Kramme
Tobias Lutzi
Michael Müller
Caroline Rupp
Johannes Ungerer

Julia Alma Schünemann has authored a book entitled “Die Firma im internationalen Rechtsverkehr. Zum Kollisionsrecht der Firma unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Rechts der Europäischen Union” (Company Names in Cross-Border Transactions. The Applicable Law to the Name of a Company in the European Union). The Volume has been published in German by Mohr Siebeck.

The official abstract reads as follows:

Does an English Limited need to adapt its company name in order to operate in Germany? Julia Alma Schünemann designs an overall concept for dealing with this rarely discussed interface between private and public international and EU law.

More information is available on the publisher’s website.

In Vizcaya v Picard, the Privy Council considered the issue of consent to a choice of court clause in the event no such choice has been made verbatim. It was alleged that choice of court had been made implicitly but clearly by reference to an applicable law agreement in the underlying contract. RPC have a review of the case on their blog and I am grateful to them for bringing it to my attention.

The case is a fall-out of the Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme, carried out through Mr Madoff’s company Bernard L Madoff Investment Securities LLC (“BLMIS”), a New York corporation. After Madoff’s fraud came to light in 2008, Irving Picard (“the trustee”) was appointed as trustee in BLMIS’s liquidation in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (“the New York BankruptcyCourt”). The trustee commenced proceedings under the anti-avoidance provisions of the US Bankruptcy Code against investors who had been repaid before the fraud was discovered, including the appellant, Vizcaya Partners Limited (“Vizcaya”), a BVI (British Virgin Islands) company which carried on business as an investment fund, and which invested about US$328m with BLMIS between January 2002 and December 2008, but was repaid US$180m before the fraud was discovered.

The Appeal before the Privy Council concerns primarily the content and scope of the rule in common law that a foreign default judgment is enforceable against a judgment debtor who has made a prior submission to the jurisdiction of the foreign court (as distinct from a submission by appearance in the proceedings).  Brussels I or the Recast was not applicable to the case. In that Regulation (Article 25), the expression of consent with choice of court must take one of thee forms: essentially: written (or oral but confirmed by written agreement); in accordance with lex mercatoria; or in accordance with established business practice simply between the parties.

The question in the case at issue is whether the agreement to submit must be express, or can also be implied or inferred. The Privy Council settled the uncertainty which would seem to have existed for some time in the common law, in favour of an answer in the affirmative. Consent to jurisdiction can be implied. What needs to be shown though is real ‘agreement’, or ‘consent’ (in European private international law with respect to the similar discussion re choice of law (Rome I) I would say the test is one of ‘clearly established’), quod non in casu. Choice of law (here: in favour of New York law) can be a factor but not a solely determinant one. Moreover, choice of court viz one’s business transactions does not imply automatic extension to insolvency proceedings.

Crucial precedent, it would seem. Geert.

European private international law, second ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.9

Johannes Schilling, Das Internationale Privatrecht der Transportverträge, Mohr Siebeck, 2016, pp. XXXV+468, ISBN 9783161542534, € 79,00

[Dal sito dell’editore] – Das internationale Transportrecht ist durch eine unübersichtliche Anzahl von materiellen Einheitsrechtsakten gekennzeichnet. Während im Gütertransport die völkerrechtlichen Konventionen, wie die CMR oder das MÜ, zum Tragen kommen, werden bei der Personenbeförderung in erster Linie die europäischen Fahrgastrechteverordnungen relevant. Mittlerweile ist auch das für Beförderungsverträge maßgebliche Kollisionsrecht auf europäischer Ebene vereinheitlicht, und zwar in Art. 5 Rom I-VO. Angesichts dessen geht Johannes Schilling der Frage nach, welches Recht auf internationale Beförderungsverträge Anwendung findet. Im Fokus stehen dabei sowohl die Auslegung als auch das praktische Anwendungsfeld des neuen europäischen IPR für Beförderungsverträge. Darüber hinaus wird das supranationale Kollisionsrecht zu dem internationalen Einheitsrecht der Güter- und Personenbeförderung ins Verhältnis gesetzt.

Ulteriori informazioni sono disponibili qui.

The Private International Law Interest Group of the American Society of International Law invites submissions for this year’s ASIL Private International Law prize. The prize is given for the best text on private international law written by a young scholar. Essays, articles, and books are welcome, and can address any topic of private international law, can be of any length, and may be published or unpublished, but not published prior to 2015. Submitted essays should be in the English language. Competitors may be citizens of any nation but must be 35 years old or younger on December 31, 2014. They need not be members of ASIL. This year, the prize will consist of a $400 stipend to participate in the 2016 ASIL Annual Conference, and one year’s membership to ASIL. The prize will be awarded by the Private International Law Interest Group based upon the recommendation of a Prize Committee. Decisions of the Prize Committee on the winning essay and on any conditions relating to this prize are final. Submissions to the Prize Committee must be received by June 1, 2016. Entries should be submitted by email in Word or pdf format. They should contain two different documents: a) the essay itself, without any identifying information other than the title; and b) a second document containing the title of the entry and the author’s name, affiliation, and contact details. Submissions and any queries should be addressed by email to Private International Law Interest Group Co-Chair Cristian Gimenez Corte (cristiangimenezcorte@gmail.com). All submissions will be acknowledged by e-mail.