Conflictoflaws

Willamette University College of Law and the Conflict of Laws Section of the Association of American Law Schools are hosting a SYMposium to celebrate Professor and Dean Emeritus Symeon Symeonides on May 8-9, 2024.

Professor Symeonides will retire from the Willamette University College of Law faculty in 2025. The SYMposium will celebrate both him as a person, as well as a scholar who has made major contributions in the fields of conflict of laws, comparative law, and transnational litigation, among others.

Please register at this link to join us at the Willamette University campus or virtually for this event to celebrate Professor Symeonides.

Conflict of Laws Workshop and Call for Papers

We are excited to announce that the inaugural, biennial Conflict of Laws Workshop (CLW) will be hosted by Willamette University College of Law in beautiful Salem, Oregon, on May 10, 2024.
The CLW aims to provide a forum to discuss new work in conflict of laws. The CLW welcomes work on all aspects of conflict of laws, including civil, criminal, domestic and transnational conflict of laws. We welcome all those writing and working in the field of conflict of laws to attend.

Please note that on May 8th and 9th, Willamette University College of Law will host a symposium in honor of Professor and Dean Emeritus Symeon Symeonides. CLW participants are invited to attend the symposium as well.

Those wishing to present a paper for discussion should submit a two-page abstract by March 1, 2024. Please email abstracts in Word of PDF format to roger.michalski@ou.edu and asimowitz@willamette.edu.

Logistics

The CLW will provide meals for registrants. Participants must cover travel and lodging costs. We will provide information about reasonably priced hotels as the date approaches

The Law Faculty of Humboldt University is inviting applications for a four-year PostDoc position in European law. The position is fully paid and funded by the graduate research programme DynamInt (Dynamic Integration Order) which itself is funded by the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft).

The PostDoc is supposed to pursue her/his research project in the field of European Law (including European Private International Law and International Civil Procedure). She/he is also expected to interact with the group of young researchers, who all work on their dissertation projects within the thematic framework of harmonization and plurality tendencies in the EU.

The position is targeting German-speaking researchers (in contrast to the international PostDoc positions advertised last week). More information is available here.

The University of Antwerp has opened two vacancies for PhD research related to private international law.

The first covers inter alia EU private international law, and will be supervised by prof. dr. Johan Meeusen and prof. dr. Mathieu Leloup. The four-year scholarship is sponsored by the Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO). The candidate will write a PhD on mutual trust and rule of law requirements in the field of judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters. The researcher will have to examine, inter alia, the enforcement of the European Union’s rule of law requirements by courts applying EU private international law instruments. All information on this position, and how to apply, can be found on the University of Antwerp’s website.

The second is on the cusp of private and public international law and will be supervised by Thalia Kruger. This position, also for four years, is funded by the Law Faculty. The research will be about international contracts in the context of international treaties on water. The highland water project (Lesotho and South Africa) is a possible approach. More information and requirements are also available on the website of the University of Antwerp.

The latest issue of the Dutch Journal on Private International Law (NIPR) has just been published

NIPR 2023 issue 4

EDITORIAL

I. Sumner, The next stops on the European international family law train / p. 569-571

Abstract
The European legislature is not yet finished with the Europeanisation of private international family law. This editorial briefly introduces two new proposals, namely the Proposal for a European Parentage Regulation and the Proposal for a European Adult Protection Regulation.

ARTICLES

B. van Houtert, Het Haags Vonnissenverdrag: een game changer in Nederland? Een rechtsvergelijkende analyse tussen het verdrag en het commune IPR / p. 573-596

Abstract
On 1 September 2023, the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention (HJC) entered into force in the Netherlands. This article examines whether the HJC can be considered as a game changer in the Netherlands. Therefore, a legal comparison has been made between the HJC and Dutch Private International Law (PIL) on the recognition and enforcement of non-EU judgments in civil and commercial matters. This article shows that the HJC can promote the recognition and enforcement of judgments rendered by non-EU countries in the Netherlands mainly because of the facultative nature of the grounds for refusal in Article 7 HJC. Furthermore, the complementary effect of Dutch PIL on the basis of Article 15 HJC facilitates recognition as some indirect grounds of jurisdiction are broader or less stringent, and some grounds are lacking in Article 5(1) HJC. Compared to the uncodified Dutch PIL, the HJC provides procedural advantages as well as legal certainty that is beneficial to cross-border trade, mobility and dispute resolution. Moreover, preserving the foreign judgment, instead of replacement by a Dutch judgment, serves to respect the sovereignty of states as well as international comity. Despite the limited scope of application, there is an added value of the HJC in the Netherlands because of its possible application by analogy in the Dutch courts, as a Supreme Court’s ruling shows. The Convention can also be an inspiration for the future codification of the Dutch PIL on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments regarding civil matters. Furthermore, the application of the Convention by analogy will contribute to international legal harmony. Based on the aforementioned (potential) benefits and added value of the HJC, this article concludes that this Convention can be considered as a game changer in the Netherlands.

K.J. Krzeminski, Te goed van vertrouwen? Een kanttekening bij het advies van de Staatscommissie voor het Internationaal Privaatrecht tot herziening van artikel 431 Rv / p. 597-618

Abstract
In February 2023, the Dutch Standing Government Committee for Private International Law rendered its advice on the possible revision of Article 431 Dutch Code of Civil Proceedings (DCCP). This statutory provision concerns the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments in civil matters to which no enforcement treaty or EU regulation applies. While paragraph 1 of Article 431 DCCP prohibits the enforcement of such foreign court judgments absent an exequatur regime, paragraph 2 opens up the possibility for new proceedings before the Dutch courts. In such proceedings, the Dutch Courts are free to grant authority to the foreign court’s substantive findings, provided that the foreign judgment meets four universal recognition requirements. The Standing Government Committee proposes to fundamentally alter the system under Article 431 DCCP, by inter alia introducing automatic recognition of all foreign court judgments in the Netherlands. In this article, the concept of and the justification for such an automatic recognition are critically reviewed.

B.P.B. Sequeira, The applicable law to business-related human rights torts under the Rome II Regulation / p. 619-640

Abstract
As the momentum for corporate liability for human rights abuses grows, and as corporations are being increasingly brought to justice for human rights harms that they have caused or contributed to in their global value chains through civil legal action based on the law of torts, access to a remedy remains challenging. Indeed, accountability and proper redress rarely occur, namely due to hurdles such as establishing the law that is applicable law to the proceedings. This article aims to analyse the conflict-of-laws rules provided for under the Rome II Regulation, which determines the applicable law to business and human rights tort actions brought before EU Courts against European parent or lead corporations. In particular, we will focus on their solutions and impact on access to a remedy for victims of corporate human rights abuses, reflecting on the need to adapt these conflict rules or to come up with new solutions to ensure that European corporations are held liable for human rights harms taking place in their value chains in a third country territory.

CASE LAW

M.H. ten Wolde, Over de grenzen van de Europese Erfrechtverklaring. HvJ EU 9 maart 2023, ECLI:EU:C:2023:184, NIPR 2023-753 (R. J. R./Registr? centras V?) / p. 641-648

Abstract
A European Certificate of Succession issued in one Member State proves in another Member State that the person named therein as heir possesses that capacity and may exercise the rights and powers listed in the certificate. On the basis of the European Certificate of Succession, inter alia, foreign property can be registered in the name of the relevant heir. In the Lithuanian case C-354/21 R. J. R. v Registr? centras V?, the question arose whether the receiving country may impose additional requirements for such registration when there is only one heir. The Advocate General answered this question differently from the European Court of Justice. Which view is to be preferred?

SYMPOSIUM REPORT

K. de Bel, Verslag symposium ‘Grootschalige (internationale) schadeclaims in het strafproces: beste praktijken en lessen uit het MH 17 proces’ / p. 649-662

Abstract
On 17 November 2022, the District Court of The Hague delivered its final verdict in the criminal case against those involved in the downing of flight MH17 over Ukraine. This case was unique in many ways: because of its political and social implications, the large number of victims and its international aspects. The huge number and the international nature of the civil claims for damages exposed several practical bottlenecks and legal obstacles that arise when civil claims are joined to criminal proceedings. These obstacles and bottlenecks, which all process actors had to address, were the focus of the symposium ‘Large-scale (international) civil claims for damages in the criminal process: best practices and questions for the legislator based on the MH17 trial’ that took place on 10 October 2023. A summary of the presentations and discussions is provided in this article.

In its decision of 20 December 2023 (Case No. XII ZB 117/23), the German Federal Supreme Court has referred three questions to the CJEU relating to the interpretation of Art. 8 (a), (b) of the Rome III Regulation. The following is a convenience translation of the German press release:

Facts of the Case:

The spouses, German nationals, married in 1989. Initially, they lived together in Berlin since 2006. In June 2017 , the couple deregistered their domicile from the German population register (Melderegister) and moved to Stockholm, where the husband was employed at the German embassy. They nonetheless maintained their rented apartment in Berlin so that they could return as soon as the husband’s posting in Sweden was completed. However, when in September 2019 the husband was once again transferred to the embassy in Russia, the parties changed their place of residence from Stockholm straight to Moscow, where the couple lived in a flat on the embassy compound. Both spouses hold diplomatic passports.

In January 2020, the wife travelled to Berlin to undergo medical surgery, but subsequently returned in February. According to the husband, the couple informed their two (adult) children in March 2021 that they had decided to file for divorce. The ensuing separation at the end of May 2021 resulted in the wife returning to the flat in Berlin and the husband continuing to live in the flat on the Moscow embassy premises.

Procedural History:

In July 2021, the husband filed an application for divorce with the German local court (Amtsgericht Kreuzberg), which the wife at the time successfully contested on the grounds that the year of separation (Trennungsjahr) mandatory under German law had not yet passed, as the separation had taken place in May 2021 at the earliest.

Following the husband’s appeal, the Berlin regional court  (Kammergericht) nethertheless divorced the marriage in accordance with Russian substantive law. In its reasoning, the court stated that (in the absence of a choice of law according to Art. 5) the applicable law was governed by Art. 8 (b) of the Rome III Regulation, because it could be assumed that the last common habitual residence in Moscow did not end until the wife’s depature to Germany in May 2021, i.e. less than one year beforce the court was first seised as required under Art. 8 lit. b) of the Rome III Regulation.

Subsequently, the wife lodged an appeal on points of law to the Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) seeking a divorce under German substantive law.

Questions:

The German Federal Supreme Court has referred to the CJEU the following three questions: According to which criteria is the habitual residence of the spouses to be determined within the meaning of Art. 8 lit. a) and lit. b) Rome III Regulation, in particular:

1. Does the posting as diplomat affect the assumption of habitual residence in the receiving State or does it even preclude such an assumption?

2. Is it necessary that the physical presence of the spouses in a State must have been of a certain duration before habitual residence can be assumed to be established?

3. Does the establishment of habitual residence require a certain degree of social and family integration in the state concerned?

Implications

In the ideal case, the expected decision of the ECJ will provide for legal certainty for families and people employed in the diplomatic service and similar professions. In addition, the decision could also, more generally, bring about further insights into the concept of habitual residence in EU secondary law and thus also be of interest with regard to the related European Matrimonial Property Regulation/European Registered Partnership Regulation, Brussels IIter Regulation and possibly also the European Succession Regulation.

The Press Release (available in German only) for the decision can be found here.

This case, C-632/22 – AB Volvo ./. Transsaqui SL, arises from a reference for a preliminary ruling of the Supreme Court of Spain (Tribunal Supremo). The core question is whether a claimant may serve process on a domestic subsidiary of a defendant in another Member State. In principle, the answer is simply no (absent special arrangements), because the subsidiary is a self-standing legal entity. If it is the foreign mother company that is the defendant, process must be served on her.

The reason to put this into question was the ECJ’s judgment of 6 October 2021, C-882/19 – Sumal. There, the Court held that private enforcement of cartel damages claims could be directed both at the parent company and its subsidiaries. To put it differently: The question was whether the effet utile of private enforcement of cartel damages would affect and alter the EU’s procedural law in order to facilitate service of process for the claimant beyond what is offered to the claimant under the EU’s Service Regulation. Therefore, the case must be seen in the context of a tension between strong policies of substantive law and the autonomous rationales of procedural law, not only in areas of the autonomy of the Member States’ procedural law but also in areas of the EU’s own procedural law. More often than not, this tension has been resolved in favour of the substantive policies. Not so here, according to the Advocate General’s Opinion, and this is to be welcomed.

The facts were (summarised) the following: During 2008 the claimant (Transsaqui SL, Spain) purchased two Volvo trucks. In its decision of 19 July 2016, the EU Commission found that a number of truck manufacturers had infringed Art. 101 TFEU and Art. 53 EEA by taking part in a cartel. Volvo was found to be one of the cartelists at the time. In July 2018, the claimant brought an action against Volvo at Valencia, Spain, claiming damages of approx. EUR 25,000.- Despite Volvo having its registered office in Gothenburg, Sweden, the claimant nevertheless indicated as Volvo’s address its subsidiary, Volvo Group España SAU in Spain (Madrid). The subsidiary refused acceptance of the documents sent by postal mail. In the following hearing before the court at Valencia (Juzgado de lo Mercantil nº 1), the claimant submitted that the defendant holds 100% of the share capital of its Spanish subsidiary and that mother and subsidiary should thus be treated as a single undertaking, according to the principles of competition law as established by the ECJ in Sumal. The court at Valencia indeed ordered service on the subsidiary on these grounds, but all attempts failed, as the subsidiary refused accepting the documents. On 26 February 2020, the court issued a default judgment ordering Volvo to pay the claimed (approx.) EUR 25,000.- plus interest and costs. The cost order was likewise served on the subsidiary, whereupon Volvo filed an application for revision of the judgment before the Tribunal Supremo (ATS nº13837/2022, de 7 octubre de 2022). This is the proceeding where the reference arose from. The Tribunal Supremo framed the question as follows: (1) Would Art. 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, in conjunction with Art. 101 TFEU, allow at all such serving of process on the domestic subsidiaries in cartel damages cases? (2) If so, would Art. 53 of the EU Charter allow higher standards under the domestic law of the Member State as assessed by the Spanish Constitutional Court[1] for service of process?

Advocate General Szpunar rightly referred to the principle under the EU Service Regulation that a defendant domiciled in another Member State must imperatively be served in that Member State (ECJ, judgment of 19 December 2012, C-325/11 – Alder, para. 25). National law cannot deviate from this principle by offering options for substituted service. Further, according to the Opinion, Article 101 TFEU as much as Article 47 of the Charter do not call into question this principle. Thus, primary EU law (in this constellation) does not set aside the EU’s secondary law on service. This is all the more true as the judgment in Sumal relates to substantive (competition) law, whereas the Service Regulation forms part of the EU’s legislation on judicial cooperation in civil matters, i.e. is procedural law. Very rightly, the Advocate General underlined that service of process is a “sensitive issue” and that the defendant’s right to be heard and to defend must be carefully protected, and it is carefully protected, as Articles 45(1)b and 46 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation show. Indeed, “attenuating the provisions of [the Service Regulation] by allowing for the service of a document on another (legal) person (in casu a subsidiary) could ultimately amount to a lack of mutual trust in judicial cooperation. Mutual trust implies and is based on the assumption that procedural requirements – especially those stemming directly from EU law (in casu [the Service Regulation] – have been complied with and fulfilled when proceedings have been initiated” (para. 53).

There is nothing to add. It would be a strange result if the EU’s own law on service of process turned out to be “ineffective” under Article 101 TFEU for pursuing cross-border cartel damages claims. If that were the case, the same would probably have to be assumed for claims of consumers under EU consumer law and other areas of EU law implementing strong policies, which would push the Service Regulation into absurdity. Even if one considered to limit the impact of substantive policies on service to cartel damages proceedings  (in light of the case of Sumal), the extended possibilities of service would depend on rather complex considerations on substantive antitrust law, and the stage of proceedings for service are certainly not the right place to address these. Translation costs cannot be an argument. They are part of the balancing approach under the Regulation, and Article 8 (of the then applicable EU Service Regulation 1393/2007; now Article 9 of the Regulation 2020/1784) does not require translation under all circumstances but merely gives the defendant the right to reject acceptance of an untranslated document. In the case at hand, the claimant never had attempted to serve in Sweden based on documents in Spanish, nor did the claimant make any submissions as to the precise costs. Thus, the Opinion upholds and strengthens the “autonomy” of EU procedural law, and, as I said at the beginning, that must be welcomed.

On an abstract level, it is interesting to note that the concept of mutual trust, as employed by the Advocate General, does not only speak to the Member States amongst each other applying EU law on judicial cooperation but also to the EU itself vis-à-vis its Member States (as has been argued elsewhere, in other contexts, by the author of these lines), including its Court of Justice, and this Court must keep in mind predictability and reliability of agreed secondary legislation. “Adding to the provisions of [the EU Service Regulation] a combined reading of Article 101 TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter would, in my view, not serve judicial cooperation, but constitute a small but significant step to de facto eradicating it” (para. 53 in fine). In my view as well.

[1]      The Tribunal Supremo explicitly refers to STC nº 91/2022, de 11 de julio 2022 (BOE núm. 195 de 15 de agosto de 2022) – Iveco S.p.A where the Constitutional Court held that Iveco SpA’s right to effective judicial protection had been infringed because service had not been effected at Iveco SpA’s registered office in Italy, but had been attempted at the registered office of its subsidiary in Spain, Iveco España, SL.

By Biset Sena Günes, Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg

Recently, on 25 October 2023, the Austrian Supreme Court (‘OGH’) [2 Ob 179/23x, BeckRS 2023, 33709] ruled on whether a jurisdiction clause included in the terms of purchase (‘ToP’) was valid when a written contract made reference to the website containing the ToP but did not provide the corresponding internet link. The Court held that such a clause does not meet the formal requirements laid down under Article 25 of the Brussels I (recast) Regulation and, hence, is invalid. The judgment is undoubtedly of practical relevance for the conclusion of international commercial contracts that make reference to digitally available general terms and conditions (‘GTCs’), and it is an important follow-up to the decisions by the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) in the cases of El Majdoub (C-322/14, available here) and Tilman (C-358/21, available here).

Factual Background and Procedure

A German company and an Austrian company concluded a service agreement in which the German company (‘the service provider’) undertook to provide the engineering plans for a product to the Austrian party (‘the client’). The Austrian party sent its order to the service provider on a written form which stated (in translation): ‘we order in accordance with the terms of purchase known to you (available on our website) and expect your confirmation by email immediately’. The order specified the client’s place of business as the place of delivery. The German party subsequently signed and returned the same document, ticking its relevant parts and naming it as the ‘order confirmation’. This confirmation was also in written form. The ToP – which were not attached to the contract, but which were available on the client’s website – contained a jurisdiction clause conferring jurisdiction on the Austrian courts for the resolution of disputes arising from the parties’ contract. The clause also allowed the Austrian party to sue in another competent court and was thus asymmetric. The ToP additionally included a clause defining the place of performance for the delivery of goods or for the provision of services as the place specified by the client in the contract.

Upon a disagreement between the parties due to the allegedly defective performance of the service provider, the Austrian party brought proceedings against its contracting partner before the competent district court of Vienna, Austria, in reliance on the jurisdiction clause. The defendant successfully challenged the jurisdiction of the court by claiming that the clause did not meet the formal requirements of Article 25 of the Brussels I (recast) Regulation. Upon appeal, this issue was not addressed, but the judgment was nevertheless overturned as, in the court of appeals’ view, the first instance court was competent based on the parties’ agreement as to the place of performance. According to the court, the parties’ numerous references to the place of business of the client should be understood as an agreement on the place of performance within the meaning of Article 7 of the Brussels I (recast) Regulation, even though the defendant argued that the engineering plans were actually drafted at their place of business and not that of the client. The defendant appealed against the judgment before the Austrian Supreme Court.

The Issue at Stake and the Judgment of the Court

As could be easily identified from the facts and the parties’ dispute, the main question in this case is whether the formal requirements of the Brussels I (recast) Regulation, and in particular its demand of ‘written form’, could be satisfied by a simple reference to a website where the party’s ToP – including the jurisdiction clause – could (allegedly) be retrieved, hence allowing the court to conclude that parties indeed reached an agreement as to jurisdiction.

The Court answered the first question in the negative and found the jurisdiction clause invalid. This is because the ‘written form’ requirement under Article 25(1) (a) of the Brussels I (recast) Regulation is met only if the contract expressly refers to the GTCs containing a jurisdiction clause and if it can be proved that the other party actually received them. According to the Court’s reasoning, the mere reference to the website did not make the jurisdiction clause (or the ToP, in general) accessible to the other contracting party in a reproducible manner; this is unlike the case of a written contract providing a specific link (as in Tilman) or the case of ‘click-wrapping’ (as in El Majdoub), as those are contractual constellations sufficiently establishing that the parties had access to the terms of the agreement (paras 19–20 of the judgment).

General Assessment in Light of the Case Law of the CJEU

Choice-of-court agreements are undoubtedly an important part of today’s highly digitalised business environment, and it is to be expected that they will be found in digitally available GTCs. Yet in practice their validity is often challenged by one of the parties. The Court of Justice has indeed had to deal with such issues in the past, and the present case gives us cause to briefly revisit those rulings.

In El Majdoub (commented before on blogs, here and here), the CJEU had to decide on the question of whether a ‘click-wrap’ choice-of-court clause included in the GTCs provided a durable record which was to be considered as equivalent to a ‘writing’ under the then current Article 23(2) of the Brussels Regulation. In the El Majdoub case, a sales contract was concluded electronically between the parties by means of ‘click-wrapping’, i.e. in order to conclude the agreement, the buyer had to click on a box indicating acceptance of the seller’s GTCs. The GTCs – which containing the agreement as to jurisdiction – were available in that box via a separate hyperlink that stated ‘click here to open the conditions of delivery and payment in a new window’. Although this window did not open automatically upon registration to the website and upon every individual sale, the CJEU found that such a clause provided a durable record as required by Article 23(2) of the Brussels I Regulation since it gave the buyer the possibility of printing and saving the GTCs before conclusion of the contract. This holding should be welcomed as the CJEU gave its blessing to the already existing and much-used practice of ‘click-wrapping’ in the digital business environment, and the Court thus showed its support for the use of technology in contractual practices (in line with aims previously stated in the Commission Proposal (COM(1999) 348 Final)). The Court’s conclusion is, of course, limited in the sense that it only confirms that the ‘click-wrapping’ method provides a durable record of the agreement; there is no analysis as to the requirement of a ‘consensus’ on jurisdiction between the parties in the case of digital contracts. Since the buyer had to accept the terms before the purchase, the Court took this as a consent and did not address the issue (see, similarly, van Calster and Dickinson and Ungerer, LMCLQ 2016, 15, 18–19). It should, in this regard, be observed that establishing the existence of such an agreement is the purpose of the form requirements, a fact confirmed by the case law of the Court, see, e.g. Salotti, para 7 (C-24/76, available here). Still, one should admit that questions as to the existence of consent would probably not be much of an issue in the ‘click-wrapping’ context, especially in B2B cases, as the ‘click’ concludes the agreement – unless, of course, there are other circumstances (e.g. mistake) that affect the quality of consent (see, similarly, van Calster on Tilman).

In the later case of Tilman (previously commented on PIL blogs on a couple of occasions, see the comments by Pacula, by Ho-Dac, and by Van Calster, here and here), the situation was more complex. There was a written agreement between the parties in which the GTCs – which for their part contained an agreement as to jurisdiction in favour of English courts – were referred to by provision of the link to the website where they could be accessed. In other words, there was no ‘click-wrap’ type of agreement; rather, it was a written agreement specifying the link (i.e. the internet address) of the website on which the GTCs could be retrieved. The CJEU then had to deal with the question of whether this manner of incorporating a jurisdiction clause satisfies the conditions of Article 23(1) and (2) of the Lugano II Convention, which are identical to Article 23(1) and (2) of the Brussels I Regulation. The Court answered this question in the affirmative and expanded the possibility of making reference to GTCs by inclusion of the link in written contracts because, in the Court’s view, making those terms accessible to the other party via a link before the conclusion of the contract is sufficient to satisfy formal requirements, especially when the transaction involves commercial parties who can be expected to act diligently. There is no further requirement of actual receipt of those terms. This, again, is a modern and pragmatic approach that simplifies commercial contractual practice, and it is a ruling that should be welcomed. However, it is unfortunate that the Court did not address the technical details in the facts of the case; namely, the link did not open the GTCs directly and instead opened a page on which the GTCs could be searched for and downloaded (see, Summary of the Request for Preliminary Ruling, para 14, available here). This is a point which may give rise to questions as to the proper incorporation of GTCs into a contract (in this regard, see also Finkelmeier, NJW 2023, 33, 37; Capaul, GPR 2023, 222, 225) or as to the existence of consent (on further thoughts as regards the question of consent in both of the CJEU cases, see van Calster). The facts of the case also leave room for a different interpretation in other circumstances, such as when the link refers to a homepage, the link is broken, or the website has been updated (see, in this regard, Finkelmeier, 37; Capaul, 225, and also Krümmel, IWRZ, 131, 134).

In the present case before the Austrian Supreme Court, we encounter yet a different scenario in which there is definitely room for different interpretations. Again, there is a written contract which makes reference to GTCs and which states that they are available on the client’s website. But here, the client did not supply the service provider with the hyperlink address creating accessibility to the GTCs. And the Court rightly held that the CJEU’s conclusion in Tilman should not be understood as saying that a general reference to GTCs in the contract will always be sufficient to prove they have been made available. In the Austrian Court’s understanding, the mere reference to the existence of the GTCs was not sufficient so as to constitute their proper inclusion into the contract and to prove consensus between the parties in a clear and precise manner (paras 19–20 of the judgment). One could, of course, always argue in favour of a further relaxation of the form requirements, especially when the transaction involves commercial parties who should act diligently when entering into contracts. But it is obvious that in a case in which the written contract does not even provide the necessary link, it will be a burden for the counterparty to search the website and retrieve the actual version of the referenced GTCs before entering into the contract, whereas the other party would unduly benefit from being able to fulfil her/his obligation by making a mere reference to the existence of the GTCs. Hence, it is good that the Austrian court did not further extend Tilman’s already broad interpretation.

Conclusion

Despite being an important part of cross-border commercial practice, choice-of-court agreements often become the source of an additional dispute between the parties in terms of their existence and validity. In the vast majority of cases, these disputes are complex. This is probably even more the case with the increasing use of technology in contracting. All these cases are indeed good examples of such disputes. But they can only be seen as new and different additions to the jigsaw puzzle rather than the final pieces. More cases with even more complex scenarios will likely follow, as contracting practices continue to develop along with technological advancements.

Postscript: The Place of Performance

Having found the jurisdiction clause invalid, the Court would have had to determine the place of performance of the contract as another basis for special jurisdiction under the Regulation. A decision on this latter issue was deferred, however, since the Court had already referred a similar question on the determination of the place of performance to the CJEU in a different proceeding (OGH, decision of 13 July 2023, 1 Ob 73/23a) concerning a service contract.

The Supreme Court of Canada has granted leave to appeal in Sinclair v Venezia Turismo. In light of the test for obtaining leave and the relatively low number of cases in which leave is granted, this offers at least some suggestion that the top court is interested in considering the legal issues raised in the case.

The case has factual similarities to the Brownlie litigation in England. The plaintiffs, residents of Ontario, were injured on a gondola ride in Venice, Italy. They are suing in tort in Ontario. Three Italian corporations challenged the Ontario court’s jurisdiction. At first instance the judge held Ontario had jurisdiction but on appeal the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that it did not. The key issues, at least thus far, have been whether the plaintiffs could establish a “presumptive connecting factor” (PCF) between those corporations and Ontario and if so, whether that presumption had been rebutted. Common law Canada considers that a contract made in the forum that is connected to a tort that happens elsewhere is a PCF to the forum. It is relevant here because the plaintiffs made some of the arrangements for their trip to Italy with other parties through contracts made in Ontario. In the Court of Appeal, two judges found the PCF was not established while the third found that it was. All three found that if it was established, it had been rebutted by the corporations: the connection to Ontario was insufficient.

More information is available here.  The written legal arguments by the parties for and against leave should end up posted on that site and they should be an interesting read.  As is the practice in Canada, no reasons are provided by the court for the granting of leave. The decision below is here. It contains discussion of the key precedents on jurisdiction.

Co-edited  by Rishi Gulati and Philippa Webb, the Special Issue of the King’s Law Journal, Volume 34, Issue 3 on “The Legal Accountability of Transnational Institutions: Past, Present and Future” is now out. The 9 articles in this Special Issue are authored by leading experts on the accountability of public international organisations (IOs), MNCs, as well as NGOs.

The Introduction is open access and discusses what may be learnt by comparing the legal accountability of IOs, MNCs and NGOs. In addition to the Introductory article by Rishi Gulati and Philippa Webb, the Special Issue consists of the following contributions. Assessing the Accountability Mechanism of Multilateral Development Banks Against Access to Justice: The Case of the World Bank (Edward Chukwuemeke Okeke); Holding International Organizations Accountable: Recent Developments in U.S. Immunities Law (David P. Stewart); Protecting Human Rights in UN Peacekeeping: Operationalising Due Diligence and Accountability (Nigel D. White); Nature and Scope of an International Organisation’s Due Diligence Obligations Under International Environmental Law: A Case Study of the Caribbean Development Bank (S. Nicole Liverpool Jordan); Civil Liability Under Sustainability Due Diligence Legislation: A Quiet Revolution? (Youseph Farah, Valentine Kunuji & Avidan Kent); Accountability of NGOs: The Potential of Business and Human Rights Frameworks for NGO Due Diligence (Rosana Garciandia); Arbitrating disputes with international organisations and some access to justice issues (August Reinisch); Transnational Procedural Guarantees – The Role of Domestic Courts (Dana Burchardt).

The graduate resesarch programme DynamInt (Dynamic Integration Order) of Humboldt University is inviting international PostDocs to apply for a short-term (3 to 6 months), fully paid research stay in Berlin.

The PostDoc is supposed to pursue her/his research project in the field of European Law. She/he is also expected to interact with the group of young researchers, who all work on their dissertation projects within the thematic framework of harmonization and plurality tendencies in the EU

More information are available here.

The United Nations Agenda 2030 with its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) seems to have a blind spot for the role of private and private international law. That blind spot is beginning to be closed. A collective volume with global outlook published in 2021 addressed “the private side of transforming our world”: each of the 17 SDGs was discussed in one chapter of the book devoted to the specific relevance of private law and private international law. In 2022, the IACL-ASADIP conference in Asunción, Paraguay discussed sustainable private international law with regard to Latin America; the contributions published in 2023 in a special issue of the University of Brasilia Law Journal – Direito.UnB., V.7., N.3 (2023).

In this occasion the focus is on Asia. The Chinese Journal of Transnational Law invites submissions for its Vol. 2 Issue 2, to be published in 2025, engaging critically with the functions, methodologies and techniques of private international law in relation to sustainability from an Asian perspective, as well as in relation to the actual and potential contributions of private international law to the SDGs in Asia.

Contributions should focus on Asian perspectives, either addressing a specific global challenge through the lens of the relevant normative framework of a particular country, sub-region, or community/ies in Asia; or ‘glocalising’ the challenge, analysing specific issues affecting concrete contexts in the region in relation to the global objectives included in the UN 2030 Agenda.

Topics could include, but are not limited to:

• Relationships between the international and the domestic, or/and the public and the private in the pursue of the UN Agenda 2030 in Asia
• Sustainability in global supply/value chains and private international law in Asia
• Intra-regional (South-South) migration in Asia and private international law (focus on specific kinds of migration, such as labour migration, climate change migration, forced displacement, refugees, etc)
• Clean energy in Asia and private international law
• Decent work (and economic growth) in Asia, and of Asian workers beyond Asia, and private international law
• Sustainable consumption and production in Asia and private international law (focus on a specific sector, such as apparel, food, agricultural products, etc)
• Gender equality in Asia and private international law
• Sustainable Asian cities and communities and private international law
• Establishment and proof of personal identity in Asia; portability across borders of identity documents in Asia and beyond
• (Non-) recognition of foreign child marriages and forced marriages in and from Asia
• Availability and sustainable management of water (and sanitation) in Asia and the role of private international law
• Private international law and cross-border environmental damage/ adverse effects of climate change/ loss of biodiversity from an Asian perspective.

Note: The issue of transnational access to justice in relation to sustainable development has been considered extensively, including from an Asian perspective, so we suggest interested contributors to refrain from submitting contributions based exclusively on SDG 16.

An abstract of 500-800 words should be submitted by 20 Feburary 2024 to PIL.sustainability.CJTL@ed.ac.uk and CJTL.Editor@whu.edu.cn (please send the abstract to both email addresses). Please include the contributor’s last name in the email title. Selected contributors will be invited to submit a draft paper by 1 October 2024 in advance of a hybrid conference at Wuhan University in November 2024 . The submission of the full article through the journal’s homepage: https://journals.sagepub.com/home/ctl is required by 1 March 2025. Accepted articles will be published online first as advanced articles. Contributors may choose between: Research articles (up to 11,000 words inclusive of footnotes) or short articles (up to 6,000 words inclusive of footnotes). The special issue will be published in September 2025.

Those interested may contact the guest editors Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm, Ralf Michaels and Hans van Loon at PIL.sustainability.CJTL@ed.ac.uk.

Written by Eduardo Silva de Freitas (Erasmus University Rotterdam), member of the Vici project Affordable Access to Justice, financed by the Dutch Research Council (NWO), www.euciviljustice.eu.  

Introduction

In the final weeks leading up to Christmas in 2023, the District Court of Amsterdam referred a set of questions to the CJEU (DC Amsterdam, 20 December 2023, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2023:8330; in Dutch). These questions, if comprehensively addressed, have the potential to bring clarity to longstanding debates regarding jurisdictional conflicts in collective actions. Despite being rooted in competition law with its unique intricacies, the issues surrounding the determination of online damage locations hold the promise of illuminating pertinent questions. Moreover, the forthcoming judgment is expected to provide insights into the centralization of jurisdiction in collective actions within a specific Member State, an aspect currently unclear. Recalling our previous discussion on the Dutch class action under the WAMCA in this blog, it is crucial to emphasize that, under the WAMCA, only one representative action can be allowed to proceed for the same event. In instances where multiple representative foundations seek to bring proceedings for the same event without reaching a settlement up to a certain point during the proceedings, the court will appoint an exclusive representative. This procedural detail adds an additional layer of complexity to the dynamics of collective actions under the WAMCA.

Following a brief overview of the case against Apple, we will delve into the rationale behind the court’s decision to refer the questions.

The claim against Apple

The claim revolves around Apple’s alleged anticompetitive behavior in the market for the distribution of apps and in-app products on iOS devices, such as iPhones, iPads, and iPod Touch. The foundations argue that Apple holds a monopoly in this market, as users are dependent on the App Store for downloading and using apps.

According to the foundations, Apple’s anticompetitive actions include controlling which apps are included in the App Store and imposing conditions for their inclusion. Furthermore, Apple is accused of having a monopoly on payment processing services for apps and digital in-app products, with the App Store payment system being the sole method for transactions.

The foundations argue that Apple charges an excessive commission of 30% for paid apps and digital in-app products, creating an unfair advantage and disrupting competition. They assert that Apple’s dominant position in the market and its behavior constitute an abuse of power. Users are said to be harmed by being forced to use the App Store and pay high commissions, leading to the claim that Apple has acted unlawfully. The legal bases of the claim are therefore abuse of economic dominance in the market (Article 102 TFEU) and prohibited vertical price fixing (Article 101 TFEU).

The jurisdictional conundrum

Apple Ireland functions as the subsidiary tasked with representing app suppliers within the EU. The international nature of the dispute stems from the users purportedly affected being located in the Netherlands, while the case is lodged against the subsidiary established in Ireland. The District Court of Amsterdam has opted to scrutinize the jurisdiction of Dutch courts under Article 7(2) Brussels I-bis Regulation. This provision grants jurisdiction to the courts of the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur, encompassing both prongs of the Bier paradigm. However, Apple contends that, within the Netherlands, the court would only possess jurisdiction under Article 7(2) Brussels I-bis Regulation with regard to users residing specifically in Amsterdam.

In the court’s view, the ascertainment of the Handlungsort should pertain only to allegations under Article 102 TFEU. In relation to Article 101 TFEU, the Netherlands was not considered the Handlungsort. This is due to the necessity of identifying a specific incident causing harm to ascertain the Handlungsort, and the absence of concrete facts renders it challenging to pinpoint such an event.

The court’s jurisdictional analysis commences with a reference to Case C?27/17 flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines (ECLI:EU:C:2018:533), in which the CJEU established that the location of the harmful event in cases involving the abuse of a dominant position under Article 102 TFEU is closely linked to the actual implementation of such abuse. In the present case, the court observes that Apple’s actions, conducted through the Dutch storefront of the App Store tailored for the Dutch market, involve facilitating app and in-app product purchases. Acting as the exclusive distributor for third-party apps, Apple Ireland exerts control over the offered content.

Applying the criteria from flyLAL, the court concludes that the Handlungsort is situated in the Netherlands. However, the court agreed that the specific court within the Netherlands responsible for adjudicating the matter remains unspecified.

The court initiated its analysis of the Erfolgsort based on the established premise in CJEU case law which posits that there is no distinction between individual and collective actions when determining the location of the damage. The court clarified that the concept of the place where the damage occurs does not encompass any location where the consequences of the event may be felt; rather, only the damage directly resulting from the committed harm should be considered. Moreover, the court emphasized that when determining the Erfolgsort, there is no distinction based on whether the legal basis for the accusation of anticompetitive practices is grounded in Article 101 or Article 102 TFEU.

The court reiterated that the App Store with Dutch storefront is a targeted online sales platform for the Dutch market. Functioning as an exclusive distributor, Apple Ireland handles third-party apps and in-app products, contributing to an alleged influence of anticompetitive behavior in the Dutch market. It’s acknowledged that the majority of users making purchases reside in the Netherlands, paying through Dutch bank accounts, thus placing the Erfolgsort within the Netherlands for this user group. Nevertheless, the court reiterated that the particular court within the Netherlands tasked with adjudicating this case remains unspecified.

The questions referred

Despite the court having its perspective on establishing jurisdiction under Article 7(2) Brussels I-bis Regulation, it opted to seek clarification from the CJEU for the following reasons.

First, the court expresses reservations regarding the complete applicability of the flyLAL precedent to the current case. It emphasizes that the flyLAL case involved a precise location where the damage could be pinpointed. In contrast, the present case involves anticompetitive practices unfolding through an online platform accessible simultaneously in every location within a particular Member State and globally. The court is uncertain whether the nature of this online distribution makes a significant difference in this context, especially when considering whether the case involves a collective action.

Second, as mentioned above, the WAMCA stipulates that only a single representative action can be allowed to proceed for a given event. In situations where multiple representative foundations aim to commence legal proceedings for the same event without reaching a settlement by a specific stage in the proceedings, the court will designate an exclusive representative. In addition to that, Article 220 Dutch Code of Civil Procedure offers the opportunity to consolidate cases awaiting resolution before judges in various districts and involving identical subject matter and parties, allowing for a unified hearing of these cases.

Nevertheless, the court has reservations about the compatibility of relocating from the Erfolgsort within a Member State under the consolidation of proceedings, as Article 7(2) Brussels I-bis Regulation impacts the establishment of jurisdiction within that Member State. In questioning whether such relocation would run contrary to EU law, the court highlights the Brussels I-bis Regulation’s overarching objective of preventing parallel proceedings. This triggers a skepticism towards the interpretation that each District Court within the Netherlands would have competence to adjudicate a collective action pertaining to users situated in the specific Erfolgsort within their jurisdiction.

However, the court finds it necessary to refer these questions to the CJEU, considering that, in its assessment, the CJEU’s rationale in Case C?30/20 Volvo (ECLI:EU:C:2021:604) is not easily transposable to the current case. In Volvo, the CJEU permitted the concentration of proceedings in antitrust matters within a specialized court. This is not applicable here, as the consolidation of proceedings under the described framework arises from the efficiency in conducting the proceedings, not from specialization.

These are, in a nutshell, the reasons why the District Court of Amsterdam decided to refer the following questions to the CJEU:

 Question 1

1. What should be considered as the place of the damaging action in a case like this, where the alleged abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU has been implemented in a Member State through sales via an online platform managed by Apple that is aimed at the entire Member State, with Apple Ireland acting as the exclusive distributor and as the developer’s commission agent and deducting commission on the purchase price, within the meaning of Article 7, point 2, Brussels I bis? Is it important that the online platform is in principle accessible worldwide?
2. Does it matter that in this case it concerns claims that have been instituted on the basis of Article 3:305a of the Dutch Civil Code by a legal entity whose purpose is to represent the collective interests of multiple users who have their seat in different jurisdictions (in the Netherlands: districts) within a Member State under its own right?
3. If on the basis of question 1a (and/or 1b) not only one but several internally competent judges in the relevant Member State are designated, does Article 7, point 2, Brussels I bis then oppose the application of national (procedural) law that allows referral to one court within that Member State?

 Question 2

1. Can in a case like this, where the alleged damage has occurred as a result of purchases of apps and digital in-app products via an online platform managed by Apple (the App Store) where Apple Ireland acts as the exclusive distributor and commission agent of the developers and deducts commission on the purchase price (and where both alleged abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU has taken place and an alleged infringement of the cartel prohibition within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU), and where the place where these purchases have taken place cannot be determined, only the seat of the user serve as a reference point for the place where the damage has occurred within the meaning of Article 7, point 2, Brussels I bis? Or are there other points of connection in this situation to designate a competent judge?
2. Does it matter that in this case it concerns claims that have been instituted on the basis of Article 3:305a of the Dutch Civil Code by a legal entity whose purpose is to represent the collective interests of multiple users who have their seat in different jurisdictions (in the Netherlands: districts) within a Member State under its own right?
3. If on the basis of question 2a (and/or 2b) an internally competent judge in the relevant Member State is designated who is only competent for the claims on behalf of a part of the users in that Member State, while for the claims on behalf of another part of the users other judges in the same Member State are competent, does Article 7, point 2, Brussels I bis then oppose the application of national (procedural) law that allows referral to one court within that Member State?

 [Translation from Dutch by the author, with support of ChatGPT]

Discussion

The CJEU possesses case law that could be construed in a manner conducive to allowing the case to proceed in the Netherlands. Notably, Case C?251/20 Gtflix Tv (ECLI:EU:C:2021:1036) appears to be most closely aligned with this possibility, wherein the eDate rule was applied to a case involving French competition law, albeit the CJEU did not explicitly address this aspect (though AG Hogan did). Viewed from this angle, the Netherlands could be deemed the centre of interests for the affected users, making it a potential Erfolgsort.

Regarding the distinction between individual and collective proceedings, the CJEU, in Cases C-352/13 CDC (ECLI:EU:C:2015:335) and C-709/19 VEB v. BP (ECLI:EU:C:2021:377), declined to differentiate for the purpose of determining the locus of damage. We find no compelling reason for the CJEU to deviate from this precedent in the current case.

The truly intricate question centers on the feasibility of consolidating proceedings in a single court. In Case C-381/14 Sales Sinués (ECLI:EU:C:2016:252), the CJEU established that national law must not hinder consumers from pursuing individual claims under the Unfair Contract Terms Directive (UCTD – 93/13) by employing rules on the suspension of proceedings during the pendency of parallel collective actions. However, it is unclear whether this rationale can be extrapolated to parallel concurrent collective actions.

Conclusion

This referral arrives at a good time, coinciding with the recent coming into force of the Representative Actions Directive (RAD – 2020/1828) last summer. Seeking clarification on the feasibility of initiating collective actions within the jurisdictions of affected users for damages incurred in the online sphere holds significant added value. Notably, the inclusion of both the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act within the purview of the RAD amplifies the pertinence of these questions.

Moreover, this case may offer insights into potential avenues for collective actions grounded in the GDPR. Such actions, permitted to proceed under Article 7(2) Brussels I-bis Regulation, as exemplified in our earlier analysis of the TikTok case in Amsterdam, share a parallel rationale. The convergence of these legal frameworks could yield valuable precedents and solutions in navigating the complex landscape of online damages and collective redress.

Marco Buzzoni, Doctoral Researcher at the Luxembourg Centre for European Law (LCEL) and PhD candidate at the Sorbonne Law School, offers a critical analysis of some recent rulings by the Court of Justice of the European Union in matters of data protection.

In a series of three preliminary rulings issued on 14th December and 21st December 2023, the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) was called upon again to rule on the interpretation of Article 82 of the General Data Protection Regulation (‘GDPR’). While these rulings provide some welcome clarifications regarding the civil liability of data controllers, their slightly inconsistent reasoning will most likely raise difficulties in future cases, especially those involving cross-border processing of personal data.

On the one hand, the judgments handed down in Cases C-456/22, Gemeinde Ummendorf, and C-340/21, Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite, explicitly held that three elements are sufficient to establish liability under Article 82 GDPR. In so doing, the Court built upon its previous case law by confirming that the right to compensation only requires proof of an infringement of the Regulation, some material or non-material damage, and a causal link between the two. On the other hand, however, the Court seemingly swayed away from this analysis in Case C-667/21, Krankenversicherung Nordrhein, by holding that a data controller can avoid liability if they prove that the damage occurred through no fault of their own.

In reaching this conclusion, the Court reasoned that imposing a strict liability regime upon data controllers would be incompatible with the goal of fostering legal certainty laid out in Recital 7 GDPR. By introducing a subjective element that finds no mention in the Regulation, the Court’s latest decision is nonetheless likely to raise difficulties in cross-border cases by introducing some degree of unpredictability with respect to the law applicable to data controllers’ duty of care. In time, this approach might lead to a departure from the autonomous and uniform reading of Article 82 that seemed to have prevailed in earlier cases.

The Court’s Rejection of Strict Liability for Data Controllers

According to the conceptual framework laid out by the CJEU in its own case law, compensation under Article 82 GDPR is subject to three cumulative conditions. These include an infringement of the Regulation, the presence of some material or non-material damage, and a causal link between the two (see Case C-300/21, UI v Österreichische Post AG, para 32). In the cases decided in December 2023, the Court was asked to delve deeper into each of these elements and offer some additional guidance on how data protection litigation should play out before national courts.

In case C-456/22, the CJEU was presented with a claim for compensation for non-material damage filed by an individual against a local government body. The plaintiff alleged that their data protection rights had been breached when the defendant intentionally published documents on the internet that displayed their unredacted full name and address without their consent. Noting that this information was only accessible on the local government’s website for a short time, the referring court asked the CJEU to clarify whether, in addition to the data subject’s mere short-term loss of control over their personal data, the concept of ‘non-material damage’ referred to in Article 82(1) of the GDPR required a significant disadvantage and an objectively comprehensible impairment of personal interests in order to qualify for compensation. Rather unsurprisingly, the Court (proceeding to judgment without an Opinion) answered this question in the negative and held that, while Article 82(1) GDPR requires proof of actual damage, it also precludes any national legislation or practice that would subject it to a “de minimis threshold” for compensation purposes.

In doing so, the Court followed the road map outlined in UI v Österreichische Post AG, which had already held that the concept of damage should receive an autonomous and uniform definition under the GDPR (Case C-456/22, para 15, quoting Case C-300/21, paras 30 and 44) and should not be limited to harm reaching a certain degree of seriousness. Arguably, however, the Court also went beyond its previous decision by stating that the presence of an infringement, material or non-material damage, and a link between the two were not only “cumulative” or “necessary” but also “sufficient” conditions for the application of Article 82(1) (Case C-456/22, para 14). Remarkably, the Court did not mention any other condition that could have excluded or limited the data subject’s right to compensation. Taken literally, this decision could thus have been understood as an implicit endorsement of a strict liability regime under the GDPR.

This impression was further strengthened by the judgment handed down in Case C-340/21, where the Court was asked to weigh in on the extent of a data controller’s liability in case of unauthorised access to and disclosure of personal data due to a “hacking attack”. In particular, one of the questions referred to the CJEU touched upon whether the data controller could be exempted from civil liability in the event of a personal data breach by a third party. Contrary to the Opinion delivered by AG Pitruzzella, who argued that the data controller might be exonerated by providing evidence that the damage occurred without negligence on their part (see Opinion, paras 62-66), the CJEU ignored once more the question of the data controller’s fault and rather ruled that the latter should establish “that there [was] no causal link between its possible breach of the data protection obligation and the damage suffered by the natural person” (Case C-340/21, para 72).

A few days later, however, the CJEU explicitly endorsed AG Pitruzzella’s reading of Article 82 GDPR in Case C-667/21. In a subtle yet significant shift from its previous reasoning, the Court there held that the liability of the data controller is subject to the existence of fault on their part, which is presumed unless the data controller can prove that they are in no way responsible for the event that caused the damage (Case C-667/21, holding). To reach this conclusion, The Court relied on certain linguistic discrepancies in Article 82 of the GDPR and held, contrary to the Opinion by AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona, that a contextual and teleological interpretation of the Regulation supported a liability regime based on presumed fault rather than a strict liability rule (Case C-667/21, paras 95-100). Formulated in very general terms, the holding in Case C-667/21 thus suggests that a controller could be released from liability not only if they prove that their conduct played no part in the causal chain leading to the damage but also — alternatively — that the breach of the data subject’s rights did not result from an intentional or negligent act on their part.

Lingering Issues Surrounding the Right to Compensation in Cross-Border Settings

According to the CJEU, only a liability regime based on a rebuttable presumption of fault is capable of guaranteeing a sufficient degree of legal certainty and a proper balance between the parties’ interests. Ironically, however, the Court’s approach in Case C-340/21 raises some significant methodological and procedural questions which might lead to unpredictable results and end up upsetting the parties’ expectations about their respective rights and obligations, especially in cases involving cross-border processing of personal data.

From a methodological perspective, the CJEU’s latest ruling does not fit squarely within the uniform reading of the GDPR that the Court had previously adopted with respect to the interpretation of Article 82 GDPR. In the earlier cases, in fact, the CJEU had consistently held that the civil liability requirements laid out in the Regulation, such as the notion of damage or the presence of an actual infringement of data protection laws, should be appreciated autonomously and without any reference to national law (on the latter, see in particular Case C-340/21, para 23). On the other hand, however, the Court has also made clear that if the GDPR remains silent on a specific issue, Member States should remain free to set their own rules, so long that they do not conflict with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness of EU law (on this point, see eg Case C-340/21, para 59).

Against this backdrop, the Court’s conclusion that the civil liability regime set up by the legislature implicitly includes the presence of some fault on the defendant’s part begs the question of whether this requirement should also receive a uniform interpretation throughout the European Union. In favour of this interpretation, one could argue that this condition should be subject to the same methodological approach applicable to the other substantive requirements laid out in Article 82 GDPR. Against this position, it could nonetheless be pointed out that in the absence of explicit indications in this Article, the defendant’s fault should be assessed by reference to national law unless another specific provision of the Regulation (such as Articles 24 or 32 of the GDPR) specifies the degree of care required of the data controller or processor. In the context of cross-border cases, the latter interpretation would thus allow each Member State to determine, based on their own conflict-of-laws rules, the law applicable to the defendant’s duty of care in cases of violations of data protection laws. If generalised, this approach might in time lead to considerable fragmentation across the Member States.

In addition to these methodological difficulties, the Court’s decision in Case C-340/21 also raises some doubts from a procedural point of view. In holding that the data controllers’ liability is subject to the existence of fault on their part, the CJEU calls into question the possible interaction between national court proceedings aimed at establishing civil liability under Article 82 GDPR and administrative decisions adopted by data protection authorities. With respect to the latter, the CJEU had in fact ruled in Case C-683/21, Nacionalinis visuomenés sveikatos centras, that Article 83 GDPR must be interpreted so that an administrative fine may be imposed pursuant to that provision “only where it is established that the controller has intentionally or negligently committed an infringement referred to in paragraphs 4 to 6 of that article” (Case C-683/21, holding). In other words, national supervisory authorities are also called upon to assess the existence of fault on the part of the data controller or processor before issuing fines for the violation of data protection laws.

At first glance, the CJEU’s decision in Case C-340/21 fosters some convergence between the private and public remedies set out in the GDPR. In reality, however, this interpretation might potentially create more hurdles than it solves. Indeed, future litigants will likely wonder what deference, if any, should be given to a supervisory authority’s determinations under Article 83 GDPR within the context of parallel court proceedings unfolding under Article 82. In a similar context, the Court has already held that the administrative remedies provided for in Article 77(1) and Article 78(1) GDPR may be exercised independently and concurrently with the right to an effective judicial remedy enshrined in Article 79 GDPR, provided that national procedural rules are able to ensure the effective, consistent and homogeneous application of the rights guaranteed by the Regulation (see Case C-132/21, Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság v BE). Should the same principles apply to actions brought under Article 82 GDPR? If so, should the same rule also extend to conflicts between national court proceedings and decisions issued by foreign supervisory authorities (and vice-versa), even though each of them might have a different understanding of the degree of protection afforded by the Regulation?

Despite the CJEU’s laudable attempt to strike a balance between the interests of personal data controllers and those of the individuals whose data is processed, it is not certain that the Court has fully assessed all the consequences of its decision. Ultimately, in fact, the choice to reject a strict liability rule could lead not only to unequal protection of individual rights within the EU but also to major uncertainties for economic operators regarding the extent of their own liability under the GDPR.

The Croatian Academy of Science and Art organises the roundtable titled “Private international law and global trends“, which will be held on Monday, 22 January 2024, at 11 h, in the premises of the Faculty of Law in Zagreb in Cirilometodska street, 4 (due to ongoing renovation of the Academy’s building which suffered damage in the earthquake of 2020, as visible in the photo when expanded). Attendance is open to all, but your intention to join should be communicated to Ms. Muhek at zmuhek@hazu.hr.

The programme includes the following topics:
Prof. Dr. Ines Medic, University of Split, Faculty of Law
Challenges of globalization of private international law for national judiciary

Prof. Dr. Ivana Kunda, University of Rijeka, Faculty of Law
Have frontier digital technologies surpassed the boundaries of private international law?

Prof. Dr. Mirela Zupan, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Paula Poretti, Jura Golub, University of J. J. Strossmayer in Osijek, Faculty of Law
Foreign public documents in the digital age

Asst. Prof. Dr. Danijela Vrbljanac, University of Rijeka, Faculty of Law
Breach of personal data in private international law

Asst. Prof. Dr. Tena Hosko, University of Zagreb, Faculty of Law
Protection of workers in private international law

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Dora Zgrabljic Rotar, University of Zagreb, Faculty of Law
The effect of the Hague Judgments Convention of 2019 on the recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions in the Republic of Croatia

The proceeds from the conference will be edited by Prof. Dr. Mirela Zupan and published in a book within the series Modernisation of Law whose general editor is Academy Member Prof. Dr. Jakša Barbic.

On Tuesday, February 6, 2024, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its 41st monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 11:00-12:30 (CET). Heinz-Peter Mansel (Universität zu Köln) will speak, in German, about

The presentation will be followed by an 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 Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology in Halle (Saale), Germany, is advertising two PhD positions in Private Law within the context of a research project on “Cultural Diversity in
Private Law” lead by Dr Mareike Schmidt.

More information can be found here.

This post is part of a series regarding Colonialism and the general structure of (German) Private International Law, based on a presentation I gave in spring 2023. See the introduction here.

As mentioned in the introduction, this series does not intent to automatically pass judgment on a norm or method influenced by colonialism as inherently negative. Instead, the aim is to reveal these influences and to initiate a first engagement with and awareness of this topic and to stimulate a discussion and reflection.

The first post (after the introduction) dealt with classic PIL and colonialism. This second considered structures and values inherent in German or European law, implicitly resonating within the PIL and, thus, expanding those values to people and cases from other parts of the world.  The third category discusses an imagined hierarchy between the Global North and Global South that is sometimes inherent in private international law thinking. The fourth and for the moment last (but not least) category deals with PIL rules that allow or at least contribute to the exploitation of a power asymmetry between parties from the Global North and the Global South. For example, this power and negotiation asymmetry, in conjunction with generous rules on party autonomy, can lead to arbitration and choice of law clauses being (ab)used to effectively undermine rights of land use under traditional tribal law.

After the first post, in the comment section a discussion evolved regarding the (non-)application of tribal law. One question asked for an example. This post can also (hopefully) serve as such an example.

1. Party Autonomy in German and EU PIL

One value inherent to the German and EU legal systems is that of private and party autonomy. It reflects and expresses the individualism of the Enlightenment and a neo-liberal social order and is recognised today, at least in part, as one of the “universal values” of PIL. However, the choice of law and, thus, party autonomy as a core connecting factor or method of PIL can lead to the exploitation of negotiation asymmetries in the relationship between companies in the Global North and states or companies in the Global South, particularly to the detriment of the population in the Global South, by avoiding state control and socially protective regulations.

2. “Land Grabbing” as an Example

“Land grabbing” refers to, among other things, the procedure used by foreign investors to acquire ownership to or rights to exploit territories in former colonies. The contract is concluded with the landowner, often the state, and includes an arbitration and choice of law clause, often within the framework of bilateral investment protection agreements. The use of the land can conflict with the collective, traditional use by certain local groups, which is based on customary and tribal law. Such rights of land use were often only fought for politically after the former colony gained independence, while the original colonial legal system overrode indigenous rights of use (see also former posts here and see the  discussion in the comment section of the post). These land use rights of indigenous groups often stem from public law and are conceived as protection rights of the indigenous population, who are thus authorised to live on their traditional land.

The arbitration agreement and the choice of law clause make it possible for legal disputes to be settled before a private arbitration tribunal. The tribes concerned, as they are not part of the treaty on the land and its use, can only become parties to the legal dispute with difficulty. Furthermore, they may not have knowledge of the treaty and the arbitration clause or the possibility to start a proceeding at the tribunal. In addition, a law applicable to the contract and its consequences may be chosen that does not recognise the right of land use based on tribal law. If the arbitrator, not knowing about the not applicable tribal law or the existence of the tribe, makes a decision based on the chosen law, the decision can subsequently become final and enforceable. This may force the tribes using the land having to vacate it as property disturbers without being able to take legal action against it.

3. Party Autonomy and Colonialism

This possibility of “land grabbing” is made possible by the fact that a state – often a former colony – has a high interest in attracting foreign investment. She, therefore, tries to organise its own legal system, and therefore also her conflict of laws, in an investment-friendly manner and accommodate the investor in the contract. The generous granting of party autonomy and individual negotiating power plays a key role here. A domino effect can be observed in former colonies, where a legal system follows that of neighbouring states once they have attracted foreign investment in order to be able to conclude corresponding agreements. The endeavours of states to introduce a liberal economy form, which is reflected in party autonomy in PIL, can therefore also express a structural hierarchy and form of neo-colonialism. It also indirectly revives the original behaviour of the colonial rulers towards the indigenous peoples with the support of the central state (see former post).

4. Assessment of “Land Grabbing”

If the aforementioned power asymmetry is not counter weighted, arbitration and choice of law clauses can lead to an avoidance of unwanted laws, such as those granting traditional land use rights to local tribes. From a German domestic perspective, the problem arises that the enforcement of (one’s own) local law is a matter for the foreign state. A case where local law will be addressed before German courts will be scarce, esp. in the case of an arbitration proceeding. German courts only come into contact with the legal dispute if an arbitration proceeding has already resulted in a legally binding award and this award is now to be enforced in Germany. In my opinion, this case has to be handled in the same procedure proposed in a former post for the integration of local, non-applicable law. If foreign tribal law is mandatory in the state in question, for example, because there is an obligation under international and domestic law, the arbitral tribunal should be presumed to also observe this obligation as an internationally mandatory norm, irrespective of which lex causae applies. When enforcing the arbitral award domestically, the declaration of enforceability should be prohibited on the grounds of a violation of public policy if the arbitral tribunal has not complied with this obligation.

Furthermore, the use of party autonomy could be more strictly controlled and restrictively authorised when special domestic values and interests of third parties are at stake, as can be the case in particular with the use of land. The lex rei sitae might be more appropriate without allowing for a choice of law.

Finally, restrictions on party autonomy in cases in which negotiation asymmetries are assumed are not unknown to German and European PIL. So, ideas from these rules could be taken up and consideration could be given to which negotiation asymmetries could arise in relation to non-European states. For example, certain types of contract that are particularly typical of power asymmetries could be provided with special protection mechanisms similar to consumer contracts under Art. 6 Rome I Regulation. But that is an international problem that should be discussed on the international level. Therefore, the international community could work towards an international consensus in arbitration proceedings that, for example, property law issues are subject to the lex rei sitae and are not open to a choice of law. Similarly, there could be a discussion whether safeguards should ensure that no choice of law can be made to the detriment of third parties and that, where applicable, participation rights must be examined in arbitration proceedings. Many legal systems already provide those saveguards, so this would not come as a huge novelty.

However, it would also be paternalistic and neo-colonialist if such considerations originated in the Global North without involving the countries to which they refer. It would therefore be desirable to have a stronger and more enhanced dialogue with countries from the Global South that also allows representatives of the local population and local communities to have their say, so that these interests and possibilities for exploiting negotiation asymmetries can be better taken into account.

5. Epilogue

This series has tried to start a debate about Colonialism and Private International Law from the point of view of German PIL. Posts from other jurisdictions might follow. It is a very complex topic and this series only scratched on its surface. As writen in the introduction, I welcome any comments, experiences and ideas from other countries and particularly from countries that are former colonies.

The University of Stirling is bringing together academics, practitioners and other stakeholders to present research examining the role of Scots law in the international legal landscape. It is hoped this will promote the ways in which Scots law can offer solutions to global legal challenges but also to offer critiques of the way in which Scots law can or must evolve to preserve and promote its value.

With many Law Schools diversifying their programme offerings beyond Scots law it is a critical time to explore the interactions between Scots law and other jurisdictions. It is also necessary to consider the relationships between the curriculum within Law Schools and the needs of legal practice.

Seminars will be delivered in hybrid format to enable busy stakeholders to engage with these discussions.

Please register for each event in the series individually here, and find out more about a seminar by emailing internationalisationofscotslaw@stir.ac.uk.

This seminar series has been generously funded by the Clark Foundation for Legal Education.

On 12 January 2024, the United Kingdom has signed the 2019 Judgments Convention (Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters), as announced in the press release of the Hague Conference on Private International Law.

This a milestone for private international law within the coming about of the worldwide framework for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and potentially a valuable instrument in the post-Brexit legal landscape.

This post is part of a series regarding Colonialism and the general structure of (German) Private International Law, based on a presentation I gave in spring 2023. See the introduction here.

As mentioned in the introduction, this series does not intent to automatically pass judgment on a norm or method influenced by colonialism as inherently negative. Instead, the aim is to reveal these influences and to initiate a first engagement with and awareness of this topic and to stimulate a discussion and reflection.

The first post (after the introduction) dealt with classic PIL and colonialism and already sparked a vivid discussion in the comments section. This second considered structures and values inherent in German or European law, implicitly resonating within the PIL and, thus, expanding those values to people and cases from other parts of the world.  The third category discusses an imagined hierarchy between the Global North and Global South that is sometimes inherent in private international law thinking, for instances where courts or legislators abstractly or paternalistically apply the public policy to “protect” individuals from foreign legal norms. This is especially evident in areas like underage marriages and unilateral divorce practices found inter alia in Islamic law.

1. The public policy exception – abstract or concrete control?

The public policy exception is intended to prevent the application of foreign law by way of exception if the result of this application of law conflicts with fundamental domestic values. Such control is necessary for a legal system that is open to the application of foreign law and, in particular, foreign law of a completely different character. German law is typically very restrictive in its approach: The public policy control refers to a concrete control of the results of applying the provisions in question. In addition, the violation of fundamental domestic values must be obvious and there must be a sufficient domestic connection. In other countries, the approach is less restrictive. In particular, there are also courts that do not look at the result of the application of the law, but carry out an abstract review, i.e. assess the foreign legal system in the abstract. For a comparison of some EU Member States see this article.

2. Explicit paternalistic rules

Furthermore, there are some rules that exercise an abstract control of foreign law. Article 10 of the Rome III Regulation contains a provision that analyses foreign divorce law in the abstract to determine whether it contains gender inequality. According to this (prevailing, see e.g. conclusions of AG Saugmandsgaard Øe) interpretation, it is irrelevant whether the result of the application of the law actually leads to unequal treatment. This abstract assessment assumes – even more so than a review of the result – an over-under-ordering relationship between domestic and foreign law, as the former can assess the latter as “good” or “bad”.

Even beyond the ordre public control, there has recently been a tendency towards “paternalistic rules”, particularly triggered by the migration movements of the last decade. The legislator seems to assume that the persons concerned must be protected from the application of “their” foreign law, even if they may wish its application. In particular, the “Act to Combat Child Marriage” which was only partially deemed unconstitutional by the Federal Constitutional Court (see official press release and blog post), is one such example: the legislator considered the simple, restrictive ordre public provision to be insufficient. Therefore, it created additional, abstract regulations that block the application of foreign, “bad” law.

3. Assessment

In the described cases as a conceptual hierarchy can be identified: The impression arises that foreign legal systems, particularly from the “Global South”, are categorised in the abstract as “worse” than the German/EU legal system and that persons affected by it must be protected from it (“paternalistic norms”). As far as I can see there is a high consensus in the vast majority of German literature (but there are other voices) and also the majority of case law that the abstract ordre public approach should be rejected and that the aforementioned norms, i.e. in particular Art. 13 III EGBGB (against underage marriages) and Art. 10 Rome III-VO (different access to a divorce based on gender), should ideally be abolished. It would be desirable for the legislator to take greater account of the literature in this regard.