Conflictoflaws

A revised Draft Explanatory Report (version of December 2018) on the HCCH Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters is available in both English and French on the Hague Conference website.

In my opinion, particularly complex topics in this Draft Explanatory Report include intellectual property (IP) rights (in particular, Art. 5(3) of the draft Convention– there are several provisions dealing with IP rights in addition to this Article) and the relationship of the draft Convention with other international instruments (Art. 24 of the Draft Convention). Some of the text is in square brackets, which means that such text has tentatively been inserted due perhaps to a lack of consensus at the Special Commission meetings, and thus a final decision will be taken at the Diplomatic Session scheduled for the summer 2019.

With regard to intellectual property rights, the draft Convention distinguishes between IP rights that require to be granted or registered (such as patents, registered trademarks, registered industrial designs and granted plant breeders’ rights) and those that do not require grant or registration (i.e.  copyrights and related rights, unregistered trademarks, and unregistered industrial designs – this is a closed list for these specific rights). See paragraph 238 of the Draft Explanatory Report.

The draft Convention’s approach to IP rights, which is based on the territoriality principle, is set out very clearly in paragraph 235 of the Draft Explanatory Report. In particular, the draft Convention reflects a compromise according to which the State of Origin of the judgment will coincide with the lex loci protectionis i.e., the law of the State for which protection is sought, so as to avoid the application of foreign law to these rights (see also paragraph 236).

With respect to the relationship of the draft Convention with other international instruments, it is important to note that this draft Convention will cover, among many other things, non-exclusive choice of court agreements so as to give preference to the application of the HCCH Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements to exclusive choice of court agreements. See paragraphs 220-225 and 410-430 of the Draft Explanatory Report.

The latest information about the Judgments Project is available here.

On March 22-23, 2019, the Center for International Legal Education (CILE) at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law will host an international conference on the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (“CISG”). The conference is entitled “The CISG at Middle Age.” It will be held in the Teplitz Memorial Courtroom of the Barco Law Building.

On Friday morning, panelists will discuss topics dealing with “The Past of the CISG: Its Successes and Failures.” This session will honor the memory of Peter Schechtriem and his suggestion that the CISG could provide “an International Linqua Franca.” The Friday afternoon panels will consider “The Present of the CISG: Is Uniform Interpretation Possible?,” honoring the memory of John Honnold and his exhortation towards “Resisting the Homeward Trend.” A dinner on Friday evening will feature a keynote address by Pitt Emeritus Professor Harry Flechtner on “The Past, Present and Future of the CISG (and Other Uniform Commercial Law Initiatives).” Saturday morning’s panels will focus on “The Future of the CISG: Have we come to Praise it or Bury it?”

The conference presents the opportunity to consider whether the widespread state ratification of the CISG indicates success in international law development, or whether the common practice of opting out of the CISG in private contracts demonstrates that its impact has been limited at best.

Conference speakers include: Ronald Brand (University of Pittsburgh), Petra Butler (Victoria University Wellington), Susanna Cook (Cohen & Grigsby), John Coyle (University of North Carolina), Milena Djordjevic (University of Belgrade), Johan Erauw (University of Ghent), Harry Flechtner (University of Pittsburgh), Henry Gabriel (Elon University), Jack Graves (Touro University), Joseph Gulino (Diaz, Reus & Targ), Stefan Kröll (Bucerius University), Ulrich Magnus (University of Hamburg), Francesco Mazotta (International Contract Manual), Chiara Giavannucci (University of Bologna), Vjosa Osmani (University of Pristina), Alejandro Osuna, (Tijuana, Mexico), Francesca Ragno (University of Verona), Ingeborg Schwenzer (University of Basel), Nina Tepic (University of Zagreb), Marco Torsello (University of Verona), Mark Walter (DAI Inc)

A link to more information on the conference, including additional links to the program and registration can be found here.

Agatha Brandão de Oliveira, Senior Research Assistant at the University of Lucerne, brought to my attention a forthcoming publication bearing the above title. The official book launch will take place on February 7 in Paris

The book was edited by: Horatia Muir Watt, Professor of Law, SciencesPo Law School, Paris, France, Lucia Bíziková, Trainee in an international law firm, London, UK, Agatha Brandão de Oliveira, Guest Lecturer, Federal University of Espirito Santo (UFES), Brazil and member of the Brazilian Bar and Diego P. Fernandez Arroyo, Professor of Law, SciencesPo Law School, Paris, France. 

Contributors include: F. Antunes Madeira da Silva, S. Archer, C. Avasilencei, G.A. Bermann, R. Bismuth, L. Bíziková, S. Bollée, J. Bomhoff, S. Brachotte, A. Brandão de Oliveira, H. Buxbaum, L. Carballo Piñeiro, C. Chalas, D. Coester-Waltjen, G. Cordero-Moss, S. Corneloup, F. Costa Morosini, G. Cuniberti, J. d’Aspremont, J. Daskal, S. Dezalay, R. Fentiman, D.P. Fernández Arroyo, T. Ferrando, S. Fulli-Lemaire, U. Grusic, H. Harata, L. Hennebel, J. Heymann, P. Kinsch, H. Kupelyants, K. Langenbucher, F. Latty, O. Le Meur, G. Lewkowicz, F. Licari, F. Marchadier, T. Marzal, R. Michaels, A. Mills, H. Muir Watt, N. Najjar, V.H. Pinto Ido, E. Pataut, D. Restrepo-Amariles, D. Rosenblum, C. Salomão Filho, M. Sanchez-Badin, P. Schiff Berman, J. Sgard, D. Sindres, E. Supiot, C. Thomale, K. Trilha, H. van Loon, J. Verhellen, M. Weidemaier, M. Wells-Greco.

Key Features of the publication are presented as follows:
• the specific global scope allows the reader to gain a contextualised understanding of legal transformation
• each case has two commentaries from different viewpoints, ensuring a nuanced perspective on the implications of the global turn in private international law and its importance for adjudication
• an astute combination of theory and practice ensures readers gain an understanding of the relevance of innovative legal theories in interpreting concrete cases in a changing world
• comparative material and ground-breaking analysis make this book eminently suitable for use with students and a useful tool for researchers and courts confronted with novel topics or issues.

For more info, check here.

The Department of Law of the University of Turin intends to award three early-career fellowship grants. The value of each grant is 9.000 Euros.

Applications are welcome from young scholars, ideally with a PhD in law, in any field of law, including private international law.

Each grant is meant to finance a three-month research stay in Turin, as a result of which the grant-holder is expected to draw up a proposal for a Marie Sklodowska Curie Standard European Fellowship, indicating the Department of Law of the University of Turin as the host institution.

Candidates must not have resided or carried out their main activities in Italy for more than 12 months in the three years ending on 11 September 2019.

The deadline for applications is 11 March 2019 at 12.00 a.m. CET.

For further information see here.

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

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

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

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

Confirmed speakers and rapporteurs are: Prof. Laura Carpaneto (University of Genoa), Prof. Sabine Corneloup (Université Paris II), Judge Martina Erb Klünemann (Family Court Germany, EJN and International Hague Network of Judges), Katja Fournier (Coordinator Platform Minors in Exile), Dr. Susanne Gössl (University of Bonn), Steve Heylen (Vice-President European Association of Civil Registrars), Christelle Hilpert (Head of the French Central Authority – 1996 Hague Convention), Prof. Maarit Jänterä-Jareborg (Uppsala University), Prof. Fabienne Jault-Seseke (Université Versailles), Prof. Thalia Kruger (University of Antwerp), Dr. Andrea Struwe, (attorney), Lise Van Baelen (Restoring Family Links Officer, Belgian Red Cross), Dr. Hans van Loon (former Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law), Prof. Jinske Verhellen (Ghent University) and Prof. Patrick Wautelet (Université de Liège).

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

The full program and information on registration is available here.

Silvia Marino has just published her new book on cross-border family patrimonial relationships. Here’s an abstract prepared by the author in English:

This study tackles the PIL-related aspects of the cross-border family’s patrimonial relationships. The main focus is on the coordination and the coherence of the different International and European sources of law, taking as cornerstones the two recent EU Regulations on the matrimonial property regimes and the patrimonial effects of registered partnerships. The other fields dealt with are international successions and maintenance, as part of the global patrimonial organization of the family. Due to the high number of International and European measures within this fields, the volume offers an accurate evaluation of the final coherence of the legislation, with particular regard within the EU.

The book starts with an historical introduction and a first analysis of the definitions (with particular regard to the current notion of family). Then, it  tackles all the classical topics of PIL, under the light of the coherence of the patrimonial organization within the family. The first chapter analyses the coordination of International, European and National sources, as a necessary step to determine the applicable normative measure. Then, the study presents an examination of the convergences and divergences of the regulations in the different sources of law. The first parameter is the role of party autonomy, both within the determination of international jurisdiction and the conflict of laws. Indeed, all the measures examined leave a margin of freedom of choice in favour of the parties, which should stem into coherent outputs. The second parameter is the determination of the international jurisdiction, followed by the connecting factors, and the impact of their application to the coherence of the property regime’s regulation. The third parameter is the (scarce) legislation on the general issues of PIL, as rules on the correct functioning and application of the conflict of law rules. Finally, the last part is devoted to the different models of transnational circulation of judicial decisions, authentic instruments and Court settlements, which might have evidentiary and even enforceable effects within EU Member States. The number of acts that can freely circulate within the EU risks creating difficulties at the enforcement stage. The conclusions offer some few further ideas on the future developments of an EU Area of Freedom, Security and Justice.

Following the Second German Conference for Scholars in Private International Law, which will take place on 4 and 5 April 2019 at the University of Würzburg, Germany, the newly established research network Young Private International Law in Europe hosts a workshop on ‘Recognition/Acceptance of Legal Situations’. The organisers, Susanne Goessl (University of Bonn) and Martina Melcher (University of Graz), have kindly provided this invitation.

by Lukas Schmidt

Roughly two years ago the Commission presented the proposal for a Directive on preventive restructuring frameworks, second chance and measures to increase the efficiency of restructuring, insolvency and discharge procedure (see Blogpost ). After a lively debate the Council has now confirmed an agreement reached with the Parliament on the directive in December last year (see press release of 19 December 2018).

According to the press release several provisions were added or amended compared to the Council’s positions including the introduction of provisions on the duties of company directors in insolvency proceedings, an article on worker’s rights  to recall that member states should ensure that the existing rights of workers under national and Union law are not affected by the preventive restructuring procedure and provisions on the appointment of a restructuring practitioner.

The text still has to be formally adopted by the Council and Parliament. Member states will then have 2 years for implementation, although they can ask the Commission for an additional year for implementation.

As reported on Twitter by Pacta sunt servanda, the UK has just (on 2 January 2019) signed and ratified the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements and the 2007 Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and other Forms of Family Maintenance. Both Conventions currently apply to the UK by virtue of its membership of the European Union but may cease to do so once the UK leaves the EU on 29 March 2019. (The relevant notifications by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs can be found here and here.)

Importantly, both conventions have been ratified only for the event of a Brexit scenario in which no withdrawal agreement with the EU has been reached and contain the following qualification:

In accordance with Article 29 of the 2005 Hague Convention/Article 59 of the 2007 Hague Convention, the United Kingdom is bound by the Convention by virtue of its membership of the European Union, which approved the Convention on behalf of its Member States. The United Kingdom intends to continue to participate in the 2005/2007 Hague Convention after it withdraws from the European Union.

The Government of the United Kingdom and the European Council have reached political agreement on the text of a treaty (the “Withdrawal Agreement”) on the withdrawal of the
United Kingdom from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community. Subject to signature, ratification and approval by the parties, the Withdrawal Agreement
will enter into force on 30 March 2019.

The Withdrawal Agreement includes provisions for a transition period to start on 30 March 2019 and end on 31 December 2020 or such later date as is agreed by the United
Kingdom and the European Union (the “transition period”). In accordance with the Withdrawal Agreement, during the transition period, European Union law, including the
2005/2007 Hague Convention, would continue to be applicable to and in the United Kingdom. The European Union and the United Kingdom have agreed that the European Union will
notify other parties to international agreements that during the transition period the United Kingdom is treated as a Member State for the purposes of international agreements concluded by the European Union, including the 2005/2007 Hague Convention.

In the event that the Withdrawal Agreement is not ratified and approved by the United Kingdom and the European Union, however, the United Kingdom wishes to ensure continuity of application of the 2005/2007 Hague Convention from the point at which it ceases to be a Member State of the European Union. The United Kingdom has therefore submitted the Instrument of Accession in accordance with Article 27(4) of the 2005 Hague Convention/Article 58(2) of the 2007 Hague Conventio only in preparation for this situation. The Instrument of Accession declares that the United Kingdom accedes to the 2005 Hague Convention in its own right with effect from 1 April 2019.

In the event that the Withdrawal Agreement is signed, ratified and approved by the United Kingdom and the European Union and enters into force on 30 March 2019, the United Kingdom will withdraw the Instrument of Accession which it has today deposited. In that case, for the duration of the transition period as provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement as stated above, the United Kingdom will be treated as a Member State of the European Union and the 2005 Hague Convention will continue to ha ve effect accordingly.

In the past, it had been questioned if the UK would be able to ratify these conventions before having left the EU (see, eg, Dickinson, ZEuP 2017, 539, 560), which, if the “No Deal” scenario became a reality, would leave a period of at least three months in which the conventions would not apply. By ratifying the Conventions now, the UK seems to have reduced this potential gap to a single day as both conventions will enter into force for the UK on 1 April 2019.

Symeon Symeonides‘ Annual Survey of American Choice-of-Law Cases for 2018, now in its 32nd year, has been posted on SSRN. A summary of the contents is reproduced below. If you are interested in the Survey, you can download it by clicking here.
If you are interested in the Private International Law Bibliography for 2018, you can download it from SSRN by clicking here.

Symeon sends his best wishes for the New Year, and I concur.

Table of Contents

Introduction

I. The Extraterritorial Reach of Federal Law

A. The Alien Tort Statute

B. The Fourth and Fifth Amendments and Cross-Border Shootings

C.-M. Other Federal Statutes

II. Choice of Law

A. Proof of Foreign Law

B. Anti-Foreign Law Amendments

C. Choice-of-Law Methodology

D. Contracts

1. Contracts with Choice-of-Law Clauses

a. Choice of Procedural or Conflicts Law

b. Choice-of-Law Clauses and Statutes of Limitation

c. Plain Choice-of-Law Clauses

d. Choice-of-Law and Forum-Selection Clauses

e. Choice-of-Law and Arbitration Clauses

2. Contracts without Choice-of-Law Clauses

E. Torts

1. Common Domicile Cases

2. Cross-Border Unfair Trade Practices

3. Other Torts

F. Products Liability

G. Statutes of Limitation

H. Insurance Conflicts

I. Nazi-Looted Art

J. Domestic Relations

1. Marriage and Divorce

2. Marital Property

3. Adoption and Succession

4. Child Custody and the Hague Convention

III. Recognition of Foreign Judgments and Awards

A. Foreign-Country Judgments

B. Sister-State Judgments

C. Foreign Arbitral Awards

The American Association of Law Schools will hold its annual conference in New Orleans this year, from January 2-6. In this conference, the meeting of the Conflict of Laws Interest Group will be on Friday January 4, 8:30-10:15. (Yes, early.) The topic is the new Hague Judgments Convention (the draft Convention is here.) Speakers will include Louise Ellen Teitz (Rhode Island University) with a view from the Hague, Trey Childress (Pepperdine/State Dept) with a view from the State Department, and John Coyle (UNC) with a view from academia. I will chair. The remarks will be published later in the Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law, but if you are at the AALS Conference, please do come and discuss there!

On 22 January 2019, the Arendt House (Luxembourg) will host a conference organised by The Luxembourg Association of Law Graudates of the University of Louvain (UCL) and the Law Review Le droit des affaires – Het ondernemingsrecht (DAOR) on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the law applicable to the third-party effects of assignments of claims.

The conference will be chaired by Prof. Marie-Elodie Angel (University Paris Est Créteil, UPEC). Speakers, who will discuss assignment of claims, security rights and securitisation, include Prof. Denis Philippe (Philippe & Partners; University of Louvai), Grégory Minne (Arendt & Medernach; University of Luxembourg) and Jean-Paul Spang (Kleyr Grasso; University of Luxembourg).

The conference will be in French without translation into English.

Details are available here.

The Draft Guide to Good Practice on the Use of Video-Link under the Evidence Convention has been submitted for the approval of the HCCH governance body (i.e. the Council on General Affairs and Policy of the Hague Conference on Private International Law), which will meet in March 2019.

This Guide analyses developments in relation to the use of video-link in the taking of evidence under the Evidence Convention, including references to internal law and other international agreements. It also outlines good practices to be followed and reflects additional information provided by Contracting Parties in their respective Country Profiles.

In my personal opinion, the most striking conclusion was that responding States to the Country Profiles are almost evenly divided as to whether evidence may be taken directly by video-link by Letters of Request (under Chapter I of the Evidence Convention). In other words, there is no clear consensus on whether the requesting court can take evidence directly in the Requested State by video-link under Chapter I of the Evidence Convention (e.g. take testimony from a witness by videoconference). Some see legal obstacles whereas others do not. The Convention was after all negotiated in the late sixties. A question may arise as to whether an international treaty is needed to address particularly this issue and include the necessary safeguards for video-link taking of evidence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario has upheld a decision of the Superior Court of Justice dismissing a $2 billion claim against Loblaws relating to the 2013 collapse of the Rana Plaza building in Savar, Bangladesh.  In Das v George Weston Limited, 2018 ONCA 1053 (available here) the court concluded that the claims were governed by the law of Bangladesh (not Ontario).  It went on to conclude that most of the claims were statute barred under the Bangladeshi limitation period and that it was “plain and obvious” that the remaining claims would fail under Bangladeshi tort law.

Unlike some of the recent cases in this area, this was not a case about a Canadian parent corporation and the operations of its own foreign subsidiary.  It was a case about a contractual supply relationship.  Loblaws bought clothes (to sell in its Canadian retail stores) from corporations whose workers manufactured the clothes in Rana Plaza.

The key conflict of laws point was the choice of law issue.  The rule in Ontario is that tort claims are governed by the law of the place of the tort: Tolofson v Jensen, [1994] 3 SCR 1022.  The plaintiffs had argued that they were suing Loblaws for negligent conduct that exposed those working in Rana Plaza to harm.  They argued that Loblaws had, by adopting corporate social responsibility policies and hiring Bureau Veritas to conduct periodic “social audits” of the workplace, assumed a degree of responsibility for the safety of the workplace in Bangladesh (para 20).  They argued that the key steps and decisions by Loblaws took place in Ontario rather than in Bangladesh and therefore Ontario was the place of the tort (para 80).  The court rejected these arguments.  It held that the place where the alleged wrongful activity occurred was Bangladesh (para 85), that the alleged duty was owed to people in Bangladesh (para 87) and that the injury suffered in Bangladesh “crystallized the alleged wrong” (para 90).

The court also refused to apply Tolofson‘s narrow exception to the place of the tort rule.  One reason the plaintiffs raised for triggering the exception was the lack of punitive damages under the law of Bangladesh.  The court noted that the lower court’s decision had suggested such damages might actually be available under that law, but in any case “the absence of the availability of punitive damages is not the type of issue that offends Canadian fundamental values” (para 95).  The court raised no basis on which to disagree with this analysis.

Because the applicable law was that of Bangladesh, and because some of the claims were not statute-barred, the court was required to do a detailed analysis of Bangladeshi tort law on the duty of care issue in order to determine whether those claims were to be dismissed as not viable.  This aspect of the decision may be the most disquieting, since there was little if any on-point authority in the Bangladeshi jurisprudence (para 130).  The court had to rely on experts who were relying on a considerable volume of Indian and English cases and then debating the extent to which these would impact the issue if determined by a Bangladeshi court.  Ultimately the court concluded that under Bangladeshi law the claims could not succeed.

In a much anticipated outcome, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights, read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention.

The case concerned the application by the domestic courts of Islamic religious law (Sharia) to an inheritance dispute between Greek nationals belonging to the Muslim minority, contrary to the will of the testator (a Greek belonging to the Muslim minority, Ms Molla Sali’s deceased husband), who had bequeathed his whole estate to his wife under a will drawn up in accordance with Greek civil law.

The full text of the decision may be found here. 

The press release of the Court is available here.

For the recent amendments in pertinent Greek legislation, see here.

Written by Michael McParland, QC, 39 Essex Chambers, London

On 10 December 2018 the Ministry of Justice published a draft statutory instrument with the pithy title of “The Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations and Non-Contractual Obligations (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018”. This indicates the current intended changes to retained EU private international law of obligations post Brexit.

These draft 2018 regulations are made in the exercise of the powers conferred by section 8(1) of, and paragraph 21(b) of Schedule 7 to, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 in order to “address failures of retained EU law to operate effectively and other deficiencies… arising from the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union”. It is intended they will come into force on exit day.

Part 2 contains amendments to existing primary legislation in the UK. These include amendments to the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990, the UK statute that implemented the 1980 Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations. The Explanatory Memorandum now declares that “the United Kingdom will no longer be a contracting party [to the Rome Convention]after exit day”. This is modestly surprising, given that the Rome Convention was not actually part of the Community acquisin the first place (see Michael McParland, “The Rome I Regulation on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations”, para. 1.99). But the current desire to disentangle the UK entirely from any vestiges of things European appears to be overwhelming. Consequently, the draft 2018 regulations convert the most of the rules found into the Rome Convention into UK domestic law, and declare that they will continue to apply them to contracts entered into between 1stApril 1991 and 16thDecember 2009 in the same way as they have done since the arrival of the Rome I Regulation. Further amendments are also made to the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 and the Private International (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995, the pre-Rome II statute which contains the UK’s rules on choice of law in tort and delict.

Part 3 deals with amendments to secondary legislation which had been originally created to deal with the coming into force of the Rome I and Rome II Regulations.

Part 4 is entitled “Amendment of retained EU Law”, this new legal category that will see EU law as at the date of the UK’s departure from the EU transposed into domestic law. Part 4 deals with the proposed substantive amendments to the enacted text of both the Rome I and Rome II Regulation which are considered necessary or appropriate to take account of the UK ceasing to be an EU Member State. The full impact of the changes will have to be considered in detail against the original texts, but some brief comments can be made.

Some changes are mere housekeeping. For example, in the “universal application” provisions found in Article 2 (Rome I) and Article 3 (Rome II) which declares that “any law specified by this Regulation shall be applied whether or not it is the law of a Member State”, are to be amended with reference to “a Member State” being replaced with “the United Kingdom or a part of the United Kingdom”.

Others involve updating references to rules found in Directives to their current equivalent sin UK domestic law. So, for example, Article 4(1)(h) of the Rome I Regulation currently provides for the applicable law in the absence of choice for:

(h) a contract concluded within a multilateral system which brings together or facilitates the bringing together of multiple third-party buying and selling interests in financial instruments, as defined by Article 4(1), point (17) of Directive 2004/39/EC, in accordance with non-discretionary rules and governed by a single law, shall be governed by that law.

The draft regulations will now replace the reference to “by Article 4(1), point (17) of Directive 2004/39/EC” with “… in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001” which as a footnote notes is S.I.2001/544, though the relevant Schedule 2 was substituted by S.I. 2006/3384 and this itself was subsequently amended by the Financial Services and Market Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) S.I. 2017/488 (which took effect from 1 April 2017 and which includes a whole raft of definitional changes).

Other changes deal with the fact that exit day will formally cut the UK’s version of these Regulations off from any future changes made by the EU legislator to either of those Regulations.

Part 4 of the Regulation also revokes Regulation EC No. 662/2009 which established the procedure for the negotiation and conclusion of agreements between EU Member States and third countries on the law applicable to contractual and non-contractual obligations (see McParland, para. 2.100).

Potentially more interesting changes are made to the Rome II Regulation, especially in relation to Article 6(3)(b) (unfair competition and acts restricting free competition), and Article 8 (infringement of intellectual property rights).

The changes to the Rome I Regulation and their implications will feature in the second edition to my book on the subject which I am currently working on.

The Ministry of Justice’s web-site can be accessed here.

The conclusions of the EC-HCCH Joint Conference on the Cross-border Protection of Vulnerable Adults are now available here.

See also related post by Pietro Franzina here.

The Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) is seeking to fill a Diplomat Lawyer (Secretary) position. The deadline for applications is 31 December 2018 (12.00 a.m. CET). For more information, click here.

Given diversity of geographic representation and of legal expertise requirements as set out in the HCCH Statute, candidates should preferably not have (exclusively) Swiss, Canadian, Italian, Portuguese, or Singaporean nationality. Currently, there are Diplomat Lawyers of those nationalities at the HCCH.

As announced, “[t]he main priorities for this position currently include the ongoing parentage/surrogacy project and the work relating to the HCCH Convention of 29 May 1993 on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. This said, the successful candidate will be expected to work on any other project or file that the work programme of the HCCH and related resource allocation may require (be it in relation to post-Convention services or the development of legislative projects).”

Approximately eight years ago, the European Chapter of the International Academy of Family Lawyers (“IAFL”) established a writing award for young family lawyers to be awarded on an annual basis. The award aims to promote research and excellence among young family lawyers and to increase awareness among other legal professionals of the work and objectives of the IAFL. The Young Lawyers Award carries a prize of €1,000, awarded to the author of the winning contribution, and two €500 prizes for the best runners up. For more information, please click here.

Written by Markus Lieberknecht, Institute for Comparative Law, Conflict of Laws and International Business Law (Heidelberg)

Quite a literal “conflict of laws” has recently arisen when the EU reactivated its Blocking Statute in an attempt to deflect the effects of U.S. embargo provisions against Iran. As a result, European parties doing business with Iran are now confronted with a dilemma where compliance with either regime necessitates a breach of the other. This post explores some implications of the Blocking Statute from a private international law perspective.

The European Blocking Statute (Regulation (EC) 2271/96)was originally enacted in 1996 as a counter-measure to the American “Helms-Burton Act” which, at the time, compromised European trade relations with Cuba. Along with WTO and NAFTA proceedings, the Blocking Statute provided sufficient leverage to strike a compromise with the Clinton administration. The controversial parts of the “Helms-Burton Act” were shelved and the few remaining pieces of legislation otherwise covered by the Blocking Statute ceased to be relevant over time. The Blocking Statute formally stayed in force but, for want of any legislation to block, remained in a legislative limbo until 8 May 2015.

On this day, President Trump announced his decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – JCPOA) and to fully restore the U.S. trade sanctions against Iran. In particular, this entailed reinstating the so-called secondary sanctions which apply to European entities without ties to the U.S. This decision, albeit hardly unexpected, was met with sharp dissent in Europe. Not only was the JCPOA viewed by many as a remarkable diplomatic achievement, but secondary sanctions were seen as an illicit attempt to regulate European-Iranian trade relations without a genuine link to the U.S. The EU, claiming that this practice violated international law, immediately declared its intention to protect European businesses from the extraterritorial reach of the U.S. sanctions. In order to make good on this promise, an all but forgotten instrument of European private international law was swiftly dusted off and updated: The Blocking Statute.

 The centerpiece of the Blocking Statute is its Art. 5 which prohibits affected Parties from complying with the relevant U.S. legislation. Depending on the Member State, a breach of this provision can be sanctioned with potentially unlimited criminal or administrative fines.

The disapproval enshrined in Art. 5 Blocking Statute – or, arguably, in the Blocking Statute as a whole – amounts to a specification of the European ordre public. Regarding the ever-present issue of overriding mandatory provisions, it rules out the possibility to give legal effect to the U.S. sanctions in question. This is either because the Blocking Statute, as lex specialis,supersedes Art. 9 Rome I Regulation altogether or because it has binding effect on the courts’ discretion under Art. 9 (3) Rome I Regulation. However, given the narrow scope of Art. 9 (3) Rome I Regulation, this means ruling out a possibility which was hardly measurable in the first place. After all, Iran-related contracts with a place of performance located in the U.S. as required by Art. 9 (3) Rome I Regulation are, if at all realistically conceivable, extremely rare. What is more, German courts have refrained from applying U.S. sanctions under Art. 9 (3) Rome I Regulation based on the notion that they are superseded by the EU’s own framework of restrictions on trade with Iran. Thus, there were plenty of reasons to deny legal effect before the recent update of the Blocking Statute.

Under the ECJ’s Nikiforidisdoctrine, the relevant sanctions are precluded from being applied as legal rules, but not from being considered as facts under substantive law. In this context, Art. 5 of the Blocking Statute will provide clear, albeit very one-sided, guidance for a number of issues. For instance, parties will not be able to contractually limit the scope of performance to what is permissible under relevant U.S. provisions, nor can they successfully claim a right to withhold performance or terminate contracts based on the justified fear of penalties imposed by U.S. authorities.

It does not require much number-crunching to see that to many globally operating companies, succumbing to U.S. pressure will seem like the the most, or even only, reasonable choice. The portfolio of U.S. penalties includes a denial of further access to the U.S. market and criminal liability of the natural persons involved. U.S. authorities are not shy on using these measures either, as recently evidenced by the spectacular arrest of Huawei’s CFO in Canada on charges of breaching sanctions against Iran. Thus, opting for a breach of the Blocking Statute and accepting the resulting fine under the Member State’s domestic law may strike many companies as a pragmatic choice.

Nonetheless, this decision would entail an intentional breach of European law. Executives, who may also face personal liability for unlawful decisions, are thus faced with a tough compliance dilemma; whichever choice they make can be sanctioned by either U.S. or European authorities. Given this delicate situation, they may happily accept any economic pretext to quietly wind down operations in Iran without express reference to the U.S. sanctions.

Both the Blocking Statute and the U.S. regulation allow for hardship exemptions. U.S. courts may also consider foreign government pressure as grounds for exculpation under the so-called foreign sovereign compulsion doctrine. While it may, therefore, be possible to navigate between both regimes, it appears unlikely that either side will be particularly generous in granting exemptions in order not to undermine the effectiveness of their regulation. After all, the Blocking Statute is in essence designed around the idea to create counter-pressure at the expense of European companies and the U.S. will hardly be inclined to play their part in making this mechanism work.

Art. 6 of the Blocking Statute contains a so-called “clawback claim”. This provision enables parties to recover all damages resulting from the application of the U.S. sanctions in question from the person who caused them. What looks like a promising way to subvert the effect of the U.S. sanctions at first glance, quickly loses much of its appeal when looking more closely. In particular, the “claw back” provides no grounds to recover the most prevalent item of damages in this context, namely penalties imposed by U.S. authorities for breach of sanctions. Although the substantive requirements of Art. 6 Blocking Statute would evidently be met, any claim brought against the U.S. or its entities to remedy what is clearly an act of state would not be actionable in courts due to the doctrine of state immunity.

Thus, the claim is limited to disputes between private parties. The most realistic scenario here is that parties may hold each other liable for complying with U.S. sanctions and, in turn, violating the Blocking Statute. This means that, for instance, companies backing out of delivery chains or financing arrangements may be held liable for the resulting damages of every other party involved in the transaction. Due to the tort-like nature of the claim, this liability would even extend beyond the direct contractual relationships. Functionally, the “clawback” constitutes a private enforcement mechanism of the prohibition enshrined in Art. 5 Blocking Statute. It is, however, much less convincing as an instrument to protect all aggrieved parties from the repercussions of U.S. sanctions.

The renaissance of the Blocking Statute proves the difficulty of blocking the effects of foreign laws in a globalized world. The affected parties were promised protection but received an additional prohibition, arguably multiplying their compliance concerns rather than resolving them. Denying legal effects within the European legal framework is a relatively easy task and, given the narrow scope of Art. 9 Rome I Regulation, not far from the default situation. In contrast, legal instruments which can undermine the factual influence of foreign laws without unintended side effects are yet to be invented.  The true purpose of the Blocking Statutes is a political one, namely serving as a bargaining chip vis-à-vis the U.S. and an attempt to assure Iran that the European Union is not jumping ship on the JCPOA. However, this largely symbolic value will hardly console the affected parties whose legal and economic difficulties remain very much real.

This blog post is a condensed version of the author’s article in IPRax 2018, 573 et seqq. which explores the Blocking Statute’s private law implications in more detail and contains comprehensive references to the relevant literature.