Conflictoflaws

By Ana Koprivica, Research Fellow MPI Luxembourg.

On 20th and 21st November 2017 in Brussels, the Academy of European Law (ERA) hosted the seminar: “Access to Documents in the EU and Beyond: Regulation 1049/2001 in Practice”, bringing together national and EU civil servants, lawyers, active members of the NGOs and civil society, and academics. The seminar aimed at providing participants with answers to practical questions on access to information and documents in the European Union. The focus in particular was on the practical implementation of Regulation 1049/2001 on access to documents by the EU institutions, on one hand, and by the relevant institutions in Member States, on the other. The seminar further provided for an overview of recent relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the opportunity to deliberate about how best to implement those judgments in practice. Lastly, it offered a platform for a discussion of the future development of access to information. This post provides a brief overview of the presentations. For a full report on the presentations and of the discussions on the issues raised, see Full Report.

Following the introductory remarks by the organisers, Prof. Päivi Leino-Sandberg (University of Eastern Finland) provided the audience with a comprehensive overview of the diverse European Union legal landscape in which the right to information operates: namely, the EU Treaties, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights.

This set the scene for the discussion about the challenges of practical implementation of the Regulation by the representatives of the European Commission (Martine Fouwels), the European Parliament (Chiara Malasomma) and the Council of the EU (Emanuele Rebasti). The audience was next given a valuable insight into the best practices of several Member States, namely Sweden (Sara Johanesson), Finland (Anna Pohjalainen), and Poland (Ewa Gromnicka), in the application of Regulation 1049/2001 as well as the insight into the common challenges they are confronted with in this context.

Katarzyna Szychowska (General Court of the European Union) provided the audience with a comprehensive overview of the recent case law of the CJEU in matters relating to access to documents under Regulation 1049/2001. In this respect, a distinction was made between the different types of documents to which access has been requested and on which the Court has built its case law.

Day One closed with a stimulating workshop, which was prepared and conducted by Emanuele Rebasti. The participants were presented with a hypothetical problem of handling a request for access to documents and asked to apply the information gained during the seminar.

The next morning Vitor Teixeira from Transparency International Brussels presented the activities of his organisation, oriented towards creating a new system of EU lobby transparency. The focus in particular was on the idea of a mandatory EU lobby register.

The conference closed with a round table discussion on new ideas with regard to access to documents. Nick Aiossa (Transparency International Brussels), Helen Darbishire (Access Info Europe), Graham Smith (European Ombudsman Cabinet), exchanged their views on the ways in which to improve the dialogue between the citizens and the authorities in the area of access to information. This prompted a lively discussion amongst the participants.

The overall conclusion of the conference was that the debate on transparency and access to documents has become much more sophisticated since the adoption of the Regulation 1049/2001 and that a lot has been done in order to improve its implementation. The importance was stressed of the dialogue among all the stakeholders in order to better the situation.

The vacancy for the position of Diplomat Lawyer at the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) has been reopened. The deadline for applications is 22 January 2018. For more information, click here.

As announced, the responsibilities of the selected candidate will be as follows:

“The selected candidate will oversee the completion of the “Judgments Project” and subsequent efforts to promote the Convention. His or her portfolio will also include work relating to the 2005 Choice of Court Convention and the Hague Principles, and any other legal work of the Permanent Bureau as required. He or she will be part of the senior management team and assure a good, co-operative working atmosphere, conducive to team work and efficient communications, both within the Permanent Bureau and in relations with representatives of States and Organisations (respect of the Permanent Bureau’s core values is essential). The selected candidate will represent the HCCH in dealings with Members as well as other stakeholders and interested parties. He or she will also be expected to assist with the administration of the Permanent Bureau.”

A meeting of the Working Group on the Authentication of Documents Generated by Supranational and Intergovernmental Organisations took place on 1 December 2017 and its Report has just been made available on the Hague Conference (HCCH) website (click here). This is both the first and the last meeting of the Working Group.

A couple of Information Documents were drawn up for the meeting, in particular a summary of proposals for consideration and a comparative summary of documents generated by supranational and intergovernmental organisations and their authentication practices. As is evident from the findings of the latter, it would appear that some documents generated by intellectual property organisations (such as patents, trademarks and designs) may experience difficulties when it comes to authentication. However, this does not mean that these are the only documents generated by supranational and intergovernmental organisations that may need to be authenticated and the Report is thus drafted in general terms.

The Report indicates:

“Having reviewed the different practices across Contracting Parties with respect to authenticating documents generated by supranational and intergovernmental organisations in their territory, the Group recommended the following options, if and when a need to authenticate such documents for use in another Contracting Party arises:

1. the relevant Competent Authority of the host State, in possession of the required sample signatures and seals of the officials that issue such documents for the organisation in question, may directly apostillise the documents;

2. a notary of the host State may first authenticate the document or a copy of the document and this notarial authentication is subsequently apostillised by the relevant Competent Authority;

3. a government office or authority may be designated by the host State, and which holds the required sample signatures and seals of the officials that execute such documents for the organisation in question, to act as an intermediary for the purposes of authenticating such documents and this authentication is subsequently apostillised by the relevant Competent Authority.”

On the initiative of Tobias Asser, the First Diplomatic Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) was convoked on 12 September 1893. In 2018, the HCCH is celebrating this joyous occasion with several events throughout the year.

On the anniversary date, 12 September 2018, the official ceremony will take place in The Hague. The event will feature selected speeches as well as an official photo opportunity and will be followed by a reception.

On 18-20 April 2018, the global conference “The HCCH 125 – Ways Forward: Challenges and Opportunities in an Increasingly Connected World” will be held in Hong Kong SAR. This event will gather leading experts to discuss the opportunities for, and challenges to, private international law.
On 10 September 2018, the Embassy of Hungary in The Hague will host a half-day colloquium to discuss the determinant role and impact of the HCCH’s work, and its instruments, on national private international law legislation.

In October/November 2018, the Embassy of Austria in The Hague plans to organise a discussion event relating to the work of the HCCH and its relationship with the EU, as part of Austria’s Presidency of the Council of the European Union.

Please follow the Facebook page HCCH 125 to receive updates on the events to be held in relation to the anniversary.

The Max Planck Institute Luxembourg is currently recruiting new members for its team. Two  positions are open, one for a Research Fellow (PhD candidate) for the Department of European and Comparative Procedural Law, and one for a Senior Research Fellow for the same Department. In both cases the offer is for a fixed-term contract for at least 18 month – contract extension is possible.

Applications are to be made on line until 15th December 2017. Details of the offer and documents required are indicated there as well.

Task

For a period of at least 18 months, the Research Fellow/Senior Research Fellow will conduct legal research and cooperate at the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg within the project ‘Informed Choices in Cross-Border Enforcement’ which aims at analyzing the application of the 2nd generation Regulations (the EEO, the EPO, the ESCP and the EAPO) by European Courts, in order to determine why these instruments have so far failed to realize their full potential, and how to improve such situation.

The successful candidate will be in charge of compiling data in terms of the case law of the European Court of Justice but also the French and Luxemburgish courts regarding the application of the following EU regulations:

– EEO, Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims (European Enforcement Order)
– EPO, Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure
– ESCP, Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure
– EAPO, Regulation 655/2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure (“EAPO”) establishes a new uniform European procedure for the preserving of bank accounts,
– Regulation (EU) 2015/2421 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 amending Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure and Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 creating a European order for payment procedure

Additionally, the Research Fellow is expected to assist in the achievement of the objectives of the Project, namely by interviewing relevant stakeholders (judges, lawyers etc.) on the same instruments. Furthermore he/she will assist in all project related activities such as uploading data to the pertinent data base, drafting minutes of meetings, contributing to interim and final reports as well as to the final book, helping in the organization of conferences and the communication with the partners.

Profile- Research Fellow

Regarding the Research fellow, the Institute is looking for a highly motivated candidate who would be interested in writing a PhD thesis under the supervision of Prof. Dr. dres Hess leading the Department of European and Comparative Procedural Law (or in a co-tutelle) in a topic connected to the project. For the purposes of the project she /he would work under the instructions of senior research fellow Prof. Dr. Marta Requejo Isidro.

Applicants must have earned a degree in law and be PhD candidates working or intending to work on a thesis related to the project’s topic or, alternatively, on a topic falling within the scope of European Procedural Law in civil and commercial matters . According to the academic grades already received, candidates must rank within the top 10 %.

The successful candidate shall demonstrate a strong interest and aptitude for legal research and have a high potential to develop excellence in academic research. Prior publications in this field of the law shall be highly regarded in the selection process.

Full proficiency in English and French is compulsory (written and oral).

Profile- Senior Research Fellow

The Institute is looking for a highly motivated candidate who would join the Department of European and Comparative Procedural Law led by Prof. Dr. dres Hess and composed by a team of five senior research fellows and 15 research fellows. For the purposes of the project she /he would work under the instructions of senior research fellow Prof. Dr. Marta Requejo Isidro.

Applicants must have earned a degree in law and hold a PhD degree by the time the join the MPI, preferably in a subject matter related to the project’s topic or, alternatively, in a topic falling within the scope of European Procedural Law in civil and commercial matters.

The successful candidate shall posses a strong interest and aptitude for legal research and have a high potential to develop excellence in academic research.

Her/his CV must portray a consolidated background in EU private international and procedural law in civil and commercial matters: prior publications in this field of the law shall be highly regarded in the selection process.

Full proficiency in English and French is compulsory (written and oral).

(I am grateful to Prof. Francesca Villata – University of Milan – for the following presentation of the latest issue of the RDIPP)

The third issue of 2017 of the Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale (RDIPP, published by CEDAM) was just released.

It features two articles and three comments.

Manlio Frigo, Professor at the University of Milan, ‘Methods and Techniques of Dispute Settlement in the International Practice of the Restitution and Return of Cultural Property’ (in English)

This article focuses on the international practice in the field of cultural property disputes and examines the most effective and reliable dispute resolution methods in restitution and return of cultural property. Particularly in cases of disputes between Governmental authorities and foreign museums concerning the return or restitution of cultural property, one of the privileged solutions may consist in negotiating contractual agreements. The recent international and Italian practice have proved that these agreements may either prevent any judicial steps, or lead to a conclusion of pending administrative or judicial proceedings and have been successfully tested in recent years, more frequently within a wider frame of agreements of cultural cooperation. These agreements provide new forms of cooperation between the parties involved in such disputes and represent a mutually beneficial way out with a view to a future of collaboration.

Paolo Bertoli, Associate Professor at the University of Insubria, ‘La «Brexit» e il diritto internazionale privato e processuale’ (‘“Brexit” and Private International and Procedural Law’; in Italian)

This article discusses the implications of the forthcoming withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union on the private international law rules applicable in the relationships between the EU Member States and the UK. Traditionally, the UK has been skeptic vis-à-vis the EU policy in the area of judicial cooperation in civil matters, as demonstrated, inter alia, by the opt-in regime provided for by the EU Treaties in respect of the UK’s participation to such policy and by the hostile reactions against the ECJ case law holding certain procedural norms eradicated in the UK tradition as conflicting with EU law. In the absence of any agreement between the EU and the UK, “Brexit” will imply that virtually all of the EU acquis in the field of private international law will cease to apply in the relationships between the EU Member States and the UK. Notwithstanding its historical skepticism vis-à-vis the EU policy in the field of private international law, the UK seems to be the party more interested in maintaining such rules to the greatest possible extent, in order not to jeopardize the attractiveness of its Courts and to protect its businesses.

In addition to the foregoing, the following comments are featured:

Zeno Crespi Reghizzi, Associate Professor at the University of Milan, ‘Succession and Property Rights in EU Regulation No 650/2012’ (in English)

In modern systems of private international law, “succession” and “property rights” form the subject matter of distinct conflict-of-laws provisions, with different connecting factors. Drawing the line between these two categories implies a delicate characterisation problem, which now has to be solved in a uniform manner in all the Member States, by interpreting the scope of Regulation No 650/2012. Compared to the solutions traditionally adopted by the national systems of private international law, Regulation No 650/ 2012 has increased the role of the lex successionis, which now governs not only the determination of the heirs and their shares in the estate, but also the transfer of the assets forming part of the succession estate. This solution gives rise to several coordination issues which are examined in the present paper.

Federica Falconi, Researcher at the University of Pavia, ‘Il trasferimento di competenza nell’interesse del minore alla luce dell’interpretazione della Corte di giustizia (‘Transfer of Jurisdiction in the Child’s Best Interests in Light of the Interpretation by the Court of Justice’; in Italian)

By way of exception, Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 allows the court having jurisdiction to transfer the case, or a specific part thereof, to a court of another Member State, with which the child has a particular connection, provided that this latter is better placed to hear the case in the light of the best interests of the child. Based on the forum non conveniens doctrine, such a provision confers judges with significant discretion, with a view to ensure the best interests of the child in line with Article 24 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The aim of this paper is to illustrate the main features of this original mechanism, by looking firstly to its effects on the general grounds of jurisdiction established by the Regulation and then focusing on the strict conditions set out for its application. Particular attention is paid to the assessment of the child’s best interests, which appears most problematic as the relevant factors will in fact vary depending on the circumstances of the case. In this regard, some guidance has been recently provided by the Court of Justice, that has pointed out that the court having jurisdiction may take into account, among other factors, the rules of procedure in the other Member State, such as those applicable to the taking of evidence required for dealing with the case, while the court should not take into consideration the substantive law of that other Member State, which might be applicable if the case were transferred to it. The Court of Justice has further clarified that the court must be satisfied, having regard to the specific circumstances of the case, that the envisaged transfer of the case is not liable to be detrimental to the situation of the child concerned.

Sondra Faccio, Doctor of Law, ‘Trattati internazionali in materia di investimenti e condizione di reciprocità’ (‘International Investment Treaties and the Reciprocity Requirement’; in Italian)

This paper discusses the interaction between international investment agreements and the condition of reciprocity set forth by Article 16 of the Preliminary provisions to the Italian civil code. It aims to assess whether investment agreements in force for the Italian State prevail over the application of the condition of reciprocity, in relation to the governance of the investment established in Italy by a foreign investor coming from a country outside the European Union. The analysis highlights that the fair and equitable treatment, the most favored nation treatment and the national treatment standards, included in most of the Italian investment agreements, protect foreign investors against unreasonable or discriminatory measures which could affect the management of their investments and therefore their application should prevail over the application of the condition of reciprocity in relation to the governance of the investment. This interpretation reflects the object and purpose of investment agreements, which is to promote and protect foreign direct investments and to develop international economic relations between States.

Indexes and archives of RDIPP since its establishment (1965) are available on the website of the Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale.

Alongside the intensifying global efforts (the Judgments Project, HCCH) devoted to inter-country recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, a new stage has been witnessed of China’s positive treatment of foreign judgments ie China starts to reciprocate, following foreign courts’ initiative of recognizing and enforcing Chinese judgments. Dr. Wenliang Zhang, from the Law School of Renmin U, reflects on this new encouraging development and has just published a timely article in the latest issue of Chinese Journal of International Law (OUP) titled “Sino–Foreign Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments: A Promising “Follow-Suit” Model?”.

“Abstract: Due to the upsurge in cross-border transaction, the movement of judgments between jurisdictions has become a hot topic. Unfortunately, China’s legislation and practice in this area has long lagged behind that of other countries, though China is not the only party to blame for the lack of a favourable Sino–foreign recognition mechanism. Encouragingly, in recent years some foreign courts have taken the initiative to recognize Chinese judgments, which Chinese courts have then responded to positively, forming a “follow-suit” circle in practice. A new opportunity has thus arrived for promoting Sino–foreign judgment recognition, and both Chinese and foreign courts should seize it, as it appears to be the most efficient and practical among possible solutions, including future domestic legislation or international treaties”.

The article is accessible at: Chinese Journal of International Law, Volume 16, Issue 3, 1 September 2017, Pages 515–545, https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmx024 or it can be downloaded at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3077702.

The Brazilian and Portuguese Branches of the International Law Association are organising a conference to be held in Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 23 to 25 May 2018.

Those interested in participating may submit abstracts until 15 December 2017. More information here.

(per Mathias Goldmann)

The German Law Journal has a successful tradition of publishing timely and innovative special issues. Some of these have become standard works in their respective areas of research. While some of the special issues are curated by the Editorial Board, the German Law Journal has often worked with guest editors. To ensure both the highest quality for our readers and the best possible experience for our guest editors, the German Law Journal has launched its third call for special issues and invites prospective guest editors to submit their proposals. The deadline is 31 January 2018. For more information, please visit http://www.germanlawjournal.com/call-for-special-issue-proposals

Bettina Rentsch, Humboldt-University Berlin, has authored book about the concept of “habitual residence” in European private international law (Der gewöhnliche Aufenthalt im System des Europäischen Kollisionsrechts, ISBN 978-3-16-155172-7). Published by Mohr Siebeck, she sheds light on the concept as such and re-frames the ongoing academic debate with a focus on the relationship between habitual residence and party autonomy.

The book is in German, but the author has kindly provided us with the following English language summary:

European PIL has become increasingly heterogeneous in its legal foundations, shape and principles. Still, all so-called “Rome” regulations are homogeneous if not even uniform in their connecting factors: In the absence of Choice, the law applicable will determined by virtue of Habitual Residence. As a general baseline, the pairing of Party Autonomy and Habitual Residence is a common feature of all Rome regulations. While the recent rise of the former anhas given rise to widespread academic discussion, little has been said on why the EU legislator ever came to choose Habitual Residence as its primary “objective” connecting factor. Neither is there clarity on the political backgrounds nor on the secondary question of whether the former is identical in all contexts Habitual Residence is employed in.

In light of the increase of transnational migration in the EU, the present conceptual vagueness of Habitual Residence cannot be tolerated. In fact, there is both a need for reliable proxies in determining Habitual Residence and an urge to assess whether it can and must be understood and applied different in respective areas of EU Private International Law.

This publication undertakes a first, though definitely not final attempt to shape the blurry and vague notion of Habitual Residence in European Private International Law . Its objective is to, first, find overarching and general means and then to determine approproate criteria to previsibly determine the conditions for a cross-referencing between respective fields of application. Within this framework, the book presents two core arguments:

First, the threshold criteria for Habitual Residence are identical no matter its “purpose” and systematic environment. As a result, drawing the line between different instances of Habitual Residence is a question of degree.

Second, Habitual Residence must be interpreted in light of its respective neighboring choice of law-provisions. In other words, the the extent of choice of law possibilities must be understood as a proxy for interpreting Habitual Residence. Hence, the more leeway the European legislator confers to individuals and the more self-regulation through party autonomy he allows for, the less control by authorities can be required. In practical terms, the mere presence and superficial social interaction of a human being can be sufficient to determine Habitual Residence in contractual relations, the visible limitations of choice in areas like successions law indicate legislative intent.

Professor Dr. Nina Dethloff, Institute for German, European and International Family Law, University of Bonn, Germany, is looking for a research assistant (WissMit) on a part-time basis (50%) as of 1 January 2018 or later.

The candidate should hold a first law degree (as the German First State Exam) and be interested in the international and European dimensions of family law, comparative law and private international law. A very good command of German is required. Knowledge of French and English or other languages is an asset, as are good IT skills.

The fellow will have the opportunity to conduct his or her PhD project (according to the Faculty’s regulations). The position is paid according to the German public salary scale E-13 TV-L, 50%.

If you are interested, please send your application (cover letter, CV and relevant documents, notably Abitur, university transcripts and law degree) to Professor Dr. Nina Dethloff, LL.M., Institute for German, European and International Family Law, Adenauerallee 8a, 53113 Bonn by 22 December 2017 (Reference number: 76/17/3.13). All applications have to be sent in writing (conventional post or pdf document via e-mail).

Please address all questions regarding your application to Mrs Christiane Stadie (dethloff@uni-bonn.de or +49 (0)228/73-9290).

The University of Bonn is an equal opportunity employer. Thus, the University of Bonn especially encourages highly skilled female applicants to apply for jobs in areas in which they are underrepresented. All applications will be measured by the “Landesgleichstellungsgesetz”.

The full job advert in German is accessible here.

As previously reported here, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision in 2016 reversing a $147.8 million price-fixing judgment against two Chinese manufacturers of Vitamin C. The plaintiffs alleged that the Chinese manufacturers engaged in price fixing and supply manipulation in violation of U.S. antitrust laws. In its first ever appearance as an amicus before a U.S. court, the Chinese government filed a formal statement asserting that Chinese law required the Chinese manufacturers to set prices and reduce the quantities of Vitamin C sold abroad. Relying on this statement, the Second Circuit held that because the Chinese manufacturers could not comply with both Chinese law and the U.S. antitrust laws, principles of international comity compelled dismissal of the case.

This case raises a host of interesting questions. First, did the Second Circuit reach the right result? Second, is this a comity case or a foreign sovereign compulsion case? Third, what level of deference is due to a foreign sovereign that appears in private litigation to explain their country’s laws? Fourth, should U.S. judges defer to such an explanation?

In June 2017, the United States Supreme Court called for the views of the United States.  This past Tuesday, the Solicitor General (SG) filed this brief in response to the Court’s order.

In this submission, the SG explains that the Court should grant review of the Second Circuit’s decision in order to review the court of appeals’ holding that the Chinese government’s submission conclusively established the content of Chinese law.  According to the SG, “a foreign government’s characterization of its own law is entitled to substantial weight, but it is not conclusive.”  The SG argues that the case warrants the Court’s review because “[t]he degree of deference that a court owes to a foreign government’s characterization of its own law is an important and recurring question, and foreign sovereigns considering making their views known to federal courts should understand the standards that will be applied to their submissions.”

Should the Court grant review, the question of what standard should be applied to foreign sovereign submissions will be key.  This is a question I have explored here.

It will be interesting to see whether the Court accepts the SG’s request to review the Second Circuit’s decision.

(Report on the Conference held in Luxembourg on 12 October 2017, by Martina Mantovani, Research Fellow MPI Luxembourg)

On 12 October 2017, the Brussels Privacy Hub (BPH) at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel and the Department of European and Comparative Procedural Law of the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg held a joint conference entitled “Jurisdiction, Conflicts of Law and Data Protection in Cyberspace”. The conference, which was attended by nearly 100 people, included presentations by academics from around the world, as well as from Advocate General Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The entire conference was filmed and is available for viewing on the YouTube Channel of the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg (first and second parts)

Participants were first welcomed by Prof. Dr. Burkhard Hess, Director of the MPI, and Prof. Dr. Christopher Kuner, Co-Director of the BPH. Both highlighted the importance of considering each of the discussed topics from both a European and a global perspective.

The first panel was entitled “Data Protection and Fundamental Rights Law: the example of cross-border exchanges of biomedical data – the case of the human genome”. The speaker was Dr. Fruzsina Molnár-Gábor of the Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and Humanities, who discussed the regulatory challenges arising in connection to the processing and transfer of biomedical data, including data exchanges between research hubs within the EU and to third-countries (namely the US). The need for innovative regulatory solutions, originating from a bottom-up approach, was discussed against the backdrop of the impending entry into force of the new EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), whose Article 40 encourages the adoption of Codes of Conduct intended to contribute to the proper application of the Regulation in specific sectors. According to Dr. Molnár-Gábor, however, in order to establish an optimal normative framework for biomedical research, the regulatory approach should be combined with appropriate privacy-enhancing technologies and privacy-by-design solutions (such as the emerging federated clouds, the European Open Science Cloud, and data analysis frameworks bringing analysis to the data). This approach should also be paired with the development of adequate incentives prompting non-EU established companies to express binding and enforceable commitments to abide by EU-approved Codes of Conduct. Her presentation demonstrated the basic problem of data protection and data transfer: The creation of appropriate and applicable legal frameworks often lags behind the necessarily more rapid pace of data exchange seen in successful scientific research.

The second panel was entitled “Territorial Scope of Law on the Internet”. According to Prof. Dr. Dan Svantesson of Bond University in Australia, the focus on territoriality, which characterises contemporary approaches to the solution of conflicts of laws, is the result of an inherent “territorial bias” in legal reasoning. A strict application of territoriality would however be destructive when dealing with cyberspace. Here, the identification of the scope of remedial jurisdiction should follow a more nuanced approach. Prof. Svantesson specifically focused on Article 3 of the new GDPR, which he deemed “too unsophisticated” for its intended purposes as a result of its “all-or-nothing approach” In other words, either a data controller is subject to the Regulation in its entirety, or it is totally excluded from its scope of application. As an alternative, he proposed a layered approach to its interpretation, grounded in proportionality. The GDPR, he contended, should be broken down into different sets of provisions according to the objectives pursued, and each of these sets should be assigned a different extraterritorial reach. Against this backdrop, the spatial scope of the application of provisions pertaining to the “abuse prevention layer” may, and should, be different from that of the provisions pertaining to the “rights layer” or “the administrative layer”.

A response was made by Prof. Dr. Gerald Spindler of University of Göttingen, who conversely advocated the existence of an ongoing trend toward a “reterritorialization” of the Cyberspace, favoured by technological advance (geo-blocking, Internet filtering). This segmentation of the Internet is, in Prof. Spindler’s opinion, the result of a business strategy that economic operators adopt to minimise legal risks.  As specifically concerns private international law rules, however, a tendency emerges towards the abandonment of “strict territoriality” in favour of a more nuanced approach based on the so-called market principle or “targeting”, which is deemed better adapted to the more permeable borders that segment cyberspace.

The third panel was entitled “Contractual Issues in Online Social Media”. The speaker was Prof. Dr. Alex Mills of University College London. A thorough analysis of Facebook’s and Twitter’s general terms and conditions brought to light private international law issues stemming from “vertical contractual relationships” between the social media platform and final users. Professor Mills highlighted, in particular, the difficult position of social media users within the current normative framework. In light of the ECJ case-law on dual purpose contracts, in fact, a characterisation of social media users as “consumers” under the Brussels I bis and the Rome I Regulations may be difficult to support. Against this backdrop, social media users are left at the mercy of choice of court and choice of law clauses unilaterally drafted by social media providers. In spite of their (generally) weaker position vis-à-vis social media giants, European social media users will in fact be required to sue their (Ireland-based) contractual counterpart in Californian courts, which will then usually apply Californian substantive law. In addition to generating a lift-off of these transactions from EU mandatory regulation, these contractual clauses also result in an uneven level of protection of European social media users. In fact, Germany-based social media users seem to enjoy a higher level of protection than those established in other EU countries. Since the contract they conclude with the social media provider usually encompass a choice of law clause in favour of German substantive law, they may in fact benefit from the European standard of protection even before Californian courts.

Prof. Dr. Heike Schweitzer of Freie Universität Berlin, highlighted a fundamental difference between E-Commerce and social media platforms. While the former have an evident self-interest in setting up a consumer-friendly regulatory regime (e.g., by introducing cost-efficient ADR mechanisms and consumer-oriented contractual rights) so as to enhance consumer trust and attract new customers, the latter have no such incentive. In fact, competition among social media platforms is essentially based on the quality and features of the service provided rather than on the regulatory standard governing potential disputes. This entails two main consequences. On the one hand, from the standpoint of substantive contract law, “traditional” contractual rights have to adapt to accommodate the need for flexibility, which is inherent to the new “pay-with-data” transactions and vital to survival in this harshly competitive environment. On the other hand, from the standpoint of procedural law, it must be noted that within a system which has no incentive in redirecting disputes to consumer-friendly ADR mechanisms (Instagram being the only exception), private international law rules, as applied in state courts, still retain a fundamental importance.

The final roundtable dealt with “Future Challenges of Private International Law in Cyberspace”. Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe discussed the delicate balance between privacy and security in the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice in the case C-203/15, Tele2 Sverige, as well as the specifications brought to the protective legal regime applicable to consumers by case C-191/15, Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Amazon EU Sarl. Prof. Kevin D. Benish of New York University School of Law illustrated the US approach to extraterritoriality in the protection of privacy, having particular regard to the recent Microsoft case (the U.S. Supreme Court recently granted certiorari). Prof. Dr. Gloria Gonzalez Fuster of Vrije Universiteit Brussels pointed to a paradox of EU data protection legislation, which, on the one hand, regards the (geographic) localisation of data as irrelevant for the purpose of the applicability of the GDPR and, on the other hand, establishes a constitutive link with EU territory in regulating data transfers to third countries. Finally, Dr. Cristina Mariottini, Co-Rapporteur at the ILA Committee on the Protection of Privacy in Private International and Procedural Law, provided an overview of the European Court of Human Rights’ recent case-law on the interpretation of Article 8 ECHR. Specific attention was given to the conditions of legitimacy of data storage and use in the context of criminal justice and intelligence surveillance, namely with respect to the collection of biological samples in computerised national databases (case Aycaguer v. France), the use as evidence in judicial proceedings of video surveillance footage (Vukota-Bojic v. Switzerland) and the telecommunication service providers’ obligation to store communications data (case Breyer v. Germany and case C?alovic? v. Montenegro, concerning specifically the police’s right to access the stored data).

Overall, the conference demonstrated the growing importance of private international and procedural law for the resolution of cross-border disputes related to data protection. The more regulators permit private enforcement as a complement to the supervisory activities of national and supranational data protection authorities, the more issues of private international law become compelling. As of today, conflict of laws and jurisdictional issues related to data protection have not been sufficiently explored, as the discussion on private law issues related to the EU General Data Protection Regulation demonstrates. With this in mind, both Brussels Privacy Hub and MPI have agreed to regularly organize conferences on current developments in this expanding area of law.

By Stephan Walter, Research Fellow at the Research Center for Transnational Commercial Dispute Resolution (TCDR), EBS Law School, Wiesbaden, Germany.

Today, Advocate General Bobek delivered his opinion in Schrems (Case C-498/16) on the interpretation of Articles 15 and 16 of Regulation No 44/2001.

The Austrian Supreme Court referred two preliminary questions to the CJEU:

(1) Is Article 15 of [Regulation No 44/2001] to be interpreted as meaning that a “consumer” within the meaning of that provision loses that status, if, after the comparatively long use of a private Facebook account, he publishes books in connection with the enforcement of his claims, on occasion also delivers lectures for remuneration, operates websites, collects donations for the enforcement of his claims and has assigned to him the claims of numerous consumers on the assurance that he will remit to them any proceeds awarded, after the deduction of legal costs?

(2) Is Article 16 of [Regulation No 44/2001] to be interpreted as meaning that a consumer in a Member State can also invoke at the same time as his own claims arising from a consumer supply at the claimant’s place of jurisdiction the claims of others consumers on the same subject who are domiciled

(a) in the same Member State,

(b) in another Member State,

or

(c) in a non-member State,

if the claims assigned to him arise from consumer supplies involving the same defendant in the same legal context and if the assignment is not part of a professional or trade activity of the applicant, but rather serves to ensure the joint enforcement of claims?

With regard to the first preliminary question, AG Bobek found that

42. (…) the central element upon which consumer status for the purpose of Articles 15 and 16 of Regulation No 44/2001 is to be assessed is the nature and aim of contract to which the claim(s) relate. In complex cases where the nature and aim of a contract is mixed, namely, that it is both private and professional, there must be an assessment of whether the professional ‘content’ can be considered as marginal. If that is indeed the case, consumer status may still be retained. Moreover, it ought not be excluded that in certain exceptional situations, due to the indeterminate content and the potentially long duration of the contract, the status of one of the parties may shift over time.

62. (…) the carrying out of activities such as publishing, lecturing, operating websites, or fundraising for the enforcement of claims does not entail the loss of consumer status for claims concerning one’s own Facebook account used for private purposes.

However, AG Bobek answered the second question in the negative. He argued that

118. (…) on the basis of Article 16(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 a consumer cannot invoke, at the same time as his own claims, claims on the same subject assigned by other consumers domiciled in other places of the same Member State, in other Member States or in non-member States.

The very interesting opinion can be downloaded here.

China has signed the Hague Choice of Court Convention on 12 September 2017, but has not yet ratified this Convention. The Hague Choice of Court Convention has not entered into force in China. However, Shanghai High Court has already relied on the Hague Choice of Court Convention to make decision.

In Cathay United Bank v Gao, Shanghai High Court, (2016) Hu Min Xia Zhong No 99, the appellant, a Taiwan commercial bank, and the respondent, a Chinese citizen resident in Shanghai, entered into a Guarantee contract. It included a clause choosing Taiwan court as the competent court to hear disputes arising out of the contract. This clause did not specify whether it was exclusive or not. Chinese law does not provide how to decide exclusivity of a choice of court agreement. Facing the legal gap, Shanghai High Court took into account Article 3 of the Hague Choice of Court Convention 2005 and decided that choice of court agreements should be exclusive unless the parties stated otherwise. The Shanghai High Court thus declined jurisdiction in favour of Taiwan Court.

This decision was made on 20 April 2017, even before China signed the Hague Choice of Court Convention. Since the Hague Choice of Court Convention has not entered into force in China, it should not be directly applied by Chinese courts in judicial practice. The question is whether Chinese courts could ‘take into account’ of international conventions not being effective in China to make decision. Although Article 9 of the Chinese Supreme Court’s Judicial Interpretation of Chinese Conflict of Laws Act allows the Chinese courts to apply international conventions, which have not entered into effect in China, to decide the parties’ rights and obligations, such an application is subject to party autonomy. In other words, parties should have chosen the international convention to govern their rights and obligations. Article 9 does not apply to international judicial cooperation conventions that do not deal with individuals’ substantive rights and are not subject to party autonomy. Perhaps, a more relevant provision is Article 142(3) of the PRC General Principle of Civil Law, which provides that international customs or practice may be applied to matters for which neither the law of the PRC nor any international treaty concluded or acceded to by China has any provisions. Arguably, the Hague Choice of Court Convention represents common practice adopted internationally and forms a source to fill the gap in the current Chinese law.

I have just received this Call for papers related to the International Seminar “50 Years of EU Private International Law in Therapy”, organized by the Spanish Association of Professors of International Law and International Relations (AEPDIRI) and the University of Valencia (Spain). It will be held in Valencia on January 25th, 2018.

The purpose of the seminar is to critically examine the five decades of codification of private international law in the EU, assessing its achievements and shortcomings, as well as its interaction with existing national and conventional responses, and with the practice of legal practitioners. In short, the seminar seeks to assess the regulatory and policy outcomes and their impact on the activity of EU operators and citizens. It covers the three classic fields of international jurisdiction, applicable law, and circulation of judgments and public documents in the European Union, without focusing on any specific act adopted by the EU. Future prospects for the process will also be addressed, considering the regulatory proposals on which the European Commission is working.

All those interested in presenting a paper should send their proposal by November 30th, 2017, to seminarioactualidad.dipr2018@aepdiri.org. For guidance purposes, the following topics are suggested (non-exhaustively):

1. Codification techniques in EU private international law.- The need for Regulations; advantages and disadvantages of sector-specific codification; external competences of the EU; interaction with the Hague Conference (HCCH) and other codification forums.

2. Scope and limitations of mutual recognition.- Enforcement of judgments; effectiveness of civil status documents; restrictions on recognition.

3. Interaction of EU private international law with the Spanish model of private international law.- Close and open-ended Regulations; scope of autonomous private international law; intra-EU and international private relations.

4. Impact of private international law on legal practitioners.- Review of the concept of authority; contentious and voluntary jurisdiction; out-of-court procedures; scope of notarial activities in the EU; implementation of EU private international law by public registry officials.

5. The “interregional” dimension of the EU private international law model.- Reference to multi-legal systems and their internal dimension; review of the Spanish model of interregional law.

Applications must be accompanied by the following documents in Word format:

-1. A document with the following information only: title of the proposal; name of the candidate; home university; academic position; indication of whether the candidate is member of AEPDIRI.

-2. Summary of the proposal (without indication of the name of the candidate, but only the title, contents and 3-5 keywords), of 1000-1500 words.

-3. Brief CV (max. 5 pages).

A book will be published  bringing together all the papers and communications submitted –or accepted without oral presentation– for this Seminar.

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of Greece dismissed a cassation against an appellate decision, confirming the findings of the first instance ruling, which issued a default judgment against an Italian company, following the return of a non-service certificate by an Italian bailiff.

The interesting part of the judgment is related to the application of Art. 19.2 Service Regulation.

The questions raised are twofold:

First, the extent of efforts to be made by the Receiving Authority, before deciding to return the document to the Transmitting Authority.

Second, the presumption of the Greek Supreme Court that failure of the defendant to notify his change of abode, allows a court to continue with the proceedings, even when the change occurred before lis pendens.

More information can be found here.

The European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) has published the results on its Study “Cross-border restitution claims of looted works of art and cultural goods”. The objective of the Study is described as follows:

“Works of art and cultural goods looted in armed conflicts or wars usually travel across several borders when they are sold. The cross-border character of looted art creates legal challenges for restitution claims as they often concern various national jurisdictions, with differing rules, as well as fragmented and insufficiently defined legal requirements in international and European legal instruments. Against this background, this European Added Value Assessment identifies weaknesses in the existing EU legal system for restitution claims of works of art and cultural goods looted in armed conflicts and wars. Moreover, it outlines potential legislative measures that could be taken at the EU level and that could generate European added value through simplification and harmonisation of the legal system in this area.”

Against this background, the Study deals, inter alia, with

(i) shortcomings of Article 7 no. 4 Brussels Ibis Regulation;

(ii) possible improvements of choice of law in relation to cultural property such as the question of a “lex originis” as a potential variation to the lex rei sitae under certain circumstances;

(iii) potential amendments on the level of substantive law such as e.g. the accession of the remaining Member States to the UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Goods or, alternatively, autonomous means of incorporating elements of this Convention or relevant provisions of the DCFR by extending Directive 2014/60/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State;

(iv) the special issue of Holocaust related claims for restitution, including options for developing an adequate sales law;

(v) accompanying measures on EU level such as increasing data exchange of results from provenance research or setting up a EU Agency for the Protection of Cultural Property.

The legal basis for this Study is the following: In accordance with Article 225 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the European Parliament has a right to ask the European Commission to take legislative action in a particular area. Such requests are based on a legislative initiative report by the parliamentary committee responsible. On 16 February 2016, the Conference of Presidents of the European Parliament authorised its Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) to draft a legislative initiative report on cross-border restitution claims of looted works of art and cultural goods.

All legislative initiative reports must automatically be accompanied by a detailed European Added Value Assessment (EAVA). Accordingly, the JURI Committee asked the Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services (EPRS) to prepare an EAVA to support the legislative initiative report on the cross-border restitution claims of works of art and cultural goods looted in armed conflicts and wars. The Rapporteur is Pavel Svoboda (EPP, Czech Republic), Chairman of the JURI Committee. The author of the Study is Dr Christian Salm, Policy Analyst, European Added Value Unit. The Study is based on an externally commissioned scientific study (“Annex I”) by the author of these lines. Both texts are available here.

Expecting higher demands for international commercial dispute resolution following Britain’s departure from the EU, Belgium plans to set up a new English-language commercial court, the Brussels International Business Court (BIBC), to take cases away from the courts and tribunals in London. This decision was announced on 27 Oct 2017. This BIBC is designed to address disputes arising out of Brexit and major international commercial disputes. The court will take jurisdiction based on parties’ choice, and will do the hearing and deliver judgments in English. The parties would have no right to appeal. BIBC combines elements of both traditional courts and arbitration. See comments here.

Although Brexit may cause uncertainty to litigants in the UK, a survey suggests that the EU judicial cooperation scheme is not the main reason for international parties choosing London to resolve their disputes. The top two factors that attract international litigants to London are the reputation and experience of English judges and combination of choice of court clauses with choice of law clauses in favor of English law,  followed by efficient remedies, procedural effectiveness, neutrality of the forum, market practice, English language, effective UK-based counsel, speed and enforceability of judgments. Furthermore, Brexit will not affect the New York Convention and would less likely affect London as an arbitration centre. It may be more reasonable to suggest that the main purpose of BIBC is not to compete with London at the international level, but to offer additional judicial tool and become a new commercial dispute resolution centre within the EU to attract companies and businesses to Brussels.

First personal impressions presented by Edina Márton, LLM, PhD (Saarbruecken)

For jurisdictional purposes, the localisation of cross-border violations of personality rights under European instruments, such as Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels Ia), has attracted the attention of a considerable number of scholars and often led to different legal solutions in the national judicial practice. At EU level, besides Shevill (C-68/93; ECLI:EU:C:1995:61) as well as eDate and Martinez (C-509/09 and C-161/20; ECLI:EU:C:2011:685), since 17 October 2017, a third judgment in case Bolagsupplysningen (C-194/16; ECLI:EU:C:2017:766) has given further clarification in this area. In the recently delivered judgment, the ECJ specified one of the two limbs of the connecting factor “where the harmful event occurred or may occur” under Article 7(2) of Brussels Ia, namely the place of the alleged damage.

Two key factual elements of Bolagsupplysningen differentiate this case from Shevill, as well as eDate and Martinez. First, one of the alleged victims is a legal person established under Estonian law and has business activities in Sweden (paras 9 and 10). Secondly, the case concerned “the rectification of allegedly incorrect information published on … [the] website [of the Swedish defendant], the deletion of related comments on a discussion forum on that website and compensation for [the entire] harm allegedly suffered” (para 2; emphases omitted; words in square brackets added).

Regarding the determination of the jurisdictionally relevant place of damage, the ECJ basically ruled that a legal person asserting that its personality rights have been violated through the Internet may bring an action for rectification and removal of the allegedly infringing information, and compensation for all the damage occurred before the courts of the Member State in which its centre of interests is situated. In addition, it also stated that the courts of each Member State in which the contested online information is or was accessible are not competent to hear actions brought for rectification and removal of that information.

In the present author’s view, one of the most significant aspects of the judgment is that the ECJ treated the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage equally for determining the jurisdictionally relevant place of damage (para 36). In addition, the ECJ applied the “centre of interests” connecting factor introduced in eDate and Martinez to this case and identified it vis-à-vis a legal person pursuing business activities in a Member State other than in the Member State in which its registered office is located (paras 40 ff.). The decisive element for this identification seems to be the pursuit of business activities. As a side note, it is worth questioning how to define this approach for entities that do not carry out such activities (cf. the centre of interests of a natural person generally coincides with his/her habitual residence in eDate and Martinez, para 49). Finally, and, in the opinion of the present author, most importantly, regarding claims for rectification and removal of allegedly infringing online information, the ECJ disregarded the so-called mosaic principle (paras 45 ff.).