Conflictoflaws

Ulf Bergquist, Domenico Damascelli, Richard Frimston, Paul Lagarde, Felix Odersky and Barbara Reinhartz have written an article-by-article commentary on the new EU Succession Regulation that recently entered into force. Authored by members of the Experts Group that drafted the Commission’s Proposal for the Regulation the commentary discusses all crucial points of the new legal framework including:

• law applicable to a succession,
• election as to the applicable law,
• recognition and enforcement,
• authentic instruments,
• the European Certificate of Succession.

The commentary is available in English, French and German. More information is available here and here.

This post has been written by Ester di Napoli.

In a judgment of 9 September 2015 (Christophe Bohez v. Ingrid Wiertz, Case C-4/14), the European Court of Justice (ECJ) clarified the interpretation of Article 1(2) and Article 49 of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matter (Brussels I), corresponding to Articles 1(2) and 55 of Regulation No 1215/2012 (Brussels Ia), as well as the interpretation of Article 47(1) of Regulation No 2201/2003 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility (Brussels IIa). The questions referred to the Court concerned the enforcement of a penalty payment (astreinte) issued to ensure compliance with the rights of access to children granted to one of the parents.

While Article 49 of the Brussels I Regulation states that judgments ordering “a periodic payment by way of a penalty” are enforceable in a different Member State “only if the amount of the payment has been finally determined by the courts of the Member State of origin”, no equivalent provision may be found in the Brussels IIa Regulation. The latter merely specifies, in Article 47(1), that the enforcement procedure is governed by the law of the Member State of enforcement.

The case from which the judgment originated may be summarised as follows.

Mr Bohez and Ms Wiertz married in Belgium in 1997 and had two children. When they divorced, in 2005, Ms Wiertz moved to Finland. In 2007, a Belgian court rendered a decision on the responsibility over the children. As a means to ensure compliance with the rights of access granted to the father, the court set at a periodic amount per child to be paid to Mr Bohez for every day of the child’s non-appearance, and fixed a maximum amount that the defaulting parent could be requested to pay under the astreinte.

The mother failed to comply with the Belgian decision, so the father sought enforcement of the Belgian order in Finland relying on Article 49 of Brussels I Regulation. The Finnish authorities observed that the amount of the payment had not been determined in the Member State of origin, and added that, in any event, the request did not fall within the scope of the Brussels I Regulation but rather within the scope of the Brussels IIa Regulation.

The ECJ, seised by the Finnish Supreme Court, pointed out that the scope of Brussels I Regulation is limited to “civil and commercial matters”, and that the inclusion of interim measures is determined “not by their own nature but by the nature of the rights that they serve to protect”.  Thus, since the Brussels I Regulation expressly excludes from its scope “the status of natural persons” (notion “which encompasses the exercise of parental responsibility over the person of the child”), the Court held that Article 1 of Brussels I Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to the enforcement of a penalty payment imposed in a judgment concerning matters of parental responsibility.

The ECJ then moved on to consider the interpretation of the Brussels IIa Regulation.

It recalled that mutual recognition of judgments concerning rights of access is “a priority within the judicial area of the European Union” and observed that, although the Regulation does not contain any provision on penalties, a penalty payment imposed in a judgment concerning rights of access “cannot be considered in isolation as a self-standing obligation, but must be considered together with the rights of access which it serve to protect and from which it cannot be dissociated”. Accordingly, its recovery forms part “of the same scheme of enforcement as the judgment concerning the rights of access that the penalty safeguards and the latter must therefore be declared enforceable in accordance with the rules laid down by Regulation No 2201/2003”.

The Court stressed that, in order to seek enforcement of the decision ordering a penalty payment, the amount must have been finally determined by the courts of the Member State of origin. Where the penalty payment has not been determined, “a requirement, in the context of Regulation No 2201/2003, for quantification of a periodic penalty payment prior to its enforcement is consistent with the sensitive nature of rights of access”.

The Supreme Court of Canada has released its decision in Chevron Corp v Yaiguaje (available here).  The issue before the court was whether the Ontario courts have jurisdiction to recognize and enforce an Ecuadorian judgment (for over $US 18 billion) where the foreign judgment debtor Chevron Corporation (“Chevron”) claims to have no connection with the province, whether through assets or otherwise.  On one view, because the process for enforcing a foreign judgment is to commence a new domestic proceeding and thereby sue on the foreign judgment, the enforcement proceeding must have its own independent analysis of jurisdiction.  Put another way, there cannot be a proceeding in respect of which the court does not have to have jurisdiction.  On a different view, because the analysis of the claim on the foreign judgment considers, among other things, the sufficiency of the rendering court’s jurisdiction (Chevron defended on the merits in Ecuador), that is the only required analysis of jurisdiction and there is no need for a separate consideration of the enforcing court’s jurisdiction.  The Supreme Court of Canada, agreeing with the Court of Appeal for Ontario, has held that the latter view is correct.

In summarizing its conclusion (para 3) the court stated “In an action to recognize and enforce a foreign judgment where the foreign court validly assumed jurisdiction, there is no need to prove that a real and substantial connection exists between the enforcing forum and either the judgment debtor or the dispute.  It makes little sense to compel such a connection when, owing to the nature of the action itself, it will frequently be lacking. Nor is it necessary, in order for the action to proceed, that the foreign debtor contemporaneously possess assets in the enforcing forum.  Jurisdiction to recognize and enforce a foreign judgment within Ontario exists by virtue of the debtor being served on the basis of the outstanding debt resulting from the judgment.”

While the court does not say that NO jurisdictional basis is required, it states that the basis is found simply and wholly in the defendant being served with process (see para 27).  This runs counter to the court’s foundational decision in Morguard Investments Ltd v De Savoye, [1990] 3 SCR 1077 which separated the issue of service of process – a pure procedural requirement – from the issue of jurisdiction.  To say the service itself founds jurisdiction is arguably to have no jurisdictional requirement at all.

Interestingly, a recent paper (subsequent to the argument before the court) by Professor Linda Silberman and Research Fellow Aaron Simowitz of New York University (available here) considers the same issue in American law and concludes that the dominant view of courts there remains that an action to enforce a foreign judgment requires a “jurisdictional nexus” with the enforcing forum.  They note that only a minority of countries allow enforcement of a foreign judgment without any jurisdictional threshold for the enforcement proceedings.  They argue that the New York decisions which subsequently are relied on by the Supreme Court of Canada (para 61) are the outliers.

Had the Supreme Court of Canada required a showing of jurisdiction in respect of the enforcement proceeding, it would have had to address how that requirement would be met.  Of course, in most cases it would be easily met by the defendant having assets in the jurisdiction.  The plaintiff would not have to prove that such assets were present: a good arguable case to that effect would ground jurisdiction.  Evidence that assets might, in the future, be brought into the jurisdiction could also suffice.

While the court is correct to note that the considerations in defending the underlying substantive claims are different from those involved in defending enforcement proceedings (para 48), the latter nonetheless allow reasonable scope for defences to be raised, such as fraud, denial of natural justice or contravention of public policy.  With no threshold jurisdiction requirement, judgment debtor defendants will now be required to advance and establish those defences in a forum that may have no connection at all with them or the judgment.

The enforcement proceedings were also brought against Chevron Canada, an indirect subsidiary of Chevron that does have a presence in Ontario, although it is not a named defendant in the Ecuadorian judgment.  The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Ontario court had jurisdiction over Chevron Canada based on its presence, with no need to consider any other possible basis for jurisdiction.  The decision is thus important for confirming the ongoing validity of presence-based jurisdiction (see paras 81-87).

On a pragmatic level, eliminating an analysis of the enforcing court’s jurisdiction may simplify the overall analysis, but hardly by much.  The court notes (para 77) that ” Establishing jurisdiction merely means that the alleged debt merits the assistance and attention of the Ontario courts.  Once the parties move past the jurisdictional phase, it may still be open to the defendant to argue any or all of the following, whether by way of preliminary motions or at trial: that the proper use of Ontario judicial resources justifies a stay under the circumstances; that the Ontario courts should decline to exercise jurisdiction on the basis of forum non conveniens; that any one of the available defences to recognition and enforcement (i.e. fraud, denial of natural justice, or public policy) should be accepted in the circumstances; or that a motion under either Rule 20 (summary judgment) or Rule 21 (determination of an issue before trial) of the Rules should be granted.”  And in respect of Chevron Canada (para 95), the “conclusion that the Ontario courts have jurisdiction in this case should not be understood to prejudice future arguments with respect to the distinct corporate personalities of Chevron and Chevron Canada.  [We] take no position on whether Chevron Canada can properly be considered a judgment-debtor to the Ecuadorian judgment.  Similarly, should the judgment be recognized and enforced against Chevron, it does not automatically follow that Chevron Canada’s shares or assets will be available to satisfy Chevron’s debt.”

Deniz Halil Deren has authored a book (in German) on expropriation in private international law (“Internationales Enteignungsrecht – Kollisionsrechtliche Grundlagen und Investitionsschutzfragen”). Published by Mohr Siebeck the book looks at issues of choice of law and investor protection.

The official abstract reads as follows:

Since the 20th century, states have extensively been exercising their right to expropriate private property. These expropriations have involved goods (such as works of art, means of production or natural resources) as well as shares, claims and intellectual property rights. Yet under what conditions does German law recognise expropriations performed by other states and what role does investment protection law play in this context?

Further information is available on the publisher’s website.

The Oberlandesgericht of Munich has recently lodged a request for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Regulation No 1259/2010 of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation, ie the Rome III Regulation (Case C-281/15, Soha Sahyouni v Raja Mamisch).

The request provides the ECJ with the opportunity of delivering, in due course, its first judgment relating specifically to the Rome III Regulation.

To begin with, the referring court asks the ECJ to provide a clarification as to the scope of the uniform conflict-of-laws regime set forth by the Regulation. In particular, the German court wonders whether the Regulation also applies to ‘private divorces’, namely divorces pronounced before a religious court in Syria on the basis of Sharia.

If the answer is in the affirmative, the referring court asks whether, in the case of an examination as to whether such a divorce is eligible for recognition in the forum, Article 10 of the Regulation must also be applied. According to the latter provision, where the law specified by the Regulation to govern the divorce or the legal separation “does not grant one of the spouses equal access to divorce or legal separation on grounds of their sex”, the lex fori applies instead.

Should the latter question, too, be answered in the affirmative, the referring court wishes to know which of the following interpretive options should be followed in respect of Article 10: (1) is account to be taken in the abstract of a comparison showing that, while the law of the forum grants access to divorce to the other spouse too, that divorce is, on account of the other spouse’s sex, subject to different procedural and substantive conditions than access for the first spouse? (2) or, does the applicability of Article 10 depend on whether the application of the foreign law, which is discriminatory in the abstract, also discriminates in the particular case in question?

Finally, were the ECJ to assert that the second of these options is the correct one, the Oberlandesgericht of Munich seeks to know whether the fact that the spouse discriminated against has consented to the divorce — including by duly accepting compensation — constitutes itself a ground for not applying Article 10.

Konrad Duden from the Max Planck Institute in Hamburg has authored a book (in German) on surrogate motherhood in private international law and the law of international civil procedure (“Leihmutterschaft im Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrecht. Abstammung und ordre public im Spiegel des Verfassungs-, Völker- und Europarechts”). Published by Mohr Siebeck, the book looks at filiation and public policy in the light of constitutional, international and European law. The official abstract reads as follows:

More and more Germans seek out foreign surrogate mothers to bear children which they will then raise as their own. But does a child legally belong to these parents once they return to Germany? Surrogate motherhood raises questions, regardless of the fact that the fundamental and human rights of the child often prescribe clear answers.

Further information is available on the publisher’s website.

This post is meant to remind our readers that the Academy of European Law (ERA) will host an international conference on recent experience and current trends in international commercial litigation, with a special focus on European private international law. The event will take place in Trier (Germany), on 8-9 October 2015. While registration will still be possible after 8 September 2015, this date marks the deadline for the „early bird“ rebate. Even after this deadline, however, discounts will be available for young lawyers and academics.

This conference will bring together top experts in international commercial litigation who will report on their experiences in this field including litigation strategy and tactics. An updated conference programme is available here.

Key topics will be:

• Recent case law of the CJEU on business litigation in light of the changes brought by the recent recast of the Brussels I Regulation
• Forthcoming changes after the entry into force of the new Hague Choice of Court Convention in June 2015
• The recast of the Insolvency Regulation in summer 2015
• The revision of the Small Claims Procedure in 2015
• The Regulation establishing a European Account Preservation Order

The conference language will be English. The event is organized by Dr Angelika Fuchs, ERA, in cooperation with Professor Jan von Hein, University of Freiburg (Germany). The speakers are

• Robert Bray, Head of Unit, Secretariat, Committee on Legal Affairs, DG Internal Policies, European Parliament, Strasbourg/Brussels
• Professor Gilles Cuniberti, University of Luxembourg
• Raquel Ferreira Correia, Counsellor, Lisbon
• Emilia Fronczak, Loyens & Loeff, Luxembourg
• Sarah Garvey, Counsel and Head of KnowHow in the Litigation Department, Allen & Overy LLP, London
• Jens Haubold, Partner, Thümmel, Schütze & Partner, Stuttgart
• Professor Jan von Hein, Director of the Institute for Foreign and International Private Law, Dept. III, University of Freiburg
• Brian Hutchinson, Arbitrator, Mediator, Barrister, GBH Dispute Resolution Consultancy; Senior Lecturer, University College Dublin
• Professor Xandra Kramer, Erasmus University Rotterdam; Deputy Judge of the District Court of Rotterdam
• Alexander Layton QC, Barrister, Arbitrator, 20 Essex Street, London.

For further information and registration, please click here.

The latest issue of the “Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax)” features the following articles:

Christoph Benicke, Die Anknüpfung der Adoption durch Lebenspartner in Art. 22 Abs. 1 S. 3 EGBGB
In Germany, step child adoption by the partner of a same sex civil union (registered partnership) has been legal since 2004, but was restricted to the other partner’s biological child. 2014, following a landmark ruling by the German Constitutional Court the German Parliament has enacted legislation that rescinded this restriction and allowed thereby partners of registered same-sex couples to legally adopt the other partner’s adoptive child. Not mandated by the Constitutional Court’s ruling the legislator stopped short of totally putting same sex registered partnerships on equal footing with traditional marriages. The joint adoption by both partners is still reserved to the spouses of a heterosexual marriage.
On the occasion of this new legislation, a special choice of law rule for the adoption by same sex partners has been enacted. The general choice of law rule (Art. 22 par. 1 s. 2 EGBGB) calls for the national law of the adoptive parent. In the case of the adoption by one or both spouses of a heterosexual marriage the law applicable to the general effects of the marriage (Art. 14 EGBGB) is to be applied. This holds true for the joint adoption by both spouses or for the single (step parent) adoption by only one spouse. The new rule for same sex partners (Art. 22 par. 1 s. 3 EGBGB) follows the example of the rule for married couples, in that it calls for the application of the law that governs the general effects of the registered partnership, i.e. the law of the registering state (Art. 17b par. 1 EGBGB). However, the new rule for same sex partners limits itself to the case of the adoption by only one partner, leaving unregulated the choice of law question of a joint adoption by both partners. The single and only reason for this limitation is the ban on joint adoption by same sex partners in German internal adoption law, not taking into account, that the laws of other countries allow the joint adoption by same sex partners. As there is no valid reason for this limitation in regard to the choice of law question this same rule must be extended to cover the joint application for the adoption by both partners. The general choice of law rule would lead to a quite preposterous result as it would call for the joint application of the national laws of both partners, whereas in the case of the adoption by only one partner the law that governs the effects the same sex partnership would apply.
The new legislation also casts new light on the discussion of the ramifications of Art. 17b par. 4 EGBGB. This rule limits the effects of a same sex partnership that was registered in another country and therefore is governed by this other country’s laws. The legal effects cannot exceed the effects of a registered same sex partnership under German internal law. Under the previous law the majority opinion was that Art. 17b par. 4 EGBGB bans same sex partners from adopting jointly in Germany even if the joint adoption was legal under the applicable foreign adoption law. In granting the unrestricted step child adoption German law effectively allows partners to adopt a child jointly, just in two immediately consecutive proceedings. Therefore, there are no real differences left in regard to the legal effects of a registered partnership under a foreign law that allows the simultaneous joint adoption by same sex partners in one and only proceeding.

Christoph Thole, The differentiation between Brussels I and EIR in annex proceedings and the relation to art. 31 CMR
On the occasion of the ECJ ruling (4.9.2014 – C-157/13), the author discusses the precedence of special conventions (CMR) according to art. 71 (1) Brussels I-reg. and the question of the criteria necessary for the application of art. 3 EIR. With respect to art. 3 EIR, the ECJ rightly concludes that an action for the payment of a debt based on the provision of carriage services taken by the insolvency administrator of an insolvent undertaking in the course of insolvency proceedings is covered not by the EIR, but is a civil matter within the Brussels I-reg. However, once again, the Court has failed to further elaborate on the criteria necessary for the classification of an action as an insolvency-related action within the meaning of art. 3 EIR and art. 1 para. 2 lit. b Brussels I-reg.
With respect to art. 71 Brussels I-reg., it is a step forward that, in contrast to earlier verdicts, the ECJ itself decided upon the compatibility of the convention with the principles of EU law, instead of referring the matter to state courts. It would have been even more conclusive to rely on the wording of Art. 71 (1) Brussels I-reg. and omit the unwritten necessity of compatibility with EU Law entirely.

Burkhard Hess/Katharina Raffelsieper, Debtor protection within Regulation 1896/2006: Current gaps in European procedural law
Regulation 1896/2006 does not provide for effective debtor protection in cases when a European Order for Payment was not properly served on the debtor. As a result of the unilateral nature of the procedure for issuing the order, the order will be declared enforceable if the defendant does not challenge it within a period of 30 days. However, the service of the payment order shall safeguard the right to a defense. When the defendant has never been informed about the ongoing procedure, he should be able to easily contest the Order for Payment even after it has been declared enforceable. Yet, the text of the Regulation does not provide for a remedy in this situation. In a reference for a preliminary ruling, the Local Court Berlin-Wedding asked the European Court of Justice which remedy should apply. The referring court suggested an application by analogy of the review proceedings provided for in Article 20 of Regulation 1896/2006 in order to ensure an effective right to a defense. Regrettably, the CJEU did not endorse this solution. It declared national procedural law applicable in accordance with Article 26 of the Regulation. As a consequence, parties are sent to the fragmented remedies of national procedural laws. As the efficiency and uniform application of Regulation 1896/2006 is no longer guaranteed, the European lawmaker is called to remedy the insufficient situation. This article addresses the final decision of the Local Court which implemented the CJEU’s judgment.

Peter Huber, Investor Protection: Lugano Convention and questions of international insolvency law
The article discusses a recent decision of the German Bundesgerichtshof which primarily deals with matters of international jurisdiction in tort claims under Article 5 No. 3 of the Lugano Convention. In doing so, the author also analyses to what extent the decision is in line with the more recent judgment of the ECJ in Kolassa v Barclays Bank. A second issue of the decision is how provisions of foreign insolvency law which modify a creditor’s claim against a (not insolvent) co-debtor of the insolvent party should be characterised under domestic German private international law.

Christoph Thole, Porsche versus Hedgefonds: The requirements for lis pendens under Art. 32 reg. 1215/2012 (Art. 30 reg. 44/2001)
Porsche SE, which is currently trying to fend off several actions for damages connected to the failed takeover of Volkswagen, has reached a partial success before the OLG Stuttgart. The OLG has ruled that the negative declaratory action against an institutional investor in Germany takes precedence over the action for performance filed in London. The proceedings clearly demonstrate how fiercely disputes concerning the place of jurisdiction in capital market law are fought. Specifically, the court needed to judge upon the necessary requirements for lodging the claim with the court under Art. 30 of the Brussels I-reg. (Art. 32 Reg. No. 1215/2012). The decision as well as most of the reasoning is convincing.

Peter Mankowski, Lack of reciprocity for the recognition and enforcement of judgments between Liechtenstein and Germany
Liechtenstein fashions a system of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments with a strict and formal requirement of reciprocity in the Austrian tradition. In particular, judgments from Germany are not recognised in Liechtenstein. The retaliative price Liechtenstein has to pay is that judgments from Liechtenstein are not recognised in Germany, either, for lack of reciprocity. Methodologically, German courts are idealiter required to research whether reciprocity is guaranteed in a foreign country in relation to Germany. The popular lists in the leading German commentaries should only serve as a starting point.

Lars Klöhn/Philip Schwarz, The residual company’s applicable law
The “theory of the residual company (Restgesellschaft)” deals with legal problems that may arise in the context of winding-up companies doing business in at least two countries. In Germany, the theory applies in particular to English private companies limited by shares (“Limited”) with assets in Germany. If a Limited is dissolved in its home country, the residual company will come into existence and be considered as the owner of the company’s “German” assets. The discussion in the literature as well as recent case law by Higher Regional Courts (Oberlandesgerichte) has focused on the question which law applies to the residual company. This paper analyzes the newest judgement on this issue by the Higher Regional Court of Hamm, which states that German law applies. The authors agree with this result while pointing out that this conclusion will be reached regardless of whether one follows the theory of domicile (Sitztheorie) or the theory of establishment (Gründungstheorie). Furthermore, German law applies irrespective of whether the company is still doing business or has already entered into liquidation.

Piotr Machnikowski/Martin Margonski, Rechtskrafterstreckung auf Vorfragen im internationalen Zuständigkeitsrecht: Anerkennung von punitive damages- und actual damages-Urteilen in Polen
The case note concerns the judgment of the Polish Supreme Court of October 11, 2013 on the enforceability of US-American punitive damages and judgments on actual damages in Poland. The enforceability has been rejected in case of punitive damages which, as a rule, are contrary to Polish public policy as such. Polish civil law is governed by the principles of compensation and restitution of the damage. The damage should be repaired to the condition that would have existed had the wrong not occurred. The injured party may not be enriched as a result of the damages awarded. The compensation law in Poland does recognize some exceptions to that rule which allow to grant compensation not closely based on the value of the restored damage. Such exceptions are, however, justified under the constitutional proportionality principle. Punitive damages do not meet such requirements to the extend they peruse penal objectives. They are permissible only to the extent they perform a compensatory function and are linked to the damage suffered. In case of actual damages, such conflict with the Polish public order does not occur by nature of the legal instrument. Yet, the said proportionality principle may lead to only a partial enforceability of a US-American actual damages judgment. The crucial factor here is how closely the factual setting of the case is connected to Poland. The judgment in question addresses the general problem of partial enforceability of foreign judgments, which has been found possible in case of divisible obligations. Despite some critique on detailed aspects of the findings, the case note positively appraises the judgment.

Bernhard König, Austrian money judgments which do not finally determine the amount of payment
Judgments given in a Member State which are enforceable in that State are enforceable in other Member States. Difficulties could arise if a money judgment was given in a Member State which does not require a final determination of the amount of the payment in the judgment itself and has to be enforced in a Member State which national law requires the final determination of the amount of payment already in the judgment. This paper offers a glimpse to the question if and to what extent other Member States will have to deal with Austrian judgments which have not finally determined the amount of the payment.

Miguel Gómez Jene/Chris Thomale, Arbitrator liability in International Arbitration
Recent decisions by Spanish courts raise questions upon the conditions as well as the extent of arbitrator liability. Authors suggest a distinction between qualified adjucative and simple managerial tasks: It is only when acting as a quasi-adjudicative agent that arbitrators should be essentially exempt from personal liability. Conversely, as far as an arbitrator’s conduct of an arbitration procedure is concerned, he should assume general tort liability for negligence.

Jürgen Samtleben, The New Panamanian Code of Private International Law – A Kaleidoscope of Conflict of Laws
Panama is known as an important banking center and as the registered office of many internationally active corporations. Therefore, international relations between private subjects need specific regulation. Up to now, the private international law of Panama found its basis in individual provisions of the Civil Code, the Family Code and some special laws. These provisions were replaced by Law 7 of 2014, which contains in 184 articles a comprehensive regulation of nearly all conflict-of-law topics. The following article gives an overview of the new Law. As a result, it must be stated that the Law contains many flaws, due to insufficient coordination between the different parts and a lack of careful editing of the individual articles. In Panama, as well, the law has been criticized and there is a call for its thorough reform.

Paul Beaumont, Professor of European Union and Private International Law and Director of the Centre for Private International Law, University of Aberdeen (Scotland/UK), and Jayne Holliday, Research Assistant and Secretary of this Centre, have published an insightful and carefully researched new working paper on “Recent Developments on the Meaning of ‘Habitual Residence’ in Alleged Child Abduction Cases” in the series of the Aberdeen Centre for PIL (Working Paper No. 2015/3, the full content is available here). The highly recommended article is based on an overview of the recent developments within European and International Family Law that was presented by Professor Beaumont at the conference on “Private International Law in the Jurisprudence of European Courts – Family at Focus” held in Osijek, Croatia, June 2014. Drawing from that presentation, the working paper focuses on the recent developments on the meaning of habitual residence in child abduction cases from the UK Supreme Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). In particular, the authors analyze the move by the UK Supreme Court towards a more uniform definition of habitual residence in line with the jurisprudence of the CJEU under the Brussels IIbis Regulation.

The authors summarize their findings as follows:

“Over the past 30 years the concept of habitual residence of the child in the UK has developed from one which put weight on parental intention to a mixed model, which takes a more child centric and fact based approach. By following the jurisprudence of the CJEU, the UK Supreme Court has made a genuine and conscious attempt to provide a uniform interpretation of the 1980 Abduction Convention. This will hopefully have the effect of creating a more uniform approach to the definition of habitual residence amongst all Contracting States to the Hague Abduction Convention. […] If enough weight is given to parental intention of the custodial parent(s) of newborns then physical presence is not required to establish habitual residence. This is an easier solution to arrive at if the myth that habitual residence is a pure question of fact is abandoned. Whilst a mixed question of fact and law is the best way to analyse the ‘habitual residence’ of the young child, it is not appropriate to introduce into the equation a suggestion that somehow habitual residence cannot change when the custodial parent lawfully removes a child to another country just because that decision was still subject to appeal in that country even though the appeal did not suspend the custodial parent’s right to take the child out of the country lawfully. Such an appeal should not prevent the loss of the child’s habitual residence in the country where the appeal is made and should not impact on the ‘stability’ of the child’s residence in the new jurisdiction to prevent habitual residence being established there within a few months of the residence beginning.”

Matthias Weller is Professor for Civil Law, Civil Procedure and Private International Law at the EBS University for Economics and Law Wiesbaden and Director of the Research Center for Transnational Commercial Dispute Resolution (www.ebs.edu/tcdr) of the EBS Law School.

Mutual trust amongst the Member States of the European Union in other legal systems is a prerequisite for the expansion of the free movement of judgments and judicial titles within the European Judicial Area. To justify such mutual trust amongst the European Member States requires, inter alia, the definition of common minimum standards in the various judicial systems.

A joint project between the law faculties of the University of Regensburg (Prof. Dr. Christoph Althammer) and the EBS Law School in Wiesbaden (Prof. Dr. Matthias Weller, Mag.rer.publ.) has set itself the goal to search for and explore further such minimum standards in the judicial systems within the European Judicial Area. After the first conference in Wiesbaden in 2014 (see conference report earlier on this blog here), where the discussion has been initiated from a broader perspective, the project will be continued with the upcoming two-days-conference in Regensburg (conference language: German) that is dedicated to a central issue within this field: European minimum standards for judicial bodies.

The focus will be on three main requirements (independence, efficiency, specialization) which will be presented by experts from both academia and legal practice. These topics will be complemented by a legal comparative analysis with regard to the French, Greek and Italian legal system before the discussion will conclude with a final synthesis.

We would like to cordially invite you to join the discussion! For registration and the conference flyer see here.

It has not yet been mentioned on this blog that Volumes 10 and 11 of the Munich Commentary on the German Civil Code (Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch), are now available in their sixth edition (2015). A standard German language treatise on both German and European private international law the new edition contains a detailed article-by article analysis of the Rome I, II and III Regulations (by Abbo Junker, Munich; Dieter Martiny, Hamburg/Frankfurt an der Oder); Ulrich Spellenberg, Bayreuth; Peter Winkler von Mohrenfels, Rostock), the Hague Protocol on Maintenance (Kurt Siehr, Hamburg/Zurich), the European Succession Regulation (Anatol Dutta, Regensburg), and the Hague Conventions on the Protection of Children and Adults (by Kurt Siehr, Hamburg/Zurich; Volker Lipp, Göttingen).

The sixth edition is the first edition that has been edited by our co-editor Jan von Hein (Freiburg/Germany). Jan is the successor to Hans-Jürgen Sonnenberger (Munich) and has contributed to the commentary himself with a completely new section on the general principles of European and German private international law.

Further information is available on the publisher’s website.

Mark Edwin Burge, Associate Professor of Law, Texas A&M University School of Law, has published a highly interesting article on the relationship between party autonomy and legal culture, providing new insights on the success (or failure) of legal transplants in choice of law: “Too Clever by Half: Reflections on Perception, Legitimacy, and Choice of Law Under Revised Article 1 of the Uniform Commercial Code”, 6 William & Mary Business Law Review 357 (2015).

The abstract reads as follows:

“The overwhelmingly successful 2001 rewrite of Article 1 of the Uniform Commercial Code was accompanied by an overwhelming failure: proposed section 1-301 on contractual choice of law. As originally sent to the states, section 1-301 would have allowed non-consumer parties to a contract to select a governing law that bore no relation to their transaction. Proponents justifiably contended that such autonomy was consistent with emerging international norms and with the nature of contracts creating voluntary private obligations. Despite such arguments, the original version of section 1-301 was resoundingly rejected, gaining zero adoptions by the states before its withdrawal in 2008. This Article contends that this political failure within the simultaneous overall success of Revised Article 1 was due in significant part to proposed section 1-301 invoking a negative visceral reaction from its American audience. This reaction occurred not because of state or national parochialism, but because the concept of unbounded choice of law violated cultural symbols and myths about the nature of law. The American social and legal culture aspires to the ideal that ‘no one is above the law’ and the related ideal of maintaining ‘a government of laws, and not of men.’ Proposed section 1-301 transgressed those ideals by taking something labeled as ‘law’ and turning on its head the expected norm of general applicability. Future proponents of law reform arising from internationalization would do well to consider the role of symbolic ideals in their targeted jurisdictions. While proposed section 1-301 made much practical sense, it failed in part because it did not—to an American audience—make sense in theory.”

The full article is available here.

Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Jürgen Basedow, LL.M. (Harvard), Director of the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg, has published a revised and updated version of the widely read and well-received lectures given by the author during the 2012 summer courses of the Hague Academy of International Law (on the first edition, see the post by Gilles Cuniberti here). This superbly written and well-researched book is a must-read for anyone interested in the paradigm shifts that private international law has undergone in recent decades. The abstract provided by the publisher reads as follows:

“This book endeavours to interpret the development of private international law in light of social change. Since the end of World War II the socio-economic reality of international relations has been characterised by a progressive move from closed to open societies. The dominant feature of our time is the opening of borders for individuals, goods, services, capital and data. It is reflected in the growing importance of ex ante planning – as compared with ex post adjudication – of cross-border relations between individuals and companies. What has ensued is a shift in the forces that shape international relations from states to private actors. The book focuses on various forms of private ordering for economic and societal relations, and its increasing significance, while also analysing the role of the remaining regulatory powers of the states involved. These changes stand out more distinctly by virtue of the comparative treatment of the law and the long-term perspective employed by the author.”

Further information is available on the publisher’s website here.

The Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners (STEP), in cooperation with the Swiss Association of Trust Companies (commonly abbreviated as SATC, not to be confused with an American TV sitcom), is organising an international conference in Lausanne (Switzerland) on recent experience and current trends under the Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Trusts and on their Recognition of 1985. The event will take place on 3 November 2015; the conference language will be English.

According to the flyer, the conference “will consider how in thirty years since the conclusion of the Hague Trust Convention the trust has become more widely accepted and trust service providers have greater opportunities, in many countries, including Switzerland. The speakers will demonstrate how the trust is playing a full and positive role in the world of wealth management and fiduciary services in Switzerland, as well as cover recent international trust law developments and jurisprudence. The ambitious program features distinguished speakers from the judiciary, academia, the Swiss government, regulatory and the financial services world and promises to be an extraordinary conference.”

The full programme and details on registration are available here.

On 18 August 2015, the German Federal Supreme Court referred the following questions relating to the interpretation of Article 5 No. 1 of the Brussels I Regulation to the CJEU (my translation):

1. Must Art. 5 No. 1 lit. a) of the Brussels I Regulation be interpreted as covering a claim for compensation under Art. 7 of the EU Air Passenger Regulation against an airline that is not the contracting partner of the passenger but operates the flight by way of a codeshare agreement with the passenger’s contracting partner?

2. If Art. 5 No. 1 Brussels I Regulation applies: In case of a flight connection consisting of several flights without any meaningful stay at the connecting airports, is the place of departure of the first flight the place of performance within the meaning of Art. 5 No. 1 lit. b) Brussels I Regulation, if the flights are operated by different airlines by way of a codeshare agreement and if the claim for compensation is directed against the airline that operates the – severely delayed – second flight?

The facts of the underlying case are straightforward: The claimant booked a flight with Air France from Stuttgart to Helsinki via Paris. The flight from Paris to Helsinki was operated by Finnair by way of a codeshare agreement with Air France. The flight from Paris to Helsinki was delayed by three hours and twenty minutes. Therefore, the claimant sought compensation from Finnair under the EU Air Passenger Rights Regulation – and brought an action against Finnair in Stuttgart. The Court of First Instance (Amtsgericht) and the Regional Court (Landgericht) both rejected the claim for lack of jurisdiction. The Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof), in contrast, wasn’t so sure, and, therefore, referred the above questions to the CJEU.

The press release of the Federal Supreme Court is available here (in German).

On 17 August 2015 the European Succession Regulation has entered into force. It provides for uniform rules on the applicable law as well as recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of succession. It also creates a European Certificate of Succession that enables person to prove his or her status and rights as heir or his or her powers as administrator of the estate or executor of the will without further formalities.

More information is available on the European Commission’s website.

A volumious book on the International Protection of Adults, edited by Richard Frimston, Alexander Ruck Keene, Claire van Overdijk and Adrian Ward, has just been published (Oxford University Press, 2015).

The blurb reads:

Increasing numbers of people have connections with one country, but live and work in another, frequently owning property or investments in several countries. People with lifelong or subsequently developed impairments of capacity move cross-border or have property or family interests or connections spread across different jurisdictions. This new work fills a gap in a specialist market for a detailed work advising lawyers on all the considerations in these situations.

The book provides a clear, comprehensive, and unique overview of all relevant capacity and private international law issues, and the existing solutions in common law and civil law jurisdictions and under Hague Convention XXXV. It sets out the existing law of various important jurisdictions, including detailed chapters on the constituent parts of the UK, Ireland, Jersey, the Isle of Man and the Hague 35 states; and shorter chapters on 26 Non-Hague states and those within federal states, including coverage of the United States, several Australian and Canadian states, and a number of other Commonwealth jurisdictions. Containing a number of helpful case studies and flowcharts, the book draws upon the expertise of the editors in their respective fields, together with detailed contributions from expert practitioners and academics from each relevant jurisdiction.

Furhter information is available here.

A volumious book on the International Protection of Adults, edited by Richard Frimston, Alexander Ruck Keene, Claire van Overdijk and Adrian Ward, has just been published (Oxford University Press, 2015).The blurb reads:

Increasing numbers of people have connections with one country, but live and work in another, frequently owning property or investments in several countries. People with lifelong or subsequently developed impairments of capacity move cross-border or have property or family interests or connections spread across different jurisdictions. This new work fills a gap in a specialist market for a detailed work advising lawyers on all the considerations in these situations.

The book provides a clear, comprehensive, and unique overview of all relevant capacity and private international law issues, and the existing solutions in common law and civil law jurisdictions and under Hague Convention XXXV. It sets out the existing law of various important jurisdictions, including detailed chapters on the constituent parts of the UK, Ireland, Jersey, the Isle of Man and the Hague 35 states; and shorter chapters on 26 Non-Hague states and those within federal states, including coverage of the United States, several Australian and Canadian states, and a number of other Commonwealth jurisdictions. Containing a number of helpful case studies and flowcharts, the book draws upon the expertise of the editors in their respective fields, together with detailed contributions from expert practitioners and academics from each relevant jurisdiction.

Furhter information is available here.

By Polina Pavlova, research fellow at the MPI Luxembourg.

July, 21st 2015 has marked another important step in the private enforcement of competition law in Europe. Only two months after the long awaited preliminary ruling in the case CDC Hydrogen Peroxide (C-352/13) was delivered on May, 21st, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal seems to be the first one to apply the new ECJ case law on jurisdiction in cartel damage cases. Its judgment (accessible here in Dutch and German) dealt with compensation claims against members of the sodium chlorate cartel and applied the recently established ECJ principles even before the referring court itself (the Dortmund District Court) could render a judgment on its jurisdiction.

Background of the case is the bundled enforcement of the claims of damaged customers in the aftermath of the Decision of the EU Commission from June, 11th 2008 fining a number of undertakings for their participation in a sodium chlorate cartel operating EEA wide. Following this decision, Cartel Damage Claims, a special purpose vehicle based in Brussels, started buying off claims of the cartel victims and filed a suit against several cartel members before the District Court of Amsterdam. The latter accepted jurisdiction with a judgment from June, 4th 2014: a judgment which was subject to scrutiny and eventually confirmed by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal.

The application in the appeal proceedings questioned the jurisdiction of the Dutch courts over a cartel member seated in Finland. The Amsterdam judges confirmed the decision of the lower court according to which, since one of the co-defendants in the first instance proceedings was seated in the Netherlands, jurisdiction can be based on ex-Article 6 (1) of the Brussels I Regulation. Transposing the reasoning of the ECJ in CDC Hydrogen Peroxide – issued in a parallel scenario – to the proceedings at hand, the Court of Appeal considered the EU jurisdictional rule on joint defendants applicable. The close connection between the claims in the sense of ex-Article 6 (1) and in particular the same situation of fact and law – a requirement well established in ECJ case law – was deemed fulfilled: Following CDC Hydrogen Peroxide, the national appellate court decided that the commitment of a continuous competition law infringement sanctioned by the Commission’s Decision was sufficient to create an identical factual and legal background of the cartel damage claims. In addition, the court clarified that a company which has been held responsible for the cartel by the Commission can serve as an anchor defendant for the purposes of ex-Article 6 (1) even where the latter is a parent company of a cartel member and has not directly participated in the infringement.

Finally, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal (upholding the first instance decision) confirmed that the standard jurisdiction and arbitration clauses contained in the supply agreements between the cartel members and their customers do not apply to cartel damage claims. As far as the evoked jurisdiction agreements were concerned, the appellate court applied the reasoning of the ECJ in CDC Hydrogen Peroxide relating to the interpretation ex-Article 23 (para 70 f.). The disputes were qualified as deriving from a competition law infringement previously unknown to the customers and not from the multiple contractual relationships between suppliers and customers as such. They could thus not be covered by the standard wording of a jurisdiction clause regulating the contractual relation of the parties. Regarding the arbitration agreements, the court saw no reason to deviate from the aforementioned interpretation.

The appeal of the Finish cartel member was thus dismissed.

It is interesting to note that in this judgment the national Court of Appeal merely confirms what the Amsterdam District Court had already decided in 2014, long before the ECJ rendered its CDC Hydrogen Peroxide ruling. Even though the lower court did not await the judgment of the ECJ, its result seems to fall completely in line with the now EU-wide binding principles formulated by the Luxembourg judges. This demonstrates that the ECJ case law now simply prescribes what private enforcement friendly jurisdictions were doing anyway.

What is perhaps more intriguing, is to observe where the national court went even one step further than the ECJ in completely transposing the considerations on the material scope of the choice-of-court clauses to the other type of dispute resolution clauses at issue, i.e. the arbitration agreements. This was motivated by the sole consideration that there are no reasons to judge differently in this regard. While this might be a welcome interpretation, the issue of the applicability and interpretation of arbitration clauses was left untouched by the ECJ ruling (see para 58, particularly evident in comparison to the Advocate General’s opinion in the CDC Hydrogen Peroxide proceedings which dealt extensively with the issue, see there at para 118 ff.). Nevertheless, the equal treatment of the two types of (standard) dispute resolution clauses as regarding their scope seems to be common before Member State courts. This feature might prove to broaden the actual effect of the CDC Hydrogen Peroxide case law beyond its explicit scope (see e.g. the judgment of the District Court of Helsinki from of the July, 4th 2013, also concerning the Hydrogen Peroxide cartel). It remains to be seen how other jurisdictions will see the application of arbitration clauses in cartel damage cases.

The mentioned proceedings are only instances of a much broader landscape of private enforcement of cartel damage claims in the EU conducted to a great extent by special vehicles such as CDC. It seems that the Dutch jurisprudence might be, once again, setting an example on how international jurisdiction in competition law damage cases is to be dealt with by member state courts.

 

 

 

This post has been written by Ester di Napoli.

On 16 July 2015, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) rendered its judgment in the case of A v. B (C-184/14), clarifying the interpretation of Regulation No 4/2009 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations (the Maintenance Regulation).

More specifically, the ruling regarded the interpretation of Article 3 of the Regulation. This provides, inter alia, that jurisdiction in matters of maintenance lies with “(c) the court which, according to its own law, has jurisdiction to entertain proceedings concerning the status of a person if the matter relating to maintenance is ancillary to those proceedings, unless that jurisdiction is based solely on the nationality of one of the parties”, or with “(d) the court which, according to its own law, has jurisdiction to entertain proceedings concerning parental responsibility if the matter relating to maintenance is ancillary to those proceedings, unless that jurisdiction is based solely on the nationality of one of the parties”.

The dispute in the main proceedings concerned the legal separation of two Italians and the custody of their children. These proceedings had been brought by A (the husband) against B (the wife) before the District Court of Milan.

The Court of Milan asserted its jurisdiction in respect of legal separation relying on Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation No 2201/2003 (Brussels IIa), but held that, pursuant to Article 8(1) of that Regulation, it lacked jurisdiction over parental responsibility, as the children were, at the material time, habitually resident in the UK. The Court of Milan further held that, according to Article 3(c) and (d) of the Maintenance Regulation, it had jurisdiction to decide on the issue of maintenance for the benefit of the wife, but not to decide on maintenance for the benefit of the children, since the latter request was not ancillary to proceedings over personal status, but to proceedings concerning parental responsibility.

The case eventually reached the Italian Supreme Court, which decided to request the ECJ for a preliminary ruling. The Supreme Court asked whether, in circumstances such as those described above, a maintenance request pertaining to the child may be ruled on both by the court that has jurisdiction over legal separation or divorce, as a matter ancillary to the proceedings concerning the status of a person, within the meaning of Article 3(c) of that Regulation, and by the court that has jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings concerning parental responsibility, as a matter ancillary to those proceedings, within the meaning of Article 3(d) of that Regulation; or whether a decision on a similar matter can only be taken by the latter court.

Put otherwise, the issue was whether the heads of jurisdiction set out in Article 3(c) and (d) of the Maintenance Regulation must be understood to be mutually exclusive, or whether the conjunction “or” in the provision implies that the courts that have jurisdiction over legal separation and parental responsibility may be both validly seised of an application relating to maintenance in respect of children.

In its judgment, the ECJ begins by observing that the scope of the concept of “ancillary matter” cannot be left to the discretion of the courts of each Member State according to their national law. The meaning of this expression should rather be determined by reference to the wording of the relevant provisions, their context and goals.

The wording of Article 3(c) and (d) indicates that a distinction should be made between proceedings concerning the status of a person and proceedings concerning parental responsibility. In the face of this wording, it cannot be unequivocally established “whether the alternative nature of those criteria means that the applications relating to child maintenance are ancillary only to one set of proceedings concerning parental responsibility, or whether those applications may be deemed ancillary also to proceedings concerning the status of a person”.

As regards the context of the pertinent provisions, the ECJ notes that the above distinction echoes the distinction made by the Brussels IIa Regulation between disputes concerning divorce, legal separation and marriage annulment, on the one hand, and disputes regarding the attribution, exercise, delegation, and restriction or termination of parental responsibility, on the other. The ECJ further notes in this connection, based on Recital 12 of the preamble of the latter Regulation, that the rules on jurisdiction relating to parental responsibility underlie a concern for the best interests of the child, and adds that “an application relating to maintenance in respect of minor children is … intrinsically linked to proceedings concerning matters of parental responsibility”.

The ECJ concludes that “it is vital to take into account, in interpreting the rules on jurisdiction laid down by Article 3(c) and (d) of Regulation No 4/2009, the best interest of the child”, and that the implementation of such Regulation “must occur in accordance to Article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union”, according to which, in all actions relating to children, whether taken by public authorities or private institutions, the child’s best interests must be a primary consideration.

Finally, as regards the goals of the provisions at stake, the Court considers that the main objective of the Maintenance Regulation is to ensure, in this field, the proper administration of justice within the EU. This implies that the court to which jurisdiction is conferred to decide on parental responsibility should be the court that finds itself “in the best position to evaluate in concreto the issues involved in the application relating to child maintenance, to set the amount of that maintenance intended to contribute to the child’s maintenance and education costs, by adapting it, according to (i) the type of custody (either jointly or sole) ordered, (ii) access rights and the duration of those rights and (iii) other factual elements relating to the exercise of parental responsibility brought before it”.

In light of the above, the ECJ concludes that, when the court of a Member State is seised of proceedings concerning legal separation or divorce between the parents of a minor child, and the court of another Member State is seised of proceedings involving matters of parental responsibility over the same child, Article 3(c) and (d) of Regulation No 4/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that “an application relating to maintenance concerning that child is ancillary only to the proceedings concerning parental responsibility, with the meaning of Article 3(d) of that Regulation”.