Conflictoflaws

Priskila Pratita Penasthika has recently published her PhD thesis with Eleven titled Unravelling Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts. Indonesia as an Illustrative Case Study

The abstract reads as follows:

Despite the paramount role of choice of law in international contractual relationships, its implementation in various countries remains disparate. Many countries have acknowledged and given effect to choice of law, but some other countries persist in opposing it. The lingering reluctance in enforcing choice of law remains a challenging impediment to cross-border commercial relationships.

Strict adherence to the territoriality principle, absence of special provisions or clear guidelines of choice of law, and difficulties in confirming the content of the chosen foreign law are among the reasons for the reluctance to give effect to choice of law. These circumstances are encountered by some countries, including Indonesia.

This book not only unravels the reasons for Indonesia’s reluctance and its subsequent lack of advancement on choice of law, but also examines possible solutions to the problem. Building on in-depth doctrinal research, supported by qualitative interviews, this research will serve as an essential point of reference for academics, practitioners, and policymakers interested in private international law and cross-border commercial litigation.

About the author:

Priskila Pratita Penasthika is an Assistant Professor in Private International Law at the Faculty of Law, Universitas Indonesia. She graduated with a doctorate in law from Erasmus University Rotterdam.

China’s Foreign Exchange Regulations and Illegality in Private International Law 

About this event

When: Wednesday, 23rd November 4pm

Where: Room 3.1, Third Floor, Centre for Commercial Law Studies, 67-69 Lincoln’s Inn Fields London WC2A

Format: In-person

This event is jointly hosted by QM Criminal Justice Centre and the Centre for Financial Law, Regulation & Compliance (FinReg) at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies.

Abstract

China is one of the countries in the world enforcing the tightest foreign exchange regulations. However, it is controversial whether a commercial contract that is performed partly in China and partly in a commonwealth country would be unenforceable merely because it violates China’s foreign exchange regulations. Based on Australian and English jurisprudence, this talk will explore the intersection between China’s foreign exchange regulations and illegality in private international law. It discusses:

1. Disguised foreign exchange trading, underground banking, and fund splitting;

2. Under-invoicing in trade in goods to evade import tax and over-invoicing in trade in service to claim income tax refund in an importing country; and

3. Illegality in private international law.

Speaker Bio

Dr. Jie (Jeanne) Huang is an Associate Professor at the University of Sydney Law School in Australia. Her prize-winning research focuses on conflict of laws (private international law), especially comparative studies between the USA, the EU, Australia, and China.

She is the Co-chair of the American Society of International Law Private International Law Interest Group. She also serves as an Australian government expert on mission to the United Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business (UN/CEFACT). She is on the executive committee of the International Law Association (ILA) Australia branch, and she serves as an editor for the Asian Journal of Law and Society. At the University of Sydney, she is the inaugural director for the LLM program and the co-director of the Centre for Asian and Pacific Law. Beyond the academic, Jeanne is an Arbitrator at the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre and Shanghai International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (Shanghai International Arbitration Centre).

To reserve your spot, please see here.

Choice-of-law rules can be complex, confusing, and difficult to apply. Nevertheless, they are vitally important. The application of choice-of-law rules can turn a winning case into a losing case (and vice versa). A recent decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. v. MUFG Union Bank, N.A., is a case in point. The Second Circuit was called upon to decide whether to apply the law of New York or the law of Venezuela to determine the validity of certain notes issued by a state-owned oil company in Venezuela. Billions of dollars were riding on the answer.

In this post, I first review the facts of the case. I then provide an overview of the relevant New York choice-of-law rules. Finally, I discuss the choice-of-law question that lies at the heart of the case.

The Bonds

In 2016, Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (“PDVSA”) approved a bond exchange whereby holders of notes with principal due in 2017 (the “2017 Notes”) could exchange them for notes with principal due in 2020 (the “2020 Notes”). Unlike the 2017 Notes, the 2020 Notes were secured by a pledge of a 50.1% equity interest in CITGO Holding, Inc. (“CITGO”). CITGO is owned by PDVSA through a series of subsidiaries and is considered by many to be the “crown jewel” of Venezuela’s strategic assets abroad.

The PDVSA board formally approved the exchange of notes in 2016. The exchange was also approved by the company’s sole shareholder and by the boards of the PDVSA’s subsidiaries with oversight and control of CITGO.

The National Assembly of Venezuela refused to support the exchange. It passed two resolutions – one in May 2016 and one in September 2016 – challenging the power of the executive branch to proceed with the transaction and expressly rejecting the pledge of CITGO assets in the 2020 Notes. The National Assembly took the position that these notes were “contracts of public interest” which required legislative approval pursuant to Article 150 of the Venezuelan Constitution. These legislative objections notwithstanding, PDVSA followed through with the exchange. Creditors holding roughly $2.8 billion in 2017 Notes decided to participate and exchanged their notes for 2020 Notes.

In 2019, the United States recognized Venezuela’s Interim President Juan Guaidó as the lawful head of state. Guaidó appointed a new PDVSA board of directors, which was recognized as the legitimate board by the United States even though it does not control the company’s operations inside Venezuela. The new board of directors filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against the trustee and the collateral agent for the 2020 Notes. It sought a declaration that the entire bond transaction is void and unenforceable because it was never approved by the National Assembly. It also sought a declaration that the creditors were prohibited from executing on the CITGO collateral.

Choice of Law

If the 2020 Notes were validly issued, they are binding on PDVSA, and the CITGO assets may be seized by the noteholders in the event of default. If the notes were not validly issued, they are not binding on PDVSA, and the CITGO assets may not be seized by the noteholders in the event of default. Whether the Notes were validly issued depends, in turn, on whether the court applies New York law or Venezuelan law. This is the billion-dollar choice-of-law question. If New York law applies, then the notes will almost certainly be deemed valid and the noteholders can seize the pledged collateral. If Venezuelan law is applied, then the notes may well be deemed invalid and the noteholders will be stymied. With the stakes in mind, let us now turn to the applicable choice-of-law rules.

A federal court sitting in diversity must look to the choice-of-law rules of the state in which it sits—here, New York—to decide which jurisdiction’s law to apply. N.Y. General Obligations Law 5-1401 states that a New York choice-of-law clause should be enforced whenever it appears in a business contract worth more than $250,000 in the aggregate. The 2020 Notes contain New York choice-of-law clauses. Since the aggregate value of the 2020 Notes is far greater than $250,000, and since the 2020 Notes have no relation to personal, family or household services, it may seem that the court should simply apply New York law and call it a day.

There is, however, another New York choice-of-law rule that may trump Section 5-1401. Section 5-1401 states that it shall not apply to any contract “to the extent provided to the contrary in . . . section 1-301 of the Uniform Commercial Code.” Section 1-301(c) states that if N.Y Commercial Code Section 8-110 “specifies the applicable law, that provision governs and a contrary agreement is effective only to the extent permitted by the law so specified.” Section 8-110(a), in turn, states that “[t]he local law of the issuer’s jurisdiction . . . governs . . . the validity of a security.”

All of this suggests that the applicable choice-of-law rule may not be the one laid down in Section 5-1401. Section 8-110 directs courts to apply the local law of the issuer’s jurisdiction—here, Venezuela—to resolve issues relating to the “validity” of the security.  The billion-dollar question is what exactly the word “validity” means in this context.

On the one hand, the term may be interpreted broadly to refer to both the corporate law of Venezuela and to Venezuelan law more broadly. Under this interpretation, the 2020 Notes may not be validly issued because they were never approved by the National Assembly as required under Article 150. On the other hand, the term “validity” may be interpreted to refer only to the corporate law of Venezuela. Under this narrower interpretation, it is irrelevant whether the National Assembly approved the 2020 Bonds because all of the corporate formalities needed to validly issue a security—approval by the board of directors, approval by the shareholders, etc.—appear to have been followed.

Interpretation in the District Court

In a lengthy decision decided on October 16, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Judge Katherine Polk Failla) concluded that the term “validity” should be given a narrow interpretation and that New York contract law governed the issue of validity.

The court began its analysis by observing that the strongest argument in support of a broad interpretation is based on plain language. This term “validity” is not generally understood to refer solely to corporate formalities. It is understood to encompass the many reasons why a contract may not be enforceable as a matter of contract law. While this plain language reading is compelling at first glance, the court ultimately concluded that it did not mandate the application of general rules of Venezuelan law given the broader context of Article 8.

The court first quoted the following language from the Prefatory Note to Article 8:

[Article 8] deals with the mechanisms by which interests in securities are transferred, and the rights and duties of those who are involved in the transfer process. It does not deal with the process of entering into contracts for the transfer of securities or regulate the rights and duties of those involved in the contracting process (emphasis added).

The court observed that if the term “validity” were given a broad scope, it would “swallow whole any choice of law analysis involving the formation of a contract for securities.” The court cited state legislative history indicating that the term “validity” in Article 8 referred merely to whether a security “ha[d] been issued pursuant to appropriate corporate or similar action.” The court also quoted the authors of a leading treatise on Article 8 as saying that:

Obviously, the concept of “invalidity” as used in this section must have a narrower scope than one might encounter in other legal contexts, e.g., in a dispute about whether the obligation represented by the security is “enforceable” or “legal, valid, and binding.”

Finally, the district court noted the virtual absence of any New York case law supporting the broad interpretation of the validity favored by the plaintiffs. If the term was as sweeping as the plaintiff claimed, the court reasoned, there would be more cases where the courts had applied Section 8-110. The lack of any such cases cut against giving the term a broad interpretation. The district court’s analysis of this issue has attracted support from some commentators and criticism from others.

After concluding that the term “validity” in Section 8-110 should be interpreted narrowly to select only Venezuelan corporate law, the district court applied New York contract law. It held that the 2020 Notes were valid and enforceable and that the defendant trustee was entitled to judgment in the amount of $1.68 billion. The plaintiffs appealed.

Interpretation in the Second Circuit

On October 13, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit declined to provide a definitive answer as to the interpretive question discussed above. After reviewing the various arguments for and against a broad interpretation of “validity,” the court certified the question to the New York Court of Appeals. In so doing, the court commented on the issue’s importance to “the State’s choice-of-law regime and status as a commercial center.” It also noted the importance of the choice-of-law issue to the ultimate outcome in the case:

If the court concludes New York choice-of-law principles require the application of New York law on the issue of the validity of the 2020 Notes, and that Article 150 and the resolutions have no effect on the validity of the contract under New York law, then we would affirm the district court’s decision to apply New York law and uphold the validity of the bonds. On the other hand, if the court concludes Venezuelan law applies to the particular issue of PDVSA’s legal authority to execute the Exchange Offer, then we would likely remand for an assessment of Venezuelan law on that question and, if necessary, for consideration of the Creditors’ equitable and warranty claims.

The fate of the 2020 Notes—and the billions of dollars those notes represent—is now in the hands of the New York Court of Appeals.

Conclusion

There will be additional updates and commentary on Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. v. MUFG Union Bank, N.A. at Transnational Litigation Blog in the weeks and months ahead. In the meantime, please feel free to mention this case the next time a student or a colleague questions the importance of choice-of-law rules. These rules matter. A lot.

[This post is cross-posted at Transnational Litigation Blog.]

The Institute for Private International and Comparative Law of the University of Cologne (Professor Mansel) is looking to appoint one Research Assistant (Wissenschaftliche/r Mitarbeiter/in) on fixed-term contracts for 2 years, with contract extension possible, based in Cologne. This is a part-time position (19.92 hrs./week), possibility of PhD is given. In case of a post-doc application, it can be extended to a full-time position (39.83 hrs./week) within short time, provided that the requirements are met. A German state law examination (1. Prüfung) with clearly above-average grades and a command of written and spoken German are required. In addition, knowledge of Dutch, Italian,
Spanish or French is an advantage, but not a requirement. Remuneration is based on pay group 13 TV- L.

The University of Cologne promotes equal opportunities and diversity in its employment relationships. Women are expressly invited to apply and will be given preferential treatment in accordance with the LGG NRW. Applications from severely disabled persons are very welcome. They will be given preferential consideration if suitable for the position.

Interested candidates are invited to send their detailed application including the usual documents in a single .pdf file by November 12, 2022 to ipr-institut@uni-koeln.de, for the attention of Professor Mansel.

The following comment has been kindly provided by Sarah Ott, a doctoral student and research assistant at the University of Freiburg (Germany), Institute for Comparative and Private International Law, Dept. III.

On 27 September 2022, the English High Court granted summary judgment and declaratory relief in favour of the Italian bank Dexia Crediop SpA (“Dexia“) in its lawsuit against the Province of Pesaro and Urbino (“Pesaro”), a municipal authority in the Marche region of Italy. This judgement marks the latest development in a long-running dispute involving derivative transactions used by Italian municipalities to hedge their interest rate risk. Reportedly, hundreds of Italian communities entered into interest rate swaps between 2001 and 2008 having billions of Euros in aggregate notional amount. It is also a continuation of the English courts’ case law on contractual choice of law clauses. Although the judgments discussed in this article were, for intertemporal reasons, founded still on Art. 3(3) of the Rome Convention, their central statements remain noteworthy. The Rome Convention was replaced in almost all EU member states, which at the time included the United Kingdom, by Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 (“Rome I”), which came into effect on 17 December 2009. Article 3 Rome I Regulation contains only editorial changes compared to Article 3 of the Rome Convention. As a matter of fact, Recital 15 of the Rome 1 Regulation explicitly states that despite the difference in wording, no substantive change was intended compared to Article 3(3) of the Rome Convention.

In the case at hand, Pesaro and Dexia entered into two interest rate swap transactions in 2003 and 2005. Each of the transactions was subject to the 1992 International Swap Dealers Association (“ISDA”) Master Agreement, Multicurrency – Cross Border and a Schedule therto. During the 2008 financial crisis, the swaps led to significant financial burdens for Pesaro. In June 2021, Pesaro commenced legal proceedings in Italy seeking to unwind or set aside these transactions. Dexia then brought an action in England to establish the transactions were valid, lawful and binding on the parties.

A central question of the dispute was the law applicable to the contract. Pesaro claimed breaches of Italian civil law in its proceedings, while Dexia argued that only English law applies. As correctly stated by the court, the applicable law is determined by the Rome Convention, as the transactions between the parties took place in 2003 and 2005. According to Article 3(1) Rome Convention, a contract is governed by the law chosen by the parties. The ISDA Master Agreement in conjunction with the Schedule contained an express choice of law clause stating that the contract is to be governed by and construed in accordance with English law. Of particular importance therefore was whether mandatory provisions of Italian law could nevertheless be applied via Article 3(3) Rome Convention. This is the case if “all the [other] elements relevant to the situation at the time of the choice are connected with one country only […]”. In order to establish weather Article 3(3) applied, the court referred to two decisions of the English Court of Appeal. Both cases also concerned similar interest rate swap transactions made pursuant to an ISDA Master Agreement with an expressed choice of English law.

In Banco Santander Totta SA v Companhia de Carris de Ferro de Lisboa SA [2016] EWCA Civ 1267, the Court of Appeal extensively discussed the scope of this provision in connection with the principle of free choice of law, more precisely, which factors are to be considered as “elements relevant to the situation”. This was a legal dispute between the Portuguese Santander Bank and various public transport companies in Portugal. First, the Court of Appeal emphasised that Article 3(3) Rome Convention is an exception to the fundamental principle of party autonomy and therefore is to be construed narrowly. Therefore, “elements relevant to the situation” should not be confined to factors of a kind which connect the contract to a particular country in a conflict of laws sense. Instead, the Court stated that it is sufficient if a matter is not purely domestic but rather contains international elements. Subsequently the court assessed the individual factors of the specific case. In so far, the Court of Appeal confirmed all factors the previous instance had taken into account. Relevant in the case was the use of the “Multi-Cross Border” form of the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement instead of the “Local Currency-Single Jurisdiction” form, that the contract included the right to assign to a foreign bank and the practical necessity for a foreign credit institution to be involved, as well as the foreseeability of the conclusion of hedging arrangements with foreign counterparties and the international nature of the swap market. These factors were found sufficient to establish an international situation.

In Dexia Crediop S.P.A. v. Comune di Prato [2017] EWCA Civ 428, the Court of Appeal addressed the issue again and concluded that already the fact that the parties had used the “Multi-Cross Border” form of the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement in English, although this was not the native language of either party, and the conclusion of back-to-back hedging contracts in connection with the international nature of the derivatives market was sufficient.

In the present case, Dexia again relied on the use of the ISDA Master Agreement, Multicurrency – Cross Border and on the fact that Dexia hedged its risk from the transactions through back-to-back swaps with market participants outside Italy. But as the relevant documents were not available, the second circumstance could not be taken into account by the court. Nevertheless, the court considered that the international element was sufficient and Article 3(3) of the Rome Convention was not engaged.

Thus, this new decision not only continues the very broad interpretation of the Court of Appeal as to which elements are relevant to the situation, but also lowers the requirements even further. This British approach appears to be unique. By contrast, according to the hitherto prevailing opinion in other Member States, using a foreign model contract form and English as the contract language alone was not sufficient to establish an international element (see, e.g., Ostendorf IPRax 2018, p. 630; Thorn/Thon in Festschrift Kronke, 2020, p. 569; von Hein in Festschrift Hopt, 2020, p. 1405). Relying solely on the Master Agreement in order to affirm an international element seems unconvincing, especially when taking Recital 15 of the Rome I Regulation into account. Recital 15 Rome I states that, even if a choice of law clause is accompanied by a choice of court or tribunal, Article 3(3) of the Rome I Regulation is still engaged.  This shows that it is the purpose of this provision to remove the applicability of mandatory law in domestic matters from the party’s disposition. The international element must rather be determined according to objective criteria. With this interpretation, Article 3(3) of the Rome I Regulation also loses its effet utile to a large extent.

Unfortunately, the Court of Appeal considered its interpretation to be an acte clair and therefore refrained from referring the case to the CJEU. Since Brexit became effective, the Rome I Regulation continues to apply in the United Kingdom in an “anglicised” form as part of national law, but the English courts are no longer bound by CJEU rulings. As a result, a divergence between the English and the Continental European assessment of a choice of law in domestic situations is exacerbated.

This also becomes relevant in the context of jurisdiction agreements. In the United Kingdom, these are now governed by the HCCH 2005 Choice of Court Convention which is also not applicable according to article 1(2) if, “the parties are resident in the same Contracting State and the relationship of the parties and all other elements relevant to the dispute, regardless of the location of the chosen court, are connected only with that State”. As there is a great interest in maintaining the attractiveness of London as a the “jurisdiction of choice”, it is very likely that the Court of Appeal will also apply the standards that it has developed for Article 3(3) Rome I to the interpretation of the Choice of Court Convention as well.

One can only hope that in order to achieve legal certainty, at least within the European Union, the opportunity for a request for referral to the CJEU will present itself to a Member State court as soon as possible. This would allow the Court of Justice to establish more differentiated standards for determining under which circumstances a relevant foreign connection applies.

The fourth issue of RabelsZ 2022 has just been released. It contains the following articles:

Moritz Renner / Torsten Kindt: Internationales Gesellschaftsrecht und Investitionsschutzrecht, pp. 787–840, DOI: 10.1628/rabelsz-2022-0078

Conflict of Corporate Laws and International Investment Law. – The withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU has revived the debate on the conflict of corporate laws. Much attention has recently been given to the new generation of EU free trade agreements, such as the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, but their impact on conflicts in the field of corporate law remains unclear. This article proposes that the conflict-of-law effects of these agreements can be fully understood only in the light of their common background in international investment law. Building upon an analysis of the role of treaties in Germany’s conflict-of-law system and of the multiple intersections between the conflict of corporate laws and international investment law in general, the article demonstrates that the newest EU free trade agreements imply in particular the application of a restricted conflict-of-law theory of incorporation on foreign corporations originating from the respective signatory states. While the agreements’ effects on conflicts in the corporate law arena are not as far reaching as those of the EU’s freedom of establishment, they nevertheless further narrow the remaining scope of application of the traditional seat theory underlying Germany’s autonomous rules on conflicts vis-à-vis corporate law.

Tobias Lutzi / Felix M. Wilke: Brüssel Ia extendenda est? – Zur Zukunft der internationalen Zuständigkeit deutscher Gerichte in Zivil- und Handelssachen nach Ausweitung der EuGVVO, pp. 841–875, DOI: 10.1628/rabelsz-2022-0079

Brussels I bis extendenda est? On the Future of the International Jurisdiction of German Courts in Civil and Commercial Matters after an Extension of the Regulation. – With the expiry of the deadline of art. 79 Brussels I bis, the academic debate on a possible further extension of the Regulation to situations involving non-EU defendants is (again) gaining momentum. The present study aims to contribute to this discussion. It compares the relevant German rules on international jurisdiction over non-EU defendants with those of the Brussels I bis Regulation in order to be able to assess the consequences of a possible extension from a German perspective. The study reveals that even replacing the national rules in their entirety would not amount to a radical change. In particular, the addition of typified places of performance under art. 7 no. 1 lit. b Brussels I bis to the forum contractus and the availability of a common forum for joint defendants under art. 8 no. 1 Brussels I bis would constitute welcome improvements of the current framework. The loss of jurisdiction based on the presence of assets under § 23 ZPO would arguably be a disadvantage if not properly compensated for, e.g. through a forum necessitatis provision. The biggest advantage, though, would most likely be the harmonization of the law of international jurisdiction across the EU – which, from a German perspective, would come at a rather reasonable price.

Ulla Liukkunen: Decent Work and Private International Law, pp. 876–904, DOI: 10.1628/rabelsz-2022-0080 [Open Access]

This article examines the decent work objective set by the ILO and UN Agenda 2030 from the point of view of private international law. It conceptualizes decent work, arguing that inclusivity of protective safeguards and structures in cross-border situations is essential to achieving the objective, and that the need for inclusivity draws attention to the relationship between labour law and private international law. The analysis offered also introduces a migration law-related perspective on decent work and the private international law of employment contracts and labour relations more generally. It is argued that understanding that the idea of inclusivity is embedded in the decent work objective brings up a global dimension which calls for uniform regulatory solutions at the international level. Decent work could be coupled relatively easily with the need for a revival of the private international law of labour relations and for developing a labour rights-based approach in private international law. It also connects private international law’s protective normative frameworks to the body of international labour standards.

Adrian Hemler: Virtuelle Verfahrensteilnahme aus dem Ausland und Souveränität des fremden Aufenthaltsstaats – Zugleich ein Beitrag zum Verhältnis des Völkerrechts zum Kollisionsrecht, pp. 905–934, DOI: 10.1628/rabelsz-2022-0081

Virtual Participation in Court Proceedings from Abroad and Its Effects on the Sovereignty of the Foreign State of Residence – With Consideration of the Relationship Between Public International Law and the Conflict of Laws. – Most German-speaking scholars and some German courts consider participation in virtual court proceedings from a foreign state of residence to be a violation of foreign sovereignty. This essay stakes out a contrary position. In reaching this conclusion, it focuses on the distinction between the exercise of state power abroad and the exercise of state power regarding foreign facts. Especially with regards to extraterritorial legislation, it is argued that the law’s scope of sovereign validity remains territorial even if its scope of application covers facts abroad. The discussion also shows how this distinction is equally applicable to court judgments that concern foreign elements. Furthermore, the article discusses the nature of public international law principles regarding extraterritorial legislation and their relationship to national conflict of laws provisions. Also considered is how the sovereignty principle ought to be understood in cyberspace. Having established this theoretical foundation, it is concluded that regardless of the procedural role of the respective party, participation in virtual court proceedings from a foreign state of residence does not amount to a violation of foreign sovereignty.

Corinna Coupette / Dirk Hartung: Rechtsstrukturvergleichung, pp. 935–975, DOI: 10.1628/rabelsz-2022-0082 [Open Access]

Structural Comparative Law. – Structural comparative law explores the similarities and differences between the structures of legal systems. Theoretically grounded in systems theory and complexity science, it models legal systems as networks of documents, organizations, and individuals. Using methods from network analysis, structural comparative law measures these networks, assesses how they change over time, and draws quantitative comparisons between multiple legal systems. It differs from other approaches in its assumptions, its methods, and its goals, in that it acknowledges the relevance of dependencies between system entities and borrows more heavily from data science than from econometrics. Structural comparative law constitutes a novel addition to the comparatist’s toolbox, and it opens myriad opportunities for further research at the intersection of comparative law and data science.

Arseny Shevelev / Georgy Shevelev: Proprietary Status of the Whole Body of a Living Person, pp. 976–997, DOI: 10.1628/rabelsz-2022-0083

This article is a reaction to the growing economic significance of the living human body as well as its legal status. In this paper, we argue that ownership in the human body most effectively guarantees the autonomy of the human will as to the use and disposal of one’s own body, but classical ownership theory is unable to fully ensure the autonomy of the human will, since it risks reviving the institution of slavery. We will demonstrate that theories establishing rights to the body other than ownership rights are limited in content and are inherently inconsistent. At the end of the article, we will propose an abstract ownership theory that allows for the exercise of maximum freedom to dispose of the human body while one is alive and which will be devoid of the flaws of the preceding theories.

The Sydney Centre for International Law is hosting a ‘Works in Progress (WIP) Conference and a student writing competition in association with its annual International Year in Review Conference.

WIP proposals are due by 1 November 2022, and the student writing submissions are due by 9 January 2023.  The first place prize in the writing competition is $1000 and an offer of publication.

Questions should be directed to:

• Dr. S.I. Strong
• Co-Director, SCIL
• stacie.strong@sydney.edu.au

For more, see https://law-events.sydney.edu.au/events/scil_yearinreview

As previously reported on conflictoflaws (inter alia), on 1 December 2020, the Grand Chamber of the CJEU ruled in the FNV/Van Den Bosch case. It ruled that the highly mobile labour activities in the road transport sector fall within the scope the Posting of Workers Directive (C-815/18; see also the conclusion of AG Bobek). As regards to the specific circumstances to which the directive applies, the CJEU sees merit in the principle of the ‘sufficient connection’. To establish sufficient connection between the place of performance of the work and a Member State’s territory, ‘an overall assessment of all the factors that characterise the activity of the worker concerned is carried out.’ (CJEU at [43]).
With this guidance at hand, on 14 October 2022, the Supreme Courts of the Netherlands has ruled on the initial cassation claim, which had led to the questions for preliminary rulings (see also the conclusion of AG Drijber). The Dutch Supreme Court had referred the assessment of the ‘sufficient connection’ on the facts of the case back to the lower courts.
Although the Dutch Supreme Court’s ruling is not surprising, the eventual application the CJEU’s preliminary ruling to the facts of this dispute (and its further follow-up in lower courts) might still provide food for thought for companies in the transnational transport sector, which use similar business models.

 

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its 27th monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 5:00 p.m. – 6:30 p.m. (CET). Symeon C. Symeonides (Willamette University College of Law) will speak, in English, about the topic

Infringement of personality rights via the internet: Jurisdiction and applicable law

Conflicts of laws arising from infringement of personality rights have always been difficult, if only because they implicate conflicting societal values, such as freedom of speech and access to information, on the one hand, and protection of reputation and privacy, on the other hand. The ubiquity of the internet has dramatically increased the frequency and intensity of these conflicts. The speaker will present a proposed international model law that aspires to facilitate the resolution of these conflicts in a practical, efficient, and balanced way.

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

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

The University of Milan, on behalf of the DIGinLaw consortium (also comprising Josip Juraj Strossmayer, the University of Osijek, the University of Aberdeen, and the University of Zagreb – University Computing Centre (SRCE)), is organising an International Conference on ‘Law in the Age of Modern Technologies’, hosted in Milan on 10 February 2023.

Digitalization strongly affects society, science, and the transfer of knowledge. While taking advantage of modern technologies, the DIGinLaw Project aims to raise awareness of digital demands in higher education and research in law and fosters the creation of digital literacy and digital competence that is needed in the law labour market. The Project aims to create an open and inclusive society of legal knowledge and to open access to the scientific areas dealing with the effects of digitalization on law and legal education.

The Conference is the culmination of scientific research on the digitalization of legal education and the digitalization of law. It provides a venue for the presentation and discussion of scientific research focusing on such and related themes. For these purposes, the Organizing Committee is pleased to invite (i) abstract submissions that address specific aspects of the impact of modern technologies on the law, and (ii) abstracts focusing on the digital transformation processes in the legal domain and welcomes the participation of a prosperous community crossing different disciplines beside law, including computer science and legal informatics.

Abstract Submission

Abstracts of 250-500 words (max) should specify the main arguments, the structure of the paper, and the methodology. If the proposal is accepted, authors will be expected to deliver a full paper of no more than 15.000 words (footnotes included) by 28 February 2023. Depending on the topics, the selected papers will be published in a peer-reviewed international journal or in a particular volume by an international publisher.

Deadlines

Submission deadline for abstracts: 15 November 2022

Notification of acceptance of abstracts: 25 November 2022

Submission deadline for papers: 28 February 2023

The Conference is organized within the framework of the project ‘Time to Become Digital in Law’ (DIGinLaw), co-funded by Erasmus+ Programme of the European Union. Additional information on the event is available here.

 

EFFORTS (Towards more EFfective enFORcemenT of claimS in civil and commercial matters within the EU) is an EU-funded Project conducted by the University of Milan (coord.), the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law, the University of Heidelberg, the Free University of Brussels, the University of Zagreb, and the University of Vilnius.

The tenth EFFORTS Newsletter has just been released, giving access to up-to-date information about the Project, save-the-dates on forthcoming events, conferences and webinars, and news from the area of international and comparative civil procedural law.

Finally, regular updates are available via the Project website and the Project’s LinkedIn and Facebook pages.

Project JUST-JCOO-AG-2019-881802
With financial support from the Civil Justice Programme of the European Union

 

Written by Zilin Hao*

 

On 15 July 2022, the Supreme Court of New South Wales (“NSW”) recognized and enforced a Chinese judgment issued by the Shanghai Pudong New Area People’s Court 12 years ago in Tianjin Yingtong Materials Co Ltd v Young [2022] NSWSC 943.[1] It ruled that the defendant Katherine Young (“Ms. Y”) pay the plaintiff Tianjin Yingtong Materials Co Ltd (“TYM”) outstanding payment, interest and costs. This marks the second time that the court of NSW in Australia enforces Chinese judgment after Bao v Qu; Tian (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 588.[2]

I. The Fact

On 7 April 2009, the original plaintiff, TYM, sued Shanghai Runteyi Industrial Co., Ltd (“first original defendant”), Shanghai Runheng International Trading Co., Ltd (“second original defendant”) and Ms. Y (named as “Hong Yang” in Chinese Judgment) before Shanghai Pudong New Area People’s Court (“the Chinese Court”). According to the Chinese judgment, TYM had acted as agent for the first original defendant and the second original defendant based on seven Import Agent Agreements signed by three of them. Subsequently, TYM and each original defendant, including Ms. Y entered into a Supplementary Agreement confirming and specifying the guarantee under the seven Import Agent Agreements, pursuant to which Ms. Y was a guarantor in favour of the plaintiff. However, the two original defendants failed to fulfill their liability for repayment as agreed while the Plaintiff has performed the contract obligations.

On 29 March 2010, the Chinese Court rendered a judgment and supported the TYM’s claims that the two original defendants shall pay the debt and overdue fine, Ms. Y shall assume joint and several liability for the payment obligation of the two original defendants. The Chinese judgment came into effect and finality when an appeal was dismissed on 1 June 2010. Due to the lack of sufficient assets of the two original defendants and the disappearance of Ms. Y, the Chinese Court only executed more than 4 million yuan in place for three years, and finally ended the enforcement procedure in 2014. The recovery of the relevant funds has subsequently reached an impasse.[3]

On 9 August 2021, after discovering the defendant’s property clues, TYM filed an application for recognition and enforcement of the Chinese judgment with the Supreme Court of NSW pursuant to Australia’s common law principles. The NSW court upheld the plaintiff’s claim after examining four conditions accordingly of Chinese judgment with: (1) the Chinese court has international jurisdiction where Ms. Y submitted to by arguing or appearing to argue the merits of the case; (2) the Chinese judgment is conclusive and final; (3) the identity of parties in recognition proceeding consisted with Chinese proceeding; (4) the Chinese judgment was for a fixed sum. The plaintiff has established the prima facie enforceability of the Chinese judgment and there are no refusal grounds exist.

The most important issue at the NSW proceeding is the limitation period for enforcement.[4] The plaintiff noted that it has been over 11 years since Chinese judgment came into conclusive and effective, which means it may not be enforced at the same time by Chinese court, if there is enforceable property in China, because the application will exceed the two-year enforcement limitation period stipulated by Chinese law.[5] However, according to section 17 “Judgment” of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)[6], the limitation period for action upon a foreign judgment is 12 years from the date on which the judgment becomes enforceable in the place where judgment was given. Therefore, the judge of Supreme Court of NSW held that relevant limitation period has not yet expired. Hence there is no time bar to the current proceeding for enforcement of the Chinese Judgment.[7]

II. Comments

1. Applicable Law to Limitation Period for Enforcement

Limitation period is a controversial issue when classifying whether it is a procedural or substantial matter under private international law, which decides the application of law concerning it. Generally, courts apply lex fori in matter with procedure issues, while choose lex causae by conflict rules dealing with substance issues. States distinguish limitation period as procedure or substantive issue differently, which represented by Germany and Japan who regard the limitation period as a substance issue and stipulates it in their civil codes, not specific legislation. Some common law countries, such as England, Australia and Singapore, made Limitation Acts to deal with the enforcement limitation issue in the domestic legislation.[8]

In China, the limitation of action is stipulated in Civil Code and is deduced as a substance issue.[9] While the statute of limitations for enforcement is a two-year period for creditors to apply to the court for execution based on a successful and legal effective document, which is provided in Civil Procedural Law of China and deemed as a procedure issue. In terms of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, conflicts of classification on the legal nature of enforcement limitation period between the State of requested and the State of origin will arise in the first place. When a judgment complies with the law of the requested State regarding the statute of limitations for applying an enforcement, but it has exceeded the limitations period of enforcement under the law of the State of origin, how does the court of requested State ascertain legal rules to decide? In TYM v Ms. Y above, the judge of Supreme Court of NSW applied Australian law to hold that there was no time bar to enforce the Chinese judgment even though the relevant limitation period has expired in China, which illustrates that enforcement limitation period of judgments is a substance issue for Australia.

2. Expiration of Limitation Period and Grounds for Refusal

Except the list of conditions to be used by the court requested or addressed to ascertain whether the judgment is eligible for recognition and enforcement, there are grounds for refusal as well. Under the common law principles for recognizing a foreign judgment in Australia, where the four conditions for recognition and enforcement, referred to Overview part, have been established, the recognition of the foreign judgment can then only be challenged on limited grounds including a) where granting enforcement of the foreign judgment would be contrary to Australian public policy; b) where the foreign judgment was obtained by fraud; c) where the foreign judgment is penal or a judgment for a revenue debt; and d) where enforcement of the decision would amount to a denial of natural justice. However, exceeding the limitation period for an application for enforcement under the law of the original State does not constitutes any of the grounds above for refusal of recognition and enforcement by the court of the requested State. In the case of TYM v Ms. Y, the Australian court did not consider the expiration of enforcement limitation of Chinese judgment under Chinese law as a refusal ground to recognize and enforce it.

3. Expiration of Limitation Period and Lack of Enforceability

There are international standards to recognize and enforce a judgment, such as enforceability, provided by the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (“2005 Hague Convention”) and 2019 HCCH Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (“2019 Judgments Convention”, collectively as “Hague Conventions”). Article 8 (3) of the 2005 Hague Convention and article 4 (3) of the 2019 Judgments Convention stipulated in same way that “A judgment shall be recognized only if it has effect in the State of origin, and shall be enforced only if it is enforceable in the State of origin”, which was believed that if the limitation period in the State of origin expires, the judgment will not be entitled to circulation under the Convention.[10] Pursuant to Civil Procedural Law of China, within the limitation period of enforcement, if the judgment creditor submits a request prescribed by law, the court will compel the debtor to perform the obligations undertaken. Otherwise, the court will still accept the applicant for enforcement, at the same time, however, the participant subject to enforcement may raise an objection to the limitation period for enforcement, and if the court finds that the objection is established upon review, it rules not to enforce it.[11] In TYM v Ms. Y, the plaintiff submitted a summon to recognize and enforce the Chinese judgment, which was rendered 11 years ago by Chinese court then, before the court of NSW Australia. Apparently, the limitation period of applying for enforcement of the Chinese judgment concerned in China has expired the maximum 2 years, which means the judgment may not be enforced compulsorily by courts upon application of winning party when the other party raise an objection.

At the same time, Article 14 of the 2005 Hague Convention and Article 13 of 2019 Judgments Convention stipulate that the enforcement procedures are governed by the law of the requested State unless these Conventions provide otherwise.[12] In referring to the procedure for enforcement, Article 13 of 2019 Judgments Convention is intended to include the rules of the law of the requested State that provide a limitation period for enforcement of a judgment unless itself provides otherwise, which is stipulated in Article 4 (3) that enforcement in the requested State depends on the judgment being enforceable in the State of origin.[13] Therefore, a longer period of limitation for enforcement in the requested State will not extend the enforceability of a foreign judgment that is no longer enforceable in the State of origin. Conclusively, a foreign judgment whose limitation period expires under the law of the State of origin will not be enforced by the State of requested under the Hague Conventions. In TYM v Ms. Y, limitation for enforcing the Chinese judgment has expired in China though, the Australian court registered and enforced it, holding that Chinese judgment is not unenforceable because it was still within the 12-year limitation period from the date of the judgment issued according to Australian law.

China and Australia are neither contracting parties to Hague Conventions, it’s reasonable for Australian court to recognize and enforce Chinese judgment even if the limitation period of it has expired, because the court regarded which as a procedural issue and applied lex fori to ascertain it. However, the outcome of TYM v Ms. Y will be negative if the Hague Conventions come into force between China and Australia. Furthermore, there is another problem about reciprocity. The limitation period for enforcement of judgments in China is much shorter that it in Australia, which means the situation is common where an Australian judgment sought to bring enforcement proceedings in China during the period of enforceability of the judgment under the law of Australia but after the limitation period for enforcement under the law of China has expired. Under the principle of reciprocity, Chinese court may enforce Australian judgments according to Article 288 of Civil Procedural Law of China.[14] However, pursuant to Article 545 of Supreme People’s Court Interpretation of Civil Procedural Law of China, the provisions of Article 246 of the Civil Procedure Law shall apply to the period during which a party applies for recognition and enforcement of a legally effective judgment or ruling rendered by a foreign court, which means the period for applying for enforcement of foreign judgments is two years. Therefore, a Chinese court will probably not enforce an Australian judgment when the application expires two-year limitation period and there is an objection from the judgment debtor.

 

* Ph.D Candidate, Institute of International Law, Wuhan University.

[1] File number: 2021/226856, available at https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/181ff033dcea3902d40b24ea, accessed 10 October 2022.

[2] Jeanne Huang, ‘The first Mainland China monetary judgment enforced in NSW Australia: Bao v Qu; Tian (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 588’ (conflict of laws.net, 20 May 2020); Meng Yu, ‘Court of NSW Australia Recognizes Chinese Judgment for the First Time’ (China Justice Observer, 26 September 2021).

[3] Li Zhang, Shuting Chen, ‘Lao Lai Hides Abroad for More Than a Decade Still Can’t Escape the Law, The Australian court has once again recognized and enforced the Chinese court judgment’ (Legal Insights, 17 September 2022).

[4] The limitation period in this article referred to only relates to the enforcement of a foreign judgment and should not be conceptually confused with the limitation period governing the original substantive right or claim at stake, i.e., the limitation period to bring a legal action on the merits before a court.

[5] Article 246 of Civil Procedural Law of China provides “the period of application for enforcement is two years”.

[6] Available at https://jade.io/article/276236/section/54, accessed 10 October 2022.

[7] Para 42, (n 1).

[8] Guiqiang Liu, ‘Study on the Limitation Period in the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments’ (2020)4 China Journal of Applied Jurisprudence 109.

[9] Yongping Xiao, Principles of Private International Law (2003) Law Press China, p.4.

[10] Permanent Bureau, Limitation period on the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in the Context of the 2018 Draft Convention, No 11 of May 2019.

[11] Lina Guo, ‘How much is known about implementation period’ (jszx.court.gov.cn, 14 July 2019), available at https://jszx.court.gov.cn/main/ExecuteCase/227653.jhtml, access 10 October 2022.

[12] “The procedure for recognition, declaration of enforceability or registration for enforcement, and the enforcement of the judgment, are governed by the law of the requested State unless this Convention provides otherwise. The court addressed shall act expeditiously.”

[13] Francisco Garcimartín, Geneviève Saumier, ‘Explanatory Report on the Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters’ HCCH Permanent Bureau, para 310.

[14] Article 288 of Civil Procedural Law of China provides “If a legally effective judgment or ruling made by a foreign court requires recognition and enforcement by a people’s court of the People’s Republic of China, the party concerned may directly apply for recognition and enforcement to the intermediate people’s court with jurisdiction of the People’s Republic of China. Alternatively, the foreign court may, pursuant to the provisions of an international treaty concluded between or acceded to by the foreign state and the People’s Republic of China, or in accordance with the principle of reciprocity, request the people’s court to recognize and execute the judgment or ruling.”

On Friday, December 2, at 4 pm, the European Association of Private International Law (EAPIL) will hold an Online-Seminar on the Rome II Regulation. The Seminar will shed light on the Study that was prepared in 2021 by the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL) in consortium with Civic Consulting to support the preparation of the report on the application of the Rome II Regulation.

Speakers will be:

• Eva Lein, BIICL (UK)/University of Lausanne (Switzerland)
• Constanze Bonzé, BIICL (UK)
• Xandra Kramer, University of Rotterdam (Netherlands)
• Martin Ebers, University of Tartu (Estonia)
• Marie Louise Kinsler, 2 Temple Gardens, London (UK)

More information (including a detailed program and registration information) will be made available via this blog in November.

Although it has in fact been out for several months now, there are few books more deserving of recognition on this blog than Étienne Farnoux’ impressive work on the substantive considerations that inform the rules on international jurisdiction.

Across the book’s 700+ pages, Farnoux launches a sustained attack on the principe de proximité as the foundation of most rules on international jurisdiction, including, most importantly, the forum delicti. He does so in two steps (as any serious French scholar would do): He first discusses the insufficiencies of the proximity-based status quo before developing an alternative approach to international jurisdiction based on procedural and, more importantly, substantive (i.e. policy) considerations.

In the first part, Farnoux explains how localised connecting factors are regularly manipulated to achieve a certain result, most often to create a forum actoris, a practice particularly prevalent in the case law of the CJEU. His analysis is based on a wide range of judgments – Shevill, Kronhofer, Kolassa, Löber, eDate, Bolagsupplysningen, Wikingerhof, Gtflix Tv, … – but does not fail to acknowledge the occasional nuance, as reflected, i.a., by the recent decisions in Vereniging van Effectenbezitters and Mittelbayerischer Verlag. Farnoux deconstructs the alleged objectives of the the principe de proximité – ease of evidence, foreseeability, and effective administration of justice – and demonstrates their inability to justify the allocation of adjudicative jurisdiction in a growing number of inherently delocalised torts.

In the second part, Farnoux therefore proposes a complete change of perspective for international jurisdiction on torts. Rather than chasing an ever more elusive proximity, two sets of considerations should drive the search for the appropriate connecting factor: la justice procédurale, i.e. the just allocation of procedural advantages between claimant and defendant, and la justice substantielle, i.e. the substantive interests of both parties, and of the potential forum. Based on these considerations, Farnoux develops a set of two propositions: First, he suggests to replace the forum delicti by a forum victimae (or forum actoris contrôlé), which would vest jurisdiction in the domicile of the claimant provided that their claim passes a prima-facie exam of its substantive merit – a proposition that certainly holds a claim to intellectual honesty if compared to the practically similar status quo of the Brussels Ia regime, but comes with its own set of problems, including the challenge of examining the merits of a claim before jurisdiction has been established (admittedly a common exercise in English law, though). Alternatively, he proposes to create a new forum protectionis in tort for structurally weaker parties, a proposition that may have a wider appeal, not least for avoiding to abolish the principle of actor sequitur entirely. In the final part of the book, these proposals are supplemented by some thoughts on how the interests of the prospective fora also influence the rules on international jurisdiction.

All in all, Farnoux masterfully combines a thorough, yet very timely analysis of the existing rules on international jurisdiction for torts through the lens of the principe de proximité with some innovative, well-argued propositions on how the latter could be replaced. The book has deservedly won a series of prizes already and is all but certain to become a staple in the library of any scholar working on international jurisdiction.

A new Report on EU Policy Guidelines was just posted on the website of EFFORTS (Towards more EFfective enFORcemenT of claimS in civil and commercial matters within the EU), an EU-funded Project conducted by the University of Milan (coord.), the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law, the University of Heidelberg, the Free University of Brussels, the University of Zagreb, and the University of Vilnius.

The Report was authored by Marco Buzzoni, Cristina M. Mariottini, Michele Casi, and Carlos Santaló Goris.

Building upon the outcomes of the national and international exchange seminars and the Project’s analytical reports, this Report formulates policy guidelines addressed to EU policymakers and puts forth suggestions to improve the current legal framework provided under the EFFORTS Regulations (namely: the Brussels I-bis Regulation and the Regulations on the European Enforcement Order, the European Small Claims Procedure, the European Payment Order, and the European Account Preservation Order) with regard to the enforcement of claims.

This Report was among the outputs and findings discussed at the Project’s Final Conference, hosted by the University of Milan on 30 September 2022, which provided an international forum where academics, policymakers, and practitioners discussed the Project’s key findings and exchanged their views on the national implementation of – and the path forward for – the EFFORTS Regulations. The content of the Final Conference will enrich the Final Study, which is forthcoming on the Project’s website.

Regular updates on the EFFORTS Project are available via the Project’s website, as well as LinkedIn and Facebook pages.

Project JUST-JCOO-AG-2019-881802
With financial support from the Civil Justice Programme of the European Union

Several years ago, I published a paper that examined how U.S. courts interpret choice-of-law clauses. That paper contains a detailed discussion of the most common interpretive issues—whether the clause selects the tort laws of the chosen jurisdiction in addition to its contract laws, for example—that arise in litigation. There was, however, one important omission. The paper did not consider the question of whether the word “laws” in a choice-of-law clause should be interpreted to select the laws of the chosen jurisdiction (1) at the time the contract was signed, or (2) at the time of litigation.

In declining to address this issue, the paper was in good company. Neither the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (§ 2) nor the draft Restatement (Third) of Conflict of Laws (§ 1.02) discuss the relationship between choice-of-law and time. Nevertheless, the omission bothered me.

In the spring of 2021, I saw that Jeff Rensberger at the South Texas College of Law had posted a paper to SSRN entitled Choice of Law and Time. After downloading and reading the paper, I discovered that it contained no discussion of choice-of-law clauses. It was devoted solely to the question of how courts should address the issue of temporality in cases where the parties had declined to select a law in advance. After reading the paper, I wrote to Jeff to propose that we collaborate on a second paper that specifically addressed the temporal question in the context of choice-of-law clauses. When we spoke on the phone to discuss the project, however, we did not agree on the answer. Jeff argued for the laws at the time of signing. I argued for the laws at the time of litigation.

In early 2022, Jeff sent me a draft of his new paper, Choice of Law and Time Part II: Choice of Law Clauses and Changing Law, which makes the case for interpreting choice-of-law clauses to select the law at the time of signing. In response, I drafted an essay arguing that they should be interpreted to select the law at the time of litigation. A draft of my essay, The Canon of Evolving Law, is now available for download on SSRN.

If you happen to be one of the small number of people in the world interested in this fascinating (though obscure) interpretive issue, I would encourage you to download both papers and decide for yourself who has the better of the argument.

[This post is cross-posted at Transnational Litigation Blog.]

Written by Mayela Celis

On 30 September 2022, a US District Court in Boston (Massachusetts, USA) dismissed the case filed by Mexico against the US weapons manufacturers regarding non-contractual obligations (among them, negligence and unjust enrichment). According to Reuters, the reason given by the judge to dismiss the case is that “federal law [Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act] ‘unequivocally’ bars lawsuits seeking to hold gun manufacturers responsible when people use guns for their intended purpose” and that none of the exceptions contained therein applied.

One statement worthy of note as stated in multiple news media is: “While the court has considerable sympathy for the people of Mexico, and none whatsoever for those who traffic guns to Mexican criminal organizations, it is duty-bound to follow the law.”

The full case citation is Estados Unidos Mexicanos (plaintiff) vs. SMITH & WESSON BRANDS, INC.; BARRETT FIREARMS MANUFACTURING, INC.; BERETTA U.S.A. CORP.; BERETTA HOLDING S.P.A.; CENTURY INTERNATIONAL ARMS, INC.; COLT’S MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; GLOCK, INC.; GLOCK GES.M.B.H.; STURM, RUGER & CO., INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC. D/B/A INTERSTATE ARMS (defendants), Case 1:21-cv-11269, filed in 2021.

In a nutshell, the allegations made by Mexico are the following (as stated in the complaint):

1. Defendants have legal duties to distribute their guns safely and avoid arming criminals in Mexico;
2. Defendants are fully on notice that their conduct causes unlawful trafficking to Mexico;
3. Defendants actively assist and facilitate trafficking of their guns to drug cartels in Mexico:
4. Defendants actively assist and facilitate the unlawful tracking because it maximizes their sales and profits;
5. The Government has taken reasonable measures to try to protect itself from defendants’ unlawful conduct;
6. Defendants cause massive injury to the government.

Claims for relief are (as stated in the complaint):

Negligence, public nuisance, defective condition – unreasonably dangerous, negligence per se, gross negligence, unjust enrichment and restitution, violation of CUTPA [Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act], Violation of Mass. G.L. c. 93A [Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act], punitive damages.

In addition to the argument given by the judge, I believe that it would be very hard to establish personal jurisdiction over the defendants. Think for example of the minimum contacts and the reasonableness test, in particular what are the contacts of the defendants with the state of Massachusetts (but see for example: Smith & Wesson is indeed based in Massachusetts until 2023), the existence of justified expectations that may be protected or hurt, and the forum State’s [the United States of America} interest in adjudicating the dispute.

Moreover, and aside from jurisdictional issues, given that the actual damage occurred overseas, an important issue would be to prove the causation link between the conduct of the defendants and the damage. This will prove particularly difficult considering all the intermediaries that exist in the weapons’ trade (legal and illegal, second-hand sales, pawn shops, etc.).

Nevertheless, this is a very interesting initiative and perhaps it is a battle worth fighting for (if only to raise public awareness). One thing is for sure: the Mexican Government has shown its increasing concern about the illicit traffic of firearms in its territory and its commitment to end it.

The Mexican Federal Government will appeal the judgment.  The official statement is available here.

We will post any new updates on this blog. Stay tuned!

Meetings & Events

On 1-2 September 2022, the HCCH Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean organised a judicial training on the 1980 Child Abduction Convention and 1996 Child Protection Convention in Barbados, attended by judges and senior practitioners in the field of child abduction from Barbados, the Bahamas, Belize and Trinidad and Tobago.

On 8 September 2022, the HCCH Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean organised a judicial training on the 1980 Child Abduction Convention in Trinidad and Tobago, attended by judges in the field of child abduction from Trinidad and Tobago and the Bahamas.

From 12 to 16 September 2022, the online HCCH CODIFI Conference brought together panelists and participants from a range of backgrounds to examine issues of private international law in the commercial, digital and financial sectors, highlighting developments in the digital economy and fintech industries as well as clarifying the roles of core HCCH instruments: the 1985 Trusts Convention, the 2006 Securities Convention, and the Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts. More information is available here, and recordings of all the sessions are available here.

From 19 to 23 September 2022, the third meeting of the Working Group on Matters Related to Jurisdiction in Transnational Civil or Commercial Litigation was held in hybrid format. The Group made further progress on the development of draft provisions on parallel litigation in civil or commercial matters, which may occur when separate proceedings are instituted before the courts of different States. More information is available here.

 

Upcoming Events

Registrations are now open for HCCH Asia Pacific Week 2022, to be held from 18 to 20 October in Manila, the Philippines. The conference will act as a forum for the exchange of ideas and viewpoints from across Asia and the Pacific on some of the most prominent HCCH Conventions and instruments, as well as on the HCCH’s ongoing normative projects and possible future work, in the areas of transnational litigation and legal cooperation, international family and child protection law, and commercial, digital and financial law. More information is available here.

 

Vacancies

Applications are now open for the position of Legal Officer within the Transnational Litigation & Apostille Division of the Permanent Bureau of the HCCH. The deadline for the submission of applications is 14 October 2022. More information is available here.

 

These monthly updates are published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), providing an overview of the latest developments. More information and materials are available on the HCCH website.

By judgment of 28 September 2022 – XII ZR 7/22 (so far, only the press release is available, on which the following considerations are based), the German Federal Court of Justice held that Hungarian street tolls can be claimed before German courts.

The claimant is a Hungarian company that collects Hungarian street tolls, the defendant a domestic car rental company. According to Hungarian regulation, it is the registered keeper of the car that owes the toll. If the toll is not paid by a virtual vignette (e-Matrica), an „increased substitute toll“, five times higher than the vignette, must be paid within 60 days, afterwards additonally a large „processing fee“. The first instance rejected the claim, on appeal the defendant was ordered to pay the claimed amount, the second appeal, on issues of law alone, confirmed the judgment on first appeal (except on the issue of which currency could be claimed, Hungarian Forinth or also Euros optionally).

The main point on the second appeal was whether the public policy exception in Article 21 Rome I Regulation applies. This analysis implies that the claim is characterised as contractual and that the Hungarian law on street tolls applies. The first issue was rather whether imposing liability solely on the part of the registered keeper would conflict with German public policy in case that this keeper is a car rental company whose business obviously is renting out its registered cars to the respective driver. As German law (section 7 German Road Traffic Act) prescribes, rather similarly, at least a subsidiary liability of the registered keeper, the Court rightly rejected a violation of German public policy. Since this result was obvious, the issue must have been dealt with upon party submission with which the Court has to deal with as a matter of fair proceedings (right to be heard, extending to a right to see the Court dealing with the Party’s core points).

More interestingly, the „increased substitute toll“ was seen as a contractual penalty which was – again rightly – considered as „not entirely unknown under German law“, referring to similar substitute tolls indeed used in contracts for tramway or underground railroad traffic etc. if the traveller does not have a valid ticket. One is tempted to add that a contractual practice does not necessarily indicate the legal validity of this practice, but as this practice is virtually uncontested it is certainly convincing to take it as a „proof“ for how German law deals with contractual penalties. The German Civil Code provides for the basis in sections 339 et seq., combined with sections 305 et seq. (control of unfair terms).

On the issue of the currency of the claim, the Court observed that the debt in question in foreign currency can only be claimed in that foreign currency unless the applicable Hungarian law allows optional payment in Euros. In order to assess this point of Hungarian law the case was referred back to the court of first instance.

The case shows that Member State Courts continue being careful before striking down the results of a foreign applicable law as a violation of the national public policy. Had the highest instance of the German civil courts tended towards the opposite it would have had the obligation to refer the question to the ECJ whether activating the public policy exception was still within the confines of this exception as defined in its outer limits by European Union law. Rejecting a public policy violation in the sense of Article 21 Rome I Regulation (and comparable provisions in EU PIL) puts this decision in a (small) series of decisions of Member State courts, compared to almost none that actually assessed a violation. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that the court of appeal gave leave for a second appeal on the grounds that the questions on Article 21 Rome I Regulation would be of fundamental relevance („von grundsätzlicher Bedeutung“). Otherwise, the case could not have reached the Federal Court of Justice, as complaints against not giving leave are only admissible beyond a value of the appeal of EUR 20.000, and the total sum of the claim here was not more than approximately EUR 1.300.

The Institute for German and International Civil Procedure at the Rheinische Friedrich Wilhelms University of Bonn, Germany, is looking for a highly skilled and motivated PhD candidate and fellow (Wissenschaftliche/r Mitarbeiter/in) to work in the fields of Private International Law, International Civil Procedural Law and/or International Commercial Arbitration on a part-time basis (50%) as of 1 April 2023.

The successful candidate must hold the First or Second German State Examination in law with distinction (“Prädikat”) and is interested in the international dimensions of private law, in particular private international law, international civil procedural law, and/or international commercial arbitration.

The successful candidate will be given the opportunity to conduct her/his PhD project (according to the Faculty’s regulations) under the supervision of the Director of the Institute Prof Dr Matthias Weller, Mag.rer.publ. (https://www.jura.uni-bonn.de/professur-prof-dr-weller/professor-dr-weller-magrerpubl/). The position is paid according to the German public service salary scale E-13 TV-L, 50%. The initial contract period is one year at least and up to three years, with an option to be extended. Responsibilities include supporting research and teaching on Private International Law, International Civil Procedure and/or International Commercial Arbitration as well as a teaching obligation of two hours per week during term time.

If you are interested in this position, please send your application (cover letter in German; CV; and relevant documents and certificates, notably university transcripts and a copy of the German State Examination Law Degree) to Prof Dr Matthias Weller (weller@jura.uni-bonn.de). The University of Bonn is an equal opportunity employer.